Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 343

A Decision Making Framework for Condition Evaluation of Airfield Pavements Using

Non-Destructive Testing
Vidhi Vyas1; Ajit Pratap Singh, Ph.D.2; and Anshuman Srivastava, Ph.D.3
1
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani
333031, India. E-mail: vidhivyas.29@gmail.com
2
Professor and Dean, Academic-Undergraduate Studies Division (AUGS), Birla Institute of
Technology and Science, Pilani 333031, India. E-mail: aps@pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3
Associate Professor and Head, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and
Science, Pilani 333031, India. E-mail: anshu@pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in

ABSTRACT
The rapid growth in transportation sector demands compatible infrastructure for its
sustenance. This is offered by a long-lasting highway and airfield pavement network. However,
these pavements start deteriorating soon after their construction, the degree of which depends on
the rate of application of loading and prevailing climatic conditions. This calls for a need for
continual assessment of their structural and functional capacity, to plan for their repair or
rehabilitation alternatives. In this work, a case study on pavement condition evaluation of
runway located at an international airport is conducted. The runway pavement being in
deteriorated condition has been divided into six sections which are rated and prioritized for
maintenance and repair (M&R) needs. Their condition has been evaluated on the basis of four
decision criteria, using the opinion of experts. This task has been fulfilled by using two multi-
criteria decision-making techniques, namely analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy inference tool.
A combination of visual surveys, heavy weight deflectometer tests, and ground-penetrating radar
scans provide the essential structural capacity data for carrying out the analyses. The ranking
obtained from both the techniques slightly varies due to the inherent difference in their
approaches. However, the sections with least and maximum priority are concluded to be similar
from both the analyses. This prioritization methodology offers a systematic approach to planners
and decision authorities for selecting optimum M&R strategies.

INTRODUCTION
Airports play substantial role in a country's economic and infrastructure development. They
facilitate movement of people and cargo resulting in increased industrialization and
globalization. Over the past few decades, the rapid growth in aircraft size and wheel
configurations had a profound effect on airfield pavement design, construction, and
serviceability. Runways form one of the most important elements of airfield pavement network
and are subjected to excessive impact loads of aircraft. Therefore, it is vital to maintain their
structural and functional condition from the point of view of safety, comfort, and serviceability.
Nevertheless, inadequate maintenance and adverse impacts of temperature, moisture and loading
may reduce pavement quality. This results in the formation of various distresses, eventually
leading to their failure.
Timely condition evaluation and maintenance would prolong pavement service lives within
an acceptable level of service. However, due to budgetary constraints in the allocation of funds,
M&R strategies are implemented based on the current conditions of pavements. Therefore, the
objective is to justify the need for M&R treatment using an objective process and decide which

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 344

pavement sections should be given priority. Recent advances in non-destructive testing (NDT)
techniques minimize the need for destructive testing which involves excavations and interrupts
aircraft operations. Deflection testing using Heavy Weight Deflectometer (HWD) offers an ideal
tool to evaluate the structural integrity of airfield pavements based on surface deflection data.
Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) surveys reveal the subsurface conditions, such as underground
utilities, the location of voids, thickness of pavement layers, etc. Visual inspections of surface
distresses assist in developing Pavement Condition Index (PCI) to rate the surface condition of
pavements and give an idea of its functional performance.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The present study incorporates the application of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and
Fuzzy Inference System (FIS) in MATLAB tool (version 9.2.0.556344 (R2017a)) to prioritize
the runway asphalt pavement of an international airport. AHP is a technique which is widely
used for prioritization problems by using a subjective approach. The vagueness involved in it is
effectively addressed by using fuzzy based FIS tool of MATLAB which works on an objective
approach. In addition to the tests mentioned above which are performed to collect field data,
cores have been extracted at a few locations to supplement the information. Based on these
findings, the runway pavement sections have been prioritized for M&R needs.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Prioritization of pavements can be performed either on the basis of a single characteristic,
such as PCI or a combination of different characteristics (ACRP 2011). A number of studies
have been performed to assess the condition of pavements. Both deterministic and probabilistic
approaches involving regression models, Markov chain models, artificial intelligence techniques,
etc., have been adopted by the authors (Huang 1993; Kang et al. 2010; Park and Kim 2003).
These studies have employed Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing and distress surveys
for estimating the structural condition of pavements. Few other researchers have formulated
pavement condition indices using different attributes including roughness, structural capacity,
skid resistance, cracking, sealing, patching, raveling, etc. (Shah et al. 2013; Shoukry et al. 1997).
Different approaches of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) have been reported to
significantly contribute to problems dealing with prioritization projects due to the inherent
decision-making process involved in such projects. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as
described by Saaty (1980) has been successfully utilized for such cases (Ahmed et al. 2017).
Larson and Forman (2007) have used AHP and Expert Choice decision support software to
structure decision making and derive the most preferred project scope for video logging and
pavement condition data collection. Being solely based on the judgment of decision-makers, the
subjectivity and redundancies involved in the process of AHP are overcome by using it in a
combination of fuzzy logic theory (Taheriyoun et al. 2010). Evaluation and ranking of pavement
sections and treatment alternatives on the basis of performance indicators, such as surface
deterioration, deflection, and rutting, following AHP with fuzzy modeling has also been
practiced by many researchers (Moazami et al. 2011, Singh et al. 2017; Sun and Gu 2011). It is
worth mentioning that even though airfield pavements are subjected to greater loads, they are
built and maintained similar to highway pavements and are exposed to similar environmental
conditions (ACRP 2011). Additional parameters such as PCI, structural index (ACN/PCN ratio),
friction characteristics, and foreign object debris potential have also been adopted for rating
airfield pavement condition (Greene et al. 2004).
This paper has twofold objectives from the pavement evaluation viewpoint, which are
fulfilled by taking a case study of an international airport. The first objective is to identify the

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 345

important indicators of runway pavement condition and perform various tests to determine their
numerical values for various runway sections. Secondly, based on the outcomes of the field tests,
a methodology has been developed to evaluate and rank these sections for M&R purposes
considering selected parameters, using AHP and FIS of MATLAB. It is worth mentioning here
that the selection of maintenance or repair method after pavement condition evaluation is beyond
the scope of this work.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 1. Methodology of the study.

Figure 2. Patch repair and cracks observed on the runway.

METHODOLOGY
To propose a solution to the real world problem of runway asphalt pavement condition
assessment and prioritization of its different sections, a methodological setup has been framed
and executed taking a case study of an international airport, as shown in Figure 1. The first step
comprises selecting and dividing the runway into 500 m sections. From the ease of data
collection point of view, it is more appropriate to divide the pavement into an equal number of
sections. Moreover, since any of the repair or maintenance strategies could be successfully
implemented section-wise or area-wise and not point-wise, therefore it is better to divide the
pavement sequentially. The division on the basis of thickness or deflection values would
unnecessarily make the entire process of data collection very complex. In the second step,

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 346

comprehensive field investigations were carried out, and pavement performance indicators of
airfield pavements were identified. These were selected as central surface deflection value, PCI,
 ACN 
subgrade strength (CBR) and structural index  i.e.,  . These parameters are critically
 PCN 
chosen by considering the various aspects of the condition of pavements. Central surface
deflection is the deflection of the pavement surface measured by the sensor located at the center
of HWD. This value is generally the highest of all deflection values since it is directly measured
under the falling load. PCI is a parameter which is based on the visual determination of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

pavement distress quantity. The criterion subgrade strength is taken to appraise the impact of
subgrade soil on pavement condition. Lastly, the structural index is the most relevant factor from
the runway pavement point of view. It represents the impact of aircraft on the pavement as well
as the capability of pavement to support the aircraft and normally reported as the ratio of Aircraft
Classification Number (ACN) and Pavement Classification Number (PCN). Relevant field
surveys and tests were conducted to obtain the required data. Finally, the last step deals with
prioritizing these pavement sections by using two techniques (AHP and FIS) for M&R policies
to perform optimum utilization of funds.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
Study area
This study has been performed on an international airport, whose runway condition was
reported to have been deteriorated as determined by visual signs of distress. Data has been
collected on the runway oriented 02/20 of the airport, extending to the length of 3.05 km. The
runway comprises of asphalt concrete pavement, and its pavement composition include asphalt
concrete surface and binder courses, crushed aggregate base course and granular subbase course
over selected fill type subgrade.

Field testing and data collection

To fulfill the first objective of the study, the important indicators of the runway pavement
condition and its structural capacity have been identified as deflection, PCI, subgrade strength
and structural index. Accordingly, to obtain the values of these parameters, the runway has been
divided into 500 m long sections resulting in six number of study sections. These six sections
were eventually ranked on the basis of the selected parameters for M&R needs. It should be
noted that the functional performance indicators namely friction, roughness and skid resistance
are beyond the scope of this paper.

HWD tests
Investigation of deflection was performed by conducting HWD tests using Dynatest model
8081 HWD with loading range of 30-320 kN in accordance with ASTM standards at every 50 m
interval on each of these sections (ASTM D4694; ASTM D4695). The tests were conducted
using a 300 mm diameter loading plate along longitudinal alignment with offsets at 3 m, 6 m and
9 m, both the sides of the runway centerline in a staggered manner and also at 20 m offset on
shoulders. The measurements were done with three drops of mass, first being the seating load.
The device was configured to have ten active sensors, placed radially outward from the center of
the load plate. However, for the purpose of this study, only central deflection value, which is the

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 347

maximum, was considered. Pavement and air temperatures were recorded in conjunction with
each test. The collected data was normalized and corrections for seasonal moisture and
temperature variations were applied. Estimation of the structural index which is the ratio of ACN
and PCN was primarily based on the results of HWD and performed by using Dynatest software
ELMOD 6 (version 6.1.55). The critical aircraft considered was Boeing B777-200 with aircraft
weight of 298010 kg. Subgrade strength is reported in terms of California Bearing Ratio (CBR).
The CBR is expressed as a percentage of the penetration resistance of the soil to that of a
standard value for crushed stone (AC 2009). It is desirable for the subgrade to have greater
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

strength, high compaction, and good drainage.

Figure 3. Variation of pavement layer thicknesses along L3.

Figure 4. Hierarchy tree for objectives, criteria and decision alternatives to the decision
problem.

Visual inspections
Runway pavement condition rating and assignment of PCI for all six sections were
performed by conducting visual surveys in accordance with ASTM standards (ASTM D5340).
PCI which is a numerical index between 0 (worst condition) and 100 (best condition), rates the
surface condition of pavement and provides an indication of its level of deterioration. Lateral
variation of distress was assessed by taking observations 30 m left and 30 m right to the runway
centerline. These were further subdivided into the center lane of 15 m on either side of the
centerline, side lane of next 7.50 m width, and verge lane of last 7.50 m width. Distresses were
clubbed into different modes, such as deformation, surface disintegration, and crack. On the
basis of riding comfort, safety, and structural behavior, the distresses were divided into
categories of major and minor distresses (THIP 2003). Distresses including depressions,

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 348

deformations, corrugations, block cracks, patch repairs, and fatigue cracks have been observed.
The overall runway was rated to be in poor condition. Figure 2 shows the observations related to
the condition of runway pavement taken during its visual inspections.

GPR surveys
GPR is widely used for measuring pavement layer thicknesses. Moreover, the layer thickness
is an input parameter for performing further analysis in ELMOD 6 software; therefore GPR
survey with 400 MHz antenna has been conducted in this study. In addition to layer thicknesses
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

estimation, it also gives a preliminary idea regarding the pavement subsurface conditions.
Measurements were taken along six alignments parallel to the runway centerline and at 3 m
offsets either side (L3, L6, L9, R3, R6, and R9). Figure 3 presents the longitudinal profile of
pavement layer thicknesses (H1 and H2) along L3. It can be observed that the thickness is not
uniform throughout, which indicates the poor strength of pavement layers. It can also be seen
that at around 0.55-1.00 km, the abrupt increase in the thickness of layer-2 (H2) is a
representation of the weak subgrade or settlement. Similar figures have been generated for
measurements along all the other five alignments (L6, L9, R3, R6, and R9).

PAVEMENT PRIORITIZATION USING ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS

Analytic hierarchy process, first introduced by Thomas L. Saaty follows the perspective of
MCDA (Saaty 1980). It presents the decision problem in the form of hierarchy and assigns
suitable weights to each of its element. Systematic and quantitative comparison of the relative
importance of the criteria and alternatives is performed. It is based on the principle that
knowledge and judgment of individuals are valuable while making a decision. Thus, decision-
makers are involved, and they are asked to judge the relative importance of each criterion and
rate the preference using a scale called Saaty's scale, from 1 to 9 to eventually rank the
alternatives (Saaty 1990; Vargas 1990). To rank the various pavement sections, Expert choice
decision-making software has been used. This software is widely used to resolve various real-
world decision problems by making use of expert judgments, structuring the problem, measuring
the importance of objectives and alternatives, conducting what-if and sensitivity analyses. The
four-step procedure that has been followed is presented in the subsequent paragraphs.

Step-1: Structure the problem into a hierarchy

The six pavement sections of the runway, i.e., alternatives (A1, A2,…, A6) are to be ranked
on the basis of four performance criteria, namely, surface deflection, PCI, subgrade strength
(CBR) and structural index (ACN/PCN). Figure 4 shows the hierarchy for this decision problem.

Step 2: Generation of pairwise comparison matrices

To assess the contribution of each criterion, suitable weights are to be allocated which is
achieved by making pairwise comparisons. On the basis of Saaty's ranking scale, a score
between 1 and 9 is given while making pairwise comparisons. For this purpose, responses from
ten experts from this field are taken.

Stage 3: Estimation of weights

The matrices obtained using the judgment of decision makers are then analyzed using Expert

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 349

Choice software (version 11.1.3840), and weights for criteria and alternatives are then obtained.
Tables 1 and 2 show the obtained weights for criteria and alternatives, respectively. Deflection is
allotted the maximum weight, followed by PCI, subgrade strength and structural index. This is in
accordance with the fact that deflections are a true representation of pavement’s structural
strength and high surface deflections indicate the weak structural strength of pavements.
Moreover, low values of PCI are a strong indicator of deteriorated pavements. The inconsistency
in judgments is 0.06, which is less than the prescribed limit of 10%.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. Weights of decision criteria obtained using AHP.

Criterion AHP Weights
Deflection 0.547
PCI 0.285
Subgrade strength 0.110
Structural index 0.058

Table 2. Weights of alternatives obtained using AHP.

Alternatives AHP Weights
A1 0.230
A2 0.206
A3 0.166
A4 0.141
A5 0.134
A6 0.122

Step 4: Estimation of the overall ranking of pavement sections

From Table 2, the lowest weight of pavement section A6 infers that this section is in the
worst condition and is heavily deteriorated. Hence, it requires immediate maintenance or repair,
and accordingly, funds should be allocated. However, pavement section A1 has the highest
quality of pavement condition. As a result, it would need the M&R after the completion of all
other sections.

PAVEMENT PRIORITIZATION USING FUZZY INFERENCE SYSTEM

Fuzzy logic reasoning effectively handles the uncertainty and ambiguity associated with
subjective opinions. In this study, one of the widely used fuzzy inference technique known as
Mamdani method is applied for the decision problem of prioritizing pavement sections using
MATLAB tool (version 9.2.0.556344 (R2017a)). The three basic steps involved in this method are
(i) fuzzification of the input variables, (ii) setting up inference rules, and (iii) defuzzification. In
the process of fuzzification, the crisp data inputs are transformed into fuzzy numbers by using
membership functions. The inference rules comprise IF-THEN statements based on the opinion
of experts. The IF-THEN rules have the general form as IF µant THEN µresult, where µant and µresult
are the fuzzy values of rule antecedent and result or conclusion part, respectively. The antecedent
may be comprised of other fuzzy entities clubbed together by the AND or OR logical operators.
Defuzzification process decodes the fuzzy outputs into final crisp values. Further details can be
found elsewhere (Bianchini 2012).

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 350

The FIS in this study consists of crisp input values in criterion set as U = {deflection, PCI,
subgrade strength and structural index}, governing pavement condition as mentioned in the
previous sections. The condition of these input parameters is linguistically expressed by three
terms, viz., good, fair and poor, according to the perception of decision makers. Trapezoidal
fuzzy membership functions have been reported to be the most suitable for representing the
ratings of pavement performance indicators, and thus, they have been adopted in this study
(Zimmermann 1991, Singh et al. 2017). The membership grades for input and output variables
have been defined in FIS of MATLAB. These are shown in Figures 5 and 6. In each figure, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

horizontal axis represents the input criterion, whereas the vertical axis represents membership
grades in the interval [0, 1]. The FIS output is the condition of pavement, further classified as
poor, fair or good.

Figure 5. Membership functions of input parameters.

Figure 6. Membership functions of output (pavement condition).

Various IF-THEN rules are defined and to obtain a single value for evaluation, the IF, and
THEN parts are connected with a fuzzy operator AND. The decision experts are consulted to
form these rules using the fuzzy logic toolbox of MATLAB. Due to brevity reasons only a few of
the important rules from the entire set, concerning this study are shown in Table 3.
Finally, the aggregated input values are evaluated based on the set of fuzzy inference rules to

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 351

get the final measure of pavement condition for every section of the runway. The final scores
obtained by FIS framework of MATLAB for all the six pavement sections on the basis of four
decision criteria are presented in Table 4.

Table 3. Fuzzy inference rules for evaluating pavement condition.

Inputs Output
Operators
IF AND AND AND THEN
→
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Criteria → Deflection PCI Subgrade strength Structural index Result

Rule 1 Good Good Fair Fair Good
Rule 2 Good Good Poor Poor Fair
Rule 3 Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor
Rule 4 Poor Poor Good Fair Poor
Rule 5 Fair Good Fair Good Fair

Table 4. Input data and output score of pavement sections.

Pavement sections Score
↓
A1 0.500
A2 0.384
A3 0.354
A4 0.485
A5 0.500
A6 0.210

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The scores obtained in Table 4 through this approach represent the condition of various
pavement sections of the runway. Although, the low values of deflection, PCI or structural index
individually in itself indicate the poor condition of the pavement. However, the scores obtained
in this paper combines the cumulative effect of all the parameters on the condition of pavements,
which may greatly vary from the individual results. This helps to make the judgment more robust
regarding the deterioration assessment, and it also becomes easier to decide the M&R
requirement.
As seen from Table 4, the lowest score is allocated to pavement section A6. Thus, it can be
concluded that this section needs the immediate repair or rehabilitation measure. It is worth
observing from Table 2 that the AHP methodology has also given the least weight to the
pavement section A6 and concluded it to be in the most deteriorated condition. In addition to
this, the score of section A1 is found to be the highest, in both AHP and FIS analyses. However,
the immediate scores are found to vary in both the approaches. This may be attributed to the
inherent difference in both the methodologies, AHP being crisp in nature is a purely subjective
approach based on experts’ opinion, whereas fuzzy logic is objective in nature and deals with
randomness and ambiguity in a better way. Nevertheless, it can be seen that in spite of the
differences approximately similar results are obtained from both the analyses.

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 352

CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, an attempt has been made to prioritize different pavement sections of a runway,
based on their condition for repair and maintenance requirements. To accomplish this task, two
approaches from MCDA have been adopted, namely, AHP and MATLAB based FIS, with the
twofold benefits, AHP provides the subjective approach whereas objectivity is considered in
fuzzy logic. The evaluation has been performed based on four pavement quality and strength
parameters. The results from both the approaches conclude that runway pavement section A6 is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in the worst condition and treatment should be first implemented for 500 m of this section,
accordingly, funds should be dispensed. Based on the availability of budget, other sections may
be repaired or rehabilitated, in accordance with their scores.
The M&R treatments may include a variety of surface treatments such as crack filling and
coating, asphalt concrete or Portland concrete overlaying, chip sealing, incorporation of
reclaimed asphalt pavement into new asphalt concrete or reconstruction. The feasibility of any of
the treatment type may be determined by the design engineers by taking help of the scores
developed in this work. For example, the critically low score may trigger the need for
reconstruction, since it infers that all the governing criteria have exceeded their threshold limits.
Similarly, a moderately high or high score may warrant only slight surface treatment. However,
the conditions would be site specific, and the treatment type would depend on the intellect and
understanding of the respective site engineers and planners.
The approaches presented in this paper have a wide-ranging scope in various fields and are
very flexible in the sense that any modification, inclusion or exclusion of attributes can be easily
performed according to the necessity. A large set of fuzzy rules can be built using crucial
parameters, and their impact on the output can be assessed. Such comprehensive prioritizing
methodology can provide a systematic approach to planners and implementation agencies to deal
with such decision problems.

REFERENCES
AC (Advisory circular). (2009). Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation, AC No: 150/5320-6E.
Federal Aviation Administration, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
ACRP (Airport Cooperative Research Program). (2011). Common Airport Pavement
Maintenance Practices: A Synthesis of Airport Practice, Synthesis 22. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Ahmed, S., Vedagiri, P., and Rao, K. K. (2017). “Prioritization of pavement maintenance
sections using objective based analytic hierarchy process.” Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol.,
10(2), 158-170.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2015). Standard test method for
deflections with a falling-weight-type impulse load device. ASTM D4694, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA,
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2015). Standard guide for general
pavement deflection measurements, ASTM D4695, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2012). Standard test method for airport
pavement condition index surveys, ASTM D5340, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA.
Bianchini, A. (2012). “Fuzzy representation of pavement condition for efficient pavement

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019 353

management.” Comput‐Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng., 27(8), 608-619.

Greene, J., Shahin, M., and Alexander, D. (2004). “Airfield pavement condition assessment.”
Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board, 1889, 63-70.
Huang, Y. H. (1993). Pavement analysis and design. Pearson Education, Prentice Hall, NJ.
Kang, M., Kim, M., and Lee, J. H. (2010). “Analysis of rigid pavement distresses on interstate
highway using decision tree algorithms.” KSCE J. Civ. Eng., 14(2), 123-130.
Larson, C. D., and Forman, E. H. (2007). “Application of analytic hierarchy process to select
project scope for video logging and pavement condition data collection.” Transp. Res. Rec.:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

J. Transp. Res. Board, 1990(1), 40-47.

Moazami, D., Behbahani, H., and Muniandy, R. (2011). “Pavement rehabilitation and
maintenance prioritization of urban roads using fuzzy logic.” Expert Syst. Appl., 38(10),
12869-12879.
Park, H., and Kim, Y. (2003). “Prediction of remaining life of asphalt pavement with falling-
weight deflectometer multiload-level deflections." Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board,
1860, 48-56.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource
Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). “How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Eur. J. Oper.
Res., 48(1), 9–26.
Shah, Y. U., Jain, S. S., Tiwari, D., and Jain, M. K. (2013). “Development of overall pavement
condition index for urban road network.” Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci., 104, 332-341.
Shoukry, S., Martinelli, D., and Reigle, J. (1997). “Universal pavement distress evaluator based
on fuzzy sets.” Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board, 1592, 180-186.
Singh, A. P., Sharma, A., Mishra, R., Wagle, M., and Sarkar, A. K. (2017). “Pavement condition
assessment using soft computing techniques.” Int. J. Pavement Res. and Technol., 11(6),
564-581.
Sun, L., and Gu, W. (2010). “Pavement condition assessment using fuzzy logic theory and
analytic hierarchy process.” J. Transp. Eng., 137(9), 648-655.
Taheriyoun, M., Karamouz, M., and Baghvand, A. (2010). “Development of an entropy-based
fuzzy eutrophication index for reservoir water quality evaluation.” Iran. J. Env. Health Sci.
Eng., 7(1), 1-14.
THIP (Third Highway Project). (2003). Implementation Completion Report (IDA), Credit No.
LA-2943, (including NDF Credit No. 183). Ministry of Communications, Transport, Post and
Construction, Department of Roads, Lao People's Democratic Republic.
Vargas, L. G. (1990). “An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications.” Eur.
J. Oper. Res., 48(1), 2–8.
Zimmermann, H. J. (1991). Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications. Springer Netherlands.

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019