Isiolo International Airport Engineering Design Report

Isiolo Airport: Comprehensive Pavement Design Engineering Report
REVISE COVER PAGE
INSERT MOTR Logo
Government of the Republic of Kenya Kenya Airports Authority (KAA)
Kenya
Reconstruction of Pavement Structures at Isiolo Airport in Isiolo, Kenya
Airport Pavement Design Report

Engineering Design Report No: ISAT 0211/02
2009 Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited
Kensetsu Kaihatsu Ltd
February 2011
Reconstruction of Pavement Structures for Isiolo Airport, Isiolo - Kenya |2011
CONFIDENTIALITY AND COPYRIGHT This document is for the sole use of the addressee (Kenya Airports Authority (KAA), Government of the Republic of Kenya) and Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited. The document contains proprietary and confidential information that shall not be reproduced in any manner or disclosed to or discussed with any other parties without the express written permission of Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited. Information in this document is to be considered the intellectual property of Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited in accordance with Kenyan copyright law. This report was prepared by Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited for the account of Kenya Airports Authority (KAA). The material in it reflects Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limiteds best judgement, in the light of the information available to it, at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. 2011 Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited
2010/2011 Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited
Page ii
FORMAT OF REPORT COPYRIGHTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF EQUATIONS NOTATIONS, SYMBOLS AND TERMS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.1.1 Status of the site 1.1.2 Works under Construction 1.2 Justification of the project 1.2.1 Necessity of rehabilitation of the airport 1.2.2 Scope of Study and Works 1.2.3 Isiolo Airport Project and Surrounding Areas 1.2.4 Geophysical Details of Isiolo Airport in Isiolo Eastern Province region of Kenya 1.3 Brief Background of Project Area 1.3.1 Climate and Vegetation
1.3.2 General Topographic, Geographic and Existing Conditions 1.4 Relevant Documents and Records CHAPTER 2 2. BASIC SAMPLING AND SURVEY PROCEDURES IN BRIEF 2.1 Preliminary Field Survey 2.2 Basic Sampling Regime 2.3 Geological and Soil Survey in General 2.4 Groundwater Survey in General
2.5 Ground Movement Survey in General
Page iii
CHAPTER 3 3. TESTING AND INVESTIGATION REGIMES ADOPTED 3.1 Design Criteria of Testing, Investigation and Analytical Regimes 3.1.1 Preamble 3.1.2 Postulated Failure Mechanism of Pavement and Subgrade Layers 3.2 In-situ and Laboratory Testing 3.2.1 Determination of Basic In-situ Material Properties 3.2.2 Brief Introduction of In-situ and Laboratory Tests Undertaken 3.3 Summary of Laboratory Methods of Testing 3.3.1 Specific Gravity 3.3.2 Atterberg Limits 3.3.3 Sieve Analysis 3.3.4 Natural Moisture Content 3.3.5 Dry and Bulk Density 3.3.6 Aggregate Tests 3.3.7 Compaction Characteristics 3.3.8 Compressive Strength (UCS) and Bearing Capacity (CBR) 3.3.9 Durability
3.4 Summary of In-situ Methods of Testing 3.5 Schedule and Summary of Tests Performed 3.5.1 Laboratory Tests 3.5.2 In-situ Tests 3.6 Proposal for Performance-based specification for geogrids 3.7 Proposed Post-Construction Tests 3.7.1 Deflection Tests
3.7.2 Core Sampling and Testing
CHAPTER 4 4. RELEVANT ENGINEERING CONCEPTS AND THEORIES APPLIED 4.1 Outline of Methodology of Data Analysis, Evaluation and Criteria for Suitability 4.2 Determination of Basic Parameters 4.2.1 4.2.2 Standard Soil Model Expressions Concepts Applied for Analyzing Impact of Environmental Factors
Effect of Swelling Effect of Variation In Design Moisture Content
Page iv
Seasonal Effects On Bearing Capacity and Resilient Modulus 4.3 Bearing Capacity Analysis 4.3.1 4.3.2 Derivation of correlation of N-value, UCS and CBR Derivation of CBR and qu Relations for Stiff Geomaterials
4.4 Consolidation and Settlement Related Analysis 4.4.1 4.4.2 Estimation of Consolidation and Shear Stress Paths Analyzing Construction History for Settlement Prediction
4.5 Shearing Strength and Critical State Analysis 4.5.1 4.5.2 Analysis of a Soil Element along the Slip Failure Plane Application of Modified Critical State Soil Mechanics
4.6 Deformation Resistance Analysis 4.6.1 4.6.2 4.6.3 Application of Deformation Concepts Determination of Modulus of Deformation Parameters Computation of Linear Elastic Range
4.7 Geophysical Survey Analysis 4.8 Concepts Applied for OPMC Stabilization 4.8.1 4.8.2 Theoretical Considerations Proposed Method of Determining Optimum Batching Ratio (OBR)
4.9 Concepts of Cementation on Soil Particle Agglomeration
CHAPTER 5 5. MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS 5.1 Basic Physical and Mechanical Parameters
5.2 Correlation between Physical, Mechanical and Strength Parameters 5.3 Development of Test Regimes 5.4 Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) Test Results
5.5 Aggregate Test Results 5.6 Summary of Bearing capacity and shearing strength parameters 5.7 Bearing Capacity Test Results 5.8 Consolidation Test Results 5.9 Shearing strength Test Results 5.10 Modulus of Deformation, Elastic Modulus and Linear Elastic range 5.11 5.12 Deformation Properties and Linear Elastic Range Summary of Effects of Curing Periods
Page v
CHAPTER 6 5 APPLICATION OF TEST RESULTS
6.1 Basic Physical and Mechanical Parameters 6.2 Correlation of Physical, Mechanical and Strength Parameters 6.3 Dynamic Penetration Test Results 6.4 Aggregate Test Results 6.5 Laboratory Test Results 6.6 Bearing Capacity Test Results 6.7 Consolidation Test Results
6.8 Shearing Strength Test Results 6.7.1 Application of Principle Stresses within the Soil Elements 6.7.2 Shearing Strength Test Results 6.9 Modulus of Deformation and Elastic Modulus Test Results 6.10 Deformation Properties and Linear Elastic Range 6.11 Durability Test Results
CHAPTER 7 7. PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN 7.1 Scope 7.2 Fundamental Design Philosophy 7.3 Comparison of Design Data with Various Design Criteria 7.3.1 Comparison of Design Criteria for Physical, Strength and Bearing Capacity Parameters 7.3.2 Comparison of Applicable Specification Criteria for Stabilized Natural Gravel and Design Parameters 7.3.3 Comparison of Modulus of Deformation Parameters
7.3.4 Comparison of Durability Parameters 7.3.5 Comparison of Tested Material Properties and Specified Requirements 7.3.6 Conclusions Regarding Design Parameters 7.3.7 Adopted Design Criteria 7.4 Evaluation of Air Traffic Volume and Growth 7.5 Engineering Analysis of Geomaterial Properties 7.6 Evaluation of Strength of Existing Subgrade 7.6.1 Relatively Stable Geomaterials 7.6.2 Analysis of Problematic and/or Expansive Soils
Page vi
7.7 Determination of Pavement Structural Design 7.7.1 Determination of Total Pavement Thickness Required 7.8 Comparison of Various Adequate Designs
CHAPTER 8 8. ANALYSIS OF TIME DEPENDENT STRUCTURAL SOUNDNESS 8.1 Analysis of Structural Capacity Deterioration with Time Progression based on the SCDR Model 8.1.1 Definition of Structural Failures 8.1.2 Fundamental Theories/Concepts Applied in Developing SCDR Model (1) Theories and/or Concepts Considered 8.1.3 Analysis of Structural Capacity 1) Initial Structural Capacity 2) Deterioration of Structural Capacity with Time Progression 3) Analysis of Influence of Environmental Factors 8.2 Analysis of Time Dependent Structural Capacity for Varying Designs of Isiolo Airport CHAPTER 9 9. METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION 9.1 Procedure for Construction of Stabilized Base Course 9.2 Programme of Works with superimposed S-Curve 9.3 Quality Control
CHAPTER 10
10. Access Roads

CHAPTER 11
11. Hydro-geological Study

CHAPTER 12
12. Experimental Trial Section
Page vii
CHAPTER 13 13. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13.1 Main Conclusions 13.2 Basic Recommendations
Page viii
LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Soil sampling from Designated Locations of Runway Alignment Table 5.1.1 Typical Grading Characteristics of Isiolo Airport Subgrade Soils Table 5.1.2 Summary of BCS-Subgrade Material Test results for Isiolo Airport Table 5.2.1 Test Regime 1: Sample Bp3 Table 5.2.2 Test Regime 1: OBRM Table 5.2.3 Test Regime 1: OPMC Table 5.3.1 Particle Distribution Characteristics of Sub-base soils at Borrow Pit [BP3], Ruiri Table 5.3.2 Particle Distribution Characteristics of 0.6mm Quarry Dust from Kithima Quarry Table 5.3.3 Particle Distribution Characteristics of OBRM sample [BP3:Quarry Dust] Table 5.3.4 Neat Material Table 5.3.5 OBRM Subbase Material +Tensar Tx 170 Geogrid Table 5.3.6 OPMC Subbase Material Table 5.3.7 Summary Of The Test Results-Comparative Analysis Table Series 5.4.1 and Figures for Dynamic Cone Penetration Results for Isiolo Airport Table 5.3.2 CBR Data and CBRM Values from Dynamic Cone Penetration Results for Isiolo Airport - Runway Ch0+000 to Ch1+500 Table 5.3.8 Summary and comparison of granular subbase materisl found in the vicinity Table 5.5.1 Lab Sieve Analysis Results of Coarse Aggregate for Isiolo Airport Runway Table 5.5.2 Lab Sieve Analysis Results of FineAggregate for Isiolo Airport - Runway Table 5.5.3 Fineness Modulus of Fine Aggregate for Isiolo Airport - Runway Table 5.5.4 Lab Sieve Analysis Results of CRS for Isiolo Airport - Runway Table 5.5.5 Summary of Stone Quarries Materials Tests Results for Isiolo Airport in Isiolo Table 5.6.1 Summary of Bearing Capacity and Shearing Strength Parameters for Isiolo Airport Table 5.8.1 Summary of Consolidation Stress Parameters Derived from In-situ Tests Table 5.8.2 Summary of Consolidation Stress Parameters Derived from Laboratory UCSTests of Cement Stabilized OPMC-[Chemical stabilization] Table 5.8.3 Summary of Consolidation Stress Parameters Derived from Laboratory UCS test of CementGeogrid Stabilized OPMC-[Chemical - Mechanical stabilization] Table 5.9.1 Summary of Shear Stress Parameters Derived from In-situ Tests Table 5.10.1 Summary of Modulus of Deformation Parameters from Lab Test Results Table 5.10.2 Summary of Modulus of Deformation Parameters from In-situ Test Results Table 5.11.1 Summary of Modulus of Deformation Parameters from in-situ Test Results Table 5.12.1 Effects of curing period on OPMC Level 3 Table 5.12.2 Effects of curing period on Resulting, ER Composite Pavement Table 7.2.1 Summary of Major Design Considerations Table 7.2.2 Technical Specifications for Boeing Aircraft detailing the B737-800 Table 7.2.3 General characteristics of the Model 737-800 Aircraft Table 7.2.4 Maximum Pavement Loads of the Model 737-800 Aircraft Table 7.3.1 Comparison of Design Criteria - Physical, Strength & Bearing Capacity of Stabilized Materials Table 7.3.2 Comparisons of Spec. Criteria -Stabilized Natural Gravel & Design Parameters - This Study Table 7.3.3 Comparisons of Ranges of Elasticity Modulus for Structural Design from Various Sources Table 7.7.1 Summary of Main Design Parameters Adopted Table 7.8.1 Conversion Co-efficient for the calculation of TA Table 7.8.2 Summary of the structural capacity and deformation resistance of the composite pavement Table 8.2.1 Summary of Main Parameters Adopted for Analysis for Varying Designs Table 8.2.2 Structural Depreciation Factor for EXISTING Design option.
Page ix
LIST OF FIGURES Plate 1.1 Fokker F50 Aircraft and the Boeing 737-800 Plane Plate 1.2: Part of Erected perimeter fence around the airport Plate 1.3 Site photo depicting condition of runway pavement Plate 1.4 - Photos Superimposed on Sattelite Imagery showing the Airport Figure 1.1 Sattellite Image of Kenya (Location of Isiolo) Fig. 1.2 Lay-out of Isiolo Town Fig. 1.3 Sattellite Image of Isiolo Airport in Isiolo Region, Kenya Figure 1.4 Location of Isiolo Town in Kenya. Fig. 1.5 Map of Isiolo District in relation to surrounding district Fig. 1.6 Major Landform and Soil map of Isiolo region Fig. 3.1: Dynamic Cone Penetration Equipment Figure 4.1 Effect of gradation index on Mechanical Stability Figure 4.2 Effect of gradation index on Bearing capacity Figure 4.3 Correlation between mechanical stability, MS and bearing capacity, BC Figure 4.4 (a) - (h) Method of Enhancing Mechanical Stabilization of Geomaterials (After Mukabi, 2001a) Figure 4.5 Schematic representation of Grading curves generating Graphical Lines Depicted in Fig. 4.16 (After Mukabi, 2001a) Fig. 4.6 Graphical Representation of New Batching Ratio Method (After Mukabi, 2001a) Fig. 4.7a Effects of Mechanical Stabilization on Elastic Modulus Fig. 4.7b Effects of Mechanical Stabilization on the Elastic Limit Strain Fig. 5.6.1 CBR Mean values at Chainages on Isiolo Airport Runway Fig. 5.6.1 CBR Mean soak values at Chainages on Isiolo Airport Runway Fig. 5.12.1 Graphical representation of the effects of Curing Period on the OPMC material Fig. 7.1 General Dimensions of the Model 737-800 Aircraft Fig. 7.2 Ground Clearances Passenger Configurations Model 737-800 Aircraft Fig. 7.3 Landing Gear Footprint for Model 737-800 Aircraft Fig. 7.4 Landing Gear Loading on Pavement - Model 737-800 Aircraft Fig. 7.5 Pavement thicknes determination using conventional approach Fig. 7.6 Pavement thickness determination using OPMC GI-MC Technique Fig. 7.7 Plan of the Airport showing the two pavement types with other details Fig. 7.8 Plan View and MC Sand Column Details for BCS Subgrade Improvement Fig. 7.9 Typical Cross-section A: Fig 7.10 Plan View and MC Sand Columns Details For Section A Fig. 7.11 Typical Cross-section B Fig. 7.12 Plan View and MC Sand Column Details for Cross Section B Fig 7.13 Typical Cross-Section of the Apron Fig 7.14 Schematic Crossection of varying layers of proposed design, Cross-section A Fig 7.15 Schematic Cross Section of varying Layers of Proposed Design, Cross-section B Figure 8.1 Depiction of Determining Period and Level of Maintenance Based on the SCDR Model Figure 8.2 Graphical Depiction of Depreciated Structural Capacity Factor and Resulting WITH Maintenance Scenario as well as WithOUT Maintenance Figure 8.3 Graphical Depiction of Depreciated Structural Capacity Factor and Resulting WITH Maintenance Scenario as well as WithOUT Maintenance effect for USFAA-ICAO Design Figure 8.4 Graphical Depiction of Depreciated Structural Capacity Factor and Resulting WITH Maintenance Scenario as well as WithOUT Maintenance effect for Reviewed Design PROPOSED OPTION
Page x
Figure 8.5 Graphical Depiction of Depreciated Structural Capacity Factor and Resulting Maintenance Scenario as well as WithOUT Maintenance effect for varying Designs Fig 9.1 Programme of works with superimposed S-Curve
WITH
LIST OF FLOWCHARTS Flow Chart 4.1 Flow Chart 9.1 Flow Chart 9.2 Flow Chart 9.3 Flow Chart 9.4 Proposed Batching Ratio Method (After Mukabi, 2001a) Overall method of construction Procedure for construction of Improved Subgrade Procedure for construction of OPMC stabilized Base/Sub-Base Course Procedure for construction of the Asphalt Concrete wearing Course
Page xi
LIST OF EQUATIONS
mc
qu qu
vmc q imc
PI
(4.1)
EU
mc
E50 E50 Emax Emax
vmc imc
EU
PI
(4.2) (4.3)
PI
vmc Em imc
mc
PI
Em
CBR
gi mc
gl umc
f f
imc
OPMC q q
CBR
gi
gl
OPMC
(%)
(4.4) (4.5)
gi BC
gl
PI
CBRm
gi umc
35(%)
PI
gl ln CBR mc gl ln CBR
q gi imc
(%) (%)
(4.6) (4.7) (4.8) (4.9)
sc
sc ln
sc
sc
DMC
gl ln PI
gl
PI d
D
w mc
A p e PI w
Am e D
Bm d mc
gi gl ln CBR w
Bp
(4.10) (4.11) (4.12) (4.13) (4.14) (4.15) (4.16) 4.17) (4.18) (4.19)
wdr
ddr
wMr
gl ln CBR d
gl ln M r
gi
gi
NSPT = NNS {D2/Di}2 D12/d Wh/W140 Hd/D30 N60 =
CBR
{
CBR
gl
qu
gl
gi
} f OPMC
1 OPMC
(%)
(4.20) (4.21) (4.22)
qu
f
1
gi
(kgf/cm2)
f
umc OPMC q PI q
CBR
gi mc
gl
(%)
CBR
gi
gl imc
OPMC
CBRUS A
500 0.9
Sr
CBR S0.1
Sr
(4.23)
CSR
(4.24)
Page xii
'
SR
SR
SR
(4.25)
max I
KI
oc qmax NC o
CSR
.CSR
(4.26)
NC K oNC .qmax oc K o . A .CSR NC

NC KO OC K O . A CSR NC
(4.27)
' pCNC
q 'fOC
PC'OC Pf' NC
NC O
(4.28)
'OC f
NC KO
NC KO OC KO . A CSR NC
' NC f
(4.29)
log10
i 1, j 1
ij ST
Hi
i CC
P ij o P ij 0
PK iC
ei
(4.30)
C ci
ei log10 P0
k Psc
P / P0
(4.31)
P0ij
(10
1)
(4.32)
SR
0.0422 ' 0.0455
(4.33)
'
ANf (qu ) max Bf

1
Af
(4.34)
' Sin
q max 2 p ' f 1 3q max
(4.35)
p 'f
0.5 q max
1 1 Sin ' 3
1 Sin ANf qU
max
(4.36)
A /B 1 ' 3
p' f
0.5 q max
(4.37)
qu
gl
ln CBR
gi
(kgf/cm2)
(4.38)
(4.39) (4.40)
Page xiii
(4.41) (4.42) (4.43) (4.44) (4.45) =

eff DR
ij E max
(4.46) (4.47)
0.7 SC
eff DI
n q
E50 x (0.0996qu 0.0104)
(kgf / cm 2 )
(4.48) (4.49) (4.50) (4.51)
ij E max
139x
C dg
x10 m xe 0.0782qu (kgf / cm 2 )

' 0.6 o
Go
ij a ELS
2360(2.17 e) 2 (1 e)(
ij a 50 ij a max
ij ELS
(%)
(4.52)
(4.53) (4.54)
qn
N C S C d C bC g C
po N q S q d q iq bq g q
1 / 2 BN S d i b g
(4.55) (4.56)
Sq dq
gr
SC dC
gq
SC dC
Sc 1 Nq dc 1 Nq
(4.57) (4.58) (4.59)
1 sin 2
gc
tan
Page xiv
Rc
dh
df
, ti , Pc , Pe , te,
4
v ms
(8.1)
o ij
' , ' , p'oc , q oc , 'oc , f yi , f f f

= 1 6CV
2 4 4 3CV PSt
(8.2) (8.3) (8.4) (8.5)
Ept
I
II
Pst .
K = vLEF
rd
coeht sin h 2
2 ht
2 0.5 0
o 0.5
(8.6)
E (t ) 0.5C 02 e
a w02 h 2 Cos 2 w02 h 2

2 rd
f r sin 2 w02 h 2
0.5
(8.7) (8.8) (8.9)
dE(t ) dt
d 1 / 2 a dt
2h
2 0
1/ 2 f r
0
arctan
f0
2 0
w2
f0 4h 2
4h 2
2 0.5
2 0.5
(8.10)
(8.11)
f0
2
(8.12)
arctan
rd
2 n
2hw
2 0 2
(8.13)
rd
n rd 2
Z1t
2
rd
Z e iwt
3 n n 2
(8.14) (8.15) (8.16)

ikn Z
Gn
n
n 2
Z t
n rd
e ikn Z
Fn e
ikn Z
ik n Gn En e ikn Z
pn Gn
en en
2 n rd 2
Fm e
(8.17) (8.18)
kn
Anm
fn fn
2 n
(8.19)
n Z t rd 1
ei
Kn i KnZ
t wt
(8.20)
Fn e
Page xv
2 n
n rd
ikn
2 s
ei K n
i KnZ
t wt
(8.21)
Fne
n
21
f y1
* dxij
* ij * xij
g
* xij 1 2
(8.21)
* ij
RD1
(8.22) (8.23) (8.24)
vp B1* A1* deij

vp vp deij deij 1 2
xij d
vp
d
g1
vp
* ij
* xij
* 0
* ij
* xij
1 2
' m
~ M *1n
' ma (1)
' m
' ma (1)
(8.25a) fb
~* M m1n
' m ' mc
(8.25b) (8.26) (8.27) (8.29)
~ M*
A
KI
oc qmax
CSR
B
max I CSR
.CSR
K oNC

(8.30)
'OC f
PC'OC Pf' NC
' pCNC
NC KO
(8.31)
'OC f
NC KO
NC KO OC KO . A CSR NC
' NC f
(8.32)
O*' ij
1 T
* ij
Z 0
exp
* ij
Z Z' /
* xij 1 2
' ij
Z ' dZ '
' m ' mb
(8.33)
b b
g1
* xij
~ M * 1n
(8.34)
fb
* 0
~* M m1n
' m ' mb
' m ' mb
b b
(8.35)
~ M*
e f SC RSF
t f SC
b b
(8.36) (8.37) (8.38) (8.39)
f RL
Re f SC
RDeff . x
1
rf
1 0.01 C fAC FCAC xC BC FCBC xC SB FCSB f f

e f SC x log N t1.5
Page xvi
f t SC
ASC N t
BSC N t
CSC
(8.40) (8.41) (7.1)
(8.42) (8.43) (8.44)
Page xvii
NOTATIONS, SYMBOLS AND TERMS N = number of equivalent standard axle repetitions niv = initial number of vehicles daily in one direction Cv = proportion of commercial vehicles expressed in decimal form Gr = annual growth rate expressed in decimal form dl = proportion of vehicles using the design lane as a decimal (dl = 1 in this case) PDL = design life for the pavement in years SV = Slope Variance C = Lineal measurement of cracking per 100m2 area P = Bituminous patching in m2 per 1000m2 area RD = Rut depth in cm for both wheel tracks measured with a 3m straight edge PSI = PSITR + PSISN + PSIMR PSI = Total loss of serviceability (P0-Pt) PSITR = Serviceability loss due to traffic loading (ESAL) PSI SW = Serviceability loss due to swelling of roadbed soil PSIMR = Serviceability loss due to deterioration of the quality of pavement material
Pt
PtA Ptp
log N t 10
= Actual performance related to PSI = PtA = log Wt = predicted log Nt logwt = log (Rf x WT) = logWT + log Rf Rf > 1 and log Rf > 0 log Rf = (log Wt log WT) > 0 = log Nt log NT d + d = Section survival of design period ESAL NT = Actual design period ESAL Nt = Actual ESAL to Pt SCDLn = SCyn - FRL (Sceff.)n SCY = The total structural capacity required to support the overlay traffic over existing subgrade conditions SCeff = The effective structural capacity of the existing pavement immediately prior to the time of overlay, and has reflected the damage to the point FRL = The remaining life factor which accounts for damage of the existing pavement as well as the desired degree of damage to the overlay at the end of the overlay traffic where FRL < 1.0 n = A constant exponent which varies with the type of pavement system used in the analysis CBRus = 500(0.9-Sr) x CBRs (0.1+Sr) CBRus = Unsoaked CBR CBRs = Soaked CBR Sr = Saturation level expressed as a fraction of 100 percent. ( s)f =
s max SP SR i
( s)f = Time related swell factor ( s)max = Maximum Swell = Surcharge related variable defined as a ratio of the applied surcharge pressure against the effective SP upper pavement layer surcharge pressure over the subgrade determined as the standard surcharge pressure i.e. (
U ss U sp
= Initial Rate of Swell SR)i PSIsw = 0.00335 VR PS (1-e DL) VR = Potential vertical rise due to swell in cm
Page xviii
PS
Probability of swell as a percentage of total area subject to swell Rate of swell SR DL Design Life Dmc Design Moisture Content in % Vep Annual evapotranspiration in metres/year LL Liquid limit of subgrade material (%) CBRUS Unsoaked CBR CBRS Soaked CBR PI Plasticity Index GLSC Total Aggregate Loss converted in cm linear thickness for Loose Aggregate sections LT Number of Loaded Trucks in thousands GLc Total Aggregate Loss converted in cm lineal thickness for exposed sections Performance Period = 4 years in this case (counted since the BD study) P T Annual Traffic Volume in both directions in thousands of vehicles R Annual Rainfall in mm VC Average percentage of gradient of the road F Considered to be 0.037 as for lateritic gravels 2 S Variance xi Value of ith sample N No. of sample units CV Coefficient of Variance S Sample Standard Deviation xav Average value is computed as VAV Average Variable qu Unconfined Compressive Strength qu Mr 633.2qu 178.5 (MPa ) CBR Mr = 10.3 CBRd (MPa) M rCor. = Corrected Resilient Modulus MrCBR = 10.3CBRd (Design CBR) = (MrCBR-362)/MrCBR when MrCBR<362 Mr = 0.5(MrCBR-362)/MrCBR when MrCBR>362 Mr AMr = Constant dependent on range of Resilient Modulus Mr = -497 Wc + 5431 Mr = Resilient Modulus WC = Variation in water content
ch
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
d ch
Diameter of Chuckhole/Depth of Chuckhole
TR = TMfT0 TR = Resulting Thickness TMf = Modified Thickn T0 = Original Thickness AV = Average Resulting Thickness TR
Cor CBR w
500( 0.9
= =
Sr w )
x1
1 Sr w R
Cor CBR w =
Corrected value to conform to CBR determined during wet season
w r
Rf Ri Rt
Saturation level determined for Soils Sampled during the wet season Ratio of CBR determined during the wet season to that determined during the dry season. In the case whereby either of the values is unavailable then the ratio of soaked to Unsoaked CBR can be adopted from the relation CBRs/CBRus = 0.97-0.027PI (Ref. eqn. (18)) = Roughness Factor = Initial Roughness Value = Terminal Roughness Value
Page xix
I Gf
1 n Gi xESALi 100 i 1 T F R RDeff RDeff RDeff
fsd = fRL = f (RDeff, PSF, RSF, PSI) fsd = fRL = 1 - [RDeff. x (1- rf)] = Combined contribution of other factors deemed to have had a reciprocal effect on the magnitude of rf the damaging effect. In this study, Cf = CfP x fsd Te = TeE x CfP x fsd TeE = Existing thickness. CBRdDD = CBRdBD x fsd
TA
P(t) Pst Cv E[ ]
9.19 3.97 log DTN = Equivalent Thickness Index Total Asphalt Concrete CBR 0.4
= instantaneous tyre force at time t, = E[p(t)] = static (average) tyre force = coefficient of varieties of dynamic tyre force = expectation operator. 2 4 = 1+6 CV +3 CV (dynamic road factor) = parameter accounting for wheel configuration for both single or dual tyres
I
II
= parameter accounting for tyre contact pressures. Intuitively and are dynamic versions related to the AASHO load equivalent factor (LEF) in the forms: = rebound deflection rd Co = constant representing the initial conditions of loading D =damping factor of the pavement structure related to layer stiffness t = response time measured = angular frequency = constant representing the initial position and condition of deflection measurement. fr is the force constant la =axle load.
Page xx
Reconstruction of Runway Pavement for Isiolo Airport, Isiolo - Kenya |2011
CHAPTER 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The Kenya Airport Authority (KAA) commissioned Kensetsu Kaihatsu Consultants in the Rehabilitation and Restoration of Isiolo Airport Pavement Project in Isiolo County to carry out a design of the airport pavement facility using the Boeing 737-800 as the design aircraft with provision for future expansion.
Plate. 1.1 Fokker F50 Aircraft and the Boeing 737-800 Plane
1.1.1 Status of the site The existing pavement is completely deteriorated with numerous portholes and the airport is completely in disuse due to its current state. The runway width is less than 15m wide and 1.2km long. The arrival building, control tower and fire and rescue buildings are non-existent and are not in the current contract works. 1.1.2 Works under Construction The airport site is currently being fenced using precast concrete poles, barbed wire and mesh wire under a separate contract.
2010/2011Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited
Plate 1.2: Part of Erected perimeter fence around the airport
Page 1
1.2 Justification of the Project 1.2.1 Necessity for Rehabilitation of Isiolo Airport The district lacks basic infrastructure and is underdeveloped in comparison to other parts of Kenya (Republic of Kenya 1997). There are few bitumen covered road in the entire district most of which have been completed recently or are still under construction. The few rural roads are in poor condition and, therefore, impassable during the rainy season, hampering accessibility to livestock markets such as Nairobi and Mombasa. There is no piped water for households in the rural areas, while electricity, reliable telecommunication, schools, hospitals and other amenities are few and in poor condition. In general, the district is disadvantaged in natural and development aspects and falls within areas classified as hardship area. In Isiolo, human, floral and faunal survival is hampered by numerous natural and socioeconomic constraints. In particular, the 1997-1998 El Nino deluges in Kenya destroyed many infrastructures while the subsequent La Nina drought between 1999 and 2000 was even worse, as half the livestock in many vulnerable districts in the country perished (APD 2000). Isiolo District was hard hit by both of these phenomena as water conservation and conveyance structures were destroyed by the El Nino rains, while during the La Nina pastoralists from drier districts moved into Isiolo exacerbating an already overstretched ecosystem. There was an urgent need to supply relief aid to thousands of people and livestock. Many relief organizations pledged support but the situation was made particularly precarious by the poor infrastructure and lack of information with which to plan coordinated emergency recovery and mitigation interventions. It is with the above stated issues in mind that the Republic of Kenya envisioned to facilitate the development of Isiolo region to a modern city by the year 2030. In addition to the finished and ongoing infrastructural projects, the Isiolo airport facility will enable reliable and cost-effective movement of people, livestock products and mirra from the region to markets in Nairobi and beyond. It will also give fast access of the region to humanitarian aids as well as security services in times of floods, droughts and conflicts since these are a characteristic of this region. Some of the major goals are: To facilitate fast transportation of Miraa from Isiolo and Meru region to Nairobi thus ensuring savings in cost and time as well as reducing road accidents in Nairobi-Meru highway caused by fast moving Miraa vehicles. To promote eco-tourism in Isiolo and surrounding region. Isiolo has abundant wildlife and is home to Buffalo Springs, Shaba and Bisan-Adi Sanctuaries. The airport facility will attract increased number of tourists to the region and the Nearby Meru National Park due to the convenience of travelling by air as compared to travelling by road. To open up the region to trade and investment opportunities in line with Kenyas Economic Development plan Vision 2030 for Isiolo to become a tourist centre that will include casinos, hotels, upscale retail outlets and transport facilities given the vast land of the northern part of Kenya, available human resource (unemployed) and virtually unexploited natural resources.
1.2.2 Scope of Works The consultants, Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited were commissioned by the Client, Kenya Airport Authority, to undertake a comprehensive geotechnical engineering analysis and assessment of the existing pavement by employing a Value Engineering (VE) approach and set up State-of-the-Art International Standards fostering engineering and scientific concepts that can be tailored and applicable in Isiolo, Kenya. The assignment included but was not limited to the following tasks:i) Carry out pavement design using Boeing 737-800 as the design aircraft. ii) Assess the state of the existing pavement.
Page 2
iii)
iv) v) vi) vii) viii) ix)
x)
Study the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation AC 150/5320-6D, ICAO Aerodrome Design Manual, Materials and Specifications, ICAO recommended practices as detailed in Annex 14 Volume 1, and any other relevant documents. Undertake comprehensive Site Surveys and Investigations. Carry out detailed analyses and assessment of the test data obtained from both in-situ and laboratory tests performed in Kenya. Assessment of the laboratory equipment and capability of the same to carry out material acceptance and pavement control testing. Carry out material investigation, sampling and testing for the proposed runway. Perform tests on any other suitable material sites for aggregate sources, later to be utilized civil works. Carry out geo-material improvement, mechanical, & chemical stabilization and testing for any noncompliance materials and/or for purposes of enhancing the engineering properties of the compliant materials. Build capacity in terms of training manpower, and laboratory Technicians on test methods and quality control.
Plate 1.3 Site photo depicting condition of runway pavement
Page 3
1.2.3 Isiolo Airport Project and Surrounding Areas Fig. 1.1 shows the satellite image of Kenya and the location of Isiolo town relative to the countrys boundaries. Figure 1.2 shows the layout of Isiolo town in relation to the location of Isiolo. Figure 1.3 depicts the satellite imagery of Isiolo Airport runway.
KENYA ISIOLO
TANZANIA
Figure 1.1 Satellite Image of Kenya (Location of Isiolo)
Page 4
Fig. 1.2 Lay-out of Isiolo Town
Fig. 1.3 Satellite Image of Isiolo Airport in Isiolo Region, Kenya 1.2.4 Geophysical Details of Isiolo Airport in Isiolo county of Kenya The site for the Isiolo Airport located in Isiolo, Kenya, and its geographical coordinates are 020'17" North and 3735'28" East and its original name (with diacritics) is Isiolo.
Page 5
Airports in Isiolo and in the neighbourhood: Garbatula Airport (distanced approximately 105.7 km) Garissa Airport (distanced approximately 247 km) Hola Airport (distanced approximately 341 km) Marsabit Airport (distanced approximately 225 km) Wajir Airport (distanced approximately 317 km) Bura Airport (distanced approximately 308 km) 1.3 Brief Background of Project Area The Study including Geotechnical Investigation was carried out for Isiolo Airport and the site photos are depicted in Plate
Plate 1.4 - Photos Superimposed on Satellite Imagery showing the Airport
Page 6
Isiolo Town
Figure 1.4 Location of Isiolo Town in Kenya. Kenya is located in Eastern Africa between longitude 340 and 420 East, Latitude 50 North and 50 South. Kenya is the second largest of the East Africa countries (i.e. Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania), has a spectacular landscape of mainly three physiographic regions namely the coastal plains to the east; the inland plateau; and the highlands. The Great Rift Valley that runs from north east of Africa through North western and south western Kenya down to Kenya is another landmark that adds to the scenic view of the country. The valley is dotted with unique lakes which include Lakes Turkana, Baringo, Bogoria, Naivasha, Nakuru, Elementaita, Logipi and Magadi. Isiolo is a town in the Eastern Province, Kenya. It is situated in the Upper Eastern sub-region, and lies 285 kilometers north of Nairobi, the capital city of Kenya. The town grew around the local military camps, much of the population being descended from former Somali soldiers who had fought in World War I as well as other Cushitic-speaking pastoral communities and the Ameru community. The predominant population of Isiolo are the Oromo-speaking Boran and Sakuye as well as other Cushitic-speaking communities and the Bantu Ameru.In recent years there has been a steady migration from the neighbouring communities such Mandera, Wajir and Samburu, The most populous Division is Merit in the northern flank of the district. Isiolo town is the Headquarters of the district and the gateway to the northern half of the country. The town has an estimated population of 80,000 people, most of them living in the rural out backs of the District. There is an increasing urban population in the recent years, especially from as far as Moyale, Marsabit and Mandera. The Isiolo town is also becoming a centre of interest because of its newly acquired status as a resort city
Page 7
cashing in on the popular Samburu and Shaba Game reserves and the Meru National Park, which have become preferred destinations after the famed Maasai Mara. Isiolo lies along the long A2 Road, leading towards Marsabit and Moyale much farther north. The town is served by Isiolo Airport, which is set to be upgraded to serve tourism and local exports. Isiolo is set to become a major part of Kenya's economic development plan Vision 2030. The plan calls for Isiolo to become a tourist center that will include casinos, hotels, upscale retail outlets, a modern airport and transport facilities. Isiolo District was designated as the Headquarters of the Northern frontier Districts by The British East Africa Protectorate in 1922, until the North Eastern was curved out as a separate province in 1963 following the Lancaster House Constitutional conference. The Meru National Park lies in the North East of the town. The town of Isiolo is small but cosmopolitan. With a scenic beauty including an eclectic mix of peoples and cultures, Isiolo is home to the Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan-speaking Ameru, Samburu and Turkana, as well as the Cushitic-speaking Rendille and Boran. The large Somali population is mainly the result of retired Somali soldiers who settled in the area after World War I. Isiolo is one of the 13 districts that form Eastern Province of Kenya. The district borders Marsabit district to the north, Garissa district to the south east and Wajir district to the east. It also borders Tana River, Meru North and Meru Central to the south and Laikipia and Samburu districts to the west. The district covers an area of 25,605 square kilometers and is divided into 6 administrative divisions namely Central, Garbatulla, Sericho, Merti, Oldonyiro and Kinna. There are 22 locations and 44 sub-locations. The district has 2 constituencies; Isiolo North and Isiolo South. There is only one local authority i.e. Isiolo County Council with 22 wards.
MARSABIT WAJIR
SAMBURU ISIOLO
NYAMBENE LAIKIPIA MERU GARISA
TANA RIVRER
Fig. 1.5 Map of Isiolo District in relation to surrounding district
Page 8
1.3.1 Climate and Vegetation Kenyas climate varies from tropical type along the coast, temperate on the inland to arid in the North and North East part of the country. In the highlands, temperatures range between 10Cand 20C.during cold and hot seasons respectively. The rest of the country has temperatures never falling lower than 200c. The hottest period spreads between January and February (25C - 31C) while the coldest period occurs between July and August (15C - 20C). The rainfall regime in Kenya is bimodal (March - June and October - December). The March - June rains are referred to as the long rains, whereas the October - December rains are generally known as short rains. The general range of temperature in Isiolo is between 12.7C and 28.25C. Isiolo district has three climatic zones: semi-arid, arid and very arid. The characteristics of these zones are as follows: Semi-arid zone IV: This covers the Central and Kinna divisions (about 5 percent of the total area of the district). Rainfall here is 250-650mm per annum. Arid Zone V: This covers Central Gerbatulla divisions and is 30% of the area. The rainfall here is between 300-350 mm per annum and can only support annual grasslands and a few shrubs. Very Arid Zone VI: This area covers Merti and Sericho divisions which is nearly 65% of the district area. The rainfall here is between 150 and 250mm per annum. 1.3.2 General Topographic, Geographic and Existing Conditions The topography of Isiolo is classified as 100% ASAL. The district is predominantly flat with low lying plains that rise gradually from an altitude of 200m above sea level at Lorian Swamp in the north to about 300m above sea level at Merti Plateau. Ewaso Nyiro River dissects the district into two. To the north is Merti plateau and to the south are the plains that rise to an altitude of 1000m above sea level with some inselbergs towards Nyambene Hills.
Fig. 1.6 Major Landform and Soil map of Isiolo region
Page 9
1.4 Relevant Documents and Records Reference is made mainly to the following documents and records. 1. United States Federal Aviation Administration (US FAA) Advisory Circular No. 150/5320-6D 2. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 14 Volume I Aerodrome Design and Operations 3. Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 3 4. The Kenya Roads Design Manual 5. Boeing 737-800 Guide to Aerodrome Design and Technical Data 6. The Civil Aviation (Aerodromes) Regulations, 2007 7. AASHTO Guide to Pavement Design 8. Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) Overseas Road Note 31, Berkshire, United Kingdom 9. Japan Road Association Pavement Design Manual 10. Materials Report and Test Results 11. Rehabilitation and Restoration of Pavements in Isiolo Airport Contract Documents
Page 10
CHAPTER 2 2. BASIC SAMPLING AND SURVEY PROCEDURES IN BRIEF 2.1 Preliminary Field Survey Continuous sampling has been undertaken for more and the general site condition assessment was carried out visually, through datum location, GPS recordings, trenching, shallow soil profile examination by pit excavation and basic soil characteristic evaluation. Some representative observations of the Sampling Survey are presented in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Soil sampling from Designated Locations of Runway Alignment Sampling Location Material Description BCS BCS BCS Depth /Source Sampled 0.0m ~ 1.0m 0.0m ~ 1.0m 0.0m ~ 1.0m Quantity (Kg) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Layer of Utilization
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Km 0+000 LHS Km 0+600 RHS Km 0 + 1200 LHS Kithima Quarry Kithima Quarry Kithima Quarry Kithima Quarry Kithima Quarry Borrow Pit 1 Borrow Pit 2 Borrow Pit 3 Borrow Pit 4 Borrow Pit 5 Borrow Pit 6 LMD River River Archers post
GI/Subgrade GI/Subgrade GI/Subgrade Sub-base/Base Course Sub-base/Base Course Sub-base/Base Course Sub-base/Base Course Sub-base/Base Course Sub-base/Base Course Sub-base/Base Course Sub-base/Base Course Sub-base/Base Course Sub-base/Base Course Sub-base/Base Course Sub-base/Base Course Sub-base/Base Course
Crushed stones Dust Crushed stones Crushed stones Crushed stones Crushed stones 1 Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel LMD Sandy LMD Sandy Sandy
>1 m >1 m >1 m >1 m >1 m >1 m >1 m >1 m >1 m >1 m >1 m >1 m >1 m
100 100 100 30 30

50 50
From the preliminary field observations and material classification, it was concluded that the existing soils cannot provide adequate bearing pressures, capacity, strengths and deformation resistance for subgrade ground necessary to bear the road pavement structure and therefore an improved subgrade layer is required.
2.2 Basic Sampling Regime The basic sampling of disturbed soil samples was undertaken as follows: a) Disturbed soil samples were sampled at every 20 centimetres for confirmation of uniformity and at every 600 metres for laboratory testing from the boreholes at each of the 2 locations. b) The Geomaterial samples were immediately transferred to water proof polythene bags in order to preserve the moisture content as much as possible. c) The samples were then sealed properly, tied and appropriately labeled. Details of soil strata encountered at each sampling location were recorded accordingly prior to sending them to the respective Materials Testing Laboratories.
Page 11
Geological and Soil Survey Geological and soil surveys mainly associated with the stability of the foundation ground in relation to the original ground prior to cutting, studying the conditions of weathering, strike and inclination of stratum, and the properties of joints and cracks of the existing rock were out of the scope of this Study. As a consequence, the shape and size of Geomaterials, the conditions of matrix, the geological properties of the soil masses, soil mechanical characteristics of the problematic soils, and the geological characteristics of the ground were not critically examined. Groundwater Survey in General The stability of the ground decreases due to seepage of water whereby drastic reduction in bearing capacity and deformation resistance tending to failure can occur easily. In order to effectively carryout analysis on the characteristics of the generating mechanisms and the degree of extent of damage it causes to the stability of the foundation ground, it is considered vital to determine the groundwater conditions within and around the possible failure zone location constituting of location of groundwater flowing layer, fluctuation in water level, flow of groundwater, runoff path, current speed, quality and temperature of groundwater as well as variation of these factors with seasonal changes. The failure zone motion characteristics and the generating mechanisms can effectively be examined by correlating the hydrological data and groundwater levels. Observations of the seasonal fluctuations in relation to the vegetation in the Project area for purposes of studying the distribution of groundwater zone in comparison to the results of the field survey are also vital. For purposes of vertically surveying and analyzing the location of groundwater-flowing layer vis a vis the flow conditions, water contents are to be determined for the varying layers of the borelogs. 2.5 Ground Movement Survey in General Ground movement survey is to be predominantly carried out by assessing and evaluating the general stratigraphic column for purposes of examining the scale, direction of movement, and the generating mechanisms of the failure in detail since slight cracks due to inhomogenity had been observed in some cases. There are signs of underground cavities; this is from the DCP results analyzed in Chapter 5.
Page 12
CHAPTER 3 3. TESTING, INVESTIGATION AND ANALYTICAL REGIMES 3.1 Design Criteria of Testing, Investigation and Analytical Regimes 3.1.1 Preamble The Design Criterion is based on the RR concept which enhances the chemical mechanical modes of stabilization. Ground Improvement and Moisture Control techniques are also used in the improvement of the existing BCS subgrade. The properties of the different Geomaterials from different borrow pits within vicinity of the airport are enhanced by the use of the OBRM and OPMC techniques. Tensar Geogrids have been incorporated in the RR technique to improve and enhance the durability of the composite pavement particularly at later stages of loading. The above techniques are unique, researched oriented new generation design and construction concepts and are geared towards Value Engineering.
3.1.2Postulated Failure Mechanism of Pavement and Subgrade Layers Based on Case Study Analysis of in-situ ground behavior as well as field and laboratory data within the East African Region, it is considered that, for the layers overlaying rock and located within shallow depths, failure may predominantly be prompted by rapid moisture~suction variation and the combined components of dynamic loading and pore pressure increase effects. These effects may then culminate in the states briefly summarized here below for the respective layers. (1) Expansive Overburden Soil Layers This would result mainly in the reduction of density, bearing capacity, strength and deformation resistance primarily as a result of decrease in angle of shearing resistance and shearing stress. (2) Lower Sandy Clayey Layers Crack propagation at the joint within the lower sandy clay layers may occur mainly due to the reduction in confining stress as a result of increased pore water pressure combined with the effects of dynamic loading due to traffic. The shear failure planes and differential settlement measured and observed during most case studies indicate that the failure tendency may propagate towards a critical state as excitement due to dynamic loading increases. (3) Main Objectives of Regimes Design and/or Choice Criteria Adopted
In general, the regimes were designed and developed in order to determine appropriate design measures by establishing the following. (a) Effectively assess and evaluate the field conditions including the propensity of ground failure motion and behaviour, failure mechanisms and the direction and rate of failure where possible. (b) Correlate as comprehensively as possible, the failure mechanisms due to changes in environmental factors. (c) Estimate groundwater-flowing layer and the flow conditions as precisely as possible. (d) Examine the scale, direction of movement and generating mechanisms of the possible failure zone. (e) Determine the necessary engineering parameters to determine a cost-effective and value Engineering (VE) based foundation and structural design. (f) Predict as precisely as possible, future failure or stability mechanisms. (g) Predict future structural performance and design life of the ground performance and foundation
Page 13
structure. (h) Propose effective methods of maintenance including emergency countermeasures for future protection works. However, it is important to note that items (c) ~ (h) are out of scope of this Report. 3.2 In-Situ and Laboratory Testing 3.2.1 Determination of Basic In-Situ Material Properties Conventional testing techniques were applied to determine some basic physical properties of the in- situ materials sample from the boreholes. In-situ natural moisture content, Atterberg Limits, sieve analysis measurements and sieve analysis were carried out for the varying layers for disturbed samples extruded from the respective boreholes.
3.2.2
Brief Introduction of In-situ and Laboratory Tests Undertaken (1) Laboratory Tests The laboratory tests performed included Atterberg Limits, Specific Gravity, Dry and Bulk Density Sieve Analysis, measurement of Natural Water Content, Bearing Capacity test, Shear resistance and consolidation tests. (2) In-situ Tests The in-situ tests undertaken included Soil Classification, Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) and Geophysical Survey by conducting Geo-electric Prospecting.
3.3 Summary of Laboratory Methods of Testing The laboratory tests were performed on proposed materials under close supervision at the laboratory. All laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the Standards presented in Table 3.1. The analyzed test results are presented under sub-section 5.1 of Chapter 5 of this Report.
3.3.1 Specific Gravity
Specific gravity tests were conducted in accordance with AASHTO T-100, on representative samples of course aggregate. A sample of aggregate is immersed for 24 4 h to essentially fill the pores. It is then removed from water, the water dried from the surface of the particles, and the mass determined. Subsequently, the volume of the sample is determined by the displacement of water method. Finally, the sample is oven-dried and the mass determined.
3.3.2
Atterberg Limits
Atterberg limits were performed in accordance with AASHTO T-89/T-90, on soil samples. The liquid limit was determined by Casagrande cup method and the plastic limits were determined via Rolling- Thread method. For liquid limit determination, four water contents with blow counts between 15 and 35 were adopted. As for plastic limit, two (2) measurements were made. The tests data are compiled in Appendix A.
Page 14
3.3.3
Sieve Analysis
Sieving was conducted in accordance with AASHTO T-27/T-28, to determine the percentage of coarse and fine-grained material. A small but representative soil sample is allowed to be dried in the oven at 110oC for a period of 24 hours. The dry soil is weighed and washed through No. 200 sieve (75 m), and then the soil retained is collected and oven-dried. After drying, the soil is sieved through No. 2 to No. 200 sieves. The proportion of soil retained on each sieve is noted, and the grain size distribution curve is plotted together with hydrometer test results. 3.3.4 Natural Water Content
Three small but representative soil samples are selected from various locations of the water proof polythene bags, weighed to determine the moist weight and allowed to be dried in the oven at 110 C for a period of 24 hours. Subsequently, the samples are weighed to determine the dry weight. The difference between the moist and dry weights is then computed and presented in percentage form. This test was basically conducted in accordance with JIS A1203. 3.4 Summary of In-situ Methods of Testing The in-situ tests were performed in the field under close supervision. All in-situ tests were performed in accordance with the Standards presented in Table 3.2. The analyzed test results are presented under sub-sections 5.2 ~ 5.10 of Chapter 5 of this Report.
3.4.1 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test In geotechnical and foundation engineering, in-situ penetration tests have been widely used for site investigation in support of analysis and design. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and the Cone Penetration Test (CPT) are two typical in-situ penetration tests. While SPT is performed by driving a sampler into the soil with hammer blow, the CPT is a quasi-static procedure. Fundamentally, the Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) exhibits features of both the CPT and SPT. The DCPT is performed by dropping a hammer from a certain fall height measuring penetration depth per blow for a certain depth. As a consequence, it is quite similar to the procedure of obtaining the blow count N using the soil sampler in the SPT. In the DCPT, however, a cone is used to obtain the penetration depth instead of using the split spoon soil sampler. In this respect, there is some resemblance with the CPT in the fact that both tests create a cavity during penetration and generate a cavity expansion resistance. The DCP basically consists of upper and lower shafts. The upper shaft has an 8 kg (17.6 lb) drop hammer with a 575 mm (22.6 in) drop height and is attached to the lower shaft through the anvil. The lower shaft contains an anvil and a
Fig 3.1: DCP testing equipment
Page 15
cone attached at the end of the shaft. The cone is replaceable and has a 60 degree cone angle. As a reading device, an additional rod is used as an attachment to the lower shaft In order to run the DCPT, two operators are required. One person drops the hammer and the other records measurements. The first step of the test is to put the cone tip on the testing surface. The lower shaft containing the cone moves independently from the reading rod sitting on the testing surface throughout the test. The initial reading is not usually equal to 0 due to the disturbed loose state of the ground surface and the self-weight of the testing equipment. The value of the initial reading is counted as initial penetration corresponding to zero blows.
Plate 3.1 DCP Testing at the site The penetration rate was determined as a function of the bearing ground resistance and the results were correlated directly with SPT blow count, CBR and UCS. 3.5 Schedule and Summary of Tests Performed 3.5.1 Laboratory Tests Samples obtained from the material sites were tested in the laboratory considering the following basic objectives. Compaction Tests To be undertaken for the basic purposes of:Specifying a suitable Design Moisture Content for field compaction. Specifying a minimum Dry Density to be obtained in the field. Determining the Moisture Content to be employed in moulding compressive strength and CBR specimens. Compressive Strength (UCS) and CBR Tests To be undertaken with the basic objective of:Determining the suitability of the soil for treatment and comparing different mixtures. Specifying the appropriate cement content to be used in the construction. Provide a standard by which the quality of the field processing can be assessed.
Page 16
Durability Tests These tests will be carried out specifically for: Determining the suitability and extent of stabilization particularly for the sub-base and base course material. Investigate the suitability of stabilized soil for use under particularly severe environmental and dynamic loading conditions. (1)Conditions of Moulding a. Type of Materials In-situ base course material In-situ sub-base material In-situ subgrade material Type of Treatment Optimum Batching Ratio Method, OBRM Optimum Mechanical-Chemical Treatment, OPMC Cement Content and Geogrid All material to be tested: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6% by weight for both UCS Tests and CBR Tests. The geogrid is Tensar TX 170G
b.
(2) Number of Samples A minimum of 3 No. samples for each testing condition was adopted.
(3) Modes of Curing The modes of curing indicated below should basically be adopted for experimental purposes of determining the most appropriate mode that is suitable for the Geomaterials to be tested.
3 days cure under moist conditions 4 days cure under moist conditions Seven days cure under moist conditions Six days cure under moist condition Seven days cure under moist conditions Compressive strength or CBR Tests Compressive strength or CBR Tests Compressive strength or CBR Tests Compressive strength or CBR Tests Compressive strength or CBR Tests
One day soak
Zero days soak (Unsoaked) Seven days soak
One day soak Zero days soak (Unsoaked)

Page 17
Method of Testing Strength Tests
Preparation of specimens and testing for strength shall basically be conducted in accordance with BS 1924 (1990) or ASTM D558-82 (Reapproved 1990) with some modifications to be determined in relation to the actual prevailing field conditions.
Basic Method of Sample Preparation
Mix cement and material thoroughly at designated percentage ratio of dry weight of material i.e. final cement content, density and
CCf
d CC
where
f CC
d CC = designated cement content,
S = wet
d = dry density
To simulate field conditions of mixing leave the mixed material for at least 30 minutes but not longer than one hour prior to compaction.
Compact the material applying the standard method to a final OMCf which should be greater than the pre-determined OMCP by 10% i.e. OMCf = 1.1xOMCP (approximately).
Cure the sample under moist and moulded conditions for the designated curing period.
Soak the samples for the designated period of soaking.
Carryout the CBR or UCS strength tests accordingly
Page 18
Durability Tests In-order to better simulate the extreme environmental and loading conditions on the Airport Pavement Structure, the durability tests will basically be modified as follows.
Mold the specimens in the concrete or CBR moulds in accordance with the standard
specifications. Cure the test specimens under moist conditions for a period of 7 days, weigh and measure.
Place in a 1100C oven for 3 hrs or in a microwave oven for a period calibrated to ensure similar amount of loss in moisture content.
Remove the specimens weigh, measure and compute MC.
Firmly brush each face of the sample with a stiff wire brush giving two strokes to each face.
Weigh the samples again and record the percent loss of the sample resulting from the brushing.
Repeat Steps 3 ~ 6 until the specimens have undergone 12 cycles
Page 19
Schedule of Tests Table 3.5.1. Standard Tests for Soils and Gravels
Description of Test Equivalent Standard/ Specification commonly used in East African Region JIS Equivalent Standard/ Specification No. of Tests Recommended Remarks
Moisture Content Atterberg limits Determination of linear shrinkage Determination of specific gravity of particles Particle size distribution to 0.075mm (dry sieving) Determination of particle size distribution to 0.075mm (wet sieving) Hydrometer analysis for fine-grained soils Organic matter content Total Sulphate content pH value Density-moisture relationship (2.5kg rammer AASHTO T99) Density-moisture relationship (4.5kg rammer AASHTO T180) Density-moisture relationship (Vibrating Hammer) CBR of specimen statically compacted to 100% MDD & OMC at 4 days soak CBR at 95% MDD (MOD. AASHTO) of specimens dynamically compacted at 3 levels of compaction & OMC at 4 days soak Sand equivalent Field density (sand replacement method) Triaxial Testing (CUTC)
AASHTO T-89/T-90 AASHTO T-91 AASHTO T-100 AASHTO T-27
A1203 A1205/6 A1209 A1202 A1102
102 34 4 17 17
AASHTO T-28
A1103
17
AASHTO T-84 ASTM-1411 ASTM-C289
A1202
2 -
AASHTO T-99
A1210
17
AASHTO T-180
A1211
17
BS598 Part 104 (1989)
specialized Innovative tests only
AASHTO T-193
A1121
27
AASHTO T-194
A1122
27
AASHTO T-176 AASHTO T-191 Innovated A1214
Page 20
Notes i. ii. iii. Innovative and In-situ Tests to be determined during the Study and charged from the Contingency Account. Tests to be carried out in Isiolo, or Nairobi unless otherwise all testing facilities are available on site. Highly qualified Staff to be assigned for undertaking the tests
Table 3.5.2: Standard Tests for Aggregate, Sand & Filler Description of Test Equivalent Standard/ Specification commonly used in East African Region Determination of particle size distribution to 0.075mm AASHTO T-27 (ISO sieves) Clay, silt and dust in fine or AASHTO T-112 coarse aggregate Flakiness index BS812 Part 105 (1989) Relative density and water ASTM D-2049 absorption Bulk density, voids and bulking Aggregate crushing value BS812 : Part 110 (ACV) 1990 Soluble chloride content BS812 Part 117 (1988) Los Angeles Abrasion Value AASHTO T-96 (LAA) Sodium or magnesium AASHTO T-104 Sulphate soundness Average least dimension BS812 Part 1 (ALD) of aggregate (1975) Crushing ratio (CR of BS812 Part 110 aggregate)
JIS Equivalent Standard/ Specification
No. of Tests Remarks Recommende d
30 A1204 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 -
A1126
Page 21
Table 3.5.3: Standard Tests for Cemented Materials Description of Test Equivalent JIS Standard/ Equivalent Specification Standard/ commonly used in Specification East African Region Density moisture relationship AASHTO T-99 (2.5 kg rammer AASHTO T99) Density moisture relationship AASHTO T-190 (4.5 kg rammer AASHTO T180) Density moisture AASHTO T-99/Trelationship A1216 180 BS1924 : 1990 (V.H) Determination of the AASHTO T-134/TUnconfined Compression 208 BS 1377 (1990) A1216 Strength (UCS) Part 8 Effect of immersion in water AASHTO T-134/Ton the UCS 208 BS 1377 (1990) A1121 Part 8 CBR at 95% MDD (MOD. AASHTO) of specimens dynamically compacted at 3 AASHTO T-193 levels of compaction & OMC at 7DC + 7DS Cement content of cement NITRR (1984) treated material Lime content of lime treated BS 1924 : 1990 material Initial consumption of lime BS 1924 : 1990 (ICL) Durability Tests BS 1377 : 1990 Part 5
No. of Tests Remarks Recommende d
34
34
34
34
17
17
4 4 4 17
Page 22
2. Durability Tests Table 3.5.4 Conditions of Testing for Durability Tests Conditions of Testing Type of Variation in Material Modes of No. of Tests Cement Type Curing Samples Content Wetting/ Drying Cycles 1 3 1 3
Total No. of Tests
3.5.2 In-situ Tests The in-situ tests undertaken in the field are summarized in the schedule presented in Table 3.5.5. Table 3.5.5: Schedule of Standard In-situ Tests Equivalent JIS Equivalent No. of Tests Standard/ Standard/ recommended Specification Specification commonly used in East Africa region ASTM D1586 BS 5930 TRRL (1990) A1219 A1205/6 0 >36 >36 >34 0
Description of Test
Remarks
Drilling Soil classification Disturbed sampling Dynamic Cone Penetration Geophysical survey
3.6 Proposal for Performance Specification for the Geogrid Comprehensive research will be undertaken to determine the contribution of the geogrids to the overall pavement structure. The performance engineering properties of the geogrids shall be determined based on the scientific and engineering concepts and other designed methods of testing. The enhancement of the different engineering properties shall be construed to form the performance based specifications of the geogrids. The parameters to be determined are tensile strength, compressive strength, structural capacity, modulus of elasticity etc
Page 23
CHAPTER 4 RELEVANT ENGINEERING CONCEPTS AND THEORIES APPLIED This Chapter presents the relevant fundamental engineering concepts and theories that were applied in carrying out the data analyses. Several State of the Art analytical tools developed on the basis of innovation and long-term research form the basis of methods applied for analyzing the results presented in Chapter 5.
4.1 Outline of Methodology of Data Analysis, Evaluation and Criteria for Suitability Data analysis, evaluation and subsequent establishment of appropriate design criteria, method of construction and desirable field quality control techniques is to be established on the basis of precise analytical tools based on recently developed research oriented quasi-empirical relations on foundation engineering and construction. This should be undertaken with the concise objective of enhancing the precision of the methodology adopted.
4.2 Determination of Basic Parameters 4.2.1 Standard Soil Model Expressions
In order to establish the magnitude of change of the physical properties of the existing foundation Geomaterials and their corresponding effects on the bearing capacity, strength, moduli of deformation, basic parameters such as natural moisture content (win), Atterberg Limits (PI, LL, WL, & LS), Specific Gravity (Gs), voids ratio (e), dry density ( d) and degree of saturation (Sir) were determined based on the standard soil model expressions. In general terms, plasticity index is a function of the amount of clay present in a soil, while the Liquid Limit and Plastic Limits individually are functions of both the amount and type of clay. High plasticity indices are analogous to high water contents whose lubricating effect of the water films between adjacent soil particles tends to reduce the mechanical stability, strength and deformation resistance. This phenomenon is quantitatively illustrated by the following generalized empirical equations.
mc
qu qu E50 E50
vmc q imc
PI
(4.1)
vmc imc
mc
EU
PI
EU
(4.2)
mc
Emax Emax
vmc Em imc
PI
Em
(4.3)
Where,
Mc =
mcMcu/Mci (Moisture Content Variation Factor),
UMC=Ultimate Moisture Content, Imc=Initial Moisture Content, and,
Page 24
mc = 0.53 for expansive soils such as black cotton = 0.35 for natural gravels and lateritic materials = 0.28 for OPMC Stabilized materials
q u = Peak strength determined from Unconfined Compression (UCS) Tests,

E50 = Pre-failure modulus determined from UCS or CUTC tests,
E max = maximum Youngs Modulus,

PI = Plasticity Index,
q
= -0.0123,
EU
= -0185,
Em
= -0.0362 and
= 0.535,
EU
= 0.823,
EU
= 1.9 are material
constants related to strength, pre-failure and Youngs modulus respectively. Substituting for q u in Equation 4.1 from the relation between UCS and CBR in Equations 4.20 and 4.21, we obtain,
CBR
gi mc
gl umc
f f
imc
OPMC q
CBR
gi
PI
(%)
(4.4)
gl
OPMC
The following empirical formula that correlates the bearing capacity expressed in terms of CBR and the Plasticity Index is also employed.
gi gl BC
PI
CBR m
35
(%) 4.5)
Where,
gi
= 0.97,
gl
= 0.027 and
BC
= 0.564 being the gradient linear, gradient intercept and Bearing
Capacity materials constant of most tropical Geomaterials tested and,
CBRm is the measured CBR value obtained at a density corresponding to 95% MDD in accordance to AASHTO T180 Method D for various soaking and curing periods. Substituting for q u from Equation in Equation 4.1, we obtain Equation 4.6 as follows,
gl mc gl
ln CBR ln CBR
gi umc q gi imc
PI
(%)
(4.6)
Where,
gl =
12.9, and
gi =
36.5 being the gradient logarithmic, and gradient intercept materials constants
for most Geomaterials tested.
Page 25
4.2.2
Concepts Applied for Analyzing Impact of Environmental Factors
Environmental factors are known to highly affect the concepts of design, actual construction and ultimate performance of civil engineering structures. In this study, some comprehensive methods that may be effective for evaluating the impact of these factors are proposed. A new concept of evaluating the deterioration of the structural thickness as a result of infiltration of underlying material to the upper layers is also introduced. Application of these concepts and methods show that the impact of environmental factors over a given period of time can be more detrimental than commonly considered in most cases The main objective of undertaking this research therefore was to develop new quantitative analytical concepts and methods of effectively evaluating the impact of environmental factors such as geology, topography and climate (seasonal changes) on the performance of civil engineering structures. The major environmental factors considered which highly depend on topographic, geographical, geological, climatic and other changes are depicted as follows: Effect of Swelling Recent research has shown that for most Geomaterials, swell can be contained by applying a surcharge pressure of approximately 24KPa as can be derived from Equation (4.7).
sc sc
ln
sc
sc
(%)
(4.7)
Where,
sc
Swell in relation to surcharge pressure 12.9; logarithmic gradient constant for standard tropical Geomaterials Surcharge Pressure in Kpa 36.5; logarithmic intercept constant for standard tropical Geomaterials
sc
sc
sc
Effect of Variation In Design Moisture Content The selection of an appropriate design moisture content and density condition is critical to the design analysis and subsequent construction Quality Control. The moisture content at which overlying layers strength should be assessed is that which can be expected to be exceeded only rarely. Pronounced exceedance of this factor is known to have adverse effects on the foundation structure.
DMC gl
ln PI
gl
(4.8)
Where,
DMC
Design Moisture Content Ratio 0.12; logarithmic DMC gradient constant for tropical Geomaterials Plasticity Index of the Geomaterials to be utilized for construction 0.7; logarithmic DMC intercept constant for tropical Geomaterials
gl
PI
gi
Correction factors for the Plasticity Indices and the Design Moisture Contents respectively, during the wet and dry seasons are defined in the following relations.
Page 26
PI d
A p e Bp PI w
(4.9)
Where,
Ap = 12; linear gradient constant for PI for tropical Geomaterials

PI d
Plasticity Index of the Geomaterials during the dry season Annual Evapotranspiration Factor
e Bp
BP = 0.02; Exponential constant for PI for tropical Geomaterials
PI w
Plasticity Index of the Geomaterials during the wet season (4.10)
D w mc
Where,
Am e Bm D d mc
Am = 0.97; linear gradient constant for DMC for tropical Geomaterials
D w mc
e BM
Design Moisture Content of the Geomaterials during the dry season Annual Evapotranspiration Factor
Bm = 0.03; Exponential constant for DMC tropical Geomaterials
D d mc
Design Moisture Content of the Geomaterials during the wet season
Seasonal Effects On Bearing Capacity and Resilient Modulus The combined effects of seasonal changes and soaking conditions on the bearing capacity and resilient modulus of some Geomaterials is presented in Equations (4.11) ~ (4.13).
wdr gl
ln CBRw
gi
(4.11)
Where,
wdr
= Wet to Dry Season Bearing Strength Ratio
gl
= 0.0022; logarithmic CBR gradient constant for tropical Geomaterials = 0.54; logarithmic CBR intercept constant for tropical Geomaterials
gi
The relation between the CBR wet and dry season ratio vs. the CBR determined during the dry season is correlated as follows.
ddr gl
ln CBR d
gi
(4.12)
Where,
wdr
= Wet to Dry Season Bearing Strength Ratio
gl
= 0.0022; logarithmic CBR gradient constant for tropical Geomaterials = 0.54; logarithmic CBR intercept constant for tropical Geomaterials
gi
Page 27
wMr
gl
ln M r
gi
(4.13)
Where,
wMr
= Wet to Dry Season Resilient Modulus (Mr) Ratio = 0.0022; logarithmic Mr gradient constant for tropical Geomaterials = 0.54; logarithmic Mr Intercept constant for tropical Geomaterials
gl
gi
4.3 Bearing Capacity Analysis 4.3.1 Derivation of Correlations of N-value, UCS and CBR
Lacroix and Horn (1973) proposed that Non-Standard Penetration Resistance, NNS, could be correlated with the Standard Penetration Resistance, NSPT, for drive samples or solid conical point apparatus such as the DCP, static cone etc., which incorporated consideration of driving energy and distance of penetration. Their reasoning was that the energy required to drive the sampler or cone through a given distance or depth (d) was directly proportional to the square of the external diameter (De) and the distance of penetration, and inversely proportional to the energy per blow {Weight of hammer (Wh ) multiplied by the height of drop (Hd)}, whence: NSPT = NNS {D2/Di}2 D12/d Wh/W140 Hd/D30 = (4.14)
Where, D2 = 50mm, D12 = 300mm, W140 = 65kg and D30 = 76mm On the other hand, Skempton, 1986, proposed that SPT data can be corrected for a number of site specific factors such as type of Geomaterials, overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, aging and overconsolidation in order to account for efficiency and improve its repeatability, as well as precision. In this publication, the procedures for determining a standardized blow count were presented, which allow for hammers of varying efficiency to be accounted for. This corrected value is usually referred to as N60, since the original SPT (Mohr) hammer has about 60% efficiency, and this is the word termed standard to which other blow count values are compared. The SPT N-value corrected for field procedures and apparatus, N60, is therefore given as:
N60 = Where,
(4.15)
Page 28
On the other hand, comprehensive research undertaken over the past decade has developed empirical equations based on field and laboratory data for tropical soils within the East and Central African Region that correlate the SPT N-value and the Unconfined Compression Strength (qu) expressed as:
(4.16) where,
Based on the foregoing and various other correlations, Mukabi et al. (2004, 2006 and 2007), established empirical relations equating the SPT N-value ( , , and , to the inverse of the rate of penetration determined from Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests (DCPT) as follows:
(4.17)
(4.18)
(4.19) Where,
4.3.2
Derivation of CBR and qu Relations for Stiff Geomaterials
An empirical formula relating the bearing capacity based on CBR for materials where CBR 50, and Unconfined Compression Strength (UCS) is defined as:
CBR
gl
qu
gi
} f OPMC
(%)
(4.20)
Rewriting Equation (4.20) we obtain,
qu
CBR
gi
gl
OPMC
(Kgf/cm2)
(4.21)
where, gl = 14.4 and gi = 46.6 being the gradient linear and gradient intercept of most Geomaterials tested in the 2001 Study and,
Page 29
f OPMC
s f opt
Rrc
BR I
BR Iopt is a strength and moduli ratio parameter derived from the influence of
OPMC Stabilization. Substituting for q u in Equation (4.20) we obtain,
CBR
gi mc
gl umc
f f
imc
OPMC q
CBR
gi
PI
(%)
(4.22)
gl
OPMC
In evaluating the resulting deterioration in foundation structural capacity as a consequence of moisturesuction variations, relation (4.23) is adopted.
CBRUS
where ,
500 0.9
Sr
CBR S0.1
Sr
(4.23)
CBRUS CBRs Sir
= = =
Unsoaked CBR Soaked CBR Saturation Level Expressed as fraction of 100 percent
4.4 Consolidation and Settlement Related Analysis 4.4.1 Estimation of Consolidation and Shear Stress Paths As repeated loading progresses, the cumulative effects can be back analyzed by applying the concepts of consolidation and shear stress ratio functions under normally consolidated (NC) conditions introduced by Mukabi and Tatsuoka (1996) and Mukabi (2001d). In so doing, the initial stresses are computed from the experimental results of full scale trial sections (Mukabi, 2002; Gono et al., 2003) .The cumulative stresses are then derived by considering the average loading rate and cumulative repeated loading over a given period of time. Once the maximum deviator and mean effective stresses are determined, the stress ratio functions, defined from the following expressions proposed by Mukabi and Tatsuoka (1999b) and Mukabi (2001d) are applied.
A
Where,
CSR
(4.24)
A and B are material properties, and the consolidation stress ratio function
1
CSR
which is
independent of the effects of loading rate, is derived from the relation function of normalized angle of internal friction expressed as
CSR
qmax , whereby
/
I Q
'=
'
(A: An isotropic I:
Isotropic) and qmax = maximum deviator stress. ' can be determined from the quasi-empirical equation (Mukabi, 2001d) expressed in general form as:
Page 30
'
where,
SR
SR
SR
(4.25)
ASR and BSR are stress ratio constants and
SR
q p' is the invariant stress ratio variable.
The antistrophic stress path is derived from the isotropic one by introducing a mathematical operator proposed by Mukabi and Tatsuoka (1999b) expressed as:
max I
KI
where,
max =
CSR
.CSR
(4.26)
(q/p) at qmax, KI=1 and CSR= consolidations stress ratio. The modifier is applied in the relation
p.
On the other hand, the invariant stresses and angle of internal friction under over consolidated (OC) conditions were derived from the flowing correlations proposed by Mukabi (2001d).
oc qmax NC K oNC .qmax oc K o . A .CSR NC
K oNC
(4.27)
where,
OC KOx
OC K Ox
OCR
sin
' f
and,
OC K Ox
1 sin ' f
' OC
The corresponding mean effective stress, p f
and angle of internal friction
'OC f
are given by:
'OC f
NC KO
PC'OC Pf' NC
' pCNC
(4.28)
and,
'OC f NC KO OC KO . A CSR NC 1 ' NC f
NC KO
(4.29)
4.4.2 Analyzing Construction History for Settlement Prediction Computation of total and initial settlement resulting from construction and surcharge of upper layers is considered vital since this influence the characteristics of the foundation soils and the magnitude of their engineering parameters. In computing the total settlement, the generalized Equation (4.30) below was adopted.
Page 31
Computation of total and initial settlement resulting from construction and surcharge of upper layers is considered vital since this influence the characteristics of the soils adjacent to the foundation structure and the magnitude of their engineering parameters. In computing the total settlement, the generalized Equation (4.30) below is adopted.
ij ST
Hi
i CC 1 ei
log10
i 1, j 1
P ij o P ij 0
PK iC
(4.30)
where, Hi = Thickness of each layer in cm. Back Calculation of induced stresses and strains due to these effects are derived from Equations (4.31) and (4.32) as follows.
C ci
ei log10 P0
k Psc
P / P0
(4.31)
P0ij
(10
1)
(4.32)
Where,
i
i 1
i ei Cc
It is assumed that the stress is induced uniformly and that the magnitude of induced stress reduces proportionally with depth. However, the quantitative reduction is average over the depth of each layer as a logarithmic function of the summed reduction in voids ratio (e) and compression Index (CC).
4.5 Shearing Strength and Critical State Analysis 4.5.1 Analysis of a Soil Element along the Slip Failure Plane Concepts developed based on recent research for the derivation of stress ratio functions related to consolidation and undrained shear are adopted in comprehensively analyzing and evaluating the failure modes and critical state conditions for design purposes. The stress invariants and angle of shearing resistance are determined from the following relations.
SR
0.0422 ' 0.0455
(4.33)
where,
SR
Sin-1
qmax p f i.e. invariant stress ratio at failure and ' , which is fundamentally defined as ' = a' r' a' r' under triaxial conditions is the Angle of Internal Friction of the
Geomaterials. The relation between ' and (qu)max adopted in this analysis is expressed in Equation (4.34) as:
'
ANf (qu ) max Bf
Af
(4.34)
where,
Page 32
(qu)max values are expressed in KN/m2 and An = 0.08 A determined constants. On the other hand, considering that qmax = ( ' a
= 106, B
= 3.83 are experimentally
' r ) max and P' f
13
' a 2 ' r then,

(4.35)
'
' Sin
q max 2 p ' f 1 3q max
From Equations (4.33), (4.34) and (4.35) the mean effective stress at failure Pf is derived as :
p 'f
or,
0.5 q max
1 1 Sin ' 3
(4.36)
p' f
0.5 q max
1 Sin ANf qU
max
1 /B f ' 3
(4.37)
A more universal empirical equation that considers all factors including the effects of OPMC stabilization, variation in material properties, modes of mechanical and chemical stabilization, as a quantum of various parameters is presented in Equation (4.32) below.
qu
gl
ln CBR
gi
(Kgf/cm2)
(4.38)
4.5.2 Application of Modified Critical State Soil Mechanics The development of the conventional Critical State Soil Mechanics(CSSM) concepts and theories was predominantly based on the Rendulics principle of effective stress which states that for a soil in an initial state of stress and stress history, there exists a unique relationship between its void ratio (e), and effective stress ( ). Within this context it is presumed that for a given, normally consolidated clay, failure occurs at a unique line known as the Critical State Line (CSL) defined by , without allowing the stress paths to
locate above it at any one stage irrespective of drain conditions, strain rate and the stress path traversed towards the CSL.
However, modern research has shown that this unique state does not exist for most of the natural clayey Geomaterials for various reasons. Various Researchers for example, have reported that, the shapes and magnitudes of yield envelopes are influenced mainly by the composition, anisotropy and stress history of the clayey features. Based on long term research, Mukabi and Tatsuoka (1992, 1995 and 1999) proposed some modification of certain aspects of the existing theory of CSSM. By determining the ratio of deviation of the Anisotropic stress path Isotropic , they introduced a linear operator expressed as: , as a function of the
Page 33
(4.39) Where,
Since
, the equation
defining the conventional
can therefore be defined in the
modified form as: (4.40) On the other hand, the modified constant which would project the modified determined from the kappa function and the following relation. onto the space is
(4.41) where,
a
= soil constant, /( a)I= soil constant determined during conventional Isotropic Consolidation, =1.78, c/ / = CSR and =0.9 space may therefore be defined as:
The modified Normal Consolidation and Critical State Lines in the
(4.42) and,
(4.43) The extrapolation of the consolidation constants to calculate the values of the stresses at failure under undrained or partially drained conditions may therefore be given by Equations (4.43) and (4.44).
(4.44) And,
(4.45)
Page 34
Another important aspect of this development is that as the bearing ground progresses towards Critical State Conditions tending to failure, the shearing stress path deviates from constant conditions at a virtually constant ratio. Incorporating this concept, an empirically determined deviator stress factor, Equation (4.46). = where,
was proposed as indicated in
(4.46)
4.6 Deformation Resistance Analyses 4.6.1 Application of Deformation Concepts The deterioration with time of the structural capacity of a civil engineering structure has been known to be greatly influenced by the bearing capacity and resistance to deformation of the native soils. For purposes of comprehensively studying this condition in the laboratory by varying a number of parameters, dynamic loading was applied directly on the specimens in order to simulate critical conditions whereby the upper layers of pavement structure would have deteriorated drastically leading to a gross loss of its structural capacity. It was derived analytically that the effect of the damaging factor by a factor
0.7 SC
eff D
would reduce proportionally
with the increase in structural capacity of the upper layers. This relation is expressed in
Equation (4.46).
eff DR
0.7 SC
eff DI
(4.47)
where,
eff DR
=Coefficient of Resulting Damaging Effect,
0.7 SC
=Structural Capacity Factor,
eff DI
=Coefficient of
Initial Damaging Effect. 4.6.2 Determination of Modulus of Deformation Parameters
Analysis of the elastic Youngs modulus and shear modulus to be adopted in characterizing the deformation behavior of Geomaterials are derived from the following Equations.
For 2 < qn < 15kgf/cm2,

ij E max
E50 x (0.0996qu 0.0104)
n q
(kgf / cm 2 )
(4.48)
where,
2
qu q R
0.806
and
Page 35
2.24e
0.112 qu
1.663 Since
qu
15kgf / cm 2
For 15< qn < 35,
ij E max
139x
C dg
x10 m xe 0.0782qu (kgf / cm 2 )
(4.49)
where,
C dg
1.89qu
0.42
1.45
and
qu q R
0.5
0.755
For qn > 35 then
ij E max
E50 x (0.0996qu 0.0104)
n q
(kgf / cm 2 )
For OPMC stabilized aggregate, cementetious material and relatively hard rock, the following equation is adopted. For purposes of evaluating the influence and magnitude of change in voids ratio (e) on the maximum shear modulus of Geomaterials, the following Equation is adopted. (4.50) Where,
Go
2360(2.17 e) 2 (1 e)(
' 0.6 o
(4.51)
4.6.3 Computation of Linear Elastic Range In analyzing the effects of dynamic loading, the linear elastic range is a vital parameter since it determines the initial yield surface beyond which the behavior tends towards non-linearity and non-recoverability of elasticity. In other words, the visco-elastic and plastic straining mechanisms leading to failure prevail. This concept is also quite important in controlling the mode and magnitude of loading during stage construction. Estimation of the linear elastic range or initial yield surface is made from the following Equation proposed by Mukabi (1998).
ij a ELS
ij ELS
ij a 50 ij a max
(%)
(4.52)
Where,
Page 36
ESL
is a function of the level of (
) max and A is a constant depending on the physical properties of
the Geomaterials. For most clays is defined as,
ELS
E50 x462 Emax
The analytical results based on this Equation can be adopted in predicting the magnitude of future settlement as a result of dynamic loading as well as the corresponding possible deterioration in the structural capacity of the foundation structure. 4.7 Geophysical Survey Analysis The equipment adopted in this Study was a portable geo-electromagnetic sounding instrument based on the time domain electromagnetic sounding technology. The modified system is based on the Transient Electromagnetic Method (TEM) sounding technology which enable the conducting of subsurface sounding to as deep as 300m depending mainly on the geological formation, ground conditions, environmental factors and frequency mode. Theoretically, an asymptotic estimation of signals for late stages of transience is considered. The development of the electromagnetic signal with time, , for a late stage of the transience , for a transmitting coil with a radius and a receiving coil with a radius , lying above the homogeneous half-space and current , is described by the formula
with formation resistivity , magnetic permeability of vacuum proposed by Kamenetsky, 1997, expressed as follows:
(4.52)
The signal for
does not depend on the radius of the receiving coil (
. Formula (4.45) is
also valid for a height above the surface of the half-space determined by the coil. At a late stage of transience, the signal registered in the receiving antenna is caused by the currents induced in the ring inside the section with the effective radius and the depth )]1/2, exceeding
the radius of the transmitting coil,
. , hence
The vertical magnetic field created by the coil is homogeneous within the limits of its area at
registered signals which are proportional to the derivative of the magnetic field over time do not depend on the station of reception. At an early stage of transient ( and the identical coils ( , the signals do not depend on the
resistivity of the media or ground, hence:
Page 37
(4.53) However, for a small receiving antenna the signal is proportional to the resistivity of the media or
ground, but does not depend on time. Consequently, this relation is expressed as:
(4.54) 4.8 Concepts Applied for OPMC Stabilization 4.8.1 Theoretical Considerations In their natural state, most Geomaterials are usually deficient in one or more of the particle fractions required. Consequently, mechanical stabilization plays an important role in achieving a pavement structure which, under loading conditions, is appreciably resistant to shear and deformation. In developing the Optimum Batching Ratio Method (OBRM), Mukabi (2001a) considered that; such Geomaterials would have a particle size distribution that tends towards correctly proportioned ratio that would yield optimum density and adequate strength to resist stress-induced deformation. This concept is demonstrated in Figures 4.8.1~4.8.3.
Figure 4.8.1 Effect of gradation index on Mechanical Stability
Figure 4.8.2 Effect of gradation index on Bearing capacity
Page 38
Figure 4.8.3 Correlation between mechanical stability, MS and bearing capacity, BC
The theoretical point of departure in establishing this method is that soil is regarded as an assembly of particles whose integrated motion can be characterized theoretically by basic concepts and fundamental principles of continuum mechanics and models that consider probabilistic perspectives of microscopic state and multi-dimensional analysis. A summary of the theoretical and empirical basis for this method is presented in Figure 4.8.4 (a) ~ (h), in the form in which the paper was presented at the 14th World Road Congress (IRF 2001) in Paris.
(a)
(b)
Important factor study
(c)
Objective of
(d)
Develop a method of determining optimum Mixing ratios for Geomaterials with different grading characteristics in order to achieve; Enhanced strength (Bearing Capacity) Better characteristics Compaction
Greater resistance to wear Enhanced properties resilience
(e)
(f)
(h)
(g)
Figure 4.8.4 (a) - (h) Method of Enhancing Mechanical Stabilization of Geomaterials
4.8.2 Proposed Method of Determining Optimum Batching Ratio (OBR) The mechanical stabilization method, developed on the basis of the foregoing theory, is represented graphically in Figures 4.8.5 and 4.8.6 as well as Flow chart 4.1
Page 39
Figure 4.8.5 Schematic representation of Grading curves generating Graphical Lines Depicted in Fig. 4.8.6
Fig. 4.8.6 Graphical Representation of New Batching Ratio Method
Page 40
Flow Chart 4.1 Proposed Batching Ratio Method

Determine Grading for both materials Join the percentages passing for similar sieve sizes for both materials as shown in Fig. 4.3 Plot and join the lower and upper bound of the specification values as shown in Fig. 4.3
Assuming 50:50 Batching Ratio Line as the Phase transformation point, draw Translation Lines from the points where the sieve lines intersect the 50:50 BR Line to the specification Lines (Fig. 4.3)
Mark out the points of intersection at the intersection between the Sieve and Specification Lines (Fig. 4.3)
Calculate individual average Batching Ratios of material from points indicated on Fig. 4.3
Compute overall average Batching Ratio
Calculate the percentages of the respective sieve size for the optimum grading curve
Plot values in grading envelop
4.9 Concepts of Cementation on Soil Particle Agglomeration Soil particle agglomeration is one of the most important characteristics required in geo-materials for their application for the construction of geo-structures. Different Geomaterials with different intrinsic properties do exhibit an enhancement into their properties with time. This is attributed to the enhancement of the physio chemical properties of the materials. When two or more Geomaterials with different physio-chemical properties are batched together, their intrinsic properties are enhanced with time (Sirmoi, et al, 2011). The following paragraph clearly explains the concept: Figures 4(a) and (b) show the effect of Mechanical Stabilization on the deformation resistance parameters. As can be noted in both cases, these parameters tend to increase as the Optimum Batching Ratio (OBR) tends towards an optimum value. The results in Figures 4(a) and (b) are consistent with the Cyclic Prestraining (CP ) models introduced by Mukabi (2011d)[4], which are presented in Figures 5(a) and (b).
Figure 4 (a) Effect of Mechanical Stabilization on Elastic Modulus (Emax) and, (b) Effect of Mechanical Stabilization on the Elastic Limit Strain, (a)ELS
Page 41
CHAPTER 5 5. MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS 5.1 Basic Physical and Mechanical Parameters Table 5.1.1 and the corresponding graph show the typical grading characteristics of the Isiolo Airport subgrade soils sampled at varying depths and locations along some designated Airport Runway. Table 5.1.1 Typical Grading Characteristics of Isiolo Airport Subgrade Soils
Sample Type Sample source Sample Date Test date: Specification
BLACK COTTON SOIL ISIOLO AIRPORT

Sample N :
26-Oct-10
Sample time
According with BS 1377:1990-Wet and Dry Method

(gm) (gm) (gm) (gm) (gm) 153 648 495 194 41 Fine mass Fine percent Acceptance Criteria (gm) (%) (%) 454 91.7
Pan mass Initial dry sample mass + pan Initial dry sample mass Washed dry sample mass + pan Washed dry sample mass
Sieve size (mm) 20 14 10 5 2 1 0.6 0.425 0.3 0.15 0.075
Retained mass (gm) 0 0 3 1 1 2 4 3 3 13 11 41
% Retained (%) 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.6 2.6 2.2
Cumulative passed percentage (%) 100.0 100.0 99.4 99.2 99.0 98.6 97.8 97.2 96.6 93.9 91.7
Acceptance Criteria Min(%) Max (%)
Particle size distribution

100 90 80 70
Passing (%)
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieves (mm)
On the other hand, Table 5.1.2 typical pre-treatment (pre-stabilization)/pre-consolidation basic physical, mechanical and bearing capacity properties of the subgrade soils within the Airport Project Area.
Page 42
Table 5.1.2 Summary of BCS-Subgrade Material Test results for Isiolo Airport
# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
TESTED PARAMETERS Computed UCS (Mpa) CBR@100%MDD - Unsoaked CBR@100%MDD - Soak MDD - Kg per Cubic meter OMC Atterberg - LL Atterberg - PL
TEST VALUE 0.05 17.00 2.00 1,129.00 34.50 120.00 53.00
REMARKS
8 Atterberg - PI 9 Atterberg - LS
5.2 The Development of the Test Regimes
67.00 The subgrade soil has a lot of fines 23.00
To attain Optimum and a value engineered design, several Test Regimes were developed to help us achieve the optimum designs. It involves the comparison of various designs options and modeling the different structures in the Lab. OBRM refers to the batched BP3 Gravel and 20% Quarry Dust materials while OPMC refers to OBRM with cement and geogrids as chemical and mechanical stabilizing agents respectively. The materials in the three different regimes are taken through different rates and modes of stabilization and curing and the change or behaviour of the properties analyzed. 5.2.1 TEST REGIME 1: SAMPLE BP3
Granular Material-Gravel Stabilization Rate Neat 1d/c 3d/c 7d/c 1d c/s 3d c/s 7d c/s 1d/c 3d/c 7d/c 1d c/s 3d c/s 7d c/s 1d/c 3d/c 7d/c 1d c/s 3d c/s 7d c/s 1d/c 3d/c 7d/c 1d c/s 3d c/s 7d c/s Mode of curing MDD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OMC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CBR (%) UCS KN/M2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GRADING* 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1%
2%
BP3
3%
4%
Page 43
5.2.2 TEST REGIME 1: OBRM

Granular Material-Gravel Stabilization Rate Neat 1d/c 3d/c 7d/c 1d c/s 3d c/s 7d c/s 1d/c 3d/c 7d/c 1d c/s 3d c/s 7d c/s 1d/c 3d/c 7d/c 1d c/s 3d c/s 7d c/s 1d/c 3d/c 7d/c 1d c/s 3d c/s 7d c/s Mode of curing MDD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OMC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CBR[%] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 UCS KN/M2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GRADING* 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1%
2%
BP3+10% QUARRY DUST

3%
4%
5.2.2 TEST REGIME 1: OPMC

Granular Material-Gravel Stabilization Rate Neat 1d/c 3d/c 7d/c 1d c/s 3d c/s 7d c/s 1d/c 3d/c 7d/c 1d c/s 3d c/s 7d c/s 1d/c 3d/c 7d/c 1d c/s 3d c/s 7d c/s 1d/c 3d/c 7d/c 1d c/s 3d c/s 7d c/s Mode of curing MDD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OMC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CBR (%) UCS KN/M2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GRADING* 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1%
2%
OPMC [BP3+10% QUARRY DUST + GEOGRID]
3%
4%
Page 44
5.3 Correlation between Physical, Mechanical and strength Parameters The typical pre-treatment (pre-stabilization)/pre-consolidation basic physical, mechanical and bearing capacity for material tested from the existing borrow pit BP3 is summarized in Tables 5.3.1 to 5.3.7 Table 5.3.4 shows the UCS and Modulus characteristics of the neat material under soaked and Unsoaked conditions. Table 5.3.5 shows the UCS and Modulus characteristics of the OBRM material reinforced with TX 170 geogrid under Unsoaked conditions. Table 5.3.6 shows the chemical-mechanical stabilization results. The mechanical stabilization is provided by a combination batched material and geogrids while the chemical stabilization is provided by 2% cement. The high bearing capacity and strength values can clearly be noted. Table 5.3.7 compares the results of the three test regimes.
Page 45
Table 5.3.1 Particle Distribution Characteristics of Sub-base soils at Borrow Pit [BP3], Ruiri
University of Nairobi
Department of Civil & Construction Engineering
(Highways Laboratory)
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Project: Sample source Sample Date Test date: Specification
Rehabilitation of Isiolo Airstrip RUIRI Sample N : BP 3 NEAT 19-Feb-11

Sample time
According with BS 1377:1990

(gm) (gm) (gm) (gm) (gm) 176 906.7 500 687.2 500 Fine mass Fine percent Acceptance Criteria (gm) (%) (%) 390.4 78.1
Sieve size (mm) 20 14 10 6.3 5 2 1 0.6 0.425 0.3 0.212 0.15 0.075
Retained mass (gm) 0 2 15.2 57.2 35.2 118.6 78.4 49.2 30.8 23 22.6 17.4 23.2 27.2 500
% Retained (%) 0.0 0.4 3.0 11.4 7.0 23.7 15.7 9.8 6.2 4.6 4.5 3.5 4.6 5.4
Cumulative passed percentage (%) 100.0 99.6 96.6 85.1 78.1 54.4 38.7 28.8 22.7 18.1 13.6 10.1 5.4
GRADING CURVE
100 90 80
70
Passing (%)
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieves (mm)
Page 46
Table 5.3.2 Particle Distribution Characteristics of 0.6mm Quarry Dust from Kithima Quarry
SIEVE ANALYSIS
22-Feb-11
Rehabilitation of Isiolo Airstrip RUIRI Sample N : QUARRY DUST-0.6mm Sample Class Fine Aggregate According with BS 1377:1990
Sieve size (mm) 20 14 10 6.3 5 2 1 0.6 0.425 0.3 0.212 0.15 0.075
Retained mass (gm) 0 0 4.8 32.2 22.8 161 103 52.6 24.8 17.2 13.4 9.5 15.4 43.3 500
% Retained (%) 0.0 0.0 1.0 6.4 4.6 32.2 20.6 10.5 5.0 3.4 2.7 1.9 3.1 8.7
100 89 89 60 30 15 9 5 3 0
100 100 100 100 100 100 80 70 55 15
GRADING CURVE
100 90 80
70
Passing (%)
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieves (mm)
Page 47
Table 5.3.3 Particle Distribution Characteristics of OBRM sample [BP3:Quarry Dust]
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Rehabilitation of Isiolo Airstrip RUIRI Sample N : BP 3 19-Feb-11

Sample time

Sieve size (mm) 20 14 10 5 2 1 0.6 0.425 0.3 0.15 0.075
Retained mass (gm) 0 21 34 38.4 83.8 25 12.6 6.6 6.2 5.8 5.4 344.2 238.8
% Retained (%) 0.0 4.2 6.8 7.7 24.3 7.3 3.7 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 100.0
Cumulative passed percentage (%) 100.0 95.8 89.0 81.3 57.0 49.7 46.0 44.1 42.3 40.6 39.1
GRADING CURVE
100 90 80 70
Passing (%)
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieves (mm)
Page 48
5.3.4. Neat Material

# TESTED PARAMETERS TEST VALUE SPECIFICATIONS REQMTS BP3-NEAT SUBBASE BASE 1.23 52.00 Not<30% Not<80% 59 1,486.00 NS NS 19.10 " " 45.00 " " 33.00 " " 11.00 Not<15% Not<15% 6.00 NS NS REMARKS
1 Computed UCS (Mpa) 2 CBR @ 100% MDD- Unsoak CBR @ 100% MDD- 4 days soak 3 MDD - Kg per Cubic metre 4 OMC 5 Atterberg - LL 6 Atterberg - PL 7 Atterberg - PI 8 Atterberg - LS
Qualifies for subbase
Qualifies subbase Qualifies for subbase
It is interesting to note that the CBR of the Neat Gravel-BP3 after 4days soak is 13% higher compared to the CBR unsoak, uncured. This might be explained by the fact BP3 is lateritic gravel with very good cementetious properties hence particle agglomeration is enhanced in presence of the moisture. More tests to ascertain this phenomenon are underway. 5.3.5. OBRM SUBBASE MATERIAL+TENSAR TX 170 GEOGRID The OBRM material is a batch of BP3 with 20% Quarry Dust (0.6mm).
# TESTED PARAMETERS 1 Computed UCS (Mpa) 2 CBR@100%MDD - Unsoaked 4 MDD - Kg per Cubic meter 5 OMC 6 Atterberg - LL 7 Atterberg - PL 8 Atterberg - PI 9 Atterberg - LS TEST VALUE OBRM 2.88 120.00 1,595.00 12.60 38.00 28.00 10.00 SPECIFICATIONS REQMTS SUBBASE BASE 1.80 Not<30% Not<80% NS NS " " " " " " Not<15% Not<15% REMARKS Qualifies for base and subbase Qualifies for base and subbase
Qualifies for base and subbase
5.3.6. OPMC SUBBASE MATERIAL The OPMC material is a batch of BP3, 20% Dust and 2% cement.
TESTED PARAMETERS 1 Computed UCS (Mpa) 2 CBR@100%MDD - Unsoaked 4 MDD - Kg per Cubic meter 5 OMC 6 Atterberg - LL 7 Atterberg - PL 8 Atterberg - PI 9 Atterberg - LS
TEST VALUE
SPECIFICATIONS REQMTS REMARKS SUBBASE BASE 3.32 1.80 Qualifies for base and subbase 138.00 Not<30% Not<80% Qualifies for base and subbase 1,615.00 NS NS 12.80 " " 38.00 " " 27.00 " " 11.00 Not<15% Not<15% Qualifies for base and subbase -
Page 49
5.3.7. SUMMARY OF THE TEST RESULTS-COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
TESTED PARAMETERS 1 Computed UCS (Mpa) 2 CBR@100%MDD - Unsoaked 4 MDD - Kg per Cubic meter 5 OMC 6 Atterberg - LL 7 Atterberg - PL 8 Atterberg - PI 9 Atterberg - LS
TEST VALUE SPECIFICATIONS REMARKS BP3 OBRM OPMC SUBBASE BASE 1.23 2.28 3.32 1.80 Qualifies for base and subbase 52.00 120.00 138.00 Not<30% Not<80% Qualifies for base and subbase 1,486.00 1,595.00 1,615.00 NS NS 19.10 12.60 12.80 " " 45.00 38.00 38.00 " " 33.00 28.00 27.00 " " 11.00 10.00 11.00 Not<15% Not<15% Qualifies for base and subbase 6.00 -
5.3.8.
SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF GRANULAR SUB-BASE MATERIAL FOUND IN THE VICINITY

TESTED PARAMETERS Unsoaked LL PL PI LS Soaked 3hrs Soak
Computed UCS, qu Computed UCS, q u (kgf/cm2)
Sample #
Location
MDD
OMC
3
CBR AT 100% MDD

Top Bot Ave Top Bot Ave Top Bot Ave 2 2 2
(Mpa)
kg/m
% 13.2 11.6 19.1 18.4 14.8
% 31.0 43.5 45 44.5 36.0
% 52.7 15.0 23.7 33 23.7 12.0
% 62.0 16.0 19.8 11 20.8 24.0
1 BCS 2 BP1 3 BP2 4 BP3 8 BP5 9 BP6
subgrade LMD gravel 78 Tank Batt Ruiri Murero LMD Sandy
1129 1799.8 1924.5 1486 1789.1 1835
34.5 114.7
23.0 14.0 20.0 17.0 5.0 46.0 36.0 41.0 9.0 48.0 45.0 47.0 6 52 51 52 9.0 34.0 23.0 28.5 6.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
0.48 9.84 11.28 12.36 6.84 1.92 0 0 0
0.048929664 1.003058104 1.149847095 1.259938838 0.697247706 0.195718654 0 0 0
From the tables above the following can be inferred: The gravel at BP3 is of good sub-base quality. It has natural intrinsic cementetious behaviour. This makes it posses high engineering properties in comparison to other materials within the location [see table above]. The grading of BP3 is satisfactory but we will be required to add 20% Quarry Dust to improve on the densities. The strength properties, densities and particle of the neat BP3 material is enhanced by the inclusion of the 20% quarry dust and 2% cement. The cement used is Bamburi PowerPlus. It is reported that PowerPlus type of cement gains strength immediate/sporadically after stabilization and after about 28 days the strength normalizes; PowerMax gains strength with time and its expected to yield maximum strength after 28 days. Laboratory tests and monitoring are ongoing to confirm this. The OPMC batched material evidently shows improved properties. We have an increase of more than 150% in strengths after 3 day cure. Further tests are still on-going to ascertain the behaviour with time and at different conditions as described in 5.2 From the 1 day cure results we can tentatively decide that our design will be BP3+20% Quarry Dust + Tensar TX170 Geogrids + 2% cement is the optimum design.
Page 50
5.4 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test Results The ground and Geomaterials characteristics under dynamic loading as simulated by the Dynamic Cone Penetration determined in this Study, are summarized in the Tables below, while their behavior is graphically characterized in the corresponding Figures. Low bearing capacities and strength magnitudes were exhibited due to the fact that the existing subgrade is Black Cotton soil with exceptions of locations which fell on the old runway. Series 5.4.1 Tables and Figures for Dynamic Cone Penetration Results for Isiolo Airport
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
DESIGN OF PAVEMENTS AND BUILDINGS AT ISIOLO AIRPORT - KENYA DCP TEST RESULTS - PAVEMENTS PENETRATION DATA REPORT Chainage(km): Location: Lane no. Offset(m): Surface Type: Cone angle Zero error: Test date: 0+120 LHS
WEATHER STATUS Temp: Humidity: Rainfall: Precipitation Period
60o
Wind Status
15/01/2011 Cumulative Penetration Cummulative Initial Final Penetration Level (Hf-Hi) Penetration Rate Blows Reading (Hi) Reading (Hf) Depth (mm) Depth (mm) (mm/blow) P 0 10 20 30 50 70 90 0 990 820 725 635 510 420 0 820 725 635 510 420 348 0 170 95 90 125 90 72 0 170 95 90 125 90 72 0 170.0 265.0 355.0 480.0 570.0 642.0 0.00 17.00 9.50 9.00 6.25 4.50 3.60
CBR
S/ No.
No. of blows 0 10 10 10 20 20 20
CBR (%)
UCS, qu (kgf/cm2)
N-Value
17.88 32.00 33.78 48.64 67.56 84.44
1 2 3 4 5 6
17.88 32.00 33.78 48.64 67.56 84.44
4.32 7.73 8.16 11.74 16.31 20.39
8.82 15.79 16.67 24.00 33.33 41.67
Page 54
DESIGN OF PAVEMENTS AND BUILDINGS AT ISIOLO AIRPORT - KENYA DCP TEST RESULTS - PAVEMENTS PENETRATION DATA REPORT Chainage(km): Location: Lane no. Offset(m): Surface Type: Cone angle Zero error: Test date: 0+140 RHS
WEATHER STATUS Temp: Humidity: Rainfall: Precipitation Period
60o
Wind Status
15/01/2011 Cumulative Penetration Cummulative Initial Final Penetration Level (Hf-Hi) Penetration Rate Blows Reading (Hi) Reading (Hf) Depth (mm) Depth (mm) (mm/blow) P 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 980 805 706 625 559 505 460 420 0 805 706 625 559 505 460 420 383 0 175 99 81 66 54 45 40 37 0 175 99 81 66 54 45 40 37 0 175.0 274.0 355.0 421.0 475.0 520.0 560.0 597.0 0.00 17.50 9.90 8.10 6.60 5.40 4.50 4.00 3.70
CBR
S/ No.
No. of blows 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
CBR (%)
UCS, qu (kgf/cm2)
N-Value
17.37 30.71 37.53 46.06 56.30 67.56 76.00 82.16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
17.37 30.71 37.53 46.06 56.30 67.56 76.00 82.16
4.19 7.41 9.06 11.12 13.59 16.31 18.35 19.84
8.57 15.15 18.52 22.73 27.78 33.33 37.50 40.54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
The following derivations can further be made from these tables and figures. a. Most of the locations on the carriageway of the existing pavement structure exhibit high bearing strengths under conditions tested with averages of CBR 62%. b. The average CBR mean results is about 62% for dry in situ conditions while the soaked conditions gives average CBR mean of less than 5%. From the two CBR figures, it is prudent that the subgrade/foundation Design considers options for moisture control in its design. We are proposing the GI-MC method for the design and construction of the improved subgrade. This because when the foundation is dry i.e. when moisture is controlled, the in-situ strengths are very high compared when it is partially or completely soaked. c. The Subgrade BCS soil has PI values of 67%. This indicates a very high value of fines and clay minerals in its composition. The design needs to cater on how to prevent the contamination of the Base/sub-base layers through infiltration/ingress of fines into the upper pavement layers [base/sub-base]. The presence of fines into these layers will be very detrimental to the structural performance of the pavement layers. The presence of fines will raise the Capillary action of the layers and this will result in soaking up of the layers and the subsequent reduction of strength. d. From KM 0+000 to KM 0+700, the CBRM are greater than those from KM 0+700 to Km 1+400. This is because of consolidation with time and the presence of the old dilapidated pavement from KM 0+000 to Km 0+700 e. The Design CBR of our design criteria is 62% since it is the CBR mean result when the foundation/subgrade is Unsoaked. Conventionally, that is without the Moisture Control techniques, the CBR mean is less than 5%. The mean CBR values are shown in the following Tables 5.3.2. Table 5.3.2 CBR Data and CBRM Values from Dynamic Cone Penetration Results for Isiolo Airport - Runway Ch0+000 to Ch1+500
KM 1+400 RHS Soaked CBR (%) 0 0.63 1.58 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CBR
P
NMC= t x CBR
P
KM 1+400
RHS
Partially Soaked CBR (%) 0 3.04 7.60 15.20 6.08 5.07 3.80 15.20 7.60 15.20 15.20 15.20 7.60 30.40 30.40 30.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CBR
P
KM 1+400 t x CBR
P
RHS
Unsoaked CBR (%) 0 5.26 21.71 9.50 12.67 21.71 19.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CBR
P
NMC=% t x CBR
P
KM 0+000
CL
0 CBR (%) 0 28.95 76.00 121.60 67.56 55.27 50.67 57.90 60.80 81.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CBR
P
NMC=% t x CBRP 0 322.42 169.43 123.86 183.27 209.51 444.04 406.22 393.22 324.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2576.56 56.87
Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 480 672 838 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 480 192 166 -838 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 100 140 160 210 270 350 370 410 430 450 470 510 520 530 540 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 40 20 50 60 80 20 40 20 20 20 40 10 10 10 -540 0 0 0 0 0
Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 289 359 519 639 709 789 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 289 70 160 120 70 80 -789 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 105 145 170 215 270 390 495 595 670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 40 25 45 55 120 105 100 75 -670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0.86 1.17 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum CBRM
0 412.21 223.78 203.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 839.09 1.00
0 1.45 1.97 2.48 1.83 1.72 1.56 2.48 1.97 2.48 2.48 2.48 1.97 3.12 3.12 3.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum CBRM
0 144.86 78.64 49.54 91.26 103.05 124.84 49.54 78.64 49.54 49.54 49.54 78.64 31.21 31.21 31.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1041.29 7.17
0 1.74 2.79 2.12 2.33 2.79 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum CBRM
0 502.59 195.29 338.87 279.73 195.29 213.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1725.23 10.45
0 3.07 4.24 4.95 4.07 3.81 3.70 3.87 3.93 4.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum CBRM
Page 98
KM 0+050 LHS Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 105 360 587 635 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 255 227 48 -635 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NMC=% CBR (%) 0 57.90 23.84 26.78 63.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CBRP 0 3.87 2.88 2.99 3.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum CBRM t x CBRP 0 406.22 733.94 679.18 191.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2010.67 31.75
KM 0+100 CL Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 48 95 213 316 415 525 570 630 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 47 118 103 99 110 45 60 -630 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CBR (%) 0 63.33 129.36 51.53 59.03 61.41 55.27 135.11 101.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CBRP 0 3.99 5.06 3.72 3.89 3.95 3.81 5.13 4.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum CBRM
t x CBRP 0 191.33 237.70 439.09 401.04 390.59 419.02 230.91 279.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2589.42 69.44
KM 0+170 RHS Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 122 200 235 283 355 437 510 575 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 78 35 48 72 82 73 65 -575 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CBR (%) 0 24.92 77.95 173.71 126.67 84.44 74.15 83.29 93.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CBRP 0 2.92 4.27 5.58 5.02 4.39 4.20 4.37 4.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum CBRM
t x CBRP 0 356.34 333.19 195.29 241.06 315.88 344.49 318.80 295.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2400.12 72.73
KM 0+200 LHS Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 75 110 205 265 325 370 450 510 585 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 35 95 60 60 45 80 60 75 -585 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CBR (%) 0 40.53 86.86 32.00 50.67 50.67 67.56 76.00 101.33 81.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CBRP 0.00 3.44 4.43 3.17 3.70 3.70 4.07 4.24 4.66 4.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum CBRM
t x CBRP 0 257.63 155.00 301.61 222.02 222.02 183.27 338.87 279.73 324.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2284.74 59.57
KM 0+300 CL Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 60 95 140 215 310 460 505 590 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 35 45 75 95 150 45 85 -590 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CBR (%) 0 50.67 86.86 67.56 81.07 64.00 40.53 135.11 71.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CBRP 0.00 3.70 4.43 4.07 4.33 4.00 3.44 5.13 4.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum CBRM
t x CBRP 0 222.02 155.00 183.27 324.60 380.00 515.26 230.91 352.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2363.91 64.32
KM 0+400 RHS Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 130 250 415 488 545 585 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 120 165 73 57 40 -585 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CBR (%) 0 23.38 50.67 36.85 41.64 53.33 76.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CBRP 0 2.86 3.70 3.33 3.47 3.76 4.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum CBRM
t x CBRP 0 371.75 444.04 549.07 253.03 214.56 169.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2001.88 40.07
KM 0+500 LHS Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 150 275 415 485 545 590 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 125 140 70 60 45 -590 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CBR (%) 0 20.27 24.32 43.43 86.86 101.33 135.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CBRP 0.00 2.73 2.90 3.51 4.43 4.66 5.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum CBRM
t x CBRP 0 408.96 362.16 492.10 310.00 279.73 230.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2083.86 44.06
KM 0+600 CL Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 100 140 200 255 320 375 480 590 620 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 40 60 55 65 55 105 110 30 -620 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CBR (%) 0 30.40 76.00 101.33 110.55 93.54 110.55 57.90 28.28 43.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CBRP 0.00 3.12 4.24 4.66 4.80 4.54 4.80 3.87 3.05 3.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum CBRM
t x CBRP 0 312.10 169.43 279.73 263.96 295.06 263.96 406.22 335.13 105.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2431.04 60.28
0+700 RHS Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 95 180 275 345 375 400 430 447 465 495 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 85 95 70 30 25 30 17 18 30 -495 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NMC= CBR (%) 0 32.00 35.76 64.00 86.86 202.67 243.20 202.67 357.65 337.78 202.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CBRP 0.00 3.17 3.29 4.00 4.43 5.87 6.24 5.87 7.10 6.96 5.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum CBRM t x CBRP 0 301.61 280.05 380.00 310.00 176.22 156.05 176.22 120.67 125.36 176.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2202.39 88.08
KM 0+800 LHS Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 285 375 415 440 560 645 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285 90 40 25 120 85 -645 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Day CBR (%) 0 10.67 33.78 76.00 121.60 50.67 35.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CBRP 0.00 2.20 3.23 4.24 4.95 3.70 3.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum CBRM
NMC= t x CBRP 0 627.37 290.93 169.43 123.86 444.04 280.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1935.67 27.03
KM 0+900 CL Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 70 110 155 215 255 290 325 365 390 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 40 45 60 40 35 35 40 25 -390 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
KM
1+000 RHS Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 140 215 230 240 260 405 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 75 15 10 20 145 -405 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Day CBR (%) 0 21.71 40.53 405.33 608.00 304.00 41.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CBRP 0.00 2.79 3.44 7.40 8.47 6.72 3.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum CBRM
NMC= t x CBRP 0 390.58 257.63 111.01 84.72 134.48 503.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1482.16 49.01
Page 99
KM 1+100 LHS Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 70 100 130 195 220 240 250 270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 30 30 65 25 20 10 20 -270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
KM 1+200 CL Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 60 110 155 240 295 330 370 395 415 450 460 470 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 50 45 85 55 35 40 25 20 35 10 10 -470 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
KM 1+300 RHS Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 145 315 615 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 170 300 -615 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
KM 1+400 LHS Penetration Thickness, t Depth (mm) (mm) 0 50 65 105 470 570 695 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 15 40 365 100 125 -695 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1+500 CL Penetration Thickness, t CBR (%) Depth (mm) (mm) 0 0.00 240 240 12.67 330 90 33.78 410 80 38.00 495 85 35.76 570 75 40.53 0 -570 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00
NMC= CBR
P
t x CBR
0.00 2.33 3.23 3.36 3.29 3.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum CBRM
0 559.46 290.93 268.96 280.05 257.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1657.02 24.57
KM 0+000 RHS 4 Hour Soaked KM 0+000 LHS 4 hour Soaked Penetration Thickness, t Penetration Thickness, t P CBR (%) CBRP t x CBRP CBR (%) CBR Depth (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) (mm) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185 185 8 145 145 10 2.02 373.30 2.19 220 35 43 200 55 28 3.51 123.02 3.02 270 50 61 270 70 43 3.93 196.61 3.51 305 35 87 340 70 43 4.43 155.00 3.51 342 37 82 420 80 38 4.35 160.85 3.36 370 28 109 495 75 41 4.77 133.58 3.44 435 65 94 545 50 61 4.54 295.06 3.93 485 50 122 585 40 76 4.95 247.71 4.24 0 -485 0 0 -585 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum 1685.14 Sum CBRM CBRM 41.95
KM 0+600 CL 4 hour Soaked KM 1+300 RHS 4 hour Soaked Penetration Thickness, t Penetration Thickness, t P CBR (%) CBRP t x CBRP CBR (%) CBR Depth (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) (mm) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 90 34 120 120 13 3.23 290.93 2.33 110 20 304 150 30 51 6.72 134.48 3.70 120 10 608 195 45 68 8.47 84.72 4.07 125 5 1216 230 35 87 10.67 53.37 4.43 135 10 608 265 35 87 8.47 84.72 4.43 142 7 869 305 40 152 9.54 66.79 5.34 150 8 760 355 50 122 9.13 73.01 4.95 270 120 51 390 35 174 3.70 444.04 5.58 440 170 36 420 30 203 3.29 560.10 5.87 540 100 61 455 35 174 3.93 393.22 5.58 0 -540 0 480 25 243 0.00 0.00 6.24 0 0 0 505 25 243 0.00 0.00 6.24 0 0 0 540 35 174 0.00 0.00 5.58 0 0 0 570 30 203 0.00 0.00 5.87 0 0 0 0 -570 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum 2185.36 Sum CBRM 66.28 CBRM
t x CBR
0 317.34 166.29 246.05 246.05 268.96 257.63 196.61 169.43 0.00 0.00 1868.36 32.58
KM 0+200 RHS 4 hour Soaked Penetration Thickness, t CBR (%) CBRP t x CBRP Depth (mm) (mm) 0 0 0 0 185 185 8 2.02 373.30 318 133 11 2.25 299.58 460 142 11 2.20 312.95 568 108 14 2.41 260.75 0 -568 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Sum 1246.59 CBRM 10.57
KM 1+400 RHS 4Hrs Soaked Penetration Thickness, t CBR (%) CBRP t x CBRP Depth (mm) (mm) 0 0 0 0 100 100 3 1.45 144.86 140 40 8 1.97 78.64 160 20 15 2.48 49.54 210 50 6 1.83 91.26 270 60 5 1.72 103.05 350 80 4 1.56 124.84 370 20 15 2.48 49.54 410 40 8 1.97 78.64 430 20 15 2.48 49.54 450 20 15 2.48 49.54 470 20 15 2.48 49.54 510 40 8 1.97 78.64 520 10 30 3.12 31.21 530 10 30 3.12 31.21 540 10 30 3.12 31.21 0 -540 0 0.00 0.00 Sum 1041.29 CBRM 7.17
KM 0+200 CL 4 hour Soaked Penetration Thickness, t CBR (%) CBRP Depth (mm) (mm) 0 0 0 220 220 7 1.90 290 70 22 2.79 360 70 22 2.79 435 75 20 2.73 480 45 34 3.23 510 30 51 3.70 545 35 43 3.51 0 -545 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 Sum CBRM
t x CBR
t x CBR
0 419.02 195.29 195.29 204.48 145.46 111.01 123.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1393.58 16.72
0 279.73 111.01 183.27 155.00 155.00 213.47 247.71 195.29 176.22 195.29 156.05 156.05 195.29 176.22 0.00 0.00 2595.60 94.43
Page 100
5.5 Aggregate Test Results The typical sieve analysis results of the coarse aggregate are presented in Table 5.5.1 and the corresponding figure, while those of the fine aggregate are shown in Tables 5.5.2 and 5.5.3. Table 5.5.4 and the corresponding figure are a summary of the typical characteristics of the coarse aggregates. It can be noted that all the material tested indicates appreciable mechanical stability. Table 5.5.1 Lab Sieve Analysis Results of Coarse Aggregate for Isiolo Airport Runway
Page 101
Table 5.5.2 Lab Sieve Analysis Results of FineAggregate for Isiolo Airport - Runway
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Rehabilitation of Isiolo Airstrip RUIRI Sample N : ARCHERS POST SAND 24-Feb-11

Sample time

Sieve size (mm) 36 20 10 6.3 5 2 1 0.6 0.425 0.3 0.212 0.15 0.075
Retained mass (gm) 0 13.4 6.6 8.8 4.8 26.8 95.2 154 111.8 80.8 48.6 23.2 12.4 23.2 586.4
% Retained (%) 0.0 2.2 1.1 1.5 0.8 4.5 15.9 25.7 18.6 13.5 8.1 3.9 2.1 3.9
100 91 89 60 30 15 8 5 0 0
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 70 15 4
GRADING CURVE
100 90 80 70
Passing (%)
60 50 40 30 20
10 0 0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieves (mm)
Page 102
Table 5.5.3 Fineness Modulus of Fine Aggregate for Isiolo Airport - Runway
SIEVE ANALYSIS
22-Feb-11
Rehabilitation of Isiolo Airstrip RUIRI Sample N : QUARRY DUST-0.6mm Sample Class Fine Aggregate According with BS 1377:1990
Sieve size (mm) 20 14 10 6.3 5 2 1 0.6 0.425 0.3 0.212 0.15 0.075
Retained mass (gm) 0 0 4.8 32.2 22.8 161 103 52.6 24.8 17.2 13.4 9.5 15.4 43.3 500
% Retained (%) 0.0 0.0 1.0 6.4 4.6 32.2 20.6 10.5 5.0 3.4 2.7 1.9 3.1 8.7
100 89 89 60 30 15 9 5 3 0
100 100 100 100 100 100 80 70 55 15
GRADING CURVE
100 90 80 70
Passing (%)
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieves (mm)
Page 103
Table 5.5.4 Lab Sieve Analysis Results of CRS for Isiolo Airport - Runway
Table 5.5.5 is a summary of the strength and quality test results of the aggregates from Kiwira Quarry which is about 14.40km from the airport. The results show that all the stone quarries tested are of high quality with very high strengths, which is characteristic of the Geomaterials within that region.
Page 104
Table 5.5.5 Summary of Stone Quarries Materials Tests Results for Isiolo Airport in Isiolo
KITHIMA QUARRY # TESTED PARAMETERS
1 Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV) 2 Los Angeles Abrasion test (LAA) 3 Ten Percent Fines (TFV) 4 Soundness of Aggreg. By Sodium Sulphate Soln Specific Gravity & Water Absorption - Coarse Aggregates
SPECIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS TEST VALUE Crushed Aggregate Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Treated base course Surface Coarse Base Course
14.34 Not>30% 14% Not>45% 388KN Not<100% 0.40% Not>12% 0.27% Not>3% Not>30% Not>30% Not<100% Not>9% Not>3% Not>30% Not>40% Not<75% Not>12% Not>3%
Remarks
Qualifies Qualifies Qualifies Qualifies Qualifies
5.6 Summary of Bearing Capacity and Shearing Strength Parameters A summary of the bearing capacity and shear strength parameters determined from in-situ tests is given in Table 5.6.1, whilst the graphical characteristics of the CBR Mean against the chainage tested are depicted in Fig. 5.6.1 and 5.6.2. Table 5.6.2 shows the results of the cement stabilized material, while Fig. 5.6.3 shows the same for the cement-geogrids stabilized materials. In both cases the effect of chemical stabilization (treatment) can be appreciated. With the inclusion of the Geogrids, the properties of the OPMC materials are enhanced. From Table 5.6.3, it can be inferred that the UCS values has been improved by 20% for pozzolanic and power plus cement-geogrid stabilized materials; PowerMax Geogrid stabilized OPMC shows improvement values of 60%. [Note that all the results are 3% cement stabilized and the curing modes 3 days soak].
Page 105
Table 5.6.1 Summary of Bearing Capacity and Shearing Strength Parameters for Isiolo Airport
Location
Surface Type
Chainage KM 1+400 KM 0+000 KM 0+000 KM 0+200 KM 0+200 KM 0+600 KM 1+300 KM 1+400 KM 1+400 KM 0+000 KM 0+050 KM 0+100 KM 0+120 KM 0+140 KM 0+170 KM 0+200 KM 0+220 KM 0+260 KM 0+300 KM 0+330 KM 0+360 KM 0+390 KM 0+400 KM 0+450 KM 0+480 KM 0+500 KM 0+540 KM 0+570 KM 0+600 KM 0+630 KM 0+660 KM 0+700 KM 0+740 KM 0+770 KM 0+800 KM 0+860 KM 0+900 KM 0+940 KM 0+970 KM 1+000 KM 1+060 KM 1+100 KM 1+140 KM 1+200 KM 1+300 KM 1+400 KM 1+500
RHS RHS LHS RHS CL CL RHS RHS RHS CL LHS CL LHS RHS RHS LHS CL RHS CL RHS CL RHS LHS CL RHS LHS CL
CBRM (%)
1.00 41.95 32.58 10.57 16.72 66.28 94.43 7.17 10.45 56.87 31.75 69.44 38.93 37.12 72.73 59.57 84.66 18.32 64.32 35.13 84.10 59.32 40.07 92.30 22.97 44.06 110.57
UCS qu (MPa) 0.02 1.01 0.79 0.26 0.40 1.60 2.28 0.17 0.25 1.37 0.77 1.68 0.94 0.90 1.76 1.44 2.04 0.44 1.55 0.85 2.03 1.43 0.97 2.23 0.55 1.06 2.67 0.78 1.46 3.81 2.67 2.13 0.42 0.69 0.65 0.48 2.59 0.21 3.69 1.18 3.22 3.13 1.81 2.51 0.35 0.63 0.59
N-Value
q max
(MPa)
Emax (MPa) 822 3396 3085 2011 2394 4041 4622 1736 2003 3812 3055 4113 3301 3242 4186 3880 4434 2479 3995 3175 4423 3874 3337 4582 2701 3460 4908 3073 3898 5615 4908 4502 2430 2932 2874 2556 4849 1861 5547 3603 5271 5216 4234 4794 2257 2834 2771
Emax / qmax
cor r
(MPa)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
16 Hrs Soaked 4 Hour Soaked 4 hour Soaked 4 hour Soaked 4 hour Soaked 4 hour Soaked 4 hour Soaked 4Hrs Soaked Unsoaked
0.50 20.70 16.07 5.22 8.25 32.70 46.59 3.54 5.16 28.06 15.66 34.26 19.21 18.32 35.88 29.39 41.77 9.04 31.73 17.34 41.49 29.27 19.77 45.54 11.33 21.74 54.55 15.91 29.74 77.75 54.55 43.46 8.58 14.07 13.34 9.80 52.84 4.25 75.28 24.18 65.82 64.02 36.98 51.29 7.07 12.86 12.12
0.04 1.62 1.26 0.41 0.65 2.56 3.65 0.28 0.40 2.20 1.23 2.68 1.50 1.43 2.81 2.30 3.27 0.71 2.49 1.36 3.25 2.29 1.55 3.57 0.89 1.70 4.27 1.25 2.33 6.09 4.27 3.40 0.67 1.10 1.04 0.77 4.14 0.33 5.90 1.89 5.16 5.01 2.90 4.02 0.55 1.01 0.95
21192 2095 2450 4923 3705 1577 1267 6263 4957 1734 2490 1533 2194 2260 1489 1685 1355 3501 1607 2338 1361 1690 2155 1285 3043 2032 1149 2465 1673 922 1149 1322 3615 2662 2751 3330 1172 5588 941 1902 1022 1040 1462 1193 4078 2814 2919
210 7389 5959 2123 3269 10676 13982 1462 2101 9468 5826 11067 6940 6666 11467 9822 12872 3558 10430 6360 12808 9789 7111 13742 4372 7697 15784 5907 9914 21461 15784 13264 3391 5302 5058 3831 15397 1746 20790 8401 18397 17968 11734 15047 2830 4897 4646
LHS CL CL LHS RHS LHS RHS LHS RHS CL RHS CL RHS CL LHS CL CL RHS RHS CL
32.26 60.28 157.59 110.57 88.08 17.40 28.51 27.03 19.86 107.10 8.62 152.58 49.01 133.40 129.76 74.94 103.95 14.32 26.06 24.57
Page 106
Fig. 5.6.1 CBR Mean values at Chainages on Isiolo Airport Runway
Fig. 5.6.1 CBR Mean SOAK values at Chainages on Isiolo Airport Runway
Page 107
5.7 Bearing Capacity Test Results The Bearing Capacity test results are presented in the preceding sections 5.3 and 5.5 of this Report. 5.8 Consolidation Test Results The importance of studying consolidation properties was considered for three main reasons: 1. 2. To analyze the effect of chemical-mechanical stabilization on consolidation properties since consolidation is one of the methods commonly applied for ground improvement. To evaluate whether or not and to what extent water infiltration or groundwater seepage would affect the consolidation properties of the chemically/mechanically stabilized Geomaterials associated with settlement and reduction in magnitude of shear stress as well as resistance to deformation. To evaluate whether further secondary consolidation is likely to occur to a detrimental extent that would cause settlement particularly for the lower layers under surcharge and dynamic traffic loading.
3.
In general, the following observations can be made from Tables 5.8.1 to 5.8.3. (a) (b) (c) Chemical stabilization enhances the vital consolidation parameters such as CSR, CSR and . The mechanical stabilization further enhances the vital consolidation parameters to higher values as compared to chemical stabilization only, as can be seen in table 5.8.3 The degree of influence of the chemical stabilization on the vital consolidation parameters depends on the type of Geomaterials
Page 108
Table 5.8.1 Summary of Consolidation Stress Parameters Derived from In-situ Tests
Serial No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM UCS qu N-Value (MPa) 0.02 1.01 0.79 0.26 0.40 1.60 2.28 0.17 0.25 1.37 0.77 1.68 0.94 0.90 1.76 1.44 2.04 0.44 1.55 0.85 2.03 1.43 0.97 2.23 0.55 1.06 2.67 0.78 1.46 3.81 0.59 2.13 0.42 0.69 0.65 0.48 2.59 0.21 3.69 1.18 3.22 3.13 1.81 2.51 0.35 0.63 0.59 0.50 20.70 16.07 5.22 8.25 32.70 46.59 3.54 5.16 28.06 15.66 34.26 19.21 18.32 35.88 29.39 41.77 9.04 31.73 17.34 41.49 29.27 19.77 45.54 11.33 21.74 54.55 15.91 29.74 77.75 12.12 43.46 8.58 14.07 13.34 9.80 52.84 4.25 75.28 24.18 65.82 64.02 36.98 51.29 7.07 12.86 12.12 Cu (MPa) 0.01 0.51 0.39 0.13 0.20 0.80 1.14 0.09 0.13 0.69 0.38 0.84 0.47 0.45 0.88 0.72 1.02 0.22 0.78 0.42 1.02 0.72 0.48 1.11 0.28 0.53 1.34 0.39 0.73 1.90 0.30 1.06 0.21 0.34 0.33 0.24 1.29 0.10 1.84 0.59 1.61 1.57 0.91 1.26 0.17 0.31 0.30 (MPa) 0.04 1.62 1.26 0.41 0.65 2.56 3.65 0.28 0.40 2.20 1.23 2.68 1.50 1.43 2.81 2.30 3.27 0.71 2.49 1.36 3.25 2.29 1.55 3.57 0.89 1.70 4.27 1.25 2.33 6.09 0.95 3.40 0.67 1.10 1.04 0.77 4.14 0.33 5.90 1.89 5.16 5.01 2.90 4.02 0.55 1.01 0.95
Location 1+400 0+000 0+000 0+200 0+200 0+600 1+300 1+400 1+400 0+000 0+050 0+100 0+120 0+140 0+170 0+200 0+220 0+260 0+300 0+330 0+360 0+390 0+400 0+450 0+480 0+500 0+540 0+570 0+600 0+630 0+660 0+700 0+740 0+770 0+800 0+860 0+900 0+940 0+970 1+000 1+060 1+100 1+140 1+200 1+300 1+400 1+500 RHS RHS LHS RHS CL CL RHS RHS RHS CL LHS CL LHS RHS RHS LHS CL RHS CL RHS CL RHS LHS CL RHS LHS CL LHS CL CL LHS RHS LHS RHS LHS RHS CL RHS CL RHS CL LHS CL CL RHS RHS CL
CBRM(%) 1.00 41.95 32.58 10.57 16.72 66.28 94.43 7.17 10.45 56.87 31.75 69.44 38.93 37.12 72.73 59.57 84.66 18.32 64.32 35.13 84.10 59.32 40.07 92.30 22.97 44.06 110.57 32.26 60.28 157.59 24.57 88.08 17.40 28.51 27.03 19.86 107.10 8.62 152.58 49.01 133.40 129.76 74.94 103.95 14.32 26.06 24.57
P f'
0.04 1.45 1.13 0.37 0.58 2.26 3.18 0.25 0.37 1.95 1.10 2.36 1.34 1.28 2.47 2.04 2.86 0.64 2.19 1.21 2.84 2.03 1.38 3.11 0.80 1.52 3.69 1.12 2.06 5.15 0.85 2.97 0.61 0.99 0.94 0.69 3.58 0.30 5.00 1.68 4.41 4.29 2.54 3.48 0.50 0.91 0.85
'A
max (MPa) Average

27.688 28.187 28.073 27.805 27.880 28.483 28.826 27.764 27.803 28.368 28.063 28.521 28.150 28.128 28.561 28.401 28.707 27.899 28.459 28.104 28.700 28.398 28.164 28.800 27.956 28.213 29.022 28.069 28.410 29.594 27.975 28.748 27.888 28.023 28.005 27.918 28.980 27.781 29.533 28.273 29.300 29.256 28.588 28.942 27.851 27.993 27.975
'U Upper limit 29.375 29.925 29.799 29.504 29.586 30.251 30.629 29.458 29.502 30.125 29.788 30.293 29.884 29.860 30.338 30.161 30.498 29.608 30.225 29.833 30.490 30.158 29.900 30.600 29.670 29.953 30.845 29.795 30.171 31.476 29.692 30.544 29.595 29.744 29.725 29.628 30.799 29.478 31.409 30.020 31.152 31.103 30.367 30.757 29.554 29.712 29.692
CSR CSR
46.912 48.698 48.289 47.329 47.598 49.760 50.988 47.181 47.324 49.349 48.253 49.898 48.567 48.488 50.041 49.467 50.562 47.668 49.674 48.401 50.537 49.456 48.616 50.895 47.870 48.790 51.692 48.275 49.498 53.743 47.940 50.711 47.627 48.112 48.047 47.735 51.540 47.244 53.525 49.007 52.688 52.529 50.138 51.403 47.493 48.005 47.940 1.283 1.295 1.292 1.286 1.288 1.302 1.311 1.285 1.286 1.300 1.292 1.303 1.294 1.294 1.304 1.300 1.308 1.288 1.302 1.293 1.308 1.300 1.295 1.310 1.289 1.296 1.315 1.292 1.301 1.328 1.290 1.309 1.288 1.291 1.291 1.289 1.314 1.285 1.327 1.297 1.321 1.320 1.305 1.313 1.287 1.290 1.290 15.600 15.891 15.825 15.668 15.712 16.064 16.264 15.644 15.667 15.997 15.819 16.086 15.870 15.857 16.110 16.016 16.194 15.723 16.050 15.843 16.190 16.014 15.878 16.249 15.756 15.906 16.378 15.822 16.021 16.712 15.768 16.219 15.717 15.796 15.785 15.734 16.354 15.654 16.677 15.941 16.541 16.515 16.125 16.331 15.695 15.778 15.768
1
CSR
SR C
KO KC
0.432 0.418 0.421 0.428 0.426 0.410 0.401 0.430 0.428 0.413 0.421 0.409 0.419 0.419 0.408 0.412 0.404 0.426 0.411 0.420 0.404 0.412 0.418 0.401 0.424 0.417 0.396 0.421 0.412 0.381 0.424 0.403 0.426 0.422 0.423 0.425 0.397 0.429 0.382 0.416 0.388 0.390 0.407 0.398 0.427 0.423 0.424 0.384 0.378 0.380 0.383 0.382 0.375 0.371 0.383 0.383 0.376 0.380 0.374 0.379 0.379 0.374 0.376 0.372 0.382 0.375 0.379 0.372 0.376 0.379 0.371 0.381 0.378 0.369 0.380 0.376 0.363 0.381 0.372 0.382 0.380 0.380 0.381 0.369 0.383 0.363 0.377 0.366 0.366 0.374 0.370 0.382 0.381 0.381
1 qC 1 pC rc ac (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

0.05 2.01 1.56 0.51 0.80 3.16 4.49 0.35 0.50 2.72 1.52 3.31 1.87 1.78 3.47 2.85 4.03 0.88 3.07 1.68 4.00 2.83 1.92 4.39 1.10 2.11 5.24 1.55 2.88 7.43 1.18 4.19 0.84 1.37 1.30 0.95 5.08 0.41 7.20 2.35 6.31 6.14 3.57 4.94 0.69 1.25 1.18 0.01 0.39 0.30 0.10 0.16 0.60 0.84 0.07 0.10 0.52 0.30 0.63 0.36 0.34 0.66 0.54 0.76 0.17 0.59 0.33 0.75 0.54 0.37 0.82 0.22 0.41 0.97 0.30 0.55 1.34 0.23 0.79 0.16 0.27 0.25 0.19 0.94 0.08 1.30 0.45 1.15 1.12 0.68 0.92 0.14 0.24 0.23 0.04 1.62 1.26 0.41 0.65 2.56 3.65 0.28 0.40 2.20 1.23 2.68 1.50 1.43 2.81 2.30 3.27 0.71 2.49 1.36 3.25 2.29 1.55 3.57 0.89 1.70 4.27 1.25 2.33 6.09 0.95 3.40 0.67 1.10 1.04 0.77 4.14 0.33 5.90 1.89 5.16 5.01 2.90 4.02 0.55 1.01 0.95 0.05 2.27 1.76 0.58 0.91 3.57 5.05 0.39 0.57 3.07 1.72 3.73 2.11 2.01 3.91 3.21 4.54 1.00 3.46 1.90 4.51 3.20 2.17 4.94 1.25 2.38 5.89 1.75 3.25 8.32 1.33 4.72 0.95 1.55 1.47 1.08 5.71 0.47 8.06 2.65 7.08 6.89 4.02 5.55 0.78 1.41 1.33
0.333 0.326 0.328 0.331 0.330 0.323 0.319 0.332 0.331 0.324 0.328 0.322 0.327 0.327 0.322 0.324 0.320 0.330 0.323 0.327 0.320 0.324 0.327 0.319 0.329 0.326 0.317 0.328 0.324 0.311 0.329 0.320 0.330 0.328 0.329 0.330 0.317 0.331 0.312 0.325 0.314 0.314 0.322 0.318 0.330 0.329 0.329
1.015 1.008 1.010 1.013 1.012 1.004 1.000 1.014 1.013 1.006 1.010 1.004 1.009 1.009 1.003 1.005 1.001 1.012 1.005 1.009 1.002 1.005 1.008 1.000 1.011 1.008 0.998 1.010 1.005 0.991 1.011 1.001 1.012 1.010 1.010 1.012 0.998 1.014 0.992 1.007 0.995 0.995 1.003 0.999 1.013 1.011 1.011
0.915 0.951 0.943 0.924 0.929 0.973 0.998 0.921 0.924 0.965 0.942 0.976 0.949 0.947 0.979 0.967 0.989 0.930 0.971 0.945 0.989 0.967 0.950 0.996 0.935 0.953 1.012 0.943 0.968 1.054 0.936 0.992 0.930 0.939 0.938 0.932 1.009 0.922 1.050 0.958 1.033 1.029 0.981 1.006 0.927 0.937 0.936
Table 5.8.2 Summary of Consolidation Stress Parameters Derived from Laboratory UCSTests of Cement Stabilized OPMC-[Chemical stabilization]
MIX Cu (MPa)
Serial No. Sample
UCS qu (MPa)
qmax
CSR
(MPa)
CSR
/
15.787 15.770 15.875
1
CSR
SR C
KO
0.938 0.936 0.949 0.423 0.424 0.419
KC
0.380 0.381 0.379
1 ac
(MPa)
1 rc
(MPa)
qC
(MPa)
pC
(MPa)
1 3 4
Pozzolanic 0.66 PowerMax 0.6 PowerPlus 0.96
0.33 0.30 0.48
1.06 0.96 1.54
48.060 47.952 48.602
1.291 1.290 1.295
0.328 0.329 0.327
1.010 1.011 1.008
1.31 1.19 1.90
0.26 0.23 0.37
1.06 0.96 1.54
1.48 1.35 2.15
Note that the cement contect is 3% and the curing mode 3days soak
qmax
Page 109
Table 5.8.3 Summary of Consolidation Stress Parameters Derived from Laboratory UCS test of CementGeogrid Stabilized OPMC-[Chemical - Mechanical stabilization]
qmax
MIX Serial No. Sample UCS qu (MPa)
Cu
CSR
(MPa) (MPa)
CSR
/
15.826 15.876 15.931
1
CSR
SR C
KO
0.943 0.949 0.956 0.421 0.419 0.416
KC
0.380 0.379 0.377
1 ac
(MPa)
1 rc
(MPa)
qC
(MPa)
pC
(MPa)
1 0 4
Pozzolanic 0.792 PowerMax 0.962 PowerPlus 1.148
0.40 0.48 0.57
1.27 1.54 1.84
48.299 48.606 48.942
1.292 1.295 1.297
0.328 0.327 0.326
1.010 1.008 1.007
1.57 1.91 2.27
0.31 0.37 0.44
1.27 1.54 1.84
1.78 2.15 2.57
Note that the cement contect is 3% and the curing mode 3days soak
5.9 Shearing Strength Test Results A summary of the shear parameters derived from in-situ tests is given in Table 5.9.1. This Table presents the results computed by adopting Equations 4.18 in sub-section 4.3.1 and 4.33 ~ 4.38 in sub-section 4.5.1 of Chapter 4. Table 5.9.1 Summary of Shear Stress Parameters Derived from In-situ Tests
Chainage
KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM KM 1+400 0+000 0+000 0+200 0+200 0+600 1+300 1+400 1+400 0+000 0+050 0+100 0+120 0+140 0+170 0+200 0+220 0+260 0+300 0+330 0+360 0+390 0+400 0+450 0+480 0+500 0+540 0+570 0+600 0+630 0+660 0+700 0+740 0+770 0+800 0+860 0+900 0+940 0+970 1+000 1+060 1+100 1+140 1+200 1+300 1+400 1+500 RHS RHS LHS RHS CL CL RHS RHS RHS CL LHS CL LHS RHS RHS LHS CL RHS CL RHS CL RHS LHS CL RHS LHS CL LHS CL CL LHS RHS LHS RHS LHS RHS CL RHS CL RHS CL LHS CL CL RHS RHS CL
CBRM UCS qu (%) (MPa)

1.00 41.95 32.58 10.57 16.72 66.28 94.43 7.17 10.45 56.87 31.75 69.44 38.93 37.12 72.73 59.57 84.66 18.32 64.32 35.13 84.10 59.32 40.07 92.30 22.97 44.06 110.57 32.26 60.28 157.59 24.57 88.08 17.40 28.51 27.03 19.86 107.10 8.62 152.58 49.01 133.40 129.76 74.94 103.95 14.32 26.06 24.57 0.02 1.01 0.79 0.26 0.40 1.60 2.28 0.17 0.25 1.37 0.77 1.68 0.94 0.90 1.76 1.44 2.04 0.44 1.55 0.85 2.03 1.43 0.97 2.23 0.55 1.06 2.67 0.78 1.46 3.81 0.59 2.13 0.42 0.69 0.65 0.48 2.59 0.21 3.69 1.18 3.22 3.13 1.81 2.51 0.35 0.63 0.59
Cu
q max P
' f
'A
' a
' r
SR
1.1230 1.1440 1.1392 1.1279 1.1310 1.1565 1.1709 1.1261 1.1278 1.1516 1.1387 1.1581 1.1424 1.1415 1.1598 1.1530 1.1659 1.1318 1.1555 1.1405 1.1656 1.1529 1.1430 1.1698 1.1342 1.1451 1.1792 1.1390 1.1534 1.2034 1.1351 1.1677 1.1314 1.1371 1.1363 1.1326 1.1774 1.1269 1.2008 1.1476 1.1910 1.1891 1.1609 1.1758 1.1298 1.1358 1.1351
E50 (MPa)
6 252 196 63 100 398 567 43 63 341 191 417 234 223 437 358 508 110 386 211 505 356 241 554 138 264 664 194 362 946 147 529 104 171 162 119 643 52 916 294 801 779 450 624 86 156 147
Emax (MPa)
822 3396 3085 2011 2394 4041 4622 1736 2003 3812 3055 4113 3301 3242 4186 3880 4434 2479 3995 3175 4423 3874 3337 4582 2701 3460 4908 3073 3898 5615 2771 4502 2430 2932 2874 2556 4849 1861 5547 3603 5271 5216 4234 4794 2257 2834 2771
Gmax
(MPa)
274 1132 1028 670 798 1347 1541 579 668 1271 1018 1371 1100 1081 1395 1293 1478 826 1332 1058 1474 1291 1112 1527 900 1153 1636 1024 1299 1872 924 1501 810 977 958 852 1616 620 1849 1201 1757 1739 1411 1598 752 945 924
ELS
3.39 34.25 29.29 14.57 19.37 45.49 56.65 11.46 14.47 41.37 28.82 46.82 32.70 31.76 48.18 42.58 52.94 20.50 44.65 30.69 52.72 42.46 33.30 55.85 23.58 35.31 62.47 29.11 42.89 77.82 24.58 54.26 19.85 26.96 26.08 21.55 61.25 12.84 76.28 37.73 70.18 68.99 49.09 60.13 17.60 25.50 24.58
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) Average (MPa) (MPa) 0.01 0.04 0.04 27.688 0.05 0.01 0.51 1.62 1.45 28.187 2.01 0.39 0.39 1.26 1.13 28.073 1.56 0.30 0.13 0.41 0.37 27.805 0.51 0.10 0.20 0.65 0.58 27.880 0.80 0.16 0.80 2.56 2.26 28.483 3.16 0.60 1.14 3.65 3.18 28.826 4.49 0.84 0.09 0.28 0.25 27.764 0.35 0.07 0.13 0.40 0.37 27.803 0.50 0.10 0.69 2.20 1.95 28.368 2.72 0.52 0.38 1.23 1.10 28.063 1.52 0.30 0.84 2.68 2.36 28.521 3.31 0.63 0.47 1.50 1.34 28.150 1.87 0.36 0.45 1.43 1.28 28.128 1.78 0.34 0.88 2.81 2.47 28.561 3.47 0.66 0.72 2.30 2.04 28.401 2.85 0.54 1.02 3.27 2.86 28.707 4.03 0.76 0.22 0.71 0.64 27.899 0.88 0.17 0.78 2.49 2.19 28.459 3.07 0.59 0.42 1.36 1.21 28.104 1.68 0.33 1.02 3.25 2.84 28.700 4.00 0.75 0.72 2.29 2.03 28.398 2.83 0.54 0.48 1.55 1.38 28.164 1.92 0.37 1.11 3.57 3.11 28.800 4.39 0.82 0.28 0.89 0.80 27.956 1.10 0.22 0.53 1.70 1.52 28.213 2.11 0.41 1.34 4.27 3.69 29.022 5.24 0.97 0.39 1.25 1.12 28.069 1.55 0.30 0.73 2.33 2.06 28.410 2.88 0.55 1.90 6.09 5.15 29.594 7.43 1.34 0.30 0.95 0.85 27.975 1.18 0.23 1.06 3.40 2.97 28.748 4.19 0.79 0.21 0.67 0.61 27.888 0.84 0.16 0.34 1.10 0.99 28.023 1.37 0.27 0.33 1.04 0.94 28.005 1.30 0.25 0.24 0.77 0.69 27.918 0.95 0.19 1.29 4.14 3.58 28.980 5.08 0.94 0.10 0.33 0.30 27.781 0.41 0.08 1.84 5.90 5.00 29.533 7.20 1.30 0.59 1.89 1.68 28.273 2.35 0.45 1.61 5.16 4.41 29.300 6.31 1.15 1.57 5.01 4.29 29.256 6.14 1.12 0.91 2.90 2.54 28.588 3.57 0.68 1.26 4.02 3.48 28.942 4.94 0.92 0.17 0.55 0.50 27.851 0.69 0.14 0.31 1.01 0.91 27.993 1.25 0.24 0.30 0.95 0.85 27.975 1.18 0.23
(a)max (a)50 (a)ELS Emax / (calculated) (calculated) (10-3) (%) qmax (%) (%) 0.380 0.563 0.521 0.422 0.450 0.673 0.799 0.407 0.422 0.631 0.518 0.687 0.550 0.542 0.702 0.643 0.755 0.457 0.664 0.533 0.753 0.641 0.555 0.790 0.478 0.573 0.872 0.520 0.646 1.083 0.485 0.771 0.453 0.503 0.496 0.464 0.856 0.414 1.060 0.595 0.974 0.958 0.712 0.842 0.439 0.492 0.485 0.100 0.209 0.184 0.125 0.142 0.274 0.348 0.116 0.125 0.249 0.182 0.282 0.201 0.196 0.291 0.256 0.322 0.146 0.268 0.191 0.321 0.255 0.204 0.343 0.158 0.214 0.391 0.183 0.258 0.516 0.163 0.331 0.144 0.173 0.169 0.150 0.382 0.120 0.503 0.228 0.452 0.442 0.297 0.374 0.135 0.167 0.163 0.1656 21192 0.3356 2095 0.2975 2450 0.2060 4923 0.2318 3705 0.4317 1577 0.5373 1267 0.1916 6263 0.2055 4957 0.3950 1734 0.2941 2490 0.4438 1533 0.3234 2194 0.3161 2260 0.4564 1489 0.4056 1685 0.5013 1355 0.2386 3501 0.4241 1607 0.3080 2338 0.4992 1361 0.4046 1690 0.3280 2155 0.5295 1285 0.2579 3043 0.3441 2032 0.5950 1149 0.2962 2465 0.4084 1673 0.7509 922 0.2645 2919 0.5140 1322 0.2347 3615 0.2808 2662 0.2747 2751 0.2450 3330 0.5827 1172 0.1978 5588 0.7352 941 0.3639 1902 0.6730 1022 0.6608 1040 0.4648 1462 0.5716 1193 0.2218 4078 0.2707 2814 0.2645 2919
Page 110
The following observations can be made from the foregoing Table 5.9.1 and the corresponding Figures. 1) The laboratory test results indicate enhanced intrinsic shearing properties of the sub-base. The intrinsic properties are further enhanced when geogrid is incorporated in the pavement base layers. 2) The in-situ test results show that the shearing strength is immensely enhanced as a result of the coupled effects of long term consolidation and cementetious agglomeration. 5.10 Modulus of Deformation, Elastic Modulus and Linear Elastic Range A summary of the derived modulus of deformation, elastic and shear modulus and elastic limit strain, which is defined as the range of linear elastic and recoverable behavior, given in Tables 5.10.1 and 5.10.2, were computed by applying Equations 4.48 ~ 4.52. The normalized relations are also presented in the same Tables. Table 5.10.1 Summary of Modulus of Deformation Parameters from Lab Test Results
Specimen
(a)max (calculated) (%)
MIX
E50 (MPa) 12 347 389 173 49
Emax (MPa) 1074 3834 4007 2946 1818
Gmax (MPa) 357.85 1278.04 1335.55 982.10 606.02
ELS 5.23 41.76 44.87 27.17 12.36
(a)50 (calculated) (%)
(a)ELS (10-3) (%)
Emax / qmax 13713 1718 1599 2641 5806
1 2 3 5 6
BCS BP1 BP2 BP5 BP6
subgrade LMD gravel 78 Tank Batt Murero LMD Sandy
0.38 0.63 0.67 0.50 0.41
0.102782 0.250794 0.269632 0.174097 0.118929
0.169885 0.398410 0.426033 0.282299 0.195580
Table 5.10.2 Summary of Modulus of Deformation Parameters from In-situ Test Results
Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Chainage
E50 (MPa) 6 43 63 341 191 417 437 358 386 241 264 362 529 162 643 294 779 624 86 156 147
Emax (MPa) 822 1736 2003 3812 3055 4113 4186 3880 3995 3337 3460 3898 4502 2874 4849 3603 5216 4794 2257 2834 2771
Gmax (MPa) 274.06 578.51 667.65 1270.77 1018.25 1370.91 1395.24 1293.37 1331.60 1112.47 1153.31 1299.22 1500.57 957.85 1616.29 1200.96 1738.59 1598.11 752.50 944.70 923.73
1+400 1+400 1+400 0+000 0+050 0+100 0+170 0+200 0+300 0+400 0+500 0+600 0+700 0+800 0+900 1+000 1+100 1+200 1+300 1+400 1+500
RHS RHS RHS CL LHS CL RHS LHS CL RHS LHS CL RHS LHS CL RHS LHS CL RHS LHS CL
Page 111
The results basically indicate that, for stiff Geomaterials such as the one tested above, the shearing strength increases virtually directly proportionally to the deformation resistance. 5.11 Deformation Properties and Linear Elastic Range The results of deformation properties and the linear elastic range are presented in Table 5.11.1 below. The results basically indicate that as the shearing strength increases with the deformation resistance, the linear elastic range is immensely enhanced. Table 5.11.1 Summary of Modulus of Deformation Parameters from in-situ Test Results
Locati on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
(a)max (calculated) (%)
Chainage
ELS 3.39 11.46 14.47 41.37 28.82 46.82 48.18 42.58 44.65 33.30 35.31 42.89 54.26 26.08 61.25 37.73 68.99 60.13 17.60 25.50 24.58
(a)50 (calculated) (%)
(a)ELS (10-3) (%)
Emax / qmax 21192 6263 4957 1734 2490 1533 1489 1685 1607 2155 2032 1673 1322 2751 1172 1902 1040 1193 4078 2814 2919
1+400 1+400 1+400 0+000 0+050 0+100 0+170 0+200 0+300 0+400 0+500 0+600 0+700 0+800 0+900 1+000 1+100 1+200 1+300 1+400 1+500
RHS RHS RHS CL LHS CL RHS LHS CL RHS LHS CL RHS LHS CL RHS LHS CL RHS LHS CL
0.38 0.41 0.42 0.63 0.52 0.69 0.70 0.64 0.66 0.56 0.57 0.65 0.77 0.50 0.86 0.60 0.96 0.84 0.44 0.49 0.49
0.100067 0.116451 0.125178 0.248508 0.181752 0.281891 0.290635 0.255684 0.268294 0.203872 0.214470 0.257576 0.331423 0.169214 0.381952 0.227632 0.442167 0.373607 0.135458 0.166648 0.162676
0.165596 0.191637 0.205511 0.395033 0.294136 0.443810 0.456390 0.405614 0.424083 0.328043 0.344124 0.408396 0.513981 0.274721 0.582743 0.363946 0.660848 0.571587 0.221796 0.270730 0.264543
5.12 Summary of the effects of curing period on soil particle agglomeration and unconfined strength. From the laboratory test results OPMC Stabilized + Geogrid samples yields UCS values of 3.32 after 3day cure with 2% cement content [PowerPlus]. After extrapolation from the relation that is explained in chapter 4, the following table gives the expected calculated properties after several days of curing.
Page 112
Table: 5.12.1 Effects of curing period on OPMC Level 3
Effects of curing period on OPMC Level 3 & Geogrid, PowerPlus 2% for 3 days Cure/soak Days 1 3 7 14 28 56 112 Curing Periods, CP[hours] 24 72 168 336 672 1344 2688 UCS, quf [Mpa] 2.28 3.31 5.51 11.09 26.11 66.30 173.09 Emax 4,621.72 5,327.08 6,463.93 8,431.71 11,673.06 16,632.49 23,951.49 CBR [%] 95.00 138.06 229.68 462.23 1,087.98 2,762.40 7,212.12
Fig: 5.12.1 Graphical representation of the effects of Curing Period on the OPMC material
Page 113
From the above it can be clearly stated that the UCS and Emax properties of the OPMC material increases with time. For design purposes we have used UCS strengths as is at 3 days cure/soak; this is a reserve value since from Table 5.12.1 we can infer that the strength will appreciate to greater values. Table 5.12.2 Effects of curing period on Resulting, ER Composite Pavement
Effects of curing period on Resulting Er (composite pavement)
Days 1 3 7 14 28 56 112 224 448 896 1792 Curing Periods, CP[hours] 24 72 168 336 672 1344 2688 5376 10752 21504 43008 UCS, qurFCA [Mpa] 2.11 3.76 5.77 8.23 11.44 15.59 20.93 27.77 36.50 47.59 61.67 UCS, QurFCB 0.80 1.64 1.89 2.10 2.31 2.52 2.73 2.94 3.15 3.36 3.57 Emax ERCA 1,414.00 5,589.87 6,576.69 7,527.62 8,530.34 9,595.18 10,731.70 11,949.16 13,256.83 14,664.18 16,181.03 Emax ER 1,317.00 4,073.88 4,305.93 4,481.61 4,646.73 4,802.78 4,950.97 5,092.26 5,227.42 5,357.11 5,481.88 CBR [%] 87.92 156.71 240.38 342.95 476.60 649.52 872.02 1,157.02 1,520.65 1,983.08 2,569.43
Page 114
Fig 5.12.2 Graphical presentation of the effects of curing on the Resultant Composite Pavement [Derived from table 5.12.2]
The resultant pavement strength also appreciates with time as is in case 5.12.1.
Page 115
CHAPTER 6 6. APPLICATION OF TEST RESULTS 6.1 Basic Physical and Mechanical Parameters For purposes of quantifying the magnitude of change of the physical properties of the existing foundation Geomaterials and their corresponding effects on the bearing capacity, strength, moduli of deformation, basic parameters such as natural moisture content (win), Atterberg Limits (PI, LL, WL, & LS), Specific Gravity (Gs), voids ratio (e), dry density ( d) and degree of saturation (Sir) were determined based on the standard soil model expressions. In soil mechanics, plasticity index is a function of the amount of clay present in a soil, while the Liquid Limit and Plastic Limits individually are functions of both the amount and type of clay. High plasticity indices are analogous to high water contents whose lubricating effect of the water films between adjacent soil particles tends to reduce the mechanical stability, strength and deformation resistance. The results from the Atterberg Limits will be used to mainly study the quantitative effects of moisture-suction variations of the site soils based on Equations (4.1) ~ (4.6) presented in Chapter 4 of this Report. 6.2 Borehole Log Results Borehole results are mainly analyzed from two paramount perspectives, namely Soil Classification and Penetration Resistance. Soil Classification These results will mainly be used for purposes of coming up with a soils description that can convey sufficient information to enable the designers and constructors to appreciate the nature and properties of the soils and to anticipate the likely behavior and potential problems. The results have been comprehensively analyzed with an aim to: (1) Provide a systematic soil description for both a hand specimen and a stratum within a soil deposit in order to, as much as possible, clearly define the nature of the soil in existence at the Project Site. (2) Determine values of soil classification parameters from laboratory tests including particle density, grading, bulk density, moisture content and consistency limits. (3) Utilize accordingly, the soil classification results extrapolatively in evaluating the geotechnical engineering soundness of the design and construction of the foundation and any other Geostructure within the Project. (4) Apply the soil model to the determination of a range of parameters used in soil mechanics to denote the state or condition of a soil. Penetration Resistance From the results obtained in the field in reference to the penetration resistance during drilling and dynamic cone penetration, Equations (4.14) ~ (4.19) are utilized in determining the bearing capacity, and strength of the Geomaterials and foundation ground tested.
Page 116
6.3 Dynamic Penetration Test Results Results obtained from the Dynamic Cone Penetration testing have been versatile in utility whereby they yielded various useful geotechnical engineering parameters that can be used for design and construction QC, including bearing capacity, strength and deformation resistance. The DCP test results are utilized as the main parameters in Equations (4.1) ~ (4.44).
6.4 Aggregate Test Results The purpose of undertaking aggregate tests was to confirm their quality and strength accordingly. The test results are applied in analyzing the contribution of the aggregate particles to the mechanical stability, bearing capacity, strength and deformation resistance of the composite pavement structure.
6.5 Laboratory Test Results The utilization of laboratory test results has been discussed in the preceding sub-section 6.1.
6.6
Bearing Capacity Test Results
The bearing capacity results were basically derived from the Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests. In this study, the results are applied as stipulated below. (a) Overall structural analysis of the composite structure (b) Comparison of CBR results determined from this Study to the design criteria designated by various agencies worldwide. (c) Comparison of the CBR results determined from this Study to the specification criteria of this Project for purposes of analyzing the range and/or level of enhancement of the bearing and structural capacity properties. Evaluation of heavy load performance in relation to the structural requirements.
(d)
6.7 Consolidation Test Results
As demonstrated in sub-section 4.4 of this Report, the consolidation test results is are predominantly applied for the prediction of the post-construction secondary consolidation settlement.
6.8 Shearing Strength Test Results 6.8.1 Application of Principle Stresses within the Soil Elements The principle stresses a and r are applied in carrying out the analysis of the deflection within the interface of the overlaying and foundation layers in order to mainly determine the following facts. (a) (b) The magnitude and/or extent of the interface and layer deflection under dynamic loading. Analysis of the point load effect by the traffic tyre pressure of heavy trucks with respect to each foundation pad.
Page 117
(c)
Determine the level and extent of the vertical and radial stress distribution particularly within the shear banding of the slip surface for developing effective countermeasures for the stability of the foundation structure Determine shear stresses that would cause and resist failure.
(d)
6.8.2 Shearing Strength Test Results Shearing strength test results were applied in; (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Determining the strength required to resist the forces and stresses that may act to cause failure. Calculation of the stability of the foundation ground geo-structure Analysis of stability of the OPMC stabilized layers. Determination of bearing capacity factors for the design of the foundation structure on the existing bearing ground. Analysis of the stability of bearing capacity of the foundation ground
6.9 Modulus of Deformation and Elastic Modulus Test Results Application of the modulus of deformation E50 and elastic modulus Emax was made in reference to (a) Deflection analysis as discussed in various preceding sections (b) Prediction of the resulting quasi-elastic (initial) time dependent settlement caused by both static and dynamic loading (c) Prediction of cumulative settlement with increased repetitive loading over designated time periods.
(d) Prediction of post-construction secondary consolidation settlement as comprehensively discussed under various sections. 6.10 Deformation Properties and Linear Elastic Range The application of results related to deformation properties and linear elastic range is discussed under subsection 4.6.3.
6.11 Durability Test Results These results are utilized in analysis in order to: Determine the suitability and extent of stabilization particularly for the sub-base and base course materials. Determine the resilience of the stabilized materials under particularly severe environmental and dynamic loading conditions.
Page 118
CHAPTER 7 7. PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN 7.1 Scope This chapter determines the pavement design based on the US FAA/ ICAO method of Design, analyzes various options and recommends the VE based design for the Isiolo Airport aimed at serving aircraft with gross weights of up to 79,016kgs for B737-800 series. The design is limited to the Airport Pavement and does not include geometric design or design for any other of the airport facilities. 7.2 Fundamental Design Philosophy The design largely adopts the recommendations made through the Advisory Circular (AC) No. 150/5320-6D dated April 30th, 2004, Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation. Reference is also made to the 737 Airplane Characteristics Airport Planning D6-58325-6 published in May 1984 by Commercial Airplane Company, which is a Division of the Boeing Company. The Design Philosophy is based on the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recommended practices. The basic design considerations made herein include but are not limited to: 1. The flexible pavement design is based on CBR method of design. 2. Gear configurations are considered by adopting theoretical concepts and empirically developed data. 3. Composite structural considerations have been made in reference to the surface course, base course, sub-base and subgrade that can support a Boeing 737-800. 4. The design considers proper and adequate provision of hydraulic facilities as well as periodic and preventive maintenance. 5. The design life considered is 20 years from date of completion of the pavement structure. 6. As cited in the Advisory Circular, the pavement structural thickness is determined on the basis of theoretical analysis of load distribution through the pavement and soils, the analysis of experimental pavement data, environmental factors, Case Study Analysis, among other considerations (ref. to tables 7.2.1 7.2.3). 7. Reference is also made to Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation Volume 1 in general and Section 2.6 of Chapter 2 regarding Strength of pavements, in Particular.
Page 119
Table 7.2.1 Summary of Major Design Considerations Item 1. 2. 3. Parameter Aircraft Model and Specification Airplane Configuration Landing and Takeoff Weights 3.1 Maximum Landing Weight 3.2 Maximum Takeoff Weight Maximum Structural Payload General Characteristics General Dimensions including Ground Clearances Landing Gear Type and Geometry (Footprint) Maximum Design Taxi Weight Gear Tyre Pressures 9.1 Weight on Main Landing Gear 9.2 Nose Gear 9.3 Main Gear Maximum Pavement Loads Landing Gear Loading on Pavement Flexible Pavement Requirements adopting FAA Design Method Minimum Non-stabilized BC thickness = 150mm (P.49) Minimum Thickness for Stabilized BC = 103mm (100mm) Equivalency Factor of 1.45 is adopted (ref. Table 3-9 of AC)) Consideration Wide Body aircraft B737-800, Ref. to Table 7.2.2 155,500lb (70,534kgs) to 174,200lb (79,016kgs) Takeoff weight (TOW) 66,381kgs 379,016kgs 21,319kgs Ref. to Table 7.2.3 Ref. to Fig. 7.2.1, Fig. 7.2.2 Double Dual Tandem Gear Ref. to Fig. 7.2.3 79,333kgs 75,855kgs 13.30kgf/cm2 14.41kgf/cm2 Ref. to Table 7.2.4 Ref. to Fig. 7.2.4 Ref. to Fig. 7.2.5
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
10. 11. 12.
Table 7.2.2 Technical Specifications for Boeing Aircraft detailing the B737-800 Measurement 737-800 Cockpit Crew Typical seating capacity Three 162 (2-class) 189 (3-class) (39.50 m) (34.32 m) (12.5 m) 77,539 lb (41,879 kg) 146,300lb (79,016kg) Mach 0.785 (519 mph, 834 km/h) Mach 0.89 (594 mph, 955 km/h, 516 KN) 5,361 ft (1,634 m)
Length Wingspan Tail height Weight empty Maximum takeoff weight Cruising speed (at 35,000 ft altitude) Maximum speed Required runway at MTOW*
Page 120
Maximum range at MTOW Max. fuel capacity Engine models (x 4) Engine thrust (per engine)
4,000nmi 21,018 U.S. gal CFMI CFM56-7 23,700lbf
Sources: 737 specifications, 737 airport report, 737-8 airport brochure The 737 parasitic drag, CDP, is 0.022, and the wing area is 5,500 square feet (511 m2), so that f equals about 121 sqft or 11.2 m. The parasitic drag is given by f air v in which f is the product of drag coefficient CDp and the wing area. Table 7.2.3 General characteristics of the Model 737-800 Aircraft
Page 121
Fig. 7.1 General Dimensions of the Model 737-800 Aircraft
Page 122
Fig. 7.2 Ground Clearances Passenger Configurations Model 737-800 Aircraft
Fig. 7.3 Landing Gear Footprint for Model 737-800 Aircraft
Page 123
Table 7.2.4 Maximum Pavement Loads of the Model 737-800 Aircraft
Fig. 7.4 Landing Gear Loading on Pavement - Model 737-800 Aircraft
Page 124
Fig. 7.5: Pavement Thickness Design as per the Conventional Design.
Determination of Thickness for This Study
Fig. 7.5 Flexible Pavement Requirements U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Design Method S-77-1 and FAA Design Method - Model 737-800 Aircraft
Page 125
Fig. 7.6: Pavement Thickness Design using the OPMC GI-MC Technique;
7.3 Comparison of Design Data with Various Design Criteria 7.3.1 Comparison of Design Criteria for Physical, Strength and Bearing Capacity Parameters In Chapter 5 comprehensive and detailed materials characterization and data analysis was carried out. In this section, the data that was determined from the various tests and analysis is compared with the design criteria specified by several International Agencies to establish its suitability as design parameters. Table 7.3.1 presents a comparison of the results determined from The Isiolo Airport Design and design criteria stipulated by various Agencies for critical design parameters such as Plasticity Index PI, Unconfined Compression Strength (UCS) and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) for Pavements under Traffic Dynamic Loading.
Page 126
Table 7.3.1 Comparison of Design Criteria - Physical, Strength & Bearing Capacity of Stabilized Materials Pavement Layer Sub-base Materials Source TRL AASHTO JRA KRDM US FAA This Study (Existing Ground) TRL AASHTO JRA KRDM US FAA This Study (CGSG) UCS (MPa) 0.75~1.5 10 >1.8 3.32 G: 1.5 ~ 3.0 H:3.0 ~ 6.0 2.8~5.25 2.5~3.0 1.8 3.31 CBR (%) > 70 > 60 > 60 138 > 100 > 160 >80 138 PI (%) < 10 < 10 < 12 6 6 <6 <9 < 10 <6 6
Base Course Material
Notes: a. PI : Plasticity Index, UCS : Unconfined Compression Strength, CBR : California Bearing Ratio b. TRL: Transport Research Laboratory, London, AASHTO: American Association of State Highway Officials, JRA: Japan Road Association, KRDM: Kenya Road Design Manual.USFAA: United States Federation of Aviation Administration. c. Results from This Study were determined from tests performed on various OPMC Stabilized Materials under 3 days cure Conditions d. Cement additive percentage Sub-base : 4~6%, Base Course : 4~8% : This Study: 1 ~ 3% for Base Course. e. CGSG : Cement-Geogrid Stabilized Gravel In general, it can be appreciated that the granular fill (OPMC) material that was tested at Isiolo Airport yields engineering design parameters that are well above the criteria stipulated by virtually all the Agencies presented herein.
From the projections of the effects of curing [Chapter 5, Section 5.11], it can be inferred that the strength of the stabilized Geomaterials increases with time. This can be confirmed from the laboratory test results where the CBR after 7days cure is 213%.
Page 127
7.3.2 Comparison of Applicable Specification Criteria for Stabilized Natural Gravel and Design Parameters The comparison of applicable specification criteria for stabilized natural gravel and design parameters determined from this study is tabulated in Table 7.3.2. Table 7.3.2 Comparisons of Spec. Criteria -Stabilized Natural Gravel & Design Parameters - This Study using the OPMC Technique Pavement Layer Reference Subgrade Material Sub-base Materials Base Course Material Spec. This Study Spec. This Study Spec. This Study PI _ 62 <15 <6 <6 <6 PM <1200 492 <240 141~282 _ CBR (%) _ 50 > 30 138 > 160 138 UCS (MPa) _ 1.20 1.5~3.0 3.32 3.0~6.0 3.32
It can be derived from Table 7.3.2 that the values determined from the research undertaken in this study are superior in comparison to the Specification Criteria. 7.3.3 Comparison of Modulus of Deformation Parameters One of the most important parameters for structural design of a pavement structure is the elastic modulus. Table 7.3.3 presents a comparison of ranges of elastic modulus referred from various sources and researchers as well as that determined from this study. Table 7.3.3 Comparisons of Ranges of Elasticity Modulus for Structural Design from Various Sources Pavement Elastic Modulus Values, Emax (MPa) Layer Type This study Fossbereg Wang Helekelom Mitchell/ (Material) St: 6~8% /Mitchell /Klomp Shen Before After St : 3~6% St : 3~8% St : 7% Improvem Improvemen ent t Subgrade 8 355 _ 140 ~ 1200 _ _ Sub-base (St ; 3%) 2561 2768 _ 7000 ~ 15000 _ _ _ Notes: 1. St : Percentage of Cement Stabilization excluding the PCC and Lean Concrete 2. Results from This Study were determined from tests performed on Cement-Geogrids Stabilized OPMC Materials tested subsequent to 7 days cure + 7 days Soak Conditions 21000~ 35000 _ _ m 2 _ _ 15000~ 30000 350~ 21 00 1400~ 6300 10500~ 18900 _ _
Base Course Lean Concrete PCC
Page 128
3. Cement additive percentage Sub-base: 3%, Base Course: 3% for this Study. 4. From table 5.11.1, the strength of the base layer will increase with time hence after several days of curing, the base layer would be adequate. As can be noted from Table 7.3.3 the comparison is made of pavement materials basically stabilized with cement at percentage ranges of 4~8%. However, it is important to recall that the base course material in this study is natural gravel material treated with only 2% cement. It can be distinctly derived that the elastic modulus results from this study exhibit higher values than those reported by other Researchers or Agencies in spite of the lower percentage of cement. 7.3.4 Conclusions Regarding Design Parameters From the comprehensive and detailed analysis undertaken in Chapter 5 followed by the analysis done in the foregoing sections, it can be concluded that the Cement-Geogrid Treated Geomaterials analyzed in this Study exhibit high safety factors and can certainly be adopted for the design and construction of the sub-base/base course layers of the Airport Pavement.
7.3.5 Adopted Design Criteria The following standards and/or design criteria are hence mainly adapted in appropriation to the suitability, relevance and cost-effectiveness for the purposes of the design of the Isiolo Airport Pavement Structure. 1. U.S. FAA : United States Federal Aviation Administration 2. ICAO: International Civil Aviation Organization 7.4 Evaluation of Air Traffic Volume and Growth Evaluation for traffic volume and growth was undertaken based on the US FAA Method. Considering an annual growth rate of approx. 4% over the design life of 20 years, Equivalent Annual Departures of 3,000 were adopted. 7.5 Engineering Analysis of Geomaterial Properties Comprehensive engineering analysis of the properties and characteristics of the existing soils and improved and/or selected Geomaterials was undertaken in Chapter 5 of this Report.
7.6 Evaluation of Strength of Existing Subgrade 7.6.1 Relatively Stable Geomaterials Average subgrade CBR values were determined per location and the mean and section Design CBR values computed from the results presented in Chapter 5 of this Report. The existing pavement structure exhibit high CBR values, an average in situ CBR of 62% compared to the surrounding subgrade which is predominantly Black cotton soil.
Page 129
7.6.2 Analysis of Problematic and/or Expansive Soils The subgrade soil is predominantly black cotton soil whose analysis of material properties has been comprehensively analyzed in Chapter 5. 7.7 Determination of Pavement Structural Design 7.7.1 Determination of Total Pavement Thickness Required Subsequent to determining the Mean-section Design CBR values for the subgrade and the sub-base (ref. to table 7.7.1), the weight on the main landing gear was determined from Fig. 7.2.4. Having pre-determined the design aircraft and the number of annual departures of the design aircraft, the design curves in Fig. 7.2.5 based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Design Method S-77-1 and the U.S. FAA Design method, the total pavement thickness required were derived. The existing subgrade soil strength values indicate very low CBR and UCS strengths under soak conditions. The Kenya Road Design Manual suggests that such soils need to be excavated and replaced with good quality granular fill. In the same stroke, a conventional CBR strength of 10% was taken to represents the improved subgrade strength where the construction had been undertaken conventionally as suggested by the same manual. In this Design Ground Improvement-Moisture Control Techniques were used to improve the in-situ strengths of the subgrade. The CBR mean value of the subgrade is 62%; but a value of 50% has been used. There is inclusion of the geofabrics which mobilizes the stresses within the Black Cotton soil subgrade which in turn enhances the overall strength of the subgrade material. Table 7.7.1 is a summary of the main design parameters that were adopted in determining the total pavement design thickness. Table 7.7.1 Summary of Main Design Parameters Adopted for conventional design Design Aircraft Maximum Design Taxi Weight (Kegs) 79,333 Weight on Main Landing Gear (Kgs) 75,855 Number of Equivalent Annual Departures 3000 Design CBR (%) Improved Subgrade[after replacement] 10 Sub-base Design Life (yrs) Remarks
B737-800
88
20
7.7.1. a Conventional Design: Based on the data presented in Table 7.7.1, the Total Pavement Thickness required was determined from Fig. 7.5. As stated in 7.7.1, The existing subgrade soil strength values indicate very low CBR and UCS strengths under soak conditions. The Kenya Road Design Manual suggests that such soils need to be excavated and replaced with good quality granular fill. In the same stroke, a conventional CBR strength of 10% was taken to represents the improved subgrade strength where the construction had been undertaken conventionally as suggested by the same manual. The CBR value for the conventional approach is a maximum of 10%. From Fig. 7.5, the pavement thickness is determined. The summary and conclusion on CBR is analyzed in Chapter 5 section 3. Therefore, the Total Pavement Thickness required is 16 inches or 400mm.
Page 130
Conventionally, the design considers a Total Pavement Thickness of 400mm assuming that the subgrade is competent i.e. after improving it to CBR 10%. Note that the usual conventional provision when constructing on Black cotton soil is to excavate it and replace with qualified material. 7.7.1 b OPMC MC Ground Improvement Technique With Ground Improvement-Moisture Control Technique, use of 200mm and 400mm thick sand column piles are used for Ground Improvement and Moisture Control of the Black Cotton Soil Subgrade. From chapter 5, we have seen that the in situ strengths of the subgrade are higher when the subgrade is Unsoaked/dry and drops tremendously when soaked/wet. The GI-MC technique is meant to control moisture levels in the subgrade. It also incorporates geotextile/geofabrics which will enhance the mobilization of the stresses within the Black Cotton Soil subgrade thereby improving further the strength of the subgrade. The geofabrics will also act as a filtration/separation membrane and will act to stop the ingress of fines into the well graded base/subbase granular material. A CBR value calculated/determined from chapter 5 of 50% is used from Fig 7.6, the Total Pavement Thickness required is 200mm. (Ref. to fig 7.7 of this report) 7.7.2 Thickness of Sub-base The bearing capacity, strength and deformation resistance of the existing pavement and subgrade were technically evaluated and results presented in Chapter 5. Due to the coupled effects of cementation and Long Term Consolidation (LTC), the section with existing pavement exhibits high bearing capacity and strength values (ref. to Section 5.3 of Chapter 5 of this Report). However the rest of the section falling on BCS subgrade exhibit low bearing capacity and strength values Consequently, 200mm is considered to be the adequate combined thickness of the Base Course and a further 75mm is applied for the Surface Course 7.7.3 Thickness of Surface Course The thickness of the surface course was pre-determined as 75mm (40mm Wearing Course + 35mm Binder Course) and was technically evaluated and found to be adequate (ref. to Subsection 7.8.1 and 7.8.2 of this Report). Note that in the case of the Apron the Wearing Course is Concrete Paving Blocks, 80mm thick with crushing strengths of 49MPa. 7.7.4 Thickness of Base Course The base and sub-base courses are combined in this design and there total thickness is 200mm. Tensar TX 170G geogrids are used to mechanically stabilize the base layer thereby enhancing the durability, longevity and versatility of the pavement. Through the confinement of the granular material, the geogrid will maintain and improve the mechanical stability of the pavement once the pavement structure starts showing signs of deterioration due to age and increased passes of traffic.
7.7.5 Thickness of Non-Critical Areas The thicknesses of the non-critical areas [shoulders] are indicated in Fig. 7.8 and Fig. 7.10 for Section A and B respectively.
Page 131
Plan View of Isiolo Airport
Fig 7.6 Plan of the Airport showing the TWO pavement types with other details
Page 132
Fig 7.7 Plan View and MC Sand Column Details for BCS Subgrade Improvement
Page 133
7.7.6 Typical Cross-section A The Typical Cross-section of the Isiolo Airport pavement structure designed in accordance with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Design Codes and stipulations is shown in Fig. 7.7.1.
Fig. 7.8 Typical Cross-section A
Page 134
Fig. 7.9: Plan View and MC Sand Columns Details For Section A
Page 135
Typical Cross Section B Fig. 7.10: Typical Cross-section B
Page 136
Fig. 7.11 Plan View and MC Sand Column Details for Cross Section B
Page 137
Fig 7.12: Typical Cross-Section of the Apron
Page 138
7.8 Analysis of the pavement Design Under this section, each pavement layer in the structure is analyzed to determine their adequacy and performance under the design conditions and loadings. The main factors employed in undertaking this analysis are Structural Capacity Analysis and Deformation Resistance Analysis. 7.8.1 Analysis of Structural Capacity The Method was adopted in computing and analyzing the structural capacity of the composite pavement structure. The value of is calculated from the following equation. (7.1) Where, = Conversion Coefficient presented in Table 7.8.1. = Thickness of each pavement layer in cm. For a cost effective design for the Isiolo Airport, the Target including a global Safety Factor of 1.25 was determined to be . This caters for a projected Air Traffic for the B737-800 design aircraft and 3,000 Equivalent Annual Departures for a Design Life of 20 Years.
Page 139
Table 7.8.1 Conversion Co-efficient for the Calculation of Pavement Course Method and Material of Construction Surface & Binder course Base Hot asphalt mix for surface and binder course Bituminous Stabilization Hot-mixed stability: 350kgf or more Cold mixed stability 250 Kgf or more Cement Stabilization Lime stabilization Unconfined compression strength (7days): 30 Kgf/cm2 Unconfined compression strength (10 days): 10kgf/cm2 Modified CBR value: 80 or more Modified CBR value: 80 or more Unconfined compression strength (14 days) 12 Kgf/cm2 or more Modified CBR value: 30 or more 20 to 30 0.55 0.45 OPMC Level 4 = 0.65: Cement/Lime Combination OPMC Level 2 = 0.58 OPMC Level 6 = 0.78 OPMC Level 6 = 0.78 OPMC Level 2 = 0.58 OPMC Level 3 = 0.62 0.25 OPMC Level 4 = 0.65: Cement/Lime Combination 0.55 OPMC Level 6 = 0.78 0.55 1.00 Glasstex Reinforced = 1.35 0.80 OPMC Level 10 = 0.94 8 = 0.86 Conditions Standard Coefficient, an OPMC/GG Coefficient, an(OPMC)
Crushed stone for mechanical stabilization Slag for mechanical stabilization Hydraulic slag
0.35
0.55
Sub-base
Crusher-Run, slag, sand, etc
0.25 0.20
Cement stabilization
Unconfined compression strength (7 days): 10kgf/cm2
Subgrade
Black Cotton Soil
0.05
(Source: AASHTO, AAI, ASTM, Japan Road Association 1989 and XXIIRD PIARC World Road Congress, Paris 2007) Notes: Conversion coefficients listed in Table 7.8.1 indicate the ratio of the thickness of the pavement by each method and material of construction to the thickness of hot asphalt mix for the binder and the surface courses corresponding to the thickness of each material. Thus, the term a n Tn of Equation in 7.1 indicates the corresponding thickness of the n-th layer converted thickness of hot asphalt mix for the binder and surface
Page 140
courses. For example; 1 cm of pavement adopting mechanical stabilization corresponds to 0.35 of pavement adopting the hot asphalt mix method, and a 20cm of pavement using the hot asphalt mix method would therefore be (0.3520=7). Also note the OPMC conversion Values determined empirically for varying OPMC Stabilization levels published in the XXIIRD PIARC World Road Congress, Paris 2007. Structural Capacity of Proposed Design, Cross-section B In this case the , is computed as: = 1x7 +0.62 x 20 + 0.35 x 40 + 0.05 x 33 = 35 > 25 [OK] Structural capacity of proposed pavement, Cross section A In this case the is computed as:
= 1x7 +0.62 x 20 + 0.35 x 40 + 0.05 x 33 = 35 > 25 [OK] Deformation Resistance of the Pavement Section The schematic cross-section of the varying layers of the pavement structural configuration of the Design is shown in Fig. 7.8.8-1 and 7.8.8-1 below.
=4,419MPa =4,419MPa =4488MPa =2,179MPa =492MPa Fig. 7.13 Schematic Cross-section of varying Layers of Proposed Design, Cross section A
Page 141
Page 142
Fig. 7.14
Schematic Cross-section of varying Layers of Proposed Design, Cross section B
=4,419MPa =4,419MPa =4488MPa =2,179MPa =65MPa
Page 143
Page 144
Table 7.8.1 Summary of the structural capacity, deformation resistance of the composite pavement
S/No T1 Description Asphalt concrete AC Pavement Layer Wearing/Binding Course Subbase Geomaterial + Geogrid Ground Improvement Subgrade Subgrade Composite pavement Composite pavement OPMC/GG Coefficient 1 Crosssection A TA 7 Crosssection B TA 7 qu[Mpa] qu,A[Mpa] 4.50 qu,B[Mpa] 4.50 E
A max[Mpa]
max[Mpa]
4,419.00
4,419.00
T2
OPMC Level 3 BCS
0.62
20
20
3.32
3.32
5,331.15
5,331.15
T3 T4 T1+T2+T3+ T4 where: Existing Black Cotton Soil ERCA ERCB
0.35 0.05 100
20 53
40 33
1.38 0.83 1.46
1.38 0.05
2,179.02 492.32 1414 1317
2,179.02 65.13
100
0.94
ERCA- resultant ER for cross section A ERCB- resultant ER for cross section B
The Table above shows the results of the individual layers and the composite pavements after one day cure. The strength as explained and inferred in Chapter 5 will increase with time. The summaries from table 7.8.1 above shows that our proposed pavement structure is adequate to perform as a runway that will handle Boeing 737-800 aircraft with annual departures of 3000 flights for 20 years. Conclusion: The design used in this project realizes a reduction of the overall thickness of about 125mm as compared to the conventional designs.
Page 145
CHAPTER 8 8. ANALYSIS OF TIME DEPENDENT STRUCTURAL SOUNDNESS The Analysis of Time Dependent Structural Soundness is still under investigation. We therefore present the Model that we used in the Design of Songwe airport in Tanzania. This can be used as a case study. 8.1 Analysis of Structural Capacity Deterioration with Time Progression based on the SCDR Model 8.1.1 Definition of Structural Failures Distinctively, there are two different types of pavement failure. The Structural Failure includes a collapse of the pavement structure or a breakdown of one or more of the pavement components of such magnitude to make the pavement incapable of sustaining the loads imposed upon its surface and through the pavement structure. The second type is classified as Functional Failure and may or may not be accompanied by structural failure but is such that the pavement will not carry out its intended function without causing discomfort to passengers or without causing high stresses in the vehicle that passes over it due to roughness. Obviously the degree of distress for both categories is gradational, and the severity of distress of any pavement is largely a matter of opinion of the person observing the distress. As an example, consider a rigid pavement that has been resurfaced with an asphaltic overlay. The surface may develop rough spots as a result of breakup in the bituminous overlay (functional failure) without structural breakdown of the overall structure. On the other hand, the same pavement may crack and break up as a result of overload (structural failure). Maintenance measures for the first situation may consist of resurfacing to restore smooth riding qualities to the pavement. However, the structural type of failure may require complete rebuilding/reconstruction. 8.1.2 Fundamental Theories/Concepts Applied in Developing SCDR Model (1) Theories and/or Concepts Considered The choice of an effective analytical method depends predominantly on the choice of the backbone engineering theories, principles and concepts and the extent to which they translate to pragmatic application. For these purposes, the theories and concepts applied are based on fundamental theories, principles and concepts introduced in Chapter 4. The generalized equation of the existing road conditions can be expressed as a function of loading conditions, pavement type (structurally), pavement layer quality, structural thickness as well as intrinsic material properties depicted in Equation 8.1.
Rc
Where,
df
, ti , Pc , Pe , te,
v ms
(8.1)
Rc = road condition,
df
= dynamic load factor,
ti = response mode factor of layer of the pavement te = structural thickness,

v ms
structure, Pc = pavement configuration, Pe = pavement layer quality, parameter delineating moisture suction variation.
On the other hand, the extent of distress of deformation can be derived based on the theories introduced in the preceding sections applied for carrying out back analysis of the deformation history of a distressed pavement structure. In a generalized state, this can be expressed as shown in Equation 8.2.
dh
f ' , ' , p'oc , q oc , 'oc , f yi , f f f
o ij
(8.2)
Page 146
where,
dh
parameter delineating deformation history ' = consolidation stress ratio,

oc f oc f
' = modifier
between Isotropic and Anisotropic stress paths, p' , q conditions,

, f
= invariant stress under over consolidation
= Angle of Internal Friction within the failure zone.
The following theories, concepts and equations are then employed as the inputs for the generalized state model. Dynamic Loading Effects Although the equivalency law and hence the fourth power law equations developed at the AASHO road test incorporate actual dynamic load effects based on measurements of the overall loss of serviceability that included dynamic components, attempts to modify these equations have constantly been made. In this case, the equation proposed by Eisenmann (1975) containing a quantifier , known as pavement structure stress factor, is applied. This equation is adopted because it is considered to be the best mathematical representation of the theory of serial basins. In this relation, it is assumed that dynamic wheel forces are Gaussian, i.e. normal distributions. The value deduced of the fourth power of instantaneous wheel force is given by:
Ept
= 1 6CV
4 4 3CV PSt
(8.3)
where, P (t) = instantaneous tyre force at time t, Pst = E [p (t)] = static (average) tyre force, Cv = coefficient of varieties of dynamic tyre force and E [ ] = expectation operator. Eisenmann (1978) further modified Eq. (8.3) to account for the effects of wheel configuration and tyre pressure in the form of Eq. (8.4)
II
Pst .
(8.4)
where,
= 1+6 CV +3 CV (dynamic oil drilling pad factor),

II
= parameter accounting for wheel
configuration for either single or dual tyres and Intuitively, forms: K = vLEF and, k
= parameter accounting for tyre contact pressures.
and are dynamic versions related to the AASHO load equivalent factor (LEF) in the
(8.5)
4 I II
LEF,
k = ( Pst . )-4
Transversal Propagation of Stress Induced Waves The concept of serial deflection basins is introduced by considering the dynamic wheel load concept. It is assumed that the deflection basins formulated can be mathematically represented by the
Page 147
damping effects of the pavement layers either in a composite or independent form. The damped oscillatory equation of motion is therefore adopted.
rd
coeht sin h 2
rd
2 0.5 0
(8.6)
where,
= rebound deflection, Co= constant representing the initial conditions of loading,
d=damping factor of the pad foundation structure related to layer stiffness, t = response time measured, = angular frequency and = constant representing the initial position and condition of deflection measurement. The concept of energy was also applied in analyzing the curvature of the deflection basin in relation to the elastic moduli energy equation, expressed as follows.
E (t ) 0.5C 02 e
2 ht
a w02 h 2 Cos 2 w02 h 2
0.5
f r sin 2 w02 h 2
0.5
(8.7)
where, fr is the force constant and la=axle load. It is further considered that the energy decreased exponentially with the increase in time and is expressed as:
dE(t ) dt
d 1 / 2 a dt
2 rd
1/ 2 f r
(8.8)
Theory Of Applying Excitation Truck And Vibration Roller The excitation truck and vibration roller were used for purposes of studying the impact and magnitude of disturbance on the quantities of the deflections measured, longitudinal deformation, transversal rebound characteristics and total pavement structural response. Effects of the variation of the speed of the excitation and vibration modes of the vibration roller are quantitatively analyzed from the following relation of steady state motion, completely specified by an amplitude b and phase angle . For low driving frequencies, the phase angle is expressed as:
arctan
2h
2 0 2
(8.9)
In this case the driving force and resulting deflection are in phase hence the amplitude is expressed as:
f0
2 0
w2
4h 2
2 0.5
(8.10)
For high driving frequencies the amplitude is considered to be
Page 148
f0
4
4h 2
0.5
(8.11)
In cases whereby d is small for light damping then:
f0
2
(8.12)
The phase angle is then given by
arctan
2hw
2 0 2
(8.13)
In such a case as the frequency of and the phase angle tends towards
of the impressed force is increased, the amplitude decreases
Shear Wave Propagation Through Pad Foundation Layers The analysis of the shear wave propagation through pavement structural layers is carried out by applying the concepts related to the linear (LIN) and equivalent linear (EQL) methods. These methods of analysis are commonly made by multiple reflection of vertically propagating horizontal components of shear waves though multiple layered profile one dimensional system Assuming the deflection at any layer n is given by
rd
rd
Z1t
rd
Z e iwt
(8.14)
where,
2 n n rd 2
rd
is the total displacement .The equation of motion is then given by:

2 3 n 2 n n
Gn
Z t
(8.15)
where,
2Gn hn ,
density of pad foundation layer, G = shear modulus and h is damping.
The solution of the resulting differential equation for the steady state harmonic motion is obtained as follows:
n rd
e ikn Z
Fn e
ikn Z
(8.16)
and,
ik n Gn En e ikn Z
Fm e
ikn Z
(8.17)
where, by
kn
pn Gn
(8.18)
Page 149
Where, m = shear stress at layer n, KN = wave number layer n and En and Fn are amplitudes of the upwards and downwards bound waves. Applying the conditions of continuity at the interface of the layers and the condition that shear stress at the surface is zero, yielding E1=F1, then the transfer function between any layer can be quantified as:
Anm
en en
fn fn
(8.19)
where, Anm = transfer function between layers n and m,
en
En
E1
and f n
Fm
F1
. These facilities the
analysis of the unknown motion in other layers provided that the transfer function and input motion at the layers are known. Consequently the acceleration and the strain can be computed from the deflection functions expressed as:
n Z t rd 1
and ,
2 n n rd
n rd 2
ei
Kn i KnZ
t wt
(8.20)
Fn e
ikn
ei K n
i KnZ
t wt
(8.21) =strain in layer n. Detailed description of the theoretical
Fn e
n where, rd = acceleration in layers n and
background and analytical procedure are discussed by Kanai (1951) Haskeu (1953) Schnabel (1971) and Kanai (1983). Correlation of Response Time to Elastic Properties. Wave propagation techniques are usually used to determine the elastic modulus of in-situ Geomaterials. In applying this method a common assumption is that the material behaves as a linear elastic material under isotropic conditions. Based upon such theoretical consideration, the models of the material can be determined from the following equation.
2 s
21
(8.21)
where, E= Elastic modulus
= Poissons ratio (values of 0.4 for asphalt concrete and 0.45 for aggregate base
n
and subgrade) proposed by the Asphalt Institute were adopted in these analysis, Vs= shear wave velocity density of layer n and g = acceleration of gravity.
In this study, it was assumed that since Vs= Lf where, L= the wavelength and f=frequency them Vs tr (response time). Measured values of t were then used in computing the layer depth to determine the responsive layer and estimate the corresponding elastic modulus.
Page 150
Back Analysis of Distressed Pad Foundation Deformation History. The Constitutive model on cyclic plasticity for Geomaterials based on non-linear kinematic hardening theory proposed by Yashima et al. (1994) is adopted in attempting to back analyze the deformation history of the pad foundation structure. This model was chosen because of its incorporation of the non-linear kinematics hardening rule. When incorporated into an overstress type of model, it is found to be effective in expressing the changes in retardation in the strain rate direction upon a corresponding change in the direction of the stress. Furthermore this model is found to reproduce to an appreciable extent, the plastic damage during cyclic or repeated loading. By taking into account the effects of sub grade layer material into the sub base, the constitutive model for clay is adopted in simulating the composite yield characteristics of these layers, while the distress behavior of the upper pad foundation consisting of the unbound crushed aggregate base course and the asphalt concrete, are analyzed by modifying the theories in the constitutive model for soft rock. Constitutive model applied for lower pad foundation layers The viscoplastic model for over consolidated clay extended to a cyclic model by Oka (1988) is applied. The static yield functions that account for changes in the stress ratio are given as follows:
f y1
* ij
* xij
* ij
* xij
RD1
0
*
(8.22)
where, RD1 = parameter defining the elastic region and xij =the kinematics hardening tensor. By introducing the non linearity of the kinematics hardening, xij can be written as
* dxij vp B1* A1* deij
xij d
vp
(8.23)
In which
* A1* and B1* are the material constants and deij is the increment of the viscoplastic deviatoric strain.
The second invariant of the increment of the plastic deviatoric strain is derived as:
vp
vp vp deij deij
(8.24)
For the first yield function, the plastic potential is assumed to be:
g1
* ij
' ma (1)
* xij
* ij
* xij
1 2
~ M *1n
' m
' ma (1)
(8.25a)
where,
= material parameter and M * is the stress ratio when the layers are under maximum
compression condition: Considering the over consolidated boundary surface between the NC and OC zones to be expressed as:
fb
* 0
~* M m1n
' m
' ma (1)
(8.25b)
Page 151
In the NC Zone
~* ~ ~ f b 0 , M * is kept constant i.e., M * = M m whereas in the OC region, it is defined as:
fb
~ M*
~ 0 , M * is defined as:
' m
' mc
(8.26)
* * * ij ij 1 2
where, the current stress ratio
and
' mc
' mb exp
* 0
* / Mm )
Estimation of Consolidation and Shear Stress Paths The input parameters for the constitutive model introduced in the preceding section were derived from the following theories and concepts. As the repeated loading progresses, the cumulative effects are back analyzed by applying the concepts of consolidation and shear stress ratio functions under normally consolidated (NC) conditions introduced by Mukabi and Tatsuoka (1996) and Mukabi (2001d). In so doing, the initial stresses are computed from the experimental results of full scale trial sections (Mukabi, 2002; Gono et al., 2003, this conference) .The cumulative stresses are then derived by considering the average loading rate and cumulative repeated loading over a given period of time. Once the maximum deviator and mean effective stresses are determined, the stress ratio functions, defined from the following expressions proposed by Mukabi and Tatsuoka (1999b) and Mukabi (2001d) are applied.
CSR
(8.27)
Where, A and B are material properties, and the consolidation stress ratio function
1
CSR
which is
independent of the effects of loading rate, is derived from the relation of normalized angle of internal friction expressed as maximum deviator stress. in general form as:
CSR
qmax
, whereby
' = function
'
I Q (A:
An isotropic I: Isotropic) and
qmax =
' can be determined from the quasi-empirical equation (Mukabi, 2001d) expressed
'
SR
SR
SR
(8.28)
Where, ASR and BSR are stress ratio constants and
SR
q p' is the invariant stress ratio variable.
The antistrophic stress path is derived from the isotropic one by introducing a modifier proposed by Mukabi and Tatsuoka (1999b) expressed as:
max I
KI
where,
max =
CSR
.CSR
(8.29)
(q/p) at qmax, KI=1 and CSR= consolidations stress ratio. The modifier is applied in the relation
p.
On the other hand, the invariant stresses and angle of internal friction under over consolidated (OC) condition were derived from the flowing correlations proposed by Mukabi (2001d).
Page 152
oc qmax
K oNC
OC
(8.30)
where, KOx and

OC KOx
OC K Ox OCR
sin
' f
1 sin ' f
' OC
The corresponding mean effective stress, p f

and angle of internal friction
'OC f
are given by:
'OC f
PC'OC Pf' NC
' pCNC
NC KO
(8.31)
and ,
NC KO OC KO . A CSR NC 1 ' NC f
'OC f
NC KO
(8.32)
Constitutive Model Applied for Upper Pad Foundation Layers Adachi and Oka (1992) proposed that the stress history tensor is a function of the effective stress history with respect of the strain measure. This history tensor,
O *' ij
is given by
O*' ij
1 T
Z 0
exp
Z Z' /
1
' ij
Z ' dZ '
(8.33)
where, dz= deij deij
, Z = strain measure, T=material parameter which controls the strain-hardening and
strain-softening phenomena and deij is the increment of deviator strain tensor. The plastic potential is assumed to be:
1
g1
* ij
* xij
* ij
* xij
~ M * 1n
' m ' mb
b b
(8.34)
The OC boundary is given as :
fb
* 0
~* M m1n
' m ' mb
b b
(8.35)
The OC region is therefore defined as:
~ M*
' m ' mb
b b
(8.36)
Page 153
Fig 8.1 Depiction of Determining Period and Level of Maintenance Based on the SCDR Model 8.1.3 Analysis of Structural Capacity 1) Initial Structural Capacity It is imperative, when undertaking the design of flexible-pavement structures, to consider factors such as subgrade characteristics, pavement layer strength and conditions, load and traffic parameters, environmental conditions as well as the economics of design and construction. Some of the major factors that affect the status or condition of a pavement structure include the Relative Damaging Effect (RDeff.), which is related to the ESAL, variation in quality of materials prompted by environmental factors, deterioration in pavement layer thickness through loss of aggregates and infiltration of inferior lower quality materials into the upper layers of the pavement structure. The concept of remaining life can be transposed or defined in terms of the existing structural capacity by application of the following equation.
e f SC
f RL
Re f SC
RDeff . x
rf
(8.37)
Re f RL = Remaining Life Factor, f SC = Structural Capacity Re
Where f SC represents the existing structural capacity,
Re
Factor of a newly constructed or reconstructed pavement structure in which case f SC =1 and RDeff . = 0.298 is the damaging factor while damaging effect defined as:
rf
= defines contribution of a multitude of factors affecting the magnitude of the
rf
PSF
RSF
PSI
where PSF= Present Serviceability Factor, RSF = Redundant Serviceability Factor and PSI = Present Serviceability Index computed as PSI=3.34 for this Project Road and PSF = 0.18, whereas RSF is derived from the expression
Page 154
RSF
1 0.01 C fAC FCAC xC BC FCBC xC SB FCSB f f
(8.38)
C fAC , C BC and C SB are conversion factors for Asphalt Concrete, Base Course and Sub-base respectively, f f
while FC , FC and FC are correction factors related to the deterioration of pavement layer thickness. In the case of a newly or reconstructed pavement structure, it is assumed the FC , FC and FC = 1. However, based on the SCDR Model, the time dependent deterioration structural factor can only be computed where Nt > 2.2 years. Considering structural and stability safety factors as well as quality control deficiencies during construction, the initial structural capacity factor defined at Nt=2.2 years is computed as below for design parameters determined as per standard specifications. Hence,
e t f SC( (Nst ) 2.2 =1-0.613 e t f SC( (Nst ) 2.2 =0.824
rf
AC
BC
SB
AC
BC
SB
= 0.18x1.019x3.34 = 0.613
While, for Geomaterials exhibiting enhanced engineering properties, RSF = 0 hence rf = 0, consequently,
e t f SC( (Nen )2.2 =1
2) Deterioration of Structural Capacity with Time Progression Some of the major factors that contribute to the deficiency with time, of the structural capacity and serviceability level of an existing pavement structure were mentioned in the preceding Sub-Section 8.1.2. This deterioration with time is known to grossly affect the performance of pavement structures. The deterioration with time of the structural capacity factor f SC after Nt = 2.2 years can be defined by Eq. (8.39) below,
t
t f SC
e f SC x log N t1.5
(8.39)
Based on the foregoing concepts and equations, the following equation is applied for soft clayey soils.
f t SC
ASC N t
BSC N t
CSC
(8.40)
Where,
f t SC
Time dependent Structural Capacity Factor 0.001,
ASC
BSC
0.0507 and
C SC
1.13 are Structural Capacity-Time related constants
Page 155
Nt
Time Progression in Years
On the hand, for OPMC, mechanically and/or chemically (treated) stabilized Geomaterials, stiff soils and relatively hard rock, the following equation is applied.
(8.41)
3) Analysis of Influence of Environmental Factors Environmental factors such as moisture-suction variation due to seasonal cycles, inferior material intrusion as a result of the combined effects of dynamic loading and water infiltration (pumping) and land use affecting the structural pavement layer thickness are known to affect the structural capacity and serviceability levels of a pavement structure. In order to determine in a quantitative manner, the magnitude of the influence of these factors in relation to the depreciation (deterioration) of the structural capacity of a pavement structure, the following equations are adopted. The environmental factors time dependant generalized equation is factored as and expressed as, (8.42)
The environmental factors time dependant depreciating variation factor,
is defined as, (8.43)
Where, = Moisture-Suction Depreciating Factor = Inferior Material Intrusion Depreciating Factor = Pavement Layer Thickness Depreciating Factor The time dependant Structural Capacity depreciating factor is therefore computed as,
(8.44) = Structural Capacity Depreciation Factor = Initial Structural Capacity (pre-consolidation) = Time Progression in Years = 2.2years (Reference Time Period) = 0.824 (Reference Structural Capacity Factor)
Page 156
8.2 Analysis of Time Dependent Structural Capacity for Varying Designs of Isiolo Airport In this Study, five (5) pavement designs have been considered. These designs are presented in Chapter 7 of this Report. In order to arrive at the most optimum VE based conclusion and recommendation, it is considered vital to incorporate the element of maintenance period and costs accordingly. The appropriate periods and modes of maintenance are determined in terms of a direct proportional relationship between maintenance needs and costs to the deterioration of the pavement structural capacity with time progression. Table 8.2.1 is a summary of the main parameters that are adopted in carrying out these analyses for the various designs considered Table 8.2.1 Summary of Main Parameters Adopted for Analysis for Varying Designs Option Type Layer Main Analysis Parameters Type CBR (%) qu Emax (a)ELS x
(MPa)
EXISTING Composite 161 3.90 3,233 32.25 0.72 1 1 1 Design USFAA/ICAO Composite 195 4.71 4,477 1.0045 30.8 0.87 1 1 1 Based PROPOSED Composite 224 5.42 5,141 1.1546 46.4 1.00 1 1 1 OPTION Notes: CBR : California Bearing Ratio applied for Composite Base Course, Sub-base and Subgrade only : Unconfined Compressive Strength : Elastic (Youngs) Modulus : Elastic Limit Strain : Structural Pavement Thickness Indicator : Initial Structural Capacity Ratio : Moisture-Suction Depreciating Factor : Inferior Material Intrusion Depreciating Factor : Pavement Layer Thickness Depreciating Factor All parameters are considered the initial parameters that are determined during the Virgin Loading stage. In undertaking these analyses, the effects of consolidation in enhancing the bearing capacity, strength and deformation resistance during the first period of dynamic and static loading have not been taken into consideration. Tables 8.2.2 to 8.2.8 are a summary of the deterioration factors and depletion of the structural capacity for the varying designs, while Figs. 8.2.1 to 8.2.7 are a graphical depiction of the corresponding trend of the structural capacity with the progression of time.
10-3 (%) 0.8313
Page 157
In this case, the computations postulate scenarios of WITH MAINTENANCE scenario where only consistent routine and periodic maintenance are undertaken without full scale Recarpeting (resurfacing) and WITHOUT MAINTENANCE scenario whereby full scale Recarpeting (resurfacing) would then become necessary at prior to the expiry of the Design Life. Table 8.2.2 Structural Depreciation Factor for EXISTING Pavement.
Resulting TA With Maintenance Vs. Time

35
Resulting TA WithOUT Maintenance Vs. Time

35
30 25
30 25
Resulting TA
20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Time Progression, Nt (years)
Resulting TA
20 15 10 5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Time Progression, Nt (years)
Fig 8.2 Graphical Depiction of Depreciated Structural Capacity Factor and Resulting Scenario as well as WithOUT Maintenance effect
WITH Maintenance
Page 158
Table 8.2.3 Structural Depreciation Factor for U.S. FAA ICAO Based Design option.

35 30 25
Resulting TA

35 30 25
Resulting TA
Fig 8.3 Graphical Depiction of Depreciated Structural Capacity Factor and Resulting WITH Maintenance Scenario as well as WithOUT Maintenance effect for USFAA-ICAO Design
Page 159
Table 8.2.4 Structural Depreciation Factor for PROPOSED OPTION Reviewed Design

50
45

50 45 40 35
40
35
Resulting TA
25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Time Progression, Nt (years)
Resulting TA
30
30 25 20 15 10
5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Time Progression, Nt (years)
Figure 8.4 Graphical Depiction of Depreciated Structural Capacity Factor and Resulting WITH Maintenance Scenario as well as WithOUT Maintenance effect for Reviewed Design PROPOSED OPTION
Page 160
Table 8.2.5 is a summary of the structural capacity depreciation factor, while Fig. 8.2.7 depicts the characteristic trends of the structural capacity depreciation with time progression over the design life for varying design options. Table 8.2.5 Structural Depreciation Factor with Time Progression for Varying Design Options
50 45 40 35
Resulting TA
Resulting TA WITH Maintenance vs. Time

EXISTING USFAA/ ICAO PROPOSED OPTION (Reviewed)
50 45 40 35
Resulting TA WithOUT Maintenance vs. Time

EXISTING USFAA/ ICAO PROPOSED OPTION (Reviewed)
Range of Design Criteria
Resulting TA
30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Critical Line
30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Range of Design Criteria
Critical Line
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Time Progression, Nt (years)

Structural Depreciation Factor Vs. Time Progression "WITH Maintenance"
1.1
1.1 1.0
Depreciated Structural Capacity Factor vs. Time "WithOUT Maintenance" EXISTING USFAA/ ICAO Proposed OPTION Reviewed
Structural Capacity Depreciation Factor, fsc
EXISTING
Depreciated Structural Capacity Factor
USAFAA/ICAO Based 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4

0.3
Terminal Line
Critical Zone
PROPOSED OPTION (Review)
0.9 0.8 0.7
Critical Zone
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

Terminal Line
0.2 0.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Time Progression, Nt (Years)
Figure 8.5 Graphical Depiction of Depreciated Structural Capacity Factor and Resulting WITH Maintenance Scenario as well as WithOUT Maintenance effect for Varying Designs
Page 161
The following derivations can be made from Tables 8.2.2 ~ 8.2.5 and Figs. 8.1 ~ 8.5. 1. All Designs are adequate enough to serve the 20-years design life provided that periodic and routine maintenance is consistently undertaken accordingly. 2. PROPOSED OPTION (Reviewed Design) exhibits the highest resistance to structural capacity deterioration. 3. Without maintenance, the characteristic curves of all Designs will exceed the Critical Zone between approximately 8 and 10 years, and tend to approach the Terminal Line between 11 and 14 years. 4. The most resilient design is the Reviewed Proposed Option Design, which indicates that even under extreme conditions (excluding natural disasters such as El Nino, Earthquakes, Tsunamis, recurrent seismic action etc), their Design Life may extend to as long as 12 ~ 14 years. 5. Consequently It can be derived that Without Maintenance there will prevail a need for intervention to undertake Recarpeting (resurfacing). This would be approximately 11 and 13 years for the EXISTING and US FAA/ICAO Designs and 13 to 14 years for the Proposed Designs.
Page 162
CHAPTER 9 9. METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION General Method of Construction:
Flow Chart 9.1
Overall Method of construction
Page 163
9.1 Procedure for Construction of Ground Improved Subgrade This procedure is to be applied to the construction of the Improved Subgrade. The technique used is the GI technique where by the use of Moisture Control Sand Columns is applied to improve the properties of the existing subgrade Black Cotton soils.
Flow Chart 9.2 Method of construction of the improved subgrade
Page 164
9.2 Procedure for Construction of Sub-Base/Base Course This procedure is to be applied to the construction of the Sub-Base / Base course. We have designed for the sub-base and base as one in this design.
Flow Chart 9.3 Method of construction of the sub-base/base course
Page 165
9.3 Procedure for Construction of Asphalt Concrete Wearing Course This procedure is to be applied to the construction of the Asphalt Concrete Wearing Course-AC
Flow Chart 9.4 Method of construction of the Asphalt Concrete Wearing Course
Page 166

9.2 Program of Works with superimposed S-Curve The program of works is proposed below. The comprehensive and detailed will be presented in the Detailed Design.
9.3 Quality Control 9.3.1 Preamble Measured and field data collection would certainly serve no purpose if appreciable accuracy and confidence levels are not achieved. Accurate and precise definition of the boundary limits of specification control can prove to be costly if they are not properly considered or tailored for a specific project. The basic principles of some of the main quality control methods developed by the Author previously on other project modified to suit the design and construction specification requirements for the Addis Ababa~ Goha Tsion Project are briefly introduced in the subsequent sections. Numerous other interpretive methodologies, which are not introduced in this Report, have also been developed. 9.3.2 Plasticity Materials (crushed aggregates) This method of correction takes into account the reciprocal relation between water content (wc), density ( ) and degree of compaction (Dc). For low plasticity materials whereby PI < 6, the following generalized quasi-empirical equations may be applied.
l wc
u cf
nwf xC ' xCw x w

l c
opt
s c
m c
/ 100
l
(9.1)
u where, wcf = Moisture content correction factor for DC>100, wc = Moisture content determined in the
Laboratory, n wf = Constant derived from the relation between the natural and laboratory moisture contents,
C = Density correction factor for laboratory and soil variability, Cw= Correction factor for moisture content,
w=
In-place wet density of soil,
opt
= Maximum Dry Density (MDD), Dc =Specified Degree of Compaction,
Dcm = Measured Degree of Compaction.

For cases where Dc < 100, the following equation may be applied:
l wc
L cf
nwf xC ' xCw w

l c
w m c
opt
s c
/ 100
(9.2)
L wcf defines the moisture content correction factor for Dc < 100.
The corrected Degree of Compaction ( Dc
Cor
) is then given by :
Cor . c
wcf xDcw C xDcs
(9.3)
Page 168
where, Dc
Cor.
Corrected degree of compaction, Dc = Standard upper limit degree of compaction,
ul
C =Optimum density correction factor.

Considering some common and standard factors then, nwf
0.32,
C'
0.93,
Cw
0.89 and C
0.977 .
Based on the Specifications for this Project for base course material, Dc
98% and Dcul is determined as
102%. Consequently, equations (8.1), (8.2) and (8.3) are simplified to the forms expressed in Eqs. (8.4), (8.5) and (8.6) respectively.
l wc
u wcf
0.26 98 D
0.26
w m c
opt
l c
/ 100
1
(9.4)
While,
w
and,
L cf
l wc l wc
opt
98 Dcm / 100
(9.5)
Cor Dc .
1.02 wcf x100
(9.6)
Hence to correct for the aforementioned variable parameters for base course material, Eqs. (9.4), (9.5) and (10.6) may be applied accordingly. 9.3.3 Formulae For Correction of Moisture Content Vs. Degree of Compaction for High Plasticity Materials (Subgrade, Embankment And Sub-base) For high plasticity materials whereby PI > 6, the following generalized quasi-empirical equations may be applied in all cases.
wcf
l wc
nwf xC ' xCw x w

l c
opt
s c
m c
/ 100
) is then given by :
(9.7)
The corrected Degree of Compaction ( Dc
Cor
Cor . c
wcf xDcw C xDcs
(9.8)
Considering some common and standard factors nwf
0.32, C '
1.0, C w
s
1.0 and C
1.0
Based on the Specifications for this Project for subgrade material, Dc
95% and Dcul is determined as 98%.
Consequently, Esq. (9.7) and (9.8) are simplified to the forms expressed in Eqs. (9.9) and (9.10) respectively.
l wc
u cf
0.32 95 D
w m c
opt
l c
/ 100
(9.9)
Page 169
and,
DcCor.
0.98wcf x100
(9.10)
9.3.4 Mechanical Stability Analysis In order to analyze the impact of mechanical stability on the bearing capacity Eq. (9.11) may be adopted.
S f RF S f opt .
Rrc x BR I
BR Iopt
(9.11)
S where, f RF
S = Strength Ratio Parameter, f opt . = Strength Ratio Parameter determined at the optimum
Batching Ratio value, R rc Index at optimum value,
= Rate of Reduction of the post compaction strength , BR Iopt = Batching Ratio
9.3.5 Quantitative Method of Evaluating Effect of Paving at Varying Grades of Slope In developing the method of evaluating effect of paving construction in negative upgrade slope, the factors in Table 9A were taken into consideration. TABLE 9A
1. Segregation of particles, flow characteristics, nonhomogeneity, contact pressure vibrational force, consistency, tractive force, sliding, Imperfect compaction, non-uniform thickness, impact on density, structural deficiency, differential deformation, localized flow and plastic failure. 2. Premature failure (cracking or micro-cracking), nonuniform inter-particle stress distribution, development and propagation of internal localized shear planes were also analyzed in relation to particle size, distribution, viscosity of bitumen, temperature, spreading rate, and state of interparticle contact within a bituminous medium.
The four main influencing factors are stipulated in Table 9B. TABLE 9B
1) Grade effect on the strength and shearing resistance properties of the Asphalt Concrete 2) Damaging effect on the Marshall properties of the Asphalt concrete 3) Effect of rate of roadway super elevation
4) Effect of excitement frequency in relation to microdamage initiation due to construction equipment
Page 170
Rolling Resistance (Dynamic)
Considering that,
Rr
then,
GCr
V2 254L
(9.12)
R Cr
Rr
V2 100 254Li
(9.13)
where GCr = Critical angle of slope in relation to rolling resistance, Rr = Rolling resistance factor, V = Tractive velocity of construction equipment and L = Compaction distance Damaging Effect (Static) The damaging effect on the Marshall properties of the asphalt concrete due to the critical angle of inclination is expressed as follows.
2 lim
eff sv
tan
tan
lim
tan
2
tan
0.5 i
1 tan
(9.14)
where
eff sv
=Damaging effect factor ,
lim
=Limiting grade of slope,
i=Grade
of slope.
Friction Factor (Dynamic)
The friction factor resulting from the dynamic component is computed as :
fF
V2 e 127R 100
f
(9.15)
where, fF=Friction factor, V=Velocity of construction equipment, GCV i to the friction factor, R=Radius of curvature
=Critical grade of slope in relation
Effect of Excitement Frequency Adopting the solution proposed by Housner (1963) for a half-sine wave acceleration pulse required for overturning a block and modifying it to that required to initiate slip of the surface mass; then the following equation is obtained for a value of that is small.
as
g(
cv
lim
) 1
(9.16)
Page 171
where as=Acceleration to cause segregation, g = Force of gravity grade of slope, equipment. For a large value of , Eq. (9.16) can be represented by
p=Particle
cr
=Critical grade of slope,
lim
=Limiting
size (average),
=Excitement frequency propagated by the construction
as
p g cr
lim
pg
KF
lim
(9.17)
where, =Oscillatory velocity of construction equipment, =Angle between the hexagonal diagonal of an ideal particle with the normal line to the slip surface with an inclination of angle lim., KF=Contribution of interparticle friction factor, =Coefficient of friction between particle and slope.
Page 172
CHAPTER 10 10. ACCESS ROADS There is need to design the Access Road to enable accessibility of the site and deliveries during construction. The Access Roads can then be utilized after construction as service roads to and in the airport. From the site investigation, the access roads are also found on problematic soils just as was the case for the airport runway hence a more pragmatic approach of Research and Design is required in its design. The access roads were not part of this design as the consultant was not commissioned to carry out the designs. CHAPTER 11 11. Hydro-geological Study The Hydro-Geological survey is very crucial to the overall design of the airport; more so the drainage structures. We therefore propose that a comprehensive hydro-geological study be carried out. The justification and necessity of this study is detailed in 11.1. Note that the consultant has not been commissioned to undertake the study. 11.1 Introduction and Preparatory Work Introduction Drainage and environment considerations are of paramount importance to any land based project. In the case of the project that this exercise is targeting, The Rehabilitation of Isiolo Airport, the scoping needs to encompass the whole catchment / watershed area. Reasons for this will become evident in the justification section. The area in which the drainage and preliminary environmental scoping will be done will here be designated as the Focal Area. This will include the Airport area as the core with the outlying area (watershed) as the said Focal Area. The scoping /survey which are intended to lead to the design of the drainage system and structures will be done with the assumption that concepts, strategies, problems, and overall solutions of the project area, have been worked out at the appropriate decision making levels in consultation with the community / its representatives. Justification The protection, improvement, and rehabilitation of watersheds are of critical importance in the achievement of overall development goals. Planners and implementers of projects such as the Isiolo Airport need to be aware of new approaches and strategies in soil conservation and land management for the proper design of adequate drainage systems and structures. This should include an awareness of issues such as farming systems analysis and development, community forestry, etc. of the Focal area. A project will risk being problematic and less sustainable in its future after implementation if these considerations are not taken into account. The drainage and environmental surveys, planning, and design for any project area will enable the formulation of good and sustainable management strategies. The management of any project area is site specific and no method, however sound, can be applied universally without modifying it to suit local needs. This therefore calls for a comprehensive survey and study of every project area individually. The drainage and environmental scoping intend to facilitate and address this need. Survey and planning is a continuous process. This scoping / survey can be considered as a basic on which any other future exercises can launched from or added to. Watershed management is a continuous and flexible
Page 173
process, an ongoing undertaking, this exercise is therefore very crucial to the better management and sustainability of the project. All watersheds contain many kinds of natural resources _ soil, water, forest, rangeland, Wildlife, minerals, etc. In managing and developing a watershed, the use of some natural resources will be complimentary while others will be competitive. The key, therefore, is to use these resources as efficiently and perpetually as possible, with minimum disturbance to the watershed as a whole. In many if not most of the developing countries, watershed degradation, and the scarce availability of resources mandate a comprehensive, accurate, and appropriate survey and planning of any project. In the case of the Isiolo Airport project, the drainage and environmental issues have to be approached with utmost care. This is necessitated by a preliminary / overview study of the areas physiography, hydro, and geology. The Airport project cannot therefore be developed on an exclusive basis or in seclusion. If sustainability has to be achieved, and risks from natural disasters have to be mitigated, then the proposed focal area /watershed survey and planning would be the most pertinent way to go. It would be inadequate to design drainage systems and structures for the Airport without factoring in the proposed watershed survey and planning. It would amount to creating a disaster in the name for implementing a major development project. The drainage of the Isiolo Airport cannot be designed without the above considerations. Some of the pertinent questions to ask are; o What is the source of the water to be drained? o What is the quantity of water to be drained? o Can the drainage system manage or accommodate the quantity? o What are the challenges expected and from what sources? o Can the drainage system be established economically? o Will the drainage system be able to handle any extrapolated future discharges? o What are the risks expected due to failure of the drainage system? o What would be the reason(s) for the above failure? These are some but not necessarily all the question that the proposed exercise would adequately address. Some Objectives Main objectives of the above exercise will be defined after collection of existing data, identifying major focal area problems and considering management possibilities. However there are some basic objectives for the exercise. These include: To rehabilitate the focal area (watershed) through proper land use and conservation measures in order to minimize erosion; To protect, improve or manage the focal area (watershed) for the benefit of the project and resources development; To manage the watershed in order to minimize natural disasters such as floods, drought and landmass movement; To develop the watershed for the benefit of the community and the economies of the region; Definitions Following are some brief definitions that will be used in the scoping report. Watershed: it is a topographically delineated area that is drained by a stream system, that is, the total land area that is drained to some point on a waterway.
Page 174
Watershed degradation: it is the loss of value over time, including the productive potential of land and water, accompanied by marked changes in the hydrological behaviour of a river system resulting in inferior quality, quantity, and timing of water flow. Watershed management: is the process of formulating and carrying out a course of action involving the manipulation of resources in a watershed to provide goods and services without adversely affecting the soil, water base, and other resources. Watershed survey and planning: is the preparatory work which, if properly conceptualized and carried out, permits the successful implementation of actual watershed management. Focal area: is the area encompassing the core project area and the watershed. Core project area: is the Isiolo Airport area.
Page 175
CHAPTER 12 12. Experimental Research Trial section The experimental trial section is meant to provide us with data that give an indication of the behaviour and performance of the different pavement configurations so that we can generate an optimum design based on actual trafficking and loading models. Different configurations can be generated; the following is a brief on the elementary configurations that we propose: Pavement with the Black Cotton Soil [BCS] as subgrade :the BCS without Ground Improvement Pavement with OPMC without geogrids. Pavement with OPMC with geogrids Pavement with OBRM+Geogrids only Pavement with OPMC + geogrids only. OBRM+OPMC+Geogrids The location of construction and the dimensions of the trial sections can be determined during project implementation. 20m for each section is adequate. The objective of the Experimental Trial Section is: Study the loading characteristics Intensity of loading Mode of loading i.e. pressure distribution Pavement response to loading, more so impact loading Degree of performance of geogrids Degree of stress mobilization due to the incorporation of geotextiles. Degree and extent of Ground Improvement for BCS.
Page 176
CHAPTER 13 13. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13.1 Main Conclusions In this Study presents a preliminary testing and analysis for purposes of realizing the most Value Engineering based design for the Isiolo Airport Pavement Structure in Isiolo District. Based on the derivations noted in this Report, the following main conclusions can be made. 1. The subgrade CBR is high when the subgrade condition is Unsoaked and the CBR values drops tremendously when the subgrade is wet. The subgrade soil, predominantly Black Cotton Soil [BCS] have very high amount of fines [PI of 62%]. The intrusion of the fines into the well graded base/subbase material should be stopped since the presence of fines will result to the increase of the capillary action of the layer making the base vulnerable to moisture. The presence of fines will therefore lead to the drop in strength of the pavement structure. 2. The subgrade is improved using the Ground Improvement Moisture Control Technique where sand piles/columns are used to control moisture. 3. The gravel materials from borrow pits within the vicinity of the Project Area are suitable for the construction of the Base Course pavement layer. The existing gravel material is porous and has relatively low densities. We have batched the gravel with 0.6mm quarry dust to improve on its compaction. 4. The gravel exhibit high values of strength when stabilized; chemically using cement and mechanically using Tensar TX 170 TriAx Geogrids. Tensar TX 170G geogrids are used to mechanically stabilize the base layer thereby enhancing the durability, longevity and versatility of the pavement. Through the confinement of the granular material, the geogrid will maintain and improve the mechanical stability of the pavement once the pavement structure starts showing signs of deterioration due to age and increased passes of traffic. 5. The pavement structure is expected to exhibit increase in strength with time as the curing process continues. 6. This pavement design reduces the overall thickness of pavement from 400mm to 200mm in comparison to the conventional approach and cuts on the use of cement from 7-8% conventionally to less than 3%. This design does not entail the excavation and subsequent backfilling of the Black Cotton Subgrade Soil with selected granular Geomaterial. 7. Due mainly to the nature of the material and the existing natural ground, the magnitude of the bearing capacity, strength and deformation resistance of the existing sub-base and subgrade supersedes to a large extent, values specified as material requirements for base course layers by International Agencies and Researchers. 8. The Cement-Geogrid stabilized Geomaterials exhibits higher values in terms of strength, bearing capacity and deformation resistance as compared to the Cement stabilized materials. 9. This Design satisfies all the engineering properties and VE aspects.
Page 177
13.2 Basic Recommendations From the foregoing analysis, discussions and conclusions, the following recommendations can be made accordingly. 1. The GI-MC technique is meant to control moisture levels in the subgrade. It also incorporates Geotextile/Geofabrics which will enhance the mobilization of the stresses within the Black Cotton Soil subgrade thereby improving further the strength of the subgrade. The geofabrics will also act as a filtration/separation membrane and will act to stop the ingress of fines into the well graded base/subbase granular material. 2. The inclusion of the Geogrid is of importance as can be inferred from the material analysis and conclusion. 3. From the effects of curing on the strength characteristics of the cement-geogrid stabilized Geomaterials, the proposed pavement structure will depict increase of strength with time. 4. A comprehensive hydrological survey need to be done so as to analyze the effects of drainage and runoff to the general operation of the airport and also design structures that will be able to control the runoff since the proposed airport is located on a flood plain. 5. From the subgrade analysis, the access roads in and out of the airport need to be adequately designed to enable delivery of material during construction. 6. It is envisaged that the above design [OPMC GI-MC Technique] will realize and overall saving on material and construction time of more than 40%. This savings will come from: a. Reduction in cement quantities from 7-8% conventionally to less than 3% b. No excavation and subsequent backfilling of the subgrade Black Cotton Soil. c. Reduction in construction time.
Page 178
MAIN REFERENCES Ampadu, S.K (1988): The influence of initial shear on undrained Behavior of normally consolidated Kaolin, Master Thesis, University of Tokyo. Bejerrum, L., 1993. Problems of soil mechanics and construction on soft clay and structurally unstable soils (collapsible, expansive and other). In Proc. 8th Int. Conference on SMFE, Moscow. P111~159. Blyth, F.G.H., & de Freitas M.H>(1998) A Geology for Engineers 7th Edition. Arnold, A member of Hodder Headline Group LONDON. SYDNEY. AUCKLAND.Bulletin of Earthquake Resistant Structure Research Center No. 27 1994. dependence on Frequency of the Failure process of a slope Made up of Coarse Particles. K. Konagai and T. Sato. Institute of Industrial Science University of Tokyo. Burland, J.B. and Wroth, C.P., (1974) Review Paper : Settlement of buildings and associated damage, in Proceeding of the Conference on Settlement of Structures, Pentech Press, Cambridge, 1974. pp. 611~654 Burland, J.B., Borroms, B.B., and De Mello, V., (1977) Behaviour of foundations and structures Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics, Tokyo, 1977, Session 2 Burland, J.B (1990); On the compressibility and shear strength on clays and shades at constant water content, Geotechnique, Vol. 2, PP,251. Construction Project Consultant (1995). Tana Basin Road Development Project, Phase II Materials Report Vo. 3 Construction Project Consultant Inc., May, 2000, Hydrological Review and Analysis for Hydraulic Design of Bridge and Major Culvert Structures and Determination of Areas of Protection, Volume I & II, Tana Basin Road Project Phase II Construction Project Consultant Inc., July, 2000 Engineering Report on the Design and Construction of Reinforced Earth Embankments (The Terre Armee Method), Tana Basin Road Project Phase II. Construction Project Consultant, 2001a. A Brief Report on the Computation of Capping Layer Thickness with Reference to Native Subgrade Bearing Capacity, CPC Internal Report Construction Project Consultants, 2001b. Analysis And Evaluation of the Structural Capacity and Serviceability Level of the Existing Road Pavement (Phase III), CPC Internal Report Construction Project Consultants, 2001c. Characterization of Black Cotton Soil as a Pavement Foundation Material Based On Comprehensive Analysis (Stage 1), CPC Internal Report CPC Consultants. Tana Basin Road Development Project, Phase II. Materials Report Vol. 3 Tatsuoka, F. & Shibuya, S. Report of the institute of industrial science the University of Tokyo Vol. 37 No. (serial No. 235) (1992) Deformation Characteristics of soils and Rocks from Field and Laboratory Tests Gidigasu. M.D. 1974a. Review of Identification of Problem Laterite Soils in Highway engineering, Transport Research Board, Washington Recording, I, 497:96~111 Gidigasu. M.D. 1988. Potential application of engineering pedology in shallow foundation engineering on tropical residual soils. In Geomechanics in Tropical Coils. Proc. of the II Intl Conference on Geomechanics in Tropical Soils, Singapore, 1,17~24. Gono, k., Mukabi, J.N., Koishikawa, K., Hatekayama, R., Feleke G., Demoze W., Zelalem A., (2003a). Characterization of Some Engineering Aspects of Black Cotton Soils as Pavement Foundation Materials, to be published in the proceedings of the International Civil Engineering Conference on Sustainable development in the 21st Century. Hansen, J. Brinch, (1968) A revised extended formula for bearing capacity, Danish Geotechnical Institute Bulleti No. 28 and code of Practice for Foundation Engineering Denish Geotechnical Institute Bulletin No. 32 (1978) Hardin, B.O and Drnevich, V.P. (1972), Shear-modulus and damping in soils : measurement and parameter effects, Jouranl of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM6:603-624
Page 179
Horii, N., Toyosawa, Y.& Ampadu, S.K Undrained shear characteristics of soft clay after cyclic loading .pp. 113~118.Housner, G. W.: The Behavior of Inverted Pendulum Structures During Earthquakes, Bull. of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 403-417, 1963. Honsen, J. Brinch, (1961) A general formula for bearing capacity, Danish Geotechnical Institute Bulletin No. 11 Imad L.Al-Qadi, Gerardo W. Flintsch, Amara Loulizi, Samer Lahouar & Walid M. Nassar Pavement Instrumentation Responses at the Virginia Smart Road. IRF Road World Congress, Paris, June 2001. Japan Road Bureau, Japan. 1993. In Road Design Manual, Vol. I (in Japanese). Jardine, R.J. 1985. Investigations of pile-soil behavior, with special reference to the foundation of offshore structures. PhD Thesis, University of London. JICA Study Team, 1999. The Study on Rural Roads Improvement In Western Kenya-Materials Testing Analyses and Countermeasures for Design Purposes, Feasilibility Study by The Government of Japan And The Government of Kenya.Jardine, R.J. (1995): One perspective of the pre-failure deformation characteristics of some Geomaterials, IS Hokkaido 94,2,pp.855-885. Konagai1 Kazuo and Sato2 Takeshi. Dependence on Frequency of the Failure Process of Slope Made up of coarse Particles. pp. 33~39 K.J. McManus, G. Lu and D. Ruan, The Effects on a Bridge Superstructure of Dynamic Loads Generated by Long Wavelength Roughness in Road Surfaces. IRF Road World Congress, Paris, June 2001. Meyerh of, G.G., (1963) some recent research on bearing capacity of foundations, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1, 16-26. Ministry of Transport & Public Works, Kenya, 1981. Materials and Pavement Design for New Roads. In Road Design Manual Part III. Ministry of Public Works & Housing Republic of Kenya, March 1999. Report to OECF Appraisal Mission for the Additional Loan to Tana Basin Road Project in the Republic of Kenya, Volume I & II. Mukabi, J.N.(1991): Behavior of clays for a wide range of strain in Triaxial compression, Msc. Thesis, University of Tokyo. Mukabi, J. N. (1995): Deformation Characteristics of small strains of clays in triaxial tests PhD Thesis, Univ. of Tokyo. Mukabi, J.N. (1998):Con-Aid Research and Development Proposal. Mukabi.,J.N., Murunga P.A, Wambura.J.H. & Maina J.N., Behavior of con-Aid treated fine grained Kenyan soils. Geotechnics for Developing Africa, Wardle, Blight & Fourie (eds) 1999 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 809 082 5.pp.583~519. Mukabi J.N & Tatsuoka, F. 1995. Effects of swelling and saturation of Unsaturated Soil Behaviour and Applications, Int. Symposium on the Behaviour of Unsaturated Soils, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya. Mukabi J.N & Tatsuoka, F., Kohata, Y. & Akino, N. 1994b. Small strain stiffness of Pleistocene clays. Proc. Int.Symp. on pre-failure Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, IS-Hokkaid. 94 Balkema, Vol. 1, PP. 189-195 Mukabi J.N & Tatsuoka, F. (1992); Effects of consolidation stress ratio and strain rate on the peak stress ratio of Kaolin, the 27th Annual meeting of the JSSMFE, Kochi, PP.655~6 Mukabi J.N. & Tatsuoka, F. (1994); Small strain behavior in triaxial compression of lightly over consolidated Kaolin, proc. 49th Annual Conf. Of JSCE, III, pp.296~297Mukabi J.N & Tatsuoka, F. 1999. Effects of stress path and ageing in reconsolidation on deformation characteristics of stiff natural clays. Proc. 2nd I.S on prefailure characteristic of Geomaterials, Torino. Mukabi, J.N 1999. The Study on Rural Roads Improvement in Western Kenya Materials Testing Analyses and Countermeasures for Design Purposes. In Internal Reports and Correspondence, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) & Ministry of Roads & Public Works, Kenya. Mukabi, J.N. 2000. The design and construction of Reinforced Earth Embankments. In Internal Reports and Correspondence, The Terre Armee Method, 2000. CPC, Nairobi.
Page 180
Mukabi, J.N & Tatsuoka, F. 1994, 1999. Small strain behaviour intriaxial compression of lightly over-consolidated Kaolin. In Proc. 49th Annual Conf. of JSCE, III: 286-297. Influence of reconsolidation stress history and strain rate on the behaviour of kaolin over a wide range of strain. In Wardle, Blight & fourie (eds), Geotechniques for Developing Africa: Proc. 12th African Regional Conf. ISSMGE Durban, 1999. Balkema, Rotterdam. Mukabi, J.N. 2001a. Theoretical and empirical basis for a method of determining the optimum batching ratio for mechanical stabilization of Geomaterials. In Proc. 14th IRF road World Congress, Paris, June 2001. Mukabi, J.N & Shimizu, N. 2001b. Strength and deformation characteristics of mechanically stabilized road construction materials based on a new batching ratio method. In Proc. 14th IRF Road World Congress, paris, June 2001. Mukabi, J.N. Njoroge, B.N. & Toda, T. 2001c. pragmatic method of evaluating design parameters adopting Kenyan tropical soils for pavement structure, In Procl 4th IRF Road World Congress, Paris, June 2000. Mukabi, J.N, 2001d. Derivation and application of consolidation and shear stress ratio functions with reference to Critical State analysis of N.C clays. In Proc. ISSMGE Istabul International Conference. August 2001. Mukabi, J.N., 2002c. Some Recent Advances in highway and bridge foundation engineering, Seminar for Ethiopian Roads Authority and Japan Overseas Development Assistance Ethiopia. Mukabi, J.N., Gono K., Koishikawa K., Feleke G., Hatekayam H., Demoze W., R., Kunioka H., Zelalem A., (2003a). Innovating Modified NDT/DT Techniques for the Evaluation of An Existing Pavement StructureMethod of Testing, to be published in the proceedings of the International Civil Engineering Conference on Sustainable development in the 21st Century. Mukabi, J.N., Gono K., Koishikawa K., Feleke G., Hatekayam R., Demoze W., Kunioka H., Zelalem A., (2003b). Innovating Modified NDT/DT Techniques for the Evaluation of An Existing Pavement StructureTheoretical Considerations and Experimental Results, to be published in the proceedings of the International Civil Engineering Conference on Sustainable development in the 21st Century. Mukabi, J.N., Feleke G., Demoze W., Zelalem A., (2003c). Impact of Environmental Factors on the Performance of Highway Pavement Structures, to be published in the proceedings of the International Civil Engineering Conference on Sustainable development in the 21st Century. Newill, R.J. (1961). A Laboratory Investigation of Two Red Clays from Kenya, Geotechnique, 11(4) 302~318.Pandian, N.S., Nagaraj, T.S. & Sivakumar Banu, G.L (1993). Tropical Clays, Part II. Engineering behaviour. J. Geotech. Engrag., ASCE. Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E. & Thornburn, T.H 1967. (2nd ed) Foundation Engineering, 271-276. New York, John Wiley. Richart, Jr., F.E. (1977); Dynamic stress-strain relationships for soils, S-SO-A ,Proc. Of 9th ICSMFE, Tokyo, 3, pp.189-195. Road Research. Catalogue of road surface deficiencies. 1978 Organization for economic cooperation and development. Road Research Institute. MOC, Japan. 1990 Specifications for road and bridge design, Vol. I & IV. (in Japanese) Road Research Laboratory, 1970. A guide to the structural design of pavements for new road. Road Note No. 29. Road Transport Research. Pavement Management Systems. Paris, 1987 Organization for economic cooperation and development. Skempton, A.W and MacDonald, D.H. (1956), The allowable Settlement of buildings, Proceedings, of the Institution of Civil Engineers, part 3, 5, 727-784 Savage, P.F. & Leou, J. (1998). Guidelines on Use of CON-AID Liquid Chemical Stabilizer. Savage, P.F. (1998). Some Experiences on the Use of Con-Aid: A Water-Soluble Ionic Additive, University of Pretoria.Tatsuoka Fumio, Lo Presti Diego and Kohata Yukihiro, April 2-7, 1995, Third International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics.
Page 181
Shultze, E. and sheriff, G., Prediction of Settlement from evaluated settlement observations for sand, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Soil Mechanics, Moscow, 1973, Vol. 1, pp. 225. Tatsuoka, F, Jardine, R. J., Lopresti, D., Benedetto, D. H. and Kodaka, T. (1997). Characterizing the pre-failure Deformation Properties of Geomaterials, Theme lecture ICSMFE, Hamburg, vol. 4. pp.2129-2164. Tatsuoka, F. 1992 Roles of facing rigidity in soil Reinforcing, Theme Lecture for International Symposium, Kyushu,Japan. Tatsuoka, F, Jardine, R. J., Lopresti, D., Benedetto, D. H. and Kodaka, T. (1999). Characterizing the pre-failure Deformation Properties of Geomaterials, Theme lecture ICSMFE, Hamburg, 1997, vol. 4. pp.21292164.2,pp.947-1063. Tatsuoka, F. and Kohata, Y. (1995): Stiffness of hard soils and soft rocks in engineering applications, Keynote Lecture, IS-Hokkaido 94,Vol. Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R.b 1967. (2nd ed) Soil Mechanics in engineering practice, 310. New York, John Wiley. Towhata, I., Kawasaki, Y., Harada, N. & Sunaga, M. Contraction of soil subjected to traffic-type stress application. Proc. Int. Symp. On Pre-failure Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, IS-Hokkado 94, Balkema Vol. 1, pp. 305~310. Transport and Road Research Laboratory. 1977. A guide to the structural design of bitumen surfaced roads in tropical and sub-tropical countries. Road Note No. 31Vanghn, P.R. 1985. Geotechnical Characteristics of residual soils. In J. Geotech. Engrg. ASCE, III(1) 77~94. Yoder, E.J & Witczak, M.W; (1975). Principles of Pavement Design Second Edition, A Wile-Interscience Publication-John Wiley-Sons, Inc. MAIN REFERENCES Annex 14 Volume of the International Civil Aviation Organisation International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Procedures for Aerodromes Design US Army Corps of Engineers and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Design Method 737 Airplane Characteristics Airport Planning Boeing Commercial Airplane Company
Page 182
APPENDIX
Page 183

Isiolo International Airport Engineering Design Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Isiolo International Airport Engineering Design Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Isiolo Airport: Comprehensive Pavement Design Engineering Report

REVISE COVER PAGE

INSERT MOTR Logo

Government of the Republic of Kenya Kenya Airports Authority (KAA)

Airport Pavement Design Report

2009 Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited

Kensetsu Kaihatsu Ltd

Reconstruction of Pavement Structures for Isiolo Airport, Isiolo - Kenya |2011

2010/2011 Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited

Reconstruction of Pavement Structures for Isiolo Airport, Isiolo - Kenya |2011

2010/2011 Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited

2.5 Ground Movement Survey in General

Reconstruction of Pavement Structures for Isiolo Airport, Isiolo - Kenya |2011

2010/2011 Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited

3.7.2 Core Sampling and Testing

Effect of Swelling Effect of Variation In Design Moisture Content

Reconstruction of Pavement Structures for Isiolo Airport, Isiolo - Kenya |2011

4.9 Concepts of Cementation on Soil Particle Agglomeration

2010/2011 Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited

Reconstruction of Pavement Structures for Isiolo Airport, Isiolo - Kenya |2011

CHAPTER 6 5 APPLICATION OF TEST RESULTS

2010/2011 Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited

Reconstruction of Pavement Structures for Isiolo Airport, Isiolo - Kenya |2011

10. Access Roads

2010/2011 Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited

11. Hydro-geological Study

12. Experimental Trial Section

Reconstruction of Pavement Structures for Isiolo Airport, Isiolo - Kenya |2011

2010/2011 Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited

Reconstruction of Pavement Structures for Isiolo Airport, Isiolo - Kenya |2011

2010/2011 Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited

Reconstruction of Pavement Structures for Isiolo Airport, Isiolo - Kenya |2011

2010/2011 Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited

Reconstruction of Pavement Structures for Isiolo Airport, Isiolo - Kenya |2011

2010/2011 Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited

Reconstruction of Pavement Structures for Isiolo Airport, Isiolo - Kenya |2011

E50 E50 Emax Emax

(4.6) (4.7) (4.8) (4.9)

NSPT = NNS {D2/Di}2 D12/d Wh/W140 Hd/D30 N60 =

2010/2011 Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited

(4.20) (4.21) (4.22)

Reconstruction of Pavement Structures for Isiolo Airport, Isiolo - Kenya |2011

NC K oNC .qmax oc K o . A .CSR NC

0.0422 ' 0.0455

ANf (qu ) max Bf

q max 2 p ' f 1 3q max

2010/2011 Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited

Reconstruction of Pavement Structures for Isiolo Airport, Isiolo - Kenya |2011

(4.41) (4.42) (4.43) (4.44) (4.45) =

E50 x (0.0996qu 0.0104)

(4.48) (4.49) (4.50) (4.51)

x10 m xe 0.0782qu (kgf / cm 2 )

2010/2011 Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited

(4.57) (4.58) (4.59)

Reconstruction of Pavement Structures for Isiolo Airport, Isiolo - Kenya |2011

' , ' , p'oc , q oc , 'oc , f yi , f f f

(8.2) (8.3) (8.4) (8.5)

a w02 h 2 Cos 2 w02 h 2

(8.7) (8.8) (8.9)

(8.14) (8.15) (8.16)

2010/2011 Kensetsu Kaihatsu Limited

Reconstruction of Pavement Structures for Isiolo Airport, Isiolo - Kenya |2011

(8.22) (8.23) (8.24)