Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 00 (2012) 1–12
Fuzzy Representation of Pavement Condition
for Efficient Pavement Management
Alessandra Bianchini
Airfields and Pavements Branch, Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA
Abstract: Many government agencies and private con-
sulting companies manage large pavement networks in
terms of infrastructure condition assessment and main-
tenance planning. Efficient pavement management is
supported by pavement management systems (PMSs),
which includes models for pavement condition assess-
ments considered “valuable” by agency’s engineers. The
objective of this article is to define a pavement condition
model able to overcome surveyors’ subjectivity in rating
distresses and thus provide meaningful pavement condi-
tions for the agencies to employ in project planning. The
article proposes a fuzzy inference model for calculating
pavement condition ratio (PCR) specifically tailored on
the Alabama Department of Transportation Pavement
(ALDOT) guidelines and policies. Applied to several
surveyors’ ratings, the proposed model has the ability to
smooth distress extent differences among surveyors pro-
ducing PCR values within acceptable range of variability.
The proposed approach has the intention of not only en-
hancing pavement condition characterization but also to
exploit the opportunity made available by automation in
the collection and interpretation of pavement data which
are anyway characterized by an inherent subjectivity.
1 INTRODUCTION
Many government agencies and private consulting com-
panies must deal with the issue of planning and schedul-
ing pavement maintenance. The ability to maintain an
in-service pavement structure in acceptable condition,
from the structural and functional points of view, is re-
lated to many factors that are often not explicit and
change with time. Although the maintenance strategy
may also depend on human experience, data interpreta-
tion, and agency’s policies, it can be significantly aided
∗ To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: alessandra.
bianchini@usace.army.mil.

C 2012 Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8667.2012.00758.x
∗
by the use of a pavement management system (PMS).
A PMS is established on the complete inventory and
characteristics of the pavement network and includes
basic network information such as, among other items,
type of sections, location, size, construction materials,
and section conditions (i.e., type of distresses, rough-
ness, and deflections). In addition, a fully developed
system incorporates tools and methods to facilitate the
agency’s decision-making process when defining strate-
gies aimed at maintaining pavements in a serviceable
and functional condition.
One of the key elements in a PMS is the calculation of
a pavement condition index (PCI) (or number) that al-
lows ranking of pavement sections, on the basis of struc-
tural condition and functional capabilities. Such ranking
indexes permit prioritized scheduling to support an effi-
cient maintenance strategy. The PCI is calculated from
condition indicators such as surface roughness and dif-
ferent types of distresses, characterized by severity and
extent. The pavement condition indicators, and there-
fore condition assessment, need to be effectively and ef-
ficiently incorporated into the agency’s decision making
and activity scheduling framework.
Pavement evaluation is directly connected to distress
rating and the processing of such information. Although
manual and semiautomated distress evaluations are
done according to well-defined guidelines or criteria,
a certain amount of subjectivity and the experience
of the raters do have an influence on the ratings. The
subjectivity of the distress ratings may affect the final
assessment of the pavement condition adding variabil-
ity to pavement performance models. This variability
caused by subjective application of the descriptive
distress guidelines may be interpreted as uncertainty
within the information definition: such information
does not have a deterministic nature.
The uncertainty and “imprecise” data cannot be han-
dled by classic mathematical techniques and reasoning
2 Bianchini
systems such as classic propositional logic. The re-
lationship between uncertainty and information is
fundamental in the selection of an appropriate method
to analyze or solve a problem. The concept of informa-
tion is strictly connected to the concept of uncertainty;
the latter is the result of some information deficiency.
Different types of uncertainty may be generated in
relation to the various types of information deficiency.
In this perspective, information is conceived in terms
of uncertainty reduction, thus characterized by the
term “uncertainty-based information.” The nature of
uncertainty-based information depends on the mathe-
matical theory by which the uncertainty is described.
The fuzzy logic and fuzzy sets well manage uncertainty-
based information and the associated reasoning. Fuzzy
logic is a three-valued logic derived from the classical
binary logic; the fuzzy set theory and the concept of
membership function fully describe the information
vagueness (or fuzziness) through the imprecise bound-
aries of fuzzy sets (Klir and Yuan, 1995; Ross, 2004).
The lack of coherent pavement rating schemes, since
strongly influenced by the raters’ subjectivity, repre-
sents an obstacle to efficient pavement network man-
agement and limits the end-product quality in terms
of pavement serviceability. Without coherent pavement
rating, the maintenance planning activities, which must
still be conducted by the agency, are then based on
the engineers’ past experience, knowledge acquired
in the field, habitual practice, or locally developed
policies.
The objective of this article is to use alternative math-
ematical theories to define a pavement condition model
that combines distress rating with information from
the raters’ experience and subjective assessments about
overall pavement condition. This article proposes to
compute the pavement condition ratio (PCR) through
the application of fuzzy reasoning theories. The model
was tailored for the Alabama Department of Trans-
portation (ALDOT) using the agency’s guidelines for
pavement and distress rating and the experience of their
engineers. The ALDOT need of a new pavement con-
dition model originated from the changes included in
the agency new pavement evaluation standards, which
reduced the number of the surveyed distresses and
changed distress measurements methods. Thus, the ex-
isting equations developed by Glover et al. (1985) were
not applicable anymore to the data retrieved from pave-
ment evaluations.
2 PAVEMENT CONDITION MODELS
Several models exist to evaluate PCI. These have
primarily been developed as a result of individual
agency needs and the deterioration characteristics of
their pavement network. Among others, the New Mex-
ico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) employs
severity and extent of eight types of distress (for ei-
ther flexible or rigid pavements) and the Interna-
tional Roughness Index (IRI) to determine the PCI
(NMDOT, 2004). A similar approach, using distresses
and IRI in determining pavement condition, has been
adopted by the Minnesota Department of Transporta-
tion (MNDOT, 2006). The model proposed by Shahin
(1994), commonly used by Department of Defense
(DoD) and aviation agencies, calculates the PCI based
exclusively on severity and extent of the distresses af-
fecting pavement sections.
The mentioned pavement condition models and, in
general, all models include instructions on how to rate
distresses and specifically how to quantify pavement
condition. Determining a meaningful value of the PCI
is a complex task and is essentially affected by two
main issues. The first issue relates to the reliability of
distress survey data, and the ratings and quality control
of such data. The literature (e.g., Rada et al., 1999;
Stoeffel et al., 2001; Selezneva et al., 2004; Bianchini
et al., 2010) provides an extensive series of case studies
and analyses specifically addressing the topic. The other
issue originates from the use of the condition indicators
(i.e., distresses, roughness) within the equation (or pro-
cedure) to calculate the final PCI. The literature (e.g.,
Tighe et al., 2008; Chamorro et al., 2009; Ong et al.,
2009) reported cases where pavement condition models
(or survey instructions) needed to be redefined to
provide a credible representation for the agency about
infrastructure conditions. In some cases, the pavement
condition model did not provide a numerical figure con-
sidered “valuable” by agency’s engineers, and therefore
the condition index was not used for maintenance
planning.
In recent years, the research has largely investigated
the application of new computational techniques and
mathematical theories to the engineering practice in de-
signing structures (Adeli and Kumar, 1999; Saltan et al.,
2002; Provenzano, 2003; Lee et al., 2011); optimizing
structure costs (Sarma and Adeli, 2000a, 2000b, 2002;
Adeli and Sarma, 2006; Li et al., 2010); and building
structural stability (Marano et al., 2011), traffic inci-
dent detections (Adeli and Karim, 2000; Samant and
Adeli, 2001; Karim and Adeli, 2002), railroad track
management (Peng et al., 2011), and pavement manage-
ment (e.g., Banan and Hjelmstad, 1996; Holquin-Veras,
1997; Roberts and Attoh-Okine, 1998; Yang et al., 2003;
Loizos and Karlaftis, 2006; Bianchini and Bandini, 2010;
Lajnef et al., 2011; Wang and Li, 2011). Specifically
for this study, the literature included many fuzzy logic
applications to pavement condition models. The main
 Fuzzy representation of pavement condition
objective for each model was to overcome the subjec-
tivity of the distress interpretation and provide a tool
for pavement condition assessment. Among others, the
study of Elton and Juang (1989) proposed a fuzzy logic
approach to rate pavement condition based on pave-
ment expert knowledge. The numerical model was a
modification of the process risk analysis approach by
Schmucker (1984) and applied operations from fuzzy
arithmetic. The model by Shoukry et al. (1997) intro-
duced the concept of fuzzy distress index (FDI). The
authors’ objective was to provide an index that com-
bined attributes depicting roadway structural and func-
tional capabilities, in contrast to the traditional present
serviceability index (PSI), which exclusively character-
ized ride quality. Other studies by Zhang et al. (1997)
and Wee and Kim (2006) used fuzzy inference sys-
tems (FISs) based on pavement engineers’ experience
to overcome subjectivity on pavement rating and select
appropriate maintenance plans.
3 FIS
The analysis of uncertainty, in its most general form, re-
quires modeling and measuring imprecise concepts ex-
pressed by natural language. The natural language is de-
noted by its basic definition: a tool through which all
the human ideas are formed, including those ideas that
have mathematical (scientific) fundaments. The analy-
sis by Nguyen and Walker (2000) concluded that phe-
nomena are first described by the natural language and
that mathematical expressions may become meaning-
less if the concepts they represent cannot be expressed
through the natural language. Goodman and Nguyen
(1985) concluded that vagueness and ambiguity in de-
scriptions are not captured by mathematical expressions
although clearly expressed and represented in natural
language.
The uncertainty-based or subjective information, that
characterizes the distress survey data analysis and pro-
cessing, represents a field for the direct application of
fuzzy logic approximate reasoning. This uncertainty-
based information has multiple sources: the raters’ ex-
perience, language describing the distress severity and
extent levels, and survey execution feasibility. The latter
refers to execution costs to achieve high precision and
accurate data. Inevitably, the optimal solution is often
an agreement between the level of precision, truly re-
quired in the problem under analysis, and the complex-
ity of the problem itself, as also Ross (2004) reported
when quantifying supercomputer performance.
The determination of a PCR from distress survey
by a fuzzy logic approximate reasoning through a
3
knowledge-driven approach was the direct choice for
this project. The knowledge-driven approach is typi-
cal of cases in which a priori knowledge of the sys-
tem or of the environment is available. For this article,
the knowledge-driven approach permitted handling the
pavement engineers’ subjective information and “per-
ception” about pavement condition and provided an in-
frastructure condition assessment that was meaningful
to pavement engineers since inferred from their experi-
ence and assessment method.
The FIS is usually composed of a fuzzifier (or en-
coder), set of inference rules, and a defuzzifier. The
fuzzifier transforms numerical data (crisp numbers) into
fuzzy numbers through the application of the respective
membership functions to the input variables; the infer-
ence rules (IF-THEN type of rules), based on a priori
knowledge, represents the system main body. The de-
fuzzifier decodes the output expressed as fuzzy numbers
into crisp numbers.
The membership functions when applied to the input
(or crisp number) express the input degree of member-
ship (fuzzy number) to a set. The membership function
quantifies how similar the characteristics of an element
are to those represented by the set and the set-enclosed
elements. The membership function is usually written in
the form
μ A : X → [0, 1] (1)
where X is the universal set under analysis; A is the
label of the fuzzy set defined by the function μ. The
function range varies between 0 and 1. The function
assumes the value of 0 if an element does not belong
to the set and 1 when the element is fully contained
in the set (or alternatively, the element characteristics
fully match to those of the representing set). Any func-
tion can be used as membership function with the re-
quirement that its range varies between 0 and 1 (Ross,
2004).
The IF-THEN rules represent the model reasoning
process and have the general format of
IFμant THENμconcl (2)
where μant is the fuzzy value of the rule antecedent (hy-
pothesis); μconcl is the fuzzy value representing the rule
conclusion (thesis). The antecedent part μant can be the
result from the application of logical operators AND
and OR on other fuzzy entities. Each operator acts on
the entities through particular mathematical functions
producing a fuzzy value between 0 and 1. The AND op-
erator applies the “min” function to the two fuzzy enti-
ties μA and μB as
μ AANDμ B = min (μ A, μ B) = μAND . (3)
4 Bianchini
The OR operator applies the “max” function as in
Equation (4)
μ A OR μ B = max (μ A, μ B) = μOR . (4)
The implication THEN uses the membership value
μant to truncate the output membership function asso-
ciated to the particular rule; the function graph is trun-
cated removing those values which are greater than μant
and considering exclusively the lower remaining part.
If the reasoning model includes multiple rules, the out-
put graph from each rule is superimposed obtaining a
geometrical shape, which represents the model fuzzy
output.
The operation to compute the output as a crisp num-
ber takes place in the defuzzifier and follows the se-
lected defuzzification method. Different methods can
be used in the operation of defuzzification; the method
selection depends on the context or problem to solve.
Hellendoorn and Thomas (1993) recommended five
criteria to apply when selecting the defuzzification
method. The criteria include continuity, for which small
changes in the input should not produce large changes in
the output; no ambiguity in the defuzzified value; plau-
sibility, for which the output should have a high de-
gree of membership; computational simplicity in deter-
mining the output crisp number; and weighting method
when comparing between different methods. The prob-
lem solution and the computational simplicity criterion
may often influence the applicability of the weight-
Fig. 1. Example of rules application and defuzzification operation.
ing method criterion. For this study, the adopted de-
fuzzification method consisted of determining the cen-
troid of the resulting geometrical shape. The centroid
x-coordinate represents the crisp number associated to
the fuzzy value on the y-axis.
Figure 1 visualizes the membership functions (light
gray charts) of two inputs and their combination in four
IF-THEN rules. The dark gray-colored charts represent
the output associated with each rule. Rules 1, 3, and 4
show how the output membership function is truncated
when applying the implication THEN. In case the an-
tecedent includes input multiple conditions, Rule 2 ap-
plies the operator AND (“min” function) to the inputs’
membership functions. Each rule output derives from
truncating the respective output membership function.
The dark gray chart at the right bottom of the figure
is the model output resulting from superimposing each
rule’s single output. The PCR of 40 is the crisp number
resulting from defuzzifying the output through the cen-
troid method.
The cooperation with the ALDOT Pavement Man-
agement Office personnel, the combined analysis on
pavement needs, surveyors’ experience in distress rat-
ing, and management priorities permitted defining
membership functions and IF-THEN rules for the
model developed in this article. The analysis produced a
numerical tool able to provide a true connotation about
pavement condition and directly related to the ALDOT
engineers’ practice. Because of the combined analysis
 Fuzzy representation of pavement condition
of pavement engineers’ needs and experience, the fuzzy
model allowed quantifying those subjective concepts
about pavement conditions that were partly expressed
in natural language and partly in numerical form and
computing a “meaningful” PCR.
3.1 Development of the FIS inputs and output
The development of the FIS in terms of input selec-
tion and membership functions was possible by work-
ing closely with ALDOT Pavement Management Office
personnel. The collaboration permitted identification of
the importance assigned to each distress type and sever-
ity within the agency project prioritization policy.
The FIS consisted of four inputs, represented by the
pavement distresses of transverse cracking, nonwheel
and wheel path cracking, and rutting, and one out-
put, the PCR. The model inputs are normally collected
during pavement evaluation programs. The ALDOT
Standard T-414–04 “Network Level Pavement Condi-
tion Data Collection Procedure” includes distress sur-
vey guidelines and also provides instructions about the
pavement sample size to survey. The sample size is
0.01mile long and one lane wide, starting at every mile-
post (MP). The sample size width is divided into five
lanes: two wheel path and three nonwheel path lanes.
About the severity rating, the ALDOT Standard de-
fines three severity levels for crack type distresses. Dis-
tresses are rated as severity level 1, if crack width is
between 1 and 3 mm; severity level 2 for crack widths
between 3 and 6 mm. Severity level 3 denotes cracks
having width greater than 6 mm. These criteria apply to
any type of crack distress either transverse, nonwheel
path, or wheel path. There is no severity definition for
rutting of which depth is directly reported without mea-
suring the affected area.
The distress extent is evaluated differently for trans-
verse cracking, and nonwheel and wheel path crack-
ing. Transverse cracks are reported as feet of cracking
per 0.01-mile segment. The ALDOT Standard T-414–
04 specifies that to define a crack as transverse, it must
be longer than 6 feet (1.8 m) and projected within 30◦
of perpendicular to the pavement centerline. Nonload
and load associated cracking (nonwheel and wheel path
cracking, respectively) are reported as the number of
linear feet of road segment containing such cracking.
In each 0.01-mile segment, the maximum length of this
type of cracking is 52.8 feet (16.1 m). The ALDOT Stan-
dard also recommends reporting the higher severity in
case this cracking is present in both wheel paths or if
cracking is present in the three nonwheel path zones for
the same length of road.
Discussions with the ALDOT personnel about their
rating experience, a literature review on the topic (e.g.,
5
Ong, 2009), and the analysis about the raters’ accu-
racy and reliability (e.g., Selezneva et al., 2004; Bian-
chini et al. 2010) led to the decision to disregard distress
severity levels. Therefore, the distress extents related to
each severity level were added together and the total
extent was then considered when developing the pave-
ment condition model of this article.
The FIS output is the PCR value, which is a nu-
merical representation of the pavement condition rang-
ing from 0 for a failed pavement to 100 for an excel-
lent pavement. The original PCR equation was devel-
oped for ALDOT by Glover et al. (1985) through a
Delphi study among ALDOT expert pavement engi-
neers and included a series of distresses, some of which
ALDOT does not collect anymore during the periodic
pavement evaluations. Therefore, the purpose in devel-
oping a pavement condition model based on fuzzy logic
was twofold. The model intended to handle the changes
in distress type and rating in the new ALDOT standards
and compute a PCR in consideration of engineers’ expe-
rience, “perceived” pavement condition, and material
performance.
3.2 Membership functions
The ALDOT Standard instructions for distress rating
and discussions with the agency Pavement Management
Office personnel allowed defining the membership func-
tions to represent the concepts of low, medium, and high
distress extent, or rut depth. On the basis of past ex-
perience and surveyors’ standard practice, the ALDOT
personnel concluded that the trapezoidal or triangular
membership functions for the distress extent were ade-
quate in representing the extent variability within each
extent level. For each function, the limit points repre-
sented surveyors’ standard practice in extent rating for
which point values were intended as sharp boundary be-
tween variability regions. At the same time, the func-
tion limit points comprised agency implicit policy for
distress repair strategies based on the distress extent.
For the distresses of transverse cracking, nonwheel path
cracking, and wheel path cracking, the function domains
were the distress extent measured in linear feet, whereas
for the rutting distress, the function domain was the rut
depth measured in inches.
The PCR computation only considered the trans-
verse and nonwheel path cracking only when at high
extent. Specifically, nonwheel path cracking is at high
extent when affecting more than 37.5 lane-feet; trans-
verse cracking is at high extent when the crack is longer
than 54 feet. At lower and medium extents, the same
distresses were disregarded from the pavement condi-
tion assessment. The high extents of nonwheel path
cracking and transverse cracking dictate the inference
6 Bianchini

Table 1 rules to apply only when there are no high extent (or
Wheel path cracking membership functions severity) structural distresses.
Length (feet) Low extent Medium extent High extent
Tables 1 and 2 include membership function domain
and turning points for wheel path cracking and rutting,
0 1 0 0 which are the distresses included in the rules. The func-
5 1 0 0 tion domain for wheel path cracking was set between
5 0 1 0 0 feet and 52.8 feet, since 52.8 feet corresponds to the
22.5 0 1 0
whole sample area. The function domain for rutting
≥37.5 0 0 1
ranged between 0 inch and 2 inches. The value of 2
inches was chosen as the domain arbitrary upper bound-
Table 2
ary for function representation and implementation.
Rutting membership functions
The FIS defuzzifier incorporates the output member-
Depth (inches) Low severity Medium severity High severity ship functions. The PCR ranges from 0, for a failed
pavement, to 100, for an excellent pavement. After an-
0 1 0 0
alyzing the PCR with ALDOT Pavement Management
0.15 1 0 0
0.15 1 1 0
Office personnel, the pavement condition indicator was
0.35 0 1 0 divided into five categories: very poor, poor, fair, good,
0.4 0 1 0 and excellent pavement. Trapezoidal membership func-
≥0.6 0 0 1 tions represented these five categories in relation to en-
gineers’ perception about pavement condition and PCR
Table 3 value. Table 3 summarizes PCR membership functions’
PCR membership functions domain and turning points.

PCR Very poor Poor Fair Good Excellent

3.3 Definition of criteria and rules for pavement
0 1 0 0 0 0
condition assessment
10 1 0 0 0 0
20 1 0 0 0 0 The reasoning model developed to determine pavement
25 0 1 0 0 0 condition from distress data included a series of rules to
35 0 1 0 0 0 apply in relation to the existence of structural and non-
40 0 0 1 0 0
structural distresses. Specific distress extent or severity
60 0 0 1 0 0
levels activate different sets of rules. Cooperation with
65 0 0 0 1 0
75 0 0 0 1 0 the ALDOT Pavement Management Office personnel
≥80 0 0 0 0 1 allowed identifying the conditions to activate each set of
rules. Figure 2 illustrates the reasoning process for the

Fig. 2. Reasoning process.

 Fuzzy representation of pavement condition 7

Table 4 Table 5
Rule groups Distress statistics of Surveyor A field rating

Group 1 Standard
Distress Average deviation Min Max
a IF (WPC is high extent) THEN (PCR is very
poor) Transverse 6.7 feet 10.5 feet 0.0 feet 42.2 feet
b IF (RUT is high severity) THEN (PCR is very cracking
poor) Nonwheel path 10.8 feet 14.5 feet 0.0 feet 52.8 feet
c IF (WPC is medium extent) AND (RUT is cracking
medium severity) THEN (PCR is poor) Wheel path 40.9 feet 16.3 feet 0.0 feet 52.8 feet
d IF (WPC is medium extent) THEN (PCR is fair) cracking
e IF (RUT is medium severity) THEN (PCR is fair) Rutting 0.5 inch 0.6 inch 0.1 inch 3.9 inch

Group 2 Table 6
a IF (WPC is high extent) THEN (PCR is very Input variability and PCR range for Surveyor A field rating
poor) Very Poor Poor Fair Good
b IF (RUT is high severity) THEN (PCR is very (1–20) (21–39) (40–64) (65–79)
poor) WPC min 1 (Low) 0 (Low) 0 (Low) 0 (Low)
(feet)
c IF (WPC is medium extent) AND (RUT is
max 52.8 (High) 33.2 (High) 25.9 (High) 13.7 (Medium)
medium severity) THEN (PCR is poor) Rut min 0.13 (Low) 0.17 (Medium) 0.2 (Medium) 0.19 (Medium)
(inch)
Group 3 max 3.94 (High) 2.53 (High) 0.45 (High) 0.22 (Medium)
Note: WPC = wheel path cracking.
a IF (WPC is medium extent) AND (RUT is
medium severity) THEN (PCR is very poor) Table 7
b IF (WPC is medium extent)) THEN (PCR is poor) Wheel path cracking (WPC) extent differences
c IF (RUT is medium severity) THEN (PCR is Rating compared WPC WPC < –3 feet WPC > 3 feet
poor) to survey A(F) [–3 feet, 3 feet] (overestimated) (underestimated)
d IF (WPC is low extent) THEN (PCR is fair)
A(I) 50.8% 38.3% 10.8%
e IF (RUT is low severity) THEN (PCR is fair)
B(F) 31.7% 9.4% 58.9%
B(I) 51.7% 16.9% 31.4%
Group 4 C(I) 69.4% 23.1% 7.5%

a IF (WPC is low extent) THEN (PCR is good)
b IF (WPC is medium extent) AND (RUT is
medium severity) THEN (PCR is poor)
c IF (RUT is medium severity) THEN (PCR is fair)
d IF (RUT is low severity) THEN (PCR is
excellent)
e IF (WPC is medium extent) THEN (PCR is fair)
Note: WPC = wheel path cracking; RUT = rutting.
selection of the rule groups to activate. Table 4 summa-
rizes the rule groups.
In developing the model, the ALDOT personnel
stressed the importance that structural, or load-related,
distresses have in their pavement evaluation and main-
tenance strategies. In fact, none of the rule groups con-
tains nonstructural distresses, which are only used to
select the rule group to trigger. The structural distresses
include wheel path cracking and rutting, whereas trans-
verse cracking and nonwheel path cracking are non-
structural distresses.
The pavement condition assessment process starts
considering if there is at least one structural distress at
Note: (I) = image rating; (F) = field rating.
high extent (or severity) affecting the pavement at what-
ever level of membership. The rule group 1 will be then
activated based on the existence of additional structural
distress at low or medium extent (or severity). Instead,
if the other structural distress is at high severity (or ex-
tent), rule group 2 is to activate. Rule group 3 is used if
there is at least one nonstructural distress at high sever-
ity but no high severity (or extent) structural distresses.
Finally, rule group 4 is to apply if there are structural
and nonstructural distresses at high extent (or severity).
In the model, the importance of structural distresses,
the rule groups, and the conditions triggering the rules
represent the ALDOT policy in pavement condition
assessment. The reasoning when to apply each rule
avoids any contrasting results and discrepancies. For in-
stance, the rule “a” in group 3 and rule “b” in group 4
are never activated together for condition assessments.
Even if these two rules have the same antecedent, the
output is different since rule “a” in group 3 is acti-
vated when there is also nonstructural distresses affect-
ing the pavement section, whereas rule “b” in group 4 is
8 Bianchini

Table 8
PCR differences between surveys

A(F) – A(I) A(F) – B(F) A(F) – B(I) A(F) – C(I)

Difference Number of Number of Number of Number of

range sections Percentage sections Percentage sections Percentage sections Percentage
−42 1 0.3%
−39 1 0.3%
−30 2 0.6%
−27 1 0.3%
−24 5 1.4%
−21 2 0.6%
−18 8 2.2% 4 1.1%
−15 6 1.7% 1 0.3%
−12 9 2.5% 4 1.1% 1 0.3%
−9 10 2.8% 6 1.7% 1 0.3%
−6 2 0.6% 16 4.4% 10 2.8% 1 0.3%
−3 10 2.8% 17 4.7% 28 7.8% 14 3.9%
0 176 48.9% 38 10.6% 204 56.7% 253 70.3%
3 63 17.5% 24 6.7% 42 11.7% 55 15.3%
6 66 18.3% 31 8.6% 31 8.6% 21 5.8%
9 16 4.4% 20 5.6% 13 3.6% 10 2.8%
12 9 2.5% 12 3.3% 9 2.5%
15 3 0.8% 24 6.7% 4 1.1% 2 0.6%
18 9 2.5% 29 8.1% 1 0.3%
21 4 1.1% 30 8.3% 3 0.8% 2 0.6%
24 2 0.6% 41 11.4%
27 14 3.9%
30 7 1.9%
33 5 1.4%
36 1 0.3%
39 1 0.3%
42 1 0.3%
45 2 0.6%
48 1 0.3%
51 1 0.3%
CV 3.17 1.28 3.41 4.22
Note: CV = coefficient of variation.

applied in the absence of nonstructural distresses at high
extent.
4 MODEL APPLICATIONS AND ANALYSIS OF
THE RESULTS
The reasoning model developed with the ALDOT
Pavement Management Office personnel was centered
on the structural distresses affecting pavement surface.
To test and validate the model, the ALDOT Pavement
Management Office personnel selected and surveyed
360 samples over their entire state roadway network,
which were representative of state and federal roads.
The survey of the sections included field evaluations
and analyses of computer images. A company offering
automated survey services provided the images of the
sample units during an ALDOT vendor evaluation. Sur-
veyors A and B performed field (F) and image (I) rat-
ing (indicated as Survey A(F), A(I), B(F), and B(I),
respectively); Surveyor C rated the sections based ex-
clusively on the images (Survey C(I)). Field and image
surveys included the rating of transverse cracking, non-
wheel and wheel path cracking. The rut depth of the sec-
tions was collected separately by laser technology and
did not require surveyor rating. In the analysis, the field
rating of Surveyor A and the associated PCR were taken
as reference.
Table 5 shows the distress statistics for the sections
field surveyed by the reference Surveyor A. For each
distress, the affected area extent covered all variabil-
ity range except for the rutting for which the min-
imum value in this database was 0.1 in. Table 6
 Fuzzy representation of pavement condition
Fig. 3. Histogram comparison of PCR differences for image rating.
summarizes the PCR model results in relation to the
variability of the distress extent (or severity). The rat-
ing “Very Poor” to “Good,” as in Table 6 headings,
represents the ALDOT pavement condition grouping
done for maintenance and prioritization purposes. The
agency’s pavement management office used the model-
computed PCR numerical value for grouping and pri-
oritizing, within each category, the pavement sections.
As shown in the table, the pavement condition improves
as the structural distresses extent (or severity) numeri-
cal value decreases, even if classified as high extent (or
severity). Good pavement condition is reached when
structural distresses are in the medium extent range.
With regards of the other field and image ratings of
wheel path cracking, Table 7 summarizes the percent-
age of pavement samples with differences in the range
of ±3 feet, and overestimated or underestimated of
more than 3 feet. The image rating carried the lowest
variability, matching Survey A(F) rating up to 69.4%.
9
Survey B(F) had the least percentage of section within
the ±3 feet range with 31.7%, and the highest percent-
age of underestimated sections with 58.9%. The distress
extent overestimate or underestimate were most likely
because of the image quality or field survey approach.
The model computed the PCR for each one of the
ratings. Table 8 summarizes the PCR differences from
each surveyor field or image rating. The differences are
ordered by multiples of 3 units, which is the ALDOT
accepted PCR variability range. The values in Table 8
Difference range column are the range upper bound. A
coefficient of variation (CV) of 1.28 characterizes the
PCR differences of B(F) with the reference value from
the A(F) rating. The CV values for the PCR differ-
ences from the other surveyors indicated data distribu-
tion characterized by similar variability. The histograms
in Figure 3 visualize the variability of PCR between the
field and image rating with the exclusion of the field
rating B(F). The histogram further shows similarities in
10 Bianchini
Table 9
PCR differences
Rating PCR PCR < –3 units PCR > 3 units
compared to [–3 units, (condition better (condition worse
Survey A(F) 3 units] than reference) than reference)
A(I) 66.4% 2.8% 30.3%
B(F) 17.3% 21.7% 61.1%
B(I) 68.4% 14.7% 16.9%
C(I) 85.6% 4.7% 9.7%
Note: (I) = image rating; (F) = field rating.
the difference distribution with respect to the PCR ref-
erence values.
Table 9 includes the percentage of pavement samples
with PCR differences in the range of ±3 units, overes-
timated or underestimated of more than 3 units. The
comparison of Tables 8 and 9 showed that the model
was able to smooth out some of the differences in dis-
tress rating. For the A(I) rating, 38.3% of sections with
overestimated cracking determined 30.3% of pavement
rated in worse than the reference value, the pavement
rated better than the reference rating were only 2.8%.
The PCR was within acceptable limits for 66.4% of
the sections. For the C(I) rating, which already started
with higher agreement with A(F), the model computed
85.6% of the sections within the acceptable PCR rating;
only 4.7% sections were assessed better than the refer-
ence, and 9.7% were worse. The B(I) rating produced
PCR results in between those from the A(I) and C(I)
ratings. The high variability along all the distress extent
spectrum was also evident in the PCR difference spec-
trum; in this case, the model was not able to smooth such
extreme variability of Surveyor B field rating and pro-
duce acceptable PCR values when compared to A(F)
reference values.
The model showed encouraging results; in fact, with
respect to the ALDOT Pavement Management per-
sonnel needs, the model was able to minimize the dif-
ferences among field and image ratings at the output
level, the PCR. The amount of overestimated or un-
derestimated sample units was within acceptable val-
ues and minimally affecting the maintenance strategies
eventually deriving from such prioritization values. In
general, surveyor subjectivity cannot be completely re-
moved from the distress rating but the model offered
the possibility to minimize and, in some cases, remove
at the PCR computation level such distress rating dif-
ference, and therefore surveyors’ subjectivity.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The ALDOT Pavement Management Office person-
nel had the need and provided the support to de-
velop the reasoning model for computing pavement
condition. The model primarily centered on the struc-
tural distresses affecting pavement surface, reflecting
the agency’s criteria in prioritizing projects for pave-
ment major maintenance and rehabilitation. On the ba-
sis of the agency’s maintenance strategy, the nonstruc-
tural distresses such as transverse cracking and non-
wheel path cracking were not explicitly included in
the model inference rules. These distresses, when at
high severity, were used in the decision process for
activating one of the rule groups. The ALDOT di-
vision engineers usually monitor and manage for re-
pair transverse and nonwheel path cracking within
small-scale budgets. The fuzzy model objective was to
support the agency in prioritizing large-scale projects
for which significant funding needed to be adequately
planned.
The fuzzy model was applied to 360 sections. Three
surveyors rated the sections on the field and from com-
puter images. Surveyor A field rating was the reference
value. The other two surveyors provided wheel path
crack extent field and image rating within acceptable
variability and distribution except for Surveyor B field
rating. The B field rating was characterized by a very
low CV compared to the other surveyors, either field or
image rating. The model was able to smooth out the dif-
ference between surveyor ratings that had similar dis-
tribution. In fact, the Surveyor B field rating provided
PCR values also very different from those computed
from either the reference values or the other ratings.
The PCR values computed from the different rat-
ings, with the exception of the Surveyor B field rating,
were within acceptable values. Therefore, any of the
three surveyors’ PCR would provide the agency with
valid and comparable maintenance strategies. Overall,
the model showed the ability to minimize and, in some
cases, remove surveyor subjectivity providing PCR re-
sults within acceptable limits.
In conclusion, this study showed the possibility of
defining a pavement condition model based on pave-
ment engineers’ experience and agency policies. The
model was able to reduce the influence of survey-
ors’ subjectivity when computing the PCR based on
variable input data. Fuzzy theories represent a pow-
erful means for developing models that capture qual-
itative information, experience-based knowledge, and
overall expert “perception” about pavement condition,
which can be hardly synthesized through determinis-
tic type of models. This approach gave encouraging
results and suggested more intensive research toward
alternative mathematical tools applied to pavement
condition assessment, pavement management, and in
particular for handling subjective-type of information as
distress survey data.
 Fuzzy representation of pavement condition
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank ALDOT Pavement
Management Office personnel for the assistance in
providing the data used in this study, especially Mr.
Scott George, Pavement Maintenance Engineer and
Mr. Frank Bell, Assistant Pavement Management En-
gineer, for the enlightening discussions in developing
the pavement condition model. Permission to publish
was granted by Director, Geotechnical and Structures
Laboratory.
REFERENCES
Adeli, H. & Karim, A. (2000), Fuzzy-wavelet RBFNN model
for freeway incident detection, Journal of Transportation
Engineering, 126(6), 464–71.
Adeli, H. & Kumar, S. (1999), Distributed Computer-Aided
Engineering for Analysis, Design, and Visualization, CRC,
Boca Raton, FL.
Adeli, H. & Sarma, K. C. (2006), Cost Optimization of Struc-
tures: Fuzzy Logic, Genetic Algorithms, and Parallel Com-
puting, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, England.
Banan, M. R. & Hjelmstad, K. D. (1996), Neural networks and
AASHO road test, Journal of Transportation Engineering,
122(5), 358–66.
Bianchini, A. & Bandini, P. (2010), Prediction of pavement
performance through neuro-fuzzy reasoning, Computer-
Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 24, 1–16.
Bianchini, A., Bandini, P. & Smith, D. W. (2010), Interrater
reliability of manual pavement distress evaluations, Journal
of Transportation Engineering, 136(2), 165–72.
Chamorro, A., Tighe, S. L., Ningyuan, L. & Kazmierowski,
T. (2009), Development of distress guidelines and condi-
tion rating to improve network management in the province
of Ontario, in Proceedings of the Transportation Research
Board Annual Meeting (CD-ROM), Transportation Re-
search Board of the National Academies, Washington
DC.
Elton, D. J. & Juang, C. H. (1989), Asphalt pavement evalua-
tion using fuzzy sets, in National Research Council (ed.),
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans-
portation Research Board, No. 1196, Transportation Re-
search Board of the National Academies, Washington DC,
pp. 1–6.
Glover, T. C., Walters, J. V., Turner, D. S. & Mansfield, E.
R. (1985), A pavement rating procedure. TSM Report No.
112–85, BER Report No., 352–39.
Goodman, I. R. & Nguyen, H. T. (1985), Uncertainty mod-
els for knowledge-based systems: a unified approach to the
measurement of uncertainty, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Hellendoorn, H. & Thomas, C. (1993), Defuzzification in
fuzzy controllers, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems,
1(12), 689–97.
Holguin-Veras, J. (1997), Alternative modeling framework
for pavement serviceability analysis, Journal of Transporta-
tion Engineering, 123(6), 478–83.
Karim, A. & Adeli, H. (2002), Comparison of the fuzzy—
wavelet RBFNN freeway incident detection model with the
California algorithm, Journal of Transportation Engineer-
ing, 128(1), 21–30.
11
Klir, G. J. & Yuan, B. (1995), Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic:
Theory and Applications. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Lajnef, N., Rhimi, M., Mhamdi, L., Chatti, K. & Faridazar,
F. (2011), Toward a smart, long-term pavement monitoring
system, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineer-
ing, 26(7), 513–23.
Lee, D. E., Lim, T. K. & Arditi, D. (2011), An expert sys-
tem for auditing quality management systems in construc-
tion, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
26(8), 612–31.
Li, Z., Madanu, S., Wang,Y. Abbas, M. & Zhou, B. (2010), A
heuristic approach for selecting highway investment alter-
natives, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineer-
ing, 25(6), 427–39.
Loizos, A. & Karlaftis, A. (2006), Investigating pavement
cracking: an evolutionary modular neural network ap-
proach, in National Research Council (ed.), Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 1970, Transportation Research Board of the Na-
tional Academies, Washington DC, pp. 207–14.
Marano, G. C., Quaranta, G. & Monti, G. (2011), Modified ge-
netic algorithm for the dynamic identification of structural
systems using incomplete measurements, Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 26(2), 92–110.
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) (2006),
An Overview of Mn/DOT’s Pavement Condition Rat-
ing Procedures and Indices, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/
materials/pvmtmgmtdocs/Rating˙Overview State.pdf, acc-
essed November 2, 2010.
New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT)
(2004), The New Mexico Department of Transporta-
tion’s Network Level Pavement Management Program,
http://nmshtd.state.nm.us/upload/images/ITIS/Pavement-
Management.pdf, accessed November 15, 2009.
Nguyen, H. T. & Walker, E. A. (2000), A First Course in Fuzzy
Logic, 2nd edn, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Ong, G. P., Noureldin, S. & Sinha, K. C. (2009), A methodol-
ogy to evaluate quality of pavement surface distress data
collected from automated techniques, in Proceedings of
the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (CD-
ROM), Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington DC.
Peng, F., Kang, S., Li, X. & Ouyang, Y. (2011), A heuristic
approach to railroad track maintenance scheduling prob-
lem, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
26(2), 129–45.
Provenzano, P. (2003), A fuzzy neural network method for
modeling uncertainties insoil-structure interaction prob-
lem, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
18, 391–411.
Rada, G. R., Wu, C. L., Bhandari, R. K., Shekharan, A. R.,
Elkins, G. E. & Miller, J. S. (1999), Study of LTPP distress
data variability. Vol. 1, Rep. No. FHWA-RD-99–074, Of-
fice of Infrastructure Research and Development, FHWA,
McLean, VA.
Roberts, C. & Attoh-Okine, N. O. (1998), A comparative
analysis of two artificial neural networks using pavement
performance prediction, Computer-Aided Civil and Infras-
tructure Engineering, 13, 339–48.
Ross, T. (2004), Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications,
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Saltan, M., Tigdemir, M. & Karasahin, M. (2002), Artificial
neural network application for flexible pavement thickness
12 Bianchini
modeling, Turkish Journal of Engineering and Environ-
mental Science, 26, 246–48.
Samant, A. & Adeli, H. (2001), Enhancing neural network
incident detection algorithms using wavelets, Computer-
Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 16(4), 239–45.
Sarma, K. C. & Adeli, H. (2000a), Fuzzy discrete multicriteria
cost optimization of steel structures, Journal of Structural
Engineering, 126, 1339–47.
Sarma, K. C. & Adeli, H. (2000b), Fuzzy genetic algorithm for
optimization of steel structures, Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, 126(5), 596–604.
Sarma, K. C. & Adeli, H. (2002), Life-cycle cost optimiza-
tion of steel structures, International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, 55(12), 1451–62.
Schmucker, K. J. (1984), Fuzzy Sets, Natural Language
Computation, and Risk Analysis, Computer Science Press,
Rockville, MD.
Selezneva, O., Mladenovic, G., Speir, R., Amenta, J. &
Kennedy, J. (2004), QA sampling considerations for auto-
mated distress data collection and processing for National
Park Service road inventory program, in Proceedings of
the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (CD-
ROM), Transportation Research Board, Washington DC.
Shahin, M. Y. (1994), Pavement Management for Airports,
Roads and Parking Lots, Chapman and Hall, NY.
Shoukry, S. N., Martinelli, D. R. & Reigle, J. A. (1997), Uni-
versal pavement distress evaluator based on fuzzy sets, in
National Research Council (ed.), Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 1592, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington DC, pp. 180–86.
Stoeffels, S., Morian, D., Firth, D. J. & Larson, C. D. (2001),
Quality analysis methods for pavement distress data, in
Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board An-
nual Meeting (CD-ROM), Transportation Research Board,
Washington DC.
Tighe, S. L. Ningyuan, L. & Kazmierowski, T. (2008), Evalu-
ation of semi-automated and automated pavement distress
collection for network-level pavement management, in Na-
tional Research Council (ed.), Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2084, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington DC, pp. 11–17.
Wang, K. C. P. & Li, Q. (2011), Pavement smoothness pre-
diction based on fuzzy and gray theories, Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 26(1), 69–76.
Wee, S. & Kim, N. (2006), Angular fuzzy logic application for
pavement maintenance and rehabilitation strategy in Ohio,
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 10(2), 81–9.
Yang, J., Lu, J. J., Gunaratne, M. & Xiang, Q. (2003), Fore-
casting overall pavement condition with neural networks—
application on Florida highway network, in National Re-
search Council (ed.), Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.
1853, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington DC, pp. 3–12.
Zhang, Z., Singh, N. & Hudson, W. R. (1997), Comprehen-
sive ranking index for flexible pavement using fuzzy sets
model, in National Research Council (ed.), Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 1397, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington DC, pp. 96–102.