Administração Nacional de Estradas

LONG TERM PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE

MONITORING PROJECT

R903 CUMBANE-CHACANE ROAD

= SECTION 2 - Penetration Macadam=

= SECTION 3 - Gravel =

Author: Cédrik Edson Namburete

0
 Maxixe, February 2017

Contents
1 INTRODUCTION:.............................................................................................................4

2 OBJECTIVES.....................................................................................................................5

3 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................5

3.1 DEFINITION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL SECTION AND MARK THE PANELS

IN SITU..................................................................................................................................5

3.1.1 PAVED SECTION...............................................................................................5

3.1.2 GRAVEL SECTION............................................................................................6

3.2 VISUAL ROAD CONDITION SURVEY...................................................................6

3.2.1. PAVED SECTION...................................................................................................6

3.2.1 GRAVEL SECTION............................................................................................8

3.2.2 ASSESSMENT OF IN SITU STRENGHT BY DCP TEST................................8

3.3 TRIAL PIT TEST INCLUDING SAMPLING..........................................................10

3.3.1 PAVED SECTION - LOCATION OF THE PIT................................................10

3.3.2 GRAVEL SECTION - LOCATION OF THE PIT.............................................10

3.3.3 TEST PIT............................................................................................................11

3.4 ASSESSMENT OF ROUGHNESS...........................................................................12

3.5 ASSESSMENT OF TRANSVERSE PROFILING....................................................13

3.5.1 PAVED SECTION.............................................................................................14

3.5.2 GRAVEL SECTION..........................................................................................15

3.6 CHARACTERIZATION OF PAVEMENT MATERIAL BY ANE - INHAMBANE

LABORATORY...................................................................................................................15

3.7 LEVELING SURVEYS.............................................................................................16

4 MONITORING RESULTS..............................................................................................16

4.1 OVERVIEW...............................................................................................................16

1
 4.2 TRAFFIC COUNTS..................................................................................................17

4.3 PAVED SECTION.....................................................................................................18

4.3.1 DATA DESIGN OF THE EXPERIMENTAL SECTIONS IN CUMBANA -

CHACANE ROAD...........................................................................................................18

4.3.2 VISUAL ROAD CONDITION SURVEY.........................................................18

4.3.3 ASSESSMENT OF IN SITU STRENGHT BY DCP TEST..............................19

4.3.4 TRIAL PIT RESULTS.......................................................................................21

4.3.5 ASSESSMENT OF ROUGHNESS....................................................................22

4.3.6 ASSESSMENT OF TRANSVERSE PROFILING (RUT).................................22

4.3.7 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PAVEMENT MATERIAL.........................23

4.4 GRAVEL SECTION..................................................................................................25

4.4.1 DATA DESIGN OF THE EXPERIMENTAL SECTIONS IN CUMBANA -

CHACANE ROAD...........................................................................................................25

4.4.2 VISUAL ROAD CONDITION SURVEY.........................................................25

4.4.3 ASSESSMENT OF IN SITU STRENGHT BY DCP TEST..............................26

4.4.4 TRIAL PIT RESULTS.......................................................................................27

4.4.5 ASSESSMENT OF ROUGHNESS....................................................................28

4.4.6 ASSESSMENT OF TRANSVERSE PROFILING (RUT).................................28

4.4.7 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PAVEMENT MATERIAL.........................29

LEVELLING SURVEYS..........................................................................................32

4.4.8...................................................................................................................................32

5 COST ANALYSES..........................................................................................................33

6 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................36

7 CONSTRAINTS...............................................................................................................38

8 RECOMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................39

2
List of Figures

Figure 1 Typical layout section of a paved section...................................................................6

Figure 2 Typical layout section of a gravel section...................................................................6

Figure 3 Illustration of extent....................................................................................................8

Figure 4 DCP Equipment..........................................................................................................9

Figure 5 Location of trial pit tests.........................................................................................10

Figure 6 Location of trial pit tests.........................................................................................11

Figure 7 Sampling on pit.........................................................................................................12

Figure 9 MERLIN instrument..................................................................................................13

Figure 10 Rut definition and measurements............................................................................14

Figure 11 Calibrated aluminium wedge for rut depth measurements.....................................14

Figure 12 Locations of the sections where the rutting depth and width measurements
occurred - Paved section..........................................................................................................15

Figure 13 Locations of the sections where the rutting depth and width measurements
occurred gravel section...........................................................................................................15

Figure 15 Chainages and coordinates of the paved section.....................................................17

Figure 16 Chainages and coordinates of the gravel section....................................................18

Figure 17 Graphic of grading curve - pit 1.............................................................................25

Figure 18 Graphic of grading curve - pit 1.............................................................................31

Figure 19 Graphic of grading curve - pit 2.............................................................................32

Figure 20 Graphic of Costs - Paved and gravel sections........................................................36

List of Tables

Table 1 General description of extend classification................................................................8

Table 2 Coordinates of the pits...............................................................................................10

Table 3 Coordinates of the pits...............................................................................................11

3
Table 6 Data design os the Cumbana - Chacane Road - Paved Section (Penetration
Macadam).................................................................................................................................19

Table 7 Visual road condition survey result for Paved Section...............................................19

Table 9 E-Moduli and layer strength diagram (Paved Section) - Pit 2...................................21

Table 10 E-Moduli and layer strength diagram ( Paved Section) - Pit 3................................21

Table 11 Result of Trial pit - Paved Section............................................................................22

Table 12 Result of roughness - Paved Section.........................................................................23

Table 14 Characterization of pavement materials - Paved section.........................................24

Table 16 Visual road condition survey result for Unpaved Section........................................26

Table 17 E-Moduli and layer strength diagram ( Gravel Section) - Pit 1...............................27

Table 18 E-Moduli and layer strength diagram (Gavel Section)- Pit 2..................................27

Table 19 Result of Trial pit 1 - Gravel Section........................................................................28

Table 20 Result of Trial pit 2 - Gravel Section........................................................................29

Table 21 Result of roughness - Gravel Section........................................................................29

Table 22 Result of rutting - Unpaved section..........................................................................29

Table 23 Characterization of pavement materials (Pit 1) - Gravel section............................30

Table 24 Characterization of pavement materials (Pit 2) - Gravel section............................31

Table 25 Result of leveling surveys..........................................................................................33

Table 26 Overall costs in Paved Section.................................................................................35

Table 27 Overall costs in Gravel Section................................................................................35

4
1 INTRODUCTION:
In the context of improving the conditions of the country's road network, ANE
initiated the Rural Roads Investment Program (RRIP) in 2008, supported technically
by Africa Community Access Program (AFCAP), to find construct solutions and
techniques using local materials for low-traffic roads, that are not compliant with the
current standard and specifications.
However, before using such techniques on a large scale, it is good practice to
construct experimental or demonstration sections that can be monitored over a
sufficiently long period to prove they are appropriate and cost-effective. It is in this
context that some sections have been chosen to be monitored long enough to obtain
useful results, the called Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) sections.
The province of Inhambane, among some provinces of the country, was one of the
chosen ones for the accomplishment of monitoring on three sections of the road R903:
Cumbana - Chacane and two sections of the road N/C: Agostinho Neto - Mutamba,
each sections with different solutions in terms of base and coat materials.
This report is about monitoring the experimental sections located on road R903:
Cumbana - Chacane, at kilometers 17+200 - 17+450 (250 m) and 20+400 - 20+700
(300 m).

2 OBJECTIVES
Determine the economic viability and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the solutions built
in sections of the road R903: Cumbana - Chacane, in kilometers 17 + 200 - 17 + 450
(paved section), and 20+400 - 20+700 (gravel section).

3 METHODOLOGY
The methodology used was based in the protocol of "the guideline for the Monitoring
of Experimental and Long Term Pavement Perform (LTPP) section in Mozambique",
and it consisted in:

1. Definition of the experimental section and mark the panels in situ;

2. Visual road condition survey;
3. Assessment of in situ strength - DCP test;
4. Trial pit demonstration including sampling (base, sub base and sub grade);
5. Assessment of roughness;
6. Assessment of transverse profiling;
7. Characterization of pavement material by ANE-Inhambane Laboratory
(grading, moisture content, Atterberg limits, compaction, CBR);
8. Leveling surveys (only on unpaved roads).

5
 It was supposed to do also the assessment of the structural capacity by deflection
measurements, but equipment was not available to do this test.

3.1 DEFINITION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL SECTION AND MARK

THE PANELS IN SITU

3.1.1 PAVED SECTION

In paved section, the length is 250 meters and the width is 6 meters. The section is cross two
lanes and divided into 13 panels, where panels A and C being 20m long and panel B being
10m long. The panels 1 to 10 are each 20m long (figure1).

Figure 1 Typical layout section of a paved section

3.1.2 GRAVEL SECTION

In unpaved section, the length is 300 meters and the width is 6 meters. The section is divided
in two panels, one with the lenght of 50 meters and another one with 250 meters. (Figure 2)

Figure 2 Typical layout section of a gravel section

3.2 VISUAL ROAD CONDITION SURVEY

3.2.1. PAVED SECTION
The visual assessment of this trial sections will be conduct at 6-month intervals, and based in
Technical Methods for Highways number 9, part B (TMH9 - part B, COTO, 2013). for
flexible pavements.
In this section, analyzed the:
 Surface assessment where we analyze the surface texture, voids, surfacing failures,
surfacing patching, surfacing cracks, aggregate loss, binder condition,
bleeding/flushing and surface deformation;

6
  Structural assessment where we analyze the cracks (block, longitudinal/slip, transverse
and crocodile), pumping, rutting, undulation/settlement, patching, potholes and
failures.
 Functional assessment where we analyze the riding quality / roughness, skid
resistance, surface drainage, condition of the shoulders and edge defects.
 Overall condition of the pavement where we analyze the general rating for the
condition of the pavement, and it can be classified as "very good, good, moderate,
poor and very poor".
The analysis of the all of these aspects is made taking into account the severity of the defects
and the amount of the defects as a function of the extent.
The severity scale is from 0 to 5 is used for that purpose:
 0 – None: no distress visible
 1 – Slight: distress difficult to concern. Only first signs of distress are visible.
 2 – Slight to Warning: distress clearly visible but not at degree 3.
 3 – Warning: start of secondary defects. (Distress notable with respect to possible
consequences.)
 4 – Warning to Severe: secondary defects clearly visible but not at degree 5 yet.
 5 – Severe: secondary defects are well developed (high degree of secondary defects)
and/or extreme severity of primary defects
The extend measurements is following:
Table 1 General description of extend classification

Nr Extent Description Percentage of length

Isolated occurrence. Not representative of the segment
01 1 <5
length being evaluated.
Occurs over parts of the segment length. More than
02 2 5 – 10
isolated
Intermittent (scattered) occurrence over most of the
03 3 segment length (in general), or extensive occurrence 10 – 25
over a limited portion of the segment length.
More frequent occurrence over a major portion of the
04 4 25 – 50
segment length.
05 5 Extensive occurrence over the entire segment. > 50

7
 Figure 3 Illustration of extent

To do this test, we fill the forms (Appendix A) and introduce the data to calculate VCI (excel
file gave from consult). Because the condition of the road is the same, we did the test in all
section, without divide in panels.

3.2.1 GRAVEL SECTION

The visual assessment of this trial sections will be conduct at 3-month intervals, for survey
leveling, and 6-months for another tests, and based in Technical Methods for Highways
number 9, part E (TMH9 - part E, COTO, 2013), for gravel sections.
In this section, analyzed the:

 Engineering assessment (material properties), where we analyze the gravel quality,

maximum size and grading, plasticity, wearing course layer thickness, exposed
subgrade and subgrade quality.

 Engineering assessment (surface distress), where we analyze the potholes,

corrugations, rutting, loose material, stoniness and erosion.

 Functional assessment, where we analyze de ride quality, trafficability/ passibility,

safety, drainage on the road, drainage from the road and overall condition of the road.

8
3.2.2 ASSESSMENT OF IN SITU STRENGHT BY DCP TEST
This test is used for the field determination of the mechanical properties of natural and
slightly stabilized soils.
To do this test we use the DCP equipment, which is composed of a conical tip for penetration
(in this case we used 60 degrees), the tip is attached to a steel rod that is attached to an anvil,
above the anvil, there is a rod with a hammer of 8 kg and at the other end is a handle. There is
a ruler graduated in meters attached to the anvil extending to the plate in the background, this
plate has an orifice and through it the tip taper penetrates the floor.

Figure 4 DCP Equipment

The procedure of this test is:

 After choose the point, we apply one series of 5 strokes by dropping the hammer from
the anvil, and record the reading on the graduated ruler in meters corresponding to the
each serial of strokes;
 The test stops after obtaining the appropriate penetration, normally 800mm.
 All DCP holes should be sealed properly with an appropriate filling material, usually
bitumen emulsion and sand (at least for the top 30mm).
 At the end of the test, a blow must be applied upwards and try to rotate the DCP
clockwise or counterclockwise. If this easily rotates the penetration data is acceptable
for the purpose of analysis. If it seems too rigid, the test should be rejected, since the
occurrence of significant friction in the rod is demonstrated. This usually occurs in

9
 situations where the rod is stuck between large stones dimensions during the test and
there is an additional resistance caused by lateral friction on the road.
 Upon acceptance of the test, the test form which has been completed during the test
shall be marked and completed.
 Repeat the test procedure for the other test positions.

After introduce the data on forms (Appendix B), we used the software "AfCAP LVR-DCP
v1.03", to calculate the CBR and the structural numbers for each layer and for the entire
pavement, and the parison this results with the structural requirements of the project.

3.3 TRIAL PIT TEST INCLUDING SAMPLING

3.3.1 PAVED SECTION - LOCATION OF THE PIT

The pit test consisted in open a 03 (three) pits of 1.0 x 1.0 [m], one on each panel A, B and C,
as we can see below, and the description of the soil profile.

Figure 5 Location of trial pit tests

The chainages of each section were marked from this datum, and GPS locations were
recorded.

Table 2 Coordinates of the pits

Nr Reference of Pit Coordinates

01 Pit 01 S 24 13.206'
o
E 35o05.262'
02 Pit 02 S 24o12.590' E 35o06.400'
03 Pit 03 S 24o12.532' E 35o06.419'

3.3.2 GRAVEL SECTION - LOCATION OF THE PIT

In this section, the pit test consisted in open a 02 (two) pits of 1.0 x 1.0 [m], one on each
panel, as we can see below, and the description of the soil profile.

10
 Figure 6 Location of trial pit tests

The chainages of each section were marked from this datum, and GPS locations were
recorded.

Table 3 Coordinates of the pits

Nr Reference of Pit Coordinates

01 Pit 01 S 24o14.607' E 35o03.153'
02 Pit 02 S 24o14.680' E 35o06.080'
4 5 6

6.1.1 TEST PIT

In a both section, we toke a sample of the almost 120 kg (+/-50kg for Proctor, +/-50Kg for
CBR, +/-10Kg for Grading and +/-10Kg for Atterberg Limits) per each layer.
The soil profile description (Appendix C) was based in the revision of the Jennings, Brink and
Williams (1973) method by Brink and Bruin (1990), and described in six parameters below:
1. Moisture condition - The moisture condition of the layer of soil should be described
as a necessary precursor to the assessment of consistency which is largely dependent
on the moisture content at the time of inspection. In this parameter, the soil can be
dry, slightly moist, moist, very moist, wet.
2. Colour - The description of the predominant colors of the soil and it should simply be
limited to two (e.g. reddish brown). Secondary color patterns are described according
to their size limits, and can be speckled, mottled, blotched, banded, streaked or
stained.
3. Consistency - is a measure of the hardness or toughness of the soil and is an
observation based on the effort required to dig into the soil, or alternatively to mould
it with the fingers, and can be very loose, loose, medium dense, dense or very dense.
4. Structure - This term indicates the presence (or absence) of discontinuities in the soil
and their nature. Non-cohesive soils exhibit a granular structure and since this is an
invariable feature it is usually not recorded.
5. Soil texture - The soil texture in each stratum is described on a basis of grain size. In
the description of boulders, cobbles and gravels, particular care should be given to

11
 the description of the matrix and its relative volume. The shape of particles should
also be described as this often aids the interpretation of origin. This term can be
classified as clay, silt, fine sand, medium sand, coarse sand, fine gravel, medium
gravel, coarse gravel, cobbles or boulders.
6. Origin - An attempt should be made to determine the origin of the soil in each layer
of the soil profile. This is generally quite easy in the case of residual soils below the
pebble marker, but may prove more difficult in the transported soil zone, and can be
classified as littoral and mobile dune sands, esuarine and deltaic, talus, silty or clayed
hillwash, aeolian deposits, sand soils of mixed origin, alluvium or lacustrine.
Other important parameter is if the layer is disturbed or not disturbed sample.

Figure 7 Sampling on
pit

6.2 ASSESSMENT OF ROUGHNESS

The base to analyze the ridding quality is the measurement of roughness in the International
Roughness Index(IRI) scale (figure 7).

12
 Figure 8 IRI scale

To take data to analyze the IRI scale was used the MERLIN (A Machine for Evaluating
Roughness using Low-cost Instrumentation). The results was recorded on a data chart
mounted on the machine. By recording measurements along the wheel path, a histogram of
“y” was built up on the chart. The width of the histogram was used to determine the IRI. To
determine the IRI, 200 measurements are usually made at regular intervals. When the 200
measurements have been done the distribution is graphically marked on the chart. The
procedure is repeated for the other end of the distribution. The width of the scatter of the 200
marks, excluding the outer 10 marks at each end of the scatter is then measured in millimeters
and denoted D. After fill all the form, the IRI was determined using the following equation:
IRI = 0.593 + 0.0471 D
A standard error in the IRI value is to be noted and can be up to 10%. Data is to be collected
at panels 1 – 10 including panels A, B and C.

13
 Figure 9 MERLIN instrument

To read 200 points in each section we had to do the series below:

 In the paved section we did series of 4 half revolutions and 1 full;

 In the gravel section we did series of 3 full revolutions and 4 half;

6.3 ASSESSMENT OF TRANSVERSE PROFILING

The rut width is measured with a measuring tape, while the rut depth, which is the maximum
measured perpendicular distance between the bottom surface of the straight edge and the
contact area (Figure 10), can be measured with a calibrated wedge (Figure 11Error: Reference
source not found). Al of this sections was marked in the field and stored in GPS.

Figure 10 Rut definition and measurements

14
 Figure 11 Calibrated aluminium wedge for rut depth measurements

6.3.1 PAVED SECTION

To get the transverse profiling was used straight edge and wedge. According to the consultant
recommendation, in paved section, the measurements was token in the middle of the each
panel, in inner and outter path of each lane, from 1 to 10, as showed in figure 10.

Figure 12 Locations of the sections where the rutting depth and width measurements occurred -
Paved section

15
6.3.2 GRAVEL SECTION
In the gravel section, the measurements was token in a distance of the 20 m, from km 0+000
until km 0+300, in inner and outer path of each lane.

Figure 13 Locations of the sections where the rutting depth and width measurements occurred
gravel section

6.4 CHARACTERIZATION OF PAVEMENT MATERIAL BY ANE -

INHAMBANE LABORATORY
The characterization of pavement material was done with material from the 05 pits was done,
and compare with the specifications of the pavement design.
The laboratory tests was done according to this specifications showed below:
Table 4 Methods of laboratory tests

Ite
Test designation Serial of test Reference number of test
m
01 Grading AASHTO T T88
Maximum Dry Density (MDD)
02 and Optimum moisture content AASHTO T T180
(OMC)
Liquid limit AASHTO T T89
Atterberg Plasticity limit AASHTO T T90
03
limits Plasticity Index AASHTO T T90
Shrinked limit AASHTO T T90
04 CBR AASHTO T T193

16
6.5 LEVELING SURVEYS
The leveling surveys was done using dumpy level, according to the using the scheme
presented in figure 4. The leveling gives the helps to understand the

Figure 14 Scheme used for leveling survey

7 MONITORING RESULTS

7.1 OVERVIEW
Cumbana is a town located on the N1 trunk road about 30km South of Maxixe city in
Inhambane province. The project road begins in Cumbana and extends South-Westwards to
Chacane.
According to the TMH9 the classification of this road is following:
Table 5 Classification of the road

Nr Parameters Classification
01 Road category C
02 Functional road class Level 3 (tertiary)
03 Carriageway category Undivided (U)

17
 Number of lanes per
04 Two lanes,
carriageway
Paved (from km 11+800 to 20+000)
05 Surface Unpaved (from 0+000 to 11+800 and from 20+000 to
40+000)
06 Shoulder Unpaved
07 Climate region Tropical Wet with two seasons (dry and rain)
08 Terrain type Flat
09 Age category New (N) - Age of road < 5years
10 Traffic class T1 (AADT < 500)

The paved section is located between chainages 17+200 and 17+450, and GPS coordinates as
below:

Figure 15 Chainages and coordinates of the paved section

The gravel section are located between chainages 17+200 and 17+450, and GPS coordinates
as below:

Figure 16 Chainages and coordinates of the gravel section

18
7.2 TRAFFIC COUNTS
The traffic count was done by manual method, in 3 (three) days, 09/05/2017, 10/05/2017 and
11/05/2017.
According to this count, the ADT value is 85 vehicles per day.

7.3 PAVED SECTION

7.3.1 DATA DESIGN OF THE EXPERIMENTAL SECTIONS IN CUMBANA -

CHACANE ROAD
According to the project, the pavement structure of the paved section followed the following
parameters:
Table 6 Data design os the Cumbana - Chacane Road - Paved Section (Penetration Macadam)
Pavement
Profile Thickness Design aspects
structure
10 - 13 Top layer: aggregates with 10 - 13 mm,.
mm Penetration
macadam Second layer: aggregates with 20 - 40
Surfacing
20 - 40 mm.
mm The aggregates was obtained by sieving natural calcrete
gravel
Untreated red sand, with the same characteristics as the
Base 150 mm
sub-base layer.
Red sand which is locally available and compacted to a
minimum of 95% mdd Mod. AASHTO. The soaked
Sub-base 150 mm
CBR at 95% MDD Mod. AASHTO was 23.5%,
Grading Modulus (GM) = 1.19.
The existing track consisted of very loose sand witch
Road bed Infinitive was causing passability problems, so this sand had to be
removed.

19
7.3.2 VISUAL ROAD CONDITION SURVEY

Based on the visual condition survey (Appendix A), the Visual Assessment Index (VAI) was
calculated and the results are shown in the table below.

Table 7 Visual road condition survey result for Paved Section

VISUAL ROAD CONDITION ASSESSMENT

VAI
Item Data Comments VAI (Variation)
The road is in the good
condition, no potholes and no
1 22/02/2017 91,8
cracks, but there is undulations
0,2
in all area.
The road is in the good
condition, no potholes and no
2 06/05/2017 91,6
cracks, but there is undulations
in all area.
0,3
The road is in the good
condition, no cracks, but there is
3 18/10/2017 91,3
undulations in all area and some
potholes
The road is in the good 0,2
condition, no cracks, but there is
4 05/04/2018 91,1
undulations in all area and some
new potholes

According to the results obtained, there was a very low VAI variation in the 03 tests
performed, which means that there were no significant changes in the runway condition
during the period under analysis

7.3.3 ASSESSMENT OF IN SITU STRENGHT BY DCP TEST

The DCP tests were performed at the points where the pits were opened. The figures below
shows the results founded in this tests in the paved sections:

20
Table 8 E-Moduli and layer strength diagram (Paved Section) - Pit 1

Point 1 - Pit 1
E-Moduli
Depth Ave. E-Moduli
Nr Range CBR (%) UCS (KPa)
(mm) (Mpa)
(MPa)
01 0 - 150 155 767 - 320 39 375
02 151 - 300 221 102 - 488 59 542
03 301 - 450 279 131 - 601 78 694
04 451 - 600 240 110 - 536 65 593
05 601 - 750 128 60 - 276 31 306
06 751 - 900 97 51 - 186 22 228

 According to the results, the equivalents strengths are adequate for all layers in this
pit.

Table 9 E-Moduli and layer strength diagram (Paved Section) - Pit 2

Point 2 - Pit 2
Nr Depth Ave. E-Moduli E-Moduli CBR (%) UCS (KPa

21
 (mm) (Mpa) Range (MPa)
01 0 - 150 158 66 - 413 40 383
02 151 - 300 150 75 - 299 37 361
03 301 - 450 331 128 - 985 96 831
04 451 - 600 372 158 - 930 110 941
05 601 - 750 311 148 - 664 89 779
06 751 - 900 237 120 - 469 64 586

 According to the results, the equivalents strengths are adequate for all layers in this
pit.

Table 10 E-Moduli and layer strength diagram ( Paved Section) - Pit 3

Point 3 - Pit 3
Depth Ave. E-Moduli E-Moduli
Nr CBR (%) UCS (KPa)
(mm) (Mpa) Range (MPa)
01 0 - 150 105 43 - 278 24 249

22
 02 151 - 300 94 47-190 21 222
03 301 - 450 108 51 - 233 25 257
04 451 - 600 361 149 - 948 106 911
05 601 - 750 377 140 - 1223 112 953
06 751 - 900 80 42 - 150 17 186

 According to the results, the equivalent strength is inadequate for the first layer, and
adequate for the rest layers.

7.3.4 TRIAL PIT RESULTS

The result of test pit test, is show in the table below.
Table 11 Result of Trial pit - Paved Section

Test Pit 1 (T1) = Test Pit 2 (T2) = Test Pit 3 (T3)

Nr. Layer Moisture Colour Consistency Structure Soil Origin Disturbed Undisturbed

23
 Content Texture Sample sample

Medium Red, Medium Sandy soil of Yes

01 Base Loose * None
wet stained sand mixed orign

Sub- Medium Red, Medium Sandy soil of Yes

02 Loose * None
base wet stained sand mixed orign

Sub Medium Gray, Medium Sandy soil of Yes

03 Loose * None
grade wet bonded sand mixed orign

Note:
* The structure was not filled because this item is only applicable for cohesive soils.

7.3.5 ASSESSMENT OF ROUGHNESS

The results of roughness (Appendix D), are shows in the table below, and the condition
according to the IRI scale (figure 7).

Table 12 Result of roughness - Paved Section

ASSESSMENT OF ROUGHNESS
AVERAG
Item Data Direction D IRI CONDITION
E
Left Lane 149,205 7,62
1 20/02/2017 7,68 older or damaged pavement road
Right Lane 151,667 7,74
Left Lane 150,000 7,66
2 18/10/2017 7,78 older or damaged pavement road
Right Lane 155,000 7,89

Seeing the road, it is not looks like it is damaged, so to understand the reason of this
roughness, undulations is necessary to analyse other parameters like DCP and the
characteristics of the soil of the pavement structure.

7.3.6 ASSESSMENT OF TRANSVERSE PROFILING (RUT)

The result of rut (Appendix E), is show in the table below.

Table 13 Result of rutting - Paved road

Nr Lane Chainag Panel Outer path Inner path

24
 09/10/201 06/05/201
06/05/2017 Variation 09/10/2017 Variation
e 7 7
1 17+230 1 3,5 4,0 0,5 1,1 6,0 4,9
2 17+250 2 0,0 2,0 2,0 5,0 12,0 7,0
3 17+270 3 1,0 7,0 6,0 3,0 10,0 7,0
4 17+290 4 3,5 4,0 0,5 1,0 4,0 3,0
5 Left 17+310 5 7,0 7,0 0,0 0,0 5,0 5,0
6 lane 17+350 6 3,0 6,0 3,0 1,0 5,0 4,0
7 17+370 7 0,0 4,0 4,0 0,0 2,0 2,0
8 17+390 8 5,0 6,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 1,0
9 17+410 9 0,0 1,0 1,0 3,8 7,0 3,2
10 17+430 10 0,0 0,0 0,0 7,0 8,0 1,0
11 17+230 1 1,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 3,0 2,0
12 17+250 2 1,0 5,0 4,0 0,0 1,0 1,0
13 17+270 3 0,0 2,0 2,0 0,0 1,0 1,0
14 17+290 4 5,0 10,0 5,0 2,0 5,0 3,0
15 Right 17+310 5 0,0 2,0 2,0 3,0 7,0 4,0
16 lane 17+350 6 2,0 5,0 3,0 3,5 6,0 2,5
17 17+370 7 0,0 3,0 3,0 0,0 4,0 4,0
18 17+390 8 0,0 5,0 5,0 0,0 3,0 3,0
19 17+410 9 4,1 5,0 0,9 0,0 6,0 6,0
20 17+430 10 0,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 5,0 4,0

As the table shows, the rut is very irregular, and this variability happens because of the
existing undulations in the road.

7.3.7 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PAVEMENT MATERIAL

The characterization of the pavement material is show in the table 11 and figure 14 below:

Table 14 Characterization of pavement materials - Paved section

25
 Pit 1 ~ Pit 2 ~ Pit 3

Nr Layer Description of the test Results

Maximum dry density

1.958
(gr/cm³)
1 Compation
Optimum moisture content
9.0
(%)
Califórnia Bearing Ratio
2 CBR (%) 25,8
(CBR)

Plasticity Index (%) 6.7

Base
Liquidity limit (%) 23.4
3 Atterberg limits
Limit of plasticity (%) 16.7

shrinked limit (%) 2.1

4 Grading Grading Module (GM) 1.31

Maximum dry density

1.951
(gr/cm³)
1 Sub-base Compation
Optimum moisture content
8.8
(%)

26
 Califórnia Bearing Ratio
2 CBR (%) 23,8
(CBR)

Plasticity Index (%) 6.1

3 Liquidity limit (%) 24.3

Atterberg limits
Limit of plasticity (%) 18.2

shrinked limit (%) 2.0

Módulo Granulométrico
4 Grading 1.44
(GM)
Maximum dry density
1.801
(gr/cm³)
1 Compation
Optimum moisture content
10.4
(%)
Califórnia Bearing Ratio
2 CBR (%) 11,1
(CBR)

Plasticity Index (%) NP

Sub-grade
Liquidity limit (%) NP
3 Atterberg limits
Limit of plasticity (%) NP

shrinked limit (%) NP

4 Grading Grading Module (GM) 1.53

27
 Sieve analysis
100
90
80

% of material pasing
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Particle size (mm)

Base Sub-base Sub Grade

Figure 17 Graphic of grading curve - pit 1

NOTE: In the table of characterization of materials only show the results of test pit 1 because
the materials and results of the other pits are very similar.

According to the laboratory tests, the following comments:

 The materials of the all layers of this pavement (base, subbase and subgrade) are
medium sand, and the curve grading is uniform;
 The characteristics of the base material are almost the same as the sub base, which
means that the material can be from the same borrow pit;
 The plasticity index of the base layer material is very near of the recommended value
(PI<=6) for surfaced roads, according to the SATCC specifications. Maybe that's why
no cracks were found in the pavement (visual assessment).

7.4 GRAVEL SECTION

7.4.1 DATA DESIGN OF THE EXPERIMENTAL SECTIONS IN CUMBANA -

CHACANE ROAD
According to the project, the pavement structure followed the following parameters:

Table 15 Data design os the Cumbana - Chacane Road - Unpaved Section

Pavement
Profile Thickness Design aspects
structure

28
 Stabilized soils with limestone (50:50 ratio), minimum
Base 150 mm CBR = 60%, compacted to minimum of 95% MDD
Mod. AASHTO.
Red sand , with minimum CBR = 30%, compacted to a
Sub-base 150 mm
minimum of 95% MDD Mod. AASHTO.
Imported soil, with minimum CBR = 15%, compacted
Road bed 300 mm
to a minimum of 93% MDD Mod. AASHTO.

7.4.2 VISUAL ROAD CONDITION SURVEY

Based on the visual condition survey (Appendix A), the Visual Assessment Index (VAI) was
calculated and the results are shown in the table below.

Table 16 Visual road condition survey result for Unpaved Section

VISUAL ROAD CONDITION ASSESSMENT

Item Data Comments VAI Condition

1 08/05/2017 No comments 51 Fair

2 18/10/2017 No comments 83 Good
3 05/04/2018 No comments 62 Fair

The VAI improved from the first visit to the second and the road went from reasonable to
good the good condition. This improvement may be due to the fact that the second site visit
occurred after grading process.

7.4.3 ASSESSMENT OF IN SITU STRENGHT BY DCP TEST

The DCP tests were performed at the points where the pits were opened. The figures below
shows the results founded in this tests in the paved sections:

Table 17 E-Moduli and layer strength diagram ( Gravel Section) - Pit 1

Point 1 - Pit 1
Depth Ave. E-Moduli E-Moduli
Nr CBR (%) UCS (KPa)
(mm) (Mpa) Range (MPa)
01 0 - 150 135 47 - 514 33 323
02 151 - 300 117 44 - 367 28 270
03 301 - 450 96 38 - 271 22 225
04 451 - 600 1687 403 - 1 370 2732
05 601 - 800 2952 1567 - 5560 442 3192
29
  According to the results, the equivalent strength is inadequate depth 100 mm to the
150 mm, and adequate for the rest layers.

Table 18 E-Moduli and layer strength diagram (Gavel Section)- Pit 2

Point 2 - Pit 2
Depth Ave. E-Moduli E-Moduli
Nr CBR (%) UCS (KPa)
(mm) (Mpa) Range (MPa)
01 0 - 150 200 74 - 663 53 490
02 151 - 300 181 76 - 457 46 440
03 301 - 450 85 34 - 235 19 200
04 451 - 600 150 59 - 429 37 360
05 601 - 800 112 46 - 291 26 265

30
  According to the results, the equivalents strengths are adequate for all layers in this
pit.

7.4.4 TRIAL PIT RESULTS

The result of test pit test (Appendix C), is show in the table below.

Table 19 Result of Trial pit 1 - Gravel Section

Test Pit 1 (T1)

Moisture Soil Disturbed Undisturbed

Nr. Layer Colour Consistency Structure Origin
Content Texture Sample sample

Light Yes
Coarse Sandy soil of
01 Base Dry gray, Dense Shattered None
gravel mixed orign
Blotched

Sub- Medium Red, Medium Sandy soil of Yes

02 Loose Pinholed None
base wet Specked sand mixed orign

Very Yes
Sub Medium dark Medium Sandy soil of
03 Loose Pinholed None
grade wet brown, sand mixed orign
Stained

31
 Table 20 Result of Trial pit 2 - Gravel Section

Test Pit 2 (T2)

Moisture Soil Disturbed Undisturbed

Nr. Layer Colour Consistency Structure Origin
Content Texture Sample sample

Light Yes
Coarse Sandy soil of
01 Base Dry gray, Dense Shattered None
gravel mixed orign
Blotched

Sub- Medium Red, Medium Sandy soil of Yes

02 Loose Pinholed None
base wet Specked sand mixed orign

Very Yes
Sub Medium dark Medium Sandy soil of
03 Loose Pinholed None
grade wet brown, sand mixed orign
Banded

7.4.5 ASSESSMENT OF ROUGHNESS

The results of roughness, are shows in the table below, and the condition according to the IRI
scale (figure 7).

Table 21 Result of roughness - Gravel Section

ASSESSMENT OF ROUGHNESS
Item Data Direction D IRI VARIATION CONDITION
1 08/05/2017 Left Lane 145,000 7,42 Maintained Unpaved Road
4,14
2 18/10/2017 Left Lane 57,000 *3,28 Maintained Unpaved Road
*The value of IRI is maybe low because the measurement was taken after grading.

7.4.6 ASSESSMENT OF TRANSVERSE PROFILING (RUT)

The result of rut (Appendix E), is show in the table below.
Table 22 Result of rutting - Unpaved section

Left Lane Right lane

Nr Chainage
Outer path Inner path With Outer path Inner path With
1 20+400 0,0 7,0 50,0 0,0 20,0 160,0
2 20+410 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,0 25,0 170,0
3 20+430 0,0 14,0 50,0 11,0 25,0 70,0
4 20+450 0,0 0,0 0,0 20,0 10,0 190,0
5 20+470 0,0 0,0 0,0 76,0 28,0 180,0
6 20+490 0,0 6,0 140,0 35,0 5,0 115,0
7 20+510 0,0 11,0 120,0 45,0 14,0 190,0
8 20+530 4,0 10,0 0,0 36,0 12,0 0,0
9 20+550 0,0 30,0 121,0 0,0 68,0 241,0

32
10 20+570 20,0 0,0 0,0 16,0 0,0 0,0
11 20+590 12,5 8,0 0,0 3,0 7,5 0,0
12 20+610 0,0 0,0 0,0 23,0 11,0 174,0
13 20+630 12,0 5,0 76,0 29,0 14,0 237,0
14 20+650 5,0 0,0 0,0 28,0 0,0 183,0
15 20+670 0,0 6,5 0,0 11,0 8,0 103,0
16 20+690 0,0 4,0 0,0 7,0 3,0 0,0
17 20+700 0,5 1,5 0,0 3,0 5,0 0,0

7.4.7 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PAVEMENT MATERIAL

The characterization of the pavement material is show in the table 11 and figure 14 below:

Table 23 Characterization of pavement materials (Pit 1) - Gravel section

Test Pit 1

Item Camada Descrição do ensaio Resultados

Maximum dry density

1,985
(gr/cm³)
1 Compation
Optimum moisture
11,0
content (%)
Plasticity Index (%) 11,9
Base
3 Atterberg limits Linear shrinked (%) 1,7
Shrinkage Product (Sp) 72,3
Grading Module (GM) 1,83
4 Grading
Grading Coeficient (Gc) 17,9
5 Califórnia Bearing Ratio CBR (%) 35,2
Classificação segundo TRH 20 B
Maximum dry density
2,006
(gr/cm³)
6
Optimum moisture
8,8
Compation content (%)
Plasticity Index (%) 7,3
Sub-Base
7 Atterberg limits Linear shrinked (%) 2,0
Shrinkage Product (Sp) 142,8
Grading Module (GM) 1,14
8 Grading
Grading Coeficient (Gc) 0,2
9 Califórnia Bearing Ratio CBR (%) 25,4
Maximum dry density
1,907
(gr/cm³)
10
Optimum moisture
8,7
Sub - Compation content (%)
Grade Plasticity Index (%) NP
11 Atterberg limits Linear shrinked (%) NP
Shrinkage Product (Sp) 0,0
12 Grading Grading Module (GM) 1,22

33
 Grading Coeficient (Gc) 0,0
13 Califórnia Bearing Ratio CBR (%) 9.4

Sieve analysis
100

90

80

70
% of material pasing

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.018 1.000 55.000

Particle size (mm)

Base Sub-base Sub Grade

Figure 18 Graphic of grading curve - pit 1

Table 24 Characterization of pavement materials (Pit 2) - Gravel section

Test Pit 2
Item Camada Descrição do ensaio Resultados

Maximum dry density

1949,0
(gr/cm³)
1
Optimum moisture content 10,7
Compation (%)
Plasticity Index (%) 13,1
Base
3 Atterberg limits Linear shrinked (%) 2,7
Shrinkage Product (Sp) 178,7
Grading Module (GM) 1,79
4 Grading
Grading Coeficient (Gc) 22,4
5 Califórnia Bearing Ratio CBR (%) 26,3
Classificação segundo TRH 20 E
Maximum dry density
1996,0
(gr/cm³)
6
Sub-Base Optimum moisture content 9,8
Compation (%)
Plasticity Index (%) 6,1
7 Atterberg limits
Linear shrinked (%) 2,0

34
 Shrinkage Product (Sp) 141,6
Grading Module (GM) 1,16
8 Grading
Grading Coeficient (Gc) 1,4
9 Califórnia Bearing Ratio CBR (%) 28,4

Maximum dry density

1893,0
(gr/cm³)
10
Optimum moisture content 9,0
Compation (%)
Sub - Plasticity Index (%) NP
11 Grade Atterberg limits Linear shrinked (%) NP
Shrinkage Product (Sp) 0,0
Grading Module (GM) 1,22
12 Grading
Grading Coeficient (Gc) 0,0
13 Califórnia Bearing Ratio CBR (%)  11.2

Sieve analysis
100
90
80
70
% of material pasing

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000

Particle size (mm)

Base Sub-base Sub Grade

Figure 19 Graphic of grading curve - pit 2

The characteristics of base material are different.

 The base material of the pit 1 is "B", according to the TRH 20. These materials
generally lack cohesion and are highly susceptible to the formation of loose material
(raveling) and corrugations. Regular maintenance is necessary if these materials are
used and the roughness is to be restricted to reasonable levels.

The base material of the pit 2 is "E", according to the TRH 20. These materials in this
zone perform well in general, provided the oversize material is restricted to there
commended limits.
35
 7.4.8 LEVELLING SURVEYS
The results of levelling is showed in the table below.

Table 25 Result of leveling surveys

Level Level
Ref. Variation Variation Ref. Variation Variation
Point Round 1 Round 2 1st to 2nd Round 3 2nd to 3rd Point Round 1 Round 2 1st to 2nd Round 3 2nd to 3rd
Round Round Round Round
1 0,935 1,158 0,223 1,158 0 40 1,14 1,228 0,088 1,23 0,002
2 0,82 1,046 0,226 1,11 0,064 41 1,158 1,234 0,076 1,252 0,018
3 0,817 0,987 0,17 1,23 0,243 42 1,142 1,26 0,118 1,265 0,005
4 0,82 0,942 0,122 1,25 0,308 43 1,301 1,424 0,123 1,495 0,071
5 0,79 0,93 0,14 1,29 0,36 44 1,342 1,417 0,075 1,42 0,003
6 0,77 0,93 0,16 1,337 0,407 45 1,276 1,368 0,092 1,397 0,029
7 0,775 1,157 0,382 1,16 0,003 46 1,222 1,335 0,113 1,351 0,016
8 1,012 1,168 0,156 1,169 0,001 47 1,217 1,3 0,083 1,311 0,011
9 0,925 1,116 0,191 1,15 0,034 48 1,192 1,295 0,103 1,296 0,001
10 0,825 1,042 0,217 1,1 0,058 49 1,193 1,314 0,121 1,315 0,001
11 0,812 1,004 0,192 1,08 0,076 50 1,302 1,473 0,171 1,477 0,004
12 0,815 0,976 0,161 0,99 0,014 51 1,275 1,452 0,177 1,477 0,025
13 0,83 0,978 0,148 0,979 0,001 52 1,258 1,418 0,16 1,431 0,013
14 0,885 1,037 0,152 1,039 0,002 53 1,245 1,385 0,14 1,395 0,01
15 1,142 1,23 0,088 1,25 0,02 54 1,238 1,362 0,124 1,366 0,004
16 1,094 1,183 0,089 1,186 0,003 55 1,42 1,43 0,01 1,446 0,016
17 1,032 1,104 0,072 1,885 0,781 56 1,35 1,354 0,004 1,356 0,002
18 0,89 1,047 0,157 1,049 0,002 57 1,332 1,522 0,19 1,539 0,017
19 0,942 1,028 0,086 1,08 0,052 58 1,305 1,49 0,185 1,511 0,021
20 0,935 1,032 0,097 1,04 0,008 59 1,3 1,466 0,166 1,472 0,006
21 0,982 1,08 0,098 1,085 0,005 60 1,305 1,427 0,122 1,44 0,013
22 1,132 1,284 0,152 1,29 0,006 61 1,28 1,408 0,128 1,49 0,082
23 1,097 1,338 0,241 1,361 0,023 62 1,435 1,402 -0,033 1,41 0,008
24 0,085 1,175 1,09 1,221 0,046 63 1,392 1,408 0,016 1,41 0,002
25 1,04 1,126 0,086 1,15 0,024 64 1,36 1,553 0,193 1,558 0,005
26 1,017 1,092 0,075 1,11 0,018 65 1,339 1,52 0,181 1,547 0,027
27 1,01 1,078 0,068 1,079 0,001 66 1,335 1,48 0,145 1,48 0
28 1,045 1,046 0,001 1,065 0,019 67 1,345 1,453 0,108 1,465 0,012
29 1,212 1,332 0,12 1,345 0,013 68 1,34 1,444 0,104 1,448 0,004
30 1,209 1,29 0,081 1,33 0,04 69 0,92 1,46 0,54 1,465 0,005
31 1,155 1,244 0,089 1,278 0,034 70 0,917 1,448 0,531 1,449 0,001
32 1,155 1,18 0,025 1,195 0,015 71 1,14 1,702 0,562 1,703 0,001
33 1,08 1,165 0,085 1,166 0,001 72 1,396 1,502 0,106 1,597 0,095
34 1,078 1,161 0,083 1,168 0,007 73 1,356 1,497 0,141 1,498 0,001
35 1,091 1,213 0,122 1,24 0,027 74 1,335 1,493 0,158 1,498 0,005
36 1,27 1,382 0,112 1,392 0,01 75 1,34 1,525 0,185 1,53 0,005
37 1,212 1,353 0,141 1,375 0,022 76 1,35 1,552 0,202 1,553 0,001
38 1,19 1,308 0,118 1,328 0,02 77 1,302 1,703 0,401 1,77 0,067
39 1,15 1,266 0,116 1,275 0,009 AVERAGE 0,159 AVERAGE 0,044

36
‍ of
of Variation
Variation
‍ 1st to 2nd
2nd to 3rd
Round
‍ Round

According to the results, there was a wear on the platform from the first test to the second of
160mm and the second to the third of 44mm.
This wear and tear is too high, and these values may have been found for the following
reasons:
 Displacement of landmarks used for levelling;
 Reading errors.

8 COST ANALYSES
For the analysis of costs, the following aspects were considered:
 The cost analyses was done based in the costs of the construction and the maintenance
in the analyses sections.
 The maintenance costs are approximate, because it was not possible to have exact
costs;
 The current analysis was done in US dollars, at the exchange of the periods in question
in order to minimize the effect of metical oscillations;
 Although the sections had their specified lengths, the analysis was made taking into
account the cost for 1 km of road, at a width of 6 meters.
 Drainage items were not considered.

Then the overall costs of each section are shown in the following tables.

Table 26 Overall costs in Paved Section

Paved Section
ITE Cumulative
Description Annual Annual growth Cost growth
M Costs ($)
growth ($) rate (%) 2014 - 2017 (%)
1 Construction cost 138 949,74

37
 752,35 0,54%
2 Cumulative maintenance cost - 2014 139 702,09
540,97 0,39%
3 Cumulative maintenance cost - 2015 140 243,06
0,00 0,00% 0,93%
4 Cumulative maintenance cost - 2016 140 243,06

0,00 0,00%
5 Cumulative maintenance cost - 2017 140 243,06

In this section, the only activities that happened was the grass cut, because there is not defects
in the road and shoulders.

Table 27 Overall costs in Gravel Section

Gravel Section
Cumulative
ITEM Description Annual Annual growth Cost growth
Costs ($)
growth ($) rate (%) 2014 - 2017 (%)
1 custo de construção 53 948,69
14 245,58 26,41%
2 Cumulative maintenance cost - 2014 68 194,27
9 737,54 14,28%
3 Cumulative maintenance cost - 2015 77 931,81
47,40%
0,00 0,00%
4 Cumulative maintenance cost - 2016 77 931,81

1 589,85 2,04%
5 Cumulative maintenance cost - 2017 79 521,66

The construction of this section finished at the year 2010, but the maintenance only started at
2014.
The costs of the maintenance in 2014 and 2015 was bigger than other years, maybe because of
the time that the road stayed without maintenance.
The cost growth in the gravel section for 03 years was bigger than in the paved section.

38
Figure 20 Graphic of Costs - Paved and gravel sections

39
9 CONCLUSIONS
In general, the data collected and analyzes made allow the following conclusions to be drawn:

 The construction cost of the paved section is higher than gravel section, but the
cost growth of gravel section is higher because of the maintenance cost.
This difference in maintenance costs is mainly due to the fact that the gravel
sections suffer more from the weathering action that the paved sections.
 In the paved section the performance is satisfactory and no variation has been
noticed during the analysis period.
 In the gravel section, the variation in performance was more evident, but is still
working well, taking into account the road life and the maintenance made during
this period.
However, for better analyses of the costs, it is necessary to continue monitoring
to see the relation of the maintenance cost and performance.
 In gravel section, it an see that the wearing layer is finishing, that is why the
sub base layer is visible in some areas. It means that we need to redo this layer,
thing that will grow the costs of the road.
There are some comments that can be done about the activities:

 In paved section, the base material and sub base are very similar, and the CBR
results of them are less than the minimum required, which means the strength
of the pavement are supported by the two layers of penetration macadam. it is
necessary to continue the monitoring to see the progressing of road defects.
 In this section of road there are no surface defects such as surfacing failures
and patches, cracks, aggregate loss, bleeding and deformations, and structural
defects like cracks, pumping, rutting, patching, potholes and failures, however,
the whole section has undulations. Analyzing, the DCP values of the base layer
is good, except pit 03 that the value is not that much out of parameters, and the
Plasticity Index of the same layer is very close too, what is acceptable,
considering this is low traffic road.
Therefore reason for the appearance of this defect is probably due to the lack
of blockage of the coarse aggregate of the coating by the thinner aggregate of
the coating layer and the binder.
 It was not possible to have a preliminary classification of the condition of the
road based on visual assessment result because there is no scale in the
guideline of monitoring for this.
 With the elements analyzed using the techniques of this guideline, it is possible
to understand the condition of the road, see how it is performing, and do this
periodically we will be able to perceive the evolution of the defects taking into

40
account the traffic evolution, which will in fact allow us to know the
advantages and disadvantages of the each technique and solution.

41
10 CONSTRAINTS
During this activities, some constrains happened such as:
 It is important to take the data right after the construction, in order to allow an
effective monitoring of the performance of the sections since beginning of the road
life.
 The maintenance costs were not effective since there was no detailed monitoring of
the experimental sections, especially in the gravel section where there was a greater
variety of activities. It is important to evaluate the maintenance costs since beginning
of the road life.
 Work equipment was not enough for all teams. Considering that there were two, one
for each road (N / C: Agostinho Neto - Mutamba and R903: Cumbana - Chacane), it
would be ideal, the existence of at least two groups of equipment.

42
11 RECOMENDATIONS
To improve this kind of works, the recommendations are in following:
 Guarantee all equipment early include transport for all team member in order to make
quickly and easy the field works;
 The team have to do the deflection test to complete the analyses.
 Although the information allows for a progressive assessment of the state of the track,
it was necessary that, on the basis of the cross-referencing of visual inspection and
other tests, we would have a scale to classify the road condition and the level of
treatment to be done.

43