Dot 17419 DS1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Organizational Results Research Report June 2006

OR06.017
Assessing IRI vs. PI

as a Measure of Pavement
Smoothness
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prepared by Missouri
Transportation Institute and
Missouri Department of
Transportation
FINAL REPORT
RI06-003
Assessing IRI vs. PI as a Measurement of
Pavement Smoothness
Prepared for the
Missouri Department of Transportation
Organizational Results
by
Charles J. Nemmers, P.E., University of Missouri-Columbia
Nicolas Gagarin, PhD. P.E., Starodub, Inc. Kensington, MD
James R. Mekemson, PhD. P.E., Starodub, Inc. Kensington, MD
June 2006
The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this report are those of the principal
investigator and the Missouri Department of Transportation. They are not necessarily
those of the U.S. Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration.
This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation.
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
OR06-17
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Assessing IRI vs. PI as a Measurement of Pavement Smoothness June 7, 2006
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report

No.
Nicolas Gagarin, PhD., P.E., James R. Mekemson, PhD. P.E. and Charles J.
Nemmers, P.E.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
University of Missouri-Columbia
E2509 Lafferre Hall 11. Contract or Grant No.
Columbia, MO 65211 R106-003
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period
Missouri Transportation Institute for Missouri Department of Transportation Final Report
710 University Drive, Ste. 100 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Rolla, MO 65409-1470 MTI / MoDOT
15. Supplementary Notes
.Starodub, Inc. from Kensington, Maryland was a subcontractor on the project.
16. Abstract
A Pavement smoothness specification that allows either the International Roughness Index (IRI) or Profile
Index (PI) to measure pavement smoothness would be advantageous to both industry and MoDOT. This
brief study provides for MoDOT an understanding of the relationship between IRI and PI, an analysis
comparing the two systems, a review of potential specifications and offers a “smoothness adjustment table”
that would fit into Section 502.15.3 of the Missouri specifications. Furthermore safeguards against the
potential manipulation of the data within both IRI and PI systems are discussed. With proper certification
procedures for equipment and operators and a random verification program on the measurement of
smoothness, it is unlikely that the state DOT will encounter a problem with systematic alterations of inertial
profiling data. Sample specifications from Connecticut DOT, Ohio DOT and Minnesota DOT are included
in the report as they are good examples of specifications that MoDOT may wish to use as a pattern for their
specification.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
International Roughness Index (IRI), Profile Index (PI) inertial No restrictions. This document is available to the
measurements, profilometer, pavement smoothness, pavement public through National Technical Information
roughness, blanking bands, California profilometer Center, Springfield, Virginia 22161
19. Security Classification (of this 20. Security Classification (of this 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
report) page)
Unclassified Unclassified 63 pages
Executive Summary
A Pavement smoothness specification that allows either the International Roughness
Index (IRI) or Profile Index (PI) to measure pavement smoothness would be
advantageous to both industry and MoDOT. This brief study provides for MoDOT an
understanding of the relationship between IRI and PI, an analysis comparing the two
systems, and a review of the current state of the practice. Sample specifications from
Connecticut DOT, Ohio DOT and Minnesota DOT are included in the report as they are
good examples of specifications that MoDOT may wish to use as a pattern for their
specification.
To assist MoDOT we drew from the recent research and provide smoothness adjustment
tables for pay factors that would fit into Section 502.15.3 of the Missouri DOT
specifications. For example:
PI and IRI (in/mi) Pay Factors
Pay Factors for roads with speed limit of >45mph

PI (in/mi) IRI (in/mi) Percent
0-10 0-40 105%
10.1-15 40.1-54 103%
15.1-25 54.1-80 100%
25.1 + 80.1 + 100%
Furthermore we held informal discussions with several IRI and PI users from several
states concerning safeguards against the potential manipulation of the data within both
IRI and PI systems. As a result we report that with proper certification procedures for
equipment and operators, a random verification program on the measurement of
smoothness, stiff penalties for cheating, regular calibration of the measuring equipment
and both the data and the results provided to the state it is unlikely that the state DOT will
encounter a problem with systematic alterations of inertial profiling or profilometer data.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................3
Introduction..........................................................................................................................5
Brief Description of Profilograph / Performance Index ......................................................5
Brief Description of International Roughness Index (IRI) .................................................6
IRI and Smoothness Specification .......................................................................................7
Pavement Smoothness Index Relationships.........................................................................8
IRI Issues .............................................................................................................................8
Robustness of Pavement Smoothness Measurements .......................................................10
Security of PI and IRI data.................................................................................................10
Summary ............................................................................................................................11
References..........................................................................................................................13
Appendix A: Database of State DOT Concrete Pavement Practices.................................14
Appendix B-1&2: State Agency Smoothness Specifications for Asphalt Pavements ......22
Appendix C: IRI vs. PI and PI to PI (Asphalt to Concrete) Relationships ........................33
Appendix D: Pavement Smoothness Pay Factor ...............................................................41
Appendix E: Example Specifications from Connecticut DOT ..........................................50
Appendix F: Example Specifications from Ohio DOT......................................................53
Appendix G: Example Specification from Minnesota DOT..............................................57
Appendix H: Collecting Smoothness Data for Pay Factors Flowchart..............................63
Introduction
This report describes the International Roughness Index (IRI), current users, sample
specifications, current issues, and its relationship with the Profile Index(PI). A suggested
set of pay-factor tables are presented. Missouri DOT has a specification addressing the
requirements for use of California profilograph equipment and the computation of profile
index to compute pay factor. Multiple Appendices, containing detailed information, are
provided for easy reference and may be used to support the preparation of a new set of
specifications for inertial profiling and international roughness index. The Appendices
are:
A – Database of State DOT Concrete Pavement Practices
B – State agency smoothness specifications for asphalt pavements
C – IRI vs. PI and also PI (asphalt) to PI (concrete) Relationships
D – Pavement Smoothness Pay Factor, Incentive/Disincentive Specifications
E – Example Specifications from Connecticut DOT (Inertial Profiler and IRI)
F – Example Specifications from Ohio DOT (CA profilograph and IRI)
G – Example Specifications from Minnesota DOT (Inertial Profiler and IRI)
H – Collecting Smoothness Data for Pay Factors Flowchart
Appendices A, B-1, and B-2 are included for background information. The others provide
examples and substantive information for the preparation of inertial profiling and IRI-
based specifications. When necessary, a description of the information is provided with
the appendix. Missouri’s (wet – freeze and 0.0 blanking band) equations are highlighted
for easy reference.
Brief Description of Profilograph / Performance Index

(Please note the following description is taken from the American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA)
website www.pavement.com.)
A California profilograph is a rolling straight edge. It measures vertical deviations from a

moving 25-foot reference plane.
A sensing or recording wheel located at the center of the frame moves freely in the
vertical direction, giving the machine the ability to record surface deviations. The surface
profile is logged into a computer or traced onto graph paper as the profilograph travels
along the pavement. The profile is termed a profile trace and shows the location and
height of bumps and dips. The profile trace of a pavement built perfectly smooth would
be a straight line on graph paper.
To meet the minimum smoothness requirements of the specification, contractors use a
diamond grinding machine to remove bumps in the surface which are identified on the
profile trace. The trace is also used to produce a profile index expressed in inches per
mile (or millimeters per kilometer). When contractors and agency engineers talk about
ride numbers or "the ride" they are referring to the profile index. A lower profile index
represents a smoother surface than a higher profile index. Many states, including
Missouri, also successfully use incentive and disincentive payments for the degree of
smoothness as presented in Appendices A, B-1, and B-2.
Brief Description of International Roughness Index (IRI)

IRI measurements are used by some highway agencies to measure pavement smoothness
and also to determine pay factors on new highway construction and highway
rehabilitation projects. The IRI (also referred to as inertial profile) estimates total vertical
up and down movement of a quarter car simulation model in response to a stimulus input
over a given distance. IRI units are inches/mile, or meters/kilometer or
millimeters/kilometer. The quarter car simulation model is composed of a body (sprung)
mass, suspension spring and damper, axle/tire (unsprung) mass, and tire spring with
internationally defined parameters and with an assumed vehicle speed of 50 miles per
hour. The defined model parameters and quarter car model is often referred to as The
Golden Car. The stimulus input to the model is the vertical profile of the roadway. See
reference [1] for additional details on one-dimensional Inertial Profiling and IRI
computations.
The IRI quarter car simulation model is essentially a filter of the roadway vertical profile.
The quarter car model is primarily influenced by wavelengths ranging from 1.2 to 30
meters (3.9 to 98.4 feet). Maximum sensitivity is at wavelengths of 2.4 to 15 meters (7.9
to 49.2 feet). An accurate vertical profile that encompasses the entire range of
wavelengths of interest is required as input to the IRI model. To make full use of the IRI
output, the location of IRI values outside an acceptable ride quality value must be also
known for identification of the cause of the problem and for remedial repairs. This value
is most off tied to the pay factor specification of “x” in/mi.
The profile estimation algorithm as typically used in Pavement Management System
(PMS) vehicles assumes that the vehicle never stops and maintains a relatively stable
speed, preferably between 30 to 60 mph. A portion of the recursion equation that
generates the inertial profile has a term that includes the speed parameter squared in the
denominator. Low speed values can generate false peaking in the computed inertial
profile and therefore create false spikes in the IRI parameter.
The tables and figures in Appendix A showing which states are using IRI for measuring
construction quality are taken from references that are four years old. This is the latest
national information as no entity keeps an up-to-date list of each of the states practices.
The use of IRI is increasing in popularity for a number of reasons presented below.
One reason for using IRI is the concept of using the same pavement condition index from
“cradle to grave”. The IRI index is used by almost all states for monitoring the condition
of pavements from year-to-year. This is one of the pavement performance indices that
states use for maintenance and rehabilitation scheduling. It is also one of the indices that
FHWA uses in monitoring the condition of the nations highways as part of the HPMS
database.
Another reason is that the profilograph is limited in the wavelengths it can measure due
to its fixed length, typically 25 feet. Therefore, it cannot record longer wavelengths that
also effect ride-quality. For example: sag in string lines can occur in concrete pavement
construction due to improper installation or due to an improperly adjusted feeler gauge on
the paver, resulting in 50 foot (typical mount point intervals) peak-to-peak waves. This
construction problem, if missed, will result in a poor ride quality. The mechanical design
of the profilograph can result in inaccurate profile readings and PI values. The IRI
encompasses larger wavelengths missed by the profilograph that are influential on ride
quality.
Inertial profilers collect more accurate and detailed pavement profiles used in computing
IRI. When the profile information is collected and saved for later analysis, the profile
contains a wealth of information that can be extracted for diagnosing the causes of poor
ride-quality. Knowing the extracted road features that cause poor ride quality leads to
improved construction practices and pavement design. There are signal processing
methods currently being evaluated that can decompose the profile into its constituent
parts. For example, when this method was applied to a segment of I-80 (concrete
construction), string line sag and slab warp and curl profiles were individually extracted
from the profile. What were left were the texture, joints, cracks, and faults. Since the IRI
is a linearly additive measurement, the IRI introduced by string line sag, warp and curl,
and the other features can be computed for each of these extracted components. Simply
stated, by using IRI the causes of poor ride quality can be ascertained, and therefore
corrective actions undertaken.
These are several of the main reasons many states are considering moving to IRI for all
pavement surface - ride measurements.
IRI and Smoothness Specifications

Highway agencies specify both smoothness (profilograph-PI) and roughness (inertial
profilers-IRI) measurement specifications in the construction of highway pavements. The
equipment and specifications can vary from state to state. Appendix A contains tables
generated from the American Concrete Pavement Association’s website
(www.pavement.com) “Database of State DOT Concrete Pavement Practices”. These
tables present: 1) Smoothness Specification - Measurement Requirements; 2) Smoothness
Specification - Measuring Equipment Used and Roughness Index; 3) Smoothness
Specification - Pay Factors and Limits; 4) Smoothness Specification - Blanking Band and
Must-Grind Bump Requirement; and 5) Tining Dimensions. It should be noted that PI
values are dependent on the size of the blanking band and that different states use
different blanking band sizes in their specifications.
The profilograph does have some limitations due to its physical design. One of its
problem areas is on horizontal curves with superelevation transitions and on the banked
horizontal curves. Scofield [2] reports on these profilograph limitations.
An effort has been under way to have all highway agencies switch to the IRI (inertia
profilers) measurement for QC/QA. A primary reason for this desired switch is that
profilographs measures only wavelengths within the range of 0.3 to 23 m (1 to 75 feet)
and because it amplifies wavelengths that are a factor of its length (i.e. 7.6 m [25 feet]).
Also, different states used different blanking band sizes (0.0, 2.5. and 5.0 mm), causing a
systematic inconsistency in the data from state to state.
Pavement Smoothness Index Relationships

An FHWA report [3], “Pavement Smoothness Index Relationships, Final Report”,
Publication FHWA-RD-02-57, attempts to provide answers to agencies wanting to switch
from PI to IRI. Previous small studies by a number of agencies and universities
developed relationships between IRI and PI which did not compare well among these
small studies.
The FHWA study performed a more comprehensive analysis using the time history
smoothness data collected for the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program.
Both PI and IRI performance indices were computed from the surface profile data
contained within the LTPP database. Data was also categorized by pavement type (6)
and climatic zone (4), and model type (6). PI values were computed with 0.0, 2.5. and
5mm blanking bands. Models of IRI vs PI0.0mm, PI2.5mm, PI5.0mm and models amongst the
PI’s with the different blanking bands was desired.
A single model of IRI vs. PI contains too much variance in the data. A model for each
pavement type by climatic zone and blanking band would require a total of 144 models.
An analysis was performed to determine which factorial cells of the model matrix could
be combined to reduce the number of models. Fifteen models were developed for the PI
IRI relationship and 18 models were developed for the PI-PI relationships for Asphalt -
Concrete. For PCC-surfaced pavements, 9 and 12 models were developed for the PI-IRI
and PI-PI relationships, respectively. R-squared was typically above 70 percent with
reasonable levels of error. This is generally considered a good level of correlation.
The state agency smoothness specifications for asphalt and concrete pavements are
included in Appendices B-1 and B-2. These tables were used to develop models of
recommended Initial IRI and PI0.0 Level for each of the states full-pay PI limits.
IRI Issues
Though inertial profiling has been in use for more than twenty years, a number of issues
still exist and are being investigated.
FHWA Accelerometer Study, SEQS-21 and SEQS-48
In 2002 and 2003, FHWA conducted a study on accelerometer sensitivity requirements
for inertial profiling [4, 5]. It was found that changing grades and cross slopes negatively
impacted profile precision and accuracy on high-speed profilers operating at lower
speeds. This was reaffirmed in a following study with light-weight profilers at the same
test site. The acceleration errors introduced when the vertical axis accelerometers were
not truly vertical on grades and cross slopes were found to be of approximately the same
magnitude as the vertical profile’s input to the accelerometer. Small changes in speed
(accelerations) of only a few miles per hour at slow speeds also introduced error. At high
speeds, the effects of grades and cross slope on the vertical accelerometer measurements
were minor. The issue is how to best account for the grade, cross slope, and changes in
speed at low operating speeds. Use of lower speed profilers for construction smoothness
testing aggravates this concern. For construction measurements the use of high speed
profilers run at a constant speed of 40mph is recommended.
2005 ACPA Profiler Repeatability Tests, UMTRI-2005-35

Karamihas [6] reported that IRI measurement of textured concrete pavements
(longitudinal and transverse tining, surface drag, diamond ground) indicated that a
problem of repeatability and reproducibility exists. Currently, this issue is being
addressed by the development and use of displacement lasers that have either a larger dot
size or use a line scan to basically average out the surface texturing. The use of these
lasers has shown significant improvements in profiler repeatability. Good results were
obtained on transversely tined pavement and a pavement with a drag texture. One vendor
obtained good results on a longitudinally tined pavement. Pavement with smooth
diamond ground surface was the most challenging surface type to measure, and only one
device demonstrated good repeatability.
For longitudinally tined pavement and diamond ground pavement, repeatability depended
on the use of a large-footprint height sensor and consistent lateral tracking of the profiler.
Ultra-Light Inertial Profiler
The FHWA TFHRC is developing a prototype Ultra-Light Inertial Profiler (ULIP) [7]
based on equipping a Segway HT with sensors for inertial profiling and texture
measurements. Initial results showed a problem with profile repeatability in the longer
wavelengths. It was believed that pitch and roll of the Segway was a source of this error.
Using the longitudinally aligned accelerometer data, an estimate of the pitch was
computed. The estimated pitch was used to adjust the vertical axis accelerometer
measurement. A significant improvement in profile repeatability was observed proving
that pitch movement of a vehicle influences the vertical accelerometer data and that roll
movement would also have an effect on inertial profile estimates. A six degrees-of
freedom gyroscope has been added to the ULIP. This research is in-progress.
Filters
Longwave filters are applied to inertial profiles to eliminate wavelengths of a length
greater than those that influence ride quality. The filters are also used because profilers
are unable to adequately record the longer wavelengths as their effect on vertical
accelerometers are small relative to the wavelengths of interest. Butterworth and moving
average filters are the most common filters used with inertial profile roughness
measurement. Due to the nature of these filters and their implementation on equipment
from different vendors the results need to be carefully assessed. The resulting IRI
numbers are generally comparable; however, the resulting profiles produced are not quite
as comparable even if the same filter and parameters are applied. This information means
that the size of the “bumps” will be generally the same (so IRI number is comparable) but
the location of the “bumps” (profile) may be within a somewhat larger range of several
feet longitudinally along the pavement.
Reference Profiler
Many highway construction and rehabilitation projects have incentive/disincentive pay
factors related to pavement smoothness/roughness. Inertial Profilers to be used in QC/QA
therefore need to be accurate, repeatable, and reproducible. Highway agencies require

that inertial profilers be certified to meet specific standards. Certification is performed at
profile certification sites where the “true profile” is known by the highway agency and to
which the inertial profiler results are compared within the wavelengths of interest.
Establishing the true profile is a time consuming process. What is desired is a reference
profiling device which provides a measurement of profile as a standard for verifying the
measurements of the other devices.
A report entitled “Critical Profiler Accuracy Requirements” by S. Karamihas [8] specifies
the requirements of a reference profiler and recommends a procedure for comparing the
“Reference Profile” with the output of the production profilers. This new approach may
have limitations and should be carefully reviewed.
Robustness of Pavement Smoothness Measurements

With the progress made in the industry during the past five years on repeatability and
accuracy of inertial profilers, there is an increasing level of confidence in the technology.
Currently, the Federal Highway Administration’s contractor Starodub, Inc. is performing
additional research on the topic of one-dimensional inertial profiling, three-dimensional,
and six degrees-of-freedom inertial profiling. This research project was awarded at the
end of April 2006 and should be completed by the end of the year. The primary objective
of the study is to quantify the sources of error beyond the current knowledge base.
Security of PI and IRI data (freedom from manipulation)

Informal discussions with several IRI and PI users from several states concerning
safeguards against the potential manipulation of the data within both IRI and PI systems
were held during the last few months. As a result we learned that there is no way to
guarantee a tamper proof system. Several suggested that PI may be more vulnerable than
IRI but with good procedures most concerns can be minimized for both PI and IRI. With
proper certification procedures for equipment and operators, a random verification
program on the measurement of smoothness, stiff penalties for cheating, regular
calibration of the measuring equipment and both the data and the results provided to the
state at the time of collection it is unlikely that the state DOT will encounter a problem
with systematic alterations of inertial profiling or profilometer data.
It is suggested that a random verification program on the measurement of smoothness be
performed on about 10% of the projects by third parties. If significant differences are
found between results from two independent sources, there now exist signal processing
technologies that allow detailed comparisons of the data.
If someone would try to falsify IRI data, the most likely areas of falsification are in the
filtering step on the measured inertial profiles and the distance ranging sensors. If the
specifications require that a copy of the inertial profile data is delivered with the IRI
results, the Missouri DOT can perform additional analysis if a doubt is raised on the
integrity of the results. The FHWA has developed a software package named PROVAL
that can provide a starting evaluation step in the review of questionable profiles.
10
In Appendix H, we have provided a flowchart for improving the security when collecting
smoothness data for pay factors.
Summary
In this report we have discussed the relationship between IRI and PI and discussed the
relative advantages and disadvantages of both systems. In general we find that the trend
(while slow) is toward the IRI inertial system. The fact that it is already the system of
choice for system wide smoothness / roughness inventorying and with growing
acceptance of the inertial measuring systems we see more and more states moving to IRI
for project related measurements. About seven State DOTs have integrated the inertial
profiling and IRI technologies into their practice.
Additional information on inertial profiling technology for certification and operations
can be found in the following standard AASHTO specifications:
A - Standard Equipment Specification for Inertial Profiler – AASHTO Designation:
MP 11-03
B - Standard Practice for Certification of Inertial Profiling Systems – AASHTO
Designation: PP 49-03
C- Standard Practice for Operating Inertial Profilers and Evaluating Pavement
Profiles – AASHTO Designation: PP 50-03 (Highlighted for Missouri)
D - Standard Practice for Pavement Ride Quality When Measured Using Inertial
Profiling Systems – AASHTO Designation: PP 51-03
There is not one state specification that can be called “the best” as they are tied to the
pavement types and technologies of each state. However we have included the
specifications from Connecticut, Minnesota and Ohio as these are three types of
specifications that can support the needs of Missouri. These are included in the following
Appendices:
E – Example Specifications from Connecticut DOT (Inertial Profiler and IRI)
F – Example Specifications from Ohio DOT (CA profilograph and IRI)
G – Example Specifications from Minnesota DOT (Inertial Profiler and IRI)
The current Missouri Specifications in 502.15.3.2 Deductions includes two tables with
Pay Factors for roads with speed limits greater than 45mph and less than 45mph. We
have used this information and the data from the, FHWA-RD-02-057 study “Pavement
Smoothness Index Relationships” and developed the following set of tables that are
appropriate for Missouri DOT. Shown below are PI and IRI tables for > 45mph and
<45mph: (See Appendix C for supporting information found in FHWA-RD-02-057
study)
11
Current PI 0mm/ PI 0in. Pay Factors
12
References
[1] Sayers, M. W., and Karamihas, S. M., “The Little Book of Profiling” UMTRI
(September 1998)
[2] Scofield, L., “Profilograph Limitations, Correlations and Calibration Criteria for
Effective Performance Based Specifications”, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program Project 20-57, Task 53 (1992)
[3] Smith, K. L., et. al. “Pavement Smoothness Index Relationships”, FHWA-RD-02-057
(October 2002)
[4] Gagarin, N., Mekemson, J.R., and Lineman, L., “Effect of Accelerometer Accuracy
on Inertial Profile Measurements for Proposed Certification Procedure,” Task Order 21,
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, Federal Highway Administration (November
2002, Revised September 2003)
[5] Gagarin, N., Mekemson, J.R., and Lineman, L., “Accelerometer Study: Lightweight
Experiment at Northern Virginia Sites,” Final report Task Order SEQS-48, Turner-
Fairbank Highway Research Center, Federal Highway Administration (July 2003)
[6] Karamihas. S. M., “2005 ACPA Profiler Repeatability Tests”, UMTRI-2005-35

(November 2005)
[7] Gagarin, N., Mekemson, J. R., and Crowley, C. B., “Development of an Ultra-Light
Inertial Profiler Prototype,” Task Order SEQS-49, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research
Center, Federal Highway Administration (March 2004)
[8] Karamihas, S. M., “Critical Profiler Accuracy Requirements”, UMTRI-2005-24

(September 2005)
13
Appendix A: Database of State DOT Concrete Pavement Practices
Smoothness Specification - Measurement Requirements

Profile Length of
How profile index Acceptance
State measurement section
calculated measurement by
location evaluated
AL
AK
both wheel by hand or

AZ 0.1 mile State
paths computer
by hand or contractor,
AR center of lane 0.1 mile
computer State

CA 0.1 mile contractor
paths computer

CO 0.1 mile State
paths computer
both wheel
CT 1000 ft min by hand State
paths
both wheel
DE 0.1 mile computer State
paths
both wheel
FL 0.1 mile computer State
paths
GA outer wheelpath 0.25 mile by hand contractor
both wheel
HI 0.1 mile by hand State
paths
ID right wheel path 0.1 mile by hand, computer contractor
State,
IL center, outer 0.1 mile digital scan
contractor
IN outer wheel path 0.1 mile by hand contractor
by hand,
IA center of lane 0.1 mile computer, digital contractor
scan
both wheel computer, digital

KS 0.1 mile contractor
paths scan
both wheel
KY 1.5 km computer State
paths
both wheel depends on

LA 0 - 6 in / mile / lot State
paths lot
14
ME
MD outer wheel path 0.1 mile computer contractor
MA
by hand or
MI outer wheel path Mile contractor
computer
computer, digital
MN center of lane 0.1 mile contractor
scan

MS 0.1 mile contractor
paths computer
both wheel by hand or contractor,

MO 0.1 mile
paths computer State
by hand or
MT outer wheel path 0.1 mile State
computer
NE outer wheel path 0.1 mile computer contractor
NV
NH
NJ center of lane State

NM 0.1 mile contractor
paths computer
both wheel
NY 0.25 mile by hand contractor
paths
both wheel
NC 600 ft by hand contractor
paths
outer wheel
ND 0.1 mile computer State
paths

OH 0.1 mile contractor
paths computer
both wheel computer, digital

OK 0.1 mile
paths scan
by hand or
OR either wheelpath 0.1 mile contractor
computer
by hand,
both wheel
PA 0.1 mile computer, digital contractor
paths
scan
PR outer wheel path 0.1 mile computer State
RI random random State
15
both wheel
SC 0.25 mile by hand State
paths
both wheel
SD 0.1 mile computer contractor
paths
both wheel
TN 0.1 mile by hand State
paths
both wheel contractor,

TX 0.1 mile by hand
paths State
UT outer wheel path 0.1 mile computer contractor
VT
VA
WA right wheel path all computer contractor
both wheel
WV 0.1 mile computer State
paths
both wheel
WI 0.1 mile computer contractor
paths
both wheel
WY 0.1 mile State
paths
Source: American Concrete Pavement Association
16
Smoothness Specification - Measuring Equipment Used and
Roughness Index
State Smoothness Measuring Equipment Roughness Index
AL
AK
AZ CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
AR CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
CA CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
CO CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
CT CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
DE CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
FL CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
GA Rainhart profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
HI CA profilograph, 12-ft straightedge Profile Index (in/mile)
ID CA profilograph 10-ft straightedge Profile Index (in/0.1 mile)
IL CA profilograph IRI
IN CA profilograph, 10-ft straightedge Profile Index (in/0.1 mile)
IA CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
KS CA profilograph, others Profile Index (in/mile)
KY noncontact profilometer IRI
LA CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
ME 10-ft straightedge
MD CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
MA
MI CA profilograph, GM Profilometer Ride Quality Index
MN CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
MS CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
MO CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
MT CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
NE CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
17
NV CA profilograph
NH
NJ 10-ft straightedge none
NM CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
NY CA profilograph IRI
NC Rainhart profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
ND CA profilograph inch / 0.10 mile
OH CA profilograph, 10-ft straightedge Profile Index (in/mile)
OK CA profilograph, straightedge Profile Index (in/mile)
OR CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
PA CA profilograph, others Profile Index (in/mile)
PR CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
RI 10-ft straightedge
SC Rainhart profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
SD CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
TN Rainhart profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
TX CA profilograph, others Profile Index (in/mile)
UT CA profilograph, 10-ft straightedge Profile Index (in/mile)
VT
VA
WA CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile), IRI
WV Mays Meter Mays ride number
WI CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)
WY CA profilograph Profile Index (in/mile)

18
Smoothness Specification - Pay Factors and Limits

Index range Index for Worst
Max incentive Acceptance
State for 100% maximum roughness
possible measurement by
payment incentive index allowable
AL
AK
AZ 7-9
2 in/mile or 105% sq yd
AR 6-7 in/mile 7 in/mile
less price
CA 5-7
CO 7 - 12
106% cy 92% cy unit

CT 10 - 12 0–6 18 - 20
unit price price
< 40 mm / 175 mm /
DE $1.50 / m2
km km
103% sy
FL 7 in/mile
unit price
GA 7 in/mile
70% sy unit
HI 7 - 10 10
price
ID
103% sy 90% sy unit

IL 4.25 - 10 < 2.25 15
unit price price
30 mm / < 13 mm / 103% sm 30 mm / 1.6

IN
1.6 km 1.6 km unit price km
$200-650
$100-300 per
IA 3.1 - 7.0 0 - 1.0 per 10.1
segment
segment
$1200,
18 - 40, 25 $750 per 0.1
KS 6, 15 $1000 / 0.1 25, 45
- 65 mile
mile
103% sy 98% sy unit

KY 3.55 - 4.04 3.45 - 3.49
unit price price
8 in / mile / 95% sy unit

LA
lot price
ME
19
105% sy 90% sy unit

MD 4 - 12 <2
unit price price
MA
100% sy
MI 4 - 10 0 10
unit price
$/sy
MN 4-6 0-4 6-8 $/sy formula
formula
MS <7
107% sy 95% sy unit

MO 18.1 -30 < 10 30
unit price price
MT 6 - 10 <6 $0.50 / sy 10 - 15 $1.00 / sy
105% sy 90% sy unit

NE 7 - 10 0-2 15
unit price price
NV
NH
NJ 5% per lot
NM 4-7
105% sy to be
NY 5 0-1 12
unit price determined
NC 4
0.3 to 0.5 / < 0.3 inch / 0.9 inch / unit price -

ND $0.50 / sy
0.1 mile 0.1 mile 0.1 mile $4.00/sy
105% sy 90% sy unit

OH 5-7 <3 12
unit price price
OK
101.5% sy
OR 5-7 2.5 7
unit price
107% sy 100% sy unit

PA < 36 < 18 36
unit price price
PR 20 - 30 formula formula
RI
100% sy
SC 10
unit price
SD 25 - 35 < 10 104% sy 40 98% sy unit
20
unit price price
TN < 10 10, 15
$90 per 0.1 $140 per 0.1

TX 4-6 < 1.5 12
mile section mile section
60% sy unit
UT 7 $1.00 / sy
price
VT
VA
104% half 98% half mile

WA 7 <1 7
mile section section
WV < 100 100
$1.00 per
$8300 per
WI 19.1 - 32 < 10 foot per 45
mile per lane
lane
WY 6-7 7
21
Appendix B-1: State agency smoothness specifications for asphalt

pavements – Table 14 of Publication FHWA-RD-02-057
Testing Testing Bonus Full Pay Correction

State Index Penalty Range
Device Interval Range Range Range
32 - 63 >160
<32
California- 0.16 mm/km (2 mm/km
mm/km 64 - 160 mm/km (4 - 10
AL type PI5-mm kma (0.1 - 3.9 (<10
(<2 inches inches per mile)
profilograph mi) inches per inches per
per mile)
mile) mile)
AK -- -- -- -- -- -- --
<520 520 - 710 <1578
0.16 mm/kma mm/kma mm/kma
GM-type 711 - 1578 mm/kma (46 -
AZ MRN kma (0.1 (<33 (33 - 45 (>100
profiler 100 inches per mile)
mi) inches per inches per inches per
mile) mile) mile)
California- </= 45 46 - 75
>110
type mm/km mm/km
0.2 km 76 - 110 mm/km (5.1 - 7 mm/km (<
AR profilograph, PI5-mm (</= 3 (3.1 - 5
(0.1 mi) inches per mile) 7 inches
lightweight inches per inches per
per mile)
profiler mile) mile)
</= 80
>80
California- 0.16 km mm/km
mm/km
CA type PI5-mm (0.1 -- (</= 5 --
(>5 inches
profilograph mi)a inches per
per mile)a
mile)a
222.1 -
</= 222 >378
252
California- 0.15 km mm/km mm/km
mm/km 252.1 - 378 mm/km (16.1 -
CO type PI2.5-mm (0.095 (</= 14 (>24
(14.1 - 16 24 inches per mile)
profilograph mi) inches per inches per
inches per
mile) mile)
mile)
>950 950 - 1260 >1894
ARAN 0.16 mm/kma mm/kma mm/kma
a 1261 - 1894 mm/kma (80.1 -
CT inertial IRI km (0.1 (<60 (60 - 80 (>120
120 inches per mile)
profiler mi) inches per inches per inches per
mile) mile) mile)
Rolling
DE -- -- -- -- -- --
straightedge
FL Rolling -- -- -- -- -- --
22
straightedge
</= 750 >750
1.6 mm/km mm/km
Inertial
GA IRI
km(1.0 -- (</= 47.5 -- (>47.5
profiler
mi) inches per inches per
mile)a mile)a
HI -- -- -- -- -- -- --
</= 8 >8
California-
0.1 km mm/0.1km mm/0.1km
ID type PI5-mm -- --
(0.1 mi) (</= 0.5 (>0.5
profilograph
in/0.1mi) in/0.1 mi)
</= 8 9 - 160 >235
California- mm/km mm/km mm/km
0.16 km 161 - 235 mm/km (10.1 - 15
IL type PI5-mm (</= 0.5 (0.6 - 10 (>15
(0.1 mi) inches per mile)
profilograph inches per inches per inches per
mile)b mile) mile)
</= 30
>38
California- mm/0.16
0.16 km 31 - 38 mm/0.16 km (1.21 - mm/0.16
IN type PI5-mm -- km (</=
(0.1 mi) 1.5 in/0.1 mi) km (>1.5
profilograph 1.2 in/0.1
in/0.1 mi)
mi)
</= 48 49 - 110 >160
0.16 km 111 - 160 mm/km (7.1 - 10
IA type PI5-mm (</= 3 (3.1 - 7 (>10
mile) mile) mile)
</= 160 161 - 475 >630
0.1 km 476 - 630 mm/km (30.1 - 40
KS type PI0.0 (</= 10 (10.1 - 30 (>40
(0.1 mi) inches per mile)c
mile) mile) mile)
Inertial 1.6 kma RI >/= 3.70 </=
KY RI
3.45 </= RI < 3.70
RI < 3.45
profiler (1.0 mi) 4.05 RI < 4.05
</= 47
>95
California- mm/km
48 - 95 mm/km (3.1 - 6 mm/km
LA type PI5-mm Lot -- (</= 3
inches per mile) (>6 inches
profilograph inches per
per mile)
mile)
</= 945 946 - 1105 >1260
Rolling 0.2 km mm/kma mm/kma mm/kma
1106 - 1260 mm/kma (70.1 -
ME dipstick IRI (0.12 (</= 60 (60.1 - 70 (>80
80 inches per mile)
mile) mile) mile)
23
</= 63 64 - 110 >191

California- 0.16 mm/kma mm/kma mm/kma
111 - 190 mm/kma (7.1 - 12
MD type PI5-mm kma (0.1 (</= 4.0 (4.1 - 7 (>12
inches per mile)
profilograph mi) inches per inches per inches per
mile) mile) mile)
0.2 km
Inertial
MA IRI (0.12 * * * *
Profiler
mi)a
64 - 158
California- </= 63 mm/kma >158
type mm/kma (4.1 - 10 mm/kma
0.16
profilograph PI5 (</= 4 inches per (>10
MI kma (0.1 --
or GM-type mmRQId inches per mile) or inches per
mi)
inertial mile)or 45 </= mile)or
profiler RQI <45 RQI </= RQI > 53
53
</= 38.7 38.8 - 78.9 >118.3
0.1 km 79 - 118.3 m/km (5.1 - 7.5
MN type PI5-mm (</= 2.4 (2.5 - 5 (>7.5
mile) mile) mile)
</= 79 80 - 110 >158
a 111 - 158 m/kma (7.1 - 10
MS type PI5-mm km (0.1 (</= 5 (5.1 - 7 (>10
inches per mile)
mile) mile) mile)
</= 284 285 - 395 >712
0.1 km 396 - 711 m/km (25.1 - 45
MO type PI0.0 (</= 18 (18.1 - 25 (>45
mile) mile) mile)
MT -- -- -- -- -- -- --
</= 75 76 - 110 >155
0.2 km 111 - 155 mm/km (7.1 - 10
NE type PI5-mm (</= 5 (5.1 - 7 (>10
mile) mile) mile)
</= 80
>80
California- mm/km
0.1 km mm/km
NV type PI5-mm -- (</= 5 --
(0.1 mi) (>5 inches
profilograph inches per
per mile)
mile)
NH GM-type RN 0.16 ** ** ** **
24
inertial kma (0.1

profiler mi)
Rolling
NJ -- -- -- -- -- --
straightedge
</= 65 66 - 80 >160
0.1 km 81 - 160 m/km (5.1 - 10
NM type PI5-mm (</= 4 (4.1 - 5 (>10
mile) mile) mile)
0.76 km
Hearne
NC CSI (0.47 CSI=10,20 CSI=30,40 CSI=11,21,31,41,50,51,60,61 --
straightedge
mi)
ND -- -- -- -- -- -- --
</= 63 64 - 110 >190
a 111 - 190 m/kma (7.1 - 12
OH type PI5-mm km (0.1 (</= 4 (4.1 - 7 (>12
inches per mile)
mile) mile) mile)
</= 79 80 - 110 >190
a 111 - 190 m/kma (7.1 - 12
OK type PI5-mm km (0.1 (</= 5 (5.1 - 7 (>12
inches per mile)
mile) mile) mile)
</= 80 81 - 110 >155
California- mm/kma mm/kma mm/kma
016 kma 111 - 155 mm/kma (7.1 - 10
OR type PI5-mm (</= 5 (5.1 - 7 (>10
mile) mile) mile)
</= 442 443 - 536 >726
a 537 - 726 mm/kma (34.1 - 46
PA type PI0.0 km (0.1 (</= 28 (28.1 - 34 (>46
inches per mile)
mile) mile) mile)
</= 110 111 - 205 >205
a
PR type PI5-mm km (0.1 (</= 7 (7.1 - 13 - (>13
mile) mile) mile)
RI -- -- -- -- -- -- --
</= 552 553 - 630 >868
1.6 kma 631 - 868 mm/kma (40.1 - 55
SC Maysmeter MRN mm/kma mm/kma mm/kma
(</= 35 (35.1 - 40 (>55
25
inches per inches per inches per

mile) mile) mile)
</= 868 869 - 1105 >1262
Inertial 1106 - 1262 mm/kma (70.1 -
SD IRI
kma (0.1 (</= 55 (55.1 - 70 (>80
profiler 80 inches per mile)
mile) mile) mile)
</= 315 316 - 475 >950
mm/km a mm/kma mm/kma
1.6 kma 476 - 950 mm/kma (30.1 - 60
TN Maysmeter MRN
(</= 20 (20.1 - 30 (>60
inches per inches per inches per
mile) mile) mile)
</= 237 238 - 315 >630
a 316 - 630 m/kma (20.1 - 40
TX type PI0.0 km (0.1 (</= 15 (15.1 - 20 (>40
inches per mile)
mile) mile) mile)
</= 110
>110
California- 0.2 km mm/km
mm/km
UT type PI5-mm (0.12 -- (</=7 --
(>7 inches
profilograph mi) a inches per
per mile)a
mile) a
<950 950 - 1090 >1500
a 1091 - 1500 mm/kma (70 -
VT Maysmeter IRI
km (0.2 (<60 (60 - 69 (>95
95 inches per mile)
mile) mile) mile)
</= 868 869 - 1105 >1578
South 0.16 mm/kma mm/kma mm/kma
a 1106 - 1578 kma (70.1 - 100
VA Dakota-type IRI km (0.1 (</= 55 (55.1 - 70 (>100
inches per mile)
mile) mile) mile)
</= 946 947 - 1500 >1815
Lightweight 0.1 km mm/kma mm/kma mm/kma
1501 - 1815 mm/kma (95.1 -
WAe inertial IRI (0.1 (</= 60 (60.1 - 95 (>115
115 inches per mile)
profiler mi)a inches per inches per inches per
mile) mile) mile)
</= 1000 >1500
Maysmeter mm/km mm/km
0.16 km 1001 - 1500 mm/km (66 -
WV or inertial MRN
-- (</= 65 (>97.5
(0.1 mi) 97.5 inches per mile)
profiler inches per inches per
mile) mile)
WI California- PI5-mm 0.16
-- </= 158
159 - 237 m/kma (10.1 - 15 >237
26
type kma (0.1 mm/kma inches per mile) mm/kma

profilograph mi) (</= 10 (>15
inches per inches per
mile) mile)
0.16
Inertial
WY IRI kma (0.1 *** *** *** ***
profiler
mi)
*Percent Within Limits Specification: Upper Spec Limit = 1500
m/km (95 inches per mile)
**Percent Within Limits Specification: Lower Spec Limit = RN = 4.1
***Statistical Based Specification: Full Pay approximately equal to
868-1105 mm/km (55-70 inches per mile)
a
Limits are a direct English-Metric conversion from counterpart
limits. Actual limits given by the Agency were not available.
b
Based on average profile index for entire project.
c
For PI between 476 mm/km (30.1 inches per mile) and 630
mm/km (40 inches per mile), must also grind to 475 mm/km (30
inches per mile) or below.
d
RQI: Ride quality index.
e
Draft specification.
27
Appendix B-2: State agency smoothness specifications for concrete

pavements – Table 15 of Publication FHWA-RD-02-057
Testing Bonus Full Pay Penalty Correction

State Testing Device Index
Interval Range Range Range Range
45 -- 94 95 - 160
<45 mm/km >160 mm/km
California-type 0.16 km mm/km (3 -- mm/km (6 -
AL PI5-mm (<3 inches (>10 inches
profilograph (0.1 mi) 5.9 inches 10 inches per
per mile) per mile)
per mile) mile)
AK -- -- -- -- -- -- --
<110 110 -- 142 >142
0.16
California-type mm/kma(<7 mm/kma(7 - mm/kma(>9
AZ PI5-mm kma(0.1 --
profilograph inches per 9 inches per inches per
mi)
mile) mile) mile)
</= 90 91 - 110
California-type >110 mm/km
0.2 km mm/km (</= mm/km (6.1
AR profilograph, PI5-mm -- (>7 inches per
(0.1 mi) 6 inches per - 7 inches per
lightweight profiler mile)
mile) mile)
</= 110
0.1 km >110 mm/km
California-type mm/km (</=
CA PI5-mm (0.06 -- -- (>7 inches per
profilograph 7 inches per
mi)a mile)a
mile)a
222.1 - 252 252.1 - 378
</= 222
0.15 km mm/kma mm/kma >378 mm/kma
California-type PI2.5 mm/kma (</=
CO (0.095 (14.1 - 16 (16.1 - 24 (>24 inches
profilograph mm 14 inches per
mi) inches per inches per per mile)
mile)
mile) mile)
</=160 161 - 190 191 - 315
>315 mm/km
California-type 0.15 km mm/km (10 mm/km (10.1 mm/km (12.1
CT PI5-mm (>20 inches
profilograph (0.1 mi)a inches per - 12 inches - 20 inches
per mile)a
mile)a per mile)a per mile) a
<50 50 - 200 >200

0.16
CA profilograph or mm/kma(<3.2 mm/kma(3.2 mm/kma(>12.7
DE PI5-mm kma(0.1 --
rolling straightedge inches per - 12.7 inches inches per
mi)
mile) per mile) mile)
</= 80 81 - 95 96 - 110
>110 mm/km
California-type 0.1 km mm/km (</= mm/km (5.1 mm/km (6.1
FL PI5-mm (>7 inches per
profilograph (0.1 mi) 5 inches per - 6 inches per - 7 inches per
mile)
mile) mile) mile)
GA Rainhart PI2.5 0.4 -- </= 110 -- >110
28
profilograph mm kma(0.25 mm/kma(</= mm/kma(>7

mi) 7 inches per inches per
mile) mile)
</= 157 158 - 236 >236
0.16
California-type mm/kma(</= mm/kma(10.1 mm/kma(>15
HI PI5-mm kma(0.1 --
profilograph 10 inches per - 15 inches inches per
mi)
</= 8 mm/0.1 >8 mm/0.1 km
California-type 0.1 km
ID PI5-mm -- km (</= 0.5 -- (>0.5
profilograph (0.1 mi)
in/0.1mi) in/0.1mi)
161 - 235
</= 67 68 - 160
mm/km >235 mm/km
California-type 0.16 km mm/km (</= mm/km (4.26
IL PI5-mm (10.01 - 15 (>15 inches
profilograph (0.1 mi) 4.25 inches - 10 inches
inches per per mile)
per mile) b per mile)
mile)
</= 23 - 25
>25 mm/0.16
California-type 0.16 km 23mm/0.16 mm/0.16km
IN PI5-mm -- km (>1.0
profilograph (0.1 mi) km (</= 0.9 (0.9 - 1.0
in/0.1 mi)
in/0.1mi) in/0.1 mi)
</= 48 49 - 110 111 - 160
>160 mm/km
California-type 0.16 km mm/km (£3 mm/km (3.1 mm/km (7.1
IA PI5-mm (>10 inches
profilograph (0.1 mi) inches per - 7 inches per - 10 inches
per mile)
mile) mile) per mile)
</= 285 286 -- 475 476 -- 630
>630 mm/km
KS PI0.0 (>40 inches
profilograph (0.1 mi) 18 inches per -- 30 inches -- 40 inches
per mile)
mile) per mile) per mile)c
</=125 126 - 190 >190
Rainhart 0.3
PI2.5- mm/kma (</= mm/kma(8.1 mm/kma(>12
KY profilograph and kma(0.19 RI >/= 4.05
mmRI 8 inches per - 12 inches inches per
inertial profiler mi)
95 - 126
£94 mm/km >126 mm/km
California-type mm/km (6.1
LA PI5-mm Lot - (</= 6 inches (>8 inches per
profilograph - 8 inches per
per mile) mile)
mile)
ME -- -- -- -- -- -- --
</= 63 64 - 110 111 - 190 >191
0.16
California-type mm/kma (</= mm/kma(4.1 mm/kma(7.1 mm/kma(>12
MD PI5-mm kma(0.1
profilograph 4.0 inches - 7 inches per - 12 inches inches per
mi)
per mile) mile) per mile) mile)
MA -- -- -- -- -- -- --
MI California-type PI5- 0.16 </= 63 64 - 158 -- >158
29
profilograph or GM- mmRQI kma(0.1 mm/kma (</= mm/kma (4.1 mm/kma(>10

type inertial profiler d mi) 4 inches per - 10 inches inches per
mile)or RQI per mile)or mile)or RQI >
< 45 45 </=RQI 53
</= 53
</= 63 64 - 94 95 - 126
>126 mm/km
California-type 0.16 km mm/km (</= mm/km (4.1 m/km (6.1 -
MN PI5-mm (>8 inches per
profilograph (0.1 mi) 4 inches per - 6 inches per 8 inches per
mile)
mile) mile) mile)
</= 110 111 - 190 >190
0.16
California-type mm/kma(</= m/kma(7.1 - mm/kma(>12
MS PI5-mm kma(0.1 --
profilograph 7 inches per 12 inches per inches per
mi)
mile) mile) mile)
</= 284 285 - 395 396 - 711
>712 mm/km
MO PI0.0 (>45 inches
profilograph (0.1 mi) 18 inches per - 25 inches 45 inches per
per mile)
</= 94 95 - 158 159 - 237 >237
0.16
California-type mm/kma(£6 mm/kma(6.1 m/kma (10.1 mm/kma(>15
MT PI5-mm kma(0.1
profilograph inches per - 10 inches - 15 inches inches per
mi)
mile) per mile) per mile) mile)
</= 75 76 - 155 156 - 230
>230 mm/km
NE PI5-mm (>15 inches
profilograph (0.1 mi) 5 inches per - 10 inches - 15 inches
per mile)
mile) per mile) per mile)
</= 80
>80 mm/km
California-type 0.1 km mm/km (</=
NV PI5-mm -- -- (>5 inches per
profilograph (0.1 mi) 5 inches per
mile)
mile)
NH -- -- -- -- -- -- --
NJ Rolling straightedge -- -- -- -- -- --
</= 80 81 - 110 111 - 190
>190 mm/km
NM PI5-mm (>12 inches
profilograph (0.1 mi) 5 inches per - 7 inches per 12 inches per
per mile)
mile) mile) mile)
</= 79 80 - 190
>190/kma(>12
California-type 0.16 km mm/kma(</= mm/kma(5.1
NY PI5-mm -- inches per
profilograph (0.1 mi)a 5 inches per - 12 inches
mile)
mile) per mile)
0.18 </= 63 >63
Rainhart
NC PI5-mm kma(0.11 -- mm/kma(</= -- mm/kma(>4
profilograph
mi) 4 inches per inches per
30
mile) mile)
8 - 13 14 -- 23
0.16 <8mm/0.16 >23 mm/0.16
California-type mm/0.16 mm/0.16
ND PI5-mm km (0.1 kma(<0.3
a
kma(>0.9
profilograph kma(0.3 - 0.5 kma(0.51 -
mi) in/0.1mi) in/0.1mi)
in/0.1mi) 0.9 in/0.1mi)
</= 78 79 - 110 111 - 190 >190
0.16
California-type a mm/kma(</= mm/kma(5.1 m/kma(7.1 - mm/kma(>12
OH PI5-mm km (0.1
profilograph 5 inches per - 7 inches per 12 inches per inches per
mi)
mile) mile) mile) mile)
</= 79 80 - 110 111 - 190 >190
0.16
California-type mm/kma(</= mm/kma(5.1 m/kma(7.1 - mm/kma(>12
OK PI5-mm kma(0.1
profilograph 5 inches per - 7 inches per 12 inches per inches per
mi)
mile) mile) mile) mile)
</= 80 81 - 110
>110 mm/km
California-type 0.2 km mm/km (</= mm/km (5.1
OR PI5-mm -- (>7 inches per
profilograph (0.1 mi)a 5 inches per - 7 inches per
mile)a
mile)a mile)a
</= 568 >568
a
California-type 0.16 (0.1 mm/kma(</= mm/kma(>36
PA PI0.0 -- --
profilograph mi) 36 inches per inches per
mile) mile)
</= 110 111 - 205 >205
0.16
California-type mm/kma(</= mm/kma(7.1 mm/kma(>13
PR PI5-mm kma(0.1 --
profilograph 7 inches per - 13 inches inches per
mi)
RI -- -- -- -- -- -- --
</= 158 >158
0.4
Rainhart mm/kma(</= mm/kma(>10
SC PI5-mm kma(0.25 -- --
profilograph 10 inches per inches per
mi)
mile) mile)
</= 395 396 - 550 551 - 630
>630 mm/km
SD PI0.0 (>40 inches
profilograph (0.1 mi) 25 inches per - 35 inches - 40 inches
per mile)
mile) per mile) per mile)
</= 160 161 - 235
>235 mm/km
PI2.5- 0.1 km mm/km (</= mm/km (10.1
TN Rainhartprofilograph -- (>15 inches
mm (0.1 mi) 10 inches per - 15 inches
per mile)
mile) per mile)
237 238 - 315 316 -- 630 >630
0.16
California-type mm/kma(</= mm/kma(15.1 m/kma(20.1 - mm/kma(>40
TX PI0.0 kma(0.1
profilograph 15 inches per - 20 inches 40 inches per inches per
mi)
mile) per mile) mile) mile)
31
</= 110
0.2 km >110 mm/km
California-type mm/km (</=
UT PI5-mm (0.12 -- -- (>7 inches per
profilograph 7 inches per
mi)a mile) a
mile)a
VT -- -- -- -- -- -- --
947 - 1262
</= 946 1263 - 1578 >1578
a a mm/kma
South Dakota-type 0.16 km mm/km (</= km a(80.1 - mm/kma (>100
VA IRI (60.1 - 80
profiler (0.1 mi) 60 inches per 100 inches inches per
inches per
mile)
</= 60 61 -- 100
0.1 km >100 mm/km
California-type PI7.5- mm/km (</= mm/km (3.9
WA (0.1 mi) (>6.3 inches --
profilograph mm 3.8 inches - 6.3 inches
a per mile) a,e
per mile)a per mile) a
</= 1000 1001 - 1500
>1500 mm/km
Maysmeter or 0.16 km mm/km (</= mm/km (66 -
WV MRN -- (>97.5 inches
inertial profiler (0.1 mi) 65 inches per 97.5 inches
per mile)
mile) per mile)
401 - 700
</= 400 701 - 800
mm/kma >800 mm/kma
California-type PI01- 0.16 kma mm/kma (</= m/kma (44.4
WI (25.4 - 44.3 (>50.7 inches
profilograph inch (0.1 mi) 25.3 inches - 50.7 inches
inches per per mile)
per mile) per mile) f
mile)
California-type
WY PI5-mm * * *
*
*
profilograph
* Perf. Related Spec (PCC thickness, strength, smoothness) >80 mm/km
(>5.0 inches per mile).
a
Limits are a direct English-Metric conversion from counterpart limits.
Actual limits given by the agency were not available.
b
Based on average profile index for entire project.
c
For PI between 476 mm/km (30.1 inches per mile) and 630 mm/km (40
inches per mile), must also grind to 475 mm/km (30 inches per mile) or
below.
d
RQI: Ride quality index.
e
For PI greater than 100 mm/km (6.3 inches per mile), must also grind to
100 mm/km (6.3 inches per mile) or less.
f
For PI greater than 700 mm/km (44.3 inches per mile), must also grind to
700 mm/km (44.3 inches per mile) or less.
32
Appendix C: IRI vs. PI and PI to PI (Asphalt to Concrete) Relationships
In FHWA Report FHWA-RD-02-057, “Pavement Smoothness Index Relationships, Final

Report”, equations where developed for converting from PI to IRI based on pavement
type and climatic region using the LTPP profile data base. Tables C1, C2, C3 and C4
summarize the conversion equations. Information on PI to IRI relationships relevant to
Missouri are highlighted in the tables and noted in the figure captions.
Table C1. PI to IRI equations for Asphaltic Concrete

PI to IRI for Asphaltic Concrete
Blanking
Pavement Correlation Equation (IRI =
Climatea Band N SEE R2
Type mm/km, PI = mm/km)
(mm)
AC 1,2,3,4 0 IRI = 2.66543*PI0.0 + 213.01 14,170 200.2 0.89
AC 1,2,3,4 2.5 IRI = 2.97059*PI2.5-mm + 638.74 14,160 231.7 0.86
AC 1,2,3,4 5 IRI = 3.78601*PI5-mm + 887.51 13,775 292.3 0.77
AC/AC 1 0 IRI = 2.74599*PI0.0 + 265.42 1,854 192 0.91
AC/AC 1 2.5 IRI = 3.12622*PI2.5-mm + 708.56 1,854 230 0.87
AC/AC 1 5 IRI = 4.25316*PI5-mm + 957.80 1,824 288.2 0.79
AC/AC 2 0 IRI = 2.68169*PI0.0 + 274.67 1,494 184.6 0.81
AC/AC 2 2.5 IRI = 3.33564*PI2.5-mm + 655.67 1,494 246.6 0.66
AC/AC 2 5 IRI = 4.39478*PI5-mm + 883.20 1,345 308.2 0.45
AC/AC 3,4 0 IRI = 2.42295*PI0.0 + 301.90 5,126 178.8 0.84
AC/AC 3,4 2.5 IRI = 2.68324*PI2.5-mm + 660.34 5,126 217 0.76
AC/AC 3,4 5 IRI = 3.42671*PI5-mm + 876.80 4,906 265.9 0.63
AC/PCC 1,2,3,4 0 IRI = 2.40300*PI0.0 + 292.93 4,156 205.6 0.79
AC/PCC 1,2,3,4 2.5 IRI = 2.78217*PI2.5-mm + 716.87 4,156 229.7 0.73
AC/PCC 1,2,3,4 5 IRI = 3.94665*PI5-mm + 939.22 4,052 259.6 0.65
Source: FHWA-RD-02-057
a
Climatic zones: 1=DF, 2=DNF, 3=WF, 4=WNF.
DF Dry-Freeze
DNF Dry-Nonfreeze
WF Wet-Freeze
WNF Wet-Nonfreeze
33
Table C2. PI to IRI for Portland Cement Concrete

PI to IRI for Portland Cement Concrete
Pavement Blanking Correlation Equation (IRI =
Climatea N SEE R2
Type Band (mm) mm/km, PI = mm/km)
PCC 1,3 0 IRI = 2.12173*PI0.0 + 439.76 12,039 259.6 0.8
PCC 1,3 2.5 IRI = 2.15316*PI2.5-mm + 947.05 12,039 278.7 0.8
PCC 1,3 5 IRI = 2.62558*PI5-mm + 1205.73 11,946 306 0.8
PCC 2 0 IRI = 2.58454*PI0.0 + 423.09 1,448 176.5 0.9
PCC 2 2.5 IRI = 2.5921*PI2.5-mm + 1024.73 1,448 226.5 0.8
PCC 2 5 IRI = 3.51673*PI5-mm + 1226.35 1,364 268.7 0.7
PCC 4 0 IRI = 2.3582*PI0.0 + 317.19 2,888 236.5 0.8
PCC 4 2.5 IRI = 2.40731*PI2.5-mm + 888.10 2,888 264.5 0.8
PCC 4 5 IRI = 2.87407*PI5-mm + 1229.63 2,885 297.4 0.7
a
DF Dry-Freeze
DNF Dry-Nonfreeze
WF Wet-Freeze
WNF Wet-Nonfreeze
34
Table C3. PI to PI for Asphaltic Concrete

PI to PI for Asphaltic Concrete
Type Climatea From/To Correlation Equation (PI = mm/km) N SEE R2
AC 1,3 PI2.5-mm to PI0.0-mm PI0.0 = 1.08722*PI2.5-mm + 174.42 5,744 47.73 0.96
AC 1,3 PI5-mm to PI0.0-mm PI0.0 = 1.35776*PI5-mm + 275.48 5,684 83.58 0.88
AC 1,3 PI5-mm to PI2.5-mm PI2.5-mm = 1.28213*PI5-mm + 87.79 5,684 46.62 0.95
AC 2,4 PI2.5-mm to PI0.0-mm PI0.0 = 1.12338*PI2.5-mm + 152.84 8,418 45.23 0.95
AC 2,4 PI5-mm to PI0.0-mm PI0.0 = 1.46417*PI5-mm + 240.09 8,093 71.73 0.86
AC 2,4 PI5-mm to PI2.5-mm PI2.5-mm = 1.34055*PI5-mm + 73.13 8,093 38.64 0.95
AC/AC 1 PI2.5-mm to PI0.0-mm PI0.0 = 1.14153*PI2.5-mm + 160.70 1,856 43.41 0.96
AC/AC 1 PI5-mm to PI0.0-mm PI0.0 = 1.56038*PI5-mm + 250.89 1,826 73.74 0.88
AC/AC 1 PI5-mm to PI2.5-mm PI2.5-mm = 1.39462*PI5-mm + 75.55 1,826 40.47 0.95
AC/AC 2 PI2.5-mm to PI0.0-mm PI0.0 = 1.28067*PI2.5-mm + 138.15 1,496 52.26 0.86
AC/AC 2 PI5-mm to PI0.0-mm PI0.0 = 1.75837*PI5-mm + 222.84 1,347 79.32 0.66
AC/AC 2 PI5-mm to PI2.5-mm PI2.5-mm = 1.52523*PI5-mm + 56.60 1,347 34.14 0.89
AC/AC 3,4 PI2.5-mm to PI0.0-mm PI0.0 = 1.11926*PI2.5-mm + 145.85 5,128 44.86 0.93
AC/AC 3,4 PI5-mm to PI0.0-mm PI0.0 = 1.45876*PI5-mm + 233.59 4,908 71.53 0.81
AC/AC 3,4 PI5-mm to PI2.5-mm PI2.5-mm = 1.36739*PI5-mm + 71.17 4,908 38.12 0.93
AC/PCC 1,2,3,4 PI2.5-mm to PI0.0-mm PI0.0 = 1.15412*PI2.5-mm + 177.08 4,158 44.46 0.93
AC/PCC 1,2,3,4 PI5-mm to PI0.0-mm PI0.0 = 1.61123*PI5-mm + 271.11 4,054 71.07 0.81
AC/PCC 1,2,3,4 PI5-mm to PI2.5-mm PI2.5-mm = 1.44895*PI5-mm + 76.83 4,054 36.99 0.93
a
DF Dry-Freeze
DNF Dry-Nonfreeze
WF Wet-Freeze
WNF Wet-Nonfreeze
35
Table C4. PI to PI for Portland Cement Concrete

PI to PI for Portland Cement Concrete
Correlation Equation (PI =
Type Climatea From/To N SEE R2
mm/km)
PCC 1 PI2.5-mm to PI0.0-mm PI0.0 = 1.04364*PI2.5-mm + 238.13 2,237 46.9 0.95
PCC 1 PI5-mm to PI0.0-mm PI0.0 = 1.39512*PI5-mm + 343.08 2,182 71.2 0.87
PCC 1 PI5-mm to PI2.5-mm PI2.5-mm = 1.36458*PI5-mm + 96.46 2,180 43.3 0.95
a
DF Dry-Freeze
DNF Dry-Nonfreeze
WF Wet-Freeze
WNF Wet-Nonfreeze
The figures on the following pages present the previous four tables or equations
as a series of graphs
The PI to PI charts are for informational purposes only to indicate how the index
varies with the different blanking bands applied. PI indices are difficult to
compare from state to state as different blanking bands give different results.
IRIs derived from inertial profilers are more comparable from state to state and
thus are more useful in research studies. The AASHTO specifications listed in
the Conclusion section were establish to make the IRI a consistent
measurement.
36
PI to IRI, Asphaltic Concrete, All Climates, by Blanking Band(inch)

(Source: FHWA-RD-02-057)
300
PI(BB=0.0 in)
250 PI(BB=0.1 in)
PI(BB=0.2 in)
200
IRI (in/mi)
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PI (in/mi)
Figure C1. PI to IRI for concrete, all climates and blanking bands.
(Green line {lower one] applicable to Missouri)
PI to IRI, Asphaltic Concrete/Asphaltic Concrete, by Climate and Blanking Band(inch)
1=Dry-Freeze, 2=Dry-Nonfreeze, 3=Wet-Freeze, 4=Wet-Nonfreeze
300
PI(BB=0.0 in), 1
250 PI(BB=0.1 in), 1

PI(BB=0.2 in), 1
PI(BB=0.0 in), 2
200 PI(BB=0.1 in), 2
PI(BB=0.2 in), 2
IRI (in/mi)
PI(BB=0.0 in), 3,4

150 PI(BB=0.1 in), 3,4
PI(BB=0.2 in), 3,4
100
50
0
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
60.00
PI (in/mi)
Figure C2. PI to IRI, Asphaltic Concrete/Asphaltic Concrete, all climates, all

blanking bands. (Thick, solid, green line [lowest one] applicable to Missouri.)
37
PI to IRI, Asphaltic Concrete/Portland Cement Concrete,

All Climates, by Blanking Band(inch)
300
PI(BB=0.0 in)
250
PI(BB=0.1 in)
PI(BB=0.2 in)
200
IRI (in/mi)
150
100
50
0
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
PI (in/mi)
Figure C3. PI to IRI, Asphaltic Concrete/Portland Cement Concrete, all climates, all
blanking bands. (Green line [lowest one] applicable to Missouri)
PI to IRI, Asphaltic Concrete/Asphaltic Concrete, by Climate and Blanking Band(inch)
400
PI(BB=0.0 in), 1,3
350 PI(BB=0.1 in), 1,3
PI(BB=0.2 in), 1,3
300 PI(BB=0.0 in), 2
PI(BB=0.1 in), 2
250 PI(BB=0.2 in), 2
IRI (in/mi)
PI(BB=0.0 in), 4
200 PI(BB=0.1 in), 4
PI(BB=0.2 in), 4
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 6

0
PI (in/mi)
Figure C4. PI to IRI for Portland Cement Concrete, all climates, all blanking bands.
(Thin, solid, green line [lowest one] applicable to Missouri)
38
PI to PI, Asphaltic Concrete, by Climate and Blanking Band(in)

120
PI0.1in to PI0in, 1,3

100 PI0.2in to PI0in 1,3
PI0.2in to PI0.1in, 1,3
80
PI0.2in to PI0in 2,4
PI0.2in to PI0.1in, 2,4
PI (in/mi)
60
40
20
0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
PI (in/mi)
Figure C5. PI to PI for Asphaltic Concrete.
PI to PI, Asphaltic Concrete/Asphaltic Concrete, by Climate and Blanking Band(in)
120
PI0.1in to PI0in, 1
PI0.2in to PI0in, 1
100
PI0.2in to PI0.1in, 1
PI0.1in to PI0in, 2
80 PI0.2in to PI0in, 2
PI0.2in to PI0in, 2
PI (in/mi)

60 PI0.2in to PI0in, 3,4
PI0.2in to PI0.1, 3,4
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PI (in/mi)
Figure C6. PI to PI for Asphaltic Concrete / Asphaltic Concrete, all climates, all
blanking bands.
39
PI to PI, Asphaltic Concrete/Portland Cement Concrete,
All Climates, by Blanking Band(in)
200
180
PI0.1in to PI0in
160 PI0.2in to PI0in
140 PI0.2in to PI0.1in
120
PI (in/mi)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PI (in/mi)
Figure C7. PI to PI forAsphaltic Concrete / Portland Cement Concrete, all climates,

all blanking bands.
PI to PI, Portland Cement Concrete, by Climate and Blanking Band(in)

120
PI0.1in to PI0in, 1
PI0.2in to PI0, 1
100
PI0.2in to PI0in, 2
PI0.2in to PI0in, 2
PI0.2in to PI0in, 3
PI (in/mi)
PI0.2in to PI001n, 4
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PI (in/mi)
Figure C8. PI to PI, Portland Cement Concrete, all climates, all blanking bands.
40
Appendix D: Pavement Smoothness Pay Factor, Incentive/Disincentive

Specifications
In FHWA Report FHWA-RD-02-057, “Pavement Smoothness Index Relationships, Final Report”,

two tables present a summary of Smoothness indices, and Incentive/Disincentive threshold limits for
Asphaltic and Portland Cement Concrete. All figures and tables in this appendix are based on
information taken from this FHWA report except for updates made for the states of Connecticut,
Ohio, and Minnesota which specifications are presented in Appendices E, F, and G.
Figure D1 presents the specification types and distribution for the states that provided information
for the FHWA report.
There are six specification models depending on the presence or absence of bonus pay, penalties,
and corrective action. The full specification with both bonus pay and penalties included is the most
common specification for both Asphaltic concrete and Portland Cement concrete pavements.
For the No Bonus and No Penalty specifications, two sets of frequencies and percentages are
provided. For the No Bonus specification, the upper numbers are for No Bonus pay (with penalties)
occurrences. The lower number is the combined No Bonus pay (with penalties) and the No Bonus
pay (with no penalties). For the No Penalty specification, the upper numbers are for No Penalties
(with bonus pay) occurrences. The lower number is the combined No Penalty (with bonus pay) and
the No Penalty (with no bonus pay).
Figures D2 and D3 present the pavement smoothness indices and incentive/disincentive specification
break down by state for Asphaltic and Portland Cement concrete for the information provided by the
states for the FHWA report. Summary statistics are also provided.
The series of figures, D4 through D10, show the state by state specifications and thresholds for the
payment ranges for Asphaltic and Portland Cement concrete by smoothness index used by the
individual states. These figures include the updates made for the states of Connecticut, Ohio, and
Minnesota. For asphaltic pavements, these three states use the IRI index and the full
incentive/disincentive specification. For Minnesota, the IRI information is not shown in Figure D2,
for Asphaltic concrete, as Minnesota has three sets of specification (equations) depending on
pavement design. A separate figure D11 is provided later to show the three specification equations.
For concrete pavements, only the updated Connecticut data applies.
41
Pay Factor Specification Types and Distribution
Thresholds Distribution
Con- Asphalt Con-
Asphalt crete % crete %
Full
0 Bonus B,F Full Pay F,P Penalty P,C Corrective Action 28 24 73.7% 54.5%
Specification
No
0 Bonus B,F Full Pay F, no P, C Corrective Action 4 9 10.5% 20.5%
Penalty (NP)
9 15 23.7% 34.1%
No
0 Full Pay F,P Penalty P,C Corrective Action 1 3 2.6% 6.8%
Bonus (NB)
no B 6 9 15.8% 20.5%
No Penalty
0 Full Pay F,no P,C Corrective Action 5 6 13.2% 13.6%
or Bonus
no B
Bonus
0 Bonus B no F, no P C Corrective Action 0 1 0.0% 2.3%
Only
No
0 Bonus B,F Full Pay F,P Penalty P no C 0 1 0.0% 2.3%
Corrective (NC)
Italic, Underline: all NP and all NB

IRI or PI
B = Bonus Threshold
F = Full Pay Threshold
P = Penalty Threshold
C = Corrective Threshold
Figure D1. Pay Factor, Incentive/Disincentive Specifications types and distribution.
42
Asphalt Pavement
Smoothness Index by
Asphalt Pavement
Specification and State

Specification Distribution
Index Spec State Spec Spec # Spec %

IRI FS CT FS 28 73.7%
IRI FS ME NB 1 2.6%
IRI FS OH NB, NP 5 13.2%
IRI FS SD NP 4 10.5%
IRI FS VA
IRI FS VT NB' 6 15.8%
IRI FS WA NP' 9 23.7%
IRI NB, NP GA
MRN FS AZ Asphalt Pavement
MRN FS SC Index Distribution
MRN FS TN Index Index # Index %

MRN NP WV IRI 8 21.1%
PI0mm FS KS MRN 4 10.5%
PI0mm FS MO PI0mm 4 10.5%
PI0mm FS PA PI2.5mm 1 2.6%
PI0mm FS TX PI5mm 20 52.6%
PI2.5mm FS CA RI 1 2.6%
PI5mm FS AL
PI5mm FS AR Notes:
PI5mm FS IA FS = Full Specification
PI5mm FS IL NB= No Bonus
PI5mm FS MD NB, NP = No Bonus or Penalty
PI5mm FS MN NP = No Penealty
PI5mm FS MS
PI5mm FS NE
PI5mm FS NM
PI5mm FS OH
PI5mm FS OK
PI5mm FS OR
PI5mm NB WI
PI5mm NB, NP CA
PI5mm NB, NP ID
PI5mm NB, NP NV
PI5mm NB, NP UT
PI5mm NP IN
PI5mm NP LA
PI5mm NP PR
RI FS KY
Figure D2. Asphalt pavement smoothness index and
specification breakdown by state.
43
Concrete Pavement
Smoothness Index by
Concrete Pavement
Specification and State

Specification Distribution
Index Spec State Spec Spec # Spec %

IRI FS OH FS 24 63.2%
IRI FS VA BO 1 2.6%
MRN NP WV NB 3 7.9%
PI0mm BO PA NB, NP 6 15.8%
PI0mm FS KS NP 9 23.7%
PI0mm FS MO NC 1 2.6%
PI0mm FS SD All NB 9 23.7%
PI0mm FS TX All NP 15 39.5%
PI2.5mm FS CO States 44
PI2.5mm FS KY
PI2.5mm FS WI Concrete Pavement
PI2.5mm NB TN Index Distribution
PI2.5mm NB, NP GA Index Index # Index %

PI5mm FS AL IRI 2 4.4%
PI5mm FS CT MRN 1 2.2%
PI5mm FS FL PI0mm 5 11.1%
PI5mm FS IA PI2.5mm 5 11.1%
PI5mm FS IL PI5mm 30 66.7%
PI5mm FS LA RI 1 2.2%
PI5mm FS MD States 44
PI5mm FS MN
PI5mm FS MT Notes:
PI5mm FS ND FS = Full Specification
PI5mm FS NE BO = Bonus Only
PI5mm FS NM NB= No Bonus
PI5mm FS OH NB, NP = No Bonus or Penalty
PI5mm FS OK NP = No Penealty
PI5mm FS UT NC = No Corrective
PI5mm NB HI
PI5mm NB MS
PI5mm NB, NP CA
PI5mm NB, NP ID
PI5mm NB, NP NC
PI5mm NB, NP NV
PI5mm NB, NP SC
PI5mm NP AR
PI5mm NP AZ
PI5mm NP DE
PI5mm NP IN
PI5mm NP MI
PI5mm NP NY
PI5mm NP OR
PI5mm NP PR
PI7.5mm NC WA
Figure D3. Concrete pavement smoothness index and
specification breakdown by state.
44
Asphalt Pavements Bonus Pay / Full Pay / Penalty / Corrective IRI Limits (in/mile)
(Source: FHWA-RD-02-057, exception Ohio proposal notes)
140
Penalty
120 Full Pay
Bonus
100
80
IRI (in/mi)
60
40
20
0
CT OH GA ME SD VA VT WA
Figure D4. Asphalt pavement bonus pay / full pay/ penalty / corrective
IRI limits by state.
Asphalt Pavements Bonus Pay / Full Pay / Penalty / Corrective PI(0.2 in) Limits (in/mi)
16
Penalty
Full Pay
14
Bonus
12
10
PI(0.2 in) (in/mi) .
0
AL AR CA IA ID IL IN LA MD MN MS NE NM NV OH OK OR PR UT WI
Figure D5. Asphalt pavement bonus pay / full pay/ penalty / corrective PI(0.2 in)
limits by state.
46
Asphalt Pavements Bonus Pay / Full Pay / Penalty / Corrective PI(0.0 in) Limits (in/mi)
50
Penalty
45 Full Pay
Bonus
40
35
.
30
PI(0.0 in) (in/mi)
25
20
15
10
0
KS MO PA TX
Figure D6. Asphalt pavement bonus pay / full pay/ penalty / corrective PI(0.1 in)
limits by state.
Concrete Pavement Bonus Pay / Full Pay / Penalty / Corrective IRI Limits (in/mi)
(VA Source: FHWA-RD-02-057, OH Source: proposal notes )
120
Penalty
100 Full Pay
Bonus
80
IRI (in/mi)
60
40
20
0
VA OH
Figure D7. Concrete pavement bonus pay / full pay/ penalty / corrective IRI limits
by state.
47
Concrete Pavements Bonus Pay / Full Pay / Penalty / Corrective PI(0in) Limits (in/mi)
50
Penalty
45 Full Pay
Bonus
40
35
PI(0in) (in/mi) .
30
25
20
15
10
0
KS MO PA SD TX
Figure D8. Concrete pavement bonus pay / full pay/ penalty / corrective PI(0 in)
limits by state.
Concrete Pavements Bonus Pay / Full Pay / Penalty / Corrective
PI(0.1in) Limits (in/mi)
60
Penalty
50 Full Pay
Bonus
40
PI(0.1in) (in/mi) .
30
20
10
0
CO GA KY TN WI
Figure D9. Concrete pavement bonus pay / full pay/ penalty / corrective PI(0.1 in)
limits by state.
48
Concrete Pavements Bonus Pay / Full Pay / Penalty / Corrective PI(0.2in) Limits (in/mi)
25
Penalty
Full Pay
Bonus
20
PI(0.02in) (in/mi) .
15
10
0
AL AR AZ CA CT DE FL HI IA ID IL IN LA MD MI MN MS MT NC ND NE NM NV NY OH OK OR PR SC UT
Figure D10. Concrete pavement bonus pay / full pay/ penalty / corrective PI(0.2 in)
limits by state.
MNDOT Asphalt Pavement Incentive/Disincentive $/0.1mi
(Source: 2360/2350 Combined Specification, Dec 2005)
600
400
200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
$ / 0.1 mi
-200
-400
-600
Incentive/Disincentive $/0.1mile, Eq A
-800 Incentive/Disincentive $/0.1mile, Eq B
Incentive/Disincentive $/0.1mile, Eq C
-1000
IRI (in/mi)
Figure D11. Minnesota DOT asphalt pavement incentive/disincentive equations.
49
Appendix E: Example Specifications from Connecticut DOT
Connecticut DOT Special Provision for Pavement Smoothness
SECTION 4.06 - BITUMINOUS CONCRETE
Article 4.06.03 - Construction Methods, Subarticle 10 - Surface Test of Pavement, is

amended as follows: After the last paragraph of the Subarticle add the following:
(a) Pavement Smoothness (Rideability): The Engineer shall evaluate the final pavement surface for
smoothness by testing in accordance with Section 4.06 and as stated herein. This provision will
apply to projects requiring a minimum of two (2) courses of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) in which the
compacted depth of each is 1.5 inches (40 mm) or greater.
Prior to the placement of the final course of pavement, the Engineer will furnish the Contractor
with an International Roughness Index (IRI) value that results from the Engineer's evaluation of
the material placed to date. The actual time of this "trial" evaluation will be coordinated between
the Engineer and the Contractor. This evaluation will be limited to one (1) test in each direction of
travel. The IRI value will serve as a guide to the Contractor in evaluating his current level of
conformance with the smoothness specification.
The IRI value for the final course of pavement will be the basis for determining any payment
adjustment(s) in accordance with Table 1, Schedule of Adjusted Payment of Section, 4.06.04 -
Method of Measurement, Subarticle 4.06.04 - 7 "Adjustment for Rideability."
Evaluation Method - The final pavement surface shall be evaluated for smoothness using an
"Automated Road Analyzer" vehicle or ARAN. Computers aboard the ARAN contain software
that simulates the traversing of a so-called "quarter car" over the adjusted profile, and calculates an
average IRI value as defined by the World Bank, for each lane of travel over the project. This
ARAN is a Class II device as defined by the World Bank. The IRI represents the vertical (upward
and downward) displacement that a passenger would experience traveling at 48 MPH (77 km/hr)
in a standard vehicle over the profile established by the device. A zero IRI value would indicate a
perfectly smooth pavement surface, while increasing IRI values would correspond to an
increasingly rough pavement surface. The ARAN has the capability to measure longitudinal profile
in each wheelpath simultaneously. IRI values shall be calculated in inches (meters) of vertical
displacement every 0.01 mile (16 meters) and normalized over one (1) mile in inches/mile, or 1.6
km in m/km. For example, a 0.01-mile section yielding an actual vertical displacement of one (1)
inch would be normalized to an IRI value of 100 inches/mile.
The final pavement surface will be divided into 0.10 mile (160 meter) segments representing the
total lane miles of the project. The total lane miles are equal to the miles of resurfacing multiplied
by the number of lanes being evaluated. The final segment will include any remaining portion of a
segment not equaling 0.10 miles (160 meters) [Example: 1.52 miles of pavement would
have 15 segments with the last one measuring 0.12 miles]. The IRI calculated from each wheelpath
for each 0.10 mile (160 meter) segment will be averaged to determine the IRI value for that
segment.
50
GENERAL
The evaluation shall be subject to the following:
l. Only mainline travel lanes will be evaluated. This shall include climbing lanes,
operational lanes, and turning roadways that are 0.4 miles (644 meters) or greater in
length.
2. Smoothness data will not be computed for the following project sections:
• Climbing and operational lanes and turning roadways less than 0.4 miles (644
meters) in length
• Acceleration and deceleration lanes
• Shoulders and gore areas
• Pavement on horizontal curves which have a 900 foot (274.32 meters) or less
centerline radius of curvature, and pavement within the superelevation transition of these
curves.
3. Bridge decks shall be included only if paved as part of the project. If the bridge decks
are not included in the project, profile testing will be suspended two hundredths of a mile
(0.02) [32 meters] prior to the first expansion joint and after the last expansion joint on
the bridge decks.
4. Ramps are specifically excluded from the requirements of this Section.
5. Measurement will start two-hundredths of a mile (0.02) [32 meters] prior to and after
the transverse joints at the project limits.
6. Data will be collected within 30 days of completion of the entire final course of
pavement, or within 30 days of completion of any corrective work on the pavement. If the
entire final course of pavement can not be completed prior to December I (winter
shutdown), then data will be collected for any portion of the roadway in which the final
course of pavement has been placed. These data will be saved and stored by the
Department. Once the remainder of the final course has been placed, the data will be
collected and combined with the data taken previously.
If the Engineer determines that any pavement corrective work is required, the Contractor
will be notified in writing within five (5) working days after the completion of the final
course of pavement. The Contractor shall have thirty (30) days following such
notification to make any repairs to the pavement before smoothness measurements are
taken.
7. No testing shall be conducted during rain or under other conditions deemed inclement
by the Engineer. During testing, the roadway must be free of moisture and other
deleterious materials which might affect the evaluation. Any work associated with
preparing the roadway for the evaluation, such as but not limited to sweeping, will not be
measured for payment.
51
GENERAL
Article 4.06.04 - Method of Measurernent:
Add the following Subarticle:
7. Adjustment for Rideability: Payment to the Contractor shall be based on

the IRI, according to the following table. The percent adjustment will be applied
to payment(s) for the total quantity of HMA surface course, excluding ramps,
complete-in-place, and shall conform to the requirements of Section 4.06 and
this provision.
TABLE 1 SCHEDULE FOR PAYMENT

IRI (inches per mile) IRI (meters per kilometer) PERCENT ADJUSTMENT
<50 <0.79 +10
51 – 60 0.80-0.95 +05
61 – 80 0.96- 1.26 0
81-100 1.27-1.58 -OS
101-110 1.59-1.74 - 10
111 – 120 1.75 - 1.89 - 25
> 120 > 1.89 - 50
NOTE: All values in the English system will be rounded to the nearest whole
number. (Example: 75.5 shall be rounded to 76.)
All values in the metric system will be rounded to the nearest hundredth.
(Example: 0.826 shall be rounded to 0.83.)
Article 4.06.05 - Basis of Payment is amended as follows:
Add the following at the end of the first sentence:
...except as noted herein. An adjustment in payment shall apply to the quantity of

HMA for the surface course, excluding ramps, furnished and placed in
accordance with Section 4.06.
Positive adjustments for rideability shall not be made for those areas reviewed
and determined by the Engineer to be defective as stipulated in Subarticles
1.05.11 and 1.06.04.
GENERAL
52
Appendix F: Example Specifications from Ohio DOT
53
54
55
56
Appendix G: Example Specification from Minnesota DOT
C Pavement Smoothness Specification – IRI (International Roughness Index)
C1 General
Pavement smoothness will be evaluated on the final mainline pavement surface using an Inertial
Profiler (IP) and the International Roughness Index (IRI). Unless otherwise authorized by the Engineer,
all smoothness testing shall be performed in the presence of the Engineer. The Engineer and the
Contractor shall mutually agree upon scheduling of smoothness testing so that testing can be observed.
Any testing performed without the Engineer’s presence, unless otherwise authorized, may be ordered
retested at the Contractor’s expense.The following Table 2360.7-A (IRI) shows pavement surfaces that
are excluded from smoothness testing but subject to 2360.7B surface requirements.
Table 2360.7 – A (IRI) Testing Exclusions

50 feet either side of obstructions such as manholes, water supply castings, etc.*
Ramps, Loops, Climbing lanes
Side Streets, Side Connections
Turn Lanes, Storage Lanes, Crossovers, Bypass Lanes
Shoulders
Intersections constructed under traffic – Begin and end the exclusion 30.5m [100 feet] from the intersection radius
Sections less than 15.24m [50 ft] in length
Acceleration, Deceleration Lanes
Projects less than 300m [1000 feet] in length
Mainline paving where the normally posted regulatory speed is less than or equal to 70 km/hr [45 miles per hour]
Begin the exclusion at the sign
Single lift overlays over concrete
*Mainline shall be included in profiling if obstructions are located in auxiliary or parking lanes
C1A Smoothness Requirements
Pavement smoothness requirements will be evaluated by the International Roughness Index (IRI)
Equation A, Equation B, or Equation C. The pavement smoothness Equation will be identified in the
Special Provisions of the proposal. Location of bumps and/or dips and magnitude will be based on
California Test Method 526.
C2 Measurement
Smoothness will be measured with an IP, which produces both an IRI value and a profilogram
(profile trace of the surface tested). The IP shall conform to the Class 1 requirements of ASTM E950-94
and must be certified according to the most recent procedure on file in the Bituminous Office. For
pavement evaluation, one pass will be made in each lane, 2.74 m [9 feet] from centerline. The IP shall
be run in the direction the traffic will be moving. Each lane will be tested and evaluated separately. The
Engineer will determine the length in kilometers [miles] for each mainline traffic lane. The IP shall be
operated at the optimum speed as defined by the manufacturer.
C3 Smoothness testing
The Contractor shall furnish a properly calibrated, documented, and MnDOT certified IP. The IP
shall be equipped with automatic data reduction capabilities. Computer programs used to calculate the
IRI statistic from a longitudinal roadway profile shall follow the procedure developed by the World Bank
for a quarter-car simulation as described in NCHRP report 228. Mn/DOT certification documentation
shall be provided to the Engineer on the first day the IP is used on the project. IP settings are on file in
the Bituminous Office. The Contractor shall furnish a competent operator, trained in the operation of the
IP and evaluation of both California Test Method 526 and the International Roughness Index.
57
The Contractor shall remove all objects and foreign material on the pavement surface prior to
surface evaluation by power brooming. The pavement surface will be divided into sections which
represent continuous placement. A section will terminate 15.24m [50 ft] before a bridge approach
panel, bridge surface, manhole or similar interruption. In the final pavement evaluation, a day's work
joint will be included in the trace with no special consideration. A section will be separated into
segments of 0.1 km [0.1 mi]. A segment will be in one traffic lane only.
An IRI value shall be computed for each segment of 15.24m [50 ft] or more. The IRI value will
include the 15.24 m [50 ft] at the ends of the section only when the Contractor is responsible for the
adjoining surface.
End of run areas not included in the IRI value and any sections of pavement less than 15.24m [50
ft] in length shall be checked longitudinally with a 3.028 m [10 ft] straight edge and the surface shall not
deviate from a straight line by more than 6 mm in 3.028 m [1/4 inch in 10 ft]. Transverse joints shall be
evaluated by centering the straightedge longitudinally across the transverse joint.
The Contractor shall submit the graphical trace, a summary of the bump(s)/dip(s) locations, the
magnitude of the bump(s)/dip(s) and each segment IRI value on the same day as the profiling was
conducted. The Contractor shall submit a final spreadsheet summary of the smoothness data to the
Engineer within five calendar days after all mainline pavement placement. The summary shall be
signed by the Contractor. The spreadsheet summary shall be in tabular form, with each 0.1 km [0.1
mile] segment occupying a row. Each row shall include the beginning and ending station for the
segment, the length of the segment, the final IRI value for the segment, the IRI based
incentive/disincentive in dollars for the segment, and the deductions for bump(s)/dip(s) in
dollars for the segment. Each continuous run will occupy a separate table and each table will have a
header that includes the following: the project number, the roadway number or designation, a lane
designation, the mix type of the final lift, the PG binder of the final lift, the date of the final smoothness
runs, and the beginning and ending station of the continuous run. The following information shall be
included at the bottom of each summary: a subtotal for the IRI based incentive/disincentive, a subtotal
for the bump deductions, and a total for incentive/disincentive for both IRI values and bumps. Software
to summarize the data is available from the Mn/DOT Bituminous Office at
www.mrr.dot.state.mn.us/pavement/bituminous/bituminous.asp.
The Contractor will be responsible for all traffic control associated with the smoothness testing
and any corrective action (when applicable) that is required of the final pavement surface.
C3A Retesting
The Engineer may require any portion or the total project to be retested if the results are
questioned. This includes both IRI values and bump/dip locations. The Engineer will decide whether
Mn/DOT, an independent testing firm (ITF), or the Contractor will retest the roadway surface.
If the retested IRI values differ by more than 10% from the original IRI values, the retested values
will be used as the basis for acceptance and any incentive/disincentive payments. In addition, bump/dip
locations as shown by the retest will replace the original results.
If the Engineer directs the Contractor or an independent testing firm to perform retesting and the
original results are found to be accurate, the Department will pay the Contractor or the independent
testing firm $62.14 per lane km [$100 per lane mile] that is retested, with a minimum charge of $500.00.
The Contractor will be responsible for any costs associated with retesting if the original values differ by
more than 10% from the retested values.
C4 IRI Values
The IP shall be equipped with automatic data reduction capabilities for determining the IRI values.
An IRI value shall be calculated for each segment of the final pavement surface. The IRI values shall be
determined by following NCHRP report 228. The IRI values shall be reported in units of m per km
[inches per mile].
Both m per km and inches per mile shall be reported with two digits right of the decimal. Follow
Mn/DOT rounding procedures per the Bituminous Manual section 5-693.730.
When there is a segment equal to or less than 76.2 m [250 ft] in length at the end of a lane of
58
paving, the IRI value for that segment shall be mathematically weighted and added to and included in
the evaluation of the adjacent segment. Segments greater than 76.2 m [250 ft] in length will be
evaluated individually.
C4a Bumps and Dips – IRI Equation A and IRI Equation B
Bump/dip location will be determined in accordance with California Method 526. Bumps and
dips equal to or exceeding 10.2 mm in a 7.62 m [0.4 inch in a 25 ft] span shall be identified separately.
When the profile trace shows a successive, uninterrupted bump, dip; or dip, bump combination (up to a
maximum of 3 alternating trace deviations that relate to one bump or dip on the roadway), identify and
evaluate these occurrences as one event.
The Contractor shall correct, by diamond grinding, all areas represented by bumps or dips of 10.2
mm [0.4 inch] or more as measured by California Test Method 526. However, the Engineer may allow
bumps or dips of 10.2 mm to 15.2 mm [0.4 inches to 0.6 inches] in a 7.62 m [25 foot] span to be left
uncorrected, and in such case, the contractor will be assessed a price deduct as specified in section C6
(“Payment”) of this special provision.
Corrected dips or bumps will be considered satisfactory when the profilogram shows the deviations are
less than 10.2 mm in a 7.62 m [0.4 inch in a 25 foot] span.
C4b Bumps and Dips – IRI Equation C
Bump/dip location will be determined in accordance with California Method 526. Bumps and
dips equal to or exceeding 12.7 mm in a 7.62 m [0.5 inch in a 25 ft] span shall be identified separately.
When the profile trace shows a successive, uninterrupted bump, dip; or dip, bump combination (up to a
maximum of 3 alternating trace deviations that relate to one bump or dip on the roadway), identify and
evaluate these occurrences as one event.
The Contractor shall correct, by diamond grinding, all areas represented by bumps or dips of 12.7
mm [0.5 inch] or more as measured by California Test Method 526. However, the Engineer may allow
bumps or dips of 12.7 mm to 17.8 mm [0.5 inches to 0.7 inches] in a 7.62 m [25 foot] span to be left
uncorrected, and in such case, the contractor will be assessed a price deduct as specified in section C6
(“Payment”) of this special provision.
Corrected dips or bumps will be considered satisfactory when the profilogram shows the deviations are
less than 12.7 mm in a 7.62 m [0.5 inch in a 25 foot] span.
C5 Surface Correction
Unless otherwise approved by the Engineer, corrective work shall be by diamond grinding. Other
methods may include; overlaying the area, or replacing the area by milling and inlaying. The Engineer
shall approve of the Contractor’s method of correcting segment(s) prior to the Contractor starting
corrective work. Any corrective actions by milling and inlay or overlay shall meet the specifications for
ride quality over the entire length of the correction, including the first and last 15 m [50 feet]. Bumps or
dips in excess of 10.2 mm [0.4 inches] where evaluation is by Equation A or B or bumps or dips in
excess of 12.7 mm [0.5 inch] where evaluation is by Equation C that are located at transverse joints at
areas of corrective actions utilizing overlay or milling and inlay, shall be removed by diamond grinding.
The Contractor shall notify the Engineer prior to commencement of the corrective action. If the surface
is corrected by overlay, inlay or replacement, the surface correction shall begin and end with a
transverse saw cut. Surface corrections shall be made prior to placing permanent pavement markings.
In the event that permanent pavement marking are damaged or destroyed during surface correction
activities, they will be replaced at no cost to the Agency.
When pavement smoothness evaluation by Equation A is specified the Engineer may require that
the Contractor, at no expense to the Department, correct segments with an IRI greater than 1.03 m per
km [65 inches/mile] or the Engineer may assess a $560 per 0.1 km [$900 per 0.1 mile] penalty in lieu
of requiring corrective work.
When pavement smoothness evaluation by Equation B is specified the Engineer may require that
59
When pavement smoothness evaluation by Equation C is specified the Engineer may require that
Bump, dip, and smoothness correction work shall be for the entire traffic lane width. Pavement
cross slope shall be maintained through corrective areas.
All corrective work shall be subject to the approval of the Engineer. After all required corrective
work is completed a final segment(s) IRI value and bump/dip tabulation shall be determined and
submitted to the Engineer. Corrective work and re-evaluation shall be at the Contractor’s expense.
Segments requiring grinding will be re-profiled within two working days of completion of
grinding. Individual bumps/dips and segments requiring grinding shall be completed with 15 working
days of notification.
C6 Payment
The cost of traffic control for certified smoothness testing and/or any corrective work is incidental
to the cost of the Wear course mixture.
The Contractor may receive an incentive payment or be assessed a penalty based on the number of
segments and the IRI value. The total ride incentive shall not exceed 10% of the total mix price for
pavement smoothness evaluated under IRI Equation A, 5% of the total mix price for pavement
smoothness evaluated under Equation B, or 5% of the total mix price for pavement smoothness
evaluated under Equation C. Total mix shall be defined as all mixture placed on the project. Pay
adjustments for incentives will only be based on the segment IRI value before any corrective work has
been performed. Any segment that contains corrective action for IRI value or bumps is not eligible for
incentive pay.
The Contractor will not receive a net incentive payment for ride if more than 25% of all density
lots for the project fail to meet minimum density requirements.
For pavement smoothness evaluated under Equation A uncorrected bumps or dips greater than or
equal to 10.2 mm [0.4 inches] in a 7.62 m [25 foot] span will be assessed a price deduction of $900
per event.
For pavement smoothness evaluated under Equation B uncorrected bumps or dips greater than or
equal to 10.2 mm [0.4 inches] in a 7.62 m [25 foot] span will be assessed a price deduction of $675
per event.
For pavement smoothness evaluated under Equation C uncorrected deviations (bumps or dips)
greater than or equal to 12.7 mm [0.5 inches] in a 7.62 m [25 foot] span will be assessed a price
deduction of $450 per event.
Combinations of bumps and dips which arise from the same single bump or dip are considered to
be one event, and shall be counted only once for the purposes of calculating price deductions.
Typically, bump-dipbump
combinations, or dip-bump-dip combinations, that are confined to a 30 feet longitudinal segment are
considered to be one event.
Bumps or dips resulting from a construction joint will be assessed a $900 penalty, regardless of
the IRI Equation used for evaluation or pavement smoothness.
Incentive/disincentive payments will be based on the IRI determined for each segment and will be
based on the following equations and criteria.
C6a IRI Equation A*
IRI m/km [inches/mile] Incentive/Disincentive $/0.1km [$/0.1mile]

< 0.47 m/km [< 30 inches/mile] $249 [$400]
0.47 m/km to 1.03 m/km [30 inches/mile to 65 inches/mile] $523 – (IRI x 584) [$850 – (IRI x 15)]
1.03 m/km [> 65 inches/mile] -$560 [-$900]
* Typically, 3-lift minimum construction
60
C6b IRI Equation B*

< 0.52 m/km [< 33 inches/mile] $168 [$270]
0.52 m/km to 1.18 m/km [33 inches/mile to 75 inches/mile] $373 – (IRI x 395) [$600 – (IRI x 10)]
1.18 m/km [> 75 inches/mile] -$420 [-$675]
* Typically, 2-lift construction
C6c IRI Equation C*

< 0.57 m/km [< 36 inches/mile] $112 [$180]
0.57 m/km to 1.34 m/km [36 inches/mile to 85 inches/mile] $258 – (IRI x 257) [$414 – (IRI x 6.5)]
1.34 m/km [> 85 inches/mile] -$280 [-$450]
* Typically, single lift construction
The current bituminous specification, 2360 Combined 2360/2350 (Gyratory/Marshall Design),
requires pavement smoothness be measured by IRI (International Roughness Index). However,
the specification does not contain guidance for selecting the appropriate "IRI equation” for
pavement smoothness evaluation. Therefore, the following guideline should be used to determine
which equation is appropriate. Also included in this memo are guidelines for selecting Percent
Ride Improvement on 1-lift overlays. The designer should use their judgement or consult the
Bituminous Office for other construction types not covered in this memo.
For the following construction types, use IRI Equation A:
• New construction with a minimum of 3 lifts
• Overlay with a minimum of 3 lifts, lift thicknesses of at least 40 mm (1.5")
• Construction with a minimum of 3 lifts, with curb and gutter and at least 8 feet separating the
traffic lane from the curb and gutter (shoulder at least 8' wide)
For the following construction types, use IRI Equation B:
• New construction with 2 lifts
• Construction with curb and gutter adjacent to at least one driving lane, and three lifts
• Two- lift overlays, 40mm (1.5") minimum lift thickness
• Winter carry-over - wearing course on two lifts
• Reclaim with 2 lifts
• Cold inplace recycled with 2 lifts
• Two lifts over concrete
For single lift overlay construction on bituminous the Designer can choose either IRI Equation C
or Percent Ride Improvement. See Note 1 below for single lift overlay on concrete.
The Percent Ride Improvement provision compares the IRI of the roadway before any
construction activities have taken place to the IRI of the roadway after construction activities are
finished. Incentive/disincentive is determined by the percent ride improvement. Percent ride
improvement is intended to be used in situations where the existing roadway is in poor condition.
Data from pilot projects show that the rougher the road segment to begin with the greater the
relative improvement possible. For instance, a road segment with a starting IRI of 150 in/mile is
more likely to be reduced to an IRI of 75 in/mile than a road segment starting at 75 in/mile is to be
reduced to an IRI of 37.5 in/mile. Contact the Special Provisions Unit to insert the Percent Ride
Improvement in a Contract.
For the following construction types, use Percent Ride Improvement (1):
• Single lift bituminous over bituminous (BOB) overlays on a roadway surface with an overall PSR < 2.8 (IRI
greater than 120 in/mi)*.
For the following construction types, use IRI Equation C (1):
• Single lift bituminous over bituminous (BOB) overlays on a roadway surface with an overall PSR > 2.8
(IRI 120 in/mi or less)*.
* This information is available in the District’s Pavement Management Condition Rating Reports
61
Note 1: The 2360 specification (Table 2360.7 – A) excludes IRI testing of single lift overlays on
concrete. However, there may be unique situations on single lift BOC construction where a smoothness
evaluation requirement is appropriate. The designer should consult the Bituminous Office for guidance
in those considerations.
Because IRI is a new index for pavement smoothness measurement in the bituminous specification the
following “typical” IRI values and the equivalent PSR are given so that you have a perspective of
various pavement smoothness numbers:
IRI PSR
New pavement (3-lifts) – 37 in/mile 4.1
New pavement (2-lifts) – 47 in/mile 3.9
New pavement (1-lift) – 60 in/mile 3.6
Aged pavement (10 yrs) – 110 in/mile 2.9
Aged pavement (20 yrs) – 150 in/mile 2.5
Table 2360.7 – A, lists pavement surfaces that are excluded from smoothness testing but subject to
2360.7B (Surface Requirements). There may be other instances where you feel the ride specification is
not appropriate on a Project. In those instances make note in the Special Provisions that ride will be
verified by 2360.7B.
62
Appendix H: Collecting Smoothness Data for Pay Factors Flowchart
Note: The option to measure 10% of the length of each project is the least logical for
the DOT as a crew is required to travel to each site. This option is not very different
from DOT measuring smoothness. Still, this option was presented because it is likely
that different contractors will measure profiles on most of the sites. To prevent one
tampering incident from any one of the contractors, it may be necessary to do all of
these initially, until all security initiatives are adopted. An independent review of the
practices and results of the DOT are recommended at the end of the first year.
63

Dot 17419 DS1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dot 17419 DS1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dot 17419 DS1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Organizational Results Research Report June 2006

Assessing IRI vs. PI

Assessing IRI vs. PI as a Measurement of

Prepared for the

Missouri Department of Transportation

Charles J. Nemmers, P.E., University of Missouri-Columbia

Nicolas Gagarin, PhD. P.E., Starodub, Inc. Kensington, MD

James R. Mekemson, PhD. P.E., Starodub, Inc. Kensington, MD

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report

PI and IRI (in/mi) Pay Factors

Pay Factors for roads with speed limit of >45mph

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................3

Brief Description of Profilograph / Performance Index ......................................................5

Brief Description of International Roughness Index (IRI) .................................................6

IRI and Smoothness Specification .......................................................................................7

Pavement Smoothness Index Relationships.........................................................................8

IRI Issues .............................................................................................................................8

Robustness of Pavement Smoothness Measurements .......................................................10

Security of PI and IRI data.................................................................................................10

Appendix A: Database of State DOT Concrete Pavement Practices.................................14

Appendix C: IRI vs. PI and PI to PI (Asphalt to Concrete) Relationships ........................33

Appendix D: Pavement Smoothness Pay Factor ...............................................................41

Appendix E: Example Specifications from Connecticut DOT ..........................................50

Appendix F: Example Specifications from Ohio DOT......................................................53

Appendix G: Example Specification from Minnesota DOT..............................................57

Appendix H: Collecting Smoothness Data for Pay Factors Flowchart..............................63

Brief Description of Profilograph / Performance Index

A California profilograph is a rolling straight edge. It measures vertical deviations from a

Brief Description of International Roughness Index (IRI)

IRI and Smoothness Specifications

Pavement Smoothness Index Relationships

2005 ACPA Profiler Repeatability Tests, UMTRI-2005-35

therefore need to be accurate, repeatable, and reproducible. Highway agencies require

Robustness of Pavement Smoothness Measurements

Security of PI and IRI data (freedom from manipulation)

Current PI 0mm/ PI 0in. Pay Factors

[6] Karamihas. S. M., “2005 ACPA Profiler Repeatability Tests”, UMTRI-2005-35

[8] Karamihas, S. M., “Critical Profiler Accuracy Requirements”, UMTRI-2005-24

Appendix A: Database of State DOT Concrete Pavement Practices

Smoothness Specification - Measurement Requirements

both wheel by hand or

both wheel by hand or

both wheel by hand or

GA outer wheelpath 0.25 mile by hand contractor

ID right wheel path 0.1 mile by hand, computer contractor

IN outer wheel path 0.1 mile by hand contractor

both wheel computer, digital

both wheel depends on

MD outer wheel path 0.1 mile computer contractor

both wheel by hand or

both wheel by hand or contractor,

NE outer wheel path 0.1 mile computer contractor

NJ center of lane State

both wheel by hand or

both wheel by hand or

both wheel computer, digital

PR outer wheel path 0.1 mile computer State

RI random random State