Kim, D. H. and Jeong, J. H. (2026) Development of a decision-making framework to prioritize expressway pavement sections for large-scale repairs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 152(8): 04026106, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This study presents a structured and data-driven framework for selecting expressway pavement sections for large-scale repairs. In many countries such as Korea, where most expressways are already constructed and aging, long-term maintenance planning has become more critical than new construction. Existing repair decisions often rely on heuristic and project-level approaches, which lack consistency and scalability. To address these challenges, this framework links unit-level condition assessment with continuous section-level planning through a combination of expert judgment and predictive modeling. It extends the remodeling index (RMI), which was previously developed, by incorporating quantitative predictions of pavement deterioration to improve decision making. Using 100-m units, the method quantifies urgency and aggregates these units spatially into homogeneous deteriorated sections. A systematic prioritization and adjustment procedure follows, ensuring feasibility based on structural, operational, and economic constraints. The framework consists of three main steps: (1) assessing unit-level urgency using RMI; (2) identifying homogeneous sections through spatial logic; and (3) prioritizing and adjusting sections for large-scale repairs. A national-scale application to the Korean expressway system demonstrates its practical utility. The approach supports proactive, scalable repair planning and is broadly applicable to other infrastructure systems with comprehensive condition data and long-term rehabilitation needs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | condition assessment; data-driven planning; decision-making framework; expressway repair; infrastructure maintenance; pavement management; prioritization |
| Index terms: | decision-making, repair, predictive modelling, deterioration, heuristic, judgment, prioritizing, aggregate |
| Subjects: | materials science, maintenance engineering, risk assessment, dispute resolution, prediction and forecasting, material degradation and durability, decision analysis |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Legal Issues, Business Strategy, Construction Materials, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here