See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303142433

Relationships between international roughness index and present

serviceability rating

Article · September 1994

CITATIONS READS

35 292

2 authors:

Bashar Al-Omari Michael Darter

Jordan University of Science and Technology University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
40 PUBLICATIONS   146 CITATIONS    86 PUBLICATIONS   610 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Driver Compliance with Priority Rules at Roundabouts in Jordan View project

Capacity at Entrances and Exits of Universities, Hospitals, and Shopping Centers in Jordan View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bashar Al-Omari on 13 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 TRANSPORTATTON
RESEARCH
RECORD k
3r

Relationships Between International

RoughnessIndex and present
ServiceabilityRating
BasuanAr-Oueru aNp MrcHasr_L DaRrrn

y:* d."e,opedbeL$een
l^.."l"jlgl.1?,, rheintemarionat
roughness
in_ community.Not much is currenrlv
klown aboul lhe IRI on ge

nfl:ryTf
u"1*..n^
#if
r,nr
llil.#il;i".fldJiil;Jxii"::il5i"ll;
pdR
;.;;d#;;#i;;
n'rl':I:, especialJy
i:li:,",:be
snouid
criticar
rehabililated.
levets
at whichpaverngii

","9 "'":iil'"",1:"fffi:?,.r,'f:
;,";.y,x".fi?ll:+:
ii!"1!ui:Hlli'#'".1fl";d:,x.,,:f
ffji,"'tiry?dlq:t':.,:iffff
recommended:
t,;,iffl$';:*:ru:;l
pSR = 5 * e( o.6'R,) where
RESEARCH OBJECTII'ES

IRI ;, i" i^iltirn"i".,' p", objecliveof the firsr phaseof this research
meter or P.SR= 5 x et_oBrr IRt whereIRI is ll-"_l-1r""
oeveiop wasro
in inchesper mile. a predictivemodelfor pSRas a funcrionof pronf"lni
that-is.applicableto flexible,rigid, and composire
(dhri;-";;;
concrete)pavements. In thesecondphaseof tfrisstuay,aOAitionai
This paperdocumenrsrelarionships
betweenrhe inrernalionrl data from the LTpp daia baseani otheruour"".
,i.:" (rRr)andthepresenr
serviceabitiry
rarjnsrpSRj ,f,u, i*fuJ"a
i::9ll:l: pavementdistresses and IRI were analyzedto O"t".rnin"tfr.
ror pavementrypes included in the FHWA Highway planning ..1
anj of}ey dislressrypesro IRt andcriticatr"*r, i"r r.-
Monitoring Sysrem (HPMS) dara base.FHWA l"ll9l:hior
has ,"qu".r"j ,t ui naDrlrlalron. Theseresujtswill be usefulin rtreHelr S
sratesrcpo.t roughnessdata in the form of anatyiicaf
the IRI, which was processto achieveimprovedandconsistent
developed by the World Bank in an effoft
to provide consistent
estimates of thefuture
highwaypavementrehabilitation needsin tle UnitedStates.
data about roughness.The IRI is an objectiv"
una
sure ofpavement condition that was chosenas "onri"r.nior.u-
the HPMS standard
index ro providemore consrsrency berween
Tt:':T:,:,:leL**
srares.,ttlwA.dtrectedall stalej Io reponpavement PREVIOUS RESEARCEIN CORRULATING
roughness dala PROFILE TO PSR
0y |l{ ror alt pa\ed rural anerialsand urban
freewaysand ex_
pressways. includinglnrersrares. beginningin 19g9.
arerequiredro reponborhtRt andpSRro rn.i", aLremplro retarepavementprohtero
-_!.1.e!lV. -.r1L"s ],1., li:l user subjecrive
FFIWAThePSRrangesfrom0 ro 5 rverypoorlo ,.ry nrgJrray raingsoI a highwaywasin l95g by rtre
go;;; u; eiSlO
qennedrn t rgure I and includes Koao lesl researchstafl t2l. The researchers
a description ot rideabiJiiy.phys_ founda reasonable
ical distresssuch as cracking,and rehabiiirarion coneiarion belweenlongitudinal profileslopevariance
neeas.tie'pSR andpSR
ts determtnedby lhe sratesusing lhis general rmeanpanelrating).Thefollo\ringequations.
definidonbul also whichalsoinclude
Dy orner melnods.Anothermelhod i5 to nr(l somephlstcaldisrresses, uereobtained
conelatesomelype t2J:
of roughness measurement(using a state,s .quipment)
witi'a . Asphaltconcrete(flexible)pavements
mean user panelrating of rideabilityand rhen
io use rhis cone_
lalon to ot,tatnan estimateof pSR from the
roughnessindex
measurementon pavementsections.Another PSR= 5.03- t.9t log (1 + SV) - 1.38(RDf
approachis to use a
state's visual rating scheme,such as a scale - 0.01\.t-TT
beiween 0 and 100,
aad jusr divide mtings by 20 ro estimate F = 0.84,SEE= 0.38,n =.t4 (1)
a value in the 0 to 5
moge. The fact that various methods are used
by statesto estimate . Jointedconcrete(rigid)pavements
PSR makes consistency nationwide a very
significant problem.
of pSR used in rhis repon is lhar defined
I1".1.j?t'- under PSR= 5.41- t.?8 (1 + SV) - 0.09.v,t-F
r\Lrrru-^rrqecl t-2J It) as subsequenrly described.
r.ner)K conceptis imponanlbecause it is builr inro lhe HPMS
analyticalsoft\\areand is a \ilal pan of the F=0.92,|EE=0.32,n=49 (2)
proceduresused lo
esnmalerong-lermpavemenlrehabiliralion
needs.The pSR is also
a well-kaown indicator of pavement condirion wherc
in the hishwav
= slopevarianceov€rsecrionfrom
Depanmenr
of Civit Engineerirs, !Y CHLOEprofiiomerer,
RD = meanrut depth(in.),
;Jlil[iiii,
iHli1l,T,,,lTf Ii.y,]. 1208Ne$
iil'il,iil,
ii",fff::H:;?,iil: C = c&cking(m,/1000m?)(flexibte),
= crackng (m./305rrl)(= 1 fil1,000 (riCid),
ft')
 131
ALOnari and Dater

that generally fits through the data set taken fiom Brazil' Texas,
P = patching(m"/1000lrf),
South Africa, and Pennsylvaniais as follows:
SEE= standarderror of estimate,and
ri = numberof sections.
PSR = 5 * e(-o'3jRD
(3)
Themostsignificantfactorby fat in eachequationis the slope
from the pavement
whichis calculated longitudinalpro-
variance,
much to the estimation where IRI is in mete$ per kilometer.
file.The distresstermsdo not contdbute
pSn una could havebeen left off without significantloss of Another major study was conducted under NCHRP Project 1-
ot
23 by Janolf et al. (1) and Janoff (O in the 1980s.The objective
accuracy.
that of NCHRP Project 1-23 (-l) was to conelate mean user panel
Many other studieshavebeenconductedsincethat time
various longitudinalprofile to
statistics highwayuserpanel ddeability ratings using the Figure 3 scale ol selectedpavement
rclarc
provided sectionswith objective parametersderived tom the measuredpro-
ratings.For example,a PurdueUniversitystudyin 1964
slope variance and other roughness in- file. The main experiment was conducted on 81 tesi sectionsin
seveialmodelsshowing
conelating well with PSR without distess variables (-l)' Ohio, including 25 asphalt concrete (AC), 22 portland cement
dicators
from Texascompleteda majorstudyin 1968into the concrete (PCC), and 34 composite (COMP) sections. The user
Researchers
and PSR (4) The panel included 36 Ohio Department of Tlansportationemployees
relationshipbetweenprofile charactedstics
a lalgeresearch study in Brazil ftom 1976 and laypersonsdriving in four K-cars of similar age who rated
WorldBank sponsored
resultedin the d€velopment of the IRI Somecor- the pavementsectionsfor rideability only on the same subjective
to 1981that
between IN and PSR from various sources weregiven scale (0 to 5) as that for the AASHO Road Test, and the mean
reiations
(5) as shownin FiSure2 wherea wide variation of panel rating (MPR) was computed lor each section Thus' the
bv Paterson
existswhen different data sources from around the MPR was simiiar to the PSR as defined for the AASHO Road
relationships
Test, but only rideability was rated.
world are used.A nonlinearrelationshipbetweenPSR and IRI

FH{ oROER l{ 5500.14, Chg. a

DRIFI f.bru!ry 2a, 1993

I!!]r-Ill
P.veEent Condit{on elttnd
(usa lult r.hg. or valu..)

PSR E V€rbal RatlDg

onlv Dee. 6uD.!1or (o! n€lrlv DGv) P'v'Ecnt3 arG likely to be

v.w euo3ttt enouqir ana dl5!r€38 !!.. (tu(llclentlv lles o! cracks
60; lnd pllche6i to s!!lIty for thI. clt'gorv' l { 0 6 r Pavebenlt.
coD6iructed or lesurtlced dullnq tnc drt! y'ar eouro non'rrY
be r.t€d very good.

/|O

Plvelents in thi! cltegory, !lthough no! <fdlte rB sEoolh t6-

those described above. 9jve. first cla3s rlcle and exnrDrt revr
if anv, visibl. Eiqns o! 5urface deterior'!jon' 'l€xiblo
u!qi*i'g to shoY .vtdence o! ruttins 'nd fin'
-- iirlili.!-r."-i.
"""a ianaor crlck;. Rlqid p a v i u e n t s nav b e b e g i n n l n g to.6hov
evidenc€ of 6 l i q h t s u l f a . e d e ! € r l o r ! t i o n , E ' l c h ! s ! r n o ! crtcKs
. lnd EPallhg.

a!6
tttc rlatlnE qlulllties ot P!v@'nt! ln t}llE c'tegory
r.iii""-uti inf€rio! to thosc ot nev PlveEentB, 'nd E'v b' -
F
' - r- l-r baletv toL€lAbl. (or hlgh EP€ed trll!lc' sur!'c'
ii.ili,t. Dlve'.nts D.v lnclud. ruttlng' DlP crlcklng' rn'l
ertenstv. prtchlng. Rlqld Plvelenlt In t})l' glouP EAy nrv' '
feu Joj.nt iAllu!e!, lAultlDg and crlcklng' rnd loDe PlrEPtDg'

2.4
P!ve!.nt. ln thl. crtcgory hav. d't'rjora!'d to 3uch rn dxtrnt
;;.tii;; iir."t u'. .;€ea o! !rc'-!ror tra!rlc' rr'xibr'
;;;;;;;';t havr rarei Potltol" lnd d'6P cr'ck! DlBtle;s
r-. i".i"a.i rli.rrlne, c;lcktne, ruttlne, lnd occu!6 ovs! 50
D.rc.ht, o! Eo!., of tn. aurlac'' Rlgl'l Pav€len! orstrc5s-
!P!]IlhE, la'rlt1n9, Pltcblng' cllcxrng' scar1n9'
incfqaci lojnt
lnd tay lnclud. PEPj'nq lDd laultlnE'

l.o
PlveE.nls 1n th13 c!t.go!Y !r. In !n .xtreE'lY d'terlorated
condtllon. 'i-i]Li.rr€
Thc lacllltY 16 P.6sa.bl. onlv a! lequcec 6Pe€q3'
iii-,iii lide digcolfort. i'ars€ Polhores lndr deeP
clacks exllt. Dlstres! occurs ove! ?5 percent

0.o

FIGURE 1 PSR rangesfrom 0 to 5 based on a description of rideability

physical distress,and rehabilitation needs'
11
J -t
132 TMNSpORiATION
RLSEARCn
RECORD
UJ)

The results of rhe frequency study of Ohio and Florida data

rcvealedthat the total profile index (PI) in the band of frequencies b.3(Pr)
from 0.125 to 0.630 cycles/ft was co.related with the MpR. The
PI is defined as the rcot mean squarc of elevation for the profile.
Relationshipswere developed to relate pI to the MpR for each
pavementtype and for all sectionscombined.A log transformation
provided the best fit. Also, the PI and quartercat index were found
to conelate well with the MPR.
The objectives of the second phase of NCHRP l-23 were to
expand the methodology developed in the fi$t phase to more
statesand also to study the effects of region and vehicle size on
panel rating and the effect of measuringone wheelpath instead of
both wheelpathsin calculating rhe objective roughnessindex (6).
An additional four statesbesidesObio pafticipated in this phase.
AC, PCC, and COMP sections from New Jersey (46 sections),
Michigan (68 sections),New Mexico (64 sections),and Louisiana
(52 sections) were selected.Panel mtings and profile measurc_
ments were performed on each section
The same analysis as before was performed on the data. The
MPR versus the PI curve was similar for all states except New
Mexico. The differencesbetween the nve states did not exceed
0.3 MPR. Therefore,ir was concluded that the rcgion did not have hql|. Porotft{ (ny'rh RD
a significant effect on the ratings.
Data from New Jersey were used to comparc the pI from one
and two wheelpaths.It was concluded that data from eitler wheel_ ritJ qJ 250
RqJcrrtn Oih(Cqri*ln)
Lo.f'd x---I@ !- &Eajl
N -__ HOlnF! 5 ____ SdnnArbo
P.-----P.niDOI r- tROf

I FIGURE 3 Weaver/AASHO scale used in NCHRp project

LI'qFICT l-23
to define PSR as mean paDel rating.

vEtx
cooD

path could be used to estimate MpR witb as much accuracyas

dala from bo{h wheelpaths. In all casesthe differencewas lower
than 0.15 MPR. In general, the right wheelpath showed slighrly
more rcughnessthan the left wheelpatti.
A full-size car and a compact car were used to study the effect
of vehicle size on the panel rating. No significant effect was ob-
served. The effect of road class on the analysis was also deter_
mined. Data from New Jersey,Michigan, and New Mexico werc
classified by road class (Inte$tate/non-Interstate).No significant
difference in the MPR-versus-pl relationship was observedbe,
tween the two road classesfor AC and pCC pavementtypes (the
sample size for COMP was not sufficient) (O.

RESEARCE APPROACH

A relationship is desiredbetween IRI and the mean panel rating

VERY
(PSR) over the range of coirditions existing on freeways and ex,
POOn presswaysin urban areas and aderial hishwavs in rutal areasin
the Uniled Smres.After a comprehensive-search of availabledara.
lrfclssAllE I the mosl comprehensivedata were found in the NCHRp project
l-23 data base (1,6) plus some additional similar dara obrained
FIGL'RE 2 Approximat€
relationships between AASHO frorn Indiana. The relationshipbetween IRI and pSR (wherePSR
serviceabilityindex, PSI, and is defined as the mean highway user,s panel rating) will be ana-
QIm and IRI roughtress lyzed for nve statesobtained from the NCHRp proiect l-23 data
scales,based on panel ratings base plus the sectionsin Indiana. The six sraresare I;diana (which
from four sources ('). did not separateCOMP sections from AC sections). Louisiana,
Al'Onati atul Darter
'Iype
Mexlco. and Ohio. The number of TABLE I Prediclive Models for each S(ale and Pavemenl
Michjgan.New Jersey.New
secdonsin each pavement type category and state is as follows: SEE@
State AC PCC Tata!
Typ.
42 24 66 SEE{D
Indiana
Louisiana 13 13 22 48
Michigan 19 2I 2',7 67 IN AC/COMP 0.2.17800 0.005 0.92 0.244
New Mexico 39 t3 l0 62
15 l0 2t 46 PCC 4.327357 0_018 0.87 0.331
New Jersey
Ohio 34 32 23 89 -0.280r07 0.010
rF ALL 0.88 0.329
Total 1se 1n
IRI wascomputedusingthemeasured profiledata Theprogmm Ac -0.?40457 0.0r5 0.80 0.337
usedto calculateIRI was written in Quick BASIC usingthe pro- coMP
|
et al. (7). The riSht wheelpath
o.zeezsso.022 0.66 0.403
cedure tecomrnended by Sayers
I
profilewasusedin calculating IRI because it wasfoundthatthere Pcc -0.rer240 0.007 0.84. o.221
wasno significant differenceif the left wheelpathor the average ALL
|
| 4 224307 0.009 0.62 0.390
of right andleft wheelpath profileswereconsidered. The IRI val-
ueswere calculated from the original profile data for all states MI Ac .0.258185 0.010 o.92 0.250
except lndiana, where the already calculated IRI values were pro- |
of Transportation. The sample coMP 4.26e3r4 0.012 0.86 o.331
videdby the IndianaDepartment
was 6 in. The meanpanel |
intervalusedfor profilemeasurement PCC | 0.273681 0.014 0.1'7 o.421
ratingwasusedas the PSR, as def,ned by Figure3.
ALL | -o.rurr, 0.007 0.79 0.356'

S|2re R., SEE

Developmentof PSR VersusIRI Models
Tvpe
SEE
Datafor all six stateswereenteredinto a StatisticalAnalysisSys-
tem(SAS)dataset.ThesedataincludeIRI, PSR,and pavement NJ AC 0.t46t67 0.007 0.84 o.222
typefor everypavementsectionin eachstate.Severallinearand
werecon- -0.206388 0.011 0.259
nonlinearmodelswith varioustypesof transformations COMP 0.65

sidered.The following model

nonlinear was found to bestfit the PCC -0.194998 0.010 0.69 0.345
boundary condilions andlie aclualdata:
ALL 0.182296 0.00? 0.64 0.336

PSR=5+er"'rru) (4)
NM AC -0.291208 0.010 0.81 0.370

COMP -0.368312 0.021 0.80 4.267

The logarithn'iictransfomation was used in the actual regression:
PCC ,0.320090 0.0r8 o.67 0.134
ALL -0 301952 0.008 o.79 0.348
r- l1=l- -.. rDr (s)
\5 / OH -0.196603 0.008 0.'19 0.302

Regression analysiswasconductedfor all possiblesetsof data COMP 0.3u379 0.015 0.54 0.4r5
considedng statesand pavementtypes.The R' vaiuesobtained ?cc -0.227174 0.010 0.72 0.278
werevery high (above0.90)for all cases.
-0.228277
To provide a morc realistic assessmentof the accuracyof the ALL 0.008 0.58 0.388
relationshipbetweenPSR and IRI, the R2 and standarderror of
theestimate(SEE)betwgenthe actualPSR values(dependentvai- (t) Standdd eFo. of the eslinate (for
L\e constdt a).
iable)aid predictedPSRvalues(independent variable)werede- o Slandard enor of the stiBate in units of PSR.
te.mined.Thesevaluesare shown in Table 1 ior each state and
for eachpavementtype and in Table 2 for all statestogetherfor Note: IRI in units of mm/n (I mn/m = 1/63.36 inhdl9

eachpavement type. :.
As shownin Tables1 and2, most of the R' valuesare lessthan
the0.90obtainedfor thetransformed model.This occursbecause
the regressionprocedureworks to minimize the error in the log-
arithmof PSR,not PSRdirectly.
In Figure4 a plot of all statemodelsshowsthat thereis not
muchdeviationbelweenthe predictionsfor eachstate,exceptthe
NewJerseymodel,whichgivesa somewhat higherpredictionthart
theotherstates,especiallyfor AC pavements
Therefor€,two analyseswere conducted:one with andthe other
withoutthe New Jerseysections,as shownin Table2. The anal-
ysis\ ilhouttheNewJersey datagiveshigherR' valuesandlower
SE values than the analysisthat includesthe New Je6ey sections
(R' = 0.73 versus 0.68 for all pavementtypes).
Figure 5 shows the different models for each pavement type
using combined data from all states, There is very litde difference
between thesebest-it curves, indicating that fot all practical Pur-
poses, the relationship between IRI and PSR is the same for all
three pavement types. These results indicate that the model de-
veloped using all of the available data (excluding New Jersey
 134 TMNSPoRTATIqNRESEARCHREC2RD
]45

TABLE 2 Predictiv€ Models Developed for All States and for All For both Equalions6 and 7. R'?= 0.?3, SEE = 0.39 (uni,. ^"
States Except New JerseY PSR). lr = J32 seclions.A ploLrharshowslhis ,noO"fwlLf.,
uif',il
R' SEE availabledala for PSR \er.u, lRl is given in Figlrre6.
These slalisricscomparefavorably wirh rhose obrainedf.^_
SEE orherstudies.suchas rhe AASHO RoadTest *tt.r. tf," n. uafu..
wefe 0.84 and 0.92 for AC and pCC pavemenLs. respecrivelv.
rn,r
AC -o.229945 0.005 0.76 0.383 lhe SEE valueswere 0.J8 and 0.32 unirsof pSR to, aC uni pii

All COMP -0.276',71',7 0.008 0.61 0.402

Pavements,rcspectively.
Most of the IRI?SR data (especially for composite and pCC
PCC -0-25',/445 0.008 0.62 4.442 pavements) were observedo\er lower IRI and higher pSR range\
ALL -0.248129 0.004 0.68 0.411
as shown in Figure 6. This causesa qeak definition of the rela_
tionship for higher IRI and lower pSR ranges,which resultsin q
AI AC 4.n9459 0.005 0.81 0.346 lower R'? and higher S,EE values for composite and pgf
pavements.
COMP -0.29298r 0.008 0.70 0.383
i PCC -o.27t964 0.008 0.66 0.427
CONCLUSIONS
NJ ALL -0.259708 0.004 o.73 0.393
The main conclusionof rhis researchis that the meanpanelralins
of rideabilitycan be predicledreasonablyuell from rhe IRI ovei
Note: IRI in units of mn/m (lnm/m = l/63.36 in/mite)
a wide range of conditions acrossthe United States for the three
main types of existing pavements. Equation 7 or 8 is recom_
mended for use in estimating PSR from IRI.
The following models may be used if it is desirable to corsider
each pavementtype separately.
data) could be used for any of the pavement types without sig-
nificant loss of accuracy lor any pavemen! type. This equation is a For AC pawments:
given in both metric and English units.
PSR=5xe(-o:a"rRl) (8)
PSR=5*e(-o26{RD (6)

whereIRI is in millimetersper meter. where IRI is in millimeters per metet

PSR=5*e(oux''rRD (7) PSR = J ,r..t ooora'mD (,9

whereIRI is in inchesper mile. where IRI is in inches per mile.

jl
L lRl(mm/m)

I Note: 1 mm/m = 1/63.36if,/nile

i --r- IN ---+- LA --x-- Ml

--€- NJ --><- NM -:,l OH

FIGIJRE 4 PSR versus IRI for all payementtypes (modelsdevelopedfor

€a€h state),
 135

and Darter
AL-Onai

4.5

3
6.
!) 2.5

0 567 10 11
lRl(mm/m)
No€: 1 mm/m = U63 36 in/nile

x Att Pav.TYPes+ AC

type using data from all states'

FIGURE 5 PSR versus IRI for each pavement

whereIRI is in millimetersper meter'

. For COMPP@'ements:
(10) (13)
PSR=5*e(02e3'IRD PSR=5*€(-ooiN3'IRr)

per meter' or
w h e r eI R I i s i n m i l l i m e l e r s
(11) whereIRI is in inchesPer mile'
PSR=5*ec@6rRlr

lhe marimumdeviationof the predr-cted

Because Itl
]t]1,:.i1
whereIRI is in inchesPer mile' *:Y:l:
-i li,'r*.. .'
"q*,ion' Tl'ff :Jt:;,liJ'""1,',",:l
. For PCC Pavements: rrv the overall model was not more tnal
for all pavementtypes'
l-o':7:.IRI)
(12) ii,.aoarn"nd.d to use one model

5
o o Sc;lter Plot of PSR vs lRI
4.5
-.- P S R = s* e c o r ' F

3.5

3
cc
2.5
"0-
2

0.5

3 5
IRI(mm/m)
Note: I nm/n = l/63 36 in/mile
with all data'
FICURE 6 Plot showing recommended model
 136 TMNSPORTAToNRESEARCH
RECORDl#s

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Yoder.E. J., and R. T. M tlho'us,NCHR\ Repon Z: Conparisonor ^r

This researchwas conductedfor the n[nois Departmentof Trans-
poftation in coopemtionv/ith FHWA by the Departmentof Civil
Engineering,Univenity of lllinois. Goldon F. Hayhoeperformed
theanalysison theprofiledatafrom thestatesoflouisiana,Mich-
igan,New Jerset Ne\r Mexico,and Ohio, which were obtained
from the NCHRPProject1-23database.Additionaldatafor In-
dianariere providedby DaveWaud,of the IndianaDepartment
^f'l-ren.n^r,ri^n
REFERENCES
1. Janoff,M. S..J. B- Nick,P S. Davit,andc. R Hayhoe.NCHRPReport
275: Pa|ement Roughnessand Rideability. TRB, National Research
Council.Washinglon D.C..Sepr.1985.
2. Carey,W N., and P.E. Irick. The PavementServiceabilityperformance
Concept.Bulletin 250,lfRB, National ResearchCouncil, Washingron,
D.C., 1960.
ferent Methods of M?asurine payene Condition: nrcri^ i'"Jr-.
HRB, NaiionalResearch Council.Washingron.D.C.. I964.
Walker.R. S.,W. R. Hudson,andF. L. Robens.Development
ofn r,,-
ten Iot High SpeedMeasurenent d pavementnrrgrr*r. R"..."iJ
Repon73-5F.Universiryof Texas.Austin.Nov. t970.
5. Paterson.W. D. O. Road Deteinraion ond Mahknance EffecI 1\-
World Bank,WashiDglon. D.C.. 198?.
6. Janoff, \4. S. NCARP Report308: pavementRoughnessand Rideabit-
ity Field Eval ation. TRB, National ReseatchCouncil, W",ti"g;;.
D.C., 1988. i
'7.
Sayers.M. W., T. D. Giltespie.and W D. O. p^telllon,Guideline!f^,
ConductingMd Calibrating Road RoughnessMeawrenents. Wii'^
BankTechnicalPaper46. The WortdBank,Washjngton. D.C.. 198;*
The contentt of this paper renect the iews of the arthors, who are
rc_
sponsiblefor thefacts and accuracy of the data presentedhere. The cii-
tentsdo not necessailt refect the ofrcial .,/iewsor policies of the IIIiiis
Depa ment of Trunsportationor FHWA. This report does iot conniluii
a standard,specifcation, or regulatbn.
Publicationof thispaper sponsoreilby Connni ee on SurJaceprope ies_
Vehiclelntercction.

I
I
:,,

ll
i,
. 1 li

l
l

View publication stats