republic of liberia liberia infrastructure...

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

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

| ~~~~~~~~~~NRCO gAirport Consultants

U TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. BACKGROUND 2

| 3. MOBILISATION 4

4. PAVEMENT VISUAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT 54.1 Runway 04-22

54.1.1 RWY 04-22 - Section 1 (Ch 0+000 to Ch 0+610) 61 | 4.1.2 RWY 04-22 - Section 2 (Ch 0+610 to Ch 1+220) 74.1.3 RWY 04-22 - Section 3 (Ch 1+220 to Ch 1+890) 74.1.4 RWY 04-22 - Section 4 (Ch 1+890 to Ch 2+530) 8

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.

.

_


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.

* 4.1.1 RWY 04-22 - Section 1 (Ch 0+000 to Ch 0+610)

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.

II

LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts Intemational Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 6 November 2005

I

NRCO Use"tAirport Consultants

1 4.1.2 RWY 04-22 - Section 2 (Ch 0+610 to Ch 1+220)

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

| outside of the keel section.

4.1.3 RWY 04-22 - Section 3 (Ch 1+220 to Ch 1+890)

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.


I

NRCD Us..,Airport Consultants

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.


| ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NRCON err|3| Airport Consultants

1 4.4 Taxiway B

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


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


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.

I lII

Iepl

II

I

| ~~~LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docRoberts Intemnational Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 12 November 2005

NRCO sn iAirport Consultants

* 5. RUT MEASUREMENTS

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.

Riu mneastwuneuts on RWY 04.22

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 520 - ______

I __ X_ g_F.i._-':_

9 1 6 -li . s: -1

1 4

12 -

00 600 1200 1800 2400 3000

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.


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).

LRP -Rtbwrt ktolwidoa AhpoeRUNWAY 04Q2 MCP Layer SfwiUlw

"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


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

s t J1 S UIf I I I_EI Il H I I *hI l _*

* 1COO ~!~ T r u 1 lx ,- L *

| 1200 * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~poor subgrades *|n (- =| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DCP ot bde.d thn.ugh ..phalt -Wfaing " _ ( _IC

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.

IllIL

lllIlIIIl

| ~~~LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051 125.docIRoberts Intemational Airport


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

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~HRB =Highway Roads Board AASHTO classification

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.


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.

lIllIU

LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051125.docRoberts Intemnational Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 22 November 2005

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NRCO U..Airport Consultants

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


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


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.

D


I

. ~A at"wNRCOD User|Airport Consultants

8.2 UNMIL input

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


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.

IIlI

II1l


I_

- -- - ----- ---- -m m -

NRCO0g6Airport Consultants

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)


- - - -- - - -- - m - -- - -- - m

s "NRC0O CrrAirport Consultants

Table 8.1 - REMEDIAL WORKSDESCRIPTION Location |StatusAug | Complies Remedial WorksDESCRIPTION Loainith Ugn [MeimRemarks2005 Annex 14 Most Urgent (Short Term) Term

(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


- - - - - - - --- -- - - - - 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.

LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051125.docRoberts Intemational Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report 30 November 2005

mmm--- --- - - m - m - - -

NRCDOs...Airport Consultants


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

apron


- --- -- - - -- - - - -- - - -- -

NRCO acrrAirport Consultants


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


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

* A340-100 belly0 _ | S s l - I T777-300

-1000 A* 8737-800

I -2000

-3000

-4000

-5000 --1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 1000 7000

Figure 9.1.2 - Proposed Design Aircraft Load Locations

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)

A330-300 15,800 29.3% 1,053 10 3 (scheduled)

B777-300 1,000 1.9% 67 0.6 0.5 (non-scheduled)

A340-600 700 1.3% 47 0.43 B747-400 1,500 2.8% 100 1 1 (non-scheduled)54,000 100% 3,600 35 13.5

| 9.3 Structural Model and Failure Criteria

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

description (mm) (Mpa) (mm) (Mpa) (mm) (Mpa) (mm) _ (Mpa) (mm) (Mpa)Continuously 100 2800 115 2800 145 2800 175 2800 170 2800

graded asphalt __

Granular base 100 300 200 300 100 300 150 300 150 300

Granular 250 250 350 250 300 250 200 250 300 250subbase _

Selected 550 120 150 120 300 120 400 120 500 120| ~~~~~~subgrade_

In situ Semi- Semi- Semi- 6 Semi- Semi-subgrade infinite 80 infinite 80 infinite infinite __ infinite

Table 9.3.1 - Structural Models Runway 041,22

The existing pavement of the various taxiway and pavement sections have the structuralproperties as listed in Table 9.3.2:

Pavement TWY A TWY Al TWY B A ronLayer t E t E t E t E

description (mm) (MPa) (mm) (MPa) (mm) (MPa) (mm) (MPa)

Continuously 85 2800 90 2800 110 2800 140 2800

Granular base 150 300 175 300 150 300 100 300

Granular 130 250 300 250 150 250 200 250

subgrade 400 120 300 120 400 120 400 120In situ Semi- Semi- Semi- Semi-

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


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.

RWY 04/22 Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5

ATM Traffic 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%From/To 0.000 | 0.610 0.610- 1.220 1.220 | 1.890 1.890 2.530 2.530 | 3.354

Cumulative Damage Factor due to 15 year design ATM'sContinuously 0.216 0.153 0.160 0.106 0.097

graded asphalt

In situ sub- 0.535 1.498 4.273 0.510 0.161g rad e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Theoretical Remaining Life (yrs)Continuously________________________________________

graded asphalt >30 yrs >30 yrs >30 yrs >30 yrs >30 yrs

In situ sub- 2 rgrade 28 yrs 10 yrs 4 yrs 29 yrs 93 yrs

Required Asphalt Overlay Thickness (mm)

Continuously | N/A 25 105 m N/Agraded_asphalt I_________

Table 9.4.1 - Results of the APSDS Analysis for RWY 04/22

PAVEMENTS TWY A TWY Al TWY B [ APRON% Design 60% 11 I0%70

ATM Traffic 10% 40% 70%

Cumulative Damage Factor due to 15 year design ATM'sContinuously 0.147 0.019 0.124 0.141

graded asphalt

In situ sub- 12.313 0.672 1.172 3.627g ra d e__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Theoretical Remaining Life

g Continuously >30 yrs >30 yrs >30 yrs >30 yrsgraded asphalt.

l grade s 1 yr 22 yrs 13 yrs diyr

Required Asphalt Overlay Thickness (mm)Continuously 165 mm N/A negligiblegraded asphalt 16ImNA elgblI0m

Table 9.4.2 - Results of the APSDS Analysis for the TWY's and' Apron


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

* with a new asphalt wearing course.


NIRCOVIIi$rdAirport Consultants

10.2.2 Structural Overlay

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.

I Keel wctlu (ravekd way)Design overMly

* \ 1.2% AC overlay ndr-V. - 20uto3| h~~~~~~~~~~~~npxved 1.29% \ exisfit AC, oMdeoe

Figure 10.2.4 - Typical Section Profile Correction

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.


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


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

8. MinCAD Systems, APSDS 4, "Airport Pavement Structural Design System, UserManuaf', September 2000, www.mincad.com.au

* 9. Yu T. Chou, Federal Aviation Administration FAA-RD-77-6, "Analysis of PermanentDeformations of Flexible Airport Pavements", February 1977, Final Report.

| 10. ICAO Aerodrome Design Manual Doc 9157-AN/901: "Part 3 -- Pavements", SecondEdition, 1983

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

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I~~~ ! | co

IAirport Consultants

_~~~ -I ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~___ _A.

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

LIRP RIA Airport visual form.xis - LEGEND Page 1 of 16 2005/09/21

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactorv.com

m m m m m m - --- -- - m m m -NACO - Stewart Scott Monrovia - Liberia World Bank Funded

LIRP - Roberts International AirportAirport: RIA, Monrovia Detail visual assessment (Pavements)

Section: RWY04/22 Strip: 45m vAdeRWY Date: 27 /07 / 2005 Done by: Gary Fok Chainage from 60 to 660

Light No 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Chainage (m) 60 o 120 ISo 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 3X 420 430 480 SI0 540 570 600 330 0

Cracking Position 15m X X X X X X X X x X X X X X X

Type MA L MA MA MA MA B B B B B - B B MA B C

Degree 1 _ 1 1 1 1 M M 1 1 1 1

Spacing (m) gen_ mp era ly saorox 0 5m _ = 0.2m spacing

Comments __mapecracks sealed- bloc~kcra - Jjn F-

Deformation Potsi_X~~~~tio keel--

Spacing (m)

Breaking-up out _

ofreake Position keel . . x

Type _ PH PA PA A PA/ PH/

Degree = = = _ 1 = 1 _ = = 1 = = | __ 11Comments small pothole concrete patch (20x1 5) well constructed | | ood cond

of the Position keel Ixx x x 1 i

surfaceout x x x x x x x x x x j x-i __I__

Type AL AL A A AL AL AL AL AL AL L 1TDegree 1 1 * 1 _ 1 I 1 _ 1_

Comments H I I T 1 1 Tl I I I

Construction TDZ I - I I TDZ I |IPAPI| | TDZ | |TDZ |

details and Position rwy II P PAINT PAINT j PAINT I _ PAINT

deficiencies - - i i I

Topography,Ivegetation, Position rwy ___ l Cambered cross-section Transverse construction joint

egeology Type I J T I

0 PAPI

1-~~ - - IS.- .--

LIRP RIA Airport visual form.xls - RWY (1) Page 2 of 16 2005/09/21

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.vdffactory.comP

m m m m - m - m - m - m - - - m m - - -NACO - Stewart Scott Monrovia - Liberia World Bank Funded


Section: RWY04/22 Strip: 45mrnwdeRWY Date: 27 / 07/ 2005 Done by: Gary Fok Chainagefrom 660 to 1260

Light No 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Chainage (m) 660 8 720 780 810 840 870 9 00 930 960 9so 1020 lo0w 1080 7110. 1140 1170 1200 1230 1260

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

Type o H DL j | [ SH |SH PA PA SH

Degree _[ 1 1 1 j 1 _)Comments | overdpai | - cracks open | _ - |good condition (26x7) | (25x6) | |

Smoothing out 1 of the Position keelsurface out |__ 1 .I1tf I t

Type _ __ __

Degree _

Comments _ L1 1

Construction [|i |Very coarse DVOR

details and Position rwy | L|__ | 11| mix patch IT|[

deficiencies [ L I _ IIIIIIIZ1I!I I 1

Topography,| vegetation, Position rwy _ | Cambered cross-section I Transverse construction jointl I

DVOR 4

N -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-r .- 1" ''r ," .< ., , - ;,,,>._S

.. . _ .............. i . . . ._t . e S - .

LIRP RIA Airport visual form.xls - RWY (2) Page 3 of 16 2005/09/21

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.idffactorv.com

m - m m - m - m - - m m m - - - - m -NACO - Stewart Scott Monrovia - Liberia World Bank Funded


Section: RWY04/22 Stnp: 45m wide RWY Date: 27 /07 / 2005 Done by: Gary Fok Chainagefrom 1260 to 1860

Light No 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Chainage (m) 1260 * 1320 l5 1380 1410 14o 1470 15O 1530 1560 1 1620 16 1680 io 71 1740 177 1800 1330 1860

Cracking Position 15m X X X X X X X X-Xi X X- X ::: :::x-: __:: jX : X:j _:X X----------------- X-----

Type MA MA C C MA MA L L MA MA MA MA B B L L B B B L

Degree 1 _11 _

Spacing (in) [Ii1m _ _ _

Comments cracks not sealed | | ________r L cracks generally not sealed

out xDeformation Position keel x x x x x x x x x x

Type U U RU RU RU RU U U RU RU RU RU DE DE - UDegree f IEMMEM EM*

Spacing (in) (m) _ ___T

CommentsBreaking-up out x

of the Position keel jx X x x [xx x x xx C

Type jS4 PH DL D SHPH PA PA DL PH DH=SH

Degree MUE I 1 _ MiComments f concrete patch delaminat ing

Smoothing out | x - -| i - ------------- -i-------t-I-i

of the Position keel

surface out x x-Typ_A LAL w ' ' '__Degree 1 1 _ 1 _ TI

Comments ___ __

Construction EMERGENCY WORK REQUIRED coarse patch EMERGENCY WORK REQUIRED

details and Position rwy APPROX (15x25) PATCH done by UNMIL APPROX (8X8) and (10xlO) PATCH

deficiencies PositonI_ PRAFM [ILL l l _ _

Topography, I_ _ ll IL I _ - - ii

vegetation, Position rwy _Cambered cross-section Stream crossing _ _ _ Cross-fall cross sectiongeology Type

--4 27X -+ - - ; '' F x '- --~~~~+

Tower

LIRP RIA Airport visual form.ids - RWY (3) Page 4 af 16 2005/09/21


m -- --- - --- - m m - m - - -NACO - Stewart Scott Monrovia - Liberia World Bank Funded


Section: RWY04/22 Strip: 45mwideRWY Date: 01 / 08/ 2005 Done by: Gary Fok Chainagefrom 1860 to 2460

Light No 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Chainage (m) 1860 1 1920 1 o 1980 2010 2040 m070 2100 2190 2160 2190 2220 2210 2280 2310 2340 3370 2400 2430 2460

15m XX Xx x

Cracking Position 15m X X _X X X j X X X X X x X x X

Type MA L _ L MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA L

Degree 1 I 1 _ 1 1 1 1 -1 _

Spacing (m) 1m__ ~ x x x Comments numerous fine cracks, generally sealed

Deformation Position keel x x x

Type = SH RU = _ _ __

DegreeSpacing (m) = =___

CommentsBreaking-up out J IX 1of the Position keel x x x I I i ii Isurface out II

Type PH PA PA PA_ I PH fPH PA

Comments L I |concrete (4x4) | concrete patch breaking up

Smoothing outx x x x x x xSm oothing utl [ L l j 1 1 1 1 1 -- I --- ------ --------------------- -------------- ------- -- -- -------- ------

of the Position keel .surface out +ttt + It ttt+t

surface out ___ Type ALjJ___ _ _ _ AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL

Degree _ _ _ _ _ _ 1I _ -

Comments _ _ _ ___

Construction lbullet holes I_ _ _ slurry outside k977 bullet holes

details and Positisonb [J Jpatched_withdeficiencies P concrete

vepgetation, Position rwy |TVVY C I I I I I I |Cross-fall cross section|

LIRP RIA Airport visual form.xds - RWY (4) Page 5 of 16 2005/09/21

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactorv.comr

mm- m m m - --- - -NACO - Stewart Scott Monrovia - Liberia Woild Bank Funded


Section: RWY04/22 Strip: 45mwideRWY Date: 02 /08/2005 Done by: Gary Fok Chainagefrom 2460 to 3060

Light No 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 so

Chainage (m) 2460 249D 2520 2550 2580 2610 2640 2570 2700 2730 2760 2790 2820 2650 2880 251o 2940 2970 3000 3730 3060

____________________________________ I- -- L---- -------- ---- -- - -------- ------------- - ---- L .---- A-----......A - --- ---- I -- ------ -

Cracking Position Ism X X X X X X X X X X X X X

15m X x x it x x x x x xType T r r T 1r1 T

Degree MA B B B L L B B B B L LB MA L MA MA L

Spacing (m) m

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

geology Type I l I * I I ointlI00

X 7 2~- k[ *;..t

I I TVWY B

LIRP RIA Airport visual form.xds - RWY (5) Page 6 of 16 2005/09/21

PDF Created with pdfFactory trial version www.Odffactory.comP

m - m - - m - m - m m m m - - - m - m -NACO - Stewart Scott Monrovia - Liberia World Bank Funded

LIRP - Roberts International AirportAirport: RIA, Monrovia Detail visual assessment (Pavements)Section: RWY04/22 Strp: 45mwideRWY Date: 02 /08/ 2005 Done by: Gary Fok Chainagefrom 3060 to 3354

Light No 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Chainage (m) 3060 30o9 3120 3150 3180 3210 3240 3220 3300 3330 3360 oa9o 3420

Cracking Position 1Sm X X X X X X X X X X X X

Type B B MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA

Degree I ! 1E _ 1 1 |_ 1 _ r 1 1 __ _

Comments __ ________11 ~

Deformation Pston t keel -- t -A-1---i--1 -1-i--- -

Type ou L - - -___

DegreeSpacing (m)

Comments _ _

Breaking-up ou -- - - - -:: t: :f uDefofmathe n Position keelsurface out T

Type - - - 3

Degree __> ,

Comments 1 -1 _ _ 1 1 r _ -rS osthring-u out -- ----- /-of the Position keel ==j

surface out _ I

Degree [ _L ___ _ __-

Topography, __' _ | I F ] W 1 W Comments __ _

Cmontruciong _ou[t slurry outidekee-setio-1-dftetal n Position ke

vegetation, Position rwy _ _ I I

Teology Type Al Y A

T WYAl

LIRP RIA Airport visual formnxds - RWY (6) Page 7 of 16 2005/09/21

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

Light No RWY0122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Apron

Chainage (m) 0 14 33 s 70 9 113 143 173 203 250 290 305 340 364 337 407 440

5m X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX

Cracking Position 15m X X X X X X X X X X X X x _ x_5m X X X X -X X X -X X

Type MA MA MA MA B B MA MA MA L MA MA C C C C C

Spacing (in) __I_ __Fj:_ _

Comments _ __ __

Deformation Position keel x x x x x X X X X X

Type U U U RU RU RU RU RU RU RU RU RU RU

Degree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / /

Spacing (m) I _ _ _ _ _ _

Comments = = =_

Breaking-up out t I-----------------t- t-- i--- --of the Position keel__ _I_ i __1

surface ~~~~~Type ouP1I i i~A PA PADegree _ _ _ _ I E|| |K

Comments | _ _ concrete patch

Smoothing out - ----- -------of the Position keelsurface out _- - - -- - - -- --] -- - -- - --- - --- - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- --- -

Type_ _ 1 1 __ __ _ 1 __ _

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 |__

Degree Spacing (m) _ TI

Comments _ _ ru ing at joint with TWY A

Breaking-up out [of the Position keel jF

Surfacen oOt kuetl ---- 4--- ---| ---------- ------ ----- 4------- --- --- 0--t - --

Type [_PH_Degree _ __ __ _ I _ _ __

Comments _ _ -

Smoothing outof the Position keel - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -

surface out_____

Type __

Degree __

Comments ____

Construction | | Idetails and Position twy very old and aged surfacingdeficienciesTopography, vegetation, Position twyHOLDING LINE | | _ _ _|

]eology Type j -

RWY 04/22 TWY A

LIRP RIA Airport visual form.xds - TWY Al Page 9 of 16 2005/09/21

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -NACO - Stewart Scott Monrovia - Liberia World Bank Funded


Section: TWY B Strip: 25m videTWY Date: 29 /07/2005 Done by: Gary Fok Chainage from o to 600

Light No MYW04122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Hangar Apron

Chainage (m) 0i 30 60 90 120 Iso 180 210 240 270 300 33j 3601 390 420 4W0 480 510 540 570 60

Cracking Position 25m X X X X X X X X _ __ _

Type L C MA MA MA MA = c C C CDegree *' 'UI i _ _ L1

Spacing (m) [ _Comments _ I = = I = = __

outDeformation Position keel x x _ x x x x x x x _

outJ I__ ___

Type RUR RU RU RURU RU URU RUI RUR- U UR

Degree RI RU -U

Spacing (m) [ = = _ _ _ _ J _ _ l _ _ ____

Comments _ _ ____

Breaking-up out I-- - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - -

of the Position keel x x

surface Out_ _______

Type _ _ _ __ PHT 1 g

Degree _ _ __

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 - - -- -


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

Chainage (m) 0 30 0 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600

Om X X X X X X X X X X

Cracking Position to X X X X X ___x X-X X X X -

32M X X x X X X X x X X X

Type C C C MA MA MAMA MA MA MA MA MA MA 1 _

Degree1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1

Spacing (m) __ ____

Comments ___ ___

Deformation Position .x x x x x _ __ ______ _ _ xx

Type RU RU RU RU U U UU | U | U U U /

Degree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Spacing (in) I l_ _ _ _

Comments ( ruts in wheel path cont inue fr om TWY A

Breaking-up ------

Comments ravelling (stone loss)in theruted wheelpath _ _ _ _ __I/ VSm oothing - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - -- - - - - -of the Positionsurface __________

Type__ _ _Degree ____

Comments -__---------

Construction I I

details and Position slurry applied on this section of apron _ _ _ ____

deficiencies appears blue grey in colour | _

Topography, _ L l I f i __vegetation, Position _ 1 igeology Type

TERMINAL BUILDING

TWY A KLM Building

LIRP RIA Airport visual form.ids - APRON 1 Page 11 of 16 2005/09/21

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.Ddffactorv.com

- --- m - - - - -- -- -


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

Chainage (in) 0 30 so so 120 150 180 20 240 20 300 3a0 380 3s0 420 450 480 510 540 570 600

32m X X j X X X X - -- - -i x-Cracking Position to x x ------ x -xix- x

Type MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA 2' /I 2Degree 1 11 / _/ __

Spacing (m) __ _ _| 1/

Comments _ _I1

x x x x x x x xx x x x x /

Deformation Position 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 _ ____

surfacepain (m) 1 i i i

Comments I r rBreaking-up J-- - ---- - - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- ---of the Position jsurface ___________

Degree | _ I _ I I 1 1 1 1 1 I T_rComments I I I__Ir___I_ I

Sm oothing - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - --- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -of the Positionsurface__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Type___A I EEEie•

Degree __

Comments ____

Constructiondetails and Position _ ____ slurry applied on this section of apron _ _ l Vdeficiencies |appearsbluegreyincolour

Topography,vegetation, Position IIIVgeology Type

TWY A 1 KLM Building

I . ' 1LIRP RIA Airport visual form.xds - APRON 2 Page 12 of 16 2005/09/21

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.Ddffactory.com

- rn - -NACO - Stewart Scott Monrovia - Liberia World Bank Funded

LIRP - Roberts International AirportAirport: RIA, Monrovia Detail visual assessment (Pavements)Section: APRON 3 Strip: Middle Apron Strip Date: 27 / 07 / 2005 Done by: Gary Fok Chainage from Sooth to North

Light No South (From outer egde of TWY A to edge of old apron onto new apron : 57m - 78m) North

Chainage (m) 0o 30 60 90 120 so 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600

57m X X X X X X X X X X X X

Cracking Position to X x x x x x x x__ .x --- x-- -- x_ x x78m X X X X X X X X X X X X

Type MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA _

Degree 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 'Spacing (in) __Comments

Deformation Position x x x x x x x x x x x__________ ~~x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Type U RU RU RU U U U U U U U U U

Degree 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 17 V W V V V V

Spacing (m) l l l l l l l l l l l V L

Comments / V 5

Breaking-up -- ------ ------ --of the Position

surface ________Type ___

D egree__ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _

Comments -__Sm oothing --------- --------- --------- --------- --------

of the Positionsurface__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I I.

Type 1 1|

CommentsL_ _I_ _I_ _ _ _

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

Topography, _ _ I ]I[ l _ vegetation, Position I

igeology Type _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

APROt4

LIRP RIA Airport visual form.,ds - APRON 3 Page 13 of 16 2005/09/21


m m - m - - - m - - -- - -NACO -Stewart Scott Monrovia - Liberia World Bank Funded


Section: APRON 4 Strip: Middle Apron Strip Date: 27 / 07 / 2005 Done by: Gary Fok Chainage from South to North

Light No south (From edge of old apron to one third of new apron: 78m -90m) North

Chainage (m) 0 30 60 90 120 *r,o 10 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600

[ 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 4 Page 14 of 16 2005/09/21


- - - m- m - - -- - --- -NACO - Stewart Scott Monrovia - Liberia World Bank Funded


Section: APRON 5 Strip: Close to Conc Apron Date: 27 107 / 2005 Done by: Gary Fok Chainage from South to North

Light No South (From edge of old apron to centre of new apron : 90m - 120m) North

Chainage (m) o 30 60 90 o2s Mo 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 s10 540 570 600

Cracking Position to _

120mIType / / / / / / /

D eg ree__ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ I _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

Spacing (m) __ __ __ __ __ ___

Comments __[HI~_ _ ___:: ~_ __---

Deformation Position t x x x x x x x x x x x xx

Type U u U u u u Degree I 1 U 1 1 i U ___ 1 1 1 1 | 1_

Comments | slight general undulation -

Breaking-up Pos-|in -

of tfhae Position | | | | | surface__ _ _ _ _1

Type ____ 1 _ _ ____

Degree _ _ | | | | | __Comments _ J _ _ _ ____

Smoothing Pof the Positionsurface ____ -

D egree ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

Com m ents _____ _____ ____ ____ ____

Construction trial vdetails and Position 11LL1__ greybiacl~ncoiour liiideficiencies I appearsgrylcinoou

Topography, I_ _ _ _ [ 11 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

vegetation, Position__ T__ b _ _ 1 1 _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _

.geology Type _ _ II [~ Z~

LIRP RIA Airport visual form.)ds -. APRON 5 Pg 5o162005/09/21PDF Created with pdfFactory trial version wwwjDdffactorv.com ae1 f1


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

Chainage (in) 0 30 60 90 120 130 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 400 480 510 540 570 600

120m

Cracking Position to145m-

Type__ _

Degree __

Spacing (in) __ __ _

Deformation Position x x x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~x x

Type UU __ UU U __ __ __ __u

Degree 1 1 - 1 1 1 _

Spacing (in) ___ __

Comments islight general undulation __ ____ ____

Breaking-upof the Position -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

surface __________Type __ __ __

DegreeComments__ ___ _ _ _ _

Smoothingof the Positionsurface__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

TypeDegree _____

Comments

Construction I_ I_ _ __ _ I I IT §~details and Position ___ ___ ___tI? Ž I71Ideficiencies at-er ry black in colour_____

Topography, I I _ _I_ _

vegetation, Position

.geology Type

LIRP RIA Airport visual form.,ds -APRON 6 Pg16o162005/09/21

PDF Created with pdfFactory trial version www.Ddffactory.cornae 6of1

NRCO s. 11,15 Airport Consultants

II

l

N APPENDIX C

3 RUTTING MEASURMENTS

lIl

I

LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051125.docI Roberts Intemational Airport Contract 7134313

Pavement Assessment Report C November 2005

LIRP - RIARoberts International Airport

U Rut Measurements

3.5m left 3.5m right

Light No Section Distance (m) Rut (mm) Rut (mm) Average

* 0 RWY 04/22 Section 1 0 7 41 RWY 04/22 Section 1 60 4 62 RWY 04/22 Section 1 120 6 43 RWY 04/22 Section 1 180 64 RWY 04/22 Section 1 240 4 45 RWY 04/22 Section 1 300 6 6 5.46 RWY 04/22 Section 1 360 4 6I 7 RWY 04/22 Section 1 420 6 48 RWY 04/22 Section 1 480 4 69 RWY 04/22 Section 1 540 _5

10 RWY 04/22 Section 1 600 7 7

11 RWY 04/22 Section 2 660 6 512 RWY 04/22 Section 2 720 6 613 RWY 04/22 Section 2 780 4614 RWY 04/22 Section 2 84015 RWY 04/22 Section 2 900 4.016 RWY 04/22 Section 2 96017 RWY 04/22 Section 2 102018 RWY 04/22 Section 2 1080 5 4

* 19 RWY 04/22 Section 2 1140 420 RWY 04/22 Section 2 120021 RWY 04/22 Section 3 1260 7 422 RWY 04/22 Section 3 1320 423 RWY 04/22 Section 3 1380 6 424 RWY 04/22 Section 3 1440 4

* 25 RWY 04/22 Section 3 1500 6| ~~~~~~26 RWY 04/22 Section 3 1560 4 4.6

27 RWY04122 Section 3 162028 RWY 04/22 Section 3 1680

| ~~~~~~29 RWY 04/22 Section 3 1740| ~~~~~~30 RWY 04/22 Section 3 1800_

31 RWY 04/22 Section 3 186034 RWY 04/22 Section 4 192035 RWY 04/22 Section 4 2190 436 RWY 04/22 Section 4 2100 4

| ~~~~~~36 RWY 04/22 Section 4 2160 637 RWY 04/22 Section 4 2220 3.838 RWY 04/22 Section 4 228039 RWY 04/22 Section 4 2340 540 RWY 04/22 Section 4 240041 RWY 04/22 Section 4 2460 4 6

~~~~ ~~~42 RWY 04/22 Section 4 2520 6

43 RWY 04/22 Section 5 2580I 44 RWY 04/22 Section 5 264045 RWY 04/22 Section 5 2700046 RWY 04/22 Section 5 276047 RWY 04/22 Section 5 282048 RWY 04/22 Section 5 288049 RWY 04/22 Section 5 2940 5 5 3450 RWY 04/22 Section 5 300051 RWY_04/22 Section 5 3060

| ~~~~~~52 RWY 04/22 Section 5 312053 RWY 04/22 Section 5 3180_54 RWY 04122 Section 5 3240 4

| ~~~~~~55 RWY 04/22 Section 5 3300| ~~~~~~56 RWY 04/22 Section 5 3360

LIRP RIA Material Testing.xis Rutting

I PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactorv.com

LIRP - RIARoberts International Airport

Rut Measurements

3.5m left 3.5m rightLight No Section Meters from Runway Rut (mm) Rut (mm) FeetI ~ ~~~~1 TWY Bravo 1 5 6 49

2 TWY Bravo 30 5 5 983 TWY Bravo 45 6 5 1484 TWY Bravo 60 5 7 197

* 5 TWY Bravo 120 5 3946 TWY Bravo 180 4 4 5907 TWY Bravo 240 5 7878 TWY Bravo 300 6 9849 TWY Bravo 360 1181

10 TWYBravo 420 5 1378

3.5m left 3.5m rightMeters from Runway Rut (mm) Rut (mm) Feet

1 TWYAIpha 15 6 7 492 TWYAIpha 30 4 5 98

* 3 TWY Alpha 45 4 1484 TWY Alpha 60 4 1975 TWY Alpha 75 4 _ 2466 TWY Alpha 90 295I 7 TWY Alpha 120 7 3948 TWYAlpha 150 4 7 4929 TWYAlpha 180 4 6 590

10 TWYAlpha 210 4 68911 TWYAlpha 240 7 7 78712 TWY Alpha 270 f 88613 TWY Alpha 300 6 98414 TWY Alpha 330 6 1082

I

III

I

LIRP RIA Material Testing.xls Rutting

| 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)

50 --------- --- soi II1WIII2I

2300 20450 -. _, =)

600 ---- --- . - .- .-- - ---- -- - - - -- -- - - - 3 W00 -.- ......__.._......__...e 350 .Rrfisal EncoLuntered In Ths Area75.~.2. ..........\ ... t 00-..-.-..750)5

400900

450-

Estimated CBR (%)2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 6!0 180 140 200 Estimated CBR (96)

2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200100 - I I I I I150- I 150

200~450250

F. 3W -. . . . . .,.. . 0 .: .. . ;0. . ' . . .

A750 ---- betuAt E,.c,unrac-eo r rto

in90o 400

450 .

Layer Propertv SummarvThikness.) Avg. Penetration RateL Estimated CBR Estimated Stifiness

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

45 0 ----- - 0 I i- - -- 1- - -

300________________- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- 2~~~~~~~~~300

5 0 . -. -... .. ..

Estimated ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~5 CB % siatdCR(o

150- 8. g --k----' i i 150- _ iE450600 . . . .N . 60 0 - --- -- -- -- -- --.... ------------ -- ----750-a

0900 i... t 750

1050 900 ;t

Estimated CBR (%) Estimated CBR (%)2 3 5 7 10 1520 30 40 60 100140200 2 3 5 7 10 1520 3040 60 100 140 200

25 . 64-( 1 ) 50 20 44 21 1 2 0 2

>30 0 30 ----- --- -

60_ _ _60

05

15 MESA If at Opbmum Moisture l l > 30 MESA if at Optimum Moisture75 -------

900

105 0

Thtkness ~~~~Layer ProerySuizmary _______ LaVer Property Summaryi7 Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimatod Stifness Thikness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffhess3,Millimetres) (Millimetresd

1Bow) | puPa) Q(ilIirretres) _ _i lI S metresd blov) p (6 Da230 0.954 > 140 514- (1173) -2674 55 1.25 > 140 386- (600) -2008150 3.5 84 129- (295) - 673 190 0.287 > 140 1638- (4191) - 9557250 8.9 26 48- (110) -250 250 4.42 62 101- (230) - 525300) 15.9 12 2-(9.4) - 135 360 7.97 29 54- (123) - 281Total Penetration Sum arwy

_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

3W ------ 300x--.-

~450 P 450__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

750 f-

a6 - 750 -- -- - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - -

1050 .......

1200 . 1050

Estimated CBR (%) Estimated CBR (%)2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 2000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 I III II 4

150 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~150300

450 ~~~~~~~~~~~~450 E 600~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0

750

0. gm CL 7~~~~~~~~~~~~~% 50

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0105 --- 0

120 . 105

Layer Pr ef Summear ____ _ Layer Prperty SumnmaryThickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimnated CBR Estimated Stiffhess Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated StiffnessQvMillimetres) Millirretres/Bow) M IPa) QMillimretres) QMilimetres/Sbow) ... a)200 1.65 > 140 288- (656) - 1495 175 1.48 { > 140 323- (736) - 1678240 7.83 30 55- (125) - 286 190 4.73 I 57 93.9- (214) -488235 11.6 18 36.3- (82.7) - 189 3B5 11.5 j 18 36.6- (83.5) - 190340 11.5 18 36.6- (83.5) - 190 165 8.1 29 53.1- (121) -276Total Pernetration Surwnary Total Penetration SulmmeryEst. Pavement Capacity Based on DSNBOO0 Genieral Notes Est. Pavement Capacity Based on DSN8I3 General Notes4.7 MVESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 177 3.6 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 1642.2 MESA ifat OpUtirim Moistire 1.7 MESA if at Optimum Moisflre1 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the 0.8 M ESA if Wet Penetratio Rate to) CBR conversion is based on the0.5 MESA if Saturated relationship ptileshed by KGeyn (60 Deg. Corne) 0. 4 MESA if Satuirated { relationshqip published by Kdeyn (60 Deg. Cone)

A so ~ LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22 09. LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22

DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 09.3 DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 10

a m a a m a a s a m a - a a a a- - a a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S -M

Nujmber of Blows Number of Blows0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 75 150 225 300 375 450 52510 $ 0 i i i i i

---- - ---- -- -- - - -- -- 3 00- - - - - -- - - -

450~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

E 600.

Refuisi EncoLintered in THis Area 7I50 --------300 c)cL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~goo C) 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L350 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~1050 . .

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 lIlt 140 200

150~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5

E6,002IC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~750l

S ~~~~~~~~~RefusJ Encoirtered In This Area g oo----------------

K350350 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~120

400

~~~~~~Layer Property Summary_______________________________________________________________________________ic_nThicness Avg.sPenetraniontRa EstEsimatedCCRREEstimaBddSStifnnes____________ _________Layer_ P rt Sillryi,1metres) QvMillimetresjblow) - "a)Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness 160 0,444 > 140 1160- (2645) - 6031_vlilliimetres) Millimetres/1low) Ma 175 2.84 109 162- (368) -64070 0.219 ~> 140 2457- @5602) - 12774 375 6.07 42 72.2- (165) -375200 N/A N/A N/A ________ 509,9 22 42.9- (97,8) -223____________ ~~Total Penetration S

____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

__________________ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~12.2 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 114t nTcot- DCP MAti Ivn .27 .cr

R4bc- T-o,&. DOc A&.,,- .5.2 V- aIS

DOP Results from Rubicon.xls 12.2 DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 14

m - m -m - m - - a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ~~~~~ -~~ -w- -a a-a7

Nminer ofBEiows 1Number of Biows

10 I110 ~. 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 75 150 225 300 375 450

~300 30…

~450 N600

60

1050 90

Estimated CBR ()Estimnated CBR (%)2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 2000 III0I

150 -. - . I 5

300~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~450 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 0 ------------ ---------450~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5

~6006750-60.

900- C~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 750 ------

105 900

Layer Plroertv Sunmmer Layer Property Summer)Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness Thickness Avg. Penietration Rate Estim(ated CBR Estimated StiffnessMillimetres) (illimetres/Slow Pa) Millitretres) Millimetres/low) (a)150 0.536 > 140 949- (2165) - 4936 160 0.403 >140 1286- (2932) -6685150 4.67 58 95.4- (217) - 496 160 2.58 123 179- (407) - 929350 9 25 47.5- (108) -247 150 4.85 55 91.5- (209) - 476250 25 7 16- (36.6) -83.5 400 11.3 >19 37.2- (84.8) - 193____________ ~~Total Penetration Smwimary Total Penetration SummaryEst. Pavement Capa~city Based on DSNam Genieral Notes Est. _Pavement Capacity Based on DSNGOC Genieral Mites> 30 NESA if Dry Blows tD penetrate 800 mm = 352 > 30 NaSA if Dry Blows to) penietrate 800 mm = 50124.5 NaSA ifat Optimuim Moisture >30 NaSA if at Optimrum Molsnre11. 5 NESA if WVet Penetation Rate to) CBR conversion is based on die > 30 NSA if WVet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the5.3 NESA if Saturated relatonishp puiblished by Kieyn (60 Deg. Cone) 18. 3 NESA if Saturated relationhp published by KLsyn (60 Deg, Conie)

A ~~LIRP ElIA - DCP on RWY 04/22 IVoLIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22Ahncaut CS.fl,~~~~LiIt6,,C ~16 Aicti:.,.nn.18

_________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~16 181

DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 16 DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 18

a a -a - - -a -a a a a - - a a a n

Number of Bbws Number of Bbws0 75 150 225 300 375 450 0 15 30 45 60 75 90

150 - -- - - - - - - -- -- - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- s -- , i ,- -- -- - - .- -- - - -- -- --- --- --- - -

300 --- --------------------. .. .

g 450 -300 -_E 600 450

750 --- .. ------ - 600 -&goo05

1050 0...

1200 900 t

Estimated CBR (%) Estimated CBR (%)2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200O - I I I I : I0 I I I I I I

150150

Z300~450b 450- __ -___ --__ =_ A 34500- _

750 600 -

0_ _ 90 0 -.: ' '7. - :. - . -'--

120 . 9 _ _

Layer Property Sunniriary Laver Property SummaryThickness | Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiftness(Millimetres) (Millimetyes/bw) (%) (MPa) (Millimetres) | (MillimetreslBbw) (%) (MPa)265 0.686 > 140 729- (1663) -3793 125 2.08 j 140 224- (512) - 1167230 3.62 80 125- (285)- 649 200 9.95 22 42.7- (97.3) - 222310 8.53 27 50.2- (115) -261 165 16.2 12 25.4- (58) - 132190 14.9 13 I 27.9- (63.6) - 145 300 29.9 5 13.3- (30.3) - 69Total Penetration Sunmmrary Total Penetration SuLnmnarVEst. Pavement Capacity Based on DSN8BOO General Notes Est. Pavement Capacity Based on DSN800 General Notes> 30 MESA if Dry Bbws to penetrate 800 mm = 449 0.5 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 95> 30 MESA if at Optimum NMstrse 0.3 MESA if at Optimum Moistrxe26.9 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 the12.5 MESA if Satrated relatonshi publshed by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone) 0.1 MESA if Saturated | relationship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone)

rncAS^is | LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22 1 LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22AR pcQf cIr *saLv" lauIflu: S 220 0Ahxup'I cnjasuixav2. 0 21.4________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~201 __ _ __ _4__ 1.DCPaRs Tltfxo mn kuioxs s!s 2.3.7 t0.CP L-') uts.rom .. 23n;xt21

DCP Resul9ts foRubicon.xls 20 DCP Reultsfrm Rubicon.xls 21.41

50 100 Nute ofBlwsNumber Of Blows0 50 100 1~~~~50 200) 250 300 350 0 40 80 120 160 200 240

750 $ ¶ t---- --- :I i:r---------- ~300

N, ~~~~~~~~~~~160m6oo .. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~200

240 FveiuSaj Er. Jrrr.dI Tr-., kea

0900 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~320360.-

EstimatBd CBR(%2 3 5 7 10o 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 Estimated CBR(%0 I

2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200150 80 I

1 2 0 .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .300 -

k ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~160j600 200

75 240 Refusat Encounitered In The Area~900 - 280

105 .-- 320

360,

Thickness ~~Layer Proerty SummervThickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness

QvMillimetres) - Mvillirretres,teow) (%) (MPa) Layer Property Summery230 0.697 > 140 718- (1637) -3734 Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness210 6.65 37 j 65,5- (149) -340 45 0.176 >140 3094- (7056) - 16091315 22.3 6 16.1- (41.3) -94.2 200 N/A > N/A N/A

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

_______________ 3 23 _______________ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~__25


m m m - - ~=_m -4S_m-M-M-- -- sa n n- AIW - - -

Number of Blows Number of Bkows

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 75 150 225 300 375 450 525175 I j

225 -- --- 3-- ......- 300

250 454500

32590

1050350

Estimated CBR (%) ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Estimated CER(%Estimated CER (%) ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 2002 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100140 200 0 I 175 -

150200 -- --

225 -- . --5$ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~40

k250 =0

2756

t3 00- -- - 900_

_ y

325 105

350.........

____________ Layer Property SumnmaryThiickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffhess

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

Nomber of Blows Nurmber of Blows0 1 15 30 45 60 75 90 -!7 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

I I --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D - -- ----- --

225--~ql450 .. u0

~6003075 c-Reft Erncoun,teret8inlhls Area900 .... .. 45031050 ..

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _525.

Estimated CBR()2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 Estimated CBR(%0 I I I I2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 20075 -150

150 -- -- - - - - -

450~ 225600_

_ _ _ __

750 X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7900

Ref~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~it:1r.::.ra&a In TIt-;~ ,uea~450105

Layer Pr etSummarvThickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estinmated Stiffness __________________________________________

(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

r.-~ Tc. .aa. . ,. R.±co- T-tr- DCP Krs, r 2.3.7, t-z

DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 26.6 DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 29

Nmbner of Blows 1Nukmber of Blows0 lao 200) 300 400 500 500 700 0 50 100 150 200 250 300of I I 100p

flu ~ - -- --- - - - - -- - -~300200

450 -----

6s0 0 25

750 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ___300

90 aRefusa Encountered In Ths Area900 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~350105040

Estimated CBR(%2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 Estimnated CeBR (%)0 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200100 I II II150

30 - - - - - -150 - - --- - -- -

4r50600 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~0

gm0 Refusal Encountered In 'Thi Area

_________________________ 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~350 -105 --

400

____________ ~~Layer ProerySummary,Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness

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


_ - -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

__ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

- mm --- -m -m m n in in i -in i

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" .

1200 -. 900 -- -

Estimated CBR (%) Estimated CBR (%)2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100140200 2 3 7 7 10 1520 3040 60 100 140 2000 0 _ 20 3 1 W I - 14 200

150 -. 100

300 20 - - -- - - -- -450 -- 300--_

600 ~ ........ ... . . | . ...... cE 400 _ __4

750- -w -~ . . . r ' . . . . 7600

~700105

120~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0120 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~900

Thickness Layer PLroPe Surnmary Layer Property SummaryThiLness A g. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimnated Stiffhess Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated StiffnessQ(¶illimetres) - (Millimetres/blow) M (Pa) (Millirretres) - (MiIlimetresmElow) ( Ma)200 3.95 72 114- (260) - 592 160 0.568 > 140 892- (2035) - 4640

230 8.8 26 48.6- (111) - 253 130 0.485 > 140 1054- (2405) -5483320 10.9 20 38.7- (88.3) - 201 270 3.33 89 137- (312) - 711350 17.2 11 23.9- (54.4) - 124 200 3 102 152- (348) - 793

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

175 . ..?250 .200

0 ~~~2 2 5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __~~~~~~~~~~~~22

E _____300___ 3 250 *N.~

;F. 35 Refusal Enr tstered fin Thi Are8a , 275 ---- ----- ---400 S300

450 350 f .....________..____-___-_

Estimated CBR ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Estimated CBR (%2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 12 10 1 I. 30 40 60 I0 14 0

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

16 0 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - -- - - - - - - - - -

200 - -300

5,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7240 --____ ---___--- _

~~~~~280 -b--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~40 ---t320

a3600

525

400 600

Estimiated CBR (%) Estimated CBR()2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200120 - i i 150 -

160 ---- 225

240 _ _ _ _ _ -

~375S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~450----

t320 ---- a -- 1 1i

360 5

400 600

___________ ~~~Layer Proety Stunmary Layer Property SummaryThickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness Thickness Avg. Penietratuon Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness125 0.357 >140 1460- (3329) - 7591 225 0.574 j >140 882- (2010) - 4584130 .43 I > 14 1283- (2927) - 6674 205 0.644 j > 140 781- (1781) -4061Total Penetration Summnary _______Total Penetration SLwmymaryEst. Pavement Capacity Based on DSNB00 C eneral Notes Es.PvrietCpct Based on DSN900 General Notes> 30 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 1730 > 30 MESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 1443> 30 IVESA if at Optimum Moisthxe > 30 MESA if at Optimum Etistre> 30 MESA if Wet Penietration Rate to) CBR conversbin is based on fte > 30 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on tie> 30 MESA if Satixated relationship pLiblished by Kleyn (60 Deg. Conse) > 30 MESA if Saflirated relatiortship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone)

A ~~LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22 LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~44 ______ _ 4A

DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 44 OCP Results from Rubicon.xls 46

Nminer of Blows fNumber of Blows0 iCC 200 300 4) 500 60) 0 75 150 225 300 375 4500 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I0 II L 11½ Wi~~~~~~- ----- -1' - r

j300 30

E 450 -- E 450.6 w - - --- -- -- -- -- - -- - -- --- -

-0

~750 ------ 750 A

EstimatBd CBR ()Estimated CBR(%2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 10) 140 200 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 2000 4----- i--------dI0 -

150 150 ..

900 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 900

Thtkness ~~~Layer Property Sunmmar _____ _Layer Prperty SummarThicness Avg. Penetration RatB Estimiated CBR Estimated Stiffness Thickness Avg. Penetratcn Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness(Millimetres) - Mvillimetres/Bow) (Pa) (Millimetres) QvMillimetres/Blow) a)270 0.557 > 140 910- (2075) - 4732 190 0.573 - >140 884- (2016) -4598120 1.27 > 140 380- (866) - 1974 220 2.23 140 209- (475) - 1084220 5.1 52 86.8- (198) - 451 170 4.27 65 105- (239) -545180 6.5 38 67.1- (153) -349 15(1 6.93 >35 62.6- (143) -326Total Penetration Sumnmary Total Penetration SurmmaryEst. Pavement Capacity Based on OSNECO General Notes Est. Pavemrent Capacity Based on 0SN800 Genieral Notes> 30 NESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 8W0mm =620 > 30 !vESA if Dry Blows to penietrate 800 mm =464> 30 NESA ifat Optimum Moisture > 30 MESA if at OptirrKm Moisture> 30 MESA if Wet Pernetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on dfre > 30 IESA if Wet Penetratbio Rate to) CBR conversion is based on nth> 30 NESA if Saturated relationship pLublished by KCleyn (60 Deg. Corne) 14 MESA if Sabrated relationship published by Kisyn (60 Deg. Cone)

1 LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22 ALIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22

_______________ J ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~48 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 491

DCP' Results from Rubicon.xs 48 DCP' Results from Rubicon.xls 49

- a m - m a a a a a - a - a a a a a

Number of Bbws Number of Bows0 50 100 150 200 250 30W 0 75 150 225 300 375 450

150 -- - -- - - - --- --- - --- -- --- ----- -- --- --- --- --- 1 °50 -- - - - - - -- - - - - - . -- - - - - - - --- --

300 -------.

E 50 .., ) 45.. ..-.. ............... ............ 0 30 -90-------------

E600 = ---- ---- ---- --750-- . --- --- ----- - ---- ------- ------------ -------

n 750 ... . . . .... .. . ' ........... t 900 -

1200

Estimated CBR (%) Estimated CBR (%)2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 2000 I I I I I 0 I I I I I 0I

150-- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~150300 ; . . . S + 1 300 .I.300 ^ 450-

;600 ... ; .. . . ; .. ; . 750-; .. . . ...... .

a. p900

8 750 .* t l > / 7 __,___ ____ 900 120

Layer Propert Su mnar Laver Property SummaryThickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated StiffnessQ(Mill imetres) (MillhmetresJBlbw) (%) (MPa) (Millirretres) (M11llimetre /Blow) (%) (MPa)220 0.9 > 140 547- (1248) -2846 250 0.605 > 140 834- (1902) - 4338160 3.6 81 126- (286) - 653 135 2.84 109 162- (368) - 240250 5.7 45 77.1- (176) -401 235 11.6 18 36.1- (82.3) - 188210 9.7 23 43.8- (100) -228 270 26.7 6 15- (34.1) - 77.8

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-


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

E 6M5-~60

It - 6 0 5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __00 - -- ----- - --------S 750 - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ ------- 4: ;\~~~ ~t 5

950

1050 900,

Estimated CBR (%) Estimated CBR (te6)2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 2000 0II I I I

150 - 150

300 ----- -- --- --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M-----

4 750 '750-600

_________Layer PropetY Summar ______ Layer Pr operty Summar-thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiftness . Thtkness |Avg. Penetratun Rate Estimated CBR | Estimated Stiffness150 0.682 > 140 735- (1676) - 3821 .380 0 0.598 { > 140 845- (1926) - 4392150 0.511 > 140 998- (2275)- 5188 .130 3.58 81 1127- (289) - 658185 1.97 > 140 238- (543) - 1239 .155 115.2 13 27.2- (62.1) - 142370 9.25 24 46.1- 105 -240 210 21 9 19.3- (44)- 100

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)

1 062 >140LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22 135 1 | LIRP RIA - DCP on RWY 04/22_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J v5 :ISIItiii 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J 1 Wlv1.. 5 6 5i

370 9.25 24 46.1-~~~n (15 -. 4 210. R21co9T 19 D3- ?44, V-: 2.100Le7

DOP Results from Rubiconfnws 54 DCP Results from Rubicon.xts 56

> 0WA fajrtdrlainhpLbsedy Kly60Dg Cle 22. VS if Sauae rltosipulise by Ky _6 De,Coe

Number of Blows Number of Blows0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 s0

.300

1450 450 ..----'. -----. -----.

_ 63W -.___ _'_ _ ___ _ _ 3W - _ -_

E 600 - . . . . . . . \ . ................ 2-600

8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 775077- -, ---------75 ---- ---------- -N-0 8- .- 8-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5 .......----0900 N05

1050- 9000-

EstimatBd CBR (%) Estimated CBR (%)2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 2000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

150 . .....150

300 j

450 450,600 '6-

0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~075 , < >:60 -------- - -. - ;- - .- - -. -- - . . .

{;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 75 0 - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - -- -- - ---..- --, 900

105 900

Layer Property Sutnmars * Layer Property SurmmaryThkkness Avg. Penetation Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness Thickness Avg. Penetration Rateb Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness(Millimetres) (Millimetres/iow) Pa (4) -vMillimetres) |__Ilimetres/Blow) a "a)140 2.62 1-21 176- (401) -915 150 7.4 32 58.4- (133) - 304150 3.8 75 119- (270) - 617 110 4.5 61 gc99.1- (226) - 515290 14.6 14 28.3- (64.5) - 147 300 10.6 21 40.1- (91.5) - 209270 13.6 15 30.6- (69.8) - 159 265 15.4 13 26.8- (61) - 139Total Penetration Su,nmary Total Penetration Summnary

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

450 0

3-0030

C~750 750-it

900 - -900

Estimated CBR ()EstimaiBd CBR (%)2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 i00 140 200 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200

150 150--

2300 ___ ________300

450 450_ __ __

600 t600 ___

900 ______ 900

____________ ~~Layer Prpet Sunwnar, Layer Property Summar ___________Th,i,ckntess Avg. Penetration Raie Estimrated CBR Estimated Stiffness Thiclkness Avg. Penetration Ratn EstimatUed CBR Estimabnd Stiffness4iimetres) - Msilimetres,blow) (MPa (MillIimeb-es) (M1illimetres/Hlow) "% (Ya)225 0.505 > 140 1011- (2305) -5255 150 0.347 - > 140 1507- (3438) - 7839130 3.73 I 77 121- (276) - 630 150 0.403 > 140 1285- (29)30) -6681150 14.1 j 14 29.5- (67.2) - 153 220 3.14 96 145- (331) - 754310 1612 I 25.8- (58.8) - 134 310 5.74 45 [ 76.5- (175) - 398Total Penietration Summary _______Total Penetration SumMaryEs. aement Capacty Based on DSNBOO General NotBs Es. avementCapaity Based on 08N800 General NotBs> 30 NESA if Dry Blows to penietrate 800 mm = 463 > 30 NESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 885> 30 NESA if at Optimum Moistie > 30 NESA if at Optimum MoistLire29.9 NESA if Wet Penetation Rain to CBR conversion is based on the > 30 NESA if Wet Penetration Rain to CBR conversion is based on the13.9 MESA if Saturated j relationshfip ptilished by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone) > 30 MESA if Satuirated relationship published by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone)

A ~~~LIRP RIA - DCP on TWY A LIRP RIA - DCP on TWY A_________________ IA

4.1~~3A 4

Rjbws TsIb- DO' Ant,"s 2V- 2.3.7.- L-_ A

DCP Results from Rubicon.xls IA DCP Results from Rubicon.xIs 4A

Number ofBbows Number ofBbows0 75 150 225 300 375 0 75 150 225 300 375

j - I 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~50 ---- -I

2150 -. ~- 5, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~450 . .

225 -00. ...

'300 . .

375 ~~~Retusi EnCOwtflred -In Thy Area 900 .

1050 - -------450 15

Estimated CBR (%)Estimated CBR (%) 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200

2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 i i i i

2150.....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5

~225 . 600

~300750. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~900

0375 Rteft4sal Encoutiterudl In ThisArea105 ...

450

____________ ~Layer Prperty SummaryThickness Avg. Penietratkin Rate Estimated CBR Estimated StiffnessLayer Property Summary Q(Milinmetres) @vMillimetres,Skiw) I %)QPa)Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimnalled Stifiness 150 0.938 140 524- (1199) -2725QAMillimetres) (Mlillimetres,Sbow) (% QtMPa) 230 1.36 > 140 352- (803) - 1832210 0.47 > 140 1090- (2485) - 5666 150 3.1 97 147- (336) -765200 J N/A [ N/A N/A 385 5.47 47 80.6- (184) -419

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

4500_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~400

525 - 4

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

150 --------- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '00- -

~450j. ..

~600 E 450.

'750 ---- ---- -- ---------------- 660 ----

1050~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~01200 4

EstimatBd CBR ()Estimated CBR (%)2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 160 140 200 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 20)0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

150~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5

j360

450 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~6600~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7M 600~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~8

0 750

120 9 60 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Layer PrprySurrmary, Layer Property SummaryThickness Avg. Penetration RatB Estimrated CBR Estimnated Stiffness Thickness Avg. Penietration RatB Estimated CBR Estimated Stifihess105 10.2 21 41.6- (94.8) -216 155 [0.837 > 1405591-(1347) -3071190 1.03 > 140 473- (1078) - 2457 160 3.62 80 125- (285) - 649135 4.6 59 96,8- (221) -503 180 9 25 47.5- (108) -247560 14.4 14 28.8- (65.6) - 150 345 [ 17.1 11 23.9- (54.6) - 125Total Penetration Siffnmary _______Total Penetration SumnmaryEst. Pavement Capacity Based on DSNBOO General Notes Est. Pavemrent Capacity Based on DSNB60 General Notes13. 1 NESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 860 mm = 237 14.5 MESA if Dry Blows to pernetrate 800 mm = 2446.1 NESA if at Optimum Mostxre 6.8 MESA if at OptimuKm Moisture2.9 MESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on fti 3.2 NESA if Wet Penetration Rate to CBR conversion is based on the1.3 NESA if Saturated relationship pibleshed by Kdeyn (60 Deg. Cone) 1.5 NVESA if Satuxated relationshp published by Kdeyn (60 Deg. Cone)

~~riE~~ LIRP RIA - DCP on TWY Al LIRP RIA - DCP on TWY AlAl.pr-t I.l..II.l AI Al. ;.-It O.-U,lt.-t 2A1

Itsai- oTn,- DO' Mui,n! WrV- .7 A Rt-,~ Tho&z; DC' k;,V,'V 2.1.7,: lA

DCP Results from Rubicon.xIs lAl DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 2A1

W-Mmam a- m a a' - - a a a a a a ai

0 75 150 ~225 300 375 450 525 0 2 0 75 100 12 50 5 15 ube f 5s25Iite f bs 12 5

150 b-150~~lgY 450~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5

600 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .t00 -- - -

I ~~~~~~~~~~350900 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

400 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Estimated CBR (%)2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 Estimated CBR(%0 I I I I ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200

50 -150

300~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

-415

600

6 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~250750 -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oo ~~~~~~~~~Re&tjsa) Encountered In Ths Area

900~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

Layer Proety SummaryThickness Avg. Penetration, Rate Estimated CBR Estimnated StifihessMillimetres) MillimetresgblW) -(1Pa) LaVer Pr ety Summary

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

3411 441k.js-s -TWSO o@c MAn; WtV 2.3,7, ( -4 FUb T-n- DCPkA.r,s-s Vs. 2..,Lar.ce-d`

DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 3A DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 4A1

- a - - - - - -' a a- - a W a a - --

Number of Blows Number of Blows

0 75 150 225 300 375 450 0 75 150 225 300 375 450 525150 I I j 100 ' 'i50 ----- - - ------- 150 - ---------

200 . .

3070

1230 250- - _ . . , _ ..

450 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0600 ---... -- 300- : . 4S _ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~350 - -i, aeiaE:irEydrTil- Er.:.:u.....Ir .T-.Ae

G 750 ........ ................. .... , 4W00 :....-::.

900 .. ..... ......... ... .....\..450-_500 .

Estimated CBR (%)2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 Estimated CBR (%)0 I I I I I 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200100

150

300~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5~~~~~~~300 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~200450 2 250

jq 300 =, d S 300

600* ¢ i r j840750 ---- '-- -,------ ----0 750 g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~400

TO .... 450. .

500

Layer Property Summary,Thkckness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness

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

Nu0e 80 100o20s Number of Blows

120 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~0

240 ~02BO ~~~~Refu5al Ercoctered in Thi5 Area 50]

£320 60V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~700360 80] .

400 90] -

Estimated CBR (%)E-stimated CBR (%) 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200

2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 10] 140 200 0I I I I I120 - i I I I I-10]

160 -- --------- _ _ -- - 2 0 ] - - - -- - - -- - - - -

200 j300240 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~400240 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~500

280 Reftisal Encountered In This Area 60600

a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~80]360

90]400

Thickness ~~~Layer ProerySummaryThiLness Avg. Penietration RatB Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness

____________ ~~~Layer Property Suammary QvMillimetres) (Mill metres/llow) - a)Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness 250 0.366 > 140 1416- (3228) -7361

Q(Millimetres) (Millirrefres/Blow) (% (1MPa) 180 1.18e > 140 410- (936) - 213450 0.377 1' >140 1379- (3144) - 7169 165 2.36 138 197- (449) - 1024200 N/A >NA N/A 151) 5 53 68.6- (202) -461

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~~~~~~~~~~~~

3500 ~ 5

~450=600 . . .. .~

750------------------ --- -- -- ---

0 900 -- - - - - - -- -.-- - -- -- - - - -- -- - - -525 . . .

1050 &M. 0

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~~~~~~~~675Estimated (BR (%)

2 3 5 7 10 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Estimated CBR (%)2 3 0 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 2000 ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200150 7

300 _____-----150

450 225 ........ 22p300~600

£750 -_-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7

750~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5900 ~525 -- -- 105 600 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

L------ L - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~675

Layer Proetv Surmary,Thickness Avg. Penetration RatB Estimnated CBR Estimated Stiffness _______ Layer Proet Summaryqvlillimetres) (M1illirnetes/Biow) M (Pa Tikns Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness195 9.6 23 443 10)M23 ~l,,= s) (Mlimetres/Blow) "% Ya)125 12.7 16 32.9- (75.1) - 171 190 0.241 > 140 2216- (5054) - 11524420 21 9 19.3- (43.9) - 100 120 0.562 > 140 902- (2058) - 4692165 16.1 12 25.6- (58.4) - 133 200 1.45 > 140 330- 752) - 1715

- 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

5...~ ThoIb-v DCP A~,. rW, 2.3.7:'t.-Z R-1 T-b DC .- V.- T..7

DCP Results from Rubicon.xts B4 DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 85

a - a a - a a a a a a a a n a a - a

t ~~~~~~~~~~~Number of Blows Number of BlowsO 75 150 225 300 375 450 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350100 - -I - - - - -]0 III

200 ---- 300

~250 450 . .. -.- -300 ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~600 ---------------

350 PetuJA Errctrcinlc,-- Ir TN r.;&e, U) c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a ~~~~~~~750 -

400 . . .. - . -- . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~900 --

450

Estimated CBR(%Estimiated 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 I 100

150

450

600~300350 RE&"sa Encounitered In This Area 0) 750 -------- --

0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9004500

____________ Layer Property Suzmma)____________________________________________________________________________ThiThnknss AvAvgPPeneatatnonaRat EsEstimatedCCBREEstimated Stiffnees

____________ ~~~Layer Pr rey Sunmnary illimetres) (Millimetres,Slow) - 96 ya)Thtcknes Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness 150 1.12 > 140 436- (994) -2266

150 0.292 >140 1807- (4120) - 9395 220 2.49 129) 186- (424) -966200 ~~~~N/A J >NA N/A 300 6 42 73- (167) - 360Total Penietration Summwrary _______Total Penetration Summary

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

0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~10

=600 -600

gm ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ -. .. 900 ....

1050 - .. 1050

Estimnated CBR (%) Estimated CBR(%2 3 5 7 10 15 20 31040 60 100 140 200 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 2000 I I 40

150 5

300 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~300 -- ------

4- 750 750

lub ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~105

____________ ~~~Layer Proety Summrary, Layer Property Summary,Th~k.ness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimrated CAR Estimrated Stifrness Thickness Avy. Penetration Rate Estimated CAR Estimated Stiffhess230 7.6 31 56.8- (130) - 295 75 1.12 { > 140 432- (985) -2245210 10.8 20 39.1- (89.2) -203 260 4.14 67 108- (247) - 563260 12.1 j 17 34.6- (78.6) - 180 165 5.37 49 82.2- (187) -427240 14.9 13 27.8- (63.4) - 145 560 12.4 j 17 33.9- 977.3) - 176

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

_________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~B9 R.5r har.Dka5 5!1... BlR..,& Tcctox: DCP Ah., V.,W 2.7 3 LRt- -. C r~s -21

DCP Results from Rubicon.xls 89 DCP Results from Rubicon.xis 810

Numbner of Blows Number of Blows0 7.5 15 22.5 30 37.5 45 52.5 60 0 25 50 75 i00 125 150

5)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5J)

5E450

a,450

~- 600....--- -- -- 600 -- - - - - - - -- -- - - - --- - -

750 - '- 750l.

900 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~900

EstimratBd CBR ()Estimated CBR (%)

2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 2000 I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 I4----+----- I

150 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~150 . .

300

,E 450 E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 450

600 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "600

750 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~750900 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~900

Layer Pr erty Summnarii ______Layer ProerySummar)Thickness Avg. Penetration RatEl Estimated CBR Estimrated Stiffness Thickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated StiffnessOtMillimetres) -(Millimetres/Siaw) Fa) (Millirretres) (Millimefres Blow) - (26) "1a)275 9.17 25 46.6- (106) -242 220 1.56 > 140 306- (697) - 1590155 15.4 13 26.8- (61.2) - 140 105 10.7 20 39.5- (90.1) - 205210 21 9 19,3- (44) - 100 245 24.5 7 16.4- (37.4) - 85.3210 21.1 9 19.2- (43.8) -99.9 275 26.8 6 J 14.9- (34) - 77.5____________ ~~Total Penetration Summnary _______Total Penetration SummaryEst. Pavement Capacity Based on DSN00 Genieral Notes Est. Pavement Capacity Based on DSN800 General Notes0. 1 NESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 53 13.7 NESA if Dry Blows to penetrate 800 mm = 165< 0.1 NESA If at Optimum MoisbL'e 1.7 MESA if at Optimum Moisstrje< 0.1 NESA if WVet IPenetration Rate to CBR conversion is based an fth 0. 8 MESA if VWet Penetration Rate to CBR conyersmn is based on thie<0.1 NESA if Satixated j relationship pLiblished by Kleyn (60 Deg. Cone) 0. 4 NESA if Saturated relatiosk pbihdb Kon(0Dg oe

A LIRP RIA ~- DCP on APRON 1LIRP RIA - DCP on APRONAll,., C-..I,it-Wn Pi A. .,t )A.-iUialt." P2

_______________ P1 _______________ J~~~~~~~~~~~P P2LSm., TosS,- DCP Ar3. V.r. 2,3,7!11o..o-s

b,L-P mom., DCk.. ..23,/LeP ~

DOP Results from Rubicon.xls Pi DCP Results from Rubicon.xls P2

Numnber ofEBows Number ofBbows0 50 100 150 200) 250 300 350 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

5) r'. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~150

450 *

cm0. .. .. 225

75 -- - - - -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- 300

900 375~~~~~~- Rekeual Encountered In Thes Area

Estimated CBR (%)2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 Estimated CBR(%0 I I I I I I I ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200

0 I II150

~300 --- - - -- - 5 - -- -- - - - - - -

450 150-- --E 51~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~225

£750 .. .... .

3001300CCL__a_______________ _______________________________________ fl 375 ~ ~~~~Raedr Encountered In Ths Area

____________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~450

Thickness ~Layer Poety SummaryThickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimrated stiffhess __________________________________________

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

S a a aa a a aa a a a a-M- - a~ a a

Numrber ofBEbws Number of8lbws0 25 50 -75 113) 125 150 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

I 50 ., .I

150 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1253040 --- ' -- Ž 7175

5'250

0 750 -

0 275

Estimated CBR(%2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 150 140 200 Estimated CER(%0 I I I I I I ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200

150~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5150 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~125

j300 ---- 150

175B450

~25___________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~225 Rekisal Encountered In Thls Area

0 750 - --- - 250900 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~275

300

325

Thtkness ~~~Layer ProerySunmnaryAvg. Penetration Rtate Estimnated CBR Estimnated Stiffness

-(1lIMet ) -(M\illirnetresABwo - j)(MPa) _______Layer ProerySummary

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

R, T-h DC0 Aft.. ?5 Vw, 2.1.LbcLr Tx.,,DCI Aa-a ys '/ ., 2.3? 17 rcd

DCP Results from Rubicon.xls P5 DCP Results from Rubicon.xls PG

a a a n a a-_ a a -Ia-a-aa__ __ _ _ _ -a

Nutnber of Bbws Number of Bows0 150 300 450 600 750 900 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

9500-5 300 --

200 3~ 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 2W 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 l00 140 20000

6 00 --- - -- - - - -- - - -- -- - - -- - - _ 6 00 -- -- - -- - - -- -- -- - --- ----

46 6.7 750

0750

870-_a 70-. .a..

9000 900 . .

Estiaated CBR (%) Estimated CBR (%)2 3 5 7 10 1520 30 40 60 100 140 200 2 3 5 7 10 1520 3040 60 100 140 2000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0III

255 1 2.6 1 122 1 177- (405) - 923 l 130 1 5.5 150 1300 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~300

235 1 11.8E1 18 1 35.6- (81.2)- 185 l 450 1 20.3 1 9 1 .... 20- (450

Et600 600

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

2225 2015 6 00 -- ------ --- -- -- ----- -- -- -.-.-t5n-!-'__ ______________---- - -- -- - -

4500 -.

F00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~EtmtdCR%)2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200375 0-

75 a

i0-;... 150 --- - -- --- .---..

E ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~300 - __;60- --- ---....-RJ450 - -Pefusa3 Ericoaitared In Thy fl*-ea - 750 '1

525 ::_ 0 : .: - .: :. :. : -

45 Rpu; En:x-ee in ,; : Ar: ;

Thickness Avg. Pernetraton Rate |Estimated CBR R Estimad StiffnessLayer P oety Sunirnar,ii ( Qillirmetres) ...... M. iillimetres/Bbow) (%) ovplPaThkknes Avg. Penetation Rat Estimated CBR Estimatd Stiffness 200 0.508 > 140 1005- ( 2292) - 5226Millimetress) | Millimetres/Bkbw) I (%) | MlPa) 110 ... . ... 2.2 1140 | 212- (483) -1102225 0.248 140 21 52- (4908) -11191 200 6.63 37 65.6- (150) - 3412200 | N/h| N/A | JA _ .50 ........... 8.73 | 26 |9.1-

(112) - 255

200 N/A I - N/A 3~~~~~~~~~E 5087324

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

140 f 0.298 1 > 140 1770- (4036)- 924 230 2.12 140 220- 02) - 1146

200 -NA J N/A |NA 320 5.57 46 79.1- (10)-- 411

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"

Totalt:l Penetration Su| naRycs TToot Mknetssa tion 2.3.7 ' tLSrad) Rmco T4otex DOka-j., V; P127 Pl

DCP Results from Rubicon.xts P11 DCP Results from Rubicon.xfs P12

19.3 MESA i SatLirate relationshp publishe by Kleyn (0 Deg. Com 8.4 NESA f Sabxated elationshi published y KL-yn (6 Deg. Cone

- - a a a a as mm a a a a a m aw- m g -- a a

5Number of Blows Nurmber of Blows0 75 150 225 300 375 450 0 100 200 300 400 50W 600 700

75 - -- - - --- -- inn ------ -- - --

21-'- ---- z- -- - -- X 20 \ 15015)

225 -- -- 200~250

300%300

375 . Refusl Encountered in This Area350

450 _400...

Estimated CBR (%) Estimated CBR (%)2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 200 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 30 40 60 100 140 2000 50 -- _

75 .-- --- ---- -------

150 150 - --

225 a200________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~250300

375 refu.A ErU.mr'drad In Th: 4Ied .350

450 400

Layer Property Summary Layer Propertv SummarThickness Avg. Penetration Rate Estimated CBR j Estimated stiffness Thickness Avg. Pernetration Rate Estimated CBR Estimated Stiffness

(Millimetres) (MillimetresBblow) (%) | (MPa) (Millimetres) | (Milimetres/blow) (%Pa)180 0.344 > 140 1518- (3462) -7894 160 [ 0.427 > 140 1208- (2754) - 6279200 N/A N/A N/A 145 0.358 > 140 1458- (3325) -7583Total Penetration Suwmary Total Penetration Summary

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

100 L987 sand, very soft and very wet Material B

140Grey granular silty sand, unstabilised,

200 moist and medium dense

I 300 1.983 Material E

400 ~ ~~~~390 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _40J0 - - Orange laterite gravelly silty sand,

ee.'e .vunstabilised, moist and medium dense todense

150~~~00

*1984 & Material FI ~~~~700 1L985

900

940

-988 ~~~wet, medium dense Material G__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

NOTES

I Test pit excavated on a cloudy overcast day

TP excavated to 1 m depth, no refusal

3 Water table not present, TP not waterlogged

IMACHINE: JCB Tipper Loader Backhoe

EXCAVATED DATE: 25/7/2005 TPIPROFILED BY: GF RWY 04/22INCLINATION: VERTICAL Ch 0.36 km RHS Shoulder

E PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactorv.com

PROJECT LIRP RIA* LOCATION ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Liberia, Monrovia Alrpon Consultants



TP2

Sample No Depths Decription Remarks Photos0 Continously graded asphalt surfacing in

50 the RWY shoulder

Brown grey gravel base, lightly stabilised,

v 100 | medium dense to dense

2* _ 1.982 Material DI 200 l_250

Browny grey sandy silt as in situ

300 subbase/subgrade, wet, medium dense(see bottom photo)

400 VI 4r,0 L986B ' Material G

600 _ 600 _.... >: .Orange laterite gravelly silty sand,|:: _ *@nn-unstabilised, moist and medium dense to

dense

* ~~~~700 _ _ _ _ _ _ _

| ~~~800 1-384 B & 00 L985 ....... Matenal F

900

Ir,oo _ v 1000

NOTES

a ~~~~Test pit excavated on a cloudy overcast day


Water table not present, TP not waterlogged

MACHINE: JCB Tipper Loader BackhoeEXCAVATED DATE: 25/7/2005 TP2

PROFILED BY: GF RWY 04/22INCLINATION: VERTICAL Ch 0.96 km LHS Shoulder

I PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactorv.com

lPROJECT LIRP RLA

LOCATION ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NRCO ATLiberia, Monrovia Airpon Consultants



TP3

3 Sample No Depths Decription Remarks Photos0 Continously graded asphalt surfacing in

50 the RWY shoulder

Orange laterite gravel, unstabilised, soft10 981 & and wet Material B

125Former asphalt surfacing, which nowforms part of the subbase, which has been

overlain, probably with the resurfacing in200 1975225 __

Orange laterite gravelly silty sand,

1984U & : -:: unstabilised, moist and medium dense to11-00 L984 E 325 dense Material F

300 1985des

I 325 Grey brown clayey sandy in situ subgrade,wet, medium dense

400

500

160~~~00L't86 & Material G

1 ~~~~700 18

180~~~~00-

900i'. 925

Light brown yellowy sandy in situ

1000 _ 00 subgrade, moist and medium dense Material H

I 1000 Test pit excavation and sampling interrupted by rain


3 Water table not present, TP not waterlogged

lMACHINE: JCB Tipper Loader Backhoe

EXCAVATED DATE: 25/7/2005 TP3P ROFILED BY: GF RWY 04/22INCLINATION: VERTICAL Ch 162 km RHS Shoulder

I PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.idffactorv.com

PROJECT LIRP RLA

LOCATION ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NACO j7 vLiberia, Monrovia Airpon Consultants



TP4

Sample No Depths Decription Remarks Photos0 Continously graded asphalt surfacing in

50 the RWY shoulder

Orange laterite gravel, unstabilised,100 L981 & interspersed with lighter brown clayey

1.987 sand, soft and moist Material B

150 _Former asphalt surfacing, which now

200 forms part of the subbase, which has beenoverlain, probably with the resurfacing in F

I ____270

| ~~~~300 Orange laterite gravelly silty sand,l

L!384 S 11 , z unstabilised, moist and medium dense to

lL400 1984 J420 Material F

Grey granular silty sand, unstabilised,moist and medium dense

_ 1.983 Material E

| 600 _ 620 __

Grey brown clayey sandy in situ subgrade,

700 |-, .3wet, medium dense

aoo L1986 & | t. Material G700

1000 _1000

1 NOTES

I | | Test pit excavation and sampling undertaken shortly after rain shower




EXCAVATED DATE: 25/7/2005 TP4PROFILED BY: GF RWY 04/22INCLINATION: VERTICAL Ch 2.22 km LHS Shoulder

II PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactorv.com

PROJECT LIRP RIA

LOCATION ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NFCOLiberia, Monrovia Airpon Consultants



TP5

| Sample No Depths Decription Remarks Photos0 Continously graded asphalt surfacing in

50 the RWY shoulder

Greyey brown laterte gravel, unstabilised,

| 100 L981 & very soft and very wet Material B_ _

125 _ 3 : ' _Former asphalt surfacing, which nowforms part of the subbase, which has beenoverlain, probably with the resurfacing in

Orange laterite gravelly silty sand,unstabilised, moist and medium dense to

dense

300

L _ U184 & |'s .,. Material F1985

400

o500 500 __Light brown sandy slity subgrade, dense

60 _and stiff (see bottom photo), slightly moist

| 8~~~~00 _

700 LL!990A& Material I

800 L990A

1000 _ 1000

NOTES

| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Test pit excavation and sampling undertaken shortly after rain shower




EXCAVATED DATE: 25/7/2005 TP5PROFILED BY: GF RWY 04/22INCLINATION: VERTICAL Ch 2.94 km RHS Shoulder

U PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactorv.com

IPROJECT LIRP RIA

LOCATION ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NA COar

Libera, Monrovia Alrpon Consultants



TP6I

Sample No Depths Decription Remarks Photos

0 Thin asphalt surfacing, underlain by acoarse base aggregate, which appears tobe soaked a dark black colour from

*00 | 00 bitumen primer

Browney orange laterite gravel,unstabilised, interspersed with lighterbrown clayey sand, medium dense, and

200 L9381 & slightly moist Matenal BI_275 ' '_ _

300 Light brown yellowy sandy in situsubgrade, slightly moist and mediumdense

I ~~~400

I ~~~~500

I ~~~~600

l00 1989 Material H

I ~~~~800

190~~00

1000 _____ ___ 1000

Test pit excavated on a clear sunny and hot day




PROFILED BY: GF TWY AlINCLINATION: VERTICAL LHS Shoulder (approx Ch 0.10km)

U PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

IPROJECT LIRP RIA

LOCATION ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 5Liberia, Monrovia Alrport Consultants



TP7

Sample No Depths Decription Remarks Photos0 Thin asphalt surfacing, underlain by a

coarse base aggregate, which appears tobe soaked a dark black colour from

*0 |bitumen primer

_____ 1 | 150 _Browney orange laterite gravel,unstabilised, interspersed with lighterbrown clayey sand, medium dense, and

200 slightly moist

L981 & Material B00 1.987

* 400

450Orange laterite silty sand, interspered with

500o :-:-:-:. brown laterite gravel, unstabilised, moist... , and medium dense to dense

* 5~~~~00l _ ~~~~~~~.

I ~~~~700L'i84 & ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Material F

1-985

* 5~~~~00

10001000 .,___ ___ 1000 NOTES

Test pit excavated on a clear sunny and hot day




PROFILED BY: GF TWYBINCLINATION: VERTICAL LHS Shoulder (approx Ch 0.18km)

D PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactorv.com

lPROJECT LIRP RIA

LOCATION ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NR CIZLiberia, Monrovia r Consulants



TP8

Sample No Depths Decription Remarks Photos

0 Continously graded asphalt surfacing inthe TWY shoulder

75 _ _ _ _ _

10o Brown grey gravel base, does not appearto be stabilised, medium dense

200_ 1982 Material D _

200 25225

Orange laterite brown latente gravel,interspered with silty sand, unstabilised,

300 L384 & * moist and medium dense to dense Material F1-985 Mate.al F

355 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

400 _ Grey brown clayey sandy in situ subgrade,wet, medium dense

I 8~~~~00

l ~~~600 '-=

I 700 1-986 . Matenal G

* ~~~~800

1 900 * d

I iooo ______ ___ ___ 1000 _ _10 0 0

* ; NOTES

* Test pit excavated on a clear sunny and hot day




EXCAVATED DATE: 23/7/2005 TP8PROFILED BY: GF TWYAINCLINATION: VERTICAL (shoulder between catering bidg & VIP bidg)

U PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

IPROJECT LIRP RIA

LOCATION ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT N ACO UrLiberia, Monrovia Airport Consultants



TP9

3 Sample No Depths Decription Remarks Photos0 Edge of concrete apron

5 100 p -120 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Orange laterite gravel, unstabilised,* _ interspersed with lighter yellow clayey

200 Id7 |sand, very soft and very wet

L91& Material B

300 L987

1 400420

Browney grey clayey sandy in situ* soo . > . . subgrade, slightly moist, medium denseI ~~~~500

6m~~*

700

1.988 , Material G

4,-

* ~~~~900 '

'...

1000_o 1000

| t ~~~~~~~~NOTESI Test pit excavated on a clear sunny and hot day




EXCAVATED DATE: 23/7/2005 TP9PROFILED BY: GF ApronINCLINATION: VERTICAL Concrete Apron Shoulder

U PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactorv.com

lPROJECT LIRP RLA

LOCATION ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AI ~~~~~~~~~NRCOUoa.T"Liberia, Monrovia



TPIO

3 Sample No Depths Decription Remarks Photos0 Continously graded asphalt surfacing in

the asphalt apron shoulder

100 Grey granular silty sand, unstabilised,moist and medium dense

1.983 Material E

170200 Orange laterite gravel, unstabilised,interspersed with lighter brown clayey

sand, medium dense, and slightly moist

L-981 & Material B

l 300 1.987

370| 400X Orange laterite silty sand, interspered with

brown laterite gravel, unstabilised, slightlymoist and medium dense to dense

15~~~~00

I L)84 700 1985 & Material F

* _ ..,:.00

I 8~~~~00

£ 1000- _ g 1000

| *- : :- ~~~~~NOTES3 Test pit excavated on a clear sunny and hot day


l Water table not present, TP not waterlogged

MACHINE: JCB Tipper Loader BackhoeEXCAVATED DATE: 23/7/2005 TPIO

IPROFILED BY: GF ApronINCLINATION: VERTICAL Asphalt Apron Shoulder

P

I PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.Ddffactorv.com

NRCO Sr3 Airport Consultants

ll

III

I APPENDIX F

| ASPHALT CORE PROFILES

l

III

LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051125.docRoberts Intemational Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report F November 2005

I

- --- - -- inmmm -- -- mm

LIRP RIALIRP RIA

JulytAug 2005JulyJAug 2005

CORE I A CORE IAROBERTS 1.RORS _R_S

INTERNATIONAL ROBERTS

AIRPORT I INTERNATIONAL

MONROVIA, LIBERIA AIRPORT

la .MONROVIA, LIBERIA

A.rpo rt Co 13j2 i A

LIRP RIAI ; * * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LIRP RIA

_ ~~~~~~~~~~~JulylAug 20W5 LIR RIJuIyIAug 2005 July/Aug 2005

;-._ COREIA eI. _CORE IAROBERTS

INTERNATIONAL INTEROBERTS

AIRPORT INTERNATIONAL


MONROVIA, UBERIA

WpCOI Cv-,ft A a


- m m m m m m m -

U - LIRP RIA

LIRP RIA OA JulylAug 2005

JulylAug 2005

CORE2A - CORE 2A_n ROBERTS

ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

AIRPORT MONROVIA, LIBERIA

MONROVIA, LIBERIA ISO

NRCON&PO (3ftK *NRyt

_ > >N C II 3 ~ . , . . , CU|

* * LIRP RIA LIRP RIA

U JulylAug 2005 JulylAug 2005

CORE2A CORE 2AROBERTS __ROBERTSINTERNATIONAL

INTERNATIONAL r INTERNATIONAL

m AIRPORT iRIMONROVIA LIBERIA AIRPORT

mn ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MONROVIA, LIBERIA

N NCRCOW| 9-:


m - --- m m - -- - m m

* LIRP RIA ,LR I

* f~~~~~~~~~~~uly.Augq 2005 5lJulylAug 2005

COREBI - CORE BIU , ROBERTS -'


U AIRPORT INTERNATIONAL


MONROVIA. LIBERIA

-A

INRCON&~M- ArrnFI COfl;,~ - NRCO0A"f¶Jm

Awrport ConisuItanta

LIRP RIA V LIRP RIA

JulyJAug 2005 JulylAug 2005

COREB I CORE BI-*--- ROBERTSROBERTS

INTERNATIONAL IINTRNATIONAL

AIRPORT AIRPORTMONROVIA, LIBERIA

MONROVIA. LIBERIA

PDF createdl with pdfFactory trial version www.DdffA NRCOc


mmm-- -m - - - m m m - m - m -

LIRP RIA LIRP RIA

July/Aug 2005 JulylAug 2005

CORE B2 CORE B2ROBERTS * ROBERTS

r-: .* INTERNATIONAL . INTERNATIONAL

- g ' ' AIRPORT * AIRPORT

MONROVIA. LIBERIA MONROVIA. LIBERIA_; , z ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~160 .__

-'I" ---. .. ..

LIRP RIALIRP RIA

JulylAug 2005- " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~July/Aug 2005

So-

CORERB2 CORE B2e w ROBERTS E * ROBERTS

INTERNATIONAL - INTERNATONAL

AIRPORT AIRPORT

MONROVIA. LIBERIA MONROVIA, LIBERIA

A rpo,- Consulitants _- , . " 41fl


- -- -- - m m m m m m m m m m - m

LIRP RIA

JulyJAug 2005 LIRP RIA

so0- _" 5 ~ July,Aug 2005

CORE LI CORE LI4 , ROBERTS I _ ROBERTS

INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT AIRPORT

MONROVIA, LIBERIA MONROVIA. LIBERIA

L, ~ ~~~~~NRC O Isa~!L N ArrrlCnO (3Airpor1 Cons Ita r

e , + ~- inLIRP RIA tIRP RIA

fl July!Aug 2005 J ,j*IyAuq 2005

* CORELI , CORE LIROBERTS U ROBERTS


AIRPORT AIRPORT

MONROVIA. LIBERIA I MONROVIA, LIBERIA

s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~a., _ .. --NRCOUVNNC SfAv^rpoll Co"g; gi>g * A,wp-ll C-oUlZ, 3 i


- - --- -- - -- -- -- - -- m -

LJRP RIA

_ JuIylALig 2005 LIRP RIA

SON _ _ 50 JulylAug 2006

COREPI CORE P1io

ROBERTS 100 R1BERTS

-- ~~~~~~~INTERNATIONAL | *RBET

AIRPORT INTERNATIONAL_ --- AIRPORT~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ARPR

MONROVIA. LIBERIA AIRPORTMONROVIA, LIBERIA

* NRCCW-m* A

LIRP RIA LIRP RIA

JuIy)Auq 2005 July/Aug 2005_ dO

CORE PI CORE Pl100 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~100 -

ROBERTS ROBERTS


_ - AIRPORT AIRPORT

MONROVIA LIBERIA MONROVIA. LIBERIA

A- ^rilert (o] 1 < 7 * \illt>*tv 'A 'fww NR 30WF]. .63

NRPDFsN ; crae w d r l o p r

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.iDdffactorv.com

- - m - - m - m - m - m - m m m m - -

LIRP RIALIRP RIA

July/Aug 2005 Juip'Aug 2005

CORE P2 CORE P2150

eROBERTS ROBERTS


AIRPORT AIRPORT

MONROVIA, LIBERA MONROVIA, LIBERIA

NRCO Is... NRIsom- -- ra

* PIA UIRP RI

i,;y Auq 2005 tityI/Aug 2005

COREP2 COREP 2

ROBERTS ROBERTS


* AIRPORT AIRPORT

MONROVIA. LIBERIA MONROVIA, UBERIA

A ANRCO 5in'-- NRcI -

PDFcrate wtA - -JdFco 'ytral vrio. wwJdf ct orJco

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www Ddffactorv.com

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-1 n_CD

CD LitP URP rtACL 1405 20 Ju_tylA.. 2005

C 4 CORE P3 gr COREP3144)111 f4t 4 -- - ROBERTSa INTtRNAI IoNAL i INTERNATIONAL

0 AIR POR I

MONRiOVIA IRI IlMA MONROVIA I lBERiA

(D :1 -, -1

-' P RIA LllIP l-1A*$ * i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~JJ,yreA, 2005 J,,IlyVA,,'Ulobs

o NFICORE CORE

n * ; _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ROBERTSftO"t R1S. NENTOA-Ct IhA,- ~~~~~~~~~~~~INtERNATIONAL NEATOA

-t AtRPORT AIRPOZI4

U -' H *FR VA,UEt

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~MNOI, , _RI MONROVIA, UBtEMA-_

A _ - *,,, -* iwir_ . ar

Z g S

U~~~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~~~~z

~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- 3

~~~~~ U~~~~~~~~

o CORE CORE~~~~~~~~~

- - -- -- -- -- - -- - --- - m -

-tRP R;A L-IQP lIA

iubl'Atuq ZOD5 Jufy/Aug 2005

COREP4 CORE P4100 100

ROBERTS * ROBERTS


AIRPORT AIRPORT


150K1 -~ 50*3 _

NR~~~~~~~~~~O~S

ON - OK~~~~~~~~--A -mAiNRC C-, NRC AON C n]a

O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A - C ,__. Aipr CO .5 _e .N

LIRP RIA tRP RIA

July/Aug 2005 so Ji.tIyAW 2005

CORE P4 , CORE P4100 ROBERTS 100 ROBERTS

- INTERNATiONAL INTERNATiONAL

AIRPO'RT * AIRPORT

- - IFMONROVIA, LIBERIA MONROVIA, UBERIA

NRCOU" NRCO:!A rport j ? Alrp.rT CoCnj4Aro ') .j,o


- - --- - - --- -- -- - -- - - -

LIRP RIA LIRP RIA

JulylAug 2005 July/Aug 2005

- CORE P5 CORE P5ROBERTS - ROBERTS


AIRPORT AIRPORT

MONROVIA. LIBERIAMONROVIA, LIBERIA

__. - rs __

LIRP RIA LIRP RIA

July)Aug 2005 JulfyAug 2005

CORE P5 COREP5sj - . -ROBERTS w ROBERTS


-AIRPORT - AIRPORT

MONROVIA. LIBERIAMONROVIA. LIBERIA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~MOROIA LBEI

In

-NRCAw

NRCO.i^* t'"W59tat[3 1K131 A rp,ort C,-sotan°

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.idffactory.com

- m m mi n m- m- - m - m - -

LIRP RIA LIRP RIA

July/Aug 2005 J ulylAug 2005

CORE RI CORE RI_ _______I_ ROBERTS


AIRPOR' INTERNATIONAL

MONROVIA, UBERIA * AIRPORTMONROVIA. USERIA

NL* -- wNRC1s_ __

A.rpon Consultants

LIRP RIA LIRP RIA

JulylAug 2005 July/Aug 2005

CORE RI CORE RI_____________ ROBERTS -4: - R O 8 E R T S - - - -= -R O B E R T S

i INTERNATIONAL _ INTERNATIONALAIRPORT

AIRPORTMONROVIA. LIBERIA MIONROVIA. LIBERIA

Awr-t uNsR C.


- - -- ---- - - -- -- - -- -

LIRP RIA LIRP RIA

July!Aug 2005 s July;Aug 2005

CORE R2 CORE R2| - ROBERTS ROBERTS

INTERNATIONAL INrERNATIONAL

AIRPORT AIRPORT

MONROVIA, LIBERIA MONROVIA, LIBERIA

NRCO ; Urns NRCOOjM-731E i] Arpcrt Cormuhants

IRP rIA LIRP RIA

Aj q ZO05s JulylAug 2005

UCORE R2 CORE R2

- - .- ROBERTS ROBERTS


AIRPORT U AIRPORT


a A rrJ.n C:orlt;rno~~~A

PDF C-tipftancs * version 'fPDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.iDdffactorv.com

- - - - - -- - -- - - - - -

LIRP RIA

July/Aug 2005 . ta5D i ,ct0s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A.,jj S0OF

CORER3 , CORE R3100 U_ ROBERTS '00

INTERNATIONAL ROBERTsINTERNATIONAL _ INTERNATIONAL

_-- -- AIRPORT IRPORT

MONROVIA, LIBERIA U bONROVIA tJPERI

- LIRP RIA * LI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ORP V RIA RI

so ! July/~~~~~~~~au 2 0 0 Isom *.Jyxu W

uo~~~~~~ NPCOURR-O O."B pamwNCOR R3 wCO

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U100. 1soe . -1i:

0

LIRP RIAso ~~~~~~~~~~July/Aug 2005JIyAg20

- ~~~~~~~~CORER3 CORER 3 .ROBERTS ROBERTS


AIRPORT AIRPORT

, -MONROVIA. LIBERIA MONROVIA. LIBERIA

NRCOW sa**0 " U


- - - m - - -- - - m - - - m - -

* -LIRP RIA

July/Aug 2005 *

- LIRP RIA

5 CORE R ~4 p.---s -> JulylAug 205

100 ~-' ROBERTS CORE R 4INTERNATIONAL *

AIRPORT ice ROBERTS

. MONROVIA, LIBERIA INTERNATIONAL

_ - _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AIRPORTAfi -qW - MONROVIA LIBERIA

NPCOUS%m '134A-- X l ,0,

LIRP RIA LIRP RIA

JulylAug 2005 JodylAug 2005

CORE R4 CORE R4ROBERTS

INTERNATIONAL IfTERNATIONAL

f ^ AIRPORT * AIRPORT

El _ _ - MONROVIA. LIBERIA MONRO91A. LIA

- NRNRCOC SIAt ,p


- - - -- -- - m - - m

LIRP RIA LIRP RIA

An " ~ JulylAug 2005 July/Aug 2005

CORER5 CORE R5100 ROBERTS ROBERTS


_ - AIRPORT * AIRPORT

M - ~ LIONROVIA, U8ERIA MONROVIA. LIBERIA

A OJ~' ~NRCO*

NRO. . . __ ,

* ULIRP RIA LIRP RIA

JUIVy-Auq 2005 July!Aug 2005

CORER5 CORE R5ROB SROBERTS

w ROBERTS --- - ~ INTERNATIONAL

- - INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

AIRPORT .M MONROVIA, LIBERIA

- MONROVIA. LIBERIA

- ---------- NRCO USI

NRCIg Jiz rr Onslt^[c DA-m-1 Co

r Gnon u,


- ---- - -- - - m - - - -

tit -'U -

LIRP RIA LIRP RIA

JuIyiAug 2005 U July/Aug 2005

CORER6 CORER 6

-100 a- ROBERTS -' ROBERTS


AIRPORT LIBRI AIRPORT

!MIIIIONROVIA. LIBERIA tlMONROVIA LIBERIA

* u 1 1. cJQ:1~ _

LIPP RIA *

Au q2005 0 ,< 0 cc t0

.m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .CORE R6

* , ROBERTS

INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT

MONROVIA, LIBERIA

'CU - - P-xrprrConsoltants,

PFrt wihpFco traves w ! d * * * * I


in m minm-- -- -- - -n - - -- -

- it. x

.ORE R7ROBEPTS

INTERNAT'ONAL

AIRPORrMONROVIA L!BERIA

A 59 AX . u u * * NPCO;is.

~~~~~~~ * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IRP RIA

o ulyfAug 2005

! SORE R7p -- ROBERTS

! =--- - INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT

- -~ -- MONROVIA, LIBERIA

*mm s r . E + *'2 NRCO se5mt


m - - -- - - m - m m - -

LIRP RIA LIRP RIA_W ~ *. -July)Aug 2005 JulylAug 2005

CORE R8 CORE R8" ROBERTS ~_ - _ ROBERTSINTERNATIONAL

INTERNATIONALAIRPORT L

MONROVIA, LIBERAMONROVIA, LIBERIA

ANPDO~J j* I IJNROVA L8R(A

*~~~~~~~~~~~RO eggulg

Airport ConSuiurdts

LIRP RIA lRP RIAJulylAug 2005 July/Aug 2005

CORE R8 CORE RB--U ' ,,ROBERTS Ioo ROBERTS

INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONALAIRPORT

MONROVIA, LIBERIA L MONROVIA, UBERIA

NRCO_ptF A * N-O i- n ':PDF~ croate. with~ pdfFactory trialversionwww.pdffactorv.com


LI. m -

~C ~ > LJIRP RIA

_ ; r z JutlyAug 2005

i~~~~~~~~~ ,

CORE R9Goo

ROBERTS

INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT

MONROVIA. UBERIA

- W 11 NRCD ...... -m

PDF .

8 U

~z xo ~c0 a~

< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Juty/Aug 2005

CORE R9ROeERTSINTERNATIONALAIRPORT

MONROVIA, LIBERIA

I~~~~~~~~~~~E ~~~~~~~~~NRCC; Uslwl-

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version W\AW pdffactorv corn

m rrnm m m m - -

* LIRP PiA -RP RIA

g.m Jiily/At,g 2005 0 ju y Auiq 2005

CORE¶R10 CORE RIO* o ROBERTS ' o ROBERTS


AIRPORT AIRPORT

MONROVIA. LIBERIA MONROVIA. LIBERIAMONROVIA. ~ ~ LIBER.I.A

A~~~~~~~~~~~

NRCOUs.u A.r-pf.,rottants

- _,_ ~~~~~~~~Awporl Consu-Na-3C 1T-47 3*10 '743

*_ --

LIRP RIA LIRP RIA

U .JulylAug 2005 JulylAug 2005

CORER10 CORER10ROBERTS - ROBERTS

INTERNATIONAL - INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT AIRPORT

MONROVIA. LIBERIA MONROVIA, LIBERIA

:s. A SAtu ,PDF crae ihpfacoytilvri NRCO m

~~J,[j 'i~~~~~~~3~~~ * ~A tT-ofl t

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.Ddffactory-com

ANRCo Use...Airport Consultants

l

lIIlI

I APPENDIX G

3 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

III

II

LIBERIA INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT GF.RN-RIA Pav.Ass.Rep.fin.rev.051125.docRoberts Intemational Airport Contract 7134313Pavement Assessment Report G November 2005

I

1 ~~~36/38 Fourth Street, Booysens Reserv*, Johanniesburg 2091 mP 0 Box 82223, Southdale 2135 l l 2Tel: +27 (0)11 835-3117 # Fax: +27 (0)11 835-2503 ia

Email: [email protected] Website: www.olvilab.co.za Civil Engineering T stng Laboratories

Road Indicator Test DataI ~ ~~Pro ect IROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIBERIAiProiect No. 11030/Ri 75/08/2005 Dae 9 Spebr20

SamRIe No. L9Ol L987 _ ___Sampla No L98I L98 ____

Field Ref. No. Material B Material a %c~arse Sand 6 7 1Depth Retest Retest %Fine Sand 49 5__ _

sieve size %Psig% Pasuin~a % Passing %Silt and CIa& 444 _

75.00 100 I 100 ____ NMC% Not Tested Not Tated I___63.00 100 I 100 LludLmt 26 20 1_ ____

53.00 100 100' F____ iastlcity I

3750 100 I0 au, ___ Index ____I ~~~~~26.50 100 100' Linear Shrink. 4. 4.5_ ___

4.720 809 Grading 1.23 1,4__ _ 75__ __ __ __ 77_ __ _ Modulus 2.00 74 71- H.R.B. A-2-6 (0) IA-2- L

0.425 70 86 ____ The results reported relate only to e0.25 63 59___ _____ samples tested.

_______________ 46 _ ___ Documents may only be reproduce8 or0.075 33 30 _____ published in their tull context.

* L~~~~~~~~~~7-------7 - -`77747.

I a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

40I ______ ______~~~~~~~~~~~~r 7. ... IrI 0 _ _ _ _ _

Analy.se.s. .codn .o .ehd Al . .. a.. .2. 7IadISofTHII Remarks:~~1BRANCHES RIO ~~~~~~~8b1fRG~~~~PTETE1~~~~MA-R--T- - T 1

21 E 5(E)0:9C08thIAINN: AE

36/38 Fourth Street, Booysens Reserve, Johannesburg 2091 mITel: +27 (0)11 835-3117 * Fax: +21 (Q)1 1 8,352503Ernail: jhbQcivil&b,co.za Website: www.civilab.co.za Civil Engi eertng etng Laboratories

Road Indicator Test DataW 70 fct IROBERTS lPNTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIBERIA ~E I

Proect No. 1030RI75108/205Date 17 September 20051

Sample No81SB L982 L983 Sample N. 498 LI 82 L983

FielId Rat. No. AateriaA Material D Material F. %Caarse Send /i ____/ 12

De th __________ %Fin'e Sand 47 5 51

sieve size %Pissna % Passing % Puisins %Silt and Clay 4 ___ 38- 75.00 100o 100 100 NMC % NoY ested Notese Not Tested

- 6o0 100/ 100 100 lu1d UrmIt 25 P 17

53.00 106 100 100 PlasticIty P5

37.50 A00 100 100 Inclex ___

- 26.50 100 A 100 100 Linear Shrink. . __.5 1.5

19.00 100, 100 100 OverallP.l. /6 V_ P 3

- 13.20 98 98 96 Grading 1.38 1.10 1.28

4.75 j77 as 80 Modulus _____

2.00 /70 81 7o H.R.B. A-2A420 A- J -I A-2-4 (0)

0.425 82 77 67 The results reported relate onlyt the

0.____5 56/ 69 58 samples tested.0._____ ;I 4 44 Dcuments may only be reprod dor

- 0.075 1 29 1 32 1 29 pblished In their full context.

U , . ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~LQ81 -uL952 L

I so~~~~~0 -, -------- 4-- . ... . . ----->, -

-0

I 40 -- ~~-J---4

m ~~~~~~~0.01 Ci110 100

PunIsle Sm. ineI(mml) I oare Fine IMedlur CQf Co

3andI

Aknalvses accordinp to methods Al (a), A2, A3 and A5 of TMHI (1 98 ebd4..MHI (170Remarks:

07. SEP 05 WED~ 16n00 COMMU.(NICATION N-.26 PAOE. 2

U 31638 Fourth Street. Booysens Reserve, Johannesburg 2091P 0 BOx 82223, Southdale 2135 C ivilabTel: +27 (0)11 835-31 17- Fax: +27 (0)11 B36-2603Email: [email protected] Websito: www.eivilab.co.za Civil Engineering esting Laboratories

3 Road Indicator Test DataPoect IROBERTS INTRNATIONAL A-IRPORT LIBERIAIPoect No. 11030/Rl7510812006 IData 17 September 2005

I Sample No. L984 1.96 L98 SaMple No. L984 L 85 -L988

Field Reof. No. Material F Material F Materdal G %Coarse Sand 7 8 9

__Depth . ._. %Fine S nd 49 __ 6 36Sieve size %Passing % Passing % Aaasuini %Slit and Clay 43 _ 7 55

75.00 100 100 100 NMC % Not Tested Not ested Not Tested63.00 100 100 100 Llqukl LImt 20 13 24

- 53.00 100 100 100 Plasticity 9

37.50 100 100 96 Index __ _

26.50 100 100 92 Linear Shrink. 2.5 . 3.5

19.00 100 100 90 Overall P.l. 6 1 6 6

13.20 100 100 88 GradIng 1.05 _ 29 1.104.75 91 80 80 Modulus I__ _ . _

2.00 63 71 77 H.R.B. A-4A0) A-; A (0) A-4AiL

0.425 76 6e 70 The mesults reported relate onry o the

_ 0.25 70 60 67 samples tested.

0.15 54 49 58 Documents may only be reprod ced Or

0.075 _ 36 33 42 published in their full conlexL

H _L9 - _-19845 " 5 08-

1 | 1 0 0~~~7I7U ____- * -b-__ s --- |-- ; *-r S- 9-1- -- X -Y-0-"-

.,I.L..I....1 * ..... S....i..s.... I -

- - - - -* - -.. - -r

U~~~~ ~ ~ ~~7

.2 S' ,I , , I. I_ ri, _i4

I * ,~~~~~~~~~I

0 ,,, _,__.;_I.0<_ Wix z M4{1

*--- L ww >'lIa

... I 4 1,.1I.

P_rtd V _ (mm) Fine Medium -Coarse ,Fhe M.._, __._. - -__

K ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~adGrave oa

Analyses accordin. to methods Al(a). A2, A3 and AS of TMHI (1988) end method A4 of *'* (1970)'I ~ ~~~Remarks;

07. SEP 0 (wEr,) , ,6 0 CO.MMUrNICATION N-26 PACE. 3

I 36d~~~38 Fourth Street, Booysens Reserve, Johannesburg 2091m* * *P 0 Box 82223, Southdale 2135 LiE iilbF -Teal: +27 (0)11 835-3117 ' Fax: +27 (0)1 1 835-2503E.mail: [email protected] V Website: www.civIIab.ca.za Ervil E-ngineering Tasting Laboaratories

Road Indlcator Test DataIproject ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIBERIA I7ISpeme 201Project No. 1030/R175108/2005 Doate7Seemr20

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ c,-lub m e 4 _ _ _ _

Samrnle No. 1-7 98 989 sample No. &987 j B8 L989Field Ref. No.-aareria,4 MaterialG 6Material H %Coarse Sand 2L 2

Depth --e %As asn asn %Fine Sand 2CI31sieveh s __a______ Passin__ %FSin Stand Cla 0" 31U _________00 /10 00 10 NMC % Ng Tested Not ested Not Tested

63.00 ioo_____ ___ _ Uiquid Limit 44 A 4 25

537.00 iPlI10 0 asticity 21/0 10

26.50 _______ 2 Linear Shrink. A' -4. 4.

19.00 __o__ 90 OveraIllP.I. Z1 7 Jf 45

1____20_ ____-___ Granding i.06 1.18 0.88

4.75 72o8 e8 ModuLtus __________

-0.425 9 87 86 The reuldts reported relats only IDthe

0__25 66 84~ 84 samples tested.fulonet _ _ _ _

0.15 6 55 76 Documents mnay only be reprodL cod or

so -.-.--. .- ~1 L .87 L -8 -

I 8~~~~~~007 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I,,

go .¶I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~420 -

. . . .. . . . . I ….. . .

10 . ._ _ .... ._

0.01 0.11 0 100

PunloI 5w (Ii~i)Fine. Medium ICcurse llne MedlunI Coa

Sand I Gavel

Analyses according to metho4s Al (a). A2. A3 and AS of TMH1I (1985) and

Remars: H E

07. SEP 05 (WED) 16:01 CoOMMUNIcAT:ON N-26 PAGE. 4

Il

31 8/38 Fourth Steet, Booysens Reserv, Johannesburg 2091P 0 Box 82223, Southdale 2135 C l Hablrel: +27 (0)11 835-3117 * Fax: f27 (0)11 835-2503Email: jhb@civilab-coza - Website: www.civilab.co.za Civil Engineering Testing Laboratories

Road Indicator Test DataI [Proiot IROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIBERIALProievt No, 10301R175108/2005 IDate 17 September 200' i

Sample No. L990 L990A Sample No. L990 L 90AField Ref. No. Material I Material I |%Coarse Sand 10 8 8Depth %Fine Sand 37 38

Sieve size %Passing % Passin % Passing %Silt and Clay 63 54

75.00 100 100 . NMC % Not Tested Not Tested63.00 100 10 r__ I Liquid Limit 29 I 2953.00 100 100 Plasticity 1 1

- 37.50 100 1W_ Index26.50 100 100 Linear Shrink. 4.6 4.519.00 100 100 _ Overall P._ 8 a

* 13.20 100 100 Grading 1.09 .124.75 88 87 _ _ Modulus . .U 2.00 79 77 .___ H.R.B. A _ (2) A_

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 . . .|.

I 3D!° + '_ ' j |t''' ~ " > ' | ' ' | , _,_. _' _ _ _

0.01g I ; - | .- L, ,-L F--X-,---;--,---;-. ,St-----l-----, ,-; ;] --: ' ;-l 100

Particle Sizo (mm) Fine -7Medium coarseI Fine Medium C

Analyses according to methods Al (a). A2. A3 and A5 of TMII1 (1 986) a amIA'SuI ~ ~~~~Remarks: 1

- | 1 50t-4ANCie-C- , J IOl;ANEBU PiE ;MAT!LR .tl PrlT |3~~ --Prs ;l

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

| ~~~~~et _m: Remarks:_ CDescription: BASE/SUBBASE

______ 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

( (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) (kgIma) (%1 (kgm) %) t%)24 26 27 0.2 14.0 1995 101.222 22 21 0.2 15.1 1970 12.0 1893 96.1 12.015 14 13 0.9 16.6 . 1801 91.4 .

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

| ~~~~~~~07. 8EP ' 05 (WED) 16:02 COMINICATION No:26 PAOE. 6

I| v~~~~ow4o ruuitii ot"ut, ouuytitsfs ruswrvc, %juntnrinewurg eu::SI

P 0 Box 62223, Southdale 2135, South Africa. C v ila bPhone: +27 (0) 11 835-3117. Fax: +27 (0) 11 835-2503E-mafl: [email protected] - Website: www.civilab.co.za Civil Engineerin | Testing Laboratoriss

California Bearing Ratio ResultsU ~~~~Project: ROKIRTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIBERIA ________

Project No.: 1030/R175/0812005 Date: 1 Sep 2005Field Reference; MATERIAL B Lab, Sarnple Ref: L987Depth (mi): Remarks: UntreatedDescription: BASE/SUBBASE ____________ ________

______ *CBR at Final Mod AASHTO Data CBF Coompaction Data

* 2.54 5.08 7.62 Swell Moisture Max Dry Optimum Dry Com- lMoistureContent Density Moisture Density paction Content

(mm) (mm) (mm) _ () (%) (kg/rn5) t%3 (kg/lrn) t%) t%322 20 19 0.0 22,1 1855 100.4115 15 0.1 23.1 1847 15.2 1773 96.0 15.21 10 10 9 . 0.2 25.2 1673 90.6 ._

IntrplaedData compaction go% 93% 95% 98% 100%

* .~~nepoae _____CBR 10.1 12.3 14.0 18.0 21.I

1000

l g ~~~~~~9.0 92.0 4.0 9 .0 9 .o 100.01C. compaction {z53

| ~~~~The samnples were tested in accordancewf Method Ag of TMHI of 1990.f* ~~~~T.he results reported relate only to the samples tested.

Docurnents may only be reproduced or published in their fufl context.

o 3~~~~~~RANCHES CENTURION +JOHANNESBURG *PIETERMARITZBURG PINC: IRG 1YEI

* 0 8soe~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tn Roo > ueIf

| ~~~~~~~~07. SEl ' 05 (WED) 16:03 COMMNICATION N,:26 PAGE. 7

P 0 Box 82223, Southdale 2135, South Afrca. C la bPhone: +27 (0) 11 835-3117. Fax: +27 (0) 11 835-2503E-mail: jhbQcivab.co.za " Website: www.civilab.co.za Clvil Enginesrin Testing Laboratories

California Bearing Ratio ResultsProject R~OBERTS INTERNATIQNAL AIRPORT LIBERIA _______Project No.: 10301R175/0812005 Date: 1 Sep 2005Field Reference: MATERIAL D Lab. Sampfe Ref: L982Depth (n): Ramarks: Untreated Description: BASE

_____ C9R at _ Flnal Mod AASHTO Data CB Compacton Data

2.54 5.08 7.62 Swell Moisture Max Dry Optimum Dry Com- MoistureContent Density Moisture Density pacUon Content(mm) (mm) (mm)_ (%) (%k) jj ) (%) (kg/rnr) (%)

90 94 8o 0.0 11.0 2105 100.143 45 45 0.0 12.2 2102 8.7 2009 95.6 8.718 15 12 0.1 13.5 19t1 . 0, ,9

r ~~~~~~~~~~~Compaction s0% 93% 95% 98% 1100%Interpolated DataHB4 15.7 27.0 38.8 63.9 8.

I _

I,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

01

I U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

z90.: 92. 94.0 96.0 98.0 00.0 102.0w ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Compoethn (%30

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) (%) (%)

* 64 54 44 0.1 11.9 2069 100.422 1s 17 0.3 13.5 2061 8.4 1967 95.4 8.3

|~~~~ ~ 11. 9 9 0.3 14.8 1876 9.

Interpolated Data_Compactlo__ 90% g3 9 98% 100%ICInterpolated DataCR5 15.2 38.5 iql

1000

I~~~~~I I 9.... _ .0

Compactlon (.1) {

LI

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

1 07. SEP [05 (WEflD 1604 co1~wuN:cATIoN No.26 QE. 9,,

| 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 . . _-

Project No.: 1030/Rl 75/0812005 Date: 1 Sep 2005Field Reference: MATERIAL F Lab. Sample Raf: L984Depth (m): Remarks: UntreatedIP ___ __ __ __DQSCnPtiQn: 8ASE/SUSBASE

*_____ 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

(mM) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) (kg/rn2) (%) (kg1mW) (%) (%)*64 72 75 0.0 10.4 2161 101.228 28 27 0.0 12.1 2135 8.4 2056 96.3 8.51 1000 9 . 9 0.1 13.4 . 1952 __1314

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Interpolated Data | Iompactlmn 9 s% j 1 93 s% im9% I 100Ye

| 5 ~~~10 XX20

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* ~~~ ~ ~~90.0 92.0 94.0 989.0 98.0 100.0 102.0- ~~~~~~~~~~~~Compatoan (eh)

( ~~~~The samnples were tested in accordance with Methd AS of TMI-1 of i ego,1 ~~~~The resu ts reported relate only to the sarnples tested,

Documents may only be reproduced or published in their full context.

* ~~ - ==-----

InvestmGnt Facility Company 842 (Pty) Limited trading as t2vilub and 10BRANCHES: CENTURION . JOHANNESBURG PPIETERMARFrjBURG S P VETOID

_ 07. _EP ___ __ED) _6_04 ___OAtJNICAN _c6 PC0.7 S 2005

| ~~~~~~~07. SEP '05 (WED) 16:04 COMMNICATION Na :2G PAOE. 10

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

(mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) (kgirn) (l%) (kg/rnl) (%) (%)51 49 45 0.1 13.9 20B8 8 101.6265 24 22 0.1 15.8 2034 11.4 1954 96.0 11.5*10 a 7 0.3 1b.6 .8 1863 916

Interpolated Data Compaction J90% 1 98%3% 1 00%'Jnterpolated Data K CBR 7.6 13.6 20.0 31.6 | 41-i7

1 _1000

| ~~~ ~~~90.0 §2.0 94.0 96.0 s8a' 100.0 102.0 104.0* ~~~~~~~~~~~Comspact on %

< ~~~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

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

| ~~~~~~~~07. CZP ' 05 (WED) 16:05 COMUNICATION No:26 PAGE.1i1

BP 0 ox 82223, Southdale 2135; Sou ica.iPhone: +27 (0) 11 835-3117. Fax: 427 (0) 11 835-25033 E-mail: [email protected];oza Website www,livilab.co.ze Civil Engisr g Testing Laborstories

California Bearing Ratio ResultsProject: ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIBERIA _

Project No.: 1030/R1 75/08/2005 Date: 1 Sap 2005Field Reference: MATERIAL G Lab. Sample Ref; L986Depth (m): Remarks: UntreatedDescription: $UBBASE/SUBGRA_P

* CBR at - Final Mod AASHTO Data CGB Compaction Data2.54 5.08 7.52 Swell Moistuire Max Dry Optimum Dry Com- Moistfire

Content Density Moisture Densi paction Content(mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) (kgIm*) (%) (kg9in4 (%) (%)

29 26 26 0.0 11.9 2127 100.621 19 18 0.1 13.5 2115 10,3 2023 95.7 10.413 . _ 0 . 1 ' 15.2 .. .916 90.6

Interpolated Data C0o0mp s R 1z% 93% 95%A 98% 100%

I: ~~~~1000 - - - - .- - . - .- F .

| ~~~~90.0 92.0 94.0 96.0 98.0 00.0 102.0 * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Cnmpactlon (%)

~~~~.7

| ~~~~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

CO~~~~~~~~~~~~TW

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ n I¶n gpur

Compactlonun ( I

3 07. 6E?P 05 (WED) t6:06 COW,(UNIOATION No:26 PAGE. 12

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

| 07. SEP ' 05 (WED) 16:06 COMMUNICATION No:26 PAGE. 13

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

(mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) (kglns) (%) (kg/ml) (%) (| ~~ ~ ~~~15 16 16 I 0.5 14.5 1 1918 100.69 9 9 0.6 16.6 1906 12.2 1821 95.5 12.2S 4 4 ~~~~~~~0.7 1 B.1 17890.T __

|~ ~~ ~~~~Itroae Data Compaction 9 0oe 1 % 1 95% 8/L IftBrpolated Pata CSR 4_6 5 8 11.4 13.9

1000

I~~~~~

.,~ ~~~- ------- I

I I~~~~~~1

90.0 92.0 94.0 96.0 98.0 1C0.0 102.0CompActlon (%)

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.

BRANCHES: CENTURION * JOHMANESBURG * P1rTERMARITZBUFRG INS£I @ HYEID

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.

| ~~~~~BRANCHES CENTURtION 9 JOHANWIS13URG PIETERMARITZBURG * tINlE llCj Blte \ SRYHEID

| ~~~~~~~~07.GEP '05 (WEI)) 16:08 COMMUNICATION No:26 PAO7.i5

I|u r-uuFu? znreew, tsooysens Reserve, Joheannesburg 2091P 0 Box 82223, SoutIdale 2135Tel: .27 (0)11 835-3117. Fax: +27 (0)11 835-2503 - la bEmail: [email protected] * Website; www.civflab.coza Civil Engineering Tes ing Laboratories

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

* [Mlsximum Dry Density: 1970 ko/m 3 _pt3mum Moisture Content: 12.0 %

l I '~~~1980^ __='

1970 ---- --

1950 - ~ * 1- ---- tl- - - - - -

Ir'1950 -1-_t -_\0-

l Qt~1 9 40 . - -_ _t _ _ _ _ _-1

01930.-......

1920-- - - _ ___

1910 _ _

19009 10 1 Allstur* nt.nt (%) 1

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

0o07.n 6 opia'

3 ~~~~~~~07.92 'P05 (WED) 16:08 COMM4UNICATION. N*.26 PACE. 16

3oI,18 ,-ourin street, Booysens Reserve, Johannesburg 2091P 0 Box 82223, Southdale 2135Tel: +27 (0)11 835-3117 a Fax: +27 (0)11 835-2503 C lo bU Ema1: [email protected] . Websits: www.civ;i1b.co.za Civil Engineering Tes ingLaboratories

Moisture Density RelationshipProject: ROBRTSNERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIBERIAProject No.: l 030/RI 75108205 Date: . 7 August 2005Field Reference: MATERIAL B Laboratory Ref.: L987I Depth (m): F_Rmarks: UntreatedDescription: BASE/SUBRASE

Compactive Effort: Mod. AASHTO

IPercent Water Content (%: 15.3 115.7 I14.4 58 1. [Dr IJnsiy (ka/) in'1846 1827 1812 11783 1 772JJ

Maximum Dry Dnsity: 1847 Ofl O imum Moisture Content: 1

* i; 3i2i %1850

1830 .. - _ _

1780o - r

The resUlts relate only to the ampl tested. __ _This report may only be reproduced or published In its fullI context.

_____Remarks:CH KE

I ~~~~~BRANCHES: CNUIN JOHANNESBURG . PIETERMARITZBUJRG- P[NETOw U EF R2l55 o17 7 0 g loI .

07. 2P '0 (WED) 14609 C1OMTJNIOATION N-26 PAE. 1i 7

IJD}b -ourin street, Booysens Reserve, Johannesburg 2091P 0 Box 82223, Southdale 2135Tel: +27 (0)11 835-3117 * Fax: +27 (0)11 835-2503 - la bEmail: [email protected] * Websita: www.aivilab.co.za Clvil Engineering Tes ing Laboratories

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 .

l ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CHEX KED BRANr ES: CENTURION - JOHANNESBURG * PIETERMARnZBURG .PINE7O VRYHEID

SeIO r I p ln

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:

l ~~~~~~~CHEC KEDBRANCHES: CENUJt _ON -WONANNESBJRG PIE*TERMARITL7RG , PINT FtU _T_

| a nooj~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~aln R If1!

I - 0-_ EP '05 (W_D)10 com -AI - _A ___

I|mi rountrn izreel, sooysens Reserve, Johannesburg 2091 mP 0 Box 82223, Southdale 2135Tel: +27 (0)11 835-3117 * Fax: +27 (0)11 835-2503 C lo bEmail; [email protected] - Website: www.civilab.co.za Civil Engineering Tes ing Laboratories

Moisture Density RelationshipProject ROBERTS INTERN4ATIONAL AIRPORT LIBERIAProject No.: 1030/RI 75108/2005 Date: 6 August 2005 -Field Reference: MATERIAL F Laboratory Ref.: LS84* Depth (m): Remarks: UntreatedDescription: BASE/SUBBASE

Compactive Effort: Mod. ASHTO

fpercent water Content (%): 8.3 9.2 8.9 19.7 15.8 | |4DenS (k In3): [ 21356| 2125 J 2121 | 2102 1 2096 lI ______IMaximum Dry Density: 2135 kgIm5 Optimum Moisture Content 8.4 %

I ~~~~2135

3 2130 - -< ,_ .

2125 - * 0

J 2120 I

I 4s C21 Itl2110 -- 11 _

2105- - ___ __

I ~~~~2100-.

* 9~~~~095 -- 4<->5.5 6 6.5 7 7.6 a 8.t 9 9.5 10Moulture Content()

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:

BPANCH$ES: 0ENTURION...JONANN5SBURG .P15MRMALRrfoU PINE71*N0 CHTEN KVRJED0

inoolaln F oopIslf3 0 7. 4p ~ ( W~ D I 1 6 1 0 c o 1 .o .t u N : c A ' r N o 2 6 2 0 o g h n b rI

| ~~~~~~~07. SE9 *05 (WED) 1 6: t0 commuicATI ON N-:26 PAOE. 20

36/38 Fourth Street, Booysens Reserve, Johannesburg 2091P 0 Box 82223, Southdate 2135 lo bTel: +27 (0)11 835-3117 ' Fax: +27 (0)11 835-2503 ' a b3 Email: [email protected] - Webslte: www.civilab.co.za Civil Eng[neering Tes ing Laboratories

Moisture Density RelationshipROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIBERIA _

Proiect No.: 103/RI 76/08/2005 Date: ; August 2005Field Reference: MATERIAL F Laboratory Ref.: L985*th (in): Remarks: Unteated

lOescription: SASE/SVBBASE3 Compactlve Effort: Mod. AASHTO

Percent wae otn 10,91.9 . is 8.3D y12029 20271 200 98 19

Maximum Dry Oensity: 2034 kWm 3 Optimum Moisture Content: 11.4 %

3 ~~~~~2040-

1 ~~~~2030

1 ~~~~2020I _ o V\5

| ~~~~2010_ t_ t

2000

190 --- .- I

1980_ _

1970- _ ._ _ _ .8.5 9 9.5 10 105 11 11.5 12 12.5 *13Mloisture Content N%

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 _ (WED) _60 COMMUNICATION N_2 _ AE2

3 07. SEP 05 IWfED) 1 61 0 C0OMMUNI CATbION No:26 PAGE. 21t

I|MM 1` ourth Street, Booysens Reserve, Johannesburg 2091P O Box 52223, Southdale 2135Tel: +27 (0)11 835-3117 * Fax: +27 (0)11 835-2503 - la bEmail: jhbWcivilab.co.2 a Website: www.civiab.co.za Civil Engineering Tes ing Laboratories

.Moisture Density Relationship[Project: RO0ERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIBERIAProject No,: 1030/Ri 75/082005 Date: 6 August 2005Field Reference: MATERIAL £3 Laboratory Ref.: L98U* ~~__________________

_ ______DQpth (nj):* Qelpth wnr: SUB|AS/SUBGRARemarks: UntreatedDescription: SUBBAS~IlSU8GaRAPD~

I Compactive Effort: Mod. AASHTOI Percent Water Content (%) 11.1 12 1 9 7.73 Pty Density(kg/rn 3): | 2099 51 24 2047

[Maximum Dry Dnslfty: 2115 k - OtiMUM Moisture Content: 10.3 %

~~~2110 .. .- - - -

| ~~~~2100- ._ _ / -' ' zI~99

___i. ___X..

g 1t~~~2070 ;.--- +-12060 _... .. _ ._. \

2050.

2040 -

| 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

BRANCHES: CeCNTURION JOHANNESBURG . PiErTERMARITZ9URG .PINETO Rtus4eb 1,2OOWD

I 4 ........ ...... ____ _ _ _ .__________ tOlnw1'Senlor Troda

3 07. 9EP 05 (WED) 16:11 COMMUNICATION No-26 PAGE. 22

I| 36/38 Fourth Street, Booysens Raserve, Johannesburg 2091

P 0 Box 82223, Southdale 2135Tel: +27 (0)11 835-3117 * Fax: +27 (0)11 835-2503 _3 Email: [email protected] * Website: www.clvilab.co.za Civil Eng[neerirn Tes ing Laboratories

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__

| Compactive Effort: Mod. AASHTO

fPercent Water Content (%): 11.7 | 12.3 | 10.5 9.6 | 8.8 |3 ~ ~ DryDeflsjty(~~g(m3); L~2026 1994 1 2043 [2032 1 1989

[Maximum Dry Density:~ 2043 kgIm' COptimum Moisture Content: 10.5 %

| -I 2050

2040

1 1 2030- __

2000 - - ___.._ . _ t

l ~~~~1990 '-1--- - --

1980 -8.5 9 9.5 IQ 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5M,oisture Content {%)

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

3 07. SEP '05 (WED) 16:11 CO)DAUNICATION No:26 PAGE. 29

338 Fourth Street, Booysens Reserve, Johannesburg 2091FP 0 Box 82223, Southdale 2135Tel: +27 (0)11 835-3117 * Fax: +27 (0)11 835-2503 la bEmail: [email protected] * Website: www.cdvlab.co.za Civil Engineering Tes ing Laboratories

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

5 Compactive Effort: Mod. AASHTO

Percent Water Content(%): | 13.0 | 14.4 11.4 | 10.4 | 12.1 |DryDensity (k/m 3): 1 1893 | 1838 1891 1826 1908 |I

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[Maximum Dry Density: 1906 kulm3 Optimum Moisture Content: 12.2 %

1910- _ ..

1 1900 .

5 ]1890t--m---<X< j 190

3 0 18860 ..... ._ __.. .870__

$1870

I~ s ___ __ ___ L1 J 1 840 __ _ _ _ t 184

1830 .... _ ....... __t

1820-. _--i10 10.5 11 I11.5 12 125 13 13.S 14 14.5 15 .Molsture Content (%)

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

,PercentWaterContent(%}; 16.2 | 17.4 | 15.4 13.9 12.5 _Drv D ensityktM 3: 1819 | 1797 t1837 1818 11796 _

Miaximum Dra Density: 1838 kgjm31pImmMos2r Cntn

1 1840

1 1835 -. -{. t_

1825- - . _

~1820

3 CI ~~~1810--

1 _1805 -. --

-t -- t-, _

3 1800

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

5 07. SEP '05 (WED) 16:12 COMMSUNICATION No:26 PAGE. 25

I I zo_ / 0SPECIAUSED ROAD TECHNOLOGIES-g ° sX g~~~~-W POBOXt 32

_ X r I Wr~~~~~~~~~~~V STMJEADi

_ IiW . D.. TEL (031) 7004510FM: (031) 7003165e-mail: srtdbnemweb.co.za

I TELEFAX

TO: StwartScot FAXNO: j 011-8836789

I ATTENTION: |Mr.Gary Fok DATE: 3010912005

PAGES (including 1* page) 5

I # S IUBJECT: ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Attached piease find final report E5255 for the above-menidoned projec

Re" ards

IU lHennia Loots

IlII

(FPtx)K-43

30. SEP '05 (FRI) 14:35 COMMUNICAT.0N Xo:54 PAGE. 1

i

5AASIL

RegistLrn. No. 1996MW45/07AAC:SL 25 Westmcad Road, Wcsrncad, PincalwD AC ED I Tr

PO Bo: 15324. Westmead, 3608. RepuM1ic of South Africa LA,cRY3 Tel; -i27(0)31 700 4510. Fax: + 27(0)31 700 3165, F-nail: [email protected] No. T02Ž3

TEST REPORT

REPORT NO.: E 5255

I 200Q5-930

Naco StewardDP.O. BOX 7845Sandton2146

| Attention: Mr. Gary Fok

Dear Sir,

ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LrLBERI

U With reerence to the samples recived for besting:

Dat Received) 2005-08-30Date Tested: 2005-09-15 tD 2005-09-29

* O/Ne: ..

Maten2a Description: 20 coresSubcontracted to: (*) as indicated J NJADeviabion/irregularity from test rmefod: N/ATotal numbof pages: 4

________e __ca__ed_ - -! TastNethos JTMRD M-MH1 C4a

BRD TMH13 1Indirect Tensile Sbengt. # SRT TMA 6, 250C

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

I

I

Page 2 of 4

30. SEP ' 05 (FRI) 14 36 C0CVUNICA CN Xc :54 PAGE. 3

* ~SPECIALISED ROAD TECHNOLOGIES* ~~ASPHAILT ANALYSIS REPORT

Cienit Naco Steward Scot+t Report No.: ES5255

Project :Roberts internar--cnal Airport Lfbeiria Da-te : 2005-09--3c

La!~~~~ Num-B9er 83393940 B39411 B-324 B39431W4 B3945 ____6 39-

Core Number Rl R2 R3Af R4- , R6 R7' RB 1 P R9 E TaISection ~~~~~~RAYIRWY RWFY3 RWYN4 i' RWY5

f-rom Depth .L 0 53 Ssi60 0 0 Q40

UTo Depth go 80 j100 1201120_I 1401170; 75 1 120 C

Sieve S!ze (mm) j_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( )Passing _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _I 26.5 1 _____________ _____________ ~~100 J 100 11 i o o

19.0 j 001099 1 3

1327 92 96_ _ _ _ _ 1 _ _1 _ _ _ _ _ _7

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 9 _ _ _77 1 83 77 80 j 7-7

6.7 1 69 1 69 1 64 70 68

I ___________ 5 6S 59 56 6

2.36 2 8454 47____ _I 56I ~ ~ 1.1~i 8 38___ _ __ _ t 40 f 38 37__ __ __361 __ __ __ _

0.600 310 32 31 1 30 1 300.300 23 r 222244I ~~~~0.150 14___ 1 f 1 J 16 14

0.075 7154.9 4.9 I 8.5 I 6.6

Filler 7%)I 1.36 4.6 L 8.0 6.3IBitumen (% 5.5 5.5 1 I __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ I.

* RiFer/Bitumen Ratio 1.3__ 0.8 0.9 1.6 j 1.2

BRD2S3 2.539 2.983 285 1 2.867. 2.789 2.8 62 2.570 2.5-51

Rice'sTMRD - - 2.634 2.664 - 2.3 - - -

3Air Voids (cm)1 11.71 6.61 __5.7__

Air Permeabiuty (l 8 r 2 I## ~ indired Tensile Strength (kPa) - f981 - 12-4 __164I 1325_ __-

I I 1242 -~~~.01- 2. 1. 1164 -. 1385 3

*Dynamic Creep Moduluos (MPa) 9. -- 1. 94 1.1-~83

Core Thickness (mm) 90{I 833 42 160J 58 I 80 155 75 1.123 lQ

T ests on Recovered Binder

'Penetration (dmnm) J 28 14 8 30 24

Dynamic Viscosity@ 1350*C (,Pa.s) 0.109 0.750 1.471 0.103 D .186

SfeigPoint (R&B) (IC) 6. 78.0 >0 590so7.

I$ Core Cracked -unable to test.@The test method requires resuits belowv 800C to be conducted in water and for higher values to us glysine.

I ForSR: Page 3 of 4

30. SE? ' C (FRI) 14:37 COMMlvUNICATION No:54 PAGE. 4

SPECIALISED ROAD TECHNOLOGIESI ~~ASPLAILT A-NALYSIS RIEPORT

Caient Nacci Steward S-cott Report No.: E 5255

Project :Roberts intemnational AirportULbesia Date: 2005-0G-30

Iaboratory Number B3948 -399 B33950 J 3951 B 3952. 83953 B3954 1_3955 S 3936 B3957

Core Number IA_ I JI1B2 L Pi P2 J_3JP 4 vPESection jTWY A TVVYB TWYAI APRON APRON

ILayer 1 i ~ a __ 11 11

Fro __n __Depth_ ___ ___ 6 o___ 0 -aITO Depth ___ 60 60f60t80 1OOj 1100 i00l10A)Steve Size _____ ___Passing__

1 ~ ~ .o ioo to9.0 10l ioo 100 10i3 1~~~~~33.2 91 96 _9 ___ __ _9___9.5 1 84 so 72 83 83

-6.7 76 68 Ss~18'72 70-4.75 71 1 62 49 6462I ~~~~~2.36 1 51 4____ _____ so_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1.18 35 36 134 39 1 41 ~~~~~0.600 26 1 29 129J 32 1 34

0.300 20 24 121J 24 j 243 ~~~~~0.150 1 15 16 jil1510.075 1 9.4 J 9.2~ ~s3 7.6 6.6

Fiiler C%I 9.0 8.7 5.1 7.2 6.2*BJturnen 4.7 5.3 14.61 5.4 1 5.3 j

Filier/BiturnenRaio257 1.3 ____23R 2x1570m2.608 2.543 2.576~ 3.041 09 2.579 j2.5811 2.879 3.0421

Ai Pnnabliy x o(an') 27.9 ___3092111

Indirect Tensile Stren~gth (kPa) 75 -1 17.592

Dynaic mep oduus (pa)66.8 7. 17 5 47.6 6.8 i6.3

Cor -Ticiss mm 781 78_ 61_ 1 80j100 111 j 10 7- 73ITests on Recovered Binder ____________ ______

Penetration (dmm)j 1i 32 123 31 2

-Dynamic Viscosity@ 1350 C (Pa.s) 1 0.540 I 082 1088 .580.220

* Softening Point ('R&B) (0C) 81.6 1 58.4 61.6 61.6Too porou.s to test.I$ Core cracked - unable to tesr..

I For SRT: Page 4 of 4

30 SEP '05 (FRI), 14:3S C0OMMUNICATION X0 54 PAGE. 5

A reinINRCO Us..3 Airport Consultants

lllll

APPENDIX H

| PAVEMENT REMAINING LIFE ANALYSES

IIlII

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)

Layer description (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)Continuously graded asphalt 100 2800 115 2800 145 2800 175 2800 170 2800

Granular base 100 300 200 300 100 300 150 300 150 300Granular subbase 250 250 350 250 300 250 200 250 300 250Selected subgrade 550 120 150 120 300 120 400 120 500 120

Semi- Semi- Semi-In situ subgrade Semi-infinite 80 Semi-infinite 80 infinite 60 infinite 80 infinite 80

RWY 04/22 | Section I I Section 2 | Section 3 | Section 4 | Section 5Fromrro| 0.000 | 0.610 | 0.610 1 1.220 | 1.220 1 1.890 | 1.890 | 2.530 2.530 | 3.354

Cumulative Damage Factor due to 15 year design ATM'sContinuously graded asphalt 1 0.216 0.153 | 0.160 | 0.106 | -0.097

In situ subgrade 0.535 1.498 4.273 0.510 0.161Theoretical Remaining Life

Continuously graded asphalt | 70 yrs | 98 yrs | 94 yrs | 142 yrs | 154yrsIn situ subgrade | 28 yrs | 10 yrs 4 yrs | 29 yr 93 yrs

Design Total Asphalt thickness 140 mm 250 mmDesign Overlay thickness 0 mm 25 mm 105 mm 0 mm 0 mm

Pavement TWY A TWY Al TWY B Apront E (Mpa) t E (Mpa) t E (Mpa) t E (Mpa)

Layer description (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)Continuously graded asphalt 85 2800 90 2800 110 2800 140 2800

Granular base 150 300 175 300 150 300 100 300Granular subbase 130 250 300 250 150 250 200 250Selected subgrade 400 120 300 120 400 120 400 120

Semi- Sermi-In situ subgrade Semi-infinite, 60 Semni-infinitel 60 infinite 80 infinite 60

PAVEMENTS TWY A ITWY Al ITWY B IAPRONCumuiative Damage Factor due to 1 5 year design ATM'sContinuously graded asphalt 0.147 0.019 01El2:4: 0.141

In situ subgrade 12.313 0.672 1.172 3.627Theoreticai Remaining Life

LIRP RIA APSDS Analyses.,ds Summary


m m - m - - m m - m - m - m m m m m

ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIRP - RWY04/22 Section 1Material type: Subgrade (Failure Criteria -vertical compressive strain at the top of layer)

15 year design ATM100 AC (2800MPa), 100 base (300MPa), 250 subbase (25OMPa), 550 SSG (12OMPa), in-situ subgrade (80MPa)

6.OOE-01

5.OOE-01

4.OOE-01 -- A330-300-4- A340-600

A340-600________ _ -*F- B737-800E 3.OOE-01 -a-- B747-400

00001"' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--B777---Total

2.OOE-01

1.OOE-01 -_________

O.OOE+000 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

Distance from Centreline


I ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIRP

Material type: Asphalt* Maximum damage values for each vehicle type

Vehicle Type Damage Factor Critical Strain

A330-300 .98084E-01 -0.71865E-03A340-500 .59406E-02 -0.74731 E-03A340-500 .31341 E-02 -0.75238E-03B737-800 .97729E-01 -0.73311 E-03B747-400 .61374E-02 -0.67078E-03B777 .77863E-02 -0.71010E-03

Maximum of total damage= 0.21555

Material type: Subgrade (isotropic)Maximum damage values for each vehicle type


A330-300 .30266E+00 0.11 086E-02A340-500 .65083E-01 0.14083E-02A340-500 .44287E-01 0.14723E-02B737-800 .94362E-01 0.96267E-03B747-400 .29649E-01 O. 11 1 11 E-02B777 .38139E-01 0.11499E-02


IIIIIII

I LIRP RIA APSDS Analyses.xls RWY1

I PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.Ddffactorv.com

- - m - - - m - - - -- - - m m m m -

ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIRP - RWY04/22 Section 2Material type: Subgrade (Failure Criteria - vertical compressive strain at the top of layer)

15 year design ATM115 AC (2800MPa), 200 base (300MPa), 350 subbase (250MPa), 150 SSG (12OMPa), in-situ subgrade (80MPa)

1.60E+00-

1.40E+00 -

1.20E+00 -

- A330-3001.OOE+00 -U- A340-600

A340-600__________ _______ -*- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~B737-800E 8.OOE-01 -NJ-- B737-800

m f0 r \X B77477-400lm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--B7776.OOE-01 - Total

4.OOE-01

2.OOE-01

O.OOE+00O- rI

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000



II

ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIRP

Material type: AsphaltMaximum damage values for each vehicle type


A330-300 .72877E-01 -0.68137E-03A340-500 .46957E-02 -0.71809E-03I A340-500 .25055E-02 -0.72467E-03B737-800 .65800E-01 -0.67926E-03B747-400 .43348E-02 -0.62866E-03B777 .53934E-02 -0.66415E-03

Maxim um of total damage= 0.153051

| Material type: Subgrade (isotropic)Maximum damage values for each vehicle type

* Vehicle Type Damage Factor Critical Strain

A330-300 .87174E+00 0.13583E-02A340-500 .18215E+00 0.17168E-02I A340-500 .12207E+00 0.1 7686E-02B737-800 .28034E+00 0.11178E-02B747-400 .67928E-01 0.12895E-02I B777 .83232E-01 0.13461 E-02

Maximujm of total damage= 1.49847

III

I

LIRP RIA APSDS Analyses.xls RWY2

| PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.Ddffactorv.com

- - - -- - - - - - - - - m - m - - m

ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIRP - RWY 04/22 Section 3Material type: Subgrade (Failure Criteria - vertical compressive strain at the top of layer)

15 year design ATM145 AC (2800MPa), 100 base (300MPa), 300 subbase (250MPa), 300 SSG (120MPa), in-situ subgrade (60MPa)

4.50E+00

4.00E+00 -

3.50E+00 -____

3.00E+00 - -4- A330-300-f- A340-600

o 2.50E+00 A340-6000) 1 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~B737-800

E -r- B747-400

O 2.00E+00 - fB777

- Total1.50E+00

1.OOE+00 _____ ____

5.00E-01 .

O.OOE+000 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000






A330-300 .81305E-01 -0.69656E-03A340-5100 .63829E-02 -0.76586E-03I A340-5100 .39401 E-02 -0.79309E-03B737-800 .62923E-01 -0.66584E-03B747400 .42187E-02 -0.62179E-033 | B777 .47286E-02 -0.66109E-03


3 Material type: Subgrade (isotropic)Maximum damage values for each vehicle type

3 Vehicle Type Damage Factor Critical Strain

A330-300 .24601E+01 0.15525E-02A340-500 .52449E+00 0.19689E-02

* A340-500 .33405E+00 0.20239E-02B737-800 .71810E+00 0.12996E-02B747-400 .22594E+00 0.1 5263E-023 B777 .30871E+00 0.16050E-02


IIIII

LIRP RIA APSDS Analyses.xls RWY3

| PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactorv.com

- - -m m - - - - m - m


15 year design ATM175 AC (2800MPa), 150 base (300MPa), 200 subbase (250MPa), 400 SSG (12OMPa), in-situ subgrade (80MPa)

6.OOE-01

5.OOE-01

4.OOE-01 - +A330-300

-in-oA340-600

A340-600(U-- B737-800E 3.OOE-01 -NE- B747-400

D . / , s X = ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~B7747-400000~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~--B777

- Total2.OOE-01

1.00E-01 ___ ____'_ _-

O.OOE+00

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000




Material type: AsphaltI Maximum damage values for each vehicle type

3 Vehicle Type Damage Factor Critical Strain

A330-300 .54080E-01 -0.63990E-03A340-500 .47241 E-02 -0.71946E-033 A340-500 .32068E-02 -0.75631 E-03B737-800 .41343E-01 -0.61121E-03B747-4.00 .26077E-02 -0.56277E-033 B777 .27368E-02 -0.60259E-03




A330-300 .28712E+00 0.10930E-02A340-500 .61930E-01 0.13904E-02A340-5,00 .42133E-01 0.14592E-02B737-800 .87500E-01 0.95155E-03B7474A00 .29564E-01 0.11116E-02B777 .38903E-01 0.1 1475E-02


I

I

I| ~~~LIRP RIA APSDS Analyses.xls RWY4

|PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactorv.com

-~ m - - m - - - m m m


15 year design ATM170 AC (2800MPa), 150 base (300MPa), 300 subbase (25OMPa), 500 SSG (120MPa), in-situ subgrade (80MPa)

1.80E-01

1.60E-01 do,

1.40E-01 -_ __c_ _

1.20E-01 -+A330-300

- A340-600aj 1.00E-01 -Iif > A340-600E 9ZZ _m__ - B737-800X S -- ,8, _ B747-400D 8.OOE-02 -t B777

-- Total6.OOE-02

4.OOE-02 --

2.OOE-02 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

7.OOE+00 ___

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000Distance from Centreline





A330-300 .49901 E-01 -0.63140E-03A340-500 .42135E-02 -0.70507E-03I A340-500 .27241 E-02 -0.73550E-03B737-800 .37831 E-01 -0.60307E-03B747-400 .24585E-02 -0.55740E-033 B777 .26730E-02 -0.59478E-03

Maximum of total damage= 9.72E-02


| Vehicle Type Damage Factor Critical Strain

A330-300 .92080E-01 0.89705E-03A340-500 .20140E-01 0.1 1443E-02

* A340-500 .10639E-01 0.11810E-02B737-800 .19196E-01 0.75666E-03B747-400 .10265E-01 0.95318E-035 B777 .18424E-01 0.10019E-02


I

| ~~~LIRP RIA APSDS Analyses.xis RWY5

|PDF created wiith pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

m -m m m -m m - - - m m m

ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIRP - TWY AMaterial type: Subgrade (Failure Criteria - vertical compressive strain at the top of layer)

60% of 15 year design ATM85 AC (2800MPa), 150 base (300MPa), 130 subbase (25OMPa), 400 SSG (120MPa), in-situ subgrade (60MPa)

1.40E+01 -

1.20E+01 -

1.OOE+01 --4A330-300

f A340-500

8.OOE+OO -0 \ l A340-500- B737-800

coE

-- B747-400co

6.OOE+00 - _______\__._B777

---Total

4.OOE+00 I

2.OOE+00

0.OOE+00 I

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000






A330-300 .60404E-01 -0.67060E-03A340-5I00 .20995E-02 -0.67496E-03A340-500 .10612E-02 -0.68007E-03B737-800 .75569E-01 -0.71556E-03B747-400 .41523E-02 -0.63779E-033 B777 .54758E-02 -0.67864E-03




A330-3,00 .75041E+01 0.19601 E-02A340-5,00 .10351E+01 0.24730E-02I A340-5100 .73476E+00 0.25615E-02B737-800 .26057E+01 0.16106E-02B747-400 .56588E+00 0.18480E-023 B777 .63815E+00 0.19125E-02


I

I

LIRP RIA APSDS Analyses.xls TWYA

|PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactorv.com

m m m m m -- -- m min -- -- - -

ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIRP - TWY AlMaterial type: Subgrade (Failure Criteria - vertical compressive strain at the top of layer)

10% of 15 year design ATM90 AC (2800MPa), 175 base (300MPa), 300 subbase (250MPa), 300 SSG (12OMPa), in-situ subgrade (60MPa)

8.OOE-01 -

7.OOE-01-

6.OOE-01 - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--A330-300

. A340-5005.OOE-01 - A340-500

-*B737-800-E B747-400

E 4.OOE-01 -\ B777

3.OOE-01 - /- Total

2.OOE-01 -

1.OOE-01

o.OOE+00 I0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000






A330-300 .7921 OE-02 -0.64250E-03A340-500 .40638E-03 -0.64489E-03A340-'iO0 .20217E-03 -0.64704E-03B737-800 .97300E-02 -0.68308E-03B747-400 .53782E-03 -0.60894E-033 B777 .71474E-03 -0.65039E-03




A330-300 .39343E+00 0.16037E-02A340-500 .83220E-01 0.20310E-02I A340-500 .52120E-01 0.20754E-02B737-800 .11451E+00 0.13129E-02B7474-00 .35481 E-01 0.15576E-023 B777 .47166E-01 0.16442E-02


I

I

| ~~~LIRP RIA APSDS Analyses.xls TWYA1

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.ipdffactorv.com

- m m m m m - m m m - - - -- - - m

ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIRP - TWY BMaterial type: Subgrade (Failure Criteria - vertical compressive strain at the top of layer)

40% of 15 year design ATM110 AC (2800MPa), 150 base (300MPa), 150 subbase (250MPa), 400 SSG (120MPa), in-situ subgrade (80MPa)

1 .40E+0 -

1.20E+00 -

1.OOE+00 --.A330-300

1 A340-500

8.OOE-01 A340-5006O0|B737-800

E -NI B747-400

6.OOE-01 --0- B777---Total

4.OOE-01

2.OOE-01

O.OOE+00 I0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000



IROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIRP



A330-300 .58380E-01 -0.73056E-03A340-500 .38578E-02 -0.77322E-033 A340-500 .21549E-02 -0.78484E-03B737-800 .54469E-01 -0.72901 E-03B747-400 .34976E-02 -0.67244E-033 B777 .42325E-02 -0.71313E-03




A330-300 .66911 E+00 0.14237E-02A340-500 .13995E+00 0.1 7998E-02I A340-500 .10667E+00 0.18849E-02B737-800 .25639E+00 0.12038E-02B747-400 .53660E-01 0.13530E-023 B777 .55867E-01 0.13849E-02


II

| ~~~LIRP R>IA APSDS Analyses.xls TWYB

|PDF created with pdfFactory- trial version www.l)dffactorv.com

- -- - - - m m m - - - - - m

ROBERTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIRP - ApronMaterial type: Subgrade (Failure Criteria - vertical compressive strain at the top of layer)

70% of 15 year design ATM140 AC (2800MPa), 100 base (300MPa), 200 subbase (25OMPa), 400 SSG (12OMPa), in-situ subgrade (60MPa)

4.00E+00

3.50E+00 -

3.OOE+00 -

--A30-3002.50E+00 -- A340-500

A340-500(U

E 2.OOE+00 - B747-400

-4o-- B777

1.50E+00- - Total

1.OOE+00

5.OOE-01

0.OOE+000 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000






A330-300 .71286E-01 -0.72746E-03A340-500 .56050E-02 -0.79989E-03A340-500 .34884E-02 -0.82922E-03B737-800 .55858E-01 -0.69716E-03B747400 .36925E-02 -0.64907E-03B777 .41159E-02 -0.69069E-03

Maximum of total damage= 1.41 E-01

Material type: Subgrade (isotropic)Maximum damage values for each vehicle type


A330-300 .20703E+01 0.15979E-02A340-500 .44101E+00 0.20262E-02A340-5100 .29788E+00 0.20998E-02B737-800 .65195E+00 0.13544E-02B747-400 .19018E+00 0.15708E-02B777 .24179E+00 0.16351 E-02


II

| ~~~LIRP RIA APSDS Analyses.xls APRON

|PDF created with pdfFactory trial version w-ww.pdffactorv.corn

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~._ .