Upload
hort-sroeu
View
199
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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
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
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
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
BITUMINOUS PRIME COAT
SUBBASE COURSE(T=200mm)
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE(T=200mm)
DOUBLE BITUMINOUS SURFACE TREATMENT
OF ROADWAYCL
1,500CARRIAGEWAY
3,500
11,000
FINISHED GRADE
1,500CARRIAGEWAY
3,500500 500
GUIDE POST
VAR
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
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
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
SUBGRADE LEVEL
BITUMINOUS PRIME COAT
SUBBASE COURSE(T=200mm)
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE(T=200mm)
DOUBLE BITUMINOUS SURFACE TREATMENT
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
BITUMINOUS PRIME COAT
SUBBASE COURSE(T=200mm)
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE(T=200mm)
DOUBLE BITUMINOUS SURFACE TREATMENT
HOUSEOF ROADWAY
CL
2,000CARRIAGEWAY
3,500
11,000
FINISHED GRADE
2,000CARRIAGEWAY
3,500
HOUSE
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
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)
Raising of Vertical Alignment
(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)
Raising of Vertical Alignment
(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