Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
By C. H. Juang, 1 and S. N. Amirkhanian, 2 Members, ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION
'Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Clemson Univ., 110 Lowry Hall, Clemson, SC 29634-
0911.
2
Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC.
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 1993. T o extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the A S C E Manager of Journals. T h e
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on May
11; 1991. This paper is part of the Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 118,
No. 5, September/October, 1992. © A S C E , ISSN 0733-947X/92/0005-0686/$1.00 +
$.15 per page. Paper No. 1932.
686
has certain limitations. For instance, the choice of the present action
depends strongly on actions selected for the future. Future actions
however, may not be taken at designated times (Butt et al. 1987).
• The dynamic-decision model assumes that future pavement condi-
tions following any rehabilitation action is not known with certainty.
Probabilities of reaching different conditions can be estimated. Fur-
thermore, only the decision of what needs to be done now is to be
made at the present time.
• The priority-ranking model consists of assigning relative weights (or
deducting points) to various levels of flexible pavement distress types
and obtaining a combined condition score to indicate the current
condition of a roadway. The major advantage of this model is its
simplicity and ease of use.
METHODOLOGY
The research objectives that this paper is based on are: (1) To determine
the extent of the use of PMS in the United States by surveying all highway
agencies; and (2) to develop a PMS model using the information obtained
in step 1. Because of the qualitative nature of the data and information used
in the proposed PMS model, the theory of fuzzy sets, generally regarded
as an effective tool to process the qualitative information, is used in the
formation of the model. Details of the approach and the model will be
presented in the sections that follow.
management system.
Most states indicated that calculation of the pavement-condition indices
is the next most important function of a PMS. The information gathered
(e.g., rutting, shoving, and cracking) is used to calculate an index that
represents the overall condition of a pavement section. Based on this index,
pavement sections are prioritized for repair in most highway departments.
There are several types of distresses that could occur on any flexible
pavements. They may include raveling, flushing, shoving, rutting, cracking,
and potholes. To obtain an overall performance (or condition) index based
on the distress observations, it is necessary to assess and assign weight to
each type of distress. On the second questionnaire, the respondents were
asked to assign weight to distress types. Their opinions, in numeric values
or linguistic expressions, are then averaged. Because of the uncertain and
subjective nature of these opinions, the weights are characterized, grouped,
and expressed in terms of five descriptors: extremely important, very im-
portant, important, moderately important, and relatively unimportant. The
results, shown in Table 1, represent an average opinion.
688
Rutting
Rutting is depression in the wheel tracks caused by load repetitions. The
depression can be from 0.1 in. (2.54 mm) to several inches (millimeters).
Table 3 indicates the rating scheme used in this study to identify the severity
of rutting.
Potholes
Potholes are bowl-shaped holes of various sizes in the pavement resulting
from localized disintegration under traffic. Table 4 indicates the rating scheme
used in this study to identify the severity of potholes.
689
C Frequent 10-20
D Extensive 20-35
E Throughout More than 35
"Based on percent of total pavement surface area in the pavement section affected by
potholes.
Patching
Patching represents areas of the pavement that have been repaired using
hot or cold asphaltic-concrete mixtures. Table 5 indicates the rating scheme
used in this study to identify the severity of patching.
Block Cracking
Block cracks are cracks that form a network of several blocks. Table 6
indicates the rating scheme used in this study to identify the severity of
block cracking.
Longitudinal Cracking
Longitudinal cracks are cracks that follow a course approximately parallel
to the centerline of the pavement and are usually situated at or near the
690
center of the wheel tracks. Table 7 lists the rating scheme used in this study
to identify the severity of longitudinal cracking.
a comprehensive rating scale. The fuzzy sets that represent the letter grades
adopted in this study are characterized by their membership functions as
shown in Table 8. In this study, a linear (triangular) membership function
is assumed for simplicity in illustrating the presented methodology. Al-
though this assumption is deemed to be appropriate in this study and many
others (e.g., Juang 1990; Dong and Wong 1987), more accurate results may
or may not be obtained using other membership functions; caution should
be exercised when in doubt.
When each term in the right-hand side of (1) is substituted by a fuzzy
set, the evaluation of the equation involves operations such as fuzzy-set
addition, fuzzy-set multiplication, and fuzzy-set division. Definitions of these
fuzzy operations, as one might expect, are different from their counterparts
in the conventional mathematics (Schmucker 1984). Rather than directly
implementing these operations, the algorithm developed by Dong and Wong
(1987) was used in this study. The general concept for processing fuzzy
information using a model such as (1) is illustrated in Fig. 1. The main idea
is to "defuzzify" each fuzzy set into a group of real intervals before entering
into (1). Once this is accomplished, the conventional mathematics takes
over, which results in a group of nonfuzzy intervals as the output. The final
fuzzy set is reconstructed from this group of nonfuzzy intervals. A computer
program was written to implement the computational process (Juang 1988;
Juang et al. 1991). The final result of the computation is a fuzzy set that
represents the overall pavement condition. An example showing the entire
computation process is given in Appendix I.
For creating a PMS using the results of the distress observation and fuzzy
set analysis, a unified pavement distress index (UPDI) is defined. It is based
on the final fuzzy set that represents the pavement condition, and takes the
following form [see Fig. 2(a)]:
TABLE 8. Membership Functions of Fuzzy Sets that Represent Letter Grades for
Ratings and Weights (after Juang 1990)
Letter grade (fuzzy set) Membership function, f(y)
(1) [defined over a real interval, (0, 1)]
E f(y) = 4(? - 0.75), 0.75 < y < 1.00
D f(y) = 4(y - 0.50), 0.50 < y < 0.75;
f(y) = 4(1 - y), 0.75 < y s 1.00
C f(y) = 4(y - 0.25), 0.25 < y < 0.50;
f(y) = 4(0.75 - y), 0.50 < y < 0.75
B f(y) = 4(y), 0.00 s y s 0.25;
f(y) = 4(0.50 - y), 0.25 < y s 0.50
A f(y) = 4(0.25 - y), 0.00 £ y < 0.25
692
Dictionary
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
A Group of
Non-fuzzy input
Conventional (Non-fuzzy)
Mathematical Model
A Group of
Conventional (Non-fuzzy) Output
Optional Mathematical
Mapping Model
Linguistic Conclusion
Numerical Index
A{ - Ar + 1
UPDI = (2)
where At = area enclosed to the left of the membership function that depicts
the final fuzzy set; and Ar = area enclosed to the right of the membership
function that depicts the final fuzzy set. The defined UPDI value ranges
from 0.0 to 1.0, with 0.0 indicating the perfect pavement condition and 1.0
indicating the worst distress condition. For example, pavements with overall
ratings represented by fuzzy sets X and Y, given in Fig. 2(b), are compared
as followed:
'sz
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
CD
6
<u
2
1.0
(a) Normalized Parameter, X
x
**-
c£
!c
V)
<u
E
<u
0
0 0.5 1.0
EXAMPLE APPLICATION
TABLE 10. Example of Data Base of Pavement Distress Survey, Sorted by UPDI
Distress Rating8
Longitudi-
Pavement Alligator Block nal
unit section cracks Rutting Potholes Patching cracks cracks UPDI
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Aiken-1 E E D D E D 0.85
Greenville-2 E D D C D D 0.76
Clemson-1 D C D D D D 0.70
Laurence-1 D B D C C D 0.58
Aiken-2 C C C D C C 0.54
Clemson-2 B C B D D B 0.44
Greenville-3 C B C C B C 0.41
Sumter-1 B B B C C B 0.32
Greenville-1 A B B C C B 0.28
Sumter-2 A A C B A B 0.20
"Rating scale: A, very slight (few); B, slight (intermittent); C, moderate (frequent);
D, severe (extensive); and E, very severe (throughout).
and the ranking of pavement units based on the distress condition will be
readily obtained. Other functions such as sorting and printing all pavement
units with a UPDI greater than a threshold value of 0.5, for example, can
easily be done with the data-base utility. Table 10 shows an example of the
latter utility. Thus, the developed procedure and computer program to-
gether can be a simple and practical tool to aid in the pavement management.
695
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This appendix details the fuzzy computations defined in (1) and the UPDI
defined in (2). Ratings for pavement distress of a pavement unit section
(Aiken-2 in Table 9) are given as follows: C, C, C, D, C, and C (for alligator
cracks, rutting, potholes, patching, block cracks, and longitudinal cracks,
respectively). Following the symbols used in (1), the input data are expressed
as: R1 = R2 = R3 = R5 = R6 = fuzzy set C; and i?4 = fuzzy set D. The
weight for each type of distress is shown in Table 1. Symbolically, Wx =
fuzzy set E; W2 = W3 = fuzzy set D; W4 = Ws = fuzzy set C; and W6 =
fuzzy set B. The membership functions that define these input fuzzy sets
are given in Table 8. The overall pavement distress condition is first cal-
culated in (1) using these input data. The computation process using the
Dong and Wong (1987) algorithm is described in the following step-by-step
procedure:
[0.375,0.625]
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.5
where lx = the a-cut interval (at a = 0.0) of the fuzzy set X (where X is
any of the previous fuzzy sets, Ru R2, . . . , R6 and Wu . . . , W6).
3. Calculate R using (1) with the preceding a-cut intervals. This step is
essentially to perform an interval computation (Moore 1966; Dong and
Wong 1987). Using a = 0 as an example
(0.25, 0.75) x (0.75, 1.0) + (0.25, 0.75) x (0.50, 1.0)
+ (0.25, 0.75) x (0.50, 1.0) + (0.50, 1.0) x (0.25, 0.75)
+ (0.25, 0.75) x (0.25, 0.75) + (0.25, 0.75) x (0.0, 0.50)
*a-0 = (4)
(0.75, 1.0) + (0.50, 1.0) + (0.50, 1.0) + (0.25, 0.75)
+ (0.25, 0.75) + (0.25, 0.75) + (0.0, 0.50)
(0.30, 0.76)
4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 for a = 0.50 and 1.0. This step results in Ra=Q 5
= (0.41, 0.67) and Ra=1.0 = (0.54, 0.54).
5. The selected a values and the calculated intervals as a whole represent
the resulting fuzzy set as shown in Fig. 4. The UPDI value can be calculated
using (2), in a way similar to the example presented in the text. This results
in an UPDI value of 0.535, which was reported in Table 9 as 0.54.
0.5
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0
Remarks:
Condition Evaluation
Pavement distress type Severity of pavement distress
Alligator cracking
Rutting
Potholes
Patching
Block cracking
Longitudinal cracking
The rating grades for severity are: A , very slight or few; B , slight or inter-
mittent; C, moderate or frequent; D , severe or extensive; and E , severe or
throughout.
"America's highways, accelerating the search for innovation." (1984). Special Report
202, Transp. Res. Board, Washington, D.C.
Butt, A. A., Shahin, M. Y., and Feighan, K. J. (1987). "Pavement performance
prediction model using the Markov process," presented at meeting, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D.C.
"Distress identification manual for the long-term pavement performance studies."
(1990). Report No. SHRP-LTPPIFR-90-001, Strategic Highway Res. Program,
Nat. Res. Council, Washington, D.C.
Dong, W., and Wong, F. S. (1987). "Fuzzy weighted averages and implementation
of the extension principle." Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 21(2), 183-199.
Elton, D. J. and Juang, C. H. (1988). "Asphalt pavement evaluation using fuzzy
sets." Transp. Res. Record, 1196, 1-7.
Haas, R., and Hudson, W. R. (1982). Pavement management systems. Krieger Pub-
lishing Co., Malabar, Fla.
Juang, C. H. (1988). "Development of a decision support system using fuzzy sets."
Int. J. Microcomputers in Civ. Engrg., 3(2), 157-165.
Juang, C. H. (1990). "A performance index for the unified rock classification sys-
tem." Bull. Assoc, of Engrg. Geologists, 27(4), 497-504.
698
699