Calibration for Roadmeters
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

For very narrow results

When looking for a specific result

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Dates

to

Document Data
Library
People
Clear All
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

Calibration for Roadmeters

Filetype[PDF-1.66 MB]


English
Details You May Also Like

Details:

  • Creators:
    Gulden, Wouter
  • Corporate Creators:
    Georgia Department of Transportation
  • Contributors:
    Brown, Douglas
  • Corporate Contributors:
    United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration
  • Subject/TRT Terms:
  • Publication/ Report Number:
    FHWA- TS-86- 201
  • Resource Type:
    Tech Report
  • Geographical Coverage:
    United States
  • Corporate Publisher:
    United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration
  • Abstract:
    The research project was conducted to evaluate the performance of an inexpensive non-contact roughness measuring device, Roughness Surveyor, as well as the potential use of this device as a calibration reference for Response-Type Road Roughness Measuring (RTRRM) systems. A correlation was also conducted between RTRRM systems from three different States (Georgia, Florida, and Minnesota) against the Roughness Surveyor, the inertial profilometer owned by the Ohio DOT, and the profilometer designed and operated by the South Dakota DOT. A total of sixteen test sites were selected for the correlation and calibration study with a total of 52 individual test sections encompassing a variety of roughness levels and pavement surface types. The results of the roughness testing showed an excellent correlation between all the devices. The standard error of estimate, however, was rather large for some of the linear regression equations. The units from Florida, Ohio, and South Dakota provided serviceability index ratings. An analysis of these ratings indicated that different values were obtained between the units on the same test sections. The evaluation of the Roughness Surveyor indicated that the roughness results obtained were insensitive to speed variations. Problems were encountered with obtaining valid roughness readings on extremely rough textured surfaces, such as surface treatment. The testing repeatability of the Roughness Surveyor was not as good as that obtained with the Ohio Profilometer and slightly better than two of the three RTRRM systems. The day-to-day variability was much higher for the Roughness Surveyor than for the Ohio Profilometer and the RTRRM systems.
  • Format:
    PDF
  • Funding:
    DOT-FH-11-9398 Task Order 6
  • Collection(s):
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:

Supporting Files

  • No Additional Files
More +

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at rosap.ntl.bts.gov