Evaluation of Pavement Roughness Using an

Android-Based Smartphone
Waleed Aleadelat, S.M.ASCE 1; Khaled Ksaibati, Ph.D., P.E. 2;
Cameron H. G. Wright, Ph.D., P.E. 3; and Promothes Saha, Ph.D., P.E. 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Modern smartphones are equipped with many useful sensors, such as gyroscopes, magnetometers, global positioning system
(GPS) receivers, and three-dimensional (3D) accelerometers. In this study, smartphones’ 3D accelerometers were used for collecting a
vehicle’s vertical acceleration data. Through the use of various signal processing and pattern recognition techniques, such as cross corre-
lations, Welch periodograms, and variance analyses, the measured signals (time series acceleration data) were identified and correlated with
the actual international roughness index (IRI) values. It was found that the variance among the vertical acceleration measurements was the key
feature for classifying the measured signals. A validation analysis was also conducted to measure the reliability of this methodology. The
initial validation results suggested that, using this methodology, the smartphone used could predict with reasonable certainty the actual IRI
values. The study was performed on 35 roadway segments extracted from the Wyoming local roads pavement management system (PMS).
Also, the selected segments have various lengths and geometric features reflecting the actual roadway segments under any PMS. The major
advantage of this technique includes the low-cost solution of measuring local roadway roughness. DOI: 10.1061/JPEODX.0000058. © 2018
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: International roughness index (IRI); Smartphone applications; Local roads; Pattern recognition; Accelerometers.

Introduction $31 per kilometer. However, many state department of transporta-

tions (DOTs) rely on IRI for their roadways’ maintenance and
According to the US federal law Fixing America’s Surface Trans- rehabilitation planning (Islam et al. 2014).
portation (FAST) Act, (FHWA 2016), each state is required to In the United States, two-thirds of the roadways’ centerline
develop a pavement management system (PMS). PMS is an assess- miles are classified as locals, and they carry only 20% of the overall
ment tool for decision makers to optimize the allocation of available traffic in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (DOT and FHWA 2011).
resources and prioritize the different maintenance and reconstruction Hence, many states exclude these local roads from their PMS
projects. Currently, all states have their own PMS. The international due to the high costs compared with the traffic volume. However,
roughness index (IRI) is considered a critical pavement condition in Wyoming, the recent industrial/mineral activities on local roads
parameter along with other pavement distresses (Ksaibati et al. created the need to maintain these roads in acceptable conditions
1999). Other pavement distresses include, but are not limited to, (Aleadelat et al. 2016). Thus, the development of PMS for local road
pavement condition index (PCI), rut depth, and pavement service- is currently in progress (Saha and Ksaibati 2015). In Wyoming,
ability index (PSI). The IRI of a roadway segment represents its there are a total of 3,935 centerline kilometers of county paved
longitudinal variation of profile, which is a contributor to expected roads. Developing a PMS requires building a comprehensive main-
ride quality. A high level of profile variation (i.e., roughness) can tenance database that includes the different roadway condition in-
also increase vehicle operating cost by 4–5% (Islam and Buttlar dices (i.e., IRI, PCI, and Rut) for each roadway segment. Currently,
2012). The cost of measuring IRI varies in the range of $1.40– the state of Wyoming is considering many low-cost approaches for
$6.20 per kilometer (McGhee 2004). In Wyoming, the cost of developing PMS for local roads. One approach considers collecting
collecting roughness and video logs of pavement sections is around data every two or three years. Another approach is to collect the data
for only part of the local roads’ network and predicting the remain-
1
Dept. of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Univ. of Wyoming, 1000 ing part based on the network performance. However, the validity of
E University Ave., Laramie, WY 82070. Email: [email protected] these approaches is still under investigation (Hafez et al. 2015).
2
Professor of Civil Engineering, Director of the Wyoming Technology The use of modern smartphones appears to be an appealing ap-
Transfer Center, Dept. of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Univ. of proach for reducing the cost of measuring local roads roughness.
Wyoming, 1000 E University Ave., Laramie, WY 82070. Email: Khaled@ These smartphones are equipped with many useful sensors such as
uwyo.edu gyroscopes, global positioning system (GPS), and three-dimensional
3
Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Dept. of Electrical (3D), or three-axis, accelerometers. In this study, the ability of a
and Computer Engineering, Univ. of Wyoming, 1000 E University Ave., smartphone’s 3D accelerometer in identifying and estimating local
Laramie, WY 82070. Email: [email protected]
4 roads’ IRI was investigated.
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Dept. of Civil and Architectural
Engineering, Univ. of Wyoming, 1000 E University Ave., Laramie,
WY 82070 (corresponding author). Email: [email protected]
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 27, 2017; approved on Background
January 17, 2018; published online on June 20, 2018. Discussion period
open until November 20, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for Pavement roughness is the most important factor when it comes
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Transportation to the quality of ride (Carey and Irick 1960). In 1978, Haas and
Engineering, Part B: Pavements, © ASCE, ISSN 2573-5438. Hudson defined pavement roughness as “distortion of ride quality.”

© ASCE 04018033-1 J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements

J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements, 2018, 144(3): 04018033

 However, pavement roughness includes everything from potholes accelerometers. These sensors are usually used to identify the
to the random deviations in a road surface (Gillespie and Sayers orientation of the smartphone screen and other functional activities
1981). Therefore, it is a result of the interaction between a road (Douangphachanh and Oneyama 2013). A 3D accelerometer is a
surface and the traveling vehicle. ASTM E867-06 (ASTM 2012) sensor that measures the changes in velocity among the x-, y-,
defines pavement roughness as “the deviation of a surface from and z-axes in the units of acceleration (m=s2 ). Several studies were
a true planar surface with characteristic dimensions that affect performed to use 3D accelerometers in identifying roadway con-
vehicle dynamics and ride quality.” ditions (Strazdins et al. 2011; Douangphachanh and Oneyama
Pavement roughness affects the level of serviceability that a 2013; Jiménez and Matout 2014; Hanson et al. 2014; Islam et al.
roadway can provide (Hudson 1981). Thus, pavement roughness 2014). In 2011, Strazdins et al. (2011) performed a study using
is a major contributor to lost-load accidents. In addition, steering three Android smartphones to detect potholes and bumps that exist
control capabilities and friction between the vehicle tire and the road on roadway surfaces. Regardless of the low accuracy of the GPS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

surface are greatly decreased by increased pavement roughness receivers and 3D accelerometers, they found, using simple algo-
(Burns 1981). Moreover, higher levels of road roughness contribute rithms, that the detection of potholes and bumps was possible using
to decreased roadway capacities and reduced free flow speed (FFS) smartphones.
(Chandra 2004). In Vientiane, the capital of Laos, Douangphachanh and Oneyama
As a result, measuring pavement roughness has become a major conducted a study to estimate the IRI through smartphone acceler-
concern for researchers and highway engineers. A sliding straight- ometer measurements (Douangphachanh and Oneyama 2013). They
edge (Viagraph) was one of the first fundamental instruments to used two Android smartphones (Samsung Galaxy Note II and III)
measure roughness (Gillespie 1992). Due to the difficulty in mov- mounted on the dashboard of the test vehicle. Two vehicles, a
ing this device, the rolling straightedge device was developed. The Toyota VIGO 4WD pickup truck and a Toyota Camry were used
rolling straightedge method continued to develop with improve- in this experiment. The IRI was measured using Vehicle Intelligent
ments in the rolling concept. An array of wheels was added to form Monitoring System (VIMS) for every 100 m (328.08 ft). A Fast
a reference plane to measure the deviations in the road surface. This Fourier Transform (FFT) was performed on the accelerometer data
type of device represents the early stages of what is now known as a to obtain a frequency domain view of each signal. A linear relation-
profilograph.
ship was established between the sum of magnitudes from FFT and
In the 1920s, a vehicle’s vibrations caused by road surface irregu-
the measured IRI. The resulting relationship was statistically signifi-
larities became a major concern of highway engineers in identifying
cant when the speed was less than 60 km=h (37.3 mi/h), with a
road roughness. This led to the development of response-type road
partial dependence on the vehicle and smartphone types. One year
roughness meters (RTRRMs). These devices measure vertical dis-
later, Jiménez and Matout (2014) used a tablet’s built in accelerom-
placements in the rear axle of a vehicle. One of the major drawbacks
eters to assess the pavement roughness. It was found that the stan-
of RTRRMs is that they are highly affected by the performance
dard deviation of vertical accelerations normalized by the driving
(particularly the suspension) of the vehicle that is used in the meas-
uring process. These devices were not able to provide time-stable speed can give a good indication of the road roughness condition.
measurements. Hence, they were not comparable and not practical However, this study did not develop a direct correlation to estimate
to be used for pavement management purposes (Gillespie 1992). the IRI; the returned response of the accelerometer was able to iden-
In 1982, the World Bank sponsored a research experiment in tify the different levels of roughness.
order to establish a standard roughness measurement. This research In the same year, Islam et al. (2014) conducted a study at the
effort resulted in the development of the IRI (Al-Omari and Darter University of Illinois to determine the IRI using a smartphones’
1994). The IRI is determined by measuring the actual road profile integrated accelerometers. Three test sites (each 3.22 km long) with
and then processing it through a mathematical algorithm. This various roughness conditions were selected. By using a double in-
algorithm, known as the Quarter Car Simulation, simulates the tegration method on the vertical acceleration data obtained by the
response of a reference vehicle traveling at 80 km/h (50 mi/h) smartphones, a perceived road profile was formed. The perceived
to road roughness (Gillespie 1992). The accumulated suspension road profile was converted to IRI using ProVAL software. It was
deflections of the reference vehicle can be divided by the traveling found that the calculated IRI values were consistent with the
distance to provide an index in the units of slope (Shafizadeh and
Mannering 2002). Accordingly, IRI is considered a geometric
property of the road. Hence, it is a time-stable index, which gen-
Table 1. IRI thresholds and descriptions in Wyoming
erates the same values when applied to the same road (Sayers and
Karamihas 1995). IRI (m=km) Description
The most modern roughness measurement devices are the Less than 1.10 Excellent
noncontact profile measuring systems (Islam et al. 2014). These 1.10–1.56 Good
devices measure deviations in longitudinal pavement profile using 1.60–2.05 Fair
acoustic or light probes. Then, these measured profiles are processed 2.07–2.68 Poor
through Profile Viewing and Analysis (ProVal) software to calculate Greater than 2.68 Very poor
the IRI. One of the most popular devices of this type is the South
Dakota Profiler. This profiler uses two laser sensors to measure the
road profile at both wheel paths. The measured IRI is the average
IRI of both wheel paths. Table 2. Summary of statistics for the test segments
Number
Measuring Pavement Roughness Using of test Standard
Smartphone Applications segments Parameter Mean Median deviation Maximum Minimum

Modern smartphones are equipped with many useful sensors, 20 IRI (m=km) 2.38 1.86 1.46 6.16 0.93
Length (km) 1.77 1.63 1.77 4.76 0.23
such as gyroscopes, magnetometers, GPS receivers, and 3D

© ASCE 04018033-2 J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements

J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements, 2018, 144(3): 04018033

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Test vehicle and smartphone orientation.

measured IRI values using a standard inertial profiler. However, The preceding studies have documented the smartphones’ ability
calibration was required for rougher pavement sections to over- to collect IRI data. However, these studies were limited to measuring
come the effect of suspension damping. This methodology was first IRI at very short test segments with limited changes in horizontal
adapted by Hanson and Cameron in 2012 (Hanson et al. 2014) at and vertical alignments. Moreover, high pass filters or low pass
the University of New Brunswick, Canada. However, Hanson and filters were used to filter the accelerometer data. These filters use
Cameron used DATS Toolbox software to convert the acceleration certain cutoff frequencies that greatly affect the final calculated
data to displacement. The DATS Toolbox software divides the FFT IRI values if not used consistently throughout all the measurements.
of the acceleration data by the negative angular frequency of the Also, the incorrect selection of cutoff frequencies may eliminate part
signal’s components squared to get the displacement. This process of the actual frequencies resulting from pavement roughness. Never-
helps in avoiding the accumulation of errors that result from using theless, smartphones appear to be a promising tool in minimizing
numerical integration (i.e., cumtrapz integration). data collection costs, especially at the local level.

Fig. 2. Crosscorrelation between signal (IRI ¼ 1.78 m=km) and IRI categories (using Samsung Galaxy SIII).

© ASCE 04018033-3 J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements

J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements, 2018, 144(3): 04018033

 Methodology Data Analysis

This research was based on the idea that roads with similar Accelerometer data was uploaded to a desktop computer in Micro-
conditions may provide similar signal patterns (time series accel- soft Excel format (*.CSV). Every roadway segment had its own
eration data) using smartphone accelerometers. In other words, Excel file that represented the variations in speed among the
smartphone accelerometers were used to capture the vertical vibra- x-, y-, and z-dimensions. Since the smartphones were fixed hori-
tions while driving the testing vehicles. Then, different analysis zontally (i.e., in x and y), the variations along the z-axis were the
techniques were performed to find the key features among the ac- focus of this study. Therefore, the time series vertical acceleration
quired acceleration signals. Hence, the signals, as produced by the data formed a signal that represented the vibrations of the test
accelerometer, can be considered a reflection of the actual road pro- vehicle, reflecting actual road roughness.
file. The following subsections describe this process: Both median and simple moving average filters were applied to
reduce the amount of noise in the accelerometer signals (Mitra
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2006). The median filter is a nonlinear digital filter that replaces

Experiment Design the neighboring entries of a signal with the median of these entries.
Two smartphones, a Samsung Galaxy S III and a Sony Xperia A, The pattern of the neighboring entries is identified by a window that
were selected to collect the vertical acceleration data. The smart- slides over the entire signal. Using this filter helped to eliminate the
phones were glued close to each other on the testing vehicle’s variations that might be a result of unusual surface anomalies
dashboard. A 2011 Ford Fusion sedan was selected as the testing (i.e., potholes and manholes) that can be considered to be statistical
vehicle for this study. Twenty roadway segments were randomly outliers. The moving average filter is a digital filter that replaces the
selected from the Wyoming local county roads PMS database neighboring entries of a signal with the average of these entries.
for Laramie and Albany Counties. Table 1 shows the different IRI This results in reducing the short-term fluctuations and highlighting
thresholds, according to the Wyoming Department of Transporta- the longer term trends in the signal. For this study, the acceleration
tion (WYDOT), that were considered in this study. The selected data were filtered first by applying a median filter with a window
segments cover various geometric features with different lengths size of 5. Then, the accelerometer data were filtered again using the
reflecting the actual roadway segments under any PMS. The moving average filter with a window size of 10. This signal con-
referenced roughness measurements were collected using a South ditioning was accomplished offline as a postprocessing procedure.
Dakota profiler as part of the county roads PMS annual data Different pattern recognition techniques were used to find simi-
collection procedure. Table 2 shows a summary of the statistics larities or key features between the measured signals at each rough-
for the selected test segments. ness category. Specifically, crosscorrelation, Welch periodogram

Fig. 3. Welch transformation (using Samsung Galaxy SIII).

© ASCE 04018033-4 J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements

J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements, 2018, 144(3): 04018033

 estimates of the power spectral density (PSD), and variances among for the segment; X = value for one of the vertical acceleration
the accelerometer data were performed to recognize the different readings; and X̄ = arithmetic mean of the n readings.
signals’ patterns. The crosscorrelation is a statistical measure of This is a well-known method of calculating the unbiased
similarity between two different signals. It can be considered to variance of data.
be a sliding dot product of two data series as a function of the lag
between the same two series. The crosscorrelation is similar to the
mathematical convolution between two functions, except convolu- Data Collection
tion requires one of the two data series to be flipped (i.e., reversed)
in time. Autocorrelation is the same procedure as crosscorrelation, An Android application called AndroSensor was installed on the
except that the two signals are the same signal. In signal analysis, smartphones that were used in this study. AndroSensor is an appli-
crosscorrelation yields an amplitude function in the units of lag. cation that is used to record data from most of the smartphone
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The Welch periodogram is a method used to estimate the power sensors. This application is available for free download in the
in a signal at different frequencies. This is called PSD of a signal. Google Play Store. The application was used to record the smart-
An estimate of the PSD was performed on every measured signal. phone accelerometer data.
Then, these estimates were used to identify any unique fluctuations Regarding roadway test segments, GPS coordinates of the be-
or features of the power among the different frequencies. These ginning and ending points were provided as part of the Wyoming
fluctuation points can be used as a way to identify the different local county roads PMS. These coordinates were uploaded into
measured signals. Microsoft Streets and Trips software, which helped in identifying
Finally, variance analysis was conducted to assess the trends of the exact locations of these segments while driving. For every
the measured vertical accelerations using the smartphones acceler- roadway test segment, the smartphone accelerometer data were
ometers. The calculated variance was compared with the referenced collected at two velocities; 64 km=h (40 mi/h) and 80 km=h
IRI value for each segment. The variance among the accelerometer (50 mi/h). The sampling frequency at both velocities was 200 Hz
readings for every segment was calculated as the second central
(i.e., 200 samples=s).
moment according to the following equation:
As mentioned earlier, the referenced IRI data were collected
Pn
ðX − X̄Þ2 as part of the PMS using a South Dakota profiler. This device
var ¼ i¼1 i ð1Þ is a laser-type profiler manufactured according to ASTM E950/
n−1
E950N-09 (ASTM 2018) specifications and meeting Class 1 re-
where n = total number of vertical acceleration readings for the quirements (Pathway Services 2016). The longitudinal pavement
segment; i = one of the measured vertical acceleration readings profile for both wheel paths was measured and analyzed using

Fig. 4. Welch transformation (using Sony Xperia).

© ASCE 04018033-5 J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements

J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements, 2018, 144(3): 04018033

 7.00 7.00
IRI = 8.94*Var64 + 0.54
6.00 6.00 R² = 0.84

IRI (m/Km)

IRI (m/Km)
5.00 5.00
4.00 4.00
3.00 3.00
2.00 2.00
IRI = 6.42*Var80 + 0.62
1.00 R² = 0.85 1.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
(a) Var80 (m/s 2 ) (b) Var64 (m/s 2 )
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3.00 3.00
IRI = 7.39*Var80 + 0.30 IRI = 12.42*Var64 + 0.03
2.50 R² = 0.75 2.50 R² = 0.74
IRI (m/Km)

IRI (m/Km)
2.00 2.00
1.50 1.50
1.00 1.00
0.50 0.50
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
(c) Var80 (m/s 2 ) (d) Var64 (m/s 2 )

Fig. 5. IRI versus variance (using Samsung Galaxy SIII).

Table 3. IRI thresholds using variances Data Analysis

2 2
IRI (m=km) var64 (m=s ) var80 (m=s )
Accelerometer data was extracted from the smartphones, uploaded
Less than 1.10 Less than 0.06 Less than 0.07 to a computer, and imported into MATLAB software for further
1.10–1.56 0.06–0.11 0.07–0.15
analysis. After applying median and moving average filters on
1.60–2.05 0.12–0.17 0.15–0.22
2.07–2.68 0.17–0.24 0.23–0.32 Samsung Galaxy SIII data, crosscorrelation was applied between
Greater than 2.68 Greater than 0.24 Greater than 0.32 the different signals among the various IRI categories. For example,
Fig. 2 shows the crosscorrelation between a signal, measured over a
roadway segment with IRI ¼ 1.78 m=km at 64 km=h (40 mi/h),
the Quarter Car Simulation to generate the actual IRI value. The and other signals measured within the different IRI categories at
average IRI of the right and left wheel paths was considered the the same speed. The crosscorrelation yielded a high amplitude
final IRI. Fig. 1 shows the test vehicle and smartphone arrange- among a wide range of lags over the five IRI categories. This in-
ment that were used in this study. dicates a high similarity in shape between the different measured

7.00 7.00
6.00 6.00
IRI (m/Km)

5.00 5.00
IRI (m/km)

4.00 4.00
3.00 3.00
2.00 2.00
IRI = 0.79*Var80 + 1.31 IRI = 1.16*Var40 + 0.80
1.00 1.00 R² = 0.49
R² = 0.26
0.00 0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
(a) Var80 (m/s 2 ) (b) Var64 (m/s 2 )
3.00 3.00
2.50 2.50
IRI (m/Km)

IRI (m/Km)

2.00 2.00
1.50 1.50
1.00 1.00
0.50 IRI = 0.34*Var80 + 1.31 0.50 IRI = 0.56*Var64 + 1.13
R² = 0.22 R² = 0.20
0.00 0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
(c) Var80 (m/s 2 ) (d) Var64 (m/s 2 )

Fig. 6. IRI versus variance (using Sony Xperia).

© ASCE 04018033-6 J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements

J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements, 2018, 144(3): 04018033

 Table 4. Summary of statistics for the validation segments Using regression analysis, the following two models were
Number developed to predict IRI through smartphone accelerometer
of test Standard measurements:
segments Parameter Mean Median deviation Maximum Minimum
IRI ð80 km=hÞ ¼ 6.42 × var80 þ 0.62 ðR2 ¼ 0.85Þ ð2Þ
15 IRI (m=km) 2.53 1.96 1.31 5.24 0.90
Length (km) 2.11 1.61 2.04 8.96 0.48
IRI ð64 km=hÞ ¼ 8.94 × var64 þ 0.54 ðR2 ¼ 0.84Þ ð3Þ

where var80 and var64 = variance of the accelerometer readings

in m=s2 (ft=s2 ), according to Eq. (1), at 80 km=h (50 mi/h) and
signals. Thus, there are no unique features using crosscorrelation
64 km=h (40 mi/h), respectively; and IRI = predicted international
that could identify these signals. The same basic result can be seen roughness index (IRI) in m=km (in:=mi).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

after applying the crosscorrelation between all 20 measured signals The driving speed seems to affect the way in which the vehicle
for both speeds. Applying the crosscorrelation analysis on the Sony responds to the road profile (i.e., variance values). In particular, at
Xperia data yielded the same results. Roughness does not affect the 80 km=h (50 mi/h), the variances were higher than those measured
shape of the produced signals considerably. Thus, the crosscorre- at 64 km=h (40 mi/h) for all roadway segments. However, these
lation method did not provide a feature that allowed the desired differences do not detract from the usefulness of the variance to
discrimination between, and classification of, the different IRI predict the IRI values.
categories. Consequently, solving Eqs. (2) and (3) for the actual IRI thresh-
Fig. 3 shows the Welch periodogram estimates of the PSD for olds shown in Table 1 yields variance thresholds that can be used to
different signals measured using the Samsung Galaxy SIII at directly identify the measured signals as shown in Table 3. Accord-
80 km=h (50 mi/h). This estimate was calculated using the pwelch ingly, these values can be used directly to classify the roadway
command of the MATLAB Signal Processing Toolbox, using the segments into the different IRI categories.
default parameters for segments, smoothing window, and overlap. Compared with the signals obtained with the Samsung Galaxy
The figure shows that these signals have almost the same PSD trend SIII, the measured signals using the Sony Xperia showed an insig-
among the different frequencies. None of these plots show a unique nificant correlation between the referenced IRI and the variance.
feature that could allow the signals to be used to discriminate The variance values were randomly distributed among the different
IRI values. In addition, these variance values were considerably
between the different IRI categories.
higher than the ones obtained using the Samsung Galaxy SIII. This
The Welch periodogram estimates of the PSD for the same
could most likely be attributed to a lower accuracy of the Sony
signals measured using the Sony Xperia are shown in Fig. 4. Again,
Xperia’s accelerometer compared with the Samsung Galaxy SIII.
these signals appear to have a very similar PSD trend without any
Hence, data from the Sony Xperia in this study could not classify
unique features. Different roughness levels do not seem to have a
the roadway segments into the different IRI categories. Fig. 6
specific effect on the PSD of these signals. However, the measured
shows a plot for the variance values versus IRI using the Sony
signals using both smartphones showed a depression in the signal
Xperia at 64 km=h (40 mi/h) and 80 km=h (50 mi/h). The same
energy at 20 Hz. This could be attributed to the effect of the vehicle insignificant behavior still holds even after using segments with
suspension system. Further investigations are required to clarify IRI less than 3.16 m=km (200 in:=mi) as shown in Figs. 6(c and d).
this trend.
While the previous analyses did not identify useful differences
in signal patterns, using variance analysis showed promising re- Validation of the Models
sults. Figs. 5(a and b) show a significant linear relationship between In order to validate the reliability of the variance models [Eqs. (2)
the referenced IRI and the variance of the vertical accelerometer and (3)] in predicting IRI and classifying roadway segments, 15
measurements using the Samsung Galaxy SIII. The variance results new segments were selected to perform the experiment again using
can predict with high significance (R2 ¼ 0.85) the referenced IRI the Samsung Galaxy SIII. Five of these segments have an IRI
values. Also, the results indicate that, as the road roughness in- greater than 2.68 m=km (170 in:=mi). These rough segments were
creases, the variance among the vertical accelerometer measurements selected to verify the reliability of these models in predicting the
will increase, which is a rational reflection of the actual conditions of IRI of rough segments. Table 4 shows a summary of the statistics
the road profile. The same behavior can be observed when using for the validation test segments.
segments with IRI less than 3.16 m=km (200 in:=mi) as shown Fig. 7 shows the referenced versus the predicted IRI using
in Figs. 5(c and d). Eqs. (2) and (3). It can be noted that the variance among the

7.00 7.00
Predicted IRI (m/Km)

Predicted IRI (m/Km)

6.00 6.00
5.00 5.00
4.00 4.00
3.00 3.00
2.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
(a) Referenced IRI (m/Km) (b) Referenced IRI (m/Km)

Fig. 7. Referenced versus predicted IRI: (a) at 80 km=h; and (b) 64 km=h.

© ASCE 04018033-7 J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements

J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements, 2018, 144(3): 04018033

 Table 5. t-test results classify the measured signals within the different IRI categories.
80 km=h (50 mi/h) 64 km=h (40 mi/h) However, a few segments were classified outside the designated
IRI category.
Referenced Predicted Referenced Predicted
5. At this stage and using the same combinations of test vehicle and
Test parameter IRI IRI IRI IRI
smartphone arrangement, Eqs. (2) and (3) can be used to reason-
Mean (m=km) 2.53 2.39 2.53 2.28 ably predict the actual IRI values. The t-test results showed that
Variance (m=km) 1.84 1.53 1.84 0.92 the difference between the measured and the predicted IRI was
Observations 15 15 15 15 not statistically significant.
Pearson correlation 0.91 0.93
6. The calculated variance values are speed dependent. How-
Hypothesized mean 0 0
difference ever, the speed does not affect the usefulness of variance in
DF 14 14 predicting IRI. In addition, the variance values were higher at
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

t Stat 0.96 1.62 80 km=h (50 mi/h).

PðT <¼ tÞ one-tail 0.18 0.06 The observed results showed the ability of smartphones in
t critical one-tail 1.76 1.76 returning acceptable IRI results compared to a standard profiler.
PðT <¼ tÞ two-tail 0.35 0.13 These results are compatible with the previous conducted studies
t critical two-tail 2.14 2.14 in this field. However, the simplicity of data analysis used in this
study is very important when it comes to the automation of data
collection process. Hence, smartphone applications can be devel-
oped easily to return the predicted IRI directly. Nevertheless,
accelerometer data is a promising indicator of the actual roughness
further investigations are required to address different variables that
level. At 80 km=h (50 mi/h), the predicted IRI of three segments
may affect the IRI measurement using smartphones. For example,
fall outside the 0.47 m=km (30 in:=mi) offset band (dashed lines),
the test could be performed using different types of smartphones,
while four segments fall outside the same band at 64 km=h
different vehicles, and different lower speeds.
(40 mi/h). This offset band was set at 0.47 m=km (30 in:=mi) be-
cause this is the roughness range where a segment moves from a
certain IRI category to another (Table 1). In addition, for both Acknowledgments
speeds, the majority of the rough segments (IRI > 2.68 m=km) fall
within the offset band. This is because a rougher segment will cre- This study was supported by the Wyoming Technology Transfer
ate more variance within the accelerometer measurements. Hence, Center (WYT 2 =LTAP). The authors wish to thank the graduate
using the variance as an explanatory variable to predict IRI can be students Mohammed Okok and Ola Raddaoui for their assistance
very helpful in improving the ability of smartphones in identifying in collecting the data.
rough segments. These segments are highlighted in red (outliers).
Nevertheless, the t-test results, presented in Table 5, showed that
there is no significant difference between the predicted and the References
measured IRI values at both speeds.
Aleadelat, W., P. Saha, and K. Ksaibati. 2016. “Development of service-
ability prediction model for county paved roads.” Int. J. Pavement
Eng. 19 (6): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2016.1176167.
Conclusions Al-Omari, B., and M. I. Darter. 1994. “Relationships between international
roughness index and present serviceability rating.” Transp. Res. Rec.
This study demonstrated the capability of smartphone accelerom-
1435: 132–136.
eters for measuring pavement roughness as part of an actual local ASTM. 2012. Standard terminology relating to vehicle-pavement systems.
county roads PMS. Moreover, this study was based on different ASTM E867-06. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
roadway segments with various geometric features that cover dif- ASTM. 2018. Standard test method for measuring the longitudinal profile
ferent lengths reflecting the actual roadway segments under any of traveled surfaces with an accelerometer-established inertial
PMS. Using MATLAB, simple signal processing and pattern rec- profiling. ASTM E950/E950N-09. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ognition techniques were applied in order to identify useful features Burns, J. C. 1981. “Roughness and roadway safety.” Transp. Res. Rec.
of the different signals measured using smartphones. The features 836: 8–14.
of the signals were compared with referenced IRI values that Carey, W. N., Jr., and P. E. Irick. 1960. “The pavement serviceability
were measured using a standard profiler (South Dakota profiler). performance concept.” Highway Res. Board Bull. 250: 40–58.
Chandra, S. 2004. “Effect of road roughness on capacity of two-lane roads.”
Two models were developed with high correlation to directly pre-
J. Transp. Eng. 130 (3): 360–364. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
dict the IRI through smartphone measurements. The difference be- -947X(2004)130:3(360).
tween the predicted and the measured IRI was not statistically DOT and FHWA. 2011. “Highway statistics 2009.” Table HM-220: Public
significant. The main conclusions drawn from this study are as Road and Street Length, 1980-2009, Miles by Functional Classification.
follows: Accessed May 22, 2016. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation
1. The measured signals (time series acceleration data) using smart- /statistics/2009/hm220.cfm.
phones accelerometers are highly similar in shape. The actual Douangphachanh, V., and H. Oneyama. 2013. “A study on the use of smart-
IRI values do not affect the shape of the measured signals phones for road roughness condition estimation.” J. Eastern Asia Soc.
meaningfully. Transp. Stud. 114: 1551–1564. https://doi.org/10.11175/easts.10.1551.
2. Smartphones-measured signals have approximately the same FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2016. “FAST act.” Accessed
May 22, 2016. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/.
energy at different frequencies (i.e., PSD) within the different
Gillespie, T. D. 1992. “Everything you always wanted to know about the
IRI levels. IRI, but were afraid to ask!” In Proc., Road Profile Users Group
3. The type of the smartphone used seems to be an important factor Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan Transportation Research
in measuring the roughness of roadway profiles. Institute.
4. Using the Samsung Galaxy SIII, the variance among the Gillespie, T. D., and M. Sayers. 1981. “Role of road roughness in vehicle
vertical accelerometer measurements can, with high certainty, ride.” Transp. Res. Rec. 836: 15–20.

© ASCE 04018033-8 J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements

J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements, 2018, 144(3): 04018033

 Haas, R. C. G., and W. R. Hudson. 1978. Pavement management systems. McGhee, K. H. 2004. NCHRP synthesis 334: Automated pavement distress
New York: McGraw-HiII. collection techniques. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board
Hafez, M., K. Ksaibati, and R. Anderson-Sprecher. 2015. “Utilizing of the National Academies.
statistical techniques in estimating uncollected pavement-condition Mitra, S. K. 2006. Digital signal processing: A computer-based approach.
data.” J. Transp. Eng. 142 (12): 04016065. https://doi.org/10.1061 New York: McGraw-Hill.
/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000898. Pathway Services. 2016. “Inertial road profiler.” Accessed May 20, 2016.
Hanson, T., C. Cameron, and E. Hildebrand. 2014. “Evaluation of low-cost http://www.pathwayservices.com/inertial_road_profiler.shtml.
consumer-level mobile phone technology for measuring international Saha, P., and K. Ksaibati. 2015. “A risk-based optimisation method-
roughness index (IRI) values.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 41 (9): 819–827. ology for pavement management system of county roads.” Int.
https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2014-0183.
J. Pavement Eng. 17 (10): 913–923. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436
Hudson, W. R. 1981. “Road roughness: Its elements and measurements.”
.2015.1065992.
Transp. Res. Rec. 836: 1–7.
Sayers, M. W., and S. M. Karamihas. 1995. The little book of
Islam, S., and W. Buttlar. 2012. “Effect of pavement roughness on user
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 07/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

costs.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2285: 47–55. https://doi.org/10.3141/2285-06. profiling. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan Transportation Research
Islam, S., W. G. Buttlar, R. Aldunate, and W. R. Vavrik. 2014. “Measure- Institute.
ment of pavement roughness using android-based smartphone applica- Shafizadeh, K., and F. Mannering. 2002. A statistical analysis of factors
tion.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2457: 30–38. https://doi.org/10.3141/2457-04. associated with driver perceived road roughness on urban highways.
Jiménez, L. A., and N. Matout. 2014. “A low cost solution to assess road’s Rep. No. WA-RD 538.1. Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of
roughness surface condition for pavement management.” In Proc., 93rd Transportation.
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, Strazdins, G., A. Mednis, G. Kanonirs, R. Zviedris, and L. Selavo. 2011.
DC: Transportation Research Board. “Towards vehicular sensor networks with android smartphones for road
Ksaibati, K., R. McNamara, W. Miley, and J. Armaghani. 1999. “Pavement surface monitoring.” In Proc., Second Int. Workshop on Networks of
roughness data collection and utilization.” Transp. Res. Rec. 1655: Cooperating Objects (CONET’11): Electronic Proc., CPSWeek’11,
86–92. https://doi.org/10.3141/1655-12. 1–4. Chicago.

© ASCE 04018033-9 J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements

J. Transp. Eng., Part B: Pavements, 2018, 144(3): 04018033