G-3.

Pavement Design for NR-1

PAVEMENT DESIGN

FOR

NATIONAL ROAD NO. 1

(PHNOM PENH – NEAK LOEUNG SECTION)

G - 42
 PAVEMENT DESIGN

Pavement of the Study Road is designed following the procedures stipulated in AASHTO’S
Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. Also, Asphalt Pavement Manual of Japan Road
Association and Road Design Standard; Part II “Pavement” of Cambodia are referred as
appropriate.

The strength of pavement, denoted as SNB (structure number), is determined with the following
equation.

Log10 {⊿PSI/(4.2 - 1.5)}

Log10 W18 = ZR*S0 + 9.36*log10 (SN+1) - 0.20 + + 2.32*log10 MR - 8.07
0.40 + 1094/(SN+1)5.19

-------(Eq. 1)

Where
W18 = predicted number of 18-kip equivalent single axle load
applications,
ZR = standard normal deviate,
S0 = combined standard error of the traffic prediction
and performance prediction,
⊿PSI = difference between the initial design serviceability index, p0,
and the design terminal serviceability index, pt, and
MR = resilient modulus (psi) (of subgrade); calcualoted from CBR.

Figure 1-1 shows the general flow of design of pavement.

Estimation of Axle Load

Estimation of ESAL (W18)
Equivalency Factors (ALEF)

Estimation of Traffic Volume

Estimation of MR Equation 1 Determination of SN

Design CBR

Determination of ZR, S0 and ∆ PSI

CBR Tests

Figure 1-1 General Flow of Pavement Design

G - 43
The following sections describe the procedures to determine the factors used in designing of
pavement.

1. Design CBR

1.1 Assessment of Bearing Capacity of the Existing Subgrade

1.1.1 Field CBR Test and Laboratory CBR Test

Bearing capacity of the existing subgrade was assessed using three kinds of tests; field CBR test,
laboratory CBR test on the samples taken from the test pits and dynamic cone penetrometer test
(DCPT). Field CBR tests were conducted at w0 to 25 cm below the surface of the unpaved
shoulder to avoid the influence of top soil which is often different from the subgrade material
and also compacted to higher degree than ordinary material below.

Laboratory CBR tests were conducted on the samples taken from the test pits excavated after
the field CBR tests had been completed. The laboratory CBR tests were conducted on 4-day
soaked samples.

The locations of the test-pitting and field CBR tests are as follows:

Table 1-1 Location of Test Pitting, Field CBR and Laboratory CBR Values
CBR Value
No. Location(KP)
Field* Laboratory
1 1+184 R 15.0 7.4
2 7+050 L 14.6 3.2
3 11+381 R 45.7 2.7
4 16+000 R 9.1 8.8
5 23+002 L 16.9 3.3
6 30+000 R 8.0 2.5
7 34+980 L 7.9 2.2
8 39+900 L 14.0 2.0
9 44+600 R 11.7 3.3
10 45+290 L 7.4 1.5
11 51+132 R 5.0 2.1

As can be seen in the above, the field CBR values vary from 5.0 to 45.7, while laboratory CBR
values vary from 0.8 to 16.2. There are large differences between the filed CBR values and
laboratory CBR values. In general, field CBR values are larger than laboratory CBR values.

G - 44
However, there is no apparently consistent relation between the field CBR values and laboratory
CBR values.

One way of interpreting the differences between the field CBR values and laboratory CBR
values may be that field CBR values represent the CBR during dry season while laboratory
CBR values represent CBR during high water level season. The field CBR tests were
conducted in June 2002 when the water level in Mekong River was still far below the road
surface, while the laboratory tests were conducted on the water-soaked specimens.

1.2 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test

Dynamic cone penetrometer test (DCPT) is commonly used in Cambodia to assess in-situ CBR
values because it does not require large test equipment, and, thus, can be easily conducted. In
this Study, DCPTs were conducted at every 1 km to obtain supplementary data of field CBR.

In DCPT, CBR values are estimated from the number of blow against the unit depth of
penetration (usually recorded every 10 cm). Because of this test procedure, DCPT yield
estimated CBR values at every 10 cm of penetration up to 1 m deep. Average CBR over 1 m
depth at each test locationwas obtained by the following formula:

CBRAVE = [(h1 x CBR11/3 + h2 x CBR21/3 + · · · )/100]3

Where h1, h2: thickness of each layer in cm
CBR1, CBR2: CBR of each layer

Figure 1-1 shows the CBR values obtained by the DCPT. As seen in the figure, the CBR
values thus obtained considerably fluctuate, ranging from 3 to 20, which are similar values with
those of the conventional field CBT tests. It is difficult to find any tendency in distribution of
in longitudinal direction along the Study Road.

G - 45
1.1.3 CBR Values Obtained in the Previous Studies
In the past, there were two surveys on CBR of the Study Road; one by JICA Expert (Mr.
Kawamura) and another by ADB for the design of NR-1. (They are the result of laboratory CBR
tests.)

Organization/Project ADB (Design of Improvement JICA Expert (Mr. Kawamura)

of NR-1) for Preliminary Design of NR-1
CBR 1.2 – 7 (Design CBR: 3.5) 1.3 - 9

These values are slightly higher than the result of laboratory tests of this Study.

1.1.4 Evaluation of CBR of the Existing Subgrade

Considering the available information on CBR, as described above, the CBR of the existing
subgrade is assumed to be 2 in high water level season and 7 in other seasons.

1.3 Improvement of Subgrade

When CBR of subgrade is smaller than 3, it is usually more economical to improve the subgrade
rather than increase the strength of the pavement structure. There are two types of methods
widely used for subgrade improvement; chemical (lime or cement) stabilization, and mechanical
stabilization or usage of selected material. In case of the Study Road, preliminary cost
comparison indicated that usage of selected material is less expensive than chemical stabilization.
Therefore, usage of selected material is considered here. Based on the survey on the available
materials, the following layers are assumed for the design subgrade.

Selected Material
CBR = 30; T = 30 cm

Additional Embankment
100 cm

CBR = 5; T = 20 cm

Existing Subgrade
Dry Season: CBR = 7
High-water Season: CBR = 2
T = 50 cm

Figure 1-2 Assumed Layer Structure of Subgrade

Average CBR of combination of the layers with defferent CBR values is obtained by the

G - 47
following formula:

CBRAVE = [(h1 x CBR11/3 + h2 x CBR21/3 + h3 x CBR31/3 )/100]3

CBR values for dry season and high water season are obtained as the following.

From the result of the CBR tests, in-situ and in laboratory, showed that CBR of the existing
subgrade is 7 in dry season and 2 in high water season.

Fro dry season,

CBRAVE = [(30 x 301/3 + h2 x 81/3 + h3 x 71/3 )/100]3 = 11.99.

For high water season,

CBRAVE = [(30 x 301/3 + h2 x 81/3 + h3 x 21/3 )/100]3 = 7.55.

From these results, the rounded values are as follows.

Season Dry Season High Water Season

CBR 12 7

1.4 Estimation of Average CBR over a Year

CBR values for dry season and high water season obtained in the above are considerably different.
This fluctuation in CBR is considerably large and needs appropriate consideration in determining
the design CBR value for the Study Road. If CBR of 7 is used in the design, it will
underestimate the bearing capacity of the existing subgrade, and may result in over-conservative
pavement design. On the other hand, if CBR value of 12 is used, the result would be insufficient
pavement strength. Therefore, average CBR value over a year needs to be evaluated with an
appropriate method.

“AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structure” (pp II-12 ~ 14) (AASHTO Guide) shows the
method to evaluate average CBR over a year where CBR fluctuates under certain climate, such as
freeze-thaw cycle. Using the CBR values of dry season and high water season, and following
the procedure described in AASHTO Guide, average CBR values over a year is estimated at
9.3 as shown in the following.

G - 48
 Roadbed Relative
Month Soil Modulus Damage
CBR/MR Uf
Jan 12/18,000 0.016
Feb 12/18,000 0.016
Mar 12/18,000 0.016
Apr 12/18,000 0.016
May 12/18,000 0.016
Jun 12/18,000 0.016
Jul 12/18,000 0.016
Aug 7/10,500 0.055
Sep 7/10,500 0.055
Oct 7/10,500 0.055
Nov 7/10,500 0.055
Dec 12/18,000 0.016
Total Uf = 0.3848
Average Uf = 0.0290 à MR = 13,900 (psi) à CBR = 9.27

The table and chart in the following page shows the procedure of estimating average CBR
presented in AASHTO Guide.

1.5 Design CBR

Based on the above discussion, CBR = 9 is used as the design CBR. Since the measured CBR
values of the existing subgrade show large fluctuation with no apparent tendency in longitudinal
direction, design CBR of 9 is used over the entire section of the Study Road.

G - 49
Figure 1-3 Chart for Calculating Average CBR over a Year (AASHTO)

G - 50
 2. Estimation of Traffic Volume and Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL)

2.1 Estimation of Traffic Volume

In designing pavement, vehicles with light weight, such as motorcycles, mot-remorks, cyclos and
bicycles, are disregarded because of their very small influence on pavement life, and only
motorized 4-wheel vehicles, such as heavy trucks, passenger cars, are considered. The types of
vehicles were counted in the traffic surveys as the categories of “Light Vehicle” and “Heavy
Vehicle”. Future traffic volumes of Light Vehicle and Heavy Vehicle were estimated in “Traffic
Forecast” of the Study. They are shown in Table 2-1 (next page). The total traffic volume of
light vehicles and heavy vehicles for years 2006 – 2015 are summarized below:

Table 2-2 Summary of Forecasted Traffic Volume (2 Directions)

Section A B C D E F G
Station Start -3.5 3.5 - 7 7 -14 14 -25 25 - 36 36 - 47 47 - End
Pk (MPWT) 5.6 – 9.1 9.1 – 12.6 12.6 – 19.6 19.6 – 30.6 30.6 – 41.6 41.6 – 52.6 52.6 - End
Daily, 2005 11,234 5,530 3,613 2,080 1,875 1,722 1,691
Light
2006-2015
Veh. 65.73 32.31 22.14 12.98 11.63 10.65 10.36
Total (mil)
Daily, 2005 1,197 969 739 482 439 399 389
Heavy
2006-2015
Veh. 6.81 5.52 4.35 2.84 2.57 2.33 2.26
Total (mil)

2.2 Design Life

In this Study, the design life of pavement is assumed to be same year with the target year of the
Project (2006 – 2015), and, thus, set as 10 years. It is also usual to se the design life of pavement
at 10 years.

2.3 Estimation of ESAL

Equivalent single axle load (ESAL, or W18) for each section is estimated with multiplying the
total traffic volume as described above by load equivalency factors (ALEF).

ESAL (2006 – 2015) = Total Traffic Volume (2006 – 2915) x ALEF

The values of ALEF have been determined using the axle load data obtained through the vehicle
weight survey. The process of determining ALEF is presented in a separate paper (Woking
Paper RD-1). ALEF values for light vehicles and heavy vehicles are as follws:

Vehicle Type Light Vehicle Heavy Vehicle

ALEF 0.00356 1.89

G - 51
Using these values of ALEF and the total traffic volume as described above, ESAL (W18) for each
section is calculated as the following:

Table 2-3 ESAL (W18) of Each Section (Unit: million)

Light Vehicle Heavy Vehicle Total ESAL Total ESAL Design
Sect-
Sta. ~ Sta. Traffic Vol. ESAL Traffic Vol. ESAL (2 Direction) (1 Direction) ESAL
ion
2006-2015 2006-2015 (W18)
A 0.0 ~ 3.5 65.732 0.234 6.812 12.876 13.110 6.555 6.56
B 3.5 ~ 7.0 32.314 0.115 5.516 10.424 10.539 5.270 5.27
C 7.0 ~ 14.1 22.143 0.079 4.345 8.212 8.291 4.146 4.15
D 14.1 ~ 25.2 12.975 0.046 2.841 5.370 5.416 2.708
2.71
E 25.2 ~ 36.3 11.627 0.041 2.575 4.866 4.908 2.454
F 36.3 ~ 46.8 10.653 0.038 2.333 4.409 4.447 2.223
2.22
G 46.8 ~ 55.4 10.362 0.037 2.262 4.275 4.312 2.156

In the urbanized section, 4-lane (2 directions) is proposed in the Study. In such case, the design
ESAL is to be determined by dividing the ESAL of 2-direction by 4. Howecer, theactual traffic
situation is that right lane is mostly used by motorcycles and moto-remorks, and 4-wheel vehicles
concentrate on the left (center) lane. Therefore, it is considered to be more reasonable to use
ESAL as half of the 2-direction ESAL.

As indicated in the above table, Sections D and E, Sections F and G are combined for the purpose
of pavement design with regard to ESAL. Thus, the section of pavement design are st as the
following:

Table 2-4 Sections of Pavement Design and Design ESAL

Pavement Design 1 2 3 4 5
Section
Station Start – 3.5 3.5 - 7 7 -14 14 – 36 36 - End
Pk (MPWT) 5.6 – 9.1 9.1 – 12.6 12.6 – 19.6 19.6 – 41.6 41.6 - End
Design ESAL (W18) 6.56 5.27 4.15 2.71 2.22

G - 54
3. Calculation of Structure Number
Structure Number (SN) is an index to indicate strength of pavement. SN is calculated with the
following formula:

Log10 {⊿PSI/(4.2 - 1.5)}

Log10 W18 = ZR*S0 + 9.36*log10 (SN+1) - 0.20 + + 2.32*log10 MR - 8.07
0.40 + 1094/(SN+1)5.19

-------(Eq. 1)

Where
W18 = predicted number of 18-kip equivalent single axle load applications,
ZR = standard normal deviate,
S0 = combined standard error of the traffic prediction and performance prediction,
⊿PSI = difference between the initial design serviceability index, p0,
and the design terminal serviceability index, pt, and
MR = resilient modulus (psi) (of subgrade); calculated from CBR.

In this formula, W18, or ESAL has been determined as described in Section 2 above, while MR is
calculated from CBR. Design CBR has been described in Section 1 above. The formula to
calculate MR is given below:
MR = CBR x 1,500 (psi)
In case of the Study Road,
MR = 9 x 1,500 = 13,500 (psi)
ZR, S0 and ∆ PSI are assumed as follows:

ZR: - 0.674 (R = 75 %: typical value shown in AASHTO Design Guide)

S0 : 0.450 (typical value shown in AASHTO Design Guide)
⊿PSI: 1.9 (= 4.4 - 2.5: typical value shown in AASHTO Design Guide)

Calculation of SN is made by trial-and error method in computer. The results are shown below:
Table 3-1 Required SN for Each Section

Section 1 2 3 4 5
Station Start – 3.5 3.5 - 7 7 -14 14 – 36 36 - End
Pk (MPWT) 5.6 – 9.1 9.1 – 12.6 12.6 – 19.6 19.6 – 41.6 41.6 - End
ESAL (W18) 6.56 5.27 4.15 2.71 2.22
CBR 9
Calculated SN 3.345 3.231 3.111 2.906 2.815

G - 55
4. Design of Pavement Structure

4.1 Structural Coefficients

Structural coefficients and drain factors of each layer used in the design is assumed as shown
below:
Table 4-1 Structural Coefficient and Drain Factor of Each Layer

Surface Course Layer Structural Coefficient Drain Factor

Surface Course 0.42 1.0
Base Course (AC)
Base Course 0.13 (CBR = 80) 0.8
Subbase Course
(Crushed Stone)
Subbase Course 0.115 (CBR = 30) 0.8
(Granular Material)

Examples of Structure Number of each layer for typical thickness are shown in the table below:

Table 4-2 Examples of Typical Thickness of Layers and Their Structure Numbers
Thickness (T) Layer Drain
Layer Coefficient T*a Factor T*a* Remarks
cm in (a) (D) D
Surface Course 5 1.969 0.42 0.83 1.0 0.83
(AC) 10 3.937 1.65 1.65
Base Course 10 3.947 0.13 0.51 0.8 0.41
(Crushed Stone) 15 5.906 (CBR=80) 0.77 0.62
20 7.874 1.02 0.82
25 9.843 1.28 1.02
Subbase Course 15 5.906 0.115 0.68 0.8 0.54
(Granular Material) 20 7.874 (CBR=30) 0.91 0.72
25 9.843 1.13 0.91
30 11.811 1.36 1.09
35 13.779 1.58 1.27

G - 56
4.2 Minimum Thickness of Each Layer
Design of pavement is done by combining these thicknesses to make the total of structural
numbers of the layers equal to, or lager than, the required SN, with minimum cost. However, it
is usual practice to decide the minimum thickness of layers. AASHTO Design Guide stipulates
the following thicknesses for asphalt concrete and aggregate base course.

Table 4-3 Minimum Thickness (AASHTO) (inches)

Asphalt Aggregate
Traffic, ESAL Concrete Base
Less than 50,000 1.0 (or surface treatment) 4
50,001 – 150,000 2.0 4
150,001 – 500,000 2.5 4
500,001 – 2,000,000 3.0 6
2,000.001 – 7,000,000 3.5 6
Greater than 7,000,000 4.0 6

In the case of theStudy Road, ESAL of the entire section fall in the category of “2,000,001 –
7,000,000”. Accordingly, the minimum thickness of 3.5 inches (approximately 8.9 cm) is
recommended for surface course. Similarly, minimum thickness of 6 inches (approximately 15
cm) is recommended for base course.

Asphalt Pavement Manual of Japan Road Association (JRO) stipulates the following minimum
thicknesses for surface course (total of “wearing course” and “binder course”).

Table 4-4 Minimum Thickness of Surface Course (JRO)

Class of Design Traffic Volume Thickness (cm)
L, A 5
B 10 (5)*
C 15 (10)*
D 20 (15)*
* Thickness in ( ) can be used where the base course material is asphalt-stabilized.

The classes of traffic volumes used in the above table are as defined in the following table.

G - 57
 Table 4-5 Class of Traffic Volume
Traffic Volume of Heavy Vehicles
Class of Design Traffic Volume (Vehicle/day/direction)
L Less than 100
A 100 – 249
B 250 – 999
C 1,000 – 2,999
D 3,000 or more

When these criteria are applied, the traffic volumes of Sections 4 and 5 are classified as “Class A”
and those of other Sections are classified as “Class B”. Accordingly, minimum thickness of 5
cm recommended for Section 4 and 5, and 10 cm is recommended for other Sections. (Please note
that the traffic volumes of heavy vehicles shown in Table 2-1 are for 2-directions, while the traffic
volumes shown in Table 4-5 are for 1-direction.)

JRO’s Asphalt Pavement Manual also gives minimum thickness of base course and subbase
course as shown in the table below.

Table 4-6 Minimum Thickness of Base Course and Subbase Course

Material/Construction Method Minimum Thickness of Layer
Asphalt-stabilized 2 times of the maximum grain size and 5 cm
Other than above 3 times of the maximum grain size and 10 cm

4.2 Cost Comparison of Alternatives

4.2.1 Alternatives of Pavement Structure

Considering the minimum thickness of each layer as described above, and required SN as
described in Section 3, the following alternatives are examined.

G - 58
 Table 4-7 Alternatives of Pavement Structure
Start - St. St. 14 - St. 36 -
Section St. 3 - 7 St. 7 - 14
3 36 End
Required SN 3.345 3.231 3.111 2.906 2.815
Surface Thick. (cm) 10 10 10 5 5
SN 1.654 1.654 1.654 0.827 0.827
A Base Thick. (cm) 20 20 15 25 25
L SN 0.827 0.827 0.620 1.033 1.033
T Subbase Thick. (cm) 24 21 24 29 27
1 SN 0.869 0.761 0.869 1.050 0.978
Total SN 3.350 3.241 3.143 2.911 2.838
Total Thickness (cm) 54 51 49 59 57
Surface Thick. (cm) 10 10 10 5 5
SN 1.654 1.654 1.654 0.827 0.827
A Base Thick. (cm) 15 15 20 20 20
L SN 0.620 0.620 0.827 0.827 0.827
T Subbase Thick. (cm) 30 27 19 35 32
2 SN 1.087 0.978 0.688 1.268 1.159
Total SN 3.360 3.252 3.169 2.921 2.813
Total Thickness (cm) 55 52 49 60 57
Surface Thick. (cm) 10 5 10 10
SN 1.654 0.827 1.654 1.654
A Base Thick. (cm) 25 25 15 15
L SN 1.033 1.033 0.620 0.620
T Subbase Thick. (cm) 19 35 18 15
3 SN 0.688 1.268 0.652 0.543
Total SN 3.375 3.128 2.926 2.817
Total Thickness (cm) 54 65 43 40

4.2.2 Comparison of Costs

Preliminary cost estimates are made on the alternatives listed in Table 4-7. For the purpose of
cost comparison, cost indices using the cost of AC surface course with thickness of 5 cm as 1.000
are used. The result of cost comparison is shown in the table below.

G - 59
 Start - St. St. 14 - St. 36 -
Section St. 3 - 7 St. 7 - 14
3 36 End
Surface Thick. (cm) 10 10 10 5 5
Cost 2.067 2.067 2.067 1.000 1.000
A Base Thick. (cm) 20 20 15 25 25
L Cost 0.766 0.766 0.544 0.926 0.926
T Subbase Thick. (cm) 24 21 24 29 27
1 Cost 0.813 0.727 0.813 0.956 0.898
Total Cost 3.646 3.560 3.423 2.882 2.824
Surface Thick. (cm) 10 10 10 5 5
Cost 2.067 2.067 2.067 1.000 1.000
A Base Thick. (cm) 15 15 20 20 20
L Cost 0.544 0.544 0.766 0.766 0.766
T Subbase Thick. (cm) 30 27 19 35 32
2 Cost 0.984 0.898 0.607 10128 1.041
Total Cost 3.595 3.509 3.440 2.894 2.808
Surface Thick. (cm) 10 5 10 10
Cost 2.067 1.000 2.067 2.067
A Base Thick. (cm) 25 25 15 15
L Cost 0.926 0.926 0.544 0.544
T Subbase Thick. (cm) 19 35 18 15
3 Cost 0.607 10128 0.578 0.493
Total Cost 3.600 3.054 3.190 3.104

As indicated by bold-face letters, the following alternatives are with the lowest costs.

Section 1: Alternative 2
Section 2: Alternative 2
Section 3: Alternative 1
Section 4: Alternative 1
Section 5: Alternative 2

In case of Section 3, the estimated cost of Alternative 3 is the lowest. However, the thickness of
surface course does not satisfy the recommended minimum thickness of AASHTO and JRO, and,
thus, this alternative is not recommended. The recommended pavement structures are
summarized in the table below.

G - 60
 Table 4-9 Summary of Pavement Structure
Section 1 2 3 4 5
Station Start – 3.5 3.5 - 7 7 - 14 14 - 36 36 - End
Pk (MPWT) 5.6 – 9.1 9.1 – 12.6 12.6 – 19.6 19.6 – 41.6 41.6 - End
Pavement Type A B C D E
Surface Thick. (cm) 10 10 10 5 5
SN 1.654 1.654 1.654 0.827 0.827
Base Thick. (cm) 15 15 15 25 20
SN 0.620 0.620 0.620 1.033 0.827
Subbase Thick. (cm) 30 27 24 29 32
SN 1.087 0.978 0.869 1.050 1.159
Total SN 3.360 3.252 3.143 2.911 2.813
Total Thickness (cm) 55 52 49 59 57
Required SN 3.345 3.231 3.111 2.906 2.815

Type A Type B Type C Type D Type E

Surface 10 cm 10 cm 10 cm 5 cm 5 cm

Base 15 cm 15 cm 15 cm 25 cm 20 cm

Subbase
30 cm 27 cm 24 cm 29 cm 32 cm

Total Thickness 55 cm 52 cm 49 cm 59 cm 57 cm

Figure 4-1 Pavement Structure

G - 61
4.2.3 Comparison of Costs for Various Design Life Periods
Although design life period of pavement is set at 10 years in usual practice, life cycle cost (LCC)
of design life of 5, 10 and 15 years are compared to verify the justification of design life period.
Table 4-10 shows the design factors and price indices of pavement of Section 1 and 5 for design
life of 5, 10 and 15 years.

Section 1 5
Design Life (Year) 5 10 15 5 10 15
Total ESAL 3.07 6.56 10.89 1.03 2.22 3.72
Required SN 2.965 3.345 3.621 2.487 2.815 3.057
Surface Thck. (cm) 10 10 10 5 5 5
SN 1.654 1.654 1.654 0.827 0.827 0.827
Base Thck. (cm) 15 15 20 15 20 25
SN 0.620 0.620 0.827 0.620 0.827 1.033
Subbase Thck. (cm) 19 30 32 29 32 33
SN 0.688 1.087 1.159 1.050 1.159 1.195
Total SN 2.962 3.360 3.639 2.497 2.813 3.056
Total Thickness (cm) 44 55 62 49 57 63
Actual Design Life (Year)
Price Index as Surface (T = 5 cm) = 1.000
Surface 2.067 2.067 2.067 1.000 1.000 1.000
Base 0.544 0.544 0.544 0.544 0.766 0.926
Subbase 0.607 0.984 1.012 0.927 1.041 1.070
Total 3.218 3.595 3.845 2.471 2.807 2.996

Tables 4-11 and 4-12 show the comparison of LCC for these pavement designs.

G - 62
 Table 4-11 Comparison of Life Cycle Cost for Section 1
Section 1
Design Life (Year) 5 10 15
Discount Cost
Year Rate Nominal Disc'td Nominal Disc'td Nominal Disc'td
0 1.00000 3.2180 3.2180 3.5950 3.5950 3.8450 3.8450
1 0.89286 0.0322 0.0287 0.0322 0.0287 0.0322 0.0287
2 0.79719 0.0322 0.0257 0.0322 0.0257 0.0322 0.0257
3 0.71178 0.0322 0.0229 0.0322 0.0229 0.0322 0.0229
4 0.63552 0.0322 0.0205 0.0322 0.0205 0.0322 0.0205
5 0.56743 0.0322 0.0183 0.0322 0.0183 0.0322 0.0183
6 0.50663 1.0000 0.5066 0.0322 0.0163 0.0322 0.0163
7 0.45235 0.0322 0.0146 0.0322 0.0146 0.0322 0.0146
8 0.40388 0.0322 0.0130 0.0322 0.0130 0.0322 0.0130
9 0.36061 0.0322 0.0116 0.0322 0.0116 0.0322 0.0116
10 0.32197 0.0322 0.0104 0.0322 0.0104 0.0322 0.0104
11 0.28748 1.0000 0.2875 1.0000 0.2875 0.0322 0.0093
12 0.25668 0.0322 0.0083 0.0322 0.0083 0.0322 0.0083
13 0.22917 0.0322 0.0074 0.0322 0.0074 0.0322 0.0074
14 0.20462 0.0322 0.0066 0.0322 0.0066 0.0322 0.0066
15 0.18270 0.0322 0.0059 0.0322 0.0059 0.0322 0.0059
16 0.16312 0.0322 0.0052 0.0322 0.0052 1.0000 0.1631
17 0.14564 1.0000 0.1456 0.0322 0.0047 0.0322 0.0047
18 0.13004 0.0322 0.0042 0.0322 0.0042 0.0322 0.0042
19 0.11611 0.0322 0.0037 0.0322 0.0037 0.0322 0.0037
20 0.10367 0.0322 0.0033 0.0322 0.0033 0.0322 0.0033
21 0.09256 0.0322 0.0030 0.0322 0.0030 0.0322 0.0030
22 0.08264 1.0000 0.0826 1.0000 0.0826 0.0322 0.0027
23 0.07379 0.0322 0.0024 0.0322 0.0024 0.0322 0.0024
24 0.06588 0.0322 0.0021 0.0322 0.0021 0.0322 0.0021
25 0.05882 0.0322 0.0019 0.0322 0.0019 0.0322 0.0019
Salvage value 0.05882 0.9804 0.0577 0.7000 0.0412 0.4000 0.0235
Total 6.8812 4.4022 5.6030 4.1644 5.1851 4.2317

Cost of overlay = Surface (5 cm) = 1.000

Cost of Maintenance = 1 %of Cost of New Construction

G - 63
 Table 4-12 Comparison of Life Cycle Cost for Section 5
Section 5
Design Life (Year) 5 10 15
Discount Cost
Year Rate Nominal Disc'td Nominal Disc'td Nominal Disc'td
0 1.00000 2.5850 2.5850 2.8070 2.8070 2.9100 2.9100
1 0.89286 0.0259 0.0231 0.0259 0.0231 0.0259 0.0231
2 0.79719 0.0259 0.0206 0.0259 0.0206 0.0259 0.0206
3 0.71178 0.0259 0.0184 0.0259 0.0184 0.0259 0.0184
4 0.63552 0.0259 0.0164 0.0259 0.0164 0.0259 0.0164
5 0.56743 0.0259 0.0147 0.0259 0.0147 0.0259 0.0147
6 0.50663 1.0000 0.5066 0.0259 0.0131 0.0259 0.0131
7 0.45235 0.0259 0.0117 0.0259 0.0117 0.0259 0.0117
8 0.40388 0.0259 0.0104 0.0259 0.0104 0.0259 0.0104
9 0.36061 0.0259 0.0093 0.0259 0.0093 0.0259 0.0093
10 0.32197 0.0259 0.0083 0.0259 0.0083 0.0259 0.0083
11 0.28748 1.0000 0.2875 1.0000 0.2875 0.0259 0.0074
12 0.25668 0.0259 0.0066 0.0259 0.0066 0.0259 0.0066
13 0.22917 0.0259 0.0059 0.0259 0.0059 0.0259 0.0059
14 0.20462 0.0259 0.0053 0.0259 0.0053 0.0259 0.0053
15 0.18270 0.0259 0.0047 0.0259 0.0047 0.0259 0.0047
16 0.16312 1.0000 0.1631 0.0259 0.0042 1.0000 0.1631
17 0.14564 0.0259 0.0038 0.0259 0.0038 0.0259 0.0038
18 0.13004 0.0259 0.0034 0.0259 0.0034 0.0259 0.0034
19 0.11611 0.0259 0.0030 0.0259 0.0030 0.0259 0.0030
20 0.10367 0.0259 0.0027 0.0259 0.0027 0.0259 0.0027
21 0.09256 1.0000 0.0926 1.0000 0.0926 0.0259 0.0024
22 0.08264 0.0259 0.0021 0.0259 0.0021 0.0259 0.0021
23 0.07379 0.0259 0.0019 0.0259 0.0019 0.0259 0.0019
24 0.06588 0.0259 0.0017 0.0259 0.0017 0.0259 0.0017
25 0.05882 0.0259 0.0015 0.0259 0.0015 0.0259 0.0015
Salvage value 0.05882 0.4000 0.0235 0.6000 0.0353 0.4000 0.0235
Total 7.5279 3.7869 6.0016 3.3447 4.9304 3.2481

Cost of overlay = Surface = 1.000

Cost of Maintenance = 1 %of Cost of New Construction

G - 64
As can be seen in the tables, 10-year life period design is most economical for Section 1, and
15-year design is slightly more economical than 10-year design for Section 5. As stated before,
it is usual practice to set the design life period at 10 years. Considering that the difference
between the 10-year design and 15-year design foe Section 5 is small and that the 10-year design
is a little more economical for Section 1, it is considered to be reasonable to adopt wo years as the
design life period of the pavement for the Study Road.

5. Summary
Design traffic volume, ESAL, CBR and pavement type for each section are summarized in Figure
5-1.

G - 65
 G-4.
NATINAL ROAD No.1 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT
Printed 21 Oct 2002
No. PI No. NORTHING EASTING A(angle) AZ(deg.) AZIMUTH DISTANCE R C r XM CURVE ELEMENTs e S
degree d m s m m A IA (d) IA (d,m,s) TL LS LC Es % m

0 BP 1,274,762.452 492,895.693 76.9 76.9 76 55 3

1 4 1,274,779.585 492,969.420 81.2 81.2 81 11 49 75.692 0 - 4.3 4 16 45 0.000 0.000 0.000 NC -
2 5 1,274,794.728 493,067.201 -89.6 90.4 90 22 47 98.946 700 - 9.2 9 10 58 56.215 112.189 2.254 NC -
3 6 1,274,793.830 493,202.784 -80.6 99.4 99 21 19 135.586 650 - 9.0 8 58 33 51.017 101.826 1.999 NC -
4 7 1,274,641.152 494,129.517 70.3 70.3 70 19 41 939.225 950 - 29.0 29 1 38 245.928 481.291 31.316 NC -
5 8 1,274,961.366 495,025.217 61.2 61.2 61 10 9 951.218 2,190 - 9.2 9 9 31 175.409 350.071 7.014 NC -
6 9 1,275,240.690 495,532.661 42.9 42.9 42 51 21 579.243 900 - 18.3 18 18 49 145.071 287.669 11.617 NC -
7 10 1,275,706.109 495,964.486 -66.3 113.7 113 39 32 634.891 495 - 70.8 70 48 11 351.798 611.695 112.278 4 60
8 12 1,274,891.368 497,824.150 86.0 86.0 86 1 6 2,030.309 970 - 27.6 27 38 25 238.617 467.943 28.919 3 50
9 13 1,274,954.395 498,729.669 -79.0 101.0 101 0 29 907.710 1,400 - 15.0 14 59 23 184.186 366.268 12.064 3 50
10 14 1,274,835.644 499,340.127 -71.8 108.2 108 13 24 621.901 1,640 - 7.2 7 12 55 103.399 206.526 3.256 RC 40
11 15 1,274,635.028 499,949.467 -71.4 108.6 108 33 12 641.515 0 - 0.3 0 19 48 0.000 0.000 0.000 NC -
12 18 1,273,943.717 502,009.206 -55.2 124.8 124 45 56 2,172.656 1,465 - 16.2 16 12 44 208.659 414.530 14.785 3 50
13 19 1,272,389.755 504,247.942 83.9 83.9 83 56 51 2,725.204 500 200 0.533 39.991 40.8 40 49 5 226.228 80.000 276.204 34.057 4 60
14 20 1,272,517.863 505,456.151 -57.5 122.5 122 27 37 1,214.982 300 150 0.781 37.480 38.5 38 30 46 142.556 75.000 126.653 18.606 NC -
15 21 1,272,220.867 505,923.054 -74.6 105.4 105 25 1 553.357 400 170 0.544 36.115 17.0 17 2 36 96.132 72.250 46.735 5.015 4 60
16 23 1,272,107.768 506,333.181 -54.5 125.5 125 27 20 425.436 1,300 - 20.0 20 2 19 229.678 454.663 20.133 3 50
17 24 1,271,726.743 506,868.234 -49.6 130.4 130 24 22 656.857 1,650 - 5.0 4 57 2 71.326 142.564 1.541 RC 40
18 25 1,271,358.199 507,301.177 -72.5 107.5 107 28 22 568.564 1,600 - 22.9 22 55 60 324.554 640.418 32.585 RC 40
19 26 1,271,204.322 507,790.021 77.8 77.8 77 46 7 512.491 410 175 0.567 37.337 29.7 29 42 15 146.213 74.695 137.863 14.758 4 60
20 27 1,271,269.379 508,090.128 -81.3 98.7 98 42 40 307.077 450 180 0.480 35.992 20.9 20 56 33 119.249 72.000 92.481 8.109 4 60
List of Horizontal Alignment Data

21 28 1,271,138.786 508,942.459 89.3 89.3 89 20 58 862.278 700 250 0.474 44.637 9.4 9 21 42 101.991 89.286 25.089 2.819 3 50
22 29 1,271,141.237 509,158.273 -80.5 99.5 99 31 2 215.827 700 250 0.474 44.637 10.2 10 10 4 106.996 89.286 34.940 3.241 3 50
23 30 1,270,972.199 510,166.527 -63.6 116.4 116 26 11 1,022.326 1,270 - 16.9 16 55 9 188.887 375.025 13.970 3 50
24 31 1,270,588.415 510,938.419 -70.7 109.3 109 19 51 862.037 2,820 - 7.1 7 6 20 175.089 349.730 5.430 NC -
25 32 1,269,845.783 513,055.395 -70.9 109.1 109 8 34 2,243.455 0 - 0.2 0 11 17 0.000 0.000 0.000 NC -
26 33 1,269,634.200 513,664.937 -41.3 138.7 138 43 21 645.220 780 270 0.467 46.725 29.6 29 34 47 252.786 93.462 309.225 27.211 3 50

G - 67
27 34 1,269,023.665 514,200.878 -50.8 129.2 129 12 14 812.395 1,740 - 9.5 9 31 7 144.869 289.072 6.020 RC 40
28 36 1,268,326.813 515,055.184 -49.1 130.9 130 54 5 1,102.470 5,000 - 1.7 1 41 51 74.071 148.132 0.549 NC -
29 38 1,267,129.566 516,437.258 -53.5 126.5 126 27 57 1,828.532 2,030 - 4.4 4 26 8 78.616 157.154 1.522 RC 40
30 39 1,266,717.601 516,994.694 -68.8 111.2 111 12 12 693.145 1,450 - 15.3 15 15 44 194.274 386.248 12.957 3 50
31 40 1,266,465.153 517,645.427 -61.6 118.4 118 22 32 697.986 1,640 - 7.2 7 10 19 102.779 205.289 3.217 RC 40
32 41 1,266,094.073 518,332.428 -61.6 118.4 118 25 6 780.814 0 - 0.0 0 2 34 0.000 0.000 0.000 NC -
33 42 1,265,563.467 519,313.010 -40.6 139.4 139 26 21 1,114.937 1,170 - 21.0 21 1 15 217.067 429.253 19.966 3 50
34 44 1,264,378.847 520,326.944 -40.3 139.7 139 44 21 1,559.290 0 - 0.3 0 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 NC -
35 45 1,264,144.547 520,525.370 -50.0 130.0 129 58 28 307.033 2,040 - 9.8 9 45 53 174.257 347.670 7.429 RC 40
36 47 1,263,230.965 521,615.117 -59.3 120.7 120 44 19 1,422.034 2,000 - 9.2 9 14 9 161.545 322.390 6.514 RC 40
37 50 1,262,372.145 523,059.309 -70.7 109.3 109 17 40 1,680.256 1,290 - 11.4 11 26 39 129.263 257.666 6.460 3 50
38 53 1,262,060.637 523,949.112 -47.4 132.6 132 38 43 942.755 980 - 23.4 23 21 3 202.510 399.398 20.705 3 50
39 55 1,260,754.348 525,367.439 -33.2 146.8 146 45 6 1,928.223 1,420 - 14.1 14 6 23 175.691 349.605 10.828 3 50
40 56 1,259,406.868 526,250.833 -8.5 171.5 171 32 22 1,611.237 1,020 - 24.8 24 47 16 224.148 441.283 24.338 3 50
41 57 1,257,438.527 526,543.618 -8.6 171.4 171 22 2 1,989.997 0 - 0.2 0 10 20 0.000 0.000 0.000 NC -
42 58 1,256,524.459 526,682.392 5.5 185.5 185 32 16 924.542 1,370 - 14.2 14 10 14 170.284 338.831 10.542 3 50
43 63 1,252,690.469 526,310.673 5.5 185.5 185 27 52 3,851.968 0 - 0.1 0 4 24 0.000 0.000 0.000 NC -
44 64 1,251,942.520 526,239.122 -40.7 139.3 139 17 54 751.364 990 - 46.2 46 9 58 421.925 797.694 86.160 3 50
45 66 1,249,913.221 527,984.699 -11.1 168.9 168 56 2 2,676.769 980 - 29.6 29 38 8 259.253 506.894 33.712 3 50
46 68 1,247,633.666 528,430.529 -7.4 172.6 172 38 48 2,322.743 2,360 - 3.7 3 42 46 76.490 152.927 1.239 RC 40
47 69 1,246,784.897 528,540.062 -15.4 164.6 164 35 1 855.807 1,680 - 8.1 8 3 47 118.407 236.423 4.168 RC 40
48 70 1,245,358.113 528,933.505 -68.8 111.2 111 12 60 1,480.038 490 190 0.461 36.830 53.4 53 22 1 283.329 73.673 382.726 58.921 4 60
49 71 1,245,086.892 529,632.152 -88.5 91.5 91 27 13 749.446 530 - 19.8 19 45 47 92.324 182.813 7.981 4 60
50 72 1,245,080.105 529,899.633 267.567 91.5 91 27 13 0.000 0.000 0.000
0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000
G-5. General Consideration on Soft Ground

The Study Road traverses the marshy hinterland of Mekong River, and existence of soft ground
is strongly suspected. From viewpoint of highway embankment, problems and countermeasures
are briefly explained below.

1. Problems of Highway Embankment on Soft Ground.

Problems associated with construction of highway embankment on soft ground and are
summarized in the table below.

Table 1-1 Problems of Highway Embankment on Soft Ground

Problem Typical Phenomena Basic Mechanism Typical Countermeasure
Stability (Failure of - Crack in - Shear rapture of the - Control speed of
Embankment) embankment soils in foundation embankment
- Rise of the ground ground due to the - Mild angle of slope for
surface of the load of embankment embankment
adjacent land - Stabilizing berm
- Improve foundation
with vertical drain
Settlement - Settlement of - Consolidation of - Additional
(During construction) embankment soils in the ground embankment to
- Lateral plastic flow compensate settlement
of soils in the
ground
Post-construction - Uneven road - Residual - Pre-loading
Settlement surface consolidation of soil - Vertical drain etc

2. Types of Soft Ground and Their Nature

From viewpoint of highway embankment, soft grounds are categorized into three as described
below:

(1) Soft ground consisting of marine deposit

Characteristics of marine deposits can be summarized as follows.
(i) Generally fine grained (rich of clay) compared with deposits of on land (river or lake)
because they deposited in quiet water in the sea.

G - 68
(ii) More uniform both vertically and horizontally than river/lake deposits.
(iii) Less strength than river/lake deposits because of rich clay content.
(iv) Longer time needed for consolidation (squeezing out of water in soil) when load is
applied: This is due to longer path of water squeezed out because of uniformity, or
“homogeneity” in the geotechnical terminology, in both horizontal and vertical
direction.
(v) As a result of (iv) above, longer time is needed to complete settlement.
(vi) Slow increase in strength due to slow consolidation speed
(vii) As a result of (vi) above, stability of embankment against the failure of ground is slow
to be improved.

All of these facts make marine deposits unfavorable for highway embankment.

(2) Soft ground consisting of deposits on land

Contrary to marine deposits, deposits on land (river or lake) have the following characteristics. (
(i) Usually coarse grained (sand or silt) and contains less clay.
(ii) Less uniform both horizontally and vertically because they are transported by flood
water and flow conditions changes every year.
(iii) Layered structure with alteration of sand, silt and clay.
(iv) Strength is relatively high because there is less clay.
(v) Larger strength compared to marine deposits because of coarser grain size.
(vi) Shorter time needed for consolidation because thin sand layers function as “drainage”
path.
(vii) As a result of (vi) above, settlement is completed in relatively short period.
(viii) As a consequence of (vi), increase in strength of soil is faster than in the case of marine
deposits and stability of embankment increases faster than in the case of marine clay.

Because of the characteristics as described above, river/lake deposits are less unfavorable for
highway embankment than marine deposits. On the other hand, properties of river deposits may
drastically change in horizontal and vertical direction. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct
appropriate sounding of ground condition and to take precaution in execution are indispensable
for river deposits.

(3) Soft ground consisting of highly organic soil

This type of soft ground is typically encountered in cold region, such as Canada and northern
Japan where dead plants in marshy land deposit without being dissolved. This type of soft

G - 69
ground is very unfavorable for highway embankment because of the following characteristics.
(i) Very low strength and, thus, very low stability of embankment
(ii) Large amount of post-construction settlement
(iii) High water content which requires special preparatory works and equipment for
embankment.

Very fortunately, it is rather rare to encounter this type of soft ground with large scale in tropical
climate like Cambodia.

3. Definition of Soft Ground

Usually, soft ground is defined as soil layer(s) with N-value of 4 or less exists for certain
thickness, such as 10 m. However, past experience shows that the soil layer with N-value of 3 or
larger usually does not pose serious problem for highway embankment unless the height of
embankment is very high (for example higher than 10 m).

4. Position (depth) of soft layer

Experience tells that serious problem of stability and settlement is generally anticipated where
soft layers with N-value of 2 or less within some 10 m deep from the ground surface.

For example, even if there is a soft layer with N-value of one (1) at 10 m or more below the
ground surface, and the layers above this soft layer are relatively firm (say N-value 4 or more),
then, highway embankment is safely constructed without serious problem of stability, unless the
height of embankment is large (for example higher than 10 m). This is due to the fact that the
load of the embankment is distributed by the relatively firm layers above the soft layer and
becomes small enough when it reaches the soft layer.

G - 70
 Decrease of Load

More than 10 m
N=5

N = 10

N=7

N = 1 (Soft Layer)

Figure 1-1-X Soft Layer in Deep Place and Decrease of Load

G - 71
G-6. Preliminary Analysis of Stability and Estimation of Settlement of
Embankment on Soft Ground

1. Estimation of Settlement
The conditions as shown in Figure 1-1 were assumed. Assumed e-log p curve is shown in
Figure 1-2.

3.6ｍ
γt = 2.0 t/m３
3.0 m

γt = 2.0 t/m３

1.75 m
γt = 1.8 t/m３
3.5 m

Figure 1-1 Condition Assumed for Estimation of Settlement

Calculation of Settlement
Using the data of the consolidation tests on the samples obtained from the soft layer, settlement
due to consolidation is calculated with the following formula:

De
S= ´ HS
1 + e0
Where
S: Settlement (m)
∆e: change in void ratio of soil due to loading of embankment,
determined from the e-log p curve obtained by consolidation test
e0: void ratio of soft soil before construction of embankment
HS: thickness of soft layer (m).

G - 72
 Pressure, p (kN/m2)

10 100 1000
1.00

0.475
0.95
Void Ratio, e

0.95

1.05
0.90
0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

Figure 1-2 Assumed e-log p Curve

De
S= ´ HS
1 + e0
0.05
= ´ 300 (cm)
1 + 0.95
= 7.7 cm

Residual Settlement
According to the past experience, 70 to 90 % of the total settlement occurs during the
construction. Therefore, amount of residual settlement, SR, or post-construction settlement
(settlement occurring after completion of embankment) is estimated as follows.

SR = 7.7 x (1 – 0.8) = 1.5 cm

Since the assumptions and calculation adopted in the estimation above is very simplified, the
result of calculation should be interpreted as to show only the overall magnitude of the problem.
Therefore, it can be said that the magnitudes of settlement and residual settlement are in the
order of 10 and 2 cm, respectively. These values are considered to be relatively small.

The calculation shown here is very preliminary and considers only one soft layer. The reason for

G - 73
this simple calculation is that soils of other layers are relatively firm and it can be assumed that
the settlement due to consolidation of other layers are relatively small. The purpose of the
estimation made here is to show the magnitude of settlement and degree of difficultness of
the problem. More detailed analysis needs to be made at design stage.

2. Analysis of Stability
For the analysis of stability, the conditions as shown in Figure 2-1 were assumed. Factor of
safety, Fs, against circular slip failure was calculated. Minimum Fs = 1.51 was obtained. This is
considered to indicate sufficient stability against failure. (Usually minimum Fs of 1.2 to 1.3 are
stipulated in the design manuals of highway. For example, Design Manual of Japan Highway
Public Corporation stipulates Fs = 1.25.)

Similarly to the estimation of settlement, this stability analysis is for the purpose of show the
degree of seriousness of stability problem. More detailed analysis is needed at design and
execution stages wherever soft ground is suspected or encountered.

CAMBODIAN NATIONAL ROAD No.1

St. 18+500
CL

14.00
Fs min = 1.51

γt = 2.0 tf/m 3 1:2

2.00

.0 .0
1:2
3.60

C = 2.0 tf/m 2
φ = 20°
(0,0) Top Soil γt = 2.0 tf/m 3
3.00

(old Fell Material) C = 2.0 tf/m 2

φ = 20°
Soft Clay/Silt γt = 1.8 tf/m 3
3.50

C = 1.5 tf/m 2
φ = 0°
Sandy Silt γt = 2.0 tf/m 3
3.00

C = 2.0 tf/m 2
φ = 20°

Figure 1-3 Stability Analysis by Circular Slip Surface Method

G - 74
G-7. Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Pavement

To verify the economic justification of usage of AC pavement, Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis
was made for AC pavement and DBST. This paper describes outline of the LCC analysis.

1. Example of Expenditure of Road Maintenance

To estimate the cost of maintenance of the Study Road, actual expenditure of the maintenance of
the existing national roads are desired. The rehabilitation of the principal national roads of
Cambodia started after the end of Civil War in 1992, and many of them are still being
implemented. Accordingly, there are only very few cases where the data on expenditure of
road maintenance are available. The followings are the examples of expenditure of actual road
maintenance.

1.1 NR-1; C1 Section (Study Road)

Rehabilitation of the Study Road was implemented from 1994 to 1996 with financial assistance
by ADB. In this improvement, many sections were widened to secure necessary width for
2-lane. Single-layer bituminous surface treatment (SBST) was adopted for the pavement.
The civil work was executed by force account.

In 1997, pot holes started to appear.

However, practically no repair could be done
because of lack of fund, until 2001. In 2001,
urgent repair works were implemented with a Assumed Condition for DBST Construction
fund of Cambodian Government. Total Length 55,000 m
amount of actual expenditure was Riel 2.2 Pavement Width 6.0 m
billion or approximately US$ 0.55 million. Total Area of Pave. 330,000 m2
This amount corresponds very approximately Unit Cost $16.9/ m2
10 % of the cost of new construction of Total Cost $5.577 million
DBST for whole section of 55 km. Since
this repair works were implemented as very
urgent relief, the quality of the works was not
high and the area of repair was limited.
This fact implies the following:

G - 75
(i) Condition of SBST pavement becomes intolerable 5 to 7 years from the time of new
construction if no routine maintenance is done.
(ii) The cost of minimum repair at this stage is approximately 10 % of the cost of new
construction of DBST.

In 2002, severe pot holes are to be repaired as a part of ADB’s Emergency Flood Relief Project.
In the Bill of Quantity of the contract, total 2,000 m2 of repair of pot holes and 2,000 m2 of
repair of edge break are listed for the 36 km-long section (KM 24 – 60). This corresponds
approximately 2 % of the total area of pavement of this section. This figure was very
provisionally decided for the purpose of tendering, based on the visual evaluation by the
consultant for the Emergency Flood Relief Project. After the works were started, it was felt
that the method repair of pot holes is not sufficient and MPWT is currently reviewing the repair
method. Even after revision of repair method, this repair work is limited to very severe pot
holes, and other less severe pavement defection will be left untouched. Therefore, new necessity
of repair will arise from next year and afterwards. MPWT is planning to request the necessary
budget allocation for these maintenance works.

This implies the following:

(i) One year after the minimum repair works, more than 2 % of the total pavement area needs to
be repaired.

Table below summarizes these maintenance works.

Table 1-1 Summary of Maintenance of the Study Road

Year of Type of Works Total Cost Fund Remarks
Implementation ($ 1,000) Source
1994 - 96 Road rehabilitation NA ADB Include widening
2001 Urgent repair of pavement 550 GOC* Approx. 10% of new
construction of DBST
2002 Urgent repair of pavement (15)** ADB Approx. 2% of total
pavement area
*GOC: Government of Cambodia
** This is the figure listed in the original contract and may vary depending on the actual
conditions.

G - 76
It should be emphasized that the above record of maintenance does not mean that MPWT is
satisfied with the situation of maintenance. MTWT had to accept this situation because of the
shortage in the fund for maintenance. Therefore, better maintenance would have been
implemented if appropriate fund had been available.

1.2. NR-4
This highway was rehabilitated under USAID program. Rehabilitation was implemented in
year 1994 – 1995. The type of pavement was AC. In year 2000, small “dents” were observed
on the pavement surface very sporadically. Some of them developed to pot holes and they
were repaired by MPWT. The total expenditure for this repair was Riel 68 million, or
approximately US$ 17,400. Compared to the total length of NR-4 (214 km), this amount of
repair cost is considered to be very small. This figure becomes more impressive when the fact,
that this highway is used by heavy trucks connecting Phnom Penh and Sihanoukville, is
considered. The cost of AC pavement for entire 214 km-long section is very approximately
estimated at US$ 21.7 million. The above-mentioned cost of repair represents less than 0.1 %
(0.08 %) of the estimated cost of new construction of AC pavement.

Overall condition of the pavement of NR-4 with these sporadic potholes was much better than
that of NR-1. The present condition of pavement of NR-4 is still in fairly good and very little
repair is observed to have been done up to today. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that
pavement of NR-4 is still in much better condition than that of NR-1 even without any repair.
(Of course this will result in the necessity of earlier rehabilitation and larger amount of cost than
those expected under present maintenance practice.)

In 2001, GOC decided to give a private firm

the concession of collecting the toll for
maintenance in exchange of assigning the Assumed Condition of AC Construction
firm of responsibilities for maintenance. Length 214 km
Since concessionaire of road maintenance Width 6.0 m
was effective, the firm has been carrying out Total Area of Pave. 1,284,000 m2
routine maintenance. The cost of Unit Cost $ 22.1/ m2
maintenance was not available to the Study Total Cost $21.7 million
Team.

G - 77
From this fact, the following can be derived.

(i) Routine maintenance cost of AC pavement is less than 0.1 % 5 to 6 years after construction.
(ii) AC pavement is fairly intact under substantially heavy traffic

2. Scenario of Maintenance Expenditure

Based on the facts of actual maintenance in Cambodia, two scenarios for future maintenance are
assumed for the purpose of Life Cycle Cost Analysis of pavement as follows:

(i) Scenario 1: Minimum Maintenance

This scenario is a copy of what happened on the Study Road as described above. The
assumptions are summarized below.

Table 2-1Minimum Maintenance Scenario of DBST

Period Maintenance Work
st th
1 – 4 years after construction No maintenance work, no expenditure: Pavement
deteriorates to unacceptable level.
5th year Repair is implemented to recover the pavement condition to
lowest acceptable level: Expenditure = 10% of cost of new
construction
6th – 9th year Minimum repair: Expenditure = 2% of the total area x $7.5
10th – 12th year Pavement deteriorates to the level that lowest acceptable
level can not be maintained by minimum maintenance:
Rehabilitation is implemented for 3 years. Total cost is the
cost for new construction.
13th year and after Repeat the cycle of 0 -14th year above

Table 2-2 Minimum Maintenance Scenario of AC Pavement

Period Maintenance Work
st th
1 – 10 year after construction No maintenance work, no expenditure: Some pot holes
occur but overall condition still acceptable compared
ordinary DBST.
11th year Pot holes repaired: Total cost is 0.5% of the new
construction (0.1% x 5 years)
12th – 14th year New pot holes occur and repaired: Cost is 0.1% of new
construction per year.
15th – 17th year Severely damaged pavement is rehabilitated by overlay:
Unit cost of overlay is $9/ m2
18th – 22nd year No maintenance

G - 78
 (ii) Scenario 2: Acceptable Maintenance
Scenario 1 assumes almost what was actually implemented in the past for DBST. As for AC,
the scenario assumed less maintenance than actually done to balance the condition of AC
pavement with that of DBST, and worse than actually anticipated. In Scenario 2, maintenance
of AC is assumed to be same to actual condition in the past case of NR-4. To balance the
condition, better maintenance for DBST is assumed. It is usually agreed that practical life
period of DBST with ordinary maintenance is 5 to 7 years. Therefore, 7 years is assumed to be
life period of DBST here. As for practical life period of AC pavement, there are very limited
data. One literature in Japan indicates that repair works increases when application of axle
load in terms of ESAL exceeds 1 million. In case of Section 5 of the Study Road, estimated
ESAL for design life of 10 yeas is approximately 2. Therefore, it is assumed that with ordinary
maintenance, overlay becomes necessary 10 years after construction. Based on the above
assumptions, the following scenario is assumed.

Table 2-3 Acceptable Maintenance Scenario for DBST

Period Maintenance Work
1st year after construction No maintenance work
nd th
2 – 6 year 2% of total pavement area/year: Unit cost = $7.5/ m2
7th – 9th year Rehabilitation of entire pavement, Implemented over 3 year
th
10 year and after Repeat the cycle of 1st – 10th year above

Table 2-4 Acceptable Maintenance Scenario of AC Pavement

Period Maintenance Work
1st – 5th year after construction No maintenance work
th th
6 – 10 year Repair of pot holes etc: Cost = 0.1% of new construction per year
th th
11 – 13 year Overlay implemented: Unit cost = $ 9/ m2
14th and after Repeat the cycle of 1st -13th year above

3. Estimation of LCC
3.1 Assumed Conditions and Scenario
LCC analysis was made on Section 5 of the Study Road. The reason for this was that the
estimated traffic volume of Section 5 is the smallest among those of the five sections of the
Study Road, and, thus, Section 5 is considered to be most suitable for adopting DBST.

The conditions assumed and used in the analysis are summarized in the table below. Anayses
were made for “Minimum Maintenance Scenario” and “Acceptable Maintenance Scenario” as

G - 79
 described in Section 3 above.

Table 3-1 Assumed Conditions of LCC Analysis

Assumed Condition
Item Remarks
or Value
Length of Road 18 km Section 5: St. 36 - 54
Width of Pavement 7.5 m @3.75 m x 2
Area of Pavement 135,000 m2
AC Pavement
Structure Type F Refer Figure 13-2-2 of Main Text
Unit Cost of New Construction $ 22.1/ m2 Based on the cost estimate used in
Subsection 13.2.1 of Main Text
Total Cost of New Construction $ 2,983,500
Unit Cost of Overlay $ 9.0/ m2 Used for budget allocation by DPWT of
Phnom Penh
Total Cost of Overlay $ 1,215,000
Unit Cost of Routine Maintenance $ 5.5/ m2 Repair of pot holes: figure used by
DPWT of Phnom Penh
DBST
Structure 19 mm surface treatment Base and subbase are same to AC
Unit Cost of New Construction $ 16.9/ m2 Estimated for the above pavement
structure
Total Cost of New Construction $ 2,281,500
Unit Cost of Rehabilitation $ 7.5 Base course and surface reconstructed
Total Cost of Rehabilitation $ 1,012,500
Unit Cost of Routine Maintenance $ 5.5/ m2 Figure used for budget allocation by
DPWT, Phnom Penh

3.2 Calculation of LCC

Tables 3-2 and 3-3 show the calculation of LCC for “Minimum Maintenance Scenario” and
“Acceptable Maintenance Scenario”.

The result of the calculation is summarized in the tablebelow.

Table 3-2 Summary of LCC Calculation

LCC ($1,000)
AC DBST AC/DBST
Minimum Maintenance 3,111 2,729 1.14
Acceptable Maintenance 3,328 2,867 1.16

As can be seen in the table above, LCC of AC is higher than that of DBST by 14 % for
“Minimum Maintenance Scenario” and by 16 % for “Acceptable Maintenance Scenario”.

G - 80
 Table 3-2 Comparison of LCC: Minimum Maintenance Scenario
(Unit: $ 1,000)
AC DBST
Constructio Constructio
Discount Discounte Discount Discounte
Year n& n&
Rate* d Cost Rate* d Cost
Maintenanc Maintenanc
0 2,984 1.00000 2,983.50 2,282 1.00000 2,281.50
1 0 0.89286 0.00 0 0.89286 0.00
2 0 0.79719 0.00 0 0.79719 0.00
3 0 0.71178 0.00 0 0.71178 0.00
4 0 0.63552 0.00 0 0.63552 0.00
5 0 0.56743 0.00 186 0.56743 105.33
6 0 0.50663 0.00 15 0.50663 7.52
7 0 0.45235 0.00 15 0.45235 6.72
8 0 0.40388 0.00 15 0.40388 6.00
9 0 0.36061 0.00 15 0.36061 5.36
10 0 0.32197 0.00 338 0.32197 108.67
11 15 0.28748 4.29 338 0.28748 97.02
12 0 0.25668 0.08 338 0.25668 86.63
13 0 0.22917 0.07 0 0.22917 0.00
14 0 0.20462 0.06 0 0.20462 0.00
15 405 0.18270 73.99 0 0.18270 0.00
16 405 0.16312 66.06 0 0.16312 0.00
17 405 0.14564 58.99 186 0.14564 27.04
18 0 0.13004 0.00 15 0.13004 1.93
19 0 0.11611 0.00 15 0.11611 1.72
20 0 0.10367 0.00 15 0.10367 1.54
Salvage value (729) 0.10367 -75.57 (74) 0.10367 -7.70
Total 3,111.46 2,729.27

*Discount rate: 12 % / Yr

G - 81
 Table 3-3 Comparison of LCC: Acceptable Maintenance Scenario
(Unit: $ 1,000)
AC DBST
Constructio Constructio
Discount Discounte Discount Discounte
Year n& n&
Rate* d Cost Rate* d Cost
Maintenanc Maintenanc
0 2,984 1.00000 2,983.50 2,282 1.00000 2,281.50
1 0 0.89286 0.00 0 0.89286 0.00
2 0 0.79719 0.00 15 0.79719 11.84
3 0 0.71178 0.00 15 0.71178 10.57
4 0 0.63552 0.00 15 0.63552 9.44
5 0 0.56743 0.00 15 0.56743 8.43
6 3 0.50663 1.51 15 0.50663 7.52
7 3 0.45235 1.35 338 0.45235 152.67
8 3 0.40388 1.20 338 0.40388 136.31
9 3 0.36061 1.08 338 0.36061 121.71
10 3 0.32197 0.96 0 0.32197 0.00
11 1,215 0.28748 349.28 15 0.28748 4.27
12 0 0.25668 0.08 15 0.25668 3.81
13 0 0.22917 0.07 15 0.22917 3.40
14 0 0.20462 0.06 15 0.20462 3.04
15 0 0.18270 0.00 15 0.18270 2.71
16 0 0.16312 0.00 338 0.16312 55.05
17 3 0.14564 0.43 338 0.14564 49.15
18 3 0.13004 0.39 338 0.13004 43.89
19 3 0.11611 0.35 15 0.11611 1.72
20 3 0.10367 0.31 15 0.10367 1.54
Salvage value (122) 0.10367 -12.60 (405) 0.10367 -41.99
Total 3,327.97 2,866.59

*Discount rate: 12 % / Yr

G - 82
G-8. Further Study on Traffic Situation at Chbar Ampov Intersection

1. Present Condition of Chbar Ampov Area

Chbar Ampov Intersection is located at the eastern end of Monivong Bridge. It exists
between National Road No.1 and National Road No.361, while at the western of the bridge,
there is Kbal Ntal Intersection that is between National Road No.1 and National Road No.2
& 3. Chbar Ampov Intersection is located on the National Road No. 1 (NR-1) in Mean
Chey District of Phnom Penh Municipality, and the name of road at this section is
Viyadapuda Road.
Old Monivong Bridge had been constructed in 1929 on the extending line of Chbar Ampov
Intersection, and it had collapsed due to scouring of western abutment. Since the existing
Monivong Bridge was constructed in 1960s about 50 m north from the position of old
bridge, Chbar Ampov Intersection becomes staggered.
300 m stretch of Viyadapuda Road at the Phnom Penh side is divided 6 lanes road, and
concrete buildings and permanent residences exist along the road. Densely developed
commercial and residential areas are spread in this district, and grid-pattern road network
comprising local narrow streets sustain the development of this built-up area.

View from Kbal Ntal Intersection to Monivong Br. Crowded and congested Chbar Ampov Market

Fig. G-8-1 shows the built-up area and road network in the vicinity of Chbar Ampov
Intersection.

G - 83
2. Problems related to Road Traffic

12 hrs (6:00 – 18:00) traffic volume on Monivong Bridge are of 168,000 vehicles
(Motorcycle: 87%, Light vehicles: 11%), that is equivalent to 64,000 pcu, while 12 hrs
traffic volume from all directions at Chbar Ampov Intersection is observed 128,000 vehicles
or 44,000 pcu. These figures account for the saturation of traffic capacity quantitatively,
and it incurs problems related to road traffic in this area where traffic congestion frequently
occurs.
From physical and qualitative viewpoints, public facilities such as Chbar Ampov Market,
bus terminal, taxi terminal, ferry terminal and pagoda are scattered in the vicinity of Chbar
Ampov Intersection. One of salient features related to road traffic in this area is found
many turning traffic. East-westward through traffic at this intersection is predominant at
Chbar Ampov Intersection, and it is considerably affected by turning traffic access to and
egress from such public facilities.
Under such circumstances, this intersection has many disadvantages in the traffic
engineering aspect as follows:

1) Unbalanced number of lane occurs between western entrance and eastern exit at Chbar
Ampov Intersection. NR-1 has 6 lanes at 300 m stretch of Viyadapuda Road, but it
reduces up to 2 lanes on Monivong Bridge.

Divided 6-lane National Road No. 1 Undivided 2-lane Monivong Bridge

G - 85
 2) It is basically 4-leg intersection, but entrance traffic is generated from more than four
directions actually because there are additional local roads to connect to the
intersection.

Undivided 2-lane National Road No.361 Narrow local road in Mean Chey District

3) Bus terminal, taxi terminals, public market and pagoda encompass Chbar Ampov
Intersection, and accordingly many turning traffic are generated.

4) It is situated on the steep slope of approach section of the bridge, and moreover it is
staggered. This intersection consists of two 3-leg intersections in the short distance
theoretically.

Situated on the steep slope of bridge approach Congested bus terminal besides intersection

3. Issues on Improvement of Chbar Ampov Intersection

The improvement of Chbar Ampov Intersection has been studied in the past, namely the
feasibility study of “Ho Chi Minh City to Phnom Penh Highway Improvement Project”
funded by ADB. According to hearing from MPWT staff, some grade separation
structures were examined to maneuver traffic effectively in the course of the study and the
improvement by roundabout was proposed finally as shown in Fig. G-8-2. The study team

G - 86
examined the improvement plan of channelized intersection as shown in Fig. G-8-3.

However, it is obvious that the present traffic volume exceeds the traffic capacity at
intersection considerably, and common issues were discussed technically to identify the
following points:

1) The existing intersection is situated on the steep slope of approach section of the bridge
as well as staggered shape, and it is inevitable defect of intersection design, that is to say,
below standard.

2) Queue of waiting vehicles at entrance is long enough to cause traffic interlocking that is
the most serious congestion at intersection.

Congested Chbar Ampov Intersection is one of major traffic bottlenecks on National Road
No. 1 C-1 Section (Phnom Penh – Neak Loueng Section) together with Neak Loueng Ferry
and Kokir Market. Accordingly, it is desirable to improve it simultaneously if NR-1 C-1 is
improved a flood-free road to an all-weather standard. However, physical constraints such
as close location to the bridge, steep slope, staggered shape and lack of land availability in
the vicinity are so severe and complicated that it is difficult to solve the problems only by an
engineering design without the construction of 2nd Monivong Bridge. 2nd Monivong
Bridge is proposed in the Study on the Transport Master Plan of the Phnom Penh
Metropolitan Area conducted by JICA in 2001 to relieve traffic bottleneck and increase the
traffic capacity.

Besides intersection improvement, traffic management is also one of practical measures to

cope with such problems. Making full use of existing road network in the area, one-way
traffic control was examined in the course of the study. However, it is sure that traffic
management can contribute facilitating east-westward traffic flow, but it does not contribute
alleviating traffic congestion due to many turning traffic access to and egress from public
facilities. Moreover, it may bring about adverse environmental impacts along local roads
that will be selected as a part of National Road No. 1.

G - 87
4. Recommendation on Improvement of Chbar Ampov Intersection

It may conclude that the construction of 2nd Monivong Bridge is badly required to solve the
problems related to road traffic as shown in Fig. G-8-4 even though it is out of the scope of
work for the Study. However, the scheme of 2nd Monivong Bridge surely leads to the
drastic change of Kbal Ntal Intersection where National Roads No.2 & 3 connect to
National Road No. 1.

Accordingly it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive study on the spatial plan including

traffic management in the area of Chbar Ampov Market and its surrounding because an
improvement plan such as adoption of roundabout, channelization or grade separation
structure is hard to be selected as practical and substantial measures.

It is recommended that the in-depth investigations and more comprehensive study covering
Chbar Ampov Market, Kbal Ntal Intersection and its surroundings in Mean Chey District of
Phnom Penh Municipality should be conducted for the improvement plan at Chbar Ampov
Intersection.

G - 90