Signal Processing and Conditioning Tools and Methods

for Road Profile Assessment

Abduvokhid Yunusov1, Davron Riskaliev1, Nurmukhammad Abdukarimov2,

Sulaymon Eshkabilov3
1 Dynamics & Control Lab, Tashkent Institute of Automotive Road Design, Construction and
Maintenance, 20 A. Temur Street, Tashkent 100060, Uzbekistan
2 Academic Methodology Unit, Tashkent Turin Polytechnic University, 17 Kichik Khalka yuli

Street, Tashkent 100060, Uzbekistan

3 Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Department, North Dakota State University, 1221

Albrecht Blvd, Fargo, Street, North Dakota, ND 58102, USA

davrstlei@gmail.com

Abstract. This work presents a comparative analysis of a few different methods

and tools for road roughness assessment and highlights some practical aspects
of using sensors and data acquisition tools including experimental data anal-
yses. In assessment of road profile roughness, geometrical and response type
measurement approaches with class 1, 2 and 3 tools (Total Station 06 Leica Geo
SystemTM, Laser profilometer from by DYNATESTTM, accelerometers of Commented [1]: Значек ТМ (trade mark) должен быть в
DytranTM, smart phone, GY-61 with in-house designed and developed data ac- верхнем регистре, либо вообще не использовать эту
quisition system and analog-to-digital converter with ArduinoTM Uno Board, аббревиатуру, просто писать DYNATEST
and Roughometer III from ARRB group Ltd) are employed. Road tests are per-
formed in different vehicle velocities, viz. 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80 km/h.
Comparative studies have demonstrated that the RTM approaches with accel-
erometers are of sufficiently high quality in assessing road profile and evaluat-
ing IRI and can be comparable in accuracy with the class 1 geometrical static
profilers and class 2 mobile profilometers like laser profiler from by DYNA-
TESTTM.

Keywords: Acceleration, Filter, Integration, Response Type Measurement,

Road Roughness, IRI.

1 Introduction

The quality of the road profile defines comfort ride and quality of load cargo and pas-
senger transportation. Therefore, by improving road pavement quality, quality of
goods and passenger transportation will be improved and subsequently, considerable
amount of energy will be saved with less damaging impact on the environment, as
well. There are a few different methods, tools and approaches used in assessment and
evaluation of road profile quality differing in prices, accuracy, user friendliness, etc.
According to the classifications [1] of road roughness measurement tools, there are
2

four classes of tools, viz. class 1 and 2 – geometric measurement, class 3 - non-
geometric or response type measurement (RTM) and class 4 – subjective. To simplify
and unify the road roughness assessment indicators, a number of international and
national standards and methods are widely accepted and used by road engineers and
specialists in many nations worldwide. They are IRI (International Roughness Index)
[2], ISO 2631 [3], ISO 8608 [4], Japanese Method [5] and others.
The research motivation of this paper was to perform comparative analyses analy-
sis of eight different road profile measurement and pavement quality assessment tools
and methods, viz. (1) geometrical profiler (Total Station 06 Leica™), (2) high preci-
sion laser profiler – DYNATEST™, (3) accelerometers – Dytran™, (4) accelerometer
GY-61 with in-house developed data acquisition system with Arduino™ UNO board,
(5) smart phone with an application platform Roadroid, (6) Roughometer III devel-
oped by ARRB group Ltd. The set aim was to demonstrate accuracy of these methods
and to make recommendations on how to improve accuracy of the RTM approach
with accelerometers by employing appropriate digital filters and numerical integration
methods to compute road profile from the measured vertical acceleration data. Anoth-
er pursued idea was a possibility of to designing design a simple and inexpensive data
acquisition system with Arduino™ UNO board with accelerometer sensor GY-61 to
record vertical acceleration of a car body.

2 Literature Review

Geometrical measurement (GeoM) with optical or laser optical static profilers accord-
ing to the International Standards [6], (e.g. Total Station 06 Leica Geo System™) has
been used very widely. The GeoM tools are very accurate, but requires very high hu-
man labor intensive intensity and time consuming. Mobile laser profilers [7] (e.g.
DYNATEST™) are very efficient, accurate and comparable with the geometrical
static profilers like Total Station Leica Geo System™. One of the major drawbacks of
laser profilometers are their high costs and therefore, it may not be accessible or cost
efficient to use for road profile assessments of different road categories. An alterna-
tive for class 1 and 2 tools is are RTM tools of class 3 based on the recording of vehi-
cle suspension and body responses on the excitations, coming from the terrain profile.
For example, a bump integrator, or also called rouhgometer [8], records the road pro-
file with respect to the relative displacement or stroke of the vehicle damper’s rod,
and computes routinely calculated summary of statistics with constant (average)
speed of a vehicle at 50 km/h. It computes the IRI and does not give the road profile
explicitly but it gives a rough estimate estimation of the road profile roughness. Al-
ternative RTM tools of class 3 are accelerometers and acceleration sensors factory
installed on the vehicle, shock and vibration sensors, health monitoring acceleration
sensors or hand-held electronic gadgets. For example, the studies [9] dedicated to
feasibility studies of the use of Roadroid [10] application for smartphones with the
application for varying vehicle speeds demonstrate the capability of the application to
measure road profile data. Another RTM study [11] shows how to measure road pro- Commented [2]: Много тавтологии, теряется смысл
file with the mobile Kistler Group measurement system along with three distance
 3

measurement sensors and vehicle’s inertia measurement unit. A study [12] shows how
to measure the IRI of road profile with Z-axis (vertical) acceleration sensors and
Global Positioning System (GPS). For filtering purposes of measured raw data (accel-
eration), Kalman filters [13, 14], moving average, low-pass, high-pass and band-pass
filters are used. The studies [15] have demonstrated that most appropriate digital fil-
ters for removing noises from measured and collected acceleration data are band-pass
filters with frequency bands of [0.5 Hz … 50 Hz]. For numerical conversion of accel-
eration data into displacement data after filtering of the measured acceleration data,
Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) [16] and double integration approaches are used. Stud-
ies of [15] have demonstrated that the FFT approach [16] to compute of road profiles
computing from the measured acceleration data is utterly inaccurate and unreliable.

3 Research Methodology

The employed six different road profile measurement tools of the road profile in this
study are processed and analyzed in order to obtain road roughness assessment with
IRI and road profile along one lane road based on the following data analysis, signal
conditioning and processing formulations.
1) IRI [2] values are computed from the following expression based on the Golden
Car parameters [18,19]: Commented [3]: Проверьте номера формул и рисунков
1
𝐼𝑅𝐼 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1|𝑧´𝑠,𝑖 − 𝑧´𝑢,𝑖 | (1)
𝑛

The variables 𝑧´𝑠,𝑖 , 𝑧´𝑢,𝑖 are velocities of sprung and un-sprung masses of the quarter car
model in [m/s] and the responses are computed based on the road excitation from the
road.
2) Moving average filter is applied for the road profile data measured with Total
station 06. If the given data points are {𝑟𝑖 }𝑀 𝑖=1 , their N-moving average sequence
points {𝑆𝑖 }𝑀−𝑁+1
𝑖=1 are computed from the given sequence points of 𝑟𝑖 by taking the
arithmetic mean values of subsequent points of N terms.
1
𝑆𝑖 = ∑𝑖+𝑁−1
𝑗=1 𝑟𝑗 (21)
𝑁

Where N is a window size. For example, N=5 means a 5-point moving average of the
data.
3) To filter out raw measured acceleration data, the following Butterworth band-
pass filter is employed with band-pass frequencies of [0.5 Hz … 30 Hz].
𝐴𝑓 = 𝐻(𝑧)𝐴𝑟 (𝑡) (31)
𝑏1 +𝑏2 𝑧 −1 +𝑏3 𝑧 −2 +𝑏4 𝑧 −3 +𝑏5 𝑧 −4
𝐻(𝑧) = (41)
𝑎0 +𝑎1 𝑧 −1 +𝑎2 𝑧 −2 +𝑎3 𝑧 −3 +𝑎4 𝑧 −4

Where 𝐴𝑟 (𝑡) are is a raw measured acceleration data and 𝐴𝑓 is its filtered component.
𝑎0 , 𝑎1 , 𝑎2 , 𝑎3 , 𝑎4 and 𝑏1 , 𝑏2 , 𝑏3 , 𝑏4 , 𝑏5 denominator and numerator filter coefficients of
the second order filter’s transfer function.
4

4) The filtered acceleration data sets are processed to obtain displacement data by
using double numerical integration based on the Newmark - 𝛽 method [19].
∆𝑡
𝑧´𝑖+1 = 𝑧´𝑖 + (𝑧´𝑖 + 𝑧´𝑖+1 )
2
{ 1−2𝛽
𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑖 ≥ 1 (5)
𝑧𝑖+1 = 𝑧𝑖 + ∆𝑡𝑧´𝑖 + ∆𝑡 2 𝑧´𝑖 + 𝛽∆𝑡𝑧´𝑖+1
2

Where 𝑧´𝑖 ,𝑧´𝑖 , 𝑧𝑖 are vertical acceleration (measured), velocity (computed). ∆𝑡 is a time
step and 𝛽 is an important corrector factor of the model. The indexes 𝑖 and 𝑖+1 are
consecutive orders of data points.

4 Results

The measurements were carried out with eight different sets of devices: Total Station
06 Leica Geo System, Laser profiler – DYNATEST, accelerometers – Dytran, GY-61
with in-house developed data acquisition system with Arduino UNO board, smart
phone, Roughometer III -ARRB group Ltd. Geometrical (static) measured data with
Total Station 06 Leica were taken as a main reference measurement for all other
measurements to assess their accuracy and correlations in locating irregularities of the
selected road sections. For measurement tests, two asphalt pavement road sections,
each of which is 400 meters long, in an urban area of Tashkent city were selected.
GeoM with Total Station 6 were carried on 1600 equally spaced (0.25 meter in-
between consecutive markers) points. Subsequently, the RTMs with Laser profiler
(Fig.1, a) and single axis accelerometers (Fig.1, b, c, d) Dytran and GY-61 with Ar-
duino board are performed at constant velocities of a car –20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80
[km/h]. Moreover, the measurements with smart phone installed on the front panel
(Fig.3, a, b) are made. The sampling rates for each measurement set of devices dif-
fered; e.g., a sampling rate for the Laser Profiler was chosen 12 samples per meter, for
accelerometers of Dytran - 500 Hz, GY- 61 - 417 Hz, and for Smart Phone - 202.53
Hz. Measurements were carried out in two different types of vehicles, viz. Nexia™ -
Shevrolet™ – sedan and Damas™ – Chevrolet™ – minivan. A main considerable
difference in the designs of the two vehicles is are their chassis systems (suspension
system designs – independent and dependent types). All measurements with the Laser
Profiler were carried out only in Damas and simultaneous measurements with easy
DAQ - accelerometer GY-61were carried out in Damas.

a) b) c) d)
 5

Fig. 1. Response type measurements: (a) Laser profiler DYNATEST (right); (b) Two accel-
erometers – Dytran installed on car body (2nd from right); (c) Accelerometer – Dytran installed
on the axle (3rd from right); (d) Accelerometer GY-61 installed on the cabin floor (far left).

Three single axis accelerometers of Dytran installed on the right axle (Fig.1,b) and car
body (Fig.1, c - two accelerometers) with magnetic pads collected vertical accelera-
tions. The measured data with Dytran accelerometers were collected via AD Convert-
er DAQ – DT9837. All measured data with RTMs were collected simultaneously in
real time via laptop computers except for a Smart Phone smartphone (Fig. 2, a, b) that
worked autonomously.

a) b)
Fig. 21. Response type measurements with a smart phone: (a) Motions recorded automatically;
(b) Smart Phone smartphone installed on the front panel of a car.

An acceleration sensor of Roughometer III of ARRB group Ltd was installed on the
shock absorber of the rear axle and all instantaneous velocity values of the car were
collected from the car’s odometer. All of the measurement runs were performed in
two separate (400-meter each) road sections marked with artificial bumps in order to
fix exact distance and synchronization of the measured data from all RTMs. The cal-
culated IRI index of the measured profile irregularities with Total Station 06 for For-
ward and Backward Sections were 2.772 and 3.681, repectively. The measured refer-
ence data of road profiles with Total Station 06 were up-sampled with 10 data points
per 1-meter (Fig. 3. a, b) demonstrated good correlations with the measured data by
preserving measured road irregularities very well. With Roughometer III, the IRI in-
dexes of two selected road sections were close with the reference in higher speeds (>
40 km/h).
The RTMs on the selected road sections with Laser Profiler DYNATEST on a
mini-van ChevroletTM – DamasTM demonstrated very high correlations in both select-
ed road sections (Fig. 4. a, b) with the reference GeoM. The found IRI values from
the profiles with Laser Profiler were 2.625, 2.618, 2.604, 2.558, 2.659, 2.656, 2.657,
respectively with a deviation of 5.5 …7.7 % from the reference IRI.
The measured data obtained from these RTMs were acquired and analyzed in the
following procedures. 1) All measured data were recorded in real time via analog-to-
digital (AD) converters. 2) Necessary part (corresponding to the selected road sec-
tions) of acquired data was taken out. 3) The selected data were de-trended and fil-
tered via the band-pass filter with respect to the formulations (3) and (4). 4) The fil-
6

tered acceleration data were converted into displacement data by using Newmark - 𝛽
method (5). By varying the value of the parameter 𝛽, the quality (well correlated
road) of the road profiles was obtained. The most appropriate value of 𝛽 was found to
be 0.12 for the studies. 5) The computed road profiles were compared with the refer-
ence. 6) The IRI assessment plots and values of the computed profiles were built
against reference profiles. The road profiles measured with Smart Phone smartphone
on Nexia (Fig. 5, a,b) showed that the higher correlations of the obtained road profiles
and IRI plots with the reference ones reached at higher speeds, i.e. ≥ 50 km/h. The
computed IRI at 50 km/h was 3.5698 with an offset of 7.3 % from the reference. That
can be explained with the installation /attachment of the equipment to the car body. In
Damas, the DAQ with accelerometer GY-61 was attached to the car body directly and
in Nexia on the floor and considerable damping was present. The AD converter had
10-bit processor that was not sufficient for sought studies and the quantization prob-
lem was observed (Fig. 6). Higher quality of the measured road profiles with GY-61
(easy-DAQ) obtained in higher speeds (Fig. 7). The IRI values at 70 km/h and 80
km/h (Fig. 10, 11). in Backward section were: 3.296 and 3.451 with a deviation of
10.5 % and 3.8% from the reference value. The IRI values in Forward direction at 20,
30, 40 km/h were 2.91, 2.639, 2.879 with an offset of -5 …+5 % from the reference
value (of Total Station).
The RTMs with the accelerometers of Dytran performed in higher speeds in partic-
ular above 50 km/h (Fig.8, 9) in defining road profiles and IRI assessment plots show
very good correlations and convergences with the reference ones. However, it must be
noted the importance of the accelerometer’s installation. Moreover, it was necessary
to have a correcting factor/multiplication factor with respect to vehicle speed and
technical condition of its suspension system, tire type and air- pressure in tires. The
computed IRI values in Backward section (Fig. 11) with accelerometers of Dytran
with the reference ones were observed, i.e., at 40, 50, 60, 70 km/h, the found IRI were
3.157, 3.268, 3.319, 3.525 with the offset of 14, 11, 10, 4%. That concludes the im-
portance of performing the RTMs with accelerometers at higher speeds. Another im-
portant point with all RTMs is that measured profiles without a reference to compare
and just looking at the IRI value can be misleading.

a) b)
 7

Fig. 3. a) Road elevation and profile obtained from the measured data with Total Station 06
Leica Geo System: a) Forward section; b) Backward section.
IRI index assessment of the selected road segment with DYNATEST Laser Profilometer Measured road profile (Segment 1) with TS 06 vs. Laser Profilometer DYNATEST
0.25 0.03
Laser @ 20 [km/h] Resampled and MA applied
Total Station Laser Profilometer @ 60 [km/h]
0.2 Laser @ 30 [km/h] Laser Profilometer @ 80 [km/h]
Laser @ 40 [km/h] Laser Profilometer @ 40 [km/h]
Laser @ 50 [km/h] 0.02

0.15 Laser @ 60 [km/h]

Laser @ 70 [km/h]

0.1 0.01
Road profile, [m]
Elevation, [m]

0.05

-0.05 -0.01

-0.1

-0.02

-0.15

a) b)
-0.2 -0.03
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Distance, [m] Distance, [m]

Fig. 4. a) The Road profile (Forward section) measured with Total Station 06 (Resampled and
MA applied) vs. Laser Profiler – DYNATEST at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 [km/h], b) The Road
profile (Backward section) measured with Laser Profiler – DYNATEST at 40, 60, 80 [km/h].
Road Profile computed via CumTrapz and Band-pass filter Road Profile computed via CumTrapz and Band-pass filter
0.04 0.04
Smart Phone (ComBo) Smart Phone
TS06 TS06

0.03 0.03

0.02 0.02

0.01 0.01
Displacement, [m]
Displacement, [m]

0 0

-0.01 -0.01

-0.02 -0.02

-0.03 -0.03

-0.04

a) b)
-0.04
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Time, [s] Time, [s]

Fig. 5. a) Road profiles (Backward Section) with Total Station 06 vs. Smart Phone at 50 km/h
with sampling frequency of 202 Hz, b) IRI plot computed from the road profiles: Total Station
06 vs. Smart Phone.
IRI index assessment of the selected road segment: Total Station - TS06 vs. EasyDAQ
Road Profile: Total Station TS06 vs. Easy-DAQ
0.03
0.35

0.3 TS
@ 20 [km/h]
0.02 @ 30 [km/h]
0.25 @ 40 [km/h]
IRIref =2.7684; IRI@20 =2.9104; IRI@30 =2.6393; IRI@40 =2.8793

0.2
0.01
Vertical Displacement, [m]

0.15
Road profile, [m]

0.1
0

0.05

0
-0.01

-0.05

-0.02 TS06 (Reference) -0.1

@ 20 [km/h]
@ 30 [km/h]
-0.15
@ 40 [km/h]

-0.03

a) 0 50 100 150 200

Distance, [m]
250 300 350 400

b) 0 50 100 150 200

Distance, [m]
250 300 350 400

Fig. 6. a) Road profile (Forward section) measured with easy-DAQ at 20, 30, 40 km/h, b) IRI
plot against Total Station 06. Measurements carried out in Nexia.
Acceleration data measured with easyDAQ @ 65.7916 [km/h] with sf = 417 Hz
IRI index assessment of the selected road segment
0.15
TS
0.25 easyDAQ
Quantization issue!

0.2
0.1

0.15

0.1 0.05
Vertical Displacement, [m]

0.05
a , [m/s 2]

0 0
y

-0.05

-0.05
-0.1

-0.15

IRIref =2.7684; IRI@50 =2.6186 -0.1

-0.2

-0.25

a) 0 50 100 150 200

Distance, [m]
250 300 350 400

b) 181 182 183

Distance, [m]
184 185 186 187
8

Fig. 7. a) IRI plot of Road profile (Forward Section) measured with easy-DAQ at 50 vs. Total
Station 06; b) Quantization problem of 10-bit AD converter. Measurements in Damas TM.
Road Profile measured with Accelerometers and Total Station TS06
0.025
IRI index assessment of the selected road segment
0.3 TS06 (ref)
Accelerometer @50 [km/h]
0.02 Accelerometer @50 [km/h]

0.015 0.2

0.01

0.1
Vertical Displacement, [m]
0.005

-0.005

-0.01
-0.1

-0.015

From AAxle at 50 [km/h]

-0.02 -0.2
From AAxle at 60 [km/h]
TS06 (ref)

a) -0.025
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
b) 0 50 100 150 200
Distance, [m]
250 300 350 400

Fig. 8. a) Road profile (Forward section) measured with Accelerometers – Dytran at 50, 60
km/h; b) IRI assessment plots of road profiles with Accelerometers vs. Total Station 06.
Road Profile measured with Accelerometers at 49 km/h IRI index assessment of the selected road segment
0.03
From AAxle TS06 (ref)
Accelerometer
TS06 (ref) 0.2

0.02

0.1
0.01
Vertical Displacement, [m]

0
Road Profile, [m]

-0.01 -0.1

-0.02 -0.2

IRIref =3.6813; IRIAccel. @50 [km/h] =3.208

-0.03
-0.3

a) -0.04
0 50 100 150 200
Distance, [m]
250 300 350 400
b) 0 50 100 150 200
Distance, [m]
250 300 350 400

Fig. 9. a) Road profile (Backward section) measured with Accelerometers – Dytran at 50 km/h;
b) IRI assessment plots of road profiles with Accelerometers vs. Total Station 06.
IRI index assessment of the selected road segment
Road Profile measured with Accelerometers at 71 km/h
0.04
TS06 (ref)
0.3
Accelerometer

0.02 0.2

0.1
0
Vertical Displacement, [m]
Road Profile, [m]

0
-0.02

-0.1

-0.04

-0.2

-0.06 From AAxle

From ACB1
-0.3
From ACB2
TS06 (ref)

a) -0.08
0 50 100 150 200
Distance, [m]
250 300 350 400
b) 0 50 100 150 200
Distance, [m]
250 300 350 400

Fig. 10. a) Road profile (Backward section) measured with Accelerometers – Dytran installed
on car body and axle at 70 km/h; b) IRI assessment plots of road profiles with Accelerometers
vs. Total Station 06.
IRI index assessment of the selected road segment IRI index assessment of the selected road segment

TS06 (ref) TS06 (ref)

Accelerometer @40 [km/h] Accelerometer
Accelerometer @50 [km/h] 0.2

0.2 Accelerometer @60 [km/h]

0.1
0.1
Vertical Displacement, [m]
Vertical Displacement, [m]

0
0

-0.1
-0.1

-0.2
-0.2

-0.3 -0.3

a) 0 50 100 150 200

Distance, [m]
250 300 350 400

b) 0 50 100 150 200

Distance, [m]
250 300 350 400
 9

Fig. 11. a) Road profile (Backward section) measured with Accelerometers – Dytran installed
on axle at 40, 50, 60 km/h; b) IRI assessment plots of road profiles with Accelerometers vs.
Total Station 06.

5 Conclusions

The comparative studies with geometrical and RTM tools and methods in assessing
road’s micro profiles and detecting irregularities have showed that the Laser Profiler
of DYNATESTTM is a superior and highly efficient tool with high accuracy compara-
ble with the static (geometrical tools) tools, e.g., Total Station 06 Leica Geo System.
It is user friendly and no any substantial signal processing is required for analysis of
its measured data that are displacement or in other words, clean road profile data.
However, this tool’s high price and technical maintenance cannot be applicable for all
purpose roads and road builders. The Roughometer III is quick and easy to use tool
for general assessment of roads but it does not give the road profile data. Smart
Phones Smartphones with adequate software applications like Roadroid can be used
to evaluate the road roughness with relatively good estimate. The accuracy of Smart
Phones smartphones can be further improved by adjusting sampling frequency of col-
lected data that should better be beyond 250 Hz. The RTMs and tools studied in this
work have demonstrated that they are very efficient and can provide considerably
high quality assessments of road profiles by choosing the right tool and employing
appropriate signal processing and signal conditioning with appropriate digital filters
and integrators to compute displacement from acceleration data approaches. Whereas,
the tools used for the RTMs can be challenging without appropriate practical
knowledge how to use them. In particular, the integration process can be a bit tricky
for example, approaches of computing double integration and displacement from ac-
celeration.

References
1. Sayers, M., Gillespie, T.D., Queiroz, C.: International Experiment to Establish Correla-
tions and Standard Calibration Methods for Road Roughness Measurements. Technical
Paper 45. World Bank, Washington, D.C. (1986).
2. Sayers, M.W.: On the Calculation of International Roughness Index from Longitudinal
Road Profile. Transportation Research Record. Journal of Transportation Research Board
1501 (1995).
3. ISO 2631-1: Mechanical vibration and shock – Evaluation of human exposure to whole-
body vibration (1997).
4. ISO 8608: Mechanical vibration, road surface profiles. Reporting of Measured Data
(1995).
5. Souza, R.O., Neto, S.D., Farias, M.M.: Improving Pavements with Long-Term Pavement
Performance: Products for Today and Tomorrow. Papers From the 2003-2004 Internation-
al Contest on Long-Term pavement Performance Data Analysis 2006, pp. 5-6 (2006).
6. ASTM Standard, Standard Test Method for Measuring Road Roughness by Static Level
Method, Designation: E1364-95 (2012).
10

7. Fernando, E.G., Walker, R.S.: Impact of changes in profile measurement technology on

QA testing of pavement smoothness. Technical Report. Alexandria, VA: National Tech-
nical Information Service ( 2013).
8. Sayers, M.W., Gillespie, T.D., Paterson, W.D.O.: Guidelines for Conducting and Calibrat-
ing Road Roughness Measurements. World Bank Technical Paper Number 46, Washing-
ton DC, USA (1986).
9. Schlotjes, M.R., Visser, A., Bennett, C.: Evaluation Of A Smartphone Roughness Meter
Proceedings of the 33rd Southern African Transport Conference (SATC 2014) 7 – 10 July
2014, pp. 141 – 153, Proceedings ISBN Number: 978-1-920017-61-3 Pretoria, South Afri-
ca.
10. Smartphone app: Roadroid - http://roadroid.com/app/roadroid.apk, viewed on June 23,
2018.
11. Surblys, V., Zuraulis, V., Sokolovskij, E.: Estimation of road roughness from data of on-
vehicle mounted sensors. Eksploatacja in Niezawodnosc – Maintenance and Relaiability
19(3), 369-374 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.17531/ein.2017.3.7
12. Du, Y., Liu, Ch., Wu, D., Jiang, Sh.: Measurement of International Roughness Index by
using Z-axis Accelerometers and GPS. Mathematical Problems in Engineering (2014), Ar-
ticle ID 928980, http://dxdoi.org/10.1155/2014/928980 (2014).
13. Sahlholm, P., Jansson, H., Kozica, E., Johansson, K.H.: A sensor and data fusion algorithm
for road grade estimation. In: 5th IFAC Symposium on Advances in Automotive Control
2007; 40(10), pp. 55-62, http://dx.doi.org/10.3182/20070820-3-US-2918.00010 (2007).
14. Castillo Aguillar, J.J., Cabrera Carillo, J.A., Guerra Fernandez, A.J., Carabias Acosta, E.:
Robust Road Condition Detection System using in-Vehicle Standard Sensors. Sensors
15(12), 32056-32078 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3390/s151229908
15. Eshkabilov, S.L., Yunusov, A.G.: Measuring and Assessing Road Profile by Employing
Accelerometers and IRI Assessment tools. International Journal of Traffic and Transporta-
tion Engineering 3(2), 24-40 (2018). doi: 10.11648/j.ajtte.20180302.12
16. Han, S., Chung, J.W.: Retrieving displacement signal from measured acceleration signal.
Proceedings of the 20th IMAC, CD ROM (2002).