NOTICE 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of 

the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, 

specification, or regulation. 

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document.

QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT 

The U.S. Department of Transportation provides high-quality information to serve Government, 

industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies 

are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. 

U.S. DOT periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure 

continuous quality improvement.

 
Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

FHWA-HIF-11-011 

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

December 2010 

Pavement Management Roadmap 6. Performing Organization 

Code 

7. Authors 

Kathryn A. Zimmerman, Linda M. Pierce, James Krstulovich 

8. Performing Organization 

Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

Applied Pavement Technology, Inc. 

115 W. Main Street, Suite 400 

Urbana, IL 61801 

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Asset Management 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

13. Type of Report and Period 

Covered 

Final Report 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes 

Ms. Nastaran Saadatmand, COTM 

16. Abstract 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored the development of a Pavement Management Roadmap 

to help identify the steps needed to address current gaps in pavement management and to establish research and 

development initiatives and priorities. This document presents an overview of the 10-year Pavement Management 

Roadmap, which can be used to guide new research, development, and technology transfer opportunities that will 

lead to improved approaches to pavement management. 

The roadmap was intented from the beginning to be a collaborative process that would involve representatives 

from each of the various stakeholder groups that either use pavement management data, support the use of 

pavement management concepts, or provide technical assistance or training to current or future pavement 

management practitioners. The contents of this roadmap were derived from a series of stakeholder workshops in 

which representatives from state and local agencies, academia, private industry (including data collection and 

software vendors), FHWA, and others met to discuss and prioritize the needs of pavement management 

professionals. The resulting needs were organized and grouped into one of the following four themes that emerged 

from the process: Theme 1: Use of Existing Tools and Technology; Theme 2: Institutional and Organizational 

Issues; Theme 3: The Broad Role of Pavement Management; and Theme 4: New Tools, Methodologies, and 

Technology. 

The executive summary to this report is published as a stand alone document, entitled Pavement Management 

Roadmap – Executive Summary (FHWA-HIF-11-014). 

17. Key Words 

pavement management, pavement management system, asset 

management, pavement performance, pavement data collection 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No of Pages 

131 

22. Price 

N/A 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Table of Contents ii 

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL

LENGTH

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm 

ft feet 0.305 meters m 

yd yards 0.914 meters m 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km 

AREA

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2

 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha 

mi2

 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL 

gal gallons 3.785 liters L 

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS

oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t")

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius o

C 

ILLUMINATION

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx 

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N 

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS

SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL

LENGTH 

mm millimeters 0.039 inches in 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

AREA 

mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2

m2

 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac 

km2

 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2

VOLUME 

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L liters 0.264 gallons gal 

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3

MASS 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz 

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb 

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit o

F 

ILLUMINATION 

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc 

cd/m2

 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl 

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf 

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2

*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.

(Revised March 2003) 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Table of Contents iii 

Table of Contents 

Page

1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Roadmap Development .................................................................................................. 4

The Development Process .................................................................................................................... 4

Needs to be Addressed by the Pavement Management Roadmap ............................................... 6

Focus Area 1 – Data Collection Techniques, Equipment, and Emerging Needs .......... 6

Focus Area 2 – Data Quality .................................................................................................... 9

Focus Area 3 – Data Storage and Integration ..................................................................... 12

Focus Area 4 – Performance Modeling ............................................................................... 14

Focus Area 5 – Treatment Selection .................................................................................... 17

Focus Area 6 – Use of Pavement Management in the Decision Process...................... 19

Focus Area 7 – Changing Needs and Emerging Technology in Data Collection and 

Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 22

Focus Area 8 – Quantifying the Benefits of Pavement Management ........................... 24

Focus Area 9 – Integrating Pavement Preservation and Pavement Management ....... 26

Focus Area 10 – Institutional Issues and Other Factors Influencing the Use of 

Pavement Management ............................................................................................. 28

Combined Needs Statements Included in the Pavement Management Roadmap .................. 31

Prioritizing the Combined List of Needs ......................................................................................... 43

3.0 A 10-Year Roadmap for Pavement Management ..................................................... 44

The Vision for Pavement Management ........................................................................................... 44

Prioritized Research, Development, and Technology Transfer Needs ..................................... 44

Recommended Short-Term Needs by Theme Area ...................................................................... 46

Theme 1: Use of Existing Technology and Tools ............................................................. 46

Theme 2: Institutional and Organizational Issues ............................................................. 47

Theme 3: The Broad Role of Pavement Management ...................................................... 47

Theme 4: New Tools, Methodologies, and Technologies ............................................... 47

Recommended Long-Term Needs by Theme Area ....................................................................... 52

Theme 1: Use of Existing Technology and Tools ............................................................. 52

Theme 2: Institutional and Organizational Issues ............................................................. 52

Theme 3: The Broad Role of Pavement Management ...................................................... 52

Theme 4: New Tools, Methodologies, and Technologies ............................................... 53

4.0 Roadmap Implementation ........................................................................................... 58

Getting Involved ................................................................................................................................... 58

APPENDIX A - WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS ................................................................... 60

APPENDIX B - PROBLEM STATEMENTS ......................................................................... 63
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Table of Contents iv 

List of Figures 

Page

Figure 1. Relationship between Focus Areas and Common Pavement Management Activities. 5

List of Tables 

Page

Table 1. Final List of Research Needs Statements for Theme 1................................................ 32

Table 2. Final List of Research Needs Statements for Theme 2................................................ 36

Table 3. Final List of Research Needs Statements for Theme 3................................................ 39

Table 4. Final List of Research Needs Statements for Theme 4................................................ 41

Table 5. Funding Needs by Theme Area. ....................................................................................... 45

Table 6. Prioritized Listing of Short-Term Needs. ....................................................................... 45

Table 7. Prioritized Listing of Long-Term Needs. ....................................................................... 46

Table 8. Top 10 Listing of Short-Term Needs Statements by Theme. ..................................... 48

Table 9. Top 10 Listing of Long-term Needs Statements by Theme. ..................................... 54

Table B1. Theme 1 Prioritized Listing of Short-term Needs. .................................................... 65

Table B2. Theme 1 Prioritized Listing of Long-term Needs. ..................................................... 65

Table B3. Theme 2 Prioritized Listing of Short-term Needs. .................................................... 78

Table B4. Theme 2 Prioritized Listing of Long-term Needs. ..................................................... 78

Table B5. Theme 3 Prioritized Listing of Short-term Needs. .................................................... 91

Table B6. Theme 3 Prioritized Listing of Long-term Needs. ..................................................... 91

Table B7. Theme 4 Prioritized Listing of Short-term Needs. .................................................... 106

Table B8. Theme 4 Prioritized Listing of Long-term Needs. ..................................................... 107
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

1.0 Introduction 1 

1.0 Introduction 

Over the last few decades, transportation agencies have seen tremendous changes in the way 

business is conducted. For example, since the construction of the interstate highway system, there 

has been an increased emphasis on performance monitoring and the use of pavement management 

data to assist with planning and programming for maintenance activities and capital improvements. 

Additionally, the methods used to assess pavement condition have evolved in conjunction with 

other technological advancements so that automated procedures are more commonly being utilized 

than in the past. Moreover, advancements in computer capabilities and their availability have 

resulted in a plethora of new tools for designing, analyzing, and managing pavements. Most 

recently, this has led to the development of new mechanistic-empirical pavement design procedures 

with significantly larger and more diverse data requirements than have been previously used. 

In addition to technological changes, transportation 

agencies have seen adjustments in the way decisions are 

being made. Within the past 10 years, there has been an 

increasing emphasis on asset management principles for 

resource allocation and utilization decisions that are based 

on system performance objectives. Under an asset 

management framework, investment decisions consider 

the trade-offs associated with different strategies and 

agencies strive to align tactical improvement programs 

with their strategic priorities. With asset management 

there is an increased focus on customer expectations and 

transparency in the decision process. The availability of 

quality data has a tremendous impact on an agency’s 

ability to compare different investment options and to 

make sound business decisions that consider both 

engineering and economic factors. 

Unfortunately, decreases in the purchasing power of 

available funding, coupled with reduced funding levels, have led to deteriorating network conditions 

within most transportation agencies at the same time that demand for these facilities is increasing. 

As a result, many transportation agencies are shifting their priorities from a focus on system 

expansion to an increasing focus on system preservation. In fact, a number of agencies have 

recognized the cost-effectiveness associated with the use of preventive maintenance treatments to 

slow the rate of deterioration and to postpone the need for the most costly rehabilitation strategies. 

However, the shift towards pavement preservation has not been entirely free from problems. For 

example, organizations that had previously separated the maintenance and capital improvement 

decision processes have had to overcome these institutional barriers in order to develop effective 

improvement programs that include preventive maintenance treatments. 

As a result of these and other changes impacting transportation agencies, the role of pavement 

management is changing. In the past, pavement management was primarily considered to be used 

for assessing and reporting pavement conditions, prioritizing capital improvements, and estimating 

funding needs. Today, pavement management has the potential to fulfill a much broader (and more 

significant) role within a transportation agency. In addition to the more traditional roles it serves, 

pavement management can support an agency’s asset management practices by supporting the 

The availability of quality

data has a tremendous

impact on an agency’s ability

to compare different

investment options and to

make sound business

decisions that consider both

engineering and economic

factors.
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

1.0 Introduction 2 

development of strategic performance objectives for the highway system. It can also provide a link 

to maintenance and operations through the analysis of pavement preservation options. And it can 

provide the pavement performance data required to evaluate and calibrate the mechanistic-based 

performance models for use within a specific transportation agency. 

The successful transition of pavement management into these areas depends on the availability and 

accessibility of quality data to support an agency’s decision processes. Unfortunately, there are a 

number of agencies that are currently not fully utilizing their pavement management system to 

support these types of decisions. Therefore, several immediate issues must be addressed to 

overcome these hurdles and to prepare pavement management for its broader role in the future. 

Some of the more immediate needs that might be considered are listed below: 

 Providing access to integrated, quality data: An effective pavement management system 

depends on reliable, accurate, and complete information. A number of issues arise in 

determining what information is needed to support pavement management decisions, how to 

collect the data most efficiently, and how to ensure the quality of the data collected. In addition, 

different data sources must be integrated so that stakeholders have access to the information 

most important to their decision processes. 

 Adapting existing analysis tools: Pavement management systems include analysis models that 

predict future pavement conditions so that the use of available funding can be optimized. Many 

agencies are struggling to develop reasonable performance prediction models and treatment 

rules that represent the full range of preservation and reconstruction treatments. In addition, the 

existing models do not consider the broad range of factors that agencies want to consider in 

selecting and prioritizing projects. 

 Communicating pavement management results: An effective pavement management system 

provides empirical information that demonstrates the consequences of different investment 

strategies and programming decisions. However, project selection processes do not always 

consider the results of a pavement management analysis. Strategies are needed to more 

effectively communicate pavement management results in ways that resonate with its users. 

 Integrating pavement management into the decision process: In the end, the degree to 

which pavement management can be considered successful is largely dependent on the amount 

of influence pavement management results have on agency decisions. Therefore, methods that 

strengthen the links between planning and programming, design, maintenance and operations, 

and other divisions through improved communication, more reliable data, and stronger analysis 

capabilities are required. 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored the development of a Pavement 

Management Roadmap to help identify the steps needed to address current gaps in pavement 

management and to establish research and development initiatives and priorities. This document 

presents a 10-year Pavement Management Roadmap that can be used to guide new research, 

development, and technology transfer opportunities that will lead to improved approaches to 

pavement management. This Roadmap can substantially improve current practices by identifying 

the existing gaps and needs in pavement management. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

1.0 Introduction 3 

The final results of this project are presented in this report, which presents the prioritized list of 

research, development, and technology transfer opportunities recommended over the next 10 years. 

The report also documents the process undertaken to develop the Roadmap and the short- and 

long-term needs statements that were produced. The needs statements included as Appendix B 

describe the activities recommended as part of the Roadmap, and their associated costs. The needs 

statements can be used by the FHWA or other research agencies to secure funding to advance the 

Pavement Management Roadmap. The needs statements are organized by theme and by 

recommended timeframe (i.e., short-term and long-term). 

In addition to this report, a separate Executive Summary was prepared. The Executive Summary is 

a concise summary of the Roadmap, providing a prioritized listing of the recommended short-term 

and long-term activities to advance pavement management. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 4 

2.0 Roadmap Development 

The Roadmap was developed based on stakeholder input obtained during three regional workshops. 

This section of the report documents the process followed to identify the needs that are included in 

the final document. 

The Development Process 

From the beginning, the FHWA intended the development of the Roadmap to be a collaborative 

process, involving representatives from each of the various stakeholder groups that either use 

pavement management data, support the use of pavement management concepts, or provide 

technical assistance or training to current or future pavement management practitioners. 

Representatives from several stakeholder groups were invited to participate in one of three regional 

workshops held in Phoenix, Arizona; Dallas, Texas; and McLean, Virginia. The stakeholder groups 

that were invited to participate and the targeted number of representatives from each stakeholder 

group at each workshop are listed below: 

 State highway agencies (SHA): 21 to 25 

participants. 

 Local agencies/technology transfer 

centers/Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

(MPOs): 2 to 3 participants. 

 Academia: 2 to 3 participants. 

 Private Industry (including data collection and 

software vendors): 3 to 5 participants. 

 FHWA: 4 participants. 

A total of 87 participants accepted invitations to participate and were able to attend one of the three 

workshops. A complete listing of the attendees is provided in Appendix A of this report. In 

addition to FHWA, the participants represented thirty-one SHAs, seven other government agencies 

(i.e., cities, counties, and Canadian government agencies), thirteen private contractors, and six 

academic agencies. A Technical Panel consisting of pavement management practitioners from 

FHWA, SHAs, and academia provided technical guidance throughout the development of the 

Roadmap. Each workshop included breakout 

groups that provided an opportunity for the 

participants to exchange information on a peer-topeer basis and to collaborate on the identification of 

research and development needs in this area. 

The primary objective of the workshops was to 

identify research and workforce development needs 

within ten pre-established focus areas. These focus 

areas were identified through a literature search and 

represented topics that have been identified as 

subjects important to the pavement management 

community. The ten focus areas selected for 

discussion during the workshops included: 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 5 

1. Data collection techniques, equipment, and emerging needs. 

2. Data quality. 

3. Data storage integration. 

4. Performance modeling. 

5. Treatment selection. 

6. Use of pavement management in the decision process. 

7. Changing needs and emerging technology in pavement management. 

8. Quantifying the benefits of pavement management. 

9. Integrating pavement preservation and pavement management strategies. 

10. Institutional issues and other factors influencing the use of pavement management. 

Figure 1 illustrates where each of the ten focus areas fit into the overall pavement management 

process. 

Figure 1. Relationship between Focus Areas and Common Pavement Management Activities. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 6 

The participants at each workshop were responsible for identifying gaps in each of the focus areas 

and for developing both long-term and short-term research, development, and technology transfer 

needs to address these gaps. The needs statements were documented using a form that records the 

proposed project objective, description, cost, and duration. A total of 242 needs statements were 

produced during the three regional workshops. After eliminating duplications and combining 

statements with similar recommendations, a final list of forty-two needs statements was produced, 

with a heavy emphasis on short-term needs. Therefore, the Technical Panel was reconvened to 

identify additional long-term needs statements. The meeting resulted in five additional needs 

statements, which brought the total number to forty-seven. Each of the needs statements is 

included in the final Pavement Management Roadmap and is documented in full in Appendix B of 

this report. 

During the process of combining and re-arranging needs statements, it became evident that many of 

the needs statements impacted several of the ten focus areas. As a result, it no longer seemed 

practical to tie the final needs statements to the original focus area topics. Instead, the resulting 

needs were organized and grouped into one of the following four themes that emerged from the 

process: 

 Theme 1: Use of Existing Tools and Technology. 

 Theme 2: Institutional and Organizational Issues. 

 Theme 3: The Broad Role of Pavement Management. 

 Theme 4: New Tools, Methodologies, and Technology. 

The final list of needs was presented to the workshop participants during a webconference, which 

introduced the four theme areas and the balloting process that would be used to rank the needs in 

terms of importance. Using an online balloting tool, individuals who had attended the workshops 

were invited to vote on the relative importance of each of the research needs. In addition, 

participants were asked to rank both the short-term and long-term needs within each theme area. A 

process was developed for combining the relative importance of each need statement with the 

rankings assigned by the participants, which resulted in the final prioritized listing of short-term and 

long-term needs included in the Pavement Management Roadmap. In addition, by having ranked 

the needs statements within each theme area separately, the highest priorities within each theme, as 

well as their overall importance across themes, could be produced. The final Pavement 

Management Roadmap is included in the next chapter of this document. 

Needs to be Addressed by the Pavement Management Roadmap 

Although the final Pavement Management Roadmap is organized by themes, the stakeholder 

discussions during the three regional workshops identified gaps within each of the original focus 

areas. A summary of the state of the practice, the challenges that agencies are facing, and the needs 

identified during the workshops, is included in this section of the report. 

Focus Area 1 – Data Collection Techniques, Equipment, and Emerging Needs 

State of the Practice 

Data collection techniques, equipment, and emerging needs comprise one focus area that has 

received considerable attention over the last several decades. This emphasis is due to the need to be 

able to rapidly collect and accurately characterize pavement condition data, which serves as the basis 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 7 

for reliably predicting network pavement conditions, recommending rehabilitation or preservation 

treatment types and timing, and supporting the increasing needs of asset management. In the last 

several years, there have been a number of advancements in the technology used to collect data (e.g., 

changes in sensors and image quality) that have impacted the types of pavement condition data that 

can be collected rapidly and the consistency in data from one year to the next. However, most 

agencies continue to rely on rutting, ride, and surface condition to support their pavement 

management activities. 

One area of data collection that has seen considerable advancements is automated pavement 

condition assessment. Due to technological advancements, the assessment of pavement condition 

has transformed from laborious manual procedures to high-speed automated or semi-automated 

surveys that combine the use of sensors and digital images. Although the use of high-speed 

equipment has improved measurement accuracy, shortened the required time for data collection, 

and improved the safety of the rating crew, there is little consistency among states in how the data 

are collected and processed. The costs associated with the use of this technology are high, making 

data collection one of the most expensive aspects of pavement management. Therefore, several 

agencies are attempting to combine the data collection activities of several divisions to reduce 

redundancy and to maximize the benefit from those expenditures. 

Changes in data collection equipment technology and vendors create a unique challenge to 

pavement management practitioners due to compatibility issues with historical data. In the absence 

of equations that correlate data from different data collection devices and vendors, pavement 

management engineers must determine whether historical data can be used to develop deterioration 

trends or whether the differences in the data prevent the historical data from being used. 

On the positive side, changes in technology have provided an opportunity to collect data that could 

not easily be collected in the past. For example, recent advancements with Ground Penetrating 

Radar (GPR) have assisted SHAs in estimating pavement layer thicknesses and in conducting 

forensic studies. Another example of how technology has changed the type of data that can be 

collected is reflected in the use of moving deflection equipment to characterize pavement structural 

condition at the network level. Both of these examples illustrate new information that can be used 

to improve pavement management recommendations but that also have the potential to support the 

agency’s pavement rehabilitation and design activities. This type of information will be increasingly 

important due to the data input requirements associated with the new Mechanistic-Empirical 

Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) developed through the NCHRP and the reassessment of the 

Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) reporting requirements used by the FHWA to 

communicate with Congress. There are other emerging needs that are influencing pavement 

management data collection activities, such as the increased use of preventive maintenance 

treatments and the focus on sustainable pavements. Therefore, it is appropriate to question whether 

the information needed to support the development of pavement management recommendations is 

adequately addressed through the procedures and techniques being used today. For instance, 

pavement management practitioners will have to determine the cost-benefit of being able to record 

fine, hairline cracks using high resolution cameras. Additionally, pavement management 

practitioners should consider whether information, such as oxidation or raveling, that is needed to 

trigger preventive maintenance treatments should be incorporated into their pavement management 

data collection efforts. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 8 

The last several years have also included initiatives that have attempted to standardize the collection 

and processing of pavement condition information. The American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) worked with the FHWA on the development of 

provisional protocols for collecting faulting, rutting, roughness, and cracking data on pavements, but 

there has not been universal agreement or acceptance of these protocols. The lack of standard 

methods for collecting pavement condition information places a burden on automated equipment 

vendors but provides state highway agencies with ultimate flexibility in how they collect and process 

the data. However, the lack of consistency in data collection and processing efforts makes it 

difficult to compare performance across agencies. Therefore, it may be important to discuss this 

issue as an industry to determine whether efforts to standardize pavement data collection activities 

are warranted and, if so, to identify how to move this issue forward in a meaningful way. Critics of 

past efforts at standardization indicate that agencies typically try to meet too many needs with the 

standards and end up failing to meet any of the original objectives. As a result, the standards are not 

meaningful to anyone and become more of a burden than a help. 

There have been a significant number of research efforts in this focus area over the years. A 

summary of some of the subject areas that have been published in the last 5 years are listed below: 

 Traffic data collection/axle load spectra. 

 Procurement processes for contracting data collection activities. 

 Managing digital images from data collection cycles. 

 Development of guidelines for profile data, friction data, and, more recently, noise data 

collection. 

 Issues and challenges in using existing data for performance measurement. 

 Optimizing data collection procedures. 

 Standardization in data collection procedures. 

 Monitoring top-down cracking in long-life pavements. 

 Techniques for texture measurement. 

 Network-level nondestructive testing intervals. 

Challenges in Focus Area 1 

A number of challenges exist in the area of data collection, equipment, and emerging technologies. 

One of the biggest challenges, quality control/quality assurance activities, is so important that it has 

been established as its own focus area (further discussed in Focus Area 2). Therefore, the challenges 

listed here concentrate on other issues. For instance, pavement management data collection efforts 

require significant resources on a regular basis. Many SHAs are questioning these outlays and 

restricting the funding provided for equipment purchases or survey personnel. As a result, 

pavement managers are forced to evaluate the level of data accuracy needed, the amount of data 

needed to support pavement management, and the most cost effective method of collecting the 

information. Coupled with the emerging demands for pavement-related data associated with the 

HPMS reassessment and the implementation of the new MEPDG software, the pressures associated 

with data collection activities will likely increase in the next several years. 

Another challenge involves the coordination of data collection activities (such as traffic, materials, 

maintenance, planning, and budget) within a given SHA. Successfully coordinating these efforts 

requires a common referencing system, similar data collection schedules, and compatible efforts for 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 9 

efficiently processing the data. These coordination efforts are rarely institutionalized; instead they 

rely on the efforts of a few individuals to make them happen. Therefore, there is a substantial risk 

that the coordinated data collection efforts could end if one or more of the key individuals moves 

into a new position or leaves the agency. 

The amount of time required to process data for statewide networks is also a challenge in some 

agencies, especially if manual activities are involved in the process. In some states, the length of 

time between delivery of the condition data and the development of project and treatment 

recommendations is so short that there is not sufficient time to perform quality checks on the data. 

As a result, credibility issues may arise if errors are later found in the data. 

Data consistency and compatibility issues continue to be challenges facing many SHAs. There are 

significant issues associated with preserving historical pavement condition data through transitions 

in data collection methodology (e.g., changes from manual to automated methods), changes in 

equipment, and changes in vendors. For the most part, little work has been done in this area to 

evaluate the impact of these changes on pavement management recommendations. 

Workshop Recommendations in Focus Area 1 

Participants in the workshops for this focus area recognized that with the advancements in data 

technology, the type of equipment used for data collection, and the consistency in data collection 

and processing activities varied significantly across the United States. Therefore, many of the 

problem statements addressed the lack of awareness regarding the state of the practice by 

recommending the development of calibration centers, the identification of best practices for data 

collection and reporting, and the development of pavement distress standards. Several problem 

statements also addressed issues that have been under development for a number of years, but still 

were in need of additional investigation. These topics included the development of a fully 

automated condition data processing tool and quantifying the benefits of network-level structural 

deflection testing. Finally, workshop participants noted a need to better quantify surface-related 

distresses that are typically difficult for a visual pavement condition system to quantify, such as 

raveling, oxidation, friction, splash/spray, and noise. 

The three regional workshops produced a total of twenty-eight research needs, which were later 

combined into a total of seven problem statements. 

Focus Area 2 – Data Quality 

State of the Practice 

Pavement management is a data-driven activity. Therefore, the reasonableness and reliability of the 

pavement management recommendations are directly linked to the quality of the data being used for 

decisions. There are a number of considerations that go into the determination of data quality, 

including completeness, correctness, validity, consistency, timeliness, and accuracy. Responsibility 

for verifying data quality is typically shared by both the data collection contractor and the agency. 

However, if the agency is responsible for collecting the data, all responsibility for data quality resides 

within the agency. 

Managing data quality typically includes activities such as calibrating data collection equipment or 

inspection teams prior to the start of the surveys, reinspecting representative segments during the 

data collection process, and verifying the reasonableness and completeness of the data upon 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 10 

delivery. For pavement management data collection activities, calibration activities typically include 

collecting data on control sites where a baseline condition is established by the agency. For some 

types of equipment, such as falling weight deflectometers, calibration may be performed by a 

regional calibration center. During the production period when surveys are conducted, many 

agencies perform periodic “checks” on the data by re-inspecting a representative number of sites or 

by checking results at blind control sites (sites unknown to the data collection vendor). Once the 

surveys are completed, acceptance testing is often performed by the agency before inputting the data 

into the pavement management system. Acceptance testing typically checks for obvious errors or 

inconsistencies in the data and verification of the ratings on a representative sample of the data. 

In an effort to promote consistency in data collection activities, a number of data collection 

guidelines and procedures have been developed. These include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

 Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Manual for Profile Measurement and Processing – 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/ltpp/pubs/08056/08056.pdf. 

 Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program – 

http://www.faa.gov/airports/great_lakes/airports_resources/certification_bulletins/media/09-

07%20Attachment.pdf. 

 LTPP Manual for Falling Weight Deflectometer Measurements – 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/ltpp/pubs/06132/06132.pdf. 

The method used to collect pavement condition information has a significant impact on data quality. 

Data collected using sensors (e.g., roughness and rutting) are typically considered to have less 

variability than manual distress surveys. Some agencies are able to perform manual pavement 

condition surveys with very little variability because of the consistency in raters from year to year. 

Other agencies use automated crack detection programs as a first cut at classifying distress 

information and then verify the information using semi-automated processes that allow an inspector 

to view the digital images at a workstation. The variability associated with each of these procedures 

has been difficult to quantify and compare. 

In the last several years, there has been an increased focus on the development of methodologies 

and tools to promote data quality. For instance, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation 

developed a computerized tool to perform quality assurance checks on the processed pavement 

condition data provided by their contractor. The tool automates some of the basic checks on 

completeness, reasonableness, and consistency and flags sections that might need to be evaluated in 

more detail. Other SHAs, like the Virginia Departments of Transportation (VDOT) and the 

Maryland State Highway Administration (MDSHA), have focused on developing formal quality 

control/quality assurance plans (QC/QA). The process used by VDOT includes an independent 

outside assessment to validate and verify the data provided by its data collection vendor. MDSHA 

owns and operates its data collection vehicle but has developed QC/QA plans to ensure data 

quality. The QC plan includes steps to verify the data, to search for abnormalities, and to check that 

the data has been saved. The process also includes a subjective assessment of the crack detection 

process. As part of its QA process, an independent auditor verifies that the QC process was 

completed and further checks a representative sample of the data. If discrepancies are noted, the 

data are reviewed to determine whether the problems were caused by systematic errors or whether 

reprocessing is required. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 11 

To help tailor the data collection practices to the uses of the data, the World Bank has introduced 

the concept of Information Quality Levels for road management. This approach recognizes that 

there are five distinct levels of data used by transportation agencies ranging from very detailed data 

used for research to more general data used for reporting key performance measures (such as 

smooth roads). Each of the various levels of data requires different degrees of data sophistication 

and data quality. As a result, the expected use of the data has a significant impact on the data quality 

requirements. Thus, as the use of pavement management data expands to include new applications 

(e.g., to calibrate the MEPDG performance models), the adequacy of existing QC/QA procedures 

may need to be evaluated. 

One of the important factors impacting data quality is the turnover of personnel within SHAs. 

Constant turnover of the individuals responsible for performing pavement condition surveys or 

verifying the quality of data received from a contractor require that ongoing training programs are in 

place to help ensure consistency in the data from one year to the next. 

There have been a significant number of research efforts in this focus area over the years. A 

summary of some of the subject areas that have been published in the last 5 years are listed below: 

 Availability of quality data for performance modeling and treatment selection. 

 Reliability of automated crack detection procedures. 

 The need for separate and distinct network- and project-level databases to support pavement 

management activities. 

 The effect of uncertainty in distress measurement on performance. 

 Quality control and quality assurance plans. 

 Profile data variability. 

 How accurate does data need to be? 

 Impacts of condition assessment variability on life-cycle costs. 

 Preserving and maximizing the utility of the pavement management database. 

Challenges in Focus Area 2 

As pavement managers review, maintain, and update the various data sources that are needed for 

pavement management, the required level of data quality should be established for each data 

element. As part of this activity, agencies will have to strike a balance between low-cost efforts that 

produce large amounts of low-quality data and more costly efforts that produce less data but provide 

a higher level of data quality. It often falls to the pavement manager to determine what data are 

needed and what level of quality is adequate for generating pavement management 

recommendations within existing resource constraints. Unfortunately, there is little information 

available in the literature to guide these decisions and to quantify the impact of data variability on 

pavement management decisions. 

Resource constraints also have a significant influence on work in this area. Few agencies have the 

technical expertise to be able to develop QC/QA plans. As a result, they rely on the data collection 

vendors to have QC plans in place and do very little to verify the accuracy of the data provided. 

This issue is complicated further by the frequent changes in technology and the added variability in 

the data caused by equipment changes. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 12 

Workshop Recommendations for Focus Area 2 

Participants in this focus area identified a number of needs in the areas of data quality and data 

variability. Specifically, participants noted the need to quantify the uncertainty and risk associated 

with variability in data collection, budget allocation, and model prediction. Several of the 

participants suggested linking data quality to the different types of business decisions, implying that 

more accurate information is needed for more critical decisions. Others suggested the development 

of guidelines for referencing pavement data geospatially. In addition, participants noted an 

overwhelming need for the identification and presentation of best practices for improving data 

quality in terms of collection, processing, and reporting. 

Participants identified a total of twenty-four needs, which were combined into two problem 

statements. 

Focus Area 3 – Data Storage and Integration 

State of the Practice 

With advancements in data collection practices and equipment (e.g., digital images for pavement 

condition surveys, transverse and longitudinal profiles, GPR, and moving deflection) comes a 

significant increase in data storage needs. Within the last decade, pavement management systems 

have required servers capable of storing terabytes of data, and storage needs will continue to increase 

with the development and implementation of new technologies. Not only must SHAs deal with 

how to store these data (e.g., multiple platforms, multiple servers, off-site backup, and potential 

purging of raw files), but agencies must also address how to manage, update, enhance, and share the 

information with other divisions within the agency. 

Integration and sharing of data among agency divisions can be problematic, especially if a common 

referencing system is not used. Typically, the pavement management system is comprised of data 

obtained from various divisions within an SHA (e.g., traffic, materials, construction, and planning). 

The ability to associate all data with a given roadway location is critical to the performance, accuracy, 

enhancement, and continued use of the pavement management system. For example, having 

construction test results, such as density and asphalt content for hot-mix asphalt (HMA) pavements, 

could contribute to the improved prediction of early failures or help ensure improved pavement 

performance on a specific roadway segment. 

With the development and potential implementation of the MEDPG, the ability to store, link, and 

retrieve the large magnitude of input and generated pavement design data would fit well within a 

pavement management system. Data already contained within a pavement management system, 

such as traffic data, pavement performance data, and existing layer thickness, are needed for 

calibration, verification, and operation of the MEPDG. As part of the AASHTO DARWin-ME 

solicitation, AASHTO is making a number of modifications to the software, one of which is 

establishing an input library database, which could easily be integrated with an SHA pavement 

management system. If these databases were integrated, SHAs could evaluate the performance of 

different pavement designs based on differences in materials, climate, traffic, and other design 

inputs. 

Data integration issues are increasingly important in SHAs as agencies move away from independent 

“silos” for managing information towards a more integrated asset management approach. The 

ability to share information allows agencies to better coordinate their decisions, reduce data 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 13 

collection and management costs, and improve the accuracy and timeliness of information. There 

are a number of different approaches that can be taken to integrate data, including strategies that rely 

on a centralized database (e.g., a data warehouse) or strategies that use integrated databases that hide 

the complexity and distribution of the underlying databases. The organizational structure of the 

agency, the reliance on legacy systems, and the level of resources available to address data integration 

issues all influence the approach selected by the agency. 

An agency’s data integration activities influence the format in which pavement management data 

must be reported. As new data become available, such as GPR or structural information, pavement 

managers must address formatting issues to maximize the use of the information by the agency. 

The application of geographic information systems (GIS) and geospatial technologies to support 

asset management decision making is reported to be a primary interest area among SHAs. However, 

the development of these spatial products on an enterprise basis continues to be a challenge for 

agencies. Therefore, a peer exchange on this subject will be conducted in 2010 to identify the 

challenges that hinder progress and to propose practical solutions for SHAs. The California, 

Washington, and Virginia Departments of Transportation have reportedly made substantial progress 

in this area. 

A summary of some of the subject areas that have been published in the last 5 years are listed below: 

 Location referencing systems. 

 The use of GIS (and other spatial technologies) for data integration. 

Challenges in Focus Area 3 

As discussed previously, a number of challenges exist in the area of data storage and integration. 

The pavement manager is faced with determining how data will be stored, how best to share the 

data with other divisions within an agency, how to obtain needed data from other divisions, and how 

to maximize the usage of pavement management information within the agency. The challenges 

include both organizational and technical issues that must be addressed. 

Organizationally, the agency structure (i.e., centralized or decentralized) influences the approach that 

may be used to integrate data. Information technology divisions can also have a significant influence 

on how easily new programs and new technology can be implemented within the agency. 

There are also technical challenges that pavement managers must address. For instance, automated 

data collection images require extensive amounts of storage. As a result, agencies must decide how 

much of the data to keep for historical purposes. And, as emerging technology becomes available 

for pavement management’s use, strategies must be developed for integrating that data into the 

existing systems. 

The use of pavement management for calibrating the MEPDG software also poses a challenge for 

pavement managers because new data inputs must be managed. Agencies will have to decide 

whether those inputs will be incorporated into a pavement management database or whether there 

will be new, integrated databases created to link to pavement management performance data. 

Similar considerations must be made for integrating preventive maintenance treatments into a 

pavement management system. Without integrated maintenance data, it is difficult for pavement 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 14 

managers to determine the performance of preventive maintenance treatments or to evaluate where 

excessive maintenance expenditures have been made. 

Workshop Recommendations for Focus Area 3 

Participants in this focus area addressed issues related to best practices for data storage with respect 

to capacity, organization, security, cost, and purging of historical data. In addition, a number of 

needs were identified in the area of data mining, focused specifically on how to use and leverage 

pavement management data for nontraditional purposes (e.g., asset value, new design procedures, 

impact of improved materials, or construction practices). The participants also identified research 

into strategies for addressing institutional issues associated with data management, including 

purchasing policies and controls. 

Participants identified a total of eighteen needs, which were combined into three problem 

statements. 

Focus Area 4 – Performance Modeling 

State of the Practice 

Performance modeling is one of the primary functions of a pavement management system. 

Pavement deterioration results from the complex interaction between such things as traffic, climate, 

materials, layer thickness, layer type, and construction practices. Performance models are developed 

to take these factors into account and predict pavement condition over time, which in turn can be 

used to predict overall network level conditions, identify treatment needs, select appropriate timings 

for different treatments, identify funding levels needed to achieve performance targets, and 

demonstrate the consequences associated with different investment strategies. 

There are four broad categories of pavement performance models: deterministic, probabilistic, 

expert or knowledge-based, and biologically inspired models. The way a model will be used 

influences the selection of model type. The most common approaches used for network-level 

pavement management include deterministic and probabilistic models. The most recent research 

has focused on the use of biologically inspired models that include the use of genetic algorithms 

and/or artificial neural networks. The use of genetic algorithms results in models developed 

through an iterative process that mimics evolution. For example, a model is developed for a set of 

data. Based on the fit of the data, a new population is created from the original population by 

reproducing, crossing over, or mutating the original data. This evolution continues until an 

acceptable model is developed. Models developed using artificial neural networks are slightly 

different in that the models continue to evolve and improve through a computerized process. To 

date, these models have primarily been used by researchers, but there is potential application for use 

by the pavement management community. 

The information used to develop performance models vary by agency. In general, state highway 

agencies use the family modeling approach in which pavement sections are grouped by 

characteristics such as pavement type, structural composition, geographic location, and traffic level 

or functional classification. Rates of deterioration are determined for each pavement family and the 

models are typically used to predict pavement condition indexes for indicators such as ride, 

structural condition, and functional condition; however, there are exceptions to these 

generalizations. For instance, the Minnesota Department of Transportation models individual 

distress progression to calculate future surface ratings. Other agencies, such as the Washington State 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 15 

and Colorado Departments of Transportation, develop individual performance models for each 

pavement section as long as there are three to five data points that show a reasonable deterioration 

trend. Where sufficient data points are not available, family models or default models are used. 

Much of the attention in this area in recent years involves the use of pavement management data to 

calibrate and validate the performance models in the new MEPDG software. The use of pavement 

management data for the calibration of these models has prompted research into the availability of 

the necessary design inputs in pavement management and the development of strategies to address 

capabilities that do not currently exist. It has also prompted discussions about the eventual use of 

the MEPDG performance models and whether they will replace network-level pavement 

performance models in the pavement management system or whether both types of models will 

exist in the future. 

A related discussion is taking place at the national level where research has led to the development 

of simplified MEPDG models that have been incorporated into an analysis tool that allows the 

FHWA to report pavement needs to Congress. The new models have prompted changes to the data 

requirements needed to support the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) that will be 

initiated in 2010. 

The FHWA has announced the release of a new tool that can be used to determine the health of a 

pavement network using a Remaining Service Life (RSL) concept. The primary input to the tool is 

HPMS 2010 data, but pavement management data can also reportedly be used to support the 

analysis. Pavement health is evaluated in terms of pavement life, ride, or distress under various 

environmental and administrative conditions. The tool was demonstrated at the 8th National 

Conference on Transportation Asset Management in Portland, Oregon in October 2009. 

Another initiative that is influencing the development of pavement performance models is the 

consideration of climate change, green initiatives, and sustainability in transportation agencies. 

Pavement managers of the future will likely have to consider how these factors can be taken into 

consideration in developing and refining pavement performance models. There are other industry 

changes that impact predicted pavement conditions, including increased truck weights and changes 

in construction materials and pavement design. It is not clear how well these types of initiatives 

have been considered in pavement management performance models in the past and what 

expectations there might be for the future. 

There have been a significant number of research efforts in this focus area over the years. A 

summary of some of the subject areas that have been published in the last 5 years are listed below: 

 Modeling techniques. 

 Effect of initial condition on performance. 

 Family modeling versus individual models. 

 Project-level versus network-level modeling. 

 Probabilistic versus deterministic modeling. 

 Modeling individual distress versus indexes. 

 Reliability and reasonableness of performance models. 

 Database requirements to support performance analysis. 

 Impact of distress data variability on model development. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 16 

Challenges in Focus Area 4 

Pavement performance is influenced by many different factors, some of which are difficult to 

model. As a result, it is difficult to develop pavement performance models that predict future 

conditions with a high degree of certainty. It is especially difficult to develop models that reflect the 

ongoing changes that impact pavement design and construction. For example, this challenge has 

been demonstrated recently with the impact of Superpave mix design (and the use of modified 

binders) on the performance of HMA pavements. Many states have over 20 years of performance 

with Superpave mixes, but few agencies can report with certainty the effect these mixes have had on 

pavement performance. Similarly, the use of alternative materials and processes (e.g., crumb rubber 

asphalt, warm mix, two-lift concrete, and hot and cold in-place recycling) may also impact the 

accuracy of performance prediction. Moreover, the introduction of new materials means that longterm performance data are simply not available, which makes it difficult to forecast the future 

performance of those materials. 

Many states are faced with addressing tire-pavement noise issues, which can have a significant 

societal impact, but certainly has not been incorporated in existing performance prediction models. 

Other factors include the impacts of climate change, use of sustainable materials, and modifications 

to truck weights (a current truck lobby is requesting an increase in maximum weight for trucks on 

interstate highways from 80,000 pounds to 97,000 pounds). The degree to which these factors 

should be considered in pavement management performance models and the development of a 

process to do so (while maintaining consistency in the measures reported to upper management and 

elected officials each year) certainly presents a challenge to pavement managers. Agencies in Canada 

are reportedly evaluating risks associated with climate change and the potential impact on 

transportation needs. 

Another challenge facing pavement managers is addressing the question of how the performance 

prediction models contained within the MEPDG should or will interact with the existing pavement 

management performance models. It is unclear whether the MEPDG models will replace networklevel family models in the future, or whether there is a need to maintain these models separately 

since both types of models serve different functions. 

Even without these types of influences, pavement managers continue to face the challenge of 

developing reliable performance models using the information currently available. A significant 

dilemma for many agencies is trying to determine how to improve the reliability of these models in 

the absence of good information on pavement structure and treatment history. Other agencies 

acknowledge that pavement management models are “good enough” at the network level, even 

though they may not be sufficiently accurate at the project level. However, it is worth considering 

whether this viewpoint will withstand the test of time as computer capabilities evolve and better data 

become available through improved integration efforts. 

Lastly, pavement managers must determine the influence of maintenance as performance models are 

developed. Some agencies assume that the “do nothing” models incorporate some level of 

maintenance to help ensure that the expected design life is achieved. However, if pavement 

management systems will be used to identify candidates for preventive maintenance, the 

performance of these treatments must be differentiated in order to calculate a benefit associated 

with its use. This need poses a challenge to pavement managers when preventive maintenance 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 17 

treatments can be used in both a preventive manner and as a stop-gap treatment to keep a highway 

section operational until funds become available for more substantial repairs. 

Workshop Recommendations for Focus Area 4 

Participants in this focus area identified a strong need to establish best practices for modeling 

pavement performance. At least fourteen needs statements addressed topics related to performance 

modeling, spanning topics such as the level of detail needed to produce accurate and reliable models; 

strategies for updating models to reflect changes in material properties, construction, or design 

practices; and procedures for evaluating the sensitivity of inputs on model prediction. Another area 

that the participants identified as a need was the use of pavement management information for 

national reporting, specifically related to HPMS. Finally, participants noted the need to investigate 

areas related to the use of a performance measure related to structural condition, a need to more 

accurately design and predict performance on low volume roadways, and a need for a tool that more 

easily quantifies performance impacts due to increases in legal load limits. 

Participants identified a total of thirty-two needs, which were combined into seven problem 

statements. 

Focus Area 5 – Treatment Selection 

State of the Practice 

The use of pavement management to recommend pavement treatments can vary from state to state. 

Some agencies determine treatment timing within the pavement management system but determine 

the treatment type independently; some apply a simplistic list of treatments (e.g., preventive 

maintenance, functional improvement, and structural improvement); others have developed 

elaborate decision trees that base treatment type and selection on factors such as pavement 

condition at time of treatment, prior treatment, pavement type and structure, functional class, and 

traffic volume. In addition, treatment type and selection can be based on other nonpavement 

related factors such as safety, noise, combining adjacent projects for economy of scale, delaying 

projects due to future planned projects, and public pressure. 

The process for treatment selection within the pavement management community continues to 

evolve, as some SHAs are moving in a direction to obtain more data to support the treatment 

selection process, while others are generalizing the recommendations provided by pavement 

management so the districts and regions have more influence in the final treatment selection using 

locally known factors and considerations. The agencies that are looking to enhance their treatment 

recommendations are considering data not previously available as part of the pavement management 

process, such as surface texture characteristics, noise, road safety, and structural condition. These 

additions acknowledge the fact that pavement distress information alone is not sufficient to 

accurately project current and future pavement needs. 

At the same time, some agencies are moving in an opposite direction, modifying their pavement 

management analysis to be more general about the types of recommendations being made. For 

instance, one SHA recently moved towards recommendations regarding the level of treatment 

required rather than attempt to determine the specific type of treatment required; the final treatment 

selection decision is made by the Regions. In this particular SHA, Regional Pavement Management 

Engineers have copies of the pavement management software to help with the treatment selection 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 18 

process, but few reportedly have a strong degree of confidence in operating the software and instead 

rely on reports from the central office or their own field inspection results. 

A factor influencing the reasonableness of the costs associated with pavement management 

recommendations concerns the number of add-ons required for a project. A pavement management 

analysis typically calculates only the cost of the pavement improvement, although the cost of some 

projects can escalate considerably when roadway hardware improvements, American Disability Act 

enhancements, and safety issues are addressed. The degree to which these costs are considered in a 

pavement management system varies among SHAs. 

Most of the recent efforts in this area are concerned with the incorporation of preventive 

maintenance treatments into the analysis. The degree to which preventive maintenance treatments 

can be recommended by pavement management is largely dependent on the availability of the types 

of information that trigger these treatments and the ability to model performance so that benefits 

are calculated. 

There have been a significant number of research efforts in this focus area over the years. A 

summary of some of the subject areas that have been published in the last 5 years are listed below: 

 Integration of preventive maintenance treatments. 

 Consideration of traffic, structure, and other factors not commonly used. 

 Sensitivity of treatment timing. 

 Effect of initial conditions on performance. 

 Integrating road safety data in treatment selection. 

 Integrating noise into treatment selection for urban areas. 

 Budgetary impacts. 

 Optimizing operational and capital expenditures. 

 Relating pavement management to maintenance standards. 

 Sensitivity of design parameters to optimal maintenance decisions. 

 Use of pavement management to support maintenance activities. 

Challenges for Focus Area 5 

One of the challenges faced by pavement management practitioners is determining when and how 

to incorporate new treatments into the analysis process or how to update the decision factors used 

on existing treatments. Many times, this process requires collecting performance, material, and 

construction data for the development of performance models, but it also requires a process for 

tracking where these treatments have been used. Since this information is often the responsibility of 

someone outside pavement management, it is difficult to obtain this type of information on a 

consistent basis. 

There is also a challenge associated with developing the models needed for treatment selection, 

especially when a treatment has not been used extensively in the agency. Determining how to 

quantify differences in treatment performance can be difficult and often requires that treatment 

performance be monitored over time. However, as the industry discovered from the use of 

Superpave mixes, the location of specific project sections where changes in mix design have been 

used are not frequently known by pavement management. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 19 

Similar types of challenges exist in trying to develop rules for triggering preventive maintenance 

treatments. Since pavement management was originally developed to identify and prioritize 

rehabilitation and reconstruction activities, most pavement condition survey procedures focus on 

capturing substantial amounts of pavement deterioration. In many instances, the information 

needed to trigger preventive maintenance treatments effectively is not being collected on a networkwide basis so it cannot easily be incorporated into the treatment rules. 

It is also difficult for agencies to accurately estimate the costs associated with treatments because of 

rapidly changing prices and the scope changes that can occur before construction starts. This 

demands that pavement management evaluate the number and types of project add-ons that can be 

incorporated into the treatment selection process. For example, some agencies identify shoulder 

and lane width into their pavement management system so they can determine whether current 

standards are met before recommending an overlay in the pavement management system. However, 

not all pavement management systems have been designed to evaluate these needs. 

Workshop Recommendations for Focus Area 5 

Workshop participants identified the need to summarize best practices for evaluating the decision 

factors used in the treatment selection process, including both pavement preservation and 

rehabilitation. In relation to budgeting, the participants felt that having a best practice document 

that provided a survey of state procedures for allocating funds based on pavement management data 

would be beneficial. Other suggestions were provided for minimizing project delays associated with 

the contracting process and improving the breadth of factors considered in developing project and 

treatment recommendations. The latter needs statements were focused primarily on improving the 

match between pavement management recommendations and funded improvement programs. 

According to the workshop participants, this meant expanding pavement management to consider 

nontraditional factors such as congestion, sustainability, user costs, and other emerging issues. 

A total of twenty-four needs were identified and combined into two problem statements. 

Focus Area 6 – Use of Pavement Management in the Decision Process 

State of the Practice 

Pavement management systems include some type of optimization tool that facilitates the 

prioritization of current and future needs to make the best use of available funds. Most agencies 

currently use some form of single- or multi-year prioritization in which feasible treatment options 

are ranked based on criteria, such as benefit-to-cost ratio or cost-effectiveness. In single-year 

prioritization, the needs for each year are considered independently, while multi-year prioritization 

considers the needs in each of the analysis years in unison. 

The recommendations from the pavement management system typically serve as the starting point 

for developing the improvement program. The recommendations from pavement management are 

used in varying degrees by others involved in the project and treatment selection process. In some 

agencies, pavement management provides pavement condition information as a reference, while 

other agencies require that a certain percentage of the final program must match the 

recommendations from pavement management. The latter approach is used to help ensure that 

funding is spent wisely especially in a decentralized organization. However, matching criteria are 

difficult to develop and enforce. As a result, some agencies report that their criteria are so general 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 20 

that they are essentially useless. Nevertheless, as agencies move towards more decentralized 

decision making, these types of initiatives may become increasingly important. 

There are several factors that are part of the project selection process that are not currently 

considered by pavement management. For example, a number of agencies, especially those in 

Canada, are beginning to incorporate risk into their decision processes. In particular, they are 

considering the likelihood of failure occurring and the associated consequence should it occur. 

Therefore, a higher priority is placed on those projects that demonstrate a high probability for failure 

and would have a large negative consequence on the agency if failure occurred. In addition, agencies 

are evaluating how to take into consideration the contribution of pavement projects on initiatives 

such as safety, sustainability, and climate change. The anticipated impact of decisions on the users 

of the highway facilities is utilized largely around the world, but is not a significant part of the 

project selection process in the United States. There is little information in the literature on 

strategies that incorporate these factors. 

Pavement management is not limited to influencing project selection decisions. In some agencies, it 

provides the basis for developing long-term strategies that are incorporated into an agency’s strategic 

plan. Other agencies have adopted integrated maintenance management and pavement management 

software to better link maintenance and operations decisions with capital improvement decisions. 

Pavement management is an integral part of asset management, because it represents one of the 

largest agency investments in the transportation infrastructure. 

Pavement management provides valuable information to support the development of performance 

targets and the investment levels required to achieve agency goals. However, this assumes that 

pavement management is capturing the benefits associated with the investments in the pavement 

network and that those benefits relate to the performance metrics being reported. 

This is not always the case. For example, many agencies have performance targets that identify the 

percent of the roads in good condition based on ride or pavement distress. This works adequately 

for treatments such as overlays that have a positive impact on these metrics. However, it may not 

work as well for preventive maintenance treatments that have little impact on traditional 

performance metrics such as ride (e.g., crack sealing and chip seals). As a result, it is difficult to 

quantify the benefits associated with these treatments and to defend the investments being made in 

these programs. Intuitively, agency engineers know the treatments make sense, but unless the 

benefits can be quantified and measured, it is difficult to demonstrate that investments in pavement 

preservation are effective. 

Pavement management can also be used for the allocation of funding to address agency needs. 

Most commonly, agencies use the pavement management system to determine needs on a statewide 

basis and on a district (or regional) basis. The ratio of the district needs to the total needs becomes 

one of the primary considerations in allocating funds across the state. However, since this approach 

presents a financial incentive to have a large percentage of needs, it tends to support districts that 

may not be practicing sound pavement management practices. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 21 

A summary of some of the subject areas that have been published in the last 5 years are listed below: 

 Optimization techniques. 

 Incorporation of risk and/or probability. 

 Multiple attribute optimization. 

 Use of genetic algorithms for network optimization. 

 Use of monetary factors rather than physical condition performance in program development. 

 The effectiveness of needs-based budgeting. 

 The role of user costs in an optimization analysis. 

 Prioritizing projects based on financial consequences. 

 Program effectiveness: are we spending money effectively? How do we know? 

Challenges in Focus Area 6 

Ultimately, pavement management provides agencies with recommendations for using available 

funding as effectively as possible. Project recommendations are most often based on maximizing 

the benefit/cost or cost effectiveness of a program for a given funding level. 

However, in real life there is not always a direct correlation between the recommendations from 

pavement management and the construction projects that are funded. There are many factors 

influencing the final selection of projects (e.g., political, economic, and technical issues) that 

indirectly influence the degree of credibility and acceptance of pavement management within an 

agency. Organizational factors and the degree to which an agency is decentralized also influence the 

final project selection process. 

Therefore, one of the challenges for pavement management is to strike a balance between the 

development of reasonable project recommendations that influence the construction program and 

the data requirements needed to support this level of sophistication. Agencies must determine who 

has responsibility for the final treatment decision and what information should be used to influence 

its selection. For instance, agencies will have to decide if they want pavement management 

information to be a primary driver in the decision process or whether it should play a supporting 

role by providing condition (and other) information to decision makers. Additionally, agencies must 

decide what factors will be considered in the pavement management analysis and which factors are 

appropriate to evaluate outside of the pavement management analysis. Because of the differences in 

the way SHAs operate, no one solution will satisfy all agencies. 

An underlying decision in this process is determining where project and treatment decisions will be 

made within an organization. If the decisions will be made in the districts or regions, then it is more 

difficult to achieve a statewide performance target. However, if the decisions are heavily influenced 

by the central office, the districts and regions often fight the recommendations. Moreover, 

differences in the types of treatments being recommended (i.e., capital projects or maintenance 

projects) may influence the strategy selected. Ultimately, if project and treatment decisions are being 

made in the field offices, agencies should determine whether pavement management tools will be 

required to support these decisions or whether some type of matching criteria are needed to help 

meet agency-wide goals and targets. 

For pavement management to be most beneficial to support asset management decisions, it is 

important that the analysis results quantify the benefits associated with the options being considered. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 22 

Agencies have found it to be difficult to adequately represent the benefits associated with the use of 

preventive maintenance treatments because the typical types of performance measures that are being 

reported are not substantially influenced by these treatments. For example, if an agency reports 

pavement conditions in terms of ride, then investments in chip seals and crack sealing will show 

little to no benefit (and may actually cause a rougher ride). As agencies are being held more 

accountable for the way funding is being used, investments in treatments that do not show a benefit 

may be restricted. This shift may require changes to the types of performance metrics being used in 

the future, although ride is popular because it is an end-user response and is relatively easy to collect. 

Agencies will also be faced with challenges related to improving their allocation of funding across 

the states. Traditionally, funding allocation decisions have been based on needs, which may penalize 

districts that effectively use pavement preservation techniques. This type of challenge may be 

difficult to overcome if the allocation formulas are legislated. 

One of the biggest challenges that agencies face is building and maintaining support for pavement 

management. Unless pavement management is fully integrated into the decision process, some 

executives may consider pavement management to be a resource that is susceptible to funding cuts. 

Pavement management concepts are not generally well known at the executive levels so there is a 

continuous need to promote the concepts and educate decision makers in this area. This effort is 

time consuming for pavement management practitioners, and most engineers are not comfortable in 

this environment. And, to date, efforts have not been very effective in communicating in a way that 

resonates with decision makers. 

Workshop Recommendations for Focus Area 6 

As in the previous focus area, the participants in the workshops identified a number of research and 

development areas to support this effort. Suggested topic areas included expanding the factors 

currently considered in pavement management to include safety, congestion, and environmental 

factors; user costs; and other emerging issues. A key emphasis of these efforts includes addressing 

institutional issues that commonly prevent the use of this information, such as organizational 

structure, industry pressures, risk considerations, or legal issues. Several needs statements also 

addressed the consideration of risk, variability, and uncertainty in pavement management data and 

their impact on pavement management recommendations. There were also a number of suggested 

needs statements oriented towards strengthening the link between pavement management inputs 

and performance targets. 

Many of the problem statements in this area supported the need for increased emphasis on 

developing the skills of pavement management practitioners and increasing buy-in among internal 

and external stakeholders. The topics focused on communication, buy-in, and training were 

common to most of the focus areas discussed at the workshops. 

A total of five needs statements were produced from the twenty-four problem statements identified 

during the workshop. 

Focus Area 7 – Changing Needs and Emerging Technology in Data Collection and Analysis 

State of the Practice 

Pavement management capabilities have evolved significantly since the concepts were first 

introduced nearly 45 years ago. A large part of the evolution is associated with the advancements 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 23 

that have taken place in terms of computer technology and data collection equipment. Other 

changes relate to modifications in the materials, treatments, and construction practices being used. 

This latter set of changes has more of an impact on the types of models and recommendations being 

used in pavement management than the practice itself. 

The data requirements for pavement management are changing as a result of these and other 

changes. For example, in 2010 new requirements will be in place for reporting HPMS data to the 

FHWA. Furthermore, as discussed elsewhere in this document, the new MEPDG software is based 

on a large number of inputs and requires calibration of the performance models to reflect agency 

performance, and agencies will be examining ways to employ pavement management data to 

calibrate the procedure for their pavements. 

At the same time, agencies are increasingly using performance measurement as a way to monitor 

progress and to establish agency goals. These metrics influence the allocation of funding and are 

frequently used to establish agency priorities. Therefore, pavement management systems must 

collect and report performance data that supports the analysis of these metrics. 

The types of analyses being performed using pavement management tools are also changing. While 

traditional pavement management systems consider pavement improvements on a section-bysection basis, several SHAs with heavily congested urban areas are demanding that entire highway 

corridors be analyzed and managed. 

Changes in contracting procedures have also influenced the data required of pavement management. 

Specifically, the increased use of public-private-partnerships and performance-based specifications 

have forced agencies to develop means of collecting defensible information that can be used to 

define payouts, including incentive and disincentive clauses. 

There have been a number of research efforts in this focus area over the years. A summary of some 

of the subject areas that have been published in the last 5 years are listed below: 

 Calibration of the MEPDG. 

— Securing the data needed for calibration of the performance models. 

— Material testing and field performance studies in support of the MEPDG calibration. 

— Implications of uncertainty in distress measurements on model calibration. 

 Establishing performance measures for Public Private Partnership (PPP) contracts. 

 Use of pavement management data to monitor pavements under warranty. 

Challenges in Focus Area 7 

There are a number of challenges that will impact the degree to which pavement management can 

respond to the changes discussed previously. One of the largest challenges relates to the availability 

of the data and expertise needed to support these initiatives. This problem is especially true as 

agencies downsize and the remaining staff are spread increasingly thin in a number of different 

program areas. Developing a skilled workforce that has the technical expertise required to adapt to 

these changes will be increasingly difficult. 

Another challenge involves national efforts to increase consistency in the way pavement condition 

information is measured and reported. Several significant efforts are moving in the direction of 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 24 

using consistent measures (e.g., MEPDG and HPMS), but it is unclear whether SHAs will modify 

their historical data collection methods, supplement their existing approaches with information to 

satisfy the new initiatives, or ignore the requests to report data in a certain way. What is clear is that 

until there is more consistency in data collection procedures, it will continue to be difficult to 

meaningfully report pavement conditions on a national basis. Whether this has been part of our 

communication problem has yet to be debated. 

SHAs are also challenged by their ability to use traditional pavement management software to 

analyze different funding scenarios quickly and efficiently. In many instances, agency management 

needs the results of a “what if” scenario in a very short period of time, which is often difficult to 

accomplish depending on the complexity of the pavement management system. Being able to 

quickly provide meaningful results may require different tools than those currently being used for 

project and treatment selection activities. In addition, it is difficult for some agencies to isolate the 

needs of highway corridors because of the way most existing pavement management systems analyze 

sections independently. 

Workshop Recommendations for Focus Area 7 

Participants in the workshops identified research and development needs that would enable 

pavement management to be more responsive to the new technologies that have emerged in recent 

years. For example, suggested needs involved the development of a general process for 

incorporating emerging technology into a pavement management analysis. More specifically, several 

of the groups suggested that research efforts focus on supporting innovative contracting, automated 

condition data processing, pavement design, and data mining (to better leverage the use of pavement 

management data). Additional needs focused on improving pavement condition data quality and 

reporting. 

In addition, workshop participants suggested that studies be conducted on quantifying the benefits 

associated with pavement research and quantifying the costs and benefits associated with “pay per 

use” strategies. The first of these two initiatives provides a mechanism for documenting the ongoing benefits associated with research activities. The second recognizes the changes that are 

expected to take place in transportation funding and prepares pavement management practitioners 

for these adjustments. In addition, several of the participants suggested that a synthesis study be 

conducted to evaluate how transportation agencies have successfully responded to the changing 

environment in the past so that effective strategies can be identified for use by others. Finally, 

participants recommended research into the use of new technology, such as social networking, to 

communicate with practitioners. A total of nine research needs were developed from the original 

list of thirty-two. 

Focus Area 8 – Quantifying the Benefits of Pavement Management 

State of the Practice 

Pavement management is an expensive and labor-intensive proposition. Agencies support 

pavement management efforts through investments in personnel, software, and on-going data 

collection activities. There are annual costs associated with the maintenance of software licenses and 

data collection efforts. Agencies that own their own data collection equipment must upgrade on a 

regular basis and calibrate the equipment regularly. There are also on-going training requirements as 

pavement management staff change and as new technology becomes available. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 25 

While it may be possible to capture most of the costs associated with pavement management, it is 

much more difficult to quantify the benefits associated with these programs. For the most part, 

pavement management has promoted subjective benefits such as improved decision making, better 

use of available funds, and improved communication. At least two agencies, including the Arizona 

Department of Transportation and the Alberta Ministry of Transportation, have conducted studies 

to quantify the benefits associated with pavement management by attempting to document the cost 

effectiveness of the programs. Both studies quantified benefit in terms of the improved conditions 

associated with the use of pavement management software and compared the benefits to the costs 

of software, data collection, and personnel. These studies provide the foundation for quantifying 

the benefits associated with pavement management, but more rigorous approaches are needed to 

convince decision makers of the benefits to pavement management. Alternative approaches that 

demonstrate the return on the investments made in pavement management show promise. 

Some of the benefits that an agency may realize from pavement management extend beyond 

improved pavement conditions. For example, some agencies have been able to demonstrate 

improved surface texture characteristics that have reduced the number of wet-weather crashes or 

reduced noise levels leading to improved customer satisfaction. However, these types of benefits 

are not easily quantified on a network-wide basis as part of a pavement management analysis. They 

are typically investigated outside of pavement management by other divisions. 

There have been a significant number of research efforts in this focus area over the years. A 

summary of some of the subject areas that have been published in the last 5 years are listed below: 

 Documenting the benefits of pavement management. 

— Impact on network condition level. 

— More effective use of funds. 

— Better decisions (understanding consequences). 

— Improved communication. 

— More objectivity and transparency in the decision process. 

Challenges in Focus Area 8 

Perhaps the greatest challenge in this area is quantifying the benefits associated with pavement 

management. At least two researchers have initiated efforts in this area by quantifying the dollars 

saved through the use of improvement programs that are more effective than the traditional “worst 

first” strategies that place the highest priority on pavements in poor condition. However, 

researchers have found it difficult to quantify the costs and benefits associated with pavement 

management and the metrics used have not resonated with executives and other decision makers. 

As a result, the industry has relied on promoting subjective and anecdotal evidence of benefits. 

Developing strategies to address these shortcomings may be beneficial to the industry. 

Closely related to the inability to estimate benefits is the difficulty in quantifying the benefits 

associated with increased investments in pavement management. For example, if $300k is currently 

being spent on data collection activities, what would an additional $100k investment provide? 

Would it lead to better quality data? Would it allow the agency to verify the quality of the data 

provided by a vendor? Would it lead to a reduced risk to the agency? What economic benefit does 

an increase in network conditions provide? The answers to these types of questions are not well 

understood, making it difficult to defend budget recommendations or changes in technology. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 26 

Another challenge facing pavement management is the lack of a catch phrase that emphasizes its 

benefits. For example, the pavement preservation community has relied on its slogan “right road, 

right treatment, right time” to communicate its objective. There is no such phrase for pavement 

management to quickly communicate its purpose (although the pavement preservation slogan would 

certainly fit). 

Workshop Recommendations for Focus Area 8 

Due to the absence of clear processes for calculating the benefits associated with pavement 

management, the workshop participants identified needs statements to develop methods to quantify 

the benefits of pavement management and the information it provides to various stakeholders. In a 

related area, participants suggested that research investigate the impact of different investment levels 

in pavement management on the quality of the recommendations provided. This information was 

considered to be important for promoting continued financial investment in pavement management. 

Once processes are developed to quantify benefits, participants suggested the development of 

strategies to promote pavement management as a decision support tool using public relations 

campaigns and other approaches. 

The remaining needs statements focused on the availability of information to support pavement 

management. For instance, participants suggested a clearinghouse for better access to available 

resources, pavement management courses in civil engineering curriculums in colleges and 

universities, and independent technical assessments to help agencies enhance existing capabilities. 

The original twenty problem statements in this focus area were condensed into five. 

Focus Area 9 – Integrating Pavement Preservation and Pavement Management 

State of the Practice 

In recent years there has been tremendous momentum for the increased use of preventive 

maintenance treatments as an important component of a cost-effective pavement preservation 

program. However, there is little quantifiable evidence of the benefits of preventive maintenance 

treatments because most pavement management systems are unable to adequately quantify the 

benefits using existing metrics. As a result, most agencies rely on anecdotal evidence that pavement 

preservation makes sense and benefits an agency in terms of reduced life-cycle costs, improved 

pavement performance, and improved safety characteristics. Efforts to demonstrate the benefits 

associated with these programs have proven to be difficult, in part because the performance metrics 

used to report network health (such as ride) are not always improved through the use of preventive 

maintenance treatments. Therefore, some agencies have identified the need to develop and 

implement new types of performance metrics that better capture the benefits provided by strong 

pavement preservation programs that include the use of preventive maintenance treatments. 

Another complicating factor that hinders efforts to quantify the benefits of effective pavement 

management is the separation of pavement management and pavement preservation within the 

agency. In many SHAs, pavement management and pavement preservation efforts are separate 

initiatives performed by different divisions. Some agencies have attempted to bridge these divides 

by creating a Pavement Preservation Engineer position that is based in the Maintenance and 

Operations Division with collateral duties that include coordinating with the Pavement Management 

Unit. In agencies with strong pavement preservation programs, this is a popular model to follow. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 27 

The industry has also supported the separation of pavement management and pavement 

preservation activities through separate conferences, separate teams within FHWA, and separate 

committees within the Transportation Research Board structure. However, because of travel 

restrictions, budget constraints, and increased efforts to streamline organizational activities, agencies 

are beginning to question whether it continues to make sense to keep these activities separate. 

These agencies see pavement preservation as little more than an effective pavement management 

strategy. Therefore, the need for separate programs is difficult to support. 

At the same time, the FHWA is initiating efforts to increase the profile of pavement management by 

emphasizing “the management of pavements” more than the use of a computerized software 

program. This places more of an emphasis on the role of pavement management within the 

organization to support decision making and less of an emphasis on the data collection activities that 

many associate with pavement management. The long-term effect that this shift will have on 

pavement management, and the ultimate success of changing pavement management’s profile, is 

unknown at this time. 

At the same time, there are some inherent issues with existing pavement management process that 

may be limiting an agency’s ability to demonstrate the benefits of preventive maintenance 

treatments. For instance, not all pavement condition surveys adequately address the types of 

deterioration that trigger the need for preventive maintenance treatments. Few agencies are 

initiating efforts to change their data collection procedures to better identify preventive maintenance 

triggers. 

The use of preventive maintenance treatments is not currently considered in the MEPDG software, 

although some research has been conducted to develop a framework for doing so. The absence of 

these treatments in the design software has led some researchers to question whether the use of 

preventive maintenance treatments are assumed as part of the original design life, or whether they 

should be considered in the same manner as other treatments (i.e., overlays) as extensions to the 

original design life. 

There have been a significant number of research efforts in this focus area over the years. A 

summary of some of the subject areas that have been published in the last 5 years are listed below: 

 The economics of pavement preservation. 

 Demonstrating the benefits of pavement preservation. 

 Cost benefit of preservation strategies versus reconstruction. 

 Determining life expectancies of preventive maintenance treatments. 

 Links between pavement preservation guidelines and pavement management treatment rules. 

 Safety effects of preventive maintenance. 

 Integration of preventive maintenance into the MEPDG. 

Challenges in Focus Area 9 

As previously discussed, it has proven difficult to quantify the benefits associated with the use of 

preventive maintenance treatments as part of a pavement preservation program. This is due, in part, 

to the lack of performance data on preventive maintenance treatments. Because of the types of 

pavement condition data normally collected during network level surveys, the benefits associated 

with preventive maintenance treatments, such as surface sealing to prevent moisture infiltration or 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 28 

oxidation, are not currently captured or quantified. As a result, it is difficult to defend the continued 

expenditure of funds on preventive maintenance programs. 

Another challenge facing the pavement management community is the continued distinction 

between pavement preservation and pavement management. These programs are often represented 

separately by industry, and they are managed by different divisions within a SHA. There is 

increasing support for promoting pavement preservation as an effective pavement management 

strategy, but that may be difficult to adopt in agencies where these programs are considered to be 

separate and distinct. As long as there continues to be some confusion in the differences between 

pavement management and pavement preservation, both programs will struggle with establishing 

their identities and building support within the industry. 

Ultimately, pavement management practitioners must determine the role of preventive maintenance 

activities in the management of pavements. For instance, is the use of planned maintenance 

activities a requirement for pavements to reach their design life, or are these treatments applied to 

extend pavement life beyond the original design period? The answer to this question may have a 

significant influence on how preventive maintenance treatments are considered in a pavement 

management system. 

Workshop Recommendations for Focus Area 9 

Participants in this focus area recognized that some work has been done in an attempt to integrate 

preventive maintenance treatments into a pavement management system, but suggested that 

additional activities be conducted to further the consideration of early-intervention treatments in a 

pavement management program. Specific suggestions related to the quantification of costs and 

benefits associated with preventive maintenance treatments, the identification of appropriate 

intervention levels, and the development of guidelines for agencies seeking assistance in this area. 

In addition to the development of general guidance, workshop participants identified the need to 

determine the impact of preventive maintenance treatments on pavement performance to help 

identify the optimal timing for these treatments. Additional needs statements addressed strategies 

for communicating the benefits of pavement preservation, supporting pavement preservation 

funding levels, and developing effective performance measures to support pavement preservation. 

The three regional workshops produced sixteen needs statements, which were later combined into 

two topics. 

Focus Area 10 – Institutional Issues and Other Factors Influencing the Use of Pavement 

Management 

State of the Practice 

As technology, construction practices, and organizational policies and programs change, pavement 

management must continue to evolve to reflect the impact of these changes on project and 

treatment recommendations and priorities. Without the ability to adapt to these changing 

influences, pavement management will not survive. 

Focus Area 7 concentrated on the changing needs and emerging technology that will influence 

pavement management in the future. In this focus area, the institutional issues and national 

initiatives expected to influence pavement management were addressed. This provided an 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 29 

opportunity for workshop participants to identify other types of emerging trends that may influence 

pavement management 5 to 10 years into the future. 

For example, a number of agencies have placed an increased emphasis on the use of asset 

management principles to guide investment allocation decisions and to establish performance 

targets. Exactly what role pavement management will have in supporting investment allocation 

decisions is not known, but it is clear that pavements and bridges lead other assets in terms of the 

data available to support the agency’s asset management efforts. Some agencies have created 

separate asset management divisions, which are responsible for the data collection activities needed 

to acquire inventory and condition information. Other agencies have not changed the 

organizational structure but created executive committees that combine the recommendations from 

each asset class to determine a final program. The movement towards the increased use of 

performance measures and asset management principles is expected to place more of an emphasis 

on pavement management results in the future. However, it is not clear whether pavement projects 

will compete favorably with other projects in an asset management environment. 

Over time there has also been an increased focus on being able to compare performance from one 

agency to another as part of benchmarking activities. Most recently, there has been a great deal of 

interest in the performance metrics being used by SHAs to determine whether there are common 

measures that should be reported. For instance, NCHRP Report 632 documents a framework for 

identifying common performance indicators for managing interstate pavements. This has increased 

the demand for more consistency in data measurement and reporting and exposed the difficulty in 

getting states to agree on common metrics that may result in compatibility issues with historical data. 

However, the new HPMS reassessment requirements may cause some states to move in the 

direction of changing the way some distress information is reported. 

Although the technology associated with pavement management has improved tremendously in 

recent years, there is little evidence that the recommendations are being increasingly utilized. 

Instead, many agencies continue to rely on political influences and regional pressures as the primary 

driver of the construction program. The challenge for pavement management practitioners is 

developing a strategy that makes better use of technology to defend project and treatment 

recommendations. For example, in criminal cases the legal industry was able to make a monumental 

shift in the way trials are conducted by introducing DNA evidence. Can a similar shift take place in 

pavement management using new technology or analytical procedures? 

The changes in the availability of funding have also significantly influenced pavement management 

over the years. While transportation has been funded at inadequate levels for many years, industry 

organizations are strategizing about new methods of paying for infrastructure improvements. 

Suggestions for toll roads, increased privatization of portions of the road system, changes to the gas 

tax structure, and increased funding in the highway bill have all been discussed and debated. States 

are increasingly finding it difficult to come up with state matches for federal funds and, as a result, 

have placed more of an emphasis on maintaining the existing infrastructure rather than investing in 

expansion efforts. Whether these trends will continue and for how long is not known. What is 

known is that the transportation network will continue to deteriorate if increases in funding and 

more flexibility in how funding can be used are not provided. 

The environment in which pavement management operates has also seen significant changes in the 

past 20 to 30 years. Many transportation agencies have experienced downsizing, which has resulted 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 30 

in the significant loss of institutional knowledge. Organizational silos still exist, but there is an 

increasing amount of interaction between divisions and more data sharing than in years past. This 

change is largely due to the decreasing availability of funds and the increased pressure to eliminate 

duplication and to consolidate activities where practical. In many organizations, this sharing of 

information is not the result of organizational changes to foster improved communication and 

interaction, but typically results from the initiative of a few key champions. 

There have been a significant number of research efforts in this focus area over the years. A 

summary of some of the subject areas that have been published in the last 5 years are listed below: 

 Use of pavement management data to support asset management, including: 

— Investment decisions. 

— Strategic planning. 

— Performance measurement. 

 Use of pavement management at the regional level. 

— Use of a common index for regional planning. 

— Use of pavement management tools for establishing regional priorities and project selection. 

— Group purchasing of pavement management software. 

 Determining appropriate decision criteria to meet stakeholder needs. 

 Strategies for integrating sustainable practices into pavement management. 

 Recognizing and moving towards best practice. 

 Overcoming challenges to the management of assets (i.e., data quality, technocrats, forward 

planning, budgeting, and increasing demands). 

 Managing change in transportation agencies. 

Challenges in Focus Area 10 

There are several challenges that must be recognized during the discussion of this focus area topic. 

For instance, one challenge concerns the participants’ ability to forecast future trends accurately in 

an environment that is heavily influenced by political factors that impact funding, policy, and 

national initiatives. Another challenge involves developing a strategy that positions pavement 

management in a way that allows pavement management practitioners to adapt to changes as they 

occur. 

The organizational and institutional changes will also demand that the civil engineer of the future 

have a broader range of skills than in the past, so workforce development activities must also be 

identified to address those needs. The decreased availability of funding has impacted agencies’ 

ability to provide workforce development, so nontraditional methods of acquiring these skills will 

have to be created. 

It is also obvious that transportation agencies have not been effective in communicating the need 

for increased funding to reduce the risk associated with deteriorating pavement conditions. Unless 

transportation officials are able to find a forum for effectively communicating their needs, it is likely 

that the existing funding situation will not change. This will place more of a burden on pavement 

management practitioners to use the available information for an increasing number of purposes. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 31 

Workshop Recommendations for Focus Area 10 

The regional workshops produced many needs statements intended to evaluate the impact of 

organizational structure, funding allocations, and earmarks on pavement management 

recommendations. Others suggested the need to help develop guidelines that would build support 

for pavement management among agency leaders and field personnel. 

Participants in this area also recognized the need for better access to shared resources for pavement 

management practitioners. Therefore, suggestions for a national pavement management partnership 

were offered as one way to provide this knowledge. Other participants suggested constant funding 

to support pavement management activities and research into pavement management’s role in an 

asset management environment. 

A total of twenty-four research and development topics were suggested in this focus area, which 

were later combined into five needs statements. 

Combined Needs Statements Included in the Pavement Management Roadmap 

As discussed earlier, duplications within the 242 needs statements developed through the three 

regional workshops were eliminated, and similar topics were combined to reduce the final number 

of research, development, and technology transfer recommendations to forty-seven. This total 

includes twenty-three short-term needs (to be conducted within the next 5 years) and twenty-four 

long-term needs (that should be addressed in the next 6 to 10 years). The needs statements were 

later organized by theme, which had facilitated the combination of needs statements that had been 

suggested under multiple focus areas. The four theme areas included in the Pavement Management 

Roadmap are summarized below: 

 Theme 1: Use of Existing Tools and Technology. 

 Theme 2: Institutional and Organizational Issues. 

 Theme 3: The Broad Role of Pavement Management. 

 Theme 4: New Tools, Methodologies, and Technology. 

The final list of needs statements that are included in the Pavement Management Roadmap are 

presented in tables 1 through 4. Each table lists the short-term and long-term needs identified in 

each theme area, as well as a summary of the focus area and regional workshop at which the idea 

emerged. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 32

Table 1. Final List of Research Needs Statements for Theme 1. 

Theme 1: Use of Existing Tools and Technology 

Short-Term Needs 

Title Contributing Problem Statement Title 

Originating 

Regional 

Workshop 

Originating 

Focus Area 

Establish & Develop 

Equipment Calibration 

Centers and Guidelines 

Calibration Centers or IRI, Rut, and Fault 

Measurements Phoenix 1 

Reference Calibration for Profile, Noise, Texture, 

GPR McLean 1 

Calibration and Development of Standards Phoenix 2 

QA Process Phoenix 2 

Pavement Management 

Clearinghouse 

Develop a Continuous Catalog of Data Collection 

Technology Phoenix 1 

Develop a National Pavement Management Resource 

Center Phoenix 8 

Develop Knowledge Sharing Tools McLean 8 

Formalize a Pavement Management Partnership to 

Advance the State of the Practice McLean 10 

Data Collection User’s Group/Peer Exchange McLean 2 

Establish Contractor Clearinghouse Dallas 5 

Development of 

Pavement Distress 

Standards 

Best Practices for Standardization of AASHTO 

Protocols McLean 1 

Quality Management Standards for Network-Level 

Pavement Data Collection McLean 2 

National Standards for Pavement Data – 

Performance Based Federal Aid Program McLean 3 

Improving Protocol Design with Advancing 

Technologies Dallas 1 

Best Practices of Profile Measurement and Analysis Dallas 1 

Development of 

Improved 

Methodologies for 

Evaluating Data Quality 

Definition of Quality Management Principles for 

PMS Data Collection McLean 2 

Best Practices for Quality Management McLean 2 

Communicating Data Quality and Managing 

Expectations McLean 2 

Defining Data Quality Requirements for Different 

Business Decisions McLean 2 

Minimum Data Quality Standards for Pavement 

Management Data by Decision Level Dallas 2 

Development of Pavement Management Quality 

Guide Dallas 2 

Develop Techniques to Manage Data from Various 

Sources and Technology Dallas 2 

Assessing Data Quality in Data Provided by NonAgency Sources Dallas 2 

Issues with Outsourced Information Technology 

Services Dallas 3 

Improve Data Collecting and Analysis Consistency Phoenix 7 

Best Practices for Data Collection and Analysis Phoenix 7 

Development of More Sophisticated Methodologies 

for Evaluating Data Quality Dallas 7 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Table 1. Final List of Research Needs Statements for Theme 1 (continued). 

2.0 Roadmap Development 33 

Theme 1: Use of Existing Tools and Technology 

Short-Term Needs 

Title Contributing Problem Statement Title 

Originating 

Regional 

Workshop 

Originating 

Focus Area 

Best Practices Guide for 

Pavement Management 

Impacts of Data Collection Frequency, Reporting on 

Pavement Decision Making Phoenix 1 

Outlining Mechanisms to Improve Agency Business 

Practices Dallas 10 

Identify Statutory Barriers that Prevent Effective 

Pavement Management Implementation Dallas 10 

Best Practices for Data Collection Needs to Support 

Decisions Dallas 1 

Best Practices for Disseminating Technology 

Transfer Dallas 1 

Effective Use of GPR Dallas 1 

Guidelines for Referencing Pavement Data 

Geospatially Dallas 2 

Data Storage Issues Dallas 3 

Research to Determine the Level of Accuracy 

Required Dallas 4 

Establishment of Feedback Loop Dallas 4 

Develop Incentives in Budget Allocations for Proper 

Project Selection Dallas 5 

Define Performance Curves Using Appropriate 

Parameters for Pavement Preservation Treatments Dallas 5 

Create Guidance Document that Defines When and 

Where to Use Structural Evaluation Dallas 5 

Pavement Management Influence on STIP, Strategic 

Plans, and Budget Allocation Dallas 6 

Effective Communications of PMS Info to Decision 

Making Process Dallas 6 

Organizational Effects of PMS Dallas 6 

Identifying Organizational Components that Lead to 

Successful PMS McLean 10 

Advancement in Data Collection Equipment 

Technology McLean 1 

Guidelines for Reporting Pavement Management 

Outputs McLean 1 

Best Practices for Data Collection and Reporting McLean 1 

Modeling Impact of Climate Change on Pavement 

Performance McLean 4 

Traffic Data Acquisition to Allow Performance 

Models to be Examined Based on Change in 

Condition Over Cumulative Loads

McLean 4 

Guidance on Methods for Evaluating and Updating 

Models McLean 4 

Methods of Determining Model Reliability and

Assessing Level of Reliability Needed at the 

Network Level 

McLean 4 

Guidelines for Picking Best Measures for Your 

Program McLean 4 

Guidance on Collecting Data for Changes in Design 

or Materials McLean 4 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Table 1. Final List of Research Needs Statements for Theme 1 (continued). 

2.0 Roadmap Development 34 

Theme 1: Use of Existing Tools and Technology 

Short-Term Needs 

Title Contributing Problem Statement Title 

Originating 

Regional 

Workshop 

Originating 

Focus Area 

Best Practices Guide for 

Pavement Management 

Synthesis of Best Practices Using Multiple Triggers 

for a Treatment or Various Treatments of Physical 

and Environmental Conditions 

McLean 5 

Development and Implementation of Best Practices 

for a Practical, Needs-Based Budgeting Approach McLean 5 

Responsibility for Project-Level Decisions McLean 6 

Impact of Organizational Structure on Pavement 

Management Phoenix 10 

When to Decide to Abandon Historical Data Phoenix 1 

Benefits and Limitations of Automated Data 

Collection Phoenix 1 

Benefits and Limitations of Network Level GPR Phoenix 1 

Development of Quality Tolerances Based on Types 

of Data Collected Phoenix 2 

How to Store and Purge Safe, Secure, Up-to-Date 

Pavement Management Data Phoenix 3 

Effective Communication Issues Phoenix 3 

Impact of Model Details on Results Phoenix 4 

Use of Performance Models for Public Relations and 

Education Phoenix 4 

Develop a Repository of Models for Use by Other 

Agencies Phoenix 4 

Identify Construction and Material Parameters to 

Fine Tune Treatment Selection Phoenix 5 

Identify Impact Associated with Staff Reductions 

and Budgetary Constraints on Treatment Selection at 

the Network, Project, and Research Levels 

Phoenix 5 

Business Process – Allocation of Resources and 

Strategic Planning Phoenix 6 

Business Process – Network/Project Level Linkage Phoenix 6 

Synthesis of External 

Issues Driving 

Pavement Management 

External Influences on Pavement Management Dallas 6 

Evaluation of External Issues Driving Pavement 

Management Needs Dallas 7 

Independent Technical 

Assessments of 

Pavement Management 

Independent Technical Assessments by FHWA McLean 8 

Comprehensive Study 

to Guide the Integration 

of Pavement 

Preservation and 

Pavement Management 

Determination of Required Inputs and Expected 

Outcomes to Effectively Integrate Pavement 

Preservation Strategies into Pavement Management 

Phoenix 9 

Quantification of Costs and Benefits Associated with 

Different Levels of Pavement Preservation and 

Pavement Management Integration 

Phoenix 9 

Developing a Plan and Implementation Guidelines 

for Integration of Pavement Management and 

Pavement Preservation 

Phoenix 9 

Development of Minimum Levels and Best Practices 

of Integrating Pavement Preservation with Pavement 

Management 

Phoenix 9 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Table 1. Final List of Research Needs Statements for Theme 1 (continued). 

2.0 Roadmap Development 35 

Theme 1: Use of Existing Tools and Technology 

Short-Term Needs 

Title Contributing Problem Statement Title 

Originating 

Regional 

Workshop 

Originating 

Focus Area 

Comprehensive Study 

to Guide the Integration 

of Pavement 

Preservation and 

Pavement Management 

Develop a Synthesis for Integration of Pavement 

Management and Pavement Preservation Practices McLean 9 

Costs, Benefits, and Risks of Integrating Pavement 

Preservation into Pavement Management McLean 9 

Development of Tools and Recommendations for 

Integrating Pavement Preservation into a PMS McLean 9 

Define Preventive Maintenance to Include Activities 

Throughout Pavement Life Dallas 9 

Long-Term Needs

Title Contributing Problem Statement Title 

Originating 

Regional 

Workshop 

Originating 

Focus Area 

Investigation Into the 

Risk, Uncertainty, and 

Variability in Pavement 

Management Decisions 

Relationships Between Data Quality and 

Performance Models Phoenix 2 

Risk and Cost of Bad Data Phoenix 2 

Cost-Effectiveness of Data Quality McLean 2 

Determine the Costs and Benefits of Collecting 

Quality and Quantity of Data Dallas 2 

Business Process Issues - Accountability Phoenix 6 

How to Define the Success of the PMS Phoenix 6 

Uncertainties and Reliability of Pavement 

Management Results McLean 6 

Quality/Quantity of Pavement Management Data Dallas 6 

Precision and Bias Statements for Pavement Testing 

Equipment Dallas 1 

Methods of Defining 

and Calculating the 

Effect of Pavement 

Preservation Treatments 

on Pavement Life 

Determine Required Inputs and Expected Outcomes 

to Effectively Integrate Pavement Preservation 

Strategies into Pavement Management 

Phoenix 9 

Guidelines for Distribution of Funding Among 

Various Strategies for Managing Pavements Phoenix 6 

Cost, Benefit, and Risk of Integrating Pavement 

Preservation and Pavement Management McLean 9 

Quantify and Communicate the Benefits of 

Preventive Maintenance on Pavement Performance McLean 9 

Definition of Pavement Preservation Benefits Dallas 9 

Models for Preventive Maintenance Phoenix 4 

Better Understanding of Which Maintenance 

Activities Impact Pavement Performance McLean 4 

Methods of Assessing Impact of Changes in Routine 

Maintenance McLean 4 

Ways to Model Preventive Maintenance Activities Dallas 4 

Identify Criteria Needed to Determine Treatments at 

the Network, Project, and Research Levels Phoenix 5 

Incorporating Accurate and Complete Maintenance, 

Preservation, and Pavement Construction History McLean 5 

Define Parameters Required for Integrating 

Pavement Preservation into Pavement Management Dallas 5 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 36

Table 2. Final List of Research Needs Statements for Theme 2. 

Theme 2: Institutional and Organizational Issues 

Short-Term Needs 

Title Contributing Problem Statement Title 

Originating 

Regional 

Workshop 

Originating 

Focus Area 

Annual Approval of 

SP&R Funding Annual Approval of SP&R Funding Phoenix 1 

Addressing Trade-Offs, 

Metric Issues, and 

Purchasing 

Controls/Policies 

Political and Organizational Issues/Inertia Phoenix 3 

Framework for 

Minimizing the 

Delivery of Treatment 

Applications 

Improving the Contracting Process to Accommodate 

Timely Treatment Selection McLean 5 

Communicating 

Pavement Management 

Information and 

Benefits 

Communication: Agency Staff Through Decision 

Makers Phoenix 6 

Communicating With External Stakeholders Phoenix 6 

Conveying and Communicating Output from 

Pavement Management Phoenix 10 

Communicating the State of Pavements With Upper 

Management McLean 6 

Communicating With the Public on the Cost of 

Pavement Infrastructure McLean 6 

Best Practices for Reporting Strategic Pavement 

Needs to Management and Legislators McLean 7 

Strategies for Effectively Marketing Pavement 

Management McLean 10 

Selling Pavement Management to Politicians and 

Administrators McLean 10 

Develop Communication Tools for Use With 

Agency Staff and Decision Makers on Treatment and 

Treatment Selection

Dallas 5 

Communicating (Internal and External) Issues and 

Solutions of Integrating Pavement Preservation and 

Pavement Management

Phoenix 9 

Quantify and Communicate the Benefits of 

Preventive Maintenance on Pavement Performance McLean 9 

Develop Effective Leadership Support and 

Accountability McLean 10 

Techniques for Gaining Buy-In from Decision 

Makers for Effective Pavement Management McLean 10 

Selling Pavement Management to District (Field) 

Engineers Dallas 10 

Use of Social Network Tools for Pavement 

Management Communications Phoenix 7 

Improving the Skills of 

Pavement Managers 

Pavement Management Workforce Development McLean 7 

Broaden Skills of Pavement Managers to be More 

Successful McLean 10 

Institutionalizing Pavement Management through 

Workforce Development McLean 10 

Maintaining Pavement Management Staffing and 

Skills for Proper Decision Making Dallas 6 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Table 2. Final List of Research Needs Statements for Theme 2 (Continued). 

2.0 Roadmap Development 37 

Theme 2: Institutional and Organizational Issues 

Short-Term Needs 

Title Contributing Problem Statement Title 

Originating 

Regional 

Workshop 

Originating 

Focus Area 

Improving the Skills of 

Pavement Managers 

Pavement Management Training Dallas 7 

Staffing and Succession Planning – FHWA Support 

for Education Dallas 10 

Development and Delivery of Training for Data 

Collection McLean 2 

Training and Curriculum for Pavement Data Quality Dallas 2 

Continuous Education of Workforce on the 

Evolution of Pavement Management Data Phoenix 3 

Cross Agency Institutional Issues in Data 

Management Dallas 3 

Training Guide Outlining Pavement Management 

Fundamentals Phoenix 4 

Pavement Management Academy Phoenix 4 

Information on Where Maintenance is Applied and 

What Was Done McLean 4 

Training Locals on Pavement Management Through 

LTAP McLean 4 

Training on How to Do Modeling for Practitioners Dallas 4 

Decisions Aligned with Data Dallas 4 

Best Practices to Capture Construction, Preservation, 

and Maintenance Treatments McLean 5 

Develop Effective Feedback from Pavement 

Preservation and Rehabilitation into the Pavement 

Management Database

Dallas 5 

Integrate Pavement Preservation into Pavement 

Management Dallas 5 

Develop an Agency-Specific Pavement Management 

Process Manual Dallas 2 

Need Attractive Career Path for Pavement 

Management Practitioners Dallas 4 

Long-Term Needs

Title Contributing Problem Statement Title 

Originating 

Regional 

Workshop 

Originating 

Focus Area 

Identify IT Needs to 

Effectively Manage a 

Pavement Management 

System 

Challenges Associated with Centrally Managed IT 

Environments Dallas 3 

Methods to Promote 

Pavement Management 

as a Management Tool 

Effective Communication Toolset for Pavement 

Managers Phoenix 8 

National Promotional Clip Promoting Pavement 

Management Phoenix 8 

Conveying and Communicating Output from 

Pavement Management Phoenix 10 

Promotion of Pavement Management Benefits to 

Non-Technical Audiences (Executives and 

Legislators) 

McLean 8 

Strategies for Effectively Marketing Pavement 

Management McLean 10 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Table 2. Final List of Research Needs Statements for Theme 2 (Continued). 

2.0 Roadmap Development 38 

Theme 2: Institutional and Organizational Issues 

Long-Term Needs 

Title Contributing Problem Statement Title 

Originating 

Regional 

Workshop 

Originating 

Focus Area 

Methods to Promote 

Pavement Management 

as a Management Tool 

Guidance on Understanding Benefits for Various 

Stakeholders, Including Defining Performance 

Measures and Goals 

Dallas 8 

Develop Methods to Sell Pavement Management as a 

Management Tool Dallas 8 

Selling Pavement Management to Politicians and 

Administrators Dallas 10 

Impact of Pavement 

Management 

Investment Levels on 

Benefits 

Method to Quantify the Benefit of Information for 

Pavement Management Phoenix 8 

Quantify Risks and Consequences of Changes in the 

Availability of Pavement Information McLean 8 

Suggested Topics for 

Pavement Management 

into the Civil 

Engineering Curriculum 

Education of Future Practitioners in Pavement 

Management McLean 8 

Constant Funding for 

Pavement Management 

Establish Need for Consistent Funding to Allow 

Appropriate Planning by Pavement Management 

Staff 

Dallas 10 

Synthesis of Current Practices for Allocating 

Funding Resources While Dealing With Institutional 

Influences 

McLean 9 

Quantifying the Effects of Sub-Optimal Decisions on 

Network Performance McLean 9 

Recommended 

Methodology to 

Calculate Pavement 

Asset Value and 

Communicate to 

Stakeholders 

Recommended Methodology to Calculate Pavement 

Asset Value and Communicate to Stakeholders 

Technical 

Panel Meeting N/A 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 39

Table 3. Final List of Research Needs Statements for Theme 3. 

Theme 3: The Broad Role of Pavement Management 

Short-Term Needs 

Title Contributing Problem Statement Title 

Originating 

Regional 

Workshop 

Originating 

Focus Area 

Pavement Management 

Data Mining: 

Improving Current Uses 

and Leveraging New 

Applications of 

Pavement Management 

Data 

Input of Pavement Construction and Maintenance 

Data into Pavement Management Dallas 2 

Data Integration Benefits Phoenix 3 

Increasing Data Integration to Improve Stewardship Phoenix 3 

Addressing Customer Service with Data Integration 

Systems Phoenix 3 

Synthesis of Data Integration Systems Phoenix 3 

Using Successful Pavement Management Practices 

to Frame and Guide Management System 

Development in Other Asset Areas 

Dallas 3 

Addressing Near-Term Data Storage and Integration 

Technology Issues Dallas 3 

Pavement Management Challenges and Practices 

Within Tolling Agencies Dallas 3 

Pavement Management Data Mining: Improving 

Current Uses and Leveraging New Applications of 

Pavement Management Data 

Phoenix 7 

Leveraging Pavement Management With Related 

Data Sources McLean 7 

Merging of Data Sets Across Multiple Agencies 

Within a State McLean 7 

Modeling Load Limit 

Impacts 

Modeling the Impacts of Load Limits on Pavement 

Performance McLean 4 

Use of Pavement 

Management 

Information for 

National Reporting 

Develop National Performance Measures McLean 4 

Pavement Management Data as Compared and 

Contrasted and Used Against Item Data Phoenix 7 

Annual State of the Practice Report to FHWA McLean 8 

Justification for Using Pavement Management Data 

in Lieu of HPMS for Reporting to FHWA Dallas 7 

Expanding Treatment Selection Accountability in the 

Future McLean 5 

Development and Use 

of Effective 

Performance Measures 

Goal Setting for Effective Pavement Management Phoenix 6 

Synthesis on Consistent Terminology, Performance 

Targets, Measures, and Threshold Triggers McLean 6 

Correlation Between Pavement Management Inputs 

and Performance Measures Reported McLean 6 

Managing Pavements as an Investment McLean 7 

Keeping Pavement Management Relative to the 

Asset Management Process McLean 7 

Pavement Management as a Part of Asset 

Management Dallas 6 

Measures Needed in Pavement Management to 

Support Pavement Preservation and Definition of 

Pavement Preservation Benefits 

Dallas 9 

Develop Guidance on Use of Performance Measures 

in Decision Making Dallas 9 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Table 3. Final List of Research Needs Statements for Theme 3. (Continued). 

2.0 Roadmap Development 40 

Theme 3: The Broad Role of Pavement Management 

Short-Term Needs 

Title Contributing Problem Statement Title 

Originating 

Regional 

Workshop 

Originating 

Focus Area 

Development and Use 

of Effective 

Performance Measures 

Goals and Performance Targets Related to 

Pavements Phoenix 10 

Effect of Asset Management on Pavement 

Management Phoenix 10 

Establishing a Performance Reporting System for 

Pavement Management Data Dallas 10 

Developing and 

Supporting a Pavement 

Management Business 

Plan 

Developing and Supporting a Pavement Management 

Business Plan 

Technical 

Panel Meeting N/A 

Long-Term Needs

Title Contributing Problem Statement Title 

Originating 

Regional 

Workshop 

Originating 

Focus Area 

Using Pavement 

Management Data to 

Support Design 

Activities 

Stronger Relationship Between Design and 

Pavement Management Models McLean 4 

Best Practices for Incorporating the MEPDG into 

Pavement Management McLean 7 

Feedback to Pavement Design Dallas 7 

Advancing Analytical Tools for Continual Prediction 

Calibration Dallas 7 

Methodologies to 

Reliably Support 

Innovative Contracting 

Use of Pavement Management in PerformanceBased Warranty Contracts and Public-Private 

Partnerships 

Phoenix 7 

Preparing Pavement Management to Reliably 

Support Innovative Contracting Processes McLean 7 

Impact of Innovative Contracting Practices on 

Pavement Management McLean 7 

Identify Data Needs to 

Support Other 

Processes 

Baseline Inventory of Network Needed for Decisions 

and Managing Pavements Phoenix 2 

Pavement Management Data Integration to Support 

Future Transportation Needs Phoenix 3 

Guidelines and Data to Support Transportation Asset 

Management Systems McLean 3 

National Funding 

Allocations That 

Account for State 

Priorities 

Identifying How Individual State Priorities Hinder 

Development of National Standards Phoenix 10 

Impacts of Earmarks on 

Pavement Performance 

Impacts of Earmarks on Long Range Plans and 

Pavement Conditions Phoenix 10 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

2.0 Roadmap Development 41

Table 4. Final List of Research Needs Statements for Theme 4. 

Theme 4: New Tools, Methodologies, and Technology 

Short-Term Needs 

Title Contributing Problem Statement Title 

Originating 

Regional 

Workshop 

Originating 

Focus Area 

Development of 

Automated Condition 

Data Processing Tools 

Develop a Fully Automated Distress Identification Phoenix 1 

Evaluation of Latest Technologies for 

Implementation in Pavement Management Dallas 1 

Software Needs for Fully Automated Data 

Processing Dallas 7 

Analysis of Trade-Offs 

Associated with 

Alternate Methods of 

Data Collection 

Analysis of Trade-Offs Associated with Alternate 

Methods of Data Collection 

Technical 

Panel Meeting N/A 

Improving Factors 

Considered in Project 

and Treatment Selection 

Decisions 

Strengthen Treatment Selection Through Workforce 

Development by Associating Condition Triggers 

with Improved Pavement Performance 

McLean 5 

Using LCCA to Quantify Treatment Selections McLean 5 

Develop Criteria, Create Manual and Training for 

Treatment Selection Dallas 5 

Linkage of Pavement Management to Other Programs 

(e.g., Safety, Congestion, and Environment) Phoenix 6 

Pavement Management Enhancements to Address 

Emerging Issues McLean 6 

Incorporating User Costs in the Pavement 

Management Process McLean 6 

Project Treatment Selection Dallas 6 

Decision Support for Pavement Management Dallas 7 

Identification of Non-Traditional Benefits for 

Inclusion in Optimization Analysis McLean 5 

Characterizing Effective and Realistic Optimization 

Techniques for Implementable Pavement Treatment 

Solutions 

McLean 5 

Methods to Quantify the 

Benefits of Pavement 

Management 

How Do We Address the Broad Reach of Pavement 

Management? Phoenix 8 

Quantifying Pavement Management Benefits Related 

to User Costs Phoenix 8 

Quantify the Benefits Derived from Pavement 

Management Phoenix 10 

Synthesis of Current Methods for Quantifying Benefits McLean 8 

Methods of Capturing Pavement Management 

Impacts on Other Programs and Identifying Societal 

Benefits (e.g., Economic and Environmental) 

McLean 8 

Using Pavement Management to Support the Bottom 

Line in Private, Public/Private Transportation Asset 

Management Agencies 

Dallas 8 

Methods to Quantify Benefits of Pavement 

Management Systems Dallas 8 

Develop Guidance in Using Pavement Management 

to Justify and Defend Engineering Decisions Dallas 8 

Links Between Infrastructure Health measures and 

Other Performance Measures McLean 4 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Table 4. Final List of Research Needs Statements for Theme 4. (Continued). 

2.0 Roadmap Development 42 

Theme 4: New Tools, Methodologies, and Technology 

Short-Term Needs 

Title Contributing Problem Statement Title 

Originating 

Regional 

Workshop 

Originating 

Focus Area 

Pavement Management 

in a Changing World 

Effectively Managing Pavements in Changing 

Environments McLean 10 

Future Trends Influencing Enhancements for 

Pavement Management Systems Dallas 10 

Impact of Increased Data Requirements on Pavement 

Management (e.g., HPMS, MEPDG, and HERS-ST) Dallas 10 

Long-Term Needs

Title Contributing Problem Statement Title 

Originating 

Regional 

Workshop 

Originating 

Focus Area 

Automation of Surface 

Texture Characteristics 

New Applications for Use of Macrotexture Phoenix 1 

Automation of Surface Texture Characteristics Dallas 1 

Identification of Non-Traditional Factors Impacting 

Pavement Deterioration Dallas 4 

Develop Additional Pavement Condition Measures 

in the Decision Making Process for Proper Treatment 

Selection 

McLean 5 

Method for Effectively 

Modeling Structural 

Condition 

Models to Capture Both Functional and Structural 

Components Phoenix 4 

Methods of Modeling Structural Adequacy McLean 4 

Methods of Effectively Modeling Structural 

Condition Dallas 4 

Quantification of Network Level Structural 

Condition Using High-Speed Deflection Testing McLean 1 

Quantifying the Benefits of Structural Capacity 

Testing Dallas 1 

Optimizing the Efficiency of Deflection Testing Dallas 1 

Automation of Material Properties Characterization Dallas 1 

Impact of Climate 

Change on Performance 

Prediction 

Impact of Climate Change and Sustainability Efforts 

on Models Phoenix 4 

Develop Default 

Models for LowVolume Roads 

Nationally Developed Default Models for LowVolume Roads for Pavement Management and 

MEPDG 

McLean 4 

Performance Models 

That Consider Series of 

Treatments 

Performance Models That Consider a Series of 

Treatments 

Technical 

Panel Meeting N/A 

Quantifying the 

Benefits of Pavement 

Research 

Market Analysis of Pavement Research Benefits McLean 7 

Quantifying the Cost of 

Pavement Use Quantifying the Cost of Pavement Use McLean 7 

Identifying Strategies 

for Incorporating 

Emerging Technologies 

into the Pavement 

Management System 

Sustainability in Changing Needs and Emerging 

Technology in Data Collection and Analysis Phoenix 7 

Clearinghouse for Evaluation of New Technologies Phoenix 7 

Optimizing Pavement Surface Properties McLean 7 

Development of Methodologies and Analysis Tools 

to Incorporate Sustainability McLean 7 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Table 4. Final List of Research Needs Statements for Theme 4. (Continued). 

2.0 Roadmap Development 43 

Theme 4: New Tools, Methodologies, and Technology 

Long-Term Needs 

Title Contributing Problem Statement Title 

Originating 

Regional 

Workshop 

Originating 

Focus Area 

Identifying Strategies 

for Incorporating 

Emerging Technologies 

into the Pavement 

Management System 

Emerging Technologies in Electronic Data 

Collection McLean 7 

Identification and Validation of Emerging Hardware 

Technologies Dallas 7 

Identify Emerging Technologies That Drive 

Pavement Management Needs Dallas 7 

Develop Nondestructive 

Testing (NDT) for 

Measurement of InPlace Material 

Properties 

Develop Technology and Equipment That Can 

Measure In-Place HMA Density, Full Width (NDT) Phoenix 1 

Use of Aerial Images 

for Distress Analysis 

Use of Aerial Images for Distress Analysis Phoenix 1 

Use or Appropriate Application of New 

Technologies for Data Collection Phoenix 2 

Development and 

Integration of Wireless 

Sensors With Pavement 

Management 

Development and Integration of Wireless Sensors 

With Pavement Management 

Technical 

Panel Meeting N/A 

Prioritizing the Combined List of Needs 

The attendees from the three regional workshops were invited to participate in a webconference at 

which the combined list of needs was presented. Immediately following the webconference, 

participants were given an opportunity to vote on the relative importance of each of the needs 

statements and their perceived priorities within each theme. As part of this activity, participants 

were asked to assign a relative importance to each needs statement, using the following terms: 

 Very Important. 

 Important. 

 Not Very Important. 

In addition, participants were asked to rank the needs statements within each of the theme areas, on 

a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the high priority. To facilitate the ranking, short-term and long-term 

needs within each theme were ranked separately. As a result, each participant provided a total of 

eight ranked lists (four theme areas multiplied by two lists for short-term and long-term needs). A 

computerized balloting tool was used to facilitate this activity and a total of fifty-three individuals 

participated in the ranking exercise. 

The results of the balloting were used to develop the prioritized list of short-term and long-term 

needs included in the next chapter. For use in the ranking process the relative importance levels 

were assigned the following values: very important = 3 points, important = 2 points, and not very 

important = 1 point. The priorities were established by multiplying the average relative importance 

and the average ranking assigned by the participants for each needs statement. The results 

produced, in essence, a weighted average that could be used to develop a ranked list that combines 

the results from each theme, regardless of the number of needs statements within the theme.
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

3.0 A 10-Year Roadmap for Pavement Management 44 

3.0 A 10-Year Roadmap for Pavement Management 

The Vision for Pavement Management 

The successful adoption of the Pavement Management Roadmap is expected to lead to the 

increased use, and improved applicability, of pavement management by eliminating the barriers or 

gaps that limit its effectiveness or hinder its acceptance within an agency. Through comprehensive 

and coordinated efforts to address both the short-term (i.e., less than 5 years) and long-term (i.e., 5 

to 10 years) research, development, technology, and workforce development activities identified in 

this Roadmap, practitioners can foresee the following vision of pavement management in the year 

2020. 

Prioritized Research, Development, and Technology Transfer Needs 

The final research, development, and technology transfer needs within each theme are provided in 

Appendix B of this report. The comprehensive needs statements are presented in a format that can 

easily be used by any agency to secure the funding needed to advance any of the initiatives. The 

Pavement Management Roadmap presented in this section of the report prioritizes the urgency with 

which these activities should be addressed, based on the importance and priority rankings provided 

by the participants. As such, the prioritized list of short-term and long-term needs represents the 

urgency with which the participating pavement management stakeholders would address these 

activities. The results are presented in a number of different formats to emphasize the priorities 

across theme areas, as well as within theme areas. 

In total, the suggested initiatives represent over $14.5 million in funding, with approximately $6.5 

million representing short-term needs over the next 5 years and $8 million representing long-term 

needs to be initiated within the next 5 to 10 years. By theme area, the funding is distributed in 

accordance with the figures shown in table 5. 

Table 6 and 7 present the prioritized listing of recommended needs to address the gaps in pavement 

management over the next 10 years, ignoring the four theme areas. Table 6 presents the prioritized 

listing of the short-term needs, and table 7 includes the prioritized listing of long-term needs. 

The Vision for Pavement Management in 2020 

Pavement management will make use of a new generation of technology so agencies 

are less dependent on manual labor for data collection. Pavement management 

tools will allow agencies to communicate effectively with stakeholders, using clear 

statements that are tied to agency goals and pavement worth. Within an asset 

management framework, pavement management will be used for investigating 

decisions and program options in both private and public sectors. A pavement 

management analysis will consider new materials and construction/design 

practices, as well as other factors that influence project and treatment selection, 

including safety, congestion, and sustainability. As a result of these changes, 

pavement management will be robust, comprehensive, and credible, and will 

address agency needs at the project, network, and strategic levels. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

3.0 A 10-Year Roadmap for Pavement Management 45 

Table 5. Funding Needs by Theme Area. 

Theme 

Short-Term Needs 

(< 5 years) 

Long-Term Needs 

(5 to 10 years) Totals 

# of 

Projects 

Funding 

Requirements 

# of 

Projects 

Funding 

Requirements 

# of 

Projects 

Funding 

Requirements

1: Use of Existing 

Technology and Tools 8 $2,180,000 2 $850,000 10 $3,030,000

2: Institutional and 

Organizational Issues 5 $880,000 6 $780,000 11 $1,660,000

3: The Broad Role of 

Pavement Management 5 $1,550,000 5 $1,300,000 10 $2,850,000

4: New Tools, 

Methodologies, and 

Technologies 

5 

$1,930,000 

11 

$5,100,000 16 

$7,030,000

Totals 23 $6,540,000 24 $8,030,000 47 $14,570,000

Table 6. Prioritized Listing of Short-Term Needs. 

Priority 

Ranking Title Theme Score 

1 Communicating Pavement Management Information and Benefits Inst & Org 2.18 

2 Development and Use of Effective Performance Measures Broad Role 2.16 

3 Improving the Skills of Pavement Managers Inst & Org 2.13 

4 Development of Automated Condition Data Processing Tools New Tools 1.85 

5 Methods to Quantify the Benefits of Pavement Management New Tools 1.85 

6 Best Practices for Pavement Management Existing Tools 1.65 

7 Development of Pavement Distress Standards Existing Tools 1.62 

8 Development of Improved Methodologies for Evaluating Data 

Quality Existing Tools 1.58 

9 Improving Factors Considered in Project and Treatment Selection 

Decisions New Tools 1.58 

10 Establish and Develop Equipment Calibration Centers and 

Guidelines Existing Tools 1.55 

11 Comprehensive Study to Guide the Integration of Pavement 

Preservation and Pavement Management Existing Tools 1.44 

12 Pavement Management Data Mining: Improving Current Uses and 

Leveraging New Applications of Pavement Management Data Broad Role 1.37 

13 Analysis of Trade-Offs Associated with Alternate Methods of Data 

Collection New Tools 1.33 

14 Load Limit Impacts on Pavement Performance Broad Role 1.19 

15 Developing and Supporting a Pavement Management Business 

Plan Broad Role 1.18 

16 Use of Pavement Management Information for National Reporting Broad Role 1.07 

17 Annual Approval of SP&R Funding Inst & Org 0.89 

18 Framework for Minimizing the Delivery of Treatment Application Inst & Org 0.89 

19 Independent Technical Assessments of Pavement Management Existing Tools 0.84 

20 Pavement Management Clearinghouse Existing Tools 0.80 

21 Addressing Trade-offs, Metric Issues, and Purchasing 

Controls/Policies Inst & Org 0.62 

22 Synthesis of External Issues Driving Pavement Management Existing Tools 0.60 

23 Pavement Management in a Changing World New Tools 0.49 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

3.0 A 10-Year Roadmap for Pavement Management 46 

Table 7. Prioritized Listing of Long-Term Needs. 

Priority 

Ranking Title Theme Score 

1 Methods of Defining and Calculating the Effect of Pavement 

Preservation Treatments on Pavement Life 

Existing 

Tools 2.43 

2 Impact of Pavement Management Investment Levels on Benefits Inst & Org 2.26 

3 Using Pavement Management Data to Support Design Activities Broad Role 2.08 

4 Performance Models that Consider Series of Treatments New Tools 1.97 

5 Method for Effectively Modeling Structural Condition New Tools 1.91 

6 Methods to Promote Pavement Management as a Management 

Tool Inst & Org 1.82 

7 Investigation into the Risk, Uncertainty, and Variability in 

Pavement Management Decisions 

Existing 

Tools 1.45 

8 Automation of Surface Texture Characteristics New Tools 1.40 

9 National Funding Allocations That Account for State Priorities Broad Role 1.33 

10 Identifying Strategies for Incorporating Emerging Technologies 

into the Pavement Management System New Tools 1.23 

11 Identify Data Needs to Support Other Processes Broad Role 1.20 

12 Quantifying the Cost of Pavement Use New Tools 1.19 

13 Recommended Methodology to Calculate Pavement Asset Value 

and Communicate to Stakeholders Inst & Org 1.16 

14 Methodologies to Reliably Support Innovative Contracting Broad Role 1.13 

15 Develop NDT for Measurement of In-Place Material Properties New Tools 1.08 

16 Suggested Topics for Pavement Management Into the Civil 

Engineering Curriculum Inst & Org 1.03 

17 Constant Funding for Pavement Management Inst & Org 0.96 

18 Identify IT Needs to Effectively Manage a Pavement Management 

System Inst & Org 0.95 

19 Quantifying the Benefits of Pavement Research New Tools 0.78 

20 Impact of Earmarks on Pavement Performance Broad Role 0.70 

21 Develop Default Models for Low-Volume Roads New Tools 0.47 

22 Impact of Climate Change on Performance Prediction New Tools 0.39 

23 Development and Integration of Wireless Sensors with PMS New Tools 0.36 

24 Use of Aerial Images for Distress Analysis New Tools 0.29 

Recommended Short-Term Needs by Theme Area 

The regional workshops produced a total of twenty-three short-term research, development, and 

technology transfer needs to be addressed within the next 5 years to advance pavement management 

capabilities. To a significant degree, the problem statements emphasize the need for improved 

access to information about best practices, and better methods to communicate the importance of 

pavement management to transportation agencies. Additionally, stakeholders placed an emphasis on 

improving data quality and consistency. The top ten short-term research, development, and 

technology transfer needs are presented in this section of the report, by theme area. The entire set 

of problem statements for all needs can be found in Appendix B. 

Theme 1: Use of Existing Technology and Tools 

Needs statements included in theme 1 include recommendations for technology and tools that can 

support traditional pavement management applications. In general, this theme includes technology 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

3.0 A 10-Year Roadmap for Pavement Management 47 

and tools that are currently available today but are in need of additional review, analysis, 

dissemination, and/or updating prior to their use. 

The needs from this theme that are featured in the top ten list of short-term needs are provided in 

table 8. A total of $2,180,000 in funding is required to address these needs. 

Theme 2: Institutional and Organizational Issues 

The theme 2 needs statements relate to workforce development, communication, contracting, and 

organizational structure. The recommendations in this area are intended to address issues that 

include the impact pavement management on funding and how to determine, promote, and 

effectively communicate the use and the benefits of pavement management. 

The needs from this theme that are featured in the top ten list of short-term needs are provided in 

table 8. A total of $880,000 in funding is required to address these needs. 

Theme 3: The Broad Role of Pavement Management 

Theme 3 includes needs statements that go beyond the standard functions of pavement 

management and include such areas as pavement design, impact of increasing load limits on 

pavement performance, and asset management. 

The needs from this theme that are featured in the top ten list of short-term needs are provided in 

table 8. A total of $1,550,000 in funding is required to address these needs. 

Theme 4: New Tools, Methodologies, and Technologies 

The problem statements in theme 4 are related to needs for research and development leading to 

new tools, methods, and technology to support pavement management. In general, needs 

statements included in this theme address concepts that are not readily available and will require a 

higher level of research, analysis, and development prior to implementation. 

The needs from this theme that are featured in the top ten list of short-term needs are provided in 

table 8. A total of $1,930,000 in funding is required to address these needs. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

3.0 A 10-Year Roadmap for Pavement Management 48 Needs Statement Description Funding Development of Pavement Distress Standards This study will identify distress to be measured, review current state practice, compare state procedures to current AASHTO protocols, identify areas not currently covered by an AASHTO protocol, develop preliminary protocols, conduct webinars or workshops to obtain state buy-in, and finalize the protocol for AASHTO balloting. $350,000 Development of Improved Methodologies for Evaluating Data Quality This study's objective is to develop a standard methodology that can be applied to a wide range of pavement condition data to assess quality in terms of accuracy and repeatability. The study results will establish data collection guidelines and evaluate the impact of variability. A product will be the development of guidelines to improve data quality in terms of collection, processing, and reporting. $350,000 Establish and Develop Equipment Calibration Centers and Guidelines This study will identify potential calibration sites, recommended calibration frequencies, and calibration procedures. $250,000 Needs Statement Description Funding Communicating Pavement Management Information and Benefits This study will investigate how highway agencies have successfully gained buy-in from decision makers that have led to increased use of pavement management information. The products will include guidelines for making these types of presentations, and a collection of effective presentations that can be used as templates. $250,000 Improving the Skills of Pavement Managers This initiative will provide guidance to help agencies evaluate the economic/organizational impacts of workforce development. This study will develop training guides, a web clearinghouse for resources, and information on pavement management careers. $250,000 Needs Statement Description Funding Development and Use of Effective Performance Measures Under this study, examples of effective links between strategic and operational performance measures will be conducted, and guidelines on the use of pavement management measures to support strategic initiatives will be developed. $250,000 Needs Statement Description Funding Development of Automated Condition Data Processing Tools Improvements to current tools for automating the processing of some measures of pavement evaluation are needed to accelerate the rate which survey results become available and improve the consistency and reliability of the information. Improvements are needed to the processing of surface distress data, GPR, and rutting. $800,000 Methods to Quantify the Benefits of Pavement Management This is a synthesis study in which practices in public and private agencies may be explored to determine current practice. The end product is the identification of effective methodologies that can be used to quantify benefits associated with pavement management. $30,000 Improving Factors Considered in Project and Treatment Selection 

Decisions

The study must provide guidance for addressing agency challenges that influence the use of this information. The product of this research will be a process for evaluating the decision factors used in the pavement management treatment selection process and guidelines for addressing any existing gaps in the criterion.

$250,000 

Theme 3: The Broad Role of Pavement ManagementTheme 4: New Tools, Methodologies, and Technologies

There is a significant need to assemble and prepare a best practices document for the operational and functional aspects of pavement 

management. This guide will include a broad range of topics, such as benefits and limitations of data collection equipment and 

procedures, processes for developing and implementing a linear referencing system and addressing data integration issues, guidelines for developing and updating performance modeling, methods for using pavement management to support agency decisions and allocated funds, and methods for communicating pavement management data to stakeholders.

Theme 1: Use of Existing Technology and ToolsBest Practices for Pavement ManagementTheme 2: Institutional and Organizational Issues

$500,000 

Table 8. Top 10 Listing of Short-Term Needs Statements by Theme. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

3.0 A 10-Year Roadmap for Pavement Management 49 

Other identified short-term needs not included in the top ten listing include the following: 

 Theme 1: Use of Existing Technology and Tools 

— Comprehensive Study to Guide the Integration of Pavement Preservation and Pavement 

Management. In most agencies, pavement management data collection and analysis tools were 

established before pavement preservation techniques were used extensively. As a result, the 

data that are currently collected and the project selection processes are not necessarily easily 

modified to include preventive maintenance treatments. Therefore, this study will provide 

guidelines for adapting pavement management systems to fully support pavement preservation 

activities at the state and local levels. First, the researchers will conduct a synthesis of best 

practice, to determine how agencies have approached the integration of preventive 

maintenance treatments into pavement management. Based on that information, pavement 

preservation definitions will be developed that reflect activities associated with the 

management of pavement assets over their entire life cycle. The study will investigate the data 

needed to support the integration of preventive maintenance into pavement management and 

will identify various levels of integration (including the costs, benefits, and risks associated 

with each). The final product will provide guidance on how agencies can integrate their 

pavement preservation and pavement management practices at each of the levels identified. 

— Independent Technical Assessments of Pavement Management. The FHWA is a strong 

supporter of pavement management tools in state highway agencies, but the use of these tools 

is optional. Further, there are diverse approaches being used for data collection, reporting, 

and analysis within these agencies. There is also a lack of established appraisal methods for 

determining whether pavement management practices comply with "good practice." At the 

same time, agencies are facing funding constraints that limit the resources available to support 

pavement management. This study will support pavement management by establishing 

baseline capabilities for pavement management and conducting independent assessments 

within each of the state highway agencies to determine a) whether the baseline capabilities are 

met and b) how any deficiencies can be addressed. The study would be strengthened if 

funding were provided to agencies to help them address the existing deficiencies. 

— Pavement Management Clearinghouse. Technology advances in pavement distress data 

collection are often difficult to for an agency to monitor, evaluate, and determine 

implementation appropriateness. In addition, there are many resources that are of value to 

pavement management practitioners, but a great deal of time can be spent trying to locate the 

information. It would also be beneficial for transportation agencies to have a readily available 

list of local, regional, and national contractors and their capability of constructing the vast 

array of pavement preservation and rehabilitation treatments. In this manner, an agency 

looking to apply a specific treatment (e.g., microsurfacing, hot in-place recycling) can access a 

web-based clearinghouse to determine contractor capabilities. A centralized repository of 

equipment availability, technology advancements, resources, and contractor availability and 

capability is necessary. This study will develop requirements for establishing a pavement 

management clearinghouse, design and develop a website for housing the clearinghouse, and 

provide future website maintenance and updates. 

— Synthesis of External Issues Driving Pavement Management. There are many factors that 

impact pavement management that are beyond the control of agency staff or administrators. 

With changes in available funds for transportation, agencies have to adapt to new approaches 

for funding, contracting, and/or project acceptance. These external forces have undoubtedly 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

3.0 A 10-Year Roadmap for Pavement Management 50 

influenced pavement management needs and priorities. This synthesis will investigate the 

factors that have impacted pavement management recently and document the ways that 

pavement managers have responded to these demands. 

 Theme 2: Institutional and Organizational Issues 

— Annual Approval of SP&R Funding. The annual approval of SP&R funding does not 

currently match the timing of data collection and processing for most state highway agencies. 

When SP&R funds are available for use, they expire at the end of the year making difficult for 

the state highway agency to expend the approved funds. This study will identify the SP&R 

funding restrictions, identify solutions that will meet FWHA and state highway agency 

requirements, determine recommended solutions, and suggest policy changes. 

— Framework for Minimizing the Delivery of Treatment Applications. Often time’s pavement 

rehabilitation/preservation projects are delayed due to plan preparation, advertising, and 

letting. This lag time between project selection and construction may render the selected 

treatment ineffective due to the advancement of pavement distress. There is a need to 

develop a process for reducing the timing between project selection and treatment application 

to ensure proper treatment application. This study will develop a framework for minimizing 

the lag time between project development and construction initiation. 

— Addressing Trade-offs, Metric Issues, and Purchasing Controls/Policies. Political, 

organizational issues, and organizational inertia frequently impede the pavement management 

process and the implementation of beneficial information for all entities. Key issues for these 

entities fit in the areas of trade-offs, metric terms/issues, policies, and purchasing controls. 

This study will survey state highway agencies to determine how new technology has been 

implemented and political and organization issues have been overcome. 

 Theme 3: The Broad Role of Pavement Management 

— Pavement Management Data Mining: Improving Current Uses and Leveraging New 

Applications of Pavement Management Data. There is an untapped potential to make greater 

use of pavement management data to better address current agency needs and to provide 

insight into new areas (e.g. asset value, new design methods, improved construction practices, 

corridor studies, and impacts of weight limits on performance). However, for these types of 

analyses to take place, it is important that data from related data sources are better leveraged. 

This study will explore the issues associated with better leveraging of pavement management 

data and provide guidelines for overcoming these issues. Examples from case studies that 

illustrate new potential uses of pavement management data will be provided. 

— Load Limit Impacts on Pavement Performance. States are faced with requests for load 

exemptions and often grant or deny these requests without a full understanding of the overall 

impact of pavement performance. The national government is also pressured to raise the 

current 80,000 lb legal load limit to 97,000 lbs on interstate roadways. What is needed is an 

easy to use (and understand) analysis tool that will estimate the impacts due to increased axle 

loading. This tool would determine the best measure (e.g., IRI, percent cracking, rutting) for 

assessing the incremental impact, assess the impact over an entire pavement network, corridor, 

or specific roadway segment, and estimate the financial impact due to increased damage (i.e., 

added costs for preservation and rehabilitation treatments to maintain the roadway, corridor, 

or network). 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

3.0 A 10-Year Roadmap for Pavement Management 51 

— Developing and Supporting a Pavement Management Business Plan. Pavement Management 

has been around for decades, but in some ways the integration of pavement management into 

the core business function of many agencies is very immature. Defining the focus for 

pavement management and defining and developing necessary skills should be documented in 

the form of a pavement management business plan. The term pavement management means 

very different things to different people. This research will define core business functions of 

pavement management, skills needed to support these core functions, ways to help 

practitioners develop those skills, strategies to push pavement management to be more 

prevalent in agency functions, and determine appropriate ways to address and manage the 

myriad of tangential functions that pull at pavement management. 

— Use of Pavement Management Information for National Reporting. In many states, HPMS 

data and pavement management data are collected by separate divisions or reported out by 

someone not involved in the data collection process. In some cases, the HPMS data are 

"passed off" without regard for the accuracy of reporting the information. As a result, there 

can be issues with data quality between what is collected by pavement management and what 

is reported to FHWA through the HPMS process. Additionally, there is an inefficient use of 

resources if similar data are being collected by two different groups within the same agency. 

There is also generally less buy-in or credibility in the HPMS data than in the pavement 

management data. Further, HPMS data does not always represent data that drives an agency's 

project and treatment selection process. During this study, an investigation will be conducted 

to determine the information needed at a national level to report pavement conditions to 

Congress. The results will be compared to available HPMS and pavement management data 

to determine strategies for using more pavement management data for national reporting and 

to lessen the reliance on separate HPMS data. A final product will be guidelines for a 

standardized method of reporting this information. 

 Theme 4: New Tools, Methodologies, and Technologies 

— Analysis of Trade-Offs Associated with Alternate Methods of Data Collection. As new 

technology comes along to aid in the pavement management efforts, many agencies will be 

contemplating whether they should switch from their current practices and adopt these new 

ones. Due, in part, to limited budgets, but also as a practical matter, agencies will need to 

determine which of their current activities can be modified or even eliminated as a result of 

this new technology. This project would develop a procedure that agencies can follow to 

determine the trade-offs and weigh the benefits of switching to a new technology. This study 

will review what data is currently being collected, identify equipment and analysis procedures 

that are being used, and what, little used new technology might be available for a state agency 

to consider. In addition, develop a tool to show the trade-offs of one versus the other 

capturing the pros/cons, added costs or savings, etc. so that there can be a clear discovery of 

the impact this change would have on the agency’s budget, labor force, analysis schedule, etc. 

Case studies will be conducted to show the results of this study. 

— Pavement Management in a Changing World. Pavement management must operate in an 

environment that is constantly changing. For instance, there are continual changes in 

leadership and each change typically brings new agendas. There are also unfunded mandates, 

changes in freight weights and movements, increased data requirements, scope creep, and 

changes in regulations that must be addressed. Transportation agencies have limited 

experience communicating the impacts of these changes on the highway network. This study 

will result in the development of metrics that help agencies identify what aspects can be 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

3.0 A 10-Year Roadmap for Pavement Management 52 

addressed by pavement management and what aspects cannot be represented in a pavement 

management analysis. 

Recommended Long-Term Needs by Theme Area 

The regional workshops produced a total of twenty-four long-term research, development, and 

technology transfer needs to be addressed within the next 5 to 10 years to advance pavement 

management capabilities. As opposed to the short-term needs, this list includes activities that will 

require research to develop methods to improve existing practices. The highest ranked needs 

indicate that efforts are needed to define and calculate the impact of pavement preservation 

treatments, and to determine the impact of different investment levels on pavement management 

capabilities. Additional efforts address the need to better support pavement design activities with 

pavement management, including the need to effectively model structural condition and series of 

treatments over a pavement life cycle. The top ten long-term research, development, and 

technology transfer needs are described in this section of the report, by theme area. The entire set 

of problem statements for all of the needs identified, can be found in Appendix B. 

Theme 1: Use of Existing Technology and Tools 

Need statements included in theme 1 include recommendations for technology and tools that can 

support traditional pavement management applications. In general, this theme includes technology 

and tools that are currently available today, but are in need of additional review, analysis, 

dissemination, and/or updating prior to their use. 

The needs from this theme that are featured in the top ten list of long-term needs are provided in 

table 9. A total of $850,000 in funding is required to address these needs. 

Theme 2: Institutional and Organizational Issues 

The theme 2 needs statements presented in this section of the report relate to workforce 

development, communication, contracting, and organizational structure. The recommendations in 

this area are intended to address issues that include the impact pavement management on funding 

and how to determine, promote, and effectively communicate the use and the benefits of pavement 

management. 

The needs from this theme that are featured in the top ten list of long-term needs are provided in 

table 9. A total of $780,000 in funding is required to address these needs. 

Theme 3: The Broad Role of Pavement Management 

Theme 3 includes needs statements that go beyond the standard functions of pavement 

management and include such areas as pavement design, impact of increasing load limits on 

pavement performance, and asset management. 

The needs from this theme that are featured in the top ten list of long-term needs are provided in 

table 9. A total of $1,300,000 in funding is required to address these needs. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

3.0 A 10-Year Roadmap for Pavement Management 53 

Theme 4: New Tools, Methodologies, and Technologies 

The problem statements in theme 4 are related to needs for research and development leading to 

new tools, methods, and technology to support pavement management. In general, needs 

statements included in this theme address concepts that are not readily available and will require a 

higher level of research, analysis, and development prior to implementation. 

The needs from this theme that are featured in the top ten list of long-term needs are provided in 

table 9. A total of $5,100,000 in funding is required to address these needs. 

 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

3.0 A 10-Year Roadmap for Pavement Management 54 Needs Statement Description Funding Methods of Defining and Calculating the Effect of Pavement Preservation Treatments on Pavement Life This study will quantify the impacts that pavement preservation treatments have on pavement performance, using measured field data from various geographic regions of the country. $500,000 Investigation into the Risk, Uncertainty, and Variability in Pavement Management Decisions The objective of this research is to investigate the various forms of variability affecting pavement management recommendations and to develop a process for evaluating its impact and the overall effectiveness of pavement management recommendations. The results are expected to be able to help agencies determine the amount of data needed to provide credible recommendations and to determine what level of risk is considered acceptable, thereby improving levels of accountability and confidence in pavement management. $350,000 Needs Statement Description Funding Impact of Pavement Management Investment Levels on Benefits A product of this study is the development of an analysis approach that determines the relationship between funding expenditures, data reliability, and system outputs. Another product will be the development of a methodology for analyzing these relationships. $350,000 Methods to Promote Pavement Management as a Management Tool Pavement management’s value to is not always well understood, especially among executives and elected officials with short-term positions. Public relations is needed to raise the profile of pavement management and communicate its wide-ranging benefits. Research is needed to know how to be most effective with audiences. $100,000 Needs Statement Description Funding Using Pavement management Data to Support Design Activities This study will develop a methodology to enhance the sophistication of pavement performance modeling, determine the availability of data fields for both pavement management and pavement design, determine the compatibility of MEPDG and pavement management prediction, enhance DARWin-ME or develop a stand-alone tool, and recommend adjustments to calibrate one or both models. $350,000 National Funding Allocations That Account for State Priorities This study will result in the development of a methodology for comparing pavement performance that accounts for the differences in state priorities and objectives. $250,000 Needs Statement Description Funding Performance Models That Consider a Series of Treatments This study will include a literature search on the pavement performance impacts of a series of treatments; development of a strategy for evaluating treatments in a series; collection of sufficient data from state agencies to develop, analyze, and validate performance curves; and the creation of guidelines on how to develop performance curves for a series of treatments. $500,000 Method for Effectively Modeling Structural Condition This study will quantify the cost/benefit of network-level deflection testing. The researcher will conduct a survey of practice, validate testing with other static devices, determine precision and bias statements, conduct pilot studies, and develop guidelines. $350,000 Automation of Surface Texture Characteristics This study will identify surface characteristics that can be identified and quantified using existing high-speed data collection equipment; potential methodologies for quantifying distress; equipment and analysis gaps; and software and equipment modifications. $500,000 Identifying Strategies for Incorporating Emerging Technologies into the Pavement Management System The main research objective is to develop a framework for identifying/evaluating the changes that impact pavement management decisions. The framework should be applicable to a wide range of situations and be demonstrated using data provided by state highway agencies. The final product is a set of guidelines for identifying and evaluating factors that influence the recommendations produced by the pavement management system. A clearinghouse for reporting the evaluation of technology may also be a product. $350,000 Theme 1: Use of Existing Technology and Tools Theme 2: Institutional and Organizational Issues Theme 3: The Broad Role of Pavement Management Theme 4: New Tools, Methodologies, and Technologies

Table 9. Top 10 Listing of Long-term Needs Statements by Theme. 

 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

3.0 A 10-Year Roadmap for Pavement Management 55 

Other identified long-term needs not included in the top ten listing include the following: 

 Theme 2: Institutional and Organizational Issues 

— Recommended Methodology to Calculate Pavement Asset Value and Communicate to 

Stakeholders. Asset management systems have traditionally been required to answer the 

following fundamental questions: what assets do we have, where are they, and what condition 

are they in? A fourth but equally fundamental question now also exists: what is the value of 

our assets both today and expected over the life cycle? This study will conduct a literature 

review of asset valuation methodology for civil infrastructure and particularly on how it has 

been applied to pavements at the strategic, network, and project level; identify the positive 

features and the methodology shortcomings; review GASB 34 requirements and reporting 

procedures; and prepare recommendations for pavement asset valuation. 

— Suggested Topics for Pavement Management Into the Civil Engineering Curriculum. There is 

not sufficient emphasis on pavement management in a civil engineering curriculum. As a 

result, there is a steep learning curve for new practitioners. Therefore, there is a need to raise 

the awareness of pavement management concepts in the existing college curriculums. 

— Constant Funding for Pavement Management. Inconsistent levels of funding make it difficult 

for pavement management staff to keep pavement conditions at a consistent level and to 

predict future needs (preservation, rehabilitation, and reconstruction) of the system. 

Additionally, it is difficult to maintain a consistent level of work for designers and contractors. 

This study will conduct a synthesize of current approaches for allocating funding, summarize 

the advantages/disadvantages of each approach, quantify the impacts of suboptimal 

allocations, and identify the monetary needs for a consistent pavement management work 

program will be established to allow agencies to optimize pavement treatments and funding. 

— Identify IT Needs to Effectively Manage a Pavement Management System. As agencies seek 

to achieve efficiencies in information technology practices, users of technologies are 

experiencing challenges for accessing, manipulating, and using technology associated with IT. 

This study will identify common goals of centrally management decision makers and identify 

needs and gaps between pavement management managers and centrally managed IT managers. 

 Theme 3: The Broad Role of Pavement Management 

— Identify Data Needs to Support Other Processes. As data collection has become more 

sophisticated, the demand on data contained within the pavement management system has 

increased. This has been noted by pavement performance data for use in calibration of the 

MEPDG, the HPMS reassessment, warranties, public-private partnerships, forensic studies, 

and so on. An assessment of what data is needed to support these various applications is 

needed. This study will identify applications that could benefit from pavement management 

data, identify current data that can be used to improve/enhance these applications, identify 

gaps in needed data, and provide guidelines on how to better utilize pavement management 

data in other applications. 

— Methodologies to Reliably Support Innovative Contracting. With increases in the use of 

warranty, concessionary, and public-private-partnerships, and other innovative contracting 

processes, changes in the use of pavement management data can be expected. For instance, 

historical pavement performance data and forecasted conditions may be used to set acceptable 

condition levels and to determine whether contractual performance requirements have been 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

3.0 A 10-Year Roadmap for Pavement Management 56 

satisfied. As a result, a higher level of reliability is required of the data than is needed for 

traditional processes and so data collection processes may need to be modified. The focus of 

this research effort is to determine the changing needs on pavement management associated 

with innovative contracting and the development of recommendations for addressing these 

needs. 

— Impact of Earmarks on Pavement Performance. Earmarks can use (consume) considerable 

SHA funding, leaving less funds to address the needs of the entire highway system. Some 

earmarks require bond indebtedness that has a long lasting obligation to the SHA. When 

earmarks are large in dollars or numbers, they significantly alter the ability of the SHA to 

address pressing needs such as pavement preservation. This study will investigate the impact 

that earmarks have had on pavement conditions in select states. The findings will be used to 

promote the reduction or elimination of earmarks and their impact on transportation funding. 

 Theme 4: New Tools, Methodologies, and Technologies 

— Quantifying the Cost of Pavement Use. It is likely that "pay per use" strategies for funding 

transportation projects will be used increasingly in the future. However, this requires agencies 

to quantify the cost of providing a sound, safe pavement for customer use so that rational 

pricing schemes can be developed. In addition, the research needs to investigate the pavement 

management data needed to support this type of initiatives. The research will result in the 

development of an economic framework to derive the pricing scheme and guidelines on its 

use. 

— Develop NDT for Measurement of In-Place Material Properties. Areas of low density in 

HMA pavements are susceptible to early failure due to stripping, cracking, and potholes. Low 

strength in PCC pavements can result in fatigue cracking, poor load transfer, and spalling. The 

ability to quantify full-width material properties, such as HMA density and PCC strength, 

would be beneficial for determining contractor pay incentives, quality assurance, and 

performance prediction models. Research using ground penetrating radar (GPR) to determine 

HMA density has been conducted; however, this process has not received wide-spread use in 

the United States. Similarly for PCC, the use of impact echo and spectral analysis of surface 

waves have been evaluated and utilized, but have not received wide-spread use. This study will 

review current research, identify limitations/benefits of testing equipment and procedures, and 

identify the most effective and accurate methodology for determining in-place material 

properties, full-width, at highway speed. 

— Quantifying the Benefits of Pavement Research. Several industries, such as the pharmaceutical 

industry, regularly invest a percent of their sales in research and development activities. This 

practice is not widely practices in the transportation agency; therefore, the consequences 

associated with the lack of funded research are not well understood. Under this research 

effort, a method of evaluating the investment made in research will be developed and 

demonstrated. The results of this effort are expected to lead to increased innovation in 

pavement management. 

— Develop Default Models for Low-Volume Roads. Many pavement management systems were 

not developed using data from low-volume roadways. The MEPDG, due to lack of data, 

specifically excluded low-volume roadways. Pavement performance and treatment selection 

on low-volume roadways can be significantly different than that of higher volume roadways. 

This research will investigate the availability of data (e.g., performance, construction, and 

traffic) on low-volume roadways, will modify/develop performance prediction equations, 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

3.0 A 10-Year Roadmap for Pavement Management 57 

develop pavement design procedures/practices, and develop guidelines for incorporating lowvolume roadways into pavement management systems and pavement design practices 

(specifically, DARWin-ME). 

— Impact of Climate Change on Performance Prediction. Little is known about the impact of 

climate change (e.g., temperature rise, sea level rise, and increased storm frequency) on the 

future performance of highway pavements. This study will investigate pavement performance 

on roadway networks subjected to the effects of climate change, evaluating existing models on 

predicting changes in pavement performance, and develop/revise models as necessary to 

reflect these impacts. 

— Development and Integration of Wireless Sensors with Pavement Management. There is ongoing research to develop a self-contained smart pavement monitoring system consisting of 

wireless integrated circuit sensors. The envisioned system would consist of a network of low 

cost sensors distributed along the pavement during new/reconstruction or resurfacing. Each 

sensor node would be self-powered and capable of continuously monitoring and storing the 

dynamic strain levels in host pavement structure. The data from all the sensors would be 

periodically uploaded wirelessly to a central database. The data will help facilitate a more 

effective pavement maintenance and rehabilitation/preservation schedule. Additional research 

is needed to optimize data collection and storage with these types of sensors. Efforts are 

needed to integrate this sort of data within existing agency databases in order to make optimal 

use of the data available. 

— Use of Aerial Images for Distress Analysis. Nationwide, the current method of collecting 

pavement distress involves either driving or walking thousands of miles of pavement. The use 

of satellite images for quantifying pavement distress may be another source of data collection. 

This study will determine the adequacy of satellite technology for distress identification, 

determine what additional process or procedures need to be developed or declassified to 

access this data, and determine its benefit/cost for implementation by state highway agencies. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

4.0 Roadmap Implementation 58 

4.0 Roadmap Implementation 

The stakeholders involved in the development of the Pavement Management Roadmap identified a 

plethora of research, development, and technology transfer needs that are required to solidify the 

role of pavement management in transportation agencies today, and to help ensure its applicability 

to the needs of transportation agencies in the future. As outlined in the Roadmap, this will require a 

coordinated plan that: 

 Enhances the skills of pavement managers. 

 Improves the use of existing technology and tools. 

 Promotes the concepts of pavement management among decision makers and the public. 

 Expands the data considered in a pavement management analysis. 

 Explores the use of new tools and technology to improve the current approaches to data 

collection and analysis. 

The Roadmap presents both the short-term and long-term priorities that will enable the pavement 

management community to accomplish these objectives. In total, the needs identified in the 

Roadmap will require $14.57 million in funding to achieve the stated goal. This amount of money is 

clearly beyond the capabilities of any single organization within the transportation community. 

Therefore, the successful implementation of the Roadmap demands a focused, cooperative 

approach among national and international organizations that are in a position to fund and support 

these types of research and outreach activities, including the FHWA, AASHTO, the National 

Research Academy and the Transportation Research Board (TRB), state highway agency research 

departments, and other industry representatives. This approach demands that: 

 Funding to support pavement management initiatives is increased to meet the needs of 

stakeholders at all levels. 

 Agencies work together to secure the necessary funding for the highest priority items. 

 The pavement management community embraces the Roadmap and supports its implementation. 

 Effective strategies for implementing the activities developed under this Roadmap are 

incorporated into each study. 

 Responsibility for tracking accomplishments and pushing forward the remaining needs is assigned 

to a central organization. 

Getting Involved 

The completion of this document represents the end of 

the collaborative process that was followed to identify 

and prioritize the needs of a diverse set of stakeholders 

who are involved in the use of pavement management 

data and analysis tools to support the cost-effective 

management of the nation’s pavement infrastructure. As 

documented in this report, the implementation of the 

Pavement Management Roadmap will rely on the 

creativity and resourcefulness of all those working in the 

pavement management community. Whether involved 

in the implementation and update of pavement 

management systems, the use of pavement management 

The implementation of the

Pavement Management

Roadmap will rely on the

creativity and

resourcefulness of all those

working in the pavement

management community.
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

4.0 Roadmap Implementation 59 

information for decision making, the training and advancement of practitioners’ skills, or securing 

funding to support pavement management activities, stakeholders must get involved in supporting 

the activities outlined in the Pavement Management Roadmap if the community is to reach the 

vision for pavement management over the next 10 years. 

Although the implementation of the Pavement Management Roadmap will require the participation 

of a wide variety of stakeholders, several recommendations are provided to help ensure that the 

implementation is a success at advancing pavement management initiatives. The recommendations 

include the following: 

1. Establish a Pavement Management Roadmap Steering Committee with responsibility 

for the implementation and oversight of the document. It is recommended this Committee 

be organized as a subcommittee under the TRB Committee on Pavement Management (AFD10) 

with representation from FHWA, state and local transportation agencies, academia, associations, 

and private industry. This Committee should be responsible for promoting and tracking 

accomplishments under the Roadmap as a way to keep it in the national spotlight. 

2. Assign FHWA primary responsibility for addressing the institutional training and 

technology transfer initiatives identified in the Roadmap. The FHWA, through its 

National Highway Institute, provides training to improve the performance of transportation 

agencies. In addition, the FHWA has supported the conduct of peer exchanges, national 

conferences, and other initiatives to advance pavement management activities. Using innovative 

approaches that recognize the traveling limitations that restrict agency participation in 

conferences and training classes, the FHWA should continue to be the primary support for these 

types of initiatives, as outlined in the Roadmap. 

3. Identify funding support for two to three problems statements each year through 

AASHTO and TRB. This activity requires state support for the initiatives outlined in the 

Roadmap in order to advance the problem statements through the TRB funding process. 

Therefore, it is recommended that the AASHTO Joint Technical Committee on Pavements 

assume responsibility for this effort, for each of the next 10 years outline in the Roadmap. This 

recommendation in no way restricts support for additional research activities through other 

organizations. Instead, it merely seeks to provide a mechanism to ensure that financial support 

for pavement management activities remains a priority over the life of the Roadmap. 

4. Raise the profile of pavement management and its effectiveness at supporting sound 

asset management concepts. As an industry, we have not placed an emphasis on promoting 

pavement management concepts within the transportation community. However, with the 

increased focus on asset management, and the importance of performance measures to improve 

agency accountability, agencies will increasingly rely on pavement management to support these 

initiatives. Therefore, the pavement management community needs to become more active in 

promoting its capabilities and documenting the benefits to an agency that uses these concepts to 

support investment decisions. The Pavement Management Roadmap can become the 

instrument needed to champion additional support for pavement management, as a critical tool 

in transportation agencies. The pavement management community needs to identify and 

promote a slogan that conveys the benefits, such as “Pavement Management...the key to preserving 

your pavement investments.” 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix A 60 

APPENDIX A 

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix A 61 

First Name Last Name Email Agency Workshop

Ken Baker kdbaker@co.mchenry.il.us McHenry County (IL) Dallas

Jason Bittner bittner@engr.wisc.edu MRUTC Dallas

Jay Bledsoe james.bledsoe@modot.mo.gov Missouri Dallas

Eric Botting EBotting@InternationalCybernetics.com International Cybernetics Corporation Dallas

Chris Chang christopher.chang@dot.gov FHWA Dallas

Nat Coley nathaniel.coley@fhwa.dot.gov FHWA Dallas

Jerry Daleiden jdaleiden@fugro.com Fugro/Roadware Dallas

Bill Dickinson wdickinson@odot.org Oklahoma Dallas

Christophe Fillastre Christophe.Fillastre@LA.GOV Louisiana Dallas

Geoffrey Hall GHall1@sha.state.md.us Maryland Dallas

Ronald Hudson wrhudson@agileassets.com Agile Assets Dallas

Said Ismail Said.Ismail@LA.GOV Louisiana Dallas

A.J. Jubran ajubran@dot.ga.gov Georgia Dallas

Zheng Li zli@dot.state.tx.us Texas Dallas

Erland Lukanen erland.lukanen@dot.state.mn.us Minnesota Dallas

Michele Maher mmaher@dot.state.nv.us Nevada Dallas

Neil Mastin jmastin@ncdot.gov North Carolina Dallas

Rick Miller rick@ksdot.org Kansas Dallas

Steve Mueller steve.mueller@fhwa.dot.gov FHWA Dallas

LaDonna Rowden rowdenlr@dot.il.gov Illinois Dallas

Gary Sanderson gary.sanderson@itd.idaho.gov Idaho Dallas

Cindy Smith cjsmith@mdot.state.ms.us Mississippi Dallas

Jewell Stone jstone@indot.in.gov Indiana Dallas

Kelvin Wang kcw@uark.edu University of Arkansas Dallas

Eric Perry perryer@saic.com SAIC M, D

Tanveer Chowdhury Tanveer.Chowdhury@VDOT.Virginia.gov Virginia McLean

Dan Destefano destefano@turnpike.state.nj.us New Jersey McLean

Jason Dietz jason.dietz@fhwa.dot.gov FHWA McLean

Greg Duncan greg.duncan@state.tn.us Tennessee McLean

Gerardo Flintsch flintsch@vt.edu Virginia Tech McLean

Salil Gokhale sgokhale@dynatest.com Dynatest McLean

Susan Gresavage susan.gresavage@dot.state.nj.us New Jersey McLean

Jonathan Groeger jlgroeger@mactec.com Mactec McLean

John Hooks JMHooks@comcast.net National Center for Pavement Preservation McLean

Kim Johnson kimberly.johnson@state.de.us Delaware McLean

Kevin Kennedy kennedyk@michigan.gov Michigan McLean

Alan Kercher ask@KercherEi.com Kercher Engineering McLean

Chuck Larson Charles.Larson@stantec.com Stantec McLean

Judith Corley‐Lay jlay@ncdot.gov North Carolina McLean

Donaldson MacLeod Donaldson.MacLeod@tpsgc‐pwgsc.gc.ca Public Works and Government Services Canada McLean

Kevin Marshia kevin.marshia@state.vt.us Vermont McLean

Sarah McDougal Sarah.McDougall@state.de.us Delaware McLean

Tammy Ratliff Tammy.Ratliff@dot.gov FHWA McLean

Luis Rodriguez Luis.Rodriguez@dot.gov FHWA McLean

Todd Shields tshields@indot.in.gov Indiana McLean

Chad Shive chad.shive@ky.gov Kentucky McLean

Nadarajah Sivaneswaran nadarajah.sivaneswaran@fhwa.dot.gov FHWA McLean

Peter Stephanos peter.stephanos@dot.gov FHWA McLean

Nick Vittilo nvrcs@comcast.net Rutgers University McLean

Bill Whitcomb bill.whitcomb@ci.vancouver.wa.us City of Vancouver McLean

Larry Wiser larry.wiser@fhwa.dot.gov FHWA McLean

Weixian Xiong wxiong@sha.state.md.us Maryland McLean

Doy't Bolling doytb@yahoo.com National Center for Pavement Preservation P, D

Larry Galehouse galehou3@msu.edu National Center for Pavement Preservation P, M, D
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix A 62 

First Name Last Name Email Agency Workshop

Patte Hahn hahnp@msu.edu National Center for Pavement Preservation P, M, D

David Peshkin dpeshkin@appliedpavement.com Applied Pavement Technologies P, M, D

Linda Pierce lpierce@appliedpavement.com Applied Pavement Technologies P, M, D

Nastaran Saadatmand nastaran.saadatmand@dot.gov FHWA P, M, D

Katie Zimmerman kzimmerman@appliedpavement.com Applied Pavement Technologies P, M, D

Jane Berger jeberger@nd.gov North Dakota Phoenix

Newton Bingham newton.bingham@alaska.gov Alaska Phoenix

Jennifer Brandenburg jbrandenburg@dot.state.nc.us North Carolina Phoenix

Anita Bush abush@dot.state.nv.us Nevada Phoenix

Steve Caya steven.caya@mandli.com Mandli Communications Phoenix

Jeff Forster jeff.forster@fhwa.dot.gov FHWA Phoenix

Stephen Gaj stephen.gaj@fhwa.dot.gov FHWA Phoenix

Andy Gisi andrew.gisi@ksdot.org Kansas Phoenix

Ralph Haas haas@uwaterloo.ca University of Waterloo Phoenix

John Hausman jhausman@ara.com ARA Phoenix

George Hetherington hetheringt@dot.state.sc.us South Carolina Phoenix

Bill Hurguy BHurguy@azdot.gov Arizona Phoenix

Dave Janisch dave.janisch@dot.state.mn.us Minnesota Phoenix

Tom Kazmierowski Tom.Kazmierowski@ontario.ca Ontario Phoenix

Gary Kuhl gkuhl@utah.gov Utah Phoenix

Rubben Lolly rubben.lolly@phoenix.gov City of Phoenix Phoenix

Dave Luhr LuhrD@wsdot.wa.gov Washington Phoenix

Joseph Nestler Joseph.Nestler@dot.wi.gov Wisconsin Phoenix

Dan Nichols dan.nichols@nebraska.gov Nebraska Phoenix

Steve Olson michael.olson@dot.state.co.us Colorado Phoenix

Bob Orthmeyer Robert.Orthmeyer@fhwa.dot.gov FHWA Phoenix

Arif Rafiq Arif.Rafiq@deighton.com Deighton & Associates Phoenix

Brian Schleppi brian.schleppi@dot.state.oh.us Ohio Phoenix

Pat Shafer schaferpa@michigan.gov Michigan Phoenix

Omar Smadi smadi@iastate.edu CTRE Phoenix

Steve Townsen Steve.Townsen@pdxtrans.org City of Portland Phoenix

Thomas Van thomas.van@dot.gov FHWA Phoenix

Steve Warren swarren@kentcountyroads.net Kent County Phoenix
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 63 

APPENDIX B 

PROBLEM STATEMENTS 

 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 64 

THEME 1 

PROBLEM STATEMENTS 

 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 65 

 Theme 1 – Use of Existing Technology and Tools 

Problem statements in theme 1 include recommendations for technology and tools that can support 

traditional pavement management applications. In general, this theme includes technology and tools 

that are currently available today, but are in need of additional review, analysis, and/or updating 

prior to their implementation.

As summarized in tables B1 and B2, a total of eight short-term and two long-term needs where 

identified in theme 1 at a total cost of $3,030,000 ($2,180,000 for short-term needs and $850,000 for 

long-term needs). 

Table B1. Theme 1 Prioritized Listing of Short-term Needs. 

Rank Problem Statement Product(s) Estimated 

Cost Page 

6 Best Practices for Pavement 

Management Best practice guidelines $500,000 66 

7 Development of Pavement Distress 

Standards Provisional AASHTO standards $350,000 68 

8 

Development of Improved 

Methodologies for Evaluating Data 

Quality 

Best practice guidelines $350,000 69 

10 Establish and Develop Equipment 

Calibration Centers and Guidelines 

Regional centers, equipment 

calibration procedures, and 

operator certification program 

$250,000 70 

11 

Comprehensive Study to Guide the 

Integration of Pavement Preservation 

and Pavement Management 

Best practice guidelines $350,000 71 

19 Independent Technical Assessments of 

Pavement Management 

Framework for assessing 

pavement management practices $250,000 72 

20 Pavement Management Clearinghouse Database of equipment suppliers 

and contractor capabilities $100,000 73 

22 Synthesis of External Issues Driving 

Pavement Management 

Synthesis of factors that impact 

pavement management practices $30,000 74 

Table B2. Theme 1 Prioritized Listing of Long-term Needs. 

Rank Problem Statement Product(s) Estimated 

Cost Page 

1 

Methods of Defining and Calculating 

the Effect of Pavement Preservation 

Treatments on Pavement Life 

Research report $500,000 75 

7 

Investigation into the Risk, Uncertainty, 

and Variability in Pavement 

Management Decisions 

Best practice guidelines and 

software tool $350,000 76 

 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 66 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Best Practices for Pavement Management 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

There is a significant need to assemble and prepare a best practices document for the operational 

and functional aspects of pavement management. This guide will build upon the existing 

AASHTO Pavement Management Guide and include a broad range of topics that include (but are 

not limited to): 

 Asset Management Principles. Asset management and pavement management 

procedures and benefits. 

 Referencing Systems. Establishing and maintaining linear referencing system, merging 

several linear referencing methods into a single system, and addressing alignment and 

boundary changes. 

 Data Collection. Type and extent of data; data collection procedures; data collection 

frequency; sampling rates; data needed for network-level, project-level, forensic 

investigations, and research; quality control/quality assurance procedures; equipment types 

and capabilities; equipment specifications; and equipment certification. 

 Data Storage and Integration. Storage requirements, needed costs, maintenance issues 

related to storage, storage needs and formats to maximum integration, communication, data 

links, and technology/system availability. 

 Data Analysis. Procedures and processes for analyzing data to meet agency needs. 

 Performance Modeling. What level of detail is needed (both in data collection and model 

development), describe when model updates are necessary (e.g., due to improvements in 

measurement accuracy and changes in design principles, materials, or construction 

practices), quantify the impacts of measurement accuracy (e.g., windshield, automated, or 

semi-automated), how to conduct a sensitivity analysis on the model inputs and resulting 

performance prediction, catalog of available performance prediction models, and how to 

develop, calibrate/validate, implement, and maintain prediction models. 

 Treatment Selection. Pavement preservation and rehabilitation treatments, benefits, and 

limitations.

 Presenting and Communicating Results. Discuss recommendations for presenting 

pavement management results and methodologies used for communicating pavement 

management data to stakeholders. 

 Supporting Agency Decisions. Use of pavement management information to support 

planning activities (e.g., STIP and strategic planning), allocate resources, linking networkand project-level treatment recommendations, identify organizational components that lead 

to successful pavement management, and provide recommendations for addressing barriers 

to the use of pavement management and improving agency business processes that are 

needed to support pavement management. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 67 

 New Technologies. Methodologies and procedures for evaluating and implementing 

emerging technologies, and coordination with and considering IT capabilities. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Literature search (domestic and international) on pavement management procedures and 

practices. 

2. Develop detailed outline. 

3. Develop pavement management best practices. 

Final Product:

The final product of the research is a best practice guide for pavement management. Not only will 

this be a reference for all things related to pavement management, but it will also act as a “desk 

guide” for practitioners. To enhance access and implementation, it is envisioned that this guide 

will be developed and available through an electronic web-based format. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The objective of this research is to provide a best practices guide for pavement management for 

reference, use, promotion, and to further the implementation of pavement management procedures. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $500,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 36 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 68 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Development of Pavement Distress Standards 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Pavement distresses are defined, measured, and categorized differently between many state 

highway agencies (possibly excluding IRI). Pavement condition standards would assist in 

improving data quality checks for comparing performance measures, and provide guidance to 

equipment manufacturers and data collection service providers. AASHTO has established a 

number of distress protocols, but the widespread use of these protocols is uncertain. This study 

will identify distress to be measured, review current state practice, compare state procedures to 

current AASHTO protocols, identify areas not currently covered by an AASHTO protocol, 

develop preliminary protocols, conduct webinars or workshops to obtain state buy-in, and finalize 

protocol for AASHTO balloting. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Survey and review current state highway agency (SHA) practices regarding pavement 

condition standards utilized. 

2. Compare SHA pavement condition standards relative to AASHTO distress protocols. 

3. Identify gaps in AASHTO protocols and draft provisional standard accordingly. 

4. Develop guidelines for getting the most out of contracted pavement management systems. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is a set of provisional AASHTO standards addressing SHA’s 

needs regarding distress identification and measurement. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The primary objective of this research is to better address SHA’s needs from standardized 

pavement condition protocols. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $350,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 24 months 

 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 69 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Development of Improved Methodologies for Evaluating Data Quality 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Pavement management recommendations are impacted by the quality of the data collected. Most 

agencies have recognized this issue but struggle with the lack of sophisticated methodologies to 

effectively and efficiently evaluate data quality and the resulting impact on pavement management 

decisions. The objective of this study is to develop a standard methodology that can be applied to 

a wide range of pavement condition data to assess quality in terms of accuracy and repeatability. 

The study will also demonstrate the use of the results to establish data collection guidelines (to 

specify required levels of accuracy) and to evaluate the impact of variability on pavement 

management recommendations. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Identify and evaluate quality control/quality assurance procedures for various pavement 

management data collection practices. 

2. Define viable methodologies based on data precision and repeatability, collection 

efficiency, and cost effectiveness. 

3. Develop guidelines so that an agency can apply viable methodologies into its pavement 

management system practices. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is development of guidelines to improve data quality in terms of 

collection, processing, and reporting. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are two specific objectives for this research. First, the research will develop standard quality 

control/quality assurance criteria for pavement management data collection practices. The second 

objective will determine how to incorporate QC/QA practices into pavement management systems. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $350,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 24 months 

 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 70 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Establish and Develop Equipment Calibration Centers and Guidelines 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

National calibration centers or well-established protocols or guidelines for calibrating profile, 

texture, noise, or ground penetrating radar (GPR) data collection are either limited or nonexistent. 

Strategically located calibration centers would allow for large-scale consistency in data collection 

and greatly improve reliability of data comparisons between equipment types and vehicles. This 

study will identify potential calibration sites (strategic locations and resources for establishment, 

maintenance, and operation), recommended equipment calibration frequencies, equipment 

calibration procedures, and precision and bias requirements. In the area of calibration centers, this 

study should reference the work and efforts developed for the FWD calibration centers. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Survey practitioners regarding current quality assurance/equipment calibration procedures. 

2. Conduct sample size analyses to recommend how many test sections/regional test sites 

should be established. 

3. Determine details of equipment calibration, operator certification, and amount of data to 

collect and review. 

4. Develop practices/guidelines/specifications for equipment calibration and operator 

certification. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is identifying the location of regional calibration centers, 

calibration procedures for data collection equipment, and an operator certification program. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are two specific objectives for the research. First, the research will provide a synthesis of 

current quality assurance/equipment calibration procedures being used by practitioners in regards 

their data collection equipment. The second objective is establishing an equipment calibration and 

operator certification/training program. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $250,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 12 months 

 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 71 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Comprehensive Study to Guide the Integration of Pavement Preservation and Pavement 

Management 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

In most agencies, pavement management data collection and analysis tools were established before 

pavement preservation techniques were extensively used. As a result, the data that is currently 

collected and the project selection processes are not necessarily easily modified to include 

preventive maintenance treatments. However, the importance of tracking pavement preservation 

treatments is critical to predicting pavement performance, identifying needs, and establishing 

budgets. In addition, data related to pavement preservation treatments (e.g., pavement condition 

prior to treatment application, treatment type and thickness, and, if applicable, material type) is 

critical for developing performance prediction models for preservation treatments. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Conduct a survey of state agencies regarding best practices for integrating pavement 

preservation into pavement management. 

2. Identify data needed to support the integration of pavement preservation into pavement 

management. 

3. Identify levels of integration, including cost and benefits associated with each level. 

4. Develop guidelines for integrating preventive maintenance into pavement management 

according to each level. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is guidelines for adapting pavement management systems to fully 

support pavement preservation activities. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are three specific objectives for the research. First, the research will develop a synthesis of 

best practices regarding how agencies integrate preventive maintenance into pavement 

management, identifying successful case studies and lessons learned. The second objective is to 

define basic levels of integration according to the state of the practice in terms of both preventive 

maintenance activities and pavement management practices at an agency. The final research 

objective is to develop guidelines that transportation agencies can use to begin integrating their 

preventive maintenance and pavement preservation activities. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $350,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 24 months 

 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 72 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Independent Technical Assessments of Pavement Management 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

The Federal Highway Association (FHWA) is a strong supporter of pavement management tools in 

SHAs, but the use of these tools is optional. Furthermore, there are diverse approaches being used 

for data collection, reporting, and analysis within those agencies using pavement management. 

There is also a lack of established appraisal methods for determining whether pavement 

management practices comply with “good practice.” At the same time, agencies are facing 

funding constraints that limit the resources available to support pavement management. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Identify baseline capabilities for pavement management.

2. Survey SHAs regarding their pavement management system practices. Determine whether 

the baseline capabilities are being met, and if not, how any deficiencies can be addressed. 

3. Develop a framework for assessing pavement management practices, including 

development of means to assess risk associated with specific pavement management 

practices relative to best practices, and recommend funding needs to address pavement 

management deficiencies. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is a framework for assessing pavement management practices 

according to an agency’s activities relative to best practices. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The primary objective of this research is to develop a means of assessing an agency’s pavement 

management practices relative to best practices, including assessing the risk associated with 

specific practices so as to communicate need for improvement where applicable. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $250,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 12 months 

 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 73 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Pavement Management Clearinghouse 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Technology advances in pavement distress data collection are often difficult to for an agency to 

monitor, evaluate, and determine implementation appropriateness. In addition, there are many 

resources that are of value to pavement management practitioners, but a great deal of time can be 

spent trying to locate the information. It would also be beneficial for transportation agencies to 

have a readily available list of local, regional, and national contractors and their capability of 

constructing the vast array of pavement preservation and rehabilitation treatments. In this manner, 

an agency looking to apply a specific treatment (e.g., microsurfacing or hot in-place recycling) can 

access a web-based clearinghouse to determine contractor capabilities. A centralized repository of 

equipment availability, technology advancements, resources, and contractor availability and 

capability is necessary. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Survey SHAs, equipment suppliers, and contractors regarding distress data collection 

equipment, contractors/supplier capabilities, and prequalification procedures. 

2. Prepare a synthesis of available data collection equipment and qualified contractors. 

3. Survey equipment suppliers regarding equipment capabilities for accurately measuring 

pavement distress. 

4. Survey qualified contractors regarding capabilities specific to common pavement 

preservation/rehabilitation treatments. 

5. Develop an online database of contractors and capabilities, allowing for a sort of vetting 

process for new additions. 

Final Product: 

The research will result in the development of an online database of equipment suppliers and 

treatment contractor capabilities, allowing for a sort of vetting process for new additions. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The primary objective of this research is to develop a central resource for SHAs regarding 

availability of pavement condition equipment and qualified contractors in relation to their 

capabilities specific to pavement preservation/rehabilitation applications. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $100,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 12 months 

 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 74 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Synthesis of External Issues Driving Pavement Management 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

There are many factors that impact pavement management that are beyond the control of agency 

staff or administrators. With changes in available transportation funds, agencies have to adapt to 

new approaches for funding, contracting, and/or project acceptance. These external forces have 

undoubtedly influenced pavement management needs and priorities. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks:

1. Conduct a survey of pavement management practitioners to determine what factors have 

impacted pavement management practices, as well as if and how these factors have been 

addressed. 

2. Identify SHAs to be case studies in a more detailed assessment. 

3. Develop a synthesis of findings. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is development of a synthesis of factors that impact pavement 

management practices, including case studies that demonstrate how state agencies have been able 

to address these impacts. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

Research objectives include identification of factors that impact pavement management practices at 

various levels (e.g., municipal, county, and state), and identification of how, and how well, these 

impacts are being addressed by practitioners. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $30,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 9 months 

 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 75 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Methods of Defining and Calculating the Effect of Pavement Preservation Treatments on Pavement 

Life 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

There is little information available to assist pavement managers with quantifying the effect of 

pavement preservation treatments on pavement life. This is especially true in light of the fact that 

the same treatment can be used in a preventive manner or as a stop-gap treatment. The extent of 

existing pavement distress, traffic level, climatic condition, treatment type, materials, and other 

factors can significantly impact treatment performance. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Conduct a survey of state of the practice regarding quantifying pavement preservation 

impacts on pavement life. 

2. Identify roadway sections that have historical data concerning pretreatment conditions 

(e.g., pavement condition, pavement structure, and traffic levels), as well as construction 

and condition information regarding treatment type. 

3. Develop pavement condition performance according to existing condition, treatment type, 

climate, traffic levels, and other factors. 

4. Prepare a report detailing treatment performance. 

Final Product: 

The final product of this research will be a report documenting research findings. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The research will quantify the impacts that pavement preservation treatments have on pavement 

performance, using measured field data from various geographic regions of the country. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $500,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 36 months 

 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 76 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Investigation into the Risk, Uncertainty, and Variability in Pavement Management Decisions 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Pavement management systems are based on collected data (e.g., condition data, traffic data, 

existing layer types and thickness, and past preservation and rehabilitation treatments) that have the 

potential for associated errors. The analysis methods themselves are conducted using performance 

models that also have an associated error. Yet results of these analyses do not usually estimate the 

errors associated with data collection and performance prediction. The impact (or risk) associated 

with errors in the data collection and performance prediction processes are not well quantified. 

Procedures are needed to help agencies determine the amount of data needed to provide credible 

recommendations and to determine what level of risk (or uncertainty) is considered acceptable, in 

an attempt to improve levels of accountability and confidence in the performance prediction 

outputs from the pavement management system. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Identify the critical pavement management system outputs (e.g., network condition, 

program recommendations, and so on) that impact performance prediction. 

2. Determine data and analysis needs to improve performance prediction. Identify the 

associated risk based on data availability and steps needed to reduce the potential of data 

error. 

3. Develop guidelines for data collection needs and analysis for improving performance 

prediction. 

4. Develop software tools to assess errors in the data collection and analysis procedures. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research includes guidelines and software tools for assessing data quality 

and improving the reliability of pavement management outputs and recommendations. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The objective of this research is to investigate the various forms of variability affecting pavement 

management recommendations and to develop a process for evaluating this impact and the overall 

effectiveness of pavement management recommendations. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $350,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 24 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 77 

THEME 2 

PROBLEM STATEMENTS 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 78 

Theme 2 – Institutional and Organizational Issues 

The theme 2 problem statements presented in this section of the report relate to workforce 

development, communication, contracting, and organizational structure. The recommendations in 

this area are intended to address issues that include the impact of pavement management on funding 

and how to determine, promote, and effectively communicate the use and the benefits of pavement 

management. 

As summarized in tables B3 and B4, a total of five short-term and six long-term needs where 

identified in theme 2 at a total cost of $1,660,000 ($880,000 for short-term needs and $780,000 for 

long-term needs). 

Table B3. Theme 2 Prioritized Listing of Short-term Needs. 

Rank Problem Statement Product(s) Estimated 

Cost Page 

1 Communicating Pavement Management 

Information and Benefits 

Sample templates, presentations, 

and webcasts, and/or guidelines $250,000 79 

3 Improving the Skills of Pavement 

Managers 

Training guides, online resources, 

and information on career paths $250,000 80 

17 Annual Approval of SP&R Funding Recommendations for policy 

revisions $100,000 81 

18 Framework for Minimizing the 

Delivery of Treatment Application Best practices $250,000 82 

21 Addressing Trade-offs, Metric Issues, 

and Purchasing Controls/Policies Synthesis of common issues $30,000 83 

Table B4. Theme 2 Prioritized Listing of Long-term Needs. 

Rank Problem Statement Product(s) Estimated 

Cost Page 

2 Impact of Pavement Management 

Investment Levels on Benefits Best practice guidelines $350,000 84 

6 Methods to Promote Pavement 

Management as a Management Tool Marketing materials $100,000 85 

13 

Recommended Methodology to 

Calculate Pavement Asset Value and 

Communicate to Stakeholders 

Methodology for assessing 

pavement value $100,000 86 

16 

Suggested Topics for Pavement 

Management Into the Civil Engineering 

Curriculum 

Instructors’ resources $100,000 87 

17 Constant Funding for Pavement 

Management Best practice guidelines $100,000 88 

18 

Identify Information Technology (IT) 

Needs to Effectively Manage a 

Pavement Management System 

Synthesis of common issues $30,000 89 

 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 79 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Communicating Pavement Management Information and Benefits 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

An important part of establishing credibility in a pavement management system is presenting 

recommendations in a way that resonates with the audience. Historically, pavement managers 

have not been effective in "telling their story" in a way that influences the decisions of executives, 

the public, and other external stakeholders. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Identify current practices incorporating pavement management with strategic planning. 

2. Develop criteria for determining best practices regarding incorporating pavement 

management analyses into business and strategic processes. 

3. Identify best practices and case studies suitable to illustrate how to successfully tie 

network- and project-level decisions/goals. 

4. Develop guidelines documenting recommendations for using pavement management 

analysis results to provide meaningful planning decisions. 

Final Product: 

The products of the study include templates, sample PowerPoint presentations, webcasts of 

successful approaches, and/or guidelines for using these strategies. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

Investigate how highway agencies have successfully gained buy-in from decision makers that have 

led to increased use of pavement management information, investigate strategies for effectively 

communicating pavement management information (including the benefits of preservation), 

provide guidance for pavement managers responsible for making these types of presentations, and 

explore current methods of communication (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, and Wikipedia). 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $250,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 12 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 80 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Improving the Skills of Pavement Managers 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

An effective pavement manager must have both technical and social skills to be most successful; 

skill levels affect the final output, which in turn affects credibility and buy-in. Some of the 

technical skills are taught in college or through on-the-job training, such as management skills 

(people skills) and understanding organizational behavior. However, some aspects of a 

pavement manager’s job are not covered in a traditional civil engineering curriculum. Agencies 

have three options for addressing this shortcoming; they can contract for the services needed, 

provide the training needed, and/or allow untrained staff to perform the activities. Furthermore, 

although pavement management documentation is prolific, it has not been organized in a way 

that is effective in training or improving pavement management operations. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Develop an online clearinghouse for pavement management resources, including plan 

documentation, case studies, open-source software, training materials, and others. 

2. Define appropriate levels of training and/or aptitude for personnel working with pavement 

management systems. 

3. Identify inexpensive, yet effective, training alternatives when funding for professional 

development is limited. 

4. Develop guidelines for getting the most out of contracted pavement management systems. 

Final Product: 

The research will result in training guides to help agencies in the evaluation of fiscal and 

organizational impacts associated with workforce development, an online clearinghouse of useful 

resources, and information on career paths in pavement management. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are three specific objectives for the research. First, the research will develop an online 

clearinghouse for pavement management resources. The second objective is to define basic levels 

of aptitude concerning pavement management systems. The final research objective is to develop 

guidelines that transportation agencies can use to ensure an outsourced pavement management 

system meets an agency’s needs. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $250,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 12 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 81 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Annual Approval of State Planning and Research (SP&R) Program Funding 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

The annual approval of SP&R funding does not currently match the timing of data collection and 

processing for most state highway agencies. When SP&R funds are available for use, they expire 

at the end of the year making it difficult for the SHA to expend the approved funds. This study 

will identify the SP&R funding restrictions, identify solutions that will meet FHWA and SHA 

requirements, determine recommended solutions, and suggest policy changes. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Identify source(s) and reason(s) for SP&R funding restrictions. 

2. Identify possible resolutions for getting the most out of SP&R funds. 

3. Recommend policy revisions and such to implement solutions. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is a set of recommendations for revising policy to better utilize 

SP&R funds in the timeframe allowed. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The primary objective of this research is to reconcile the timeframe of agency practices with the 

availability of SP&R funds. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $100,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 12 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 82 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Framework for Minimizing the Delivery of Treatment Application 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Often, pavement preservation/rehabilitation projects are delayed due to plan preparation, 

advertising, and letting. This lag time between project selection and construction may render the 

selected treatment ineffective due to the continued advancement or acceleration of pavement 

distress. There is a need to develop a process for reducing the timing between project selection and 

treatment application to ensure proper treatment application, maximize performance life, and 

reduce overall life-cycle cost. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Survey SHAs regarding planning and programming procedures. 

2. Identify or develop procedures for reducing the time between treatment selection and 

application. 

3. Conduct case studies to verify recommendations using data provided by SHAs. 

4. Develop best practices for timely planning and programming of preservation and 

rehabilitation treatments. 

Final Product: 

The research will result in the development of best practices for the timely planning and 

programming of pavement preservation/rehabilitation applications. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The primary objective of this research is to develop a best practices guide for improving the 

efficiency and timeliness of planning and programming operations regarding implementing 

pavement management recommendations, particularly with respect to pavement 

preservation/rehabilitation treatment applications. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $250,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 12 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 83 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Addressing Trade-Offs, Metric Issues, and Purchasing Controls/Policies 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Political and organizational issues and organizational inertia can frequently impede the 

incorporation of improved and beneficial analysis and technological advancements into the 

pavement management process. In order to overcome this challenge, key issues related to the 

trade-offs, metric terms/issues, policies, and purchasing controls need to be determined, quantified, 

and presented so that more educated decisions can be made. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Survey practitioners regarding implementation of pavement management activities with 

respect to political and/or organizational encumbrances. 

2. Identify common critical issues impacting implementation, especially with respect to 

acquiring new technology or analysis procedures and deployment of such. 

3. Identify common critical issues regarding defining performance metrics and measures to 

meet the needs of practitioners and decision-makers. 

4. Prepare a synthesis of findings. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is a synthesis of common issues encountered in pavement 

management with respect to political and/or organizational impacts on policy, performance 

measures, implementation of new practices and activities, and so on. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The primary objective of this research is to understand the common critical issues surrounding 

political and/or organizational change on pavement management policy. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $30,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 9 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 84 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Impact of Pavement Management Investment Levels on Benefits 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

As agency budgets tighten, pavement management data collection activities (which typically 

represent the largest part of the budget for pavement management activities) are at risk of budget 

cuts. However, since the relationship between expenditures for data collection and analysis tools 

and pavement management outputs is not well understood, the financial impact and/or risk of 

budget cuts cannot be communicated. For example, if an agency cuts the data collection budget by 

50 percent, an agency could respond by extending the frequency with which data are collected or 

be reducing the amount of data collected in each cycle. The consequences associated with each of 

these options are not well understood and there is no known basis for deciding how to address this 

challenge. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Survey practitioners for information regarding funding levels for pavement management 

data collection, number of network miles, and budget for preservation, rehabilitation, and 

reconstruction. 

2. Analyze survey results to determine if any trends exist between funding for pavement 

management and funding for pavement preservation/rehabilitation/reconstruction. 

3. Conduct risk analyses for cost effectiveness of perceived trends. 

4. Develop guidelines allowing practitioners to illustrate how funding levels impact pavement 

management and its practices. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is a set of guidelines for determining how funding impacts 

pavement management practices, illustrating the risks or benefits associated with changes in levels 

of funds allocated to pavement management/preservation activities. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are three specific objectives for the research. First, the research will determine the 

relationship between agency funding and pavement management practices. The second objective 

is to define the risk or benefit associated with whether adequate funding is provided to conduct 

pavement management/preservation work. The final research objective is to develop guidelines 

that will illustrate for practitioners how pavement management is affected by funding and the 

impact such effects can have. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $350,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 24 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 85 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Methods to Promote Pavement Management as a Management Tool 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Pavement management is an important tool to help agencies keep a long-term perspective when 

managing assets. It can be used to show impacts of different strategies, estimate needs, set and 

monitor performance targets, and evaluate changes in design, materials, or construction. But its 

value to agencies is not always well understood, especially among executives and elected officials 

with short-term positions. Therefore, what is needed is a public relations campaign that raises the 

profile of pavement management and communicates the wide-ranging benefits it provides an 

agency. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Identify various internal and external audiences—considering both marketing and 

engineering perspectives—affected by pavement management. 

2. Survey practitioners regarding how pavement management is promoted internally and 

externally. 

3. Identify effective ways of promoting pavement management to garner internal, public, and 

official buy-in and support. 

4. Develop a marketing/public relations campaign(s) to raise the profile of pavement 

management activities and their associated benefits to the public, officials, and the 

practicing agency. 

Final Product: 

The research will result in marketing materials that can be used to demonstrate the benefits of 

pavement management to all stakeholders. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are two specific objectives for the research. First, the research will identify effective ways 

of promoting pavement management practices internally and externally to an agency. The second 

objective is developing a marketing/public relations campaign to encourage pavement management 

activities by an agency. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $100,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 12 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 86 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Recommended Methodology to Calculate Pavement Asset Value and Communicate to Stakeholders 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Asset management systems have traditionally been required to answer the following fundamental 

questions: What assets do we have? Where are they? What condition are they in? A fourth, but 

equally fundamental, question now also exists: What is the value of our assets both today and 

expected over the life cycle? This fourth question has become particularly relevant with the 

advent of Government Accounting Standards Board Statement 34 (GASB 34), which is a past 

based approach, as compared to current and future based approaches. GASB 34 uses historical 

data to calculate asset value, and if this is not available, current replacement costs are “deflated” 

using a construction price index to estimate historic cost. Current based methods include 

replacement cost, written down replacement cost and net salvage value. Future based methods 

require performance models and include productivity realized value, salvage value, and market 

value. Application to real networks has been limited but indicates substantial differences in 

calculated asset value, depending on method, age of the asset, predicted performance, and 

various other factors. Agencies who track and report asset value over time do not have 

consistent, understandable, and widely accepted methodology. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Carry out a review of existing literature, national and international, on asset valuation 

methodology for civil infrastructure and particularly how it has been applied to 

pavements at the strategic, network and project levels. 

2. Identify the positive features and the shortcomings of these methodologies. 

3. Review the (full accrual accounting) requirements of GASB 34, and the various ways in 

which GASB 34 can be reported. 

4. Prepare recommendations for a consistent, understandable and acceptable methodology 

for pavement asset valuation which can be used for reporting under GASB 34, but can 

also have wider application or use by stakeholders if possible. 

Final Product: 

The final product of this study is a methodology for assessing pavement value for reporting to 

GASB 34. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The objective of this study will be to develop an asset valuation methodology for civil 

infrastructure, particularly on how it applies to pavements at the strategic, network, and project 

level. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $100,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 12 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 87 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Suggested Topics for Pavement Management into the Civil Engineering Curriculum 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

There is not sufficient emphasis on pavement management in civil engineering curricula. As a 

result, there is a steep learning curve for new practitioners. Therefore, there is a need to raise the 

awareness of pavement management concepts in the existing college curricula. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks:

1. Survey and create a synthesis of current college curricula regarding transportation 

engineering and management. 

2. Survey practitioners’ needs in regards to new employee knowledge and skills. 

3. Develop teaching/learning resources to increase the level of awareness among instructors 

and students. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is a set of instructors’ resources for incorporating pavement 

management principles and concepts into college curricula. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are two specific objectives for the research. First, the research will determine what level of 

education regarding pavement management practices and principles would be beneficial to new 

employees. The second objective is developing resources instructors can use to incorporate 

pavement management-related education into their syllabi. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $100,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 12 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 88 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Constant Funding for Pavement Management 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Inconsistent levels of funding make it difficult for pavement management staff to keep pavement 

conditions at a consistent level and predict future needs (e.g., pavement preservation, 

rehabilitation, and reconstruction) of the system. Additionally, it is difficult to maintain a 

consistent level of work for designers and contractors. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks:

1. Survey SHAs regarding approaches used for fund allocation. 

2. Summarize the advantages/disadvantages of each approach. 

3. Quantify the impacts of suboptimal allocations. 

4. Identify the monetary needs for a consistent pavement management work program to 

allow agencies to optimize pavement treatments and funding. 

5. Develop best practices guidelines and recommendations. 

Final Product: 

The research will result in the development of guidelines for recommending allocation of funds 

according to objective pavement management data. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The primary objective of this study is to develop a synthesis of practice for allocating funds for 

pavement preservation and pavement rehabilitation. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $100,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 12 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 89 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Identify Information Technology (IT) Needs to Effectively Manage a Pavement Management System 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

As agencies seek to achieve efficiencies in information technology practices, users of advancing 

technologies are experiencing challenges for accessing, manipulating, and using technology 

associated with internal IT departments. Often, technology advancements to address pavement 

management needs are impeded due to potential limitations in network capabilities, IT personnel 

understanding of the issues, or pavement managers’ lack of knowledge on IT limitations, 

procedures, and roles. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Survey practitioners regarding the role IT departments play in acquiring, implementing, 

and deploying new pavement management information technology. 

2. Identify common goals, needs, and gaps between pavement managers and IT managers. 

3. Develop synthesis for coordinating IT needs and addressing common obstacles to satisfy 

both pavement management needs and IT management. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is a synthesis that identifies common critical issues encountered 

when acquiring, implementing, and deploying new pavement management information 

technology, and how to work with IT management to more effectively communicate needs. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The primary objective of this research is to identify and address common issues encountered 

between IT management and pavement management as it pertains to effectively meeting the goals 

and objectives of pavement management policy and practice. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $30,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 9 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 90 

THEME 3 

PROBLEM STATEMENTS 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 91 

Theme 3 – The Broad Role of Pavement Management 

Theme 3 includes problem statements that go beyond the standard functions of pavement 

management and include such areas as pavement design, impact of increasing load limits on 

pavement performance, and asset management. 

As summarized in tables B5 and B6, a total of five short-term and five long-term needs where 

identified in theme 3 at a total cost of $2,850,000 ($1,550,000 for short-term needs and $1,300,000 

for long-term needs). 

Table B5. Theme 3 Prioritized Listing of Short-term Needs. 

Rank Problem Statement Product(s) Estimated 

Cost Page 

2 Development and Use of Effective 

Performance Measures Best practice guidelines $250,000 92 

12 

Pavement Management Data Mining: 

Improving Current Uses and 

Leveraging New Applications of 

Pavement Management Data 

Best practice guidelines $350,000 94 

14 Load Limit Impacts on Pavement 

Performance 

Methodology and best practice 

guidelines $500,000 95 

15 Developing and Supporting a Pavement 

Management Business Plan 

Training, implementation 

strategies, and marketing plan $350,000 97 

16 Use of Pavement Management 

Information for National Reporting Best practice guidelines $100,000 99 

Table B6. Theme 3 Prioritized Listing of Long-term Needs. 

Rank Problem Statement Product(s) Estimated 

Cost Page 

3 Using Pavement Management Data to 

Support Design Activities Best practice guidelines $350,000 100 

9 National Funding Allocations That 

Account for State Priorities Formula or benchmark guidelines $250,000 101 

11 Identify Data Needs to Support Other 

Processes Best practice guidelines $350,000 102 

14 Methodologies to Reliably Support 

Innovative Contracting Best practice guidelines $250,000 103 

20 Impact of Earmarks on Pavement 

Performance Research report $100,000 104 

 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 92 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Development and Use of Effective Performance Measures 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

To be most effective, pavement management should exist within an asset management framework 

that supports the integrated analysis of project needs and investment decisions. Agencies that have 

adopted asset management principles rely on performance management as a way of 

communicating needs, setting performance targets, and reporting progress. To date, a disconnect 

exists between performance measures used for strategic purposes and those that are reported in a 

pavement management system (e.g., IRI). In addition, many pavement management systems do 

not currently include measures needed to support the selection of pavement preservation treatments 

or the documentation of benefits for use in a pavement management cost/benefit analysis. Such 

measures might include maintenance patching or the consideration that pavement preservation 

might defer the need to patch. In some cases, existing performance measures are negatively 

impacted by the application of pavement preservation activities, such as an increase in roughness 

associated with the use of chip seals, so guidance must be provided on how to handle these 

instances. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Perform a literature review and survey of SHAs to synthesize performance measure 

terminology and targets, as well as thresholds and triggers. 

2. Develop guidelines for determining effective performance measures and how to report 

measures according to the goals perceived by the target audience (e.g., technical, 

nontechnical, departmental, and political). 

3. Perform a gap analysis of typical components and needs of pavement management systems 

compared to those of asset management practices, and identify strategies for closing the 

gap. 

4. Develop guidelines for implementing a pavement management system with the intention of 

ultimately integrating it into an asset management plan. 

Final Product: 

The research will result in the development of a guidelines document recommending how to 

develop and/or synergize pavement management system performance measures to strategic 

initiatives. Additional products of this research will include definitions that will improve the 

consistency in the use of relevant terms, a synthesis of current pavement performance measures, 

and recommendations for using performance measures effectively. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

Under this study, states with successful asset management systems and their impact on pavement 

management will be documented, investigation of the connection between strategic and operational 

performance measures will be conducted, and guidelines on the use of pavement management 

measures to support strategic initiatives will be developed. Innovative performance measures 

should be considered during this research. For instance, the use of nontraditional measures, such 

as the change in economic value over time, may be explored. Guidelines should also be developed 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 93 

for identifying effective performance measures for evaluating pavement preservation treatments in 

a pavement management system. Examples in which pavement management information has been 

used successfully for goal setting will be provided. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $250,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 12 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 94 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Pavement Management Data Mining: Improving Current Uses and Leveraging New Applications of 

Pavement Management Data 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

There is an untapped potential to make greater use of pavement management data to better address 

current agency needs and to provide insight into new areas (e.g., asset value, new design methods, 

improved construction practices, corridor studies, forensic investigation, and impacts of weight 

limits on performance). However, for these types of analyses to take place, it is important that data 

from related data sources are better leveraged. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Survey practitioners for types of pavement management data they collect. 

2. Identify new areas where pavement management data can be utilized (e.g., asset value, new 

design methods, forensic investigation, and improved construction practices). 

3. Develop case studies that illustrate the uses of pavement management data for the areas 

identified under task 2. 

4. Develop guidelines (including case studies identified in task 3) on how to use pavement 

management data for addressing the areas identified in task 2. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is guidelines for using pavement management data to address the 

needs of other departments within an agency. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are two specific objectives for the research. First, the research will identify what pavement 

management data is collected. The second objective is to define how to leverage such data for use 

in other departments within an agency. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $350,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 24 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 95 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Load Limit Impacts on Pavement Performance 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

State legislatures are regularly faced with requests for load limit exemptions for a portion of the 

road system and often grant these requests without understanding the impacts to the road system. 

Nationally, there is pressure to raise the current 80,000 pound load limit on interstate highways to 

97,000 pounds. In addition, agencies are faced with requests for permission to carry oversized 

loads or to levy fines to drivers of overweight vehicles. However, the impact of these heavy loads 

on performance measures, such as future pavement conditions, maintenance costs, and remaining 

service life, is not well understood and may be difficult for agency personnel to readily quantify. 

Traditional methods of predicting pavement performance for pavement management purposes have 

utilized historical pavement condition data. A statistical analysis using regression is typically 

performed on pavement condition data to estimate changes in pavement condition with time. The 

historical data are assumed to be reliable predictors of future performance. However, if increased 

load limits are allowed on existing pavements, it is reasonable to expect that existing pavements 

will deteriorate at an accelerated rate since they were not designed to accommodate these weights. 

Future maintenance and rehabilitation costs may also increase to reflect the increased deterioration. 

Further, increased pavement thicknesses may be required for agencies designing new pavements or 

for rehabilitating existing pavements to accommodate the new load limits. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Identify one or more performance metrics that can be used to quantify the impact of 

increased loads (e.g., pavement condition, remaining service life, and increased 

maintenance costs). 

2. Develop a methodology that illustrates the use of existing pavement management data to 

quantify the impact of changes in load limits on each of the selected performance metrics. 

Existing tools should be utilized as much as possible in developing the methodology. 

3. Conduct trial applications of the methodology using data provided by SHAs. 

4. Verify the methodology using data from an agency that recently increased load limits and 

has data that could be used to document impacts. Verification should include historical 

data from an agency where load limits have been increased at least 5 years prior to the start 

of the study. Comparisons should be made between the predicted impacts and the actual 

impacts as measured through pavement management or other methods. 

5. Develop guidelines (including case studies) on using pavement management data for 

quantifying the impact of load limit increases, on how SHAs can incorporate developed 

procedures into the pavement management process, and how to verify/calibrate developed 

models to local conditions. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 96 

Final Product: 

The research will result in the development of a methodology for evaluating the impact of load 

limit changes and guidelines on use of the methodology. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are three specific objectives for the research. First, the research will identify performance 

measures that can be used to quantify the impacts to the agency of increased vehicle loading. The 

second objective is the development of a methodology that can be applied using existing data to 

quantify the impacts associated with heavy vehicles loads. The final research objective is the 

development of guidelines that transportation agencies can use to implement the methodology. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $500,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 36 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 97 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Developing and Supporting a Pavement Management Business Plan 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Pavement management has been around for decades, but in some ways the integration of 

pavement management into the core business function of many agencies is very immature. 

Pigeonholing pavement management as the collection and reporting of pavement condition is too 

narrow, and the assumption that pavement management is a panacea of everything related to 

pavements is doomed to fail as too broad. Defining the focus for pavement management and 

defining and developing necessary skills should be documented in the form of a pavement 

management business plan. Although the purpose is to show the strong ties needed between 

pavement management and agency business plans, the focus should include a broad array of 

functions ranging from simplistic to very complex and anticipate use by established practitioners, 

pavement management newcomers, and agency executives. 

The term “pavement management” means very different things to different people. Pavement 

management practitioners can use their systems for the traditional pavement condition data 

collection and reporting, generation of rehab/maintenance plans, support of design, materials, 

and construction activities, and support of research, among others. However, having all of these 

tasks greatly broadens the demands on pavement management systems and the practitioners. 

These demands also greatly broaden the skills needed in pavement management work groups to 

include communications, statistics, economics, electronics, computer science, physics, etc. The 

potential for a more unified pavement management community with targeted goals and business 

integration strategies should mature the field. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Define core business functions of pavement management. 

2. Conduct a survey of SHAs to identify the status of pavement management systems in 

accordance with the core business functions. 

3. Determine barriers that are preventing the success and develop plans to help address 

incorporation of the core business functions. This task could include training, 

institutional issues, staffing, appropriate data, competing requirements, and technology 

needs. 

4. Determine what tangential areas are best for expansion and what practitioners need to 

accomplish incorporation of the core business functions. 

5. Develop appropriate training, implementation strategies, marketing plan, etc. to promote 

and facilitate coordination between agency vision, mission, and pavement management. 

Final Product: 

Training, implementation strategies, marketing plan, etc. to promote and facilitate coordination 

between agency vision and mission and pavement management. 

 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 98 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The research should provide means to create practitioners with the skills to more fully 

understand pavements and associated technologies and skills to communicate that knowledge for 

business and marketing decisions. Presumably, in an altruistic sense, this research will result in 

better decisions by the agencies that can be strongly supported by pavement management and 

practitioners and ultimately by the users of transportation. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $350,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 24 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 99 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Use of Pavement Management Information for National Reporting 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

In many states, Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data and pavement 

management data are collected by separate divisions or reported by someone not involved in the 

data collection process. In some cases, the HPMS data are “passed off” without regard for the 

accuracy of reporting the information. As a result, there can be issues with data quality between 

what is collected by pavement management and what is reported to FHWA through the HPMS 

process. Additionally, there is an inefficient use of resources if similar data are being collected by 

two different groups within the same agency. There is also generally less buy-in or credibility in 

the HPMS data than in the pavement management data. Furthermore, HPMS data does not always 

represent data that drives an agency’s project and treatment selection processes. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Identify example SHAs who could supply both HPMS and pavement management system 

data. 

2. Compare and identify data inconsistencies or quality issues that would keep an agency’s 

pavement management data from meeting HPMS requirements. 

3. Develop guidelines for standardizing data elements to meet both pavement management 

and HPMS needs. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is development of guidelines for a standardized method of 

reporting this information. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are two specific objectives for the research. First, the research will identify common 

inconsistencies between pavement management and HPMS data needs. The second objective is to 

develop guidelines for standardizing data collection and reporting to satisfy both requirements. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $100,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 12 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 100 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Using Pavement Management Data to Support Design Activities 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Historically, pavement management activities have been implemented to support activities 

associated with the planning and programming of rehabilitation projects and preservation 

treatments. However, information from pavement management could be used to better support 

design functions if data integration and data quality issues are addressed. In this regard, additional 

tools are needed to use pavement management data to support the prediction of pavement 

performance (including the structural aspect) as are guidelines for using this information to locally 

calibrate performance prediction models using measured data. In addition, with the upcoming 

release of AASHTO DARWin-ME, more and more states will be looking toward their pavement 

management data to aid in the calibration process. The communication between the pavement 

design and pavement management staff will be critical to fully capture the benefits of mechanisticempirical based design and the predicted outcomes. A process to compare/check the predicted 

performance from mechanistic-empirical based design to the performance predicted from the 

pavement management system is needed. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Survey practitioners regarding how implementing AASHTO DARWin-ME has impacted, 

or compares to, their pavement management practices and/or recommendations, and how 

such impacts have been addressed. 

2. Develop guidelines for determining the compatibility of prediction and recommendations 

from both the pavement management system and AASHTO DARWin-ME. 

3. Develop software to reconcile and calibrate performance prediction models using pavement 

management and AASHTO DARWin-ME. 

Final Product: 

The research will result in the development of guidelines for determining the compatibility of 

pavement performance prediction between a pavement management system and AASHTO 

DARWin-ME, as well as the development of software to reconcile and calibrate the performance 

prediction models within a pavement management system and AASHTO DARWin-ME. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are two specific objectives for the research. First, the research will develop guidelines for 

determining the compatibility of pavement management and AASHTO DARWin-ME prediction 

and recommendations, and the second objective will develop guidelines and software tools for 

reconciling and calibrating pavement management systems and AASHTO DARWin-ME 

performance prediction models. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $350,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 24 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 101 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

National Funding Allocations that Account for State Priorities 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Each state has its own way of prioritizing needs and allocating funding. As a result, there will be 

differences in the pavement performance measures that can be accomplished within each agency. 

However, there is a tendency toward national comparisons of pavement performance that do not 

account for these differences. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Survey SHAs regarding allocation of state funds toward highway transportation, conditions 

of their networks, and pavement management priorities. 

2. Correlate SHA objectives and priorities to network condition and annual budget and 

expenditures. 

3. Develop a methodology for determining a SHAs’ success in terms of pavement condition 

relative to funding. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is a formula or set of benchmark guidelines for comparing SHA 

pavement management practices relative to funding priorities. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are two specific objectives for the research. First, the research will correlate SHA funding 

priorities with pavement management activities. The second objective is to formulate a sort of 

common denominator for all SHAs so as to appropriately compare relative success of pavement 

management practices. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $250,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 12 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 102 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Identify Data Needs to Support Other Processes 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

As data collection has become more sophisticated, the demand on data contained within the 

pavement management system has increased. This increase has been noted by pavement 

performance data for use in calibration of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide 

(MEPDG), the HPMS reassessment, warranties, public-private partnerships, and forensic studies, 

among others. An assessment of what and how pavement management data can be used to support 

these various applications is needed. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Identify applications that can benefit from the use of pavement management data. 

2. For the identified applications, determine the type of data, the amount of data, and the level 

of detail needed to support the various applications. 

3. Determine the cost/benefit of collecting and incorporating the data into the pavement 

management system if not already present. 

4. Quantify the risk of managing known versus unknown problems. 

5. Conduct case studies to demonstrate benefit of using pavement management data in other 

applications. 

6. Develop guidelines that demonstrate how pavement management data can be used in other 

applications. 

Final Product: 

Guidelines on what and how data contained within a pavement management system can be used to 

support other applications within a highway agency. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The objectives of this research include identifying applications that could benefit from pavement 

management data, identifying current data that can be used to improve/enhance these applications, 

identifying gaps in needed data, and providing guidelines on how to better utilize pavement 

management data in other applications. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $350,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 24 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 103 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Methodologies to Reliably Support Innovative Contracting 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

With increases in the use of warranty, concessionary, and public-private partnerships, as well as 

other innovative contracting processes, changes in the use of pavement management data can be 

expected. For instance, historical pavement performance data and forecasted conditions may be 

used to set acceptable condition levels and to determine whether contractual performance 

requirements have been satisfied. As a result, a higher level of reliability is required of the data 

than is needed for traditional processes, and so data collection processes may need to be modified. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks:

1. Identify data needs for managing innovative contracting projects, such as critical data for 

measuring performance. 

2. Determine the impacts innovative contracting has on pavement management practices, and 

develop recommendations for accommodating these impacts (i.e., selecting applicable 

performance measures). 

3. Identify means for collecting data to support performance measures. 

4. Develop guidelines for ensuring pavement management needs are satisfied by innovative 

contracted projects. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is a set of guidelines for ensuring pavement management needs 

are satisfied by innovative contracting practices. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are three specific objectives for the research. First, the research will identify the various 

impacts innovative contracting has on pavement management systems. The second objective is to 

determine how to account for the impacts innovative contracting has on pavement management 

systems; for example, developing performance metrics and applicable data to measure said 

impacts. The final research objective is to develop guidelines for ensuring pavement management 

needs are satisfied by innovative contracting practices. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $250,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 12 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 104 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Impact of Earmarks on Pavement Performance 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Earmarks can consume considerable SHA funding, leaving less funds to address the needs of the 

entire highway system. Some earmarks require bond indebtedness that has a long lasting 

obligation to the SHA. When earmarks are large in dollars or numbers, they significantly alter the 

ability of the SHA to address pressing needs such as pavement preservation. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Survey practitioners and prepare a synthesis regarding the impact earmarks have on longrange programming and planning. 

2. Reconcile SHA network needs with earmarks relative to funds allocated. 

3. Identify any trends between the status of network condition in the wake of large 

expenditures for earmarked projects. 

4. Prepare a report that summarizes findings. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is a report analyzing the impacts earmarks have on a pavement 

management program and agency priorities and goals in terms of services provided by such 

earmarks, as well as any reduction in services provided according to the recommendations based 

on pavement management information. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The primary objective for the research is to determine the impact earmarks have on an SHA 

achieving its network condition goals and/or addressing recommendations provided by its 

pavement management system. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $100,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 12 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 105 

THEME 4 

PROBLEM STATEMENTS 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 106 

Theme 4 – New Tools, Methodologies, and Technology 

The problem statements in theme 4 are related to needs for research and development leading to 

new tools, methods, and technology to support pavement management. In general, problem 

statements included in this theme address concepts that are not readily available and will require a 

higher level of research, analysis, and development prior to implementation. 

As summarized in tables B7 and B8, a total of five short-term and eleven long-term needs where 

identified in theme 4 at a total cost of $7,030,000 ($1,930,000 for short-term needs and $5,100,000 

for long-term needs). 

Table B7. Theme 4 Prioritized Listing of Short-term Needs. 

Rank Problem Statement Product(s) Estimated 

Cost Page 

4 Development of Automated Condition 

Data Processing Tools Software $800,000 108 

5 Methods to Quantify the Benefits of 

Pavement Management Synthesis of state practice $30,000 109 

9 

Improving Factors Considered in 

Project and Treatment Selection 

Decisions 

Best practice guidelines $250,000 110 

13 Analysis of Trade-Offs Associated with 

Alternate Methods of Data Collection Software $350,000 111 

23 Pavement Management in a Changing 

World Best practice guidelines $500,000 113 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 107 

Table B8. Theme 4 Prioritized Listing of Long-term Needs. 

Rank Problem Statement Product(s) Estimated 

Cost Page 

4 Performance Models that Consider 

Series of Treatments Best practice guidelines $500,000 114 

5 Method for Effectively Modeling 

Structural Condition Best practice guidelines $350,000 115 

8 Automation of Surface Texture 

Characteristics 

Best practice guidelines, 

specifications and procedures $500,000 116 

10 

Identifying Strategies for Incorporating 

Emerging Technologies into the 

Pavement Management System 

Best practice guidelines and 

software $350,000 117 

12 Quantifying the Cost of Pavement Use Best practice guidelines and 

software $350,000 118 

15 Develop NDT for Measurement of InPlace Material Properties 

Data collection equipment and 

analysis procedures/software $800,000 119 

19 Quantifying the Benefits of Pavement 

Research 

Methodology to evaluate research 

investments $250,000 120 

21 Develop Default Models for LowVolume Roads 

Pavement performance models 

and design procedures $350,000 121 

22 Impact of Climate Change on 

Performance Prediction Best practice guidelines $350,000 122 

23 Development and Integration of 

Wireless Sensors with PMS 

Research reports, best practice 

guidelines, and prototype 

sensors 

$500,000 123 

24 Use of Aerial Images for Distress 

Analysis 

Best practice guidelines and 

software $800,000 125 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 108 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Development of Automated Condition Data Processing Tools 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Improvements to current tools for automating the processing of some measures of pavement 

evaluation are needed to accelerate the rate at which survey results become available and to 

improve the consistency and reliability of the information. In particular, improvements are needed 

to the processing of surface distress data, GPR, and rutting. For cracking, algorithms are needed 

for 1-mm 3-D data systems; for rutting, a methodology is needed to interpret thousands of points of 

transverse profile; and for GPR, algorithms are needed for improved thickness detection. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Identify problems and performance needs (including acceptable levels of precision and 

bias) for data processing of automated pavement crack detection, transverse profile, and 

GPR. 

2. Develop new algorithms to fully automate crack and rut detection based on 1-mm 3-D data 

systems. 

3. Improve thickness detection algorithms for GPR devices. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is a modular software package incorporating new or improved 

algorithms for cracking and rutting detection and thickness determination using GPR. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are two specific objectives for the research. First, the research will develop fully automated 

crack and rut detection algorithms, and the second objective is to develop improved thickness 

detection algorithms for GPR devices. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $800,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 48 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 109 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Methods to Quantify the Benefits of Pavement Management 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Pavement management practitioners can usually describe the benefits associated with pavement 

management, particularly in terms of effective use of agency funding and improvements in 

pavement condition. However, the potential cost saving to the agency associated with the use of 

pavement management information by other stakeholders (such as design) is often nebulous and 

esoteric. In addition, social benefits (e.g., user costs, sustainability, livability, and environmental) 

are typically ignored when considering benefits associated with pavement management. Thus, the 

direct and indirect benefits of pavement management must be quantified so that cost savings can be 

used as justification for future investment in pavement management and data collection activities. 

Benefits that might be incorporated into this study may include better data access, improved 

decision making, user cost savings (e.g., vehicle operating costs), improved design features, and 

reduction in maintenance costs. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Identify links and prioritize the relative significance of these inter-relationships between 

pavement management and areas (e.g., economic development, safety, and environment) 

other than facilities’ condition. 

2. Conduct a survey of practitioners (both public and private) to determine how these links are 

quantified (e.g., user costs) and accounted for in decision making and presented in reports. 

3. Prepare a synthesis of findings, including case studies. 

Final Product: 

The research will result in a synthesis of the state of the practice to account for social, economic, 

and environmental impacts as determined using pavement management data. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The research will provide the means to quantify and account for benefits and consequences 

determined by pavement management systems in terms of various other areas, such as social, 

economic, and environmental impacts. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $30,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 9 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 110 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Improving Factors Considered in Project and Treatment Selection Decisions 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Ideally, the recommendations for project and treatment selection closely match the activities that 

are funded for construction. However, this has not always been the case. One of the factors that 

have impacted the degree to which pavement management recommendations are followed is the 

correlation between treatment selection factors considered by the pavement management system 

and those considered by personnel in the field. To better improve this match, it is important that 

the pavement management analysis begin to consider factors that have not been taken into account 

in the past, including safety, congestion, sustainability (environment), life-cycle costs including 

user costs, and other emerging issues. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Develop a survey for practitioners to determine what factors are used by field personnel in 

deciding which pavement preservation treatment regimen to administer. 

2. Reconcile field factors with those considered by the agency’s pavement management 

system. 

3. Develop a methodology for considering factors that have not been taken into account in the 

past (e.g., safety, congestion, environment, and other emerging issues). 

4. Develop best practices for coordinating treatment selection and application timing between 

those recommended by the pavement management system and those determined by field 

personnel. 

Final Product: 

The research will result in the development of a process for evaluating the decision factors used in 

the pavement management treatment selection process and guidelines for addressing any existing 

gaps in the criterion. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are three specific objectives for the research. First, the research will provide means for 

SHAs to reconcile factors considered by their field personnel with respect to pavement 

management system recommendations. The second objective is to develop a methodology that 

considers factors that have not been taken into account in the past. The final research objective is 

to develop guidelines that assist in resolving potential recommendation differences between 

pavement management system and field personnel. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $250,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 24 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 111 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Analysis of trade-offs associated with alternate methods of data collection 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

As new technology comes along to aid in the pavement management efforts, many agencies will 

be contemplating whether they should switch from their current practices and adopt new ones. 

These may include new data collection equipment, analysis procedures, software, etc. Due in 

part to limited budgets, but also as a practical matter, agencies will need to determine which of 

their current activities can be modified or even eliminated as a result of this new technology. 

Procedures that allow an agency to calculate the pros and cons of switching technologies would 

be very beneficial. This tool would allow them, for example, to make a case for purchasing new 

data collection equipment, if they can show that other, manual procedures can be eliminated. 

One example might be the impact of switching from a semi-automated distress analysis 

procedure to a fully automated procedure. Potential questions that could be addressed include: 

What equipment would be needed? What costs would be incurred? Could current staff be 

reduced? Could the data be turned around more quickly? Would the results be more accurate? 

Could a larger sample of the network be done? Would it be worth the added cost, time, and 

effort? 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Determine the (ideal) core functions of pavement management. This task may include 

identifying what data is currently being collected, what equipment and analysis 

procedures are being used, and what little used new technology might be available for a 

state agency to consider. 

2. Determine if those core functions are broadly being met. 

3. If the core functions are not being met, then determine what barriers are preventing the 

success and develop plans to help address those. This plan may include training, 

addressing institutional issues, determining needed staffing levels, identify appropriate 

data to be collected, identify competing requirements, and determining technology needs. 

4. Determine what tangential areas are best for expansion of the core functions and what 

practitioners need to do to accomplish expansion of the core functions. 

5. Conduct case studies with specific agencies looking to upgrade equipment or change 

pavement management activities, and develop an analysis tool to illustrate such outcomes 

as trade-offs, pros/cons, and added costs or savings. The developed analysis tools would 

assist in providing the impact proposed changes would have on the agency’s budget, 

labor force, analysis schedule, etc. 

6. Develop appropriate training, implementation strategies, marketing plan, etc. to promote 

and facilitate coordination between agency vision, mission, and pavement management. 

Final Product: 

The final product would include an analysis tool for evaluating alternative methods/equipment 

for collecting pavement condition data, training on use of the developed tool, strategies for 

implementing equipment/method modifications, and guidelines for how to market, promote and 

facilitate proposed modifications. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 112 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

Advance the tools, methodologies, and practices of state highway agencies to incorporate 

equipment and analysis advancements that provide improved, cost-effective data collection 

procedures and techniques. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $350,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 24 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 113 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Pavement Management in a Changing World 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Pavement management must operate in an environment that is constantly changing. For 

instance, there are continual changes in leadership, and each change typically brings new 

agendas. There are also unfunded mandates, changes in freight weights and movements, 

increased data requirements, scope creep, and changes in regulations that must be addressed. 

Transportation agencies have limited experience quantifying and communicating the impact of 

these changes on the highway network. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Identify potential external impacts that impact the pavement management process (e.g., 

funding, pavement condition, data collection, and state and federal regulations). 

2. Survey SHAs to determine trends and potential impact on pavements (i.e. increased 

damage and changes in decision). 

3. Quantify the benefits of different funding scenarios. 

4. Show impact on network strategies. 

5. Create metrics to allow flexibility to deal with changing priorities. 

6. Develop guidelines (including an analysis tool) that can be used to quantify changes and 

demonstrate impact on pavement performance. 

Final Product: 

The final product of this research will be guidelines and an analysis tool for quantifying and 

communicating the impact of external changes on pavement management systems. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

A number of external impacts can affect the pavement management process (e.g., pavement 

condition, funding levels, and agency preservation/rehabilitation priorities). The objective of this 

study is to provide highway agencies the ability to access and communicate these impacts to 

stakeholders. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $500,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 36 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 114 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Performance Models that Consider Series of Treatments 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Projecting the performance of a roadway has historically been conducted treatment by treatment, 

by considering the “bump” in condition from a treatment and the expected life of the treatment. 

When the next treatment was applied, it was considered as independent of all the preceding 

treatments. Time has shown us that this independence is not necessarily true; long-term 

performance is the net effect of all the treatments and their timing. Considering a series of 

treatments enables an agency to think and act programmatically and develop “cradle to grave” 

economic analysis. It could also assist agencies in considering in situ situations where one or more 

treatments impacts lower pavement layers (for example, a series of surface seals resulting in 

stripping of lower hot-mix asphalt [HMA] layers). 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Literature search on impact of series of treatments on performance of pavements. 

Perhaps a survey of agencies on common series and timing for various roadway 

categories. 

2. Develop a strategy for evaluating treatments in series. Part of this strategy is to identify 

the types and amounts of data required to develop performance curves. 

3. Collect sufficient data from state agencies to allow development of sample curves and 

validation of process. 

4. Analyze data to develop example curves. Demonstrate the impact of the series versus 

one action at a time analysis. 

5. Develop guidelines that allow an agency to develop performance curves for series of 

treatments if this analysis is demonstrated to be valuable. 

Final Product: 

This research will produce guidelines on how performance curves can be developed that 

incorporate a series of treatments. In addition, a final report will be developed that documents the 

approach, analysis, and findings of the research project. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The objective of this research is to improve pavement performance modeling by considering the 

impact of the timing and treatments as a series rather than as independent activities. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $500,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 36 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 115 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Method for Effectively Modeling Structural Condition 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Pavement performance models, to some extent, use only inputs from IRI and surface distress to 

predict future performance; however, it may be difficult to determine if surface distress identified 

through visual surveys is limited to the roadway surface (e.g., rutting or top-down cracking) or if it 

extends full-depth (e.g., bottom-up fatigue cracking). IRI and surface distress may not directly 

relate to measures of mechanistic features and therefore may not predict the present or future 

structural capacity. In addition, network-level (high-speed) structural condition data is limited in 

its availability and is a time consuming process. The availability of structural condition data on a 

network level would facilitate the development of improved performance models, which could be 

utilized in pavement preservation and treatment selection techniques. However, the actual benefits 

of collecting network-level structural condition data have not been fully quantified. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

Phase I

1. Survey practitioners regarding network-level structural deflection testing. 

2. Quantify cost/benefit ratio of network-level structural deflection testing. 

3. Develop performance models, determine the applicability of use, and calibrate/validate to 

field conditions for the use of structural testing data. 

Phase II

1. Validate/correlate high-speed deflection testing with traditional deflection testing devices. 

2. Determine precision and bias statements for high-speed deflection testing. 

3. Conduct pilot studies where high-speed deflection testing is used for quantifying pavement 

condition and estimating structural capacity needs. 

4. Develop specifications and guidelines for use of high-speed deflection testing at the 

network-level. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is a set of guidelines for incorporating network-level structural 

testing into pavement management systems. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are three specific objectives for the research. First, the research will determine the 

cost/benefit ratio for network-wide structural testing to be incorporated into pavement management 

systems. The second research objective is to develop guidelines and performance models for 

incorporating structural testing into pavement management systems. The final objective is to 

validate high-speed structural testing equipment to accomplish network-level testing. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $350,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 24 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 116 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Automation of Surface Texture Characteristics 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

The use of automated (and semi-automated) pavement condition surveys have identified gaps in 

identifying and quantifying surface related characteristics such as bleeding, raveling, oxidation, 

splash/spray, friction, and noise. The need for identifying and quantifying these surface conditions 

for pavement preservation and pavement rehabilitation treatments/applications is vital. This study 

will identify surface characteristics that can be identified and quantified using existing high-speed 

data collection equipment, identify potential methodologies for quantifying distress, identify 

equipment and analysis gaps, develop specifications, and software and equipment modifications as 

necessary. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Survey manufacturers regarding data collection equipment’s capabilities to measure and/or 

identify surface characteristics at traffic speeds. In addition, survey state highway agencies 

to determine data collection needs in relation to surface characteristics. 

2. Identify analysis gaps and provide potential methodologies suited to identify/measure 

missing data sets. 

3. Develop specifications, analysis procedures, software elements, and equipment 

modifications, as necessary, to address missing data sets. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is a set of guidelines, specifications and procedures for modify or 

implementing new pavement surface characteristics measuring capabilities at traffic speeds. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are two specific objectives for the research. First, the research will identify areas of 

improvement in enhancing or expanding automated pavement condition data collection 

capabilities. The second objective is developing specifications, guidelines, and methodologies for 

aiding the implementing of new data collection methods and analysis procedures. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $500,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 36 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 117 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Identifying Strategies for Incorporating Emerging Technologies into Pavement Management 

Systems 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

There are many changes that are impacting the use of pavement management in transportation 

agencies. For example, there is increased concern about the economic, environmental, and social 

impacts of pavement management decisions. For instance, pavement surface characteristics have 

become increasingly important to address user concerns regarding wet weather crashes, noise, and 

splash/spray. Similarly, methodologies are needed for incorporating sustainability factors into the 

project and treatment decision process. Finally, a methodology is desired for evaluating when new 

data collection technology should be incorporated into the pavement management process to 

further support agency decisions. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Identify the current state of the practice for incorporating emerging issues (e.g., 

sustainability) and technologies (e.g., new pavement friction testing equipment and data) 

into pavement management, including identification of critical performance criteria. 

2. Develop best practices guidelines for modifying pavement management systems to 

incorporate emerging issues and/or technologies, including selecting applicable 

performance measures. 

3. Develop tools (e.g., software) to support implementation of the developed guidelines. 

Final Product: 

The final products of the research are guidelines and software (or other support tools) to identify 

and evaluate the benefits of incorporating emerging technologies into a pavement management 

system. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The objectives of this research include the development of guidelines for assisting pavement 

managers with incorporating emerging issues and related technologies into the pavement 

management systems, and the development of software or other decision-support tools that will 

help determine how new technologies can be most beneficially incorporated into pavement 

management. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $350,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 24 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 118 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Quantifying the Cost of Pavement Use 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

It is likely that “pay per use” strategies for funding transportation projects will have higher 

potential for use in the near future; however, this requires that agencies have the ability to quantify 

the cost of providing a sound, safe pavement for customer use so that rational pricing schemes can 

be developed. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Determine inputs needed to ascertain cost per use. 

2. Develop an economic framework to derive the cost per use. 

3. Develop guidelines for determining the cost per use. 

4. Develop software based on process outlined in guidelines developed during task 3. 

Final Product: 

The research will result in guidelines and software for determining cost per use for funding 

transportation projects. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are three specific objectives for the research. First, the research will determine means to 

quantify the cost of providing pavement structures to the traveling public. The second objective is 

to develop written guidelines for using the means to quantify the cost per use of public 

transportation facilities. The final research objective is to develop a software program or package 

based on these guidelines. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $350,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 24 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 119 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Develop Nondestructive Testing for Measurement of In-Place Material Properties 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Areas of low density in HMA pavements are susceptible to early failure due to stripping, cracking, 

and potholes. Low strength in portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements can result in fatigue 

cracking, poor load transfer, and spalling. The ability to quantify full lane width material 

properties, such as HMA density and PCC strength, would be beneficial for determining contractor 

pay incentives, quality assurance, and performance prediction models. Research using GPR to 

determine HMA density has been conducted; however, this process has not received wide-spread 

use in the United States. Similarly for PCC, the use of impact echo and spectral analysis of surface 

waves has been evaluated and utilized but has not received wide-spread use. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

Phase I

1. Conduct a literature search of recent research related to the full lane width and high speed 

assessment of in situ material properties, specifically related to the upper wearing surface 

(e.g., HMA or PCC layer). 

2. Identify limitations/benefits of developed testing equipment and procedures. 

3. Determine the most effective and accurate methodology that can operate at highway speeds 

for determining the in situ material properties of a full lane width. 

Phase II

1. Based on the findings of phase I, recommend methodologies for addressing equipment 

and/or analysis limitations. 

2. Refine equipment and/or analysis techniques as needed. 

3. Conduct case studies that demonstrate the ability (e.g., accuracy and repeatability) of 

equipment and/or analysis techniques modified in task 2. 

Final Product: 

Data collection equipment (operating at highway speeds) and analysis procedures/software for 

assessing the in situ material properties (full lane width) will result from this research. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The objective for this research is to develop testing equipment and analysis procedures for 

measuring in situ material properties at highway speeds. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $800,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 48 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 120 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Quantifying the Benefits of Pavement Research 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Several industries, such as the pharmaceutical industry, regularly invest a percentage of their sales 

in research and development activities. This practice is not widely practiced among transportation 

agencies; therefore, the consequences associated with the lack of funded research are not well 

understood. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Conduct a survey of SHAs in relation to pavement-related research conducted and 

implemented over the last 10 years, determine the investment costs for conducting the 

research (including implementation and training costs), and report benefits (e.g., extending 

pavement life or lowering life-cycle costs) due to the pavement research results. 

2. Develop methodologies by which states can demonstrate the benefits of supporting higher 

investments for pavement research. 

3. Prepare a report of findings and develop marketing tools that clearly illustrate the study 

findings. 

Final Product: 

The research will result in a methodology allowing a transportation agency to evaluate its research 

investments. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The research will estimate the potential payoff afforded a transportation agency according to the 

level of research investment in pavement management. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $250,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 12 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 121 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Develop Default Models for Low-Volume Roads 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Many pavement management systems were not developed using data from low-volume roadways. 

Dependent on the demographics of an individual state, lack of data for low-volume roads may be 

related to challenges due to collecting data in remote areas, minimal traffic loadings that would 

typically require standard preservation/rehabilitation treatments (e.g., chip sealed roadway that will 

only receive future chip seals), or possibly the lack of needed data (e.g., construction history) due 

to roadway transfer from local agencies. In addition, the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design 

Guide (MEPDG), due to lack of reliable data concerning low-volume pavement design and 

performance, specifically excluded the design of low-volume roadways. However, pavement 

performance and treatment selection on low-volume roadways can be significantly different than 

that of higher volume roadways. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Survey local and state highway agencies regarding data for low-volume roads, specifically 

related for use in pavement design, performance predication, and selection of appropriate 

preservation and rehabilitation treatments. 

2. Identify available models for predicting pavement performance on low-volume roads. If 

necessary, provide recommendations to modify, or if unavailable, develop pavement 

performance prediction models for low-volume roadways. 

3. Identify available pavement design procedures for low-volume roadways (including those 

developed abroad). If necessary, provide recommendations to modify, or if unavailable, 

develop pavement design procedures/practices (for consideration in DARWin-ME) for 

low-volume roadways. 

4. Develop guidelines for including performance prediction models and pavement design 

practices into pavement management and pavement design practices and procedures. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is pavement performance models and design procedures for lowvolume roadways. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are three specific objectives for the research. First, the research will determine the 

availability of pavement management data in relation to low-volume roadways. The second 

objective is to identify, modify or develop practices, procedures, and performance prediction 

models into pavement management systems. The final objective is to identify, modify, or develop 

pavement design procedures for low-volume roadways. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $350,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 24 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 122 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Impact of Climate Change on Performance Prediction 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Little is known about the impact of climate change (e.g., rising temperatures and sea levels, 

increased storm frequency) on the future performance of highway pavements. In recent years, 

pavement related impacts of climate changes, such as Hurricane Katrina, flooding of the Red 

River, and the rising temperatures found in many regions of the United States and abroad, are 

needed. Specifically, information is needed on how climate change may affect the ability to 

predict pavement performance. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Conduct a literature search and review investigating links between pavement performance 

and climate change impacts. 

2. Identify potential performance models taking into account climate change. 

3. Evaluate and revise existing models and develop new models addressing needs identified in 

the literature as not being presently accounted for. 

4. Develop guidelines for incorporating the models vetted in task 3 into pavement 

management. 

Final Product: 

The final product of the research is a set of guidelines for incorporating models linking pavement 

performance and climate change impacts. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

There are three specific objectives for the research. First, the research will determine the current 

state of the practice regarding pavement performance relative to climate change. The second 

objective is to develop performance models to address climate change impacts on pavement 

performance. The final research objective is to develop guidelines that transportation agencies can 

use to implement pavement performance models based on climate change impacts. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $350,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 24 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 123 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Development and Integration of Wireless Sensors with PMS 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Technology for the monitoring of pavement condition does not appear to have kept pace with 

other technological improvements over the past several years. Research and development are 

underway to advance the monitoring of pavement condition to provide better relationships 

among distresses, performance, traffic, maintenance, and other significant variables. Presently, 

two approaches are typically taken to monitor the condition of pavements: manual distress 

surveys and automated condition surveys using specially equipped vehicles (e.g., imaging 

technology for distress survey and transverse profiling for the wheel path rutting). However, 

these monitoring approaches remain rather more reactive than proactive in terms of detecting 

damage, since they merely record the distress that has already appeared. Other testing 

approaches are also used (e.g. deflection testing); however, most of these methods either require 

significant personnel time or the use of costly equipment. Thus, they can only be used costeffectively on a periodic and/or localized basis. Currently, pavement instrumentation for 

condition monitoring is done on a localized and short-term basis. The current technology does 

not allow for continuous long-term monitoring, and the deployment of existing systems on a 

network level remains unfeasible due to cost, unease of installation, and data collection 

techniques. Long-term monitoring of mechanical loading for pavement structures could reduce 

maintenance cost, improve longevity, enhance safety, and advance research in pavement design 

and construction operation. 

There is ongoing research to develop a self-contained smart pavement monitoring system 

consisting of wireless integrated circuit sensor that consumes less than one microwatt of power 

and interfaces directly with and draws its operational power from a piezoelectric transducer. By 

combining floating-gate transistors with piezoelectric transducer, the sensor is able to achieve 

operational limits wirelessly. The miniaturized sensor will enable continuous battery-less 

monitoring of integrity of pavement structures over long periods (i.e., detect damage, monitor 

loading history, and predict fatigue life of the monitoring pavement). The envisioned system 

would consist of a network of low cost sensors distributed along the pavement during new 

construction, reconstruction, or resurfacing of both asphalt and concrete pavements. Each sensor 

node would be self-powered and capable of continuously monitoring and storing the dynamic 

strain levels in host pavement structure. The data from all the sensors would be periodically 

uploaded wirelessly to a central database, either through radio-frequency transmission using a 

radio-frequency reader either manually operated or mounted on a moving vehicle. It is possible 

that this update can be accomplished during the pavement management condition surveys by 

adding receivers to the same automated data collection vehicle enabling the collection and 

population of the sensor data to the pavement management system in a timely and consistent 

manner. The data will help facilitate a more effective pavement maintenance and 

rehabilitation/preservation schedule. 

Additional research is needed to optimize data collection and storage with these types of sensors. 

Efforts are needed to integrate this sort of data within existing agency databases in order to make 

optimal use of the data available. 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 124 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

1. Determine hardware and software needs for the pavement network system data 

collection, storage and retrieval, etc. 

2. Evaluate data collection alternatives (i.e., the storage node placement for data collection 

and retrieval, reader driving over pavement, etc.). 

3. Evaluate data retrieval alternatives and method of transmitting data to a central place for 

archiving and analysis. 

4. Utilize wireless sensor system in the field and evaluate pavement network system data 

collection, storage, retrieval, and transferring processing operation.

Final Product: 

The research products will be reports that document the test results, guidelines for usage and 

integration of the sensors, and prototype sensors with information to make them commercially 

available. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

The overall objective of the study is to utilize a wireless, self-powered, and low-cost integrated 

network sensor system for long-term mentoring pavement condition. The system enables 

continuous monitoring and stores the dynamic strain levels in host pavement structure. The data 

from the sensors would be periodically uploaded, using a radio-frequency reader either manually 

operated or mounted on a moving vehicle, wirelessly to a central database to help facilitate a 

more effective pavement maintenance and rehabilitation/preservation schedule. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $500,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 36 months 
Pavement Management Roadmap December 2010 

Appendix B 125 

RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

I. PROBLEM TITLE 

Use of Aerial Images for Distress Analysis 

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Nationwide, the current method of collecting pavement distress involves either driving or walking 

an extensive pavement network. Data collection and analysis can range from manual, semiautomated to fully automated procedures. For a SHA using semi-automated or automated data 

collection equipment, the distance traveled during data collection can easily be double or triple the 

number of miles of data collection (due to dead heading and mobilization of equipment and staff). 

In addition, depending on weather and traffic conditions, the time to collect pavement condition 

data can be restricted such that it becomes challenging to collect data in a reasonable period of 

time. The use of satellite images for quantifying pavement distress may provide another source of 

data collection that can be quickly collected, drastically minimize or element the need to drive to 

the testing locations, and minimize safety issues by removing staff from the data collection 

process. 

Tasks: The research will include the following tasks: 

Phase I

1. Determine the adequacy of current technology in use of aerial images for pavement 

condition surveys. 

2. Identify gaps in data collection and analysis, determine what needs to be developed to 

further the application of this technology, and determine if declassification of images is 

needed in order for this process to become a reality. 

Phase II

1. Determine which technologies have possibilities for use in the pavement condition survey. 

2. Develop, as needed, technologies and necessary software for using aerial images for data 

collection and analysis. 

3. Develop guidelines on use of aerial images for pavement condition surveys. 

Final Product: 

The product of this research will be software and guidelines for using aerial images for pavement 

condition assessment. 

III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

Identify what improvements could be made to existing imagery or would need to be developed to 

make the use of aerial images for pavement condition assessment possibility. In addition, 

determine if satellite imagery can provide data that is cost effective and of sufficient quality to 

meet the needs of (or contribute to) a pavement management system. 

IV. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Estimated Budget: $800,000 

Estimated Project Duration: 48 months