royal government of cambodia - mpwt.gov.kh. mission report of... · royal government of cambodia...

Royal Government of Cambodia

Ministry of Public Works and Transport

ADB LOAN(SF) 2373-CAM

GREATER MEKONG SUBREGION SOUTHERN COASTAL CORRIDOR PROJECT

Construction and Maintenance Supervision

Mission Report of Material for NR33 and NR3 October 2011

Version A

In Association with Khmer Associates Consultant Engineers Co. Ltd. Key Consultants Cambodia, Khmer Consultant Engineering Corporation Ltd. SBK Research and Development, and VIDO Engineering Consultant Co. Ltd.

ADB/GMS‐SCCP CW1&CW2 Mission Report of Material for NR33 and NR3 Egis International

2 | P a g e

GMS Southern Coastal Corridor Project

P. Cario – Report Mission 3‐16/10/2011

Contents1. Purpose of the Mission ...............................................................................................................................3

2. Mission Findings ..........................................................................................................................................3

2.1 Unsuitable materials of existing subgrade ................................................................................................3

2.1.1 Tests Pits of existing subgrade of NR 33 ............................................................................................5

2.1.2 Tests analysis results ..........................................................................................................................5

2.1.3 Site Photos of Investigation Pits ........................................................................................................5

2.2 Subgrade, sub‐base, base course and crushed aggregates for DBST for NR33 ........................................6

2.2.1 Lateritic borrow area “THKOW Mountain” ........................................................................................6

2.2.2 Stone quarry / crushing plant ............................................................................................................6

2.3 Provision of Laboratory Equipment for NR33 ...........................................................................................7

2.4 Materials for NR3 and stability of verge/margin of NR3 ..........................................................................8

3. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 10

Attachment 1 – AASHTO M145‐91

Attachment 2 ‐ Laboratory Test Results of Existing Subgrade Materials of NR33

Attachment 3 ‐ Site Photos of Investigation Pits

Attachment 4 ‐ FICHE GITE MATERIAUX

Attachment 5 – Proposed list of Laboratory Equipment from Contractor

Attachment 6 – Laboratory Equipment for SCCP – CW1 Contract

Attachment 7 – Photos of the borrow pit and quarry of materials for NR3

Attachment 8 ‐ Laboratory Test Results of Sample No. S035


5 | P a g e

2.1.1TestsPitsofexistingsubgradeofNR33

Pit No 1 Pk/km 2.660 R.S ~ 2m of flooded paddy field 0.00 – 0.20 Fine gray sand to very fine Sand, red and yellow color Sample A 0.20 – 0.45 Id. more wet Sample B 0.45 – 1.60 Id. with small layers of clayed sand/sandy clay.

Pit No 2 Pk/km 7.80 L.S 0.00 – 0.25 Sand and Clayed Sand yellow – red Sample A 0.25 – 0.60 Fine sand, no cohesion because it is very wet Sample B 0.60 – 1.70 Id. with more clay

Water penetration at 0.60 deep – Sand slide/fall into the pit

Pit No 3 Pk/km 10.770 R.S 0.00 – 0.25 Lateritic materials Sample A 0.25 – 0.60 Sand fine gray light clayed Sample B 0.60 – 1.60 Sandy clay with yellow and red color

2.1.2Testsanalysisresults

Pit no Sample LL PI MDD + OMC (%)

CBR (%)

Pit no 1 A 2.2.2 9.06 2.052 g/cc 7.30

2.80

B 27.20 16.04 2.029 g/cc 10.30

2.00

Pit no 2 A No Plastic 1.775 g/cc 7.90

12.05

B No Plastic 1.995 g/cc 9.80

18.0

Pit no 3 A No Plastic 1.989 g/cc 8.60

21.0

B 36.7 23.51 1.975 g/cc 8.50

0.80

(See Attachment 2 ‐ Laboratory Test Results of Existing Subgrade Materials of NR33)

All materials are not unsuitable according to AASHTO Standard.

Only Sample B of pit No 3 has bad results of CBR (less than 1), but this bad or unsuitable material is ~1m

below the good materials of CBR – 21.0, so it shouldn’t be removed.

2.1.3SitePhotosofInvestigationPits(See Attachment 3 ‐ Site Photos of Investigation Pits)


6 | P a g e

2.2Subgrade,sub‐base,basecourseandcrushedaggregatesforDBSTforNR33

2.2.1Lateriticborrowarea“THKOWMountain”Investigation results of the lateritic borrow area are given in the attached page “Attachment 4 ‐ FICHE GITE

MATERIAUX”.

Based on the test result from laboratory and visual inspection, Materials from “THKOW Mountain” are good

for subgrade and correct for sub‐base. Engineer should carry out frequent visit/select the material

extraction areas, taking samples and send to laboratory for testing as per Sampling and Testing Frequency

specified in the Technical Specification. Trial section for compaction is necessary to determine a good

moisture content W%, number of passes for compaction required.

2.2.2Stonequarry/crushingplantStone Quarry is located approximately 500m from Engineer site camp road No 33 and 23km from Project

Site – Currently extractions are at several levels on the side of the mountain – but good material of fresh

rocks (Petrography Basalt family rock) are available only at the bottom/base of the mountain.

Fresh black rock is good for DBST crushed aggregates but not the yellow weathered rock at upper levels.

Based on the visual inspection, the gradation and flakiness index of the present production of aggregate

chips are not correct for road construction (base course pavement and DBST). Actually, the main products

are for concrete. The correct scheme of crushing and screening is required in order to achieve a correct

material for base course and crushed aggregates for DBST.

The crushing and screening plant can produce the correct materials for road aggregates unless there is

enough equipment and follow the production line as per the above sketch. After re‐arranged the plant,

surveys/controls and checking the grading, flakiness, hardness tests… will be required. Only the fresh black

stone is good for DBST surface wearing course. Flakiness is a major problem and the correct

fabrication/production is necessary for DBST. (All productions passed by gyratory crusher can give a good

production/crushing unless the crusher is full of boulder rock).


7 | P a g e

2.3ProvisionofLaboratoryEquipmentforNR33The proposed list of the Contractor through Sakor Combodia Co Ltd is not complete, many equipment

items are missing, and they are very important for proper execution of test:

‐ Weighing scale 3.5 kg capacity 0.1 gr.

‐ CBR Moulds are not correct, required more sets as per specification requirements (see page 52 of

Special Technical Specification, Soil Investigations item No. 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19).

‐ Solution for sand Equivalent test is missing.

The list of Laboratory Equipment specified in the Contract (page 50, 51, 52 & 53) is very common/typical

equipment for road construction. Only the Nuclear density meter for field density test is not really

necessary for small and medium size road construction projects and require training of the team for the

correct application/use of this Nuclear equipment.

(See Attachment 5 – Proposed list of Laboratory Equipment from Contractor and Attachment 6 –

Laboratory Equipment for SCCP – CW1 Contract)


8 | P a g e

2.4MaterialsforNR3andstabilityofverge/marginofNR3

Along Road No 3 from km 160 to 180 km several places have erosion and drop‐off of lateral slopes of

verge/margin. The existing road margin is made of crushed aggregate (base course material) – for hardness

it is correct but grading is not good (big stone/too coarse and very low percentage of fine material), this

crushed aggregate material are not suitable for verge/margin stability – also fine materials have no

plasticity, no adhesion.

Possible solution is to add a layer of lateritic gravel, but there are no lateritic gravels borrow pits near the

project site, the lateritic materials will have to be transported from a borrow pit of lateritic gravel by

crossing Kampongbay Bridge. This lateritic gravels borrow pit is located along NR3 at PK 140 offset to the

right ~3.25 Km, this borrow area is alluvial deposit at the base of the hill/mountain. After the inspection, it

was found out that these materials are not homogeneous, there are varieties of material qualities in the

area, some areas have weathered rocks with big stones, some areas have lateritic gravels with red clay, and

many places contain overburden layers of clay. This borrow area is not very favorable for extraction of

lateritic gravels materials for stability of verge/margin at both sides of the roads.

But for small quantities, it can consider taking lateritic gravel materials from this borrow area but should be

with a close monitoring for the selection of the good areas of correct materials before hauling or

transporting to the project site.

Nearby the above borrow pit, there is also a crushing plant under operation and production. The products

from this crushing plant are good for concrete but not good for road construction because the gradation

and flakiness are not correct. The problem is because of the method of production, and the method of

production shall be as below:

(See Attachment 7 – Photos of the borrow pit and quarry of materials for NR3)


9 | P a g e

There is another borrow area of lateritic gravel No II, Location PK 127 offset 350m L/S , The material from

this borrow area was used for the construction of National Road 3 from Phnom Penh to Kampot.

Analyses of sample No. S035 from the laboratory give the following results:

Gradation % 200 pass 18.7 – 19.8 Alterberg limits LL PI

32 – 34 14 – 16

Los Angeles test % abrasion

47.4

Density MDD %W OMC

2.151 9.5

CBR, Rates 44 All results are conforming to the Cambodian construction specifications.

(See Attachment 8 ‐ Laboratory Test Results of sample No. S035).


10 | P a g e

3. Conclusion‐ Existing subgrade materials of the entire length of NR33 are not unsuitable materials except for

some very few locations only. But the existing subgrades of NR33 are too wet and saturated, not

possible for compaction. So Contractor may have to wait till it dried up and have the correct OMC

and at the meantime, Contractor should seek for areas where the existing subgrades have correct

OMC and suitable for compaction, so they can continue their works on these areas without staying

idle.

‐ Lateritic gravel from THKOW Mountain are good materials and possible for use as subgrade and

sub‐base.

‐ The quarry and crushing plant is located ~500m from Engineer site camp along road No 33.

Materials from this quarry are good for concrete but not good for base course or for DBST crushed

aggregates. First, is the quality of material that only the fresh black rock at the bottom/base of the

mountain are correct for hardness (LA) ‐ Second, the method of the present production is not

correct, material with correct gradation and flakiness cannot be produced.

‐ Provision list of laboratory equipment for NR33 by the Contractor is not complete and should follow

section 2.3 and Attachment 6 – Laboratory Equipment for SCCP – CW1 Contract.

‐ For stability of verge/margin of NR3, the used of lateritic gravel shall be the most suitable. Lateritic

gravel can be found from 2 borrow areas as specified in section 2.4.

Attachment 1 – AASHTO M145‐91

Attachment 2 ‐ Laboratory Test Results of Existing Subgrade Materials of NR33

Available in Hard Copy Only

Attachment 3 ‐ Site Photos of Investigation Pits

Attachment 4 ‐ FICHE GITE MATERIAUX

Attachment 5 – Proposed list of Laboratory Equipment from Contractor

Attachment 6 – Laboratory Equipment for SCCP – CW1 Contract

Attachment 7 – Photos of the borrow pit and quarry of materials for NR3

Attachment 8 ‐ Laboratory Test Results of Sample No. S035

LOS ANGELES ABRASION TEST (AASHTO T - 96)

EDCF Loan No . KHM-6

Section : B Sampling Date :5/12/08

Lab No : S018 Testing Date :12/12/08

Sample No : S035 Sampled by : Lab. Technician

Location :PK 127+000 L/S 350m

Description : Soil Aggregate Mixture

Grading No : C No .of Spheres Used :8

Cycles : 500 1

Initial Weight : A Kg 5000 5000

Weigth Retained

After Test on B Kg 2719 2541

No .12 ASTM Sieve

% of Wear by Weight A - B x 100

Passing No . 12 ASTM Seive A

Average Loss ( % )

Remark : < 50 % Acceptable to use for Sub-base Materials

Item Name

Tested by LT

Witnessed by LE

Checked by ME

2

47.4

45.62 49.18

NATIONAL ROAD No. 3

Consultant

Position Date Signature

Contractor

Consultant

Moisture-Density Relationship(AASHTO T-180)

Section : B Sampling Date : 6 / 12/ 2008Lab. No :S.018 Testing Date : 9/12/2008

Sample No:S.035 Sampled by : Lab. Technician ( Contractor )

Sample Location : PK 127+000 L/S 350m

Sample Description : Soil aggregate mixture

Test Data:

Wt.of wet compacted mat+mould , g

Wt.of Mould , g

Wt.of wet compacted materials , g

Volume of Mould , cc

Wet Density , g/cc

3 1 8 7 10 17 10 9 5 2

Wt.of wet matrial+ Cont. , g 337.2 342.5 333.5 337.3 291.2 283.6 301.6 303.5 315.2 308.0

Wt.of dry material + Cont. , g 321.7 327.2 312.7 316.5 269.8 263.0 275.0 277.6 283.0 276.0

Weight of water , g 15.5 15.3 20.8 20.8 21.4 20.6 26.6 25.9 32.2 32.0

Weight of Container , g 46.5 48.5 40.4 44.5 44.5 46.0 40.7 45.5 44.0 44.0

Weight of dry material , g 275.2 278.7 272.3 272.0 225.3 217.0 234.3 232.1 239.0 232.0

Moisture Content , % 5.6 5.5 7.6 7.6 9.5 9.5 11.4 11.2 13.5 13.8

Average Moisture Content , %

Dry Density , g/cc

3

Item

Tested by LT

Witnessed by LE

Checked by ME

Signature

1.965

13.6

NATIONAL ROAD No.3

Mould No. : Weight of mould : 7254 g Volume of Mould : 2121 cc

7254

47364916

2.318 2.233

2121

11950 12250

7254 7254

IV V

11990

7254

1217011630

2.083

5.6 7.6 9.5 11.3

Container No.

Density Determination:

Trial No.1 I II III

1.954 2.057 2.151

4376

Name Position Date

2121

Moisture Determination:

2121

2.063 2.214 2.355

Contractor

Consultant

Consultant

7254

2121 2121

4696 4996

1.850

1.950

2.050

2.150

2.250

2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Dry

-Den

sity

, g

/cc

Moisture Content , %

Moisture - Density Curve

OMC

MDD

MDD= 2.151g/ccOMC= 9.5%

Section : BLab.Nº : S 003 Sampling Date : 05/12/2008Sample Nº : S 035 Testing Date: 11/12/2008Location : 127+00 L/S 350m Sampled By : Lab. TechnicianDescription : Soil Aggregate mixture for Sub-Base Materials

Compaction Data :

Wt.of compacted wet materials+Mould g

Wt of Mould g

Wt of wet materials in mould g

Volume of Mould cc

Wet Density=wt.of wet compacted materials/volume of mould

g/cc

Moisture Content %

Dry Density=Wet Density/(1+m/100) g/cc

Moisture Determination :

No. of blows per layer

Moisture Can No. 17 10 1 3 A10 7 7 9 11 1 10 17

Weight of Can+Wet Materials g 296.6 321.3 329.3 315.1 332.2 327.2 316.4 344.7 319.1 279.7 282.7 349.9

Wt of can +Dry Materials g 276.1 299.2 305.2 294.2 308.4 303.6 285.5 310.5 290.0 255.3 259.5 320.5

Wt of Moisture g 20.5 22.1 24.1 20.9 23.8 23.6 30.9 34.2 29.1 24.4 23.2 29.4

Wt of can g 46.0 40.7 48.5 46.5 44.5 44.5 44.5 45.5 43.0 48.5 44.5 46.0

Wt of dry materials g 230.1 258.5 256.7 247.7 263.9 259.1 241.0 265.0 247.0 206.8 215.0 274.5

Moisture content % 8.9 8.5 9.4 8.4 9.0 9.1 12.8 12.9 11.8 11.8 10.8 10.7

Average Moisture Content %

Remark : used before soaking compaction for computation

Item

Tested by LT

Witnessed by LE

Checked by MEConsultant

Name Signature

Contracror

Consultant

Position Date

9.1

2.204

8492

5298

2204

2.404

8623

4617

8779

5001

8.9

2.053

2237

2.2362.091

8.7

8.7

1.923

8.9

30

9.1

1.913

After soaking

12.9 11.8 10.8

2.044 2.207

Before soaking

10

2.159 2.285

2208 2237

13890

E

8779

4767 5111 5388

2204

No. of Blows per layer

Mould No.

13780 13790

2208

13880

8492

10.8

10 30 65

2.445

12.9 11.8

8623

65

Moisture-Density Relationship (AASHTO T-180)

NATIONAL ROAD No.3

D E F

10 Blows 30 Blows 65 Blows

D

13240

F

13390

After soakingBefore soaking

10 Blows 30 Blows 65 Blows

Lab.No.: S 018 Sampling Date: 5/12/2008Sample No. : S 035 Testing Date: 11/12/2008Location: Pk 127+000 350mL/S 350 m Smpled by : Lab.TechnicianSWELL DATA :

Swell % Swell % Swell %

0 Start 0.000 0.000 0.000

9/12/2008 24 0.192 0.109 0.084

10/12/2008 48 0.201 0.126 0.167

11/12/2008 72 0.209 0.126 0.167

12/12/2008 96 Ended 0.209 0.134 0.167

mmDial

ReadingLoad in

KgfStress in

Kgf/cm2Dial

ReadingLoad in

KgfStress in

Kgf/cm2 Dial ReadingLoad in

KgfStress in

Kgf/cm2

0.00 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00.64 7 104.860 5.372 9 134.820 6.907 10 149.800 7.6741.27 10 149.800 7.674 15 224.700 11.511 20 299.600 15.3481.91 15 224.700 11.511 29.3 438.914 22.485 67 1003.660 51.417

2.54 17 254.660 13.046 43 644.140 32.999 90 1348.200 69.0683.81 20 299.600 15.348 57 853.860 43.743 115 1722.700 88.253

5.08 23.5 352.030 18.034 63.5 951.230 48.731 138.5 2074.730 106.2876.35 27 404.460 20.720 78.5 1175.930 60.242 160.5 2404.290 123.1717.62 31.5 471.870 24.174 92 1378.160 70.602 188 2816.240 144.2758.89 35 524.300 26.860 105 1572.900 80.579 248.5 3722.530 190.703

10.16 40 599.200 30.697 118 1767.640 90.555 279.3 4183.914 214.340

LT

LE

MEConsultant

Item Signature

Tested by

Witnessed by

Checked by

Contracror

Consultant

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) TEST : SWELL AND PENETRATION DATA : AASHTO T-193

DateTime ( hrs )

RemarksReading in mm

inch

0.250

LOAD PENETRATION DATA

Name

NATIONAL ROAD No.3

0.000

0.025

Position

0.050

0.075

0.100

0.350

0.300

0.250

Mould No. A , H= 119.5 mm Mould No. B , H= 119.5 mm Mould No. C, H= 119.5mmReading in mm Reading in mm

PenetrationProving Ring Reading and Stress

Mould No. A (10 Blows) Mould No. B (30 Blows) Mould No. C (65 Blows)

0.000

0.230

0.240

0.250

0.000

0.130

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.200

0.200

0.150

0.160

0.150

0.150

0.200

0.400

Date

06

1218

2430

3642

48

0.00 1.27 2.54 3.81 5.08 6.35 7.62 8.89 10.16 11.43

Str

ess

in K

g/cm

2

Penetration mm

10 Blows

010

2030

4050

6070

8090

100

0.00 1.27 2.54 3.81 5.08 6.35 7.62 8.89 10.16 11.43

Str

ess

in K

g/cm

2

Penetration in mm

30 Blows

010

2030

4050

6070

8090

1001

1012

0130

14015

0160

1701

8019

02002

10

0.00 1.27 2.54 3.81 5.08 6.35 7.62 8.89 10.16 11.43

Str

ess

in K

g/cm

2

Penetration in mm

65 Blows

69.07

106.2948.73

33.00

18.03

13.05

Stress at 2.54mm= 13.05 Stress at 2.54mm= 33.00 Stress at 2.54 mm= 69.07

Stress at 5.08mm= 18.03 Stress at 5.08mm= 48.73 Stress at 5.08mm= 106.29

CBR = ( Corrected Unit Load / Standard Unit Load ) ×100, Standard Unit Load : @ 2.54mm = 70.38Kg/cm2

10 30 65

Corrected CBR - Density Plotting Data Dry-Density , g / cc 1.923 2.053 2.204

Corrected CBR ( %) 18.54 46.89 98.14

LT

LE

ME

CBR at 2.54 mm Penetration level

ConsultantChecked by

Signature

Tested by

Witnessed by

Contracror

Consultant

Item Name Position Date

NATIONAL ROAD No.3

No.of blows

CBR =

18.54

17.17 46.38

CBR CaculationsCBR = % CBR = %98.14%

CBR Test (AASHTO T-193)

CBR =46.89

CBR Calculation :

%101.17CBR = %

@ 5.08mm = 105.06 Kg/cm2

CBR =%

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1.850 1.900 1.950 2.000 2.050 2.100 2.150 2.200 2.250 2.300

CB

R in

%

Dry Density , g/cc

Dry-Density Versus CBR Curve

44% CBR at 95 % of MDD

10 blows

30 blows

65 blows

Dry-D at 95 % of MDD=2.043g/cc

Summary of Test Result(Sub-Base)

• National Road No.3

1. Description

2. Test Result

3. Engineer's Comment

4. Certification

Position Date Signature

Tested by Contractor

Consultant LE

Checked by Consultant ME

LT

Item Name

Witnessed by

Consultant KCI with YEC, KCEC & VIDO

Contractor KukDongEC with HHI

Test Result

Specification

5/12/2008

less than 50

- - more than 30

Approved by

Decision

E.C.Kim Consultant RE

O.K O.K - O.K

8/12/2008

Pk 127+00 LHS, 350 m

O.K - - O.K

1832-34

5 - 20less than

35 -less than

20

PILL PLOMC (%)

18.7-19.8 449.52.1514714-16

B - 17, Pit-1 LocationBorrow Pit No.

4. Proctor5. CBR

(%,95% MDD)MDD (g/cc)

Item

2. Atterberg Limit (%)1. Gradation

(%, #200 pass)

3. LA Abrasion

(%)

Sample No. 035 Date of Test

Lab No 018 Date of Sampling

Trial No.1

Section No : B

Lab.Nº : S 018 Sampling Date : 5/12/2008Sample Nº : S 035 Testing Date : 8/12/2008Location : PK 127+00 , L/S 350m Sampled By : Lab. Technician Description : Soil Aggregate Mixture for Sub-Base Materials

Lower Limit Upper Limit Actual by test50.0 100 100 100.025.00 75 95 87.810.00 40 75 61.62.00 20 45 32.40.425 15 30 27.30.075 5 20 19.8

Comments : Acceptable for grade " B " of Table 3.1-1 of Construction Specification .

Contractor LT

Consultant LE

Consultant ME

SIEVE ANALYSIS OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE (AASHTO T-27)

Grading Requirement for Soil Aggregate Materials ( Table 3.1-1 of Constr. Specifications )

NATIONAL ROAD No.3

Percent by weight passing square mesh sieves

Sieve Sizes (mm)

Date Signature

Tested by

Item Name

Checked by

Position

Witnessed by

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0

% P

assi

ng

Sieve Size mm

Grading for Sub-base Materials (Table 3.1-1)

Lower Limit Upper Limit Actual by test

Trial No.2

Section No : B

Lab.Nº : S 018 Sampling Date : 5/12/2008Sample Nº : S035 Testing Date : 8/12/2008Location : PK 127 +00, L/S 350m Sampled By : Lab. Technician Description : Soil Aggregate Mixture for Sub-Base Materials

Lower Limit Upper Limit Actual by test50.0 100 100 100.025.00 75 95 92.010.00 40 75 59.42.00 20 45 31.20.425 15 30 26.50.075 5 20 18.7

Comments : Acceptable for grade " B " of Table 3.1-1 of Construction Specification .

Contractor LT

Consultant LE

Consultant ME

NATIONAL ROAD No.3

SIEVE ANALYSIS OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE (AASHTO T-27)

Grading Requirement for Soil Aggregate Materials ( Table 3.1-1 of Constr. Specifications )

Witnessed byChecked by

Item

Sieve Sizes

Percent by weight passing square

Name Position Date Signature

Tested by

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0

% P

assi

ng

Sieve Size mm

Grading for Sub-base Materials (Table 3.1-1)

Lower Limit Upper Limit Actual by test

ATTERBERG LIMITS ( AASHTO T- 89/T- 90 )

AND SOIL CLASSIFICATION

NATIONAL ROAD No. 3

Section :B Sampling d

Lab.Nº : S018 Testing D

Sample Nº : S035 Sampled Lab. Technician

Location : 127+00 LHS 350 m

Description : Mix aggregate for Sub-base material T-2

38 30 25 19 15

13 10 A14 7 15 A2 18

W1 g 33.02 34.4 35.3 36.29 37.01 29.59 31.12

W2 g 30.22 31.34 31.87 32.47 32.58 28.06 29.67

W3 g 20.5 21.22 21.3 21.4 20.4 19.5 21.7

W4=W1 - W g 2.8 3.06 3.43 3.82 4.43 1.53 1.45

W5=W2 - W g 9.72 10.12 10.57 11.07 12.18 8.56 7.97

W6=W4/W % 28.81 30.24 32.45 34.51 36.37 17.87 18.19

LL %

PI=LL - P %

LT

LE

ME

5/12/2008

8/12/2008

14.42Plasticity Index

32.45

Plastic LimitLiquid Limits

Wt of dry soil

Moisture Content

18.03

Wt of dry soil and

Wt of water

Can No.

Wt of wet soil and

Date

No. of Blows

Wt of can

Liquid Limit (from

Signature

Tested by

Witnessed by

Checked by

Contractor

Consultant

Consultant

Item Name Position

20.00

22.00

24.00

26.00

28.00

30.00

32.00

34.00

36.00

38.00

40.00

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Mo

istu

re (%

)

Number of Blows

Blow - Moisture Graph

royal government of cambodia - mpwt.gov.kh. mission report of... · royal government of cambodia...

Documents