Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Analysis of Pavement Serviceability For The Aashto Design Method: The Chilean Case
Analysis of Pavement Serviceability For The Aashto Design Method: The Chilean Case
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).
144 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. October 2003
de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa
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.
146 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. October 2003
de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa
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.
148 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. October 2003
de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa
October 2003 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. 149
de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa
IRI in m/km and D in mm. Valid for 25< D <140 (1.9 < IRI< 9.3)
Where
150 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. October 2003
de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa
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
(a) Evaluated in minibus only (b) Evaluated in car, minibus, and bus
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
with R2 = 0.908
with R2 = 0.895
In an analogous manner, Equations 7 and 8 were obtained for concrete pavements:
with R2 = 0.852
with R2 = =0.850
October 2003 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. 153
de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa
154 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. October 2003
de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa
t-Critical
Model Variable Regressor t-Statistic
95%
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
t-Critical
Model Variable Regressor t-Statistic
95%
b – 0.233 – 4.332
b – 0.938 – 3.506
c – 0.081 – 1.347
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.
156 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 28, Number 2B. October 2003
de Solminihac, Salsilli, Köhler, and Bengoa
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):
R2=0.950
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
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