European Journal of Scientific Research

ISSN 1450-216X Vol.30 No.1 (2009), pp.99-111

EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2009
http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm

An Overview of Expert Systems in Pavement Management

Norlela Ismail
Dept. of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional
Selangor, Malaysia Dept. of Civil and Structural Engineering
Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
E-mail: norlelaismail@uniten.edu.my
Amiruddin Ismail
Dept. of Civil and Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and
Built Environment Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Selangor, Malaysia
E-mail: abim@vlsi.eng.ukm.my
Riza Atiq
Dept. of Civil and Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and
Built Environment Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Selangor, Malaysia
E-mail: riza@vlsi.eng.ukm.my
Abstract
The development of expert system, a new information technology derived from
artificial intelligent research, in the area of pavement management has been in existence
since a few decades ago. It was developed to simulate or reproduce intelligent problem
solving behavior in a computer program. The application of expert system for this area is
growing rapidly due to reduction in pavement budgets. This paper provide a brief overview
of current developments and implementation of expert system in pavement management for
both highway and airport networks. Since most of the existing expert system applications
are for highway networks, it is a concern of this paper on the potential development of such
knowledge-based or expert system for analysis and design of airport pavement
rehabilitation strategies. Four important main tasks involved in the activities of pavement
management system are also being discussed in this paper.

Keywords: Expert system, pavement management, airport pavement management system

1. Introduction
Airport and highway networks are one of the most important economic activities in modern
industrialized societies that constitute an enormous investment of public funds. In order to protect this
investment, large sum of money are required to sustain and maintain the networks in an adequate
condition. The management of these networks is the difficult task for transportation agencies. The task
is becoming more complicated by the limited of funds combined with the continuously deterioration of

An Overview of Expert Systems in Pavement Management

100

pavement structures over time due to environmental factors and increasing traffic loads. This scenario
has forced the agencies to look for better procedures or strategies for maintenance and rehabilitation of
the existing pavements.
Over a steadily research into pavement management methods has brought the development of
pavement management systems (PMS). These systems are designed to provide a structured and
comprehensive approach to pavement management. They assist decision makers in finding strategies
for providing and maintaining pavements in a serviceable and safe condition at the most possible cost
effective way. The primary functions of PMS are to improve the efficiency of decision making,
expands its scope, provide feedback on consequences of decisions, and insure the consistency of
decisions made at different levels within the same organization (Hudson et al. 1992). For airport
agencies, the using of airport pavement management system (APMS) has grown dramatically since
1985. In fact, about 84% of state aviation agencies in the United States use APMS (Broten et al.
2004a).
However, a PMS is not a project-specific design tool; it can help identify the location of
pavement problems and types of solution strategies, but not at a level of detail necessary for design
purposes (Ritchie 1987). A PMS cannot make final decision, it only provide the basis for an informed
understanding of the possible consequences of alternative policies. The decisions about pavement
maintenance and rehabilitation in pavement management is considering not only financially but
particularly in term of human resources and expertise. The detail analysis and design of pavement
rehabilitation strategies in the project level phase is performed by pavement engineering specialists,
who use their knowledge, judgment and experience to make interferences and reach design and
investment decisions. These experts are relatively small in number and they are seldom found in local
agencies. They are also not always available and do not have time to consult all possible references,
review available data, and etc. This situation is further compounded with the retirement of the
experienced engineers where the necessary knowledge in diagnosis the pavement distress and
determining the proper treatments is difficult to pass on to the less experienced engineers. In
consequence, the knowledge and experience may be lost.
Expert systems have the potential in solving the above problem as they are the most common
technology used to substitute for human expertise. Where human experts are becoming increasingly
difficult to find and retain together with the reduction in pavement budgets, expert systems are
receiving greater attention from organizations because of their ability to enhance productivity and to
aid in the decision making process such as diagnosis, design, repair and rehabilitation. Furthermore, the
advances in data-gathering method have made the application of expert systems in this area grows
rapidly.
Expert systems technologies are a branch of artificial intelligent research that have many
potential usages in civil engineering design (Firebaugh 1988). They hold enormous potential to become
useful tools for transportation practitioners (Yeh et al. 1986). Using expert systems for various
applications in transportation was not new (Ritchie et al. 1986, Hall et al. 1987, Hendrickson, et al.
1987, Ritchie 1987). Moreover, with the advances in computer hardware technology and software
development make them feasible to develop such a knowledge-based expert system that could perform
as an expert advisor and even instructor for other engineers, particularly at the local level.
The purpose of this paper is to summarize the findings of up-to-date research concerning the
development and implementation of expert system to pavement management. This paper also
illustrates the need of potential development of such knowledge-based or expert system for analysis
and design of airport pavement rehabilitation strategies.

2. Pavement Management
PMS provides consistent, objective and systematic procedure for determine priorities, schedule,
allocating resources, and budgeting for pavement maintenance and rehabilitation (FAA 2006).

101

Norlela Ismail, Amiruddin Ismail and Riza Atiq

Pavement management can be applied at two major levels: network and project level. The network
level focuses on creating the most effective use of budgetary resources for the entire network, whereas
project level is specific to a given area that has been identified for potential rehabilitation. The goal of
most PMS is to maximize the effectiveness of pavement maintenance and rehabilitation by using
maximum benefits of the available fund.
In general, the process of PMS consists of four main components: Network inventory,
pavement condition evaluation, performance prediction models, and planning method (Shahin 1994).
2.1. Network Inventory
The network is divided into branches (i.e. street or runways) before broken up into smaller units called
sections. A section should be viewed as smallest management units when considering the application
and selection of maintenance and rehabilitation treatments. Several factors are considered when
dividing branches into sections; they are pavement structure, traffic, construction history, and
pavement condition.
2.2. Pavement Condition Evaluation
The evaluation of the current condition or performance of the pavement condition is depending on both
functional and structural evaluation. Structural evaluation is based on structural capacity or structural
adequacy of a pavement while functional evaluation is based on field measurements relating to the
following characteristics: riding comfort or roughness, safety, surface distresses, and the potential for
foreign object damage (FOD) to aircraft which is meant only for APMS (Shahin 1982, Ritchie,1987,
and Haas 1997). The evaluation of these characteristics is then expressed in the form of a quality index.
For riding comfort, the ride quality of a pavement is addressed through measurement of surface
roughness. It indicator is represented by Riding Comfort Index (RCI), Riding Comfort Rating (RCR),
or International Roughness Index (IRI). Safety is measured through surface friction. Surface distress
which reflects the visual assessment (type, severity, and quantity) of pavement surface condition is
represented by Surface Distress Index (SDI), Distress Manifestation Index (DMI), or Pavement
Condition Index (PCI). For APMS, most aviation agencies estimate the condition of the pavement
using PCI methodology (Michael et al. 1998) that rate the pavement from 0 (failed) to 100 (excellent).
Structural capacity, represented by Structural Adequacy Index (SAI), reflects the ability of a
pavement to support traffic without developing appreciable structural distress or in other word, the load
carrying capacity of a pavement. The purpose of the structural evaluation is to determine the allowable
load of a pavement, to predict the pavement future service life with respect to the traffic using it, and to
assess the strength of the existing pavement (Witczek 1978). For most of aviation agency, the method
used to report pavement load-carrying capacity is the ratio of Aircraft Classification Number to
Pavement Classification Number (ACN/PCN) system adopted by the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO). The information on these current pavement conditions are used to create
deterioration models for predicting future pavement performance.
2.3. Performance Prediction Models
Pavement prediction performance models are used at both the network and project level to analyze the
condition and determine maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) requirement. At the network level,
they are used for condition forecasting, budget planning, inspection schedule, and working planning.
At the project level, they are used to select rehabilitation alternatives to met expected traffic and
climate condition, and performing life-cycle cost analysis to compare various M&R alternatives.
Many techniques are available for developing pavement deterioration models. They include
straight line extrapolation, regression, mechanistic-empirical, polynomial constrained lease square, Sshaped curve, probability distribution, and markovian (Shahin 1994). Another technique that can be

An Overview of Expert Systems in Pavement Management

102

employed is expert modeling approach as suggested by Zimmerman (1999). This technique is

generally used when there are not enough data to create an appropriate deterioration model.
2.4. Planning Methods
The final component of a PMS is the planning module that enables the managing agency to determine
what maintenance and rehabilitation actions should be taken, given the current and predicted condition
of the pavement sections within its jurisdiction and the financial resources placed at its disposal. In
order to maintain or improve the condition of pavement structures, pavement engineers can establish a
program of action to be performed in the next planning period and action plan for future maintenance
and rehabilitation.

3. Expert System
An expert system is a sophisticated computer program that manipulates knowledge, facts, and
reasoning in an attempt to solve problem efficiently in narrow problem area that would normally
require the services of expensive human expert (Basri 1999). The development of expert system, also
known as knowledge-based system has been among the most active research area in artificial
intelligent during the last few decade. It was developed to simulate or reproduce intelligent problem
solving behavior in a computer program. The goals of expert system are usually more ambitious than
those of conventional computer program; they frequently perform not only as problem solvers but also
as intelligent assistance and training aids. They have the capability to collect human know-how into a
knowledge-based and apply this knowledge to reason through the solution of a problem without the
need to reprogram its source code (Chang et.al. 2005). Expert systems emulate human expertise and
judgment through the use of symbolic logic and heuristics particular in problem area that requiring
specialized knowledge, skill experience or judgment for determination of solution strategies and
solutions. The advantages of this artificial expertise over the human expertise are that it is permanent,
consistent, easy to transfer, easy to document, consistent and affordable, whereas human expertise is
perishable, difficult to transfer, difficult to document, unpredictable and expensive (Kaplan 1984).
The structure of an expert system consists of five major components: knowledge-based,
inference engine, user interface, working memory, and knowledge acquisition (Haas et al. 1994). The
knowledge base consists of rules and facts that are captured from knowledge, opinion, and experiences
of experts. The knowledge base defines the knowledge presentation scheme which determines the
relationship between rules and facts. The inference engine contains a control structure that uses data
provided by user and applies the knowledge in the knowledge base to obtain the solution for a
particular problem. The roles of the inference engine involves selecting the rules from the knowledgebase, evaluating the selected rules, generating new facts, retrieving facts from the knowledge-base and
the user, and finally generating the problem solution (Smadi 2000). The user interface translates the
information contained in the knowledge base and processed by the inference engine to a form that is
comprehensible and useful to the user. In other word the user interface provides a friendly interface
between the user and the system. The working memory resembles a database of conventional
programs. It keeps track of the program status and contains a large amount of data for the given
problem. Knowledge acquisition acts as an editor for entering the rules to the rule base, modifying
existing rules, and saving the rules in the rule base in a form that can be used by inference engine
(Townsend 1986).

4. Application of Expert System to Pavement Management

Recent and relevant research publications available in the application of expert system techniques to
solve problems in the pavement management area have been reviewed and presented hereafter. Table 1

103

Norlela Ismail, Amiruddin Ismail and Riza Atiq

and 2 provides a list the existing expert systems that have been developed for use in pavement
management and rehabilitation.
4.1. Rose
ROSE (Hajek et al. 1987) is a knowledge-based expert system developed for Ontario Ministry of
Transportation to assist in the selection of appropriate treatment of cracks of asphalt concrete in cold
regions. It was built on the knowledge contained on Ontarios Pavement Maintenance Guidelines
and on the experience of three pavement experts from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. The
system contains about 360 rules that incorporate 40 numerical variables including crack type, crack
severity, pavement serviceability, pavement structure, presence of pavement distresses, and availability
of maintenance treatments. The system was developed using EXSYS expert system shell program and
executes on an IBM personal computer.
4.2. Sceptre
SCEPTRE (Ritchie et al. 1987), a Surface Condition Expert System for Pavement Rehabilitation, is
designed as an advisory tool for evaluating flexible pavement surface conditions and recommending
rehabilitation strategies at the project level. The knowledge based in this system was constructed from
the experience of two pavement specialist in pavement rehabilitation from the states of Washington
and Texas. Only four types of surface distresses are considered in the system: alligator cracking in
wheel paths, transverse cracking, longitudinal cracking in wheel paths, and rutting. The system
contains about 140 production rules was developed using EXSYS expert system shell program and
written in LISP for IBM PC and compatible microcomputers.
4.3. Perserver
PERSERVER (Haas 1989) is a knowledge-based expert system that uses the cost per year of the
expected service life of treatment as the only criterion for treatment allocation. The system
recommends the single most cost-effective maintenance treatment for each road segment and selects
treatments that fix more than one distress in the segment. Three type of distress are considered in this
system; alligator cracking, progressive edge cracking and distortion. The knowledge-based in this
system is limited to those considered by Pavement Maintenance Guideline manual of the Ontario
Ministry of Transportation and Communications with the rules obtained from interviewing experts.
This system depends on information given by user concerning the section of road and type of distress
observed before it determines all possible treatments for each distress condition. The equivalent annual
cost for each treatment is calculated and is then used to select the best treatment. PRESERVER is
developed using OPSS representation languages on a VAX mainframe.
4.4. Erasme
ERASME (Allez et al. 1988) is a knowledgebased expert system developed in the Directorate of
Roads in France to facilitate the decision making of pavement maintenance. The system assists the user
in selecting the appropriate pavement maintenance and rehabilitation strategies with the following
parameters; pavement structure, deflection, nature and date of previous pavement repairs, and surface
conditions. Several technique of pavement rehabilitation are being proposed to the user and each
solution is evaluated in term of service life, serviceability, cost, and construction duration of the
treatment. This prototype system contains 210 rules, and 50 decisions.
4.5. Expear
EXPEAR (Hall et al. 1989), Expert System for Pavement Evaluation And Rehabilitation, is a
knowledge-based system was originally developed for the Federal Highway Administration before

An Overview of Expert Systems in Pavement Management

104

being further developed for Illinois Department of Transportation. This system is designed to assist
highway engineers in project-level evaluating and rehabilitating concrete pavement. The system uses
information provided by knowledgeable and experienced pavement engineers in identifying the type
and general causes of deterioration present in the pavement, selecting rehabilitation techniques and
strategies that would effectively correct the existing deterioration and preventing their recurrence, and
predicting performance of rehabilitation alternatives. Three pavement types are considered in this
system: Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP), Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement
(CRCP), and Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement (JRCP). The system predicts the future condition
with and without rehabilitation using prediction models, recommends for any further physical testing,
and provides the selection of rehabilitation strategies. The system is written with Borland International,
Inc.s Turbo- PASCAL and executes on an IBM or compatible personal computer.
4.6. Pavement Expert
PAVEMENT EXPERT (Al-Shawi et al. 1989) is an expert system that was developed in United
Kingdom to assist inspectors and engineers in condition assessment and making field observation on
concrete pavements. The system is based on the manual Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) index for
pavement which considers incidence, severity, and the extent of range of distress for each road section.
The program build a model representing the general condition of the road being evaluated as
information is input during the field survey, This model is then used to calculate the Structural Damage
Index and the Pavement Condition Rating, which relate to the structural capacity and the general riding
condition of the pavement, respectively. The knowledge-based contained in this system was extracted
from the documents for the PCR, as well as some experts in this field. It was developed using expert
system shell SAVOIR and written in PASCAL.
4.7. Pares
PARES (Ross et al. 1990), Pavement Rehabilitation Expert System, is developed in New Mexico State
Highway and Transportation Department to assist highway engineer in the evaluation and development
of rehabilitation schemes for flexible pavements. The system uses a priority system to asses which
section should be rehabilitated based on field condition survey and traffic volume. From the priority
assignment, initial estimation cost for rehabilitation, and available funds, the number and extent of
consideration project for rehabilitation are determined. The factors considered in the selection process
including overall pavement rating value, individual distress type, distress severity and extent, average
daily traffic (ADT), and roughness. The knowledge based in this system was constructed from the
experience of state highway experts. The system uses 278 rules in two main groups; distress
classification and appropriate rehabilitation strategies selection.
4.8. Paver and Micro Paver
PAVER and Micro PAVER (Shahin and Walther 1990) are developed to provide engineers with a
systematic approach for determining maintenance and rehabilitation needs and priorities for pavement
management. PAVER is the mainframe version while Micro PAVER executes on a microcomputer.
The PAVER is developed to optimize the use of funds allocated for pavement maintenance and
rehabilitation. Micro PAVER is used to manage roads, streets, parking lots, and airfield pavement. The
PAVER system is based on the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) survey and rating procedure. The
system also requires the establishment of a database in the network inventory to performed network
and project analysis Project analysis provides the users with detailed current pavement condition
survey information, feasible alternatives for maintenance and rehabilitation. It is used for current year
or near term needs. Network analysis which is used for projecting long-term maintenance and
rehabilitation needs provides the users with the future pavement condition, budget planning and project

105

Norlela Ismail, Amiruddin Ismail and Riza Atiq

priorities. The PAVER system is written in FORTRAN and C languages and design to operate an IBM
or compatible personal computer.
4.9. Airpacs
AIRPACS (Seiler 1990, Seiler et al. 1991), Airfield Pavement Consultant System, is developed to
solve difficult airfields jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) design problem. The system uses the
knowledge and experience of planners, constructors, airfield managers, and designers to evaluate
difficult problems related to rehabilitation of the airfield system components. It focuses on functional,
structural, operational, and safety aspect of the airfield system. The system determines the feasible
rehabilitation alternatives for a specific area of a runway, taxiway, and apron based on expertise
design. These alternatives are then compared using life cycle cost analysis method that use the usual
annualized cost as the economic criterion. Once a strategy is selected, AIRPACS uses mechanistic,
heuristic, and empirical design method to select the new treatment layer thicknesses and joint spacing
requirements.
4.10. Pmas
PMAS (Hanna 1994), Pavement Management Advisory System, is a knowledge-based expert system
developed in the province of Newfoundland for selecting appropriate maintenance strategies in cold
regions for both flexible and rigid pavements. Three types of surface distresses are considered in the
system: alligator cracking, transverse cracking, and rutting. The system uses several factors such as
surface condition, riding comfort index (RCI), traffic volume, and climate in selecting and
recommending rehabilitation strategies.
4.11. Pmdss
PMDSS (DeCabooter et al. 1994) is a rule-based Pavement Management Decision Support System
developed for Wisconsin Department of Transportation to provide reasonable and reliable solution to
pavement maintenance and rehabilitation problem.. The system uses three categories of emphasis that
reflect the performance expectation: high, regular, and maintenance. The system contains over 1200
decision rules for distress evaluation, problem identification, and rehabilitation recommendation. From
the field observation, the system assigns an overall severity (minor, moderate or severe) for each
distress, it then establishes the nature and the severity of the pavement problem before recommends
appropriate treatments for each problem. The system identifies three treatment levels for a project:
under-treat 15%, 30% and 50% of the pavement units. Then, the system chooses one of the three
treatments and prioritized the selected projects based on weight.

5. Discussion
Comparative analysis of the existing expert systems in pavement management presented in Table 1 and
2 shows that expert systems applications for airfield pavement are very limited compared to the
highway pavement. Most of the systems were developed for flexible highway pavements and utilize
the surface distress condition to obtain information to draw conclusion and make recommendation.
Two systems, PAVER and AIRPACS were the most comprehensive systems developed to evaluate the
condition of airfield pavements. Although PAVER has been widely used in airport pavement
management system, the maintenance and rehabilitation requirements in this system are determined
solely on PCI which obtained from surface distress data. AIRPACS on the other hand considered not
only functional, but also structural, operational, and safety aspects of the airfields systems in the
treatment strategy recommendation. However, this technique is currently limited in scope since it can
only address design problem for some types of pavement structures that is JPCP. Due to the limited of
expert system in airport pavement management, the author is concern on the potential application of

An Overview of Expert Systems in Pavement Management

106

this new information technology in airport pavement management especially to flexible pavement
rehabilitation decision making.
Table 1:

Summary of Expert System

Facility1

Pavement
Type2

ROSE
SCEPTRE
PERSERVE
R
ERASME

H
H

F
F

Pavement
Condition
Evaluation3
SD
SD

EXPEAR

Expert
System

PAVEMEN
T EXPERT
PARES
PAVER
AIRPACS

PMAS

Development
Tools

Hardware

EXSYS
EXSYS

IBM-PC
IBM-PC

SD

OPSS

Mainframe

SD

IBM-PC

SD, RQ, RS, PST

French Shell
Insight 2+
Expert
System Shell

SD

SAVOIR

IBM-PC

SD

Not available

Not available

H, A

F, R

SD

Mainframe

IBM-PC

SD, RQ, RS,

FOD, PST

Not available

Not available

F, R

SD, RQ

EXSYS
Professional
Instant
Expert Plus
Not available

IBM-PC

IBM-PC
Macintosh

Number of
Rules

Operatio
n 44

360
140
Not
available
210

P
P

Not
available
Not
available
278
Not
available
Not
available
170
(EXSYS)
225 (Instant
Expert)
1200

P
P
F
P
P
F
P

H
F
SD, RQ
IBM-PC
P
PMDSS
Note:
1: H - highway, A - airfield
2: F - flexible, R - rigid
3: SD surface distress, RQ riding quality, RS - riding safety, FOD foreign object damage, PST pavement structure
4: P prototype, F Fully operation

107
Table 2:

Norlela Ismail, Amiruddin Ismail and Riza Atiq

Comparison between Expert Systems

Expert System
ROSE

Surface Distress Consideration

All cracks except alligator
cracking

SCEPTRE

Alligator cracking, Longitudinal

cracking, transverse cracking and
rutting

PERSERVER

Alligator cracking, Progressive

edge cracking, and Distortion

ERASME

Not available

EXPEAR

Rutting
Reflection cracking
Faulting
Transverse cracking
Joint deterioration
Longitudinal cracking

PAVEMENT
EXPERT

PARES

PAVER

Wheel path cracking

Corner break
Transverse break
12 distress in 4 categories
Surface deterioration
Patching
Pumping joint spalling
Cracking
Not available

19 distresses for AC-surfaced

road
19 distress for PCC-surfaced
road
16 distresses for AC-surfaced

Independent Variable
Type and severity of crack
Pavement serviceability
Pavement structure
Presence of pavement
distress
Availability of
maintenance treatment
Type, amount and severity
of surface distress
Existing pavement
performance,
Traffic levels
Climate

Type, severity and density

of surface distress
Section size cost
Pavement structure
Deflection Nature and
data of pavement repair
Surface condition
structural adequacy
roughness drainage
joint
deterioration
foundation movement
joint sealant condition
skid resistance
joint construction concrete
durability
load transfer
loss of support shoulders
Incidence,
severity,
extent of distress

M&R Strategies
Maintenance
Routing and sealing

Rehabilitation
Do nothing

Fill cracks
Fog seal
Friction course
Chip seal
Double chip seal
AC overlay (thin, medium or
thick)
Mill and replace
Not available

Rehabilitation

Major Rehabilitation
Structural overlay
Restoration
Reconstruction

and

Not available

Overall pavement rating

value (PMV)
Individual distress type,
severity and extension
ADT
Roughness
Type, severity and extent
of surface distress
History
of
pavement
condition
Pavement age

Rehabilitation

Routine Maintenance
Do nothing
Cracks sealing

An Overview of Expert Systems in Pavement Management

airfield
15 distresses for
surfaced airfield

AIRPACS

PMAS

PMDSS

ESPRESSO

Joint sealing

PCC-

Blowup

Corner break

Longitudinal, transverse and

diagonal cracking
Settlement

Durability crack
Small & large patch
Joint seal damage
Popouts
Pumping
Faulting
Shattered slab
Shrinkage crack
Joint & corner spalling
Alligator cracking

Transverse cracking

Rutting

Alligator cracking

Block cracking

Longitudinal and Transverse

cracking
Patching
Faulting
Joint crack
Rutting
Flushing
Transverse distortion
Longitudinal joint distortion
Edge and surface raveling
Slab breakup
Longitudinal distortion
Pavement deterioration
Distresses in 4 categories

108

Major Maintenance
Partial-Depth repair
Full-Depth repair
Rehabilitation
Replace slab
overlay
Recycling
reconstruction
Type, severity and extent Do nothing
of surface distress
History of pavement Cracks sealing
condition
Layer material properties
Pothole patching
Traffic records

Rout and seal

Surface replacement
Hot mix recycled patching
Hot mix patching
Cold mix patching
Reconstruction

Type,
severity,
and
density of surface distress
Riding Comfort Index
(RCI)
Traffic Volume
Climate
Cost comparison

Do nothing

Cracks sealing

Type, severity and extent

of distress
Pavement distress index
(PDI)
Pavement serviceability
index (PSI)
Emphasis of pavement
Pavement type
Pavement age

Pothole patching
Rout and seal
Surface replacement
Hot mix recycled patching
Hot mix patching
Cold mix patching
Reconstruction
12 treatment categories for
flexible pavement
12 treatment categories for
rigid pavement

Type, severity and extent

of surface distress

Maintenance

109

Norlela Ismail, Amiruddin Ismail and Riza Atiq

Surface deterioration

Pavement support
Cracking
Joints

Pavement condition rating

(PCR) and structural
deduction

Minor Rehabilitation

Major Rehabilitation

6. Conclusion
This paper has discussed the development and potential of expert system in pavement management. It
has describe that using expert system could offers significant advantages over conventional,
computerized models. Expert systems are efficient in problem solving as they involve extensive expert
knowledge and human reasoning that are too complex to be represented and implemented in an
analytical way. Review on available relevant publication has shown that although expert system has
been in existence in pavement application since 20 years ago, most of them are for highway networks.
It is still relatively small in number of expert systems developed for airfield pavement. This was
largely due to the lack of consensus among experts and inadequate procedure and tools to represent the
domain knowledge. Therefore, study on the potential of application expert system approach to airfield
pavement rehabilitation decision making is highly required.

References
[1]
[2]

[3]
[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]

Allez, F., Dauzats,M., Joubert, P., Labat, G.P., and Pusselli, M. 1988. ERASME: An Expert
System for Pavement Maintenance. Transportation Research Record, 1205, pp 1-5.
Al-Shawi, M.A.,Cabrera, J.G., Watson, A.S, 1989. Pavement Expert; An Expert to Assist in
the Evaluation of Concrete Pavements. Proceeding of Transportation and Planning Meeting,
Leeds, England, P293.
Basri, NEA, 1999. An Expert System for the Design of Composting Facilities in Developing
Contries. PhD Dissertation, University of Leeds.
Broten, M., Corner, C., and Muntasir, A., 2004a. State Airport Pavement Management
Practices and the Impact on Pavement Condition. Presented at 6th International Conference on
Managing Pavements, Queenland, Australia.
Chang Albitres, C., P. Krugler, and R. Smith. 2005. A Knowledge Approach Oriented to
Improved Strategic Decisions in Pavement Management Practices. 1st Annual Inter-university
Symposium of Infrastructure Management. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
DeCabooter, P., K. Weiss, S. Shobe and B. Ducket, 1994. Wisconsin Pavement Management
Decision Support System. Preprint presented at the Transportation Research Board, 73rd
Annual Meeting, Washington D.C.
FAA, 2006. Airport Pavement Management Program,, Advisory Circular AC 150/53807A,FAA Washington, D.C.
Firebaugh, Morris W, 1996. Artificial Intelligence: A Knowledge-based Approach. PWSRENT Publishing Company, Boston.
Haas R, 1997. Pavement Design and Management Guide. Transportation Associate of
Canada. ISBN 1-55187-114-9.
Haas, C., and Shen, H, 1989. PRESERVER: A Knowledge-Based Pavement Maintenance
Consulting Program. Advanced Development Department Computing Devices Company.
Haas, R., Hudson, W.R., and Zaniewski, J., 1994. Modern Pavement Management. Krieger
Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida.
Hajek, J.J., Haas, R., Chong, G.J., & Phang, W.A. 1987. ROSE: A knowledge-based expert
system for routing and sealing. Proceeding of the 2nd North American Pavement Management
Conference. Toronto, Canada. 2.301-2.341.

An Overview of Expert Systems in Pavement Management

[13]

[14]

[15]
[16]
[17]

[18]
[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]
[24]

[25]

[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]

[30]
[31]
[32]

110

Hall, K.T., Conner, J.M., Darter, M.I., Carpenter, S.H., 1989. Rehabilitation of Concrete
Pavements, Vol III: Concrete Pavement Evaluation and Rehabilitation System. Federal
Highway Administration, Mclean, VA, Publication No. FHWA-RD-88-073
Hall, K.T., Darter, M.I., Carpenter, S.H., and Conner, J.M., 1987. Development of a
Demonstration Prototype Expert System for Concrete Pavement Evaluation. Transportation
Research Record, 1117, pp 58-65.
Hanna, A.S., Hanna, P.B. 1994. Knowledge-based Advisory System for Flexible Pavement
Routine Maintenance. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering.
Hendrickson, C.T., D. Martinelli, and D. Rehak, 1987. Hierarchical Rule-Based Activity
Duration Estimation. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, 113, 2, 288-301.
Hudson, S.W., Hudson, W.R, and Carmichael, R.F., 1992. Minimum Requirements for
Standard Pavement management Systems. In Pavement Management Implementation, eds
F.B. Holt & W.L., Gramling, STP 1121, American Society for Testing and Material,
Philadelphia, PA, pp 19-31.
Kaplan, S.J., 1984. The Industrialization of Artificial Intelligence: From by-line to bottom
line. Al-Magazine (2), Summer.
Michail, G., and Patrick, S., 1998. Airport pavement management systems: an appraisal of
existing methodologies. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. Volume 32 (3),
pp 197-214. DOI 10.1016/S0965-8564(97)00008-6
Ritchie S.G, Yeh C, Mahoney J.P. and Jackson N.C, 1986. A Surface Condition Expert
System for Pavement Rehabilitation. Paper presented to ASCE National Convention, Seattle,
WA
Ritchie S.G, Yeh C, Mahoney J.P. and Jackson N.C, 1986. Development of an Expert System
for Pavement Rehabilitation Decision Making. Transportation Research Record (1070), pp
96-103.
Ritchie S.G, Yeh C, Mahoney J.P. and Jackson N.C, 1987. Pavement Rehabilitation
Planning. Journal of Transportation Engineering 113 (2). DOI 10.1061/(ASCE)0733947x(1987)113.2(185)
Ritchie, S.G., 1987. Expert System in Pavement Management. Journal of Transportation
Research. 21A (2) pp 145-152. DOI 10.1016/0191-2607(87)90007-0
Ross, T., S. Verzio, S. Shuker, G. McKleen, V. Shaefer, 1990. A Pavement Rehabilitation
Expert System (PARES) for Preliminary Design. New Mexico State Highway and
Transportation Department, Santa Fe, NM.
Seiler, W. J., Darter, M. S., Garett Jr., James, H., 1991. Airfield Pavement Consultant System
(AIRPACS) for Rehabilitation of Concrete Pavement. Aircraft/ Pavement interaction: An
Integrated System., pp 332-353
Seiler, W.J., 1990. A Knowledge-based for Rehabilitation of Airfield Concrete Pavements.
PhD Dissertation, University of Illinois.
Shahin, M.Y., 1982. Airfield Pavement Distress measurements and Use in Pavement
Management. Transportation Research Record, 893, pp 59-63.
Shahin, M.Y., 1994. Pavement Management For Airport, Roads, and Parking Lots. Chapman
& Hall, New York. ISBN 0-412-99201-9.
Shahin, M.Y., Walter, J.A., 1990. Pavement Maintenance Management for Roads and Streets
Using the PAVER System. U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USA CERL), Champaign II,
Technical Report M-90/05
Smadi, O., 2000. Knowledge Based Expert System Pavement Management Optimization.
Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University, Iowa
Townsend, C., 1986. Mastering Expert Systems with Turbo Prolog. Sams, Indiapolis, Ind.
Witczek, M.W., 1978. Framework for Evaluation and Performance of Airport Pavements.
Special Report 175, Transportation Research Board, pp 69-75.

111

Norlela Ismail, Amiruddin Ismail and Riza Atiq

[33]

Yeh, C., Ritchie, S.G., and Schneider, J.B., 1986. Potential Applications of Knowledge-Based
Expert Systems in Transportation Planning and Engineering. Department of Civil Engineering.
University of California, Irvine, CA.
Zimmerman, K., and Broten, M., 1999. Development of Performance Models for Pavement
Management System. Presented at 24th International Air Transportation Conference, ASCE.

[34]