EVALUATION OF LIGHTWEIGHT NON-CONTACT PROFILERS

Pavement smoothness was recently identified as the most significant factor the motoring public uses to judge the quality of roadways. A new generation of lightweight profilers has recently been developed with a potential of providing nearly instantaneous smoothness measurements that provide contractors with a tool to identify and address process control issues promptly and cost effectively. The new technology was evaluated to assess the repeatability and reproducibility of the devices, as well as the potential for their use in Indiana. A successful field test was conducted, with four ASTM Class I lightweight profilers performing five replicate measurements at each of six sites; three hot mix asphalt and three portland cement concrete sites. The precision of the devices was determined in accordance with ASTM standards and also revealed good repeatability but poor reproducibility. Smoothness specifications of other states were reviewed in light of their application to lightweight profilers and a draft smoothness specification based on lightweight profilers was developed for INDOT.

[1]  Khaled Ksaibati,et al.  Development of Florida Smoothness Specifications for Flexible Pavements , 1999 .

[2]  Khaled Ksaibati,et al.  EVALUATION OF THE PRORUT SYSTEM IN INDIANA. FINAL REPORT , 1989 .

[3]  Khaled Ksaibati,et al.  PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION SMOOTHNESS SPECIFICATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES , 1995 .

[4]  V. Barnett,et al.  Applied Linear Statistical Models , 1975 .

[5]  K K McGhee.  Measuring, achieving and promoting smoothness of Virginia's asphalt overlays. , 1999 .

[6]  Gerald B. Heyes,et al.  ASTM E691–87 Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precision of a Test Method , 1993 .

[7]  Hussain U Bahia,et al.  Summary of Current Quality Control/ Quality Assurance Practices for Hot-Mix Asphalt Construction , 1998 .

[8]  E G Fernando,et al.  PROFILE EQUIPMENT EVALUATION , 1997 .

[9]  Jerry L. Budwig.  Bituminous Pavement Smoothness: Statistically Based Approach to Acceptance , 1996 .

[10]  J H Woodstrom.  MEASUREMENTS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ACHIEVEMENT OF SMOOTHNESS FOR PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION , 1990 .

[11]  Larry A Scofield,et al.  EVALUATION OF CALIFORNIA PROFILOGRAPH , 1992 .

[12]  Steven M. Karamihas,et al.  Guidelines for longitudinal pavement profile measurement , 1999 .

[13]  William D O Paterson.  INTERNATIONAL ROUGHNESS INDEX: RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER MEASURES OF ROUGHNESS AND RIDING QUALITY , 1986 .

[14]  J C Wambold,et al.  DEVELOPMENT OF PROCEDURES FOR THE CALIBRATION OF PROFILOGRAPHS. FINAL REPORT , 1989 .

[15]  M Sayers,et al.  Development, Implementation, and Application of the Reference Quarter-Car Simulation , 1985 .

[16]  Todd E. Hoerner,et al.  SMOOTHNESS SPECIFICATIONS FOR PAVEMENTS , 1997 .