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

net/publication/355203904

Priority ranking of road pavements for maintenance using analytical

hierarchy process and VIKOR method

Article  in  Innovative Infrastructure Solutions · October 2021

DOI: 10.1007/s41062-021-00633-7

CITATIONS READS

4 307

4 authors:

Vineesha Chundi Sridhar Raju

BITS Pilani BITS Pilani, Hyderabad
3 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS    40 PUBLICATIONS   143 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Akshay Waim Subhransu Sekhar Swain

Shell Technology Centre Bangalore Planning and Asset Management Unit
4 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Feasibility study to assess the use of waste plastic aggregate in the design and performance of BC-I and BC-II mixtures for sustainable pavements View project

Development of long lasting bituminous mix for flexible pavements View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Akshay Waim on 15 October 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:28
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-021-00633-7

TECHNICAL PAPER

Priority ranking of road pavements for maintenance using analytical

hierarchy process and VIKOR method
Vineesha Chundi1 · Sridhar Raju1   · Akshay Ravindra Waim1 · Subhransu Sekhar Swain2

Received: 9 June 2021 / Accepted: 28 August 2021

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Abstract
Pavement maintenance and rehabilitation to provide the desired level of service for the road users is the most challenging
problem faced by the authorities. The development of a reliable pavement deterioration model is essential to formulate the
appropriate maintenance policies. This exploratory paper presents the network-level pavement performance prediction models
for the district roads of Odisha state, India. Three cycles of pavement distress data were collected for developing the reli-
able pavement deterioration models using a multi-linear regression (MLR) analysis. The developed models can benefit the
authorities in predicting the pavement conditions within the network for building a comprehensive pavement management
system. The pavement condition index (PCI) model was developed using IRI, deflection, cracking, rutting, and raveling as
the distress parameters and validated using the deduct value method mentioned in ASTM D6433-18. The analytical hierarchy
process approach was used for ranking the pavement sections in estimating the maintenance costs consistently. Also, prior-
itization was done using the ‘VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje’ (VIKOR) method, and the ranking
was rational compared to the PCI predicted ranking.

Keywords  Deterioration models · VIKOR method · Analytical hierarchy process · Pavement management system · PCI ·
Deduct value method

Introduction
India has the second largest road network in the world, span-
ning a total of 5.89 million km, transporting 64.5% of all
goods in the country. Nearly 90% of India’s total passenger
traffic uses the road network to commute. The road transpor-
tation in India has gradually increased over the years with an
improvement in connectivity between the cities, towns and
villages [1]. Pavement deterioration is the formation of dis-
tresses in the pavement as a result of traffic and environmen-
tal factors which may increase the road user costs. Highway
authorities are finding it difficult to keep their deteriorating
roads in good condition due to budget constraints. There-
fore, there is a need for a pavement management system
(PMS) to arrive at an optimal maintenance strategy within
* Sridhar Raju
Sridhar.raju@hyderabad.bits-pilani.ac.in
1
Department of Civil Engineering, BITS Pilani Hyderabad
Campus, Hyderabad, India
2
Public Works Department, Government of Odisha State,
Bhubaneswar, India
the available budget [2]. PMS helps in estimating the present
performance and predicting the future condition of the pave-
ment [3]. As a part of PMS, various performance prediction
models have been developed in the last few decades, of all
the distress, poor riding quality takes the lead [4–7]. Among
the available technique, the use of network survey vehicle
is found to be a suitable equipment for collecting the riding
quality data along with other distress data. The maintenance
activity will be scheduled based on a prioritization system
that takes into account the current roads condition in the
network [8, 9].
The pavement deteriorates due to traffic and climate, how-
ever, road geometry, pavement history, material properties,
construction methodology and thickness play an important
role [8, 10]. Hence, pavement age, traffic, and pavement dis-
tresses, viz. rutting, potholes, raveling, and patching, are all
taken into account for developing and an accurate pavement
deterioration prediction model [11]. There are two types of
pavement deterioration models: deterministic and probabil-
istic models. The deterministic models can be further classi-
fied into mechanistic, mechanistic-empirical and regression
models. The mechanistic models are developed considering

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 28   Page 2 of 17
the relationship between the stress, strain, and deflection,
while the mechanistic-empirical models are developed con-
sidering the relationship between traffic, roughness, crack-
ing, and rutting. The regression models are developed con-
sidering the relationship between the pavement surface and
structural condition [11, 12].
The major drawbacks of probabilistic models are that
it does not accommodate the budget constraints and the
pavement sections have to be grouped into a large number
of homogeneous sections based on the physical characteris-
tics [12, 13]. Hence, there will be a large number of mainte-
nance and rehabilitation (M&R) treatments for each homo-
geneous section. An individual pavement section’s condition
cannot be evaluated using Markov’s process because the
pavement sections are analyzed as a group. Therefore, a
group of pavement sections rather than an individual section
is used in the optimization programming of M&R strategies
from the steady-state probabilities within a given budget.
It usually takes many years to reach a steady state as some
portion of the pavement sections keep changing every year.
Therefore, an objective function that uses steady-state prob-
abilities in long transition periods does not fully reflect real-
ity [12–14].
In an empirical model, the dependent variable can be
related to one or more independent variables such as the
age of the pavement, applied loads, pavement layer thick-
ness, etc., through a regression analysis. Most of the mod-
els available in literature are the linear combinations of the
regressions that are already available. In an advanced empir-
ical model, the specification forms attempts to simulate the
physical process of deterioration. The advanced empiri-
cal model can be developed with a reasonable reliability
only after generating the long-term pavement performance
database. The size of the database that was used in their
development limits the implementation of these empirical
models. As a result, they should not be used when the actual
conditions are different. One of the best-known examples
of empirical models is that developed by the World Bank
and given in the HDM-4 manual. The empirical models in
line with HDM-4 are the globally accepted models for PMS
applications [15]. The World Bank’s HDM-4 model is one
of the most well-known examples of regression models but
can be used for other conditions after calibration [16–18].
Recently, the PCI model was developed by considering age,
traffic, cracking area using the MLR method for the LTPP
data by categorizing it into four climatic conditions [19].
In addition, there is a PCI method which majorly con-
siders the visual observations with international roughness
index (IRI) as the main criteria for improving the riding
quality [20]. Most of the research studies have pointed out
that the progression of distresses mentioned in the PCI
method has direct relationship with the progression of IRI
[8, 21–23]. Therefore, as a part of the functional evaluation
13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:28
the IRI measurement can solely suffice for the develop-
ment of a pavement condition index. In order to optimize
the maintenance strategies and to extend the service life of
a pavement, there is a scope for considering the structural
parameter in terms of deflection in addition to the functional
parameters.
The deflection data obtained from the falling weight
deflectometer (FWD) can be considered for assessing the
structural adequacy of the pavement. The deflection values
measured using the geophones after normalizing for the
load, after correcting for temperature and subgrade mois-
ture can be used for back-calculating the layer moduli. The
static-linear analyses are used for interpreting the deflec-
tion bowl results using the back-calculation computer pro-
grams. The calculated elastic layer moduli values are used
for the assessing the remaining service life and for providing
an overlay. Though the overlay can be designed using the
proven and reliable concept of structural number (SN), it
does not account for the mechanistic analysis. Therefore, the
FWD deflection values can be used for the design of overlay
using the concept of mechanistic empirical pavement design
guidelines (MEPDG) [24, 25]. Due to the annual budget
limited for the execution of pavement maintenance and
rehabilitation projects, the highway agency has to choose
the alternatives with higher priority first, in order to supply
the demands of optimization in the network. The develop-
ment of deterministic deterioration model provides insight
into the factors which affects the deterioration process, final
developed model is very user-friendly—relatively easy to
understand. As on date there is no provision for including
the deflection values as a part of PCI, though there is scope
for inclusion. The inclusion of deflection values in the PCI
models will help in assessing and ranking the pavement on
the basis of both the functional and the structural param-
eters. As a result, the standardization of the PCI method and
its classification-based approach would make it difficult to
keep up with future technological advances. However, the
above-mentioned challenge can be addressed by modifying
the PCI method using a general multi-domain prioritization
approach, AHP combined with VIKOR method for the appli-
cation of the highway engineers.
This study was focused on developing deterministic pave-
ment deterioration models at a network level for prioritizing
the pavement for maintenance. To avoid a tiresome method
of arriving at the deduct value, the curves given in ASTM
D6433-18 were digitized using Engauge digitizer program.
The pavement deterioration prediction models were devel-
oped in line with the HDM-4 models (calibrated for the local
conditions). Also, the FWD deflection values as a pavement
structural parameter were considered for the development of
pavement condition index (PCI). The moving traffic simulat-
ing FWD deflection values as one of the parameters in the
deterministic PCI model will help in indirectly predicting
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:28 Page 3 of 17  28
the structural condition of the pavement. The analytical hier-
archy process (AHP), an advanced pavement maintenance
rating technique, was adopted in this study for a network
level PMS. The weightages for distresses, viz. IRI, crack-
ing, rutting, deflection and raveling, were based on expert
opinion, and a pairwise comparison. The VIKOR method
uses the weightages obtained from AHP as an input to give
a compromised ranking without any conflict but close to an
ideal solution. The proposed methodology aims to arrive
at the decisions for the road network in Odisha, India. The
main objectives of this study were:
i. To arrive at the PCI value in accordance with ASTM
D6433-18
ii. To develop the performance prediction models for thin
bituminous surfaces
iii. To determine the weightages of the influencing dis-
tresses using AHP
iv. To prioritize the road maintenance within a network
using VIKOR method
Methodology
This section deals with the methodology followed to develop
the pavement deterioration models followed by ranking of
the twenty sections. The basis for the methodology was
explained in this section. The Analytical Hierarchy Process
and VIKOR method were used for priority ranking of the
road pavements for maintenance within a road network in
Odisha state, India. The following fundamental parameters
were used for the prediction of pavement deterioration and
the pavement condition index models as a part of Pavement
Management System (PMS). The primary objective of the
PMS is to avoid judgmental bias in the decision-making pro-
cess by considering the pavement distresses and responses.
The performance prediction models play the key role in pri-
oritization and maintenance of pavements. A large amount
of data and resources including advanced algorithms are
required for prioritization of the pavements. The pavement
condition surveys, deflection and the IRI data along with
pavement history are the essential parameters for the devel-
opment of pavement deterioration models and pavement
condition index model. The pavement deterioration mod-
els in line with the widely accepted HDM-4 models (cali-
brated for the local conditions) after consistent assumptions
will reflect the qualitative results for implementation of the
PMS. The highway agencies generally adopt the pavement
maintenance priority in the form of pavement condition
index (PCI) which is computed using an empirical expres-
sion. The pavement deterioration and PCI models have to
be simple and easily understood by the road agencies. This
section deals with the methodology followed to develop the
pavement deterioration models followed by ranking of the
twenty sections. The twenty road sections selected from
Balasore, Sonepur and Sambalpur districts of Odisha were
found to be homogeneous in terms of traffic and climatic
conditions, including the bituminous surface layers. Figure 1
depicts the methodology adopted in the present research.
AASHTO cumulative difference approach (CDA) method
was followed to arrive the homogenous sections [26]. The
pavement deterioration models were developed in line with
HDM-4 models, but by incorporating changes for suiting
the Indian conditions. IRI, deflection, cracking initiation,
cracking progression, rutting initiation, rutting progression
and raveling progression models were developed by consid-
ering traffic and age of the pavements by fitting nonlinear
regression models in Minitab statistical software. Apart from
this, from the observed distress data to predict the pavement
condition over period of time PCI was calculated by using
ASTM D6433-18 deduct value method [20]. Later, the pave-
ment deterioration models adopted in HDM-4 models were
calibrated as per the procedure given in the HDM-4 manual
for local conditions. Level-2 calibration method was adopted
since the data collected was for three years. The calibration
process consists of determining the adjustment factors (ki)
which will attain the good agreement between the HDM-4
model predictions and the field data [10, 27].
The procedure suggested for calibrating surface dis-
tress initiation factors is based on obtaining the coefficient
between the observed years of occurrence of the distress
to the year of occurrence as predicted by the uncalibrated
models. In the case of the progression factors, the calibration
is carried out by minimizing the squares of the differences
of the estimated and observed data or Sum of Squared Dif-
ferences (SSD). Minimizing the SSD value assists in reduc-
ing the estimated average error, which in turn will make it
possible to locate the calibration factor that ensures the best
adjustment of the distress curve and therefore the calibration
of the analyzed performance model. An analysis of verifi-
cation of prediction quality of model is also performed in
the study by comparing observed versus predicted distresses
values for each of the model. The statistical indicators used
for comparison of models were R2 and RMSE [10, 18, 27].
The weightages for distresses, viz. international rough-
ness index (IRI), cracking, rutting, deflection and raveling,
were obtained by adopting AHP. To determine the weight-
ages of the distresses, 200 PMS experts such were opined
through expert opinion survey. Pairwise comparison was
done between the criteria by considering the matrix. From
the matrix, Eigenvector values were calculated correspond-
ing to maximum Eigenvalues. Thereafter, random index,
consistency index, and consistency ratio were evaluated.
Later, if consistency ratio is between 0 and 0.1, report the
weightages of distresses and their ranking. The pavement
prioritization for maintenance within the road network was
13
 28   Page 4 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:28

• Pavement condition data using NSV

• Pavement inventory data using NSV
• Pavement deflection data using FWD
Data
Collection • Traffic data using volume count survey

• IRI, cracking, raveling, rutting and deflection deterioration models

• Determination of PCI using ASTM 6433-18
Development
• Pavement Condition Index model
of
deterioration
models

• Pavement age, pavement distresses as an Input for all the pavements in an excel sheet
• Determination of the distresses using HDM-4 models
• Calculation of RMSE and R2 for kmin to kmax and compare with each increment
Calibration • Arriving at the calibration coefficients (ki) at minimum RMSE and maximum R2
of HDM-4
models

• Assign the distresses to be considered for AHP ranking

• Make pairwise comparisons of the distresses and to develop the matrix
• Calculate the Eigen vector corresponding to maximum Eigen value
• Determine the consistency index, random index and the consistency ratio
Determine
distress • If the consistency ratio is between 0 to 0.1, distresses weightages are obtained
weightages • Distress ranking is arrived based on the distress weightages
by AHP

• Normalize the distress data on a scale of 0-1

• Distresses weightages are given as an input in an excel sheet
• Compute regret measure (R), utility measure (S) and VIKOR index (Q)
Prioritization • Rank the pavement sections, by sorting the values of S, R, and Q, in ascending order
by VIKOR
method

Fig. 1  Flow chart for the ranking of pavement sections

based on the ranking using VIKOR method. The distress
weightages were given as input to VIKOR method for pri-
oritizing the total 20 sections. Calculation of regret measure
(R), VIKOR index (Q), and utility measure (S) and rank the
sections in ascending order completes the prioritization of
the road sections integrate with AHP. The methodology is
divided into different parts to arrive the above-mentioned
objectives. The subsequent sections will explain for each
step.
Data collection
The data was collected from the major district roads (MDR)
connecting two major districts or district to a highway in
Odisha state, India. Though the MDRs considered were
low-volume roads but were significantly contributing to the
industrial development of Odisha state. MDRs considered
were having traffic in the range of 1200 to 1800 commercial
vehicles per day (CVPD). This study examined at twenty
separate MDRs’ from three districts of Odisha with a total
length of about 251 km. The data was collected during the
years 2014, 2016, and 2018. Figure 2 shows the location of
the districts considered for the study analysis.
The pavement composition consisted of 25 mm semi-
dense bituminous concrete (SDBC) as a surface layer,
50  mm bituminous macadam (BM) as a binder layer,
150 mm wet mix macadam (WMM) as a granular base and
100 mm granular sub-base, over a compacted sub-grade
with 4% California bearing ratio (CBR). The pavement
sections were rehabilitated and upgraded during March
2013 and hence considered as new pavements. Table 1
gives the road length and the annual average daily traffic
(AADT) in terms of number of commercial vehicles per
day (CVPD) was considered. The design traffic in terms
of cumulative standard axles (CSA) in millions has been
considered in the pavement deterioration prediction mod-
els. The design traffic also considers the vehicle damage

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:28 Page 5 of 17  28

Fig. 2  Map showing the road locations in Odisha considered in this study

Pavement inventory data

Table 1  Road length and CVPD on the road sections considered for
the study
The road number, carriageway width, surface layer, shoul-
Section No Surveyed AADT Section No Surveyed AADT
der type, and shoulder-widths were collected as part of the
length length
(km) (km) pavement inventory data. The road agency also provided
information on the pavement composition, layer thicknesses,
S-1 5.005 1344 S-11 12.485 1425 and construction history (constructed during 2000 and reha-
S-2 7.525 1125 S-12 7.705 1815 bilitated during 2013). The soaked CBR of the sub-grade
S-3 22.855 1416 S-13 10.115 1355 was 4% for all the roads.
S-4 12.505 1268 S-14 13.475 1345
S-5 10.505 1215 S-15 13.745 1468 Pavement condition data
S-6 5.885 1243 S-16 13.695 1482
S-7 11.325 1465 S-17 12.205 1815 The pavement condition data, viz. IRI, cracking, potholes,
S-8 3.725 1577 S-18 23.885 1801 raveling, and rutting, were collected using an automated
S-9 22.065 1714 S-19 20.645 1354 network survey vehicle (NSV). Table 2 shows the sample
S-10 13.45 1264 S-20 8.635 1026 distresses data obtained on 26th March, 2018, for the road
section number 1, S-1.

factor (VDF) which indirectly takes in to account the axle
load spectrum. The design traffic in terms of CSA in mil-
lions has been calculated as suggested by the Indian Roads
Congress the guidelines for the design of flexible pave-
ments [28].
Pavement deflection data
The Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD), Dynatest model
8000 with a 300 mm diameter loading plate, was used for
collecting the deflection data. The geophones were placed at

13
 28   Page 6 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:28

Table 2  NSV Sample data of km International Rough- Cracking (%) Raveling (%) Pot holes Rutting (mm) Texture
S-1 ness Index (m/km) (no) depth
(mm)

0.000 4.5 0.0 0 1 4.5 1.5

1.000 3.2 5.9 0 0 3.8 1.6
2.000 3.6 0.0 0 0 3.7 1.2
3.000 4.6 8.2 0 0 4.1 1.2
4.000 6.5 1.5 0 0 3.8 1.2
5.000 5.4 0.0 0 0 3.1 1.3

0, 200, 300, 600, 900, and 1200, 1500 mm from the center initiation, cracking progression, rutting initiation, rutting
of the loading plate. Three drops of mass were considered progression and raveling progression models are given
at each testing point with loading time ranging from 0.015 through Eqs. 1 to 7, respectively.
to 0.050 s, while the first drop was ignored, considering it IRI progression model
to be a seating load. When the pavement was found to be in
(IRI)t = 0.156 ∗ (IRI)t−1 − 0.616age + 0.5231 ∗ CSA + 1.185
good condition, the data was collected at 500 m interval,
(1)
but when the pavement was found to be in poor condition,
the number of testing points was increased by reducing the n = 358, R2 = 0.981, RMSE = 0.605.
testing interval. The deflection data obtained were normal- Deflection progression model
ized with respect to a standard load of 40 kN, and corrected 0.0335
to a standard temperature of 35 °C. In addition, the seasonal (Def)t = 0.018 ∗ (Def)t−1 −
Age
+ 0.0179 ∗ CSA + 0.146
correction was considered for sub-grade moisture. The FWD (2)
analysis was carried out in accordance with the guidelines
n = 358, R2 = 0.996, RMSE = 0.005.
set out by the Indian Roads Congress [29].
Cracking initiation model
( )
CSA
Model development CRinitiation = 2.56 ∗ exp ∗ −2.47 ( )−0.63 (3)
3.2 ∗ D0
Homogenous sections
n = 50, R2 = 0.852, RMSE = 0.147.
Cracking progression model
Road agencies have to cope with large amounts of data, and
they need to segment a measurement series automatically. (CR)t = 0.024 ∗ (CR)t−1 + 1.082age + 1.287 ∗ CSA + 0.542
Typical measurement series contain measurements from sev- (4)
eral homogeneous road sections with more or less abrupt n = 358, R2 = 0.987, RMSE = 0.495.
transitions from one to another [30]. The pavement design Raveling initiation model
guide published in 1986 by the American Association of
State Highway Officials (AASHTO) suggests the cumulative Ravinitiation = 1.18 ∗ CSA ∗ (CQ + 1)−0.15 (5)
difference approach (CDA) to segment roads. This is mostly
a graphical method which facilitates the detection of homo- n = 58, R2 = 0.712, RMSE = 0.256.
geneous sections [30]. In the present study CDA is used to Rutting progression model
delineate the pavement sections. The total data was collected 4.746
for 251 km. Based on the IRI from Fig. 3a, b shows along (Rut)t = 0.102 ∗ (Rut)t−1 − + 1.523 ∗ CSA + 0.446
Age
the distance CDA was applied for the total pavements and it (6)
was divided into different segments where the slope changes.
n = 358, R2 = 0.989, RMSE = 0.597.
Raveling progression model
Development of deterioration prediction models
0.0919
(Rav)t = 0.2 ∗ (Rav)t−1 − + 0.0491 ∗ CSA + 0.556
For the development of distress prediction models, Age
inventory data, functional data, and structural data were (7)
collected and compiled. The IRI, deflection, cracking n = 358, R2 = 0.993, RMSE = 0.015.

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:28 Page 7 of 17  28

Fig. 3  a CDF for IRI along 3000

the distance for homogeneous

Cumulative difference approach

sections. b IRI variation along 2500
the distance for homogeneous
sections
2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Distance (km)
(a) CDF for IRI along the distance for homogeneous sections

20.0
S-1
S-8 S-20
18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0
IRI (m/km)

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Distance (km)

(b) IRI variation along the distance for homogeneous sections

Calibration of HDM‑4 deterioration prediction
models for local conditions
Figure 1 shows the methodology for arriving at the calibra-
tion factors, ki. In the present study, the MATLAB program
developed can be used for the determination of the HDM-4
calibration factors by considering the field observed distress
and age data for the pavements considered in the analysis.
The MATLAB program shall be used in two steps for cali-
bration of HDM-4 deterioration models. In the first step, the
program shall be executed for varying calibration factors
from kmin = 0.1 to kmax = 20, at an increment of 0.1. Once
the calibration factor pertaining to minimum RMSE and
maximum R2 has been determined from the first step, the
program should be run again for the second time, using kmin
and kmax values within the calibration factor’s closer range
as determined from the first run, and at a smaller increment
of 0.01, for refinement (ki) of the calibration factor [15]. The
calibration factor, ki, must be calculated for each of the dis-
tresses considered in a study, as well as for each road section
within a network. The calibration factors for each distresses
and all the road sections are given in Table 3.
Pavement condition index (PCI) model
PCI calculation using deduct value method (ASTM
D6433‑18)
Considering the distress density, the PCI was calculated
using the deduct value method in accordance with ASTM
D6433-18. To calculate the distress density, a simple
MATLAB program was developed as a part of this study.
The curves given in ASTM D6433-18 were digitized using
Engauge digitizer program to obtain the mathematical
equations and to calculate the deduct value for all pave-
ment distresses considered. The relationship between the

13
 28   Page 8 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:28

Table 3  Calibration factors for Section name Crack initia- Crack progres- Raveling progres- Rutting progres- Roughness
different road sections tion (Kci) sion (Kcpa) sion (Krap) sion (Krp) progression
(Kgp)

S-1 0.87 1.15 0.72 0.66 1.42

S-2 0.78 1.28 0.89 0.77 1.36
S-3 0.95 1.05 0.86 0.54 1.34
S-4 0.55 1.82 0.91 0.68 1.29
S-5 0.89 1.12 0.84 0.53 1.28
S-6 0.86 1.16 0.76 0.79 1.26
S-7 0.91 1.10 0.82 0.85 1.29
S-8 0.84 1.19 0.77 0.73 1.36
S-9 0.85 1.18 0.81 0.75 1.34
S-10 0.83 1.20 0.79 0.93 1.37
S-11 0.94 1.06 0.86 0.54 1.34
S-12 0.91 1.10 0.82 0.85 1.29
S-13 0.89 1.12 0.84 0.53 1.28
S-14 0.87 1.15 0.72 0.66 1.42
S-15 0.88 1.14 0.76 0.79 1.26
S-16 0.84 1.19 0.77 0.73 1.36
S-17 0.83 1.20 0.79 0.93 1.37
S-18 0.78 1.28 0.89 0.77 1.36
S-19 0.77 1.30 0.91 0.68 1.29
S-20 0.79 1.27 0.81 0.75 1.34

deduct value and the distress density (%) was plotted for
all the distresses, and Fig. 4 shows an example plot for
alligator crack. The plot for alligator crack distress density
is shown in Fig. 4a, while the digitized plot is shown in
Fig. 4b. The mathematical model to calculate the deduct
value for medium severity alligator crack density is given
in Eq. 9. Similarly, the mathematical models for all other
distresses at low, medium and high severity were obtained
by digitizing the distresses curves given in ASTM D6433-
18 and were used for calculating the PCI
y = 36.006x4 − 125.48x3 + 162.4x2 − 83.256x + 20.155, R2 = 0.998
(8)
where y = Deduct value and x = logarithmic value of alligator
cracking density in percentage.

Medium
High Medium Low 100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
Deduct value

60
Deduct value

60
50
50
40
40
30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0.1 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 100
Distress density (%) Distress density (%)

(a) Alligator cracking chart from ASTM D6433-18 (b) Alligator cracking chart from digitizer

Fig. 4  a Alligator cracking chart from ASTM D6433-18. b Alligator cracking chart from digitizer

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:28 Page 9 of 17  28
Development of PCI model
The multi-linear regression PCI model is given in Eq. 8. To
develop the PCI model, the PCI values are determined from
PCI ASTM D6433-18 method for the observed field data for
the sections considered in the analysis.
PCI = 100 − 4.247 ∗ IRIt − 1.268 ∗ CRt
− 0.747 ∗ Ravt − 0.889 ∗ Rutt + 0.042 ∗ D0 (9)
− 0.0865 ∗ D1 + 0.0562 ∗ D2
n = 358, R2 = 0.90, RMSE = 6.22. Where ­IRIt = International
roughness index at any time t (m/km). I­ RIt−1 = International
roughness index at t − 1  year (m/km). CSA = Cumula-
tive standard axles (msa). ­Crackt = Cracking at any time
t (%). D0, D1, D2 = FWD deflections measured at 0, 200,
300  mm radial distances (mm). ­C R initiation = Cracking
Fig. 5  Comparison of developed progression models with HDM-4 models
initiation (years). ­Ravinitiation = Raveling initiation (years).
­Ravt = Raveling at any time t (%). ­Rutt = Rut at any time t
(years). CQ = Construction quality. Age = Age of the pave-
ment (years).
Model validation
Comparison of the developed deterioration models
with the calibrated HDM‑4 models
The graphical representation of cracking, reveling, rut-
ting and roughness progression models is shown through
Fig. 5a–d, respectively. For comparison, the HDM-4 pre-
diction models after calibration for local conditions are also
shown through Fig. 5a–d. In Fig. 5d, the rutting increases
during the initial stage after construction due to secondary
13
 28   Page 10 of 17
compaction but in the present data, it was observed that the
rutting increased during the later periods. The density of the
bituminous layer was found to be good but one of the rea-
sons for less rutting during the initial period may due to less
traffic movement. Also, the permanent deformation in the
subgrade (4% CBR) over time could be another reason for an
increased rutting during the later periods. From the figures,
it was observed that there was a marginal variation observed
in distress predictions between the calibrated HDM-4 and
the developed deterioration models.
Deflection progression model
Deflection progression model was developed by considering
cumulative traffic and age of the pavement. Figure 6 shows
the deflection progression with respect to age of the pave-
ment for section S-1. This model was used for determining
the structural adequacy of the pavements. Similarly for other
sections also deflection progression was developed.
PCI progression model
Figure 7 shows the PCI progression with respect to time and
has been plotted for section (S-12), and similar plots were
plotted for other sections too.
Statistical analysis for goodness of fit for the PCI
model
The statistical analysis was done using Minitab to obtain the
PCI model’s goodness of fit and was graphically represented
though Fig. 8. From Fig. 8a, it was observed that the data set
is approximately normally distributed with minimum vari-
ance and follows an ordinary least square (OLS) calculation
as shown in Fig. 8b. As a result, the PCI model generates
Fig. 6  Deflection progression model
13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:28
Fig. 7  PCI progression for section S-12
an unbiased coefficient estimate with the minimum vari-
ance. From Fig. 8c it can be seen that the data is skewed at
the center and follows a normal distribution. The residuals
are evenly distributed and are consistent with respect to the
center line for all the observations as shown in Fig. 8d.
Relationship between the observed
and the predicted PCI data
The relationship between predicted PCI values obtained
from Eq. 6 and the observed PCI values obtained from the
deduct value method is shown in Fig. 9. The observed and
predicted data are similar, with a coefficient of determina-
tion of 0.856.
Statistical analysis using independent t‑test
A statistical analysis was carried out using Minitab to per-
form the independent t-test between observed and predicted
PCI values to show that the variances are not equal. The
null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis considered are
given below:
Null hypothesis: No significant difference between pre-
dicted and the observed PCI values.
Alternate hypothesis: There is a significant difference
between predicted and the observed PCI values.
The output obtained from Minitab for an independent
t-test is given in Table 4. From the table it can be seen that
the mean values are 65.51 and 64.94 for the observed and
predicted PCI values, respectively. Also, from the table it
can be seen that the variances are 215.26 and 370.28 for
the observed and the predicted PCI values, respectively. If
the p-value is less than 0.05 (significance level), and the
difference between the variances is statistically significant,
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:28 Page 11 of 17  28

Fig. 8  Residual plots for PCI

model from Minitab

then the null hypothesis fails to get rejected. Hence, from

the output given in Table 4, it can be inferred that the null
hypothesis fails to get rejected and the predicted PCI values
have a good correlation with the observed PCI values.

Prioritization of the road sections

In PMS, it is important to prioritize and rank the pavements

to arrive at the maintenance measures within a road network.
There are simple and also optimization techniques available
for ranking the pavements and for arriving at the decision-
making strategies for ranking the pavement sections [13].
Fig. 9  Relationship between predicted and observed PCI values

Determination of weightages using analytical

hierarchy process (AHP)
Table 4  Independent t-test for observed and predicted PCI values
PCI observed PCI predicted The AHP is a pavement maintenance rating technique that
has only recently been implemented at the network level by
Mean 65.51 64.94 road agencies. In AHP, each distress parameter is given a
Variance 215.26 370.28 relative importance based on expert opinion, and the prioriti-
Observations 348 348 zation is decided by a pairwise comparison of the pavement
Hypothesized mean dif- 0 sections [31–33]. AHP was used in this analysis to measure
ference
the weightages for each distresses, as shown in Table 5. The
df 649
resulting weightages were used as input for ranking the pave-
t Stat 2.8
ment sections. The steps involved in AHP are:
P (T ≤ t) two-tail 0.005
Step-1 To assign the distresses for AHP ranking from the
given data.

13
 28   Page 12 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:28

Table 5  Weightages obtained by AHP method Step 1 The excel sheet consisting of IRI, cracking, deflec-
Category Distresses Weightages Order of tion, rutting, raveling (decision matrix) data is given as an
preference input file in MATLAB.
Step 2 The input data was normalized using the equation,
1 IRI 0.461 1
[ ]
2 Deflection 0.207 2 F = fij m∗n (10)
3 Rutting 0.151 3
4 Cracking 0.145 4 where
5 Raveling 0.036 5 xij
fij = �
∑m (11)
x2
i=1 ij

i = 1, 2, 3, … m;xij is the performance of Ai alternative

Step-2 Make pairwise comparisons of the distresses and
with respect to the jth criterion.
develop a matrix.
Step 3 Determine the best fj∗ and the worst fj− values of
Step-3 Calculate the Eigenvector corresponding to a
maximum Eigenvalue. all criterion j = 1, 2, 3, … n . If the jth function represents a
Step-4 Determine the consistency index, random index benefit, then
and the consistency ratio. fj∗ = max fij (12)
Step-5 Check for the consistency ratio and it has to i

be between 0.0 and 0.1, to obtain the weightages for the

distresses. fj− = min fij . (13)
i
Step-6 Distress ranking is arrived based on the distress
weightages. Step 4 Compute
( )
fj∗ − fij
Prioritization of road sections using VIKOR method Sij = wj ( ) (14)
fj∗ − fj−
VIKOR method was developed by Opricovic during 1998,
and it stands for ‘VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kom- ( )
promisno Resenje,’ which means a multi-criteria optimi- ∑
n fj∗ − fij
Si = wj ( ) (15)
zation and compromise solution for complex engineering
j=1 fj∗ − fj−
problems [34]. The priority ranking can be done using
VIKOR method to obtain a compromise solution that is
acceptable by the decision makers because it provides a � �
⎛ ∗ ⎞
maximum group utility of the “majority” and a minimum � � ⎜ f j
− f ij ⎟
individual regret of the “opponent”. The main contribu- Ri = max Sij = max ⎜wj � �⎟ (16)
j j
⎜ fj∗ − fj− ⎟
tions of VIKOR method are the interactivity which allows ⎝ ⎠
decision makers to participate in and control the decision
process by weights [35]. The results obtained by VIKOR where Si and Ri , represent the utility measure and the regret
method make compromise between various interests of measure, respectively, and wj is the weightage of the jth cri-
decision makers and possibilities [36]. In this method, the terion, expressing the relative importance of each criterion
weightages obtained from AHP will be used as an input to and calculated by AHP (Sect. 3.61). ( )
give a compromised ranking by taking care of the conflicts Step 5 Compute VIKOR index Qi for ith alternative by
if any during the ranking process. It is stated that the rank- ( ) ( )
v Si − S − (1 − v) Ri − R∗
ing arrived using VIKOR method is close to an ideal solu- Qi = + (17)
tion [37]. Paymen et al. [37] used the VIKOR approach for (S∗ − S− ) (R∗ − R− )
pavement prioritization in order to optimize benefit while where Qi represents the ith alternative VIKOR value,
minimizing the risk. VIKOR method was used to rank the i = 1, 2, 3, … m;
pavements in a network. For the ranking method, MAT-
LAB code was developed as the entire data can be given S∗ = max Si (18)
i
as an input from a single excel file, instead of giving the
inputs individually. The steps followed for ranking using
VIKOR method equations from 10 to 21 are given below:

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:28 Page 13 of 17  28

S− = min Si
i
R∗ = max Ri
i
R− = min Ri
i
The term “ v ” is introduced as the weightage of the maxi-
mum group utility. It ranges between 0 and 1 and is based on
the level of compromise among the decision-makers.
Step 6 Rank the pavement sections, by sorting the values
of S, R, and Q, in ascending order.
Sensitivity analysis
To statistically evaluate if the ranking from both the pro-
cesses is similar, the Wilcoxon Signed Rank (WSR) test was
carried out and the results are shown in Table 6. For the
rankings from the two processes to be similar, the W value
shall be greater than Wcritical value. The W value is the mini-
mum of the W + and W − wherein the W + stands for the sum
of the positive ranks while the W − stands for the sum of the
negative ranks. The values of W + and W − were 50 and 41,
respectively. The Wcritical value was obtained from the WSR
two tailed statistical test table [38] at a significance level of
(19) 0.01 (α = 0.01). From the table it can be found that the high-
est signed ranking was 13 and hence considering ‘n = 13’
from the WSR table Wcritical was obtained as 9. The W value
(20) of 41 was greater than the Wcritical of 9 and hence, it can
be inferred that the rankings were similar. This shows that
VIKOR method is equally efficient in prioritizing the pave-
(21)
ments sections in addition to its other benefits as mentioned
above and, hence, can be considered as a robust method for
ranking of pavements for maintenance.
Sensitivity analysis was carried out by varying the risk
factors from 0 to 1 with an increment of 0.1 in the pavement
condition rankings. Table 7 shows the ranking of all the road
sections using VIKOR and PCI methods. The sensitivity
analysis results showed that the priority ranking of the road
sections showed no difference when the risk factors were
0.1 to 0.7. The priority ranking marginally varied when the
risk factors were 0.8 to 1.0, demonstrating the insignificance
of risk factor in prioritizing the road sections. Though the
coefficient of IRI was higher in PCI method and the IRI
weightages were higher in VIKOR method, the ranking was
different (see Table 7). When there are ‘n’ number of sec-
tions with PCI values either same or very close to each other,
VIKOR method will be a handy tool for pavement main-
tenance as this will make a compromised ranking without
conflicts.

Table 6  Wilcoxon signed rank VIKOR PCI ranking Difference Absolute dif- Ranking Signed ranking
test results ranking ference

3 1 2 2 6.5 6.5
2 2 0 0 n/a N/A
4 3 1 1 2.5 2.5
1 4  − 3 3 10  − 10
5 5 0 0 n/a N/A
6 6 0 0 n/a N/A
7 7 0 0 n/a N/A
8 8 0 0 n/a N/A
19 9 10 10 13 13
13 10 3 3 10 10
10 11  − 1 1 2.5  − 2.5
12 12 0 0 n/a N/A
15 13 2 2 6.5 6.5
11 14  − 3 3 10  − 10
14 15  − 1 1 2.5  − 2.5
9 16  − 7 7 12  − 12
17 17 0 0 n/a N/A
16 18  − 2 2 6.5  − 6.5
20 19 1 1 2.5 2.5
18 20  − 2 2 6.5  − 6.5
W-value 41
W-critical value 17

13
 28   Page 14 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:28

Table 7  Ranking of sections using VIKOR and PCI method

Section number IRI (m/km) Deflection (mm) Rutting (mm) Cracking (%) Raveling (%) PCI PCI ranking VIKOR
ranking

S-12 8.24 0.685 8.64 8.51 6.54 41.68 4 1

S-18 8.12 0.712 9.15 7.51 8.67 41.41 2 2
S-17 7.43 0.607 10.11 9.14 9.10 41.1 1 3
S-9 7.48 0.611 9.02 9.33 9.10 41.61 3 4
S-8 6.55 0.502 9.13 8.34 8.14 47.43 5 5
S-16 6.24 0.511 9.13 8.34 8.11 48.77 6 6
S-15 5.74 0.452 8.14 7.38 7.11 53.74 7 7
S-7 5.71 0.458 8.14 7.26 7.03 54.08 8 8
S-10 5.68 0.685 4.52 5.02 5.42 61.47 16 9
S-13 5.66 0.556 6.11 6.94 3.09 59.45 11 10
S-1 5.23 0.689 4.86 6.40 6.29 60.68 14 11
S-19 5.43 0.512 4.88 5.11 8.20 60.02 12 12
S-3 4.88 0.612 6.18 6.50 8.26 59.39 10 13
S-4 5.26 0.486 6.15 5.88 5.27 60.82 15 14
S-14 5.22 0.464 7.06 5.68 5.45 60.3 13 15
S-5 4.77 0.645 5.48 5.88 4.82 63.84 18 16
S-6 4.81 0.532 7.37 5.62 5.88 61.52 17 17
S-20 4.86 0.564 5.39 5.67 4.60 63.97 20 18
S-11 4.72 0.478 5.82 6.20 10.12 59.38 9 19
S-2 4.48 0.552 7.14 5.70 4.68 63.93 19 20

The methodology in this study was mainly focused on
arriving at the ranking for pavement maintenance based on
the present condition. The ambiguity around pavement sec-
tions with closely spaced PCI ratings can be eliminated by
AHP integrated VIKOR method. Additionally, the rankings
with VIKOR method were statistically similar to that of
PCI method. Thus, it can be inferred that VIKOR method is
qualified in providing the ranking even with one cycle dis-
tress data, while precisely sorting them which would have
otherwise proven to be ambiguous in certain cases. However,
a minimum of 3 consecutive cycles’ data is required for the
development of a PCI model. For the practical purpose, it is
important to rank the sections based on the type of interven-
tion. As the data were collected for the first time to arrive
at a network level the PMS, the priority ranking were con-
sidered based on the present pavement condition. With the
present condition ranking, the road authority will be able to
demonstrate to the policy makers on the saving in vehicle
operation cost by the road user considering various surface
treatments or overlay or rehabilitation. The road agency will
be able to arrive at the budget requirement to maintain a
roadway system at a desirable PCI, where the overall life
cycle cost will be reduced.
Based on their field experience, the road agency engi-
neers have prepared and submitted a proposal for budget
approval to the state Government. They have proposed to
provide an overlay of 50 mm dense bituminous macadam
(DBM) with 30 mm bituminous concrete (BC) as surface
layer for the pavement sections S-12, S-18, S-17, S-9, S-8,
and S-16. The maintenance measure predicted using VIKOR
method considers the above-mentioned pavement sections
as the top priority for maintenance. The PCI predicted value
was 41.68 in the year 2021 for pavement Sect. 12 (S-12) and
it was marginally above the terminal PCI value of 40 (see
Table 8). Similar tables were created for other pavement
sections, and the rankings predicted by VIKOR method and
those proposed by the Odisha road agency engineers were
identical. Hence, the road agency may consider the predicted
rankings using VIKOR method as the basis for proposing the
pavement maintenance for budget approvals.
Conclusions
In this study, the functional and structural behavior of
pavement has been used for developing the pavement
performance models using a deterministic approach. The
developed multi-linear regression method enables the deci-
sion-makers to assess the existing pavement condition and
to arrive at the maintenance measures using the PCI as an
intervention criterion. In the present study, AHP has been
integrated with the VIKOR method for ranking of the road
pavement sections. The AHP method changes the order of
judgement alternatives which is called as a rank reversal and

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:28 Page 15 of 17  28

Table 8  Distress prediction for Year IRI (m/km) Cracking (%) Raveling (%) Rutting (mm) Deflection (mm) PCI
the next 15 years for section
S-12 2013 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.11 85.14
2014 3.71 0.50 0.27 1.5 0.16 82.08
2015 3.94 1.20 0.97 1.9 0.22 79.34
2016 4.25 2.10 1.87 3.1 0.30 75.13
2017 4.66 3.32 3.09 5.5 0.35 68.83
2018 5.22 5.68 5.45 7.1 0.39 60.30
2019 5.71 7.26 5.82 8.1 0.45 54.98
2020 6.55 8.34 6.11 8.3 0.50 49.66
2021 8.24 8.51 6.54 8.6 0.68 41.68
2022 8.86 8.80 7.24 9.1 0.75 37.73
2023 9.20 9.10 7.68 9.9 0.77 34.90
2024 10.12 9.80 8.26 10.6 0.81 29.00
2025 10.55 10.34 9.86 11.2 0.89 24.78
2026 11.16 12.50 10.25 12.4 0.96 18.08

this could be one of the limitations as the order of ranking
will be changing even with a minor change in the data. When
there are more number of levels in the hierarchy, it results
in higher pair comparisons thereby consuming more process
time and this is another limitation of the AHP method. How-
ever, this limitation can be overcome by using the computer
aided programs for AHP to make it easy, fast and precise.
Though there are limitations in the AHP method, it consid-
ers either the quantitative or the qualitative information for
decision-making process. As the distresses considered in this
study were only five in umber and hence, the limitations
mentioned above can be overcome and also, with use of
computer applications the analysis time was fast with a reli-
able weightage. Though the uncertainty was not considered
in this study, the PCI model was validated to be reliable
through an independent t-test for developing a network-level
deterministic model for assessing the variations in PCI with
respect to time in years. The following conclusions were
drawn from the present research:
1. Since collecting structural and functional data at the net-
work level of road projects is expensive, the progression
models developed in this study from three cycle data
can be used to select the optimum maintenance measure
for the pavement’s life cycle while avoiding the costs of
repeated data collection.
2. Using a multi-criteria decision-making approach, AHP
in combination with the VIKOR method was found to
be a useful tool for priority ranking the pavements in a
network.
3. It is highly cost-effective to homogenize the pavement
sections within the network on basis of IRI, traffic, pave-
ment composition, and environment to improve the
accuracy of prediction in the developed deterioration
models.
4. The AHP process was used to calculate the weightages
for IRI, cracking, rutting, raveling, and deflection, and
it was found that the IRI had the highest weightage of
0.461, followed by the deflection of 0.207. In most of
the studies, the IRI is the only parameter considered for
determining the maintenance procedure. Though IRI
was found to have the highest weightage, similar to other
studies, but considering deflection and other pavement
distresses in pavement prioritization was a value addi-
tion. As a result, it can be inferred that the AHP method
will be a useful tool for ranking the pavement sections
in order to reliably estimate the maintenance costs.
5. The sensitivity analysis was conducted on all the twenty
roads by changing the risk factor,v from 0.1 to 1.0, and
it was found that there was no substantial improvement
in the ranking of the road pavements with the change
in risk factor. Therefore, it can be concluded that a risk
factor of 0.5 can be used for ranking the road pavements
in a network. Using the VIKOR method, the priority
ranking was found to be similar to the predicted PCI
ranking.
6. The ambiguity around pavement sections with closely
spaced PCI ratings was eliminated by VIKOR method.
Additionally, the rankings with VIKOR method were
statistically similar to that of PCI method. Thus, it can
be inferred that VIKOR method is qualified in providing
the ranking while precisely sorting them which would've
otherwise proven to be ambiguous in certain cases.
7. The pavement sections S-12, S-18, S-17, S-9, S-8, and
S-16 were selected for maintenance by the road agency
for the year 2021, and the ranking predicted using
VIKOR method was identical. Therefore, the road
agency may utilize VIKOR method to rank the pavement
sections in the network, which may then be adopted for
pavement maintenance and budget approvals.

13
 28   Page 16 of 17
Declarations  and management (HDM-4) for flexible pavements. Int J Pave-
Conflict of interest  No potential conflicts of interest declared by the
authors.
References
1. IBEF (2013) Infrastructure Sector in India. https://​www.​ibef.​org/​
indus​try/​infra​struc​ture-​sector-​india.​aspx
2. Abaza KA (2021) Optimal novel approach for estimating the
pavement transition probabilities used in Markovian prediction
models. Int J Pavement Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10298​436.​
2021.​18733​26
3. Sati AS, Dabous SA, Zeiada W (2020) Pavement deterioration
model using Markov chain and international roughness index. In:
IOP conference series: materials science and engineering. IOP
Publishing, p 12012
4. Abaza KA, Ashur SA, Al-Khatib IA (2004) Integrated pavement
management system with a Markovian prediction model. J Transp
Eng 130:24–33. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 061/(​ ASCE)0​ 733-9​ 47X(2004)​
130:​1(24)
5. Mathew BS, Isaac KP (2014) Optimisation of maintenance strat-
egy for rural road network using genetic algorithm. Int J Pavement
Eng 15:352–360. https://​doi.o​ rg/​10.​1080/​10298​436.​2013.​806807
6. Pasupathy R, Labi S, Sinha KC (2007) Optimal reconstruction
periods for stochastically deteriorating infrastructures. Comput
Civ Infrastruct Eng 22:389–399. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​
8667.​2007.​00495.x
7. Ferreira A, Antunes A, Picado-Santos L (2002) Probabilistic
segment-linked pavement management optimization model. J
Transp Eng 128:568–577. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​0733-​
947X(2002)​128:​6(568)
8. Janani L, Dixit RK, Sunitha V, Mathew S (2020) Prioritisation of
pavement maintenance sections deploying functional character-
istics of pavements. Int J Pavement Eng 21:1815–1822
9. Abu Dabous S, Zeiada W, Al-Ruzouq R et al (2019) Distress-
based evidential reasoning method for pavement infrastructure
condition assessment and rating. Int J Pavement Eng. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1080/​10298​436.​2019.​16220​12
10. Kerali HGR, Odoki JB, Stannard EE (2000) Overview of HDM-4.
The highway development and management series, vol 1. World
Road Association PIARC World Bank, Washington DC
11. Hassan R, Lin O, Thananjeyan A (2017) A comparison between
three approaches for modelling deterioration of five pavement
surfaces. Int J Pavement Eng 18:26–35. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
10298​436.​2015.​10307​44
12. Lytton RL (1987) Concepts of pavement performance prediction
and modelling. In: North American conference on managing pave-
ments, 2nd edn, 1987, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
13. Haas R, Hudson WR, Falls LC (2015) Pavement asset manage-
ment. Wiley
14. Justo-Silva R, Ferreira A, Flintsch G (2021) Review on machine
learning techniques for developing pavement performance predic-
tion models. Sustain 13:1–27. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.3​ 390/s​ u1309​ 5248
15. Kerali HGR, Odoki JB, Stannard EE (2000) Overview of HDM-4.
Highw DevManage Ser 4:1–43
16. Thube D, Thube A (2013) Software development for calibration
of highway development and management tool (HDM-4) for local
conditions. Int J Struct Civ Eng Res 2:95–104
17. Bannour A, El Omari M, Lakhal EK et al (2019) Optimization
of the maintenance strategies of roads in Morocco: calibration
study of the degradations models of the highway development
13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:28
ment Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10298​436.​2017.​12932​61
18. Thube DT (2013) Highway development and management
model (HDM-4): calibration and adoption for low-volume roads
in local conditions. Int J Pavement Eng 14:50–59. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1080/​10298​436.​2011.​606320
19. Mahmood M, Rahman M, Mathavan S (2016) Distress based
pavement performance prediction models. In: 8th Interna-
tional conference on maintenance and rehabilitation of pave-
ments, MAIREPAV 2016, pp 357–368. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3850/​
978-​981-​11-​0449-7-​052-​cd
20. ASTM D6433-18 (2018) Standard practice for roads and park-
ing lots pavement condition index surveys, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA. https://​www.​astm.​org
21. Robbins MM, Tran NH (2016) A synthesis report: value of
pavement smoothness and ride quality to roadway users and
the impact of pavement roughness on vehicle operating costs.
National Center for Asphalt Technology at Auburn University,
NCAT Report, pp 3–16
22. Mactutis JA, Alavi SH, Ott WC (2000) Investigation of relation-
ship between roughness and pavement surface distress based on
WesTrack project. Transp Res Rec 1699:107–113
23. Perera RW, Kohn SD (2002) NCHRP web document 42: Issues
in pavement smoothness: a summary report. Transportation
Research Board National Academy, Washington, DC
24. Officials T (1993) AASHTO guide for design of pavement
structures. The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington DC
25. Darter MI, Titus-Glover L, Von Quintus H, et al (2014) Calibra-
tion and IMPLEMENTATION of the AASHTO mechanistic-
empirical pavement design guide in Arizona. Arizona Depart-
ment of Transportation 208
26. Kennedy J, Shalaby A, Cauwenberghe R (2000) Dynamic seg-
mentation of pavement surface condition data. In: 3rd Trans-
portation specialty conference of the canadian society for civil
engineering
27. Deori S, Choudhary R, Tiwari D, Gangopadhyay S (2018)
Calibration of HDM-4 models for Indian conditions of flex-
ible pavement having modified bitumen in wearing course. Int
J Pavement Eng 19:772–785. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10298​436.​
2016.​12081​96
28. Indian Road Congress (2018) IRC 37-2018 “Guidelines for the
design of flexible pavements (Fourth Revision).” Indian Code
of Practice, New Delhi
29. Indian Road Congress (2014) IRC-115-2014. In: Guidelines
for the structural evaluation and strengthening of flexible pave-
ments using falling weight deflectometer, pp 1–44
30. Thomas F, Weninger-Vycudil A, Simanek P (2004) Generating
homogeneous road sections based on surface measurements:
available methods. In: 6th International conference on managing
pavements, pp 21–23
31. Li H, Ni F, Dong Q, Zhu Y (2018) Application of analytic hier-
archy process in network level pavement maintenance decision-
making. Int J Pavement Res Technol 11:345–354. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​ijprt.​2017.​09.​015
32. Prakasan AC, Tiwari D, Shah YU, Parida M (2015) Pavement
maintenance prioritization of urban roads using analytical hier-
archy process. Int J Pavement Res Technol 8:112–122. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​6135%​2fijp​r t.​org.​tw%​2f2015.​8(2).​112
33. Ouma YO, Opudo J, Nyambenya S (2015) Comparison of fuzzy
AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS for road pavement maintenance prior-
itization: methodological exposition and case study. Adv Civ
Eng 2015:1–17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2015/​140189
34. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM
methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2022) 7:28 Page 17 of 17  28
Oper Res 156:445–455. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0377-​2217(03)​
00020-1
35. Opricović S (2009) Compromise in cooperative game and the
VIKOR method. Yugosl J Oper Res 19:225–238. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​2298/​YJOR0​90222​5O
3 6. Kastratović E, Zimonjić S, Đekić M (2017) Application of VIKOR
method in ranking the investment projects. J Econ Law 22:1–10
View publication stats
37. Babashamsi P, Golzadfar A, Yusoff NIM et al (2016) Integrated
fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and VIKOR method in the prior-
itization of pavement maintenance activities. Int J Pavement Res
Technol 9:112–120. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijprt.​2016.​03.​002
38. Taheri SM, Hesamian G (2013) A generalization of the Wilcoxon
signed-rank test and its applications. Stat Pap 54:457–470. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00362-​012-​0443-4
13