Cambodia: Second Road Asset Management Project · Cambodia: Second Road Asset Management Project ... Second Road Asset Management Project ... DED Detailed Engineering Design

Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report - Annexes

Project Number: 41123-014 March 2017

Cambodia: Second Road Asset Management Project

Annex G: Bridge Inspections Annex H: Quantity & Cost Estimates Annex I: Climate Change Risk Assessment

Prepared by SHELADIA Associates Inc. USA in association with TANCONS (Cambodia) Co., Ltd, Cambodia

For the Ministry of Public Works and Transport and the Asian Development Bank

This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. (For project preparatory technical assistance: All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design.

ADB TA 8784-CAM

SECOND ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT

PROJECT (RAMP-2)

ADDITIONAL FEASIBILITY STUDY, FS-2

Funded by:

The Asian Development Bank

Executing Agency:

Ministry of Public Works and Transport

FINAL REPORT VOLUME 2 - ANNEXES

March 2017

Final Report - March 2017 ADB TA 8784-CAM: Second Road Asset Management Project – Additional Feasibility Study (41123-014)

SHELADIA (USA)/ TANCONS (Cambodia) ii

ADB TA 8784 – CAMBODIA

SECOND ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT PROJECT (RAMP-2) ADDITIONAL FEASIBILITY STUDY, FS-2

FINAL REPORT VOLUME 2 - ANNEXES

March 2017

SHELADIA Associates Inc. USA in association with TANCONS (Cambodia) Co., Ltd, Cambodia

Final Report - March 2017 ADB TA 8784-CAM: Second Road Asset Management Project – Additional Feasibility Study (41123-014)

SHELADIA (USA)/ TANCONS (Cambodia) iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AC Asphalt Concrete

ADB AH ASEAN

Asian Development Bank

Asian Highway

Association of South East Asian Nations

ASTM American Standard Testing Methods

BOQ Bill of Quantities

BS British Standard

CBR California Bearing Ratio

CDO Central Design Office

DBST Double Bituminous Surface Treatment

DED Detailed Engineering Design

EA Executing Agency

EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Return

FS-1 and FS-2 FHWA

Feasibility Studies 1 and 2

Federal Highway Administration [USA]

GB GSB

Granular Base

Granular Sub-base

IA Implementing Agency

IEE Initial Environmental Examination

LHS Left Hand Side

LTP Lead Technical Professional

MPWT Ministry of Public Works and Transport

NR National Road

NPV Net Present Value

PCU Passenger Car Unit

PPTA Project Preparatory Technical Assistance

QA Quality Assurance

RHS Right Hand Side

ROW Right of Way

RNIP Road Network Improvement Program

PBMC Performance-based Maintenance Contract

pcu Passenger car Unit

PRIP Provincial Road Improvement Program

SBST Single Bituminous Surface Treatment

SPS Safeguard Policy Statement (ADB, 2009)

SAI SHELADIA Associates Inc.

TOR Terms of Reference

VDF Vehicle Damage Factor

Annex G BRIDGE INSPECTIONS

Date of

Inspection:2016 Oct. 20

km 66+400

Type of Structure: 90

Span No. / Length [m]: 150.0m

Parapet Type: Roadway Width [m]: 7.6m 2 lanes

Parapet Height [mm]: Shoulder Width [m]: 2 x 1.5m Walkway = 1.0m

End Protection Type: 200

Type / Condition of Anti-erosion Protection: Abutment

Some grouted

riprap - east

side only

Channel

Construction Material: Unseen

Proposed

Interventions:

Type / Condition of Bearings: Unseen but reported as 84 No. elastomeric type

Open River

Remarks:

Consider new transition unit [SBGR to concrete parapet] at each end to close 'gap'

Much vibration under truck loading. 100 mm utility on outer side, north

Semi-urban location.

SUGGEST MORE DETAILED INSPECTION AT DED STAGE

Improve / add SBGR with flares, buried ends.

Clean / sand blast parapets and reflectorize ends

Add slopes to footway ends

Re-surface deck and add lane lines

National Road No. NR-1 [km 66 to km 159]

Bridge / Crossing Name: Stoeng Slot Approx. Location

SUB-STRUCTURE

Footway End Treatment: Vertical

Approach Slabs Present: None visible, some settlement

Type / Condition / Height of Parapet

Type / Condition of Deck Drains:

Province / District or Commune Name: Prey Veng

Freeboard / Channel Depth:

Concrete 'T' Beam

SBGR [3 quadrants only]

Year of Construction:

700 mm [above walkway]

5.0 / 3.0 Est.

6 x 24.7 m Overall Length [m]:

Concrete Rail

Type / Condition of Joints:

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Curb Upstand Height [mm]:

Skew Angle [degrees]:

Condition of Deck Surface: Poor, potholes etc. No lane markings

Mid-span joints paved over. End joints partially visible but with surface breakage

Concrete / Good - no breakages / Height only 700 mm above footway level

None visible, blocked / covered by sand deposits

SUMMARY

P-C 'T' Beams x 6 Soffit Condition:

Approach Fill Protection: SBGR [metal posts at 2.0 m c/c] in NW, SW and SE quadrants only. Not connected to parapet

Prelim Inspection 1

Date of


km 88+100


Span No. / Length [m]: 102.0

Parapet Type: Roadway Width [m]: 7.4 2 lanes

Parapet Height [mm]: Shoulder Width [m]: 1.5 Walkway 600 mm


Type / Condition of Anti-erosion Protection: Abutment Grouted Riprap Channel


Clean deck drains

Re-mark lane lines

Improve SBGR - add flares, buried ends. Connect to new concrete transition unit at end of railings

3.0 / 3.0 Est

Clear channel vegetation

SUMMARY

Remarks:Utility pipes carried on outside of bridge [2 x 100 mm on north side, 1 x 200 mm om south]

Much vibration under truck loading

Proposed

Interventions:



Clean / paint railings

SUB-STRUCTURE


Vegetation

'T'Beams x 9 No. Soffit Condition:


Approach Slabs Present: None visible. No major settlement

Approach Fill Protection: SBGR [metal posts at 2.0 m c/c]. 15+m length all quadrants [NE quadrabt damaged]. Ht. = 0.7

Type / Condition / Height of Parapet Steel Railings. Intact, no major damage

Type / Condition of Deck Drains: 150 mm dia. vertical at 2.0m c/c on north side only. No gratings.

Condition of Deck Surface: Fair, faded line markings

Type / Condition of Joints: Vertical Steel Plate [30-40mm Gap]

5 x 20.0 / 102.0 Overall Length [m]:

Steel Rail x 2

850

SBGR Curb Upstand Height [mm]:

Year of Construction: Freeboard / Channel Depth:

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Concrete 'T' Beam Skew Angle [degrees]:



Bridge / Crossing Name: Prek Kampong Trabek Approx. Location

Prelim Inspection 2

Date of


km 89+100




Parapet Height [mm]: Shoulder Width [m]: 2 x 1.5 Walkway 600 mm




Clean deck drains, clear deposits

Re-mark lane lines


SUMMARY

Remarks:Sand and gravel on deck.

No major vibration recorded

Proposed

Interventions:




SUB-STRUCTURE


Rice field area

Concrete 'T' beams Soffit Condition:

Approach Fill Protection: SBGR [metal support posts at 2.0 m c/c]. 25+m length in all quadrants. Mtg height 0.7m

Type / Condition / Height of Parapet Steel Railings. Intact, no major damage / 800 mm

Type / Condition of Deck Drains: 150 mm dia. vertical at 2.0m c/c. Both sides. No gratings.


Approach Slabs Present: None visible - no major settlement

Condition of Deck Surface: Good, paint lines fair


Triple x 15.0 m Overall Length [m]:

Steel Rail x 2

800





Bridge / Crossing Name: Kampong Trabek 1 Approx. Location

Year of Construction: Freeboard / Channel Depth: 3.5 / 1.5 m Est.

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Prelim Inspection 3

Date of


km 90+100




Parapet Height [mm]: Shoulder Width [m]: 2 x 1.5 Walkway = 600 mm





Re-mark lane lines

SUMMARY

Remarks:Sand and gravel on deck. 250 mm utility on outer side [south]

Major vibration recorded

Proposed

Interventions:





SUB-STRUCTURE


Concrete 'T' beams Soffit Condition:

Approach Fill Protection: SBGR [metal support posts at 2.0 m c/c]. 25+ m length in all quadrants. Mtg height 0.7m

Type / Condition / Height of Parapet Steel Railings. Mostly intact but some bent at mid-span / 800 mm



Approach Slabs Present: None visible. Some settlement / patches on west end

Condition of Deck Surface: Fair, centre paint line worn


Triple x 12 m Overall Length [m]:

Steel Rail x 2

800





Bridge / Crossing Name: Kampong Trabek 2 Approx. Location


SUPERSTRUCTURE

Prelim Inspection 4

Date of


km 102+600









Re-mark lane lines

SUMMARY

Remarks:On slight curve. 2 x 40 mm utilities on outside, south side

No major vibration recorded

Proposed

Interventions:





SUB-STRUCTURE

Type / Condition of Bearings: Unseen due to flood conditions but reported as 36 No. elastomeric type

Concrete 'T' Beam Soffit Condition:

Approach Fill Protection: SBGR [metal support posts at 2.0 m c/c]. 25m length in all quadrants. Mtg height 0.7m

Type / Condition / Height of Parapet Steel Railings - intact

Type / Condition of Deck Drains: 150 mm dia. vertical at 2.0m c/c. South side only. No gratings.


Approach Slabs Present: None visible. Some settlement / patches on west approach

Condition of Deck Surface: Good - lane lines fair


Twin / 15.0 Overall Length [m]:

Steel Rail x 2

800





Bridge / Crossing Name: Prey Cho La Approx. Location

Year of Construction: Freeboard / Channel Depth: 1.0 / 1.0 Est.

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Prelim Inspection 5

Date of


km 119+920









Re-mark lane lines

SUMMARY

Remarks:Rural location [rice fields].

Proposed

Interventions:





SUB-STRUCTURE


Steel Beam [900 mm x 300 mm] Soffit Condition:





Approach Slabs Present: None visible. Some settlement / patching on approaches

Condition of Deck Surface: Good, paint lines fair


Single / 15.0 Overall Length [m]:

Steel Railing x 2

850


Steel Beam, Concrete Deck Skew Angle [degrees]:


Province / District or Commune Name: Svay Rieng

Bridge / Crossing Name: O Kantuy Vey Approx. Location

Year of Construction: Freeboard / Channel Depth: 1.0 / 1.0 Est.

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Prelim Inspection 6

Date of


km 125+400









Re-mark lane lines

SUMMARY

Remarks:Semi-rural location [outskirts of Svay Rieng]. 100 mm utility on outside [north]

Part of causeway crossing river [700 m approx.]

Proposed

Interventions:





SUB-STRUCTURE


Open River

9 x 450 x 950 mm Concrete 'T' beams Soffit Condition:





Approach Slabs Present: Unseen due to flood conditions but reported as 84 No. elastomeric type

Condition of Deck Surface: Fair- lane lines fair

Type / Condition of Joints: Vertical Steel Plate [20-30mm Gaps]

6 x / 20.0 Overall Length [m]:

Steel Railing x 2

850




Province / District or Commune Name: Svay Rieng [West end of Bypass]

Bridge / Crossing Name: West Vayko Approx. Location

Year of Construction: Freeboard / Channel Depth: 1.0 / 2.0 Est

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Prelim Inspection 7

Date of


km 131+750









Re-mark lane lines

SUMMARY

Remarks:Small utility outside, south - broken. Channel flow from North-South

Major vibration recorded

Proposed

Interventions:





SUB-STRUCTURE


Forest Area

Steel Beam / Concrete Soffit Condition:





Approach Slabs Present: None visible - no major settlement.

Condition of Deck Surface: Good, lane lines fair



Steel Rail x 2

830


Steel Beam / Concrete Skew Angle [degrees]:



Bridge / Crossing Name: Ph. Tonleangll Approx. Location


SUPERSTRUCTURE

Prelim Inspection 8

Date of


km 135+600



Parapet Type: Roadway Width [m]: 2 x 3.6 2 lanes [Conc. Median]

Parapet Height [mm]: Shoulder Width [m]: 2 x 1.5 700 mm Wide Barrier

End Protection Type: 200 Walkway 600 mm

Type / Condition of Anti-erosion Protection: Abutment None noted Channel



Re-mark lane lines

SUMMARY

Remarks:Central concrete median both ends - 12 m taper and 4m flat sections. Height 650 mm x 700 mm wide

Major vibration recorded. Utilities - 1 x 150mm & 1 x 100mm North side. 1 x 100mm, 1 x 30mm South s

Proposed

Interventions:




Add SBGR with flares, buried ends if land available. Connect to new concrete transition unit at ends

SUB-STRUCTURE


Urban location

Steel Beam / Concrete Composite Soffit Condition:

Approach Fill Protection: None


Type / Condition of Deck Drains: 300 x 450 mm steel gratings at 5-10 m c/c. both sides. Sand and plastic deposits


Approach Slabs Present: Some settlement and surface distress / patching on approaches

Condition of Deck Surface: Fair - no lane lines

Type / Condition of Joints: Vertical Steel Plate [30-45mm Gap]. Some surfacing edge break at joint

4 x 15.0m Overall Length [m]:

Steel Rail x 2

800

None [no SBGR] Curb Upstand Height [mm]:

Steel Beam / Concrete Deck Skew Angle [degrees]:



Bridge / Crossing Name: Prek Prasaut Approx. Location


SUPERSTRUCTURE

Prelim Inspection 9

Date of


km 144+150









Re-mark lane lines

SUMMARY

Remarks:Rural location [wooded area]. Channel fast flow from North to South

Utility cable on outside - south

Proposed

Interventions:




Add SBGR with flares, buried ends if land available. Connect to new concrete transition unit at ends

SUB-STRUCTURE


Channel - fast flow N to S

Concrete 'T' Beams Soffit Condition:





Approach Slabs Present: None visible, some patches and settlement on approaches

Condition of Deck Surface: Poor - faded edge lines

Type / Condition of Joints: Vertical Steel Plate [30mm Gap]. Some surfacing edge break at joint


Steel Rail x 2

800





Bridge / Crossing Name: Prek Boeng Khvang Approx. Location


SUPERSTRUCTURE

Prelim Inspection 10

Date of

Inspection:2016 Sept. 25

km 320+220




Parapet Height [mm]: Shoulder Width [m]: 2 x 1.5




Re-mark lane lines

Remarks:

Type / Condition of Joints:

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Curb Upstand Height [mm]:

Skew Angle [degrees]:

Condition of Deck Surface: Good A/C

None visible in road surface

Concrete / Good - no breakages / 0.85 m above footway

Rectangular 2.5m c/c. Partially blocked by sand deposits

SUMMARY

Province / District or Commune Name: Siem Reap / Siem Reap

Freeboard / Channel Depth:

Concrete

Concrete Wall

2008Year of Construction:

850


Proposed

Interventions:


Bridge / Crossing Name: Tukvil Approx. Location

SUB-STRUCTURE

Type / Condition of Bearings: Unseen due to water level

Grouted Riprap channels, penstocks


Approach Slabs Present: None visible

Type / Condition / Height of Parapet

Type / Condition of Deck Drains:

3.0 / 1.0 to 2.0 Est


Concrete Rail

Concrete beams and abutments Soffit Condition:

Approach Fill Protection: SBGR [metal support posts at 2.0 m c/c] - none in SW & SE quadrants due to road. Mtg heig

Semi-urban location

Improve SBGR - add flares, buried ends. Connect to concrete endwall

Clean / paint parapets and reflectorize parapet ends

Prelim Inspection 1

Date of


km 328+080







Construction Material: Good

Clean deck drains

Re-mark lane lines



Bridge / Crossing Name: Puok Approx. Location

Year of Construction: 2008 Freeboard / Channel Depth:

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Concrete Skew Angle [degrees]:


Concrete Rail

850

Concrete Wall Curb Upstand Height [mm]:


Type / Condition of Joints: None visible in road surface

Type / Condition / Height of Parapet Concrete / Good - no breakages / 0.85 m above footway

Type / Condition of Deck Drains: Rectangular 2.5m c/c. Partially blocked by sand deposits

Conc beams & abutments, central pie Soffit Condition:



Approach Fill Protection: SBGR [metal support posts at 2.0 m c/c] - none in NW quadrant. Mounting height 0.75m


5.0 / 1.0 to 2.0 Est


SUMMARY

Remarks:Utility pipe carried on bridge [black, plastic] 200 mm. Evidence of fibre-optic cable in area

Semi-urban location

Proposed

Interventions:


Review anti-scour needs


SUB-STRUCTURE

Type / Condition of Bearings: Unseen due to water level

Vegetation

Prelim Inspection 2

Date of


km 333+650








Clean deck drains

Re-mark lane lines




Bridge / Crossing Name: Approx. Location

Year of Construction: 2008 Freeboard / Channel Depth: 3.0 / 2.0 to 3.0 Est

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Triple / 18.0 Overall Length [m]:

Concrete Rail

850



Type / Condition of Joints: None visible in road surface. Visible in footways & parapets

Approach Fill Protection: SBGR [metal support posts at 2.0 m c/c] - no flares. Mounting height 0.75m

Type / Condition / Height of Parapet Concrete / Good - no breakages / 0.85 m above footway

Type / Condition of Deck Drains: Rectangular 2.0m c/c Partially blocked



SUB-STRUCTURE

Type / Condition of Bearings: None seen

Vegetation

20 x conc beams & abutments, piers Soffit Condition:



SUMMARY

Remarks:Rural location

Bridge on long ' S' bend

Proposed

Interventions:




Prelim Inspection 3

Date of


km 337+615








Clean drainage chutes

Re-mark lane lines






SUPERSTRUCTURE


Concrete Rail

850


Condition of Deck Surface: Good A/C - patches on approaches

Type / Condition of Joints: None visible in road surface.

Approach Fill Protection: SBGR [metal support posts at 2.0 m c/c] - not buried ends, some flaring. Mtg height 0.75m

Type / Condition / Height of Parapet Concrete / Good - no breakages / 0.85 m above deck

Type / Condition of Deck Drains: None visible - deck end chutes in place. Sand and grass on deck

Footway End Treatment: None

Approach Slabs Present: None visible. Some settlement on S/B approach

SUB-STRUCTURE


Vegetation

20 No. 500 mm conc beams Soffit Condition:

SUMMARY

Remarks:Semi-urban location

Proposed

Interventions:





Prelim Inspection 4

Date of


km 349+080









Re-mark lane lines



Province / District or Commune Name: Siem Reap / Puok



SUPERSTRUCTURE


Concrete Rail

850


Condition of Deck Surface: Good A/C - some bleeding on approaches






Approach Slabs Present: None visible. Some settlement on S/B approach

SUB-STRUCTURE


Vegetation


SUMMARY

Remarks:Rural location [rice fields]. No channel - operates as transfer

Flow from East to West

Proposed

Interventions:





Prelim Inspection 5

Date of


km 351+260









Re-mark lane lines



Province / District or Commune Name: Siem Reap / Puok



SUPERSTRUCTURE


Concrete Rail

850


Condition of Deck Surface: Good A/C - crossfall low






Approach Slabs Present: None visible. Some settlement on approach

SUB-STRUCTURE


Vegetation [Irrigation channel east]


SUMMARY

Remarks:Rural location [rice fields]. No channel - operates as transfer

Flow from East to West

Proposed

Interventions:





Prelim Inspection 6

Date of


km 352+380








Re-mark lane lines



Province / District or Commune Name: Siem Reap / End of Puok & Start of Kralanh



SUPERSTRUCTURE


Concrete Rail

850





Type / Condition / Height of Parapet Concrete / Good - no breakages / 0.85 m above deck level

Type / Condition of Deck Drains: Blocked by sand and grass on deck. Deep erosion of road edges at ends of deck


Approach Slabs Present: None visible.

SUB-STRUCTURE


Vegetation




SUMMARY

Remarks:Rural location [rice fields].

Bridge on long 'S' bends section

Proposed

Interventions:

Inspect and refurbish SBGR. Connect to concrete endwall


Repair eroded edges of roadway and install chutes, Stabilize embankment

Prelim Inspection 7

Date of


km 353+630









Re-mark lane lines



Province / District or Commune Name: Siem Reap / Kralanh


Year of Construction: 2008 Freeboard / Channel Depth: 2.0 to 2.5 / 1.0 to 2.0 Est

SUPERSTRUCTURE


Concrete Rail

850


Condition of Deck Surface: A/C poor - crossfall low


Approach Fill Protection: SBGR [metal support posts at 2.0 m c/c] - long lengths. No buried ends. Mtg height 0.75m


Type / Condition of Deck Drains: Sand and grass on deck.


Approach Slabs Present: None visible.

SUB-STRUCTURE

Type / Condition of Bearings: Neoprene pads / poor


SUMMARY

Remarks:Rural location [rice fields]. Flow from East to West. No utilities

Bridge on long 'S' bend section

Proposed

Interventions:




Clean / paint parapets and parapet ends

Check / replace bearing pads

Prelim Inspection 8

Date of


km 357+940







Construction Material: OK, spalling


Re-mark lane lines





Year of Construction: 2008 Freeboard / Channel Depth: 2.0 / 1.5 Est

SUPERSTRUCTURE


Concrete Rail

850


Condition of Deck Surface: A/C Good - centreline marking, no edgelines


Approach Fill Protection: SBGR [metal support posts at 2.0 m c/c] - some flaring, no buried ends. Mtg height 0.75m





SUB-STRUCTURE

Type / Condition of Bearings: Neoprene pads / fair

Vegetation [rice fields]


SUMMARY

Remarks:Rural location [rice fields]. Flow from East to West. No utilities

Proposed

Interventions:






Prelim Inspection 9

Date of


km 358+910









Re-mark lane lines






SUPERSTRUCTURE


Concrete Rail

850


Condition of Deck Surface: AC Good - no edge lines







SUB-STRUCTURE



SUMMARY

Remarks:Rural location [rice fields]

Houses nearby

Proposed

Interventions:







Date of


km 359+600









Re-mark lane lines






SUPERSTRUCTURE


Concrete Rail

850









SUB-STRUCTURE



SUMMARY


Houses in NW quadrant

Proposed

Interventions:







Date of


km 359+950









Re-mark lane lines






SUPERSTRUCTURE


Concrete Rail

850









SUB-STRUCTURE



SUMMARY


Houses in NE and NW quadrants

Proposed

Interventions:







Date of


km 360+520









Re-mark lane lines






SUPERSTRUCTURE


Concrete Rail

850


Condition of Deck Surface: AC - good







SUB-STRUCTURE

Type / Condition of Bearings: Pads - fair


SUMMARY

Remarks:No houses in immediate area

No utilities on deck

Proposed

Interventions:







Date of


km 361+760








Replace damaged SBGR

Re-mark edge lines






SUPERSTRUCTURE


Concrete Rail

850




Approach Fill Protection: SBGR [metal support posts 2.0 m c/c] - some flaring, no buried ends. Section in SER damaged





SUB-STRUCTURE

Type / Condition of Bearings: Pads - OK


SUMMARY

Remarks:Minimal flow in channel

Rural location [rice fields]

Proposed

Interventions:







Date of


km 362+540







Construction Material: OK

Re-mark edge lines






SUPERSTRUCTURE


Concrete Rail

850




Approach Fill Protection: SBGR - no buried end terminals, not connected to bridge


Type / Condition of Deck Drains: Sand and grass deposits on deck.



SUB-STRUCTURE



SUMMARY


Proposed

Interventions:







Date of


km 363+840













SUPERSTRUCTURE


Concrete Rail

850


Condition of Deck Surface: AC - good. Markings OK







SUB-STRUCTURE



SUMMARY

Remarks:Scour evident. Small village in area

Circular piers, no abutment weepholes

Proposed

Interventions:







Date of


km 364+840













SUPERSTRUCTURE


Concrete Rail

850


Condition of Deck Surface: AC - good. Faint edge line markings







SUB-STRUCTURE

Type / Condition of Bearings:


SUMMARY

Remarks:Water depth prevented sub-structure inspection

Shop in SW quadrant

Proposed

Interventions:







Annex H COST ESTIMATES

48.00

Bill No. and Description Amount

Bill No. 1 General 88,800.00

Bill No. 2 Earth Works 633,557.50

Bill No. 3 Sub‐base and Base Course 490,481.25

Bill No. 4 Bituminous Work 6,067,467.80

Bill No. 5 Structures (Bridges) 164,000.00

Bill No. 6 Drainage and Protection Work 967,236.67

Bill No. 7 Ancillary Works 969,333.20

Bill No. 8 Unexploded Ordnance Clearance 10,000.00

Bill No. 9 Miscellaneous 389,600.00

Bill No. 10 Daywork 279,530.00

SUB‐TOTAL = 10,060,006.42

Road Rehabilitation ‐ Main Contract [NR‐1] 10,100,000

Physical Contingency Allowance (%) 1,100,000 10.00%

Price Contingency Allowance (%) 1,000,000 9.25%

Professional Services (%) 300,000 2.30%

Land Acquisition & Resettlement (%) 300,000 2.66%

Recurrent Costs (%) 600,000 5.10%

Financial Charges (%) 400,000 3.35%

MAIN CONTRACT TOTAL [USD Million] = 13.80

Performance‐based Maintenance ‐ 36 Months 1.40 27,300

GRAND TOTAL = 15.20

NOTE: PPTA‐Stage Design Assumptions include:1. Semi‐structual Pavement Design Approach [ORN 31 Catalog]

2. Section Length for AC Overlay [Areas 2A, 2B, 2C & 3]

3. Section Length for Rehabilitation and AC Surface [ Areas 2A & 2B]

4. Contract period 18 months, P‐B Maintenance for 36 months

ADB TA 8784‐CAM:SECOND ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT PROJECT ‐ ADDITIONAL FEASIBILITY STUDY (41123‐014)

NR‐1 East from Svay Chrum District to Bavet (Pk.111+000 to Pk.159+000), Length = 48.00 km

Summary

Item No. Description SPEC. Ref.No. Unit Quantity Unit Rate Amount [USD]

1.01 Implementation and Monitoring of EMP 01010‐1 LS 1.00 25,000.00 25,000.00

1.02Traffic Management during initial Works (except for

Traffic Operator)9.5(1) LS 1.00 50,000.00 50,000.00

1.03 Traffic Operators 9.5(2) Person‐Day 1,000.00 12.00 12,000.00

1.04 Progress Photographs 9.6(1) Month 18.00 100.00 1,800.00

88,800.00


Total for Bill No. 1 carried over to Summary

Bill No. 1 ‐ General

Bill 1 General


2.01 Clearing and Grubbing 2.1(1) m2 96,000.00 0.30 28,800.00

2.02Roadway Excavation for Roadway and Embankment

Benching (Unclassified)2.2(4) m

3 21,275.00 3.00 63,825.00

2.03 Channel Excavation (Unclassified) 2.4(3) m3 88,600.00 4.00 354,400.00

2.04 Embankment 2.6(1) m3 7,500.00 7.00 52,500.00

2.05 Selected Subgrade Material 2.6(3) m3 6,382.50 11.00 70,207.50

2.06 Proof Rolling ‐ m2 42,550.00 1.50 63,825.00

633,557.50



Bill No. 2 ‐ Earthworks

Bill 2 Earthworks


3.01 Sub‐base Course 3.1(1) m3 10,637.50 14.50 154,243.75

3.02 Crushed Aggregate Base Course 3.3(1) m3 6,382.50 27.00 172,327.50

3.03 Pre‐overlay Repair of Pavement Structure 4.7(3) m2 8,860.00 11.00 97,460.00

3.04 Soil Aggregate Margin 3.6(2) m3 4,430.00 15.00 66,450.00

490,481.25



Bill No. 3 ‐ Sub‐base and Base Course

Bill 3 Sub‐base, Base


4.01 Prime Coat 4.1(1) m2 40,700.00 1.10 44,770.00

4.02SBST using 12 mm Aggregate [including

bitumen/emulsion spray]4.2(1) m2 0.00 1.90 0.00

4.03DBST using 19+12 mm aggregate [including

bitumen/emulsion spray over hard shoulder]4.2(2) m2 0.00 4.10 0.00

4.04 Tack Coat 4.3(1) m2 48,000.00 0.90 43,200.00

4.05Asphaltic Concrete Overlay ‐ 40 mm [over new base or

prepared existing surface]4.5(1) m3 0.00 245.00 0.00


prepared existing surface]4.5(1) m3 24,000.00 245.00 5,880,000.00

4.07 Repair of Cracks 4.7(1) m 6,645.00 4.50 29,902.50

4.08Pre‐overlay Repair of Pavement Surface (patching,

sealing etc. for initial rectification)4.7(1) m2 664.50 5.20 3,455.40

4.09 Pre‐overlay Repair of Potholes [less than 2 sq.m/100m] 4.7(2) m2 443.00 17.00 7,531.00

4.10 Repair of Edge Break [width < 300 mm] 4.7(7) m 443.00 8.30 3,676.90

4.11 Repair of Edge Break [width 300‐600 mm] 4.7(7) m 4,430.00 12.40 54,932.00

4.12 Repair of Pavement Failure 4.7(9) m2 0.00 18.50 0.00

6,067,467.80



Bill No. 4 ‐ Bituminous Work

Bill 4 Bituminous Work


5.01 Concrete Railing 5.6(1) m 50.00 300.00 15,000.00

5.02 Waterproofing Membrane 5.7(2) m2 1,200.00 40.00 48,000.00

5.03 Expansion Joints 5.9(1.1) m3 160.00 600.00 96,000.00

5.04 Laminated Bearing Pads 5.9(5.1) m3 0.00 105.00 0.00

5.05 Miscellaneous cleaning, painting etc. LS 1.00 5,000.00 5,000.00

164,000.00



Bill No. 5 ‐ Structures (Bridges)

Bill 5 Bridges

Item No Description SPEC. Ref.No. Unit Quantity Unit Rate Amount [USD]

6.01 Reinforced Concrete Pipe ‐800 mm dia. 6.1(1) m 0.00 150.00 0.00

6.02 Reinforced Concrete Pipe ‐1,000 mm dia. 6.1(2) m 132.00 210.00 27,720.00

Reinforced Concrete Pipe ‐1,200 mm dia. 230.00 51,520.00

Additional Cost of Installation 75.00 16,800.00

6.04 Grouted Riprap Class A 6.2(4) m3 135.00 60.00 8,100.00

6.05 Block Sodding 6.6(1) m2 38,400.00 1.50 57,600.00

6.06 Topsoil 100 mm for embankment side slope 6.7(2) m2 38,400.00 1.20 46,080.00

6.07 Bridge Drainage ‐ Gully 6.8(1) No 20.00 100.00 2,000.00

6.08 Bridge Drainage ‐ Grating 6.8(2) No 20.00 100.00 2,000.00

6.09 Gabion Boxes 6.9(1) m3 500.00 65.00 32,500.00

6.1 Gabion Mattresses 6.9(2) m3 500.00 75.00 37,500.00

6.11 Geotextile 6.11 m2 0.00 7.00 0.00

6.12Clean Existing Drainage System [with pipes less than

1,000 mm dia]6.10(1) m 0.00 3.90 0.00

6.13Clean Existing Drainage System [with pipes 1,000 mm

dia.or greater6.10(2) m 0.00 4.10 0.00

6.14 Pre‐cast concrete 'U' Drain & Cover 6.2(17) m 2,200.00 200.00 440,000.00

6.15 Allowance for 'U' Drain Outlet Pipes 6.1(2) m 400.00 210.00 84,000.00

6.16 Allowance for Culvert Endwalls ‐ LS 64.57 2,500.00 161,416.67

967,236.67


Bill No. 6 ‐ Drainage and Protection Work

TOTAL for Bill No. 6 carried to Summary

6.03 6.1(3) m 224.00

Bill 6 Drainage


Guard Rail 7.2

7.01 Steel Guard Rail ‐ Type1 7.2(1) m 400.00 185.00 74,000.00

Markers and Guide posts 7.4

7.02 Guide Post 7.4(1) No 200.00 23.00 4,600.00

7.03 Kilometre Marker Type 7.4(3) No 0.00 95.00 0.00

Road Signs 7.5

7.04 Post for Road Sign 7.5(1) No 384.00 10.00 3,840.00

7.05 Road Sign ‐ Ref. A1 and A2 and similar (3.9 m2) 7.5(2) No 6.00 700.00 4,200.00

7.06 Road Sign ‐ Others (0.25 to 1.00 m2) 7.5(2) No 240.00 120.00 28,800.00

7.07 Object Marker ‐ Ref. S, T & U and similar (0.27 m2) 7.5(2) No 0.00 80.00 0.00

7.08 Relocate Road Sign and Post 7.5(3) No 240.00 14.00 3,360.00

7.09 Concrete Class D to Road Sign Post Foundation 7.5(8) m3 96.00 100.00 9,600.00

Road Markings 7.8

960.00

1,584.00

7.11 Arrow Marking [Drawing SD‐13] 7.8(2) m2 150.00 22.00 3,300.00

240.00

475.20

28,950.00

475.20

7.14 Road Studs (Aluminium Alloy of Standard size) 7.8(6) No. 500.00 12.00 6,000.00


969,333.20

55,968.00

617,929.20

m2 22.00

7.13Thermoplastic Road Marking [Various Colours, Width,

Pattern]7.8(1) 21.00m2



Bill No. 7 ‐ Ancillary Work

7.12 Rumblestrip [Drawing SD‐16] 7.8(2) m2 55.00 39,336.00

7.10 Pedestrian Crossing Marking [Drawing SD‐16] 7.8(2)

Bill 7 Ancillary Work


8.01 Mine/UXO Contamination Study 8.1 (1) LS 1.00 5,000.00 5,000.00

8.02 Mine/UXO Field Contamination Survey 8.1 (2) ha 1.00 5,000.00 5,000.00

8.03Mine/UXO Detection and Disposal

8.1 (3) No. 0.00 10,000.00 0.00

10,000.00



Bill No. 8 ‐ Unexploded Ordnance Clearance

Bill 8 UXO

Item No. Description SPEC. Ref.No. Unit Quantity Rate Amount [USD]

Facilities for the Engineer 9.1

9.01 Provide and Mainatain Furnished Office 9.1(1) Month 18.00 2,500.00 45,000.00

9.02 Provide and Maintain Laboratory [including Consumables] 9.1(2) Month 18.00 2,500.00 45,000.00

9.03 Provide and Mainatain Furnished Housing 9.1(3) Month 18.00 2,500.00 45,000.00

9.04 Secretary, Computer Operator, Surveyor etc. 9.1(a) to 9.1(h) Month 90.00 1,500.00 135,000.00

Transport for the Engineer 9.2

9.05 Provide and Maintain Type B Vehicle 9.2 (2) Month 18.00 1,750.00 31,500.00


Materials Testing 9.3

9.07 Testing Operations LS 1.00 10,000.00 10,000.00

Traffic and Traffic Control 9.5

9.08 Mainatain Safe Traffic OperationsControl 9.5(1) LS 1.00 10,000.00 10,000.00

Progress Photographs 9.6


Project Information Boards and Site Cleanup 9.7 & 9.8

9.10 Project Information Boards 9.7(1) No. 2.00 700.00 1,400.00

9.11 Site cleanup 9.8(1) LS 1.00 10,000.00 10,000.00

389,600.00



Bill No. 9 ‐ Miscellaneous

Bill 9 Miscellaneous

Item No. Description SPEC. Ref.No. Unit Quantity Rate Amount (USD)

10.01 Ganger 10.1(1) day 250.00 15.00 3,750.00

10.02 Skilled Laborer 10.1(2) day 250.00 11.00 2,750.00

10.03 Unskilled Laborer 10.1(3) day 1,000.00 6.00 6,000.00

10.04 Mason 10.1(4) day 150.00 12.00 1,800.00

10.05 Carpenter 10.1(5) day 100.00 12.00 1,200.00

10.06 Steel Fixer 10.1(6) daty 100.00 12.00 1,200.00

10.07 Driver‐Vehicle up to 10 tonne 10.1(7) day 250.00 11.00 2,750.00

10.08 Driver‐Vehicle over 10 tonne 10.1(8) day 500.00 11.00 5,500.00

10.09 Equipment Operator, Crane 10.1(9) day 100.00 11.00 1,100.00

10.10Equipment Operator, tractor, loader, excavator, grader,

etc.10.1(10) day 500.00 11.00 5,500.00

10.11 Cement, ordinary Portland, in bags 10.1(100) tonne 25.00 95.00 2,375.00

10.12 Steel Reinforcement, Grade 300, plain round 10.1(101) tonne 10.00 750.00 7,500.00

10.13 Steel Reinforcement, Grade 400, deformed 10.1(102) tonne 10.00 800.00 8,000.00

10.14 Coarse Concrete Aggregate, 19 mm 10.1(103) m3 125.00 21.00 2,625.00

10.15 Fine Concrete Aggregate 10.1(104) m3 125.00 22.00 2,750.00

10.16 Sand 10.1(105) m3 125.00 7.00 875.00

10.17 Crushed Rock Base Course 10.1(106) m3 500.00 15.00 7,500.00

10.18 Laterite 10.1(107) m3 2,000.00 7.00 14,000.00

10.19 Lime 10.1(108) tonne 2.00 110.00 220.00

10.20 Bitumen, 60/70 per grade 10.1(109) tonne 15.00 850.00 12,750.00


10.22 Bitumen Emulsion, CSS1 10.1(111a) tonne 15.00 750.00 11,250.00

10.24 Bitumen Emulsion, CSS2 10.1(111b) tonne 15.00 720.00 10,800.00

10.25 Sealing Aggregates 19 mm 10.1(112) m3 250.00 21.00 5,250.00

Sealing Aggregates 12.5 mm 10.1(113a) m3 250.00 22.00 5,500.00

10.26 Sealing Aggregate 9.5 mm 10.1(113b) m3 150.00 21.00 3,150.00

10.27 Crusher Dust 10.1(114) m3 150.00 12.00 1,800.00

10.28 Rock Riprap Class A 10.1(115) m3 250.00 16.00 4,000.00


Bill No. 10 ‐ Daywork

Labour

Materials

Bill No. 10 Daywork


10.01 Ganger 10.1(1) day 250.00 15.00 3,750.00



Labour

10.29 Rock Riprap Class B 10.1(116) m3 250.00 16.00 4,000.00

10.30 Rock Riprap Class C 10.1(117) m3 250.00 16.00 4,000.00

10.31 RC Pipes, 600 mm dia. 10.1(118a) m 25.00 30.00 750.00

10.32 RC Pipes, 750 mm dia. 10.1(118b) m 25.00 40.00 1,000.00

10.33 RC Pipes, 800 mm dia. 10.1(118) m 25.00 45.00 1,125.00

10.34 RC Pipes, 1,000 mm dia. 10.1(119) m 100.00 60.00 6,000.00

10.35 RC Pipes, 1,200 mm dia. 10.1(120) m 100.00 90.00 9,000.00

10.36 Dozer with Blade and Ripper, min 100 hp 10.1(200) hr 250.00 33.00 8,250.00


10.38 Motor Grader, min 150 hp 10.1(202) hr 1,000.00 32.00 32,000.00

10.39 Wheeled Loader, min 2 m3 cap. bucket 10.1(203) hr 250.00 25.00 6,250.00

10.40 Excavator, up to 1 m3 cap bucket 10.1(204) hr 1,000.00 32.00 32,000.00

10.41 Roller, vibratory, smooth drum, min 10 tonne 10.1(205) hr 1,000.00 24.00 24,000.00

279,530.00Total for Bill No. 10 carried over to Summary

Equipment

Bill No. 10 Daywork

48.85



Bill No. 2 Earth Works 455,110.00

Bill No. 3 Sub‐base and Base Course 137,757.00



Bill No. 6 Drainage and Protection Work 1,557,376.00





SUB‐TOTAL = 10,328,961.70










GRAND TOTAL = 15.50


2. Section Length for AC Overlay [Areas 2A, 2B, 2C & 3]3. Section Length for Rehabilitation and AC Surface [ Areas 2A & 2B]4. Contract period 18 months, P‐B Maintenance for 36 months


NR‐1 West from Neak Loeung to Svay Chrum District (Pk.62+150 to Pk.111+000), Length = 48.85 km

Summary

Item No. Description SPEC. Ref.No. Unit Quantity Unit Rate Amount (USD)


1.02Traffic Management during initial Works (except for




113,800.00




Bill 1 General




Benching (Unclassified)2.2(4) m

3 0.00 3.00 0.00


2.04 Embankment 2.6(1) m3 5,000.00 7.00 35,000.00

2.05 Selected Subgrade Material 2.6(3) m3 0.00 11.00 0.00

2.06 Proof Rolling ‐ m2 0.00 1.50 0.00

455,110.00




Bill 2 Earthworks


3.01 Sub‐base Course 3.1(1) m3 0.00 14.50 0.00

3.02 Crushed Aggregate Base Course 3.3(1) m3 0.00 27.00 0.00

3.03 Pre‐overlay Repair of Pavement Structure 4.7(3) m2 5,862.00 11.00 64,482.00

3.04 Soil Aggregate Margin 3.6(2) m3 4,885.00 15.00 73,275.00

137,757.00






4.01 Prime Coat 4.1(1) m2 0.00 1.10 0.00





4.04 Tack Coat 4.3(1) m2 488,500.00 0.90 439,650.00


prepared existing surface]4.5(1) m3 750.00 245.00 183,750.00










6,564,117.10






5.01 Concrete Railing 5.6(1) m 0.00 300.00 0.00


5.03 Expansion Joints 5.9(1.1) m3 160.00 600.00 96,000.00

5.04 Laminated Bearing Pads 5.9(5.1) m3 0.00 105.00 0.00


149,000.00




Bill 5 Bridges

Item No Description SPEC. Ref.No. Unit Quantity Unit Rate Amount (USD)






6.05 Block Sodding 6.6(1) m2 39,080.00 1.50 58,620.00




6.09 Gabion Boxes 6.9(1) m3 500.00 65.00 32,500.00


6.11 Geotextile 6.11 m2 0.00 7.00 0.00


1,000 mm dia]6.10(1) m 0.00 3.90 0.00


dia.or greater6.10(2) m 0.00 4.10 0.00


6.15 Allowance for 'U' Drain Outlet Pipes 6.1(2) m 1,000.00 210.00 210,000.00


1,557,376.00




6.03 6.1(3) m 224.00

Bill 6 Drainage


Guard Rail 7.2



7.02 Guide Post 7.4(1) No 200.00 23.00 4,600.00


Road Signs 7.5







Road Markings 7.8

1,000.00

2,000.00


240.00

561.60

14,550.00

561.60



672,671.60

66,000.00

317,343.60

m2 22.00

7.13Thermoplastic Road Marking [Various Colours, Width,

Pattern]7.8(1) 21.00m2




7.12 Rumblestrip [Drawing SD‐16] 7.8(2) m2 55.00 44,088.00

7.10 Pedestrian Crossing Marking [Drawing SD‐16] 7.8(2)





8.03 Mine/UXO Detection and Disposal 8.1 (3) No. 0.00 10,000.00 0.00

10,000.00




Bill 8 UXO

Item No. Description SPEC. Ref.No. Unit Quantity Rate Amount [USD]



9.02 Provide and Maintain Laboratory [including Consumables] 9.1(2) Month 18.00 2,500.00 45,000.00


9.04 Secretary, Computer Operator, Surveyor etc. 9.1(a) to 9.1(h) Month 90.00 1,500.00 135,000.00












9.11 Site cleanup 9.8(1) LS 1.00 10,000.00 10,000.00

389,600.00






10.01 Ganger 10.1(1) day 250.00 15.00 3,750.00



10.04 Mason 10.1(4) day 150.00 12.00 1,800.00

10.05 Carpenter 10.1(5) day 100.00 12.00 1200.00

10.06 Steel Fixer 10.1(6) daty 100.00 12.00 1200.00



10.09 Equipment Operator, Crane 10.1(9) day 100.00 11.00 1100.00


etc.10.1(10) day 500.00 11.00 5,500.00





10.15 Fine Concrete Aggregate 10.1(104) m3 125.00 22.00 2,750.00

10.16 Sand 10.1(105) m3 125.00 7.00 875.00

10.17 Crushed Rock Base Course 10.1(106) m3 500.00 15.00 7,500.00

10.18 Laterite 10.1(107) m3 2,000.00 7.00 14,000.00

10.19 Lime 10.1(108) tonne 2.00 110.00 220.00



10.22 Bitumen Emulsion, CSS1 10.1(111a) tonne 15.00 750.00 11,250.00

10.24 Bitumen Emulsion, CSS2 10.1(111b) tonne 15.00 720.00 10,800.00

10.25 Sealing Aggregates 19 mm 10.1(112) m3 250.00 21.00 5,250.00

Sealing Aggregates 12.5 mm 10.1(113a) m3 250.00 22.00 5,500.00


10.27 Crusher Dust 10.1(114) m3 150.00 12.00 1,800.00



Labour

Materials

Bill No. 10 Daywork


10.01 Ganger 10.1(1) day 250.00 15.00 3,750.00



Labour



10.30 Rock Riprap Class C 10.1(117) m3 250.00 16.00 4000.00

10.31 RC Pipes, 600 mm dia. 10.1(118a) m 25.00 30.00 750.00

10.32 RC Pipes, 750 mm dia. 10.1(118b) m 25.00 40.00 1,000.00

10.33 RC Pipes, 800 mm dia. 10.1(118) m 25.00 45.00 1,125.00

10.34 RC Pipes, 1,000 mm dia. 10.1(119) m 100.00 60.00 6,000.00

10.35 RC Pipes, 1,200 mm dia. 10.1(120) m 100.00 90.00 9,000.00








Equipment

Bill No. 10 Daywork

49.7



Bill No. 2 Earth Works 2,867,500.00

Bill No. 3 Sub‐base and Base Course 2,827,500.00



Bill No. 6 Drainage and Protection Work 856,850.00





TOTAL 15,071,250.00










GRAND TOTAL = 21.80


2. Section Length for AC Overlay [Areas 1, 3 & 5] = 25.2 km

3. Section Length for Rehabilitation and AC Surface [Areas 2, 4 & 6] = 24.5 km

4. Contract period 18 months, P‐B Maintenance for 36 months

ADB TA 8784‐CAM:SECOND ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT PROJECT‐ADDITIONAL FEASIBILITY STUDY(41123‐014)

NR‐6 from Siem Reap to Kralanh (Pk 317+800 to Pk 367+500), Section Length = 49.7 km

Summary

Item No. Description SPEC.Ref.No. Unit Quantity Unit rate Amount USD


1.02Traffic Management during Initial Works (except for




88,800.00




Bill 1 General

Item No. Description SPEC.Ref.No. Unit Quantity Unit Rate Amount USD



Benching (Unclassified)2.2(4) m3 225,000.00 3.00 675,000.00


2.04 Embankment 2.6(1) m3 5,000.00 7.00 35,000.00

2.05 Selected Subgrade Material 2.6(3) m3 140,000.00 11.00 1,540,000.00

2.06 Proof Rolling ‐ m2 285,000.00 1.50 427,500.00

2,867,500.00




Bill 2 Earthworks


3.01 Sub‐base Course 3.1(1) m3 95,000.00 14.50 1,377,500.00

3.02 Crushed Aggregate Base Course 3.3(1) m3 50,000.00 27.00 1,350,000.00

3.03Pre‐overlay Permanent Repair of Pavement Structure

[up to and including Base Course for initial rectification]4.7(3) m

2 5,000.00 11.00 55,000.00

3.04 Soil Aggregate margin 3.6(2) m3 3,000.00 15.00 45,000.00

2,827,500.00






4.01 Prime Coat 4.1(1) m2 130,000.00 1.10 143,000.00





4.04 Tack Coat 4.3(1) m2 497,000.00 0.90 447,300.00


prepared existing surface]4.5(1) m3 0.00 245.00 0.00










6,805,490.00






5.01 Concrete Railing 5.6(1) m 100.00 300.00 30,000.00


5.03 Expansion Joints 5.9(1.1) m 400.00 600.00 240,000.00

5.04 Laminated Bearing Pads 5.9(5.1) m 0.00 105.00 0.00


395,000.00




Bill 5 Bridges

Item No Description SPEC.Ref.No. Unit Quantity Unit Rate Amount USD






6.05 Block Sodding 6.6(1) m2 40,000.00 1.50 60,000.00




6.09 Gabion Boxes 6.9(1) m3 250.00 65.00 16,250.00


6.11 Geotextile 6.11 m2 0.00 7.00 0.00


1,000 mm dia]6.10(1) m 300.00 3.90 1,170.00


dia.or greater6.10(2) m 300.00 4.10 1,230.00


6.15 Allowance for 'U' Drain Outlet Pipes 6.1(2) m 500.00 210.00 105,000.00


856,850.00




6.03 6.1(3) 230.00m

Bill 6 Drainage


Guard Rail 7.2



7.02 Guide Post 7.4(1) No 300.00 23.00 6,900.00


Road Signs 7.5







Road Markings 7.8

390.00

2,000.00


100.00

600.00

15,000.00

600.00


7.15 Steel Guard Rail ‐ Type1 7.2(1) 5% 800.00 185.00 148,000.00




7.10 Pedestrian Crossing Marking [Drawing SD‐16] 7.8(2) m2 22.00

7.12 Rumblestrip [Drawing SD‐16] 7.8(2) m2 55.00

52,580.00

38,500.00

327,600.007.13Thermoplastic Road Marking [Various Colur, Width,

Pattern]7.8(1) m2 21.00





8.03 Mine/UXO Detection and Disposal 8.1 (3) No. 0.00 15,000.00 0.00

15,000.00




Bill 8 UXO

Item No. Description SPEC.Ref.No. Unit Quantity Rate Amount [USD]



9.02Provide and Maintain Laboratory [including

Consumables]9.1(2) Month 18.00 2,500.00 45,000.00


9.04 Secretary, Computer Operator, Surveyor etc. 9.1(a) to 9.1(h) Month 90.00 500.00 45,000.00












9 11 Site cleanup 9 8(1) LS 1 00 10 000 00 10 000 00





Item No. Description SPEC.Ref.No. Unit Quantity Rate Amount (USD)

10.01 Ganger 10.1(1) day 250.00 15.00 3,750.00



10.04 Mason 10.1(4) day 150.00 12.00 1,800.00

10.05 Carpenter 10.1(5) day 100.00 12.00 1200.00

10.06 Steel Fixer 10.1(6) daty 100.00 12.00 1200.00



10.09 Equipment Operator, Crane 10.1(9) day 100.00 11.00 1100.00


etc.10.1(10) day 500.00 11.00 5,500.00





10 15 Fine Concrete Aggregate 10 1(104) m3 125 00 22 00 2 750 00

10.16 Sand 10.1(105) m3 125.00 7.00 875.00

GRAND

TOTAL [CIVIL Crushed Rock Base Course 10.1(106) m

3 500.00 15.00 7,500.00

10 18 Laterite 10.1(107) m3 2,000.00 7.00 14,000.00

10.17 #VALUE! 7%

NOTE: PPTA

Cost Estimate Lime 10.1(108) tonne 2.00 110.00 220.00

1.

AdministratioBitumen, 60/70 per grade 10.1(109) 5% 15.00 850.00 12,750.00

2. Financial

Charges Bitumen, 80/100 per grade 10.1(110) 2% 2.00 880.00 1,760.00

3. Contract

Price Bitumen Emulsion, CSS1 10.1(111a) 0% 15.00 750.00 11,250.00

4.

Resettlement Bitumen Emulsion, CSS2 10.1(111b) 0% 15.00 720.00 10,800.00

5. VAT and

Duties [10%]Sealing Aggregates 19 mm 10.1(112) tonne 250.00 21.00 5,250.00

Sealing Aggregates 12.5 mm 10.1(113a) 7% 250.00 22.00 5,500.00


10.27 Crusher Dust 10.1(114) m3 150.00 12.00 1,800.00

Materials


Labour


Bill No. 10 Daywork



10.30 Rock Riprap Class C 10.1(117) m3 250.00 16.00 4000.00

10.31 RC Pipes, 600 mm dia. 10.1(118a) m 25.00 30.00 750.00

10.32 RC Pipes, 750 mm dia. 10.1(118b) m 25.00 40.00 1,000.00

10.33 RC Pipes, 800 mm dia. 10.1(118) m 25.00 45.00 1,125.00

10.34 RC Pipes, 1,000 mm dia. 10.1(119) m 100.00 60.00 6,000.00

10.35 RC Pipes, 1,200 mm dia. 10.1(120) m 100.00 90.00 9,000.00








Equipment

Bill No. 10 Daywork

Performance Based Maintenance Cost Estimate for One Contract Package

Maintenance Cost Over 3 Years (50 km)

Quantity Months Rate (USD) Amount (USD)

Project Manager Number 1 36 4000 144,000.0

Inspectors Number 2 36 2000 144,000.0

Maint crew (1 per 50 km) Number 1 36 6000 216,000.0

Staff Vehicles Number 2 36 1500 108,000.0

Crew veh Number 1 36 2000 72,000.0

Materials Number 1 36 2500 90,000.0

Cracksealing km 25 1 1500 37,500.0

Repairs Sqm 4000 1 32.5 130,000.0

Office and support Number 1 36 1500 54,000.0

Management Lumpsum 1 1 10% of all above 99,550.0

Total for 50 km for 3

years 1,095,050.0

Cost Per Km 21,901.0

Risk Allocation 25% 5,475.25

Cost Per Km [3 Years] 27,376.25

Per Km [per Year] 9,125.42

Say $9,100/year

For the WB project, 15% of physical works cost is adopted for PBMC.

In our case, would be"

km CW amount 0.15 Cost Per Km [3 Years]

NR‐1 East 48.00 10,100,000 1,515,000 31,563

NR‐1 West 48.85 10,400,000 1,560,000 31,934

NR‐6 49.70 15,100,000 2,265,000 45,573

Average 36,357

Quantity Cost (USD) Quantity Cost (USD)

Additional/Capacity Enhancement of cross culverts, culvert end walls and channel excavation (excavation for drains included).

195,000 m3/480 m 1,044,150 40,000 m3/480 m 346,650

Urban Drains and outlets 8,400 m 1,694,000 2500 m 505,000

Embankment side slopes 7,500 m3/75,000 m2 142,500 5,000 m3/40,000 m2 83,000

Grouted Riprap 200 m3 12,000 130 m3 7,800

Gabion Boxes and Mats 2,000 m3 140,000 500 m3 35,000Cleaning of Existing Drains and Bridge Channels 1,000 m 4,000 600 m 2,400

Bridge drainage - grating 80 no 8,000 120 no 12,000

Block sodding 75,000 m2 112,500 40,000 m2 60,000

3,160,000 1,060,000

Cost Estimate - Climate Change Provisions

Total (USD)

NR-1 NR-6Risk Measure

Moderate Risk for NR1 and NR6

Quantity Cost (USD) Quantity Cost (USD) Quantity Cost (USD)

1,040 m at $185 192,400 800 m at $185 148,000 1,600 at $185 296,000

200 at $23 4,600 200 at $23 4,600 300 at $23 6,900

Sum 49,800 Sum 86,300 Sum 65,000

Sum 722,000 Sum 434,000 Sum 428,000

970,000 700,000 800,000

Cost Estimate - Overall Project Road Safety Provisions

NR-1 [West] NR-6

Total (USD)

NR-1 [East]

Guard Rail

Markers and Guide posts

Road Signs, Posts & Foundations

Road Markings

Measure

Annex I CLIMATE CHANGE RISK ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Climate Change ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1. Comments on TOR ................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Literature Review .................................................................................................... 1

1.3. Climate Change Science......................................................................................... 2

1.3.1. IPCC ................................................................................................................ 2

1.3.2. Future Scenarios ............................................................................................. 2

1.3.3. GCMs used in the Region ................................................................................ 3

1.3.4. Downscaling GCM outputs to regional scales .................................................. 3

1.3.5. Projected Temperature change ........................................................................ 4

1.3.6. Projected Rainfall Change ............................................................................... 5

1.3.7. Rainfall Intensity .............................................................................................. 5

1.4. Current and Projected Meteorological Data ............................................................ 6

1.4.1. Data Availability ............................................................................................... 6

1.4.2. Climate data provided for Road Risk Analysis.................................................. 6

1.4.3. Current 1 Day Extreme Rainfall ....................................................................... 6

1.4.4. Projected 1 day extreme rainfall for 2055 with RCP of 8.5 ............................... 7

1.4.5. Current 5 day Extreme Rainfall ........................................................................ 8

1.4.6. Projected 5 day extreme rainfall for 2055 with RCP of 8.5 ............................... 8

1.4.1. Changes to 1-day Precipitation ........................................................................ 9

1.4.2. Changes to 5-day Precipitation ........................................................................ 9

1.5. Flooding .................................................................................................................. 9

1.5.1. Floods in Cambodia ......................................................................................... 9

1.5.2. Drought and Climate Change ......................................................................... 10

1.6. Flood Risk Management Interface - FRMI ............................................................. 11

1.6.1. Background ................................................................................................... 11

1.6.2. FRMI Methodology......................................................................................... 11

1.6.3. SRTM Accuracy ............................................................................................. 11

1.6.4. Road Catchment Area vs. River Catchment Area Method.............................. 12

1.6.5. Correlation to Road Impacts .......................................................................... 12

1.6.6. Calculation of Catchment Areas ..................................................................... 12

1.6.7. Classification of Road Links ........................................................................... 13

1.7. Output of FRMI ..................................................................................................... 14

1.7.1. Flood Risk Damage Maps .............................................................................. 14

1.7.2. Multiple Flood Vulnerability by Province ......................................................... 17

1.7.3. Mapping of Change of Flooding Risk due to Climate Change ........................ 18

1.7.4. Analysis of Road Flood Risk by Province ....................................................... 18

1.7.5. Flash Floods .................................................................................................. 19

1.7.6. Large Area Floods ......................................................................................... 19

1.7.7. Builtup Area Flooding ..................................................................................... 19

1.7.8. Low Land Flooding ........................................................................................ 19

1.7.9. Exposure to Multiple Flood Risk Factors ........................................................ 19

1.8. Summary of Climate Change Effects .................................................................... 20

1.8.1. FRMI Model Limitations ................................................................................. 20

1.8.2. Risk Increases ............................................................................................... 21

1.8.3. Risk Decreases .............................................................................................. 21

1.9. Combined Risks .................................................................................................... 21

1.10. Risk Information from FRMI related to Project Roads ........................................ 21

1.10.1. NR 6 Siem Reap to Kralanh ....................................................................... 21

1.10.1. NR 1 Mekong River to Cambodia Vietnam Border ...................................... 24

1.11. Road information in the FRMI Database ............................................................ 27

1.12. Rehabilitation Costing Scenarios ....................................................................... 27

1.13. Overall Approach and Detailed Design .............................................................. 27

1.13.1. Overall Approach........................................................................................ 27

1.13.2. Rainfall ....................................................................................................... 28

1.13.3. Projections of Annual Precipitation ............................................................. 29

1.13.4. Monthly Increase during Flood Period ........................................................ 29

1.13.5. Storm Projections ....................................................................................... 29

1.13.6. Overview of Precipitation Changes ............................................................. 29

1.14. Climate Resilient Roads .................................................................................... 30

1.14.1. Design Adaptation ...................................................................................... 30

1.14.2. Adaptation Measures ................................................................................. 31

1.15. Specific Recommendations from MPWT ........................................................... 32

1.15.1. Field Work and Ground Truthing ................................................................ 32

1.15.2. Elevation .................................................................................................... 32

1.15.3. Flood Calculations ...................................................................................... 32

1.15.4. Pavement and Embankments .................................................................... 32

1.15.5. Drainage Design ........................................................................................ 34

1.15.6. Bridge Standards........................................................................................ 37

1.15.7. Geometry ................................................................................................... 37

1.15.8. Construction Materials ................................................................................ 37

1.15.9. Maintenance ............................................................................................... 38

1.16. Costs ................................................................................................................. 38

1.16.1. Elevation .................................................................................................... 38

1.16.2. Cross Drains .............................................................................................. 38

1.16.3. Pavement ................................................................................................... 39

1.16.4. Detailed Costs ............................................................................................ 39

1.17. Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................ 39

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 RPCs from IPCC AR5 (2011) ........................................................................... 3

Figure 1-2 Current 1 day extreme rainfall from the CCAM model. ..................................... 7

Figure 1-3 Projected change in 1 day extreme rainfall for 2055 (RCP 8.5 from CCAM) .... 7

Figure 1-4 Current 5 day extreme rainfall from CCAM ...................................................... 8

Figure 1-5 Projected change in 5 day extreme rainfall for 2055 (RCP 8.5) ........................ 9

Figure 1-6 Flow Chart for Derivation of Flood Index ........................................................ 16

Figure 1-7 Climate Change Analysis ............................................................................... 16

Figure 1-8 Risk of Flood Damaged Roads Siem Reap Province ..................................... 24

Figure 1-9 Risk of Flood Damage to NR6 ....................................................................... 24

Figure 1-10 Risk of Flood Damaged Roads Svay Rieng Province ................................. 26

Figure 1-11 Risk of Flood Damage to NR1 .................................................................... 26

Figure 1-12 Overall Flood Proofing Process for Roads .................................................. 28

Figure 1-13 Rainfall Ration 1 Hour to 24 Hours ............................................................. 36

LIST OFTABLES

Table 1-1 Climate Downscaling carried out in Cambodia ................................................. 4

Table 1-2 Projected Changes in Svay Rieng / Kampong Chhnang [RCP 8.5 Year 2050] . 5

Table 1-3 List of Geometric Road Parameters ............................................................... 14

Table 1-4 Length/percentage of Roads by Province at Risk (Current conditions) ........... 17

Table 1-5 Length of Roads by Province at High Risk of Future Flooding ....................... 18

Table 1-6 Km of roads per province at high risk changed by climate conditions ............. 19

Table 1-7 Length of Road by Province at High Risk [Combination of Types] .................. 20

Table 1-8 Change in Rainfall % (RCP 6.0) ..................................................................... 29

Table 1-9 Climate Change Adaptation Measures ........................................................... 31

Table 1-10 Rainfall Intensity Pochentong Airport – Current .............................................. 35

Table 1-11 Rainfall Intensity Siem Reap – Current .......................................................... 35

Table 1-12 Rainfall Intensity Kampong Thom – Current ................................................... 35

Table 1-13 Estimated cost increases for geometry adjustments ...................................... 38

Table 1-14 Estimated Cost Increases for Drainage Adjustments ..................................... 39

Table 1-15 Estimated cost increases for pavement type upgrades .................................. 39

ABBREVIATIONS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ADB Asian Development Bank

CIF Climate Investment Funds

CTF Clean Technology Fund

DEM Digital Elevation Model

DGPS Differential Global Positioning System

FRMI Flood Risk Management Interface

GCM Global Climate Models

GIS Geographic Information System

GTFM Generalized Tropical Flood Model

IDF Rainfall Intensity Duration and Frequency curves

KM Knowledge Management

MOWRAM Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology

MPWT Ministry of Public Works and Transport

MRC Mekong River Commission

PMU3 Project Management Unit 3

PPCR Pilot Program for Climate Resilience

PRIP Provincial Roads Improvement Project

SCF Strategic Climate Fund

SPCR Strategic Program for Climate Resilience

SREP Scale Up Renewable Energy Project

1

1. Climate Change

1.1. Comments on TOR 1. The TOR require that “the PPTA assess climate risk vulnerability for the subject corridors.

The Team must identify relevant contemporary ‘models’, refine them to a regional level and

define possible impacts on the roadways which are the subject of the proposed rehabilitation.

Within the above context, it is necessary to investigate appropriate mitigation and / or

adaptation measures to address future extreme weather risks. The results are a list of

suggested design allowances and or physical measures that may be considered for inclusion

in the project at the future detailed design and construction stages”.

2. This section addresses all of the above issues. Extensive use has been made of the

MPWT FRMI software in this evaluation.

1.2. Literature Review 3. The TOR require that the consultants undertake a climate risk assessment in accordance

with ADB’s guidelines and international good practices from which to identify any physical

adaptation measures needed. Consequently the consultants have taken account of the

following publications :

1. Mekong River Commission, Roads and Floods, MRC Technical Paper No. 35, 2011

2. Climate Change Impact and Hydrology, MRD June 2013

3. Climate Change Adaptation Options, MRD May 2014

4. Climate Change Adaptation Report August, MRD, (Manley, R) August 2014

5. Reinforcing Community Flood Resilience, MPWT, August 2014

6. Climate Change Resilient Roads, MRD October 2014

7. Report on Knowledge Management, MPWT, June 2015

8. Non Mandatory Guidelines for Flood Proofing Roads, MPWT September 2015

9. Road Design Standard Changes Report, MPWT September 2015

10. Flood Risk Management Interface Manual, MPWT, September 2015

11. Vulnerability Mapping Report, MPWT, January 2016

12. Climate Modeling Report, MPWT, January 2016

13. Flood Risk Management Interface (FRMI) Version 1.2 obtained from MPWT September

2016

4. All of these are ADB publications and the FRMI is the MPWT in-house software used for

determining the magnitude of flood risk plus the costs of adaptation measures based on recent

known unit rates. These give the latest state of knowledge and “good practice”.

2

1.3. Climate Change Science

1.3.1. IPCC 5. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a U.N. scientific body who

produce a series of international assessment reports on the current state of climate change

knowledge. (AR5 is the current edition) The release of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses

(GHGs) into the atmosphere will lead to further increases in the average temperature in the

future. It is likely that these higher temperatures across the globe will change rainfall patterns.

The IPCC has facilitated comparison of GCM (Global Climate Models) by suggesting future

CO2 and other GHGs related forcing scenarios and standard input data such as temperature,

rainfall, wind speed etc. GCMs are constantly being updated and results from each new model

are compared to the outputs from all of the others. Then on behalf of the IPCC the World

Climate Research Program conducts inter-comparison studies of GCM results.

1.3.2. Future Scenarios 6. Future climate is contingent on human actions (primarily CO2 emissions) which will

depend on societal decisions yet to be taken, so accurately forecasting is impossible in

principle. Also caution must be used in attempting to forecast future climates because of

uncertainties in the interactions between the oceans, atmosphere and biosphere. As a result

GCMs produce a range of modeled future climate situations. These are not attempts to predict

the likelihood of what may happen but the consequences of certain concentrations of GHGs.

These are called climate projections.

7. Previous IPCC reports (2000 to 2007) have used the Special Report on Emissions

Scenarios (SRES) that make different assumptions about global changes in future

greenhouse gas pollution, land-use and other driving forces. Some scenarios have assumed

very high rapid economic growth and associated high CO2 future emissions. Others assume

a reduction in the use of fossil fuels with proportionally reduced CO2 levels.

8. The latest IPCC report (Number 5) uses a new description “Representative Concentrations

Pathway (RCP)”. These RCP scenarios are projections of the change in the balance between

incoming and outgoing radiation to the atmosphere. The numbers refer to global energy

imbalances, measured in watts per square meter, by the year 2100.

9. RCP 2.6 (PD) refers to a scenario where CO2 emissions peak in the near future and then

decline. This is optimistic. RCP 4.5 and 6.0 are intermediate scenarios. RCP 8.5 refers to the

most severe case of the 4 scenarios considered. where emissions continue to rise until 2100

leading to global temperature increases. This is pessimistic.

3

Figure 1-1 RPCs from IPCC AR5 (2011)

10. Recent climate change studies use RCPs of 8.5 for extreme CO2 future concentrations

and values of 2.6 or 4.5 to represent low CO2 future concentrations. In the projections for

MPWT the RCP 8.5 is used. This is a pessimistic scenario which although it is no less likely

than the other scenarios and not necessarily the worst case it is designated the “extreme

scenario”.

1.3.3. GCMs used in the Region 11. More than 20 different GCMs have been used to model climate change in Cambodia.

The suitability can be assessed by comparing modelled results with measured climate data.

Models that most accurately predict current monsoon rainfall wereconsidered the most

suitable for flood prediction.

12. While GCMs predict temperature reasonably well the projected extreme precipitation

intensities are generally much lower than observed data. The timing of the start and end of

the monsoon season are also generally poorly predicted.

13. Rainfall errors are generally between 1.5 to 2.5 mm/day for a rainy day. The worst

performing model showed rainfall errors of over 4 mm/day. The most widely used model

showed rainfall with errors of less than 1.5 mm/day. This was used in the MPWT project.

1.3.4. Downscaling GCM outputs to regional scales 14. Global models are intended for use with large spatial scales and are too coarse to

determine local scale climate variations in precipitation. Downscaling climate data generates

4

locally relevant climate data from GCMs although inherent errors may be carried over from

GCMs to local data. Downscaling obtains regional weather phenomena that are influenced by

the local topography, land-sea-contrast, and small-scale atmospheric features such as

convection. The important downscaling models used in Cambodia are outlined in the table

below.

Table 1-1 Climate Downscaling carried out in Cambodia

15. The CSIRO modeling is the latest and presents downscaling information at the highest

resolution.

1.3.5. Projected Temperature change 16. All these models show warming occurring over Cambodia in the future, with the early

studies generally projecting warming of 0.01oC to 0.03oC per year, and later models projecting

warming of 0.03oC to 0.06oC per year. This equates to a warming of 0.35oC to 2oC by 2050

5

and 1oC to 5oC by 2100. The results of six of the latest model projections for Kampong

Chhnang and Svay Rieng are summarized below.

Table 1-2 Projected Changes in Svay Rieng and Kampong Chhnang under RCP 8.5 by Year 2050

1.3.6. Projected Rainfall Change 17. Climate in Cambodia is traditionally described with reference to two seasons, the wet

season, when rain bearing monsoon winds from the southwest predominate and the dry

season, when dry northeast monsoon occur. Climate change could result in changes in the

total amount of rain in each season and a change in the onset or end of the wet season.

Climate change studies project a shorter wet season in the future with a later start and a longer

drier dry season. The results for rainfall change are much more varied than those for

temperature.

18. The CSIRO 2013 model projects an overall decrease in rainfall during the wet season,

an increase at the start of the wet season and an increase in the amount of rain that falls in

extreme events. The first points are significant to farmers. This latter point is significant for

drainage design.

1.3.7. Rainfall Intensity 19. Climate change studies have projected an increase in rainfall intensity during rainy days

by 2055. A decrease in the total yearly rainfall that is projected for some locations is a result

of a decrease in the number of rainy days not a reduction in intensity.

20. While climate models are run at intervals of 1 hour or less the outputs that are generated

are at the scale of 1 day. Predictions of rainfall intensity in terms of mm per hour may under

estimate maximum rainfall intensity. As a guide, in tropical conditions, hourly rain fall is often

assumed to be 20-40% of daily rainfall.

6

1.4. Current and Projected Meteorological Data

1.4.1. Data Availability

21. The Department of Meteorology (DoM) of MOWRAM has 38 meteorological stations that

record rainfall, 23 that record evaporation, and 14 stations that record wind speed. The MRC

maintains 12 stations in Cambodia. Key stations send data daily to DoM for weather

forecasting. Rainfall, air temperature, wind speed, wind direction and relative humidity are

observed by only two main stations at Pochentong and Sihanoukville.

1.4.2. Climate data provided for Road Risk Analysis

22. The data used in CR-PRIP for the FRMI was digitized from the CSIRO CCAM model

maps available in published reports and consists of:

Current 1 day extreme rainfall output for the period 1980 - 2000

Projected 1 day extreme rainfall for the two decade period centered on 2055 for RCP 8.5

Current 5 day extreme rainfall output for the period 1980 - 2000

Projected 5 day extreme rainfall for the two decade period centered on 2055 for RCP 8.5

The projections simulated the extreme event RCP 8.5.

1.4.3. Current 1 Day Extreme Rainfall

23. The current 1 day extreme rainfall represents the maximum rainfall output by the models

for a 20 year period centered on 1990. The distribution of 1 day extreme rainfall reflects the

spatial distribution of annual rainfall with high values of around 200mm in the mountainous

region near the coast, in Mondul Kiri and in the far north east. Smaller 1 day extreme events

of 100 – 145 mm occur in the central flat lands and hilly regions in the north. The lowest values

are around Tonle Sap.

7

Figure 1-2 Current 1 day extreme rainfall from the CCAM model.

1.4.4. Projected 1 day extreme rainfall for 2055 with RCP of 8.5 24. The projected 1 day extreme rainfall is the average for a 20 year period centered on

2055 using an RCP of 8.5. The projected change in 1 day extreme rainfall is the difference

between modeled current and modeled future (2055) values. The model projects an increase

over the coastal mountains and over the hilly regions in the north of the country. There is no

change or only a small change for the central flat areas, except for a small area north east of

Phnom Penh.

Figure 1-3 Projected change in 1 day extreme rainfall for 2055 (RCP 8.5 from CCAM)

8

1.4.5. Current 5 day Extreme Rainfall 25. The 5 day extreme rainfall map is defined as the maximum total rainfall recorded over 5

days for a 20 year interval centered on 1990. The distribution of 5 day extreme rainfall reflects

the spatial distribution of annual rainfall with high values of 300mm or more in the mountainous

region near the coast, in Mondul Kiri and in the far north east. Smaller 5 day extreme events

of 150 – 180 mm occur in the central flat lands and hilly regions in the north. The model shows

the lowest values around Tonle Sap.

Figure 1-4 Current 5 day extreme rainfall from CCAM

1.4.6. Projected 5 day extreme rainfall for 2055 with RCP of 8.5 26. The projected 5 day extreme rainfall is the average for a 20 year period centered on

2055 using an RCP of 8.5. The projected change in 5 day extreme rainfall is the difference

between current and projected 2055 values. The model projects a small increase in 5 day

extreme rainfall over the coastal and other high mountains but a more pronounced increase

of 16-20 mm per day for the hilly regions to the west of the Mekong in the north of the country.

Little change or a slight decrease is projected to occur in the lower hilly areas east of the

Mekong. The most pronounced change is a projected decrease of 5 day precipitation of over

17 mm per day for the flat areas south and southwest of Tonle Sap. It is projected to increase

in Svay Rieng.

9

Figure 1-5 Projected change in 5 day extreme rainfall for 2055 (RCP 8.5)

1.4.1. Changes to 1-day Precipitation The increases are modest for the 2030 projection (6 to 8%) and the 2050 projection (9 to 10%)

but larger for the 2070 projection (28 to 34%).

1.4.2. Changes to 5-day Precipitation 27. The 5-day maximum precipitation increases for all future time frames; from 9% to 14%

for the 2030 projection, from 16% to 20% for the 2050 projection and 29% to 38% for the 2090

projection. The 5-day duration is likely to correspond to the critical flood duration for some of

the larger river basins.

1.5. Flooding

1.5.1. Floods in Cambodia 28. Changes in the rainfall regime are the dominating factor in climate change with respect

to physical infrastructure as it affects drainage design. Temperature change can also be

important as it may affect pavement consistency, expansion joints and so on.

29. Flooding in Cambodia is a natural occurrence and lifestyles are adapted to seasonal

floods. Most people are concerned when the intensity and occurrence changes. These events

also create the greatest damage to infrastructure, as seen during typhoon Ketzana in October

2009, which was estimated to cause approximately $15 million in direct damages to the

transport sector and a further $11 million in indirect losses through economic loss of access

to roads.

10

30. There are two major flood types in Cambodia: (i) flashfloods, resulting from heavy

downpour upstream on the Mekong River, which affect provinces along the Mekong and the

southeastern areas of the country; and (ii) central area large scale floods, resulting from a

combination of runoff from the Mekong River and heavy rains around the Tonle Sap Lake,

which affect the provinces around the lake and the southern provinces.

31. In rural areas flooding is a major problem for roads. In some upland areas with significant

slopes and a water course, the type of flooding is flash flooding which occurs over several

hours. In low-lying areas with no natural gradient flooding can last for months. Banteay

Meanchey had the longest period of flooding at 68 days.

32. Whilst roads should obviously remain above the flood level there are other factors to

consider. Roads provide access to communities along the roads. Even if roads are above the

flood level agricultural areas and even villages may not be. During floods villagers move their

animals to refuges in high ground. Roads are an important means of access to these refuge

areas.

33. If a road become flooded water will flow across the road. Even if the bituminous surface

layer is not damaged water overflowing can damage the embankment and under scour the

road. There must be adequate cross-drainage.

1.5.2. Drought and Climate Change 34. Rising temperatures due to climate change increase evaporation rates and also increase

the capacity of the atmosphere to hold more water for longer periods of time. When the

atmospheric water vapour is released as rain the precipitation is more severe and storms are

more intense although possibly of shorter duration. If major rains occur after normal rainfall

patterns, there has usually been sufficient rain to saturate soils. These are the preconditions

for maximum run off and flooding.

35. These longer periods between rainfall increase drought. Drought has devastating effects

on agriculture. There are four characteristics of agricultural drought in Cambodia: (i)

unpredictable delays in rainfall onset in the early wet season, (ii) erratic variations in wet

season rainfall onset, amount, and duration across different local areas, (iii) early ending of

rains during the wet season, and (iv) common occurrence of mini-droughts of three weeks or

more during the wet season which can damage or destroy rice crops without irrigation. Many

farmers report that they fear drought more than flood.

11

1.6. Flood Risk Management Interface - FRMI

1.6.1. Background 36. Cambodia is one of the pilot countries participating in the Pilot Program for Climate

Resilience (PPCR). The PPCR provides incentives for scaled-up action and transformational

change in integrating consideration of climate risks and resilience in national development

planning, consistent with poverty reduction and sustainable development goals.

37. The improvement of access to knowledge, to its dissemination and its conservation was

addressed by the development of a knowledge management tool called Flood risk

management interface (FRMI). This software provides easy access to information about floods

and roads, as well as flood risk maps developed under the CR-PRIP.

1.6.2. FRMI Methodology 38. The FRMI methodology consists of identifying of road links and parameters based on

topographical analysis of road physical parameters and assessing the flooding types that they

are exposed to. The topographical analysis is derived from Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission

(SRTM) data available from public internet sources. Topographical data is based on remote

sensing not physical site measurements.

39. Road segments from the National and provincial road network are sourced from MPWT

RAMS data and catchment areas. Other geographical parameters are then calculated for each

road segment. Road resilience is derived from its condition level as provided by the RAMS

system. Finally, flood impact or damage risk assessments are carried out for four specific

types of flood and mapped.

1.6.3. SRTM Accuracy 40. The approximate accuracy of a road location and elevation can be obtained from SRTM

but that accuracy is in principle limited by the size of the grid utilized. The SRTM data used in

the project was retrieved from a 90 m grid or cell. For such a grid the absolute accuracy of

SRTM data ranges from 10 to 20 meters in all directions.

41. The distance of 90 m means that break points, steep slopes or vertical drops would not

be traced accurately for countries with significant mountainous terrain, as all slopes are

interpolated from point measurements. In low variability terrains like flood plains in Cambodia

the overall error in elevation is relatively low. Errors factors of 1 to 2 meters have been

established by comparing SRTM data with measured and benchmarked elevations from

roads.

12

1.6.4. Road Catchment Area vs. River Catchment Area Method 42. The FRMI uses a road catchment area method rather than a river catchment area

method, mainly for effectiveness purpose related to data management and better correlation

to road impacts. It is possible to calculate every major river catchment area in the whole

country and to organize the gained information according to the river flow network. However

MPWT data is orientated towards the road network, not the river network. Also repair budgets

are attached to established road sections, rather than catchment areas or river sections.

1.6.5. Correlation to Road Impacts 43. The road catchment area approach enables one to describe road sections with multiple

flooding risk, for example a low lying road which is susceptible to flash floods if there is a short

high intensity rainfall, but which also experiences flooding if there is light rain over a number

of days. If the road is located in an urban area it might flood with even less rainfall impact,

because the drains might not have been maintained properly. Therefore, the establishment of

4 indicators for every road section makes it easier to analyse the flooding risk of individual

road sections in more detail. 1

1.6.6. Calculation of Catchment Areas 44. The calculation of catchment areas, which drain towards a road section is a normal step

in the hydrological and hydraulic design of road drainage systems. The Rational Method or

another hydrological estimation technique is then used to estimate the design runoff for certain

catchment areas.

45. However, in road design individual catchment areas are calculated and individual

structures are designed according to the design runoff. For a normal road section, depending

on terrain and road length this can result in hundreds of individual catchment areas and of

course the same number of structures. Such degree of detail could was not considered in

FRMI due to the large number of catchments involved and due to the insufficient detail of the

terrain model.

46. In order to characterize each road section the combined catchment area was calculated

which drains towards a road section from both sides. This enables an analysis according to

their flooding potential: a road, which has very little water running towards it has a low potential

of being flooded, for example a ridge road, where all water drains away from the road

alignment. This compares to a road parallel to a mountain range, where all surface water has

to cross the road alignment in order to drain to lower grounds.

1 “Assessment of the susceptibility of roads to flooding based on geographical information – test in a flash flood prone area (the Gard region, France)” by P.-A. Versini, E. Gaume, and H. Andrieu.

13

1.6.7. Classification of Road Links

47. The classification of road links was based on topographical analysis of road physical

parameters. The topographical analysis has been carried out as a drainage area analysis,

calculating the drainage area and slope of this area towards a specific road link. However,

contrary to habitual hydrological practice, emphasis is not focused on the propagation of the

flow of water from sub-catchment to larger catchments, but rather upon the issue of a

characterization of every road link in view of its drainage characteristics.

48. In order to characterize the drainage situation of each road link the following parameters

were calculated for approximately 550 road links registered in the RAMS (Road Asset

Management Project) data base of the MPWT, representing about 11,500 km of roads. The

length of the segments varies i.e. it is not standardized to 1 km segments and is based on the

MPWT reference road links database, for purpose of compatibility with MPWT other datasets.

The results for individual road drainage areas are stored in the Flood risk management

database interface installed in the MPWT mapping department computer that links the flooding

data with the RAMS data.

49. The following analytical steps were carried out for every road link:

Definition of the road link as part of the road network.

Overlaying of the road network layer with the 90 m Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission

(SRTM) digital terrain model.

Definition of the drainage area upstream of the relevant road link.

Calculation of the relevant geometrical parameter concerning the road link and the

drainage area.

Visual verification of the topographic analysis on the basis of topographic maps, satellite

imagery and field observations.

Storing of the relevant road specific GIS layer for use in a computer application aimed at

serving as a tool for improved flooding management and resilience development.

The following parameters were extracted from the SRTM with this method

14

Table 1-3 List of geometric road parameters

50. The analysis of the drainage areas has been carried out subsequently for all the

registered road links. All catchments were calculated using Global Mapper and 30m resolution

DEM files. Drainage area maps (also call catchment maps) have been produced for all the

road links. The followings aspects have to be considered when discussing the analytical

results:

The analyzed areas cannot be considered as 'catchment areas' in the classical sense. In

fact, the resulting areas represent the aggregated area from where water drains towards

the relevant road link. This water can flow towards the road from both sides, from one side

only, or not at all.

If the analysis was to be carried out with a more detailed elevation model - such as a

LIDAR scan or drone survey- it would be possible to detail the analysis into sub-drainage

areas and designate a specific drainage structure (culvert or bridge) to individual sub-

drainage areas.

However, in order to obtain such degree of accuracy it is recommended that this be conducted

at the design stage of the road rehabilitation, or of new road construction.

1.7. Output of FRMI

1.7.1. Flood Risk Damage Maps 51. Flood risk damage maps have been produced for various types of floods. The road

vulnerability maps present four road risk flooding damage indexes corresponding to different

flood types. Another index combines the risk of the four flood type for prioritization purposes.

15

It must be noted that experiencing flooding or being subject to flood risk does not necessarily

inflict a lot of damage to every road. The overall equation is :

Flood damage risk = Risk of flood occurrence x Road condition factors

52. The flood risk calculation process starts by evaluating the risk of occurrence of the four

types of flood. The main input is the 1 day or 5 day extreme rainfall event, the drainage areas,

slope and shape. This leads to the buildup intensity next to the road. It then introduces factors

to account for the resilience of the road to these floods. Road resilience is assessed in the

model through three indicators, the pavement surface roughness, the pavement type and the condition of the drainage structures.

53. Roads properly designed and maintained in perfect condition will remain at no or at very

low risk of flood damage. For example, roads having being recently rehabilitated under major

rehabilitation projects will have been upgraded to better withstand flood damages, as

prescribed in the Cambodia road standards and in most international road design standards,

and are likely to be considerably less damaged through flooding than un-rehabilitated roads.

54. The road resilience factors are then applied in terms of the pavement structure and how

efficient the drainage system is under extreme rainfall. Four flood indexes are produced which

are then combined into one composite index.

The flood risk indexes are:

Flash Flood Index

Large Drainage Area Index

Build-up Area Flooding Index

Low Land Flooding Index

Combined flood risk index

The flow chart for this is shown below.

16

Figure 1-6 Flow Chart for Derivation of Flood Index

55. All these indexes are the basic tools for prioritizing the climate proofing of individual road

sections. To this is then added the impact of climate change on the flood risk situation. This

is projected to the year 2055.

Figure 1-7 Climate Change Analysis

56. A climate change scenario calculation using the projected 2055 rainfall data was carried

out and the changes compared to the existing situation. The relevant maps have been

produced at the national scale and for all the provinces. The types of maps available are :

Road references (Link IDs)

Flood damage risks – current conditions

Flood damage risks – future conditions

Flood damage risk changes in time

57. A flood damage risk map shows the road sections associated with four risk levels, ranging

from high (red), moderate (orange), low (yellow) to none (green). Maps of the flash flood

17

analysis show that flash flood risks are located in all provinces where there is mountainous

terrain. Highest risk areas are in Mondulkiri, Ratanak kiri and Pursat.

58. Large catchment areas high floods risks are distributed all over the country with no

specific patterns as urban flood risk areas and lowland flood risk areas are concentrated along

the Tonle Sap and the lower Mekong region. This is where most of the population is located

and it is an area of low geographical elevations.

1.7.2. Multiple Flood Vulnerability by Province 59. For each province the number of kilometers of each road that are classed as being at

risk from multiple risks has been calculated. The analysis was carried out on the basis of road

sections so the entire length of any section may not be susceptible to each flood risk factor

and the lengths shown can be an over estimation.

Table 1-4 Length and percentage of roads by province being at moderate or high risk of a combination of flood types (Current conditions)

60. The table shows that Kampong Cham has the largest number of kilometers of roads

classed as being at very high damage risk from multiple floods, i.e. 201 km. The next is Kandal

with 178 km and Battambang with 149 km.

18

1.7.3. Mapping of Change of Flooding Risk due to Climate Change 61. A second round of risk mapping had the rainfall input figures changed according to the

projected climate change data. The change was in extreme 1 day rainfall and change in total

5 day rainfall. Road condition were unchanged to be able to visualize only the climate change

effects. The four different risk parameters are affected to a different degree and in a different

way by these climatic changes.

1.7.4. Analysis of Road Flood Risk by Province 62. The following table summarizes the number of kilometers of roads in each province that

are at a high risk of being impacted by each of the four identified types of flooding. The table

looks at the current conditions and presents predicted values for 2055 under a high CO2

climate change scenario (RCP 8.5).

Table 1-5 Number of Km of roads per province rated at high risk of flooding for future climate conditions

19

1.7.5. Flash Floods 63. Due to its mountainous terrain, Mondul Kiri has over 200km of roads that are at very

high risk from flash flooding. Pursat has over 100 km of roads at very high risk from flash flood

while Kampot, Ratanak kiri, Kampong Speu, and Kratie have just under 100 km of roads at

very high risk. As the flash flood indicator is heavily weighted towards the catchment slope,

the smaller input from rainfall means that there is no change projected to occur for this indicator

due to climate change.

1.7.6. Large Area Floods 64. Kampong Thom has around 80km of roads at very high risk from large area catchment

flooding, while Kampong Speu and Battambang have around 50 km each at high risk. In

Kandal, climate change is projected to result in an increase in the length of roads highly

exposed to large area catchments floods from 7 to 18 km.

1.7.7. Builtup Area Flooding 65. Most of the high risk urban (builtup area) flooding is located in four provinces,

Battambang, Kampong Cham, Kandal and Prey Veng. Climate change is projected to increase

the length of roads at very high risk of urban flooding by 57km in Battambang and 15 Km in

Siemreap.

1.7.8. Low Land Flooding 66. As would be expected the provinces covering the central plains have a large amount of

roads that are at risk from low land flooding. Prey Veng and Svay Rieng have around 500 km

of roads at high risk each. Climate change is projected to increase the exposure to lowland

flooding for two provinces, Pursat and Siem Reap.

Table 1-6 Km of roads per province at high risk changed by climate conditions

1.7.9. Exposure to Multiple Flood Risk Factors 67. Some provinces are rated as being at high risk of flooding from a combination of flooding

types. Two provinces, Kandal and Kampong Cham have nearly 200 km of roads at high risk

of flooding from multiple types of flood each.

20

68. Three more provinces, Battambang, Pursat, Svay Rieng and Takeo have over 100 km

of roads at high risk of flooding from multiple types of flood. Three provinces, Kampot, Koh

Kong and Prey Veng have over 50 km at risk from multiple types of flood.

69. The remaining provinces have a small amount of kilometers of roads at risk but the 36

kilometers in Kep that are at risk represents half of the province provincial and national roads.

Two provinces, Kampong Chhnang and Svay Rieng, are projected to have new road segments

classified as being at high risk by 2055. Takeo risks are projected to decrease slightly.

Table 1-7 Length of road per province rated at high risk of flooding from a combination of flooding types – Current and future conditions

This table above represents the total risks of flooding under present and future conditions

allowing for climate change.

1.8. Summary of Climate Change Effects

1.8.1. FRMI Model Limitations 70. The models used for flood risk assessment have limitations. Changes in floods and in

flood damage are driven by many factors other than rainfall. Changes in flood risks are not

21

directly proportional to increases in rainfall and may proportionally exceed them. Equally

precedent conditions can slow down the onset of flash floods.

71. Future variations in Tonle Sap and Mekong levels will depend on water level

manipulations at dams and on future timber cutting of lands. The comparison of flood damage

risks to roads under current climate condition and of the same risks under future climate

conditions is approximate and can be carried out only to illustrate the magnitude of changes.

72. Due to the limitations of availability of flood data in Cambodia, the FRMI method uses

geographical and land use characteristics as well as rainfall data. Local investigations and

traditional hydraulic analysis are needed to give final flood proofed designs.

1.8.2. Risk Increases 73. Only three sections of road show an increase in the risk of flooding from a combination

of flooding types from moderate to high, in Svay Rieng, in Kampot and in Kampong Speu. Five

sections of road across the country show an increase in the risk of flooding from a combination

of flooding types from low to moderate and nine sections from no risk to low risk.

1.8.3. Risk Decreases 74. Four road sections show a decrease in the risk of flooding from a combination of flooding

types. This reflects the climate change projection of a small decrease in extreme rainfall for a

few areas around the country.

1.9. Combined Risks 75. The risk level has been assigned to all national and provincial roads of the current

Cambodian road network, using 550 individual road sections covering about 11,500 km linked

to the MPWT Road Asset Management Output (RAMO) data, which is the fundamental basis

for current road maintenance practice.

76. The number of roads that are potentially show a change in the combined road risk index

due to climate change are very limited, as predicted by the rainfall model and the vast majority

of the network shows no change in risk level.

77. Notwithstanding the above many segments of road are already at risk from flooding an

d climate change will make this worse.

1.10. Risk Information from FRMI related to Project Roads

1.10.1. NR 6 Siem Reap to Kralanh 78. The section of road on NR6 from Siem Reap to Kralanh is shown at a province level and

in detail below. The road segment is rated at “Moderate” level of flood risk in 2055 under RCP

8.5.

22

79. As this road segment is bounded on one side by Tonle Sap Lake and on the other side

facing the catchment runoff from the Dangrek Escarpment it may be inundated on both sides

and face flash floods in the watercourses crossing the road.

23

24

Figure 1-8 Risk of Flood Damaged Roads Siem Reap Province

Figure 1-9 Risk of Flood Damage to NR6

1.10.1. NR 1 Mekong River to Cambodia Vietnam Border The section of road on NR1 from Mekong River Bridge to the Cambodia Vietnam border is

also shown and a province level and in detail below. The road segment is rated at “Low Risk”

level of flood risk then “Moderate” in 2055 under RCP 8.5.

25

26

Figure 1-10 Risk of Flood Damaged Roads Svay Rieng Province

Figure 1-11 Risk of Flood Damage to NR1

80. Due to the extremely flat terrain this area of Cambodia is basically downstream of all

other weather influences and can flood over very large distances on either side of the

alignment. There are areas of free standing water to the north and south of the alignment and

local rainfall has no natural drainage escape route.

27

1.11. Road information in the FRMI Database 81. Basic road infrastructure data such as bridges, culverts and road alignments can be

retrieved from the MPWT RAMO database. There are 550 individual road links and 13,000

bridges, culverts and other drainage related structures.

All relevant road characteristics road condition data and drainage structures are stored in the

RAMO database. Other information such as catchment areas or land use along the road is

stored in the FRMI program. This contains the following road data :

Geometric road parameters

Road Alignment

Length

Vertical Alignment of terrain

Slopes

Flood Risk Indices

Catchment area maps

Inventory and condition of culverts, bridges and drainage structures

Road condition - International Roughness Index

Land use

Pavement type (Pavement surface)

Recent major rehabilitation details

1.12. Rehabilitation Costing Scenarios 82. A budgeting tool is available for a preliminary estimation of flood proofing initiatives.

Road segments can be selected for rehabilitation and flood proofing measures such as road

raising, replacement of culverts, adding embankment protection and using A/C pavements. A

number of combinations can be compared. These would require further investigation during

detail design.

1.13. Overall Approach and Detailed Design

1.13.1. Overall Approach 83. Once the flood risk has been established the appropriate adaptation measure can be

selected and costed.

28

Figure 1-12 Overall Flood Proofing Process for Roads

Documents have been published by MPWT giving guidance in revising design standards. The

key aspects to be considered in Detailed Design are discussed below.

1.13.2. Rainfall 84. Knowing what rainfall intensity and duration figures apply is absolutely fundamental in

any road design. This applies not only to the drainage but also to the elevation of the wearing

course above any likely flood levels. (This is known as freeboard.)

Rainfall duration and intensity must be known as a basis of design. Detailed Design requires

an IDF (Intensity Duration Frequency) Curve. This must be projected to include climate

change. This is only likely to be available during Detailed Design.

29

1.13.3. Projections of Annual Precipitation 85. The overall conclusion is that annual precipitation in the project area will rise slowly, if at

all. However this is based on the average of several models which tend to minimize projected

changes relative to individual projections, so a conservative approach in design is advocated.

1.13.4. Monthly Increase during Flood Period 86. The main change in rainfall will occur in the three wettest months of the year, August to

September. In low lying areas flooding is generally caused by the rainfall in the wettest months

of the year and lasts for several weeks. In such a case changes in monthly rainfall are of more

importance than rain falling over a shorter time period. Projections suggest that the will be

little, if any, increase by 2030 but could increase by over 20% by 2090.

1.13.5. Storm Projections 87. A paper by O’Gorman in Nature Geoscience Letters2 related increases in precipitation

to increases in temperature and shows that for extreme storm events (0.01% annual

probability of occurrence or less) precipitation increases by 10% for each degree of increase

in temperature.

As temperature increases are hoped not to exceed 2oC by the end of this century then an

addition of 20% on intensity of short duration extreme storms would account for climate

change.

1.13.6. Overview of Precipitation Changes 88. The following table summarises the expected change to precipitation for different periods.

They are based on the average of 4 models for RCP6.0 projection.

Table 1-8 Change in Rainfall % (RCP 6.0)

Year Annual Rainy season Month 5-day 1-day

2030 -1 -3 -1 12 7

2050 0 3 12 19 10

2090 4 7 8 35 32

89. The main conclusions from the above as they relate to precipitation are:

2 ‘Sensitivity of tropical precipitation extremes to climate change’ in Nature Geoscience Letters, September 2012.

30

Annual rainfall may remain unchanged but rainfall will increase more in the wettest

months by being of stronger duration. Rainy days will have more intense rain but the

number of rainy days may decrease. The periods in between rainy days will lengthen

leading to longer dry periods. There may even be “mini-droughts” during the wet

season.

Precipitation will increase most in the south-west and decrease in the north-east.

Both the maximum 5-day and 1-day storms are expected to increase.

The relative increase in rainfall is heavier for short duration rainfall in storms of higher

ARI value

An increase of 20% on existing IDF curves will allow for a global temperature increase

of 2oC. This corresponds to a time horizon of 2055 and applies to short duration storms

(1 hour or less) at higher ARIs. (e.g.1 in 50. 1 in 100). This factor is conservative and

is recommended as a design factor.

1.14. Climate Resilient Roads

1.14.1. Design Adaptation 90. Climate resilience related adjustments can be made to civil works through (i) the design

of road embankments and roadside ditches which are susceptible to erosion, (ii) using less

moisture susceptible materials or hydraulically-stabilized materials usually with cement or lime

within the road structure so that structural layers do not lose significant strength upon flooding

and soaking, and (iii) by using green engineering to improve the water conservation

characteristics of the watershed and to divert run-off water away from the road.

91. Factors considered in making engineering adjustments include cost-effectiveness,

current climate variability and potential future risk. Climate change projections do not have a

known scientific probability of future climate change and, therefore, the civil engineering

adjustments based on expected future changes are difficult to calculate exactly. A margin of

safety risk factor should be applied. The risks to roads from climate change include :

(i) Damage to roads, tunnels and drainage system due to flooding

(ii) Increase in scouring of roads, bridges, and support structures

(iii) Damages due to landslide and mudslide

(iv) Loss of structural integrity of roads due to increase in soil moisture levels

(v) Temperature impacts on asphalt paving materials and expansion joints

92. Adaptation measures include : (a) applying a safety factor in the design of embankment

heights and conveyance capacities of cross drains, culverts and bridges ; (b) considering a

longer return period for exceptional events when designing hydraulic structures; (c) consider

31

long term changes in the volume of storm water ; (d) reducing the gradients of slopes and

taking into account the materials used; (e) protecting the base of fills and discharge structures;

(f) enclosing the materials; (g) using waterproof materials or treating them to make them so;

(h) checking the condition of slopes regularly; (i) regularly checking the condition and function

of the drainage system and hydraulic structures; and, (j) improving the implementation of

alternative routes in the event of a road closure.

1.14.2. Adaptation Measures 93. Adaptation to climate change in highway design may require intervention at several

stages. Some modifications can be introduced at preliminary design, other items will be

required at detailed design phase.

Table 1-9 Climate Change Adaptation Measures

Highway Design Component

Roadways

Increased height of embankment above HWL

Modification of side slope ratios

Use all-weather wearing course / running surfaces e.g. DBST, surface seals.

Hydrological Studies

Coordination of data collection/recording systems e.g. rainfall, stream gauges

Adjustment of design criteria to account for increased flows

Allowances for effects of future dam and irrigation schemes.

Drainage Design

Additional waterway opening at bridge sites

Additional cross-culvert capacity

Debris defectors and energy dissipaters

Install Debris Deflectors

Sub-drainage systems.

Turf surfaces on side slopes.

Erosion Controls

Anti-scour provisions at bridge sites

Channel training / riprap bank protection

Side ditch linings in areas of high flow velocity

Retaining walls and gabions to stabilize slopes

32

Operations and Maintenance

Regular inspection and repair of road, shoulders, drainage systems

Regular cleaning of culverts and side ditches

Regular cleaning of box and pipe culvert systems

Cleaning of culverts before known storms or typhoons

Quick restoration of items following major flood events.

1.15. Specific Recommendations from MPWT 94. MPWT have produced a series of Design Guide Recommendations that incorporate

climate resilience. For full details reference should be made to the MPWT Guidance Note (see

Section X.2 Literature Review)

1.15.1. Field Work and Ground Truthing 95. Engineers must visit the site areas and enquire for local characteristics of floods and

update flood information from the relevant authorities before deciding on a design elevation.

Historical extreme flood elevation maps and 100Year flood depth maps should be used for

general guidance only.

1.15.2. Elevation 96. The recommended crest level for National roads and Provincial roads should be a

minimum height of the water level of floods with a recurrence interval of 1 in 100 years, plus

an additional 0.5 meters for wave overtopping due to wind. The extra freeboard also

acknowledges the fact that estimates of design events, and in particular low-frequency events

like 100-year floods, are subject to both statistical error and uncertainty due to climate change.

For district and local roads the crest level should be a minimum height of the water level of

floods with a recurrence interval of 1 in 10 years plus 0.25 meters.

1.15.3. Flood Calculations 97. Flood calculations are based on flow in one direction only. Where area-wide flooding is

possible, other methods will be applicable. The commonly used Rational Method can only be

applied to catchment areas less than 10km2. For larger areas the Generalised Tropical Flood

Model (GTFM) developed by Fiddes and Watkins (1984) should be used.

1.15.4. Pavement and Embankments 98. Pavements are normally designed solely on the basis of traffic levels. Theoretically, a

“perfect“ road, with an adequate level for clearing floods, with proper embankment materials,

with adequate drainage structures, with fully compliant compaction and structural materials

33

and which is perfectly maintained does not require pavements standards higher than those

given in current design codes.

99. In reality in Cambodia special measures have to be taken for additional protection from

floods. One flood proofing improvement is the use of better sealed pavements such as asphalt

/ concrete or concrete. It has been recommended by CR-PRIP as a new road policy statement

for MPWT that national and provincial roads should be covered with asphalt concrete, or

concrete

100. Where a road lies on a soft subgrade, is to carry heavy traffic, and is expected to be

regularly submerged for appreciable periods, the pavement is recommended to be of asphalt

concrete or preferably concrete.

101. If the cost of raising a road on embankment plus extra drainage costs is excessive then

a climate resilient road that can withstand occasional inundation maybe more cost effective if

the occasional loss of connectivity is acceptable. This loss of connectivity may be acceptable

on rural roads but is unlikely to apply to NR1 and NR6 where the road is expected to be open

and passable at all times and under all conditions.

102. When determining CBR values test samples shall be soaked for a period not less than

7 days. Materials with a CBR value less than 3 shall be considered unsuitable. Lime

stabilization and additional compaction may be employed to increase structural strength under

inundation.

103. In areas where gradients are minimal, such as near NR1, even a small flood depth can

extend sideways over a very large area. Where that is the case the only option is to raise

embankment levels.

104. For new roads the side slopes of embankments shall not be steeper than 1 vertical on

2 horizontal for embankment covered with rip rap and 1 vertical on 2.5 horizontal for those

without rip rap cover.

105. For existing roads increasing road embankment heights after a road has been built is

costly. Agricultural land and properties both tend to get as close to roads possible, so any

future increase in elevation and width of an embankment could lead to resettlement issues

which must be considered.

106. If a slope of 1:3 is considered it must be investigated from economic and policy points

of view. A 5 meter high embankment of 1:3 as compared to a 1:2 embankment needs 10 m

34

more road corridor and 50 % additional earth works. This could require substantial

resettlement or compensation actions.

107. The sub-base on embankments shall be constructed to the full width of the subgrade

surface. The shoulders shall be constructed same as the pavement structure. The shoulders

shall be sealed with an approved bituminous treatment up to the edges of the embankment

or, where guard rail is constructed, up to the line of guard rail. Each part of the bituminous

shoulder treatment which is the same as for the pavement shall be applied simultaneously

with the pavement treatment.

108. Rip Rap protection is recommended to cover the full surface of embankments of roads

at high risks of flash floods and of low land floods. For full coverage of embankments of roads

at high risk of flash floods and of low land floods, a minimum thickness of 200 mm shall be

used.

109. A layer of soil shall be constructed over the completed and trimmed side slopes of

embankments. A complete dense cover of growing grass shall be established on the soil

covering the side slopes. Where the side of an embankment is subject to wave action, a

hedge of shrubs shall be established growing on a line 1.2 m in elevation below the top edge

of the roadway.

1.15.5. Drainage Design 110. Raising the road elevation must always be conducted in parallel to increases in drainage

capacity. Otherwise, the hazard of a road on a high embankment, intended to be flood-free

can be much worse than for a low level road, if a flood overtops the road. The risk of this

happening needs to be reduced by a combination of higher embankment level and increased

drainage capacity in the culverts and under the bridges, all of which add to costs.

111. Inadequate cross drainage can not only pose a hazard to the road itself but can also

cause localized flooding to nearby property.

112. In places where there are clearly defined water channels and sufficient gradients for

water to flow at all times of the year, then the capacity of the cross drainage should be

increased by around 25% - 30% relative to a design based on current known rainfall.

113. All cross drains be they pipe or box culvert should be of minimum diameter 1200mm to

make for easy cleaning and removal of blockages.

114. Drainage calculations require knowledge of rainfall intensities over different time periods

at different Annual Return Intervals. These can be in the form of tables or IDF curves. The

following tables relevant to this project are provided by MPWT.

35

115. Climate studies showed that up to the year 2055 peak rainfall intensity will vary generally

in the range of -7% (for annual) to +25% (for short term storms) compared with intensities in

the current standard for road and bridge design. Therefore the following table can be used

with this correction factor.

Table 1-10 Rainfall Intensity Pochentong Airport – Current

Table 1-11 Rainfall Intensity Siem Reap – Current

Table 1-12 Rainfall Intensity Kampong Thom – Current

36

116. For all stations the one hour rainfall is about 35% of the total daily rainfall. However,

the study of exceptional rainfall events in Cambodia has revealed that a 24 hour storm water

rainfall of 69 mm can be reached in as little as 1 hour. In Phnom Penh the average 1 hour to

24 hour rainfall ratio is of the order of 60% so in that case the current IDF curves strongly

underestimate short term rainfall intensities.

For convenience MPWT have produced a graph linking all daily rainfall figures to hourly

figures, although this gives high hourly values.

Figure 1-13 Rainfall Ration 1 Hour to 24 Hours

37

117. IDF curves must be used very cautiously in design. Error factors of 2 to 1 are common.

However overestimating the anticipated rainfall will give a higher safety factor in the design of

the drains.

1.15.6. Bridge Standards 118. The most important change to bridge design will be a slight increase in spans to allow

for larger storm flows from more extreme rainfalls. The ideal bridge design is a single span.

The soffit of bridges must be 0.5m clear of the 1 in 100 Year flood level to clear floating debris

such as logs and branches which could damage the bridge.

119. Minor changes due to wind loads and temperature changes may be needed. For bridge

design the historical maximum shade air temperatures for bridge design should be increased

by 3oC.

120. Average wind speed will increase in winter, spring and autumn months, but decrease

in the summer months (MONRE 2011). The projected changes in metres per second are very

small.

1.15.7. Geometry 121. Crossfall on sealed roads should be 2% minimum to avoid ponding. It is reported that

Super-elevation seems to be inadequate for curves for 80 km/h operating speed. In road

sections with super-elevation lateral drains can be constructed on one side only. This gives a

cost saving but the drains must be sized to carry twice the normally expected road surface

runoff.

1.15.8. Construction Materials 122. The MPWT Central Laboratory proposed the following pavement composition for roads

on embankment above the expected flood level :

Sub-grade: 570 mm from a borrow area with PI 7%, MDD 2.1g/cc and CBR>10

Subbase: 250 mm laterite stabilized with 3% cement in some sections if necessary

Base: 200 mm crushed aggregate

Wearing course - 20mm DBST with 19/12mm aggregates & slow curing emulsion.

123. Bitumen can deteriorate in sunshine and oxidise, losing its polymerization properties

and crack. Bitumen is also sensitive to changes in temperature, with high-temperature events

leading to both rutting and cracking. Bitumen composition should reflect warmer future

temperatures. Cracking is exacerbated by high axle loads and potholes result. This in turn

leads to ponding which worsens the road surface roughness. Maintaining a sealed surface is

imperative. The wearing course surface dressing should extend to the edge of the shoulders

38

to assist in runoff and avoid downward percolation. The wearing course surface should be

maintained sealed to discourage upwards movement of water through capillary action. The

cement stabilization is intended to strengthen the subbase in the event of flood inundation.

1.15.9. Maintenance 124. The importance of maintenance cannot be over emphasized. No matter how good the

design a lack of maintenance will render it ineffective. As indicated above cross drains should

be increased in diameter to be a minimum of 1200mm to make for ease of clearing debris.

125. Many drains are reported to be choked due to silt and rubbish. Bar screens should be

installed on upstream inlets to pipes to catch floating debris. Vertical screens are easier to

clean by manual labor.

126. Local communities can be hired for drain cleaning and grass cutting. This only needs

unskilled labor and providing of some simple tools. The community sense of ownership can

improve the efficiency of maintenance.

1.16. Costs

1.16.1. Elevation 127. The costs for including rises in road elevation are significant. Examples quoted from

MPWT documentation are given below.

128. The cost of the Baseline Road to which the percentage increase applies is an elevation

of 0.75metres above grade as a minimum at a slope of 1 vertical to 2 horizontal, with no road

widening, width 11m and with sodding, costed at $160/m of road.

Table 1-13 Estimated cost increases for geometry adjustments

1.16.2. Cross Drains 129. Cost increments do not allow for additional cross drainage which is site specific.

However based on Australian standards, as a minimum on flat terrain cross drains should be

provided at least at 300m intervals. In the above case they would be at least 11m length plus

wing walls and minimum sizing of 1200mm. This will allow costing at current unit prices.

39

Overestimating the anticipated rainfall will give a higher safety factor in the design of the

drains. This MPWT “new method” based on rainfall ratios for Cambodia can be used in design.

This gives the cost increases given below.

Table 1-14 Estimated Cost Increases for Drainage Adjustments

1.16.3. Pavement 130. The costs of improvements of the pavement surface are substantial, and on par with

changes to road elevation rises and extension of side slopes. The increase in costs for a

pavement upgrade are given below relative to a Baseline case of DBST 20 mm not including

shoulders.

Table 1-15 Estimated cost increases for pavement type upgrades

1.16.4. Detailed Costs The FRMI software considers risk in general terms where road sections are possibly 1km in

length. In reality only a smaller section of road may require additional climate resilience

measures. A FRMI subroutine will carry out these calculations but it is very site specific. This

needs to be addressed at the detailed design stage.

1.17. Summary and Conclusions 131. Flooding does not necessarily inflict damage to every road. Roads properly designed

and maintained in perfect condition will remain at no or at very low risk of flood damage. Roads

recently rehabilitated will better withstand flood damages, and are likely to be considerably

less damaged through flooding than un-rehabilitated roads.

132. The MPWT FRMI software has been used to assess flood risk to roads. The level of

risk is based on a future projection to 2055 with RCP 8.5. FRMI considers sections of roads.

40

These may be longer than the actual stretch of road likely to be damaged. The FRMI costs

subroutine allows for calculating costs of shorter lengths of road.

133. The roads NR1 and NR6 are rated as being at “Moderate” risk in the future. Variations

in Tonle Sap and Mekong levels will depend on water level manipulations at dams and on

future timber cutting of lands. The comparison of flood damage risks to roads under current

climate condition and of the same risks under future climate conditions is approximate and

can be carried out only to illustrate the magnitude of changes.

134. In FRMI Road Resilience is assessed through three indicators, the pavement surface

roughness, the pavement type and the condition of the drainage structures.

135. Climate resilience related adjustments can be made to civil works through (i) the design

of road embankments and roadside ditches which are susceptible to erosion, (ii) using less

moisture susceptible materials or hydraulically-stabilized materials usually with cement or lime

within the road structure so that structural layers do not lose significant strength upon flooding

and soaking, and (iii) by using green engineering to improve the water conservation

characteristics of the watershed and to divert run-off water away from the road.

136. Technical specifications can be varied to improve climate resilience. Details are given

in this chapter. Maintenance is essential. All culverts should be a minimum of 1200mm

diameter to facilitate cleaning.

137. Major roads and bridges should be designed to withstand a 1 in 100 year flood level

with 0.5m freeboard. Provincial and district roads should be designed to withstand a 1 in 10

year flood level with 0.25m freeboard.

138. If data on rainfall is lacking daily rainfall figures can be used to estimate hourly rainfall

for drainage design calculations. In general 1 hourly is 20-40% of daily although figures of

60% have been recorded around Phnom Penh. When in doubt a higher figure should be used.

139. Climate change will cause an increase in short term intense rainfall. An increase of

20% on existing rainfall intensity should be allowed for future events.