Investigation Into Collection Variability of Surface Crack Data for Network-Level Asphalt Pavement Evaluation

Abstract

Surface cracking is a major type of pavement distress that is of interest to pavement engineers. Cracks are generally categorized in relation to patterns, orientations, and locations. Each type of crack is associated with one or more failure modes of pavements. Accurately detecting and rating surface cracks is crucial in pavement condition surveying. Currently, many State Highway Agencies employ automated survey methods to collect pavement condition data at network level. As network-level pavement evaluation is based on a single run, the traditional way of characterizing data variation based on multiple runs is no longer valid. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce a new method to evaluate the variability of pavement condition data at the network level. In this study, the variability of network-level surface crack data was evaluated by means of network-level sample parallel tests. The parallel test was conducted from 2018 to 2020 using two vehicles equipped with identical automated survey systems which consisted of a 3-D imaging system and automated distress identification system. A matrix-based method was proposed to evaluate the variations of crack data obtained from two testing vehicles. Crack data investigated in this study included fatigue cracks, longitudinal wheel-path and non-wheel-path cracks, and transverse cracks. Results indicated that change of testing speed could potentially influence the variation of automated crack data. The variations between severity levels for fatigue cracking were higher than other types of cracks. The variation of crack data decreased with the increase of reporting intervals.

Keywords

infrastructure pavements pavement condition evaluation cracking

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Huang

Y. H.

Pavement Analysis and Design, 2nd ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2004.

Zhang

Wang

K. C.

Yang

Dai

Peng

Fei

Liu

J. Q.

Chen

Automated Pixel-Level Pavement Crack Detection on 3D Asphalt Surfaces Using a Deep-Learning Network. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 32, No. 10, 2017, pp. 805–819.

Salameh

Tsai

Adoption of 3D Laser Imaging Systems for Automated Pavement Condition Assessment in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities. In Airfield and Highway Pavements ( Ozer

Rushing

J. F.

Leng

eds.), American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2021, pp. 219–230.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Automated Pavement Condition Surveys. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2019. https://doi.org/10.17226/25513.

Ragnoli

Blasiis

M. R. D.

Benedetto

A. D.

Pavement Distress Detection Methods: A Review. Infrastructures, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2018, P. 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures3040058.

Kargah-Ostadi

Nazef

Daleiden

Zhou

Evaluation Framework for Automated Pavement Distress Identification and Quantification Applications. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2017. 2639: 46–54.

Offrell

Sjogren

Magnusson

Repeatability in Crack Data Collection on Flexible Pavements: Comparison Between Surveys Using Video Cameras, Laser Cameras, and a Simplified Manual Survey. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 7, 2005, pp. 552–562. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2005)131:7(552).

Miller

J. S. W. Y

. Bellinger. Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program. No. FHWA-RD-03-031. United States Federal Highway Administration, Office of Infrastructure Research and Development, Washington, D.C., 2003.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Standard Definitions for Common Types of Pavement Cracking. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2020. https://doi.org/10.17226/25928.

10.

Bianchini

Bandini

Smith

D. W.

Interrater Reliability of Manual Pavement Distress Evaluations. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 2, 2010, pp. 165–172.

11.

Montgomery

S. R.

Gkritza

Haddock

J. E.

Factors Affecting the Accuracy and Variability of Pavement Surface Evaluations and Ratings. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2019, p. 04019008.

12.

Ong

G. P.

Noureldin

Sinha

K. C.

Methodology to Evaluate Quality of Pavement Surface Distress Data Collected by Automated Techniques. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2009. 2093: 3–11.

13.

Tao

Luo

Qiu

Wang

Data Quality Assessment of Automated Pavement Cracking Measurements in Mississippi. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, Vol. 14, 2021, pp. 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42947-020-0331-6.

14.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Automated Pavement Distress Collection Techniques. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2004. https://doi.org/10.17226/23348.

15.

Rada

G. R.

Study of LTPP Distress Data Variability, Vol. I. FHWA-RD-99-074. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1999.

16.

Tsai

Y. J.

Critical Assessment of Detecting Asphalt Pavement Cracks Under Different Lighting and Low Intensity Contrast Conditions Using Emerging 3D Laser Technology. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 138, No. 5. 2012, pp. 649–656.

17.

Jia

Woods

Gong

Zhu

Huang

Evaluation of Network-Level Data Collection Variability and its Influence on Pavement Evaluation Utilizing Random Forest Method. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2021. 2675: 331–345.

18.

Jia

Huang

Zhu

Dong

Woods

Influence of Measurement Variability of International Roughness Index on Uncertainty of Network-Level Pavement Evaluation. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part B: Pavements, Vol. 144, No. 2, 2018, p. 04018007.

19.

Jia

Huang

Dong

Zhu

Maxwell

Influence of Pavement Condition Data Variability on Network-Level Maintenance Decisions. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2016. 2589: 20–31.