PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE

ESCUELA DE INGENIERIA

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO
CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE MODELS

AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS
OF URBAN PAVEMENTS
FOR NETWORK MANAGEMENT

ALELI OSORIO LIRD

Thesis submitted to the Office of Research and Graduate Studies in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor in
Engineering Sciences

Advisors:
ALONDRA CHAMORRO
CARLOS VIDELA
SUSAN TIGHE

Santiago de Chile, August, 2015

 2015, Alelí Osorio Lird

 ProQuest Number: 28180428

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 28180428

Published by ProQuest LLC ( 2020 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All Rights Reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE
ESCUELA DE INGENIERIA

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO
CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE MODELS

AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS
OF URBAN PAVEMENTS
FOR NETWORK MANAGEMENT

ALELI OSORIO LIRD

Members of the Committee:

ALONDRA CHAMORRO

CARLOS VIDELA

SUSAN TIGHE

CLAUDIO MOURGUES

TOMAS ECHAVEGUREN

JEAN ANDREY

CRISTIAN VIAL

Thesis submitted to the Office of Research and Graduate Studies in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor in Engineering
Sciences

Santiago de Chile, Mayo, 2015

 AUTHOR'S DECLARATION

I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including
any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners.
I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public.

___________________
Alelí Osorio Lird

iii
 Abstract

Urban pavements in developing countries often provide users with low level of services and result
in negative impacts on the population and economy. Two main causes of deferring maintenance
actions for urban pavements in developing countries were identified: an institutional organization
that limits the optimization of resources assigned to urban pavements because current regulations
may not be clear on the responsibilities and faculties of agencies in charge of urban pavement
management, and; the lack of effective technical-economic tools that may help agencies in the
decision-making process as an updated management system adapted to prevailing urban pavements
maintenance requirements.
Although the current state-of-the-art and the-practice of PMSs presents great developments in
the last decade for interurban pavements, effective tools developed for urban pavement
management are still a missing part of current practices. Compared with the management of
interurban roads, the management of urban pavements is a comprehensive task given the
complexity of urban networks, the coordination with various services and the variable traffic
demands. Given this scenario for urban pavement management, there is a need for better
understanding urban pavements performance for network management.
An overall condition index that combines most relevant distresses affecting urban pavements
performance is required for network analysis due to several pavement condition indices available
were developed for interurban road networks (highways, express corridor, etc.); moreover, several
performance models have been developed for particular distresses, and some of them for pavement
condition indexes of interurban pavements. Then, their direct application to urban networks
(streets, avenues, etc.) is not representative and their adaptability for these conditions requires
previous adjustments and calibration.
This research was focused on the network level analysis of urban pavements, towards the
development of practical and sustainable technical tools to be further integrated into an Urban
Pavement Management System (UPMS). The main objective was to calibrate an Urban Pavement
Condition Index (UPCI) and Performance Models, technical components required for an UPMS,
based on data collected in urban networks in Chile.
UPCI for asphalt and concrete pavement, based on objective measures of surface distresses and
evaluations of an expert panel was successfully calibrated and validated with a confidence level of
95%. Multilineal regressions were performed to obtain the UPCI models.
Three UPCI models were obtained for asphalt pavements with manual and automated data
collection. The distresses resulted significance in asphalt pavement condition are fatigue cracking,
transverse and reflection cracking, deteriorated patches, rutting, and potholes for manual data
collected. IRI replaces potholes in the condition equation for automated data collected. One UPCI
model was achieved with successfully validation for concrete pavements with manual data
collection. The distresses representative of concrete pavement condition are longitudinal,
transversal and oblique cracking, corner breaks, deteriorated patches, faulting, and deteriorate
joints and cracks. Deteriorated patches have an important effect in the UPCI value for all UPCIs
calibrated, where utility cuts are frequently observed, resulting in low quality patches and high
probabilities of premature deterioration. This conclusion supports the primary hypothesis that
special condition evaluation guidelines and indicators are required for urban pavements.
iv
 Distress evaluation guidelines for asphalt and concrete pavements considering manual and
automated surveys were developed and satisfactory validated with a 95% of confidence level
through repeatability and reproducibility analysis. This guideline proposes an evaluation
methodology for the distresses included in the UPCI. Based on the field evaluation carried out
during the research, recommendations about the frequency and sampling for pavement condition
evaluation are given for different network hierarchies: primary, every 2 year, the complete
network; secondary, every 4 year, the complete network, and; local, every four years samples of
homogeneous sections.
Performance models were performed based on probabilistic trends of UPCI observed during
field evaluations for asphalt and concrete pavements. Five field evaluation campaigns were
developed in three regions of Chile during a three-year analysis period for the calibration and
validation of performance models. The climates included were dry, Mediterranean and humid.
The probabilistic trend over time of data collected was analyzed using Markov chains with
Monte Carlo simulation that facilitates the analysis of the deterioration trend with only two points
of the curve condition over time, allowing the simulation of pavement performance within the
timeframe of the research.
Fourteen performance models were calibrated for different combination of three climates, two
pavement types and three hierarchy networks, considering a pavement life cycle of 25 years.
Twelve of them were successfully validated with a confidence level of 95%. The models of asphalt
in humid climate and concrete in dry climate need further analysis for their validation, considering
more data collection in these climates.
Hierarchies based on grouped functional classification were used: Primary Network (Express and
Troncal streets), Secondary Network (Colectors and Services) and Local Network (Local and
passages). Additionally, a comparative analysis was performed between the real equivalent axles
demanding the sections and the equivalent axles admitted by their structures, in sections of
Mediterranean climate. In other climates, the data was not enough to perform this analysis.
Five models were obtained for asphalt pavement in mediterranean climate: three for the
hierarchies and two for the design analysis. The latest two are recommended to use when
information about traffic and structure is available. On the contrary, the models developed based on
the hierarchy networks are recommended. Two performance models resulted for asphalt pavements
in dry and humid climate: Models for humid climate presents higher deterioration rate than model
for dry climate. However, both models present a shorter service life than their design.
Likewise asphalts, five models were obtained for concrete pavements in mediterranean climate.
Considering the models resulted from the analysis of the design, the deterioration trend does not
present big differences within the two conditions analyzed. Therefore, for concrete pavements is
recommend the use of the models calibrated based on the hierarchy networks. Two models resulted
for concrete pavements in dry and humid climate: Both cases present a long service life; however,
on the contrary of what is expected, the dry climate presents a deterioration more accelerated than
humid climate. This behavior is probably a consequence of differences in construction standards
and maintenance policies, noticed in interviews carried out with agencies of both regions.

v
 Finally, suitable P&M&R standards for urban pavement based on the urban pavement condition
index and their performance models were developed for asphalt and concrete pavements. Three
different standards are proposed for primary, secondary and local networks.
The practical tools calibrated in this research can be easily implemented and used by local
agencies, and simply adaptable over time and to different scenarios. The results of the study were
developed with field data collected in Chilean cities; however, the results may be adapted and
adopted in other countries for urban pavement management.

vi
 Acknowledgements

I would like to begin these acknowledgements expressing my gratitude to my supervisors,

Professor Susan Tighe, Professor Alondra Chamorro and Professor Carlos Videla, for their support
and guidance in this process. I have learned so much from each of you.
I would like to thank to my examination committee members, Professor Jean Andrey, Professor
Jeff Casello, Professor Leo Rothenburg, Professor Tomás Echaveguren, Profesor Claudio
Mourgues, and Professor Cristian Vial for taking the time to review my thesis.
The contributions of the professionals from the following agencies to this study is gratefully
acknowledge: Fondef Project Team, Chilean Government via Fondef – Conicyt, Ministry of
Housing and Urban Development (MINVU), Regional Government of the Metropolitan Region
(GORE), Municipality of Santiago, Municipality of Macul, Roads Direction of the Ministry of
Public Works and the Centre for Pavement and Transportation Technology (CPATT) at the
University of Waterloo, Canada.
I really appreciate the financial support received from the Pontificia Universidad Católica de
Chile and the University of Waterloo.
Special thanks to Anibal Godoy for helping me in the field, making easier and funnier the
evaluation campaigns.
I am very gratefully of having Cristina Torres as my PhD partner, thanks for your friendship,
collaboration and support.
I would like to thank CPATT and PUC teams for their support and friendship, making special
recognitions to Laura Bland, Xiomara Sanchez, Marcelo González, Edith Garrido, and William
Marquez.
To my friends, who help me in different ways and share with me beautiful moments during the
doctoral process, Valeria Ramirez, José Luis Lara, María José Rodriguez, Gonzalo Huerta, Sandra
Céspedes, Daniel Olivares, Soledad Alonso, and Claudia Centurión.
Finally, I thank to my family and family in law for their continuous support and love.

vii
 Dedication

I dedicate this work to my husband Pancho for his unconditional support and to my children Simón
and Jasmín for being my main motivation.

viii
 Glossary

µ Mean
ANOVA Analysis Of Variance
BPN British Pendulum Number
CE Cost-Effectiveness
COB Sum Of Corner And Oblique Breaks
CONICYT Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica
COTS Commercial Off-The-Shelf
CPATT Centre for Pavement and Transportation Technology
CPM Cumulative Probability Matrices
DP Deteriorated Patch
ESAL Equivalent Single-Axle Loads
Faulting In Mm, Calculated As The Average Of Faulting Of Each Slab In The
F Sample Unit
FC Fatigue Cracking
Fcrit Statistical F Value (critic)
FONDEF Fondo de Fomento al Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico
F-tests Statistical F Distribution
FWD Falling Weight Deflectometer
GIS Geographic Information System
GORE Regional Government of the Metropolitan Region
GPS Global Positioning System
GTZ German Agency for Technical Cooperation
H0 Null Hypothesis
H1 Alternative Hypothesis
HS Homogeneus Sections
IRI International Roughness Index
Joint Damage In Percentage Of The Total Meters Of Joints In The Sample
JD Unit
LC Longitudinal Cracking
MANVU PMS Tool
Metodología Simplificada para Evaluar Proyectos de Mantenimiento Vial
MANVUSIMP Urbano
MINVU Ministry of Housing and Urban Development
MOP Ministry of Public Works
P Potholes

ix
P&M&R Preservation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation
PM Pavement Management
PMA Pavement Management Application
PMS Pavement Management System
PQI Pavement Quality Index
PSD Proprietary Systems Developed
PTM Probability Transition Matrices
Rutting In Mm, Calculated As The Average Of Rutting Of Segments In The
R Sample Unit
RIII Roughometer III
SAMPU PMS Software
SDI Surface Distress Index
SEREMI Ministerial Regional Secretariat
SERVIU Regional Housing and Urban Services
SPF Socio-Political Criteria
SU Sample Unit
TC Transversal Cracking
tcrit Statistical t Value (critic)
TRC Sum Of Transversal And Reflection Cracking
UPCI Urban Pavement Condition Index
UPMS Urban Pavements Management System

x
 Table of Contents
AUTHOR'S DECLARATION ..................................................................................................... iii
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... vii
Dedication.................................................................................................................................. viii
Glossary....................................................................................................................................... ix
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. xv
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ xvii
Chapter 1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 19
1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 19
1.1.1 Urban Pavement Condition ......................................................................................... 19
1.1.2 Pavements Performance and Maintenance ................................................................... 20
1.1.3 Urban Pavements Management ................................................................................... 23
1.2 Problem Definition and Research Approach....................................................................... 25
1.3 Hypotheses ........................................................................................................................ 26
1.4 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 26
1.4.1 Overall Objective ........................................................................................................ 26
1.4.2 Specific Objectives ..................................................................................................... 26
1.5 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 27
1.6 Scope of the Research ........................................................................................................ 29
1.7 Thesis Organization ........................................................................................................... 29
Chapter 2 Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 31
2.1 Pavement Management Systems ........................................................................................ 31
2.1.1 PMS Components ....................................................................................................... 32
2.1.2 Urban Pavement Management Systems ....................................................................... 33
2.2 Pavement Condition Evaluation ......................................................................................... 38
2.2.1 Distresses.................................................................................................................... 38
2.2.2 Condition Indexes ....................................................................................................... 40
2.2.3 Data Collection Methodologies ................................................................................... 44
2.3 Performance Models .......................................................................................................... 45
2.3.1 Modeling Methodologies ............................................................................................ 45

xi
 2.3.2 Transition Matrices Techniques .................................................................................. 47
2.3.3 Performance Models used for urban pavement management ........................................ 48
2.4 Preservation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation .................................................................... 50
2.5 Definitions Adopted .......................................................................................................... 52
2.6 Urban Pavement Maintenance in Chile .............................................................................. 53
2.7 Limitations of the Current State-of-the-art and the-practice, and Opportunities for
Improvement ........................................................................................................................... 54
Chapter 3 Urban Pavement Management Framework .................................................................. 56
3.1 Research Project about Urban Pavement Management ....................................................... 56
3.2 Proposed Framework ......................................................................................................... 57
3.2.1 Sources (Input Data) ................................................................................................... 57
3.2.2 Methodologies ............................................................................................................ 59
3.2.3 Processes .................................................................................................................... 60
3.2.4 Outputs ....................................................................................................................... 61
3.3 Chapter Summary .............................................................................................................. 62
Chapter 4 Experimental Designs and Data Collection .................................................................. 63
4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 63
4.2 Conceptual Models to calibrate and validate ...................................................................... 63
4.3 Experimental Design for the Calibration and validation of the UPCI .................................. 64
4.3.1 Variables, Factorial Design and Inference Space Definition......................................... 64
4.3.2 Sample size estimation ................................................................................................ 67
4.3.3 Sample Unit Definition and Test Section Selection...................................................... 67
4.3.4 Methodology for the Calibration and Validation of UPCI ............................................ 68
4.4 Experimental Design for the Calibration and Validation of Performance Models................ 70
4.4.1 Method Selection ........................................................................................................ 70
4.4.2 Variables and Factorial Design Definition ................................................................... 70
4.4.3 Sample Size estimation ............................................................................................... 72
4.4.4 Methodology for Development of Performance Models .............................................. 72
4.5 Experimental Design for Recommendation of Maintenance Standards ............................... 74
4.5.1 Variables and Factorial Design Definition ................................................................... 75
4.5.2 Methodology for the study of P&M&R Treatment Effects on the UPCI....................... 76
4.6 Chapter Summary .............................................................................................................. 77

xii
Chapter 5 Data Collection and Processing ................................................................................... 78
5.1 Development of Distress Evaluation Guidelines ................................................................. 78
5.2 Validation of Distress Evaluation Guidelines ..................................................................... 78
5.3 Field Data Processing ........................................................................................................ 79
5.4 Data Collected for Calibration and Validation of UPCI ...................................................... 80
5.4.1 Network Evaluated ..................................................................................................... 80
5.4.2 Experts Panel Evaluations Analysis ............................................................................. 81
5.4.3 Summary of Data Collected ........................................................................................ 81
5.4.4 Power Analysis of Data Collected ............................................................................... 83
5.5 Data Collection for Performance Models Calibration and Validation, and Maintenance Effect
Definition ................................................................................................................................ 84
5.5.1 Network Evaluated ..................................................................................................... 84
5.5.2 Summary of Data Collected ........................................................................................ 85
5.6 Chapter Summary .............................................................................................................. 86
Chapter 6 Calibration and Validation of Urban Pavement Condition Index .................................. 88
6.1 UPCI Calibration ............................................................................................................... 88
6.2 Validation of Urban Pavement Condition Index ................................................................. 91
6.2.1 Validation of Manual and Automated Equations.......................................................... 91
6.2.2 Cross – Validation between Manual and Automated Equations ................................... 92
6.3 Analysis of UPCI Calibrated and Validated ....................................................................... 93
6.4 Qualitative Scale for UPCI ................................................................................................ 96
6.5 Comparison of UPCI with ICP and DMI ............................................................................ 97
6.6 Summary and Recommendations for UPCI use and Urban Pavement Evaluation
Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 98
Chapter 7 Development and Validation of Performance Models .................................................. 99
7.1 Hierarchies Analysis .......................................................................................................... 99
7.2 Climate Effect ................................................................................................................. 100
7.3 Calibration of Performance Models.................................................................................. 100
7.4 Performance Models Adjustments.................................................................................... 110
7.5 Performance Models Validation ....................................................................................... 110
7.6 Main Findings and Recommendations for the use of performance models ........................ 114
Chapter 8 Preservation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation Standards............................................ 119

xiii
 8.1 Definition of Maintenance Actions for Urban Networks ................................................... 119
8.1.1 Asphalt Pavements .................................................................................................... 119
8.1.2 Concrete Pavements .................................................................................................. 122
8.2 Definition of Maintenance Application Ranges and Effect on UPCI ................................. 125
8.3 Considerations for Standards Optimization ...................................................................... 127
8.4 Summary of the Chapter .................................................................................................. 128
Chapter 9 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 129
9.1 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 132
9.2 Thesis Main Contributions ............................................................................................... 133
9.3 Future Research and Developments ................................................................................. 133
Appendix A Windshield Evaluation Sheets................................................................................ 135
Appendix B Distress Evaluation Guidelines .............................................................................. 138
Anexo 1. Planillas de Evaluación Pavimentos Asfálticos ....................................................... 148
Anexo 2. Planillas de Evaluación Pavimentos de Hormigón................................................... 149
Appendix C Analysis of Expert Evaluations .............................................................................. 150
Appendix D Data Collected for Development and Validation of UPCI ...................................... 153
Appendix E Data Collected for Performance Models – Summary of lengths .............................. 161
Appendix F Results of Regression Analysis for UPCI Calibration ............................................. 166
Appendix G Transition Probability Matrices .............................................................................. 182
Appendix H Validation Tests for Performance Models .............................................................. 188
Appendix I Summary of P&M&R Treatments ........................................................................... 192
Appendix J References of Technical Standards for Chile ........................................................... 199

xiv
 List of Figures

Figure 1-1. Distresses in streets of Santiago, Chile........................................................................... 19

Figure 1-2. Factors involved in pavement performance (TAC 2013; Tighe S. et al. 2007) ................ 20
Figure 1-3. Deterioration over time of two different pavements (Adapted from (NGSMI 2002; TAC
2013)) ............................................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 1-4 Pavement Life Cycle (Adapted from (Schliesser and Bull 1992)) .................................... 22
Figure 1-5. Limitations, Hypotheses and Objectives Interaction ....................................................... 27
Figure 1-6. Research Methodology .................................................................................................. 28
Figure 2-1. Interactions between maintenance definitions ................................................................ 53
Figure 2-2. Current Institutional Management Framework (MINVU 2012) ...................................... 54
Figure 3-1. Sustainable Framework Proposed for Management of Urban Pavement Networks ......... 58
Figure 4-1. Components of pavements life cycle.............................................................................. 63
Figure 4-2. Methodology for Calibration of the Urban Pavement Evaluation Methodology .............. 69
Figure 4-3. Data Collection and Analysis Methodology for the Development of Performance
Models ............................................................................................................................................ 73
Figure 4-4. Methodology for P&M&R Standards Definition ............................................................ 76
Figure 5-1 Networks selected for Performance Models Development, Maintenance Effect
Definition and Validations............................................................................................................... 85
Figure 6-1. Regression Analysis Methodology................................................................................. 89
Figure 6-2. Validation of UPCIMANUAL equation for asphalt (a) and concrete (b) pavements ............. 91
Figure 6-3. Validation of UPCIAsphalt using manual and automated data - Manual Equation .............. 92
Figure 6-4. Validation of UPCIAsphalt using manual and automated data - Automated Equation ......... 92
Figure 6-5. Comparison of UPCI Vs. ICP & DMI for Asphalt Pavements ........................................ 97
Figure 6-6. Comparison of UPCI Vs. ICP & DMI for Concrete Pavements ...................................... 98
Figure 7-1. Performance Model Asphalt Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-Primary Network........ 103
Figure 7-2. Performance Model Asphalt Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-Secondary Network .... 103
Figure 7-3. Performance Model Asphalt Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-Local Network ........... 104
Figure 7-4. Performance Model for Asphalt Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-TD ≤ SC ............... 104
Figure 7-5. Performance Model for Asphalt Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-TD > SC ............... 105
Figure 7-6. Performance Model Concrete Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-Primary Network ...... 105
Figure 7-7. Performance Model Concrete Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-Secondary Network .. 106
xv
Figure 7-8. Performance Model Concrete Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-Local Network ......... 106
Figure 7-9. Performance Model Concrete Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-TD ≤ SC................... 107
Figure 7-10. Performance Model Concrete Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-TD > SC................. 107
Figure 7-11. Performance Model for Asphalt Pavement-Dry Climate............................................. 108
Figure 7-12. Performance Model for Concrete Pavement-Dry Climate........................................... 108
Figure 7-13. Performance Model for Asphalt Pavement-Humid Climate ........................................ 109
Figure 7-14. Performance Model for Concrete Pavement-Humid Climate ...................................... 109
Figure 7-15. UPCI Evaluated Vs. UPCI Calculated Asphalt Pavement-Mediterranean Climate ...... 112
Figure 7-16. UPCI Evaluated Vs. UPCI Calculated Asphalt Pavement-Dry Climate ...................... 112
Figure 7-17. UPCI Evaluated Vs. UPCI Calculated Concrete Pavement-Mediterranean Climate .... 113
Figure 7-18. UPCI Evaluated Vs. UPCI Calculated Concrete Pavement-Humid Climate ................ 113
Figure 7-19. Performance Models Asphalt Pavement – Mediterranean Climate.............................. 115
Figure 7-20. Performance models Concrete Pavement–Mediterranean Climate .............................. 116
Figure 7-21 Performance Models Asphalt Pavement – Mediterranean and Dry Climate ................. 117
Figure 7-22 Performance Models Concrete Pavement – Mediterranean and Humid Climate........... 117

xvi
 List of Tables

Table 2-1. COTS. Advantages and Disadvantages ........................................................................... 33

Table 2-2. COTS Summary Table ................................................................................................... 34
Table 2-3 Distresses in Asphalt Pavements ...................................................................................... 39
Table 2-4. Distresses in Concrete Pavements ................................................................................... 40
Table 2-5. Performance Condition Indices - Asphalt ........................................................................ 42
Table 2-6. Performance Condition Indices – Concrete ..................................................................... 43
Table 2-7. Probabilistic Modeling Methods ..................................................................................... 46
Table 2-8. Technique for Estimation of Transition Probability Matrices (Adapted from
(Echaveguren T. 2006)). .................................................................................................................. 47
Table 2-9. Routine maintenance, preservation, and rehabilitation activities (TAC, 2013) ................. 51
Table 4-1. Distresses Considered for Asphalt Pavements ................................................................. 65
Table 4-2. Distresses Considered for Concrete Pavements ............................................................... 65
Table 4-3. Distresses Considered for Interlocking Pavements .......................................................... 66
Table 4-4. Factorial Design for UPCI Calibration and Validation..................................................... 66
Table 4-5. Complete Factorial Design to Develop Performance Models ........................................... 71
Table 4-6. Climates Definition ........................................................................................................ 72
Table 4-7. Factorial Design for P&M&R Effects on Asphalt Pavements .......................................... 75
Table 4-8. Factorial Design for P&M&R Effects on Concrete Pavements ........................................ 75
Table 5-1. Quantity of sections evaluated ........................................................................................ 81
Table 5-2. UPCI Factorial Matrix Filled for Asphalt Pavement ........................................................ 82
Table 5-3. UPCI Factorial Matrix Filled for Concrete Pavement ...................................................... 82
Table 5-4. UPCI Factorial Matrix Filled for Interlocking Pavement ................................................. 83
Table 5-5. Results of Power Analysis for Multilinear Regression ..................................................... 83
Table 5-6. Summary of Data Collected for Performance Models...................................................... 86
Table 5-7. Factorial Matrix Filled for Asphalt Pavement.................................................................. 87
Table 5-8. Factorial Matrix Filled for Concrete Pavement ................................................................ 87
Table 6-1. Statistics Values for Equation 1 ...................................................................................... 94
Table 6-2. Statistics Values for Equation 2 ...................................................................................... 94
Table 6-3. . Statistics Values for Equation 3 .................................................................................... 94
Table 6-4. . Statistics Values for Equation 4 .................................................................................... 94

xvii
Table 6-5. Qualitative Scale for UPCI ............................................................................................. 96
Table 7-1. Distribution of Structure and Traffic within Functional Classification ............................. 99
Table 7-2. TPM for Asphalt Pavement Mediterranean Climate Primary Network........................... 101
Table 7-3. CTM for Asphalt Pavement Mediterranean Climate Primary Network .......................... 102
Table 7-4. Statistics Values from Performance Models Validation ................................................. 111
Table 8-1. Summary of Maintenance Actions selected for Hierarchy – Asphalt Pavements ............ 119
Table 8-2. Summary of Maintenance Actions selected for Hierarchy – Concrete Pavements .......... 123
Table 8-3. P&M&R Actions Applicability Range – Asphalt Pavements ......................................... 125
Table 8-4. Maintenance Actions Applicability Range – Concrete Pavements ................................. 126
Table 8-5. Effects on the UPCI and Maximum UPCI achieved – Asphalt Pavement....................... 126
Table 8-6. Effects on the UPCI and Maximum UPCI achieved – Concrete Pavement ..................... 127

xviii
 Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Urban Pavement Condition

Urban pavements play a vital role in cities development; however, bad conditions of streets are
frequent in many cities, especially in developing countries. Figure 1-1 shows different distresses
found in streets of Santiago, Chile.

Figure 1-1. Distresses in streets of Santiago, Chile

Pavements in bad conditions cause negative impacts in the population and cities, such as
decreasing quality of life, road safety, increasing user costs and pollution (PUC 2010).
Two main reasons of bad condition of urban pavements in developing countries were identified:
current regulations are not clear on the responsibilities and faculties of agencies in charge of urban
pavement management, and; the lack of an effective and sustainable tool that helps agencies in the
decision-making process for urban pavements maintenance requirements (PUC 2010).
19
 In order to define a tool for decision-making of urban pavements maintenance requirements, first
the pavement performance process it must be analyzed.

1.1.2 Pavements Performance and Maintenance

Pavements deteriorate over time due to the effect of stresses caused by traffic and the environment.
How pavements respond to these stresses will depend on: the pavement structure, such as pavement
type, layers thickness and subgrade properties; construction characteristics, including construction
technologies, quality and; and pavement maintenance, such as treatments applied, timing, and
methods. However, the way their conditions evolve over time will depend on the combined effect
of these factors as illustrated in Figure 1-2 (TAC 2013; Tighe S. et al. 2007)(Chamorro and Tighe
2009; TAC 2013).

Figure 1-2. Factors involved in pavement performance (TAC 2013; Tighe S. et al. 2007)

Pavement performance at a certain time of the service life can be characterized and assessed in
terms of particular distresses or a combined index that represents the pavement overall condition.
The factors involved in the determination of the pavement condition are the pavement type and the
distresses observed. In both cases, the performance indicator reflects the pavement condition at a
specific age of the pavement service life.
It is important not only to understand the current condition of pavements, but also to understand
how their condition will change over time. The pavement condition deterioration over time is
represented by performance models. These models correspond to mathematical expressions for
predicting the pavement condition evolution throughout its lifetime (de Solminihac 2001).

20
Figure 1-3. Deterioration over time of two different pavements (Adapted from (NGSMI 2002;
TAC 2013))

Figure 1-3 shows how two pavements of different characteristics can have the same condition at
a given time of their life cycle, but their performance models are completely dissimilar. Pavement
B has higher rate of deterioration than pavement A. Thus, pavement B will reach the minimum
acceptable service level sooner (TAC 2013). Therefore, the needs of maintenance would be also
different.
For this reason, the effectiveness of maintenance treatments over time relies on making the
decision based on the current pavement condition and its performance model. In other words, is to
performed life cycle analysis of pavements for maintenance definition.
The typical cycle of pavement deterioration comprises three stages (Schliesser and Bull 1992), as
is showed in Figure 1-4. These stages are related to different types of maintenance:
 Slow Phase (Phase A on Figure 1-4): During several years, the pavement experiences
slow deterioration process, particularly in the surface, and also, though to a lesser degree,
the rest of its structure. The deterioration rate depends on the quality of the initial
construction. To stop this process of deterioration is necessary to apply, with some
frequency, various maintenance treatments, mostly on pavement surface and drainage
works. The group of these maintenance activities is defined as Preservation. Furthermore,
it should perform routine maintenance.
 Accelerated Phase (Phase B on Figure 1-4): After several years of use, the pavement
enters a stage of accelerated deterioration. At the beginning of this phase, the basic
structure of the pavement is still intact, the surface distresses are minor, and common
user has the impression that it still remains in good condition; however, it is not. Going
further in phase B, more damage to the surface it is observed and the basic structure
begins to deteriorate, which is not visible. These distresses begin being punctual, and
slowly spread until eventually affect most of the pavement surface. This phase is
relatively short. Once the surface damage is widespread, destruction is accelerated. At
the start of this phase is usually sufficient to reinforce the pavement surface, so
21
 maintenance is relatively low cost. Once a suitable reinforcement is applied, the
pavement again is suitable for function and can withstand the traffic for a lot of years
more. This type of activities is defined as Functional Maintenance or simply
Maintenance.

Figure 1-4 Pavement Life Cycle (Adapted from (Schliesser and Bull 1992))

 Break Phase (Phase C on Figure 1-4): After the accelerate phase, the optimal intervention
time pass and when more intervention is delayed, greater the damage and also higher
repairs will be needed to the basic structure of the pavement. The damage occurred in
the basic structure of the road must be repaired, which means demolishing and lift the
damaged parts, replacing components for new ones and subsequently, all the
reinforcement on the pavement surface is placed. This group of activities is frequently
named Structural Maintenance or Rehabilitation, when it refers to the combination of
partial repairs on the basic structure of the road to strengthening its surface.
 Decomposition Phase (Phase D on Figure 1-4): When not interventions are applied in
any time of previous phases, the pavement reaches the point of breakdown, and failure
widespread both the pavement surface and basic structure. Decomposition of the road is
the last stage of its existence and can last several years. At this phase the only solution is
the reconstruction of the pavement.

Based on the deterioration stages is essential to consider maintenance activities for each stage to
optimize resources and extend the service life of pavement with a good condition. Thus, activities
for preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation (P&M&R) need to be defined for application
throughout pavement service life.

22
1.1.3 Urban Pavements Management

Pavement Management (PM) is a discipline that helps to improve the efficiency of the decision-
making process and provides feedback regarding the effectiveness of decisions related to P&M&R
activities and ensures the consistency of decisions made at different levels within the same
organization (AASHTO 1993; TAC 2013).
A Pavement Management System (PMS) is a tool used in PM to make informed decisions about
the sustainable impacts of the P&M&R activities on a pavement or network. Overall, Pavement
Management is looking for optimal decisions for pavement P&M&R treatments and the PMS is a
combination of tools to achieve this goal. A PMS should consider the life cycle assessment of
pavement performance over time to compare the effectiveness of various types of treatments. For
this, effective evaluations of road conditions and reliable condition performance models are
necessary (Chamorro and Tighe 2011).
The PM have been categorized into three main levels (Haas et al. 1994; de Solminihac 2001;
TAC 2013):
 Strategic Level: Defines the overall goals and incorporates the institution policies and budget
available for pavement maintenance and rehabilitation.
 Network Level: Has the primary purpose of developing priority programs and schedule of
work, within overall budget constraints.
 Project Level: Has the objective to decide the appropriate time in the schedule and represents
the actual physical implementation of network decisions. Project Level addresses the design,
construction, and maintenance associated with a particular section of pavement.
Network level is the appropriate management level to apply when the maintenance prioritization
of streets within a city is required.
Although the current state-of-the-art and the-practice of PMSs present various developments
over the last decade, specific limitations for network management of urban pavements are still a
missing part of current practices.
In order to understand the comprehensive management inherent to urban pavement networks, it
is important to first note the differences of pavement management within urban and interurban
networks, such as the following (PUC 2010; TAC 2013):
 Institutional Aspects: Generally the institutions in charge of urban pavements are smaller
than the interurban pavement, which is associated with fewer technical resources and less
funding available. This situation makes the management of urban pavements more difficult
and demands more planning of activities.
 Inventory Data: One of the main differences between urban and interurban pavements is the
cross-section of an urban street versus an interurban highway. An urban PMS requires more
data regarding the elements surrounding the pavement, such as sidewalks, curbs, medians,
gutters, signs, fire hydrants, hydropoles, manholes and catch basins. The historical data
constitute an additional major difference between urban and interurban pavements because a
large number of urban pavements were constructed by layer over a long period of time.
 Rehabilitation Alternatives: The selection of the rehabilitation alternatives is limited by the
available curb height in urban areas. The curb height dictates the thickness for resurfacing a
23
 road. Often the road must be milled prior to overlaying, while in interurban areas, the road
can often just be overlaid.
 Influence of Distresses on Serviceability: The distresses on urban pavement have a different
impact on the serviceability. In some studies, roughness was found to be the most important
factor in deriving the overall combined index of highways, and the surface condition was
found to be the most important factor for urban pavements, mainly due to the impact of the
various distresses over riding for different service speeds.
 Sectioning Criteria: An urban PMS requires more sections than an interurban PMS. In many
cases, the streets have a different traffic flow or different materials in each direction, so the
road has to be considered as different sections.
 Data Collection Methodologies: Urban and interurban PMSs can have the same
methodology for data collection, but there is equipment that needs a higher minimum speed
to operate, which can be complicated on urban streets. Additionally, the frequency and
sample size can vary for urban pavements.
 Pavement Structures: On the one hand, the urban pavement may have a stronger structure
due to the higher traffic volumes and slower operating speeds. On the other hand, in some
cities, the pavements have a composite structure consisting of many types of different
pavement layers. For these reasons, the development of the performance models can be more
complex for urban PMSs.
 Urban Pavement Deterioration: This factor is more complex for urban streets and involves
more than the interactions between traffic, climate, materials and time. There are also
singularities such as manholes and catch basins that influence the pavement deterioration and
pavement interventions for utility cuts that affect pavement deterioration. Utility cuts for
installation or maintenance of urban services in the underground are a complex duty to deal
with for the urban performance models.
Agencies commonly use deterioration indices for network level decision making, which may
combine different types of surface distresses, serviceability and structural indicators (Wolters, A. et
al. 2011). Examples of these indices are: Pavement Condition Index (PCI) (Reza, F. et al. 2006),
Distress Manifestation Index for Network Level (DMI) (Chamorro et al. 2009b), Índice de
Condición de Caminos Pavimentados (ICP) (MOP 2006), and Índice de Serviciabilidad (P)
(MINVU 1999). Almost all these indices differ in the types of deterioration and criteria considered
to quantify severity and density of distresses. However, these indices were developed for interurban
road networks (highways, express corridor, etc.); therefore, their direct application to urban
networks (streets, avenues, etc.), is not representative and requires calibration and validation. The
Serviceability Index (P) (MINVU 1999) was defined for urban pavements but consider as an
important characteristic the roughness rather than other distresses; then, .the analysis and
calibration considering other distresses present in urban environment is needed for its application.
Once a representative index is defined, its evolution over time should be analyzed through
condition performance models. Several performance models are available in the state-of-the-art and
the-practice (Arambula E. et al. 2011; Chamorro and Tighe 2011; Chan P. et al. 1997; Kargag-
Ostadi N. et al. 2010; Mubaraki M. 2010; NCHRP 2010; Odartey L. et al. 2012; Rahim A. et al.
2013; Tack J. and Chou Y. 2001); however, these were developed for combined indices of
interurban pavements (highways, express corridor, etc.) or their main focus has been the
progression of specific distresses overtime for project level analysis rather than the progression of
the overall condition of pavements for network level management. Therefore, their direct
24
application to urban pavement networks (streets, avenues, etc.) is limited, requires adaptation and
further calibration and validation (Osorio et al. 2014). In addition, the tool Manusimp and Sampu
(MINVU 1999) that were developed for urban pavement management in Chile, consider in their
analysis performance models for asphalt and concrete developed for other conditions without a
previous adaptation.

1.2 Problem Definition and Research Approach

The discussion presented in the background left important premises about limitations on the state-
of-the-art and the-practice on Urban Pavement Management:
 Based on pavement deterioration stages, it is essential to consider P&M&R activities that
optimize resources and extend the service life of pavement with a good level of service.
Effectiveness of maintenance treatments over time relies on making the decision based on
life cycle analysis of pavements for maintenance definition; thus, the current pavement
condition and its performance models need to be considered.
 An overall condition index that combines most relevant distresses affecting urban
pavements performance is required for network analysis due to several pavement condition
indices available were developed for interurban road networks (highways, express corridor,
etc.); then, their direct application to urban networks (streets, avenues, etc.), is not
representative and requires calibration and validation. Moreover, considering developing
countries, economic resources for semi-automated or automated evaluations are not always
available; therefore, an evaluation methodology considering manual or automated field
evaluation is needed.
 Several performance models found in the literature have been developed for particular
distresses, and some of them for pavement condition indexes of interurban pavements.
Therefore, their direct application for urban pavement conditions is not representative and
their adaptability for these conditions requires previous adjustments and calibration.
 Available P&M&R standards include some maintenance activities not appropriate for
urban conditions as well as are their applications thresholds are define based on particular
distresses or pavement condition indexes for interurban pavements, and their performance
models. Consequently, they are not adoptable for direct use in urban pavements.
Given the important differences observed between urban and interurban networks in terms of
pavement performance, traffic demands and network characteristics, summed to the fact that most
of the state-of-the-art and the-practice have focused on interurban pavement network management,
the development of management tools for urban streets are needed.
Furthermore, there is a need for better understanding urban pavements performance for network
management. Therefore, this research is focused on the network level analysis of urban pavements
due to its lower level of development and the need to generate global knowledge, directing toward
the development of practical technical tools to be integrated into an Urban Pavement Management
System.
The research approach considers a detailed analysis of the current state-of-the-practice of urban
pavement management. Based on this analysis, an Urban Pavement Management Framework is
proposed considering criteria for sustainable management. This is followed by the development

25
and validation of: a methodology for urban pavement condition evaluation considering an overall
condition index; the urban pavement performance models adaptable for different climates,
structures and traffic, and; the recommendation of suitable P&M&R standards for urban pavements
based on the overall pavement condition and their performance models.
This research was part of a three year project developed in Chile “Research and Development of
Solutions for Urban Pavement Management in Chile”. Other parts of this project addressed the
limitations that are not included in this research, such as institutional regulations adjustments and
the development of the other components of PMS for urban pavements.

1.3 Hypotheses
The hypotheses of the research are defined as follows:
1. The Urban Pavement Condition Index is correlated to objective measures of distresses
obtained from field, through manual and automated evaluations.
2. The probabilistic trend of Urban Pavement Condition Index over time is modelled from
field measures considering different climates, structures, traffic, and pavement types.

1.4 Objectives

1.4.1 Overall Objective

Calibrate an Urban Pavement Condition Index (UPCI) and Performance Models, technical
components required for an Urban Pavement Management System, based on data collected in
urban networks in Chile.
The aim will be to develop practical tools that can easily be implemented and used by local
agencies and are adaptable over time and to different scenarios.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

To achieve the main objective of the research, the following specific objectives must be fulfilled:
1. Calibrate and validate an index representative of the overall condition of urban pavements,
Urban Pavement Condition Index (UPCI), considering manual and automated data
collection methodologies
2. Calibrate and validate condition performance models for urban pavements representative to
different climates, structures, traffic and pavement types
3. Recommend maintenance standards for the implementation of calibrated models in a
management system

Figure 1-5 shows the interaction between the limitations found in the state-of-the-art and the-
practice for urban pavement management with the hypotheses and specific objectives raised in this
research.

26
 Figure 1-5. Limitations, Hypotheses and Objectives Interaction

1.5 Methodology
The proposed research methodology is presented in Figure 1-6. The research methodology
considers the four main stages and divided in several activities, as described in the following
paragraphs:
Activities developed throughout the research
 State-of-the-art and the-practice Review: The research began with a review of the state-of-
the-art in pavement management systems in general and specifically for urban pavements.
The goal was to understand the international state of the practice and resulted in
interviewing local agencies from various countries. For the state of practice in Chile,
interviews and surveys were developed. This stage have extended throughout all of the
research, carrying out a more specific review of each subject at the beginning of each stage
of the research, of topics such as types of pavement distresses and their preservation and
maintenance activities, methodologies of pavement technical evaluation, existing pavement
performance models and techniques available for modeling.
 Field Evaluations: This phase included five evaluation campaigns to locate the data defined
as a requirement for each stage in the experimental design. Manual and automated
evaluations were performed, as well as evaluations based on professional experience. The
methodology followed in this stage was defined in the experimental designs.
Stage 1
 Development of a Management Framework for Urban Pavement Networks: Based on the
state-of-the-art and the-practice of UPMSs, at this stage, a theoretical framework
management was developed as a basis for the development of the Urban Pavement
Management System.
27
 Figure 1-6. Research Methodology

 Definition of Experimental Designs: This stage included the preparation of the

experimental design required to develop each of next three stages. Each experimental
design have included the variables, dependent and independent, the factorial design for the
data collection and the methodology to be followed for the data collection and analysis.
 Development of Distress Evaluation Guidelines: This methodology included the
development and selection of the distress evaluation methodology for manual and
automated data collection for urban pavements, based on available literature and field
observations.
 Calibration of Urban Pavement Condition Index (UPCI): The calibration of Urban
Pavement Condition Index to represent the overall condition of urban pavements with
statistical analysis of data collected in manual and automated field evaluations.
 Validation of Urban Pavement Condition Index: The validation of the UPCI was
performed with statistical analysis of data saved for this purpose.
 Research Proposal: The research plan proposal was developed based on the activities
carried out in the previous activities. Recommendations and feedback obtained in technical
meetings with the supervisors of this thesis, and from the Comprehensive Exam Committee
were incorporated into the research proposal.

28
 Stage 2
 Calibration of Performance Models: This stage included the creation of hierarchies of
urban pavement in Chilean networks based on the functional classification of the streets,
type of pavement, structure and traffic, based on data collected; and the calibration of
performance models for urban pavements from probabilistic analysis of pavement
conditions collected in the field for different climates and hierarchies
 Validation of Performance Models: The validation of the performance models was
performed with statistical analysis of data saved for this purpose.
Stage 3
 Application and Adjustments of the Technical Components Developed: Once the tools
were developed, applications were performed to evaluate the results, and adjustments were
done in the components.
 Recommendations of Maintenance Standards for Urban Pavement Maintenance:
Preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation activities were selected for different
hierarchies with thresholds depending on different pavements types, UPCI values and their
impacts on the pavement condition.
 Conclusions and Recommendations: Final conclusions and recommendations were made
about the research findings, the implementation and use of the developed technical tools.

1.6 Scope of the Research

This is a comprehensive research initiative that intends to evaluate details and characteristics of the
urban pavement performance that have not been clearly evaluated in the past.
To calibrate and validate the technical tools proposed, the levels of independent variables to be
included were limited to the following criteria for the development of performance models and the
definition of P&M&R standards: 1) Climate Types: Mediterranean in the city of Santiago with flat
terrain, Dry in the city of Antofagasta with undulated terrain, and Humid in the city of Puerto
Montt with undulated terrain; and 2) Pavement Types: asphalt and concrete. Interlocking
pavements were also analyzed at the beginning of the research but only for the development of the
methodology of Condition Evaluation.

1.7 Thesis Organization

The thesis document is organized in the following chapters:

1. Introduction: In this introductory chapter the background about pavement deterioration
and maintenance, and urban pavement management were first presented. Then, the
problem definition, research hypotheses, objectives and methodology were defined
accordingly.
2. Literature Review: This chapter presents the state-of-the-art and the-practice review.
This includes types of pavement management systems, methodologies of pavement
condition evaluation, pavement performance models and maintenance standards
characteristics. Finally, the limitations and opportunities of improvement are presented.
29
3. Urban Pavement Management Framework: A framework for urban pavement
management is proposed including sustainable criteria for network analysis. This
framework comprises four components: input data, methodologies, processes and
outputs. A detailed description of each component and the interaction between them is
presented.
4. Experimental Designs and Data Collection: This chapter presents the experimental
design for the calibration and validation of the technical tools. A total of three
experiments were defined, one for each of the following activities: Calibration and
Validation of Evaluation guidelines, Calibration and Validation of Urban Pavement
Condition Index, and Recommendation of Maintenance Standards.
5. Data Collection and Processing: In this Chapter are presented the methodologies
followed to collect the data in the field and then process them. In addition, a summary of
the data collected is presented.
6. Calibration and Validation of Urban Pavement Condition Index: First, the methodology
followed for the development and validation is presented. Then, the development and
validation of evaluation guidelines is discussed. Finally, the development and validation
of UPCI is presented.
7. Performance Models: This chapter presents in first place the methodology for
development and validation of performance models. Then, the development, validation,
analysis and recommendations of performance models is discussed.
8. Maintenance Standards: The methodology for the development and validation of
maintenance standards is first presented. Then, the definition of treatments considered
for the standards definition is showed with theirs threshold of application, the effects in
the UPCI and the maximum UPCI reachable.
9. Conclusions and Recommendations: Conclusions of the research, recommendations for
implementation and use of the developed tools, thesis contributions, and future research
and developments are presented in this chapter.

30
 Chapter 2
Literature Review

2.1 Pavement Management Systems

A PMS should integrate and coordinate all aspects considered in the management process of
pavement assets. In particular, the comprehensive PMS should account for a dynamic process that
incorporates feedback regarding the various attributes, criteria, and constraints involved in the
optimization of maintenance programming and decision making (TAC 2013).
However, it is important to emphasize that the PMS itself does not make the decisions. A PMS
converts raw data into usable information, but the decisions are made by the people using the
information provided by the PMS.
PMSs should be developed according to the technical and socio-economic needs of each type of
pavements and level of analysis.
A PMS must contain the following essential characteristics (TAC 2013):
 Adaptability: To update models easily as new information becomes available.
 Practical: To consider different alternative strategies.
 Efficient: To identify the optimum alternative or strategy.
 Quantitative Based Decision-Making Support: To be capable of making decisions based on
rational procedures with quantified attributes, criteria and constraints.
 Good Feedback Information: To provide feedback information regarding the consequences
of decisions.
Initial PMS development involved practicing “worst first” strategies. There are still agencies that
have not implemented PMS or are using a simple PMS with the prioritization analysis to define the
list of candidate pavements based only on a ranking process. That approach results in a reactive
strategy.
Current PMSs involve a proactive strategy. The pavement managers research treatments and
technologies and use a prioritization analysis inside the PMS such as pavement preservation,
network optimization or priority assessment models. Many studies show that these methodologies
tend to be more cost-effective in a long-term analysis than the reactive strategy (Tan and Cheng
2012).
Furthermore, the criteria traditionally considered in evaluating maintenance alternatives have
been the technical and economic. The evaluation of infrastructure investments through economic
analysis allows administrations better manage their resources, maximizing social benefits and
allowing greater transparency and accountability (FHWA 2003a; Torres-Machi C. 2015). However,
if we consider the definition of sustainable development, defined as "Meets the needs of present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Torres-Machi C.
2015; WCED 1987), it seems that considering only technical and economic criteria is insufficient
for sustainable pavement management. In fact, sustainable management requires integrated
31
consideration of technical, economic, environmental and social criteria (Torres-Machi C. 2015; UN
2005).

2.1.1 PMS Components

A PMS should be an engineering-based simulation of the decision-making process carried out by

public agencies and private companies involved in pavement management, which integrates the
progression of activities involved in efficiently solving the management problem. It should be
composed of the following components (TAC 2013):
 Information: Provides the basic foundation for the analysis. The information must include
Inventory (including pavement structure and geometry); environment; road usage (traffic
volume and loading, usually measured in equivalent single-axle loads (ESALs); pavement
condition (ride quality, surface distresses, friction, and/or structural capacity); pavement
construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation history; existing projects for the overall
network; and available resources such as materials, etc.
 Technical Analysis: Should include the definition of what attributes of the pavement should
be measured, with methods and equipment needed to do the field evaluation. The
measurements can be structural capacity, ride quality, surface condition, skid resistance, etc.
The method has to define the sample and the degree of accuracy and frequency appropriate
to the class of road involved, agency resources, etc. (Tighe S. et al. 2008).
 Performance Models: Pavement performance prediction models are used to predict future
pavement conditions of the pavement network as part of the agency’s pavement management
activities. The models must reflect the best possible representation of the pavement
deterioration at the time. Predicting pavement performance is an essential activity of a
pavement management system for optimizing the combination of projects, M&R treatments,
and timing of application to achieve agency goals; predicting the length of time until a lower
limit of acceptable pavement condition is reached; evaluating the long-term impacts of
various program scenarios; providing a feedback loop to the pavement design process; and
estimating pavement life-cycle costs (Assaf. G.J. et al. 2006; Hein, D. and Watt, D. 2005;
Rajagopal, A. 2006).
 Maintenance Strategies: Consist of the determination of standards and thresholds for
maximum roughness and surface distress and minimum structural adequacy and surface
friction, alternatives of maintenance and rehabilitation treatments and the combination of
those, and the estimation of approximate unit cost for each of them.
 Economic Analysis: Includes the selection of program analysis period, discount rate, etc.,
identification of what economic analysis should be used for the specific PMS, and economic
analysis of each alternative in terms of calculating life-cycle costs and benefits or cost-
effectiveness.
 Prioritization and Optimization: Once a list of pavement segments requiring repair has been
identified and the proper feasible repair has been selected considering the associated costs
and benefits, the work needs to be prioritized based on criteria established and budget
constraints. The pavement management software should contain priority models to prioritize
the different pavement projects within each analysis year. These models may range from
simple ranking routines to complex optimization models.

32
The characteristics of each component of the PMS should be established based on the needs of the
agencies. The goals and specific objectives to achieve by the PMS must be clearly defined.

2.1.2 Urban Pavement Management Systems

The existing PMSs can be classified as (Mizusawa 2009):
 “Commercial Off-The-Shelf” (COTS) systems: COTS systems are defined as an application
or system software that is marketed widely to transportation agencies as a prepackaged
product under an established commercial licensing or leasing agreement.
 Proprietary Systems Developed (PSD): PSDs are systems that were built especially to meet
the institution’s specific needs. PSDs can either be developed by an external consultant or
developed in house.
Table 2-1 summarized the potential advantages and disadvantages of using one of the COTS
systems over proprietary systems developed. This summary table was carried out based on the
information provided by McPherson (McPherson and Bennett 2005).

Table 2-1. COTS. Advantages and Disadvantages

Cost: COTS systems are usually much cheaper to buy than to develop.
Independence: Many consultant suppliers may be able to offer implementation support.
Time frame: The COTS systems can be implemented more quickly.
Experience: The systems have usually been implemented in a number of other client organizations for a
Advantages

number of years and have therefore been subjected to rigorous user testing as well as in-house testing
conducted by suppliers.
Functionality: The systems often provide more useful functionality than a client originally considered.
Ongoing Development: The systems are usually continually upgraded by a supplier to respond to other
client requests for enhancements.
Exchange of Ideas: The information of the systems is shared with users through user conferences held by
suppliers.
Requirements: The system functionality may not be exactly what is required by a client, and some
workarounds may therefore be needed.
Institutionalization: The systems may not have institutional acceptance because they do not reflect the
Disadvantages:

current business processes of a client.

Customization: The systems with new ideas need a longer time to be implemented because those suppliers
have a responsibility to other clients as well.
Maintenance Cost: The support and maintenance agreements for the systems are usually on the order of
12-20% per annum of their original costs.
Upgrades: The upgrade of the systems is controlled by the developers, and clients are often compelled to
follow the developer’s schedule to ensure future system maintenance.

2.1.2.1 COTS PMS Available for Urban Pavements

A variety of COTS systems are available in the market with different characteristics of analysis
level, segmentation, possible adaptability, etc. All of these COTS systems can be used for urban

33
pavement management, but an important criterion for selecting a COTS system is the flexibility to
customize the components because many of them were developed for interurban pavement
networks.
Table 2-2 presents a summary with the main characteristics of the COTS PMSs available in the
market based on the literature review. This summary was performed with information obtained in
the state-of-the-art review and several interviews performed in order to capture the state-of-the-
practice of different softwares (AgileAssets Inc. 2010; Cartegraph 2013; Colorado State University
2013; Deighton 2012; JG3 2012 p. 3; Mizusawa 2009; MTC 2009; SMEC 2012; Stantec 2009).

Table 2-2. COTS Summary Table

Adaptability
Adaptability
Analysis Dinamic Condition Economic Integration Other Assets Number of to local
COTS PMS Origin of all
Level Segmentation Index Analysis with GIS Inventory Cities using terminologies
components
/leanguage
Network / Cost
Micropaver USA Yes PCI Yes No No 600 No
Project Effecti veness
Capi tal
Pavement Network /
USA Yes OCI Improvement Yes Yes Yes unknown Yes
View Project
Pl ans
Cost benefit
analysis/
Network /
SMEC Australi a Yes PCI Heuristic Yes No Yes 60 Yes
Project
Decision
Rules
Cost benefit
analysis/
Network /
HPMA Canada Yes PQI Heuristic Yes Yes Yes 2 Yes
Project
Decision
Rules
Network / Cost
Road Matrix Canada No PQI Yes Yes Yes 79 Yes
Project Effecti veness
Cost
StreetSaver USA Network No PCI Yes No No 300 No
Effecti veness
Network / Benefit-cost
dTIMS CT Canada Yes PQI Yes Yes Yes > 40 Yes
Project analysis
Network / Cost
AggileAssets USA PCI Yes Yes No unknown Yes
Project Effecti veness

2.1.2.2 Proprietary Systems Developed: Case Study Examples

Based on the literature review, there are PMSs especially developed for agencies in charge of urban
pavement management to manage their pavements. The PMSs described in the following
paragraphs are presented due to they are frequently mentioned in the literature review. The
common characteristic of all of these PMSs is that the components were developed specifically for
their local conditions. However, none of them use performance models of combined indicators for
assigning maintenance activities. Some assign maintenance activities based only on the current
condition and, others use performance models of particular distresses separately and then,
determine the combined condition with distresses data.

34
 Alberta’s Municipal Pavement Management System, Canada (Jestin, R. 2011)

Alberta's Municipal Pavement Management System (MPMS) provides the information and tools
for network programming of street maintenance and rehabilitation and project level rehabilitation
design. The scope of the MPMS includes the following functional requirements: Interactive
sectional data entry and update; Performance data/index conversion, Data base reporting (sectional
and network aggregates), Street maintenance information and needs analysis, Maintenance strategy
and financial analysis, Network rehabilitation needs and alternatives analysis, Network
rehabilitation priority programming analysis, Project level structural requirements analysis, and
Project level rehabilitation alternatives analysis.
Many cities in Canada have adopted this PMS during the last decade and continue applying an
updated version with an integrated GIS. The updated version for many cities was adjusted to the
Road Matrix software.
The cities of Edmonton and Calgary are using the updated version in the HDMA software, which
was customized for them. Both cities managers selected this COTS PMS due to the dynamic
segmentation and the Heuristic Decision Rules for prioritization.

 StreetWise, Washington State – USA (Broten 1996; Sachs 1996)

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) PMS was adapted for utilization
by local agencies in the late 1980s. Larger cities and counties had adopted this system for their
urban streets without difficulty. However, smaller cities usually could not afford it due to the
complexity of the system. In response to that need, WSDOT has developed a manual that is based
on the computerized systems in the state, but it can be filled out with pencil and paper. This
simplified system is still being used in smaller cities and allows cities in WS to customize the
system for their specific needs. The PMS has a very complete manual for implementation and
application in different conditions.
After implementing the pavement management software, the models can be adjusted within the
program. In addition, a few agencies use actual data collected over time and stored in the pavement
management database to improve the models used in the software. This feedback process enables
agencies to continually improve the PMS as they learn more about their system and streets.
Evaluation methods include how to evaluate, what conditions to evaluate, and how often to
evaluate. For example, it is common for these agencies to inspect arterials every other year and
other streets (such as local access and residential) every three years. It is common for an agency to
inspect annually when it is just starting the pavement management process, so that the agency can
rapidly establish a historical database of conditions. Once three inspection cycles have been
completed, the frequency of inspections is decreased. Most cities interviewed stated that a two-year
inspection cycle was desirable.
One peculiarity of this PMS is that the managers of the cities involve the public in the pavement
management process whenever possible. An example of this involvement is the city of Seattle,
where the neighborhood associations provide their input on the prioritization of road work.

 City of Seal Beach, California – USA (Nichols Consulting Engineers, CHTD 2010)

The City of Seal Beach has used a pavement management program to manage its street network
since 2004. First, they customized the StreetSaver program, but in 2010, the City converted to the
35
MicroPAVER software to be compliant with the requirements of the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA).

 Bowling Green, Utah – USA (Lashlee et al. 2004)

The City of Bowling Green started to develop a pavement management system in 1998 to help
employ proper maintenance to retain a quality transportation network. After the first survey, they
decided to adopt the COTS PMS Pavement Management Application (PMA) that is the former
version of the HPMA.
Since that time, existing data and specialized survey data from Stantec, Inc., have consistently
made updates. Currently, Stantec conducts a resurvey of half of the network each year for surface
and ride conditions in three-year intervals. On the third year, only deflection or structural-type
testing is performed. This cycle helps to ensure the data that are used are relatively current and
appropriate decisions are made. Given all update methods, a large amount of data is stored and
accessed.
The PMA data are then linked with the City’s geographic information system (GIS) for mapping
and visualization. The analysis of the City’s Pavement Management System includes four main
indices for pavement condition. These indices are Surface Distress Index (SDI), Ride Comfort
Index (RCI), Structural Adequacy Index (SAI), and a composite of the previous indices, the
Pavement Quality Index (PQI).

 G-PMS, Salt Lake, Utah – USA (Cottrell W. et al. 2006)

The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) in Utah was challenged to cooperate with states and
local agencies in developing regional pavement management systems for highway and urban
streets. The development was particularly difficult because some of the local agencies already had
well-established PMSs that were sufficient for their needs.
Eight PMSs were being used in the Salt Lake City–Ogden area by those communities having a
formal PMS. This diversity caused concern amongst the local pavement management specialists
regarding PMS alterations to serve a new regional PMS. A few agencies were using different
COTS PMSs, and the others had an informal PMS founded on the judgment and experience of
local engineers.
However, 14 localities had no PMS. The disparity between local pavement management
activities indicated that the responsibility for pavement data collection and conditions and
performance analyses should be allocated to the state to eliminate the potential inconsistencies
associated with having the localities report pavement conditions. This approach may be applicable
in similar urban regions where there is extreme variation in the degree of local pavement
management.
An outline for incorporating the regional PMSs for local agencies was developed. The emphasis
will be on using the PMS to make programming decisions. An automated pavement condition data
collection system for urban streets in the region will be established. The PMS to use will be the
dTIMS program, which will be customized to local needs. The WFRC must digest this information
and prioritize the suggested rehabilitation projects.

36
 SAMPU (Minvu)

The first methodology for urban pavement management in Chile was developed 20 year ago under
the name of MANVU (MINVU and RyQ Ingeniería 1989) by the Ministry of Housing and Urban
Development through a World Bank loan. In 1992, the tool SAMPU was developed (CIS and
MINVU 1992), which is the computer program based on MANVU methodology, and SAMPU was
used until 1999 for some regions in Chile.
Currently, the available program is a simplified version of SAMPU called MANVUSIMP
(MINVU 1999), which includes components such as Technical Evaluation, Performance Models,
Maintenance Strategies and Economic Evaluation. However, these components have the following
limitations:
- The general approach is for the project level rather than network level.
- The Technical Evaluation does not consider automated methodologies for data collection.
- The serviciability index used for condition evaluation consider as an important
characteristic the roughness; then, .the analysis and calibration considering other distresses
present in urban environment is needed for its application
- The Maintenance Strategies do not include current technologies for maintenance and
rehabilitation treatments and preservation activities.
- The Performance Models have been adopted from foreign conditions, HDM2 and HDM3
for asphalt and Brokaw for concrete pavements (CIS and MINVU 1992). These models
were adopted but not adapted for local condition neither adjusted over time with local
performance data.
- The details of the Economic Evaluation are unknown.
- Due to these limitations, the professionals in charge of the pavement management usually
decided the M&R activities based on their own experience rather than the information
generated by the tool. Additionally, in some municipalities, the decisions about M&R
treatments are based on the complaints of the users. This situation leads to a prioritized list
of candidate projects based on the current condition of the pavement rather than on the life
cycle assessment. Therefore, the process seeks to identify only the current network needs,
which is a reactive approach.
Consequently, the available tool needs to be updated to increase its effectiveness for developing
preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation standards and combining technical, economic,
geographical, social and environmental aspects of urban streets to address a sustainable analysis.

 SGCPU – Concepción, Chile (Echaveguren T. and González D. 2000)

The PMS for the city of Concepción , Chile, called SGCPU (Sistema de Gestión de
Conservación de pavimentos urbanos de Concepción) is based on the SAMPU.
This PMS includes the following components:
- Data base: Considers invariable information such as geometric characteristics of streets and
variable data such as condition indicator and traffic.
- Sectioning: Considers the traffic data and the condition indicators for the definition of
sections for the network
- Diagnosis: Includes the determination of condition and the application of pavement
models. The indicators used for condition are the qualitative indices of cracking, roughness
and serviceability. The performance models used are the Brokaw for concrete pavements,
37
 HMD-2 for semi flexible pavements and HMD-3 for flexible pavements. These two
elements help the determination of the evolution overtime of the indicators without the
application of maintenance standards in this component.
- Projects: This component generates the maintenance strategies for the sections based on a
list of maintenance actions for concrete and asphalt pavements.
- Economic Evaluation: The strategies are evaluated based on their cost and the Vehicle
Operating Model of the HDM-3
- Investment Program: Includes the prioritization of sections to be maintained. This analysis
could be made based on difference parameters as serviceability, traffic, hierarchy and
others.
- Update: In this component the data base is updated with the maintenance strategies applied
as well as the project control and results.
- Software prototype: The system is supported by a software that works with the
components.
This PMS is very complete but does not count with a combined index for urban pavements and
the performance models used were calibrated for other conditions.

2.2 Pavement Condition Evaluation

Pavement condition is the one of the main input of the PMS. For this reason the requirements for
objectivity and consistency are fundamental (Gordon K. 2008; TAC 2013).
Acquiring pavement condition data for network management can be an expensive and time
consuming process. Given this, agencies have to be aware that the approach and methodology
selected for surveying the network suits their individual goals and resources. Various pavement
condition evaluation methodologies, using manual or automated collection techniques, have been
developed to cope with this challenge (Kafi M. 2012; Wolters, A. et al. 2011).

2.2.1 Distresses

Distresses affecting asphalt pavements typically are classified in cracking, surface deterioration,
patching and potholes, and miscellaneous distresses. Table 2-3 present an extensive list of
distresses collected from the literature review (FHWA 2003b; de Solminihac 2001).
Likewise, distresses that affect concrete pavement are classified in cracking, joint deficiencies,
surface defects, and miscellaneous distresses. Table 2-4 presents a list of concrete pavements
distresses (FHWA 2003b; de Solminihac 2001).

38
 Table 2-3 Distresses in Asphalt Pavements

Distress Description
Series of interconnected cracks caused by fatigue failure of the asphalt surface (or stabilized
Fatigue Cracking
base) under repeated traffic loading.
Transverse Cracks perpendicular to the pavement's centerline or laydown direction. Usually a type of
Cracking thermal cracking.
Interconnected cracks that divide the pavement up into rectangular pieces. Blocks range in
size from approximately 0.1 m2 to 9 m2. Larger blocks are generally classified as
Block Cracking
longitudinal and transverse cracking. Block cracking normally occurs over a large portion of
pavement area but sometimes will occur only in non-traffic areas
Joint Reflection Cracks in a flexible overlay of a rigid pavement. The cracks occur directly over the
Cracking underlying rigid pavement joints.
Wheel Path
Longitudinal Cracks parallel to the pavement's centerline in the wheel path. It is a type of fatigue cracking.
Cracking
Non-Wheel Path
Longitudinal Cracks parallel to the pavement's centerline outside the wheel path.
Cracking
Applies only to pavements with unpaved shoulders. Crescent-shaped cracks or fairly
continuous cracks which intersect the pavement edge and are located within 0.6 m of the
Edge Cracking
pavement edge, adjacent to the shoulder. Includes longitudinal cracks outside of the wheel
path and within 0.6 m of the pavement edge
Crescent or half-moon shaped cracks generally having two ends pointed into the direction of
Slippage Cracking
traffic.
A film of asphalt binder on the pavement surface. It usually creates a shiny, glass-like
Bleeding
reflecting surface that can become quite sticky
A form of plastic movement typified by ripples (corrugation) or an abrupt wave (shoving)
Corrugation and across the pavement surface. The distortion is perpendicular to the traffic direction. Usually
Shoving occurs at points where traffic starts and stops (corrugation) or areas where HMA abuts a
rigid object (shoving
Localized pavement surface areas with slightly lower elevations than the surrounding
Depression
pavement
Polished Areas of HMA pavement where the portion of aggregate extending above the asphalt binder
Aggregate is either very small or there are no rough or angular aggregate particles.
Patch/
An area of pavement that has been replaced with new material to repair the existing
Patch
pavement. A patch is considered a defect no matter how well it performs.
Deterioration
Small, bowl-shaped depressions in the pavement surface that penetrate all the way through
Potholes
the HMA layer down to the base course
The progressive disintegration of an HMA layer from the surface downward as a result of
Raveling
the dislodgement of aggregate particles.
Surface depression in the wheelpath. Pavement uplift (shearing) may occur along the sides
of the rut. There are two basic types of rutting: mix rutting and subgrade rutting. Mix rutting
Rutting occurs when the subgrade does not rut yet the pavement surface exhibits wheelpath
depressions as a result of compaction/mix design problems. Subgrade rutting occurs when
the subgrade exhibits wheelpath depressions due to loading.
The loss of bond between aggregates and asphalt binder that typically begins at the bottom
Stripping
of the asphalt layer and progresses upward
Lane-to-Shoulder Difference in elevation between the pavement surface and the outside shoulder. Typically
Dropoff occurs when the outside shoulder settles as a result of pavement layer material differences.
Water bleeding occurs when water seeps out of joints or cracks or through an excessively
Water Bleeding
porous asphalt layer. Pumping occurs when water and fine material is ejected from
and Pumping
underlying layers through cracks in the asphalt layer under moving loads.

39
 Table 2-4. Distresses in Concrete Pavements

Distress Description
A portion of the slab separated by a crack, which intersects the adjacent transverse and
Corner Breaks
longitudinal joints, describing approximately a 45-degree angle with the direction of traffic.
Closely spaced crescent-shaped hairline cracking pattern. Occurs adjacent to joints, cracks,
Durability Cracking or free edges; initiating in slab corners. Dark coloring of the cracking pattern and
surrounding area.
Longitudinal Cracking Cracks that are predominantly parallel to the pavement centerline.
Transverse Cracking Cracks that are predominantly perpendicular to the pavement centerline
Crack that join the transverse joint with the longitudinal joint or union shoulder-slab. Occurs
Oblique Cracking due to fatigue, beginning and ending at right angles in the central third of the transverse or
longitudinal edge of the slab.
Transverse Joint Seal Transverse Joint seal damage is any condition which enables incompressible materials or
Damage water to infiltrate the joint from the surface through transverse joints.
Longitudinal Joint Seal Longitudinal Joint seal damage is any condition which enables incompressible materials or
Damage water to infiltrate the joint from the surface through longitudinal joints.
Spalling of Cracking, breaking, chipping, or fraying of slab edges within 0.3 m from the face of the
Longitudinal Joints longitudinal joint
Spalling of Transverse Cracking, breaking, chipping, or fraying of slab edges within 0.3 m from the face of the
Joints transverse joint.
A series of cracks that extend only into the upper surface of the slab. Larger cracks
Map Cracking frequently are oriented in the longitudinal direction of the pavement and are interconnected
by finer transverse or random cracks.
Scaling is the deterioration of the upper concrete slab surface, normally 3 mm to 13 mm,
Scaling
and may occur anywhere over the pavement.
Polished Aggregate Surface mortar and texturing worn away to expose coarse aggregate.
Small pieces of pavement broken loose from the surface, normally ranging in diameter from
Popouts
25 mm to 100 mm, and depth from 13 mm to 50 mm
Localized upward movement of the pavement surface at transverse joints or cracks, often
Blowups
accompanied by shattering of the concrete in that area.
Faulting Difference in elevation across a joint or crack.
Lane-to-Shoulder Difference in elevation between the edge of slab and outside shoulder; typically occurs
Dropoff when the outside shoulder settles.
Lane-to-Shoulder
Widening of the joint between the edge of the slab and the shoulder.
Separation
Patch/ A portion or all of the original concrete slab that has been removed and replaced, or
Patch Deterioration additional material applied to the pavement after original construction.
Seeping or ejection of water from beneath the pavement through cracks. In some cases,
Water Bleeding and
detectable by deposits of fine material left on the pavement surface, which were pumped
Pumping
from the support layers and have stained the surface.

2.2.2 Condition Indexes

Among the various available evaluation methods, performance indicators that represent the current
condition of pavement sections have demonstrated to be effective and reliable for managing road
networks (ASTM 2003a; Chamorro et al. 2009b; Reza, F. et al. 2006; de Solminihac et al. 2009).
Agencies commonly use deterioration indices for network level decision making, which may
combine different types of surface distresses, serviceability and structural indicators (Kafi M.
2012).

40
 Two main methodologies were used to define the indices available in the literature: a
methodology based on the use "master curves" that considers the type of distress, severity and
density to determine the overall condition of the pavement; and a methodology based on the
subjective evaluation of an expert panel, obtained based on surveys or in field evaluations, using
statistical tools to transform the subjectivity associated to expert evaluations to objective evaluation
of the pavement condition (Dictuc S.A. 2006).
Table 2-5 and Table 2-6 present some indices of both methodologies with the type of distresses
considered and their equations for asphalt and concrete pavements. These indices differ in the types
of distresses and criteria considered to quantify severity and density of distresses.
The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is based on master curves, making cumulative reductions
to a value that represents an excellent condition of pavements (PCI=100), based on the severity and
density of measured distresses. The deduct values are calculated for each type of distress and the
maximum deduct value is determine to use for the reduction of the excellent condition (Dictuc S.A.
2006). The PCI is worldwide used and considers a broad list of distresses, what are advantages of
its adoption for application in different conditions; however, it was firstly developed for airports so
the master curves need an adjustment and calibration for its use in urban pavements.
The other indices PQI, DMI, ICP and PSI showed in the tables above are based on expert panel
evaluations. As it observed, different distresses are considered for asphalt and concrete; presenting
all of them less options of distresses than the PCI. These indices were developed for interurban
road networks (highways, express corridor, etc.); therefore, their direct application to urban
networks (streets, avenues, etc.), is not representative and requires calibration and validation.
However, the methodologies used in the calibration and validation are good options to apply for
modeling an index for urban pavements.
Finally, the Serviciability Index (p) showed in the tables above, is an index developed for urban
pavement networks based also on expert panel evaluations; however, does not consider some
distresses important to analyze in urban environment, such as potholes, faulting, and utility cuts,
and consider as the main condition the ride quality, which is not very influence in condition of
urban pavements. Therefore, this index need an adjustment and calibration for its application in
urban pavement networks.
The key to the development of an index to the condition of pavements is to recognize the
subjective nature of the problem and associated techniques to quantify subjective information. The
methodology is transferable but not models, so it must be calibrated for each agency (de
Solminihac 2001).

41
 Table 2-5. Performance Condition Indices - Asphalt

Pavement Ride Cracking Patching Surface Other Metho

Condition Quali and Potholes Deterioration Distresses d
Indices ty/
Roug
hness
Pavement Ride Fatigue Patch Rutting Bumps and
Condition Quality Block Deterioration Shoving Sags
Index (PCI) Edge Potholes Bleeding Lane/Shoulder
(ASTM 2008) Longitudinal/ Polishes Drop off
Transversal Aggregate Railroad
Reflection Raveling Croosing Based on
Slippage Depressions Master
Corrugations Curves
Swell
PCI = C-∑ ∑ a (Ti, Sj, Dij) ×, Dij) x F; PCI = 100 CDVmax
T: Distresses, S:Severities, D: Densities; F: Factor of adjustment for quantity of
distresses
CDVmax: Maximum Deduct Value
Pavement RCI SDI SDI SDI SAI
Quality Index
(PQI) PQI = 1.1607 + (0.596*RCI * SDI) + (0.5264 * RCI * Log 10 SAI)
(Haas et al. RDI: Riding Condition Index, SDI: Surface Distress Index, SAI: Structural Adequacy
1994) Index
Distress Fatigue Rutting
Manifestation Longitudinal
Index (DMI) Wheel Path
(Chamorro et Longitudinal
al. 2009b) No Wheel
Path
Transversal
DMINL=10- 0.117 Fatigue (%) – 0.133Rutting (mm) - 0.157 Long Wheel Path (%)-
0.035Long Non Wheel Path (%) - 0.01Traversal (%) Based on
Pavement IRI Fatigue Potholes Rutting Expert
Condition Linear Bleeding Panel
Index (ICP) ICP = 10.5 – 0.56IRI – 0.078 Rutting – 0.068 Potholes – 0.052 Fatigue – Evaluation
(Dictuc S.A. 0.031Bleeding – 0.026Linear Cracking
2006)
Present Slope Cracked Patched surface Rutting
Serviceability Variance surface
Index (PSI)
(AASHTO
PSI = 5.03 – 1.91 log (1+SV) – 0.01 (C+P) ^ 0.5 – 1.38 RD2
1993; de
SV: Slope Variance, C: Cracked surface, P: patched surface, RD: Rutting
Solminihac
2001)
Serviciability Ride Cracking
Rutting
Index (p) quality Index
(MINVU P= 5.8 – 0.8 C1 – 0.1 C2 – 0.3 C3
1999) C1: Ride quality, C2: Coefficient based on Cracking Index, C3: Coefficient based on
Rutting

42
 Table 2-6. Performance Condition Indices – Concrete

Pavement Ride Cracking Surface Joint Other Method

Condition Quali Defects Deficiencies Distresses/C
Indices ty/ onditions
Roug
hness
Pavement Ride Corner Break Polished Joint Seal Faulting
Condition Quality Divided Slab Aggregate Damage Blowup/Buckli
Index (PCI) Durability Popouts Spalling ng
(ASTM 2008) Cracking Punchout Pumping
Shrinkage Scaling, Map Lane/Shoulder
Linear Cracking and Drop-off Based on
Crazing Railroad Master
Crossing Curves
Patch
Deterioration
PCI = C-∑ ∑ a (Ti, Sj, Dij) ×, Dij) x F; PCI = 100 CDVmax
T: Distresses, S:Severities, D: Densities; F: Factor of adjustment for quantity of distresses
CDVmax: Maximum Deduct Value
Pavement RCI SDI SDI SDI SAI
Quality Index
(PQI) PQI = 1.1607 + (0.596*RCI * SDI) + (0.5264 * RCI * Log 10 SAI)
(Haas et al. RDI: Riding Condition Index, SDI: Surface Distress Index, SAI: Structural Adequacy Index
1994)
Distress Corner Break Spalling
Manifestation Longitudinal
Index (DMI) Transversal
(Chamorro et DMINL=10- 0.0267 Spalling(%)– 0.0088Long.Meand(%)- 0.0010 Trv(%)-
al. 2009b) 0.0182Corner(%)
Pavement IRI Slab Cracked Joints and cracks
Condition condition Based on
Index (ICP) Expert
(Dictuc S.A. ICP = 10.7 – 0.85IRI – 0.057 Slab Cracked – 1.001 Joints and cracks condition Panel
2006) Evaluation
Present Slope Cracked Patched surface
Serviceability Variance surface
Index (PSI)
(AASHTO
PSI = 5.41 – 1.80 log (1+SV) – 0.09 (C+P) ^ 0.5
1993; de
SV: Slope Variance, C: cracked surface, P: patched surface
Solminihac
2001)
Serviciability Ride Cracking
Index (p) quality Index
(MINVU P= 5.8 – 0.8 C1 – 0.5 C2
1999) C1: Ride quality, C2: Coefficient based on Cracking Index

43
 2.2.3 Data Collection Methodologies

Some agencies have established well developed guidelines to standardize data collection
methodologies, among these are: Flexible Pavement Condition Rating, Guidelines for
Municipalities (MTO 1989), Índice de Agrietamiento (MINVU 1999), Standard Practice for
Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt Pavement Surface Provisional Protocol PP 44-01 (AASHTO 2001),
Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program (FHWA
2003b), International Standard Practices for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index
Surveys (ASTM 2003a), Unpaved Roads Condition Index based on Objective Distress Measures
(Chamorro et al. 2009a), Instructivo de Inspección Visual de Caminos Pavimentados (MOP 2010),
Distress Manifestation Index for Network Level (Chamorro et al. 2009b).
To evaluate pavement condition, most agencies perform data collection activities in one or more
of the following four main areas: surface distress, roughness, structural adequacy, and friction.
However, almost all agencies have differences in quantifying both the severity and density of
distresses (Kafi M. 2012).
While condition evaluation methodologies differ from agency to agency, the principles are the
same. Condition evaluation should incorporate a reasonable amount of detail (TAC 2013):
 Type of distress: cracking, rutting, potholes, faulting, etc.
 Severity of the distress: typically classified in levels; low, moderate, high.
 Density: area or extend of the distress. Typically calculated based on sum of distress type
and severity level divided by the length or area evaluated.
The methodologies may include the entire pavement surface or some statistical portion of the
network. Condition evaluations can be conducted using manual, semi-automated and automated
methodologies (TAC 2013).

2.2.3.1 Manual Data Collection

Manual data collection can be defined as the process where people are directly involved in the
observation or measurement of pavement deterioration (Flintsch, G. and McGhee K. 2009).
Distresses are assessed or measured from a moving vehicle, known also as windshield surveys, or
by evaluators walking along the road. Manual surveys require a trained evaluator or a team of
trained evaluators who are assessing the type, severity, and density of distresses (Kafi M. 2012;
Smith, R. E. et al. 1996).
Manual evaluation methodologies are typically detailed in the evaluation instruction manuals.
Many agencies have developed training and educational tools that provide consistent assessment
guidelines. Another element of achieving consistency is the establishment of a set of control
sections that can be used for training, calibration of equipment, and process validation and
verification (TAC 2013). Due to practical limitations, manual condition evaluations are sometimes
conducted on a representative subset of the entire network (TAC 2013).
When manual evaluations are performed with experienced evaluators have the advantage that
distresses are collected in a realistic way. This is very convenience for the development of

44
performance models. However, requires the investment of time and human resources for the data
collection.

2.2.3.2 Automated and Semi-Automated Data Collection

Automated and semi-automated data collection can be defined as the process of acquiring data with
the aid of technology, mostly based on image, acoustic or profile measures (Flintsch, G. and
McGhee K. 2009). These technologies may be equipped altogether on a mobile van or separately
on trailers attached to a vehicle. (Wolters, A. et al. 2011). Collected data is analyzed with the aid of
automated or semi-automated software to report the pavement distress. Studies have demonstrated
that automated data collection is a safe, quick and reliable method compared to manual data
collection (Chamorro et al. 2009a; b; Kafi M. 2012; Smith, R. E. et al. 1996; Tighe S. et al. 2008).
Semi-automated distress evaluation methods incorporate manual raters using one of two
approaches to eliminate rater exposure to traffic: windshield surveys or survey based on pavement
image review and rating (TAC 2013).
Automated distress evaluation methods based on images are challenged by complexities
associated with image post processing, analysis and the requirement of correctly appropriate
contrast/colour based thresholds for varying road surface colors and types (TAC 2013). However,
studies have demonstrated existing technologies that improve considerably crack detection (MTQ
2005).
The big advantage of automated and semi-automated methodologies is the versatility of the data
collection; however, good confidence of the results for some types of distresses is still not possible
with current technologies. A perfect balance is to mix automated and manual methodologies to
achieve good results and optimize resources in the data collection.

2.3 Performance Models

2.3.1 Modeling Methodologies

Performance models can be broadly classified as (TAC 2013):

 Deterministic: Shows the most common path of deterioration over time.
 Probabilistic: Quantifies some of the variability observed in the rate of deterioration from
year to year
Both types of models are used to describe the expected performance over time. Pavement
performance can be estimated using various techniques, from expert modelling using the opinions
of experienced engineers to detailed performance prediction using historical data in a variety of
deterministic and probabilistic mathematical models (Haas et al. 1994; TAC 2013):
 Mechanistic: The predicted measure is based on some primary response behavior such as
stress or strain.
 Mechanistic–Empirical: Measured structural or functional deterioration is related to a
response parameter.

45
  Empirical: The dependent variable of observed or measured structural or functional
deterioration is related to one or more independent variables such as age, distress
condition, smoothness, axle load application, etc.
 Probabilistic (or subjective): Experience is captured in a formal or structured way using
probabilistic tools.
Probabilistic methods are good candidates to develop performance models for network
management. Table 2-7 shows a summary of probabilistic methods to develop the performance
models with their advantages and disadvantages (Chamorro 2012; Tighe S. 1997).
Bayesian models and Markov Chain models present good options to be applied when no
historical data is available, but the latter is easier to apply for modeling nonlineal relationships.

Table 2-7. Probabilistic Modeling Methods

Modeling
Brief Description Advantage Disadvantage
Method

- Efficient with large

amounts of experimental
- Simple modeling
Statistical modeling data available
Regressions - Non lineal relations
method - Cannot be extrapolate
can be develop
beyond the limits of the
experimental data

Simulate mathematical - The process does not - Complex modeling

models of input require a detailed - Requires large amount of
Neural parameters with outputs relationship experimental data
Networks without model
definition

Probabilistic modeling. - Objective with - Complex modeling of

It use Bayesian expert panel Nonlineal relations
Bayesian
regressions (Prior evaluations
Models
Distributions+Data - Good results with
Collected) small data base
Probabilistic modeling. - Models can be - Requires the development
With the use developed without of Probability Transition
Probability Transition an historical data Matrix for each
Markov
Matrix can predict base combination of factors to
Chain
future stages of - Simple to use for be considered
pavement based on modeling Nonlineal
current stage relations

46
 2.3.2 Transition Matrices Techniques

A key aspect to apply Marcov Chain is the building of the transition probability matrices, which
will determine the change of one state to another. Quite a few techniques are available to make up
the transition matrices in order to perform the markov chain modeling. A summary of the main
techniques is presented in Table 2-8 (Echaveguren T. 2006).

Table 2-8. Technique for Estimation of Transition Probability Matrices (Adapted from
(Echaveguren T. 2006)).

Technique Author Aplication Characteristics

Matrices Proportions and (Tjan, A. and Pavement Estimates the matrix directly from a equation of
Inversions Pitaloka, D. Distresses matrix regression. It requires a not singular
2005) Modeling using matrix. It is equivalent to supervised training of
PCI MLP neural network
Minimizing the square (Ortiz- It is based on minimizing a squared error of an
error regarding class García, J. et objective function. It requires abundant
marks of each state, the al. 2006) historical data for a good representation of the
expected value of the proportion vectors. Supports the analysis of
process, or proportion stationary and non-stationary Markov chains. In
vectors of estimated and contrast, deterministic methods are used to
predicted value estimate the matrix.

Logistic model (Ariaratnam, Modeling of Analytically determination of the matrix from a

S. et al. 2001; cracking in asphalt mechanistic model. The model incorporates a
Yang, J. et al. pavements. logistic function. The transition matrix is
2005) Assessment of obtained by minimizing the function of log -
infrastructure likelihood of the analytical matrices based on
inspection needs logistic functions.
Probit Model (Baik, H. et Pavement Similar case to the logistic model, changing
al. n.d.) Distresses only the functional specification of the
Modeling using transition matrix, under the hypothesis that the
PCI change in status is binary.
Bayesian Inference (Micevski, T. Modeling of wáter In this case it is obtained by Bayesian inference
et al. 2002; colector distresses one probability density function (PDF)
Tao, Z. et al. Brigde structural conditional retrospectively from a conditional a
1995) design priori. Conditionality is given in terms of the
parameters describing the FDP are conditioned
by data describing a particular state.
Method based on Kernel (Rajagopalan, Daily rainfall study Estimates the transition probability matrix in a
B. et al. window of time estimated from the bandwidth
1996) of the kernel function. Subsequently estimates
an FDP from proportions between two
neighboring states calculated by the kernel
function

The most feasible methods to apply in this research are those of (Tjan, A. and Pitaloka, D. 2005)
and (Tjan, A. and Pitaloka, D. 2005). Both methods are based on the proportions approach.
47
 2.3.3 Performance Models used for urban pavement management

Several performance models are available in the state-of-the-art and the-practice for different types
of pavement conditions (AASHTO 1993; Arambula E. et al. 2011; Chamorro and Tighe 2011;
Chan P. et al. 1997; Kargag-Ostadi N. et al. 2010; Mubaraki M. 2010; NCHRP 2010; Odartey L. et
al. 2012; Rahim A. et al. 2013; Tack J. and Chou Y. 2001). In the following paragraphs some of the
performance models used for pavement management at network level are commented:
 North Carolina’s Performance Models (Chan P. et al. 1997): North Carolina Department of
Transportation (DOT) developed performance models for network-level project selection
and prioritization for multiyear scheduling. These models were developed using the
Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) of individual section as performance prediction through
regression models.
 Network-Level Pavement Roughness Prediction Model for Rehabilitation (Kargag-Ostadi
N. et al. 2010): A model for changes in the international roughness index (IRI) over time
was developed through artificial neural networks (ANNs) pattern recognition. The ANN
model was developed for asphalt pavement rehabilitation sections extracted from FHWA’s
Long-Term Pavement Performance database in a wet–freeze climate and may be applied
for similar conditions.
 Performance Prediction of the Present Serviceability Rating for Local Agencies in San
Francisco Bay Area (Mok H. and Smith, R. E. 1997): Several local agencies in the San
Francisco Bay Area use the Metropolitan Transportation Commission pavement
management system that requires a pavement condition index (PCI) as the primary
condition measure. However, several of these local agencies must also submit present
serviceability rating (PSR) data on a sample of their network for use in the Highway
Performance Monitoring System. Regression equations were developed to predict the PSR
values, from PCI values. The local agencies using the Bay Area PMS can use these
equations to estimate a PSR value from the inspection required for the PMS without
inspecting pavement sections a second time.
 Performance Models for Flexible Pavements in Puerto Rico (Colucci B. and Ramírez-
Beltrán N. 1997): These models were developed for flexible pavements of different climate
conditions and functional classifications of highways in Puerto Rico, using the AASHTO
performance equation as the base for PSI prediction. Delphi method, Levenberg-
Marquardt, Weibull distribution and Monte Carlo simulation were conducted to determine
the parameters of the equations for each group of pavements. This estimation scheme is
useful for computing the remaining life for in-service pavements by following the
methodology suggested in the AASHTO Design Guide for Pavement Structures.
 Performance Models for South Dakota (Jackson N. et al. 1996): The performance curves
were developed by using both individual and composite pavement indexes for asphalt
pavements. Regressions analyses were applied using expert opinion. The resulting
pavement performance curves are adequate for the beginning input into the enhanced
SDDOT PMS. The pavement performance curves developed should be revised as
sufficient historical pavement condition data become available.
48
 Performance Models of PERS® software (Mubaraki M. 2010; PERS 2010): Material
dependent models for predicting the pavement performance based on mechanistic
(analytical) principles are used. The models estimate pavement performance in relation
structural deterioration, rutting, roughness, skid resistance, and surface wear (Lund Z.
2009). In addition, empirical models are available, which can be calibrated automatically,
and used as an alternative to the mechanistic models. The models were developed using the
incremental-recursive mode by blending all the factors that are essential elements of the
pavement deterioration process and enables the user to calibrate the models against
historical data (Ullidtz, P. 1999).
 Performance Models of the Highway Development and Management Tool (HDM-3):
(Bennett C. 1996; Mubaraki M. 2010): Includes deterministic mechanistic-empirical
models based on roughness progression rediction methodology. The roughness progression
is predicted as the sum of three components: structural deformation, surface condition, and
an age-environmental-related roughness term. There are two models namely the
incremental roughness model and the aggregate roughness model.
 Performance Models of Highway Development and Management Tool (HDM-4)
(Mubaraki M. 2010): It was developed to provide additional capabilities such as models for
traffic congestion, climate effects, safety and environmental effects that are not in HDM-3.
The road deterioration models in HDM-4 are also deterministic in nature and are used for
predicting annual conditions of roads as well as part of the inputs into user effects. Eight
separate distress models, which can be divided into three categories: surfacing distress
types including; cracking, raveling, potholing, deformation distress types including;
rutting, and roughness, and surface texture distress types including; texture depth and skid
resistance. These models predict the change of distress over a period using either time or
traffic as the basis for pavement deterioration using the incremental methods. However,
cracking and rutting as the commonest distress models in bituminous pavements. This
method is the same as the incremental recursive method adopted in PERS. It allows the
models in HDM-4 to analyze the various forms of distress types that could arise from
pavement deterioration.
 Performance Models of the Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) (Mubaraki M.
2010): It has developed two distinctly different roughness progression model types, the
network model and the project model. The network model is intended to undertake broad
network analysis to arrive at annual maintenance budgets for certain roughness limits and
provide maximum life cycle benefits. The ARRB developed another roughness progression
model, rather than simply calibrating HDM-3, because HDM-3 does not directly address
the influence maintenance practices has on pavement (Martin T. 1996).
 Concrete Pavement Models in Texas (Mubaraki M. 2010; Robinson C. et al. 1996): The
following models were developed for the following distress types in Continuously
Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP): Portland cement concrete patches, asphalt
patches, serviceability loss as measured by loss of ride score, transverse crack spacing, and
crack spelling. Preliminary models are available for the following distresses in Jointed
Concrete Pavement (JCP) and Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement (JRCP): patches,
49
 comer breaks, faulted joints and cracks, spalled joints and cracks, transverse crack spacing,
and slabs with longitudinal cracks. A sigmoid regression equation was used for all distress
types. These models are applicable only to non-overlaid Portland cement concrete
pavements and are based on an upper limit of fifteen years for CRCP and sixteen years for
JCP. The models represent the most accurate regression possible using the sigmoid
equation with the available data.
 Performance Models for urban pavements (Mubaraki M. 2010): Models of PQI and
Distress Maintenance Rating (DMR) were developed. Regression analysis were carried
out, resulting the exponential and polynomial function have good fitness with general data
trends for the PQI (Shiyab A. 2007). Power and sigmoid form resulted better for overlays,
modeling the DMR overtime (Adel W. et al. 1996).
 Performance Models of the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
(Mubaraki M. 2010; WSDOT 1988): Empirical models were developed for PCR in the
network level PMS.
 Performance Models of the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) (Mubaraki M.
2010; Sabaaly, P. et al. 1996): A set of performance models for the network level of the
PSI for monitoring the performance of overlays, using multilineal regressions.
 Brampton Performance Models in Canada (Mubaraki M. 2010; Phang, W. and Stott, G.
1981): The progression of specific distresses was performed to determine the Distress
Manifestation (DM) assigned to a pavement at any time for asphalt pavements.
 Many PMS software used for network level analysis apply performance models developed
for specific distresses to analysis de progression of deterioration; then, calculate the overall
indices at different pavement ages such as Road Matrix, HPMS and dTims (Deighton
2012; Stantec 2009).
The models mentioned above were developed for combined indices of interurban pavements
(highways, express corridor, etc.) or their main focus has been the progression of specific distresses
overtime as a project level analysis to calculate after the overall condition of pavements at a certain
time for network level management. Therefore, their direct application to urban pavement networks
(streets, avenues, etc.), requires adaptation and further calibration and validation (Osorio et al.
2014). In addition, the tool Manusimp and Sampu (CIS and MINVU 1992; MINVU 1999) that
were developed for urban pavement management in Chile, consider in their analysis performance
models for asphalt and concrete developed for other conditions without a previous adaptation.

2.4 Preservation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation

There are different types and levels of actions to cost-effectively maintain the pavement
infrastructure at an appropriate level of service. Description of type and levels of actions as well as
the activities included within them vary from agency to agency, such as: emergency, routine,
reactive, minor and major maintenance, preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance,
preservation, restoration, rehabilitation and reconstruction (TAC 2013).

50
 Typically, there are four broadly levels of maintenance in the literature review: routine
maintenance, preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation. Routine maintenance are reactive and
will often comprise relatively inexpensive, corrective types of actions to immediately address
specific problems that may compromise the safety of road users. Preservation treatments are
proactive, consisting of well-timed and executed activities to prevent premature distresses and to
slow the rate of deterioration. Maintenance treatment could include minor non-structural activities
and corrective activities. Rehabilitation consists of structural enhancements that renew the service
life of an existing pavement and improve its load carrying capacity (TAC 2013).
Table 2-9 present an example of three types of maintenance and the activities included within
them for asphalt and concrete pavements. In this example the treatments are presented in three
categories: routine maintenance, preservation and rehabilitation, where preventive and corrective
maintenance treatments are included as preservation.

Table 2-9. Routine maintenance, preservation, and rehabilitation activities (TAC, 2013)

Action Type Maintenance activities

Asphalt Pavements Concrete Pavements
Routine Maintenance  Pothole Repair  Partial-Depth Slab Repair
 Shallow Patching  Full-Depth Slab Repair
 Drainage Improvement  Drainage Improvement
Preservation  Crack Sealing  Crack and Joint Sealing
 Spray Patching  Diamond Grinding
 Full-Depth Patching  Shot Blasting
 Heater Scarification  Partial-Depth Slab Repair
 Hot In-Place Recycling  Full-Depth Slab Repair
 Cold In-Place Recycling  Load Transfer Retrofit
 Full-Depth Reclamation  Crack and Joint Stitching
 Thin Asphalt Overlay  Bonded Concrete Overlay
 Resurfacing-Fuctional  Slab Stabilization/Slab Jacking
 Milling and Resurfacing-Functional  HMA Overlay
 Bonded Concrete Overlay
 Slurry Sealing
 Seal Coat
 Microsurfacing
Rehabilitation  Resurfacing-Structural  Bonded Concrete Overlay
 Milling and Resurfacing-Structural  Unbonded Concrete Overlay
 Bonded Concrete Overlay  Crack, Seat and Resurfacing
 Unbonded Concrete Overlays  Rubblization and Resurfacing
 Full-Depth Reclamation  HMA Overlay

Each agency needs to define the types and levels of maintenance actions suitable for them, as
well as the boundary between them and the minimum acceptable level for their networks.
Good pavement management depends on the adoption of suitable defined standards which
respond to the demands of users and minimize the total cost of the road comprising the costs of
construction, maintenance and operation. Therefore, it is essential to establish a system of priorities
51
for intervention decisions. Set thresholds for treatments application consist of define the thresholds
above which should be applied an action. These thresholds are used to indicate which part of the
network and which sections of the road are not meeting the objectives set. Each agency needs to
define the thresholds for treatments application based on their strategies and network
characteristics.
In Appendix I an extend list of maintenance treatments are presented for asphalt and concrete
pavements.

2.5 Definitions Adopted

The terminology used to express the various maintenance types and practices is not unique, and
thus, in this section we define the concepts used throughout this research:
 P&M&R actions: A treatment or set of treatments applied to a pavement to address the
deterioration affecting its condition at a given time.
 Strategies: The set of maintenance actions applicable to a pavement during its life cycle,
with the goal of improving its functional and/or structural condition.
 Policies: Define which criteria will be applied to the maintenance actions. These can be
periodic throughout the time period for the application of maintenance actions; policies
may also be response based, i.e., based on thresholds that trigger the need for a
maintenance action (e.g., thresholds based on the UPCI for network management).
 Standards: This term refers to maintenance strategies to which a given policy is assigned,
in terms of time frames or by response, during the life cycle of the pavement given its
weather and hierarchy (structure and transit).
 Types of P&M&R actions: This term refers to the grouping of the actions and treatments
based on the characteristics of their application. Three types are defined for this research:
Preservation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation.
 Preservation: This term includes preservation and functional maintenance actions, covering
actions that improve the pavement functionality, extending its useful life without
improving their structural capacity (FHWA 2014). These actions are applied before
significant deterioration appears, on pavements of good or acceptable condition.
 Maintenance: This term includes actions that improve the structural capacity of the
pavement, considerably extending its useful life and/or increasing its structural capacity
(FHWA 2014). These actions are applied to pavements of regular or poor condition.
 Rehabilitation: This term includes pavement reconstruction actions that are performed
when the pavement is in very poor condition.
In addition, Figure 2-1 presents the interactions between the definitions presented above.

52
 Figure 2-1. Interactions between maintenance definitions

2.6 Urban Pavement Maintenance in Chile

Chile is a developing country with an emerging economy. The larger urban pavement network is
located in the capital, Santiago, with 9,060 km of streets (MINVU 2012).
Urban pavements in many cities often provide users with an overall bad condition of the
network, which results in negative impacts on the population and economy of the country. These
problems in Chile have two main causes: the regulations are not clear on the financial and
administrative responsibilities of the organizations in charge of the urban pavement management,
and a sustainable management system to facilitate the decision process is not available (PUC
2010).
Details about the existing tool for urban management were mentioned in previous section.
The current institutional management framework (MINVU 2012) for urban pavement
maintenance in Chile can be observed in the following in the left side of Figure 2-2. The law
confers obligations related to urban pavement management to:
 The Municipalities
 The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MINVU) and the Ministerial Regional
Secretariat (SEREMI) through the Regional Housing and Urban Services (SERVIU), the
Regional Governments and the National Funds for Regional Development (FNDR) for the
urban pavement networks
 The Ministry of Transportation and Telecommunications (MTT) through the Transantiago
for the streets where public buses drive along.
 The Ministry of Public Works (MOP) through the Regional Direction of Roads, for the
streets declared public. Additionally, the metropolitan region has special responsibilities
attributed to the Municipality of Santiago, which has autonomy for managing its network
(PUC 2010).

53
 Figure 2-2. Current Institutional Management Framework (MINVU 2012)

If this institutional framework is compared with an adequate cycle management that is on the
right side of Figure 2-2, the following can be observed:
 The data collection and needs analysis are not legally assigned to the municipalities or other
institutions.
 For the needs prioritization, M&R Planning and Funding, there are many institutions
responsible for urban planning and road maintenance that have been legally established but
their functions are developed in an uncoordinated form, which makes it difficult to carry out
proper pavement management (PUC 2010).
 The project execution needs special agreements to be developed, which makes the process
extremely slow.
 There is no feedback to all of the processes from the M&R project that has been executed.
This occurs because the legislation does not specify how the maintenance actions have to be
coordinated, executed and prioritized to optimize the assignment of resources for pavement
maintenance.
Due to the current administrative structure, the budget for maintenance actions is not totally
exploited annually for lack of decision making. Therefore, the institutional framework needs an
adjustment to make possible an implementation of an urban pavement management system.

2.7 Limitations of the Current State-of-the-art and the-practice, and

Opportunities for Improvement
Different tools are available in the state-of-the-art and the-practice for pavement management.
However, their development was based mainly on interurban pavement conditions. Consequently,
their proper application for managing urban pavement networks in developing countries presents
the following limitations and opportunities for improvement:
 Available PMS: Several PMS tools are available but they do not suit the urban pavement
network management needs. Adjustments for their application involve great efforts and
54
 resources, especially in developing countries. The opportunity for improvement is the
development of technical tools to be integrated in a sustainable management system to
facilitate the decision process for urban pavement networks can be easily adapted and
implemented by different agencies in developing countries.
 Pavement Condition Evaluation: Several pavement condition indices are available;
however, those indices were developed for interurban road networks (highways, express
corridor, etc.); then, their application to urban pavements (streets, avenues, etc.) is not
representative and requires calibration and validation. Moreover, considering developing
countries, economic resources for semi-automated or automated evaluations are not always
available; therefore, an evaluation methodology considering manual or automated field
evaluation is needed. The opportunities for improvement is the calibration and validation
of pavement condition evaluation for urban network management in developing countries,
considering evaluation guidelines for manual and automated data collection.
 Performance Models: Several performance models found in the literature review have
been developed for particular distresses, and some of them for pavement condition indexes
of interurban pavements. Therefore, their application for urban pavement conditions need
recalibration and validation. The opportunities for improvement are the calibration and
validation of performance models for urban pavement condition indexes, adaptable to
different climates and road uses.

 P&M&R Standards: Available P&M&R standards include some maintenance activities

not appropriate for urban conditions as well as are their applications thresholds are define
based on particular distresses or pavement condition indexes for interurban pavements, and
their performance models. Consequently, they are not adoptable for direct use in urban
pavements. The opportunity for improvement is the definition of maintenance standards for
urban pavements including sustainable maintenance activities based on the urban pavement
condition indexes and their performance models.

55
 Chapter 3
Urban Pavement Management Framework

In this chapter, a Framework for Urban Pavement Management is presented considering

sustainable criteria.
The first version of this framework was presented at the 1st International Specialty Conference
on Sustaining Public Infrastructure, Canadian Society of Civil Engineers, Canada (Osorio et al.
2012).

3.1 Research Project about Urban Pavement Management

This thesis is part of a three-year project being developed by the Pontificia Universidad Católica de
Chile (PUC), Chile. The project is called Fondef D09I1018 “Investigación y Desarrollo de
Soluciones para la Gestión de Pavimentos Urbanos en Chile” (Research and Development of
Solutions for Urban Pavement Management in Chile).
This project is being funded by the Chilean Government though Fondef – Conicyt, the PUC, and
the associated institutions: the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MINVU), the
Regional Government for the Metropolitan Region (GORE), the Municipality of Santiago and the
Municipality of Macul. An external collaborator in the project is the Centre for Pavement and
Transportation Technology (CPATT) at the University of Waterloo, Canada.
The overall project resulted in a cooperative initiative of the PUC and funding partners to
accomplish the current and future needs of urban pavements and provide their effective
management via the development of practical tools to assist agencies in decision-making related to
the management of urban networks (PUC 2010).
The project focuses on the development of an UPMS for Chile with the main goal of covering
the limitations found in the-state-of-the-art and the-practice presented in the literature review. The
overall objective is the development of all an Urban Pavement Management System for Chile
considering the components for the network level analysis aforementioned (PUC 2010):
 Recommendations for institutional adjustments
 Urban Pavement Condition Evaluation
 Urban Pavement Performance Models
 P&M&R standards for Urban Pavements
 Optimization of P&M&R standards
 Prioritization based on sustainable criteria
 Integration with a Geographic Information System
Even though the project is being developed in Chile, the expected outcomes, such as technical
tools and the resulting Urban Pavement Management System, may be adapted and adopted in other
countries for urban pavement management.

56
 The research performed for this doctoral thesis delivered its results about the urban pavement
condition evaluation, performance models and recommendation for P&M&R standards for their
integration in the UPMS underdevelopment in this project.

3.2 Proposed Framework

This project involves the development of Urban Pavement Management Framework that was
developed by the team research project, which combines all important and relevant aspects in a
long term analysis approach. These aspects are technical, economic, geographical, social, political
and environmental. The long term approach will be given through a life cycle cost analysis. This
comprehensive approach is subsequently referred to as a sustainable urban pavement management
framework (Chamorro 2012; Chamorro and Tighe 2009).
The proposed framework is presented in Figure 3-1and includes four types of components:
sources or input data, evaluation methodologies, processes, and outputs. This framework proposes
an iterative process for each year of the analysis period considered that starts in year i=1. In broad
terms, the processes use the methodologies fed with the sources to deliver the outputs.
The research performed in this thesis is framed into the highlighted boxes of the Figure 3-1:
Network condition, Performance Models and Optimal P+M+R Standards. For this latter component
the scope of the results is only the recommendation of the maintenance standards, including
application thresholds and effects on the pavement condition. The work carried out in the research
also included the way of how the tools developed will be integrated in the proposed framework.
A description of each component is presented in the following subsection of this chapter.

3.2.1 Sources (Input Data)

Three types of data feed the system: inventory, network condition, and socio-political data. They
are described in detail below.
Inventory
The inventory includes the information regarding: geometric data (length, transverse section,
number of lanes and types of drainage); pavement type (asphalt, concrete or interlocking
pavements); hierarchy (based on the functional classification, structure and traffic); climate (dry,
Mediterranean and humid); and geographical information (which include georeferenced
coordinates of the network streets).
Network Condition
The condition of the network includes the distresses collected in field, and the Urban Pavement
Condition Index (UPCI) calculated by equations 1 to 4 presented in section 6.3. This is the first
result of this research that is used in this framework.
Socio-political data
The socio-political data includes the following information: number of complaints made by the
users for each analyzed section of the network; major health, education and emergency
infrastructures; city blocks with census data; public transport routes; zones of touristic interest;
commercial patents; and public policy strategy.

57
Figure 3-1. Sustainable Framework Proposed for Management of Urban Pavement Networks

58
 All sustainable aspects to be considered in the UPMS must have a target associated at this level,
and will include the prioritization and optimization criteria. Some of these targets are presented
below:
 Technical: The acceptable threshold for the overall network and particular pavement
sections will be defined, in terms of the UPCI.
 Economic: The economic parameters for the network analysis will be defined, such as
period analysis, discount rate, etc.
 Environmental: The environmental policies such as the use of the environmental friendly
techniques for the maintenance and rehabilitation treatments will be included.
 Social: The social aspects to be considered in the prioritization analysis at network level
are included.
 Geographical: Criteria such as special proximity of the projects of the treatments will be
considered.
 Available Budget: The economic constraints and budget available for urban pavement
maintenance will be defined.

3.2.2 Methodologies
Four methodologies are applied to carry out the process of the system. These four methodologies
are then tested as they are calibrated and validated into the system independently:
Performance Models
Pavement performance models were developed for the combination of different pavement types,
climates and hierarchies as described in Section 7.2. The models developed in this research reflect
the pavement deterioration over time as accurately as possible. This is the second result of this
research that is used in this framework.
Optimized P&M&R Standards
The optimized P&M&R Standards includes two different methodologies: the P&M&R Standards
and the Cost-Effectiveness evaluation.
The P&M&R Standards include the list of treatments available in the network area, their possible
combinations, their estimated unit cost, their application thresholds and their effect on pavement
condition (in terms of UPCI). These standards were achieved through the analysis of possible
distresses, UPCI values, thresholds defined in the strategic criteria and performance models.
Different options of treatments are included to be analyzed in the cost-effectiveness evaluation.
This is the third result of this research that is used in this framework.
Cost-Effectiveness evaluation consists of the evaluation of P&M&R Standards at the section
level. This evaluation is based on cost-effectiveness (CE), integrating thus economic and technical
aspects in the assessment of maintenance alternatives.
The optimal treatments of P&M&R are defined from the cost-effectiveness analysis. In this
component the current and future network needs are defined.

59
 The main output of the analysis consists of the definition of P&M&R standard optimized to
accomplish the technical threshold defined in the strategic level, based on analysis mentioned to
apply in urban pavements.
Strategic Criteria
The strategic criteria include the overall goals and the institution policies and budget available
for urban pavement preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation. The main goals and policies for
urban pavement management practice in the short, medium and long term are defined within this
data. The determination of these policies will be made by the authorities of the institutions in
charge of the urban pavements.
Socio-Political Evaluation
Each socio-political criterion is evaluated using GIS’s spatial analysis like the service area of a
major infrastructure or intersects to evaluate the impact of a section in the population using the
socio-political data. Then each section is compared with the rest of the sections of the network in
order to give them a relative priority index for each criterion.
Finally each priority index is weighted in a polynomial that calculates the overall index of socio-
political criteria called Socio Political Factor (SPF). The output of the analysis is the SPF for each
section of the network and the display of a map that allows a better comprehension of the results.

3.2.3 Processes
Seven processes are included in the system with two decisions within them:
Segmentation
A dynamic segmentation of streets is performed based on the geometric data, pavement type and
hierarchy information.
Then, a cumulate difference methodology will be carried out to calculate the segments based on
their UPCI information. The average UPCI will be the representative of each segment.
Sectioning
Sections are defined based on: the segmentation carried out in the previous process, the technical
thresholds of the strategic criteria and the optimized P&M&R Standards.
The sections defined in this processes result in the segments with the P&M&R treatments
assigned. The list of these sections with theirs assigned P&M&R treatments will compose the
network needs without budget constraint, which will be the output of this process.
Available Budget > Base Budget?
This decision box evaluates whether the Available Budget higher than the Base Budget
calculated for Network Needs?
If the answer is “No”: Insufficient budget is available to meet minimum requirements. This
scenario occurs when the available budget is less than the cost required to meet the minimum
requirements defined at strategic level. In this case, the system gives precedence to the
requirements and objectives defined at the strategic level against the actual budgetary capacity
analysis for the year and continue the analysis by considering a budget equal to the minimum.

60
These shortcomings in the budget will be discussed in detail at the end of the analysis period so
that revisions and adjustments to the strategic criteria will be proposed.
If the answer is “Yes”: Sufficient budget is available to meet minimum requirements: In this
case, the available budget is not less than the minimum required to meet the requirements defined
at the strategic level. Therefore, no adjustment is necessary and the prioritization process begins
without any budget adjustment.
Regardless of the existing budget scenario in the year of analysis, the following process to be
performed is prioritization.
Prioritization
The network prioritization defines an ordered list of sections and their standards of P + M + R
more suitable to keep the network with the available budget. The suitability of the sections and
standards of P + M + R is defined by the available budget, optimized P&M&R Standards, technical
and economic analysis, and socio-political evaluation methodology. This analysis will incorporate
technical, economic, socio-political and geographical goals defined at the strategic criteria.
i=t?
Once selected sections treated, it checks whether it have been analyzed each year (i) of the
analysis period (t). In this case, two scenarios are considered:
 There have been analyzed each year of the analysis period (i <t): The process described
above will be repeat considering the condition of the pavement in the new year of analysis
(i + 1). This condition is derived from the methodology of performance models, which
come preloaded on the SGPU.
 We analyzed each year of the analysis period (i = t): In this case, the selection of projects
has been made for each year of the analysis period, so the iterative process stops.

3.2.4 Outputs
Finally, after analyzing all the years of the analysis period the system will be able to deliver the
outputs from the processes considered in the framework.
The output of SGPU consisting of the prioritized needs of the network is obtained. In this output
will be presented in detail the following information:
 Sections of the network to be treated in each year of the analysis period
 The standards of P&M&R to be applied
 The condition of the sections along the period of analysis
 Detailed costs associated with the resulting maintenance program.
The prioritized list of needs of the network is then subjected to a process of adjustment and
revision of the methodologies used, so that there is a feedback process.

61
3.3 Chapter Summary

The UPM Framework considers various factors for managing urban pavements network. This
Framework serves as a guide for the development of the UPMS underdevelopment within the
project.
The research project is divided into three main areas of research: Institutional, Pavement
Management and Geographic Information System (GIS).
The Institutional area is in charge of the analysis of current regulations for urban pavement
management and the development of recommendations of institutional adjustments that facilities
the implementation and use of the UPMS.
The proposed UPM Framework represents the way that tools developed independently in the
areas of Pavement Management and GIS will be integrated into of the UPMS.
This thesis research is framed into the Pavement Management area and delivers its results for the
highlighted boxes of the diagram showed in Figure 3-1.

62
 Chapter 4
Experimental Designs and Data Collection

4.1 Introduction
As part of the development of this research, it was necessary to create experimental designs for
data collection and analysis to develop the technical tools proposed in the thesis objectives:
1. Calibration and validation of an Urban Pavement Condition Index (UPCI),
considering manual and automated data collection methodologies.
2. Calibrate and validate performance models for urban pavements representative to
different climates, structures, traffic and pavement types.
3. Recommendation of maintenance standards for urban pavement condition.
The experimental designs were carried out considering observation experiments. In these cases
the explanatory variables cannot be manipulated to induce variability and analyze its effect on the
response variable, but it is possible to perform a controlled experiment. Therefore, the aim of the
experimental designs was to identify enough data to organize the variables in levels allowing the
adequate observation of the response variables.
Each experimental design is presented in the following paragraphs, where the dependent and
independent variables are defined, the factorial design for the data collection and the methodology
to be followed for the data collection.

4.2 Conceptual Models to calibrate and validate

Two models are calibrated and validated in this research. Figure 4-1 shows the components of
pavement life cycle to better understand where the models addressed in the research act in this
cycle.

Figure 4-1. Components of pavements life cycle

63
 The first model corresponds to the Urban Pavement Condition Index (UPCI) that represents the
overall condition of a pavement at a specific point of the service life. The model analyzes a
transversal frame in the time. Then, the UPCI is a function of the distresses present in the pavement
at that time and the type of pavement analyzed.
The second model analyzes the deterioration of the UPCI overtime, which corresponds to the
performance models. The model analyzes longitudinal view overtime. Therefore, considering the
factors involve in pavement deterioration presented in Section 1.1, this model is a function of the
pavement type, the traffic, the structure and the climate.
As a result of these two models, maintenance standards could be recommended, based on the
UPCI and its performance models. This task requires the analysis of threshold of application and
effect in the UPCI of each maintenance actions.

4.3 Experimental Design for the Calibration and validation of the UPCI

4.3.1 Variables, Factorial Design and Inference Space Definition

The dependent variable is the Urban Pavement Condition Index (UPCI), which represents the
overall condition of urban pavements at a specific time due to the combined effect of the distresses
in the pavement. The UPCI is defined as a numerical value on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being
the worst condition and 10 the best. This number is also associated with a quantitative scale of five
levels: very good, good, regular, bad and very bad, which represents the pavement conditions based
on functional importance. The UPCI considered as the dependent variable is the UPCI Observed in
the field by an Expert Panel. The expert panel was composed by experienced professionals in the
pavement area.
The independent variables for the development of the UPCI are the distresses and the type of
pavement.
In order to define the distresses to consider in the analysis, a broad universe of distresses was
considered for each type of pavement, defined based on review and combination of various
pavement evaluation guides (FHWA 2003b; MINVU 2008a, 1999; MOP 2010; MTO 1989).
Then, field observations were performed using a windshield evaluation in order to analyze the
distresses most representative of the network. Sheets used for windshield evaluation are presented
in Appendix A.
In Table 4-1 to Table 4-3, the distresses, levels of severity, and unit considered for evaluating in
the field are presented. These distresses were chosen based on the analysis of the windshield
evaluation.
The skid resistance was not considered based on the results of the projects Fondef D03I1042 and
Fondecyt 1040335, from which it was determined that this property for concrete and asphalt
pavement is beyond the scope of a network indicator due mainly to the characteristics of
macrotexture and low speeds for these urban pavements.
The characteristics to evaluate each type of pavement are in terms of the severity and density of
the distress. The first parameter indicates how severe the distress is and is evaluated on three levels:
low, moderate and high. The second parameter indicates how expanded the distress is and is
evaluated for the quantity of the measurements (Dictuc S.A. 2006; FHWA 2003b; MOP 2010).

64
 Table 4-1. Distresses Considered for Asphalt Pavements
Levels of
Distress of Asphalt Pavements Unit
Severity
2
- Fatigue Cracking Three m
- Wheel Path Longitudinal Cracking Three m
- Non/Wheel Path Longitudinal Three m
- Reflection Cracking Three m
- Transverse Cracking Three m
2
- Patch Deterioration Three N°, m
2
- Potholes None N°, m
- Rutting None mm
2
- Shoving None N°, m
2
- Bleeding None N°, m
2
- Polished Aggregate None N°, m
2
- Raveling None N°, m
- Manholes and catchbasins Three N°
- Rughness* None m/Km
(*) Measured only with automated equipment

Table 4-2. Distresses Considered for Concrete Pavements

Levels of
Distress of Concrete Pavements Unit
Severity
- Corner Breaks Three N°
- Longitudinal Cracking Three m
- Transverse Cracking Three N°, m
- Oblicous Cracking Three
- Transversal Joint Seal Damage Three N°
- Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage None m
- Spalling of longitudinal joints Three m
- Spalling of transverse joints Three m
2
- Map Cracking None N°, m
2
- Scaling None N°, m
2
- Patch Deterioration Three N°, m
2
- Polished Aggregate None N°, m
- Manholes and catchbasins Three N°
- Faulting** None mm
- Rughness* None m/Km
(*) Measured only with automated equipment
(**) Measured only with manual methodology
65
 Table 4-3. Distresses Considered for Interlocking Pavements

Distresses of Interlocking Levels of

Unit
Pavements Severity
- Block missing None N°
- Joint Damage None m
2
- Patch Deterioration Three N°, m
2
- Potholes None N°, m
- Manholes and catchbasins Three N°
- Skid Resistance* None Corrected BPN
- Longitudinal Cracking Three m
- Rughness* None m/Km
(*) Measured only with automated equipment

The factorial design for the development of the UPCI is presented in Table 4-4. It is proposed in
a generic format due to the quantity of distresses considered for each pavement type and their
interaction. The objective of this factorial matrix was to order the samples for selecting during the
data collection in the field. The factorial has five factors: Pavement Type with three levels,
distresses with different levels for each pavement type, distress severity with different levels
depending on the type of distress, distresses density with one level, and UPCIOBS with one level.

Table 4-4. Factorial Design for UPCI Calibration and Validation

The factorial comprised thousands of possible scenarios for each pavement type; considering the
interaction within distresses and their levels of severity. However, the factorial design filled up will
be unbalanced representing the real distribution of distresses and their interaction observed in the
field within the network evaluated.
The inference space of the factors describing the factorial design is the following:
 Pavement type: asphalt, concrete, and interlocking pavements
 Distresses: corresponding to the classification of Table 4-1, Table 4-2 and Table 4-3.
Although the roughness is not a distress but a representation of distresses, in this factorial
is considered as a distress only as a generic name.
 Distress severity: low, moderate and high for the distresses with three levels (See Table
4-1, Table 4-2 and Table 4-3). The limit values for severity levels were adopted from the

66
 Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program and the
guide “Inspección Visual de caminos pavimentados del Ministerio de Obras Públicas de
Chile” (FHWA 2003b; MOP 2010). The levels of severity of manholes for all types of
pavements and cracking for interlocking pavements, which are not defined in these guides,
were defined for this research.
 Distress density: is evaluated for the quantity of the measurements on three levels.
 UPCIOBS: Pavement condition evaluated by the expert panel in a value between 1 and 10.

4.3.2 Sample size estimation

As the factorial for each pavement type comprise thousands of possible scenarios of distresses
interaction, the estimation of the minimum quantity of scenarios to look for in the field in order to
ensure the precision and accuracy of the regression coefficients. Finite population technique was
used for determining the minimum quantity of scenarios based on confidence level and probability
error (Dictuc S.A. 2006).
The following equation was applied to calculate the minimum quantity of scenarios:

Where:
n = Minimum number of scenarios
Z = Normal area for the level of confidence chosen
S = Standard deviation
e = Expected error
N = Total possible scenarios

As this is a technique for finite populations delivers asymptotic results for big populations. For
this reason, this analysis was performed considering a value of N equal to 1.000, resulting in a
minimum number of scenarios of 24 with a confidence level of 95%, expected error of 10% and
standard deviation of 0.3.
In Addition, three sections for each scenario were defined as the quantity needed to ensure the
precision of the analysis.

4.3.3 Sample Unit Definition and Test Section Selection

To select a representative size for the sample unit to be used in the data collection, the functionality
of the evaluations in the field was analyzed. One important factor to be considered is the speed and
consistency of data collection. IRI was determined to be a critical evaluation as it is evaluated at
constant speeds. For this reason, the length of the sample was chosen based on the minimum length
to accelerate, evaluate and stop within one block. The width of the samples was defined as one
lane.

67
 The size of the sample unit for each pavement is defined as follows:
 Asphalt pavements: lane width x 50 m long, divided into 10-m segments. The lane widths
vary from 2.80 to 4.50 m in Chilean urban streets.
 Concrete pavement: lane width x 10 slabs long, where each slab is a segment.
The subdivision of the segments is to facilitate the manual data collection in a shorter distance.
All the distresses found in each segment are summed for the total distresses of the sample unit.
The data obtained for the sampling unit included the following:
 Distresses: presented in Table 4-1and Table 4-3.
 Inventory data: name of the road; type of pavement, width, length and traffic direction of
the lane; reference and GPS tracking of the section.
The selection of sections to evaluate is performed according to the following criteria:
 Type, severity and density of the distresses
 Location of the streets
The first step for the section selection was a windshield evaluation, to collect the types, severity
and density of distresses in streets of Santiago quickly. Sheets used for windshield evaluation are
presented in Appendix A. Then, the final selection was done based on this information and the
closeness of the streets selected.

4.3.4 Methodology for the Calibration and Validation of UPCI

The methodology prepared for the development of UPCI is presented in Figure 4-2 with the
interaction between stages.
The methodology includes the stages to be followed to perform the data collection and analysis for
the development of UPCI considering Manual and Automated evaluations. Every stage is described
as follows:
1. Experimental Design to develop UPCI: Experiments for the calibration and validation of the
condition indicator for urban networks were defined for manual and automated data collected,
including: dependent and independent variables, development of distress evaluation guidelines,
selection of an urban network, data collection and analysis methodologies.
2. Development of distress evaluation guidelines: Typical distresses observed in urban pavements
were studied in detail. Based on the state-of-the-art and the-practice, research team experience
and windshield evaluations performed in different urban networks, distresses were selected for
the purposes of the study, considering manual and automated surveys.
3. Network selection: Different sections of asphalt and concrete pavements were selected from
the network of the city of Santiago, Chile, including different functional categories, pavement
structures, traffic types and traffic volumes.

68
 Figure 4-2. Methodology for Calibration of the Urban Pavement Evaluation Methodology

4. Data Collection: Surface distresses were assessed in the selected network following the
evaluation guidelines for manual and automated data collection. In addition, an expert panel
assessed the overall condition of the selected network. A first set of data was collected and
processed in order to validate the distress evaluation guidelines. Then, a second set of data was
collected for the calibration and validation of the urban condition indicator. An Expert Panel
composed of experienced professionals in the pavement area evaluated the test sections, giving
them a UPCI Observed (UPCIOBS), which was considered as the dependent variable for the
development of the UPCI
5. Validation of distress evaluation guidelines: Repeatability and reproducibility analyses were
performed to check the reliability of manual and automated evaluations, and to validate the
developed evaluation guidelines.
6. Expert Panel Evaluation Analysis: Paired sample T-Test analysis was performed to analyze the
variability between evaluators, for each type of pavement.
7. Calibration of UPCI: Statistical analyses were made to the collected data for the calibration and
validation of the condition indicator, considering: step-wise regression analysis, analysis of
variance (ANOVA), t-Test, analysis of residuals.
8. Qualitative Condition Analysis: This analysis was performed to determine the qualitative scale
based on the qualitative evaluations of the expert panel for networks evaluated.

69
9. Validation: To validate the models obtained in the regressions, the UPCI obtained by the
models were compared with the UPCIOBS obtained by the expert panel evaluations.
10. Cross-Validation: A statistical comparison between Manual and Automated UPCI was
performed for each type of pavement to analyze whether the manual equations could be used
with automated data collection and vice versa.
11. Recommendation for UPCI use and Urban Pavement Evaluation Methodology: Finally,
recommendations were made for the use of UPCI equations and the Evaluation Methodology
of the tools developed in this part of the study.

4.4 Experimental Design for the Calibration and Validation of Performance

Models

4.4.1 Method Selection

To select the method most suitable for calibrating the performance models for urban networks, it is
important to mention that no historical data for urban pavement conditions are available to be
analyzed in this research. Therefore, all of the data to develop the performance models was
collected during the research time frame, and this fact gave the limitation of a short period of time
for pavement analysis of approximately 2 and a half years.
Given this limitation and based on the literature review presented in section 2.3.1, the method
selected to use in this research was the Markov modeling method. This method allows the
representation of non-linear models with a small amount of database.

4.4.2 Variables and Factorial Design Definition

The dependent variable is the UPCI measured at a specific moment in time. These evaluations were
performed in sections that were not maintained between the evaluations.
The independent variables are distresses, pavement type, hierarchy, climate and time.
The factorial design for the development of the UPCI is presented in Table 4-5. This factorial has
six factors: Distresses with different level for each pavement type, Pavement Type with two levels,
hierarchy with five levels, climate with three levels, time with three levels, and UPCI calculated
with nine levels.
The inference space of the factors describing the factorial design is the following:
 Distresses: Included in equations 1 to 4 of the section 6.3 for each type of pavement.
 Type of pavement: Two types of pavement were considered in this research, asphalt and
concrete pavements. Interlocking pavements were not considered for performance models
development due to UPCI equations were not satisfactorily validated and the number of
samples found in the network is not representative.
 Hierarchy: This variable included the combined effect of correlated factors, such as
functional classification of urban streets, traffic loads and levels and structure (the material

70
 and strength). Five different hierarchies are included according to five functional
classifications—express, trunk, collector, service and, local and passages—with their
particular traffic and structure. The functional classification was selected to use due to the
standard design for urban pavements is based on this classification.

Table 4-5. Complete Factorial Design to Develop Performance Models

 Climate: Three types of climates are included: dry, Mediterranean and humid. Table 4-6
presents the characteristics of each type of climate based on humidity data from other
projects that were developed in Chile (Chamorro 2012; MOP 2007) and temperature data
obtained from climate stations in Chilean cities (DGAC&DMC 2011). The considered
climates are representative of different regions in Chile—north (Antofagasta), center
(Santiago) and south (Puerto Montt)—respectively.

 Time: Three evaluations overtime are considered for all cases separated in 1 year and 9
months, respectively. In the case of mediterranean climate there are two additional
evaluations at different times carried out collection data of part of the network.

 UPCI: Nine levels of UPCI are considered baseo on ranges of UPCI value =1, from 1 to
10.

71
 Table 4-6. Climates Definition

Climate
Dry Mediterranean Humid
Factors

Rainy Season < 4 months 4 – 8 months > 8 months

Precipitation Monthly Max.

< 50 mm 50 – 400 mm > 400 mm
(MOP, 2007; Precipitation
Chamorro, 2012)
Annual Mean Monthly
< 20 mm 20 – 200 mm > 200 mm
Precipitation

Temperature
(DGAC & Annual Mean Monthly > 12 °C 8 – 12 °C < 8 °C
DMC,2011)

Selected City Antofagasta Santiago Puerto Montt

4.4.3 Sample Size estimation

Homogeneous sections are defined as segments of pavement in one street with the same conditions.
Two sample units were set to be collected per homogeneous section of pavement, and two more
sample units as replicates in other sections for each factorial cell.
The reason to evaluate replicate sample units in other sections was defined to analyze the
variability of the performance within the parameters that are defined in this research as equivalent
(hierarchies and UPCI).
If all groups are found in the field, a total of 135 sample units complete the factorial per
pavement type and climate to be balanced. However, this factorial design is unbalanced due to the
aim is to collect the real distribution of distresses and UPCI within the networks evaluated.

4.4.4 Methodology for Development of Performance Models

The methodology followed for the development of performance models is presented in Figure 4-3.
This methodology includes the stages followed to perform the data collection and analysis for the
development of the performance models:
1. Experimental Design to Develop Performance Models: An experiment for the development of
the performance models was defined, including the selection of the condition evaluation
methodology; the definition of the dependent and independent variables, the scenarios and
factorial design, and the probabilistic modeling method for the calibration of performance
curves was selected.

72
 Figure 4-3. Data Collection and Analysis Methodology for the Development of Performance
Models

2. Pre-selection: In this stage, the streets to evaluate were selected. This selection was part of the
office work before the field evaluation and included the following steps:
2.1. Definition of Streets to Evaluate: This selection was done based on the functional
classification per type of pavement, information that was provided by the local agencies.
2.2. Factorial Design Filling up with Sections Evaluated for the Development of UPCI: The
sections evaluated in the Development of the UPCI (only Mediterranean Climate) were
considered for this task. These sections were evaluated at four different times during the
research.
3. Sample Unit (SU) Selection: In this stage, the selection of the sample units to be evaluated was
performed, including field and office work.
3.1. Roughness Evaluation: These evaluations were performed with the equipment
Roughometer III (RIII), which measures IRI directly. This task began with the analysis of
the evaluations made with RIII compared with evaluations of the Laser Profiler to ensure
that the measurements are equivalent.

73
 3.2. UPCI Estimation: This task included a quick distress identification that was completed in
parallel with the IRI evaluation, using the windshield sheet (Appendix A). Based on this
identification, the UPCIs were estimated.
3.3. Factorial Design Filled up with Sections Evaluated: With the information of previous
stages, the factorial design was filled up.
3.4. Selection of Homogeneous Sections: More homogeneous sections than necessary were
selected to complete the factorial to have a backup in case that it was required after the
manual evaluations.
3.5. Selection of Sample Units (SMs): Within the homogeneous sections, the sample units were
selected for the posterior evaluations. The size of each SM was the same as the size used
for the development of the UPCI.
4. Network Condition Evaluations: This stage consists of evaluations of SU in the field:
4.1. : Manual data collection: It was performed with the distress evaluation guidelines
developed in previous stage of the research. Use of manual instead of automated data
collection in this task of the research was selected to optimize the financial resources.
4.2. Structural Evaluation: Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) was used to evaluate the
structure.
4.3. Core samples: Samples of the sections were took to know the thickness and type of layers
that conformed the structures.
4.4. Traffic Measurement: Traffic counts of 15 min in peak and non-peak hours were
performed.
5. Pavement Curves Calibration
5.1. UPCI Determination: With the manual data collected and the IRI, UPCIs were determined
with the equations defined in the previous stage of the research.
5.2. Hierarchy Definition: Based on the structural and traffic evaluation, the ranges for each
hierarchy will be defined.
5.3. Performance Curve Development: First, the probability transition matrices (PTMs) were
defined for each scenario considered in the factorial included in the experiment design.
Second, Monte Carlo simulations were performed considering a life cycle of 20 years for
asphalt pavements and 25 years for concrete pavements. Last, the performance models
were developed for each scenario with 75% of the data collected. This was an iterative
process until the final model was completed.
5.4. Recommendations: Finally, recommendations about the use and future calibration of the
curves developed were done. The final models were analyzed and their scope and
limitations were considered.

4.5 Experimental Design for Recommendation of Maintenance Standards

The objective of this experiment is to frame the analysis of treatment effects in the UPCI order to
recommend the maintenance standards for urban pavements.

74
 4.5.1 Variables and Factorial Design Definition

The dependent variables are the UPCI before and after the P&M&R activities. Distress evaluations
were performed before and after P&M&R activities to calculate the UPCI in each case. As the
treatment available in the field to evaluate during the project time frame are few of a long list of
treatment available in the state-of-the-art, historical data from the state-of-the-art and the-practice
was collected and analyzed to complete the factorial design in the case of P&M&R activities that
were not implemented during the research frame time in the network evaluated.
The independent variables in this case are the P&M&R activities. The definition of the P&M&R
activities to be considered in the research were carried out as part of the study, based on the review
of the state-of-the-art-and the practice of suitable technologies for urban pavements.
In Table 4-7 and Table 4-8, the factorial designs that will be used for data collection to study the
effects of different P&M&R treatments in the pavements considered in this research are shown.
The treatments already considered in the tables are the treatments that local agencies apply to
maintain the urban pavements in Chile. Other treatments are considered based on the literature
review and study of projects developed in other places.

Table 4-7. Factorial Design for P&M&R Effects on Asphalt Pavements

Table 4-8. Factorial Design for P&M&R Effects on Concrete Pavements

75
 4.5.2 Methodology for the study of P&M&R Treatment Effects on the UPCI

The methodology defined for the study of the effects of the P&M&R treatments on the UPCI is
shown in Figure 4-4.

Figure 4-4. Methodology for P&M&R Standards Definition

The methodology includes the stages followed to complete the data collection and analysis for this
part of the study:
1. Experimental Design: This task defines the variables included in the analysis and the steps
followed for the data collection and analysis for the study of P&M&R treatment effects.
2. SU Definition: The SU was defined based on the information given by the local agencies about
the section to be maintained during the period of the research. The size of each SU was the
same for the development of the UPCI and performance models.
3. Data Collection:
3.1. Manual Evaluation: It was performed with the same procedure defined in the Development
of UPCI.
3.2. Roughness Evaluation: These evaluations were performed with the equipment
Roughometer III (RIII).
3.3. State-of-the-art and practice Review: The information about P&M&R treatments
performed in from the state-of-the-art and practice was collected.
4. Data Analysis:
76
 4.1. P&M&R Actions Definition: Actions recommended for urban pavement are presented.
4.2. UPCI Determination: With the manual data collected and the IRI, the UPCI was
determined with the equations 1 to 4 defined in section 6.3.
4.3. UPCI Comparison Analysis: The enhancement of the UPCI by each P&M&R treatment
was determined.
4.4. UPCI Thresholds Definition: Were calculated though the analysis of combination of
distresses triggering the P&M&R actions
4.5. Treatments Effects and Service Life Definition: Were defined based on the information
analyzed from field evaluations and the state-of-art-and-the practice.
5. P&M&R Standards Definition: Suitable standards for urban pavements are recommended
based on the analysis of the information analyzed.

4.6 Chapter Summary

Three experimental designs were carried out for the development of the methodologies included in
this thesis research. The reliability of the tools developed in this research relied on the consistency
of the experimental designs presented in this chapter.
Data collection and analysis were conducted based on the variables, factorial designs and
methodologies defined in these experimental designs.
Five data collection campaigns for distress and condition evaluations as well as three data
collection campaigns for FWD evaluation, core sampling and traffic counts are included in these
experimental designs for the development of the tools compromised in the research.

77
 Chapter 5
Data Collection and Processing

In this Chapter are presented the methodologies followed to collect the data in the field and then
process them. In addition, a summary of the data collected is presented.

5.1 Development of Distress Evaluation Guidelines

Distress evaluation guidelines were developed for manual and automated evaluation of urban
pavements. In a first stage, a broad universe of distresses was considered for each type of pavement
based on an extensive review of pavement evaluation protocols (FHWA 2003b; MINVU 1999;
MOP 2010; MTO 1989). In a second stage, distresses were filtered based on field observations
through windshield evaluations and a review of the current state-of-the-practice of urban pavement
management.
The guidelines consider three severity levels, when the magnitude of distresses is not directly
related to the severity of the distress. This is the case of cracking, patch deterioration and joint
damage. In all other cases, severity was associated to the magnitude of the distress (FHWA 2003b;
MOP 2010). Distress severity, magnitude and extent were collected in terms of objective measures
as presented in Table 4-1 to Table 4-3.
Automated data collection was performed to evaluate the following distresses:
 Surface distresses: Evaluated in asphalt and concrete pavements through automated digital
images with the equipment Pave Inspect Uni Survey. Data analysis was analyzed with
semi-automated analysis software (APSA 2004; Chamorro 2004).
 Roughness (IRI): Evaluated in concrete and asphalt pavements, part of the sections with a
laser profiler and all the sections with Roughometer III (RIII). The data was collected
every 10 m with both equipment. The evaluations with the laser profiler were performed
following the ASTM E1926 - 08 (ASTM 2003b).
 Rutting: Evaluated in asphalt pavement with a laser profiler, with data collected every 10
m.

5.2 Validation of Distress Evaluation Guidelines

The repeatability was tested to evaluate the variability of the evaluations performed under the same
conditions. In both types of evaluations, manual and automated, the repeatability was checked for
evaluators and equipment, respectively.
t-Tests for comparison of means was used for this analysis, with 30 segments evaluated twice by
the same rater. The second set of data was undertook a week after the first set. The test was
performed for each type of distress, level of severity and type of pavement for manual and
automated data collection.
78
 The hypothesis test done was the following:
 Null hypothesis, H0: µ1 = µ2, where µ1 y µ2 are the means of each group of evaluations
 Alternative hypothesis, H1: µ1 ≠ µ2
 The null hypothesis is rejected when the p value < 0.05. In this case, the difference
between means is significant.
In the manual evaluations, statistically equivalent replicates were obtained with a 95%
confidence level for all distresses for both pavements, except for the following:
 Shoving, bleeding and polished aggregates for asphalt pavements
 Scaling and polished aggregates for concrete pavements
The reason of poor repeatability of these distresses is that they were observed with low
frequency in the evaluated sections so the rater did not have much experience to assess them.
Likewise, these distresses were not statistically significant within the regression analysis as it can
be note in section ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia..
In the automated evaluations, statistically equivalent replicates were obtained with a 95%
confidence level for surface distresses, roughness and rutting.
The reproducibility analysis was carried out to evaluate the variability between different
evaluators for manual data collection. For automatic data collection, the reproducibility was
assumed from a study previously performed by the company that makes the evaluations.
ANOVA Test for Random Block Design was used for this analysis, considering blocks for the
evaluated segments and treatment for the raters. Analysis of variance was applied for each of the
compared distress measures to determine if the differences between measured distresses were
statistically significant. For this analysis, 20 to 30 segments were evaluated by three and four
raters. This test was performed for each type of distress, severity level, and type of pavement.
Although the raters received training to collect distress data, only some distresses present good
reproducibility with a 95% confidence level. This shows the importance of having experienced
raters, good training and the need of clear guidelines to perform the data collection. For the
evaluations of the sections in this research, evaluators with good reproducibility performed the data
collection.
In the Appendix B is presented the Evaluations Guidelines including the distresses considered in
the UPCI equations presented in section ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia..

5.3 Field Data Processing

Data was collected in each sample unit considering the distresses aforementioned. In addition the
following inventory and reference data was collected: name of street; type of pavement, width,
length and traffic direction of the lane, start and end reference, geographical reference (collected
with GPS).

79
 The distresses were converted to a percentage of evaluated area for statistical analysis, except for
the following distresses, which were used in their original measuring units:
 Rutting for asphalt pavements (mm)
 Faulting for concrete pavements (mm)
 Skid resistance for interlocking pavements (BPN: British Pendulum Number)
 Manholes and catchbasins for all types of pavements (units)
 Roughness (m/Km)
An area of 0.50m deteriorated in both sides of the crack was considered for all types of cracking.
Therefore, 1 m2 of deteriorated area was considered for each meter of cracking.
The representative value for IRI and rutting was the average between the measurements in both
wheel paths.
The distresses with three levels of severity were weighted based on their severities to include in
the regression analysis. The weights are 0.5, 1 and 2 for low, moderate and high severities.
An outlier analysis was performed using Chebyshev’s theorem. This method allows for detection
of multiple outliers, assumes that the data are independent measurements and, that a relatively
small percentage of outliers are contained in the data. Chebyshev's inequality gives a bound of
what percentage of the data falls outside of k standard deviations from the mean. In this research 3
standard deviations were used for the calculation. Data values that were not within the range of the
upper and lower limits were considered as outliers. Outliers were detected and most of them
correspond to erroneous data. All outliers were removed from the data to continue the analysis.
Once the data were processed and outliers removed, 75% of the values were separated for the
calibration and 25% for the validation on both cases, for UPCI and performance models.

5.4 Data Collected for Calibration and Validation of UPCI

5.4.1 Network Evaluated

The network selected for this part of the research comprises the pavements of three municipalities
within Santiago, Chile, with a total extension of 810 Km (MINVU 2008b). The streets within the
network present diverse functional classifications, geometric designs, traffic types and volumes,
pavement structures, foundations and seasonal climate conditions. Three institutions are
responsible for the management of the selected network, namely: municipalities, the regional
government and the Ministry of Housing and Urbanism.
The network presents pavements belonging to six functional classes according to the Ministry of
Housing and Urbanism classification: express, trunk, collector, service, local and passages. The
first two categories comprise the primary network, the third and fourth to secondary network, and
the last two the local network. Traffic volumes can range from 600 to more than 4000 veh/hr for
primary streets, and less than 600 veh/hr for local streets (MINVU 2008a). Structures were

80
designed based on traffic volumes, equivalent axles and types of soils following the structural
design for urban pavements defined by the Ministry (MINVU 2009).
The field evaluation with manual and automated data was performed during June 2012. The data
was collected with the guidelines presented in the Appendix B. The data used in the regression
analysis is presented in Appendix D. Additionally, validation of the UPCI equations was performed
with the data collected for performance models.

5.4.2 Experts Panel Evaluations Analysis

The UPCIOBS of the selected sections was assessed by an expert panel formed by experienced
professionals of academia, private and public sectors. The panel rated each sample unit in terms of
the combined effect of distress types and severities observed in the field in a scale that ranged from
1 to 10, where 1 was the worse condition and 10 the best.
The experts participated to a training session in order to have the same criteria when evaluating
the sections. The main criteria for evaluating the section was the type of maintenance treatment
required for improving the sections to the best condition.
A paired sample t-Test for mean comparison was performed to analyze the equivalence of
UPCIOBS between raters. For all types of pavements it was observed that three experts were
statistically equivalent. The statistical analysis carried out is presented in Appendix C. The average
of UPCIOBS between the equivalent raters for each sample unit was considered in the regression
analysis. The final values used for the regression analyses are presented in Appendix D.

5.4.3 Summary of Data Collected

Approximately 60 asphalt, 90 concrete, and 50 interlocking sample units remained for the
calibration and validation of the UPCI after the outliers elimination. The amount of sample sections
demonstrated to be sufficient to obtain a reliable statistical analysis, considering the sample size
estimation of scenarios presented in 4.3.2. This data processed, used for the regression analysis is
presented in Appendix D. Table 5-1 presents a summary of the data collected for each type of
pavement.
Table 5-1. Quantity of sections evaluated
Sections Evaluated (Number)
Asphalt Concrete Interlocking
Range
Pavements Pavements Pavements
10 - 9 3 8 0
9-8 5 14 1
8-7 3 3 2
7-6 11 23 11
6-5 13 17 18
5-4 11 13 11
4-3 3 6 6
3-2 4 7 0
2-1 1 0 0
81
 Additionally, Table 5-2 and Table 5-4 show how the factorial design for each type of pavement
was filled with the data collected and used in the regression analysis.

Table 5-2. UPCI Factorial Matrix Filled for Asphalt Pavement

Fatigue Cracking
No Yes
Transversal & Reflection Cracking
No Yes No Yes
No 3 6 3
No
Deteriorated Patch

Yes 2 6 4 8
No
No 1
Yes
Potholes

Rutting
Yes 1
No 1 1 1
No
Yes 2 12
Yes
No
Yes
Yes 1 1 1
Combinations Not found

Table 5-3. UPCI Factorial Matrix Filled for Concrete Pavement

Corner and Oblique Breaks

No Yes
Longitudinal Cracking
No Yes No Yes
No 2
No
Yes 2
No
No 1 1
Yes
Yes 13 2 1 1
No
No
Transversal Cracking

No
Deteriorated Patched

Yes
Yes
Seal Damage

No
Yes
Faulting

Yes
No
No
Yes 2 2 1
No
No 1
Yes
Yes 9 13 1 17
Yes
No
No
Yes 1
Yes
No
Yes
Yes 5 5 1 10
Combinations Not found

82
 Table 5-4. UPCI Factorial Matrix Filled for Interlocking Pavement

Cracking and Seal Damage

No Yes

Deteriorated Patch
No 4 8
No

Potholes
Yes 1

No 4 29
Yes
Yes 3
No se enontraron secciones

5.4.4 Power Analysis of Data Collected

The estimation of the power of the data processed for the regression analysis was performed to
analyze how the sample size used for the regression analysis ensure the precision and accuracy of
the regression coefficients.
In this analysis the a Post hoc method was carried out, determining the power (1- β) of the
sample size with the number of samples, a probability error (α) and an effect size (f). The method
implemented by (Erdfelder E. et al. 1996) in the software GPower was applied. This method
assumes the correlation coefficient R2 improves with the addition of predictors (Cohen J. 1988;
Echaveguren T. 2008).
The values assumed for the power analysis were:
 Probability error (α) = 0.05
 Effect size (f) = 0.15 medium effect size by convention (Cohen J. 1988; Echaveguren T.
2008)
 Numerators and Predictors = are the same number for type of pavement and are presented
in Table 5-55.
As a result of this analysis, the power of the sample size for each pavement was obtained as is
presented in Table 5-55. The power resulted for the three cases are low, considering a good power
number above 0.7 (Cohen J. 1988; Echaveguren T. 2008). Further analysis is needed to perform in
order to ensure the power of the sample of UPCI models.

Table 5-5. Results of Power Analysis for Multilinear Regression

Pavement Type Asphalt Concrete Interlocking

Predictors 5 6 3
Sample Size for Calibration 38 61 34
Power 0.35 0.54 0.40

83
5.5 Data Collection for Performance Models Calibration and Validation, and
Maintenance Effect Definition

5.5.1 Network Evaluated

The selection of the network for this development was carried out based on climate conditions and
strategic location of the cities. This selection was decided with authorities of the Ministry of
Housing and Urbanism, who will be one of the main users of the tools developed in this research.
Pavement networks from three Chilean cities were selected, representing each climate included
in the scenarios of the factorial design. The cities locations are presented in Figure 5-1, and their
main characteristics are the following:
 Mediterranean Climate: Santiago, with a population of 5.631.839 hab and area of 69.781
Ha
 Dry Climate: Antofagasta, with a population of 285.255 and area of hab 2.686 Ha
 Humid Climate: Puerto Montt, with a population of: 175.140 and area of hab 2.343 Ha.
Five evaluations of distresses were carried out to obtain the UPCI at different times. The
evaluations were performed during June 2012, January 2013, January 2014, October 2014, and
December 2014. The six-month period between June 2012 and January 2013 was considered to
analyze the effect of the winter season on the evolution of the UPCI. This evaluation was
performed only for Mediterranean climate in Santiago. The evaluations in December 2014 were
also performed only in Santiago for using in the validation process. All the unit samples evaluated
considered for this part of the research where not maintained between evaluations.
The total sample units evaluated per climate region are the following:
 Mediterranean Climate (Santiago): 200 asphalt sample units and 150 concrete sample
units.
 Dry Climate (Antofagasta): 165 asphalt sample units and 10 concrete sample units.
 Humid Climate (Puerto Montt): 35 asphalt sample units and 100 concrete sample units.
 The number of sample sections for obtaining a reliable statistical analysis was sufficient for
asphalt and concrete for Mediterranean climate, asphalt for dry climate, and concrete for
humid climate.
 Data were collected in each sample unit following the Distress Evaluation Guidelines
presented in Appendix B, considering the distresses included in equations 1 and 4 of
section 6.3. The data collected for these conditions are presented in Appendix E.
 Additionally, three field evaluation campaigns were performed to collect data from the
structure with Falling Weight Deflectometer and core sampling, and from traffic with
traffic counts.

84
 Antofagasta - Dry Climate

Santiago - Mediterranean Climate

Puerto Montt - Humid Climate

Figure 5-1 Networks selected for Performance Models Development, Maintenance Effect
Definition and Validations

5.5.2 Summary of Data Collected

The data processed and used for calibration of performance models for each scenario considered in
Chapter 7 is presented in Appendix E.
A summary of data collected for calibration and validation of performance models per pavement
type and climate is presented in Table 5-6 in terms of quantity of sample units and length of the
network represented by those sections.

85
 Table 5-6. Summary of Data Collected for Performance Models

Asphalt Pavements Concrete Pavements

Climate Length Length
Sample units Sample units
Represented (Km) Represented (Km)
Dry 94 28.22 - -
Mediterranean 93 56.19 150 85.65
Humid - - 49 11.87

Additionally, Table 5-7 and Table 5-8 show how the factorial matrices for each type of
pavement, climate and hierarchy were filled with the data collected. These sample units were used
in the calibration and validation of performance models.
Only a few sample units were collected in the cases of asphalt pavement in humid climate and
concrete pavements in dry climate. For this reason the matrices do not present data for these
conditions. In Chapter 7 is presented the analysis performed for these cases.

5.6 Chapter Summary

Evaluation guidelines were developed and satisfactory calibrated thought repeatability analysis of
the evaluations. Further analysis is needed to validate the reproducibility of the guidelines. Training
of the raters is fundamental to improve the reproducibility of the guidelines.
Data collection is presented including the networks evaluated with their main characteristics,
field data processing, summary of data collected in the evaluation campaigns and factorial matrices
filled.

86
 Table 5-7. Factorial Matrix Filled for Asphalt Pavement
S ample S ections of Asphalt Pavement
Climate Dry Mediterranean
UPCI 10 - 9 8.9 - 8 7.9 - 7 6.9 - 6 5.9 - 5 4.9 - 4 3.9 - 3 2.9 - 2 1.9 - 1 10 - 9 8.9 - 8 7.9 - 7 6.9 - 6 5.9 - 5 4.9 - 4 3.9 - 3 2.9 - 2 1.9 - 1
Express 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
Hierarchy

Trunk 5 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 10 2 2 1 0 0 1 1 0
Time 1

Collector 11 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
S ervice 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 4 2 0 1 2 2 0 0
Local 12 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 5 3 0 2 2 0 0
Express 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 8 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 1
Hierarchy

Trunk 9 3 2 0 4 1 5 4 3 10 3 2 0 2 0 0 1 2
Time 2

Collector 12 3 5 3 0 1 2 0 1 5 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 1
S ervice 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 3 2 2 3 1 1
Local 11 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 3 6 3 2 3 1 2 1
Express 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 3 2 0 1 1 1 0 1
Hierarchy

Trunk 4 3 1 1 1 2 5 4 3 9 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 2
Time 3

Collector 7 3 2 4 1 1 0 2 0 4 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 1
S ervice 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 4 3 3 2 1 2 1
Local 4 1 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 7 2 2 3 1 1 2
Sections not found

Table 5-8. Factorial Matrix Filled for Concrete Pavement

S ample Sections of Concrete Pavement
Climate Mediterranean Humid
UPCI 10 - 9 8.9 - 8 7.9 - 7 6.9 - 6 5.9 - 5 4.9 - 4 3.9 - 3 2.9 - 2 1.9 - 1 10 - 9 8.9 - 8 7.9 - 7 6.9 - 6 5.9 - 5 4.9 - 4 3.9 - 3 2.9 - 2 1.9 - 1
Express 5 3 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hierarchy

Trunk 4 10 7 5 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Time 1

Collector 4 7 6 5 9 5 2 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
S ervice 1 5 7 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 4 1 0 0 0
Local 2 8 7 4 8 3 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Express 5 2 3 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hierarchy

Trunk 1 8 8 6 5 2 1 0 0 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
Time 2

Collector 2 5 5 6 2 19 2 1 0 5 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 0
S ervice 1 5 5 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 4 3 2 1 0
Local 2 5 7 4 8 3 4 4 2 0 1 1 3 2 2 0 0 0
Express 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hierarchy

Trunk 1 1 6 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 3 0 3 1 0 1 1 1
Time 3

Collector 0 4 4 5 2 12 3 0 0 2 3 1 1 0 0 2 0 1
S ervice 0 3 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 3 3 1 0
Local 0 3 2 3 9 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 3 3 2 0 0 0
Sections not found

87
 Chapter 6
Calibration and Validation of Urban Pavement Condition Index

This chapter presents the Calibration and Validation of the Urban Pavement Condition Index for
asphalt and concrete pavements considering manual and automatic evaluations.
The results presented in this chapter was presented at the 93th Transportation Research Board
annual meeting, published in the proceeding of the conference and later published in the
Transportation Research Record (Osorio et al. 2014).

6.1 UPCI Calibration

Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to calibrate UPCI equations, between the
UPCIOBS and the distresses evaluated in field. The analyses were carried out separately for asphalt
and concrete pavements, and for manual and automated data, giving a total of four UPCI equations.
Lineal regression was chosen following the example of other indices and presents good results. For
this reason other types of relations were not proof.
The 75% of the data collected was used for the calibration and the 25% for the validation of the
index, for asphalt pavements. In the case of concrete pavements, 67% of the data was used for
calibration and 33% for validation.
The methodology of the regression analysis is presented in Figure 6-1. ANOVA analyses were
applied to evaluate the overall significance of regressions. Two-tailed t-Tests were performed to
analyze the significance of independent variables considered in the analysis. Mean Square Error
(MSE) was estimated as part of ANOVA analyses and used to determine the F and t values. A 95%
confidence level was used for both analyses. Finally, residuals were analyzed to evaluate if the
models fit well the data. All the analyses were carried out with the software IBM SPSS Statistics
20. The results of regression analysis carried out are presented in Appendix F.
The results indicate that the overall significance of regressions was satisfactory for manual and
automated data collected of asphalt pavements and manual data collected of concrete pavements.
Overall significance is satisfactory when F statistic of each regression was higher than the critical F
value.
Independent variables with positive coefficients or low significance in each regression were
eliminated following a stepwise method. This method was carried out based on the p-value of F
(probability of F) using 0.05 as probability to enter a variable and 0.10 as probability to remove a
variable.
The outlier analyses were performed after generating the first regression using the Cook’s
Distance method (Cook, R. D. 1979), which determines the influence points in multiple linear
regressions. The points indicated by this analysis were studied considering technical criteria in

88
order to decide the need of elimination. For example, if a section was indicated as an outlier in this
analysis, the section characteristics, distresses types and quantity, and field observation were
checked to decide if it was necessary to eliminate the outlier. This process was iterative in case of
elimination of outliers, when regressions were developed without the eliminated sections.
The developed equations did not represent the maximum or minimum values of UPCI in cases
where very good or very poor conditions were observed. It is assumed that it was because the raters
were hesitant when evaluating section with extreme conditions (very good or very poor) (Chamorro
et al. 2009a). In order to correct the residuals, the equations were adjusted with the factor of the
maximum of UPCI=10 divided by the intercept of the regression, to obtained the final equations
(UPCIADJ), following the Equation 1.

PCI=10 + ∑( . % istresses) (1)

Figure 6-1. Regression Analysis Methodology

The following modifications to distresses were made to improve the coefficient of determination
and the residuals observed in the regression analysis:
 For asphalt pavements, the effect of transverse and reflection cracking were summed in the
equations as no statistical difference was observed when considering their effect in the
overall condition of the pavements.
 For concrete pavements, the effect of corner and oblique breaks were summed in the
equations. Also, the effect of seal damage and spalling of transverse and longitudinal joints
89
 were combined and renamed as joint damage. The level of spalling observed in a joint was
considered as a criteria to rate distress severity.
Four final equations were obtained with good statistical results. In the case of asphalt pavement, for
manual and automated data collection and for a combination of distresses collected manually with
IRI, whereas in the case of concrete pavements, for manual data collection (Equations 1 to 4):
Asphalt UPCIMANUAL = 10 – 0.038 FC – 0.049 TRC – 0.046 DP – 0.059 R – 0.237 P
(1)
R2 = 0.81; R2ADJ = 0.78; N = 38; Std Error = 0.79
F = 27.95 > Fcrit = 2.51
Asphalt UPCIAUTO = 10 – 0.031 FC – 0.040 TRC – 0.028 DP – 0.082 R – 0.143 IRI
(2)
R2 = 0.94; R2ADJ = 0.93; N = 36; Std Error = 0.48
F = 94.54 > Fcrit = 2.53
Asphalt UPCIMANUAL+IRI = 10 – 0.032 FC – 0.046 TRC – 0.041 DP – 0.057 R – 0.149 IRI
(3)
R2 = 0.85; R2ADJ = 0.83; N = 38; Std Error = 0.70
F = 37.14 > Fcrit = 2.51

Where:
FC: Fatigue cracking (%)
TRC: Sum of transversal and reflection cracking (%)
DP: Deteriorated Patch (%)
R: Rutting in mm, calculated as the average of rutting of segments in the sample unit
P: Potholes (%)
IRI: International Roughness Index in m/km, calculated as the average of roughness of
segments in the sample unit

Concrete UPCIMANUAL =10 – 0.042 LC – 0.025 TC –0.063 DP –0.263 F – 0.038 COB –0.018 JD
(4)
R2 = 0.81; R2ADJ = 0.79; N = 38; Std Error = 1.09
F = 39.48 > Fcrit = 2.27
Where:
LC: Longitudinal cracking (%)
TC: Transversal cracking (%)
DP: Deteriorated Patch (%)
F: Faulting in mm, calculated as the average of faulting of each slab in the sample unit
COB: Sum of corner and oblique breaks (%)
JD: Joint Damage in percentage of the total meters of joins existing in the sample unit
90
 Following the data processing, the cracking and deteriorated patch were weighted based on their
severities before ingress into the equations. The weights for severities are 0.5, 1 and 2 for low,
moderate and severe severity.

6.2 Validation of Urban Pavement Condition Index

Validation was performed with remaining data not considered in the regression analysis. Statistical
analyses considered two-tailed t-Tests for difference in means with a confidence level of 95%. Two
different validations were carried out: an initial validation of each independent equation and a cross
– validation to contrast manual and automated equations for each pavement type.

6.2.1 Validation of Manual and Automated Equations

In this validation the values observed in the field by the Expert Panel (UPCIOBS) were compared
with the calculated UPCI values obtained from distresses and adjusted equations (UPCIADJ).
For manual data collected, the validations of asphalt and concrete pavement equations were
performed with 14 and 25 sections, respectively. The t values were the following:
 t = -5.751 > tcrit (0.025,15)= -2.131 for asphalt pavements
 t = -2.242 >, tcrit (0.025,29)= -2.045 for concrete pavements
Therefore, the equations were successfully validated, where no significant difference was
observed between sample means, as presented in Figure 6-2. As it can be observed, in the case of
asphalt pavements (a) the UPCI model delivers a little higher condition than the UPCIOBS but the
difference is not statistically representative.

(a) (b)

Figure 6-2. Validation of UPCIMANUAL equation for asphalt (a) and concrete (b) pavements

91
 Validation was performed with 15 sections for each type of pavement for automated data. The
equations for both types of pavements were not successfully validated after adjusting the intercepts;
however, the original equations were validated satisfactorily.

6.2.2 Cross – Validation between Manual and Automated Equations

The cross-validation consisted in the statistical comparison of results when using manual data in
manual and automated equations, likewise, when using automated data with both equations. The t
values resulting from the analysis were -4.813 and -5.877, both greater than tcrit (0.025,15) = -
2.131. Therefore, the equations for asphalt pavements were cross-validated successfully as
presented in Figure 6-3 and Figure 6-4. Is can be observed, the manual UPCI equation delivers
values of condition a little higher than the automated equation but the difference is not statistically
representative.

Figure 6-3. Validation of UPCIAsphalt using manual and automated data - Manual Equation

Figure 6-4. Validation of UPCIAsphalt using manual and automated data - Automated
Equation

92
 Both equations can be used with manual and automated data giving equivalent results. As the
automated UPCI include the IRI, this equation is recommended only when IRI values are available.
In other cases, when manual data or automated data without roughness measures is available, the
Manual UPCI equation is recommended. This is supported by the fact that the manual equation
includes potholes, which are not included in the automated equation. In addition, an equation
combining manual collected distresses with IRI values was developed.
The adjusted equations for concrete pavements did not give satisfactory results for the cross-
validation. The main reasons for this are:
 UPCI equation for automated data does not consider the same distresses included in the
UPCI equation for manual data, causing that some distresses are not represented in the
automated equation;
 Possible correlation between independent variables considered in the automated regression
may be affecting the regressions, considering distresses and IRI values;
 Difference in the evaluation methodology between manual and automated data collection
may be affecting the regressions. For example, faulting considered in manual evaluations is
represented by the IRI value in automated evaluations, while manual evaluations consider
faulting evaluations.
Considering the aforementioned reasons, it was concluded that UPCI equations for concrete
pavements considering automated data require further analysis.
The adjusted equations for interlocking pavements were not validated successfully for any type
of data collected. This may be explained by these reasons:
 Possible correlation between independent variables considered in the regression
 The expert panel present high variability in the UPCI observed evaluated in the field.

6.3 Analysis of UPCI Calibrated and Validated

The regressions values obtained had good coefficient of determinations. The detailed statistical
analysis for each case is presented in Appendix F.
The statistic values are presented in Table 6-1 to Table 6-4. In every case, the t values of
variables are higher than the tcrit presenting statistically significance with the exception of potholes
for asphalts but this distress was kept in the UPCI model due to its importance in pavement
behavior.
The coefficients of correlation are also presented, positive correlation means direct correlation
and negative inverse correlation. Between the variables considered on these equations the
coefficients are not high showing weak correlation, with the exception of IRI in the Equation 3,
which shows strong correlation with rutting and also moderate correlation with fatigue cracking.
These are logical results considering that many distresses are usually reflected in IRI values.

93
 Table 6-1. Statistics Values for Equation 1
t Correlation coefficients
Variables
(tcrit = -2.037) FC TRC DP R P
FC -7.402 1.000
TRC -5.116 -0.249 1.000
DP -3.139 0.336 -0.148 1.000
R -2.162 0.066 0.176 0.156 1.000
P -0.499 0.475 0.071 0.120 0.019 1.000

Table 6-2. Statistics Values for Equation 2

t Correlation coefficients
Variables
(tcrit = -2.042) FC TRC DP R IRI
FC -10.696 1.000
TRC -7.227 0.344 1.000
DP -4.06 0.103 0.032 1.000
R -6.104 -0.555 -0.225 -0.058 1.000
IRI -4.381 -0.285 0.076 -0.123 -0.125 1.000

Table 6-3. . Statistics Values for Equation 3

t Correlation coefficients
Variables
(tcrit = -2.037) FC TRC DP R IRI
FC -6.740 1.000
TRC -5.588 -0.249 1.000
DP -3.095 0.336 -0.148 1.000
R -2.319 0.066 0.176 0.156 1.000
IRI -2.979 0.575 -0.038 0.292 0.99 1.000

Table 6-4. . Statistics Values for Equation 4

t Correlation coefficients
Variables
(tcrit = -2.005) LC TC DP F COB JD
LC -5.857 1
TC -4.080 -0.081 1
DP -3.220 0.193 -0.690 1
F -3.616 -0.267 -0.414 0.204 1
COB -2.209 -0.051 -0.365 0.103 0.191 1
JD -2.685 -0.107 -0.279 0.225 0.149 0.221 1

94
 UPCI for both types of pavements included distresses that represent the structural and functional
behavior of urban pavements. All distresses in the equations have a high significance in the
regressions with the t value higher than the t critical value. In addition, distresses with statistical
importance coincide to those observed with high frequency in the field, and were considered as the
most important by the expert panel.
It can be observed that deteriorated patches have an important effect in the UPCI value for all
UPCIs calibrated. This outcome is coherent and consistent to the phenomena observed in urban
pavements, where utility cuts are frequently observed, resulting in low quality patches and high
probabilities of premature deterioration. This conclusion supports the primary hypothesis that
special condition evaluation guidelines and indicators should be developed for urban pavements.
Comparing the UPCI equations for asphalt pavements, the coefficients for cracking in the
UPCIMANUAL are slightly higher than the ones obtained in the UPCIAUTO equation. This can be
explained by the fact that cracking in the semi-automated data analysis present lower severity than
manual evaluations (21). It is observed, however, that in the UPCIAUTO equation, rutting and IRI
coefficients cover the error induced by lower severity cracking. Furthermore, it is assumed that the
rutting and IRI in UPCIAUTO equation also represents the effect of potholes, which is absent in the
automated equation.
In the case of the concrete equation it is shown to have a high coefficient of faulting, which is
due to the use of a different measuring unit, measured in millimeters, than the other distresses in
the equation, which are mostly expressed in terms of percentage of the affected area.
Based on the following technical analysis, distresses with positive coefficient or low significance
in the regression were eliminated from equations:
For asphalt pavements:
 Edge, block, and longitudinal cracking are distresses with very low frequency in the
sample sections evaluated. This makes sense due to the presence of sidewalks in urban
pavements and the absence of treated granular base in the evaluated network.
 Shoving also presents a low frequency because of the use of concrete pavements in areas
with heavy traffic with low speed, such as bus stops and corners in the evaluated network.
 Bleeding, raveling and polished aggregate are distresses with low significance in network
level analysis for urban pavements. These distresses are important for project level
analysis.
For concrete pavements
 Durability cracking and blowups are distresses with very low frequency in the evaluated
sample sections, which is due to the climate condition in the network evaluated
 Map cracking, scaling, polished aggregate and popouts are distresses with low significance
in network level analysis for urban pavements. These distresses are important for project
level analysis

95
 For both pavements
 The effect of curb deterioration, water bleeding and pumping, manholes and catch basins
are represented by other distresses as fatigue cracking and rutting for asphalt, and oblique
cracking and faulting for concrete.
The equations were tested with different values of distresses to check the effect in the UPCI
value, giving coherent results for medium values but not for extreme conditions (high and low
UPCI). It was identified that further analysis is required to define extreme limits for distresses
(maximum or minimum), considering that extreme conditions may affect the calculated condition
with the developed equations.

6.4 Qualitative Scale for UPCI

The determination of a qualitative scale for UPCI was carried out from the analysis of the
qualitative assessments made by the expert panel.
Qualitative assessments were given by five different conditions: Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor
and Very Poor. This evaluation was made separately for primary and secondary network from the
local network.
The analysis developed consisted of the study of frequencies of qualitative scales assigned to
each quantitative note (1 to 10).
The difference in scale between the two types of scales occurs at lower levels, where the
pavements have a bad condition with quantitative ratings between 1 and 4. Therefore, for both
networks it is recommended to adopt a common scale designated as for all types of pavement and
is presented in Table 6-5.

Table 6-5. Qualitative Scale for UPCI

Primary and Secondary Networks Local Network

Pavement Type Pavement Type
UPCI Recommended UPCI Recommended
Asphalt Concrete Interlocking Asphalt Concrete Interlocking
for all types for all types
1 VB VB VB VB 1 VB VB VB VB
2 VB VB VB VB 2 VB VB B VB
3 VB B B B 3 B B B B
4 B B R B 4 R R R R
5 R R R R 5 G G G G
6 R R R R 6 G G G G
7 G G G G 7 G G VG G
8 G G G G 8 VG VG VG VG
9 VG VG VG VG 9 VG VG VG VG
10 VG VG VG VG 10 VG VG VG VG

96
6.5 Comparison of UPCI with ICP and DMI

Two of the indices presented in section 2.2.2 were chosen to compare their results with the UPCI.
The condition of asphalt and concrete pavements sample units were calculated with UPCI models
and compared with the indices ICP - Indicador de Condición de Pavimentos (Dictuc S.A. 2006)
and DMI - Distress Manifestation Index (Chamorro et al. 2009b). These indices were selected for
this comparison due to they were calibrated following similar methodologies with the UPCI for the
data collection and analysis.
In Figure 6-5 is presented the comparison between the UPCI versus the ICP and DMI for asphalt
pavements. It is observed the UPCI delivers higher conditions than ICP and much higher than
DMI. These results are marked for fair and low conditions. This could be due to the limits of
condition assignation between methodologies, which is higher for interurban pavements.
In the case of concrete pavements, the comparison is presented in Figure 6-6. In this figure is
observed the UPCI delivers conditions higher than ICP and lower than DMI. These results when
comparing with the ICP could be the same reason of asphalt pavements. When comparing with the
DMI could be because the UPCI considers different distresses from DMI as the deteriorated patch
that is an important distress for urban pavements.
The models compared could be calibrated for their use in urban pavements but this would imply
the same work as the calibration of a new index customized for urban pavements like the UPCI.

Figure 6-5. Comparison of UPCI Vs. ICP & DMI for Asphalt Pavements

97
 Figure 6-6. Comparison of UPCI Vs. ICP & DMI for Concrete Pavements

6.6 Summary and Recommendations for UPCI use and Urban Pavement
Evaluation Methodology

Four final equations were obtained. In the case of asphalt pavement, for manual and automated data
collection and a combination of distresses collected manually with IRI, whereas in the case of
concrete pavements, for manual data collection
It is recommended that, in the case of application of the developed equations, agencies should
consider the advantages and limitations of assessing the network manually or automatically. The
use of automated UPCI equation for asphalt pavements it is recommended when IRI values are
available. If that is not the case, the Manual UPCI equation considering manual or automated data
is recommended due to it includes the potholes.
In the case of concrete pavements, the UPCIMANUAL equation is recommended for manual or
automated data. However, further research is recommended to be held in order to obtain an
Automated UPCI equation for concrete.
A sensitivity analysis was also performed. The UPCI equations were tested with different
distress values to check the impact over the estimated UPCI. Furthermore, in order to transfer
results of the analysis to the authorities and to the public, and with the aim of capturing the
sensitivity of the methodology, quality values of UPCI related to different network hierarchies
were defined.
Recommendations about the frequency and sampling for pavement condition evaluation are the
following:
 Primary Network: every 2 year, the complete network
 Secondaty Network: every 4 year, the complete network
 Local Network: every 4 year, samples of homogeneous sections
98
 Chapter 7
Development and Validation of Performance Models

This chapter presents the analysis carried out for the development and validation of performance
models. First, the methodology followed is presented. Then, the analysis and results are discussed.
Part of the work presented in this chapter was presented at the 94th Transportation Research
Board annual meeting, and published in the proceeding of the conference (Osorio et al. 2015).

7.1 Hierarchies Analysis

In the first stage, the data collected for asphalt and concrete pavements were separately analyzed by
hierarchies based on the functional classification. The UPCI evolution over time within the
hierarchies exhibited high variability with illogical patterns. These results can be explained by real
pavement demands, which in some cases are designed for particular hierarchy characteristics, but
the real use of the road in terms of traffic loads does not always correspond to the design.
Pavement design standards in Chile define levels minimum levels of equivalent axles for
functional classification. However, functional classification of streets is not defined by the demand
of structure for traffic loads support but for the strategic importance of them within the network.
Table 7-1 summaries the variability of structure and trucks traffic for each functional classification.
This information was obtained from FWD evaluations, core samples and traffic counts.

Table 7-1. Distribution of Structure and Traffic within Functional Classification

Functional Thickness
Trucks AADT
Classification (mm)
Express 57 - 203 1161 - 11709

Troncal 54 - 180 196 - 14330

Colector 50 - 145 1511 - 4941

Service 42 - 152 123-10183

Local 47 - 187 94 - 1042

For the reason aforementioned, hierarchies based on functional classification was used with the
classification grouped in the following networks:
 Primary Network for Express and Troncal classification
 Secondary Network for Colector and Service classification
 Local Network for local streets and passages

99
 These network classifications were used only for Mediterranean climate due to the information
about sections with dry and humid climate was not enough to make this analysis.
Additionally, a comparative analysis was performed between the real equivalent axles
demanding the sections and the equivalent axles admitted by their structures. The real equivalent
axles were calculated with the traffic counts data. The admitted equivalent axles were determined
through the structural design standards, with the data collected about the structure thickness and
strength from the FWD evaluations and core samples.
Results of this analysis showed two different scenarios for Mediterranean climate network for
asphalt and concrete pavements: (1) sections where the traffic demand maintains within the range
of the structure capacity, and; (2) sections where the traffic demand exceeds the structure capacity.
In the analysis of dry climate for asphalt pavements and humid climate for concrete pavements, not
enough information was available to make this analysis possible.
These scenarios could be used for Mediterranean climate when information about traffic and
structures is available; when not, the other scenarios will be easy to use based on the functional
classification.

7.2 Climate Effect

Data collected for asphalt pavement in humid climate and concrete pavement in dry climate was
not enough to calibrate the models; however the data of the Mediterranean climate was used to
simulate the performance in the other climates.
The seasonal variations in the Mediterranean climate are similar to the related to other climates,
presenting a winter season with mean monthly precipitation greater than 200 mm, which can be
associated with humid climate; and a summer season with mean monthly precipitation less than 20
mm, comparable to dry climate (Chamorro and Tighe 2011). Therefore, the effects in UPCI after
winter and after summer were analyzed as the expected for humid and dry climate, respectively.
For humid climate, the slopes of the UPCI deterioration trend after winter were analyzed,
comparing the evaluations performed before and post winter season (June 2012 and January 2013).
For dry climate, the differences between the total deterioration during one-year period and the
winter period were considered.
Based on the mean value of slopes, the deterioration trends were determined. The deterioration
trend of asphalt pavement in humid climate is represented by the 15th percentile of the simulated
data of Mediterranean climate; as well as concrete pavement in dry climate is represented by the
75th percentile.

7.3 Calibration of Performance Models

Markov chains with Monte Carlo Simulations were applied for the development of the performance
models. The basic principle of Markov chains is to determine Transition Probability Matrices
(TPMs) that reflect the future condition of a pavement section that is subject to an initial condition
stage (Chamorro and Tighe 2011). These matrices were developed with the data collected in the
100
field during the study period for each scenario considered using the proportions technique (Tjan, A.
and Pitaloka, D. 2005).
TPMs were performed considering nine ranges of UPCI: from 1 to 1.9 to 9 to 10. The TPMs
represent the proportion of pavements that vary from an initial condition i to a future condition j
during a one-year period, given the total length for each state i. The sum of each row yields 100 %.
The following step was the definition of the Cumulative Probability Matrices (CPMs). These
matrices were created based on the TPMs, by summing the probabilities for each initial condition,
namely, by summing the probability j per row.
Examples of the TPM and CPM developed in the research are presented in Table 7-2 and Table
7-3. All the TPM and CPM developed are presented in Appendix G.
The following assumptions were made for the development of the TPM and CPM in order to
make the simulation possible:
 The sections that present an UPCI higher than the last year were eliminated from the
analysis
 All sections of the lower range (1.99 – 1.00) remains in this condition
 In ranges of conditions without data available, all sections will be in the range below in the
next year
 When all sections present a future condition equal to the current condition, 90% was kept
in the current condition and 10% moved to the future condition
 Monte Carlo simulations were performed to obtain the deterioration models. The
simulations were performed considering 25 years. A total of 1,000 trials were simulated
by random numbers between 0% and 100%. One trial is considered to be a set of 25
random numbers. Each random number represents the cumulative probability that a
pavement section with condition i will exhibit condition j after one year of distress
progression.

Table 7-2. TPM for Asphalt Pavement Mediterranean Climate Primary Network

Current Future Condition j

Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 89 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 43 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 0 47 53 0 0 0 0 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 23 53 0 23 0 0 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 82 18 0 0 0 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101
 Table 7-3. CTM for Asphalt Pavement Mediterranean Climate Primary Network

Current Future Condition j

Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 89 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 43 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 0 47 100 100 100 100 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 23 77 77 100 100 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 82 100 100 100 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

The simulation for each trial begins by considering a new pavement section with a UPCI value
of 10. Then, the UPCI of this pavement section after a one-year period is determined by
introducing the first random number of the trial in the CPMs. This number is verified from left to
right in the first row of the CPM (condition from 10 to 9); the first cumulative probability that
exceeds the random number is the point to stop; the condition j of that column corresponds to the
pavement section after one year of distress deterioration.
The second random number is introduced in the row of new condition determined in the previous
step. Then, the condition j after a second year of distress deterioration corresponds to the column of
the first cumulative probability that exceeds the random number. This iteration is repeated for the
25 random numbers of the trial. The simulation ends after the 1,000 trials are simulated.
Once the conditions for all trials were determined, the trends were linearized within each
condition range given that the CPMs are defined for a range of UPCI. The slope of the
deterioration trend was considered -1/(n+1), where n is the number of repeated conditions within a
range.
Finally, the models are obtained by the mean of the data simulated and linearized.
As a result of the analyses, fourteen performance models were calibrated from the probabilistic
analysis of the field data and the simulation process aforementioned. The curves of these models
are presented in Figure 7-1 to Figure 7-14, representing different combination of climate, pavement
type, traffic and structure.
In these graphs, the representative value is the mean of the data simulated and the 25th and 75th
percentile are also showed as the range of variation of each model. This range for asphalt pavement
in humid climates and concrete pavements in dry climates is not presented because these models
were obtained by percentiles of the Mediterranean climate.

102
Figure 7-1. Performance Model Asphalt Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-Primary Network

Figure 7-2. Performance Model Asphalt Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-Secondary

Network

103
Figure 7-3. Performance Model Asphalt Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-Local Network

Figure 7-4. Performance Model for Asphalt Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-TD ≤ SC

104
Figure 7-5. Performance Model for Asphalt Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-TD > SC

Figure 7-6. Performance Model Concrete Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-Primary

Network

105
Figure 7-7. Performance Model Concrete Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-Secondary Network

Figure 7-8. Performance Model Concrete Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-Local Network

106
Figure 7-9. Performance Model Concrete Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-TD ≤ SC

Figure 7-10. Performance Model Concrete Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-TD > SC

107
Figure 7-11. Performance Model for Asphalt Pavement-Dry Climate

Figure 7-12. Performance Model for Concrete Pavement-Dry Climate

108
Figure 7-13. Performance Model for Asphalt Pavement-Humid Climate

Figure 7-14. Performance Model for Concrete Pavement-Humid Climate

109
7.4 Performance Models Adjustments

An important process of the calibration of performance models was the adjustments made with data
collected and the probabilistic analysis. This process was an iterative analysis, which has included
the following activities:
 Regroup data collected in factorials designs and recalibrate in terms of hierarchies:
Hierarchies analysis comprised the classification of data in terms of AADT and Structure.
As mentioned above, this classification gave high variability of the UPCI evolution over
time with illogical patterns within the hierarchies. Finally, an analysis of the relation
between the traffic demand and structural capacity was performed to classify the data
collected for the probabilistic analysis.
 Service life forced to performance life: The service life was forced to end based on trend
observed in curves and design age. This analysis was needed because the process of
linearization always ends at 25 years period.
 Recalibration with back simulation: This analysis was carried out to compare the results of
probabilistic analysis going from the end of the service life to the beginning. It did not gave
better results than the forward simulation.
 Recalibration with Cumulative Probability immediately bellows random number: This
recalibration was performed to compare the results of Markov chains with the random
number below that the usually use in the method. The results were not better than the
traditional method.
 Analysis of probability distribution in TPMs related to distresses: The analysis of distresses
triggering values in probability distribution of TPMs was performed to understand the
cases presenting simulation problems.
As a result of this adjustment process, the performance models presented in the previous sections
were obtained.

7.5 Performance Models Validation

The validation of performance models was performed with 25% of the collected data. t-Tests for
comparison of means of the UPCI calculated by the model and the UPCI evaluated in the field
were performed considering a one-tailed distribution with a confidence level of 95%.
In the case of Mediterranean climate, the validation was also performed with data collected
months after the data used for the calibration of the models to validate the use of the models for
extrapolation over time.
Table 7-4 presents the statistic values resulted from the t-test analysis. The models for asphalt
pavement in Mediterranean and dry climate and concrete pavements in Mediterranean and humid
climate were validated successfully.

110
 Table 7-4. Statistics Values from Performance Models Validation

Climate Pavement Network tcrit t p value

Primary 1.7247 0.1938 0.4241
Secondary 1.7340 0.2908 0.3873
Asphalt Local 1.7056 -0.2103 0.4175
Traffic demand ≤ Structure Capacity 2.0106 -0.1364 0.4460
Traffic demand > Structure Capacity 2.2281 0.2103 0.4188
Mediterranean
Primary 1.6820 -0.0561 0.4777
Secondary 1.6829 0.1760 0.4306
Concrete Local 1.7341 -0.1142 0.4551
Traffic demand ≤ Structure Capacity 1.9853 -0.1247 0.4505
Traffic demand > Structure Capacity 2.1604 -0.0210 0.4918
Dry Asphalt Global 1.6698 0.0839 0.4669
Humid Concrete Global 2.0369 0.3688 0.3574

The models for asphalt pavement in humid climate and concrete pavement in dry climate were
not validated due to these models were estimated from data evaluated in Mediterranean climate.
The validation of these models is recommended for future studies.
Figure 7-15 to Figure 7-18 present the comparison between the UPCI evaluated in the field and
the UPCI calculated by each model.
The general trend for asphalt pavement is that the UPCI evaluated is a little higher than the UPCI
calculated with the models, more accentuated for the primary network.
In the case of concrete pavement, the UPCI evaluated is a little lower than the UPCI calculated
with the performance models, mainly for the secondary network and the case of Traffice Demand >
Structural Capacity.
In addition, future studies are recommended to validate the models in the following cases:
 In the ranges with no data available in this research, for example lower values of UPCI
in the cases of local network and Traffic Demand > Structural Capacity for asphalt
pavements and almost all the case but Traffic Demand ≤ Structural Capacity for
concrete pavements.
 In the cases where a few data was available for validation, for example Primary
Network and Traffic Demand > Structural Capacity for asphalt pavements, and Traffic
Demand > Structural Capacity for concrete pavements.

111
Figure 7-15. UPCI Evaluated Vs. UPCI Calculated Asphalt Pavement-Mediterranean
Climate

Figure 7-16. UPCI Evaluated Vs. UPCI Calculated Asphalt Pavement-Dry Climate

112
Figure 7-17. UPCI Evaluated Vs. UPCI Calculated Concrete Pavement-Mediterranean
Climate

Figure 7-18. UPCI Evaluated Vs. UPCI Calculated Concrete Pavement-Humid Climate

113
7.6 Main Findings and Recommendations for the use of performance models

Markov chain and Monte Carlo Simulations were carried out for the development of the
performance models. Finally, fourteen performance models were developed for different
combination of climate, pavement type, traffic and structure. Twelve of them were successfully
validated. The timeframe of pavement life cycle considered for the models development was 25
years.
The technique of Markov chain facilitates the analysis of the deterioration trend with only two
points of the curve condition over time. This was a huge benefit to simulate the pavement
performance within the timeframe of the research. Based on the work of the calibration with this
method, it can be concluded that the distribution of proportion within the Transition Probability
Matrices is a key aspect for the calibration of models; therefore, a good representation of the
network is important to obtain realistic results.
In the Figure 7-19 is presented the comparison of models resulted for asphalt pavements in
Mediterranean climate. It can be observed that the Primary Network for asphalt pavements is
consistent with the design of 20 years as well as the shape of the deterioration curve follows an
expected form. The Secondary Network shows more rapid deterioration than expected, apparently
because the streets within this classification could be sub dimensioned for the real demand. On the
contrary, the Local network presents a low deterioration rate and this behavior could be due to over
dimensioned of the streets.
Considering the models resulted from the analysis of the design, when the traffic demand
remains within the structural capacity of the pavement, the UPCI deterioration over time is slower,
resulting in a service life of 25 years. However, when the traffic demand exceeds the structural
capacity the deterioration over time is steeper. This results in a service life of approximately 16
years, which means 9 years less than the first case. These performance models are recommended to
use when information about traffic and structure is available. On the contrary, the models
developed based on the functional classification networks are recommended.

114
 Figure 7-19. Performance Models Asphalt Pavement – Mediterranean Climate

The models resulted for concrete pavement in Mediterranean climates is presented in Figure
7-20. It is observed that Primary and Secondary networks show similar performance with a service
life of 25 and 21 years. On the other hand, the Local Network presents very low deterioration rate.
In the case of the design analysis, the deterioration trend does not present big differences within
the two conditions analyzed as it can be observed. This phenomenon can be explained by the fact
that when traffic demands exceeds structural capacity for concrete pavements the difference is not
very extreme as occurs in the case of asphalt pavements. Also, it can be observed that the model
curve when the traffic demand exceeds the structure capacity after UPCI = 4, the deterioration
trend is slower than the other cases. This is explained by the distribution of the sections with poor
UPCI in this case.
Therefore, for concrete pavements is recommend the use of the models calibrated based on the
functional classification networks.

115
 Figure 7-20. Performance models Concrete Pavement–Mediterranean Climate

The performance models calibrated for asphalt pavement in dry and humid climates are
presented in Figure 7-21. In the case of dry climate presents slow deterioration between UPCI 10 to
8; then, the deterioration trend is accelerated dropping down from UPCI 8 to 3 in only 6 years;
being the total life cycle of 15 years. In the case of humid climate, the deterioration curve is steeper
presenting a loose in the UPCI of 1 value/year. However, both models present a shorter service life
than their design.
In the Figure 7-22 is presented the comparison of performance models for concrete pavements in
dry and humid climates. In the case of humid climate, the deterioration trend presents a gently
slope, dropping down from ICPU 10 to 6 in approximately 16 year of service live, achieving 25 of
life cycle. In dry climate, the total service life is also 25 year but it presents a deterioration more
accelerated than humid climate between UPCI 8.5 to 4.

116
 Figure 7-21 Performance Models Asphalt Pavement – Mediterranean and Dry Climate

On the contrary of what is expected for humid climate, the behavior presented is a consequence
of the construction standards and maintenance policies, noticed in interviews carried out with
agencies of both regions. This result is coherent with the observations of pavement condition in the
field.

Figure 7-22 Performance Models Concrete Pavement – Mediterranean and Humid Climate

Based on performance models obtained the following conclusions are made about the impacts of
climate, traffic and structure: The relation between the traffic demand and the structural capacity
117
has high impact in asphalt pavements deterioration, but low impact in concrete pavements; the
climate presents low impact in asphalt pavements comparing global models for Mediterranean and
dry climates; however, high impact in concrete pavements. In this latter behavior not only the
climate effect is impacting but the construction standards and maintenance policies difference,
noticed in interviews carried out with agencies of both regions.
An important recommendation for all the models calibrated in this research is the calibration and
validation over time with data collected in the next years in order to retrofit the models with real
condition pavement data and improve the deterioration simulation.
Finally, is recommended as future research the calibration and validation of performance models
including sections with maintenance activities in order to analyze their performance over time.

118
 Chapter 8
Preservation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation Standards

This chapter presents the P&M&R Standards, which includes the selection of suitable P&M&R
treatments for urban pavements, application thresholds in terms of UPCI, effects on the pavement
condition, and the maximum UPCI reachable with each action.
Although, the performance models presented in the previous chapter were not developed for
different hierarchies, P&M&R Standards are defined for three hierarchies based on streets
functional classification: primary (express and troncal streets), secondary (colectors and service
streets) and local (local streets and passages).

8.1 Definition of Maintenance Actions for Urban Networks

The definition of the following maintenance actions was performed considering the extend review
of current practices of preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation treatments. A summary of
maintenance treatments with their characteristics are presented in Appendix I.

8.1.1 Asphalt Pavements

Table 8-1 presents the use of each of them for hierarchy classification.

Table 8-1. Summary of Maintenance Actions selected for Hierarchy – Asphalt Pavements

Hierarchy
Type of actions P&M&R actions
Primary Secondary Local
Crack Sealing   
Pothole Repair   
Fog Seal  - -
Preservation Slurry seal  - -
Seal Coat  - -
Microsurfacing   -
Functional resurfacing   
Hot In-Place Recycling   -
Maintenance Cold In-Place Recycling   -
Structural Resurfacing   
Rehabilitation Reconstruction   

The maintenance actions for asphalt pavements are described below, grouped based on their type of
maintenance. In addition, the Appendix J presents the references of construction standards used in
Chile for the treatments selected.

119
 8.1.1.1 Preservation

 Crack Sealing
Crack sealing consists of the use of asphalt to seal certain cracks in asphalt pavements for the
purpose of minimizing the infiltration of water and the oxidization of the asphalt. This procedure is
effective for the treatment of localized cracks of medium to high severity (MINVU 2008a).
 Pothole Repair
Potholes repair encompasses the repair of potholes and the replacement of localized areas that
are deteriorated, provided that this effort is limited to the asphalt layer while the gravel and other
layers are in good condition (MINVU 2008a).
 Fog Seal
A fog seal consists of a diluted asphalt emulsion that is applied to rejuvenate the pavement
surface and thus avoid the loss of aggregate in the asphalt layer (Hicks et al, 2000; Kraemer et al,
2005). These seals are applied when the pavement displays initial signs of wear, such as mild
superficial cracking, slight loss of asphalt concrete at the surface, or superficial discoloration of the
asphalt characterized by a gray tone (MINVU 2008a; MOP 2014).
 Slurry seal
A slurry seal is a mixture of well-graded fine aggregate, mineral filler (if necessary), asphalt
emulsion, and water. It is applied to a pavement as a surface treatment (MINVU 2008a).
Similarly to the fog seal, slurry seals can be applied to seal cracks and fissures. Slurry seals can
also be applied to stop superficial pavement deterioration and to improve friction between the
pavement and automobile tires (MINVU 2008a; MOP 2014).
The application of the slurry seal requires the preparation of the surface, sealing of existing
cracks and filling of existing potholes.
 Seal Coat
The seal coat is a type of surface treatment consisting of a tack coat (composed of a normal or
modified asphalt emulsion) followed by a layer of monogranular aggregate (MINVU 2008a).
If the tack coat and a single application of gravel are applied, it is called a single surface
treatment (single chip seal). If two applications of gravel are performed with aggregates of
decreasing grain size, then it is called a double surface coating (double chip seal) (Gransberg and
James 2005; Kraemer et al. 2004).
Initially, these treatments were applied as a wearing course on unpaved roads with low traffic.
However, in recent years, their application has been extended to maintenance actions on pavements
with high and low levels of traffic (Gransberg and James 2005). Their application as a conservation
treatment seals the pavement surface, stops surface deterioration, and improves surface friction
(Gransberg and James 2005; Hicks et al. 2000; MINVU 2008a; MOP 2014).
The application of the seal coat requires the preparation of the surface by sealing existing cracks
and repairing existing potholes.
120
  Microsurfacing
Microsurfacing contains the same components as a slurry seal except that the emulsion in
microsurfacing is modified with polymers and the gravel is of better mechanical quality. Therefore,
this technique is commonly used on important roads (MINVU 2008a).
There are identified three characteristics of micro-surfacing that differentiates it from slurry seals
(Gransberg 2010): it always contain polymers; the curing of the emulsion is faster so that the road
can be placed back in service in a shorter period of time; and layers thicker than the maximum size
of the gravel are available.
This treatment is applied to asphalt pavements with a certain degree of aging (oxidization), for
example, rutting and a loss of surface gravel. In addition, microsurfacing allows for the correction
of small surface irregularities and improves the friction (Gransberg 2010).
It was decided to include this treatment as a maintenance action for preservation, based on its
successful application in countries such as Spain, the United States and Canada (Avilés Lorenzo
2002; Chan et al. 2011; Hicks et al. 2000).
The Spanish standard (TAC 2013) limits the application of MICROF 5 micro-surfacing to a
single layer with a thickness usually no greater than 1.5 cm. The common practice in the U.S. is to
apply a maximum thickness of two to three times the maximum size of the gravel being used
(Gransberg 2010). For a Type II pavement, this practice would limit the thickness of the treatment
to a maximum between 1 and 1.5 cm. Based on these considerations, a micro-surfacing thickness
of 1.5 cm is considered in this research.
Based on U.S. and Canadian recommendations (Caltrans 2009; TAC 2013), which recommend
microsurfacing with fine granulometry for applications on urban pavements, Type B-1 of Chilean
standard is considered in this research (MOP 2014). This microsurface is equivalent to Type II of
the U.S. norm (Gransberg 2010) and to MICROF 5 of the Spanish standard (MFE 2011).
Microsurfacing requires prior preparation of the surface by sealing cracks and filling potholes.
 Functional resurfacing
Functional resurfacing consists of the replacement of the upper asphalt layer with a hot asphalt
mixture (MOP 2014). This treatment improves the condition of the pavement surface, although it
does not increase its structural capacity.
Given that this resurfacing raises the height of the road, it is advisable to first mill the surface.
The milling consists of wearing away the pavement surface to restore the road level (MINVU
2008a). The milling reduces the pavement thickness, thereby leaving a scarified surface that serves
as a base for the resurfacing (MINVU 2008a; MOP 2014). The milling ensures that the resurfaced
pavement level will be the same as that before the treatment.
In this research work, it is assumed that sections in the Primary and Secondary network will be
milled before the functional resurfacing. However, the pavements of the Local network will not be
milled, thus reducing expenses for this treatment.

121
 8.1.1.2 Maintenance

 Hot In-Place Recycling

Hot in-place recycling consists of the softening of the existing asphalt pavement by applying
heat and then removing the asphalt through mechanical means. This material is mixed with virgin
asphalt and aggregate, thus creating a new wearing course to replace the pavement that was
removed (Hicks et al. 2000; TAC 2013).
This treatment is applied when the pavement is highly deteriorated, with symptoms such as
detachment of the gravel, secretion, cracks and rutting (TAC 2013).
This treatment it has been considered in the research to include more environmentally friendly
alternatives.
 Cold In-Place Recycling
Similar to Hot In-Place and cold recycling uses material from an existing asphalt pavement to
create a new wearing course. However, in this case, there is no need to heat the existing pavement
for its reuse. Instead, the material is mechanically removed from the pavement in such a way that it
can be reused (Thenoux and Garcia 1999).
This treatment is applied to pavements in poor condition and displaying severe levels of
cracking, rutting or other deteriorations, thus improving their structural capacities (TAC 2013).
 Structural Resurfacing
Structural resurfacing is similar to the functional resurfacing treatment except that it is thicker to
improve the structural capacity of the pavement.
Because structural resurfacing tend to be considerably thick, in this research it has been assumed
that the treatment requires the prior milling of the surface for all hierarchies of the networks.
Therefore, the pavement elevation will be the same before and after the treatment.

8.1.1.3 Rehabilitation

 Reconstruction
Reconstruction is a technique in which the old pavement is removed and replaced by a new one.
In a few instances, the existing pavement is kept, but the structural calculations do not include its
contribution (MOP 2014).

8.1.2 Concrete Pavements

Table 8-2 presents the proposed maintenance actions for concrete pavements based on hierarchy
classification.
Below, it is described the P&M&R actions for concrete pavements, where they are grouped
based on the type of conservation. Furthermore, the Appendix J presents the references of
construction standards used in Chile for the treatments selected.

122
 Table 8-2. Summary of Maintenance Actions selected for Hierarchy – Concrete Pavements

Hierarchy
Type of actions P&M&R actions
Primary Secondary Local
Crack and joint sealing   
Corner Breaks Repair   
Preservation Diamond Grinding   -
Thin Asphalt Overlay   -
Bonded Concrete Overlay   -
Crack and Joint Stitching   
Maintenance Full-Depth Slab Repair   
Structural Resurfacing   
Rehabilitation Reconstruction   

8.1.2.1 Preservation

 Crack and joint sealing

Keeping joints and cracks sealed is fundamental for achieving the expected useful life of the
pavement. For a seal to work properly, it is necessary that the joints and cracks do not undergo
significant relative vertical displacements (MINVU 2008a).
 Corner Breaks Repair
Repairs of corners breaks areas are particularly important at the edges of longitudinal or
transversal joints. For this purpose, the concrete in the deteriorated area is removed and new
concrete is put in place (MINVU 2008a).
 Diamond Grinding
Diamond grinding of concrete pavements reduces irregularities, thereby improving the quality of
their service and extending their useful life. This procedure increases the friction between tires and
the pavement, and eliminates irregularities created by steps at joints and by deformations due to
thermal gradients or construction procedures (MINVU 2008a; MOP 2014).
This treatment does not increase the structural capacity of the pavement, but by minimizing the
dynamic effects of loads it allows the structure to withstand a greater number of loading cycles
during the rest of its useful life (MOP 2014).
It requires to be applied together with crack and joints sealing, and corner breaks repair.
 Thin Asphalt Overlay
Asphalt overlay for concrete pavements is the same as Functional resurfacing for asphalt
pavements described above but without the milling process.

123
  Bonded Concrete Overlay
Bonded concrete overlay consists of the placement of a thin concrete wearing course, with a
thickness of 50 to 125 mm, on top of the existing concrete after it has been treated with Diamond
Grinding to ensure adherence. The slabs used in this treatment are squares measuring 0.60 to 1.00
m on a side. It is important that the joints of the recoating coincide with those of the existing
pavement (TAC 2013).
Because the application of this type of recoating increases the height of the road and because
adherence must be ensured, the prior diamond grinding treatment on the surface is considered.

8.1.2.2 Maintenance

 Crack and Joint Stitching

Crack and Joint Stitching is a treatment that repairs longitudinal, meandering and non-working
transverse cracks and longitudinal joints. There are two crack stitching methods: cross stitching and
slot stitching. The first is done by drilling diagonally through the slab across the crack or joint and
inserting tie bars. The latter, uses cuts similar to dowel bar retrofit to install tie bars across any
cracks or longitudinal joints (TAC 2013).
Stitching prevents widening of cracks and joints. Narrow cracks maintain aggregate interlock,
reduce the potential of faulting, and are easier to seal. Good candidates for stitching are pavements
in good conditions were cracks and joints show signs of slab migration. If longitudinal cracks and
joints perform well simply by sealing them, then it is not necessary (TAC 2013). For this reason,
this treatment is considered as a maintenance rather than preservation action.
 Full-Depth Slab Repair
Full-depth slab repair consists of removing loose material from concrete pavement that exhibits a
high degree of cracking and deterioration (MOP 2014; TAC 2013). Once this material has been
removed and the surface is cleaned, fresh concrete is poured on top of the surface.
 Structural Resurfacing

8.1.2.3 Rehabilitation

 Reconstruction
Reconstruction is a technique in which the old pavement is removed and replaced with a new
one. The existing pavement is occasionally left in place, but its contribution is not included in the
structural calculations (MOP 2014).

124
8.2 Definition of Maintenance Application Ranges and Effect on UPCI

Each maintenance action must be applied to pavements of a certain condition range (UPCI) in
order to obtain optimal results and so that maximum improvement of the pavement condition is
achieved.
The definition of UPCI ranges for the application of maintenance actions and the effect on the
UPCI was carried out based on:
 Information of distresses that each maintenance treatment fixes: The information includes
the type of action, effect in the condition, recommendation of application in term of
distresses and thresholds, cost, etc. (See Appendix I).
 Analysis of distresses combination for UPCI ranges: As the maintenance actions found in
the state-of-the-art are recommended in terms of particular distresses, an analysis of UPCI
variation based on the combination of distresses was performed to define the ranges of
application in terms of UPCI.
 Effect of some actions observed in field evaluations: All the maintenance actions evaluated
in the field improved the conditions of the sections at the maximum condition of UPCI=10,
due to all the maintenance actions evaluated included overlays.
The values of these ranges are presented in Table 8-3 for asphalt pavements and Table 8-4 for
concrete pavements.

Table 8-3. P&M&R Actions Applicability Range – Asphalt Pavements

Applicability Range – UPCI

P&M&R Actions
Primary Network Secondary Network Local Network
Crack Sealing 9–8 8.5 – 7.5 7.5 – 6
Pothole Repair 9–8 8.5 – 7.5 7.5 – 6
Fog Seal 9.5 – 8.5 - -
Slurry seal 8.5 – 7.5 - -
Seal Coat 8.5 – 7.5 - -
Microsurfacing 8–7 7.5 – 6.5 -
Functional resurfacing 8 – 6.5 7.5 – 6 7.5 – 6
Hot In-Place Recycling 7.5 – 5.5 7–5 -
Cold In-Place Recycling 7.5 – 5.5 7–5 -
Structural Resurfacing 7 – 4.5 6.5 – 4 6 – 3.5
Reconstruction 4.5 – 1 4–1 3.5 – 1

125
 Table 8-4. Maintenance Actions Applicability Range – Concrete Pavements

Applicability Range – UPCI

P&M&R Action
Primary Network Secondary Network Local Network
Crack and joint sealing 9–8 8.5 – 7.5 8–6
Corner Breaks Repair 9–8 8.5 – 7.5 8–6
Diamond Grinding 8–7 7.5 – 6.5 -
Thin Asphalt Overlay 8–7 7.5 – 6.5 -
Bonded Concrete Overlay 8–7 7.5 – 6.5 -
Crack and Joint Stitching 7 – 4.5 6.5 – 4 6 – 3.5
Full-Depth Slab Repair 7 – 4.5 6.5 – 4 6 – 3.5
Structural Resurfacing 7 – 4.5 6.5 – 4 6 – 3.5
Reconstruction 4.5 – 1 4–1 3.5 – 1

Table 8-5 and Table 8-6 show the values defined for asphalt and concrete pavements,
respectively.

Table 8-5. Effects on the UPCI and Maximum UPCI achieved – Asphalt Pavement

Effects on the UPCI / maximum UPCI achieved

P&M&R Action
Primary Network Secondary Network Local Network
Crack Sealing 0.5 / 9.5 0.5 / 9.0 0.5 / -
Pothole Repair 0.75 / 9.5 0.75 / 9.0 0.75 / -
Fog Seal 0.5 / 9.5 - -
Slurry seal 1.3 - -
Seal Coat 1.5 - -
Microsurfacing 2.0 / 9.75 2.0 / 9.75 -
Functional resurfacing 2.5 / 10.0 2.5 / 10.0 2.5 / 9.5
Hot In-Place Recycling 4.5 / 10.0 4.5 / 10.0 -
Cold In-Place Recycling 4.5 / 10.0 4.5 / 10.0 -
Structural Resurfacing 5.5 / 10.0 5.5 / 10.0 5.5 / 10.0
Reconstruction 9.0 / 10.0 9.0 / 10.0 9.0 / 10.0

126
 Table 8-6. Effects on the UPCI and Maximum UPCI achieved – Concrete Pavement

Effects on the UPCI / maximum UPCI achieved

P&M&R Action
Primary Network Secondary Network Local Network
Crack and joint sealing 0.5 / - 0.5 / - 0.5 / -
Corner Breaks Repair 1.25 / - 0.75 / - 0.75 / -
Diamond Grinding 2.5 / 9.75 2.5 / 9.75 -
Thin Asphalt Overlay 2.5 / 9.75 2.5 / 9.75 -
Bonded Concrete Overlay 2.5 / 9.75 2.5 / 9.75 -
Crack and Joint Stitching 2.2 / 10.0 - -
Full-Depth Slab Repair 3.6 / 10.0 3.6 / 10.0 3.0 / 10.0
Structural Resurfacing 4.3 / 10.0 3.7 / 10.0 3.5 / 10.0
Reconstruction 9.0 / 10.0 9.0 / 10.0 9.0 / 10.0

8.3 Considerations for Standards Optimization

The standards recommended as a result of this research are the technical base for the optimization
considering other aspects such as economic, environmental, etc., in order to analyze the costs and
benefit in the life cycle assessment of urban pavements. The optimization could be carried out
using different techniques, including cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness and others.
Next steps for the optimization analysis are: define the technique to performed the analysis;
collect the information about costs and characteristics of other aspects to include in the analysis
(ex. environmental); and perform the optimization.
Given that the maintenance actions proposed in this research involve UPCI threshold values of
applicability with a variation range of 0.5 points, the optimization of standards would need to take
into account this UPCI variation range. Therefore, for each deterioration model, the applicable
maintenance action alternatives would be applied to 19 possible UPCI values, which correspond to
values between 10 and 1 with intervals of 0.5.
In the cases where the UPCI does not coincide with the evaluated values, the optimization must
assign the corresponding actions to the next lower value that was calculated. This ensures a
conservative assignment of maintenance actions as a function of the pavement condition.

127
8.4 Summary of the Chapter

Suitable maintenance standards for asphalt and concrete pavements in urban networks were defined
in this chapter. These standards included: the maintenance actions with their UPCI range of
application, their effects in the UPCI and the maximum UPCI reachable.
The definition of the standards was developed considering the information collected in the-state-
of-the-and-the practice-review as well as the data collected during field evaluation of section
maintained during the research time frame.
The standards proposed as a result of this research is the technical base for the optimization of
the standards based on other aspects such as economic, environmental, etc., in order to analyze the
costs and benefit in the life cycle assessment of urban pavements.
The standards must be calibrated over time considering the ranges of application, the effects on
the UPCI and the maximum UPCI reachable, for those P&M&R actions that are not currently use
in urban pavement conditions. This is important because it can give feedback about the real
maintenance effect observed in the field.

128
 Chapter 9
Conclusions and Recommendations

Given the state-of-the-art and the-practice of urban pavement management, there is a need for
better understanding of urban pavements performance. Therefore, this research was focused on the
analysis of urban pavements at network level, toward the development of practical and sustainable
technical tools to be integrated further into an Urban Pavement Management System (UPMS).
Based on the results presented in each chapter of this thesis, it can be concluded that the overall
objective of calibrating an Urban Pavement Condition Index (UPCI) and performance models,
technical components required for an urban pavement management system, based on data collected
in urban networks in Chile, was successfully accomplished by the research.
It also concluded that these practical tools can be easily implemented and used by local agencies,
and simply adaptable over time and to different scenarios. The results of the study were developed
with field data collected in Chilean cities; however, the results may be adapted and adopted in other
countries for urban pavement management. Public agencies involved in the management process
and allocation of pavement maintenance resources will be the main users of the results obtained
from this research.
The two hypotheses of the research were successfully demonstrated through the fulfillment of
the specific objectives:
1. Calibrate and validate an index representative of the overall condition of urban
pavements, Urban Pavement Condition Index (UPCI), considering manual and automated
data collection methodologies
 Urban Pavement Condition Indexes for asphalt and concrete pavement, based on objective
measures of surface distresses and evaluations of an expert panel was successfully
calibrated and validated with a confidence level of 95%.
 Three UPCI models were obtained for asphalt pavements with manual and automated data
collection. The distresses resulted significance in asphalt pavement condition are fatigue
cracking, transverse and reflection cracking, deteriorated patches, rutting, and potholes for
manual data collected. IRI replaces potholes in the condition equation for automated data
collected. Although the UPCI models for manual and automated data were successfully
cross-validated, the use of automated UPCI equation for asphalt pavements it is
recommended when IRI values are available. If that is not the case, the Manual UPCI
equation considering manual or automated data is recommended due to it includes the
potholes.
 One UPCI model was achieved with successfully validation for concrete pavements with
manual data collection. The distresses representative of concrete pavement condition are
longitudinal, transversal and oblique cracking, corner breaks, deteriorated patches, faulting,
and deteriorate joints and cracks.
 The UPCI for concrete pavements with automated data did not give satisfactory results.
The main reasons were: UPCI equation for automated data does not consider the same
129
 distresses included in the UPCI equation for manual data, causing that some distresses are
not represented in the automated equation; possible correlation between independent
variables considered in the automated regression may be affecting the regressions,
considering distresses and IRI values; difference in the evaluation methodology between
manual and automated data collection may be affecting the regressions. Therefore, UPCI
equations for concrete pavements considering automated data require further analysis and
the UPCI manual is recommended to use with manual and automated data.
 The statistics analysis carried out for interlocking pavement was not successfully validated.
This may be explained by these reasons: possible correlation between independent
variables considered in the regression, and; the expert panel present high variability in the
UPCI observed evaluated in the field. Further analysis is needed to obtain an UPCI for this
type of pavement.
 Distress evaluation guidelines for asphalt and concrete pavements considering manual and
automated surveys were developed and satisfactory validated with a 95% of confidence
level through repeatability and reproducibility analysis. This guideline proposes an
evaluation methodology for the distresses included in the UPCI.
 Deteriorated patches have an important effect in the UPCI value for all UPCIs calibrated.
This outcome is coherent and consistent to the phenomena observed in urban pavements,
where utility cuts are frequently observed, resulting in low quality patches and high
probabilities of premature deterioration. This conclusion supports the primary hypothesis
that special condition evaluation guidelines and indicators are required for urban
pavements.
 Based on the field evaluation carried out during the research, recommendations about the
frequency and sampling for pavement condition evaluation are given for different network
hierarchies: primary, every 2 year, the complete network; secondary, every 4 year, the
complete network, and; local, every four years samples of homogeneous sections.
2. Calibrate and validate condition performance models for urban pavements representative
to different climates, structures, traffic and pavement types
 Performance models were performed based on probabilistic trends of UPCI observed
during field evaluations for asphalt and concrete pavements. The deterioration of this
indicator can assist in life cycle cost analyses for decision-making at network level
analysis.
 Five field evaluation campaigns were developed in three regions of Chile during a three-
year analysis period for the calibration and validation of performance models. The climates
included were dry, Mediterranean and humid.
 The probabilistic trend over time of data collected was analyzed using Markov chains with
Monte Carlo simulation. The technique of Markov chain facilitates the analysis of the
deterioration trend with only two points of the curve condition over time. This was a huge
benefit to simulate the pavement performance within the timeframe of the research. Based
on the work of the calibration with this method, it can be concluded that the distribution of
proportion within the Transition Probability Matrices is a key aspect for the calibration of
models; therefore, a good representation of the network is important to obtain realistic
results.

130
 Fourteen performance models were calibrated for different combination of three climates,
two pavement types and three hierarchy networks, considering a pavement life cycle of 25
years. Twelve of them were successfully validated with a confidence level of 95%. The
models of asphalt in humid climate and concrete in dry climate need further analysis for
their validation, considering more data collection in these climates.
 Hierarchies based on grouped functional classification were used: Primary Network for
Express and Troncal classification; Secondary Network for Colector and Service
classification; Local Network for local streets and passages. Individual functional
classifications were not used because the UPCI evolution over time within them exhibited
high variability with illogical patterns; however, these groups present logical patterns.
 Additionally, a comparative analysis was performed between the real equivalent axles
demanding the sections and the equivalent axles admitted by their structures. Results of
this analysis showed two different scenarios for Mediterranean climate network for asphalt
and concrete pavements: (1) sections where the traffic demand maintains within the range
of the structure capacity, and; (2) sections where the traffic demand exceeds the structure
capacity. This analysis was also considered for performance models calibration. In the
analysis of dry climate for asphalt pavements and humid climate for concrete pavements,
not enough information was available to make this analysis possible.
 Models for Asphalt Pavement in Mediterranean Climate: Primary Network presents a
consistent deterioration with the design of 20 years; Secondary Network shows more rapid
deterioration than expected, apparently because the streets within this classification could
be sub dimensioned for the real demand, and; Local network presents a low deterioration
rate, probably due to over dimensioned of the streets. Considering the models resulted from
the analysis of the design, when the traffic demand remains within the structural capacity
of the pavement, UPCI deterioration over time is smoothed; however, when the traffic
demand exceeds the structural capacity the deterioration over time is steeper lasting 9 years
less than the first case. These performance models are recommended to use when
information about traffic and structure is available. On the contrary, the models developed
based on the hierarchy networks are recommended.
 Models for Asphalt in Dry and Humid Climate: Models for humid climate presents higher
deterioration rate than model for dry climate. However, both models present a shorter
service life than their design. This result is coherent with the observations of pavement
condition in the field.
 Models for Concrete Pavement in Mediterranean Climate: Primary and Secondary
networks show similar performance with a service life of 25 and 21 years, and; Local
network presents a low deterioration rate, probably due to over dimensioned of the streets
similar to asphalt pavements for this network. Considering the models resulted from the
analysis of the design, the deterioration trend does not present big differences within the
two conditions analyzed. This phenomenon can be explained by the fact that when traffic
demands exceeds structural capacity for concrete pavements the difference is not very
extreme as occurs in the case of asphalt pavements. Therefore, for concrete pavements is
recommend the use of the models calibrated based on the hierarchy networks.
 Models for Concrete in Dry and Humid Climate: Both cases present a long service life;
however, on the contrary of what is expected, the dry climate presents a deterioration more
accelerated than humid climate between UPCI 8.5 to 4. This behavior is probably a
131
 consequence of differences in construction standards and maintenance policies, noticed in
interviews carried out with agencies of both regions. This result is coherent with the
observations of pavement condition in the field.
 Based on performance models obtained the following conclusions are made about the
impacts of climate, traffic and structure: The relation between the traffic demand and the
structural capacity has high impact in asphalt pavements deterioration, but low impact in
concrete pavements; the climate presents low impact in asphalt pavements comparing
global models for Mediterranean and dry climates; however, high impact in concrete
pavements. In this latter behavior not only the climate effect is impacting but the
construction standards and maintenance policies difference, noticed in interviews carried
out with agencies of both regions.
 These curves may be easily adopted and adapted to different conditions, considering the
extensive climate range application, type of pavements and the simplicity and cost-
effectiveness of the UPCI evaluation.
3. Recommend maintenance standards for the implementation of calibrated models in a
management system
 Suitable maintenance standards for urban pavement based on the urban pavement condition
index and their performance models are recommended for asphalt and concrete pavements.
Three different standards are proposed for primary, secondary and local networks.
 The definition of these standards was performed considering the information collected in
the-state-of-the-and-the practice-review as well as the data collected during field evaluation
of section maintained during the research time frame.
 The main difference with existing standards is that considers maintenance actions feasible
to be applied in urban conditions. In addition, maintenance actions environmentally
friendly are considered, such as pavement recycle.

9.1 Recommendations

Recommendations for the use and calibration of the tools developed in this research are the
following:
Urban Pavement Condition Evaluation
 It is recommended that, in the case of application of the developed equations, agencies
should consider the advantages and limitations of assessing the network manually or
automatically.
 It is highly recommended the validation of UPCI equations when applying in pavements
with different climates conditions due to the distresses may differ from the ones analyzed
in this research. The process of validation to follow is the same as the presented for
validation of UPCI equations in Section 6.2.
Performance Models
 The calibration over time of the developed curves is recommended to capture the
performance of urban pavement during a larger period of time. The data collected during

132
 the time frame of this research gave a starting point of the models but future calibrations
would improve the estimation of the deterioration trend.
 It is highly recommended the validation of performance models when applying to networks
with different characteristics of pavement design and climate conditions.
P&M&R Standards
 The standards must be calibrated over time so the ranges of application, the effects in the
UPCI and the maximum UPCI reachable for those P&M&R actions that are not currently
use in urban pavement conditions can be better estimated.
 It is recommended the adjustment of maintenance standards to local conditions.

9.2 Thesis Main Contributions

The main scientific contributions from this research are the calibrated tools that facilitate the better
understanding of urban pavements deterioration and maintenance:
 Urban Pavement Condition Index that reliably represents the combined effect of urban
pavement distresses and delivers a global pavement condition for network analysis.
 Urban Pavement Performance Models for different climates, traffic and structures, that
effectively predicted the deterioration of urban pavements over time, allowing the
development of life cycle analysis for network management.
The main contributions to the state-of-the-practice are:
 The framework proposed that helps to integrate tools for sustainable management of urban
networks
 The Condition Evaluation Guidelines for urban pavements
 The adaptability of performance models to different scenarios

9.3 Future Research and Developments

Topics for future research and developments were identified from the results of this research:
 It is recommended further analysis for the calibration of UPCI considering automated data
collected for concrete pavements. Furthermore, calibration of UPCI for interlocking and
cobblestone pavements would extend the use of the evaluation condition methodology.
 Re calibration of the UPCI models calibrated in this research using a sample with a higher
power.
 Sensitivity analysis of UPCI models, including different ranges of distresses and
coefficients of severity.
 Future studies are recommended to validate the models in the following cases:
a. In the ranges with no data available in this research, for example lower values of
UPCI in the cases of local network and Traffic Demand > Structural Capacity for

133
 asphalt pavements and almost all the case but Traffic Demand ≤ Structural Capacity
for concrete pavements.
b. In the cases where a few data was available for validation, for example Primary
Network and Traffic Demand > Structural Capacity for asphalt pavements, and
Traffic Demand > Structural Capacity for concrete pavements.
 Validation of the performance models calibrated for asphalt pavement in humid climate
and concrete pavement in dry climate.
 Validation of performance models for asphalt and concrete pavements in different climates
from the obtained in this research.
 Development of performance models for composite pavements of asphalt overlays over
concrete pavements, concrete overlays over asphalt and concrete pavements, interlocking,
and cobblestones pavements. With this, the scope of application of these tools for urban
pavements would be extended broadly to other scenarios.
 Analysis the performance models considering the heterogeneity of traffic loads and the age
of pavements, challenging information to obtain for urban pavements.
 Development of phone or tablet application for manual data collection in field evaluation.
This application will improve the time frame for data processing, and the UPCI could be
automated obtained. This tool would also facilitate the data collection over time if the data
of last year’s evaluations remains in the application for next evaluations.
 Development of performance models considering the different maintenance actions applied
during the life cycle of pavements. This study would involve a long period of time for its
development but could improve considerably the estimation of maintenance action effects
in the life cycle analysis.
 Based on the difficulty faced to obtain inventory data of urban pavements from local
agencies, it would be interesting the development of a methodology that facilitates
inventory data collection from urban pavement projects and maintenance treatments
history.

134
 Appendix A
Windshield Evaluation Sheets

135
 Asphalt Pavement - Windshield Evaluation

Street/Avenue:

From:

To:

Comuna: Lenght:

Traffic Direction: Lanes:

Survey date: Evaluator:

Severity Density
Asphalt Distresses
Low Moderate High Low Frequent Extended
Fatigue/Alligator Cracking
Block Cracking
Edge Cracking
Cracking

Wheel Path Longitudinal

Non-Wheel Path Longitudinal
Reflection Cracking
Transverse Cracking
Potholes

Patch Deterioration
Patch
and

Potholes
Deforma

Rutting
Surface

Shoving
t.

Bleeding
Surface
Defects

Ravelling
Polished Aggregate
Curb deterioration
Others

Water Bleeding and pumping

Manholes and catchbasins

Observations

136
 Concrete Pavement Evaluation

Street/Avenue:

From:

To:

Comuna: Lenght:

Traffic Direction: Lanes:

Survey date: Evaluator:

Severity Density
Concrete Distresses
Low Moderate High Low Frequent Extended
Corner Breaks
Durability Cracking (D)
Cracking

Longitudinal Cracking
Transverse Cracking
Oblicous Cracking
Deforma
Surface

Faulting
Slab warping
t.

Map Cracking
Surface Defects

Scaling
Polished Aggregate
Popouts
Transverse Joint Seal Damage
Joint Deficiencies

Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage

Spalling of longitudinal joints

Spalling of transverse joints
Blowups
Curb deterioration
Patch Deterioration
Others

Water Bleeding and pumping

Manholes and catchbasins

Observations

137
 Appendix B
Distress Evaluation Guidelines

1. INTRODUCCIÓN
El principal objetivo del proyecto FONDEF D09I1018 “Investigación y Desarrollo de Soluciones
para la Gestión de Pavimentos Urbanos en Chile”, es desarrollar herramientas para resolver los
principales problemas institucionales, técnicos y económicos que se presentan en las instituciones a
cargo de la gestión de pavimentos urbanos en Chile.

Este proyecto es desarrollado por la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, en asociación con el
Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo (MINVU), el Gobierno Regional Metropolitano (GORE) y las
Municipalidades de Santiago y Macul. El mismo está financiado por Fondef – Conicyt y todas las
instituciones asociadas. Además, se cuenta con la asesoría externa de la Profesora Susan Tighe,
directora del Centre for Pavement and Transportation Technology (CPATT) de la Universidad de
Waterloo, Canadá.

El presente documento se enfoca en la Metodología de Evaluación de la Condición de Pavimentos

Urbanos, considerando dos tipos de pavimentos, asfaltos y hormigones.

La Metodología de Evaluación Técnica está compuesta de cuatro actividades principales:

1. Desarrollo del Índice de Condición de Pavimentos Urbanos (ICPU). El ICPU es un índice

combinado que representará el estado global de una sección de pavimento para analizarlo a
nivel de red.

2. Elección de la Metodología de Evaluación de Deterioros, que presentará cómo se

recolectarán los datos de los deterioros en cada tipo de pavimento a evaluar.

3. Definición del Muestreo, que indicará cuándo y cuánto se deberán evaluar los pavimentos.

4. Definición de la Jerarquía, que presentará dónde se deberá evaluar, en qué tipo de vías y
qué tipo evaluaciones.

138
En este documento se presentan los puntos 2 y 3. Los documentos correspondientes a los puntos 1
y 4 fueron entregados en documentos técnicos separados.

2. MUESTRO DE EVALUACIÓN
Una unidad muestral es una sección de pavimento definida para ser evaluada. El tamaño de unidad
muestral definido para cada tipo de pavimento es el siguiente:
 Asfaltos: Ancho de pista x 50 m de largo, subdividido en segmentos de 10 m
 Hormigones: Ancho de pista x 10 losas, donde cada losa es un segmento

Estas unidades muestrales se toman en la mitad de cada cuadra a ser evaluada.

La selección de cuadras a ser evaluadas se realiza en base a la jerarquía de las calles a evaluar:
 Red Primaria: Cada 2 años, 100%
 Red Intermedia: Cada 4 años, 100%
 Red Local: Cada 4 años, en tramos representativos condición observada en terreno. Se
toma la cuadra que sea representativa del tramo homogéneo.

Los datos obtenidos por unidad muestral son los siguientes:

 Deterioros: superficiales, ahuellamiento y rugosidad.
 Datos de inventario: Referencias, ubicación GPS, largo y ancho, sentido del tráfico.

3. DETERIOROS A EVALUAR EN PAVIMENTOS ASFÁLTICOS

A continuación se describe brevemente cada tipo de deterioro que se deben evaluar en pavimentos
asfálticos en zonas urbanas (DICTUC, 2006) (De Solminiac, 2001) (FHWA, 2003):

3.1 Grietas de Fatiga

Son grietas interconectadas en forma de piel de cocodrilo, que se asocian con la capacidad
estructural del pavimento.. Se presenta principalmente en la huella, causadas por la fatiga de la
carpeta asfáltica, debido a la acción repetida de las cargas de tránsito.

 Baja: área de grietas con poco o nada de interconexión; las mismas no se encuentran
desprendidas o selladas; no se percibe bombeo de agua.

139
  Moderada: área de grietas interconectadas formando un patrón; las grietas se encuentran
ligeramente desprendidas; pueden estar selladas; no se percibe bombeo de agua.
 Alta: área de grietas interconectadas formando un patrón con desintegración moderada o
severa; los pequeños trozos de pavimento movidos; las grietas pueden estar sellasdas; no se
percibe bombeo de agua.

Figura 9-1. Grietas de Fatiga de Alta Severidad

3.2 Grieta de Reflexión

Grietas presentes en recapados asfálticos, donde se encuentras las juntas del pavimento de
hormigón subyacente.
 Baja: Promedio de ancho de grietas ≤ 6mm; o selladas con el sello en buen estado y con
ancho que no puede ser definido.
 Moderada: Promedio de ancho de grietas > 6mm y ≤19mm; o grietas con ancho promedio
≤19mm y grietas adjacentes de baja severidad.
 Alta: Promedio de ancho de grietas > 19mm; o grietas con ancho promedio ≤19mm y
grietas adjacentes de moderada o alta severidad.

3.3 Grieta Transversal

Grietas perpendiculares al sentido del tráfico.
 Baja: Promedio de ancho de grietas ≤ 6mm; o selladas con el sello en buen estado y con
ancho que no puede ser definido.

140
  Moderada: Promedio de ancho de grietas > 6mm y ≤19mm; o grietas con ancho promedio
≤19mm y grietas adjacentes de baja severidad.
 Alta: Promedio de ancho de grietas > 19mm; o grietas con ancho promedio ≤19mm y
grietas adjacentes de moderada o alta severidad.

Figura 9-2. Grietas de transversal de baja severidad

3.4 Ahuellamiento
Depresiones en la sección transversal del pavimento que se presentan en las huellas. Deterioro
relacionado con la capacidad estructural del pavimento.
3.5 Baches
Desprendimiento y pérdida localizada de material que conforma la superficie de rodadura, con una
dimensión mayor a 150 mm.

 Baja: < 25 mm de profundidad

 Moderada: ≥25mm y < 50 mm de profundidad
 Alta:>50 mm de profundidad

3.6 Parche Deteriorado

Parte de la superficie de rodado, mayor a 0,1 m2, que fue removida y reemplazada, o material
adicional que fue colocado en el pavimento durante su vída de servicio.

141
  Baja: El parche tiene deterioros de baja severidad, oahuellamiento ≤6mm, sin evidencia de
bombeo.
 Moderada: El parche tiene deterioros de moderada severidad, o ahuellamiento >6mm y
≤12mm, sin evidencia de bombeo.
 Alta: El parche tiene deterioros de alta severidad, o ahuellamiento >12mm, o material
adicional colocado, o puede tener evidencia de bombeo.

3.7 Rugosidad
Irregularidades en la superficie del pavimento, que afectan la calidad de rodado, seguridad y costos
de operación de los vehículos.

4. DETERIOROS A EVALUAR EN PAVIMENTOS DE

HORMIGÓN
A continuación se describe brevemente cada tipo de deterioro que se deben evaluar en pavimentos
de hormigón en zonas urbanas (DICTUC, 2006) (De Solminiac, 2001) (FHWA, 2003):

4.1 Grieta de Esquina

Parte de la esquina de la losa separada por una grieta, que intersecta las juntas longitudinal y
tranversal en un ángulo de 45°, con una longitud que varía entre 0,3m y la mitad del ancho de la
losa.
 Baja: Grietas con desconche en menos el 10% de su longitud; sin presencia de
escalonamiento; y la esquina de la losa no está partida en 2 o más piezas; sin pérdida de
material o parche.
 Moderada: Grietas con desconche en más el 10% de su longitud; con escalonamiento <13
mm; y la esquina de la losa no está partida en 2 o más piezas; sin pérdida de material o
parche.
 Alta: Grietas con desconche en más el 10% de su longitud; con escalonamiento > 13mm; o
la esquina de la losa está partida en 2 o más piezas; o con pérdida de material o parche.

142
 Figura 9-3. Grieta Esquina de Alta Severidad

4.2 Grieta Longitudinal

Grietas paralelas al sentido del tráfico.
 Baja: Ancho promedio de grietas < 3mm, sin desconche o ahuellamiento; o selladas con el
sello en buen estado y con ancho que no puede ser definido.
 Moderada: Ancho promedio de ancho de grietas ≥ 3mm y <13mm, con desconche < 75mm
o ahuellamiento< 13 mm.
 Alta: Ancho promedio de grietas ≥ 13mm, con desconche ≥ 75mm o ahuellamiento ≥ 13
mm.

4.3 Grieta Transversal

Grietas perpendiculares al sentido del tráfico.
 Baja: Ancho promedio de grietas < 3mm, sin desconche o ahuellamiento; o selladas con el
sello en buen estado y con ancho que no puede ser definido.
 Moderada: Ancho promedio de ancho de grietas ≥ 3mm y <6mm, con desconche < 75mm
o ahuellamiento< 6 mm.
 Alta: Ancho promedio de grietas ≥ 6mm, con desconche ≥ 75mm o ahuellamiento ≥ 6 mm.

143
 Figura 9-4. Grieta transversal de alta severidad. Pavimento de Hormigón

4.4 Grieta Oblicua

Esta grieta se extiende uniendo la junta transversal con la junta longitudinal o unión berma-losa. Se
asocia a fatiga, iniciándose y terminando en ángulo recto dentro del tercio central del borde
transversal o longitudinal de la losa
 Baja: Ancho promedio < 10mm.
 Moderada: Ancho promedio ≥ 10 mm y < 100 mm.
 Alta: Ancho promedio > 100 mm.

4.5 Deterioro de Sello de Junta

Cualquier daño en la junta que permita el ingreso de material incompresible o agua desde la
superficie hacia las capas inferiores del pavimento.
 Baja: Deterioro del sello de la junta transversal < 10% de la longitud de la junta.
 Moderada: Deterioro del sello de la junta transversal ≥ 10% y ≤50% de la longitud de la
junta.
 Alta: Deterioro del sello de la junta transversal > 10% de la longitud de la junta.

144
 Figura 9-5. Deterioro de Sello de Junta de baja severidad

4.6 Desconche de Junta Longitudinal y Transversal

Grietas o fisuras entre los bordes de las losas y una distancia de 0,3m desde la junta.
 Baja: Desconche < 75 mm de ancho, con pérdida de material; o desconches sin pérdida de
material.
 Moderada: Desconche ≥75 mm y ≤ 150 mm de ancho, con pérdida de material.
 Alta: Desconche >150 mm, con pérdida de material; o partido en dos o más piezas.

Figura 9-6. Desconche de Junta de Alta Severidad

4.7 Escalonamiento
Diferencia en altura de las losas a lo largo de la junta transversal.
145
4.8 Parche Deteriorado
Parte de la superficie de rodado, mayor a 0,1 m2, que fue removida y reemplazada, o material
adicional que fue colocado en el pavimento durante su vída de servicio.

Figura 9-7. Parche Deteriorado de Severidad Media

4.9 Rugosidad
Irregularidades en la superficie del pavimento, que afectan la calidad de rodado, seguridad y costos
de operación de los vehículos.

5. REFERENCIAS
De Solminihac, H. (2001). Gestión de Infraestructura Vial. Santiago, Chile. Ediciones Universidad
Católica de Chile

DICTUC S.A. (2006). Análisis de Sensibilidad de Parámetros del Modelo HDM-4 y Actualización
de Metodología para la Determinación del Estado de Caminos Pavimentados.

FHWA, Federal Highway Administration (2003). Distress Identification Manual for the Long-
Term Pavement Performance Program

6. AGRADECIMENTOS
146
El equipo del Proyecto agradece la colaboración de las siguientes instituciones que apoyaron en el
Desarrollo del ICPU Manual y Automático:

 FONDEF – CONICYT

 MINVU & SERVIU Metropolitano

 Gobierno Regional Metropolitanos de Santiago

 Ilustre Municipalidad de Macul

 Ilustre Municipalidad de Santiago

 Dirección Nacional de Vialidad - Ministerio de Obras Públicas de Chile

 CPPAT – University of Waterloo

 Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile

7. ANEXOS

147
 Anexo 1. Planillas de Evaluación Pavimentos Asfálticos

Planilla de Evaluación de Pavimentos Asfálticos. Proyecto Fondef D09I1018 Hoja de

Calle/Avenida Fecha

Unidad Muestral Inicio Dirección

Pista N° Fin Ancho de Pista Evaluador

Grietas
Ahuellamiento
Baches*** Parche Deteriorado (m 2 )*
Piel de Cocodrilo (m 2)* Transversal (m)** De reflexión (m)** (mm)****

Baja Media Alta Baja Media Alta

ancho largo
Baja Media Alta Baja Media Alta Prof. (mm) Mean Depth
Segmento (m) ancho largo ancho largo ancho largo (m) (m) Cant. ancho largo Cant. ancho largo Cant. ancho largo

0 - 10

10 - 20

20 - 30

30 - 40

40 - 50

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #¡DIV/0!

% Deter. #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0!

Fotos:

Observaciones:

148
 Anexo 2. Planillas de Evaluación Pavimentos de Hormigón
Planilla de Evaluación de Pavimentos Hormigón. Proyecto Fondef D09I1018 Hoja de

Calle/Avenida Fecha

Unidad Muestral Inicio Ancho de Losa Dirección

Pista N° Fin Ancho de Pista Evaluador

Grietas
Losa De Esquina Longitudinal Transversal Daño Sellos de las Juntas Escalonamiento Parches Deteriorados
Oblicua
(m) (m) (m)
IRI
Media Alta Media Media Media Alta Baja Media(< 6mm E) Alta (> 6mm E)
Baja Baja Alta Baja Alta Baja Profundidad
Longitud N° >10 %L >10 %L >3 mm >3 mm, >10 mm > 100 Baja Media Alta
<10% L <3 mm >13mm <3 mm <6mm < 10 mm (mm)
< 13mm E > 13mm E <13mm <6mm <100mm mm Cant. ancho largo Cant. ancho largo Cant. ancho largo

10

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #¡DIV/0! 0 0 0 #¡DIV/0!

% Deterioros #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0! #¡DIV/0!

Observaciones:

149
 Appendix C
Analysis of Expert Evaluations

Asphalt Pavements

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
E1 4.8864 44 2.01409 .30364
Pair 1
E2 4.9091 44 1.76290 .26577
E1 4.8864 44 2.01409 .30364
Pair 2
E3 5.3636 44 2.05835 .31031
E1 4.8864 44 2.01409 .30364
Pair 3
E4 5.8864 44 2.18042 .32871
E2 4.9091 44 1.76290 .26577
Pair 4
E3 5.3636 44 2.05835 .31031
E2 4.9091 44 1.76290 .26577
Pair 5
E4 5.8864 44 2.18042 .32871
E3 5.3636 44 2.05835 .31031
Pair 6
E4 5.8864 44 2.18042 .32871

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences t df Sig.
Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval (2-
Deviatio Mean of the Difference tailed)
n Lower Upper
Pair 1 E1 - E2 -.02273 1.17114 .17656 -.37879 .33333 -.129 43 .898
Pair 2 E1 - E3 -.47727 1.15111 .17354 -.82724 -.12730 -2.750 43 .009
Pair 3 E1 - E4 -1.00000 1.12063 .16894 -1.34070 -.65930 -5.919 43 .000
Pair 4 E2 - E3 -.45455 1.53190 .23094 -.92029 .01120 -1.968 43 .056
Pair 5 E2 - E4 -.97727 1.37229 .20688 -1.39449 -.56006 -4.724 43 .000
Pair 6 E3 - E4 -.52273 1.32048 .19907 -.92419 -.12127 -2.626 43 .012

150
Concrete Pavements

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

E1 5.26 43 1.663 .254

Pair 1
E2 6.21 43 1.424 .217

E1 5.26 43 1.663 .254

Pair 2
E3 5.67 43 1.742 .266

E1 5.26 43 1.663 .254

Pair 3
E4 4.60 43 1.050 .160

E1 5.26 43 1.663 .254

Pair 4
E5 6.14 43 1.390 .212

E2 6.21 43 1.424 .217

Pair 5
E3 5.67 43 1.742 .266
E2 6.21 43 1.424 .217
Pair 6
E4 4.60 43 1.050 .160

E2 6.21 43 1.424 .217

Pair 7
E5 6.14 43 1.390 .212

E3 5.67 43 1.742 .266

Pair 8
E4 4.60 43 1.050 .160
E3 5.67 43 1.742 .266
Pair 9
E5 6.14 43 1.390 .212

E4 4.60 43 1.050 .160

Pair 10
E5 6.14 43 1.390 .212

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences t df Sig.
Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval (2-

Deviation Mean of the Difference tailed)

Lower Upper
Pair 1 E1 - E2 -.953 .872 .133 -1.222 -.685 -7.174 42 .000
Pair 2 E1 - E3 -.419 1.418 .216 -.855 .018 -1.936 42 .060
Pair 3 E1 - E4 .651 1.446 .220 .206 1.096 2.954 42 .005
Pair 4 E1 - E5 -.884 1.159 .177 -1.240 -.527 -5.000 42 .000
Pair 5 E2 - E3 .535 1.470 .224 .083 .987 2.387 42 .022
Pair 6 E2 - E4 1.605 1.294 .197 1.207 2.003 8.134 42 .000
Pair 7 E2 - E5 .070 .799 .122 -.176 .316 .573 42 .570
Pair 8 E3 - E4 1.070 1.805 .275 .514 1.625 3.887 42 .000
Pair 9 E3 - E5 -.465 1.386 .211 -.892 -.039 -2.200 42 .033
Pair 10 E4 - E5 -1.535 1.420 .217 -1.972 -1.098 -7.088 42 .000

151
Interlocking Pavements

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
E1 5.6591 44 1.23784 .18661
Pair 1
E2 5.7045 44 1.77292 .26728
E1 5.6591 44 1.23784 .18661
Pair 2
E3 4.5682 44 .69542 .10484
E1 5.6591 44 1.23784 .18661
Pair 3
E4 5.3409 44 1.65576 .24962
E2 5.7045 44 1.77292 .26728
Pair 4
E3 4.5682 44 .69542 .10484
E2 5.7045 44 1.77292 .26728
Pair 5
E4 5.3409 44 1.65576 .24962
E3 4.5682 44 .69542 .10484
Pair 6
E4 5.3409 44 1.65576 .24962

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-
Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence tailed)
Deviation Error Interval of the
Mean Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 E1 - E2 -.04545 1.11969 .16880 -.38587 .29496 -.269 43 .789
Pair 2 E1 - E3 1.09091 1.15775 .17454 .73892 1.44290 6.250 43 .000
Pair 3 E1 - E4 .31818 .93443 .14087 .03409 .60227 2.259 43 .029
Pair 4 E2 - E3 1.13636 1.59346 .24022 .65191 1.62082 4.730 43 .000
Pair 5 E2 - E4 .36364 1.31345 .19801 -.03569 .76296 1.836 43 .073
Pair 6 E3 - E4 -.77273 1.50756 .22727 -1.23107 -.31439 -3.400 43 .001

152
 Appendix D
Data Collected for Development and Validation of UPCI

Asphalt Pavements
Cracking
Manholes
Long Bleedin Pothole Polished Deteriorate
Sect Long No Transver Reflectio Shoving Raveling and Rutting
Fatigue Wheel g s Aggregate d Patch UPCIOBS
ion Wheel sal n % % Catchbasins mm
% Path % % % %
Path % % % N°
%
1 22.33 0.00 0.00 13.53 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.82 0.00 2.37 0.00 4.40 6.00
2 17.45 0.00 0.00 10.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.94 2.00 3.40 6.00
3 53.07 0.00 0.00 3.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.40 0.00 1.95 0.00 2.67 4.00
5 88.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 5.40 5.00
6 44.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 5.67
9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 8.67
11 8.93 0.00 8.41 9.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.09 0.00 9.35 0.00 2.20 6.00
12 0.10 0.00 4.06 2.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.22 0.00 9.94 0.00 1.00 6.00
13 47.32 4.30 2.48 7.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.87 0.00 57.44 0.00 6.50 4.33
14 41.16 0.00 8.32 18.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.74 0.00 32.48 2.50 5.20 4.00
15 59.21 0.00 5.19 18.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.43 0.00 39.19 4.00 8.50 4.00
17 180.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.69 0.00 4.00 2.33
19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.13 8.67
22 67.68 0.00 0.00 7.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 14.35 0.00 12.80 0.00 2.40 4.00
25 6.97 0.00 0.00 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.89 0.00 7.35 0.00 1.00 6.33
26 36.46 0.21 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.42 0.00 0.00 7.89 5.66 0.50 0.50 6.33
27 32.96 0.00 0.00 12.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80.00 0.59 0.00 0.80 6.00
28 120.61 0.00 0.00 8.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 1.80 4.33
29 5.53 0.00 0.00 3.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 7.67
30 3.80 0.00 1.24 10.59 3.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 7.33
31 64.16 0.00 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 13.83 0.00 2.40 5.67
32 61.55 0.00 1.53 2.16 4.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 2.00 5.67

153
 Cracking
Manholes
Long Bleedin Pothole Polished Deteriorate
Sect Long No Transver Reflectio Shoving Raveling and Rutting
Fatigue Wheel g s Aggregate d Patch UPCIOBS
ion Wheel sal n % % Catchbasins mm
% Path % % % %
Path % % % N°
%
33 100.68 0.00 0.00 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 19.09 0.00 23.80 2.00
34 57.04 0.00 7.24 27.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.47 14.20 0.00 6.00 3.33
36 109.09 0.00 4.36 19.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.25 0.58 0.00 18.72 0.00 2.00 2.67
38 0.06 0.00 0.00 4.13 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 8.67
39 0.43 0.00 8.37 1.07 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 6.33
43 0.00 0.00 2.62 2.46 64.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 4.67
44 5.92 0.00 0.00 30.40 7.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 5.67
46 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 9.00
48 28.51 0.00 0.00 4.53 61.38 0.00 11.40 0.00 0.00 12.80 0.00 0.00 2.00 4.67
51 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.43 33.71 14.29 28.57 0.00 30.29 0.00 0.00 0.50 20.00 5.67
52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 32.27 0.00 66.67 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.25 5.67
54 0.00 0.00 25.89 12.00 22.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 6.67
56 0.62 0.00 36.69 19.40 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29 0.00 0.00 15.70 5.00
58 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.17 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 14.29 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 7.00
59 0.76 0.00 0.23 2.51 29.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.86 0.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 5.67
60 26.34 0.00 42.29 8.80 65.14 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 4.33
4 107.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 41.18 0.00 0.00 3.67 4.33
10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.67
18 8.96 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 1.10 8.33
21 137.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.00 68.60 55.73 0.00 1.60 1.67
23 19.73 0.00 0.00 7.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.71 26.91 0.00 17.80 4.67
24 23.32 0.00 18.51 22.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.85 0.00 2.40 6.00
35 56.77 0.00 13.94 38.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 15.68 4.66 0.00 16.00 3.33
37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.06 0.00 49.82 0.00 3.25 2.67
40 21.80 0.00 2.67 19.27 0.00 0.00 4.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 5.67
42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00
45 26.73 0.00 0.00 37.23 26.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.60 5.00
47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10 9.00

154
 Cracking
Manholes
Long Bleedin Pothole Polished Deteriorate
Sect Long No Transver Reflectio Shoving Raveling and Rutting
Fatigue Wheel g s Aggregate d Patch UPCIOBS
ion Wheel sal n % % Catchbasins mm
% Path % % % %
Path % % % N°
%
49 12.67 0.00 6.67 11.73 27.80 0.00 16.00 0.16 0.00 26.67 0.00 1.00 8.00 3.67
53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 12.47 0.80 76.67 0.00 0.00 2.67 0.00 2.00 26.40 5.33
55 0.00 0.00 6.74 5.23 21.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 6.67
57 0.00 0.00 10.54 20.00 24.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 14.42 0.00 0.00 1.60 5.67

Validation Data

155
Concrete Pavements
Cracking
Deteriorated Seal
Corner Faulting
Section Longitudinal Transversal Oblique Patch Damage UPCIOBS
Break mm
% % % % %
%
61 7.00 2.00 10.00 7.00 0.00 3.00 42.00 7.00
62 5.00 0.00 31.00 7.00 0.00 4.00 42.00 4.00
63 0.00 23.00 25.00 5.00 0.00 3.00 26.00 5.00
66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 10.00
67 0.00 1.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 16.00 8.00
68 0.00 4.00 8.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 60.00 6.00
69 2.00 16.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 56.00 6.00
70 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 113.00 8.00
71 0.00 0.00 19.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 7.00
75 0.00 3.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 32.00 8.00
76 0.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 6.00 2.00 21.00 8.00
77 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 35.00 8.00
80 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 26.00 9.00
81 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 22.00 9.00
82 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 18.00 8.00
83 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 31.00 8.00
84 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 31.00 8.00
85 1.00 2.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 2.00 54.00 7.00
86 4.00 70.00 12.00 3.00 2.00 5.00 36.00 6.00
88 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 55.00 10.00
89 0.00 28.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 46.00 6.00
90 3.00 42.00 21.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 53.00 5.00
91 0.00 2.00 16.00 2.00 0.00 5.00 51.00 8.00
92 0.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 53.00 8.00
93 1.00 72.00 23.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 40.00 4.00
94 0.00 61.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 28.00 4.00
95 0.00 12.00 5.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 95.00 6.00
96 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 60.00 8.00
97 0.00 0.00 151.00 0.00 46.00 3.00 75.00 2.00
98 0.00 0.00 144.00 56.00 38.00 1.00 19.00 2.00
99 2.00 68.00 20.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 61.00 4.00
100 0.00 59.00 20.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 52.00 6.00
101 2.00 52.00 33.00 6.00 1.00 5.00 26.00 5.00
102 0.00 21.00 48.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 16.00 4.00
103 1.00 26.00 17.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 67.00 6.00
104 1.00 4.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 53.00 6.00
105 0.00 3.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 25.00 8.00
107 1.00 17.00 74.00 1.00 0.00 5.00 55.00 4.00
108 0.00 3.00 8.00 2.00 30.00 5.00 45.00 4.00
109 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 24.00 9.00
112 0.00 11.00 28.00 1.00 5.00 4.00 39.00 8.00
113 0.00 15.00 52.00 1.00 0.00 9.00 62.00 4.00
114 1.00 17.00 51.00 6.00 3.00 8.00 72.00 3.00

156
 Cracking
Deteriorated Seal
Corner Faulting
Section Longitudinal Transversal Oblique Patch Damage UPCIOBS
Break mm
% % % % %
%
115 2.00 25.00 40.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 55.00 5.00
116 2.00 16.00 55.00 1.00 5.00 6.00 53.00 4.00
119 6.00 12.00 12.00 1.00 8.00 5.00 58.00 4.00
121 2.00 31.00 37.00 1.00 0.00 5.00 58.00 6.00
122 2.00 27.00 42.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 60.00 6.00
123 1.00 6.00 29.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 52.00 6.00
124 2.00 55.00 64.00 0.00 16.00 8.00 44.00 3.00
125 1.00 6.00 146.00 2.00 4.00 9.00 63.00 2.00
126 0.00 26.00 66.00 52.00 1.00 6.00 22.00 3.00
128 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00
129 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00
130 0.00 3.00 7.00 0.00 1.00 8.00 3.00 9.00
135 0.00 28.00 21.00 2.00 11.00 8.00 10.00 3.00
136 0.00 0.00 108.00 0.00 52.00 3.00 20.00 2.00
137 0.00 3.00 142.00 0.00 24.00 8.00 22.00 2.00
146 1.00 76.00 69.00 0.00 1.00 6.00 73.00 2.00
147 3.00 68.00 66.00 4.00 0.00 5.00 66.00 2.00
152 0.00 21.00 30.00 0.00 9.00 7.00 44.00 4.00
1 0.15 1.57 4.64 3.98 0.59 4.80 170.55 6.50
2 12.01 3.25 15.05 4.56 0.00 5.30 169.98 3.25
3 0.14 0.39 4.92 13.99 2.48 7.70 168.41 5.00
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.75 0.00 5.10 169.58 5.75
5 0.00 36.95 17.67 5.19 6.83 8.20 11.98 5.25
6 0.00 39.78 85.59 7.19 0.31 4.80 35.43 5.00
7 0.00 14.14 25.05 0.53 3.35 4.40 3.40 4.75
8 0.00 27.37 42.59 0.00 0.04 7.50 0.00 3.75
9 0.69 0.22 13.06 0.56 8.80 5.00 63.68 5.50
10 0.31 0.05 6.87 0.00 1.70 6.60 61.52 5.50
11 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.50 94.33 6.00
12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.01 4.10 94.28 6.00
13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.40 0.00 5.00
14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.20 102.35 5.00
15 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 4.70 100.90 6.75
16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 79.26 6.75
17 0.00 0.96 3.33 0.00 0.00 5.90 60.00 6.50
18 0.00 2.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.10 0.00 6.50
19 0.00 0.00 6.81 0.00 0.00 3.60 90.55 5.75
20 0.00 0.00 5.07 0.00 0.00 2.70 67.66 6.25
21 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.50 174.16 6.50
22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 108.76 8.50
23 0.00 2.33 7.19 0.00 0.00 3.70 171.28 6.50
24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.40 114.29 5.00
25 0.37 6.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.80 77.52 4.50
26 0.00 13.73 5.68 3.79 0.00 4.50 105.76 5.50
27 2.14 10.94 3.50 0.00 0.00 2.80 105.71 5.25
157
 Cracking
Deteriorated Seal
Corner Faulting
Section Longitudinal Transversal Oblique Patch Damage UPCIOBS
Break mm
% % % % %
%
28 0.44 0.00 9.21 0.00 0.00 3.00 297.67 6.00
29 0.30 0.74 23.01 0.00 0.00 2.20 297.89 5.75
30 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 125.69 6.50

Validation Data

158
Interlocking Pavements
Cracking
Deteriorated
and Seal Potholes
Section Patch UPCIOBS
Damage %
%
%
1 0.00 0.00 17.00 7.00
2 0.00 0.00 1.00 6.00
3 0.00 0.00 1.00 7.33
5 47.00 1.00 1.00 4.67
6 34.00 0.00 35.00 3.33
7 59.00 1.00 17.00 5.33
8 59.00 0.00 13.00 4.67
9 60.00 1.00 13.00 4.67
11 40.00 0.00 6.00 5.00
12 17.00 0.00 16.00 5.00
13 24.00 0.00 25.00 5.33
14 25.00 0.00 20.00 4.67
16 28.00 0.00 18.00 5.67
17 47.00 0.00 21.00 5.67
19 3.00 7.00 18.00 3.33
20 11.00 0.00 26.00 4.00
22 28.00 0.00 7.00 4.67
25 76.00 0.00 6.00 5.67
26 68.00 0.00 0.00 6.33
27 78.00 0.00 0.00 5.00
28 68.00 0.00 0.00 5.00
30 104.00 0.00 0.00 5.33
31 46.00 0.00 1.00 5.33
32 61.00 2.00 1.00 5.33
33 27.00 0.00 1.00 5.00
34 76.00 2.00 0.00 5.33
36 36.00 0.00 0.00 6.00
39 19.00 0.00 11.00 4.67
41 32.00 0.00 7.00 4.67
48 19.00 0.00 42.00 4.00
51 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.33
52 5.00 0.00 0.00 6.00
54 4.00 0.00 0.00 6.33
56 20.00 0.00 30.00 4.00
4 0.00 0.72 1.31 6.33
10 28.06 0.00 15.36 5.33
18 54.81 0.00 19.66 6.00
21 4.57 4.59 26.51 3.33
23 101.00 0.00 2.38 5.67
35 47.91 0.00 0.00 6.00
37 29.13 0.00 15.78 5.00
40 26.32 0.00 7.11 5.67
42 27.50 0.00 7.34 4.33
45 0.00 0.00 63.83 3.33
159
47 17.63 0.00 61.17 3.67
49 0.00 0.00 54.40 3.33
53 3.08 0.00 1.81 6.00
55 37.88 0.00 12.26 6.33
57 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.33

Validation Data

160
 Appendix E
Data Collected for Performance Models – Summary of lengths

Asphalt Pavements – Mediterranean Climate – Primary Network (meters)

Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 19,654 2,336 - - - - - - - 21,990
8.99 - 8.00 - 1,645 2,146 - - - - - - 3,791
7.99 - 7.00 - - - 1,025 1,155 - - - - 2,180
6.99 - 6.00 - - - 311 712 - 311 - - 1,334
5.99 - 5.00 - - - - 1,424 322 - - - 1,746
4.99 - 4.00 - - - - - - - - - -
3.99 - 3.00 - - - - - - - - 536 536
2.99 - 2.00 - - - - - - - 763 763 1,526
1.99 - 1.00 - - - - - - - - - -

Asphalt Pavements – Mediterranean Climate – Secondary Network (meters)

Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 4,782 2,457 2,161 900 - - - - - 10,300
8.99 - 8.00 - 3,240 2,512 100 612 - - - - 6,464
7.99 - 7.00 - - 2,790 2,883 601 - - - - 6,274
6.99 - 6.00 - - - 1,093 1,000 - - - - 2,093
5.99 - 5.00 - - - - 1,045 572 397 - - 2,014
4.99 - 4.00 - - - - - 675 - 678 - 1,353
3.99 - 3.00 - - - - - - 840 233 - 1,073
2.99 - 2.00 - - - - - - - - - -
1.99 - 1.00 - - - - - - - - 1,018 1,018

Asphalt Pavements – Mediterranean Climate – Local Network (meters)

Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 948 1,088 606 - - - - - - 2,642
8.99 - 8.00 - 1,066 - - - - - - - 1,066
7.99 - 7.00 - - 3,494 - - - - - - 3,494
6.99 - 6.00 - - - 2,054 190 1,129 - - - 3,373
5.99 - 5.00 - - - - 190 - - - - 190
4.99 - 4.00 - - - - - 1,903 231 - - 2,134
3.99 - 3.00 - - - - - - - 399 - 399
2.99 - 2.00 - - - - - - - 399 587 986
1.99 - 1.00 - - - - - - - - 359 359

161
 Asphalt Pavements – Mediterranean Climate – Traffic Demand ≤ Structural Capacity
(meters)
Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 21,885 2,338 1,144 - - - - - - 25,367
8.99 - 8.00 - 3,991 956 - - - - - - 4,947
7.99 - 7.00 - - 4,180 2,427 1,155 - - - - 7,762
6.99 - 6.00 - - - 925 712 - - - - 1,637
5.99 - 5.00 - - - - 836 572 - - - 1,408
4.99 - 4.00 - - - - - 1,362 231 - - 1,593
3.99 - 3.00 - - - - - - 233 632 - 865
2.99 - 2.00 - - - - - - - 399 587 986
1.99 - 1.00 - - - - - - - - 359 359

Asphalt Pavements – Mediterranean Climate – Traffic Demand > Structural Capacity

(meters)
Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 1,736 754 - 900 - - - - - 3,390
8.99 - 8.00 - 1,960 1,712 - - - - - - 3,672
7.99 - 7.00 - - - 959 - - - - - 959
6.99 - 6.00 - - - 1,270 900 - 311 - - 2,481
5.99 - 5.00 - - - - 1,842 - - - - 1,842
4.99 - 4.00 - - - - - 206 - - - 206
3.99 - 3.00 - - - - - - 266 - 234 500
2.99 - 2.00 - - - - - - - 175 175 350
1.99 - 1.00 - - - - - - - - 210 210

Concrete Pavements – Mediterranean Climate– Primary Network (meters)

Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 3,769 569 586 - - - - - - 4,924
8.99 - 8.00 - 2,762 2,097 - - - - - - 4,859
7.99 - 7.00 - - 3,738 2,107 - 387 - - - 6,232
6.99 - 6.00 - - - 1,785 1,048 231 - - - 3,064
5.99 - 5.00 - - - - 1,820 570 - - - 2,390
4.99 - 4.00 - - - - - 849 671 - - 1,520
3.99 - 3.00 - - - - - - 671 - - 671
2.99 - 2.00 - - - - - - - - - -
1.99 - 1.00 - - - - - - - - 180 180

162
 Concrete Pavements – Mediterranean Climate– Secondary Network (meters)
Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 592 3,004 643 - - - - - - 4,239
8.99 - 8.00 - 5,426 2,678 - - - - - - 8,104
7.99 - 7.00 - - 2,330 4,711 640 559 - - - 8,240
6.99 - 6.00 - - - 6,263 606 632 - - - 7,501
5.99 - 5.00 - - - - 3,372 4,832 565 - - 8,769
4.99 - 4.00 - - - - - 10,331 1,364 - - 11,695
3.99 - 3.00 - - - - - - 565 985 - 1,550
2.99 - 2.00 - - - - - - - - - -
1.99 - 1.00 - - - - - - - - 180 180

Concrete Pavements – Mediterranean Climate– Local Network (meters)

Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 921 - - - - - - - - 921
8.99 - 8.00 - 4,139 983 464 - - - - - 5,586
7.99 - 7.00 - - 2,484 501 793 - - - - 3,778
6.99 - 6.00 - - - 1,849 1,697 192 - - - 3,738
5.99 - 5.00 - - - - 6,004 - - - - 6,004
4.99 - 4.00 - - - - - 589 399 - - 988
3.99 - 3.00 - - - - - - 571 519 - 1,090
2.99 - 2.00 - - - - - - - 1,721 367 2,088
1.99 - 1.00 - - - - - - - - 180 180

Concrete Pavements – Mediterranean Climate – Traffic Demand ≤ Structural Capacity

(meters)
Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 5,282 2,699 1,229 - - - - - - 9,210
8.99 - 8.00 - 11,724 5,061 464 - - - - - 17,249
7.99 - 7.00 - - 7,005 6,449 734 559 - - - 14,747
6.99 - 6.00 - - - 6,553 2,605 1,055 - - - 10,213
5.99 - 5.00 - - - - 9,941 5,402 565 - - 15,908
4.99 - 4.00 - - - - - 8,505 1,763 - - 10,268
3.99 - 3.00 - - - - - - 1,136 1,504 - 2,640
2.99 - 2.00 - - - - - - - 1,721 367 2,088
1.99 - 1.00 - - - - - - - - 367 367

163
Concrete Pavements – Mediterranean Climate – Traffic Demand > Structural Capacity
(meters)
Future Condition j
Current Condition i Sum
10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 - 874 - - - - - - - 874
8.99 - 8.00 - 603 697 - - - - - - 1,300
7.99 - 7.00 - - 1,547 870 699 387 - - - 3,503
6.99 - 6.00 - - - 2,598 - - - - - 2,598
5.99 - 5.00 - - - - 821 - - - - 821
4.99 - 4.00 - - - - - 3,264 671 - - 3,935
3.99 - 3.00 - - - - - - 671 - - 671
2.99 - 2.00 - - - - - - - 1,410 90 1,500
1.99 - 1.00 - - - - - - - - 180 180

Asphalt Pavements – Dry Climate – Global (meters)

Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 11,915 1,947 105 403 - - - - - 14,370
8.99 - 8.00 - 1,557 1,641 468 - - - - - 3,666
7.99 - 7.00 - - 782 680 105 - - - - 1,567
6.99 - 6.00 - - - 102 205 149 207 - - 663
5.99 - 5.00 - - - - 364 604 - 263 - 1,231
4.99 - 4.00 - - - - - 137 135 - - 272
3.99 - 3.00 - - - - - - 532 1,502 - 2,034
2.99 - 2.00 - - - - - - - 950 398 1,348
1.99 - 1.00 - - - - - - - - 1,992 1,992

Concrete Pavements – Humid Climate– Global (meters)

164
 Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 1,057 330 - - - - - - - 1,387
8.99 - 8.00 - 1,203 163 - - - - - - 1,366
7.99 - 7.00 - - 970 218 145 - - - - 1,333
6.99 - 6.00 - - - 502 273 - - - - 775
5.99 - 5.00 - - - - 863 836 315 - - 2,014
4.99 - 4.00 - - - - - 696 807 - - 1,503
3.99 - 3.00 - - - - - - 433 308 - 741
2.99 - 2.00 - - - - - - - 640 370 1,010
1.99 - 1.00 - - - - - - - - 136 136

165
 Appendix F
Results of Regression Analysis for UPCI Calibration

Asphalt Pavement – Manual Data Collected

Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
ES_Promedio_sinE2 5.5526 1.70369 38
PieldeCocodrilo 34.008240 42.2251679 38
Trans_Reflexión 16.6543 19.70511 38
ParcheDeteriorado 6.749204 12.5298272 38
Ahuellamientomm 4.464254 6.5247050 38
Baches .141668 .4201886 38

Correlations
ES_Prome PieldeCo Trans_ ParcheDet Ahuella Baches
dio_sinE2 codrilo Reflexió eriorado miento
n mm
ES_Promedio_sinE
1.000 -.723 -.243 -.466 -.334 -.446
2
PieldeCocodrilo -.723 1.000 -.249 .336 .066 .475
Pearson
Trans_Reflexión -.243 -.249 1.000 -.148 .176 .071
Correlation
ParcheDeteriorado -.466 .336 -.148 1.000 .156 .120
Ahuellamientomm -.334 .066 .176 .156 1.000 .019
Baches -.446 .475 .071 .120 .019 1.000
ES_Promedio_sinE
. .000 .071 .002 .020 .003
2
PieldeCocodrilo .000 . .066 .020 .347 .001
Sig. (1-tailed) Trans_Reflexión .071 .066 . .187 .145 .336
ParcheDeteriorado .002 .020 .187 . .175 .236
Ahuellamientomm .020 .347 .145 .175 . .455
Baches .003 .001 .336 .236 .455 .
ES_Promedio_sinE
38 38 38 38 38 38
2
PieldeCocodrilo 38 38 38 38 38 38
N Trans_Reflexión 38 38 38 38 38 38
ParcheDeteriorado 38 38 38 38 38 38
Ahuellamientomm 38 38 38 38 38 38
Baches 38 38 38 38 38 38

166
 Variables Entered/Removeda
Model Variables Variables Method
Entered Removed
Baches,
Ahuellamientom
m,
Trans_Reflexión
1 , . Enter
ParcheDeteriora
do,
PieldeCocodrilo
b

a. Dependent Variable: ES_Promedio_sinE2

b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Square Estimate
1 .902a .814 .785 .79070
a. Predictors: (Constant), Baches, Ahuellamientomm, Trans_Reflexión,
ParcheDeteriorado, PieldeCocodrilo
b. Dependent Variable: ES_Promedio_sinE2

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 87.388 5 17.478 27.955 .000b
1 Residual 20.007 32 .625
Total 107.395 37
a. Dependent Variable: ES_Promedio_sinE2
b. Predictors: (Constant), Baches, Ahuellamientomm, Trans_Reflexión, ParcheDeteriorado,
PieldeCocodrilo

167
 Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 7.600 .230 33.052 .000
PieldeCocodrilo -.029 .004 -.710 -7.402 .000
Trans_Reflexión -.037 .007 -.424 -5.116 .000
1
ParcheDeteriorado -.035 .011 -.258 -3.139 .004
Ahuellamientomm -.045 .021 -.171 -2.162 .038
Baches -.180 .361 -.044 -.499 .621
a. Dependent Variable: ES_Promedio_sinE2

Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 1.9111 7.5551 5.5526 1.53683 38
Residual -1.71985 1.53161 .00000 .73534 38
Std. Predicted Value -2.370 1.303 .000 1.000 38
Std. Residual -2.175 1.937 .000 .930 38
a. Dependent Variable: ES_Promedio_sinE2

168
169
170
Asphalt Pavement – Automated Data Collected

Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. N
Deviation
ES_Promedio_sinE2 5.231481 1.8167116 36
Piel de Cocodrilo % 42.549561 46.2097225 36
Trans_Reflexión 15.6402 18.98563 36
Parche Deteriorado % 9.076122 15.4922494 36
Ahuellamiento (mm) 5.547685 7.1551016 36
IRI
8.286111 3.7872080 36
(m/Km)
Correlations
ES_Prom Piel de Trans_R Parche Ahuella IRI
edio_sinE Cocodrilo eflexión Deteriora miento (m/Km)
2 % do % (mm)
ES_Promedio_sinE2 1.000 -.795 -.081 -.565 -.285 -.725
Piel de Cocodrilo % -.795 1.000 -.324 .456 -.025 .595
Pearson Trans_Reflexión -.081 -.324 1.000 -.192 -.017 -.029
Correlatio Parche Deteriorado % -.565 .456 -.192 1.000 .107 .356
n Ahuellamiento (mm) -.285 -.025 -.017 .107 1.000 .039
IRI
-.725 .595 -.029 .356 .039 1.000
(m/Km)
ES_Promedio_sinE2 . .000 .319 .000 .046 .000
Piel de Cocodrilo % .000 . .027 .003 .443 .000
Trans_Reflexión .319 .027 . .131 .460 .434
Sig. (1-
Parche Deteriorado % .000 .003 .131 . .267 .017
tailed)
Ahuellamiento (mm) .046 .443 .460 .267 . .411
IRI
.000 .000 .434 .017 .411 .
(m/Km)
ES_Promedio_sinE2 36 36 36 36 36 36
Piel de Cocodrilo % 36 36 36 36 36 36
Trans_Reflexión 36 36 36 36 36 36
N Parche Deteriorado % 36 36 36 36 36 36
Ahuellamiento (mm) 36 36 36 36 36 36
IRI
36 36 36 36 36 36
(m/Km)

171
 Variables Entered/Removeda
Model Variables Variables Method
Entered Removed
IRI
(m/Km),
Trans_Reflexión
, Ahuellamiento
1 . Enter
(mm), Parche
Deteriorado %,
Piel de
Cocodrilo %b
a. Dependent Variable: ES_Promedio_sinE2
b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Square Estimate
a
1 .970 .940 .930 .4793677
a. Predictors: (Constant), IRI
(m/Km), Trans_Reflexión, Ahuellamiento (mm), Parche Deteriorado
%, Piel de Cocodrilo %
b. Dependent Variable: ES_Promedio_sinE2

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
b
Regression 108.622 5 21.724 94.539 .000
1 Residual 6.894 30 .230
Total 115.515 35
a. Dependent Variable: ES_Promedio_sinE2
b. Predictors: (Constant), IRI
(m/Km), Trans_Reflexión, Ahuellamiento (mm), Parche Deteriorado %, Piel de Cocodrilo %

a
Coefficients

172
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 8.487 .215 39.423 .000
Piel de Cocodrilo % -.026 .002 -.672 -10.696 .000
Trans_Reflexión -.034 .005 -.350 -7.227 .000
1 Parche Deteriorado % -.024 .006 -.207 -4.060 .000
Ahuellamiento (mm) -.070 .011 -.275 -6.104 .000
IRI
-.121 .028 -.252 -4.381 .000
(m/Km)
a. Dependent Variable: ES_Promedio_sinE2

Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 1.830413 8.192987 5.231481 1.7616683 36
Residual -1.2524375 .8070130 0E-7 .4438083 36
Std. Predicted Value -1.931 1.681 .000 1.000 36
Std. Residual -2.613 1.683 .000 .926 36
a. Dependent Variable: ES_Promedio_sinE2

173
174
Asphalt Pavement – Manual Data Collected + IRI

Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
ES_Promedio_sinE2 5.5526 1.70369 38
PieldeCocodrilo 34.008240 42.2251679 38
Trans_Reflexión 16.6543 19.70511 38
ParcheDeteriorado 6.749204 12.5298272 38
Ahuellamientomm 4.464254 6.5247050 38
IRI 7.8842 3.80686 38

Correlations
ES_Promedi PieldeCoc Trans_Ref ParcheDe Ahuellam IRI
o_sinE2 odrilo lexión teriorado ientomm
ES_Promedio_sinE
1.000 -.723 -.243 -.466 -.334 -.660
2
PieldeCocodrilo -.723 1.000 -.249 .336 .066 .575
Pearson
Trans_Reflexión -.243 -.249 1.000 -.148 .176 -.038
Correlation
ParcheDeteriorado -.466 .336 -.148 1.000 .156 .292
Ahuellamientomm -.334 .066 .176 .156 1.000 .099
IRI -.660 .575 -.038 .292 .099 1.000
ES_Promedio_sinE
. .000 .071 .002 .020 .000
2
PieldeCocodrilo .000 . .066 .020 .347 .000
Sig. (1-
Trans_Reflexión .071 .066 . .187 .145 .411
tailed)
ParcheDeteriorado .002 .020 .187 . .175 .038
Ahuellamientomm .020 .347 .145 .175 . .276
IRI .000 .000 .411 .038 .276 .
ES_Promedio_sinE
38 38 38 38 38 38
2
PieldeCocodrilo 38 38 38 38 38 38

N Trans_Reflexión 38 38 38 38 38 38
ParcheDeteriorado 38 38 38 38 38 38
Ahuellamientomm 38 38 38 38 38 38
IRI 38 38 38 38 38 38

175
 Variables Entered/Removeda
Model Variables Variables Method
Entered Removed
IRI,
Trans_Reflexión
,
Ahuellamientom
1 m, . Enter
ParcheDeteriora
do,
PieldeCocodrilo
b

a. Dependent Variable: ES_Promedio_sinE2

b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Square Estimate
a
1 .924 .853 .830 .70236
a. Predictors: (Constant), IRI, Trans_Reflexión, Ahuellamientomm,
ParcheDeteriorado, PieldeCocodrilo
b. Dependent Variable: ES_Promedio_sinE2

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 91.609 5 18.322 37.141 .000b
1 Residual 15.786 32 .493
Total 107.395 37
a. Dependent Variable: ES_Promedio_sinE2
b. Predictors: (Constant), IRI, Trans_Reflexión, Ahuellamientomm, ParcheDeteriorado,
PieldeCocodrilo

176
 Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 8.235 .289 28.453 .000
PieldeCocodrilo -.024 .004 -.592 -6.740 .000
Trans_Reflexión -.035 .006 -.405 -5.588 .000
1
ParcheDeteriorado -.031 .010 -.228 -3.095 .004
Ahuellamientomm -.043 .018 -.163 -2.319 .027
IRI -.113 .038 -.252 -2.979 .005
a. Dependent Variable: ES_Promedio_sinE2

Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 1.2010 8.0007 5.5526 1.57351 38
Residual -1.74546 1.13233 .00000 .65318 38
Std. Predicted Value -2.766 1.556 .000 1.000 38
Std. Residual -2.485 1.612 .000 .930 38
a. Dependent Variable: ES_Promedio_sinE2

177
178
Concrete Pavement – Manual Data Collected

Variables Entered/Removeda
Model Variables Variables Method
Entered Removed
Sellos, Esc.,
1 PD, EsqOblic, . Enter
b
Long, Trans
a. Dependent Variable: ICPU OBS
b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Square Estimate
a
1 .902 .814 .794 1.096
a. Predictors: (Constant), Sellos, Esc., PD, EsqOblic, Long, Trans
b. Dependent Variable: ICPU OBS

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 284.761 6 47.460 39.483 .000b
1 Residual 64.911 54 1.202
Total 349.672 60
a. Dependent Variable: ICPU OBS
b. Predictors: (Constant), Sellos, Esc., PD, EsqOblic, Long, Trans

179
 Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 9.455 .412 22.935 .000
Long -.040 .007 -.374 -5.857 .000
Trans -.024 .006 -.389 -4.080 .000
1 PD -.060 .019 -.274 -3.220 .002
Esc. -.249 .069 -.247 -3.616 .001
EsqOblic -.036 .016 -.144 -2.209 .031
Sellos -.017 .007 -.168 -2.685 .010
a. Dependent Variable: ICPU OBS

180
181
 Appendix G
Transition Probability Matrices

TPM and CTM for Asphalt Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-Secondary Network

Current Future Condition j

Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 46 24 21 9 0 0 0 0 0 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 50 39 2 9 0 0 0 0 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 44 46 10 0 0 0 0 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 52 48 0 0 0 0 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 52 28 20 0 0 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 50 0 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 22 0 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100

Current Future Condition j

Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 46 70 91 100 100 100 100 100 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 50 89 91 100 100 100 100 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 44 90 100 100 100 100 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 52 100 100 100 100 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 52 80 100 100 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 100 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 100 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

TPM and CTM for Asphalt Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-Local Network

Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 36 41 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 61 6 33 0 0 0 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 89 11 0 0 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 60 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100

Current Future Condition j

Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 36 77 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 90 100 100 100 100 100 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 61 67 100 100 100 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 90 100 100 100 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 89 100 100 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

182
TPM and CTM for Asphalt Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-TD ≤ SC
Future Condition j
Current Condition i Sum
10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 86 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 81 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 54 31 15 0 0 0 0 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 57 43 0 0 0 0 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 59 41 0 0 0 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 85 15 0 0 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 73 0 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 60 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100

Future Condition j
Current Condition i
10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 86 95 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 81 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 54 85 100 100 100 100 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 57 100 100 100 100 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 59 100 100 100 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 85 100 100 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 100 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

TPM and CTM for Asphalt Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-TD > SC

Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 54 25 8 12 0 0 0 0 0 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 36 53 11 0 0 0 0 0 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 57 26 16 0 0 0 0 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 62 31 0 8 0 0 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 89 11 0 0 0 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 66 34 0 0 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 47 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100

Current Future Condition j

Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 54 79 88 100 100 100 100 100 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 36 89 100 100 100 100 100 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 57 84 100 100 100 100 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 62 92 92 100 100 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 89 100 100 100 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 66 100 100 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 53 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

183
TPM and CTM for Concrete Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-Primary Network
Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 77 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 57 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 60 34 0 6 0 0 0 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 58 34 8 0 0 0 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 76 24 0 0 0 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 56 44 0 0 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Current Future Condition j

Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 77 88 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 57 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 60 94 94 100 100 100 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 58 92 100 100 100 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 76 100 100 100 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 56 100 100 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 100 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

TPM and CTM for Concrete Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-Secondary Network

Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 14 71 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 67 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 28 57 8 7 0 0 0 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 83 8 8 0 0 0 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 38 55 6 0 0 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 88 12 0 0 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 64 0 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Current Future Condition j

Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 14 85 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 67 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 28 85 93 100 100 100 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 83 92 100 100 100 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 38 94 100 100 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 88 100 100 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 100 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

184
TPM and CTM for Concrete Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-Local Network
Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 74 18 8 0 0 0 0 0 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 66 13 21 0 0 0 0 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 49 45 5 0 0 0 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 60 40 0 0 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 48 0 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 18 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100

Current Future Condition j

Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 74 92 100 100 100 100 100 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 66 79 100 100 100 100 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 49 95 100 100 100 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 90 100 100 100 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 60 100 100 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 100 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

TPM and CTM for Concrete Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-TD ≤ SC

Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 57 29 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 68 29 3 0 0 0 0 0 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 48 44 5 4 0 0 0 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 64 26 10 0 0 0 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 62 34 4 0 0 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 83 17 0 0 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 57 0 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 18 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100

Current Future Condition j

Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 57 87 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 68 97 100 100 100 100 100 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 48 91 96 100 100 100 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 64 90 100 100 100 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 62 96 100 100 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 83 100 100 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 100 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

185
 TPM and CTM for Concrete Pavement-Mediterranean Climate-TD > SC
Future Condition j
Current Condition i Sum
10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 46 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 44 25 20 11 0 0 0 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 57 43 0 0 0 0 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 70 30 0 0 0 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 83 17 0 0 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 11 0 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 6 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100

Future Condition j
Current Condition i
10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 46 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 44 69 89 100 100 100 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 57 100 100 100 100 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 70 100 100 100 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 83 100 100 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 100 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

TPM and CTM for Asphalt Pavement-Dry Climate-Global

Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 89 9 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 32 56 13 0 0 0 0 0 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 50 46 3 0 0 0 0 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 24 50 11 15 0 0 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 30 49 0 21 0 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 74 0 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 24 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 95 100

Current Future Condition j

Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 83 96 97 100 100 100 100 100 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 42 87 100 100 100 100 100 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 50 93 100 100 100 100 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 15 46 69 100 100 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 30 79 79 100 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 50 100 100 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 100 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

186
 TPM and CTM for Concrete Pavement-Humid Climate-Global
Current Future Condition j
Sum
Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 85 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 95 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 62 33 5 0 0 0 0 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 85 15 0 0 0 0 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 51 35 13 0 0 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 34 0 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 37 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100

Current Future Condition j

Condition i 10.00 - 9.00 8.99 - 8.00 7.99 - 7.00 6.99 - 6.00 5.99 - 5.00 4.99 - 4.00 3.99 - 3.00 2.99 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.00
10.00 - 9.00 76 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8.99 - 8.00 0 88 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7.99 - 7.00 0 0 73 89 100 100 100 100 100
6.99 - 6.00 0 0 0 65 100 100 100 100 100
5.99 - 5.00 0 0 0 0 43 84 100 100 100
4.99 - 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 46 100 100 100
3.99 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 100 100
2.99 - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 100
1.99 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

187
 Appendix H
Validation Tests for Performance Models

Asphalt Pavements – Mediterranean Climate – Primary Network

Prueba t para dos muestras suponiendo varianzas desiguales

UPCI 2 UPCICALC
Media 6.947889347 6.689761882
Varianza 9.140325491 10.36811372
Observaciones 11 11
Diferencia hipotética de las medias 0
Grados de libertad 20
Estadístico t 0.193829241
P(T<=t) una cola 0.424132343
Valor crítico de t (una cola) 1.724718243
P(T<=t) dos colas 0.848264687
Valor crítico de t (dos colas) 2.085963447

Asphalt Pavements – Mediterranean Climate – Secondary Network

Prueba t para dos muestras suponiendo varianzas desiguales

UPCI 2 UPCICALC
Media 5.532329755 5.2162418
Varianza 6.012791089 5.803021665
Observaciones 10 10
Diferencia hipotética de las medias 0
Grados de libertad 18
Estadístico t 0.290787777
P(T<=t) una cola 0.387268783
Valor crítico de t (una cola) 1.734063607
P(T<=t) dos colas 0.774537566
Valor crítico de t (dos colas) 2.10092204

Asphalt Pavements – Mediterranean Climate – Local Network

Prueba t para dos muestras suponiendo varianzas desiguales

UPCI 2 UPCICALC
Media 6.996853454 7.108729642
Varianza 1.961927552 1.999107737
Observaciones 14 14
Diferencia hipotética de las medias 0
Grados de libertad 26
Estadístico t -0.210328112
P(T<=t) una cola 0.417525602
Valor crítico de t (una cola) 1.70561792
P(T<=t) dos colas 0.835051204
Valor crítico de t (dos colas) 2.055529439

188
Asphalt Pavements – Mediterranean Climate – Traffic Demand ≤ Structural Capacity
Prueba t para dos muestras suponiendo varianzas desiguales

UPCI 2 UPCICALC
Media 6.629881694 6.718710301
Varianza 5.096845563 5.508102444
Observaciones 25 25
Diferencia hipotética de las medias 0
Grados de libertad 48
Estadístico t -0.13638562
P(T<=t) una cola 0.446043431
Valor crítico de t (una cola) 2.010634758
P(T<=t) dos colas 0.892086863
Valor crítico de t (dos colas) 2.313899132

Asphalt Pavements – Mediterranean Climate – Traffic Demand >Structural Capacity

Prueba t para dos muestras suponiendo varianzas desiguales

UPCI 2 UPCICALC
Media 6.480072177 6.130116423
Varianza 8.916558529 7.695027361
Observaciones 6 6
Diferencia hipotética de las medias 0
Grados de libertad 10
Estadístico t 0.21032128
P(T<=t) una cola 0.418820231
Valor crítico de t (una cola) 2.228138852
P(T<=t) dos colas 0.837640463
Valor crítico de t (dos colas) 2.633766916

Concrete Pavements – Mediterranean Climate – Primary Network

Prueba t para dos muestras suponiendo varianzas desiguales

UPCI 2 UPCICALC
Media 6.556756692 6.581566977
Varianza 1.966874713 2.332270947
Observaciones 22 22
Diferencia hipotética de las medias 0
Grados de libertad 42
Estadístico t -0.056124439
P(T<=t) una cola 0.477754413
Valor crítico de t (una cola) 1.681952357
P(T<=t) dos colas 0.955508827
Valor crítico de t (dos colas) 2.018081703

189
 Concrete Pavements – Mediterranean Climate – Secondary Network
Prueba t para dos muestras suponiendo varianzas desiguales

UPCI 2 UPCICALC
Media 6.505092068 6.419231729
Varianza 2.928865943 2.308749098
Observaciones 22 22
Diferencia hipotética de las medias 0
Grados de libertad 41
Estadístico t 0.1759694
P(T<=t) una cola 0.430592132
Valor crítico de t (una cola) 1.682878002
P(T<=t) dos colas 0.861184263
Valor crítico de t (dos colas) 2.01954097

Concrete Pavements – Mediterranean Climate – Local Network

Prueba t para dos muestras suponiendo varianzas desiguales

UPCI 2 UPCICALC
Media 6.425117109 6.517439073
Varianza 3.418206177 3.111736409
Observaciones 10 10
Diferencia hipotética de las medias 0
Grados de libertad 18
Estadístico t -0.11424846
P(T<=t) una cola 0.455152783
Valor crítico de t (una cola) 1.734063607
P(T<=t) dos colas 0.910305565
Valor crítico de t (dos colas) 2.10092204

Concrete Pavements – Mediterranean Climate – Traffic Demand ≤ Structural Capacity

Prueba t para dos muestras suponiendo varianzas desiguales

UPCI 2 UPCICALC
Media 6.308938159 6.354103184
Varianza 3.502854875 2.927049339
Observaciones 49 49
Diferencia hipotética de las medias 0
Grados de libertad 95
Estadístico t -0.124680359
P(T<=t) una cola 0.450520027
Valor crítico de t (una cola) 1.985251004
P(T<=t) dos colas 0.901040054
Valor crítico de t (dos colas) 2.277482763

190
Concrete Pavements – Mediterranean Climate – Traffic Demand >Structural Capacity
Prueba t para dos muestras suponiendo varianzas desiguales

UPCI 2 UPCICALC
Media 5.73463843 5.747789897
Varianza 1.932928408 1.213306396
Observaciones 8 8
Diferencia hipotética de las medias 0
Grados de libertad 13
Estadístico t -0.020971217
P(T<=t) una cola 0.491793541
Valor crítico de t (una cola) 2.160368656
P(T<=t) dos colas 0.983587083
Valor crítico de t (dos colas) 2.532637815

Asphalt Pavement – Dry Climate – Global

Prueba t para dos muestras suponiendo varianzas desiguales

UPCI 2 UPCICALC
Media 7.276644881 7.219599363
Varianza 7.532730866 7.249751122
Observaciones 32 32
Diferencia hipotética de las medias 0
Grados de libertad 62
Estadístico t 0.083931086
P(T<=t) una cola 0.46669082
Valor crítico de t (una cola) 1.669804163
P(T<=t) dos colas 0.93338164
Valor crítico de t (dos colas) 1.998971517

Concrete Pavement – Humid Climate – Global

Prueba t para dos muestras suponiendo varianzas desiguales

UPCI 2 UPCICALC
Media 6.737876227 6.493700321
Varianza 3.312091008 4.141108608
Observaciones 17 17
Diferencia hipotética de las medias 0
Grados de libertad 32
Estadístico t 0.368770262
P(T<=t) una cola 0.35736384
Valor crítico de t (una cola) 2.036933343
P(T<=t) dos colas 0.71472768
Valor crítico de t (dos colas) 2.35183518

191
 Appendix I
Summary of P&M&R Treatments

Asphalt Pavements

Maintenance Maintenance Type Application Policy Recommendations for Effect on Service Reference
Activities Application ICPU Life
Pothole Repair Rutine Maintenance Anual Up to 80 m2/Km/year 3 to 5 Manvu; MOP, 2003;
Low or moderate Cracking and MOP, 2012; Hicks
young pavement
Moderate or high fatigue
cracking and raveling
Moderate fatigue cracking;
moderate deteriorated patches;
moderate and high rutting
Deep Patches Rehabilitation Moderate or high fatigue (Hicks et al. 2000)
cracking; moderate deteriorated
patches; Moderate raveling;
high, moderate or low rutting
Seals Preservation Cracking Area>15% MOP, 2003; Manvu
Cracking Area >20%
Cracking Area >25%
Seal coat Preservation Young pavement, Moderate 3 to 6 (Hicks et al. 2000)
raveling
Sand seal Preservation Low cracking, aging Low traffic 2 to 5 (Hicks et al. 2000)

192
 Asphalt Pavements

Maintenance Maintenance Type Application Policy Recommendations for Effect on Service Reference
Activities Application ICPU Life
Slurry Seal Preservation Cracking Area >10% All type of climate and Best 3 to 4 MOP, 2003; MOP,
Cracking Area >15% traffic condition 2 to 5 2006; MOP, 2012;
Cracking Area >20% Improve: friction, roughness, Caltrans, Hicks;
Cracking Area >25% service life NCHRP Peshkin;
Aging, raveling or Fatigue Not Recommended for high Ontario; 22 Hicks;
cracking ≤ 10%. roughness, high cracking, Hicks
Rutting < 0.5" fatigue cracking, high rutting (Ohio DOT) Table B.2
Fatigue, block, longitudinal, or high bleeding
transversal and reflection
cracking of low severity and
raveling
Low cracking, raveling, aging
Fog Seal Preservation Raveling, shrinkage, aging, 1
fatigue cracking ≤ 10%. 1 to 2
No structural deterioration (Hicks et al. 2000)
Not much
effect in
service life
Fog Seal Preservation Raveling, shrinkage, aging, No structural deterioration 1 (Hicks et al. 2000)
fatigue cracking ≤ 10% Low traffic 1 to 2
Not much
effect in
service life
Fog Seal Preservation Raveling, shrinkage, aging, No structural deterioration 1 11 Hicks; 1 Hicks;
fatigue cracking ≤ 10%. Low Traffic 1 to 2 Caltrans, Hicks; Hicks
Not much (Ohio DOT) Table B.2;
effect in NCHRP Peshkin
service life

193
 Asphalt Pavements

Maintenance Maintenance Type Application Policy Recommendations for Effect on Service Reference
Activities Application ICPU Life
Chip seal Preservation Raveling, aging, fatigue Low IRI, Low Rutting for 3 to 6 11 Hicks, 1 Hicks,
cracking ≤ 20%. Or rutting. < AADT<1000 4 to 8 (Caltrans, Hicks)
0.5" Raveling, weathering, NCHRP Peshkin,
Moderate/low Block cracking longitudinal and transversal Ontario
and/or bleeding cracking for AADT≤5000 (Hicks et al. 2000)
Friction, raveling, low cracking, Block Cracking
aging Any Climate type,
AADT<30000
Improve: Friction,
roughness and service life
Not Recommended for high
roughness, high fatigue
cracking, high rutting or
high bleeding
Not recommended for urban
pavements
Microsurfacing Preservation Low IRI, Low Rutting, raveling, AADT ≥ 1000 3 to 4 (Hicks et al. 2000)
weathering, bleeding All climate types, AADT < 2 to 6
Aging, raveling or fatigue 5000 3 to 8
cracking ≤ 10% o rutting < 0.5" Not recommended for high
roughness, high fatigue
cracking or high rutting.
Crack sealing Rutine Maintenance Fatigue Cracking ≤ 10% or Not recommended for high 1 to 2 (Hicks et al. 2000)
longitudinal of tranversal roughness, high fatigue 1 to 4
cracking cracking, raveling or high 3 to 5
Low or moderate cracking Low rutting. Not
fatigue cracking, block Poor effectivity for high effective
cracking, low or moderate long or trans cracking for for
reflection, long and trans AADT > 5000 improving
cracking; low ofr moderate service life
deteriorated patch

194
 Asphalt Pavements

Maintenance Maintenance Type Application Policy Recommendations for Effect on Service Reference
Activities Application ICPU Life
Crack sealing Rutine Maintenance Grietas fatiga o grietas long o All types of climate and 2 to 3 (Hicks et al. 2000)
with modified trans traffic
asphalt

Thin Overlay Preservation Low Cracking > 40% Low IRI, low rutting, long 3 to 6 Manvu
IRI ≥ 3,5 m/Km or trans cracking, shrinkage Increase 11 Hicks; 1 Hicks; 16
Friction, raveling for AADT > 5000 Service (Hicks et al. 2000)
Life
Thin Overlay Preservation Rutting, low cracking aging. All Low/Moderate block 7 to 10 (Hicks et al. 2000)
types of traffic cracking, raveling, polished 4 to 8
Low or moderate structural aggregate 6 to 9
deterioration All types of climate and 8 to 11
Moderate age and cracking traffic
Moderate and high AADT<300 p/ 50mm,
serviceability and moderate or 300<AADT<1200 p/ 60mm
high raveling Improve: friction,
roughness, service life
Not recommended for high
fatigue cracking, high
roughness, high rutting
Overlay with Preservation Aging, raveling or fatigue All types of climate and 3 to 5 (Hicks et al. 2000)
Open Grade cracking ≤ 20% traffic
AC
Overlay with Preservation Aging, raveling or fatigue All types of climate and 4 to 6 (Hicks et al. 2000)
AR cracking ≤ 30% or rutting. < traffic
0.5"
Thin Overlay Preservation Aging, raveling or fatigue All types of climate and 3 to 6 (Hicks et al. 2000)
with PBA cracking ≤ 30% o rutting traffic
Thin Overlay Preservation Aging, raveling or fatigue All types of climate and 5 to 8 (Hicks et al. 2000)
R (G Type) cracking ≤ 30% o rutting. traffic

195
 Asphalt Pavements

Maintenance Maintenance Type Application Policy Recommendations for Effect on Service Reference
Activities Application ICPU Life
Milling and Maintenance Fatigue cracking ≤ 2% y (Hicks et al. 2000)
Overlay Rutting. ≤ 15
(different
thickness)
Structural Maintenance IRI ≥ 4 m/Km All types of climate and Condición 8 a 12 MOP, 2003; MOP,
Overlay IRI ≥ 5 m/Km traffic Nueva 2006
IRI ≥ 3,5 m/Km Crack seal, pothol repair IRI=1,5 (Hicks et al. 2000)
2 < SL ≤ 2.5 and Fatigue previous m/Km
cracking ≤ 2% and Rutting. < 5
High cracking, moderate
structural deterioration, old
pavement, high or moderate
rutting and deteriorated patches

Cold Rehabilitation Raveling, rutting, low cracking, Low traffic 5 to 10 (Hicks et al. 2000)
Recycling aging. Moderate age; For high traffic requires 5 to 8
Moderate/High block cracking overlay

Hot Recycling Rehabilitation Rutting, low cracking, aging. Alto tránsito 5 to 10 (Hicks et al. 2000)
Moderate/high block cracking,
high long transo or reflection
cracking; high deteriorated
patch; raveling and high rutting
ahuellamiento alto
Reconstruction Rehabilitation IRI ≥ 8 m/Km 300<TMDA<1200 MOP, 2003; MOP,
with Seals 2012
Reconstruction Rehabilitation IRI ≥ 6 m/Km TMDA<300; MOP, 2003; MOP,
(different 10% < Fatigue Cracking or 15 < 300<TMDA<1200; 2006; MOP, 2012; 13
structures) Rutting 1200<TMDA<3000; Hicks
o si SL < 2 y 2% < Fatigue TMDA>3000
Cracking ≤ 10%

196
 Concrete Pavements

Maintenance Maintenance Application Policy Recommendati Effect on ICPU Service Life Reference
Activities Type ons for
Application
Crack and joint Rutine Every 2, 3 or 4 years Manvu, MOP 2003 y
sealing Maintenance 2006; 22 Hicks y
NCHRP Peshkin, TAC

Slab repair Rutine Blow up, durability cracking, moderate (Hicks et al. 2000)
Maintenance deteriorated patch, low/moderate
spalling and moderate/high scaling
Diamond grind Preservation IRI > 3,5 or faulting > 3mm Improve IRI to MOP, 2003 y 2006;
Faulting > 4 mm 1,5 m/Km Hicks y NCHRP Peshkin
IRI > 4 or faulting > 5 mm Decrease
IRI > 5 m/Km thickness in
2mm
Improve:
friction,
roughness,
service life
Asphalt overlay Maintenance High long and trans cracking, popouts, (Hicks et al. 2000)
moderate/high scaling

Concrete overlay Maintenance High long and trans cracking, popouts, (Hicks et al. 2000)
moderate/high scaling

Drainage Maintenance Not Aplicable to urban pavements

improvement

197
 Concrete Pavements

Maintenance Maintenance Application Policy Recommendati Effect on ICPU Service Life Reference
Activities Type ons for
Application
Rehabilitation Rehabilitation p≥2.5 Manvu
p≥2.0
p≥1.5

Slab replace Maintenance (1) Cracking > 80% (1) Reemplace MOP, 2003 y 2006
(2) Cracking > 50% of 20% of slab
(3) Cracking > 20% with high
(4) Cracking Index >150 deterioration
(2) Reemplace
of 50% of slab
with high
deterioration
(3) Reemplace
of 100% of slab
with high
deterioration
(4) 5% cracked
area
Recycling Rehabilitation High long, trans, oblique and durability (Hicks et al. 2000)
cracking
Reconstruction Rehabilitation High long, trans, oblique, durability (Hicks et al. 2000)
cracking and deteriorated patch

198
 Appendix J
References of Technical Standards for Chile

References of Chilean Technical Standards for Asphalt Pavements

Type of Construction
P&M&R Action
P&M&R Action Standard

Crack Sealing Article 10.3.2.1 *

Pothole Repair Article 10.3.2.2 *
Fog Seal Article 10.3.1.1 *
Article 10.3.1.3 *
Slurry seal Type II aggregate is
Preservation
considered (6)
Seal Coat Article 5.9 *
Volume 5 of the Road
Microsurfacing
Manual (MOP, 2014)
Functional resurfacing Article 10.3.3.2 *
Hot In-Place Recycling
Section 5.413 of the
Maintenance Cold In-Place Recycling Road Manual (MOP,
2014)
Structural Resurfacing Article 5.11
Rehabilitation Reconstruction
(*) Code of Norms and Technical Specifications for Paving Work (MINVU, 2008)

199
 References of Chilean Technical Standards for Concrete Pavements
Type of
P&M&R Action Construction Standard
P&M&R Action
Crack and joint sealing Article 9.5.1 *
Corner Breaks Repair Article 9.5.5 *
Preservation Diamond Grinding Articles 9.5.1 *
Thin Asphalt Overlay Article 10.3.3.2 *
Bonded Concrete Overlay Section 4 *
Crack and Joint Stitching
Maintenance Full-Depth Slab Repair Article 9.5.5 *
Structural Resurfacing Article 5.11*
Rehabilitation Reconstruction Section 4 *
(*) Code of Norms and Technical Specifications for Paving Work (MINVU, 2008)

200
 References

AASHTO. (1993). Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO. (2001). “Standard Practice for Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt Pavement Surface,
Provisional Protocol PP 44-01.” American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials.
Adel W., Thomas E., and Michael J. (1996). “Deterioration Prediction Modelling of Virginia
Interstate Highway System.”
AgileAssets Inc. (2010). “Pavement Analysis Spec Sheet.” <http://www.agileassets.com/all-
products/pavement-analyst> (Feb. 6, 2012).
APSA. (2004). “Desarrollo de Nuevo Servicio de Evaluación de Deterioros de Pavimentos
utilizando Tecnología Digital. FONTEC-CORFO No203-3757.”
Arambula E., George R., Xiong W., and Hall G. (2011). “Development and Validation of
Pavement Performance Models for the State of Maryland.” Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2225, 25–31.
Ariaratnam, S., El-Assaly, A., and Yang, Y. (2001). “Assessment of Infrastructure Inspection needs
using logistic models.” Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 7(4), 160–165.
Assaf. G.J., Haas, R., and Bergeron, C. (2006). “Caused Oriented Deterioration Modelling for
Urban Pavement Management. Innovations in Urban Infraestructure.” National Research
Council Canada, 76–85.
ASTM. (2003a). “Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index. D
6433-03.” American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM. (2003b). “ASTM E1926-08. Standard Practice for Computing International Roughness
Index of Roads from Longitudinal Profile Measurements.”
ASTM. (2008). “Pavement Testing, Evaluation, and Management Methods.”
Avilés Lorenzo, J. (2002). “Estudio de la tenacidad de los microaglomerados reciclados en caliente
mediante el ensayo BTD. Efecto del tipo y contenido de betún.” Enginyeria de Camins,
Canals i Ports, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, España.
Baik, H., Jeong, H., and Abraham, D. (n.d.). “Estimating Transition Probabilities in Marko Chain –
Based Deterioration Models for Management of Wastewater Systems.” Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management, 132(19), 15–24.
Bennett C. (1996). “The HDM-4 Model.” New Zealand.
Broten, M. (1996). Local Agency Pavement Management Application Guide. Washington State
Dept. of Transportation, TransAid Service Center, Washington, USA.
Caltrans, C. D. of T. (2009). Maintenance technical advisory guide (MTAG). California, USA.
Cartegraph. (2013). “The Operations Management System.”
<http://www.cartegraph.com/index.php/solutions/pavementview> (Feb. 26, 2012).
Chamorro, A. (2004). “Implementación y validación de una tecnología para la inspección visual de
pavimentos en Chile.” Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Chamorro, A. (2012). “Development of a Sustainable Management System for Rural Road
Networks in Developing Countries.” PhD. Thesis, University of Waterloo, Canada.
Chamorro, A., de Solminihac, H., Salgado, M., and Barrera, E. (2009a). “Development and
Validation of a Method to Evaluate Unpaved Road Condition with Objective Distress
Measures.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2101, 3–9.

201
Chamorro, A., and Tighe, S. (2011). “Condition performance models for network-level
management of unpaved roads.” Transportation Research Record, 2204, 21–28.
Chamorro, A., and Tighe, S. L. (2009). “Development of a management framework for rural roads
in developing countries: Integrating socioeconomic impacts.” Transportation Research
Record, 2093, 99–107.
Chamorro, A., Tighe, S. L., Li, N., and Kazmierowski, T. J. (2009b). “Development of distress
guidelines and condition rating to improve network management in Ontario, Canada.”
Transportation Research Record, 2093, 128–135.
Chan P., Oppermann M., and Wu S. (1997). “North Carolina’s Experience in Development of
Pavement Performance Prediction and Modeling.” Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1592, 80–84.
Chan, S., Lane, B., Kazmierowski, T., and Lee, W. (2011). “Pavement preservation: A solution for
sustainability.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2235, 36–42.
CIS, and MINVU. (1992). “Desarrollo del sistema de administración del mantenimiento de
pavimentos urbanos (SAMPU).” Consultores e Ingeniería Cuatro & Ministerio de Vivienda
y Urbanismo.
Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Colorado State University. (2013). “PAVER - Pavement Management Software.”
<http://www.paver.colostate.edu/> (Aug. 26, 2013).
Colucci B., and Ramírez-Beltrán N. (1997). “Methodology for Developing Generic Performance
Curves for Flexible Pavements in Puerto Rico Using Clustering Techniques.”
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1592,
116–124.
Cook, R. D. (1979). “Influential Observations in Linear Regression.” Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 74 (365), 169–174.
Cottrell W., Lee H., Nepstad J., and Crandall M. (2006). “Efforts Toward Developing a Regional
Pavement Management System in Utah.” Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Wasatch Front Regional Council,
Bountiful, Utah, USA.
Deighton. (2012). “Deighton - dTIMS.” <http://www.deighton.com/dtims.html> (Jan. 29, 2012).
DGAC&DMC. (2011). “Anuario Climatológico 2010. Santiago, Chile. 2011.” Dirección General
de Aeronautica Civil y Dirección Meteorologica de Chile.
Dictuc S.A. (2006). “Análisis de Sensibilidad de Parámetros del Modelo HDM-4 y Actualización
de Metodología para la Determinación del Estado de Caminos Pavimentados.”
Echaveguren T. (2006). “INVESTIGACIÓN Y DESARROLLO DE PROCEDIMIENTOS PARA
LA MEDICION Y CONTROL DE FRICCION SUPERFICIAL EN PAVIMENTOS EN
CHILE”. DOCUMENTO TÉCNICO TM-022-06. INFORME DE AVANCE ACTIVIDAD
8. PROCEDIMIENTOS DE CALIBRACION. PROYECTO FONDEF D03I-1042.”
Pontificia Universidad Católica De Chile.
Echaveguren T. (2008). “Modelación de la resistencia al deslizamiento en pavimentos.” Pontificia
Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Echaveguren T., and González D. (2000). “Sistemas de Gestión de Conservación de Pavimentos
Urbanos.” Universidad de Concepción.
Erdfelder E., Faul F., and Buchner A. (1996). “GPOWER: A general power analysis program.”
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28 (1), 1–11.
FHWA. (2003a). Economic Analysis Primer. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, Office of
Asset Management, Washington, D.C.
202
FHWA. (2003b). “Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance
Program. Publication N° FHWA-RD-03-031.” Federal Highway Administration,
Departament of Transportation.
FHWA. (2014). Federal Highway Administration.
Flintsch, G., and McGhee K. (2009). “Synthesis of Practice 401: Quality Management of Pavement
Condition Data Collection.” NCHRP.
Gordon K. (2008). .
Gransberg, D. (2010). NCHRP Synthesis 411: Microsurfacing, a synthesis of highway practices.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies., Washington D.C., USA.
Gransberg, D., and James, D. M. . (2005). NCHRP Synthesis 342: Chip seal best practices.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies., Washington D.C., USA.
Haas, R., Hudson, W. R., and Zaniewski, J. P. (1994). Modern Pavement Management. Krieger
Pub Co.
Hein, D., and Watt, D. (2005). “Municipal Pavement Performance Predition based on Pavement
Condition Data, Very Long-Term Life-Cycle Analysis of Pavements, Determining the
True Value of Our Investment Session for the 2005.” Annual Conference of the
Trasnportation Association of Canada, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Hicks, R. G., Seeds, S. B., and Peshkin, D. G. (2000). Selecting a preventive maintenance
treatment for flexible pavements. FHWA, Washington, D.C., USA.
Jackson N., Deighton R., and Huft D. (1996). “Development of Pavement Performance Curves for
Individual Distress Indexes in South Dakota Based on Expert Opinion.” Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1524, 130–136.
Jestin, R. (2011). “Roads Infraestructure Renewal in the City of Calgary.” The Western Canada
Pavement Workshop, Canada.
JG3. (2012). “Pavement Management Simplified.” <http://jg3consulting.com/paver.html >, Feb
17th, 2012.
Kafi M. (2012). “Development Practices for Municipal Pavement Management Systems
Application.” University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Kargag-Ostadi N., Stoffels S., and Tabatabaee N. (2010). “Network-Level Pavement Roughness
Prediction Model for Rehabilitation Recommendations.” Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2155, 124–133.
Kraemer, C., Pardillo, J. M., Rocci, S., Romana, M. G., Sánchez Blanco, V., and Del Val, M. A.
(2004). Ingeniería de carreteras. McGraw-Hill/Interamericana de España, Madrid, España.
Lashlee, J., Chaney, D., and Bearden, K. (2004). Pavement Management System Report. Public
Works Department. Planning and Design Division, City of Bowling Green, Utah, USA.
Lund Z. (2009). “The PERS System Modelling Pavement Performance.” Dynatest, Denmark.
Martin T. (1996). “A Review of Existing Pavement Performance Relationships.” AARB Transport
Research, Victoria, Australia.
McPherson, K., and Bennett, C. (2005). Success Factors for Road Management Systems. Version
1.0. East Asia Pacific Transport Unit. The World Bank., Washington D.C., USA.
MFE. (2011). Pliego de prescripciones técnicas generales para obras de carreteras y puentes (PG-
3). Ministerio de Fomento de España, Madrid, España.
Micevski, T., Kuckzera, G., and Coombes, P. (2002). “Markov Model for Storm Water Pipe
Deterioration.” Journal of Construction Infrastructure Systems, 8 (2), 49–56.
MINVU. (2008a). Código de Normas y Especificaciones Técnicas de Obras de Pavimentación.
Santiago, Chile.

203
MINVU. (2008b). “Diagnostico Vial - Región Metropolitana, Cobertura y Déficit de
Pavimentación.” Unidad de Pavimentación. Depto. Planes y Programas. Seremi
Metropolitana de Santiago, Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo.
MINVU. (2009). “Manual de Vialidad Urbana, Recomendaciones para el Diseño de Elementos de
la Infraestructura Vial Urbana (REDEVU).” División de Desarrollo Urbano. Ministerio de
Vivienda y Urbanismo.
MINVU. (2012). “Gestión Institucional para la Conservación de Pavimentos Urbanos.” Ministerio
de Vivienda y Urbanismo.
MINVU, M. de U. y V. (1999). Metodología Simplificada para Evaluar Proyectos de
Mantenimiento Vial Urbano (MANVUSIMP). Santiago, Chile.
MINVU, and RyQ Ingeniería. (1989). Estudio de mantenimiento vial urbano: MANVU. Ministerio
de Urbanismo y Vivienda, División de Desarrollo Urbano, Santiago, Chile.
Mizusawa, D. (2009). Road Management Commercial Off The Shelf Systems Catalog. Washington
D.C., USA.
Mok H., and Smith, R. E. (1997). “Prediction of Highway Performance Monitoring System’s
Present Serviceability Rating for Local Agencies Using San Francisco Bay Area Pavement
Management System.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 1592, 107–115.
MOP. (2006). “ANÁLISIS DE SENSIBILIDAD DE PARÁMETROS DEL MODELO HDM-4 Y
ACTUALIZACIÓN DE METODOLOGÍA PARA LA DETERMINACIÓN DEL
ESTADO DE CAMINOS PAVIMENTADOS.” MINISTERIO DE OBRAS PÚBLICAS
DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE OBRAS PÚBLICAS DIRECCIÓN DE VIALIDAD
Departamento de Gestión Vial.
MOP. (2007). “Modelos de Deterioros de Caminos No Pavimentados.” DDQ Ingeniero Consultor,
Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Dirección General de Obras Públicas, Dirección de Vialidad,
Departamento de Gestión Vial.
MOP. (2010). “Instructivo de Inspección Visual de Caminos Pavimentados.” Ministerio de Obras
Públicas, Dirección de Vialidad. Santiago, Chile.
MOP, (Ministerio Obras Públicas de Chile). (2014). Manual de carreteras. Santiago, Chile.
MTC. (2009). “Metropolitan Transportation Commission.” <http://www.mtc.ca.gov/services/pmp/,
Metropolitan Transportation Comision>.> (Feb. 15, 2012).
MTO. (1989). “Flexible Pavement Condition Rating. Guidelines for Municipalities.” Ministry of
Transportation of Ontario.
MTQ. (2005). .
Mubaraki M. (2010). “Predicting Deterioration for the Saudi Arabia Urban Road Network.”
University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.
NCHRP. (2010). “Models for Predicting Reflection Cracking of Hot-Mix Asphalt Overlays.
NCHRP 669.” National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report.
NGSMI. (2002). National Guide for Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure. Decision Making and
Planning Investment. Ottawa, Canada.
Nichols Consulting Engineers, CHTD. (2010). Executive Summary, inventories and budget
analyses reports. Pavement management program. Seal Beach, USA.
Odartey L., Attoh-Okine N., and McNeil S. (2012). “Developing Pavement Performance Models
for Delaware.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2304, 97–103.
Ortiz-García, J., Costello, S., and Snaith, S. (2006). “Derivation of Transition Probability Matrices
for Pavement Deterioration Modeling.” Journal of Transportation Engineering, 132 (2),
141–161.
204
Osorio, A., Chamorro, A., Tighe, S. L., and Videla, C. (2015). “Development of performance
models of urban pavements for network analysis.” Transportation Research Board 94st
Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., USA, 1–19.
Osorio, A., Chamorro, A., Tighe, S., and Videla, C. (2014). “Calibration and Validation of
Condition Indicator for Managing Urban Pavement Networks.” Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2455, 28–36.
Osorio, A., Tighe, S., Chamorro, A., and Videla, C. (2012). “Sustainable Urban Pavement
Management Framework: A Chilean Case Study.” 1st International Specialty Conference
on Sustaining Public Infrastructure. Edmont, Canada.
PERS. (2010). <http://www.dynatest.com/software-sub-pers.php>.
Phang, W., and Stott, G. (1981). “Pavement Condition and Performance Observations Brampton
Test Road.” Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists.
PUC. (2010). “Proyect FONDEF D09I1018 ‘Investigación y Desarrollo de Soluciones para la
Gestión de Pavimentos Urbanos en Chile.’” Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
Departamento de Ingeniería y Gestión de la Construcción.
Rahim A., Fiegel G., Calkins R., Lim D., and Holland J. (2013). “Performance Prediction Models
for Cracked, Seated, and Overlaid Concrete Pavements in California.” Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2368, 92–101.
Rajagopal, A. (2006). “Developing Pavement Performance Prediction Models and Decision Trees
for the City of Cincinnati. Job Number 134186.” University of Cincinnati.
Rajagopalan, B., Lall, U., and Tarboton, D. (1996). “No homogeneous Markov Model for Daily
Precipitation.” Journal of Hydrological Engineering, 1 (1), 36–40.
Reza, F., K. Boriboonsomsin, and S. Bazlamit. (2006). “Development of a Pavement Quality Index
for the State of Ohio.” 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington D.C.
Robinson C., Beg M., Dossey T., and Hudson W. (1996). “Distress Prediction Models for Rigid
Pavements for Texas Pavement Management Information System.” Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1524.
Sabaaly, P., Hand, J., and Bosch, C. (1996). “Nevada’s Approach to Pavement Management.”
1524.
Sachs. (1996). “Adapting Local Agency Pavement Management Procedures to Develop Simplified
System for Use by: Smaller Cities in Washingthon.” Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1524, 25–35.
Schliesser, A., and Bull, A. (1992). Caminos: Un Nuevo Enfoque para la Gestión y Conservación
de Redes Viales. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC),
United Nations., Santiago, Chile.
Shiyab A. (2007). “Optimum use of the flexible pavement condition indicators in pavement
management system.” Curtin University of Technology, Australia.
SMEC. (2012). “Smec Asset Management Systems. The Pavement Management System. Product
Overview. Australia.” <<http://www.smecsoftware.com.au/, Smec Asset Management
Systems>>.
Smith, R. E., Freeman T. J., and Pendleton O. J. (1996). “Evaluation of Automated Pavement
Distress Data Collection Procedures for Local Agency Pavement Management.”
Washington State Department of Transportation.
de Solminihac, H. (2001). Gestion de infraestructura vial. Pontificia Universidad Católica De
Chile, Santiago, Chile.

205
de Solminihac, H., Marquez, W., Halles, F., Chamorro, A., and Valdes, M. (2009). “Pavement and
shoulder condition models developed with expert surveys: The Chilean application.”
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 34(1B), 137–142.
Stantec. (2009). Road Matrix Overview. Canadá.
TAC. (2013). Pavement Asset Design and Management Guide. Transportation Association of
Canada, Ontario, Canada.
Tack J., and Chou Y. (2001). “Pavement Performance Analysis Applying Probabilistic
Deterioration Methods.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 1769, 20–27.
Tan, S. G., and Cheng, D. (2012). “Using a Performance-Based Approach to Integrate Pavement
Preservation into Pavement Management System: Case Study.” Transportation Research
Board 91st Annual Meeting.
Tao, Z., Corotis, R., and Ellis, H. (1995). “Reliability – Based Structural Design with Markov
Decision Processes.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 121(6), 971–980.
Thenoux, G., and Garcia, G. (1999). “Estudio de técnicas de reciclado en frío: Primera parte.”
Revista Ingeniería de Construcción, (20), 5–14.
Tighe S. (1997). University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Tighe S., Huen K., and Haas R. (2007). “Environmental and Traffic Deterioration with
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Model.” Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 1989(2), 336–343.
Tighe S., Ningyuan L.Huen K., and Kasmierowski T. (2008). “Evaluation of Semi-Automated and
Automated Pavement Distress. Collection for Network Level Pavement Management.”
Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 87th, Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
Tjan, A., and Pitaloka, D. (2005). “Future Prediction of Pavement Condition Using Markov
Probability Transition Matrix.” 772–782.
Torres-Machi C. (2015). “Optimización Heurística Multiobjetivo para la Gestión de Activos de
Infraestructuras de Transporte Terrestre.” Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile and
Universitat Politècnica de València.
Ullidtz, P. (1999). “Deterioration Models for Managing Flexible Pavements.” Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1655.
UN, (United Nations General Assembly). (2005). 2005 World Summit Outcome, Resolution A/60/1,
adopted by the General Assembly on 15 September 2005. New York, USA.
WCED, (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our common future.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Wolters, A., Zimmerman, K., Schattler, K., and Rietgraf, A. (2011). “Implementing Pavement
Management Systems for Local Agencies – State-of-the-Art/State-of-the-Practice.
Research Project ICT-11-094.” Illinois Center of Transportation.
WSDOT. (1988). “Pavement Performance.” Washington State Department of Transportation.
Yang, J., Gunaratne, M., Lu, J., and Dietrich, B. (2005). “Use of Recurrent Markov Chains for
Modeling the Crack Performance of Flexible Pavements.” 131(11), 861–872.

206