1、Designation: E 1927 98 (Reapproved 2003)Standard Guide forConducting Subjective Pavement Ride Quality Ratings1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 1927; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of l
2、ast revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope1.1 This guide covers a procedure for obtaining subjectivenumerical ride ratings for a group of representative highwaypave
3、ment sections having a broad spectrum of physical char-acteristics.1.2 The intent of this guide is to describe a procedure forgenerating a set of comparatively scaled ride ratings, subjec-tively derived, for a subgroup of pavement sections having aride quality distribution approximating the general
4、populationof highways of interest. This set will provide statisticalestimates of the average subjective ride ratings which would beobtained for the same group of pavement sections if the entirepopulation of users could be interrogated.1.3 For the data to be a reasonable representation of theaverage
5、ride quality judgments of the total highway usercommunity for the total population of highway pavements,certain sampling theory precepts must be observed; The size ofthe rating panel, the selection of its members from the usercommunity, the method of quantifying the individual judg-ments, as well as
6、 the selection of the sample pavement sectionsare all important areas to be considered.1.4 An important use of the resulting ride quality data wouldbe to determine the ability of various hypothesized determin-istic functions of physical parameters of the pavement samples,such as measured longitudina
7、l profile, and so forth, to providean estimate of subjective ride quality judgments.1.5 This guide is based on guidelines described in AppendixF of NCHRP Report 275,2and in Appendix E of NCHRPReport 308.31.6 The values stated in both inch-pound and SI units are tobe regarded separately as the standa
8、rd. The units given inparentheses are for information only.1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is theresponsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-bi
9、lity of regulatory limitations prior to use.2. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:4E 177 Practice for Use of the Terms Precision and Bias inASTM Test MethodsE 178 Practice for Dealing with Outlying ObservationsE 867 Terminology Related to Vehicle-Pavement SystemsE 950 Test Method for Measuring t
10、he Longitudinal Profileof Traveled Surfaces with an Accelerometer EstablishedInertial Profiling Reference3. Terminology3.1 Definitions:3.1.1 mean panel rating (MPR), nthe average value, foreach section of highway pavement, of ride quality ratingsassigned by a ride quality rating panel3.1.2 ride qual
11、ity rating, na numerical value subjectivelyassigned to a section of highway pavement by an individualquantifying his judgment of the level of ride quality for thatsection based on a psychophysical scale.3.1.3 ride quality rating panel, na group of highwayusers, statistically representative of the to
12、tal expected highwayuser population, in rating the ride qualities of pavements.3.1.4 rideability, na subjective judgment of the compara-tive discomfort induced by traveling over a specific section ofhighway pavement in a vehicle.4. Summary of Guide4.1 This guide is intended to provide a statisticall
13、y valid andpractical method of obtaining a set of scaled ride qualityratings, based on subjective judgments by a sample group ofraters selected from the total population of expected users, fora subset of test sections selected to represent the generalinventory of pavements in an area of interest. In
14、dividual ratingsare obtained in a prescribed manner and averaged to give amean panel rating (MRP) for each test section.1This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E17 on Vehicle-Pavement Systems and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E17.33 onMethodology for Analyzing Pavement
15、 Roughness.Current edition approved Dec. 1, 2003. Published January 2004. Originallyapproved in 1998. Last previous edition approved in 1998 as E 1927 98.2Janoff, M.S., Nick, J.B., Davit, B.S., and Hayhoe, G.F., “Pavement Roughnessand Rideability,” NCHRP Report 275, September 1985.3Janoff, M.S., “Pa
16、vement Roughness and Rideability Field Evaluation,” NCHRPReport 308, July 1988.4For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page o
17、nthe ASTM website.1Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.5. Significance and Use5.1 A primary responsibility of highway agencies is theconstruction and maintenance of highway pavements in acondition (including ride quality)
18、perceived to be satisfactoryby the user community. The ability to quickly, easily, andeconomically acquire an objective standard numeric (rideabil-ity index) that will estimate the current level of satisfaction forlengths of pavement is desirable for determining when anacceptable level of ride quali
19、ty does not exist and correctivemeasures are required.5.1.1 This guide describes a procedure to produce subjec-tively derived, numerical ride quality ratings for each sampleof a broad spectrum of highway pavement sections based on astandard numerical scale (0 to 5, described herein). Theserating est
20、imates may be considered to be closely correlated tothe collective qualitative judgments of the total related high-way user population.5.1.2 The MPR data set thus obtained can be useful intesting various hypothesized deterministic functions of certainphysical parameters of sections of pavement, such
21、 as themeasured longitudinal profile, as estimators of the ride qualityrating the user population might assign to any particularmember of the total relevant inventory of highway pavementsections.5.1.3 Objective, quantitative, easily measurable rideabilityindex data shown to be highly correlated with
22、 MPRs are avaluable resource for monitoring the performance of highwaypavement construction, maintenance, and repair operations.6. Apparatus6.1 A Ride Quality Rating Panel, made up of a subset ofindividual members of a highway user population.6.2 A Selected Array of Pavement Sections, (test sections
23、) tobe rated.6.3 A Fleet of Vehicles, with qualified drivers to transportpanel members over the test sections.6.4 A Central Meeting Facility, for administrative opera-tions such as instruction to drivers and panel members,compilation of ratings, and so forth.6.5 Miscellaneous Materials, such as rout
24、e maps and infor-mation sheets, driver instruction forms, rater instruction forms,rating forms, summary forms, and so forth.7. Procedure7.1 The procedure presented here was developed as part ofNCHRP Project 123 FY 82 and is described in detail inReport 275 (Appendix A, pp. 3740, and Appendix F)2andf
25、urther developed in NCHRP Project 123 (2), discussed inNCHRP Report 308 (Ref. 2, Chapter One, pp. 36, AppendixesA and B, pp. 2428).3Excerpts from these references areincluded in Appendix X1 and Appendix X2 for convenience.7.2 Preliminary Requirements:7.2.1 Pavement Test SectionsSelect an appropriate
26、 num-ber of pavement sections in the region of interest. Each sectionshould have homogeneous physical characteristics throughoutits length. The set of test sections should be well distributed byroughness level and surface type, and should be straight andfree of anomalies. Sections should be of equal
27、 length, longenough to provide panel members adequate exposure andshould be located so that a driving route can be developed thatwill allow approximately equal travel time between sectionsthat is long enough for raters to record their values. After thetest sections have been selected, the beginning
28、and end of eachsection must be marked as well as the “runup” to the section.7.2.2 Transport Vehicles and DriversProvide a sufficientnumber of vehicles to permit the rating panel members to betransported over the test route in one or two days. They shouldbe of the same type and condition. Drivers sho
29、uld remainconstant throughout the test.7.2.3 Ride Quality Rating PanelChoose a panel sizebased on the acceptable error (see Table 1). The panel shouldbe composed of licensed drivers selected from a wide range ofqualifications, that is, sex, age, experience, and so forth. Inorder to keep the panel st
30、udy error at an acceptable level, theinvestigators in the NCHRP 1232study chose a panel size ofthirty six members.7.2.4 Test RouteDevelop a test route that will traverse allof the test sections at approximately equal intervals, andincludes adequate rest stops, meal stops, and so forth.7.2.5 Test Sch
31、edulePrepare a schedule of dates and timesthe tests will be conducted.7.2.6 MaterialsPrepare an adequate supply of driver in-struction forms and route maps, panel member instructionforms, panel member rating forms.7.3 Conduct of Rating Operation:7.3.1 Driver MeetingAt the meeting facility, as sched-
32、uled, instruct drivers concerning the experiment, that is,constant speed (usually 80 kph (50 mph), handling of com-pleted rating forms, and so forth. Assign panel members toseating positions at this time; these should remain constantthroughout the test.7.3.2 Panel Member MeetingPrior to the test run
33、, instructthe raters regarding the rating scales, completing the ratingforms, and handling the completed form. The Weaver/AASHO0 to 5 rating scale and rating form to be used in this practice isshown in Appendix X1 (Fig. X1.1). Secrecy is requiredbetween panel members.7.3.3 Perform Test RunTransport
34、all panel members overthe entire test section route (two days might be required), withthe drivers collecting the completed rating forms after travers-ing each test section.7.4 Process Data:7.4.1 Mean Panel Rating (MPR)The mean of the panelratings and standard deviation of the data about the mean rat
35、ingTABLE 1 Panel Size as a Function of ErrorError Non-Normal Normal(MPR Units) distribution distribution0.1 319 1380.2 80 350.3 36 150.4 20 90.5 13 60.6 9 40.7 7 30.8 5 0.9 4 1.0 3 E 1927 98 (2003)2may now be calculated for each test section. Where the ridequality rating panel members were in close
36、agreement on thepavement rideability, the standard deviation about the meanpanel rating will be small and should approximate the error inMPR units shown in Table 1. A test site where the computedstandard deviation exceeds the error listed in Table 1 shall beremoved from the ride quality study.7.4.2
37、Need for repairThe percent of rating panel memberswho judged that a section is in need of repair can also becalculated for each test section. The table of these valuesrepresent the product of this experiment.8. Report8.1 The report for studies conducted using this guide shallcontain the following in
38、formation:8.1.1 Ride Quality RatingsEach ride quality rating for allpanel members shall be tabulated and recorded for each sectionincluded in the study.8.1.2 Mean Panel RatingsFor each test section, the meanpanel rating and corresponding standard deviation shall becomputed and recorded to two decima
39、l places.8.1.3 Study Identification InformationGeneral informa-tion to identify the conditions under which the study wasconducted shall be recorded. As a minimum the date(s) and thetype(s) of vehicles used for the study shall be recorded.9. Statement on Precision9.1 The standard deviation of the sub
40、jective ride qualityratings about the mean panel rating for each test site should notexceed the error listed in Table 1 (0.3 MPR units for a thirty-sixmember panel10. Physical Parameters10.1 The measurement of physical parameters of the pave-ment sections to be used for correlation with the mean pan
41、elratings shall be made in the same time frame as the collectionof panel rating data.11. Keywords11.1 need for repair; pavement ride quality; ride number;ride quality rating panel; rideability; subjective ride qualityAPPENDIXES(Nonmandatory Information)X1. GUIDELINES FOR PAVEMENT RIDEABILITY STUDIES
42、X1.1 The guidelines presented here are excerpted andparaphrased from NCHRP 123 (Appendix E).2X1.2 This appendix provides a sample set of detailedguidelines for highway agency personnel to conduct panelrating studies of rideability or ride quality. The guide describesthe six key issues that must be a
43、ddressed: selection of testsections and route formation, panel selection, rating proce-dures, panel study, date reduction, and physical measurements.X1.3 Selection of Test Sections and Route FormationThissection of the users guide describes the steps required to:identify potential test sections; sel
44、ect test sections; develop theroute; create an inventory of the test sections and theircharacteristics; mark the test sections; and inform maintenancedepartments about the necessary deferment of repair work onthe test sections:X1.3.1 Identification of Potential Test SectionsIdentification of potenti
45、al test sections is begun by reviewinghistorical roughness data, including road logs or inventories,pavement roughness or serviceability index data, and localknowledge. Some states have road logs or pavement invento-ries (by particular district, division, or county) which describethe physical and ge
46、ographical characteristics of pavementsections. For example, the road log books of the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Transportation (PADOT) include the followinginformative data: legislative route, station number, mainte-nance functional code (MFC), functional class code, federal-aid status, traffic rou
47、te, urban or rural location, length of testsection, average daily traffic, surface width, year built, yearresurfaced, and description of pavement.X1.3.1.1 Some of these data can be useful background foridentifying pavement and other characteristics of routes. Theroad log can provide the historical r
48、ecord of when routes wereconstructed and repaired and also can provide a logical startingplace for the field survey team. For example, determiningwhere to look for extremely “rough” road surface sectionscould be logically deduced from routes that were constructedlong ago or have a history of frequen
49、t repair (such as a routethat is in a poor drainage area where the road surface oftencracks). Determining where to look for an extremely “smooth”road could be logically deduced from identifying the newlyconstructed highways or the roads that have been freshlyoverlaid with new asphalt. In addition, traffic patterns identifiedin the road logs can give the survey team an idea of what levelof pavement roughness can be expected on certain routes.X1.3.1.2 A second source of information is the availablepavement roughness data from the Highway Pavement Man-ag
