Methods for Measuring and Assessing Irregularities of Stone Pavements—Part II
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- International Roughness Index (IRI) is a geometric method to evaluate the condition of paved surfaces [28]. However, limitations concern the reference speed (i.e., 80 km/h); the types of assessed defects, because IRI performs badly in interpreting isolated and localized defects; and the threshold values available in the literature, because data do not refer to modular pavements.
- Classification according to ISO 8608 [13] is a geometric method that provides a synthetic description of the road pavement surface. It classifies road profiles in terms of Power Spectral Density (PSD) but overlooks the vehicle type or the driving speed and does not properly consider the different vibration levels affecting road users.
- Comfort evaluation according to ISO 2631 [14] is based on the whole-body vibration perceived by users on-board a vehicle as a function of the longitudinal road roughness. The frequency-weighted vertical accelerations (awz) depend on the riding vehicle (or the vehicle mechanical model) and the vehicle speed [29]. This method allows comfort assessment for public transport [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. In this paper three different dynamic vehicle models (i.e., bike, automobile, and bus) have been considered and discussed in the first part of this paper to investigate how vehicles affect the perceived comfort under different driving conditions.
- Straightedge analysis for stone pavements (SASP). It consists in the geometric analysis of the profile with respect to one or more reference lengths (straightedge) by calculating the maximum and average deviations as the straightedge position varies. Although this method is adopted for airfield pavement roughness in the FAA procedure [15], it has been adapted to urban stone pavements. It can evaluate the effects of both surface and localized irregularities on traffic. SASP permits the identification the location of the most severe punctual irregularities. Moreover, the authors proposed threshold curves that depend on the reference vehicle and allow both a relative comparison between surface irregularities and the classification of their functional performance.
3. Results
3.1. Geometric Methods: IRI and ISO 8608 Classification
- twenty class C profiles have n0 values between 135.7 cycles/m and 497.4 cycles/m (n0avg = 291.1 cycles/m), w values between −1.714 and −2.982 (wavg = −2.158), and IRI values between 4.89 m/km and 14.88 m/km (IRIavg = 8.76 m/km);
- twenty-eight class D profiles have n0 values between 516.1 cycles/m and 1715.4 cy-cles/m (n0avg = 1043.6 cycles/m), w values between −1.366 and −2.884 (wavg = −2.244), and IRI values between 7.57 m/km and 18.13 m/km (IRIavg = 13.07 m/km);
- six class E profiles have n0 values between 2119.8 cycles/m and 3188.2 cycles/m (n0avg = 2472.1 cycles/m), w values between −2.069 and −2.828 (wavg = −2.606), and IRI values between m/km 16.62 and 21.35 m/km (IRIavg = 19.18 m/km).
3.2. Comfort Evaluation According to ISO 2631
- Bike model (5 dof) at 10 km/h and 20 km/h;
- Automobile model (8 dof) at 30 km/h and 50 km/h;
- Bus model (8 dof) at 30 km/h and 50 km/h.
3.3. Straightedge Analysis for Stone Pavements
4. Discussion
- localized irregularities avoided a correct evaluation of the whole-body comfort (e.g., BR_10, BR_19, BR_26, and BR_39);
- in case two profiles were considered, irregularities and vehicle roll gave significantly different comfort results by varying the speed vehicle from 30 km/h to 50 km/h (i.e., BR_23 and BR_39);
- irregularities’ wavelength affected the modeled vehicle at 50 km/h (e.g., BR_13, BR_15, and BR_21); further analyses should involve different vehicle models to investigate this issue.
- Class I: Block pavement in excellent condition which corresponds to a perfectly made surface. There are no localized irregularities larger than those of the average irregularities of the pavement. On these surfaces, circulation is guaranteed in conditions of adequate comfort up to a speed of 50 km/h for users of automobiles and buses, and up to 20 km/h for those of bikes. The reference values of the traditional performance indicators are also reported: IRI < 6–8 m/km, ISO 8608 classification “C” with values of parameters n0 up to 300 and w < −2.0);
- Class II: Block pavement in acceptable conditions which corresponds to a surface with minimal localized surface defects not visible to the naked eye. On these surfaces, circulation is guaranteed in conditions of adequate comfort up to 30 km/h for automobiles and buses. For motor vehicles at 50 km/h, the awz results show fairly uncomfortable conditions due to localized irregularities that require restoration works. For bike users, the comfort conditions are still perceived as adequate up to 20 km/h depending on the trajectory travelled. The reference values of the traditional indicators are also reported: IRI = 8–10 m/km, ISO 8608 classification “C” and “D” with values of parameters n0 < 700 and w < −2.2–−2.4);
- Class III: Block pavement in rather degraded conditions with widespread and localized irregularities that cause fairly uncomfortable conditions at the typical urban speeds. The conditions could be uncomfortable for automobile users at 50 km/h and for buses. Therefore, restoration works should be planned shortly, to resolve both localized deterioration and widespread defects in the most critical sections. For bike users, the comfort conditions are still perceived as adequate up to 10 km/h, while for higher speeds they fall into fairly uncomfortable or uncomfortable conditions. The reference values of the traditional indicators are also reported: IRI = 10–13 m/km, ISO 8608 classification “D” with values of parameters n0 < 1400 and w < −2.3–−2.6);
- Class IV: Block pavement in very degraded condition with diffuse and punctual irregularities that are visible to the naked eye. Circulation is guaranteed in fairly comfortable conditions only up to 20 km/h for cars and buses. Very/extremely and uncomfortable conditions are already experienced by the users of automobiles and buses at 30 km/h, and therefore the circulation of vehicles is not recommended in such situations. For bike users, uncomfortable/very uncomfortable conditions are already perceived at 10 km/h, resulting in natural speed reductions that could lead to loss of balance for less experienced users. Therefore, the restoration works should be urgently planned. The reference values of the traditional indicators are also reported: IRI > 13 m/km, ISO 8608 classification “D” and “E” with values of parameters n0 > 1400 and w < −2.4–−2.8).
5. Conclusions
- 32 branch profiles have IRI values higher than 8 m/km (a typical limit to define bad pavement conditions).
- The classification according to ISO 8608 [13] identify six branch profiles in Class E (destroyed roads belong to classes above D) and 0 profiles in Class A.
- The comfort classification according to ISO 2631 [14] identifies, for bikes, 18 branches in Class 1 and 3 in Class 4; for automobiles 11 branches in Class 1 and 17 in Class 4; and for buses 7 branches in Class 1 and 10 in Class 4;
- SASP identifies, for bikes, 18 branches in Class I and 3 branches in Class IV; for au-tomobiles 7 branches in Class I and 12 in Class IV; and for buses 7 branches in Class I and 14 in Class IV.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kim, I.-J. Safety Assessment of the Community Facilities for the Prevention of Pedestrian Fall Incidents: Concrete Footpaths and Walkways. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2022, 36, 04022061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fini, A.; Frangi, P.; Comin, S.; Vigevani, I.; Rettori, A.A.; Brunetti, C.; Moura, B.B.; Ferrini, F. Effects of pavements on established urban trees: Growth, physiology, ecosystem services and disservices. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 226, 104501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zoccali, P.; Moretti, L.; Di Mascio, P.; Loprencipe, G.; D’Andrea, A.; Bonin, G.; Teltayev, B.; Caro, S. Analysis of natural stone block pavements in urban shared areas. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2018, 8, 498–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garilli, E.; Autelitano, F.; Giuliani, F. A study for the understanding of the Roman pavement design criteria. J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 25, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garilli, E.; Giuliani, F. Stone pavement materials and construction methods in Europe and North America between the 19th and 20th century. Int. J. Arch. Herit. 2019, 13, 742–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loprencipe, G.; Di Mascio, P.; Moretti, L.; Zoccali, P. Analytical and Numerical Approaches for Design of Stone Pavers in Urban Shared Areas. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 471, 062030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garilli, E.; Bruno, N.; Autelitano, F.; Roncella, R.; Giuliani, F. Automatic detection of stone pavement’s pattern based on UAV photogrammetry. Autom. Constr. 2020, 122, 103477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zoccali, P.; Loprencipe, G.; Galoni, A. Sampietrini Stone Pavements: Distress Analysis Using Pavement Condition Index Method. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moretti, L.; Di Mascio, P.; Loprencipe, G.; Zoccali, P. Theoretical analysis of stone pavers in pedestrian areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 2020, 45, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruno, S.; Del Serrone, G.; Di Mascio, P.; Loprencipe, G.; Ricci, E.; Moretti, L. Technical proposal for monitoring thermal and mechanical stresses of a runway pavement. Sensors 2021, 21, 6797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garilli, E.; Autelitano, F.; Freddi, F.; Giuliani, F. Urban pedestrian stone pavements: Measuring functional and safety requirements. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2021, 23, 4748–4759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peraka, N.S.P.; Biligiri, K.P. Pavement asset management systems and technologies: A review. Autom. Constr. 2020, 119, 103336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 8608; Mechanical Vibration—Road Surface Profiles—Reporting of Measured Data. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
- ISO 2631-1; Mechanical Vibration and Shock-Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1997.
- FAA. Guidelines and Procedures for Measuring Airfield Pavement Roughness; FAA: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Loprencipe, G.; Bruno, S.; Cantisani, G.; D’Andrea, A.; Di Mascio, P.; Moretti, L. Methods for Measuring and Assessing Irregularities of Stone Pavements—Part I. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loprencipe, G.; Zoccali, P. Comparison of methods for evaluating airport pavement roughness. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2019, 20, 782–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soffarina, M.S.S. Mountain Bicycle Cycling Comfort on Different Road Surfaces. J. Sci. Appl. Eng. 2020, 3, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thigpen, C.G.; Li, H.; Handy, S.L.; Harvey, J. Modeling the impact of pavement roughness on bicycle ride quality. Transp. Res. Rec. 2015, 2520, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tong, Z.; Gao, J.; Sha, A.; Hu, L.; Jiang, W.; Huang, Y. Evaluating the cycling comfort on urban roads based on cyclists’ perception of vibration. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 192, 531–541. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, T.; Lechner, B.; Wong, Y.D.; Tan, J.Y. Bus Ride Index–a refined approach to evaluating road surface irregularities. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2021, 22, 423–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, R.; Louw, S.; Li, H.; Harvey, J.T.; Thigpen, C. Bicycle Vibration and Pavement Ride Quality for Cyclists. In Proceedings of the 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, 11–15 January 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Sidhant, V.K. Bicycle Ride Comfort Evaluation and Optimization. Master’s Thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, J.; Fournier, N.; Skabardonis, A. Bicycle level of service: Proposed updated pavement quality index. Transp. Res. Rec. 2021, 2675, 1346–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sekulić, D.; Dedović, V.; Rusov, S.; Šalinić, S.; Obradović, A. Analysis of vibration effects on the comfort of intercity bus users by oscillatory model with ten degrees of freedom. Appl. Math. Model. 2013, 37, 8629–8644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gogola, M. Analysing the vibration of bicycles on various road surfaces in the city of Žilina. Arch. Motoryz. 2020, 88, 77–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The-Face®-Companies Dipstick® Norfolk, VA 23508. Available online: https://facecompanies.com/dipstick/ (accessed on 6 February 2023).
- ASTM E1926-08; Standard Practice for Computing International Roughness Index of Roads from Longitudinal Profile Measurements. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015.
- Bruno, S.; Vita, L.; Loprencipe, G. Development of a GIS-Based Methodology for the Management of Stone Pavements Using Low-Cost Sensors. Sensors 2022, 22, 6560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hanusz, Z.; Tarasinska, J.; Zielinski, W. Shapiro–Wilk test with known mean. Revstat Stat. J. 2016, 14, 89–100. [Google Scholar]
- Cantisani, G.; Loprencipe, G. Road Roughness and Whole Body Vibration: Evaluation Tools and Comfort Limits. J. Transp. Eng. 2010, 136, 818–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mucka, P. Simulated Road Profiles According to ISO 8608 in Vibration Analysis. J. Test. Eval. 2018, 46, 405–418. [Google Scholar]
- Loprencipe, G.; Moretti, L.; Pantuso, A.; Banfi, E. Raised Pedestrian Crossings: Analysis of Their Characteristics on a Road Network and Geometric Sizing Proposal. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Blasiis, M.R.; Di Benedetto, A.; Fiani, M. Mobile Laser Scanning Data for the Evaluation of Pavement Surface Distress. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Code | Type | Age (year) | IRI | IRI_lf | IRI_rg | n0 (cycles/m) | w | ISO 8608 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
m/km | m/km | m/km | no_lf | no_rg | w_lf | w_rg | Class | |||
BR_1 | 1 | >30 | 12.87 | 14.85 | 10.88 | 1538.5 | 662.2 | −2.416 | −2.254 | D/D |
BR_2 | 5 | >100 | 16.26 | 15.40 | 17.11 | 1409.7 | 1124.2 | −1.757 | −1.366 | D/D |
BR_3 | 8 | - | 25.67 | - | 3933.7 | −3.258 | E | |||
BR_4 | 7 | 5–10 | 5.42 | 4.89 | 5.94 | 174.4 | 142.6 | −2.174 | −2.169 | C/C |
BR_5 | 7 | 5–10 | 8.35 | - | 432.9 | −2.482 | C | |||
BR_6 | 6 | 5–10 | 5.43 | - | 135.7 | −2.104 | C | |||
BR_7 | 6 | 5–10 | 5.65 | - | 302.4 | −2.982 | C | |||
BR_8 | 9 | 5–10 | 2.69 | - | 55.6 | −1.821 | B | |||
BR_9 | 9 | >10 | 11.47 | - | 280.2 | −1.937 | C | |||
BR_10 | 9 | >10 | 9.38 | - | 201.1 | −1.350 | C | |||
BR_11 | 1 | 3–5 | 8.41 | 8.12 | 8.70 | 533.7 | 416.9 | −2.156 | −2.635 | D/C |
BR_12 | 3 | >10 | 10.51 | 10.34 | 10.67 | 305.5 | 238.6 | −1.727 | −1.941 | C/C |
BR_13 | 1 | >10 | 11.40 | 10.28 | 12.51 | 1042.7 | 621.2 | −2.512 | −2.426 | D/D |
BR_14 | 3 | >20 | 20.10 | 19.80 | 20.39 | 2274.6 | 2119.8 | −2.069 | −2.768 | E/E |
BR_15 | 3 | >10 | 13.08 | 12.95 | 13.20 | 1075.8 | 1191.9 | −2.721 | −2.696 | D/D |
BR_16 | 3 | <5 | 14.85 | 14.81 | 14.88 | 255.2 | 306.0 | −1.714 | −2.049 | C/C |
BR_17 | 2 | <5 | 7.74 | 7.64 | 7.84 | 138.1 | 139.6 | −1.838 | −1.795 | C/C |
BR_18 | 2 | <5 | 6.52 | 6.79 | 6.24 | 140.7 | 218.8 | −1.933 | −1.860 | C/C |
BR_19 | 3 | >10 | 13.87 | 14.64 | 13.09 | 689.9 | 1 048.1 | −1.755 | −2.106 | D/D |
BR_20 | 1 | >10 | 12.41 | 13.25 | 11.57 | 480.3 | 524.8 | −2.019 | −1.988 | C/D |
BR_21 | 3 | >10 | 14.33 | 14.08 | 14.58 | 814.4 | 984.6 | −1.953 | −2.157 | D/D |
BR_22 | 3 | >20 | 12.85 | 11.53 | 14.16 | 1427.3 | 802.1 | −2.340 | −2.068 | D/D |
BR_23 | 3 | >20 | 13.62 | 13.63 | 13.61 | 986.8 | 1347.8 | −2.006 | −2.276 | D/D |
BR_24 | 3 | >20 | 14.03 | 13.95 | 14.10 | 1439.8 | 1090.1 | −2.600 | −2.249 | D/D |
BR_25 | 1 | >10 | 10.39 | 10.69 | 10.08 | 656.2 | 497.4 | −2.376 | −2.412 | D/C |
BR_26 | 6 | >10 | 8.41 | - | 717.9 | −2.098 | D | |||
BR_27 | 6 | >10 | 6.56 | - | 316.6 | −2.129 | C | |||
BR_28 | 1 | <2 | 7.57 | - | 516.1 | −2.541 | D | |||
BR_29 | 3 | >20 | 16.62 | - | 2451.7 | −2.753 | E | |||
BR_30 | 3 | >20 | 18.13 | - | 1704.3 | −2.252 | D | |||
BR_31 | 3 | >20 | 15.27 | - | 1269.8 | −2.350 | D | |||
BR_32 | 1 | >10 | 9.71 | - | 456.9 | −2.449 | C | |||
BR_33 | 3 | >20 | 21.35 | - | 2595.6 | −2.426 | E | |||
BR_34 | 3 | >10 | 14.01 | - | 867.7 | −2.189 | D | |||
BR_35 | 1 | 5–10 | 7.40 | - | 381.1 | −2.457 | C | |||
BR_36 | 3 | >20 | 18.93 | - | 3188.2 | −2.828 | E | |||
BR_37 | 3 | >20 | 15.97 | - | 1715.4 | −2.346 | D | |||
BR_38 | 3 | >20 | 17.99 | - | 2202.7 | −2.789 | E | |||
BR_39 | 4 | >10 | 11.74 | - | 1416.8 | −2.884 | D | |||
BR_40 | 4 | <2 | 9.99 | - | 342.7 | −2.285 | C |
Bike Model (5 dof) | Automobile Model (8 dof) | Bus Model (8 dof) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
awz,10 (m/s2) | awz,20 (m/s2) | awz,30 (m/s2) | awz,50 (m/s2) | awz,30 (m/s2) | ||||||
Class 1 (Not uncomfortable/Little uncomfortable) | ≤0.63 | ≤1.0 | ≤0.5 | ≤0.63 | ≤0.5 | |||||
Class 2 (Little uncomfortable/Fairly uncomfortable) | >0.63 | ≤1.0 | >1.0 | ≤1.25 | >0.5 | ≤0.63 | >0.63 | ≤0.8 | >0.5 | ≤0.8 |
Class 3 (Fairly uncomfortable) | >1.0 | ≤1.25 | >1.25 | ≤1.6 | >0.63 | ≤0.8 | >0.8 | ≤1.0 | >0.8 | ≤1.0 |
Class 4 (Uncomfortable/Very-Extremely uncomfortable) | >1.25 | >1.6 | >0.8 | >1.0 | >1.0 |
Pavement Code | Bike | Automobile | Bus | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
awz,10 | awz,20 | awz,30 | awz,50 | awz,30 | awz,50 | |
BR_1 | 0.86 | 1.18 | 0.75 | 1.18 | 0.88 | >2.50 |
BR_2 | 2.35 | 2.90 | 1.22 | 1.42 | 1.33 | >2.50 |
BR_3 | 0.82 | 1.23 | 1.40 | >2.50 | 1.63 | >2.50 |
BR_4 | 0.58 | 0.66 | 0.30 | 0.37 | 0.29 | 0.52 |
BR_5 | 0.55 | 0.78 | 0.48 | 0.71 | 0.51 | 1.59 |
BR_6 | 0.47 | 0.67 | 0.29 | 0.40 | 0.34 | 0.50 |
BR_7 | 0.24 | 0.33 | 0.26 | 0.46 | 0.37 | 0.55 |
BR_8 | 0.37 | 0.45 | 0.19 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.63 |
BR_9 | 0.66 | 1.03 | 0.58 | 0.97 | 0.80 | 1.35 |
BR_10 | 1.02 | 1.38 | 0.62 | 0.76 | 0.72 | 1.23 |
BR_11 | 0.59 | 0.77 | 0.51 | 0.77 | 0.52 | 1.75 |
BR_12 | 0.61 | 0.85 | 0.52 | 0.79 | 0.61 | 1.65 |
BR_13 | 0.56 | 0.78 | 0.54 | 1.40 | 0.51 | 1.11 |
BR_14 | 0.99 | 1.52 | 1.20 | 1.61 | 1.29 | >2.50 |
BR_15 | 0.58 | 0.80 | 0.64 | 1.31 | 0.82 | >2.50 |
BR_16 | 0.72 | 1.13 | 0.71 | 0.95 | 0.90 | 1.88 |
BR_17 | 0.57 | 0.83 | 0.41 | 0.52 | 0.39 | 0.64 |
BR_18 | 0.57 | 0.74 | 0.37 | 0.52 | 0.33 | 0.61 |
BR_19 | 1.12 | 1.55 | 0.83 | 1.09 | 0.81 | >2.50 |
BR_20 | 0.71 | 1.03 | 0.65 | 0.94 | 0.85 | 1.97 |
BR_21 | 1.06 | 1.35 | 0.79 | 1.20 | 0.79 | >2.50 |
BR_22 | 0.89 | 1.20 | 0.72 | 0.99 | 0.82 | 2.31 |
BR_23 | 0.88 | 1.15 | 0.76 | 1.16 | 0.87 | 2.35 |
BR_24 | 0.86 | 1.27 | 0.80 | 1.24 | 0.89 | 2.42 |
BR_25 | 0.63 | 0.86 | 0.55 | 0.72 | 0.53 | 1.02 |
BR_26 | 0.98 | 1.19 | 0.48 | 0.72 | 0.59 | 1.74 |
BR_27 | 0.64 | 0.87 | 0.38 | 0.57 | 0.36 | 0.62 |
BR_28 | 0.44 | 0.57 | 0.48 | 0.82 | 0.66 | 1.92 |
BR_29 | 0.88 | 1.19 | 1.03 | 1.49 | 1.28 | >2.50 |
BR_30 | 1.21 | 1.55 | 0.94 | 1.80 | 1.31 | >2.50 |
BR_31 | 1.34 | 1.65 | 0.82 | 1.22 | 1.18 | 2.08 |
BR_32 | 0.59 | 0.77 | 0.51 | 0.78 | 0.82 | 2.10 |
BR_33 | 1.30 | 1.88 | 1.09 | 1.85 | 1.40 | >2.50 |
BR_34 | 1.15 | 1.56 | 0.70 | 1.31 | 0.89 | 1.36 |
BR_35 | 0.60 | 0.75 | 0.40 | 0.66 | 0.54 | 1.41 |
BR_36 | 0.97 | 1.27 | 0.85 | 1.43 | 1.27 | >2.50 |
BR_37 | 1.11 | 1.69 | 0.80 | 1.33 | 0.86 | 1.53 |
BR_38 | 1.05 | 1.54 | 1.01 | 1.54 | 1.25 | >2.50 |
BR_39 | 0.73 | 0.95 | 0.65 | 1.05 | 0.95 | >2.50 |
BR_40 | 0.49 | 0.79 | 0.53 | 0.79 | 0.61 | 1.25 |
Vehicle Model | Class 1 (Not uncomfortable/Little uncomfortable) | Class 2 (Little uncomfortable/Fairly uncomfortable) | Class 3 (Fairly uncomfortable) | Class 4 (Uncomfortable/Very-Extremely uncomfortable) |
Bike | BR_4, BR_5, BR_6, BR_7, BR_8, BR_11, BR_12, BR_13, BR_15, BR_17, BR_18, BR_25, BR_27, BR_28, BR_32, BR_35, BR_39, BR_40 | BR_1, BR_3, BR_9, BR_16, BR_20, BR_22, BR_23, BR_26, BR_29 | BR_10, BR_14, BR_19, BR_21, BR_24, BR_30, BR_34, BR_36, BR_37, BR_38 | BR_2, BR_31, BR_33 |
Automobile | BR_4, BR_530, BR_6, BR_7, BR_8, BR_17, BR_18, BR_2630, BR_27, BR_2830, BR_3530 | BR_550, BR_930, BR_10, BR_11, BR_12, BR_1330, BR_25, BR_2650, BR_2850, BR_32, BR_3550, BR_3930, BR_40 | BR_1, BR_950, BR_1530, BR_16, BR_20, BR_2130, BR_22, BR_2330, BR_2430, BR_3430, BR_3950 | BR_2, BR_3, BR_1350, BR_14, BR_1550, BR_19, BR_2150, BR_2350, BR_2450, BR_29, BR_30, BR_31, BR_33, BR_3450, BR_36, BR_37, BR_38 |
Bus | BR_4, BR_6, BR_7, BR_8, BR_17, BR_18, BR_27 | BR_5, BR_9, BR_10, BR_11, BR_12, BR_13, BR_21, BR_25, BR_26, BR_28, BR_35, BR_40 | BR_1, BR_15, BR_16, BR_19, BR_20, BR_22, BR_23, BR_24, BR_32, BR_34, BR_37, BR_39 | BR_2, BR_3, BR_14, BR_29, BR_30, BR_31, BR_33, BR_36, BR_38 |
Vehicle Model | Class I | Class II | Class III | Class IV |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bike | BR_4, BR_5, BR_6, BR_7, BR_8, BR_11, BR_12, BR_13, BR_15, BR_17, BR_18, BR_25, BR_27, BR_28, BR_32, BR_35, BR_39, BR_40 | BR_1, BR_3, BR_9, BR_16, BR_20, BR_22, BR_23, BR_(26), BR_29, BR_36 | BR_10, BR_14, BR_19, BR_21, BR_24, BR_30, BR_34, BR_37, BR_38 | BR_2, BR_(31), BR_33 |
Automobile | BR_4, BR_6, BR_7, BR_8, BR_17, BR_18, BR_27 | BR_(5), BR_11, BR_12, BR_13, BR_25, BR_(26), BR_(28), BR_32, BR_(35), BR_39, BR_40 | BR_1, BR_(9), BR_(10), BR_15, BR_16, BR_20, BR_21, BR_22, BR_23, BR_34 | BR_2, BR_3, BR_14, BR_19, BR_(24), BR_29, BR_30, BR_31, BR_33, BR_36, BR_37, BR_38 |
Bus | BR_4, BR_6, BR_7, BR_8, BR_17, BR_18, BR_27 | BR_5, BR_9, BR_10, BR_11, BR_12, BR_25, BR_26, BR_28, BR_35, BR_40 | BR_13, BR_16, BR_20, BR_22, BR_23, BR_24, BR_32, BR_34, BR_37 | BR_(1), BR_(2), BR_3, BR_14, BR_(15), BR_(19), BR_(21), BR_29, BR_30, BR_(31), BR_33, BR_36, BR_38, BR_(39) |
Code | Bike | Automobile | Bus | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Class Table 4 | Class Table 5 | Comparison | Class Table 4 | Class Table 5 | Comparison | Class Table 4 | Class Table 5 | Comparison | |
BR_1 | 2 | II | = | 3 | III | = | 3 | (IV) | ↑ |
BR_2 | 4 | IV | = | 4 | IV | = | 4 | (IV) | = |
BR_3 | 2 | II | = | 4 | IV | = | 4 | IV | = |
BR_4 | 1 | I | = | 1 | I | = | 1 | I | = |
BR_5 | 1 | I | = | 130–250 | (II) | = | 2 | II | = |
BR_6 | 1 | I | = | 1 | I | = | 1 | I | = |
BR_7 | 1 | I | = | 1 | I | = | 1 | I | = |
BR_8 | 1 | I | = | 1 | I | = | 1 | I | = |
BR_9 | 2 | II | = | 230–350 | (III) | = | 2 | II | = |
BR_10 | 3 | III | = | 2 | (III) | ↑ | 2 | II | = |
BR_11 | 1 | I | = | 2 | II | = | 2 | II | = |
BR_12 | 1 | I | = | 2 | II | = | 2 | II | = |
BR_13 | 1 | I | = | 230–450 | II | ↓ | 2 | III | ↑ |
BR_14 | 3 | III | = | 4 | IV | = | 4 | IV | = |
BR_15 | 1 | I | = | 330–450 | III | ↓ | 3 | (IV) | ↑ |
BR_16 | 2 | II | = | 3 | III | = | 3 | III | = |
BR_17 | 1 | I | = | 1 | I | = | 1 | I | = |
BR_18 | 1 | I | = | 1 | I | = | 1 | I | = |
BR_19 | 3 | III | = | 4 | IV | = | 3 | (IV) | ↑ |
BR_20 | 2 | II | = | 3 | III | = | 3 | III | = |
BR_21 | 3 | III | = | 330–450 | III | ↓ | 2 | (IV) | ↑↑ |
BR_22 | 2 | II | = | 3 | III | = | 3 | III | = |
BR_23 | 2 | II | = | 330–450 | III | ↓ | 3 | III | = |
BR_24 | 3 | III | = | 330–450 | (IV) | = | 3 | III | = |
BR_25 | 1 | I | = | 2 | II | = | 2 | II | = |
BR_26 | 2 | (II) | = | 1 | II | ↑ | 2 | II | = |
BR_27 | 1 | I | = | 1 | I | = | 1 | I | = |
BR_28 | 1 | I | = | 130–250 | (II) | = | 2 | II | = |
BR_29 | 2 | II | = | 4 | IV | = | 4 | IV | = |
BR_30 | 3 | III | = | 4 | IV | = | 4 | IV | = |
BR_31 | 4 | (IV) | = | 4 | IV | = | 4 | (IV) | = |
BR_32 | 1 | I | = | 2 | II | = | 3 | III | = |
BR_33 | 4 | IV | = | 4 | IV | = | 4 | IV | = |
BR_34 | 3 | III | = | 330–450 | III | ↓ | 3 | III | = |
BR_35 | 1 | I | = | 130–250 | (II) | = | 2 | II | = |
BR_36 | 3 | II | ↓ | 4 | IV | = | 4 | IV | = |
BR_37 | 3 | III | = | 4 | IV | = | 3 | III | = |
BR_38 | 3 | III | = | 4 | IV | = | 4 | IV | = |
BR_39 | 1 | I | = | 230–350 | II | ↓ | 3 | (IV) | ↑ |
BR_40 | 1 | I | = | 2 | II | = | 2 | II | = |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cantisani, G.; Bruno, S.; D’Andrea, A.; Loprencipe, G.; Di Mascio, P.; Moretti, L. Methods for Measuring and Assessing Irregularities of Stone Pavements—Part II. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3715. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043715
Cantisani G, Bruno S, D’Andrea A, Loprencipe G, Di Mascio P, Moretti L. Methods for Measuring and Assessing Irregularities of Stone Pavements—Part II. Sustainability. 2023; 15(4):3715. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043715
Chicago/Turabian StyleCantisani, Giuseppe, Salvatore Bruno, Antonio D’Andrea, Giuseppe Loprencipe, Paola Di Mascio, and Laura Moretti. 2023. "Methods for Measuring and Assessing Irregularities of Stone Pavements—Part II" Sustainability 15, no. 4: 3715. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043715
APA StyleCantisani, G., Bruno, S., D’Andrea, A., Loprencipe, G., Di Mascio, P., & Moretti, L. (2023). Methods for Measuring and Assessing Irregularities of Stone Pavements—Part II. Sustainability, 15(4), 3715. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043715