A Case Study Evaluation of the Use of Video Technology in Concrete Pavement Evaluation

Report No: 00-R21

Published in 2000

About the report:

This report presents the results of an evaluation of video technology as a possible solution to the problem of safely collecting objective condition data for prioritizing concrete pavement rehabilitation needs in Virginia. The study involved the evaluation of one commercially available video image distress survey system with regard to its capacity to generate objective information about concrete pavement condition. Ratings of the functional and structural condition of 1223 centerline kilometers (758 miles) of concrete-surfaced interstate and primary roadways were derived from visual examinations of the videotapes. Results of the evaluation were used as the basis for determining if sufficiently accurate condition ratings as compared to ratings resulting from direct visual examination in the field (i.e., "control" ratings) were attainable from the video survey method to support a pavement management system for concrete roadways in Virginia. Results of the distress survey derived from tape-recorded images compared poorly with those results observed directly in the field. The researcher concluded that the inconsistent quality of video images and the human error introduced during the video analysis phase were the primary causes of the discrepancies between the two rating methods. Although the researcher's assessment of this video survey system was not favorable, the study provided useful guidance on needed refinements to improve the viability of the system.

Disclaimer Statement:The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s), who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Any inclusion of manufacturer names, trade names, or trademarks is for identification purposes only and is not to be considered an endorsement.


  • Thomas E. Freeman

Last updated: December 11, 2023

Alert Icon

Please note that this file is not ADA compliant. Choose one of below options: