Calibration and Validation of Condition
Indicator for Managing Urban
Pavement Networks
Alelí Osorio, Alondra Chamorro, Susan Tighe, and Carlos Videla
Deterioration indexes that may combine types of surface distresses, ser-
viceability, and structural indicators are commonly used for pavement
management at the network level. These indexes differ in the types of
deterioration and criteria considered to quantify severity and density of
distresses. Most of these indexes were developed for interurban road net-
works; therefore, their application to urban networks is complex and not
representative. For this reason, there is a need for a better understanding
of urban pavement behavior to enable collection of the distresses relevant
to these types of pavements and development of an overall condition index
for urban pavements that represents the mix of the more relevant dis-
tresses for use in network analysis. This study is part of a 3-year project
developed in Chile: Research and Development of Solutions for Urban
Pavement Management in Chile. The main objective of this study was
to calibrate and to validate an urban pavement condition index (UPCI)
representative of the overall condition of these pavements, according to
objective measures of surface distresses and evaluations of an expert
panel. The scope of this study included the development of distress evalu-
ation guidelines for asphalt and concrete pavements considering manual
and automated surveys, the application of these guidelines in different
types of urban networks, and the assessment of these networks by an
expert panel. Finally, three UPCI equations were obtained with satisfac-
tory validation for asphalt pavements with manual and automated data
collection and for concrete pavements with manual data collection.
The main goals of a pavement management system is to assist agen-
cies in the decision about which sections and roads of a network
should be preserved, maintained, or rehabilitated. Agencies have to
assess the condition of road networks periodically. Among the vari-
ous available evaluation methods, performance indicators that repre-
sent the current condition of pavement sections have demonstrated to
be effective and reliable for managing road networks (1–5).
Acquiring pavement condition data for network management can
be expensive and time-consuming. The approach and methodology
selected for surveying the network must suit the agency’s individual
goals and resources. Various pavement condition evaluation method-
A. Osorio, A. Chamorro, and C. Videla, Escuela de Ingeniería, Departamento de
Ingeniería y Gestión de la Construcción, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile,
Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860. Edif. San Agustín Piso 3, Santiago, Chile. S. Tighe,
­Centre for Pavement and Transportation Technology, Department of Civil Engi-
neering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario
N2L 3G1, Canada. Corresponding author: A. Osorio, aosoriol@ing.puc.cl.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2455, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2014, pp. 28–36.
DOI: 10.3141/2455-04
28
ologies, using manual or automated collection techniques, have been
developed to cope with this challenge (6, 7). Some agencies have
established well-developed guidelines to standardize data collection
methodologies. Among these guidelines are Flexible Pavement Con-
dition Rating: Guidelines for Municipalities (8), índice de agrieta-
miento (9), Standard Practice for Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt
Pavement Surface Provisional Protocol (AASHTO PP 44-01),
Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Perfor-
mance Program (10), International Standard Practices for Roads and
Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys (ASTM D6433-
03), unpaved roads condition index based on objective distress mea-
sures (2), Instructivo de Inspección Visual de Caminos Pavimentados
(11), and the distress manifestation index for network level (1).
Manual data collection can be defined as the process in which
people are directly involved in the observation or measurement of
pavement deterioration (12, p. 144). Distresses are assessed or mea-
sured from a moving vehicle, known also as windshield surveys,
or by evaluators walking along the road. Manual surveys require a
trained evaluator or a team of trained evaluators who are assessing
the type, severity, and density of distresses (7, 13).
Automated data collection can be defined as the process of acquir-
ing data with the aid of technology, mostly based on image, acoustic,
or profile measures (12, p. 144). These technologies may be equipped
altogether on a mobile van or separately on trailers attached to a
vehicle (6). Collected data are analyzed with the aid of automated or
semiautomated software to report the pavement distress. Studies have
demonstrated that automated data collection, compared with manual
data collection, is a safe, quick, and reliable method (2, 7, 13–15).
Agencies commonly use deterioration indexes for network-level
decision making. These indexes may combine different types of sur-
face distresses, serviceability, and structural indicators (7). Examples
of these indexes are the pavement condition index (ASTM D6433-03),
distress manifestation index for network level (2), and índice de
condición de caminos pavimentados (9). These indexes differ in
the types of deterioration and criteria considered to quantify sever-
ity and density of distresses. Most were developed for interurban
road networks (highways, express corridors, etc.); therefore, their
application to urban networks (streets, avenues, etc.), is complex
and not representative.
The study presented in this paper addresses the problem of man-
aging urban networks, which are substantially different from inter-
urban networks in pavement performance, traffic demands, and
network characteristics. The main differences that were observed
include the following (16, 17):
• Influence of distresses on serviceability. Distresses in urban
pavements have different impacts on serviceability. Some studies
Osorio, Chamorro, Tighe, and Videla
have demonstrated that roughness can be the most important factor
in deriving the overall combined index of highways and surface
condition as the most important factor for urban pavements, mainly
because of the impact on ride quality of the various distresses for
different service speeds.
• Pavement deterioration. Deterioration of urban pavements can
be considered more complex than interurban pavements given the
various possible combinations of traffic volumes and loads, climate,
material types, and pavement interventions. There are also singu-
larities such as manholes, catch basins, and utility cuts that affect
pavement deterioration. Utility cuts for installation or maintenance
of urban services in the underground are a complexity for urban per-
formance models and have to be addressed by a pavement condition
index.
• Sectioning. An urban pavement management system requires
more sections than an interurban pavement management system.
In many cases, the streets have different traffic flow or different
materials in each direction, so they have to be considered as different
sections.
Given the important differences observed between urban and
interurban networks and that most of the state of the practice and
state of the art have focused on interurban pavement management,
there is a need for a better understanding of urban pavement per-
formance and urban network management. The study presented in
this paper addresses the need to assess urban pavements for network
management by developing practical evaluation guidelines and
an overall condition index that combines most relevant surface
distresses that affect urban pavements performance.
Study Objective and Methodology
The main objective of the study was to calibrate and validate an
urban pavement condition index (UPCI) representative of the over-
all condition of pavements, according to objective measures of surface
distresses and evaluations of an expert panel.
The scope of the study includes the development of distress eval-
uation guidelines for asphalt and concrete pavements considering
manual and automated surveys, the application of these guidelines
in different types of urban networks, and the assessment of these
networks by an expert panel.
The study is part of a 3-year project developed in Chile by the
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (PUC) and named Fondef
D09I1018, Investigación y Desarrollo de Soluciones para la Gestión
de Pavimentos Urbanos en Chile, (Research and Development of
Solutions for Urban Pavement Management in Chile). The project
is funded by the Chilean government through Fondef–Conicyt, the
PUC, and the following associated institutions: Ministry of Housing
and Urban Development, Regional Government of the Metropolitan
Region, Municipality of Santiago and Municipality of Macul. In
addition, the Centre for Pavement and Transportation Technology
of the University of Waterloo, Canada, is a partner and advisor.
The overall project resulted as a cooperative initiative of the PUC
and funding partners to accomplish the current and future needs of
urban pavements and provide effective management through the
development of practical tools to assist agencies that manage urban
networks in decision making. Even though the project is being
developed in Chile, the expected outcomes, such as technical tools
and the resulting urban pavement management system, may be used
in other countries for urban pavement management.
29
To achieve the main goal of the study, the following six-step
methodology was defined:
• Experiment design. An experiment for the calibration and
validation of the condition indicator for urban networks was
defined, including definition of dependent and independent vari-
ables, development of distress evaluation guidelines, selection of
an urban network, and development of data collection and analysis
methodologies.
• Development of distress evaluation guidelines. Typical dis-
tresses observed in urban pavements were studied in detail. From
the state of the art, state of the practice, research team experience,
and windshield evaluations performed in different urban networks, a
list of distresses was selected for the study for manual and automated
surveys.
• Network selection. Different sections of asphalt and concrete
pavements were selected from the primary and secondary network of
the city of Santiago, Chile, including different functional categories,
pavement structures, traffic types, and traffic volumes.
• Evaluation of selected network. Surface distresses were
assessed in the selected network following the evaluation guide-
lines for manual and automated data collection. In addition, an
expert panel assessed the overall condition of the selected net-
work. A first set of data was collected and processed to validate
the distress evaluation guidelines. A second set of data was col-
lected for the calibration and validation of the urban condition
indicator.
• Validation of distress evaluation guidelines. Repeatability and
reproducibility analyses were performed to check the reliability of
manual and automated evaluations and to validate the developed
evaluation guidelines.
• Calibration and validation of the UPCI. Statistical analyses
were made of the collected data for the calibration and validation
of the condition indicator, considering stepwise regression analy-
sis, analysis of variance (ANOVA), t-test, analysis of residuals, and
cross-validation.
Experiment Design for Development
of Condition Indicator
An experiment was conducted for the calibration and validation of
the condition indicator for urban pavements on the basis of field
evaluations.
The dependent variable of the experiment was defined as the over-
all condition of the pavement observed by an expert panel, named the
observed urban pavement condition index (UPCIOBS). In parallel, sur-
face distresses collected manually and automatically were defined as
the independent variables. Distresses were collected in the field fol-
lowing evaluation guidelines developed in the study. The experiment
was conducted on asphalt and concrete pavements, with independent
analyses for manual and automated data.
Regression analyses were performed to correlate the dependent
and independent variables, resulting in UPCI equations. For asphalt
pavements, 75% of the data collected were used for the calibration
and 25% for the validation of the index. In the case of concrete
pavements, 67% of the data were used for calibration and 33% for
validation. In addition, cross-validation between manual and auto-
mated equations was performed for each type of pavement to ana-
lyze if the manual equations could be used with automated data
collection and vice versa.
30 Transportation Research Record 2455

Development of Pavement Network Selection and Evaluation

Evaluation Guidelines
Distress guidelines were developed for the manual and automated
evaluation of urban pavements. In the first stage, many types of dis-
tresses were considered for each type of pavement on the basis of an
extensive review of pavement evaluation protocols (8–11, 16). In
the second stage, distresses were filtered on the basis of field obser-
vations and a review of the current state of the practice of urban
pavement management. The guidelines consider three severity levels
when the magnitude of distresses is not directly related to the sever-
ity of the distress, as in the case of cracking, patch deterioration, and
joint damage. In all other cases, severity was associated to the mag-
nitude of the distress. (10, 11, 18). Distress severity, magnitude, and
extent were collected in objective measures as presented in Table 1.
Automated data collection was performed to evaluate the following
distresses:
• Surface distresses were evaluated in asphalt and concrete pave-
ments. Data were collected with automated digital images that were
then analyzed with a semiautomated analysis software (19, 20).
• Roughness [measured by the international roughness index (IRI)]
was evaluated in concrete and asphalt pavements with a laser profiler.
• Rutting was evaluated in asphalt pavements with a laser
profiler.
• For roughness and rutting, the data were collected and pro-
cessed every 10 m; the average of both wheelpaths was considered
in the analysis.
Network Characteristics
The network selected in the study includes the pavements of three
municipalities within Santiago, Chile, with a total extension of
810 km (21). The streets within the network present diverse func-
tional classifications, geometric designs, traffic types and volumes,
pavement structures, foundations, and seasonal climate condi-
tions. Three institutions are responsible for the management of the
selected network: municipalities, the regional government, and the
Ministry of Housing and Urbanism.
The network presents pavements belonging to six functional
classes according to the Ministry of Housing and Urbanism clas-
sification: express, trunk, collector, service, local, and passages.
The first four categories constitute the primary network and the last
two the secondary network. Traffic volumes can range from 600 to
more than 4,000 vehicles per hour for primary streets and less than
600 vehicles per hour for secondary streets (22). Structures were
designed on the basis of traffic volumes, equivalent axles, and types
of soils, following the structural design for urban pavements defined
by the ministry (23).
Santiago has a Mediterranean climate, with 5 months of dry
weather and almost no precipitation during the summer and a rainy
season of 7 months, with monthly maximum precipitation ranging
from 50 to 400 mm (24, 25). Further evaluations will be performed
within the project to validate the UPCI for other climate conditions
and extend the scope of this study.

TABLE 1   Distresses Considered in Urban Pavement Guidelines Evaluation

Severity Units Distress Severity Units Distress

Pavement Levels Extend Pavement Levels Extend

Asphalt Concrete
Fatigue cracking Three m2 Corner breaks Three no.
Edge cracking Three m2 Durability cracking (D) Three no., m2
Block cracking Three m Longitudinal cracking Three m
Wheelpath longitudinal cracking Three m Transverse cracking Three no., m
Nonwheelpath longitudinal cracking Three m Oblique cracks Three m
Reflection cracking Three m Transversal joint seal damage Three m
Transverse cracking Three m Longitudinal joint seal damage Three m
Patch deterioration Three no., m2 Spalling of longitudinal joints Three m
Potholes One no., m2 Spalling of transverse joints Three m
Rutting One mm Map cracking One no., m2
Shoving One no., m2 Scaling One no., m2
Bleeding One no., m2 Patch deterioration Three no., m2
Polished aggregate One no., m2 Polished aggregate One no., m2
Raveling One no., m2 Popouts One no., m2
Curb deterioration One m Blowups One no.
Water bleeding and pumping One no., m Faulting One m
Manholes and catch basins Three no. Curb deterioration One no., m
Roughness (IRI) One m/km Water bleeding and pumping One no.
Manholes and catchbasins One m/km
Roughness (IRI) One µmm

Note: No. = number.

Osorio, Chamorro, Tighe, and Videla
Selection of Test Sections
The size of the sample units was defined by their statistical rele-
vance, characteristics of surface distresses, and the practicality of
field surveys. One important factor was the speed and consistency
of data collection. IRI was determined to be a critical measure
because it is evaluated at a constant speed. For this reason, the
length of the sample was chosen on the basis of the minimum
length to accelerate, evaluate, and stop in one block. The sample
width was defined by lane width, from 2.80 to 4.50 m.
The size of sample units, measured as pavement surface, was
defined as
• Asphalt pavements: lane width × 50 m long, subdivided in
10-m segments and
• Concrete pavement: lane width × 10 slabs long, where each
slab is a segment.
Each sample unit represents a homogeneous section. Sections
were preselected with windshield evaluations, where distress types,
severity, and density were assessed. Final selection was performed
by considering those sections representative of diverse scenarios and
overall conditions, subject to their proximity.
Manual and Automated Evaluations
Data were collected in each sample unit by considering the dis-
tresses presented in Table 1. In addition, the following inventory
and reference data were collected: name of street; type of pavement,
width, length and traffic direction of the lane, start and end reference,
and geographical reference (collected with GPS).
Sixty asphalt sample units and 90 concrete sample units were
evaluated with manual surveys and automated technology for the
calibration and validation of the condition indicator. In both cases,
the amount of sample sections was sufficient to obtain a reliable
statistical analysis.
Evaluations of Expert Panel
The UPCIobs of the selected sections was assessed by an expert
panel formed by experienced professionals of academia and the
private and public sectors. The panel rated each sample unit by
the combined effect of distress types and severities observed in
the field on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 was the worse condition
and 10 the best. From this scale, an average pavement would need
rehabilitation when the UPCI ≤ 4, preservation when 4 < UPCI
≤ 8, and routine maintenance when UPCI > 8. The treatments to
be proposed in each group will be defined further in the research
on the basis of the UPCI values and the performance model that
is under development.
A paired sample t-test for mean comparison was performed
to analyze the equivalence of UPCIobs between raters. For all types
of pavements, it was observed that three experts were statistically
equivalent. The average of UPCIobs between the equivalent raters
for each sample unit was considered in the regression analysis.
31
Calibration of UPCI
Repeatability and Reproducibility Analysis
Repeatability analysis was performed to evaluate the variability
of the evaluation guidelines applied by a rater in the field. Paired
sample t-tests for comparison of means were used for this analysis,
with 30 segments evaluated twice by the same rater. The second
set of data was undertaken a week after the first set. The test was
performed for each type of distress, level of severity, and type of
pavement for manual and automated data collection.
For manual evaluations, statistically equivalent replicates were
obtained at a 95% confidence level for all distresses for both
pavements, except the following:
• Shoving, bleeding, and polished aggregates for asphalt pavements
and
• Scaling and polished aggregates for concrete pavements.
The reason for poor repeatability of these distresses is that they
were observed with low frequency in the evaluated sections, so the
rater had little experience assessing them. Likewise, these distresses
were not statistically significant within the regression analysis.
For automated evaluations, statistically equivalent replicates
were obtained at a 95% confidence level for surface distresses,
roughness, and rutting.
Reproducibility analysis was performed to analyze the variabil-
ity between raters in the same sample unit. The ANOVA test for
random block design was used for this analysis, which considered
blocks for the evaluated segments and treatment for the raters.
ANOVA was applied for each of the compared distress measures
to determine if the differences between measured distresses were
statistically significant. For this analysis, 20 to 30 segments were
evaluated by three and four raters. This test was performed for each
type of distress, severity level, and type of pavement.
Although the raters received training to collect distress data, only
some distresses present good reproducibility for a 95% confidence
level. This result shows the importance of having experienced raters
with good training and clear guidelines for data collection.
Regression Analysis
Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to calibrate
the UPCI equations. The analyses were carried out separately for
asphalt and concrete pavements, and for manual and automated
data, resulting in four UPCI equations.
ANOVA analyses were applied to evaluate the overall signifi-
cance of regressions. Two-tailed t-tests were performed to analyze
the significance of independent variables considered in the analysis.
Mean square error was estimated as part of ANOVA analyses and
used to determine the F- and t-values. The confidence level of 95%
was used for both analyses. Residuals were analyzed to evaluate
whether the models fit the data well.
Overall significance of regressions was satisfactory for all cases,
where the F statistic of each regression was higher than the critical
F-value. Independent variables with positive coefficients or low sig-
nificance in each regression were eliminated following a stepwise
method. This method was carried out based on the p-value of F
32
(probability of F ) using .05 as probability to enter and .10 as
probability to remove a variable.
The outlier analyses were performed after generating the first
regression using the Cook’s distance method (26), which deter-
mines the influence points in multiple linear regressions. The points
indicated by this analysis were studied; technical criteria were used
to decide the need of elimination. For example, if a section was
indicated as an outlier in this analysis, the section characteristics,
distress types and quantity, and field observation were checked to
determine if it was necessary to eliminate the section. This process
was iterative in case of elimination of outliers when regressions
were developed without the eliminated sections.
The developed equations did not represent the maximum or mini-
mum values of UPCI in cases in which very good or very poor
conditions were observed. It is assumed that the raters were hesitant
when evaluating sections with extreme conditions (very good or
very poor) (3). To correct the residuals, researchers adjusted the
equations with the factor of the maximum of UPCI = 10 divided
by the intercept of the regression to obtained the final equations
(UPCIadj).
The following modifications were made to distresses to improve
the coefficient of determination and residuals observed in the
regression analysis:
• For asphalt pavements, the effect of transverse and reflection
cracking were summed in the equations because no statistical dif-
ference was observed when their effect in the overall condition of
the pavements was considered.
• For concrete pavements, the effects of corner and oblique
breaks were summed in the equations. In addition, the effects of seal
damage and spalling of transverse and longitudinal joints were com-
bined and renamed as joint damage. The level of spalling observed
in a joint was considered as a criterion to rate distress severity.
Validation of UPCI
Validation was performed with the data not considered in the regres-
sion analysis. Statistical analyses considered two-tailed t-tests for
difference in means with a confidence level of 95%. Two validations
UPCIadj
UPCIadj
UPCIobs
(a)
FIGURE 1   Validation of UPCI manual equation for pavements: (a) asphalt and (b) concrete.
Transportation Research Record 2455
were carried out, an initial validation of each independent equation
and a cross-validation to contrast manual and automated equations
for each pavement type.
Independent Validation of Manual
and Automated Equations
The values observed by the expert panel in the field (UPCIobs) were
compared with the calculated UPCI values obtained from distresses
and adjusted equations (UPCIadj). For the manual data, the valida-
tions of asphalt and concrete pavement equations were performed
with 14 and 25 sections, respectively. The t-values were
• t = −5.751 > tcrit (0.025,15) = −2.131 for asphalt pavements and
• t = −2.242 > tcrit (0.025,29) = −2.045 for concrete pavements.
Therefore, the equations were successfully validated; no signifi-
cant difference was observed between the sample means, as shown
in Figure 1.
For the automated data, validation was performed with 15 sec-
tions for each type of pavement. These equations for both types
of pavements were not successfully validated after adjusting
the intercepts; however, the original equations were validated
satisfactorily.
Cross-Validation of Manual
and Automated Equations
The cross-validation consisted of the statistical comparison of
results when the manual data were used in both the manual and
automated equations and when the automated data were used in
both equations. The t-values from these analysis were −4.813 and
−5.877, both greater than tcrit(0.025,15) = −2.131. Therefore, the equa-
tions for asphalt pavements were cross-validated successfully, as
presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
Both equations can be used with manual and automated data,
giving equivalent results. Because the automated UPCI include the
IRI, this equation is recommended only when IRI values are available.
UPCIobs
(b)
Osorio, Chamorro, Tighe, and Videla 33

Consequently, the UPCI equations for concrete pavements

considering automated data require further analysis. Additional
concrete sections will be studied as part of the overall project to
improve this equation.

Final Urban Pavement Condition

Equations

Adjusted Urban Pavement Condition Equations

Three final equations were obtained after the adjustments to the

intercepts of the original regressions for asphalt pavements with
manual and automated data collection and for concrete pavements
with manual data collection (Equations 1 through 3):

asphalt UPCI manual = 10 − 0.038 FC − 0.049 TRC − 0.046 DP

FIGURE 2   Validation of UPCI asphalt using manual
and automated data with manual equation. − 0.059 R − 0.237 P (1)

R 2 = .812

When manual data or automated data without roughness measures

F -value = 27.955 > Fcrit = 2.512
are available, the manual UPCI equation is recommended. The
manual equation includes potholes, which are not included in the
automated equation. asphalt UPCI auto = 10 − 0.031 FC − 0.040 TRC − 0.028 DP
For concrete pavements, the adjusted equations did not give sat- − 0.082 R − 0.143 IRI (2)
isfactory results for the cross-validation. The main reasons follow:

R 2 = .940
• The UPCI equation for automated data does not consider
the same distresses included in the UPCI equation for manual
F -value = 94.539 > Fcrit = 2.534
data, so some distresses are not represented in the automated
equation.
• A possible correlation between independent variables con- where
sidered in the automated regression may affect the regressions,
FC = fatigue cracking (%),
considering distresses and IRI values.
TRC = sum of transversal and reflection cracking (%),
• The difference in the evaluation methodologies for manual and
DP = deteriorated patch (%),
automated data collection may affect the regressions. For example, R = rutting (mm), calculated as the average of rutting of seg-
faulting considered in manual evaluations is represented by the IRI ments in the sample unit,
value in automated evaluations. P = potholes (%), and
IRI = international roughness index (m/km), calculated as the
average of roughness of segments in the sample unit.

concrete UPCI manual = 10 − 0.042 LC − 0.025 TC − 0.063 DP

− 0.263 F − 0.038 COB − 0.018 JD (3)

R 2 = .814

F -value = 39.483 > Fcrit = 2.272

where
LC = longitudinal cracking (%),
TC = transversal cracking (%),
DP = deteriorated patch (%),
F = faulting (mm), calculated as the average of faulting of
each slab in the sample unit,
COB = sum of corner and oblique breaks (%), and
FIGURE 3   Validation of UPCI asphalt using manual JD = joint damage (% of total meters of joints in the sample
and automated data with automated equation. unit).
34 Transportation Research Record 2455

TABLE 2   Statistics Values for Equation 1

Correlation Coefficients

Variable t (tcrit = −2.037) FC TRC DP R P

FC −7.402 1.000
TRC −5.116 −0.249 1.000
DP −3.139 0.336 −0.148 1.000
R −2.162 0.066 0.176 0.156 1.000
P −0.499 0.475 0.071 0.120 0.019 1.000

Note: Coefficients in shaded cells are same as below diagonal.

The cracking and deteriorated patch are weighted according to
their severities before ingress into the equations. The weights for
severities are 0.5, 1, and 2 for low, moderate, and severe.
Analysis of Developed Equations
The regressions obtained had good coefficients of determination
and fit the data well. The statistics values are presented in Table 2
through Table 4. In every case, the t-values of the variables are
higher than the tcrit, and the coefficient of correlation between the
variables considered in the final equations is not high.
UPCI for both types of pavements included distresses that repre-
sent the structural and functional behavior of urban pavements. All
distresses in the equations have a high significance in the regres-
sions with the t-value higher than the critical t-value. In addition,
distresses with statistical importance coincide with those observed
with high frequency in the field and considered as the most important
by the expert panel.
Deteriorated patches of pavement have an important effect on the
UPCI value for all developed equations. This outcome is coherent
and consistent with the phenomena observed in urban pavements,
where utility cuts are frequently observed and result in low-quality
patches and high probabilities of premature deterioration. This
conclusion supports the primary hypothesis that special condition
evaluation guidelines and indicators should be developed for urban
pavements.
Comparing the UPCI equations for asphalt pavements, the coef-
ficients for cracking in the UPCImanual equation are slightly higher
than the ones obtained in the UPCIauto equation because by crack-
ing in the semiautomated data analysis presents a lower severity
than in the manual evaluations (19). However, in the UPCIauto equa-
tion, rutting and IRI coefficients cover the error induced by the
lower-severity cracking. Furthermore, it is assumed that the rutting

TABLE 3   Statistics Values for Equation 2

Correlation Coefficients

Variable t (tcrit = −2.042) FC TRC DP R IRI

FC −10.696 1.000
TRC −7.227 0.344 1.000
DP −4.06 0.103 0.032 1.000
R −6.104 −0.555 −0.225 −0.058 1.000
IRI −4.381 −0.285 0.076 −0.123 −0.125 1.000

Note: Coefficients in shaded cells are same as below diagonal.

TABLE 4   Statistics Values for Equation 3

Correlation Coefficients

Variable t (tcrit = −2.005) LC TC DP F COB JD

LC −5.857 1.000
TC −4.080 −0.081 1.000
DP −3.220 0.193 −0.690 1.000
F −3.616 −0.267 −0.414 0.204 1.000
COB −2.209 −0.051 −0.365 0.103 0.191 1.000
JD −2.685 −0.107 −0.279 0.225 0.149 0.221 1.000

Note: Coefficients in shaded cells are same as below diagonal.

Osorio, Chamorro, Tighe, and Videla
and IRI in the UPCIauto equation also represent the effect of potholes,
absent in the automated equation.
In the case of the concrete equation, the high coefficient of fault-
ing is a result of the use of a different unit of measure (millimeters)
than the other distresses in the equation, which are mostly expressed
in percentage of the affected area.
Distresses with a positive coefficient or low significance in the
regression were eliminated from the equations on the basis of the
following technical analysis.
• For asphalt pavements:
– Edge, block, and longitudinal cracking are distresses with
very low frequency in the sample sections evaluated. This find-
ing makes sense because of the presence of sidewalks in urban
pavements and the absence of treated granular base in the evaluated
network.
– Shoving also presents a low frequency because of the use of
concrete pavements in areas with heavy traffic with low speeds,
such as bus stops and corners in the evaluated network.
– Bleeding, raveling, and polished aggregate are distresses with
low significance in network-level analysis for urban pavements.
These distresses are important for project-level analysis.
• For concrete pavements:
– Durability cracking and blowups are distresses with very
low frequency in the sample sections evaluated because of the
climate condition in the sample sections evaluated.
– Map cracking, scaling, polished aggregate, and popouts are
distresses with low significance in network-level analysis for
urban pavements. These distresses are important for project-level
analysis.
• For both pavements: the effect of curb deterioration, water
bleeding and pumping, manholes, and catch basins are represented
by other distresses as fatigue cracking and rutting for asphalt and
oblique cracking and faulting for concrete.
The equations were tried with different values of distresses to
check the effect in the UPCI value, giving coherent results for
medium values but not for extreme conditions (high and low UPCI).
Further analysis is required to define extreme limits for distresses
(maximum or minimum) because extreme conditions may affect the
calculated condition with the developed equations.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The overall objective of the study was fulfilled in the success-
ful calibration and validation of the UPCI for asphalt and con-
crete pavements. Three UPCI equations were obtained: two for
asphalt pavements, considering manual and automated data col-
lection, and one for concrete pavements, considering manual data
collection.
For the application of the developed equations, it is recommended
that, in the case of asphalt pavements, agencies should consider the
advantages and limitations of assessing the network manually or
automatically. It is recommended, however, that the automated
UPCI equation be used when IRI values are available. If IRI values
are not available, the manual UPCI equation considering manual or
automated data is recommended. In the case of concrete pavements,
further research is being done to improve the automated UPCI equa-
tion; therefore, at the present time, the manual UPCI equation is
recommended.
35
A sensitivity analysis tested the UPCI equations with different
distress values to check their impact on the estimated UPCI. The
analysis revealed that extreme limits for distresses (maximum or
minimum) need to be defined, given that extreme conditions may
affect the calculated UPCI.
Furthermore, to transfer results of the analysis to the authorities
and to the public and to capture the sensitivity of the methodology,
it is recommended that quality values of UPCI related to different
types of climates and network hierarchies be defined.
Acknowledgments
The researchers acknowledge the contributions of professionals of
the following agencies in the development of this study: Ministry
of Housing and Urban Development, Regional Government of the
Metropolitan Region, Municipality of Santiago, Municipality of
Macul, Roads Direction of the Ministry of Public Works, and APSA
Consultants. The authors also acknowledge the National Research
Center for Integrated Natural Disaster Management.
References
  1. Chamorro A., S. Tighe, and A. Marcon. Final Report of the HIIFP Proj-
ect Improving Network Level Pavement Management through Rational-
ization and Utilization of Automated/Semi-Automated Technologies.
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2008.
  2. Chamorro A., S. L. Tighe, L. Ningyuan, and T. J. Kazmierowski. Devel-
opment of Distress Guidelines and Condition Rating to Improve Net-
work Management in Ontario, Canada. In Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2093,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2009, pp. 128–135.
  3. Chamorro, A., H. E. de Solminihac, M. Salgado, and E. Barrera. Devel-
opment and Validation of a Method to Evaluate Unpaved Road Con-
dition with Objective Distress Measures. In Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2101,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2009, pp. 3–9.
  4. Reza, F., K. Boriboonsomsin, and S. M. Bazlamit. Development of a
Pavement Quality Index for State of Ohio. Presented at 85th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.,
2006.
  5. de Solminihac, H., W. Marquez, F. Halles, A. Chamorro, and M. Val-
des. Pavement and Shoulder Condition Models Developed with Expert
Surveys: The Chilean Application. Arabian Journal for Science and
Engineering, Vol. 34, No. 2B, 2009, pp. 137–142.
  6. Wolters, A., K. Zimmerman, K. Schattler, and A. Rietgraf. Implement-
ing Pavement Management Systems for Local Agencies: State-of-the-
Art/State-of-the-Practice. Research Project ICT-11-094. Illinois Center
for Transportation, Rantoul, 2011.
 7. Kafi, M. Development Practices for Municipal Pavement Management
Systems Application. University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2012.
 8. Flexible Pavement Condition Rating: Guidelines for Municipalities.
Ministry of Transportation, Ontario, Canada, 1989.
 9. Metodología Simplificada para Evaluar Proyectos de Mantenimiento Vial
Urbano. Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo, Santiago, Chile, 1998.
10. Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Perfor-
mance Program. Publication FHWA-RD-03-031. FHWA, U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation, 2003.
11. Instructivo de Inspección Visual de Caminos Pavimentados. Ministerio
de Obras Públicas, Dirección de Vialidad, Santiago, Chile, 2010.
12. Flintsch, G. W., and K. K. McGhee. NCHRP Synthesis of Practice 401:
Quality Management of Pavement Condition Data Collection. Trans-
portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2009.
13. Smith, R. E., T. J. Freeman, and O. J. Pendleton. Evaluation of Auto-
mated Pavement Distress Data Collection Procedures for Local Agency
36
Pavement Management. Research Project GC10470. Washington State
Department of Transportation, Olympia, 1996.
14. Chamorro, A., S. L. Tighe, L. Ningyuan, and T. Kazmierowski. Validation
and Implementation of Ontario, Canada, Network-Level Distress Guide-
lines and Condition Rating. In Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2153, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 49–57.
15. Tighe, S. L., L. Ningyuan, and T. J. Kazmierowski. Evaluation of Semi­
automated and Automated Pavement Distress Collection for Network-
Level Pavement Management. In Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2084, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 11–17.
16. Investigación y Desarrollo de Soluciones para la Gestión de Pavimentos
Urbanos en Chile. Proyecto Formulation Fondef D09I1018. Pontificia
Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, 2010.
17. Pavement Asset Design and Management Guide: Draft. Transportation
Association of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 2013.
18. DICTUC. Análisis de Sensibilidad de Parámetros del Modelo HDM-4 y
Actualización de Metodología para la Determinación del Estado de Cami-
nos Pavimentados. Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Dirección General de
Obras Públicas, Dirección de Vialidad, Departamento de Gestión Vial,
2006.
19. Chamorro, A. Implementation and Validation of a Digital Technology for
Pavement Visual Inspection in Chile. MS thesis. Escuela de Ingeniería,
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, 2004.
Transportation Research Record 2455
20. APSA–FONTEC. Development of a New Service for the Evaluation of
Distresses in Pavements Using Digital Technology. FONTEC-CORFO
No. 203-3757, Santiago, Chile, 2004.
21. Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo. Diagnostico Vial-Región Metro-
politana, Cobertura y Déficit de Pavimentación. Unidad de Paviment-
ación. Depto. Planes y Programas. Seremi Metropolitana de Santiago,
Chile, 2008.
22. Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo. Código de Normas y Especifica-
ciones Técnicas de Obras de Pavimentación. Versión 2008, Santiago,
Chile, 2008.
23. Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo. Manual de Vialidad Urbana,
Recomendaciones para el Diseño de Elementos de la Infraestructura
Vial Urbana. División de Desarrollo Urbano, 2009.
24. DDQ Ingeniero Consultor. Modelos de Deterioros de Caminos No Pavi-
mentados, Informe Final. Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Dirección General
de Obras Públicas, Dirección de Vialidad, Departamento de Gestión Vial,
2008.
25. Chamorro, A. Development of a Sustainable Management System for
Rural Road Networks in Developing Countries. University of Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada, 2012.
26. Cook, R. D. Influential Observations in Linear Regression. Journal of the
American Statistical Association, Vol. 74, No. 365, 1979, pp. 169–174.
The Pavement Management Systems Committee peer-reviewed this paper.