ECE 416 Highway Engineering

Term Project 1
Pavement Survey

Group members:
Student Name: Kamila Akhmetova Student ID: 201595182
Student Name: Marzhan Batyr Student ID: 201524099
Student Name: Kamila Kuangaliyeva Student ID: 201531779
Student Name: Zhamilya Mamesh Student ID: 201435112
Student Name: Zhanat Tolenbekova Student ID: 201590424
Student Name: Elmira Zhumabayeva Student ID: 201564828

Lecturer: Chang Shon

Date of submission: 27/09/2019

Table of content
1. Introduction 2
2.1. Distress types 3
2.1.1 Cracking 3
Fatigue cracking 3
Block cracking 4
Longitudinal cracking 4
Transverse cracking 4
Joint Reflection cracking 5
2.1.2 Patching and potholes 5
Patching 5
Potholes 5
2.1.2 Surface deformation 6
Rutting 6
Shoving 6
2.1.3 Surface defects 6
Bleeding 6
Polished Aggregate 7
Raveling 7
2.2. Survey method 7
3. Survey results 9
3.1. Survey Location 1 9
Distress Rating 11
3.2. Survey Location 2 12
Distress Rating 16
3.3. Survey Location 3 17
Distress Rating 22
3.4. Survey Location 4 22
4. Conclusion 27
5. References 28
6. Appendix 29

1. Introduction
Damage to the pavement is any sign of a poor condition of the surface of the pavement or
a decrease in the bearing capacity of the structure, which is easy can be noticed by signs of
cracking, deformation, shoving, stripping or any other damage, that caused as a result of poor
service. There are several types of pavement distress, as indicated above, and the level of
destruction, precisely they are low, medium or high. Each type of distress is distinguished by
different characteristics. The main reasons for the pavement deformations can be associated with
poor construction quality, inadequate structural design, climate, increased load, increased soil
moisture and so on. In order to thoroughly study the problems associated with the road surface,
the observational research was conducted for 4 different locations around the university, and the
survey revealed that flexible pavement surface was observed at all locations. Thus, the pavement
survey made in order to describe the types of disasters in case of any failure at 4 pre-assigned
survey locations and to describe the factors that cause the disaster. Moreover, based on factors and
reasons, possible repair methods will be considered.

2. Literature review
2.1. Distress types
According to US FHWA’s (United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway
Administration) Distress Identification Manual (2014), all distresses can be grouped into these
categories:
➢ Cracking
➢ Patching and potholes
➢ Surface deformation
➢ Surface defects
➢ Miscellaneous distresses
2.1.1 Cracking
Fatigue cracking
Fatigue cracking occurs in areas where repeated traffic loadings are applied and can be a
series of interconnected cracks appeared from fatigue failure. After repeated loading, many-sided
and sharp-angled pieces pieces will be formed, the pattern will resemble the back of an alligator.
Problems related: roughness, moisture infiltration, possibility of resulting in potholes if
not treated.
Possible causes:
● Increase in loading (loads are heavier than design value)
● Improper structural design
● Poor construction
● Failure of load supporting characteristics (base, subbase or subgrade support is lost due to
poor drainage)
Severity Levels
LOW: no or only few connecting cracks, no spalling and sealing, no pumping.
MODERATE: complete pattern is created by interconnected cracks, can be spalled and
sealed, no pumping can be seen.
HIGH: a complete pattern is formed by severely spalled interconnected cracks, cracks can
be sealed, pumping can be evident.
Block cracking
Block cracking is a distress type where cracks divide the pavement into rectangular pieces
having a size range of 1 ft2-100 ft2. Occur throughout the pavement surface, not only under the
wheel paths.
Problems related: moisture infiltration and roughness
Possible causes:
● Aging of asphalt binder
● Improper asphalt binder choice
These listed situations can result in the inability of asphalt binder to change in size with different
temperature cycles, thus block cracking can occur.
Severity Levels
LOW: mean width of cracks ≤ 6 mm or sealed cracks (sealant material in good condition).
MODERATE: mean width of cracks > 6 mm and ≤ 19 mm; or if there is any crack with
mean width ≤ 19 mm with adjacent not severe random cracking.
HIGH: mean width of cracks > 19mm or crack having a mean width ≤ 19 mm with adjacent
moderate to high severity random cracking.

Longitudinal cracking
Cracks that are approximately parallel to pavement centerline.
Problems related: moisture infiltration, roughness and indication of fatigue and structural
failure.
Possible causes:
● Top-down cracking
● Poor joint location or construction
Severity Levels
LOW: mean width of cracks ≤ 6 mm or sealed cracks (sealant material in good condition).
MODERATE: mean width of cracks > 6 mm and ≤ 19 mm; or if there is any crack with
mean width ≤ 19 mm with adjacent not severe random cracking.
HIGH: mean width of cracks > 19mm or crack having a mean width ≤ 19 mm with adjacent
moderate to high severity random cracking.

Transverse cracking
Cracks that are perpendicular to pavement centerline, may cover all or some parts of the
lanes.
Problems related: moisture infiltration, roughness
Possible causes:
● HMA surface’s shrinkage due to low temperatures or hardening of binder
● Top-down cracking
● Due to cracks developed from the layers under HMA layer reflective crack can occur
 Severity Levels
LOW: mean width of cracks ≤ 6 mm or sealed cracks (sealant material in good condition).
MODERATE: mean width of cracks > 6 mm and ≤ 19 mm; or if there is any crack with
mean width ≤ 19 mm with adjacent not severe random cracking, adjacent random cracks should
not be far for 0.3 m and more from main distress.
HIGH: mean width of cracks > 19mm or crack having a mean width ≤ 19 mm with adjacent
moderate to severe random cracking, adjacent random cracks should not be far for 0.3 m and more
from main distress.

Joint Reflection cracking

Occur on pavement joints.
Problems related: Roughness, moisture infiltration
Possible causes:
● Thermal and moisture changes => Pavement slab movement
Severity Levels
Not applicable.

2.1.2 Patching and potholes

Patching
An area of pavement that were removed and replaced, or other material is applied. Portion
is greater than or equal to 0.1 m2.
Problems related: roughness
Possible causes:
● Utility cuts
● Localized pavement distress that were removed and replaced previously
Severity Levels
LOW: deformation or rutting is < 6 mm, patching material is not lost at all, not evident
pumping.
MODERATE: any deformation or rutting in a range of 6-12 mm, not evident pumping.
HIGH: any deformation including rutting > 12 mm, pumping can be evident.

Potholes
Bowl-shaped depressions that can penetrate through HMA layer till the base course.
Minimum diameter is 150 mm. Typically potholes occur in pavements which have thin HMA
layer.
Problems related: roughness (hazards especially for vehicles with high speed), moisture
infiltration
Possible causes:
● End result of fatigue cracking (interconnected cracks create small chunks and further are
dislodged by vehicles)
 Severity Levels
LOW: depth < 25 mm.
MODERATE: depth 25-50 mm.
HIGH: depth > 50 mm.

2.1.2 Surface deformation

Rutting
A longitudinal depression of surface in the wheel path, pavement uplift can occur.
Problems related: ruts + water => vehicles hydroplaning
Possible causes:
● Consolidation due to traffic loading
● Poor compaction of HMA, thus HMA layer continues to densify by traffic
● Inadequate pavement structure => subgrade rutting
● Mix design is not proper
Severity Levels
ZERO: 0” < Rut < ¼”.
LOW: ¼” ≤ Rut < ½”.
MODERATE: ½” ≤ Rut < ¾”.
HIGH: ¾” ≤ Rut.

Shoving
A localized area’s distress and typified by abrupt wave or and ripples. Usually traffic start
and end points have this kind of distress.
Problems related: roughness
Possible causes:
● By traffic action (starting and stopping)
● Poor mix design, mix contamination, improper HMA manufacturing => unstable HMA
layer
● Moisture excess
Severity Levels
Can be defined by relative effect on ride.

2.1.3 Surface defects

Bleeding
A shiny, glass-like surface created by bituminous binder excess occured on the surface.
Usually located in the wheel paths. Can be sticky or slippery
Problems related: Skid resistance loss
Possible causes:
● Poor mix design or manufacturing => excess of asphalt binder
● HMA air void amount is low
 Severity Levels
Bleeding exists if multiple areas with bleeding > 25 ft2.

Polished Aggregate
Surface binder worn away, thus coarse aggregates are exposed, very small or no rough
aggregates.
Problems related: Skid resistance loss
Possible causes:
● Repeated traffic
● Aging
● Aggregate susceptance to abrasion
Severity Levels
Not applicable.

Raveling
Dislodging of aggregates and asphalt binder loss resulting in worn away pavement surface.
Problems related: Roughness, water collection in raveled locations => vehicle
hydroplaning, skid resistance loss, loose debris
Possible causes:
● Repeated traffic
● Aging
● Aggregate susceptance to abrasion
Severity Levels
LOW: wearing away of aggregates with 25 to 50% aggregate loss in a 1’ longitudinal
strip.
MODERATE: 50% to 75% aggregate loss in a 1’ longitudinal strip. Loose particles can
be in the outside of the traffic area.
HIGH: ≥ 75% aggregate loss in a 1’ longitudinal [Link] may present.

2.2. Survey method

There are several methods for providing the observation of pavement. The first method is
to inspect the sidewalk along the side of the road from the vehicle moving with a low velocity. In
the case of unavailability of this method, the survey should be done by the observers on foot. The
second method may cause safety issues, since the surveyor are required to check the pavement
surface under the hazardous conditions on the road. Those safety problems could have been
avoided by using a third method naming automatic examination method. For this method the
special vehicle equipped with video recording devices and sensors are required, those devices
collect the necessary information, which are subsequently checked by specialists in the office.
Security is not the only issue occuring during the surveying pavement, there is another
problem of subjectivity of evaluating the road distress. Obtained results might be very variable
and inconsistent. In order to minimize this problem, the applying of automated methods for
assessing distress are required. Results of the observation in evaluating the distress may vary
according to the factors like: different conditions of the observed area, changes in observation
area and in methods of assessment. However, by using the same location for surveying and
observing the condition at regular intervals of distance every time the errors can be significantly
decreased.
During the observation described in the report, the second foot survey method was
conducted. As was mentioned before this type of visual inspection is subject to road safety
hazards because of the traffic. For reducing the probability of accidents during the survey, safety
and caution were carefully followed.

Distress Rating
In order to evaluate pavement condition, the pavement rating method from Garber and Hoel
(2009) was used. Each distress type was characterized in terms of severity and frequency. Based
on them, rating factor (did) was assigned for each distress type according to Table 2. Weighting
factor (wi) for specific distress types was given in Table 1. Then, distress rating was calculated
using the following equation:

Table 1. Weighting factor, wi (Garber and Hoel, 2009).

Distress type Weighting factor (wi)

Cracking 2.4

Rutting 1.0

Bleeding 1.0

Raveling 0.9

Patching 2.3

Table 2. Rating factor, did, related to severity and frequency (Garber and Hoel, 2009).
3. Survey results
3.1. Survey Location 1
Survey location 1 is situated on the NU campus entrance, at the bus stop on Kabanbay
batyr Avenue. The bus lane is one-way and the pavement is flexible. The traffic loading on the
pavement is comprised of high-intensity public buses and according to 2GIS maps, regularly 15
different buses stop on the location 1. The main distresses observed on Location 1 are as follows:
Rutting, Bleeding,

● Rutting
The major distress associated with Location 1 is rutting. As it can be seen from figure 1
longitudinal surface depressions have been formed on the wheel path.

Figure 1. Rutting in Survey Location 1

Severity level: According to Distress Survey Manual (2010), severity level is defined as follows:
In this case the severity is classified as High (or “Very Severe”), because in certain places the rut
depth was over 2.5cm, which is 1”.
Possible causes: Consolidation over a time or lateral movement of materials caused by traffic
loading are the primary reasons of any permanent deformation on pavement.
Rutting is normally caused by (Pavement Distresses, 2019):
1. Poor compaction of HMA layers on the construction phase, so HMA pavement tends to
unevenly densify under traffic loads afterwards.
 2. Rutting occured on subgrade due to inadequate pavement structure.
3. Inadequate mix design or manufacturing.
Repair works:
The repair works heavily depend on the severity of the ruts. Pavement with high-severity ruts
should be leveled and overlaid, however low-severity with depth under ⅓” can be neglected. It is
crucial to analyze the root cause of the failure prior to repairing, it can for instance be excessively
high asphalt content, studded tire wear or other reasons.

● Bleeding
The other distress observed at Location 1 was Bleeding. As it can be seen in figure below, the
exposure of asphalt binder on the pavement, which created a shiny pavement surface.

Figure 2. Rutting and bleeding in Survey Location 1

Severity level: According to Distress Survey Manual (2010), bleeding is considered either as
existing or non-existing for each 0.1 mile segment, where bleeding exists if it has several areas
more than ≥ 25 square feet of bleeding.
For this particular case, Moderate severity level was concluded, because even on sunny and dry
day the surface was not highly sticky, but still shiny.
Possible causes:
In the event of hot weather or traffic compaction, the voids in aggregate are filled by the asphalt
binder, which further expands to pavement surface. Asphalt binder accumulates on surface over a
time, because bleeding is irreversible and continues even during cold weather or low traffic. The
typical causes are (Pavement Distresses, 2019):
1. Excessive amount of asphalt binder in HMA as a result of poor mix design or
manufacturing
2. Excessive application of asphalt binder during BST application
3. Low Air void content in HMA, which means that there are not sufficient space for asphalt
to occupy, so it goes to aggregate voids. This is a mix design problem
Repair works:
1. Application of coarse sand to blot up the asphalt binder for Minor bleeding
 2. Removal of the excessive binder by motor grader or heater planer for Major bleeding.
Further resurfacing is needed to ensure the smooth surface.
The repair works suggested do not solve the underlying causes of the bleeding, but rather eliminate
it for future safety and comfort of pavement.

● Polished aggregate
Polished aggregate has also been tracked on location 1. The distinctive characteristics are the
exposed coarse aggregates and diminished surface binder.

Figure 3. Polished aggregate in Survey Location 1

Severity level: Slight, because the roughness is quite small and can be observed only on close-up
Possible causes:
1. Repeated traffic loading
2. As pavement ages,exposed rough and angular particles become polished. The process
accelerates if the aggregate is susceptible to abrasion.
Repair works:
Application of skid-resistant slurry seal, BST or non-structural overlay.

Distress Rating
Table 3. Observed distress characteristics for Survey Location 1
Distress characteristic Frequency Severity

Rutting F VS

Bleeding O S

Weighting factor for rutting and bleeding are 1 and 1. (Garber and Hoel, 2009).
DR = 100 - 1*9 - 1*4 = 87
 In this rating, polished aggregates are not taken into account, because no information is
available about weighting factor of those distress types. SO the accuracy of the rating is not high.
There were identified various distress types with slight to high severity values that mostly require
preventive maintenance measures. As the pavement is located on the functioning bus lane, it was
hard and not safe to make a detailed analysis. The major distress associated with location 1 is
rutting, which requires an immediate repairing works, because it makes it uncomfortable to drive
through. Overall, having asked a number of bus drivers and relying on the calculated distress
rating, it is reasonable to conclude that pavement condition of Survey Location 1 is “Fair”.

3.2. Survey Location 2

The survey location covers the area in front of the 1st block of Nazarbayev University,
namely the entrance on the Kabanbay Batyr Ave. side of the building. It also includes a little part
of the road from the side of the 1st entrance on the Kabanbay Batyr Ave. The local traffic’s
intensity is definitely lower than moderate but still significant because the location is constantly
utilized by university buses, bank money trucks, personal means of transport, etc. The list of
identified distress includes the following items which are presented below in details.
● Transverse cracking
There were 2 types of transverse cracks identified: partial and full.
Severity level: According to Distress Survey Manual (2010), low severity transverse cracking
includes unsealed cracks with a width less than or equal to 0.25 in, while moderate severity
transverse cracking includes cracks with a mean width of >0.25 in and less than or equal to 0.75
in. It can be concluded that partial transverse cracks at the location are of low severity and full
transverse cracks are of moderate severity.
Possible causes: Considering the climatic conditions, the most possible cause of this cracking
would be shrinkage of the surface layer induced by thermal cycling (low temperatures in
particular). On top of that, hardening process of the binder in the surface layer and reflection
cracking should not be dismissed.
Repair works: For low severity transverse cracks it is better to implement sealing in order to avoid
adverse consequences, such as moisture infiltration and raveling of the distress edges. For high
severity transverse cracks it is recommended to construct an overlay instead of the existing layer
(Pavement Distresses, 2019).
 Figure 4. Partial transverse cracking in Survey Location 2

Figure 5. Full transverse cracking in Survey Location 2

● Longitudinal cracking
Severity level: According to Distress Survey Manual (2010), low severity longitudinal cracking
includes unsealed cracks with a width less than or equal to 0.25 in. It is the case in this project.
Possible causes: The main 2 causes identified for this type of cracking is fatigue of HMA layer
and the influence of temperature. If it is not repaired as soon as possible, it may initiate fatigue
cracking in the long term. As for the influence of temperature, it is necessary to note that as a result
of it horizontal tensile strains are produced in the pavement.
Repair works: For low severity longitudinal cracks it is recommended to seal present cracks. This
is done to prevent further deterioration in the form of moisture infiltration and raveling of the
distress edges (Pavement Distresses, 2019).
 Figure 6. Longitudinal cracking in Survey Location 2
● Raveling
Severity level: According to Distress Survey Manual (2010), moderate severity raveling refers to
the case when >/=50% to <70% loss of aggregates can be observed in a longitudinal pavement
strip with a width of 1 in. A strip of component loss with a width of 3-6 in may also be considered
in this severity category. It is the case in this project.
Possible causes: The causes include insufficient compaction, aging of the binder and effect of
studded tires. Possible insufficient compaction during the construction stage might have led to
poor development of cohesion in the surface layer. Opting for aging of the binder is also reasonable
because oxidation of the binder results in a stiffer material which can easily disintegrate when
exposed to some kind of traffic.
Repair works: Fog/slurry sealing can be introduced to solve this problem in this location. Patching
may be executed when raveling instances are concentrated within the same area (Pavement
Distresses, 2019).

Figure 7. Raveling in Survey Location 2

● Patching
Severity level: According to Distress Survey Manual (2010), low severity patching is able to
provide a smooth riding experience. Other characteristics include the lack of pumping, presence
of other distress types of low severity (e.g., rutting and deformations of less than 0.25 in). It is the
case in this project.
Possible causes: Presence of other distress types of low severity within and around the patched
area may be primarily load related because patches are located where the traffic load is the most
considerable within the area of Survey Location 2.
Repair works: Since patching is a fixing method itself, repair works should be considered when
the existing patching fails to fulfill its functions. Structural/non-structural overlays are the
suggested options (Pavement Distresses, 2019).

Figure 8. Patching in Survey Location 2

● Block cracking
Severity level: According to Distress Survey Manual (2010), moderate severity block cracking
includes cracks with a mean width of >0.25 in and less than or equal to 0.75 in. It is the case in
this project.
Possible causes: Considering the climatic conditions, the main cause is thermal cycling
complemented by aging of the binder. This results in shrinkage of the surface layer.
Repair works: If most cracks involved in block cracking are <0.5 in in width, then the problem can
be fixed by sealing to impede moisture infiltration and future raveling (Pavement Distresses,
2019).

Figure 9. Block cracking in Survey Location 2

 ● Fatigue cracking
Severity level: According to Distress Survey Manual (2010), low severity fatigue cracking is
essentially an area of a few interconnecting cracks. There should be no pumping as well. It is the
case in this project.
Possible causes: Fatigue cracking might have been caused by the comparative loss of
base/subbase/subgrade support. Another notable cause might be insufficient compaction during
the construction stage (especially around manholes).
Repair works: Since the fatigue cracking in Survey Location 2 is localized and not that significant,
the best approach is to execute full-depth patching (Pavement Distresses, 2019).

Figure 10. Fatigue cracking in Survey Location 2

● Polished aggregate
Severity level. It is determined to be low since the reduction of surface friction is insignificant.
Possible causes: The chief cause is repeated traffic. The side cause might be the nature of
aggregates (resistant to abrasion or not), so it depends on aggregates used during construction of
Survey Location 2.
Repair works: Slurry sealing, BST, non-structural overlays (Pavement Distresses, 2019).

Figure 11. Polished aggregate in Survey Location 2

Distress Rating
Table 4. Observed distress characteristics for Survey Location 2
 Distress characteristic Frequency Severity

Cracking O NS

Raveling O S

Patching O NS

Weighting factor for cracking (longitudinal or alligator cracking), raveling, patching are
2.4, 0.9 and 2.3 (Garber and Hoel, 2009).
DR = 100 - 2.4*2 - 0.9*4 - 2.3*2 = 87
This is a reasonable but still not accurate rating because some of the distress types present
in Survey Location 2 are not involved in calculation of DR due to the lack of values for their
weighting factors. In general, the majority of distress types identified in this survey location are
of low to moderate severity. The reason for this is that, in spite of unfavorable climatic
conditions, the local traffic applications are not that significant. Based on the calculated DR
value and a review of the rest of distresses identified, it can be concluded that the pavement
condition of Survey Location 2 is “Good”.
3.3. Survey Location 3
Survey location covers the pavement starting from the third entrance on the Kabanbay
Batyr Ave. forward to the Block С3. Since it is the main road that has access to the campus, various
types of vehicles (passenger cars, buses, trailers, etc.) have been driving along this lane. Therefore,
traffic intensity can be considered as moderate. During the observation, the following pavement
distress types were identified: longitudinal, transverse, alligator (fatigue), block cracking,
potholes, raveling, shoving and patching. Each distress type will further be discussed in detail
below.
● Longitudinal cracking
Severity level: Low (5-6 mm crack width).
Possible causes: Since all of them were on non-wheel path zone they are not load-related cracks.
In this case it can be caused by shrinkage of asphalt surface due to frost heaving. Poor joint
construction and cracks from underlying layer can also be the reason of appearing this distress.
Repair works: Since the crack width is very small, it can be sealed using rubberized asphalt.
 Figure 12. Longitudinal cracking in Survey Location 3

● Transverse cracking
Severity level: High (50-70 mm crack width). Moreover, multiple random cracks are appeared to
be adjoined along the crack path. As can be seen from Fig. 13b, the slope making the one adjacent
surface to be lower than the other one lowers the riding comfort.
Possible causes: Such reflective cracking can be caused due to the cracks beneath the asphalt layer.
Shrinkage in asphalt due to cold temperature can induce random cracks adjacent to transverse
cracking.
Repair works: In this case sealing does not fix them due to high severity. Therefore, the cracked
layer should be removed, and replaced with an overlay.

a) b)
Figure 13. Transverse cracking in Survey Location 3
 ● Block cracking
Severity level: Low (4 mm crack width)
Possible causes: It was resulted from asphalt shrinkage due to low temperature or asphalt
hardening.
Repair works: It can be fixed through sealing.

Figure 14. Block cracking in Survey Location 3

● Alligator (fatigue) cracking
Severity level: Moderate (cracks are interconnected and form pattern).
Possible causes: Loss of base, subbase or subgrade support as a result of insufficient drainage can
be the main reason. It can also be caused due to excessive loading since it has developed around
the manhole and it obstructed the load transfer (Fig 15b).
Repair works: Entire pavement surface should be replaced by an HMA overlay.
 a) b)
Figure 15. Alligator cracking in Survey Location 3

● Patching
Severity level: Low (no rutting was observed)
Possible causes: Poor drainage and traffic load caused patch edges to be separated from the
surrounding pavement.
Repair works: Patch edges should be sealed.

Figure 16. Patching in Survey Location 3

● Shoving
Severity level: Low
Possible causes: It has occurred due to traffic action. HMA layer with low stiffness resulted from
improper mix design might also be the reason for that.
Repair works: It can be fixed with overlaying patch on the distorted area.

Figure 17. Shoving in Survey Location 3

● Potholes
Severity level: Moderate (30 mm deep)
Possible causes: This pothole was caused due to continued deterioration of transverse cracking.
Traffic drove over the cracking appeared to dislodge this small piece of pavement developed from
interconnected random cracks adjacent transverse cracking.
Repair works: The pothole should be cut into squares, then it should be filled with an asphalt
solution and compacted down.

Figure 18. Pothole in Survey Location 3

● Raveling
Severity level: Moderate (surface texture is noticeably rough)
Possible causes: It is probably caused due to segregation, as can be seen from Fig.5 there are not
enough fine particles which resulted in asphalt binder to bind only remaining coarse particles.
Segregation occurred due to inadequate compaction during construction.
Repair works: It can be repaired with a fog seal or slurry seal.
 Figure 19. Raveling in Survey Location 3

Distress Rating
Table 5. Observed distress characteristics for Survey Location 3
Distress characteristic Frequency Severity

Cracking O S

Raveling R S

Patching O NS

Weighting factor for cracking (longitudinal or alligator cracking), raveling, patching are
2.4, 0.9 and 2.3 (Garber and Hoel, 2009).
DR = 100 - 2.4*4 - 0.9*2 - 2.3*2 = 84
In this rating, transverse cracking, block cracking, potholes and shoving are not taken into
account, since there is no information about weighting factor of those distress types. So, it cannot
be considered as an accurate rating. There were identified various distress types with moderate to
high severity values that mostly require preventive maintenance measures. Moreover they are
generally met occasionally and do not affect riding comfort significantly. Therefore, it is
reasonable to conclude that pavement condition of Survey Location 3 is “Good”.

3.4. Survey Location 4

Location 4 is located adjacent to the main entrance from Turan street and mainly used by
cars.
 ● Joint reflection cracking
Repetitive transverse cracks were observed at the location 4. The cracks are straight and
it can be assumed that these cracks correspond to the edges of the asphalt slabs.

Figure 20. Joint reflective cracking in Survey Location 4.

Severity level: The width of the cracks is less than 0.5 inch, thus the severity level of cracks is
low.
Possible causes: Movement of the rigid slab under the surface layer due to temperature changes.
Repair works: The crack can be sealed, because the severity of the crack is low.

● Transverse cracking
 Figure 21. Transverse cracking in Survey Location 4.
Severity level: The width of the cracks is less than 0.5 inch, thus the severity level of cracks is
low. The occurrence of the cracks is not frequent.
Possible causes: Most probably, shrinkage of the surface asphalt layer due to low temperatures.
Top-down cracking due to loads or reflective crack caused by crack under the surface layer.
Repair works: The crack can be sealed, because the severity of the crack is low.

● Patching
 Figure 22. Patching in Survey Location 4.
Severity level: Low severity.
Possible causes: Part of the deteriorated asphalt surface layer was replaced.
Repair works: The patching is itself a part of repair works. Because of the low severity, it does
not require repair works at the moment.

● Depression

Figure 23. Depression in Survey Location 4.

Severity level: Low severity level.

Possible causes: Caused by settlement of the foundation soil due to inadequate compaction.
Repair works: Removal of the affected layers and replacement of the soft subgrade.

● Raveling
 Figure 24. Raveling in Survey Location 4.
Severity level: Moderate severity level due to frequent occurrence of small raveled areas.
Possible causes: Segregation because of lack of fine aggregates or inadequate compaction of the
asphalt.
Repair works: Localized repair works by patching or removal of the surface HMA layer and
overlaying.

● Bleeding

Figure 25. Bleeding in Survey Location 4.

Severity level: Low severity level.
Possible causes: Most probably, porous surface layer due to inadequate compaction, which is also
can be the cause for raveling or high water table.
Repair works: To choose the repair work, the exact cause should be identified. For high water
table case, the subgrade drainage system should be improved. For porous surface layer case,
sealing can be applied to prevent the bleeding.

● Distress Rating
Table 6. Observed distress characteristics for Survey Location 4
Distress characteristic Frequency Severity

Raveling F NS

Patching R NS

Bleeding O NS

Weighting factor of bleeding, raveling and patching are 1.0, 0.9, & 2.3 (Garber and Hoel,
2009).
DR= 100 - 0.9*3 - 2.3*1 - 1*2 = 93. Not considering transverse cracking.
The site 4 have many types of pavement distresses and it is not an example of excellent
pavement, but all of them are of low severity level. Thus, the riding comfort can be rated as “Good”
because the performance of the HMA surface layer is still high.

4. Conclusion
In conclusion, to learn about the distress of the pavement a study of the sidewalk is
conducted in four different places around Nazarbayev University. During the survey, the number
of violations such as rutting, bleeding, longitudinal and transverse crackings was noticed. More
precisely, the first location near the bus stop has rutting, bleeding and the polishing aggregate due
to the rate of traffic. However, in the 2nd and 3rd locations, there are numerous of the longitudinal
and transverse cracks with nearly 5m length and 20-25mm in crack width at average. Also as these
locations are longer with comparison to the other two, there was observed the different variations
of pavement distress, like potholes, raveling, shoving, block cracking, patching and so on. Block
cracking are the cracks occurred from the selective repair works, that not lasting for the whole area
only the several parts of it. And lastly at the 4th location there mainly were a joint reflection
cracking, transfers cracking, raveling and bleeding. However, for all of the four locations the
severity levels of the definite cracking types are mostly low and only in some cases are moderate.
As a result, the roads are fully usable for the comfortable driving of the cars along the pavement.
But there are still some numerous crackings are occurring, therefore in this report, there are
represented the possible reasons and the repairing methods.
 The possible causes of the identified types of damage to the road surface, measurement
methods and suggestions for repair works were considered above. Some possible reasons for the
crackings might be for instance: poor structural design, improper compaction during the
construction or non-compliance with the recipe of pavement, poor drainage structure, increase in
traffic loading and loss of lower support layers and so one. In accordance with the defined reasons,
the following crack repair strategies were considered: improvement of the drainage system, the
filling of the cracks with either emulsion asphalt or slurry for avoiding the filling of the same
cracks with water. In the case of raveling crackings, the road can be repaired by removing the
damaged parts of the pavement and applying a fog seal from the slurry to the unusable pavement.
For doing a patching work, the previously damaged area has to be removed completely and only
after that should be patched.

5. References
“Pavement Distresses.” Pavement Interactive. Accessed September 24, 2019.
[Link]
distresses/.
Chang-Seon Shon. (2019). Lecture 2. Measuring Pavement Performance. Accessed
September 25, 2019.
Garber, N. and Hoel, L. (2009). Traffic and highway engineering, 4th ed. Toronto, Canada:
Cengage Learning.

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2010. ODOT Distress Survey Manual

[Link]
6. Appendix

Figure 26. Evaluation form for site 1.

Figure 27. Evaluation form for site 2.
Figure 28. Evaluation form for site 3.
Figure 29. Evaluation form for site 4.