Jason Amadori.com
Jason Amadori's LIDAR GIS BlogArchive for road resurfacing
Automated Pavement Distress Analysis – The Final Frontier?
We have been working with some automated methods for quantifying crack measurements and have had some interesting results. How great would it be to collect pavement images, batch them on a server and have it spit out accurate crack maps that you can overlay in a GIS? The technology is here! Or, is it?
Most pavement inspections involve intricate processes where pavement experts rate segments visually, either from field visits or rating pavement images in the office. This introduces a lot of subjectivity in the rating results and typically culminates in a spreadsheet showing pavement ratings by segment. The data is then modeled using ASTM performance curves that have been built from industry proven pavement experiments.
There is no doubt that these curves are tried and true representations of how pavement performs in varying physical and environmental conditions and each project should take these factors into consideration when developing the preservation plans for an agency.
We have been working to develop a rating workflow that focuses on a combination of automated and manual processes to bridge the current gap of Quantitative and Qualitative pavement inspections. The way we are doing this is through the application of GIS to the automated rating process. Here’s how it works…
First, we begin with a pavement image from our LRIS pavement imaging system. Images are captured at a 1mm-pixel resolution and then analyzed through an automated image processing workflow.
The resulting image creates a “crack map” that identifies the type, severity and extent of the distresses on that section of pavement. The process is fully automated and handled by the computer.
Once we have the crack maps in place, we then apply a manual editing process that is GIS-centric by nature and the resulting crack map is a more accurate representation of the real-world conditions.
Once the edited crack maps are compiled, the data is exported to a GIS where the extents are calculated geospatially and then integrated with a pavement management system. This is where all of the Pavement Condition Indices (PCI) are calculated and applied to each agency’s specific pavement rating methodologies. Since the process is geospatial in nature, it is easily imported to ANY pavement management software and gives our clients the flexibility to apply any rating methodology they desire.
Of course, all agencies have a certain spending threshold and there are cases where automation is the only way to cost-effectively manage large volumes of data. We recognize this fact and are working hard to bridge the gap of available funding and high quality data.
Mobile LiDAR and Cross-Slope Analysis
DTS/EarthEye just completed a 9-mile mobile LiDAR scan of I-95 here in Florida and provided one of our partners with cross-slope information in a period of days. The data was collected with our buddies at Riegl USA using their VMX-250 mobile LiDAR. This information will be used to generate pavement resurfacing plans for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
This project shows the value that this type of project can provide to the end user on both sides of the fence.
First, the paving contractor can use this data to develop their 30% plans for submittal to FDOT when bidding on a resurfacing or re-design contract. Having accurate and relevant data related to the roadway’s characteristics gives the paving contractor an edge over the competition because they know what the field conditions are before preparing an over-engineered design specification. This happens all of the time because the detailed field conditions are unknown while they are preparing their plans and they only have historical information to work from.
On the other side of the fence resides the FDOT. They can benefit from this information because if they can provide this detailed information as part of a bid package, they can reap the benefits that are gained from better information. If all contractors have the detailed as-built information (or in this case, accurate cross-slopes), they can all prepare their submittals using the same base information. This will provide the FDOT project manager with more accurate responses based on true field conditions, resulting in more aggressive pricing and decreased project costs.
Here are some screenshots of the information.
LiDAR Data Viewed by Intensity and Corresponding Cross-Slope Profile
Once the data has been collected and calibrated, we generate cross-slopes at a defined interval and export those out as 3D vectors.
These vectors are then symbolized based on their cross-slope percentages and exported as a KML file for ease of use.
Although this is a pretty simple step, the presentation of the data in Google Earth makes it easy for the end-user to visually identify problem areas and design the corrective actions according to field measurements.
Mobile LiDAR to Support Roadway Resurfacing
We just completed a mobile LiDAR project that was designed to support a roadway resurfacing project in Orlando. The project was centered on the use of mobile LiDAR to generate roadway profile data that Engineers could use to design a resurfacing project. Obviously the data would need to be accurate and we were able to hit the mark and best of all – prove it!
We collected the data using the new Riegl VMX-250 mobile LiDAR unit using a single pass in the north and southbound directions. We only required one pass in each direction to collect the road data which makes it very efficient from the data collection standpoint. In the past, we had to collect “strips” of data and then “sew” them all together during the calibration process. In this case, we took the opposing (NB and SB) strips and calibrated them relative to one another and then they are brought down to control as a final step.
Most of our clients are interested in the overall accuracies of the data, so we have built accuracy assessment tools that make it easy to review the LiDAR against survey control. The tool is simple to use and allows us to sort the results and dig deeper into the least accurate points to see why there might be discrepancies in the control vs the TIN surface.
For this project, we achieved an RMSE of .0525 ft – calculated by comparing the control elevations (Z) against the TIN elevations (Z TIN). This is important because we can check the point cloud against known control that was collected throughout the project and provide detailed information about the accuracy of the data.
Once the data has been calibrated sufficiently, we can then generate all of the derivative products for this project. We generated the following data for our roadway engineers:
- Pavement Cross-Slope
- Shoulder Cross-Slope
- 3D Roadway Markings
- Edge of Friction Course
This data set also supports detailed engineering analysis related to guardrail height above the roadway. This is an important factor to consider because there are specific standards that define where the guardrail is placed, more specifically, its height above the roadway, to corral vehicles that end up impacting the guardrail in an accident situation. The following graphic displays how this measurement can be made in the point cloud data.




