ArticlePDF Available

Development of Pavement Management Systems to Meet Public Private Partnership Concession Agreements

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Word Count: 4542 words, 2 figures 7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008) 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).
Content may be subject to copyright.
Development of Pavement Management Systems to Meet Public Private Partnership
Concession Agreements
Paper for the Seventh International Conference on Managing Pavements
Calgary, Alberta, Canada – June 2008
D.J. Swan (Corresponding Author)
Applied Research Associates
5401 Eglinton Ave. W. – Suite 204
Toronto, ON M9C 5K6 Canada
Phone: (416) 621-9555, Fax: (416) 621-4917, E-Mail: djswan@ara.com
David K. Hein
Applied Research Associates Inc.
5401 Eglinton Ave. W. – Suite 204
Toronto, ON M9C 5K6 Canada
Phone: (416) 621-9555, Fax: (416) 621-4917, E-Mail: dhein@ara.com
Craig D. White
407 ETR Concession Company Limited
6300 Steeles Avenue West
Woodbridge, ON L4H 1J1 Canada
Mike Corbett
Brun-Way Highways Operations Inc.
500 Beaverbrook Court, Suite 501
Fredericton, NB E3B 5X4 Canada
Steven Drummond
Capilano Highway Services Company
118 Bridge Road
West Vancouver, BC V7P 3R2 Canada
Submission Date: October 30, 2007
Word Count: 4542 words, 2 figures
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
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).
Swan, Hein, White, Corbett, and Drummond 2
ABSTRACT
With the increased number of road projects being issued as public private partnerships across North America, the
need for specialized pavement performance and management data has become more important.
These types of projects are unique because of the detailed and binding concession agreements outlining
minimum testing and performance requirements. Each concessionaire requires a very detailed and customized
solution. Although each concessionaire usually deals with the same assets, due to the relatively small size of their
network and the level of monitoring typically well beyond that used by similar government agencies, the private
concessionaire has different issues and resources to comply with the concession agreement. The requirements of
typical concession requirements across North America vary significantly, but typically include requirements for
pavement surface distress, smoothness, and rutting.
This paper outlines the lessons learned during the creation of pavement condition evaluation and
monitoring systems for three concession projects across Canada. Specifically, it discusses the requirements for
hyper accuracy of location identification, the identification of immediate repair locations, the use of distribution
requirements in rehabilitation forecasting, and risk management.
The experience with these public private partnerships has resulted in key conclusions with dealing these
types of assets. There is little flexibility with the accuracy and the referencing of the key performance data because
often times the concessionaire is required to make rapid repairs to ensure timely preventative maintenance and
prevent fines for exceeding key performance indicators.
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
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).
Swan, Hein, White, Corbett, and Drummond 3
INTRODUCTION
Public-private partnerships (PPP) are defined by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as a
“contractual agreement formed between a public agency and private sector entity that allow for greater private sector
participation in the delivery of transportation projects.” [1]. PPP projects have become more common for the
delivery of major transportation projects in Canada and the rest of the world and in many ways, create a win-win
situation. Government agencies receive the product they require with minimal risk and often in a shorter timeframe
and cost than though conventional design/bid/built delivery. Private industry is able to deliver the project and
manage the risk while gaining access to a long-term revenue stream and making a reasonable profit.
In terms of road networks, PPP projects typically take the form of a section of highway and connecting
roadways which are to be construction and managed for a given concession period. The concession periods
themselves tend to range in length but are typically between 20 and 40 years but have been signed for as long as 99
years as with Highway 407 near Toronto, Canada. Over the course of the highway concession period, the private
agency takes over the maintenance, rehabilitation and administration duties traditionally completed by the
government.
The full range of services that are to be provided by the concessionaire is typically set out in the terms of
the agreement, but in almost all cases the largest expenditures over the course of the concession agreement is the
cost to maintain, rehabilitate, and reconstruct the pavement assets of the project. As such, it is critical to find the
most cost effective way to maintain the infrastructure in compliance with the agreed upon performance measures
and a Pavement Management Systems (PMS) is critical to the success of this process.
TYPICAL COMPONENTS OF CONCESSION AGREEMENTS
In general, many of the components of concession agreements in use across Canada are similar. For example, each
specifies the minimum standard and performance of key assets. Specific concession requirements of each agency
reflect the needs of the local agency, the needs of the geographical environment, and the needs of the highway users.
Also with the limited experience of most agencies with these types of projects, the requirements are being developed
based on the experience of previous projects and other agencies. The overall trend is that the level of sophistication
of the requirements is increasing as time passes with all parties beginning to understand both the risks and rewards.
Assets to be Evaluated
The assets to be evaluated in PPP projects are defined in the concession agreements. Most agreements include all of
the major elements within the right of way including:
Pavements (main lanes, shoulders, sideroads, pullouts)
Structures (bridges, tunnels, retaining walls)
Electrical systems (lighting, cameras, digital signs)
Right of Way (landscaping, fencing, noise walls)
Safety Appurtenances (barrier walls, pavement markings, attenuators, signs)
Drainage
Typical maintenance and rehabilitation requirements include repairing, maintaining, and replacing all items as
necessary to ensure a high level of service and safe environment for the travelling public. The remainder of the
discussion in this paper concentrates on the pavement assets.
Pavement Performance Criteria
In order to ensure that the condition of the roadway is adequate to maintain the usability, comfort, and safety of the
travelling public, the concession agreements usually include a set of conditions outlining the type and frequency of
monitoring and the minimum acceptable levels of pavement performance. The ability to meet these criteria is an
important part of the project and is outlined in the operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation (OMR) plan.
The OMR plan needs to be established in order to meet the level of service requirements set out in the
concession agreement. The pavement performance requirements are established to ensure a level of service at least
the same as that provided by the agency for similar facilities. Often, the level of service specified is higher than that
provided by the agency itself. This increase in serviceability can have a significant impact on the design,
construction, maintenance and rehabilitation requirements of the pavements.
The performance of pavements and their compliance to the project requirements can be measured in a
variety of ways. Typical concession agreements focus on the components that most impact the safety and ride
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
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).
Swan, Hein, White, Corbett, and Drummond 4
comfort level of pavement. Often times other criteria, such as structural capacity, are left to the discretion of the
concessionaire in order to provide some flexibility in how the highway is designed and maintained.
The most common conditions identified in the concession agreements for highway projects include:
International Roughness Index (IRI)
Pavement Surface Distress
Rut Depth
Friction
International Roughness Index
IRI has become the element of choice to reflect the ride comfort level of a pavement. IRI reflects the serviceability
of the pavement, the ride comfort [2], and even the amount of vehicle fuel consumption [3].
IRI is measured in each wheelpath and then averaged for both wheel paths and over a specified length of
the highway. Typically a maximum value of IRI is specified for a given section length (ie. average IRI of
2.28 m/km for each 100 m length of a lane).
In addition to a maximum IRI value, it is also becoming common for the concession agreements to also
specify a given distribution of IRI values to ensure that the entire network is not maintained at only the minimum
level of acceptability. A typical IRI distribution used in New Brunswick [4] can be seen in Figure 1.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.02.12.2
2.28
>2.28
IRI (mm/m)
Cummulative Distribution
Safe
Zone
Figure 1 Typical IRI Distribution for a PPP Project
In general, these criteria seem to be very straightforward and within typical ranges expected for Canadian
highways. However there are a number of factors that have come to light which have not always been clearly
identified in the concession agreements. For example, the concession agreements typically require that IRI criteria
be met over the entire surface of the highway. This has been proven difficult to achieve in areas such as bridges
where approach slabs as well as expansion joints cause significant “spikes” in IRI that are often two or three times
the specification limits and when the data from these locations is included in average for that section of roadway,
results in a non-compliance with the specifications. Subtle changes in a roadway profile, such as traveling over the
crown of the road, construction joints on ramp entrances and exits and changes in superelevation, can have a
significant effect on the IRI over short distances.
There are also some equipment issues that can contribute to higher measured than actually present IRI.
Inertial profiler equipment, used to measure the IRI, typically has a minimum recommended testing speed [5].
Maintaining this speed is not possible in the short sections or at the ends of ramps. Often the IRI values at slow
speeds are more variable and higher than the specified limits and could easily result in a section testing as non-
compliant.
Typically, the IRI criteria is exceeded for small sections and is due to localized problems such as
settlements or heaving. If these sections are relatively small, a patch repair is used to locally improve the
smoothness. Unfortunately this type of repair can be difficult to do well and often, the cure results in the cause of
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
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).
Swan, Hein, White, Corbett, and Drummond 5
additional roughness, particularly at the new joints. In addition, compliance with the IRI criteria can also be quite
difficult if the project involves the utilization of an existing pavement or tie-ins to existing pavement. As for
compliance with the distribution of IRI, it is of utmost importance to develop a very low IRI at the time of initial
construction which can be very difficult to achieve if the pavement is being constructed under traffic or if a material
transfer vehicle is not used for asphalt concrete paving operations or if the slipform paver is not kept in uniform
motion for exposed concrete pavements.
Wheelpath Rutting
Wheelpath rutting is a simple criteria to measure and can have a large impact on the performance and safety of the
pavement. As with IRI, the criteria for the pavement rutting contains a measured value over a specified section
length. Typical maximum specified rut values are around 20 mm, averaged over the sections. In addition to the
maximum acceptable limit, it is also common to have a distribution of acceptable rut values. A typical example of
an acceptance distribution used in New Brunswick [4] for rutting is shown in Figure 2.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1234567891011121314151617181920
>20
Rut Depth (mm)
Cummulative Distribution
Safe
Zone
Figure 2 Typical Rut Depth Distribution for a PPP Project
There are typically fewer issues encountered with the rutting criteria than the roughness criteria. The rut
susceptibility of the mix and cross-section plays an important role in this and can be accounted for during the design
and construction phases of not only the initial construction, but also the on-going rehabilitation of the roadway.
Rutting is typically only an issue at slow moving vehicle operations such as at toll plazas and start and stop areas of
ramps. Cost-effective rehabilitation strategies such as microsurfacing are typically used to prevent substantial
penalties that may be imposed if the criteria are exceeded.
Pavement Surface Distress
Pavement surface distress is also typically included as a pavement performance measure. The actual protocol for
measuring pavement distress varies significantly between agencies. The severity and the extent of a list of distresses
are collected for given intervals along the pavement lanes. A combined distress criteria, such as the Pavement
Condition Index (PCI), is then used to rate the condition of the pavement. Most Canadian concession agreements
specify only minimum acceptable pavement condition index. In some cases, there is also a clause indicating that
high severity distresses, of any kind, be repaired.
The presence of any high severity distresses is typically identified during regular road patrols by concession
maintenance staff. Localized high severity distresses are typically repaired soon after they are identified.
Pavements reaching the minimum acceptable PCI are typically scheduled for a more significant maintenance
treatment such as an overlay or concrete pavement restoration.
Pavement Surface Friction
While requirements for pavement surface friction are not included in all concession agreements, it is becoming more
common. Typically, a minimum friction value is specified for the pavement surface with the concessionaire
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
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).
Swan, Hein, White, Corbett, and Drummond 6
required to monitor and plan for the rehabilitation of sections if they fall below this threshold value. This is different
from typical agency treatment of pavement surface friction in that very few agencies publish friction data or
minimum acceptable levels and take action for low friction in only extreme circumstances where there are obvious
safety concerns.
Hand back Performance Criteria
One of the key concerns for an agency is the condition of the pavement at the conclusion of the contract. To ensure
that the roadway is maintained throughout the contract at a reasonable level and that it returns to public ownership in
a good condition, a common component of the concession agreement are hand back requirements. These
requirements outline a separate set of performance requirements to be met at the end of the contract to ensure the
pavement has a reasonable remaining service life. These requirements are typically more stringent to prevent last
minute, minor rehabilitation actions that merely mask any significant performance issues.
Once again, the hand back requirements for each project can vary significantly. However, they typically
include conditions to not only meet on-going performance monitoring levels, but also a variety of remaining life
criteria. Although the method to determine the remaining life is not specified, the purpose of the contract is to
ensure that the road will last a reasonable time past the end of the contract based on factors for both serviceability
and structural capacity. Typically the structural capacity of the pavement is expected to meet a specified remaining
life after hand back, based on a standard test procedure such as the Falling Weight Deflectometer [6]. With longer
concession periods, wording such as “measured using technology current at the time of hand back” is used and while
somewhat ambiguous, is intended to reflect the likely change in technology over time.
CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ON PUBLIC-
PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS
The many differences in the management of these PPP contracts mean that many aspects of a traditional PMS do not
directly apply. This is not due only to the difference in the objectives of the private concessionaire, but also in the
decision making process that needs to be used to comply with the concession requirements. For example,
government agencies do not penalize themselves when a 100 m section of highway exceeds a minimum IRI. While
highway agencies typically use PMS systems as network tools to forecast major rehabilitation work, the emphasis
for a PPP PMS is on project level decisions and concession agreement compliance. The following sections outline
some of the key differences in the utilization of a PMS for concession contracts.
Sectioning of the Network
Most agency PMS systems are set up for network level decision support planning and include relatively long
sections (up to several kilometres) that reflect construction history, varying traffic use, etc. Pavement performance
data is collected and aggregated into key factors that are used to predict the long term performance of the pavement
and plan future pavement rehabilitation activities.
While network level planning is also important for concession contracts, it is secondary to the annual
evaluation for compliance with the key performance indicators. As such, the pavement network is sectioned using
much smaller elements typically between 50 m and 100 m in length. This is important to not only ensure that the
performance criteria are being met, but also to ensure that rehabilitation strategies are being considered for short
sections (as little as 50m) when an isolated section shows deterioration.
In general this sample size leads to a very large number of sections, despite the limited length of the actual
network. As an example, a 100 km length of divided highway with 4 lanes, and 50 m sections would have 8,000
sections. Once side streets, ramps, and shoulders are included, the number of sections can be very large.
Additional complications have been recently introduced with agencies requiring rolling average values to
determine compliance for factors such as IRI and rut depth.
Required Accuracy of the Linear Referencing
The typical accuracy expectations for a traditional PMS requires reference locations be matched at relatively coarse
intervals such as cross roads, bridges, etc. for sections that may be several kilometres in length. The differences in
the measurements in outside lanes as compared to the centreline stationing are typically deemed to be negligible and
are ignored.
For PPP projects, the level of accuracy required is significantly higher. This is required to ensure that
sections of pavement not in compliance with the concession requirements are precisely identified for potential
repairs. In some agreements, repairs are required within a relatively short time interval such as a month while others
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
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).
Swan, Hein, White, Corbett, and Drummond 7
permit planning and coordination of repair work. Some agreements also contain penalty clauses which include a
monthly or annual penalty for any sections not repaired within the specified timeframe.
A significant complication also arises for projects under construction where the length of the highway can
change annually as sections of roadway are realigned or added to the network. This requires adjustments to the
linear referencing for in some cases thousands of sections.
The use of Geographic Positioning Systems (GPS) to ensure accuracy of locating pavement sections and
for referencing of performance data is highly recommended.
Construction Specifications
For most agencies in Canada, the specifications for construction are not directly linked to the performance
measures used for the pavement management system. While the initial pavement smoothness is specified by most
agencies, the methods used to measure smoothness for initial construction and pavement management purposes
typically differs. The California Profilograph is a common tool used in Canada to measure overall pavement
smoothness and to identify areas that can affect the ride quality and life of the pavement. However, the Profile
Index produced from this test does not directly correlate with the IRI that is required under the concession
agreement. In some cases, contractors would be receiving bonuses for smoothness under the construction
specifications but the pavement fails the long term concession agreement requirements for IRI.
Dealing with Preventative Maintenance
While highway agencies across Canada have some form of maintenance program, it is typically under-funded and
reactive in nature. In order to ensure annual compliance with the key performance indicators such as IRI, rut depth
and pavement distress, most concessionaires have a very active preventive pavement maintenance program.
Preventative maintenance needs are assessed independently of the annual condition surveys through regular
inspections of patrol staff who identify and deal with problem areas as they develop. In addition to the reduced
overall rate of deterioration, routine crack sealing and patching can greatly improve the ride quality and surface
condition ratings. Typical preventative maintenance activities seen are:
Concrete Pavements
o Crack Stitching
o Dowel Bar Retrofits
o Diamond Grinding
o Joint Sealing
o Slab Jacking
Flexible Pavements
o Crack Sealing
o Mill and Patch
o Microsurfacing
Preventative maintenance activities need to be well planned and coordinated to gain the highest benefit and
minimize disruption to the travelling public. This includes developing decision matricies and trigger points for
specific preventive maintenance treatments. Concessionaires also tend to be more open to trying innovative
treatments as they are not restricted to low bid requirements typically used by government agencies.
Meeting Distribution Goals
A unique component of some of the concession agreements is the use of key performance indicator distributions
such as those shown in Figures 1 and 2. These distributions add a new level of complexity to the prediction and
budgeting of rehabilitation activities.
Typical PMS software applications allow for a large variety of goals during the forecasting analysis.
However, they are not designed to meet the dynamic needs of the distribution analysis. This has proven to be one of
the more difficult aspects of performing long term forecasting (ie. longer than 5 years). The most optimal plan for a
concessionaire is to plan rehabilitation activities such that the rehabilitation in conjunction with the deterioration of
non-rehabilitated sections just meets the distribution of for example IRI in the following year. This is difficult,
because the recommended repair solution for the following year should then be evaluated to ensure that the given
repairs, in conjunction with the expected pavement deterioration will provide a system that will ensure compliance
with the distribution.
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
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).
Swan, Hein, White, Corbett, and Drummond 8
Ideally, the overall roadway condition should be hovering just over the distribution line. In order to change
the distribution it is important to understand that improving the condition of an individual section will alter the shape
of the distribution of all section with better performance. The means that many minor preventative maintenance
activities on the network, although the most cost effective treatment for the pavement, will not significantly change
the distribution. By locating the poor performing sections on the distributions and simulating the results of the
repair, an estimate of distribution can be created to assess any other areas of the curve that many need to be adjusted.
For areas that affect the performance at around the 50 percent mark of the distribution, localized cost effective
rehabilitation and maintenance alternatives can be used to change the shape and ensure overall compliance.
Developing a cost-effective long-term rehabilitation strategy for a highway concession is also complicated
by the fact that most concessions involve major pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction which makes much of the
pavement brand new at the time of the concession. As all of the pavements and traffic is typically similar,
theoretically, all of the pavements will require rehabilitation at the same time in the future. Scheduling this
rehabilitation, while trying to maintain cost-effective compliance with the distribution requirements is the primary
challenge.
Handback Requirements
Handback requirement are different from annual standards in that they are designed to ensure that the pavement
structure is not at the end of its service life when it is returned to the agency upon completion of the concession.
Handback requirements are often more stringent than the annual conditions and incorporate other requirements such
as a minimum remaining service live at the end of the concession period.
Handback requirements while generally long in the future, are very important when determining the
maintenance and rehabilitation in the early stages of the concession. The challenge is to schedule (space out) the
maintenance and rehabilitation activities such that the minimum treatments are used in order to just meet the
handback requirements. From a concessionaire cost point-of-view the goal is to ensure that all of the pavements in
the facility will just meet the handback requirements without exceeding them. This is the most profitable scenario
for the concessionaire. For example, if the concessionaire takes over a new pavement today for a 25 year concession
(2032) with a handback standard that requires a 6-year residual life (2038), and assuming a 12 to 15 year average
pavement life to major rehabilitation, then the last rehabilitation during the concession period would be 2038 – 13 =
2025. Working backwards, the rehabilitation should be scheduled for 2025 – 13 = 2012. Therefore, in order to
ensure that the current pavement lasts until the expected rehabilitation year of 2012, the concessionaire would
consider various preventive maintenance techniques such as micro-surfacing to extend the pavement service life to
2012.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Public private partnerships allow opportunities to evaluate many new technologies and procedures. This allows
industry to find more cost effective methods to build and maintain roadways. However, with this freedom comes an
increase in performance monitoring and pavement condition requirements. Government agencies must recognize
that maintaining a facility at a higher level of service comes with a price.
Planning for creation and implementation of a detailed pavement management system starts long before the
award of the project. The OMR plan is an important component of the project and is used to assess the funding
requirements for pavement maintenance and rehabilitation requirements. The accuracy of the OMR plan is very
important to the concessionaire. An accurate OMR will ensure that not only the most cost effective strategies are
being employed, but also that the pavements will meet the annual performance requirements.
There are many new and very significant challenges associated with applying traditional pavement
management practices to concession projects. Although the background theory and test procedures used are
consistent with historic practices, the level of detail required presents new challenges. Some of the key lessons
learned during the initial implementation of PMS for concession contracts include:
Use multiple sources for referencing locations (ie. GPS, stationing, and site references)
Select a software system that is flexible and allows many custom functions and reports to allow
for additional data analysis to meet the concession requirements
Collecting and analyzing data in very small increments is very time consuming
Innovation is the key to success in collecting the data and in cost-effectively selecting the types of
maintenance and rehabilitation treatments
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
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).
Swan, Hein, White, Corbett, and Drummond 9
A successful pavement management system and accurate performance data collection are essential to meet
the conditions of a concession agreement and maximize cost effectiveness. The big picture view of the overall
network is an essential tool to evaluate how and when to perform specific maintenance and rehabilitation activities.
The prediction of pavement condition is increasingly important when anticipating the needs of a performance
distribution requirement.
The target level of service specified by an agency must be very carefully examined before creating an OMR
plan. These limits can have a significant impact on the cost associated to maintain a network to a high level of
service. As agencies continue to increase the number, type, and complexity of the performance requirements, the
cost to meet them will escalate as well. An accurate understanding of these requirements is important both the
industry bidding on PPP projects and for the agencies evaluating these bids. If the requirements become too
stringent, significantly higher than what the agency themselves would maintain the highway, the cost to outsource
the OMR of the highway could exceed the cost to do the work in-house.
The tools and expertise to meet the needs are available in the market. The benefit of these projects is the
ability to provide innovative solutions to the problems encountered. The careful evaluation of all options will ensure
that the project can be cost-effectively completed meeting the requirements of the agency, the concessionaire, and
the travelling public.
REFERENCES
1. “Report to Congress on Public-Private Partnerships” United States Department of Transportation, 2004.
2. Paterson, W.D.O. International Roughness Index: Relationship to Other Measures of Roughness and
Riding Quality. In Transportation Research Record 1084, National Research Councel, Washington, D.C.,
1987.
3. Taylor, G.W., and J.D. Patton. Effects of Pavement Structure on Vehicle Fuel Consumption – Phase III
Report CSTT-HVC-TR-068. National Research Council of Canada, 2006.
4. “OMR – Asset Management Requirements” Trans Canada Highway Project Attachment 61. New
Brunswick DOT
5. Sayers, M.W., and S.M. Karamihas. The Little Book of Profiling, Basic Information about Measuring and
Interpreting Road Profiles. University of Michigan, September 1998.
6. ASTM D 4694 “Standard test method for Deflection with Falling – weight – type impulse load device”
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
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).
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Different measures of road roughness with varying degrees of reproducibility and repeatability have been applied by various agencies in the world, but the exchange of roughness information has been hampered by a lack of an acceptable reference and a quantitative basis for relating the different measures. Presented in this paper is such a basis developed from an analysis of data from the International Road Roughness Experiment (IRRE). The international Roughness Index (IRI), developed from the IRRE as a suitable calibration standard for all response-type and profilometric instruments, is the transferable reference scale. It is the metric equivalent of a reference inches/mile index. Two-way conversion relationships and confidence intervals are presented for the Quarter-car Index (QI), British Bump Integrator trailer index (BI), and various profile numerics of the French Analyseur de Profil en Long (APL) (longitudinal profile analyzer) profilometer from the IRRE. The characteristics of each scale, and the sources of variation and range of application of the conversions are discussed.
Article
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/21605/1/90151.pdf
Effects of Pavement Structure on Vehicle Fuel Consumption – Phase III Report CSTT-HVC-TR-068
  • G W Taylor
  • J D Patton
Taylor, G.W., and J.D. Patton. Effects of Pavement Structure on Vehicle Fuel Consumption – Phase III Report CSTT-HVC-TR-068. National Research Council of Canada, 2006.
Effects of Pavement Structure on Vehicle Fuel Consumption – Phase III Report CSTT-HVC-TR-068. National Research Council of Canada
  • G W Taylor
  • J D Patton
  • S M Karamihas
Taylor, G.W., and J.D. Patton. Effects of Pavement Structure on Vehicle Fuel Consumption – Phase III Report CSTT-HVC-TR-068. National Research Council of Canada, 2006. 4. " OMR – Asset Management Requirements " Trans Canada Highway Project Attachment 61. New Brunswick DOT 5. Sayers, M.W., and S.M. Karamihas. The Little Book of Profiling, Basic Information about Measuring and Interpreting Road Profiles. University of Michigan, September 1998.
OMR -Asset Management Requirements
  • G W Taylor
  • J D Patton
Taylor, G.W., and J.D. Patton. Effects of Pavement Structure on Vehicle Fuel Consumption -Phase III Report CSTT-HVC-TR-068. National Research Council of Canada, 2006. 4. "OMR -Asset Management Requirements" Trans Canada Highway Project Attachment 61. New Brunswick DOT