Roughness of Unpaved Roads

Estimation and Use as an Intervention Threshold

Emil Namur and Hernn de Solminihac
The DNV uses a maintenance administration system to manage
the gravel and earth roads in Chile (3). This system was implemented
in 1992 by the DNV of the MOP. This system controls all conservation management under the direct administration system at the
provincial, regional, and national levels. It could be defined as a
set of technical and administrative procedures, where the main
objective is to achieve efficient road network maintenance. The ve
stages of the maintenance administration system are (4)

One of the main tasks of the Chilean Direccin Nacional de Vialidad and
its regional and provincial secretariats is to determine the maintenance
requirements of its roads. In developing countries, most roads managed under this process are unpaved. The traditional way of determining maintenance requirements relies on the criteria applied by whoever
inspects the roads. To improve this process, the present work proposes
an easy, objective method for determining the conservation requirements of unpaved roads. Roughness thresholds are proposed because
they adequately summarize the functional characteristic of this kind of
road. Roughness thresholds were determined for different road types
after consulting public-, private-, and academic-sector experts who
proposed international roughness index (IRI) values based on the characteristics of each road. To measure the roughness of unpaved roads,
the use of a response-type roughmeter is recommended. When this type
of equipment is not available, it is proposed that IRI be estimated with
data obtained from visual inspection. The main distresses of unpaved
roads and IRIs were correlated by using data collected from 61 test
sections.

General planning,
Financing,
Land planning,
Operation execution, and
Control.

In the general planning stage, the specific maintenance requirements of roads must be determined at the regional level. For this
purpose, each road in the network is evaluated by field inspectors,
who assign a score (on a scale from 1 to 5) on the basis of the criteria and their experience. The traffic, type of road, and annual
conservation needs are determined from this score. Therefore, the
score assigned by the evaluator as well as the criteria that determine the score affect the budget to be presented in the nancing and
later stages (3).
In this paper, an alternative method is proposed that determines
the conservation needs of an unpaved road from estimated road
roughness.

Of the 80,695 km of the Chilean national roads that are managed

by the Direccin Nacional de Vialidad (DNV) of the Ministerio de
Obras Pblicas (MOP), 36,855 km (46%) are gravel roads and
20,935 km (26%) are earth roads. In addition to their large percentage of the total road network, unpaved roads have both social and
strategic relevance:
They provide isolated localities with a minimum level of access
to resources and opportunities (1) and
They provide the country with connectivity that would allow
mobilization, evacuation, and aid access to most of the territory in
the event of disaster or conict.

Serviceability and Roughness

Serviceability is the capacity of a specic section of pavement to
serve traffic under certain conditions (5). Stated another way, it is how
users can use a road with a certain comfort level. Two decades ago,
the World Bank developed the International Road Roughness Experiment to make the measures of serviceability and roughness comparable, and an index for pavement roughness was established (6). This
international roughness index (IRI) is widely used worldwide to
describe surface roughness.
The importance of the roughness measurement and its use as an
intervention threshold for unpaved roads is based on several facts:

BACKGROUND
Some authors believe that all types of external pressures result in
inadequate standards for unpaved low-volume roads, thus increasing
total costs for both the administration and users (1, 2). Therefore, an
unpaved road must meet a clear minimum standard.

Departamento de Ingeniera y Gestin de la Construccin, Escuela de Ingeniera,

Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile, Avenida Vicua Mackenna 4860, Macul,
Casilla 306, Correo 22, Santiago, Chile. Corresponding author: H. de Solminihac,
hsolmini@ing.puc.cl.

A good indicator of road condition, roughness synthesizes the

most important distresses that affect pavement; distresses show good
linear adjustments with IRI (79).
Roughness is the greatest determinant of costs to road users (10).
Roughness is among the most important elements in road safety,
with geometry and suitable signage (11).

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,

No. 2101, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2009, pp. 1016.
DOI: 10.3141/2101-02

10

Namur and de Solminihac

Driving on a rough road produces an effect called whole

body vibration, which has adverse consequences on the human
body (12).
Roughness represents the majority of distresses of unpaved
roads, because no silent distresses (i.e., cracks) are present in this
type of road; most structural distresses are apparent as functional
distresses.

11

percentages of approval with measured IRI (IRImeasured) to obtain

an expression to correlate both variables. The corresponding IRIthreshold
implicates a 50% expert approval.
In the present research, an expert opinionbased method is adopted
for determining the IRIthreshold for unpaved roads.

RESEARCH METHOD
Roughness Estimation
Despite the importance of roughness, the IRI of unpaved roads rarely
is measured in developing countries, mainly because the equipment
necessary for measuring the extensive network is not available. Two
methods to measure roughness are proposed in the literature:
Gross evaluation of the distresses (6) and
Estimated circulation speed of vehicles using the road (13).

The experiment proceeded in three stages. The first was a search

for correlation between road distresses and roughness. The second
consisted of obtaining roughness thresholds for unpaved roads. In
the third stage, using the results of previous stages, the need to
conserve unpaved roads was proposed in a simple and objective
manner. Figure 1 illustrates the research method.

Correlating IRI and Distresses

As Archondo-Callao mentions, these two measurement methods

have two great defects (14):

A campaign was conducted to obtain the test section data. It

consisted of

Gross evaluation of the distresses has a precision of 30% to

40% (errors between 2 and 6 m/km), depending on the observers
level of expertise, and
If vehicle operation speed is affected by factors external to
road roughnesscurvature (horizontal or vertical), engine power,
or othersthen this method is not valid.

Selecting the inspection method and IRI measurement equipment,

Selecting the test sections, and
Visually inspecting distresses and measuring roughness and other
data that might be relevant (e.g., road width and drainage quality).

Hence, the estimation of IRI (IRIestimated) is proposed with a linear

expression that relates IRI to road deterioration, as has been done
for paved roads in other research projects (79).

Determination of Intervention Thresholds

Two methods commonly are used to obtain intervention thresholds
for paved roads (15):
Economic evaluations (using deterioration models and vehicle
operation costs) that allow the identication of an economically
optimal intervention threshold and
Bibliographical compilation of distress limits used in other
countries.
These two methods cannot be applied to unpaved roads, for two main
reasons:
The economic evaluation models are unreliable for unpaved
roads (because of the high level of uncertainty and because they do
not offer an adequate variability to make road maintenance decisions) and assign the worst standards to the unpaved roads (because
of the low rentability of maintenance performed on low-traffic
roads) and
Few international publications try to set thresholds for unpaved
roads.
In contrast, threshold IRI (IRIthreshold) values based on expert opinion can be proposed for paved roads (7, 16, 17). The most frequently
used method entails a group of experts driving on roads with the same
riding surface. They measure the IRI for each road and associate

This information was processed and statistically analyzed to establish

a mathematical expression to correlate distresses with IRI values.

Obtaining Intervention Thresholds

First, the experiment was designed in agreement with recommendations listed in previous researches and other documents regarding
the Delphi method (18, 19). Then, the standard survey was created
and the possible panel of experts selected. Next, the survey was
administered to the experts, and previous survey results were analyzed to eliminate inconsistent data. The consistent data were subjected to statistical analysis, and an expression was determined to
correlate the IRIthreshold with the characteristics of the road.

Correlation between IRI and Distresses (IRIestimate):

Measurements (IRI, visual inspection) in testing
sections
Statistical analysis of the measures to obtain
correlation equations

Obtain the Intervention Thresholds (IRIthreshold):

Consultation to the expert panel
Statistical analysis of the responses to obtain
correlation equations

Detection of Intervention Needs:

Use of the IRIestimate and the IRIthreshold to obtain
the intervention needs of unpaved roads
FIGURE 1

Research method.

12

Determining Intervention Needs

A simple method was designed that, using the results of previous
stages, would allow the determination of intervention needs in
unpaved roads from a roughness estimate (explained in the next
section).

CORRELATION BETWEEN IRI AND DISTRESSES

Roughness was measured with a response-type roughmeter (Class III):
the Bump Integrator, a widely known model of equipment for roughness measurement (6). The Bump Integrator was used for two
reasons:
The methods that use laser-proling equipment (the main equipment used on paved roads) could be damaged by loose material
present in the road types under study and
Other available equipment (such as the Dipstick or the MERLIN)
is less efficient than the one that was used.
The circulation speed used for Bump Integrator measurements was
approximately 30 km/h.
In the experiment, the visual inspection method recently developed by the Chilean DNV was used to give to the project a national
context (20). This method considers the measurement of ve distresses that affect the road surface, measured in a sample unit that
considers the following features in the rst 50 m of each kilometer
(with the variable abbreviation indicated in parentheses):
Ruttingtypical depth along the sample unit (Ahue_prof);
Potholesaverage diameter (Bach_diam), average depth (Bach_
prof), and amount (Bach_nume) in the sample unit;
Corrugationtypical depth along the unit sample (Cala_prof);
Coarse materialaverage diameter of loose, coarse surface
material (Matg_tama); and
Erosionrepresentative width (Eros_anch) and depth (Eros_
prof) of distress present in the whole section.
Many test sections were selected in Chile, and measurements
were taken in 61:
16 sections in the north zone of the country (Regions III and
IV)all earth;
29 sections in the center zone (Regions V, VI, and metropolitan)17 earth and 12 gravel; and
16 sections in the south zone (Regions VII and VIII)nine earth
and seven gravel.
Following many authors, an initial factorial of scenarios was
proposed based on criteria to assign levels to distresses present
in unpaved roads (2123). This factorial consisted of 243 distress
scenarios (five kinds of distress, each with three levels: low,
medium, and high). Most test sections presented here have low
distress levels according to such criteria. Therefore, data were
available for only 23 of these scenarios. Given the low representativeness of scenarios (coverage <10%), the factorial analysis of
the data was discarded.
Next, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed with all the
data collected in the 61 test sections, not associating them with the
scenarios. The dependent variable was IRImeasured, and the independent
variables considered for the analysis were

Transportation Research Record 2101

The eight variables associated with the inspected distresses

(listed previously);
An associated variable that considers the effect of the three
variables associated with potholes, calculated as their product
(Bach_mult); and
A dichotomous variable to identify whether the section surface
is earth or gravel.
Results of the ANOVA indicated that many existing variables
are not significant in a linear model and should not be considered.
One of the most significant variables was the one that identified
the section material. As a result, separate statistical analyses were
performed for earth and gravel roads. To correctly choose the variables that should be included in each model, stepwise regression
analysis was performed (gradual selection forward and back) with
a 0.15 level of significance. [To simplify the calculations, the
MINITAB statistical program was used (24)].
The stepwise procedures for the models of earth roads (42 sections; three steps) and gravel roads (19 sections; one step) are listed
in Table 1. The IRI estimation models obtained are
Earth roads:
IRI estimated = 4.144 + 6.60 Bach_mult + 1.51 Cala_prof
+ 0.92 Ahue_prof

2
Radj
= 69%; SE = 2.1

Gravel roads:
IRI estimated = 6.970 + 0.60 Matg_tama

2
Radj
= 58%; SE = 2.2

A moderately good correlation between distresses and IRIestimated

is observed for gravel and earth roads. Nevertheless, the results are
not ideal (R 2adj near 100% and SE near 0). The explanation of this
medium goodness of fit can be associated with three error types,
explained in the following sections.
POSSIBLE ERRORS
IRI Measurement
Some errors can be associated with the roughness measurement. To
determine the extent to which the error of repeatability and reproTABLE 1 Stepwise Method for Modeling Measured IRI:
Earth Roads and Gravel Roads
Stepwise for Earth Roads
Step
Constant
Bach_mult
t-value
p-value
Cala_prof
t-value
p-value
Ahue_prof
t-value
p-value
S
R2
R2 (adj.)
Mallows C-p

1
7.429
6.7
6.04
0

2.83
47.69
46.38
32.4

Stepwise for Gravel Roads

2
5.036
8.5
8.15
0
1.56
4.05
0

2.4
63.17
61.28
13.6

Step

4.144
6.6
5.99
0
1.51
4.38
0
0.92
3.33
0.002
2.14
71.49
69.24
4.4

Constant
Matg_tama
t-value
p-value

S
R2
R2 (adj.)
Mallows C-p

1
6.97
0.6
5.13
0

2.23
60.75
58.44
4.1

Namur and de Solminihac

13

ducibility (r&R; where repeatability is the standard deviation from

all the measures taken under a specic condition and reproducibility is the standard deviation from all the measurements taken under
different conditions) in the measurements can affect the typical error
of the correlation equations. To evaluate the r&R of the Bump Integrator roughmeter, an experiment was conducted that consisted of
the following steps:

Others

1. Select gravel and earth test sections (14 sections divided in

10 subsections, each 100 m).
2. In each subsection, measure IRI three times in each direction
(ascending and descending).
3. Calculate the repeatability for each subsection (the standard
deviation of three measurements for each direction in each section).
4. Calculate the reproducibility for each subsection (the standard
deviation of the average of the three ascending measurements and the
average of the three descending measurements).
5. Calculate the equipment r&R (the square root of the sum of
repeatability squared plus reproducibility squared).
6. Calculate the total repeatability, reproducibility, and r&R for
the Bump Integrator (considering the results of all subsections).

OBTAINING THE INTERVENTION THRESHOLDS

Steps 3, 4, and 5 were repeated with measurements for each complete section (1,000 m), with the objective of obtaining the r&R for
each 1,000 m. The r&R measurements and the combined effect of
both are evident in Figure 2. Considering measurement sections of
1,000 m instead of 100 m has a smoothing effect that can be observed
on the r&R error.
In this experiment, IRI measurements corresponded to 1,000-mlong sections, in which case the joint r&R error is approximately
0.6 m/km. Hence, the internal measurement error contributes less
to the equation determination error (approximately 30% of the
total error of both equations).

Another possible cause of regular adjustment could be the sample size

of the experiment (61 test sections). For this reason, to obtain better
statistical adjustments, it is recommended that future investigations be
conducted on a larger sample size.

To obtain answers from the expert panel, the Delphi method was used.
The general idea of this method is to obtain the opinion of a group
of experts, using independent surveys or questionnaires that are
answered individually and independently. The goal of the Delphi
method is to obtain an consensus expert opinion about a particular
problem, to form a basis for decision making on matters that have
been little studied or for which scientic ways of measurement are not
available (19). The method is applied to a case in the following way:
1. A survey about the study subject is designed, with questions
intended to be answered quantitatively.
2. The survey is administered to the expert panel.
3. Consistency and homogeneity of the answers are veried. In
the absence of verication, a second round of surveys is administered to the expert panel, showing them the results obtained in the
rst round.
4. The panel members responses are averaged and interpreted as
the answer from the panel as a whole.

Errors associated with the inspection method can be related mainly

to the existence of distresses not noted by the inspector. Some
unregistered distresses can explain road roughness (e.g., corrugation width or rutting). However, in some roads, larger distresses that
are undetected in a visual inspection (e.g., great depressions) could
inuence IRI measurement. Despite these observations, the idea is
to adjust to the distresses present in the visual inspection instructive
recently developed by the DNV.

Annual average daily traffic (AADT). The 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles of the total of unpaved roads in the national road network
(AADT = 7, 40, and 300 vehicles/day, respectively) were used (25).
Heavy traffic (%Heavy AADT). Because of little variability in
the heavy traffic composition, only 10th and 90th percentiles were
used from the percentage of heavy vehicles of the total of unpaved
roads of the national road network (20% and 40% of heavy vehicles
composition) (25).

Error in m/km

Selected Inspection Method

For this experiment, the survey consisted of exposing the experts

to a given number of scenarios, and the experts were asked to propose an IRIthreshold for each one. In total, 30 scenarios were proposed
(Table 2), and all were veried to be possible according to national
inventory data (25). The independent variables used to construct the
factorial of scenarios and their respective levels of variation were
the following:

2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00

Sections of 100 m
Sections of 1,000 m

repeatability Reproducibility
Type of error

r&R

FIGURE 2 Evaluation of r&R error of Bump Integrator equipment for

different intervals of roughness measurement.

14

Transportation Research Record 2101

TABLE 2

Results from the IRI threshold Experts Survey (m/km)

AADT

%Heavy
AADT

20
40
20
40
20
40

8.6
8.8
8.2
8.3
7.4
7.1

9.5
9.4
8.9
8.7
8.0
7.8

10.5
10.6
10.0
9.8
9.0
8.9

11.8
11.7
11.1
11.1
10.0
10.2

12.7
12.6
12.1
11.9
11.2
10.9

Class

7
40
300

NOTE: Ratings of importance from greater (A) to lesser importance (E).

Class of road (class). Five categories applicable to the roads of

the national road network, rating their importance in the network
(rated A through E, from greater to lesser importance; to obtain the
equation, classes were designated from 5 to 1, respectively).
A total of 36 surveys were sent to expert professionals who were
familiar with unpaved roads and the concept of roughness (15 in the
public sector, 12 in the private sector, and nine in the academic sector);
24 completed surveys were returned in the indicated 3-week period.
For each scenario, the average, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and critical Grubb values (i.e., critical values that must take a
statistical test; frequently used for outlier detection) were determined
from all of the experts answers. After applying some statistical tests
to determine anomalous and inconsistent values, the expert answers
that exceeded the acceptance criteria (four experts) were excluded.
From the answers of the remaining 20 experts (eight from the public sector, seven from the private sector, and ve from the academic
sector), an average was calculated for each scenario. Results are
listed in Table 2.
With these results, an ANOVA for the complete factorial was performed to nd an expression relating the characteristics of each road
with the IRIthreshold obtained (the dependent variable). The result of
the rst ANOVA was that the heavy traffic (%Heavy AADT) is
irrelevant (not signicant) in determining the IRIthreshold, so it was
eliminated from later analysis. Another ANOVA was performed,
excluding the mentioned variable (Table 3). The model obtained to
explain IRIthreshold is
IRI threshold = 13.420 0.00472 AADT 0.993 Class

(R

2
adj

= 97%; SE = 0.26 )

By applying this equation to evaluate the roughness threshold of

the unpaved roads of the national road network, it is found that
more than 95% of these roads should have values of IRIthreshold

TABLE 3

ANOVA IRI threshold

Term

Coef.

Constant
AADT
Class
S = 0.25746

13.4195
0.1178
0.004722
0.000359
0.99333
0.03324
R 2 = 0.9753

Students value.

SE Coef.

ta

113.93
0.000
13.16
0.000
29.89
0.000
R 2 (adj.) = 0.9735

between 8.0 and 12.5 m/km. These results are consistent with a previous experience (in Chile) in which roughness limits were determined in paved roads (17 ). In this investigation, values of IRIthreshold
between 4.8 and 8.1 m/km were determined, depending on the road
surface material (concrete or asphalt) and on the type of road (urban
or express).

METHOD FOR DETERMINING INTERVENTION

OR MAINTENANCE NEEDS
To determine maintenance needs, the use of a logic comparison
between what exists and what must exist is proposed. For
instance, minimum thresholds have been proposed for the condition of gravel roads that are based on AADT, assigning greater priority to roads that have a greater difference between their present
and acceptable conditions (22). In the present project, this comparison is translated as IRIestimated minus IRIthreshold. If this difference is
>0, then the section must be maintained, and roads that must be
maintained are listed as candidate sections.
If an IRI measurement is possible, then the value of IRIestimated
must be changed by the value of IRImeasured. Nevertheless, in the last
case, it is recommended to continue with the visual inspection to
calibrate the equations given in the present study. After the candidate
sections are listed, they are sorted in decreasing order, according to
the difference between the IRIestimated (or IRImeasured) and the IRIthreshold.
Thus, the list will be headed by those sections that are in worse condition compared with their desirable conditions, and intervention
on those roads should be more urgent as a consequence.
Although the objective of the present study is not to recommend
a given operation for execution in the sections that require maintenance, after using this method, certain directives (macro actions)
may be given, for example,
To make simple proling operations when the IRIthreshold is
slightly surpassed;
To execute complete proling operations when the distresses
are great (including a previous irrigation or a compaction subsequent
to the proling);
To recommend regraveling granular roads when the distresses
are not solved by a simple proling; or
To apply greater interventions, such as reconstruction, chemical stabilization, or graveling of an earth road in cases of persistent
distress.
Thus, the road agency managers criteria (for determining which
solution to execute) are applied at this stage, not previously. After the
high-priority activities have been listed, funds will be assigned to all
the sections that require them until the existing budget is exhausted.
If the budget is exhausted, then the amount needed to complete the
required actions must be reported. Figure 3 is a diagram of the proposed method, which must be applied one to four times per year,
depending on the roads exposure to distress (traffic and precipitation),
to detect the conservation needs in a timely manner.

APPLICATION EXAMPLE
As an example, the proposed method was applied to a set of test sections previously mentioned. First, the Class and AADT data were
obtained for each section from the road inventory (25). Both values

Namur and de Solminihac

15

were used to determine IRIthreshold, using the expressions for earth and
gravel roads. Then, data from the inspection were used to calculate
IRIestimated of each section.
The differences between IRImeasured and IRIthreshold versus the differences between IRIestimated and IRIthreshold are shown in Figure 4, where
each point represents 1 of the 61 mentioned sections. Those points
that exceed 0 on the y-axis are those that require intervention based
on the IRIestimated; sections that exceed 0 on the x-axis are those that
require intervention based on the IRImeasured. The ideal situation
would be the alignment of points in a straight line that passes
through the origin with a 45 slope. Although a certain dispersion
exists, both characteristics are fullled by the straight line formed.
Figure 4 also shows that eight sections require intervention,
because the observed IRI (IRImeasured) in each one exceeds the expertdetermined threshold. Also observed are an important number of
sections in which the difference is small (0 to 1 m/km), even though
the IRIestimated stays below the proposed threshold. For this reason,
they could be added to the list of candidate sections. In the following stage, the operation(s) to be carried out in the selected sections
will be determined, and a cost will be associated with each one.

Determination of the AADT

and class of the sections
Determination of IRIthreshold

Roughness is
measured
No

Yes

Visual inspection
(IRIestimated)

Roughness measurement
(IRImeasured)

IRIestimated/measure >
IRIthreshold
No

Yes
Section entry to the
candidate list

Sections are re-inspected in

a determined period

CONCLUSIONS

Order sections by the

intervention needs

A simple, objective method was developed to determine the maintenance needs of unpaved roads based on the expected level of service
from data obtained by visual inspection. The results of statistical
analyses performed to find the equations that relate IRI and distresses indicate a signicant correlation (approximately 60% of
gravel roads and of 70% earth roads). This nding would be important in the absence of testing equipment; it would be replaced with

Program maintenance operations

to the budget assigned turn empty
Proposed method for determining maintenance needs.

12

y = 1.013x + 0.038
R = 0.687

10
8
Difference IRI measured - IRI threshold

FIGURE 3

6
4
2
0
-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
Difference IRI estimated - IRI threshold

FIGURE 4

Example application of the proposed method.

10

12

16

estimated IRI by the deterioration registered (the future source of

most of IRI information for road ratings).
However, the statistical t of both equations can be improved by
applying the proposed method to more test sections. The analysis of
more test sections consequently may include or exclude some distresses in the IRIestimated equation. In this sense, the obtained results
must be observed with caution, because in the case of gravel roads,
other distresses could affect the present roughness level that are not
represented in the determined equation. Therefore, whenever this
method is to be applied to other test sections, new IRI-related variables might be included in the equation, especially for gravel roads.
In contrast, the r&R of the measurement equipment was evaluated;
assessment and corroboration of this error type show that it is within
the expected range for Class III equipment.
The IRIthreshold values obtained are consistent with the results of
previous studies applied to asphalt and concrete roads in Chile. The
statistical analyses made to nd the equations that relate IRIthreshold
with AADT and Class characteristics indicate an elevated correlation between them (R 2adj = 97%). However, it was important to notice
that the variable associated with the heavy traffic (%Heavy AADT)
was not considered a relevant decision variable for the establishment
of IRIthreshold, according to the expert criteria.
The procedure used to determine the proposed method is clear
and may be repeated and adapted in any one of its parts if needed
(e.g., a change in the inspection method used, the composition of the
expert panel, or the roughmeter).
RECOMMENDATIONS
To implement this method, it is recommended that the group of
selected provinces have a medium-sized unpaved road network. A
budget should be assigned to implement and then evaluate the experience regarding costs and times required for the inspection and to
evaluate the costs necessary to maintain the network better than the
conditions proposed by the experts.
Given that the idea of the inspection is to determine preservation
needs, it is recommended that inspection planning be randomized,
eliminating some methodological errors, such as carrying out of
inspection as soon as the preservation works are nished.
As the DNV implements the recently developed visual inspection
method, IRI can be measured in some sections after the inspection
process, for the purpose of having more sections in which to perform
new IRI statistical adjustments with the distresses.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the technical support of APSA Ltda.
(www.apsa.cl) and the Direccin Nacional de Vialidad de Chile
(www.vialidad.cl). They also are grateful to all the experts who
participated in the survey, for their valuable contributions to the
investigation.
REFERENCES
1. Lebo, J., and D. Schelling. Design and Appraisal of Rural Transport
Infrastructure: Ensuring Basic Access for Rural Communities. World
Bank, Washington D.C., 2001.

Transportation Research Record 2101

2. Schliessler, A., and A. Bull. Caminos: Un Nuevo Enfoque para la

Gestin y Conservacin de Redes Viales. CEPAL, Santiago, Chile, 1994.
3. Manual de Carreteras, Vol. 7: Mantenimiento Vial. Ministerio de Obras
Pblicas, Santiago, Chile, 2000.
4. Almonacid, M., and C. Gahona. Sistema de Administracin del Mantenimiento. In 6th International Congress PROVIAL, Chilln, Chile,
2002.
5. Hudson, W. R., R. Haas, and W. Uddin. Infrastructure Management:
Integrating Design, Construction, Maintenance, Rehabilitation, and
Renovation. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
6. Sayers, M., T. Gillespie, and C. Queiroz. The International Road
Roughness Experiment. World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1986.
7. Al-Omari, B., and M. I. Darter. Effect of Pavement Deterioration Types
on IRI and Rehabilitation. In Transportation Research Record 1505,
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 5765.
8. Dewan, S. A., and R. E. Smith. Estimating International Roughness
Index from Pavement Distresses to Calculate Vehicle Operating Costs
for the San Francisco Bay Area. In Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1816, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.,
2002, pp. 6572.
9. Yau, J.-T., J.-D. Lin, and L. Hsiao. Correlation Analysis Between International Roughness Index and Pavement Distress by Neural Network.
Presented at 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 2003.
10. Archondo-Callao, R. RED: Software User Guide and Case Studies.
World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2004.
11. Caldwell, R., and E. Wilson. Variable Safety Improvements for
Unpaved Roads. In Proc., 1996 ITE International Conference, Institute
of Transportation Engineers, Dana Point, Calif., 1996.
12. Granlund, J. Whole-Body Vibration When Riding on Rough Roads.
Swedish National Road Administration, Borlnge, Sweden, 2000.
13. Watanatada, T., H. Clell, and P. William. The Highway Design and Maintenance Standards Model: Vol. 1, Description of the HDM-III Model.
World Bank, Washington D.C., 1987.
14. Archondo-Callao, R. Unpaved Roads Roughness Estimation by Subjective Evaluation. Infrastructure Notes No. RT-2. World Bank,
Washington, D.C., 1999.
15. Gaete, R. Anlisis Tcnico y Econmico de Acciones de Conservacin en
Pavimentos Asflticos. Masters thesis, Ponticia Universidad Catlica
de Chile, Santiago, 1994.
16. Loizos, A., and C. Plati. Road Roughness Measured by Prolograph in
Relation to Users Perception and the Need for Repair: A Case Study.
In CD Compendium: International Conference on Pavement Evaluation
(CD-ROM), Roanoke, Va., 2002.
17. De Solminihac, H., R. Salsilli, E. Khler, and E. Bengoa. Analysis of
Pavement Serviceability for the AASHTO Design Method: The Chilean
Case. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 2B,
2003, pp. 143159.
18. Mrquez, J. Desarrollo de una Metodologa para Determinar el Estado
de Pavimentos y Bermas. Masters thesis, Ponticia Universidad Catlica
de Chile, Santiago, 2006.
19. Vlez, I. El Mtodo Delphi. Facultad de Ingeniera Industrial Politcnico
Grancolombiano, Bogota, Colombia, 2003.
20. Estudio Bsico: Modelos de Deterioro de Caminos No Pavimentados.
Ministerio de Obras Pblicas, Santiago, Chile, 2008.
21. Jones, D., and P. Paige-Green. Draft TMH12:Pavement Management
SystemsStandard Visual Assessment, Manual for Unsealed Roads.
Committee of Land Transport Officials, Pretoria, South Africa, 2000.
22. Eaton R. A., and R. E. Beaucham. Unsurfaced Road Maintenance
Management. CRREL Special Report 92-26. Cold Regions Research
and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Hanover, N.H., 1992.
23. Roohanirad, A. Infrastructure Asset Management Need Study Guide,
Vol. 1 and 2. TransEducation Program, Jackson County, Mo., 2000.
24. Minitab Inc. MINITAB 14.20. State College, Penn., 2005.
25. Sectorizacin 2006. Ministerio de Obras Pblicas, Chile, 2006.
The Low-Volume Roads Committee sponsored publication of this paper.