Evaluation of Technologies for Road Profile Capture,

Analysis, and Evaluation

Abby Chin1 and Michael J. Olsen, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE2

Abstract: Many transportation agencies in the United States are transitioning to using the International Roughness Index (IRI) in pavement
smoothness evaluation as part of an incentive/disincentive program for contractors paving roads. This study evaluates the use of digital levels,
inertial profilers, inclinometer-based profilers, and terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) in pavement profile capture and analyses. Traditionally, anal-
yses evaluated elevation differences between profiles. However, evolving standards and procedures perform incremental slope-based analyses
to calculate IRI and correlate between profiles, which correspond better to vehicle response. The results of this study show consistent elevation
profiles between all of the devices, when operated properly. However, digital levels cannot be used efficiently to capture the road profile at high
sampling (,10 cm) intervals for long profiles. Thus, TLS shows additional advantages compared with the other techniques, including the ability
to collect a large, dense set of data relatively quickly for the entire roadway and surrounding areas; hence, the data can serve multiple purposes,
including validation of other design parameters such as transverse and longitudinal slope. However, TLS requires substantially more processing
and training. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SU.1943-5428.0000134. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Light detection and ranging (LIDAR); Laser scanning; Road profile; Roughness; International Roughness Index (IRI);
Inertial profiler.

Introduction
Pavement smoothness is often the primary focus of the public per-
ception of road quality; hence, it is an important consideration in
roadway construction acceptance. The Transtec Group (2008) dis-
cussed several benefits of smooth roads, including less maintenance,
lower operation costs, less dynamic loading compared with a rough
surface, improved structural integrity, increased durability, and im-
proved safety for drivers.
As such, many state DOTs now offer incentive/disincentive pro-
grams for completion of smooth pavement surfaces. The requirements
for these incentive/disincentive payouts are based on measured
smoothness/roughness indices (Transtec Group 2008) such as the
International Roughness Index (IRI), which is the most commonly
used index for evaluating road surface smoothness because of its
reproducibility. Ultimately, the end-goal of a smoothness index is to
model a typical vehicle response to variations in the road surface
(i.e., roughness).
The IRI is calculated in units of inches/miles or meters/
kilometers as the average rectified slope referenced to a standard
quarter-car model traveling at 80 km=h (Dyer and Dyer 2008). The
IRI model can be implemented to evaluate the roughness of both new
and existing pavement sections along a profile. For postconstruction,
quality control profiles are evaluated based on profiles acquired for
the left wheel path (LWP) and right wheel path (RWP) of a vehicle
1 smoothness evaluation indices, the IRI, and the development of
Civil Engineer, AECOM, 250 Apollo Dr., Chelmsford, MA, 01824
(corresponding author). E-mail: abby.chin@aecom.com
2
Assistant Professor, School of Civil and Construction Engineering,
Oregon State Univ., 220 Owen Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331. E-mail: michael
.olsen@oregonstate.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 21, 2013; approved on
February 12, 2014; published online on May 2, 2014. Discussion period
open until October 2, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Surveying Engi-
neering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9453/04014011(13)/$25.00.
traveling in one direction on the highway. The typical values of the
IRI range from 1:5 to 3 m=km for new pavements and from 2.5 to
5.75 for older pavements (Sayers and Karamihas 1998).
The IRI can be determined using measurements from a variety of
devices, which ultimately measure the differences in elevation along
the profile. The algorithm to compute the IRI contains a moving
average filter, a quarter-car filter, and the length of the section
(Sayers and Karamihas 1998). The following are important con-
siderations when calculating the IRI:
• The profile data must first be filtered to eliminate outliers (Sayers
and Karamihas 1998), which can create artificial roughness.
• The moving average filter applies a low-pass filter of 250 mm to
smooth the profile by using the average values of adjacent points
to emulate the enveloping effect of a tire on a pavement surface.
• The IRI algorithm is based on the quarter-car model, which
includes one-quarter of the car and the mass supported by one
tire; this is sometimes referred to as the Golden Car.
• The IRI considers the length of the section measured, which is
why the IRI is in units of slope (Sayers and Karamihas 1998).
• The localized roughness is determined separately because rough
sections will be averaged out if a long length is used in reporting
the IRI. Localized roughness is defined as any 7.62-m segment
that contains IRI values disproportionately affecting the overall
IRI (AASHTO 2010a).
• The IRI is sensitive to wavelengths from 1.2 to 30 m (Karamihas
2005).
For interested readers, additional information regarding pavement
a quarter-car model can be found in Sayers and Karamihas (1998).
Cross-Correlation
While the IRI is used to evaluate pavement smoothness at the project
validation level, cross-correlation is used to determine the accuracy
and repeatability of profiling instruments. Cross-correlation pro-
vides more insight into the agreement between profiles than does the

© ASCE 04014011-1 J. Surv. Eng.

IRI (Karamihas 2005) because it provides an objective comparison
between two profiles, which must both have the same shape and
level of roughness (Karamihas 2004). This means that although
two profiles may have similar IRI results when measurement errors
cancel each other out, the cross-correlation may not be high. The
roughness must occur in the same locations to achieve a high cross-
correlation. The cross-correlation is calculated as the integral of the
product of the two profiles, P^ and Q,^ (Karamihas 2004)


min sP , sQ PN
CC ¼
 1 P ^ iþd=Dx
^iQ (1)
max sP , sQ sP sQ i51
where sP and sQ 5 SDs of the two profiles; N 5 number of samples;
Dx 5 sample interval; d 5 horizontal offset value; P ^ and Q ^
5 vertically offset profiles from each device; and CC 5 calculated
cross-correlation, which ranges from 21 to 1 (with 1 being an exact
agreement).
The profiles are adjusted vertically such that the mean elevation
difference is zero and the equation is normalized by the SDs of the
two profiles. The horizontal offset corrects for inconsistencies in the
starting point of the profile. Finally, a scaling factor is applied, which
uses the minimum and maximum SDs of the profiles (Karamihas
2004).
It is important to note the difference between correlation and cross-
correlation analyses. Commonly, a correlation analysis compares the
elevation values of the two profiles and statistically determines how
well they agree; however, a cross-correlation analysis will compare
the incremental slope values and the location at which the roughness
occurs. The comparison of elevation values is influenced or masked
by longer wavelength content. In other words, the rating will appear
better when evaluating elevation, despite failing in shorter wave-
lengths, which may be penalized by the IRI measurement. Hence,
AASHTO R56 (AASHTO 2010b) requires IRI filtering to remove
this mask effect. The shortcomings of elevation comparisons are
documented in Karamihas (2005), Sayers (1986), and Robson
(1979).
Profiling Instrumentation
Various instruments are available to measure road surface profiles
that show the elevation changes of a road along the horizontal dis-
tance; these are summarized in Table 1. Some instruments are spe-
cifically designed to be used immediately after construction, before
the road has been opened to traffic, while others can be implemented
at any time, including when the road is open to traffic. All of these
instruments should be calibrated and operated according to the
proper manufacturer procedures. The testing speed of the rod and
level (RL) shown in Table 1 is the speed for the measurement of one
wheel path and includes the setup time. With an additional field
crew, both paths could be acquired simultaneously. The testing
speed for terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) also includes the setup and
Table 1. Comparison of Instrumentation Used to Evaluate Pavement Smoothness
Instrument Testing speed (km=h) Road closure needed
RL 0.01 Yes
Inclinometer 4 Yes
Inertial profiler 80 No
TLS 0.04–0.5a No
a
The 0:5 km=h speed assumes control has already been set during the project, and that an efficient scan workflow minimizing target setup time is implemented.
The 0:04 km=h value is based on the time required for the scans conducted for this research.
© ASCE 04014011-2
mobilization time. Prior to use in projects, many state DOTs require
certification of the profiler, where the profiler is compared with
a reference profile.
Rod and Level
A RL (digital) survey provides a highly accurate (submillimeter)
profile of the roadway, often termed the true profile because it can be
used for calibration in other systems. Standards for this type of
survey in road profiling are found in ASTM E1364-95 (ASTM
2005). The elevation readings must be obtained at a maximum
distance of 0.3 m between readings along the length of the test
section (Sayers and Karamihas 1998). The manual measurements
required are time consuming, require road closures, and generate
safety concerns (Karamihas 2005).
Inclinometer-Based Profilers
An inclinometer-based profiler (IBP), also called a walking profiler,
is a hand-operated instrument mounted on a rigid beam up to 0.3 m
in length used to measure the road profile (Hays 2006). The profile is
created by measuring the beam inclination, which progresses along
the length of the pavement section in steps that are the length of the
beam (Hays 2006). Both the distance and the elevation are recorded
at each step to create the profile. The sampling distance of the in-
clinometer unit used in this study can range from 0.64 to 30.5 cm
(SurPRO 2011). An IBP is faster than a RL survey because it can be
operated at walking speeds up to 4 km=h (SurPRO 2011); however,
it is still slower than other techniques, requires road closure, and has
safety concerns.
Inertial Profiler
An inertial profiler is able to run at highway speeds while collecting
a profile on each wheel path. The inertial profiler system consists of
a vehicle equipped with several components (Sayers and Karamihas
1998):
• A laser transducer to determine the vertical distance between the
ground and the accelerometer;
• A distance measuring instrument in the vehicle to provide the
longitudinal distance;
• A data acquisition and storage system; and
• An accelerometer to provide the reference elevation (Lee and
Chou 2010) [the accelerometer determines the amount of vertical
acceleration occurring in the vehicle while driving over the
pavement, which is used to filter the data during analysis (Dyer
and Dyer 2008)].
Inertial profilers can be lightweight or high speed. Lightweight
profilers are typically used to evaluate new pavements (Transtec
Group 2008) and must operate at a low speed, which means the road
cannot be open to traffic. A high-speed profiler is able to operate at
a higher speed; therefore, it can be used on a road that is open to
traffic. Because of the high traveling speeds it is difficult for the
Individual measurement
elevation accuracy (1–s) Wheel paths measured
,1 mm One
62 mm=50 m One
— Both
65 mm=50 m Multiple (entire road)
J. Surv. Eng.
driver to keep the profiler directly on the wheel paths; as a result, the
profiles may deviate from the paths.
The equipment must be capable of the following (AASHTO
2010c):
• Maintaining a maximum speed of 113 km=h for high speed and
40 km=h for lightweight speed;
• Measuring the IRI within the range of 0:08e4:7 m=km for a 161 m
interval; and
• Sampling at intervals of 5.1 cm or less.
Yi and Rong-Gui (2009) described the development of a similar
system to an inertial profiler; however, the measurements were made
using five laser range finders in a bisymmetric structure without the
need for inertial measurement. In testing, the system determined the
IRI values within 3% of the RL measurements.
TLS
Terrestrial laser scanning, which uses light detection and ranging
(LIDAR), is another form of technology that can be used to de-
termine the road profile from the side of the road. However, it is
currently rarely used in evaluating pavement smoothness. Unlike the
previous profiling technologies, TLS can measure and map the to-
pographic features across the entire road surface from which mul-
tiple profiles can be extracted. Because TLS is a line-of-sight
technique, multiple setup positions are usually required to fill in
occlusions. Furthermore, georeferencing of the scan data can be
accomplished through reflective targets set up over control points or
through a global positioning system (GPS) mounted on top of the
scanner (e.g., Olsen et al. 2009). The TLS technique enables data use
for a variety of other purposes, including as-built documentation. A
camera is also mounted or integrated into the system to obtain
calibrated images with red/green/blue (RGB) color, corresponding
to each scan position. The potential benefits of TLS include the
following:
• A dense data set (millimeter-level to centimeter-level resolution);
• Multiple profiles are collected simultaneously across the road
surface;
• A variety of uses for the data set beyond pavement evaluations
because it obtains more than just the roadway (e.g., the data can
be an as-built record of the site, used in an asset management
framework, and used for quality control evaluation of other
structures); and
• Scanning can be performed on the side of the road, which
increases safety and eliminates the need for roadway closure.
There are a variety of scan systems currently available and in
many cases careful consideration is required to select the appropriate
tool for a particular application. Some scanners are focused on short-
range applications (phase-based scanners) while others are built for
longer-range applications (time-of-flight systems). Phase-based
systems will generally provide improved results in microscale
pavement texture analysis because they tend to have a smaller
footprint (typically, #1 cm) compared with time-of-flight systems
(typically, $1 cm). With a larger footprint, the return range mea-
surement is averaged across a larger area. Hence, microfeatures such
as cracks smaller than the footprint cannot be resolved. The size of
the footprint will increase with distance and obliquity from the
scanner. An approximate maximum range for current time-of-flight
terrestrial scanners is 250–1,000 m, with nominal measurement
accuracies (1–s) typically between 5 and 10 mm (Vosselman and
Maas 2010). Phase-based systems typically have maximum ranges
of 50–100 m and nominal measurement accuracies (1–s) between 3
and 5 mm. However, actual ranges and accuracies achieved will vary
depending on the survey control, scanning geometry, environmental
conditions, and material properties of the objects to be scanned.
© ASCE 04014011-3
While long range can be important, often as a result of obstructions
and limited sight visibility, a phase-based system can provide
suitable range capabilities for many engineering purposes. Fig. 1
illustrates how the resolution of TLS degrades with distance when
scanning on flat surfaces because it samples on an angular increment
(Laefer et al. 2009; Olsen et al. 2009; Tang et al. 2011).
The TLS data have the ability to be used in many transportation
applications aside from pavement smoothness evaluation. Jaselskis
et al. (2005) presented a case study showing the benefits of TLS for
several aspects of construction including elevation, smoothness,
camber, and volumetric measurements. Safety, time, and economic
considerations compared with traditional photogrammetric techni-
ques were also discussed. Tang et al. (2011) were able to determine
the effectiveness of TLS to determine flatness defects in concrete
slabs for buildings by evaluating planar fits to sections of the point
cloud. Researchers have examined the use of TLS in road con-
struction applications to determine earthwork quantities (Slattery
et al. 2012). In this study, scan data were used to create traditional
cross sections to determine earthwork quantities. The TLS technique
is advantageous because all cross sections can be obtained anywhere
along the road construction site and not just at specified locations.
A recent case study (Johnson and Johnson 2012) focused on the
use of TLS in highway applications, including scanning results on
concrete and asphalt surfaces. The study examined the best practices
for the use of TLS based on the quality of the data collected using
various techniques. The cross slopes were calculated using the
elevations at the edge of the travel lanes from the TLS data and were
compared with data collected from a total station and GPS. The
testing determined that a higher point density resulted in a lower
vertical RMS error. The cross-slope RMS errors increased signifi-
cantly for points collected beyond a 45.7-m range from the scanner.
Scanners can be mounted to other platforms such as airplanes or
vehicles. Generally, most available airborne LIDAR data would not
be accurate and dense enough to evaluate pavement smoothness
(using the IRI), unless obtained from a low-flying helicopter. Lo-
gistics can also be difficult in obtaining airborne LIDAR data in most
pavement projects. Mobile laser scanners are similar to terrestrial;
however, instead of being mounted on a tripod the system is
mounted to a moving vehicle, enabling faster data collection. Yu
et al. (2007) described a multisensory mobile mapping system that
collects high-resolution data to create surface models for analyzing
cracks. However, achievable accuracies with mobile LIDAR sys-
tems in transportation applications are still being evaluated (Olsen
et al. 2013), which is critical in evaluating pavement smoothness.
Comparisons of Devices
Karamihas (2011) performed a study that tested several profiler
devices including RL, dipstick, inertial profiler, and an IBP. The
IBP profiler generally showed the highest level of accuracy and
Fig. 1. Effects of angle of incidence for TLS (reprinted from Olsen and
Chin 2012)
J. Surv. Eng.
repeatability of the devices, particularly at shorter wavebands. This
study also evaluated the ability to measure profiles on a variety of
asphalt (dense-graded, pervious hot-mix asphalt, and chip seal) and
concrete (transverse tining, longitudinal tining, and with diamond
grinding) surfaces.
Limited research has investigated the use of TLS in measuring
pavement roughness. Chang et al. (2006) performed tests to compare
the use of three-dimensional (3D) laser scanning, an inertial profiler
[called a multiple laser profiler (MLP) in the study], and RL surveys.
Three test sections, each 100 m in length with varying levels of
roughness were used. The nominal accuracy (1–s) of the laser
scanner used was reported as 3 mm up to a 50-m range. The scanner
was able to collect data up to a distance of 100 m; however, it was
observed that the density of the point cloud was significantly reduced
past 50 m because of a poor angle of incidence, described previously.
Hence, two scan setups were used to collect data over each 100-m
section. The MLP collected data on multiple paths with 500-mm
spacing between the paths. To check for any variability within the
measurements, five test runs were performed. A comparison of the
data showed that the use of TLS accurately measured the IRI values
of the roadways. A statistical test between the RL survey and laser
scanning showed a 95% correlation between the measured elevation
values. A coefficient of correlation of 99% was calculated between
the laser scanning and MLP data. Chang et al. (2006) concluded that
TLS is able to be used as an effective tool in measuring road
roughness. However, the study did not evaluate cross-correlation,
which is based on slope rather than elevation and is now commonly
used in current evaluation procedures.
Motivation
Terrestrial laser scanning has the potential to create a reference
profile more efficiently than does a RL. Also, compared with the
other devices, it provides numerous advantages because the data can
be used in a variety of applications. However, several questions or
concepts related to using TLS to obtain a road profile remain to be
addressed, which include the following:
1. Filtering: Because individual point measurements in TLS are
not of sufficient accuracy in profile determination based on
current technologies capable of millimeter to submillimeter
elevation differences, is it possible to take advantage of
filtering of the dense TLS data to accurately define the road
profile both as a reference for other devices as well as for
postconstruction quality control?
2. Sample interval: If TLS is able to provide a profile of sufficient
accuracy, what sampling intervals and noise filtering processes
will provide optimal results? Overfiltering could smooth
the data too much, rendering it difficult to detect areas of
roughness.
3. Cross-correlation: While TLS has been evaluated and com-
pared with a RL and inertial profiler, and has shown the ability
to obtain reliable IRI values, the achievable cross-correlation
has not yet been evaluated.
4. Insights: What added insights can be obtained by evaluating
profiles to determine roughness across the entire road surface
rather than just in the wheel paths?
Methodology
This section discusses the data collection and processing imple-
mented in this study. A test site in Albany, Oregon (described in
Olsen and Chin 2012), was chosen by the Oregon DOT (ODOT) for
© ASCE 04014011-4
the certification of inertial profilers. Data were collected along a
161-m stretch of the roadway at this site where wheel paths were
marked periodically (approximately every 3 m) with paint (as well as
additional marks) to indicate the start and end points of the test
section. The lines were painted 15.2 cm to the left of the ruts in the
road because drivers have a tendency to stay to the right of the
painted line. All four instruments described previously were used to
complete this study.
Inclinometer-Based and Inertial Profilers
Using an IBP, a profile is collected by walking the instrument along
the wheel path, where one wheel path is measured at a time. A Sur-
PRO 3500 IBP (International Cybernetics Corp., Clearwater, Florida)
was run on three occasions: June 2011, November 2011, and June
2012. The June 2011 and November 2011 surveys consisted of five
runs on each wheel path. The June 2012 survey had 10 runs, five in
the morning and five in the afternoon. The typical relative accuracy
(1–s) of the IBP was 0.00025 m per 7.62 m traveled, which is
equivalent to 0.005 mm for 161 m when a closed-loop procedure
(walking the profile in both directions) is used.
Unfortunately, the inclinometer distance measurement instrument
(DMI) was not calibrated using a closed-loop run in the June 2011
survey. As a result there was a compounding error in the elevation
data that resulted in a consistent bias seen in the profiles (Olsen and
Chin 2012). However, this appeared to have minimal effect on the
incremental slope measurements, which correlated very well. During
the data collection in November 2011, the wheels of the instrument
may have been affected by the near-freezing temperatures, which
approached the limits of the operating temperature range recom-
mended by the manufacturer.
The inertial profiler data were also provided by ODOT from four
different systems on different days, shown in Table 2 as IP_1, IP_2,
IP_3, and IP_4. At least five runs were comleted for each system. Both
of these systems perform all of the processing necessary to extract
profile information directly with minimal user input and control.
Rod and Level
Two RL surveys (November 2011 and April 2012) were conducted
following the ASTM E1364-95 specifications (ASTM 2005). The
wheel paths at the test site had been previously marked for the
inclinometer and inertial profiler acquisition, and additional marks
were made at 0.3 m spacing along the wheel paths to aid in the
acquisition. Leica DNA03 (0.03 mm accuracy, 1–s) (Leica Geo-
systems, Heerbrugg, Switzerland) and Leica DNA10 (0.09 mm
accuracy, 1–s) were used to collect the data on the LWP and RWP,
respectively. The profiles were obtained from multiple setups, each
covering 30.5 m in length (with the exception of the last segment,
which was 39.0 m in length). To ensure consistency between setups,
redundant measurements were performed from each setup on estab-
lished control points and at least at five locations spaced at 6-m
intervals along the adjacent portions of the profile. All of these check
points were within tolerances (,1 mm).
Terrestrial Laser Scanning
For this project, a time-of-flight scanner [RIEGL VZ-400 (RIEGL
Laser Measurement Systems GmbH, Horn, Austria)] was used
(nominal accuracy of 0.005 m and 1–s at 100 m; however, these
values varied across on the scene). Data were collected using six
instrument setups spaced every 40 m along the 161-m section (Fig. 2).
Each scan covered a 360 view horizontally and from 40 below to
60 above the horizontal plane. Typically, the scanner height above
ground was 1.7 m. The following processing steps were completed:
J. Surv. Eng.

Fig. 2. Test setup for TLS and acquisition locations
1. To reduce the data set size, each scan was initially filtered to
eliminate points further than 100 m from its origin.
2. The scans were then trimmed to the road surface only.
3. Noise from passing vehicles was removed manually by draw-
ing polygons around the noise and removing points within
those polygons. While these objects leave gaps in the data
because TLS is a line-of-sight technique, these gaps are filled
in by overlapping adjacent scans.
4. An initial georeferencing was completed using the method-
ology of Olsen et al. (2011). (Registration to the reflective
targets did not produce satisfactory results.)
a. Three real-time kinematic (RTK) GPS coordinates for the
scan origin were averaged and applied to translate each
scan into the Oregon Coordinate Reference System low-
distortion projection coordinate system (Armstrong
2010).
b. Inclination sensor readings were obtained to determine
the scanner offset from the level plane (Silvia and Olsen
2012).
c. Each scan was then manually rotated about the Z-axis
(centered at the scan origin) to obtain a rough alignment
with its neighbors.
5. Following this initial alignment, a cloud-to-cloud least-
squares surface matching was completed to refine the initial
georeferencing. For this cloud-to-cloud alignment, the scans
were constrained horizontally to the X- and Y-coordinates
obtained via the RTK GPS to avoid error propagation (Olsen
et al. 2011). However, each scan was allowed to translate along
the Z-axis and rotate about the X-, Y-, and Z-axes. Care was
taken to ensure that the rotation about the X- and Y-axes did not
vary substantially from the inclination sensor readings (Silvia
and Olsen 2012).
6. Following pairwise matching between scans, a global registration
(e.g., Pulli 1999) was implemented for the final georeferencing
of the scans. This preserved the constraints to the X- and
Y-coordinates at the scanner origin mentioned previously.
7. Each scan was then filtered to a 45-m radius (slightly larger
than the scan spacing) to remove points on the road surface at
very oblique angles where resolution has significantly de-
graded yet still filled in holes beneath each scan origin and
provided sufficient overlap for evaluation.
8. The merged point cloud data set was then rotated (about the
Z-axis) into a local coordinate system that aligned the roadway
to the north-south axis to simplify future profile extraction.
9. The merged point cloud data set was then processed using the
Bin ‘N’ Grid program (Olsen 2011), which creates digital
terrain modeling (DTM) grids (with uniform cell sizes) of the
© ASCE 04014011-5
pavement surface by statistically analyzing the distribution of
elevation values of all points that fall inside each grid cell of
a user-specified cell size, D, which is constant in X and Y. The
number of rows and columns are determined by
NX ¼ ceil½ceilðXmax Þ 2 floorðXmin Þ=D (2a)
NY ¼ ceil½ceilðYmax Þ 2 floorðYmin Þ=D (2b)
where NX and NY 5 number of columns and rows in the X- and
Y-directions, respectively; ceil 5 function that rounds a value
up to the nearest whole number; floor 5 function that rounds
the value down to a whole number; Xmin and Ymin 5 minimum
X and Y values in the data set, respectively; and Xmax and Ymax
5 maximum X and Y values in the data set, respectively. A
point is then assigned to a grid cell using the following
equations:
IX ¼ floor½ðXi 2 Xll Þ=D (3a)
IY ¼ floor½ðYi 2 Yll Þ=D (3b)
IXY ¼ IX þ IY × NX (3c)
where IX and IY 5 cell index in the X- and Y-dimensions,
respectively; Xi and Yi 5 X- and Y-coordinates of the ith point,
respectively; Xll and Yll 5 coordinates of the lower-left corner
of the data set (rounded down to a whole number for sim-
plicity); and IXY 5 cell’s index in the grid, represented as a
one-dimensional (1D) array. For searching and computation
efficiency, the points are then sorted by their indices in which
points are grouped by cells. The average value for each cell j
is then calculated as
P 
ZAVE , j ¼ Zk nj (4)
where ZAVE , j 5 average elevation in cell j; Zk 5 kth point in
cell j; and nj 5 number of points in cell j. The process is
repeated for all grid cells with data. This gridding process can
also automatically eliminate off-surface points generated from
passing vehicles (such as using minimum values in grid cells)
or reduce systematic instrument noise (using average or
median values in grid cells). In this study, because each scan
was manually cleaned previously (Step 3, removing vehicle
points), the average elevation values of points within each cell
was used such that the filtering could focus on only removing
systematic noise and not scene-related interference. The
results from the average and median values were very similar.
Multiple grids were created using a range of cell sizes to
understand the influence of the sampling interval on the
results.
10. Longitudinal profiles with uniform spacing were then ex-
tracted from each of the grids derived with varying cell sizes
simultaneous with the gridding process. Any small gaps in the
profile were filled by linear interpolation of surrounding grid
cells (only applicable to the 0.025-, 0.05-, and 0.075-m sam-
pling intervals).
In Step 7, note that the angle of incidence is much higher (88)
than optimal (45) at the 45-m threshold; however, several factors
reduce the impact of this effect on the derived profiles. First, because
this range is relatively short, the beam width is still small at 45-m
range. Second, the obliquity has a larger influence on the horizontal
coordinates compared with the vertical coordinates in this particular
J. Surv. Eng.
situation. Vertical accuracy is much more critical than horizontal
accuracy in this application. Third, the Bin ‘N’ Grid (Olsen 2011)
average filter applied to the data set in Step 9 reduces this problem
because a closer scan will provide many more points in a grid cell
that are used to calculate the average compared with the farther, more
oblique scan. Finally, because the deviation in horizontal position
(estimated to be a few centimeters) from this effect are less than the
250-mm moving average filter applied to simulate the tire envelope
in the roughness calculations, this effect is minimized. To verify this
postulation, cross sections were taken near the origin of each scan
and the edges of the neighboring scans, and the profiles showed
agreement within the expected tolerances (5 mm, 1–s). An alter-
native strategy to minimize this problem would be to do more scans
spaced closer together that can be filtered to an even shorter range.
These scans could be done at a lower resolution such that the field
time would not be compromised.
Comparison Analysis Procedures
Comparisons between the four profiling methods can be drawn by
determining the road roughness (IRI values) and the cross-correlation
between the profiles. These results allow a closer examination re-
garding the use of laser scanning data in the analysis of road rough-
ness. Transverse, cross-slope values can be calculated from the laser
scanning data and slopes can be compared between the laser scanner
and RL.
The profiles were filtered and analyzed using the freely available
PROVAL software, which can analyze profiles to calculate IRI
values, determine cross-correlation, and extract wavelength content.
To account for vehicle tire size, a 250-mm filter is recommended to
model the tire envelope. This filter was not applied to the level data
(the spacing of the level data, 300 mm, is larger than the 250-mm
filter), or the IBP (the measurement system has a built-in mechanical
filter because it uses wheels directly on the surface). However, a
250-mm moving average filter was applied to the inertial profiler
data and TLS data, which can sample finer intervals.
To compare the devices and evaluate the suitability of TLS for
smoothness determination, the following analyses were performed:
1. Sampling and filtering requirements for TLS: TLS collects
data at fixed angular increments; hence, the sampling on the
ground is not uniform (dense closer to the scanner; more sparse
farther away from the scanner). Furthermore, multiple scan
setups (with individual georeferencing errors) are combined
into a single point cloud. To this end, the data need to be
filtered [using the Bin ‘N’ Grid (Olsen 2011) procedure pre-
viously described] and sampled at a regular interval for profile
analysis. Because of the angular and ranging errors inherent in
TLS, points collected from TLS will not perfectly model the
surface and will result in noise on the order of 3–5 mm (1–s)
for most current laser scanners. While all devices have sys-
tematic noise in one form or another, the high-resolution nature
of TLS data enables seeing this noise. Hence, because of the
significant amount of measurement redundancy, filtering pro-
cesses may help reduce the noise, which is similar to a least-
squares regression of points to a curve, where sample points
will be present above and below the modeled surface. In
contrast, selecting points at discrete intervals within the point
cloud will not be able to reduce the noise.
2. IRI calculation comparisons: All devices were compared with
the IRI values determined for the 161-m length on both wheel
paths. In the case of instruments with multiple runs, variances
in the IRI values of those devices were also determined.
3. Cross-correlation between profiles and devices: The collected
profiles from the instruments were run through the PROVAL
© ASCE 04014011-6
software using each device as a reference profile. Comparisons
were completed between the IRI values and cross-correlations.
4. Statistical comparison of elevation differences between devi-
ces: This analysis consists of extracting profiles and calculat-
ing statistics (RMS and 95% confidence) for deviations in
elevation between the profiles. This was done comparing TLS
with the RL data sets.
5. Wavelength content analysis: Herein, the wavelength contents
were analyzed for each device and the influences of the
sampling intervals on the wavelength contents in TLS were
compared.
Results
TLS Sampling Interval and Filtering Requirements
In this study, 15 different sampling intervals were chosen (0.025–0.3 m
in increments of 0.025, 0.4, 0.5, and 0.6 m). Analyses were then run
to determine the optimal sampling intervals. Initially, each profile
was compared against the other sampling intervals for each wheel
path. The outlying profiles tended to occur with sampling intervals of
0.25 m or more (Fig. 3), indicating that the larger sampling interval
for the filter creates a profile that has been artificially smoothed. The
profiles from Fig. 3 show elevation differences (typically, less than
0.006 m) for a 3-m section for profiles derived from each sampling
interval.
Following this visual analysis, the IRI values from each sampling
interval profile were examined (Fig. 4). It is likely that the 0.025-m
sampling interval did not eliminate all of the scanner noise and the
surface appeared rougher than it actually was. The trend in the
IRI curve flattened out between sampling intervals of 0.075 and
0.25 m for both wheel paths. These values also agree very well with
the IRI obtained from the inclinometer-based profiler. The sam-
pling intervals from 0.075 to 0.3 m for both wheel paths provided
profiles with no outlying points and were within, or bordered,
the 65% range from the IBP IRI.
A complete data set for the road section offers the ability to
collect multiple profiles, calculate cross slopes, and calculate IRI at
any interval across the roadway. The IRI values for profiles spaced
every 0.3 m across the roadway are shown in Fig. 5, where some
variability in the IRI values to the left and right of the LWP and
significant variability slightly to the left and right of the RWP can be
seen, indicating that any deviation from the wheel path by the inertial
profiler can influence the IRI values. This may have a greater effect
on the cross-correlation values because these are dependent upon the
location of the roughness. The variability observed from obtaining
multiple profiles along the roadway provides insight into the reasons
for the lower cross-correlation values. It also provides a clearer
picture of the actual roughness of the road rather than that observed
solely in the wheel paths.
IRI Comparisons
Fig. 6 provides a comparison of the IRI values from the various
instruments. Except for the April 2012 RL survey, all values fall
within 5% of the IBP values. The IBP consistently has the lowest SD
between runs, indicating highest repeatability. The IRI obtained
from the RL tends to be higher than the IRI from the other devices
for both wheel paths. This is likely a result of the larger sample
spacing (0.3 m). Because only one RL survey for each wheel path
was completed each day, a SD cannot be computed. The TLS data
are based on the average IRI from the 0.05–0.125 m sampling in-
terval profiles, which were not obtained from additional passes. The
J. Surv. Eng.
 Fig. 3. Profiles at varying sample intervals for the (a) LWP and (b) RWP
inertial profilers show a large SD compared with the IBP. This is not
surprising given the difficulty in navigating a straight path at
highway speeds and the observed variability across the test site
(Fig. 5).
Cross-Correlation Analysis
As discussed in the “Introduction,” the cross-correlation provides
a better analysis of the agreement of two profiles than does the IRI
alone. Fig. 7 compares the cross-correlation values obtained by
comparing the TLS with varying sample intervals to the RL, in-
clinometer, and inertial profiler as reference profiles. It is likely that
the results would agree better if (1) there were less variability across
the road surface, minimizing wandering effects (the horizontal
movement of the profiler off of the path); and (2) the profiles were
completed within a short time window, reducing seasonal effects and
differences in road degradation.
The comparison with the RL showed the poorest correlation,
likely a result of the large spacing (0.3 m) of the data set. The inertial
profilers and IBP both generally showed good cross-correlation with
the TLS data, particularly between 0.05 and 0.2 m for both wheel
paths. More scatter was observed for the RWP, likely as a result of
the higher variability in roughness near the RWP (Fig. 5). However,
the LWP cross-correlation values were consistently lower.
The cross-correlations were determined using various reference/
comparison profiles, as given in Table 2, where the bold values meet
current AASHTO standards (90% accuracy and 92% repeatability).
Most of these bold values are from the comparison of the RWP.
© ASCE 04014011-7
There were again accuracy problems with the data from the LWP.
The November 2011 inclinometer test had low cross-correlation
values for both wheel paths. In Table 2, the diagonal elements
represent repeatability within all of the runs with that instrument on
the survey date. For the TLS data, this repeatability is based on
comparing the 0.025-, 0.05-, 0.075-, and 0.1-m spacing intervals,
rather than separate TLS surveys. The profile selected for the ref-
erence profile was the profile that showed the highest correlation
with the other runs for that device and date.
Elevation Correlation Analysis
A traditional, elevation correlation analysis was completed to
compare the profile elevations with the findings of Chang et al.
(2006) regarding the use of TLS. As discussed in the “Introduction,”
the IRI-based cross-correlation focuses on slope variations rather
than elevation variations because slope variations are more appli-
cable to ride quality.
Two forms of reporting accuracies are presented in Table 3:
The RMS (∼68% confidence interval) and the accuracy expressed
at a 95% confidence interval (51:96 3 RMS for 1D normally
distributed data). Because the cross-correlation calculation adjusts
the profiles such that the mean elevation value is zero, the RMS
and 95% confidence intervals were computed with a mean dif-
ference profile elevation adjustment. The November 2011 in-
clinometer survey was used in this analysis because there was no
DMI calibration and closed-loop adjustment for the June 2011
J. Surv. Eng.
Fig. 4. IRI values obtained from TLS at varying sampling intervals, with the solid line showing the average of the June 2011 and November 2011 IBP
runs, and the dashed line showing 65%: (a) LWP; (b) RWP

Fig. 5. IRI values obtained for longitudinal profiles spaced every 0.075 m across the roadway, with point spacing at 0.075 m

inclinometer survey, and these are critical for elevation comparisons.
The inclinometer and level profiles show the best agreement. The
TLS shows slightly better agreement to the inclinometer-based
profiler than the level. These values are reasonable given the typ-
ical relative accuracies (1–s) of the equipment (TLS, nominal RMS
accuracy of 0.005 m; RL, nominal RMS accuracy of 0.001 m; IBP,
nominal RMS accuracy of 0:00025=7:62 m 5 0:005 mm for 161 m,
with a closed loop).
A second statistical analysis was completed to compare the
November 2011 and April 2012 RL surveys. The RMS values
between the elevation measurements (without a mean adjust-
ment) were also low (#0:001 m), which shows good correlation
with the data despite the large difference observed in IRI values
(0:073 m=km), which as discussed previously were based on
incremental slope measurements.
Wavelength Analysis
The profile runs from each device were compared using the power
spectral density analysis function in PROVAL. The IRI filters
were applied to all devices, with the 250-mm filter applied to
the TLS and inertial profiler data. Fig. 8(a) shows a comparison
of the wavelengths for all devices for LWP deviations below
1:5 m=cycle and above 40 m=cycle. Fig. 8(b) shows a compari-
son of the slope wavelengths for RWP deviations below
0:9 m=cycle and above 60 m=cycle. These trends are similar to

© ASCE 04014011-8 J. Surv. Eng.

 Fig. 6. IRI values with SD bars from each of the instruments used on the (a) LWP and (b) RWP
Fig. 7. Cross-correlation comparisons between TLS and other devices
for the (a) LWP and (b) RWP at varying sampling intervals
© ASCE 04014011-9
the LWP except that the differences are much more pronounced
below 0:9 m=cycle. Also, note that at around 12 m=cycle, the
TLS shows some deviation. However, overall, for the range
at which the IRI calculations are most sensitive (1.2–30 m)
(Karamihas 2005), the devices show good agreement in wave-
length content. Furthermore, given that the profile length was 161
m, wavelengths greater than 30 m would require a longer profile
to accurately capture them.
Based on the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, in order to
reconstruct a wavelength of 1.2 m (the lower bound of the range at
which the IRI calculations are sensitive) (Karamihas 2005), at
a minimum, samples would be required every 0.6 m. However, the
Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem assumes perfect data; this was
not the case in the data sources used, which contained noise. As such,
the previously determined optimal sampling interval of 0.075–0.25
m necessary for TLS data requires 2–8 times more samples than the
theoretical amount required.
Comparisons of the TLS data only for each sampling interval for
the LWP and RWP are shown in Figs. 8(c and d), respectively. These
comparisons were done without the IRI and 250-mm moving av-
erage filter previously applied. Figs. 8(c and d) illustrate that there is
some variability in wavelength content, depending on the sampling
interval. In particular, the 0.175-m sampling interval shows some
significant deviations for the LWP. However, for the shorter and
longer wavelengths, these differences are typically less than those
observed when comparing all devices.
J. Surv. Eng.
© ASCE
Table 2. Cross-Correlation Values (with SDs) for Reference and Comparison Profilers for the LWP and RWP
Reference/
profile IBP_1106 IBP_1111 IBP_1206 RL_1111 RL_1204 TLS_1110 IP1 IP2 IP3 IP4
Left wheel path
IBP_1106 98.20 (0.32) 91.65 (0.76) 87.61 (1.19) 83.27 (1.30) 75.52 (0.54) 90.57 (0.60) 87.54 (0.69) 91.13 (0.74) 72.01 (0.65) 96.34 (0.79)
IBP_1111 92.19 (0.68) 99.00 (0.46) 73.55 (0.98) 74.35 (0.79) 65.38 (0.85) 80.51 (0.80) 77.03 (0.75) 79.05 (1.02) 62.44 (0.98) 89.23 (0.82)
IBP_1206 86.78 (3.19) 72.10 (3.22) 97.37 (1.49) 85.70 (2.71) 84.26 (1.18) 86.79 (2.54) 86.40 (2.38) 90.84 (2.16) 69.47 (1.82) 87.56 (2.74)
RL_1111 88.44 — 77.99 — 86.21 — — — 83.87 — 88.48 — 88.36 — 90.84 — 67.30 — 87.74 —
RL_1204 80.73 — 68.93 — 72.46 — 83.87 — — — 82.37 — 81.98 — 84.59 — 64.21 — 80.32 —
TLS_1110 90.32 (0.45) 80.52 (0.52) 87.33 (0.84) 83.91 (0.30) 77.40 (0.56) 97.63 (0.69) 94.40 (0.66) 93.54 (0.55) 74.85 (1.27) 92.03 (0.49)
IP1 88.50 (1.15) 76.65 (0.72) 88.31 (1.06) 84.13 (0.62) 77.23 (0.90) 94.56 (1.19) 98.06 (0.49) 94.52 (1.17) 71.20 (1.58) 90.76 (1.17)
IP2 90.84 (0.92) 78.49 (1.59) 90.48 (1.29) 84.12 (1.09) 77.70 (1.55) 93.79 (0.94) 94.55 (2.56) 95.14 (0.16) 74.70 (1.43) 92.49 (1.55)
IP3 71.66 (2.29) 60.98 (2.00) 70.46 (2.44) 63.78 (1.76) 59.96 (1.73) 74.11 (2.67) 71.18 (2.62) 75.06 (2.58) 94.12 (2.09) 75.10 (2.76)
IP4 93.88 (2.77) 86.19 (2.94) 87.08 (3.62) 74.06 (1.92) 82.46 (1.67) 90.75 (1.76) 88.80 (1.91) 91.29 (2.92) 74.19 (1.05) 94.40 (2.49)
Right wheel path

04014011-10
IBP_1106 99.02 (0.16) 92.38 (0.21) 92.23 (0.17) 93.37 (0.36) 83.93 (0.66) 91.42 (0.14) 94.22 (0.17) 96.92 (0.29) 69.39 (0.40) 98.00 (0.40)
IBP_1111 92.42 (0.72) 99.32 (0.19) 79.75 (0.85) 84.90 (0.70) 77.94 (0.64) 84.15 (0.58) 83.40 (0.71) 87.39 (0.69) 62.48 (0.46) 93.87 (0.50)
IBP_1206 92.39 (1.06) 80.04 (1.30) 99.24 (0.28) 92.90 (0.75) 86.58 (0.33) 86.61 (0.99) 91.90 (0.93) 95.37 (0.93) 66.30 (0.63) 90.33 (1.08)
RL_1111 95.82 — 87.81 — 91.18 — — — 83.17 — 89.89 — 92.47 — 94.73 — 67.29 — 93.90 —
RL_1204 87.45 — 81.32 — 89.48 — 83.17 — — — 80.22 — 84.81 — 89.27 — 61.55 — 86.57 —
TLS_1110 92.07 (0.88) 84.67 (0.96) 86.37 (0.88) 87.21 (1.46) 78.34 (1.47) 98.56 (0.10) 94.02 (0.50) 90.85 (0.80) 72.12 (0.84) 89.39 (0.72)
IP1 92.80 (2.29) 81.86 (2.26) 91.99 (1.22) 91.27 (0.94) 81.69 (1.00) 92.91 (0.84) 97.51 (1.46) 92.76 (1.67) 72.26 (0.82) 90.63 (1.53)
IP2 94.22 (2.99) 84.91 (3.14) 93.80 (1.24) 92.15 (2.28) 84.76 (0.85) 90.14 (1.70) 94.98 (1.65) 95.66 (3.40) 70.41 (2.29) 93.26 (2.64)
IP3 69.64 (0.63) 62.33 (1.32) 65.92 (0.59) 64.36 (1.10) 58.19 (0.85) 70.48 (2.43) 71.98 (2.43) 76.81 (1.14) 95.58 (1.41) 69.18 (0.77)
IP4 95.49 (1.81) 92.07 (3.06) 90.61 (2.19) 90.94 (0.87) 82.94 (1.96) 87.47 (1.31) 89.56 (2.02) 92.27 (2.81) 68.20 (1.95) 96.94 (1.64)
Note: Bold values meet current AASHTO (90% accuracy, 92% repeatability) requirements (AASHTO 2010b); RL 5 nominal RMS accuracy of 0.001 m; numbers 1106, 1111, etc., 5 experiment dates: 1106
5 November 6; 1111 5 November 11, and so on.

J. Surv. Eng.
Discussion contrast, a sample interval that is too small will not filter out the
data enough and there will be scanner noise visible in the profile.
This section summarizes the following insights obtained with re- The optimal sampling interval determined from this study is in
spect to the initial motivations and other considerations found as the range of 0.075 to 0.25 m.
a result of this study: • Cross-correlation: The TLS-derived profiles were proven to be
• Filtering: Point filtering such as the Bin ‘N’ Grid (Olsen 2011) consistent with the other techniques based on the high cross-
method described in this study can reduce the noise associated correlation values. In the wavelength analysis, the TLS showed
with TLS. Given the agreement in IRI values and cross- good agreement compared with the other devices.
correlation values with the other systems, it can be concluded • Implications of multiple profiles across the road: The TLS
that TLS filtering can produce data of sufficient accuracy for road showed significant variations in IRI values depending on where
profile evaluations. This agreement is achievable despite the the profiles were obtained across the road. This improved knowl-
higher noise in TLS primarily because the laser footprint is much edge explains the difficulty in achieving cross-correlation with
smaller than the tire envelope filter (250 mm) applied as part of other devices when wandering from the path.
the IRI calculation. However, it should be noted that a time-of- The following additional insights were found in this study re-
flight system, although successful for IRI calculations, will have garding laser characteristics, environmental conditions, surveying
limitations compared with phase-based systems for other pave- considerations, and processing considerations:
• Laser characteristics: Dark surfaces at long ranges are problem-
ment metrics of interest including the detection of small cracks
and microsurface characterization. Nonetheless, a similar Bin ‘N’ atic for some scanners because they do not reflect light well.
Grid (Olsen 2011) filtering scheme could be implemented with Hence, scanning should be performed at close range (,50 m) to
the pavement surface for best results.
phase-based data. • Environmental conditions can influence the results of TLS data
• Sample interval: A sampling interval that is too large will filter
collection. Many of these effects (temperature, pressure, and
out surface texture and create an artificially smooth profile. In
relative humidity) can be corrected for in the instrument or by
Table 3. Statistical Analysis of Profile Elevations for TLS, Level, and only using data for short ranges. Wet pavements will generally
Inclinometer yield poor scanning results, as do conditions where refraction is
present, for example, as a result of steam, precipitation, or heat
TLS to level Inclinometer Inclinometer rising from surfaces. When evaluating road profiles, it is impor-
(mm) to level (mm) to TLS (mm) tant to note that significant changes in roughness can occur with
Parameter Left Right Left Right Left Right weather effects and traffic volume over time.
• Surveying strategies: Scans should be spaced close together to
RMS 5.6 5.0 2.9 2.3 4.5 5.0
minimize oblique scanning on the road surface. Hence, more
Confidence (95%) 11.0 9.9 5.6 4.6 8.9 9.9
lower-resolution scans are better than fewer higher-resolution

Fig. 8. Slope wavelength power spectral density comparison for (a) LWP (for all devices); (b) RWP (for all devices); (c) LWP (for TLS sampling
intervals); (d) RWP (for TLS sampling intervals)

© ASCE 04014011-11 J. Surv. Eng.

 scans. Scans should be completed with a target resolution of
0.025 m or less on the road surface. Achieving high vertical
accuracy is more important than horizontal accuracy for this
application. Because IRI values are dependent on slope differ-
ences, the relative accuracy of measurements is critical; network
accuracy is less stringent for profile evaluation. However, it
should always be considered that the scan data may be used
for a variety of other purposes, which may require higher network
accuracy. Horizontal accuracy still needs to be sufficient to meet
AASHTO’s DMI requirements; however, TLS typically would
have much higher horizontal accuracy than required. Finally, the
TLS ensures that a straight profile (or along another path geom-
etry desired) is obtained, whereas the other methods will deviate
somewhat from the path.
• Processing strategies: TLS processing requires substantially
more time, effort, and expertise than the other techniques. For
example, inertial profiler systems can provide results directly
within minutes in the field, while TLS processing and analysis
can take hours to complete in specialized software. Hence, it
should always be considered if the added value of additional
information across the scene for TLS is worth the additional
effort. With respect to profile extraction, a localized cloud-to-
cloud alignment may improve the relative accuracy of the scans
over those achieved with targets. Data should be exported with
sufficient digits (submillimeter) to avoid truncation effects.
Finally, intensity values rather than photographic RGB values
should be used to extract the location of the wheel paths because
photographs that are mapped to the point cloud generally have
additional error associated with them.
Conclusions
This study found that TLS can create profiles of sufficient accuracy
(both in IRI determination and in cross-correlation) for pavement
smoothness evaluations. From the analysis herein, adequate data
sampling and filtering intervals were determined. The point cloud
enables profiles to be obtained at any section along the roadway,
unlike surveys from a RL, inclinometer, or inertial profiler, which
are taken along a single path. These additional data enable analysis
of the wheel paths, variations in roughness across the roadway, lo-
calized depressions, and determination of cross slopes. The TLS
ensures that a straight profile is obtained, whereas other methods can
deviate from that path. This wandering can create problems at this
and other test sites where the IRI varies significantly across the road.
The TLS requires more field time and additional processing
compared with many of the other techniques. However, given the
evolving nature of the technology, many of these barriers will likely
be removed. Furthermore, mobile LIDAR systems with larger views
of the scene are well-suited for this task because the systems are able
to achieve higher levels of accuracy. Mobile LIDAR systems may
soon be able to provide sufficient data for profile evaluation, over-
coming many of the limitations of the static systems in speed of
acquisition. Specialized pavement profiling systems (PPSs) are now
able to scan pavement sections at high resolutions (millimeter to
centimeter levels) and precision (submillimeter) with a direct view
of the pavement. The filtering techniques developed in this study for
TLS can be used with data from mobile LIDAR systems and PPSs,
which were not available for this study. A PPS has the added ad-
vantage of capturing details of the surface such as small (millimeter)
cracks that can be used in other related pavement studies, whereas in
TLS it can be difficult to distinguish cracks smaller than 1 cm. A rod
and level survey provided sufficient accuracy for elevations at dis-
crete points. However, it did not provide sufficient resolution to
© ASCE 04014011-12
enable adequate profiles in cross-correlation analysis. The IBP
created highly repeatable and accurate profiles, which correlated
well with the research by Karamihas (2011).
Acknowledgments
The Oregon DOT (ODOT) and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) funded this research through SPR-744. The authors thank
George Chang from Transtec Group for his comments and insights.
Keith Williams, Jeremy Conner, John Raugust, Hamid Mahmouda-
badi, William White, Mahyar Sharifi-Mood, and Kris Puderbaugh
assisted in the field work. Dean Chess at ODOT was instrumental
in helping this project get started. Norris Shippen (ODOT), Michael
Stennett (ODOT), Larry Ilg (ODOT), Jim Huddleston (Asphalt
Pavement Association of Oregon), and Anthony Boesen (FHWA)
served on the Technical Advisory Committee. Leica Geosystems
and David Evans and Associates provided the equipment and soft-
ware used in this study. Maptek I-Site also provided software used
in this study. The authors appreciate the anonymous reviewers
who provided helpful feedback to this paper.
References
AASHTO. (2010a). “Accepting pavement ride quality when measured using
inertial profiling systems.” AASHTO-R54-10, Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2010b). “Certification of inertial profiling systems.” AASHTO-
R56-10, Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2010c). “Standard specification for inertial profiler.” AASHTO-
M328-10, Washington, DC.
Armstrong, M. L. (2010). Oregon coordinate reference system handbook
and user guide version 2.00, Æhttp://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/
GEOMETRONICS/docs/ocrs_handbook_user_guide.pdfæ (May 14,
2013).
ASTM. (2005). “Standard test method for measuring road roughness by
static level method.” E1364-95, West Conshohocken, PA.
Chang, J., Chang, K., and Chen, D. (2006). “Application of 3D laser
scanning on measuring pavement roughness.” J. Test. Eval., 34(2), 83–
91.
Dyer, S. A., and Dyer, J. S. (2008). “Implementation problems in inertial
road-profiling: An overview.” Proc., Int. Instrumentation and Mea-
surement Technology Conf., IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1520–1525.
Hays, J. D. (2006). “Comparison of new technology for measuring ride
quality.” M.S. thesis, Auburn Univ.
Jaselskis, E. J., Gao, Z., and Walters, R. C. (2005). “Improving trans-
portation projects using laser scanning.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:3(377), 377–384.
Johnson, W. H., and Johnson, A. M. (2012). “Operational considerations
for terrestrial laser scanner use in highway construction applications.”
J. Surv. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)SU.1943-5428.0000084, 214–222.
Karamihas, S. M. (2004). “Development of cross correlation for objective
comparison of profiles.” Int. J. Veh. Des., 36(2/3), 173–193.
Karamihas, S. M. (2005). “Critical profiler accuracy requirements.” Rep. No.
2005-24, Univ. of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann
Arbor, MI.
Karamihas, S. M. (2011). “Improving the quality of pavement profiler
measurement.” Benchmark Test Evaluation Rep. TPF-5(063), Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Laefer, D. F., Fitzgerald, M., Maloney, E. M., Coyne, D., Lennon, D., and
Morrish, S. W. (2009). “Lateral image degradation in terrestrial laser
scanning.” Struct. Eng. Int., 19(2), 184–189.
Lee, M.-H., and Chou, C.-P. (2010). “Laboratory method for inertial profiler
verification.” J. Chin. Inst. Eng., 33(4), 617–627.
Olsen, M. (2011). “Bin ‘N’ Grid: A simple program for statistical filtering of
point cloud data.” Æhttp://www.lidarnews.com/content/view/8378/206/æ
(May 15, 2013).
J. Surv. Eng.
Olsen, M. J., and Chin, A. (2012). “Inertial and inclinometer-based profiler
repeatability and accuracy using the IRI model.” Technical Rep. SPR-
744, Oregon DOT, Salem, OR.
Olsen, M. J., Johnstone, E., Driscoll, N., Ashford, S. A., and Kuester, F.
(2009). “Terrestrial laser scanning of extended cliff sections in dynamic
environments: Parameter analysis.” J. Surv. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9453(2009)135:4(161), 161–169.
Olsen, M. J., Johnstone, E., Kuester, F., Driscoll, N., and Ashford, S. A.
(2011). “New automated point-cloud alignment for ground-based light
detection and ranging data of long coastal sections.” J. Surv. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)SU.1943-5428.0000030, 14–25.
Olsen, M. J., Roe, G. V., Glennie, C., Persi, F., and Reedy, M. (2013).
“Guidelines for the use of mobile LIDAR in transportation applications.”
NCHRP Rep. 748, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
PROVAL [Computer software]. Austin, TX, Transtec Group.
Pulli, K. (1999). “Multiview registration for large data sets.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf.
on 3D Digital Imaging and Modeling, IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 160–168.
Robson, J. D. (1979). “Road surface description and vehicle response.”
Int. J. Veh. Des., 1(1), 25–35.
Sayers, M. W., Gillespie , T. D., and Paterson, W. D. O. (1986). “Guidelines
for conducting and calibrating road roughness measurements.” World
Bank Technical Paper No. 46, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
© ASCE
Sayers, M. W., and Karamihas, S. M. (1998). The little book of profiling,
Regent of the Univ. of Michigan, Farmington Hills, MI.
Silvia, E. P., and Olsen, M. J. (2012). “To level or not to level: Laser scanner
inclination sensor stability and application.” J. Surv. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)SU.1943-5428.0000072, 117–125.
Slattery, K. T., Slattery, D. K., and Peterson, J. P. (2012). “Road con-
struction earthwork volume calculation using three-dimensional laser
scanning.” J. Surv. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)SU.1943-5428.0000073, 96–99.
SurPRO. (2011). “SurPRO.” Æhttp://www.surpro.com/æ (Oct. 12, 2011).
Tang, P., Huber, D., and Akinci, B. (2011). “Characterization of laser scanners
and algorithms for detecting flatness defects on concrete surfaces.” J.
Comput. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000073, 31–42.
Transtec Group. (2008). “Smooth pavements.” Æhttp://www.smoothpavements
.com/æ (May 15, 2013).
Vosselman, G., and Mass, H.-G., eds. (2010). Airborne and terrestrial laser
scanning, Whittles, Caithness, U.K.
Yi, Z., and Rong-Gui, M. (2009). “A study of pavement roughness mea-
surement system based on laser ranger finder.” Proc., Int. Conf on Image
Analysis and Signal Processing (IASP), IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 295–299.
Yu, S.-J., Sukumar, S. R., Koschan, A. F., Page, D. L., and Abidi, M. A.
(2007). “3D reconstruction of road surfaces using an integrated multi-
sensory approach.” Opt. Lasers Eng., 45(7), 808–818.
04014011-13 J. Surv. Eng.
Copyright of Journal of Surveying Engineering is the property of American Society of Civil
Engineers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.