Road Management After Koica Training(camkaa 2009) Ii

ROAD MANAGEMENT after KOICA Training National Road No. 3 (Rehabilitation Project)

Presented by: TEP VIRITH 10/04/09

Contents

General Background ● ●

●

Plan for improving deteriorated roads due to heavy traffic and lack of maintenance was formulated. During the past decade, national roads were improved with financial assistance from international financing agencies but the project road has not been completely repaired. The project road was further deteriorated due to flood damage in 2000. Accordingly, this project road will contribute to the strengthening of national road network, reduction in transport cost, regional industrial development, poverty reduction and tourism development along the southern coastal areas including Bokor National Park.

Objectives ● ●

To prepare Detailed Design for the Rehabilitation of NR No.3 (Phnom Penh ~ Kampot ) Phase II Project. To invite and employ a contractor for execution of the project.

Project Description ● ●

Beginning and Ending points of the project road : Sta.9+600 ~ Sta.147+100 Detailed Design Period: October 2007 ~ April 2008 (6 months)

●

Summary of the Project Item Length

Width

Total

Remarks

137.5 km 4-Lanes : 5.35km (-2.75Km+2.60 Km) 2-Lanes :132.15 km 4-Lanes : B=16.6m

Sta.12+350 ~ Sta.14+000 Sta.146+150 ~ Sta.147+1000

2-Lanes : B=11.0m Design Speed

80 km/h

Bridge

575.0 m / 27units

Box

375.0 m / 30units

Pavement Type

Asphalt : 1.65Km DBST : 133.10km(132.15Km+0.95Km)

Downtown Area : 60 km/h

Execution Agency ● Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MPWT), Cambodia.

Engineering Consultants ● Korea Consultants International in association with Yoosin Engineering Corp. ● Sub-consultants are Khmer Consultant Engineering Corporation Ltd and Vido Engineering Consultant Co., Ltd

Classification of the Project Road ●

National Road NO.3

Design Speed ●

Design speed of 80km/hr was adopted based on the results of comprehensive reviews including accessibility to among major cities, connectivity of road networks, existing alignment plans, land used, traffic safety, etc.

●

Design speed of 60km/hr was adopted for modified alignment sections including poor alignment sections.

Geometric Design Standard Classification

Topography Flat

Rolling/Mountainous

Design Speed (km/hr)

80

60

Minimum Curve Radius (m)

255

135

> 4.5°

140

100

< 4.5°

630 / θ

450 / θ

Standard

4-6

5-9

Type 凸

30

15

Type 凹

28

15

Critical Grade Length for Design Speed (m)

500

300

Sight Distance (m)

115

70

3

3

1,250

-

6

6

Minimum Curve Length (m) Vertical Gradient (%) Minimum Vertical Curve Variation Rate (m/%)

Standard Slope of Cross Section (%) Curves with Adverse Cross fall (m) Maximum Super-elevation (%)

Minimum Width of Carriageway Classification General Road

Design Speed Rural Area (km/h)

Urban Area

More than 80

3.50

3.25

More than 70

3.25

3.25

More than 60

3.25

3.0

Less than 60

3.0

3.0

Remarks - Rural area of 3.5m ⇒ 2-Lanes - Urban area of 3.1m ⇒ 4-Lanes, connecting with the existing road

Road Shoulder Classification

Design Speed (km/h)

Minimum Shoulder (m)

Remarks

General Road

More than 80

2.00

Applied

Less than 80 ~ More than 60

1.50

Less than 60

1.50

Background of Investigation

TO

TA

N

I

OE AK T O

In this project route, most horizontal alignments are in good conditions and those of the existing road can be used. However, the alignment of the existing road between Sta. 22+400 and Sta. 24+200 is in poor condition and there are 3 big river bridges. It is considered to be necessary to take such actions as safety management, proper works, cost estimation and land acquisition for bridge construction.

T

31

CHHUK

ANKOR MEAS

3

146+150

22

U TO O

KOUK TRAB

4

3

AY SAR

12+350

9+600 AIR PORT

PREY NHUEK

147+100

NHAENG NHANG

TRAM KAK

Area

SECTION -1

SECTION -2

SECTION - 3

SECTION - 4

L=2.75km

L=1.65km

L=132.15km

L=0.95km

PROJECT ROAD / L=137.5km

Figure 6.2.1

Solution of route by section

Investigated Section  Table 1. Present Conditions of Investigated Sections Classification Selection 1

Selection 2

Location

Sta.22+400~Sta 23+100

Sta.23+400~Sta 24+200

Length

L=700m

L=800km

Road Width Horizontal Alignment Bridge Obstacle

•Pavement Width : 6.0~7.0mm •Shoulder Width : 1.5m~2.0m

•Pavement Width : 5.0~7.0mm •Shoulder Width : 1.4m~1.8m

•Straight : 500m/2Nos •Curve : R=500/1Nos

•Straight : 730m/2Nos •Curve : R=70/1Nos

•37.5m/1Nos •Condition : Bad

•137m/2Nos •Condition : Good

•22+800(LHS) : Toek Tlar Pagoda

•22+800(RHS) : 7 January River

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Sta.22+702

Sta.23+750

Sta.23+920

Bad Condition

Fair Condition

Good Condition

Result of Investigation (1) Section 1 Figure 1. Comparison of Alternative Alignments Classification

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Existing Alignment

Modified Alignments

Krain Pourng Primary School

Alternative-2

River New Bridge

Toek Tla Pagada

22+400

22 22+5 +500 00

22+ 600 22+600

To Kampot

22+700

22+800 22+800

22+900 22+900

00 23+ +0000 23

23+100

Existing Bridge

Alternative-1 Length = 0.7km

To Phnom Penh

Sta.23+100

Sta.22+400

22+700

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alignment

R=500

R=700 (Good)

Existing Bridge

To be replaced

To be replaced

Location of Bridge Construction

Same location of the existing bridge

18m left of the existing bridge

Obstacle

Existing water gate

Toek Tlar Pagoda

Construction of Temporary Bridge

Temporary bridge required during construction.

Temporary bridge not required.

Workability

Bad

Good

Construction Cost

High

Low

Selection

◎

(2) Section 2 Figure 2, Comparison of Alternative Alignments Classification

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Existing Alignment

Modified Alignments

Alternative-2 Alternative-1

Existing Bridge 00 23+8

Existing Bridge 23+ 900

To Kampot

00 23+7

24+ 00

00 23+6

23+400

23+500

23+600

23+800

23+700

23+900

0

24+000

24+1 00

New Bridge

Alternative-1 Alternative-2 Length = 0.8km

To Phnom Penh

New Bridge

Sta.24+200

Sta.23+400

24+20 0

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Photo

Alignment Bridge Obstacle

● R=70 (Existing Alignment)

● Straight

● 2 Existing Bridges

● 2 New Bridges2

● No obstacle

● 7 January River compensation for additional lands

Construction ● Low Cost Selection

● High ◎

Typical Cross Section TYPE-1(4 LANES) 16,600 500

1,500 SHOULDER

3,100 CARRIAGEWAY

3,100 CARRIAGEWAY

200

3,100 CARRIAGEWAY

3,100 CARRIAGEWAY

1,500 500 SHOULDER

GUIDE POST (CONCRETE)

GUIDE POST (CONCRETE) CL OF ROADWAY

VAR

FINISHED GRADE

VAR

EXISTING PAVEMENT DOUBLE BITUMINOUS SURFACE TREATMENT BITUMINOUS PRIME COAT

AGGREGATE BASE COURSE SUBBASE COURSE

AGGREGATE BASE COURSE(T=200mm) SUBBASE COURSE(T=200mm)

SUBGRADE LEVEL

Typical cross section was made in consideration of the existing road and its connectivity.

TYPE-2 (2 LANES) GENERAL SECTION 11,000 500

1,500 SHOULDER

3,500 CARRIAGEWAY

3,500 CARRIAGEWAY

1,500 500 SHOULDER

GUIDE POST SEE DETAIL "A"

(CONCRETE) C L OF ROADWAY

VAR

FINISHED GRADE

EXISTING PAVEMENT DOUBLE BITUMINOUS SURFACE TREATMENT

AGGREGATE BASE COURSE SUBBASE COURSE SUBGRADE LEVEL

BITUMINOUS PRIME COAT AGGREGATE BASE COURSE(T=200mm) SUBBASE COURSE(T=200mm)

VAR

TYPICAL CROSS SECTION TYPE-3 (2 LANES) RAISED SECTION 500

1,500 SHOULDER

11,000

3,500 CARRIAGEWAY

3,500 CARRIAGEWAY

1,500 500 SHOULDER

GUIDE POST

GUIDE POST

(CONCRETE)

(CONCRETE) CL OF ROADWAY

FINISHED GRADE

EXISTING PAVEMENT

EMBANKMENT

DOUBLE BITUMINOUS SURFACE TREATMENT BITUMINOUS PRIME COAT

AGGREGATE BASE COURSE SUBBASE COURSE

AGGREGATE BASE COURSE(T=200mm) SUBBASE COURSE(T=200mm)

SUBGRADE LEVEL SUB- GRADE(T=450mm)

Applied Section : Areas expected to be submerged (based on field study and data of MPWT) TYPE-4 (2 LANES) BUILT-UP SECTION

Section: Sta. 43+200 – 44+100, Sta. 54+500 – 55+289 Sta. 74+200 – 75+000, Sta. 107+000 – 107+604 11,000

2,000

3,500 CARRIAGEWAY

CL OF ROADWAY

HOUSE

3,500 CARRIAGEWAY

2,000

HOUSE FINISHED GRADE

SIDE PIPE CULVERT(D=800mm)

SIDE PIPE CULVERT(D=800mm) EXISTING PAVEMENT

DOUBLE BITUMINOUS SURFACE TREATMENT AGGREGATE BASE COURSE SUBBASE COURSE SUBGRADE LEVEL

BITUMINOUS PRIME COAT AGGREGATE BASE COURSE(T=200mm) SUBBASE COURSE(T=200mm)

Bridge Layout

Bridge Type Classification

Bridge Name

No.

Length (m)

Width (m)

3

230.5

8.0-9.0

Using of Existing Bridge

Three bridges including SLAKOU Bridge

P.S.C. deck Bridge

21 bridges including BR. 1

21

415.0

11.0-12.0

R.C. Slab Bridge BR. 3, 9, 18, 20, 23 and 26

6

160.0

11.0-12.0

30

805.5

Total

Remarks good condition

Typical Cross Section Using of Existing Bridge

Town Bridge w/Sidewalk

P.S.C. Deck Bridge

R.C. Slab Bridge

Results of the Investigation ● ●

There are 51 bridges including 2 new ones under this project scheme which consist of 43 bridges with span length less than 20m and 8 bridges more than 20m. The results of investigation about conditions of superstructures are described in Table 2 and further details on each type of bridge superstructure are described in Table 3.

Table 2. Summary of Condition of the Existing Bridges Type

Span Length

Numbers

Good

PSC Beam

7~40m

2

2

RCS, RCT

4~14m

35

35

S.T. Truss GR.

12~50m

13

13

S.T. Plate GR.

52.5m

1

1

51

3

Summary of Condition

Fair

Poor

48

Figure

Mdech Popel Bridge (Sta. 67+097, RC Slab)

Slakou Bridge (Sta. 65+796, PSC Beam)

Determination of water level and design level of bridges The water level for each bridge was measured and in the bridge No.3, the height of the highest reservoir gate was used as H.W.L. The bridge No.50 & 51 which has some flood problems, recommendations made by MPWT in Phnom Penh, was designed to raise design level by 1.0 m to solve the problems in accordance with recommendations made by MPWT in Phnom Penh. Applying all of these, the design levels were determined to have clearance more than 60cm below bridge bearings.

Structure Plan 1) Vertical Alignment Necessity for superstructure replacement was investigated in view of raising the design level of superstructure for bridges to be potentially inundated and to have low clearances. In case, design level should be higher, the height of the substructure should also be raised, and that makes construction work more difficult. Thus, in case of replacing a superstructure of an existing bridge, it was decided that a substructure as well as a superstructure would be replaced considering maintenance in the future even if the substructure is in good condition. Because of insufficient hydrological data, H.W.L. in each bridge was estimated by means of interviewing with local officials and residents. For a bridge across a reservoir, it was estimated as high as the embankment.

Table 3. Current Status and Plan of Existing Bridges Current Status

Plan

NO.

Sta.

Type

Length (m)

Width (m)

Type

Length (m)

1

18+644

RC SLAB

6.5

8.9

BOX

35

2

21+120

RC SLAB

4.2

6.7

BOX

35

3

22+702

RC SLAB

37.2

9.8

PSC DECK

4

23+749

PSC BEAM

78.0

10.0

USE

35

5

23+917

ST PLATE

52.5

12.0

USE

35

6

24+900

ST DECK

15.0

4.6

PSC DECK

15

11

56

7

25+735

ST DECK

36.6

6.2

RC SLAB

40

12

66

8

31+358

ST DECK

12.0

4.4

PSC DECK

12

11

81

9

45+688

RCT

4.1

10.2

BOX

10

56+595

RC SLAB

11.4

7.0

PSC DECK

15

11

52

11

57+280

ST DECK

17.1

4.3

PSC DECK

25

11

96

12

60+353

RC SLAB

8.8

7.8

BOX

13

62+415

ST DECK

13.9

5.6

PSC DECK

14

65+796

PSC BEAM

100.0

12.0

USE

15

66+695

ST DECK

56.0

4.2

PSC DECK

55

11

52

16

67+093

RC SLAB

6.9

7.0

RC SLAB

20

11

108

45

Width (m)

11

Raising of Vertical Alignment (cm)

88

35

35 15

11

58 35

Current Status

Plan

NO.

Sta.

Type

Length (m)

Width (m)

Type

Length (m)

17

68+875

ST DECK

6.1

4.0

BOX

35

18

69+745

RCT

8.5

6.9

BOX

35

19

71+645

RCT

6.6

6.7

BOX

35

20

74+819

RCT

6.8

6.7

PSC DECK

21

79+036

RCT

4.7

6.0

BOX

35

22

79+708

RC SLAB

6.2

7.3

BOX

35

23

80+737

RC SLAB

8.9

6.2

BOX

35

24

81+355

RC SLAB

14.7

7.2

PSC DECK

15

11

53

25

88+835

RC SLAB

7.4

8.0

PSC DECK

10

11

73

26

91+559

ST DECK

12.3

5.0

PSC DECK

15

11

57

27

92+345

RCT

12.0

7.7

PSC DECK

12

11

64

28

93+995

RCT

8.9

9.2

BOX

29

97+375

RCT

12.4

7.8

PSC DECK

15

12

53

30

98+022

RCT

12.2

7.8

PSC DECK

12

11

52

31

99+261

RC SLAB

8.3

9.1

BOX

35

32

99+698

RC SLAB

8.1

PIPE

35

33

101+424

RC SLAB

6.3

4.5

BOX

35

34

102+243

RCT

10.3

4.1

BOX

35

15

Width (m)

11

Raising of Vertical Alignment (cm)

52

35

Current Status

Plan

NO.

Sta.

Type

Length (m)

Width (m)

Type

Length (m)

Width (m)

Raising of Vertical Alignment (cm)

35

103+681

RC SLAB

5.7

4.9

BOX

36

105+847

ST DECK

48.4

5.6

PSC DECK

50

11

64

37

106+928

ST DECK

18.3

4.0

RC SLAB

20

12

77

38

108+976

ST DECK

16.7

5.1

PSC DECK

15

11

53

39

110+090

RC SLAB

7.6

5.7

BOX

35

40

112+991

RC SLAB

6.9

6.9

BOX

35

41

115+943

ST DECK

39.0

5.3

RC SLAB

40

11

57

42

119+580

RC SLAB

7.7

5.0

PSC DECK

10

12

58

43

121+196

RC SLAB

10.0

4.7

BOX

35

44

125+739

RC SLAB

4.5

8.2

BOX

35

45

128+952

RC SLAB

12.4

6.2

PSC DECK

12

11

56

46

130+137

RC SLAB

18.5

5.5

RC SLAB

20

11

58

47

136+717

RC SLAB

12.0

7.3

PSC DECK

12

11

53

48

138+057

RC SLAB

14.3

6.7

PSC DECK

15

11

57

49

140+055

RC SLAB

6.5

5.8

BOX

50

143+740

RC SLAB

15.3

5.8

RC SLAB

20

11

1.35

51

145+721

ST DECK

24.1

5.2

PSC DECK

25

12

1.43

35

35

Pavement Type Classification

Asphalt Concrete

DBST

Cross Section

Results of Comparison

Selection

●The beginning section which is planned to be 4-lane road was paved with asphalt concrete and has a heavy traffic volume. Therefore, asphalt concrete pavement would be advantageous since it has low deterioration rate and low maintenance cost during the service life. ●The section after Sta. 14+000 which is planned to be 2~4 lane road will be connected with the road between Kampot ~ Trapang (NR No. 3) constructed with DBST pavement. Therefore, DBST pavement would be advantageous in consideration of the connectivity with NR No. 3, low initial investment cost, constructability and economic viability. ● 4 Lanes (L=1065 km) ● Sta. 12+350 ~ Sta. 14+000

● 2 Lanes (L=132.15 km) ● 4 Lanes (L=0.95 km)

Pavement Thickness Item

Urban Area (4 Lanes)

Rural Area (2 Lanes)

Pavement Type

Asphalt Concrete

DBST

Applied Design Standard 18 Kips ESAL Traffic

AASHTO

10 years

3.066x106

1.797x106

20 years

8.418x106

4.868x106

A/C Surface(t=7.0cm)

DBST

Base Course(t=22.0cm)

Base Course(t=20.0cm)

Layer Composition and Thickness

Subbase Course(t=35.0cm) Construction Cost Overlay

US$208,000/km

Subbase Course(t=30.0cm)

US$124,000/km

T=5cm, 10th year from road opening to service (Year 2021)

Background Materials survey for establishing their supply plan as well as reviewing their mechanical characteristics of coarse aggregates, fine coarse aggregates and subgrade materials was conducted to explore the material sources available in the areas of alreadydeveloped sites and potential material source sites. It would be better to use self-plant to be constructed rather than purchased from existing plants because conveyance distances from the existing plants are long and the quality of materials from the self-plant will be guaranteed.

Aggregate Sites Aggregate Sites

Address

Distance (km)

Capacity (㎥ )

Remarks

A-1

Stung Slakou in Takeo Province

66

100,000

66k (fine aggregate)

Borrow Pits Borrow Pits

Address

Distance (km)

Capacity (㎥ )

Remarks

B-1

Veal in Kampong Speu Province

41

100,000

39k+000 RHS 2km

B-2

Stung Slakou in Takeo Province

66

300,000

65k+900 RHS 100m

B-3

Phnom Noreay in Kampot Province

96

250,000

96k+000 RHS 150m

B-4

Phnom Troryoeung in Kampot Province

128

250,000

127k+900 RHS 100m

THE END