‫‪de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa‬‬

‫‪ANALYSIS OF PAVEMENT SERVICEABILITY FOR THE‬‬

‫‪AASHTO DESIGN METHOD: THE CHILEAN CASE‬‬
‫* ‪Hernán de Solminihac T.‬‬
‫‪Professor, School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile‬‬
‫‪Ricardo Salsilli‬‬
‫‪Associate Professor, School of Engineering, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile‬‬
‫‪Erwin Köhler‬‬
‫‪PhD Student in Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA‬‬
‫‪and Elva Bengoa‬‬
‫‪PhD Student in Civil Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile‬‬

‫اﻟﺨﻼﺻــﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﻧﺪرس ﻓﻲ هﺬا اﻟﺒﺤﺚ آﻔﺎءة اﻟﺨﺪﻣﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﻬﺎ أرﺻ ﻔﺔ اﻟﺸ ﻮارع ﻓ ﻲ ﺗﺸ ﻴﻠﻲ‪ ،‬وه ﺬا ﺑﺎﻟﻀ ﺮورة ﻳﻌﺘﻤ ﺪ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺁراء اﻟﻤﺸﺎة اﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻗﺎﻣﻮا ﺑﺎﺧﺘﺒﺎر ﻋﺪ ٍد ﻣﻦ اﻷرﺻﻔﺔ‪ .‬وﻗﺪ ﺣﺎوﻟﻨﺎ ﺗﺤﻴﻴﺪ اﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ اﻟﺸﺨﺼ ﻴﺔ ﺑﺘﻄ ﻮﻳﺮ ﻣﻌ ﺎﻳﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻋ ﱠﺪة ﺧﺼ ﺎﺋﺺ )أهﻤﻬ ﺎ درﺟ ﺔ اﻟﺨﺸ ﻮﻧﺔ( ﺑﺎﺳ ﺘﺨﺪام‬ ‫ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ‪ .‬ﺷﺎرك ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺗﺴﻌﺔ أﻓﺮاد ﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎر ِ‬
‫أدوات ﺧﺎﺻ ﺔ‪ ،‬وﻗ ﺪ أﺟﺮﻳ ﺖ اﻻﺧﺘﺒ ﺎرات ﻋﻠ ﻰ ‪ 30‬ﻣﻘﻄﻌ ًﺎ ﻣ ﻦ أرﺻ ﻔﺔ اﻟﻘ ﺎر )‪ (Asphalt‬واﻹﺳ ﻤﻨﺖ و ‪25‬‬
‫ﻣﻘﻄﻌًﺎ ﻣﻦ أرﺻﻔﺔ اﻹﺳﻤﻨﺖ اﻟﺒﻮرﺗﻼﻧﺪي و ‪ 11‬ﻣﻘﻄﻌًﺎ ﻣﻦ أرﺻﻔﺔ ﻣﻐﻄﺎة ﺑﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻘ ﺎر‪ .‬وأﻇﻬ ﺮت اﻟﻨﺘ ﺎﺋﺞ‬
‫أن ﺗﻮﻗﻌ ﺎت آﻔ ﺎءة اﻟﺨﺪﻣ ﺔ آﺎﻧ ﺖ دﻗﻴﻘ ﺔ ﻋﻨ ﺪ اﻻﻋﺘﻤ ﺎد ﻋﻠ ﻰ اﺧﺘﺒ ﺎرات اﻟﺨﺸ ﻮﻧﺔ‪ .‬وﻋﻨ ﺪ ﻣﻘﺎرﻧ ﺔ ه ﺬا اﻟﻨﺘ ﺎﺋﺞ‬
‫ﻼ ﺣﻴ ﺚ آ ﺎن ﺗﻘﻴ ﻴﻤﻬﻢ ﻟﻨﻮﻋﻴ ﺔ اﻟﻘﻴ ﺎدة ﻣﺮﺗﻔﻌ ًﺎ‪ ،‬آﻤ ﺎ أن‬
‫ﺑﻨﻈﻴﺮاﺗﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺪول اﻟﻤﺘﻘﺪﻣﺔ ُﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ اﻟﺘﺸﻴﻠﻴﻮن أآﺜﺮ ﺗﺤﻤ ً‬
‫اﻟﻤﻨﻐﺼ ﺎت اﻟﻈ ﺎهﺮة ﻟ ﻴﺲ ﻟﻬ ﺎ أﺛ ﺮ ﻓ ﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴ ﺔ اﻟﺘﻘﻴ ﻴﻢ‪ .‬وﻗ ﺪ ﻗﻤﻨ ﺎ ﺑﺘﻄ ﻮﻳﺮ ﺟ ﺪاول ﻧﺴ ﺒﻴﺔ ﺑ ﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﻌﻴ ﺎر اﻟﻌ ﺎﻟﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺨﺸﻮﻧﺔ )‪ (IRI‬وآﻔﺎءة اﻟﺨﺪﻣﺔ آﻤﺎ هﻲ ُﻣ َﻌ ﱠﺮﻓ ﺔ ﻣ ﻦ ﻗﺒ ﻞ )‪ .(AASHTO‬وﻳﻤﻜ ﻦ اﺳ ﺘﺨﺪام ه ﺬﻩ اﻟﺠ ﺪاول ﻓ ﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴ ﺔ اﻟﺘﺼ ﻤﻴﻢ‪ .‬آﻤ ﺎ ﻇﻬ ﺮ أن ﺣﺎﻟ ﺔ اﻷرﺻ ﻔﺔ ﻓ ﻲ اﻟﻤﻨ ﺎﻃﻖ اﻟﺮﻳﻔﻴ ﺔ آﺎﻧ ﺖ ‪ 5.9‬و‪ 8.1‬ﻓ ﻲ ﺣ ﺎﻟﺘﻲ اﻟﻘ ﺎر ‪IRI‬‬
‫واﻹﺳﻤﻨﺖ ‪ IRI‬ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﺮﺗﻴﺐ‪.‬‬

‫*‬
‫‪Address for correspondence:‬‬
‫‪Dr. Hernán de Solminihac T.‬‬
‫‪Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul‬‬
‫‪Casilla 306 – Correo 22‬‬
‫‪Santiago‬‬
‫‪Chile‬‬
‫‪Phone: (56 – 2) 6864244 - 6864245‬‬
‫‪Fax: (56 -2) 6864806‬‬
‫‪Email: hsolmini@ing.puc.cl‬‬

‫‪October 2003‬‬ ‫‪The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B.‬‬ ‫‪143‬‬
 de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa

ABSTRACT
Serviceability is an indicator that represents the level of service a pavement
provides to the users. This subjective opinion is closely related to objective
aspects, which can be measured on the pavement’s surface. This research aims
specifically at relating serviceability results obtained by a 9-member evaluation
panel, representing the general public as closely as possible, to parameters
(particularly of roughness) measured with instruments on 30, 25, and 11 road
sections of asphalt concrete, Portland cement concrete, and asphalt overlay,
respectively.
Results show that prediction of serviceability is quite accurate based on
roughness evaluation, while also revealing that, by comparison to studies in more
developed countries, Chileans are seemingly more tolerant, in that they assign a
somewhat higher rating to ride quality. Furthermore, visible distress does not
have a significant influence on serviceability values for Chilean users.
A ratio between International Roughness Index (IRI) and Serviceability, as
defined by AASHTO, was developed and may be used in this design method.
Results for the final pavement condition of urban pavements were obtained (IRI-
asphalt final = 5.9; IRI-concrete final = 8.1).

Key Worlds: Civil Engineering, Road Condition, Serviceability of Pavements, AASHTO

Method

144 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. October 2003
 de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa

ANALYSIS OF PAVEMENT SERVICEABILITY FOR THE AASHTO

DESIGN METHOD: THE CHILEAN CASE

INTRODUCTION
One of the fundamental aspects in the field of road design and maintenance is the evaluation of both current and
future conditions of street and highway infrastructure. The ‘Serviceability’ of roads and its evolution through time is a
concept widely accepted by pavement engineers and professionals to evaluate road quality and conditions.
Pavement Serviceability is a concept representing the level of service which streets and roads offer users riding
vehicles, and it is part of the AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) design
method of pavement structures. The origins of this concept can be traced back to the late fifties, when Carey and Irick
conceived Serviceability as the capacity of pavement to serve those who are the roads’ “clients” [1]. Thus, pavements
may then be compared to determine which one provides better ride quality and better surface conditions over a period of
time.
Different studies have proven the importance of roughness in surface condition, since it has a significant correlation
with the Serviceability value, or pavement quality as perceived by the user [2–5].
The main objective of this research is to further explore the existing relationship between the subjective
serviceability pavement parameters and objective parameters (particularly roughness) measured with instruments on
asphalt concrete, Portland cement concrete and asphalt overlay road sections located in Chile. Serviceability is based on
the concept that roads are for users’ comfort and convenience, and that their opinion (or subjective evaluation) can be
related to objective physical pavement measurements.
SERVICEABILITY AND ROUGHNESS INDICES
Serviceability Index
Pavement Serviceability represents the level of services that pavement structures offer users. This indicator first
appeared as a rating made by users with respect to the state of the road, particularly the road’s surface. This rating is
represented by a subjective index called ‘Present Serviceability Rating’ (PSR) and may be replaced by an objective index
called ‘Present Serviceability Index’ (PSI). The latter index is determined on a strictly objective basis by applying the
users’ rating scale to sections of roads featuring different states of distress. This scale enables users to rate the
pavement’s state in terms of its service quality. The scale rates pavements from 0 to 5, from an extreme state of distress
to a new or almost new pavement (6). Thus, a quantitative relationship is established between this Serviceability rating
and certain parameters that measure physical distress of pavement surface.
Roughness Index
Roughness is defined as irregularities in pavement surface that adversely affect ride quality, safety, and vehicle
maintenance and operating costs. Roughness is the factor that most influences users’ evaluation when rating ride quality.
One of the problems faced by technicians when rating ride quality and comfort for vehicle users and comparing
experiences among countries is the great diversity of techniques, equipment, and indicators available in each country.
Consequently, there arose an international interest in developing a single and common index as reference. This index
had to be independent from equipment or techniques used to obtain the profile’s geometry, and at the same time had to
represent the full range of users’ perceptions when driving an average vehicle at an average speed. The need for this
index originated in the mid-eighties, giving rise to the concept, definition, and method for calculating the International
Roughness Index (IRI) [7, 8].
IRI is a statistical indicator of surface irregularity in road pavements. The real profile of a newly–built road
represents a state defined by its IRI with an approximate range of 1.0–2.5 (m/km). After the road is constructed,
pavement roughness varies as a function of traffic, gradually increasing the pavement IRI values (greater irregularities).
Categories or Classes of Equipment for Measuring Roughness
The different evaluation methods available to measure surface roughness were grouped into four categories,
classified according to how directly their measurements came close to the IRI [7, 9]. These methods may be summed up
as follows: Class 1, Precision Profiles (which require the longitudinal profile of a rut to be measured in a precise

October 2003 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. 145
 de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa

manner); Class 2, Other Methods for Profile Measuring (calculation of IRI is based on measurements of the longitudinal
profile, but is not as accurate as Class 1 measurement method); Class 3, Estimations of IRI through Correlation (systems
for measuring roughness by SMRR, MERLIN); Class 4, Subjective Ratings and Uncalibrated Measurements (devices
with an uncalibrated response, sensations of comfort and safety which a person experiences when driving on a road).
METHODOLOGY OF THE EXPERIMENT
In order to achieve the objectives proposed in this paper, it was first necessary to select a sufficient number of
pavement sections for study in Santiago, Chile, covering the range of possible conditions (good, fair, poor, and new).
Next, roughness of these sections had to be measured, first using a Laser Profiler and then MERLIN (Machine for
Evaluating Roughness using Low-cost Instrumentation). Also, surface integrity had to be established using condition
survey of the pavement. The last stage of data collection would involve evaluating serviceability by a panel of people
representative of habitual vehicle users. Figure 1 shows the principal stages of the methodology of the experiment.

Figure 1. Methodology of the experiment

Selection of Pavement Sections

Selection of pavement sections for the study had to be conducted by an objective process that would allow
discrimination among the different pavements to be studied. Therefore certain requirements, based mainly on the
feasibility of evaluating roughness and serviceability, were established [10]. These requirements were: length, safety
(number of lanes, vehicle flows and visibility), accessibility, possibility of measuring with equipment, and traffic modal
composition. This last condition in particular, considers modal composition by type of vehicle on the section because in
Santiago, the highest percentage of trips are bus rides, and a future incorporation of new segregated lanes makes it
important to analyze serviceability in this case.
Pavement sections that met conditions as defined by the evaluation panel were selected from different municipal
districts.
A matrix or factorial was developed by applying a weighting criteria to selected sections by pavement type
(asphalt, concrete, asphalt overlay) and conditions (good, fair, poor, and new). To obtain the matrix, the sections were
divided according to their condition (as evaluated by the work team), and then a score (from 1 to 3) was assigned for
each requirement, to obtain a final score which would take into account the importance of each requirement.

146 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. October 2003
 de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa

Relative Importance of each Requirement

To be able to discriminate when selecting the sections, each requirement had a different importance in the final
weighting. The percentage assigned to each weight depended mainly on the possibility of measuring the sections’
roughness with the available equipment and of the traffic modal composition, leaving safety at a secondary level.
The previously selected sections were then divided into three levels of serviceability, according to the scores
obtained by the work group: good, fair and bad. A weighting with the previous criteria was applied to each section, and a
list of sections arranged by each serviceability level and pavement type was obtained.
A special nomenclature has been adopted to denominate the sections. It consists of two letters and one number.
The first letter, A, C, or O, identifies pavement type, depending on whether it is asphalt, Portland cement concrete or
asphalt overlay, respectively. The second letter, G, F, P, or N, describes the section’s pavement condition, which may be
either good, fair, poor, or new. The number only indicates an order in the sub-list of similar sections. Thus, for instance,
AG1 is the first section of a Good Asphalt Pavement.
Additional Sections
After taking the measurements but prior to the analysis, additional sections were included to increase of the range
of roughness offered by the original sections, as suggested by the experts who assisted in the research. Sections having
very good and very bad ride quality were identified. In this way, urban sections in very poor condition were included,
but since it was necessary to have very good sections, these were taken from recently built expressways. The
nomenclature of these sections is the same as that of the original sections, although in this case they were rated only as
good or bad.
Procedures Used to Measure Roughness
MERLIN Instrument
The MERLIN or ‘Machine for Evaluating Roughness using Low-cost Instrumentation’ is a simple, low-cost
instrument that evaluates pavement roughness based on the measurement of longitudinal deformities of pavement
surface [11]. It is a Class 3 equipment because its results are correlated to the IRI. It consists of a 1.8 m long metal
structure, with a wheel in front, a fixed base at the rear and an oscillating central support. The latter measures the
elevation of a point with respect to the grade line defined by the other two points. Figure 2 shows a typical use of the
MERLIN.

Figure 2 . Equipment for measuring roughness: the MERLIN

The typical measurement length with MERLIN is 400 meters, so this was one of the reasons to establish that
distance as the length for all sections in the investigation.

October 2003 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. 147
 de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa

To evaluate a section, one of the ride ruts of the measurement lane was covered, recording the position which
the pointers made at each stop on a screen. To determine roughness, 200 measurements had to be made at regular
intervals, which meant one for each revolution of the instrument’s wheel. Once the 200 measurements were completed
(coinciding with the mark at the section’s end), the screen was removed from its position on the MERLIN and roughness
was calculated as explained previously.
Laser Profiler
A Two Laser Profiler (TLP) was used to measure the cross-section profile and calculate roughness (IRI) of the
project’s sections [12]. It is a Class 1 type of equipment as it is able to obtain the profile with great precision, which then
allows the calculation. Figure 3 shows the TLP used in this research. To calculate IRI, the Laser Profiler’s computer
program has a profile processing module, which is independent from the measurement and can be performed at any time
after the profile has been measured. Only the processing distance is needed, that is, the distance from which the program
is to report the IRI. A distance of 10 meters was established as reasonable, because it allows one to recognize
singularities and to obtain a sufficient amount of IRI values from the section’s 400 meters.
The profile processing yields a file text which may then be easily worked on with spreadsheets. Interesting
results that can be seen on the file, in the different columns, are: the distance traveled from the beginning of the section,
the IRI value of the left rut and the IRI value of the right rut.

Figure 3. Equipment for measuring roughness: the TLP

Distress Survey Methodology

Existing levels of distress are a very important measurement of pavement sections’ requirements. This
information is added to roughness data measured with MERLIN and the Laser Profiler. There are different types of
deterioration and each type has different degrees of severity. Every distress condition is the result of one or more factors,
which when known give a very good diagnosis of the pavement’s “weaknesses”. Thus, a detailed distress survey of the
pavement is one of the steps necessary to establish pavement condition.
In this research, the condition survey of the pavement consisted of detecting, recording and quantifying the
distress conditions that each section had at the moment of conducting the study.
There are several distress survey procedures [9], and it is felt that the most complete one, supported by years of
study and experience, is the procedure proposed by the Strategic Highway Research Program [13]. This is the
methodology used in this study.
Evaluation of Serviceability
This section describes those planning aspects which are relevant for serviceability rating by the evaluation panel.

148 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. October 2003
 de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa

Composition of the Panel

The people that made up the evaluation panel was one of the most important aspects in this study: (i) they had
to represent the public which generally circulates on the country’s streets and roads; (ii) they needed a broad range of
experience both as drivers and passengers in cars, as well as passengers in public transportation buses; and (iii) they
should not have any kind of bias or prejudice regarding trips in cars and buses.
The size of the evaluation panel had to be defined so that it was administratively manageable while permitting
an adequate precision. The number of people needed to obtain a certain degree of certainty in the PSR, at a given level of
confidence, had been tabulated in previous studies [14].
As the group had to represent the general public as closely as possible, the panel was finally made up by 5 men
and 4 women with different activities, obtaining 90% of level of confidence and an error of 0.5 in the PSR value (14).
Selection of the Vehicles to be Used
Serviceability evaluations obtained from this type of experiment depend on the evaluators, on the sections’
pavement surface and, to a great extent, on the vehicle used in the evaluation.
In addition to the rating representing car users, it was decided to add their rating as public transportation bus
users. Buses were included in this experiment to obtain serviceability results that would be applicable to segregated bus
lanes. This was done so that it will be possible to weight serviceability results obtained in car and buses, should it be of
any interest to consider the modal composition (buses and cars) to decide what values to use in future applications of this
study’s results. Consequently, with these extended measurements serviceability results in both cars and buses will be
available.
For purposes of this investigation, the following vehicles and evaluation plan were used: one average family car,
one urban bus, and one minibus.
When selecting a particular vehicle, typical vehicles were considered in order to have representative results.
Thus, the importance of using vehicles which are in a normal range of age, suspension comfort, or state of maintenance
was stressed.
Design of the Rating Form
In this study, we adopted the widely used AASHTO scale. It consists of reporting in words the levels of quality,
in addition to a line where the person performing the rating makes a mark. The other evaluation category that was used
is the acceptance criteria. In it, the evaluator is asked to judge if ride quality on the section seems acceptable so as to
include it in: (a) expressways, and (b) urban roads. The responses to this segment of the form provide a measure of the
minimum acceptance threshold of functional quality of pavements.
It was important for the form to be simple, so that it enabled the evaluator to rapidly judge and decide the
serviceability rating as well as his position regarding the acceptance or not of that ride quality. Figure 4 shows this form.

Figure 4. Rating Form used by the Evaluation Panel

October 2003 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. 149
 de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa

Training of the Members of the Evaluation Panel

Training of the evaluation panel and the instructions they would be given were very important aspects in the
process of subjective rating. Studies that show that a team rating a subjective variable without receiving any instructions
obtains results that are significantly different to another team who has received instructions [15]. Besides, the variance in
the team that receives instructions is much lower than in the other one [16].
Considering the above, careful instructions were developed for this study’s evaluators. The instructions were
designed to be as simple as possible, but at the same time to have the sufficient level of detail to prevent any kind of
confusion as to procedures and definitions.
The rating procedure was explained to all evaluators in a training session. They were given instructions in
writing which were discussed by the research team; also, all panel members’ questions were answered.
After the training session, evaluators were taken for a ride on some pavement sections featuring a broad range
of roughness. During the ride, evaluators were motivated to discuss the procedure both among themselves as well as with
those in charge. The purpose of this was to orient the evaluation panel so that they could perceive the differences and
acquire confidence with the procedure.
Evaluation Sessions
In order to prevent results from being influenced by changes in pavement characteristics (e.g. new distress or
possible rehabilitation), section evaluation by the panel in different vehicles must carried out over a brief period of time.
It is also important that evaluations in the same vehicle are not made very far apart in time, so that variations in the
mechanical response of the vehicle’s body does not alter the results.
It must also be borne in mind that panel members’ weariness and fatigue may alter their rating of a section. A
suggestion made in a prior study to have breaks every 1.5 or 2 hours was adopted in this study [15].
Based on the above, daily evaluation sessions were from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., with time off for lunch between
12:30 p.m. and 2:00 p.m., and rest periods halfway through the morning and afternoon. In each session, sections of
asphalt, concrete and asphalt overlay were included, so that each time the team covered a wide spectrum of roughness in
circuits that optimized driving time, while simultaneously avoiding any effects due to the evaluation’s sequence. The
sections were evaluated at a constant speed of approximately 50 km/hour.
RESULTS OBTAINED
Relationship between MERLIN and the Laser Profiler
Different adjustment curves were tested, using data obtained for IRI from measurements with MERLIN and from
those obtained with the Laser Profiler (in the rut which MERLIN measured).
Considering the good adjustments obtained, the larger sample size and for simplicity of future general treatment,
the use of the linear equation (Equation 1) obtained by using data for all types of pavements (asphalt, concrete and
mixed) is recommended.

IRI = 0.4718+0.0585*D R2 = 0,95 (1)

IRI in m/km and D in mm. Valid for 25< D <140 (1.9 < IRI< 9.3)

Where

D = roughness in MERLIN scale.

The graph in Figure 5 shows the new proposed relationship in conjunction with relationships set forth by
Transportation Research Road Laboratory (TRRL) [10] and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning (MINVU) in
Chile [17]. It can be seen that the new equation predicts IRI values that are higher than those obtained with the other
equations, and the greater the difference, the greater is pavement roughness. Compare with the previous studies, in this
research different measurement instruments, test sections, and inference space were used.

150 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. October 2003
 de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa

Figure 5. Relationship Proposed and Existing Relationships

Rating Serviceability
The evaluation panel had to drive on all road sections under study using three types of vehicles (car, minibus, and
bus). All evaluations were performed by the same group of nine evaluators, under the direction of the personnel
responsible for the study. The evaluation panel members were subjected to prior training and were asked to drive on
some test sections so they could be in a position to compare their opinions. Subsequently, during the evaluation
sessions, they rated their perception of the pavements on an individual and secret basis. Finally, it is worth mentioning
that all evaluations were performed within a time frame no longer than two weeks.
The evaluators were asked to indicate possible conditions of comfort and ride quality from very bad to very good.
This subjective rating was converted into a numerical value, assigning a score to each road section which could range
from 0 to 5. The average of the individual scores assigned by each evaluator for the same length of road is the PSR of the
road section. Thus, the panel evaluated a total of 38 road sections by minibus alone and 27 road sections by car, minibus
and bus. The results of the evaluation panel are shown in Table 1.
Serviceability in Different Vehicles
The use of different vehicles responds to the need of determining how different vehicles affect users’ opinion of
the service level given by a type of pavement. The relationships between the PSR on different vehicles were obtained on
the basis of individual ratings performed by panel members for each vehicle, using regression analysis (Equations 2, 3,
and 4).
Relationship bus–car (2)
PSRBUS = 1.060 * PSRCAR – 0.683
with R2 = 0.737 and N = 26
where: R2= correlation coefficient; N= number of observations
Relationship car–minibus (3)
PSRCAR = 0.813 * PSRMINIBUS + 0.903
with R2 = 0.817 and N = 27
Relationship bus–minibus (4)
PSRBUS = 0.979 * PSRMINIBUS – 0.122
with R2 = 0.727 and N = 26

October 2003 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. 151
 de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa

Table 1. PSR Values in the Study Sections according to Evaluation Panel

(a) Evaluated in minibus only (b) Evaluated in car, minibus, and bus

Section p-MINIBUS Section p-MINIBUS Section p-CAR p-MINIBUS p-BUS

AG1 3.5 AG8 4.6 AG2 4.0 4.0 3.7

AG4 3.4 AG9 4.7 AG3 4.0 3.9 4.0

AN1 3.8 AG10 4.4 AP1 3.0 3.0 3.3

AN2 3.5 AG11 3.7 AN3 4.1 3.5 3.6

AN5 3.9 AG12 4.1 AN4 4.2 3.8 3.4

AN6 3.8 AG13 4.5 AF2 3.9 3.9 3.5

OG1 3.9 AG14 4.3 AF3 3.9 3.8 3.9

OF2 3.3 AP5 0.9 AF4 3.5 2.7 3.3

ON1 3.7 AP6 1.1 CG1 3.8 3.6 3.3

CG2 4.1 AP7 1.1 CG3 3.7 3.7 2.9

CG4 3.7 AP8 1.3 CP3 3.1 2.7 2.5

CF1 3.0 AP9 1.0 CP4 2.8 2.3 2.1

CP1 2.6 CG5 3.9 CN1 4.0 4.0 3.6

CP2 2.6 CG6 4.3 CN2 3.6 3.4 3.3

CN3 4.1 CG7 4.3 CN4 3.9 3.5 2.9

CN5 3.6 CG8 4.2 CN6 3.6 3.2 2.9

AG5 3.9 CP5 2.1 CF2 3.6 3.0 2.8

AG6 3.3 CP6 2.1 CF4 3.4 2.8 2.8

AG7 4.2 CF5 3.3 OG2 3.3 2.9 2.7

OG3 3.6 3.3 2.9

OP1 1.7 1.6 1.1

OP3 2.6 2.7 1.9

ON2 3.6 3.3 3.6

ON3 3.9 3.6 3.4

OF1 3.5 3.5 3.5

OF3 3.6 3.3 3.2

CF3 3.2 3.4

A: Asphalt; C: Portland Cement Concrete; O: Overlaid

N: New; G: Good; F: Fair; P: Poor

152 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. October 2003
 de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa

An observation that arises when comparing the three types of vehicles is that the rating for a car is higher than the
one made for a bus, as was to be expected, due almost certainly to cars’ better suspension conditions. Other aspects that
may have an influence in this phenomenon are the difference between the vehicles’ mass, the distance between axles and
the height at which passengers are with respect to the pavement. Figure 6 shows a comparison of the PSR between the
different vehicles.

3
PSR

Car
1 Minibus
Bus

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
PSR Minibus

Figure 6. Comparison of PSR in different vehicles

Relationship between Roughness and Serviceability
The regression between the Chilean panel’s values for PSR and IRI is called PSICHILE.
Serviceability ratings are available for all the types of vehicles used in the study, but a special mention is made of
the Serviceability relationship for cars, because it is the one most commonly used and the one established by the
AASHTO test.
The best adjustments were obtained with square root and exponential models (nonlinear equations). In order to
use regression analysis to calibrate these equations, some transformations (such as log transformations) were made to
change the nonlinear relationship between PSICHILE and IRI into a linear relationship. For flexible pavements, Equations
5 and 6 were obtained and Figure 7 shows the representative graph of the regression for these pavements.

Asphalt : PSI CHILE = 5.772 − 1.132 ⋅ IRI (5)

with R2 = 0.908

PSI CHILE = 4.926 ⋅ e −0.0826⋅IRI (6)

with R2 = 0.895
In an analogous manner, Equations 7 and 8 were obtained for concrete pavements:

Concrete : PSI CHILE = 5.850 − 0.987 ⋅ IRI (7)

with R2 = 0.852

PSI CHILE = 4.984 ⋅ e −0.0616⋅IRI (8)

with R2 = =0.850

October 2003 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. 153
 de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa

Figure 7. PSICHILE regression in asphalt pavements

In Figure 8, the regressions shown previously may be observed.

Figure 8. PSICHILE regression in concrete pavements

Although the exponential and square root equations are very similar, in this study we have preferred square root
regressions to predict the values of PSR for two reasons: (a) they have a higher coefficient of determination; and (b) for
low IRI values they predict a higher Serviceability. The position of the adjustment curves between the types of
pavement is set forth in Figure 9.
It can be seen that for the same IRI value, a concrete pavement is rated better than an asphalt pavement, and that
the difference between them is greater as roughness increases.

154 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. October 2003
 de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa

Figure 9. Comparison of PSICHILE regressions between asphalt and concrete

Effects of Other Pavement Distress on Serviceability

The equations of serviceability developed by AASHTO to predict the PSR [6] include slope variance and other
pavement distresses like surface rutting, spalling, cracks, and potholes. All these distresses had been measured in this
research on a condition survey of the pavement.
In order to determine if some types of distress had an effect on Serviceability for Chilean users, it was necessary
to consider the results of the condition survey incorporating those distresses that could contribute to the regression, and
finally, prove its significance in the model.
Tables 2 and 3 show the different models, the explanatory variables, and the t-statistic. Interestingly, surface
rutting (RD), spalling (ESC), cracks (C), and potholes (P) are not significant in determining Serviceability. However,
the IRI is always significant. This means that for Chilean users the surface distresses are not significant in determining
Serviceability compared to IRI.

Table 2. Effects of Other Pavement Distress on Serviceability in Asphalt Pavements.

t-Critical
Model Variable Regressor t-Statistic
95%

a + b ⋅ RD 2 a 3.578 32.617 2.179

b – 24.314 – 2.039
a + b ⋅ IRI + c ⋅ RD 2 a 5.621 12.168 2.201
b – 1.192 – 4.088
c 0.768 0.077
a + b ⋅ IRI + c ⋅ C + P a 5.346 15.281 2.201
b – 1.002 – 4.803
c – 0.023 – 2.168

a + b ⋅ IRI + c ⋅ RD 2 + d ⋅ C + P a 5.188 11.669 2.228

b – 0.886 – 3.083
c – 5.483 – 0.606

RD: rutting (inches); IRI: International Roughness Index (m/km); C: cracks (m2/1000m2)
P: potholes (m2/1000m2)

October 2003 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. 155
 de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa

Table 3. Effects of Other Pavement Distress on Serviceability in Concrete Pavements.

t-Critical
Model Variable Regressor t-Statistic
95%

a + b ⋅ ESC a 3.479 31.473 2.102

b – 0.233 – 4.332

a + b ⋅ IRI + c ⋅ ESC a 5.514 9.401 2.131

b – 0.938 – 3.506

c – 0.081 – 1.347

a + b ⋅ IRI + c ⋅ ESC + d ⋅ C + P a 5.229 9.107 2.145

b – 0.790 – 2.981

c – 0.075 – 1.333

d – 0.002 – 1.742

RD: rutting (inches); IRI: International Roughness Index (m/km); C: cracks (m2/1000m2)
P: potholes (m2/1000m2)
Final Serviceability Thresholds: Results with Chilean Users
In order to determine final pavement Serviceability, information from the panel was processed by first
determining acceptable final roughness (acceptable to at least 50% of panel members) [6] and then the Serviceability
value associated to roughness. The graphs in Figures 10 and 11 show maximum acceptable roughness values in urban
asphalt and concrete pavements, in accordance to the evaluation panel’s responses.

Figure 10. Acceptable maximum roughness in asphalt

156 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. October 2003
 de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa

Figure 11. Acceptable maximum roughness in concrete

The results for final IRI in urban roads are 5.9 m/km on asphalt pavements and 8.1 m/km on concrete
pavements. If these roughness values are evaluated on the PSICHILE curves, a PSI CHILE = 3.05 for asphalt pavements and
a PSI CHILE = 2.99 for concrete pavements are obtained.
When conducting Serviceability ratings, panel members were asked to imagine that the road section belonged to
a expressway and to rate whether they deemed it acceptable or not in that scenario. The acceptance responses on a
expressway must be considered only as an approximate value, although it is usual in this type of studies to have
acceptance rated in more than one scenario.
Acceptance on expressways is obtained, as in the case of urban streets, from the IRI curves versus the
acceptance percentage. The results show a final IRI in expressways of 4.8 for asphalt pavements and a final IRI of 6.6 for
concrete pavements.
It can be seen that on expressways users expect to experience less discomfort when driving, which is logical as
city trips are shorter and in general users are less sensitive to pavement condition. If these results on expressways are
evaluated resorting to the Serviceability curves obtained with Chilean users, a final PSICHILE Serviceability = 3.32 for
asphalt and a final PSICHILE Serviceability = 3.28 for concrete are obtained.
Application of the AASHTO Method of Design
Serviceability ratings performed by the evaluation panel of Chilean users were much higher than in other similar
studies. These higher ratings generate the problem that final Serviceability is also higher, whereby the loss in
Serviceability is lower. Therefore, these Serviceability results according to Chilean users are not recommended for use
in the AASHTO design method.
In order to solve this problem, the PSI was calculated by resorting to procedures recommended by AASHTO,
using information such as slope variance, rutting, cracked surface and potholed surface. Applying these procedures to
data obtained during the study, the PSIAASHTO was then calculated for each one of the road sections analyzed and
compared to the corresponding IRI for each road section.
The equations of the IRI-p relationships obtained with the above information may be used in designing
pavements according to AASHTO (Equations 9 and 10):

Asphalt: PSI AASHTO =5.671 − 1.714 IRI (9)

R2=0.950

Concrete: PSI AASHTO =5.769 − 1.589 IRI (10)

R2=0.943

October 2003 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. 157
 de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa

The comparison of these new design curves developed by other studies [2– 5] is more favorable, because the
Serviceability value which they predict is quite similar. Figure 12 shows this comparison in the case of asphalt, and
Figure 13 for concrete.

Figure 12. Comparison of IRI-PSIAASHTO curve with previous studies for asphalt

Figure 13. Comparison of IRI-PSIAASHTO curve with previous studies for concrete

Final Serviceability values recommended by this study originate from the evaluation panel’s results, but must be
read in terms of the PSIAASHTO curve, because it is this curve which generates the values to be used for design purposes.
Results for final Serviceability with the IRI-PSIAASHTO curve are shown in Table 4, respectively. It should be
borne in mind that final Serviceability was obtained from the analysis of results furnished by Chilean users.

158 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. October 2003
 de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa

Table 4. Final Conditions of Roughness and Serviceability in Urban Pavements.

SURFACE IRI (M/KM) PSI AASHTO

ASPHALT 5.9 1.5

CONCRETE 8.1 1.3

CONCLUSIONS
The final Serviceability values should be differentiated from those originating directly from the Chilean users’
opinion and from the values that are consistent with the AASHTO design method, since they are different. The final
values are those expressed by users with respect to a minimum acceptable condition.
Serviceability values, as a function of roughness as perceived by Chilean users, are higher than those obtained in
similar studies in developed countries. Accordingly, it is advisable that results should not be used directly in the
AASHTO design method. For this reason, Serviceability was calculated as it was in the AASHTO test and was related
to roughness. With this method, the IRI-p relationships that were obtained for asphalt and concrete can in fact be used in
conjunction with the AASHTO design method.
The study showed that for Chilean users, other pavement distress like surface rutting, spalling, cracks and potholes,
are not statistically significant for predicting Serviceability values compared to IRI. For Chilean users, the expression of
serviceability only depends on roughness.
Users acknowledged different levels of Serviceability for the same pavement depending on the type of vehicle in
which users circulated.
Serviceability in buses is considerably lower to that perceived in cars, and consequently roads to be used by buses
should have a better standard in order to offer the same level of user comfort.
The maximum roughness which users deem acceptable is lower in asphalt than in concrete, although users associate
the same value of final Serviceability for both types of pavements.
The latter reveals that irregularities in the longitudinal profile, as represented by IRI, are less uncomfortable in the
case of concrete than asphalt.
The final roughness acceptable for urban streets is higher than the one accepted for expressways, since users define
5.9 and 8.1 m/km for asphalt and concrete, respectively, for the city, whereas they define 4.8 and 6.6 m/km for
expressways.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning (MINVU), for technical and economic support to this
project, especially to Martín Dominguez and Joel Prieto. Also, we would like to thank Comisión de Diseño y Evaluación
de Pavimentos, Corporación de Desarrollo Técnico (CDT) Cámara Chilena de la Construcción and Automotora
Gildemeister, for the technical support to this project.
REFERENCES
[1] W. N. Carey and P. E. Irick, “The Pavement Serviceability Performance Concept”. Highway Research Board. Record 250,
1960.
[2] K. T. Hall and C. E. Correa, “Estimation of Present Serviceability Index from International Roughness Index”,
Transportation Research Record, 1655 (1999), pp. 93–99.
[3] B. Al-Omari and M. I. Darter, “Relationships Between International Roughness Index and Present Serviceability Rating”,
Transport Research Record, 1435 (1994), pp. 130–136.
[4] D. Dujisin and A. Arroyo, Desarrollo de una Relación Indice de Serviceabilidad (p) – Indice de Rugosidad Internacional
(IRI). Santiago, Chile; Comisión de Diseño y Evaluación de Pavimentos, Corporación de Desarrollo Técnico (CDT),
Cámara Chilena de la Construcción, 1995.
[5] W. D. O. Paterson, Road Deterioration and Maintenance Effects. Washington, D.C.; The World Bank, 1986.

October 2003 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. 159
 de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa

[6] AASHO, The AASHO Road Test; American Association of State Highway Officials Report 5 Pavement Research. Highway
Research Board, 1962.
[7] M. W. Sayers, T. D. Guillespie and W. D. Paterson, “Directrices para Realizar y Calibrar Mediciones de Rugosidad de
Carreteras”, Technical Report of the World Bank 46, 1986.
[8] I. Sánchez, H. de Solminihac, “El IRI: Un Indicador de la Regularidad Superficial”, Revista de Ingeniería de Construcción,
Chile, Nº6, 1989, pp. 1–17.
[9] H. de Solminihac, Gestión de la Infraestructura Vial. Santiago; Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile, 1998.
[10] E. Köhler, “Diagnóstico de Serviciabilidad de Pavimentos Urbanos en Chile”, Tesis de Magister, Escuela de Ingeniería,
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, 1998.
[11] M. Cundill, “The MERLIN Low-Cost Road Roughness Measuring Machine”, Transportation and Road Research
Laboratory, Research Report 301, 1991.
[12] ARRB, User Manual for Two Laser Profiler. Melbourne, Australia, ARRB Transport Research LTD, 1996.
[13] SHRP, Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance, National Research Council, SHRP-P-338,
Washington, DC, 1993.
[14] T. F. Fwa and K. T. Gan, “Bus-Ride Panel Rating of Pavement Serviceability”, Journal Transportation Engineering, 115
(1989), pp. 176–191.
[15] B. G. Wildman, M. T. Erickson and R. N. Kent, “The Effect of Two Training Procedures on Observer Agreement and
Variability of Behavior Ratings”, Child Development, 46 (1975), p. 520.
[16] S. W. Nair, R. Hudson, and C. E. Lee, Realistic Pavement Serviceability Equations Using The 690D Surface Dynamics
Profiler, Austin, Texas; Center for Transportation Research. The University of Texas at Austin, 1985.
[17] Ingeniería Cuatro Ltda. Consultores, “Estudio de Investigación para Determinación de Rugosidades en Pavimentos
Urbanos”, Informe Final, Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo de Chile, 1989.

Paper Received 16 April 2002; Revised 2 April 2003; Accepted 21 May 2003

160 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. October 2003