Evaluation of road maintenance priority using PCI and road note 1 for Indonesian

district roads
Henri Siswanto, Bambang Supriyanto, Pranoto, Yusuf Akbar Megy Putra, and Alfian Syahrul Huda

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1977, 040020 (2018); doi: 10.1063/1.5042990

View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5042990
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1977/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics
 Evaluation of Road Maintenance Priority Using PCI and
Road Note 1 For Indonesian District Roads
Henri Siswanto1, a), Bambang Supriyanto1, b), Pranoto1, c), Yusuf Akbar Megy
Putra1, d), and Alfian Syahrul Huda1, e)
1
The Department of Civil Engineering, The Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Negeri Malang, Jl. Semarang 5
Malang 65145, Indonesia.
a)
Corresponding author: henri.siswanto.ft@um.ac.id
b)
bambang.supriyanto.ft@um.ac.id
c)
pranoto.ft@um.ac.id
d),
megy13jrenk@gmail.com
e)
alfiankaweron@gmail.com

Abstract. It is likely that resources for road maintenance will be limited, and the decisions will be required in the most
effective way of applying them. This means the importance to determine the priority of road maintenance. The objective
of this research was to evaluate the road maintenance priority using Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and Road Note 1
for Indonesian district roads. Locations for this research were the roads in Jombang and Blitar district and 8 (eight) road
segments were taken from each district. Distress data was taken by visual observation referred to ASTM D6433. There
were 20 distress types that had been recorded. Method of determining road maintenance priority was Road Note 1. The
results of the research as obtained from the combination method of PCI and Road Note 1 for survey and prioritization,
can be identified as follows: four road segments are in good condition, four are satisfactory, four are in fair condition,
two are in poor condition, one is in a very poor condition, and one road segment is in serious condition. In total, 12 of 16
road segments are in stable condition. The use of the combination of PCI and Road Note 1 with modifications in
Indonesian district roads merits consideration. The modification is required especially for traffic levels greater than 1000
vehicles/day to be split into more details to accommodate the Indonesian traffic.

INTRODUCTION
Road maintenance is a crucial task that must be conducted in the service life of a road. Road maintenance is
needed to ensure the efficiency of traffic activity. Nevertheles, many countries find difficulties in conducting road
maintenance, the majority are caused by problems in funding allocation. Some countries in Eastern Europe and Asia
are suffering from under-investment of road maintenance, which is why road sectors tend to trigger backlog of
deferred maintenance [1]. Indonesian road networks face similar conditions, mainly for district roads. There are four
types of the road under different authorities in Indonesian road networks, namely national roads, provincial roads,
district roads and toll roads. The national road has length proportions of 7.58% of the total length of Indonesian road
networks, while provincial roads, district roads, and toll roads have length proportions of 10.54%, 81.70% and
0.19% respectively [2]. In 2014 the district roads, as a network with the highest proportion, has the worst conditions,
in which only 57% of them are in stable conditions while the rest are in damaged state[3].
Enhancing the stable conditions of district roads requires precise maintenance but because of the budget limits,
maintenance prioritization becomes a challenge. Many maintenance prioritization methods have been developed in
many countries [4 - 12]. Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is the most commonly method used by researchers for
determining pavement maintenance priority [4, 6, 7, 9, 10]. As a method, AHP is used in various fields of science.
Its application in the preparation of road maintenance priority has some advantages, it can apply selected criteria to
the deepest sub-criteria. It takes into account the validity of criteria according to the limits of their consistency.

Human-Dedicated Sustainable Product and Process Design: Materials, Resources, and Energy
AIP Conf. Proc. 1977, 040020-1–040020-6; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5042990
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1687-1/$30.00

040020-1
However, the main input is the perception of experts which involves their subjectivity, through which the model
becomes meaningless if the experts give a wrong judgment.
Another method for determining pavement maintenance priority developed by researchers is fuzzy logic [5, 8].
They claim that fuzzy logic has tolerance to incorrect data and it is capable of modeling very complex nonlinear
functions. However, it is relatively complicated to apply this method because the boundaries of linguistic value will
greatly affect the accuracy, and there are some membership functions, namely; triangle, trapezoid, etc. Multicriteria
group decision making (MGDM) is also developed for determining pavement maintenance priority [11]. The new
highway development and management tool (HDM) is a tool widely used for planning and programming of road
management [12].HDM III, developed by the World Bank, has been used by many countries for analyzing technical
and economic appraisal of road investment projects, standards, and strategies. The New HDM IV's creation was the
result of the International Study to extend the prior HDM with a harmonized approach to road management, with
adaptable and user-friendly software tools. However, the application of HDM IV on Indonesian district roads is
inhibited by the disparate levels of local manpower quality.
Road note 1 is specifically developed to manage district roads in developing countries, particularly for rural
roads. It can be used to determine road maintenance priority, yet it involves structural evaluation by using falling
weight deflectometer or deflection beam which could be a challenge to undertake. The alternative is to use visual
observation for surveying distress on district roads. Pavement condition index (PCI) is simpler and favors visual
observation [13]. It has potential to be used on Indonesia district road. The objective of this research was to evaluate
the use of PCI and road note 1 to determine the road maintenance priority for district roads of Indonesia.

METHODS
Two districts in the province of East Java, Blitar and Jombang, were chosen for this research. Eight road
segments in each district were chosen to be surveyed. The surveyed district roads are listed in Table 1. Method of
survey was the ASTM D-6433˗˗11 method, some steps were adapted for Indonesia conditions. The approach of this
survey was pavement rating, which is a method of determining pavement conditions through visual observation[13].
TABLE 1.District road surveyeds and locations
Length Width Location of the road
No Name of road segment
(m) (m) segment
x1 Ceweng ˗ Kalianyar 3700 6.5 Jombang
x2 Peterongan ˗ Kalianyar 5800 6 Jombang
x3 Curahmalang ˗Sembojo 1000 5 Jombang
x4 Gambiran ˗ Betek 1600 6 Jombang
x5 Kalianyar ˗ Selorejo 4900 4 Jombang
x6 Betek ˗ Sumobito 4400 6 Jombang
x7 Sumobito - Talunkidul 6500 6.5 Jombang
x8 Plosokerep - Trawasan 3000 3.5 Jombang
x9 Kendalrejo – Sumberagung 4970 4 Blitar
x10 Sumberejo – Kamulan 2980 4 Blitar
x11 Gogolatar – Jajar 1450 3 Blitar
x12 Sragi – Bogoangin 3660 3 Blitar
x13 Sragi – Wonorejo 1840 2.7 Blitar
x14 Bendosewu – Dander 3250 4 Blitar
x15 Tumpang – Kendalrejo 4550 4 Blitar
x16 Jegu – Tumpang 2690 6.5 Blitar

The three main inputs of PCI is distress type, quantity, and severity. The types of distress/defects, the severity,
and the quantity of each road segments were recorded. There were 20 asphalt concrete distress types, shown in
Table 2. The survey was conducted by a combination of walking and video taking at the location. The roads were
divided into several segments, each of 100m in length and all distress types were recorded. The traffic data were not
collected through field survey, but secondary data obtained from the local public works office. Road physique such
as road length, width, and road surface types, were also noted. It was for clarifying the secondary data from the local
public work. All surveyed district road surfaces are flexible pavements, and commonly there are two types of

040020-2
flexible pavements being used, namely asphalt concrete pavement and asphalt macadam pavement. The majority of
district roads utilize asphalt macadam pavement.
TABLE 2.Distress types of asphalt concrete
No Distress Type No Distress Type
1 Alligator cracking 11 Patching/utility cut patching
2 Bleeding 12 Polish aggregate
3 Block cracking 13 Pothole
4 Bumps and sags 14 Railroad crossing
5 Corrugation 15 Rutting
6 Depression 16 Shoving
7 Edge cracking 17 Slippage cracking
8 Joint reflection cracking 18 Swelling
9 Lane shoulder drop off 19 Raveling
10 Longitudinal/transversal cracking 20 Weathering

PCI is a numerical index, ranging from 0 representing pavements with the worst condition and 100 for
pavements in perfect condition, see Table 3 [14].

TABLE 3.Condition Categories and PCI Values

Condition category PCI Range
Good 86– 100
Satisfactory 71– 85
Fair 56 – 70
Poor 41 – 55
Very poor 26 – 40
Serious 11–25
Failed 0 – 10

There are 5 (five) steps needed to find the PCI. Step 1 is to define distress severity and quantity, step 2 is to
determine the deduct values, step 3 is to compute the total deduct value, step 4 is to adjust total deduct value, and the
last step is to compute the pavement condition index. Computation equation for PCI is shown in (1) and the steps are
presented in Fig.1.

ܲ‫ ܫܥ‬ൌ ͳͲͲ െ ‫ܸܦܥ‬ (1)

Where, PCI = pavement condition index

CDV = corrected deduct value

define distress severity and quantity

determine the deduct value

compute the total deduct value

adjust total the deduct value, CDV

compute pavement condition index, PCI = 100 – CDV

FIGURE 1. Steps to compute the PCI

040020-3
 Road maintenance priority refers to Road Note 1 [15]. Based on Road Note 1, road maintenance priority depends
on the type of maintenance and the traffic level, see Table 4 and Table 5.
TABLE 4. Maintenance works and hierarchy of road
maintenances
Hierarchy of
Type/Category of Maintenance
Maintenance
1 Emergency work
2 Routine drainage work
3 Routine pavement work
4 Periodic work
5 Other routine work
6 Renewal work

TABLE 5. Road traffic levels, the surface types, and the rank of maintenances
Rank Traffic Level (vehicles/day) Surface Type
1 Strategic road Asphalt and concrete
2 Greater than 1000 Asphalt and concrete
3 500 – 1000 Asphalt and concrete
4 200 – 500 Asphalt and concrete
5 Greater than 200 Unpaved
6 Less than 200 Asphalt and concrete
7 20 – 200 Unpaved
8 Less than 200 Unpaved

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the field survey are presented in Table 6. The majority of distress in district roads are caused by
alligator cracking and raveling. Some distress types such as bleeding, edge cracking, joint reflection, lane/shoulder
drop off, polished aggregate rutting, shoving, slippage cracking swelling and weathering rarely occur.
TABLE 6.Distress types of asphalt concrete
Distress of Road (%)
No Distress Type
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9 x10 x11 x12 x13 x14 x15 x16
1 Alligator 0,22 0,61 1,88 1,94 3,33 0,38 0,51 0,00 1.60 11.2 6.00 0.00 0.62 4.20 1.06 2.32
2 Bleeding 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 Block cracking 0,02 0,16 0,00 0,00 0,08 0,14 0,28 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 Bumps & sags 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 Corrugation 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 Depression 0,01 0,21 0,10 0,02 0,05 0,11 0,00 0,00 16.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.24 19.63 0.00
7 Edge cracking 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.52 0.25 0.13 9.67 0.00 0.09 0.52 0.00
8 Joint reflection 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 Lane/shoulder drop off 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 Long & trans cracking 0,94 0,94 1,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11 Patching & utility cutting 0,28 0,45 0,10 0,10 0,19 0,01 0,00 0,07 14.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.41 0.00 14.55 0.00
12 Polished aggreggate 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 6.20 18.92 0.00 2.73 0.00 0.00 0.00
13 Pothole 0,02 0,08 0,16 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,07 0,00 0.14 0.86 1.19 14.08 0.03 0.31 0.14 0.96
14 Railroad crossing 0,00 0,00 0,04 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
15 Rutting 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
16 Shoving 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
17 Slippage cracking 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
18 Swell 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
19 Raveling 0,51 0,26 0,84 0,17 2,67 4,38 23,57 0,00 0.00 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
20 Weathering 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

040020-4
 PCI, Traffic, and road maintenance priorities are presented in Table 7. The results of the research show that 4
(four) road segments are in good conditions, 4 (four) road segments are satisfactory, 4 (four) road segments are fair,
2 (two) road segments are poor, 1 (one) road segment is very poor, and 1 (one) road segment is serious. There are 12
road segments of the 16 total road segments that require routine maintenance. The rest of 4 (four) road segments, 2
(two) road segments require rehabilitation, and 2 (two) road segments require reconstruction. It shows that 75% of
roads are in stable condition, while 25% are in damaged condition. It is higher than the average of stable district
roads of East Java Province at 67% [2]. It is noted that the total sample of this research is insufficient for taking
conclusions on road deterioration rate, but more as an experimental approach to the method of survey and
maintenance prioritization.
Road Note 1 places routine maintenance at high priority after emergency work and routine maintenance of
drainages [15]. It meets the economic concept in pavement management system, where each $1 renovation cost in
fair condition is going to increase to $5 for reconstruction cost [16].
Traffic activity on Jombang district roads is higher than 1000 vehicles/day, therefore they need to be the main
priority. Based on Road Note 1, the system category of the traffic levels has the highest nominal of greater than
1000 vehicles/day[15], which means all of the traffic data of Jombang district roads meet in a single category only.
This fact can be the base of evaluation that this category needs to be split into more than one category to
accommodate the traffic field data. Approximately 50% of Jombang district roads are in good condition, while the
rest are in a satisfactory and fair condition. Essentially, routine maintenance is needed. However, it does not mean
that Jombang district roads are better than those in Blitar. Data taken from the 8 (eight) road samples are insufficient
to make conclusions on road deterioration rate in a district, but this research shows the method on how to put in
order the road maintenance priorities as the research objective.
TABLE 7.PCI and Maintenance Priority
PCI Condition Type of maintenance Traffic Priority
No Name of road segment
category (vehicle/day)
1 Ceweng ˗ Kalianyar 95 Good Routine maintenance 7836 2
2 Peterongan ˗ Kalianyar 90 Good Routine maintenance 4661 7
3 Curahmalang ˗Sembojo 74 Satisfactory Routine maintenance 4825 6
4 Gambiran ˗ Betek 78 Satisfactory Routine maintenance 5732 3
5 Kalianyar ˗ Selorejo 68 Fair Routine maintenance 8068 1
6 Betek ˗ Sumobito 87 Good Routine maintenance 5692 4
7 Sumobito - Talunkidul 70 Fair Routine maintenance 5345 5
8 Plosokerep - Trawasan 100 Good Routine maintenance 1714 10
9 Kendalrejo – Sumberagung 36 Very poor Reconstruction 2410 15
10 Sumberejo – Kamulan 48 Poor Rehabilitation 1690 14
11 Gogolatar – Jajar 51 Poor Rehabilitation 2690 13
12 Sragi – Bogoangin 24 Serious Reconstruction 1610 16
13 Sragi – Wonorejo 68 Fair Routine maintenance 2860 8
14 Bendosewu – Dander 66 Fair Routine maintenance 2670 9
15 Tumpang – Kendalrejo 81 Satisfactory Routine maintenance 1320 11
16 Jegu – Tumpang 78 Satisfactory Routine maintenance 1160 12

CONCLUSION

From this research, several conclusions can be formulated. This research used a combination of PCI and Road
Note 1 method for survey and prioritization. The results can be identified as follows: four road segments are in good
condition, four road segments are satisfactory, four road segments are fair, two road segments are poor, one road
segment is very poor, and one road segment is in serious condition. As a method of pavement condition survey, PCI
is a complete method that accommodates all types of pavement distress in which there are 20 types of pavement
distress. But for Indonesian district roads, the PCI requires modifications in order to be more suited to Indonesia’s
environmental conditions. Contrarily, the Road Note 1 method for determining pavement maintenance priority
requires more detailed categories, especially in traffic levels. To accommodate the growth of traffic in Indonesian
district areas, it is advised to split the traffic level category, especially for levels greater than 1000 vehicles/day, so
as to provide more detail information. The application of PCI and Road Note 1 with some modifications as a survey
method for district roads merits consideration.

040020-5
 REFERENCES

1. I. G. Heggie, Transp. Rev., 23, No 2, 139–160 ( 2003).

2. Kementerian Perhubungan, Buku informasi transportasi 2015 ( Pustikomhub, Jakarta, 2015), pp. 1˗ 77.
3. Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum, Peraturan Menteri Pekerjaan Umum Nomor: 13/PRT/M/2011, (Kementerian
Pekerjaan Umum, Jakarta, 2011), pp 1 ˗ 22.
4. S. Ahmed, P. Vedagiri, and K. V. K. Rao, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol., 10, No. 2,158–170 ( 2017).
5. D. Moazami, H. Behbahani, and R. Muniandy, Expert Syst. Appl., 38, No. 10, 12869–12879 ( 2011).
6. P. Babashamsi, A. Golzadfar, N. Izzi, and H. Ceylan, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol., 9, No. 2, (112–120) 2016.
7. J. Dalal, K. J. P. Mohapatra, and G. C. Mitra, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., 17, No. 2, 135–158 (2010).
8. S. Chandran, K. P. Isaac, and A. Veeraragavan, J. Transp. Res. Board, 1, No. 1989, 53–60 (2007).
9. J. Farhan and T. F. Fwa, J. Transp. Res. Board, 2093, 12–24 (2009).
10. D. Moazami, R. Muniandy, H. Hamid, and Z. Yusoff, Sci. Res. Essays, 6, No. 12, 2447–2456 (2011).
11. N. Khademi and A. Sheikholeslami, J. Infrastruct. Syst., 2010, No. 16, 188–198 (2010).
12. H. R. Kerali and V. Mannisto, Transp. Res. Rec., 1655, No. 99, 49–54 (2014).
13. M. Y. Shahin, Pavement Management for Airports, Roads and Parking Lots. (Springer, New York 2002), pp.
17˗56.
14. ASTM, Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys. (ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, 2007), pp. 1 ˗ 48.
15. TRL, Overseas road note 1, Road Maintenance Management for District Engineers. (TRL Limited, Berkshire,
2003), pp. 44 ˗ 47.
16. G. E. Elkins, T. M. Thompson, J. L. Groeger, B. Visintine, and G. R. Rada, Reformulated Pavement Remaining
Service Life Framework. (FHWA, Georgetown, 2013), pp. 3 ˗ 7.

040020-6