infrastructures

Review
Pavement Distress Detection Methods: A Review
Antonella Ragnoli 1, * , Maria Rosaria De Blasiis 2 and Alessandro Di Benedetto 2
1 Department of Civil, Constructional and Environmental Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome,
00184 Rome, Italy
2 Department of Engineering, Roma Tre University, 00154 Rome, Italy;
[email protected] (M.R.D.B.); [email protected] (A.D.B.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-0644-585-115




Received: 28 September 2018; Accepted: 17 December 2018; Published: 19 December 2018


Abstract: The road pavement conditions affect safety and comfort, traffic and travel times, vehicles
operating cost, and emission levels. In order to optimize the road pavement management and
guarantee satisfactory mobility conditions for all road users, the Pavement Management System
(PMS) is an effective tool for the road manager. An effective PMS requires the availability of
pavement distress data, the possibility of data maintenance and updating, in order to evaluate
the best maintenance program. In the last decade, many researches have been focused on pavement
distress detection, using a huge variety of technological solutions for both data collection and
information extraction and qualification. This paper presents a literature review of data collection
systems and processing approach aimed at the pavement condition evaluation. Both commercial
solutions and research approaches have been included. The main goal is to draw a framework of
the actual existing solutions, considering them from a different point of view in order to identify the
most suitable for further research and technical improvement, while also considering the automated
and semi-automated emerging technologies. An important attempt is to evaluate the aptness of the
data collection and extraction to the type of distress, considering the distress detection, classification,
and quantification phases of the procedure.

Keywords: pavement distress; pavement management; distress identification; data collection system

1. Introduction
Road condition is an important aspect for the development of a country, it indicates the economic
level and it has been adopted as rating criteria by the World Bank [1]: “the density of paved roads in
good condition varies from 40 km/million inhabitants in low-income economies to 470 middle-income
and 8,550 in high-income economies”. Maintaining an acceptable level of service for the whole road
network, and, in particular, assessing an effective pavement maintenance and rehabilitation program
is challenging for the road public authorities.
Pavement Management System (PMS) is a planning tool assisting road agencies in
decision-making process to efficiently maintain the road network in a timely and cost-effective manner
as well as to assure comfort and safety of the users. [2,3].
A traditional reactive approach for pavement maintenance prescribes road replacement once
significant structural damage has occurred: this approach leads to more severe and expensive
rehabilitation, which can cause unsafe conditions for road users prior to the interventions, as described
in [2,4,5].
A proactive approach is pavement preservation oriented: it seeks to create a system of
implementing relatively less invasive and small-scale repairs on roads prior to structural degradations
occurring, limiting the necessity of full depth road reconstruction. When compared to the reactive

Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58; doi:10.3390/infrastructures3040058 www.mdpi.com/journal/infrastructures

Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58 2 of 19

approach, it will result in long-term savings, reduced traffic congestion, without leading to a massive
safety condition reduction [2,6]. Data collection and analysis phases are crucial to perform a proactive
approach, fundamental or a successful PMS implementation, as reported by other authors [7,8].
Monitoring the pavement condition after construction, and comparing the actual with the desired
performance level, allow for evaluating the level of damage and identifying the cause of the problem
and finally designing the treatments and deciding the prioritization of intervention [9,10].
The pavement condition can be determined both manually and automatically: while the first
method is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and prone to the subjectivity of inspectors, the second one
offers an automated detection solution, which minimizes the subjectivity, improves the productivity,
but it entails the higher cost of realization [2,8,11].
From this consideration arise that the benefits coming from a proactive approach have to face
with some initial disadvantages, which have led to an overall delay in PMS adoption worldwide.
Implementation costs of the system and operation costs for data acquisition and processing,
time-consuming operations, such as survey and data process, have represented a limitation, even more
when considering the large extension of the road network.
In this regard, repeatability, accuracy, and objectivity of distress acquisition and the detection of
pavement are a very important improvement in this kind of process [2,11].
At the same time, agencies were conscious that the delay in PMS application would lead to a
more rapid deterioration of global road networks and an economical lost [8]: this consideration has fed
the interest of several road authorities and researchers in developing automated and semi-automated
procedures for pavement assessment and evaluation. Several systems and procedures have been
implemented during the last ten years, focused on improving the survey technique, especially in
order to overcome the limits of manual survey [6,9], increasing operating safety, and improving the
cost-benefit ratio [10].
It must be mentioned that almost all commercial solutions are high performance oriented,
designed for high-speed roads, and are capable of acquiring a huge amount of georeferenced data,
often requiring a considerable economical resource for surveys and post-processing activities. For these
reasons, a high-level PMS is often not achievable by many local agencies.
Moreover, many studies in the literature are focused on the relation between PMS and particular
pavement performances (such as roughness or adherence), but very few provide a global approach
that is safety and comfort based [4,5,7].
This paper aims to provide an overview of current practices and emerging technologies in order to
build a solid information base for pavement management that is based on safety and comfort criteria.

2. State of Practice in Pavement Distress Classification and Related Indices

The pavement distress labeling and quantification in term of type, severity, and extension are
the first steps for a road maintenance assessment. This phase is often crucial because of a lack of
standardization in the distress definition that could lead to the inconsistency of the classification.
In literature, there are several distress identification catalogues by different researchers and
organizations [12,13], which almost adopt the same identification and evaluation criteria. One of
the most well-known and diffused references is the ASTM D6433-16 [14], which provides distress
criteria identification and classification for both flexible and rigid pavement. Another American
reference that is commonly used is the manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program
by the US Department of Transportation [12], which aims to collect pavement performance data in
the United States and Canada. This classification is relevant because widely experienced and for
its international orientation and integrity of classification, but it does not provide any numerical
threshold for distress severity classification [8]. The European background in distress identification
and management is limited to some isolated cases. In fact, only the French Institute of Science and
Technology for Transport [15] and the Swiss Association of Road and Transport Professionals [16] have
developed a systematical approach in pavement distress identification in their guidelines, while only
Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58 3 of 19

recently Ireland has included the assessment of road pavement that is based only on the surface
condition evaluation [17]. In Italy, the diffusion of standard procedures for distress identification is
few and limited to guidelines of the National Research Council and isolated case of application of any
road officers [18].
The common aim of all the above-mentioned Distress Catalogues, is to provide an “as objective
as possible” common set of criteria to evaluate the pavement condition and define management
strategies. In fact, almost of the methods to perform a Pavement Management System are based on the
development of pavement condition indices to express the structural and operational performance,
by combining different distress type expressed in terms of severity and extension, such as Pavement
Condition Index (PCI) [12–14]. To perform a preventive maintenance approach for a whole road
network, the availability of detailed information about actual road conditions is required. This can be
obtained only through an accurate distress identification and classification. On the other side to reach
high level information, high investments in technologies and qualified staff are necessary.
In recent years, boosted by the challenging goal of the EU in Road Safety [19], many researchers
and public agencies have spent their energies and resources in investigating the role of road condition in
the incidental phenomena [7,11,20,21]. Moreover, due to the lack of economic resources, many countries
have to face with the impossibility of investing in sophisticated PMS and expensive extensive surveys.
From these considerations, the effectiveness of a pavement classification tool emerges. A defined set of
information acquired by focused surveys [7,22,23] can provide a safety and comfort-oriented tool.

2.1. Distress
This review paper deals only with distresses detected on the flexible pavement. This choice
reflects the authors’ aim to provide a state of the art useful to almost all organizations involved in road
management because of the huge worldwide diffusion of this kind of pavement.
As a reference guide for the distress classification, the most well-known and appreciated Distress
Catalogues have been considered [10,14] in order to identify the most frequent distresses in flexible
road pavement tightly coupled with the comfort and safety of the vehicles. As a result of this first step
of the review, the contribution in terms of comfort or safety reduction has been considered for each
type of distress, according to its severity and extension.
According to the [10,13,14], the distresses types have been grouped into four families,
as described below:

• A. Cracking.
• B. Viscoplastic deformation
• C. Surface defects.
• D. Miscellaneous distresses.

In the following paragraphs, the characteristics of each group of distresses are summarized,
in order to facilitate their identification and to evaluate their own contribution to comfort and safety
level for road users.

2.1.1. Cracking Group

Pavement cracking group includes several kinds of distresses, such as fatigue cracking,
block cracking, edge cracking, longitudinal and transverse cracking, and reflection cracking. Most of
them are related to climatic causes, except for the alligator cracking type, related to load, and slippage
cracking that is caused by traffic. Their position, dimension, and orientation allow for identifying
the specific type of cracking and the related causes, as reported in detail in Figure A1 in Appendix A.
Moreover, they have different effects on the global safety and comfort level of the road: for example,
the presence of fatigue cracking advises the end of lifecycle for the pavement, far from the
recommended standard.
Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58 4 of 19

2.1.2. Viscoplastic Deformation Group

The viscoplastic deformation group consists of all the deformations involving both superficial
and bottom layers. Showing, corrugation, and lane/shoulder drop off generally involve horizontal
and vertical displacement of the top layer of the pavement structure, while bumps and sags, rutting,
depression, potholes, and swell may affect the whole structure. The first cause of viscoplastic distresses
is the load, followed by traffic and climatic effects. Their position, dimension, and orientation allow
for identifying the specific type of distress and the related causes, as reported in detail in Appendix A,
Figure A2.

2.1.3. Surface Defect Group

The surface defect group encompasses bleeding, polish aggregate, and raveling. When bleeding
occurs, an excess of bituminous binder is present in the top layer surface, while in case of raveling
an inadequate asphalt binder can cause the dislodging of aggregate. In the case of Polish aggregate,
the top layer surface becomes smooth because of the aggregates exposition to the traffic, producing a
reduction in adhesion. Causes of surface defects are related to bituminous materials characteristics
and to the traffic effect. Their position, dimension, and orientation help in identifying the specific type
of distress, as reported in detail in Appendix A, Figure A3.

2.1.4. Miscellaneous Distress

The last three distress are patching and utility, cut patching, railroad crossing, catch basins,
and manholes cover. They are frequent in the urban area and are easily recognizable by their peculiar
shape, as summarized in Appendix A, Figure A4.

2.2. Indices Review

Distresses Catalogues provide a common language to identify, describe, and evaluate the severity
of distresses, in order to minimize the subjective component of the visual process, to guarantee the
repeatability of the method and to facilitate the communication within the authorities.
These aspects, in fact, are essential for a Road Agency motivated in realizing an efficient Road
Network Management system: standardized data collection procedures, robust pavement condition
indices, and experts in pavement data collection procedures are essential requirements for the system.
Primary aspects, which guide the PMS definition, are the comfort, the safety, and economic
issues [7,8,23]: a proper maintenance strategy can be defined trough balancing them, using specific
tools that are supported by the current pavement condition information and considering the
Agency’s priority.
In literature [9,23–25], there are several tools that enable synthesizing the current pavement
condition, to define the priority intervention order, including prediction of performance and economic
analysis. On the basis of the tool adopted, specific input data are necessary, which are characterised by
different accuracy and precision levels, and are acquired by different techniques, which contributes
to determining the global performance and cost of a PMS. Several authors [21,26,27] focused their
researches on the analysis of the relation between accidents and pavement conditions, expressed
in term of common indices: according to the literature review Pavement Condition Index (PCI),
International Roughness Index (IRI), Ruth Depth (RD), and Pavement Serviceability Index (PSI) are the
most used ones in representing a global or peculiar aspect of the road pavement. Table 1 summarises
the above-mentioned indices.
Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58 5 of 19

Table 1. Indices review for road pavement surface evaluation.

Index Information Measurement Survey Method

PCI Pavement surface Type, severity, amount of distress Visual inspection
IRI Ride quality Roughness Road profile
RD Deformation Longitudinal pavement deflection Road profile
PSI Ride quality Functional performance Visual inspection

2.2.1. Pavement Condition Index (PCI)

The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) was developed to provide a measure of pavement integrity
and surface operational condition based on a numerical scale, where 100 represents the perfect
conditions and 0 the failed one. The method is based on visual survey: the degree of deterioration is a
function of distress type, distress severity, and the amount or density on the considered sample
unit. The method, developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [13], has been adopted as
standard procedure by many agencies worldwide, and published as ASTMS standard, for both roads
and airports, [14] and [28], respectively, and adopted as a basis for PMS commercial software [28].
It guarantees consistent and accurate results, but it needs high-level accuracy for the input data,
moreover, it is prone to the human capacity for distress detection and it is time-consuming.

2.2.2. International Roughness Index (IRI)

The International Roughness Index (IRI) is a standardized roughness measurement, developed
by the World Bank in 1980 [28], which provides a ride quality classification in term of longitudinal
profile, traveled by a wheel path. The IRI is defined as the filtered ratio of the accumulated deviation
of the vehicle’s suspension divided by the traveled distance. The profile necessary for the calculation
of the index can be obtained by any valid measurement instrument, starting from static rod level to
high-speed inertial profilers, as reported in [29]. Pavement roughness is directly linked to ride quality,
comfort, and safety, because is one of the causes of load loss accident [30].

2.2.3. Rut Depth (RD)

The Rut Depth (RD) measures the longitudinal pavement deflection along the wheel path as
a consequence of the accumulation of viscoplastic deformations of layers and subgrade. The main
causes of rutting distress are heavy traffic load repetition or lateral movement of the material of the
layers. It is an important indicator that is linked to road safety, because, during wet weather conditions,
a high rutting level can facilitate the hydroplaning phenomena and loss of control of the vehicles [31].
RD measurement is simple but it needs high accuracy in data acquisition: it can be calculated from
profiles that are obtained with any valid measurement method, ranging from static rod and level
surveying equipment to high-speed inertial profiling systems.

2.2.4. Present Serviceability Index (PSI)

The Present Serviceability Index (PSI) is a parameter that is used to describe the functional
condition of pavement with respect to ride quality: it provides a valuation of the ability of the road
to serve traffic: it takes into account several road characteristics, such as slope variance, rut depth,
cracking, and patching surface, as reported in [27]. The PSI is used to provide a comprehensive
evaluation of pavement conditions, for both safety and comfort aspects: the complexity makes several
input data necessary to the calculation.

3. Method of Distress Classification Based on Comfort and Safety

The above-mentioned indices are based on the analysis of various type of data, acquired by many
technologies, characterized by different level of performance and costs.
Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58 6 of 19

IRI and RD are focused only on specific characteristics (roughness and viscoplastic deformation),
far from exhaustively describing the current pavement condition; moreover, when considering the
requested accuracy standard [14,29], the survey and post-process activities result expensive and
time-consuming. PCI is based only on a visual approach, and, especially for the evaluation part, it is
performed manually by the operator: this can lead to high costs and longtime execution. PSI has an
intermediate function but it needs different information for its calculation. From this analysis emerges
that those indices are high performance oriented, defined for primary roads or high-speed road,
and often require massive economic resources for survey and post-processing activities. Consequently,
often they do not fit the emerging information need of many local agencies that cannot implement a
high-level PMS, but they only need a way to better manage their road network. Furthermore, from the
literature review emerges that many studies focus on the relation between road accident occurrence
and pavement conditions, but little has been done to incorporate pavement safety management within
a PMS [8,24,32].
Among the wide literature review about the effect of pavement condition on driving conditions,
an interesting attempt is made by S. Tighe et al. [21] who proposed to consider the safety in a PMS
design. In particular in their study they integrated the road safety with PMS considering eight criteria:
among them the first three deal with pavement condition, such as Skid resistance and surface texture,
Roughness (e.g., IRI), Surface condition (ruts, faults, potholes, cracks, spalls, etc.), while the others
deal with road geometric and functional road characteristics, as summarised in Table 2:

Table 2. Integration of pavement condition in a Pavement Management System (PMS) [22].

Class of Factor Safety Attributes or Indicators Sensitivity of Drivers

macro and micro texture characteristics; skid resistance or
Surface Texture or Friction Low
skid number measurement; vehicle tire type standard
Pavement Roughness or Ride Quality Riding comfort rating or roughness; roughness vs speed High
Pavement Surface Distress Severity and extend of surface distress; distress index Medium
Width of lane and shoulders, median and pedestrian paths;
Pavement Geometric Design and Location Medium
gravel or paved shoulders; cross-slope
Pavement surface color and reflectivity; lane markings and
Visibility of Pavement Surface Features High
signings; visibility at night and in bad weather conditions
Type of pavement; texture and color of paving materials;
Paving Materials and Pavement Mix design Low
mineralogy and anti-skid proprieties
Road safety Measures and Facilities Safety warning sings; safety protection facilities High
Place and time of accident occurrence; roadside obstacle
Environmental and Weather condition Very High
and safety facilities; precipitations

Distress Classification Criteria

The general aim of this work is to provide a simple and effectiveness framework that is dedicated
to road management activities: integrating the classical approach of the pavement condition analysis
with the high performance of the new technologies allows for choosing the best pavement distress
detection method.
As a first goal, the present work tries to suggest a simple set of criteria to perform a pavement
condition analysis that is comfort and safety oriented: the distresses included in the catalogues,
(fully described in Appendix A), are classified when considering their influence on safety and comfort
for the road user. The criteria have been defined through the trend that arose from the literature review
and through a panel interview with flexible pavement experts. This step allows for defining, for each
distress, geometrical thresholds or pavement state, which affect the driving condition for the users in
terms of safety and comfort, as reported in Figure 1.
Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58 7 of 19
Infrastructures 2018, 3, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19

IMPACT IMPACT
TYPE OF
DISTRESS SEVERITY ON ON
INFORMATION
SAFETY COMFORT
L 0 0
FATIGUE CRACKING 2D
M 0 1
3D
H 1 2
L 0 0
BLOCK CRACKING 2D
M 0 1
3D
H 1 2
L 0 0
2D
Cracking

EDGE CRACKING M 0 0
3D
H 1 1
L 0 0
LONGITUDINAL AND 2D
M 0 1
TRANSVERSE CRACKING 3D
H 1 2
JOINT REFLECTION L 0 0
2D
CRACKING M 0 0
3D
H 1 1
L 0 0
SLIPPAGE CRACKING
M 0 0 2D
H 1 1
L 0 1
BUMPS AND SAGS
M 0 1 3D
H 1 2
L 0 1
RUTTING
M 0 1 3D
H 1 2
Visco Plastic deformations

L 0 1
CORRUGATIONS
M 1 1 3D
H 2 2
L 0 0
DEPRESSIONS
M 1 0 3D
H 2 1
L 1 1
2D
POTHOLES M 1 1
3D
H 2 2
L 0 0
SWELL 2D
M 0 0
3D
H 1 2
LANE / SHOULDER DROP L 0 0
OFF M 1 0 3D
H 2 1
L 0 0 2D
SHOVING
M 0 1 3D
H 1 2
L 1 0
BLEEDING
Surface defects

M 1 0 2D
H 2 0
L 1 0
POLISHED AGGREGATE
M 1 0 2D
H 2 0
L 1 0
RAVELING
M 1 0 2D
H 2 0
PATCHING-UTILITY CUT L 0 0
PATCHING M 0 0 2D
H 1 1
Others

RAILROAD L 1 1
CROSSING * M 1 1 2D
H 2 2
L 1 1
MANHOLE M 1 1 2D
H 2 2
Note. * Poweredtwowheeler's safety is particulary affected by the presence of
railroad crossing

Figure 1. Distress classification according to safety and comfort criteria

Figure 1. Distress classification according to safety and comfort criteria
Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58 8 of 19

To encourage the technological penetration in the Road Administrations procedures, it is necessary

to associate each distress with the type of information that is able to fully describe the pavement status
and then to suggest the appropriate technological solution. Figure 1 summarises the process: in the
left part, each distress is classified in term of impact on comfort and on safety, using a scale from 0
to 2 (where 0 is low impact and 2 is the maximum impact). In the right part of Figure 1, the type of
information required (two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) information) related to each
distress, and spatial criteria for identification are illustrated.
The first thing standing out from the analysis is that the low level of all distress is negligible
in terms of safety, excluding the ones that affect the adherence characteristics (surface defect
group), potholes, and manholes, while the railroad crossing is particularly dangerous for powered
two-wheelers. Comfort is poorly affected by the surface defect group, while viscoplastic deformation,
manholes, and railroad crossing have an evident effect on users driving condition.
Moreover, the right side of the figure clarifies which technology is appropriate for the survey:
3D is the most complete information but it is limited to only a few kinds of distress for economic
aspects. These considerations are helpful in one hand because they allow for excluding the low distress
level from the analysis purpose, and on the other hand, they are a guide to choosing the best technology
for information acquisition.

4. State of Art in Distress Detection

Quantification of pavement crack data is one of the most important criteria in determining
optimum pavement maintenance strategies. The simplest survey method is to visually inspect
the pavements and evaluate them by subjective human experts. This is a traditional approach,
which involves high survey costs; it is time-consuming and often produces unreliable and inconsistent
results. Furthermore, it exposes the inspectors to dangerous working conditions on highways [2,3].
To overcome to the limitations of the subjective visual evaluation process, several attempts have been
made to develop automated devices in pavement distress acquisition and detection. These innovative
methods, in fact, provide a non-subjective, highly productive, and accurate data set, which enables the
production of quantitative analysis of the pavement condition.
The most recent systems are composed by one or more acquisition devices and post-processing
applications for semiautomatic or automated data extraction procedures, based on computer vision
and image processing algorithms [33–36].
However, due to the irregularities of pavement surface and to the miscellaneous presence of
distresses on the pavement surface, there has been some limited success in accurately automated cracks
detection and classification, which have limited the massive adoption of this kind of system [37–39].
While the use of automated pavement condition surveys is becoming more and more common,
many agencies still rely on manual methods to provide their pavement condition data. There is no
doubt that automated pavement condition surveys are more efficient and safer than manual pavement
condition surveys; however, the quality of automated survey data has been under heavy scepticism
since its conception. Several studies [2,37,39] have shown that, in most cases, the results of the two
procedures are statistically similar: the massive presence of irregularities might produce incorrect
detection classification and quantification, especially when the irregularities are in the same portion of
the surface [2].
Type, severity, and extent of pavement distresses are the keys to assessing the pavement conditions,
and even to determine the most suitable survey technical solutions.
Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58 9 of 19

In this section, an attempt is made to present the current practices, and the emerging technologies
for data acquisition, while considering them in connection to the information requests for a PMS
that is safety and comfort oriented. To correspond to the emerging information needs of the Road
Agencies that are involved in PMS realization, the vehicles used for surveys are on a multisensors
platform: generally, they provide georeferenced information using a positioning system based on
GPS, integrated with the data from camera, laser, and other sensors, in order to describe the road
environment. In order to provide a classification of the available detection technologies for a PMS data
set acquisition, the following criteria have been considered, as reported in Table 3:

• precision, indicating the statistical variability;

• accuracy, indicating the systematic error as cause of difference from the true value;
• spatial resolution, indicating the smallest change it can detect;
• productivity, indicating the rate of production in time;
• cost of implementation; and,
• automation, implementability in automated process.

Each device has been classified from “Low” to “Very High” in terms of above-mentioned criteria.

Table 3. Technological solutions classification.

Technology Information Precision Accuracy Spatial Resolution Productivity Cost Automation

Camera 2D Medium Medium 3–6 mm High Low High
Linear scan Camera 2D High High 2 mm Medium Medium Medium
3D laser imaging 3D High High 1 mm High High Medium
TLS 3D Very High High 3–6 mm Medium High Low

4.1. Digital Camera

Digital camera is a mature technique in distress detecting: commercially available devices acquire
2D images in the visible spectrum of light. The image is captured through a digital photosensitive
sensor CCDs (Charge-Coupled Devices) or CMOS (Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor).
Currently, the two sensors are comparable as performance and use [40], but the CCDs are the
most used sensors for the identification of distresses because they are cheaper and have a greater
chromatic accuracy.
After the acquisition, a digital image processing is used to extract the distresses features using
image analysis algorithms: the different distresses are separated and classified according to some
parameters, such as the width, the direction of propagation [35,38,39,41], and the pixel colour
variation [2,34,36,42].
Among the first application on features detection using 2D images, several authors tested the
method on potholes, getting good results. Images were first segmented into the defect and non-defect
regions, using histogram shape-based thresholding; subsequently, the regions having characteristics,
such as to be classified as potential potholes, were analyzed by morphological operators. The particular
shape and dimension of potholes make their identification easier by image detection algorithms,
even when using low camera resolution. In improving the resolution of the camera, even crack
identification and measurement become a reliable procedure.
In fact, most studies on 2D images show that the identification and classification of cracks have
led to a high success ratio: studies show that the accuracy of cracks measurement may be higher than
95%, with a lower limit of 70% [2,38,43,44].
Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58 10 of 19

A non-treasurable aspect of the camera in data acquisition process is the possibility of being easily
implemented on a traveling vehicle, equipped with several sensors and a positioning system in order
to improve the survey productivity and integrate the georeferenced information component [34,45].
As the vehicle moves along the road, some factors, such as the vehicle speed, camera position, settings,
and environmental factors, might affect the final resolution of images and compromise the distress
detection. In order to properly detect the distresses, the images must undergo ortho-correction
processes in order to correct the deformations and exclude unwanted shadows and other light noise
that occurred during the acquisition [46,47].
As an example of final image resolution, a camera with an angle of view of 45 degrees
approximately and placed at 1.2 m height provides a ground sample area of 1 m2 and while considering
20 mpx sensor resolution we can expect a ground sample distance (GSD) that is equal to 0.2 mm.
Most commercial vehicles that are used for inspections are equipped with cameras that are not
used directly to measure and identify the distresses, but are used to assist other measurement devices,
such as linear cameras, triangulation, or LiDAR devices.
Most recent applications in pavement inspections employ remote sensing procedure using UAVs
(Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) and the image processing and pattern recognition techniques as for the
terrestrial application [48]. However, at a certain height of flight, the spatial resolutions of these images
limit the ability to detect the pavement distress, such as individual cracks, because most of their width
is less than 0.01 m. A CMOS with sensor resolution 12 mpx integrated on a UAV platform flying at a
height of about five meters produces a spatial resolution of about 3 mm, with a maximum accuracy of
about 7 mm [49]. Under these conditions, rutting, alligator cracking, and transverse cracking distresses
can be identified.

4.2. Line Scan Camera

The line-scan camera is ideal for applications requiring both high acquisition rates and high
resolution. A line scan camera produces a sequence of single lines pixels (generally 2000x1 pixel until
8192 pixels per line in higher resolution devices): in order to build up a two-dimensional image of the
pavement the camera is moved perpendicular to the line of pixels, generally by a terrestrial vehicle [50].
Line scan camera can assure a high daily productivity in the survey phase, in fact, a high frame rate
of the camera (such as 28 kHz) allows the vehicle to drive up to 90 km/h, but it can result in a time
consuming and expensive post-processing and distress detection phase [8,51].
Line-Scan cameras were mainly used for crack detection from 2D images: the distress visibility is
inversely proportional to spatial resolution. In fact, for a camera that is characterized by a resolution
equal to 2048 pixel per line mounted at the height of 1.80 m, the visible crack width is equal to 2 mm.
Increasing the resolution to 4096, the visible crack width comes down to 1 mm [41,52].An important
improvement in high resolution distress detection has been the adoption of Laser- Illumination based
technology in 2005, which overcame to the sunlight and shadows disturbs [3,8,51,52]. The commercial
solutions based on this technology are the so-called Laser Road Imaging Systems [53]: they can work
nighttime or daytime, as long as the pavement is dry. LRIS system uses two cameras which produce
synchronized and partially overlapped pair images to form a single image.

4.3. 3D Laser Imaging

Several pavement surfaces distress is tridimensional: 2D dimension (surface) and the height
differences (depth). 3D sensors include a variety of technological solutions, and most of them are
based on laser profilers in combination with imaging. This technology has been widely applied for
quality controls in manufactory, and only in recent years, it has been applied in pavement surface
analysis [3,8,52].
Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58 11 of 19

One of the most used 3D reconstruction technique is based on the triangulation, in which a laser
line, or a LED linear light as an auxiliary light, projects a ray on the road surface. One or more CCD
cameras realize the triangulation system, by means detecting the shape of the laser line projection on
the near flat pavement.
3D Laser Imaging has the potential to measure different pavement surface distresses at high speed
and in full automation: cracking, rutting, pothole, patching, faulting can be easily detected by the
system [42]. According to several authors [2,3,8,53], the system can effectively detect cracks that are
equal to and greater than 2 mm wide under controlled laboratory environment and consistent results
under different lighting conditions were obtained [47]. This technology is mature and commercially
available as Laser Crack Measurements System (LCMS) and adopted in several systems, such as ARAN,
Dynatest, ROMDAS, PaveTesting, and Pavision [3,8]. The system consists of two units, which are
composed by a spread line laser and a 3D camera each, mounted off axis. The laser scans a 4m line
width, with 1 mm transversal resolution on the road surface, while the cameras capture an image of
the projected laser line. The captured data consists of two types: height of the pavement surface and
intensity on the pavement surface.
The longitudinal resolution is a function of the vehicle speed and the laser scanner rate:
for example, while considering a 60 km/h driving speed and a scan rate equal to 5 kHz, the scan line
interval is equal to 3 mm [54]. Moreover, according to [8,35,36], the crack detection process may be
improved using 2D high resolution camera.
This system has as a disadvantage in the high cost of the equipment, and the advantage of
detecting the entire transversal road profile by using a sufficiently high projection frequency laser and
adequate cameras.

4.4. Terrestrial Laser Scanner

Among the technological solutions that are commercially available for pavement distress detection,
the laser scanner is one of the most recent, high performing, and accurate.
Laser scanner technique is based on LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) technology; it allows
for obtaining very accurate and high-resolution 3D information of the object scanned by dense point
cloud. It is based on two principles: time of flight and phase shift. The time-of-flight sensors estimate
the distance between the target and the center of the instrument by the measure of the time that
elapsed between the emitted and the reflected laser signal, while the phase shift sensors are based
on the measurement of the angular offset between the emitted and the reflected signal. Phase shift
sensors have a more limited range than those at time of flight (<150 m), on the other hand, they have
a higher acquisition frequency (more than a million points per second). The accuracy obtainable
with time-of-flight instruments is between 3 and 6 mm @ 100 m, values that increase with increasing
distance [55].
The Terrestrial Mobile Laser Scanners, also commonly called Mobile Laser Scanner (MLS),
are particularly interesting; they allow for the acquisition of 3D data by means of one or more
scanners that are mounted on a mobile platform (vehicles, boats, trains); this technique considerably
reduces acquisition times and costs when compared to traditional techniques [56]. Typical ranges of 3D
accuracies for the MLS system in the case of pavement surface is 1cm and the point density is greater
than one thousand points on a square meter. The density of the point cloud depends on the traveling
speed of the mobile platform [57], the angular resolution of the sensor, and the rotation velocity of the
laser mirror: balancing these parameters the accuracy of the resulting 3D point cloud can be improved.
Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58 12 of 19

Applications of distress detection by the laser scanner point cloud deal with the automated
approach for detecting road roughness and potholes, using multi-level thresholding [58]. Moreover,
excellent results [59] have been reached in comparing IRI values determined on profiles obtained
by TLS with those that are obtained through standardized techniques (about 90% of correlation).
Measurements performed with precision levels and laser profilometers have a correlation of 99% with
TLS data; comparisons were made with data from three test areas, each with different roughness
condition [60].
Moreover, due to the huge amount of information acquired, the 3D point cloud can be used for
general road asset management. Authors propose several applications on low areas that are susceptible
to drainage problems [61], or a semi-automatic procedure to reconstruct longitudinal grade and the
cross-slopes of a taxiway starting from a DEM [61] and a method in order to identify and quantify the
fault size at each joint of apron slabs from terrestrial laser scanner data [62].

5. Results
The first step of the present review has been the classification of the common distress in terms
of impaction comfort and safety, in order to realize an effectiveness PMS. In order to correspond the
information need, the most popular technological solutions have been considered in order to classify
them according to their appropriateness in capturing road pavement data. Figure 2 summaries the
result of the review: each distress has been evaluated as “influent” (white block) or “not influent”
(black block) on comfort and safety. Subsequently, according to the geometric features and the severity
Infrastructures 2018, 3, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19
level of each distress, the appropriate technology for information acquisition has been evaluated,
according to a symbolic scale, where “- “means not adequate, “+” means adequate to the survey,
evaluated, according to a symbolic scale, where “- “means not adequate, “+” means adequate to the
and “++” and
survey, means “++”totally
meansadequate.
totally adequate.

Figure2.
Figure 2. Distresses—Technologies
Distresses—Technologiesrelation.
relation.

The analysis summarized in Figure 2 shows that the distresses included in the racking group
(fatigue cracking, block cracking, edge cracking, longitudinal and transverse cracking, joint reflection
cracking, and slippage cracking) are easily recognizable by all technologies considered, excluding the
low severity case. The distresses classified in the viscoplastic deformation group (bumps and sags,
rutting, corrugation, depressions, potholes, swell, lane/shoulder drop off, and showing) are perfectly
detected by the laser scanner, and good results are also obtained while using laser triangulation,
because the required information is a different in height. The surface distresses (bleeding, polished
aggregate, and raveling) detected by camera, line scan, and laser triangulation technology get good
results in terms of accuracy, while the laser scanner is not performant for this group of distresses. The
distresses of the last group (patching, railroad crossing, and manhole) are easily detected by all of the
technological solutions considered in this paper. This framework can address the survey design and
planning starting from the information need for the PMS.
Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58 13 of 19

The analysis summarized in Figure 2 shows that the distresses included in the racking group
(fatigue cracking, block cracking, edge cracking, longitudinal and transverse cracking, joint reflection
cracking, and slippage cracking) are easily recognizable by all technologies considered, excluding the
low severity case. The distresses classified in the viscoplastic deformation group (bumps and sags,
rutting, corrugation, depressions, potholes, swell, lane/shoulder drop off, and showing) are perfectly
detected by the laser scanner, and good results are also obtained while using laser triangulation,
because the required information is a different in height. The surface distresses (bleeding, polished
aggregate, and raveling) detected by camera, line scan, and laser triangulation technology get good
results in terms of accuracy, while the laser scanner is not performant for this group of distresses.
The distresses of the last group (patching, railroad crossing, and manhole) are easily detected by all of
the technological solutions considered in this paper. This framework can address the survey design
and planning starting from the information need for the PMS.

6. Conclusions
A Pavement Management System should guide an Agency in a proactive process, oriented in
assuring safety and comfort to all road users through the continuous process of inspection, detection,
and mitigation of pavement conditions. This consideration highlights the importance of using specific
tools to identify the emerging pavement distresses, supported by the current pavement condition
knowledge acquired by technological solutions. A crucial point of the process is the identification
of the alert level for each distress, and their effect of safety and comfort reduction for all road users.
Another important issue for an Agency is the choice of the proper equipment to employ for intensive
road distress detection, depending on the project scope, the budget, and the accuracy required.
The attempt of this paper is drawing the boundary of this operative process focused on distress
identification and technological overview aimed for obtaining a proper equipment frame for the PMS
implementation, based on information acquired by automated or semi-automated technologies. Crucial
aspects for the PMS implementation are the high survey costs and the restrictive operational conditions.
Encouraging the implementation of a basic level of PMS, which is safety and comfort oriented,
based on low-cost technologies solution, and can overcome a lack of information and tools, can facilitate
the pavement management, even for minor road authorities.
According to the evidence of the review, all distresses play a role in the definition of a global
condition index for the road pavement, but the ones affecting the adherence conditions and those that
compromise the ride quality, are essential to be detected for safety reasons. Moreover, the knowledge
of the current condition of the pavement is fundamental for the definition of an efficient PMS.
In this regard, the role of the technologies for the survey is essential in order to minimize
the subjective factor of the traditional methods and in order to improve the productivity and the
repeatability. The considered technologies are different in performance and accuracy, moreover,
they are specialized in acquiring some particular features of the pavement distresses. One of the
preliminary issues to PMS implementation is the definition of the specifications of the survey.
Further researches should be addressed on the evaluation of accuracy and precision of the different
types of devices, comparing them and analyzing the possibility of improvement due to the image
analysis technique on the final distress detection. In order to encourage the automation of the post
processing, a definition of distress severity level in terms of automated index could be very helpful.

Author Contributions: All authors contributed equally in the conception and design of the methodology. In better
detail: A.R. has focused on providing resources and visualization, M.R.D.B. has focused on providing resources
and supervision, A.D.B. has focused on providing resources. All authors wrote the paper.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58 14 of 19

Infrastructures 2018, 3, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19

Appendix A
Appendix A

ION

ER
AY
NS

ON
I TY
ESS

DL
P

E
I TS

IM
OU

ER

I
TR

E
SIT
LIM

LD

ESS
GR

SEV
DIS

PO
I CA

ER
I NT
P
TY
LOW. Fine, longitudinal hairline cracks
with no, or only a few, interconnecting X <10 mm nonfilled
FATIGUE CRACKING
Interconnecting cracks

cracks. Not spalled

10< X<75 mm nonfilled
MEDIUM. Network or pattern cracking Poliedric Wearing
or
are visible, slightly interconnected and shapes, max course,
X <75 mm with crack spalling Wheel path
spalled dimension 50 Treated
< 10 mm
HIGH. Network or pattern cracks are cm base
well deined and spalled at the edges, X >75mm nonfilled or
whit some peaces theat may rock crack spalling >10 mm
under the traffic.
LOW. Average Width wa <=3 mm
BLOCK CRACKING

transverse cracking,

X <10 mm nonfilled
Longitudinal and

Few cracking, poorly deformed Rectangular

orthogonally
intersecting

10< X<75 mm nonfilled shape

Extended Wearing
MEDIUM. Cracks network
or 0.3 x 0.3 m2 a
areas course
X <75 mm with crack spalling 3 x 3m2
< 10 mm
X >75mm nonfilled or
HIGH. Regular Blocks
crack spalling >10 mm
LOW . Low cracking with no breakup or
\
Longitudinal cracking
parallel to the outer
EDGE CRACKING

raveling
MEDIUM. Medium cracking with Parallel to
Loss of material X < 10% of
breakup or raveling and limited loss of outer edge Wearing
edge

the lenght of pavement Curve shape

material within 0.5 course
HIGH. Considerable cracking with m
Loss of material X > 10% of
breakup or raveling and limited loss of
Cracking

the lenght of pavement

material
AND TRANSVERSE

Parallel to centerline
or laydown direction

LOW . Fine hairline cracks nonfilled X < 10 mm Long Cr:

LONGITUDINAL

CRACKING

MEDIUM. Medium widht crack 10< X<75 mm nonfilled wheel path

surrounded by light random cracking Trasv Cr: Wearing
direction of course
HIGH. Any crack filled or not,
laydown
surrounded by medium - high severity X > 75mm
random cracking
LOW . Nonfilled crac w< 10 mm, and
X < 10 mm
Asphalt surfaced pavement

sealed racks in good conditions.

JOINT REFLECTION

MEDIUM
10< X<75 mm nonfilled
CRACKING

Medium widht crack surrounded by Rectangular

light secondary cracking Wearing
shape of the Slab joint
HIGH. Considerable crack width and course
slab beneth
any crack filled or not, surrounded by
medium - high severity secondary X > 75mm
cracking, pavement severly-raveled
broken

LOW . Fine hairline cracks X < 10 mm

Half moon shaped cracks
SLIPPAGE CRACKING

MEDIUM. Medium crack or the area Transverse

around the crack is moderately spalled 10< X< 40 mm Halfmoon
to the Wearing
or surrounded by secondary cracks. shaped
direrction course
of travel
HIGH. Considerable crack width anf the
area around is borken into easily X > 40 mm
removed pieces

Figure A1.
Figure A1. Cracking
CrackingGroup.
Group.
Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58 15 of 19
Infrastructures 2018, 3, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19

Figure A2.
Figure A2.Viscoplastic
Viscoplasticdeformation Group.
deformation Group.
Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58 16 of 19
Infrastructures 2018, 3, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 19

Table A1. Levels

TableA1. ofseverity
Levels of severityfor
for potholes.
potholes.

Average
Average Diameter
Diameter (mm)
(mm) (in.)
(in.)
100
100 toto 200
200 mmmm
Maximum
MaximumDepth
Depthof
ofPothole
Pothole 200 to 450 mm 450 to 750 mm
(4 to 8 in.)
(4 to 8 in.) 200 to 450 mm 450 to 750 mm
(8 to 18 in.) (18 to 30 in.)
(8 to 18 in.) (18 to 30 in.)
13 to ≤25 mm (1/2 to 1 in.) L L M
13 to ≤25 mm (1/2 to 1 in.) L L M
＞25 and≤50 mm (1 to 2 in.) L M H
>25 and ≤50 mm (1 to 2 in.) L M H
＞50
>50mm
mm(2(2in.)
in.) MM M M H H

Figure A3.
Figure
Infrastructures 2018, 3, x FOR PEER REVIEW A3. Surface
Surfacedefect
defectGroup.
Group. 17 of 19
N

ER
IO

AY
NS

ON
ITY
ESS

DL
P

E
I TS

IM
OU

ER

I
TR

E
SIT
LIM

LD

ESS
GR

SEV
DIS

PO
I CA

ER
I NT
P
TY

L: < 10% of the surface

UTILITY CUT
PATCHING-

PATCHING

M: > 10 and < 25% of the

LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH more than 1 Wearing
surface /
quantity related sqm course
H: > 25% of the surface

L. low severity ride quality.

CROSSING *
RAILROAD

LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH

Others

M. medium severity ride Wearing

Lack of quality ride referred to comfort tracks area
quality. course
standard
H: high severity ride quality.

L: R. causes low severity ride

quality.
MANHOLE

LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH M: R. causes medium severity

more than 1 Wearing
Lack of quality ride referred to comfort ride quality.
sqm course
standard
H: R. causes high severity ride
quality.

Note. * Poweredtwowheeler's safety is particulary affected by the presence of railroad crossing

Figure A4. Other Distresses.

Figure A4. Other Distresses.

References
1. Queiroz, C.A.; Gautam, S. Road Infrastructure and Economic Development: Some Diagnostic Indicators; World
Bank. Policy Research working papers s; Volume 921, Washington, DC: World Bank, 1992
2. Zakeri, H.; Nejad, F.M.; Fahimifar, A. Image based techniques for crack detection, classification and
Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58 17 of 19

References
1. Queiroz, C.A.; Gautam, S. Road Infrastructure and Economic Development: Some Diagnostic Indicators;
Policy Research Working Paper; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1992; Volume 921.
2. Zakeri, H.; Nejad, F.M.; Fahimifar, A. Image based techniques for crack detection, classification and
quantification in asphalt pavement: A review. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2017, 24, 935–977. [CrossRef]
3. Mathavan, S.; Kamal, K.; Rahman, M. A review of three-dimensional imaging technologies for pavement
distress detection and measurements. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2015, 16, 2353–2362. [CrossRef]
4. Deluka-Tibljaš, A.; Karleuša, B.; Dragičević, N. Review of muiticriteria-analysis methods application in
decision making about transport infrastructure. Građevinar 2013, 65, 619–631.
5. Marcelino, P.; Lurdes Antunes, M.D.; Fortunato, E. Comprehensive performance indicators for road
pavement condition assessment. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2018, 14, 1–13. [CrossRef]
6. Gransberg, D.D.; Tighe, S.L.; Pittenger, D.; Miller, M.C. Sustainable pavement preservation and maintenance
practices. In Climate Change, Energy, Sustainability and Pavements; Gopalakrishnan, K., Steyn, W.J.,
Harvey, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germnay, 2014; pp. 393–418.
7. Chan, C.Y.; Huang, B.; Yan, X.; Richards, S. Investigating effects of asphalt pavement conditions on traffic
accidents in tennessee based on the pavement management system (PMS). J. Adv. Transp. 2010, 44, 150–161.
[CrossRef]
8. Coenen, T.B.J.; Golroo, A. A review on automated pavement distress detection methods. Cogent Eng. 2017, 4,
1374822. [CrossRef]
9. PIARC. State of the Art in Monitoring Road Condition and Road/Vehicle Interaction (2016R17EN); Permanent
International Association of Road Congresses: Paris, France, 2016.
10. Miller, J.S.; Bellinger, W.Y. Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program;
United States Federal Highway Administration, Office of Infrastructure Research and Development:
Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
11. Loprencipe, G.; Pantuso, A. A specified procedure for distress identification and assessment for urban road
surfaces based on pci. Coatings 2017, 7, 65. [CrossRef]
12. Miller, J.S.; Bellinger, W.Y. Distress Identification Manual for the LongTerm Pavement Performance Program, 4th ed.;
Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
13. Shahin, M.Y. Pavement Management for Airports, Roads, and Parking Lots; Chapman & Hall:
New York, NY, USA, 1994.
14. ASTM D6433-18. Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys;
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018.
15. Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées. Catalogue des Dégradations de Surface des Chaussées; LCPC:
Paris, France, 1998.
16. Gestion de L‘entretien des Chaussées (GEC), Relevé d‘état et Appréciation en Valeur D‘indice. The Swiss
Association of Road and Transportation Experts (VSS) SN-640925B, 2003.
17. Tech Transportation Institute; PMS Pavement Management Services Ltd.; Ireland Department of Transport
Tourism & Sport. Development and implementation of a simplified system for assessing the condition of
irish regional and local roads. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Managing Pavement
Assets, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI), Alexandria, VA, USA, 18–21 May 2015.
18. Istruzioni Sulla Pianificazione Della Manutenzione Stradale (Instruction for Road Maintenance Planning).
CNR BU N.125/88, 1988.
19. European Commission. EC Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011–2020. 2010. Available online:
https://goo.gl/ndXFPV (accessed on 2 June 2018).
20. Shah, Y.U.; Jain, S.S.; Tiwari, D.; Jain, M.K. Development of overall pavement condition index for urban road
network. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 104, 332–341. [CrossRef]
21. Tighe, S.; Li, N.; Falls, L.; Haas, R. Incorporating road safety into pavement management. Transp. Res. Rec.
2000, 1699, 1–10. [CrossRef]
22. Bennett, C.R.; De Solminihac, H.; Chamorro, A. Data Collection Technologies for Road Management; World Bank:
Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
23. Loprencipe, G.; Pantuso, A.; Di Mascio, P. Sustainable pavement management system in urban areas
considering the vehicle operating costs. Sustainability 2017, 9, 453. [CrossRef]
Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58 18 of 19

24. Loprencipe, G.; Cantissani, G.; Di Mascio, P. In Global assessment method of road distresses. Life-Cycle
of Structural Systems Design, Assessment, Maintenance and Management. In Proceedings of the
4th International Symposium on Life-Cycle Civil Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 16–19 November 2014;
pp. 1113–1120.
25. Corazza, M.V.; Di Mascio, P.; Moretti, L. Managing sidewalk pavement maintenance: A case study to increase
pedestrian safety. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. (Engl. Ed.) 2016, 3, 203–214. [CrossRef]
26. Khan, S.; Nagabhushana, M.N.; Tiwari, D.; Jain, P.K. Rutting in flexible pavement: An approach of evaluation
with accelerated pavement testing facility. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 104, 149–157. [CrossRef]
27. Múčka, P. Road roughness limit values based on measured vehicle vibration. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2017, 23,
04016029. [CrossRef]
28. Gillespie, T.D.P.; Queiroz, C.A.V.; Sayers, M.W. The Internationa Road Roughness Experiment: Establishing
Correlation and a Calibration Standard for Measurements; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1986.
29. ASTM E1364-95. Standard Test Method for Measuring Road Roughness by Static Level Method; ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
30. Burns, J.C. Roughness and roadway safety. Transp. Res. Rec. 1981, 836, 8–14.
31. Start, M.; Kim, J.; Berg, W. Potential safety cost-effectiveness of treating rutted pavements. Transp. Res. Rec.
1998, 1629, 208–213. [CrossRef]
32. Li, N.; Haas, R. Road accidents modeling and safety improvements. In Proceedings of the First Asia Pacific
Conference on Transportation and the Environment, Singapore, 13–15 May 1998.
33. Landa, J.; Prochazka, D. Automatic road inventory using lidar. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014, 12, 363–370.
[CrossRef]
34. Mancini, A.; Malinverni, E.S.; Frontoni, E.; Zingaretti, P. Road pavement crack automatic detection by MMS
images. In Proceedings of the 21st Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, Chania, Greece,
25–28 June 2013; pp. 1589–1596.
35. Mathavan, S.; Rahman, M.; Kamal, K. Use of a self-organizing map for crack detection in highly textured
pavement images. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2015, 21, 04014052. [CrossRef]
36. Mathavan, S.; Rahman, M.; Stonecliffe-Jones, M.; Kamal, K. Pavement raveling detection and measurement
from synchronized intensity and range images. Transp. Res. Rec. 2014, 2457, 3–11. [CrossRef]
37. Kim, T.; Ryu, S.-K. Review and analysis of pothole detection methods. J. Emerg. Trends Comput. Inf. Sci. 2014,
5, 603–608.
38. Oliveira, H.; Correia, P.L. Automatic road crack detection and characterization. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst.
2013, 14, 155–168. [CrossRef]
39. Oliveira, H.; Correia, P.L. Crackit—An image processing toolbox for crack detection and characterization.
In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Paris, France,
27–30 October 2014; pp. 798–802.
40. Waltham, N. Ccd and cmos sensors. In Observing Photons in Space; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013;
pp. 423–442.
41. Zou, Q.; Cao, Y.; Li, Q.; Mao, Q.; Wang, S. Cracktree: Automatic crack detection from pavement images.
Pattern Recognit. Lett. 2012, 33, 227–238. [CrossRef]
42. Premachandra, C.; Premachandra, H.W.H.; Parape, C.D.; Kawanaka, H. Road crack detection using color
variance distribution and discriminant analysis for approaching smooth vehicle movement on non-smooth
roads. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 2015, 6, 545–553. [CrossRef]
43. Cubero-Fernandez, A.; Rodriguez-Lozano, F.J.; Villatoro, R.; Olivares, J.; Palomares, J.M. Efficient pavement
crack detection and classification. EURASIP J. Image Video Process. 2017, 2017, 39. [CrossRef]
44. Mohan, A.; Poobal, S. Crack detection using image processing: A critical review and analysis. Alex. Eng. J.
2018, 57, 787–798. [CrossRef]
45. Di Mascio, P.; Di Vito, M.; Loprencipe, G.; Ragnoli, A. Procedure to determine the geometry of road alignment
using GPS data. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 53, 1202–1215. [CrossRef]
46. Chambon, S.; Moliard, J.-M. Automatic road pavement assessment with image processing: Review and
comparison. Int. J. Geophys. 2011, 2011, 989354. [CrossRef]
47. Tsai, Y.-C.J.; Li, F. Critical assessment of detecting asphalt pavement cracks under different lighting and
low intensity contrast conditions using emerging 3D laser technology. J. Transp. Eng. 2012, 138, 649–656.
[CrossRef]
Infrastructures 2018, 3, 58 19 of 19

48. Luiz Henrique Castelo, B.; Paulo César Lima, S. Maniac-UAV—A methodology for automatic pavement
defects detection using images obtained by unmanned aerial vehicles. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2015, 633, 012122.
49. Zhang, S.; Lippitt, C.; Bogus, S.; Neville, P. Characterizing pavement surface distress conditions with
hyper-spatial resolution natural color aerial photography. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 392. [CrossRef]
50. Gavilán, M.; Balcones, D.; Marcos, O.; Llorca, D.F.; Sotelo, M.A.; Parra, I.; Ocaña, M.; Aliseda, P.; Yarza, P.;
Amírola, A. Adaptive road crack detection system by pavement classification. Sensors 2011, 11, 9628–9657.
[CrossRef]
51. Quintana, M.; Torres, J.; Menéndez, J.M. A simplified computer vision system for road surface inspection
and maintenance. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2016, 17, 608–619. [CrossRef]
52. Wang, K.C.; Smadi, O. Automated Imaging Technologies for Pavement Distress Surveys; Transportation Research
Circular; No. E-C156; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
53. Loizos, A.; Scarpas, T.; Al-Qadi, I.L. Pavement Cracking: Mechanisms, Modeling, Detection, Testing and Case
Histories; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008.
54. Ouyang, W.; Xu, B. Pavement cracking measurements using 3D laser-scan images. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2013,
24, 105204. [CrossRef]
55. Crosilla, F.; Dequal, S. Laser Scanning Terrestre; Geodesia e cartografia, CISM: Udine, Italy, 2006.
56. Williams, K.; Olsen, M.; Roe, G.; Glennie, C. Synthesis of transportation applications of mobile lidar.
Remote Sens. 2013, 5, 4652–4692. [CrossRef]
57. Cahalane, C.; Lewis, P.; McElhinney, C.; McNerney, E.; McCarthy, T. Improving mms performance during
infrastructure surveys through geometry aided design. Infrastructures 2016, 1, 5. [CrossRef]
58. Kumar, P.; Angelats, E. An automated road roughness detection from mobile laser scanning data. Int. Arch.
Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2017, XLII-1/W1, 91–96. [CrossRef]
59. Chin, A. Paving the Way for Terrestrial Laser Scanning Assessment of Road Quality. Master’s Thesis,
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA, 2012.
60. Uddin, W. Remote sensing laser and imagery data for inventory and condition assessment of road and
airport infrastructure and gis visualization. Int. J. Roads Airpt. 2011, 1, 53–67. [CrossRef]
61. Barbarella, M.; De Blasiis, M.R.; Fiani, M. Terrestrial laser scanner for the analysis of airport pavement
geometry. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2017, 1–15. [CrossRef]
62. Barbarella, M.; D’Amico, F.; De Blasiis, M.; Di Benedetto, A.; Fiani, M. Use of terrestrial laser scanner for
rigid airport pavement management. Sensors 2018, 18, 44. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).