Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Transportation
Available Research
online Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
at www.sciencedirect.com
Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 2195–2207
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

World Conference on Transport Research - WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10-15 July 2016
World Conference on Transport Research - WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10-15 July 2016
A Rational Strategy for Resource Allocation for Rural Road
A Rational Strategy for Resource Allocation for Rural Road
Maintenance
Maintenance
Agarwal P.Ka., Khan A.B.b, Choudhary S.c
Agarwal P.Ka., Khan A.B.b, Choudhary S.c
a
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal 462051, India
a
b
Professor,
M.tech Department
student, of of
Department Civil Engineering,
Civil Maulana
Engineering, Azad
Maulana National
Azad Institute
National of of
Institute Technology, Bhopal
Technology, 462051,
Bhopal India
462051, India
bc
M.tech student, Department
P.hD. scholar, Department of
of Civil
Civil Engineering,
Engineering, Maulana
Maulana Azad
Azad National
National Institute
Institute of
of Technology,
Technology, Bhopal
Bhopal 462051,
462051, India
India
c
P.hD. scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal 462051, India

Abstract
Abstract
A huge rural road network created recently in developing countries has resulted in increased social and economic benefits in rural
A hugeThus,
areas. rural in
road network
order to reapcreated recently
the benefits of in developing
created assets countries has resulted
it is essential in increased
to maintain social and
the low volume economic
rural benefits
road timely. in rural
Rural road
areas.
networkThus, in order to reap
are deteriorating fastthe benefits
due to lackofofcreated
timely assets it is essential
maintenance, leadingtotomaintain the lowoperating
higher vehicle volume rural road
costs, timely. Rural
increasing numberroad
of
network are
accidents deteriorating
etc. The main fast due to of
objective lack of study
this timelyismaintenance,
to develop leading to higher
innovative vehicle
strategies foroperating costs, increasing
rational allocation numberfor
of resources of
accidents
maintenanceetc.ofThe
low main
volumeobjective
rural roadof network
this study
in aissimple
to develop
and costinnovative strategiesThe
effective manner. forimportant
rational allocation
contributionofofresources
this studyfor
is
maintenance of low volume
a two stage strategy rural roadofnetwork
for maintenance in a simple
low volume and cost
rural roads. Theeffective manner. The
strategy proposed important
in this study iscontribution of this
illustrated with thestudy is
help of
aexample
two stage
of strategy for maintenance
some hypothetical of lownetwork.
rural roads volume Analysis
rural roads. The strategy
results indicatedproposed
that the in this study
proposed is illustrated
strategy with consuming
is less time the help of
example of some
simple and hypothetical
cost effective and rural
can beroads network.
executed withAnalysis
minimalresults indicated
data which canthat the proposed
be obtained strategy
easily is less time consuming
and economically from each
simple
section and cost effective
of a rural and can be executed with minimal data which can be obtained easily and economically from each
roads network
section of a rural roads network
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
©© 2017
2017 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published byby Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review
Peer-review under responsibility
under responsibility of Elsevier
of WORLDB.V.
WORLD CONFERENCE ON
CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT
TRANSPORT RESEARCHRESEARCH SOCIETY.
SOCIETY.
Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.
Keywords:Low volume roads, rural road resources allocation, Road maintenance, Prioritization, Maintenance activities.
Keywords:Low volume roads, rural road resources allocation, Road maintenance, Prioritization, Maintenance activities.

1. Introduction
1. Introduction
The benefits of created rural road are essential to maintain the low volume rural road network timely. However,
The benefits have
experiences of created
shownrural
thatroad areroads,
these essential to maintain
although the low
relatively volume
cheap rural roadare
to construct, network
often timely. However,
an unsustainable
experiences have
maintenance burdenshown thatrural
for many theseroad
roads, although
authorities, andrelatively
are rarelycheap to construct,
maintained are often
in a serviceable an unsustainable
conditions. India has
maintenance
a road network burden for many
of over rural kilometers
4,689,842 road authorities, and the
in 2013, are second
rarely maintained
largest roadin anetwork
serviceable
in theconditions. Indiaroad
world. Rural has
anetwork
road network
consistsof
of over 4,689,842
the 58% kilometers
road network in 2013,
percentage of the
totalsecond largest in
road network road network
India, hence in the world.
required Rural
a great careroad
and
network consists of
huge investment forthe 58% road network
construction percentageHence,
and maintenance. of totallow
roadvolume
network in India,
roads hence required
are deteriorating fasta due
greattocare
lackand
of
huge investment for construction and maintenance. Hence, low volume roads are deteriorating fast due
timely maintenance, leading to higher vehicle operating costs, increasing number of accidents etc. Once these roads to lack of
timely maintenance, leading to higher vehicle operating costs, increasing number of accidents etc. Once these roads
Corresponding author .Tel:+91-942-530-2304; fax: +91-755 2670562
Corresponding
⃰E-mail address:author .Tel:+91-942-530-2304; fax: +91-755 2670562
pka9@yahoo.com
⃰E-mail address: pka9@yahoo.com
2214-241X© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
2214-241X© 2017 responsibility
Peer-review under The Authors. of
Published
WORLD byCONFERENCE
Elsevier B.V. ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.
Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.

2352-1465 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.
10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.422
2196 Agarwal P.K. et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 2195–2207
2 Agarwal P.K.et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

start to deteriorate; they deteriorate rapidly beyond the point where maintenance is effective. If timely maintenance
is not provided, the reconstruction will become unavoidable. Thus, providing appropriate maintenance treatment at
appropriate time, the rate of deterioration can be deferred to a great extent and this will reduce the maintenance cost
of such a huge road network. Thus, prioritization of maintenance of the low volume rural roads is essential.
Prioritization of maintenance activities depends on several factors such as condition of road i.e. quantity and quality
of deterioration, increasing rate of deterioration, importance of the different sections etc. Hence, it is difficult to
allocation of resources to various activities in order of their maintenance priority in a road network. Thus, there is
an urgent need to develop a rational strategy for resource allocation for rural road maintenance.

However, a critical review of the literature indicated that no such comprehensive methodology is available to
prioritize maintenance activities for a low volume road network. Most of the methods for evaluation of section
conditions are sophisticated, costly and need specialized equipment and men power thus, the use of such strategy on
rural network practically becomes impossible. Hence, there is an urgent need to develop rational strategies focusing
on rural road network which are cost effective, quick and simply operated. Thus, the main objective of this study is
to develop a rational strategy to select the most appropriate activities to be carried out at different sections of a low
volume roads network considering their priority for maintenance based on importance, functional structural
conditions and importance of rural road section etc. In this study, a two stage strategy is proposed. The strategy
proposed in this study is illustrated with the help of example of some hypothetical rural roads network. Analysis
results indicated that the proposed strategy is considered to be more rational, innovative & logical.

This paper consists of four sections of which this is the first. The second section presents rational strategy for
resource allocation for rural road maintenance and the third section present the analysis and result using proposed
strategy. The last section presents the important conclusions drawn based on this study.
2. A rational strategy for resource allocation for rural road maintenance
The main objective of this study is to develop the maintenance strategy for rural roads network. It is proposed to
select maintenance activities to be carried out on different rural road sections in two stages. Stage I determines rural
road section index for sections based on the basis of the rational strategy proposed in this study. Stage II determines
activity index of maintenance activities on different sections. Thus, the rational strategy proposes that first sections
which are more critical for maintenance needs to be selected. The strategy identifies to select maintenance activities
using minimum data. Further, strategy proposes that the sections identified in stage I needs to be evaluated in more
details so that the various maintenance activities to be carried out on these sections can be prioritized. Thus, the
proposed strategy will be more economical as details studies needs not to be carried out on all sections. The rational
strategy of resource allocation to maintenance activities stage I and stage II are briefly explained in the following
section:

2.1 Stage-I Rational strategy to determine section index of rural road sections:

A hierarchical structure is developed to resource allocation affecting the allocation of resources for rural road
sections. The resources allocation for rural road section depends upon section condition and section importance.
Further section condition depends upon functional condition, structural condition and drainage condition. Further
functional condition depends upon traffic operational condition and traffic safety condition and road importance of
rural roads. Figure 1 presents the hierarchical structure developed in stage I to determine section index of rural road
sections.

The factors affecting section index of rural road sections identified from the hierarchical structure presented in
Figure 1 are. (i) Structural condition, (ii) Traffic Operation Condition, (iii) Traffic Safety Condition and (iv) Section
Importance (v) Drainage Condition. A section index (SIs) is also developed in this stage to priorities the different
sections of low volume road network. The SIs is developed considering the condition of the factors at different
sections and their weight (i.e. relative contribution in determining resources allocation to sections).
 Agarwal P.K. et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 2195–2207 2197
Agarwal P. K.et al../ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3

Rural Road

0.85 0.15

Section Section
Condition Importance
[F-5]

0.35 0.40 0.15

0.1
Structural Drainage Importance
Functional
Condition Condition rating
Condition
[F-3] [F-4]

0.12 0.23 0.40 0.1

Traffic Traffic Structural Camber
Operation Safety distress C/S slope
condition condition
[F-1] [F-2]
0.12 0.23
Surface Road Geometry
Distress Furniture missing
surface condition

Figure 1: A hierarchical structure for resource allocation to rural road sections.

.
*
𝑆𝑆𝐼𝐼$ = '+, 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆' ×𝑤𝑤' (1)
Where,
SIs=Section Index of section S
SFi=Section factor for factor i
Wi=Weight of factor i
n = number of factors for sections
Now various factors considered are structural condition, traffic operation condition, drainage condition, and traffic
safety condition and section importance. Hence, Equation 1 can be written as follows:-

SIs = (WToc* TOCIs) + (WTsc * TSCIs) + (Wstc * SCIs) + (Wdrc * DCIs) + (SIIs* Wsim) (2)

Where,
TOCIs = Traffic operational condition Index for section s
TSCIs = Traffic safety condition index for section s
SCIs = Structural condition Index for section s
DCIs = Drainage Condition index for section s
SIIs = Section importance Index for section s
WToc = Weight of traffic operational condition for section s
WTsc = Weight of traffic safety condition for section s
Wstc = Weight of Structural condition for section s
Wdrc = Weight of Drainage Condition for section s
Wsim = Weight of section importance for section s

Now, the strategy to evaluate condition of factors i.e. Traffic safety condition, Traffic operational condition
Structural Condition, and Drainage condition etc. is developed and explained as follows:
2198 Agarwal P.K. et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 2195–2207
4 Agarwal P.K.et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

2.1.1 Traffic operational condition Index for section S [TOCIs]

It is proposed that condition of traffic operation can be evaluated using an index named as traffic operation condition
index for section s. The surface distress affects the traffic operation. Hence, the general equation for TOIs is
presented in Equation 3.

𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠 = (3)
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇s
Where,
TOCIs= Traffic operational condition Index for section S.
DISAs= Distress in surface area for section S (m2)
TASs= Total Area of section S (m2)

2.1.2 Traffic safety condition index for section S [TSCIs]

It is proposed that condition of traffic safety can be evaluated using an index named as traffic safety index
(TSCIs).Traffic safety index for section s may vary from 0.0 to 1.0 (most hazardous to no hazards condition). The
TSCIs can be obtained by a user defined rating. The rating for traffic safety conditions of a section may depends
upon poor geometric condition of road, poor surface condition etc. Table-1 presents the guidelines for user rating of
traffic safety condition.
Table 1 Guidelines for user rating for evaluation of traffic safety condition
S.No. Section safety Condition Detail Rating
condition
1 Extremely hazards Adverse most severe Geometry condition 1.0
condition Large no of traffic furniture are missing
Road Surface has big potholes
2 Most severe condition Road Geometry is very poor as curves are not designed properly 0.8
Road furniture are missing at some places they are also not provided at appropriate places
Potholes of small sizes on road surface
3 Severe condition Major Crakes and rut on the road surface 0.6
Traffic furniture at few places are missing
Roads geometry is improper at some places and adequate curve radius not provided
4 Moderate condition Potholes are very small and they are less in area, 0.4
Traffic furniture condition is poor at some places,
Road geometry is improper for some stretch of roads
5 Safe condition Potholes are very small and they are very less in area 0.2
Traffic furniture at one or two places is missing
Road geometry is improper at very few places
6 No hazardous condition Improper Road geometry is negligible. 0.0
Ideal condition of road surface
Traffic furniture are not missing,

2.1.3 Structural condition Index for section s [SCIs]

It is proposed that structural condition can be evaluated using an index named as structural condition index for
section s (SCIs). The structural distress i.e. fatigue, cracking and rut depth effects structural condition. Hence, the
general equation for SCIs is presented in Equation 4.
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠 = (4)
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
Where,
SCIs= Structural Condition Index at section S.
ASDs = Area of structural distress (rut depth, fatigue cracking) at section S (m2)
TASs = Total area of section S (m2)
 Agarwal P.K. et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 2195–2207 2199
Agarwal P. K.et al../ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 5

2.1.4 Evaluation of Drainage Condition Index for section s [DCIs]

Effect of moisture content changes on the strength and stiffness of construction materials of road. Excess moisture
reduces the strength and stiffness of pavement materials, being worse for the subgrade material, excess moisture and
particularly high degrees of saturation result in significant pore pressures within the material. Depending on the
degree of saturation, failure may occur as any of rapid shear or bearing failure, premature rutting, lifting of wearing
course due to positive pore pressures, or embedment of cover aggregate due to weak base. A Drainage condition
index for section sis developed to evaluate the improper camber at road. Drainage condition Index for section scan
be determined using Equation 5
89:
DCIs= (5)
;9<
Where:
DCIs = Drainage condition Index at section s
DCs = RCs - ACs
RCs = Required Camber at section s
ACs = Available Camber at section s
2.1.5Section Importance Index for section s (SIIs)
It is proposed that condition of section importance can be evaluated using an index named as Section Importance
Index for section s (SIIs).Section importance index for section s may vary from 0.0 to 1.0 (very less important to
extremely important). The SIIs can be obtained by a user defined rating. The user rating for section importance of a
section may depend upon, importance to community, connectivity to market center, connectivity to health center,
connectivity to other district roads etc.Table-2 presents the guidelines for user rating of rural road section
importance.
Table 2.Guidelines for user rating for evaluation of section importance index for section s
S. No. Section Importance User Rating
1 Extremely important (urgent) 1.0
2 Very important 0.8
3 Fairly Important 0.6
4 Important 0.4
5 Less important 0.2
6 Very less important 0.0

The systems of weights are introduced to reflect the contribution of each index and factors. Analytical hierarchy
process (AHP) is used to determine the weight of the different factors. The details of weight considered for various
factors are presented in Table 3.
Table 3.Details of the weight for various factors affecting overall section condition

S.No ID Section factor for section Notation Weight

1 F-1 Traffic operational condition TOC 0.12
2 F-2 Traffic Safety Condition TSCIs 0.23
3 F-3 Structural Condition SCIs 0.40
4 F-4 Drainage condition DCIs 0.10
5 F-5 Section importance SIIs 0.15
Summation of weight = 1.00

Now putting the value of Section factor weight in Equation 2 it can be written as Equation
Sis = 0.12 TOCIs+ 0.23 TSCI s + 0.40 SCI s + 0.10 DCI s + 0.15 SII s (6)

Further, to illustrate the strategy and to illustrate how methodology works, ten different sections were analyzed and
details of analysis and results obtained are presented in stage 2.
 2200 Agarwal P.K. et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 2195–2207
6 Agarwal P.K.et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

2.2 Stage-II Strategy to determine activity index of Maintenance Activities at section

The strategy to determine activity index of various maintenance activities to be carried out on rural road section s
(AIas) is presented in Equation 7.

AIas= SFis ×Wi (7)

Where,
Wi=Weight (Relative importance) of Sub factor condition index i at section s
SFis= Sub factor of activity index, i at section S.
AIas=Activity index of maintenance activity at section s
2.2.1Evaluation of sub factor condition index for section s (SFIS)
The strategy proposes that on the sections prioritized in stage-I, the condition of various section factors like SCIs,
TOCIs, TSCIs, DCIs and SIIs need to be evaluated in more details so that various maintenance activities to be carried
out on these sections can be prioritized. Therefore, it is required to evaluate conditions of sub factor condition index
the relative importance of various sub factor condition indices is shown in Figure 2

Resources allocation to
maintenance activity

0.85 0.15

Section Section
Condition Importance
0.85 0.15
0.40 0.48 0.12
Structural 0.6
Functional Drainage 0.4
Condition Condition Condition Traffic Importance to
0.34 0.408 0.102 Volume community
[SF-11]
0.35 0.65 0.50 0.30 0.09
[SF-12]0.07
0.50 0.70
Traffic Traffic Safety
operation Condition Fatigue Longitudinal
Rutting Transverse
Condition 0.221 cracking
[SF-8] Drainage Drainage Rating
0.119 [SF-7] 0.21 0.031 0.0714
0.19

0.32 0.26 0.4 0.6 Camber Section
Longitudinal
Distorted Road Slope [SF-10] Traffic
Surface
Fractured Road
Geometry [SF-9] 0.07 (msa)
Surface Furniture
[SF-1] [SF-3] 0.0884 0.133 0.03
0.040 Rut
0.032
depth Required
Required
0.42 Camber
0.75 0.25 longitudinal
Disintegrated Sign Board Super Longitudin
slope
Surface Road marking Elevation al gradient
[SF-2] [SF-4] [SF-5] [SF-6]
0.05 0.08
0.11 0.028

Sign Required Longitudi Alligator
Depression Pothole Cracking
board super nal Crack
elevation gradient

Figure 2: A hierarchical structure for resource allocation to various maintenance activities of rural road sections.

Evaluate of sub factors affecting conditions of section like Traffic Safety Condition index TSCIs, Traffic operation
Condition Index TOCIs, Structural Condition index SCIs, Drainage Condition index DCIs and Section importance
Index SIIs. are explained in Table 4
 Agarwal P.K. et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 2195–2207 2201
Agarwal P. K.et al../ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 7

Table 4.Determination of sub factor condition index for resources allocation of rural road maintenance activity

A. Traffic operation Condition Index (TOCIs) B. Traffic Safety Condition index (TSCIs)

1. Distorted Distress condition Index at section S(DSSIs) 4. Traffic Sign Board/Road marking Index at section s (TSBIs)

DSSIs = PDAs RT𝑠𝑠$ − AT𝑠𝑠$

MDAs TSBI$ =
RT𝑠𝑠$

Where, Where,
PDAs=Present distorted area( in percent of total area)on the section s TSBIs = Traffic sign board index at section s
MDAs=Maximum distorted area( in percent of total area) on any RTSs = required number of traffic sign at section s
section in the network ATSs = available number of traffic sign/ Marking at section s

2. Disintegrated Distress condition Index at section s (DISIs) 5. Inadequate super elevation index at section s (SE𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠 )
D8EF<
DISIs = RSE: − ASE:
G8EF< SEI$ =
RSE:
Where,
PDIAs=Present disintegrated area( in percent of total area)on the
section s Where,
MDIAs=Maximum disintegrated area( in percent of total area) on any RSEs = Required super elevation in %
section in the network. ASEs = Available super elevation in %

3. Fractured Distress condition Index at section s (FSIs ) 6. Longitudinal gradient Index at section s (LGIs)
DIF< RLG: − ALG:
FSIs= LGI: =
GIF<
RLG:
Where,
Where,
PFAs=Present fractured area( in percent of total area) on the section
MFAs=Maximum fractured area( in percent of total area)on any LGIs= Longitudinal gradient index
section in the network ALGs = available longitudinal gradient
RLGs= required longitudinal gradient
C. Structural Condition index (SCIs) D. Drainage Condition index (DCIs)

7. Fatigue cracking area index at section s 9. Longitudinal Slope Index at section s (LSIs)

FCSA : RLs: − ALs:

FCSI: = LSI: =
TCA : RLs:
Where, Where:
FCSAs=Fatigue cracking surface area at section s LSIs = Longitudinal slope index at section s
= Lcs x WCS ALSs = available longitudinal slope at section s
Lcs= Length of cut surface at section s RLSs = required longitudinal slope at section s
Wcs = width of cut surface in m2at section s
TCAs= Total carriageway area in m2at section s

8. Rutting Surface Index at section s (RSI: ) 10. Inadequate camber Condition index at section s (ICC: )

RSA : RC: − AC:

RSI: = ICCS: =
TCA : RC:
Where:
Where,
ICCs= Inadequate Camber condition index at section S
RSAs=Rutting surface area in m2, at section s
ACs= Available camber in %
TCAs= Total carriageway area in m2of section s
RCs= required camber in %
E. Section importance Index (SIIs)

11. Traffic Volume Index (TVIs) 12. Importance of Community Index (ICIs)

NOPQQRS TUVWXY PZ Z[Y :YSZRU\ 9UXXW\RZ^ EX_UOZP\SY UQ Z[Y :YSZRU\ :

TVIs= ICIs =
XP]RXWX ZOPQQRS TUVWXY PZ P\^ :YSZRU\ GP]RXWX 9UXXW\RZ^ EX_UOZP\SY UQ P\^ :YSZRU\

The relative weight of condition factors were obtained using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and are presented in
Table 5. The AHP is a mathematical device in multi-criteria decision making which designing the decision factors in
2202 Agarwal P.K. et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 2195–2207
8 Agarwal P.K.et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

a hierarchic problem structure. The main target of the AHP is to decide and help decision makers in making
resolution for the complex problem by structuring the criterion hierarchy of multi-criteria decision making.
Hierarchical structure shows the weights for the respective factors. Factor of structure condition is the first in
ranking order followed by functional condition. Section importance ranked as the third place. The lowest factor
weight is section importance with 0.1.

Table 5: Details of the factor for resources allocation of maintenance activity

S.No Notation Factor Factor Weight
Global Local
1 Traffic operation Condition SF-1 Distorted Distress condition 0.34 0.040
2 SF-2 Disintegrated Distress condition 0.55 0.050
3 SF-3 Fractured Distress condition 0.11 0.032
4 Traffic Safety Condition SF-4 Sign Board, marking 0.40 0.080
5 SF-5 Poor Super elevation 0.75 0.110
6 SF-6 Longitudinal gradient 0.25 0.028
7 Structural Condition SF-7 Fatigue Cracking area 0.35 0.190
8 SF-8 Rut Depth area 0.65 0.210
9 Drainage Condition SF-9 Longitudinal Slope 0.30 0.030
10 SF-10 Improper Camber 0.70 0.070
11 Section Importance SF-11 Traffic Volume index 0.60 0.090
12 SF-12 Importance to community 0.40 0.070
Total = 1.000

Importance to community is an important factor to decide the importance of the section. It gives an idea about the
importance of connected places with the road. Weights of these factors are given in Table 6
Table: 6 Guidelines for user rating for evaluation of Importance to community
S.no. Community Importance User Rating
1 Extremely important
(Section connected to extremely important places i.e. Hospitals, market center etc.) 0.9

2 Fairly Important
(Section connected to fairly important places i.e. District head quarter, Panchayat etc.) 0.7

3 Important
(Section connected to important places i.e. Schools, local shops etc.) 0.5

4 Less important
(Section connected to less important places i.e. Bus stops etc) 0.3

5 Very Less important

0.1
(Section connected to very less important places i.e. Residential area,etc)

3 Analysis and Result using rational strategy for resource allocation

The strategy developed in this study is illustrated by analyzing for resource allocation to a hypothetical rural road
network. This road network consists of ten different road sections designated as S1to S10. The proposed strategy
consists of two stages and analysis and result for each of the stage is presented in following section.

3.1 Analysis and Results for resource allocation to section (Stage-I)

To illustrate the methodology, a hypothetical network of ten different road sections is analyzed in Stage-I. Stage 1
includes evaluation of section index (SIs) of ten different rural road sections. Resource allocation to ten different
rural road sections can be made on the basis of section index (SIs) of different sections. Detail of input data for
analysis using proposed strategy is presented in Table 7.
 Agarwal P.K. et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 2195–2207 2203
Agarwal P. K.et al../ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 9

Table 7: Input data for analysis for resource allocation to sections (Stage-I)
S.No. Section Total Area Area of surface Area of structural Required Available Section Traffic
(S) for section S distress for distress for Camber for Camber for importance safety
(TASs) section S section S section S section S for section condition for
(m2) (DOSs) (ASDs) (RCs) (ACs) S section S
(m2) (m2) (%) (%) (SIIs) (TSCIs)
1 S1 3750 750 1125 4.0 3.2 0.3 0.9
2 S2 3750 1125 3375 3.0 2.7 0.2 0.3
3 S3 3750 1125 375 5.0 1.25 0.2 0.7
4 S4 3750 750 375 3.0 1.5 0.8 0.4
5 S5 3750 1125 750 3.0 2.4 0.2 0.3
6 S6 3750 1125 1125 5.0 1.0 0.2 0.2
7 S7 3750 750 1125 2.5 2.0 0.8 0.1
8 S8 3750 3000 750 3.0 2.7 0.2 0.2
9 S9 3750 2625 1125 4.0 3.2 0.8 0.2
10 S10 3750 2250 2625 3.0 2.4 0.2 0.2

The Section index (SIs) for all the ten sections was determined using Equation 6 and it is presented in Table 8. After
determining SIs various sections were ranked in the order of their SIs values which are also given in Table
8.Available resources for maintenance can be allocated in the order of the rank of the sections.
Table 8: Analysis results for section index (SIs) and rank of different sections in the identified network (Stage-I)

S.No. Section Traffic Structural Drainage Section Traffic operational Section Rank of
(S) safety condition for condition for importance for condition Index index for the
condition section S section S section S for section S section S section
for section (SCIs) (DCIs) (SIIs) (TOCIs) (SIs) (Rs)
S (TSCIs)
1 S1 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.411 3
2 S2 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.509 1
3 S3 0.7 0.1 0.75 0.2 0.3 0.338 5
4 S4 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.324 6
5 S5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.234 10
6 S6 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.314 7
7 S7 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.309 8
8 S8 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.261 9
9 S9 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.7 0.401 4
10 S10 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.452 2

Table 8 indicated that SIs value of different section indicates the priority given to that section. High value of SIs
indicates that higher priority should be given for resource allocation for maintenance of respective sections in order
of their SIs. Analysis and result for stage I is also shown graphically in Fig 3.
2204 Agarwal P.K. et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 2195–2207
10 Agarwal P.K.et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

0,600 Rs=Rank of the section

RS=1
Section index of section S Is

0,500 RS=2
RS=3 RS=4
0,400 RS=5 RS=6 RS=7 RS=8
RS=9
0,300 RS=10

0,200

0,100

0,000
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

Section S →

Fig.3. Analysis results for resource allocation to different sections on the basis of section index of the section

Ranks obtained for different section are also shown in the Fig 3. It is clear from the Fig 3 that Section S2 gets
highest priority for resource allocation for maintenance. It seems to be logical as Section S2 is having highest
structural condition index and all others i.e. traffic operation index, traffic safety index, section importance index,
drainage condition index are negligible and weight of structural condition is highest. It also seems to be logical as
section S5 gets lowest priority for resource allocation for maintenance as section S5 is having negligible values of
all the condition index i.e. structural condition index, traffic operation index, traffic safety index, section importance
index, drainage condition index. Thus the proposed strategy allocates resources to different sections rationally.
3.2 Analysis and Results for resource allocation to maintenance activities (Stage-II)

To illustrate the methodology, four different rural road sections (whose section index (SIs) is higher in Table-8) are
identified depending upon resource available. These identified sections for further analysis in stage-II are S2, S10,
S1, S9. Stage-II includes determination of Activity index (AIas) of all the activities to be carried out on identified
sections from Stage-I. The AIas value of all activities is determined by using equation 7. Resource allocation to these
four different rural road sections can be made on the basis of Activity index (AIas) of different activity. Table 9
present the details of input data of activities on four rural road sections which are getting priority from stage I.

Table 9 – Details of input data for stage-II (analysis for resource allocation to maintenance activities)

S.No. Parameter S2 S10 S1 S9

1 Present distorted area on the section (PDAs) ( in % of total area) 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0
2 Maximum distorted area on any section in the network (MDAs) ( in % of total area) 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
3 Present disintegrated area on the section (PDIAs) ( in % of total area) 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
4 Maximum disintegrated area on any section in the network.(MDIAs) ( in % of total area) 0.0 10.0 0.0 5.0
5 Present fractured area on the section ( PFAs) ( in % of total area) 3.0 4.0 1.0 0.0
6 Maximum fractured area on any section in the network (MFAs) ( in % of total area) 10.0 10.0 5.0 0.0
7 Required number of traffic sign/marking (RTSs) (in number) 0.0 0.0 6.0 10.0
8 Available number of traffic sign/ marking ATSs) (in number) 0.0 0.0 3.0 9.0
9 Required super elevation (RSEs) (in %) 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 Available super elevation (ASEs) (in %) 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
11 Required longitudinal gradient (RLGs) (in %) 0.0 2.5 2.0 2.0
12 Available longitudinal gradient (ALGs) (in %) 0.0 2.0 1.2 1.8
13 Fatigue cracking surface area (FCSAs) (in m2) 1125 1500 375 750
14 Total carriageway area (TCAs) (in m2) 3750 3750 3750 3750
15 Rutting surface area (RSAs) (in m2) 2250 1125 750 0.0
16 Required longitudinal slope (RLSs) (in %) 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0
17 Available longitudinal slope (ALSs) (in %) 0.0 1.6 1.75 0.0
18 Required camber (RCs) (in %) 3.0 0.0 4.0 4.0
19 Available camber (ACs) (in %) 2.7 0.0 3.7 3.2
 Agarwal P.K. et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 2195–2207 2205
Agarwal P. K.et al../ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 11

Analysis and results of stage-II for determination of maintenance condition indices is as per the strategy explained in
the earlier section. The analysis results and the values of SFIis obtained from above input data are given in Table 10.

Table: 10 Analysis results of condition of various sub factor condition index of activity i at section S (SFIiS) of stage-II

S. No. Sub factor condition index of activity (SFIis) S2 S10 S1 S9

1 Distorted Distress condition (DTSIs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30
2 Disintegrated Distress condition (DISIs) 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.40
3 Fractured Distress condition (FSIs) 0.30 0.40 0.20 0.00
4 Traffic Sign Board/Road marking Index (TSMIs) 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.10
5 Inadequate super elevation index (SEIs) 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 Longitudinal gradient Index (LGIs) 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.10
7 Fatigue cracking area (FCSIs) 0.30 0.40 0.10 0.20
8 Rutting Surface Index (RSIs) 0.60 0.30 0.20 0.00
9 Longitudinal Slope Index (LSIs) 0.00 0.20 0.13 0.00
10 Inadequate camber Condition (ICCs) 0.10 0.00 0.08 0.20

These indices given in Table 10 were used to determine activity index for different activities i.e. AIas using Equation
6. After determining AIas various sections were ranked in the order of their (maintenance activities) AIas value and
are shown in Table 11.

Table: 11 Analysis and result for determination of activity index for resource allocation to maintenance activities

S.no Section Factor Individual sub factor condition indices of Activities Activity Rank of
. Condition activities index activities
Indices Sub factor condition indices of SFIiS at section
(From activities AIas S (RaS)
Stage-I)
1 S2 TOCIs (0.3) Fractured Distress condition (FSIs) 0.3 Filling of cracks A2-1 0.0096 16
TSCIs (0.3) Inadequate super elevation index (SEIs) 0.3 Providing adequate super A2-2
elevation 0.033 8
SCIs (0.9) Fatigue cracking area (FCSIs) 0.3 Filling of Fatigue Cracks A2-3 0.057 4
Rutting Surface Index (RSIs) 0.6 Filling of rut depth A2-4 0.126 1
DCIs (0.1) Inadequate camber Condition (ICCs) 0.1 Providing adequate camber A2-5 0.007 18
2 S10 TOCIs (0.6) Disintegrated Distress condition (DISIs) 0.2 Filling of Potholes A10-1 0.01 15
Fractured Distress condition (FSIs) 0.4 Filling of cracks A10-2 0.013 12
TSCIs (0.2) Longitudinal gradient Index (LGIs) 0.2 Providing adequate A10-3
longitudinal gradient
0.0056 21
SCIs (0.7) Fatigue cracking area (FCSIs) 0.4 Filling of Fatigue Cracks A10-4 0.076 2
Rutting Surface Index (RSIs) 0.3 Filling of rut depth A10-5 0.063 3
DCIs (0.2) Longitudinal Slope Index (LSIs) 0.2 Providing adequate A10-6
longitudinal slope 0.006 20
3 S1 TOCIs (0.2) Fractured Distress condition (FSIs) 0.2 Filling of cracks A1-1 0.0064 19
TSCIs (0.9) Traffic Sign Board/Road marking Index 0.5 Providing Sign A1-2
(TSMIs) board/Marking 0.04 6
Longitudinal gradient Index (LGIs) 0.4 Providing adequate A1-3
longitudinal gradient 0.011 14
SCIs (0.3) Fatigue cracking area (FCSIs) 0.1 Filling of Fatigue Cracks A1-4 0.019 10
Rutting Surface Index (RSIs) 0.2 Filling of rut depth A1-5 0.042 5
DCIs (0.2) Longitudinal Slope Index (LSIs) 0.125 Providing adequate A1-6
longitudinal slope 0.0038 23
Inadequate camber Condition (ICCs) 0.075 Providing adequate camber A1-7
condition 0.0053 22
4 S9 TOCIs (0.7) Distorted Distress condition (DTSIs) 0.3 Surface improvement A9-1 0.012 13
Disintegrated Distress condition (DISIs) 0.4 Filling of Potholes A9-2 0.02 9
TSCIs (0.2) Traffic Sign Board/Road marking Index 0.1 Providing Sign A9-3
(TSMIs) board/Marking 0.008 17
Longitudinal gradient Index (LGIs) 0.1 Providing adequate A9-4
longitudinal gradient 0.0028 24
SCIs (0.2) Fatigue cracking area (FCSIs) 0.2 Filling of Fatigue Cracks A9-5 0.038 7
DCIs (0.2) Inadequate camber Condition (ICCs) 0.2 Providing adequate A9-6 0.014 11
2206 Agarwal P.K. et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 2195–2207
12 Agarwal P.K.et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

Camber

AIas values and rank of various sections are given in Table 11 .Further; some of the AIas obtained for different
sections are also plotted in Fig.4 with respect to the various activities done at the sections.

0,14 RaS=1 RaS=Rank of Activities at section S

0,12
Activity index (AIas) →

0,1

0,08

0,06
RaS=7
0,04
RaS=13 RaS=17
0,02 RaS=20 RaS=24
0
A2-4 A9-5 A9-1 A9-3 A10-6 A9-4
Activity

Fig.4: Resources allocation to maintenance activities AIas on the basis of their rank (partial)

The ranking of different section depends on the priority of maintenance activity index for resource allocation to
maintenance activities (AIas) of each section. It is clear from Figure 4 that activity of filling rut depth at section 2 i.e.
A2-4 ranks 1(highest) and activity of providing adequate longitudinal gradient at section 9 i.e. A9-4 ranks 24
(lowest). This seems to be logical as the weightage of rut depth area is highest and AIas value of A2-4 is 0.126
(highest) while weight age of longitudinal gradient is lowest and AIas value of A9-4 is 0.0028(lowest). Further it is
clear that A2-4 should be implemented first. Strategy also says that A2-4 should be implemented first and hence
strategy allocates resources to different activities rationally. Detailed study needs to be carried out only on four
sections out of total ten sections in the road network. Therefore the methodology seems to be economical as detailed
analysis need not to be carried out on all the sections.

Conclusions:-

Some important conclusions drawn from this study are as follows:-

• Resource allocation of activities depends on various conditions of sections such as drainage condition, structural
condition, traffic operational condition, traffic safety condition and importance of different sections in the road
network etc. However, a critical review of the literature indicated that no such comprehensive strategy is
available for rationally allocating resources of maintenance activities considering various conditions on a low
volume road network. Further, most of the methodologies for evaluation of section conditions are sophisticated,
costly and need specialized equipment and hence not convenient to use for rural road network.

• There is an urgent need to develop innovative maintenance strategies focusing on rural road network which are
cost effective, quick and simple. This study presents a two stage strategy to select the most appropriate activities
to be carried out at most appropriate sections of a rural roads network considering their priority for resource
allocation based on importance, traffic operational condition, drainage condition, structural condition and traffic
safety condition of road section etc.

• A strategy is developed in stage I to determine section index of rural road sections. A hierarchal structure is
developed in stage I to identify critical factors affecting section index of rural road sections. In this stage
various indices are also developed to evaluate the condition of resource allocation factors. The strategy of stage-
 Agarwal P.K. et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 2195–2207 2207
Agarwal P. K.et al../ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 13

I proposed a section index (SIs) to priorities the sections of rural road network using minimal data. SIs can be
used to determine the maintenance priority and to rank different sections in the road network

• A strategy is also developed in stage II to determine activity index of maintenance activities to be carried out on
different rural road sections. Stage II of this study also contributes development of activity index (AIas) of
different activities to be carried out on different sections in the road network. AIas is developed considering
relative importance of activities, condition of maintenance factors etc. This Activity index (AIas) can be used to
rank different maintenance activities to be carried out on different rural road sections in the road network.

• The strategy proposed in this study is also illustrated with the help of example of a rural roads network.
Analysis results indicated that the proposed strategy is less time consuming simple and cost effective and can be
executed with minimal data which can be obtained easily and economically from each section of a rural roads
network. The strategy proposes that first sections which are more critical for maintenance needs to be selected
in stage-I. Further, the sections identified in stage I needs to be evaluated in more detailed so that the various
maintenance activities to be carried out on these sections can be rationally allocated. Thus, the proposed
strategy will be more economical as details studies needs not to be carried out on all sections.

It is expected that the strategy proposed in this study can be used for selection of appropriate maintenance activities
on different rural road section so that available resources for road maintenance can be utilized to achieve maximum
improvement.

References
[1] Agrawal, S, Jain, S. S. and Parida, M. 2004, “Development of Pavement Management System for Indian National Highway Network”
Journal of Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi
[2] Agarwal P.K., Choudhary S. 2015 “A Basic Framework for Evaluation of Rural Road Network Conditions” Trends in Transport
Engineering and Applications,(ISSN: 2394-7284) Volume 2, Issue 2, www.stmjournals.com.
[3] Agarwal, P.K., 2006 “ Road Condition, Prioritization and optimal resource allocation for Highway Maintenance at Network Level”, Ph. D.
thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Kanpur, Kanpur,.
[4] Bhatore A., Tare V. 2014 , “performance model for rural roads” Indian highway journal, New Delhi Vol. 42 No.2 February 2014.
[5] Barodia P., Pateriya I.K., Bhushan R.2014 , “Estimating maintenance cost of rural road in PMGSY” Indian Highway Journal Volume 42 .
[6] Chandrasekhar B.P., Veeraragavan A., Reddy B, 2006., “Asset management of rural roads-need for a policy framework in India” Paper No.
528, Nov 18, 67th annual session of the Indian Road Congress, New Delhi
[7] Chakrabarti, S., Rawat, M.S. and Mondal, B.1995 “Highway Design and Maintenance Standard Model (HDM): Calibration and Adoption
to Indian Conditions”, IRC Journal Volume. 56-1 in, pp. 75-101.
[8] Choudhary S.,Agarwal P. K. 2013 An Innovative Strategy for Maintenance of Highway Pavement “International Journal of Engineering
Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 3, , pp.054-060.
[9] Ding T., Sun L., Chen Z. 2013, “optimum strategy of pavement preventive cmaintenance Considering life-cycle cost analysis” 13th COTA
international conference of Transportation Professionals(CICTP-2013) www.sciencedirect.com
[10] G. Shailendra and Veeraragavan, 2001., A Quantification of benefits of Improved Rural road performance due to Good Drainage,” IRC
Journal Volume. 71-1.
[11] Jain, S.S. and Gupta, A.K, Khanna, S.K. & Dayanand,1996 “ Development of Maintenance and Rehabilitation Investment Strategy for
Flexible Rural roads”, IRC Journal Volume 57-2
[12] Nagabhushana, M.N., Jain, P.K., Kanchan.P.K.2010 “Innovative Strategies for Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Metropolitan City
Roads-A Case Study,” Indian Rural roads, pp. 33 – 43.
[13] Reddy, Sathees Kumar, Veeraragavan,1995 C.V., “Pragmatic Approach for the Maintenance Management of Rural roads,” Indian Road
Congress Journal Volume 56-2, New Delhi.
[14] T. T. Fwa, W. T. Chan,2000 “Multiobjective optimization for pavement maintenance programming” Journal of Transportation
Engineering, http://www.asce.org
[15] Yogesh U. Shaha, S.S. Jain 2013 “Development of Overall Pavement Condition Index for Urban Road Network” 2nd Conference of
Transportation Research Group of India (2nd CTRG) Available online at www.sciencedirect.com,