applied
sciences
Article
Development of Korea Airport Pavement Condition Index for
Panel Rating
Nam-Hyun Cho 1 , Hong-Joon Kwon 2 , Young-Chan Suh 3 and Jangrak Kim 4, *
Citation: Cho, N.-H.; Kwon, H.-J.;
Suh, Y.-C.; Kim, J. Development of
Korea Airport Pavement Condition
Index for Panel Rating. Appl. Sci.
2022, 12, 8320. https://doi.org/
10.3390/app12168320
Academic Editor: Sungchul Yang
Received: 27 July 2022
Accepted: 17 August 2022
Published: 19 August 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8320. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12168320
1 Airport Research Institute, Incheon International Airport Corporation, Jung-gu, Incheon 22382, Korea
2 Department of Highway & Transportation Research, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building
Technology, Goyang-si 10223, Korea
3 Department of Transportation & Logistics Engineering, College of Engineering Sciences, ERICA Campus,
Hanyang University, Ansan-si 15588, Korea
4 SOC Business Department, ROADTECH, Ansan-si 15588, Korea
* Correspondence: jaksal93@hanmail.net; Tel.: +82-10-2843-2127
Abstract: Airports strive to prevent safety issues, such as foreign object debris (FOD), by pavement
management using the pavement condition index (PCI). The index is used in decision-making
processes for overall pavement maintenance and repair, such as the prevention of additional damage
due to cracks and the like. However, considering the current situation in Korea where mostly mid-
sized and large commercial airports exist, problems regarding direct applications of the existing
PCI deduct value have been consistently pointed out. In addition, as the relationship between the
PCI and whether maintenance and repair are required is unrealistic, there have been difficulties in
communication between maintenance and repair staff and decision makers. Therefore, to resolve
these problems, this study first analyzed the calculation procedure of the existing PCI and then
redefined the main distress type of Korean airport pavements. In addition, a deduct value curve
(DVC) in terms of the severity level for six main distress factors of asphalt pavements and eight
main distress factors of concrete pavements and a corrected deduct value curve (CDVC) for multiple
distresses in terms of the pavement form were developed using panel rating, which is an engineering
approach, by forming an airport pavement expert panel. Finally, a Korea airport pavement condition
index (KPCI) was proposed using the curves, and the field application results were compared against
the existing PCI to examine the adequacy of the KPCI. As a result, the developed criteria showed
an overall trend lower than existing PCI. Moreover, it was verified that this trend increases with
worsening pavement condition. It appears that a more discriminating evaluation may be possible
when determining pavement conditions by PCI results of the developed criteria.
Keywords: pavement condition index; Korea airport pavement condition index; panel rating; deduct
value; corrected deduct value
1. Introduction
The pavement condition index (PCI) is a quantitative index for evaluating pavement
conditions which has been used in airport pavement management systems (APMS) since
the early 1980s [1]; numerous airports in Korea and other countries have evaluated pave-
ments using this index. The index has provided sound engineering data for pavement
conditions and has particularly been used for preventing potential problems, such as for-
eign object debris (FOD), such as shown in Figure 1, and in decision-making processes for
overall pavement maintenance and repair such as the prevention of additional damage
due to cracks and the like. In particular, FOD may be an element of debris due to dis-
tress on the pavement surface, it is very important to maintain an appropriate pavement
condition through evaluation. Ensuring proper maintenance of airport pavement and
technical parameters is one of the key factors for ensuring operational safety in the ground
maneuvering sector in terms of aircraft–airport surface contact [2].
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 15

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8320 2 of 15

technical parameters is one of the key factors for ensuring operational safety in the ground
maneuvering sector in terms of aircraft–airport surface contact [2].

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure1.1.Example
Exampleshowing
showingpotential
potentialofofFOD
FODdue
duetoto
pavement distress
pavement and
distress repair;
and (a)(a)
repair; High FOD
High FOD
potential,
potential,(b)
(b)low
lowFOD
FODpotential.
potential.

However,
However, Broten and and Sombre
Sombre[3] [3]pointed
pointedout out potential
potential problems
problems andand limitations
limitations when
when
it comes it comes
to thetoapplicability
the applicability of theofPCI
the calculation
PCI calculation procedure
procedure in accordance
in accordance withwith the
the differ-
differences
ences between between the environment
the environment at theattime
the time of development
of development and the andcurrent
the current environ- In
environment.
ment. In particular,
particular, it is pointed it is out
pointed out decreases
that PCI that PCI decreases after maintenance.
after maintenance. Sun et al.Sun et al. [4] a
[4] classified
classified
total of 13adistress
total oftypes13 distress types bythe
by combining combining
patching sizethe patching
classification sizeand classification
spalling locationand
spalling location classification among the 15 distress types
classification among the 15 distress types classified in ASTM D 5340. And a new PCI classified in ASTM D 5340. And
acalculation
new PCI calculation
method and method and a corrected
a corrected deduct valuededuct value
curve curve (CDVC)
(CDVC) for multiple for multiple
distresses
distresses
was developed, was developed,
though the though
deductthevalue
deduct value(DVC)
curve curve was
(DVC) usedwaswithout
used without mod-
modifications.
ifications.
Jackson [5] Jackson
considered[5] considered
the limitation the limitation of being
of being unable unable toconsider
to properly properly consider
current cur-
pavement
rent pavement
distresses distressesthe
in adjusting in adjusting
distress types the distress
used for types
PCIused for PCIor
evaluation evaluation
when placing or when more
placing
weightsmore weights
on main on main distresses.
distresses.
Various
Various studies
studies have been conducted conducted to to overcome
overcomethese theselimitations.
limitations.First, First,the theVirginia
Vir-
ginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) developed its
Department of Transportation (VDOT) developed its own new pavement condition indica- own new pavement condition
indicators
tors basedbased on theon the existing
existing PCI [6]. PCIAn[6]. An Italian
Italian study conducted
study conducted a similar a similar
procedure procedure
[7]. They
[7].
addedThey twoadded
typestwo types ofand
of distress distress and developed
developed a new density/deductive
a new density/deductive curve to curve apply to it to
apply it to their
their needs needs andsurface
and pavement pavement surfaceIncondition.
condition. addition, In addition,
in India in India
[8], road [8], road
pavement eval-
pavement
uation methods evaluationbasedmethods based on
on the Overall the Overall
Pavement Pavement
Status Index (OPCI) Status haveIndexbeen (OPCI) have
developed.
been developed.
The OPCI model The OPCI model
includes includes four
four indicators: indicators:
pavement pavement
distress index, distress
surface index, sur-
roughness
face
index,roughness
pavement index, pavement
structural structural
capacity index,capacity
and skid index, and skid resistance.
resistance.
InInaddition,
addition,it ithas hasbeenbeen found
found thatthatthe the
ratings of the
ratings ofexisting
the existingPCI developed
PCI developed for air-for
ports of various scales in the United States showed significant
airports of various scales in the United States showed significant differences considering differences considering the
management
the management levelslevels
of Korean airports,
of Korean whichwhich
airports, mainlymainly
consistconsist
of mid-sized and large
of mid-sized andcom-large
mercial
commercial airports [9]. As
airports [9].aAsresult of compared
a result of compared andandexamined
examined deduct
deduct valuesvalues(DV) (DV)in terms
in terms
of
ofthe
thedistress
distresstotoverify
verifythatthatthethePCI
PCIdecreases
decreasesafteraftermaintenance
maintenance andand repair
repairif block
if block cracks
cracks
of
ofaalowlowseverity
severitylevellevelwith
witha adistress
distress density
densityofofapproximately
approximately 25% 25%or orhigher
higher arearepatched.
patched.
Moreover,
Moreover,they theypointed
pointedout outthetheunreasonable
unreasonableproblem problem where
where the pavement
the pavement condition
condition was was
satisfactory
satisfactoryeven eventhough
thoughmaintenance
maintenanceand andrepair
repairwere
wererequired.
required. ThisThis is is
believed
believed to to
be be
because
becauseofofthe thecommunication
communicationproblems problemsbetweenbetweenthe maintenance
the maintenance andand repair
repair staff and
staff and
decision
decisionmakersmakers[10]. [10].This
Thisstudy
studywas wasconducted
conducted totoresolve
resolve these
these problems
problems and and to to
develop
develop
an
anairport
airportPCI PCIsuitable
suitablefor forKorean
Koreancircumstances.
circumstances.Accordingly,
Accordingly, wewe analyzed
analyzed thetheexisting
existing
PCI
PCIcalculation
calculationprocedure,
procedure,redefined
redefinedthe themain
maindistresses
distresses ofof Korean
Korean airport
airport pavements
pavements byby
forming
formingan anairport
airportpavement
pavementexpert expertpanel,panel,andandnewly
newlydeveloped
developed a DVC
a DVC and anda CDVC
a CDVC
using
usingthe thepanel
panelrating,
rating,which
whichisisan anengineer’s
engineer’sexperience
experience approach.
approach. Moreover,
Moreover, thethefield
field
application
applicationresults resultswere werecompared
comparedand andexamined
examined against
against thethe existing
existing PCIPCI to toensure
ensure thethe
adequacy of the Korea airport pavement condition index (KPCI), which is calculated using
the curves.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8320 3 of 15

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Background
Assuming a condition without distresses as a maximum of 100 [11,12], the PCI is
calculated by subtracting the deduct value (DV), which is a function of the distress type,
severity, and density on the pavement surface using Equation (1). In case of multiple
distresses, a corrected value is calculated [13,14].
p mi
PCI = C − ∑ ∑a


Ti , Sj , Dij F(t, d) (1)
i=1 i=1

Here, PCI is the pavement condition index,
C is a constant depending on the desired
maximum scale value (100), and a Ti , Sj , Dij is the deduct weighing value depending on
the distress type (Ti ), level of severity (Sj ), and density of distress (Dij ). i, j, and p are the
counter for the distress types (i), counter for the severity levels (j), and total number of
distress types for the pavement type under consideration (p), respectively. The number
of severity levels for the i th type of distress are represented by mi , and F(t, d) is an
adjustment factor for multiple distresses that vary with the total summed deduct value (t)
and number of deducts (d).
The PCI calculation is carried out in sample units. The size of an asphalt pavement
is defined to be 464.5 ± 185.8 m2 , and a concrete pavement is assumed to consist of
20 ± 8 slabs [14]. If a given sample unit contains different distress types or different severity
levels but of the same type, they are treated as multiple distresses and an adjustment factor
is applied. A corrected deduct value (CDV) calculation process using the total deduct value
(TDV) and the number (q) of distresses to be considered is then carried out [15,16]. The
TDV is determined by adding all deduct values from each distress condition observed.
And CDV is determined based on the TDV and the number of distress conditions observed
with individual deduct values over five points. The PCI is calculated as in Equation (2).

PCI = 100 − CDV (2)

This PCI calculation enables automatic road analysis, such as ARAN systems [17]. The
system is based on the data on the pavement deterioration obtained during the measure-
ment. The data is collected in the form of photos of the pavement made with cameras and
a three-dimensional image of the pavement obtained as a result of three-dimensional scan-
ning [18]. Unfortunately, the automatically obtained data are then processed manually by
humans, which still affects the quality of information about the actual technical condition
of the assessed pavement. ARAN was also used to collect distress data to find potential
relations with pavement roughness and pavement condition [19].
To overcome the limitations of these analytical techniques, Iranian scientists in their
study [20] presented attempts to develop an alternative method for determining the PCI
using optimization techniques based on artificial neural networks and a genetic algorithm.
The proposed approach may help in the future to reliably extrapolate the PCI index.

2.2. Development Process of KPCI

The development process, shown in Figure 2, was derived in detail by analyzing the def-
initions of the distress types in terms of the pavement form, severity classifications, deduct
values of individual distresses, and CDV calculation procedures for multiple distresses.
The most difficult part in the PCI development process is to determine the DV and
CDV [21]. Ideally, the deduct value must be based on the effects of the distress situa-
tion (type, severity, and density) of a pavement on the structural integrity and operating
conditions of the pavement. However, measuring these effects will require considerable
research efforts for comprehensive field evaluation and analytical or theoretical determi-
nation. However, a reasonable DV that is suitable in all regions can be derived using a
subjective approach based on the collective evaluation of skilled pavement technicians [22].
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8320 4 of 15

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Therefore, 4 of
a panel of 12 members including an experienced professor and experts on 15
the
field of pavement was first formed. Subsequently, a DV was derived by panel rating.

Figure2.2. Development
Figure Development Process
Processof
ofKPCI.
KPCI.

2.3. Pavement
The mostCondition
difficultIndex Rating
part in Scaledevelopment process is to determine the DV and
the PCI
CDVAn [21]. Ideally, criterion
evaluation the deduct value must
classified be basedsubjective
into separate on the effects of theasdistress
categories, listed insituation
Table 1,
(type,
is severity,
required and density)
to determine of a pavement
the definitions on distress
of the the structural
and DV.integrity and operating
This criterion providescon-
a
PCI range
ditions of and
the M&R standard
pavement. using pavement
However, measuring condition rating,
these effects which
will are technical
require considerableindices
re-
required for reasonable
search efforts and subjective
for comprehensive field evaluation
evaluation of andtheanalytical
effect of aorgiven distress.
theoretical The PCI
determina-
range becomes a standard
tion. However, reasonable forDVdetermining the pavement
that is suitable in all regionscondition, and theusing
can be derived M&Ratype
sub-
is determined
jective approach accordingly [23].collective
based on the One of the limitations
evaluation of the pavement
of skilled existing PCI is the lack
technicians of
[22].
practical
Therefore, connection
a panel ofbetween
12 membersthe evaluation
including an results and theprofessor
experienced need for andrepair. Therefore,
experts on the
afield
standard for the was
of pavement pavement condition
first formed. evaluation awas
Subsequently, DVprepared
was derived in advance
by paneltorating.
ensure a
practical connection between the PCI and the need for repair. This paper prepared the
M&R standardCondition
2.3. Pavement in terms Index
of theRating
PCI range
Scaleby incorporating the circumstances in Korea and
results of expert group meetings based
An evaluation criterion classified into on the PCI rating
separate scalescategories,
subjective suggested in as ASTM
listed inD5340,
Table
as
1, listed in Table
is required 1.
to determine the definitions of the distress and DV. This criterion provides
a PCI range and M&R standard using pavement condition rating, which are technical in-
Table 1. PCI Score Rating and M&R Type.
dices required for reasonable and subjective evaluation of the effect of a given distress.
The PCI range becomes a standard for determining the pavement condition,
Maintenance/Rehabilitation (M&R) Typeand the M&R
PCI Range Pavement Condition
type is determined accordingly [23]. OneAsphalt
of thePavement
limitations of the existing
Concrete PCI is the lack
Pavement
of practical connection between the evaluation results and the need Routine for repair. Therefore,
maintenance
Routine maintenance
a standard
90–100 for the pavement
Good condition evaluation
- Crack sealing was prepared in advance
- Crack sealing to ensure a
practical connection between the PCI and the need for repair.Joint replacement
This paper prepared the
M&R standard in terms of the PCI range bymaintenance Routine maintenance
incorporating the circumstances in Korea and
Routine
- Crack sealing
80–89 Fair - Crack sealing
results of expert group meetings based on the PCI rating scales suggested in ASTM D5340,
- Joint replacement
- Patching
as listed in Table 1. Partial section fix
Preventive maintenance Preventive maintenance
Table 1. PCI Score Rating
60–79
and M&R Type.
Caution
- Crack sealing - Crack sealing
- Patching - Joint replacement
Pavement Partial Grind/Overlay Partial
Maintenance/Rehabilitation (M&R)section fix
Type
PCI Range
Condition Asphalt Pavement
Overlay and Grind/Overlay Concrete
Asphalt Pavement
overlay or
40–59 Poor (7.5~10 cm) Grind/Overlay (over 10 cm)
Construction Routine maintenance
Construction
Routine maintenance
90–100
0–39
Good
Very Poor- Crack sealing
Construction
- Crack sealing
Construction
Joint replacement
Routine maintenance Routine maintenance
80–89 Fair - Crack sealing - Crack sealing
- Patching - Joint replacement
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8320 5 of 15

2.4. Definitions of Distress Type and Severity Level

The distress types existing in pavements must be identified and classified to develop a
pavement condition index [13]. Therefore, the APMS data of 15 Korean airports affected by
different environmental and traffic conditions from the past ten years were collected and
analyzed. Based on these data and experiences of pavement experts, the main distresses
were selected.
As a result, six types (alligator cracking, block cracking, joint reflection cracking,
longitudinal and transverse cracking, patching and utility cut patching, and rutting) of
distresses were considered the main distresses. In the case of concrete pavements, spalling
was not classified by location (joint and corner); existing small and large and utility cut
patching was combined into patching, and shrinkage cracking that did not have a separate
severity level criterion was treated with scaling, map cracking, and crazing. Thus, the
similar distresses among the 16 types were combined to yield 13 different types of distresses,
among which eight types (ASR, corner cracking, cracks, durability cracking, intersecting
cracks, patching, scaling, and spalling) were classified as distresses. The targets to be
developed are selected, as listed in Table 2, and ASTM D 5340 was applied to the other
distresses. High (H), medium (M), and low (L) of ASTM D5340 were applied to the distress
severity level.

Table 2. Distress Type of Developed Deduct Value Curve.

Asphalt Pavement Concrete Pavement

Distress Type of Deduct
Value Curve Developed
Alligator Cracking
Block Cracking
Joint Reflection Cracking
Longitudinal and
Transverse Cracking
Patching and Utility Cut
Patching
Rutting
Distress Type of Existing Distress Type of Deduct Distress Type of Existing
Deduct Value Curve Used Value Curve Developed Deduct Value Curve Used
Alkali Silica Reaction (ASR)
Bleeding
Corner Cracking
Corrugation
Cracks; Longitudinal,
Depression
Transverse and Diagonal
Jet-Blast Erosion Blowup
Durability (“D”) Cracking
Oil Spillage Joint Seal Damage
Intersecting Cracks
Polished Aggregate Popouts
Patching, Small, Large and
Raveling Pumping
Utility Cuts
Shoving Settlement or Faulting
Scaling, Map Cracking,
Slippage Cracking
Shrinkage Cracking
Swell
Spalling (Longitudinal and
Weathering
Transverse Joint, Corner)

2.5. Panel Rating

Practical photograph data of each distress type were collected from the PMS data of
the Korean airports. A conclusion was reached that sample units comprising an asphalt
pavement of size 450 m2 and a concrete pavement comprising 18 slabs would provide ade-
quate pavement areas for PCI evaluation, and the calculation was performed by conducting
a preliminary analysis on the collected data with the help of expert discussions.
The sample unit was sufficiently wide for meaningful distress measurement. The
distress density was determined by dividing the surface area of the particular distress
measured for a particular severity level by the total area of the sample unit in case of the
asphalt pavement. As the linear cracking (longitudinal or transverse) is measured in terms
of length (m), the distress area was calculated considering an affected width of 0.3 m to
determine the density. The distress density of the concrete pavement was determined by
dividing the number of slabs with a particular distress of a particular severity level by the
total number of slabs of the sample unit. The evaluation was carried out for five distress
density levels. The distress values of each asphalt pavement were evaluated for levels in
the ranges of 0.1–1.5%, 1.6–4.9%, 5–14.9%, 15–39.9%, and 40–75%, and the distress values of
each concrete pavement were evaluated for density levels of 1/18, 2/18, 4/18, 8/18, and
 length (m), the distress area was calculated considering an affected width of 0.3 m to de-
termine the density. The distress density of the concrete pavement was determined by
dividing the number of slabs with a particular distress of a particular severity level by the
total number of slabs of the sample unit. The evaluation was carried out for five distress
density levels. The distress values of each asphalt pavement were evaluated for levels in
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8320 the ranges of 0.1–1.5%, 1.6–4.9%, 5–14.9%, 15–39.9%, and 40–75%, and the distress values 6 of 15
of each concrete pavement were evaluated for density levels of 1/18, 2/18, 4/18, 8/18, and
12/18. This is based on the fact that sections with a distress density of 80% do not exist in
Korean airports.
12/18. This is based on the fact that sections with a distress density of 80% do not exist in
The panel independently and subjectively carried out the evaluation in accordance
Korean airports.
with the
Therating
panelcriteria, as listed in
independently Table
and 1. The pavement
subjectively carriedcondition rating (PCR)
out the evaluation inevaluated
accordance
by
with the rating criteria, as listed in Table 1. The pavement condition rating (PCR) Consid-
the panel was calculated for each sample unit and for each density level [24]. evaluated
ering
by thethe deviations
panel within for
was calculated theeach
panel, the PCR
sample unit was calculated
and for as moving
each density average
level [24]. (PCR)
Considering
excluding the bottom and top 10 percentiles. Here, moving average (MA) is
the deviations within the panel, the PCR was calculated as moving average (PCR) excluding a traditional
statistical
the bottom method
and topfor10analyzing the Here,
percentiles. trend moving
of time series
averagedata fluctuations,
(MA) whichstatistical
is a traditional can be
used
method for analyzing the trend of time series data fluctuations, which can be in
to predict and smooth data [25]. The MA model removes the anomaly data the to
used
manner of averaging neighboring samples [26]. The average DV was
predict and smooth data [25]. The MA model removes the anomaly data in the manner of calculated using
Equation
averaging(3).neighboring samples [26]. The average DV was calculated using Equation (3).
DV = 100 − PCR (3)
DV = 100 − PCR (3)
where DV is the average DV, the value 100 is a constant depending on the desired max-
imum
wherescale
DV isvalue, and PCR
the average DV,isthe
thevalue 100 isPCR
average excluding
a constant the top and
depending bottom
on the 10 maximum
desired percen-
tiles.
scale value, and PCR is the average PCR excluding the top and bottom 10 percentiles.
Figure
Figure3a3ashows
shows PCR
thethe PCR with respect
with to the
respect to distress density
the distress of severity
density “H” for“H”
of severity con-for
crete pavement
concrete pavementcrackscracks
(longitudinal, transverse,
(longitudinal, and diagonal),
transverse, the average
and diagonal), the(PCR ) exclud-
average (PCR)
ing the topthe
excluding andtopbottom 10 percentiles,
and bottom and theand
10 percentiles, Figure 3b shows
the Figure the DVC,
3b shows whichwhich
the DVC, is a re-is a
gression
regressioncurve
curvepassing through
passing throughthethe
average
averageDV.DV.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure3.3.Example
Exampleshowing
showingPCR,
PCR,DV,
DV,and
andDVC
DVCfor
forlinear
linearcracking inin
cracking concrete pavement;
concrete (a)(a)
pavement; PCRPCR
and
andaverage
averagePCR,
PCR,(b)
(b)average
averagededuct
deductvalue
valueand
anddeduct
deductvalue
valuecurve.
curve.

In case of two or more distress types or severity levels in a pavement, the DVs cannot
simply be added, and the TDV must be adjusted by incorporating the number of deducts
(or the distress types and the levels of severity) and the magnitude of the sum of deduct
values. Such adjustments for multiple distresses were determined by evaluating pavement
sections including two to five distress types or severity levels. The CDV was calculated
using the sum of the DVs calculated using individual DVCs and a corrected value obtained
by subtracting the PCR calculated by the panel rating from 100 for each sample unit.

3. Results
3.1. Deduct Value Curve and Corrected Deduct Value Curve
The numbers of DVCs developed for the three severity levels for each distress type of
six asphalt pavements and eight concrete pavements were 18 and 24, respectively. These
values reflected smooth curve forms passing through each point in the distress density–
average DV plots. Moreover, modeling for the CDVs including two to five distress types
and severity levels was carried out. The DVs lower than 5 were not considered, as they
hardly affect the pavement conditions.

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8320
the severity level and distress density.
In general, the shapes of the curves are important as they indicate relative effects of
the distress density on the pavement conditions. The DV showed an abruptly increasing
trend up to approximately 15% of the distress density; however, this trend was less evi-
dent thereafter. Comparing the developed DVC and the DVC of ASTM D 5340, they
showed largely low or similar values in the “H” and “M” severities and largely high val- 7 of 15
ues in the “L” severity. The higher the density, the higher was the DV of the developed
KPCI in all the three severity levels; however, the DV of the developed KPCI became lower
than that given in ASTM D 5340 as it increased. The differences in the DV between the
Figures 4 and 5 show the distress density with respect to the DV of the asphalt
severity levels were lower than that given in ASTM D 5340. This is because of incorporat-
ing the Koreanfor
pavements six types
airport of distresses,
pavement and level
management of thethat
concrete pavements
takes into for eight
consideration types of
the im-
portance of occurrences of distresses even at low severity, and initial distress manage-dotted
distresses. For comparison purposes, the DVCs of ASTM D 5340 are displayed using
lines. The standard deviation of the DV by the panel rating increases with the increases in
ment.
the severity level and distress density.

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure
Figure4. Comparisons
4. Comparisonsbetween developed
between deductdeduct
developed value curves
valueand ASTM
curves D 5360
and ASTMin asphalt
D 5360pave-
in asphalt
ment; (a) Alligator cracking, (b) block cracking, (c) reflection cracking, (d) longitudinal and trans- and
pavement; (a) Alligator cracking, (b) block cracking, (c) reflection cracking, (d) longitudinal
verse cracking, (e) patching and utility cut patching, (f) rutting.
transverse cracking, (e) patching and utility cut patching, (f) rutting.
 (e) (f)
Figure 4. Comparisons between developed deduct value curves and ASTM D 5360 in asphalt pave-
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8320 8 of 15
ment; (a) Alligator cracking, (b) block cracking, (c) reflection cracking, (d) longitudinal and trans-
verse cracking, (e) patching and utility cut patching, (f) rutting.

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Figure
Figure5. Comparisons
5. Comparisonsbetween developed
betweendeduct value curves
developed and ASTM
deduct valueDcurves
5360 in concrete pave- D 5360 in concrete
and ASTM
ment; (a) Alkali Silica Reaction (ASR), (b) corner cracking, (c) cracks; longitudinal, transverse, and
pavement;
diagonal, (a) Alkali
(d) durability Silica
(“D”) Reaction
cracking, (ASR), cracks,
(e) intersecting (b) corner cracking,
(f) patching, small,(c) cracks;
large, longitudinal, transverse,
and utility
and(g)diagonal,
cuts, scaling, map(d)cracking,
durability (“D”)
shrinkage cracking,
cracking, (e) intersecting
(h) spalling (longitudinalcracks, (f) patching,
and transverse joint, small, large, and
and corner).
utility cuts, (g) scaling, map cracking, shrinkage cracking, (h) spalling (longitudinal and transverse
joint, and corner).
Figures 6 and 7 show the effects of the different distress types of the asphalt pave-
ments and concrete pavements on the DV. The alligator cracking of the asphalt pavements
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8320 9 of 15

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW In general, the shapes of the curves are important as they indicate relative effects 10 of 15of
the distress density on the pavement conditions. The DV showed an abruptly increasing
trend up to approximately 15% of the distress density; however, this trend was less evident
thereafter. Comparing the developed DVC and the DVC of ASTM D 5340, they showed
and the intersecting cracks of the concrete pavements resulted in the highest deduct value.
largely low or similar values in the “H” and “M” severities and largely high values in the
This is due to incorporating the recognition of the panel members participating in the
“L” severity. The higher the density, the higher was the DV of the developed KPCI in all the
panel rating for FOD possibilities when it comes to the alligator cracking and severity of
three severity levels; however, the DV of the developed KPCI became lower than that given
the intersecting cracks.
in ASTM D 5340 as it increased. The differences in the DV between the severity levels were
Although most curves have similar shapes, their effects on the PCI may be very dif-
lower than that given in ASTM D 5340. This is because of incorporating the Korean airport
ferent. For example, the alligator cracking of the asphalt pavements has a significantly
pavement management level that takes into consideration the importance of occurrences of
higher DV than the patching and intersecting cracks of the concrete pavements have a
distresses even at low severity, and initial distress management.
significantly
Figureshigher
6 and 7DV
showthan
thethe spalling.
effects of theMoreover, the curves
different distress typeschange in different
of the asphalt ways
pavements
atandeach severity level. For example, as seen in the scaling, map cracks,
concrete pavements on the DV. The alligator cracking of the asphalt pavements and and shrinkage
cracks of the concrete
the intersecting crackspavements, the DV
of the concrete is low at resulted
pavements the low severity level; deduct
in the highest however, the DV
value. This
isisthe highest
due at the high the
to incorporating severity level. Moreover,
recognition of the panel in members
case of theparticipating
patching of the asphalt
in the panel
pavements, the DVC
rating for FOD is relatively
possibilities whenlower than other
it comes to thedistresses,
alligator and it is found
cracking that an exist-
and severity of the
ing problem where
intersecting cracks. the PCI becomes lower after the distress repair is largely solved.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure
Figure6.6.Developed
Developeddeduct
deduct value
value curves ofofall
alldistress
distresstypes
typesofof asphalt
asphalt pavement
pavement at (a)
at (a) HighHigh Se-
Severity
verity
level,level, (b) Medium
(b) Medium severity
severity level,level, and
and (c) (c) severity
Low Low severity
level.level.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8320 10 of 15

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure
Figure7.7.Developed
Developeddeduct
deduct value curves
curves of
ofall
alldistress
distresstypes
typesofof concrete
concrete pavement
pavement at high
at (a) (a) high se-
severity
verity level, (b) medium severity level, and (c) low severity
level, (b) medium severity level, and (c) low severity level. level.

Figure 8 shows
Although most thecurves
moving average
have CDV
similar with respect
shapes, to the on
their effects TDV forPCI
the a case
may with
be two
very
ordifferent.
more distress types orthe
For example, severity levels
alligator in the asphalt
cracking pavement;
of the asphalt and thehas
pavements CDVC, which is
a significantly
ahigher
regression curvethe
DV than passing through
patching the average cracks
and intersecting CDV. Figures 9 and 10pavements
of the concrete show the CDVChave a
significantly
developed higher
in this DVfor
study than
thethe spalling.
asphalt Moreover,
and concrete the curvesincluding
pavements change intwo
different
to five ways
dis-
at each
tress severity
types level.levels.
or severity For example, as seen in the scaling, map cracks, and shrinkage
cracks of the concrete pavements, the DV is low at the low severity level; however, the DV
is the highest at the high severity level. Moreover, in case of the patching of the asphalt
pavements, the DVC is relatively lower than other distresses, and it is found that an existing
problem where the PCI becomes lower after the distress repair is largely solved.
Figure 8 shows the moving average CDV with respect to the TDV for a case with two
or more distress types or severity levels in the asphalt pavement; and the CDVC, which
is a regression curve passing through the average CDV. Figures 9 and 10 show the CDVC
developed in this study for the asphalt and concrete pavements including two to five
distress types or severity levels.

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8320
Figure 8 shows the moving average CDV with respect to the TDV for a case with two
or more distress types or severity levels in the asphalt pavement; and the CDVC, which is
a regression curve passing through the average CDV. Figures 9 and 10 show the CDVC
developed in this study for the asphalt and concrete pavements including two to11five
of 15 dis-
tress types or severity levels.

Appl. Sci.
Appl. Sci. 2022,
2022, 12,
12, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 12 of
12 of 15
15

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Example
Example of
of the
the developed
developed CDV
CDV for aa case
case with
with two
two or more
more distress
distress types
types or
or severity
severity levels
levels
Figure 8. Example of the developed CDV forfor
a case with two or or
more distress types or severity levels
in the
in the asphalt
asphalt pavements.
pavements.
in the asphalt pavements.

Figure 9.
Figure
Figure 9. Developed
9. Developedcorrected
Developed correcteddeduct
corrected deduct
deduct value
value
value curves
curves for
forfor
curves asphalt
asphalt pavement.
pavement.
asphalt pavement.

Figure
Figure 10. Developed
Figure 10.
10. Developedcorrected
Developed correcteddeduct
corrected deduct
deduct
value curves
value
value
forfor
curves
curves
concrete pavement.
concrete
for concrete pavement.
pavement.

3.2. Evaluation
3.2. Evaluation and
and Field
Field Validation
Validation
3.2.1. Evaluation
3.2.1. Evaluation
The developed
The developed KPCI
KPCI was
was compared
compared and
and examined
examined against
against the
the PCI
PCI calculated
calculated in
in ac-
ac-
cordance with ASTM D 5340 to evaluate its adequacy. To this end, 806 of asphalt pave-
cordance with ASTM D 5340 to evaluate its adequacy. To this end, 806 of asphalt pave-
ments “sample unit” and 392 of concrete pavements “sample unit” of four Korean airports
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8320 12 of 15

3.2. Evaluation and Field Validation

3.2.1. Evaluation
The developed KPCI was compared and examined against the PCI calculated in
accordance with ASTM D 5340 to evaluate its adequacy. To this end, 806 of asphalt
pavements “sample unit” and 392 of concrete pavements “sample unit” of four Korean
airports with secured real image data of the airport pavement surfaces were selected as
targets. The PCI was derived using severity levels by distress of each criterion, deduct
value curves, and corrected deduct value curves. There was no difference in the amount
of distress even when the severity levels were different, as the distress determination is
identical. Therefore, as the distribution of the amount of distress by severity in accordance
with the criterion varies while the total amount of distress is constant and different DVCs
are used, the PCI values also have differences. These results were compared to examine the
overall adequacy of the developed criterion.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 15
3.2.2. Comparison of PCI Calculation Results of ASTM D5340 and KPCI
Figure 10 shows the scattered plots for comparison between the criteria of PCI calcu-
and theresults.
lation The x-axis the
y-axis represents of the
PCIgraph represents
calculated usingthe thePCI KPCI. calculated usingaway
The farther ASTM D 5340
from the
diagonal line, the greater is the difference. The KPCI evaluates the pavement condition the
and the y-axis represents the PCI calculated using the KPCI. The farther away from to
diagonal
be line, the
satisfactory greater is theto
in comparison difference.
the PCI ofThe KPCIDevaluates
ASTM 5340 if athe pavement
point condition
is located to be
in an area
satisfactory
above in comparison
the reference line, andtothe
theopposite
PCI of ASTM
is theDcase
5340 if ifit aispoint
in anisarea
located
belowin the
an area above
reference
the reference
line. As a higherline,PCI
andmeans
the opposite
a moreissatisfactory
the case if itpavement
is in an area below the
condition, as reference
a result ofline.
com-As
a higher PCI means a more satisfactory pavement condition, as a
parison from such a viewpoint, the asphalt pavements, shown in Figure 11a, and the con-result of comparison from
suchpavements,
crete a viewpoint,shown
the asphalt pavements,
in Figure 11b, are shown
evaluatedin Figure
to be mostly 11a, and the concrete
lower than ASTMpavements,
D5340
shown in Figure 11b, are evaluated to be mostly lower
when evaluated by the KPCI. The asphalt pavements were evaluated to be 4.6than ASTM D5340 when evaluated
points
by the KPCI. The asphalt pavements were evaluated to be 4.6 points lower on average,
lower on average, and the concrete pavements 6.9 points lower on average. The trend of
and the concrete pavements 6.9 points lower on average. The trend of being evaluated
being evaluated low became greater with worsening pavement condition and most sensi-
low became greater with worsening pavement condition and most sensitively decreased at
tively decreased at approximately 70.
approximately 70.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure11.
11.Comparisons
Comparisonsof of
PCI between
PCI ASTM
between D 5340
ASTM andand
D 5340 KPCI; (a) asphalt
KPCI; pavement,
(a) asphalt (b) concrete
pavement, (b) con-
pavement.
crete pavement.

4.4.Findings
Findings
Inthis
In thispaper,
paper,the
theKorea
Koreaairport
airportpavement
pavementcondition
conditionindex
indexwas
wasdeveloped
developedby
bydefining
defining
the main distresses of the Korean airports using an engineering-based approach,
the main distresses of the Korean airports using an engineering-based approach, and de- and
deriving the deduct value curve of the main distresses observed in Korea. Following
riving the deduct value curve of the main distresses observed in Korea. Following are the are
the main research results of this
main research results of this paper: paper:
1. Six types (alligator cracking, block cracking, joint reflection cracking, longitudinal
and transverse cracking, patching and utility cut patching, and rutting) of asphalt
pavement distresses were classified as the main distresses of the Korean airports.
Similar distresses among 16 types of concrete pavement distresses were combined to
yield 13 types of distresses. Among them, eight types (ASR, corner cracking, cracks,
durability cracking, intersecting cracks, patching, scaling, and spalling) were classi-
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8320 13 of 15

1. Six types (alligator cracking, block cracking, joint reflection cracking, longitudinal
and transverse cracking, patching and utility cut patching, and rutting) of asphalt
pavement distresses were classified as the main distresses of the Korean airports.
Similar distresses among 16 types of concrete pavement distresses were combined to
yield 13 types of distresses. Among them, eight types (ASR, corner cracking, cracks,
durability cracking, intersecting cracks, patching, scaling, and spalling) were classified
as the main distresses of the Korean airports.
2. The DVC and CDV were derived by the pavement condition rating of the panel for the
main distresses and multiple distresses for each pavement form. When the developed
DVC and the DVC of ASTM D 5340 are compared, the DVCs were largely low or
similar at the “High” and “Medium” severity levels and largely high at the “Low”
severity level. The deduct value of the developed KPCI was higher as the amount of
damage decreases in all three severity levels; however, it was lower than the existing
PCI as the amount of damage increases. Moreover, the difference in the deduct values
at each severity level was lower than the existing PCI. This is considered to be a result
of incorporating the viewpoint of Korean airport pavement managers taking into
consideration the importance of occurrences of distress even at low severity levels;
and initial distress management.
3. As a result of comparing the KPCI and PCI derived in accordance with ASTM D5340,
the developed criteria of the asphalt pavements and concrete pavements showed an
overall trend lower than that obtained by ASTM D5340. Moreover, it was verified
that this trend increases with worsening pavement condition. It appears that a better
discriminating evaluation may be possible when determining pavement conditions
by PCI results of the developed criteria. As a result, the KPCI can be considered
more suitable to derive evaluation results of a wider range than ASTM D5340. The
pavement condition index should be capable of being used for distinguishing between
good and defective and for reasonable determination of superiority and inferiority
even at an equal level from the aspect of criteria required for maintenance and re-
pair determination. The KPCI has this capability, which is favorable for application
in Korea.
4. It is considered that an existing problem where the PCI becomes lower after distress
repair has been largely solved as the DVC is relatively lower than other distresses in
the case of patching of asphalt pavements.

5. Conclusions
Considering that, in the Korean airports examined, most of the distress severity is
distributed at low or medium levels, the effective causes of the difference in the PCI values
of the samples analyzed for each pavement form are: (1) an increase in the severity level of
distress by conservatively adjusting a portion of the determination criterion of the severity
level by distress, and (2) the DV of the developed KPCI calculated to be higher as the
amount of damage decreases in all three severity levels.
In comparison to the existing PCI, the KPCI appears to be capable of a better discrimi-
nating evaluation when determining pavement conditions.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.-H.C. and Y.-C.S.; methodology, Y.-C.S.; validation,

N.-H.C.; formal analysis, N.-H.C. and J.K.; investigation, J.K.; resources & data curation, H.-J.K.;
writing—original draft preparation, N.-H.C.; writing—review and editing, J.K.; visualization, N.-H.C.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8320 14 of 15

Acknowledgments: This paper was carried out by “Development of Construction and Maintenance
Technology for Low-Carbon Green Airport Pavements” carried out by receiving support from the
Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement and research support of the Incheon
International Airport Corporation. We are very grateful for their strong support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Broten, M.; Comer, C.; Muntasir, A. State Airport Pavement Management Practices and the Impact on Pavement Condition.
In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Managing Pavements: The Lessons, The Challenges, The Way Ahead,
Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 19–24 October 2004.
2. Wesołowski, M.; Iwanowski, P. Evaluation of Asphalt Concrete Airport Pavement Conditions Based on the Airfield Pavement
Condition Index (APCI) in Scope of Flight Safety. Aerospace 2020, 7, 78. [CrossRef]
3. Broten, M.; de Sombre, R. The Airfield Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Evaluation Procedure: Advantages, Common Misappli-
cations, and Potential Pitfalls. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Managing Pavements, Seattle, WA, USA,
11–14 August 2001.
4. Sun, L.; Kan, S.; Ji, Y. Evaluation and Rehabilitation Models of Airport Pavement Management System: A Case Study of Shanghai
Pudong International Airport. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Managing Pavements: The Lessons, The
Challenges, The Way Ahead, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 19–24 October 2004.
5. Jackson, N. Development of Revised Pavement Condition Indices for Portland Cement Concrete Pavement for the WSDOT Pavement
Management System; Research Report; Washington State Transportation Center, University of Washington: Seattle, WA, USA, 2008.
6. McGhee, K.H. Development and Implementation of Pavement Condition Indices for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Phase I;
Virginia Department of Transportation: Richmond, VA, USA, 2002.
7. Loprencipe, G.; Pantuso, A. A Specified Procedure for Distress Identification and Assessment for Urban Road Surfaces Based on
PCI. Coatings 2017, 7, 65. [CrossRef]
8. Shah, Y.U.; Jainb, S.; Tiwaric, D.; Jain, M. Development of Overall Pavement Condition Index for Urban Road Network. Procedia
Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 104, 241–332. [CrossRef]
9. An, D.S.; Kwon, S.A.; Suh, Y.C. The Study on Customization for Domestic Application of Micro PAVER. J. Korean Soc. Pavement
Eng. 2003, 5, 21–29.
10. Lee, K.-J.; Seo, Y.-C.; Cho, N.-H.; Park, D.-W. Development of Deduct Value Curves for the Pavement Condition Index of Asphalt
Airfield Pavement. Int. J. Highw. Eng. 2013, 15, 37–44. [CrossRef]
11. ASTM D5340-12; Standard Test Method for Airport Pavement Condition Index Surveys. ASTM International: West Conshohocken,
PA, USA, 2018.
12. ASTM D6433-18; Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys. ASTM International: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018.
13. Shahin, M.Y.; Darter, M.J.; Kohn, S.D. Development of a Pavement Maintenance Management System; Report for Period July 1974–July
1976; Construction Engineering Research Laboratory: Champaign, IL, USA, 1977.
14. Shahin, M.Y. Pavement Management for Airports, Roads, and Parking Lots, 2nd ed.; Springer Science and Business Media:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005.
15. Shahnazari, H.; Tutunchian, M.A.; Mashayekhi, M.; Amini, A.A. Application of Soft Computing for Prediction of Pavement
Condition Index. J. Transp. Eng. 2012, 138, 1495–1506. [CrossRef]
16. Shahin, M.Y.; Stock, C.; Crovetti, M.; Beckberger, L. Effect of Sample Unit Size and Number of Survey Distress Types on the
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for Asphalt-Surfaced Roads. Transp. Res. Rec. 1995, TR96/64, 60–71.
17. Shahin, M.Y.; Schmidt, J.; Burkhalter, J.A.; Keifer, K.A. Pavement Management–PAVER Update. In Proceedings of the 78th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, 10–14 January 1999.
18. Khattak, M.J.; Baladi, G.; Zhang, Z.; Ismail, S. Review of Louisiana’s Pavement Management System: Phase I. Transp. Res. Rec. J.
Transp. Res. Board 2008, 2084, 18–27. [CrossRef]
19. Wesolowski, M.; Iwanowski, P. Evaluation of Natural Airfield Pavements Condition Based on the Airfield Pavement Condition
Index (APCI). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6139. [CrossRef]
20. Cafiso, S.; Di Graziano, A.; Goulias, D.G.; D’Agostino, C. Distress and profile data analysis for condition assessment in pavement
management systems. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 2019, 12, 527–536. [CrossRef]
21. Shahin, M.Y.; Keifer, K.A.; Burkhalter, J.A. Airport Pavement Management: Enhancements to MicroPAVER. Report for US Federal
Aviation Administration Technology Transfer Conference. 2002. Available online: http://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/naptf/att0
7/200%20TRACK%20P.pdf/P-57 (accessed on 25 July 2022).
22. Park, D.W.; Hai, V.V.; Seo, Y.-C.; Kwon, H.-J. Development of Deduct Value Curves for Concrete Pavement based on Panel Rating
Procedures. In Proceedings of the 1st IRF Asia Regional Congress & Exhibition, Bali, Indonesia, 17–19 November 2014.
23. Guidelines and Procedures for Maintenance of Airport Pavements; Advisory Circular 150/5340-6B; FAA AC 150/5340-6B; Federal
Aviation Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8320 15 of 15

24. Pantuso, A.; Loprencipe, G.; Bonin, G.; Teltayev, B.B. Analysis of Pavement Condition Survey Data for Effective Implementation
of a Network Level Pavement Management Program for Kazakhstan. Sustainability 2019, 11, 901. [CrossRef]
25. Shahin, M.Y. Pavement Management—MicroPAVER Update. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Managing
Pavements, Seattle, WA, USA, 11–14 August 2001.
26. Chen, X.; Wu, S.; Shi, C.; Huang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Ke, R.; Zhao, J. Sensing Data Supported Traffic Flow Prediction via Denoising
Schemes and ANN: A Comparison. IEEE Sensors J. 2020, 20, 14317–14328. [CrossRef]