The New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) has a program to collect distress data through visual surveys and uses this information at the network level, together with roughness and rutting data, to calculate its pavement serviceability index. The main goal of this research study was two-fold: revise and improve the current distress evaluation protocol with the purpose of increasing the objectivity and accuracy of the distress data and methods, and develop simple procedures to estimate distress data required for Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) reporting and for NMDOT’s Pavement Management System (PMS). A revised protocol for visual distress surveys in flexible pavements was proposed. The variability and practicality of the proposed protocol was tested in 66 sample sections and two rounds of surveys with very good results. The interrater agreements of the current and proposed protocols were evaluated applying the Average Deviation Index method. Even though the interrater agreement was different among the distress types, the proposed protocol showed good levels of agreement for all distresses, both for severity and extent. It is recommended that the distress evaluations of rigid sections rate the same distress type but include ratings of all severity levels. Field tests consisting of detailed measurements of transverse cracks, longitudinal cracks and alligator cracking were done in 15 sample sections to determine procedures to estimate distress parameters for HPMS and PMS from raters’ data of visual surveys. The Pavement Serviceability Index (PSI) was revised to accommodate the changes introduced by the proposed protocol. This report includes an implementation plan for the recommended approaches. Also included is a summary of the project goals, overview of the work performed, proposed protocol and recommendations in the format of a presentation for dissemination purposes.
[1]
Moshe Livneh.
REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY OF MANUAL PAVEMENT DISTRESS SURVEY METHODS
,
1994
.
[2]
T J Kazmierowski,et al.
INVESTIGATION INTO OBSERVATIONAL VARIATIONS IN PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY
,
1994
.
[3]
W L Gramling.
Current practices in determining pavement condition
,
1994
.
[4]
Final Document,et al.
Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design OF NEW AND REHABILITATED PAVEMENT STRUCTURES FINAL DOCUMENT APPENDIX QQ : STRUCTURAL RESPONSE MODELS FOR RIGID PAVEMENTS NCHRP
,
2004
.
[5]
Arturo A Cordova,et al.
A framework for assessing and improving quality of data from visual evaluation of asset conditions
,
2010
.
[6]
Michael J. Burke,et al.
On Average Deviation Indices for Estimating Interrater Agreement
,
1999
.
[7]
Gonzalo R. Rada,et al.
Assessment of Long-Term Pavement Performance Program Manual Distress Data Variability: Bias and Precision
,
1997
.
[8]
Kathryn A Zimmerman,et al.
IMPROVING IDOT's PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING PROCESS
,
1997
.
[9]
Giovanni C. Migliaccio,et al.
Assessment of Data Quality for Evaluations of Manual Pavement Distress
,
2010
.
[10]
Dennis A Morian,et al.
Paper 2: Use of LTPP Data to Verify the Acceptance Limits Developed for PennDOT Pavement Distress Data
,
2006
.
[11]
Paola Bandini,et al.
Transition from Manual to Automatic Rutting Measurements: Effect on Pavement Serviceability Index Values
,
2010
.
[12]
Susan Louise Tighe.
Paper 5: Assignments with Purpose: Using LTPP for Educating Tomorrow's Engineer
,
2006
.
[13]
Michael J. Burke,et al.
Estimating Interrater Agreement with the Average Deviation Index: A User’s Guide
,
2002
.