Estimation of Pavement Serviceability
Index Through Android-Based Smartphone
Application for Local Roads
Waleed Aleadelat and Khaled Ksaibati
The Wyoming Technology Transfer Center is in the process of develop-
ing a pavement management system (PMS) for county paved roads in
Wyoming. This PMS uses the present serviceability index (PSI) as a
main pavement performance parameter. This PMS depends on pave-
ment condition index, international roughness index, and pavement
rutting as explanatory variables to estimate PSI. This study researched
new explanatory variables measured by using smartphones’ sensors to
estimate PSI. It was found that the variance of the signals (time series
acceleration data) acquired by smartphones’ accelerometers could work
as a very good explanatory variable to estimate PSI. Two models were
developed with high significance (R2 higher than .9) to predict PSI using
the variance of smartphone signals. The initial validation results sug-
gested that using these models could predict, with high certainty, the
actual PSI values. The difference between the predicted and the actual
PSI values was not statistically different. The study was performed
on 20 roadway segments extracted from the Wyoming county roads’
PMS database. In addition, the selected segments had various lengths
and geometric features reflecting various roadway segments under any
PMS. The proposed methodology is intended to lower the cost of mea-
suring county roads’ pavement conditions by estimating PSI directly
without the reliance on the direct measurement of pavement condition
parameters.
In Wyoming, most county paved roads were built decades ago without
following minimum design standards. However, the recent increase
in industrial and mineral activities in the state required developing a
pavement management system (PMS) for local paved roads. These
roads have experienced an increase in truck traffic because of the
high drilling activities in the surrounding rural areas. Thus the new
county roads’ PMS is anticipated to provide strategic and system-
atic steps toward upgrading and maintaining these roads in good
condition. The county PMS, which is currently being developed by
the Wyoming Technology Transfer Center (WYT2/LTAP), uses the
present serviceability index (PSI) as a pavement performance param-
eter. The PSI is used to formulate decision matrices that support the
roadway treatments selection process.
The Wyoming Department of Transportation (DOT) depends on
the pavement condition index (PCI), rutting, and international rough-
Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, College of Engineering
and Applied Science, University of Wyoming, 1000 East University Avenue,
Department 3295, Laramie, WY 82071. Corresponding author: K. Ksaibati,
Khaled@uwyo.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2639, 2017, pp. 129–135.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2639-16
129
ness index (IRI) as explanatory variables to estimate PSI of state
roadway segments. Every other year, the Wyoming DOT contracts
with an automated data collection vendor to measure the pavement
condition parameters for PCI, rutting, and IRI. The measurement of
these parameters costs the Wyoming DOT approximately $55 per
mile. There are 2,444 mi of county paved roads (1). The annual cost
of collecting condition data on these local roads is around $135,000.
Currently, WYT2/LTAP is considering many low-cost approaches
that guarantee the development and sustainability of the local roads’
PMS. One approach considers collecting data every 2 or 3 years.
Another approach is to collect the data for only one part of the local
roads’ network and predicting the remaining part based on the net-
work performance. However, the validity of these approaches is
still under investigation (2). This study examines new explanatory
variables measured using smartphones’ sensors to estimate the PSI
of county roads. The proposed approach is intended to lower the cost
of measuring county roads’ pavement conditions by estimating PSI
directly without the reliance on the direct measurement of pavement
condition parameters.
Background
The pavement serviceability concept was introduced first in 1960 and
after the AASHO road test (3). This concept implies the interaction
of three major elements: road profile, vehicle characteristics, and
roadway users’ perceptions. Pavement serviceability concept con-
siders roadway users the primary customers to be served. Hence
their actual judgment while riding roads is considered the main way to
measure how a certain road is serving its intended use. However,
this way suggests a subjective measure to describe the pavement
performance. It is an impractical process to collect the opinions
(ratings) of roadway users regarding how they feel about riding a cer-
tain road. The human mind is very flexible, and this flexibility leaves
the rating process open for many personal interpretations. Therefore,
many studies tried to overcome the subjectivity of roadway users’
ratings by correlating these ratings to objective parameters (4).
Previous studies focused mainly on relating roadway users’
perceptions to surface distresses as explanatory variables (4–10).
For example, in the AASHO road test, the explanatory variables
were longitudinal and transverse roughness, surface cracking, and
pavement surface patching. These surface distresses were correlated
with panel ratings. The actual mean of the giving ratings was con-
sidered the present serviceability rating (PSR) and the predicted
values of PSR through the developed statistical models were con-
sidered the PSI. The PSI ranges between 0 for worst conditions and
130
5 for best conditions (3). Later on, as a result of the development of
roadway profile physical measurement devices, different explana-
tory variables have been introduced. IRI is considered a significant
explanatory variable along with other pavement condition indexes
(11). Other pavement condition indexes include, but are not limited
to, PCI and rut depth. Nevertheless, the practical justification behind
selecting these explanatory variables was never made clear (12).
Previous studies examined variables that may correlate well with
users’ ratings only.
A few studies tried to seek explanatory variables that can predict
the serviceability outside the pool of roadway condition indexes.
Additionally, these previous studies focused on the effects of verti-
cal and transverse vibrations in reducing the human riding comfort
(13–15). For example, Liu and Herman searched new explanatory
variables to predict the mean panel ratings and the NCHRP ride num-
ber (12). After simulating a vehicle using the quarter car model and
applying the Fechner psychophysical law, they found that the verti-
cal jerk (derivative of acceleration with respect to time) can predict
with high significance the mean panel ratings and ride number. In
another study, Liu studied the changes of the road surface profile
according to the number of cumulative truck loads. Then, he used
the evolution of road surface profiles to predict the PSI through for-
mulating different curves based on the number of the applied loads
(16). In another study, Wermers trained linear regression models
to predict the PSR values using the accelerometer roughness index
(ARI) measured using a Kentucky accelerometer (17). The ARI
represents the average of the obtained vertical accelerations along a
pavement section. He found that the correlation of PSR with ARI is
significantly better than the established correlation using a roughness
measurement device.
Considering the use of smartphones in estimating pavement
ride quality, most of the previous studies were focused on utilizing
smartphones in measuring road roughness (18–22). Modern smart-
phones are equipped with many useful sensors such as gyroscopes,
magnetometers, GPS receivers, and three-dimensional (3-D) accel-
erometers. These sensors are usually used to identify the orientation
of the smartphone screen and other functional activities (19). A 3-D
accelerometer is a sensor that measures the changes in speed among
the x-, y-, and z-axes in the units of acceleration (m/s2). In the previ-
ous studies, the 3-D accelerometer was utilized to capture vehicle
vertical vibrations to reflect pavement roughness. Douangphachanh
and Oneyama conducted a study in Vientiane, the capital of Laos,
in a trial to estimate the IRI through smartphones’ accelerometer
measurements (19). They found that the fast Fourier transform of
the measured accelerometer data using smartphones can predict, with
high significance, the measured IRI values using a profilometer.
One year later, Jiménez and Matout assessed the pavement rough-
ness using tablets built in accelerometers (20). They found that the
standard deviation of vertical accelerations normalized by the
driving speed could give a good indication of the road roughness
condition. Other studies by Hanson et al. (21) and Islam et al. (22)
used a double integration method on the vertical accelerometer data
to formulate a perceived road profile. Then, the perceived road pro-
file was converted to IRI using computer software. The calculated
IRI values were in a good agreement with the measured IRI values
using a standard inertial profiler. However, calibration was required
for rougher pavement sections to overcome the effect of suspension
damping.
Previous studies have proven the smartphone ability in evaluat-
ing the pavement ride quality with respect to IRI. However, many
roads, especially the local ones, have very poor physical conditions
Transportation Research Record 2639
(i.e., high IRI) and are still drivable in a comfortable way according
to the driving public. Thus an investigation is required to evaluate
the ability of smartphones in predicting the perceptions of roadway
users. The assessment of the roadway customers (driving public) is
very important to infer the actual pavement performance in any PMS,
especially when it comes to the budget allocation process.
Methodology
Smartphone internal accelerometers were used to capture the vertical
vibrations while driving the testing vehicle. The acquired time series
acceleration data using smartphones formulate different signals that
can be considered a reflection of the actual road conditions. Then,
the variance among the accelerometer data is correlated with the
roadway users’ perceptions. These perceptions were obtained as PSI.
The following subsections describe this process.
Experiment Design
Two smartphones, a Samsung Galaxy S III and a Sony Xperia A, were
selected to collect the vertical acceleration data. The smartphones
were glued close to each other on the testing vehicle’s dashboard.
This location, along the front axle, will help in capturing the relative
vibrations generated directly on both wheelpaths. Also, it will facilitate
the monitoring process of these smartphones. A 2011 Ford Fusion
Sedan was selected as the testing vehicle for this study. Figure 1 shows
the test vehicle and the smartphone arrangement that were used in this
study. Twenty roadway segments were selected from the Wyoming
local county roads’ PMS database (Laramie and Albany counties).
These segments were randomly selected to include different roadway
condition indexes levels.
Following are the different roadway condition indexes levels that
were considered in this study:
• IRI (in./mi):
– Less than 70,
– 70–100,
– 101–130,
– 131–170, and
– Greater than 170;
• PCI:
– Greater than 85,
– 70–85, and
– Less than 70; and
• Rut:
– 0.3 in. or less and
– More than 0.3 in.
The selected segments cover various geometric features with
lengths reflecting the actual roadway segments under any PMS.
Table 1 shows a summary of the statistics for the selected test segments.
Smartphone Data Processing
Accelerometer data were uploaded to a desktop computer in Micro-
soft Excel format (*.CSV). Every roadway segment had its own Excel
file that represented the variations in speed among the x, y, and
z dimensions. Since the smartphones were fixed horizontally (i.e., in
Aleadelat and Ksaibati 131

(a) (b)

FIGURE 1   Test vehicle and smartphones orientation.

x and y), the variations along the z-axis were the focus of this study.
Therefore, the time series vertical acceleration data formed a signal
that represented the vibrations of the test vehicle, reflecting actual
road conditions.
Both median and simple moving average filters were applied to
reduce the amount of noise in the accelerometer signals (23). The
median filter is a nonlinear digital filter that replaces the neighbor-
ing entries of a signal by the median of these entries. The pattern
Finally, variance analysis was conducted to assess the trends of the
measured vertical accelerations using the smartphone accelerometers.
The calculated variance was compared with the obtained PSI value
for each segment. The variance among the accelerometer readings for
every segment was calculated as the second central moment according
to the following equation:
n

∑(X − X )
2
of the neighboring entries is identified by a window that slides over i

the entire signal. All the entries inside the window are sorted into var = i =1
(1)
n −1
a numerical order to find the median of these entries. Then all the
entries inside the window are replaced by the calculated median.
This filter helps in reducing the variations that might be a result of where
unusual surface anomalies within the roadway segment (i.e., bridge n = total number of vertical acceleration readings for the segment,
expansion joints, manholes) that can be considered statistical outliers. i = one of the measured vertical acceleration readings for the
Using the same windowing procedure, the moving average filter segment,
replaces the neighboring entries of a window by the average of these X = value for one of the vertical acceleration readings, and
entries, which results in reducing the short-term fluctuations and –
X = arithmetic mean of the n readings.
highlighting the longer-term trends in the signal. As a result, the fil-
tered signals will reflect the general prevailing surface conditions of This is a well-known method of calculating the unbiased variance
the tested segment. For this study, the acceleration data were filtered of data.
first by applying a median filter with a window size of 5. Then, the
accelerometer data were filtered again using the moving average filter
with a window size of 10. This signal conditioning was accomplished Data Collection
off-line using MATLAB as a postprocessing procedure.
An Android application called “AndroSensor” was installed on the
smartphones that were used in this study. AndroSensor is an appli-
cation that is used to record data from most of smartphone’s sen-
TABLE 1   Summary of Test Segments
sors. This application is available for free download in the Google
Parameter Mean Median SD Max. Min. Play Store. The application was used to record the smartphone
accelerometer data.
IRI 151 in./mi 118 in./mi 92.3 390 in./mi 59 in./mi Concerning the county roads’ condition indexes, the Wyoming
Rut 0.15 in. 0.12 in. 0.06 0.33 0.06 DOT contracts annually with an automated data collection vendor
PCI 82.16 85 14.96 100 39 to do the data collection process. This vendor provides an automated
PSI 2.83 2.82 0.64 3.59 1.16 data collection vehicle equipped with sensors, video cameras, and
Length 1.03 mi 0.96 mi 0.70 2.96 mi 0.14 mi computers. This vehicle traveled on the county roads providing data
about the actual road profile. The provided data included direct
Note: Number of test segments = 20. measurements of IRI, rut, and video logs of the surface distresses.
132
The IRI was measured using the South Dakota profiler. This device
is a laser-type profiler manufactured according to ASTM E950
specifications and meeting Class 1 requirements. The longitudinal
pavement profile for both wheelpaths was measured and analyzed
using the quarter car simulation to generate the actual IRI value.
The average IRI of the right and the left wheelpaths was considered
the final IRI.
PCI was calculated on the basis of visual inspection and observa-
tion through the video logs that represent the real road surface. For
every mile of any roadway section, a random 1,000-ft subsegment was
surveyed. After running the video logs through a computer software
provided by the vendor, all the distresses’ features and their severities
were defined visually and input into the software. The software itself
was used to define the deduct values and perform the required calcu-
lations to determine the PCI value for each subsegment. The average
PCI of all subsegments was considered the final PCI for the entire
roadway section (1, 24). Since the state of Wyoming falls in the cold
region of the United States, only cracking is considered in calculat-
ing the PCI of county roads. The Wyoming DOT and local agencies
concentrate on cracking as a base for PCI calculation when it comes
to the maintenance and rehabilitation works of asphalt pavements.
The rutting data were collected through PathRunner Data Col-
lection system. In the PathRunner system, 1,500 data points were
collected per transverse profile. Every 12 transverse profiles were
averaged to produce a single transverse profile. Using computer
software, this perceived profile was filtered and processed using
different algorithms to provide the final rutting values (1, 25).
The PSI of the selected road segments was obtained using the
county roads serviceability prediction model (Equation 2). This model
is exclusive to the county roads in Wyoming and it is developed by
WYT2/LTAP as part of the county roads PMS building process (26).
PCI 
PSI = 1.185 + 2.892e −0.003IRI − 1.469rut 2 − 1.247  1 − (2)
 100 
where IRI is in inches per mile and rut is the depth in inches.
Concerning roadway test segments, GPS coordinates of the begin-
ning and ending points were provided as part of the Wyoming local
county roads’ PMS. These coordinates were uploaded into Microsoft
Streets and Trips software, which helped in identifying the exact
locations of these segments while driving. For every roadway test
segment, the smartphone’s accelerometer data were collected at two
speeds: 40 mph and 50 mph. The sampling frequency at both speeds
was 200 Hz (i.e., 200 samples per second). The speed was held
constant while testing each test segment. All accelerometer data
PSI = 4.2699  exp(–2.357  var) – 0.0365
R2 = .91
PSI
exp(–2.357  var)
(a)
FIGURE 2   With Samsung Galaxy S III, PSI versus variance at driving speed of (a) 40 mph and (b) 50 mph.
Transportation Research Record 2639
were collected in 2015, while the county roads’ condition indexes
were determined from the Wyoming DOT video logs.
Data Analysis
Accelerometer data were extracted from smartphones, uploaded to
a computer, and imported into MATLAB for further analysis. For
every roadway segment, the sampling rate was recalculated manu-
ally using the obtained accelerometer data. This way, any variability
in the sampling frequencies that may affect the data analysis can
be directly realized. However, the obtained data showed sampling
frequencies in the range of 200 ± 1 Hz. Therefore, the existing vari-
ability in the sampling frequencies can be ignored. After applying
median and moving average filters on the data from both smart-
phones, variance was calculated for each roadway segment. Figure 2
shows a plot for PSI values versus the calculated variance using the
Samsung smartphone at both speeds. Notice that the PSI of county
roads depends linearly on the exponent of the variance of the mea-
sured accelerometer data using the smartphone. The variance results
can predict with high significance the PSI values at both speeds.
Moreover, the exponential of the variance can explain 91% and 93%
of the variations in the predicted PSI values at 40 mph and 50 mph,
respectively. Hence the variance using the smartphone’s acceler-
ometer represents a very good explanatory variable to predict the
PSI of county roads. Additionally, using a simple linear regression
model may lead to negative predictions in the PSI, especially with
high variance values as in the county roads case. Thus the exponen-
tial transformation was performed. Also, this transformation helped
in improving the linearity and homoscedasticity of the residuals.
Using Excel, it was found that the transformation of the variance
to e−2.357∗var and e−1.265∗var fits the data best at 40 mph and 50 mph,
respectively. The found PSI prediction equations using the variance
are as follows:
At 40 mph:
PSI = 4.2699e −2.357 var − 0.0365 R 2 = .91 (3)
At 50 mph:
PSI = 4.1245e −1.265 var − 0.1768 R 2 = .93 (4)
The high R2 values can be explained because the given ratings in any
riding quality survey are highly affected by the vehicle vibrations.
PSI = 4.1245  exp(–1.265  var) – 0.1768
R2 = .93
PSI
exp(–1.265  var)
(b)
Aleadelat and Ksaibati 133

These vibrations are easily captured through smartphone acceler- TABLE 2   Summary of Validation Test Segments
ometers accordingly. Also, notice that PSI values vary in a similar
fashion as the exponent of the variance increases at both speeds. In Parameter Mean Median SD Max. Min.
other words, the PSI values decrease with the increase in the vari- IRI 160 in./mi 124 in./mi 83.03 332 in./mi 57 in./mi
ance values. This is a rational reflection of the actual conditions of the
Rut 0.20 in. 0.17 in. 0.12 0.49 0.07
road profile. In addition, the driving speed seems to affect the way in
PCI 80.47 82 17.54 100 37
which the vehicle responds to the road profile (i.e., variance values).
At 50 mph, the variances were higher than those measured at 40 mph PSI 2.70 2.87 0.69 3.62 1.31
for all the roadway segments. However, these differences do not Length 1.31 mi 1 mi 1.27 5.57 mi 0.3 mi
detract from the value of the variance as an explanatory variable to
Note: Number of test segments = 15.
predict PSI. This speed dependency of the developed models is in
line with the previous work related to the use of accelerometers in
identifying roadway conditions (17, 27). and the validation of the PSI models. However, three segments were
Figure 3 shows a plot for the variance values versus PSI using excluded because they were considered outliers after performing the
Sony Xperia at 40 mph and 50 mph. Compared with the variance regression analysis. The highly significant established correlation
values obtained with the Samsung Galaxy S III, the measured verti- gives an indication that the amount of cracking in the county roads’
cal accelerometer data using Sony Xperia showed an insignificant surface is highly affecting the longitudinal variations in the pave-
correlation between the PSI and the variance. The variance values ment profile. This reasoning is valid because the PCI of county roads
were randomly distributed among the different PSI values. In addi- was calculated on the basis of cracking only.
tion, these variance values were considerably higher than the ones
obtained using the Samsung Galaxy S III. This difference could
most likely be attributed to a lower accuracy of the Sony Xperia’s Conclusions
accelerometer compared with the Samsung Galaxy S III. Hence the
variance obtained by the Sony Xperia did not formulate an explanatory This study demonstrated the capability of smartphones’ accelerom-
variable to predict PSI in this study. Further investigations using eters in predicting the PSI or the driving public perceptions as part of
different types of smartphones, installation locations, and sampling an actual local county road’s PMS. Moreover, this study was based
intervals are required to validate this hypothesis. on different roadway segments with various geometric features that
To validate the reliability of the variance models (Equations 3 and 4) cover various lengths reflecting the actual roadway segments under
in predicting PSI of county roads, 15 new segments were selected
any PMS. Using MATLAB, median and moving average filters were
to perform the experiment again using the Samsung Galaxy S III.
applied to smooth the acquired signals using the smartphones’ accel-
Table 2 shows a summary of the statistics for the validation test
erometers. Then, using regression analysis, two statistically signifi-
segments. Figure 4 shows a plot for the predicted PSI values using
cant models that correlated between the PSI and the variance of the
smartphones versus the actual PSI values. Notice that the predicted
smoothed signals were developed. The PSI values were calculated
PSI values using smartphones are in good agreement with the actual
values. Most of the predicted PSI values fall within the 0.5 PSI on the basis of an exclusive model that was developed earlier for
offset band (dashed lines). At 40 mph, three points fall outside the county roads in Wyoming. Later on, validation analysis was con-
offset band, while one point only falls outside the same band at ducted to verify the reliability of the new models in predicting PSI.
50 mph. Nonetheless, the t-test results show that there is no signifi- It was found that the difference between the predicted and the actual
cant difference between the predicted and the actual PSI values at PSI values was not statistically significant. The main conclusions
40 mph [t-stat (27) = −0.15; P-value = .88) and 50 mph (t-stat (27) = drawn from this study are as follows:
−0.44; P-value = .66]. Also, the same test shows that there is
no statistical difference between the predicted PSI values at both 1. The variance of the measured signals (time series acceleration
speeds [t-stat (28) = −0.32; P-value = .75]. data) seems to work as a very good explanatory variable that can
Figure 5 shows a significant correlation between PCI and the vari- predict PSI directly.
ance measured using smartphones. This correlation was established 2. At this stage and using the same combinations of vehicle and
using the 35 segments that were used initially to do the modeling smartphone type, Equations 3 and 4 can be used with high certainty

PSI = –0.1968  var + 3.1218 PSI = –0.3529  var + 3.3076

R2 = .37 R2 = .2701
PSI

PSI

Variance Variance
(a) (b)

FIGURE 3   With Sony Xperia, PSI versus variance at driving speed of (a) 40 mph and (b) 50 mph.
134 Transportation Research Record 2639

5 5

Predicted PSI, Equation 3

Predicted PSI, Equation 4

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
PSI, Equation 2 PSI, Equation 2
(a) (b)

FIGURE 4   Predicted PSI versus actual PSI, driving speed of (a) 40 mph and (b) 50 mph.

120 120
100 100
80 80
PCI

PCI
60 60
40 40
PCI = 117.14e–2.235 var PCI = 107.61e–1.177var


20 20
R2 = .83 R2 = .84
0 0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Variance Variance
(a) (b)

FIGURE 5   PCI versus variance, driving speed of (a) 40 mph and (b) 50 mph.

(R2 higher than .9) to predict the actual PSI values. Moreover, the
t-test results showed that the difference between the measured and
the predicted PSI was not significant.
3. The calculated variance values are speed dependent. However,
the speed does not affect the usefulness of variance in predicting PSI.
In addition, the variance values were higher at 50 mph. In other words,
the PSI can be predicted using smartphones at 40 mph or 50 mph.
However, the accuracy of predictions was higher at 50 mph.
4. The type of the smartphone used seems to be a significant factor
in estimating the PSI of county roads.
5. The variance values are highly correlated with PCI values’ of the
county roads. The amount of cracking in the county roads’ surface is
highly affecting the longitudinal variations in the pavement profile.
However, further investigations are required to stand on the evaluation
of PCI of county roads using smartphones.
The observed results demonstrated the ability of smartphone sensors
in returning variables that can work as good explanatory variables
to predict the PSI of county roads. Determining PSI values was
the main reason behind collecting the actual pavement condition
data. Thus, at least at the network level, the proposed methodology
can provide a cost-effective way to determine PSI directly without
the reliance on the direct measurement of the pavement condition
data. Additionally, it depends on inexpensive smartphone sensors to
collect the required data. This ability may provide an automated data
collection of PSI values directly through smartphone applications.
Nevertheless, further investigations are required to address the differ-
ent variables that may affect the estimation of PSI using smartphones.
For example, the response of different smartphones under defined
experimental conditions can be measured. These defined conditions
can be achieved by using different smartphones simultaneously to
measure the effect of applying a specific vertical force on a defined
spring damper. This way the different variables (i.e., smartphone
and vehicle types) that may affect this approach can be reasonably
inferred and isolated.
References
  1. Huntington, G., A. Pearce, N. Stroud, J. Jones, and K. Ksaibati. Mitigating
Impacts of Oil and Gas Traffic on Southeastern Wyoming County Roads.
University of Wyoming, Laramie, 2013. www.uwyo.edu/wyt2/_files/tech
_briefs_stuff/mitigating%20impacts%20of%20oil%20and%20gas%20
traffic%20on%20southeastern%20wyoming%20county%20roads.pdf.
Accessed April 19, 2014.
  2. Hafez, M., K. Ksaibati, and R. Andeson-Sprecher. Utilizing Statisti-
cal Techniques in Estimating Uncollected Pavement-Condition Data.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 142, No. 12, 2016. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000898.
  3. Carey, W. N., and P. E. Irick. The Pavement Serviceability-Performance
Concept. Bulletin 250, HRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1960, pp. 40–58.
  4. Nakamura, V. F., and H. L. Michael. Serviceability Ratings of Highway
Pavements. Highway Research Record, No. 40, 1963, pp. 21–36.
  5. Nair, S. K., W. R. Hudson, and C. E. Lee. Realistic Pavement Serviceabil-
ity Equations Using the 690D Surface Dynamics Profilometer. Research
Report 354-1F. Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas,
Austin, 1985.
  6. Al-Omari, B., and M. I. Darter. Relationships Between International
Roughness Index and Present Serviceability Rating. Transportation
Research Record, No. 1435, 1994, pp. 130–136.
  7. Gulen, S., R. Woods, J. Weaver, and V. L. Anderson. Correlation of
Present Serviceability Ratings with International Roughness Index.
Transportation Research Record, No. 1435, 1994, pp. 27–37.
Aleadelat and Ksaibati
 8. Pologruto, M. Vermont Agency of Transportation Ride Quality Study,
1999. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source= Towards Vehicular Sensor Networks with Android Smartphones for
web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiHjNGBgozSAh
WrjFQKHdW8BE0QFgg5MAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearch
.transportation.org%2F_layouts%2FAASHTORAC%2FFileDownload
.aspx%3FSurveyFileID%3D242&usg=AFQjCNHu0z501xWKkO52
Byo7-Olxhyv5gA&sig2=MWVmeBzSQg1VqIBtO-bdpQ&bvm=bv
.146786187,d.amc. Accessed Jan. 6, 2016.
  9. Shafizadeh, K., F. Mannering, and L. Pierce. A Statistical Analysis of
Factors Associated with Driver-Perceived Road Roughness on Urban
Highways. Research Report WA-RD 583.1. Washington State Depart-
ment of Transportation, Olympia, 2002.
10. De Solminihac, H., R. Salsilli, E. Köhler, and E. Bengoa. Analysis of
Pavement Serviceability for the AASHTO Design Method: The Chilean
Case. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 2B,
2003, pp. 143–159.
11. Ksaibati, K., R. McNamara, W. Miley, and J. Armaghani. Pavement
Roughness Data Collection and Utilization. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1655, 1999,
pp. 86–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1655-12.
12. Liu, C., and R. Herman. Road Profile, Vehicle Dynamics, and Ride
Quality Rating. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 2,
1999, pp. 123–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1999)
125:2(123).
13. Leatherwood, J. D., T. K. Dempsey, and S. A. Clevenson. A Design
Tool for Estimating Passenger Ride Discomfort Within Complex Ride
Environments. Human Factors, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1980, pp. 291–312.
14. Donati, P., A. Grosjean, P. Mistrot, and L. Roure. The Subjective Equiv-
alence of Sinusoidal and Random Whole-Body Vibration in the Sitting
Position (An Experimental Study Using the ‘Floating Reference Vibration’
Method). Ergonomics, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1983, pp. 251–273. http://dx.doi.org
/10.1080/00140138308963340.
15. Liu, C., D. C. Gazis, and T. W. Kennedy. Human Judgment and Analyti-
cal Derivation of Ride Quality. Transportation Science, Vol. 33, No. 3,
1999, pp. 290–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/trsc.33.3.290.
16. Liu, C. Vehicle-Road Interaction, Evolution of Road Profiles and Pres-
ent Serviceability Index. Road Materials and Pavement Design, Vol. 1,
No. 1–2, 2000, pp. 35–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2000
.9689883.
17. Wermers, G. Analysis of Road Roughness of Flexible Pavements Using
the Kentucky Accelerometer. Research Report C-36-5UBB. Joint High-
way Research Project, Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind., 1962.
135
18. Strazdins, G., A. Mednis, G. Kanonirs, R. Zviedris, and L. Selavo.
Road Surface Monitoring. Presented at 2nd International Workshop on
Networks of Cooperating Objects, Chicago, Ill., 2011. www.dee.srv1.eu
/refs/files/4/105.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2015.
19. Douangphachanh, V., and H. Oneyama. A Study on the Use of Smart-
phones for Road Roughness Condition Estimation. Journal of the Eastern
Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 10, 2013, pp. 1551–1564.
https://doi.org/10.11175/easts.10.1551.
20. Jiménez, L. A., and N. Matout. A Low Cost Solution to Assess Road’s
Roughness Surface Condition for Pavement Management. Presented at
93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 2014. www.docs.trb.org/prp/14-3086.pdf. Accessed March 12,
2015.
21. Hanson, T., C. Cameron, and E. Hildebrand. Evaluation of Low-Cost
Consumer-Level Mobile Phone Technology for Measuring Inter­national
Roughness Index (IRI) Values. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineer-
ing, Vol. 41, No. 9, 2014, pp. 819–827. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjce
-2014-0183.
22. Islam, S., W. G. Buttlar, R. G. Aldunate, and W. R. Vavrik. Measurement
of Pavement Roughness Using Android-Based Smartphone Application.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 2457, 2014, pp. 30–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2457-04.
23. Mitra, S. K. Digital Signal Processing: A Computer-Based Approach.
McGraw-Hill, New York, 2006.
24. Shahin, M. Y. Pavement Management for Airports, Roads, and Parking
Lots. Springer, New York, 2005.
25. Serigos, P. A., J. A. Prozzi, B. H. Nam, and M. R. Murphy. Field Evalu-
ation of Automated Rutting Measuring Equipment. Publication FHWA/
TX-12/0-6663-1. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2012.
26. Aleadelat, W., P. Saha, and K. Ksaibati. Development of Serviceabil-
ity Prediction Model for County Paved Roads. International Jour-
nal of Pavement Engineering, 2016, pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10298436.2016.1176167.
27. Bridgelall, R. Connected Vehicle Approach for Pavement Roughness
Evaluation. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2014. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000167.
The Standing Committee on Pavement Management Systems peer-reviewed
this paper.