1/8/2018 Standard Practice for Accepting Pavement Ride Quality When Measured Using Inertial Profiling Systems

Standard Practice for Accepting Pavement Ride Quality When Measured

Using Inertial Profiling Systems
AASHTO Designation: R 54-14 (2018)1

Technical Section: 5a, Pavement Measurement

Release: Group 1 (April)

1. SCOPE
1.1. This practice provides guidance and example specification language intended for use by Owner-Agencies in
the development of specific contract language when requiring the measurement and evaluation of ride
quality and compliance using inertial profiling systems (IPS) and the International Roughness Index (IRI)
as the quality measure.

1.2. If any part of this practice is in conflict with references made, such as ASTM or AASHTO Standards, this
practice takes precedence for its purposes.

1.3. The values stated are in U.S. Customary units and are to be regarded as the standard.

1.4. This specification does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is
the responsibility of the user of this specification to establish appropriate safety and health practices and
determine the applicability of regulatory limitations related to and prior to its use.

2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
2.1. AASHTO Standards:
M 328, Inertial Profiler
R 56, Certification of Inertial Profiling Systems
R 57, Operating Inertial Profiling Systems

2.2. ASTM Standards:

E867, Standard Terminology Relating to Vehicle-Pavement Systems
E1926, Standard Practice for Computing International Roughness Index of Roads from Longitudinal
Profile Measurements

2.3. Other Document:

Sayers, M. W. “On the Calculation of International Roughness Index from Longitudinal Road Profile.”
Transportation Research Record 1501 . Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, 1995, pp. 1–12.

3. TERMINOLOGY
3.1. Definitions:
3.1.1. Inertial Profiling System (IPS)—an inertial profiler that meets the requirements of M 328 when combined
with an operator.

3.1.2. International Roughness Index (IRI)—a statistic used to determine the amount of roughness in a measured
longitudinal profile. The IRI is computed from a single longitudinal profile using a quarter-car simulation at
http://hm.digital.transportation.org/Print.html?file=http://hm.digital.transportation.org/HM/Part_III_Practices/Pavement_Structures/r_006.aspx#r_006-1?… 1/6
1/8/2018 Standard Practice for Accepting Pavement Ride Quality When Measured Using Inertial Profiling Systems

50 mph (Sayers 1995). Computer programs to calculate the IRI from a longitudinal profile are referenced
in ASTM E1926.

3.1.3. line laser—a line laser obtains a series of data points along a line, which is typically perpendicular to the
travel direction, with the line typically being 4 in. long. A single, bridged elevation value is computed from
this data.

3.1.4. localized roughness—any 25-ft segment of roadway that contributes disproportionately to the overall
roughness index value. Areas of localized roughness are identified using a report of continuous IRI with a
base length of 25 ft. This yields the IRI of every possible 25-ft segment. Any segment for which the
continuous report exceeds a threshold IRI value is considered a defective segment requiring correction.

Note 1—The threshold IRI value in inches per mile should be determined by each Owner-Agency. A typical
range of values for various highway types is shown in Table 1.

Table 1—Typical Threshold Values for Localized Roughness

3.1.5. longitudinal profile—the vertical deviations of the pavement surface taken along a line in the direction of
travel referenced to a horizontal datum.

3.1.6. report interval—the longitudinal distance between the outputs of a profile index value.
3.1.7. roughness— according to ASTM E867, the deviation of a surface from a true planar surface with
characteristic dimensions that affects vehicle dynamics, ride quality, dynamic loads, and drainage.

3.1.8. Type A Roughness Measurement—a test procedure to measure the longitudinal profile of a surface using
an inertial profiler and to compute the profile index known as the IRI.

3.1.9. Type B Roughness Measurement—a test procedure to measure surface profile deviations using a
straightedge.

4. SIGNIFICANCE AND USE

4.1. This example provides specification language for measuring and accepting ride quality on newly
constructed paving projects using an IPS and the IRI quality measure. If an Owner-Agency elects to use
some other ride quality index, the fundamental methodology described herein remains valid, but not the
individual settings.

Note 2—The IPS should be verified on the same pavement surface type and texture as that being
measured. When profiling pavements with rough macrotexture, a height sensor with a large footprint is
needed. A line laser that utilizes a bridging algorithm is an example of a sensor with a large footprint. The
consequence of not using a large footprint sensor may be an upward bias in the IRI as measured by an IPS
with a single-point (dot) laser. An IPS with a single-point laser can also collect inaccurate data on
longitudinally tined, longitudinally grooved, or diamond ground pavements. A line laser that utilizes a
bridging algorithm is recommended for such pavements.

5. EQUIPMENT AND OPERATOR

5.1. Provide an approved 10-ft straightedge.

5.2. Provide an inertial profiler meeting all requirements and specifications found in M 328 and currently
certified in accordance with R 56. Operate the equipment in accordance with R 57.
http://hm.digital.transportation.org/Print.html?file=http://hm.digital.transportation.org/HM/Part_III_Practices/Pavement_Structures/r_006.aspx#r_006-1?… 2/6
1/8/2018 Standard Practice for Accepting Pavement Ride Quality When Measured Using Inertial Profiling Systems

5.3. Provide the Owner-Agency a copy of the equipment certification. Display a current decal on the equipment
indicating the expiration date of certification.

Note 3—An equipment certification or decal would be required only if the Owner-Agency had a
certification program that issued them, or where it recognizes another agency's certification program in
which certifications, decals, or both are issued.

5.4. Provide a qualified profiler operator. Provide the Owner-Agency a copy of the operator's qualifications or
current certification.

6. WORK METHODS
6.1. Quality Control (QC) Testing (nondirected)—Perform QC tests on a daily basis throughout the duration of
the project. Use an approved straightedge, inertial profiler, profilograph, or any other appropriate means.

6.2. Quality Control Testing (directed)—Use Type A Roughness Measurement. Use Type B Roughness
Measurement only when Type A Roughness Measurement cannot be used or when specified by the Owner-
Agency. Measure the finished surface of the completed project or at the completion of a major stage of
construction as approved by the Owner-Agency. Coordinate with and receive authorization from the
Owner-Agency before starting testing. Obtain roughness measurements within 7 days after receiving
authorization and submit results to the Owner-Agency within 24 h of data collection.

6.2.1. Operate the profiler in accordance with R 57 and provide the Owner-Agency the results of the Daily
Measurement Control on a daily basis. The Owner-Agency may require QC testing be performed at off-peak
times for traffic flow. Operate the inertial profiler in a manner that does not unduly disrupt traffic flow as
determined by the Owner-Agency. Use an approved traffic control plan. Traffic control for QC and
verification testing by the Owner-Agency is at the expense of the contractor. Provide all profile
measurements to the Owner-Agency in electronic data files of the format specified in R 57.

6.3. Verification Testing—Within 10 working days after the contractor's QC testing under Section 6.2 is
completed, the Owner-Agency may perform verification testing using an inertial profiler meeting the
requirements of R 56. If the verification testing produces an IRI obtained over the same section of
roadway that differs from that obtained using the contractor's profiler by more than the percentages shown
in Table 2, then the Owner-Agency and contractor shall attempt to resolve the differences to their mutual
satisfaction.

Table 2—Typical Allowable IRI Differences

6.3.1. If the differences cannot be resolved, then referee testing will be conducted. The Owner-Agency will
conduct the referee testing and the results will be final and will be used to establish pay adjustments.
Referee testing will be conducted using an inertial profiler that recently has been certified in accordance
with R 56. The certification should not be more than 90 days old unless both parties agree otherwise.

6.3.2. If the testing confirms the Owner-Agency profiler and fails to confirm the contractor's profiler, then the
contractor's profiler shall be taken out of service until it has been recertified in accordance with R 56. A
similar requirement will apply if the testing confirms the contractor equipment but fails to confirm the
Owner-Agency. If the referee testing fails to confirm—either the Owner-Agency or contractor equipment—
then both profilers shall be removed from service until recertified.

6.4. Evaluation of Profiles—The contractor shall evaluate profiles for acceptance, incentive payments,
disincentive payments, or corrective action using the current version of ProVAL and provide the results to
http://hm.digital.transportation.org/Print.html?file=http://hm.digital.transportation.org/HM/Part_III_Practices/Pavement_Structures/r_006.aspx#r_006-1?… 3/6
1/8/2018 Standard Practice for Accepting Pavement Ride Quality When Measured Using Inertial Profiling Systems

the Owner-Agency within 24 h of completing testing under Section 6.2. If the profile data files are created
using an export option in the manufacturer's software where filter settings can be specified, use the filter
settings that were used to create data files for certification. Analyze the entire profile. Exclude any areas
specifically identified in the contract. Exclude from the analysis for localized roughness the first 12.5 ft after
the start of the paving operations and last 12.5 ft prior to the end of the paving operation. Also exclude the
first 12.5 ft on either side of bridge structures, manhole covers, utility covers, and approach slabs.
Determine pay adjustments in accordance with Sections 6.4.3 and 6.4.4. The Owner-Agency will verify the
analysis.

Note 4—The Profile Viewer and Analysis (ProVAL) software program developed for the Federal Highway
Administration, which can be used to import, display, and analyze the characteristics of pavement profiles
from many different sources, is available at www.roadprofile.com.

6.4.1. Type A Roughness Measurement—The Owner-Agency may use the QC test results obtained under Section
6.2 to determine pay adjustments for ride quality provided it is able to verify the contractor's profile data.
Areas excluded from measurement under Type A Roughness Measurement shall be measured in
accordance with Section 6.4.2.

6.4.2. Type B Roughness Measurement—Typically used where an IPS cannot be effectively operated. There are
no pay adjustments when Type B Roughness Measurement is used. In a manner approved by the Owner-
Agency, correct surface areas that have more than 1/4-in. variation between any two contacts on the
straightedge. There is no payment for correcting deficient areas. Following correction, retest the area to
verify compliance.

6.4.3. Pay Adjustment Schedule—The pay adjustment factors from Table 3 will be used in conjunction with the
histogram printout from ProVAL's Smoothness Assurance Module, based on a report of continuous IRI with
a base length of 528 ft, to compute a final pay factor (incentive or disincentive). The final pay factor (PF),
computed to three decimals, is equal to the sum of the products of the individual pay adjustment factors
shown in Table 3 times ProVAL's corresponding histogram percentages divided by 100. In addition to the
final pay factor determined from Table 3, disincentives for localized roughness may apply as described in
Section 6.4.4.

Table 3—Pay Adjustment Factors and Computation of Final Pay Factor

Note 5—A different set of pay adjustment factors may be used for different project requirements. This pay
adjustment table is just one style of many possible pay tables and was designed to utilize quality assurance
features within ProVAL. For this table, the final pay factor is determined by taking the values in column (2)
and multiplying them by column (3). The results are shown in column (4). The results in column (4) are
then summed and divided by 100 to obtain the final pay factor (incentive or disincentive).

6.4.4. Localized Roughness—The adjustment factors from Table 4 will be used in conjunction with the histogram
printout from ProVAL's Smoothness Assurance Module based on a report of continuous IRI with a base

http://hm.digital.transportation.org/Print.html?file=http://hm.digital.transportation.org/HM/Part_III_Practices/Pavement_Structures/r_006.aspx#r_006-1?… 4/6
1/8/2018 Standard Practice for Accepting Pavement Ride Quality When Measured Using Inertial Profiling Systems

length of 25 ft, to compute the percent disincentive for localized roughness. The amount of the disincentive
computed to three decimals is equal to 100 minus the sum of the products of the individual adjustment
factors shown in Table 4 times ProVAL's corresponding histogram percentages. The Owner-Agency will
either assess the disincentive per Table 4, or require that corrective action be taken. If corrective action is
required, reprofile the corrected area and provide the Owner-Agency the results. If the corrective action is
not successful, the Owner-Agency will assess the disincentive or require continued corrective action.

Table 4—Disincentives for Localized Roughness

Note 6—A different set of pay adjustment factors may be used for different project requirements. This pay
adjustment table is just one style of many possible pay tables and was designed to utilize quality assurance
features within ProVAL. For this table the final percent disincentive is determined by taking the values in
column (2) and multiplying them by column (3). The results are shown in column (4). The results in
column (4) are then summed and subtracted from 100 to obtain the final percent disincentive.

6.4.5. Deficiencies and Corrective Work—All corrective work will be at the contractor's expense.
6.4.5.1. A defective segment is any area of localized roughness as determined in Section 6.4.4.

6.4.5.2. Propose a plan and methodology to correct deficiencies and receive approval from the Owner-Agency
before beginning any corrective work. This must be done with the purpose of correcting the minimum area
needed to decrease the roughness to acceptable limits. ProVAL's Smoothness Assurance Module is an
example of a computer program that can be used to assist in developing a plan.

6.4.5.3. The Owner-Agency will determine the final disposition of defective segments, which may include corrective
actions, assessment of a penalty, or some combination thereof.

6.4.5.4. After making corrections, reprofile the corrected pavement section to verify that the corrections have
produced the required improvements. If the corrective action does not produce the required improvement,
the Owner-Agency may assess the penalty, or require continued corrective action.

6.4.5.5. Corrective actions will not be allowed on nondeficient sections to obtain incentive payments.

7. MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT

7.1. Measurement and Payment—The work performed, materials furnished, equipment, labor, tools, and
incidentals will not be measured or paid for directly, but will be subsidiary to bid items of the contract. The
final pay factor as determined in Section 6.4.3 and the percent disincentive for localized roughness as
determined in Section 6.4.4 will be applied to the unit bid price for the quantity of pavement placed and
accepted. The appropriate incentive or disincentives will be applied separately.

8. KEYWORDS

http://hm.digital.transportation.org/Print.html?file=http://hm.digital.transportation.org/HM/Part_III_Practices/Pavement_Structures/r_006.aspx#r_006-1?… 5/6
1/8/2018 Standard Practice for Accepting Pavement Ride Quality When Measured Using Inertial Profiling Systems

8.1. Inertial profiler; International Roughness Index; IRI; ride quality; road profile; roughness; smoothness.

9. REFERENCES
9.1. Fernando, E., and C. Bertrand. “Application of Profile Data to Detect Localized Roughness.” Transportation
Research Record 1813 . Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2002,
pp. 55–61.

9.2. FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC.

9.3. NHI Training Course 131100. Pavement Smoothness: Use of Inertial Profiler Measurements for
Construction Quality Control
. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC.

9.4. Sayers, M. W. “Profiles on Roughness.” Transportation Research Record 1260. Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1990, pp. 106–111.

9.5. Sayers, M. W., T. D. Gillespie, and W. D. O. Paterson. “Guidelines for Conducting and Calibrating Road
Roughness Measurements.” The World Bank Technical Paper , Number 46. The World Bank, 1996.

9.6. Sayers, M. W., and S. M. Karamihas. The Little Book of Profiling. University of Michigan Transportation
Institute, Ann Arbor, MI, 1998.

9.7. Swan, M., and S. M. Karamihas. “Use of a Ride Quality Index for Construction Quality Control and
Acceptance Specifications.” Transportation Research Record 1861
. Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, DC, 2003, pp. 10–16.

1 Formerly AASHTO Provisional Standard MP 17. First published as a full standard in 2010.

http://hm.digital.transportation.org/Print.html?file=http://hm.digital.transportation.org/HM/Part_III_Practices/Pavement_Structures/r_006.aspx#r_006-1?… 6/6