Table 1:
Criteria of road damage based on SDI (Isradiet al., 2021; Paikun et al., 2021; Setiadji & Purwanto, 2019).
| Total SDI value | Damage category |
|---|---|
| <50 | Good |
| 50–100 | Fair |
| 100–150 | Bad |
| >150 | Poor |
Figure 1:
Assessment of the percentage of crack area, crack width, number of holes, and vehicle rutting (Isradiet al., 2021; Paikun et al., 2021; Setiadji & Purwanto, 2019).
Figure 2:
Location and carriageway details for the study area.
Figure 3:
Research flow chart.
Figure 4:
Description of Some Road Damage for the Case Study: (a) Fatigue crack, (b) Transverse crack, (c) Pothole, (d) Rutting.
Table 2:
Road damage data for each segment.
| Segment No. | Crack area [%] | Crack width [mm] | No. of potholes [per 200 meters] | Rut depth [mm] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 21.25 | 4 | 15 | 4 |
| 2 | 17.22 | 3 | 12 | 3.5 |
| 3 | 5.80 | 2 | 3 | 3.5 |
| 4 | 27.30 | 3 | 11 | 5.5 |
| 5 | 8.00 | 1 | 12 | 3.5 |
| 6 | 9.80 | 2 | 5 | 1 |
| 7 | 8.13 | 2 | 7 | 0.5 |
| 8 | 11.55 | 2 | 9 | 1 |
| 9 | 20.24 | 3 | 11 | 1 |
| 10 | 6.00 | 1 | 3 | 0.5 |
| 11 | 3.52 | 1 | 5 | 0 |
| 12 | 8.84 | 2 | 4 | 0.5 |
| 13 | 4.90 | 2 | 6 | 0.8 |
| 14 | 1.50 | 1 | 5 | 0 |
| 15 | 2.03 | 2 | 3 | 0.3 |
| 16 | 1.95 | 2 | 4 | 3.2 |
| 17 | 3.50 | 1 | 7 | 3.5 |
| 18 | 6.72 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| 19 | 13.00 | 3 | 5 | 3.5 |
| 20 | 3.60 | 2 | 6 | 3.5 |
| 21 | 11.20 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| 22 | 22.80 | 4 | 11 | 5.5 |
| 23 | 31.20 | 4 | 8 | 7 |
| 24 | 17.85 | 3 | 12 | 6 |
| 25 | 20.70 | 3 | 14 | 6.5 |
Table 3:
Obtained Total SDI Value for Each Segment.
| Segment No. | SDI 1 (Crack area) | SDI 2 (Crack width) | SDI 3 (No. of potholes) | SDI 4 (Rut depth) | Total SDI value | Damage category | Type of treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20 | 40 | 225 | 20 | 305 | Poor damage | Reconstruction |
| 2 | 20 | 20 | 225 | 20 | 285 | Poor damage | Reconstruction |
| 3 | 5 | 5 | 75 | 20 | 105 | Bad damage | Rehabilitation |
| 4 | 20 | 20 | 225 | 20 | 285 | Poor damage | Reconstruction |
| 5 | 5 | 5 | 225 | 20 | 255 | Poor damage | Reconstruction |
| 6 | 5 | 5 | 75 | 10 | 95 | Fair damage | Periodical maintenance |
| 7 | 5 | 5 | 75 | 2.5 | 87.5 | Fair damage | Periodical maintenance |
| 8 | 20 | 20 | 75 | 10 | 125 | Bad damage | Rehabilitation |
| 9 | 20 | 20 | 225 | 10 | 275 | Poor damage | Reconstruction |
| 10 | 5 | 5 | 75 | 2.5 | 87.5 | Fair damage | Periodical maintenance |
| 11 | 5 | 5 | 75 | 0 | 85 | Fair damage | Periodical maintenance |
| 12 | 5 | 5 | 75 | 2.5 | 87.5 | Fair damage | Periodical maintenance |
| 13 | 5 | 5 | 75 | 2.5 | 87.5 | Fair damage | Periodical maintenance |
| 14 | 5 | 5 | 75 | 0 | 85 | Fair damage | Periodical maintenance |
| 15 | 5 | 5 | 75 | 2.5 | 87.5 | Fair damage | Periodical maintenance |
| 16 | 5 | 5 | 75 | 20 | 105 | Bad damage | Rehabilitation |
| 17 | 5 | 5 | 75 | 20 | 105 | Bad damage | Rehabilitation |
| 18 | 5 | 5 | 75 | 20 | 105 | Bad damage | Rehabilitation |
| 19 | 20 | 20 | 75 | 20 | 135 | Bad damage | Rehabilitation |
| 20 | 5 | 5 | 75 | 20 | 105 | Bad damage | Rehabilitation |
| 21 | 20 | 20 | 75 | 20 | 135 | Bad damage | Rehabilitation |
| 22 | 20 | 40 | 225 | 20 | 305 | Poor damage | Reconstruction |
| 23 | 40 | 80 | 75 | 20 | 215 | Poor damage | Reconstruction |
| 24 | 20 | 20 | 225 | 20 | 285 | Poor damage | Reconstruction |
| 25 | 20 | 20 | 225 | 20 | 285 | Poor damage | Reconstruction |
Figure 5:
The Obtained SDI Values for the Road Segments.
Figure 6:
The obtained damage category and treatment type for the road segments.