Click for next page ( 214


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 213
REFERENCES Al-Omari, B. and M.~. Darter. 1992. Relationships Between IRI and PSR. Report Number U~U-ENG-92-2013. Springfield, id: Illinois Department of Transportation. American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO). 1962. Me AASHO Road Test. Special Report 6lE. Washington, DC: Highway Research Board. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1987. Summary Results of 1987 AASHTO Rideabitity Survey. Washington, DC: AASHTO. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1993. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. Washington, DC: AASHTO. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 198Sa. Standard Practice for Preparing Precision and Bias Statements for Test Methods for Construction Materials. ASTM C 670-~. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 198Sb. Standard Test Metho~for Measuring Pavement Roughness Using a ProfiIograph. ASTM C 127~. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Arterburn, S. and B. Suprenant. 1990. Public Perception of Pavement Ride. Colorado Report Number CDOH-UCB-R-90-10. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Highways. Bertrand. C.B., R. Harrison, and W.R. Hudson. 1991. "Evaluation of a High- Resolution Profiling Instrument for Use in Road Roughness Calibration." Transportation Research Record 1291:93-105. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Bertrand, C.B., R. Harrison, and B.F. McCullough. 1990. Evaluation of FHWA Requirements for the Calibration of Pavement Roughness Instrumentation. Research Report Number TX-91+969-2F. Austin, TX: Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation. Brokaw, M.P. 1967. "Development of the PCA Road Meter: A Rapid Method for Measuring Slope Variance." Highway Research Record IS9. Washington, DC: Highway Research Board. Brown, D. 1990. "Evaluation of the PRORUT System." Public Roads, Vol. 53, Number 4. 213

OCR for page 213
Buchanan, J.A., and A.~. Catudal. 1940. "Standardizable Equipment for Evaluation of Road Surface Roughness. Proceedings. Volume 29. Washington, DC: Highway Research Board. Carey, W.N. and H.C. Huck~ns. 1962. "Slope Variance as a Measure of Roughness and the ChIoe ProfiIometer." Highway Research Board Special Report Number 73. Washington, DC: Highway Research Board. Carey, W.N. and P.E. Trick. 1960. ,'The Pavement Serviceability-Performance Concept." Highway Research Bulletin 250. Washington, DC: Highway Research Board. Carmichael, R.W. 1987. "State-of-the-Practice of Roughness and Profile Measuring Technology." Second North American Conference on Managing Pavements. Volume ITI. Toronto: Canada Ministry of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration. Carmichael, R.F., L.O. Moser, and W.R. Hudson. 1992. Measurement of Pavement Smoothness for Construction Quality Control. FHWA-AZ92-217. Austin, TX: ARE Inc. Chasten, W.E. and l.E. Burke. 1962. "Experience with a BPR-Type Roadometer In Illinois." Pavement Roughness-Measuring Techniques and Changes. Bulletin 328. Washington, DC: Highway Research Board. Cox and Sons. 1994. CSS200 Computerized ProfiIograph Operator's Manual. Version 2.~. Colfax, CA: James Cox and Sons, Inc. DarI~ngton, l.R. 1992. The Lightweight Pavement Profile Instrument. Research Report No. R-1318. Lansing, MI: Michigan Depa'-~nent of Transportation. Darlington, J. 1995. "The Ride Quality Program in Michigan." Proceedings of the 1995 Road Profiler Users Group (RPUG) Meeting, Orlando, Florida. Darter, M.~., M. AbJeirahman, P.A. Okamoto, K.D. Smith. 1993. Performance-ReZated Specifications for Concrete Pavements, Volume I: Development of a Prologue Performance- Related Specification. FHWA-RD-93-042. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. DaTeiden, J.F., ].B. Rauhut, B. KiD~ngswor~, E. Owusu Antwi, My. Darter, and R. Ahmad. 1994. Evaluation of the AASHTO Design Equations and Recommended Improvements. Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP). SHRP-P-394. Washington, DC: National Research Council. Devore, A. and M. Hossa~n. 1994. An Automated System for Determination of Pavement Profile Index and Location of Bumps for Grindingirom the ProfiZograph Traces. Report No. KSU-93-2. Topeka, KS: Kansas Department of Transportation Evans, L.D. 1993. Profile Measuring Equipment Acceptance Specifications. Technical Memorandum to FHWA LTPP. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. 214

OCR for page 213
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1993e Data Collection Guidefor Long Term Pavement Performance Studies. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1994a. J life Cycle Cost Analysis. Searching for Solutions: A Policy Discussion Series, Number 12. Washington DC: Federal Highway Administration. ~, Federal Highway Adm~nstration (FHWA). 1994b. Long-Term Pavement Performance Pavement Profiling Devices. Request for Proposals. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. Friggle, T. 1996. Results of an Analysis of a Ride Quality Specification for Hot Mix Asphallic Pavements and Portland Cement Concrete Pavements in Texas. Preprint of Paper Presented at 75~ Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC. Garg, A., A. Horowitz, and F. Ross. 1988. "Establishing Relationships Between Pavement Roughness and Perceptions of Acceptability." Transportation Research Record Il96. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Gillespie, T.D. and M.W. Sayers. 1987. Methodology for Road Roughness Profiling and Rut Depth Measurement. FHWA/RD-87-042. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. Gillespie, T.D., M.W. Sayers, and L. Segal. 1980. Calibration of Response-Type Road Roughness Measuring Systems. NCHRP Report Number 228. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Goulias, D. G., T. Dossey, ant! W.R. Hudson. 1992. End-ResuZ! Smoothness Specifications for Rigid and Flexible Pavements in Texas. Research Report Nuber FHWA/TX-93+~167-2F. Austin, TX: Texas State Depar~nent of Highways and Public Transportation. Gulden, W., I. Stone, and D. Richardson. 1983. "Use of Response-Type Roughness Meters for Pavement Smoothness Acceptance in Georgia." Transportation Research Record 946. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Harrison, R., and C. Bertrand. 1991. The Development of Smoothness Specifications for Rigid and Flexible Pavements in Texas. Research Report 1167-~. Austin, TV: Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation. Hayhoe, G.F. 1992. "Spectral Characteristics of Longitudinal Highway Profiles as Related to Ride Quality." ASTM STP II64: Vehicle, Tire, Pavement Interface. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing anc! Materials. 215

OCR for page 213
Highway Research Board (HRB). 1955. The WASHO Road Test-Part 2: Test Data, Analysis, Findings. Special Report 22. Washington, DC: Western Association of Sta Highway Officials (WASHO). HoUnan, F.~. 1969. Pavement Roughness and Deflection Studies of Alabama Highways. HER Report No. 41. Montgomery, AL: Alabama Highway Department. te Hudson, W.R., W. Uddin, and G. Elkins. 1987. "Smoothness Acceptance Testing and Specifications for Flexible Pavements." Proceedings, Volume IT: Second North American Conference on Managing Pavements. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. Huff, D.~. 1984. "South Dakota Profilometer." Transportation Research Record 1000. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Hutchins on, B.G. 1964. "Principles of Subjective Rating Scale Construction." Highway Research Record 46. Washington, DC: Highway Research Board. Hveem, F.N. 1960. "Devices for Recording and Evaluating Pavement Roughness." Highway Research Bulletin 264. Washington, DC: Highway Research Board. Janoff, M.S. 1986. "Methodology for Computing Pavement Ride Quality from Pavement Roughness Measurements." Transportation Research Record Number 1084. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Janoff, M.S. 1988. Pavement Roughness and RideabiZity Field Evaluation. NCHRP Report Number 308. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. lanoff, M.S. 1991. Pavement Smoothness. Information Series 111. Lanham, MD: National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA). Janoff, M.S. and P.S. Davit. 1984. "Correlation of Subjective Pane! Ratings of Pavement Ride Quality with Profilometer-Derived Measures of Pavement Roughness (Abridgement)." Transportation Research Record Number 1000. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Janoff, M.S. 1988. Pavement Roughness and Rideability Field Evaluation. NCHRP Report Number 308. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Janoff, M.S. and G.F. Hayhoe. 1990. "The Development of a Sunple Instrument for Measuring Pavement Roughness and Predicting Pavement Rideability." ASTM STP 1031: Surface Characteristics of Roadways: International Research and Technologies. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Janoff, M. S., J.B. Nick, P.S. Davit, and G.F. Hayhoe. 1985. Pavement Roughness and RideabiZity. NCHRP Report Number 275. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. 216

OCR for page 213
Jordan, P.S. and J. Porter. 1983. "High-Speed Road Monitoring System." Interaction of Vehicles and Pavements. Transportation Research Record 946. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. KaTevela, S.A., E. M.S. Kombe, and L.A. Scofield. 1994. "Correlation Study of the California ProfiIograph and the K. l. Law ProfiIometer." Preprint of a Paper Prepared for the 1994 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Kerston, M.S. and Skok, Em. 1968. Application of AASHO Road Test Results to Design of Flexible Pavements in Minnesota. Investigation No. iS3. Minnesota Department of Highways. Kohn, S.D., et al. 1996. Investigate the Development of Pavement Roughness. Presented at the conference Improving Pavements with LTPP: Products for Today and Tomorrow, March 26-2S, Irvine, CA. Kombe, E.M. and S.A. Kalevela. "Development and Evaluation of Initial Pavement Smoothness for Construction Specifications." Arizona Department of Transportation, FHWA-AZ-SP9201. Ksaibati, K., S. Asnani, and T.M. Adkins. 1993. "Factors Affecting Repeatability of Pavement Longitudinal Profile Measurements." Transportation Research Record 1410. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Ksaibati, K. and K. Kercher. 1990. "Evaluation of the FHWA ProfiIometer and Rut- Measuring (PRORUT) Device in Indiana." Transportation Research Record Number 1260. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Kulakowski, B.T., D.~. Chapman, and J.C. Wambold. 1987. "Acceptability of Shock Absorbers for Road Roughness Measuring Trailers." Transportation Research Record 1117. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Kulakowski, B.T and }.C. Wambold. 1989. Development of Procedures for the Calibration of Profilographs. Publication No. FHWA-RD-89-~10. McLean, VA: Federal Highway Administration. Lu, J., C. Bertrand, and W.R. Hudson. 1990. "Speed Effect Analysis and Canceling Mode} of a Response-Type Road Roughness Measuring System." Transportation Research Record Number 1260. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Maurer, F.V. 1995. "Minnesotans Experience with Ride Specifications: Past Present, and Future." Proceedings of the 1995 Road Profiler Users Group (RPUG) Meeting, Orlando, Florida. McFarland, W.F. 1972. Benefits Analysis for Pavement Design Systems. Research Report No. 123-13. Austin, TX: Texas Highway Department. 217

OCR for page 213
Moore, R.K., G.N. Clark, and G.N. Plumb. 1987. "Present Serviceability-Roughness Correlations Using Rating Panel Data." Transportation Research Record 1117. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Moser, L., S. Hudson, and Dr. W.R. Hudson. 1993. Investigation and Measurement of the Ride Quality of Flexible Pavements. SD92-12-F. Pierre, SD: South Dakota Depar~nent of Transportation. Noonan, C. 1994. Response to NCHRP 1-31 Survey of Equipment Manufacturers. Sioux city, IA: McCracken Concrete Pipe Machinery Company. Novak, E.C., Jr., and L.E. DeFrain, Jr. 1992. '~Seasonal Changes in the Longitudinal Profile of Pavements Subject to Frost Action." Transportation Research Record 1362. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Older, C. 1924. Bates Experimental Road. Bulletin 21. Springfield, id: Illinois Division of Highways. Parcells, W.H. Jr. 1992. Control of Pavement Trueness In Kansas. Technical Report. Topeka, KS: Kansas DeparUnent Of Transportation. ParcelIs, W.H. Jr. and M. Hossain. 1994. "Kansas Experience with Smoothness Specifications for Concrete Pavements." Preprint of a Paper Prepared for the 1994 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Paterson, W.D.O. 1987a. "International Roughness Index: Relationship to Other Measures of Roughness and Riding Quality." Transportation Research Record 1084. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Paterson, W.D.O. 1987b. Road Deterioration and Maintenance Effects: Models for Planning and Management, The Highway Design and Maintenance Standard Series. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Perera, R.W. and S.D. Kohn. 1994. Road Profiler Data Analysis and Correlations. Final Report, Research Report 92~30, Road Profiler Users Group tRPUG). Peterson, D.E. 1985. J~ife-Cycle Cost Analysis of Pavements. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 122. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Queiroz, C.A.V. and W. R. Hudson. 1984. "A Stable, Consistent, and Transferable Roughness Scale for Worldwide Standardization." Transportation Research Record 997. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Sayers, M.W. 1989. "Two Quarter-Car Models for Defining Road Roughness: ~ and HRI." Transportation Research Record Number 1215. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. 218

OCR for page 213
Sayers, M.W. 1990. "Profiles of Roughness." Transportation Research Record 1260. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Sayers, M.W. 1994. "Basics of Profiling." Proceedings of the 1994 Road Profiler Users Group (RPUG) Meeting, Reno, Nevada. Sayers, M.W. and T.D. Gillespie. 1986. "The International Road Roughness Experiment: A Basis for Establishing a Standard Scale for Road Roughness Measurements." Transportation Research Record 1084. Washington DC: Transportation Research Board. ~, Sayers, M.W., T.D. Gillespie, and W.D.O. Paterson. 1986. Guidelines for Conducting and Calibrating Road Roughness Measurements. Technical Paper 46. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Sayers, M. W., T.D. Gillespie, and C.A.V. Queiroz. 1986. The International Road Roughness Experiment: Establishing Correlation and a Calibration Standar~for Measurements. Technical Paper 45. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Sayers, M.W. and S.M. Karamihas. 1996. "Estimation of Rideability by Analyzing Longitudinal Road Profile." Preprint of a Paper Prepared for Me 1996 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Scofield, L.A. 1992. ProfiZograph Limitations, CorreZations, and CaZibration Criteria for Effective Performance-Based Specifications. NCHRP Project 20-7, Task 53. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Scofield, L.A. 1993. ProfiiZograph Limitations, Correlations, and Calibration Criteria for Effective Performance-Based Specifications. NCHRP Project 20-7 Task 53. Washington DC: Transportation Research Board. Scofield, L.A., S. Kalevela, and M.R. Anderson. 1992. "Evaluation of California ProfiIograph." Pavement Surface Properties: Roughness, Rutting, Skid Resistance, and Surface Distress. Transportation Research Record 1348. Washington DC Transportation Research Board. ~, Scofield, L.A., S.A. Kalevela, M. Anderson, and A.S.M. Hossa~n. 1992. A Half- Century with the California Profilograph. Report Number I;HWA-AZ-SP9102. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Depardnent of Transportation. Shook, J.F. 1976. "San Diego County Experimental Base Project: Analysis of Performance," Proceedings, Annual Meeting of Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Volume 45. Minneapolis, MN: Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists. 219

OCR for page 213
Smith, K.D., H.T. Yu, M.~. Wade, D.G. freshen, and M.~. Darter. 1995. Performance Evaluation of Experimental Rigid Pavements Data Collection Activities. FHWA-RD-94- 177. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. Spangler, E.B., A.G. Gerardi, and D.R. Yager. 1990. Smoothness Criteria for Runway Rehabilitation and Overlays. Report Number DOT/FAA/RD-90/23. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration. Sp angler, E.B. and W.J. Kelly. 1966. GMR Road Profilomeler A Method for Measuring Road Profile. Highway Research Record 121. Washington, DC: Highway Research Board. Spangler, E.B. and W.~. Kelly. 1987. Integration of Intertial ProfiIomeler in ODOT Pavement Management System. Report Number FHWA/OH-87/005. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation. Stanley, W.D., G.R. Dougherty, and R. Dougherty. 1984. Digital Signal Processing. Second Edition. Reston, VA: Prentice-Hall Company. Stone, I. 1988. Evaluation of the Laser Road Surface Tester for Measuring Pavement Roughness and Rut Depth. Report Number FHWA-DP-~-072-008. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Adm~rustration. Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP). 1994. Manual for Profile Measurement: Operational Field Guidelines. SHRP-P-3 78. Washington, DC: National Research Council. Temple, W.H. and SIT. Cumbaa. 1988. "Serviceability Inclex Base for Acceptance of Jointed Concrete Pavements." Transportation Research Record 1196. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Unpin, W., W.R. Hudson, and G. Elkins. 1990. "Surface-Smoothness Evaluation and Specifications for Flexible Pavements." ASTM STP 1031: Surface Characteristics of Roadways: International Research and Technologies. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Vorburger, T.V., D.C. Robinson, S.E. Fick, and D.R. Flynn. 1989. Calibration of Road Roughness Measuring Equipment, Volume it: Calibration Procedures. Publication No. FHWA-RD-89-078. McLean, VA: Federal Highway Administration. Walker, R.S. 1991. Use of the Siometer for Profile Measurement. Research Report 1203- 1F. Austin, TX: Texas State Department of Highways & Public Transportation. Walker, R.S. and H.T. Lin. 1988. ProfiIograph Correlation Study with Present Serviceability Index (PSI). Research Report Number FHWA-DP-~-072-002. Austin, TX: Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation. 220

OCR for page 213
Walker, R.S. and L.T. Phung. 1987. The Walker Roughness Device for Roughness Measurements. FHWA/TX-87/75+479-IF (Texas Research Report 479-IF). Austin, TX: Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation. Weed, R.M. 1989. Statistical Specification Development. Report No. FHWA/Nl-88-017. Trenton, N]: New Jersey Department of Transportation. Woodstrom, J.H. 1990. Measurements, Specifications, and Achievement of Smoothness for Pavement Construction. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 167. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Zimmerman, K.A. 1995. Pavement Management Methodologies to Select Projects and Recommend Preservation Treatments. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 222. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. 221

OCR for page 213
Recommendations for Improvements to Smoothness Specifications The research findings listed above have significant Implications to existing specifications. In addition, through the conduct of Me research, many other suggestions for Improvements to existing smoothness specifications have become apparent. These recommendations are summarized below. 1. Continue using pavement smoothness specifications, as they are effective in obtaining improved levels of ~rutial pavement smoothness and ~rutial smoothness has been related positively to extensions to pavement life. Re-evaluate the suitability of current initial smoothness levels. Based on the results of this study, the most cost-effective smoothness levels for new pavement construction are between O and 5.5 ~n/mi (0 and 0.09 m/km) for new PCC pavement construction and between O and 3.5 in/ml (0 and 0.06 m/km) for new AC pavement construction. Highway agencies are encouraged to evaluate their own specifications in conjunction with smoothness-life relationships for families of pavements in Weir States. 3. Concurrent with Me evaluation of Axial smoothness levels, incentive and disincentive provisions need to be re-evaluated to more accurately reflect Me true benefits or disbenefits of Me achieved crucial smoothness level. In comparison with actual current pay adjustment curves, the theoretical pay adjustment curves developed In this study showed, on the whole, much greater incentive amounts and much more punitive disincentive amounts. To ensure the ability to accurately measure pavement surface profiles In the wavelength ranges necessary for cleterm~ning the recommended statistics, equipment used for measuring initial pavement smoothness should meet the requirements listed In table 51. 5. The equipment used for measuring ~rutial pavement smoothness should be maneuverable, lightweight, and measure profiles and compute indices rapidly. 6. Computerized data storage, analysis, calibration, and reporting capabilities should be strongly encouraged to improve accuracy and provide Me contractor anti State win immediate access to the smoothness information. 7. Retain the PI as the initial pavement smoothness index for current specifications, while reducing Me blanking band to 0.l and 0.0 In (2.5 and 0.0 mm), and move toward basing the index on computer-mocleled profiles from ~nertial-based profiling systems. 8. Do not move toward an ~rutial-smoothness specification based on IR] under the assumption of improver! correlation with user response. However, a transition to TR] as a means of providing correlation with Me currently used pavement management system index may be justified. 4. 208