---
category: literaturenote
citekey: pkrationalstrategyresourceallocation2017
title: A Rational Strategy for Resource Allocation for Rural Road Maintenance
authors: "P.k., Agarwal; Khan, A. B.; Choudhary, S."
year: 2017
date: 2017-01-01 2017-01-01
doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.422
publication: Transportation Research Procedia
url: "https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352146517307299"
zotero_key: JE8IYQVD
zotero_storage: JJUTTTZY
collections: imporditud
folder: 001_artiklid
firstAuthor: "P.k., Agarwal"
status: converted
---
![](_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg)

#### Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

# **ScienceDirect**

Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 2195–2207

![](_page_0_Picture_4.jpeg)

World Conference on Transport Research - WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10-15 July 2016 World Conference on Transport Research - WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10-15 July 2016

#### A Rational Strategy for Resource Allocation for Rural Road Maintenance Agarwal P.K<sup>a</sup> ., Khan A.B.b A Rational Strategy for Resource Allocation for Rural Road Maintenance

, Choudhary S. Agarwal P.K<sup>a</sup> ., Khan A.B.b , Choudhary S. c

*M.tech student, Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal 462051, India P.hD. scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal 462051, India Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal 462051, India b M.tech student, Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal 462051, India P.hD. scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal 462051, India*

#### **Abstract**

areas. Thus, in order to reap the benefits of created assets it is essential to maintain the low volume rural road timely. Rural road network are deteriorating fast due to lack of timely maintenance, leading to higher vehicle operating costs, increasing number of accidents etc. The main objective of this study is to develop innovative strategies for rational allocation of resources for maintenance of low volume rural road network in a simple and cost effective manner. The important contribution of this study is a two stage strategy for maintenance of low volume rural roads. The strategy proposed in this study is illustrated with the help of example of some hypothetical rural roads network. Analysis results indicated that the proposed strategy is less time consuming simple and cost effective and can be executed with minimal data which can be obtained easily and economically from each section of a rural roads network A huge rural road network created recently in developing countries has resulted in increased social and economic benefits in rural areas. Thus, in order to reap the benefits of created assets it is essential to maintain the low volume rural road timely. Rural road network are deteriorating fast due to lack of timely maintenance, leading to higher vehicle operating costs, increasing number of accidents etc. The main objective of this study is to develop innovative strategies for rational allocation of resources for maintenance of low volume rural road network in a simple and cost effective manner. The important contribution of this study is a two stage strategy for maintenance of low volume rural roads. The strategy proposed in this study is illustrated with the help of example of some hypothetical rural roads network. Analysis results indicated that the proposed strategy is less time consuming simple and cost effective and can be executed with minimal data which can be obtained easily and economically from each section of a rural roads network

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.

*Keywords:*Low volume roads, rural road resources allocation, Road maintenance, Prioritization, Maintenance activities.

### **1. Introduction**

The benefits of created rural road are essential to maintain the low volume rural road network timely. However, experiences have shown that these roads, although relatively cheap to construct, are often an unsustainable maintenance burden for many rural road authorities, and are rarely maintained in a serviceable conditions. India has a road network of over 4,689,842 kilometers in 2013, the second largest road network in the world. Rural road network consists of the 58% road network percentage of total road network in India, hence required a great care and huge investment for construction and maintenance. Hence, low volume roads are deteriorating fast due to lack of timely maintenance, leading to higher vehicle operating costs, increasing number of accidents etc. Once these roads The benefits of created rural road are essential to maintain the low volume rural road network timely. However, experiences have shown that these roads, although relatively cheap to construct, are often an unsustainable maintenance burden for many rural road authorities, and are rarely maintained in a serviceable conditions. India has a road network of over 4,689,842 kilometers in 2013, the second largest road network in the world. Rural road network consists of the 58% road network percentage of total road network in India, hence required a great care and huge investment for construction and maintenance. Hence, low volume roads are deteriorating fast due to lack of timely maintenance, leading to higher vehicle operating costs, increasing number of accidents etc. Once these roads

Corresponding author .Tel:+91-942-530-2304; fax: +91-755 2670562 ⃰E-mail address: pka9@yahoo.com Corresponding author .Tel:+91-942-530-2304; fax: +91-755 2670562 start to deteriorate; they deteriorate rapidly beyond the point where maintenance is effective. If timely maintenance is not provided, the reconstruction will become unavoidable. Thus, providing appropriate maintenance treatment at appropriate time, the rate of deterioration can be deferred to a great extent and this will reduce the maintenance cost of such a huge road network. Thus, prioritization of maintenance of the low volume rural roads is essential. Prioritization of maintenance activities depends on several factors such as condition of road i.e. quantity and quality of deterioration, increasing rate of deterioration, importance of the different sections etc. Hence, it is difficult to allocation of resources to various activities in order of their maintenance priority in a road network. Thus, there is an urgent need to develop a rational strategy for resource allocation for rural road maintenance.

However, a critical review of the literature indicated that no such comprehensive methodology is available to prioritize maintenance activities for a low volume road network. Most of the methods for evaluation of section conditions are sophisticated, costly and need specialized equipment and men power thus, the use of such strategy on rural network practically becomes impossible. Hence, there is an urgent need to develop rational strategies focusing on rural road network which are cost effective, quick and simply operated. Thus, the main objective of this study is to develop a rational strategy to select the most appropriate activities to be carried out at different sections of a low volume roads network considering their priority for maintenance based on importance, functional structural conditions and importance of rural road section etc. In this study, a two stage strategy is proposed. The strategy proposed in this study is illustrated with the help of example of some hypothetical rural roads network. Analysis results indicated that the proposed strategy is considered to be more rational, innovative & logical.

This paper consists of four sections of which this is the first. The second section presents rational strategy for resource allocation for rural road maintenance and the third section present the analysis and result using proposed strategy. The last section presents the important conclusions drawn based on this study.

#### **2. A rational strategy for resource allocation for rural road maintenance**

The main objective of this study is to develop the maintenance strategy for rural roads network. It is proposed to select maintenance activities to be carried out on different rural road sections in two stages. Stage I determines rural road section index for sections based on the basis of the rational strategy proposed in this study. Stage II determines activity index of maintenance activities on different sections. Thus, the rational strategy proposes that first sections which are more critical for maintenance needs to be selected. The strategy identifies to select maintenance activities using minimum data. Further, strategy proposes that the sections identified in stage I needs to be evaluated in more details so that the various maintenance activities to be carried out on these sections can be prioritized. Thus, the proposed strategy will be more economical as details studies needs not to be carried out on all sections. The rational strategy of resource allocation to maintenance activities stage I and stage II are briefly explained in the following section:

#### *2.1 Stage-I Rational strategy to determine section index of rural road sections:*

A hierarchical structure is developed to resource allocation affecting the allocation of resources for rural road sections. The resources allocation for rural road section depends upon section condition and section importance. Further section condition depends upon functional condition, structural condition and drainage condition. Further functional condition depends upon traffic operational condition and traffic safety condition and road importance of rural roads. Figure 1 presents the hierarchical structure developed in stage I to determine section index of rural road sections.

The factors affecting section index of rural road sections identified from the hierarchical structure presented in Figure 1 are. (i) Structural condition, (ii) Traffic Operation Condition, (iii) Traffic Safety Condition and (iv) Section Importance (v) Drainage Condition. A section index (SIs) is also developed in this stage to priorities the different sections of low volume road network. The SIs is developed considering the condition of the factors at different sections and their weight (i.e. relative contribution in determining resources allocation to sections).

![](_page_2_Figure_2.jpeg)

Figure 1: A hierarchical structure for resource allocation to rural road sections.

$$SI_S = \sum_{i=1}^n (SF_i \times w_i) \tag{1}$$

Where,

SIs=Section Index of section S

SFi=Section factor for factor i

Wi=Weight of factor i

n = number of factors for sections

Now various factors considered are structural condition, traffic operation condition, drainage condition, and traffic safety condition and section importance. Hence, Equation 1 can be written as follows:-

$$SI_{s} = (W_{Toc} * TOCI_{s}) + (W_{Tsc} * TSCI_{s}) + (W_{stc} * SCI_{s}) + (W_{drc} * DCI_{s}) + (SII_{s} * W_{sim})$$
(2)

Where,

TOCIs = Traffic operational condition Index for section s

TSCIs = Traffic safety condition index for section s

SCIs = Structural condition Index for section s

DCIs = Drainage Condition index for section s

SIIs = Section importance Index for section s

WToc = Weight of traffic operational condition for section s

WTsc = Weight of traffic safety condition for section s

Wstc = Weight of Structural condition for section s

Wdrc = Weight of Drainage Condition for section s

Wsim = Weight of section importance for section s

Now, the strategy to evaluate condition of factors i.e. Traffic safety condition, Traffic operational condition Structural Condition, and Drainage condition *etc*. is developed and explained as follows:

### *2.1.1 Traffic operational condition Index for section S [TOCIs]*

It is proposed that condition of traffic operation can be evaluated using an index named as traffic operation condition index for section s. The surface distress affects the traffic operation. Hence, the general equation for TOIs is presented in Equation 3.

$$TOCI_{s} = \frac{DISA_{s}}{TASs} \tag{3}$$

Where,

TOCIs= Traffic operational condition Index for section S.

DISAs= Distress in surface area for section S (m<sup>2</sup>

TASs= Total Area of section S (m<sup>2</sup> )

### *2.1.2 Traffic safety condition index for section S [TSCIs]*

It is proposed that condition of traffic safety can be evaluated using an index named as traffic safety index (TSCIs).Traffic safety index for section s may vary from 0.0 to 1.0 (most hazardous to no hazards condition). The TSCIs can be obtained by a user defined rating. The rating for traffic safety conditions of a section may depends upon poor geometric condition of road, poor surface condition etc. Table-1 presents the guidelines for user rating of traffic safety condition.

Table 1 Guidelines for user rating for evaluation of traffic safety condition

| S.No. | Section safety<br>condition    | Condition Detail                                                                                                                                                                                        | Rating |
|-------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| 1     | Extremely hazards<br>condition | Adverse most severe Geometry condition<br>Large no of traffic furniture are missing<br>Road Surface has big potholes                                                                                    | 1.0    |
| 2     | Most severe condition          | Road Geometry is very poor as curves are not designed properly<br>Road furniture are missing at some places they are also not provided at appropriate places<br>Potholes of small sizes on road surface | 0.8    |
| 3     | Severe condition               | Major Crakes and rut on the road surface<br>Traffic furniture at few places are missing<br>Roads geometry is improper at some places and adequate curve radius not provided                             | 0.6    |
| 4     | Moderate condition             | Potholes are very small and they are less in area,<br>Traffic furniture condition is poor at some places,<br>Road geometry is improper for some stretch of roads                                        | 0.4    |
| 5     | Safe condition                 | Potholes are very small and they are very less in area<br>Traffic furniture at one or two places is missing<br>Road geometry is improper at very few places                                             | 0.2    |
| 6     | No hazardous condition         | Improper Road geometry is negligible.<br>Ideal condition of road surface<br>Traffic furniture are not missing,                                                                                          | 0.0    |

### *2.1.3 Structural condition Index for section s [SCIs]*

It is proposed that structural condition can be evaluated using an index named as structural condition index for section s (SCIs). The structural distress i.e. fatigue, cracking and rut depth effects structural condition. Hence, the general equation for SCIs is presented in Equation 4.

$$SCI_s = \frac{ASDs}{TASs} \tag{4}$$

Where,

SCIs= Structural Condition Index at section S.

ASDs = Area of structural distress (rut depth, fatigue cracking) at section S (m<sup>2</sup>

TASs = Total area of section S (m<sup>2</sup> )

### *2.1.4 Evaluation of Drainage Condition Index for section s [DCIs]*

Effect of moisture content changes on the strength and stiffness of construction materials of road. Excess moisture reduces the strength and stiffness of pavement materials, being worse for the subgrade material, excess moisture and particularly high degrees of saturation result in significant pore pressures within the material. Depending on the degree of saturation, failure may occur as any of rapid shear or bearing failure, premature rutting, lifting of wearing course due to positive pore pressures, or embedment of cover aggregate due to weak base. A Drainage condition index for section sis developed to evaluate the improper camber at road. Drainage condition Index for section scan be determined using Equation 5

$$DCI_{s} = \frac{DCs}{RC_{s}}$$
 (5)

Where:

DCIs = Drainage condition Index at section s

DCs = RCs - ACs

RCs = Required Camber at section s

ACs = Available Camber at section s

### *2.1.5Section Importance Index for section s (SIIs)*

It is proposed that condition of section importance can be evaluated using an index named as Section Importance Index for section s (SIIs).Section importance index for section s may vary from 0.0 to 1.0 (very less important to extremely important). The SIIs can be obtained by a user defined rating. The user rating for section importance of a section may depend upon, importance to community, connectivity to market center, connectivity to health center, connectivity to other district roads etc.Table-2 presents the guidelines for user rating of rural road section importance.

Table 2.Guidelines for user rating for evaluation of section importance index for section s

| S. No. | Section Importance           | User Rating |
|--------|------------------------------|-------------|
| 1      | Extremely important (urgent) | 1.0         |
| 2      | Very important               | 0.8         |
| 3      | Fairly Important             | 0.6         |
| 4      | Important                    | 0.4         |
| 5      | Less important               | 0.2         |
| 6      | Very less important          | 0.0         |

The systems of weights are introduced to reflect the contribution of each index and factors. Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is used to determine the weight of the different factors. The details of weight considered for various factors are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.Details of the weight for various factors affecting overall section condition

| S.No | ID  | Section factor for section    | Notation                         | Weight |
|------|-----|-------------------------------|----------------------------------|--------|
| 1    | F-1 | Traffic operational condition | TOC                              | 0.12   |
| 2    | F-2 | Traffic Safety Condition      | TSCIs                            | 0.23   |
| 3    | F-3 | Structural Condition          | SCIs                             | 0.40   |
| 4    | F-4 | Drainage condition            | DCIs                             | 0.10   |
| 5    | F-5 | Section importance            | SIIs                             | 0.15   |
|      |     |                               | Summation of weight<br>=<br>1.00 |        |

Now putting the value of Section factor weight in Equation 2 it can be written as Equation

$$Si_s = 0.12 \text{ TOCI}_s + 0.23 \text{ TSCI}_s + 0.40 \text{ SCI}_s + 0.10 \text{ DCI}_s + 0.15 \text{ SII}_s$$
 (6)

Further, to illustrate the strategy and to illustrate how methodology works, ten different sections were analyzed and details of analysis and results obtained are presented in stage 2.

### *2.2 Stage-II Strategy to determine activity index of Maintenance Activities at section*

The strategy to determine activity index of various maintenance activities to be carried out on rural road section s (AIas) is presented in Equation 7.

$$AI_{as} = SF_{is} \times W_i$$
 (7)  
Where,

Wi=Weight (Relative importance) of Sub factor condition index i at section s

SFis= Sub factor of activity index, i at section S.

AIas=Activity index of maintenance activity at section s

## *2.2.1Evaluation of sub factor condition index for section s (SFIS)*

The strategy proposes that on the sections prioritized in stage-I, the condition of various section factors like SCIs, TOCIs, TSCIs, DCIs and SIIs need to be evaluated in more details so that various maintenance activities to be carried out on these sections can be prioritized. Therefore, it is required to evaluate conditions of sub factor condition index the relative importance of various sub factor condition indices is shown in Figure 2

![](_page_5_Figure_10.jpeg)

Figure 2: A hierarchical structure for resource allocation to various maintenance activities of rural road sections.

Evaluate of sub factors affecting conditions of section like Traffic Safety Condition index TSCIs, Traffic operation Condition Index TOCIs, Structural Condition index SCIs, Drainage Condition index DCIs and Section importance Index SIIs. are explained in Table 4

Table 4.Determination of sub factor condition index for resources allocation of rural road maintenance activity

| A. Traffic operation Condition Index (TOCIs)                                                                                                                                                                                   | B. Traffic Safety Condition index (TSCIs)                                                                                                                                          |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. Distorted Distress condition Index at section S(DSSIs)                                                                                                                                                                      | 4. Traffic Sign Board/Road marking Index at section s (TSBIs)                                                                                                                      |
| DSSIs = PDAs<br>MDAs                                                                                                                                                                                                           | TSBI\$ = RT𝑠𝑠\$ − AT𝑠𝑠\$<br>RT𝑠𝑠\$                                                                                                                                                 |
| Where,<br>PDAs=Present distorted area( in percent of total area)on the section s<br>MDAs=Maximum distorted area( in percent of total area) on any<br>section in the network                                                    | Where,<br>TSBIs<br>= Traffic sign board index at section s<br>RTSs = required number of traffic sign at section s<br>ATSs = available number of traffic sign/ Marking at section s |
| 2. Disintegrated Distress condition Index at section s (DISIs)                                                                                                                                                                 | 5. Inadequate super elevation index at section s (SE𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠)                                                                                                                          |
| DISIs = D8EF<<br>G8EF<<br>Where,                                                                                                                                                                                               | RSE:<br>− ASE:<br>SEI\$<br>=<br>RSE:                                                                                                                                               |
| PDIAs=Present disintegrated area( in percent of total area)on the<br>section s<br>MDIAs=Maximum disintegrated area( in percent of total area) on any<br>section in the network.                                                | Where,<br>RSEs = Required super elevation in %<br>ASEs = Available super elevation in %                                                                                            |
| 3. Fractured Distress condition Index at section s (FSIs )                                                                                                                                                                     | 6. Longitudinal gradient Index at section s (LGIs)                                                                                                                                 |
| DIF<<br>FSIs=<br>GIF<<br>Where,<br>PFAs=Present fractured area( in percent of total area) on the section<br>MFAs=Maximum fractured area( in percent of total area)on any<br>section in the network                             | RLG:<br>− ALG:<br>LGI:<br>=<br>RLG:<br>Where,<br>LGIs= Longitudinal gradient index<br>ALGs = available longitudinal gradient<br>RLGs= required longitudinal gradient               |
| C. Structural Condition index (SCIs)                                                                                                                                                                                           | D. Drainage Condition index (DCIs)                                                                                                                                                 |
| 7. Fatigue cracking area index at section s<br>FCSA:<br>FCSI:<br>=<br>TCA:                                                                                                                                                     | 9. Longitudinal Slope Index at section s (LSIs)<br>RLs:<br>− ALs:<br>LSI:<br>=<br>RLs:                                                                                             |
| Where,<br>FCSAs=Fatigue cracking surface area at section s<br>= Lcs x WCS<br>Lcs= Length of cut surface at section s<br>Wcs = width of cut surface in m2<br>at section s<br>TCAs= Total carriageway area in m2<br>at section s | Where:<br>LSIs =<br>Longitudinal slope index at section s<br>ALSs = available longitudinal slope at section s<br>RLSs = required longitudinal slope at section s                   |
| 8. Rutting Surface Index at section s (RSI:)                                                                                                                                                                                   | 10. Inadequate camber Condition index at section s (ICC:)                                                                                                                          |
| RSA:<br>RSI:<br>=<br>TCA:<br>Where,<br>RSAs=Rutting surface area in m2, at section s<br>TCAs= Total carriageway area in m2<br>of section s                                                                                     | ICCS: = RC: − AC:<br>RC:<br>Where:<br>ICCs= Inadequate Camber condition index at section S<br>ACs= Available camber in %<br>RCs= required camber in %                              |
| E. Section importance Index (SIIs)                                                                                                                                                                                             |                                                                                                                                                                                    |
| 11. Traffic Volume Index (TVIs)<br>NOPQQRS TUVWXY PZ Z[Y :YSZRU\<br>TVIs=<br>XP]RXWX ZOPQQRS TUVWXY PZ P\^ :YSZRU\                                                                                                             | 12. Importance of Community Index (ICIs)<br>9UXXW\RZ^ EX_UOZP\SY UQ Z[Y :YSZRU\ :<br>ICIs =<br>GP]RXWX 9UXXW\RZ^ EX_UOZP\SY UQ P\^ :YSZRU\                                         |

The relative weight of condition factors were obtained using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and are presented in Table 5. The AHP is a mathematical device in multi-criteria decision making which designing the decision factors in a hierarchic problem structure. The main target of the AHP is to decide and help decision makers in making resolution for the complex problem by structuring the criterion hierarchy of multi-criteria decision making. Hierarchical structure shows the weights for the respective factors. Factor of structure condition is the first in ranking order followed by functional condition. Section importance ranked as the third place. The lowest factor weight is section importance with 0.1.

| S.No |                             | Notation<br>Factor |                                  | Factor Weight |         |  |
|------|-----------------------------|--------------------|----------------------------------|---------------|---------|--|
|      |                             |                    |                                  | Global        | Local   |  |
| 1    | Traffic operation Condition | SF-1               | Distorted Distress condition     | 0.34          | 0.040   |  |
| 2    |                             | SF-2               | Disintegrated Distress condition | 0.55          | 0.050   |  |
| 3    |                             | SF-3               | Fractured Distress condition     | 0.11          | 0.032   |  |
| 4    | Traffic Safety Condition    | SF-4               | Sign Board, marking              | 0.40          | 0.080   |  |
| 5    |                             | SF-5               | Poor Super elevation             | 0.75          | 0.110   |  |
| 6    |                             | SF-6               | Longitudinal gradient            | 0.25          | 0.028   |  |
| 7    | Structural Condition        | SF-7               | Fatigue Cracking area            | 0.35          | 0.190   |  |
| 8    |                             | SF-8               | Rut Depth area                   | 0.65          | 0.210   |  |
| 9    | Drainage Condition          | SF-9               | Longitudinal Slope               | 0.30          | 0.030   |  |
| 10   |                             | SF-10              | Improper Camber                  | 0.70          | 0.070   |  |
| 11   | Section Importance          | SF-11              | Traffic Volume index             | 0.60          | 0.090   |  |
| 12   |                             | SF-12              | Importance to community          | 0.40          | 0.070   |  |
|      |                             |                    |                                  | Total         | = 1.000 |  |

Table 5: Details of the factor for resources allocation of maintenance activity

Importance to community is an important factor to decide the importance of the section. It gives an idea about the importance of connected places with the road. Weights of these factors are given in Table 6

|  |  |  | Table: 6 Guidelines for user rating for evaluation of Importance to community |
|--|--|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  |  |  |                                                                               |

| S.no. | Community Importance                                                                                          | User Rating |
|-------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|
| 1     | Extremely important<br>(Section connected to extremely important places i.e. Hospitals, market center etc.)   | 0.9         |
| 2     | Fairly Important<br>(Section connected to fairly important places i.e. District head quarter, Panchayat etc.) | 0.7         |
| 3     | Important<br>(Section connected to important places i.e. Schools, local shops etc.)                           | 0.5         |
| 4     | Less important<br>(Section connected to less important places i.e. Bus stops etc)                             | 0.3         |
| 5     | Very Less important<br>(Section connected to very less important places i.e. Residential area,etc)            | 0.1         |

### **3 Analysis and Result using rational strategy for resource allocation**

The strategy developed in this study is illustrated by analyzing for resource allocation to a hypothetical rural road network. This road network consists of ten different road sections designated as S1to S10. The proposed strategy consists of two stages and analysis and result for each of the stage is presented in following section.

#### *3.1 Analysis and Results for resource allocation to section (Stage-I)*

To illustrate the methodology, a hypothetical network of ten different road sections is analyzed in Stage-I. Stage 1 includes evaluation of section index (SIs) of ten different rural road sections. Resource allocation to ten different rural road sections can be made on the basis of section index (SIs) of different sections. Detail of input data for analysis using proposed strategy is presented in Table 7.

| S.No. | Section | Total Area    | Area of surface | Area of structural | Required   | Available  | Section     | Traffic       |
|-------|---------|---------------|-----------------|--------------------|------------|------------|-------------|---------------|
|       | (S)     | for section S | distress for    | distress for       | Camber for | Camber for | importance  | safety        |
|       |         | (TASs)        | section S       | section S          | section S  | section S  | for section | condition for |
|       |         | (m2<br>)      | (DOSs)          | (ASDs)             | (RCs)      | (ACs)      | S           | section S     |
|       |         |               | (m2<br>)        | (m2<br>)           | (%)        | (%)        | (SIIs)      | (TSCIs)       |
| 1     | S1      | 3750          | 750             | 1125               | 4.0        | 3.2        | 0.3         | 0.9           |
| 2     | S2      | 3750          | 1125            | 3375               | 3.0        | 2.7        | 0.2         | 0.3           |
| 3     | S3      | 3750          | 1125            | 375                | 5.0        | 1.25       | 0.2         | 0.7           |
| 4     | S4      | 3750          | 750             | 375                | 3.0        | 1.5        | 0.8         | 0.4           |
| 5     | S5      | 3750          | 1125            | 750                | 3.0        | 2.4        | 0.2         | 0.3           |
| 6     | S6      | 3750          | 1125            | 1125               | 5.0        | 1.0        | 0.2         | 0.2           |
| 7     | S7      | 3750          | 750             | 1125               | 2.5        | 2.0        | 0.8         | 0.1           |
| 8     | S8      | 3750          | 3000            | 750                | 3.0        | 2.7        | 0.2         | 0.2           |
| 9     | S9      | 3750          | 2625            | 1125               | 4.0        | 3.2        | 0.8         | 0.2           |

Table 7: Input data for analysis for resource allocation to sections (Stage-I)

The Section index (SIs) for all the ten sections was determined using Equation 6 and it is presented in Table 8. After determining SIs various sections were ranked in the order of their SIs values which are also given in Table 8.Available resources for maintenance can be allocated in the order of the rank of the sections.

10 S10 3750 2250 2625 3.0 2.4 0.2 0.2

Table 8: Analysis results for section index (SIs) and rank of different sections in the identified network (Stage-I)

| S.No. | Section<br>(S) | Traffic<br>safety<br>condition<br>for section<br>S (TSCIs) | Structural<br>condition for<br>section S<br>(SCIs) | Drainage<br>condition for<br>section S<br>(DCIs) | Section<br>importance for<br>section S<br>(SIIs) | Traffic operational<br>condition Index<br>for section S<br>(TOCIs) | Section<br>index for<br>section S<br>(SIs) | Rank of<br>the<br>section<br>(Rs) |
|-------|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| 1     | S1             | 0.9                                                        | 0.3                                                | 0.2                                              | 0.3                                              | 0.2                                                                | 0.411                                      | 3                                 |
| 2     | S2             | 0.3                                                        | 0.9                                                | 0.1                                              | 0.2                                              | 0.3                                                                | 0.509                                      | 1                                 |
| 3     | S3             | 0.7                                                        | 0.1                                                | 0.75                                             | 0.2                                              | 0.3                                                                | 0.338                                      | 5                                 |
| 4     | S4             | 0.4                                                        | 0.1                                                | 0.5                                              | 0.8                                              | 0.2                                                                | 0.324                                      | 6                                 |
| 5     | S5             | 0.3                                                        | 0.2                                                | 0.2                                              | 0.2                                              | 0.3                                                                | 0.234                                      | 10                                |
| 6     | S6             | 0.2                                                        | 0.3                                                | 0.8                                              | 0.2                                              | 0.3                                                                | 0.314                                      | 7                                 |
| 7     | S7             | 0.1                                                        | 0.3                                                | 0.2                                              | 0.8                                              | 0.2                                                                | 0.309                                      | 8                                 |
| 8     | S8             | 0.2                                                        | 0.2                                                | 0.1                                              | 0.2                                              | 0.8                                                                | 0.261                                      | 9                                 |
| 9     | S9             | 0.2                                                        | 0.3                                                | 0.2                                              | 0.8                                              | 0.7                                                                | 0.401                                      | 4                                 |
| 10    | S10            | 0.2                                                        | 0.7                                                | 0.2                                              | 0.2                                              | 0.6                                                                | 0.452                                      | 2                                 |

Table 8 indicated that SIs value of different section indicates the priority given to that section. High value of SIs indicates that higher priority should be given for resource allocation for maintenance of respective sections in order of their SIs. Analysis and result for stage I is also shown graphically in Fig 3.

![](_page_9_Figure_2.jpeg)

Fig.3. Analysis results for resource allocation to different sections on the basis of section index of the section

Ranks obtained for different section are also shown in the Fig 3. It is clear from the Fig 3 that Section S2 gets highest priority for resource allocation for maintenance. It seems to be logical as Section S2 is having highest structural condition index and all others i.e. traffic operation index, traffic safety index, section importance index, drainage condition index are negligible and weight of structural condition is highest. It also seems to be logical as section S5 gets lowest priority for resource allocation for maintenance as section S5 is having negligible values of all the condition index i.e. structural condition index, traffic operation index, traffic safety index, section importance index, drainage condition index. Thus the proposed strategy allocates resources to different sections rationally. *3.2 Analysis and Results for resource allocation to maintenance activities (Stage-II)*

To illustrate the methodology, four different rural road sections (whose section index (SIs) is higher in Table-8) are identified depending upon resource available. These identified sections for further analysis in stage-II are S2, S10, S1, S9. Stage-II includes determination of Activity index (AIas) of all the activities to be carried out on identified sections from Stage-I. The AIas value of all activities is determined by using equation 7. Resource allocation to these four different rural road sections can be made on the basis of Activity index (AIas) of different activity. Table 9 present the details of input data of activities on four rural road sections which are getting priority from stage I.

| Table 9 – Details of input data for stage-II (analysis for resource allocation to maintenance activities) |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| S.No. | Parameter                                                                              | S2   | S10  | S1   | S9   |
|-------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|
| 1     | Present distorted area on the section (PDAs) ( in % of total area)                     | 0.0  | 0.0  | 0.0  | 3.0  |
| 2     | Maximum distorted area on any section in the network (MDAs) ( in % of total area)      | 0.0  | 0.0  | 0.0  | 10.0 |
| 3     | Present disintegrated area on the section (PDIAs) ( in % of total area)                | 0.0  | 2.0  | 0.0  | 2.0  |
| 4     | Maximum disintegrated area on any section in the network.(MDIAs) ( in % of total area) | 0.0  | 10.0 | 0.0  | 5.0  |
| 5     | Present fractured area on the section ( PFAs) ( in % of total area)                    | 3.0  | 4.0  | 1.0  | 0.0  |
| 6     | Maximum fractured area on any section in the network (MFAs) ( in % of total area)      | 10.0 | 10.0 | 5.0  | 0.0  |
| 7     | Required number of traffic sign/marking (RTSs) (in number)                             | 0.0  | 0.0  | 6.0  | 10.0 |
| 8     | Available number of traffic sign/ marking ATSs) (in number)                            | 0.0  | 0.0  | 3.0  | 9.0  |
| 9     | Required super elevation (RSEs) (in %)                                                 | 5.0  | 0.0  | 0.0  | 0.0  |
| 10    | Available super elevation (ASEs) (in %)                                                | 3.5  | 0.0  | 0.0  | 0.0  |
| 11    | Required longitudinal gradient (RLGs) (in %)                                           | 0.0  | 2.5  | 2.0  | 2.0  |
| 12    | Available longitudinal gradient (ALGs) (in %)                                          | 0.0  | 2.0  | 1.2  | 1.8  |
| 13    | Fatigue cracking surface area (FCSAs) (in m2<br>)                                      | 1125 | 1500 | 375  | 750  |
| 14    | Total carriageway area (TCAs) (in m2<br>)                                              | 3750 | 3750 | 3750 | 3750 |
| 15    | Rutting surface area (RSAs) (in m2<br>)                                                | 2250 | 1125 | 750  | 0.0  |
| 16    | Required longitudinal slope (RLSs) (in %)                                              | 0.0  | 2.0  | 2.0  | 0.0  |
| 17    | Available longitudinal slope (ALSs) (in %)                                             | 0.0  | 1.6  | 1.75 | 0.0  |
| 18    | Required camber (RCs) (in %)                                                           | 3.0  | 0.0  | 4.0  | 4.0  |
| 19    | Available camber (ACs) (in %)                                                          | 2.7  | 0.0  | 3.7  | 3.2  |

Analysis and results of stage-II for determination of maintenance condition indices is as per the strategy explained in the earlier section. The analysis results and the values of SFIis obtained from above input data are given in Table 10.

Table: 10 Analysis results of condition of various sub factor condition index of activity i at section S (SFIiS) of stage-II

| S. No. | Sub factor condition index of activity (SFIis) | S2   | S10  | S1   | S9   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|
| 1      | Distorted Distress condition (DTSIs)           | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.30 |
| 2      | Disintegrated Distress condition (DISIs)       | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 0.40 |
| 3      | Fractured Distress condition (FSIs)            | 0.30 | 0.40 | 0.20 | 0.00 |
| 4      | Traffic Sign Board/Road marking Index (TSMIs)  | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.10 |
| 5      | Inadequate super elevation index (SEIs)        | 0.30 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 6      | Longitudinal gradient Index (LGIs)             | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.40 | 0.10 |
| 7      | Fatigue cracking area (FCSIs)                  | 0.30 | 0.40 | 0.10 | 0.20 |
| 8      | Rutting Surface Index (RSIs)                   | 0.60 | 0.30 | 0.20 | 0.00 |
| 9      | Longitudinal Slope Index (LSIs)                | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.13 | 0.00 |
| 10     | Inadequate camber Condition (ICCs)             | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.20 |

These indices given in Table 10 were used to determine activity index for different activities i.e. AIas using Equation 6. After determining AIas various sections were ranked in the order of their (maintenance activities) AIas value and are shown in Table 11.

Table: 11 Analysis and result for determination of activity index for resource allocation to maintenance activities

| S.no | Section | Factor            | Individual sub factor condition indices of |       | Activities                                  |       | Activity | Rank of    |
|------|---------|-------------------|--------------------------------------------|-------|---------------------------------------------|-------|----------|------------|
|      |         | Condition         | activities                                 |       |                                             |       | index    | activities |
|      |         | Indices           | Sub factor condition indices of            | SFIiS |                                             |       |          | at section |
|      |         | (From<br>Stage-I) | activities                                 |       |                                             |       | AIas     | S (RaS)    |
| 1    | S2      | TOCIs (0.3)       | Fractured Distress condition (FSIs)        | 0.3   | Filling of cracks                           | A2-1  | 0.0096   | 16         |
|      |         | TSCIs (0.3)       | Inadequate super elevation index (SEIs)    | 0.3   | Providing adequate super<br>elevation       | A2-2  | 0.033    | 8          |
|      |         | SCIs (0.9)        | Fatigue cracking area (FCSIs)              | 0.3   | Filling of Fatigue Cracks                   | A2-3  | 0.057    | 4          |
|      |         |                   | Rutting Surface Index (RSIs)               | 0.6   | Filling of rut depth                        | A2-4  | 0.126    | 1          |
|      |         | DCIs (0.1)        | Inadequate camber Condition (ICCs)         | 0.1   | Providing adequate camber                   | A2-5  | 0.007    | 18         |
| 2    | S10     | TOCIs (0.6)       | Disintegrated Distress condition (DISIs)   | 0.2   | Filling of Potholes                         | A10-1 | 0.01     | 15         |
|      |         |                   | Fractured Distress condition (FSIs)        | 0.4   | Filling of cracks                           | A10-2 | 0.013    | 12         |
|      |         | TSCIs (0.2)       | Longitudinal gradient Index (LGIs)         | 0.2   | Providing adequate<br>longitudinal gradient | A10-3 |          |            |
|      |         |                   |                                            |       |                                             |       | 0.0056   | 21         |
|      |         | SCIs (0.7)        | Fatigue cracking area (FCSIs)              | 0.4   | Filling of Fatigue Cracks                   | A10-4 | 0.076    | 2          |
|      |         |                   | Rutting Surface Index (RSIs)               | 0.3   | Filling of rut depth                        | A10-5 | 0.063    | 3          |
|      |         | DCIs (0.2)        | Longitudinal Slope Index (LSIs)            | 0.2   | Providing adequate                          | A10-6 |          |            |
|      |         |                   |                                            |       | longitudinal slope                          |       | 0.006    | 20         |
| 3    | S1      | TOCIs (0.2)       | Fractured Distress condition (FSIs)        | 0.2   | Filling of cracks                           | A1-1  | 0.0064   | 19         |
|      |         | TSCIs (0.9)       | Traffic Sign Board/Road marking Index      | 0.5   | Providing Sign                              | A1-2  |          |            |
|      |         |                   | (TSMIs)                                    |       | board/Marking                               |       | 0.04     | 6          |
|      |         |                   | Longitudinal gradient Index (LGIs)         | 0.4   | Providing adequate                          | A1-3  |          |            |
|      |         |                   |                                            |       | longitudinal gradient                       |       | 0.011    | 14         |
|      |         | SCIs (0.3)        | Fatigue cracking area (FCSIs)              | 0.1   | Filling of Fatigue Cracks                   | A1-4  | 0.019    | 10         |
|      |         |                   | Rutting Surface Index (RSIs)               | 0.2   | Filling of rut depth                        | A1-5  | 0.042    | 5          |
|      |         | DCIs (0.2)        | Longitudinal Slope Index (LSIs)            | 0.125 | Providing adequate                          | A1-6  |          |            |
|      |         |                   |                                            |       | longitudinal slope                          |       | 0.0038   | 23         |
|      |         |                   | Inadequate camber Condition (ICCs)         | 0.075 | Providing adequate camber                   | A1-7  |          |            |
|      |         |                   |                                            |       | condition                                   |       | 0.0053   | 22         |
| 4    | S9      | TOCIs (0.7)       | Distorted Distress condition (DTSIs)       | 0.3   | Surface improvement                         | A9-1  | 0.012    | 13         |
|      |         |                   | Disintegrated Distress condition (DISIs)   | 0.4   | Filling of Potholes                         | A9-2  | 0.02     | 9          |
|      |         | TSCIs (0.2)       | Traffic Sign Board/Road marking Index      | 0.1   | Providing Sign                              | A9-3  |          |            |
|      |         |                   | (TSMIs)                                    |       | board/Marking                               |       | 0.008    | 17         |
|      |         |                   | Longitudinal gradient Index (LGIs)         | 0.1   | Providing adequate                          | A9-4  |          |            |
|      |         |                   |                                            |       | longitudinal gradient                       |       | 0.0028   | 24         |
|      |         | SCIs (0.2)        | Fatigue cracking area (FCSIs)              | 0.2   | Filling of Fatigue Cracks                   | A9-5  | 0.038    | 7          |
|      |         | DCIs (0.2)        | Inadequate camber Condition (ICCs)         | 0.2   | Providing adequate                          | A9-6  | 0.014    | 11         |
|      |         |                   |                                            |       |                                             |       |          |            |

#### Camber

AIas values and rank of various sections are given in Table 11 .Further; some of the AIas obtained for different sections are also plotted in Fig.4 with respect to the various activities done at the sections.

![](_page_11_Figure_4.jpeg)

Fig.4: Resources allocation to maintenance activities AIas on the basis of their rank (partial)

The ranking of different section depends on the priority of maintenance activity index for resource allocation to maintenance activities (AIas) of each section. It is clear from Figure 4 that activity of filling rut depth at section 2 i.e. A2-4 ranks 1(highest) and activity of providing adequate longitudinal gradient at section 9 i.e. A9-4 ranks 24 (lowest). This seems to be logical as the weightage of rut depth area is highest and AIas value of A2-4 is 0.126 (highest) while weight age of longitudinal gradient is lowest and AIas value of A9-4 is 0.0028(lowest). Further it is clear that A2-4 should be implemented first. Strategy also says that A2-4 should be implemented first and hence strategy allocates resources to different activities rationally. Detailed study needs to be carried out only on four sections out of total ten sections in the road network. Therefore the methodology seems to be economical as detailed analysis need not to be carried out on all the sections.

### **Conclusions:-**

Some important conclusions drawn from this study are as follows:-

- Resource allocation of activities depends on various conditions of sections such as drainage condition, structural condition, traffic operational condition, traffic safety condition and importance of different sections in the road network etc. However, a critical review of the literature indicated that no such comprehensive strategy is available for rationally allocating resources of maintenance activities considering various conditions on a low volume road network. Further, most of the methodologies for evaluation of section conditions are sophisticated, costly and need specialized equipment and hence not convenient to use for rural road network.
- There is an urgent need to develop innovative maintenance strategies focusing on rural road network which are cost effective, quick and simple. This study presents a two stage strategy to select the most appropriate activities to be carried out at most appropriate sections of a rural roads network considering their priority for resource allocation based on importance, traffic operational condition, drainage condition, structural condition and traffic safety condition of road section etc.
- A strategy is developed in stage I to determine section index of rural road sections. A hierarchal structure is developed in stage I to identify critical factors affecting section index of rural road sections. In this stage various indices are also developed to evaluate the condition of resource allocation factors. The strategy of stage-

I proposed a section index (SIs) to priorities the sections of rural road network using minimal data. SIs can be used to determine the maintenance priority and to rank different sections in the road network

- A strategy is also developed in stage II to determine activity index of maintenance activities to be carried out on different rural road sections. Stage II of this study also contributes development of activity index (AIas) of different activities to be carried out on different sections in the road network. AIas is developed considering relative importance of activities, condition of maintenance factors etc. This Activity index (AIas) can be used to rank different maintenance activities to be carried out on different rural road sections in the road network.
- The strategy proposed in this study is also illustrated with the help of example of a rural roads network. Analysis results indicated that the proposed strategy is less time consuming simple and cost effective and can be executed with minimal data which can be obtained easily and economically from each section of a rural roads network. The strategy proposes that first sections which are more critical for maintenance needs to be selected in stage-I. Further, the sections identified in stage I needs to be evaluated in more detailed so that the various maintenance activities to be carried out on these sections can be rationally allocated. Thus, the proposed strategy will be more economical as details studies needs not to be carried out on all sections.

It is expected that the strategy proposed in this study can be used for selection of appropriate maintenance activities on different rural road section so that available resources for road maintenance can be utilized to achieve maximum improvement.

### **References**

- [1] Agrawal, S, Jain, S. S. and Parida, M. 2004, "Development of Pavement Management System for Indian National Highway Network" Journal of Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi
- [2] Agarwal P.K., Choudhary S. 2015 "A Basic Framework for Evaluation of Rural Road Network Conditions" Trends in Transport Engineering and Applications,**(**ISSN: 2394-7284) Volume 2, Issue 2, www.stmjournals.com.
- [3] Agarwal, P.K., 2006 " Road Condition, Prioritization and optimal resource allocation for Highway Maintenance at Network Level", Ph. D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Kanpur, Kanpur,.
- [4] Bhatore A., Tare V. 2014 , "performance model for rural roads" Indian highway journal, New Delhi Vol. 42 No.2 February 2014.
- [5] Barodia P., Pateriya I.K., Bhushan R.2014 , "Estimating maintenance cost of rural road in PMGSY" Indian Highway Journal Volume 42 .
- [6] Chandrasekhar B.P., Veeraragavan A., Reddy B, 2006., "Asset management of rural roads-need for a policy framework in India" Paper No. 528, Nov 18, 67th annual session of the Indian Road Congress, New Delhi
- [7] Chakrabarti, S., Rawat, M.S. and Mondal, B.1995 "Highway Design and Maintenance Standard Model (HDM): Calibration and Adoption to Indian Conditions", IRC Journal Volume. 56-1 in, pp. 75-101.
- [8] Choudhary S.,Agarwal P. K. 2013 An Innovative Strategy for Maintenance of Highway Pavement "International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622 www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 3, , pp.054-060.
- [9] Ding T., Sun L., Chen Z. 2013, "optimum strategy of pavement preventive cmaintenance Considering life-cycle cost analysis" 13th COTA international conference of Transportation Professionals(CICTP-2013) www.sciencedirect.com
- [10] G. Shailendra and Veeraragavan, 2001., A Quantification of benefits of Improved Rural road performance due to Good Drainage," IRC Journal Volume. 71-1.
- [11] Jain, S.S. and Gupta, A.K, Khanna, S.K. & Dayanand,1996 " *Development of Maintenance and Rehabilitation Investment Strategy for Flexible Rural roads*", IRC Journal Volume 57-2
- [12] Nagabhushana, M.N., Jain, P.K., Kanchan.P.K.2010 "Innovative Strategies for Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Metropolitan City Roads-A Case Study," Indian Rural roads, pp. 33 – 43.
- [13] Reddy, Sathees Kumar, Veeraragavan,1995 C.V., "*Pragmatic Approach for the Maintenance Management of Rural roads,*" Indian Road Congress Journal Volume 56-2, New Delhi.
- [14] T. T. Fwa, W. T. Chan,2000 "Multiobjective optimization for pavement maintenance programming" Journal of Transportation Engineering, http://www.asce.org
- [15] Yogesh U. Shaha, S.S. Jain 2013 "Development of Overall Pavement Condition Index for Urban Road Network" 2nd Conference of Transportation Research Group of India (2nd CTRG) Available online at www.sciencedirect.com,