2018 AGAM06-18 Processes Defining and Understanding Asset Requirements PDF

Guide to Asset Management - Processes
Part 6: Defining and Understanding Asset Requirements
Sydney 2018
Guide to Asset Management - Processes Part 6: Defining and Understanding Asset Requirements
Publisher
Third edition prepared by: Mark Gordon, Kieran Sharp and Dr Tim Martin
Austroads Ltd.
Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street
Third edition project manager: David Darwin Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
Abstract
austroads@austroads.com.au
Austroads’ Guide to Asset Management (GAM) provides guidance to road www.austroads.com.au
agencies on the application of contemporary ‘whole of organisation’ asset
management practice to road networks. The Guide consists of 15 Parts About Austroads
across three broad themes: Management Overview, Asset Management
Processes, and Technical Information. Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian
road transport and traffic agencies.
The eight Parts of Asset Management Processes address business
processes and enablers associated with the asset management business Austroads’ purpose is to support our member
cycle. organisations to deliver an improved Australasian
road transport network. To succeed in this task, we
Part 6 of the GAM supports the efficient collection, storage, analysis and undertake leading-edge road and transport
reporting of pavement and other road-related infrastructure data. This will research which underpins our input to policy
promote best practice asset management, including identifying critical assets development and published guidance on the
and business risks. This section is relevant to contractors, data collection design, construction and management of the road
service providers, road agency research and innovation, policy development, network and its associated infrastructure.
benchmarking performance, and funding and inter-organisation
communications at the local, state and national level. Austroads provides a collective approach that
delivers value for money, encourages shared
Keywords knowledge and drives consistency for road users.
asset management, guideline, road network, decision-making process, data Austroads is governed by a Board consisting of
collection, storage analysis and reporting, identifying critical asset and risks senior executive representatives from each of its
eleven member organisations:
Third edition published July 2018 • Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
This edition of the GAM is based on the overarching asset management • Roads Corporation Victoria
principles of the International Standard ISO 55000 which has a strong • Queensland Department of Transport and Main
customer and strategic focus. The GAM includes the impact of autonomous Roads
vehicles (AVs) on the road and digital infrastructure, measures to reduce the
environmental impact of asset management and the recently developed • Main Roads Western Australia
practice of reliability centred maintenance (RCM). The GAM also documents • Department of Planning, Transport and
the outcomes of Austroads funded research undertaken since 2009 covering Infrastructure South Australia
asset condition monitoring equipment, asset performance prediction models
and practices that account for risk. The GAM comprises 15 Parts with some • Department of State Growth Tasmania
62 case studies demonstrating how asset management is practiced. • Department of Infrastructure, Planning and
Logistics Northern Territory
Second edition published August 2009
• Transport Canberra and City Services
First edition published March 2006 Directorate, Australian Capital Territory
• The Department of Infrastructure, Regional
ISBN 978-1-925671-45-2 Pages 64 Development and Cities
Austroads Project No. AP1900 • Australian Local Government Association

Austroads Publication No. AGAM06-18 • New Zealand Transport Agency.
© Austroads Ltd 2018

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without
the prior written permission of Austroads.
This Guide is produced by Austroads as a general guide. Its application is discretionary. Road authorities may vary their practice
according to local circumstances and policies. Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not
accept responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and
judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Guide to Asset Management – Processes Part 6: Defining and Understanding Asset Requirements
Summary
This section of the Guide to Asset Management (GAM) is intended to support and assist the efficient
collection, storage, analysis and reporting of pavement and other road-related infrastructure data. This will
promote best practice asset management, including identifying critical assets and business risks. Part 6 has
relevance to contractors, data collection service providers, road agency research and innovation, policy
development, benchmarking performance, and funding and inter-organisation communications at the local,
state and national level.
The establishment of an Austroads standard for managing road agency data is the basis for data reports and
submissions requested from road agencies by road network funding agencies. This standard gives a
common understanding of the meaning of the data to ensure its correct use and interpretation by its
stakeholders to support evidence-based investment decision-making.
The scope of this section covers the following:

• data needed for asset management
• road inventory definition and monitoring
• road and asset condition monitoring
• data manipulation and summarisation for reporting
• forecasting and managing future road user demand for road assets
• identification of critical assets and business risks.
There are minimum data requirements that enable an agency to adequately manage their road assets. The
examples provided are mainly related to pavement assets; however, similar data definition, collection
methods, storage mechanisms and reporting requirements are often associated with all other road-related
infrastructure assets.
The current and future performance of road assets is related to their current condition, capacity and inherent
features of the asset and the impact of road users and influences such as the environment and other
external and unforeseen conditions. To meet community needs, road agencies have a responsibility to
provide and manage road assets which deliver safe, acceptable and economically efficient performance. The
assessment of current asset performance is against the levels of service defined by the road agency for the
different assets based on customer needs.
Austroads 2018 | page i

Contents
1. Overview.................................................................................................................................................. 1
2. Data for Asset Management .................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Why is Data Collected? ............................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Benefits of Collecting Data ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Determining Data Needs of the Organisation .......................................................................................... 5
2.3.1 Data types................................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Information Quality Level .......................................................................................................................... 9
2.5 Data Collection and Data Management Roles and Responsibilities ......................................................11
2.6 Defining and Managing Asset Data Register Structure and Hierarchy ..................................................12
2.6.1 Inventory data ........................................................................................................................... 13
2.6.2 Condition data........................................................................................................................... 14
2.6.3 Environmental data ................................................................................................................... 14
2.6.4 Road use data .......................................................................................................................... 15
2.6.5 Construction, maintenance and expenditure data .................................................................... 15
2.6.6 Historical data ........................................................................................................................... 15
2.6.7 Risk data ................................................................................................................................... 16
2.6.8 Level of service data ................................................................................................................. 16
2.7 Defining Asset Data Standards for the Organisation ............................................................................. 17
2.7.1 Road condition data (pavements, shoulders, sealed and unsealed roads) ............................. 17
2.7.2 Traffic facilities (signs, barriers, line-marking, guide posts, etc.) ROCOND 90, AS
1742.1:2014 .............................................................................................................................. 18
2.7.3 Digital images ........................................................................................................................... 18
3. Road Inventory Definition, Identification and Monitoring ................................................................ 20

3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 20
3.2 Asset Inventory Definition ....................................................................................................................... 20
3.2.1 Asset hierarchy ......................................................................................................................... 20
3.3 LiDAR Technology for Asset Inventory Identification ............................................................................. 22
3.4 Asset Identification System Requirements ............................................................................................. 23
3.5 Asset Location Referencing Systems..................................................................................................... 24
3.6 Linear Location Referencing .................................................................................................................. 25
3.7 Spatial Location Referencing ................................................................................................................. 25
3.8 Comparison of Linear and Spatial Referencing ..................................................................................... 26
4. Road Asset Condition and Monitoring ............................................................................................... 27

4.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 27
4.2 Road Pavement Condition Monitoring.................................................................................................... 28
4.3 Characterisation of Condition ................................................................................................................. 29
4.4 Condition Monitoring Approach .............................................................................................................. 31
4.5 Performance Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 33
4.6 Data Collection Methods ........................................................................................................................ 33
4.6.1 Desktop study ........................................................................................................................... 33
4.6.2 Measured and rated ................................................................................................................. 34
4.6.3 Data Collection Using the PCI Method ..................................................................................... 35
4.7 Frequency of Data Capture .................................................................................................................... 37
4.8 Data Quality and Validation .................................................................................................................... 38
4.8.1 Validation of distance measurement ........................................................................................ 38
4.8.2 Validation of equipment measurement ..................................................................................... 38
4.8.3 Repeatability and bias .............................................................................................................. 38
4.8.4 Assessing the validity of measured data .................................................................................. 38
4.8.5 Distribution analysis .................................................................................................................. 39
Austroads 2018 | page ii

5. Data Manipulation and Summarisation for Reporting ...................................................................... 41

5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 41
5.2 Initial Data Reporting and Review .......................................................................................................... 41
5.3 Data Processing for Reporting ............................................................................................................... 41
5.3.1 Data aggregation ...................................................................................................................... 42
5.3.2 Transformation and dynamic segmentation ............................................................................. 44
5.4 Data Summarisation for Reporting ......................................................................................................... 45
5.4.1 Index parameters – general...................................................................................................... 45
6. Forecasting and Managing Future Demand ...................................................................................... 50

6.1 Understanding Growth and Future Demand .......................................................................................... 50
6.2 Forecasting Future Demand ................................................................................................................... 51
6.3 Capacity Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 51
6.3.1 Capacity .................................................................................................................................... 52
6.3.2 Level of service ......................................................................................................................... 52
6.3.3 Service flow rate ....................................................................................................................... 52
6.3.4 Degree of saturation ................................................................................................................. 53
6.4 Travel Demand Management ................................................................................................................. 53
7. Identifying Critical Assets and Business Risks ................................................................................ 56

7.1 Risk Management Context ..................................................................................................................... 56
7.2 Risk Identification ................................................................................................................................... 56
7.3 Critical Assets Identification ................................................................................................................... 56
7.4 Evaluating Risks ..................................................................................................................................... 57
7.5 Managing Risk ........................................................................................................................................ 57
7.6 Monitoring and Review ........................................................................................................................... 59
References ...................................................................................................................................................... 61
Tables
Table 2.1: Data types ................................................................................................................................. 8
Table 2.2: US Army URCI scale and condition rating .............................................................................. 17
Table 3.1: Inventory data – example ........................................................................................................ 21
Table 4.1: Pavement condition data classification ................................................................................... 27
Table 4.2: Pavement distress types for bituminous and concrete surfaced pavements .........................28
Table 4.3: Austroads standard specification and test methods for pavement condition
measurement .......................................................................................................................... 32
Table 4.4: Advantages and disadvantages of rating ................................................................................ 34
Table 4.5: Survey frequency .................................................................................................................... 37
Table 5.1: Example of condition parameter breakdown .......................................................................... 48
Table 5.2: SMEC PCI interpretation of road conditions ........................................................................... 49
Figures
Figure 2.1: Data organised according to service functions ......................................................................... 6
Figure 2.2: Data organised according to the business process .................................................................. 6
Figure 2.3: The data pyramid ...................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2.4: Information quality level .......................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2.5: Data management roles .......................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.6: Time series data...................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 4.1: The PCI Method ...................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 4.2: Changes in roughness of a link over time ............................................................................... 39
Figure 4.3: Distribution and trend of rutting severity for a network ...........................................................40
Figure 4.4: Cumulative distribution of rutting for a network ....................................................................... 40
Austroads 2018 | page iii

Figure 5.1: Dynamic segmentation ........................................................................................................... 44

Figure 5.2: Data transformation ................................................................................................................ 45
Figure 5.3: Linear and non-linear scaling .................................................................................................. 46
Figure 5.4: Aggregating deduct points (PCI method) ................................................................................ 47
Figure 6.1: Kew Triangle – Tram Network ................................................................................................ 54
Figure 6.2: Key proposed features of the Kew Triangle project ................................................................ 55
Austroads 2018 | page iv

1. Overview
Part 6 of the GAM is addresses the efficient collection, storage, analysis and reporting of pavement and
other road-related infrastructure data. This will, by extension, promote best practice asset management,
including the identification of critical assets and business risks. The contents of this section have relevance
to contractors, data collection service providers as well as road agency personnel, at the local, state and
national level.
A recent development in the management of road agency data was the drafting of a data standard
(Austroads 2016a) that can be used as a specification for the data-based reports and submissions requested
from road agencies by road network funding agencies. The aim of this standard is to provide a common
understanding of the meaning of the data to ensure that it is used and interpreted by stakeholders correctly
to support more equitable evidence-based investment decision-making. The standard also recognises the
detailed levels of data needed in inventory and asset planning practice; it also provides guidance on
appropriate data item definitions.
When finalised, the standard is expected to benefit road industry stakeholders who use data for research
and innovation, policy development, benchmarking performance, funding, national reforms and reporting,
sharing services, and inter-organisation communications.
Within this context, it is recognised that all road agencies have different needs stemming from the number of
assets and differing levels of service.
This section is structured to promote the adoption of a consistent approach to data management and
therefore engender best practice for defining the assets. In this way, the data collected, processed and
stored will be of increased value to the agency and the use of that data will facilitate optimal decision making
for managing and reporting of assets. Adopting a consistent reporting approach, allows more consistent
benchmarking of an agency’s performance against their peers and/or any other road agency across the
country.
The scope of Part 6 of the GAM is:

• data needed for asset management
• road inventory definition and monitoring
• road and asset condition monitoring
• data manipulation and summarisation for reporting
• forecasting and managing future road user demand for road assets
• identification of critical assets and business risks.
There are minimum data requirements to enable an agency to adequately manage their road assets. In this
Guide, the examples provided are mainly related to pavement assets; however, it is noted that similar data
definition, collection methods, storage mechanisms and reporting requirements are often associated with all
other road-related infrastructure assets. In this regard, users of this Guide can make direct use of the content
provided in this part on the management of pavement assets, while Part 15, Sections 2 and 3 of the GAM
extend these principles to the other road-related infrastructure assets they are managing.
Austroads 2018 | page 1

The current and future performance of road assets is directly related to the current condition, capacity and
inherent features of the asset and the impact of road users and any other adverse contribution associated
with environmental and other external and unforeseen conditions. In order to meet the needs of the broader
community, road agencies have a responsibility to provide and manage road assets which deliver safe,
acceptable and economically efficient performance. Current asset performance is generally assessed
against the various levels of service requirements defined by the road agency for the different assets based
on their business and customer needs.
Defining a consistent approach to the collection, storage, analysis and reporting of asset data is integral to
modern asset management requirements. Quality is a significant component and contributor to successfully
managing assets. Therefore, all data has to be well managed to be of any value for an organisation.
Data needs for road assets are inherently tied to the operational objectives of the organisation and the
processes established for its management. The quantity, quality and type of data should be linked to the
current business processes of an organisation.
The two fundamental requirements of good data management are to:

1. store data only once
2. allow integration of different data types.
Asset management decisions require consideration of several data types/sources such as condition,
inventory, usage, etc. The presence of duplicate data is not only inefficient but also it may cause
management problems and eventual conflicts between datasets. An appropriately defined data management
structure will ensure efficient and reliable storage, integration, retrieval and reporting of data.
Data integration is achieved by defining unique identifiers for each data type and linking data sets that have
common unique identifiers. For road data, the link between different data types is generally the specific road
location. The implementation of an effective and suitable location referencing system is therefore crucial for
the effectiveness of the database.
Data may be grouped according to many operational and functional aspects. While asset performance data
is often considered of high importance, it may not usable without other complementary and relevant
information.
To turn data into information, it needs to be analysed and in most cases aggregated and summarised. In
most cases the network and other road-related infrastructure assets need to be broken down into smaller
manageable segments and the data has to be assigned to these segments. These actions require data
transformation, aggregation and segmentation. This subject was extensively addressed in Austroads (2005)
for pavements, and the key principles can be applied to other components of the road-related infrastructure.
To facilitate prediction of future road-related infrastructure performance and its consequences, road user
demand is one of the required inputs to manage asset supply, asset enhancement and/or reductions in asset
capacity and performance. The ability for an agency to manage specified level of service (LoS) demands
may warrant adjustments to either budgets or the specified LoS. In principle, it is recognised that it is not
physically practicable, economically efficient, or financially responsible to supply road assets, in terms of
physical capacity and accessibility to match unconstrained road use. Consequently, rationing and
adjustments to service levels and the asset delivery program will generally be required.
In determining and defining these asset data needs, the agency will be able to assess their specific data
management requirements, frequency of data collection and data manipulation processes required to
manage and report on the performance of these assets.

2. Data for Asset Management
Using data for asset management, which forms the basis for sound decision making for aspects of asset
management, involves a set of data management processes an organisation puts into place to ensure that
its data is contributing positively to the organisation’s aims (Western European Road Directors 2003). Good
data management is simply good housekeeping and encompasses knowing what information is available
and where it can be found. Effective data management essentially turns data into valuable and useful
information by making it readily accessible, understandable and relevant.
Data is a critical input that is purchased, stored and should be used to the benefit of an organisation. As with
every input, it needs to be managed to achieve maximum benefits for the owner and users of the data. Data
must be treated as a valuable resource and is essential for the successful operation of any organisation.
Data is managed at various levels within an organisation, ranging from addressing corporate needs to those
of the individual essentially responsible for the presence and performance of the asset. Road agencies
typically manage their data at a corporate level and have the ability to translate and transfer this data to meet
the needs of the individual user.
In principle, data should be stored in one location as part of an asset information system. This is difficult to
achieve in practice as separate databases tend to fulfil local or special functions. General Managers, Finance
Managers and Asset Managers are usually the ultimate data users, and frequently need to establish their
own personal data management regime, although the need for this should be minimised and where practical
the data should always be sourced from the same central location. Part 9 of the GAM deals with asset
management information systems (AMIS) and data.
Information associated with the management of road infrastructure assets can be wide and varied and is
generally associated with addressing financial, safety, technical and LoS needs, organisational and
community needs and stakeholder reporting and communication needs. Sound decisions must be based on
reliable information that covers all relevant critical issues.
Information is rarely usable in its raw as collected format and resolution. Therefore, additional processing
and summation is required to make the data meaningful. More frequently than not, these high level reports
tend to be derived from raw source data. In this way, the purpose of data collection is to obtain and gather
the required data that can then be turned into useful information to support the decision making processes of
the organisation.
Road agencies need to consider the following fundamental questions before starting data collection:
• What decisions need to be made?
• What data needs to be collected?
• What are the benefit and costs of collecting data?
• What data information quality level (IQL) is appropriate and should be specified?
• What data management roles and responsibilities need to be established?
• What asset data classes are to be monitored and reported on?
• What data standards are appropriate for the organisation?

2.1 Why is Data Collected?
As with any activity undertaken by a publicly exposed agency, data collection activities that are undertaken
must be of benefit to the organisation, otherwise its investment could and should be questioned. One of the
benefits of data collection is related to its effective use which informs either a current decision on asset
condition/performance or a decision on risks associated with future asset condition/performance and
required investments. Conversely, data that is not used provides no benefit to the organisation and should
not be collected.
The reason for collecting data is ultimately to support asset managers, and other managers, by providing a
sound, factual basis and evidence to support decisions about the performance, maintenance needs, risks,
optimising funding allocated for upgrading and replacement of assets to ensure value for money. Data is
collected to support a variety of functions, although the most common reasons fall into one of the following
categories:
• monitor performance and changes over time to ensure levels of service and road agency objectives are
being met
• monitor and benchmark condition
• monitor life-cycle costs over the history of all significant assets
• assist in establishing future maintenance and replacement funding needs (managing assets and
achieving economic outcomes)
• monitor workmanship and construction quality
• measure the performance of contractors or service providers
• maintain an inventory of assets for records purposes
• statutory reporting such as asset valuation, corporate performance indicators
• research (e.g. deterioration modelling, development of truck ride indicators).
Data may also be collected purely to satisfy statutory reporting requirements. In this regard, the choice of
what data to collect, and at what level of detail, may be influenced by just meeting this one objective. This
approach could be considered the minimum requirement, however, there is a cost to this to an organisation
and it could be argued that agencies adopting this approach to data collection are not maximising the
investment they are making in collecting such data. It is suggested that raising awareness about why the
organisation is collecting data will foster widespread use of this data and a review and amendment of
business processes.
2.2 Benefits of Collecting Data
The benefits to an agency of data collection vary from organisation to organisation and will be heavily tied to
how well the agency has defined how this data is to be used. Benefits and returns on investment to the
agency increase as a consequence of adopting one or all of the following activities as the driver for
undertaking data collection, including:
• Providing for statistical summaries for monitoring purposes; in this case data is used passively to monitor
events, conditions and overall performance. An element or all of the summarised and aggregated results
may be used in management and annual reports.
• Facilitating interpretation and analysis of the data for management and optimum decision making (ODM)
purposes; in this regard the data is actively used to manage the asset, determine current performance
against current funding and through additional analysis may be the catalyst to obtain appropriate
maintenance and investment funding to meet set or changing levels of service.

• Using the information and analysis results in reviewing and updating business processes for management
and operational purposes; the data is an integral part of the business process and is used by both
management and operational staff to plan, manage and conduct day-to-day activities. Through its use
and analysis of the benefits it generates, a case for modification or improvement of the business
processes (change management) could be argued, thereby extending the usefulness of current and
future data collection activities.
As outlined previously, data collection must be of benefit to an organisation. The benefits associated with
investing in this activity are directly related to whether the data is used or not. By creating and generating
statistical and aggregated data summaries, agencies can have confidence in monitoring events and in
generating annual reports respectively. Furthermore, a direct benefit can be obtained when the data analysis
is used for road management purposes where funding requirements and expenditure are monitored and
assessed against current and predicted needs.
The availability of expertise to use the data in a meaningful way for the organisation is a key contributing
factor to why agencies don’t make good use of the data they collect. Without adequate expertise, data can
be collected only with ever diminishing benefits derived from it. Expert users also assist in determining how
the collected data can be of benefit to the organisation.
2.3 Determining Data Needs of the Organisation
The choice of what data to collect and determining at what level of detail this data should be collected at, is
influenced by a number of factors. Ideally these needs and uses should be integrated within the business
framework processes that demonstrate the need for collection of the data in the first instance and therefore,
by extension, will make the use of the data essential to meet reporting requirements. The data standard
given by Austroads (2016a) is a useful draft guide for determining what data to collect and in what detail.
The definition of data needs is the first and most fundamental step in establishing the agency’s need for a
database and a data management regime. A clear understanding of the role data plays in meeting the
organisation’s aims and objectives is fundamental and should drive the quantum and quality of the data to be
collected.
In determining the data needs of an organisation, an initial understanding of where data is required and who
it is used by is critical. When data is organised and managed at the level of business functions or units
(Figure 2.1), a significant overlap of data can occur. Overlap, or duplicate storage of the data, carries
inherent dangers in providing users conflicting, out-dated and redundant data. Data organised and managed
according to the agency’s defined business framework processes removes the potential of data duplication
and makes data available to all participants in the business process (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.1: Data organised according to service functions
Source: Western European Road Directors (2003).
Figure 2.2: Data organised according to the business process
Agencies have to identify the requirements of the different data types that they need to collect, store,
manage and report. The types of data to be collected depend on the extent and diversity of each agency’s
assets and their operational requirements. From this information the business framework processes for
collecting and managing the data need to be well defined and documented.
2.3.1 Data types
From a database management perspective, data types may be dynamic, periodic, static, standing and meta.
This classification is not about the actual content of the data, but refers to the frequency of change of the
content. A summary description and relevant examples are in Table 2.1. These definitions assist
organisations to determine their overall data needs and the management framework that they will need to
establish around this to provide for its sustainable use.

Gaining a full understanding of the data held by the organisation, how it is used and what gaps in the data
currently exist, is an essential second step (after defining data needs) to enable all the data needs of the
organisation to be established and therefore a data model to be developed. A data model comprises the
documentation of the data types, their definition and what ongoing resources need to be dedicated to
maintain its integrity for it to remain useful to the organisation in the longer term.
Whereas most of the data types in Table 2.1 are generally well understood, metadata, i.e. data about data, is
often ill-defined yet it is critical for understanding the data and hence being able to use it correctly. In its
simplest form, metadata may comprise a dictionary of defined terms for each type of data. Currently
Austroads has a standard for the definitions of data, including metadata, to enable the common
understanding and use of data (Austroads 2016a).
Road agencies need to appreciate the level and quantity of data that is required to meet their needs and
ensure that adequate investment is dedicated to its maintenance, otherwise the data can quickly lose its
usefulness to the organisation. For example, standing data such as a lookup table on road categories based
on traffic volumes that are not updated to reflect changes agreed by the organisation, will, upon the
importation of new data translate and seed the database with inappropriate data.
From an organisational perspective, it is useful to recognise and acknowledge the needs of the different
levels interacting with the data are different. Contemporary organisational data levels are shown in
Figure 2.3.

Table 2.1: Data types
Data
Description Examples Audit requirements
category
High Operational Dynamic Data continuously Near-real time Frequent calibration
data data subject to update, traffic data. Road of equipment
either being surface ice and
operational records or temperature
periodically monitored sensors.
performance records Roadside
pollutions
measurements
Rate of change Periodic Data requiring regular Routine On-site validation
of data values data collection and inspections, (e.g. using data
updating correspondence Capture Devices and
and call logging, other data collection
pavement systems), load
condition validation to include
surveys, traffic referencing to
counts location on the road
networks, codes,
value ranges and
other checks
Low Static data Data requiring one-off Road Network Initial load validation
capture and validation, Asset Inventory, against “real-world”,
and infrequent update Construction procedures in place
(as need dictates) records to capture changes
as they occur (e.g.
when new
construction takes
place)
Supporting Standing Data such as Look-up tables Confirm consistency
data data constants, rules, for all coded with national or Road
parameters and the database fields, Administration
like are essential to standards, valid standards
the operation of a data ranges
system, but which are
not, in general, the
day-to-day concern of
users. Changes occur
relatively infrequently
over time
Meta data Data that describes Data Dictionary
data
Source: Based on Western European Road Directors (2003).

Figure 2.3: The data pyramid
To ensure that a data model is constructed to centre on the needs of the organisation, consideration should
be given to the needs of the different users as outlined in Figure 2.3. Furthermore, in defining these needs,
consideration needs to be given to the attributes which should be available to inform these users of the value
of the available data. Ideally, this process should provide information in a form and quality that can be used
by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for:
• relevance, e.g. to the planning process
• coherence, i.e. its ability to be brought together with other information
• accuracy, i.e. the degree to which the information correctly describes what it has been designed to
measure
• timeliness or currency, i.e. the length of time between the period which the data pertains to and its date of
publication
• interpretability, i.e. the availability of supplementary data which enables the recorded information to be
understood and therefore applied correctly
• accessibility, i.e. the ease with which data can be obtained, and information on who manages the data,
access protocols, methods of dissemination and cost of use.
2.4 Information Quality Level
The concept of IQL was developed by the World Bank (Paterson and Scullion 1990, Bennett and
Paterson 2000) and is shown in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4: Information quality level
Source: Bennett et al. (2007).
The IQL is related to the use of the data, which, in turn, is also related to the data user’s level in the
organisational hierarchy as shown as descending from system performance monitoring to project detail or
research in Figure 2.4. The higher the IQL, the less detailed data the user receives or has access to.
Figure 2.4 shows the IQLs relationship to each other and the data collected for each IQL.
• IQL-1 data is used for research, laboratory or theoretical investigations. It includes detailed data mostly
collected electronically at high frequency (e.g. the raw data files of high speed roughness and rutting
data).
• IQL-2 is used for engineering analysis and project level works (e.g. 100 m roughness data, and project
level Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) results).
• IQL-3 data is most appropriate for network level analysis and planning. The number of attributes is
reduced to a select few and aggregated parameters are used. Data collected with less sophisticated
methods or by rating also falls into this category.
• IQL-4 includes a select few summary data that is used mainly for senior management reports requiring
relatively low level technical expertise. Data is collected with low cost, manual or visual methods. IQL-4
data can also be computed from lower level data.
• IQL-5 is mostly used to communicate network level information in simple, mostly non-technical terms. Key
performance indicators and other composite indexes fall into this category.

The consideration of the IQL required by the organisation or any one of the defined users specifically may
assist in the selection of appropriate data collection method and technology.
Low level, detailed, data is usually collected with technologically advanced equipment, which attracts higher
costs, but is more reliable and repeatable. When IQL-2 data is aggregated to higher levels, the integrity of
the data is retained and can always be related to lower level data.
There may be situations when the lower level data is not required, but due to lack of availability of skills and
expertise locally, it is more efficient to procure a high level data collection approach than to develop higher
level data collection capabilities for what is often a two to five yearly exercise.
IQL-1 and IQL-2 data is typically collected by large road agencies including maintenance contractors
responsible for performance (or outcome) based contracts, whilst IQL-3 data is sufficient for smaller, rural
agencies.
Ultimately the appropriate level of information is determined by the use of the data and the needs of the
organisation to meet its reporting requirements.
2.5 Data Collection and Data Management Roles and Responsibilities
The organisation needs a clear understanding of how the collected data is to be used and managed in
establishing its business framework processes for its data needs and subsequent management. In
formulating these processes to address their needs, organisations should address the following once they
have collected data:
• What data is held by the organisation?
• Who is responsible for collecting, storing and distributing the data?
• What are the collection methods, classification standards and representation models?
• What should be the frequency of updating the data?
• How much should be spent on collecting and managing data?
• What business processes and decisions should the data support?
For efficiencies to be realised by an agency in its data collection and management functions, the agency
essentially needs to consider the above questions but ultimately it needs to recognise the different roles
across the organisation that are interacting with the data through its life-cycle.
Data management involves all stakeholders who have an interest in or need to make use of the data.
Stakeholders may fill one or more of the roles of data user, data owner and data custodian (Figure 2.5).
Each role comes with its own scope and functionality demands, namely:
• the data custodian is in charge of creating, updating and deleting the data
• the data user is mainly interested in the availability of and access to the data
• the data owner may or may not be separated from the custodian and the user, particularly in larger
organisations where the size of the operation can justify the deployment of specialist staff.
Therefore, by addressing how the data will be used and managed across the agency, there are inherent
benefits to be achieved for the organisation. Typical benefits that would be anticipated include better service
quality, greater responsiveness, cost savings, improvements to co-operative working, improved efficiency
through co-ordinated service provision and sound decision support.

Figure 2.5: Data management roles
2.6 Defining and Managing Asset Data Register Structure and Hierarchy
Road infrastructure asset data registers have a structure and hierarchy that relies upon robust network level
definition and an asset classification structure to describe the location refencing associated with physical
assets and associated components. Asset data registers are structured this way to form the framework that
aligns with data collection, reporting and decision making for these discrete assets and their components
(see Section 3.2). Asset data registers can also be based on asset function or a combination of function and
componentisation (Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA) 2015).
To manage all road infrastructure assets, agencies require information on all activities related to the
construction, maintenance, operation and administration of the assets to be stored in asset registers that are
structured and hierarchical. The raw data necessary to derive this information is usually obtained from
several sources and may need to be correlated to one another to make the data meaningful.
For instance, construction and maintenance data is typically stored separately from financial and
performance data, however, an agency may be interested in identifying road sections where significant
investment has occurred over recent years. In this case a relationship between the data registers, typically
based on common referencing, will be established to merge the two data registers (financial and
performance) to generate the report.

The determination of what information is needed and why, will result in the identification of appropriate data
types to be collected for the different assets. The data collection and storage requirements of different
agencies must be driven by their specific business needs, which will invariably be different depending on the
size of the agency and the range of assets for which they are responsible. These drivers and requirements
may include analytical, reporting or accounting (valuation) purposes. In this process some cognisance needs
to be taken of available data capture technology and its suitability to the network and collection task. The
range of desirable data types must not be constrained by the current limits of technology, therefore the need
for a new data type should be a stimulus to the development of new technology, as has been demonstrated
by the evolution of road data collection methods and technology during the recent past.
Data may be grouped or classified according to a number of aspects, such as method of the data collection,
the content of the data, and the function of the department using the data. The most common and practical
classification of the data reflects its purpose and content, where generally these classifications include:
• inventory data
• condition data
• environmental data
• road use data
• construction, maintenance and expenditure data
• historical data
• risk data
• LoS data.
Each of the above data categories has several unique features and requirements. Some of the data
associated with these categories may remain unchanged for longer periods, such as the description of the
asset, whereas some may change from year to year, such as condition and road use related data. Condition
and road use data can inform a risk data base for critical assets.
Some data types are aggregated over space (length), e.g. average roughness for a section is calculated in a
given year. Other data classes, such as road maintenance activities, need to be aggregated over space and
time to answer questions like ‘what was the maintenance effort on the given road section between two major
works?’. This latter data class is frequently called historical data.
These data classes are discussed in the following sections in more detail.
2.6.1 Inventory data
Inventory data describes the physical asset, its constituents and other relevant data associated with its
identification or to describe it’s current in-service state. Recoding of key inventory data is critical to the entire
data management process, in that all other functions associated with the collection and use of the condition
data related to the selected assets is dependent on the inventory. For instance, the adopted naming
convention for road numbers and related identifiers needs to ensure that a consistent yet flexible approach is
adopted. This is critical as road networks are always evolving and through local and regional development,
road agencies may acquire or inherit additional assets and they therefore need to be able to accommodate
these changes in their asset registers.

Inventory data is also related to aspects of the asset that may describe its current state (age) or function,
such as road class, route designation (bus, freight, national significance etc.). Furthermore, it is important to
note that some of the additional inventory data required to describe the road network may be acquired
through the use of the same equipment undertaking pavement condition surveys. Geometry data such as
rise and fall, curvature and grade can be obtained initially from an automated survey. Further inventory data
relating to the roads’ dimensions may also be obtained in this same manner through review of digital imaging
that would have been captured as part of a network survey. While it is appreciated that such fundamental
information may already be present in the agency’s asset register, there are occasions where such
information may benefit from validation and confirmation, especially if the origin and source of the base data
is uncertain. In this manner, road agencies can extract additional benefit from their data collection exercise to
take the opportunity to gather data related to the asset at the same time as obtaining condition related data.
It is important to note that there are other inventory data types, however, that may need to be confirmed
through manual means if the source of the data is questionable or unknown. For many assets, parameters
such as asset description, function, performance and condition are all parameters that are best validated and
confirmed through visual site inspections, generally making a closer detailed visual inspection as required.
Clearly the manual and visual inspection approaches to confirming inventory data are more time consuming,
lack repeatability, rely on the expert opinion of the inspector and have associated potential personnel safety
implications.
2.6.2 Condition data
Condition data describes the physical properties of the asset. Although condition implies a current state, the
data may refer to a condition recorded at an earlier time. Condition data, therefore, should always be
accompanied with the date of recording the measurement.
Condition data is updated or collected at regular intervals. The frequency of data collection may vary,
reflecting the significance of the asset, its expected life and financial constraints of the asset owner and
managing agency. Collection of condition data as a time series is also important in determining deterioration
rates of the collected parameters.
The details of key condition parameters and their measurement are discussed in other Austroads
documents, including other parts of the Guide to Traffic Management (GTM) and also in the Guide to
Pavement Technology (GPT) series.
Refer to Part 15, Section 1 more information on pavement condition data.
2.6.3 Environmental data
Roads operate exposed to the environment and their performance can be heavily influenced by
environmental conditions. Environmental conditions include geographical, climate and construction data, as
follows:
Geographical data • Topography (hilly, mountainous, flat)

• Reactive and non-reactive subgrades
Climate • Temperature regime (daily maximum and minimum)
• Humidity
• Rainfall
Construction • Also listed under road geometry data
• Drainage
• Grade of alignment
• Curvature
• Kerbs and gutters or channels

2.6.4 Road use data
Pavement deterioration and long-term performance is a function of the extent of heavy vehicle road usage.
This is characterised by the road use data that includes the traffic volume and loading at selected locations.
The collection methods and best practice of road use data collection is described in detail in
Austroads (2013a), and key data parameters are as follows.
Traffic volume Traffic volume is reported in terms of AADT 1. The AADT is a processed and aggregated
parameter based on detailed traffic counts assembled over a longer period.
Axle load Axle load data is collected with appropriate measuring techniques. The data is processed
and aggregated either into the actual number of vehicle types or into the percentage (%)
heavy vehicles counted on the road and is often used to estimate the cumulative or
annual number of equivalent standard axles carried.
Traffic growth Traffic growth is derived from past data and other economic/demographic forecasts. It is
important input data for estimating future pavement performance.
2.6.5 Construction, maintenance and expenditure data
The composition of road pavements was discussed earlier, and such this data is stored in the inventory of
the asset register. Although pavement composition data refers to a set of static parameters, pavement
composition may change as a result of maintenance activities. The latest (i.e. current) pavement composition
and its age provide vital information regarding the past and future performance of a road pavement.
Knowledge of the age of both surfacing and structural layers is essential for reliable performance prediction.
Other road infrastructure assets, such as structures, electrical equipment, etc. need to have similar detailed
data stored in the asset register.
Maintenance history, i.e. the summary of expenditure and nature of works over a period of time is arguably
the best indicator of the adequacy of the adopted maintenance regime for the given traffic and environmental
conditions. Whilst the importance of maintenance history data is generally acknowledged, few organisations
have satisfactory records of maintenance activities suitable for use in pavement management. This lack of
maintenance history data is related to the fact that this data is usually stored in a financial database that is
rarely location referenced. The lack of consistent location referencing breaks the link between maintenance
and other road data and makes meaningful utilisation of maintenance records near impossible. To derive
benefits from maintenance data, it needs to be stored in a location-referenced manner along with other
performance data. As most organisations have electronic records of work, the link between data sets should
be seamless.
Location referencing of the expenditure history of road sections may also become increasingly important
should governments move towards more commercial road use charging models, for example, the direct
charging for heavy vehicles. In these situations, good quality road agency expenditure data may be
necessary to provide evidence to a pricing regulator that proposed road expenditure projections and prices
are justifiable.
Maintenance history is sometimes categorised as historical data (see below). However, this requires the data
to be related to space and time concurrently in order to form a time series. Records containing the date of
the last treatment do not form time series and they are not true historical data.
2.6.6 Historical data
Data recorded repeatedly during the life of the asset is commonly referred to as historical data. Although this
is not a data class on its own, it is discussed here briefly.
1
Annual average daily traffic (vehicles per day).

The change of properties of an asset contains valuable information regarding its past and future
performance. Understanding the rate and direction of these changes is essential for the correct and accurate
interpretation of the data and its use in performance forecasting. Data collected repeatedly at various times
at the same locations can be considered as historical data as long as both the space (location) and time
reference is recorded.
The decision support process (performance forecasting and treatment selection) does not use time series
data, it uses only the latest and most relevant data derived from the time series. Deriving the latest data
usually requires specialist software and analytical skills.
The practical availability of historic data is often curtailed by frequent changes of the network. As the network
locations change due to changing alignment, the location of historical data will also change. Analysing time
series at locations in these situations is possible only either manually or with sophisticated, specialist
software. In either case, adequate location referencing across different datasets is the underlying
requirement for processing and analysing time series data.
The concept of processing and working with time series data is illustrated in Figure 2.6. In this example, the
data was collected at different times and at different locations. To interpret the current (i.e. the latest)
condition of the road, the road has to be segmented to form uniform sections, i.e. sections containing data
from the same time (year).
Figure 2.6: Time series data
Initial data in asset register
Time series of data
Process of deriving
latest condition
Current / latest condition
Source: Deighton Associates (2008).
The result illustrated in Figure 2.6 can also be achieved with dynamic segmentation combined with time
based queries.
2.6.7 Risk data
This data register would cover all identified asset risks in the agency, their current risk assessment (risk
score), and the identified and evaluated risk treatments. This data would need to be regularly updated with
current asset monitored data, its risk assessment and risk treatments. This data register must be updated
and reviewed frequently due to its critical nature.
2.6.8 Level of service data
This data register would be expected to contain the relationship between customer and technical measures
of levels of service across all assets forming the road infrastructure. The technical measures of levels of
service need to be compared with current asset condition and performance data which may be stored in a
separate data registers used for developing works programs and asset depreciation and valuation.

2.7 Defining Asset Data Standards for the Organisation
Defining asset data standards is a critical step in ensuring that an organisation will have confidence in the
data it is obtaining following subsequent data collection surveys. With a consistent data standard in the
process of being established, based on Austroads (2016a), an organisation is able to clearly define what it
requires and in so doing, assess the ability of data collection service suppliers to deliver to these standards.
The Austroads (2016a) data standard is expected to be further improved by alignment with the data
standards for other infrastructure (rail, water, etc.) where the developers of these standards are starting to
use ‘open’ modelling requirements (Austroads 2017a). An example of this is Uniclass 2015 which is intended
as a single dynamic classification system in a Building Information Management (BIM) environment, although
it will be several years before this work will be implemented by software developers.
The beneficiary in this process is clearly the road agency in that it can be assured that the data it will receive
at the end of the survey is consistent and aligned to their internal database and its structure. Furthermore,
the agency can also have confidence that, if a different supplier is selected from previous surveys, the data
delivered should be aligned and correlated with the historical data stored in the database.
Once data attributes such as inventory, condition, location, type, etc. (see Section 3), are determined, data
standards can be defined for the different asset types across the road network and for the different
components of each asset. The following sections outline the starting point for defining relevant data
standards for road agencies.
2.7.1 Road condition data (pavements, shoulders, sealed and unsealed roads)
Sealed roads
Austroads have standard specifications and test methods for pavement condition measurement to ensure
sealed road condition data is consistently collected and reported. Table 4.3 in Section 5 is a summary of the
relevant specifications and test methods for the collection of roughness, rutting, strength, skid resistance and
texture. The current guide for the collection and measurement of texture, cracking, strength and skid
resistance is Austroads (2015c).
Unsealed roads
Unsealed road conditions can be measured quantitatively using a Roughometer to provide an estimate of the
International Roughness Index (IRI) (m/km) (Austroads 2009). A multi-laser-profilometer (MLP) can also be
used to measure both roughness and rutting.
Unsealed road conditions can also be assessed by visual rating systems (Giummarra 2009, IPWEA 2016),
that involve a trained inspector to identify the severity and extent of the particular condition attribute from
which a numerical rating system is applied to establish a condition index. There are specific rating systems in
South Africa (Jones & Paige-Green 2000) and the US which uses an ‘unsealed road condition index’ (URCI)
as a numerical indicator based on a scale of 0 to 100 as shown in Table 2.2 (US Army Corps of
Engineers 1995).
Table 2.2: US Army URCI scale and condition rating
URCI 0–10 10–25 25–40 40–55 55–70 70–85 85–100

Description failed very poor poor fair good very good excellent

2.7.2 Traffic facilities (signs, barriers, line-marking, guide posts, etc.) ROCOND 90, AS 1742.1:2014
Signs, barriers, line-marking, pavement markers, guide posts and barriers are visually assessed and rated
on a linear condition score ranging from 1 (excellent) to 5 (inadequate) using the approaches defined in
ROCOND 90 (Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) 1990).
2.7.3 Digital images
The specifications for digital imaging are usually driven by the intended use of the imaging data.
Consequently, it is difficult to create a set of specifications that accommodate each agency’s needs.
However, it is possible to create a set of specifications outlining the minimum/maximum/optimum operating
standards of digital imaging systems for each of the specific uses. The standard guidelines for the
specification of digital imaging should include the following parameters or characteristics (Austroads 2011a).
Equipment
The equipment must:

• be validated, and proven it is able to perform the task
• calibrated so that accurate dimension measurements can be obtained from the image
• meet manufactures specifications such that it is able to perform that task and achieve the desired image
output.
Image quality
• Picture quality – minimum image quality standards which include:
– no motion blur
– focused and able to produce clear image
– discernible road features such as signs and guide posts; this includes sign lettering and marking
– images devoid of ‘artefacts’ and interference patterns
– no distortion
– non-interlaced images (i.e. progressive-scan, with no duplicated lines and no ‘field motion’).
• Resolution – minimum image resolution required for the task. For example, a higher minimum resolution
is required for images used for pavement defect identification.
• Operating conditions – optimum operating conditions for the collection of digital images such as amount
of ambient light, angle and elevation of the sun and weather conditions.
Field of view
• Collection interval – the minimum distance between image capture. For example, the front view camera
may collect one still image every 20 m, and the side view camera may collect one still image every 5 m in
order to capture everything while the vehicle is moving.
• Number of cameras – the minimum number of cameras required to achieve the purpose of the survey. As
an example, Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) currently uses four cameras in four different views
to achieve a landscape view of the road network as a visual record of the road network to supplement
other data streams.

Referencing of images
• Minimum location referencing of digital images, such as the use of GPS or DGPS coordinates, chainages
and distances travelled or methods specified in each road agency’s linear and spatial location referencing
systems.
• In order to compare historical data, digital images must be stamped with the date and time of survey.
• Collected images must be stored in a logical manner for future viewing and retrieval. Some road agencies
require the contractor to store images in a specific manner in order to comply with their current systems.
Software capabilities
• Minimum software capabilities required for viewing and post-processing of digital images, such as being
able to view multiple images from different cameras or allow users to attach comments and
post-processing elements to images.
These guidelines provide a template for standardising specifications for collecting network digital imaging
data. This will provide smaller agencies such as local councils who may also be interested in collecting road
imaging data, with a set of minimum specifications for their intended purpose.

3. Road Inventory Definition, Identification and Monitoring
3.1 Overview
The description and definition of the physical properties of the asset is stored in the asset register. As the
name suggests, it is an inventory of the key properties and attributes of the asset that usually remains static
for long periods. A consistent and logical asset register requires a clear definition of the assets to be stored
and is increasingly becoming a statutory requirement. For example, see VicRoads’ Road Management
Plan 2014 (VicRoads 2014) in response to the Victoria’s Road Management Act 2004.
Whilst the establishment of an asset register and defining the inventory may seem trivial, these requirements
greatly impact on the efficiency of the agency to manage and retrieve data from its database for its day to
day management of the road network assets. An asset may have many sub-assets, i.e. there is generally an
asset hierarchy that needs to be considered and established, where this is to replicate the inherent
relationship between asset components (see Section 2.6). For example, a lane or a parking bay may be a
component of the road asset; a section of the road is a part of the full road, etc. The asset register should
contain details for all assets and sub-assets, including their relationship. The relationship between road
assets is typically defined by their location, although for some non-pavement related assets, location may not
always be the linking attribute. For example, in the case of electrical assets, such as traffic signals, the asset
number is the attribute that defines the relationship between the traffic signal and the control system.
Alternative examples of asset categories/groups are provided in several previous Austroads reports and are
structured to meet specific purposes. One such example is the listing of asset groups and associated defects
Austroads (2006). Another example is the need to define road types for cost allocation and for potential road
user charging purposes (Austroads 2012a).
3.2 Asset Inventory Definition
To enable road agencies to determine and report on the condition and performance of their assets, a
network definition and the identification of the assets contained in this network must first be established.
Essentially the network should be defined by the structure of an asset hierarchy. The asset hierarchy groups
together assets on the basis of either function or type or a combination of the two to describe the different
types of assets, where they are located, how they are related and what asset hierarchical relationship they
have.
3.2.1 Asset hierarchy
The degree of complexity of the asset inventory, or register, hierarchy depends on how much the individual
assets are divided up into components and/or processes (Austroads 2018, IPWEA 2015). The following
should be considered when building an asset hierarchy (Austroads 2016a):
• the different types of assets that need to be managed that impact on the performance and levels of
service required of the road network
• the information needed to manage and value the assets at various levels (if required)
• the accessibility of the information for reporting purposes to relevant stakeholders
• the asset components that will be assigned maintenance and renewal/enhancement funding during their
life time
• the capability of the asset data base to have a given number of levels of hierarchy
• the capacity to link related assets for the information needed when undertaking a system analysis.

Asset hierarchies are best developed on a corporate-wide basis to avoid future ambiguities. The
sub-component levels should allow for future expansion of inventory data to avoid the need to redefine he
asset hierarchy.
Typically, road agencies across Australia and New Zealand have well defined and established asset
databases that identify and store data related to the assets for which they are responsible. In most agencies,
the one data base is used across multiple departments that may well have different responsibilities and key
performance outcome requirements for these different asset groups. However, the same underlying
principles are applied to the storage, referencing and reporting of these assets.
Table 3.1 sets out the base information to be allocated to levels in the hierarchy that is typically required for
an inventory of road infrastructure assets.
Table 3.1: Inventory data – example
Item Description
Name • The name of the asset is a unique reference to the asset. For roads this is the name of the whole
road, such ‘Highway No 1’. As roads are managed in smaller sections, sometimes the name is
associated with a smaller section or with the managed section. Whilst this method of naming is
common place, it is not necessarily correct. The preferred method is to assign a unique element
identifier to each sub-section of the asset (i.e. the road) and not a unique name.
Unique • A unique identifier refers to one single asset or part of it appearing as a separate unit, or record,
identifier in an asset register. A unique identifier is also database terminology and a requirement that is
associated with only one item or record.
• Typically, alphanumeric characters are used for this purpose. In many cases the unique identifier
also has some information content that can guide the user regarding the basic properties and
location of the asset.
Location • To locate the asset is a fundamental requirement. Location of a road asset is particularly critical
as it is the single most important attribute that links all road related data to each other. Location
referencing is discussed in Section 3.3 in detail.
Jurisdiction • The legal status of the asset can be defined by one or more of the following attributes:
- owner (the asset owner may be separate from the managing agency; e.g. the state road
authority owns the asset, but management is delegated to another agency)
- managing agency (may be local government, contractor or regional office of the road agency)
- government jurisdiction (the road may traverse several government jurisdictions, such
councils, states, districts, etc.)
Geometry • The size and other geometric characteristics that define a pavement asset falls into this category,
such as:
- width of the earthworks, or formation
- width of shoulders
- width of sealed surface
- slope
- grade
- curvature
- cut/fill
- number of lanes
- length.
In some cases, area may be used instead of length and width, e.g. for car parks, bus bays, etc.
Components • The composition and materials of the pavement asset are used to value the asset and for
estimating deterioration (consumption) and maintenance costs. Constituents may be defined in a
number of ways, depending on the information available and the need for this information. In
Australia, ‘rural flexible’ pavement implies invariably an unbound pavement with chip seal or thin
asphalt surfacing, so further detail may not be required. For major roads and particularly in areas
where asphalt is readily available, a more detailed description may be necessary.
• The following items belong in this group:
- pavement type (flexible, rigid)
- surface type (seal, asphalt, concrete)
- base type (granular, bound)

Item Description
- sub-base type
- subgrade (CBR)
- layer thickness for the above.
Classification • Road importance and maintenance priorities can be highlighted by dividing a network into sub-
networks. The Austroads classification is based on the function of the road and as such it covers
most situations. When local priorities, such as bus routes, access to hospitals etc. is to be taken
into account, a secondary, local hierarchy may be implemented. It is critical, however, that the
hierarchy is clearly defined and understood by all stakeholders. The local hierarchy should be
linked directly to service levels. These define the expected performance characteristics of the
(sub-) network and are vital to measuring the efficiency of the road maintenance investment.
Ancillary • Some assets have ancillary assets or sub-assets that would not exist without the parent asset.
assets – road These include kerbs, traffic signs, bus stops, parking bays and other assets related to the main
furniture asset, i.e. the road.
Given the volume of data that may well be stored to describe the agency’s road network, a fundamental
requirement of good database management is to store data only once. Storing duplicate data is inefficient
and can cause management problems and eventual conflicts between one or more datasets. Appropriate
asset inventory, or register, hierarchy for the data ensures efficient and reliable storage and use of the data
by creating relationships between data tables. Relationships are created by identifying commonalities
between data sets and by linking these. For road data, the link between different data types is the road,
i.e. the location of the data. The implementation of an effective and suitable location referencing system, as
outlined in the following sections, is crucial for the effectiveness of the database.
3.3 LiDAR Technology for Asset Inventory Identification
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) is a 3D imaging technology that can provide a dense, geospatial
dataset as a 3D virtual world called a point cloud, which can be explored from a variety of viewpoints. LiDAR
technology measures distance to a target by illuminating it with a laser and analysing the reflected light. It
uses either the time-of-flight or phase shifts to derive the distance to the target point (Yen, Ravani &
Lasky 2011).
LiDAR technology is used in many industries. LiDAR sensors are mounted on several moving platforms such
as vehicles, aircraft, boats and satellites. For road agency applications, LiDAR operates from a road vehicle
platform. This is often referred to as mobile laser scanning (MLS).
Australasian road agencies, as well as transport agencies in the US have indicated a strong desire for
standardised accuracy in reporting methods, data interoperability and management, control or check
requirements and procedures for mobile LiDAR surveys. LiDAR surveys can provide detailed 3D
representation of all visible road agency assets.
Currently there is a potential lack of consistency in the outcomes of mobile LiDAR surveys in terms of the
quality, accuracy and type of deliverables. Survey providers use different hardware, system configurations,
data collection methodologies, survey planning, and post-processing. This results in inconsistencies which
limit the potential for reuse of point clouds in a variety of applications.
Austroads (2014a) provides examples of mobile LiDAR survey requirements from several road agencies,
and is a useful guide in specifying mobile LiDAR procurement documents. It addresses requirements for
positioning accuracy, point density, multiple passes, control and validation points, deliverables and
documentation. The intention is to provide and serve as a starting point for a future Austroads guide for
mobile LiDAR scanning.

It is therefore feasible to expect that as the use of LiDAR technology becomes more consistent and is
embraced by road agencies, it could be used to verify the presence of all assets in the road reserve or to
identify and define the assets in the first instance. The issue with new assets is the ability to be able to
transfer the ‘as built’ or ‘as constructed’ asset digital information directly into the asset register. Alternatives
such as Digital Engineering (DE), or Building Information Modelling (BIM), as described by Aranda-Mena et
al. (2009), allow assets to be fully defined at the design stage and transferred directly into the asset register.
The use of LiDAR technology may not be restricted to new asset owners, as it could still be also applied to
mature networks, where new works such as new assets associated with new subdivisions could be located
and defined through such a survey.
3.4 Asset Identification System Requirements
Asset identification systems provide a unique identifier to each asset for allocating and retrieving information.
When all assets have a unique identification which differentiates them they can be linked to specific data sets
and this also allows for the creation of metadata. Asset identification systems should use simple rules in
assigning asset identification (ID) numbers and allow for the inclusion of new assets and the incorporation of
any existing numbering systems (IPWEA 2015).
A useful basis for asset identifiers is the US approach (NIST 2011) used for computer systems that provides
the principles for asset identification that can be generally applied to asset management.
Asset identification plays an important role in an organisation’s ability to quickly correlate different sets of
information, such as metadata, about assets. The NIST (2011) specification provides the necessary
constructs to uniquely identify assets based on known identifiers and/or known information about the assets.
This specification describes the purpose of asset identification, a data model for identifying assets, methods
for identifying assets, and guidance on how to use asset identification. It also identifies a number of known
use cases for asset identification.
The NIST (2011) asset identification specification describes a framework for how asset management
processes and other specifications may identify assets using some set of information known or generated
about the asset. It describes the data model and representation of asset identification information and it
provides requirements for consuming and producing identification information. Requirements for usage of
asset information and requirements for how the information that identifies assets is collected or generated
are out of scope for this specification.
The NIST (2011) specification identifies an asset as anything that has value to the organisation. The
specification itself provides constructs for identifying many types of assets, and users may extend the model
to include other asset types if they wish to identify asset types that are not addressed in the specification. It is
expected that other standards, data formats, tools, processes, and organisations will reference this
specification to describe how to represent asset identification information. This will ensure compatibility of
asset identification among these components and allow for improved asset management processes.
The asset identification system adopted will depend on the road agency’s requirements which are driven by
the nature of its assets and its customer’s demands. As geographic information systems (GIS) are commonly
used (see Section 3.7) for spatial referencing, this can make the asset identification system relatively simple
because of the locational precision of GIS.

3.5 Asset Location Referencing Systems
Whilst locations may be referenced in a number of ways, it is fundamental to establish a common approach
that enables cross-referencing of data, and can be applied to all road related items, i.e. items that are linked
to a location on the road. Austroads (2017b) has documented the recent development of the Locational
Reference Method (LRM) that gives a model-specific methodology to assign unique references to a location.
The approaches that meet these requirements are:

• linear, or topological, referencing
• spatial, or geographic, location referencing
• geometric location referencing.
These approaches are outlined in the following sections.
Road agencies have traditionally used linear LRMs to identify and locate their assets (see Section 3.6).
However, each road agency often has its own unique combination of location referencing methods and
systems, evolved and tailored to cater for the unique characteristics of their respective road network and
business needs. The variance between location referencing systems and a lack of detailed common ground
limits data transfer between road agencies and aggregation of higher order comparative databases (i.e. at
the national level). It also creates extra work in planning and conducting data collection surveys, in that new
data collection systems must be developed for each new data collection exercise to suit each location
referencing regime.
For the harmonisation of LRMs and road related condition data, Austroads (2011b) notes that it should be
feasible to create a harmonised spatial referencing system that is fast, accurate and suitable for
vehicle-based network surveys that can be readily transformed to any linear referencing system. Such
development allows road agencies to benefit from continued growth and evolution in spatial and geometric
LRM technologies to determine location while retaining their legacy linear referencing systems to achieve
business outcomes. Currently it would appear that the technology and associated specifications for spatial
and geometric collection of linear data are adequate to support an immediate shift. However, not all agencies
are well placed to undertake the required spatial/linear transformations, particularly local government road
agencies that are not well resourced. As technology and specifications further improve and agency linear
and spatial references become more tightly integrated, the determination of location in the field will
predominantly use spatial referencing techniques supported by systems to undertake the necessary
transformations to meaningful linear location references within each road agency.
Geometric LRMs are based on digital models and provide coordinate geometry within local
model-coordinates. Typically, these models include the digital design of the infrastructure, whether 2D or 3D
and Building Information Management (BIM) models. Some model environments are stand-alone and, more
recently, they may be geo-connected (located in the real world).
For some types of inventory, such as surface seal information, location referencing includes not only road
number, carriageway and chainage, but also cross sectional position, e.g. left or right lane. Spatial
coordinates are also used for defining asset location, in some cases this is the only location referencing
description that may exist. As outlined previously, location referencing is the method that enables people to
find a location on the road. This may sound trivial, but defining a point or a section of a road in such a
manner that it is easy to find on a map or in the field is far from being a simple task.

3.6 Linear Location Referencing
Linear referencing is the most commonly used referencing system for road data. Unlike spatial referencing, it
does not require any sophisticated technology and can be used intuitively.
A linear location referencing system (LLRS) is a set of procedures that uniquely identify and define a location
on a road. A location reference method (LRM) is the way the location of a point is described relative to a
known point. The known reference point is also called the datum. There are several LRMs and it is essential
that these are consistent and convertible when used on the same road.
Linear referencing is the most common referencing method used by road agencies for vehicle-based data
collection. It is easy to understand, does not require sophisticated technology and it allows the user to
reference locations in the field using physical markers and identifiers e.g. a kilometre post, intersection, side
road, regional boundary, etc.
A linear reference system will always consist of the following:

• known start and end point
• direction of travel (increasing or decreasing in distance) usually from the start point
• the distance measurement from the point of reference (this could be the start point or intermediate
points).
Hence, it is important that start and end points are well defined within a road network. This can sometimes
prove to be difficult. For example, a linear referencing system that defines all its start and end points as the
centre of an intersection may run into problems when dealing with complex intersections, which may be
difficult to define and become subjective to identify during a vehicle-based collection survey. There are a
number of different approaches to establishing a linear referencing system. As many road agencies have
adopted different methods of linear referencing over the years, they have developed different systems to suit
their needs and these all tend to have their advantages and disadvantages.
More detail on linear location referencing is provided in Austroads (2011b).
3.7 Spatial Location Referencing
Spatial location referencing has been steadily gaining acceptance with the ever increasing computing power
and the diminishing cost of hardware. Spatial referencing defines a location with its coordinates (latitude,
longitude and altitude).
A spatial system has two critical components, namely how the coordinates of a location are obtained and
how they are managed and presented. The easy availability of the coordinates through Global Positioning
Systems (GPS) is the underlying reason for the recent acceptance and utilisation of spatial location
referencing. The GPS coordinates obtained are processed and presented on a map with the help of GIS that
link the point coordinates to features and objects.
The GPS is based on a large number of satellites in broadcasting timing signal, which is used for
triangulation. There are a number of satellite systems in use and it can be expected that the integration of
these will bring significant improvement in measuring accuracy.
Unlike linear referencing which requires physical objectives or locations, spatial referencing defines a
location using a set of coordinates. This allows the user to reference a location in two or three dimensions
using a calculated mathematical model of the earth’s sphere, where all locations are referenced against the
same datum. The following are the fundamental components required for the creation, acquisition, storage
and application of a spatial referencing system:
• coordinate system – a reference system used to measure horizontal and vertical distances on a
planimetric map

• datum – mathematical model of the earth’s sphere which provides a frame of reference for measuring
locations on the earth’s surface
• projection – a mathematical formula which enables areas on the surface of the earth (a spheroid) to be
represented on a map (a flat surface)
• positioning – a means of determining the location/position of an object in reference to a datum.
Spatial data is typically collected using a GPS that accesses a specific satellite network to identify the survey
vehicle’s position on the earth’s surface.
More detail on spatial location referencing is provided in Section 4 (Spatial Referencing) of Austroads report
AP-T190-11 (2011b).
3.8 Comparison of Linear and Spatial Referencing
While both referencing systems have been adapted and have been used by road agencies for many years,
there are a number of noted limitations with either system.
For linear referencing, the distance measurement instrument must be correctly calibrated otherwise
measured distances will be incorrect. For referencing systems that require a new start point to be identified
regularly so as to reset the chainage, the presence of these markers needs to be easily recognisable and
identifiable. In this instance, permanent reference markers are required and where possible these need to be
sufficiently robust to avoid being moved or removed.
For spatial referencing systems, there is a heavy reliance on the accuracy and ability of the GPS to acquire a
signal. The GPS needs direct line of sight to a satellite otherwise it cannot produce a reading. As such,
heavy tree canopies or large buildings in urban environments can be a problem. However, neither of these
are insurmountable issues and there are various techniques and technology available that can be used to
minimise these effects. The use of survey equipment enhanced with accelerometers and gyroscopes can
counteract the potential loss of GPS signal by maintaining an accurate account of vehicle’s position. In this
way, special software can be used to fill in the gaps between the intermittent GPS signal by applying the
vehicle’s recorded motion between these events and therefore develop a complete GPS trace of the survey.
For road assets, condition data is collected linearly so the linear references must be related to the spatial
references if a spatial referencing system is used.

4. Road Asset Condition and Monitoring
4.1 Overview
Understanding the condition and performance of an asset at set intervals in time provides the information to
assess the likelihood of asset failure. Condition and performance information also aids the determination of
when to intervene with maintenance or rehabilitation to extend asset life and maintain the required LoS.
For pavement assets, condition may be classified in functional or structural terms. Functional characteristics
include all those parameters that affect the safe and comfortable passage of a road user directly. These
include roughness, rutting, cracking, texture and skid resistance. Structural characteristics are concerned
with the load bearing capacity of a pavement under a given traffic load and environmental conditions.
Amongst the most critical parameters is pavement deflection, although other attributes related to structural
performance, such as rutting, cracking and faulting, and composite indices of structural strength, such as
pavement structural number, also belong to this group.
A summary of a selection of pavement distress characteristics is given in Table 4.1.
Data collection and data interpretation must be closely linked and preferably integrated. One of the
frequently used examples is the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) method, described among other methods
in ASTM D5340:2012 and ASTM D6433:2016. A PCI value for pavements can be assessed by means of a
visual survey of the pavement (see Part 6, 4.6).
Indicators and indices are often used to represent pavement and other asset conditions.
Table 4.1: Pavement condition data classification
Pavement
Evaluation type Pavement function Examples of indicators and indexes
characteristics
Functional evaluation Serviceability Roughness IRI
PCI (see Part 6, Sections 4.6 and 5.4)
QI
Safety Texture Macrotexture
Microtexture
Skid resistance Skid resistance coefficient
IFI
Structural evaluation Structural capacity Mechanical properties Deflections
Pavement distress Cracking
Surface defects
Profile deformations
Referencing system (Location of pavement
characteristic data)
Source: Bennett et al. (2007).
Whilst classifying road conditions in terms of functional or structural characteristics remains attractive for its
simplicity, users should bear in mind that in a number of cases, visible surface distresses on pavements can
be both functional and structural. For example, stripping of a bituminous seal affects both safety and
structural integrity, potholing leads to structural inadequacy, and deformation presents safety and structural
hazards, etc. Nevertheless, the approach of using functional and structural classification has merit,
particularly for conveying information to non-specialists.

To facilitate this reporting task, a road agency therefore needs to determine which condition distresses are
relevant and prevalent on their road network and which are of concern to its community. In this way, by
evaluating and monitoring the condition of these distresses, either as discrete entities or in the form of an
overall condition index, the agency will be able to report regularly on its performance in meeting the
community’s LoS expectations. By adopting such an approach of consistently collecting condition data and
analysing these measures against set targets or benchmarks, the agency will be able (over time) to
determine its ability to maintain or otherwise the network to this LoS. In doing so, the ability to request either
an adjustment to the set levels of service or additional funding will be based on strong scientific evidence that
is backed up by a time series of condition performance.
4.2 Road Pavement Condition Monitoring
Road agencies have been collecting road condition information for many decades and have typically
embraced new technology and approaches to the collection of this information to enhance their visibility of
the overall performance of the road network. However, while the technology to collect the data has evolved
over time, the fundamental distresses that are collected to describe the condition of the road have varied
marginally over time. The core parameters collected to describe distress on a pavement have remained
relatively constant in the recent decades, as these have been proven to be consistently reliable and relatable
parameters.
A listing of the pavement distress types common to bituminous and concrete surfaced pavements is given in
Table 4.2 based on Austroads (2011c). Distress types applicable to unsealed roads have also been outlined
in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Pavement distress types for bituminous and concrete surfaced pavements
Surface type Distress type

Bituminous surfaces • Pavement profile
- pavement roughness
• Deformation
- corrugations
- depressions
- rutting
- shoving
• Cracking
- longitudinal
- transverse
- block
- crescent shaped
- crocodile
- diagonal
- meandering
• Texture
- polishing
- ravelling
- delamination
- stripping
• Edge defects
- edge break
- edge drop-off
• Potholes
• Patches
• Skid resistance

Surface type Distress type

Concrete surfaces • Deformation
- depression
- faulting
- pumping
- rocking
• Cracking
- block
- corner
- diagonal
- longitudinal
- meandering
• Joint seal
• Spalling
• Edge defects
- drop off
• Surface texture defects
- scaling
• Pothole
• Patch
Unsealed surfaces • Roughness
• Channel
• Corrugation
• Rutting
• Shoving
• Surface texture
- loose material
- coarse texture
• Pothole
Some of the distress data presented in the table is generally collected via automated methods, but several
are still collected by visual inspection. Appropriate methods of data collection, including the use of automated
(usually data collection systems operating at traffic speed), are described in more detail in other parts of this
Guide (see Part 15, Section 1).
4.3 Characterisation of Condition
Condition may be characterised in absolute (i.e. measured terms) by an attribute, such as length,
deformation, etc. Measured data has a clearly defined dimension and measurement method. Road condition
is characterised by aggregated parameters built up by summarising measurements related to discrete
locations along the road. Following from this definition, the correct interpretation of road condition requires,
besides the numerical record, the knowledge of what is measured and how is it summarised. The
aggregation of the data into standard reporting units must not be confused with aggregating data into
management units; the former refers to the smallest road area or length that is used for reporting (such as
100 m roughness, 20 m rutting, etc.). However, the management unit is an arbitrary, practical road area or
length managed as a single unit. The length of the management unit, also called treatment length or
homogeneous section, is selected by the road manager. On the other hand, the length of the reporting unit is
usually fixed by national or local conventions or standards.
Condition data comprises three vital parts:

• the name of the distress or parameter, such as roughness, rutting, cracking
• the severity or magnitude of the distress
• the extent of the distress.

These may be expressed in an explicit format or implied by the test method. For example, rutting is often
reported in bins (representing severity) and percentage of length (extent) affected by the distress. Cracking is
reported by crack type, percentage of length or area (extent) and crack width (severity). Roughness is
reported in terms of an IRI that is the aggregation of measured values (severity) over an agreed length
(extent).
In some cases, the extent and severity of the condition may also be combined into a single numerical
parameter to characterise the overall condition. The user of the data must always be aware that this
combination is not a measured but a derived value. Methods of aggregating extent and severity over a road
length are discussed in Section 5.3.
In some cases it is not feasible, desirable or practical to collect measured data. In lieu of measurement, the
condition may be estimated and rated. The assigned condition level represents a judgement, usually based
on a descriptive definition. This approach to condition rating is dependent on the experience and expertise of
the assessor, thus making it less reliable and repeatable and more subjective, but it may be entirely
satisfactory for the given purpose or asset type. For example, the condition of kerbs is best rated in this
manner, as measurement would be costly and impractical.
Depending on the needs of the organisation and its stated reporting requirements, the approach to be
adopted for the characterisation of the condition of the various assets they manage should generally remain
constant over time. In this way, the overall condition reported is not likely to change as a consequence of the
approach applied, but moreover as a direct consequence of an observable change in the measured
condition.
An example of an approach to condition monitoring is shown in Case Study 1.
Case Study 1: Comprehensive ‘all assets’ approach to condition monitoring
A road agency is a progressive organisation that is interested in assessing the functional and structural
capacity of its entire 5 000 km long road network consisting of state highways, major rural roads and some
arterials and collectors. Recently their sole focus was on surface condition, while strength assessments
were only undertaken for project level work. However, knowing both the functional and structural condition
of the network enables them to manage all the aspects of road condition. They also want to compile an
inventory of their road-side assets and determine how their location impacts road side safety. The road
agency has a limited data collection budget and receives complaints from road users on sections of the
road network that are not identified for maintenance or rehabilitation treatment using their current data
assessment methodology. This involves manually assessing representative sections of the road network
for pavement distress (potholes and cracking) and measuring rutting with a manual straight edge. Being a
manual process, it takes time and it is not possible to cover the entire road network each year. It also
requires significant traffic control to ensure the safety of the condition ‘raters’, making it a slow and
expensive process.
How can the road agency improve their data collection program to better manage their network in
accordance with their needs? What condition parameters should they be interested in collecting?
Firstly, the road agency could engage an external service provider to undertake a survey of their road
network using a dedicated automated pavement data collection. These vehicles are termed network
survey vehicles (NSVs). An NSV is capable of collecting a variety of pavement condition parameters
including roughness (assesses pavement ride quality and user satisfaction), rutting (structural integrity and
potential for hydroplaning) and texture (hydroplaning and safety) at traffic speed, allowing 100% of the
network to be assessed in a safe, efficient and timely manner. The road agency can purchase these
vehicles and the data collected in-house. However, their high cost and with the rapid rate of technological
development, it is prudent to engage a service provider rather than purchase the equipment.

Some of the NSVs are also fitted with 3D systems that can measure cracking and a variety of distresses
such as potholes and ravelling as well as rutting. This is done continuously over the entire network with
the results generated automatically and objectively, limiting potential differences that result when defects
are rated manually; which is common because of the subjective nature of the assessment. Additionally,
most NSVs are fitted with multiple cameras; forward, side and rear facing to identify and locate roadside
assets using GPS. This involves manually assessing the images, but this work can be done from a desk
rather than exposing the manual ‘rater’ to live traffic conditions. Typically, the images are calibrated,
allowing the agency to measure their distance from the road-side and assess the impact of their location
on road safety and whether there are any safety measures, like barriers, already in place.
Having the above data suite, or even a portion of it, will allow the road agency to gain a better
understanding of the functional condition of their network and even allow for a historical comparison
between the automated and manual results. Monitoring 100% of their network will also enable the agency
to understand why they are receiving complaints from road users on some sections of road.
However, this does not solve the problem of assessing the structural capacity of their network. Stationary
testing devices like the FWD, or slow-moving devices such as a Deflectograph, are not viable for an
agency with a limited budget and the size of Road Agency X. There are also safety issues associated with
their use so they require significant levels of traffic control. Traffic control is expensive and can easily
double the cost of the survey. Some agencies have used roughness and rutting as surrogate strength
measurements, but these are not quantitative strength measurements and the assumption that a rough
surface must be weak, and a smooth surface strong is not always correct. What is the solution?
Technological advancements have resulted in the development of a mobile deflection device known as the
iPAVe that is capable of assessing the bearing capacity of a road network at traffic speed without the
safety concerns, or traffic control requirements associated with static or low speed devices. The Traffic
Speed Deflectometer (TSD) outputs from the iPAVe are not the same as either the FWD or Deflectograph
(although it can emulate an FWD deflection bowl), although it does identify the exact same pavement
strength trends as the other devices at traffic speed. This device is also capable of collecting the same
functional pavement condition data as in NSV, so that the road agency only needs one survey to obtain an
in-depth assessment of both the functional and structural condition of their road network. Consequently,
the road agency fully monitors 100% of their network, ultimately allowing them to make the best use of
their maintenance budget.
4.4 Condition Monitoring Approach
Until recently, and despite a history of data collection across the Australasian road networks, no nationally
adopted procedures have existed for the collection of data and the validation of test equipment. Each road
agency has developed its own specification for the purposes of commissioning this type of condition survey.
Austroads has developed a set of standard specifications, and associated test methods, for instance, there is
a separate standard for the collection of roughness data (Moffatt, Sharp & Ferguson 2006). The specification
and test methods are freely available from the Austroads web site: www.austroads.com.au.
The above web site also contains Commentaries for each of the specification and test methods. These
commentaries provide additional notes and advice to practitioners and were structured to be read in
conjunction with the relevant specification or test method.
The specification and test methods that are relevant to the collection of road condition data (roughness,
rutting, strength, skid resistance, texture and cracking) are listed in Table 4.3. The specification and test
methods have been prepared for the testing of pavements at the network level. Care should be taken when
applying the specifications and test methods at the project level.

Table 4.3: Austroads standard specification and test methods for pavement condition measurement
Number Title
Roughness Specification: AG:AM/S001-16 Specification for Pavement Roughness Measurement with
an Inertial Laser Profilometer
Test Methods: AG:AM/T001-16 Pavement Roughness Measurement with an Inertial Laser
Profilometer
AG:AM/T002-16 Validation of an Inertial Laser Profilometer for Measuring
Pavement Roughness (Reference Device Method)
AG:AM/T003-16 Validation of an Inertial Laser Profilometer for Measuring
Pavement Roughness (Loop Method)
AG:AM/T004-16 Pavement Roughness Repeatability and Bias Checks for an
Inertial Laser Profilometer
AG:AM/T005-11 Distance Measurement Validation of Road Condition
Monitoring Vehicles
Rutting Specification: AG:AM/S004-16 Specification for Pavement Rutting Measurement with a
Multi-laser Profilometer
Test Method: AG:AM/T005-11 Distance Measurement Validation of Road Condition
Monitoring Vehicles
AG:AM/T009-16 Pavement Rutting Measurement with a Multi-laser
Profilometer
AG:AM/T010-16 Validation of a Multi-laser Profilometer for Measuring
Pavement Rutting (Reference Device Method)
AG:AM/T011-16 Validation of a Multi-laser Profilometer for Measuring
Pavement Rutting (Loop Method)
AG:AM/T012-16 Pavement Rutting Repeatability and Bias Checks for a Multi-
laser Profilometer
Strength Specification: AG:AM/S002-07 Specification for pavement deflection measurement with a
Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)
Specification: AG:AM/S003-07 Specification for pavement deflection measurement with a
Deflectograph
Test Methods: AG:AM/T006-11 Pavement Deflection Measurement with a Falling Weight
Deflectometer (FWD)
AG:AM/T007-14 Pavement Deflection Measurement with a Traffic Speed
Deflectometer
AG:AM/T008-08 Validation and Repeatability Checks for a Deflectograph
AG:AM/T005-07 Distance Measurement Validation of Road Condition
Monitoring Vehicles
AG:AM/T017-16 Pavement Data Collection with a Traffic Speed
Deflectometer
Skid Resistance Specification: AP-T290-15 A Common Data Output Specification for Texture, Cracking,
Strength and Skid Resistance
Test Methods: BS 7941–1:2006 Methods for Measuring the Skid Resistance of Pavement
Surfaces. Sideway-force Coefficient Routine Investigation
Machine
BS 7941–2:2000 Methods for Measuring the Skid Resistance Of Pavement
Surfaces. Test method for measurement of surface skid
resistance using the Grip Tester braked wheel fixed slip
device

Number Title
Texture Specification: AG:AM/S005-07 Specification for pavement surface texture measurement
with a laser profilometer
Test Methods: AG:AM/T013-16 Pavement surface texture measurement with a laser
profilometer
AG:AM/T014-16 Validation of a laser profilometer for measuring pavement
surface texture (reference device method)
AG:AM/T015-16 Validation of a laser profilometer for pavement surface
texture (loop method)
AG:AM/T016-16 Pavement surface texture repeatability and bias checks for a
laser profilometer
AG:AM/T005-11 Distance measurement validation of road condition
monitoring vehicles
Cracking Test Methods: AG:AM/T018-16 Pavement crack measurement with an automated crack
detection system
4.5 Performance Assessment
Pavement performance is monitored and assessed to ensure the road network is meeting expected levels of
service to the users. This means that the data on pavement performance is collected and analysed to clearly
identify locations where the expected levels of service to the users are not being met and to monitor the
impact of maintenance and rehabilitation works on road performance. The latter monitoring is used to
confirm the immediate effectiveness of these works.
Performance, in the form of condition data, such as in a time series, can be used to improve performance
prediction modelling (see Part 15, Section 1.7).
The need for regular performance assessment drives the need for a regular data collection program across
the road network. Section 4.7 discusses the frequency of data collection.
4.6 Data Collection Methods
Once the need for data is established and the type of data the agency requires is defined, the data can be
collected. Generally, in considering the scope of the data collection exercise, the agency would define the
terms in regard to the quantity and quality required which will be commensurate with both the established
needs and the available resources. Data requirements framed by resources should determine the applicable
data collection method.
Data collection methods have evolved with technology, and currently there are a large range of options
available for use by practitioners. Cost is generally a considerable factor in the selection of the data
collection method, but it should always be secondary to the purpose and use of the data.
4.6.1 Desktop study
A significant proportion of the asset condition data may be obtained by studying existing documents and
plans. Construction and maintenance records contain a wealth of information, including post construction
condition information. These can be extracted in an office environment without any expensive field work or
data collection program.

4.6.2 Measured and rated
Data collection may be based on direct physical measurement or using an appropriate rating method. When
the property is actually measured, the measured value is the source of the reported data. In many cases, the
property cannot be measured directly and is calculated from other measured parameters. For example,
roughness (IRI) is calculated from a longitudinal profile and rut depth is often calculated from a transverse
profile.
Some data is reported in groups or bins; e.g. rutting is usually reported in 5 mm range bins in terms of
percentage (%) length of data falling in each bin. The bins may be considered as representing ‘severity’ and
the % is the ‘extent’ or ‘density’ of the measured property.
Grouping the measured data according to severity reduces the demand on the accuracy of the measurement
method and provides room for estimating or rating the magnitude (or severity) of the distress, rather than
measuring its exact value. Rated data is as valuable, albeit not as accurate as measured data, as it often
involves the judgement of the overall condition based on the experience of the assessor.
Rated data appears as the combination of extent and severity. The severity is usually described in three up
to a maximum of five groups, e.g. slight, medium, and extreme, and is always precisely defined and
described as to what condition fits into each group. The extent is the proportion of the section / data that fits
into this group.
Rated data is usually collected visually, using manual or semi-automated recording methods. Rating, as a
method, has several advantages and disadvantages as noted in Table 4.4:
Table 4.4: Advantages and disadvantages of rating
Advantages Disadvantages
• It is independent from technology – rating can be • It has somewhat reduced reliability, repeatability and
undertaken using a range of data recording accuracy compared with automated methods
technologies, • It is labour intensive
• Capital cost is low if manual rating is used • There are potential safety implications associated with
• Any property can be rated – even those that cannot be staff walking on road sections to assess the overall
measured easily, such as kerb condition condition
Although in recent times the emphasis has shifted towards high speed automated data collection technology,
the rating method should not be underestimated. There are several important factors influencing pavement
performance and future maintenance demand that cannot be measured by automated equipment at high
speed. Missing information on these factors, which cannot be measured digitally, such as edge break,
potholes, faulting, etc. can significantly diminish the reliability of pavement performance and budget
requirement forecasts.
The reliability of rated data depends largely on the suitability of the definition of the severity and the training
of those undertaking the rating. Suitable definitions and rating methods form the basis of Australasian
practice, see for example the ROCOND 90 developed by Roads and Maritime NSW and which continue to
be used in a considerable number of jurisdictions (RTA NSW 1990) and the Austroads GPT Part 5:
Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Design (Austroads 2011c), and other parts of this Guide.
Condition data recorded by a rating method reflects only the range of the observed property of the asset
being viewed and assessed. Because the physical condition is not measured directly, it is assessed and
placed into a predefined band or category, which is generally defined and maintained by the agency over a
substantial period of time (for consistency), until a different approach is adopted. Rating methods are often
used where the data is not readily measurable, e.g. kerb condition, or resources are limited. Rated data is
typically collected visually, where the rating may be influenced by the data collector’s experience and other
subjective factors.

Data collected with the rating method is typically more difficult to reconcile, less repeatable and less
accurate. In this context, this approach can be substantially more variable if the agency adopts different
scale definitions, or commissions the rating task from different raters over time. The disadvantages of
classified data, however, do not necessarily imply inferiority or unsuitability. Rated data may yield valuable
information and can be used successfully for specific purposes as long as the required and actual accuracy
are congruent. For example, visual unevenness data is normally judged unsuitable for sophisticated
pavement performance modelling.
A special case of a classification reporting method is when several properties are judged together and
assigned to a category to estimate and convey an overall surface condition that is rated on a scale of 1–5,
which tends to facilitate reporting to non-engineering audiences. Rated data collected this way is detached
from any measurable physical property and is therefore potentially quite subjective. This method is
appropriate when resources are limited, and should be accompanied with an illustrative defect guide in
pictorial and written form to help ensure consistency in recording.
Rated data is not to be confused with ‘engineering judgement’. When the severity is not defined precisely, or
severity describes an ‘engineering judgement’, e.g. the remaining seal life, the recorded number does not
reflect any fact, but is merely a subjective judgement. This type of rating is not considered data and should
not be treated as such.
4.6.3 Data Collection Using the PCI Method
Data collection and data interpretation must be closely linked and preferably integrated. One of the
frequently used practices of data collection and interpretation is the PCI method, described among others in
ASTM Standard D5340–12. This approach is used to obtain a PCI value for pavements based on a visual
survey of the pavement. The PCI is a numerical rating of the pavement condition that ranges from 0 to 100,
with 0 being the worst possible condition and 100 being the best possible condition.
The PCI method was developed by the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory of the United States
Department of Defence (2004). This method can be used for both asphalt surfaced and concrete pavements.
Principles of the PCI method are also implemented in several other pavement condition survey procedures.
The procedure is illustrated in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: The PCI Method
Source: United States Department of Defence (2004).
The number of samples taken of the pavement surface condition is determined by statistical considerations
to ensure a 95% confidence level. For each sample, the severity and the extent is recorded according to the
set definition of the distress types. For each distress type a deduct value (DV) is calculated, based on the
severity and extent. The deduct values are corrected to ensure that the maximum of the total deducted
points does not exceed 100. The PCI is calculated by subtracting the sum of the corrected deduct values
from 100.

4.7 Frequency of Data Capture
The choice of what data to collect is a significant decision for an agency and can be a significant financial
commitment. Often too little data collected can be collected at widely spaced intervals, or high-level data is
collected at low cost but the outcome of such practice may significantly limit the efficiency of management to
make informed decisions regarding the management of the assets. Conversely collecting too much data may
stretch the financial and human resources of the organisation and unutilised data can even be demoralising
and negatively impact the on an organisation. According to Bennett et al. (2007) excessive data collection is
one of the top five reasons why road management systems are abandoned.
The basic rules for deciding what data to collect (Bennett et al. 2007) are discussed in Section 2.
Data collection strategies are used to rationalise the cost of data collection. Data collection is best kept
synchronised with the use of data in such a manner that the analysis always uses up-to-date data. For
example, annual data collection and updates allow yearly review of the network condition. If the data is
collected in a two-year cycle, reporting on the network condition annually may result in misleading
information.
Data collection strategies may also be based on a needs analysis. Parts of a network in good condition may
require less frequent monitoring than sections in poorer condition. Selective data collection, however, must
be practised with caution and the costs and benefits must be carefully weighed.
The frequency of network surveys is dependent on the performance, function and use of the road network
being considered. Available budgets, local policies, specific reporting schedules and contractual obligations
may also dictate a specific survey frequency.
Survey frequency can vary from one to five years. As a general guide, the survey frequencies shown in
Table 4.5 can be used. Some background information regarding the selection of these frequencies is
available from Roberts and Martin (1996).
Table 4.5: Survey frequency
Frequency
Road network
Skid
Roughness Rutting Strength Cracking Texture
Resistance
Heavily trafficked 1 year 1–2 years 3–5 years 1 year 1–3 years 1–3 years
arterial roads
Roads with high rates 1 year 1–2 years 1–3 years 1 year 1 year 1 year
of deterioration
Arterial roads with 2–3 years 2–3 years 5–15 years 2–3 years 1–5 years 1–5 years
average deterioration
Low trafficked local 5 years 5 years 5–15 years 3–5 years 5 years 5 years
roads with low
deterioration
Source: Roberts and Martin (1996).
The frequencies shown in Table 4.5 presume that the overall change in asset condition over time is known
and well established through review of previous and successive survey outcomes. In order to initially
establish these trends, more frequent surveys of asset condition are needed and based on analysis of the
collected and aggregated condition, an assessment as to a sensible frequency can be made and established
by the agency.

4.8 Data Quality and Validation
4.8.1 Validation of distance measurement
Austroads Test Method AG:AM/T005-11 defines the procedure for validating the distance measurement
performance of vehicles conducting condition monitoring surveys (such as inertial laser profilometers).
The procedure involves the comparison of the distance reported by the road condition vehicle travelling over
a 1 km length of road, with the exact length of that road as measured by precise ground survey techniques.
There are various tools and techniques that can be used to determine the validity of the collected data. In
addition, discussion is provided in AG:AM/T005-11 on ways in which value can be added to collected data.
4.8.2 Validation of equipment measurement
Validation involves obtaining separate sets of measurements from test sections using an operational device
and a reference device, and statistically comparing the two datasets. The aim is to ensure that the
operational device will give valid survey results.
The unique validation method for each condition parameter is discussed in the relevant sub-section of Part
15, Section 1.
4.8.3 Repeatability and bias
Measurement repeatability is an indication of the variation in a series of measurements about the mean of
those measurements. Bias error indicates whether a device is systematically measuring high or low when
compared to a reference set of measurements.
The methods to check for bias are unique to each condition parameter and are discussed in the relevant
sub-section of Part 15, Section 1.
4.8.4 Assessing the validity of measured data
Simple statistics can be used to quickly determine whether the surveyed data appears to be valid. Key data
statistics such as the minimum, median, maximum, inter-quartile range, mean and standard deviation can be
calculated at the link, road or network level and compared against the corresponding statistics for previous
years on the same road sections. Graphical displays such as histograms and cumulative distribution curves
are also effective in summarising the distribution of the data values collected. If the trends summarised by
the above methods are consistent with engineering judgement and knowledge of the road network, then the
surveyed data may be assessed as valid.
It would be expected that the condition of a road section that had not received recent maintenance would
demonstrate a stable or gradual increase in degradation of condition. Analysing the trend of degradation for
a given section of road requires an accurate referencing system to ensure that the same length of road is
being compared over time (see Section 4.5 and Part 15, Section 1.7).
Figure 4.2, for example, displays the trend in roughness values collected (at 100 m intervals) over a road
segment over three years. The series of roughness values collected during 2003 is consistent with the series
of roughness values collected during 2002. During 2004, there is a significant reduction in the roughness
values between chainage 23 km and chainage 24 km. Confirmation would be required as to whether, or not,
maintenance was undertaken at this location to substantiate the change in the measured condition.

Figure 4.2: Changes in roughness of a link over time

7
2004
2003
6
2002
5
Roughness (IRI m/km)
0
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Reference chainage (km)
Sudden increases or decreases in roughness (for instance) are unusual across large networks and such a
change may be an indicator of a change in the measurement process.
Other techniques that can be used to assess the validity of the data include calculating the percentage of
network with a condition severity greater than a threshold value (or percentage of network with a condition
extent in a critical band (e.g. rutting >20 mm) and comparing them against the corresponding values for
previous years. These measures can be determined at road class, region or network level.
When considering the possibility that a condition data set is of suspect quality, it is important to investigate
whether there are other factors that may be affecting the road condition. It is common for condition surveys
to simultaneously collect multiple concurrent pavement condition parameters (i.e. roughness, rutting and
surface texture) and in conjunction with digital image collection. Cross checking against these other data
sources can prove very helpful in determining the validity of specific parameter results.
4.8.5 Distribution analysis
Histograms and cumulative distribution graphs of a selected distress parameter, in this instance rutting, are
effective in summarising the distribution of a parameters’ condition over the network. These graphs can be
an effective means of conveying network performance trends when time series results are plotted as shown
in Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4.
Such graphs provide a good indication of the effectiveness of maintenance management practice. The
example network shown in Figure 4.3 can be seen to have a gradual improvement in the network rutting
condition over time.

Figure 4.3: Distribution and trend of rutting severity for a network
60%
2000
2001
2005
50%
Percentage of network
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
< 5 mm < 10 mm < 15 mm < 20 mm < 25 mm < 30 mm
Rut depth
Figure 4.4: Cumulative distribution of rutting for a network
100%
2000
90% 2001
2005
Cummulative percentage of network
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Rut depth (mm)

5. Data Manipulation and Summarisation for Reporting
5.1 Overview
Contemporary data collection practices tend to generate large volumes of data. In most cases, as data is
now more readily stored as a consequence of increased computing capability, it is common for a road
agency to store data at a variety of resolutions. These are typically supplied in three levels of detail, raw as
collected (10 m length), processed to a meaningful length (100 m) and processed to a specified reporting
level (road section/segment level).
While the data collection suppliers are capable of providing data at all of these resolution levels and the road
agency may well choose to import and store these data sets within their asset databases, the volume of this
data still commands attention. It is almost impossible and impractical to assess the overall performance of a
network or even road section by reviewing the detailed as collected data. Therefore, processes need to be
established and implemented by the agency to manipulate and summarise this data to make it meaningful for
management and to satisfy broader reporting purposes internal to and external to the organisation.
5.2 Initial Data Reporting and Review
Data must be properly referenced in order to be meaningful for use in decision making processes.
Accordingly, data must be reported using an established and predefined location referencing system as
outlined in Section 3.5 and Section 3.6. Each agency will have an established location referencing system
and this definition should be provided to the data collection supplier to ensure that all data is collected
against this definition and the resulting survey data should be processed and reported back against this
same network definition. During the data collection survey, the location of significant road features such as
bridges, intersections, administrative borders, etc. must be identified and recorded, to enable each 100 m
segment to be uniquely referenced in terms of the road agency’s location system.
Asset data reports must also clearly identify the lane surveyed and the direction and speed of travel during
the survey. These reports should also include the date and relevant weather conditions, and any impediment
to the survey, or missing or invalid results and their cause (e.g. roadworks, traffic congestion, local area of
wet surface, water over road, or other obstacle on the road, lane change manoeuvre for overtaking, etc.).
The recommended reporting interval and reporting parameters for each specific condition parameter is
discussed in Section 4.7. Other methods of analysing and reporting condition specific data, particularly at a
network and project level are discussed in Section 5.3.
5.3 Data Processing for Reporting
Condition data in its original, as collected format is rarely suitable for immediate use in asset management.
Raw data requires processing and organisation into formats and groups that can be used by various
stakeholders. Asset managers gain valuable information by processing the data collected. The potential
benefits of using the data will depend on the selection of the most appropriate data processing methods and
procedures.
Data processing includes the following key activities:

• aggregation of data within a spatial unit according to mathematical and statistical procedures
• transformation by organising data in spatial units required for reporting and analysis
• segmentation by dividing the network into new segmentation according to specified rules.
Transformation and segmentation cannot be conducted without using some level of data aggregation, whilst
data aggregation within the same spatial unit or segment can be processed on its own.

5.3.1 Data aggregation
Data is usually collected at regular intervals or with a set frequency along a road. The data collection
frequency is usually related to the equipment or method rather than to reporting requirements, therefore
summarising the data is an essential requirement. The method to aggregate data must be selected
according to the purpose of data aggregation. Data aggregation is discussed in detail in Austroads (2005).
Data aggregation may be categorised according to the segmentation used and the intended use of the
summarised data, and various methods are discussed in under the following headings.
Data aggregation according to segmentation
The collected raw data is first summarised into data collection segments. These segments are the smallest
segments in which data is stored. The reporting segments vary from data class to data class, depending on
technology and local conventions. For example, roughness is usually reported for every 100 m length, rutting
for every 20 m, skid resistance (or SCRIM) data for every 100 m, etc. For all practical purposes, data
presented in reporting segments is treated as raw data. The level of detail makes this data eminently suitable
for research and project level work studies (see also IQL 1). At this level, all recorded information is stored
without any mathematical treatment.
Data reported in 100 m unit lengths is too detailed for network level work reporting and does not provide a
useful overview. Aggregation into project or maintenance length offers a descriptive value, characterising a
longer, typically 0.5–1.0 km, section, that is expected to be treated as a single unit. The maintenance
sectioning may remain static, i.e. remain unchanged over time. However, when appropriate tools are
available, the maintenance sectioning may be changed to ensure that each section is homogeneous. In this
case uniformity means that the aggregated data has negligible variation, i.e. it is reasonably uniform along
the whole segment (see also IQL 2 and IQL 3).
Sub-network level segmentation contains longer sections reflecting geographical, jurisdictional or

administrative attributes. The sub-network segmentation may also describe the road hierarchy, as within
each road, the hierarchy may vary according to traffic, local significance and other aspects. This level of
segmentation is frequently used to distribute funding among larger road managing units of the same
organisation. This segmentation is frequently used for strategic analysis.
Network level segmentation is the ultimate summary of the network condition, as characteristic parameters
(usually performance indicators) that are calculated for the whole network. This level of aggregation is used
mostly for system performance monitoring and strategic planning.
Data aggregation according to the use of data
The main purpose of data aggregation is to represent the properties of a section without substantial
distortion of the true condition. Depending on the purpose of the data aggregation, true representation may
take different content. For example, the average deflection may be satisfactory for characterising a section’s
load bearing capacity, but for the purpose of overlay design the characteristic deflection value is used (see
Austroads 2011c). Further examples include the following:
• Reporting of pavement condition requires condensing data into meaningful and representative
parameters. Reporting must be as representative and descriptive as possible to provide the user with the
most accurate and precise information that reflects a true picture of the condition.
• Work programming requires slightly different considerations from reporting. Whilst deviation from the
truth is not permissible, the aggregation method may reflect the user’s intent. For example, when rut
depth is available in both wheel paths, the average of the two is used for reporting. However, to trigger a
treatment, the worst (or larger) of the two is typically used to ensure timely triggering of a treatment.
Similar considerations are required when assessing risk. Using averages for triggering treatments may
cause underestimating of budgetary requirements.

• Performance monitoring entails comparing aggregated parameter values with an agreed, set
benchmark or target value. The method of aggregation and the accuracy of the results are less important
than the consistent application of the calculation method.
Data aggregation according to the calculation method
The data aggregation method needs careful consideration, depending whether the aggregation will yield a
single parameter data or a combination (index) type. Single parameter aggregation methods can be used
when the data refers to a single parameter only, (e.g. rut depth, texture depth and roughness). However,
when the data is characterised by several parameters, such as bins or extent and severity, combination
methods have to be used.
Single parameter aggregation methods include calculating:

• mean
• mode
• median
• confidence limit (characteristic value)
• minimum
• maximum
• sum
• first occurrence
• last occurrence.
The suitability of each aggregation method must be evaluated and carefully considered, as they can all have
either a positive or negative impact on the results.
• Mean is arguably the most commonly used method, despite the fact that it tends to be less sensitive to
changes within the population than other statistical parameters. The exclusive use of means may create
the false impression that the composition of the data population is reasonably stable. Extreme values,
particularly in symmetric distributions, tend to be underestimated (Kadar et al. 2006).
• Confidence limit (or characteristic value) overcomes some of the disadvantages of the average by
taking the standard deviation of the data into account. However, the characteristic value must always be
qualified by naming the probability associated with it. This may limit the use of this method to engineers
and other technically minded users.
• Mode describes the parameter value with the highest occurrence. Mode is sensitive to changes of the
population but does not give any indication as to the spread of the data. It is particularly suitable to
describe changes to the bulk of the data and major trends over time.
• Median is typically between the mean and mode and is considered a good compromise to track changes
over time. Whilst it is not as sensitive as the mode, its calculation is easier and there is less potential
ambiguity to deal with. It should be noted that for normal distributions the mean, mode and median are
the same. As most data sets are skewed, or asymmetrical, statistical methods besides taking the average
provide valuable insight into the nature of the data.
• Minimum and maximum values are used when other statistical methods produce less meaningful
information. For risk management purposes it is quite common to consider ‘best’ or ‘worst’ case
scenarios. Similarly, traffic data may vary along a road, but for pavement design purposes, the maximum
traffic may be considered.
• Sum of data is used to add up the data values in a section e.g. the total number of potholes can be
calculated by summing the data.
• First and last occurrence is used to find the first or last unique attribute on the road, e.g. to describe the
start or end of the road.

5.3.2 Transformation and dynamic segmentation
The aggregation of road related data always has a spatial aspect, i.e. the aggregated data is related to a
section of the road. Transformation of data is needed on many occasions, e.g. when preparing data for
reporting, planning or performance monitoring. When aggregation involves more than one section, and the
data spans several sections, the data must be transformed from one particular sectioning result into another.
The process when the data is re-calculated to fit into a different section or segment is called data
transformation (Austroads 2005).
Transformation must not be confused with dynamic segmentation. Dynamic segmentation is a process
facilitating the creation of new segments and transforming the existing data into the new segments. The
dynamic segmentation process creates the lowest common denominator segments, i.e. sections in which the
parameter value does not change and the section is regarded as homogeneous.
As an example, the result of applying a dynamic segmentation approach is shown in Figure 5.1 where the
AADT and maintenance cost data sets have resulted in the creation of different segments, with the AADT
and maintenance costs being the same within each section.
Figure 5.1: Dynamic segmentation
When the data is placed into existing segments, the process is called transformation which is illustrated in
Figure 5.2. In this example, the AADT and maintenance cost data is available in two different sections. For
the purpose of analysis or reporting, there can only be one segmentation, so the data is transferred into one
of the two available segments. In the course of the transformation, the data is allocated and recalculated
proportionally to the target section length. The numerical examples illustrate that the recalculated
(aggregated) data can be significantly different from the original data.

Figure 5.2: Data transformation
Successful transformation can only be conducted in an efficient and effective location referenced
environment. The location referencing details determines the basis of the sections for the calculations to be
conducted upon. During transformation the target sections will be populated with the transformed data. This
requires the aggregation of the data with one of the aggregation methods discussed in Section 5.3.
5.4 Data Summarisation for Reporting
Finally, to provide a means of comparing performance across a network and between different networks,
composite parameters (index values) are generally calculated when several condition states need to be
combined into a single parameter. The data to be combined may describe different aspects of the same
property (e.g. extent and severity of cracking) or may be a number of different properties to be combined into
a single performance indicator or condition index (CI).
The basis of the development of a standardised PCI for reporting purposes was recently reviewed in light of
work undertaken in Europe (Austrian Transportation Research Association 2008). In this approach, individual
condition indexes (CI) for cracking, roughness, rutting and surface age are weighted and combined into a
PCI which ranges from 1 to 5. Note that this PCI is different to the PCIs developed by Shahin and
Kohn (1979) and the United States Department of Defence (2004).
Austroads have also proposed a network level PCI (Austroads 2011d) based on the COST approach
(Austrian Transportation Research Association 2008).
5.4.1 Index parameters – general
Mathematically, the composite index number defined by an expression is valid only for a limited and defined
(i.e. index) range. The index can be calculated directly from various parameters or by aggregating several
condition indexes (Highway Research Board 1962).
Terminology and definitions
CI: Condition index – one property, e.g. roughness, expressed as an index number on a fixed scale.
PCI: Pavement Condition Index – a composite number expressing the overall or combined property at a fixed
scale. It is typically a combination of several CIs.

Deduct: The inverse of a CI. Used in data collection and in the PCI method (Shahin and Kohn 1979), it
represents the ‘penalty points’ deducted from the maximum of the index number representing the best
condition, i.e. CI = 100 – Deduct. The RMS NSW ROCOND system (RTA 1990) uses the concept for visual
data collection.
The IRI functions as an index when calculated from cracking, strength and rutting on a scale of 0–20. A scale
of 0–100 or 1–5 is used commonly.
Composite indices may be calculated by a number of ways, so here only the basic concepts are discussed.
Examples
The IRI functions as an index when calculated from cracking, strength, and rutting on a scale of 0–20. A
scale of 0–100 or 1–5 is also used commonly for other parameters.
The calculation of index values usually requires the following steps:

• calculating index numbers (conversion of measured parameters to an index number)
• aggregating index numbers (combining various indices into one index).
Calculating index numbers involves converting parameters of different scales to a common scale. For
example, for roughness and rutting to be combined on the same scale, i.e. as an index number, they have to
be converted to the same scale. Conversion is not necessary when all data is collected on the same scale,
as is the case for most rated data.
The conversion can take various forms, the most commonly used forms being (a) linear or (b) non-linear.
The conversion process is also called scaling, as the scale of the measured parameter is adjusted to the
fixed scale of the index.
Non-linear scaling offers greater flexibility as the shape of the curve is controlled by constants. Different
curve shapes may be used for different road categories, materials, etc. (Figure 5.3).
Figure 5.3: Linear and non-linear scaling
100
90
80 non-linear scaling
70
linear scaling
60
PCI
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Roughness

If there are a number of indices, they need to be aggregated into a single value usually for communication to
non-technical stakeholders. Simply adding the individual indices carries potential risk; among others it may
create unintended equivalency between distresses or simply yield an unreasonable value.
PCI method
The PCI method (Shahin & Kohn 1979) takes into account a number of condition indexes (CI) in the
composite PCI. Mathematically the PCI is a composite index number defined by an expression that is valid
only for a limited, i.e. index, range. PCI can be calculated directly from various parameters or by aggregating
several condition indexes.
Figure 5.4: Aggregating deduct points (PCI method)
Source: Shahin and Kohn (1979).
The PCI method for reporting overall network condition is widely used in its original and modified formats in
Australia and overseas. The PCI is therefore an overall condition value that aims to represent within one
number an aggregation of a number of road surface or pavement condition variables (CIs). Such PCIs are
usually applied to represent the condition of a specific length of road.
Cost 354 PCI
This PCI is built up using formulae which use the condition data captured as part of the network survey, as
shown in Equation 1 based on the COST 354 work (Austrian Transportation Research Association 2008). CI
values are defined according to defined thresholds of contributing condition variables such as cracking,
rutting or roughness, and other parameters.

This method overcomes the problems of a weighted average approach, which under-reports the condition of
a road.
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆(𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 × 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖 ) − 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀(𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 × 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖 ) 1

𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀(𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 × 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖 ) + 𝑝𝑝 × ( )
∑(𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 ) − 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴(𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 )
where
PCI = overall condition index incorporating all indices
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖 = CI value for individual condition
𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 = weight for individual condition criteria
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴(𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 ) = average of 𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 values used
constant, typically 0.1 – 0.3 used to determine the contribution to the PCI from
p =
other parameters other than the worst parameter.
It is normal to define CIs and PCI on a 5-level scale, with a range from 1 being best to 5 being the worst
condition. The 5-level scale coincides with convenient steps of escalating (poor) conditions, each with their
respective maintenance class interventions (see Table 5.1).
Table 5.1: Example of condition parameter breakdown
Index description Index value

Very good 0–1
Good 1–2
Fair 2–3
Poor 3–4
Very poor 4–5
An alternative, simple method involves calculating the weighted average of the indexes when combining
them into an index. The weighting expresses the significance of the constituents. This method is simple, but
it is quite sensitive to the middle of the range values and insensitive towards either end of the scale, e.g. all
individual indices have to be zero to show a zero overall condition. Another alternative is to sum the various
indexes by using an exponential or power function. These methods are more balanced and more sensitive at
the extreme ends of the range.
Index parameters are very powerful tools to convey the overall condition. However, they must be used only
when they are clearly understood and calibrated to the given circumstances.
SMEC PCI
The SMEC Pavement Management and Road Inventory System (SMEC 2000) have a relationship between
a numerical scale (PCI) and road condition as shown in Table 5.2.
The SMEC PCI is estimated by deducting points from an initial value of 10 for each separate measure of
distress for roughness, all cracking, wide cracking, potholes, rutting and ravelling (surface loss).
The PCI data collection method, despite its age, has been widely used either partly, or in its entirety.

Table 5.2: SMEC PCI interpretation of road conditions
PCI Road condition

10 to 8.5 Excellent
7.0 to 8.5 Very good
5.5 to 7.5 Good
4.0 to 5.5 Fair
2.5 to 4.0 Poor
1.0 to 2.5 Very poor
< 1.0 Failed
Source: SMEC (2000).

6. Forecasting and Managing Future Demand
6.1 Understanding Growth and Future Demand
Quantifying the travel demand on roads is a key factor in managing their capacity and operation. Travel
demand is heavily influenced by the interaction of nature of land use in both rural and urban areas through
residential, commercial, industrial, tourist, mining and agricultural development. These different forms of
development shape the nature, quantity and growth of travel demand.
Matching demand with capacity is ultimately the basis of road user management in meeting acceptable
levels of service. Transport or travel demand is characterised by the following factors that make forecasting
challenging:
• trip generation
• destination choice
• transport mode choice
• route choice
• departure time choice
• land use (rural/urban)
• macro changes.
The collusion of the above factors results in the volume and vehicle mix that defines the transport demand of
a given highway section at a given time. Trip generation establishes the amount of travel that occurs in the
region. Trip generation is mainly a result of the socio-economic characteristics of the region. Population
growth and economic activities stemming from land use and external factors generate trips in the region.
Destination choice determines where people travel to. Destination choice is a result of the activities
generated at the destination zone and the cost and time of travel to the destination zone relative to other
alternative destination zones. Improvement in travel time to a particular destination zone would lead to more
trips being attracted to the zone.
Transport mode choice for personal travel includes travel by public transport and automobile or active modes
of travel (i.e. walk and cycle). The choice of mode is dependent on the availability and relative travel cost and
time involved for each mode of travel. Transport mode choice for freight involves a choice between a number
of means of transport including pipeline, rail, trucking, ship, or airplane. The choice will be dependent on the
availability and relative cost involved for each mode of transport.
Route choice involves the selection of the best route to travel to a destination zone. Typically, this involves
finding the route that minimises travel time and cost. In an urban setting, road congestion influences the
choice of route and congestion increases travel time.
Departure time choice is when travellers choose their departure time to avoid excessive peak period
congestion. Departure time choice is particularly relevant when trips are discretionary or flexible arrival times
is possible.
Land use and its associated infrastructure in rural and urban areas influences residential, industrial and
agricultural development and the growth, or contraction, needed for the infrastructure to service the changing
demand of development. Changes in land use from agricultural to residential will impact markedly on travel
demand and demand for enhanced infrastructure.

Macro-changes include economic changes associated with commodity prices (minerals, oil and agricultural
products), environmental/political changes such as climate change and major changes to political policies
that impact on the economy and population demographics. These changes can influence population
distribution and changes to industrial and agricultural land use which influence demand, as noted above.
6.2 Forecasting Future Demand
Forecasting of future travel demand scenarios and consequent road system performance at regional and
state level is based upon transport demand modelling. Transport demand modelling can be done simply or
more comprehensively such as by a strategic transport demand model.
Many demand forecasts are often found to be incorrect with the passage of time. Some influences on
demand cannot be foreseen for a quantitative estimate of demand: these influences include technological
change, abrupt changes in government policy and major international economic events (global financial
crisis).
Demand forecasting can be based on a quantitative or a qualitative forecasting approach. The quantitative
approach is mathematically based and can use complex demand modelling tools with good records of
historical demand data.
Qualitative forecasting can involve market research or the use of expert opinion (Delphi approach). Ideally
both approaches can be used and the predicted outcomes compared.
For highway segments where socio-economic conditions of the region can be assumed to be relatively stable
and that there is no significant change in the transport network (e.g. new railway line) during the planning
time horizon of the project, then the future demand can be modelled using simple models. One way of
modelling this is to assume that historical traffic growth rates will apply into the future. Another way is to draw
up a number of possible future scenarios for analysis using a panel of experts.
In more complicated scenarios involving significant changes to the socio-economic landscape of the region
and the transport network, then the use of a strategic transport demand models is needed. It is, however,
noted that strategic transport demand model outputs are estimates that are sensitive to the accuracy of
inputs and assumptions used. It is good practice to consider possible low-end and high-end estimates and
not just the base model estimates.
Refer to Australian Transport Council (ATC) (2006) for a more detailed discussion on transport demand
modelling.
6.3 Capacity Analysis
Capacity is defined as the maximum demand that can be sustainably serviced by the road infrastructure (see
Austroads GTM Part 3 (Austroads 2013a)). Demand higher than the capacity results in oversaturation and
potentially unacceptable levels of service. The capacity of a highway segment is influenced by its functional
type (e.g. arterial, freeway, etc.), terrain, vehicle type mix, lane configuration and others. For a more detailed
discussion on highway capacity see the Austroads GTM Part 3 (Austroads 2013a).
The US Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board (TRB) 2010), referred to as HCM 2010
provides detailed information on capacity analysis and is the primary reference document on this topic in
Austroads (2013a). Additional material, drawing on substantial Australian work, is summarised by Monash
University (2003).
There are two types of traffic facilities: uninterrupted and interrupted flow facilities and are terms that
describe the type of road facility and not the quality of traffic flow on it. On uninterrupted flow facilities, the
causes of traffic congestion are due to the amount of traffic using them and are internal to the traffic stream
itself. On interrupted flow facilities, control devices external to the traffic stream require traffic to stop
periodically for their satisfactory operation.

6.3.1 Capacity
Capacity is the maximum sustainable hourly rate at which vehicles and persons can reasonably be expected
to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane or roadway during a given time period under the prevailing
roadway, environmental, traffic and control conditions (TRB 2016). The concept applies equally to motorised
vehicular traffic and to bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
The following points should be noted regarding this definition:

• The time period used in capacity analyses should be 1 hour. In practice, analysis often focuses on the
peak 15 minutes of the peak hour, which is accepted as being the shortest interval during which stable
flow exists.
• The prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions should be reasonably uniform for the section of
facility being analysed.
• Roadway conditions refer to a range of geometric characteristics of the road, including the lane
disciplines and lane types in each direction, design speed and horizontal and vertical alignments.
• Traffic conditions refer to the nature of the traffic stream using the road, including vehicle type and the
lane and directional distribution of the traffic.
• Control conditions refer to the types and specific design of the control devices and traffic regulations
applicable to the particular section of road.
• Driver characteristics play a role in determining key parameters used in capacity calculations such as
saturation flow rates at signals, critical gap and follow-up headways at roundabouts and sign-controlled
intersections.
Capacity analysis typically focuses on vehicle capacity, in terms of vehicles (or passenger car equivalents)
per hour. In comparisons between different transport modes and systems designed to increase vehicle
occupancy (e.g. high-occupancy vehicle lanes), it is relevant to consider the number of persons per hour
passing a point (Monash University 2003).
6.3.2 Level of service
The LoS is a measure describing the operational conditions within a traffic stream and its perception by
motorists and/or passengers. A LoS definition generally describes these conditions in terms of factors such
as speed and travel time, delay, density, freedom to manoeuvre, traffic interruptions, comfort and
convenience, and safety.
An issue is determining the acceptable LoS and whether that level should be either a projected level for
future operation of a facility, or the current level at the facility. In general, there are several levels of service
ranging from the best operating condition (i.e. free-flow) to the worst (i.e. forced or breakdown flow).
The LoS concept may be the basis of capacity and operational analysis for all types of road facilities. While
there is a range of parameters that could be used to define levels of service for each type of facility, for
practical purposes certain quantitative performance measures are developed for the different types of facility
to assist in defining levels of service.
6.3.3 Service flow rate
Service flow rates indicate the maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can be expected to pass a
point under the prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions while maintaining a nominated LoS. They
quantify the vehicle or person capacity for each LoS and are used to determine the LoS corresponding to
actual traffic volumes. As with capacity, the service flow rate is generally taken over a 15 minute time period.

6.3.4 Degree of saturation
The degree of saturation, or volume-to-capacity ratio (VCR), is used in the capacity and operational analysis
of intersections. The degree of saturation of a signalised intersection approach can be defined as the ratio of
the arrival flow (demand) to the capacity of the approach during the same period.
The degree of saturation of an intersection approach ranges from close to zero for very low traffic flows up to
1 for saturated flow or capacity. A degree of saturation greater than 1.0 indicates oversaturated conditions in
which long queues of vehicles build up on the critical approaches.
6.4 Travel Demand Management
Travel demand management (TDM) strategies focus on managing the level of travel demand and influencing
modal choice. These strategies are a sub-set of road use management strategies.
There are two basic approaches to managing transport: supply management and demand management.
Supply management involves improving infrastructure capacity to meet demand. On the other hand, demand
management strategies aim to influence demand to maximise use of the existing road assets. This can be
accomplished through the following:
• reducing the volume of discretionary trips
• encouraging shorter trips
• increasing occupancy of vehicles, including encouraging use of public transport and active modes of
travel
• promoting a more optimal use of the road network by balancing route choices made by motorists
• dispersing temporally the departure times of travellers to reduce the intensity of demand during peak
periods of the day.
For a more detailed discussion on TDM see the Austroads GTM Part 4 (Austroads 2016c) and
Austroads (2007b).
An example of a road use management strategy used in balancing the transport needs of a number of
competing transport users is shown in Case Study 2.

Case Study 2: Road Use Management Approach Example- Smart Roads Framework – Competing
uses for road space (Kew Triangle Project – VicRoads)
The Kew Triangle is located in the suburb of Kew, approximately 6 km east of Melbourne’s CBD. Tram
routes 24, 48 and 109 travel through the congested area along High Street South which is a principal
bicycle route. Together these three tram routes service around 26.2 million passenger trips annually (or
14.5% of overall tram system trips). The Kew Triangle is given its name by the triangle layout of the
Barkers Road, Denmark Street and High Street South as shown in Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.1: Kew Triangle – Tram Network
Source: Bittner el al. (2011).
All three trams transgressing the area were experiencing lengthy delays on High Street South due to
general vehicles turning right from High Street South onto Barkers Road and the need for the right turning
vehicles to enter the part time tram lane in order to undertake the right turn, with the demand
(approximately 330 veh/hour) exceeding capacity.
A ban on all vehicles, except trams, undertaking the right turn movement from High Street to Barkers
Road was proposed in order to reduce travel delay on the trams. It was, however, anticipated by the
VicRoads traffic planners that there were potential negative impacts to motorists and especially local
residents as a result of the right turn ban. It was also anticipated that High Street traffic would divert to
Denmark Street and could negatively impact pedestrians crossing Denmark St and in particular cyclists
who travel along the principal bicycle route that crosses Denmark St. Moreover, the right turners using
Barkers Road would use Denmark Street and cause queue spillback problems at the right turn bay on
Denmark Street.
As a result, various modifications were proposed for the area. These modifications combined were known
colloquially as the Kew Triangle Project. The modifications included:
• Right turn ban on High Street at Barkers Road.

• Extension of the right turn lane on Denmark Street at Barkers Road to cater for the increased numbers
of right turns at this location due to the right turn ban at High Street South.
• Signals installed at Denmark Street and Stevenson Street to allow residents near High Street to have
better access to the right turn at Denmark Street and Barkers Road and to allow better crossing of
Denmark Street for pedestrian and bicycles (noting that the crossover is part of the principal bicycle
route).
The modifications are shown in Figure 6.2.
Modelling and analysis was undertaken which was evaluated under the SmartRoads system approach in
order to ascertain if the proposal was consistent with the objectives for the overall transport network and to
ultimately determine whether the project should proceed.
Through undertaking the modelling and analysis and evaluating the outcomes through the SmartRoads
approach it was identified that co-ordinating the signals at Denmark Street/Stevenson Street with Kew
Junction in the morning peak and with Denmark Street/Barkers Road in the afternoon peak provided the
potential to significantly reduce the impacts for general traffic and therefore give a positive network fit and
an overall enhancement to network operation.
Figure 6.2: Key proposed features of the Kew Triangle project
The Kew Triangle Treatment was delivered and has shown significant improvements for tram, cycle and
pedestrian priority modes on the transport network around Kew Junction, in line with the SmartRoads
approach. This has been achieved without an identifiable increase in levels of congestion or deterioration
in the LoS for general traffic.
The SmartRoads approach provides a structured process for identifying and assigning modal priority to
achieve a balanced transport outcome on the network. It is an extremely powerful and transparent tool to
assist decision-making in the inevitable trade-offs that need to be made for effective use of the limited
available road space.
This case study has been written based on information contained in Bittner et al. (2011) and
Austroads (2015b).

7. Identifying Critical Assets and Business Risks
7.1 Risk Management Context
Risks are associated with operating and managing the road infrastructure and some particular elements of
the infrastructure and associated business activities have a greater level of risk than others. Risks are seen
as events that may cause failure to achieve road agency objectives. Objectives are often described in terms
of their triple bottom line aspects of social (safety), environmental and economic goals (IPWEA 2015).
Road agencies need to define both the external and internal factors to be taken into account when managing
risk (ISO 55000:2014, ISO 55001:2014, ISO 55002:2014, AS/NZ ISO 31000: 2009). These factors set the
scope and risk criteria for the process of risk management. The external factors are in the external
environment in which road agencies aim to achieve their objectives. These factors include social, cultural,
political, legislative, financial, economic and the natural and commercial environments. The internal factors
are those within the road agency in which it aims to achieve its objectives. These factors include the road
agency’s culture, processes, structure and strategies and the physical failure of the asset.
The resilience of the physical asset and the resilience of the organisation can contribute to reduction in the
consequences of risk due to incremental and quantum changes. Understanding the resilience of the physical
road infrastructure, its associated systems and critical assets is an important requirement because of the
interdependence of the physical assets and their control systems.
7.2 Risk Identification
Road agencies should firstly identify sources of risk, areas of impacts of risk, events, such as changes in
circumstances, and their causes and potential consequences. Risk identification is a critical process that can
provide a comprehensive list of risks based on events that could accelerate or delay the achievement of road
agency objectives (ISO 55000:2014, AS/NZ ISO 31000: 2009).
Risk identification also includes risks that are not under the control of the road agency and even the
identification of potential risks where the source of the risk is not evident. However, risk identification should
examine the consequences of the risk and its causes where possible. Road agencies need to use
appropriate tools and techniques that suit their objectives and capabilities. Relevant up-to-date data and
supporting evidence are essential in risk identification. Staff with relevant experience and knowledge should
be involved with risk identification.
Road agencies should define the criteria to evaluate the significance of the risk. These criteria should reflect
the road agency’s values, objectives and resources. Some criteria are mandatory, such as legal and
regulatory requirements and other requirements unique to the road agency.
Road agencies need to assess their exposure to risk and manage risk according to the risk exposure cost,
which is the cost of the consequences of the risk failure multiplied by the probability of the failure.
7.3 Critical Assets Identification
Critical assets are defined as those that have a high cost consequence of failure and have a significant
impact on customers, although not necessarily a high probability of failure. Critical failure modes are those
that have the highest cost consequences. Transportation in the US is seen as a critical component of the
infrastructure sector (Brown et al. 2006) because of its impact on the economy.

Large scale assets can be deemed critical due to their size being related to the cost and impact
consequences of their failure. A more structured approach to identifying critical assets can be made by
assessing the extent of the loss to the LoS provided by these assets due to their failure. The road agency
has to set minimum acceptable levels of service that have to be provided. These levels of service are
expected to reach a higher standard as the volume of traffic and critical nature of the asset increases.
There are some risks that are considered to be ‘unacceptable’ for an asset and these assets need to be
clearly identified and defined as critical.
7.4 Evaluating Risks
Risk evaluation is used to make decisions about which risks need mitigation through some form of action and
the priority of its implementation. Risk evaluation is a comparison of the levels of risk based on the risk
criteria used. Based on this comparison, the need for an action of mitigation can be considered. In its most
simple form, the level of risk could be the risk exposure cost which allows ranking of risks in accordance with
their costs. However, the possibility of low occurrence catastrophic events also needs to be accounted for in
risk evaluation.
However, where there are multiple criteria to evaluate the significance of the risk, there are sophisticated
analytical techniques such as a form of multi-criteria analysis (MCA) termed the analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) (Austroads 2007a). This process does not consider probability directly, but is able to deal with
monetary and non-monetary objectives through application of weights to model priorities that are set in a
hierarchical structure based on the overall objective down to the lowest objectives or priorities.
There are also available various forms of risk analysis tools such as @RISK (Palisade Corporation 2010)
which require probability density functions (PDFs) to be established for each of the input variables being
considered so that a predicted output can be expressed in the form of various levels of probability. @ RISK
has been applied to network pavement life-cycle costing (PLCC) analyses to estimate the variations in
pavement conditions due to the uncertainties of road deterioration modelling (Austroads 2012c and 2013b).
Other alternative tools are available such as Stochastic Information Packets (SIPs) which can be used with
Microsoft Excel by using the actual data variations rather than PDFs. This approach has been confirmed by a
proof of concept analysis for its application to PLCC analyses to estimate the variations in pavement
conditions and budget estimations due to the uncertainties associated with all the input data in PLCC
analyses (Austroads 2015a and 2016b).
7.5 Managing Risk
Risk can be managed by selecting one or more options used to mitigate the risks and assigning the priority
for implementing those options. Risk management plans are needed to document how the selected
mitigation action will be implemented. These plans should include:
• the reasons for selecting mitigation options, or treatments, including the expected benefits gained by
them
• defining the treatments
• performance measures and constraints
• requirements for reporting and monitoring
• program and budget.
The mitigation options should be assessed for how much residual risk will remain after the options are
implemented. The residual risk should be monitored and reviewed where appropriate and as a result further
treatment may be required.

The NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) has a minimum standard for dealing with the delivery of contracts for
capital works and the maintenance and operations works (NZTA 2015) to ensure that NZTA is exposed to
limited risk when these contracts are subject to the risks associated with performing them.
There are a number of new technologies that can play a role in risk management of assets
(Austroads 2012b) that can improve the efficiency of the road asset manager. LiDAR and other new
technology have also been identified as a means of managing risk by improved knowledge of the state and
condition of assets (Austroads 2014a, 2014b). For example, new technology exists for the non-destructive
evaluation of structures and a wireless sensor network can be used for condition monitoring.
An example of how risks are managed with critical assets is shown in Case Study 3.
Case Study 3: Managing the risks associated with critical assets
The Auckland motorway network serves New Zealand’s largest city, providing connections to the CBD,
Port and Airport. As a whole, it is one of the country’s most heavily-trafficked networks, carrying large
volumes of freight and people (900 000 vehicle trips per day and 8% of NZ’s traffic). It is regarded by
NZTA as a ‘critical asset’. In addition to 220 km of multi-lane motorway configuration, it includes the
Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB), the new Waterview tunnel connecting the southern and north-western
motorways, and the Northern Gateway toll road.
Given the significance, special arrangements are in place to ensure that the network is managed
effectively and continues to meet the LoS expected of it. The Auckland Motorway Alliance (AMA) is a
collaboration between NZTA (lead agency), maintenance contractors and network consultants. Its primary
objective is to ‘provide a pleasant motorway network which road users confidently know they'll be able to
use to get to their destinations comfortably, safely and quickly at all times of the day and night’. As a
critical network, key considerations include:
• managing risk to service provision at an appropriate level, whether operational or asset related
• managing interventions, ensuring that overall disruption is minimised.
Specialist teams for managing specific assets, such as the AHB, tunnels, ITS and pavements, have been
established.

ITS assets are particularly important in keeping traffic moving, providing information and controlling
access to and from the motorway. The AMA has produced a list of all the different ITS assets: around 25
types including messaging signs, cameras, fibre network, signal controllers, vehicle detection systems and
video encoders. These lists are tabulated against the One Network Road Classification (ONRC) Customer
LoS and asset life-cycle activities.
There is an NZTA table that describes the contribution of each asset type to each ONRC LoS (mobility,
safety, amenity, accessibility) as well as the ‘value for money’ outcome and emergency events, describing
asset function and allowing the importance or criticality of each component type to be assessed on a high-
medium-low-no impact basis.
Another NZTA table tabulates the following information relating to asset data, risk and lifecycle practices:
Historical Asset life-cycle

Activity/ Asset Replacement Type & life
Quantity fault/failure Inspection/ Maint. &
asset description cost expectancy Renewal Disposal
mechanism monitoring operations
This table provides a link between the purpose of the asset from the customer’s perspective, the financial
value of the asset, and importantly, the potential failure mode or nature of the risk that could affect the
performance of the asset. Risk, relative contribution to service, and asset life are all considered in defining
the life-cycle activities and their frequency. The table is updated as new information comes to hand, and
maintenance process sheets provide further detail for each asset.
For ITS assets, which typically have a relatively short life and high level of hardware and software
technology, NZTA is also moving towards a ‘Reliability Centred Maintenance’ (RCM) approach with a
particular focus on metropolitan networks. The quality of component manufacture, expected service-life
reliability and software reliability are all key aspects.
While there are numerous structures on the network, the AHB is the most significant and is unique, one of
the most strategically important bridges in New Zealand. Because of this, it has well-defined operational
and maintenance procedures to ensure its ongoing service capability and is considered to be a very well
maintained bridge. Originally constructed as a four-lane bridge in the 1950s, it was widened to eight lanes
by the addition of ‘clip-on’ box girders in the 1970s. These were strengthened to ensure the bridge’s load
capability for current and expected future traffic demand. All aspects of the bridge’s condition and
performance are closely monitored and regular programed work carried out.
7.6 Monitoring and Review
As noted above and by ISO 55002:2014, monitoring and review should be an integral part of the risk
management process. The road agency’s monitoring and review process should cover all aspects of the risk
management process because this:
• ensures that the performance measures and constraints are effective
• provides more data and information to improve risk assessment
• allows analysis of events, changes, trends, successes and failures

• detects changes in the external and internal context and changes to risk criteria and the risk which may
cause revision of the risk treatment sand priorities
• identifies potential risks.
The progress in implementing risk management plans should also be a performance measure and included
into the road agency’s overall performance management measurement and external and internal reporting
activities. The results from the monitoring and review should be recorded and reported externally and
internally as required to improve the overall process and approach to risk identification and mitigation across
the organisation.

References
Aranda-Mena, G, Crawford, J, Chevez, A & Frosese, T, 2009, ‘Building information modelling demystified:
does it make business sense to adopt BIM?’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
vol.2, no.3, pp.419-34.
Australian Transport Council (ATC) 2006, National guidelines for transport systems in Australia: 4 urban
transport, ATC, Canberra, ACT.
Austrian Transportation Research Association 2008, The way forward for pavement performance indicators
across Europe, COST Action 354, (COST – European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical
Research), ATRA, Vienna, Austria.
Austroads 2005, Consistency in approaches to road network segmentation and data aggregation: review of
current practice, AP-R276-05, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006, Guidelines for the development of a level of service framework based on community
consultation, AP-R289-06, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2007a, Application of the analytic hierarchy process in road asset management: user manual,
AP-T84-07, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2007b, A framework for appraisal and evaluation of travel demand management measures,
AP-R306-07, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009, Guide to pavement technology: part 6: unsealed pavements, AGPT06-09, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2011a, Review of specifications for the collection of digital road imaging, AP-T169-11, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2011b, Harmonisation of location referencing for related data collection, AP-T190-11, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2011c, Guide to pavement technology: part 5: pavement evaluation and treatment design,
AGPT05-11, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2011d, Network performance indicators: next generation, AP-T176-11, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2012a, Improving cost allocation by road type, AP-T195-12, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2012b, Application of new technologies to improve risk management (stage 1): scoping of
potential technologies, AP-T205-12, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2012c, The scoping and development of probabilistic Road Deterioration (RD) models,
Austroads 2013a, Guide to traffic management: part 3: traffic studies and analysis, AGTM03-13, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2013b, Probabilistic road deterioration model development, AP-T257-13, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2014a, Best practice for mobile LiDAR survey requirements discussion paper, Austroads
Austroads 2014b, Application of new technologies to improve risk management, Austroads AP-T268-14,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015a, Expanding information by utilising uncertain data, AP-T301-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015b, Level of service metrics (for network operations planning), AP-R475-15, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.

Austroads 2015c, A common data output specification for texture, cracking, strength and skid resistance,
Austroads 2016a, Data standard for road management and investment in Australia and New Zealand,
Version 2.5.1, Draft 1, AP-T315-16, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2016b, Incorporating uncertainty in Pavement Management Systems (PMS) modelling: phase 1,
Austroads, 2016c, Guide to traffic management: part 4: network management, AGTM04-16, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2017a, Asset data harmonisation stage III: ASP2112 – BIM IFC alignment review, Austroads
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2017b, Scoping study for locational referencing model to support the BIM environment, Draft 1,
Version 1.2017.11.5, Austroads Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2018, Guidelines for minimum levels of asset componentisation, draft, Austroads, Sydney, NSW
(forthcoming).
Bennett, CR & Paterson, WDO, 2000, A guide to the calibration and adaptation of HDM-4, vol.5, The
highway development and management series, World Roads Association (PIARC), Paris, France.
Bennett, C, Chamorro, A, Chen, C, de Solminihac, H, & Flintsch, G, 2007, Data collection technologies for
road management – version 2, The World Bank, Washington, DC, Virginia, USA.
Bittmer, R, Burdan, J & Witono, D, 2011, ‘The Kew triangle treatment – smartroads in practise’, AITPM
national conference, 2011, AITPM, viewed 25 May 2015
<http://www.aitpm.com.au/ArticleDocuments/227/3%20-%20R%20Bittner.pdf.aspx>.
Brown, B, Carlyle, M, Salmeron, J & Wood, K, 2006, ‘Defending critical infrastructure’, Interfaces, vol.36,
no.6. pp 530-44.
Deighton Associates 2008, dTIMS user manual – version 8, Deighton Associates Ltd., Bowmanville, Canada.
Giummarra, G 2009, Unsealed roads manual, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic.
Highway Research Board 1962, AASHO road test: report 5: pavement research, special report 61-E,
Highway Research Board, Washington DC, USA.
Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA) 2015, IIMM: International Infrastructure
Management Manual, 5th edn, IPWEA, Sydney, NSW,
Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA) 2016, Road pavements (visual assessment),
practice note 9, IPWEA, Sydney, NSW.
Jones, D & Paige-Green, P, 2000, TMH12: Pavement management systems: standard visual assessment
manual for unsealed roads: version 1, CR-2000/66, CSIR Transportek, Pretoria, South Africa.
Kadar, P, Henning, T, Thew, C & Parkman, C 2006, ‘Effectiveness of pavement performance indicators in
managing road networks’, NZIHT & Transit NZ annual conference, Auckland, New Zealand, 8th, New
Zealand Institute of Highway Technology (NZIHT), Wellington, NZ.
Moffatt, MA, Sharp, KG, & Ferguson, RA, 2006, ‘Austroads standardised measurement of road condition’,
ARRB conference proceedings, 22nd, Canberra, ACT, Australia, ARRB Group, Vermont South, VIC.
Monash University 2003, Traffic engineering and management, 2 vols, Monash University, Institute of
Transport Studies, Clayton, VIC.
NZ Transport Agency 2015, Minimum standards z/44 – risk management, NZTA, Wellington, New Zealand.
NIST 2011, Specification for asset identification 1.1, Interagency Report 7693, National Institute of Standards
and Technology & Department of Commerce, USA.
Palisade Corporation 2010, Guide to using @RISK: risk analysis and simulation add-in for Microsoft Excel,
version 5.7. Palisade Corporation.

Paterson, WDO & Scullion, T, 1990, Information systems for road management: draft guidelines on system
design and data issues, Technical Paper INU77, The World Bank, Washington DC, USA.
Roads and Traffic Authority, New South Wales 1990, ROCOND 90: Road condition manual, RTA, Sydney
NSW.
Roberts, JD & Martin, TC, 1996, Recommendation for monitoring performance, ARRB Transport Research
Report ARR 293, ARRB TR, Vermont South, VIC.
Shahin, MYN & Kohn, SD 1979, Development of pavement condition rating procedures for roads, streets and
parking lots: volume 1: conditions rating procedure, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory
(Army), Champaign, IL, USA.
SMEC 2000, SMEC pavement management and road inventory system: user manual, SMEC.
Transportation Research Board (TRB) 2010, Highway capacity manual: HCM 2010, TRB, Washington, DC,
USA.
Transportation Research Board (TRB) 2016, Highway capacity manual: HCM 2016, TRB, Washington, DC,
USA.
US Army Corps of Engineers 1995, Unsurfaced road maintenance management, Technical manual TM 5-
626, US Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory, Washington DC.
USA.
VicRoads 2014, Road management plan 2014, VicRoads, Kew, VIC.
Yen, KS, Ravani, B & Lasky, TA 2011, LiDAR for data efficiency, research report WA-RD 778 1, Washington
State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, USA.
Austroads Specifications
AG:AM/S001-16, Specification for pavement roughness measurement with an inertial laser profilometer.
AG:AM/S004-16, Specification for pavement rutting measurement with a multi-laser profilometer.
AG:AM/S002-07, Specification for pavement deflection measurement with a Falling Weight Deflectometer
(FWD).
AG:AM/S003-07, Specification for pavement deflection measurement with a deflectograph.
AG:AM/S005-07, Specification for pavement surface texture measurement with a laser profilometer.
Austroads Test Methods

AG:AM/T001-16, Pavement roughness measurement with an inertial laser profilometer.
AG:AM/T002-16, Validation of an inertial laser profilometer for measuring pavement roughness (reference
device method).
AG:AM/T003-16, Validation of an inertial laser profilometer for measuring pavement roughness (loop
method).
AG:AM/T004-16, Pavement roughness repeatability and bias checks for an inertial laser profilometer.
AG:AM/T005-11, Distance measurement validation of road condition monitoring vehicles.
AG:AM/T006-11, Pavement deflection measurement with a Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD).
AG:AM/T007-14, Pavement data collection with a traffic speed deflectometer.
AG:AM/T008-08, Validation and repeatability checks for a deflectograph.
AG:AM/T009-16, Pavement rutting measurement with a multi-laser profilometer.
AG:AM/T010-16, Validation of a multi-laser profilometer for measuring pavement rutting (reference device
method).
AG:AM/T011-16, Validation of a multi-laser profilometer for measuring pavement rutting (loop method).

AG:AM/T012-16, Pavement rutting repeatability and bias checks for a multi- laser profilometer.
AG:AM/T013-16, Pavement surface texture measurement with a laser profilometer.
AG:AM/T014-16, Validation of a laser profilometer for measuring pavement surface texture (reference device
method).
AG:AM/T015-16, Validation of a laser profilometer for pavement surface texture (loop method).
AG:AM/T016-16, Pavement surface texture repeatability and bias checks for a laser profilometer.
AG:AM/T017-16, Pavement data collection with a traffic speed deflectometer.
AG:AM/T018-16, Pavement crack measurement with an automated crack detection system.
Australian/New Zealand Standards

AS 1742.1-2014, Manual of uniform traffic control devices: general introduction and index of signs.
AS/NZ ISO 31000 -200, Risk management: principles and guidelines.
British Standards
BS 7941–1:2006, Methods for measuring the skid resistance of pavement surfaces. Sideway-force
coefficient routine investigation machine.
BS 7941–2:2000, Methods for measuring the skid resistance of pavement surfaces. Test method for
measurement of surface skid resistance using the Grip Tester braked wheel fixed slip device.
ASTM International
ASTM D5340 -12, Standard test method for airport pavement condition index surveys.
ASTM D6433 - 16 Standard practice for roads and parking lots pavement condition index surveys.
International Organization for Standards

ISO 55000:2014, Asset management: overview, principles and terminology.
ISO 55001:2014, Asset management: management systems: requirements.
ISO 55002:2014, Asset Management: management system: guidelines for the application of ISO 55001.

2018 AGAM06-18 Processes Defining and Understanding Asset Requirements PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018 AGAM06-18 Processes Defining and Understanding Asset Requirements PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guide to Asset Management - Processes

Part 6: Defining and Understanding Asset Requirements

Austroads Project No. AP1900 • Australian Local Government Association

© Austroads Ltd 2018

The scope of this section covers the following:

Austroads 2018 | page i

2. Data for Asset Management .................................................................................................................. 3

3. Road Inventory Definition, Identification and Monitoring ................................................................ 20

4. Road Asset Condition and Monitoring ............................................................................................... 27

Austroads 2018 | page ii

5. Data Manipulation and Summarisation for Reporting ...................................................................... 41

6. Forecasting and Managing Future Demand ...................................................................................... 50

7. Identifying Critical Assets and Business Risks ................................................................................ 56

Austroads 2018 | page iii

Figure 5.1: Dynamic segmentation ........................................................................................................... 44

Austroads 2018 | page iv

The scope of Part 6 of the GAM is:

Austroads 2018 | page 1

The two fundamental requirements of good data management are to:

Austroads 2018 | page 2

2. Data for Asset Management

Austroads 2018 | page 3

2.1 Why is Data Collected?

2.2 Benefits of Collecting Data

Austroads 2018 | page 4

2.3 Determining Data Needs of the Organisation

Austroads 2018 | page 5

Figure 2.1: Data organised according to service functions

Source: Western European Road Directors (2003).

Figure 2.2: Data organised according to the business process

Source: Western European Road Directors (2003).

2.3.1 Data types

Austroads 2018 | page 6

Austroads 2018 | page 7

Table 2.1: Data types

Source: Based on Western European Road Directors (2003).

Austroads 2018 | page 8

Figure 2.3: The data pyramid

Source: Western European Road Directors (2003).

2.4 Information Quality Level

Austroads 2018 | page 9

Figure 2.4: Information quality level

Source: Bennett et al. (2007).

Austroads 2018 | page 10

2.5 Data Collection and Data Management Roles and Responsibilities

Austroads 2018 | page 11

Figure 2.5: Data management roles

Source: Western European Road Directors (2003).

Austroads 2018 | page 12

2.6.1 Inventory data

Austroads 2018 | page 13

2.6.2 Condition data

Refer to Part 15, Section 1 more information on pavement condition data.

2.6.3 Environmental data

Geographical data • Topography (hilly, mountainous, flat)

Austroads 2018 | page 14

2.6.4 Road use data

2.6.5 Construction, maintenance and expenditure data

2.6.6 Historical data

Austroads 2018 | page 15

Figure 2.6: Time series data

Initial data in asset register

Time series of data