Reference
Pavement distress types, and how IRC rates them
IRC:82 names the distresses a bituminous surface shows and rates a road by how much of each it has. The current edition, IRC:82-2023, is not public. The 2015 edition is, and everything below is from it unless another document is named.
Edition
Only the 2015 edition can be read
IRC’s list of publications of 28 September 2026 gives IRC:82-2023 (Second Revision) as the current edition. IRC sells it with a software CD, and its text is not public. The last public edition is IRC:82-2015 (First Revision), posted by Public.Resource.Org without its CD.
Whether the 2023 edition keeps the 2015 tables, weightages or severity limits is not known, so this page does not say what it contains. A contract that names IRC:82-2015, as MoRTH’s 2026 model concession agreement does, is read against the 2015 text.
A file labelled IRC:82-2023 on two public archives is a different code, IRC:139-2024 on multimodal passenger terminals. Check the title page of any copy before quoting it.
Types of distress
20 types in four groups
Section 7 of IRC:82-2015 gives each type its symptoms, location, causes, severity and treatment. These are its clause headings, with a short quote of each symptom. Severity is defined for 10 of them; the rest say “Not applicable”.
Surface defects · 4
- 7.2.1Bleeding or Fatty Surface
- “A surface having a thin film of excess or free bituminous binder on it, which creates a shiny, glass like reflecting surface”
- Severity · By area: low below 1% (isolated spots under 5 m² in a lane km), medium 1 to 5%, high extensive, with shoving starting
- 7.2.2Smooth Surface
- “A smooth surface has a low skid resistance and becomes very slippery when it is wet.”
- Severity · By skid number: low 30 to 40, high below 30
- 7.2.3Streaking
- “appearance of alternate lean and heavy lines of bitumen either in longitudinal direction or a transverse direction”
- 7.2.4Hungry Surface
- “loss of fine aggregates from the surface or the appearance of dry surface with fine cracks”
Cracks · 6
- 7.3.2Hairline Cracks
- “present in narrow area and their width is less than one mm”
- 7.3.3Alligator and Map Cracking
- “a series of interconnected cracks, having small irregular blocks in pavement surface which resemble the skin of an alligator”
- Severity · By crack depth and width: low 1 to 3 mm, medium 3 to 6 mm, high more than 6 mm
- 7.3.4Longitudinal Cracking
- “Cracks that appear parallel to the centerline or along the road”
- Severity · By crack width: low 1 to 3 mm and infrequent, medium 3 to 6 mm, high over 6 mm and frequent
- 7.3.5Transverse Cracks
- “appear in the transverse directions or as interconnected cracks forming series of large blocks perpendicular to the direction of the road”
- Severity · By crack width, as for longitudinal cracking: 1 to 3, 3 to 6, over 6 mm
- 7.3.6Edge Cracking
- “cracks which develop parallel to outer edge of the pavement”
- Severity · By length: low with no break-up or loss of material, medium up to 10% of the affected length, high more than 10%
- 7.3.7Reflection Cracking
- “sympathetic cracks that appear in the bituminous surfacing over joints and underneath cracked pavement”
Deformation · 6
- 7.4.1Slippage
- “relative movement between the wearing course and the layer beneath”
- Severity · By extent: low at isolated locations in a lane, high along the wheel path in the entire lane or carriageway
- 7.4.2Rutting
- “longitudinal depression or groove in the pavement along the wheel path”
- Severity · By depth: low 4 to 10 mm, high more than 10 mm
- 7.4.3Corrugation
- “formation of regular undulations (ripples) across the bituminous surface”
- 7.4.4Shoving
- “a form of plastic movement within the bituminous layers resulting in bulging of the pavement surface”
- 7.4.5Shallow Depression
- “isolated low areas of limited size, dipping about 25 mm or more below the profile”
- 7.4.6Settlements and Upheaval
- “relatively large deformations of the pavement compared to shallow depressions”
Disintegration · 4
- 7.5.1Stripping
- “separation of bitumen film from the surfaces of the aggregate particles, due to the presence of moisture”
- 7.5.2Ravelling
- “progressive separation and dissociation of fine aggregate particles and binder from the bituminous surface”
- Severity · Descriptive: from some loss of fines (low) to a surface too rough, with loss of aggregates (high)
- 7.5.3Potholes
- “bowl shaped cavities of varying sizes in a bituminous surface or extending into the binder/ base course, caused by localized disintegration of material”
- Severity · By size: small 25 mm deep and 200 mm wide; medium 25 to 50 mm deep and 500 mm wide; large over 50 mm deep and 500 mm wide
- 7.5.4Edge-Breaking
- “the edge of the bituminous surface gets broken in an irregular way”
The summary in clause 7.1 also names shrinkage cracks and loss of aggregates, which have no clauses of their own; transverse cracks do. “Block cracking” is a term from MoRTH’s 2004 maintenance guidelines, not an IRC:82-2015 clause.
IRC:82-2015 Table 5.1
A rating from 1, Poor, to 3, Good
Clause 5.1: “The rating of pavement may be assigned as per criteria given in Tables 5.1 to 5.3 for different categories of roads.” Each quantity is rated on its own. Higher is better.
The quantities are recorded “kilometer wise”, by a visual survey (Appendix 1, Proforma 1) or by measurement in representative sections (Appendix 2, Proforma 2). Appendix 1 asks for an “individual percentage for each km length”. The code does not say what the percentage is of, so a report should state its own base: carriageway area, lane area or length.
Proforma 1 also records bleeding and edge breaking. None of the three tables rates them.
| Defect | Poor1 | Fair1.1 - 2 | Good2.1 - 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cracking (%) | >10 | 5 to 10 | <5 |
| Ravelling (%) | >10 | 1 to 10 | <1 |
| Potholes (%) | >1 | 0.1 to 1 | <0.1 |
| Shoving (%) | >1 | 0.1 to 1 | <0.1 |
| Patching (%) | >10 | 1 to 10 | <1 |
| Settlement and Depression (%) | >5 | 1 to 5 | < 1 |
| Rut depth (mm) using 3 m straight edge | >10 | 5 to 10 | <5 |
| Defect | Poor | Fair | Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cracking (%) | >20 | 10-20 | < 10 |
| Ravelling (%) | >20 | 10-20 | <10 |
| Pothole (%) | >1 | 0.5 to 1 | <0.5 |
| Patching (%) | >20 | 5-20 | <5 |
| Settlement and depression (%) | >5 | 2 to 5 | <2 |
| Defect | Poor | Fair | Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cracking % | >15 | 5-15 | <5 |
| Ravelling % | >10 | 5 to 10 | <5 |
| Potholes % | >0.5 | >0 and ≤0.5 | NIL (0) |
| Settlement % | >5 | 1-5 | <1 |
| Rut depth (mm) using 3 m straight edge | >10 | 5-10 | <5 |
Table 5.2 drops shoving and rut depth; Table 5.3 drops shoving and patching. The bands differ too: cracking is Poor above 10% on a highway, above 20% on a rural road and above 15% on an urban road.
Appendix 4
Combining the ratings: the worked example, as printed
Appendix 4 gives each quantity a fixed weightage, multiplies, and says: “The Final Rating Value is calculated by taking the average of the Weighted Rating Values of all parameters”. Its example for a highway:
| Distress type | Input | Rating | Weightage | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cracking (%) | 9.00 | 1.2 | 1.00 | 1.2 |
| Ravelling (%) | 8.00 | 1.2 | 0.75 | 0.9 |
| Potholes (%) | 0.00 | 3.0 | 0.50 | 1.5 |
| Shoving (%) | 0.09 | 2.1 | 1.00 | 2.1 |
| Patching (%) | 5.00 | 1.5 | 0.75 | 1.1 |
| Settlements (%) | 4.00 | 1.2 | 0.75 | 0.9 |
| Rut Depth (%) [sic] | 9.00 | 1.3 | 1.00 | 1.3 |
| Final Rating Value · Condition | 1.3 · Fair | |||
Our arithmetic on the printed method
- The weighted values sum to 9.0. Divided by the 7 parameters that is 1.29, the printed 1.3. Divided by the weightages’ sum, 5.75, it would be 1.57. So the code takes a plain mean, not a weighted average.
- On that method a highway rated 3 on every quantity scores 2.46, and one at the floor of Good on every quantity scores 1.73, which is Fair.
- How a percentage becomes a decimal rating inside a band is not stated. It lives in the code’s Excel utility, on the CD the public copy lacks, which may also compute the final value differently.
The example labels rut depth “(%)” [sic]; Table 5.1 measures it in millimetres under a 3 m straight edge.
What the rating triggers: preventive maintenance “before pavement rating drops to 2” (cl. 5.3), and Table 9.1 suggests periodic renewal at a rating of 2 on national highways, state highways and urban roads, and 2 to 1 on MDRs and rural roads.
“PCI as per IRC”
Where a condition score is used, and what it means
Indian documents score pavement condition on at least three scales. Only one is IRC’s, and none defines a Pavement Condition Index.
| Document | Score | Scale | Defined by | Used for |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IRC:82-2015 | Pavement Distress Based Rating; Final Rating Value | 1 Poor to 3 Good | Bands in Tables 5.1–5.3; weightages and a worked example in Appendix 4. "Pavement condition index" appears once (cl. 9.3), undefined | Maintenance planning and priority |
| MoRTH model concession agreements (2020, July 2026); an NHAI EPC agreement (2023) | Pavement Condition Index | Desirable 3, Acceptable 2.1 | Not defined. The reference column says IRC:82-2015 | A concessionaire’s maintenance obligation, inspected “Bi-Annually” |
| MoRTH Guidelines for Maintenance Management (2004) | Pavement condition rating | 1 Very Poor to 5 Very Good | Bands per defect; no rule for combining them | Maintenance management |
| NHIDCL NSV output format (2024) | Visual condition, per distress and lane | 1 Very Poor to 5 Very Good | Bands per distress; no composite | NSV survey deliverable |
The agreements’ 3 and 2.1 are the top and the floor of IRC:82-2015’s Good band. That the contract index is the IRC:82 rating is our reading of the reference column; the agreements do not say so. Read as Appendix 4’s Final Rating Value, a desirable 3 could not be reached (2.46 at best), so the two do not simply reconcile. Ask the Authority’s or Independent Engineer how the contract computes it.
The 3 / 2.1 figures are a concessionaire’s maintenance obligation, inspected “Bi-Annually” with 180 days to rectify. They are not a survey or DPR standard.
ASTM D6433 defines a Pavement Condition Index for roads and parking lots, developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. It is a US standard, sold by ASTM. A score from ASTM’s method, its deduct values, or a “PCI below 50” threshold are not IRC’s.
Where Playcraft fits
What recorded video can measure in Table 5.1
Table 5.1 rates a highway on seven quantities. Our shipped build, Playcraft Distress, detects alligator cracking and potholes, so it reaches two of them, cracking only in part. More classes are a model we build on demand, and rut depth we do not offer.
| Table 5.1 quantity | Playcraft Distress (shipped) | Built on demand |
|---|---|---|
| Cracking (%) | Alligator cracking only | Longitudinal cracking |
| Ravelling (%) | Not detected | Ravelling |
| Potholes (%) | Potholes, by area; depth is not measured | In the shipped build |
| Shoving (%) | Not detected | Not in the nine-class model |
| Patching (%) | Not detected | Patches |
| Settlement and Depression (%) | Not detected | Not in the nine-class model |
| Rut depth (mm) using 3 m straight edge | Not detected | Not offered: requires a transverse laser or calibrated stereo rig |
Percentages. The shipped build reports, for each stretch of continuous distress, the share of lane surface affected, with the lane width as a setting. Table 5.1’s percentages have no stated base, so turning either into its ratings is a scoring step we build on demand, to the base your contract or format names.
Beyond Table 5.1. The on-demand prototype was also trained on bleeding (cl. 7.2.1, recorded in Proforma 1 but not rated in Tables 5.1–5.3). It has labels for transverse cracking, corrugation (7.4.3) and what it calls swell, IRC’s upheaval (7.4.6), but its training images held 0, 3 and 0 examples of them, so it does not detect them yet. Smooth surface is set by skid number and rut depth by a 3 m straight edge: neither comes from a forward camera. For roughness, see road roughness as per IRC.
Accuracy. We have not published an accuracy figure for either model. Send us footage and judge the output yourself. See also the NSV survey.
Sources
- IRC:82-2015, Code of Practice for Maintenance of Bituminous Road Surfaces (First Revision)Indian Roads Congress · cl. 5.1–5.3, 7.1–7.5, 8.2.4, 9.3, 9.5; Tables 5.1–5.3, 9.1; Appendices 1–4. Public copy “without CD” · June 2015
- List of IRC publicationsIndian Roads Congress · S.No. 64 (IRC:82-2023, Second Revision) · 28 September 2026
- Model Concession Agreement for Capacity Augmentation of Projects under TollingMoRTH · Schedule-K, Annex-I, Table 1: Maintenance Criteria for Pavements · July 2026
- Model Concession Agreement, BOT (Toll), 4-laneMoRTH · Circular 130.180; Schedule-K, Annex-I, Table 1 · August 2020
- Guidelines for Maintenance Management of Primary, Secondary and Urban RoadsMoRTH · cl. 7.1.3, 7.3; pavement condition rating table · May 2004, reprinted 2011
- EOI for NSV survey of NH-10 Sevoke–Rangpo, Annexure I “Output format from Network Survey Vehicle”NHIDCL · NHIDCL/PMU-Siliguri/Survey/2024 · 4 December 2024
- IRC:SP:84-2019, Manual of Specifications and Standards for Four Laning of Highways (Second Revision)Indian Roads Congress · cl. 5.9.1 · August 2019
- ASTM D6433-24, Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index SurveysASTM International · Scope, cl. 1.1–1.3 (product page) · November 2024
Next step
See it run on a call
- The tool running on footage you choose, or ours
- Every output file opened and explained
- A plain answer on fit before commercials