See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303849725

Four Leg Signalized Intersection Versus U-Turns Control in Greater Cairo: A

Pilot Study

Article  in  Journal of Engineering and Applied Science · December 1993

CITATIONS READS

0 87

1 author:

Ragab M. Mousa
Ministry of Transport and Communications-Oman
32 PUBLICATIONS   113 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design of Road Rehabilitation Works View project

Generalized Traffic Model for Major Roads In Egypt and its Utilization In Macroscopic Simulation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ragab M. Mousa on 12 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

----- - - ·- --- - - -- - - -----·· --·--------- -- · - -- ----· --- - - - --- ·------ - -- --- - - ·- - -

JOURNAL OF ElfCINEERINC AND APPLIED SCIENCE. VOL . 40,llO . 6 DEC. 1993,PP. 1143-1157
FACULTY OF ENCINEERINC. CAIRO UNIVERSITY

FOUR LEG SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION VERSUS U-TURNS

CONTROL IN GREATER CAIRO: A PILOT STUDY

RA GAB M. MOUSA 1

ABSTRACT

Over the past few years, a new practice of intersection

control was introduced to several signalized intersections in
Greater Cairo. The new practice is formed by removing the
traffic signal from the intersection and blocking the central
median in one direction except for two median openings for U
turns. Many practitioners in Egypt believe that this is the best
solution that suites drivers' behavior in Egypt. This paper
presents a simple technique that was applied to two intersections
in Giza to evaluate the intersection performance under this new
practice. Field data were collected at the intersections and
analysis was carried out on existing operation with U-turn
control as well as on a hypothetical signalization control.
Results indicated that while operation through U-turns may reduce
the average delay and improve the level of service at the
intersection, it involves potential danger to both pedestrians
and drivers. This is because the implemented u-turn practice did
, .. not consider any right of way for pedestrian crossing nor did it
ensure the minimum requirements for weaving maneuvers. Further
analysis showed that signalization can offer a better solution
to intersections if signal and intersection alignment are
properly designed and restriction is made on parking within the
intersection area. As a conclusion from this study, it seems
that enough evidence is still needed to justify the
implementation of the new practice of U-turn intersection
control.

1. BACKGROUND
Traffic congestion is a growing problem which can now be
observed in major cities, especially at intersections and
bottlenecks. By providing alternate right of way to various
traffic movements, traffic signals exert a profound influence on
traffic flow and can operate to the advantage or disadvantage of
the vehicle or pedestrians they control. Consequently, the
proper application, design, installation, operation, and
maintenance of traffic signals is critical to the orderly
movement of traffic at specified locations and may be expected

1. Assistant Prof . • Highway and Trafic Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University

·~
 RA GAB H. MOUSA

to increase the traffic handling capacity of the intersection.

Conversely, unjustified, poorly designed, improperly operated,
or inadequately maintained traffic signals can cause e x cessive,
unnecessary delay and reduced intersection capacity [1].

Virtually all traffic signals in Cairo streets lack the

proper design, operation, and/or maintenance and, therefore,
intersections have experienced congestion and constituted a major
obstacle to discharge rate of a traffic stream. In other words,
signalized intersections failed to provide good service in
traffic handling due to this improper operating conditions. As
an effort to restore intersection handling capacity, more traffic
officers were allocated to the intersection. While few of the
·traffic officers have good experience with traffic control
fundamentals and regulations; many do not and, therefore, adding
more staff failed to relieve congestion at intersections.
Following are some specific notes on using manual control in
Cairo.
Most traffic personnel lack the background and experience
with traffic rules and regulations.
When staffing a single intersection with more than one
person, communication and coordination become a major
problem, resulting in an inefficient operation.
Traffic officers threaten their lives as they usually stand
in the middle of the street or intersection, especially at
night where bad lighting conditions prevail at most
intersections. Even though, their signals are not visible
to all divers in a traffic stream/queue.
The traffic man's attention is sometimes distracted by
conversation with drivers and/or pedestrians.
There is an increase in the drivers' disrespect to traffic
laws and control devices as drivers are allowed to move
through the red light of traffic signals.
Controlling an individual intersection this way hinders the
use of technology to upgrade a system of signals and manage
traffic on a network or arterial · basis.
With intersection over staffed, traffic officers tend to
use intersection approaches as check points for driver's
and/or vehicle's license .. This unique behavior sometimes
blocks the whole approach during the green period .
 FOUR lEG SIGNAllZEO INTERSECTION VERSUS U· TURNS ••• •.

In a further step and rather than working to overcome these

drawbacks, a shift was made to eliminate the traffic signals at
some intersection and modify the intersection geometrics. A
typical example of this new practice of U-turn intersection
control is shown in Figure i. Some potential problems are
associated with the design in this figure which include:
Four weaving sections marked on the figure as L1 , Lz, ~, and
L~. These sections, if not properly designed, can create
side friction among vehicles that may result in side swipe
collisions.
Indirect paths for some through and left-turn movements
such as the through and left turn of the Approach no. 1.
This of course imposes additional travel time/distance on
these movements while bypassing the intersection.
Inconvenience and discomfort to motorists while executing
a complete and difficult U-turn through sharp median
opening (U and u ) .
No designated patbs for pedestrians.
This design does not allow for any coordination of traffic
along the blocked direction (Approaches 1 & 2).

The literature is abundant with traffic impact and

assessment studies at signalized intersections. For example,
Mousa and Rouphail (2] have made an assessment of the effect of
signal coordination on the permitted left turn capacity. Another
example of these studies is the research conducted by Hassan (3]
and offered an optimization program to find the optimum design
for the signal phasing and timing . Field data for the latter
study were collected from two signalized intersections in the
Greater Cairo.

In this paper, a simple technique is proposed to evaluate

the intersection performance under this new intersection control
practice. The following paragraphs describe the proposed
technique and demonstrate its application to two intersections
in Greater Cairo . General findings of this study are summarized
at the end of the paper.

1145

-·-·-·- - -
 RAGAS II. MOUSA

I L-) ·1· :::> L

~-=--= ~
-I 4

___· · .(. . . u/ '---'---------------../·.~u i~)___

3 J_.- L ; .I. =t--.1 r
1

Figure 1: Intersection Control with U-Turns

2. TECHNIQUE
The technique used here is very simple and its outcomes are
comparable with results from signalized intersection analysis.
In particular, the average vehicular delay is estimated in the
field and, accordingly, the level of service is determined for
the approach or the whole intersection. It is worthwhile
mentioning that the field measurement task is very difficult,
especially at complex intersections such as the one shown in
Figure 1. While it is easy to have traffic counts on Approach
1, for example, it is quite difficult to figure out the traffic
composition on this approach, i.e., % LT, % RT, and% of heavy
vehicles in each movement. This is because all traffic on this
approach must turn right. Following are the steps of the
proposed technique.

2.1 Evaluation of Existing Condition with u-turns

Step {l) - Existing Intersection Geometric Design
Intersection geometrics are to be measured in the field and

1146
 FOUR LEG SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION VERSUS U·TURNS •••••

effective approaches must be identified for each street.

Geometric data include approach width and location, median width,
weaving length, location of U-turns, width of parking lane, width
of sidewalks, etc.

Step (2) - Traffic Count s

Following to intersection geometrics is the traffic volume
and its composition . Traffic count can be carried out by several
means starting with manual counts and ending by automatic and
sophistica ted means. The selection of counting method, however,
d e pen ds on a v ailable resourcf!s and equipment as well as the
purp ose of the study itself.

Step (3) Movement Delay and Level of service

Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel
t!onsumption, and lost travel time. To compare traffic operations
in this case with operations under traffic signal control,
a v erage total or stopped delay must be figured out for each
vehicle using the intersection. Due to the unique
characteristics of traffic operation under existing conditions,
approach delays measured according to methods such as the HCM [ 4)
will yield false and misleading results. This is simply because
all traffic in the intersection territory is given the right of
way at all times. This implies that, in most cases, traffic may
slow down but never stops, resulting in a very low estimate of
the approach delay. There fore, the approach delay should rather
be estimated using any of th e travel time and delay techniques
outlined in the literature [5,6]. To do this, a specific path
must be identified for each traffic movement and the time is to
be recorded by either tracing specific vehicles or traveling in
a floating car on this path. The first point on a given path is
physically located upstream of the intersection where the traffic
movement is not affected by the intersection congestion. This
time is then used to determine the movement delay by subtracting
the time it takes the vehicle to cross the 4-leg intersection

1147
 RAGAS H. MOUSA

under frea flow conditions.

The movement tjelay, measured as specified above, can be used
to determine the equivalent stopped delay by dividing the
measured delay by 1.3 (4,7). Based on this equivalent delay, the
level of service for the movement in question can be obtained
from Table 1. It is expected that regardless of the traffic
conditions, the longer the distance between the U-turn and
intersection, the higher the delay and the lower the level of
service. Straight forward calculations can be performed to
obtain delays and level of service for the whole approach or
intersection.

TABLE 1. LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Level of Service Average Stopped Delay

(sec./veh.)
A 0.0 - 5.0
B 5.1 - 15.0
c 15.1 - 25.0
D 25.1 - 40.0
E 40.1 - 60.0
F > 60.0

Source: Reference (4)

2.2 Evaluation of Intersection with Signal Control

Step (4) - Signal Design and Analysis

In order to assess the intersection performance after

considering the traffic signal, one must first select the signal
phasing and design its timing according to one of the commonly
used methods of signal design. These methods include the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual (4), Webster's (8), and Pignataro's (9]
Methods. To have an accurate design of the signal, it is
recommended that saturation flow rates and other relevant
parameters be estimated in the field. This is because the
saturation flow is one of the most significant parameters in
signal design, and is possibly affected by the driver's behavior

1148
 FOUR LEG SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION VERSUS U·TURNS ••• • •

and traffic rules in Egypt. The procedure for saturation flow

estimate can be found in the Highway Capacity Manual ( 4) or
elsewhere (5). Having adequately designed the signal, one can
easily determine the capacity, delay, and level of service for
each approach or intersection. Delays and level of services
resulted in this step can be compared with their counterparts in
the case with U-turns and no signalization.

3. APPLICATION OF THE PROPOSED PROCEDURE:

The proposed procedure was applied to two intersections in
Cairo, namely, El-Batal Ahmed Abdel-Aziz & Gamaat El-Dowal El-
Arabia intersection ( or El- Batal) and Mohiey El-Deen Aboul-Ezz
& Gamaat El-Dowal El-Arabia intersection (Aboul-Ezz). Existing
geometrics of these two intersections are summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF GEOMETRICS OF THE STUDIED INTERSECTIONS

Appr:oach number

Measurement 1 2 3 4

El-Batal Intersection:
Total Pavement width (m) 10.0 12.5 11.5 11.5
Effective width (m) 8.5 8.5 10.0 11. 5
Median width (m) 7.0 7.0 19.5 19.2
Aboul-Ezz Intersection:
Total Pavement width (m) 6.0 6.0 14.0 11.0
Effective width (m) 4.5 4.5 14.0 11.0
Median width (rn) 2.0 2.0 16.0 16.0

Note: refer to Figure 1 for approach number

3.1 Existing Peak Hour Volumes:

Data were collected at both intersections during the
afternoon peak (between 2:00 pm and 4:00 pm) in normal working
days. Traffic volumes during the first hour of the survey were
about the same as volumes recorded in the second hour and,
therefore, the analysis presented herein is limited to the first
hour only. Traffic counts were carried out by more than 20
graduate and undergraduate students in the Civil Engineering

\149
 RAGAS M. MOUSA

Department (Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University). These

counts were integrat~d to obtain the origin/destination matrix
for each inters~ction (see Tables 3 and 4). As indicated in
these tables, a total volume of 7266 vph and 5490 vph was counted
at El-Batal and Aboul-Ezz intersections, respectively. It should
be mentioned that the service roads were excluded from this study
since they are mainly used for parking purposes and, therefore,
carry low traffic volumes.

3.2 Evaluation of current Operation with U-Turns

The method described in Section 3.1 was implemented at the
two intersections to estimate the average delay for each movement
as well as for each approach and the whole intersection. As
pointed out earlier, this delay is expressed in terms of
equivalent stopped delay so that it can be compared with that
obtained from signalized intersection delay models. Field delays
at the two intersections are summarized in Tables 5 and 6. As
noticed, the average vehicular delay at El-Batal intersection
(37.7 sec/veh) was slightly higher than the delay at Aboul-Ezz
intersection (31.2 sec/veh), and both delays correspond to the
level of service (D) .

3.3 Evaluation of Operation with Traffic Signal

The saturation flow rate was estimated in the field by
measuring traffic discharges at several approaches. Since
approaches are not divided into lanes, traffic discharges were
counted on the entire approach and data were combined to
estimate. The average saturation flow per one meter of the
approach width. This rate was found to be 590 vph/m which is
1770 vph for a 3-meter lane. This estimate seems to be realistic
since it reflects the use of narrow strip (or lane if exists) by
a single car in Cairo.

uso
 FOUR LEG SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION VERSUS U-TURNS ---·-

TABLE 3: O/D MATRIX FOR EL-BATAL AHMED ABDEL AZIZ

INTERSECTION (Between 2:00 - 3:00 PM)
TO App. App. App. App. Total PHF*
( 1) (2) (3) (4)
FROM (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) . (vph)
App. ( 1) 323 217 733 1108 2381 0.97
App. ( 2) 351 35 176 64 626 0.94
App. ( 3) 892 361 - 1107 2360 0.97
App. ( 4) 720 238 941 - 1899 0.90
Total 2286 851 1850 2279 7266

* Peak hour factor

TABLE 4: O/D MATRI X FOR MOHIEY EL DEEN ABOUL EZZ

INTERSECTION (Between 2:00 - 3:00 PM)
TO App. App. App. App. Total PHF*
( 1) ( 2) (3) (4)
FROM .. (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph)
App. (1) - 380 168 983 1531 0.94
App. (2) 275 - 118 546 939 0.90
App. ( 3) 24 5 159 - 716 1120 0.95
App. (4) 670 280 950 - 1900 0.91
Total 1190 819 1236 2245 5490

* Peak hour factor

TABLE 5: FIELD DELAYS ON EL-BATAL INTERSECTION

App. App. App. App. Ave.
Movement (1) (2) ( 3) (4)
(sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec)
Right Turn 36.4 14.0 9.2 9.2 -
Through 57.5 36.3 38.6 23.9 -
Left Turn 69.5 64.4 62.5 54.2 -
Average 50.4 32.7 31. 2 33.5 37.7

Note: For approach number, refer to Figure 1

1151
 RACAB M. MOUSA

TABLE 6: FIELD DELAYS ON ABOUL-EZZ INTERSECTION

App. App. App. App. Ave.
( 1) ( 2) ( J) (4)
Movement (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec)
Right Turn 21. 0 12.7 11.2 9.1 -
Through 40.2 33.7 32.7 21. 5 -
Left Turn 52 . 5 51. 2 52.5 45.2 -
Average 29.2 41. 2 30.8 28.1 31. 2

* For approach number, refer to Figure 1

streets . It should be mentioned that the recommended saturation

flow rate for typical studies ranges between 1800 and 2000
pcu/lane or 1600 vph/lane . Signalization was then considered and
the signal was designed for different cases of intersection
alignment. Six different cases were included in this study
including the existing case of U-turns, as follows:
u-turns: This case represents existing conditions with U-turn
operation as discussed in Section J.
case 1: This case represents existing conditions with traffic
signal operation. The signal design was made in this
case using measured saturation flow of 590 vph/m .
case 2: Same as Case 1 except parking was prohibited from the
intersection approaches.
Case 3: Same as Case 2 with an additional lane, when
applicable, on approaches carrying heavy volumes.
Case 4: Same as Case J except that the additional lane is
provided on each approach, when applicable, regardless
of the traffic volume on the approach.
Cases (HCM): Sarne as Case 4 except the saturation flow rate
of 1800 pcu/hr was used in the signal design. default
rate.

3.4 Results and Analysis

As well recognized, the performance of a signalized
intersection depends to a great deal on the signal phasing . This

1152

----- - -- - -- - - - - - - - --
 FOUR LEG SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION VERSUS U-TURNS •• • • •

means a phase combination that is appropriate for a given

intersection needs not be appropriate for other intersections,
depending on the intersection geometry and traffic volumes on
approaches. In this study, several phase combinations were
considered in the design for each case of the five cases and the
results of the best solution were used in the comparison.
Results of these cases as well as results of the existing
conditions are summarized in Tables 7 and 8 and illustrated in
Figures 2 and 3 for El-Batal and Aboul-Ezz intersections,
respectively.
As noticed in these tables and figures, delays decreased as
moving from Case 1 to Case 4. The reduction is about 47 and 71
sec/veh for the two intersections, respectively. Interestingly,
the level of service of both intersections was improved from
level (F) in Case 1 to the level (C) in Case 4. Furthermore, the
results of both intersections indicated that average delays
associated with signalization of exiting geome~rics (with/without
parking - Case 1 or 2) were higher than delays of the existing
U-turn operation (no signalization). Signalization becomes
superior to U-turn control only when considering the adjustment
to the intersection geometry (Case 3 or 4). This was also true
even with using the HCM default saturation flow as in Case 5.
It is worth noting that the HCM delay model was used in a
previous study in Cairo and it was concluded that the HCM model
overestimates the delay by about 30% ( 3]. Adjusting (i.e.
reducing) calculated delays by this percent will yield the delay
of Case 2 (exiting geometric with no parking) to be about the
same as the field delay measured under the U-turns control
practice. In other words, removing the parking and signalizing
the intersection will result in the same delay and level of
service as currently associated with the U-turns control. Of
course any improvement in the intersection/approach width will
favor the signalization . This finding is true for both
intersections covered in this study .

1153
 RAGA& 11 llOUSA

150

:2 120

i
~
90

~
Ill
60 U-Turns
~ case 1
Case2
~ 30 case a
case4
Case5 (HCM)
App. 1 App. 2 App. 3 App. 4 INT.
Approach Of Intersection

Rg. 2: Evaluation of Intersection Performance

(8-Batal A Abdel A:zi:z. Intersection)

150

U-Tums
Case 1
case2
case a
case4
Case 5 (HCM)
App. 1 App. 2 App. 3 App. 4 INT.
Approach Of Intersection

Rg. 3: Average Delay by Approach and Case

(Mohiey El-Deen Aboul-Ezz Intersection)
U54
 FOUR LEG SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION VERSUS U·JURNS •••••

To make the assessment more valuable, the 8 weaving sections

created at these intersections were checked to see if their
weaving lengths satisfy the AASHTO [10) specifications for urban
streets. Results revealed that 3 sections (out of 8) were not
long enough to provide safe weaving maneuvers required by the
observed traffic volumes. These three section are all locat.ed
at El-Batal Abdel-Aziz intersection. As mentioned earlier, there
is a potential danger associated with the current U-turns control
practice due to the unsafe weaving lengths and the with-held
pedestrian right of way. It can be said that signalization with
parking prohibited is better form the safety point of view than
current U-turns control.

Table 7: Delay and Level of Service by Case at El-Batal

Intersection

Approach Delay (sec/veh) Intersection

CASE App. 1 App. 2 App. 3 App. 4 · Delay L.O.S

U-Turns 50.4 32.7 31. 2 33.5 37.7 D
CASE 1 67.1 94.7 85.3 54.8 71.5 F
CASE 2 40.1 60.4 42.1 40.4 42.3 E
CASE 3 23.6 31.8 24.8 24.2 25.0 c
CASE 4 24.0 21. 0 26.1 25.4 25.0 c
CASE5,HCM 28.6 46.2 31. 8 31.9 32.3 D

Table 8: Delay and Level of Service by Case at Aboul-Ezz

Intersection

Approach Delay (sec/veh) Intersection

CASE App. 1 App. 2 App. 3 App. 4 Delay L . O.S

U-Turns 29.2 41. 2 30.8 28.l 31. 2 D

CASE 1 35.4 71. 5 104.4 109.6 86.6 F
CASE 2 20.6 33.9 53.7 51.8 42.7 E
CASE 3 16.5 25.8 41. 5 34.2 30.7 D
CASE 4 14.8 16.1 18.4 15 . 3 16.0 c
CASES, CM 12.4 19 . 6 23.1 15.3 17.3 c

1155
 RA GAB M. MOUSA

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The above discussion on the results and the comparisons made
between the U-turns and signalization solutions revealed valuable
co~clusions that cannot be ignored, which include the following:
1. It is true that, under typical geometric and parking
conditions, the U-turns solution seems to offer less delay
and better level of service than in case of signalization.
However, this was on the cost of pedestrian and vehicles
safety, especially at El-Batal intersection where 3 out of
4 weaving sections were unsafe.
2. With parking restricted nearby the intersection, the
signalization can produce the same delay and level of
service as resulted from the U-turns solution. Yet, it is
a safe solution.
3. The removal of parking and widening one or more approaches,
when applicable, improve the level of service and delay
under signalization · control. This advantage when
considered with safety should qualify the signalization
over the U-turns solutions.

As pointed out, these conclusions are limited to the two cases

covered by this study, and cannot be generalized without further
consideration of additional cases. Furthermore, the study
indicated the of insufficient weaving lengths in the U-turns
solution. The comparison between the two solutions would have
been more sound if there were available data on accidents before
and after using the U-turns at these two intersections.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank all graduate students in the
Master and Diploma .programs of Highways and Airports Engineering
in the Public Works Department, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo
University and all undergraduate students in the Highway and
Traffic Engineering graduation project (1992) for their
participation in the data collection. The author would also like
to thank Prof. A. Atef Gadallah and Prof. Mohamed R. El-Mittini
for their support during the field survey.

1156
 FOUR LEG SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION VERSUS U- TURNS • • •• •

REFERENCES

1. Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook. Institute

of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and Printice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632, 1982.
2. Mousa, R. and Rouphail, N. "Effect of Platoons on
Permissive Left-Turn Capacity: A Pilot Study." Journal of
Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 2, March,
1989, pp. 208-215.
3. Hassan, H. "Optimization of Traffic Signals at
Intersections." A Master Thesis, Faculty of Engineering,
Cairo University, 1993.
4. Highway Capacity Manual. TRB Special Report 209, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985.
5. Garber, N. and Hoel, L. "Traffic and Highway Engineering."
West Publishing Company, New York, 1988.
6. Papacostas, c. "Fundamentals of Transportation
Engineering." Printice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey 07632, 1987.
7. JHK & Associates and Traffic Institute, Northwestern
University. NCHRP Signalized Intersection Capacity Method.
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., May 1982 .
8. Webster, F. and Cobbe, B. "Traffic Signals . " Road Research
Laboratory, Ministry of Transport, Road Research Technical
Paper no. 56, England, 1966. .
9. Pignataro, L. "Traffic Engineering Theory and Practice."
Printice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632,
1973.
10. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), Washington, o.c., 1984 .

.:.~.J .J.J..>A l5.;l.:.L;o ~I 1.1""9\.JDJ ~ e-J-u:..JI •I.) 1 ~

"~' a.>-'IUJI t.;I ~ ~ ~,,_JI a~~L;o "' .).J....JI

as ~ u-1 I• s ... -. , 1 .l..-1 ,.,.

_ ......
uu (' 1 ~ 1 ...::. o.-.o L...J 1 a 1 . 1•
(' I - -
11 ~
-
. ~ . 11 u-i
J.:! ,>1is \JS' W ~J IS~ I o_,... Li.J I t J I _,:. u-.i ..::. t.....» L.i::....J I \,-A el.:! .l.IO....l.J J J _,....J I
~,,_JI ii~_>~-11 u-i .,:,t..:..::..,j ('I ~I J .::.U.4-=--1 I ~ 1 u-i ~I i -. II J-1.J
~~1 .uJ ,~~I oL+=a11 u-llJ \,-A J~,..U (~ 1 u-l 1 ~ 1 JJ..l....Ll)
u-S°JL..:. \,-A JS t;A o.;.·_,....JI JJ.l..JI a-.4 tJL..:. ~U.::. ~ ~I .l.;-4 0.....IJ.l
ii~L,.. v-=--~L,.. :,..-JI ,.,., 1 &:!.l..JI ~J ~:,..-JI~ ~ 1 Jlo.......:....I
a..J~ u--' a.:.1 .l°L,.. w~ ii..;JLL.J rUi...l..JI I~ ~ ~L.i::....11 • I..), r.:.: i -. I
iiJt..:.1 r1 .u..:.....1 ~1 0.....1 J.l..J1 ~~ ~., 1 .l.-.i_, ,
J.J_,..- aJt..:.1 r1 ~1
u-i ii!...;·. · II .:.~~I ~ L,..~ J.J_,....JI i5.S~ u--' 1.s ... -. I I J.J.r--&JI
ii..; J Li.......J L,.. ~ U.::...U ~ 1 • I .l 1 IS_,:,-... ~ ~ U.::...U U""" .le..l.f--J I lo .; !.. ; -. II
JJ_,......JI i5JL..:.L,.. ~I ('UU o_,.J~L.. ~ o_,-:J.s .l.::!~-.11 ~I ('Lli....L.,-o
a J J h ~' ~~J , 0L:.;...J1,, .:.~_,.....JI ~t... &-4 J5..l as~ ~L.. 1 .,._.
('I ~I u--' ~_,::..JI _,1 \,-A »,JI ~ ~I .::.1~ ~ a..LL..:. 0.....1 J.l J.-s
•J,.S~I ~I rUU

1157

-- --·----·-· -·-- ------- -- ·---------------·· - - -- -

View publication stats