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

net/publication/315533004

Travel Quality Assessment of Urban Roads Based on International Roughness

Index: Case Study in Colombia

Article  in  Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · January 2017
DOI: 10.3141/2612-01

CITATIONS READS

2 64

3 authors, including:

Luis Fuentes Juan S. Carvajal-Muñoz

Universidad del Norte (Colombia) University of Nottingham
53 PUBLICATIONS   130 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   100 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

NASA Project: Investigation of the Factors Influencing Skid Resistance and the International Friction Index View project

BioRePavation - Innovation in bio-recycling of old asphalt pavements View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Luis Fuentes on 16 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Travel Quality Assessment of Urban Roads
Based on International Roughness Index
Case Study in Colombia
Daniel Abudinen, Luis G. Fuentes, and Juan S. Carvajal Muñoz
Roughness is the main feature of the pavement surface that defines
user comfort. Pavement roughness is generally defined as irregulari-
ties in the pavement surface that adversely affect ride quality, specifi-
cally user perception of the road condition. This paper highlights the
limitations associated with the evaluation and implementation of the
international roughness index (IRI) on urban roads. The paper focuses
on (a) roughness evaluation with full-scale profilers and (b) conditions
particular to urban roads—namely, traffic, intersections, and operating
speeds. Given that the speed of urban networks is typically less than
the 80 km/h used in the IRI quarter-car model, the implementation
of the IRI model on urban roads was evaluated. Even though a given
pavement surface reported a unique IRI value, user experience of the
profile depended on the travel speed. This result was evidence that user
perceptions of road condition are highly influenced by travel speed. The
results suggested the need to develop a roughness index that captures
the unique characteristics of urban roads and can estimate the road
condition as perceived by users. For that reason, this research study
focused on establishing thresholds for IRI on the basis of the weighted
vertical acceleration parameter as an aid to assessing user perception.
The proposed method allows the maximum allowable IRI value for a
given road to be established on the basis of the road’s operational speed.
The results indicated that IRI thresholds agreed with international and
local Colombian standards.
Pavements are an essential aspect of the infrastructure of a country,
and their condition has a direct impact on economic growth. They
provide communication links between urban, rural, and production
centers and transport not only people but also diverse products and
essential goods for the economic development of regions. Therefore,
pavements help improve the life quality of citizens and make avail-
able a wider range of products at lower costs than would otherwise
be possible.
“Serviceability” is defined as the ability of a pavement to serve
traffic, and this concept has been widely accepted by engineers and
professionals for the assessment of pavement condition (1–3). Dif-
ferent studies have shown the importance of roughness in surface
condition and its significant correlation with serviceability, or pave-
ment quality, as perceived by users (3, 4). “Pavement roughness”
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering,
Universidad del Norte, Km 5 Via Puerto Colombia, Barranquilla, Colombia.
Corresponding author: L. G. Fuentes, lfuentes@uninorte.edu.co.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2612, 2017, pp. 1–10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2612-01
1
is generally defined as irregularities in the pavement surface that
adversely affect the ride quality and the user perception of the road
condition. Roughness also impacts road safety, vehicle delay costs,
fuel consumption, and maintenance costs (5, 6). Pavement roughness
is generally measured with laser-based measurement devices that
capture the longitudinal profile of the road and compute indexes
that reflect user perceptions of ride quality. These profilers operate
at traffic speed and can capture and record a vast quantity of data (7).
Roughness is typically evaluated through the international rough-
ness index (IRI), an index developed by the World Bank to assess
the surface condition of rural roads (8, ASTM E1926-08). The IRI
defines a characteristic of the longitudinal profile of a traveled wheel-
path at a specific speed through the use of a standardized quarter car.
Different researchers have identified problems associated with the
use of the IRI to evaluate the condition of urban roads (9, 10). The
riding speed in urban areas is considerably lower than the 80 km/h
considered by the IRI quarter-car model (8, 9). Furthermore, urban
roads present singularities, such as short segments with curved cross
sections, frequent intersections, numerous at-grade railway crossings,
and numerous locations with utility access boxes that significantly
affect the IRI but do not necessarily have a large impact on the user
perception of the road condition (10). In addition, the traffic conditions
of urban roads affect the optimal operating conditions of full-scale
roughness measuring systems; these effects may lead to results that
are not reliable.
This section will emphasize some relevant information about
the topic being studied and reference previous similar research con-
ducted on urban roads. Yu et al. defined IRI thresholds for different
operating speeds and took into consideration the changes of vertical
acceleration experienced by a vehicle, which the authors defined as
“jolt”; the authors included an evaluation of 102 profiles on rural
roads from the SHRP Long-Term Pavement Performance database
from 1989 to 2002. From this study, the researchers were able to
propose the thresholds presented in Table 1 (11).
In a later study, Ahlin and Granlund identified some limitations
on the use of the IRI to adequately assess roughness under vehicle-
specific operational conditions and describe the comfort experienced
by the users of a given road network. In response to those limitations,
ISO 2631 was presented as an alternative method for measuring user
comfort as it took into account the vibrations perceived by the driver
and passengers during a journey. This consideration is of special
importance because the irregularities present in the pavement can
be translated into vibrations or vertical accelerations to the users’
bodies, which in turn could cause a sensation of comfort on smooth
surfaces and discomfort on rough surfaces (12, 13). The ISO 2631
standard (Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration)
2 Transportation Research Record 2612

TABLE 1   Suggested IRI Thresholds for Different Operational Speeds (11)

IRI Thresholds (m/km) for Various Operational Speeds

Travel
Quality 120 km/h 100 km/h 80 km/h 70 km/h 60 km/h 50 km/h 40 km/h 30 km/h 20 km/h 10 km/h

Very good <0.95 <1.14 <1.43 <1.63 <1.9 <2.28 <2.86 <3.8 <5.72 <11.44
Good 0.95–1.49 1.14–1.79 1.43–2.24 1.63–2.57 1.90–2.99 2.28–3.59 2.86–4.49 3.80–5.99 5.72–8.99 11.44–17.99
Fair 1.50–1.89 1.80–2.27 2.25–2.84 2.58–3.25 3.00–3.79 3.60–4.54 4.50–5.69 6.00–7.59 9.00–11.39 18.00–22.79
Poor 1.90–2.70 2.28–3.24 2.85–4.05 3.26–4.63 3.79–5.40 4.55–6.25 5.70–8.08 7.60–10.80 11.40–16.16 22.80–32.32
Very poor >2.70 >3.24 >4.05 >4.63 >5.50 >6.25 >8.08 >10.80 >16.16 >32.32

has been widely used around the world to evaluate the effects gen-
erated on human beings by vibration exposure. The method was
named a “basic evaluation method using quadratic weighted average
acceleration (awz),” also known as vertical weighted root mean square
(RMS) acceleration (frequency-weighted root mean square accelera-
tion), and is typically used for assessments in aspects of occupational
health and risk exposure associated with vibration (ISO 2631).
Likewise, statistical correlations between the IRI and awz on rural
roads have been proposed in recent publications (12, 13, 14–16)
and have enabled comfort to be evaluated when users travel on a
pavement surface (measuring vertical vibrations that result from
acceleration). Additionally, a publication by Zhang and Yang indi-
cated that RMS-weighted vertical acceleration can be correlated to
the comfort perceived by the users of a road network (16).
Ahlin and Granlund proposed the model defined in Equation 1 to
determine the maximum comfortable vehicle speed from the value
of acceptance limits of awz (13):
2 1−n
 IRI 
CVS = 80 
 5 
where
CVS = comfortable vehicle speed (km/h),
IRI = international roughness index (mm/m), and
n = amplitude parameter for terrain roughness.
Typically, n ranges between 1.1 and 2.5. High n values are
associated with pavements on which the wave amplitudes are long;
low n values correspond to short wave amplitudes (for deteriorated
pavement surfaces).
The calculation of awz—under the ISO 2631 method—comprises
the following steps and involves vertical accelerations obtained from
quarter-car simulations:
1. The RMS acceleration of the mass of the passenger (a RMS iz ) is
calculated with regard to the power spectral density for each ith octave
thirds band.
2. The values of a RMS
iz are multiplied by its weight factor (Wk) for
each frequency band.
3. After these values (aRMS
iz and Wk) are obtained, the RMS can be
determined from the square root of the sum of squares of these values,
as shown in Equation 2:
23
∑ (W  aizRMS )
2
awz = k,i
i =1
where Wk,i is the factor for each frequency band weight.
A research study conducted by Cantisani and Loprencipe focused
on obtaining correlations between the IRI and awz on 124 rural roads
profiles collected by the SHRP Long-Term Pavement Performance of
the Transportation Research Institute at the University of Michigan
(14). The IRI was initially evaluated according to the standard pro-
cedure described by ASTM and calculated from the average of each
pair of profiles, as indicated in Equation 3:
IRI left + IRI right
IRI = (3)
2
Subsequently, model simulations from the quarter-car model were
used to determine the corresponding awz parameter and took into
account the accelerations experienced by the front-seat passengers.
This calculation for acceleration was performed at simulation speeds
from 30 to 90 km/h in increments of 10 km/h. The authors found R2
values between .75 and .90 for the correlations between IRI and awz
for the seven speeds considered in the study. On the basis of those
results, the authors recommended using awz because the IRI is stan-
(1)
dardized to a single reference speed (80 km/h) and, as such, could not
accurately capture differences in actual pavement conditions and
user comfort in different operation conditions.
Additional research was conducted in the Colombian context by
the Urban Development Institute in Bogota, Colombia, in 2007. The
study included an inventory by a high-performance laser profilometer
of the surface quality of 842 km of pavements in different sectors of
the city. The IRI was measured without affecting the regular traffic
operating conditions of the city. The results showed excessively high
IRI values (an average of 7.63 m/km) that were consistent with those
of pavements with significant surface irregularities. Figure 1 presents
the results of the IRI evaluated for the entire network. Figure 1 shows
the distribution of the reported IRI with speed and shows that the
IRI tends to be higher at lower testing speeds. This behavior is likely
to arise from a combination of two factors: the problems associated
with measuring the IRI at low speed and an increased likelihood for
lower-speed roads to have poor ride quality (17, 18).
Another study by La Torre et al. highlighted some issues faced
when measuring the IRI in urban areas. These issues included (a) that
homogeneous sections are much shorter than those used in the World
Bank study that proposed the IRI classification, (b) that speeds are
considerably lower than the standard 80 km/h value used for the
IRI quarter-car model, (c) that the difference in the materials used
in the construction of urban areas from those used in rural areas leads
to different roughness values, and (d) that the levels of acceptability
(2)
in urban areas are defined after user perception and environmental
conditions are considered (9). In response to those issues, the authors
conducted qualitative and qualitative assessments that included IRI
Abudinen, Fuentes, and Carvajal Muñoz
20
Laser Profiler Measurement of IRI (m/km)
16
12
0
0 20
Testing Speed (km/h)
FIGURE 1   IRI versus testing speed of the measuring profilers.
measurements in various urban profiles, a rating procedure, and a
panel rating study of user perception.
Research Objective
The present investigation aims to highlight the limitations of the
calculation and implementation of the IRI on urban roads. Two main
aspects will be considered:
1. The accurate measurement of the road profile by full-scale
profilers; the IRI value is derived from these measurements.
2. The definition of the IRI model and that it was originally defined
to evaluate the response of a vehicle traveling at 80 km/h on rural road;
this situation differs significantly from the operating conditions of
urban roads.
On the basis of these limitations, this investigation proposes thresh-
olds for the travel quality assessment of urban roads by improving IRI
measurements through the use of an awz parameter that accounts for
user perception and allows for a more representative characterization
of travel quality.
Evaluation of Roughness
on Urban Roads
To evaluate the limitations found in the evaluation of roughness con-
ditions on urban roads with full-scale profilers, a survey was con-
ducted in the city of Barranquilla, Colombia. The survey included a
wide range of surface conditions on more than 80 concrete pavements
sections (Figure 2). Figure 3 presents an illustration of the devices
used. The devices were used to assess road roughness through IRI
determination. Figure 4 presents an example of one of the pavement
sections included in this study. In these sections, the surface condition
was evaluated according to the IRI in the right wheelpath of the right
lane. ProVAL version 3.4, provided by FHWA, was used to analyze
the profile data from the devices.
The high levels of roughness present in the evaluated pavement
section can be observed in Figure 4. Figure 4b shows pronounced
3
IRI = –0.2803 * V + 18.181
R 2 = .9378
40 60 80
depressions found at intersections. The pavement roughness is mainly
defined by the natural topography of the terrain, a typical condition
of urban roads in Colombia.
Figure 5 suggests that the IRI is affected by the testing speed,
even when measurements are obtained on the same pavement section.
An analysis of variance was conducted to evaluate whether the IRI
values were statistically affected by the testing speed on a specific
pavement section. The analysis, not shown in this paper, indicated
that the testing speed affected IRI evaluation (p-value < .001) (19).
Figure 6 shows that IRI values evaluated by the SurPRO were
consistently lower than those obtained by the laser profiler for all the
evaluated pavement sections. The data shown in Figure 6 suggest
that as the operating speed of the laser profiler increases, roughness
levels approach those obtained with the SurPRO. This result high-
lights the limitations of evaluating roughness conditions on urban
roads with a laser profiler, as the profiler cannot always operate at
high speeds because of—among other factors—traffic signs, traffic
lights, and interactions with other vehicles.
The results presented in the current investigation could be explained
by the limitations of the full-scale laser profilers in measuring a
representative pavement profile, given the particular conditions of
urban roads. The vehicle is affected by horizontal deceleration and
acceleration as the vehicle slows down and speeds up in response
to traffic conditions. These effects could produce additional errors
on the profile evaluation and could be reported as large features
or singularities that were not actually present on the test site. This
condition is magnified at low testing speeds.
Limitations on the Implementation
of the IRI on Urban Roads
Different investigations have highlighted various limitations of
implementing the IRI model on urban roads (9, 10, 13). La Torre
et al. proposed a modified IRI model that used a traveling speed of
50 km/h for the quarter-car model on the basis that the riding speed
in urban areas is considerably lower than the 80 km/h used in the
original IRI model (9). Moreover, in 1997 and 1999, the Fund for the
City of New York evaluated the roughness conditions of streets
throughout the city (20). The city roughness index was proposed for
4 Transportation Research Record 2612

915,000 920,000 925,000

0 1,000 2,000
m
1,710,000

1,710,000
1,705,000

1,705,000
1,700,000

1,700,000
Road Network, Barranquilla
Primary Roads
Evaluated Pavement Sections

915,000 920,000 925,000

FIGURE 2   Distribution of the pavement sections evaluated in Barranquilla.

(a) (b)

FIGURE 3   Devices used to evaluate pavement roughness: (a) reference SurPRO portable profiler and (b) full-scale profiler.
 0.6
Processed Profile
0.4

0.2

Elevation (m)
0

–0.2

–0.4

–0.6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
Distance (m)
(a)

(b)

FIGURE 4   Details of evaluated road section: (a) pavement profile and (b) pavement intersection.

20 20
Section 2 Section 3

15
IRI (m/km)

15
IRI (m/km)

10 10

5 5
20 30 40 50 60 20 30 40 50 60
Testing Speed (km/h) Testing Speed (km/h)
(a) (b)

20 20
Section 8 Section 14

15 15
IRI (m/km)
IRI (m/km)

10 10

5 5
20 30 40 50 60 20 30 40 50 60
Testing Speed (km/h) Testing Speed (km/h)
(c) (d)

FIGURE 5   IRI response to testing speed for specific pavement sections.
6 Transportation Research Record 2612

25
51 km/h
46 km/h
20 42 km/h
40 km/h
27 km/h
15

IRI (m/km)
25 km/h
SurPRO
10

0
8 9 10 11
Road Section

FIGURE 6   Comparison of SurPRO and profilometer IRI measurements at different speeds.

the evaluation of pavement roughness; the index was mathematically
identical to the IRI. Roughness data were reported with regard to the
city roughness index to highlight the reality that urban streets did
not operate at the 80 km/h used by the quarter-car model (10, 12).
Reggin et al. showed that the IRI of urban roadway networks could be
significantly affected by factors not frequently encountered in rural
highways, such as intersections and railway crossings (10).
Furthermore, user perception of ride quality on urban roads is differ-
ent from that on rural roads. La Torre et al. showed that users presented
higher acceptability levels for road unevenness on urban roads than on
rural roads (9). La Torre et al. presented accepted IRI values for urban
road that were considerably higher than the typical values accepted
on rural roads because of urban drivers’ increased tolerance of road
unevenness.
Figure 7 evaluates the sensitivity of the IRI model to the quarter-
car modeling speed. Figure 7 shows that different IRI values would
be obtained for a given pavement profile if the quarter-car modeling
speed were varied; this finding illustrates that vehicle dynamics, and
thus user comfort, are highly dependent on vehicle speed.
Regardless of the features of a pavement surface, user perception
of the road condition will be conditioned by the traveling speed. The
quarter-car model can be used to evaluate vehicle dynamic response
to a given pavement profile. The response of the quarter-car model
is mainly determined by the frequency of the external force that
depends directly on the traveling speed and the profile unevenness.
The sprung mass of the quarter-car model is used to represent the user.
If a different speed is used in the modeling process, a completely
different behavior is experienced by the user on a given pavement
profile; this condition is illustrated in Figure 8. Moreover, Figure 8
shows that even though a pavement surface reports a unique IRI
value, users are exposed to a different experience on a given
profile depending on the traveling speed. This condition could be

14

13

12
Modified IRI (m/km)

11

10

8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Quarter-Car Modeling Speed (km/h)

FIGURE 7   Modified IRI obtained at different quarter-car modeling speeds

(Pavement Section 14).
Abudinen, Fuentes, and Carvajal Muñoz 7

9
Model Speed = 20 km/h
6
Vertical Acceleration (m/s2)

–3

–6

–9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (m)
(a)

9
Model Speed = 40 km/h
6
Vertical Acceleration (m/s2)

–3

–6

–9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (m)
(b)

9
Model Speed = 80 km/h

6
Vertical Acceleration (m/s2)

–3

–6

–9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (m)
(c)

FIGURE 8   Vertical acceleration experienced by the user traveling on Pavement Section 14 at (a) 20, (b) 40, and (c) 80 km/h.
8 Transportation Research Record 2612

used to explain the tolerance to high IRI values reported by urban
road users.
Use of awz Thresholds
to Assess Travel Quality
Given the need to improve travel quality assessment on urban roads,
this research study proposes thresholds for the IRI and makes use of
awz to determine the accelerations perceived by the users of the road
network being studied. A total of 102 urban profiles constructed
with concrete pavement were selected for the collection of rough-
ness (IRI) data with a SurPRO profiler. As observed in Figure 9a,
a correlation was found between IRI measurements (m/km) and the
awz parameter (m/s2) (R2 = .51), both determined for a reference speed
of 80 km/h. Furthermore, Figure 9b depicts the corresponding
trends for each of the awz evaluated at different simulation speeds.
These linear trends are within typical ranges for operating speeds in
urban roads (i.e., 30 to 100 km/h).
Similar research conducted by Cantisani and Loprencipe was
taken into account (14), and a set of thresholds was proposed for the
IRI; these thresholds used the linear regressions previously shown in
Figure 9. The thresholds are shown in Figure 10 and Table 2. Fig-
ure 10 illustrates the procedure used to obtain the threshold values
shown in Table 2.
The information in Table 2 and Figure 11 is consistent with
research by Cantisani and Loprencipe (14) and indicates that rough-
ness on low-speed roads can be higher because users will perceive less
discomfort as a result of the lower vertical accelerations experienced
on the same road when traveling at lower speeds. These limits tend
to become more demanding with the increased operating speed of a
given road. However, the data depicted in Figure 6 could differ from
the results of Cantisani and Loprencipe if one takes into consideration
that the roads studied (highways) were different from those of this
research study (urban roads) (14).
A validation of the thresholds presented in this section of the paper
was required to confirm consistency with local regulations and stan-
dards. The information in Table 2 and Figure 10 was used with a refer-
ence speed of 80 km/h to get an IRI value equal to 2.98 m/km, which
corresponded to a road in bad condition that would probably generate
discomfort in its users. This value was contrasted with threshold
values from Portugal and Spain (3.0 m/km), and a clear consistency
in the thresholds proposed in this research was determined. Further-
more, Colombian standards indicate a maximum allowable value

10

8
awz 80 km/h (m/s2)

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
IRI 80 km/h (m/km)
(a)

3
I
IR RI
I

0 *I
* IR

30* .2
0. =0
43

=
0.

60
80 a wz– IRI
=

z– .15 *
00

aw =0
–1

0
wz

2 a wz–5
a

awz–90 = 0.41*IRI
awz (m/s2)

awz–70 = 0.27*IRI
9*IRI
= 0.0
a wz–40
I
1 0.06 *IR
a wz–30 =

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
IRI 80 km/h (m/km)
(b)

FIGURE 9   Correlation between IRI and a wz parameter at (a) 80 km/h and
(b) evaluated at different speeds.
Abudinen, Fuentes, and Carvajal Muñoz 9

[2.98; 0.90]
0.8

awz–80 = 0.302 * IRI

awz–80 (m/s2)
0.6 [2.09; 0.63]

0.4
[1.04; 0.31]
0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4
IRI (m/km)

FIGURE 10   Parameter limits of a wz for the assessment of IRI thresholds.

TABLE 2   Proposed IRI Thresholds for Various Operating Speeds

Proposed Values for IRI (m/km)

Road Operating Slope
Speed (km/h) Very Good Good Regular Bad (equation) R2

100 <0.73 0.73–1.45 1.45–2.07 >2.07 0.43 .49

90 <0.78 0.78–1.55 1.55–2.22 >2.22 0.41 .42
80 <1.04 1.04–2.09 2.09–2.98 >2.98 0.30 .52
70 <1.15 1.15–2.31 2.31–3.29 >3.29 0.27 .41
60 <1.54 1.54–3.09 3.09–4.41 >4.41 0.20 .49
50 <2.05 2.05–4.1 4.1–5.86 >5.86 0.15 .47
40 <3.23 3.23–6.47 6.47–9.24 >9.24 0.10 .52
30 <5.1 5.1–10.19 10.19–14.56 >14.56 0.06 .48
awz parameter limit <0.315 0.315–0.63 0.63–0.90 >0.90
  values (m/s2)

16

14

12

10
IRI (m/km)

6
Bad
Regular
4
Good
Very Good
2

0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Operational Speed (km/h)

FIGURE 11   Thresholds for IRI at different operational speeds.

 10
of 3.0 m/km for 100% of sections of a given road under high vol-
umes of traffic; this value agrees with regional thresholds and with
the results of this study.
Findings and Recommendations
Roughness on urban roads is highly influenced by the natural topog-
raphy of the terrain and defined by factors not frequently encountered
in rural or urban highways, such as rutted intersections and rail-
way crossings. In the present investigation, the implementation of
the IRI model on urban roads was evaluated, given that the speed
of urban networks is typically less than the 80 km/h used in the
IRI quarter-car model. It was seen that even though a pavement
surface reports a unique IRI value, users are exposed to a different
experience on a given profile depending on the traveling speed.
This finding is evidence that user perceptions of road conditions are
highly influenced by travel speed. The results suggest the need to
develop a roughness index that captures the unique characteristics
of urban roads and that can estimate the road condition as perceived
by users. Subsequently, thresholds for the IRI were determined for
the evaluation of user comfort at different speeds. These thresholds
were developed according to the nature of urban roads and their
wide range of travel speeds, which influence different perceptions
of pavement surface quality. These thresholds for IRI are congruent
when compared with the maximum values allowed by international
standards and by Colombian standards (Colombian National Roads
Institute). The thresholds obtained provide not only the maximum
permissible values for a route but also insight into the evolution of user
comfort throughout the life of the pavement (the relationship between
the IRI and increased user comfort) and so determine, according to IRI
values, whether a road’s operating speed can be increased.
In addition, the data showed that roughness evaluation with
full-scale profilers was sensitive to the vehicle’s measuring speed.
Roughness evaluation on urban roads with full-scale profilers
presents a particular challenge. The vehicle is affected by horizontal
deceleration and acceleration as the profiler slows down and speeds
up in response to traffic conditions. These effects cause additional
errors in the profile evaluation; these errors can be reported as large
features or singularities of the roadway that were not actually present
at the test site. This condition is magnified at low testing speeds.
However, it was observed that the correlation between the measure-
ments obtained from a full-scale profiler and a reference portable
profiler decreased as the testing speed of the full-scale profiler
decreased. Future research studies in Colombia or other locations
should be conducted to study the correlation between roughness
evaluations conducted according to travel quality indexes and the
actual distresses of the road, such as cracking and rutting. This cor-
relation would greatly complement the study’s findings and allow for
a deeper understanding of the links between comfort and pavement
condition, especially in urban locations.
References
 1. Carey, W. N., Jr., and P. E. Irick. The Pavement Serviceability–
Performance Concept. Bulletin 250: Pavement Performance Concepts,
HRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1960, pp. 40–58.
View publication stats
Transportation Research Record 2612
  2. Janoff, M. S., J. B. Nick, and P. S. Davit. NCHRP Report 275: Pavement
Roughness and Rideability. TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1985.
  3. Smith, K. L., L. Titus-Glover, and L. D. Evans. Pavement Smoothness
Index Relationships. Report FHWA-RD-02-057. FHWA, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 2002.
  4. Moore, R. K., G. N. Clark, and G. N. Plumb. Present Serviceability–
Roughness Correlations Using Rating Panel Data. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 1117, 1987, pp. 152–158.
  5. Chatti, K., and I. Zaabar. NCHRP Report 720: Estimating the Effects
of Pavement Condition on Vehicle Operating Costs. Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012.
 6. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design: In Search of Better
Investment Decisions. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1998.
  7. Spangler, E. B., and W. J. Kelley. GMR Road Profilometer—A Method
for Measuring Road Profile. Research publication GMR-452. General
Motors Research Laboratory, Warren, Mich., 1964.
  8. Sayers, M. W. On the Calculation of International Roughness Index from
Longitudinal Road Profile. Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 1501, 1995, pp. 1–12.
 9. La Torre, F., L. Ballerini, and N. Di Volo. Correlation Between
Longitudinal Roughness and User Perception in Urban Areas. Transpor-
tation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 1806, 2002, pp. 131–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1806-15.
10. Reggin, A., A. Shalaby, R. Emanuels, and G. Michel. Urban Consider-
ations for Using Road Roughness to Manage Road Networks. Presented
at 7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets, 2008.
11. Yu, J., E. Chou, and J. T. Yau. Development of Speed-Related Ride
Quality Thresholds Using International Roughness Index. Transporta-
tion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 1974, 2006, pp. 47–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1974-08.
12. Ahlin, K., and J. Granlund. International Roughness Index, IRI, and
ISO 2631 Vibration Evaluation. Presented at 80th Annual Meeting of
the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2001.
13. Ahlin, K., and N. J. Granlund. Relating Road Roughness and Vehi-
cle Speeds to Human Whole Body Vibration and Exposure Limits.
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2002,
pp. 207–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298430210001701.
14. Cantisani, G., and G. Loprencipe. Road Roughness and Whole Body
Vibration: Evaluation Tools and Comfort Limits. Journal of Transporta-
tion Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 9, 2010, pp. 818–826. http://dx.doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000143.
15. Hou, X., X. Liang, S. Ma, and W. Hua. The Analysis of the Correlation
Between International Roughness Index and Body Ride Comfort. Trans-
portation Systems Planning, Development, and Management, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va., 2009, pp. 1–8.
16. Zhang, H., and W. Yang. Evaluation Method of Pavement Roughness
Based on Human-Vehicle–Road Interaction. Presented at 10th Inter-
national Conference of Chinese Transportation Professionals, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va., 2010, pp. 3541–3551. http://
ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41127(382)383.
17. Choubane, B., R. McNamara, and G. Page. Evaluation of High-
Speed Profilers for Measurement of Asphalt Pavement Smoothness
in Florida. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transpor-
tation Research Board, No. 1813, 2002, pp. 62–67. http://dx.doi.org
/10.3141/1813-08.
18. Gagarin, N., J. R. Mekemson, and L. Lineman. Effect of Accelerometer
Accuracy on Inertial Profile Measurements for Proposed Certification
Procedure, Task Order 21. Turner–Fairbank Highway Research Center,
FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, McLean, Va., 2003.
19. Abudinen, D. Desarrollo de umbrales de calidad de viaje basados
en el índice de rugosidad internacional (IRI) para la evaluación de vías
urbanas. MS thesis. Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia,
2015.
20. How Smooth Are New York City’s Streets? Technical report. New York
City Department of Transportation, 2001.
The Standing Committee on Pavement Preservation peer-reviewed this paper.