mathematics

Article
Development of a Relationship between Pavement Condition
Index and Riding Quality Index on Rural Roads: A Case Study
in China
Li Li 1 , Dandan Liu 1 , Li Teng 2, * and Jie Zhu 3

1 School of Mechanics and Engineering Science, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200044, China;
[email protected] (L.L.); [email protected] (D.L.)
2 Shanghai Urban Operation (Group) Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200023, China
3 China Academy of Transportation Science, Beijing 100029, China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The current standard for evaluating road conditions worldwide relies primarily on the
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and the International Roughness Index (IRI). The IRI can be further
calculated to obtain the Riding Quality Index (RQI). To assess pavement damage, various imaging
equipment is commonly utilized, providing consistent results that align with actual road conditions.
For roughness detection, the Laser Profilometer offers excellent results but may not be suitable for
rural roads with poor conditions due to its high inspection cost and the need for a stable environmental
setting. Therefore, there is a pressing need to develop cost-effective, rapid, and accurate roughness
inspection methods for these roads, which constitute a significant portion of the road network. This
study examined the relationship between PCI and RQI using nonlinear regression on 30,088 valid
pavement inspection records from various regions in China (totaling 24,624.222 km). Our objective
was to estimate RQI solely from PCI data, capitalizing on its broad coverage and superior accuracy.
Additionally, we explored how PCI levels impact RQI decay rates. The models in this study were
compared to several models published in previous studies at last. Our findings indicate that the
model performs best for low-grade roads with low PCI scores, achieving over 90% accuracy for
both cement concrete and asphalt concrete pavements. Furthermore, different levels of pavement
Citation: Li, L.; Liu, D.; Teng, L.; Zhu,
damage have distinct effects on RQI decay rates, with the most significant impact observed when
J. Development of a Relationship
the pavement is severely damaged. The models in this study outperformed all the other available
between Pavement Condition Index
models in the literature. Consequently, under limited inspection conditions in rural areas, pavement
and Riding Quality Index on Rural
Roads: A Case Study in China.
damage inspection results can effectively predict riding quality or roughness, thereby reducing
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410. inspection costs. Overall, this study offers valuable insights but has limitations, including limited
https://doi.org/10.3390/ global generalizability and the model’s applicability to high-grade roads. Future research is needed
math12030410 to address these issues and enhance practical applications.

Academic Editor: Heng Lian

Keywords: Pavement Condition Index; International Roughness Index; Pavement Riding Quality
Received: 18 December 2023 Index; rural roads; pavement inspection; pavement management
Revised: 20 January 2024
Accepted: 24 January 2024 MSC: 62M10; 62P30
Published: 26 January 2024

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Pavement technical condition detection and evaluation is one of the basic tasks in road
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
maintenance management, which plays a key role in the scientific allocation of maintenance
distributed under the terms and
resources. The road infrastructure in developed countries was built earlier and has entered
conditions of the Creative Commons a stage of large-scale maintenance. Many countries and international organizations have
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// successively established their own pavement evaluation models and further improved
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the formation of standard specifications for the evaluation of the technical condition of
4.0/). road infrastructures. Representative models include the Present Serviceability Rating (PSR)

Mathematics 2024, 12, 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12030410 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics

Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 2 of 25

proposed by AASHTO [1], Japan’s Maintenance Control Index (MCI) model [2,3], the PCI
model developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [4], and the World Bank’s Universal
Crack Index (UCI) [5].
The system of road condition indicators used varies from region to region. The
evaluation indicators used in Ontario, Canada, are the pavement Distress Rate (DR),
International Roughness Index (IRI), and Rutting Depth Index (RDI) [6]. New York State
in the United States uses similar indicators [7], including the Pavement Condition Index
(PCI), IRI, and RDI. The idea of a comprehensive evaluation of multiple indicators is also
adopted in China’s current Highway Performance Assessment Standards (JTG 5210–2018),
including PCI, Pavement Riding Quality Index (RQI), RDI, Pavement Skidding Resistance
Index (SRI), Pavement Bumping Index (PBI), Pavement Surface Wearing Index (PWI), and
Pavement Structural Strength Index (PSSI) [8]. Summarizing the evaluation indicators of
different countries (regions), it can be seen that pavement damage, roughness, and rutting
are the most frequently used indicators for pavement performance evaluation. Among
them, rutting is mainly an indicator of concern for high-grade roads, while pavement
damage and roughness are generally applicable for all grades of roads. Especially for
low-grade roads, these two indicators are mainly concerned. Therefore, this paper focuses
on these two indicators.

1.1. Pavement Damage and Roughness Indicators

PCI is used to characterize pavement damage, which mainly depends on the Distress
Rate (DR). It was originally developed by the U.S. Army and later standardized by the
ASTM [9]. PCI can comprehensively reflect the damage type, severity, and density of
pavement and is considered to be a well-established comprehensive index of pavement
damage. China has also incorporated it into the specification and redefined the specific
damage types and weights based on the actual situation of Chinese roads. According
to the current Chinese standard [8], asphalt pavement damage types include alligator
cracking, block cracking, transverse cracking, longitudinal cracking, subsidence, rutting
and shoving, potholes, bleeding, raveling, and patching. PCI is a numerical index ranging
from 0 to 100 [10]. The higher the score, the better the road condition, and 100 points
represents the ideal condition without damage. Both the U.S. and China use the deduction
method to calculate the PCI, where the U.S. standard classifies the PCI into seven grades [11],
and the Chinese standard divides it into five grades, excellent, good, medium, inferior, and
poor [8].
According to ASTM, traveled surface roughness is the vertical deviation of the pave-
ment surface from the ideal plane, which affects the dynamic characteristics of the vehicle,
ride quality, dynamic loads on the surface, and drainage [12]. Pavement roughness is
usually measured by IRI, a standardized indicator used to characterize the longitudinal
profile of a traveled wheel track, measured as the ratio of the cumulative suspension move-
ment to the distance traveled by a standard vehicle [13]. The IRI was initially developed
by Gillespie et al. and then adopted and popularized by the World Bank [14,15]. Most
highway agencies around the world routinely measure the IRI. AASHTO has stipulated
the grading standards for roughness and classified IRI into five grades.
Compared to the IRI, the PCI also includes deformation inspection, which overlaps
with the IRI to a certain extent. Therefore, in the case of limited resources, if the relationship
between PCI and IRI can be quantified with a high degree of confidence, data on roughness
can be obtained easily based on the pavement damage data. This will greatly reduce the cost
of pavement condition detection and promote more scientific and reasonable maintenance
management and decision-making in transportation departments. Therefore, many scholars
have begun to conduct exploratory research on the relationship between pavement damage
and roughness. Aultman-Hall et al. [16] studied the correlation between IRI and pavement
damage including rutting and cracking based on data from the Connecticut Department
of Transportation. The correlation between them was found to be relatively weak, with a
maximum coefficient of determination (R2 ) value of only 0.299. Bryce et al. [17] studied the
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 3 of 25

relationship between PCI and PSR based on LTPP road sections and found that there was
little correlation between them. However, the R2 reached 0.66 after adding the parameters
about the patched area, the lengths of transverse and longitudinal cracks, and the rut depth
to the PSR prediction equation. This study proved the speculation that there is a correlation
between pavement damage and roughness. Kirbas [18] studied the effect of some typical
pavement damages such as cracking, bleeding, and corrugation on IRI through regression
analysis and found that the overall R2 reached 0.745. Adeli et al. [19] used linear regression
analysis to establish a model based on IRI to predict PCI, with an R2 of 0.76. Mactutis
et al. [20] studied the relationship between IRI and cracks and ruts, and they suggested that
better models and methods need to be developed to improve the prediction accuracy of
IRI. Park et al. [21] studied the correlation between PCI and IRI using a power regression
model based on data from the LTPP database and obtained an R2 value of 0.59. Piryonesi
and El-Diraby [22] studied the correlation between PCI and IRI in asphalt pavements using
linear regression analysis based on the LTPP database, and the overall R2 value was only
0.301. However, the R2 exceeded 0.7 in some cases after dividing the data into groups based
on location and functional class. Makendran and Murugasan [23] used a linear regression
analysis to develop the relationship between pavement roughness and cracks and potholes
with an R2 value of 0.814, but the validity of the model was limited to roads with very
low traffic conditions. Amarendra et al. [24] developed the relationship between IRI and a
variety of pavement damages by using multiple linear regression analysis. It was found
that different pavement distresses affect roughness differently. For Indian roads, potholes
and raveling dominated.
In recent years, with the rapid development of various research methods such as deep
learning and artificial neural networks, scholars have conducted more quantitative studies
on the relationship between pavement damage and roughness. Liu et al. [25] developed
the relationship between PCI and IRI using artificial neural network techniques, and the R2
reached 0.998. Chandra et al. [26] developed the relationship between pavement roughness
and potholes, patching, rutting, raveling, and cracking using linear regression, nonlinear
regression, and artificial neural network methods based on the data of four highways in
India. The model built by an artificial neural network had the highest accuracy. Elhadidy
et al. [27] utilized an artificial neural network to build a model between PCI and IRI based
on the LTPP database, and the R2 reached 0.86. It showed that IRI could be accurately
predicted from the PCI collected in the LTPP database. Ali et al. [28] used multiple linear
regression and artificial neural network methods to develop a model for predicting IRI
from pavement age and nine types of pavement damage. The results showed that the
neural network model has higher accuracy.
Most studies have shown that there is a correlation between pavement damage and
roughness, so it should be feasible to predict roughness based on pavement damage
data. However, most of the studies use specific pavement damage and IRI to establish a
relationship model, and there are very few studies that directly investigate the correlation
between PCI and IRI. In addition, most studies usually use data from different regions, and
the pavement damage, traffic volume, road grade, etc., are very different, but generally
only a single model is established, so the model is not very explanatory to the data.

1.2. Pavement Damage and Roughness Inspection Method

With the development of pavement detection technology and the improvement of
pavement performance evaluation methods, many countries have developed pavement
inspection methods suitable for their own needs. For example, the Pavement Condition
Evaluation Service (PCES) system and the Automated Roadway Inspection System (ARIS)
in the U.S. [29,30], the Komatsu system in Japan [31], the Portable Application for Vehicle
Underground Evaluation (PAVUE) system in Sweden [32], and the Crack Recognition
Holographic System (CREHOS) in Switzerland [33].
In recent years, with the expansion of the road network and the improvement of
maintenance and management requirements, road inspection has become more and more
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 4 of 25

popular. The industry’s increasing demand for low-cost inspection techniques has led to
the emergence of some simple and fast road inspection methods. For example, Aleadelat
et al. [34] used a 3D accelerometer of a smartphone to collect the vertical acceleration data
of a vehicle to obtain roughness data. Ersoz et al. [35] developed an Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (UAV)-based pavement crack recognition system to obtain crack features of concrete
pavements by capturing images from a UAV, which was used to train the Support Vector
Machine (SVM) model. It provides an alternative solution for monitoring the changes
of cracks in cement concrete pavements. Yan et al. [36] developed a low-cost Video-
based Movement Abnormality Detection System (VPADS) by analyzing video image data
collected by a consumer-grade video camera mounted on the front of a car. The VPADS
system replaces the traditional on-site inspection or high-end multi-sensor pavement
assessment system. Kumar et al. [37] proposed a smartphone-based community sensor
network for monitoring pavement conditions. Smartphone applications were distributed
to volunteers who participated in acquiring pavement quality data and benefited from
information on the general condition of the road. Huang et al. [38] proposed a low-cost data
collection system for road condition assessment using an Intel RS-D435 camera, a consumer-
grade RGB-D sensor, and an NVIDIA Jetson TX2 computing device that is mounted on
a vehicle for data collection. Combined with various deep coding techniques and data
fusion methods, potholes can be successfully detected even when the scene is dark (i.e., not
bright enough).
The most commonly obtained indicators for these detection methods are pavement
damage and roughness, which are also the crucial indicators used in road condition eval-
uation [39,40]. At present, for pavement damage detection, simple image equipment can
provide stable results consistent with the actual road condition trend, and the price is
low. For roughness detection, although some low-cost methods can be used, the detection
results are obviously not accurate for rural roads with poor conditions. Now, the more
mature and stable technology is mainly Laser Profilometer, which is also not suitable for
these roads. Moreover, most transportation departments today still rely on IRI for road
maintenance and rehabilitation planning [41]. For large-scale inspection, the cost of IRI is
relatively high, ranging from $1.40 to $6.20 per kilometer [42]. In addition, IRI inspection
requires calibrated equipment and professionally trained personnel. Even with the new
and advanced technologies, transportation departments cannot fully afford the time and
expense required, much less the cost of inspection at a higher frequency than once a year.
For rural roads, the challenges are even more evident. Due to the lack of sophisticated
equipment and professionals, accurately measuring road roughness becomes particularly
difficult. This not only affects the quality of the data, but also makes the maintenance and
management of such roads more challenging. Therefore, finding an economic and accurate
method for obtaining road roughness in a resource-limited environment is an important
challenge currently facing transportation departments.
In China, compared to specific damage and IRI, PCI and RQI data are often easier to
obtain in the actual road maintenance management database, especially when historical
data are needed. The RQI includes the content of roughness evaluation, and it can be
calculated according to the IRI. The calculation formula of RQI is shown in Equation (1).
According to the current Chinese standard, RQI is similar to PCI, which also takes the value
of 0–100 and is divided into five grades: excellent, good, medium, inferior, and poor [8]. So,
this paper focuses on the relationship between PCI and RQI.

100
RQI = (1)
1 + a0 e a1 IRI

where a0 and a1 are constants. For expressways and first-class roads, a0 is 0.026, a1 is 0.65,
and for other classes of roads, a0 is 0.0185, and a1 is 0.58. In summary, based on a large
amount of pavement inspection data from various provinces (cities) in China, this study
uses a nonlinear regression analysis method to establish mathematical models of the PCI
and RQI for roads with different pavement damage levels and different technical grades.
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 5 of 25

In addition, this paper attempts to quantify the effects of different pavement damage
levels on the decay rate of RQI. This study is divided into five sections. Section 1: Data
preparation, which mainly includes data profile and data preprocessing. Section 2: Data
analysis. Correlation analysis was first performed on PCI and RQI to prove their correlation.
Then, regression analysis was carried out to obtain the mathematical model between the
two. Section 3: Model prediction effect assessment. The prediction effect of the regression
model was evaluated using the reserved sample data. Section 4: Quantitative analysis
of the effect of different pavement damage levels on the decay of RQI. Section 5: Model
validation. The prediction accuracy of the model proposed in this paper was verified based
on actual engineering inspection data.

2. Data Preparation
2.1. Data Profile
This study collected road inspection data from 2008 to 2015 in nine provinces in China,
including five southern provinces and four northern provinces. These data are from the
national arterial road network database. A total of 51,120 pieces of data were collected, of
which 28,467 were for asphalt pavement and 22,653 for cement concrete pavement. After
preprocessing, there were 30,088 valid data with a total mileage of 24,624.222 km. Among
them, 18,255 sections are asphalt pavement, totaling 17,354.678 km; 11,833 sections are
cement concrete pavement, totaling 7269.545 km. These data can be divided into two
categories, static data and inspection data. The static data include inspection year, road
section ID, road name, section start and end, section length, pavement type, technical grade,
management agency, and other basic attribute information of roads. The inspection data
include various pavement performance indicators such as PCI, RQI, PSSI, RDI, SRI, and so
on. This dataset has sufficient data volume and covers a wide range of areas, which can
provide reliable data support for the analysis and modeling of this study.

2.2. Data Preprocessing

Due to the large volume and wide distribution of original data, there may be data
noise interference such as missing data, filling errors, and subjective bias in the basic
road information and historical inspection data. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out
data preprocessing before analyzing and modeling the data, which mainly includes data
grouping and outlier processing.

2.2.1. Data Grouping

The analytical-calibration method [43] was first used to determine the reasonable
distribution range of PCI and RQI. This method processes the outliers of the overall data
and determines a reasonable threshold interval for PCI and RQI based on engineering
experience. The analytical-calibration method offers several key advantages in data analysis,
particularly in road condition assessment. It is simple, flexible, effective, and practical,
making it an invaluable tool for road management applications. Its straightforward nature
enables efficient data processing, while its flexibility allows for adaptability to different road
types and regional characteristics. The method effectively handles abnormal data values,
enhancing data reliability and accuracy. Its practicality lies in producing data that alignss
with real-world conditions, supporting informed decision-making in road maintenance
management and investment. Overall, the analytical-calibration method offers a robust
framework for data analysis in road condition assessment, contributing to more effective
and efficient road management practices.
The method mainly consists of the following four steps:
1. Data collection and collation. Collect PCI and RQI data for the same road over a
period of time. These data usually come from road maintenance management records
and field inspection.
2. Identifying outliers. Based on engineering experience, determine the general relation-
ship between PCI and RQI. For example, if the PCI score for a certain road is between
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 6 of 25

98 and 100, it can be expected that its RQI score will generally not be lower than 90.
Similarly, if the PCI score is below 60, the RQI score will generally not be higher than
80. These relationships can be used to identify outliers, that is, those data points with
PCI and RQI that significantly deviate from the expected range.
3. Threshold determination. Determine the reasonable threshold range for PCI and
RQI based on the results of outlier identification. For example, if there are too many
outliers for a certain PCI score, it may be necessary to adjust the threshold range for
that score.
4. Data calibration. Calibrating the raw data based on the determined threshold range,
which involves removing or correcting outliers to ensure that the data distribution
falls within a reasonable range. Calibrated data are more realistic and help to improve
the accuracy and reliability of subsequent analysis.
The processed data were further grouped. In the first step, the sample data were
categorized into 8 groups based on PCI scores. The grouping here not only referred to the
current PCI grade classification standard in China [8] but also considered the relationship
between PCI scores and pavement damage distribution [44], as well as the equalization
of the amount of data in each group. In the second step, the roads were further grouped
according to their technical grades. In China, roads are classified into five levels according
to their technical conditions, including expressways, Class I, Class II, Class III, and Class IV
and below. Generally, roads of Class III and Class IV and below are defined as low-grade
roads. Finally, 24 groups were finally obtained, which are shown in Tables 1–3. Although
this paper mainly focuses on low-grade roads, the data on higher-grade roads were still
analyzed as a reference.

Table 1. Data grouping based on PCI score.

Group Number PCI Range

1 100–91
2 91–82
3 82–79
4 79–74
5 74–65
6 65–55
7 55–40
8 40–0

Table 2. Data grouping based on road grade.

Group Number Technical Grade of Roads

1 expressway, Class I
2 Class II
3 Class III, IV and below

Table 3. Grouping of sample data.

Group Number PCI Score Technical Grade of Roads

1–1 expressway, Class I
1–2 100–91 Class II
1–3 Class III, IV and below
2–1 expressway, Class I
2–2 91–82 Class II
2–3 Class III, IV and below
3–1 expressway, Class I
3–2 82–79 Class II
3–3 Class III, IV and below
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 7 of 25

Table 3. Cont.

Group Number PCI Score Technical Grade of Roads

4–1 expressway, Class I
4–2 79–74 Class II
4–3 Class III, IV and below
5–1 expressway, Class I
5–2 74–65 Class II
5–3 Class III, IV and below
6–1 expressway, Class I
6–2 65–55 Class II
6–3 Class III, IV and below
7–1 expressway, Class I
7–2 55–40 Class II
7–3 Class III, IV and below
8–1 expressway, Class I
8–2 40–0 Class II
8–3 Class III, IV and below

2.2.2. Outlier Processing

The Isolation Forest (iForest) algorithm was used in this study for outlier processing.
The key to this method is to determine the proportion of anomalies in each set of sample
data, and frequency analysis was used here. Frequency analysis is a way of counting the
frequency of different values of a set of data falling within a specified region to understand
its data distribution status. Through frequency analysis, it can reflect to a certain extent
whether the samples are representative of the whole and whether there is systematic bias
in sampling. In this way, it can prove the representativeness and credibility of the analysis
of the relevant issues. After determining the proportion of anomalies in each set of sample
data, anomaly detection was performed on each set of data.
The iForest algorithm was first proposed by Zhou et al. in 2008 [45]. In comparison to
other anomaly detection algorithms, the iForest algorithm offers significant advantages in
detecting outliers. Specifically, it exhibits efficient performance, enabling rapid processing
of large-scale datasets. Additionally, it provides high accuracy, automatically selecting the
most relevant features to enhance model performance and demonstrate good generaliza-
tion capabilities, enabling the identification of different types of outliers. The simplicity
of implementation offers distinct advantages in practical industrial detection settings,
characterized by small memory footprints and fast operational speeds. Furthermore, the
algorithm’s applicability to high-dimensional datasets sets it apart from other methods,
facilitating the processing of complex datasets. A noteworthy advantage is the algorithm’s
ability to operate without labeled data, distinguishing it from other supervised learning
algorithms that require labeled datasets for training and prediction. The algorithm also
exhibits efficient memory utilization, outperforming some machine learning algorithms
by utilizing random subsets instead of storing the entire dataset. Its scalability allows
for integration with other machine learning algorithms to further enhance and optimize
performance across diverse application scenarios and requirements. Finally, the ease of
implementation facilitates implementation in various programming languages, leveraging
existing libraries and tools to facilitate deployment.
Below is a breakdown of the steps involved in implementing the isolation forest
algorithm to detect and eliminate outliers:
1. Constructing Binary Trees. This involves creating binary trees by randomly selecting a
feature from the dataset and choosing a random split point within the range of values
for that feature. The split partitions the dataset into two halves, and the process is
repeated recursively until each data point is isolated in its own leaf node.
2. Building the Binary Tree Forest. The next step involves constructing multiple binary
trees by repeating the above process multiple times, each time with a different ran-
Mathematics 2024, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 26

Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 8 of 25

2. Building the Binary Tree Forest. The next step involves constructing multiple binary
trees by repeating the above process multiple times, each time with a different ran-
domly
domlyselected
selectedsubset
subsetofofthe
thedata.
data.TheTheresulting
resultingcollection
collectionof ofbinary
binarytreestreesforms
forms thethe
isolation forest.
isolation forest.
3.
3. Calculating
Calculating Path Lengths. Once
Path Lengths. Oncethe theisolation
isolationforest
forest is complete,
is complete, thethe algorithm
algorithm pro-
proceeds
ceeds to predict the labels of the data points. This prediction is
to predict the labels of the data points. This prediction is achieved by recursively achieved by recur-
sively traversing
traversing each binary
each binary tree intree
theinforest,
the forest, recording
recording the path
the path lengthslengths
fromfrom the
the root
root to the
to the leafleaf nodes.
nodes. ForFor eachdata
each datapoint,
point,the
thealgorithm
algorithm computes
computes its its corresponding
corresponding
path length.
path length.
4.
4. Identifying
IdentifyingOutliers.
Outliers.The Thefinal
finalstep
stepinvolves
involvescalculating
calculatingthe thedeviation
deviationof of each
each data
data
point’s path length from its expected value. This deviation is computed
point’s path length from its expected value. This deviation is computed using statisti- using statis-
tical methods to
cal methods to determine
determine how how far
far each
each data
data point
point lies
lies from
from the
the mean
mean and and standard
standard
deviation
deviationof ofall
allpath
pathlengths.
lengths.Data
Datapoints
pointsthat
thatexhibit
exhibitaasignificant
significantdeviation
deviationfrom fromthethe
expected
expectedvaluesvaluesareareidentified
identifiedas asoutliers.
outliers.
Taking
Taking 4–2 4–2 groups of of sample
sampledatadataasasan anexample,
example,according
according to to
thethe relative
relative relation-
relationship
ship between
between PCI PCIandandRQI,RQI,
the the processing
processing effect
effect of the
of the iForest
iForest method
method is is shown
shown ininFigure
Figure1.
1.
AAtotal
totalofof30,088
30,088sample
sampledatadatawere
werefinally
finallyobtained,
obtained, and
and 10%
10% of each group of data data was
was
reserved as validation
reserved as validation data.data.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure1.1.Examples
Examplesof offrequency
frequencyanalysis
analysisand
andiForest
iForestanomaly
anomalydetection.
detection.(a)
(a)Frequency
Frequencydistribution
distribution
of group 4–2; (b) iForest anomaly detection of group 4–2.
of group 4–2; (b) iForest anomaly detection of group 4–2.

3.Regression
3. RegressionModeling
Modelingand
andModel
ModelValidation
Validation
3.1. Correlation Analysis
3.1. Correlation Analysis
Correlationanalysis
Correlation analysiscan
canreveal
revealwhether
whether andand
to to what
what extent
extent there
there is a is a correlation
correlation be-
between PCI and RQI. Considering the different performance characteristics
tween PCI and RQI. Considering the different performance characteristics of asphalt of asphalt
and
and cement
cement concrete
concrete pavements,
pavements, allfollowing
all the the following analyses
analyses werewere conducted
conducted separately
separately for
for the
the sample data of asphalt and cement concrete pavements. The results of
sample data of asphalt and cement concrete pavements. The results of the correlation anal- the correlation
analysis are shown in Tables 4 and 5. In this study, the value of the Pearson’s correlation
ysis are shown in Tables 4 and 5. In this study, the value of the Pearson’s correlation coef-
coefficient [46] is defined to be greater than 0.5 to indicate strong correlation, 0.3–0.5 to
ficient [46] is defined to be greater than 0.5 to indicate strong correlation, 0.3–0.5 to indicate
indicate moderate correlation, and 0.1–0.3 to indicate weak correlation.
moderate correlation, and 0.1–0.3 to indicate weak correlation.
The results of the correlation analysis in Tables 4 and 5 show that for asphalt and
concrete pavement,
Table 4. Results the coefficient
of correlation of significance
analysis between for for
PCI and RQI each group
asphalt of sample data is less
pavement.
than 0.05, and Pearson’s correlation coefficient is greater than 0, which indicates that PCI is
Group Number Sample Size and positively
significantly Pearson’s correlated
CorrelationwithCoefficient
RQI. Coefficient of Significance
1–1 1595 0.416 0.000
1–2 1045 0.527 0.000
1–3 921 0.607 0.000
2–1 1352 0.565 0.000
2–2 916 0.640 0.000
2–3 810 0.687 0.000
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 9 of 25

Table 4. Results of correlation analysis between PCI and RQI for asphalt pavement.

Group Number Sample Size Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient Coefficient of Significance

1–1 1595 0.416 0.000
1–2 1045 0.527 0.000
1–3 921 0.607 0.000
2–1 1352 0.565 0.000
2–2 916 0.640 0.000
2–3 810 0.687 0.000
3–1 1278 0.722 0.000
3–2 764 0.779 0.000
3–3 580 0.806 0.000
4–1 1260 0.751 0.000
4–2 968 0.812 0.000
4–3 790 0.832 0.000
5–1 959 0.774 0.000
5–2 665 0.830 0.000
5–3 878 0.842 0.000
6–1 434 0.804 0.000
6–2 615 0.840 0.000
6–3 490 0.865 0.000
7–1 264 0.817 0.000
7–2 575 0.844 0.000
7–3 460 0.882 0.000
8–1 81 0.806 0.000
8–2 387 0.824 0.000
8–3 168 0.843 0.000

Table 5. Results of correlation analysis between PCI and RQI for cement concrete pavement.

Group Number Sample Size Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient Coefficient of Significance

1–1 1624 0.433 0.000
1–2 3065 0.492 0.000
1–3 708 0.530 0.000
2–1 940 0.617 0.000
2–2 866 0.674 0.000
2–3 205 0.699 0.000
3–1 203 0.680 0.000
3–2 292 0.728 0.000
3–3 41 0.756 0.000
4–1 235 0.713 0.000
4–2 368 0.741 0.000
4–3 47 0.774 0.000
5–1 237 0.734 0.000
5–2 377 0.741 0.000
5–3 60 0.774 0.000
6–1 83 0.768 0.000
6–2 124 0.797 0.000
6–3 37 0.819 0.000
7–1 351 0.803 0.000
7–2 927 0.841 0.000
7–3 157 0.886 0.000
8–1 119 0.611 0.000
8–2 544 0.637 0.000
8–3 223 0.704 0.000

However, the strength of the correlation between the two was related to both the
PCI score and the technical grade of roads. In groups 6–3 and 7–3 (low-grade roads with
PCI ranging from 65 to 55 and 55 to 40), the correlation between PCI and RQI was the
strongest, with Pearson’s correlation coefficients of 0.8 or more, showing a strong positive
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 10 of 25

correlation. However, for group 8–3 (low-grade roads with PCI ranging from 40 to 0),
Pearson’s correlation coefficient decreased to around 0.7. That is, the Pearson’s correlation
coefficients show a tendency to increase and then decrease as the PCI scores and road grade
decrease. In other words, when the road performance is very good, the correlation between
PCI and RQI is not strong. As the road performance decays, the correlation between the
two increases. The reason for this phenomenon may be that the pavement roughness is
also negatively affected as the road performance decays, which leads to a decrease in RQI
scores. At this point, both the PCI and RQI scores show a downward trend, resulting in
the correlation between the two becoming stronger. However, when the road performance
deteriorates further, the correlation between the two weakens again. This may be related
to the specific types of pavement damage. As the road performance further deteriorates,
various types of damage become more serious. At this time, deformation-type damage
that has a significant impact on roughness may become insignificant, so the decrease in
RQI scores is not obvious, and the correlation between the two weakens. And there are
subtle differences in this trend specific to different pavement types. Pearson’s correlation
coefficient of the asphalt pavement increases faster with the decrease in PCI score and
road grade, while the cement concrete pavement is relatively slower. However, Pearson’s
coefficient for asphalt pavements decreases less relative to cement concrete pavements
when the PCI decreases below 40 points. It indicates that the correlation between PCI and
RQI for asphalt pavement is lower than that for cement concrete pavement for higher-
grade roads with better conditions, while the opposite is true for lower-grade roads with
poorer conditions.
Overall, there is a significant correlation between PCI and RQI regardless of the
pavement type, so the next step of regression analysis can be carried out.

3.2. Regression Analysis

The mathematical relationship between PCI and RQI was further established by re-
gression analysis [47] on 24 sets of sample data for asphalt and cement concrete pavements,
respectively. The following are some reasons for using nonlinear regression methods
instead of other methods:
• Modeling nonlinear relationships. Nonlinear regression is specifically used to handle
data with nonlinear relationships. The relationship between PCI and RQI is com-
plex and cannot be easily described by a linear relationship. In this case, nonlinear
regression may be more suitable for modeling.
• Simplicity. Nonlinear regression models are relatively simple and require fewer
parameters, making them easier to interpret and debug.
• Computational efficiency. For certain datasets and problems, nonlinear regression
may converge faster than artificial neural networks and require fewer computational
resources.
• Avoiding overfitting. Artificial neural networks have the ability to fit noise and
irrelevant details in the training data, which can lead to overfitting. In contrast,
nonlinear regression models are usually simpler and may be less prone to overfitting.
• Explanatory. Nonlinear regression models are often easier to interpret because their
parameters (i.e., slopes and intercepts) have intuitive meanings. In contrast, the
parameters of artificial neural networks are often difficult to interpret.
• Data volume: The data range of this study is very wide, but the amount of data in
each group is not much. Nonlinear regression is more suitable because it does not
require a large amount of data for training.
In this study, the use of natural logarithm equations to fit the relationship between
PCI and RQI has several advantages:
• Explanatory. In fields such as economics, the coefficients of log regression can be
interpreted as elasticities, which are the rates of change of the dependent variable
relative to the independent variable. This makes analyzing and interpreting data
simpler and more intuitive.
Mathematics 2024, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 26

Mathematics 2024, 12, 410  Emphasis on relative change. The rate of change of the log function is different 11 of 25 for
different ranges of independent variables. For smaller values, the rate of change of
the log function is larger, while for larger values, the rate of change is smaller. This
• means
Emphasis
that on
therelative change. is
log function The rate sensitive
more of change to
of differences
the log function is different
in smaller partsforof the
different ranges of independent variables. For smaller values, the rate of change
value than in larger parts, thus more accurately reflecting the relative relationship of the
log function is larger, while for larger values, the rate of change is smaller. This means
between data.
that the log function is more sensitive to differences in smaller parts of the value than
 Fitting data. Natural logarithm functions can better fit nonlinear relationships and
in larger parts, thus more accurately reflecting the relative relationship between data.
• reduce
Fittingthe impact
data. of outliers
Natural orfunctions
logarithm outliers on
canthe model.
better fit nonlinear relationships and
Most
reduceimportantly,
the impact ofinoutliers
the actual curve-fitting
or outliers process, compared to other forms of
on the model.
functions,
Mostit importantly,
was found that theactual
in the best fit between PCI
curve-fitting and RQI
process, was achieved
compared when of
to other forms the nat-
ural logarithmic
functions, it wasfunction wasthe
found that used,
bestand the residuals
fit between were
PCI and uniformly
RQI distributed
was achieved when theon both
natural
sides logarithmic
of the functionline.
zero-standard wasTherefore,
used, and the theresiduals wererelationship
functional uniformly distributed on and
between PCI
both
RQI cansides of the zero-standard
be defined as shown inline. Therefore,
Equation the functional
(2), where a and b relationship between PCI
are constants.
and RQI can be defined as shown in Equation (2), where a and b are constants.
𝑅𝑄𝐼 𝑎 ln 𝑃𝐶𝐼 𝑏 (2)
RQI = a × ln PCI + b (2)
The sets of data listed in Tables 4 and 5 were fitted based on Equation (2). Of these,
Thelow-grade
the fit for sets of data road
listed groups
in Tablesare
4 and 5 were
shown infitted based
Figures on Equation
2 and (2). Of these, the
3. The distribution of resid-
fit for low-grade road groups are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The distribution of residuals
uals for low-grade road groups can be found in Appendix A.
for low-grade road groups can be found in Appendix A.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 2. Cont.
Mathematics 2024, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 26
Mathematics 2024, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 26
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 12 of 25

(e) (f)
(e) (f)

(g) (h)
(g) (h)
Figure 2. Fitting results of PCI and RQI for low-grade asphalt pavements. (a) Group 1–3 (PCI 100–
Figure 2.2.Fitting
Fitting results
results ofPCI
PCIand
and RQI
for for low-grade asphalt pavements. (a) Group
(PCI 1–3 (PCI 100–
Figure
91); (b) Group 2–3 (PCIof91–82); (c)RQI
Group low-grade
3–3 (PCIasphalt
82–79);pavements.
(d) Group(a) Group
4–3 (PCI1–3
79–74); 100–91);
(e) Group 5–3
91); (b) Group
(b) 74–65);
Group 2–3 2–3 (PCI 91–82);
(PCI 91–82); (c)
(c) GroupGroup
3–3 3–3 (PCI 82–79); (d) Group 4–3 (PCI 79–74); (e) Group 5–3
(PCI (f) Group 6–3 (PCI 65–55); (g)(PCI 82–79);
Group 7–3(d) Group
(PCI 4–3 (h)
55–40); (PCI 79–74);
Group (e)(PCI
8–3 Group 5–3
40–0).
(PCI 74–65); (f) Group 6–3 (PCI 65–55); (g) Group 7–3 (PCI 55–40); (h) Group
(PCI 74–65); (f) Group 6–3 (PCI 65–55); (g) Group 7–3 (PCI 55–40); (h) Group 8–3 (PCI 40–0). 8–3 (PCI 40–0).

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 3. Cont.
Mathematics 2024, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 26
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 13 of 25

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)
Figure
Figure3.3.Fitting
Fittingresults
results of PCI and
of PCI andRQI
RQIforfor low-grade
low-grade cement
cement concrete
concrete pavements.
pavements. (a) Group
(a) Group 1–3 1–3
(PCI
(PCI100–91);
100–91);(b)
(b)Group
Group2–32–3(PCI
(PCI 91–82); (c) Group
91–82); (c) Group3–3 3–3(PCI
(PCI82–79);
82–79);(d)
(d)Group
Group4–3 4–3 (PCI
(PCI 79–74); (e)
79–74);
Group 5–3 (PCI
(e) Group 74–65);
5–3 (PCI (f) Group
74–65); 6–36–3
(f) Group (PCI
(PCI65–55);
65–55);(g)
(g)Group
Group7–3
7–3 (PCI
(PCI 55–40); (h)Group
55–40); (h) Group8–38–3 (PCI
40–0).
(PCI 40–0).

Thespecific
The specific regression
regression analysis
analysisresults
resultsforfor
each group
each of sample
group data data
of sample are listed in
are listed in
Tables 6 and
Tables 6 and 7.7.

Table 6. Regression results for groups of asphalt pavement.

Group Constants 95% Confidence Interval T‐Test F‐Test

R2 RMSE
Number a,b Lower Limit Upper Limit T‐Value p‐Value F‐Value p‐Value
11.242 10.032 12.451 18.228 0.000
1–1 0.173 0.723 332.251 0.000
42.841 37.318 48.365 15.213 0.000
1–2 0.277 0.932 17.806 16.060 19.551 20.012 0.000 400.495 0.000
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 14 of 25

Table 6. Regression results for groups of asphalt pavement.

Group Constants 95% Confidence Interval T-Test F-Test

R2 RMSE
a,b Lower Limit Upper Limit T-Value p-Value F-Value p-Value
Number
11.242 10.032 12.451 18.228 0.000
1–1 0.173 0.723 332.251 0.000
42.841 37.318 48.365 15.213 0.000
17.806 16.060 19.551 20.012 0.000
1–2 0.277 0.932 400.495 0.000
13.755 5.794 21.715 3.391 0.000
16.581 15.176 17.986 23.159 0.001
1–3 0.369 0.663 536.326 0.000
19.341 12.907 25.776 5.899 0.000
26.226 24.183 28.269 25.182 0.000
2–1 0.320 1.088 634.130 0.000
−25.999 −35.125 −16.873 −5.589 0.000
67.605 61.841 72.288 25.199 0.000
2–2 0.410 2.176 634.971 0.000
−209.293 −232.658 −185.929 −17.580 0.000
62.985 58.402 67.568 26.977 0.000
2–3 0.474 1.989 727.738 0.000
−190.744 −211.175 −170.312 −18.325 0.000
219.334 207.805 230.862 37.325 0.000
3–1 0.522 2.248 1393.126 0.000
−876.772 −927.360 −826.184 −34.001 0.000
234.717 221.303 248.131 34.350 0.000
3–2 0.608 2.057 1179.946 0.000
−945.220 −1004.090 −886.350 −31.519 0.000
257.222 241.804 272.639 32.769 0.000
3–3 0.65 2.046 1073.805 0.000
−1044.892 −1112.539 −977.245 −30.338 0.000
194.988 185.510 204.467 40.358 0.000
4–1 0.564 2.589 1628.762 0.000
−762.981 −804.143 −721.820 −36.365 0.000
193.746 184.998 202.494 43.464 0.000
4–2 0.662 2.131 1889.157 0.000
−756.403 −794.379 −718.427 −39.087 0.000
246.039 234.568 257.510 42.104 0.000
4–3 0.692 2.639 1772.743 0.000
−986.122 −1035.913 −936.330 −38.877 0.000
110.764 105.055 116.474 38.070 0.000
5–1 0.602 2.959 1449.361 0.000
−393.124 −417.438 −368.810 −31.730 0.000
129.448 122.823 136.073 38.366 0.000
5–2 0.689 2.989 1471.971 0.000
−477.190 −505.370 −449.011 −33.251 0.000
151.571 145.118 157.964 46.535 0.000
5–3 0.712 3.221 2165.478 0.000
−568.865 −596.071 −541.659 −41.038 0.000
141.794 131.928 151.659 28.249 0.000
6–1 0.649 4.64 798.024 0.000
−515.459 −556.116 −474.803 −24.919 0.000
137.474 130.445 144.504 38.406 0.000
6–2 0.706 4.005 1474.991 0.000
−497.255 −526.175 −468.335 −33.767 0.000
137.278 130.267 144.289 38.472 0.000
6–3 0.752 3.614 1480.131 0.000
−495.071 −523.872 −466.270 −33.774 0.000
96.215 88.113 104.317 23.383 0.000
7–1 0.676 5.072 546.759 0.000
−312.546 −344.220 −280.872 −19.430 0.000
117.563 111.561 123.566 38.467 0.000
7–2 0.721 5.987 1479.732 0.000
−399.532 −422.864 −376.200 −33.633 0.000
128.736 122.547 134.925 40.877 0.000
7–3 0.785 5.81 1670.893 0.000
−444.551 −468.615 −420.486 −36.303 0.000
22.169 19.039 25.298 14.100 0.000
8–1 0.716 3.583 198.820 0.000
−27.491 −38.286 −16.697 −5.069 0.000
21.605 20.406 22.803 35.435 0.000
8–2 0.765 6.569 1255.639 0.000
−34.847 −38.699 −30.994 −17.785 0.000
7.981 7.411 8.550 27.673 0.000
8–3 0.822 3.586 765.795 0.000
3.179 1.410 4.947 3.548 0.000

Table 7. Regression results for groups of cement concrete pavement.

Group Constants 95% Confidence Interval T-Test F-Test

R2 RMSE
a,b Lower Limit Upper Limit T-Value p-Value F-Value p-Value
Number
52.030 46.799 57.260 19.512 0.000
1–1 0.190 3.096 380.727 0.000
−149.397 −173.315 −125.478 −12.251 0.000
85.299 79.957 90.641 31.308 0.000
1–2 0.242 4.410 980.194 0.000
−301.592 −326.027 −277.156 −24.200 0.001
102.146 90.070 114.221 16.607 0.000
1–3 0.281 4.689 275.802 0.000
−381.568 −436.683 −326.452 −13.592 0.000
117.531 107.979 127.084 24.146 0.000
2–1 0.383 4.141 583.053 0.000
−440.297 −483.009 −397.585 −20.231 0.000
119.264 110.580 127.949 26.954 0.000
2–2 0.457 3.429 726.523 0.000
−451.520 −490.347 −412.693 −22.825 0.000
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 15 of 25

Table 7. Cont.

Group Constants 95% Confidence Interval T-Test F-Test

R2 RMSE
a,b Lower Limit Upper Limit T-Value p-Value F-Value p-Value
Number
135.362 116.208 154.516 13.934 0.000
2–3 0.489 3.634 194.159 0.000
−521.190 −606.698 −435.683 −12.018 0.000
405.568 344.783 466.354 13.156 0.000
3–1 0.463 4.383 173.089 0.000
−1698.863 −1965.877 −1431.850 −12.546 0.000
536.062 477.784 594.341 18.104 0.000
3–2 0.531 5.040 327.747 0.000
−2273.467 −2529.457 −2017.478 −17.480 0.000
471.828 339.992 603.663 7.239 0.000
3–3 0.573 3.904 52.403 0.000
−1990.840 −2569.787 −1411.893 −6.955 0.000
338.299 295.396 381.201 15.535 0.000
4–1 0.509 4.883 241.351 0.000
−1389.154 −1575.695 −1202.613 −14.672 0.000
284.437 257.943 310.930 21.112 0.000
4–2 0.549 4.479 445.722 0.000
−1154.783 −1269.901 −1039.665 −19.726 0.000
385.904 291.550 480.259 8.238 0.000
4–3 0.601 5.140 67.858 0.000
−1569.480 −2006.477 −1186.484 −7.843 0.000
225.902 199.064 252.740 16.583 0.000
5–1 0.539 7.060 274.993 0.000
−890.327 −1004.681 −775.974 −15.339 0.000
215.020 196.677 233.364 23.049 0.000
5–2 0.586 5.636 531.242 0.000
−842.745 −920.903 −764.588 −21.202 0.000
279.711 221.709 337.713 9.653 0.000
5–3 0.616 7.084 93.183 0.000
−1119.030 −1366.044 −872.017 −9.068 0.000
215.007 175.658 254.357 10.872 0.000
6–1 0.593 7.576 118.195 0.000
−826.796 −988.555 −665.036 −10.170 0.000
253.342 218.994 287.690 14.601 0.000
6–2 0.636 8.303 213.189 0.000
−987.019 −1128.289 −845.750 −13.831 0.000
219.995 167.083 272.908 8.441 0.000
6–3 0.671 6.263 71.244 0.000
−835.219 −1053.083 −617.356 −7.783 0.000
94.058 74.391 113.724 9.611 0.000
7–1 0.653 5.522 92.373 0.000
−321.442 −398.383 −244.501 −8.396 0.000
85.570 70.699 100.441 11.527 0.000
7–2 0.704 5.561 132.871 0.000
−288.069 −345.907 −230.231 −9.977 0.000
137.446 109.873 165.019 10.211 0.000
7–3 0.788 6.929 104.263 0.000
−491.169 −597.068 −385.269 −9.501 0.000
24.329 10.910 37.748 3.770 0.000
8–1 0.404 9.270 14.216 0.000
−51.255 −97.567 −4.944 −2.302 0.000
20.172 14.916 25.429 7.662 0.000
8–2 0.471 6.050 58.705 0.000
−25.605 −43.548 −7.662 −2.849 0.000
22.750 18.289 27.210 10.121 0.000
8–3 0.509 10.076 102.426 0.000
−47.298 −59.907 −34.690 −7.443 0.000

As can be seen from the results of the regression analysis in Tables 6 and 7, for asphalt
and cement concrete pavements, the p-values corresponding to the F-tests and t-tests are
less than 0.05 (significance level of 0.05), indicating that the established regression model is
significant and able to adequately explain the relationship between PCI and RQI.
Overall, as PCI scores and road grades decrease, the R2 value increases, and the
model’s fit validity improves. For both asphalt and cement concrete pavements, the model
fit better for low-grade roads. In particular, for asphalt pavements, the best fit was for PCI
scores of 0–40, while for cement concrete pavements, the best fit was for PCI scores of 40–55.
As a result, it can be found that the regression model developed for low-grade roads with
lower PCI scores can better explain the correlation between PCI and RQI at this time.

3.3. Model Validation

The reserved 10% random sample data were used to validate the established regres-
sion model. There are a total of 3275 pieces of data reserved, of which 2195 were for
asphalt pavement and 1080 for cement concrete pavement. In this study, the regression
validation method is used to evaluate the predictive power and accuracy of regression
models. Commonly used regression model validation indicators include Mean Absolute Er-
ror (MAE), Mean Absolute Relative Error (MARE), and Root-Mean-Squared Error (RMSE).
These indicators can objectively evaluate the performance of the model by calculating the
difference between the predicted results and the actual results, helping us understand the
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 16 of 25

model’s error conditions and improvement directions. The formulas for these indicators
are shown in Equations (3)–(5):

1 n
MAE =
n ∑i=1 |γi − γei |, (3)

1 ∑in=1 |γi − γ
ei |
MARE = × 100% (4)
n γi
r
1 n
n ∑ i =1 i
RMSE = |γ − γ ei |2 , (5)

where γi is the measured value of RQI; γ ei is the estimated value of RQI based on the
regression model.
The evaluation results of each group of regression models for asphalt and cement
concrete pavements are shown in Tables 8 and 9.

Table 8. The evaluation results of regression models of asphalt pavement.

Group Number Sample Size MAE MARE (%) RMSE

1–1 180 4.434 4.9% 4.435
1–2 115 4.375 4.8% 4.376
1–3 100 4.166 4.6% 4.166
2–1 150 3.970 4.4% 4.203
2–2 100 3.772 4.0% 4.054
2–3 90 3.427 3.7% 3.911
3–1 150 3.633 4.2% 3.983
3–2 95 3.417 3.9% 3.551
3–3 70 2.872 3.4% 3.076
4–1 160 3.543 4.1% 3.888
4–2 120 3.180 3.7% 3.407
4–3 100 2.690 3.2% 2.887
5–1 120 3.059 3.8% 3.498
5–2 85 2.499 3.3% 2.969
5–3 110 1.913 2.5% 2.316
6–1 55 1.922 2.7% 2.287
6–2 80 1.737 2.5% 1.962
6–3 65 1.347 2.0% 1.571
7–1 35 1.664 2.6% 2.043
7–2 75 1.537 2.4% 1.918
7–3 60 1.063 1.7% 1.317
8–1 10 2.732 4.9% 3.302
8–2 50 1.908 4.3% 2.288
8–3 20 1.406 4.3% 1.640

Table 9. The evaluation results of regression models of cement concrete pavement.

Group Number Sample Size MAE MARE (%) RMSE

1–1 180 4.470 5.3% 4.860
1–2 340 4.318 4.8% 4.598
1–3 80 3.779 4.5% 4.092
2–1 105 3.540 4.2% 3.963
2–2 95 3.245 4.0% 3.562
2–3 20 3.156 3.6% 3.411
3–1 20 2.984 3.5% 3.189
3–2 30 2.918 3.4% 3.122
3–3 5 2.860 3.3% 3.000
4–1 25 2.744 3.1% 2.927
4–2 40 2.550 3.0% 2.791
4–3 5 2.380 2.9% 2.418
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 17 of 25

Table 9. Cont.

Group Number Sample Size MAE MARE (%) RMSE

5–1 25 2.108 2.8% 2.231
5–2 40 2.001 2.7% 2.165
5–3 5 1.937 2.6% 2.033
6–1 10 1.416 2.3% 1.615
6–2 15 1.267 2.0% 1.506
6–3 5 1.216 1.8% 1.335
7–1 5 0.698 1.6% 0.776
7–2 5 0.633 1.3% 0.760
7–3 5 0.285 1.2% 0.427
8–1 5 2.306 6.2% 2.589
8–2 5 2.279 4.9% 2.466
8–3 10 0.952 3.7% 1.168

From the evaluation results in Tables 8 and 9, it can be seen that for both asphalt and
cement concrete pavements, MAE, MARE, and RMSE are reduced with the decreasing PCI
scores and road grades. For low-grade roads with a PCI of 40~55 points, MAE, MARE,
and RMSE are all minimized, and the corresponding regression model has the highest
prediction accuracy. It can be concluded that the prediction accuracy of the model is higher
for low-grade roads with poor conditions.
The MAE, MARE, and RMSE of cement concrete pavement are smaller than those of
the asphalt pavement in most groups. For example, in group 7–3 (PCI between 40 and 55,
low-grade roads), the MAE, MARE, and RMSE of cement concrete pavement are 0.285,
1.2%, and 0.427, respectively, which are about 73%, 0.5%, and 68% smaller than those of
asphalt pavement. It can be seen that the model prediction performance of cement concrete
pavement is better than that of asphalt pavement. In other words, it is more accurate to
predict RQI based on PCI on cement concrete pavement.

3.4. Assessment of the Prediction Effectiveness of Models

The prediction accuracy of the regression model developed in this study was further
evaluated based on the pavement inspection data collected from an actual project in China.
A total of 414 pieces of data were collected, of which 250 were for asphalt pavement and
164 for cement concrete pavement. The data mainly include the section name, section stake
number, PCI, RQI, and the road grade. Based on the grouping criteria proposed in this
study, the data for asphalt and cement concrete pavements were separated. Due to the
limited amount of measured data, it is not possible to cover all groups, so only groups for
which data are available are analyzed here. The prediction accuracy was evaluated using
Equation (6).
E = (1 − MARE) × 100%, (6)
where E is the prediction accuracy.
The RQI prediction accuracy of the regression model for asphalt and cement concrete
pavement for different data groups is shown in Tables 10 and 11. It should be noted here
that cement concrete pavement is mostly used for low-grade roads in China, so the data in
Table 11 are all low-grade roads. The results are also exhibited in the form of a bar chart in
Figure 4 for visualizing the prediction accuracy of each model.

Table 10. Prediction accuracy of regression model for asphalt pavement.

Group Number Sample Size Prediction Accuracy

1–1 145 81.5%
1–3 4 87.5%
2–1 96 82.5%
3–1 3 86.2%
3–3 1 91.0%
4–1 1 87.2%
 Group Number Sample Size Prediction Accuracy
1–1 145 81.5%
1–3 4 87.5%
2–1 96 82.5%
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 3–1 3 86.2% 18 of 25
3–3 1 91.0%
4–1 1 87.2%
Table 11. Prediction accuracy of regression model for cement concrete pavement.
Table 11. Prediction accuracy of regression model for cement concrete pavement.
Group Number Sample Size Prediction Accuracy
Group Number Sample Size Prediction Accuracy
1–3
1–3 80
80 70.3%
70.3%
2–3 50 74.1%
2–3 50 74.1%
3–3 10 81.1%
3–3 10 81.1%
4–3 10 85.8%
4–3
5–3 10
10 85.8%
88.8%
5–3
6–3 10
2 88.8%
90.2%
6–3
7–3 2 90.2%
95.7%
7–3 2 95.7%

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 4.
4. The
The RQI
RQI prediction
prediction accuracy
accuracy of
of the
the regression
regression model
model for asphalt and
for asphalt and cement
cement concrete
concrete
pavement for different data groups. (a) Asphalt pavement; (b) Cement concrete pavement.
pavement for different data groups. (a) Asphalt pavement; (b) Cement concrete pavement.

It
It can
can be
beseen
seenthat
thatthetheprediction
predictionaccuracy
accuracy of of
thethe
model
model gradually
gradually improved
improved withwith
the
reduction of PCI score and road grade. The cement concrete pavement
the reduction of PCI score and road grade. The cement concrete pavement data used for data used for ver-
ification areare
verification all from low-grade
all from low-graderoads, andand
roads, it can be be
it can found
foundthatthat
thethe
prediction
prediction accuracy
accuracyof
the model
of the model gradually
gradually increases
increaseswith
withthe
thedecrease
decreaseininPCI.PCI.When
Whenthe thePCI
PCIscore
score is
is less than
65, the prediction accuracy of the model is about 20% higher than when the PCI score is
greater than 82.
In general, the highest prediction accuracy of the established regression model was
found forfor low-grade
low-graderoadsroadswith
withpoor
poorconditions.
conditions.The The potential
potential reasons
reasons forfor
thisthis phenome-
phenomenon
non
maymayincludeinclude the following
the following points.
points. Firstly,
Firstly, according
according to thetoprevious
the previous analysis,
analysis, for low-
for low-grade
grade roadspoor
roads with withconditions,
poor conditions, the correlation
the correlation betweenbetween
PCI and PCIRQIand RQI
is the is the strongest,
strongest, resulting
in the highest
resulting in theprediction accuracyaccuracy
highest prediction for the corresponding relationship
for the corresponding model.model.
relationship Secondly,
Sec-
as mentioned
ondly, earlier,earlier,
as mentioned the regression model model
the regression with the withbest
thefitting degreedegree
best fitting is for low-grade
is for low-
roads with
grade roadspoor
withconditions, which which
poor conditions, means means
that thethat
model
the can
modelwellcanexplain the relationship
well explain the rela-
between PCI and RQI with minimal error and can generalize to new
tionship between PCI and RQI with minimal error and can generalize to new and unseen and unseen data, thus
achieving higher accuracy in predicting RQI from PCI. Therefore,
data, thus achieving higher accuracy in predicting RQI from PCI. Therefore, for such for such roads, it is quite
accurate
roads, and
it is reliable
quite to use
accurate andPCI to predict
reliable to useRQI.
PCI to predict RQI.

4. Discussion
4.1. Quantitative Analysis of the Contribution of PCI Level to the RQI Decay Rate
From the above analysis, it can be concluded that PCI and RQI have a significant
positive correlation. As the PCI decreases, the RQI also becomes lower. However, with the
different degrees of PCI reduction, the decay amplitude of RQI also varies, and it shows a
certain regularity. Besides, based on the regression analysis above, the theoretical decay
curve of the RQI relative to PCI should be in the form of a natural logarithmic, but this is
 4. Discussion
4.1. Quantitative Analysis of the Contribution of PCI Level to the RQI Decay Rate
From the above analysis, it can be concluded that PCI and RQI have a significant
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 positive correlation. As the PCI decreases, the RQI also becomes lower. However, with the
19 of 25
different degrees of PCI reduction, the decay amplitude of RQI also varies, and it shows a
certain regularity. Besides, based on the regression analysis above, the theoretical decay
not entirely
curve theRQI
of the case. Therefore,
relative theshould
to PCI Decay beContribution
in the formRate
of a(DCR)
naturaloflogarithmic,
RQI by different PCI is
but this
levels can be explored
not entirely the case.and quantified,
Therefore, the as shown
Decay in EquationRate
Contribution (7). (DCR) of RQI by different
PCI levels can be explored and quantified,
 as shown
 in Equation (7).
q
DCR = − 1 × 100%, (7)
𝐷𝐶𝑅 q0 1 100%, (7)

where
where q is𝑞 the actual
is the degree
actual of RQI
degree decay;
of RQI q0 is𝑞the
decay; is theoretical degree
the theoretical of RQI
degree decay.
of RQI decay.
The
ThePCI PCIscore
scorecan
canreflect
reflect the severity
the severityofof
pavement
pavement damage.
damage.AsAsshown
shownininTable
Table1,1,the
the
pavement damage was divided into 8 levels and characterized by the
pavement damage was divided into 8 levels and characterized by the different PCI range.different PCI range.
The
Therelationship
relationship between
between thethe actual and
actual andtheoretical
theoretical values ofof
values RQI
RQIdecay
decayand the
and DCR
the DCR with
with
PCI
PCIatat
different
different PCI
PCIlevels
levelsis is
shown
shown inin
Figure
Figure 5. 5.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 5. 5.
TheThe actual
actual andand theoretical
theoretical values
values of decay
of RQI RQI decay and
and the thewith
DCR DCRPCI
with PCI at different
at different PCI
PCI levels.
levels. (a) Asphalt pavement; (b) Cement concrete pavement.
(a) Asphalt pavement; (b) Cement concrete pavement.

It It
cancan bebe found
found in in Figure
Figure 5 that
5 that regardless
regardless of type
of the the type of pavement,
of pavement, withwith the aggrava-
the aggravation
of pavement damage, the actual decay of RQI gradually exceeds the theoretical decay,decay,
tion of pavement damage, the actual decay of RQI gradually exceeds the theoretical and
theandgaptheis gap is greatest
greatest when when the PCI thereaches
PCI reaches
about about
level 4level
(PCI4ranging
(PCI ranging from 79 from 79 toThe
to 74). 74).
The DCR
DCR also abruptly changes at this time. When the PCI level is less than 4, the DCR is less is
also abruptly changes at this time. When the PCI level is less than 4, the DCR
less50%,
than thanindicating
50%, indicating
that thethat the pavement
pavement damagedamage degree has degree
littlehas little
effect oneffect on the
the decay decay
rate of
rateWhen
RQI. of RQI. theWhen the PCI
PCI level level isthan
is greater greater
4, the than
DCR 4, becomes
the DCR larger
becomes andlarger
larger,and up larger,
to moreup
to more
than 70%. than 70%. Itthat
It indicates indicates
the degree that the degree of damage
of pavement pavement damage
begins begins to
to strongly strongly
affect the
affectrate
decay theof decay
RQI, rate
and oftheRQI,
more and the more
serious serious the
the pavement pavement
damage, the damage,
faster thethe RQI faster
decay. the
It RQI decay.
further It further
explains whyexplains
there is awhy strongthere is a strongbetween
correlation correlation
PCI between
and RQIPCI and RQI for
for low-grade
low-grade
roads with poor roads with
road poor roadHowever,
conditions. conditions. when However,
the PCI when the PCI level
level increases increases
further, the DCR fur-
ther,tothe
starts DCR starts
decrease. to decrease.
It shows It shows
that different PCI that different
levels PCI levels
(or extent (or extent
of pavement of pavement
damage) have
damage)effects
different have different
on RQI decay effectsrates,
on RQI and decay
the RQIrates, and the
decay rateRQI decayaffected
is most rate is most
by the affected
PCI
by the
level when PCIthe level when the
pavement pavement
is severely is severely damaged.
damaged.
TheThe deterioration
deterioration patterns
patterns vary
vary forfor different
different types
types ofof pavement.When
pavement. Whenthe thepavement
pavement
damage
damage is is
more
more severe,
severe, forfor
example,
example, the PCI
the PCI level
levelreaches
reaches 4 and
4 and 5 5(PCI
(PCIscorescoreranging
rangingfrom from
6565toto79),
79), the DCR of RQI is significantly higher for cement concrete pavement thanfor
the DCR of RQI is significantly higher for cement concrete pavement than for
asphalt
asphalt pavement.
pavement.When Whenthe thepavement
pavementdeteriorates
deterioratesfurther,
further, the DCR
the DCR ofof
asphalt
asphalt pavement
pavement
exceeds
exceedsthat thatofofcement
cementconcrete
concretepavement.
pavement.This Thisindicates
indicatesthatthatwhenwhenthe thePCIPCIscore
scoreisislow,
low,
e.g., 6565
e.g., toto79,79,thethePCIPCIofofconcrete
concrete pavement
pavement hashasa agreater
greater effect
effect ononRQIRQI than
than that
that ofofasphalt
asphalt
pavement.
pavement. ButButwhen whenthe the
PCI PCIis tooislow,
too e.g.,
low,below 65, the PCI
e.g., below of asphalt
65, the PCI ofpavements exceeds
asphalt pavements
that of cement concrete pavements in terms of its effect on RQI. The reason may be that
there are differences in material properties between asphalt pavement and cement concrete
pavement, which leads to different types and degrees of damage. When the PCI score is
low, the roughness of cement concrete pavement is more affected by pavement damage
than asphalt pavement, which makes the PCI have a greater impact on RQI. However,
when the PCI score further decreases and pavement damage becomes more severe, the
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 20 of 25

roughness of cement concrete pavement is no longer significantly affected by pavement

damage, while asphalt pavement is instead more affected, which makes the PCI of asphalt
pavement have a greater impact on RQI than cement concrete pavement.
Through the above analysis, it was found that although the relationship model between
PCI and RQI can be used to simplify road inspection work, it should be noted that the
prediction accuracy of RQI based on PCI is also different with different PCI levels. Therefore,
maintenance agencies should pay attention to the development of pavement diseases and
make reasonable use of the prediction model.

4.2. Comparison between the Models in This Study and Other Models
A comparison was made between the models in this study and published models in
previous studies. The asphalt pavement prediction model and cement concrete pavement
prediction model established based on nonlinear regression in this study are superior to
all models because they have the highest R2 (0.822, 0.788) among all models applied, as
shown in Table 12. This was followed by Arhin et al.’s model, which had an R2 of 0.75
for the comprehensive model, 0.82 for the asphalt pavement prediction model, which is
similar to the R2 of the model in this study, and 0.72 for the cement pavement prediction
model, which is lower than the cement pavement prediction model in this study. The model
with the lowest score is Arhin and Noel’s, with an R2 of only 0.013. This confirms that the
models established in this study are the most accurate in predicting pavement roughness
compared to other selected models in previous studies.

Table 12. Comparison between the model in this study and several previous models.

Number Model R2 Authors

RQI = 7.981 ln( PCI ) + 3.179 (Asphalt) 0.822
1 This study
RQI = 137.446 ln( PCI ) − 491.169 (Concrete) 0.788
2 IRI = 0.0171(153 − PCI ) 0.52 Dewan and Smith [48] (2002)
3 log PCI = 2 − 0.436(log IRI ) 0.59 Park et al. [21] (2007)
4 log PCI = −0.115 log( IRI ) + 2.131 0.013 Arhin and Noel [49] (2014)
PCI = −0.224IRI + 120.02 (Asphalt) 0.82
5 PCI = −0.172IRI + 110.01 (Concrete) 0.72 Arhin et al. [50] (2015)
PCI = −0.203IRI + 113.73 (Composite) 0.75
6 IRI = 16.074 exp−0.26PCI 0.59 Hasibuan and Surbakti [51] (2019)
7 15.04 0.72 Imam et al. [52] (2021)
PCI = 4.354IRI + IRI/5.41

Therefore, it is fully demonstrated that the models established in this study can be
effectively utilized for predicting roughness in future maintenance and management work.
This will greatly reduce the cost of road maintenance. Moreover, it will significantly
promote scientific and rational maintenance decisions and extend the service life of rural
roads in China scientific and rational maintenance decisions and extend the service life of
rural roads in China.

5. Conclusions and Future Work

This study explored the correlation between PCI and RQI under different pavement
damage levels and different technical grades based on extensive pavement inspection data
from nine provinces in China. The mathematical models between the two were further
established using nonlinear regression analysis, and the predictive effect and accuracy of
the models were evaluated by actual road inspection data. On this basis, the contribution
of the PCI level to the RQI decay rate was quantitatively analyzed. Finally, the models
in this study were compared to several models published in previous studies. The main
content of the study leads to the following conclusions:
• It was found that the PCI and RQI showed a strong correlation when the road condition
was poor, and the lower the technical grade of the road, the stronger the correlation
between the two.
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 21 of 25

• For low-grade roads with poor conditions, the accuracy of RQI prediction by PCI
achieves more than 90%, and the prediction effect of cement concrete pavement is
better than that of asphalt pavement. In summary, the most applicable RQI prediction
models for different types of pavements and their scope of application can be obtained.
For asphalt pavements, the prediction model works best when the PCI score is below
65 and the technical grade is below Level II. For concrete pavements, the model works
best when the PCI score is between 40 and 65 and the technical grade is also lower than
Grade II. In both cases, the predictive accuracy of the model can reach more than 90%.
• The results of the analysis of the pavement damage degree on the decay rate of RQI
show that different pavement damage degrees contribute differently to the decay rate
of RQI. When pavement damage is more serious, the degree of pavement damage
will have a stronger effect on the decay rate of RQI, and RQI will accelerate with the
severity of pavement damage.
• The performance of the models in this study was the best by comparing with other
models in previous studies. Therefore, it fully proved that the models established
in this study can be used for the prediction of roughness in future maintenance and
management work.
Overall, the method proposed in this study can greatly reduce the inspection cost
and improve the accuracy and reliability of pavement technical condition evaluation.
Most of the low-grade roads, especially those with concrete pavements, are rural roads in
China. These roads usually have insufficient funds for inspection and restricted inspection
conditions. By using the relationship model between PCI and RQI proposed in this study
to predict the roughness of the pavement with the results of pavement damage inspection,
accurate and reliable technical conditions of highways can be obtained at a low cost. This
will help promote scientific and rational maintenance decisions and extend the service
life of rural roads in China, which is very important for the economic development of
China’s rural areas. Although the relationship model between PCI and RQI can be utilized
to simplify road inspection work, it should be noted that the prediction accuracy of RQI
based on PCI is also different with different PCI levels. Therefore, maintenance agencies
should pay attention to the development of pavement diseases and make reasonable use of
the prediction model.
However, some problems were found in this study, for example, for cement concrete
pavements, the correlation between PCI and RQI was substantially weakened when the
PCI scores were too low, which may be due to the small amount of data in these groups,
or due to the poor quality of the data, as cement concrete pavements with very poor road
conditions usually have limited inspection conditions as well. In addition, pavement
damage encompasses a wide range of specific damage types, and this study only discusses
the effect of the composite index PCI on RQI due to time and data collection constraints, so
that the effect of pavement-specific damage types on RQI can be investigated in the future.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization and methodology, L.L.; resources, data curation, J.Z.
and L.T.; experiments, investigation, formal analysis, and writing—original draft preparation, D.L.;
writing—review and editing, L.L. and L.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai,
China (Funding Agency Project No. 19ZR1418800). The authors are grateful for their financial support.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the support and facilities provided by
the School of Mechanics and Engineering Science at Shanghai University, Shanghai Urban Operation
(Group) Co., Ltd., and CATS Testing Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. to carry out the research.
Conflicts of Interest: Dr. Li Teng is an employee of Shanghai Urban Operation (Group) Co., Ltd. All
other authors have no conflicts of interest.
 port.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the support and facilities provided by
the School of Mechanics and Engineering Science at Shanghai University, Shanghai Urban Opera-
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 tion (Group) Co., Ltd., and CATS Testing Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. to carry out the research. 22 of 25
Conflicts of Interest: Dr. Li Teng is an employee of Shanghai Urban Operation (Group) Co., Ltd. All
other authors have no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A
Appendix A

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Mathematics 2024, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 26

(e) (f)

(g) (h)
Figure A1. Distribution of residuals from PCI and RQI fitting for low-grade asphalt pavements. (a)
Figure A1. Distribution of residuals from PCI and RQI fitting for low-grade asphalt pavements.
Group 1–3 (PCI 100–91); (b) Group 2–3 (PCI 91–82); (c) Group 3–3 (PCI 82–79); (d) Group 4–3 (PCI
(a) Group
79–74);1–3 (PCI 100–91);
(e) Group (b) Group
5–3 (PCI 74–65); 2–3 (PCI
(f) Group 91–82);
6–3 (PCI (c)(g)
65–55); Group
Group3–3
7–3(PCI
(PCI 82–79); (d)Group
55–40); (h) Group 4–3
(PCI8–3
79–74); (e) Group 5–3 (PCI 74–65); (f) Group 6–3 (PCI 65–55); (g) Group 7–3 (PCI 55–40);
(PCI 40–0).
(h) Group 8–3 (PCI 40–0).
 (g) (h)
Figure A1. Distribution of residuals from PCI and RQI fitting for low-grade asphalt pavements. (a)
Group 1–3 (PCI 100–91); (b) Group 2–3 (PCI 91–82); (c) Group 3–3 (PCI 82–79); (d) Group 4–3 (PCI
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 79–74); (e) Group 5–3 (PCI 74–65); (f) Group 6–3 (PCI 65–55); (g) Group 7–3 (PCI 55–40); (h) Group
23 of 25
8–3 (PCI 40–0).

(a) (b)

Mathematics 2024, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 26

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)
Figure A2. Distribution of residuals from PCI and RQI fitting for low-grade cement concrete pave-
Figure A2. Distribution of residuals from PCI and RQI fitting for low-grade cement concrete pave-
ments. (a) Group 1–3 (PCI 100–91); (b) Group 2–3 (PCI 91–82); (c) Group 3–3 (PCI 82–79); (d) Group
ments. (a) Group
4–3 (PCI 79–74);1–3
(e) (PCI
Group100–91); (b)74–65);
5–3 (PCI Group(f)2–3 (PCI6–3
Group 91–82);
(PCI (c) Group
65–55); (g) 3–3 (PCI
Group 82–79);
7–3 (d) Group
(PCI 55–40);
4–3(h)
(PCI 79–74); (e) Group
Group 8–3 (PCI 40–0). 5–3 (PCI 74–65); (f) Group 6–3 (PCI 65–55); (g) Group 7–3 (PCI 55–40);
(h) Group 8–3 (PCI 40–0).
References
1. Carey, W.N., Jr.; Irick, P.E. The pavement serviceability-performance concept. Highw. Res. Board Bull. 1960, 250, 40–58.
2. Liu, Y.L.; Molenaar, M.; Jiao, L.M.; Liu, Y.F. Research on land evaluation based on fuzzy neural network. Remote Sens. Agric.
Ecosyst. Hydrol. 2004, 5232, 565–574.
3. Liu, Z.B. Integration of BP Neural Network and Multistage Dynamic Fuzzy Evaluation and Its Application in HRM Performance
Measurement. In Proceedings of the IITA 2007: Workshop on Intelligent Information Technology Application, Zhangjiajie,
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 24 of 25

References
1. Carey, W.N., Jr.; Irick, P.E. The pavement serviceability-performance concept. Highw. Res. Board Bull. 1960, 250, 40–58.
2. Liu, Y.L.; Molenaar, M.; Jiao, L.M.; Liu, Y.F. Research on land evaluation based on fuzzy neural network. Remote Sens. Agric.
Ecosyst. Hydrol. 2004, 5232, 565–574.
3. Liu, Z.B. Integration of BP Neural Network and Multistage Dynamic Fuzzy Evaluation and Its Application in HRM Performance
Measurement. In Proceedings of the IITA 2007: Workshop on Intelligent Information Technology Application, Zhangjiajie, China,
2–3 December 2007. [CrossRef]
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters. TM 5-623 Pavement Maintenance Management; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Headquarters: Washington, DC, USA, 1982.
5. Wang, K.C.P.; Elliott, R.P. Investigation of Image Archiving for Pavement Surface Distress Survey; State Highway & Transportation
Department: Little Rock, AR, USA, 1999.
6. Highways Agency. Pavement Design and Maintenance: Section 3 Pavement Maintenance Assessment Part 2 Data for Pavement
Assessment: HD 29/08; The Stationery Office: Norwich, UK, 2008.
7. Haas, R.; Hudson, W.R.; Falls, L.C. Overview of pavement management data needs. In Pavement Asset Management; Haas, R.,
Hudson, W.R., Falls, L.C., Eds.; Scrivener Publishing LLC.: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 25–30. [CrossRef]
8. JTG 5210–2018; Highway Performance Assessment Standard. Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing,
China, 2018.
9. ASTM D6433-07; Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys. ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010. [CrossRef]
10. Issa, A.; Samaneh, H.; Ghanim, M. Predicting pavement condition index using artificial neural networks approach. Ain Shams
Eng. J. 2022, 13, 101490. [CrossRef]
11. ASTM D6433–23; Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys. ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2023. [CrossRef]
12. ASTM E867–06; Standard Terminology Relating to Vehicle-Pavement Systems. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA,
USA, 2020. [CrossRef]
13. Sayers, M.W. On the calculation of international roughness index from longitudinal road profile. Transp. Res. Rec. 1995, 1501,
1–12.
14. Gillespie, T.D.; Sayers, M.W.; Segel, L. NCHRP Report No.228: Calibration of Response-Type Road Roughness Measuring Systems;
Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 1980.
15. Gillespie, T.D.; William, D.P.; Michael, W.S. Technical Report No. 46: Guidelines for Conducting and Calibrating Road Roughness
Measurements; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1986.
16. Aultman-Hall, L.; Jackson, E.; Dougan, C.E.; Choi, S.N. Models relating pavement quality measures. Transp. Res. Rec. 2004, 1869,
119–125. [CrossRef]
17. Bryce, J.; Boadi, R.; Groeger, J. Relating pavement condition index and present serviceability rating for asphalt-surfaced pavements.
Transp. Res. Rec. 2019, 2673, 308–312. [CrossRef]
18. Kirbas, U. IRI sensitivity to the influence of surface distress on flexible pavements. Coatings 2018, 8, 271. [CrossRef]
19. Adeli, S.; Najafi Moghaddam Gilani, V.; Kashani Novin, M.; Motesharei, E.; Salehfard, R. Development of a relationship between
pavement condition index and international roughness index in rural road network. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2021, 6635820. [CrossRef]
20. Mactutis, J.A.; Alavi, S.H.; Ott, W.C. Investigation of relationship between roughness and pavement surface distress based on
WesTrack Project. Transp. Res. Rec. 2000, 1699, 107–113. [CrossRef]
21. Park, K.; Thomas, N.E.; Wayne Lee, K. Applicability of the international roughness index as a predictor of asphalt pavement
condition. J. Transp. Eng. 2007, 133, 706–709. [CrossRef]
22. Piryonesi, S.M.; El-Diraby, T.E. Examining the relationship between two road performance indicators: Pavement condition index
and international roughness index. Transp. Geotech. 2021, 28, 100441. [CrossRef]
23. Makendran, C.; Murugasan, R. Development of a roughness estimation model for low volume roads. Gradevinar 2018, 70, 97–104.
[CrossRef]
24. Amarendra, K.S.; Ashoke, K.S. Development of a model for estimating International Roughness Index from pavement dis-tresses.
Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2012, 14, 715–724. [CrossRef]
25. Liu, J.; Yan, K.; Liu, J.; Zhao, X. Using artificial neural networks to predict the dynamic modulus of asphalt mixtures containing
recycled asphalt shingles. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2018, 30, 04018051. [CrossRef]
26. Chandra, S.; Sekhar, C.R.; Bharti, A.K.; Kangadurai, B. Relationship between pavement roughness and distress parameters for
Indian highways. J. Transp. Eng. 2013, 139, 467–475. [CrossRef]
27. Elhadidy, A.A.; El-Badawy, S.M.; Elbeltagi, E.E. A simplified pavement condition index regression model for pavement evaluation.
Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2021, 22, 643–652. [CrossRef]
28. Ali, A.A.; Heneash, U.; Hussein, A.A.; Khan, S. Application of Artificial Neural Network Technique for Prediction of Pavement
Roughness as a Performance Indicator. J. King Saud Univ. Eng. Sci. 2023; in press. [CrossRef]
29. Wang, K.C.P. Designs and implementations of automated systems for pavement surface distress survey. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2000,
6, 24–32. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2024, 12, 410 25 of 25

30. Guralnick, S.A.; Suen, E. NCHRP-IDEA Program Project Final Report: Advanced Testing of An Automated NDE System for Highway
Pavement Surface Condition Assessment; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 1995.
31. Fukuhara, T.; Terada, K.; Nagao, M.; Kasahara, A.; Ichihashi, S. Automatic pavement-distress-survey system. J. Transp. Eng. 1990,
116, 280–286. [CrossRef]
32. Sjogren, L.; Offrell, P. Automatic Crack Measurement in Sweden. In Proceedings of the SURF 2000: National Symposium on
Pavement Surface Characteristics on Roads and Airfields, Nantes, France, 22–24 May 2000.
33. Monti, M. Large-area laser scanner with holographic detector optics for real-time recognition of cracks in road surface. Opt. Eng.
1995, 34, 2017–2023. [CrossRef]
34. Aleadelat, W.; Ksaibati, K.; Wright, C.H.G.; Saha, P. Evaluation of pavement roughness using an android-based smartphone. J.
Transp. Eng. Part B Pavements 2018, 144, 04018033. [CrossRef]
35. Ersoz, A.B.; Pekcan, O.; Teke, T. Crack identification for rigid pavements using unmanned aerial vehicles. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017,
236, 1–7. [CrossRef]
36. Yan, W.Y.; Yuan, X.X. A low-cost video-based pavement distress screening system for low-volume roads. J. Intell. Transp. Syst.
2018, 22, 376–389. [CrossRef]
37. Kumar, R.; Mukherjee, A.; Singh, V.P. Community sensor network for monitoring road roughness using smartphones. J. Comput.
Civ. Eng. 2017, 31, 04016059. [CrossRef]
38. Huang, Y.T.; Jahanshahi, M.R.; Shen, F.T.; Mondal, G. Deep Learning–Based Autonomous Road Condition Assessment Leveraging
Inexpensive RGB and Depth Sensors and Heterogeneous Data Fusion: Pothole Detection and Quantification. J. Transp. Eng. Part
B Pavements 2023, 149, 04023010. [CrossRef]
39. Qiao, Y.; Chen, S.; Alinizzi, M.; Alamaniotis, M.; Labi, S. IRI estimation based on pavement distress type, density, and severity:
Efficacy of machine learning and statistical techniques. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2022, 28, 04022035. [CrossRef]
40. Federal Highway Administration. National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Pavement Condition for the National
Highway Performance Program and Bridge Condition for the National Highway Performance Program; Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT): Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
41. Islam, S.W.; Buttlar, G.R.; Aldunate; Vavrik, W.R. Measurement of pavement roughness using android-based smartphone
application. Transp. Res. Rec. 2014, 2457, 30–38. [CrossRef]
42. McGhee, K.H. NCHRP Synthesis 334: Automated Pavement Distress Collection Techniques; Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
43. Fang, Y.; Sun, L.J. Urban bridge performance decay model based on survival analysis. J. Jilin Univ. Eng. Technol. Ed. 2020, 50,
557–564. [CrossRef]
44. Li, L.; Guan, T.T. Decision method for preventive maintenance of asphalt pavements considering multiple damage characteristics.
J. Shanghai Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 2022, 28, 689–701. [CrossRef]
45. Liu, F.T.; Ting, K.M.; Zhou, Z.H. Isolation Forest. In Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining,
Pisa, Italy, 15–19 December 2008. [CrossRef]
46. Pearson, K. Contributions to the mathematical theory of evolution. J. R. Stat. Soc. 1893, 56, 675–679.
47. Karami, J.H.; Wiens, D.P. Robust static designs for approximately specified nonlinear regression models. J. Stat. Plan. Inference
2014, 144, 55–62. [CrossRef]
48. Dewan, S.A.; Smith, R.E. Estimating International Roughness Index from pavement distresses to calculate vehicle operating costs
for the San Francisco Bay Area. Transp. Res. Rec. 2002, 1816, 65–72. [CrossRef]
49. Arhin, S.A.; Noel, E.C. Predicting Pavement Condition Index Using International Roughness Index in Washington DC Final Report;
Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
50. Arhin, S.A.; Williams, L.N.; Ribbiso, A.; Anderson, M.F. Predicting pavement condition index using international roughness
index in a dense urban area. J. Civ. Eng. Res. 2015, 5, 10–17.
51. Hasibuan, R.P.; Surbakti, M. Study of Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Relationship with International Roughness Index (IRI) on
Flexible Pavement. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering Structures and Construction
Materials, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 5–7 September 2018. [CrossRef]
52. Imam, R.; Murad, Y.; Asi, I.; Shatnawi, A. Predicting Pavement Condition Index from International Roughness Index using Gene
Expression Programming. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2021, 6, 139. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.