|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. 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 214
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 215
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 216
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 217
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 218
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 219
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 220
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 221
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 222
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
Representative terms from entire chapter:
research record
