Mechatronics and Intelligent Transportation Systems

https://www.acadlore.com/journals/MITS

Pavement Condition Assessment Using Pavement Condition Index

and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model
Omar Elmansouri1 , Abdulaziz Alossta1 , Ibrahim Badi2*
1
Faculty of Engineering, Misurata University, 2449 Misurata, Libya
2
The Libyan Academy-Misurata, 2449 Misurata, Libya
*
Correspondence: Ibrahim Badi (i.badi@lam.edu.ly)

Received: 07-22-2022 Revised: 08-30-2022 Accepted: 09-10-2022

Citation: O. Elmansouri, A. Alossta, and I. Badi, “Pavement condition assessment using pavement condition
index and multi-criteria decision-making model,” Mechatron. Intell Transp. Syst., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 57-68, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.56578/mits010107.

© 2022 by the author(s). Published by Acadlore Publishing Services Limited, Hong Kong. This article is available for free
download and can be reused and cited, provided that the original published version is credited, under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Abstract: Road maintenance is essential to the growth of the transportation infrastructure and, thereby, has a big
impact on a nation's overall economic stability and prosperity. It is impossible to simultaneously monitor and
maintain the entire network. As a result, transportation authorities are eager to develop scientific foundations for
assessing the importance of maintenance tasks within the network of roads. Hence, pavement assessment methods
are needed to establish the priorities and achieving the most convenient level of service. In this study, a road stretch
was assessed using the sixteen criteria in the Distress Identification Manual for pavement defects, using pavement
condition index (PCI) and multi-criteria decision-making models (MCDM). The two methods were compared to
determine the possibility of using MCDM. The study came to the conclusion that MCDM is reliable in assessing
pavement performance because both methods indicated that the road pavement is deteriorating.

Keywords: Pavement condition index (PCI); Multi-criteria decision-making models (MCDM); Grey theory;
Combined compromise solution (CoCoSo)

1. Introduction

Prioritizing road reconstruction and maintenance requires careful consideration of pavement performance [1].
Experts can determine the best maintenance planning and pick the optimal installation method through precise
evaluation and accurate defects estimation [1]. An assortment of observed factors regarding the structure and
surface quality of the pavement has an impact on how well it is maintained [2]. Roads deteriorate as a result of the
interaction between weather, traffic volume, and traffic type. Establishing a trustworthy foundation for
performance assessment is therefore crucial to examining how the aforementioned factors affect pavement
structural behaviour [3].
Roads sustain damage and suffering throughout their service life [4]. Therefore, regular road surface
maintenance, including inspection and repair, is essential to maintaining pavement quality, extending pavement
life, and maintaining the usefulness of roadways. The most frequent surface flaws include surface imperfections,
surface deformation, and cracking [5]. The initial survey is a crucial first step in creating an effective maintenance
management system, where the information gathered is used to inform correct and economical decisions that
support maintaining network sufficiency [6].
To document the type, severity, and number of distresses based on visual inspection, a thorough survey of
defects is conducted. Later, using performance evaluation models, the data gathered is applied to assess the
pavement condition. Various techniques have been developed throughout the years to more accurately assess the
performance of road pavement. One of the most well-known models in the field is the pavement condition index
(PCI). The evaluation result is a numerical indicator with a range of zero for damaged surfaces to one hundred for
perfect conditions [7].
This paper investigates a heavy traffic road in the city of Misurata, Libya to evaluate its pavement condition.
Two approaches were adopted, namely, pavement condition index (PCI), and Multi-criteria decision-making
models (MCDM). PCI is based on information gathered by two qualified engineers regarding faults of certain road

https://doi.org/10.56578/mits010107
57
segments. MCDM, on the other hand, is based on distributed survey interviews on four experts with more than
fifteen years of experience in the transportation industry.
The purpose of the study is to investigate whether MCDM can be used to assess pavement performance. A
comparison of the results between MCDMs and PCI was carried out to spot differences and assess the accuracy
and reliability of the results.

2. Literature Review

For transportation agencies across the world, it is a critical task to keep a dependable Pavement Management
System (PMS). A country's economic progress is significantly impacted by the expansion of its road network.
Pavement surface continues to deteriorate over time unless suitable rehabilitation is provided due to traffic loading,
daily and seasonal climate fluctuation, and other factors. Therefore, in order to preserve the pavement, periodic
monitoring of the status of the pavement is required, and this monitoring must be followed by rapid treatment [8].
Several transportation bodies have created rules and policies to preserve the road network. The policies contain
steps for evaluating the system's pavement condition, and choosing when to apply the optimal maintenance option.
The evaluation of pavement condition using pavement performance indices is a crucial part of any PMS.
Numerous indices, including the pavement condition index (PCI), the international roughness index (IRI), the
pavement serviceability rating (PSR), etc., have been widely adopted [9]. Pavement performance models are
needed to assess the status quo and forecast the performance of the pavement sectors. It is necessary to collect
information on the state of the pavement, identify the factors that contribute to pavement degradation, and then
choose the mathematical model that best illustrates the relationship between the pavement conditions and the
identified factors [10].
In the United States and Canada, the PCI method is a frequently used instrument for evaluating asphalt and
concrete pavements. Detailed field survey data that reflect the pavement's present condition is employed to
calculate PCI. In a typical field survey, the pavement surface distresses are fully described and measured using
either eye inspection surveys or image-based surveys [10].
The accuracy of pavement performance prediction models is greatly affected by the availability of distress data.
Grey models (GM) are found to be intuitive, flexible, able to handle sudden changes in parameters, and only need
a small number of data points to update predictions [11]. Over the past few decades, many studies have been
undertaken with GMs in the field of pavement management.
To forecast pavement conditions, Kouyate created a trigonometric GM and compared the results with a first-
order GM and two S-shaped nonlinear models. The results revealed that the proposed trigonometric model
performed better than the other two models [10].
With the aid of GM (1,1) models, Zhang et al. [12] calculated the rutting, skid resistance, and smoothness of the
pavement. To gauge how well their model performed as compared to field-measured data, they employed residuals
and grey absolute correlation as measures, and discovered that the GM (1,1) has a high level of accuracy.
Based on a weighted function of the four components PCI, riding quality index, rut depth, and skid resistance
index, Yu et al. [13] created a new pavement quality index (PQI), and proved that GM (1,1) and grey relational
analysis can be used in specific situations.
Using a multivariate GM, Du and Shen [14] developed a model that predicts rut depth (1,2). The model was
successful in forecasting rut depth.
Regarding the prediction of traffic characteristics, Bezuglov et al. [11] and Gurcan et al. [15] looked at three
grey models and contrasted them with nonlinear models. Lower prediction errors and better accuracy were
achieved by grey models.
Wang et al. [16] combined grey relation analysis (GRA) and support vector machine regression (SVR) to predict
asphalt pavement performance. GRA was employed to identify important characteristics influencing pavement
performance, and SVR was utilized to anticipate pavement performance with those factors. The model was
implemented to forecast the rutting depth index. Compared to other models, GRA-SVR was proved to be accurate
and time-independent, despite being rather complex.

3. Methodology

The U.S Army Corps of Engineers developed the PCI method for the aim of pavement condition evaluation [6].
PCI is a numerical rating of the pavement condition that ranges from 0 to 100 with 0 being the worst possible
condition and 100 being the best possible condition [17]. The pavement to be evaluated is divided into branches,
which are then further divided into sections. Each section is split into sample units. Visual evaluation of pavement
sample units determines the kind and severity of pavement deterioration [18]. The quantity of the distress is
measured accordingly and the PCI is determined for each sample unit. Based on the PCI of the examined sample
units inside the section, the PCI of the pavement section is calculated following steps on Figure 1 [17].

58
 Figure 1. Pavement condition index calculation flowchart

PCI numerical values are converted to verbal rating that describes the condition of the pavement surface varies
from "failed" to "excellent". The upper part of the scale indicates pavement with minor defect and requires regular
maintenance. Pavement on the lower part of the scale requires major rehabilitation or reconstruction.
The use of multi-criteria decision methods has steadily increased in recent years. There are many applications
that use these methods, such as the applications in the field of logistics [19, 20], transportation [21, 22], financial
[23]. One of the methods used is Grey System Theory, introduced by Deng in the early 1980s [24], which focuses
on solving problems with incomplete information or small samples. Hence, it generates and extracts useful
information from the available data. This paper is based on a hybrid Grey-COCOSO methods. COCOSO model
was created by Deng [25] in 2019. The calculation is created using macros developed with MS Excel software.
The steps of the proposed method are as follows:
The Grey-COCOSO model consists of the following steps:
Step 1: Selecting the set of the most important attributes, describing the alternatives.
Step 2. Determine the attribute weights: Attribute weight 𝑊𝑗 can be calculated as follows:

1
⊗ 𝑊𝑗 = [⊗ 𝑊𝑗1 +⊗ 𝑊𝑗2 + ⋯ +⊗ 𝑊𝑗𝐾 ] (1)
𝐾

⊗ 𝑊𝑗𝐾 = [𝑊𝑗𝐾 , 𝑊𝑗𝐾 ] (2)

Step 3. Alternatives evaluated by the decision makers: decision makers use linguistic or verbal variables when
evaluating alternatives according to various criteria.
⊗ 𝐺𝑖𝑗𝐾 , (𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑚; 𝑗 = 1,2, … , 𝑛)is the attribute value given by the kth decision maker to any attribute value
𝐾
of the alternative. In grey system this value is shown as, ⊗ 𝐺𝑖𝑗𝐾 = [𝐺𝑖𝑗𝐾 , 𝐺𝑖𝑗 ] and computed as:

1
⊗ 𝐺𝑗 = [⊗ 𝐺𝑗1 +⊗ 𝐺𝑗2 + ⋯ +⊗ 𝐺𝑗𝐾 ]
𝐾
Step 4. The construction of Grey Decision Matrix:

⊗ 𝐺11 ⊗ 𝐺12 ⋯ ⋯ ⊗ 𝐺1𝑛

⊗ 𝐺21 ⊗ 𝐺22 ⋯ ⋯ ⊗ 𝐺2𝑛
𝐺= ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ (3)
⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯
[⊗ 𝐺𝑚1 ⊗ 𝐺𝑚2 ⋯ ⋯ ⊗ 𝐺𝑚𝑛 ]

Step 5. The normalization of Decision Matrix:

∗ ∗ ∗
⊗ 𝐺11 ⊗ 𝐺12 ⋯ ⋯ ⊗ 𝐺1𝑛
∗ ∗ ∗
⊗ 𝐺21 ⊗ 𝐺22 ⋯ ⋯ ⊗ 𝐺2𝑛
𝐷∗ = ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ (4)
⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯
∗ ∗ ∗
[⊗ 𝐺𝑚1 ⊗ 𝐺𝑚2 ⋯ ⋯ ⊗ 𝐺𝑚𝑛 ]

59
 For a benefit attribute ⊗ 𝐺𝑖𝑗∗ is expressed as:

𝐺𝑖𝑗 𝐺𝑖𝑗
⊗ 𝐺𝑖𝑗∗ = [ 𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑚𝑎𝑥 ]
𝐺𝑗 𝐺𝑗

where, 𝐺𝑗𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥1<𝑖<𝑚 {𝐺𝑖𝑗 } and for a cost attribute ⊗ 𝐺𝑖𝑗∗ is expressed as

𝐺𝑗𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐺𝑗𝑚𝑖𝑛
⊗ 𝐺𝑖𝑗∗ = [ , ]
𝐺𝑖𝑗 𝐺𝑖𝑗

where, 𝐺𝑗𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛1<𝑖<𝑚 {𝐺𝑖𝑗 }.

Step 6. Weighted Normalized Grey Decision Matrix normalized D* matrix is weighted by the

⊗ 𝑉𝑖𝑗 =⊗ 𝐺𝑖𝑗∗ 𝑋 ⊗ 𝑊𝑗

∗
Process which establishes the weighted normalised grey decision matrix 𝐷𝑊 .
∗ ∗ ∗
⊗ 𝐺11 ⊗ 𝐺12 ⋯ ⋯ ⊗ 𝐺1𝑛
∗ ∗ ∗
⊗ 𝐺21 ⊗ 𝐺22 ⋯ ⋯ ⊗ 𝐺2𝑛
𝐷∗ = ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ (5)
⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯
∗ ∗ ∗
[⊗ 𝐺𝑚1 ⊗ 𝐺𝑚2 ⋯ ⋯ ⊗ 𝐺𝑚𝑛 ]

Step 7: The total weighted comparability sequence (Si) and the sum of the weighted comparability sequences
(Pi) for each alternative are calculated as follows:
𝑛

𝑆𝑖 = ∑(𝑤𝑗 𝑟𝑖𝑗 ) (6)

𝑗=1

This Si value is achieved based on grey relational generation approach:

𝑛
𝑤𝑗
𝑃𝑖 = ∑(𝑟𝑖𝑗 ) (7)
𝑗=1

Step 8: Relative weights of the alternatives using the following aggregation strategies are computed. In this step,
three appraisal score strategies are used to generate relative weights of other options, which are derived using the
following formulas:

𝑃𝑖 + 𝑆𝑖
𝐾𝑖𝑎 = (8)
∑𝑚
𝑖=1(𝑃𝑖 + 𝑆𝑖 )

𝑆𝑖 𝑃𝑖
𝑘𝑖𝑏 = − (9)
min 𝑆𝑖 min 𝑃𝑖
𝑖 𝑖

𝜆(𝑆𝑖 ) + (1 − 𝜆)(𝑃𝑖 )
𝑘𝑖𝑐 = ; 0≤𝜆≤1 (10)
(𝜆 max 𝑆𝑖 + (1 − 𝜆) max 𝑃𝑖 )
𝑖 𝑖

Step 9: The final ranking of the alternatives is determined as follows:

1 1
𝑘𝑖 = (𝑘𝑖𝑎 𝑘𝑖𝑏 𝑘𝑖𝑐 )3 + (𝑘𝑖𝑎 +𝑘𝑖𝑏 + 𝑘𝑖𝑐 ) (11)
3

60
4. The Case Study

This paper studies a road section that serves an industrial area located in the city of Misurata, Libya. The road
is about 10.4 m wide with a total length of 1300 m. It was constructed a long time ago (more than thirty-five years)
and has never been maintained. The heavy trucks often use the route to dump industrial wastes into a nearby
landfill. Most of the traffic on the road is classified as heavy traffic. The evaluation was based on a traditional
visual inspection of defects that appear in the pavement surface.
Two professional engineers collected detailed information on distresses. Defects data were obtained manually
according to the distress identification manual for the long-term pavement performance program (LTPP). Table 1
contains the defects data on pavement surfaces and their severity levels. The pavement condition assessment was
carried out and the eight types found are Fatigue cracking, Longitudinal cracking, Transverse cracking, Patches,
Potholes, Polished aggregate, and Depression.

Table 1. Pavement distress assessment

No Distress Type Severity level

L M H
1 Fatigue Cracking (m2) 977 91 1125
2 Block Cracking 0 0 0
3 Edge Cracking 0 0 0
4 Longitudinal Cracking (m) 9 24 60
5 Reflection Cracking 0 0 0
6 Transverse Cracking (m) 466 1272 3712
7 Patch/Patch Deterioration (m2) 0.3 10 118
8 Potholes (m2) 4.55 6.35 23
9 Rutting 0 0 0
10 Shoving 0 0 0
11 Bleeding 0 0 0
12 Polished Aggregate (m2) 0 2515 773
13 Ravelling 0 0 0
14 Lane-to-Shoulder Drop-off 0 0 0
15 Water Bleeding and Pumping 0 0 0
16 Depression 0 78 138

Low

Medium

61
 High

Figure 2. Severity level of damaged pavement sections

After completing the full survey of visible defects, the data collected shows that the pavement condition of 86
sections varies and is divided into three main levels. One fifth of the total road area suffers from minor or moderate
defects such as low-intensity transverse cracks or polished aggregate as shown in Figure 2. The rest of the area,
on the other hand, is severely damaged and faces fatigue cracks and depression in the paving layers, in addition to
polished aggregate and high-intensity transverse cracks as shown in Figure 2.
In this section, the same defects described above are evaluated. Four experts were invited to participate in
determining the importance of each of these criteria (defects). Each expert was interviewed with the aim of
clarifying the goal of the research as well as its methodology. Table 2 shows the evaluation criteria and their type.

Table 2. Criteria used

No Criteria Type
C1 Fatigue Cracking Cost
C2 Block Cracking Cost
C3 Edge Cracking Cost
C4 Longitudinal Cracking Cost
C5 Reflection Cracking Cost
C6 Transverse Cracking Cost
C7 Patch/Patch Deterioration Cost
C8 Potholes Cost
C9 Rutting Cost
C10 Shoving Cost
C11 Bleeding Cost
C12 Polished Aggregate Cost
C13 Ravelling Cost
C14 Lane-to-Shoulder Dropoff Cost
C15 Water Bleeding and Pumping Cost
C16 Depression Cost

Linguistic variables can be expressed in grey numbers on a scale shown in Table 3. The case study was also
assessed using the grey metrics shown in Table 4.
Table 5 shows the experts' evaluation of each of the criteria (defects) utilized in the study. It also shows the
conversion of the linguistic variables into numerical weights, in addition to the whitening degree calculation. The

62
result shows that error 1 is the most important with a weight of 0.05, followed by error 3 with a weight of 0.04 and
then error 5 with a weight of 0.03.

Table 3. The importance of grey number for the weights of the criteria

Importance Abbreviation Scale of grey number⊗ 𝑾

Very Low VL [0.0, 0.1]
Low L [0.1, 0.3]
Medium Low ML [0.3, 0.4]
Medium M [0.4, 0.5]
Medium High MH [0.5, 0.6]
High H [0.6, 0.8]
Very High VH [0.8, 1.0]

Table 4. Linguistic assessment and the associated grey values

Performance Abbreviation Scale of grey number ⊗ 𝑾

Very Poor VP [0.0, 1.0]
Poor P [1.0, 2.0]
Medium Poor MP [2.0, 4.0]
Fair F [4.0, 5.0]
Medium Good MG [5.0, 6.0]
Good G [6.0, 8.0]
Very Good VG [8.0, 10.]

Table 5. The linguistic assessment of the attributes by experts

Ci Expert #1 Expert #2 Expert #3 Expert #4 ⊗𝑾 Whitening degree

C1 VH VH VH L 0.63 0.83 0.7250
C2 M H VH L 0.48 0.65 0.5625
C3 ML M VH L 0.40 0.55 0.4750
C4 M M M L 0.33 0.45 0.3875
C5 ML MH MH L 0.35 0.48 0.4125
C6 M M M L 0.33 0.45 0.3875
C7 MH M L ML 0.33 0.45 0.3875
C8 H MH MH M 0.50 0.63 0.5625
C9 H VH VH VH 0.75 0.95 0.8500
C10 MH MH VH MH 0.58 0.70 0.6375
C11 M VL VL VL 0.10 0.20 0.1500
C12 L M M ML 0.30 0.43 0.3625
C13 ML L L ML 0.20 0.35 0.2750
C14 M L L L 0.18 0.35 0.2625
C15 MH M M L 0.35 0.48 0.4125
C16 H VH H VH 0.70 0.90 0.80

The linguistic assessment of each site by experts is shown in Table 6. Transform the linguistic variables into
grey numbers according to scales of grey numbers, as shown in Table 3 and Eq. (3). By the assessment of the
consequences, grey decision matrix D is calculated.

Table 6. Experts views on suggested technique selection criteria

Cj Sites Expert #1 Expert #2 Expert #3 Expert #4 Gij

C1 Unsatisfactory G VG G VG [7.009.00]
Degraded VP VP MP VP [0.501.75]
Adequate VP VP VP VP [0.001.00]
C2 Unsatisfactory VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
Degraded VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
Adequate VG VG VG VG [8.00 10.0]
C3 Unsatisfactory VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
Degraded VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
Adequate VG VG VG VG [8.00 10.0]
C4 Unsatisfactory P VP P VP [0.50 1.50]
Degraded MG VG G VG [6.75 8.50]
Adequate VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
C5 Unsatisfactory VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]

63
 Degraded VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
Adequate VG VG VG VG [8.00 10.0]
C6 Unsatisfactory VG G VG G [7.00 9.00]
Degraded VP MG P MP [2.00 3.25]
Adequate VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
C7 Unsatisfactory P VP VP VP [0.25 1.25]
Degraded MG F P MG [3.75 4.75]
Adequate VP G G MG [4.24 5.75]
C8 Unsatisfactory VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
Degraded MP MP F MG [3.25 4.75]
Adequate F MG MG MG [4.75 5.75]
C9 Unsatisfactory VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
Degraded VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
Adequate VG VG VG VG [8.00 10.0]
C10 Unsatisfactory VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
Degraded VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
Adequate VG VG VG VG [8.00 10.0]
C11 Unsatisfactory VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
Degraded VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
Adequate VG VG VG VG [8.00 10.0]
C12 Unsatisfactory MG VG VG VG [7.25 9.00]
Degraded MP VP P VP [0.75 2.00]
Adequate VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
C13 Unsatisfactory VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
Degraded VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
Adequate VG VG VG VG [8.00 10.0]
C14 Unsatisfactory VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
Degraded VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
Adequate VG VG VG VG [8.00 10.0]
C15 Unsatisfactory VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
Degraded VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]
Adequate VG VG VG VG [8.00 10.0]
C16 Unsatisfactory F G G MG [5.25 6.75]
Degraded MP F MP MG [3.25 4.75]
Adequate VP VP VP VP [0.00 1.00]

5. Results

PCI of any pavement section is determined according to ASTM D6433 by calculating the average PCI of all
sample units within the inspected section. This is typically created for routine management purposes which allow
for early detection of major rehabilitation needs [24]. The average PCI value for the 86 pavement sections
considered in this study using the procedure from ASTM D6433 was 31%. The PCI rating indicates unsatisfactory
condition of the pavement.

Table 7. Normalised decision-making matrix

Unsatisfactory Degraded Adequate Weight

C1 0 0.0001 0.4125 0.725
C2 0.325 0.325 0 0.5625
C3 0.275 0.275 0 0.475
C4 0.0001 0 0.225 0.3875
C5 0.2375 0.2375 0 0.4125
C6 0 0 0.225 0.3875
C7 0.2575 0.0236 0.0236 0.3875
C8 0.3125 0 0 0.5625
C9 0.475 0.475 0 0.85
C10 0.35 0.35 0 0.6375
C11 0.1 0.1 0 0.15
C12 0 0 0.2125 0.3625
C13 0.175 0.175 0 0.275
C14 0.175 0.175 0 0.2625
C15 0.2375 0.2375 0 0.4125
C16 0 0 0.45 0.8

64
 Table 8. Weighted normalised decision-making matrix

Unsatisfactory Degraded Adequate

C1 0 0 0.299
C2 0.183 0.183 0
C3 0.131 0.131 0
C4 0 0 0.087
C5 0.098 0.098 0
C6 0 0 0.087
C7 0.1 0.009 0.009
C8 0.176 0 0
C9 0.404 0.404 0
C10 0.223 0.223 0
C11 0.015 0.015 0
C12 0 0 0.077
C13 0.048 0.048 0
C14 0.046 0.046 0
C15 0.098 0.098 0
C16 0 0 0.36

Table 9. Relative weights of the alternatives for different aggregation strategies

Pi Si+Pi kia kib kic ki rank

Unsatisfactory 6.321 7.842 0.426 3.774 1.000 2.905 1
Degraded 5.417 6.671 0.362 3.182 0.851 2.458 2
Adequate 2.981 3.900 0.212 2.000 0.497 1.498 3

The next step is to form normalised decision-making matrix, which shown in Table 7. Table 8 shows the
weighted normalised decision-making matrix. The weights obtained by using grey theory are used.
Table 9 shows the relative weights of the alternatives using different aggregation strategies. The results show
that the road is in unsatisfactory condition.

6. Discussion
Pavement Condition Index (PCI %)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Stations 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Stations

Figure 3. Case study PCI values as per ASTM 6433 procedure

Based on the results, similar evaluation conclusions were obtained by comparing the two methods. Distress
estimation on both models has given comparable evaluation outcomes. However, both pavement performance
assessments are identical, where the road surface is obviously damaged and deteriorated and urgent maintenance
is required very soon. 80% of the total road area suffers from highly defected pavements. Figure 3 shows the
pavement condition along the road, where PCI values fall below 55 for most roadway sections. The results also

65
show that rutting, depression, and fatigue cracking are ranked sequentially as the most important aspects. These
defects have a direct influence on the safety of people and the targeted level of service. On the other hand,
Marcelino et al. [26] evaluated pavement condition based on functional and structural aspects. Functional criteria
include traffic and safety, while structural criteria include pavement condition and social equity. Moreover,
Pescador Junior et al. [27] estimated pavement condition objectively and subjectively.
To ensure the applicability and the accuracy of the MCDM model in the evaluation process of pavement
performance, a statistical analysis was carried out using the t-test paired two-sample method assuming unequal
variances. The results indicated that there is no significant difference between values as shown in Table 10.
Therefore, the MCDM model is a reliable method that could be used in the field of pavement performance
evaluation. Similarly, Pescador et al. [27] concluded that the results on both methods are almost identical. In
addition, Marcelino et al. [26] study demonstrated that MCDM methods are suitable and useful. However, the
application of the model is limited to the existence of experience, and adequate data that are coherently related to
the precision of the results. Although pavement evaluation methods are widely used, a well-trained assessment
team is demanded to evaluate the roadway pavement condition, and provide enough information on road defects.
Thus, the models' accuracy is limited to the experience and skills of the surveyors and the sufficiency of data.

Table 10. t-Test: Two-Sample assuming unequal variances

MCDM PCI
Mean 0.077 237.5458
Variance 0.01216 470228.2
Observations 48 48
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 47
t Stat -2.39924
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.010224
t Critical one-tail 1.677927
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.020447
t Critical two-tail 2.011741

7. Conclusion

It is very important to inspect the road surface as it will be damaged over its service life due to weather factors
and heavy traffic. This inspection helps identify the types of damage and, therefore, the maintenance methods that
can ensure that the road remains in good condition and serviceable for the longest possible time. As an essential
first step in an effective maintenance management system, an initial assessment is conducted to identify the most
significant road defects. This helps decision-makers make appropriate decisions regarding future maintenance
operations.
In this study, PCI was obtained both objectively and subjectively. It should be mentioned that there was no
significant difference between the values obtained by the two methods. As a matter of fact, the t-test was used to
compare the results obtained, and the result showed that there was no significant difference between the results
obtained by the two methods. This indicates the possibility of using subjective methods for an initial assessment
of the condition of the roads and an appropriate decision on their maintenance. In addition, this work identified
the areas with the highest frequency of defects. The results showed that 80% of the road studied suffers from major
defects and requires maintenance. This study approach can be extended for future studies by comparing objective
and subjective results on different topics that require a decision-making. Future research should aim to replicate
results of MCDM with other pavement performance measures.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] X. Chen, Q. Dong, H. Zhu, and B. Huang, “Development of distress condition index of asphalt pavements
using LTPP data through structural equation modeling,” Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol., vol. 68, pp.
58-69, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.03.011.

66
[2] J. M. Pinatt, M. L. Chicati, J. S. Ildefonso, and C. R. Filetti, “Evaluation of pavement condition index by
different methods: Case study of maringá, Brazil,” Transp. Res. Interdiscipl. Perspect., vol. 4, no. 1, Article
ID: 100100, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100100.
[3] M. A. Mehdi, T. Cherradi, A. Bouyahyaoui, S. El Karkouri, and A. Qachar, “Evolution of a flexible pavement
deterioration, analyzing the road inspections results,” Mater. Today: Proc., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1222-1228,
2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.01.452.
[4] O. Elmansouri, A. Almhroog, and I. Badi, “Urban Transportation in Libya: An overview,” Transp. Res.
Interdiscipl. Perspect., vol. 8, Article ID: 100161, 2020.
[5] J. Li, T. Liu, X. Wang, and J. Yu, “Automated asphalt pavement damage rate detection based on optimized
Ga-CNN,” Automat. Constr., vol. 136, Article ID: 104180, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104180.
[6] H. Majidifard, Y. Adu-Gyamfi, and W. G. Buttlar, “Deep Machine Learning Approach to develop a new
asphalt pavement condition index,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 247, Article ID: 118513, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118513.
[7] N. G. Ahmed, G. J. Awda, and U. E. Saleh, “Development of pavement condition index model for flexible
pavement in Baghdad city,” J. Eng., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 2120-2135, 2008.
[8] A. H. Hu, Q. Bai, L. Chen, S. Y. Meng, Q. H. Li, and Z. M. Xu, “A review on empirical methods of pavement
performance modeling,” Constr. Build Mater., vol. 342, Article ID: 127968, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127968.
[9] A. A. Elhadidy, S. El-Badawy, and E. Elbeltagi, “A simplified pavement condition index regression model
for pavement evaluation,” Int J. Pavement Eng., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1-10, 2019.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2019.1633579.
[10] A. Kouyate, "Evaluation of a trigonometric grey model for estimating and predicting pavement condition,"
Doctoral Dissertation, South Carolina University, Columbia, 2021.
[11] A. Bezuglov and C. Gurcan, “Short-term freeway traffic parameter prediction: Application of grey system
theory models,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 62, pp. 284-292, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.06.032.
[12] D. B. Zhang, X. Li, Y. Zhang, and H. Zhang, “Prediction method of asphalt pavement performance and
corrosion based on grey system theory,” Int J. Corros., vol. 2019, Article ID: 2534794, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2534794.
[13] J. M. Yu, X. N. Zhang, and C. L. Xiong, “A methodology for evaluating micro-surfacing treatment on asphalt
pavement based on grey system models and grey rational degree theory,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 150, pp.
214-226, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.181.
[14] J. C. Du and D. H. Shen, “Development of pavement permanent deformation prediction model by grey
modelling method,” Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 109-121, 2005.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10286600500126348.
[15] C. Gurcan, N. Begashaw, and N. Huynh, “Improved grey system models for predicting traffic parameters,”
Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 177, Article ID: 114972, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114972.
[16] X. Wang, J. Zhao, Q. Li, N. Fang, P. Wang, L. Ding, and S. Li, “A hybrid model for prediction in asphalt
pavement performance based on support vector machine and grey relation analysis,” J. Adv. Transport., vol.
2020, Article ID: 7534970, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/7534970.
[17] “Standart Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys,” ASTM D6433-11, 2020.
[18] M. Y. Shahin, Pavement Management for Airports, Roads, and Parking Lots, New York, NY, USA, Springer,
2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/b101538.
[19] M. Yazdani, P. Zarate, E. K. Zavadskas, and Z. Turskis, “A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo)
method for multi-criteria decision-making problems,” Manage. Decis., vol. 57, no. 3, 2019.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458.
[20] A. Alosta, O. Elmansuri, and I. Badi, “Resolving a location selection problem by means of an integrated
AHP-RAFSI approach,” Rep. Mech Eng., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 135-142, 2021.
http://dx.doi.org/10.31181/rme250520p.
[21] A. E. Torkayesh and V. Simic, “Stratified hybrid decision model with constrained attributes: Recycling
facility location for urban healthcare plastic waste,” Sustain Cities Soc., vol. 77, Article ID: 103543, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103543.
[22] M. Bakır and Ö. Atalık, “Application of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS approach for the evaluation of e-
service quality in the airline industry,” Decis. Making: Appl. Manage. Eng., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 127-152, 2021.
http://dx.doi.org/10.31181/dmame2104127b.
[23] M. Eshtaiwi, I. Badi, A. Abdulshahed, and T. E. Erkan, “Determination of key performance indicators for
measuring airport success: A case study in Libya,” J. Air Transport Manage., vol. 68, pp. 28-34, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.12.004.
[24] M. Baydas, O. E. Elma, and D. Pamučar, “Exploring the specific capacity of different multi criteria decision
making approaches under uncertainty using data from financial markets,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 197,
Article ID: 116755, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116755.

67
[25] J. L. Deng, “Control problems of grey systems,” Syst. control lett., vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 288-294, 1982.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6911(82)80025-X.
[26] P. Marcelino, M. D. Antunes, E. Fortunato, and M. C. Gomes, “Development of a multi criteria decision
analysis model for pavement maintenance at the network level: Application of the Macbeth approach,” Front.
Built Environ., vol. 5, pp. 6-6, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2019.00006.
[27] A. C. Pescador Junior, C. A. Da Silva Junior, and H. B. Fontenele, “Comparação de Métodos de Avaliação
da Condição de pavimentos FLEXÍVEIS Com O Auxílio de um SIG-T,” Rev. CIATEC-UPF, vol. 10, no. 1,
pp. 95-103, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.5335/ciatec.v10i1.7297.

68