10.1.1.651.3260
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Incorporation of Surface Texture, Skid Resistance and Noise into PMS
Alauddin, Mohammad Ahammed, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Waterloo
200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3G1
Tel. (519) 888-4567 x 33872
Fax: (519) 888-4300
E-mail: maahamme@engmail.uwaterloo.ca
Susan L. Tighe, Ph.D., P. Eng.
Canada Research Chair in Pavement & Infrastructure Management,
Associate Director CPATT and
Associate Professor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Waterloo
200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3G1
Tel.: (519) 888-4567 x 33152
Fax: (519) 888-4300
E-mail: sltighe@uwaterloo.ca
ABSTRACT
Skidding contributes to a substantial portion of crashes on the roadway. The resistance to skidding is therefore an
important component of highway safety. Improved and durable friction can be achieved by increasing the surface
texture. These may, however, influence the tire-pavement interaction noise and may, at some point, be unacceptable
to the commuters and/or residents. In fact, noise is an environmental problem and a growing concern all over the
world. Alternatively, durability of the pavement itself is vital to sustainability of natural resources and economy of
the country. All these factors combined result in many challenges to highway engineers/agencies as they must
balance the pavement durability and users comfort (smooth and quiet) with economy but without compromising the
safety.
Published literature/reports indicate some advancement in surface friction and tire-pavement noise studies.
However, no specific guidance is provided in current state/provincial specifications on improving the surface texture
and friction to reduce the number of crashes. Furthermore, little emphasis is given on specifying the desirable noise
levels which resulted in a large variation in noise levels, even among similar pavements.
This paper provides an insight into the desirable surface characteristics that ensures both drivers comfort
and safety. The up to date results of a study, involving the skid resistance and acoustic performance of various
asphalt and concrete surfaces, at University of Waterloo Centre for Pavement and Transportation Technology
(CPATT) are presented. The process of accommodating the pavement durability and safety, smoothness, and noise
into pavement management system (PMS) are addressed.
INTRODUCTION
About 157,000 crashes were reported in 2004 on Canadian roads with annual economic loss of about $25 billion (1).
Highway crashes cost the United States over $200 billion annually (2). Skidding on wet pavements contribute to
13.5% of fatal and up to 25% of all accidents (3). The resistance to skidding is therefore of paramount importance in
selecting a surface type. Increased temperature and surface polishing significantly reduce the available friction with
increased potential for skid related accidents. Variation of available friction with time is therefore an important
measure of pavement deterioration (4). Pavement surface should therefore be designed so that sufficient friction is
available throughout the life of the pavement and in varying weather condition.
The available friction on pavement surfaces depends on surface microtexture and macrotexture. Improved
and durable friction can be achieved through increased textures. This may, however, influence the tire-pavement
interaction noise with resulting increases in the overall traffic noise. Noise is an environmental problem that may
also affect public health. Survey results show that half of Canadians are bothered, disturbed or annoyed by noise
originated outside their home where the most bothersome type is indicated to be the road traffic noise (5). In
addition, the quality of a roadway is judged by its surface smoothness, the single most important indicator of
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Ahammed & Tighe
Page 2
pavement performance. Highway engineers/agencies are challenged as they must balance the surface texture
characteristics for comfort (smooth and quiet) and durability but not compromise safety. However, no Canadian
agencies specify the desirable surface texture for adequate and durable friction. Furthermore, no specification or
guideline is provided for acceptable noise levels in pavement perspective, although the environmental
agencies/departments provide some guidance on traffic noise levels for noise barrier consideration. This resulted in a
large variation in noise levels among the pavements already constructed or under construction. It is therefore time to
develop a specification or guideline for the desired minimum surface texture or friction and the maximum noise
levels for the pavements to be newly constructed or rehabilitated.
This paper describes different aspects of pavement surface characteristics that could be utilized in
optimizing the surface performance, namely the resistance to skidding and noise. Skid testing on several surfaces of
concrete and asphalt pavements has been carried out as part of the research program. Consequently, criteria and a
process for incorporating the surface characteristics, together with pavement stability/durability, into the PMS are
presented. The possible measures in project and network levels are also addressed to facilitate dealings with existing
pavements.
FUNDAMENTALS OF SURFACE TEXTURE
The irregularities of pavement surface from its smooth horizontal plane surface are known as surface textures. The
available surface textures depend on aggregate mineralogy, aggregate size and gradation in the surface mix, voids in
surface mix, pavement finishing and texturing techniques, and surface wear as well as profile. The surface textures
are classified into microtexture, macrotexture, megatexture and unevenness (roughness) based on texture sizes as
indicated by texture amplitude (depth) and wavelength. The classification suggested by the Permanent International
Association of Road Congresses (PIARC) is shown is Figure 1(6). It summarizes possible tire-pavement interaction
effects. Microtexture refers to surface irregularities with wavelengths of less than 0.5 mm and vertical amplitudes of
less than 0.2 mm while macrotexture wavelengths ranges from 0.5 mm to 50 mm with vertical amplitudes ranging
from 0.1 mm to 20 mm. Megatexture have wavelengths in the order of 50 mm to 500 mm and vertical amplitudes of
0.1 mm to 50 mm. Surface irregularities having wavelengths exceeding the megatexture size i.e. 500 mm are called
roughness or unevenness (7).
FIGURE 1 Ranges of texture and anticipated effects (6).
As shown in Figure 1, pavement surface textures influence several aspects of tire-pavement interaction that
include friction, tire-pavement noise, splash and spray, rolling resistance, and tire wear depending on texture levels.
The available friction however primarily depends on surface microtexture and macrotexture. On asphalt pavement
surfaces, microtexture can provide adequate skid resistance at speed of ≤ 48 km/h (30 mph) (2). On PCC pavements,
good macrotexture is needed to prevent hydroplaning (through adequate drainage), reduce splash and spray, and
provide skid resistance at speed of ≥ 80 km/h (50 mph) (8). Macrotexture and megatexture on the other hand are
responsible for tire-pavement interaction and in-vehicle noises, where the macrotexture have the strongest effect.
Pavement surfaces need be designed to minimize noise without compromising the safety.
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Page 3
Ahammed & Tighe
TEXTURE-FRICTION (SAFETY)-NOISE RELATIONSHIPS
Concrete pavements are known to provide high stability and long service life. However, higher tire-pavement noise
and texture durability are major concerns. Grooved concrete surfaces were shown to exhibit a skid number (SN40) of
62.0 at 64 km/h (40 mph) with Mean Texture Depth (MTD) of 1.70 mm (0.067 in.) and a SN40 of 34.8 for MTD of
0.41 mm (0.016 in.). Pavement grooves of 4.76 mm (3/16 in.) wide on 19 mm (3/4 in.) centers were found to wear at
a mean rate of 0.33 mm (0.013 in.) per million vehicle passes. A Mean Groove Depth (MGD) of 1.27 mm (0.05 in.)
was found to be necessary to ensure minimum acceptable SN40 of 32 (9). A long term frictional performance model
using Long Term Performance Program (LTPP) data of 197 concrete pavement sections was developed as part of a
research at University of Waterloo as given by Equation 1 (10).
FN = 63.467 - 0.517 S + 4.248 TC - 0.041 VPC - 0.131 VT + 0.451 CS
(1)
Where, FN = Friction Number, S = Vehicle Speed in mph, TC = Texture Code (1 for grooved and 0 for
dragged, VPC = Volume of PC (= Age*PC AADT) in thousand, VT = Volume of Truck (= Age*Truck AADT) in
thousand, CS = Compressive Strength in ksi.
Dense graded asphalt surfaces maintain SN40 in the range 40 to 50. Open graded asphalt pavement surface
exhibit better skid resistance and lower noise but need frequent cleaning maintenance (8). Figure 2 shows the
variation of skid resistance (British Pendulum Number, BPN) measured during a study (by the authors) at University
of Waterloo, using a portable skid resistance tester (British Pendulum), on fifteen concrete and five asphalt surfaces.
Deep transverse broom and transverse tine (4 mm deep, 3 mm wide, spaced at 16 mm) on concrete surfaces, and
stone mastic asphalt (SMA) were shown to provide the highest skid resistance. Exposed aggregate surface, with the
highest MTD (2.17 mm), exhibited relatively low BPN. This is probably due to loss of sand microtexture with
washed out mortar and it may therefore not be a preferred texture for concrete pavement. In this study, textured
concrete surfaces were shown to absorb 4% to 6% of the sound.
5.0
90
79
76
73
66
BPN
64
52
73
73
3.0
65
1.86
4.0
75
73
63
2.17
1.84 1.84
60
73
72
69
70
50
81
79
80
64
63
1.75
1.70 1.70 1.57 1.57 1.65 1.65
2.0
MTD, mm
83
1.21 1.21
0.87 0.92
0.87 0.87
0.91
0.57
0.76
1.0
0.0
L3
-2
SP
H
A
A
SM
PM
Sc
r
Lo
n g eed
.
Tr Bu r
la
an
p
s.
Bu
Lo
rla
ng
p
.
Tr Bro
an
om
s
Lo . Br
oo
ng
m
.
Tr Ast
ro
an
tu
s.
rf
A
str
ot
Ex u rf
po
se
Ex d -1
p
o
Lo
n g s ed .R
2
an
Bu Tra
d
ns
rla
om
.
p
Bu + L Ran
do
on
r la
m
g.
p+
R
Tr
an
an
do
s.
m
R
an
Lo
do
ng
m
.
Tr Uni
fo
an
rm
s.
U
ni
fo
rm
H
L3
-1
40
BPN
MTD
Te xture or Surface Type
FIGURE 2 Variation of textures and skid resistances on selected surfaces
Skidding was shown to contribute to 15 to 35 percent of wet accidents while poor visibility due to splash
and spray contributed to 10 percent of the wet weather accidents (11). A skid number (SN40) of 40 is the critical
mark below which accident potential was shown be high with wet/dry pavement accident ratio approaching over 0.7
(12). The available surface friction changes seasonally with temperature variations and with vehicle speed. The
average difference of skid numbers measured in winter and summer was shown to be 6 points (13). Tests on six
concrete and five asphalt surfaces in the study at University of Waterloo also showed that the available skid
resistance can vary by up to 10 BPN points (Figure 3) between winter/spring and summer. Pavements should
therefore have adequate levels of surface friction for safe manoeuvres at different operating speeds and various
surface condition states over the service life.
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Page 4
Ahammed & Tighe
80
AC
76
PCC
73
BPN
71
71
70
68
67
66
64
71
72
71
63
63
65
63
65
62
72
Se
pt
em
be
r
A
ug
us
t
Ju
ly
Ju
ne
M
ay
A
pr
il
Fe
br
ua
ry
M
ar
ch
-S
ta
rt
M
ar
ch
-E
nd
60
Testing Time
FIGURE 3 Seasonal variations of skid resistance on concrete and asphalt surfaces
OPTIMIZATION OF PAVEMENT SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS
As mentioned earlier, an increased texture is desired for increased and durable friction, and thereby safety and
economy. Increased texture, however, may affect the driver/residents comfort and economy in terms noise, vehicle
vibration, fuel consumption, and tire and vehicle wear. The selection of a suitable texture is therefore a complex task
as several aspects need be considered for optimizing the pavement surface characteristics and performances. The
challenge is to balance noise with other more important requirements such as safety, as related to surface friction,
pavement durability, structural capacity, noise mitigation and safety over time, ride quality and economy (14). A
survey among highway agencies around the world rated various design criteria of pavement based on relative
importance on a scale of 1 (very important) to 3 (relatively unimportant) (7). Pavement durability (average rating
1.2) and safety as related to skid resistance (average rating 1.3) are considered as the most important factors in
selecting a pavement or surface type. These are followed by safety as related to splash and spray (average rating
1.9), exterior noise (average rating 2.3) and in-vehicle noise (average rating 2.4). The rolling resistance (average
rating 2.7) and tire wear (average rating 2.8) were considered less important. Therefore, the main purpose of
texturization or selection of surface course should be to reduce the number and severity of wet accidents, and the
safety and durability should not be compromised for slight reduction in noise. A balance between safety and noise
would be the best option or happy median in practicing highway design (15).
Minimum Surface Texture and Skid Resistance for Safety
No specific guideline is available regarding the desired minimum or maximum texture levels. However, the Ontario
Ministry of Transportation (MTO) specifies various asphalt surface courses based on traffic levels. These include
HL-4 or Superpave 12.5 (SP12.5), HL-1 or SP12.5FC1, Dense Friction Course (DFC) or SP12.5FC2 and SMA for
AADT/lane of 500-2500, AADT/lane of 2500-5000, annual design lane ESALs of 1-3 million (AADT/lane >5000)
and annual design lane ESALs of >3 million, respectively. For urban residential areas, DFC may be replaced with
Open Friction Course (OFC) if no noise barrier is used (16). Skid testing during the study at University of Waterloo
on earlier stated fifteen concrete and five asphalt surfaces showed that the BPN increases for a MTD up to about 1.9
mm and decrease thereafter, based on the best trend (Figure 4).
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Page 5
Ahammed & Tighe
BPN
90
70
50
30
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
MTD, mm
FIGURE 4 Variations of skid resistance on concrete and asphalt surfaces with MTD
In fact, the wet pavement safety is a complex function of vehicle and driver performance/ behaviour and
surface condition. Setting an absolute minimum requirement, especially for the vast network of existing pavements,
is not a simple task because the adequacy of the existing pavements may be questioned. Accordingly, no
transportation agencies in Canada or the United States set standards for minimum surface friction, because of
litigation risk that may arise from skidding accidents (4). Tentative guidelines therefore developed by some agencies
in North America. A tentative guideline, as shown in Table 1, is used by Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO)
to assess the surface friction level (17).
Some agencies outside North America however provide some standard for minimum surface friction. For
example, the United Kingdom provides a comprehensive standard for the desired minimum surface friction levels
for different road classes and sections. The investigatory level of Sideways Force Coefficient Routine Investigation
Machine (SCRIM) friction coefficient starts from a minimum of 0.35 at 50 km/h for motorway to 0.60 at 20 km/h
for sharp bend with radius ≤100 m (speed limit >40 km/h) during the summer. Implementation of this standard has
resulted significant benefits in terms of accident reduction (18).
TABLE 1 Tentative guideline for friction classification system in Ontario (17)
Facility Type
Freeways and Main Highways
Two-lane and Four-lane
Intersections
Speed Limit,
km/h
100
80
80
60
Friction Level (Skid Number) at Speed Limit
Good
Borderline
Low
≥ 31
25 - 30
< 25
≥ 32
27 - 31
< 27
≥ 40
31 - 39
< 31
≥ 45
36 - 44
< 36
Figure 5 shows a general framework of selecting the desired minimum skid resistance for a new surface course or
texture and selecting treatment/rehabilitation of an existing surface. The terminal value of SN should be set based on
road/section location, road class (speed and traffic mix) and cumulative traffic passes, polish/wear resistance of the
surface, local condition of drainage and weather (rain, snow/ice, and temperature variation), wet to dry accident
ratio, and level of maintenance activities (drainage, snow cleaning and de-icing).
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Page 6
Ahammed & Tighe
Road/Section Location
(Rural/Urban/Intersection)
Road Class
(Speed and Traffic)
W eather Condition
(Rain/Snow/Ice)
W et/Dry
Accident Ratio
Road Maintenance
(Drainage/De-icing)
Terminal SN at the End of Service Life (S t)
(Summer W et Friction)
Design Life or
Expected Traffic (Y)
SN Loss per Year or
Per Million Traffic
Passes (R)
Addition for W ear
(S w ) =
YxR
Desired Minimum
SN (SN Design )* =
St + Sw + Ss + Sd
Confidence
Interval of Skid
Test (S d )†
Seasonal
Correction
(S s)
Month/Temperature
of Skid Testing
*For design of surface course and texture
or surface treatment/rehabilitation
†Based on number of tests and standard
deviation
FIGURE 5 General framework for selection of design SN or treatment decision
Acceptable Maximum Noise Level
Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) in the United States, which is monitored by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), requires that noise abatement must be considered when traffic noise level approaches or exceeds 67 dBA
(Leq) or 70 dBA (L10) (15). The threshold for interior noise levels are 52 dBA (Leq) or 55 dBA (L10). The Ontario
Ministry of Environment (MOE) recommends for road noise control measures if the predicted daytime hours (07:0023:00) sound level (Leq) in the outdoor living area exceeds 60 dBA (19). A Noise Policy is enforced in the Region
of Waterloo, Ontario. Developers must construct noise barrier if the expected 16-hour Leq noise levels at nearby
residence’s backyard after 10 years exceed 60 dBA. When improving an existing road, the Region constructs noise
barriers if the projected noise levels after 10 years exceed the current level by more than 5 dBA or exceed the
threshold of 65 dBA (20). The current certified types of physical mitigations include construction of noise barriers
and earth berm to control noise level at the outdoor living area. Such noise mitigation methods are neither
economical nor effective because they can only prevent the noise propagation, but not actually reduce the traffic
noise from the source. Pavements can play an important role in noise reduction at the source because the interaction
between tire and pavement becomes the dominant noise source when the vehicle travels at speed of 35 km/h or more
(21). However, no agencies in the U.S. and Canada specify the acceptable noise level for the selection of pavement
or texture types.
Several studies have determined the tire-pavement noise on various asphalt and concrete surfaces with no
universal conclusion. Wide variation in as-built surfaces due to construction variability has resulted in wide
variations in noise levels among the sections, even for a specified texture pattern. A good quality control of tine
spacing, depth and width is therefore essential to avoid variation in as-built surface textures from the agency
specified patterns if a national guideline is to be developed (22). Variation in noise level has also been observed for
asphalt sections with same surface mix making it difficult to generalize the result. Despite such variation, evaluating
the noises and surface textures on 57 sections of asphalt and concrete pavements in six US states, it was
recommended that a desirable surface should exhibit a maximum of 83 dBA exterior and 68 dBA interior noises
with ROSAN ETD of 0.7 or above (23).
The recommendation specified above is definitely a useful guidance, however, may not be applicable or
adoptable to every locations/agencies. Furthermore, not all surfaces perform in a similar manner because of
pavement deterioration over time, and variability in materials and mixes. A criterion therefore needs to be developed
for each agency jurisdiction and for each class of roadway considering the public perception or noise abatement
criteria. For setting the maximum acceptable in-vehicle noise, user perception survey may be conducted or
maximum limit in noise abatement criteria may be used as a rough guidance. In this case, the maximum acceptable
limit may be increased by up to about 2 dBA (3 dBA being the perceptible difference) from that obtained/estimated
from the user perception survey or the specified limit in regional noise abatement criteria. In the process of selecting
the surface or texture type with desirable maximum tire-pavement noise, the challenge however is to separate the
tire-pavement noise from overall road/traffic noise. It may therefore be convenient to set the maximum acceptable
noise level composed of noises from all sources (engine/exhaust, traffic mix and tire-pavement) on the road to
classify the texture or surface type, using a or a set of standard vehicles/tires. For maximum acceptable exterior
noise, distance to nearby community, and criteria of noise attenuation with distance and regional noise abatement
criteria need to be taken into account. Deterioration in noise performance over time also should be considered.
Figure 6 shows a framework for selecting the acceptable maximum noise level for a new pavement and
rehabilitation or surface treatment of an existing pavement. As mentioned above, the acceptable maximum noise
level refers to the overall noise from road/traffic. However, the desired minimum surface friction i.e. safety criterion
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Page 7
Ahammed & Tighe
must be checked when selecting the surface texture or mixes with acceptable maximum overall noise.
C u r r e n t T r a ffic M ix
N o is e A b a te m e n t
C r ite r ia (d B A )
P a v e m e n t M a in te n a n c e
a n d D e te r io r a tio n
F o r e c a s te d T r a ffic
M ix A fte r 1 0 Y e a r s
A c c e p ta b le In -V e h ic le a n d
B a c k y a r d N o is e (d B A ) = N a c
N o is e D e te r io r a tio n O v e r
T e n Y e a r s = N d e t (d B A )
E x p e c te d In c r e a s e in
N o is e L e v e l D u e to
T r a ffic = N tr (d B A )
D e s ir e d M a x im u m N o is e a t
B a c k y a r d o r In s id e V e h ic le
fo r N e w S u r fa c e
N d r (d B A ) = N a c - N tr - N d e t - N te m p
* C o r r e c tio n fo r
T e m p e r a tu r e = N te m p (d B A )
N o is e A b a te m e n t o r
A tte n u a tio n w ith D is ta n c e
D e s ig n M a x im u m N o is e a t
R o a d s id e fo r N e w S u r fa c e
N d e g n (d B A ) = N d r + N a tt
E ffe c tiv e N o is e
R e d u c tio n (d B A ) = N a tt
A v e r a g e W in te r
T e m p e r a tu r e
* N o is e L e v e l In c r e a s e s w ith
D e c r e a s e in A m b ie n t
T e m p e r a tu r e
FIGURE 6 General frameworks for design noise level for a new surface
INCORPORATION OF PAVEMENT SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INTO THE PMS
Project Level PMS
Routine monitoring of the surface friction is essential to ensure safety of the road users, especially in wet-weather.
However, although as-built construction smoothness have been incorporated into specifications of several U.S.
states, the surface texture and skid properties have not yet quantitatively defined and included in most specifications
(24). Monitoring of surface friction is an important part of pavement management system that helps to evaluate
quality of pavement surface (25). Tighe (26) also emphasized that pavement surface properties and safety
improvements must be incorporated in the pavement management system (PMS), and taken into account
simultaneously when planning the maintenance program and selecting the treatment strategies. Although, no
transportation agencies in North America set standards for minimum surface friction, different agencies have
developed some criteria for identifying low friction surface and initiating possible countermeasure. An example of
such guideline, developed in Pennsylvania, is shown in Table 2 (4). On the noise side, a recent study in New
Zealand found that change in noise level by 1 dBA is noticeable and annoying to public, especially when the
existing noise level is high, reverting previous knowledge that noise increase by 3 dBA is just noticeable to most
public. Based on community survey for the degree of annoyance and disturbance, a noise guideline (Table 3) was
then developed for changes in urban road surfaces (27).
The PMS can also incorporate the noise performance together with others factors like safety, comfort,
durability while planning pavement maintenance or renewal activity. Noise emission, a crucial factor for quiet
environment, may be evaluated following similar approaches of pavement condition data acquisition. However, a
relationship between the noise performances and pavement surface deterioration such as potholes, raveling and
cracking need to be developed for various pavement types for inclusion in the PMS (28). Although the paper
focused the asphalt surfaces, a similar model can be developed for concrete surfaces incorporating concrete surface
defects or deterioration over time. The developed model then can be used to predict noise deterioration (noise
emission) over time and classify pavements into different categories from very noisy (≥3 dB higher) to noise
reducing (≥3 dB lower) with respect to reference pavement. The noisy and less noisy were referred to the surfaces
with noise level 1-2 dB higher and lower 1-2 dB lower than the reference pavement, respectively. The paper,
however, did not characterize the reference pavement. Furthermore, for the same surface, within tests variability
may exceed 1-2 dBA. Therefore, more practical limits need to be set. The following guideline is therefore being
suggested (Table 4):
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Page 8
Ahammed & Tighe
TABLE 2 Criteria for identifying low friction pavement surface (4)
A
Skid Number
(SN40)
< 31
Accident
Problem
Yes
B
31 - 34
Yes
Maintain surveillance and take corrective action as
required
C
34 or less
No
Maintain surveillance and take corrective action as
required
D
35 - 40
-
Maintain surveillance and take corrective action as
required
E
> 40
Category
Action by Engineering District
Improvements or general maintenance programs
considered for betterment
No further action is required
TABLE 3 Extent of improvement in noise environment from road surface change (27)
Changes in Noise Level
(dBA)
≥ 3.6
Reduction
1.1 - 3.5
0-1
No Change
0
0-1
Increase
1.1 - 3.5
≥ 3.6
5 dBA higher
Very noisy
Actively consider for surface change/ treatment to
reduce the noise level
3-5 dBA higher
Noisy
Candidate for surface change/treatment
Within ± 2 dBA
Normal
Check at 1-2 years interval for potential increase
3-5 dBA lower
Less Noisy
Check every five years for potential increase
>5 dB lower
Noise Reducing
No action is needed
Snyder suggested a value engineering technique for the selection of pavement surface type and texture for a new
pavements as well as noise mitigation on existing pavements (14). Using this process, it is possible to identify the
best choice in the decision-making process using an acceptable tool. In the demonstration, each important factor was
ranked in the scale of 0 (worst) to 100 (best). The weighing factors were allocated as: First cost = 20, Structural
Durability = 15, Safety (including wet/dry weather surface friction, hydroplaning potential, black ice, etc.) = 20,
Interior Noise = 10, Exterior Noise = 5, Durability of Surface Friction and Noise Reduction Characteristics = 20,
Future Maintenance Costs and Options = 10. However, pavement smoothness, an important criterion, was not taken
into account. The exterior noise is probably more critical than interior, especially in urban areas, because of
complaint from the residents. In fact, a combination costs, public perspectives and engineering judgment of the
importance/effectiveness of various factors and options should govern the decision-making process. It is also
important to realize that noise alone should not be used as the criteria to distinguish between asphalt and concrete
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Page 9
Ahammed & Tighe
pavements. Overall initial and life cycle costs, constructability, maintainability, durability, comfort and economy in
terms of rolling resistance and fuel consumption, and noise rather should be taken into account together with project
location (rural/urban), roadway type (freeway/major/local), and traffic class/mix and speed. A revised but simplified
list of factors, together with their corresponding weights, is being suggested in Table 5 for use in the decisionmaking process. Each factor can be assigned a score in the scale of 0-10 or 0-100 with 0 indicating most inferior and
100 or 10 denoting the most superior.
TABLE 5 Value engineering approach for selection of surface and pavement type
Pavement Attributes
Weights
Remarks on Ranking the Attributes
Initial construction cost
20
Based on bid price for alternative pavements or surfaces
Life cycle maintenance cost
10
Based on historical costs for similar pavements/surfaces
Structural capacity/durability
25
Based on design and/or actual service life
Safety (skid resistance, splash
and spray) over service life
25
Based on ranges of average skid resistance value and/or accident
record on similar surfaces over service life
Exterior noise over service
life
10
Based on average roadside noise levels over service life for
alternative surfaces
Interior noise and smoothness
over service life
10
Based on average IRI and in-vehicle noise levels over the service
life for alternative surfaces
Network Level PMS
Noise performance can also be incorporated into the network level PMS. The strategies as suggested in Denmark are
(28):
1. Over ten years, no pavement should belong to the very noisy pavement class.
2. Over six years, all pavements in densely populated area should be noise reducing types
3. Over ten years, all pavements in areas with detached residential houses should only belong to the less noisy
types.
4. For any spot increase in the maximum noise level, the road surface shall be visually inspected to determine
the reason of such increase. Pavement related noise problem should be solved within two years with
appropriate repair/ remediation.
Similar management strategies can also be developed for skid resistance and smoothness. Based on this research, the
management strategies for surface friction in network level are being suggested as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Over 10-15 years, no pavement should have skid resistance below the desired minimum value.
Over 3-5 years, all high speed (≥100 km/h) and highly traveled facilities with annual design lane ESALs
of >3 million should have surface friction exceeding the desired minimum SN.
Over 5-10 years, all high speed (≥90 km/h) and highly traveled facilities with annual design lane ESALs
of 1-3 million should have surface friction exceeding the desired minimum SN.
Over two years all black spot locations on a) sharp curves ≥4° for 100 km/h (60 mph) speed limit, ≥6° for
80 km/h (50 mph) speed limit, and ≥9° for 60 km/h (37 mph) speed limit; b) steep grades of >4%; c)
merges; and d) approaches to stop signs and traffic signals should have surface friction exceeding the
desired minimum SN.
Friction related problem at all spot locations other than specified in item 3 should be solved within 2- 5
years with appropriate treatment or rehabilitation.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Noise is an environmental problem but safety and durability are of paramount importance. Driver comfort also can
not be ignored. However, no specific guidance is available for minimum skid resistance and acceptable maximum
noise levels in pavement context. This paper has focused on optimizing the surface characteristics in regards to
safety and noise. A value engineering approach for selecting pavement type/surface, accommodating the skid related
safety, pavement/surface life/durability, initial as well as life cycle costs, noise, and smoothness, has also been
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Ahammed & Tighe
Page 10
proposed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council
(NSERC) of Canada, Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) for
financial support for the complete research on pavement surface characteristics. The contribution of Dufferin Ready
Mix Supplier who donated and delivered the concrete mix for the laboratory samples is also acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1.
Transport Canada. Canadian Motor Vehicle Traffic Collision Statistics 2004 and Road Safety in Canada:
An Overview. Transport Canada Website http://www.tc.gc.ca/ (Accessed on November 07, 2006).
2.
Noyce, D. A., H. U. Bahia, J. M. Yambo, and G. Kim. Incorporating Road Safety into Pavement
Management: Maximizing Asphalt Pavement Surface Friction for Road Safety Improvements. Draft
Literature Review and State Surveys. Midwest Regional University Transportation Center Traffic
Operations and Safety (TOPS) Laboratory, April 29, 2005.
3.
Anon, “What’s all the Noise About? Separating the truth from myths about tire-pavement noise”, Better
Roads Volume 73 Issue 8, Special Concrete Section, August 2003, pp 8- 14.
4.
Transportation Association of Canada. Pavement Design and Management Guide. Ottawa, Ontario, 1997.
5.
PWC Consulting, Health Insider No. 7: Noise Proprietary Questions for Health Canada Contract No.
H1011-010139/001/CY, 2002 http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/noise-bruit/insider7/method_e.html
(Last accessed August 2007).
6.
Centre for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE), Evaluation of U.S. and European Concrete
Pavement Noise Reduction Methods, National Concrete Pavement Technology Center, Iowa State
University, Ames, IA , July 2006.
7.
Henry, J.J. Evaluation of Pavement Friction Characteristics. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 291,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.
8.
Hibbs, B.O., and R. M. Larson. Tire Pavement Noise and Safety Performance. Publication No. SA-96-068,
FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1996
9.
Grady, J. E. and W. P. Chamberlin. Groove-Depth Requirements for Tine- Textured Pavements. In
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 836, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington D.C., 1981, pp 67-76.
10.
Ahammed, M. A. and S. L. Tighe. Evaluation of Concrete Pavements Surface Friction Using LTPP Data.
Proceedings: 86th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board (CD-ROM), TRB, National Research
Council, Washington D.C., 2007.
11.
Hoerner, T. E. and K. D. Smith. High Performance Concrete Pavement: Pavement Texturing and TirePavement Noise. Publication No. FHWA-DTFH61-01-P-00290. FHWA, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 2002.
12.
Rizenbergs, R. L, J. L. Burchet, and L. A. Warren. Relation of Accidents and Pavement Friction on Rural
Two-Lane Roads. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.
633, TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1976, pp 21-27.
13.
Jayawickrama, P. W. and B. Thomas. Correction of Field Skid Measurements for Seasonal Variation in
Texas. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 836, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1981, pp 82-86.
14.
Snyder, M. B. Pavement Surface Characteristics: A Synthesis and Guide. Engineering Bulletin EB235P,
American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA), Skokie, IL, 2006.
15.
Wayson, R. L. Relationship Between Pavement Surface Texture and Highway Traffic Noise. NCHRP
Synthesis of Highway Practice 268, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington D.C., 1998.
16.
Highway Engineering Division. The Use of Bituminous Surface Course Types on Provincial Highways,
Directive PHY-C-016, Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), May 23, 2002.
17.
Kamel N., and T. Gartshore. Ontario’s Wet Pavement Accident Reduction Program. Pavement Surface
Characteristics and Materials, ASTM STP 763, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1982, pp 98-117.
18.
Gargett, T. The Introduction of a Skidding-Resistance Policy in Great Britain. Surface Characteristics of
Roadways: International Research and Technologies, ASTM STP 1031, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, 1990, pp 30-38.
19.
Ministry of Environment Ontario (MOE). Noise Assessment Criteria in Land Use Planning: Requirements,
Procedures and Implementation, Publication LU-131, October 1997,
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Ahammed & Tighe
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Page 11
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/3517e.pdf (Accessed 26 August, 2007).
Regional Municipality of Waterloo (RMW). Implementation Guidelines for Noise Policies. Report No. E04-052, Waterloo, Ontario, 2004.
McDaniel, R., Thornton, W. Field Evaluation of a Porous Friction Course for Noise Control, Proceedings:
85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (CD-ROM), TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 2005.
Kuemmel, D. A., R. C. Sonntag, J. A. Crovetti, Y. Becker, J. R. Jaeckel, and A. Satanovsky. Noise and
Texture on PCC Pavements- Results of a Multi-State Study. Report No. WI/SPR-08-99, Wisconsin
Department of Transportation, Madison, 2000.
Kuemmel, D. A., R. C. Sonntag, J. R. Jaeckel, J. A. Crovetti, Y. Z. Becker and A. Satanovsky. Using a
Road Surface Analyzer to Explain Noise Characteristics of Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Surface
Texture. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1716,
TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 2000, pp 144- 153.
Flintsch, G. W., E. de Leon, K. K McGhee, and I. L. Al-Qadi. Pavement Surface Microtexture
Measurement and Application. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 1860, TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 2003, pp 168-176.
Song, W., X. Chen, T. Smith, A. Hedfi. Investigation of Hot Mix Asphalt Surfaced Pavements Skid
Resistance in Maryland State Highway Network System. Proceedings: 85th Annual Meeting of
Transportation Research Board (CD-ROM), TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 2006.
Tighe, S., N. Li, L. C. Falls, and R. Hass. Incorporating Road Safety into Pavement Management. In
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1699, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington D.C., 2000, pp 1-10.
Dravitzki, V. Keeping a cap on noise. Land Transport NZ Research Report, Issue 8, 2006, pp 5-7.
Bendtsen, H. and B. Schmidt. Integrating Noise in Pavement Management Systems for Urban Roads.
Danish Road Institute, NORDIC Road and Transport Research Publication Number 3, 2006, pp 26-27
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).
Incorporation of Surface Texture, Skid Resistance and Noise into PMS
Alauddin, Mohammad Ahammed, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Waterloo
200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3G1
Tel. (519) 888-4567 x 33872
Fax: (519) 888-4300
E-mail: maahamme@engmail.uwaterloo.ca
Susan L. Tighe, Ph.D., P. Eng.
Canada Research Chair in Pavement & Infrastructure Management,
Associate Director CPATT and
Associate Professor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Waterloo
200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3G1
Tel.: (519) 888-4567 x 33152
Fax: (519) 888-4300
E-mail: sltighe@uwaterloo.ca
ABSTRACT
Skidding contributes to a substantial portion of crashes on the roadway. The resistance to skidding is therefore an
important component of highway safety. Improved and durable friction can be achieved by increasing the surface
texture. These may, however, influence the tire-pavement interaction noise and may, at some point, be unacceptable
to the commuters and/or residents. In fact, noise is an environmental problem and a growing concern all over the
world. Alternatively, durability of the pavement itself is vital to sustainability of natural resources and economy of
the country. All these factors combined result in many challenges to highway engineers/agencies as they must
balance the pavement durability and users comfort (smooth and quiet) with economy but without compromising the
safety.
Published literature/reports indicate some advancement in surface friction and tire-pavement noise studies.
However, no specific guidance is provided in current state/provincial specifications on improving the surface texture
and friction to reduce the number of crashes. Furthermore, little emphasis is given on specifying the desirable noise
levels which resulted in a large variation in noise levels, even among similar pavements.
This paper provides an insight into the desirable surface characteristics that ensures both drivers comfort
and safety. The up to date results of a study, involving the skid resistance and acoustic performance of various
asphalt and concrete surfaces, at University of Waterloo Centre for Pavement and Transportation Technology
(CPATT) are presented. The process of accommodating the pavement durability and safety, smoothness, and noise
into pavement management system (PMS) are addressed.
INTRODUCTION
About 157,000 crashes were reported in 2004 on Canadian roads with annual economic loss of about $25 billion (1).
Highway crashes cost the United States over $200 billion annually (2). Skidding on wet pavements contribute to
13.5% of fatal and up to 25% of all accidents (3). The resistance to skidding is therefore of paramount importance in
selecting a surface type. Increased temperature and surface polishing significantly reduce the available friction with
increased potential for skid related accidents. Variation of available friction with time is therefore an important
measure of pavement deterioration (4). Pavement surface should therefore be designed so that sufficient friction is
available throughout the life of the pavement and in varying weather condition.
The available friction on pavement surfaces depends on surface microtexture and macrotexture. Improved
and durable friction can be achieved through increased textures. This may, however, influence the tire-pavement
interaction noise with resulting increases in the overall traffic noise. Noise is an environmental problem that may
also affect public health. Survey results show that half of Canadians are bothered, disturbed or annoyed by noise
originated outside their home where the most bothersome type is indicated to be the road traffic noise (5). In
addition, the quality of a roadway is judged by its surface smoothness, the single most important indicator of
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Ahammed & Tighe
Page 2
pavement performance. Highway engineers/agencies are challenged as they must balance the surface texture
characteristics for comfort (smooth and quiet) and durability but not compromise safety. However, no Canadian
agencies specify the desirable surface texture for adequate and durable friction. Furthermore, no specification or
guideline is provided for acceptable noise levels in pavement perspective, although the environmental
agencies/departments provide some guidance on traffic noise levels for noise barrier consideration. This resulted in a
large variation in noise levels among the pavements already constructed or under construction. It is therefore time to
develop a specification or guideline for the desired minimum surface texture or friction and the maximum noise
levels for the pavements to be newly constructed or rehabilitated.
This paper describes different aspects of pavement surface characteristics that could be utilized in
optimizing the surface performance, namely the resistance to skidding and noise. Skid testing on several surfaces of
concrete and asphalt pavements has been carried out as part of the research program. Consequently, criteria and a
process for incorporating the surface characteristics, together with pavement stability/durability, into the PMS are
presented. The possible measures in project and network levels are also addressed to facilitate dealings with existing
pavements.
FUNDAMENTALS OF SURFACE TEXTURE
The irregularities of pavement surface from its smooth horizontal plane surface are known as surface textures. The
available surface textures depend on aggregate mineralogy, aggregate size and gradation in the surface mix, voids in
surface mix, pavement finishing and texturing techniques, and surface wear as well as profile. The surface textures
are classified into microtexture, macrotexture, megatexture and unevenness (roughness) based on texture sizes as
indicated by texture amplitude (depth) and wavelength. The classification suggested by the Permanent International
Association of Road Congresses (PIARC) is shown is Figure 1(6). It summarizes possible tire-pavement interaction
effects. Microtexture refers to surface irregularities with wavelengths of less than 0.5 mm and vertical amplitudes of
less than 0.2 mm while macrotexture wavelengths ranges from 0.5 mm to 50 mm with vertical amplitudes ranging
from 0.1 mm to 20 mm. Megatexture have wavelengths in the order of 50 mm to 500 mm and vertical amplitudes of
0.1 mm to 50 mm. Surface irregularities having wavelengths exceeding the megatexture size i.e. 500 mm are called
roughness or unevenness (7).
FIGURE 1 Ranges of texture and anticipated effects (6).
As shown in Figure 1, pavement surface textures influence several aspects of tire-pavement interaction that
include friction, tire-pavement noise, splash and spray, rolling resistance, and tire wear depending on texture levels.
The available friction however primarily depends on surface microtexture and macrotexture. On asphalt pavement
surfaces, microtexture can provide adequate skid resistance at speed of ≤ 48 km/h (30 mph) (2). On PCC pavements,
good macrotexture is needed to prevent hydroplaning (through adequate drainage), reduce splash and spray, and
provide skid resistance at speed of ≥ 80 km/h (50 mph) (8). Macrotexture and megatexture on the other hand are
responsible for tire-pavement interaction and in-vehicle noises, where the macrotexture have the strongest effect.
Pavement surfaces need be designed to minimize noise without compromising the safety.
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Page 3
Ahammed & Tighe
TEXTURE-FRICTION (SAFETY)-NOISE RELATIONSHIPS
Concrete pavements are known to provide high stability and long service life. However, higher tire-pavement noise
and texture durability are major concerns. Grooved concrete surfaces were shown to exhibit a skid number (SN40) of
62.0 at 64 km/h (40 mph) with Mean Texture Depth (MTD) of 1.70 mm (0.067 in.) and a SN40 of 34.8 for MTD of
0.41 mm (0.016 in.). Pavement grooves of 4.76 mm (3/16 in.) wide on 19 mm (3/4 in.) centers were found to wear at
a mean rate of 0.33 mm (0.013 in.) per million vehicle passes. A Mean Groove Depth (MGD) of 1.27 mm (0.05 in.)
was found to be necessary to ensure minimum acceptable SN40 of 32 (9). A long term frictional performance model
using Long Term Performance Program (LTPP) data of 197 concrete pavement sections was developed as part of a
research at University of Waterloo as given by Equation 1 (10).
FN = 63.467 - 0.517 S + 4.248 TC - 0.041 VPC - 0.131 VT + 0.451 CS
(1)
Where, FN = Friction Number, S = Vehicle Speed in mph, TC = Texture Code (1 for grooved and 0 for
dragged, VPC = Volume of PC (= Age*PC AADT) in thousand, VT = Volume of Truck (= Age*Truck AADT) in
thousand, CS = Compressive Strength in ksi.
Dense graded asphalt surfaces maintain SN40 in the range 40 to 50. Open graded asphalt pavement surface
exhibit better skid resistance and lower noise but need frequent cleaning maintenance (8). Figure 2 shows the
variation of skid resistance (British Pendulum Number, BPN) measured during a study (by the authors) at University
of Waterloo, using a portable skid resistance tester (British Pendulum), on fifteen concrete and five asphalt surfaces.
Deep transverse broom and transverse tine (4 mm deep, 3 mm wide, spaced at 16 mm) on concrete surfaces, and
stone mastic asphalt (SMA) were shown to provide the highest skid resistance. Exposed aggregate surface, with the
highest MTD (2.17 mm), exhibited relatively low BPN. This is probably due to loss of sand microtexture with
washed out mortar and it may therefore not be a preferred texture for concrete pavement. In this study, textured
concrete surfaces were shown to absorb 4% to 6% of the sound.
5.0
90
79
76
73
66
BPN
64
52
73
73
3.0
65
1.86
4.0
75
73
63
2.17
1.84 1.84
60
73
72
69
70
50
81
79
80
64
63
1.75
1.70 1.70 1.57 1.57 1.65 1.65
2.0
MTD, mm
83
1.21 1.21
0.87 0.92
0.87 0.87
0.91
0.57
0.76
1.0
0.0
L3
-2
SP
H
A
A
SM
PM
Sc
r
Lo
n g eed
.
Tr Bu r
la
an
p
s.
Bu
Lo
rla
ng
p
.
Tr Bro
an
om
s
Lo . Br
oo
ng
m
.
Tr Ast
ro
an
tu
s.
rf
A
str
ot
Ex u rf
po
se
Ex d -1
p
o
Lo
n g s ed .R
2
an
Bu Tra
d
ns
rla
om
.
p
Bu + L Ran
do
on
r la
m
g.
p+
R
Tr
an
an
do
s.
m
R
an
Lo
do
ng
m
.
Tr Uni
fo
an
rm
s.
U
ni
fo
rm
H
L3
-1
40
BPN
MTD
Te xture or Surface Type
FIGURE 2 Variation of textures and skid resistances on selected surfaces
Skidding was shown to contribute to 15 to 35 percent of wet accidents while poor visibility due to splash
and spray contributed to 10 percent of the wet weather accidents (11). A skid number (SN40) of 40 is the critical
mark below which accident potential was shown be high with wet/dry pavement accident ratio approaching over 0.7
(12). The available surface friction changes seasonally with temperature variations and with vehicle speed. The
average difference of skid numbers measured in winter and summer was shown to be 6 points (13). Tests on six
concrete and five asphalt surfaces in the study at University of Waterloo also showed that the available skid
resistance can vary by up to 10 BPN points (Figure 3) between winter/spring and summer. Pavements should
therefore have adequate levels of surface friction for safe manoeuvres at different operating speeds and various
surface condition states over the service life.
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Page 4
Ahammed & Tighe
80
AC
76
PCC
73
BPN
71
71
70
68
67
66
64
71
72
71
63
63
65
63
65
62
72
Se
pt
em
be
r
A
ug
us
t
Ju
ly
Ju
ne
M
ay
A
pr
il
Fe
br
ua
ry
M
ar
ch
-S
ta
rt
M
ar
ch
-E
nd
60
Testing Time
FIGURE 3 Seasonal variations of skid resistance on concrete and asphalt surfaces
OPTIMIZATION OF PAVEMENT SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS
As mentioned earlier, an increased texture is desired for increased and durable friction, and thereby safety and
economy. Increased texture, however, may affect the driver/residents comfort and economy in terms noise, vehicle
vibration, fuel consumption, and tire and vehicle wear. The selection of a suitable texture is therefore a complex task
as several aspects need be considered for optimizing the pavement surface characteristics and performances. The
challenge is to balance noise with other more important requirements such as safety, as related to surface friction,
pavement durability, structural capacity, noise mitigation and safety over time, ride quality and economy (14). A
survey among highway agencies around the world rated various design criteria of pavement based on relative
importance on a scale of 1 (very important) to 3 (relatively unimportant) (7). Pavement durability (average rating
1.2) and safety as related to skid resistance (average rating 1.3) are considered as the most important factors in
selecting a pavement or surface type. These are followed by safety as related to splash and spray (average rating
1.9), exterior noise (average rating 2.3) and in-vehicle noise (average rating 2.4). The rolling resistance (average
rating 2.7) and tire wear (average rating 2.8) were considered less important. Therefore, the main purpose of
texturization or selection of surface course should be to reduce the number and severity of wet accidents, and the
safety and durability should not be compromised for slight reduction in noise. A balance between safety and noise
would be the best option or happy median in practicing highway design (15).
Minimum Surface Texture and Skid Resistance for Safety
No specific guideline is available regarding the desired minimum or maximum texture levels. However, the Ontario
Ministry of Transportation (MTO) specifies various asphalt surface courses based on traffic levels. These include
HL-4 or Superpave 12.5 (SP12.5), HL-1 or SP12.5FC1, Dense Friction Course (DFC) or SP12.5FC2 and SMA for
AADT/lane of 500-2500, AADT/lane of 2500-5000, annual design lane ESALs of 1-3 million (AADT/lane >5000)
and annual design lane ESALs of >3 million, respectively. For urban residential areas, DFC may be replaced with
Open Friction Course (OFC) if no noise barrier is used (16). Skid testing during the study at University of Waterloo
on earlier stated fifteen concrete and five asphalt surfaces showed that the BPN increases for a MTD up to about 1.9
mm and decrease thereafter, based on the best trend (Figure 4).
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Page 5
Ahammed & Tighe
BPN
90
70
50
30
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
MTD, mm
FIGURE 4 Variations of skid resistance on concrete and asphalt surfaces with MTD
In fact, the wet pavement safety is a complex function of vehicle and driver performance/ behaviour and
surface condition. Setting an absolute minimum requirement, especially for the vast network of existing pavements,
is not a simple task because the adequacy of the existing pavements may be questioned. Accordingly, no
transportation agencies in Canada or the United States set standards for minimum surface friction, because of
litigation risk that may arise from skidding accidents (4). Tentative guidelines therefore developed by some agencies
in North America. A tentative guideline, as shown in Table 1, is used by Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO)
to assess the surface friction level (17).
Some agencies outside North America however provide some standard for minimum surface friction. For
example, the United Kingdom provides a comprehensive standard for the desired minimum surface friction levels
for different road classes and sections. The investigatory level of Sideways Force Coefficient Routine Investigation
Machine (SCRIM) friction coefficient starts from a minimum of 0.35 at 50 km/h for motorway to 0.60 at 20 km/h
for sharp bend with radius ≤100 m (speed limit >40 km/h) during the summer. Implementation of this standard has
resulted significant benefits in terms of accident reduction (18).
TABLE 1 Tentative guideline for friction classification system in Ontario (17)
Facility Type
Freeways and Main Highways
Two-lane and Four-lane
Intersections
Speed Limit,
km/h
100
80
80
60
Friction Level (Skid Number) at Speed Limit
Good
Borderline
Low
≥ 31
25 - 30
< 25
≥ 32
27 - 31
< 27
≥ 40
31 - 39
< 31
≥ 45
36 - 44
< 36
Figure 5 shows a general framework of selecting the desired minimum skid resistance for a new surface course or
texture and selecting treatment/rehabilitation of an existing surface. The terminal value of SN should be set based on
road/section location, road class (speed and traffic mix) and cumulative traffic passes, polish/wear resistance of the
surface, local condition of drainage and weather (rain, snow/ice, and temperature variation), wet to dry accident
ratio, and level of maintenance activities (drainage, snow cleaning and de-icing).
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Page 6
Ahammed & Tighe
Road/Section Location
(Rural/Urban/Intersection)
Road Class
(Speed and Traffic)
W eather Condition
(Rain/Snow/Ice)
W et/Dry
Accident Ratio
Road Maintenance
(Drainage/De-icing)
Terminal SN at the End of Service Life (S t)
(Summer W et Friction)
Design Life or
Expected Traffic (Y)
SN Loss per Year or
Per Million Traffic
Passes (R)
Addition for W ear
(S w ) =
YxR
Desired Minimum
SN (SN Design )* =
St + Sw + Ss + Sd
Confidence
Interval of Skid
Test (S d )†
Seasonal
Correction
(S s)
Month/Temperature
of Skid Testing
*For design of surface course and texture
or surface treatment/rehabilitation
†Based on number of tests and standard
deviation
FIGURE 5 General framework for selection of design SN or treatment decision
Acceptable Maximum Noise Level
Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) in the United States, which is monitored by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), requires that noise abatement must be considered when traffic noise level approaches or exceeds 67 dBA
(Leq) or 70 dBA (L10) (15). The threshold for interior noise levels are 52 dBA (Leq) or 55 dBA (L10). The Ontario
Ministry of Environment (MOE) recommends for road noise control measures if the predicted daytime hours (07:0023:00) sound level (Leq) in the outdoor living area exceeds 60 dBA (19). A Noise Policy is enforced in the Region
of Waterloo, Ontario. Developers must construct noise barrier if the expected 16-hour Leq noise levels at nearby
residence’s backyard after 10 years exceed 60 dBA. When improving an existing road, the Region constructs noise
barriers if the projected noise levels after 10 years exceed the current level by more than 5 dBA or exceed the
threshold of 65 dBA (20). The current certified types of physical mitigations include construction of noise barriers
and earth berm to control noise level at the outdoor living area. Such noise mitigation methods are neither
economical nor effective because they can only prevent the noise propagation, but not actually reduce the traffic
noise from the source. Pavements can play an important role in noise reduction at the source because the interaction
between tire and pavement becomes the dominant noise source when the vehicle travels at speed of 35 km/h or more
(21). However, no agencies in the U.S. and Canada specify the acceptable noise level for the selection of pavement
or texture types.
Several studies have determined the tire-pavement noise on various asphalt and concrete surfaces with no
universal conclusion. Wide variation in as-built surfaces due to construction variability has resulted in wide
variations in noise levels among the sections, even for a specified texture pattern. A good quality control of tine
spacing, depth and width is therefore essential to avoid variation in as-built surface textures from the agency
specified patterns if a national guideline is to be developed (22). Variation in noise level has also been observed for
asphalt sections with same surface mix making it difficult to generalize the result. Despite such variation, evaluating
the noises and surface textures on 57 sections of asphalt and concrete pavements in six US states, it was
recommended that a desirable surface should exhibit a maximum of 83 dBA exterior and 68 dBA interior noises
with ROSAN ETD of 0.7 or above (23).
The recommendation specified above is definitely a useful guidance, however, may not be applicable or
adoptable to every locations/agencies. Furthermore, not all surfaces perform in a similar manner because of
pavement deterioration over time, and variability in materials and mixes. A criterion therefore needs to be developed
for each agency jurisdiction and for each class of roadway considering the public perception or noise abatement
criteria. For setting the maximum acceptable in-vehicle noise, user perception survey may be conducted or
maximum limit in noise abatement criteria may be used as a rough guidance. In this case, the maximum acceptable
limit may be increased by up to about 2 dBA (3 dBA being the perceptible difference) from that obtained/estimated
from the user perception survey or the specified limit in regional noise abatement criteria. In the process of selecting
the surface or texture type with desirable maximum tire-pavement noise, the challenge however is to separate the
tire-pavement noise from overall road/traffic noise. It may therefore be convenient to set the maximum acceptable
noise level composed of noises from all sources (engine/exhaust, traffic mix and tire-pavement) on the road to
classify the texture or surface type, using a or a set of standard vehicles/tires. For maximum acceptable exterior
noise, distance to nearby community, and criteria of noise attenuation with distance and regional noise abatement
criteria need to be taken into account. Deterioration in noise performance over time also should be considered.
Figure 6 shows a framework for selecting the acceptable maximum noise level for a new pavement and
rehabilitation or surface treatment of an existing pavement. As mentioned above, the acceptable maximum noise
level refers to the overall noise from road/traffic. However, the desired minimum surface friction i.e. safety criterion
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Page 7
Ahammed & Tighe
must be checked when selecting the surface texture or mixes with acceptable maximum overall noise.
C u r r e n t T r a ffic M ix
N o is e A b a te m e n t
C r ite r ia (d B A )
P a v e m e n t M a in te n a n c e
a n d D e te r io r a tio n
F o r e c a s te d T r a ffic
M ix A fte r 1 0 Y e a r s
A c c e p ta b le In -V e h ic le a n d
B a c k y a r d N o is e (d B A ) = N a c
N o is e D e te r io r a tio n O v e r
T e n Y e a r s = N d e t (d B A )
E x p e c te d In c r e a s e in
N o is e L e v e l D u e to
T r a ffic = N tr (d B A )
D e s ir e d M a x im u m N o is e a t
B a c k y a r d o r In s id e V e h ic le
fo r N e w S u r fa c e
N d r (d B A ) = N a c - N tr - N d e t - N te m p
* C o r r e c tio n fo r
T e m p e r a tu r e = N te m p (d B A )
N o is e A b a te m e n t o r
A tte n u a tio n w ith D is ta n c e
D e s ig n M a x im u m N o is e a t
R o a d s id e fo r N e w S u r fa c e
N d e g n (d B A ) = N d r + N a tt
E ffe c tiv e N o is e
R e d u c tio n (d B A ) = N a tt
A v e r a g e W in te r
T e m p e r a tu r e
* N o is e L e v e l In c r e a s e s w ith
D e c r e a s e in A m b ie n t
T e m p e r a tu r e
FIGURE 6 General frameworks for design noise level for a new surface
INCORPORATION OF PAVEMENT SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INTO THE PMS
Project Level PMS
Routine monitoring of the surface friction is essential to ensure safety of the road users, especially in wet-weather.
However, although as-built construction smoothness have been incorporated into specifications of several U.S.
states, the surface texture and skid properties have not yet quantitatively defined and included in most specifications
(24). Monitoring of surface friction is an important part of pavement management system that helps to evaluate
quality of pavement surface (25). Tighe (26) also emphasized that pavement surface properties and safety
improvements must be incorporated in the pavement management system (PMS), and taken into account
simultaneously when planning the maintenance program and selecting the treatment strategies. Although, no
transportation agencies in North America set standards for minimum surface friction, different agencies have
developed some criteria for identifying low friction surface and initiating possible countermeasure. An example of
such guideline, developed in Pennsylvania, is shown in Table 2 (4). On the noise side, a recent study in New
Zealand found that change in noise level by 1 dBA is noticeable and annoying to public, especially when the
existing noise level is high, reverting previous knowledge that noise increase by 3 dBA is just noticeable to most
public. Based on community survey for the degree of annoyance and disturbance, a noise guideline (Table 3) was
then developed for changes in urban road surfaces (27).
The PMS can also incorporate the noise performance together with others factors like safety, comfort,
durability while planning pavement maintenance or renewal activity. Noise emission, a crucial factor for quiet
environment, may be evaluated following similar approaches of pavement condition data acquisition. However, a
relationship between the noise performances and pavement surface deterioration such as potholes, raveling and
cracking need to be developed for various pavement types for inclusion in the PMS (28). Although the paper
focused the asphalt surfaces, a similar model can be developed for concrete surfaces incorporating concrete surface
defects or deterioration over time. The developed model then can be used to predict noise deterioration (noise
emission) over time and classify pavements into different categories from very noisy (≥3 dB higher) to noise
reducing (≥3 dB lower) with respect to reference pavement. The noisy and less noisy were referred to the surfaces
with noise level 1-2 dB higher and lower 1-2 dB lower than the reference pavement, respectively. The paper,
however, did not characterize the reference pavement. Furthermore, for the same surface, within tests variability
may exceed 1-2 dBA. Therefore, more practical limits need to be set. The following guideline is therefore being
suggested (Table 4):
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Page 8
Ahammed & Tighe
TABLE 2 Criteria for identifying low friction pavement surface (4)
A
Skid Number
(SN40)
< 31
Accident
Problem
Yes
B
31 - 34
Yes
Maintain surveillance and take corrective action as
required
C
34 or less
No
Maintain surveillance and take corrective action as
required
D
35 - 40
-
Maintain surveillance and take corrective action as
required
E
> 40
Category
Action by Engineering District
Improvements or general maintenance programs
considered for betterment
No further action is required
TABLE 3 Extent of improvement in noise environment from road surface change (27)
Changes in Noise Level
(dBA)
≥ 3.6
Reduction
1.1 - 3.5
0-1
No Change
0
0-1
Increase
1.1 - 3.5
≥ 3.6
5 dBA higher
Very noisy
Actively consider for surface change/ treatment to
reduce the noise level
3-5 dBA higher
Noisy
Candidate for surface change/treatment
Within ± 2 dBA
Normal
Check at 1-2 years interval for potential increase
3-5 dBA lower
Less Noisy
Check every five years for potential increase
>5 dB lower
Noise Reducing
No action is needed
Snyder suggested a value engineering technique for the selection of pavement surface type and texture for a new
pavements as well as noise mitigation on existing pavements (14). Using this process, it is possible to identify the
best choice in the decision-making process using an acceptable tool. In the demonstration, each important factor was
ranked in the scale of 0 (worst) to 100 (best). The weighing factors were allocated as: First cost = 20, Structural
Durability = 15, Safety (including wet/dry weather surface friction, hydroplaning potential, black ice, etc.) = 20,
Interior Noise = 10, Exterior Noise = 5, Durability of Surface Friction and Noise Reduction Characteristics = 20,
Future Maintenance Costs and Options = 10. However, pavement smoothness, an important criterion, was not taken
into account. The exterior noise is probably more critical than interior, especially in urban areas, because of
complaint from the residents. In fact, a combination costs, public perspectives and engineering judgment of the
importance/effectiveness of various factors and options should govern the decision-making process. It is also
important to realize that noise alone should not be used as the criteria to distinguish between asphalt and concrete
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Page 9
Ahammed & Tighe
pavements. Overall initial and life cycle costs, constructability, maintainability, durability, comfort and economy in
terms of rolling resistance and fuel consumption, and noise rather should be taken into account together with project
location (rural/urban), roadway type (freeway/major/local), and traffic class/mix and speed. A revised but simplified
list of factors, together with their corresponding weights, is being suggested in Table 5 for use in the decisionmaking process. Each factor can be assigned a score in the scale of 0-10 or 0-100 with 0 indicating most inferior and
100 or 10 denoting the most superior.
TABLE 5 Value engineering approach for selection of surface and pavement type
Pavement Attributes
Weights
Remarks on Ranking the Attributes
Initial construction cost
20
Based on bid price for alternative pavements or surfaces
Life cycle maintenance cost
10
Based on historical costs for similar pavements/surfaces
Structural capacity/durability
25
Based on design and/or actual service life
Safety (skid resistance, splash
and spray) over service life
25
Based on ranges of average skid resistance value and/or accident
record on similar surfaces over service life
Exterior noise over service
life
10
Based on average roadside noise levels over service life for
alternative surfaces
Interior noise and smoothness
over service life
10
Based on average IRI and in-vehicle noise levels over the service
life for alternative surfaces
Network Level PMS
Noise performance can also be incorporated into the network level PMS. The strategies as suggested in Denmark are
(28):
1. Over ten years, no pavement should belong to the very noisy pavement class.
2. Over six years, all pavements in densely populated area should be noise reducing types
3. Over ten years, all pavements in areas with detached residential houses should only belong to the less noisy
types.
4. For any spot increase in the maximum noise level, the road surface shall be visually inspected to determine
the reason of such increase. Pavement related noise problem should be solved within two years with
appropriate repair/ remediation.
Similar management strategies can also be developed for skid resistance and smoothness. Based on this research, the
management strategies for surface friction in network level are being suggested as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Over 10-15 years, no pavement should have skid resistance below the desired minimum value.
Over 3-5 years, all high speed (≥100 km/h) and highly traveled facilities with annual design lane ESALs
of >3 million should have surface friction exceeding the desired minimum SN.
Over 5-10 years, all high speed (≥90 km/h) and highly traveled facilities with annual design lane ESALs
of 1-3 million should have surface friction exceeding the desired minimum SN.
Over two years all black spot locations on a) sharp curves ≥4° for 100 km/h (60 mph) speed limit, ≥6° for
80 km/h (50 mph) speed limit, and ≥9° for 60 km/h (37 mph) speed limit; b) steep grades of >4%; c)
merges; and d) approaches to stop signs and traffic signals should have surface friction exceeding the
desired minimum SN.
Friction related problem at all spot locations other than specified in item 3 should be solved within 2- 5
years with appropriate treatment or rehabilitation.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Noise is an environmental problem but safety and durability are of paramount importance. Driver comfort also can
not be ignored. However, no specific guidance is available for minimum skid resistance and acceptable maximum
noise levels in pavement context. This paper has focused on optimizing the surface characteristics in regards to
safety and noise. A value engineering approach for selecting pavement type/surface, accommodating the skid related
safety, pavement/surface life/durability, initial as well as life cycle costs, noise, and smoothness, has also been
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Ahammed & Tighe
Page 10
proposed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council
(NSERC) of Canada, Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) for
financial support for the complete research on pavement surface characteristics. The contribution of Dufferin Ready
Mix Supplier who donated and delivered the concrete mix for the laboratory samples is also acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1.
Transport Canada. Canadian Motor Vehicle Traffic Collision Statistics 2004 and Road Safety in Canada:
An Overview. Transport Canada Website http://www.tc.gc.ca/ (Accessed on November 07, 2006).
2.
Noyce, D. A., H. U. Bahia, J. M. Yambo, and G. Kim. Incorporating Road Safety into Pavement
Management: Maximizing Asphalt Pavement Surface Friction for Road Safety Improvements. Draft
Literature Review and State Surveys. Midwest Regional University Transportation Center Traffic
Operations and Safety (TOPS) Laboratory, April 29, 2005.
3.
Anon, “What’s all the Noise About? Separating the truth from myths about tire-pavement noise”, Better
Roads Volume 73 Issue 8, Special Concrete Section, August 2003, pp 8- 14.
4.
Transportation Association of Canada. Pavement Design and Management Guide. Ottawa, Ontario, 1997.
5.
PWC Consulting, Health Insider No. 7: Noise Proprietary Questions for Health Canada Contract No.
H1011-010139/001/CY, 2002 http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/noise-bruit/insider7/method_e.html
(Last accessed August 2007).
6.
Centre for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE), Evaluation of U.S. and European Concrete
Pavement Noise Reduction Methods, National Concrete Pavement Technology Center, Iowa State
University, Ames, IA , July 2006.
7.
Henry, J.J. Evaluation of Pavement Friction Characteristics. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 291,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.
8.
Hibbs, B.O., and R. M. Larson. Tire Pavement Noise and Safety Performance. Publication No. SA-96-068,
FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1996
9.
Grady, J. E. and W. P. Chamberlin. Groove-Depth Requirements for Tine- Textured Pavements. In
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 836, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington D.C., 1981, pp 67-76.
10.
Ahammed, M. A. and S. L. Tighe. Evaluation of Concrete Pavements Surface Friction Using LTPP Data.
Proceedings: 86th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board (CD-ROM), TRB, National Research
Council, Washington D.C., 2007.
11.
Hoerner, T. E. and K. D. Smith. High Performance Concrete Pavement: Pavement Texturing and TirePavement Noise. Publication No. FHWA-DTFH61-01-P-00290. FHWA, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 2002.
12.
Rizenbergs, R. L, J. L. Burchet, and L. A. Warren. Relation of Accidents and Pavement Friction on Rural
Two-Lane Roads. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.
633, TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1976, pp 21-27.
13.
Jayawickrama, P. W. and B. Thomas. Correction of Field Skid Measurements for Seasonal Variation in
Texas. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 836, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1981, pp 82-86.
14.
Snyder, M. B. Pavement Surface Characteristics: A Synthesis and Guide. Engineering Bulletin EB235P,
American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA), Skokie, IL, 2006.
15.
Wayson, R. L. Relationship Between Pavement Surface Texture and Highway Traffic Noise. NCHRP
Synthesis of Highway Practice 268, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington D.C., 1998.
16.
Highway Engineering Division. The Use of Bituminous Surface Course Types on Provincial Highways,
Directive PHY-C-016, Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), May 23, 2002.
17.
Kamel N., and T. Gartshore. Ontario’s Wet Pavement Accident Reduction Program. Pavement Surface
Characteristics and Materials, ASTM STP 763, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1982, pp 98-117.
18.
Gargett, T. The Introduction of a Skidding-Resistance Policy in Great Britain. Surface Characteristics of
Roadways: International Research and Technologies, ASTM STP 1031, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, 1990, pp 30-38.
19.
Ministry of Environment Ontario (MOE). Noise Assessment Criteria in Land Use Planning: Requirements,
Procedures and Implementation, Publication LU-131, October 1997,
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).
7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets (2008)
Ahammed & Tighe
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Page 11
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/3517e.pdf (Accessed 26 August, 2007).
Regional Municipality of Waterloo (RMW). Implementation Guidelines for Noise Policies. Report No. E04-052, Waterloo, Ontario, 2004.
McDaniel, R., Thornton, W. Field Evaluation of a Porous Friction Course for Noise Control, Proceedings:
85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (CD-ROM), TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 2005.
Kuemmel, D. A., R. C. Sonntag, J. A. Crovetti, Y. Becker, J. R. Jaeckel, and A. Satanovsky. Noise and
Texture on PCC Pavements- Results of a Multi-State Study. Report No. WI/SPR-08-99, Wisconsin
Department of Transportation, Madison, 2000.
Kuemmel, D. A., R. C. Sonntag, J. R. Jaeckel, J. A. Crovetti, Y. Z. Becker and A. Satanovsky. Using a
Road Surface Analyzer to Explain Noise Characteristics of Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Surface
Texture. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1716,
TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 2000, pp 144- 153.
Flintsch, G. W., E. de Leon, K. K McGhee, and I. L. Al-Qadi. Pavement Surface Microtexture
Measurement and Application. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 1860, TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 2003, pp 168-176.
Song, W., X. Chen, T. Smith, A. Hedfi. Investigation of Hot Mix Asphalt Surfaced Pavements Skid
Resistance in Maryland State Highway Network System. Proceedings: 85th Annual Meeting of
Transportation Research Board (CD-ROM), TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 2006.
Tighe, S., N. Li, L. C. Falls, and R. Hass. Incorporating Road Safety into Pavement Management. In
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1699, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington D.C., 2000, pp 1-10.
Dravitzki, V. Keeping a cap on noise. Land Transport NZ Research Report, Issue 8, 2006, pp 5-7.
Bendtsen, H. and B. Schmidt. Integrating Noise in Pavement Management Systems for Urban Roads.
Danish Road Institute, NORDIC Road and Transport Research Publication Number 3, 2006, pp 26-27
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).