No abstract

Data collected by inertial profilers on new asphalt pavements in Colorado in 2012 were used to analyze the effectiveness of the localized roughness specification in Colorado. For the analyzed projects, data were collected before any corrections were made as well as after diamond grinding had been performed to remove areas of localized roughness. The data indicated that localized roughness features having a half-car roughness index (HRI) lower than 175 in./mi were rarely addressed during correction. However, about half the localized roughness features that had an HRI of 175 to 200 in./mi were successfully addressed during correction. Localized roughness features having an HRI greater than 200 in./mi appeared to be successfully addressed during correction. The analysis indicated a significant difference in the localized roughness locations identified by AASHTO R 54 and the Colorado Department of Transportation (DOT) method of detecting localized roughness. The Colorado DOT procedure specifies a minimum length for a roughness feature that is to be corrected, but AASHTO R 54 does not. This paper shows that collecting accurate profile data and analyzing the data to determine localized roughness locations are not enough. The identified locations must be correctly marked on the pavement in the field so that the feature does not cause localized roughness. This paper presents a procedure not only for collecting accurate data but also for accurately marking the roughness features in the field. It is shown that it is possible to locate and correct localized roughness accurately to the current thresholds as set by AASHTO R 54.

No abstract

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

No abstract