Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

UNIFIED PAVEMENT DISTRESS INDEX FOR MANAGING

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.

(Reviewed by the Highway Division)

ABSTRACT: One of the innovative approaches for maintaining and rehabilitating


the nation's highways is to develop and implement some form of pavement man-
agement system (PMS). This paper documents results of a survey on PMS use in
the United States. In addition, a simple method for a PMS based on priority ranking
is presented. The model uses the theory of fuzzy sets to process the information
obtained from a typical pavement condition survey. An index, called unified pave-
ment distress index (UPDI), is defined and used to measure the pavement distress
condition. The new approach is presented in a few key elements: guidelines for
rating of six types of distresses, weights among the different types of distresses,
fuzzy-set representations of the linguistic grades and fuzzy mathematics, and the
definition of UPDI and its use in a pavement data base. An example is presented
to show how the new approach can be employed to analyze data bases generated
from a pavement condition survey. While the proposed approach has shown its
potential in the example application, more positive feedbacks from large-scale field
tests are needed to demonstrate its reliability and ease of use.

INTRODUCTION

In the United States, approximately 93% of hard-surfaced roads are sur-


faced with asphaltic-concrete mixtures. Maintaining state and local road
networks currently requires more than one-third of the total highway budget.
It is estimated that by the end of the century, the nation will spend ap-
proximately $350 billion replacing and rehabilitating pavements. During the
past decade, pavement construction and maintenance costs have more than
doubled, while the budgets for public works have remained relatively con-
stant ("America's Highways" 1984).
The increasing costs of paving materials, energy shortages, dwindling
aggregate supplies, and increasing tire pressure and vehicle loading have
forced highway engineers to search for more economical methods of building
and maintaining the nation's highways. One such approach is to use some
form of pavement management system (PMS). The provision of pavements
for highways consists of several interrelated activities including design, con-
struction, maintenance, and rehabilitation. For the past two decades, the
attention of researchers and practitioners has broadened into integrating
and coordinating these activities. A PMS covers this overall approach, en-
abling engineers to compare the investment alternatives; coordinate design,
construction, and maintenance; and use existing knowledge efficiently.
Several PMSs with varying levels of sophistication and capabilities are in
existence. To develop a PMS model most appropriate for the needs and
objectives of an organization, the desired characteristics of the PMS must

'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

J. Transp. Eng. 1992.118:686-699.


be established. The major categories of PMS models include: (1) The prior-
ity-ranking model; (2) the static-decision model; and (3) the dynamic-de-
cision model (Butt et al. 1987).

• The static-decision model assumes that the future pavement per-


formance is known following any rehabilitation actions. This model
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

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.

The priority-ranking model is perhaps the most frequently used PMS.


The priority is generally ranked through the use of a simple performance
index. Such an index can be defined and calculated using data collected
from visual observations of pavements throughout the year, and it usually
includes several types of distress associated with flexible pavements. This
index and other factors such as availability of funds, are usually used to
determine the priority and/or the best alternative for rehabilitating pave-
ments.
The emphasis of this paper will be placed on developing a simple per-
formance index for use in a priority-ranking PMS model.

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.

SURVEY ON USE OF PMS

To determine the extent of the use of PMSs in the United States, a


preliminary questionnaire was sent to all 50 state highway departments. As
a follow-up to the first general questionnaire, a second and more specific
questionnaire was sent to 11 state highway departments that have sufficient
experiences with a PMS.
The results from the first questionnaire (63%.response rate) indicate that
28 states were using PMS. The remaining states said that they were planning
to develop some type of PMS in accordance with the Federal Highway
687

J. Transp. Eng. 1992.118:686-699.


Administration (FHWA) requirement that all states must have a working
PMS at the latest by 1993. The results also show that inventory maintenance
is regarded as the most important function of a modern PMS.
Pavement management is essentially collection and manipulation of data
to generate information on which rational decisions can be based. Proper
organization (categorization) of data is a very important part of a pavement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

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.

EVALUATION OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DISTRESS

In this study, a priority-ranking PMS model was formulated based on


evaluation of the pavement distress. Six distress types most often mentioned
by the surveyed agencies were chosen to form the evaluation scheme. The
relative importance or weight among these distresses as the criteria for
assessing pavement conditions is shown in Table 1. These weights reflect
general opinions obtained from our survey. To be consistent with the rating
scales adopted in this study and presented in the following, the weights are
presented in terms of letter grades. The significance of using letter grades
for ratings and weights in a predominantly qualitative evaluation will be
discussed later in this paper. The distress types chosen and the rating schemes
used are described in the following.

TABLE 1. Weights among Different Types of Distresses for Assessment of Pave-


ment Conditions
Weight
Distress type Description Letter grade
(1) (2) (3)
Alligator cracking Extremely important E
Rutting Very important D
Potholes Very important D
Patching Important C
Block cracking Important C
Longitudinal cracking Moderately important B
Others Relatively unimportant A

688

J. Transp. Eng. 1992.118:686-699.


Alligator Cracking
Alligator cracks are cracks that form a network of multisided (polygon)
blocks resembling the skin of an alligator. The block size can range from a
few inches to over 3 ft. (0.914 m). Table 2 lists the rating scheme used in
this study to identify the severity of alligator cracking.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

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.

TABLE 2. Guide for Rating Severity of Alligator Cracking


Rating grade Extent/description3 Guidelines"
(D (2) (3)
A Very slight Alligator pattern just formed; distortion
less than 0.50 in. (12.7 mm)
B Slight Alligator pattern established with corners
of polygon blocks fracturing; distortion
greater than 0.50 in. (12.7 mm)
C Moderate Alligator pattern established with spalling
of polygon blocks; distortion greater
than 0.50 in. (12.7 mm)
D Severe Polygon blocks begin to lift; distortion
greater than 1 in. (25.4 mm)
E Very severe Complete disintegration of the affected
area; greater than 2 in. (50.8 mm)
"Extent of distress per square foot of surface area at each severity level "Distress"
1990).
b
Based on appearance and surface distortion. These guidelines are taken from Ontario
Ministry of Transportation ("Manual" 1982).

TABLE 3. Guide for Rating Severity of Pavement Rutting


Rating grade Extent/description3 Guidelines6 [in. (mm)]
(1) (2) (3)
A Very slight Barely noticeable—0.25 (6.35)
B Slight 0.25-0.50 (6.35-12.7)
C Moderate 0.50-0.75 (12.7-19.1)
D Severe 0.75-2 (19.1-50.8)
E Very severe More than 2 (50.8)
"Extent of distress: maximum rut depth in inches per 50-ft interval ("Distress" 1990).
b
Based on appearance and rut-depth measured with a standard device. These guidelines
are taken from Ontario Ministry of Transportation ("Manual" 1982).

689

J. Transp. Eng. 1992.118:686-699.


TABLE 4. Guide for Rating Severity of Potholes
Rating grade Description/extent" Guidelines (%)
(1) (2) (3)
A Few Less than 5
B Intermittent 5-10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

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.

TABLE 5. Guide for Rating Severity of Patching


Rating grade Description/extent" Guidelines (%)
(1) (2) (3)
A Few Less than 10
B Intermittent 10-20
C Frequent 20-35
D Extensive 35-50
E Throughout More than 50
"Based on percent of total pavement surface area in the pavement section affected by
patching.

TABLE 6. Guide for Rating Severity of Block Cracking


Rating grade Description/extent3 Guidelines (%)
(1) (2) (3)
A Few Less than 5
B Intermittent 5-20
C Frequent 20-30
D Extensive 30-40
E Throughout More than 40
"Based on percent of total pavement surface area in the pavement section affected by
block cracking.

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

J. Transp. Eng. 1992.118:686-699.


TABLE 7. Guide for Rating Severity of Longitudinal Cracking

Rating grade Description/extent3 Guidelines" [in. (mm)]


(1) (2) (3)
A Very slight Less than 1/16 (1.58)
B Slight 1/4-1/2 (6.35-12.7)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

C Moderate 1/2-3/4 (12.7-19.1)


D Severe 3/4-1 (19.1-25.4)
E Very severe More than 1 (25.4)
"Extent of distress per linear foot at each severity level ("Distress" 1990).
b
Based on crack width. These guidelines are taken from Ontario Ministry of Trans-
portation ("Manuarl" 1982).

center of the wheel tracks. Table 7 lists the rating scheme used in this study
to identify the severity of longitudinal cracking.

PAVEMENT DISTRESS ANALYSIS USING FUZZY SETS

In general, the pavement condition ratings are assigned based on criteria


established by the agency conducting the distress survey. In the proposed
approach, the rating of a pavement condition according to a particular type
of distress is assessed and recorded in terms of a linguistic or letter grade.
The advantages of using linguistic grades for ratings (and weights) in a
predominately qualitative engineering evaluation are well documented (El-
ton and Juang 1988; Juang 1990; Murthy and Sinha 1990; Zadeh 1983).
However, it demands an effective method for processing and combining the
qualitative information obtained. One such method is to process the infor-
mation with the following equation (Schmucker 1984):
2 (R, x W,)
R = (i)
2>,
where R = the overall rating of the pavement condition; /?, = the rating
of the pavement condition according to a particular distress i; and W, =
the weight of that distress i. Each term in the right-hand side of (1) is a
linguistic grade or, simply, a letter grade—A, B, C, D, or E. A rational
approach to evaluate (1) is to represent these letter grades with fuzzy sets
(Zadeh 1965). Rather than using a single number to represent a letter grade,
as is done in the conventional approach, a fuzzy set is used. A fuzzy set is
a set of paired numbers that describe the degree of support to each level
of distress. For example, in describing the alligator cracking, a type of
distress discussed earlier, a letter grade of D means the pavement is in a
severe state of distress. On a conventional rating scale of 1-10, with 10
being the most severe, a number—say 7—may be used to represent the
grade D. While the rating grade 7 might be most appropriate, other numbers
might also be appropriate. Thus, to represent the perception of severe with
a single number 7 seems to be too abstract. In the proposed approach, the
letter grade D is represented by a fuzzy set defined as follows (for simplic-
ity, a discrete fuzzy set is used here): (0/4, 0.1/5, 0.7/6, 1.0/7, 0.7/8, 0.1/9,
0/10). This fuzzy set may be interpreted in the following. The numerical
grade 7 is most appropriate to represent the letter grade D (with a degree
of support or confidence of 1.0). The numerical grade of 6 or 8, however,
691

J. Transp. Eng. 1992.118:686-699.


could also be used to represent the grade D, although with a lesser degree
of confidence (0.7). Other numerical grades are not as appropriate to rep-
resent the grade D, as the confidence is extremely low or none at all.
Thus, fuzzy sets can account for uncertainty associated with quantification
of the linguistic or letter grade. In other words, these letter grades, when
they are used along with the fuzzy sets in a qualitative evaluation, can form
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

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.

UNIFIED PAVEMENT DISTRESS INDEX

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

J. Transp. Eng. 1992.118:686-699.


Non_fuzzy informntion Fuzzy information
(Numerical Dataj (Linguistic Assessment)

Dictionary
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fuzzy Set Input


Techniques for De-fuzxifying
the Fuzzy Set Input
(e.g.,a-cut Method)

A Group of
Non-fuzzy input

Conventional (Non-fuzzy)
Mathematical Model

A Group of
Conventional (Non-fuzzy) Output

Reversed Q-Cut Operation

Fuzzy Set Output

Optional Mathematical
Mapping Model

Linguistic Conclusion

Numerical Index

FIG. 1. Fuzzy Information Processing Model

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:

• F o r X : A, = (0.2 + 0.3)/2 = 0.25; Ar = (0.5 + 0.7)/2 = 0.60;


UPDI = (0.25 - 0.60 + l)/2 = 0.3125.
• For Y: A, = (0.3 + 0.5)/2 = 0.4; Ar = (0.3 + 0.5)/2 = 0.4; UPDI
= (0.4 - 0.4 + l)/2 = 0.50.
• The pavement represented by fuzzy set Y is determined to be in
worse condition than the pavement represented by fuzzy set X.
693

J. Transp. Eng. 1992.118:686-699.


1.0

'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
V)
<u
E
<u
0
0 0.5 1.0

(b) Normalized Parameter, X


FIG. 2. (a) Parameters of UPDI; and (b) Example Fuzzy Sets for Calculating UPDI

EXAMPLE APPLICATION

To facilitate the use of the proposed approach and procedures as de-


scribed, form to evaluate flexible pavement condition, shown in Appendix
II, was created. In addition to some basic inventory information, severity
of pavement distresses are assessed and recorded in this form. The assess-
ment of pavement distress may be based on the guidelines presented earlier
(see Tables 2-7), Such inventory and assessment of pavement distress can
be easily conducted by state and local highway agencies' personnel without
much training. Using any commercially available data-base software, these
information and ratings can be listed and sorted in various ways. Table 9
shows an example of a data base.
This example application is intended to show how such a data base, once
established, can be used as a management tool. For each pavement section
or unit entered in the data base, the pavement distress ratings were used
to calculate its UPDI. The computer program Best Alternative Selection
System (BASS) (Juang 1988), which implements the described procedures,
can be used for such calculations. Use of the proven IBM PC-based com-
puter program BASS eliminates the need for length training on fuzzy math-
ematics, which is the major thrust of the new approach. The program BASS
can read data directly from the data base. The calculated UPDI values for
the evaluated pavement units are then entered into the data base, by either
keying in these values manually or entering them through an ASCII file
containing these values.
Once UPDI values are calculated, the data base can be sorted by UPDI,
694

J. Transp. Eng. 1992.118:686-699.


TABLE 9. Example of Data Base of Pavement Distress Survey
Distress Rating8
Longitudi-
Pavement Alligator Block nal
unit section cracks Rutting Potholes Patching cracks cracks UPDI
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)


Aiken-1 E E D D E D 0.85
Aiken-2 C C C D C C 0.54
Clemson-1 D C D D D D 0.70
Clemson-2 B cB B D D B 0.44
Greenville-1 A B C C B 0.28
Greenville-2 E D D C D D 0.76
Greenville-3 D B C C B C 0.41
Laurence-1 C B D C C D 0.58
Sumter-1 B B B C C B 0.32
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).

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.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

A simple approach for pavement management using pavement distress


survey data has been presented. The approach was presented in a few key

695

J. Transp. Eng. 1992.118:686-699.


elements: guidelines for rating of six types of distresses, weights among the
different types of distresses, fuzzy-set representations of the linguistic grades
and fuzzy mathematics as implemented in the computer program BASS,
and the definition of UPDI and its use in a pavement data base. The pave-
ment distresses and the weights among them were established through an
extensive survey of opinions and experiences of most state highway de-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

partments. The availability of a proven computer program for fuzzy math-


ematics avoids the need of possible lengthy training in the subject, and
makes the presented approach and procedure a simple and practical tool
to aid in pavement management. The data-base approach presented in the
case study seems to confirm this point.
Although the proposed approach has shown its potential in the example
application, more positive feedbacks from large-scale field tests are needed
to demonstrate its reliability and ease of use.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writers wish to express their gratitude to those who participated in


our PMS survey and shared their knowledge with us. In particular, the
writers are in debt to the following individuals and the state highway de-
partments they represent: Eric G. Johnson, Alaska; Bruce Gunderson,
California; W. N. Lofross, Florida; James P. Hall, Illinois; Charles J. Potter,
Iowa; Rolands L. Rizenbergs, Kentucky; Jerome Miller, Nebraska; Andris
A. Jumikis, New Jersey; Marttia E. Sartain, Oregon; James S. Moretz,
Pennsylvania; and Bryan Stampley, Texas. The writers also thank the un-
named reviewers for their comments. Adoption of their comments made
the paper clearer and more useful.

APPENDIX I. EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATING FUZZY COMPUTATIONS IN


THIS PAPER

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:

1. Select a group of a-cut values needed for defuzzifying a fuzzy set. In


most cases, use of 11 a-values from 0.0 to 1.0 with an increment of 0.1 to
defuzzify a fuzzy set is accurate enough. In this example, for simplicity, only
three a values—0.0, 0.5, and 1.0—are used.
2. For a = 0.0, obtain the a-cut interval for each of the input fuzzy sets.
According to the membership functions defined in Table 8, the following
a-cut intervals can be obtained for the given input fuzzy sets (see Fig. 3 for
a-cut concept):
696

J. Transp. Eng. 1992.118:686-699.


a= i.o [0.5,0.5 ]

[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

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0

FIG. 3. a-Cut Concept

IRI = 1*2 = IRS = IRS = IRS = (0-25, 0.75) (3a)


IM = (0.50, 1.0) (36)
IW1 = (0.75, 1.0) • (3c)
IW3 = (0.50, 1.0) (3d)
IW4 = Iws = (0-25, 0.75) (3c)
IW6 = (0.0, 0.50) (3/)

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.

APPENDIX II. FORM FOR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT CONDITION EVALUTION

Date: Shoulder type:


Location: Shoulder width:
Evaluator: Starting milepost:
697

J. Transp. Eng. 1992.118:686-699.


0.54,0.54]
1.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.5

0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0

FIG. 4. Resulting Fuzzy Set obtained for Example in Appendix I

Width of pavement: Ending milepost: :__

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.

APPENDIX III. REFERENCES

"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

J. Transp. Eng. 1992.118:686-699.


Juang, C. H., Huang, X.H., and Elton, D. J. (1991). "Fuzzy information processing
by the Monte Carlo simulation technique." /. Civ. Engrg. Systems, 8(1), 19-25.
' 'Manual for condition rating of flexible pavements—Distress manifestation." (1982).
SP-004, Ontario Ministry of Transp. and Communications, Downsview, Ontario,
Canada, Apr.
Moore, R. E. (1966). Interval analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Murthy, S., and Sinha, K. C. (1990). "A fuzzy set approach for bridge traffic safety
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

evaluation," presented at meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington,


D.C.
Schmucker, K. J. (1984). Fuzzy set, natural language computations and risk analysis.
Computer Science Press, Rockville, Mass.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). "Fuzzy sets." Information and Control, 8, 338-353.
Zadeh, L. A. (1983). "The role of fuzzy logic in the management of uncertainty in
expert systems." Fuzzy Sets & Systems, 11, 199-227.

699

J. Transp. Eng. 1992.118:686-699.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen