Siva WSDOT and UW Roughness Study RPUG 2003

Information about Siva WSDOT and UW Roughness Study RPUG 2003

Published on February 7, 2008

Author: Hillary

Source: authorstream.com

Content

WSDOT/UW Road Roughness Study:  WSDOT/UW Road Roughness Study Research Study By: Kevan Shafizadeh University of Washington Presented By: N. Sivaneswaran (Siva) Pavement Management Engineer Washington State Department of Transportation Study Motivation:  Study Motivation A 1997 telephone survey of 508 Washington adults ranked “poor road surface/potholes/ruts” as the second biggest problem with Washington interstates (second only to congestion/inadequate capacity) Source: Washington State’s Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) Over $400 million of the state transportation budget is devoted to highway maintenance and preservation each year. Study Characteristics:  Study Characteristics WSDOT sponsored research conducted by University of Washington Identify factors that affect the public’s perception of road roughness Identify “acceptable ride quality” thresholds When should a pavement be rehabilitated due to roughness? Pavement Roughness Thresholds (Interstate Facilities):  Pavement Roughness Thresholds (Interstate Facilities) Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1999. WSDOT IRI Determination:  WSDOT IRI Determination High speed profiler Travels at posted speed Conducted annually All state highways Both directions on divided highways One direction on simple two way Study Details:  Study Details Phase I: Customer Survey Mailout-Mailback Survey General “customer satisfaction” Phase II: In-Vehicle Study 40 road segments I-5, SR-520, I-90, and I-405 Phase I: Customer Survey:  Phase I: Customer Survey General opinion about roughness, road quality issues around Seattle area Collected individual socio-demographic information Gender, Age, Income, Education, etc. Willingness to participate in a driving experiment? Phase I: Customer Survey:  Phase I: Customer Survey License plates were recorded of vehicles entering and exiting SR-520 near UW Surveys were mailed out to individuals through the WA DOL with return postage Completed surveys were mailed back to UW Phase I: Customer Survey:  Phase I: Customer Survey Over 2,800 license plates collected (Fall 2000) 2,570 surveys mailed to registered owners (Winter 2000) 529 Valid Surveys Returned 173 Valid Surveys with Contact Info Phase I: Customer Survey:  Phase I: Customer Survey General “customer satisfaction” information obtained from Seattle-Area commuters Note: Results based on 1-5 scale where 1 = excellent, 3= average, and 5 = poor. Summary Statistics: Gender:  Summary Statistics: Gender Summary Statistics: Income:  Summary Statistics: Income Summary Statistics: Age:  Summary Statistics: Age Summary Statistics: Education:  Summary Statistics: Education Phase II: In-Vehicle Surveys:  Phase II: In-Vehicle Surveys Individuals were surveyed for their perceptions of roughness while driving on 40 local freeway segments, controlling for: In-Vehicle Noise Vehicle Type Vehicle Speed Pavement Type Start Location Weather Conditions Roughness (IRI) Phase II: Segment Selection Criteria:  Phase II: Segment Selection Criteria Freeway segment in Seattle study area that: Is easily and safely traversable by drivers of varying abilities and in a reasonable amount of time (< 2 hrs) Has consistent and homogenous attributes Same Surface Type Same Geometric Design (# of Lanes, Shoulder Widths) Same Terrain Similar IRI Is separated by distinguishable and has easily identifiable features Corresponds to locations where physical indices have been documented (Washington State Pavement Management System (WSPMS)) Samples a range of IRI values Study Vicinity:  Study Vicinity Study “Loop”:  Study “Loop” University Village Eastgate P&R Summary of IRI Measurements:  Summary of IRI Measurements In-Vehicle Participants:  In-Vehicle Participants 56 individual drivers 2240 driver-segments observations Four different vehicle types Midsize sedan - KIA Optima (18 participants – 32%) Sport utility – Jeep Grand Cherokee(16 participants – 29%) Pickup – Ford Ranger(12 participants – 21%) Minivan – Ford Windstar(10 participants – 18%) Results: Roughness Rankings vs. IRI:  Results: Roughness Rankings vs. IRI Results: Roughness Rankings vs. IRI:  Results: Roughness Rankings vs. IRI Roughness Ranking vs IRI:  Roughness Ranking vs IRI 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Perceived Roughness Ranking 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Measured IRI (m/km) Mean Rank by Drivers (1=smooth, 5=rough) Measured IRI (m/km) Roughness Ranking vs IRI (elevated segments):  Roughness Ranking vs IRI (elevated segments) 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Perceived Roughness Ranking 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Measured IRI (in/mi) Roughness Rankings on Elevated Segments Roughess Rankings on Non-Elevated Segments Measured IRI (in/mi) Roughness Ranking vs IRI (by pavement type and elevated segments):  Roughness Ranking vs IRI (by pavement type and elevated segments) 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Perceived Roughness Ranking 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Measured IRI (in/mi) Roughness Rankings on PCCP Segments Roughness Rankings on ACP Segments Measured IRI (in/mi) Roughness Rankings on Elevated Segments Acceptability Thresholds:  Acceptability Thresholds Acceptability Thresholds:  Acceptability Thresholds Acceptability Thresholds:  Acceptability Thresholds Results: Statistical Models:  Results: Statistical Models Study Conclusions:  Study Conclusions IRI does not fully capture driver’s perception of roughness, but it remains a very significant indicator Acceptable thresholds, based on IRI, can be identified Other important indicators Partial slab replacement Expansion joints Studded tire wear State Trigger Values (1998):  State Trigger Values (1998) * Criteria dependent on highway type 2002 IRI Statistics:  2002 IRI Statistics Additional Questions:  Additional Questions Are smoother pavements lasting longer? What IRI value shows improved pavement performance? What IRI value should be used as a smoothness specification? How should bonus/penalty be accessed? Research Report:  Research Report Shafizadeh, K., F. Mannering, and L. Pierce (2002). A Statistical Analysis of Factors Associated with Driver-Perceived Road Roughness on Urban Highways, Washington State Transportation Research Center. Research Report. WA-RD 583.1. June 2002. (http://depts.washington.edu/trac/bulkdisk/pdf/538.1.pdf)

Related presentations


Other presentations created by Hillary

Table Etiquette
11. 01. 2008
0 views

Table Etiquette

Rude CGC WTO
08. 05. 2008
0 views

Rude CGC WTO

Zylbersztajn
07. 05. 2008
0 views

Zylbersztajn

Hsu
02. 05. 2008
0 views

Hsu

20070105
02. 05. 2008
0 views

20070105

Xiaobin Huang Monday
24. 04. 2008
0 views

Xiaobin Huang Monday

1 active learning e
22. 04. 2008
0 views

1 active learning e

ganotis
22. 04. 2008
0 views

ganotis

Stretching and Strengthening
17. 04. 2008
0 views

Stretching and Strengthening

Roaring20s
15. 04. 2008
0 views

Roaring20s

ww2
14. 04. 2008
0 views

ww2

OB ch03 Values Attitudes Job Sat
17. 01. 2008
0 views

OB ch03 Values Attitudes Job Sat

London
07. 02. 2008
0 views

London

Postmorbid Condition
18. 02. 2008
0 views

Postmorbid Condition

CSP2005
09. 01. 2008
0 views

CSP2005

Nuclear Weapon Pres km
11. 01. 2008
0 views

Nuclear Weapon Pres km

lect 12 Met Rx2 hydro
14. 01. 2008
0 views

lect 12 Met Rx2 hydro

Midwestern LDS Conf Text Only
16. 01. 2008
0 views

Midwestern LDS Conf Text Only

EPA Region 8 Oil Pgm 22 07
16. 01. 2008
0 views

EPA Region 8 Oil Pgm 22 07

002
17. 01. 2008
0 views

002

sbe
22. 01. 2008
0 views

sbe

stewart 215
22. 01. 2008
0 views

stewart 215

Native American Review
23. 01. 2008
0 views

Native American Review

slidep34
23. 01. 2008
0 views

slidep34

AM2 zhao xinhua EN
24. 01. 2008
0 views

AM2 zhao xinhua EN

winehelppart4
04. 02. 2008
0 views

winehelppart4

slutkonferens
08. 02. 2008
0 views

slutkonferens

Intro Geotech 05
12. 02. 2008
0 views

Intro Geotech 05

Topic and Key Numbers Research
11. 01. 2008
0 views

Topic and Key Numbers Research

Good Design
31. 01. 2008
0 views

Good Design

Bodreau DEP Env Protection
20. 02. 2008
0 views

Bodreau DEP Env Protection

chap17 07
25. 02. 2008
0 views

chap17 07

astronomersWholePres entation
03. 03. 2008
0 views

astronomersWholePres entation

Thesis Presentation Claudia
07. 03. 2008
0 views

Thesis Presentation Claudia

AG1303
10. 03. 2008
0 views

AG1303

MEIProgressPres0802
10. 01. 2008
0 views

MEIProgressPres0802

ecolabel
08. 04. 2008
0 views

ecolabel

Hunt Presentation Ch 6 10
25. 01. 2008
0 views

Hunt Presentation Ch 6 10

IATC presentation
10. 04. 2008
0 views

IATC presentation

Speech Times of Change
12. 01. 2008
0 views

Speech Times of Change

undp presentation revised 17 may
07. 04. 2008
0 views

undp presentation revised 17 may

Amakiri NDES
09. 01. 2008
0 views

Amakiri NDES

kw1
15. 01. 2008
0 views

kw1

Level5 Unit2 Lesson1 Galileo
09. 01. 2008
0 views

Level5 Unit2 Lesson1 Galileo

Industriakademin 2005 10 27
06. 02. 2008
0 views

Industriakademin 2005 10 27

XM IIR Miami 1 05
13. 02. 2008
0 views

XM IIR Miami 1 05

2007 English lores
13. 02. 2008
0 views

2007 English lores

prospecting and leadership
28. 01. 2008
0 views

prospecting and leadership

laj acc presentation 5 12 04
10. 01. 2008
0 views

laj acc presentation 5 12 04