Agam05c 07

GUIDE TO ASSET MANAGEMENT
Part 5C: Rutting

Guide to Asset Management
Part 5C: Rutting
Guide to Asset Management Part 5C: Rutting
Summary
This document contains guidelines for, and background notes on, measurement and reporting of
rutting or transverse profiles for road network management purposes in Australia and New
Zealand.
The guidelines define rutting as a longitudinal surface depression usually in a wheel path. The
guidelines have been prepared in the context of measuring rutting either manually with a straight
edge or using a vehicle mounted non-contact multi-sensor transverse profile measurement device.
Regardless of the method of measurement, the guidelines express a preference for rut depth to be
reported with reference to a 2 m straight edge. This is consistent with the HDM-4 approach.
A standard reporting interval of 100 m is favoured. The guidelines discuss the frequency and
extent of network rutting surveys, and are intended as a basis for the preparation of specifications
for surveys of network rutting.
Validation procedures for profilometers, and limits on repeatability and bias for rutting reports are
included.
The document also discusses the uses of rutting data in road pavement management at network
and project levels and provides guidance on analysis techniques for rutting data for different
applications.
A glossary of terms used in measuring road pavement rutting is also included.
The majority of these guidelines is based on Guidelines for Road Condition Monitoring, Part 4 –
Pavement Rutting (Austroads Document: AP-G65.6/05) prepared by; Paul Robinson, ARRB
Group, and Laurie Dowling, LB Dowling & Associates.
Keywords
Data collection, data analysis, measurement, measuring equipment, monitoring, pavement
evaluation, profilometer, road management, road network, road profile, road surface properties,
rutting
First Published 2006

2nd edition September 2007
© Austroads Inc. 2007
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may
be reproduced by any process without the prior written permission of Austroads.
National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data:

ISBN 978-1-921329-22-7
Austroads Project No. AP1009

Austroads Publication No. AGAM05C/07
Project Manager
Dr Wesley Soet, MR WA
Prepared by
Michael Moffatt and Rayya Hassan, ARRB Group
Published by Austroads Incorporated

Level 9, Robell House
287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 9264 7088
Fax: +61 2 9264 1657
Email: austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au
This Guide is produced by Austroads as a general guide. Its application is discretionary. Road
authorities may vary their practice according to local circumstances and policies.
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept
responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should
rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Guide to Asset Management
Part 5C: Rutting
Sydney 2007
Austroads profile
Austroads’ purpose is to contribute to improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes
by:
providing expert advice to SCOT and ATC on road and road transport issues
facilitating collaboration between road agencies
promoting harmonisation, consistency and uniformity in road and related operations
undertaking strategic research on behalf of road agencies and communicating outcomes
promoting improved and consistent practice by road agencies.
Austroads membership
Austroads membership comprises the six state and two territory road transport and traffic
authorities and the Australian Department of Transport and Regional Services in Australia, the
Australian Local Government Association and Transit New Zealand. It is governed by a council
consisting of the chief executive officer (or an alternative senior executive officer) of each of its
eleven member organisations:
Roads and Traffic Authority New South Wales

Roads Corporation Victoria
Department of Main Roads Queensland
Main Roads Western Australia
Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure South Australia
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Tasmania
Department of Planning and Infrastructure Northern Territory
Department of Territory and Municipal Services Australian Capital Territory
Australian Department of Transport and Regional Services
Australian Local Government Association
Transit New Zealand
The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of member organisations and others in
the road industry. It aims to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality information, advice
and fostering research in the road sector.
GUIDE TO ASSET MANAGEMENT PART 5C: RUTTING
SUMMARY
These guidelines constitute Part 5C – Rutting of the Guide to Asset Management published by
Austroads.
Austroads recognises the importance of road network rutting data as an input to a range of asset
management decisions. The purpose of this document is to promote consistency and improved
quality in the measurement of rutting or transverse profiles and the reporting of rutting throughout
Australia and New Zealand.
Whilst these guidelines are intended to be as independent as possible of the technology used for
measuring rutting, they have been prepared in the context that there are two current principal types
of devices for capturing rutting data in road network surveys in Australasia. They include the
manual straight edge for measuring rut depth, and the automated non-contact profilometer, which
uses optical (laser) or ultrasonic height sensors to capture transverse profiles.
The guidelines provide guidance on the frequency of network level surveys and the proportion of a
network to survey. Guidance is also provided on the reporting of rutting severity and the extent
data is collected using automated and manual techniques.
For the measurement of rut depth, the guidelines describe ‘wheel path rut depth’ and ‘lane rut
depth’ and provide guidance on the preferred measurement method for each. The guidelines
suggest that left wheel path rutting should be reported as a minimum, and that lane rutting is
optional. They call for network level surveys to be conducted in the lane carrying the heaviest
traffic loading, following the most common wheel track.
The document also discusses the uses of rutting data in road pavement management at network
and project levels and provides guidance on the analysis techniques of rutting data for different
applications.
The guidelines are based in large part on material previously published by Austroads as Guidelines
for Road Condition Monitoring, Part 2 – Pavement Rutting (AP-G65.2/05). The material has been
restructured, and new content added, to form part of the Guide to Asset Management.
Austroads 2007
— i—
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Context within the Guide to Asset Management.................................................................... 1
1.2 Overview of Pavement Rutting .............................................................................................. 1
1.3 Objective................................................................................................................................ 2
2 SPECIFICATION AND TEST METHOD ............................................................................... 4
2.1 Definition of Rutting ............................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Scope of Rutting Surveys ...................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Preferred Lane......................................................................................................... 4
2.2.2 Sampling Interval and Frequency ............................................................................ 5
2.3 Frequency of Rutting Surveys ............................................................................................... 5
2.4 Specification of Rutting Surveys ............................................................................................ 5
2.5 Data reporting ........................................................................................................................ 6
2.5.1 Reporting Interval .................................................................................................... 6
2.5.2 Reporting Parameters.............................................................................................. 6
3 TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES ................................................................................................. 8
3.1 Methods for Rutting Measurement ........................................................................................ 8
3.1.1 Determining Rut Depth Using Non-contact Methods ............................................... 8
3.1.2 Preferred Methods for Determining Wheel Path and Lane Rut Depths ................... 9
3.2 Technologies for Rutting Surveys........................................................................................ 10
3.2.1 Manual Methods for Measuring Rutting ................................................................. 10
3.2.2 Automated Methods for Measuring Rutting ........................................................... 11
3.3 Equipment Conditioning and System Performance ............................................................. 12
4 DATA QUALITY AND VALIDATION .................................................................................. 14
4.1 Validation of Distance Measurement ................................................................................... 14
4.2 Validation of Rutting Measurement (Non-contact Methods) ................................................ 14
4.3 Repeatability and Bias (Non-contact Methods) ................................................................... 14
5 ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................... 16
5.1 Assessing the Validity of Rutting Data................................................................................. 16
5.2 Distribution Analysis ............................................................................................................ 17
6 APPLICATION .................................................................................................................... 18
6.1 Network Screening .............................................................................................................. 18
6.2 Performance Measures ....................................................................................................... 18
6.3 Network Level Monitoring and Performance Modelling ....................................................... 18
6.4 Managing Maintenance Contracts ....................................................................................... 18
6.5 Intervention Levels............................................................................................................... 19
6.6 Decision-Support Tools ....................................................................................................... 19
7 PROJECT LEVEL APPLICATION...................................................................................... 20
7.1 Rutting Data Collection at the Project Level ........................................................................ 20
7.2 Assessment of Pavement Strength ..................................................................................... 20
7.3 Rutting Data as a Diagnostic Tool ....................................................................................... 20
7.4 Selection of Maintenance Treatment ................................................................................... 20
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 21
Austroads 2007
— ii —
COMMENTARY A GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THE NETWORK-LEVEL

MEASUREMENT OF ROAD PAVEMENT RUTTING ......................................................... 24
COMMENTARY B HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE .................................................................... 26
COMMENTARY C CAUSES AND NATURE OF RUTTING...................................................... 28
COMMENTARY D SCOPE AND FREQUENCY OF RUTTING SURVEYS .............................. 29
COMMENTARY E SPECIFICATION AND TEST METHODS................................................... 32
COMMENTARY F DATA REPORTING ................................................................................... 37
COMMENTARY G SAMPLE EXTRACT FROM A REPORT ON A RUTTING SURVEY ......... 41
COMMENTARY H MEASUREMENT OF RUTTING ................................................................. 42
COMMENTARY I TRANSVERSE PROFILE ANALYSIS (NON-CONTACT METHODS) ...... 43
COMMENTARY J VALIDATION TESTING (NON-CONTACT METHODS) ............................. 47
COMMENTARY K REPEATABILITY AND BIAS ..................................................................... 48
Austroads 2007
— iii —
TABLES
Table 2.1: Survey frequency .......................................................................................................... 5
Table 2.2: Austroads standard specification & test methods for pavement rutting measurement . 6
Table 3.1: Rutting measurement methods..................................................................................... 8
FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Structure of the Guide to Asset Management with focus on Part 5 ............................. 3
Figure 3.1: Straight edge and taut wire models for automated rut depth measurement ................ 9
Figure 3.2: Straight edge and wedge method for measuring maximum rut depth ....................... 11
Figure 3.3: An example of a multi-laser profilometer ................................................................... 11
Figure 3.4: Various sensor arrays for high speed transverse profile data capture....................... 12
Figure 5.1: Rutting severity of a link over time ............................................................................. 16
Figure 5.2: Distribution and trend of rutting severity for a network .............................................. 17
Figure 5.3: Cumulative distribution of rutting for a network.......................................................... 17
Austroads 2007
— iv —
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Context within the Guide to Asset Management
These guidelines form a portion of the Guide to Asset Management published by Austroads.
The Guide aims to encapsulate and promote best practice and emerging issues with regard to
the management of road related assets. Preparation of the Guide is underway, and will
ultimately be comprised of eight Parts, each covering specific aspects of asset management.
The overall structure of the Guide is contained in Figure 1.1.
These guidelines constitute Part 5C – Rutting of the Guide.
These guidelines describe the current preferred practices for the measurement and reporting of
road pavement rutting, and recommend the minimum data requirements for standardised
reporting of road pavement rutting by road agencies in Australia and New Zealand, including
testing of survey devices to ensure quality results. They do not preclude collection of additional
data when required.
A considerable amount of these guidelines is based on material previously drafted by Austroads

as Guidelines for Road Condition Monitoring, Part 2 – Pavement Rutting (AP-G65.2/05).
1.2 Overview of Pavement Rutting

A rut is a pavement defect in the form of a longitudinal depression on the surface, usually in a
wheel path. Rutting is a pavement condition parameter that characterises the transverse profile
of a road surface and aims to quantify the severity and extent of ruts over a pavement surface.
‘Rutting’ and ‘rut depth’ are commonly used terms for a particular aspect of pavement shape
that is measured and more precisely described as ‘transverse profile’.
Objective measures of transverse profile are used to estimate the depth (severity) and extent of
rutting, and are among the more common road condition parameters.
A glossary of terms used with regard to the network level measurement of pavement rutting is
provided in Commentary A.
As with most road condition parameters, rutting or transverse profile data is collected to support
efficient and effective management of road networks. Rutting information is used for:
road network condition monitoring
screening of candidate treatment sections and treatment selection
network level prioritisation and whole of life cycle cost analysis
managing maintenance contracts
research, e.g. development and refinement of deterioration models, and assessment of
structural strength.
Rutting information can also be used:

to assess pavement structural health
as a road safety measure.
Commentary B provides a historical background on pavement rutting and its measurement.
Austroads 2007
—1—
1.3 Objective
The objective of these Guidelines is to promote standardisation for the collection of road
condition data so that:
only relevant data is collected
data is collected in a cost efficient manner
the quality of the data is improved
the data is of increased value to road owners.
These guidelines are intended to assist in the collection and reporting of pavement rutting
information for monitoring road networks.
The guidelines aim to provide consistency in rutting specification and practice for road asset
management and are of relevance to contractors, condition monitoring service providers as well
as road agency personnel.
The advantages of a consistent approach include, reduced establishment and overhead costs
for hardware and software, a stronger focus on quality, and improved opportunities for
benchmarking among road owners and service providers.
These guidelines describe currently preferred practice for the measurement and reporting of
pavement rutting, including testing of survey devices to ensure quality results.
Austroads 2007
—2—
AUSTROADS GUIDE GUIDE TO ASSET MANAGEMENT
ASSET MANAGEMENT PART 1 – INTRODUCTION TO ASSET MANAGEMENT

(INCLUDING SCOPE OF OTHER PARTS)
BRIDGE TECHNOLOGY
PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGY PART 2 – STAKEHOLDER / COMMUNITY

REQUIREMENTS (OUTCOMES)
PROJECT DELIVERY
PROJECT EVALUATION PART 3 – ASSET STRATEGIES
ROAD DESIGN PART 4 – PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND

IMPLEMENTATION
ROAD SAFETY
ROAD TRANSPORT PLANNING PART 5 – PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PART 6 – BRIDGE PERFORMANCE
PART 7 – ROAD RELATED ASSETS PERFORMANCE
PART 8 – ASSET VALUATION AND AUDIT
PART 5 – PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE
PART 5 – PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE
PART 5A – INVENTORY
PART 5B – ROUGHNESS
PART 5C – RUTTING
PART 5D – STRENGTH
PART 5E – CRACKING
PART 5F – SKID RESISTANCE
PART 5G – TEXTURE
PART 5H – PERFORMANCE MODELLING
Figure 1.1: Structure of the Guide to Asset Management with focus on Part 5
Austroads 2007
—3—
2 SPECIFICATION AND TEST METHOD

2.1 Definition of Rutting
Rutting refers to the coverage of ruts over a pavement, and is a pavement condition parameter
that characterises the transverse profile of a road surface.
A rut is defined as a longitudinal depression that forms in a wheelpath of a road. The length-to-
width ratio would normally be greater than 4:1. Rutting may occur in one or both wheel paths of
a lane.
Rut depth is the maximum vertical pavement displacement in the transverse profile, either
across a wheel path (wheel path rut depth), or across a lane width (lane rut depth), measured
from a reference datum taken at 90 degrees to the road edge.
Both traffic loading and environmental influences can cause or contribute to rutting. Traffic
loading causes rutting when the passage of loaded wheels, particularly heavy trucks, results in
a longitudinal depression in a road surface along a wheel path, due to deformation or abrasion
or a combination of both. When moisture causes deformation of a road pavement, subgrade or
shoulder (e.g. heaving of the road shoulder or pavement edge), this can result in a longitudinal
depression that is reported as rutting.
In HDM technology, rutting is defined as the permanent or unrecoverable traffic-associated

deformation within pavement layers which, if channelised into wheel paths, accumulates over
time and becomes visible as a rut (Paterson, 1987). In these guidelines, rutting is defined more
broadly to include environmental influences as a cause of rutting, regardless of how it was
formed.
The monitoring and control of rutting has important performance implications because of its
influence on vehicle operation (affecting vehicle tracking), safety (aquaplaning) and dynamic
loading (through surface profile variations) (Kannemeyer 1995). A major use of rut
measurement is at a road safety level as a measure of the serviceability of the pavement
surface through ponding of water and the associated potential loss of skid resistance.
Rutting may arise because of material weakness, surface wear or structural inadequacy.
Hence, measurement of the transverse profile of a pavement surface would give an indication of
surface and structural condition. The structural implications of severe rutting or shoving were
noted as important indicators of the strength of the pavement (Roberts & Martin 1996, and
Koniditsiotis & Kumar 2004).
2.2 Scope of Rutting Surveys

2.2.1 Preferred Lane
The minimum level of network monitoring should include a survey of the lane carrying the
highest gross mass (generally the left lane) in one direction only, following the most common
wheel track.
Where a road has carriageways that are physically separated, the lane carrying the highest
gross mass on each carriageway is surveyed.
Austroads 2007
—4—
2.2.2 Sampling Interval and Frequency

As a minimum, rutting data should be collected as follows:
in the left wheel path of the lane that carries the highest gross mass
when using manual methods: for each kilometre, measuring the rut depths within a 100 m
sample section at a spacing of no greater than 10 m
using non-contact methods (refer to Section 3): by sampling the entire length of the
pavement at a spacing of no greater than 250 mm.
When additionally and optionally collecting lane rutting, data should be collected as:
lane rutting of both wheel paths of the lane that carries the highest gross mass, by
sampling the entire length of the pavement at a spacing of no greater than 250 mm.
2.3 Frequency of Rutting Surveys

The frequency of network surveys is dependent on the performance, function and use of the
road network being considered. Survey frequency can vary from one year to five years. As a
general guide the survey frequencies presented in
Table 2.1 are recommended:
Table 2.1: Survey frequency
Road network Frequency

Heavily trafficked arterial road 1 to 2 years
Roads known or thought to have high rates of deterioration 1 to 2 years
Arterial road with average deterioration 2 to 3 years
Low trafficked local road or road with low deterioration 5 years
It may also be appropriate to change the frequency of surveys based on rainfall, environmental
or other impacts. For example increases in legal mass limits may warrant a ‘before and after’
survey of some or all the network, depending upon the effect of such changes. It may
occasionally be necessary, therefore, to adopt different frequencies in the interest of meeting
local data needs.
2.4 Specification of Rutting Surveys

Until recently, and despite a long history of data collection across the Australasian road
networks, no nationally adopted procedures have existed for the collection of data and the
validation of test equipment. Each road authority has developed its own specification for these
types of survey works. Recent Austroads work has developed a standard specification, and
associated test methods, for the collection of rutting data (Moffatt, Sharp & Ferguson 2006).
The specification and test methods are freely available from the Austroads web site:
www.austroads.com.au/asset/test.html.
The web site also contains Commentaries for each of the specification and test methods.
These commentaries provide additional notes and advice to practitioners, and have been
structured to be read in conjunction with the relevant specification or test method.
Austroads 2007
—5—
Table 2.2 lists the specification and test methods (Austroads 2007a – 2000f) that are relevant to
the collection of roughness data. A general overview of the structure of the specification and test
methods, and guidance on their use within a contract context, is provided in a separate
commentary. The specification and test methods have been prepared for the testing of
pavements at the network level. Care should be taken when applying the specification or test
methods at the project level.
Table 2.2: Austroads standard specification & test methods for pavement rutting measurement
Number Title
Specification: AG:AM/S004 Specification for Pavement Rutting Measurement with a Multi-Laser Profilometer
Test Methods: AG:AM/T005 Distance Measurement Validation of Road Condition Monitoring Vehicles
AG:AM/T009 Pavement Rutting Measurement with a Multi-Laser Profilometer
AG:AM/T010 Validation of a Multi-Laser Profilometer for Measuring Pavement Rutting (Reference Device Method)
AG:AM/T011 Validation of a Multi-Laser Profilometer for Measuring Pavement Rutting (Loop Method)
AG:AM/T012 Pavement Rutting Repeatability and Bias Checks for a Multi- Laser Profilometer
2.5 Data reporting

2.5.1 Reporting Interval
Network rutting data should be reported at intervals of:
100 m (high speed non-contact survey methods)
1.0 km (manual survey methods).
2.5.2 Reporting Parameters

Rutting should be reported in terms of severity and extent for the left wheel path (and for the
lane where available) for each reporting interval, as:
Severity: - mean rut depth (mm), to the nearest whole number
- standard deviation of rut depths (mm), to one decimal point
Extent: - the percentage of the length with maximum rut depths in ‘bins’ as follows:
rut ≤ 5 mm 5 mm < rut ≤ 10 mm 10 mm < rut ≤ 15 mm
15 mm < rut ≤ 20 mm 20 mm < rut ≤ 25 mm 25 mm < rut ≤ 30 mm
30 mm < rut ≤ 35 mm 35 mm < rut ≤ 40 mm rut > 40 mm
to the nearest whole number.
The mean, standard deviation and percentage values are derived from maximum rut depth
samples measured at the recommended sampling intervals and frequencies in Section 2.2.2.
Data must be properly referenced in order to be meaningful for use in decision making
processes. Accordingly, rutting data must be reported using an established predefined location
referencing system such as the RTA NSW Roadloc system (RTA NSW, 2002). During the data
collection survey, the location of significant road features such as bridges, intersections,
administrative borders, etc. must be incorporated in rutting reports, to enable each 100 m
segment to be uniquely referenced in terms of the road agency’s location system.
Austroads 2007
—6—
Reports of rutting severity should always show whether a taut wire or straight edge method was
used, and the length of the straight edge (refer to section 3.1). Rutting reports must also clearly
identify the lane surveyed and the direction of travel during the survey, as well as the date and
weather conditions, and any impediment to the survey, or missing or invalid results and their
cause (e.g. roadworks, traffic congestion, local area of wet surface, water over road, or other
obstacle on the road, lane change manoeuvre for overtaking, etc.).
Commentary G contains a sample extract from a rutting survey report that complies with these
guidelines.
Austroads 2007
—7—
3 TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES

3.1 Methods for Rutting Measurement
Methods and devices for measurement of rutting are commonly described as manual or
automated, contact or non-contact, and high speed or static, as shown in Table 3.1. ‘Contact’
refers to physical contact between the device and the road surface.
A straight edge measures ‘maximum rut depth’ directly, whereas all other methods measure
‘transverse profile’, which is then used to estimate the maximum rut depth.
Table 3.1: Rutting measurement methods
Rutting measurement methods / devices Manual or automated Contact or non-contact High-speed or static
Physical straight edge and wedge Manual Contact Static
Rod and level Manual Contact Static
Dipstick TM (The FACE Companies, Norfolk, Virginia, USA) Automated Contact Static
Walking Profiler (ARRB Group, Vermont, Victoria, Australia) Automated Contact Static
Profilometers with optical sensors (e.g. lasers) Automated Non-contact High-speed
Profilometers with ultrasonic sensors Automated Non-contact High-speed
3.1.1 Determining Rut Depth Using Non-contact Methods

Measurement of rutting by these non-contact automated technologies generally simulates one
of two modes (Henry & Paterson 1994) as follows:
straight edge model – an imaginary straight edge spanning high points across a wheel
path. The results with this mode are sensitive to the length of the imaginary straight edge
(see Figure 3.1)
taut wire model – an imaginary stretched wire enveloping the high points across the
whole lane profile (see Figure 3.1).
With the taut wire model, only the largest rut depth for the lane is reported (known as lane
rutting), whereas the straight edge model can give a rut depth in each wheel path (wheel path
rutting). The rut depth calculated by the taut wire model could differ substantially from the rut
depth measured under a straight edge. For example, where the transverse profile is one large
basin as illustrated by Profile A in Figure 3.1, the taut wire model gives larger rut depths than
the straight edge model. In most cases, the taut wire model gives a more accurate indication of
the potential depth of free water on the road surface.
Austroads 2007
—8—
Figure 3.1: Straight edge and taut wire models for automated rut depth measurement
3.1.2 Preferred Methods for Determining Wheel Path and Lane Rut Depths
For wheel path rutting, Austroads recommends the 2 m straight edge as the reporting standard,
common to both manual and automated measurement techniques. However it is recognised
and regarded as acceptable that agencies with established systems based on 1.2 m straight
edges will change only at a time that suits their overall pavement management system.
Differences between rut depths measured with 1.2 m and 2 m straight edges are discussed in
Commentary H.
As an optional addition, lane rutting can be reported using the simulated taut wire method and
assuming a minimum lane width of 3.0 m.
Austroads 2007
—9—
For automated/non-contact measurements, readings at a minimum of three points are required

per wheel path, and an absolute minimum of five points is required across a lane to provide rut
depths in both wheel paths and a lane rut depth. Additionally and optionally, to include
coverage for edge defects the configuration should include a minimum of seven points.
3.2 Technologies for Rutting Surveys

3.2.1 Manual Methods for Measuring Rutting
Until about 1990, all rut measurement in Australia was carried out manually. The most viable
manual method for measuring and reporting pavement surface rutting at a network level
involves the use of a physical straight edge, usually in conjunction with a wedge, as shown in
Figure 3.2. ROCOND 90 (RTA 1990, pp.14-15) describes a manual method using a straight
edge and wedge for reporting and measuring rutting at the network level on roads with flexible
pavements.
The manual 2 m (or 1.2 m) physical straight edge method is still in common use. However, the
use of non-contact automated rutting (or transverse profile) measuring technologies has been
increasing for some time, and it is now generally agreed that rutting and roughness
measurements can be automatically collected at highway speed provided there are sufficient
sensors.
Manual devices such as the rod and level and automated devices such as the ARRB Walking
Profiler, though accurate, are unlikely to be cost-effective for extensive network level rutting
surveys. However, they may be used with automated survey devices for validation purposes
(see Section 4).
For a network level manual rutting survey, a sampling approach is necessary because it is not
feasible to measure rutting manually for 100% of the length or lanes. Therefore, for a network
level manual rutting survey, it is necessary to specify:
the sample to be measured, i.e., the proportions of length and width (numbers of lanes
and wheel paths)
the spacing along the road between measurements of rut depth
the length of the straight edge.
Where the width of the rut exceeds the length of the straight-edge, the straight-edge will not fully
span the rut profile between its highest points. Therefore, for a given rut, the measured depth
may vary with the length of the straight edge.
Austroads 2007
— 10 —
Figure 3.2: Straight edge and wedge method for measuring maximum rut depth
3.2.2 Automated Methods for Measuring Rutting

Automated methods for rutting surveys use a number of vehicle-mounted lasers or ultrasonic
sensors as shown in Figure 3.3 and illustrated in Figure 3.4, in conjunction with taut wire or
straight edge models (Figure 3.1). These devices are typically capable of measuring transverse
profiles as close as 50 mm spacings while the host-vehicle travels at normal traffic speeds.
By 2003, all Austroads Member Authorities (MAs) were using laser profilometers with at least
11 laser sensors (Sheldon 2004). The Austroads standard test method for collecting rutting
data with a multi-laser profilometer, AG:AM/T009, similarly recommends use of at least 11 laser
sensors.
Figure 3.3: An example of a multi-laser profilometer
Austroads 2007
— 11 —
Source: Transfund NZ 2003
Figure 3.4: Various sensor arrays for high speed transverse profile data capture
Contact devices are prone to bias errors when measuring rutting on textured surfaces,
depending on the size of the footprint of the device, because contact devices measure only to
the pinnacles of surface stones, rather than to a more representative level. With regard to non-
contact devices, profilometers with ultrasonic sensors are more prone to bias errors on textured
surfaces than profilometers with optical sensors – this is thought to relate to the footprint size for
ultrasonic sensors which is about 50 mm in diameter, particularly as ultrasonic sensors register
a reading as soon as the acoustic wave is first detected (Gow et al. 1999).
With non-contact laser or ultrasonic sensors, it is necessary to cease surveying when the road
surface is wet. This applies equally to surveys of roughness, rutting, and surface texture,
because the instrument would tend to measure the profile of the surface of the moisture, rather
than the profile of the top of the road surfacing.
Because the values of maximum rut depth estimated from transverse profile data are sensitive
to the path of the host-vehicle, it is desirable to minimise the number of drivers during a rutting
survey, consistent with Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) requirements.
When using a multi-laser profilometer (MLP) for a rutting survey, in contrast to a roughness
survey, there is no inherent need for a minimum speed threshold. However, it is common for
surveys of roughness and rutting to be carried out simultaneously using the same vehicle. For
roughness, profilometers have been found to have a lower speed threshold at about 25 km/h, so
much so that at least one Australian state road authority requires measurement at a minimum
travel speed of 30 km/h to allow for a margin of error.
However, for reasons of public safety, many MLPs have an automatic switch which turns the
lasers off below a threshold speed. There is a manual override for the automated switch, for
use in static tests and low speed transverse profile surveys if required.
3.3 Equipment Conditioning and System Performance

Overall the performance of a rut or transverse measurement system and consequent accurate
reporting of data will depend on the following:
the design and proper functioning of the hardware and software
system elements (human, electronic, mechanical etc.)
measurement devices (e.g. height sensors, signal conditioners and filters, etc.)
type of data acquisition system
Austroads 2007
— 12 —
operational settings, processing algorithms

adherence to accepted quality assurance practices and standards (ISO 9000 series)
including systematic maintenance of quality records
in automated or non-contact systems, filtering can also have a significant effect on the
resulting transverse profile
checking collected data for results affected by unusual events, and removing them.
Austroads 2007
— 13 —
4 DATA QUALITY AND VALIDATION

4.1 Validation of Distance Measurement
Austroads Test Method AG:AM/T005 Distance Measurement Validation of Road Condition
Monitoring Vehicles defines the procedure for validating the distance measurement
performance of vehicles conducting condition monitoring surveys (such as multi-laser
profilometers).
The procedure involves the comparison of the distance reported by the road condition vehicle
travelling over a 1 km length of road, with the exact length of that road as measured by precise
ground survey techniques.
4.2 Validation of Rutting Measurement (Non-contact Methods)

Validation involves obtaining separate sets of measurements from test sections using an
operational device and a reference device, and statistically comparing the two datasets. The
aim is to ensure that the operational device will give valid survey results. Two alternative
Austroads test methods have been developed for equipment validation.
The first method, AG:AM/T010 Validation of a Multi-Laser Profilometer for Measuring Pavement
Rutting (Reference Device Method ), makes use of a reference device. The method is
comprised of two tests. Firstly, five transverse profiles measured by the multi-laser profilometer
being assessed are compared against independent measurements of the profiles. The profiles
to be measured can be either road surfaces, or artificially manufactured profiles. This
comparison is to be undertaken statically, i.e. with the multi-laser profilometer standing still. The
second test compares the dynamically measured profiles (i.e. with the profilometer travelling at
survey speeds) with those measured by a surveyor’s rod and level, or a transverse profile
logger, or a straight edge. Those measured profiles that exactly coincide with the independently
measured ones are extracted from the profilometer’s data, and comparisons made of the
measured wheelpath and lane rut depths. As with the similar roughness validation method,
linear regression analyses are used. The tests are to be carried out at a variety of test speeds
to demonstrate that the profilometer’s results are not affected by survey speed. The method
requires that the repeatability checks described below be conducted as part of the validation
exercise.
The second method, AG:AM/T011 Validation of a Multi-Laser Profilometer for Measuring

Pavement Rutting (Loop Method), involves the comparison of rutting data from the profilometer
requiring validation against a reference set of data collected by other similar profilometers. The
procedure was developed by RTA NSW for validation of roughness measurement, and has
been extended for validation of rutting measurement.
4.3 Repeatability and Bias (Non-contact Methods)

Measurement repeatability is an indication of the variation in a series of measurements about
the mean of those measurements. Bias error indicates whether a device is systematically
measuring high or low when compared to a reference set of measurements.
Austroads 2007
— 14 —
AG:AM/T012 Pavement Rutting Repeatability and Bias Checks for a Multi Laser Profilometer
outlines the process by which these checks can be conducted. The standard Specification (see
Section 2.3) requires that these checks are conducted as part of the validation method
AG:AM010, and additionally every 30 days during the collection of data. The test method
compares two sets of roughness readings, taken some time apart, along a length of road. The
test method contains worked examples of the calculations required.
Austroads 2007
— 15 —
5 ANALYSIS
This section discusses the tools and techniques that can be used to determine the validity of the
collected rutting data. In addition, discussion is provided on ways in which value can be added
to rutting data.
5.1 Assessing the Validity of Rutting Data

It would be expected that a road section that had not received recent maintenance would
demonstrate a gradual increase in rutting severity. Analysing the trend of rutting severity and
extent for a given section of road requires an accurate referencing system to ensure that the
same length of road is being compared over time.
Figure 5.1 displays the trend in rutting severity for 100 m segments of a road link over two
years. The graph indicates that, for most segments, rutting severity either stayed the same or
increased over time. Sections such as those at reference chainages 30.1-30.2 and 33.0-33.1
experienced higher progression rates in rutting than the adjacent sections. To validate the data,
confirmation would be required as to whether or not these levels are reasonable at these
locations.
Other techniques that can be used to assess the validity of the data include calculating the
percentage of network with rutting severity greater than a threshold value (or percentage of
network with rutting extent in a critical band (e.g. >20 mm)) and comparing them against the
corresponding values for previous years. These measures can be determined at road class,
region or network level.
12
2003
10 1999
Rutting (mm)
2
30 31 32 33 34 35
Refe rence chainage (km)
Figure 5.1: Rutting severity of a link over time
When considering the possibility that a rutting data set is of suspect quality, it is important to
investigate whether there are other factors that may be affecting the road condition. Cross
checking against other data sources such as digital images and other condition data, which are
collected concurrently with rutting data, would help in determining the validity of specific rutting
data.
Austroads 2007
— 16 —
5.2 Distribution Analysis

Histograms and cumulative distribution graphs of rutting data are effective in summarising the
distribution of rutting over the network. These graphs can be an effective means of conveying
network performance trends when time series results are plotted as shown in Figure 5.2 and
Figure 5.3.
Such graphs provide a good indication of the effectiveness of maintenance management

practice. The example network shown in figure can be seen to have a gradual improvement in
the network rutting condition over time.
60%
2000
2001
2005
50%
Percentage of network
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
< 5 mm < 10 mm < 15 mm < 20 mm < 25 mm < 30 mm
Rut depth
Figure 5.2: Distribution and trend of rutting severity for a network
100%
2000
90% 2001
2005
Cummulative percentage of network
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Rut depth (mm)
Figure 5.3: Cumulative distribution of rutting for a network
Austroads 2007
— 17 —
6 APPLICATION
The following sub-sections provide a brief overview of the range of network management
applications for rutting data.
6.1 Network Screening

A key application of rutting data is to allow a network manager to screen an entire network and
separate those lengths of road whose condition warrants further investigation from the larger
portion of the network which does not.
Where the candidate sections do not require immediate intervention, rutting data is used to
monitor progression over time for maintenance and rehabilitation planning purposes.
6.2 Performance Measures

Rutting data is used, with other condition parameters, by some road authorities in determining
compound network performance measures. For example road authorities in New Zealand use
rutting data in determining a performance measure called the Pavement Integrity Index (PII).
PII is a combined index, a ‘weighted sum’, of the pavement faults in sealed road surfaces
divided by total lane length. PII combines rutting, alligator cracking, average NAASRA
Roughness Meter counts/km, shoving, potholes and pothole patches. It is a measure of the
overall network pavement health (Land Transport NZ 2005).
The performance of the network could be assessed by comparing the values of this measure
over the years (for a section, a link, a region, a road class or the whole network). Such
composite measures are useful in assessing the health of the network and the effectiveness of
maintenance programs on certain sections or links.
6.3 Network Level Monitoring and Performance Modelling

Rutting results are used for internal monitoring of network behaviour, and Figure 5.2 is an
example of such a use. The authority that generated these figures uses them as a means of
quickly tracking the overall behaviour of the network.
Rutting data are used in developing and refining rutting performance prediction models and as
input in pavement roughness progression models.
6.4 Managing Maintenance Contracts

Indicators of this type can also be used for monitoring the performance of maintenance service
providers. These service providers may be separate departments of the network owning
authority, or, as is becoming increasingly the case, an outsourced maintenance contractor. In
some cases, current levels of rutting for separate components of the network have been
established, and the maintenance organisation has been charged with the responsibility for
maintaining the network at, or possibly improving the network from those levels.
Some network owners use a more sophisticated approach and use the current rutting
characteristics of the network as an input into network condition projection models. The
projection models are then used to determine the worst case and target network conditions over
the period of the maintenance contract. These two cases form the upper and lower limits within
which the maintenance contractor must ensure the distribution of network performance is
placed.
Austroads 2007
— 18 —
6.5 Intervention Levels

Rutting data are used as intervention triggers for routine maintenance works (patching) to
improve safety and used in conjunction with other condition parameters to trigger reseal and
rehabilitation treatments to improve pavement functional and structural integrity. Refer to
Austroads (2004) for indicative investigation levels of rutting on various classes of existing
roads, which are principally designed to ensure the safety of road users.
Time series of rutting data can be useful in assessing the effectiveness of current investigation
levels, and in formulating potential future investigation levels. When establishing investigation
levels for a network it is also important to have an appreciation of the current condition of that
network. It is important to ensure that any new investigation levels, and maintenance
responses, are affordable, practical and likely to result in the changes in network characteristic
that are targeted. Examination of current, and preferably past, rutting data can be of
considerable assistance in addressing these issues.
6.6 Decision-Support Tools

Decision-support tools differ from pure information systems in that they have the ability to
process data to yield new parameters, rather than just store and report on existing data. These
tools can provide valuable input to the network manager when making management decisions,
by processing condition parameters, such as rutting, and determining maintenance strategies,
work plans, budget estimates and the like.
Decision-support tools are wide ranging in nature and complexity, and a detailed discussion of
their nature is beyond the scope of these guidelines, and is addressed elsewhere in the Guide
to Asset Management. Some tools use simple decision rules to prepare theoretical work
programs based on a static network condition observation. Other systems, such as HDM-4, use
a wide range of pavement condition parameters as inputs into complex incremental step models
to predict future pavement, and ultimately network performance, under a variety of maintenance
and rehabilitation strategy scenarios.
Given the broad nature of this topic, a future section of this Guide is to be dedicated to the
subject of performance modelling, and it is anticipated that these issues will be discussed, and
guidance given, in that document.
Austroads 2007
— 19 —
7 PROJECT LEVEL APPLICATION

This section addresses a few key issues regarding collection and use of data at a project level.
For additional information the reader is referred to the Guide to Pavement Technology.
7.1 Rutting Data Collection at the Project Level

Automated collection systems are suitably accurate for application at project level, and such
systems are used in contract auditing roles at the project level. For some small scale project
works, however, manual methods may prove to be more economical.
Field inspection would be also required to collect information on the type and location of
deformation. These data are used in interpreting the cause of rutting and assessing structural
capacity and remaining life of the pavement.
The existence or presence of associated shoving, for example, is an important attribute in

identifying the cause of rutting. Where the rutting is associated with shoving, it is indicative of
the shear strength in the upper pavement layers being inadequate to withstand the applied
traffic loads. Where ruts are wide and there is little or no evidence of shoving, it is more likely
related to deformation at depth in the pavement as a result of either insufficient pavement
strength or compaction of the pavement under traffic (Austroads 2004).
7.2 Assessment of Pavement Strength

Rutting data could be used to assess pavement strength by plotting measured pavement
deflections at various chainages against measured rut depths at the time of deflection testing.
The higher the correlation of rut depth and deflection, the more likely the rutting is due to
inadequate pavement strength. If rut depth does not correlate with pavement deflection and
there is little or no shoving, the most likely cause is densification of the pavement layer under
traffic early in the life of the pavement (Austroads 2004).
7.3 Rutting Data as a Diagnostic Tool

Rutting data can be used, together with other condition data including drainage condition, as
diagnostic tools to identify the causes of pavement distress and to assess the structural strength
of the pavement.
For a flexible pavement, the relative contributions of the structural layers (i.e. subgrade, base,
subbase, and asphalt surfacing) to rutting could be determined from an analysis of its
transverse surface profile (NCHRP, 2002).
When the causes and relative contributions of the layers to the total permanent deformation in
the pavement are determined, appropriate remedial measures could be implemented.
7.4 Selection of Maintenance Treatment

Rutting data are used in the screening and prioritisation of candidate treatment sections and in
determining the type of maintenance treatment considering the contributing deterioration
mechanism.
Austroads 2007
— 20 —
REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 1999, Provisional
Standard PP38-99 - Practice for determining maximum rut depth in asphalt pavements, Interim
Edition, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
Asnani, S, Ksaibati, K and Al-Suleiman, TI 1993, ‘Consistency of roughness and rut depth measurement
collected with 11 south dakota road profilers’, Transportation Research Record No. 1410.
Standards Australia 2002 AS 1348:2002, Road and traffic engineering-Glossary of terms. Standards
Australia, Sydney.
Austroads 2003, Rural Road Design: A guide to the geometric design of rural roads, AP-G1/03,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2004, Pavement Rehabilitation - A guide to the design of rehabilitation treatments for road
pavements, AP-G78/04, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006, Guide to Asset Management: Part 5B - Roughness, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2007a, Specification for Pavement Rutting Measurement with a Multi-Laser Profilometer,
Austroads Specification AG:AM/S004, Austroads, Sydney.
Austroads 2007b, Distance Measurement Validation of Road Condition Monitoring Vehicles, Austroads
Test Method AG:AM/T005, Austroads, Sydney.
Austroads 2007c, Pavement Rutting Measurement with a Multi-Laser Profilometer, Austroads Test
Method AG:AM/T009, Austroads, Sydney.
Austroads 2007d, Validation of a Multi-Laser Profilometer for Measuring Pavement Rutting (Reference
Device Method), Austroads Test Method AG:AM/T010, Austroads, Sydney.
Austroads 2007e, Validation of a Multi-Laser Profilometer for Measuring Pavement Rutting (Loop
Method), Austroads Test Method AG:AM/T011, Austroads, Sydney.
Austroads 2007f, Pavement Rutting Repeatability and Bias Checks for a Multi- Laser Profilometer,
Austroads Test Method AG:AM/T012, Austroads, Sydney.
Bennett, CR 1996, ‘On the calculation of rut depths from profilometers’, Technical Note, Road and
Transport Research, vol. 5 no. 4.
Bennett, CR 1998, ‘Evaluation of a high speed transverse profile logger’, Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Managing Pavements, May 1998, Durban, South Africa, Volume 1,
pages 408 - 423.
Croney D and Croney, P 1997, The design and performance of road pavements, Third Edition, pages 24-
27, McGraw-Hill.
Donald, G 1994, Draft guidelines for limiting the risk of aquaplaning on roads, Technology Transfer
Workshop, Port Macquarie, May 1994, Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales, Sydney,
NSW.
Gow, R, Hannay, R and Wix, R 1999, The collection, processing and reporting of pavement condition
data: pilot validation study, 100 km trial survey and repeatability checks, Contract Report SC 7043
for VicRoads, ARRB Transport Research Ltd. Vermont South, Victoria.
Austroads 2007
— 21 —
Hallet, J & Wix, R 1996, ‘Trial of high speed data capture vehicle for New Zealand state highways’,
Proceedings of the combined 18th ARRB Transport Research Conference and Transit NZ Land
Transport Symposium, Christchurch, NZ, ARRB Transport Research Ltd. Vermont South, Victoria.
Henry, JJ, & Paterson, WDO 1994, ‘Standardization or harmonization: what is needed for pavement
management?’, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Managing Pavements, 1994,
San Antonio, Texas, No 1, Vol 3, Pages: 16-28, Transportation Research Board (TRB),
Washington, USA.
Kannemeyer, L 1995, Modelling rutting in flexible pavements in HDM-4, Report to the International Study
of Highway Development and Management Tools, ND Lea International, Vancouver, Canada.
Koniditsiotis, C and Kosky, C 1996, ‘National uniformity in pavement condition data definition’, 18th ARRB
Transport Research Conference / Transit NZ Land Transport Symposium, Christchurch NZ, ARRB
Transport Research Ltd. Vermont South, Victoria.
Koniditsiotis, C and Kumar, A 2004, ‘Prediction of road pavement structural capacity from transverse
profile shape’ Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Managing Pavements, October
2004, Brisbane, Australia.
Ksaibati, K 1996, ‘Comparison of rut-depth measurements obtained with four different techniques’, Road
and Transport Research vol 5 no 2, ARRB Transport Research Ltd. Vermont South, Victoria.
Land Transport NZ 2005, General Circular–Funding No. 05/02, viewed December 2005.
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/publications/general-circulars/05-02.doc
Lay, MG and Prem, H 1989, Road roughness and profile data, ARRB Research Document DN 1666,
Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Victoria.
Lu, J, Bertrand, C and Hudson, WR 1992, ‘A procedure to develop an index quantifying transverse profile
and rutting of flexible pavements’, Proceedings of ASPAC 92, IRF/ARF Asia Pacific Regional Road
Conference, 1992, Gold Coast, Australia.
Martin, T 2003, Data Review and Calibration of HDM-4 Road deterioration models, Research Report
ARR 360, ARRB Transport Research Ltd., Vermont South, Victoria.
McLean, J and Ramsay, E 1996, Interpretations of road profile data: a discussion paper, ARRB Transport
Research Ltd. Working Document WD AM 96/01, ARRB Transport Research Ltd, Vermont South,
Victoria.
Moffatt, MA, Sharp, KG & Ferguson, RA 2006, Austroads standardised measurement of road condition.
Proceedings 22nd ARRB Conference, Canberra, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Victoria.
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities (NAASRA) 1987, A guide to the visual
assessment of pavement condition, National Association of Australian State Road Authorities,
Sydney, NSW, Australia.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 2002, Contributions of pavement structural
layers to rutting of hot mix asphalt pavements, Report 468, TRB, Washington D.C.
National Institute for Transport and Road Research (NITRR) 1985, Structural design of interurban and
rural road pavements, Technical Recommendations for Highways, No TRH4, NITRR, Pretoria,
South Africa.
Austroads 2007
— 22 —
ND Lea 1995, ‘Annex 5.1: Processing and evaluating rut depth data’, ISOHDM report modelling road
deterioration and maintenance effects in HDM–4, ND Lea International Ltd, Vancouver, Canada.
Nesnas, K, McRobbie, S & Wright, MA 2005, Initial study and development of transverse profile analysis -
TTS on local roads, published project report PPR014, TRL Ltd, Wokingham, UK.
Paterson, WDO 1987, ‘Road deterioration and maintenance effects: models for planning and
management’, Chapter 7: Permanent Deformation of Pavements, The Highway Design and
Maintenance Standards Series, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore USA, pp. 249-272.
PIARC 2002, International experiment to harmonize longitudinal and transverse profile measurement and
reporting procedure, 01.07.B, World Road Association (PIARC), Paris.
Prem, H 1989, NAASRA roughness meter calibration via the road-profile-based international roughness
index (IRI), research report ARR 164, ARRB Transport Research Ltd., Vermont South, Victoria.
Roberts, JD and Martin, TC 1996, Recommendations for monitoring pavement performance, Research
Report ARR 293, ARRB Transport Research Ltd., Vermont South, Victoria.
Robinson, PD 1998, Consistency and inconsistency in rutting and strength monitoring practices
throughout Australasia, Contract Report RC 7129 for Austroads’ Project BS.A.65, ARRB Transport
Research Ltd. Vermont South, Victoria, Australia.
RTA NSW 1990, ROCOND 90 road condition manual, Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales
(RTA NSW), Sydney, Australia.
RTA NSW 2002, Reference guide to linear referencing, Version 1, Revision 1, RTA NSW, Sydney.
Sayers, MW & Karamihas, SM 1996, The little book of profiling: basic information about measuring and
interpreting road profiles, Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), Michigan, USA.
Sheldon, G 2004, ‘Australian data collection practices’, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
Managing Pavements, October 2004, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Soet, WJ, Mihai, F and Barnsley R 2003, ‘Verification and repeatability of pavement condition data
collected in Western Australia’, Proceedings of the 21st ARRB / 11th REAAA Conference, May
2003, Cairns, Queensland, Australia.
Transfund New Zealand 2003, Harmonising automated rut depth measurements, Transfund Research
Report No 242, Transfund, Wellington, New Zealand.
Wang, KCP, Gong W and Elliott RP 2004, ‘A feasibility study on data automation for comprehensive
pavement condition survey; Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Managing
Pavements, October 2004, Brisbane, Australia.
Wix, R 1998, ‘Automated pavement data collection for local government’, Proceedings of the 19th ARRB
Transport Research Conference, December 1998, Sydney, ARRB Transport Research Ltd.
Vermont South, Victoria.
Wix, R and Elderhurst, j 1996, Comparison of methods of rut calculation using 1994 south western region
data, Contract Report AC 5641 for VicRoads, ARRB Transport Research Ltd., Vermont South,
Victoria.
Wix, R 2006, ‘Going off road with rutting’, Proceedings of the 22nd ARRB Conference, October 2006,
Canberra, ARRB Group Ltd. Vermont South, Victoria.
Austroads 2007
— 23 —
COMMENTARY A GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THE

NETWORK-LEVEL MEASUREMENT OF
ROAD PAVEMENT RUTTING
Term Interpretation
Aquaplaning Aquaplaning is the complete loss of traction and directional control of a vehicle as a result of a fluid film between
the tyres and the road surface. Partial aquaplaning occurs at quite low speeds as a result of some intrusion of a
water film between the tyre and road surface. Full dynamic aquaplaning occurs when a tyre is completely
separated from the road surface by a film of water (Austroads 2003).
ARRB Walking Profiler A device for static measuring of road surface profile. The ARRB Walking Profiler consists of a slope sensitive
(WP) beam mounted on two feet spaced 241.3 mm apart, with an on-board computer which records distance and
elevation, as it progresses. The measuring mechanism positions the beam in a continuing cycle such that for each
new beam placement, the rear foot of the beam accurately overlies the position formerly occupied by the front foot.
Though the beam mechanism is supported from the body of the device, it is disengaged for a short period each
time it is placed on the pavement. The device travels on two wheels and is pushed manually at about 0.8 km/h.
The ARRB Walking Profiler is accepted as a suitable reference device for validation testing of high speed
profilometers.
Automated methods for Methods for estimating and reporting pavement surface rutting using vehicle-mounted profilometers set up to
network level rutting measure transverse profile. In accordance with these Austroads guidelines, an automated rutting survey device
surveys should be capable of measuring transverse profiles at a maximum spacing of 250 mm along the road; 7 or more
sensors across the lane are preferred, although a minimum of 5 is acceptable, depending on the purposes of the
data and circumstances such as typical edge condition.
Bias A statistical term to indicate whether a device is systematically measuring high or low when compared to a
reference set of measures.
Condition monitoring Continuous or periodic inspection, assessment, measurement, reporting and interpretation of resulting data to
indicate the condition of a specific asset in order to determine the need for and nature and timing of maintenance.
(Also see ‘Condition survey’.)
Condition parameter A quantifiable expression of a specific defect in an asset (e.g. roughness, rutting, surface texture, skid resistance,
edge break, deflection, etc., are pavement condition parameters). Reporting can be either by bins (e.g. good, fair,
poor, bad, etc.) or on a continuous numerical scale (IRI, NRM, rut depth (mm), crack width (mm), % area patched,
etc.).
Condition survey The process of collecting data on the condition of an asset, e.g. the structural or functional condition of a pavement.
(Also see ‘Condition monitoring’.)
DipstickTM A device for static measuring of road surface profile. DipstickTM consists of a precision inclinometer on two
supports, normally spaced 300 mm apart, and adjustable between 50 mm and 300 mm. The inclinometer
measures and records the difference in height between the two supports, and the device ‘walks’ along the line
being profiled, by pivoting through 1800 after each measurement. DipstickTM is accepted as a suitable reference
device for validation testing of high speed profilometers.
Depression A localised area within a pavement with elevations lower than the surrounding area. May not be confined to wheel
paths and could extend across several wheel paths or lanes.
Footprint A descriptive term for the plan area of the sensor of a transverse profile measurement device, e.g. the area of the
pad that rests on the surface with a contact device, or the area of the beam from a non-contact sensor.
Heave (heaving) The upward movement of soil resulting from expansion or displacement caused by absorption, freezing of soil
moisture and operation such as removal of overburden, pile driving and embankment construction (AS 1348:2002).
Intervention level The value of a condition parameter which triggers maintenance investigation or activity.
ISOHDM The International Study of Highway Development and Management, an international project for the development of
HDM-4, based at the University of Birmingham, UK, administered by PIARC in Paris, and funded by the World
Bank, Asian Development Bank, British Department for International Development, Swedish Government and
others.
Manual methods for Measuring and reporting pavement surface rutting using a physical straight edge and wedge or a rod and level.
network level rutting For a given rut, the measured depth may vary with the length of the straight edge. In accordance with these
surveys Austroads guidelines, a 2 m straight edge is preferred, and a 1.2 m straight edge is acceptable until agencies with
established systems based on 1.2 m make the change.
Network level A type of road condition survey or data analysis where the main purpose is to monitor network performance or
assist with network asset management decisions, as distinct from project decisions.
Austroads 2007
— 24 —
Term Interpretation
Non-contact A term to describe a system of measuring without physical contact between the instrument and the object being
measured, e.g. ultrasonic or optical sensors are capable of measuring a transverse road surface profile without
physical contact with the road surface.
Profile A two-dimensional slice of the road surface, taken along an imaginary line (Sayers & Karamihas1996).
Also see ‘Reference profile’, ‘Transverse profile’, and ‘True profile’.
Profiler Some literature, especially from the United States, refers to profilometers as profilers. In Australasia, the term
‘profiler’ mostly means a self-propelled machine, which removes a controlled depth of pavement material. An
exception is the ‘ARRB Walking Profiler’ (see above), which is a commercial name for proprietary technology with
international patents.
Profilometer A device for producing a series of numbers related in a well-defined way to a true profile. Devices for assessing rut
depth from transverse profiles, other than physical straight edge-type devices and most static devices, are
commonly referred to as profilometers.
Project level A type of road condition survey or data analysis where the main purpose is to assist with decisions about proposals
for a specific project on a short length of road, as distinct from network decisions.
Reference profile That part of the true profile that is relevant to road management and can be measured. Also see ‘True profile’.
Repeatability A statistical term to indicate the extent of variation in outputs about the mean.
Rut A pavement defect in the form of a longitudinal depression on the surface, usually in a wheel path.
A vertical deformation of a pavement surface formed by the wheels of vehicles (AS 1348:2002).
Rutting A collective noun describing the coverage of ruts over a pavement.
A pavement condition parameter that characterises the transverse profile of a road surface, quantified as the
severity and extent of ruts.
The longitudinal vertical deformation of a pavement surface in a wheel path, measured relative to a straight edge
placed at right angles to the traffic flow and across the wheel path (AS 1348:2002).
[In HDM technology, rutting is defined as the permanent or unrecoverable traffic-associated deformation within
pavement layers which, if channelised into wheel paths, accumulates over time and becomes manifested as a rut
(Paterson, 1987)].
Shoving Bulging of the road surface generally parallel to the direction of traffic and/or horizontal displacement of surfacing
materials mainly in the direction of traffic where braking or deceleration movements occur. Transverse shoving
may arise with turning movements (NAASRA 1987).
Lateral displacement of pavement structure, caused by braking, accelerating or turning vehicles (AS 1348:2002).
Static measurement A method of measuring the transverse profile of a road surface where the measuring device is not progressing
method along the road while the measurement is taken. Examples include the ‘rod and level’ method, the DipstickTM, and
the ARRB Walking Profiler.
Straight edge A purpose built straight edged device for manual measurement of rutting, generally of hardwood or aluminium
construction, either 1.2 m or 2 m in length.
Surface texture A condition parameter to characterise the average height between peaks and troughs in the surface of the road.
Subdivided into microtexture (wavelength < 0.5 mm, associated with asperities on the surface of individual pieces
of aggregate), macrotexture (wavelength 0.5 – 50 mm, related to the size, spacing and arrangement of the
aggregate particles at the surface) and megatexture (50 – 500 mm, related to small defects in the surfacing, such
as rutting, potholes, patching, stone loss (stripping), ravelling, major joints and major cracks). Macrotexture relates
to potential channels for water to drain off the surface of a pavement, which can influence skid resistance and
hence safety. Macrotexture depth is usually the reported condition parameter for surface texture. Surface texture
can affect profile measurement, depending on the size of the footprint of the measurement device.
Transverse profile The cross sectional shape of a pavement or traffic lane measured generally at right angles to the longitudinal
direction of the road. Also see ‘Profile’.
True profile A highly accurate but unmeasurable theoretical concept. Also see ‘Reference profile’.
Validation test A standardised procedure to test the validity of results from a measuring device. Testing is carried out against the
results from a reference measuring device.
Wheel path That portion of the pavement that is subject to passage of and loading from vehicle wheels during trafficking. There
are two wheel paths per trafficked lane - referred to in these guidelines as the ‘left wheel path’ (LWP), nearer to the
verge, and the ‘right wheel path’ (RWP), nearer to the middle of the road (because traffic in Australia and New
Zealand drives on the left side of the road). International literature sometimes uses the terms ‘outer wheel path’
and ‘inner wheel path’ – these are the LWP and RWP respectively in Australia and New Zealand, and vice versa in
nations where vehicles use the right hand side of the road.
Austroads 2007
— 25 —
COMMENTARY B HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Rutting has been of concern since wheeled traffic first came into use. The effect of the passage
of wheeled traffic over a travelled way is evidenced in the presence of rutting. Rutting is the
most common form of deformation visible on any type of pavement, sealed or unsealed.
The original concept of constructing paved roads was to provide protection to a weak natural
surface to reduce or prevent the development of wheel path rutting. Well constructed Roman
roads some of which still survive in Europe show evidence in the stone paving setts of rutting
caused by chariots (Figure B.1).
Figure B.1: Rutting in a Roman road
The collapse of communications during the Dark Ages resulted from the loss of road building
technology which in turn resulted in travelled ways disintegrating into impassable bogholes
when wet and almost impassably rough and deformed tracks when dry.
The rise of the Industrial Revolution and related developments in mechanisation and trade led to
the need for efficient communication modes to transport goods. Railways came to the fore and
some time later the efforts of Telford and Macadam in pavement construction technology saw
the resurgence of roads as a major mode of long distance transportation.
As road networks improved and vehicles became faster and heavier (carrying larger loads), the
effects of wheel path rutting caused by weak pavement materials and/or soft subgrades
remained a problem. Further advances in materials technology have seen the introduction of
high quality rut resistant surfacing materials and improved structural capacity in pavements and
subgrades.
Control of the development of rutting is therefore an important facet of pavement maintenance.

The measurement of rutting has become a fundamental part of measuring pavement condition.
Pavement rutting is reported in terms of severity and extent (see Section 2). The values for
measures of rutting that trigger maintenance investigation or activity are based on two main
criteria:
Safety – where traffic speeds are high and water ponding may occur. Rutting beyond the
relevant intervention level increases the potential for vehicles to aquaplane.
Austroads 2007
— 26 —
Structural or economic – rutting levels beyond which rutting, and/or other forms of
pavement deterioration (e.g. cracking), increase rapidly due to loss of strength caused by
the ingress of water into the pavement.
Koniditsiotis and Kosky (1996) identified pavement surface shape as one of five ‘fundamental
physical properties’ of interest to pavement network managers, along with waterproofing
(assessed in term of cracking), surface texture, strength and stiffness. They defined pavement
surface shape as the profile of the surface in the longitudinal and transverse directions, noting
that pavement surface shape is relevant to all pavement types and that it influences pavement
performance from the perspectives of road users and the broad community in terms of safety
(e.g. water spray and aquaplaning), comfort (contributes to roughness and uneven riding
conditions), costs (e.g. poor shape can increase vehicle maintenance costs and travel times),
and environmental impact (e.g. noise).
Originally rutting was measured manually, usually with a 1.2 m straight edge. The 1.2 m
reference was most likely adopted because:
wheel paths were narrower in earlier times due to the narrower lanes and lower travel
speeds
left and right wheel paths were measured independently
a 1.2 m straight edge is equivalent to a 4 ft (imperial unit) straight edge, and could fit
conveniently in the boot of a car.
Development of information technology since the 1980s has enabled digital collection, storage
and processing of large amounts of data and a high percentage of coverage in pavement
monitoring.
Automatic non-contact methods of measuring rutting became common in Australia and New
Zealand during the 1990s. However, manual methods are still widely used.
Use of profilometers with optical (laser) or ultrasonic sensors to measure rutting has grown
significantly and continues to increase. Multi-sensor rut measurement devices are commonly
mounted on host vehicles that carry out simultaneous network level surveys for roughness,
rutting, and surface texture and conduct video-logging in one pass, while travelling at normal
road speeds.
Recently, profilometers with large numbers of non-contact sensors have been developed
overseas for transverse profile surveys. Examples include a 41 laser (4.0 m survey width)
profilometer in Germany (built by Greenwood) and a 36 sensor (ultrasonic) ARAN profilometer
in North America. As at 2006, profilometers with 13-16 lasers, owned by ARRB, PMS Pty Ltd,
QDMR and WDM Ltd, have been in regular use in Australia and New Zealand.
Research is currently underway in North America and elsewhere on the use of technologies
such as stereovision (Wang et al. 2004) and rotating lasers for high speed automated mapping
of pavement surface shape.
Austroads 2007
— 27 —
COMMENTARY C CAUSES AND NATURE OF RUTTING

The development of pavement rutting is primarily related to the repeated action of loaded
wheels in the wheel paths resulting in:
compaction and/or consolidation of any or all of the pavement layers and subgrade
loss of surface material by abrasion or erosion
shear displacement of any or all pavement layers and subgrade
flow or creep of asphalt, especially under conditions of high pavement temperature, and
with stationary or slow moving vehicles.
A pavement which has an inadequately designed surface and an inadequate structural

thickness for the traffic loading imposed, especially over a weak subgrade, will be susceptible to
both pavement and subgrade rutting. Where the materials in the pavement and subgrade are
sensitive to moisture, rutting is exacerbated by the ingress of water into or through the
pavement surfacing or road edges into base, sub-base and subgrade. There are three basic
types of deformation:
plastic deformation of asphalt
compaction of the pavement materials and subgrade
deformation of pavement and subgrade including;
− ‘load associated’ rutting, such as shear deformation of upper granular pavement
layers, a common failure mode with marginal pavement materials
− ‘environmental’ rutting, where moisture infiltration causes swelling of pavement and
subgrade material resulting in heave, which if subjected to traffic loading can result in
shoving of base material (edge rollover) or a rut/heave combination outside the left
wheel path (LWP).
Current procedures tend to associate all deformations together as load associated wheel path
rutting and concentrate on measuring magnitude of deformation. Type and location of
deformation is used in interpreting the cause of rutting and hence in assessing structural
capacity and remaining life.
Rutting is frequently the result of structural loading where moisture ingress of granular
pavements is involved, as it takes only very few passes of a heavy vehicle near the seal edge to
cause deformation of water softened pavement. Rutting/deformation of the LWP area is
generally the result of permanent deformation in granular pavement layers or subgrade from
repeated loading reflecting to the surface as a rut. However, unstable asphalt mixes can also
deform and shove under heavy loading causing wheel path ruts. In pavements with asphalt
structural layers and surfacings, notable examples of wheel path rutting include intersection
approaches and auxiliary lanes on uphill sections, as a consequence of heavy vehicles
travelling at low speeds, and in areas where most of the loading occurs during the warmest part
of the daily temperature cycle.
Ideally deformation measurement should be able to identify:
location of deformation within the lane, i.e., left or right wheel path
magnitude of deformation
type of deformation, e.g. rut, heave, shear, shoving.
Austroads 2007
— 28 —
At this stage, further investigation of the identification of the type of rutting is required before
appropriate guidelines can be issued.
COMMENTARY D SCOPE AND FREQUENCY OF RUTTING

SURVEYS
D.1 Which Lane?
Most Austroads member authorities (MAs) record rutting in the left lane in one direction only, the
assumption being that the rutting in the adjacent lane is similar or less. The decision to limit
surveys in scope is generally related to the cost and practicality of undertaking these surveys.
There are differences between MAs in whether the left, slow or most heavily trafficked lane is
surveyed. Where manual methods are used, traffic control of the left lane is generally more
practical. In metropolitan areas kerb lanes may be inaccessible to automated equipment due to
the presence of parked vehicles.
While surveying the most heavily trafficked lane may bias network rutting data, the results are
far more useful at the project level in monitoring and defining needs. For more than 95% of the
road network, the left or slow lane will carry the highest gross mass. On three lane
carriageways in metropolitan areas the middle lane is more likely to carry the highest gross
mass, as illustrated in Figure D.1.
Figure D.1: The middle lane carries the highest gross mass in this urban area
For typical Australasian road networks where the proportion of three lane carriageways is low,
the network bias due to the selection of the left lane (middle lane in urban areas) rather than the
lane with the highest gross mass is not expected to have significant impact on the survey results
at a network level.
Austroads 2007
— 29 —
D.2 Which Wheel Path?

Most MAs limit rutting surveys to the left lane in one direction only but where most differ is the
selection of which wheel path to measure. It is generally acknowledged that the majority of
rutting occurs in the left wheel path. The whole-of-lane rut depth may always be expected to be
greater than the rut depth in any one wheel path.
A LWP rut does not totally define a full lane width rut but is adequate in the majority of cases.
An analysis of sensor-based rut depths over 3000 km of road was undertaken by ARRB for
VicRoads (Wix and Elderhurst 1996). The results indicated that:
the left wheel path had significantly more rutting than the right wheel path
the whole-of-lane rut depth (taut wire model) produced rut depths up to 30% higher than
the left wheel path rut depth (based on a 1.2 m straight edge).
Full lane rutting may be an indicator of edge-heave or some other unusual pavement response
which may require full lane rutting data to be collected in some cases, particularly in locations
where these problems commonly occur.
D.3 Longitudinal Sample Spacing

The longitudinal sample spacing affects the accuracy and measurement of severity of rutting.
Spacings currently adopted by the major road agencies in Australasia vary from 50 mm (non-
contact automated optical sensor survey) to 10 m (e.g. manual ROCOND 90 type survey (RTA
1990). Clearly the sample spacing depends on the cost of data collection and processing.
The high sampling rates in automated rutting surveys generate an immense amount of data,
and in order to reduce this to a manageable level, outputs from automated rutting survey
devices are reported over lengths (e.g. 20 m or 100 m) that are typically several orders of
magnitude longer than the sample spacing.
For manual and static rutting measurement and transverse profile surveys, an appropriate
longitudinal spacing would be 10 transverse profiles in the first 100 m of each kilometre.
With automated methods, these guidelines recommend 100 m as the reporting interval. A
longitudinal sample spacing of no more than 1 m will ensure an accuracy of within 1% for
severity reporting. ARRB analysed rut data for spacings of between 50 mm and 250 mm and
found no discernible difference with no loss of rut depth information by sampling at 250 mm
spacings (Hallett and Wix 1996). No analysis has been undertaken on spacings greater than
250 mm and these guidelines favour use of the same maximum longitudinal sample spacing as
for roughness, i.e. 250 mm.
Austroads 2007
— 30 —
D.4 How Often to Measure?

Criteria for decisions about the frequency of rutting surveys include cost, the status of the road,
the rate of progression of rutting, and the intended uses of the resulting data. Uses of network-
level rutting data include:
development or refinement of pavement deterioration models
filtering to identify locations for closer investigation with a view to planning closer
monitoring or intervention treatments
monitoring rutting progression over time on road links or at locations where rutting has
previously been identified as of potential concern
use with pavement deterioration models in network-level analyses for pavement
management purposes
managing road maintenance delivery, especially performance-based contracts
performance reporting, e.g. computation of length-weighted statistical indicators and
charts showing time series data on the extent of rutting for a specific network or sub-
network.
Progression of rutting is the rate at which rutting increases at a given location. This may be
associated with moisture content, climate, traffic loading, types of tyres (e.g. super singles), and
pavement and subgrade age, material type and strength. Rutting appears to occur relatively
more rapidly in the early life of a pavement with a slowing down after about three years
(Robinson 1998). This may be due to compaction within the pavement material under traffic
until it reaches a maximum. Eventually, the rate of rutting deterioration (along with roughness)
is likely to increase with pavement age (Martin 2003).
Further progression can be expected with the onset of cracking and subsequent ingress of
moisture, especially on sealed granular pavements and asphalt pavements with less than about
150 mm asphalt over a granular base where cracking has penetrated through the asphalt
layers.
Experience in the UK, on asphalt surfaced pavements, indicates that after permanent
deformation exceeds 15 mm there is an increasing probability of cracking occurring in the wheel
paths. Water entering the cracks is then likely to accelerate failure (Croney & Croney 1997).
For the pavements this experience was based on, permanent deformation of 15 mm would be
represented by a 12 mm rut measured with a 2 m straight edge.
Given the relatively slow rate of change of rutting generally within Australasia, and the degree of
accuracy that can be achieved, annual surveys are not expected to show measurable changes
in network rutting. Intervals of two to three years would appear to be a more practical and cost-
effective approach at the network level.
However, more frequent surveys may be required on roads of high strategic importance, in
areas of rapid deterioration, or to increase the sample size to provide more confidence in
deterioration rates. Annual surveys are also helpful in early detection of changes in the rate of
deterioration of rutting, which can be useful in identifying locations with increased priority for
investigation of the need, nature and timing of structural rehabilitation treatment. Where
deterioration rates are known or thought to be higher, more frequent surveys assist in
quantifying the deterioration rate, establishing trends and budgetary planning.
Austroads 2007
— 31 —
COMMENTARY E SPECIFICATION AND TEST METHODS

E.1 Background
Most road authorities conduct regular pavement condition surveys to collect data for pavement
attributes including roughness, rutting, strength and texture. This data is used for a range of
purposes including monitoring and predicting the performance of the network, determining the
timing and selection of appropriate intervention treatments, and monitoring the performance of
maintenance contractors. As this data can be used in developing investment programs and to
reward or penalise maintenance contractors, it is essential that it is collected to an accepted
standard and that this is reflected in the specification for the condition survey work. Asset
managers also need to be confident that the data from successive surveys is comparable,
particularly for the development of performance prediction models.
Despite a long history of data collection across the Australasian road networks, no nationally
adopted procedures exist for the collection of data and the validation of test equipment. Each
road authority has developed its own specification for these types of survey works. Recognising
the value of high quality condition data, and in line with its strategic goal of promoting national
uniformity of practice, Austroads sponsored Project AT1006 – Standardised Methods of Road
Condition Monitoring – as part of the technical research program conducted by ARRB.
The project developed standard specifications and test methods for the following condition
parameters:
pavement roughness
pavement rutting
pavement surface macro-texture
pavement deflection measured with a Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)
pavement deflection measured with a deflectograph.
Table E.1 lists the specification and test methods (Austroads 2007a – 2000f) that are relevant to
the collection of rutting data.
Table E.1: Austroads standard specification and test methods for pavement rutting measurement
Number Title
Specification: AG:AM/S004 Specification for Pavement Rutting Measurement with a Multi-Laser Profilometer
Test Methods: AG:AM/T005 Distance Measurement Validation of Road Condition Monitoring Vehicles
AG:AM/T009 Pavement Rutting Measurement with a Multi-Laser Profilometer
AG:AM/T010 Validation of a Multi-Laser Profilometer for Measuring Pavement Rutting (Reference Device Method)
AG:AM/T011 Validation of a Multi-Laser Profilometer for Measuring Pavement Rutting (Loop Method)
AG:AM/T012 Pavement Rutting Repeatability and Bias Checks for a Multi- Laser Profilometer
E.2 Development
The following key principles were established early in the drafting stages of the project, and all
drafts and comments were reviewed with respect to their effect on the following principles:
the specifications and test methods must be relevant to the national, state and local
government networks, and personnel managing those networks
Austroads 2007
— 32 —
standardisation of practice is desirable

equipment validation exercises do not need to be tied to specific jurisdictions, and inter-
jurisdictional acceptance of equipment validation is desirable
specification requirements that cannot readily be measured or assessed should be
avoided.
Additionally, there were two, often conflicting, imperatives that had to be balanced when drafting
material:
a specification could not be a vague guideline, but must provide clear statements of
requirements
for a specification to obtain wide acceptance, it must be flexible enough to cater for the
range of different requirements that occur between jurisdictions.
In the preparation of the draft specifications and test methods, considerable effort was made to
balance these issues. For example, in order to ensure wide applicability, no attempt was made
to specify requirements for the locations of testing because of the wide range of location
referencing systems, testing spacings and number of test lanes used throughout Australasia.
A full description of the development of the specifications and test methods can be found in
Moffatt, Sharp and Ferguson (2006)
E.3 Availability of Specifications and Test Methods

Preparation of the specifications and test methods is now complete, and the final documents are
freely available from the Austroads web site:
www.austroads.com.au/asset/test.html.
The web site also contains Commentaries each of the specification and test methods. These
commentaries provide additional notes and advice to practitioners, and have been structured to
be read in conjunction with the relevant specification or test method.
E.4 Role of the Specifications and Test Methods

The test methods contain specific actions to be undertaken, however for activities other than
calibration, the test methods provide little information regarding when each test needs to be
conducted. For example, the test method for conducting on-going repeatability testing of a
rutting measuring profilometer does not contain any statements as to when such testing must
occur. This information is provided in the specification.
Each specification contains the following three annexes that must be completed by the client:
Annex 1 – list of roads to be surveyed
Annex 2 – location referencing system
Annex 3 – data file format.
The specification cannot be used whilst these annexes remain empty. It is anticipated that
clients with established procedures for procuring data collection contracts will have little difficulty
in populating these annexes. Some guidance is included in each Annex to assist less
experienced clients in the completion of the document.
Austroads 2007
— 33 —
The specifications consider the interaction between three distinct parties, as shown in
Table E.2.
Table E.2: Role of different parties considered in the specification
Role Description
Client the organisation for whom the data is to be collected
Contract supervisor the representative of the client organisation
Supplier the operators of the survey equipment and suppliers
of the resultant data
The test methods do not make reference to the specifications, and can be used independently
of them. Accordingly, the test methods can be used in-house by organisations collecting data,
where there may not be a need for a formal specification. Alternatively, the test methods could
be used for project level data collection, for which the contract model envisaged by the
specifications may be inappropriate.
In the majority of cases, it is anticipated that the specification, and in turn the test methods, will
be framed within broader contract documentation specific to a given application. Such
overarching contract documentation provides an opportunity for the client to specify additional
requirements, or make specific exclusions, from the Austroads specification.
Whilst the specifications could be amended on a contract-by-contract basis to reflect the

requirements for the specific project, this is not recommended as it would dilute the
standardised nature of the Austroads specification. It is preferred that the contract
documentation requires adherence to the Austroads specification, but separately lists additional
amendments, requirements or exclusions.
Table E.3 presents the intended roles of the specifications, test methods and broader contract
documentation within a condition data collection contract.
Table E.3: Document roles within a condition data collection contract
Document type Description

Test methods Instructions for carrying-out a specific activity
statements about which activities to undertake and when to undertake them
list of roads to be surveyed
Specifications
details of the client’s referencing system (i.e. the system to be used to report the data)
details of the data format for the presentation of the final data.
legal terms of contract
quality plan and procedures
provision for risk (including types of insurances)
Additional contract documentation
definitions of responsibilities (e.g. traffic control)
additional requirements
specific exclusions from Austroads specification.
Austroads 2007
— 34 —
When considering additional requirements or exclusions to the specifications and test methods
it is important to remember that, during their development, these documents have been closely
examined by asset managers, tender documentation writers and equipment users. Accordingly,
the specification and test methods should be considered as both technically sound and practical
to use. Care should be taken when adding requirements to the specification to ensure that
there is a need to do so, and that the additions are achievable and relevant.
E.5 Generic Structure of the Standard Specifications and Test

Methods
E.5.1 Survey Method
The survey method defines how a data collection survey is to be undertaken. It requires that
the equipment be validated once per annum in accordance with the referenced validation
procedure. The method usually also contains minimum equipment requirements (i.e. an
equipment specification).
E.5.2 Validation Method

A validation method defines how equipment validation is to be undertaken. It does not specify
how often the validation needs to occur. It is required that, as part of the validation exercise, a
repeatability check be undertaken in accordance with a referenced test method. In some cases
alternative validation methods are presented. It is explicitly stated that there is no requirement
that validations be undertaken on roads within the client’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, under the
terms of the specifications, the data collection service provider need not conduct separate
validations for each client, but must only ensure that the minimum timetable of validations is
adhered to.
E.5.3 Repeatability Method

The repeatability method defines how checks for repeatability of measurements are to be
undertaken. The method does not specify how often these checks need to occur. In most
cases these repeatability checks also include an assessment of the bias error of measurements.
E.5.4 Specification
The specification requires that the survey method be followed, and provides a timetable for
conducting equipment validations in accordance with the validation method(s). In addition, a
timetable for conducting ongoing checks of the repeatability of measurement following the
repeatability method is specified. For large scale data collection exercises it is additionally
required that a 100 km trial survey be undertaken and the results presented in final reporting
format for client checking and approval. This ‘sanity check’ aims to ensure that the entire data
collection system, and not just the equipment, is able to meet the needs of the client, and also
allows the client to compare collected data with historical records and other data sources.
E.6 Overview of Specification and Test Methods

E.6.1 Calibration, Measurement and Reporting
Whilst it is required that equipment be calibrated, no specific instructions are provided as to
how, or when, this calibration must be undertaken. Reference is made to the appropriate
documentation provided by the manufacturer of the equipment. The test methods do, however,
identify triggers for calibration, including the replacement of key equipment components (e.g.
laser transducers).
Austroads 2007
— 35 —
As a minimum it is required that rutting be measured with a multi-laser profilometer fitted with 11
appropriately spaced lasers. Rutting is to be calculated by moving a virtual 2 metre straight
edge across the laser-measured transverse profile, and the maximum gap under the straight
edge (between contact points) determined. For every 100 m section along the test lane, rutting
is to be reported for both wheelpaths and also for the whole lane width. Additionally, the
percentage of ruts that fall into the following series of rut bins must also be determined and
reported: 0-5 mm, > 5-10, > 10-15, > 15-20, > 20-25, > 25-30, > 30-35, > 35-40 and > 40 mm.
The survey test method also includes daily equipment checks that must be conducted before
survey activity can begin.
E.6.2 Equipment Validation and Repeatability of Measurement Checks

The specification requires that a validation exercise must have been passed within the last year.
Two alternative test methods are provided for equipment validation.
The first validation method, which makes use of a reference device, is comprised of two tests.
Firstly, five transverse profiles measured by the multi-laser profilometer being assessed are
compared against independent measurements of the profiles. The profiles to be measured can
be either road surfaces, or artificially manufactured profiles. This comparison is to be
undertaken statically, i.e. with the multi-laser profilometer standing still. The second test
compares the dynamically measured profiles (i.e. with the profilometer travelling at survey
speeds) with those measured by a surveyor’s rod and level, or a transverse profile logger, or a
straight edge. Those measured profiles that exactly coincide with the independently measured
ones are extracted from the profilometer’s data, and comparisons made of the measured
wheelpath and lane rut depths. As with the similar roughness validation method, linear
regression analyses are used. The tests are to be carried out at a variety of test speeds to
demonstrate that the profilometer’s results are not affected by survey speed. The method
requires that the repeatability checks described below be conducted as part of the validation
exercise.
The second method involves the comparison of rutting data from the profilometer requiring
validation against a reference set of roughness data collected by other profilometers. The
procedure was developed by RTA NSW (2002) for comparing roughness data, and as such has
been used by a number of Australian road authorities. The method has been extended for
comparison of rutting data. As the method incorporates its own repeatability checks it does not
require that the separate repeatability method be conducted as part of the validation exercise.
It is required that checks for repeatability and bias of measurement be undertaken as part of the
first validation method above. Additionally it is required that these checks be conducted at a
minimum of every 30 days during the collection of data. The test method compares two sets of
100 m average rutting readings along a 10 km length of road. A variety of statistical
comparisons are made between these data sets, based upon coefficients of variation, and
pass/fail limits are specified.
Austroads 2007
— 36 —
COMMENTARY F DATA REPORTING

F.1 Rut Depth (Severity of Rutting)
For each reporting interval, the rut depth is reported as the mean and the standard deviation of
the maximum rut depths measured within that reporting interval. The standard deviation of rut
depth measurements gives an indication of the variability within the reporting interval, and
enables statistical levels to be computed, e.g. 80% highest, or a ‘characteristic rut depth’, where
the percentile varies with the road class. Left wheel path rut depths and lane rut depths are
reported separately (see Commentary G for an example).
Structurally, rut depths (based on a 2 m straight edge) below 10 mm are regarded as not
significant. At 10 mm, and under conditions of high vehicle speed and water ponding, rutting is
regarded as potentially significant for safety reasons and most MAs use this as a range limit.
Rutting becomes a critical structural problem at around 20 - 25 mm, and a depth of 20 mm
(based on a 2 m straight edge) is used uniformly across Australia for investigation purposes.
The proportion of Australian and New Zealand roads with rut depths in excess of 20 mm is small
(<3%).
Figure F.1 and Table F.1 below show an example of a typical set of rut depth profiles from
Tasmania and a comparative profile from the A435, an arterial road in the UK. Despite the
differences in traffic, climate pavement type and construction, the rut depth profiles are similar.
They are generally in agreement with the findings of the ISOHDM (HDM-4) study (ND Lea
1995).
Rut Depth Distribution Profiles (Tasmania and UK)
30.00%
Percentage of Link/Section
25.00%
20.00%
15.00% Esk Main Rd 1

Esk Main Rd 6
10.00%
Esk Main Rd 7
5.00% Esk Main Rd 8
A 435 UK
0.00%
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Rut Depth
Source: Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Tasmania (DIER Tas)
Figure F.1: Rut depth distribution profiles, Tasmania and UK
Table F.1: Rutting depth distribution from Figure E.1 in terms of ‘bins’
Rut bins 0.0-5.0 mm 5.1-10.0 mm 10.1-15.0 mm 15.1-20.0 mm > 20.0 mm

Tasmania 72% 16.0% 5.8% 4.4% 3.1%
UK 55% 27.5% 9.5% 5.5% 2.5%
Austroads 2007
— 37 —
On the basis of the limited evidence, the following conclusion could be drawn. For a well
constructed pavement, on average, regardless of a flexible pavement’s physical and
environmental setting, 85% of rutting is less than 10 mm and 97% of all rutting is less than
20 mm. This seems to indicate a considerable majority of these pavements are, in structural
terms at the time of the survey, generally sound (the rate of rutting progression is not shown).
The functional characteristics of rutting in terms of safety may, therefore, be more important in
the short term.
In terms of safety, the issue of the onset of aquaplaning is significant. Aquaplaning can in the
worst case commence when water depth is 3 mm and is a greater risk when water depth is
5 mm or greater. The degree of risk depends on vehicle speed and the length of the surface
water pond. Since roads are designed to have a camber for drainage purposes, the onset of
rutting can disturb drainage paths, especially on longitudinal grades, which create longer
drainage paths, thereby increasing the depth of surface water.
Donald (1994) showed (Figure F.2) that ponding of water starts to become a problem when
rutting reaches a depth of about 10 mm, based on rut depths measured using a 1.2 m straight
edge, for an impervious bituminous pavement surface with an assumed 750 mm wheel path rut
width, depending on the crossfall. Rutting of 15 mm (1.2 m straight edge) will almost certainly
be capable of ponding as much as 5 mm of water, with pavement surface crossfalls of 2% to
3%. Hence rutting of 10 – 15 mm (1.2 m straight edge) is critical with regard to the risk of
aquaplaning for light vehicles travelling at high speed. Rutting of 20 mm (1.2 m straight edge)
will be capable of ponding up to 7 mm of water; and even heavy vehicles at high speed may be
at risk of aquaplaning at such depths. For concrete pavements where cambers are generally
less, the onset of water retention and ponding would occur when rut depth exceeds 7 mm
(1.2 m straight edge).
Where aquaplaning is a particular concern, it may be desirable to measure rutting in ‘bins’ of

0 - 5, 5 - 10, 10 - 15, 15 - 20 and > 20 mm from a safety perspective. These would be more
stringent than the bin limits for structural measurements. There are some issues that remain to
be resolved with regard to aquaplaning. The work done so far on puddle depth assumes a rut
width of 750 mm which is somewhat a confined rut width. Further work would be necessary on
a wider rut (e.g. 1.5 – 1.6 m) to determine whether a 1.2 m straight edge method is appropriate
for identifying the potential for aquaplaning.
F.2 Extent of Rutting

The ‘extent’ of rutting can be considered as the percentage of a defined reporting length (for
non-contact methods, a maximum of 100 m in accordance with these guidelines, but may be, for
example, 20 m) which has rut depths exceeding or within a defined range (see Commentary G
for an example).
Most MAs report rutting in terms of severity (depth), and extent. The combination of these two
measures cover the full range of severity and extent reporting normally required. However,
there have been differences between MAs in the banding (or ‘binning’) for severity reporting.
Austroads 2007
— 38 —
F.3 Length of Reporting Interval

F.3.1 Selection of Reporting Interval
Some road agencies adopt the practice of ‘rubber-banding’ surveyed lengths to fit within road
reference lengths. This will mean that survey reporting intervals could vary from, say 98 m to
102 m, depending on the tolerance allowed in the specification. This would appear to have no
discernible impact on data consistency at the network level and depends on the road location
system adopted by the road agency.
The length over which rut depths in pre-determined bands are recorded can be calculated as
the percentage of each reporting interval exceeding a specified rut depth. This would effectively
be independent of reporting interval. However, it is appropriate that 100 m sections be adopted
for reporting purposes to provide consistency with other condition parameters and to facilitate
analysis.
Source: Donald (1994)
Figure F.2: Puddle depth in wheel path ruts - based on a 750 mm rut width and 1.2 m straight edge
F.3.2 HDM-4 Related Research

Interesting and useful data in the treatment and processing of rut depth information is contained
in the annex on rutting in the ISOHDM report on modelling road deterioration and maintenance
effects in the development of HDM-4 (ND Lea 1995). Rut depth values calculated by a straight
edge model were used in the HDM-4 study.
The influence of the aggregation of rut depth data on the descriptive statistics and, more
importantly, the subsequent assessment of the condition depends on the minimum length over
which the aggregated rut depth data is seen to be independent of both preceding and
succeeding aggregated data. Data was available down to a minimum of 10 m aggregated
lengths and it was shown that with reporting intervals of 10 m, the data in adjoining sections is
uncorrelated. Thus a minimum 10 m segment length of aggregated data can be used.
For a suitable upper limit over which data should be aggregated, the ND Lea report suggests
that this should be less than or equal to the practical minimum length of a maintenance
treatment. This practical minimum length would be a function of both the type of maintenance
and whether it is an urban or rural road. ND Lea suggests for example that for rut filling using
bituminous slurry, typical lengths may be:
urban: 20 m
rural: 50 m.
Austroads 2007
— 39 —
In addition to the practical question of minimum maintenance lengths, when data is aggregated,
the mean values of rut depth are affected only marginally, however the standard deviation
decreases and minimum and maximum values of rut depth converge.
The data smoothing (by aggregating over a long length) is important since for a given
intervention level and a minimum maintenance length, a shorter section may qualify for
treatment or inspection, whereas a longer section may not. The effect on aggregation of data
on rut depth statistics is reproduced from ND Lea (1995) in Table F.2.
Based on the data in this study, the aggregation interval of 100 m was selected, being
sufficiently accurate at a network level to allow any maintenance type to be implemented, and
yet avoid the generation of unnecessary data. Care should be exercised, however, when
comparing data from different surveys at this level due the limitations in the accuracy of survey
run starts and stops. In order to aggregate the length of rutting where ruts are greater than, for
example 15 mm, for a minimum length of 10 m, it should be possible for this figure to be output
directly from the raw data (i.e. a separate data item for each 100 m reporting interval of ‘length
(m) where rutting is, for example, > 15 mm for 10 m or more’).
Table F.2: Effect of aggregation on rut depth statistics
Aggregation interval Mean Standard deviation Length of section (m) with mean rut > 15 mm
(m) (mm) (mm) for a minimum length of 10 m
10 11.0 4.0 120
20 11.0 3.0 100
50 10.9 2.8 20
100 10.9 2.4 0
Source: ND Lea (1995)
From the data sets available, where wide rutting was encountered (typical of subgrade
densification) the rutting measured by different length straight edges (1.2 m and 2 m) could be
described by a linear relationship which gave good correlation over a wide range of rut depths.
Austroads 2007
— 40 —
COMMENTARY G SAMPLE EXTRACT FROM A REPORT ON A RUTTING SURVEY

Road Agency: … RCA …. ................ LGA: … Vera City ................................... Road Name: … Arterial Rd ..................... Road No: …SH No 1 ………
Rutting Survey Device: …13 laser MLP (Xyz Pty Ltd) ........................................... Operator's Name: …Mr D Rutter ........... Test Date: …11 Nov 2004 ..
Road Surface: … Dry ...................... Weather: … Fine, light wind, overcast .... ....................................................................... Air Temp: ... 23 Deg C ........
Left wheel path rutting (2 m straight edge) Lane rutting (3.0 m taut wire model)
Location Severity (mm) Extent (%) Severity (mm) Extent (%) Comments
Mean max rut depth Standard deviation 0 – 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 Mean max rut Standard 0 – 10 10 - 20 20 - 30
mm mm mm depth deviation mm mm mm
100 4 3.3 100 0 0 4 3.5 100 0 0
200 4 2.9 95 5 0 6 3.2 94 6 0
300 12 4.7 62 23 15 10 4.4 58 26 16
400 17 6.0 67 22 11 22 7.2 60 31 9
500 24 7.2 48 32 20 28 8.0 42 30 18 Kerb on left side
600 21 7.7 56 40 4 30 3.5 51 34 15
700 23 5.4 34 38 28 19 5.4 37 40 23
800 14 5.0 65 30 5 18 5.0 62 31 7
900 8 3.0 81 18 1 12 3.7 74 22 4 Change of seal
1000 6 3.1 86 14 0 8 2.7 83 17 0
1100 7 2.7 92 8 0 5 3.1 90 9 1
1200 3 1.2 96 4 0 6 1.6 89 11 0
1300 4 2.3 97 3 0 4 1.9 94 6 0
1400 3 2.1 98 2 0 4 2.4 98 2 0
1500 5 2.6 94 5 1 7 2.7 94 5 1
Averages 10 3.9 78 16 6 12 3.9 75 18 6

Std dev’n 7.6 9.0
Notes:
1. Mean maximum rut depth within each 100 m section is as described in Section C5.
2. The right hand part of this pro-forma could be used to refer to ‘right wheel path rutting’, in lieu of ‘lane rutting’, or the pro-forma could be modified to incorporate LWP rutting, RWP rutting, and Lane rutting, as required.
Austroads 2007
— 41 —
COMMENTARY H MEASUREMENT OF RUTTING

H.1 Why is a 2 m Straight Edge Preferred to 1.2 m?
Regardless of whether a straight edge is physical or simulated, these guidelines favour a 2 m
straight edge rather than a 1.2 m straight edge. Austroads preference for a 2 m straight edge
recognises that rut widths are commonly wider than 1.2 m, especially where speeds are high and
lanes are wider than about 3 m, and where subgrade deformation is causing or contributing to the
rutting. An analysis of sensor-based rut depths undertaken by ARRB for VicRoads (Wix and
Elderhurst 1996) showed that:
for lane rutting, the 3.0 m and 2 m straight edge measurement gave significantly greater rut
depths than the 1.2 m straight edge
for wheel path measurements, the simulated 3.0 m straight edge rut depths were marginally
greater than the 1.2 m straight edge rut depths (0.3 mm average over sample, i.e.,
approximately 6% to 8%), however, the variation at greater rut depths can be more
significant.
Vehicles can commonly ‘wander’ up to 1.1 m within a traffic lane giving an overall coverage of up
to 1.6 m (i.e. allowing approximately 500 mm for the width of a pair of dual tyres). As a result a
1.2 m straight edge would measure a lower rut/deformation depth than would have been recorded
with a 2 m straight edge (the latter would completely straddle the deformation area). Reliable
positioning of the measuring system (manual or automated) is required, so as to cover the wheel
path which includes establishing points of reference not in the wheel path (i.e. generally either side
of the rut).
Further, a 2 m standard straight edge length is consistent with majority world practice, including
HDM-4 (ND Lea 1995). Rutting data obtained on the basis of a 1.2 m straight edge will require
modification if it is to be used by the HDM-4 models or compared with data based on a (physical or
imaginary) 2 m straight edge. The ISOHDM (HDM-4) study published the following equation for
the relationship of a 1.2 m straight edge rut depth to a 2 m straight edge rut depth (ND Lea 1995):
R2.0 = 1.32 R1.2
This is further discussed in Appendix 5 of ND Lea (1995). The ISOHDM equation may be a
suitable default relationship for this data modification. However, road agencies and other
managers of road networks should use local data to check this equation, and calibrate or amend
as necessary.
For example, correlation testing by QDMR produced the relationship between 1.2 m and 2 m
straight edge measurements shown in Table G.1.
Table H.1: QDMR relationship between 1.2 m and 2 m straight edge measurements
Note: The information in this table came from a 1987 study carried out in-house by
Device Rut depth (mm) QDMR with the aim of converting the QDMR tolerable rutting criterion, which
was based on 2 m physical straight edge measurement, to equivalent 1.2 m
measurement when NAASRA introduced 1.2 m as the standard for rut depth
2 m straight 20 15 10 measurement (NAASRA 1987). The study used limited transverse profile data
edge from test sites between Longreach and Winton, supported by engineering
judgement. Based on this study, QDMR dropped their tolerable rut depth
1.2 m straight 15 10 7 criterion from 20 mm over 80% of the road using a 2 m straight edge (taken
edge from NITRR 1985) to 15 mm over 80% of length using a 1.2 m straight edge.
Austroads 2007
— 42 —
As a means of more adequately providing complete wheel path coverage, and in view of the merit
of HDM-4 technology as a basis for network management and the Austroads preference for HDM-
4 standards except where there is a sound reason to adopt a different standard, these guidelines
favour the 2 m straight edge as the reporting standard common to both manual and automated
measurement techniques.
H.2 Rut Measurements Used by Austroads Member Authorities

Austroads member authorities have used at least five different rut depth measurements as follows:
1. Maximum depth below a 1.2 m straight edge centred on the wheel path (RTA NSW (manual),
VicRoads, QDMR, DTEI SA (manual), DIER Tas and DIPE NT).
2. Maximum depth below a 2 m straight edge (DTEI SA (automated) and Transit NZ).
3. Mean rut depth using three laser profilometer (MRWA and DUS ACT, until the late 1990s).
Note that with a three laser profilometer with one laser in each wheel path and another
between the wheel paths, the profilometer does not measure rut depth as defined in these
guidelines, but measures the ‘hump’ between the two wheel paths or pseudo-rut depth as
described in Transfund (2003). If there is equal rutting in the left and right wheel paths then
this device does give a measure of wheel path rutting. Otherwise, this device will always
underestimate rut depth compared to other methods.
4. Maximum depth below a taut wire between lane edges (RTA NSW (automated) and DTEI SA
(automated).
5. Maximum depth below a 2 m and 3.0 m simulated straight edge (MRWA practice since 1998
with an automated 13 laser survey device).
DTEI SA changed from using a 1.2 m straight edge (manual) to a 2 m simulated straight edge
because experience indicated that the 2 m model provided better coverage of the actual bowl
shape that characterises wheel path rutting on their network, particularly from a safety perspective
of managing the incidence of surface ponding.
By 2003, all the Austroads member authorities were using laser profilometers with at least 11 laser
sensors (Sheldon 2004). QDMR uses its own 13 laser MLP (known as the ‘Network Survey
Vehicle’ (NSV) because in the one pass the host vehicle also conducts surveys of roughness and
texture, and captures video images as a source of data on cracking and for maintaining the
inventory of road features). Apart from QDMR, the other Austroads MAs rely on commercial
service providers for transverse profile surveys.
COMMENTARY I TRANSVERSE PROFILE ANALYSIS

(NON-CONTACT METHODS)
I.1 Lane Width
The typical lane width of rural roads in Australia varies from 3.1 m for low traffic volume arterial
roads, up to 3.5 m and 3.7 m for some national roads. Given that the wheel-tracking of vehicles
tends to be offset to the left of the lane, a width slightly less than the lane width would still indicate
the more severe left wheel path rut depths. The other major factor, especially with sensor
measurement widths in excess of 3.0 m, is the effect on data of phenomena such as shoulder
heave, seal edge drop-off, roll over, embankments, grass, accumulated debris near the road edge,
and kerb and channel.
Austroads 2007
— 43 —
I.2 Rutting Measurement and Edge Effects

As noted in Section 2 and Commentary A, rutting is defined in AS 1348:2002 and in HDM
technology to exclude the influence of edge heave. Rutting models in HDM-4 do not allow for edge
heave. With automated rut measurement devices, it can be difficult to distinguish edge effects
such as heave, kerbs, vegetation or an accumulation of various materials (gravel, rubbish, etc.) on
the pavement from true rutting caused by abrasion, densification or deformation in a left wheel
path. Examples of edge effects are shown in Figure H.1. Filters can be designed into the rut
depth calculation software to recognise and eliminate edge effects, which are more prevalent on
narrow lanes. Experience suggests using a filter to eliminate readings from the left laser if those
readings are more than about 50 mm above an adjacent laser 150 mm away. Further investigation
of this issue is ongoing (Nesnas et al. 2004, Wix 2006).
However, it is good practice for the operator of a transverse profile survey device to manually
record features that may be relevant to interpretation of the resulting data, such as edge effects,
e.g. heave, shoving, debris, grass, kerb, etc. This can be difficult for the operator to achieve, and a
keyboard with a suitably concise predetermined menu can be helpful.
Figure I.1: Example of edge effects
I.3 Measurement Points

The accuracy in estimating the depth of a rut will increase with the number of measurement points
from the transverse profile. As a minimum, three points can be used to successfully identify trends
in rutting as a contribution to a rut index (Wix 1998) or a ‘pseudo-rut’ (Transfund 2003). The
advantage of increasing the number of measurement points is that the whole transverse profile can
be measured with greater precision. Figure H.2, Figure H.3 and Figure 3.4 show various sensor
arrays for high speed non-contact transverse profile survey devices.
Austroads 2007
— 44 —
In accordance with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) five-point method for estimating maximum rut depth (AASHTO 1999) illustrated in
Figure H.2, measurements are made at five points across the lane. The locations of the five points
are shown schematically in the figure. The AASHTO method does not specify an overall width
between the outermost sensors or the spacing between sensors. Users of the AASHTO method
are required to select these dimensions. With this approach, measured rut depths will be
consistent only among users who adopt the same overall widths between the outermost sensors
and the same spacings between sensors.
In accordance with the AASHTO five-point method illustrated in Figure H.2, rut depths in the left
and right wheel paths are calculated as follows:
Rl = D2 – (D1 + D3)/2, and Rl cannot be less than zero
Rr = D4 – (D3 + D5)/2, and Rr cannot be less than zero
— where Rl = estimated maximum rut depth in the left wheel path

— Rr = estimated maximum rut depth in the right wheel path
— D1, D2, …. D5 = heights measured as shown in Figure H.2.
A 3.0 m sensor bar reference width, such as the one shown in Figure H.3, provides a standard that
covers the majority of the road network but may underestimate rut depths on roads with wider lane
widths such as major arterial roads with high travel speeds.
This will enable collection of data across a whole traffic lane i.e. up to 3.5 m although there are
practical operational difficulties in operating to this width on some roads. There may be a case for
varying the surveyed width by road class. Processing of automatically collected data to simulate
lesser widths; e.g. 1.2 or 2 m straight edge, can be carried out for particular cases.
Width set by user

Minimum 2300 mm
Reference plane
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
Outside wheel path Inside wheel path
Source: AASHTO 1999
Figure I.2: Rut depth measurement
Austroads 2007
— 45 —
1500 1150 750 450 0 450 750 1150 1500

1350 950 950 1350
Figure I.3: Example of a multi sensor profilometer (13 sensors, total width 3.0 m)
To cover a 3 m width requires a minimum of five points to provide both wheel path and lane rut
depths. In some MAs the shape of the profile near the outside edge is an important aspect of the
rutting profile and requires more points to differentiate edge drop-off and kerb and channel
conditions. To enable the filtering of undesirable edge conditions, particularly on narrow roads and
urban roads, requires an additional set of points to cover a 2.7 m width. This brings the
configuration to a minimum seven points. A further complication relates to the ability to analyse the
profile using alternative straight edge lengths. Historically in Australasia, the most common
manual method used a 1.2 m straight edge. To accurately simulate this length straight edge would
require a minimum total of 13 points (see Figure H.3) and even then, many measurements would
be based on 1.35 m and 1.5 m spans (i.e., half the span of 2.7 m and 3.0 m coverage).
As shown in Figure H.3, the spacings between sensors on systems in use with 13 to 16 sensors
are not regular. The spacings are designed to improve the probability of identifying high and low
points, with the aim of improving estimates of maximum rut depth. Research in New Zealand
showed no significant difference in accuracy between devices with 13, 15 and 16 lasers, and
suggested overall under-estimation of rut depths from 2 mm to 4 mm for operational multi-laser
profilometers, when compared with data from precise surveys of transverse profiles (Transfund
2003).
I.3.1 Selection of System

A three laser system (one laser in each wheel path and one in the centre of the vehicle) provides
an indication of the ‘heave’ at the mid-point between the wheel paths and may be used as an
approximation of the average rutting expressed as an index. This does not allow quantification of
rutting but does provide a tool for analysing trends.
Cost is an obvious factor to consider with a trade off between absolute accuracy and acceptable
limits of accuracy. The reducing cost and improving performance of non-contact sensor devices
(e.g. laser and ultrasonic) has resulted in an increasing number of sensors being used on multi-
sensor profilometers. In general, closer spaced measurements in the wheel paths may be
expected to give better rut definition and can accommodate to some degree the effect of the
survey vehicle tracking off-line. Some regard seven measurement points as an absolute minimum
whereas as little as three points are used by others. In the US, AASHTO recommends a minimum
of five measurements across a minimum lane width of 2.3 m (AASHTO 1999), as shown in
Figure H.2.
Austroads 2007
— 46 —
In 1998 PIARC conducted a world wide experiment investigating the performance of different high
speed profiling equipment. PIARC (2002) documents the degree of variability found between
measurement systems, and discusses the effect of different numbers of sensors and measurement
width.
Future use of scanning lasers, or lasers coupled with optical systems, could provide many more
height readings per transverse profile. Such systems are currently in development, with a few
already available on the international market.
COMMENTARY J VALIDATION TESTING (NON-CONTACT

METHODS)
J.1 Profile-based Measurement Devices
The major challenge facing a road network manager is to be assured that the rut measurement
device has sufficient accuracy for the intended purpose. Automatic data collection devices such as
laser and ultrasonic profilometers vary in accuracy depending on the number of sensors and
surface texture depth as discussed below.
J.2 Measuring the Reference Transverse Profile

Various methods and devices are available for measuring transverse profile to provide a reference
profile or baseline data for validation testing. These include the 2 m straight edge, rod and level or
transverse profile logger. A straight edge with a wedge can measure rut depth to an accuracy of
1 mm.
The requirement for static readings is to ensure that the multi-lasers are spaced and all functioning
correctly to determine the shape and maximum depth of the rut. Comparisons can then be made
between the reference profile and the maximum rut depth determined by the service provider using
software tools. The manual check with the straight edge and wedge is a less accurate
measurement but gives a good test of reasonableness and location for the at-speed runs.
J.3 Profile Validation

Problems arise in directly comparing transverse profiles measured by different means. Ksaibati
(1996), commenting on research by the Wyoming Department of Transportation, reported that
analysis of measurements made with different techniques (three sensor non-contact, five sensor
non-contact and straight edge) yielded strong non-linear relationships amongst the techniques. All
produced different results but were found to correlate amongst each other. Correlations between
high speed techniques and manual techniques however were influenced by transverse profile
shape. These findings are similar to those reported by Hallet and Wix (1996) as a result of high
speed data capture trials in New Zealand.
Austroads 2007
— 47 —
Significant differences have been observed between non-contact and direct contact measurements
carried out over the same sections of road. Bennett (1996) has suggested that the problem is
fundamental in determining rut depths from any non-contact device. When performing manual
measurements with a straight edge, this is always placed on the two high points (or placed to
provide the deepest rut, where the high points are spaced further apart than the length of the
straight edge) and the wedge positioned at the low point. Thus in a manual survey the rutting is
measured between points which tend to produce the maximum rut depth. However, all transverse
profilometers operate by taking discrete samples at different positions across the pavement. Thus
it is unlikely that the sample will be always taken at the two high points and the low point.
Increasing the number of transverse sensors and covering as much of the lane width as possible
will decrease the discrepancy (Bennett 1998) but not totally. The discrepancy is a consequence of
inherent sampling limitations rather than equipment deficiency.
Transverse profile may generally be measured at normal traffic speeds, using non-contact devices.
In New Zealand for example, measurements are carried out at intervals of 80 mm. These values
are processed in real time and average values output every 1 m.
Where the measurement system can be operated at a range of speeds, although the MLP process
for measuring transverse profile is theoretically independent of travel speed, validation testing
should be undertaken over the range of operating speeds.
As far as possible, the effects of operator variability (e.g. vehicle wander) should be minimised
during validation testing.
J.4 Selection of Validation Sites

Due to the difference in the method of measurement between the contact devices used to provide
reference measures and the non-contact devices undergoing validation testing, particularly the
differences in footprint area between contact devices and laser sensors, it is important that
validation be undertaken on smooth textured surfaces only.
COMMENTARY K REPEATABILITY AND BIAS

K.1 Introduction
It is apparent from initial discussions with MAs that the repeatability of rut depth measurement is
not high, particularly for manual surveys, and that little is known of the rate of change of rutting
over time.
The first key to accurate repeatability checks is to ensure that measurement starts at precisely the
same point each time. Start point discrepancies of as little as one metre can have a significant
effect on repeatability records. Placement of painted or other reference markers on or beside the
road at the commencement of the survey is vital to minimise the risk of having different start points.
Variations in the vehicle path in successive runs can affect repeatability, particularly for devices
with low numbers of sensors. Environmental conditions (temperature, rainfall, and wind) are all
variables that tend to complicate the issue.
Austroads 2007
— 48 —
Variation in surface texture is another area of difficulty in specifying repeatability for non-contact
measuring devices. As a consequence, measurements of rut depth less than 3 mm are generally
regarded as surface texture related ‘noise’ and should be regarded as insignificant on all but the
smoothest pavements. Most rut depths recorded fall in the range of 3 - 10 mm. Difficulties with
repeatability are less significant where the rut depths are greater than 10 mm.
K.2 Repeatability and Reproducibility

K.2.1 General
Repeatability and reproducibility are statistical concepts that indicate the extent of variations of
results about the mean from a series of successive measurements of the same parameter.
Repeatability refers to successive measurements within a short period of time using the same
measurement device, method, driver/operator, and location. Reproducibility refers to successive
measurements where the individual measurements are carried out in changing conditions such as
method of measurement, observer, measurement device, location, and time. For operational
rutting surveys, reproducibility testing is carried out only if the survey is conducted by more than
one driver/operator.
For rutting, repeatability and reproducibility are quantified as ‘the standard deviation expressed as
a percentage of the mean’ of measurements obtained in repeat tests. Repeatability tests are
carried out using the same transverse profile measurement device with the same driver/operator
on the same randomly selected road section on the same day.
In terms of repeatability, Asnani et al. (1993) reporting on the results of a study of roughness and
rutting measurement repeatability carried out in Minnesota USA presented the following
conclusions:
Rut depth measurements obtained with any single system seem to be repeatable.
Rut depth measurements were statistically different over the range of systems tested in
74.3% of cases.
Regression analysis yielded very strong linear relationships among systems, with r2 in the
upper 90s for almost all relationships. These relationships indicate that systems do correlate
among each other.
Rutting or transverse profile measurement equipment should be calibrated before any
comparisons are conducted, on a common regional calibration site.
Soet et al. (2003) describes MRWA experience with testing repeatability and bias of a 13 laser
profilometer for a transverse profile survey in 2001.
K.3 Bias
K.3.1 General
In a VicRoads trial (Gow et al. 1999), absolute rut depth was found to be dependent upon which
measurement device or method is employed. The VicRoads 100 km trial survey produced data
that indicated rut depth measured by the ARRB MLP in static mode and staff and level could differ
significantly with the MLP showing consistently higher rut depths, as much as 5 mm on surfaces of
high surface texture (Gow et al. 1999). This finding contrasts with the recent research in New
Zealand (see Commentary I), which suggested overall under-estimation of rut depths from 2 mm to
4 mm for operational multi-laser profilometers, when compared with data from precise surveys of
transverse profiles (Transfund 2003)
Austroads 2007
— 49 —

Agam05c 07

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agam05c 07

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUIDE TO ASSET MANAGEMENT

Part 5C: Rutting

A glossary of terms used in measuring road pavement rutting is also included.

First Published 2006

© Austroads Inc. 2007

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data:

Austroads Project No. AP1009

Published by Austroads Incorporated

 Roads and Traffic Authority New South Wales

COMMENTARY A GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THE NETWORK-LEVEL

These guidelines constitute Part 5C – Rutting of the Guide.

A considerable amount of these guidelines is based on material previously drafted by Austroads

1.2 Overview of Pavement Rutting

Rutting information can also be used:

AUSTROADS GUIDE GUIDE TO ASSET MANAGEMENT

ASSET MANAGEMENT PART 1 – INTRODUCTION TO ASSET MANAGEMENT

PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGY PART 2 – STAKEHOLDER / COMMUNITY

PROJECT EVALUATION PART 3 – ASSET STRATEGIES

ROAD DESIGN PART 4 – PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND

ROAD TRANSPORT PLANNING PART 5 – PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PART 6 – BRIDGE PERFORMANCE

PART 7 – ROAD RELATED ASSETS PERFORMANCE

PART 8 – ASSET VALUATION AND AUDIT

PART 5 – PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE

PART 5 – PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE

PART 5F – SKID RESISTANCE

PART 5H – PERFORMANCE MODELLING

2 SPECIFICATION AND TEST METHOD

In HDM technology, rutting is defined as the permanent or unrecoverable traffic-associated

2.2 Scope of Rutting Surveys

2.2.2 Sampling Interval and Frequency

2.3 Frequency of Rutting Surveys

Table 2.1: Survey frequency

Road network Frequency

2.4 Specification of Rutting Surveys

2.5 Data reporting

2.5.2 Reporting Parameters

3 TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES

Table 3.1: Rutting measurement methods

3.1.1 Determining Rut Depth Using Non-contact Methods

For automated/non-contact measurements, readings at a minimum of three points are required

3.2 Technologies for Rutting Surveys

3.2.2 Automated Methods for Measuring Rutting

Figure 3.3: An example of a multi-laser profilometer

Source: Transfund NZ 2003

3.3 Equipment Conditioning and System Performance

 operational settings, processing algorithms

4 DATA QUALITY AND VALIDATION

4.2 Validation of Rutting Measurement (Non-contact Methods)

The second method, AG:AM/T011 Validation of a Multi-Laser Profilometer for Measuring

4.3 Repeatability and Bias (Non-contact Methods)

5.1 Assessing the Validity of Rutting Data

Figure 5.1: Rutting severity of a link over time

5.2 Distribution Analysis

Such graphs provide a good indication of the effectiveness of maintenance management

Figure 5.2: Distribution and trend of rutting severity for a network

Figure 5.3: Cumulative distribution of rutting for a network

6.1 Network Screening

6.2 Performance Measures

6.3 Network Level Monitoring and Performance Modelling

6.4 Managing Maintenance Contracts

6.5 Intervention Levels

6.6 Decision-Support Tools

Roads and Traffic Authority New South Wales

operational settings, processing algorithms

standardisation of practice is desirable