Standard Practice for

Collecting Images of Pavement

Surfaces for Distress Detection

AASHTO Designation: PP 68-141

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249
Washington, D.C. 20001

© 2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Standard Practice for

Collecting Images of Pavement

Surfaces for Distress Detection

AASHTO Designation: PP 68-141

1. SCOPE
1.1. This practice outlines the procedures for collecting images of pavement surfaces utilizing
automated methods for the purpose of distress detection for both network- and project-level
analysis. Detailed specifications are not included for equipment or instruments used to collect the
images. According to this standard, any equipment that can be adequately validated to meet the
functionality stipulated herein is considered acceptable. The goal is to achieve a significant level
of standardization that will contribute to the production of consistent pavement condition
estimates while not unduly limiting innovation.

1.2. The images are to be collected utilizing a platform traveling at or near the prevailing highway
speed.

1.3. The data collected should cover the entire driven lane in the travel direction.

1.4. This practice does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use.
It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health
practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations related to and prior to its use.

2. TERMINOLOGY
2.1. Definitions:

2.1.1. crack—a fissure of the pavement material at the surface with minimum dimensions of 1 mm
(0.04 in.) width and 25 mm (1 in.) length.

2.1.2. crack width—the average gap in millimeters (inches) between the two edges of a crack measured
at points along the gap with a minimum spacing between the measurement points of 3 mm
(0.12 in.).

2.1.3. pavement distress—external indications of pavement defects or deterioration.

2.1.4. pavement image—a representation of the pavement that describes a characteristic (gray scale,
color, temperature, elevation, etc.) of a matrix of points (pixels) on the pavement surface.

3. SIGNIFICANCE AND USE

3.1. This practice outlines the procedures for collecting images of pavement surfaces utilizing
automated methods for the purpose of distress detection. Its purpose is to produce consistent data
collection.

TS-5a PP 68-1 AASHTO

© 2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
3.2. It is recognized that the requirements for the collected image(s) listed below are linked to the
capability of the associated distress detection system. This linkage is seen as necessary due to the
current immaturity of the technology. It is hoped that future developments will provide for a more
objective method of measuring performance that is independent of the detection system and easier
to implement. There are methods to determine certain limited aspects of the collection processes
such as the ability to collect images of 1-, 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-mm (0.04-, 0.08-, 0.16-, 0.28-, and
0.4-in.) diameter rods placed on the pavement at various angles and positions. These processes can
be particularly helpful in determining whether there have been any major changes in equipment
performance.

4. DATA COLLECTION
4.1. General Guidelines—Each agency shall designate the lane(s) and direction(s) of travel to be
surveyed or rated based on sound engineering principles and management needs within the
agency. The following guidelines are recommended as minimums to provide a necessary database
and for long-term uniformity.

4.2. Survey:

4.2.1. Reported images at least 4.0 m (13 ft) wide. Preferably, the images should be 4.25 m (14 ft) wide
to include an additional 300 mm (12 in.) on the shoulder side so that pavement edge distress
beyond the marking can be captured. Typically, vehicle wander requires that images at least
300 mm (12 in.) wider than the required image width be collected in order to report full-width
data. Data beyond the required image width may be discarded. Image length in the travel direction
shall be not greater than 100 m (325 ft).

4.2.2. The lanes for which the data are collected will depend on final use. Typically, network data are
collected in the outside travel lane, and project-level collection covers all lanes.

4.2.3. For network data collection, it is desirable to collect the data in the same travel direction on each
cycle.

4.2.4. Data collection should not be performed in the presence of standing water or other surface
contaminants.

4.3. Pavement Image:

4.3.1. The images must provide sufficient difference between data point values representing distressed
and nondistressed areas that subsequent distress detection techniques can delineate a minimum of
33 percent of all cracks under 3 mm (0.12 in.), 60 percent of all cracks present from 3 mm
(0.12 in.) and under 5 mm (0.2 in.) wide, and 85 percent of all cracks 5 mm (0.2 in.) wide or wider
regardless of orientation or type (see Note 1). The determination of this capability will be made
utilizing a minimum of ten 0.03-km (100-ft) samples containing an average of at least five such
cracks per sample.

4.3.2. The images should be sufficiently void of erroneous differences between data point values that a
section of pavement without distress, discontinuities, or pavement markings contains less than 3 m
(10 ft) total length of detected false cracking in 50 m2 (540 ft2) of pavement (see Note 1). The
determination of this capability will be made utilizing a minimum of ten 0.03-km (100-ft) samples
of various types that meet the criteria.
Note 1—These performance values are the estimates of a panel of experts based on current
technology. Ongoing research and equipment developments will better define and improve these
criteria over the next few years. As capabilities are better defined, separate levels of performance
may be established for two or three classes of equipment.

TS-5a PP 68-2 AASHTO

© 2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.3.3. Detected average crack width for each crack detected in Section 4.3.2 must be within 20 percent or
1 mm (0.04 in.), whichever is larger, of the actual width with at least 85 percent confidence.

4.3.4. Pavement images may be visible or infrared video that is either illuminated or passive. It may also
be a dimensional map, or any combination of technologies that achieves sufficient distress
detection reliability stated in Section 4.3.

5. DATA REPORTING
5.1. The location (latitude and longitude) of the first data point on the shoulder side of each image
should be reported as a minimum, along with a unique image identifier.

5.2. The image scale should be equal in both longitudinal and transverse directions and the value
reported. The scale value of the z-axis of any nonintensity images should also be reported. Other
useful comment data that can affect image analysis, such as the presence of crack seal, railroad
tracks, or excessive pavement marking, should be reported with the image.

6. SYSTEM VALIDATION
6.1. The process of calibrating and checking the performance of the measurement equipment is left to
the agency. Generally, the agency should follow the manufacturer’s recommendations for
calibrating and verifying the performance of the equipment. The following considerations should
be included in any program.

6.1.1. Location accuracy:

6.1.1.1. Distance measuring instrument accuracy;

6.1.1.2. Latitude–longitude accuracy.

6.1.2. Crack width and length in all orientations.

6.1.3. Crack delineation (sensitivity to the characteristic(s) that define(s) a fissure).

6.1.4. Minimum resolution versus delineation level.

6.1.5. Minimum resolution versus crack angle.

6.1.6. System platform stability and environmental impacts (moisture/wind/temperature):

6.1.6.1. Performance at various sun angles and intensities;

6.1.6.2. Performance at various speeds;

6.1.6.3. Performance at various vehicle attitudes and distances relative to the pavement;

6.1.6.4. Performance at various humidity and temperature levels;

6.1.6.5. Performance at different wind conditions;

6.1.6.6. Performance under various lighting conditions; and

6.1.6.7. Resolution versus position of cracks due to optical distortion.

TS-5a PP 68-3 AASHTO

© 2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
6.2. Ground truth for system calibration and verification shall be the close physical examination of the
pavement surface by trained technicians with measurement instruments during a lane closure.

6.3. Validation/Acceptance Report:

6.3.1. The ground truth report is a crack map depicting each crack in the section and its unique identifier.
Included with the map is a table listing the crack identifiers along with the location, length, and
average width of each crack in each summary section.

6.3.2. The validation report will tabulate the cracks from the ground truth report into severity categories
based on average width and present a comparison to those detected by the automated system in
each category. It will also present the length of false cracking reported by the automated system.

6.4. The operator and driver (optional) are critical components of the total measurement system. They
must be trained in equipment operation, including instrument failure detection and system
management. Smooth, precise operation of the instrument platform is necessary for optimum
results.

6.5. Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA):

6.5.1. The formal calibration and performance verification program may be supplemented with a
validation program in which the equipment traverses defined portion(s) of pavement on a regular
basis. The validation site should represent most of the data collection variables that the system is
expected to encounter during routine data collection. Results are then compared for reasonableness
with previous runs. A typical implementation of this process would involve 5 km (3 miles) of data
collection and be performed monthly.

7. KEYWORDS
7.1. Asphalt pavement surface; automated data collection; pavement distress; pavement images;
pavement management.

8. REFERENCES
8.1. AASHTO PP 67, Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt Pavement Surfaces from Collected Images
Utilizing Automated Methods.

8.2. ASTM E1656/E1656M, Standard Guide for Classification of Automated Pavement Condition
Survey Equipment.

8.3. FHWA. Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program,
FHWA Report RD-03-031.

1
This provisional standard was first published in 2010.

TS-5a PP 68-4 AASHTO

© 2015 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.