See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/367161937

Validation of FAA-Proposed Airport Pavement Serviceability Level Index

Components

Presentation · January 2023

CITATION READS

1 49

2 authors, including:

Timothy Parsons
Mississippi State University
26 PUBLICATIONS 52 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Airfield Pavement Condition Definition View project

Oklahoma Aeronautics and Space Commission Airfield Pavement Management System View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Timothy Parsons on 27 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Transportation Research Record
2023, Vol. XX(X) 1–12
Verification of FAA-Proposed Airport ©National Academy of Sciences:
Transportation Research Board 2023
Pavement Serviceability Level Index Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions

Components DOI: 10.1177/ToBeAssigned

journals.sagepub.com/home/trr

SAGE
Timothy A. Parsons, P.E.1 and Scott D. Murrell, P.E.2

Abstract
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is developing new design procedures to extend airport pavement life beyond
20 years based on the concept of serviceability: the measure of a how well a pavement fulfils user expectations. A key
element is a new distress “mega-index” whose components are intended to represent independent components of airport
pavement serviceability: low Foreign Object Damage (FOD) potential, low skid potential, and smoothness. This research
verifies the assumption that these three components completely describe airport pavement serviceability and proposes
an improved probability-based form for the mega-index. The new form has several anticipated advantages including a
real-world meaning, the expected ability to integrate into a risk-management system, and the ability to decompose condition
into multiple sub-models with separate inputs to improve the accuracy of pavement condition predictions.

Keywords
airfield pavement serviceability performance condition distress

FAA is developing new design procedures to extend airfield
pavement life. The expectation is that for a modest increase in
construction cost, pavement life can be extended such that the
total life cycle cost of owning an airfield pavement would be
significantly reduced. As part of this effort, Brill and Parsons
proposed a new “mega-index” to quantify the serviceability
of airport pavements. (1) In development of the mega-index
the authors discussed the aspects of serviceability not directly
considered in the commonly-used Pavement Condition Index
(PCI) (2), including structural integrity of pavement layers,
longitudinal profile roughness, and runway friction values
“which by themselves can trigger a decision to reconstruct
a pavement” (1). They qualitatively defined serviceability
as “the ability of the pavement to deliver: (a) smooth ride,
(b) tractive surfaces (skid resistance), and (3) [sic] low FOD
potential” (1). The paper proposed two potential formulations
of a Serviceability Level (SL) index including:
failed. For logical consistency, the coefficients
and exponents α, β, γ, should be chosen such that
SL = 100 when SLR = SLS = SLF = 100. A
reduction in SL may be due to any of the
contributing indicators or a combination. (1)
Brill and Parsons discussed the expectations for the proposed
index, but did not provide the derivation of this definition.
The components appeared intuitively correct. Formulation as
an index on a scale of zero to one hundred was in line with
other pavement indices, including PCI (2) and Engineering
Assessment (EA) (3). Validation of the new SL should
include:
1. the components of serviceability,
2. the independence of these components, and

SL = kR (SLR )α + kS (SLS )β + kF (SLF )γ (1)

1 Doctoral Candidate
Equation 1 defines serviceability as a composition of FOD, Mississippi State University, Bagley College of Engineering
skid potential, and roughness. Brill and Parsons define the Mississippi State, MS 39762
index described by the equation as: tparsons@ara.com
ORCID: 0000-0003-0024-5043
SLR , SLS , SLF are independent serviceability 2 Assistant Division Manager

levels associated with roughness, skid resistance Applied Research Associates

and FOD, respectively, and kR , kS , kF are Egg Harbor Township, NJ 08234
smurrell@ara.com
weighting coefficients. Similar to PCI, the SL
data are located on a 100-point scale, with 100 Corresponding author:
being new or excellent, and zero completely Timothy A. Parsons, tparsons@ara.com

Prepared using TRR.cls [Version: 2020/08/31 v1.00]

2 Transportation Research Record XX(X)
3. the definition of SL as a linear combination of weighted
components that accurately and efficiently represents
serviceability.
Proper definition of serviceability is important to the
future of pavement management. Neglecting a component
of serviceability will result in sub-optimal pavement, but
including an unnecessary component will result in resources
wasted on maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction
of pavements that are still serviceable. Correct definition
may also simplify implementation of advanced technologies
such as Computer Vision (CV) for condition evaluation. For
example, CV algorithms may not need to identify all 26 types
of FOD-producing PCI distress (and associated severities,
which nearly triples the number of classification categories).
To support the new mega-index, CV may only need to identify
that FOD is present, which is a much simpler two-category
presence/absence classification algorithm.
Scope and Approach
This research addresses the components of serviceability
and the mathematical definition for combining them into
an easy-to-use representation of pavement serviceability.
Beginning with the premise that serviceability is a measure
of meeting the expectations of the user, researchers reviewed
the airfield pavement literature to identify user expectations.
Presence of FOD potential, skid resistance, and smoothness
in the literature would establish they are necessary to the
definition of serviceability. Mention of another property, such
as structural capacity, would indicate they are not sufficient
for the definition. Regulatory guidance, standard textbooks on
pavement management, pavement management research, and
airfield pavement condition indices were reviewed to verify
that these, and only these, aspects of pavement serviceability
were discussed. It was not necessary to review every condition
index used in pavement management. For example, showing
that friction characteristics were recommended for use in
a pavement management system by at least one textbook
or regulation establishes that friction is a component of
airfield pavement serviceability. It was therefore unnecessary
to contrast the various types of FOD, friction, or roughness
measuring systems recommended in different textbooks or
regulations.
After verification of the components of serviceability,
and thus SL, researchers examined the formulation from
a mathematical perspective. It is trivial to select a set of
values for the weighting parameters that cause the equation
to violate the definition of SL. For example, setting all
proposed coefficients and exponents to 1 results in SL = 300
when SLR = SLS = SLF = 100, indicating that a linear
combination may not be the most appropriate definition.
Researchers examined various ranges for the weighting
parameters, definitions for the components of SL, and
equation forms to combine them. The goal was to identify
Prepared using TRR.cls
an equation form that could satisfy the criteria outlined by
Brill and Parsons (1) given a reasonable range of input values
for SLR , SLS , and SLF .
Definitions
The researchers determined that several terms related to
pavement serviceability were used inconsistently throughout
the literature. This research follows these definitions for
clarity:
• Serviceability: A measure of meeting the expectations
of the user.
• Performance: Change in serviceability over time.
• Distress: A property of the pavement that reduces
serviceability.
• Condition or Index: A quantification of serviceability.
Determining user expectations requires defining “users.”
Anyone that interacts with the pavement can be considered
a user, including passengers, crew, airlines, engineers,
operations personnel, airport executives, etc. Although they
have different perspectives, they each have the goal of
the airfield pavement supporting consistently safe aircraft
operations. Defining their expectations then become an
exercise in identifying the properties of pavement that make it
a safe operating surface for aircraft. Users also have differing
levels of expertise and the analysis had to consider if the
specific expectations of a user had a reasonable connection to
the overall goal of having a safe operating surface. For this
reason, the research focused more on the expert users charged
with maintaining pavements: regulators, decision makers, and
engineers.
Components of Serviceability
Regulations and Guidance
Part 139 Inspections 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 139 required FAA to issue airport operating
certificates to airports serving air carrier traffic. The regulation
identified many criteria for a certificate to be issued, with
requirements for topics from aircraft rescue and fire fighting to
wildlife hazard management. Section 139.305(a) addressed the
requirements for paved aircraft movement areas and Section
139.307(a) addressed the requirements for unpaved aircraft
movement areas (4).
Part 139 addressed roughness in terms of maximum
elevation difference between pavement sections, slopes, and
hole geometry in Sections 139.305(a)(1), 139.305(a)(2),
139.307(a)(1), and 139.307(a)(4). All of these things could
be considered roughness related, although tire damage could
also have been a concern. This indicated that the concern
is not necessarily a specific cause of damage to an aircraft,
but aircraft damage in general. A pavement that results in
damage to an aircraft due to roughness is therefor by definition
unserviceable.
Parsons and Murrell
Prohibitions on FOD potential were addressed in
Section 139.305(a)(3), Section 139.305(a)(4), and Section
139.307(a)(5). Section 139.305(a)(3) explicitly links cracking
to FOD potential. This indicates that cracking is not a problem
for aircraft operations per se, but cracks result in debris
that can damage an aircraft, which is a problem for aircraft
operations.
Section 139.305(a)(3) also stated that cracks were not
permitted to “impair directional control of air carrier aircraft.”
While it was possible that the concern was due to roughness
and aircraft bouncing to the point of being uncontrollable,
based on the size requirements of the cracks, it appeared
the concern was more with the crack acting as a channel
or guide for the wheels. Under this assumption, the concern
would more correctly have been categorized as related to
friction concerns. The assumption was supported by Section
139.307(a)(3), which prohibits rutting or “loosening or build-
up of surface material, which could impair directional control
of aircraft or drainage.” From this point of view, inability
to provide directional control was what makes a pavement
unserviceable; skid potential due to lack of friction was
just one manifestation of the issue. Section 139.307(a)(2)
prohibited ponding of water resulting in hydroplaning, which
is another manifestation of loss of directional and braking
control. (For consistency, this paper will continue to refer to
loss of control as “friction” or “skid potential” issues. These
terms should be understood to include rare non-friction-related
situations such as wheels stuck in a crack.)
Part 139 addresses FOD potential and smoothness directly,
indicating they are aspects of serviceability. It also addresses
skid potential, but expands the concept to general lack of
control of an aircraft on the ground. From a regulatory point
of view, these three properties are necessary and sufficient to
define airport pavement serviceability.
FAA Pavement Management System Requirements The
guidance for pavement management systems at U.S. airports
was governed by Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5380-7B,
Airport Pavement Management Program (5). Compliance
with the document was required for airports receiving
Airport Improvement Program funding. The bulk of the
document discussed the purpose, benefits, and components
of a pavement management program. One of the six listed
components was “an objective and repeatable system for
evaluating pavement condition.” The AC stated that the
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) system and PAVER© met
FAA requirements. It characterizes PCI as providing “a rating
of the surface condition of a pavement with implications of
structural performance,” implicitly recognizing that condition
and performance were two different concepts. PCI is a
composite index encompassing FOD, skid resistance, and
smoothness, indicating that these are aspects of serviceability.
It is discussed in detail later in this paper.
Roughness measurements were discussed as being “helpful,”
but having “greater value when the pavement [was] in
Prepared using TRR.cls
3
very good condition.” This indicated that the aspects of
serviceability were of unequal concern, with surface distress
being of greater concern than roughness. While not stated,
it was implied that in this context “surface distress” did
not include roughness or skid potential, although distresses
affecting roughness and skid potential were included in the
PCI and other condition indices.
Friction measurements were also recommended “on a
periodic basis” (5). No instruction was provided on what
to do with the measurements, but referred to AC 150/5320-
12, “Measurement, Construction, and Maintenance of Skid
Resistant Airport Pavement Surfaces.” That AC discussed
friction measurement, remediation trigger values, and
remediation techniques (6), reinforcing that skid resistance is
a user expectation.
Tracking structural load bearing capacity “may be
beneficial” according to AC 150/5380-7B (5), and directs the
user to AC 150/5335-5 for further information. For purposes
of pavement management, AC 150/5380-7B recommended
using structural capacity only for defining pavement sections
and prediction of future pavement condition, not for direct
determination of current serviceability.
FOD, skid potential, and smoothness are explicitly
discussed in AC 150/5380-7B, indicating they are necessary
components of airport pavement serviceability. Structural
capacity is discussed, but in the context of condition prediction
(i.e., performance). This indicates that structural capacity
may not be a necessary component of airport pavement
serviceability or condition, but is part of performance.
United States Air Force Engineering Assessment The
United States Air Force (USAF) provided guidance to base-
level engineers for “prioritizing and rating airfield pavement
projects” in a series of Engineering Technical Letters (ETL’s)
culminating in ETL 04-9 (3, 7, 8). The ETL’s combined
four condition measures into a single rating of pavement
condition called the Engineering Assessment (EA): PCI,
Friction Rating (runways only), Structural Index, and FOD
Potential Rating (optional). The FOD Potential Rating was not
an independent measure of FOD, but was derived from PCI
distresses. Friction Rating was a Good-Fair-Poor assessment
of runway friction characteristics based on friction testing
results. Criteria to convert results of 11 different friction
measuring devices/methods to Friction Rating was provided.
The Structural Index was based on the Aircraft Classification
Number (ACN)/Pavement Classification Number (PCN)
system, comparing the PCN of the pavement to a standard
load of 50,000 passes of a C-17 aircraft. Because it is based on
a standard loading unrelated to the actual traffic on a facility,
it may have very little relation to the real structural capacity
or condition of the pavement.
While EA included structure in the condition, it noted that
“ACN represents the impact a particular aircraft will have on
the pavement” [emphasis added]. Structure does not affect
serviceability at the time of evaluation, but rather at some
4 Transportation Research Record XX(X)
time in the future. This was consistent with the implication
of AC 150/5380-7B that structure affected performance not
condition. The EA otherwise used FOD, skid potential, and
smoothness to describe pavement condition, thus indicating
they are components of serviceability.
Pavement Management Literature
Pavement Management for Airports, Roads, and Parking
Lots Pavement Management for Airports, Roads, and Parking
Lots was originally published in 1994 by Shahin (9) based on
“work performed as a private consultant and as a principal
investigator for the U.S. Army Construction Engineering
Research Laboratory ... since the early 1970’s” (9). It
expanded upon a series of reports developed for the US
Army Corps of Engineers by Shahin et al starting in the
1970’s (10). These reports are discussed later in this paper.
The book introduced the concept of treating pavement as an
“engineered management system” to optimize spending on
pavements and other assets. The book focused heavily on
PCI and the PAVER© computerized pavement management
system, but devoted four chapters to discussing pavement
condition measurement and discussed how to consider each of
the measurement types when making pavement management
decisions:
• Pavement surface distresses (Chapter 3, Pavement
Distress Survey and Rating Procedures)
• Structural capacity (Chapter 4, Nondestructive Deflec-
tion Testing)
• Roughness (Chapter 5, Roughness Measurement)
• Friction (Chapter 6, Skid Resistance Measurement)
The focus of the book was on use of PCI, a composite
index, for pavement management. It argued that PCI provides
a comprehensive measure of pavement condition because
“when correctly developed, a composite distress index will
indirectly provide a measure of roughness, skid, and a
structural integrity (not capacity) because of the relationship
between the various distress types and each of the condition
characteristics.” He further stated that “Information on
several pavement condition characteristics is critical to
performing management functions. The characteristics include
roughness, skid resistance, structural capacity, and distress.”
Structural capacity was discussed mainly in the context of
prediction model development, i.e., in the context of pavement
performance, not condition. Roughness and skid potential
exactly match two of the proposed components of pavement
condition. In this context, structural integrity was the lack of
cracks, breaks, or other distresses that disrupt the structure
of the pavement. It could be interpreted as a lack of FOD or
FOD-generating distresses in general.
Shahin recommended Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) to
determine pavement structure and structural capacity, but did
not directly use it in determining pavement condition. Instead,
structural information should be used to group structurally
Prepared using TRR.cls
similar sections for modeling pavement condition. NDT
should also be used to detect the cause of failure in pavements,
i.e., is there an expectation that the quantity and severity of
observed distresses on the pavement will rapidly increase
because the fatigue life of the pavement has been exceeded?
This links structural capacity to pavement performance, not
condition.
Shahin stated that “roughness is a condition indicator,” and
directly affects aircraft operation through vibration of the
instrument panel and pilot discomfort. Roughness was used
by various agencies as part of a composite pavement condition
index. However, he further states that roughness “by itself is
not necessarily a good indicator of the overall need for M&R,”
but the illustrations provided in the text indicate that distressed
pavements may have acceptable roughness. There seems to
be no concept that a pavement could be rehabilitated solely
(or even primarily) to correct a roughness issue even though it
could “endanger both the aircraft and its passengers,” stating
that “when a pavement is to be reconstructed, roughness
measurements are of no value except for record keeping.”
The direct impact of insufficient skid resistance is that
the “pilot may not be able to retain directional control and
stopping ability.” Because poor skid resistance can lead to
accidents, Shahin considered skid resistance issues to be
worthy of rehabilitation projects in their own right, providing a
subsection on appropriate M&R to address friction problems.
Shahin’s book agrees with FAA and USAF regulations
and guidance. FOD, skid resistance, and smoothness are
components of pavement condition, while structural capacity
is discussed only in the context of pavement performance.
Research into Airfield Assessment Methods In 2004, the
FAA conducted a study to determine if their published
standards for pavement thickness calculation were in
accordance with “the FAA standard for a 20-year life
requirement” (11). The authors divided the various failure
modes into categories of “structural (e.g., thickness),
functional (e.g., skid resistance, material durability), and
operational (e.g., surface condition) factors.” They recognized
that PCI is a measure of condition, but also pointed out
that it does not explicitly measure skid resistance, structural
capacity, or roughness, implying that these properties are also
components of pavement condition. They also stated PCI
does not “differentiate between different failure modes (i.e.,
functional or structural),” which could imply that structural
capacity affects condition, not performance as indicated in
other literature. However, this line of reasoning is negated by
their example of rutting, which may be due to a structural
cause or a functional cause. The authors did not identify if
one cause was worse than the other or why a distinction was
important. In the end, the rut would cause the same issue for
an aircraft whether it was from structural or functional causes.
The distinction becomes important only when determining a
repair or forecasting how soon a repair will be needed, i.e.,
when predicting pavement performance.
Parsons and Murrell
Pavement management research in Japan focused on
“distresses that affect airplane safety,” defining distresses
for the Pavement Rating Index (PRI) “based on pavement
functionality, such as whether or not an airplane’s operations
are disturbed” (12). The distresses defined by the PRI were
cracking, rutting, and roughness for asphalt; and cracking,
joint failure, and faulting for Portland Cement Concrete (PCC).
Cracking was a concern due to FOD potential. Roughness
was explicitly identified as being in the PRI for asphalt,
and faulting in PCC causes roughness. Rutting was both a
roughness and a friction concern. All forms of “joint failure”
lead either to FOD potential or roughness. These distresses
agreed with the proposed effective distresses.
Evaluation of pavement structure via destructive and non-
destructive testing was discussed, but direct use of the
information collected from structural evaluation was not
discussed in the paper. Pavement thickness, a proxy for
structure, was found to affect “PRI changes over time,”
consistent with structure affecting pavement performance, but
not condition.
During the design phase of the fourth runway at Tokyo
Haneda International Airport, which was supported by piers,
a specific study to determine acceptable levels of roughness
due to deck deflection and faulting was conducted (13). This
supported the inclusion of roughness as a component of
serviceability.
The Frankfort, Germany airport pavement management
system used a combination of major and minor inspections
(14). Minor inspections focused on “surface damage such
as cracks, break-outs, lowering, etc,” all of which were
consistent with FOD, friction, and roughness as components of
serviceability. Major inspections, conducted every five years
added evenness (roughness) measurements and evaluation
of structural capacity. Structural capacity was again used
to determine the remaining working life, that is, calculate
performance, not instantaneous condition.
Measures of Pavement Condition
Present Serviceability Index The concept of quantitatively
and objectively measuring pavement performance dates to the
AASHO road test. Carey and Irick (15) defined serviceability
as the ability to “serv[e] traffic,” but state that what it means
to serve is not well defined. They reference smoothness,
lack of cracks, and safety. They also discuss “the comfort
and convenience of the traveling public” and conclude that
serviceability is “the users [sic] subjective evaluation of
the ability to serve him.” While Carey and Irick developed
their Present Serviceability Rating (PSR) and the associated
Present Serviceability Index (PSI) for roads, their definition of
serviceability is similar to that proposed by Brill and Parsons:
the ability of a pavement to meet expectations.
Airfield Assessment Before Pavement Condition Index The
US Army Corps of Engineers produced airfield pavement
condition reports as early as 1947. By 1965 they had
Prepared using TRR.cls
5
formalized evaluation methods in the form of Army Technical
Manuals TM-5-827-2, “Flexible Airfield Pavement Evaluation”
and TM-5-827-3, “Rigid Airfield Pavement Evaluation.” As
evidenced in a series of 1973 reports by Jackson (16), the
concept of dividing the airfield into features or sections
and inspecting the pavement for specific distresses was well
established by the 1970’s (16).
The USAF did not have an objective method for
determining flexible pavement condition. The pavements were
assigned a subjective Good, Fair, or Poor rating. Ratings were
based on the amount of cracking and deformation observed.
The United States Navy (USN) considered the “the amount of
distress per 10 square feet” in the area of pavement rated
divided by the size of the pavement. These values were
multiplied by a weight to determine the condition of the
pavement. Weights were determined for each airfield based
on the impact of the defect to the aircraft at that airfield and
how soon it was expected to deteriorate.
The USAF system for determining rigid pavement condition
was to count the percentage of slabs in a section without
defects and without “major defects,” then use a table to
assign a condition based on the subgrade stiffness. (10)
Major defects were those that affect the structural capacity
of the pavement. The USN calculated defect quantity as the
number of slabs with a defect divided by the total number of
slabs in a pavement feature. Similar to the flexible pavement
method, it assigned multipliers to the deducts from each
distress based on how soon it was expected to deteriorate.
Both systems assigned poorer condition to rigid pavements
expected to deteriorate rapidly, effectively conflating condition
and performance.
Table 1 lists the USAF and USN pavement defects. While
multiple distresses were identified, the researchers reviewed
each distressed and asked “how does this affect an aircraft?”
In all cases, the distress manifested on the pavement resulted
in an effect of FOD, skid potential, roughness, or some
combination thereof. This was consistent with regulations,
guidance, and pavement management literature.
Pavement Condition Index From July 1974 to July 1976 the
US Army Corps or Engineers developed an objective method
to inspect an airfield and published it in a 1977 report. The
report documented development of what is now known as
the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). The PCI appears to
have been developed from the USN system by addressing the
perceived flaws in the system, specifically that it gave equal
weight to structural (fatigue or alligator cracking) and non-
structural (block cracking) pattern cracking defects. Shahin
et al believed the structural distresses were more severe and
should have had higher weights (10).
The report stated “a comprehensive pavement condition
evaluation requires measurement of several condition
indicators, including roughness, skid resistance, structural
capacity, and surface physical deterioration or distress.” The
report recorded several objectives, including “to indicate the
6 Transportation Research Record XX(X)

Table 1. United States Air Force and United States Navy Pavement Defects
USAF Rigid USN Rigid USN Flexible
Longitudinal Crack Faulting Depression
Transverse Crack Corner Break Rutting
Diagonal Crack Longitudinal or Transverse Crack Broken-Up Area
Corner Break Intersecting Crack Faulting
Shattered Slab Depression Raveling
Keyed Joint Failure Spalling Erosion-Jet Blast
Shrinkage Crack Scaling Longitudinal, Transverse,
or Longitudinal Construction
Joint Crack
Scaling Shattered Slab Pattern Cracking
Spall on Transverse Joint Joint Seal Patching
Spall on Longitudinal Joint Pumping Reflection Crack
Corner Spall D-Line Cracking Oil Spillage
Settlement
Map Cracking
Pumping Joint
Pop-Out
Uncontrolled Contraction Crack
D Cracking

present condition of the pavement in terms of structural
integrity and operational surface condition.” It refined the
distress list, defined severities for each distress, and added a
factor to reduce the effect of multiple distresses in a pavement
section. Shahin et al calibrated the PCI values against expert
pavement engineer ratings of 128 pavement sections at 9
airfields. (10)
PCI was eventually codified as ASTM D5340 (17) and
was largely unchanged until addition of new distresses in
2012 (18). It was a composite index, defining 17 distresses
for asphalt-surfaced pavements and 16 distresses for PCC
pavements. The standard provided instructions for identifying
and measuring each distress type. Table 2 and Table 3 list
each distress in the PCI system and identify the effect of each
distress on serviceability. As shown, all distresses defined in
the PCI system reduce to FOD, skid potential, roughness, or
some combination of the three.
Color was not one of the proposed components of
serviceability, but three PCI distresses reference color as part
of the definition:
• Jet Blast Erosion Jet blast erosion causes darkened
areas on the pavement where bituminous binder has
been burned or carbonized.
• Oil Spillage A stain is not a distress unless material has
been lost or binder has been softened.
• Weathering Loss [in] the fine aggregate mix is
noticeable and may be accompanied by fading of the
asphalt color.
Examination of these definitions indicates that color does not
affect the condition of the pavement, but color is an indicator
of the extent of the distress. In each case, the detrimental
property of each distress (lost or damaged material) is
associated with a color change. The color itself is unimportant
except to indicate to the inspector to examine the discolored
pavement for a particular type of distress and is therefor not a
component of serviceability.
Findings
Regulatory guidance, textbooks on pavement management,
research literature, and airfield pavement condition indices
were reviewed to verify FOD, skid potential, and roughness
are necessary and sufficient to describe airport pavement
serviceability. The literature indicated that measurement of
these properties is necessary to determine airport pavement
serviceability. Several documents discussed the use of
pavement structural capacity in pavement management, but
in the context of predicting deterioration rates or future
condition. Structural capacity is thus not necessary to describe
airport pavement condition, but is required to estimate airport
pavement performance. Pavement color was used to describe
several distresses in the PCI system, but the color change
merely helps identify the extent of the distress and is not
an inherent problem. Pavement color is thus not necessary
to describe airport pavement condition. No other potential
components were identified by the literature review, indicating
that FOD, skid potential, and roughness are both necessary
and sufficient to describe airport pavement condition.

Prepared using TRR.cls

Parsons and Murrell 7

Table 2. Aspects of serviceability affected by asphalt distresses. Reference (2 ) except as indicated.

Serviceability
Distress Comment
Component
Alligator Cracking κ, τ Spalling (FOD) is part of the definition.
Block Cracking κ, τ FOD potential is part of the definition.
Bleeding µ “Bleeding should be noted when it is extensive enough to
cause a reduction in skid resistance” (9)
Corrugation τ “Ride quality” is part of the definition.
Depression µ, τ “Depressions cause roughness and when filled with water of
sufficient depth, could cause hydroplaning of aircraft.”
Jet Blast κ FOD potential is part of the definition.
Joint Reflection Cracking κ, τ FOD potential is part of the definition.
L&T Cracking κ, τ FOD potential is part of the definition.
Oil Spillage κ FOD is implied by the statement “if no material has been
lost, do not record.”
Patching κ, µ, τ Ride quality, hydroplaning, and FOD are all referenced in the
distress definition.
Polished Aggregate µ “There are no rough or angular aggregate particles to provide
good skid resistance.”
Raveling κ FOD potential is part of the definition.
Rutting µ, τ Friction issue from hydroplaning if ruts hold water.
Shoving κ, τ Roughness and “breakup of the pavement” are part of the
definition.
Slippage Cracking κ, τ Loose pieces visible in example image in ASTM D5340.
Swelling τ “Ride quality” and roughness are part of the
definition.
Weathering κ Wearing away of the pavement surface “leading to potential
or some loss of coarse aggregate.”

Table 3. Aspects of serviceability affected by PCC distresses. Reference (2 ).

Serviceability
Distress Comment
Component
Blowup κ, τ Roughness and “foreign material” are part of the definition.
Corner Break κ, τ FOD potential and faulting are part of the definition.
LTD Crack κ FOD potential is part of the definition.
“Tire damage potential” referenced in relation to crack width.
Durability Crack κ FOD potential is part of the definition.
Joint Seal Damage κ FOD potential is part of the definition.
Small Patch κ FOD potential is part of the definition.
Large Patch κ, τ FOD potential and roughness are part of the definition.
Popouts κ FOD potential is part of the definition.
Pumping κ, τ Definition references material on pavement surface.
Scaling κ FOD potential is part of the definition.
Settlement and Faulting τ “Severity levels are defined by the difference
in elevation across the fault and the associated
decrease in ride quality and safety as severity increases.”
Shattered Slab κ, τ Shattered slabs are intersecting L&T
cracks and therefore have the same concerns.
Shrinkage Crack κ Similar to low-severity LTD crack.
Joint Spall κ, τ FOD potential is part of the definition.
“Tire damage potential” is referenced.
Corner Spall κ FOD potential is part of the definition.
Alkali-Silica Reaction κ FOD potential is part of the definition.

Prepared using TRR.cls

8 Transportation Research Record XX(X)
Form of Model
Development of a New Formulation of SL
As initially proposed, SL was a linear combination of three
weighted components existing on a 0-to-100 scale, as shown
in Equation 1. Researchers identified two main issues with the
proposed form.
First, the weighting factors must be calibrated. Calibration
against PCI is an obvious candidate since it is well established,
covers all the effective distresses, and is on a 0-to-100 scale.
However, calibrating against PCI would result in an index not
appreciably different from PCI. Calibrating against a set of
indices like PCI, roughness, and skid indicators is essentially
recreation of the PCI deduct curves. Neither option advances
the science of pavement management.
Second, the corollary to SL = 100 when SLR = SLS =
SLF = 100 is SL = 0 (failed) when any single component
is zero (failed). Linear combination of three 0-to-100 indices
into a single 0-to-100 index cannot satisfy both at the same
time:
• Selecting a form that enabled SL = 100 when SLR =
SLS = SLF = 100 often meant that setting one of the
indicators to failed did not result in SL = 0. The overall
index indicating a degraded but serviceable pavement
when one indicator is sufficient to make the pavement
not serviceable by itself was logically inconsistent.
• Selecting a form such that setting one of the components
to failed always results in SL = 0 often resulted in
SL > 100 when none of the components were failed.
The range of the model could be artificially restricted
through use of piece-wise functions, but the need to
introduce an arbitrariness to the model indicates it likely
was not a good representation of reality.
• Some coefficients produced a logical inconsistency in
pavements with certain combinations of two effective
distresses where increasing one distress would result
in a higher SL (more serviceable pavement) than the
pavement with less distress.
Since a set of 0-to-100 indices did not appear feasible,
researchers generalized the criteria from Brill and Parsons
(1) in order to explore alternate forms for combining the
components:
• SL should indicate perfect serviceability when all
components indicate no defects.
• SL should decrease if any distress or set of distresses
increases.
• SL should indicate the pavement is not serviceable if
any single component, by itself, renders the pavement
not serviceable.
These criteria pointed to a form that is multiplicative on a 0-to-
1 scale, not a linear combination. A 0-to-1 scale immediately
suggested a probabilistic approach. A probabilistic approach
Prepared using TRR.cls
had several advantages over linear combination including that
combination of probabilities of events is well understood
and rendering SL in terms of probability provides it with
a real-world meaning. It could likely be integrated into a
probability-based airport risk management system, allowing
pavement to compete for funding on equal grounds with other
infrastructure, safety, and security projects.
A probabilistic approach is in line with PSR. PSR is an
index (quantification of serviceability) based on expert user
opinion. Along with assigning a numeric PSR rating, the
expert users separately categorized each section as acceptable
or unacceptable. Carey and Irick determined that on average
50% of the raters considered a pavement with a PSR of 2.4
to be unacceptable. A PSR value of 2.4 is therefor an implicit
fixed probability p = 0.5 that a user will find the pavement
unserviceable. (15) The proposed probabilistic formulation of
SL expands on this concept by reporting the actual probability
a user will find the pavement unserviceable instead of an
arbitrary index. It allows the owner to set their own risk
threshold. For example, a 50% probability a pavement is
unserviceable may be adequate for an application like a
roadway. An airfield application, where unserviceability may
be a life-safety issue, could require a much lower probability
of unserviceability.
The values of κ, µ, and τ were taken to be probabilities
associated with FOD, skid potential (friction), and roughness,
respectively. The initial assumption was κ was the probability
of FOD damage, µ was the probability of an issue due to
friction, and τ was the probability of an issue due to roughness.
SL = 0 was assumed to indicate pavement failure and SL = 1
to indicate perfect pavement. Since κ = µ = τ = 0 indicates
no risk and thus perfect pavement, it should result in SL = 1,
leading to Equation 2:
SL = 1 − κ × µ × τ (2)
However, Equation 2 has an issue in that all three effective
distresses must be present for serviceability to decrease.
For example, a pavement with κ = 0.1, µ = 0.1, and τ = 0
(FOD and skid potential, but no roughness) would result in
SL = 1 − (0.1 × 0.1 × 0) = 1 or perfectly serviceable.
Examination of the model revealed that the issue was
a mismatch between the model definition (0=failed, 1.0 =
excellent) and the mathematical definition of the component
terms as the probability of an issue, i.e., the probability the
pavement is not serviceable. Using FOD as the example:
κ = 0 → P (unserviceable due to F OD) = 1.0 (3)
κ = 1 → P (unserviceable due to F OD) = 0.0 (4)
When expressed this way, the obvious issue was that the
definitions are inverted. Changing the definition of the index
such that the components are the probability the pavement is
not unserviceable due to a specific cause results in:
Parsons and Murrell
κ = 0 → P (not unserviceable due to F OD) = 0.0 (5)
κ = 1 → P (not unserviceable due to F OD) = 1.0 (6)
or for all three components:
κ = P (not unserviceable due to F OD) (7)
µ = P (not unserviceable due to skid potential) (8)
τ = P (not unserviceable due to roughness) (9)
Redefining the components of SL this way, SL becomes
the intersection of the three components, i.e., the probability of
not encountering FOD and not skidding and not encountering
roughness on this pavement:
SL = κ ∩ µ ∩ τ (10)
This is calculated via the multiplication rule (19) as:
SL = P (κ|µ, τ ) × P (µ|τ ) × P (τ ) (11)
Continuing to assume independence of the components as
posited in Brill and Parsons (1), this reduces to:
SL = κ × µ × τ (12)
This formulation of SL can be conceptualized as the
probability the passengers and crew of an aircraft will consider
the pavement serviceable. The key to the formulation is
calculating the probability of success, not failure.
Equation 12 defines serviceability level as the total
probability the pavement meets user expectations during an
aircraft movement. It fulfils all of the general criteria: Failure
due to any effective distress results in failure of the pavement,
increasing distresses result in decreased serviceability, and
there are no mathematical oddities such as probabilities greater
than one or less than zero.
Implications of a Probabilistic Formulation of SL
The practical effect of defining condition as the probability
function of FOD, friction, and roughness is that condition
measurements and prediction models can be developed
independently for each of these components, or even specific
distresses that cause these issues. In effect, prediction models
for overall pavement condition can be built up from a series
of simpler models using the laws of probability.
Condition Measurement Equation 12 treats each component
of serviceability independently, meaning they can be
calculated and modeled separately then combined to determine
the overall SL. The concept can be extended to decompose
each component even further to solve some longstanding
issues in pavement condition measurement.
For example, research into runway roughness indicates
that users respond to short-wavelength roughness (bumps)
Prepared using TRR.cls
9
differently than they do to long-wavelength roughness (swells
and grade changes). (20) (21) Developing a single index to
reflect both types of roughness has been difficult. Under the
proposed formulation, the solution is to divide roughness τ
into two roughness indices: the probability the pavement is
not unserviceable due to short-wavelength roughness (τs ) and
the probability the pavement is not unserviceable due to long-
wavelength roughness (τl ). The overall roughness index is
the probability that the pavement is not unserviceable due
to either is τ = τs ∩ τl . If the two types of roughness are
independent, this reduces to τ = τs τl and total serviceability
becomes SL = κµτs τl . This can be generalized into:
n
Y
SL = κi µi τi (13)
i=1
where κi , µi , and τi are the probabilities of independent
pavement issue i not causing FOD, skid potential, or roughness
serviceability issues, respectively, and n is the number of
issues.
Alternatively, the EA provides curves to convert FOD Index
into FOD Potential Rating for three aircraft classes. Which
FOD Potential Rating to report is determined by the most
restrictive aircraft class likely to use that pavement. With a
probabilistic approach, how often each type of aircraft uses
the pavement can be considered when calculating risk:
m
X SLj dj
SL = (14)
j=1
D
where SL is the total probability that all aircraft using the
pavement will find it serviceable, m is the number of aircraft,
SLj is the probability aircraft j will find the pavement
serviceable, d is the number of passes of aircraft j, and D
is the total passes of aircraft. This allows calculating the total
probability the pavement is unserviceable P(unserviceable) =
1 − SL based on the traffic mix instead of using the most
restrictive case. This approach allows SL to account for
differing aircraft responses, such as the fact that pilots of
B737 and A380 aircraft will experience different vertical
accelerations as a result of the same runway profile and that
different aircraft have different braking characteristics.
Combining Equations 13 and 14 provides the general
equation for an arbitrary number of aircraft types and
pavement issues:
m Y
X n
dj
SL = κij µij τij (15)
j=1 i=1
D
Techniques already exist to determine values for τ and µ.
Research has shown that users find a pavement not serviceable
due to roughness approximately 90% of the time when they
experience an acceleration of 0.4G. (22) The roughness
limits for the FAA Runway Roughness Index are ultimately
based on the percentage of pilots that are likely to find a
10
runway unsatisfactory based on RMS acceleration at the
pilot station. (23) These could be used to estimate τ from
a measured profile. For example, if a runway profile causes
a 0.4G acceleration, the roughness component can be set to
τ = 1.0 − 0.9 = 0.1 probability users will find the pavement
acceptable. The probability of losing directional control due
to friction characteristics has also been well studied and can
be used to estimate µ. However, there does not appear to
be a relationship between cracking or other distresses and
the probability of FOD to an aircraft. An observational study
indicated that FOD requiring maintenance occurs at a rate of
approximately 128 incidents per 100,000 aircraft movements.
Of these, 11.5% of engine FOD incidents are related to
concrete or bitumen (24), but the study does not discuss
the specific probability of a FOD incident from a particular
distress. Further research is needed in this area.
Condition Prediction and Performance The ability to
separate condition into as many sub-indices as needed has
similar impact on condition modeling. The model does not
need to be an all-encompassing model, but rather a set
of smaller, sufficiently independent models. Some models
already exist and could likely be used to predict SL with
little or no modification. For example, the FAA rigid design
procedure predicts crack quantities for a specific pavement at a
specific time based on pavement structure and expected traffic.
Once crack quantities are known, κ (the FOD component of
SL) can be calculated.
In the example above, the cracking/FOD model depends
on nothing but the structure of the pavement and the traffic
applied to the pavement. There are also cracking models that
depend on pavement properties and temperature. Continuing
to assume independence, the probability of FOD from
cracking from each source could be calculated independently
then combined. This could then be extended to FOD from
non-cracking sources to determine the overall probability of
failure due to FOD. Developing each new model for a new
subcomponent would not require recalibrating any existing
models. Potential models are listed in Table 4. The expectation
is that each of these sub models would be easier to develop
and likely more accurate than a comprehensive model. They
could also be divided further if needed, e.g., divide FOD
due to temperature cracking into L&T cracking and shoving
components.
Conclusions
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is developing
new design procedures to extend airport pavement life beyond
20 years. A key element is a new distress “mega-index”
whose components are intended to represent independent
components of airport pavement serviceability: low Foreign
Object Damage (FOD) potential, low skid potential, and
smoothness. Researchers reviewed regulations, guidance, and
literature for pavement management plus existing pavement
Prepared using TRR.cls
Transportation Research Record XX(X)
condition measurements. All manifestations of pavement
distresses described in the literature affected one of these three
components of airport pavement serviceability. FOD potential,
skid potential, and roughness are necessary and sufficient to
describe airport pavement serviceability.
Structural capacity was addressed in most of the documents
reviewed, but in the context of pavement performance.
Structural capacity is not necessary to determine the
instantaneous condition of the pavement, but is required to
estimate the future condition (performance) of the pavement.
A new probabilistic definition of SL (Equation 15) was
developed based on the probability of distress not interfering
with the expected use of the pavement. The formulation
works because it calculates the probability a pavement is
serviceable, not unserviceable. The new definition is logically
and mathematically consistent. It also has a real-world
meaning, as opposed to being a contrived value.
The expected risk to an aircraft from a pavement can be
calculated as P (risk) = 1 − SL. This risk can be used as
an input into probability-based risk management systems to
compete for resources with other infrastructure, safety, and
security projects.
The proposed definition is predicated on the independence
of the components FOD, skid potential, and smoothness.
Further research is required to verify this assumption.
Recommendations
The concepts behind SL are in their infancy. Further validation
and definition is needed to put the concepts into practice.
Once validated and defined, additional steps will be necessary
to make SL useful to airfield pavement practitioners and
executives. Specific recommendations include:
• Verify independence of the effective distresses FOD,
friction, and roughness.
• Clarify the definition(s) of “serviceable” for each
effective distress. For example, is the expectation of
serviceability related to FOD “no debris present on the
pavement”, “debris does not impact the aircraft”, or
“debris does not damage the aircraft”? Each of these
has a different probability given the same debris field.
This may also involve identifying different expectations
or distress modes, such as the example of short- and
long-wavelength roughness.
• Identify quantifiable pavement distresses that allow
estimation of the relevant probabilities. Continuing with
the FOD example, should pavement inspections use
debris-generating distress quantity to estimate FOD
potential, or is the directly measured quantity of debris
on the pavement a better estimator property?
• Calibrate the models that convert each distress to a FOD,
friction, or roughness probability. These probability
models can be thought of as roughly analogous to
deduct curves in the PCI system. This may require input
Parsons and Murrell 11

Table 4. Potential component models.

Predict Due To Potential Inputs
FOD Traffic Pavement Structure, Traffic
FOD Temperature Cracking Material Properties, Temperature
FOD Disintegration Material Properties, Moisture, Solar Radiation
FOD Spalling Slab Geometry, Temperature
Friction Rubber Build-up Traffic Passes
Friction Hydroplaning Grade, Grooving, Rainfall, Landing Speed
Friction Polishing Traffic Passes, Material Properties
Roughness Environmental Cracking Climate, Material Properties
Roughness Fatigue Cracking Pavement Structure, Traffic
Roughness Depression/Swell Subgrade Properties, Aircraft Response
Roughness Grade Change Grade, Aircraft Response
Roughness Rutting Material Properties, Traffic, Temperature

and data from those outside the pavement community, Declaration of conflicting interests
e.g., FOD detection system or engine maintenance
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
records.
• Determine if probability models are specific to location
(similar to developing PCI deterioration curves for each
Funding
airfield) or can be generalized by aircraft type, pavement
surface, military/civilian, etc. No external funding was obtained for this effort.

The products of the recommended research will provide

a complete airfield pavement serviceability measurement
system. Estimating pavement performance (i.e., future
serviceability and condition) will likely require developing
models to predict the distresses that are inputs to the
probability models. Researchers assume predicting future
distress quantities (cracking, raveling, etc.) will be easier than
directly estimating the future values of the probabilities that
make up SL.
Authors’ Note
This research addresses an ongoing FAA research effort; however,
it was conducted independently from the FAA. The contents of the
paper reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the
facts and accuracy of the data presented within. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the official views and policies of the FAA. The
paper does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Acknowledgements
The technical contributions of Mr. Richard Speir, Mr. Brian Aho,
Dr. Jim Hall of ARA and Dr. David Brill of FAA are gratefully
acknowledged by the authors.
Author Contributions
The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study
conception and design: T. Parsons; data collection: T. Parsons;
analysis and interpretation of results: T. Parsons; draft manuscript
preparation: T. Parsons, S. Murrell. All authors reviewed the results
and approved the final version of the manuscript.
References
1. Brill, D. and T. A. Parsons. Development of New FAA Design
Procedures for Extended Airport Pavement Life. In Proceedings
of the 10th International Conference on the Bearing Capacity
of Roads, Railways and Airfields (A. Loizos, I. Al-Qadi, and
T. Scarpas, eds.). Taylor and Francis, Athens, 2017, pp. 1611–
1618. doi:10.1201/9781315100333-232.
2. ASTM. Standard Test Method for Airport Pavement Condition
Index Surveys. In D 5340-20. ASTM, West Conshohocken,
2020, p. .
3. AFCESA. Pavement Engineering Assessment (EA) Standards.
Tyndall Air Force Base, 2004.
4. 14 CFR §139. Certification of Airports, 2004.
5. FAA. Airport Pavement Management Program. In Advisory
Circular 150/5380-7B. Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, DC, 2014, p. .
6. FAA. Measurement, Construction, and Maintenance of Skid
Resistant Airport Pavement Surfaces. In Advisory Circular
150/5320-12C. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington,
DC, 1997, p. .
7. AFCESA. Pavement Engineering Assessment Standards.
Tyndall Air Force Base, 1999.
8. AFCESA. Pavement Engineering Assessment Standards.
Tyndall Air Force Base, 2002.
9. Shahin, M. Y. Pavement Management for Airports, Roads, and
Parking Lots. Kluwer, Boston, 1994.
10. Shahin, M. Y., M. J. Darter, and S. D. Kohn. Development
of a Pavement Maintenance Management System, Volume I:

Prepared using TRR.cls

 12 Transportation Research Record XX(X)

Airfield Pavement Condition Rating. Tech. Rep. CEEDO-TR-77- 2009/12/the-economic-cost-of-fod.PDF.

44, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign,
1977.
11. Garg, N., E. Guo, and R. McQueen. Operational Life of Airport
Pavements. Tech. Rep. DOT/FAA/AR-04/46, Federal Aviation
Administration, Washington, DC, 2004.
12. Hachiya, Y. Actual Surface Condition of Airport Pavement.
Tech. Rep. 634, The Port and Harbor Research Institute, 1988.
Translated January 2013, Federal Research Division, Library of
Congress.
13. Kanazawa, H., K. Su, T. Noguchi, Y. Hachiya, and M. Nakano.
Evaluation of Airport Runway Pavement Based on Pilots’
Subjective Judgement. International Journal of Pavement
Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2010, pp. 189–195.
14. Hase, M. and G. Rajewski. New Ways of Maintenance: Example
Frankfurt Airport Maintenance Planning and Determining
Remaining Working Life. In Airfield and Highway Pavement
2013: Sustainable and Efficient Pavements (I. Al-Qadi and
S. Murrell, eds.). American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
2013, pp. 691–703.
15. W. N. Carey, J. and P. E. Irick. The Pavement Serviceability-
Performance Concept. Highway Research Board bulletin, Vol. ,
No. No. 250, 1959, pp. pp. 40–58.
16. Jackson, R. D. Condition Survey: Westover Air Force Base,
Massachusetts. Tech. Rep. S-73-41, Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, 1973. URL https://digital.
library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc303998/.
17. ASTM. Standard Test Method for Airport Pavement Condition
Index Surveys. In D 5340-98. ASTM, West Conshohocken,
1998, p. .
18. ASTM. Standard Test Method for Airport Pavement Condition
Index Surveys. In D 5340-12. ASTM, West Conshohocken,
2012, p. .
19. Montgomery, D. C. and G. C. Runger. Applied Statistics and
Probability for Engineers. 1st ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1994.
20. FAA. Guidelines and Procedures for Measuring Airfield
Pavement Roughness. In Advisory Circular 150/5380-9. Federal
Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, 2009, p. .
21. Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Airport Technology
Organization (B-B210). Runway Roughness Measurement,
Quantification, and Application: The Boeing Method. Tech.
Rep. D6-81746, Boeing Aircraft Company, 1995.
22. Ferrito, J. M. and J. B. Forrest. Effects of Pavement Roughness
on Naval Air Operations. Tech. Rep. Technical Report TR-846,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Port Hueneme, CA,
1976.
23. Kuncas, A. New Index Testing and Verification - Runway
Roughness Index. Tech. Rep. DOT/FAA/TC-21/32, Federal
Aviation Administration, Aviation Research Division, Atlantic
City International Airport, NJ, 2021.
24. McCreary, I. The Economic Cost of FOD to Airlines. Tech. rep.,
The F.O.D. Control Corporation, Dallas, TX, 2008. URL http:
//fod-detection.com/wp-content/uploads/

Prepared using TRR.cls

View publication stats