road management after koica training(camkaa 2009) ii

04/08/23

Presented by: TEP VIRITH

ROAD MANAGEMENT after KOICA TrainingNational Road No. 3

(Rehabilitation Project)

Contents

● 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.

● 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.

General Background

Objectives

Item Total Remarks

Length137.5 km

4-Lanes : 5.35km (-2.75Km+2.60 Km) 2-Lanes :132.15 km

Width4-Lanes : B=16.6m

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

2-Lanes : B=11.0m

Design Speed

80 km/h Downtown Area : 60 km/h

Bridge 575.0 m / 27units

Box 375.0 m / 30units

PavementType

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

● 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

Project Description

Engineering Consultants

● Korea Consultants International

in association with Yoosin Engineering Corp.

Execution Agency

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

● Sub-consultants are Khmer Consultant Engineering Corporation Ltd

and Vido Engineering Consultant Co., Ltd

Classification of the Project Road

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

poor alignment sections.

● 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.

ClassificationTopography

Flat Rolling/Mountainous

Design Speed (km/hr) 80 60

Minimum Curve Radius (m) 255 135

Minimum Curve Length (m) > 4.5° 140 100

< 4.5° 630 / θ 450 / θ

Vertical Gradient (%) Standard 4-6 5-9

Minimum Vertical CurveVariation Rate (m/%)

Type 凸 30 15

Type 凹 28 15

Critical Grade Length for Design Speed (m) 500 300

Sight Distance (m) 115 70

Standard Slope of Cross Section (%) 3 3

Curves with Adverse Cross fall (m) 1,250 -

Maximum Super-elevation (%) 6 6

Geometric Design Standard

Minimum Width of Carriageway

ClassificationDesign Speed

(km/h)Rural Area

Urban Area

Remarks

GeneralRoad

More than 80 3.50 3.25 - Rural area of 3.5m ⇒ 2-Lanes - Urban area of 3.1m ⇒ 4-Lanes, connecting

with the existing road

More than 70 3.25 3.25

More than 60 3.25 3.0

Less than 60 3.0 3.0

Road Shoulder

Classification Design Speed (km/h)Minimum Shoulder

(m)Remarks

GeneralRoad

More than 80 2.00 Applied

Less than 80 ~ More than 60 1.50

Less than 60 1.50

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.

KOUK TRAB

NHAENG NHANG

ANKOR MEASPREY NHUEK

CHHUK

TRAM KAK

14

7+

10

0

SECTION -1 SECTION -2 SECTION - 3 SECTION - 4

4

22

31

3

AIR PORT

14

6+

15

0

L=0.95kmL=2.75km L=1.65km L=132.15km

3

PROJECT ROAD / L=137.5km

Figure 6.2.1 Solution of route by section

Area

Background of Investigation

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

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

Horizontal Alignment

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

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

Bridge•37.5m/1Nos•Condition : Bad

•137m/2Nos•Condition : Good

Obstacle •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

Investigated Section

Figure 1. Comparison of Alternative Alignments

ClassificationAlternative 1 Alternative 2

Existing Alignment Modified Alignments

(1) Section 1

Result of Investigation

22+600

22+700

Alternative-1Existing Bridge

Alternative-2

Sta

.22

+4

00

Sta

.23

+1

00

Length = 0.7km

Toek Tla

Krain Pourng

Pagada

Primary School

River

New Bridge

To Phnom Penh

To Kampot


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

ClassificationAlternative 1 Alternative 2

Existing Alignment Modified Alignments

23+400

Sta

.23+

400

Sta

.24+

200

23+600 23+700 23+800 23+900 24+000

Alternative-1

Existing Bridge Existing Bridge

Length = 0.8km

New Bridge New Bridge

Alternative-2Alternative-1

Alternative-2

To Phnom Penh

To Kampot


Photo

Alignment ● R=70 (Existing Alignment) ● Straight

Bridge ● 2 Existing Bridges ● 2 New Bridges2

Obstacle ● No obstacle● 7 January River compensation

for additional lands

Construction Cost

● Low ● High

Selection ◎

Typical Cross Section

TYPE-1(4 LANES)

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

TYPE-2 (2 LANES) GENERAL SECTION

EXISTING PAVEMENT

BITUMINOUS PRIME COAT

SUBBASE COURSE(T=200mm)

AGGREGATE BASE COURSE(T=200mm)

DOUBLE BITUMINOUS SURFACE TREATMENT

OF ROADWAYCL

FINISHED GRADE

GUIDE POST

VAR

AGGREGATE BASE COURSE

SUBGRADE LEVEL

SUBBASE COURSE

(CONCRETE)

16,600

3,100 3,100200CARRIAGEWAY CARRIAGEWAY

3,100CARRIAGEWAY

3,100CARRIAGEWAY

1,5001,500SHOULDER

GUIDE POST

(CONCRETE)

500 500

VAR

SHOULDER

SEE DETAIL "A"

EXISTING PAVEMENT





OF ROADWAYCL

1,500CARRIAGEWAY

3,500

11,000

FINISHED GRADE

1,500CARRIAGEWAY

3,500500 500

GUIDE POST

VAR


SUBGRADE LEVEL

SUBBASE COURSE

(CONCRETE)

VAR

SHOULDER SHOULDER

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

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

EXISTING PAVEMENT


SUBGRADE LEVEL





OF ROADWAYCL

1,500CARRIAGEWAY

3,500

11,000

FINISHED GRADE

1,500CARRIAGEWAY

3,500 500500

SUBBASE COURSE

GUIDE POST

(CONCRETE)

SUB- GRADE(T=450mm)

EMBANKMENT

GUIDE POST

(CONCRETE)

SHOULDERSHOULDER

EXISTING PAVEMENT





HOUSEOF ROADWAY

CL

2,000CARRIAGEWAY

3,500

11,000

FINISHED GRADE

2,000CARRIAGEWAY

3,500

HOUSE


SUBGRADE LEVEL

SUBBASE COURSE

SIDE PIPE CULVERT(D=800mm) SIDE PIPE CULVERT(D=800mm)

Bridge Layout

Bridge Type

Classification Bridge Name No.Length

(m)Width (m)

Remarks

Using of Existing Bridge

Three bridges including SLAKOU Bridge

3 230.5 8.0-9.0good condition

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

Total 30 805.5

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 Fair Poor

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

Summary of Condition 51 3 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

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 45 11 88

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 35

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 35

13 62+415 ST DECK 13.9 5.6 PSC DECK 15 11 58

14 65+796 PSC BEAM 100.0 12.0 USE 35

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

Current Status Plan

NO. Sta. TypeLength

(m)Width

(m)Type

Length(m)

Width(m)

Raising of Vertical Alignment

(cm)

Current Status Plan

NO. Sta. TypeLength

(m)Width

(m)Type

Length(m)

Width(m)


(cm)

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 15 11 52

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 35

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

Current Status Plan

NO. Sta. TypeLength

(m)Width

(m)Type

Length(m)

Width(m)


(cm)

35 103+681 RC SLAB 5.7 4.9 BOX 35

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 35

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

Pavement Type

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

● 4 Lanes (L=1065 km) ● Sta. 12+350 ~ Sta. 14+000

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.

Results of Comparison

Cross Section

DBSTAsphalt ConcreteClassification

Pavement Thickness

Item Urban Area (4 Lanes) Rural Area (2 Lanes)

Pavement Type Asphalt Concrete DBST

Applied Design Standard

AASHTO

18 Kips ESAL Traffic

10 years 3.066x106 1.797x106

20 years 8.418x106 4.868x106

Layer Composition and Thickness

Construction Cost US$208,000/km US$124,000/km

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

A/C Surface(t=7.0cm)

Base Course(t=22.0cm)

Subbase Course(t=35.0cm)

DBST

Base Course(t=20.0cm)

Subbase Course(t=30.0cm)

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 already-

developed 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

Borrow Pits

Aggregate Sites

AddressDistance

(km)Capacity

( ㎥ )Remarks

A-1Stung Slakou in Takeo Province

66 100,000 66k (fine aggregate)

Borrow Pits

AddressDistance

(km)Capacity

( ㎥ )Remarks

B-1Veal in Kampong

Speu Province41 100,000 39k+000 RHS 2km

B-2Stung Slakou in Takeo Province

66 300,000 65k+900 RHS 100m

B-3Phnom Noreay in Kampot Province

96 250,000 96k+000 RHS 150m

B-4Phnom Troryoeung in

Kampot Province128 250,000

127k+900 RHS 100m

THE END

road management after koica training(camkaa 2009) ii

Documents