## 3 Results and Discussion
### Case Study  
A study is carried out a real case study to validate whether recommendations can be extrapolated in the measurement of bumps of deteriorated asphalt pavements. The actual pavement section has 6 potholes with different dimensions (indicated in the Table 6. Flexible pavement pothole for recommendation validation. Figure 12 shows the potholes by indicating by a horizontal arrow the largest width and a vertical arrow the smallest width. The first analysis was carried out at a height of 10 [m] applying the recommendations detailed above. The results are shown in Table 7, in addition to Figure 13, where the reconstruction of a pothole in the case study can be observed. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Pothole** & **Smaller Width [mm]** & **Larger Width [mm]** & **Depth [mm]** & **Volume [cm\({}^{3}\)]** \\ \hline (a) & 360 & 545 & 50 & 7150.35 \\ (b) & 380 & 740 & 73 & 14,257.27 \\ (c) & 300 & 870 & 70 & 9976.74 \\ (d) & 345 & 833 & 74 & 15,112.24 \\ (e) & 260 & 355 & 40 & 1245.14 \\ (f) & 170 & 570 & 30 & 2341.34 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Dimensions of potholes measured in terrain (real). Figure 11: Number of photos covering each area of the pavement, according to color scale. The second analysis went to one of 15 [m], the results are shown in Table 8. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Pothole** & **Width [mm]** & **Error [\%]** & **Depth [mm]** & **Error [\%]** & **Volume [cm\({}^{3}\)]** & **Error [\%]** & **Severity** \\ \hline (a) & 540 & 0.9 & 45 & 10 & 4712.84 & 34.1 & Middle \\ (b) & 736 & 0.5 & 66 & 9.6 & 11,255.31 & 21.1 & High \\ (c) & 860 & 1.1 & 66 & 5.7 & 7365.53 & 26.2 & High \\ (d) & 829 & 0.5 & 70 & 5.4 & 9751.60 & 35.5 & High \\ (e) & 350 & 1.4 & 38 & 5 & 1007.30 & 19.1 & Middle \\ (f) & 566 & 0.7 & 27 & 10 & 1701.04 & 27.3 & Low \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Dimensions of potholes measured in model at 10 m and error. Figure 12: Flexible pavement pothole for recommendation validation. (**a**) Pathole 1; (**b**) Pathole 2; (**c**) Pathole 3; (**d**) Pathole 4; (**e**) Pathole 5; and (**f**) Pathole 6. Figure 13: Volumetric representation of a pothole in 3D reconstruction, based on Context Capture (Bentley) software. It is important to note that potholes were marked for case study planning in order to clearly identify the measured points in the field, in order to minimize the measurement error of the evaluator. For the analysis at 10 m, the measurements of the height and width were obtained with high accuracy, compared to the other measurement variables, since with the help of the marks, these characteristics could be better determined. However, for depth measurement, the error was greater, with the worst case being 9.9% higher than the value of the recommendation; this can be explained by the irregular shape of the bumpy surface, i.e., the surface is not completely horizontal. However, the measurement error could be obtained with high accuracy (error less than 1 cm). On the other hand, the volume analysis presented a similar error with respect to the value of the recommendation. However, it remains a high error to consider it as a potential variable to be measured with this method. For the 15 m height analysis, the width measurement was greater than the values obtained at 10 m, although for the pothole (c) a difference of 0.4% was presented. This is probably explained by the variability of measurement in terrain and the sensitivity of the study variable, which for a millimeter error in the measurement results in the error percentage presenting an atypical or unexpected behavior. In the measurement of depth and volume, the error behaved better than expected (according to the results of the study surface) which can be explained by the fact that these potholes have a large surface with respect to their depth; this certainly helps to rebuild the volume and obviously the depth.