Bayesian Approach to Updating
Markov-Based Models for Predicting
Pavement Performance
Nader Tabatabaee and Mojtaba Ziyadi
The Markov decision process is one of the most common probabilistic
prediction models used in infrastructure management. When existing
data are insufficient, expert knowledge is commonly used to derive a
Markovian transition probability matrix. Eventually, every pavement
management system will progress to a level at which inspection measure-
ments from the network will be organized into a database to be used for
performance prediction. The best way to use this body of data to improve
the initially developed transition probability matrix is to combine prior
expert knowledge with new observations. This paper proposes a method
for periodically updating Markovian transition probabilities as new
inspection data become available. Bayesian inference is used to accom-
modate uncertainty in the expert-derived initial probabilities and mea-
surement errors from inspection of the network. A data set of asphalt
concrete pavement observations from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation test facility is used to illustrate the proposed method.
Prediction of pavement performance is the key component of a pave-
ment management system. Pavement performance models fall into
three broad categories: deterministic, probabilistic, and soft comput-
ing techniques. The choice of a model is based on the extent of the
data available, assumptions used in performance modeling, ease of
use, and management objectives.
The major factors that affect the performance and deterioration
of pavements and that should logically be accounted for in every
prediction model are pavement structure and materials, construction
variability, maintenance history, traffic loading, and environment
(1). Most of these factors change over time and are difficult to pre-
dict. Furthermore, interactions among these factors are unknown and
extremely variable. There is also uncertainty caused by measurement
errors from inspection data and uncertainty inherent in the perfor-
mance model parameter. Therefore, the deterioration of pavement
represents a stochastic process.
The best way to account for the stochastic nature of pavement
deterioration is to use probabilistic models such as the Markov deci-
sion process or Markov chain. The Markov decision process has
been widely used in pavement management systems as a core for
N. Tabatabaee, Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology,
P.O. Box 11555-9313, Tehran, Iran. M. Ziyadi, Illinois Center for Transportation,
Advanced Transportation and Research Engineering Laboratory, University of Illi-
nois at UrbanaChampaign, 1611 Titan Drive, Rantoul, IL 61866. Corresponding
author: N. Tabatabaee, nader@sharif.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2366, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2013, pp. 3442.
DOI: 10.3141/2366-04
34
performance prediction in optimization engines to obtain optimal
pavement maintenance and rehabilitation strategies over a planning
horizon (24).
The core of a Markov chain is a transition probability matrix
(TPM). Traditionally, two methods have been employed to derive
transition probabilities, depending on the extent of data available.
One is based on historical pavement condition data and the other is
useful when the system lacks sufficient accurate data, as is the case
for most developing countries. In such cases, the knowledge of
experienced engineers (expert knowledge) is used to estimate the
Markovian transition probabilities (58). This paper proposes a
Bayesian approach for addressing the problem of updating an
expert-derived TPM as new observation data become available
in subsequent years.
Every pavement management system will reach a level at which
it can provide useful performance-related information from data
collected in previous years. An effective pavement management
system should utilize these data to improve the initial TPM. More-
over, relying purely on these data to establish performance models
is not prudent, because the data lack information on the life cycle
of the network. Fully empirical prediction models can be devel-
oped when the system completes its deterioration process, but this
may take as long as 20 years. In addition, errors in measurement
and other human factors occur in the development of system and
inspection mechanisms. The challenge is to use the new informa-
tion without eliminating the expert knowledge (the initially devel-
oped TPM) or waiting for the system to complete its life cycle.
The best way to combine prior knowledge and new observations
is updating.
The Bayesian approach has been widely used in applications
that assess pavement condition. A simple application of Bayesian
updating was introduced by Li et al. to update transition probabili-
ties (9). Their method only considered errors in new measurements
and did not take into account uncertainty associated with prior
probabilities. Hong and Prozzi proposed a Bayesian updating of
deterioration models (10). They applied the Markov chain Monte
Carlo simulation to updating deterioration model parameters as
field experiments and data became available. Madanat et al. used
maximum likelihood estimation to update model parameters sequen-
tially after every inspection round (11). Their study showed that the
maximum likelihood estimation method of updating gave the same
result as did the Bayesian method. Amador-Jimenez and Mrawira
proposed a multilevel Bayesian model for calibrating mechanistic
model parameters of the pavement international roughness index
(IRI) deterioration model with locally observed data, even when
data points were missing (12). They concluded that their proposed
Tabatabaee and Ziyadi 35

multilevel Bayesian method was capable of updating the model
parameters and could effectively incorporate expert criteria when
existing data were insufficient. Bayesian methods have also been
used in other transportation areas (13, 14).
In this study, Bayesian inference was used to update Markovian
transition probabilities that incorporate both the uncertainty in expert-
derived initial probabilities and measurement errors from inspection
of the network. To illustrate the proposed method, a data set from
the Minnesota Department of Transportation (DOT) MnROAD test
facility that contained data on the condition of asphalt concrete pave-
ment was used. A sensitivity analysis was performed to investigate
the influence of the precision of prior knowledge on updated TPM
elements.
Homogeneous Versus Nonhomogeneous
Markov Chains
In a homogeneous Markov chain, the TPM used at each time stage
(t) is identical; the transition probability of changing from one
state to another is independent of time. As discussed by Shahin,
the nonhomogeneous Markov chain was first introduced by Butt
to address the problem of the time independency of homogeneous
Markov chains (16). Butt introduced a zoning scheme in which each
zone represents a period of time (or stage) with a corresponding
homogeneous Markov chain. In nonhomogeneous Markov chains,
the TPM at each stage is unique, and therefore the future state vec-
tor is obtained by multiplying the current state vector by the TPM
of that stage (TPMt):

Markov Decision Process P (1) = P ( 0 ) TPM1

The Markov decision process is a stochastic, discrete-time, state- P ( 2) = P (1) TPM 2 = P ( 0 ) TPM1 TPM 2
based model. Deterioration of a facility from one state to another in 
a specific time period, known as a duty cycle or stage, is expressed
in terms of probability. Deriving these probabilities for all states P ( t + 1) = P ( t ) TPM t = P ( 0 ) TPM1 TPM 2  TPM t
results in an n n TPM, where n is the number of states: t
= P ( 0 ) TPMi (4)
i =1
p11 p12  p1n
where P(t) is the state vector at stage t and TPMt is the transition
p21 p22  
TPM = (1) probability for the transition from stage t to stage t + 1.
   

pn1   pnn
Derivation of Markovian TPM
In general, pij is the probability (p) of deterioration from state i to
Extensive work has been conducted on the derivation of Markovian
state j in one stage and meets the following constraints:
transition probabilities in the management of pavement, bridges,
and wastewater (1722). Most of these studies used econometric
0 pij 1 for i , j = 1, . . . , n methods to derive transition probabilities that required a comprehen-
n sive database with a strong inventory to model the deterioration of a
p
j =1
ij =1 for i = 1, . . . , n (2) system. However, in the absence of a comprehensive database, transi-
tion probabilities may be derived from historical data on performance
indicators by using a standard approach:
In Markov theory, the future state of a process (pij) depends only
on its present state (i), which means that the future condition of the
N ij
facility is independent of its historical condition and age. This is pij = (5)
called the Markov property and always holds in Markov theory (15). Ni
During deterioration of a facility, it is impossible to upgrade its
condition without maintenance and rehabilitation; therefore, in a where
strictly deteriorating facility, only elements in the upper triangle of
pij = probability of transition from state i to state j,
the matrix are nonzero elements, which means that the system can
Nij = number of sections in the network that have deteriorated
only change from i to j where i j. Moreover, because the deteriora-
from state i to state j in one duty cycle, and
tion of the facility from one state to two or more subsequent states in
Ni = total number of sections in state i in first year of duty cycle.
one duty cycle rarely occurs, the TPM in Equation 1 can be further
simplified to: Most traditional methods used to estimate transition probabili-
ties are based on linear regression (17). This method finds transi-
0 0  0 tion probabilities by minimizing the difference between the linear
p11 p12
regression curves fitted to the historical data and the TPM, which
0 p22 p23 0  0 creates a nonlinear optimization problem. Ortiz-Garcia et al. used
three other methods based on this nonlinear optimization problem
0 0 p33 p34  0
TPM = (3) to derive a TPM: (a) minimization of the difference between the
     0 condition distribution from a TPM and the data points, (b) a regres-
sion curve fitted to the historical data, and (c) a condition distribu-
0 0 0 0 p(n1)(n1) p(n1)(n)
tion obtained from the raw data (6). They concluded that the third
0 0 0 0 0 1 method yielded distributions closer to the synthesized historical
36
distributions than those produced by the other methods and was
the most appropriate for estimating a TPM. In light of their find-
ings, the third method is used in this study to derive homogeneous
and nonhomogeneous TPMs from historical data and use them to
update the expert-derived TPM. Unlike the other methods that
use raw data points or a linear regression curve fitted to raw data,
this method minimizes the difference between condition distribu-
tions (state vectors) obtained from raw data and those obtained
with a TPM.
Methodology
Bayesian Model Updating
Bayesian inference is the process of analyzing statistical models by
using prior knowledge and observations. The root of the inference
is Bayes theorem, which is a probabilistic approach that combines
prior knowledge with observation to produce a newly adjusted
probability of an event (23). In abstract form, Bayesian inference
operates as:
P ( data parameters) P ( parameters)
P ( parameters data ) = (6)
P ( data )
where P(parameters|data) represents posterior, or updated, param-
eters that indicate the conditional probability of parameters given
the observed data. In other words, P(parameters|data) represents the
conditional probability of data given the model parameters (like-
lihood). P(parameters) is the prior knowledge or marginal (prior)
probability density function. The product of the likelihood and the
prior is the joint probability density function. The denominator in
this equation is a normalizing constant that ensures that the sum of
the probabilities equals 1 and is defined as the summation of all joint
marginal probabilities (or integrals of them in discrete and continuous
cases), where is the parameter:
normalizing constant = P ( data j ) P ( j ) can be considered an informative prior. An informative prior is
j
or
P (data ) i P ( ) i d ()
j j (7)
There is no closed-form solution for the multidimensional inte-
gral, and it cannot be analytically solved. However, the posterior
distribution may be visualized even if the normalizing constant is
not known, because the normalizing constant is chosen to make
the integral of the function equal to 1, so that it becomes a prob-
ability density function. The Bayesian inference then takes the
form of
P ( parameters data ) likelihood prior (8)
Equation 8 defines the posterior distribution and shifts the focus
to how the distribution behaves when the likelihood or the prior
changes. Nevertheless, Markov chain Monte Carlo methods have
been proposed to tackle the nonanalytical solvability of the Bayesian
method (10, 24, 25).
Transportation Research Record 2366
Uncertainty
There are three sources of uncertainty in pavement deterioration
modeling: (a) unobserved and temporal inherent randomness (het-
erogeneity) (17); (b) measurement errors; and (c) model uncertainty.
The latter is not a result of underlying randomness in the deterio-
ration process, but occurs when agencies are uncertain about the
choice of an appropriate model (26). Uncertainty can be accounted
for by using a mathematical concept of probability in which uncer-
tain parameters are modeled as random variables with probability
distributions (27).
In practice, the prior and the likelihood use a probability distri-
bution function to account for uncertainty in the model. By using
the prior and the likelihood, the Bayes formula gives a posterior
distribution for the parameters that is a compromise with reduced
uncertainty between prior knowledge and information in the new
data. Prior information becomes less important as the number of
new observations or the precision of the measurements increases.
The more data, the more inclusive the likelihood, so that the pos-
terior distribution will essentially be controlled by the likelihood
rather than the prior.
In this paper, Bayesian inference is used to account for uncer-
tainty associated with both prior knowledge and measurement
errors from network inspections. The parameters to be updated and
evaluated for posterior distribution are the transition probabilities of
the Markov decision process.
Prior Knowledge
The selection of prior distribution has been a source of criti-
cism of the Bayesian method (12, 28). In Bayesian mathematics,
posterior distribution belongs to the same distribution family as
prior distribution. This property is called conjugacy. Some prior
knowledge is vague and can be ignored in favor of information to
be acquired by future observation. In this case, the prior is non-
informative, and any specific knowledge about model parameters
not dominated by likelihood, but a posterior is affected by both
the prior and the likelihood. Thus, the prior should be used and
interpreted with care.
A common approach to accounting for informative priors is to use
normal distribution (29). In cases that involve nonconjugate priors,
the posterior distributions are difficult or impossible to compute
analytically; thus, sampling methods like the Markov chain Monte
Carlo method are used to address this problem. Even if the posterior
distribution cannot be computed analytically, a random sample from
the distribution can be generated and used to estimate the posterior
distribution or derive statistics such as the posterior mean, median,
and standard deviation.
In this paper, the prior distribution for model parameters (transi-
tion probabilities) is given a priori on the basis of expert knowledge.
Accurate selection of prior distribution parameters (such as the
mean and standard deviation for a normal distribution) is essential,
because they strongly affect posterior distribution.
Suppose an a priori normal observation (X) given model
parameters ():
X N (, 2 ) (9)
Tabatabaee and Ziyadi 37

where 2 is the known variance for observations. It is sometimes Because the precision affects the posterior distribution, care should
more demanding to use an error term to account for measurement be taken when one is setting precision in uninformative priors.
uncertainty; thus, Equation 10 takes the form

X X () + ( 0, 2 ) (10) Case Study

The database used in this study is from a Minnesota DOT MnROAD

where X is the mean value of n observations for X and is the error research project for hot-mix asphalt observations. MnROAD is a
term, with mean 0 and variance 2. The prior distribution for is pavement test track comprising materials and structures of (a) a
section of I-94 carrying interstate (main-line) traffic and (b) a low-
N ( , 2 ) (11) volume roadway and thousands of sensors for monitoring and
recording data (30).
where and are hyperparameters and are based on prior knowl- The present serviceability index (PSI) is widely used to evaluate
edge. With properly chosen informative priors, the posterior can be the need for pavement restoration and was selected as the perfor-
easily calculated. Observing n samples of X posterior distributions mance criterion for this study. PSI is a scale ranging from 0 to 5
for gives a normal distribution based on the conjugate property of (very poor to very good). The data are from 14 main-line asphalt
Bayesian inference with a mean and variance of concrete test cells (Test Cells 1, 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, and 23) that were constructed in 1993 and monitored over
2 15 years of service life before being reconstructed in 2008. To
2 account for complete prediction and better derivation of transition
n
mean = X+ probability matrices, deterioration of the test cells was extended
2
2

+ 2
+ 2
(predicted) for 5 years by using fourth-degree polynomial curve fit-
n n
ting to complete the deterioration process. The main-line test cells
X (12)

2 two driving and passing lanes carrying different traffic on identical

2
n structuresaccount for 28 different sections of the network.
variance = Figure 1 shows the deterioration curve for the 28 sections of the

2
+ 2 network on the basis of the mean values for each section in each

n
year. The PSI values correlate highly with the IRI, a longitudinal
surface pavement profile measured in the wheelpath by a vehicle
The main advantage of this method is that uncertainty associated traveling at a typical operating speed. The IRI is expressed in
with prior knowledge and observed data can be considered within meters/kilometer (inches/mile) and is a representation of pavement
the variance (precision). In Bayesian inference, precision () is roughness. MnROAD collected ride data quarterly from the time of
conventionally defined as the reciprocal of variance (10): construction until July 2001 and monthly after that. The equation
that fits the IRI data to determine the PSI is
1
= (13)
2 PSI = 0.1096IRI 2 1.2128IRI + 4.7063 R2 = 1 (14)

5
State 1

Data Point
Mean Value
4
State 2

3
State 3
PSI

2
State 4

1
State 5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Age

FIGURE 1 Deterioration of asphalt concrete cells in MnROAD.

38 Transportation Research Record 2366

The ride data collected for each section totaled to 66 and 65 data 0.97 0.03 0 0 0
points each year for driving and passing lanes, respectively. Appli-
cation of microsurfacing to all test cells in 2003 and 2004 resulted 0 0.89 0.11 0 0

in an abrupt jump in the performance curves. This treatment effect TPM Stg 2
optimized = 0 0 0.22 0.78 0
can be accounted for in the TPM, but for a restrictedly deteriorat-
ing model (as in this study) it can be ignored. The performance 0 0 0 0.50 0.50
curves show that the deterioration pattern of sections before and
0 0 0 0 1
after treatment did not vary, which means that the treatment only
caused a jump in the deterioration curve. The PSI values after treat-
0.37 0.63 0 0 0
ment shifted downward to complete the deterioration process and
construct a restrictedly deteriorating model. This shift eases the 0 0.88 0.12 0 0
extraction of transition probabilities on the main diagonal of the
TPM Stg 3
optimized = 0 0 0.87 0.13 0
matrix. Homogeneous and nonhomogeneous Markov chains were

developed for the MnROAD test facility. 0 0 0 0.60 0.40

0 0 0 0 1
Results and Analysis
0.56 0.44 0 0 0
The goal of this study was to update the TPM periodically with
nonhomogeneous TPMs derived from actual data, given an expert 0 0.81 0.19 0 0

knowledgederived TPM. TPM Stg 4
optimized = 0 0 0.97 0.03 0

0 0 0 0.91 0.09

Deriving Homogeneous and Nonhomogeneous 0 0 0 0 1
Markov Chains

Nonlinear optimization methodology was used to develop homoge- 0.49 0.51 0 0 0

neous and nonhomogeneous Markov chains for the network under 0 0.38 0.62 0 0
study. Two generalized reduced gradient algorithmsthe Solver
TPM Stg 5
= 0 0 0.47 0.53 0
algorithm in Microsoft Excel and the interior-point algorithm in optimized

MATLABwere used to solve the nonlinear optimization prob- 0 0 0 0.99 0.01
lems. Solving the nonlinear problem with two algorithms led to a
unique solution. Following is the TPM derived for the homogeneous 0 0 0 0 1
Markov chain:
0.50 0.50 0 0 0
0.62 0.38 0 0 0
0 0.17 0.83 0 0
0 0.88 0.12 0 0
TPM Stg 6
= 0 0 0.97 0.03 0
optimized
homogeneous
TPMoptimized = 0 0 0.87 0.13 0 (15)
0 0 0 0.47 0.53
0 0 0 0.82 0.18
0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 1
0.50 0.50 0 0 0
To derive nonhomogeneous Markov chains, a zoning scheme was
selected in which each zone represented a 3-year stage within the 0 0.49 0.51 0 0

planning horizon. The ideal approach would be to develop the TPM TPM Stg 7
optimized = 0 0 0.99 0.01 0 (16)
for each 1-year stage, but doing so dramatically increases uncer-
tainty and decreases the reliability of the TPM data (31). The non- 0 0 0 0.02 0.98
homogeneous Markov chains were obtained for each stage with the
0 0 0 0 1
assumption that the final state vector of each stage was the initial
state vector of the next stage. The first stage began from the cur- where Stg is stage.
rent state vector at t = 0. The following are nonhomogeneous TPMs
derived for different stages:
Bayesian Update of TPM
0.71 0.29 0 0 0
Transition probabilities were extracted for the network on the basis
0 0.99 0.01 0 0
of expert knowledge and are shown in Table 1. The aim was to
TPMStg 1
optimized = 0 0 0.50 0.50 0 develop an initial TPM to be updated by using previously devel-
oped nonhomogeneous TPMs, despite the method used for knowl-
0 0 0 0.50 0.50
edge extraction. It was assumed that the initial TPM was given and
0 0 0 0 1 readily available. This assumption was true for every given TPM,
Tabatabaee and Ziyadi 39

TABLE 1 Transition Probabilities Extracted from Expert Knowledge

State 1 State 2 State 3 State 4

Statistic p11 p12 p22 p23 p33 p34 p44 p45

Mean 0.78 0.22 0.82 0.18 0.80 0.20 0.73 0.27

SD 0.059 0.059 0.030 0.030 0.018 0.018 0.043 0.043

Note: SD = standard deviation.

because the distribution of transition probabilities was considered. management purposes. However, short intervals may result in
Furthermore, sensitivity analysis was performed, as described unreliable and uncertain outcomes.
below and shown in Table 2, to consider other possible assumption To account for uncertainty, the MnROAD database was used to
ranges in the initial TPM. The following TPM was derived from calculate the measurement errors on the basis of the standard devia-
expert knowledge by using the mean values from Table 1: tion () of the data (Equation 10). The PSI for each year was mod-
eled as a normal distribution with the mean and standard deviation
0.78 0.22 0 0 0 available from the database. To update, the standard deviations of
the nonhomogeneous TPM elements should be calculated.
0 0.82 0.18 0 0 Sampling was used to transfer the PSI distribution to the TPM
elements. Normal random samples were generated from the PSI
TPM expert = 0 0 0.80 0.20 0 (17)
distribution for each year, and the resulting state distributions were
0 0 0 0.73 0.27 used in optimization to derive TPMs for each stage. The TPMs were
then used to compute the mean and standard deviation of each ele-
0 0 0 0 1
ment. The nonhomogeneous TPMs derived previously (Equation
16) were based on the mean value of these TPMs. Table 2 shows the
The prior distribution for each TPM element was established by
measurement errors and initial expert knowledge uncertainty for
using a normal distribution with the mean and standard deviations
and to update each stage (Equations 9 to 12).
given in Table 1. Updating the diagonal elements of the TPM suf-
Two other limiting precision levels were selected to examine the
fices if pii is known; then pi(i+1) can be computed as 1 or pi(i+1) =
sensitivity of the posterior distribution to different assumptions for
1 pii. The last diagonal of the TPM (p55) equals 1 because it is the
the initial TPM precision. The first assumption was relatively pes-
last possible state and cannot further deteriorate. Thus, Table 1 was used
simistic, with a precision level of 1 ( = 1) from the higher uncer-
to practically update the four elements of the TPM (p11, p22, p33, p44):
tainty; the other was more optimistic, with a precision level of
10,000 ( = 0.01) from the lower uncertainty.
N ( 0.78, 0.06) , N ( 0.82, 0.03) , To demonstrate updating and how prior distribution and likeli-
prior normal distribution (18)
N ( 0.80, 0.02) , N ( 0.73, 0.04 ) hood affect the posterior distribution, the example of updating ele-
ment p11 of TPMexpert by using TPM Stg1
optimized for 3 years of data can be
Nonhomogeneous Markov chains based on 3-year stages were used. On the basis of Table 1, the prior distribution for element p11
used to update the initial TPM. The choice of 3-year stages assumed of TPMexpert is the normal distribution N(0.78, 0.06). On the basis
that the matrix was updated every 3 years; however, new data were of the MnROAD database (Table 2) and nonhomogeneous Markov
gathered every year during the yearly inspection of the network. chain results, the likelihood for this element was also a normal
Thus, updating the matrix can be done at other intervals to meet distribution with a mean of 0.71 and measurement error standard

TABLE 2 Measurement and Expert Knowledge Uncertainty Used in Updating

Actual Measurements and Initial Expert Knowledge Uncertainty

State 1 State 2 State 3 State 4 Limiting Expert Precision

Stage Pessimistic Optimistic

1 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.001 0.02 0.001 0.04 1 10,000

2 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.001 0.04 1 10,000
3 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.04 1 10,000
4 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 1 10,000
5 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 1 10,000
6 0.001 0.06 0.001 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.04 1 10,000
7 0.001 0.06 0.001 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.04 1 10,000
40
FIGURE 2 Sample Bayesian update.
deviation of 0.04. Equations 9 to 12 were used to calculate the
updated (posterior) distribution for this element, which is shown
in Figure 2.
The posterior mean, median, and standard deviation for the pos-
terior were derived from Figure 2. If the measurements are more
accurate (smaller standard deviation) than the expert knowledge,
the posterior is dominated by the likelihood rather than the prior,
and the thin bell shape of the posterior curve indicates reduced
uncertainty between prior knowledge and information from the
new data.
(a)
(c)
FIGURE 3 Updated results of TPM elements from use of Bayesian approach: (a) p 11, (b) p 22, (c) p 33 , and (d) p 44 .
Transportation Research Record 2366
Figure 3 shows the 3-year updated results for the TPM elements
(p11, p22, p33, p44). The ordinate of the figure is the mean probability
of the posterior distribution, as shown in Figure 2. Wherever the
new observations have higher precision (lower standard deviation)
than expert knowledge (Figure 3, a and b), the updated elements
take probabilities near to the values obtained from the measure-
ments. When this happens, the posterior curve in the figure departs
from the prior curve and approaches the likelihood curve. The oppo-
site occurs in Figure 3, c and d, in which new observations in later
stages have lower precision than expert knowledge.
Figure 4 shows updated results for p11 for high and low degrees
of uncertainty on the basis of limited precision for prior knowledge.
When the uncertainty associated with prior knowledge is relatively
high from the initial stages of updating (Figure 4a), the posterior
adopts a likelihood attribute that is much less uncertain than for
the prior. Therefore, the posterior values are nearly the same as the
probability values obtained from measurement, and prior knowledge
plays a limited role in altering the probability values. On the other
hand, when the measurement errors are relatively high (Figure 4b), the
posterior values are nearly the same as the probability values obtained
from expert knowledge. This prominence occurs for about 12 years
for p11 (Figure 4b), until the posterior becomes equally influenced by
the prior and the likelihood; this situation lasts nearly 18 years, when
it aligns completely with measurement. These results show the impor-
tance of the accuracy of both prior knowledge and measurement preci-
sion when a TPM is updated. It is crucial that the method of eliciting
expert knowledge be precise and accurate, as errors and uncertainty
associated with a TPM can adversely affect the management system
for project assignment and budget allocation.
(b)
(d)
Tabatabaee and Ziyadi 41

(a) (b)

FIGURE 4 Updated results for element p 11 of TPM incorporating (a) higher uncertainty ( 5 1) and (b) lower uncertainty ( 5 0.01)
in prior knowledge.

Prediction results for the data-intensive homogeneous Markov
chain, knowledge-based initial TPM, and updated TPM were com-
pared with the actual results to evaluate the accuracy of prediction.
Figure 5 shows the deterioration curves for the different methods.
The results indicate that combining prior knowledge with new
observations effectively reduces uncertainty and improves the pre-
diction results. This improvement can be seen in both the R2 and
root mean square error values.
Summary and Conclusions
The main component of a pavement management system is the per-
formance prediction model. However, a prediction model requires
an extensive database, which is not always available, especially for
a management system under development. In such cases, use of
expert knowledge to develop a performance prediction model is
recommended.
The balance of a pavement management system evolves from
reliance on expert knowledge to the use of reliable data extracted
from the pavement performance history. The best way to account for
this evolution is to combine the information contained in the data
with previously elicited expert knowledge. A good decision support
system can best be operated when subjective expert knowledge is
combined with new observations through updating.
This paper proposed the use of Bayesian inference for updating
knowledge-based TPMs. An updated TPM is a compromise between
prior knowledge and new observations with reduced uncertainty.
Uncertainty associated with prior knowledge and new observations
from network inspections was incorporated into the equations.
The results demonstrated an improvement in the uncertainty
level, with better prediction performance for updated TPMs. The
updated model, which used expert knowledge and new observation
data, upgraded the prediction power of the original model. Sensi-
tivity analysis revealed that when prior knowledge was accurate or
new observation data were erroneous, more time was required for
prior knowledge to be replaced by less accurate data; conversely,
when prior knowledge was uncertain or data were accurate, less
time was required. This finding shows the importance of precision
for both the initial model and collected data and justifies the need

4.5
Actual
4.0 Homogenous TPM- data intensive
3.5 Initial TPM- knowledge based
Updated TPMs
3.0

2.5
PSI

2.0

1.5
Method RMSE R2
1.0 Knowledge base 0.171 0.60
Homogenous 0.141 0.78
0.5
Updated 0.117 0.85
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Age (years)

FIGURE 5 Deterioration curves for different methods.

42
for more accurate methods to be used in knowledge extraction and
data collection.
References
1. Haas, R. Good Technical Foundations Are Essential for Successful
Pavement Management. In Proc., Maintenance and Rehabilitation of
Pavements and Technological Control (J.C. Pais and F. Branco, eds.),
Guimaraes, Portugal, July 710, 2003, pp. 328.
2. Babaei, M., and A. Naderan. Simultaneous Modeling for Pavement
Performance Prediction and Optimal Resource Allocation: Goal Pro-
gramming Approach with an Embedded Markov Decision Process.
Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.
3. Golabi, K., R.B. Kulkarni, and G.B. Way. A Statewide Pavement
Management System. Interfaces, Vol. 12, No. 6, 1982, pp. 521.
4. Li, N., R. Haas, and M. Huot. Integer Programming of Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Treatments for Pavement Networks. In Transportation
Research Record 1629, TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1998, pp. 242248.
5. Zimmerman, K.A., and M.R. Broten. Development of Performance
Models for Pavement Management System. Proc., Meeting the Chal-
lenge: Rebuilding Inner City Airports. 24th International Air Transporta-
tion Conference (P.N. Seneviratne, ed.), Louisville, Ky., June 57, 1996,
pp. 254262.
6. Ortiz-Garcia, J.J., S.B. Costello, and M.S. Snaith. Derivation of Tran-
sition Probability Matrices for Pavement Deterioration Modeling. Jour-
nal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 2, 2006, pp. 141161.
7. Yang, J., J.J. Lu, M. Gunaratne, and B. Dietrich. Modeling Crack
Deterioration of Flexible Pavements: Comparison of Recurrent Markov
Chains and Artificial Neural Networks. In Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1974, Trans-
portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.,
2006, pp. 1825.
8. Mishalani, R., and S.M. Madanat. Computation of Infrastructure Tran-
sition Probabilities Using Stochastic Duration Models. Journal of Infra-
structure Systems, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2002, pp. 39148.
9. Li, N., R. Haas, and W.C. Xie. Development of a New Asphalt Pavement
Performance Prediction Model. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
Vol. 24, 1997, pp. 547559.
10. Hong, F., and J.A. Prozzi. Updating Pavement Deterioration Models
Using the Bayesian Principles and Simulation Techniques. Presented
at First Annual Inter-University Symposium on Infrastructure Manage-
ment (AISIM), University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, August 6,
2005. http://www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/cpatt/AISIM/PAPERS/Paper%20
-%20Hong,%20Feng.pdf.
11. Madanat, S., S. Park, and K. Kuhn. Adaptive Optimization and Sys-
tematic Probing of Infrastructure System Maintenance Policies Under
Model Uncertainty. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 12, No. 3,
2006, pp. 192198.
12. Amador-Jimenez, L.E., and D. Mrawira. Capturing Variability in Pave-
ment Performance Models from Sufficient Time-Series Predictors: A
Case Study of the New Brunswick Road Network. Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, Vol. 38, 2011, pp. 210220.
13. Zhang, Y., and A. Mohammadian. Bayesian Updating of Transferred
Household Travel Data. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 2049, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 111118.
14. Lan, B., and B. Persaud. Fully Bayesian Approach to Investigate and
Evaluate Ranking Criteria for Black Spot Identification. In Transporta-
tion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2237, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 117125.
Transportation Research Record 2366
15. Altman, E. Denumerable Constrained Markov Decision Process and
Finite Approximation. Mathematics of Operations Research, Vol. 19,
1994, pp. 169191.
16. Shahin, M.Y. Pavement Management for Airports, Roads, and Parking
Lots, 2nd ed. Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht, Nether-
lands, 2005.
17. Madanat, S.M., M.G. Karlaftis, and P.S. McCarthy. Probabilistic
Infrastructure Deterioration Models with Panel Data. Journal of Infra-
structure Systems, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1997, pp. 49.
18. Prozzi, J.A., and S.M. Madanat. Using Duration Models to Analyze
Experimental Pavement Failure Data. In Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1699, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 8794.
19. Yang, J., M. Gunaratne, J.J. Lu, and B. Dietrich. Use of Recurrent
Markov Chains for Modeling the Crack Performance of Flexible Pave-
ments. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 11, 2005,
pp. 861872.
20. Kobayashi, K., D. Myungsik, and D. Han. Estimation of Markovian
Transition Probabilities for Pavement Deterioration Forecasting. KSCE
Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2010, pp. 343351.
21. Lee, Y.-J., and L.-M. Chang. Econometric Model for Predicting Dete-
rioration of Bridge Deck Expansion Joints. In Transportation Research
Circular E-C049: 9th International Bridge Management Conference,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2003, pp. 255265.
22. Baik, H.S., H.S. Jeong, and D.M. Abraham. Estimating Transition
Probabilities in Markov Chain-Based Deterioration Models for Man-
agement of Wastewater Systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning
and Management, Vol. 132, No. 1, 2006, pp. 1524.
23. Srensen-Ringi, M. On Bayesian System Reliability Analysis. Linkping
Studies in Science and Technology, Vol. 490. Thesis. Linkping Univer-
sity, Linkoping, Sweden, 1995.
24. Yamamoto, T., R. Kitamura, and K. Kishizawa. Sampling Alternatives
from Colossal Choice Set: Application of Markov Chain Monte Carlo
Algorithm. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans-
portation Research Board, No. 1752, Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 5361.
25. Ni, D., and J.D. Leonard II. Markov Chain Monte Carlo Multiple Impu-
tation Using Bayesian Networks for Incomplete Intelligent Transpor-
tation Systems Data. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 1935, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 5767.
26. Guillaumot, V.M., P.L. Durango-Cohen, and S.M. Madanat. Adaptive
Optimization of Infrastructure Maintenance and Inspection Decisions
Under Performance Model Uncertainty. Journal of Infrastructure Systems,
Vol. 9, No. 4, 2003, pp. 133139.
27. Van Hauwermeiren, M., and D. Vose. A Compendium of Distributions.
Vose Software, Ghent, Belgium, 2009. http://www.vosesoftware.com/
content/ebook.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2012.
28. Spiegelhalter, D.J., A. Thomas, N.G. Best, W. Gilks, and D. Lunn.
BUGS: Bayesian Inference Using Gibbs Sampling. MRC Biostatis-
tics Unit, Cambridge, England, 2002. www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs.
Accessed July 13, 2012.
29. Gelfand, A.E., S.E. Hills, A. Pacine-Poon, and A.F.M. Smith. Illus-
tration of Bayesian Inference in Normal Data Models Using Gibbs
Sampling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 85,
1990, pp. 972985.
30. Palmquist, D., B. Worel, and W. Zerfas. 2002 Mn/ROAD Hot-Mix Asphalt
Mainline Test Cell Condition Report. Office of Materials and Road
Research, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, 2002.
31. Golroo, A., and S. Tighe. Use of Soft Computing Applications to Model
Pervious Concrete Pavement Condition in Cold Climates. Journal of
Transportation Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 11, 2009, pp. 791800.
The Pavement Management Systems Committee peer-reviewed this paper.