Quality Assurance For Automated and Semiautomated Pavement Condition Surveys

Technical Report
AP-T290-15
A Common Data Output Specification

for Texture, Cracking, Strength and
Skid Resistance
A Common Data Output Specification for Texture, Cracking, Strength and Skid Resistance
Prepared by Publisher
Hui Chen, Julia Kelley, Michael Moffatt, Dr Young Choi, Dr Tim Austroads Ltd.
Martin and Richard Wix Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Project Manager Phone: +61 2 9264 7088
austroads@austroads.com.au
Liam Terris www.austroads.com.au
Abstract About Austroads
The report documents the development of a harmonised approach to Austroads’ purpose is to:
road condition data management by Austroads member agencies. • promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport
outcomes
The report outlines the results of consultation with member agencies
• provide expert technical input to national policy
which considered principles, methods, specifications and their development on road and road transport issues
application to texture, cracking, strength and skid resistance.
• promote improved practice and capability by road
agencies
The report details common practices used by member agencies to
• promote consistency in road and road agency operations.
collect data and identifies limitations and proposes solutions to the
harmonisation of road condition data. Austroads membership comprises the six state and two
territory road transport and traffic authorities, the
Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional
Development, the Australian Local Government Association,
and NZ Transport Agency. Austroads is governed by a
Keywords Board consisting of the chief executive officer (or an
alternative senior executive officer) of each of its eleven
Asset management, road condition, cracking, texture, strength, skid member organisations:
resistance, data specification, data harmonisation • Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
• Roads Corporation Victoria
ISBN 978-1-925294-14-9
• Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
Austroads Project No. AT1484 • Main Roads Western Australia
Austroads Publication No. AP-T290-15 • Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
Publication date March 2015 South Australia
Pages 66 • Department of State Growth Tasmania

• Department of Transport Northern Territory
© Austroads 2015
• Territory and Municipal Services Directorate, Australian
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Capital Territory
Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process • Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and
without the prior written permission of Austroads. Regional Development
• Australian Local Government Association
• New Zealand Transport Agency.
The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration
of member organisations and others in the road industry. It
aims to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality
information, advice and fostering research in the road
transport sector.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of the following senior asset managers in producing this document: David Darwin (NZTA),
Michelle Baran and Rodney Sams (TMR Qld), Michael Hayward and Steve Boston (MRWA), Jasmina Copcic and Amando Reyes (DPTI
SA), Mick Savage (IPWEA), Tony Barton and Ian Cossens (VicRoads), Liam Terris (RMS NSW), Eddie Gall and Jan Lang (DSG
Tasmania), Karl Cloos and Ian Hickson (TAMS ACT) and Shane Tepper (DTNT).
This report has been prepared for Austroads as part of its work to promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes by
providing expert technical input on road and road transport issues.
Individual road agencies will determine their response to this report following consideration of their legislative or administrative
arrangements, available funding, as well as local circumstances and priorities.
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising
from the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Summary
The Austroads Board has directed that senior asset managers from all member authorities (MAs) agree to
and apply an achievable harmonisation approach for road management data.
This report documents the development of an approach to assist MAs in harmonising road condition data
outputs. It contains the concepts and methodology for harmonisation as well as the agreed data output
specifications for texture, cracking, strength and skid resistance. As part of the harmonisation methodology,
the results of consultation with MAs to develop the approach to harmonisation including principles, methods,
specifications and their application to road condition data are also outlined.
The report presents the proposed road condition data outputs in support of ongoing consultation with senior
asset managers from all MAs. Workshops were held on 29 March 2011 and 6 February 2013 that were
attended by senior asset managers from all MAs. The purpose of these workshops was to agree on a
proposed method for harmonising road condition data for texture, cracking, strength and skid resistance. As
a consequence an agreed approach to harmonisation of road management via uniform data outputs was
defined.
As the output data is very dependent on the collection method, the report discusses the current common
practices used by MAs and some of the limitations of the collection methods which may affect effectiveness
and feasibility of data harmonisation. Possible solutions or approaches to harmonising the condition data are
identified.
The proposed approach was presented to a working group of senior asset managers to seek comment and
to set a way forward to reach harmonisation at a national level. A survey was undertaken for each MA to
identify the current practices and their use of texture, cracking, strength and skid resistance data.
Austroads 2015 | page i

Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................1
2. Harmonisation Method..........................................................................................................................3
2.1 Harmonisation Approach ................................................................................................................3
2.2 Dataset ...........................................................................................................................................5
2.2.1 Inventory ............................................................................................................................5
2.2.2 Road Condition ..................................................................................................................6
2.3 Generic Harmonisation Method .....................................................................................................6
2.4 Roughness Data Output Specifications .........................................................................................7
2.5 Rutting Data Output Specifications ................................................................................................8
2.6 Guiding Principles ....................................................................................................................... 11
2.7 Harmonisation Process ............................................................................................................... 11
2.8 Data Collection and Processing Issues ....................................................................................... 12
2.9 Harmonisation Method ................................................................................................................ 13
3. Scope of Report .................................................................................................................................. 14

3.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 14
3.1.1 What is not Included ....................................................................................................... 14
3.1.2 Local Roads .................................................................................................................... 14
4. Workshop ............................................................................................................................................ 16
4.1 Participants .................................................................................................................................. 16
5. Data Output Specifications................................................................................................................ 17

5.1 Data Output Specifications .......................................................................................................... 17
5.2 Data Output Specification Feasibility .......................................................................................... 17
6. Texture ................................................................................................................................................. 18
6.1 Collection and Reporting Methods .............................................................................................. 18
6.1.1 Volumetric Method .......................................................................................................... 18
6.1.2 Surface Profile Method (Laser Profilometers)................................................................. 18
6.2 Data Output Issues and Equipment Validation ........................................................................... 19
6.3 Texture Depth Harmonisation Approach ..................................................................................... 20
6.4 Texture Data Output Specifications ............................................................................................ 21
6.5 Current Practice – Texture Output .............................................................................................. 24
6.5.1 Local Government Assessment ...................................................................................... 24
6.5.2 Texture Harmonisation Assessment ............................................................................... 24
Austroads 2015 | page i

7. Cracking .............................................................................................................................................. 26
7.1.1 Automated Crack Detection Methods ............................................................................. 26
7.1.2 Manual Post-processing of Digital Images ..................................................................... 29
7.1.3 Manual Visual Rating (ROCOND 90) ............................................................................. 30
7.2 Current Practice .......................................................................................................................... 31
7.3 Data Output Issues ...................................................................................................................... 32
7.3.1 Type ................................................................................................................................ 33
7.3.2 Severity ........................................................................................................................... 33
7.3.3 Extent .............................................................................................................................. 33
7.4 Harmonisation of Cracking Output Data ..................................................................................... 33
7.4.1 Reporting Interval ............................................................................................................ 33
7.4.2 Crack Type Output Specification .................................................................................... 34
7.4.3 Crack Severity Output Specification ............................................................................... 34
7.4.4 Crack Extent Output Specification .................................................................................. 35
7.5 Proposed Harmonisation Approach ............................................................................................ 35
7.6 Cracking Data Reporting ............................................................................................................. 35
7.7 Current Practice – Cracking Output ............................................................................................ 37
7.7.2 Cracking Harmonisation Assessment ............................................................................. 37
8. Strength ............................................................................................................................................... 39
8.1.1 Benkelman Beam (BB) ................................................................................................... 39
8.1.2 Deflectograph (DFG) ....................................................................................................... 40
8.1.3 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) .............................................................................. 40
8.1.4 Traffic Speed Deflectometer (TSD) ................................................................................ 40
8.2 Strength Data Harmonisation ...................................................................................................... 41
8.2.1 Deflection Data Adjustment ............................................................................................ 41
8.2.2 Correlation between Deflection Devices ......................................................................... 42
8.2.3 Measurement Offsets ...................................................................................................... 42
8.2.4 Reporting Intervals and Values ....................................................................................... 43
8.2.5 Harmonisation Approach ................................................................................................ 43
8.3 Strength Data Output Specifications ........................................................................................... 44
8.4 Current Practice – Strength Output ............................................................................................. 45
8.4.2 Strength Harmonisation Assessment ............................................................................. 46
Austroads 2015 | page ii

9. Skid Resistance .................................................................................................................................. 49

9.1 Components of Skid Resistance ................................................................................................. 49
9.1.1 Adhesion ......................................................................................................................... 49
9.1.2 Hysteresis ....................................................................................................................... 49
9.1.3 Seasonal Variation .......................................................................................................... 49
9.1.4 Microtexture .................................................................................................................... 50
9.1.5 Macrotexture ................................................................................................................... 50
9.1.6 Aquaplaning .................................................................................................................... 50
9.1.7 Polishing and Equilibrium Stages ................................................................................... 50
9.2.1 Measurement of Skid Resistance ................................................................................... 51
9.2.2 Skid Resistance Measurement Devices ......................................................................... 51
9.2.3 Portable Pendulum Tester .............................................................................................. 52
9.2.4 Grip Tester ...................................................................................................................... 52
9.2.5 ROAR .............................................................................................................................. 52
9.2.6 SCRIM............................................................................................................................. 52
9.3 Current Practice .......................................................................................................................... 53
9.4 Harmonisation of Skid Resistance .............................................................................................. 53
9.4.1 Lack of Correlation between Different Devices ............................................................... 54
9.4.2 Complexity of Factors Contributing to Crashes .............................................................. 54
9.4.3 Differences between Regions ......................................................................................... 54
9.4.4 Harmonisation Approach ................................................................................................ 54
9.5 Standardisation of Skid Resistance Measurement ..................................................................... 55
9.5.1 Adopt Identical Data-processing and Reporting Methods for each Device Used........... 55
9.5.2 Regular Correlation Exercises of Same Device Types Used by States ......................... 55
9.5.3 Management of Seasonal Variations .............................................................................. 55
9.5.4 Management of Regional Variations ............................................................................... 55
9.5.5 Selection and Trial of Standard Device(s) for Skid Resistance Measurement ............... 57
9.5.6 Deployment of Standard Device in all Jurisdictions ........................................................ 58
9.6 Skid Resistance Data Output Specifications ............................................................................... 58
9.7 Current Practice – Skid Resistance Output................................................................................. 59
9.8 Skid Resistance Harmonisation Assessment.............................................................................. 59
10. Gap Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 61

10.1 Harmonisation Assessment and Classification ........................................................................... 61
10.2 Summary of Gap Analysis ........................................................................................................... 61
10.2.1 Lane of Collection ........................................................................................................... 61
11. Conclusions and Outcomes .............................................................................................................. 63
References ................................................................................................................................................ 64
Austroads 2015 | page iii

Tables
Table 2.1: Roughness (Lane IRIqc) harmonisation data output specification .................................................. 7
Table 2.2: Roughness harmonisation additional data requirements for output specification
non-compliance .............................................................................................................................. 8
Table 2.3: Mean rut depth measurements ...................................................................................................... 9
Table 2.4: Mean rut depth additional data requirements for output specification non-compliance...............10
Table 4.1: List of workshop attendees .......................................................................................................... 16
Table 5.1: Specification categories ............................................................................................................... 17
Table 5.2: Partial specification description and additional data requirements ..............................................17
Table 6.1: Texture depth standard output specifications .............................................................................. 22
Table 6.2: Texture depth additional data requirements for output specifications non-compliance ...............23
Table 6.3: Summary of MA practices for texture data relative to the specifications .....................................25
Table 7.1: Sample extract from a RoadCrack survey ................................................................................... 27
Table 7.2: Severity index matrix for crocodile, longitudinal and transverse cracking ...................................30
Table 7.3: Crack type classification ............................................................................................................... 30
Table 7.4: Crack severity classification ......................................................................................................... 31
Table 7.5: Crack extent classification ............................................................................................................ 31
Table 7.6: Austroads MAs cracking data collection methods ....................................................................... 32
Table 7.7: Cracking standard output specifications outline........................................................................... 36
Table 7.8: Additional data requirements for cracking standard output specifications non-compliance ........36
Table 7.9: Summary of road agency practices for cracking data relative to the specifications ....................38
Table 8.1: Strength data output specifications .............................................................................................. 44
Table 8.2: Additional data requirements for strength output specifications non-compliance........................45
Table 8.3: Summary of road agency practices for strength data relative to the specifications .....................47
Table 9.1: Method of skid resistance measurement used in jurisdictions .....................................................53
Table 9.2: Previous investigations of the correlation between different skid resistance
measurement devices .................................................................................................................. 54
Table 9.3: Contributing factors and weightings in the definition of skid resistance zones ............................56
Table 9.4: Zones of regional similarity .......................................................................................................... 56
Table 9.5: Skid resistance data outputs for additional parameters ............................................................... 59
Table 9.6: Summary of road agency practices regarding skid resistance data relative to the
specifications ................................................................................................................................ 60
Table 10.1: Description of data harmonisation ratings and assessment ........................................................61
Table 10.2: Harmonisation assessment by member agencies ....................................................................... 62
Figures
Figure 2.1: Illustration of the harmonisation continuum ................................................................................... 4

Figure 2.2: Generic process approach to harmonisation ............................................................................... 12
Figure 6.1: Diagrammatic representation of MPD .......................................................................................... 19
Figure 6.2: Texture depth harmonisation process .......................................................................................... 21
Figure 8.1: Illustration of a TSD ...................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 8.2: Maximum deflection comparisons between DFG, FWD and TSD ...............................................42
Figure 8.3: Pavement deflection bowl under applied load ............................................................................. 43
Figure 9.1: The difference between microtexture and macrotexture ............................................................. 50
Figure 9.2: Classification of skid resistance measurement devices ............................................................... 51
Figure 9.3: Indicative zones of skid resistance demand ................................................................................ 57
Austroads 2015 | page iv

1. Introduction
Austroads has long had a focus on identifying the data requirements for managing the road network to
enable informed asset management decisions. More recently, a pressing need has arisen to consider the
merits of collecting and reporting additional data to enhance asset management capabilities, improve
understanding of road network performance and to provide a better basis for future Council of Australian
Government (COAG) road reform initiatives (e.g. network-wide heavy vehicle road user charging regimes
across all jurisdictions).
The research necessary to support and guide this reform is often challenged by access to critical datasets.
For example, attempts to generate relationships between asset deterioration and heavy vehicle usage, cost
curves and cost attribution models have been constrained by lack of data, information and knowledge. The
COAG-supported Heavy Vehicle Road Reform (HVRR) will have a better chance of achieving its aims if
existing road agency data can be collated and harmonised into a consistent and transparent dataset, and
any additional data requirements are also collected and addressed in the same manner.
1.1 Background
At the October 2010 Austroads Board meeting, the Board resolved to harmonise road management data
across all jurisdictions. The Austroads Assets Program Manager and Assets Task Force were charged with
achieving the following actions:
• convening a group of senior asset managers with representation from all jurisdictions to determine a
common basis for data collection and storage
• reporting on a cooperative way forward to be included in the assets program progress report for the April
2011 Board meeting.
ARRB, through the Austroads project AT1484 Review of Standard Methods for Measuring Road Condition,
was nominated to help facilitate these actions and assist the Assets Task Force and the Austroads Board
move towards harmonisation of road management data.
Project AT1484 is predominantly focussed on the operational aspects of road condition monitoring, i.e.
specification and test method review, harmonisation of location referencing, image specification
development, and alternative methods of verifying road profile for roughness derivation. Notwithstanding this,
it was agreed that the scope of project AT1484 could be varied to include a new element that looks at
harmonisation of road condition data. This new project element would investigate and pilot an approach to
standardise data outputs for the various road pavement condition attributes so that they could be consistent
across Austroads member authorities (MAs).
It is apparent that the Board is intent upon the harmonisation of all asset management data attributes;
however, at this stage, project AT1484 has considered condition data as a pilot to the proposed data
harmonisation approach.
This report is structured as follows:

• Harmonisation method. Documents the harmonisation method proposed at the inaugural project
workshop on 29 March 2011 where MA representatives were requested to review the harmonisation
method.
• Scope of the report. Covers the report’s purpose and defines what is not included in the report.
• Workshop. Held on 6 February 2013 to discuss the proposed harmonisation process for texture and
cracking and to outline the approach to harmonisation for skid resistance and strength.
• Data output specifications. Covers specifications that define the minimum data requirements and the
feasibility of data output specifications where specifications are partially met.
Austroads 2015 | page 1

• Texture. Covers current collection and reporting methods, data output issues, harmonisation,
specifications and the current practice of texture reporting.
• Cracking. Covers current collection and reporting methods, data output issues, harmonisation,
specifications and the current practice of cracking reporting.
• Strength. Covers current collection and reporting methods, data output issues, harmonisation,
specifications and the current practice of strength reporting.
• Skid resistance. Covers current collection and reporting methods, data output issues, harmonisation,
specifications and the current practice of skid resistance reporting.
• Gap analysis. Documents the current levels of harmonisation and the effort needed to improve
harmonisation for each jurisdiction.
• Conclusions and outcomes. Identifies the actions that need to be considered by MAs.

2. Harmonisation Method
A harmonisation method was proposed by ARRB and documented in an earlier working paper produced by
this project. The working paper contained the data harmonisation concept, data output standard template,
and the proposed standard specifications for roughness and rutting data outputs as part of the pilot study. It
also contained the current data collection practices of MAs (information sourced internally) and a gap
analysis to determine how close the MAs were to meeting the data output specifications. This document
provided a base for the follow-up workshop discussions and also allowed MAs to comment on the details of
the concept and to update the information on their data collection practices.
An inaugural project workshop was held on 29 March 2011 (via teleconference) and was attended by
representatives from all MAs. Its purpose was to discuss and agree on a harmonisation method put forth in
the working paper. The outcomes of the workshop were:
• Acceptance of:
– the proposed ARRB harmonisation approach and its implementation
– road condition attributes of roughness, rutting, cracking, texture, strength and skid resistance to
which the harmonisation process will be applied
– proposed roughness data output specifications
– proposed rutting data output specifications
• nomination of a single representative from each MA who was to be responsible for internal liaison,
review and approval of the proposed harmonisation approach
• use of the working paper methodology for other condition attributes.
The final project outcomes of the working paper and the workshop are presented in an internal Austroads
report (Harmonisation of Road Condition Data: Roughness and rutting Common Data Output Specification).
Outcomes relevant for the harmonisation of texture and cracking are outlined in detail in the sections below.
2.1 Harmonisation Approach

For the purposes of this project, harmonisation refers to the degree to which similar data collected by
multiple agencies can be compared or reconciled. Where uniform methods relating to data definitions,
collection techniques, schedules and equipment are not employed, harmonisation offers a practical
methodology for measuring and improving comparability.
Harmonisation can be seen as a continuum of practice from uniform/standardised practice where the testing,
measurement, processing and modelling, etc. of all jurisdictions is the same in contrast to independent
individualised practice where each jurisdiction uses different measuring, testing and modelling approaches.
An illustration of this continuum is provided in Figure 2.1.
Therefore, in this context, harmonisation does not mean standardisation of all data collection, processing and
storage methods into a single uniform practice to be adopted by all MAs. Rather, it is a process to enable
comparison of data from different data sources that may involve different collection, processing and storage
methods.

Figure 2.1: Illustration of the harmonisation continuum
Uniform/standardised Individual practice
Standard test methods, harmonisation Unique test methods,

specifications, data specifications, data
Mechanism to
collection, processing collection, processing and
enable data
and storage methods storage methods used
comparisons
adopted
The process of harmonisation is seen as:

1
1. determining and defining which data attributes (inclusive of data definition and metadata ) require
harmonisation (i.e. need to be comparable across jurisdictions)
2. assessing the extent to which data collected to meet comparable aims is in fact comparable across
agencies
3. developing mechanisms to enable data comparisons via an output specification (i.e. the focus is on
standardising the end data, not the means by which the data is collected or produced)
4. devising procedures by which comparability can be improved over time.
Harmonisation has both current and future components. This project only addresses current components;
therefore, the following parameters apply to the harmonisation process:
• The harmonisation process and its outcomes were distinguished initially from other attributes associated
with multiple agency data, such as frequency, reliability, temporal stability, definitional adequacy,
availability, etc.
• Harmonisation efforts did not address considerations of input data quality, reliability, validity and rigour.
• For the harmonisation process to be practical and implementable, it was defined to exclude these other
attributes (initially), and was driven by data and metadata descriptions.
• The metadata aspect of harmonisation has potential for addressing the growing need at a national level
to integrate different data collections (e.g. road condition, asset management activities and expenditure,
road use).
• Austroads and the Guide to Asset Management (Austroads 2009b) have already made significant
progress in the definition of asset management data and metadata.
• Harmonisation recognises that there are embedded agency-specific procedures and processes
associated with data definitions and collection processes, which in the short-run are either overly costly
or impractical to make uniform.
• Harmonisation will initially focus at the data output level and will be incrementally rolled out across data
types.
This harmonisation process was approved and agreed on by the working group members who attended the
workshop on 6 February 2013.
1
Metadata is defined as data about data and in this context refers to descriptive information about the key measure, e.g. date of the
survey is considered metadata in relation to a measure of Lane IRI.

2.2 Dataset
Road agency data requirements are driven by road agency responsibilities. Responsibility for provision of
safe, adequate, environmentally sensitive road infrastructure services and regulation of road use and access
involve databases covering many data sources and topics. The Austroads Guide to Asset Management
(Austroads 2009a) splits the asset management data into five different classes:
• inventory or asset register data
• condition data
• road use data
• environmental data
• construction, maintenance and expenditure data.
2.2.1 Inventory
Inventory data defines the physical properties of each asset or section. It usually begins with its identification
and then location, before listing other relevant properties.
Location data
Location data deserves a separate mention from other asset attributes as it is commonly used by all datasets
and is applicable to all situations requiring network positioning and data collection efforts. Without proper
location referencing, users would have no way of discerning the location where the data was collected,
thereby severely limiting the use of the data.
MAs have developed and implemented different location referencing systems that suit their needs. A
separate element within AT1484 has considered harmonisation of location referencing using spatial
technologies. This research suggests spatial technology and location referencing methods offer a means to
harmonise location referencing across road agencies. For the purposes of this project, it is agreed that the
harmonisation of location data will not be included. However, it is assumed that basic location identifiers will
be supplied with any road condition data. The minimum location identifiers required are:
• road ID
• carriageway ID
• lane ID
• linear referencing/chainage.
At the 6 February 2013 workshop it was agreed that spatial referencing data such as GPS coordinates
should be included in this section as it is now commonly used and readily available.
Location referencing data is important to the harmonisation of road condition data as it allows users to
compare road condition data of similar road types as well as lane condition. Lane ID is important as road
condition is often tied to a specific lane, particularly in some cases where the collection methods require
measurement in the most trafficked lane. For most roads, it is assumed that the left-hand lane or the outer
lane is the most heavily trafficked (Austroads 2011a); however, when the left-hand lane does not represent
the most heavily trafficked lane or when parked vehicles are in the way, the lane identifier (lane ID) allows
road condition data over different lanes to be accurately tied to a linear and lateral road location that is under
the same traffic conditions.

Other inventory attributes
A table of common items contained in the inventory section of a database is presented in the Guide to Asset
Management − Part 5A: Inventory (Austroads 2009b). This table provided a starting point for the inventory
harmonisation efforts when that component of the project began. It was agreed that inventory and other data
classes such as road use, environmental, construction, maintenance and expenditure were excluded from
this project.
2.2.2 Road Condition
Knowledge of the condition of a road is important in determining:

• when intervention maintenance is required to maintain a safe operating environment and to achieve or
extend the design life
• where it is within its designed asset life-cycle
• valuation and depreciation of the asset
• performance measurement of maintenance contracts and asset management strategies.
The condition of a road varies over its life-cycle according to traffic use, maintenance, enhancement activities
and deterioration rates. As condition is not constant over the life of an asset, condition data needs to be
updated at regular intervals so that road agencies can make informed decisions based on information that
reflects the current status of the network.
Condition data types
There are many types of condition data used by MAs to monitor the performance of the pavement and other
road-related assets. Road condition data attributes used for asset management purposes are identified in
Austroads (2009a), which include:
• roughness
• rutting
• texture
• cracking
• strength
• skid resistance.
It was agreed at the inaugural project workshop that the project should initially be focussed on the potentially
easier attributes as an approach to prove the feasibility of the harmonisation methodology. Hence roughness
and rutting were selected for the pilot study. In accordance with the outcomes of the 29 March 2011
workshop, it was agreed that the project would focus on the harmonisation of texture, cracking, strength and
skid resistance data.
2.3 Generic Harmonisation Method

Following on from the outcomes of the workshop on harmonisation of roughness and rutting data outputs,
harmonising texture and cracking data will be achieved in accordance with the following guidelines:
• focus on the harmonisation of outputs
• use of an incremental approach to each data classification and attribute
• use of a working paper methodology
• consultation with representatives from each MA responsible for internal liaison, review and approval.

2.4 Roughness Data Output Specifications

This section presents the agreed specifications for the roughness data outputs (these specifications are
outside the scope of the current consultation). Roughness is defined as:
Roughness is a measure of the ride-ability of the road surface, and indicates the
relative comfort offered to the road user. From an economic perspective,
roughness also provides a link to vehicle operating costs. (Austroads 2011a)
Table 2.1 outlines the minimum data requirements for roughness data as agreed by MAs. Where MAs are
unable to confirm whether the output data meets these requirements, the additional information requirements
are outlined in Table 2.2.
Table 2.1: Roughness (Lane IRIqc) harmonisation data output specification
Attribute Description
Measure Lane IRIqc
Measure description Roughness for a lane is reported in terms of the International Roughness Index (IRI) – the
average of the results of the application of a computer model of a standard ‘quarter-car’ to
the measured longitudinal road profile of each wheel path
Measure components Lane: Collected in estimated most heavily trafficked lane
Algorithm: Quarter-car algorithm
Units m/km
Record precision Two decimal places
Recording segment length 100 m
Survey date Year of collection
Computation Average the two single wheel path IRIqc values obtained in each wheel path of a lane:
Single Wheelpath IRIqc (inner) + Single Wheelpath IRIqc (outer)
Lane IRIqc =
2
Data collection Austroads Specification AGAM/S001, Specification for Pavement Roughness Measurement
specification with an Inertial Laser Profilometer
Austroads Test Method AGAM/T001, Pavement Roughness Measurement with an Inertial
Laser Profilometer
Austroads Test Method AGAM/T002, Validation of an Inertial Laser Profilometer for
Measuring Pavement Roughness (Reference Device Method)
Austroads Test Method AGAM/T003, Validation of an Inertial Laser Profilometer for
Measuring Pavement Roughness (Loop Method)
Austroads Test Method AGAM/T004, Pavement Roughness Repeatability and Bias Checks
for an Inertial Laser Profilometer
Austroads Test Method AGAM/T005 Distance Measurement Validation of Road Condition
Monitoring Vehicles
Location reference Common location reference requirements will be defined and applicable to all data
classifications, types and attributes; these requirements are defined in Section 2.2.1
(Location Data)

Table 2.2: Roughness harmonisation additional data requirements for output specification
non-compliance
Compliance Variation
Attribute Description Y = yes from Example if non-compliant
N = no specification
Measure Lane IRIqc Y/N No: Data is provided

unconverted as NAASRA
counts
Measure Lane: Collected in estimated most heavily Y/N No: Left lane only
components trafficked lane
Algorithm: Quarter-car algorithm Y/N No: Half-car algorithm used
Units m/km Y/N
Record Two decimal places Y/N No: Nearest integer

precision
Recording 100 m Y/N No: 10 m

segment
length
Survey date Year Y/N Not included
Data Austroads Specification AGAM/S001 Y/N No: Internal agency

collection Austroads Test Method AGAM/T001 specifications
specification
Austroads Test Method AGAM/T002
2.5 Rutting Data Output Specifications

This section presents the agreed specifications for the rutting data outputs (these specifications are outside
the scope of the current consultation). Rutting is defined as follows:
Rutting characterises the transverse profile of a road surface and quantifies the
severity and extent of ruts over a pavement surface; it is a measure of longitudinal
depression on the road surface in the left wheel path. (Austroads 2011b)
As rutting quantifies both the severity and extent of ruts, it is recorded and reported through three separate
measures for each reporting interval, as follows:
1. severity: mean rut depth (mm), to the nearest whole number
2. severity: standard deviation of rut depths (mm), to one decimal point
3. extent: the percentage of the length with maximum rut depths in ‘bins’ to the nearest whole number.
Table 2.3 outlines the minimum data requirements for reporting rutting based on these measures as agreed
by MAs. Where MAs are unable to confirm whether the output data meets these requirements, the additional
information requirements outlined in Table 2.4 will be needed.

Table 2.3: Mean rut depth measurements
Measure Mean rut depth
Measure description The average of the maximum rut depth over a 100 m section for the left wheel path. The
maximum rut depth is the deepest point of a transverse cross-section measured using a
2 m straight edge (actual or simulated)
Units mm
Record precision Whole number
Measure Standard deviation of rut depths (left wheel path)
Measure description The standard deviation of the maximum rut depths collected over the 100 m section
Units mm
Record precision One decimal place
Measure Percentage of section length in rut depth bins (left wheel path)
Measure description The rut depth broken down into 5 mm depth bins recording the % (by length) of the section
in each depth bin
Units Per cent in rut depth bins:
rut ≤ 5 mm 5 mm < rut ≤ 10 mm 10 mm < rut ≤ 15 mm
15 mm < rut ≤ 20 mm 20 mm < rut ≤ 25 mm 25 mm < rut ≤ 30 mm
30 mm < rut ≤ 35 mm 35 mm < rut ≤ 40 mm rut > 40 mm
Record precision Whole number
Measure components Lane: carrying the estimated highest gross mass, following the most common wheel track
Left wheel path
2 m straight edge
Statistics based on maximum rut depth from each transverse profile
Recording segment length 100 m
Sample interval ≤ 250 mm
Computation Proprietary software/process
Data collection • Austroads Specification AGAM/S004 – Specification for Pavement Rutting Measurement
specification with a Multi-laser Profilometer
• Austroads Test Method AGAM/T009 – Pavement Rutting Measurement with a Multi-laser
Profilometer
• Austroads Test Method AGAM/T010 – Validation of a Multi-laser Profilometer for
Measuring Pavement Rutting (Reference Device Method)
• Austroads Test Method AGAM/T011 – Validation of a Multi-laser Profilometer for
Measuring Pavement Rutting (Loop Method)
• Austroads Test Method AGAM/T012 – Pavement Rutting Repeatability and Bias Checks
for a Multi-laser Profilometer
• Austroads AGAM/S004 – Specification for Pavement Rutting Measurement with a Multi-
laser Profilometer: Commentary
• Austroads AGAM/T009 – Pavement Rutting Measurement with a Multi-laser
Profilometer: Commentary
• Austroads AGAM/T010 – Validation of a Multi-laser Profilometer for Measuring
Pavement Rutting (Reference Device Method): Commentary
• Austroads AGAM/T011 – Validation of a Multi-laser Profilometer for Measuring
Pavement Rutting (Loop Method): Commentary
• Austroads AGAM/T012 – Pavement Rutting Repeatability and Bias Error Checks for a
Multi-laser Profilometer: Commentary
classifications, types and attributes; these requirements are defined in Section 2.2.1
(Location Data)

Table 2.4: Mean rut depth additional data requirements for output specification non-compliance
Compliance Variation Example if non-compliant

Attribute Description Y = yes from
N = no specification
Measure Mean rut depth Y/N No: Maximum rut depth
Units mm Y/N
Record Whole number Y/N No: Nearest 5 mm

precision
Measure Standard deviation of rut depth Y/N No: Not included
Units mm Y/N
Record One decimal place Y/N No: Nearest integer

precision
Measure Percentage of section length in rut Y/N No: Different bin groups
depth bins
Units Percentage Y/N
Record Whole number Y/N No: Nearest 10%

precision
Measure Lane: Collected in estimated most Y/N No: Left lane only
components heavily trafficked lane
Wheel path: Left wheel path Y/N No: Right wheel path
2 m straight edge Y/N No: Using 1.2 m straight

edge
Based on the maximum rut depth of Y/N

a transverse profile measure
Recording 100 m Y/N No: 10 m

segment
length
Sample ≤ 250 mm Y/N No: 20 m

interval
Data collection Austroads Specification AG:AM/S004 Y/N No: Internal agency

specification Austroads Test Method AG:AM/T009 specifications
Austroads Test Method AG:AM/T010

Conversions Y/N
and
computation
components
Data collection Austroads Specification AG:AM/S004 Y/N No: Internal agency

specification Austroads Test Method AG:AM/T009 specifications


2.6 Guiding Principles

One of the main points of discussion during the 29 March 2011 workshop was the level of data quality and
detail that the harmonisation standard should aim for in order to balance the usefulness of the data with the
ease of compliance (i.e. should the data outputs be specified on best practice or on the lowest common
denominator). The working group requested further clarity on the matter.
The following advice has been provided on this issue:

• Whilst best practice is the ultimate goal of Austroads it recognises the constraints and balancing of
priorities that MAs face; it is suggested that fit-for-purpose practices are used while striving for best
practice.
• It is the working group’s role to decide on the appropriate level of data reporting detail.
• If the working group decides to use a lowest common denominator (LCD) approach, it should still ensure
the output data is useful and purposeful.
• An LCD approach does not preclude an agency from collecting and storing more detailed information.
• Ideally, each output specification should be pushed toward best practice until it becomes impossible to
gain agreement with the specification entering local operational practice and standards that are not
possible to easily harmonise.
2.7 Harmonisation Process

Strength and skid resistance data will be subject to the same harmonisation process as previously applied to
texture and cracking; the process is outlined in Figure 2.2. This approach was agreed and endorsed by
senior asset managers at the workshop on strength and skid resistance held on 6 February 2013. As stated
in Section 3, the scope of this project is restricted to process steps 1 to 5 in Figure 2.2. The testing and
implementation of specifications is beyond the scope of the project.
The proposed data output specification did not focus on achieving a perfectly harmonised national dataset in
the first instance. MAs were asked to produce data that best approached the required output. For example,
‘modelled’ or derived data may be substituted initially, with progressive evolution towards the agreed data
specification.

Figure 2.2: Generic process approach to harmonisation

The work completed in 1. Data specification Austroads Project AT1484
2010 for the Austroads Definition of common data focused on the operational
Board identified output requirements and output level and
requirements at the high looked at specific data
level based on asset attributes in detail.
management activities
and input needs. 2. Current practice
Identification of current detailed
data definitions and metadata
3. Gap analysis
Review of current member
Scope of report
practice (excluding business
rules) and identication of gaps
4. Recommendations
Assessment of options and
feasibility of addressing gaps
5. Endorsement
Agreement on standard data
output specification
6. Testing
Application and testing of data
output specification
Beyond current
project scope
7. Implementation
Adoption of data output
specification
2.8 Data Collection and Processing Issues

Similar to cracking and texture condition data, strength and skid resistance data is dependent on the
collection method used. For example skid resistance can be measured by a number of devices and
techniques such as the grip tester, ROAR (Norwegian road analyser and recorder), British pendulum tester
and SCRIM (Sideways force Coefficient Routine Investigation Machine), while strength can be measured
using the falling weight deflectometer (FWD), Benkelman beam and deflectograph. Therefore, it has been
necessary to examine the different collection and processing methods currently used by MAs as part of the
harmonisation process in order to devise a feasible strategy for harmonising data outputs.

2.9 Harmonisation Method

Based on the agreed harmonisation process and issues associated with cracking, texture, strength and skid
resistance data collection methods, the following harmonisation method was adopted for this project:
1. Working papers were developed containing:
– a preliminary investigation and specification of data output requirements based on the Guide to
Asset Management (Austroads 2009a) and ARRB knowledge of MA practice
– review of data collection and processing methods currently used by MAs
– a proposed harmonisation approach for the texture, cracking, strength and skid resistance data.
2. The working papers were distributed to the working group for consideration by MA practitioners to:
– identify current practice based on Austroads literature and ARRB knowledge (if possible)
– perform a preliminary gap analysis to consider the feasibility of addressing the gaps
– propose and agree on the harmonisation approach and output specifications.
3. These working papers were updated into an internal report documenting the outcomes.
The aim of harmonisation is to provide objective representative condition data as a common output of the
data collection and processing phases that is a clearly consistent and comparable output. Harmonised
condition data is needed in the estimation of road user charges across different jurisdictions.
In order to achieve harmonisation some acceptable correlation between different condition measures may be
needed.

3. Scope of Report
Data is essential to any asset management system; knowing what assets exist, what they are designed to do
(now and into the future), and what condition they are in, allows better decisions to be made when it comes
to maintenance, improvements or regulations. However, an asset management system is only as good as
the data it holds and while precision is important, consistency is critical to enable comparison. This is well
known at a local level, but it is just as important at a national level where data is used for funding allocation,
national performance modelling or research.
The initial pilot phase of the project investigated the development of a standard output format for road
condition data as a means of achieving harmonisation to allow comparison at a national level. The project
approach was successfully applied for roughness and rutting condition attributes. Given the success of the
pilot study, the project was established to apply the harmonisation approach to texture, cracking, strength
and skid resistance condition data.
3.1 Purpose
This report has been produced as a result of a working paper that facilitated the consultation process for the
purpose of:
• producing data output specifications for texture, cracking, strength and skid resistance data that are both
useful and achievable based on current reporting methods employed by MAs
• investigating the feasibility of the suggested strategies based on current road agency data collection and
processing practices
• suggesting strategies for harmonising texture, cracking, strength and skid resistance data collected
using different methods.
Specifically, the report has:

• acted as a base for review of road condition data harmonisation
• formed a basis for being updated (post-workshop) to capture the workshop outcomes on the agreed
harmonisation approach for texture, cracking, strength and skid resistance data collection practices.
3.1.1 What is not Included
The scope of data harmonisation of this part of project AT1484 is limited to texture, cracking, strength and
skid resistance condition data. The project will not examine:
• standardisation of data collection and storage practices across all MAs
• data types other than road condition such as inventory, geometric and road use data
• alternative methods of harmonisation not related to data output files
• testing and full application of the proposed approach (i.e. producing specified output files).
3.1.2 Local Roads
The specifications outlined in this report are applicable to all MAs, and also local government. However, the
development of these output specifications will principally be driven by MAs. This is in part due to the number
and size of local government organisations (there are over 550 in Australia and New Zealand), in addition to
the wide variety of current data collection practices and types of roads within their jurisdictions.

The specifications have been designed to allow any jurisdiction, including local government, to maintain
existing internal data collection, processing and storage rules; however, the output specifications are
mandatory if consistent reporting is required outside the jurisdiction.

4. Workshop
A workshop was held on 6 February 2013 to discuss the proposed harmonisation process and draft
specification presented in a draft working paper on texture and cracking. In addition, the basis and outline of
the follow-up working paper on the harmonisation of skid resistance and strength was discussed.
4.1 Participants
The workshop was held in the RMS NSW offices in North Sydney and was attended by representatives from
MAs and a local government representative, as shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: List of workshop attendees
Organisation Attendees (or nominated representative)
ARRB Group Dr Tim Martin – project leader
Department of State Growth, Tasmania Jan Lang
Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure, South Australia Mick Lorenz
Department of Transport, Northern Territory Shane Tepper
Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia Mick Savage
Main Roads Western Australia Michael Hayward
New Zealand Transport Agency David Darwin
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads Michelle Baran
Roads and Maritime Services, New South Wales Liam Terris
Territory and Municipal Services Directorate, Australian Capital

Karl Cloos
Territory
VicRoads Ian Cossens

5. Data Output Specifications
5.1 Data Output Specifications

The data output specifications define the minimum requirements for attributes to ensure that the data is
consistent, achievable by MAs, and at the same time is useful for asset management purposes.
The data output specifications for texture, cracking, strength and skid resistance are presented in a table
format in the following sections. The specifications contain the proposed definitions for the minimum data
requirements of each category. The specifications have been designed to be consistent across all variables,
with flexibility to allow a clear and unambiguous definition to be made. The specification categories are
shown in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Specification categories
Measures Measure/variable name
Measure description Description of where the measure comes from and/or how it is calculated
Measure components Specific requirements for the measure to meet the specification
Units Required units for the measure
Record precision Degree of accuracy required for the measurement
Recording segment length Segment length that the measurement applies to
Survey date Year the data was collected
Computation (additional Any standard equations required to get data into the form specified
standardised calculations)
Data collection specifications Relevant standard specifications for data collection to be used to enable consistent
data collection
5.2 Data Output Specification Feasibility

For data outputs that partially meet the proposed specifications (i.e. ‘partial-spec’ rather than ‘full-spec’),
additional metadata will need to be provided with the data in order for it to be made useful. For example, if
data is processed using a different algorithm (i.e. NAASRA instead of IRI), the data may still be useable if a
conversion algorithm is provided with the data; partial-spec and additional metadata requirements will be
presented in the format as shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2: Partial specification description and additional data requirements
Example Additional Information or

Attribute Description Compliance variation from alternative reporting if
specification non-compliant
Specification category (i.e. Provides an Provides an alternative method

Description of
measure, units, record Yes/No example of which allows the data to be
attribute
precision, etc.) partial-spec formulated

6. Texture
Definition
Texture represents the amplitude of deviations from the surface of the pavement in the wavelengths of 0 to
0.5 mm (microtexture) and 0.5 mm to 50 mm (macrotexture). It is a measure of the pavement’s ability to
create friction with the tyre in dry and wet conditions. (Austroads 2009c)
The working group accepted the above definition for texture.
6.1 Collection and Reporting Methods

As discussed previously, texture data reporting is dictated by the method by which it is collected. Each type
of test equipment used to measure surface texture produces unique data outputs and uses different data
processing techniques to be useful in managing the road network. The raw outputs from two different types
of surface texture test equipment can seldom be directly compared (Austroads 2009c).
Texture data collected by MAs is commonly reported as macrotexture. Macrotexture is measured in

millimetres and reported as texture depth. Currently, MAs use two types of methods to measure
macrotexture:
• volumetric
• surface profile measurements using laser profilometers.
The two methods determine texture depth by measuring the change in height in the surface profile. However,
the results produced by both methods do not necessarily relate directly to one another. The relationship
between the results produced by both methods also varies with different surface types.
6.1.1 Volumetric Method
The volumetric method (also known as the sand patch method) measures texture by spreading a fixed
volume of material (usually sand or glass) over an area into a circular patch; the area is then divided from the
volume to obtain an average depth. This depth is then reported as the mean texture depth (MTD) or sand
patch texture depth (SPTD) of the pavement surface at the location of the test. The test effectively measures
the change in height over a pavement surface profile. Details of how to perform the test are documented in
the recently withdrawn ASTM E 965 (American Society for Testing Materials 2006). There is also a modified
approach to the measurement of surface texture depth, the pestle method (AGPT/T250).
When measuring the texture of a segment of road, volumetric sand patch tests are usually performed in short
intervals (10–20 m) along the segment. The results from individual tests are then summarised and presented
as an average MTD for the segment.
6.1.2 Surface Profile Method (Laser Profilometers)
In this method, texture depth is measured by applying calculation procedures on a surface profile obtained
by laser profilometer equipment. Currently, there are two measurements used by MAs:
• mean profile depth (MPD)
• sensor measured texture depth (SMTD).

Mean profile depth (MPD)
The MPD is produced by using a 2D profile of the pavement surface (usually obtained using a laser
profilometer). It is estimated as the average profile depth over a baseline segment of approximately 100 mm,
as shown in Figure 6.1. In accordance with ISO 13473-1 (1997), the MPD should be reported at a minimum
as an average texture depth of 10 individual baseline segments over a survey distance of 100 m. Most road
agencies continuously measure MPD along the survey distance and report the average every 100 m.
Figure 6.1: Diagrammatic representation of MPD
Source: Adapted from ISO 13473-1 (1997).
Sensor measured texture depth (SMTD)
The SMTD is produced using data collected by high-speed single or multi-laser profilometers. SMTD
represents the root mean square value of the residuals for segments roughly 280 mm long. Individual SMTD
measurements for each 280 mm segment are then aggregated and reported as the arithmetic mean value
calculated for each 100 m section. Refer to Austroads AGAM/T013 for a detailed description of the test
method.
6.2 Data Output Issues and Equipment Validation

It is common for MAs to use one or more of the methods mentioned above to measure macrotexture of
pavement surfaces. Although the results produced by these methods all measure texture in terms of texture
depth based on a surface profile, the results cannot be directly compared with each other. This becomes an
issue when comparing texture data from different agencies collected using different methods.
This issue can be resolved if two texture datasets are collected using the same method. The current practice
among MAs is the use of high-speed data collection methods which report texture as SMTD. This method is
preferred over traditional volumetric methods as it allows MAs to perform routine surveys of their network in
reduced time. However, due to the variance in measuring equipment specifications (e.g. different laser
specifications, laser calibration, survey vehicle set-up, etc.) used by different MAs, the results produced may
differ even though the same method has been used.

For this reason, Austroads has developed two test methods to validate the measuring equipment, as follows:
• Austroads test method AGAM/T014, also known as the reference device method, validates equipment
by comparing the measurements of the test profilometer to the measurements from a calibrated
reference device such as the WDM TM2 or a stationary laser profiler. The test method also advises that
if these devices are not available, the volumetric sand patch method will be used as the reference
device.
• Austroads test method AGAM/T015, also known as the loop method, involves the comparison of surface
texture data from the profilometer requiring validation against a reference set of data collected by other
similar profilometers. The procedure was developed by Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
(RMS NSW) and has been used by a number of MAs.
6.3 Texture Depth Harmonisation Approach

MPD and SMTD have a strong linear relationship to volumetric methods, rendering local conversion
equations possible and so enabling the conversion of laser-measured outputs to manually measured
outputs. An example of such a conversion equation is documented in ISO 13473-1 (1997), which converts
texture from MPD to estimated texture depth (ETD), the term used when MPD is used to estimate the MTD
(Equation 1):
ETD = 0.8 x MPD + 0.2 1
Conversion equations such as the above allow comparisons to be made between texture data collected
using different collection methods and equipment. However, the above equation is not applicable to all
equipment employed by MAs. Hence, a conversion equation must be formulated for each piece of equipment
used to collect texture data. Conversion equations can be obtained by performing equipment validation using
one of the Austroads test methods mentioned above. The resulting conversion equation (Equation 2) will be
of the following form:
t ref = A . t Profilometer + B 2
where
texture calculated using the reference device (must report texture differently to the
tref =
profilometer in question)
tProfilometer = texture calculated using the laser profiler (MPD/SMTD)
A = regression equation slope
B = regression equation intercept.
2
The coefficient of determination, r , for each regression relationship between tref and tProfilometer must also be
determined.
In most data collection contracts, data providers are required to perform equipment validation checks using
one of the Austroads test methods stated above. Equipment validation is usually done annually (this
depends on contract specifications).

In order to harmonise texture data outputs, the following method is proposed:

1. Perform equipment validation on various surface types (as described in the Austroads test method) to
obtain the conversion formula (frequently based on individual contracts and those prescribed in the
Austroads test method).
2. Use the volumetric method as the reference device.
3. Apply the conversion equation during the data processing phase so that the resultant texture output will
be in the form of MPD.
4. Using this method, agencies that collect texture using different methods can produce a common data
output. This process is illustrated in Figure 6.2.
Figure 6.2: Texture depth harmonisation process
The working group accepted the proposed texture harmonisation approach and the principles outlined in the
method, such as the frequency of validation tests (annually) and the various types of surfacings, as
described in the Austroads test methods in Table 6.1 and Table 6.2. MRWA does not agree with the
volumetric method being used as the reference device as other alternatives are preferred, such as the WDM
TM2 which is a precision surface texture measurement device using a laser, pushed by hand to accurately
2
measure the profile of the road surface it is traversing .
6.4 Texture Data Output Specifications

Based on the above discussion, Table 6.1 outlines the minimum data requirements for reporting texture
based on these measures. Where MAs are unable to confirm whether the output data meets these
requirements, the additional information requirements outlined in Table 6.2 will be needed. Table 6.2 also
provides additional information so that users can assess the applicability of the data provided.
2
It is likely that DPTI (SA) would support the use of the WDM TM2 as a reference device.

Table 6.1: Texture depth standard output specifications
Measure Mean profile depth (MPD) which is an international standard
Measure description Measure of surface macrotexture reported in millimetres (mm) for both the outer
(left/passenger) wheel path and in-between wheel paths
Measure components Lane: lane estimated to be used by the majority of heavy vehicle traffic (assumed to be the
left-hand lane)
Wheel paths: left and in-between wheel path
Texture depth (mm)
Surface type: spray, concrete, asphalt etc.
Units Mm
Record precision Minimum one decimal place
Reporting segment length 100 m
Survey date Year and month of collection
Computation Correlation formula from MTD/SMTD to MPD in the form:

MPD = A ⋅ t Profilometer + B
Data collection • Austroads Test Method AGAM/T013 – Pavement Surface Texture Measurement with a
specification Laser Profilometer.
• Austroads Specification AGAM/S005 – Specification for Pavement Surface Texture
Measurement with a Laser Profilometer.
• Austroads Test Method AGPT/T250 – Modified Surface Texture Depth (Pestle Method).
• Austroads Test Method AGAM/T014 – Validation of a Laser Profilometer for Measuring
Pavement Surface Texture (Reference Device Method).
• Austroads Test Method AGAM/T015 – Validation of a Laser Profilometer for Measuring
Pavement Surface Texture (Loop Method).
• ISO 1997, International Standard ISO 13473-1 – Characterization of Pavement Texture
by use of Surface Profiles – Part 1: Determination of Mean Profile Depth.
• ASTM 2006, ASTM E 965 – Standard Test Method for Measuring Pavement
Macrotexture Depth using a Volumetric Technique. (Sand Patch Approach).
classifications, types and attributes. These requirements will be informed by the outcomes
of Element 3 of AT1484: Harmonisation of Location Referencing for Data Collection (refer
to Section 5.1 (Table 5.1))

Table 6.2: Texture depth additional data requirements for output specifications non-compliance
Compliance Additional information or

Example of
Attribute Description Y = yes alternative reporting if
non-compliance
N = no non-compliant
Measure Mean profile depth Y/N Texture reported in Provide conversion

other units (SMTD formula to MPD
or MTD)
Units mm Y/N
Record One decimal place Y/N Rounded to nearest Show raw values used
precision integer
Measure Lane: lane that is estimated to be Y/N For practicality, Lane ID must have
components the most heavily loaded by heavy survey is conducted identification to indicate
vehicles in outer lane, hence which lane the
most trafficked lane measurement is in
cannot be
guaranteed
Wheel path: left and between Y/N Right wheel path or Provide wheel path ID and
wheel path only left wheel path lane ID
Texture depth reported as MPD at Y/N Reported using Provide conversion

the collection date other measures formula to MPD, noting
such as MTD/SMTD which measure was used
Surface type Y/N Not reported Provide location of

different pavement surface
types across network
along with corresponding
MPD conversion formula
Recording 100 m Y/N Reported in other Provide raw data reporting

segment intervals intervals as mean or
length characteristic value or in
defined bins
Survey date Year Y/N Not included *Provide or indicate

survey/data collection year
Data • Austroads Test Method Y/N Internal agency Note the collection
collection AGAM/T013 specifications specification used
specification
• Austroads Specification
AGAM/S005
• ISO 1997, International
Standard ISO 13473-1
• Austroads Test Method
AGPT/T250
* The aim is to measure and report texture, not to attempt to report texture measurements at the same time across all
MAs.
The working group noted the minimum data and additional information requirements in Table 6.1 and
Table 6.2 and is committed to providing individual MA texture data practices as listed in Table 6.1.

6.5 Current Practice – Texture Output

This section outlines the current data practices of MAs relevant to the requirements of the data output
specifications. These practices are based on available information received from senior asset managers of
MAs and through interviews with ARRB data collection professionals responsible for MA road data collection
and supply.
6.5.1 Local Government Assessment
The practices of local government were unable to be assessed as part of this exercise. There are over 550
local government jurisdictions in Australia and New Zealand, with a wide variety of data collection,
processing, storage and reporting practices. The task of assessing the LGAs was simply too large for the
scope of this project.
However, each LGA should be able to perform a self-assessment based on the information in this report.
New Zealand local government authorities have standardised measurement practices to improve
consistency, although variability does occur due to the sampling approach.
It is noted again that these reporting specifications do not mandate the collection of any specific condition
attribute or implementation of data collection procedures, rather they provide an avenue for MAs to output
data in common formats regardless of data collection, processing, modelling and estimation procedures.
6.5.2 Texture Harmonisation Assessment
MA practice relevant to the texture data output specification is presented in Table 6.3.
It was noted that VicRoads performs a manual assessment of texture as part of its network-level surface
inspection rating (SIR) and uses this data for prioritisation of detailed field inspections and determination of
resurfacing treatment options in preference to automated results. VicRoads uses texture data from laser
profilometers for high-level analysis and to monitor state-wide network performance.

Table 6.3: Summary of MA practices for texture data relative to the specifications
Specification RMS VicRoads TMR (Qld) MRWA DPTI (SA) DSG (Tas) DoT (NT) TAMS NZTA
compliance (NSW) (ACT)
Texture Texture depth (MPD) Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y

measure
Variation to Collection lane (left or Left Left Left (or most Left Left Left All lanes All lanes All lanes
specification estimated most heavily heavily
trafficked?) trafficked)
Units in mm Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Accuracy to at least one Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
decimal place
Primary measure of SMTD SPTD Pre-2012–13: All MPD SMTD MPD SMTD SMTD
texture used SPTD SMTD and SPTD SPTD MPD
calculated
SPTD, 2012–
13 onwards:
MPD and
calculated
SPTD
100 m segments Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10 m
Survey date Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Specifications Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
(Austroads or ISO?)
Outer/passenger wheel Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
path texture
Between/centre wheel Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y
path texture
Additional Inner wheel path N N N N N Y N N Y
data relevant (driver) texture depth
to gap
analysis Correlation formula to N N N N N N N N N
MPD (convert
SMTD to
SPTD)

7. Cracking
Definition
Cracking is defined as the emergence of unplanned breaks or discontinuities in the integrity of the pavement
surface and can be described by type, severity and extent of cracking on the pavement surface.
The working group agreed to the above definition of cracking which is not in strict accordance with the
Austroads (2006) definition.

Methods for the collection of cracking data are separated into two categories, as follows:
• Manual inspections – identification of cracking by manually examining digital images collected from
network surveys, or physically surveying the road network at various locations.
• Automated inspections – vehicle-mounted cameras capture images of the road surface, and crack
recognition software processes the images either in real-time while the vehicle progresses, or by
electronic post-processing after completion of the survey.
Both types of methods measure cracking as a summary of cracks within a sample segment. Sample
segment lengths vary based on the method used. Surface cracking is usually summarised in terms of
dominant crack type, severity and extent for each sample segment. However, not all collection and reporting
methods will use all three classifications for cracking. The definitions of each cracking parameter as defined
in the Guide to Asset Management (Austroads 2006) are as follows:
• Crack type – the dominant crack type within the sample segment, e.g. longitudinal, crocodile,
transverse, etc.
• Cracking severity – average crack width in millimetres within the sample segment, usually described by
severity categories or ‘bins’.
• Cracking extent – the area affected by cracking as a percentage of the sample segment area (length of
segment multiplied by the surveyed lane width).
The working group reached the view that cracking severity should not be reported.
As previously discussed in Section 2.8, crack data is heavily influenced by the method of collection and
processing (mainly the post-processing of collected digital images). This is demonstrated when considering
the different methods currently being used. The following sections describe some of the current collection
and reporting mechanisms used by MAs.
7.1.1 Automated Crack Detection Methods
RoadCrack
RoadCrack is a vehicle-mounted fully automated machine vision system that can detect and classify cracks
in road pavements at highway speeds up to 100 km/h. RoadCrack does this by continuously collecting
images of the pavement surface and processing the images in real-time to identify any cracks (Ferguson &
Pratt 2002).

RoadCrack is capable of detecting cracks down to a width of 1 mm for sprayed seals, asphalt and concrete
surfaces. RoadCrack captures data on cracking over a pavement surface width of 2.4 m continuously along
the length of the road. The continuously recorded road data is pre-processed into 800 frames (600 mm wide
by 500 mm long) of road data for each 100 m road section. Assessing each frame, RoadCrack can identify
the dominant crack type for each frame (transverse, longitudinal, crocodile, straight or none) and crack width
in millimetres to the nearest two decimal places. The extent of cracking is then calculated as a percentage of
frames that contain cracks within the sample segment.
The system then summarises the survey data for every 100 m of road pavement and reports the severity
(average width in millimetres) and extent (percentage of frames that contain cracking) for each reported
crack type (longitudinal, transverse, crocodile, and straight-line cracks which are mainly joints and saw cuts).
Table 7.1 shows a sample report from a RoadCrack survey.
Table 7.1: Sample extract from a RoadCrack survey
Percentage area and average width (mm) of crack by type

Road location reference Road
surface Transverse Longitudinal Crocodile Straight
Chainage (km) temperature

Road Link (°C) Avg Avg Avg
% % % %
no. no. From To width width width
373 0010 0.0 0.1 23 5.5 2.28 14.1 2.29 1.2 1.90 5.2
373 0010 0.1 0.2 23 0.0 0.00 35.5 2.38 8.1 2.05 0
Source: RMS NSW – Extract from RoadCrack survey report.
Laser crack measuring system (LCMS)
LCMS is capable of detecting cracks down to a width of 1 mm, depending on the surface type. It captures
data on cracking over a pavement surface width of 4 m continuously along the length of the road. The
continuously recorded road data is processed into 5 m long images that are automatically analysed using
proprietary algorithms developed by the manufacturer of the equipment. The end result is a continuous crack
map which identifies the location and width of the crack on the pavement surface. The crack map is then
divided into frames and further analysed to produce a specified report output which is dependent on the
software used by the data providers.
DPTI SA and VicRoads have been using this technology for crack measurement on their road networks for
their recent pavement condition surveys. DSG Tasmania, NZ Transport Agency, TAMS ACT, RMS NSW,
MRWA and TMR have all conducted trials or are using LCMS for their current surveys.
Not all MAs have adopted the same reporting methodology. However, the digital nature of the data means
that it can be reprocessed at a later time to produce different cracking reports.
The working group also discussed the possibility of recommending a standard frame size for LCMS reporting
which would allow compatibility with RoadCrack results. However, it was felt that more research/analysis and
discussion between the MAs was needed before such a decision could be made.
The LCMS reporting methods currently used by MAs are described below.

DPTI (SA)
The reporting methodology proposed by DPTI SA (2013) divides the pavement into three longitudinal
channels across the pavement which are designated as outer wheel path, between wheel path and the inner
wheel path. Each channel is 1000 mm wide and is further divided into 1000 mm long lengths to create
frames that are 1000 mm wide by 1000 mm long. The crack types (transverse, longitudinal, crocodile,
straight or none) and crack width in millimetres are then determined for each frame. The predominant crack
type (type with the most number of cracked frames in a particular channel) is then reported for each channel
for each 100 m long road segment.
The extent of cracking using the LCMS can be calculated as a percentage of squares that contain cracks for
the individual channel or for the whole 100 m segment. A value for the average crack width (averaged over
the number of cracked squares) can be reported for each channel or segment. A value of crack intensity is
calculated by dividing the total crack length with an area. Two types of intensity are reported: across the
entire channel and intensity averaged over the number of cracked squares.
The output report is aggregated into 100 m segments for each channel. Given that each channel will have
100 squares per 100 m, the reported area will be the same as the reported number of squares. The output
requirements are summarised as follows for the outer wheel path, between wheel path and inner wheel path
channels for each 100 m segment:
• longitudinal cracked squares (no. of squares)
• straight features (trenches, patches – longitudinal and transverse) (no. of squares)
• crocodile cracked squares (no. of squares)
• transverse cracked squares (no. of squares)
• total cracked squares (longitudinal, crocodile and transverse) (no. of squares)
• total no. of squares (all squares surveyed within segment)
• crack type (type with the most number of cracked squares in particular segment)
• crack width averaged over no. of cracked squares, mm (all three types together)
• 2
crack intensity averaged over segment, m/m (all three types together)
• 2
crack intensity averaged over no. of cracked squares, m/m (all three types together).
All output values should be reported as ‘number of cracked squares’ unless otherwise specified, providing a
flexibility in reporting of cracking data if needed.
VicRoads
The VicRoads method for network cracking measurement is based on determining whether a pavement
appears to have been cracked, i.e. it measures visible cracking and repaired cracking (i.e. visible crack
sealing). It is purely a linear-based system that attempts to record the percentage of the length of the
surveyed lane (full lane width) that has a crack (or cracks) in it and does not record crack type or severity
(Austroads 2006).
The continuously recorded pavement images are divided into 2.5 m long frames covering the full width of the
lane. If an image contains a crack (no matter what type or size), the full frame is considered crack affected
(i.e. the full 2.5 m of pavement shown in the image is crack affected). Using this method, the software
identifies the number of frames that are cracked within the survey. The frames are then aggregated and
reported as a percentage of length cracked over sample segments of 100 m in length.
Whilst the cracking assessment is performed automatically, the outputs from each road are compared with
historical data and if the difference between two data sets falls outside a specified limit the images are
manually reviewed.

It should be noted that VicRoads also manually collects cracking as part of its network-level surface
inspection rating (SIR) and uses this data for prioritisation of detailed field inspections and determination of
resurfacing treatment options in preference to automated results.
TAMS (ACT)
The TAMS ACT reporting method for network cracking emulates the RoadCrack system. This is achieved by
limiting the analysis to the middle 2.4 m of the lane and dividing it into 10 contiguous sets of 4 cells that are
600 mm wide by 500 mm long. The cells are then analysed and reported as per RoadCrack protocols.
7.1.2 Manual Post-processing of Digital Images
Manual post-processing of digital images requires personnel to visually rate the digital images to identify the
crack type, severity and extent of cracking. There is currently no common standard method for the collection
and reporting of crack data using this approach. MAs tend to adopt or create their own specifications for
reporting crack data that are appropriate for their pavement management system (PMS). With the increased
use of digital imaging among local government authorities (LGAs), many Victorian LGAs have adopted
reporting specifications that are based on historical visual methods e.g. specifications set out in the SMEC
PMS manual (SMEC 2005). Given current digital image quality and available technology, video-rating
personnel can at best estimate the width of a crack to within a range of crack widths (e.g. > 3 mm or < 3 mm)
rather than a precise width to the nearest millimetre. The minimum crack width detectable in an image
recorded by a high-resolution camera directly facing the pavement is 1 mm.
Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland (TMR)
TMR used the LCMS for its most recent network survey, however, prior to this it manually post-processed
digital images obtained at speeds of 80 to 100 km/h covering the whole lane, including the left and right
wheel paths, to identify crack type (longitudinal, transverse or crocodile) and the extent and intensity of each
type. TMR definitions for type, extent, intensity and severity index are (Department of Main Roads 2002):
• Type – cracks are classified as either longitudinal, transverse or crocodile.
• Extent of crocodile or longitudinal cracking – the percentage of the length of the sample segment.
• Extent of transverse cracking – the number of transverse cracks in the sample segment.
• Intensity of crocodile cracking – rated as 0, 1 or 3; the ratings are defined as follows:
– rating 0 – where there is no crocodile cracking
– rating 1 – where the dominant plate diameter exceeds 300 mm
– rating 3 – where the dominant plate diameter is less than 300 mm.
• Intensity of longitudinal cracking is rated as 0–3 based on the number of longitudinal cracks and their
position in relation to the wheel path:
– rating 0 – where there are no longitudinal cracks
– rating 1 or 2 – where there are one or two longitudinal cracks between the wheel paths
– rating 3 – where there are three or more longitudinal cracks or at least one longitudinal crack in a
wheel path.
• Intensity is not measured for transverse cracking.
• Severity index is based on the matrix in Table 7.2, which is dependent on the extent and intensity of the
various crack types.

Table 7.2: Severity index matrix for crocodile, longitudinal and transverse cracking
Extent % of Crocodile or longitudinal cracking intensity Number of transverse Transverse

length 0 1 2 3 cracks per km cracking
severity
Crocodile or longitudinal cracking severity index index (TCSI)
From To From To
(CCSI or LCSI)
0 2 0 0 0 0 0 20 0
3 20 0 1 1 2 21 100 1
21 50 0 2 2 3 101 300 2
51 100 0 3 3 3 301 999 3
7.1.3 Manual Visual Rating (ROCOND 90)
Manual visual rating of the pavement surface for cracking involves personnel inspecting the sample segment
on foot. A manual method for classifying cracking is documented in ROCOND 90 (Roads and Traffic
Authority 1990).
In this method, the road network is split into individual management segment lengths of between 0.5 km and
1.75 km. The cracking classification of each management segment is represented by a gauging length that is
50 m long and is selected by the rater to be representative of the average cracking condition over the total
trafficable area of the management segment. The full lane width of the gauging length is used to measure
the cracking. The survey must be conducted on the two most heavily trafficked lanes; for most roads this is
assumed to be the two most outer (left) lanes.
For each gauging length, the rater must identify the:

• start position of the gauging length relative to the start position of the management segment (in metres)
in the preferred direction
• width of the gauging length being rated measured in metres
• area of the gauging length being rated in m .
2
Cracking on each gauging length is reported by type, severity and extent. The cracking type is the
predominant type of cracking within the gauging length. Table 7.3 describes the three types of cracking and
how they are identified during the survey.
Table 7.3: Crack type classification
Type Code Type description
Crocodile C Consists of interconnected or interlaced cracks forming a series of small polygons
Running longitudinally along the pavement. It may be wandering in plan to some extent, but
Longitudinal L approximately parallel to the road centreline and does not exhibit strongly developed
transverse branches
Transverse T Running transversely across the pavement
Source: Roads and Traffic Authority (1990).
The severity of cracking is defined by the predominant average crack width within the gauging length. The
average crack width is measured using the crack width scale. The severity is reported as a range of crack
widths rather than the exact measured crack width. Table 7.4 shows the different severity classifications and
the range of crack widths they represent.

Table 7.4: Crack severity classification
Description Code Dimension
Slight S < 2 mm
Moderate M 2 to < 5 mm
Extreme X ≥ 5 mm
The extent of cracking is defined as the percentage of the total gauging length area that is crack affected.
The affected area of cracking at a location is defined to be rectangular in shape and dependent upon the
extremities of the cracking.
The affected area for single longitudinal cracking is defined as the product of the length and a width of 0.3 m.
If branching or meandering of the crack affects a more extensive width, then the affected width is used in the
calculation. Similarly, the width of the area affected by transverse cracks is taken as 0.3 m unless it is more
extensive. The extent of cracking is reported as a range of percentage categories rather than the exact crack
affected area. Table 7.5 shows the different extent classifications and the range of crack affected area
percentages they represent.
Table 7.5: Crack extent classification
Code Description
0 0% to < 1% affected area in the two-lane 50 m gauging length area

1 1% to < 5% affected area in the 50 m gauging length area
2 5% to < 15% affected area in the 50 m gauging length area
3 ≥ 15% affected area in the 50 m gauging length area
–1 Not applicable (e.g. rigid pavement)
7.2 Current Practice

As part of the AT1484 component, Review of Specifications for the Collection of Digital Road Imaging
(Austroads 2010), a survey was sent to MAs requesting their response on whether digital images were used
to collect cracking data and what was the alternative method if digital images were not used. The results of
the survey indicated that the majority of MAs used fully automated (RoadCrack) or partially automated (post-
processing of digital images) methods to collect network-level cracking data. However, in recent times there
has been a definite shift to fully automated methods, particularly LCMS, as shown in Table 7.6.

Table 7.6: Austroads MAs cracking data collection methods
Member agency Current data collection method
RMS (NSW) RoadCrack

VicRoads LCMS and surface inspection rating
TMR (Qld) LCMS
MRWA LCMS
DPTI (SA) LCMS
DSG (TAS) LCMS
DoT (NT) Visual (NT sealed road visual assessment survey)
TAMS (ACT) LCMS
NZTA LCMS
ALGA ROCOND 90 and SMEC (Manual/visual assessment based on sampling)
The working group representatives have responded individually to confirm their crack data collection
3
practices (see Table 7.9) .
It is clear that the majority of MAs use fully automated (LCMS and RoadCrack) methods to collect
network-level cracking data. However, some MAs still perform manual inspections on parts of their network
for cracking data. It should be noted that these manual inspections are based on initiating resurfacing works
and are not part of a network-level assessment.
7.3 Data Output Issues

Cracking data is essentially obtained through post-processing of digital images of the pavement surface
either manually or automatically; therefore, how these images are processed determines how cracking is
reported (i.e. the data output format). The automated post-processing methods used in systems such as
RoadCrack are well documented and the output is standardised. However, specifications for manual post-
processing of digital images vary significantly between MAs and, hence, so does the manner in which
cracking is reported.
Correlations between the various cracking data outputs need to be developed to ensure harmonisation. This
exercise would involve using the same pavement conditions subject to the different collection, processing
and output reporting approaches.
MAs quantify cracking using one or more of the following measures: type, severity and extent. The rating
methods employed to report these three components differ between MAs and present the biggest challenge
to harmonisation of cracking data output. This is shown in Section 7.1 as crack reporting for VicRoads and
TMR differs greatly. A disparity in data reporting also exists between those MAs that use manual visual
inspection methods and those that use automated methods, as most automated or partially automated
methods report cracking over 100 m segments and usually cover a large percentage of, or the full, network.
However, manual inspections report cracking using small segments of road, which represent larger
management segments that vary in length.
3
This table was compiled early in the project using responses from the jurisdictions and may not reflect current practice.

7.3.1 Type
Collection methods use different descriptions for crack types, for example RoadCrack only classifies cracks
as either transverse, longitudinal or crocodile. Other methods may classify cracks using a larger range of
descriptors such as diagonal, irregular or block cracking.
The working group response to this is provided in Section 7.4.2.
7.3.2 Severity
Severity in the majority of collection methods is represented as the average crack width measured in
millimetres within the segment. RoadCrack measures severity in millimetres on a continuous numerical scale
to the precision of two decimal places. However, for the MAs that use manual post-processing of digital
images, severity is often reported as a category or bins (severity as a range of values, e.g. Class 1 severity
with crack width of between 3 mm and 5 mm). The classification of bins differs between MAs based on their
individual PMS, which reduces the comparability of cracking data from different road agencies. Obtaining
severity using post-processing of digital images is also hampered by the quality of digital images where
cracks less than 3 mm wide are difficult to detect on screen and may be missed by video raters, which can
greatly inflate the average crack width and reduce the extent of cracking. For some MAs, severity may be
defined as something different again. For example, it may be expressed as a combination of other factors
and it is used as an indicator for when to apply certain treatments.
7.3.3 Extent
Extent of cracking is often determined as the crack-affected area expressed as a percentage of the total
surveyed area. However, as seen in Section 7.1, extent may also be expressed as a percentage of the total
length of pavement that is crack affected.
The calculation of crack-affected area may also differ between methods; for example, RoadCrack calculates
the area by using the number of frames that are cracked as a percentage of the total number of frames,
while in ROCOND 90 the cracked area is taken as 0.3 m multiplied by the length of the crack. One of the
major disparities between collection methods is the accuracy of the calculation of extent. As post-processing
of digital images is susceptible to rater error and quality of images, the extent of cracking is often
underestimated as raters may fail to identify some cracks, or simply the image was not able to detect the
crack at all. As with severity, extent is reported in bins by some MAs.
7.4 Harmonisation of Cracking Output Data
7.4.1 Reporting Interval
It is suggested that network-level cracking data be collected using automated or partially automated
methods, and reported at 100 m intervals for the following reasons:
• It is a consistent reporting length with other attributes (i.e. roughness and rutting).
• It is consistent with current MA practices as specified in data collection contract documents.
The working group noted that in urban areas cracking data may be collected at more frequent intervals than
100 m, although it was agreed that all reporting should be at 100 m intervals.

7.4.2 Crack Type Output Specification
It is proposed that crack type will be reported as the dominant type within each 100 m reporting segment.
The dominant type represents the type of cracking that covers the largest percentage area over the 100 m
reporting segment.
The working group considered that the dominant crack type was the one that had the greatest impact on the
performance of the area affected by cracking.
In order to cover the full range of cracking that may occur in pavements, it is suggested that the following five
types of cracking be used to report any visible cracking:
1. Longitudinal – linear cracks that run longitudinally along the pavement surface.
2. Transverse – unconnected linear cracks running transverse to the pavement surface.
3. Crocodile/block – interconnected or interlaced cracks forming a series of small polygons resembling a
crocodile skin. May be also referred to as alligator or polygon cracking.
4. Block – interconnected cracks forming a series of blocks approximately rectangular in shape that are
usually distributed over the whole pavement.
5. Irregular – used to describe irregular cracks that do not fall in the above four types and includes
meandering, diagonal, crescent-shaped and corner or edge cracking. Any of the following crack types
will be reported as an irregular crack:
– meandering – unconnected irregular cracks varying in line and direction
– diagonal – unconnected cracks running diagonally across the pavement surface
– crescent – crescent-shaped or half-moon-shaped cracks that occur in closely spaced parallel
groups
– corner or edge cracking – cracking across the corner or near an edge of a rigid slab.
The working group considered that types 1, 2 and 3 were the most dominant and sufficient to report crack
type. This was done in consideration of the different equipment used to collect cracking and that all the
equipment considered will be able to produce these crack types.
7.4.3 Crack Severity Output Specification
It is proposed that crack severity be defined and reported as the average crack width in millimetres over the
100 m reporting interval. Manual visual (walk over) methods and RoadCrack and LCMS are able to report
severity in millimetres. However, there is currently no technology that will allow video raters to determine the
width of a crack to such precision via post-processing of digital images. Therefore, it is suggested that the
severity be expressed as a class or category for the harmonised report. Two categories for crack severity are
suggested:
• narrow – cracks that are less than 3 mm wide
• wide – cracks that are more than 3 mm wide.
These are the current cracking severity categories used in SMEC PMS Version 4.3 (SMEC 2005) and are in
accordance with HDM-4 models (Morosiuk et al. 2006). Collection methods that achieve a higher level of
precision, such as RoadCrack and LCMS and manual visual methods, can continue reporting cracking at a
higher level of precision (best practice). However, they will need to convert their current severity ratings into
the above categories when reporting cracking in accordance with this specification.
The working group decided to eliminate the crack severity reporting categories as they are not generally
used in deterioration modelling.

7.4.4 Crack Extent Output Specification
It is proposed that the extent of cracking be reported as the area affected by cracking as a percentage of the
total surveyed area (assumed to be 0.5 m affected segment width, that is, the affected area is considered to
be 250 mm either side of the crack). The total surveyed area will be the product of the survey length and
survey lane width. To improve comparability, extent will be expressed as a percentage using a continuous
numerical scale as opposed to being expressed in bins (e.g. the extent of cracking is 38% of the total area of
the 100 m survey segment).
The working group agreed to define crack extent as a percentage of the total lane area. As RoadCrack and
other crack measurement and reporting methods define crack extent as the percentage of the wheel track, or
number of frames (in the case of the LCMS) that are cracked, a correlation between the percentage of wheel
track area that is cracked and the percentage of the total lane area that is cracked needs to be undertaken
for harmonisation.
7.5 Proposed Harmonisation Approach

As seen from the discussion so far, the predominant method used for the collection of network-level cracking
data is through the post-processing of collected digital images either manually (trained video raters) or
automatically (e.g. RoadCrack). The resulting cracking data reported is therefore heavily influenced by the
post-processing method employed. Data obtained using automatic methods can be further processed to
achieve the specified data outputs. However, since there are currently no standard specifications for manual
post-processing of images, MAs which use manual ratings tend to have varying methods designed primarily
to suit the reporting and data needs of their PMS. In order to harmonise data outputs for cracking and to
measure the cracking as defined in the crack output report, a standard procedure must be used for
suggested standard post-processing methods. However, employing a standard post-processing method may
result in higher costs in collecting cracking data.
MAs that report cracking data at a coarser level than the crack output specification will need to employ more
time and processing effort (or increased procurement time from their nominated data supplier) to produce the
specified outputs. For example, post-processing methods can be used to rate and estimate crack lengths
from digital images to produce the specified outputs.
The working group members were asked to consider and provide comment on the proposed harmonisation
approach for cracking data that is collected by manual post-processing of digital images.
The working group noted that two road agencies (RMS NSW and VicRoads) cannot post-process cracking
data collected by manual or automated post-processing of images.
7.6 Cracking Data Reporting

Based on the proposed cracking output specifications discussed in the previous sections, Table 7.7 outlines
the minimum requirements for reporting cracking data. Where MAs are unable to confirm whether the output
data meets these requirements, the additional information requirements outlined in Table 7.8 will be needed.

Table 7.7: Cracking standard output specifications outline
Measure Crack type
Measure description Description of the dominant type of cracking visible on the pavement surface
Units Three types of cracking will be used
longitudinal transverse crocodile/block
Measure Crack severity **
Measure description The dominant crack width of all cracks within the surveyed area**
Units Expressed as either narrow (< 3 mm) or wide (> 3 mm)**
Measure Crack extent
Measure description The area of the pavement affected by cracking as a percentage of the total surveyed lane
area
Units Expressed as % of total surveyed lane area (where lane area is the product of the lane
width and segment length)
Record precision Nearest decimal place
Measure components Lane estimated to carry the highest amount of traffic
Full lane width
Cracking classified into two types (type and extent)
Reporting segment length 100 m
Data collection As per internal agency specifications
specification
classifications, types and attributes. These requirements will be informed by the earlier
outcomes of AT1484: Harmonisation of Location Referencing for Data Collection. Refer to
Section 6.1
** Working group decided not to measure crack severity.
Table 7.8: Additional data requirements for cracking standard output specifications non-compliance
Attribute Description Compliance Example variation Equipment Additional information or

Y = yes from specification used alternative reporting if
Units Specified Y/N Crack type described Automated or Provide equivalent crack
crack types in other terms manual type or description of crack
measurement type so that it can be
matched with proposed
standard crack types
Define pavement surfacing

type and equipment used to
collect the data
Units Expressed as Y/N Expressed as % length Must be shown as % of area
% of total
pavement
area
Record One decimal Y/N Rounded to nearest % Show raw numbers pre-
precision place rounded

Attribute Description Compliance Example variation Equipment Additional information or

Y = yes from specification used alternative reporting if
Measure Lane: Y/N For practicality, survey Automated or Provide traffic data of the
components collected in is conducted in outer manual lane surveyed so
estimated lane, hence most measurement comparisons can be made.
most heavily trafficked cannot be Lane ID must have
trafficked guaranteed identification to indicate
lane which lane it is
Full lane Y/N Wheel path cracking
width
Cracking Y/N Missing cracking
classified in categories or classified
all three in totally different scale
measures
Recording 100 m Y/N Output reported for Provide raw data so that it
segment lengths other than 100 may be converted to 100 m
length m intervals
Survey date Year Y/N Not included Must include
The working group reviewed Table 7.7 and Table 7.8 and made minor amendments to remove crack severity
measurements.
7.7 Current Practice – Cracking Output

specifications. The practices are based on available information received from senior asset managers from
and supply.
The practices of local government were unable to be assessed as part of this exercise. There are currently
over 550 local government jurisdictions in Australia and New Zealand, with a wide variety of data collection,
However, each LGA should be able to perform a self-assessment based on the information contained in this
report. New Zealand local government authorities have standardised measurement practices to improve
7.7.2 Cracking Harmonisation Assessment
MA practices relevant to the cracking data output specifications are presented in Table 7.9.

Table 7.9: Summary of road agency practices for cracking data relative to the specifications
DPTI DSG TAMS
Specification compliance RMS (NSW) VicRoads TMR (Qld) MRWA DoT (NT) NZTA
(SA) (Tas) (ACT)
Cracking Collection and calculation RoadCrack LCMS and LCMS LCMS LCMS LCMS Manual LCMS LCMS
measure method SIR visual
Measure Collection lane (estimated Y Y Left (or All Y Y Y All through Y
components most heavily trafficked?) most lanes (asphalt Left lane Left lane All lanes lanes Both
heavily metro)
trafficked) Slow
lane (rural
spray seal)
Full lane width Y Y Y N (wheel N (3 m) Y Y Y Y
paths)
100 m segments Y Y Y N (10 m) Y Y N Y N
Homogenous Treatment
sections of length
varying
lengths
Date Y Month and Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
year
Cracking Crack type Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y
classifications Specified types Y N Y Under Y Y N Y Y
development
Crack severity Not required by N Y Under Y Y Y Y N
spec. development
Specified as wide or narrow Not required by N N Under Y(1) N Y N N
spec. development
Crack extent Y N Y Under Y Y Y Y Y
development Length
Units as % of total surveyed Y N Y Under Y(2) Y Y Y N
area development Only
length
Cracking reported using Y (severity not N Y Under Y Y N Y Y
type, severity and extent required by development (severity and Type and
spec.) extent only) length
Additional data Alternative crack rating N N N N Y N N N N
required components
1 Width is averaged over the number of cracked squares and can be further categorised.
2 A different percentage may be produced by the segmentation DPTI uses with 1000 mm by 1000 mm squares over a 3 m survey width.

8. Strength
Definition
Strength represents the ability of a pavement structure to withstand cumulative repeated heavy axle loadings
before the pavement shows unacceptable signs of structural and other forms of distress which can seriously
compromise its function. (Austroads 2008)
Removal of the words after ‘axle loadings’ was suggested by the working group members from DSG (Tas)
and DPTI (SA) because these words describe failure rather than strength.

A pavement’s strength is largely dependent on its structure and composition. The various test methods
available for the assessment of the structural capacity of the pavement can be divided into two categories:
• Destructive testing – tests that involve the collection of test samples directly from the site to obtain the
pavement composition and condition, such as pit or trench sampling and for asphalt pavements or
bound cemented materials direct coring of the pavement. The samples taken from the site are then
tested in the laboratory to determine the strength of the pavement.
• Non-destructive testing – test methods used to measure the deflection of the pavement from an applied
load which simulates the effect of axle loads on the pavement structure. The strength of the pavement is
then determined by the magnitude and shape of the deflection bowl (Figure 8.3).
As destructive testing is time consuming and costly, in Australasia network-level strength data is collected
using deflection testing techniques. There are currently three devices commonly used in Australia and New
Zealand to assess the structural capacity of the pavement via the determination of a deflection bowl. These
devices are:
• Benkelman beam (BB) – tests at discrete points, suitable only for small networks due to its relatively
slow rate of testing.
• Deflectograph (DFG) – conducts almost continuous testing at a constant speed of 3 to 4 km/h.
• Falling weight deflectometer (FWD) or heavy weight deflectometer (HWD) – discrete test points. (A
lightweight deflectometer (LWD) is used for compaction testing of pavement layers. It is not usually used
for testing whole pavements.)
Developments in high-speed deflection-capture devices are now being implemented in Australasia. High-speed
deflection devices are capable of capturing strength data at highway speeds of up to 80 km/h. The Danish
traffic speed deflectometer (TSD) was trialled and tested in Australia and became operational in 2014.
A description of the devices is provided below.
8.1.1 Benkelman Beam (BB)
A BB measures relative deflection of a pivot beam to a base beam at a point on the pavement while the test
wheel load (normally the rear axle of a rigid truck) rolls slowly (at 4 to 5 km/h) along the pavement surface.
During BB testing, the operator walks behind the truck, which stops at each test point while the BB is set in
position for the test (Austroads 2008).
For a BB, the standard test load consists of an 80 kN single axle dual tyre (SADT – standard axle) applying a
surface stress of 550 kPa (measured through the tyre pressure) under the 80 kN test load. The BB can
measure the relative deflection up to any desired distance offset from the centre of the test load.

8.1.2 Deflectograph (DFG)
A DFG is similar to a pair of short BBs mounted on a sled under the chassis of a host truck. As the truck
moves forward at a fairly constant speed of about 3 to 4 km/h, the DFG beam is placed for testing, lifted and
re-placed in a continuous cycle. The test load is applied through the moving dual wheels on the rear axle of
the host truck (Austroads 2008). The DFG records downwards deflections in half deflection bowls in both
wheel paths with almost continuous sampling at longitudinal spacing of between 3 and 7 m and at a series of
offsets 50 mm apart up to at least 1200 mm in front of the applied standard test load. The DFG applies the
axle load to the moving wheels in each wheel path at a nominal surface stress of 750 kPa consistent with the
Guide to Asset Management – Part 5D: Strength (Austroads 2008).
Four versions of this truck-mounted device are in use in Australia, all of which are based on the Lacroix
deflectograph:
• the deflectograph designed and built by the then New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority based
on the Lacroix specifications which have a load application of 8.2 tonne via the standard axle (80 kN)
• the pavement strength evaluator (PaSE) designed and built by VicRoads which uses a longer wheel
base and beam length (beams are 2.4 m as opposed to the standard 1.2 m) and applies a 9.2 tonne
axle load
• the PAVDEF designed by TMR
• the deflectograph designed and built by WDM (UK) to DPTI (SA) specifications with an 8.8 tonne axle
load.
8.1.3 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)
The FWD and HWD are trailer-mounted devices that record half deflection bowls at discrete test points on
the pavement surface. At each discrete location, the shape of the deflection bowl is recorded by measuring
surface deflection at distances ranging from 0 mm to a user-defined maximum (normally 1500 mm, but can
be up to 2400 mm) from the centre of an impulse test load (Austroads 2008).
The load is applied to the pavement surface through a standard loading plate normally 300 mm in diameter
by a falling weight with a variable drop height while the FWD or HWD device is at rest. With FWD and HWD
testing, various test loads can be applied to the pavement, the most common target loads for flexible
pavement application being 40 kN and 50 kN (Austroads 2008). The resultant surface stress is therefore
different depending on the load applied (550 kPa and 700 kPa respectively).
8.1.4 Traffic Speed Deflectometer (TSD)
Several TSD devices have been constructed by Greenwood Engineering in Denmark and were in use at the
time this project was initiated. The TSD design (Figure 8.1) comprises a truck with a 10 tonne load applied
on a rear, dual-tyred, single axle (SADT). The velocity of the deflected pavement surface under this load is
measured using a minimum of four Doppler laser sensors positioned at different distances from the centre of
the load (i.e. the dual tyres). All sensors are aligned in a single wheel path. In the set-up for Australian trials
the Doppler sensors were positioned at 100, 200 and 300 mm offsets from the centre of the wheel load. The
fourth sensor was positioned at 3.6 m ahead of the load and used as a reference sensor (Austroads 2012).
The TSD in current operation in Australasia is fitted with seven Doppler lasers for an improved definition of
the deflection bowl.

Figure 8.1: Illustration of a TSD
Source: Baltzer (2009).
The lasers are mounted on a rigid steel beam housed in a closed container. The height of the container
above the road surface is monitored by a distance measuring laser (16 KHz Selcom laser) mounted under
the container. Data from this laser is used by the control system to adjust the height of the rigid beam to
ensure that the Doppler lasers stay in focus.
Besides the laser systems, the TSD is equipped with an inertial unit (consisting of gyroscopes and
accelerometers), an odometer/encoder, an accelerometer, temperature gauges and a GPS system. The
collected data is treated in a specialised TSD post-processing software program, TSD for Windows, which
outputs base-level data such as pavement velocity as well as processed pavement condition indicators.
The device collects deflection readings every millisecond which is virtually continuous. The use of non-
contact laser sensors in the TSD allows the device to collect pavement deflection data at much higher survey
speeds and with the need for either little or no additional traffic control measures.
8.2 Strength Data Harmonisation
8.2.1 Deflection Data Adjustment
When conducting deflection testing, the shape of the deflection bowl depends on a number of factors as
described in the Guide to Asset Management – Part 5D: Strength (Austroads 2008):
• The magnitude of the standard load (usually measured in kN, typically 40 kN or 50 kN) and the shape of
the means of load delivery to the pavement surface (i.e. load applied using truck tyres (BB and DFG) or
from a circular loading plate (FWD)) which in turn affects the magnitude of pressure applied to the pavement.
• Speed of delivery of the load can have a significant effect because the loaded properties of some
pavement materials (especially asphalt) are affected by the rate at which the load is applied.
• Climatic effects, moisture and temperature can have a significant effect on the depth and shape of the
deflection bowl measured. This is especially the case for asphalt pavements as well as for pavements
with reactive soils.

Hence, deflection measurements will differ depending on the time of day, the month of the year and the
equipment used. In order to produce a set of deflection data that is harmonised, all deflection data must be:
• adjusted for temperature (where asphalt surfaces are greater than 25 mm thick) and for
climatic/seasonal variations which will require considerable effort to develop
• normalised to a standard application stress or load
• correlated if obtained from different equipment.
8.2.2 Correlation between Deflection Devices
The correlation between different deflection devices poses the biggest challenge, as it varies depending on
the type of pavement. The correlation that has been provided in the Austroads Guide (Austroads 2008) is
mainly based on sealed granular pavements; use of these relationships on other types of pavements is not
possible.
The results obtained from a recent Austroads trial of the TSD follow a similar trend to the data produced by
DFG, FWD and TSD (Figure 8.2). However, they do not provide a direct correlation. An extensive data
collection exercise is required to determine correlation equations for all pavement types using different
deflection devices. The pavement composition and depth of each pavement layer must be known for the test
sites in order to better understand the correlation between devices.
Figure 8.2: Maximum deflection comparisons between DFG, FWD and TSD
Source: Austroads (2012).
8.2.3 Measurement Offsets
The shape of the deflection bowl is characterised by the deflection at various offsets along the pavement
from the origin of the load. For example, as shown in Figure 8.3, the deflection at 200 mm offset is denoted
D200 and the deflection directly under the load is denoted D0.

Figure 8.3: Pavement deflection bowl under applied load
1500 mm
1200 mm
900 mm
600 mm
300 mm
200 mm
D600
D0 D200 D300
D900 D1200 D1500
The shape of the deflection bowl is important when determining the strength of the pavement. Based on the
Guide to Pavement Technology – Part 5: Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Design (Austroads 2011c), the
D0 (maximum deflection) value is used to measure the pavement’s ability to resist permanent deformation. The
curvature (D0–D200) is used to measure the pavement’s ability to resist fatigue. The D300 and D200 values are
used to estimate D250 which is used in the ratio D250/D0 (Scala 1979) to eliminate cemented base pavements
from the estimate of network pavement strength because of the different performance characteristics of these
pavements. Based on this it is suggested that the deflections at D0, D200 and D300 are the key locations required
when reporting network-level strength data. Curvature values (D0–D200) should also be reported as they are
required as part of rehabilitation design procedures.
8.2.4 Reporting Intervals and Values
At a network level, deflection data should be reported at 100 m intervals as this is in line with other network
condition data. It is suggested that the characteristic and mean values of maximum deflection and curvature
be reported as these values are used in the rehabilitation design procedures. As the collection rates with the
various devices are different with DFG collecting data at 4 m intervals and the TSD able to collect data every
20 mm, data needs to be aggregated into 100 m intervals. When collecting network data using the FWD,
which collects data at discrete points, it is suggested that a minimum of 10 values (one at every 10 m) is
collected within each 100 m reporting interval in order to obtain a meaningful characteristic and mean value.
The characteristic values are described in the Guide to Pavement Technology – Part 5: Pavement Evaluation
and Treatment Design (Austroads 2011c).
8.2.5 Harmonisation Approach
In order to harmonise deflection data, extensive testing is required to obtain correlation relationships between
the devices when used on different pavement types. As a means of overcoming this extensive correlation
process between devices, it is likely that in the future a single device could be used by all road agencies. It is
envisaged that the TSD, once it is tested and validated, will be the single device of choice used to collect
network-level strength data as it will be able to collect data at high speeds and at high resolution. The other
devices would still be useful at project-level data collection for detailed treatment design.
However, existing network-level strength data historically has been collected by BB (on small networks),
DFG and FWD. Consequently, the deflections measured by the BB, DFG and FWD would have to be related
to TSD deflections for harmonisation and to permit measurements of the historical changes to network-level
strength to be monitored over time. The FWD may have some value as a short-term reference device so that
future TSD data can be linked with the historical FWD data. This is because the FWD has correlation
equations with BB and DFG for certain pavement types. However, correlations with FWD deflection and
other deflection devices are not particularly robust.

The principles of harmonisation applied to strength were agreed by the working group. However, while the
use of a single device, the TSD, may be appropriate in the short to medium term, it should not preclude the
use of innovative technologies incorporated in future devices that become available.
8.3 Strength Data Output Specifications

Based on the above discussion, Table 8.1 outlines the minimum data requirements for reporting strength
based on these measures. Where agencies are unable to confirm that the output data meets these
requirements, the additional information requirements outlined in Table 8.2 will be needed.
Table 8.1: Strength data output specifications

Measure FWD deflection bowl(1) at D0, D200, D300
Measure description Measure of pavement strength as characterised by the shape of the deflection bowl
Measure components Lane: lane estimated to be used by the majority of heavy vehicle traffic (assumed to be the
left-hand lane)
Wheel path: outer wheel path (OWP)
Drop weight 700 kPa (50 kN FWD)
Units Microns (μm) normalised to 700 kPa (50 kN FWD)
Record precision One decimal place
Reporting intervals 10 m (minimum for project level); 100 m (maximum for network level)
Survey date Time of day, month and year of survey
Temperature Surface temperature (°C)
WMAPT (weighted mean (°C)
annual pavement
temperature)
Surfacing type Asphalt: yes/no
Asphalt thickness (mm)
Seasonal/climatic Seasonal factor applied to deflection data (one decimal place)
adjustment
Computation If deflection collected by devices other than FWD use correlation relationship to derive
equivalent FWD deflection from other devices
Data collection • Austroads Specification AGAM/S002 – Specification for Pavement Deflection
specification Measurement with a Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD).
• Austroads Specification AGAM/S003 – Specification for Pavement Deflection
Measurement with a Deflectograph.
• Austroads Test Method AGAM/T006 – Pavement Deflection Measurement with a Falling
Weight Deflectometer
• Austroads Test Method AGAM/T007 – Pavement Deflection Measurement with a
Deflectograph
• Austroads Test Method AGAM/T008 – Validation and Repeatability Checks for a
Deflectograph
• ASTM 2009, D4695-09 – Standard Test Method for Deflections with a Falling Weight
Type Impulse Load Device
classifications, types and attributes. These requirements will be informed by the earlier
outcomes of Element 3 of AT1484: Harmonisation of Location Referencing For Data
Collection
1 The TSD may become the reference deflection device as it becomes more widely used by MAs.

Table 8.2: Additional data requirements for strength output specifications non-compliance
Attribute Description Compliance Example variation from Additional Information or
Y = yes specification alternate reporting if
Measure FWD deflection bowl at Y/N Deflection bowl Provide additional
D0, D200, D300 characterised by different information to estimate
offsets deflection bowl shape at
specified offsets
Drop weight The pressure of the load Y/N Load pressure varies from Provide correlation
applied to pavement the standard load of 50 kN equation to equivalent FWD
FWD deflection
Units Microns (μm) Y/N
Record One decimal place Y/N Rounded to nearest integer Show raw values used
precision
Measure Lane: lane estimated to be Y/N For practicality, survey is Lane ID must have
components used by the majority of conducted in outer lane, identification to indicate
heavy vehicle traffic hence most trafficked lane which lane the
(assumed to be the cannot be guaranteed measurement is in
left-hand lane
Wheel path: outer wheel Y/N Measured at inner or right Provide wheel path ID and
path (OWP) wheel path lane ID
Reporting 10 m (minimum for project Y/N Reported in other intervals
interval level) greater than 50 m
100 m (maximum for
network level)
Survey date Time of day, month and Y/N Not included Provide estimated month
year of survey and year of survey
Temperature Surface temperature (°C) Y/N No temperature reported Provide air temperature of
the day or month that it was
tested in
Data • Austroads Specification Y/N International or internal Note the collection
collection AGAM/S002 agency specification is used specification used
specification • Austroads Test method
AGAM/T006
The working group reviewed the information requirements outlined in Table 8.1 and Table 8.2 for strength. In
response to this, DSG (Tas) and DPTI (SA) noted that the TSD is likely to become the reference device for
deflection once it becomes more widely used by the MAs. DPTI (SA) noted that the minimum data
requirements are reasonable, but may not be achieved due to resource constraints. Other MAs had no
comment on the information requirements in Table 8.1 and Table 8.2.
8.4 Current Practice – Strength Output

specification. The practices are based on available information received from senior asset managers from
and supply.
The practices of local government were unable to be assessed as part of this exercise. There are currently
over 550 local government jurisdictions in Australia and New Zealand, with a wide variety of data collection,

However, each LGA should be able to perform a self-assessment based on the information contained in this
report. New Zealand local government authorities have standardised measurement practices to improve
8.4.2 Strength Harmonisation Assessment
MA practices relevant to the strength data output specifications are presented in Table 8.3.

Table 8.3: Summary of road agency practices for strength data relative to the specifications
Specification RMS VicRoads TMR (Qld) MRWA DPTI (SA) DPTI (SA) DSG (Tas) DoT (NT) TAMS (ACT) NZTA
compliance (NSW) deflectograph FWD deflectograph
Measure Deflection Yes Deflection is Yes D0, D200, D0, D50, D100, D0, D200, D300, D0 and D200 Yes Yes Yes,
bowl at D0, registered D300, D150, D200, D450, D600, including
D200, D300 every D400, D250, D300, D900, D1200, D450, D600,
offsets 50 mm, D500, D350, D400, D1500, D1800 D750, D900,
starting D600, D500, D600, D1200, D1500
0 mm and D750, D700, D800, D900
ending at D900,
700 mm D1500
from the
axle
Collection Collection Left Most heavily Typically Usually Outer lane (for Both Left Yes Left lane Left lane
parameters lane (left or trafficked left, but as most P and R all
estimated lane requested heavily lanes)
most heavily trafficked
trafficked?) and as
required
Collection Outer Both wheel Both As Both OWP Both Yes Outer wheel Outer wheel
wheel path paths required, path path
(outer or inner usually
or both wheel outer or
paths) inner
Drop weight 700 kPa 9.2 tonne 40 kN or 566 kPa 8.8 tonne 566 kPa 8.2 tonnes 550 kPA 50 kN 40 kN
(pressure of 60 kN and 700 corrected to (40 kN)
the load kPa as 8.2 tonne
applied to required
pavement)

Specification RMS VicRoads TMR (Qld) MRWA DPTI (SA) DPTI (SA) DSG (Tas) DoT (NT) TAMS (ACT) NZTA
compliance (NSW) deflectograph FWD deflectograph
Reporting Units of Yes mm Yes Yes mm mm mm Yes Yes Yes

parameters reporting (μm)
Record Yes Two decimal Two Yes 3 3 3 Yes No decimal Yes

precision (one places decimal places
decimal place) places
Reporting 100 m 4m 50 m Typically 3m As requested 3 m average Yes Every 200 m 200 m

intervals intervals or 40 or 50 (network
(50 m as m survey)
intervals) requested spacing 50 m
and as (benchmark/
required project
level)
Is the survey Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
date
recorded?
Is the surface Yes Pavement Yes Yes Yes Surface air Yes Yes Yes Yes
temperature temperature
recorded? recorded
Specifications Standard Standard In-house Austroads Both Manufacturer’s Manufacturer’s In-house Austroads Austroads Austroads
Austroads specification specification manual and manual specification Guide to Test Method
specifications Austroads Asset AGTM/T006
used or methods Management
in-house – Part 5D
specifications
are used?
Additional Spatial and Yes Linear Linear Yes Distance Yes Linear Yes Yes Yes
information linear location location referencing measured by
referencing referencing Rotopulse
provided? Yes, can be
related

9. Skid Resistance
Definition
A measured parameter that characterises the contribution that a road surface makes to the level of friction
available at the contact patch between a road surface and vehicle tyre during acceleration, braking and
cornering manoeuvres. (Austroads 2009d)
Other terms used for skid resistance are ‘resistance to skidding’, ‘surface friction’, and ‘slipperiness’ but all of
these refer to the same thing.
The working group reviewed the above Austroads definition. The DSG (Tas) and DPTI (SA) suggested
removal of the words after ‘vehicle tyre’ in the above definition because they are superfluous.
9.1 Components of Skid Resistance

The friction existing between a road surface and a vehicle tyre is dependent on a number of factors such as:
• adhesion, hysteresis and seasonal variations
• the macro and microtexture of the road and vehicle-tyre surfaces
• the presence and amount of water, mud, ice, loose material and other surface-contaminating materials
• vehicle characteristics such as the condition and characteristics of tyres, the operating performance of
the vehicle, speed and the type of manoeuvre being attempted.
These components are discussed in detail below.
9.1.1 Adhesion
This refers to the small-scale bonding that occurs when the tyre material comes in contact with the road
surface. This chemical interaction depends on the chemical components of the two materials in contact.
Mechanical interaction can also occur when there is microscopic interlocking of pores and projections. This is
related to the microscopic texture properties of the two materials in contact.
9.1.2 Hysteresis
The energy dissipated during the deformation/recovery cycles of tyre rubber by the projections/troughs of a
road surface (when the tyre contacts the surface) is referred to as hysteretic friction. This friction tends to
increase on a road surface that presents deeper projections, as the tyre rubber would be penetrated further,
dissipating more energy per deformation/recovery cycle.
9.1.3 Seasonal Variation
It has been found in the UK, USA and Australia that skid resistance varies over the course of the year due to
variations in temperature, moisture and surface contaminants (Austroads Test Method AGAM/T014). It was
generally found that the measured skid resistance values peaked in winter and were lowest in summer. For
this reason skid resistance data is normally collected during the summer months, although some MAs
measure skid resistance in the spring months as well.

9.1.4 Microtexture
Microtexture is defined as the amplitude of deviations from the surface plane with wavelengths less than or
equal to 0.5 mm. Texture on this scale is provided either by the crystalline structure of the aggregate
particles in the upper layer of the surfacing material, or by fine particles such as sand in asphaltic concrete
and concrete surfaces.
Microtexture influences wet and dry skid resistance at all speeds but predominates at low speeds, interacting
with the vehicle’s tyres to generate adhesive friction forces. However, very high microtextures can
significantly increase the rate of tyre wear (Austroads 2009c).
9.1.5 Macrotexture
Macrotexture can be either positive or negative (Fwa 2006). Positive macrotexture occurs with sprayed seals
where the surface stones protrude above the plane of the surfacing. Positive macrotexture also occurs when
smooth concrete road surfaces are surface profiled or ground (Fwa 2006) to leave short wavelength
protrusions. Negative macrotexture occurs when porous asphalt surfacings, such as open graded mixes, are
laid. The negative texture is composed of voids below the plane of the road surface.
Macrotexture ranges in wavelengths between 0.5 and 50 mm and can be affected by:
• the size, shape and spacing of coarse aggregate particles in the surfacing material
• negative texture (as found in asphalt surfaces) or positive texture (as found in sprayed seal surfaces)
• the presence and pattern of grooves purposely manufactured in concrete surfaces
• the connection between the surface and internal pores in the materials in Austroads Test Method
AGAM/T014.
Figure 9.1 illustrates the difference between microtexture and macrotexture.
Figure 9.1: The difference between microtexture and macrotexture
Source: Adapted from Austroads Test Method AGAM/T014.
9.1.6 Aquaplaning
A vehicle is said to be aquaplaning when all contact with the road surface is lost, and a film of water remains
between the tyre and the road. This may occur in wheel path ruts where the crossfall is insufficient to drain
the water away or where sheets of surface water flow across the road surface. As contact with the road
surface is lost, directional control becomes unstable and braking becomes ineffective.
9.1.7 Polishing and Equilibrium Stages
As a newly placed surface is trafficked, the surface microtexture can gradually be polished by rolling vehicle
tyres. This naturally reduces the skid resistance over a certain period (e.g. two years). After this period, the
skid resistance at any particular time is thought to result in equilibrium, where trafficking will not reduce skid
resistance any further. Other factors such as weathering and abrasion tend to increase it (Salt 1977).

Research has shown that measured surface friction decreases with an increase in road surface temperature
(Austroads Test Method AGAM/T014). This is thought to be due to changes in tyre properties and the
thermodynamic property of the surface (its ability to distribute heat produced by friction as the surface
temperature varies). This suggests that some means of measuring the temperature is needed and a correction
made to the measured friction results, otherwise the summer skid resistance values are the critical values.
9.2.1 Measurement of Skid Resistance
All commercially available skid resistance machines essentially use the same principle: rubber being forced
to slide across the wetted surface of a road under an applied load. The horizontal friction, or traction, is
measured and the vertical load is either measured or assumed to be constant (Austroads 2011b). The
friction force is usually reported in the form of the coefficient of friction (CoF), which is the ratio of the traction
force to the vertical load.
9.2.2 Skid Resistance Measurement Devices
Devices for measuring skid resistance are in general one of two categories: static/portable devices that use a
discrete rubber strip which acts as a slider (suitable for selective testing), or dynamic/continuous devices
which use a wheel fitted with a rubber tyre (like a real vehicle tyre) to provide continuous measurement
(suitable for network-scale surveys). Figure 9.2 shows a classification of a number of skid resistance
measurement methods (some of these devices are described further in Section 9.2.3 to Section 9.2.6).
In reality the level of surface friction does not remain constant throughout the process of braking, but varies
as the tyre grips the surface and subsequently slips. The relative speed between the road and the tyre is
defined as slip speed (Austroads 2011b). When a tyre is rolling freely, its tangential speed is equal to the
speed of the vehicle and the slip speed is consequently zero. Conversely, when the wheel is locked the
tangential speed of the tyre is zero making the slip speed equal to the speed of the vehicle. Since different
devices can be taking measurements at different slip speeds, it is possible that they are measuring slightly
different aspects of friction.
Figure 9.2: Classification of skid resistance measurement devices
Source: Austroads (2011b).

9.2.3 Portable Pendulum Tester
This portable device is used for spot testing of a road surface. It uses a pendulum that has a slider attached
that will be dragged over the road surface as the pendulum swings over it. During the contact between the
slider and the wetted surface, the momentum lost is proportional to the amount of friction present. By
measuring the height the pendulum swings to after contact with the surface, the level of friction can be
determined.
The temperature of the surface is a factor in the amount of friction present and it is also collected at the time
of the test. Often a measurement of the texture depth (i.e. macrotexture) is also conducted at the same spot,
as the pendulum test does not provide any information on the impact of macrotexture during testing.
9.2.4 Grip Tester
This device is towed behind a vehicle at traffic speed. It has three wheels including a test wheel fitted with a
smooth tyre and is also equipped with a water-delivery system to wet the test surface. When the device is
towed, the two main wheels of the device and the test wheel rotate in the travel direction. However, the test
wheel is ‘geared-down’ from the main wheels and thus rotates slower. This results in the test wheel moving
at seven/eight rotations while the two main wheels move at 10 rotations. This causes partial skidding at the
contact patch of the test tyre (while the test wheel still rotates along with the two main wheels). The slip ratio
is mechanically fixed to 14.5% of the device travel speed, so that a constant slip speed is controlled during
the testing, if the device is towed at a constant speed. This means that if the device travels at a constant 50
km/h, the slip speed of the test wheel will be a constant 7.25 km/h during testing. The traction and load are
both measured by strain gauges on the axle of the test wheel. Results can vary according to the diameter of
the tyre, which is worn during use; therefore the tyre diameter is measured before and after each test run.
Grip testers are suitable for tight locations (bends and roundabouts) and can give meaningful results at lower
speeds (20 km/h) or in push mode (5 km/h). These locations tend to be of a high-risk nature. The grip tester
can also measure cycle ways, footpaths and road markings.
9.2.5 ROAR
The ROad Analyser and Recorder (ROAR) is capable of measuring skid resistance at traffic speed by fixed
or variable-slip methods, or a combination of both. The device is a compact unit with a single test wheel
which can be mounted to a host vehicle. A water delivery system is typically mounted on the host vehicle to
wet the test surface during testing. The speed of the test wheel is controlled by a linear braking system. The
test wheel rotates freely (i.e. zero slip speed) on the surface most of the time and occasionally the device
applies braking to fully lock the wheel (i.e. maximum slip speed) for a short period (typically one second).
During this short braking process, the vertical/traction forces are measured to calculate various skid
resistance parameters. For the fixed slip mode operation (as for the grip tester), a servo-system maintains a
constantly slower wheel speed than the vehicle travel speed. The device includes air and surface
temperature probes as well as the option to include an independent texture depth measurement sensor.
9.2.6 SCRIM
The Sideways force Coefficient Routine Investigation Machine (SCRIM) is a dedicated network-level skid
resistance testing vehicle. The vehicle moves typically at 50 km/h and contains a freely rotating test wheel
with a smooth tyre angled at 20° in the horizontal plane to the direction of travel. A 200 kg vertical load is
applied to the wheel and the surface is wetted using the water supply system of the vehicle. The sideways
resistance to sliding is measured and divided by the vertical load to obtain a raw sideways force coefficient
(SFC).

9.3 Current Practice

Jurisdictions use different devices and methods to collect data on skid resistance. Table 9.1 summarises the
approaches used by jurisdictions in Australia and New Zealand.
Table 9.1: Method of skid resistance measurement used in jurisdictions

Jurisdiction Method(s) Other data collected
New South Wales SCRIM in high-risk areas Pavement condition and crash statistics data is considered
alongside skid resistance data.
Victoria SCRIM in high-risk areas Macrotexture collected as part of surface inspection rating
procedure used to assess skid resistance in low-risk areas.
Queensland SCRIM (ROAR also used prior to High-risk sites determined on the basis of:
2009) at high-risk locations • network priority
Also use Via Friction4 at project level • AADT
Vericom for accident investigation • rainfall zone.
Additional sites may be included where the site does not
meet the definition (above) of a high-risk site, but accident
history suggests a skid issue.
South Australia Grip tester analysis in high-risk Laser texture depth measurement as part of risk site
locations identification is undertaken routinely every two years.
Annual testing is also undertaken on sites identified by
crash history.
Tasmania SCRIM every second year in March
Western Australia Currently under review Collection of roughness, rutting and macrotexture at
network level; annual in high traffic areas, every two years
elsewhere.
Australian Capital SCRIM on arterial network once every Collection of roughness, rutting, texture and deflection
Territory three years (1/3 network each year) using a multi-laser profilometer on arterial network once
every three years (1/3 network each year).
Northern Territory Pendulum test on site investigations, Macrotexture data from a multi-laser profilometer is
with occasional grip tester when collected over entire network every four years.
considered necessary
New Zealand SCRIM throughout the national
network
Source: Austroads (2011a, 2011b).
9.4 Harmonisation of Skid Resistance

The development of a harmonised approach to the management of skid resistance has a number of issues
to overcome.
When considering the effectiveness of harmonisation of skid resistance data, reflection about what the data
is actually used for needs to be taken into account. Skid resistance is different to all of the other attributes
previously considered for harmonisation, which are all condition-based attributes typically collected
frequently across the entire network which can be interpreted directly from the measured result. Skid
resistance, however, is used to manage a risk on the network, and other factors (e.g. what defines a high-
risk site, how high-risk sites are managed, how sites are categorised, how accident data is
recorded/uploaded) play a significant role in skid resistance management. Harmonisation of the use of skid
resistance data is beyond the scope of this project.
4
The Via Friction is the device selected to replace the ROAR.

9.4.1 Lack of Correlation between Different Devices
The PIARC and HERMES studies have both compared results from different skid resistance measuring
devices and found poor correlation (Austroads 2011a, 2011b). In addition, correlation exercises between
different devices have been undertaken in several places as indicated in Table 9.2. This work reached the
conclusion that harmonisation of results on the basis of correlation between many different devices remained
a formidable task and the use of a standard device would be more appropriate.
Table 9.2: Previous investigations of the correlation between different skid resistance measurement devices
Year Location Site type Reporting paper
2003 Sydney Constructed test section Dardano (2005)
2005 Christchurch Constructed test section Austroads (2006)
2000 New Zealand State highway section Cenek and Jamieson (2000)
2008 Chile Road section De Solminihac et al. (2008)
Source: Austroads (2011a).
While all of the devices generally gave a similar indication of skid resistance between surface types, there
was considerable variation both between devices of different types and between some devices of the same
type (Austroads 2011a). The DPTI (SA) has advised that there are strong correlations between their grip
testers which are checked every two years.
The TYROSAFE project in Europe reached the conclusion that there is not yet a scale or system that can
harmonise the range of devices currently used in Europe (Austroads 2011a). Instead, standardisation was
considered to be the best approach (Austroads 2011a).
9.4.2 Complexity of Factors Contributing to Crashes
When road crashes occur, the contributing factors can be broadly categorised as the vehicle, the driver/road
user, and the road environment. According to Wilson (2006) the majority of crashes result from driver factors.
Management of road infrastructure has little control over vehicle and driver factors, yet all three must be
considered when making decisions about improving the road environment. This requires a flexible approach
that can account for local variations and characteristics of road use and condition.
9.4.3 Differences between Regions
There are important differences between jurisdictions as well as within jurisdictions that can have significant
impact on how useful a national skid resistance management policy is. Some of these are:
• road management budgets
• construction materials
• road network characteristics
• climate.
9.4.4 Harmonisation Approach
The issues described above and the results of a number of reviews suggest that harmonising the outputs of
a number of different devices is a formidable task that may not be achievable. It is suggested that effort is
directed towards standardisation across Australia and New Zealand. While standardisation is not without
obstacles, it is far more achievable than harmonisation.
The working group agreed to the above approach to harmonisation.

9.5 Standardisation of Skid Resistance Measurement

Standardisation is a complex process that faces technical issues and disproportionate costs between
jurisdictions. There are a number of steps that can be taken towards the goals of standardisation that in
themselves should result in improved inter-jurisdictional comparison and coordination of skid resistance
management. These steps are outlined below.
9.5.1 Adopt Identical Data-processing and Reporting Methods for each Device Used
For the devices of the same type (e.g. SCRIM), different data processing methods have been found to
introduce statistically significant differences into the results (Austroads 2013). Skid resistance results are
also reported differently, such as from the left wheel path only, or both wheel paths (either separately or as
an average). When comparing same-type devices, using a common data processing and reporting method
provides a basis for a valid comparison of results.
For harmonisation of the processing/reporting methods, the following measures could be considered:
• consistency in the raw data capturing process within each device
• consistency in averaging length
• consistency in reporting left/right wheel path data
• consistency in applying temperature and speed correction factors (if applied).
9.5.2 Regular Correlation Exercises of Same Device Types Used by States
Exercises of this type have already been undertaken, notably in Victoria and NSW with SCRIM devices.
DPTI (SA) reported that the correlations between its grip testers are conducted every two years over a range
2
of sites and materials. These correlations are high (r > 0.99) at a test speed of 50 km/h.
It is suggested that these types of exercises are vital to monitor the performance of devices and as an
ongoing investigation of how different devices measure skid resistance in different regions.
In addition, the Highways Agency in England requires that all SCRIM devices used in network testing pass
an annual validation exercise. The SCRIM used in New Zealand also participate in this exercise.
9.5.3 Management of Seasonal Variations
Many road agencies already account for seasonal variations by taking measurements in the same month of
the year with some averaging results across years to account for variations between years. While some
jurisdictions do not consider seasonal variation to be significant, this is not an obstacle to them undertaking
measurements at the same time every year.
9.5.4 Management of Regional Variations
Even if an identical set of devices and procedures is adopted across Australia, regional differences continue
to present a significant issue. One means of accommodating regional differences is to define geographic
zones by similarity. Areas of the same zone type would have similar contributing factors to road crashes,
allowing a set of standards and suggestions to be made for each zone.
If this approach is found to be workable, it also allows some confidence in the development of skid resistance
management for new infrastructure in areas where there is little or no data on the causes of crashes.

Defining zones of regional similarity
To define a zone, a number of contributing factors were identified (Austroads 2011a). The contribution of
these factors to skid resistance is not equal and therefore they were given a relative weighting according to
their importance. Table 9.3 lists each of the contributing factors and their relative weighting.
Cairney (1997) has shown a correlation between wet weather accidents and skid resistance, so average
annual rainfall was given the greatest weighting. The next highest weighting was given to population density
since this was considered as a surrogate for traffic levels and exposure to risk. Topography is also an
important contributing factor because high variation in topography results in a greater chance of bends and
steep grades which require good skid resistance. Traffic is also included as one of the contributing factors,
but is given a lower rating as this is considered to include only those factors not already covered by
population density. Likewise, climate/seasonal rainfall is included to account for general weather effects, but
is given a low weighting since the annual rainfall is by far the greatest contributor.
Table 9.3: Contributing factors and weightings in the definition of skid resistance zones
Contributing factor Weighting (%)
Average annual rainfall 40
Population density 30
Topography 20
Traffic 5
Climate/seasonal rainfall 5
Source: Austroads (2011a).
These factors allow the definition of four zones of regional similarities. These zones and the suggested
minimum level of testing are shown in Table 9.4.
Table 9.4: Zones of regional similarity
Generic zone Zone description Suggested minimum level of testing
1. Low skid resistance Hot dry climate Process monitoring (e.g. network laser texture
demand Very low traffic levels surveys or visual analysis as a minimum)
Flat terrain
Dispersed road network
2. Medium skid Non-arid climate Targeted testing (e.g. portable and towed
resistance demand Low traffic levels devices such as British pendulum, grip tester,
ROAR as a minimum)
Some undulations in terrain
Mildly intense road network
3. High skid resistance Often wet climate Network monitoring (e.g. SCRIM where cost-
demand High traffic levels effective, portable and towed devices as a
minimum)
Highly undulating terrain
Very intense road network servicing large
population
4. High density urban Specialised zone for inner city areas such SCRIM or grip tester for inaccessible sites
as Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney

Figure 9.3 shows a national map with three of the four zones indicated.
Figure 9.3: Indicative zones of skid resistance demand
The weightings listed in Table 9.3 are provisional and may change as jurisdictions reach a consensus. The
ranges of values determining the contribution of each factor (e.g. amount of annual rainfall), and how the
contributing factors are combined to produce each zone also require development and acceptance.
9.5.5 Selection and Trial of Standard Device(s) for Skid Resistance Measurement
For a single type of device to be accepted by all jurisdictions, the suitability of this device would need to be
robustly demonstrated. This would require either an investment by Austroads to acquire a prospective device
or other devices such as SCRIM for network testing and the British pendulum tester for crash sites, after
5
incidents and other spot checks . This would also require funding of extensive network testing in all regions
or an agreement from all road agencies to fund a joint venture of the same type. The trial would have to
show that one device can service the needs of all jurisdictions. In the interim, jurisdictions will continue to use
their preferred devices.
5
The DPTI (SA) noted that grip tester results correlated well with the British pendulum meter, achieving an r2 of 0.94 or greater, and
suggested it could be used as an alternative to the British pendulum meter.

9.5.6 Deployment of Standard Device in all Jurisdictions
The final step in standardisation would be to see all jurisdictions equipped with the agreed device. At least
one SCRIM device is already owned by Victoria, NSW and New Zealand. Queensland and the ACT contract
one of the available Australian SCRIM devices on an as-needed basis. Tasmania uses the SCRIM device
also used by New Zealand which is sourced from the UK firm WDM Pty Ltd. Australian jurisdictions other
than Victoria and NSW may rightly view purchasing or contracting one of these devices as disproportionately
burdensome. However, these issues of equity can be discussed early in the process, perhaps in the case of
SCRIM being the agreed device allowing Victoria and NSW to shoulder more of the burden of the research
needed to establish a standard approach.
The working group reviewed the approach to standardisation of skid resistance measurement.
9.6 Skid Resistance Data Output Specifications

It is suggested that in order to reach harmonisation for skid resistance data an extensive research program
to correlate data between different devices is required (which is beyond the scope of this report).
Alternatively, all jurisdictions could deploy the same type of measurement devices in which all outputs would
have the same processing method, units and precision. However, even if the same device is used the
following parameters will still need to be standardised:
• wheel path measurements (e.g. LWP, RWP and BWP reported separately with no averaging of the
results from individual wheel paths)
• data average length, e.g. raw data to be averaged every 20 m (or 50 m) for reporting, or alternatively
report the % of points (taken at 5 m intervals) which fail the required investigation level (IL)
• data adjustment according to test temperature (e.g. is it needed? which equation to use? surface
temperature or air temperature?). Previously the NSW and Victorian temperature correction formula was
based on UK data for tyre temperature which gives an increase or decrease in skid resistance of 0.3 due
to a 1 °C change in tyre temperature. VicRoads adopted the UK temperature correction formula using
ambient (air) temperature (VicRoads 2000). RMS NSW uses the same correction formula, but does not
indicate whether air or surface temperature is used. Their test method requires that both ambient (air)
and surface temperature be recorded (Roads and Maritime Services 2013)
• under Queensland conditions, the UK formula was found to underestimate the change in skid
resistance, for a 1 °C increase in tyre temperature. TMR has adopted a temperature adjustment based
on surface temperature readings, using a 30 °C reference temperature (35 °C for north-west
Queensland)
• data adjustment according to test speed (e.g. is it needed? which equation to use?). Speed adjustment
of raw data is necessary. TMR adjusts SCRIM readings for speed, although the exact formula used is
currently not documented
• identification of region (as described in Section 9.5.3)
• identification of time and date of survey (need to consider regional variations in ‘seasonal variation’)
• correlation and validation of the device (as described in Section 9.5.2).
Examples of the standard outputs for these parameters are shown in Table 9.5.

Table 9.5: Skid resistance data outputs for additional parameters
Measure Skid resistance
Measure description Measure of surface skid resistance as characterised by the coefficient of friction (CoF)
Wheel path Outer wheel path (OWP): averaged over 100 m
Region The region in which the testing was conducted
Survey date Time of day, month and year of survey to identify the climatic conditions
Temperature Surface temperature (°C) and adjust the test results back to standard test temperature of 25 °C.
(Suggestion: use an adjustment that is currently in use by a jurisdiction. RMS NSW appears to
have an adjustment). As the critical value is the summer value, the adjustment may not have
much impact. It may be more relevant to examine variations in skid resistance with time
Survey speed 50 kmh. Actual speeds to be adjusted to this standard speed. (Suggestion: use an adjustment
that is currently in use by a jurisdiction. RMS NSW appears to have an adjustment). DPTI (SA)
advises that higher test speeds do not impact on grip tester results, although increased
roughness does impact on results. Testing speed should consider the influence of roughness
Correlation Correlation equations between the same devices and between different devices
The working group reviewed the outputs and supporting information needed to standardise skid resistance
data. In response, DSG (Tas) suggested that the SCRIM device be used for standard output data. The DPTI
(SA) noted that the standardisation of outputs is important and that its grip tester outputs should be
correlated with a skid resistance reference device.
9.7 Current Practice – Skid Resistance Output

Current practices are based on the available information received from senior asset managers of MAs and
through interviews with ARRB data collection professionals responsible for MA road data collection and
supply.
The practices of the 550 local government jurisdictions in Australia and New Zealand were unable to be
assessed as part of this exercise. This was outside the scope of the project. However, each local
government should be able to perform a self-assessment based upon the information contained in this
report.
9.8 Skid Resistance Harmonisation Assessment

Practices relevant to the skid resistance data output specifications are presented in Table 9.6.

Table 9.6: Summary of road agency practices regarding skid resistance data relative to the specifications
Collection RMS VicRoads TMR (Qld) MRWA DPTI (SA) DSG DoT (NT) TAMS NZTA
parameter (NSW) (Tas) (ACT)
Measurement Device used to SCRIM SCRIM. British SCRIM N/A Grip tester SCRIM British SCRIM SCRIM
device collect skid pendulum is used (network-level) (evolving pendulum (VicRoads) (WDM
resistance data for small sites Via Friction policy) Ltd)
(project-level)
Vericom (accident
investigation)
Collection Wheel path of Both LWP & RWP IWP/OWP N/A OWP, both OWP Both LWP, RWP Left and LWP and
parameters data collection collected (evolving and IWP testing on and BWP right wheel RWP
simultaneously policy) fatality sites paths
Lane of data Outer The lane of most Lane 1 (gazettal N/A Outer lane Left Project- All lanes Outer lane
collection use. Typically: slow direction) for (evolving specific (all lanes
lane (divided 4 lane single- policy) if
road); middle lane carriageway roads motorway)
(divided 6 lane and
road); slow lane lane 1/lane 2
(divided 8 lane (outer lanes) for
freeways) dual-carriageway
sections(1)
Is surface Ambient Yes for 2014 N/A Yes, air Yes Yes Yes Yes
temperature temperature (converted from (evolving temperature
recorded at recorded air temperature policy)
collection? prior to 2014)
Is network skid Network Only at high-risk Only high-risk N/A High-risk locations Network- High-risk Network Full
resistance data locations – site locations, (evolving wide locations data network
collected or only categories 1 and 2 determined in policy) only collected
at high-risk accordance with for arterial
locations? data collection roads only
policy
Collection Yearly High-risk sites Biennially for N/A Both – high-risk Two Reactionary 1/3 Annual
intervals (every tested every network-level (evolving accident locations years network
year or 3 years. Other sites policy) collected annually, each year
reactionary)? tested as required proactive program (3 year
collected biennially cycle)
Additional Spatial and linear Yes GPS is provided Data collected Yes Yes Linear N/A – Yes Yes
information location and linear spatially, and project-
referencing referencing system converted to linear specific
provided? used referencing
1 Unless requested otherwise.

10.Gap Analysis
10.1 Harmonisation Assessment and Classification

Based on current practice of member agencies described in Sections 6 to 9, each MA has assessed its ability to
meet the output specification. This assessment was based on two factors:
1. Harmonisation rating: the extent of current harmonisation and the ability of the agency to meet the
specification i.e. where along the spectrum of harmonisation does it sit.
2. Difficulty: the level of effort that may be required to reach harmonisation and achieve the output data
specification.
The success of harmonisation is dependent on resolving both technical and administrative challenges in
developing and implementing the specification. Technical difficulty refers to the issues that exist in collection and
calculation of a parameter (e.g. conversion of texture depth). The administrative difficulty refers to issues relating
to storage, system implementation and costs (e.g. providing extra space in the asset management system to
store additional variables).
Details of the rating scales and classifications are presented in Table 10.1.
Table 10.1: Description of data harmonisation ratings and assessment

Harmonisation rating: current ability to align to Difficulty: level of effort required to harmonise data to
specification and to what extent output specification
0 Data to specification 1 No effort required, already meets specification
Transformable – specified measure can be calculated
1 2 Data available directly or by simple transformation
using existing data
Significant work required to obtain or store specified
Correlatable – possible to approximate the specified
2 3 measure (requires new survey specification and/or new
measure using existing data
equipment)
3 Independent – no correlation to specified measure 4 Not possible to obtain specified measure
4 No data or not measured (not relevant)
10.2 Summary of Gap Analysis

Table 10.2 presents a broad indication of the current level of harmonisation and the level of effort likely to be
required to improve the harmonisation rating based on the rating scale in Table 10.1.
10.2.1 Lane of Collection
Although the specification calls for data to be collected in the most heavily trafficked lane, current practice
information suggests that most MAs collect data in the left lane. In the majority of cases the left lane is the most
heavily trafficked lane, but this may change from segment to segment and require detailed traffic counts to
establish. Therefore, the specification has been changed to the estimated most heavily trafficked lane to allow
MAs to collect data from the lane they expect to have the highest traffic level.

Table 10.2: Harmonisation assessment by member agencies
TAMS
Measure Conformity RMS (NSW) VicRoads TMR (Qld) MRWA DPTI (SA) DSG (Tas) DoT (NT) NZTA
(ACT)
Texture Harmonisation rating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Difficulty level 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
Cracking Harmonisation rating 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 1 2
Difficulty level 1 3 1 3 2 1 2 2 3
Strength Harmonisation rating 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

(easier once
the TSD
starts
collecting)
Difficulty level 1 3 1–2 2 2 2 1 3 2
Skid resistance Harmonisation rating 0 2 2 4 2–3* 0** 4 1 1
Difficulty level 1 2 3 3 3 1** 3 2 2
* Likely range possible pending equipment correlation exercise success.

** This assumes that the SCRIM device is the reference device.

11.Conclusions and Outcomes

As texture, cracking, strength and skid resistance measurements are dependent on the particular data
collection method employed, it is not always possible to compare the measurements reported by one MA
with another when each uses a different method.
This report summarises the current practices adopted by MAs to collect texture, cracking, strength and skid
resistance data and proposes a harmonisation methodology to enable MAs to report equivalent road
condition data measurements. This includes a series of standard data output specifications that were
developed after consultation with senior asset managers from each of the MAs.
Some of the limitations of the collection methods, which could possibly impact the effectiveness and
feasibility of data harmonisation, are also identified in the report.
Of all the pavement condition parameters discussed it is envisaged that skid resistance will require the most
effort to harmonise.
Key outcomes include the following:

• specifying D0, D200 and D300 as the key locations for making deflection measurements and reporting
network-level strength data
• directing effort towards the standardisation of skid resistance measurement across Australia and New
Zealand
• harmonising skid resistance measurements by means of extensive correlations between different
devices.
The MAs could now assess the feasibility of the harmonisation methods and data output specifications
proposed and how to best implement them.
Austroads 2015 | Page 63

References
American Society for Testing Materials 2006, Standard test method for measuring pavement macro-texture
depth using a volumetric technique, ASTM E 965, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
American Society for Testing Materials 2009, Standard test method for deflections with a falling weight type
impulse load device, ASTM D4695-09, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Austroads 2006, Guide to asset management: part 5E: cracking, AGAM05E-06, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2008, Guide to asset management: part 5D: strength, AGAM05D-08, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009a, Guide to asset management: part 5: pavement performance, AGAM05-09, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009b, Guide to asset management: part 5A: inventory, AGAM05A-09, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009c, Guide to asset management: part 5G: texture, AGAM05G-09, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009d, Guide to asset management: part 5F: skid resistance, AGAM05F-09, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2010, Review of specifications for the collection of digital road imaging, AP-T169-10, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2011a, Review of skid resistance and measurement methods, AP-T177-11, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2011b, Guidance for the development of policy to manage skid resistance, AR-R374-11,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2011c, Guide to pavement technology: part 5: pavement evaluation and treatment design,
AGPT05-11, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2012, Review of the traffic speed deflectograph: final project report, AP-R395-12, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2013, Review of variability in skid resistance measurement and data management, AP-R444-13,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Baltzer, S 2009, ‘Three years of high speed deflectograph measurements of the Danish state road network’,
in E Tutumluer & IL Al-Qadi (eds), Bearing capacity of roads, railways and airfields, International
conference on the bearing capacity of roads, Railways and Airfields, 8th, 2009, Urbana, Illinois, USA,
Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 443-50.
Cairney, P 1997, Skid resistance and crashes: a review of the literature, report ARR 311, ARRB Transport
Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Cenek, PD & Jamieson, NJ 2000, ‘Correlation of skid resistance measuring devices under normal state
highway survey conditions’, Central Laboratories report 00-529282.00, Opus International Consultants
Central Laboratories, Lower Hutt, NZ.
Dardano, J 2005, ‘Results of physical workshop: 1st Australian runway and roads friction testing workshop:
analysis of data collected at Australian friction workshop (2003)’, International surface friction conference,
2005, Christchurch, New Zealand, Transit New Zealand, Wellington, NZ, 20 pp.

Department of Main Roads 2002, ‘Managing road asset data: investing in our future’, Department of Main
Roads, QDMR, Brisbane, Qld.
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure 2013, ‘Processing specification for LCMS crack
output’, internal specification, DPTI, Adelaide, SA.
De Solminihac, H, Chamorro, A, Echaveguren, T & Roe, P 2008, ‘Proposal of a comparison method to

assess skid resistance and macrotexture measured with different devices’, International conference on
nd
safer roads, 2 , 2008, 11th – 14th May, Cheltenham, UK.
Ferguson, RA & Pratt, DN 2002, ‘Automated detection and classification of cracking in road pavements
(RoadCrack)’, IRF and ARF Asia Pacific roads conference and exhibition, 2002, Sydney, New South
Wales, Australian Road Federation, Melbourne, 8 pp.
Fwa, TF 2006, The handbook of highway engineering, Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
ISO 1997, Characterization of pavement texture by use of surface profiles: part 1: determination of mean
profile depth, ISO 13473-1, International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland.
Morosiuk, G, Riley, M & Odoki, JB 2006, HDM-4 modeling road deterioration and works effects, vol. 6, World
Road Association (PIARC), Paris, France & The World Bank, Washington DC, USA.
Roads and Maritime Services 2013, Measurement of surface friction by Sideways-Force Coefficient Routine
Investigation Machine (SRIM), QA specification R423, RMS, New South Wales, Sydney, NSW.
Roads and Traffic Authority 1990, ROCOND 90: road condition manual, RTA, Sydney, NSW.
Salt, GF 1977, ‘Research on skid-resistance at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory (1927-1977)’,
Transportation Research Record, no. 622, pp. 26-38.
Scala, AJ 1979, An analysis of the deflection bowls in pavements measured by the Benkelman beam test,
AIR 032-2, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.
SMEC 2005, SMEC pavement management systems: version 4.3: users manual, SMEC Australia, Canberra,
ACT.
VicRoads 2000, Skid resistance of a road pavement using SCRIM, test method RC 421.02, VicRoads, Kew,
Vic.
Wilson, DJ 2006, ‘An analysis of the seasonal and short-term variation of road pavement skid resistance’,
PhD thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Austroads Specification and Test Methods
AGAM/S001: 2007, Specification for pavement roughness measurement with an inertial laser profilometer.
AGAM/S002: 2008, Specification for pavement deflection measurement with a falling weight deflectometer
(FWD), version 2.
AGAM/S003: 2007, Specification for pavement deflection measurement with a deflectograph.
AGAM/S004: 2007, Specification for pavement rutting measurement with a multi-laser profilometer.
AGAM/S004: 2007, Specification for pavement rutting measurement with a multi-laser profilometer,
commentary
AGAM/S005: 2007, Specification for pavement surface texture measurement with a laser profilometer.

AGAM/T001: 2007, Pavement roughness measurement with an inertial laser profilometer.
AGAM/T002: 2007, Validation of an inertial laser profilometer for measuring pavement roughness (reference
device method).
AGAM/T003: 2007, Validation of an inertial laser profilometer for measuring pavement roughness (loop
method).
AGAM/T004: 2007, Pavement roughness repeatability and bias checks for an inertial laser profilometer.
AGAM/T005: 2011, Distance measurement validation of road condition monitoring vehicles, version 2.
AGAM/T006: 2011, Pavement deflection measurement with a Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD).
AGAM/T007: 2011, Pavement deflection measurement with a deflectograph.
AGAM/T008: 2007, Validation and repeatability checks for a deflectograph.
AGAM/T009: 2011, Pavement rutting measurement with a multi-laser profilometer, version 2.
AGAM/T009: 2011, Pavement rutting measurement with a multi-laser profilometer: commentary, version 2.
AGAM/T010: 2011, Validation of a multi-laser profilometer for measuring pavement rutting (reference device
method), version 2.
AGAM/T010: 2011, Validation of a multi-laser profilometer for measuring pavement rutting (loop method):
commentary, version 2.
AGAM/T011: 2011, Validation of a multi-laser profilometer for measuring pavement rutting (loop method):
commentary.
AGAM/T012: 2007, Pavement rutting repeatability and bias checks for a multi-laser profilometer.
AGAM/T012: 2012, Pavement rutting repeatability and bias error checks for a multi-laser profilometer:
commentary.
AGAM/T013: 2011, Pavement surface texture measurement with a laser profilometer.
AGAM/T014: 2011, Validation of laser profilometer for measuring pavement surface texture (reference
device method).
AGAM/T015: 2007, Validation of laser profilometer for measuring pavement surface texture (loop method).
AGPT/T250 : 2008, Modified surface texture depth (pestle method).


Quality Assurance For Automated and Semiautomated Pavement Condition Surveys

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quality Assurance For Automated and Semiautomated Pavement Condition Surveys

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Report

A Common Data Output Specification

Abstract About Austroads

Pages 66 • Department of State Growth Tasmania

Austroads 2015 | page i

3. Scope of Report .................................................................................................................................. 14

5. Data Output Specifications................................................................................................................ 17

Austroads 2015 | page i

Austroads 2015 | page ii

9. Skid Resistance .................................................................................................................................. 49

10. Gap Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 61

11. Conclusions and Outcomes .............................................................................................................. 63

Austroads 2015 | page iii

Figure 2.1: Illustration of the harmonisation continuum ................................................................................... 4

Austroads 2015 | page iv

This report is structured as follows:

Austroads 2015 | page 1

Austroads 2015 | page 2

2.1 Harmonisation Approach

Austroads 2015 | page 3

Figure 2.1: Illustration of the harmonisation continuum

Uniform/standardised Individual practice

Standard test methods, harmonisation Unique test methods,

The process of harmonisation is seen as:

Austroads 2015 | page 4

Austroads 2015 | page 5

Other inventory attributes

2.2.2 Road Condition

Knowledge of the condition of a road is important in determining:

Condition data types

2.3 Generic Harmonisation Method

Austroads 2015 | page 6

2.4 Roughness Data Output Specifications

Table 2.1: Roughness (Lane IRIqc) harmonisation data output specification

Measure Lane IRIqc

Measure components Lane: Collected in estimated most heavily trafficked lane

Algorithm: Quarter-car algorithm

Record precision Two decimal places

Recording segment length 100 m

Survey date Year of collection

Austroads 2015 | page 7

Measure Lane IRIqc Y/N No: Data is provided

Algorithm: Quarter-car algorithm Y/N No: Half-car algorithm used

Units m/km Y/N

Record Two decimal places Y/N No: Nearest integer

Recording 100 m Y/N No: 10 m

Survey date Year Y/N Not included

Data Austroads Specification AGAM/S001 Y/N No: Internal agency

2.5 Rutting Data Output Specifications

Austroads 2015 | page 8

Table 2.3: Mean rut depth measurements

Austroads 2015 | page 9

Compliance Variation Example if non-compliant

Measure Mean rut depth Y/N No: Maximum rut depth

Record Whole number Y/N No: Nearest 5 mm

Measure Standard deviation of rut depth Y/N No: Not included

Record One decimal place Y/N No: Nearest integer

Units Percentage Y/N

Record Whole number Y/N No: Nearest 10%

2 m straight edge Y/N No: Using 1.2 m straight

Based on the maximum rut depth of Y/N

Recording 100 m Y/N No: 10 m

Sample ≤ 250 mm Y/N No: 20 m