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

net/publication/343638110

A model for predicting the deterioration of the international roughness index

Article  in  International Journal of Pavement Engineering · August 2020

DOI: 10.1080/10298436.2020.1804062

CITATIONS READS

0 155

3 authors, including:

Amnon Ravina Eyal Oged

Geokom LTD Geokom
5 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    3 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Controling Skid Resistance, Managing Aggregate Resources View project

Diabitis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amnon Ravina on 04 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Pavement Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpav20

A model for predicting the deterioration of the

international roughness index

Arieh Sidess , Amnon Ravina & Eyal Oged

To cite this article: Arieh Sidess , Amnon Ravina & Eyal Oged (2020): A model for predicting the
deterioration of the international roughness index, International Journal of Pavement Engineering

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2020.1804062

Published online: 13 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gpav20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2020.1804062

A model for predicting the deterioration of the international roughness index

Arieh Sidessa, Amnon Ravinab and Eyal Ogedb
a
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion, Haifa, Israel; bGeokom Consultant Ltd, Tirat Carmel, Israel

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Road pavements continuously deteriorate mainly due to the combined influence of traffic load and Received 28 January 2020
environmental conditions. The pavement ability to satisfy the road user demands along its designed Accepted 27 July 2020
time of service expresses its performance level. The prediction of performance deterioration curves is a
KEYWORDS
basic part of any Pavement Management System (PMS). Road roughness is an important parameter in Pavement management
determining the performance of pavements. The International Roughness Index (IRI) is the universal system; roughness;
standard for measuring the pavement roughness and it has become the most widely employed international roughness
pavement index. This paper presents the development of a model for predicting the deterioration of index; pavement
the IRI and calibrating its parameters based on the pavement structural factors such as structural performance; deterioration
number, asphalt layer thickness, subgrade strength, and environmental conditions. The approach model; climate zone
adopted for the IRI deterioration model development was based on the combination of the empirical-
mechanistic approach and the regressive empirical approach. The predicted results were compared
with the measurements of road sections located in various climate zones, which are embedded in the
PMS of Netivei Israel (NETI), National Company for Transport Infrastructures. The comparison shows a
very good correlation, and most of the predicted results are within the measurement and
interpretation error range.

Introduction Neural Network (ANN) and probabilistic including the Mar-

One of the most profound challenges facing pavement man-
agers and engineers in the world is maintaining a high level
of servicing the road networks. This can be achieved by apply-
ing periodical preventive maintenance activities to the pave-
ments in order to reduce the rate of deterioration. This
challenge requires the existence of a Pavement Management
System (PMS), which includes a ‘set of tools or methods that
assist decision-makers in finding optimum strategies for pro-
viding and maintaining pavement in a serviceable condition
over a given period of time’ (Haas et al. 1994).
Road pavements deteriorate due to the combined effects of
traffic cyclic loading, environment, pavement structure, pave-
ment surface type, subgrade type, construction quality, main-
tenance and rehabilitation (M&R) treatments, maintenance
level and so forth (Huang 1993). The pavement’s ability to
endure these conditions and to satisfy the road users’ demands
along its service lifetime defined as its performance level.
The models for predicting pavement performance or
deterioration curves are one of the most critical and important
foundations of the PMS. These models are basically a math-
ematical description of the expected values that a pavement
attribute will take during a specified analysis period (Hudson
et al. 1979). There is a great variety of model classifications. Lyt-
ton (1987), Huang (1993) and Hass et al. (1994) classified
models into deterministic and probabilistic. AASHTO (2012)
pavement management guide indicated that models are
classified as: deterministic, probabilistic, Bayesian and subjec-
tive (or expert-based). Uddin (2006) classified the models in
the following groups: regression analysis techniques, Artificial
kov chains and the Bayesian models (Ortiz-Garcia et al. 2006,
Abaza 2016, 2018, Hassan et al. 2017, Perez-Acebo et al.
2019). The deterministic models are the most common and
are divided into several categories according to their develop-
ment principle (Huang 1993), Mechanistic, Empirical and
Empirical-Mechanistic Models.
The mechanistic models are based on the principle of mech-
anics. These models predict the pavement parameter values
such as deflections, stresses and strains, based on material
properties and environmental conditions. Due to the complex-
ity of the pavement deterioration process, this approach is, at
present, unfeasible.
The empirical models are developed from measured/
observed data. The dependent variable or condition can be
related, by regression analyses, to one or more independent
variables such as the age of the pavement, loadings applied,
pavement layer thickness, etc (George, 2000, Al-Suleimen and
shiyab 2003, Albuquerque and Nunez 2011, Jaafar et al. 2016,
Alaswadko et al. 2019, Perez-Acebo et al. 2020). The
implementation of these empirical models is limited by the
span of the database that was used in their development. This
kind of regression equations is valid only under certain con-
ditions and should not be applied when the actual conditions
are different.
The Empirical-Mechanistic models are based on the combi-
nation of the mechanistic and empirical models. These models
set the regressive relations of the mechanical response calcu-
lated according to the mechanistic approach, and the pavement
structural or functional damage parameters measured

CONTACT Arieh Sidess sidess@technion.ac.il

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. SIDESS ET AL.
according to the empirical approach (for example predicting
the rutting, roughness and fatigue area in the Mechanistic-
Empirical Pavement Design Guide – MEPDG, (NCHRP
2004, AASHTO 2008, 2015)).
The roughness of the road is assessed in terms of the longi-
tudinal profile. The American Society of Testing and Material
(ASTM) defines a longitudinal profile as the perpendicular
deviations of the pavement surface from an established parallel
to the lane direction, usually the wheel tracks (ASTM 1989).
Pavements roughness is measured by many devices and each
one can provide different units like International Roughness
Index (IRI, m/km or inch/mile), Quarter car Index (QI) or
roughness metre counts (counts/km). Due to the several tech-
niques employed for roughness measurement, and in order to
avoid the dependency on the longitudinal profile measurement
device, the World Bank conducted in 1982 the International
roughness experiments in Brazil. These experiments intro-
duced the model of the IRI (Sayers et al. 1986). IRI represents
the accumulated suspension of the vehicle, divided by the dis-
tance travelled during the same period, following the algorithm
proposed by Sayers (1995). Since IRI has become the most
common international roughness standard.
Over the years, several IRI prediction models were pre-
sented, mostly based on the empirical approach and the empiri-
cal-mechanistic approach. Some other models are based on the
ANN approach. Recently, there is a shift from empirical mod-
elling to mechanistic-empirical modelling, especially in North
America (Rethenford and McDonald 2012). The first models
used and implemented in the empirical approach for predicting
the IRI, are the models developed by the World Bank and
known as Highway Development and Management system-3
(HDM-III) (Paterson 1987, 1989, Martin 1994, Han 2000),
HDM-4 (Odoki and Kerali 2000, Li et al. 2004, Morosiuk
et al. 2004), or roughness progression models. George (2000)
developed IRI predictive models for newly constructed and
rehabilitated pavement, for the Mississippi Department of
Transportation (MDOT). The model considered the effect of
pavement age, cumulative 18 kips Equivalent Single Axle
Load (ESAL) and Modified Structural Number (MSN). Poor
and fair coefficient of determination (R2) was found for
newly constructed and rehabilitated pavement respectively
(R2 of 0.35 and 0.48 respectively). Abdelaziz et al. (2020) devel-
oped regression model predicting IRI as a function of pavement
age, alligator fatigue cracks, transverse cracks, rut depth and
standard deviation of the total pavement rut depth. A total
number of 506 Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) sec-
tions with 2439 observations were used for the model develop-
ment. The model yielded fairly accurate predictions with R 2
value of 0.57 and Se/Sy of 0.684 (Se = standard deviation of
the error, Sy = standard deviation of the measured values
about the mean value). Other Multiple Linear Regression
(MLR) can be found in Al-Suleimen and Shiyab (2003), Albu-
querque and Nunez (2011), Jaafar et al. (2016), Alaswadko et al.
(2019) and Perez-Acebo et al. (2020).
Other studies like Dewan and Smith (2002), Park et al.
(2007) and Arhin et al. (2015) explored the IRI and Pavement
Condition Index (PCI) relationship. Generally, the accuracy of
these models is mostly poor to fair. The relationships that have
good statistics were generally confined to specific geographical
regions and were based on a limited number of data without a
wide range of IRI and PCI. Unlike the above mention models,
Elhadidy et al. (2019) developed a sigmoidal relationship
between IRI and PCI with accuracy indicated by R2 of 0.995
and Se/Sy of 0.071. The model was based on the comprehensive
LTPP database for flexible pavements. A total of 1208 sections
with 10,868 data points were used for the model development.
IRI predictive models using ANN’s can be found in Liu et al.
(2003), Choi et al. (2004), Jaafar et al. (2016) Mazari and Rodri-
guez (2016) and Abdelaziz et al. (2020). Choi et al. (2004)
developed IRI-ANN model based on Structural Number (SN)
of the pavement, asphalt content, percent of passing sieve
#200, ESAL and top layer thickness. Jaafar et al. (2016) pro-
posed IRI-ANN model based on the initial IRI, ESAL, SN,
pavement age and Construction Number (CN). Abdelaziz
et al. (2020) presented ANN model as a function of the same
variables they used for their MLR model. The e neurons
(input), one output layer including one neuron (output) and
three hidden layers with ten neurons each. This model yielded
better accuracy than their MLR model with R 2 of 0.75.
The most advanced models for predicting the IRI based on
the mechanistic-empirical approach are those of the Mechanis-
tic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide – MEPDG (NCHRP
2001a, 2001b, NCHRP 1-37A 2004, AASHTO 2008, 2015).
This model predicts the IRI, for different kinds of flexible pave-
ments, based on distresses like rutting depth and transverse
cracking and other relevant parameters such as annual precipi-
tation, plasticity index of soil and percentage of the sub-grade
material passing 0.02 mm sieve. Uzan et al. (2014) and Uzan
(2018) have developed and implemented the MEPDG models
to predict IRI for the conditions of Israel. The models were
implemented by adopting local climate data for various zones
in Israel (climate data of 10 meteorological stations) in order
to calculate the hourly temperature through the depth of the
asphalt layer and executing modifications in the prediction
model owing to local calibration. Moreover, the traffic volume
was expressed by ESAL of 130 kN (the allowable SAL in Israel)
compared to ESAL of 80 kN in the MEPDG (NCHRP 1-37A,
2004, AASHTO 2008, 2015).
For several years Netivei Israel (NETI), National Company
for Transport Infrastructures, operates a PMS as an evaluation
tool for pavement M&R strategies. The PMS is based on the
predicted values of pavement attributes, subjected to predeter-
mined criteria and constraints. Within this system, there are
embedded models for predicting two elements of pavements
deterioration: a model for predicting the deterioration of the
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and a model for predicting
the IRI deterioration. The NETI-IRI subjective deterioration
prediction model expresses the annual change rate of this
index – ΔIRI/year, depending on the traffic classification
(light, medium and heavy), the effective structural number of
the pavement at a certain age – SNeff and the California Bearing
Ratio of the subgrade (CBRs). The ΔIRI/year is directly pro-
portional to the traffic volume and inversely proportional to
the SNeff and CBRs. Although the trend influenced by these fac-
tors is logical, the annual change rate – ΔIRI/year was applied
as a constant and was determined based on engineering experi-
ence without any calibration to the conditions of the country.
The main drawback of this model is that it does not take into

consideration any important distress that directly affect the
pavement roughness. The current practice and literature
studies show that the distress parameters such as fatigue crack-
ing, rutting, and transverse cracking (including the reflection of
transverse cracks in existing HMA pavements) directly affect
the IRI value (AASHTO 2008, 2015, Uzan, 2018). The impact
of each distress in terms of extent and severity needs to be con-
sidered to develop a model. Furthermore, the classification of
the traffic in the NETI-IRI model does not enable obtaining
different deterioration values for different traffic volumes
within each classification.
The fact that a large number of survey cycles were applied to
measure IRI in the entire road network across the country and
considering that the deterioration IRI curves exist in the
NETI – PMS were not calibrated, enhances the requirement
to update and to calibrate the IRI deterioration models based
on the aforesaid measurements.
This paper presents a study designated for developing a
model for predicting the deterioration of the IRI of the pave-
ments, calibrating its parameters based on the pavement struc-
ture such as the structural number of the pavement, the
thickness of the asphalt layer, subgrade strength and environ-
mental conditions.
The proposed model for IRI deterioration
The approach adopted in this study for developing the deterio-
ration of the International Roughness Index (IRI) was based on
the combination of the empirical-mechanistic and the regres-
sive empirical approach. Combination of these two approaches
is reflected in the following stages:
(a) Calculation of the deterioration curves of the IRI by the
empirical – mechanistic approach. These curves were cal-
culated based on the models presented by Uzan et al.
(2014) and Uzan (2018), for various pavements and var-
ious environmental conditions. Uzan calibrated the pre-
dicted IRI model of MEPDG for the condition in Israel
using the following equation:
IRI = 1.1043 + 0.0176(RD) + 0.0104(FC)
+ 0.0829(SF) (1)
SF = age†[0.000577(PI + 1)
+ 0.007947(0.0394†Rain + 1) + 0.000636] (2)
where IRI – in m/km; RD – average rut depth, mm.; FC –
mean fatigue cracking, percentage of total lane area; SF –
site factor; age – pavement age, years; PI – plasticity
index of the soil, %; Rain – average annual precipitation
or rainfall, mm.
The process of the analysis is as follows (Uzan et al.
2014, Uzan 2018): (1) Project information, (2) Read num-
ber of ESAL in the first year, growth, design period and
truck speed, (3) Read two climate files generated using
MEPDG program *.icm and thermal.tmp files, (4) Read
pavement structure. Up to 4 asphalt concrete layers can
be entered, one base, one subbase, one fill and subgrade
layers, (5) The modulus of the asphalt can be entered as
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 3
one value at 30°C with a built in temperature shifting func-
tion, or as a 6 parameters describing the relaxation mod-
ulus and the temperature shifting function, (6) Compute
and accumulate fatigue cracking, rutting and IRI using
Equations (1)–(2). These parameters are computed every
hour and the mean in every month is presented.
(b) Adjusting of the IRI deterioration curves that were devel-
oped in stage (a) by regressive equations.
(c) Development of the models for predicting the coefficients
of the regressive equations that were adjusted in stage (b),
depending on various factors related to the pavement and
the subgrade layers.
(d) Calculation of the IRI deterioration curves pursuant to
stages (a) – (c) for the pavement sections included in
NETI–IRI, and applying a comparison between the calcu-
lated results and the measured data collected on the same
sections.
(e) Calibration of the models if necessary, according to the
matched results obtained in stage (d).
Figures 1 and 2 present examples of the calculated IRI
deterioration curve according to the aforementioned approach.
Figure 1 presents the IRI deterioration curve for a pavement
structural number at the time of construction (SN) of 3.5, sub-
grade modulus (Es) of 56 MPa and asphalt layer thickness (TA)
of 120 mm. Figure 2 presents the IRI deterioration curve for a
pavement structural number at the time of construction (SN) of
5.0, subgrade modulus (Es) of 142 MPa and asphalt layer thick-
ness (TA) of 180 mm. In both examples above, the pavement
serves 20 million ESAL of 130 kN for a design period of 20
years (1 million per year).
According to the deterioration curves presented in Figures 1
and 2, the recommended deterioration model for the IRI is
expressed in the following equation:
IRI(t) = IRI0 + K†(Wt )g (3)
where IRI(t) – IRI at time – t (months, years, and so forth),
m/km; IRI0 – initial IRI after construction or rehabilitation,
m/km; Wt – cumulative number of 130 kN ESAL applications
applied until time t; K, γ – regression coefficients dependent on
parameters that characterise the pavement and environmental
variables.
The IRI of a pavement after construction or rehabilitation –
IRI0 is set to 1.10 m/km (Uzan et al. 2014). Thus Equation (3)
may be expressed as follows:
IRI(t) = 1.10 + K†(Wt )g (4)
The coefficients K and γ may be calculated by optimisation
of the IRI deterioration curves (Equation (4)), dependent on the
parameters that characterise the pavement and environmental
variables as follows:
K, g = f (Es , SN, TA , R) (5)
where ES – is the subgrade modulus; SN – is the structural num-
ber of the pavement at the time of construction; TA – is the
asphalt layer thickness and R – is a coefficient depending on
the unique environmental variables of each zone, such as air
4 A. SIDESS ET AL.
Figure 1. Example 1 of IRI deterioration curve (Uzan et al. 2014).
Figure 2. Example 2 of IRI deterioration curve (Uzan et al. 2014).
temperature, precipitation, air wind speed, sunshine percen-
tage, relative humidity, etc.
Calibration of the IRI deterioration model
coefficients
To calibrate the coefficients of the IRI deterioration model
expressed in equations 3-5, the predicted IRI values were calcu-
lated versus service time for various pavement structures. The
calculation was carried out according to the models presented
by Uzan et al. (2014) and Uzan (2018). The pavement par-
ameters that were taken into account were those presented in
Equation (5). The range of values used for calculating each of
the aforementioned variables is as follows:
(a) The elastic modulus of the subgrade – Es is within the
range of 42–142 MPa.
(b) The initial pavement structural number at the time of con-
struction – SN is within the range of 2.5-6.0. The SN for
each pavement structure was calculated pursuant to the
AASHTO equation (AASHTO 1993). Since the resilient
modulus of the local Hot Mixes Asphalt (HMA) yields
layer coefficient value of 0.37, this value was adopted
instead of 0.44 (AASHTO 1993). It should be noted that
it is possible to use various combinations of the pavement
layer thicknesses to reach identical SN values.
(c) The asphalt layer thickness – TA is within the range of 90–
250 mm.
(d) Predicting the hourly temperature distribution through the
depth of the asphalt layer is based on the climate

conditions in various zones in Israel. Uzan et al. (2014) and
Uzan (2018) prepared files that summarise the climate
conditions of several meteorological stations in different
regions of the country. Analysis of the data has shown
that the differences in the average annual air temperature
between the various stations are not very large. In terms
of the average annual rainfall, the differences between
the Northern, Central and the Southern zones are signifi-
cantly large. Analysis of the meteorological conditions in
various zones in Israel have led to the conclusion that
the climate conditions in the country may be represented
by three meteorological stations, one in the Northern
zone of the country (Tavor – Kaduri Station, correspond-
ing to the area between latitude lines 33.333 and 32.466), a
second in the Central zone (Beit Dagan Station corre-
sponding to the area between latitude lines 32.466 and
31.444) and the third in the Southern zone (Beer Sheva
Figure 3. Calibration of the IRI deterioration curve presented in Figure 1.
Figure 4. Calibration of the IRI deterioration curve presented in Figure 2.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 5
Station corresponding to the area between latitude lines
32.466 and 29.490). The Mean Annual Air Temperature
(MAAT) in the northern, central and southern zones are
20.1, 20.9 and 21.0°C respectively. The Mean Annual Pre-
cipitation (MAP) in the northern, central and southern
zones are 470 mm. (185 in.), 442 mm. (176 in.) and
153 mm. (61 in.) respectively.
Figures 3 and 4 show the optimisation of Equation (4), used
to predict the IRI deterioration curves presented in Figures 1
and 2 respectively. The optimisation process leads to the values
of the regression coefficients K and γ as follows:
For Figure 3:
K = 1.1517 x 10−3
g = 0.45306
6 A. SIDESS ET AL.

For Figure 4: (c) The measured IRI values that were used for comparison
were the average values obtained from the measured
K = 2.8893 x 10−4 units of 100 m length – IRI100. The standard deviation
g = 0.48260 along each segment is smaller than 0.4 m/km, generally
between 0.2 and 0.3 m/km.
The calculation of the coefficients K and γ for various pave-
(d) The subgrade modulus – Es in each segment was deter-
ment structures and subgrade characteristics as specified in (a)–
mined based on surface deflection basins measured by
(c) enables the development of an optimal prediction model of
FWD and according to the AASHTO (1993) method.
these coefficients as expressed in the following equations:
The representative value of the Es for the entire section is
K = C0 †(Es )CE †(SN)CS †(TA )CT (6) the value suiting the 30th percentile of all the values of
the segments included in the section. This percentile is a
g = D0 + DE †(Es ) + DS †(SN) + DT †(TA ) (7) typical practice implemented by NETI.
where Es is the subgrade modulus in MPa; SN – is the structural (e) The pavement structural number – SN in each measuring
number of the pavement at the time of construction; TA – is the segment was determined to be the minimum value
asphalt thickness in mm; C0, CE, CS, CT, D0, DE, DS, DT – the obtained by calculation according to the AASHTO
coefficients obtained from the optimisation process for the (1993) method or the YONAPAVE (Hoffman 2003)
three climate regions. method. The representative value of SN for the entire sec-
Table 1 presents the coefficients obtained from the optimis- tion is the value suiting the 30th percentile of all the values
ation process for the three-country regions. of the segments included in the section.
(f) The asphalt layer thickness – TA for each measuring seg-
ment was determined according to the Ground Penetrat-
Implementation of the IRI deterioration model ing Radar (GPR) measurements. The representative
value of TA for the entire section is the value suiting the
As stated, equations 4 through 7 enable the prediction of the 30th percentile of all the values of the segments included
IRI deterioration depending on the number of loading cycles in the section.
of 130 kN ESAL for various structural numbers of the pave- (g) The traffic volume for all the road sections was taken into
ment, subgrade modulus, and asphalt layer thickness, as well account since the 1st year of IRI measurements (during
as for environmental conditions of various climatic zones. that year the PCI was 100). This parameter was based on
Adjustment of the aforesaid model was performed by compar- the Annual Average of Daily Traffic (AADT), distribution
ing the predicted results with the measured results of various of traffic to trucks and buses and to the axial load distri-
sections existing in NETI – PMS database. The representing bution. The axial loads were converted to 130 kN ESAL
measurement unit in NETI-PMS database is a 100-metre applications, using the axial equivalency factors of
long segment of road\lane (segment). Surveys are conducted AASHTO (1993) for flexible pavement.
annually during the spring season. Survey results (e.g. IRI,
PCI, etc.) are calculated and reported for each segment. The The IRI deterioration model as presented in equations 3
comparison process of selected sections was based on the fol- through 7 refers to the initial value of 1.10 m/km, the accep-
lowing stages and principles: tance threshold value of newly constructed or rehabilitated
pavements. The roughness values measured during the first
(a) The sections for the comparison were selected by the fol- measuring year for NETI-PMS were applied to the road sec-
lowing criteria: (i) Newly paved or rehabilitated road sec- tions with a traffic loading history and roughness values higher
tions, (ii) PCI score of all the segments in each section, than 1.10 m/km. Therefore, the model should be adjusted also
in the first survey year, was equal to 100, and (iii) no reha- for pavements having a service history life. The principle of the
bilitation was performed in the section since the first sur- deterioration adjustment model is based on calculating the
vey year. number of 130 kN ESAL which caused the increase of the IRI
(b) The length of each section was determined according to from 1.10 m/km (the moment of constructing the pavement)
the accumulated length of sequential segments that met up to the IRI value that was measured in the first year of the
the above conditions. The minimum length of the sections measurements. This ESAL is added to the annual ESAL of
used for comparison was 700 metres. each section for predicting the IRI. The principle of the IRI
deterioration adjustment model is expressed in the following
Table 1. Coefficient values of the deterioration model for various climate zones. equations:
Meteorological Station
Parameter
(Equations (6, 7)) Southern Zone Central Zone Northern Zone
IRIini = 1.10 + K†(W0 )g (8)
C0 9.6826 × 10−2 3.61497 × 10−2 7.10620 × 10−2
CE −0.6800 −0.6800 −0.6800 where IRIini – IRI of the section at the time (tini) when the first
CS −2.6800 −2.6800 −2.6800 measurement for the NETI-PMS initiated; W0 – Cumulative
CT 0.5500 0.5500 0.5500
D0 0.30670 0.37740 0.33286
number of 130 kN ESAL applications leading to the increase
DE 2.5620 × 10−4 2.2610 × 10−4 2.42236 × 10−4 of the IRI from 1.10 m/km up to IRIini; K, γ – regression coeffi-
DS 3.6296 × 10−2 3.5135 × 10−2 3.56297 × 10−2 cients dependent on parameters that characterise the pavement
DT −5.6480 × 10−4 −5.8160 × 10−4 −5.76480 × 10−4
and environmental variables.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 7

According to Equation (8), W0 may be extracted as follows: Validation of the proposed IRI model
Figures 5–10 present examples of the IRI predicted results

1 (Equations (6)–(10)) compared with measured results for var-
IRIini − 1.10 g
W0 = (9) ious road sections located in different climate zones (Northern,
K Central, and Southern). Each figure is accompanied by the fol-
lowing details: climate zone, station, road number and section
According to Equation (9) the IRI deterioration model for length, the pavement characterisation as the structural number,
pavements with a traffic loading history may be expressed as the subgrade modulus and the asphalt layer thickness. It should
follows: be noted that usually, IRI values increases with time. Some
periods of the provided figures do not demonstrate that. The
IRI(t ≥ tini ) = 1.10 + K†(W0 + Wt )g (10) minor variations in the IRI measurements shown in these
figures is due to measurement precision and accuracy. Figures
where Wt – cumulative number of 130 kN ESAL applications 11–13 present the results of the matching between the predicted
applied until time t. IRI compared to the measured results of NETI – PMS for each

Figure 5. Measured vs. predicted IRI – road 91 in northern zone.

Figure 6. Measured vs. predicted IRI – road 98 in northern zone.

8 A. SIDESS ET AL.

Figure 7. Measured vs. predicted IRI – road 44 in central zone.

Figure 8. Measured vs. predicted IRI – road 446 in central zone.

Figure 9. Measured vs. predicted IRI – road 25 in southern zone.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 9

Figure 10. Measured vs. predicted IRI – road 60 in southern zone.

Figure 11. Measured vs. predicted IRI for various road sections – northern zone.

Figure 12. Measured vs. predicted IRI for various road sections – central zone.
10 A. SIDESS ET AL.
Figure 13. Measured vs. predicted IRI for various road sections – southern zone.
road section located within the various climate zones. The com-
parison related to 73, 55 and 37 road sections in the northern,
central and southern zone of the country respectively. The total
length of the analysed sections was 133.3, 107.5 and 47.0 km. in
the northern, central and southern zone respectively. The devi-
ation from the IRIs’ line of equality is drawn in these figures by
the lines of 10% deviations. These figures show that there is a
very good match between the predicted and measured results
of IRI in all the various climate zones (R 2>0.9, Se/Sy<0.35 and
low RSME) and confirms the prediction ability of the model.
The vast majority of the predicted results are placed in the
vicinity of the line of equality or within a maximal deviation
of 10% from it. This deviation is not significant, given the
nature of the measurement errors.
Summary and conclusions
This paper presents a methodology for the development of a
deterioration model of the International Roughness Index –
IRI. The methodology is based on the combination of the
empirical-mechanistic and regressive-empirical approach. The
model coefficients can be calculated depending on the par-
ameters which characterise the pavement, such as the subgrade
modulus, the structural number of the pavement, the thickness
of the asphalt layer and climate zones. The comparison of the
predicted IRI results with the measured one for road sections
shows a very good match. Most of the results have deviated
within the measurement error range.
The very good match of the predicted and the measured
results (R 2>0.9, Se/Sy<0.35 and low RSME), enables the adop-
tion of this methodology in NETI – PMS. The model will
improve the prediction of the pavement performance and as
a result, it will improve maintenance budget planning. The util-
isation of the model can offer a comparison of design alterna-
tives. The authorities in-charge can use varied considerations to
strengthen the pavement and to reduce the maintenance budget
in return. The model may assist the private sector to evaluate
the performance of the pavement in BOT (Build–Operate–
Transfer) & PPP (Public-Private Partnership) Projects by
enabling the assessment of the pavement performance at the
end of the warranty period of new & rehabilitated pavements.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
The research work was funded byNETI through the department of
research and development and the office of the NETI chief scientist.
References
AASHTO, 1993. AASHTO Guide for design of pavements structures.
Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials.
AASHTO, 2008. Mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide: A manual
of practice. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO, 2012. Pavement management guide. 2nd ed. Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO, 2015. Mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide: A manual
of practice. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
Abaza, K. A, 2016. Back-calculation of transition probabilities for
Markovian-based pavement performance prediction models.
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 17 (3), 253–264.
Abaza, K. A, 2018. Empirical-Markovian model for predicting the overlay
design thickness for asphalt pavement. Road Materials and Pavement
Design, 19 (7), 1617–1635.
Abdelaziz, N., et al., 2020. International roughness index prediction model
for flexible pavements. International Journal of Pavement Engineering,
21 (1), 88–99.
Al-Suleiman, T. I., and Shiyab, A. M, 2003. Prediction of pavement
remaining service life using roughness data – case study in Dubai.
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 4 (2), 121–129.
Alaswadko, N., et al., 2019. Modeling roughness progression of sealed
granular pavements: a new approach. International Journal of
Pavement Engineering, 20 (2), 222–232.
Albuquerque, F., and Nunez, W, 2011. Development of roughness predic-
tion models for low-volume raod networks in Northeast Brazil.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of Transportation Research
Board, 2205, 198–205.

Arhin, A. et al. 2015. Predicting pavement condition index using inter-
national roughness index in a dense urban area. Journal of Civil
Engineering Research, 5(1), 10-17
ASTM, 1989. Standard terminology relating to traveled surface characteristics.
West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.
Choi, J. H., Adams, T. M., and Bahia, H. U, 2004. Pavement roughness
modeling using back-propagating neural networks. Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 19 (4), 295–303.
Dewan, S. A. and Smith, R. E, 2002. Estimating IRI from pavement dis-
tresses to calculate vehicle operating cost for the cities and countries
of San Francisco bay area. Transportation Research Record: Journal of
Transportation Research Board, 1816, 65–72.
Elhadidy, A. A., El-Badawy, S. M., and Elbeltagi, E. E, 2019. A simplified
pavement condition index regression model for pavement evaluation.
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, doi:10.1080/10298436.
2019.1633579.
George, K.P., 2000. MDOT pavement management system: prediction models
and feedback system. Report No. FHWA/MS-DOT-RD-00-119,
Mississippi Department of Transportation, Jackson, MS 39215-1850.
Haas, R., Hudson, W. R., and Zaniewski, J., 1994. Modern pavement man-
agement. Florida: Krieger Publishing Company.
Han, R, 2000. A new road roughness deterioration model. In Proceedings of
international conference on traffic and transportation studies, ICTTS,
Beijing, China, 776-783.
Hassan, R., Lin, O., and Thananjeyan, A, 2017. Probabilistic modeling of
flexible pavement distresses for network management. International
Journal of Pavement Engineering, 18 (3), 216–227.
Hoffman, M. S, 2003. Direct method for evaluating structural needs of
flexible pavements with falling weight deflectometer deflections.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of Transportation Research
Board, 1860, 41–47.
Huang, Y. H., 1993. Pavement analysis and design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Hudson, W. R., Haas, R., and Pedigo, R. D., 1979. Pavement management
system development. National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report 215, Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council.
Jaffar, M., et al., 2016. Asphalt pavement roughness modeling using the
artificial neural network and linear regression approaches for LTPP
southern region. Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting.
Li, J., et al., 2004. Application of HDM-4 in the WSDOT highway system.
Final Research Report, Research Project T2695, Washington State
Transportation Center (TRAC).
Liu, J. D., Yau, J. T., and Hsiao, L. H., 2003. Correlation analysis between
intenational roughness index (IRI) and pavement distress by neural net-
work. Transportation Research Board 82nd Annual Meeting.
Lytton, R. L, 1987. Concepts of pavement performance prediction and
modeling. In North american conference on managing pavements, pro-
ceedings, Vol. 2, Toronto, ON, 3–19.
Martin, T. C., 1994. Pavement behavior prediction for life-cycle costing.
Research Report ARR 2255, Australian Road Research Board, ARRB
Transport Research.
Mazari, M., and Rodriguez, D. D, 2016. Prediction of pavement roughness
using a hybrid gene expression programming-neural network tech-
nique. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English
Edition), 3 (5), 448–455.
Morosiuk, G., Riley, M. J., and Odoki, J. B., 2004. Modeling road deterio-
ration and works effects. HDM-4, Highway Development &
Management, Vol. 6, Ver 2.
View publication stats
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 11
National Cooperation Highway Research Program (NCHRP), 2004. Guide
for mechanistic-empirical design of new and rehabilitated pavement
structure. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP
1-37A.
NCHRP, 2001a. Background and preliminary smoothness prediction
models for flexible pavements, Guide for mechanistic-empirical
design of new and rehabilitated pavement structures. Final
Document, APPENDIX OO-1, 1–26. Washington, DC: National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research
Board.
NCHRP, 2001b. Revised smoothness prediction models for flexible
pavement, Guide for mechanistic-empirical design of new and rehabi-
litated pavement structures. Final Document, APPENDIX OO-2, 1–
23. Washington, DC: National Cooperative Highway Research
Program.
Odoki, J.B., and Kerali, H.R, 2000. Analytical framework and model
descriptions. Highway development and Management Series.
International study of Highway development and Management. Vol. 4.
Paris: World Road Association.
Ortiz-Garcia, J. J., Costello, S. B., and Snaith, M. S, 2006. Derivation of
transition probability matrices for pavement deterioration modeling.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, 132 (2), 141–161.
Park, K., Thomas, N., and Lee, K, 2007. Applicability of the international
roughness index as a predictor of asphalt pavement condition. Journal
of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, 133 (12), 706. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-947X.
Paterson, W.D.O, 1987. Road deterioration and maintenance effects:
models for planning and management. The Highway design and
maintenance standard Series. Washington, DC: World Bank
Publications.
Paterson, W.D.O, 1989. A transferable causal model for predicting rough-
ness progression in flexible pavements. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of Transportation Research Board, 1215, 70–84.
Perez-Acebo, H., et al., 2019. Rigid pavement models by means of Markov
chains with half-year step time. International Journal of Pavement
Engineering, 20 (7), 830–843.
Perez-Acebo, H., et al., 2020. IRI performance models for flexible pave-
ments in two-lane roads until first maintenance and/or rehabilitation
work. Coating, 10 (97).doi:10.3390/coatings10020097.
Retherford, J. Q., and McDonald, M, 2012. Unified approach for uncer-
tainty analysis using the AASHTO mechanistic-empirical pavement
design guide. Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, 138 (5),
657–664.
Sayers, M. W, 1995. On the calculation of International roughness Index
road profile. Transportation Research Record: Journal of
Transportation Research Board, 1501, 1–12.
Sayers, M. W., Gillespie, T. D., and Paterson, W. O. D, 1986. Guideline for
conducting and calibrating road roughness measurement, World Bank
Technical Paper No. 46, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Uddin, W., 2006. Pavement management systems. In T. F. Fwa, ed. The
Handbook of Highway engineering. Taylor & Francis Group: Boca
Raton.
Uzan, J, 2018. Advancing the design and construction quality control of
flexible pavements. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 19
(2), 164–173.
Uzan, J., Nesichi, S., and Weinstein, N., 2014. A simplified flexible pave-
ment guide with analytical reliability analysis. In: Y. R. Kim, ed.
Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the Int. Soc. for Asphalt
Pavements, 1-5 June 2014 USA. Raleigh, NC: CRC Press, 2, 1851–1860.