Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
About 157,000 crashes were reported in 2004 on Canadian roads with annual economic loss of about $25 billion (1).
Highway crashes cost the United States over $200 billion annually (2). Skidding on wet pavements contribute to
13.5% of fatal and up to 25% of all accidents (3). The resistance to skidding is therefore of paramount importance in
selecting a surface type. Increased temperature and surface polishing significantly reduce the available friction with
increased potential for skid related accidents. Variation of available friction with time is therefore an important
measure of pavement deterioration (4). Pavement surface should therefore be designed so that sufficient friction is
available throughout the life of the pavement and in varying weather condition.
The available friction on pavement surfaces depends on surface microtexture and macrotexture. Improved
and durable friction can be achieved through increased textures. This may, however, influence the tire-pavement
interaction noise with resulting increases in the overall traffic noise. Noise is an environmental problem that may
also affect public health. Survey results show that half of Canadians are bothered, disturbed or annoyed by noise
originated outside their home where the most bothersome type is indicated to be the road traffic noise (5). In
addition, the quality of a roadway is judged by its surface smoothness, the single most important indicator of
TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Ahammed & Tighe Page 2
pavement performance. Highway engineers/agencies are challenged as they must balance the surface texture
characteristics for comfort (smooth and quiet) and durability but not compromise safety. However, no Canadian
agencies specify the desirable surface texture for adequate and durable friction. Furthermore, no specification or
guideline is provided for acceptable noise levels in pavement perspective, although the environmental
agencies/departments provide some guidance on traffic noise levels for noise barrier consideration. This resulted in a
large variation in noise levels among the pavements already constructed or under construction. It is therefore time to
develop a specification or guideline for the desired minimum surface texture or friction and the maximum noise
levels for the pavements to be newly constructed or rehabilitated.
This paper describes different aspects of pavement surface characteristics that could be utilized in
optimizing the surface performance, namely the resistance to skidding and noise. Skid testing on several surfaces of
concrete and asphalt pavements has been carried out as part of the research program. Consequently, criteria and a
process for incorporating the surface characteristics, together with pavement stability/durability, into the PMS are
presented. The possible measures in project and network levels are also addressed to facilitate dealings with existing
pavements.
As shown in Figure 1, pavement surface textures influence several aspects of tire-pavement interaction that
include friction, tire-pavement noise, splash and spray, rolling resistance, and tire wear depending on texture levels.
The available friction however primarily depends on surface microtexture and macrotexture. On asphalt pavement
surfaces, microtexture can provide adequate skid resistance at speed of ≤ 48 km/h (30 mph) (2). On PCC pavements,
good macrotexture is needed to prevent hydroplaning (through adequate drainage), reduce splash and spray, and
provide skid resistance at speed of ≥ 80 km/h (50 mph) (8). Macrotexture and megatexture on the other hand are
responsible for tire-pavement interaction and in-vehicle noises, where the macrotexture have the strongest effect.
Pavement surfaces need be designed to minimize noise without compromising the safety.
TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Ahammed & Tighe Page 3
Where, FN = Friction Number, S = Vehicle Speed in mph, TC = Texture Code (1 for grooved and 0 for
dragged, VPC = Volume of PC (= Age*PC AADT) in thousand, VT = Volume of Truck (= Age*Truck AADT) in
thousand, CS = Compressive Strength in ksi.
Dense graded asphalt surfaces maintain SN40 in the range 40 to 50. Open graded asphalt pavement surface
exhibit better skid resistance and lower noise but need frequent cleaning maintenance (8). Figure 2 shows the
variation of skid resistance (British Pendulum Number, BPN) measured during a study (by the authors) at University
of Waterloo, using a portable skid resistance tester (British Pendulum), on fifteen concrete and five asphalt surfaces.
Deep transverse broom and transverse tine (4 mm deep, 3 mm wide, spaced at 16 mm) on concrete surfaces, and
stone mastic asphalt (SMA) were shown to provide the highest skid resistance. Exposed aggregate surface, with the
highest MTD (2.17 mm), exhibited relatively low BPN. This is probably due to loss of sand microtexture with
washed out mortar and it may therefore not be a preferred texture for concrete pavement. In this study, textured
concrete surfaces were shown to absorb 4% to 6% of the sound.
90 5.0
83
81
79 79
80 76 4.0
75
73 73 73 73 73
72
69
70 3.0
MTD, mm
66 65
64 64
BPN
2.17 63 63
1.84 1.84 1.86 1.75
60 1.70 1.70 1.57 1.57 1.65 1.65 2.0
52 1.21 1.21
0.87 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.91
0.76
50 0.57 1.0
40 0.0
A
n g eed
SP
A
Ex d -1
2
p
om
-1
-2
p
om
rm
m
rf
m
rm
Ex u rf
n g s ed -
la
SM
rla
PM
do
do
tu
L3
L3
do
oo
r
Tr Bu r
fo
se
Tr Bro
fo
d
ot
Sc
ro
Bu
an
an
an
Bu + L Ran
H
Lo . Br
Tr Uni
po
ni
str
Tr Ast
R
.R
U
.
s.
A
ng
g.
an
s.
.
s.
an
ns
ng
.
Lo
s.
Lo
ng
an
on
an
an
Lo
Bu Tra
Lo
Tr
BPN MTD
p+
p
rla
rla
Skidding was shown to contribute to 15 to 35 percent of wet accidents while poor visibility due to splash
and spray contributed to 10 percent of the wet weather accidents (11). A skid number (SN40) of 40 is the critical
mark below which accident potential was shown be high with wet/dry pavement accident ratio approaching over 0.7
(12). The available surface friction changes seasonally with temperature variations and with vehicle speed. The
average difference of skid numbers measured in winter and summer was shown to be 6 points (13). Tests on six
concrete and five asphalt surfaces in the study at University of Waterloo also showed that the available skid
resistance can vary by up to 10 BPN points (Figure 3) between winter/spring and summer. Pavements should
therefore have adequate levels of surface friction for safe manoeuvres at different operating speeds and various
surface condition states over the service life.
TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Ahammed & Tighe Page 4
80
76 AC PCC
73
71 71
BPN
70
68
67
66
64
63
71 72 71 63 63 65 65 62 72
60 nd
rt
ry
r
ay
t
il
ne
ly
be
us
ta
-E
ua
pr
Ju
Ju
em
-S
ug
ch
A
br
ch
pt
ar
Fe
ar
Se
M
M
Testing Time
TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Ahammed & Tighe Page 5
90
70
BPN
50
30
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
MTD, mm
FIGURE 4 Variations of skid resistance on concrete and asphalt surfaces with MTD
In fact, the wet pavement safety is a complex function of vehicle and driver performance/ behaviour and
surface condition. Setting an absolute minimum requirement, especially for the vast network of existing pavements,
is not a simple task because the adequacy of the existing pavements may be questioned. Accordingly, no
transportation agencies in Canada or the United States set standards for minimum surface friction, because of
litigation risk that may arise from skidding accidents (4). Tentative guidelines therefore developed by some agencies
in North America. A tentative guideline, as shown in Table 1, is used by Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO)
to assess the surface friction level (17).
Some agencies outside North America however provide some standard for minimum surface friction. For
example, the United Kingdom provides a comprehensive standard for the desired minimum surface friction levels
for different road classes and sections. The investigatory level of Sideways Force Coefficient Routine Investigation
Machine (SCRIM) friction coefficient starts from a minimum of 0.35 at 50 km/h for motorway to 0.60 at 20 km/h
for sharp bend with radius ≤100 m (speed limit >40 km/h) during the summer. Implementation of this standard has
resulted significant benefits in terms of accident reduction (18).
Figure 5 shows a general framework of selecting the desired minimum skid resistance for a new surface course or
texture and selecting treatment/rehabilitation of an existing surface. The terminal value of SN should be set based on
road/section location, road class (speed and traffic mix) and cumulative traffic passes, polish/wear resistance of the
surface, local condition of drainage and weather (rain, snow/ice, and temperature variation), wet to dry accident
ratio, and level of maintenance activities (drainage, snow cleaning and de-icing).
TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Ahammed & Tighe Page 6
TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Ahammed & Tighe Page 7
must be checked when selecting the surface texture or mixes with acceptable maximum overall noise.
N o is e A b a te m e n t P a v e m e n t M a in te n a n c e
C u r r e n t T r a ffic M ix
C r ite r ia (d B A ) a n d D e te r io r a tio n
F o r e c a s te d T r a ffic A c c e p ta b le In -V e h ic le a n d N o is e D e te r io r a tio n O v e r
M ix A fte r 1 0 Y e a r s B a c k y a r d N o is e (d B A ) = N a c T e n Y e a r s = N d e t (d B A )
E x p e c te d In c r e a s e in D e s ir e d M a x im u m N o is e a t
N o is e L e v e l D u e to B a c k y a r d o r In s id e V e h ic le * C o r r e c tio n fo r
T r a ffic = N tr (d B A ) fo r N e w S u r fa c e T e m p e r a tu r e = N te m p (d B A )
N d r (d B A ) = N a c - N tr - N d e t - N te m p
A v e r a g e W in te r
N o is e A b a te m e n t o r D e s ig n M a x im u m N o is e a t T e m p e r a tu r e
A tte n u a tio n w ith D is ta n c e R o a d s id e fo r N e w S u r fa c e
N d e g n (d B A ) = N d r + N a tt * N o is e L e v e l In c r e a s e s w ith
E ffe c tiv e N o is e D e c r e a s e in A m b ie n t
R e d u c tio n (d B A ) = N a tt T e m p e r a tu r e
FIGURE 6 General frameworks for design noise level for a new surface
INCORPORATION OF PAVEMENT SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INTO THE PMS
TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Ahammed & Tighe Page 8
TABLE 3 Extent of improvement in noise environment from road surface change (27)
Changes in Noise Level
<60 dBA Leq24 60-69 dBA Leq24 ≥ 70 dBA Leq24
(dBA)
≥ 3.6 Improvement Big Improvement
Small Improvement
Reduction 1.1 - 3.5 Small Improvement Improvement
0-1 Little Change Little Change Small Improvement
No Change 0 N/A N/A N/A
0-1 Little Change Little Change A Little Worse
Increase 1.1 - 3.5 A Little Worse Worse
A Little Worse
≥ 3.6 Worse Much Worse
Snyder suggested a value engineering technique for the selection of pavement surface type and texture for a new
pavements as well as noise mitigation on existing pavements (14). Using this process, it is possible to identify the
best choice in the decision-making process using an acceptable tool. In the demonstration, each important factor was
ranked in the scale of 0 (worst) to 100 (best). The weighing factors were allocated as: First cost = 20, Structural
Durability = 15, Safety (including wet/dry weather surface friction, hydroplaning potential, black ice, etc.) = 20,
Interior Noise = 10, Exterior Noise = 5, Durability of Surface Friction and Noise Reduction Characteristics = 20,
Future Maintenance Costs and Options = 10. However, pavement smoothness, an important criterion, was not taken
into account. The exterior noise is probably more critical than interior, especially in urban areas, because of
complaint from the residents. In fact, a combination costs, public perspectives and engineering judgment of the
importance/effectiveness of various factors and options should govern the decision-making process. It is also
important to realize that noise alone should not be used as the criteria to distinguish between asphalt and concrete
TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Ahammed & Tighe Page 9
pavements. Overall initial and life cycle costs, constructability, maintainability, durability, comfort and economy in
terms of rolling resistance and fuel consumption, and noise rather should be taken into account together with project
location (rural/urban), roadway type (freeway/major/local), and traffic class/mix and speed. A revised but simplified
list of factors, together with their corresponding weights, is being suggested in Table 5 for use in the decision-
making process. Each factor can be assigned a score in the scale of 0-10 or 0-100 with 0 indicating most inferior and
100 or 10 denoting the most superior.
TABLE 5 Value engineering approach for selection of surface and pavement type
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Noise is an environmental problem but safety and durability are of paramount importance. Driver comfort also can
not be ignored. However, no specific guidance is available for minimum skid resistance and acceptable maximum
noise levels in pavement context. This paper has focused on optimizing the surface characteristics in regards to
safety and noise. A value engineering approach for selecting pavement type/surface, accommodating the skid related
safety, pavement/surface life/durability, initial as well as life cycle costs, noise, and smoothness, has also been
TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Ahammed & Tighe Page 10
proposed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council
(NSERC) of Canada, Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) for
financial support for the complete research on pavement surface characteristics. The contribution of Dufferin Ready
Mix Supplier who donated and delivered the concrete mix for the laboratory samples is also acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Transport Canada. Canadian Motor Vehicle Traffic Collision Statistics 2004 and Road Safety in Canada:
An Overview. Transport Canada Website http://www.tc.gc.ca/ (Accessed on November 07, 2006).
2. Noyce, D. A., H. U. Bahia, J. M. Yambo, and G. Kim. Incorporating Road Safety into Pavement
Management: Maximizing Asphalt Pavement Surface Friction for Road Safety Improvements. Draft
Literature Review and State Surveys. Midwest Regional University Transportation Center Traffic
Operations and Safety (TOPS) Laboratory, April 29, 2005.
3. Anon, “What’s all the Noise About? Separating the truth from myths about tire-pavement noise”, Better
Roads Volume 73 Issue 8, Special Concrete Section, August 2003, pp 8- 14.
4. Transportation Association of Canada. Pavement Design and Management Guide. Ottawa, Ontario, 1997.
5. PWC Consulting, Health Insider No. 7: Noise Proprietary Questions for Health Canada Contract No.
H1011-010139/001/CY, 2002 http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/noise-bruit/insider7/method_e.html
(Last accessed August 2007).
6. Centre for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE), Evaluation of U.S. and European Concrete
Pavement Noise Reduction Methods, National Concrete Pavement Technology Center, Iowa State
University, Ames, IA , July 2006.
7. Henry, J.J. Evaluation of Pavement Friction Characteristics. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 291,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.
8. Hibbs, B.O., and R. M. Larson. Tire Pavement Noise and Safety Performance. Publication No. SA-96-068,
FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1996
9. Grady, J. E. and W. P. Chamberlin. Groove-Depth Requirements for Tine- Textured Pavements. In
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 836, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington D.C., 1981, pp 67-76.
10. Ahammed, M. A. and S. L. Tighe. Evaluation of Concrete Pavements Surface Friction Using LTPP Data.
Proceedings: 86th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board (CD-ROM), TRB, National Research
Council, Washington D.C., 2007.
11. Hoerner, T. E. and K. D. Smith. High Performance Concrete Pavement: Pavement Texturing and Tire-
Pavement Noise. Publication No. FHWA-DTFH61-01-P-00290. FHWA, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 2002.
12. Rizenbergs, R. L, J. L. Burchet, and L. A. Warren. Relation of Accidents and Pavement Friction on Rural
Two-Lane Roads. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.
633, TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1976, pp 21-27.
13. Jayawickrama, P. W. and B. Thomas. Correction of Field Skid Measurements for Seasonal Variation in
Texas. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 836, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1981, pp 82-86.
14. Snyder, M. B. Pavement Surface Characteristics: A Synthesis and Guide. Engineering Bulletin EB235P,
American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA), Skokie, IL, 2006.
15. Wayson, R. L. Relationship Between Pavement Surface Texture and Highway Traffic Noise. NCHRP
Synthesis of Highway Practice 268, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington D.C., 1998.
16. Highway Engineering Division. The Use of Bituminous Surface Course Types on Provincial Highways,
Directive PHY-C-016, Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), May 23, 2002.
17. Kamel N., and T. Gartshore. Ontario’s Wet Pavement Accident Reduction Program. Pavement Surface
Characteristics and Materials, ASTM STP 763, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1982, pp 98-117.
18. Gargett, T. The Introduction of a Skidding-Resistance Policy in Great Britain. Surface Characteristics of
Roadways: International Research and Technologies, ASTM STP 1031, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, 1990, pp 30-38.
19. Ministry of Environment Ontario (MOE). Noise Assessment Criteria in Land Use Planning: Requirements,
Procedures and Implementation, Publication LU-131, October 1997,
TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Ahammed & Tighe Page 11
TRB Committee AFD10 on Pavement Management Systems is providing the information contained herein for use by individual practitioners
in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research
community. The information in this paper was taken directly from the submission of the author(s).