REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Contract No 7134313 n WORLD N _____ ~~~BANK ~ij -. 06 27 112 3 ~~~~Pavement Assessment Report 3 ~~~~~~~~~~~November 2005 i CC ~~ ___ __ eso November_20-5 Cabinet/Drdwer/FOlder/SubfoIder * ~~A Airport Consultants Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
194
Embed
REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/440281468299082679/pdf/716900... · LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECTROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Contract No 7134313
I n WORLDN _____ ~~~BANK
I ~ij -.
06 2 7 112
3 ~~~~Pavement Assessment Report
3 ~~~~~~~~~~~November 2005
i CC
I~~ ___ __
|~~ceso November_20-5
Cabinet/Drdwer/FOlder/SubfoIder
* ~~A
| Airport Consultants
I'
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
wb350881
Typewritten Text
71690
| ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~NRCO ;o Airport Consultants
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In April 2005, NACO SSI were appointed by the World Bank under Contract No 7134313to undertake an Assessment of Emergency Repairs and ILonger-Term Actionsrequired to Reinstate Efficient Operations at Roberts International Airport (RIA) aspart of the Liberia Infrastructure Rehabilitation Programme (LIRP).1 This document summarises the findings of the complete pavement investigation. Althougha stand-alone document in its own right, it forms part of one of the cleliverables of the LIRPRIA Project appointment. Therefore, it should be read in conjunction with:1 * Inception Report (Reference 1)* Stage I - Emergency Works Report
Stage 2 - Airport Master Plan Report
RWY 04/22 is in fair condition considering its age and damage suffered during the war.However, areas of the runway have been identified that compromise the safe operation ofd the runway and which make the overall operation of the RWY unsatisfactory. There areisolated areas of surface failures, where water tends to pond and where asphalt hasdelaminated, resulting in potholes, and which pose a Foreign Object Damage (FOD) risk.| These need to be addressed as part of the urgent emergency works items.
Two structurally weak sections occur in Runway 04/22, namely Sections 2 and 3 fromCh 0+610 to Ch 1+890 which both require strengthening in terms of an asphalt overlay toprotect the sub-grade from deformation.
Section 3 in particular coincides with a change in runway slope, and the poor drainagerunoff as a result has exacerbated the surface condition, resulting in delaminating asphaltand potholes. Overall, the runway profile is poor and needs to be corrected to ICAOrequirements to improve surface water drainage.
I For a region where there is persistent rain, the slow run-off from the poor profile has alsoresulted in algae growth on the surfacing, and this has significantly reduced the surfaceskid resistance of the runway.
TWY A shows serious signs of deterioration. TWY A is in a very poor condition, andrequires urgent emergency works. There are clear signs of fatigue and distress, whereserious rutting in the wheel path has resulted in the surfacing breaking up and thewaterlogged aggregate base material being exposed at the surface.
Based on the bearing capacity analysis, TWY A is a structurally weak section, and it willalso require strengthening in terms of an asphalt overlay to protect the sub-grade fromfurther deformation.
TWY Al shows signs of ageing and deterioration with widening map cracks and isolatedsurface failures. Since TWY Al is currently hardly used remedial works are notimmediately required.
TWY B is in warning condition. It is also shows localised areas of fatigue and age relatedcracking, coupled with deformation (rutting) in the wheel path.ULIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051125.docRoberts International Airport
Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 1 November 2005I
I NRCOWsmnAirport Consultants
The Asphalt Apron is in a warning condition. The asphalt surfacing does shows signs of* w ageing, with hairline map cracks throughout, and there are areas along the taxi linescontinuing from TWY A where rutting deformation is evident. These areas of rutting3 | deformation are in need of remedial works.
Based on the bearing capacity analysis, the asphalt apron is also a structurally weaksection, and it will also require strengthening in terms of an asphalt overlay to protect thesub-grade from further deformation.
The Concrete Apron is in a fair condition. The concrete surface, although rough, doesnot show signs that it is rapidly ravelling or deteriorating. There are areas however where* J spalling of the joints has occurred on the edges of the concrete blocks, but these areisolated, and can be addressed with general repairs and maintenance. At present in theircurrent condition, these spalled joint pose a FOD risk.
The remedial works recommended will in the first instance address all the safety issues ofsurface failures, waterponding, FOD and skid resistance in terms of ICAO compliancestandards for safe operations. These measures should be undertaken within a 1 yeartimeframe, and should include:
* Repairs of potholes and delaminating asphalt on runway and taxiways, including rutI * repairs in the runway Touch Down Zone area* Cracksealing of wide cracks* Cleaning of the runway surfaceI Z * Repainting of all RWY, TWY and Apron markings* Heavy rehabilitation of the failed sections of TWY A* Deweeding of surfaced RWY shoulders, recompacting and resealing with thinI 9 asphalt layer* Closing off TWY C with appropriate signage
The short term works recommended will address the structural (bearing capacity) andfunctional (skid resistance, cross-slope) performance criteria of the pavement componentsthat are not immediate safety concerns.
* Assuming the most urgent remedial works will be executed within the right timeframe, theshort term rehabilitation measures to be undertaken in a 1-5 year timeframe shouldinclude:
* Milling and placing of a structural asphalt overlay on the entire runway and taxiwaysurfaces* Cross-section profile correction, in conjunction with the milling and placing ofstructural asphalt overlay
Medium term rehabilitation measures to be undertaken in a 5-10 year timeframe shouldthen include:
* Milling and placing of structural asphalt overlay on entire apron, including replacingof very poor sections of apron with insufficient remaining pavement life
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 2 November 2005
J | 4.1.5 RWY 04-22 - Section 5 (Ch 2+530 to Ch 3+354) 84.2 Taxiway A
9| | 4.3 Taxiway Al 9
4.4 Taxiway B 10
| 4.5 Concrete and Asphalt Apron 114.6 Taxiway C
123 | 5. RUT MEASUREMENTS 13
5.1 Rut Measurements on RWY 04/22 133 | 5.2 Rut Measurements on TWY B and TWY A 146. DCP TESTING
151 6.1 DCP testing on RWY 04/22 156.2 DCP testing on TWY A, Al, B and the Apron 17
| 7. TEST PITS, ASPHALT CORING AND MATERIALS SAMPLING 197.1 Test Pit Results
203 7.2 Asphalt Core Results 238. EMERGENCY WORKS 251 8.1 General
258.2 UNMIL input
268.3 Runways
278.4 Taxiways
278.5 Aprons
27
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051125.docRoberts Intemational Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report i November 2005
NRCO Ds..Airport Consultants
9. SHORT AND MEDIUM TERM PAVEMENT REHABILITATION ANALYSIS 339.1 Design Aircraft
339.2 Design Traffic
34* 9.3 Structural Model and Failure Criteria 34
9.4 Bearing Capacity and Remaining Life 3810. RECOMMENDED REHABILITATION MEASURES 40
10.1 General 401 10.2 Rehabilitation Options 41
10.2.1 Milling and Placing of Structural Asphalt Overlay 4110.2.2 Structural Overlay 4210.2.3 Cross Section Profile Correction 421 11. SUMMARY OF REHABILITATION MEASURES 43
12. REFERENCES 44l
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - PHOTOS
APPENDIX B - DETAILED VISUAL ASSESSMENT FORMS
APPENDIX C - RUTTING MEASURMENTS
APPENDIX D - DCP RESULTS
APPENDIX E - TEST PIT PROFILES
APPENDIX F-ASPHALTCORE PROFILES
APPENDIX G - LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX H - PAVEMENT REMAINING LIFE ANALYSES
l
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts Intemational Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report ii November 2005
| ~~~~~~~~~~NRCO =g WAirport Consultants
| 1. INTRODUCTION
In April 2005, NACO SSI were appointed by the World Bank under Contract No 7134313to undertake an Assessment of Emergency Repairs and ILonger-Term Actions* | required to Reinstate Efficient Operations at Roberts International Airport (RIA) aspart of the Liberia Infrastructure Rehabilitation Programme (LIRP).
With reference to the various components of the airport assessment, the Terms ofReference (TOR) called for the Consultant to "review the data already available andundertake additional investigations to determine actual extent of works required to repairand rehabilitate the damage that significantly influences normalised operations."
With reference to the airside pavement components, this required the undertaking of acomplete assessment of the runway, taxiways and aprons. This assessment included theI | following:
* Visual Pavement Condition Survey| Rutting Measurements* Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Testing* Test Pit excavations and Materials Sampling| Laboratory Testing
The scope of the investigation included the assessment of RWY 04-22, TWY A and Al,TWY B, and the Apron (consisting of both asphalt and concrete pavements). However, theU assignment did not include the assessment of RWY 13-31 and TWY C.
This document summarises the findings of the complete pavement investigation. Althougha stand-alone document in its own right, it forms part of one of the deliverables of the LIRPRIA Project appointment. Therefore, it should be read in conjunction with:
* Inception Report (Reference 1)* Stage 1 - Emergency Works Report* Stage 2 - Airport Master Plan Report
I'I
I
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 1 November 2005
3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Airport Consultants
* | 2. BACKGROUND
The runway, taxiway and apron pavements were constructed during World War II with theestablishment of the Roberts International Airport (RIA) in 1942 as a military base by theUS Amy. Two intersecting runways were provided with the airport's establishment,namely:
S nPrimary Runway 04-22 of flexible pavement;| * ~~~~~~~Secondary Runway 13-31 of flexible pavement;3 | Soon after the end of WWII, the airport became commercialised and opened tointernational traffic, during which time it was operated and managed by Pan AmericanAirways.
I * Initially, RWY 04-22 was constructed to 2134 m length (7 000 ft) during the 1940's. Thiswas subsequently extended on the southern end to 2744 m (9 000 ft) during 1963. It was3 | then further extended to its current length of 3354 m (11 000 ft) in 1972.
It is understood that resurfacing of the runway was undertaken for the first 2744 m in 1975.Since then, despite signs of deterioration of the pavement, no work in terms of extensionsor rehabilitation has been undertaken on the runway, aside from routine maintenance andrepair.
Since 1986, RIA has been managed by the Government of Liberia and the RIA Agency(RIAA), and after 7 years of being closed in the 90's due to the civil war, was re-opened forcommercial flights in December 1997.
3 During the civil war in the '90's serious damage was done to the runway pavement. Thereare signs of previous bomb craters, shell marks and splinter marks at numerous placeswhich are still visible today. Damages have been already repaired over the years andrecent pavement repairs have been undertaken by the UNMIL who are currently stationedat the airport.
The runway width is 46 m and it is an asphalt-surfaced pavement underlain with granularlayer works. The shoulders either side of the runway are approximalely 7 m wide, and arepaved with a thin asphalt surface wearing course.3 The 04 runway end has a clear approach without any obstruction. The 22 runway end hasthe obstruction of a hill and tall rubber trees and this has resulted in a displaced thresholdat the 22 end by 366m (1200 ft).
I Due to the prevailing wind direction being from south to north, RWY 13-31 has beenabandoned as a cross runway since the mid-1970's. The eastern section from the hangarto RWY 04-22 has since been converted to TWY B with a reduced width of 25m. TheI section west of RWY 04-22, has been allowed to deteriorate, and over half the length ofthe runway is no longer in use.
The various components of the RIA pavements, namely the runways, the taxiways and theapron are shown in the airport layout plan in Figure 1.1 on the following page.
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docI Roberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 2 November 2005
m m -m - - -m m - - - - -
NRC0 .se.Airport Consultants
[ Frsr ril 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1OFI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C _ a@4 aww a k i0
Setoy eto 2 SetoL Section4 4 12Seto 5 93|1
Figure 1.1 - :Layout plan of RIA, showing RWY 04-22, the TWYJs and the Apron
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GFERN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fln.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 3 November 2005
Airport Consultants
3 3. MOBILISATION
Mobilisation on site began Monday 27 June 2005 with an introductory meeting with theAirport General Manager, Mr John Collins and the Base Support Manager, Mr RobertI | Tellowoyan.
It was soon established after consultation with RIAA management and staff and theDirector of Civil Aviation, Mr James Attoh, that as-built data on the pavement structurecomposition, as well as documentation on previous pavement rehabilitation andmaintenance actions are not available. What records were available in the past have been3 lost during the civil war.
However, the RIA In-Depth Analysis Report (Reference 2), the ICAOD / UNDP 1998 Report(Reference 3) and the Aeronautical Information Publication (Reference 4) have provided* | good background information. In addition, the United Nations Joint Logistics Centre(UNJLC) website has provided useful information and maps, which although not entirelyaccurate, are useful for planning purposes.
I The pavement assessment has been based entirely on the pavement investigation andmaterials data that was collected as part of this assignment. The investigation wasperformed by the resident airport pavement engineer, with the kind co-operation of the RIABase Support staff under the guidance of Mr Robert Tellowoyan.
Initial attempts to find a local materials laboratory on site to assist with the materialsinvestigation proved to be impossible. Local materials laboratories are not available inLiberia and the next nearest option of making use of laboratories in Sierra Leone provednot to be viable. A materials laboratory in Ghana was however identified that was be ableto undertake the drilling and extraction of the asphalt cores. This was undertaken from29 July 2005 till 2 August 2005.
With the lack of materials laboratories in Liberia, all the materials samples extracted had toI | be transported out of Liberia for testing. Clearance was obtained from the Ministry ofLands, Mines and Energy for the transport of the samples outside oF Liberia's borders. Allthe soil and asphalt material samples have been couriered to Soulh Africa for laboratory| | testing.
.
_
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 4 November 2005
NRCOD EsOtAirport Consultants
3 4. PAVEMENT VISUAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT
The visual pavement condition survey focused on the visual condition of the pavement.This survey was undertaken on foot and was undertaken to obtain an overall impression ofI the pavements. It was also undertaken to identify typical/specific manifestations ofdistress, upon which the pavements could be divided into various uniform sections, or3 sections of similar condition or distress.
The following manifestations of distress were looked at:
| . Deformation or unevenness;* Cracking (surfacing or structural related);* Disintegration (surfacing or structural related);* Smoothing of surface texture (skid resistance).
During this survey, photographs of the various distress patterns have been taken(Appendix A), and the degree, type and extent of distress have been captured in DetailedVisual Assessment Forms (Appendix B).
The purpose of the survey has also been to identify items that require urgent emergencyI works. These are items that need to be implemented immediately to ensure safe andcontinued use of the runways and taxiways by air traffic in terms of ICAO compliancestandards for safe operations. This has focussed mainly on the follcwing:
* Repairing surface failures and potholes,* Eliminating occurrences of standing water and ponding,
| * Preventing and/or reducing the risk of Foreign Object Damage (FOD) to the aircraft,. Addressing and improving the skid resistance
This assessment was undertaken for each of the movement areas mentioned before, andeach of the sections have been described below in more detail.
4.1 Runway 04-22
Based on a visual inspection, the runway was found to be in fair condition considering itsage and damage suffered during the war. However, areas of the runway were identifiedthat compromise the safe operation of the runway and which make the overall operation ofthe RWY unsatisfactory.
The majority of the traffic land on the 04 end in a northerly direction with a tailwind, anddepart from the 22 end into a headwind. The 04 Touch Down Zone (TDZ) of the RWYmost commonly experiences most of the impact of the landing traffic. Therefore, despitethe fair condition, there are isolated areas of surface failures, where water tends to pondand where asphalt has delaminated, resulting in potholes. These need to be addressed aspart of the emergency works items.
In general, the surface of the runway also revealed varying degrees of map cracking dueI to asphalt ageing and longitudinal cracks as a result of possible weakening of theunderlying pavement layers.
I~~~~~~~~~~~LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051125.doc* Roberts International Airport
Contract 7134313
Pavement Assessment Report 5 November 2005
A S| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NRCO onAirport Consultants
The shoulders are stabilised and covered with a thin asphalt layer for a majority of thelength of the runway. However, there are various areas of the shoulders where the thinsurfacing has deteriorated resulting in hazardous asphalt debris, which may cause FOD.This is mainly the result of excavation for edge lighting cabling and general weed growththrough the thin asphalt.
Based on the visual inspection, five uniform sections have been identified, whereCh 0+000 is on the southern end, and Ch3+354 is on the northern end:
Section 1 - Ch 0+000 to Ch 0+610 (1972 extension)Section 2 - Ch 0+610 to Ch 1+220 (1963 extension)I Section 3 - Ch 1+220 to Ch 1+890 (original 1944 runway up to TWY C)Section 4 - Ch 1+890 to Ch 2+530 (original 1944 runway from TWY C to TWT B)3 Section 5 - Ch 2+530 to Ch 3+354 (original 1944 runway from TWY B to TWY A)
A brief description of each uniform section is given below, with each of the identifiedsections also being depicted in different colours in Figure 1.1.
Section 1 was constructed the most recently in 1972 and it resulted in the runwaybeing extended by 610 m (2000 ft) to its current length. It is also the only section ofrunway that did not receive an asphalt overlay in 1975, and as a result could beexpected to have a uniform appearance and performance (uniform pavementI section). The end of section 1 can be clearly seen as a transverse joint in theasphalt across the RWY.
In general, Section 1 from Ch 0+000 to Ch 0+600is in a fair condition, considering it is 33 years Iold. Section 1 however is characterised mostnotably by map cracking, a sign of ageing of theasphalt, and longitudinal cracks, a sign ofpossible weakening of the underlying support .| ~~~~~~~layers. Although not coupled with deformation in ~ : the wheel tracks or noticeable disintegration ofthe surface, the cracks are widening, a warning '- 'sign of distress and fatigue (see photo opposite).
These cracks in general emanate from the top, and in time progress downward intothe asphalt layer. There are locations where the longitudinal cracks are becomingwider (>3mm), and these need to be sealed. If not timely sealed, water ingress intoI the sub-base layers will result in rapid deterioration of the underlying support layersand the development of secondary distresses.
Section 2 is the section of the runway which was extended in 1963 by 610 m (2000I ft) and which subsequently received an overlay in 1975, together with theconstruction of the last extension.
The portion of Section 2 immediately afterthe transverse joint with Section 1 shows theworst signs of deterioration within thesection. The 60m of Section 2 from Ch
| ~~~~~~0+610 to Ch 0+670 which corresponds with -_;*the Aiming Point Paint Markings, shows3 signs where rapid deterioration of cracks
| ~~~~~~has occurred (see photo opposite). This f60m is in a very poor condition, as it lies inthe TDZ, where the pavement receives the1 maximum impact from landing aircraft.
Here, the cracks have become more intense, with the alligator crack patternsindicating signs of pavement fatigue. These in turn are coupled with deformationI distresses, such as rutting, ponding of water, ravelling and delaminating of theasphalt surface resulting in potholes. This section is in urgent need of emergencyworks.
I The remainder of Section 2 is in a poorcondition. It is characterised by widelongitudinal cracks that need to be sealed, and by
* creep cracks (see photo opposite). The creepingis a sign of shoving deformation of the asphalt,which results from de-bonding and delaminatingI of the asphalt overlay from underlying asphaltlayers. Furthermore, Section 2 is alsocharacterised by undulations in the shoulder
I Section 3 runs up to TWY C from Ch 1+220 to Ch 1+890. This section ischaracterised by the change in runway cross-sectional slope from cambered on thesouthern end to a cross-fall on the northern end.
The change in cross-sectional profile occurs at [approximately Ch 1+600, roughly opposite the3 ATC tower, and it is evident that the slopes at thetchange in grade are not sufficient. The lack oflongitudinal and transverse slope results instanding water and ponding and this is a safety nhazard as it can result in aquaplaning of aircraft.
Furthermore, the standing water from rain has resulted in deformation andI deterioration of the asphalt, to the extent that large potholes exposing underlyingasphalt layers are evident, and where the potholed edges are ravelling, releasingFOD (see photo above). In addition, longitudinal crack within Section 3 are wideI | and remain unsealed, and have also been allowed to ravel at the edges.
These areas are in need of immediate emergency repairs, as they are within thewheel path of larger aircraft. In fact, large areas within this section have in the pastalso been patched, which is always a sign that this pavement is under stress. As aresult, Section 3 is characterised as being in a very poor condition.1 | 4.1.4 RWY 04-22 - Section 4 (Ch 1+890 to Ch2+530)
Section 4 runs from TWY C to TWY B(Ch 1+890 to Ch 2+530) and it is in awarning condition. As with Section 1,Section 4 is also characterised by notablyby map cracking, a sign of aging of the
l ~~~~~~~~asphalt. _
In Section 4 however, there are also anumber of patches. One in particular is theresult of a bomb crater (see photo aboveopposite), evidence that the runwaysuffered damage during the civil war.
These patches however have not been neatly saw-cut on the edges with the repairI | work, and have been roughly filled in with concrete. These concrete patches havein time and with traffic broken up on the edges, and in turn, the concrete edges areravelling. These need to be address in the emergency works because of the FODI g risk.
4.1.5 RWY 04-22 - Section 5 (Ch 2+530 to Ch 3+354)I Section 5 runs from TWY B to threshold 22 (Ch 2+530 to Ch 3+354). This sectionof the runway is in a fair to good condition, again considering the age since it waslast overlain in 1975. In this section south of TWY B, the runway returns to acambered cross-section. Although the change inslope results in flatter areas of possible l --aquaplaning safety concern, similar to in Section 3,I Section 5 is not characterised by asphaltdelaminating and pothole failure.
In general, the sign of distress is longitudinal (seephoto opposite) and/or map cracking. However,these are not accompanied by deformation ofbreaking up of the surface, and in general, willI require cracksealing as a holding action to ensuresecondary distresses do not manifest in the near future.
lLIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport
Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 8 November 2005
11
NRCO Si.r.Airport Consultants
9 4.2 Taxiway A
Taxiway Alpha is 25m in width and runs from the apron in front of Ihe old terminal buildingpast the VIP building and the old catering building to RWY threshold 22. TWY A is usedfor all air traffic departing movements, and as a result, it experiences slow moving traffic atMaximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW). TWY A also experiences a large proportion oflanding movements, and although at a less critical Maximum Landing Weight (MLW),generally are comprised of arriving movements by wide-bodied aircraft which are not ableto exit at TWY B.
From a visual inspection, it is clearly evident that TWY Ashows serious signs of deterioration. TWY A is in a verypoor condition, and requires urgent emergency works.There are clear signs of fatigue and distress, whereserious rutting (greater than 50mm) in the wheel pathover very bad stretch east of the centreline in front of theVIP Building is visible. This portion is currently brokenI | up and very soft (saturated with water) with aggregatebase material visible at the surface (see photo opposite).
If the condition is allowed to persist, this can cause damage to the undercarriage ofaircraft. Currently, aircraft avoid this area and deviate from the taxiway centreline in orderto by-pass on the western part of the TWY A, and this in turn can lead to damage of the| | shoulder.
In addition, although the loads may not be significant, it has been observed that as one ofthe entrance gates closest to the Mobil fuel depot is located near T'WY A, the fuel tankersI | also often make use of that particular entrance to enter the apron via this taxiway. Thetankers do not necessarily always travel on the shoulders.
4.3 Taxiway Al
TWY Al on the other hand is not used regularly, and the surfacing shows signs of ageingand deterioration. In fact, weed growth through the cracks are evicent, particularly in theouter 5 m of the 25m wide taxiway. The reason for its disuse is thiat it acts as a holdingbay when arriving and departing traffic simultaneous exit and enter the runway at threshold22. With the current low volume of traffic experienced by RIA however, this has negated* | the need for TWY Al.
Visually, TWY Al is also in a very poor condition, withwidening map cracks throughout and an isolated potholeat one location (see photo opposite). Due to the currentvery low traffic volumes using TWY Al, emergency jA works are not immediately required.However, to ensure that TWY Al does not deterioratefurther, general maintenance as a holding action forlonger term rehabilitation, would be recommended to ( _seal the cracks, repair any potholes, and to preventI weed growth outside the travelled way.
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 9 November 2005
Taxiway Bravo (eastern part of the former cross runway 13-31) connects RWY 04/22 atCh 2+530 to the hangar and apron. With the original runway being downgraded to ataxiway, the dimensions of TWY B are narrower than its initial construction width of 60m.Hence, the taxiway width is 25m and the remaining 17.5 m of pavement either side of thetaxiway edge lights are used as shoulders.
TWY B generally receives only lighter narrow bodied aircraFt loads from arrivingmovements which are able to reduce their speed sufficiently to make the turn. This meansI that the movements of most of the wide bodies miss this taxiway, and exit at TWY A. Mostdeparting movements also use TWY A to make full use of the runway length for take-off.Therefore the aircraft loading of TWY B is limited.
Based on the visual assessment, TWY B is in warning condition. It is also showslocalised areas of fatigue and age related cracking, coupled with deformation (rutting) in* the wheel path.
The distresses is most notable in the wheel paths rwhich follow the centreline markings from RWY 04- L.22, up to the holding line over a distance ofapproximately 60m, where the taxiway is in a poorcondition. In this area, the rutting in the wheel pathsis more pronounced, and is coupled with map and
* alligator cracking. An existing concrete patch ofapproximately 60m2 has already been constructedwhere initial distresses have manifested in the past(see photo opposite).
The taxiway in the extension of TWY B on the western side of RWY 04-22 leads to ahelicopter base area currently used exclusively by UNMIL. This taxiway and base areahas not been considered for review at this stage.
Il
I
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 10 November 2005
I
NRCOg$ roAirport Consultants
I 4.5 Concrete and Asphalt ApronThe large apron covers an area from the Original Terminal Building (OTB) to the KLMbuilding and consist of two distinct parts:
. A rectangular asphalt flexible pavement (22 000 m2 ), and* A triangular concrete rigid pavement (20 000 m2)
According to the 1998 UNDP/ICAO report (Reference 3), the total capacity of the area isable to accommodate six aircrafts including two wide body and four other types of aircraft.
Although there appear to the generally allocated areas where various aircraft park, parkingbay markings are not clearly defined and marked. Aircraft also appear not to follow thepainted taxi lines, which are in need of a repaint, and marshallers assist pilots to park theiraircraft on the apron. With the limited traffic experienced at RIA, this proves adequateunder present conditions, although this may need to be addressed in time.
Generally the asphalt apron is in a warningcondition. Drainage of the area is sufficient, butslopes on the apron needs to be checked for L ..compliance. There do appear to be slightundulations on the apron (see photo opposite), butwater does not appear to pond for long periods onthe apron.
The asphalt surfacing does shows signs of ageing,with hairline map cracks throughout, and there areisolated areas along the taxi lines continuing fromTWY A where rutting deformation is evident.These areas of rutting deformation are in need ofemergency works.
The concrete apron was constructed after the initial construction of the airport in WWII,probably in the 1970's with the extension of RWY 04-22. Although no records can befound of the actual construction date, this extension resulted in the apron being extendedup to and adjacent to TWY B.
The concrete apron is in a fair condition. Theconcrete surface does show signs of age, with thestone aggregate being exposed. However, thesurface, although rough, does not show signs thatit is rapidly ravelling or deteriorating.
There are areas where spalling of the joints hasoccurred on the edges of the concrete blocks, butthese are isolated, and can be addressed withgeneral repairs and maintenance (see photoopposite). At present in their current condition,these spalled joint pose a FOD risk.
lLIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pa,v.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051125.docRoberts International Airport
Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 11 November 2005
I~~~~~~~~~
NRC0O g1Airport Consultants
4.6 Taxiway C
TWY C running diagonally from the runway to the end of TWY B is in an advanced state ofdisintegration and hence unusable. However, this taxiway is not closed physically off asrequired by ICAO and has not been notified in a NOTAM (Notice to Airmen). It isrecommended that this be undertaken as soon as possible as an ernergency item.
Taxiway Charlie, which is highlighted as a taxiway foruse only by light aircraft during the day (AIP - Jeppeson19 Nov 1999) is in fact an abandoned taxiway, which is K _seriously potholed and not recommended for any aircraft -.(see photo opposite).
It is understood that UNMIL will rehabilitate taxiwayCharlie and that the Pakistani Roads and AirfieldMaintenance Division (PakRam) will carry out thisupgrade.
Rut measurements have been undertaken for the following:| Runway 04-22* Taxiway B* Taxiway A
* The rut measurements for RWY 04-22 and the taxiways were taken approximatelyopposite each runway edge light, in the line of the general aircraftl wheel path between 3and 5m from the centreline. Rut measurements have been carried out using a two-meterstraight edge and a calibrated wedge. The details of the rut measurements are listed inAppendix C.
Rut measurements are indicative of pavement weakness, and due to ponding of water inthe rutted surface, can result in poor skid resistance where they do occur on the runways.
The results of the rutting measurements correspond with the visual assessmentinformation. In particular, the locations of higher rutting link closely with the poorerpavement conditions of the runway and taxiway pavements.
5.1 Rut Measurements on RWY 04/22The results of the rut measurements on RWY 04/22 have been surnmarised in Figure 5.1below.
l TDZ Chalnag*I-3 5m lert O 3.5m right3 Figure 5.1 - Summary of Rut Measurements for Runway 04-22
Note that in general, the rutting for RWY 04/22 is in a warning condition (5 to 10mm). Fora runway, the rutting criteria is stricter, considering the fact that ponding water in the ruttedI surface can result in poor skid resistance. This is a safety concern especially in the TDZwhere aircraft moving at high speed can result in aquaplaning.
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 13 November 2005
NRCO =g |Airport Consultants
There are also a number of locations along RWY 04/22 where the rutting is considered in a* warning to poor condition (8-15mm). Where the rutting is greater than 10mm, it can beconsidered that pavement weakening and failure of the underlying support layers hasoccurred.
It is important to note that the locations identified as in a warning to poor condition in termsof rutting correspond closely with the locations identified in the visual assessment, namely:| 1. In the TDZ from approximately Ch 0+400 to Ch 0+800
2. In Section 3 from approximately Ch 1+200 to Ch 1+7003. In Section 4 at the approach to TWY B4. In Section 5 at the approach to TWY A
These locations also correlate closely to either locations where the impact of landing trafficis high, or on approaches to TWY's, where slower moving aircraft movements associatedwith turning actions are expected.
5.2 Rut Measurements on TWY B and TWY AThe results of the rut measurements on TWY B and TWY A have been summarised inFigure 5.2 below.
Rut Moasw-r.mnts on YWY * tut M*aswromows oni20 (distanco from RWY 04-22) TWY A20 20 L firm #%W 20
l ~~~~~~~1 6 i i Z 8l |01ra 14 1 1 IS2IlGa _g X 14
I 1
10 lil i i | } 12 ^: 5 11 1 =-
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~4 4
* 15 60 240 420 O15 60 120 210 300
Cha4nago Chhalnag
| 3.5m kaft C 3 .5m nght 3 .6m l M IFigure 5.2- Summary of Rut Measurements for TWY B and TWYA
For TWY B, the rutting in general is in a warning to poor condition. It appears that thewarning to poor condition is spread throughout the length of TWY B.
For TWY A, the rutting is considered to be in a poor to very poor condition, the worst of allthe airside pavement components. The rutting is the most severe in the section of TWY Afrom Ch 0+270 to Ch 0+330 approximately 3.5m left of the taxiway centreline.
In a 60m stretch where the rutting is in excess of 20mm, this coincides with locationswhere the rutting has led to standing water ponding. This has allowed the ingress of waterto the sub-base to substantially weaken the pavement, which has led to the punching in ofthe asphalt surfacing, and exposure of the granular sub-base layers. As mentioned inChapter 4.2 and 5.3 above, this section of taxiway is in need of urgent emergency repairs.
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docI Roberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Repot 14 November 2005
-A St.NRCO anAirport Consultants
6. DCP TESTING
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing has been undertaken on RWY 04-22, thetaxiways and the asphalt apron. Typically, this was carried out at a frequency of six DCPI penetrations per uniform section, to determine a representative! DCP value for eachrepresentative layer in the section. DCP's were carried out on granular layers below theasphalt, and were typically carried out to depths of approximately 1 m below surface level,* or to refusal.
Through research undertaken in South Africa and internationally one could determine theload bearing capacity of the pavement by applying the South African Mechanistic DesignI Method (SAMDM) in combination with the FAA empirical (CBR based) design method andthe DCP test results. The materials sampling and laboratory testing will also contribute to* the determination of the in-situ materials properties for input into the analysis.
The method has recently been published in 2004 under the title "Analysis of the StructuralBearing Capacity of an Airport using Rudimentary test results as input into SAMDM"| (Reference 6).
The detailed results of the DCP tests are presented in Annexure D, with summarised* analyses for each airport pavement component discussed below.
6.1 DCP testing on RWY 04/22
l | The locations of the DCP tests undertaken along RWY 04-22 are as shown in Figure 6.1.1below: Note that three DCP tests along RWY 04/22 were also conducted in the shoulders,* | outside of the asphalt surfaced runway for control and comparative purposes.
DCP LeeIons -RWY 04Q2
1 ~~~~~~~~~~23
04 - . 22
0 sDm Iwo Iw 25 mm WI *+DCPAwDgI L P NO
Figure 6.1.1 - Location of DCP testing along RWY 04-22
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 15 November 2005
1-
NFICOWW"Airport Consultants
A summary of the DCP results is presented below in Figure 6.1.2, with the approximatepavement layers highlighted according to the calculated in-situ CBR values (Reference 7).
"oCT"#C1 = sUcION 2 SECTION 3 . SUCTION 4 SECTION 5(*) L0 C)9:V V R, IQ a i r St:; X Yl Pi P IR .X ISt ,o X 9 ;g 118
ow I II I N IM 6 II I I I
l~~~~~~~~~~~~ A liL 1011111111| w 12oa oor subgades * In Ih t 1011111111
low
1 I~~~~~~~~~~~0poor sub rades130D
(or) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~poor subgradesl ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DCP not tested through asphalt surfacing _
Figure 6.1.2 - Summary of DCP Layer Strengths along RWY 04-22
Based on the DCP results for RWY 04/22, the CBR of the pavement layers appears to beadequately balanced with good gradation in CBR from stronger upper layers to relativelyweaker sub-grade layers. In fact, it appears that the base and sub-base layers fromapproximately 100mm to 500mm depth are generally good, with CE3R's in general above25.
Figure 7.1.2 however does identify areas of relative weakness where CBR's are less than10, specifically of the sub-grade with depths below 700mm. This is most notable inSection 3, which has also been described as a very poor section in the visual assessmentand according to the rutting measurements. This has been highlighted above and5 cognisance of this will be taken when the pavement remaining life analysis is performed.
The part of Section 5 from Ch 3+200 to Ch 3+354 also signs of poor sub-grades, andalthough not identified in the visual assessment as a poor section, has been identified inthe rutting measurements as being in a warning to poor condition.
Also as expected, when comparing the three DCP tests conducted in the shoulders (DCPpositions 26.6, 37.5a and 37.5b) with the remainder of the DCP's, the base and sub-baselayers of the shoulders are significantly weaker than those in the pavement, suggestingthat the pavement base layers are of better quality material and are better protected from| the ingress of water.
ILIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport
Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 16 November 2005
NRCO slt"rAirport Consultants
1 6.2 DCP testing on TWY A, Al, B and the ApronThe location of the DCP tests undertaken on the taxiways and the apron are shown inFigure 6.2.1 below, with the results summarised in Figure 6.2.2.
0
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~po| * < r t > s\ A;, S , Von su,b4 .gradeS6-__s1
| o;, Sil / z r fiB0
* 0 J~~~
M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A
i l ~ ~ ~ ~ &i
3 Figure 6.2.1 - Location of DCP testing along TWYA, TWYA1, TWYB and the Apron
LIP .Robsb bonao AirportTWY A. TWY Al. TWY D. APRON . DCP Layer SwnthsI b~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CP peoefef
IWYA TWY . WAPRON
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6 1 ! I 1 1" r I I I w U I"I solI If U I" I j L I I n 1 W1L4 kI 1i | I______________________H I I * 1 I fo I
Figure 6.2.2 - Summary of DCP Layer Strengths in TWYA, Al, B and the Apron
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docI Roberts Intemational Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 17 November 2005
I
lINRCO WgWAirport Consultants
As opposed to the runway pavement, the pavements if the taxiways and apron appearpoorer in terms of CBR's calculated from the DCP than those of the runway.
The areas of relative weakness where CBR's are less than 15, specifically of the subgradeI with depths below 600mm, apply to TWY A, TWY Al, and in particular to the Apron. Thisis in fact specific to the section of the Apron, adjacent to the centreline markings whichlead to TWY A, and this coincides with the sections of pavement which are the mostIksevere in terms of rutting.
Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 18 November 2005
NRCO Ws..i.Airport Consultants
7. TEST PITS, ASPHALT CORING AND MATERIALS SAMPLING
In order to verify pavement layer thickness' and to extract materials samples for laboratorytesting, test pit (TP) excavations were undertaken on the various pavement components,typically to 1 m depth, to obtain an in-situ profile of the base, sub-base, and sub-grade layerworks. In addition, 1 00mm diameter asphalt cores and asphalt slabs were also extracted toconfirm asphalt thickness', and also to enable laboratory testing to determine the asphaltmaterial properties.
The location of the TP's, the cores and the asphalt slabs along R:WY 04-22 is shown inFigure 7.1.1 below. At least 1 TP per uniform section has been excavated, and at least 2asphalt cores per uniform section have been drilled.
I | Test Locations on RWY 04-22for Test Pit, Asphalt Cors and Asph-lt Slabs
I I o E L E L I I U I WI23o231 ~~~~~~~0
U 1 -23 -230 500 1000 t500 2000 2SOO
- Corns =TP- Slabs
| , 'Figure 7.1.1 - Test Locations on RWY 04-22 for TP's, Asphalt Cores and Slabs
The location of the TP's, the cores and the asphalt slabs along TWY A, Al, TWY B and onthe apron is shown in Figure 8.1.2 below.
o
$= * 9 t-s - - tse _MA. Li
| ~~~~~~Figure 7.1.2 -Test Locations on TWYA, TWYA1, TVWB andthe Apron for TP's, Asphalt Cores and Slabs
| ~~~LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pavi.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport
Contract 7134313Pavement Asaessment Report 19 November 2005
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p
U~~~~~~~~~~| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NIRCONSXV1
Airport Consultants
* 7.1 Test Pit Results
With regular flights throughout the day (almost 1 every two hours hour), many of which areunscheduled UN helicopter flights, test pitting in the runway would have proved difficultduring the day. Although night work had been proposed, this proved logistically difficultwith the curfew from midnight to 5am applicable, coupled with the! logistics of organisinglights, staff and equipment.
I Therefore, the TP's for materials sampling and runway pavement profiling have beencarried out in the shoulders, just off the edge of the paved surface. Although not ideal, thetest pit profiling does give us a rough indication of the pavement layers, and moreimportantly, gives us a good indication of the sub-grade material properties.
The TP profiles, together with photos of the TP's are attached in Appendix E and theresults of the laboratory testing are attached in Appendix G.A summary of the TP profiles coupled with the most pertinent materials results arepresented in Figure 7.1.3 below.
V 1t TP2 TP3 T4 TPS TP6 T'7 TPS T I' TWIlRINAY TSW? Al TW? a TWYA Cncnu. Aiphak^ I ^
b ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Awrz Aprn
aM -12
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Il: '1 , 1-, 0EGIND: GM1 NW 'A" in ModulusI l 4mI ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oS =-4G 2 i NFl CA- c12 21b
_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Pl1 Plasticity IndexM CBR = CBR at 95% ModAASHTO
Figure 7.1.3 - Summary of TP profiles and laboratory results
| ~~~LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docI ~ Roberts International Airport Contract 7134313
Pavement Assessment Report 20 November 2005
_2
NRCO g"Airport Consultants
| Based on the above results, the following is noted with reference to the TP results:
1. The pavement layers are not well defined in the shoulders, and with a lack of as-built information as a bench mark, it is difficult to distinctly define differentlyI constructed pavement layers. Nevertheless, the TP's do give us an indication ofthe types of materials which have been used in the construction of the runway andtaxiways.
2. Generally, the TP's indicated that laterite, in a gravel, sand, or silty form,constitutes the predominant pavement layer material. This material is generally anorange colour and is classified as an A-2-4 to an A-4 material, namely a siltyI w clayey gravel and sand with good to fair sub-grade properties. Furthermore, thesub-grade can be classified more as a shallow substratum of sandy gravel nature,3 X rather than a deep substratum of soft clayey material.
3. Note that the % Course Sand, % Fine Sand and % Silt & Clay as reported in theRoad Indicator Tests in Appendix G are only reported as a % of the overall Sandcomponent (< 2.0mm sieve size), and that the Gravel components (< 63mm sievesize) which also make up part of the batches samples are not reported as part ofthe Sand percentages.
I | Nevertheless, the grading of the base and sub-base materials (Materials B to G)which is predominantly laterite, indicates that the base and sub-base layer-worksdo indeed consist of a large proportion of fine sand and silty material, with 71-83%of the samples extracted being sandy as opposed to gravelly.
The United Soil Classification System classifies the base and sub-base materialssampled as Class SM or SC, namely silty sand/silty gravely sand, or clayeysand/clayey gravely sand. According to the soil characteristics pertinent to thisclassification system, these materials are suitable as foundation layer-works,although not suitable for base directly under a wearing course surface.
However, it is not only the grading which is used to determine whether a materialis suitable for base and sub-base pavement layer-works, but also the CBR. The9 soaked CBR of Materials B to G at 95% ModAASHTO varies from 12 to 39. TheDCP's which were undertaken on-site indicate a higher in-situ CBR, and accordingto Figure's 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 in the report, the base and sub-base layer-works (downto approx 500mm depth) have CBR's on average in the 26-45 category. TheseCBR's in turn relate to a material stiffness property.
4. Laterite is used throughout west Africa for roadworks. Altholugh it is accepted thatI the laterite can vary in quality throughout the region, it is generally accepted thatthis material is a good pavement construction material. Whether the base andsub-base materials were cement stabilised is also difficult to lestablish so long afterthe initial construction, but this would certainly have further enhanced theproperties of the material.
5. The PI of the sub-base and sub-grade materials is also in general less than 12,* and clay is not highly prevalent in the pavement materials. This indicates thatheaving is potentially not a factor for consideration.
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 21 November 2005
lI
S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R C 0 Wo g 9 l l l l
Airport Consultants
6. From the profiles of TP3, TP4 and TP5, representative of the section of RWY04/22 from Ch 1+220 to Ch 3+354, it appears that an additional granular base andsurfacing layer has been overlaid over an old underlying surfacing.
3 These additional layers are most likely related to resurfacing of the runway wasundertaken for the first 2744 m in 1975 as mentioned in Chapter 1. As will beshown later in Chapter 8.2, the asphalt thickness' for this section of the runway asindicated by the asphalt cores are generally thicker than those extracted fromCh 0+000 to Ch 1+220
It is most likely that the resurfacing was a substantial overlay of substantial asphaltthickness, and that this was not carried through for the entire thickness in theshoulders, but was built up with granular layers with a final 50mm asphaltsurfacing after. It is assumed that the granular layers which have beensandwiched between two asphalt layers do not extend further into the runway andthat they are most likely only adopted in the shoulders oLutside the 45m runwaywidth.
I As no traffic will travel over the shoulders outside the 45m runway width, thesandwiched granular layers can remain as they are.
1 7. Although only one TP has been undertaken in the shoulder for each pavementsection, it can be identified that the areas of weaker sub-grade based on the sub-grade CBR's can be identified as occurring at TP3 (RWY 04/22 Section 3) and
8 TP6 (TWY Al) where the CR of the sub-grade is less than 10. This roughlycorrelates with some of the DCP data described in Chapter 6.
1 7.2 Asphalt Core ResultsWith the last major maintenance of the pavements being undertaken twenty years ago in1975 with an asphalt overlay, it can be expected that the asphalt surfacing would havelong past is anticipated design life. The cracking distresses observed in the visualassessment are an indication of the ageing of the asphalt, specifically the map cracking.There is also evidence of stripping of the asphalt layers, as indicated by initial signs ofpothole developments, and these have been proposed for emergency repair work.
The cores were therefore undertaken not only to verify the asphalt thickness' in all thepavement components, but also to undertake laboratory tests to veirify the properties of theasphalt to confirm its current condition.
A photo log of the asphalt cores taken is attached in Appendix F, and the laboratory testsof the asphalt and binder properties are attached in Appendix G.
Figure 7.2.1 below summarises the core thickness and identifies various layers within theI asphalt surfacing. It also highlights the asphalt layers which have been subjected tolaboratory testing.
l~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~IWf kfnat Al_ por, Monrovb, LlbobPrefb Of 160 h deeree exkafd
4 ~~~4 II ~~~0 4 14 TWY AI TWY A APRON TWY B RWY 04/22Ll 1A 2A P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 B1 82 R1 R2 R3A R3 R4 R5 96 R7 RB R9 RIO20 -
20
40I .P X160100120I 140
I 1 herethepre-scriptlegend L=200TWYA1220
I~ ~ ~Pvmn Ass60en Corer 2e3eNovembNrm2005
l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lh
Whr2h4res0p een WA
360 Com Roftronce NApron
B = 7WYBR = RWYO04122
I ~~~~~~~~~Figure 7.2.1 - Summary of asphalt core profil'es
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 23 November 2005
NRCO Us..Airport Consultants
Based on observations of the core photos and the above summary of thickness, thefollowing is noted:
1. The asphalt cores in general are approximately 100mm to 120 mm in depth, withI two extremely thick cores extracted from the apron (core P3) and from RWY 04/22Section 4 (core R7).
2. One very short core was also extracted from RWY 04/22 Section 2 (core R3A), andas a result, an additional core (core R3) was extracted nearby to clarify the actualasphalt thickness. The very short length of Core R3A (not been photographed inAppendix F) and the smoothness of the interface of the bottom of Core R3A withthe bottom of the cored hole is an indication of the de-bonding of the overlay in thatsection of the runway.
3. The asphalt thickness' pertaining to RWY 04/22 Sections 3, 4 and 5 are generallythicker than those of Section 1 and 2. This ties in with the information that therunway was resurfaced over these sections in 1975.
I 4. Analysis of the cores which have been extracted on cracks (see core Rl, R6, R9and 2A) reveal that the cracks perpetuate in general from the top the asphaltsurfacing, a sign of ageing rather than load related fatigue of the asphalt. Thesecracks, although 3-5mm wide at the top appear to penetrate down to depths of30mm to 50mm below the surface.
3 5. Although most cores were extracted cleanly, some cores separated easily intodistinguishable layers. This is an indication that the bonding between some of theolder asphalt layers, and new resurfacings is not good, allowing delaminating of the3 new surfacing to occur. This is most notable for cores R4, R6 and B2.
6. In drilling the DCP's and the cores, it was noted that at the bottom of the respectiveholes, large angular crushed stone aggregate (Waterbound Macadam) with areddish maroon colour was present throughout the underlying base layers. Someof these large aggregates can be seen in the asphalt core photographs.
Although the Waterbound Macadam is not visible in the TP profiles which wereexcavated in the runway shoulders, it is a justification of the relatively higherstrengths which are visible in the paved runways compared to the shoulders, as| shown in the DCP analyses.
I
II
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 24 November 2005
l
NRICOV=1Airport Consultants
8. EMERGENCY WORKS
8.1 General3 As described above, the emergency works should in the first instance address all thesafety issues of surface failures, waterponding, FOD and skid resistance in terms of ICAOAnnexure 14 (Reference 5) compliance standards for safe operations. This has been| based primarily on the pavement visual condition assessment.
The remedial works have been classified into the following catelgories, based on the* distress types as listed in Chapter 4:
* Most urgent This is generally applicable to the sections with the very poor visualcondition. Extreme signs of distress should be visible, and secondaryI distresses/defects have as a result developed (such as deformation ofthe surface coupled with disintegration of th,e surface). Remedialworks should be undertaken within the next year.
I It is these items for which it is recommended that funding from theWorld Bank be obtained, and for which works Contracts be drawn up.I * Urgent This is generally applicable to the sections with the poor visualcondition. Signs of distress are notable, with possible consequencesand/or development of secondary defects. Maintenance work toI address these defects is already possible, and remedial works shouldbe undertaken within 1 to 5 years short term timeframe.
These items will not necessarily be undertaken by UNMIL, and forlarger contracts, it is recommended that funding be obtained for aninternational contract to be awarded.
I For smaller maintenance works, it is recommended that RIAundertake the work, and with the current UNMIIL presence in Liberia,is only considered urgent once it is expected UNMIL will leave.
* Medium Term This is generally applicable to the sections with the fair to warningvisual condition. Either only slight signs of distress are visible, ormaintenance work (such as crack sealing or pothole patching) hasseen the distress type being addressed and contained.
Remedial works are therefore only recommended within a 5 to 10 yearI timeframe, coupled with regular monitoring to ensure that the distresstypes do not reappear and deteriorate at rapid rates.
In discussions with UNMIL dated 21 July 2005, it was understood that UNMIL have aPakistani Roads and Airfield Maintenance Division (PakRam) on site at RIA. Althoughthey were at the time of the meeting undertaking repair work at the Spriggs Payne Airportin Monrovia, they confirmed that they have the capacity to undertake repair work at RIA.
| In particular, this Division has been established at RIA with the purpose of upgrading TWYC so that it can be used as a helicopter base, with easier access to the UNMIL (Ukrainian)base camp stationed at the airport. Currently, UNMIL have available approx 50 000 litresof 80/100 grade bitumen available for upgrade work. It is a concern that this softer gradeof bitumen is not ideal for use in the hot climate of Liberia. Normally bitumen grade 60/70is specified for use in tropical climates.
I It was also understood that there is already co-operation between FtIA and UNMIL to carryout routine pothole patching and maintenance on the runway on an ad hoc basis. It isevident that a good working relationship is being established between the Base SupportI Manager of RIA and Major Wassim of PakRam. In fact, pavement rehabilitation works(patching) on RWY 04/22 had already been undertaken by PakRam since 2004.
As a result of discussions with UNMIL, it was agreed that the remedial pavement worksrequiring urgent attention at RIA would be undertaken by UNMIL. In particular, it wasagreed that TWY A and isolated pothole repairs on RWY 04-22 would be undertaken bythem.
Note that UNMIL have agreed to undertake the said works, and hence no contractdocuments will be drawn up as part of the pavements rehabilitation and maintenanceemergency works.
Based on the above discussions, Table 8.1 listing the remedial worlks has been drawn up.Although it is understood that UNMIL will carry out the majority of the "most urgent"pavement repair work, RIA's Base Support staff also have capacity for assistance, and itenvisaged that it would be a co-ordinated effort between the two parties.
It is also strongly advised that the most urgent emergency repair work which is to beundertaken by UNMIL be supervised and co-ordinated by an on-site Engineer'sRepresentative. It is understood that the United Nations Operations (UNOPS) willI undertake the supervision during the implementation of the emergency works.
I
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 26 November 2005
U
NRCO D=0|3 Airport Cons
* 8.3 Runways
Although the runway is presently serviceable, there are however several issues whichneed to be addressed as a matter of urgency to ensure continued safe operations at theairport. These items and specific details relating to the implementation of these remedialworks are elaborated upon in table format below in Table 8.1.
1 8.4 Taxiways
Remedial works are most urgently required, especially for TWY A where serious failuresare currently a safety concern. These Remedial Works items, together with the work itemsfor TWY B are elaborated upon in Table 8.1.
8.5 ApronsI Remedial works for the medium term are required on the asphalt and concrete apron, andthese are also elaborated on in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1- REMEDIAL WORKSLocation Status Aug Complies Remedial Works
DESCRIPTION tLocation Status Aug with Urgent Medium Remarks2005 Annex 14 Most Urgent (Short Term) Term(0 -1yrs) (1 - 5 yrs) (5 -10 yrs)
RWY 04-22Potholes, delaminating asphalt Ch 0+650 Safety hazard No To be undertaken by UNMIL.and ponding water in rutdeformations Ch 1+350 Safety hazard No It is proposed that the areas to be patched
be milled to a depth of minimum 50mmCh 1+590 Safety hazard No below existing level with a milling machineand replaced with continuously gradedCh 1+650 Safety hazard No asphalt wearing course such the finallevel does not result in localised
General Safety hazard No depressions where water can pond andaccumulate.
Edges of repaired potholes are Ch 1+430 Risk of FOD and No To be undertaken by UNMIL. Allowravelling/ breaking up safety hazard approximately 5-10m2 per locationCh 1+530 Risk of FOD and No identified.safetv hazardCh 2+290 Risk of FOD and No It is proposed that the rough edges of thesafetv hazard existing potholes be neatly saw cut andCh 2+850 Risk of FOD and No that a good tack coat is applied before anCh_2_850 Risafety hazard asphalt surface course is applied.General Risk of FOD and No Where the existing repaired potholessafety hazard consist of concrete, it is recommended
that the concrete patches be removed and_______-__-____ replaced with an asphalt surface course.
Wide, deep cracks surface Various Wide cracks in No RIA Base Support to undertake, withcracks and general pavement locations severe condition assistance from UNMIL (aSow for 500m offatigue along the (>3mm) cracksealing of 3-5mm wide cracks,runway approx. 30mm deep)
The runway markings are Along the Poor No RIA Base Support to undertake, withdeteriorated and their visibility is entire length assistance from UNMILvery poor of the runway (allow for all edge, centreline and TDZ________ ________ ________ ________ _______ __ _____ ________ _ ______ _____ _ m arkings)
(0 -1 yrs) (1 - 5 yrs) (5 -10 yrs)Smooth runway surface is Along the Low skid No This will clean and remove the rubber andsmooth entire length resistance algae deposits and improve theof the runway roughness of the surface
Algae growth Verndlw resi e Requires funding for an internationalRWY south end resistancecontractor, with proper projectRWY__________04____ __ 22____ r management and supervision
Damaged/ eroded shoulder Along the Risk of FOD No Note ongoing maintenance andpavement. entire length deweeding is being undertaken by RIA,of the runway but with the surface not covered, weedshoulder ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~growth and damage to the pavementshoulder continues.
Cross slope and general Along the Appears less No Overlay thickness described in Chapterpavement fatigue entire length than the required 10.of the runway 1.2% Requires funding for an international
contractor, with proper projectmanagement and supervision.
Topographical and detailed level surveys
t __ ___ ____ ___ are requiredRWY 04-22 Strip _Obstructions in the RWY strip Various Anthills > 1 m in No To be undertaken by RIA as part of their(within 150m of RWY centreline) locations height and other routine maintenance. Any otheralong the fixed obstructions also to be identified andrunwav obstrjntionn rernoved
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 29 November 2005
- - - - - - - --- -- - - - - m - - -
Airport Consultants
Table 8.1 - REMEDIAL WORKS
Complies Remedial WorksDESCRIPTION Location Status Aug with Urgent Medium Remarks2005 Annex 14 Most Urgent (Short Term) Term
(0 -1 yrs) (1 - 5 yrs) (5-10yrs)TWY's ______ ____
The apron markings are in TWY A, TWY Poor No RIA to undertake, with assistance fromgeneral detenorated and their Al and TWY UNMIL.visibility is very poor B
A minimum 3 hand application coats ofwaterproof yellow latex paint to be applied
Serious failure of the taxiway TWY A Critical failure of No To be undertaken by UNMIL. Somepavement (opposite the the pavement, repair work done by RIA Base Support inVIP building) currently August 2005.serviceable For the repair work, the existing asphalt(partly) surfacing and underlying waterlogged
pavement layer works are to beexcavated and removed to a min depth of500mm.A granular crushed stone base course ofthickness 150mm should be constructed,and the remaining 350mm should bemade up of asphalt base and surfacing
l__________________________ _______________ ____________ course m ixes.Severe deteroration from lack of TWY C Closed, not No To be undertaken by RIA Base Support inuse serviceable accordance with ICAO Annex 14_____________________________ _______________________ standard s.
Rutting deformation coupled TWY B Water ponding No To be undertaken by UNMIURIA Basewith alligator cracking and resultant Supportsafety hazard
It is proposed that the rough edges of theexisting potholes be neatly saw cut andthat a good tack coat is applied before anL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~asphalt surface course is applied.
Com~plies Remedial WorksDESCRIPTION Location Status Aug with Urgent | Medium Remarks2005 Annex 14 Most Urgent (Short Term) Term
.________________ l _______ _ (0 -1 yrs) (1 - 5 yrs) (5 -10 yrs)Isolated pothole general wide TWY Al Deteriorated No To be undertaken by RIA Basecracks taxiway that is SupportUUNMIL.
It is proposed that the rough edges of theexisting potholes be neatly saw cut and. that a good tack coat is applied before an. __________ - J - _____________ _ ____________ asphalt surface course is applied.
General pavement fatigue, as TWY A, Al No Recommended overlay thicknessindicated by extensive cracking and B described in Chapter 10.Requires funding for an internationalcontractor, with proper projectmanagement and supervision
Topographical and detailed level surveysare required
Apron =_XFailure cracks on the concrete On the apron Failed condition, No To be undertaken by RIA Base Support.pavement close to TWY although not on Broken corners and edges to be repairedB, adjacent to the frequently by removing all loose concrete, cleaning,the grassed travelled way re-bonding with a good epoxy and newopening concrete.
Joints to be cleaned out and sealed
Apron markings On the asphalt Not clear No To be undertaken by RIA Base Support.apronPaint apron CL taxi lanes and double lineedge markings with waterproof yellowOn the Not clear No latex paint (hand application, min 3 layers)concrete
Complies Remedial WorksDESCRIPTION Location Status Aug with Urgent | Medium Remarks2005 Annex 14 Most Urgent (Short Term) Term(O -I yrs) (1 - 5 yrs) (5 -10 yrs)
Surface cracks and general Various Warning No To be undertaken by RIA/UNMILpavement fatigue locations on condition, cracksthe asphalt wideningapron (1-3mm)
General pavement fatigue, as Apron No Milling and Recommended overlay thicknessindicated by extensive cracking placing of described in Chapter 10.structural
asphalt overlay Topographical and detailed level surveyson entire apron, are required.
includingreplacement of Requires funding for an international
very poor contractor, with proper projectsections of management and supervision.apron withinsufficientremaining
pavement life
General .____See Consultants Stage 1 - Various
Donor funding required and/or RIA toEmergency Works Report miscellaneous budget and purchase.plant and
equipment
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 32 November 2005
NPCOD s.n"Airport Consultants
| 9. SHORT AND MEDIUM TERM PAVEMENT REHABILITATION ANALYSIS
9.1 Design Aircraft
Based on the existing traffic at RIA, and the proposed design aircraft as listed in the* Airports Master Plan, the following mix of aircraft at maximum ramp weight as shown in
Figure 9.1.1 have been used in the pavement rehabilitation design. As referred to inChapter 5.1 of the Airports Master Plan, it is proposed that the B777-300 is used for theI pavement design, and the A340-600 is used for the pavement geometry.
Roberts International AirportAnticipated Aircraft Mix
Maximum Ramp W-ights (t)
4 3504300
3 50
t 200
1X50
I ls~~~~~~~00 I~~~~~~~~~~50
3 8737-800 P330-300 0777-300 A340-S00 8747-400
Abctdt TM.s
I Figure 9.1.1 - Proposed Aircraft Mix at Maximum Ramp Weights
These design aircraft have wheel configurations as shown in Figure 9.1.2 below:
ROBERTS INTERNATONAL AIRPORTDESIGN AIRCRAFT LOAD LOCATIONS UNDER THE MAI LANDNG GEAR
* 6~~~~~000 -
5000
4000
- 3747-400*000 .ooo ' 3 . ES l I 1s1 s | 1 _ i^A340-600 main
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 33 November 2005
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r
NRCI C31t "Airport Consultants
In Figure 9.1.2, only one half of the plane has been shown, and only the load locationsmost critical in terms of damage to the pavement under the main landing gears are plotted.Also note that that A340-600 landing gears are split into a main gear under the aircraftwing and a belly gear under the fuselage of the aircraft. Because of this split, the two3 loads are analysed separately.
From an assessment of the load locations in Figure 9.1.2 it can be expected that themajority of the damage to the pavement will occur approximately 5.0-6.Om from thepavement centreline markings.
9.2 Design Traffic
The Airports Master Plan proposes a 15-year horizon for the traffic forecast at RIA. Itsuggests annual aircraft traffic movements (ATM's) increasing from 1,725 in 2005, to 4,040in 2015 and ultimately to 4,550 in 2020. Based on these ATM figures, a total design ATMvalue of 54,000 over 15 years has been calculated.
This 15 year design ATM of 54,000 has then been spread amongst the 5 design aircraftwhich have been listed in Chapter 9.2 above and summed for the 15 year design life. Thetotal 15 year design traffic has thus been assumed to be as listed in Table 9.2 below:
Table 9.2 - Breakdown of 15 year design air craft movementsI Design Total 15 year % of Average Ave Design CurrentAircraft Design ATM's Total Design ATM's landings ~' landings I week
_____________ ~~i year weekB737-800 35,000 64.8% 2,333 22 9 (scheduled)
Based on an analysis of the DCP data, the TP data and the asphalt core data, a profile ofI the existing pavement layers have been drawn up for structural analyses.
The stiffness values, E (MPa) have been determined in part from the empirical relationshipI that E-moduli can be derived from CBR results by multiplying by a factor 10, and in partfrom experience and engineering judgment.
The DCP results indicated a balanced pavement with stronger upper layers overlyingweaker lower layers, and these CBR's have been used in particular to determine the sub-grade CBR's.
I It has also been assumed that the existing surfacing, which is aged and cracked, will bemilled off to a depth below the penetration depth of the map cracks, and will be replaced inthe medium to long term. Thus, the resultant stiffness of the continuously graded asphaltI has been assumed to be 2800MPa, an average value based on a combination of thestiffness of the existing asphalt and new asphalt.
ILIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docI Roberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 34 November 2005
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
A ewriNRCD Us.Airport Consultants
The existing pavements of the various runway sections have been assumed to have thestructural properties as listed in Table 9.3.1:
RWY 04/22 Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Secltion 4 Section 5Layer t E t E t E t E t E
subgrade infinite infinite 60 infinite 80 infinite 60Table 9.3.2- Structural Models for the TWY's and the Apron
The structural models have been analysed with the linear elastic multilayer softwareAPSDS release 4 (Reference 8). APSDS (Airport Pavement Structural Design System) isa powerful, user-friendly, Windows-based package for flexible pavement design. APSDShas been developed specifically for airport pavements and other heavy duty pavementssuch as container terminal pavements and can calculate the response of a pavementstructure to the loading by a complete mix of aircraft. It uses the layered elastic program,CIRCLY to compute load-induced stresses, strains and displacements throughout apavement.
Stresses and strains can be calculated at any point in the pavement structure and, throughI appropriate transfer functions, the pavement life time can be calculated. In the case offatigue failure of bound layers, the tensile strain at the undersides of the relevant layerswould typically be taken as the indicator of the cracking life of the layers.
The strains are converted to damage using a performance relationship of the form:
N k b
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docI Roberts Intemational Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 35 November 2005
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
NRCONa riAirport Consultants
where N is the predicted life (allowable number of movements until failure)k is a material constantb is the damage exponent of the material,£ is the load-induced strain (unitless strain)
| The structural capacity of a pavement is generallyanalyzed for two failure criteria (see also Fig. 9.3):
| 1. Failure due to repetitive tensile strains in the _p ^'bottom of the asphalt layers, also called E_ _ g_asphalt fatigue.
2. Failure due to accumulated vertical* deformation (compressive strain) on top of
the sub-grade Figure 9.3: FEailure Criteria
| For each of these failure criteria, transfer functions have been used to determine theallowable number of aircraft movements as a function of the calculated strains in thepavement structure. The transfer functions relevant to runway 04/22 for asphalt fatigue andsub-grade deformation are shown in equations 1 and 2 respectively. Equation 1 is theSHELL Criterion for asphalt fatigue (Reference 8) and equation 2 is for sub-gradedeformation is obtained from extensive research by FAA on full-scale test sections
| (Reference 9).
N| (5889) Eq. 1
/ 6.527
N f L551 16J Eq. 2
Where:* Nf = Allowable number of movements until failure* = Horizontal tensile strain in bottom of the asphaltic layers (micron)* = Vertical compressive strain at top of sub-grade (micron)
Pavement life time is then expressed in terms of the Cumulative Damage Factor (CDF).The Damage Factor for the i-th loading is defined as the number of repetitions (ni) of agiven damage indicator divided by the 'allowable' repetitions (Ni) of the damage indicatorthat would cause failure. The Cumulative Damage Factor (CDF) is given by summing thedamage factors over all the loadings in the traffic spectrum using Miner's hypothesis:
Cumulative Damage Factor = NI ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N,
The pavement is presumed to have reached its design life when the cumulative damagereaches 1.0. A CDF = 0 means that the predicted traffic does not cause any structuraldamage to the pavement structure whereas a CDF = 1 means that the predicted trafficconsumes the total structural capacity of the pavement. In determining the optimumasphalt overlay design, the thickness of the asphalt is adjusted until the desired damagefactor of 1.0 (or just less than 1.) is obtained.
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docI Roberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 36 November 2005
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
NRICO6=01Airport Consultants
| ~~~~~~~~~~Figure 9.4 - General concepts for a single gear anatlysis
Figure 9.4 shows the general concepts for a single gear analysis. The basic procedure is
| ~~~~~as follows:
1. The strain distribution along the transverse section is determined.2. The number of vehicle passes is determined for a series of equally spaced intervals
| ~~~~~~that span the wander distribution.| ~~~~3. The damage contributions due to each of the intervals are then summed at a series
of points along the section.
IlI
I ~~~~LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 37 November 2005
l sflos
I~~~~~~~~~~INRICOV CIl'Airport Consultants
* 9.4 Bearing Capacity and Remaining Life
The bearing capacity of the various pavement sections listed in Tables 9.4.1 and 9.4.2have been analysed with APSDS. The result of the calculations is a Cumulative DamageFactor (CDF) for each pavement section for each of the two failure criteria. The CDFrepresents the total life time of the pavement structure consumed by the traffic over the 15year design life. The results of the calculations are presented in Table 9.4.1 and 9.4.2.
The basis of the traffic for the analysis of RYW 04/22 is the full 15 year design ATM's aslisted in Table 9.2 at Maximum Ramp Weight, whereas for the taxivvays and apron, it is anassumed percentage of the total 15 year design ATM depending on an assumed usage ofthe taxiway or apron.
Table 9.4.2 - Results of the APSDS Analysis for the TWY's and' Apron
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 38 November 2005
lNRCO$ HAirport Consultants
The tables above also give a (theoretical) indication of the projected life time of thepavement sections in years (calculated as 1/CDFxl5). When designing an asphalt overlayfor such situations, one doesn't have to consider the traffic history because by placing anoverlay, the effect of sub-grade deformation that occurred in the past is completelyeliminated. Hence, the overlay thickness is based on a Cumulative Damage Factor (CDF)of 1.0.
Note however that even thought the remaining life is a theoretical calculation, it isI nonetheless a representative indicator of the relative performance of the runwaypavement, based on the current condition of the pavement layers as determined from thematerials investigations.
I Details of the above pavement remaining life analyses can be founcl in Appendix H.
When evaluating the above figures, one can draw the following conclusions:
1. For RWY 04/22, Section 1, 4 and 5 are structurally sound and the calculationsindicate that there is no structural deficiency. Although it is difficult to estimate howI much of the projected life has been consumed already by the past traffic, thepresented figures give comfort to use the existing pavement structure as a soundbasis for future upgrading.
I 2. The results of Section 2 and 3 however show that the sub-grade is beingoverloaded. The main reason for this is the poorer sub-grade CBR's observedduring the materials investigations and the DCP testing.
Considering that sub-grade deformation is the failure mode for this section,pavement surface deformations should become visible by now, which is confirmedby the rutting measurements and the visual assessments.
3. Similarly, the results of TWY A and the Apron also shovw that the sub-grade isbeing overloaded. The main reason for this is once again the poorer sub-gradeI CBR's observed during the materials investigations and the DCP testing. Thiscorrelated with the sever rutting which is evident in both pavements, particularlyalong the centreline opposite the VIP building.
4. Although the remaining life of TWY B is less than the design life of 15 years, withthe CDF marginally over 1, it can be considered that this pavement is sufficientlystructurally adequate. With this in mind, the existing pavement structure can beretained with localised maintenance and repair of the surfacing to address cracksand rutting.
I 5. Similarly, due to the low % of traffic expected to make use of TWY Al, this taxiwaycan also be considered to be structurally adequate. Note that although the existingsurfacing is very dry and cracked, the existing pavemenit structure can also beI retained, with asphalt surface rejuvenation to address the extensive cracks, withisolated patch and repair work to prevent overall deterioration of the pavement.
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051125.docI Roberts Intemational Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 39 November 2005
I
NRCOg 'Airport Consultants
* 10. RECOMMENDED REHABILITATION MEASURES
10.1 General
The pavement rehabilitation analysis has been undertaken for a 15 year design life withmedium and long term rehabilitation measures in mind to sustain the anticipated trafficload on the pavement for this period.
| It is hereby noted that the medium to long term measures are based on limitedinvestigations for master planning purposes. In order to determine project level detaileddesign specifications and schedules of quantities, more detailedl investigations will be
| required.
Nevertheless, the medium and long term measures proposed are be aimed at twoobjectives, namely:
1. Improving the functional performance2. Increasing of bearing capacity (structural performance)
In order to improve functional performance, a rehabilitation programme has to becompiled. In addition, the bearing capacity of the runway would need to be increased to
| accommodate the anticipated traffic for the next 10-15 years.
These rehabilitation measures have been listed as follow-up work with implementation inthe 1-5 year timeframe in Table 8.1, Chapter 5. The implementation of these measure isI based on the assumption that the most urgent repair works be undertaken within a 0-1year timeframe to correct the emergency items identified.
In general, it is preferred that pavement rehabilitation extend upward by applying asphaltoverlays, rather than going downward to rehabilitate poor sub-grades. In particular toairport pavements, where open excavations are not allowed to remain exposed under dailyoperating conditions, this makes asphalt overlays the preferred option for rehabilitation andupgrading, especially for single runway airports.
The rehabilitation analysis has also indicated that adequate protection of the pavement willbe achieved with sufficient cover over the poorer sub-grades in termris of asphalt thickness.
Naturally, where poor drainage conditions exacerbate the sub-grade condition, theseshould be addressed first and foremost. Where isolated poor sub-grades and sub-basesoccur, which are waterlogged and in very poor condition, this must be addressed by fulldepth pavement reconstruction as soon as possible, as with TWY A. This is possible forTWY A where partial closure of the TWY is possible.
It is believed however that the cross-slope profile correction which will be undertaken withthe asphalt overlay for the runway (Chapter 10.2.4 below) will address the drainageI problem associated with the runway. This will be accompanied by milling of the existingasphalt, the depth of which will be increased in the poorer sections, prior to the overlaybeing applied.
*ILIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 40 November 2005
I
NRCON wrrAirport Consultants
1 10.2 Rehabilitation Options
In the previous chapters, a number of deficiencies have been identified in the runway,taxiways and apron components. In summary, these are as follows:
1. All of the pavements in general are characterized throughout by cracks, anindication of asphalt age and brittleness. These cracks generally progress fromthe top of the surfacing down, and penetrate to depths of 30mm to 50mm.
2. Two structurally weak sections occur in Runway 04/22, namely Sections 2 and3 from Ch 0+610 to Ch 1+890 which both require strengthening in terms of anasphalt overlay to protect the sub-grade from deformation.
3. Section 3 in particular coincides with a change in runway slope, and the poordrainage runoff as a result has exacerbated the surface condition, resulting indelaminating asphalt and potholes. Overall, the runway profile is poor andneeds to be corrected to ICAO requirements to improve surface water
| drainage.
4. For a region where there is persistent rain, the slow runoff from the poor profilehas resulted in algae growth on the surfacing, ancl this has significantlyI reduced the surface skid resistance of the runway.
5. Taxiway A is the section of pavement in the worst condition, and is in need ofemergency repairs in terms of full depth pavement reconstruction. Over andabove this, it is also a structurally weak section, and it will also requirestrengthening in terms of an asphalt overlay to protect the sub-grade fromfurther deformation.
6. The asphalt apron is also a structurally weak section, and it will also requirestrengthening in terms of an asphalt overlay to protect the sub-grade fromfurther deformation.
The rehabilitation options listed below will look at addressing the above listeddeficiencies.
10.2.1 Milling and Placing of Structural Asphalt Overlay
It is recommended that, prior to the structural overlays, a milling depth of 20mm to30mm be specified over the full width of all the asphalt components, with anincrease in depth to say 50mm in localised areas where asphalt cracking andfatigue are more pronounced. This is in order to remove all the existing crackedand aged asphalt.
I The thickness of the existing asphalt surface course varies from 100mm to 150mmon average, and this will leave a good solid and intact asphalt substrata on which to
* build the structural overlays.
Where no structural overlays are proposed to increase the cverall asphalt thicknessto prevent sub-grade deformation, it is proposed that the milled asphalt be replaced
I In Chapter 9.4, it was determined that sub-grade deformiation is critical for thestructural performance of RWY Section 2 and 3, and for TWY A and the Apron.The calculated overlay thickness' vary from 25mm to 165mm, although in practice,the minimum overlay thickness should be 50mm. It is proposed that the overlaythickness be constructed in conjunction with the milling and placing operation.
10.2.3 Cross Section Profile Correction
As part of improving the functional performance, it is recommended to improve thetransverse slope to at least 1.2% in order to enhance the surface water drainage.I This applies to the runway in general, and not necessarily to the apron andtaxiways and can be undertake for RWY 04/22 due to the cross runway beingdowngraded to a taxiway.
What this would entail would be asphalt overlays of varying thickness, with thickeroverlays being placed in the centre of the runway travelled way (keel section), and
| thinner overlays toward the runway edges.
It is proposed that this be undertaken in conjunction with the mill and replaceoperation. A typical cross section of the profile correction is shown in Figure10.2.4 below.
Although it needs to be confirmed with a detailed survey, it would appear that theexisting slope is less than 1.0%. Assuming that the edge of the runway will remainat its original level, the centreline needs to be raised by approximately 45mm.
I When keeping in mind that the structural overlay thickness of 25mm to 105mmshould be applied in Section 2 and 3, this will mean a total overlay thickness of70mm to 150mm at the edge of the pavement keel section. This could mean atotal asphalt thickness depth at the centreline of 100mm to 200mm.
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docI Roberts Intemational Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 42 November 2005
I
NRCOU rdAirport Consultants
11. SUMMARY OF REHABILITATION MEASURES
In summary, the implementation location and timing of the various rehabilitation measuresis shown graphically below in Figure 11.1.
In part, Figure 11.1 is a pictorial representation of the items listed in Table 8.1 and thetable should be interrogated for a comprehensive listing of all the measures, while Chapter10.2 should be consulted for a description of the medium and long term pavementrehabilitation measures.
Most Urgent Worksl Rut repairs ] (0-1 years)
FRepairs of potholes and.lelaminating asphalt onrunway and taxiways,inicluding rut repairs in theFRWY TDZ areaG crackseal of wide cracks
* Cleaning of RWY surfaceFRepainting of all RWY,FTWY and Apron markings
* Heavy rehabilitation offailed sections of TWY AD Deweeding of surfacedRWY shoulders, re-compacting and resealingwith thin asphalt layerC C losing off TWY C withappropriate signage
0
Urgent WorksI (1-5 years)* hAilling and placing
I structural asphalt overlayon RWY and TWY'sI ^ .§ * C ross-section profilecorrection, in conjunction
-< - f OVt.Ir ^ with milling and placingstructural asphalt overlayon RWY
Medium Term Works| i l ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(5--10 years)
*Ailling and placing ofstructural asphalt overlayon entire apron, includingreplacement of very poorsections of apron withinsufficient remaining
* t < .sp ̂ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~pavement life
Figure 11.1 - Summary of Most Urgent, Urgent and Medium Teirm RehabilitationMeasures
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docI Roberts Intemational Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 43 November 2005
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l
NRCO Us..Airport Consultants
I 12. REFERENCES
1. NACO-SSI / The World Bank - Liberia Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project: RobertsInternational Airport "Inception Report", July 2005
2. Roberts International Airport, RIA, "An In-Depth Analysis", (publication date unknown)
3. UNDP/ICAO Project LIR/96/007 Report - "Rehabilitation Assessment of RobertsI International and James Spriggs Payne Domestic Airports", May 1998
4. Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) 1996
5. ICAO Appendix 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation - Aerodromes,"Volume 1: Aerodrome Design and Operations", Fourth Edition, July 2004
* 6. 8th Conference on Asphalt Pavements South Africa (CAPSA) 2004, De Bruin, Jordaan,Francisco and Domingos -"Analysis of the Structural Bearing Capacity of an AirportU using Rudimentary test results as input into SAMDM', September 2004
7. Department of Transport Research Report RR91/214 - "Pavement Rehabilitation DesignBased on Pavement Layer Component Tests (CBR and DCP)", March 1994
* 9. Yu T. Chou, Federal Aviation Administration FAA-RD-77-6, "Analysis of PermanentDeformations of Flexible Airport Pavements", February 1977, Final Report.
11. Theyse, J.L, de Beer, M.D, and Rust, F.C (1996): "Overview of the South AfricanMechanistic Pavement Design method' - Transportation Research Board No 1539,TRB, National Research Council
IIII
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051125.docI Roberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 44 November 2005
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
NRCOf g dAirport Consultants
ll
Il
I APPENDIX A
* PHOTOS
lll
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docI Roberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report A November 2005
l
NRCO @3.,U Airport Consultants
I .,,. a-----RWY End 04 RWY 04 - shoulder pavement damaged
by cable excavation
AM,~~~~~~~~~~
I RWY 04 - touchdown zone RWY 04 - centrelirie marking
U h~~~~~a-~ -m. -A
Transverse construction joint second RWY extension RWY 04 - touchdown zone,at 2,000 ft from RWY End 04 water ponding
| LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT Appendix A - Photos.docRoberts International Airport Contract 8002382Pavement Assessment Report 1 September 2005
l
l
NI CO jAirport Consultants
- -
I -
I Area of deformation with water ponding
Longitudinal crack off centreline,I in touchdown area
I - , =_ --
Cracks due to shifting of overlay layer
Green haze by algae growth Transverse construction joint first RWY extension3 (not evident in middle section of RVVY) at 4,000 ft from RVWY End 04
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT Appendix A -Photos.docRoberts International Airport Contract 8002382Pavement Assessment Report 2 September 2005
i4RCON A 11111,1Akirport consultants
One of 3 spots with delaminating asphalt layer Eroded longitudinal jointand water ponding
! __ _ _ _ _ _ __
I | - F ~ -
Last patch repair work on RWY Water ponding at miclpoint of RWYI by UNMIL Pakistani Division
I , - ',
Previous patch repair areas3 at Exit to TWY C
Deteriorating edges alonc patch repair area
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT Appendix A - Photos.doc
Roberts International Airport Contract 8002382
Pavement Assessment Report 3 September 2005
I
U i95 it.'RCO Airport Consultants
Map surface cracking Concrete pothole repair work, breaking up
I~~~~,,g 1. --
- -~~ - -- ] , , - -
B 747 Thai Orient cargo plane touchdown Previous asphalt repair work breaking up,in severe condition
I -'~ r-
tr
v~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ , - aF
TWY A - north view: area of i 150 x 15 m, TWY A - south view area of ± 150 x 15 m, offoff centreline, in severe condition centreline, in severe condition
I LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT Appendix A - Photos.docRoberts International Airport Contract 8002382Pavement Assessment Report 4 September 2005
TWY B - View toward the hangar TWY C - View toward the hangar with UN staff(note the rutting in the foreground) quarters to the right
IRoberts International Airport Asphalt Apron
Asphalt Apron Rutting on TWY A (in the distance)(note slight undulations) continues onto Asphalt Apron
* ~-' - ., - u
Concrete apron joints sealed but in need of Concrete apronmaintenance together with repair of concrete slab (note the breaking up of the concrete slab at the
corners corners)
I LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT Appendix A -Photos.docRoberts International Airport Contract 8002382Pavement Assessment Report 5 September 2005
I
NRCO 5s..Airport Consultants
l
I
APPENDIX B
I DETAILED VISUAL ASSESSMENT FORMS
Il
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report B November 2005
I
NACO Stewart Scott Monrovia, Liberia World Bank Funded
Modes and types of distress and their typical codes (TRH12 & TMH9) Classification of degrees of distress (TRH12)
Mode of distress Type of distress Code Degree Severity I Description
Cracking** Transverse cracks (Dwarskrake) T 0 - INo distress visible
Longitudinal cracks (Langskrake) L 1 Slight Distress difficult to discern. Only slight
Block cracks (Blokkrake) B signs of distress visible
Surfacing cracks (Deklaagkrake) SU Warning Distress is notable with respect to
Crocodile cracks (Krokodilkrake) C possible consequences. Start of
Map cracks MA secondary defects; maintenance is
,Meandering cracks ME
Deformation* Depressions (Versakkings) DEMounds (Ophopings) M already possible or needed e.g. cracks
Ruts (Sporing) RU can be sealed
Ridges (Riwwe) RI Severe Secondary defects have developed
Corrugations (Sinkplaat/Riffels) CO (noticeable secondary effects) and/or
Shoving/Creep/ Displacements (Verplasings) SH extreme degree of primary defect
_Undulations (Golwe/Ongelykhede) U
Secondary effects Pumping (Pomping) PU
Disintegration of Ravelling (Opbreek van opp) Rsurface** Potholes (Slaggate) PH
Edge breaks (Katbreking) EB
Patches (Lappe) PA
Smoothing of Bleeding (Bloei) BLsurface texture** Polishing P0
Algae AL
* where possible the origin of the distress within the pavementshould be identified during the detailed visual inspection
** the evaluation should indicate (using experience) whether adistress mode is of a structural/functional nature
15m [XJ x Cracking Position 15m x h x x f x x x x x x x x
Type L +L I L L L L L L L L L MA B B MA
Degree 1 1 1 _ 1 1Spacing (m) f I = _ _ ===
Comments cracks open l Longitudina cracks are generallyopen>3mn - - L
out x Deformation Position kee 1x
out x x x x x
Type U U UU U U U RU U U
Degree __ U U I _ __
Spacing (m) _ _ = = = = = _ | 7==
Comments galy outside keel section _ __
ofrteaking-ti o ut ke ------ i--X--|-- -----j------t---X-- ---- ---t-----t------- --------------- ---- ---x- X -- -- ---- t-- -- ------ ------0---of the Position keel x~ J l f l_x x 3xfi1
Comments - - - cracks (>3mm) in need of cracksealing | _ I__
outDeformation Position keel x _
out xType RU____
Degree __ __ __ ___
Spacing (in)___ __ _____
Comments F at TiWY Breaking-up outI of the Position keel j xx
surface out Typex__ x-- x__ ___ x ___ x__ ___ PPA_ __ x_ x xxx
Type _ L _ AL ALALL _
Degree __ ____ __ ___ _
Comments = =patch is breaking up I__I
Smoothing out x x xx I -- I -I--of the Position keel _ _ I _ I _ I
surface out _ J xx xx x, 11_X_Type AL_AL AL AL AL AL ALA_L_LA A LA
Degree ___ _ _j i 1 1__ 1_ 1_ __ _ ± 1 _ _
Comments __I___I iConstruction __ _I _ _ _ . I1 Z 1 T I _ _ _ _ _ _ _
deficiencies r E IlLTopography, | -l _ I _ I _ Transverse I I I I I1 11Lvegetation, Position rwy Cross-fall cross section I I_I_ construction I Cambered cross section I Displaced threshhold
PDF Created with pdfFactory trial version www. dffactory.com
- ----- n-r - - ------- -in- -NACO - Stewart Scott Monrovia - Liberia World Bank Funded
LIRP - Roberts International AirportAirport: RIA, Monrovia Detail visual assessment (Pavements)Section: TWY A Strip: 25m MdeTWY Date: 02 /08 / 2005 Done by: Gary Fok Chainage from RWY to Apron
Degree _ I 1 I _ _ _ IComments |Construction | [ joint in the EMERGENCY WORK REQUIRE
details and Position twy _ _ 1 _ 1 asphalt_overlay | APPROX(150x15)PATCH
deficiencies I 1 L _ I 1 _ ILŽ•I/•
Topography, _ HOLDING ||I I II uvegetation, Position twy | I| LINE I _ _ L I I YA1 I __ /
geology Type I I I
RWY 04/22 - --
TW.F,0000 Y Al;
LIRP RIA Airport visual form.xIs - TWY A Page 8 of 16 2005/09/21
PDF Created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactorv.com
----- - - -- - -- - - - - - -- -
NACO - Stewart Scott Monrovia - Liberia World Bank Funded
LIRP - Roberts International AirportAirport: RIA, Monrovia Detail visual assessment (Pavements)Section: TWY Al Strip: 25m wde TWY Date: 02 / 08 / 2005 Done by: Gary Fok Chainage from RWY to TWY A
Light No Rwy 0422 (TW Al DOES NOT HAVE EDGE LIGHTS) TWY A
Chainage (m) 0j T S 30 45 60 75 90 10o 120 ism 150 165 180 19s 210
Cracking Position 15m X X X X X X X X X X Xf .x__ _ _ ILŽ $
Type B B B B B C B B B B B C C B _ _ |
Degree _ _ _ _ I _-_-_-Spacing (m) = Approx 0.5 to 1.Om spacing of cracks_
Comments grass and weed growt in cracks
Deformation Position keel xx x x ____~~~ou x x x x x x x x x
Type U U T u | u |U RU T RU U u U U 1 u U U RU RU |__
Comments I Smoothing out I L ------- I _ I I I I--
ouf ach e Position keel ---------- - ---- ---- ---- ----- --- ----- --------- --------- ------- ---- ---------- f 8surface OutJT ITypeIL •
Degree _ _ _ __ _ _ f ~ •Comments | 1 ! l ] 0 ; ! 4 1 h ! ! t 1 1
details and Position twy | _ _ t 1 _ _ _
deficiencies J t _ __*
Topography, ~ I _ I ~ 1_ F Z II ~ 2vegetation, Position twy HOLDING r I _ I _
geology Type I LINE|I L . . - LI
RWY04/22 1 - HANGAR
Fuel Line
LIRP RIA Airport visual formo.ds - TWY B Page 10 of 16 2005/09/21
PDF Created with pdfFactory trial version www.Ddffactorv.com
- - - - - - --- - m - - -- -
NACO - Stewart Scott Monrovia - Liberia World Bank Funded
LIRP - Roberts International AirportAirport: RIA, Monrovia Detail visual assessment (Pavements)Section: APRON 1 Strip: At Terminal Bldg Date: 27 / 07 / 2005 Done by: Gary Fok Chainage from So-th to North
Light No South (From Terminal Building to centre of taxi line: Om - 32m) North
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.Ddffactorv.com
- --- m - - - - -- -- -
NACO - Stewart Scott Monrovia - Liberia World Bank Funded
LIRP - Roberts International AirportAirport: RIA, Monrovia Detail visual assessment (Pavements)Section: APRON 2 Strip: Close to Term Bldg Date: 27 / 07 / 2005 Done by: Gary Fok Chainage from south to North
Light No South (From centre of taxi line to outer edge of TWY A: 32m -57m) North
Construction I f_I_ _______L2_I_details and Position | I .| slurry applied on this section of apron | | I l / I /deficiencies | |apears blue cirey in colour | / / // l
[ Degree E + I -- f -- -------------- ----Cracking Position to90m __ _
Type - _
DegreeSpacing (m) _ /I L /___
Comments ___ __
Deformation Position x x x x x xIx X 1 X x I x: .- '-/I jiDeformation Position ~~x x x x x x x x x x x
Type U U U U U U U U U U U U U
Degree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 _
Spacing (in) __ __L_ _ _
Comments slightgenealundulation ____l____
Breaking-up I---of the Position | |f
surface ___ ___
T ype_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Degree j__ __ __ __ __
Comments _ _ _ _ I _ _ _
Smoothing |of the Positionsurface_ _
Type ___
Degree _ _
Comments _ _~~_
Construction Chan_ in surfacing appearance L details and Position _ III _ I v~ I 1I i & L J [• •deficiencies |J I J appears grey black in colour _ | • I L /
Topography, I
vegetation, Position I I ____
igeology Type I I I T T v I I I I I I I l/l/l LIl/ W
LIRP RIA Airport visual form.)ds -. APRON 5 Pg 5o162005/09/21PDF Created with pdfFactory trial version wwwjDdffactorv.com ae1 f1
NACO - Stewart Scott Monrovia - Liberia World Bank Funded
LIRP - Roberts International AirportAirport: RIA, Monrovia Detail visual assessment (Pavements)Section: APRON 6 Strip: At Concrete Apron Date: 27 / 07 I 2005 Done by: Gary Fok Chainage from Sooth to North
Light No south (From centre of new apron to edge of concrete apron : 120m - 145m) North
| PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactorv.com
NRCO Us.tAirport Consultants
IlIll
H APPENDIX D
DCP RESULTS
IIIII
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051125.docI Roberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report D November 2005
Number of Bows Number of Blows0 75 150 225 300 375 450 0 75 150 225 300 375 45)
M illimetres) MQlillimetresBlow) 9 IMPa) Laver Property Summary135 | 1.09 > 140 446- (1017) - 2318 Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness160 0.745 > 140 668- (1524) - 3476 (Millimetres) | Qillimetres/Blow) M(%) |(Pa)280 3.96 71 114- (259) - 591 40 J 0.6 > 140 842- (1919) -4376285 5.68 45 77.4- (176) - 402 85 0.21 J > 140 2569- (5857) - 13356Total Penetration Summary Total Penetration SummaryEst. Pavement Capacity Based on DSN80 | General Notes Est Pavement Capacity Based on DSN800 General Notes> 30 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 430 > 30 MESA if Dry Blows tri penetrate 800 mm = 510> 30 MESA if at Optimum Moisture > 30 MESA if at Optimum Moisture
23.1 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the > 30 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the10.7 MESA if Saturated relationship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone) 19.5 MESA if Saturated relationship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone)
A 4 i C it;tts | LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22 A LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/2202 0 Au p..fl*.Lit, 04 ,
DCP Results from Rubicon.xis 02 DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 04
a -m -AMa aa- a ma a a a - m a n -a a
Number of Bows Number of Bows0 50 1O0 150 200 250 3W0 0 10W 200 300 400 500 600 700
_Total Penetration SurmaryEst. Pavement Capacity Based on DSN'BOO Genieral Notes Est. Pavemnent Capacity Based on D5N800 Ger______ eral_______Notes____> 30 MVESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 306 > 30 MESA if Dry Blows to) penetrate 800 mm =75915 MvESA if at Optimum Moisture > 30 MESA if at Optimium Moist-re7 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on nte > 30 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the3,3 MVESA if Saturated relatonish-p puiblished by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone) > 30 MESA if SatLirated relationship published by Kdeyn (60 Deg. Cone)
is 5 caI.)Wt] | LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22 A LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22A9606 A.t)
0i
DCP -e.s5 .t ,o , _: Rubi onxs DK.°DCP. .e
sut: 2.3.t ! euosl ,8
DOP Results from Rubicon.xds 06 DOP Results from Rlubicon.xls 08|
~~~~~~~~~~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ J
Nmbner of Bbws Number of Blows0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 1750 +-~~ ~ I 10 f
____mary__Total Penetration SumrraryEst. Pavement Capancity Based on DSN0 General___________Not _____s___Est. Pavemient Capacity Based on DSN800 Genieral Ntknts> 30 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate BOO mm = 365 > 30 MESA if Dry Blows to penietrate 800 mm = 50027.9 MESA if at OptimuKm Ntoisture > 30 MESA if at Optimum lVtistxre13 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the > 30 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to) CBR conversion is based on fth6 MESA if SatrKated relationship published by Kloyn (60 Deg. Cone) 18.2 MESA if Satorated relatkinship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone)
A ~~LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22 --- AlLIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22Al.p.r11 AbJisI 12.2 Al? P-I S$IIJtIt 14
Total Pernetration Summarkry Total Penetration SumrmaryEst. Pavement Capacity Based on DSNBOO Genieral Notes Est. Pavement Capacity Based on D01N480 Genieral Notes> 30 tvESA if Dry Bkows to penetrate 800 mm = 383 129.6 MESA if Dry Blows to) penetrate 800 mm = 299
> 30 NVESA if at Optimum Moisture 13.9 MESA if at Optinum Moistxe15.4 NESA if Wet Penetration Rate bo CBR conversion is based on fti 6.5 NvESA if Wet Penetration Rate to) CBR conversion is based on the7,1 NESA If Saturated relationshidp pttblished by Kcleyn (60 Deg. Conie) 3 MESA if Satuirated relationship published by Kleyn (60 Deog. Gone)
R 1 LIaRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22 - A. LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22AIll.-,tCl bII,K 23 21A.j.Itis4tunun~1 25
Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBRt Estimate Stiffhess 295 0.594 T >140 651- (1941) - 4426_(Millirretres) (MillimetesAB~~~~~~~Layer PrpryI umr qvlllietrs) Q 4 168109fre49)-b56120 0.322 F >140 1632- (3721) - 8484 220 11.1 19 37.8- (86.2) - 19740 J ~~~0.144 f >103617- (8703) - 19847 250 12.2 17 34.4- p78.4) - 179Total Penietration Sumnmary Total Penetration SummaryEst. Pavement Capacity Based on DSNB00 General Notes Est. Pavemient Capacity Based on DSNB00 General Notes> 30 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm =14200 > 30 MESA if Dry Blows tD penetrate 800 mm =521> 30 MESA if at Optimum Ntistlxe > 30 MESA if at Optimnum Moistxre> 30 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate bte COR conversion is based on the > 30 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate tU CBR conversion is based on the> 30 MESA if SatLirated relatioinship published by KCleyn (60 Deg. Cone) 21 MESA if Satuirated L relatkioship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone)
A ~~LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22 ALIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22A. (.p-t IeIi 32.3 AU pAlt ~L5I26.5
DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 32.3 DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 26.5
(1niIimetres) (Millnmetres/13bw %MPa) Laver ProerySummary160 15.6 13 26.5- (60.4) - 138 Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness140 4.77 56 93.2- (213) - 485 Millirretres) Millnmetres/Blow) (%) I "a)3030 9.1 25 46.9- (107) - 244 175 0.265 { >140 2003- (4567) - 10414300 11.5 19 36.7- (83.7) - 191 200 N/A I INLA IN/A____________ ~~Total Penetration Sunmmary Total Penetration SummnaryEst. Pavement Caoacit Based on DSN800 General Notes Est. Pavemient Capacity Based on 0SNB00 General Notes0.4 MESA if Dry Blw opntae80m 7> 30 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 6910. 2 MESA if at Optimnum Moistore > 30 MESA If at Optimrum Woisttxe0.1I MESA if Wet PenietratiOn Rate to CBR conversion is based on the '30 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the< 0. 1 MESA if Satixated relatxinsho published by K!,eyn (60 Deg. Cone) > 30 MESA if Satxated j relationship published by Kleyrn (60 Deg. Cone)
A ~~LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22 --- ~ALIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22A,hr,c~~~T wc,n.uItanra ~~~26.6 Ap.n c:.nl utt 1 29
250 0.419 { > 140 1232- (2810) - 6408 Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness210 2.41 134 192- (438) - 1000 (Millirmetres) QvMillimetres/Ulow) I QY"a)150 15 13 27.6- (62.9) - 144 90 0.281 > 140 1881- (4290) -9783280 14 14 29.7- (67.7) - 154 200 N/A N/A N/A____________ ~~Total Penetration Surrwary Total Penetration SuimmaryEs.Pavement Capaity Based on DSNBOO General Notes EtPaentCapaity Based on bSN8OC General Mites> 30 NESA if Dry f Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 685 > 30 NESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 359> 30 NESA if at Optimum Moidsture 26.3 MESA if at Optinium Moistire> 30 MESA if Wet jPenketration Rate to CBR conversion is based on fti 12,3 NVESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on t-ie> 30 NESA if Sat-rated j relationship pLitlished by Kelyn (60 Deg. Cone) 5.7 NESA if Satirated relatnshisp published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone)
LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22 AAr#LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22All pCAI isa..sunarr. ~~~~~31 A.irp-rtc,,,ia,t 34
31 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 341COT Ar ,, -ar 2.37! (La-actc'Todcc Aa V.,; 217, _croo
DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 31 DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 34
_ - -inm -m -mw m
Number of Blows Number of Blows0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120100 I +6
50~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------- - - , -- -- --
450250 -
Refusal, Ermntered In Ths Area .
I 350- 900 -. .. .. . . .I
400-15
Estimated CBR (%)Estimated CBR (%) 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 2002 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 0 - - l1 0 0 I I I I I I I I ,_ __ __'__ __:_ _ __: _ _ __'_ ___'_ __ _' _ __ _ : _ __ _: _150
150 - .----300
g 200 - -- ---, ---- - a . . .; . ,, , ,,, ,,, , ,, ,,, 450-
250 600
750
Refusal Enrountered In ThIs Area 900i 350-
105400
Laver Propertv SummarThkkness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated StiffnessLayer Pr erty Surmar (Millimetres) (Millimetres/Blow) (%) Pa)Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estirnated CBR Estimated Stiffness 230 3.78 76 119- (272) -620(Millimetres) (Milimetres1Blow) P (%) (MPa) 300 11.1 19 37.9- (86.4)- 19780 0.217 1 > 140 2482- (5659) - 12905 225 23.2 8 17.4- (39.6) -90.3200 N/A I N/A N/A 155 6.5 38 l 67.1- (153) -349Total Penetration Sumimary Total Penetration Summary-.avementC ity Based on DSNBOO General Notes Est. Pavement Capacity Based on DSN800 | General Notes> 30 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 401 0.5 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 94> 30 MESA if at Optimum Moisture 0.2 MESA if at OpOmum Moisture
18.1 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate tI CBR conversin is based on the 0.1 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate tD CBR conversion is based on the8.4 MESA if Saturated relationship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone) 0.1 MESA if Saturated relationshi, published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone)
LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22 NRco5iT' LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22
Al... 36All___3 36l 37.5a
DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 36 DCP Results from Rubicon.xIs 37.5a
Numrer of Bbws Number of Blowso 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 I I I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 150 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~--- I ~~~~~~~~~~~~100 -------lso t : _ _ I loo U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- -- --- -- - - --- - - - - - --I
300 ---.. . .. 200 -
$450 - 3---3W00
E 600 400 -
750 - 6..( 06 - 4 600 - . .- .. I
Ci ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7001050 .B...........OO....... ... .... ............... .........800" .
Total Penetration Summary Total Penetration SummaryEst. Pavement C DS00 Gerneral Notes Est. Pavement Capacity Based on DSN8W00 General Notes
0.7 MESA if Dry Bbws to penetrate 800 mm = 103 > 30 NESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 6670.3 NESA if at Optirrum Moistire > 30 NESA if at OptimuKm Moistue0.2 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the > 30 NESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the
0. 1 NESA if Saturated relationship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone) > 30 MESA if Saturated relationship published by KLbyn (60 Deg. Cone)
Nfl Ait" | LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22 A LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22AvL.nS.z C..>1.5sUn4rAlla 37.5b Al t-.,,aUlta.ta 38
________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~37.5b _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __38R_b T-Q:: DC 2hJ I 2.3.73! (L-.- R,bkc- T,-a= r- M. ,;. v.3.2 .D .e,
DCP Results from Rubicon.xis 37.5b DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 38
m m a - - m w=- a a a amI-A r-n-m a - a Wm
tumber of Blows Number of Blows0 75 150 225 300 375 450 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700150 125 I . i I
200 ---- : j-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~125 ---1~50 I 20
200 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p2
250~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5
300 30
o400-325
45035
____________ ~~Layer Property Summery_______________ ~~~~Laver Proety Summary Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated cBR Estimated StiftnessThickness Avg. Penetration RatB EtmedCRsimated Stiffness @vMiltirretres)_ - MililimetresAlw "% fa)Q.Millimetres) IqMillimetres,Blow) (91 I MPa) 45 3.8 f 75 119- (270) - 61790 0,.21 1 >140 2511- (5726) - 13057 60 0.217 > 140 2482- (5659) - 12905200 0.25 J > 14 5639- (12860) - 29325 95 0.237 >140 2260- (155) - 11754Total Perietratlon SummnaryV______ Total Penetration SummaryEst. Pavement Capacity Eased on DSN'E00 Genieral Notes Est. Pavement Capacity Based on DSNJ800 Genieral Notes> 30 MESA if Dry Blows bo penetrate 800 mm = 498 > 30 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 3510> 30 MvESA if at Optimum Moistxe > 30 MESA if at Optimum Moisflre
> 30 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on toe > 30 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the17.9 MESA if Saturated relationship puibtished by Kteyn (60 Deg. Conie) > 30 MESA if Saturated relationship published by KLeyn (60 Deg. Cone)
A ~~LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22 -- ALIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22A;!.A pc'n*sU--arT- 40 All pWt~,..,ulht 42
DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 40 DCP Results from Rubiconi xIs 42
Number of Bbws Nuimber of Blows0 100) 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700120t f 5
Total Penetration Summary Total Penetration SummaryEst. Pavement Capacitv Based on DSNBO0 General Notes Est. Pavement Capacity Based on DSN800 General Notes> 30 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 311 > 30 MESA if Dry Bbws to penetrate 800 mm = 46615.9 MESA if at Optimum Mtisture > 30 MESA if at Optimum nM bistire7.4 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conyerson is based on the > 30 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the3.4 MESA if Saturated relationship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone) 14.2 MESA if Saturated relationship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone)
Ancoii42n | LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22 !LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22Al..P, I C-1 ..b11-1. 50 A. port C..tdultAftt 52
Rson TOc&l, WO MI,s *r v23.7•Z {LcAad) R_b. T::o;t , X- DOk A"-ji:;.' -Z'': .tL<-TL-
DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 50 DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 52
S S S S - a - a - a - a - a m rn a a a ]
Number of Bbws Number of Blows0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 75 150 225 300 375 450 5250 . 0 . .1
Total Pen tration Surnmarv Total Pen etratio SummarvEst. Pavement Capacity Based on DSN800 |Gene3ral Notes Est. Pavemen,t Capacity Based on DSN800 |General Notes> 30 MESA if Dry Bbws to penetrate 805 mm = 612 > 30 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 531> 30 MESA if at Optimum Ivotuhre > 30 MESA if at Optimum Moisture>T30 MESA if Wet Penetation Rt Rate to CBR converssin is based on t > 30 MESA if Wet Penetrabon Rate to CBR conversin is based on tie>l30 MESA If Satrated |Mrelatlisieh pubished by Kbyn (60 Deg. Cone) 22.4 MVESA if Saturated j relatbnshj published by Kbyn (60 Dei. Cone)
Est. Pavement Capacity Based on DSN800 General Notes Est. Pavement Capacity Based on DSNB0J General Notes1 MESA if Dry Blows to penetate 800 mm = 115 0.3 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 780.5 MESA if at Optimum Wistxre 0.1 MESA if at Optimum Moisbre0.2 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the 0.1 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the0.1 MESA if Saturated relationship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone) < 0.1 MESA if Saturated relatinship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone)
iFqcctii-" A&ZrLIRP RIA - DCP on TWY A 1& LIRP RIA - DCP on TWY AAa .t', C-1.-aLl 1-,1t 1A I A" P'."t L.tult 2A1AI
R n Tob-: kO 'l.ss I V.,: 2.37.' (L--a R..:- . ..--, T-,
DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 1A DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 2A
Nmbner of Blows Number of Blows0 75 150 225 300 375 450 0 150 300) 450 600) 750 9)000
Total Penietration Summwary _______Total Penetration SumnmaryEst. Pavement Capacity Based on [2SNBO0 Genieral Notes Est. Pavemrent Capacity Based on DSN800 Genieral Notes> 30 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate Boo mm = 475 > 30 MESA if Dry Blows to penietrate 800 mm = 402> 30 MESA if at Optimum Ntets,re > 30 MESA if at Optimrum Wtistijre> 30 MESA If Wet Penietration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the 16.2 MVESA if Wet Penetration Rats to) CBR conversion is based on tie15.2 MESA if SaU.xated relationship ptilished by Kcleyn (60 Deg, Cone) 8. 5 MESA if Saturated relatkinship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone)
1 LIRP RIA - DCP on TWYUNA 1 LIRP RIA - DCP on TWY AAI#p~~~.n! c.n~~a~~vaa,,a ~6A A.ps c,,nia j9A
DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 6A OCP Results from Rubicon.xls 9A
- -- a - - a -~~~~~~~~~~__ aW - - m a - w~M 00- - s -__
Number of Blows 1Number of Blows100 200 300 400 500 600 700 BW0 25 50 75 100 125 150
1: -di-- ---- - 2 -- - -- -- --I- - - - - -
2 320375
RauaEr.*:c-..arjeieo Ir rt1- AreaiRefusal Encaauntered In This Area 0
Estimnated CBR (t)EstimatBd CBR (%)2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 50 100 140 20075 I III I I150 I
150 ---- -- 200 -- --- -- -
225~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5 I b ~~~~~~~~~280~300320375 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Refusi Encountered in This Area
Refus Encounitered in Thi Area iF 360O450
400525 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~440
Layer Proerty Summary Layer- Property SummaryThickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CER Estimated Stifiness Thickriess Avg. Penietration Ratse Estimated CBR j Estimata= tifihessMillimetres) (illimetres/blow) (%M (MPa) Q.Millimetres) (Millimetres/$low) (% j@a)190 0,219 ~ ~ ~ >140 2458- (5606) - 12783 55 0.324 >140 1621- (3697) -8431- 2DO N/A ~~~~~N/A N/A 200 N/A [ N/A N/ATotal Penetration Surmmary Total Penetration SummnaryEst. Pavement Capacity Based on DSN800 General Notes Est. Pavemrent Capaity Based on DSN800 Genieral Notes> 30 VESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 892 8.4 NESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 209> 30 IVESA if at Optimum Moisture 4 IVESA if at Optimium Moistuire> 30 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on ti-e 1.8 NVESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on th-e> 30 NvESA if Saturated relationship ptilished by Kleyn (60 Deg, Conte) 0.9 NESA if Saturated relationship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone)
A ~~~LIRIP RIA - DCP on TWY A ALIRP RIA - DCP on TWY AAjip-i L--t -MbItt IIA ASp.i ztutis13A
DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 1IIA DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 1 3A
Number of Bk3ws t'imber of Blows0 40 8o 120 160 200 240 0 40 80 120 160 2001 240
140 0.863 > 140 573- (1306) - 2977 Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffhess215 4.36 63 102- (233) -530 105 0,673 j >140 745- (1698) - 3872300 15113 27.5- (62.7) - 143 200 0.5 J >> 140 1021- (2329) -5311Total Penetration Summiary Total Penetration SumrmaryEst. Pavement Capacity Eased on OSNBOO General Notes Est. Pavement Capacit Based on DSN800 Genieral Notes> 30 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 8OC0 mm = 530 7.2 MIESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 200> 30 MESA if at Optimum Nvitutre 3.4 MESA if at Optimum Moisture> 30 MESA if Wet Pernetration Rate to) CBR conversion is based on the 1. 6 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to) CBR conversion is based on tie22.3 MESA if Satirated relatmonshp puibleshed by Kleyn (60 Deg. Conie) 0.7 MVESA if Satixated relataioship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone)
ARO IL LIRP RIA - DCP on TWY Al LIRP RIA - DCP on TWY AlAUP. cat nar 3A1 IPl $.~U,t,t 4A1
QMilimetres) (MillimetresJ ow) (%) (IMPa) Layer Property Summary195 1.32 > 140 364- (830) - 1893 Thkkness Avg. Penetation RateL Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffiness150 0.79 > 140 628- (1433) -3268 @Millimetres) |QillimetresBlow) I (%) Il (MPa)210 1.93 > 140 243- (554) - 1264 145 J 0.27 { > 140 1966- (4483) - 10224300 8.25 28 52.1- (119) -271 200 J N/A > N/A I N/ATotal Penetration Summary Total Penetration SummaryEst, Pavement Capacity Based on DSNB00 General Notes Est. Pavement Capacity Based on DSNB00 General Notes> 30 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 458 > 30 NESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 567> 30 MESA if at Optimum Moistre > 30 ESA if at Optimum Moistre28.8 MESA rf Wet Penetration Rate to CBR converslon is based on the > 30 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the13.4 MESA if Satrated relationship pablished by Kblyn (60 Deg. Cone) 28.2 MESA if Saturated j relationshp published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone)
A caZr,# |LIRP RIA - DCP on TWY Al A LIRP RIA - DCP on TWY BAinroirt (::C.flMulttl,r | 5A1 AilpOrt cx..ura,a| Bi
DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 5A1 DCP Results from Rubicon.xis B1
Pavement C - ~Total Penetration SummnaryV______ Total Penetration SuimmaryEst. -aemn Caity Based on D9-N0] Genieral Notes Es.PvmntCpct Based on DSN800 General Notes
4M ESA if Dry Blows to penetrate, 80] mm = 175 > 30 MESA if Dry Blows bo penetrate 800 mm = 9152.1 MESA if at Optimunm Moistxre > 30 MESA if at OptimuKm Moisflre
1 MESA ifWet Penetratlon Rate to) CBR conversion is based on fti > 30 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on tie0.5 MESA if SaturatBd relationship published by Kdeyn (60 Deg. Cone) > 30 MESA if Saturated relatlonship published by IKleyn (60 Deg. Cone)
A jde~[LIRP RIA - DCP on TWY B ALIRP RIA - DCP on TWY BAu L,.AI CAn~~~~~~uit,t, ~~B2 All p., t 1St6tat 3 D sys 3- 37
DCP Results from Rubicon.xIs 82 DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 83
Number ofBbows Number of Blows0 7.5 15 22.5 30 37,5 45 52.5 60 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 10500 i 0~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Total Penetration Sunimary______ Total Penetration SummnaryEst. Pavement Capacity Based on DSNBOO Genieral Notes EstPaernentCapacity Based on DSN800 General Notes0.1 NESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm =54 > 30 NESA if Dry lo~ws to penetrate 800 mnm =1266< 0.1 NESA if at Optimum Molst.re > 30 NESA if at Optirrum Wostu-e< 0.1 NESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the > 30 NESA if Wet Penetration Rate tD CBR conversion is based on the< 0.1 NESA if Sab-xated relationshi-p pLiblished by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone) > 30 MESA if Satxrated relationshqip published by tKeyn (60 Deg. Cone)
A ~~~LIRtP RIA - DCP on TWY BA LIRP RIA - DCP on TWY B
Est. Pavement Capacity Based on DSNBOO General Notes Est. Pavement Capacity Based on DSN800O Gene3ral Notes> 30 MvESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 547 > 30 MESA if Dry Blows bD penetrate 800 mm = 317
> 30 rIESA if at Optimum Mofstixe 17 MVESA If at OptimuKm MobistLre> 30 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on fte 7.9 MVESA if Wet Pnetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on tie24.9 MESA if Satrated relationsthip puiblished by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone) 3.7 MESA if Satuxated relationship published by KCleyn (60 Deg. Cone)
VA Zjr. LIRP RIA - DCP on TWY B 1 LIRP RIA - DCP on TWNY BA.. tI B .~Iut*U 7 BBp.l .utia,a8
_______________ 87 _______________ J ~~~~~~~~0788Rs5c TcU)oDci .i1 s /Wr. 2.3.7! {IL-rtJ Lb)Th- DCi aP a A:23
DCP Results from Rubicon.xis B? DCP Results from RubiconxIs 68
Nminer of Blows fNumber of Bkows0 15 ~30 45 60 75 go 2 50 75 100 125 150 175
Total Penetration Summnary Total Penetration SumnmaryEst. Pavement Capacty Based on DSNBI30 Genieral Notes Est. Pavemrent Capacity Based on 05N000 General Notes0.3 MVESA if Dry Blows to penietrate 800 mm = 77 3.8 MESA if Dry Blows bo penietrate 800 mm = 1660.1 MESA if at Optimnum Moistire 1.8 MESA if at Optimum Moistire
0. 1 MESA if Wet IPerietration Rate to CAR conversion is based on U-i 0.8 M ESA if Wet Penetration Rate to) CAR conversion is based on the< 0.1 MESA If SatLrated { relationship pttblished by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone) 0.4 MYESA if Sabrated j relationship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone)
A ~~~LIRP RIA - DCP on TWY B 1~1Z' LIRP RIA - DCP on TWY Bwa ~~~ o.aiaultft, is ~~~~~B9 Ah3t ..lniftt0l
Q(Millimetres) O(Milimetres,SAow) - (Pa) Layer ProerySummary130 0.377 > 140 1380- (3146) - 7174 Thickness Avg. Penetraton Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness175 8.75 26 48.9- (112) -254 170 0.246 j >140 2165- (4937) - 11259460 23 a 17.5- (39.9) -91 200 N/A > N/A N/ATotal Perpetration Summwrary _______Total Penetration SumnmaryEst. Pavement Capacity Based on DSNBE00 General Notes Est. Pavemrent Capacity Based on DSN80W Genoeral Notes> 30 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 381 > 30 rMESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 726> 30 MESA if at Optimum Moisture > 30 MESA if at Optimnum Moisture15,1 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate bto CBR conversion is based on the > 30 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the7 MESA If Saturated relatinship pklished by Kcieyn (60 Dog. Cone) > 30 MESA if Saturated relationship published by Kleyn (60 Deg, Cone)
A ~Cod1LIRP RIA - DCP on APRON 1-- - tr LIRP RIA - DCP on APRONAil... ~.uutm. P3 All p'.1t U,,nu... P4________________ j ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P3 J 4Rs-Tw, rco'tc 0CP A,k,ss. 2.27•
- - -.--
DCP Results from Rubicon.xis P3 DCP Results from Rubicon.xls P4
150 1.29 > 140 375- (854) - 1949 Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness265 10.1 22 41.9- (95.5) -218 15 0.125 >140 4450- (10147) - 23140270 26.6 6 J 15- (34.3) -78.1 200 N/A ,N/A N/ATotal Pernetration Sumnmar-y Total Penetration SummnaryEs. avemfent Capalty Based on DSNS00- General Notes Es. avenet Capaity Based on DSN800 General Notes3.7 MESA if Dry Blows to) penetrate 850 mm =165 4.2 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 1711.7 MESA ifat Optimuim Ntistore 2 NESA if at Optimum MoistLie0.6 MVESA if Wet Penietration Rate to CBR conversion is based on ffio 0.9 MVESA if Wet Penetration Rate to) CBR conversion is based on ti-i0.4 MESA if Saturated relationship pLiblished by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone) 0. 4 MESA if Saturated relatbnship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone)
LIRP RIA - DCP on APRON ALIRP RIA - DCP on APRONAl.j. .- r ficio.,6ias P6
750 30iESnI Dy Bow t pnetat 80 m 97 >30MEA i Dy Bwstopeette80 750 =-393
900 900O-
T 30 MESA If at Op MoistureLayer Pr e Summar30 Layer Pro aer SummarM uThi s 3 WAvg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimnated Stiffness Thickness Avg. Penetratin Rate Estimated C CR Estimated Stiffhess>Millimetres) I Sillimetresd Bbow) a (60 DMillimie7res) (MillimedesMlow) |-b (6a C205 0.443 > 140 1160- (2645) - 6032 130 0.403 > 140 1283- (2925) -6670175 0.4 > 140 1294- (2952) - 6731 195 2.83 109 162- (369) -642255 2.6 122 177- (405) -923 130 5.5 47 Bl 1- (183) -4162+35 11.8 18 35.6- (81.2) - 185 410 20.3 9 20- (45.7) - 104Total Penetration Suffriary
__ Total Penetration SummaryEst. Pavement Capacity Based on DSN2 . General Notes Est. Paverent Capacity Based on iSNBOO -eneral Notes>D30 ESA if Dry Blows to pesetrate 600 mm = 987 >30 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 393> 30 MESA if at Optimum Mo isbxe > 30 MESA if at OptirrKum MoistLire> 30 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conyersion is based on tie 16.8 MVESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on tie> 30 MESA if Satxated relationship pLtllshed by K!,eyn (60 Deg. Cone) 7.8 MVESA if Sabxated relationship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone)
A1114r.4 LIRP RIIA - DCP on APRON NnoAr1LIRP RIA - DCP on APRONAt. p..~~~ut '20,auflantt ~~~P7 A 03(If6it,&P8_________________ P7 ________________C A1,.i- P7 PBlR,aT-oeO~kls et2V LCs
R-b- T-'t- D@ OP3,V.t2.7
DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 27 DCP Results from Rubiconsxis P8
a - a m S - a--- -maA in a a a a
Number of Blows Number of ebws
0 150 300 450 600 750 900 0 75 150 225 300 375 45075 i - I I
Total Penetration SuJnwmary Total Penetration SutrnaryEst. PavementapacityBased on DSN8 | Gereral Notes Est. Pavement Capaciy Based on DSN8 | General Notes> 30 MESA if Dry | Blows tD peretrate 800 mm = 929 > 30 MESA if Dry | Blows to penetrate 800 mnm - 489>30 ESA if at Optimum MoistrS > 30 MESA if at Op7rKm Moisture> 30 MESA if Wet |Pernetratkn Rate t CBR conversion is based on t > 30 MESA if Wet |PenetatlonRron Rate t CBR conversion Is based on ts e> 30 k ESA IfPSateratid R resatedship pCbished by Kseyn (60 Deg. Cone) 16.8 ESA ifsaturated 2re)tionship pub0ished by Kb1yn (60 De29 . Cone)
200 " N/A JLIRP RIA - DCP on APRON N/AA;350 j8.7 LIRP RIA - DCP on APRON
Est. PaeetPIOyBsdo SOO eea oe fv~lCpdy ae nDN0 eea oe
> 30 MESA if Dry Bkriws topenetrate 800 mm 929 > 30 RSA if r yA .:
I2.3.7 P Atw Urs|b- 2 3p7 .a 8L0 m 4
DC>P Results from Rubif on .P xs P9 DCP Results from Rubicon.xis Pro
a - - a m m a - - - -m a a n - a a m a - a
Number of Blws Number of Bows0 75 150 225 300 375 450 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400100-
0 $ 1
200 300 -- ___-_ -200- .. .---
f-- - -- - - - - - - - -
t250.. .B45
a-> 250 -E 450
---
Estimated CBR (%)EsiumatedCBR (ed ) 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200200 l 13 51 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 14020 10 0 - I| I I I I 7 -----
100
~~~~~~~~~~~~~150 _ _...._r---- -Lr..----._.15-i
300
50450
B Refus~al ErroireredtTmr In Tiekes |re AVMPl'750Bw | () | M
Avg. P|net-an Rate e|Estimated CBR Eit Eti1.hess_______LyrPrprySmay(illimetres)
-(Ifillimetres,iElow) |
a% NP)l10 1 11 4 3-(9)-26
Thicknss Av. Peneratio RateEstimated CBR Esimte3Sifnes70 1.09> 14300 447- (1019)0-2324
Est. Pavement Capacity Based on DSt'E0P0 General Notesy Est. Pavement Capacity Based on DSN800etriO Genera Note> 30 MESA if Dry | Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 509 > 30 MESA if ry | Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 401> 30 MESA if at Optimum tAjeture > 30 MESA if at Optimum NMoisture > 30 MESA if Wet | Penetratein Rate to CBR -onv-son is based on the 18.1 MESA if Wet | Penetration Rate to CBR onversin is based on the I19.3 MESA if Saturated | rebttnshp pulished by Kbyn (60 Deg. Cone) 8.4 MESA if Saturated | reationship published by Kbyn (60 Deg. Cone)- -
tsRCiSgt " [LIRP RIA - DCP on APRON l-~ L 1FCi;t LIRP RIA - DCP on APRON
Ala pcn c~~~~~~~~~aa,suna,,rs P11 AIp.n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Thicknessuia, Av.PnPainRte Et 1ae 2B strae tfns_________________Layer Perty Sum arN, (Milir __res J Mllm Ps12w M"
Est. Pavement CapaclWy Based on DSN300 General Notes Est. Pavement Capacity Based on DSN800 | General Notes> 30 MESA if Dry Blows to penetate 800 mm = 554 > 30 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 2304
> 30 MESA if at Optimum Mositure > 30 MESA if at Optimum Mosture> 30 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on thei > 30 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the26 MESA If Satrated relationshi pLbished by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone) > 30 MESA if Satrated relationship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone)
Ai . ntLIRP RIA - DCP on APRON LIRP RIA - DCP on APRONairsp c> LZ.AbUiX,,t |P13 A.p'-t '-..u,tuaa P14
tRb- Tb- DO' WA tss l w.: 23.7' (L-ctw Kbo- T,; fD 9A-ssi V-: 2.3.7i,L7titr
DCP Results from Rubicon.xls P13 DCP Results from Rubicon.xls P14
.~A hbwuNRCO WrUs3 Airport Consultants
~~~~APPENDIX E
| ~~~~~~~~~TEST PIT PROFILES
I
IIII
| LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.finPrevL051125EdocRoberts Intemafional Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report E November 2005
I
lPROJECT LIRP RLA
LOCATION ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NLiberia, Monrovia Airport Consultants
CLIENT The World Bank
CONSULTANTS NACO Stewart Scott Airport Consultants
TPI
| Sample No Depths Decription Remarks Photos0 Continously graded asphalt surfacing in
40 the RWY shoulder _Orange laterite gravel, unstabilised,I L981 & interspersed with lighter yellow clayey
0.425 71 70 _ The results reported relate only o thea __025 66 _4 6e_ samples teste.0.15 55 55 Documents may only be repod ced or0.076 42 41 _ published in their full context.
I , --9 - . - . SQ
I 100 *. . ... -. Z I . l. jj.'.,, ..... j, ,, ,; , ....... ._ .. I. ........ ., ...- I I ... ~~~~~~~~. ..r. ... -* --- -- rt------- -....................................- 11
* I Q|r-.--t -; '- | A 1 .i S ' ' .f 1o
L' o ' ' ' I - ' - - ' - - -J * .|- ' * j ] - l.1
I g I .. ; .; .r | r r -r4;<r- r -rT 7; --- ---- --.'- FS 4. -.- .. .. .. .* . . r . . .|.
07. SEP '05 (WED) 16:01 COMMUNICATION No:26 PAGE. 5
I| u,.u ruurtLI I OUCUL, Ouuy*tuilI r%WbWVt1, Juicluiiauury zou IP O Box 82223, Southdale 2135, South Afriea. C v ila bPhone: +27 (0) 11 835-3117. Fax: +27 (0) 11 835-2503EImail: [email protected] . Website: www.civilab.coza Civil EngineerinG Testing Laboratories
California Bearing Ratio ResultsProject; ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIBERIA .Project-No.: 10301R175/08005 Date: 02-09-2005Field Reference: MATERIAL B Lab. Sample Ref: L981
______ CBR at Final Mod MSHTO Data CBR Compaction Data2.54 51 7,62 USwell Moisture Max Ory Optimum Dry Com- Moisture2.S4 S.08 7.62 Content Density Moisttjre Density paction Content
Compaction 90% 93% 95% 98% 100%Interpolated Data _CBR 136 1.Z Z. 29 2.CBR ~~~13.6 17.2 20.2 2.9 39
|~~~~~~~~~ __.
.100o -I I 1-
10
0 92 0.j 4.0 96.07 7 … 1000 102.0,,.I
Compaction (%)
Tte samnples were lested in accordance with Method A8 of TMHI1 of I 990.The results reported relate only to the samples tested.Documents may only be reproducde or published in their full context.
Investrent Failiity Company 842 (Pty) Urnited trading as ChMhb and 1/07I BRANCHES: CENTURION * JOHANNESBURG * PIETERMARITZBURG - Pi ETRHEID
07. |~P 0Bo(WoD),t6i02 COMMUNLCATION N~:26 n F oplaIT La"Tee nnan
The samples were tested in accordance with Method AS of TMH1 of 1990.The results reported rdats only to the samples tested.Occuments may only be reproduced or published in their full context,
Investrnent Facility Company 842 (Piy) Umitod trading as lvifb and s wc i t18 107| ~~~~~~BRANCHES: CENTURION * JOHANNESBURG * PIETERMARITZBURG ' Pi 4e; ft VR W EID
0 7 SEP 2005* 07. kEP 05 (WED) ±603 COPOAtThUCATION A oE.Wn R p8l-* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Senior TeancS
| ~~~~~~~~07. BEP ' 05 tWED) 16:03 COMMUNICATrION No:26 tA5E. S
| wsM ~~~~~~U1 vI 11 %2 cE DVq7& 12%LY=11 r-woul VW, uLO ml 1 IG;0asU1W' QV I
P 0 1ox 82223, Southdale 2135, South Africa. C la bPhone: *27 (0) 11 835-3117. Fax: +27 (0) 11 836-25035 E-mall: [email protected] - Website: www.civilab.co.za Civil Engineerin Testing Laboratorles
California Bearing Ratio ResultsProject: ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIBERIAProject No.: 10301R175/08/2005 Date: 1 Sep 2005Field Reference: MATERIAL E Lab. Sample Ret L9Oepth (m): Remarks: UntreatedDescription; BASEfSUBBASE_
_______ CBR at Final Mod AASHTO Data CBR CompacUon Data* 2.54 5.08 7.52 Swell Molsture Max Dry Optimum Dry Corn- Moisture
Content Density Moisture Density paction Content(mm) (mm) (mm) %) . (% (kgr) (kgIrn) (%) (%)
Ttie samples were tested In accordance with Method AB of TMH1 of 1990.The results reported relate only to the samples tested.Documents may only be reproduced or published in their full context.
Investment Facility Company 842 (Py) Limited trading as OivUNb and is07i/'07I QRANCHES: CENTURION * JOHANNESBURG . PIETERMARITZeURG PIN EID
| 07.~~~~OSEP '05 (WED) 16:04 COMMUNICATION No:26 PACE.9
P O Box 82223, Southdale 2135, South Africa. C v ila bPhone: +27 (0) 11 835-3117. Fax: +27 (0) 11 835-2603E-mail: [email protected] . Websito: www.csvilab.co.za Civil Enginoerin Tesfing Laboratories
California Bearing Ratio ResultsProject: ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIBERIA . . _-
*_____ CBR at Final Mod AASHTO Data CB Compaction DataI 2.64 S.08 7.62 Swell Moisture Max Dry Optirnum Dry Com- MoistureContent Density Moisture Density pacEion ConteFit
P O Box 82223, Southdale 2135, South Africa. C v ila bPhone: +27 (0) 11 835-3117. Fax: f27 (0)11 835-25033 E-mail:[email protected] Wobsit: www.civilab.co.za Civil Engineerl Testing Laboratorie:5
California Bearing Ratio Resultsproject ROBERTS INTERNAT1ONAL AIRPORT LIBERIA --_ .Projec No.: 1030/R75/08/2006 Dat8b: I Sep 2005Field Reference: MATERIA. F Lab. Sample Reft L985Depth m)I Remarks: UntreatedDescription: BASEISUBBASE
CBR at _ Final Moc AASHTO Data CBI Compaction DataI 2.54 5.08 7.62 Swell Moisture Max Dry Optimum Dry Com- MoistureContent Density Moisture Density paction Content
< ~~~The srnsples were tested In accordance with M ethod Ad af TMH11 of 1 990.| ~~~~The Fesulta reported relati only to tho samples tbsted-
Docu ments rnay only be reproducacd or publighed Inl their ful context.Invostrnent Facility Company 842 (Pty) Umitd tradina aS OMlIb and 4ewa ROM*1o7 .
| ~~~~BRANCHiES: CENTURION - JOHANNESBIURG; * PIETERMARITZBURG a PINET NltM t ~ E
| ~~~~The 5amples were testW in accordance with Method A8 of TMHl of 1990.* ~~~~The results reported relate onlIy to thie sampte tested.~~ O~~ocuments may only be reproduced or published in their full context. ______
| ~~~BRANCHES: CENTURION JOHANNESBURG * PISE1rERNIRTZNURG P TW RLSEbBIG*V EDI 7 SEPZ01
P 0 Box 82223, Southdale 2135, South Africa. iv ila bPhone: +27 (0) 11 835-3117. Fax: +27 (0) 11 835-2503E-mail: 1hbQcivilab.coza -Websits: www.civilab.co.za Civil Engineeril g Testing Laboratores
California Bearing Ratio ResultsProject, ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIBERIAProject No.: 1030/R175/08/2005 Date, 1 Sep 2006Field Refernone: MATERLAL G Lab. Sample Ref L988Depth*Cm): Remarks: Untreated ._.Description, SUBBASE1SULGRADE
CBR at Final Mod AASHTO Data CS Compaction Data2.54 5.08 7.62 Swell Moisture Max Dry Optimum Dry Com- Moisture* 2.54 5.08 7.62 Content Density Moisture Densit paction Conlent(mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) (Wkg/m) (%) (kgfm_) N() %22 23 21 0.2 12.3 - 2065 101.114 14 14 0.3 13.3 2043 10.5 1973 96.6 10,9 7 6 0.4 15.2 1871 91.6 _
Interpolated Data Comp o OR 7 7 10. 1_1.CBR 7.7 10.3 12.4 JJ6.5 0.
1000 --
U~~~~~4-
90.0 92.0 94.0 9B.0 98.0 00.0 102.0|L Compaction (%)The samples were tested in accordance with Method A8 of TMHI1 of 1990.The results reported relate only to the samples tested.Documents may only be reproduced or published in their full context.
Investnent Facility Company 842 (Py) Limited trading as C2vub and Iuay 0 7BRANCHES: CENTURION * JOHANNESBURG PIETERMARITZBURG * PIN HtE JRYR ID
I P 0 Box 82223, Southda8le 2135, South Africa.Phone: .27 (0) 11 835-3117, Fax: +27 (0) 11 835-25033 ~~~~~E-Mail. 111113Civil2b.Co.za Web9itW:wWw.civflab.co.za Civil Enoier Tosting Laboratories
w ~~~~~California BNearing Ratio Results_| Project: ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT L1ERIA Project No.: 1030/R175/08/2005 Date; 02-09-2005Field Reference: MATERIAL H Lab. Sampte Ref. L3 )Depth (m): Remarks:Description: SUBBASEISUBGRADE
CBR at Final Mod AASHTO Data CBI Compaction DataI 254 508 Swell Moisture Max Dry OptiMum Dry Com- MoistureContent Density Moisture Density paction Content
The samples were tested in accordance witt Method AB of TMHI of 1990.The results reported reiate only to the sampfes tested.Documents may only be reproduced or published in their full context.
3 07. EP '05 (WED) 16:07 COMMJIUICATION No;26 PAO. 14
| P 0 Box 82223, Southdale 2135, South Africa.Phone: +27 (0) 11 835-3117. Fax: +27 (0) 11 835-2503 li la bE-mail: [email protected] Wetsite: www.clvilab.co.za Civil Eng g TestIng Laboratories
California Bearing Ratio Results| Project: ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
*Project No.; 1_0301R1_75_08_2005 D_Bt: 02-09-2005__Field Reference: MATERIAL I Lab, Sample Ref ,gg ~~~~~Depth (m): O Remarks: I ____ _____. SUBGRADE
_
CBR at Final Mad ASHTO Data C8t Corpacdon Dab2.54 5 08 7.62 Swell Moisture Max Dry Optimum Dry Com- Moisture. . . ~~~~~~~~~Content Density Moisture Densit paction Content(mm) (mrn) (% ) N % (kglml) M % (kgJM3) M % M%|~~~ ~ ~~ ~ 22 17 17 0.3 17.6 1840 100.1s~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ 16 i5 02 119.1~ 183B 15.2. 1755 96.5 1512_ 7 7 1 0.3 _2_ .7 166'i 90.6
|~~~~~~Itroae Dat Compaction 90% 93% 9sY 98'X-DD_ i h o 11 Drla ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~CBR 8.i 12.3 1S.4 1 P.1 21,1
1 0~~~ ~~~0.0 92.0 M4.o 96.0 98.0 100 1.0t2.0|| L ~~~~~~~~~~~~Compect on I[%)
I s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The samples were tested in accordance vith Method A8 of TMHI of 1530.9 ~~~~The results reported relate only to the samples tested.w ~~~Oocuments may only be reproduced or published in their full context.
Moisture Density RelationshipPrject: ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL A=RPORT LIBERIAProject No.: 10301R175108/2005 Date: 27 August 2005Field Reference: MATERIAL B Laboratory Ref.- L981*epth (m): 0 Remarks: UntreatedDescription: BASEISUBBASE
compactivo Effort: Mod. AASHTO
Percent Water Content (%) 2 13.4 11.0 14.1 10.0Dry Danst kIn 3) 1970 1949 19 8 1 1900 1 1915
Analysis eccording to Method A7 of TMHI of 1986.The resglts relate only to the ssmples tested.This report may only be reproduced or publiGhed In its full context.Remarks: .
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CHECI E DBRANCHES: CENTURION . JOHANNESBURG . PIETERMARITZBURG. PIN N R
Moisture Density RelationshipI Project: ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIDERIAProject No.: 030/RI 75/0/2005 Date: 86 August 2005| Fieid Reference: MATER5IAL E) _ Laboratory Ref.: L982
lDept e (m)r A Remarks: UntreatedI Description: B_ASE_
Compactive Effort: Mod. AASHTOEPercent Water Content (%: 73179 18.8 9.7 1 10.7; I I| Le4oP6nsi k/lm3): | 2020 |2077 2102 2072 | 2037 L I
[Mawimum Dry Density: 2102 km OptimumMoisture Conent: .7 %
I : 2110
I I 2SZ 0 _f1 t-t 2070 _
2080 -.- _--
200
l t~~~2030 ~ - t- - --- 1 -- l g:^~~2020 / 1- - -;I~20-
__.._- ..
2 7.5 8 %o1sture Intent v10 0.5 I
Analysis according to Method A7 of TMH1 of 1986.I ThEi resul re ate only to the samples tested.This report may only be reproduced or published in its full context.Remorks .
1 07- SEP '05 (WED) 16:09 COMMUNICATION No26 PAGE t8
I 36138 Fourth Street, Booysens Reserve, Johannesburg 2091P 0 Box B2223, Southrdale 2135Tel: +27 (0)11 835-3117 * Fax: +27 (0)11 835-2503 C lo bEmall. [email protected] * Website: www.clvilab.co.za Civil Engineerng Te rig Laboratories
Moisture Density RelationshipProject: ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIBERIAProject No.: 1030/R175/0Wf06 Date: 6 August 2005Fied Reference: MLaboratory Ref.: L983D0epth m): Remarks: UntreatedDe4scrIption: BASE/SUBBASE
______
Compactive Effort: Mod. AASHTO
IPercent Water Content (%): 8.0 9.1 7A.4 10.0I I E|ry DenaitY (kgt/M3): |2056 12060 1 2028 L2029
[Maximum Dr Density: 2081 Ik lm* Optimum Moisture Content: 8.4%
-2065
1 2055 _ _-_ /_\_;_ _ 12
r 2050 -.. ___ . .
2045 - -204
20I30 . ... ..._. .....----.-
20251 ~~~~~~~~7 7.5 a 8.5a 510Moisture Content (%)
Analysis according to Method A7 of TMIJI1 of 1986,I Te results relate only to the samples tested,This report may only be reproduced or published in its full context.Remarks:
Analysis according to Method A7 of TMH1 of 1986.I The results relate only to the samples tested.This report may only be reproduced or published in its full context.Remarks:
Analyis according to Method A7 of TMHI of 1986.I Thle results relate only to the samples tested.This report may only be reproduced or published in its full context. CH O Ec DRemarks:
0 7 EP 2006BRANCHES: CENTURION * JOHANNESBURG tPITRMARITZ8URG * PINETOWN RUSENB R * VRYHilD
| 7 8Mlilolsture & ontent (%) 12 13.Analysis according to Method A7 of TMI-I of 1986.I The results relata only to the samples tested.This rcport may only be reproduced or published In ita full context.Remarks: C
Moisture Density RelationshipProjacv ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIBERIAProject No.: 1030/R1 75/08/2005 Date: 927 August 2005Field Reference: MATERIAL G Laboratory Ref.: L988Depth R ama rRemarks; UntreatedDtescription; SUEBASESUBGRA;E__
Arsalytis according to Method A7 of TMI- 1 of 1986.The results relate only to the aamples tested.This report may only be reproduced or published In its fUll context.Remarkr; CHEC ED
BRANCHES; CENTURION * JONHNNsuRG PirrsRmAfITZURG PINE OWN 1 FD «r
I Moisture Density RelationshipProilct FROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIBERIAProlect No.; 1 030/RI 756/082005 Date: 7 August 2005Field Reference: MATERIAL H Laboratory Ref.: L989I _1Dpth(m): Remarks: UntreatedDescripion: SUBBAS-ISUBGRADE
Anialysis according to Method A7 of TMHI of 1986.The resu}ts relate only to the sarnpis tested.This report may only be reproduced or published in its full context.Remarks CHE KED
BRANCHES: CENTURION * JOHANNESBURG -PIETERUAMTZOURG * PiNETC VN * RU N E _1 07. _ E~ _ 5 _ 1612 _OIGAN ____ 26__ _AE 24 pla5|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1r I nWan w
| ~~~~~~~07. S'ZP ' 05 VRED) t16:1t2 COMMUJNI CATI ON No :26 PASE. 24
|vj4o rourin ocreee, sooysens Reserve, Johannesburg 2091P 0 Box 82223, Southdale 2135 C i labTel: +27 (0)11 835-3117 * Fax: +27 (0)11 835-2603 bEmail; [email protected] za 9 Webs_te_ www.civdab.coze Civil Engineer.nT ng Laboratories
Moisture Density Relationship3*Project: ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Project No. 1030/RI 75J08/2005 Date: 29-08-2005Fid Reference: MATERIAL I Laboratory Ret.: 1990*o ipt (in): 0 Remarks:Descnption: SUBGRADE3 Compactive Effort, Mod.AASHTO
17955 ~~~~~~12 13 14 1osue nen8Y) i 17 18Analysis according to Method A7 of TMH1 of 1988.The result. relate only to the samples t\ted.This rePor may only be reproduced or pubflshed In its fuU contbxt.Remarks:,
| ~~~~~~~CHECI[BRANCHES: CENTURION -JOHANNESBURG PIETERMARrZBURtG PIN OWN * S
Cooper/Brown, Nottingham Asphat Tester, 404C, 100DVna,ic Creep ModJUS 'kPa,30 pulses conditoning and then a furher 3600 puI yto.:K Creep e5 a .a Hz, square wave for, 1.0 sec loadcng and 1.0 sec| B~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rest. .
[Extractlon Sieve Analysis and bitmen lMHl C7b and B4, DIN 199e#.
Petation ASTM D53 1 Softening Point (R&B) ASTM 036Dynamic Viscosity ASTM D4402Air Pemeability TRH 8 Appendix C.
3 Page 1 of4
I -ctarr CJM. Fowfes, Dr. T.1. MiIm Pr Pjg., PA. IMcer Pr 3MX onmI.M 11. Nochadt4 WNfxmWaag) LA. \'2:
Region.: S Nfrtk TEL +27 (0) 1 979 1518 FAX: +27 (0) 11 979 1519 e-iL sn@inwcb.:a
30. SEP ' 05 (FAI) 14:35 COMMUNICATION No:54 PAGE. 2
I
REPORT IO.: E 5255
Attaced please find t.. a -Asjhaft Analysis Reports depicting the test results.
P Aease note that Vie Rice's TMRD was not conducted as requested. We have induded 4 results from.s:are material avaliable as indcated. Prease accept our apology for this oversight.
We wish to thank you for your valued supporr and if you require any further information pease -aJ free to contact us.
Yours .aithifuily
I C.H.LOOTSBranch Manager
I
3 Everything possible is done to ensure that tests are representtive and are performed accurately, arc-that reports and condusions are quoted conectly. SRT or its offiaals can in no way be held liable forconsequential damage or ioss due to any error made in carrying out the tests, nor for ary erroneousstatement or opin.3n contained In a report based on such tests. If a test report is pubilshed orI reproduced by the client, it will be core in full, wfithout any omission. This report relates only to thesamples received. If the report is referred to as an INTERIM REPORT it is not fit for publication
LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051125.docRoberts International Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report H November 2005
- - - - - - m m m - m m m m -
RWY 04/22 | Section 1 Section 2 | Section 3 Section 4 Section 5| | ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~t E (Mpa) t E (MDa! t IE (Moal t E IMpal t F (Mp)