Comparison of Automated Pavement Distress Data Collection Procedures for Local Agencies in San Francisco Bay Area,California

Abstract

Many local agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area in California use manual surveys to collect pavement distress data to calculate pavement condition index (PCI) values for use in pavement management. Many of these agencies then use pavement performance curves and trigger values in their decision trees or matrices based on these resulting PCI values and derived parameters as major components of the agencies’ pavement management decision support systems. Automated pavement distress data collection procedures are available, but all available procedures and equipment do not necessarily reproduce the PCI from manual surveys. These differences in the PCI calculated from different distress data collection methods can lead to substantially different pavement treatment recommendations and fund needs. A 2-year project was conducted for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission of the San Francisco Bay Area to evaluate the effect of the use of different methods to determine the PCI. The study included statistical analyses and comparison of seven pavement distress types for asphalt pavements and the resulting PCI. The methodology, interpretation, and findings from the study are described. Emphasis is given to differences observed in the results and analysis of their causes. Practical recommendations for future use of automated pavement distress data collection procedures for local agencies are given.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Benson

K. R.

Elkins

G. E.

Uddin

and Hudson

W. R.

. Comparison of Methods and Equipment to Conduct Pavement Distress Surveys. In Transportation Research Record 1196, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1988, pp. 40–50.

Moore

R. K.

Clarks

G. N.

and Gisi

A. J.

. Comparison of Pavement Surface Distress Measurement Systems. In Transportation Research Record 1410, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 11–18.

Cable

J. K.

and Marks

V. J.

. Automated Pavement Distress Data Collection Equipment Seminar. FHWA-TS-90-053. Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, 1990.

Del Rio

and Smith

R. E.

. Automated Distress Survey Procedures for Use with the Bay Area Pavement Management System. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, Calif., 1991.

Lee

Accuracy, Precision, Repeatability, and Compatibility of the Pavedex PAS 1 Automated Distress Measuring Device. In Transportation Research Record 1311, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1991, pp. 136–143.

Test and Evaluation Project No. 21, Automated Pavement Distress Survey Equipment. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, 2003.

Smith

R. E.

Freeman

T. J.

and Pendleton

O. J.

. Evaluation of Automated Pavement Distress Data Collection Procedures for Local Agency Pavement Management. Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia, and Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, 1996.

Bursanescu

and Blais

. Automated Pavement Distress Data Collection and Analysis: A 3D Approach. G.I.E. Technologies, National Research Council of Canada, and Institute for Information Technology, Ontario, Canada, 1997.

Smadi

McWaters

Jones

Gumbert

Kraul

and Maze

. Selection of Automated Pavement Distress Evaluation Technology: Iowa DOT Case Study. Iowa State University, Ames, 1997.

10.

Key Findings from LTPP Distress Data. FHWA-RD-02-031. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001.

11.

McGhee

NCHRP Synthesis 334: Automated Pavement Distress Collection Techniques. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004.

12.

Chang

Smith

R. E.

and Pendleton

O. J.

. Comparison of Automated Pavement Distress Data Collection Procedures for Local Agencies. Presented at First Annual Inter-University Symposium on Infrastructure Management, Waterloo, Canada, 2005.

13.

Mullis

Shippen

Brooks

and Reid

. Automated Data Collection Equipment for Monitoring Highway Condition. Final Report SPR 322. Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, 2005.

14.

Pavement Condition Index Distress Identification Manual for Asphalt and Surface Treatment Pavement, 3rd ed. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, Calif., 2002.

15.

StreetSaver v.8 Computer User's Guide. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, Calif., 2003.

16.

Bay Area Pavement Management System (PMS) User's Guide. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, Calif., 1988.