Aquaplaning – Development of a Risk Pond Model from Road Surface Measurements Examensarbete utfört i Reglerteknik vid Linköpings tekniska högskola av Sara Nygårdhs LiTH-ISY-EX-3409-2003 Linköping 2003 Aquaplaning – Development of a Risk Pond Model from Road Surface Measurements Examensarbete utfört i Reglerteknik vid Linköpings tekniska högskola av Sara Nygårdhs LiTH-ISY-EX-3409-2003 Linköping 2003 Handledare: Leif Sjögren Statens väg- och transportforskningsinstitut Gustaf Hendeby ISY, Linköpings universitet Examinator: Inger Klein ISY, Linköpings universitet Linköping, 22nd September 2003 Avdelning, Institution Datum Division, Department Date 2003-09-22 Institutionen för Systemteknik 581 83 LINKÖPING Språk Rapporttyp ISBN Language Report category Svenska/Swedish Licentiatavhandling ISRN LITH-ISY-EX-3409-2003 X Engelska/English X Examensarbete C-uppsats Serietitel och serienummer ISSN D-uppsats Title of series, numbering Övrig rapport ____ URL för elektronisk version http://www.ep.liu.se/exjobb/isy/2003/3409/ Titel Vattenplaning - Utveckling av en riskpölmodell utgående från vägytemätningar Title Aquaplaning - Development of a Risk Pond Model from Road Surface Measurements Författare Sara Nygårdhs Author Sammanfattning Abstract Aquaplaning accidents are relatively rare, but could have fatal effects. The task of this master’s thesis is to use data from the Laser Road Surface Tester to detect road sections with risk of aquaplaning. A three-dimensional model based on data from road surface measurements is created using MATLAB (version 6.1). From this general geometrical model of the road, a pond model is produced from which the theoretical risk ponds are detected. A risk pond indication table is further created. The pond model seems to work well assuming that the data from the road model is correct. Determining limits for depth and length of risk ponds can be made directly by the user. MATLAB code is reasonably easy to understand and this leaves great opportunities for changing different parameters in a simple way. Supplementary research is needed to further improve the risk pond detection model. Collecting data at smaller intervals and with more measurement points would be desirable for achieving better correlation with reality. In a future perspective, it would be wise to port the code to another programming language and this could make the computations faster. Nyckelord Keywords Aquaplaning, Hydroplaning, Risk Pond, Road Surface Measurements, Road Surface Monitoring, Laser RST, Traffic Safety Abstract Aquaplaning accidents are relatively rare, but could have fatal effects. The task of this mas- ter’s thesis is to use data from the Laser Road Surface Tester to detect road sections with risk of aquaplaning. A three-dimensional model based on data from road surface measurements is created using MATLAB (version 6.1). From this general geometrical model of the road, a pond model is pro- duced from which the theoretical risk ponds are detected. A risk pond indication table is fur- ther created. The pond model seems to work well assuming that the data from the road model is correct. Determining limits for depth and length of risk ponds can be made directly by the user. MATLAB code is reasonably easy to understand and this leaves great opportunities for chang- ing different parameters in a simple way. Supplementary research is needed to further improve the risk pond detection model. Collect- ing data at smaller intervals and with more measurement points would be desirable for achiev- ing better correlation with reality. In a future perspective, it would be wise to port the code to another programming language and this could make the computations faster. Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following people, who helped me to accomplish this work: Leif Sjögren, my supervisor at VTI for coming up with the idea for this master’s thesis, his never- ending enthusiasm and for always having time to discuss the work. Thomas Lundberg, for helping me with the logic in the algorithms, his patience when answering every question I have had and for letting me ride the Laser RST. Peter Andrén, for happily helping me solve any MATLAB problem I have had. Olle Nordström, for discussing experimental setups. Gustaf Hendeby, my supervisor at LiU, for taking active interest in how the work is progressing and giving me pieces of advice on everything concerning both MATLAB and the report. Inger Klein, my examiner at LiU, for approving on the master’s thesis and helping me to limit the work. My mother, for helping me with difficulties in the English language. My boyfriend Rolf, for supporting me in every way. Finally I would like to express my appreciation for all the nice people at VTI, and my friends and family for their support, which has made the proc- ess so much easier and more fun. Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 GOALS IN TRANSPORT POLICY ......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 PROBLEM........................................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS ................................................................................................................. 2 1.5 LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................................... 2 1.6 PURPOSE OF THE WORK................................................................................................................... 3 1.7 METHOD......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.8 ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES ON AQUAPLANING ............................................................................... 3 2 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATIONS.................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Definition of Aquaplaning .......................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Pavement Construction .............................................................................................................. 6 2.2 ROAD SURFACE MONITORING.......................................................................................................... 7 2.3 MEASURING METHODS.................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 SURVEY VEHICLES .......................................................................................................................... 8 2.4.1 Hardware ................................................................................................................................ 10 2.4.2 Software................................................................................................................................... 10 2.4.3 Operator and Data Handling ................................................................................................... 11 2.5 AVAILABLE PARAMETERS ............................................................................................................. 11 2.5.1 International Roughness Index, IRI........................................................................................... 11 2.5.2 Mean Transverse Profile.......................................................................................................... 12 2.5.3 Maximum Rut Depth ................................................................................................................ 12 2.5.4 Crossfall.................................................................................................................................. 12 2.5.5 Texture .................................................................................................................................... 13 2.5.6 Longitudinal Profile................................................................................................................. 14 2.5.7 Hilliness................................................................................................................................... 14 2.6 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 14 2.7 PREVIOUS STUDIES........................................................................................................................ 15 2.7.1 The Swedish National Road Administration .............................................................................. 15 2.7.2 The Federal Highway Administration....................................................................................... 16 2.7.3 The Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute................................................................. 16 2.7.4 The Transportation Research Board......................................................................................... 18 2.7.5 The American Society for Testing and Materials......................................................................