‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺪﺍﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺨﻼﺹ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )‪(SFDR‬‬

‫ﺗﺸﺎﺭﻟﺰ ﺟﺎﻫﺮﻳﻦ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺴﻲ‬

‫ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻟﻠﻨﻘﻞ‬

‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻭﻻﻳﺔ ﻟﻮﺍ‬

‫ﺗﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ )ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ( ‪2018‬‬

‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺉﻲ ‪33-2018‬‬

‫‪mndot.gov/research‬‬ ‫•‬
‫ﻟﻄﻠﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺑﺘﻨﺴﻴﻖ ﺑﺪﻳﻞ ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﺮﺍﻳﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺤﺮﻭﻑ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ‪ ،‬ﺍﺗﺼﻞ ‪651-366-4718‬ﺃﻭ ‪)1800-657-3774‬ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﺮﻯ(‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺃﺭﺳﻞ ﻃﻠﺒﻚ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﺮﻳﺪ ﺍﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ .ADArequest.dot@state.mn.us‬ﻳﺮﺟﻰ ﻃﻠﺐ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻘﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺳﺒﻮﻉ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺎ‪.‬‬
 ‫ﺻﻔﺤﺔ ﺗﻮﺛﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﻲ‬
‫‪ .3‬ﺭﻗﻢ ﺍﻧﻀﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻠﻤﻴﻦ‪.‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺭﻗﻢ‪.‬‬
‫‪MN / RC 2018-33‬‬
‫‪ .5‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ‬ ‫‪ .4‬ﺍﻟﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ‬

‫ﺗﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ )ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ( ‪2018‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺪﺍﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺨﻼﺹ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )‪(SFDR‬‬
‫‪.6‬‬

‫‪ .8‬ﺃﺩﺍء ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺭﻗﻢ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .7‬ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ )ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ(‬

‫ﺑﺎﺭﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﻗﺎﺳﻤﻲ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﻴﺎﻧﻬﻮﺍ ﻳﻮ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻮﻝ ﻟﻴﺪﺗﺠﻲ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭ‪ .‬ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻓﺮ‬

‫‪ .10‬ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ‪ /‬ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻤﺔ ‪ /‬ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺭﻗﻢ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .11‬ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺪ )‪ (C‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺤﺔ )‪ (G‬ﺭﻗﻢ‪.‬‬
‫)ﺝ( ‪21 (WO) 99004‬‬
‫‪ .13‬ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻐﻄﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮ‬
‫‪ .14‬ﻛﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻮﻛﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺎﻣﺰ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺸﺎﺭﻟﺰ ﺟﺎﻫﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫‪ .9‬ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﺳﻢ ﻭﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻟﻠﻨﻘﻞ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻭﻻﻳﺔ ﻟﻮﺍ‬
‫‪، Suite 4700 Ames، IA 50010‬‬
‫‪2711 S. Loop Drive‬‬
‫‪ .12‬ﺍﺳﻢ ﻭﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺲ ﺑﺤﻮﺙ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ‬
‫ﻗﺴﻢ ﺧﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﻮﺙ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺑﻮﻻﻳﺔ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ‬

‫‪330 St. Paul، Minnesota 55155-1899‬‬

‫‪395 John Ireland Boulevard، MS‬‬
‫‪ .15‬ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ ﺗﻜﻤﻴﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫‪http://dot.state.mn.us/research/reports/2018/201833.pdf‬‬
‫‪ .16‬ﺍﻟﻤﻠﺨﺺ )ﺍﻟﺤﺪ ﺍﻷﻗﺼﻰ‪ 250 :‬ﻛﻠﻤﺔ(‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺗﻮﺛﻴﻖ ﺃﺩﺍء ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺼﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )‪ (FDR‬ﻭ (‪ FDR )SFDR‬ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ‪ SFDR‬ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻟﻤﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺇﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻭﻣﻮﺍﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ‪ FDR / SFDR‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ‪ ،‬ﺷﺎﺭﻙ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ‪ FDR‬ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﻢ ﺑﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﺧﺼﺎﺉﺺ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻃﺮﻕ ‪.FDR / SFDR‬‬

‫ﺗﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻟﻸﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ‪ FDR / SFDR‬ﻭﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻢ ﺗﻮﺯﻳﻊ ﻣﺴﺢ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ‬
‫ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﺎﺕ ‪ .SFDR‬ﺛﻢ ﺗﻢ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺛﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻗﺴﻢ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ FDR / SFDR‬ﻣﻦ ﺛﻤﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ ﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻢ ﺟﻤﻊ‬
‫ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺩﺍء ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﻗﺴﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺼﻰ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ )‪ (GE‬ﻹﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺎﻓﺊ ﺍﻟﺤﺒﻴﺒﻲ ﻟﻄﺒﻘﺎﺕ ‪FDR / SFDR‬‬
‫ﺑﻨﺎء ًﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺣﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺎﻓﺉﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ )‪ (ESALs‬ﻭﻗﻴﻢ ‪ R‬ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺿﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﺸﻴﺮ ﻗﻴﻢ ‪ GE‬ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺴﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺄﺛﺮ ﺭﺟﻌﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻤﻤﻴﻦ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺟﺢ ﻗﻴﻢ ‪ GE‬ﻟﻄﺒﻘﺎﺕ ‪ FDR / SFDR‬ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻮﺻﻰ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻻﺣﺘﻔﺎﻅ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ ﺑﻘﻴﻢ ‪ GE‬ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ‪ .FDR / SFDR‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻛﺒﺎﺕ ﺑﻄﻴﺉﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﻛﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺳﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﻗﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﺩﺍء ﻗﻮﻳﺎً ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎً ﻟﻄﺒﻘﺎﺕ ‪ .FDR / SFDR‬ﺃﺷﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﺳﺘﻄﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﺟﻬﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺉﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ‪ FDR / SFDR‬ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻤﺖ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺘﻬﺎ ﺗﺆﺩﻱ ﺃﺩﺍء ًﺟﻴﺪﺍً‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﺪﻣﻴﺮ ﺃﻧﻤﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﺸﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎً ﻣﺎ ﺗﻨﻌﻜﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﺮﺍﻛﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺧﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻱ )‪ .(HMA‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﻳﺮﻏﺐ ﺻﺎﻧﻌﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ‪ FDR / SFDR‬ﻛﺄﺳﺎﺱ ﻟـ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .18‬ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻓﺮ‬ ‫‪ .17‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ‪ /‬ﻭﺍﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ‬

‫ﻻ ﻗﻴﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻣﺘﺎﺡ ﻣﻦ‪:‬‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﺼﻼﺡ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ ‪ ،‬ﺗﻜﺴﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ‪،‬‬
‫ﺧﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺻﻴﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺮﺟﻴﻨﻴﺎ ‪22312‬‬
‫‪ .22‬ﺍﻟﺴﻌﺮ‬ ‫‪ .21‬ﻋﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺤﺎﺕ‬ ‫‪ .20‬ﻓﺉﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺎﻥ )ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺤﺔ(‬ ‫‪ .19‬ﻓﺉﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺎﻥ )ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ(‬
‫‪98‬‬ ‫ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺼﻨﻒ‬ ‫ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺼﻨﻒ‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺪﺍﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻫﻴﻞ ﻟﻌﻤﻖ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ )‪(SFDR‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮ‬

‫ﺃﻋﺪﺕ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ‪:‬‬

‫ﺑﺎﺭﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﻗﺎﺳﻤﻲ‬
‫ﺟﻴﺎﻧﻬﻮﺍ ﻳﻮ‬
‫ﺑﻮﻝ ﻟﻴﺪﺗﺠﻲ‬
‫ﺭ‪ .‬ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻭﻳﻠﻴﺎﻣﺰ‬
‫ﺗﺸﺎﺭﻟﺰ ﺟﺎﻫﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﻭﺗﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻭﻻﻳﺔ ﺁﻳﻮﺍ‬

‫ﺗﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ )ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ( ‪2018‬‬

‫ﻧﺸﺮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ‪:‬‬

‫ﻗﺴﻢ ﺧﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﻮﺙ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺑﻮﻻﻳﺔ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ‬

‫‪330 St. Paul، Minnesota 55155-1899‬‬

‫‪395 John Ireland Boulevard، MS‬‬

‫ﻳﻤﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺟﺮﺍﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻤﺜﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻭﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻭ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺠﻠﺲ ﺃﺑﺤﺎﺙ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻭﻻﻳﺔ ﺃﻳﻮﺍ‪ .‬ﻻ ﻳﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺤﺪﺩﺓ‪.‬‬

‫ﻻ ﻳﺆﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﻭﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺠﻠﺲ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﻷﺑﺤﺎﺙ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﻭﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻭﻻﻳﺔ ﺃﻳﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺠﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻨﻌﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﻷﺳﻤﺎء‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻨﻌﺔ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻷﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ‪.‬‬
 ‫ﺷﻜﺮ ﻭﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮ‬
‫ﻳﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﻮﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺘﺮﻓﻮﺍ ﺑﻮﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ )‪ (MnDOT‬ﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ‪ .‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺸﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻠﺲ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﻷﺑﺤﺎﺙ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ )‪ (LRRB‬ﻭﻣﻮﻇﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺳﺎﻋﺪﻭﺍ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ‪.‬‬
 ‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ‪ 1‬ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‪1 .................... .................................................. ..............................................‬‬

‫‪ 1.1‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ‪1 ......................... .................................................. ...‬‬

‫‪ 1.2‬ﺍﻟﻤﺰﺍﻳﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﻮﺩ ‪2 ..................... .................................................. ..............................................‬‬

‫‪ 1.3‬ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻭﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﻀﺎﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ‪3 ................. ...‬‬

‫‪ 1.4‬ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺸﺎﺉﻲ ‪7 ............................... .................................................. ...‬‬

‫‪ 1.5‬ﻃﺮﻕ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺞ ‪8 ........................... .................................................. ...‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺒﺖ ﺃﺳﻔﻠﺖ ‪1.5.1 FDR 8 ................... .................................................. ...........................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺒﺖ ﺑﺎﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ‪1.5.2 FDR 14 ................. .................................................. ...‬‬

‫‪ 1.6‬ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺎﻟﻴﻒ ﻭﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﻗﻊ ‪14 .................. .................................................. .............................................‬‬

‫‪ 1.7‬ﺿﺒﻂ ‪ /‬ﺿﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺩﺓ ‪15................ .................................................. ...‬‬

‫‪ 1.8‬ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺠﺴﻴﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺤﻮﻗﺔ ‪15..................... .................................................. ...‬‬

‫‪ 1.9‬ﻗﻴﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﻘﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ‪15................................................ .............................................‬‬

‫‪ 1.10‬ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ ‪16 ............ .................................................. ...............................................‬‬

‫‪ 1.11‬ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ‪16 ..................... .................................................. ...............................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ‪ :2‬ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ‪ SFDR‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ‪18 ................................. ...‬‬

‫‪ 2.1‬ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺷﺤﻴﻦ ﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ‪19 ....... .................................................. ...‬‬

‫‪ 2.2‬ﺍﻟﺨﻼﺻﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺔ ‪19 .... .................................................. ...‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ‪ :3‬ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺪﺍﻧﻲ ‪20 .......... .................................................. ...‬‬

‫‪ 3.1‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻔﺤﺺ ‪24 ....................... .................................................. ............................................‬‬

‫‪ 3.2‬ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ‪ -‬ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺮﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ‪24 ................................... .........................................‬‬

‫‪ 3.3‬ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﺉﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﺮﻳﺔ ‪52 ............ .................................................. ...‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ‪ :4‬ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﻠﻲ ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺗﺮ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮ ‪57 ...‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ‪ :5‬ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺎﺕ ‪71 ................... ...‬‬

‫‪ 1993 5.1‬ﺇﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺃﺭﺻﻔﺔ ‪ AASHTO‬ﻟﻸﺭﺻﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻧﺔ ‪71 ...... ...‬‬

 ‫‪ 5.2‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ‪MnDOT GE ... .................................................. .......................... 71‬‬

‫‪ 5.3‬ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺎﺕ ‪76. .................................................. ..............................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺍﺟﻊ ‪78 ................................. .................................................. .................................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﻠﺤﻖ ﺃ ﺃﺳﺉﻠﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﻠﺤﻖ ﺏ ﺟﺮﺩ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ‪FDR‬‬

‫ﻗﺎﺉﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﺷﻜﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .1‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ FDR‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺪﺍﺕ‪1 ..... .................................................. .................................................. .‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .2‬ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻼﺯﻣﺔ ﻟـ ‪ FDR‬ﻭﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ‪2 ........ .....................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .3‬ﻣﺨﻄﻂ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻓﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ ﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ‪5 ..... .................................................. .‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .4‬ﺧﺮﻳﻄﺔ ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺛﻤﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺃﻗﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‪20 ......................................... .‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .5‬ﺟﻬﺎﺯ ﺣﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ‪24 .... .................................................. .................................................. .‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .6‬ﺟﻬﺎﺯ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪DCP ............................................ .................................................. .................... 25‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .7‬ﺇﻋﺪﺍﺩ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ‪IDT .......................................... .................................................. ...... 57‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .8‬ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺴﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪ 1‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ﺑﺈﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺭﻏﻮﻱ‪62 ............................ .‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .9‬ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﺭﺉﻴﺴﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪ 2‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ﻣﻊ ‪ CSS1 3.5٪ + 1.5٪‬ﺃﺳﻤﻨﺖ ‪62 ...............‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .10‬ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﺭﺉﻴﺴﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪ 3‬ﻣﻊ ‪FDR. .................................................. ...........63‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .11‬ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺴﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪ 4‬ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ‪63.................................... .‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .12‬ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﺭﺉﻴﺴﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪ 5‬ﻣﻊ ﺗﺤﻜﻢ ‪FDR. ................................................ 64‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .13‬ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺴﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪ 6‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ‪FDR. .................................................. ........... 64‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .14‬ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺴﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪ 7‬ﻣﻊ ‪EE. ............................................... 65‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .15‬ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺴﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪ 10‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ‪65 .................................. .‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .16‬ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪66 ........... .................................................. .‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .17‬ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺩﺩ ﻛﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻟﺴﺮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺭﺓ ‪68 .......................................... ...‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .18‬ﻣﺨﻄﻂ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺭﺻﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻨﻴﺔ ‪73 ................................................ ...........................................‬‬

 ‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .19‬ﺧﺮﻳﻄﺔ ﺗﺮﺑﺔ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ‪MnPAVE .......................................... ................................... 74‬‬

‫ﻗﺎﺉﻤﺔ ﺟﺪﺍﻭﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .1‬ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ‪FDR ... .................................................. ........................ 4‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .2‬ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻟﻤﻀﺎﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ‪6 ............................................. ..........................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .3‬ﺍﻟﺤﺪ ﺍﻷﺩﻧﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ‪ Caltrans SFDR‬ﻷﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺒﺘﺎﺕ ‪7 ...............................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .4‬ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ ‪SFDR ... .................................................. ...... 8‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .5‬ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ‪ SFDR‬ﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺷﻴﻔﺮﻭﻥ ‪10 ............................................ ...‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .6‬ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﺝ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻴﻨﺔ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻃﻴﻦ ‪10 ................................................. ...‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .7‬ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﺩﺍء ﻛﻮﻟﻮﺭﺍﺩﻭ ﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻞ ‪...‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .8‬ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﺩﺍء ﺇﻟﻴﻨﻮﻱ ﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺭﺍﺑﻂ ‪11 .....................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .9‬ﻣﻮﺍﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻟﻴﻨﻮﻱ ﻟـ ‪FDR ... ..................... 12‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .10‬ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﺝ ‪ SCDOT‬ﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻉ ‪SFDR ... .......................... 13‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .11‬ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ‪SCDOT ... ............................................ 13‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .12‬ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺣﺠﻢ ﺧﻄﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻃﻴﻦ ﻟـ ‪SFDR .......................................... .................................................. ......15‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .13‬ﻗﻴﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﻘﺲ ﻟﺒﻨﺎء ‪SFDR ... ...................................... 16‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .14‬ﺃﻗﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺪﺍﻧﻲ ‪21 ........... .................................................. ............................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .15‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 81 ،‬ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪27 ........................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .16‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 81 ،‬ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺮ ‪ ،‬ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪27 .........‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .17‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 11 ،‬ﺷﺎﺭﻉ ‪ ، 375‬ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ‪ /‬ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪28 ...........‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .18‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 11 ،‬ﺷﺎﺭﻉ ‪ ، 375‬ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ‪ /‬ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺕ ‪28 .................................................. .................................................. .................................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .19‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪Chisago ، CSAH 20 ، Furuby Road ، FDR control ................................ .29‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .20‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 20 ،‬ﺷﺎﺭﻉ ‪ ، Furuby‬ﺗﺤﻜﻢ ‪FDR .................. 29‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .21‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪ ، Kanabec ، TH 65‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ، 1‬ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻢ ‪ ، FDR‬ﻧﻮﻉ ‪FDR control rut ....... 30‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .22‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺎﺑﻚ ‪ ، TH 65 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ، 1‬ﺗﺤﻜﻢ ‪ ، FDR‬ﺍﻛﺘﺐ ‪FDR‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻄﺮﺓ ‪30 ................................................. .................................................. ................................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .23‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪ ، Kanabec ، TH 65‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ CSS1 ، 2‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻛﺘﺐ ‪CSS1 rut ............. 31‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .24‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺎﺑﻚ ‪ ، TH 65 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ CSS1 ، 2‬ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺕ ‪CSS1 ................................................ .................................................. .................................................. ... 31‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .25‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺎﺑﻚ ‪ ، TH 65 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ، 3‬ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺕ ‪ ، EE‬ﺍﻛﺘﺐ ‪EE rut 0 .................. 32‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .26‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺎﺑﻚ ‪ ، TH 65 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ EE ، 3‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ‪EE‬‬
‫ﺷﺒﻖ ‪32 ......... .................................................. .................................................. ................................................ 0‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .27‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ، 5‬ﺗﺤﻜﻢ ‪ ، FDR‬ﻭﺿﻊ ‪ 1/10‬ﻓﻲ ‪33 .....................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .28‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ، 5‬ﺗﺤﻜﻢ ‪ ، FDR‬ﻭﺿﻊ ‪ 1/10‬ﻓﻲ ‪33 .......‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .29‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ EE ، 2‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ‪EE rut 0 ................... 34‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .30‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ EE ، 2‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ‪EE‬‬
‫ﺷﺒﻖ ‪34 ......... .................................................. .................................................. ................................................ 0‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .31‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ، 1‬ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ‪ CSS1‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺧﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺎﻗﺔ‬
‫ﺳﻨﺘﺎﻥ‪35. .................................................. .................................................. ................................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .32‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ، 1‬ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ‪ CSS1‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪،‬‬
‫ﺭﻗﺎﻗﺔ ﺧﺘﻢ ﺳﻨﺘﻴﻦ ‪35 ...................................... .................................................. ..............................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :33‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ، 3‬ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ‪FA‬‬
‫ﺷﺒﻖ ‪36 ......... .................................................. .................................................. ................................................ 0‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .34‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ، 3‬ﺃﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺭﻏﻮﻱ‬

‫ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻛﺘﺐ ‪FA rut 0 ............................................ .................................................. ................................ 36‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .35‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ BaseOne ، 4‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻛﺘﺐ ‪BaseOne‬‬
‫ﺷﺒﻖ ‪37 ......... .................................................. .................................................. ................................................ 0‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .36‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ BaseOne ، 4‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻛﺘﺐ‬
‫‪BaseOne rut 0 .......................... .................................................. .................................................. ............... 37‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .37‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 74 ،‬ﺷﺎﺭﻉ ‪ ، 347‬ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪38 .....................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :38‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 74 ،‬ﺷﺎﺭﻉ ‪ ، 347‬ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪38 .......‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .39‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪Chisago ، CSAH 24 ، Lofton Ave ، FDR control ................................ .... 39‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .40‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 24 ، Lofton Ave ،‬ﺗﺤﻜﻢ ‪FDR ..................... 39‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :41‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 19 ، Stacy Trail ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ‪ /‬ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪،‬‬
‫ﺷﺒﻖ = ‪40 ....... .................................................. .................................................. ............................................... 0‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .42‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 19 ، Stacy Trail ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ‪ /‬ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺕ ‪ ،‬ﺷﺒﻖ = ‪40 .......................................... .................................................. ............................................. 0‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .43‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﺑﺸﺎ ‪ CSAH 9 ، FDR ،‬ﻣﻊ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻹﺟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻓﺉﺔ ‪ 2) 5‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ( ‪ ،‬ﻣﺨﺘﻮﻣﺔ ﻣﺆﺧﺮﺍً ﺻﻴﻒ ‪41 ...... .................................................. ...................................... 2017‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :44‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﺑﺎﺷﺎ ‪ CSAH 9 ، FDR ،‬ﻣﻊ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻹﺟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺉﺔ ‪ 5‬ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺪﻟﺔ )‪ 2‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ( ‪ ،‬ﻣﺨﺘﻮﻣﺔ ﻣﺆﺧﺮﺍً ﺻﻴﻒ ‪41 .......................................... ..................................... 2017‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :45‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﺑﺎﺷﺎ ‪ CSAH 16 ، 12 ،‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮ ‪ FDR‬ﻣﻊ ‪BaseOne‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻼﻁ ﻣﻐﻠﻖ ﻣﻐﻠﻖ ﺧﺮﻳﻒ ‪42 ...... .................................................. ........................................ 2016‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .46‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﺑﺎﺷﺎ ‪ .CSAH 16 ، 12 in ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮ ‪ FDR‬ﻣﻊ‬

‫ﻋﻠﻮﻱ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻼﻁ ﻣﻐﻠﻖ ﻣﻐﻠﻖ ﺧﺮﻳﻒ ‪BaseOne 42 ......................................... ....................................... 2016‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :47‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺑﻠﻮ ﺇﻳﺮﺙ ‪ TH 30 ، 6 ،‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ )‪ 15‬ﺳﻢ( ﺇﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺭﻏﻮﻱ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺕ = ‪ 1/10‬ﻓﻲ ‪43 ................................................... .................................................. ..........................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :48‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺑﻠﻮ ﺇﻳﺮﺙ ‪ TH 30 ، 6 ،‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ )‪ 15‬ﺳﻢ( ﺃﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺭﻏﻮﻱ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮﺓ ‪ ،‬ﺷﺒﻖ = ‪ 1/10‬ﻓﻲ ‪43 ............................ .................................................. .........................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .49‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﺩﺝ ‪ CSAH 10 ، FDR ،‬ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪44 ....................... ... 2010‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .50‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﺩﺝ ‪ CSAH 10 ، FDR ،‬ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪44 .......... ... 2010‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :51‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺭﺍﻳﺲ ‪ CSAH 29 ، 10 ،‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ‪ FDR‬ﻣﻊ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ﺗﺴﻄﻴﺢ ﺑﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻦ ‪ ،‬ﻻ‬
‫ﺷﻘﻮﻕ ﻣﺮﺉﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺮﺍﻛﺐ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ﻋﺎﻣﻴﻦ ‪45................. .................................................. ...........................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :52‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺭﺍﻳﺲ ‪ CSAH 29 ، 10 ،‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ‪ FDR‬ﻣﻊ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺢ ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺗﺸﻘﻘﺎﺕ ﻣﺮﺉﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺮﺍﻛﺐ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ﻋﺎﻣﻴﻦ ‪45 ................................................ ........................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .53‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺭﺍﻳﺲ ‪ CSAH 26 ، 12 ،‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ‪ FDR‬ﻣﻊ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ﺗﺴﻄﻴﺢ ﺑﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻦ ‪...‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .54‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺭﺍﻳﺲ ‪ CSAH 26 ، 12 ،‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ‪ FDR‬ﻣﻊ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ﺗﺴﻄﻴﺢ‬
‫ﺑﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻦ ‪46 ........................ .................................................. .................................................. ..........................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .55‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﺩﺝ ‪ Co Hwy 27 ، 2006 ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﻣﻊ ‪BaseOne ........ 47‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .56‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﺩﺝ ‪ Co Hwy 27 ، 2006 ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﻣﻊ‬
‫‪BaseOne .............................. .................................................. .................................................. .................... 47‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .57‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ DCP ، Goodhue County ، CSAH 11 ، FDR‬ﻣﻦ ‪48 ............. .................................. 2012‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .58‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ DCP ، Goodhue County ، CSAH 11 ، FDR‬ﻣﻦ ‪48 ................................. 2012‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .59‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪ Goodhue ، CSAH 7 North ، FDR‬ﻣﻦ ‪49 ...... ... 2005‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .60‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪ Goodhue ، CSAH 7 North ، FDR‬ﻣﻦ ‪... 2005‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :61‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪ Goodhue ، CSAH 7 South ، FDR‬ﻣﻦ ‪rut 1/10 in. ................... 50 ، 1998‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .62‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪ Goodhue ، CSAH 7 South ، FDR‬ﻣﻦ ‪ ، 1998‬ﺭﻭﺕ‬
‫‪ 1/10‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ‪50 ....... .................................................. .................................................. .............................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .63‬ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ‪ DCP‬ﻟﻌﻼﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ‪51 ..............................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .64‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻗﻴﻢ ‪ CBR‬ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻨﻔﺔ ﻟﻌﻼﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ‪52 ...... ...‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .65‬ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺏ ‪52 ............ .................................................. ............................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .66‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻐﺎﺛﺔ ‪53 ............ .................................................. ...‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .67‬ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ‪58 ................................ .................................................. ...‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .68‬ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻣﻌﺪﺓ ﻟﻼﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﻠﻲ ‪59 ...................................... ..........................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .69‬ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ‪60 .................. .................................................. ...‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .70‬ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺃﺩﺍء ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ‪67 ... .......................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .71‬ﺳﺮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺮﺩﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﺑﻞ ‪67 .................................... ..........................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .72‬ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻣﻨﺎﻃﻖ ﺳﺮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺭﺓ ‪69 ............ .......................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .73‬ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺉﻴﺔ ‪73 ..................................... .................................................. .............................................‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .74‬ﺗﺼﻨﻴﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ‪ ، MnDOT‬ﻭﻗﻴﻢ ‪ R‬ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ‪...‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .75‬ﻗﻴﻢ ‪ GE‬ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺴﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺄﺛﺮ ﺭﺟﻌﻲ ﻟﻄﺒﻘﺎﺕ ‪SFDR ... ................................................... 75‬‬
 ‫ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﻠﺨﺺ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺅﻫﺎ ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻫﺪﻑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺑﺤﺚ ‪ INV981‬ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺑﻊ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻠﺲ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ‬
‫ﻷﺑﺤﺎﺙ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ )‪ (LRRB‬ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ "ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺪﺍﻧﻲ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﺼﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ "،‬ﻋﻘﺪ ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﺑﻮﻻﻳﺔ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ‬
‫)‪ ، 99004 (MnDOT‬ﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪ ، 21‬ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎﺩﺍً ﺇﻟﻰ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪ 369‬ﻟـ ‪.Minnesota LRRB‬‬

‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺼﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )‪ (FDR‬ﻫﻮ ﺗﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﻹﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﺄﻫﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺳﺤﻖ ﺟﺰء ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻭﺟﺰء‬
‫ﻣﺤﺪﺩ ﻣﺴﺒﻘﺎً ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﺰﺟﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﺎً ﻹﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻣﺴﺎﺭ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﺘﺠﺎﻧﺴﺔ ﻭﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪ FDR‬ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮ‬
‫)‪ ، (SFDR‬ﻭﻫﻮ ‪ FDR‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ﻛﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﺔ ﻹﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﻛﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﻭﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮﺓ ﻟﻠﻄﺮﻳﻖ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﻭﻻﻳﺔ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﺰﺍﻳﺪ ﺍﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺑـ ‪ FDR‬ﻟﻸﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺗﺪﻫﻮﺭ ﺷﺒﻜﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﻌﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﻔﺾ ﺗﻤﻮﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﺎﻧﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺨﺎﻭﻑ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺪﺍﻣﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻔﻴﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻘﻖ ﺍﻻﻧﻌﻜﺎﺳﻲ‪ .‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺎﺕ ﻣﻊ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻧﻘﺺ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺒﺮﺓ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ‬
‫ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺕ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪ SFDR‬ﻭﻧﻘﺺ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻷﺩﺍء ﻃﻮﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻯ ﻷﻗﺴﺎﻡ ‪ FDR / SFDR‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﺴﻦ ﺑﺬﻝ ﺟﻬﺪ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺩﺍء ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﻬﺪﻑ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻮﺛﻴﻖ ﺃﺩﺍء ﻃﺮﻕ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪ SFDR‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ‪SFDR‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻟﻤﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ‪ .‬ﺗﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺍﻹﺿﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺇﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻭﻣﻮﺍﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪SFDR‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﻭﻻﻳﺔ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ‪ FDR‬ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻭﺧﺼﺎﺉﺺ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻃﺮﻕ‬
‫‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪ .SFDR‬ﺳﺘﺴﻬﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺗﺠﺎﺭﺏ ‪ FDR‬ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﺄﻫﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﻓﻲ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪ SFDR‬ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎﺭﺓ‪.‬‬

‫ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺗﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻟﻸﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻭﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻓﻲ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪.SFDR‬‬
‫ﺗﻢ ﺗﻮﺛﻴﻖ ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻊ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﻴﻠﻴﺔ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪ .SFDR‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﻮﺯﻳﻊ ﺍﺳﺘﻄﻼﻉ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺪﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻘﺎً ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺢ ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ‪ BaseOne‬ﻭﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻋﺎً ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ‪ .SFDR‬ﻣﻦ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ‪،‬‬
‫‪ ، BaseOne‬ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻋﺮﺿﻲ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺍﻻﺗﺼﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺑﻮﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﻤﺘﻠﻚ ﻃﺮﻗﺎً ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺮﺷﺤﺔ ﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﻟﻠﻄﺮﻕ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ‬
‫ﻓﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪ .‬ﻗﺪﻣﺖ ‪ MnDOT‬ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﻭﺛﺎﺉﻖ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻴﺔ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻗﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪ SFDR‬ﻭﺳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺑﺤﺜﻴﺔ ﻣﺤﺘﻤﻠﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺑﻨﺎء ًﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ‪ FDR‬ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮﺓ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ‪، CSS1 ،‬‬
‫‪ + BaseOne‬ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﻲ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﻟﻼﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻠﺤﻮﻅ ﻣﻦ ‪ FDR‬ﺃﻭ ‪ FDR‬ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ﻭﺧﻠﻴﻂ ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ‪ .‬ﻛﺸﻔﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺉﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻀﻴﻖ ﻋﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻛﻤﻴﺎﺕ ﻗﻠﻴﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﻖ ﻣﻊ ﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻔﻴﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻘﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺰﻕ‪ .‬ﺃﺷﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺗﺤﻠﻴﻼﺕ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﻧﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪ SFDR‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻗﻞ ﺻﻼﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺧﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮﺫﺟﻴﺔ )‪ (HMA‬ﻓﻲ ﻇﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﺿﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮﺫﺟﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ‬
‫ﻓﻘﺪﺕ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ‪ SFDR‬ﺻﻼﺑﺔ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻭﺿﻮﺣﺎً ﺗﺤﺖ ﺃﺣﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺩﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺨﻔﺾ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ًﺑﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺧﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮﺫﺟﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻗﺪ ﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺕ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪ SFDR‬ﺳﺘﺤﺘﻔﻆ ﺑﻘﺪﺭﺗﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﺍﻷﺣﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﻴﻠﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻋﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺨﻔﻀﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺟﻴﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺧﻦ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺼﻰ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ )‪(GE‬‬
‫ﻹﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺎﻓﺊ ﺍﻟﺤﺒﻴﺒﻲ ﻟﻄﺒﻘﺎﺕ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪ SFDR‬ﺑﻨﺎء ًﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺣﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺎﻓﺉﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬
‫)‪ (ESALs‬ﻭﻗﻴﻢ ‪ R‬ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺿﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﺘﺮﺍﻭﺡ ﻗﻴﻢ ‪ GE‬ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺴﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺄﺛﺮ ﺭﺟﻌﻲ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ 1.16‬ﻭ ‪ ، 1.53‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻤﻤﻴﻦ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺟﺢ ﻗﻴﻢ ‪ GE‬ﻟﻄﺒﻘﺎﺕ ‪ FDR‬ﺃﻭ ‪ SFDR‬ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺑﻨﺎء ًﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﺳﺒﻖ ‪ ،‬ﻳﻮﺻﻰ ﺑﺎﻻﺣﺘﻔﺎﻅ ﺑﻘﻴﻢ ‪ GE‬ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪ .SFDR‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻛﺒﺎﺕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻄﻴﺉﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺳﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺒﺮﺭ ﺗﻮﻗﻊ ﺃﺩﺍء ﻗﻮﻱ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎً ﻟﻄﺒﻘﺎﺕ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪ .SFDR‬ﻻﺣﻆ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻛﺒﺎﺕ ﺑﻄﻴﺉﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﻛﺔ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﺮﺽ ﺃﺩﺍء ﺃﻱ ‪ HMA‬ﻟﻠﺨﻄﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻢ ﻟﺘﺮﺍﻛﺐ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪ SFDR‬ﻣﻌﺮﻭﻓﺔ ﺟﻴﺪﺍً ﺑﺘﺪﻣﻴﺮ ﺃﻧﻤﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﺸﻘﻮﻕ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻴﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎً ﻣﺎ ﺗﻨﻌﻜﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﺮﺍﻛﺒﺎﺕ ‪ HMA‬ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﺸﻴﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﻄﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﺟﻬﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺉﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪ SFDR‬ﻗﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺟﻴﺪ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺩ ؛ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﻳﺮﻏﺐ ﺻﺎﻧﻌﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪ SFDR‬ﻛﺄﺳﺎﺱ ﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ‪ 1‬ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺗﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺼﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻣﻞ )‪ (FDR‬ﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺍﺉﺪ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻴﺉﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻃﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺨﺎﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﺄﻫﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ‪ .‬ﺗﻤﺖ ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻬﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﺘﻮﺛﻴﻖ ﺗﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﻣﻊ ‪ .FDR‬ﺗﻐﻄﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺍﻧﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺉﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ‪ ، FDR‬ﺑﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ‪ ،‬ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺷﺢ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻜﺎﻟﻴﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﻗﻊ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻠﻲ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺞ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺮﺍﻗﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺩﺓ ﻭﺇﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﺿﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺩﺓ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1.1‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء‬

‫ﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺇﻧﺸﺎء ‪ FDR‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﺧﻄﻮﺍﺕ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺠﻴﻢ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻴﻞ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ )‪et al. 2012‬‬
‫‪) (Morian‬ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .(1‬ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ًﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺠﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﺮ ﺃﺣﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ‬
‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﻤﺮﻳﺮﻳﻦ‪.‬‬

‫‪Wirtgen America Inc.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .1‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ FDR‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺪﺍﺕ‪.‬‬

‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺮ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺳﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﻤﻖ ﻭﺣﺠﻢ ﺟﺴﻴﻤﺎﺕ ﻣﺤﺪﺩﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﻢ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻛﺎﻡ ﻭ ‪ /‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺍﻹﺿﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻟﺰﻡ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ‪ .‬ﺛﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺗﻤﺮﻳﺮﺓ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﺨﻠﻂ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻹﺿﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻣﻮﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺤﻮﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﻹﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺧﻠﻴﻂ ﻣﺘﺠﺎﻧﺲ‪ .‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﻤﻬﺪﺓ ﺁﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻻﺳﺘﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻧﺒﻲ ﻟﻠﺴﻄﺢ ﻭﺿﻐﻄﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻬﺪﻓﺔ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺮﻳﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‬

‫‪1‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺇﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ )‪ (Kandhal and Mallick 1997‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻗﻄﺎﺭ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻭﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻭﺣﺪﺗﻴﻦ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺍﺕ ﻟﺒﻨﺎء ‪ ، FDR‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﺃﻗﻞ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻣﺎً ﻣﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻭﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺮﺩﺓ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1.2‬ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺍﺉﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﻮﺩ‬

‫ﻳﻌﻴﺪ ‪ FDR‬ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮ )‪ (SFDR‬ﺗﺪﻭﻳﺮ ‪ ٪100‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﻤﺔ ﻭﻳﻌﻴﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﺮﻩ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻔﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ )ﺃﻱ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﻪ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺭ‪ .‬ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺪ ﺍﻷﺩﻧﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﺒﻜﺮ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺨﺰﻳﻦ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻢ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﺭ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻭﻗﺖ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﻮﻓﺮ ﻓﻮﺍﺉﺪ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺑﻴﺉﻴﺔ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﻔﺎﻅ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻗﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻮﺿﺢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ 2‬ﺃﻥ ‪ SFDR‬ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ‪ ٪90‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻭ ‪ ٪80‬ﻣﻦ ﻭﻗﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺰﻝ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺑﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ )‬
‫‪.(PCA 2005‬‬

‫© ‪ 2005‬ﺟﻤﻌﻴﺔ ﺃﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﺑﻮﺭﺗﻼﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﺑﺈﺫﻥ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .2‬ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻼﺯﻣﺔ ﻹﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻭﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺗﻜﻠﻔﺔ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ (‪ Diefenderfer et al. )2011a‬ﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺗﻜﺎﻟﻴﻒ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ‪SFDR‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺎﺣﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﻛﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪﻯ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ‪ 50‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎً‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻼﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﻛﺐ ‪ 2‬ﺃﻭ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻃﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻄﺤﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﻭ ‪ SFDR‬ﻣﻊ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﻛﺐ ‪ 3‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﻴﻦ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﺿﻴﻴﻦ ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﻟﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻢ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﺗﻜﻠﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺝ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻨﻲ ﺑﻨﺎء ًﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻓﺮﺟﻴﻨﻴﺎ )‪ .(VDOT‬ﺗﺸﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻠﻔﺔ ﺻﻴﺎﻧﺔ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ‪ SFDR‬ﺃﻗﻞ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ‪ ٪16‬ﻣﻦ ﺗﻜﻠﻔﺔ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻇﻬﺮ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺃﺟﺮﺗﻪ ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﺑﺠﻮﺭﺟﻴﺎ )‪ (GDOT‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﺎﻟﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﺍﻧﺨﻔﻀﺖ ﺑﻨﺴﺒﺔ ‪ ٪42‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ ﺍﻟﻮﻛﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫‪ FDR‬ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺒﺖ ﺑﺎﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﺑﺪﻻ ًﻣﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ )‪ .(Lewis et al.2006‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺍﺉﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻴﺉﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ‪ SFDR‬ﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺤﻴﺔ ﻭ‬

‫‪2‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻧﺒﻲ ﻟﻠﺮﺻﻴﻒ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﺴﻤﺢ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﻖ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻀﺎء ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻱ ﻧﻤﻂ ﺗﻜﺴﻴﺮ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺨﻔﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺴﻴﺮ ﺍﻻﻧﻌﻜﺎﺳﻲ‪ .‬ﺗﻘﻠﻞ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺒﺘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻤﻴﺎﺉﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺠﻴﺮ ﺃﻭ ﻛﻠﻮﺭﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻟﺴﻴﻮﻡ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ًﺇﻟﻰ ﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺳﻤﺎﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ًﺇﻟﻰ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﻫﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﺤﺴﻨّﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻮﺩ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ‪ SFDR‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﻜﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺪﻋﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﻭﺍﻻﻓﺘﻘﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻨﻲ‪ .‬ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ‬

‫ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎء ﻟﺘﺴﻬﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻂ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ‪ .‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻛﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺑﻨﺎء ‪ ، SFDR‬ﺗﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ‪ SFDR‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻋﺮﺿﺔ ﻟﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﺳﻄﺤﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ‬

‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺗﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﺃﻱ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﻣﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ )‪ .(Kandhal and Mallick 1997‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﻓﻲ ﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﻣﻨﺎﺧﻴﺔ ﺩﺍﻓﺉﺔ ﻭﺟﺎﻓﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺤﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﻓﻲ ‪ .SFDR‬ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻳﺠﺐ‬

‫ﺣﻈﺮ ﺃﺣﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﺉﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﻫﻄﻮﻝ ﺍﻷﻣﻄﺎﺭ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺇﻃﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺗﺴﺒﺐ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺄﺧﻴﺮ ﺑﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺤﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﻮﺓ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ‪ SFDR‬ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﻣﻨﺨﻔﻀﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﺴﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﺤﻖ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺧﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺐ )‪ (HMA‬ﺃﻭ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺨﺮﺳﺎﻧﺔ ﻭﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻧﺎﻋﻤﺔ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎً‪ .‬ﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ‪ SFDR‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻣﺎﺩﻳﺴﻮﻥ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻴﺴﻴﺴﻴﺒﻲ ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧﻪ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻢ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻓﻲ ‪،‬‬

‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺴﺒﺐ ﻭﺯﻥ ﻣﻌﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﺜﻘﻴﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﺟﺴﻴﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺘﻴﺔ ﻭﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ‪ .SFDR‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ‪ SFDR‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﺘﺴﺐ ﻣﻦ ‪ ٪15‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ٪45‬ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﺗﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ )‪ .(Diefenderfer et al. 2011b‬ﻭﻣﻊ‬

‫ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺉﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﻴﻔﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺑﻨﺎء ﻣﺴﺎﺭ ﺳﻄﺤﻲ ﻳﻮﻓﺮ ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﻫﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺴﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﺤﻖ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺧﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺐ )‪ (HMA‬ﺃﻭ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺨﺮﺳﺎﻧﺔ‬

‫ﻭﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻧﺎﻋﻤﺔ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎً‪ .‬ﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ‪ SFDR‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻣﺎﺩﻳﺴﻮﻥ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻴﺴﻴﺴﻴﺒﻲ ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧﻪ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻢ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻓﻲ ‪ ،‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺴﺒﺐ ﻭﺯﻥ ﻣﻌﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﺜﻘﻴﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﺟﺴﻴﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺘﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻭﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ‪ .SFDR‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ‪ SFDR‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﺘﺴﺐ ﻣﻦ ‪ ٪15‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ٪45‬ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﺗﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ )‪ .(Diefenderfer et al. 2011b‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺉﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﻴﻔﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻢ‬

‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﺑﻨﺎء ﻣﺴﺎﺭ ﺳﻄﺤﻲ ﻳﻮﻓﺮ ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﻫﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺴﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﺤﻖ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺧﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺐ )‪ (HMA‬ﺃﻭ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺨﺮﺳﺎﻧﺔ ﻭﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻧﺎﻋﻤﺔ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎً‪ .‬ﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ‪ SFDR‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻣﺎﺩﻳﺴﻮﻥ ‪،‬‬

‫ﻣﻴﺴﻴﺴﻴﺒﻲ ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧﻪ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻢ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻓﻲ ‪ ،‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺴﺒﺐ ﻭﺯﻥ ﻣﻌﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﺜﻘﻴﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﺟﺴﻴﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺘﻴﺔ ﻭﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ‪ .SFDR‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ‪ SFDR‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﺘﺴﺐ ﻣﻦ ‪ ٪15‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ٪45‬ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﺗﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ‬

‫ﻋﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ )‪ .(Diefenderfer et al. 2011b‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺉﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﻴﻔﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺑﻨﺎء ﻣﺴﺎﺭ ﺳﻄﺤﻲ ﻳﻮﻓﺮ ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﻫﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ‪ SFDR‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﺘﺴﺐ‬

‫ﻣﻦ ‪ ٪15‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ٪45‬ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﺗﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ )‪ .(Diefenderfer et al. 2011b‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺉﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﻴﻔﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺑﻨﺎء ﻣﺴﺎﺭ ﺳﻄﺤﻲ ﻳﻮﻓﺮ ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﻫﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ‪ SFDR‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﺘﺴﺐ ﻣﻦ ‪ ٪15‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ٪45‬ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﺗﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ )‪ .(Diefenderfer et al. 2011b‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺉﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﻴﻔﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺑﻨﺎء ﻣﺴﺎﺭ‬

‫ﺳﻄﺤﻲ ﻳﻮﻓﺮ ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﻫﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﻗﺪ ﻃﻮﺭﺕ ﻃﺮﻕ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻄﺔ ﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ‪ ، SFDR‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻢ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﻩ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻨﻲ ﻻ ﻳﺰﺍﻝ ﻏﺎﺉﺒﺎً‪ .‬ﺗﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﺤﻀﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻃﺮﻕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻤﺎﺕ ‪ SFDR‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺒﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻤﻢ‪ .‬ﻳﺤﺪ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺳﺎﺉﺪﺓ ﻭﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ‪ SFDR‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻃﻖ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﺧﺒﺮﺓ ﺑﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1.3‬ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﺿﺎﻓﻲ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ‬

‫ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪ SFDR‬ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻓﺎﻋﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﺉﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺤﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ‬
‫ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﻣﺴﺢ ﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ‪ FDR‬ﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﻣﻌﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﻃﻮﺭﺕ ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻨﺴﻠﻔﺎﻧﻴﺎ )‪(PennDOT‬‬
‫ﺟﺪﻭﻻً )ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ (1‬ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﻣﺮﺷﺤﺎً ﺟﻴﺪﺍً ﻟﻌﻼﺝ ‪ FDR‬ﺃﻡ ﻻ‪.‬‬

‫‪3‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .1‬ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ‪FDR‬‬

‫ﺗﺸﻴﺮ ‪ X‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ FDR‬ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎً‬ ‫ﺿﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ‬

‫ﻋﻴﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺢ‬
‫ﺧﺮﺏ‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫‪ ‬‬
‫ﺗﺪﻓﻖ ﻣﺎﺉﻰ ‪ -‬ﺻﺮﻑ‬

‫ﺍﻻﻧﺰﻻﻕ‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫ﺗﺸﻮﻩ‬
‫ﺗﻤﻮﺟﺎﺕ‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﻀﺤﻠﺔ‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫‪3 ، 2X‬‬ ‫ﺭﻭﺗﻴﻨﺞ ﺩﻳﺐ‪1‬‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺴﻴﺮ )ﺍﻟﺤﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺗﺒﻂ(‬
‫‪X‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺴﺎﺡ‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫ﻃﻮﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫‪X‬‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺠﻠﺔ‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫‪X‬‬ ‫ﺣﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫ﺍﻻﻧﺰﻻﻕ‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫ﺗﻜﺴﻴﺮ )ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﻤﻞ(‬
‫‪X‬‬ ‫ﻛﺘﻠﺔ )ﺍﻧﻜﻤﺎﺵ(‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫ﻃﻮﻟﻴﺔ )ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ(‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫‪X‬‬ ‫ﻋﺮﺿﻲ )ﺣﺮﺍﺭﻱ(‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫‪X‬‬ ‫ﺍﻧﻌﻜﺎﺱ‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫ﺗﺮﻗﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﺎﻧﺔ‬
‫‪4X‬‬ ‫ﺭﺫﺍﺫ‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫‪4X‬‬ ‫ﺑﺸﺮﺓ‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫‪X‬‬ ‫ﺃﺧﺪﻭﺩ‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫‪X‬‬ ‫ﺩﻳﺐ ﻫﻮﺕ ﻣﻴﻜﺲ‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫‪X‬‬ ‫ﺿﻌﻒ ﺟﻮﺩﺓ ‪ /‬ﺧﺸﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻛﻮﺏ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫‪5X‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺨﻔﻀﺎﺕ )ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻮﻳﺔ( ﺍﻟﺒﻘﻊ‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫‪6X‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺗﻔﻌﺔ )ﺍﻟﺮﻓﻊ(‬ ‫‪ ‬‬
‫‪ 1‬ﺍﻟﺸﻖ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺷﺊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻠﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ )ﺗﺤﺖ ﻣﺠﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺢ ﻭﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺘﻴﺔ(‪.‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﻗﺪ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻛﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻄﻠﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻄﺎﺕ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮﺓ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 3‬ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻤﻴﺎﺉﻲ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺘﻴﺔ ﻣﻄﻠﻮﺑﺎً ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻧﺎﻋﻤﺔ ﻭﺭﻃﺒﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﻓﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻻﺕ ‪ ،‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺇﺯﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺫﺍﺫ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻘﻊ ﺍﻟﺠﻠﺪﻳﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻄﻴﻂ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺩ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺟﺎﺕ )ﻳﺮُﺍﻋﻰ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻏﻨﻴﺎً‬

‫ﺟﺪﺍً ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺰﻳﻒ(‪.‬‬
‫‪5‬ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺨﻔﻀﺎﺕ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺳﻮء ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 6‬ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺗﻔﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺗﺠﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻘﻴﻊ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺭﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺘﺪﺓ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺪﺭ‪Morian et al. 2012 :‬‬

‫ﻳﺘﺮﺍﻭﺡ ﺳﻤﻚ ‪ FDR‬ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮﺫﺟﻲ ﻣﻦ ‪ 6‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 9‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ﻭﻧﺎﺩﺭﺍً ﻣﺎ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻋﻦ ‪ 12‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻷﺭﺻﻔﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﺮﺳﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻴﻜﺔ )‪ (AC‬ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ‪ FDR‬ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﺳﻤﻜﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ‪ 12‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ً‬
‫ﻣﺮﺷﺤﺔ ﺟﻴﺪﺓ ﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ‪ .FDR‬ﻗﺪ ﺗﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﻣﺮﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﺇﺳﻔﻠﺘﻴﺔ ﺳﻤﻴﻜﺔ ﻟﺘﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﺩﻋﻢ‬
‫ﻫﻴﻜﻠﻲ ﻛﺎﻑ‪ ٍ.‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺴﺒﺐ ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﻟﻌﻼﺝ ‪ .FDR‬ﺗﺤﻈﺮ ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﺑﻮﻻﻳﺔ ﻧﻴﻮﻳﻮﺭﻙ‬
‫)‪(NYSDOT‬‬

‫‪4‬‬
 ‫ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ‪ FDR‬ﻟﻠﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺑﻬﺎ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻠﻴﻮﻥ ﺣﻤﻞ ﺃﺣﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻮﺭ )‪ (ESALs‬ﻣﻜﺎﻓﺊ ﻟﺤﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﺭ )‪(NYSDOT‬‬
‫‪.2015‬‬

‫ﻳﺠﺐ ﺍﺗﺨﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﻠﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺑﻨﺎء ًﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺳﻼﻣﺔ ﻫﻴﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻒ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﺼﺎﺉﺺ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﺒﺮ‪ .‬ﺗﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﻃﺮﻕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺉﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺮﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ )‪ ، (DCP‬ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻧﺤﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻮﺯﻥ ﺍﻟﺨﻔﻴﻒ )‪ ، (LWD‬ﻭﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻧﺤﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻮﺯﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻗﻂ )‪) (FWD‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ ‪ .(2012‬ﺍﻟﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺘﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺮﺻﻒ )‬
‫‪ .(Morian et al. 2012، Caltrans Division of Maintenance 2012‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺘﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﺒﺮ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﺎﻝ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﺪﻭﻧﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺣﺠﻢ ﺟﺰﻳﺉﺎﺕ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺍﺉﻞ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺑﺮﻭﻛﺘﻮﺭ )ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺎﻥ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‬
‫‪ .(2012‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﻣﺮﺍﻋﺎﺓ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻜﺎﻧﻴﻜﻲ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﻮﺍﺩ ﻣﺠﻤﻌﺔ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﻮﺳﻴﻊ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺍﻟﺴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻲ ﻟﺤﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎً ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻨﻲ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﻳﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺗﻌﺮﺽ ﻷﻛﺴﺪﺓ ﻭﺗﺄﻛﺴﺪ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ‬
‫ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﻣﺨﻄﻂ ﺗﺪﻓﻖ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ )ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ (3‬ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﺗﺨﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺑﺎﻟﺨﺼﺎﺉﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺉﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎً‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻨﻲ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﻳﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺗﻌﺮﺽ ﻷﻛﺴﺪﺓ ﻭﺗﺄﻛﺴﺪ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﻣﺨﻄﻂ ﺗﺪﻓﻖ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ )ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪(3‬‬
‫ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﺗﺨﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺑﺎﻟﺨﺼﺎﺉﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺉﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎً ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻨﻲ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﻳﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺗﻌﺮﺽ ﻷﻛﺴﺪﺓ ﻭﺗﺄﻛﺴﺪ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﻣﺨﻄﻂ ﺗﺪﻓﻖ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ )ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ (3‬ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﺗﺨﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺑﺎﻟﺨﺼﺎﺉﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺉﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺎﻥ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪2012 .‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .3‬ﻣﺨﻄﻂ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻓﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ ﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﻃﻮﺭ ‪ PennDOT‬ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺒﺖ ﺑﻨﺎء ًﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﺝ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻬﺮﺱ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﺳﺘﻴﻜﻲ ﻭﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺤﻮﻗﺔ )ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪.(2‬‬

‫‪5‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .2‬ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻟﻤﻀﺎﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ‬

‫ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﻃﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﻤﻲ‬ ‫ﺟﻲﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺭﺍﻧﻮﻻﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻫﻨﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻫﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﻋﻀﻮﻱ‬ ‫ﺣﺴﻨﺎً ‪ -‬ﺳﻴﺊ‬ ‫ﺳﻲء‬ ‫ﻧﺤﻦ ﺳﻮﻑ‪-‬‬

‫ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻃﻤﻲ ﻃﻴﻨﻲ ﻣﺘﺪﺭﺝ ﻣﺘﺪﺭﺝ ﻃﻤﻲ ﻃﻴﻨﻲ ‪ ،‬ﻃﻤﻲ ﻗﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻫﻦ ‪ /‬ﻣﺮﻥ ﻋﻀﻮﻱ‬ ‫ﻃﺮﻱ‬ ‫ﻣﺘﺪﺭﺝ‬ ‫ﻣﺘﺪﺭﺝ‬
‫ﺭﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻃﻤﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺠﺎﻑ‬ ‫ﺭﻣﻞﺑﺎﻟﺮﻣﻞ ﻃﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺭﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﺭﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﺭﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﺣﺼﻰ‬ ‫ﺣﺼﻰ‬ ‫ﺣﺼﻰ‬ ‫ﺣﺼﻰ‬
‫‪CH‬‬ ‫‪MH‬‬ ‫‪OL‬‬ ‫‪CL‬‬ ‫‪SC ML‬‬ ‫‪SM‬‬ ‫‪GC SW SP‬‬ ‫‪GM‬‬ ‫‪GP‬‬ ‫ﻏﻴﻐﺎﻭﺍﻁ‬ ‫ﻧﺴﺒﻪ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﻪ‬
‫ﺃ ‪ 1-‬ﺏ ﺃ ‪4-2-‬‬ ‫ﺗﻤﺮﻳﺮ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ‪A-5‬‬ ‫‪A-3-A‬‬
‫ﺃﻭ ‪ A-2-6‬ﺃﻭ ‪ A-4‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫ﺑﻼﺳﺘﻴﻚ‬ ‫ﺭﻗﻢ ‪200‬‬
‫ﺃ ‪6-7-‬‬ ‫ﺃ ‪5-7-‬‬ ‫ﺃ ‪4-‬‬ ‫ﺃ ‪5-‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪A-2-6 A-1-b A-1-b A-2-5 A-2-7‬‬ ‫ﺃ ‪ 1-‬ﺏ‬ ‫ﺃ‪-1-‬ﺃ‬ ‫ﺃ‪-1-‬ﺃ‬ ‫ﻣﺜﺒﺖ‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﻏﺮﺑﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺑﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻦ‬ ‫>‪6‬‬
‫>‪ 10‬ﻳﺒﻨﻲ‬ ‫>‪25‬‬
‫< ‪ 10‬ﺟﻴﺮ‬
‫>‪ 10‬ﻳﺒﻨﻲ‬
‫‪10-30‬ﺟﻴﺮ‬
‫< ‪25‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﻴﺮ ‪+‬‬
‫< ‪30‬‬
‫ﻳﺒﻨﻲ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺪﺭ‪Morian et al. 2012 :‬‬

‫‪6‬‬
 ‫ﺗﺤﺪﺩ ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺎﻟﻴﻔﻮﺭﻧﻴﺎ )‪ (Caltrans‬ﻧﻮﻉ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺍﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻣﻪ ﺑﻨﺎء ًﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺪﺭﺝ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺤﻮﻗﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺆﺷﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﺪﻭﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﻴﻤﺔ ‪ R‬ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺺ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪.3‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .3‬ﺍﻟﺤﺪ ﺍﻷﺩﻧﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ Caltrans SFDR‬ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﻷﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺒﺘﺎﺕ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻠﻴﻮﻧﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫‪3R-‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺗﺪﺭﺝ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ‪ /‬ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﻛﻴﻞ‬
‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪ ٪‬ﺍﺟﺘﻴﺎﺯ ‪٪15 - ٪5 :200 #‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ ‪ +‬ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ‪1AC‬‬

‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪PI >12‬‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ‪2‬‬ ‫ﻳﺒﻨﻲ‬

‫<‪5‬‬ ‫‪PI >40‬‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻠﻴﺔ‬

‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪PI >6‬‬ ‫‪ ٪‬ﻳﺠﺘﺎﺯ ‪٪20 ≥ 200 #‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ ‪ +‬ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ‪AC‬‬
‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪PI >6‬‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ‬
‫<‪5‬‬ ‫‪PI >40‬‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻠﻴﺔ‬

‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪ ٪‬ﺍﺟﺘﻴﺎﺯ ‪٪15 - ٪5 :200 #‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ ‪ +‬ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ‪AC‬‬
‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪PI >12‬‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ‬ ‫ﺇﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺭﻏﻮﻱ‬
‫< ‪20‬‬ ‫‪PI >12‬‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻠﻴﺔ‬

‫‪1‬ﺃﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺰﺝ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻭﻓﻘﺎً ﻟﻌﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻲ ‪ .FDR‬ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ‪ 2‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ‪.‬‬

‫‪2‬ﻗﺪ ﻻ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ‪.‬‬

‫‪3‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺗﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻜﺎﻧﻴﻜﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻲ ﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻞ ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ‪ R‬ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻄﻠﻮﺏ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ‪Caltrans Division of Maintenance 2012، Caltrans Division of Maintenance 2013 :‬‬

‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺇﺩﺧﺎﻝ ﻣﻮﺍﺩ ﻋﺬﺭﺍء ﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻞ ﺧﺼﺎﺉﺺ ﻣﻮﺍﺩ ﺭﺻﻒ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﺮﻩ )‪ (RAP‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﻴﻔﺎء ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻃﺮﻕ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻫﻴﻞ ﺑﺨﻼﻑ ‪ SFDR‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﻪ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻳﺎً‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1.4‬ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺸﺎﺉﻲ‬

‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ ‪ SFDR‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺛﺎﺑﺘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺸﺎﺉﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻭﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻻﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺑﺤﺚ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ‪ .SFDR‬ﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪4‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮﺫﺟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻟـ ‪ SFDR‬ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺃﻭﺻﻰ ﺑﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﺣﺜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﻮﻥ‪.‬‬

‫‪7‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .4‬ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻠﻴﺔ ‪SFDR‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻠﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻭ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ‬ ‫ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬ ‫ﻣﺼﺪﺭ‬
‫‪0.30‬‬ ‫ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺃﻻﺑﺎﻣﺎ )ﺑﻴﺘﺮﺯ ﺩﻳﻔﻴﺲ‬
‫‪0.23‬‬ ‫ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺑﺎﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺠﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻭﺗﻴﻢ ‪(2009‬‬
‫‪0.30 - 0.25‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭ ‪SFDR‬‬
‫ﺑﻨﺴﻠﻔﺎﻧﻴﺎ )ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺎﻥ‬
‫‪0.37 - 0.30‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻤﻴﺎﺉﻴﺔ ‪SFDR‬‬
‫ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪(2012 .‬‬
‫‪0.14‬‬ ‫ﻛﻠﻮﺭﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻟﺴﻴﻮﻡ ‪SFDR‬‬
‫‪0.20‬‬ ‫ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻛﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺑﺎﻻﺳﻤﻨﺖ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺟﻴﻨﻴﺎ )‪(VDOT 2003‬‬
‫‪0.18‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺠﻴﺮ‬
‫‪0.35 - 0.22‬‬ ‫ﺇﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺭﻏﻮﻱ ‪SFDR‬‬ ‫ﻣﺎﺭﻛﻴﺰ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪al. )2011( (2003) .‬‬
‫‪0.22 - 0.16‬‬ ‫ﺃﺳﻤﻨﺖ ‪ +‬ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ‪SFDR‬‬ ‫‪Nantung et‬‬
‫‪0.18‬‬ ‫ﺇﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺭﻏﻮﻱ ‪SFDR‬‬ ‫(‪Romanoschi et al. )2004‬‬

‫ﺗﻮﺿﺢ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ 4‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻠﻲ ﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ‪ SFDR‬ﻳﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﻭﻻﻳﺔ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﺣﺼﻰ ﻧﻤﻮﺫﺟﻲ )‪ (GE‬ﻳﺒﻠﻎ ‪ 1.5‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺳﻤﻚ ‪ .SFDR‬ﺗﻢ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺑﻨﺎء ًﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺑﺤﺜﻲ ﺣﻘﻖ ﻓﻲ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ‪ FWD‬ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺃﺟﺮﻳﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺮﻕ ‪ SFDR‬ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺜﺒﺘﺎﺕ ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ )‪ .(Tang et al. 2012‬ﺗﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺜﻮﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻴﻢ ‪ GE‬ﻟـ ‪ SFDR‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﺃﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ ﺃﻥ ﺻﻼﺑﺔ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ‪ SFDR‬ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻜﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻼﺑﺔ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ‪ FDR‬ﻏﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮﺓ ﺃﻭ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺗﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﻧﻤﻮﺫﺟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1.5‬ﻃﺮﻕ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺞ‬

‫‪ 1.5.1‬ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺒﺖ ‪FDR‬‬

‫ﺗﻢ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﻃﺮﻕ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻂ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﺮﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻞ ﻃﺮﻕ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﻟـ ‪ .HMA‬ﺗﺴُﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ًﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﺉﻲ ﻹﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻭﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺩ )ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻭﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺎﻥ ]‪ .([CIR‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻣﻬﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﻼﺹ ﺑﻌﻤﻖ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻛﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ‪.‬‬

‫ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ،‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺺ ﻃﺮﻕ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﺰﻳﺞ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻤﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻭﺷﻴﻔﺮﻭﻥ ﻭﻛﻮﻟﻮﺭﺍﺩﻭ‬
‫ﻭﺇﻟﻴﻨﻮﻱ ﻭﺑﻨﺴﻠﻔﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﻭﻛﺎﺭﻭﻟﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﻮﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻴﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﺪﺳﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺠﻴﺶ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ )‪ (USACE‬ﻟـ ‪ SFDR‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ‪ .‬ﻟﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﻀﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺿﺎﻏﻂ ﺩﻭﺍﺭ ‪ Marshall‬ﺃﻭ ‪ Hveem‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫(‪ .Superpave )SGC‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻌﺪﻝ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺑﻨﺎء ًﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻣﺎﺭﺷﺎﻝ ﺃﻭ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺛﺒﺎﺕ ‪، Hveem‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﺪ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ )‪ ، (ITS‬ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﻤﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻏﻴﺮﻫﺎ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1.5.1.1‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ )‪(Asphalt Institute 1983‬‬

‫ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺢ ﺍﻹﺟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ‪ .‬ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﺇﺟﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ‪.1‬‬

‫‪0.035‬ﺃ‪0.045 ‬ﺏ ‪ ‬ﻛﻴﻪ ﺳﻲ ‪F ‬‬

‫ﺹﺝ ‪ ‬‬
‫ﻣﻜﺎﻓﺊ‪1 .‬‬ ‫ﺹ‬

‫‪8‬‬
 ‫ﺹﺝ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺉﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺴﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻉ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺯﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻴﻂ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ‪ A .‬ﻭ ‪ B‬ﻭ ‪ C‬ﻫﻲ ﻛﺴﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺯﻥ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺮﻛﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻔﻆ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺨﻞ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪ ، 8‬ﻣﺮﻭﺭﺍ ًﺑﺎﻟﺮﻗﻢ ‪ 8‬ﻭﺍﻻﺣﺘﻔﺎﻅ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺨﻞ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪ ، 200‬ﻭﻳﻤﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻨﺨﻞ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪، 200‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﻟﻲ‪ K .‬ﺗﺴﺎﻭﻱ ‪ 0.15‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻛﺎﻡ ﻳﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺟﻴﺪ )ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺉﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺮﻛﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻤﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻨﺨﻞ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪200‬‬
‫( ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ ٪11‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ .٪15‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﻴﻖ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ ٪6‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ، ٪10‬ﻓﻴﺠﺐ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ‪ K‬ﺑﻘﻴﻤﺔ ‪ .0.18‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﻴﻖ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ‪ ، ٪5‬ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ‪ K‬ﻫﻲ ‪ F .0.2‬ﻫﻲ ﻣﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻣﺘﺼﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ‪ .‬ﺗﺘﺮﺍﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮﺫﺟﻴﺔ ﻟـ ‪ F‬ﻣﻦ ‪ 0.7‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ .1‬ﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ‪ F 2٪. R‬ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺉﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ‪ .‬ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ‪ R‬ﻣﺘﺴﺎﻭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 1‬ﻟﻸﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ﻭ ‪ 0.6‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 0.65‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺗﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ‪ 2‬ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻌﺪﻝ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺒﻜﺮ ﻓﻲ ‪.SFDR‬‬

‫ﺹﺃ ‪ ‬ﺹ‬
‫ﺹ‪ ‬‬
‫ﺹ ‪  ‬ﺝ‬
‫ﺹ‬

‫ﺹ‬
‫ﺹ‬
‫ﻣﻜﺎﻓﺊ‪2 .‬‬

‫ﻛﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺒﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻄﻠﻮﺑﺔ )ﺹﺹ( ﻳﺘﻢ ﺣﺴﺎﺑﻪ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺇﺟﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺴﻮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ‪1‬‬
‫ﻣﻄﺮﻭﺣﺎً ﻣﻨﻪ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ‪ .RAP‬ﺹﺹ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ‪ RAP‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﺮﻩ ‪ ،‬ﻭ ‪P‬ﺃ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ‬
‫ﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ‪ .RAP‬ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺪﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻄﻠﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1.5.1.2‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺷﻴﻔﺮﻭﻥ )ﺷﻴﻔﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ‪(1982‬‬

‫ﺗﺤﺴﺐ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ‪ Chevron‬ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺭﺍﺑﻂ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺢ ﺍﻹﺟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻣﻜﺎﻓﺊ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺮﻭﺳﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺟﻬﺰﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻛﺰﻱ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ‪ 3‬ﻫﻲ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺢ‪.‬‬

‫ﺹ‬‫ﺹ‬
‫‪0.1  ‬ﺏ‪0.5  ‬ﺝ( ‪ ‬ﺹﺃ ‪ ‬‬ ‫ﻑ‪0.05) ‬ﺃ‬
‫ﺹ‬
‫ﺝ‬
‫ﻣﻜﺎﻓﺊ‪3 .‬‬

‫ﺹﺝ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ‪ 3‬ﻫﻮ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﻄﻠﻮﺏ ﻹﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻭﻳﺮ‪ .‬ﺗﻤﺎﻣﺎً ﻛﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ‪ 1‬ﻭ‬
‫ﺗﻤﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ‪ 2‬ﻭﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ‪ A‬ﻭ ‪ B‬ﻭ ‪ C‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ‪ 3‬ﺗﺪﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﺮﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺜﻮﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ‪P‬ﺃ‪ ،‬ﺹﺹ ﻭﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ‬
‫‪ R‬ﻫﻲ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ‪ ، RAP‬ﻭﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ‪ ، RAP‬ﻭﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺒﻘﻲ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﻟﻲ‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ‪ 4‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻣﻜﺎﻓﺊ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺮﻭﺳﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺟﻬﺰﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻛﺰﻱ‪.‬‬

‫ﺹﺹ ‪ ‬ﺹﺃ ‪ ‬ﺹ‬

‫ﺹ‪ ‬‬
‫ﺹ‬

‫ﺹ‬
‫ﺝ‬
‫ﻣﻜﺎﻓﺊ‪4 .‬‬

‫ﺹﺹ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ‪ 4‬ﻳﻤﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻄﻠﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺪﺭّ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻣﻜﺎﻓﺊ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺮﻭﺳﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺟﻬﺰﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻛﺰﻱ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺇﺿﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻛﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺮﻏﻮﺏ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻲ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ‪ .٪2‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻲ ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﻀﻴﺮ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻟﻼﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﻠﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻣﺤﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺃﺳﻔﻞ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺿﻐﻂ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺿﺎﻏﻂ ﺍﻟﻌﺠﻦ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻟﻴﻔﻮﺭﻧﻴﺎ ﻭﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺛﺒﺎﺕ ‪ Hveem‬ﻭﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ )ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ‪ (R‬ﻭﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﻧﺔ ﻭﻗﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺳﻚ‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻔﻲ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺿﺤﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪.5‬‬

‫‪9‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .5‬ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ‪ SFDR‬ﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺷﻴﻔﺮﻭﻥ‬

‫ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﻼﺝ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬

‫≤ ‪75٪‬‬ ‫ﻃﻼء ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺉﻮﻳﺔ‬
‫‪70‬‬ ‫ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻲ‪1‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ )ﺗﻢ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺣﺮﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ(‬
‫‪78‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺉﻲ‪2‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺝ‬
‫‪50‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺝ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺳﻚ )ﺗﻢ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺣﺮﺍﺭﺓ‬
‫‪ 100‬ﻳﻦ ﻳﺎﺑﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺝ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺉﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺒﻠﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺎء ﻭ‬
‫‪ 60‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺉﻴﺔ(‬
‫‪ 100‬ﻳﻦ ﻳﺎﺑﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺎء‪3‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺝ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺉﻲ ‪ +‬ﻧﻘﻊ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﻧﺔ )ﺗﻢ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺣﺮﺍﺭﺓ‬
‫‪ 150‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ksi 500‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺝ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺉﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ(‬
‫‪30‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺝ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺉﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ )ﺗﻢ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻋﻨﺪ ‪ 60‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ(‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻋﺎﻟﺠﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻟﺐ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺣﺮﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 24‬ﺳﺎﻋﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﻋﺎﻟﺠﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻟﺐ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺣﺮﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 72‬ﺳﺎﻋﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺗﺸﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﻍ ﻋﻨﺪ ‪ 100‬ﻣﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﺉﺒﻖ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1.5.1.3‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻛﻮﻟﻮﺭﺍﺩﻭ‬

‫ﺗﺤﺪﺩ ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻮﻟﻮﺭﺍﺩﻭ )‪ (CDOT‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺞ ﻟـ ‪ SFDR‬ﻭ ‪ CIR‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻛﻮﻟﻮﺭﺍﺩﻭ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﻀﻴﺮ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ‪ SFDR‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﻛﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﻲ ﺑﻤﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺪﺩ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ‬
‫ﺭﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﺤﺪﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﺝ ﻣﻮﺿﺤﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪.6‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .6‬ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﺝ ﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ‪RAP‬‬

‫ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺨﻞ‪ ٪‬ﺗﻤﺮﻳﺮ ‪٪،‬‬

‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪ 1.25‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ‬
‫‪ 90‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪100‬‬ ‫‪ 1‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ‬
‫‪ 80‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪97‬‬ ‫‪ 3/4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ‬
‫‪ 30‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪55‬‬ ‫ﺭﻗﻢ ‪4‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ‪ 5‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪15‬‬ ‫ﺭﻗﻢ ‪30‬‬

‫ﻳﺠﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ‪ ٪50‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ٪75‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﻠﻰ )‪ (OMC‬ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺪﺩ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺑﺮﻭﻛﺘﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺪﻝ )‪ (AASHTO T 180 Method D‬ﻟﻠﺮﻛﺎﻡ ﺑﻤﻜﺎﻓﺊ ﺭﻣﻠﻲ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ‪ 30‬ﻭ ‪ ٪40‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ٪65‬ﻟﻠﺮﻛﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺑﻤﻜﺎﻓﺊ ﺭﻣﻠﻲ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ‪ .30‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ‪ 2‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ٪3‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ‪ OMC‬ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ .proctor‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺧﻠﻂ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ‪ RAP‬ﻣﻊ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻭﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺘﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺒﻮﺍﺕ ﺑﻼﺳﺘﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻳﺒﻠﻎ‬
‫ﻗﻄﺮﻫﺎ ‪ 6‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 30‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 45‬ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ‪ 40‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ‪ SGC‬ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 30‬ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ‪ .‬ﺛﻢ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﻤﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺳﻚ ‪ ، Hveem‬ﻭﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﻧﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻛﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪.7‬‬

‫‪10‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .7‬ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﺩﺍء ﻛﻮﻟﻮﺭﺍﺩﻭ ﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻞ‬

‫ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻄﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻄﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺗﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ< ‪٪8‬‬ ‫ﺗﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ >‪٪8‬‬ ‫ﻋﻴﻨﺔ ﻋﻼﺝ‬
‫ﺗﻤﺮﻳﺮ ‪ 200 #‬ﻏﺮﺑﺎﻝ‬ ‫ﺗﻤﺮﻳﺮ ‪ 200 #‬ﻏﺮﺑﺎﻝ‬ ‫ﺷﺮﻁ‬ ‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﻗﺼﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻯ ‪ ،‬ﺳﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ‪ -‬ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ‬
‫‪ 60‬ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫< ‪150‬‬ ‫< ‪175‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺳﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺪﻝ ‪) AASHTO T 246 ،‬ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ‪، (13‬‬
‫‪ 25‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺟﻢ ‪ 25 /‬ﻣﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﺪ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ )‪، (ITS‬‬
‫‪ ، ASTM D4867‬ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ‪ 25 ، 8.11.1‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ ‪،‬‬
‫< ‪35‬‬ ‫< ‪40‬‬
‫ﺭﻃﻞ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺔ‬
‫< ‪20‬‬ ‫< ‪25‬‬ ‫ﻣﻜﻴﻒ ‪ITS ، ASTM D4867 ، psi‬‬
‫‪ 72‬ﺳﺎﻋﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﻧﺔ ‪ ASTM D4123 ، 25 ،‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ ‪1000 ،‬‬
‫< ‪120‬‬ ‫< ‪150‬‬ ‫‪ 40‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ‬

‫ﺭﻃﻞ ‪ /‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺴﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﺍﺭﻱ )‪AASHTO T 322 ، (ITS‬‬

‫>‪ 20-‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ‬ ‫>‪ 20-‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ‬

‫‪ 1.5.1.4‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺇﻟﻴﻨﻮﻱ‬

‫ﺗﺤﺪﺩ ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻟﻴﻨﻮﻱ )‪ (IDOT‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﺰﻳﺞ ‪ .SGC‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﻀﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ‪ OMC‬ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺪﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪ proctor‬ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺪﻝ )‪ .(ASTM D1557 Method C‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺿﻐﻂ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ‪ SGC‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ‪ 30‬ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺑﻀﻐﻂ‬
‫ﺿﻐﻂ ‪ 600‬ﻛﻴﻠﻮ ﺑﺎﺳﻜﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻟﻠﻘﻮﺓ ﻗﺼﻴﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻯ )‪ (ASTMD1560) (STS‬ﻭ (‪ .ITS )ASTM D4867‬ﻳﺘﻢ‬
‫ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺺ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻮﻝ ﻟﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪.8‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .8‬ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﺩﺍء ﺇﻟﻴﻨﻮﻱ ﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺛﻖ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻞ‬

‫ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺨﺎﻟﻴﻂ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻤﺨﺎﻟﻴﻂ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ >‬
‫< ‪ 8٪‬ﺗﻤﺮﻳﺮ ‪ 200 #‬ﻏﺮﺑﺎﻝ‬ ‫‪ ٪8‬ﺗﻤﺮﻳﺮ ‪ 200 #‬ﻏﺮﺑﺎﻝ‬ ‫ﻣﻠﻜﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﻗﺼﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻯ ‪،‬‬
‫< ‪150‬‬ ‫< ‪175‬‬
‫‪ASTM D1560‬‬
‫ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﺪ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ )‪، (ITS‬‬
‫< ‪35‬‬ ‫< ‪40‬‬
‫‪Conditioned ITS ، ASTM‬‬
‫‪ASTM D4867 ، psi‬‬
‫< ‪20‬‬ ‫< ‪25‬‬
‫ﺭﻃﻞ ‪D4867 ،‬‬

‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻭﺿﻌﺖ ‪ IDOT‬ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ‪ .‬ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻣﻮﺿﺤﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪.9‬‬

‫‪11‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .9‬ﻣﻮﺍﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻟﻴﻨﻮﻱ ﻟـ ‪FDR‬‬

‫ﺃﻗﺼﻰ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺤﺪ ﺍﻷﺩﻧﻰ‬ ‫ﺇﺟﺮﺍء‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻠﺰﻭﺟﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺳﺎﻳﺒﻮﻟﺖ ﻓﻮﺭﻭﻝ ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪ ‪25‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫‪AASHTO T 59‬‬
‫ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ ‪SFS ،‬‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺨﻞ ‪ ،‬ﺭﻗﻢ ‪850) 20‬‬
‫‪0.1‬‬ ‫‪AASHTO T 59‬‬ ‫ﻣﻴﻜﺮﻭﻥ( ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺘﻔﻆ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻏﺮﺑﺎﻝ‪٪ ،‬‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺰﻳﻦ ‪24 ،‬‬
‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪AASHTO T 59‬‬
‫ﺳﺎﻋﺔ ‪٪،‬‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻄﻴﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﻳﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫‪64‬‬ ‫‪AASHTO T 59‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻄﻴﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 175‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ ‪٪،‬‬

‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪AASHTO T 59‬‬ ‫ﻧﻮﺍﺗﺞ ﺗﻘﻄﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﻢ ‪ ،‬ﻧﺴﺒﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ ‪ 25 ،‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ ‪ 100 ،‬ﺟﻢ ‪5 ،‬‬
‫‪200‬‬ ‫‪75‬‬ ‫ﺁﺷﺘﻮ ﺗﻲ ‪49‬‬
‫ﺛﻮﺍﻥ ٍ‪dmm ،‬‬

‫‪ 1.5.1.5‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺑﻨﺴﻠﻔﺎﻧﻴﺎ )ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺎﻥ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ ‪(2012‬‬

‫ﻃﻮﺭ ‪ PennDOT‬ﺇﺭﺷﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻮﺍﺩ ‪ SFDR‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ‪ .‬ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﻛﻠﺘﺎ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺘﻴﻦ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻣﻀﻐﻮﻃﺔ ﻣﻦ ‪ SGC‬ﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ITS‬ﻭﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺞ‬

‫ﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺎء ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻞ ﻟﻠﺮﻏﻮﺓ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﻀﻴﺮ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ‪ SFDR‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻓﻲ ‪ OMC‬ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺪﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ proctor‬ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺪﻝ )‪ .(ASTMD558‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺭﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ‪ ٪2‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ٪3‬ﺇﺫﺍ‬

‫ﺗﻌﺬﺭ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ‪ OMC‬ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻋﻨﺪ ‪ 40‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 30‬ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻂ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺣﺮﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 48‬ﺳﺎﻋﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻣﻚ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ ﺑﻀﻐﻂ ‪ 600‬ﻛﻴﻠﻮ ﺑﺎﺳﻜﺎﻝ ﻭ ‪ 30‬ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ‪ .‬ﻳﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 10‬ﺛﻮﺍﻥ ٍﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻛﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺍﻥ‬

‫ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮ‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺪﺩ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺍً ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻗﻴﻢ ‪ ITS‬ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ‪ psi 50‬ﻭﻧﺴﺐ ‪ ITS‬ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ‪ .0.7‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﺮﺍﻏﺎﺕ ﻫﻮﺍﺉﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﺮﺍﻭﺡ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ ٪6‬ﻭ ‪ .٪8‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﻀﻴﺮ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ‪ SFDR‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ﺑﻨﺴﺒﺔ ‪ ٪85‬ﻣﻦ ‪ OMC‬ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺪﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ )‪ (AASHTO T 99‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ proctor‬ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺪﻝ )‪ .(AASHTO T 180‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻋﻨﺪ ‪ 40‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 30‬ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺿﻐﻄﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺑﺤﺠﻢ ‪ 4‬ﺃﻭ ‪ 6‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ‬

‫ﻟﻠﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻷﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﻴﺔ )‪ (ITS‬ﻛﻤﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻤﻢ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺗﻮﺳﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﻢ ﻟﻺﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺎء ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺎﻃﻊ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﺗﻮﺳﻴﻊ ﺣﺠﻢ ﻧﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮ ﻭﻣﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺪﺩ‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﺮﺍﻏﺎﺕ ﻫﻮﺍﺉﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﺮﺍﻭﺡ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ ٪6‬ﻭ ‪ .٪8‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﻀﻴﺮ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ‪ SFDR‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ﺑﻨﺴﺒﺔ ‪ ٪85‬ﻣﻦ ‪ OMC‬ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺪﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ )‪ (AASHTO T 99‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ proctor‬ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺪﻝ )‪ .(AASHTO T 180‬ﻳﺘﻢ‬

‫ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻋﻨﺪ ‪ 40‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 30‬ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺿﻐﻄﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺑﺤﺠﻢ ‪ 4‬ﺃﻭ ‪ 6‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻟﻠﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻷﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﻴﺔ )‪ (ITS‬ﻛﻤﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻤﻢ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺗﻮﺳﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﻢ‬

‫ﻟﻺﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺎء ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺎﻃﻊ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﺗﻮﺳﻴﻊ ﺣﺠﻢ ﻧﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮ ﻭﻣﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺪﺩ‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﺮﺍﻏﺎﺕ ﻫﻮﺍﺉﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﺮﺍﻭﺡ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ ٪6‬ﻭ ‪ .٪8‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﻀﻴﺮ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ‪ SFDR‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ‬

‫ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ﺑﻨﺴﺒﺔ ‪ ٪85‬ﻣﻦ ‪ OMC‬ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺪﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ )‪ (AASHTO T 99‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ proctor‬ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺪﻝ )‪ .(AASHTO T 180‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻋﻨﺪ ‪ 40‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 30‬ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺿﻐﻄﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺑﺤﺠﻢ ‪ 4‬ﺃﻭ ‪ 6‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ‬

‫ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻟﻠﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻷﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﻴﺔ )‪ (ITS‬ﻛﻤﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻤﻢ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺗﻮﺳﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﻢ ﻟﻺﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺎء ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺎﻃﻊ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﺗﻮﺳﻴﻊ ﺣﺠﻢ ﻧﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮ‬

‫ﻭﻣﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺪﺩ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻋﻨﺪ ‪ 40‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 30‬ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺿﻐﻄﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺑﺤﺠﻢ ‪ 4‬ﺃﻭ ‪ 6‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻟﻠﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻷﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﻴﺔ )‪ (ITS‬ﻛﻤﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻤﻢ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً‬

‫ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺗﻮﺳﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﻢ ﻟﻺﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺎء ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺎﻃﻊ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﺗﻮﺳﻴﻊ ﺣﺠﻢ ﻧﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮ ﻭﻣﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺪﺩ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻋﻨﺪ ‪ 40‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 30‬ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺿﻐﻄﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺑﺤﺠﻢ‬

‫‪ 4‬ﺃﻭ ‪ 6‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻟﻠﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻷﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﻴﺔ )‪ (ITS‬ﻛﻤﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻤﻢ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺗﻮﺳﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﻢ ﻟﻺﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺎء ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺎﻃﻊ ﺑﻴﻦ‬

‫ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﺗﻮﺳﻴﻊ ﺣﺠﻢ ﻧﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮ ﻭﻣﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺪﺩ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1.5.1.6‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺳﺎﻭﺙ ﻛﺎﺭﻭﻟﻴﻨﺎ )‪(SCDOT 2012‬‬

‫ﺍﻝ ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻭﻻﻳﺔ ﻛﺎﺭﻭﻟﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﻮﺑﻴﺔ )‪ (SCDOT‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺪ ﺃﺩﻧﻰ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺑﻘﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺑﻨﺴﺒﺔ ‪ ٪63‬ﻭﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ 55‬ﻭ ‪ .95‬ﺗﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﻣﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﻛﺎﻡ ‪ SFDR‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻠﺒﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﺝ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪.10‬‬

‫‪12‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .10‬ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﺝ ‪ SCDOT‬ﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻉ ‪SFDR‬‬

‫ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ‬ ‫ﺣﺠﻢ ﻏﺮﺑﺎﻝ‬

‫‪100‬‬ ‫ﻏﺮﺑﺎﻝ ‪ 2‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ‬
‫‪97-100‬‬ ‫‪ 1.75‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻏﺮﺑﺎﻝ‬
‫‪0-20‬‬ ‫ﻏﺮﺑﺎﻝ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪200‬‬

‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ‪ OMC‬ﺑﺎﺗﺒﺎﻉ ‪ .AASHTO T 180‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺗﻌﺬﺭ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺟﺎﻓﺔ ﻣﺤﺪﺩ ﺟﻴﺪﺍً ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺠﺐ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ‪.OMC ٪3‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻣﻜﺎﻓﺊ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﻞ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﻀﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﺻﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻬﺔ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻛﻮﻟﻮﺭﺍﺩﻭ ؛ ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻭﺩ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻛﻮﻟﻮﺭﺍﺩﻭ ﺑﻨﻄﺎﻕ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺭﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻤﻼ ًﻗﻠﻴﻼ ًﻟﺘﺤﻀﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺗﺤﻀﻴﺮ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻄﺎﺕ ﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻛﺎﺭﻭﻟﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﻮﺑﻴﺔ ﺑﻨﺴﺒﺔ ‪ ٪60‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ٪75‬ﻣﻦ ‪OMC‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﺮﻛﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻜﺎﻓﺊ ﺭﻣﻠﻲ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ‪ 30‬ﻭ ‪ ٪45‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ٪65‬ﻣﻦ ‪ OMC‬ﻟﻠﺮﻛﺎﻡ ﻣﻊ ﻣﻜﺎﻓﺊ ﺭﻣﻠﻲ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ‪A .30‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﻳﺠﺐ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ ٪2‬ﻭ ‪ ٪3‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻛﺎﻡ ﻳﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺟﻴﺪ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ‪ ٪4‬ﺃﻭ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺜﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺫﺭﻭﺓ ﻟﻤﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻓﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﻀﻴﺮ ﺧﻠﻄﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻂ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻄﻠﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺎء‬
‫ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 60‬ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻀﺎﻑ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﻬﺎء ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ‪ SGC‬ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ‬
‫ﺣﺮﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺿﻐﻂ ﺿﻐﻂ ‪ 600‬ﻛﻴﻠﻮ ﺑﺎﺳﻜﺎﻝ ﻭ ‪ 30‬ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻔﺎﻅ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 10‬ﺛﻮﺍﻥ ٍﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺉﻲ‪ .‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺪﻓﻖ ﻭﺃﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪.11‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .11‬ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ‪SCDOT‬‬

‫ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﻼﺝ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬

‫‪ 0.1‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 0.25‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺉﻲ‪1‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺝ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻓﻖ )‪(AASHTO T 245‬‬
‫‪ 1500‬ﺭﻃﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻲ‪2‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺝ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ )‪(AASHTO T 245‬‬
‫ﻳﻦ ‪ 3000‬ﺭﻃﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺝ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺉﻲ‬
‫‪ 150‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ksi 500‬‬ ‫ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻜﻴﻒ ﺟﺎﻑ‬
‫ﺍﻧﻬﺎ‬
‫≤ ‪ 45‬ﺭﻃﻞ ‪ /‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺔ‬

‫≤ ‪ 25‬ﺭﻃﻞ ‪ /‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺔ‬ ‫ﺭﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﺔ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻋﺎﻟﺠﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻓﺮﻥ ﺩﻓﻊ ﻗﺴﺮﻱ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 48‬ﺳﺎﻋﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ‪ 60‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺗﺒﺮﻳﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺣﺮﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 24‬ﺳﺎﻋﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻋﺎﻟﺠﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺣﺮﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 24‬ﺳﺎﻋﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1.5.1.7‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ‪) USACE‬ﺳﺎﻟﻮﻣﻮﻥ ﻭﻧﻴﻮﻛﻮﻣﺐ ‪ ، 2000‬ﻛﺮﻭﺱ ﻭﺭﺍﻣﺎﻳﺎ ‪(1995‬‬

‫ﻭﻓﻘﺎً ﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ‪ ، USACE‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﻨﺎء ًﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ITS‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺿﻐﻄﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﻄﺮﻗﺔ ‪ SGC‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎﺭﺷﺎﻝ‪ .‬ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺿﻐﻂ ﻣﺎﺭﺷﺎﻝ ‪ 50‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺿﻐﻂ ‪ SGC‬ﺿﻐﻂ ‪ psi )620 kPa( 90‬ﻟـ ‪ 150‬ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺺ ﻟﻠﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ‬
‫‪ 14‬ﺭﻃﻞ ‪ /‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺔ )‪ 100‬ﻛﻴﻠﻮ ﺑﺎﺳﻜﺎﻝ( ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺆﺷﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﺳﺘﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻥ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ‪.1.54‬‬

‫‪13‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺒﺖ ﺑﺎﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ‪1.5.2 FDR‬‬

‫ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ًﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ‪ SFDR‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺜﺒﺘﺎﺕ ﻛﻴﻤﻴﺎﺉﻴﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻻﻧﻀﻐﺎﻁ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺼﻮﺭﺓ )‪ .(UCS‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻭﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻻﻳﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺗﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻃﺮﻕ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺞ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺇﻋﺪﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻭﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ،‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺺ ﻃﺮﻕ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺟﻮﺭﺟﻴﺎ ﻭﺑﻨﺴﻠﻔﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﻭﻧﻴﻮﻳﻮﺭﻙ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ‪ SFDR‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺜﺒﺘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻤﻴﺎﺉﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1.5.2.1‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺟﻮﺭﺟﻴﺎ )ﻟﻮﻳﺲ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ ‪(2006‬‬

‫ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻮﺭﺟﻴﺎ )‪ (GDOT‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺿﻐﻂ ﺑﺮﻭﻛﺘﻮﺭ ﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺗﺠﺮﻳﺒﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ .2001‬ﺗﻢ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻻﺣﻘﺎً ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﻣﻮﺍﺻﻔﺎﺕ ‪ GDOT‬ﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺒﺘﺔ ﺑﺎﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻧﺠﺎﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻲ‪ .‬ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺃﻗﺼﻰ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺟﺎﻓﺔ ﻭ ‪ OMC‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺑﺮﻭﻛﺘﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺳﻲ )‪T 99‬‬
‫‪ .(AASHTO‬ﺗﺨﻠﻂ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﻤﺤﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻟﺐ ﻣﻘﺎﺱ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ﻭﻣﻄﺮﻗﺔ ﻗﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻀﻐﻂ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ‪ 25‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻣﻚ ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻛﻴﺎﺱ ﺑﻼﺳﺘﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﻌﺎﻟﺞ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 7‬ﺃﻳﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﺛﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ‪ .UCS‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ‪ UCS‬ﻟﻠﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ‪ 450‬ﺭﻃﻞ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1.5.2.2‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺑﻨﺴﻠﻔﺎﻧﻴﺎ )ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺎﻥ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ ‪(2012‬‬

‫ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺑﻨﺴﻠﻔﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﺇﻋﺪﺍﺩ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ‪ UCS‬ﺑﺎﺗﺒﺎﻉ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ‪ASTM D1633‬‬
‫‪.‬ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ‪ 200‬ﺭﻃﻞ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺔ ‪ UCS‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﻔﺎﻅ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺣﺮﺍﺭﺓ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺗﺒﻠﻎ ‪ 40‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 7‬ﺃﻳﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻂ ﻭﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ‪ ASTM D5102 B.‬ﻭﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻭﻓﻘﺎً ﻹﺟﺮﺍء ‪ UCS‬ﻣﺜﺒﺖّ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺠﻴﺮ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﻀﻴﺮ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ‪ FDR‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﻴﺮ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ﻛﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺗﺜﺒﻴﺖ‪ .‬ﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬
‫‪ SFDR‬ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ 300‬ﻭ ‪ 500‬ﺭﻃﻞ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺑﻨﺴﻠﻔﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ‪ UCS‬ﺑﻴﻦ ‪200‬‬
‫ﻭ ‪ 500‬ﺭﻃﻞ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺳﻤﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﻛﺐ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ‪ 3‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ‪ ،‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺞ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ‪ UCS‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻏﻼﻑ ﺑﻼﺳﺘﻴﻜﻲ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ‪ 7‬ﺃﻳﺎﻡ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻂ ﻭﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺳﻴﺘﻢ ﺗﺮﺍﻛﺒﻬﺎ ﺑﺘﺮﺍﻛﺐ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﺳﻤﻜﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ‪ 3‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ‪A.‬‬

‫‪ 1.5.2.3‬ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻧﻴﻮﻳﻮﺭﻙ )‪(NYSDOT 2015‬‬

‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ‪ FDR‬ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮﺓ ﺑﺎﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﻓﻲ ‪ NYSDOT‬ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻬﺔ ﺟﺪﺍً ﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺑﻨﺴﻠﻔﺎﻧﻴﺎ‪ .‬ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺐ ‪ NYSDOT‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ‪ UCS‬ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ‪ 350‬ﺭﻃﻞ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺔ ﻭﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ‪800‬‬
‫ﺭﻃﻞ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1.6‬ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺎﻟﻴﻒ ﻭﺗﻮﻗﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮ‬

‫ﻳﻄﻴﻞ ‪ SFDR‬ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺧﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎء ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻤﺎﻁ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻐﺎﺛﺔ ﻭﺗﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﺳﻤﺎﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻗﻮﺗﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻳﻮﻓﺮ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ‪ SFDR‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺸﻴﻴﺪﻩ ﺑﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﻣﻦ ‪ 7‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 20‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎً ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺔ )ﻣﺎﻫﺮ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ ‪ 2005‬ﻭﻭ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‬
‫‪ .(2010‬ﺗﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺗﻜﺎﻟﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﻟـ ‪ SFDR‬ﻣﻦ ‪ 4‬ﺩﻭﻻﺭﺍﺕ ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 7‬ﺩﻭﻻﺭﺍﺕ ﻟﻜﻞ‬

‫‪14‬‬
 ‫ﻣﺘﺮ ﻣﺮﺑﻊ ﻭﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻤﻚ ‪ SFDR‬ﻭﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺒﺖ )ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺪﺭﺍﻟﻲ ﻟﻠﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﻟﻸﺭﺍﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻟﻺﺩﺍﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺪﺭﺍﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﻌﺔ ‪ .(2005‬ﺗﻜﻠﻔﺔ ‪ SFDR‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻠﻴﻼ ًﻣﻦ ﺗﻜﻠﻔﺔ ‪SFDR‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1.7‬ﻣﺮﺍﻗﺒﺔ ‪ /‬ﺿﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺩﺓ‬

‫ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻓﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﺇﻧﺸﺎء ‪ SFDR‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺍﻧﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺘﺪﺍﺑﻴﺮ ﻣﺮﺍﻗﺒﺔ ‪ /‬ﺿﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﺗﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻭﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻻﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺤﺪﺩ ﺣﺠﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺴﻴﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺤﻮﻗﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﻳﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1.8‬ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻷﺟﺰﺍء ﺍﻟﻤﺜﻘﻮﺑﺔ‬

‫ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎً ﻣﺎ ﻳﺆﺛﺮ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺟﺰﻳﺉﺎﺕ ‪ RAP‬ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ ‪ SFDR‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﺃﺩﺍﺓ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺮﺩﺍﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺰﻳﺞ ﻣﻮﺣﺪ ﻭﺇﻧﺘﺎﺟﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ًﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺗﺪﺭﺝ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ‪ RAP‬ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺤﻮﻗﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻭﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻻﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻭﺿﻌﺖ ﻣﻮﺍﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﻟـ‬
‫‪ .SFDR‬ﺑﻌﺾ ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺣﺠﻢ ‪ RAP‬ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻣﺒﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪.12‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .12‬ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺣﺠﻢ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻃﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ‪SFDR‬‬

‫ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫‪ 98‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ٪100‬ﻳﻤﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻏﺮﺑﺎﻝ ‪ 1.5‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ؛ ‪ 90‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 100‬ﻳﻤﺮ ﻣﻨﺨﻞ ‪ 1‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻳﻮﺍ )ﺃﻳﻮﺍ ﺩﻭﺕ ‪(2012‬‬
‫‪ 100٪‬ﺗﻤﺮﻳﺮ ﻣﻨﺨﻞ ‪ 3‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ؛ ‪ 97‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ٪100‬ﻳﻤﺮ ﻣﻨﺨﻞ ‪ 2‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ )(ﺃ ‪MnDOT 2018‬‬
‫‪ 95٪‬ﺗﻤﺮﻳﺮ ﻏﺮﺑﺎﻝ ‪ 2‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻨﺴﻠﻔﺎﻧﻴﺎ )ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺎﻥ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪(2012 .‬‬

‫‪ 1.9‬ﻗﻴﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﻘﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء‬

‫ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺔ ﺇﻧﺸﺎء ‪ SFDR‬ﻓﻲ ﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﺟﻮﻳﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺃﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻛﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﻳﺘﻢ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻭﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﻨﻊ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻔﺎﻅ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺮﻁ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺺ ﻗﻴﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﻘﺲ ﻟﺒﻨﺎء ‪ SFDR‬ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺪﺩﺓ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ‪ NYSDOT‬ﻭ ‪ PennDOT‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ‬

‫‪ .13‬ﻓﻲ ﻭﻻﻳﺔ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ‪ ،‬ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻗﻴﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﻭﺍﻟﻄﻘﺲ‪.‬‬

‫‪15‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .13‬ﻗﻴﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﻘﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻨﺎء ‪SFDR‬‬

‫ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﺥ ﻟﻠﺒﻨﺎء‬

‫ﺑﻨﺴﻠﻔﺎﻧﻴﺎ‬ ‫ﻧﻴﻮﻳﻮﺭﻙ‬ ‫ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﺎﻓﺔ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺣﺮﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﺍء ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ‪ 7‬ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻻ ﺗﻘﻞ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺣﺮﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﺍء ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻈﻞ ﻋﻦ ‪ 4‬ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ )‪ 39‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻓﻬﺮﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ( ﻭﺃﻥ ﺗﺮﺗﻔﻊ‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻻﺳﻤﻨﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻬﺎء ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺷﻬﺮ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻤﻴﺪ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻻ ﺗﻘﻞ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺣﺮﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﺍء ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻈﻞ ﻋﻦ ‪ 4‬ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺗﺮﺗﻔﻊ‪ .‬ﺍﺳﺘﻜﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ‬
‫ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺷﻬﺮ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺻﻠﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺠﻴﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ‬
‫ﺗﺠﻤﻴﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﺴﻦ ﺃﺳﺒﻮﻋﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﻘﺲ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻓﺊ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺭ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻬﺎء ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻻ ﺗﻘﻞ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺣﺮﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﺍء ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻈﻞ ﻋﻦ ‪ 4‬ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺗﺮﺗﻔﻊ‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺷﻬﺮ‬ ‫ﻛﻠﻮﺭﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻟﺴﻴﻮﻡ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻤﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻻ ﺗﻘﻞ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺣﺮﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﺍء ﻓﻮﻕ ‪ 15‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺣﺮﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﺍء ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻈﻞ ﻋﻦ ‪ 15‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺉﻮﻳﺔ )‪ 59‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ‪.٪80‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ( ﻭﺃﻥ ﺗﺮﺗﻔﻊ‪ .‬ﺗﺠﻨﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﻳﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻀﺒﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ‪ .٪80‬ﻭﻳﻔﻀﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ‬
‫ﺇﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺭﻏﻮﻱ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻄﻘﺲ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻓﺊ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻑ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ‪Morian et al. 2012 ، NYSDOT 2015 :‬‬

‫‪ 1.10‬ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ‬

‫ﻳﻘﺎﺱ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ ﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ‪ SFDR‬ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ًﺑﻘﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻭﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺪﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﺑﻮﻻﻳﺔ ﺃﻳﻮﺍ )‪ (Iowa DOT‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺪﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫‪ ٪75‬ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ‪ ٪94‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﻐﻮﻃﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﺒﺮ ﻟﻠﻄﺮﻕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻭ ‪ ٪92‬ﻣﻦ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﺒﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ )‪ .(Iowa DOT 2012‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻻ ﺗﻘﻞ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻖ ‪ 2‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻋﻦ ‪ ٪97‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ‪ ٪75‬ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺼﻠﺤﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ DCP‬ﻟﻠﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ )‪ .(MnDOT 2018a‬ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ‪ SFDR‬ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻣﺆﺷﺮ ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﻗﺪﺭﻩ ‪ 4 .0‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ﻭﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺿﺒﻂ ‪1.5‬‬
‫ﺑﻮﺻﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺤﺪﺩ ‪ PennDOT‬ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺇﻧﺸﺎء ﺷﺮﻳﻂ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ )ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺎﻥ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ ‪ .(2012 ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻄﺮﺓ ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻼ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺿﻐﻂ ﻛﺎﻑ ٍﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﻓﺮﺍﻏﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﺍء ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺗﻢ ﺩﺣﺮﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﺯﻡ ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺺ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰ ﺇﺗﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺗﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻢ ﺇﻧﺸﺎء ﻧﻤﻂ ﺩﺍﺉﺮﻱ ﻳﻮﻓﺮ ﺃﻗﺼﻰ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺟﻬﺎ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻝ ﻟﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ‪ ٪95‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺷﺮﻳﻂ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‪ .‬ﻗﺪ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺺ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺇﺗﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺗﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻢ ﺇﻧﺸﺎء ﻧﻤﻂ ﺩﺍﺉﺮﻱ ﻳﻮﻓﺮ ﺃﻗﺼﻰ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺟﻬﺎ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻝ ﻟﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ‪٪95‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺷﺮﻳﻂ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‪ .‬ﻗﺪ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺺ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺇﺗﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺗﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻢ ﺇﻧﺸﺎء ﻧﻤﻂ ﺩﺍﺉﺮﻱ‬
‫ﻳﻮﻓﺮ ﺃﻗﺼﻰ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺟﻬﺎ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻝ ﻟﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ‪ ٪95‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺷﺮﻳﻂ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1.11‬ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻎ ﺍﻷﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﺘﺴﺐ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ‪ SFDR‬ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﻭﺗﺤﻘﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻄﻠﻮﺏ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻃﻴﺐ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺒﺨﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺗﺴﻤﺢ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ‪ SFDR‬ﺑﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺤﺪ ﺍﻷﺩﻧﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻟﻬﺎ ﻓﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﺭ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﺉﺪﺓ ﻓﻲ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ‪SFDR‬‬

‫‪16‬‬
 ‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺴﺒﺐ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓ ﺣﺴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ‪ .‬ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ‪ IDOT‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ‪ SFDR‬ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ‪ ٪2.5‬ﺃﻭ ‪ ٪50‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ (‪.proctor )IDOT 2012‬‬
‫ﻻ ﺗﺤﺪﺩ ﻣﻮﺍﺻﻔﺎﺕ ‪ Minnesota SFDR‬ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪17‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ‪ :2‬ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ‪ SFDR‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻊ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪ SFDR‬ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺘﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ ‪ ،‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﻮﺯﻳﻊ ﺍﺳﺘﻄﻼﻉ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺪﻥ‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻬﺪﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻄﻼﻉ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ ﻫﻮ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ ﻟﻄﺮﻕ ‪ SFDR‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ﻭﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺷﺤﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻤﻠﻴﻦ ﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺍﻻﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﺑﻮﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﻤﺘﻠﻚ ﻃﺮﻗﺎً ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺮﺷﺤﺔ ﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﻟﻠﻄﺮﻕ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﻴﻦ‪.‬‬

‫ﻗﺪﻣﺖ ‪ MnDOT‬ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﻭﺛﺎﺉﻖ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻴﺔ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻫﻲ ﻃﺮﻕ ‪ SFDR‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﻃﺮﻕ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﻀﻤﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﺿﻤﻦ ﻃﺮﻕ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ‪ 13‬ﻗﺴﻤﺎً ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﺉﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺷﺤﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻜﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﻭﺛﺎﺉﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺨﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻼءﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺑﺤﺜﻲ‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻬﺪﻑ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﻣﺮﻭﺭ ﻭﺃﺭﺿﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﺸﺎﺑﻬﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺑﺤﻴﺚ‬
‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺩﺍء ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺑﻌﻤﺮ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺗﻔﻊ ﺑﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺑﺤﻴﺚ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺩﺍء ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻳﻞ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﻢ ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺺ ﺃﺳﺉﻠﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻄﻼﻉ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﺤﻖ "ﺃ"‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ‪ 28‬ﻣﺴﺘﺠﻴﺒﺎً ‪ ،‬ﺑﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ 23‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭ ‪ 5‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻥ‪ .‬ﺍﺩﻋﻰ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻭﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺎً ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺪﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﺧﺒﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺼﻼﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﻖ ﻹﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﺄﻫﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻮﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺼﻼﺡ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫)‪ ، (NSFDR‬ﻭﺳﺒﻌﺔ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻮﺍ ‪ ، SFDR‬ﻭ ‪ 12‬ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺎً‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺃﻧﺸﺄﺕ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺗﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ‪ NSFDR‬ﻭ‬
‫‪ .SFDR‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ‪ BaseOne‬ﻭﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺷﻴﻮﻋﺎً ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻬﻤﺎ ‪ ٪42‬ﻭ ‪٪47‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﺧﺒﺮﺓ ‪ ، SFDR‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﻟﻲ‪ .‬ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻷﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺫﻛﺮﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ )ﺧﻤﺴﺔ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ( ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ )ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ( ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ )ﻣﺴﺘﺠﻴﺐ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ(‪.‬‬

‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ ﺭﺍﺿﻴﻦ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺩﺍء ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ‪ NSFDR‬ﻭ ‪ .SFDR‬ﺃﻓﺎﺩ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﺸﺎﻛﻞ‬
‫ﻋﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺪﻋﻢ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻠﻴﺔ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺗﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﺒﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﻨﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻘﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻒ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻠﻴﺔ ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺗﺪﺭﺝ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺤﻮﻗﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﻗﻠﻖ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ‪ .‬ﺃﺑﻠﻎ‬
‫ﺍﺛﻨﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ ﻋﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻗﻄﻊ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺳﺤﻘﻪ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﺎﻑ ٍﻭﻓﺸﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻠﺒﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺍﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ﻻﺳﺘﺼﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ )‪ (MnDOT 2018a‬ﻟﺘﺪﺭﺝ ‪ RAP‬ﻭﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﺝ ﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ‪.BaseOne‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺗﺆﺛﺮ ﺳﻠﺒﺎً ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﺍء ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻟﻠﻄﺮﻕ‪ .‬ﺃﺷﺎﺭﺕ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻮﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻖ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺟﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺗﺮﺍﻛﺐ ﺇﺳﻔﻠﺘﻲ ﻣﻦ ‪ 3‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 5‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ‪.SFDR‬‬

‫ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﺧﺒﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ ‪ FDR‬ﺗﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺼﻼﺡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ‪ 5‬ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﺧﻤﺴﺔ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ‪ 10‬ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺨﺒﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ‪ .FDR‬ﺣﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪ ٪43‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺪﺃﺕ ﻣﺆﺧﺮﺍً ﻓﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ‪.FDR‬‬

‫‪18‬‬
 ‫ﻗﺪﻣﺖ ﻭﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﻭ ‪ MnDOT‬ﻭﺛﺎﺉﻖ ﺇﻧﺸﺎء ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻴﺔ ﻟـ ‪ 56‬ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﺎً ‪ ،‬ﺑﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻃﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺑﻨﺎء ‪ FDR‬ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮﺫﺟﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ )ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎﺩﺍً ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ‪ 56‬ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﺎً(‬
‫ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻣﻦ ‪ 3‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 12‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻭﺗﺮﺍﻛﺐ ﺇﺳﻔﻠﺘﻲ ﻣﻦ ‪ 3‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 5.5‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺨﻼﺹ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻤﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ‪ 1‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻛﺎﻡ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺼﻼﺣﻬﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﻣﻊ ﺭﺻﻴﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺮﺍﻛﺐ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﻃﺤﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﻤﻘﺪﺍﺭ ‪ 2‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺼﻼﺡ ﺇﺫﺍ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺳﻤﻴﻜﺔ ﺟﺪﺍً ﺑﺤﻴﺚ ﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺼﻼﺣﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻻﺕ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺳﻤﻴﻜﺔ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎً ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﻂ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ‪ 3‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 5‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺼﻠﺤﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 2.1‬ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺷﺤﻴﻦ‬

‫ﺗﻠﻘﻰ ﻓﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻭﺛﺎﺉﻖ ﺇﻧﺸﺎء ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻴﺔ ﻟـ ‪ 56‬ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﺎً ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﺎﺕ ‪ FDR‬ﻣﻦ ﻭﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﻭ ‪.MnDOT‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻗﺎﺉﻤﺔ ﺑﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﺤﻖ "ﺏ" ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ‪ ،‬ﺗﻢ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ‪ 13‬ﻗﺴﻤﺎً ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﻳﺎً ﻋﻠﻰ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻃﺮﻕ‬
‫ﺳﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﺭﺉﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﻃﺮﻳﻘﻴﻦ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺤﻘﻖ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﺃﻗﺴﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻘﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﻣﺘﻨﻮﻋﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﻲ )‪(EE‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ﻭ ‪ ، BaseOne‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺎﺕ ‪ FDR‬ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺃﻗﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ‬
‫‪ TH55‬ﻭ ‪ TH65‬ﻭ ‪ TH30‬ﻟﻠﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺍﻷﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺩﺍء ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﻭﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻠﻔﺔ ‪ SFDR‬ﻭ ‪ .NSFDR‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺮﺭ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪ Goodhue‬ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺩﺍء ﻗﺼﻴﺮ ﻭﻃﻮﻳﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺟﻞ ﻟﻄﺮﻕ ‪.FDR / SFDR‬‬

‫‪ 2.2‬ﺍﻟﺨﻼﺻﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻳﻠﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺗﻘﻨﻴﺔ ‪ SFDR‬ﻓﻲ ﻭﻻﻳﺔ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ‪ .‬ﺗﺸﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ‪SFDR‬‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﺗﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻣﻪ ﺑﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﻓﻲ ﻭﻻﻳﺔ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻭﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻒ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻭﺗﻘﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﺭﺍﺿﻴﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺃﺩﺍء ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﺎﺕ ‪ .SFDR‬ﺗﻢ ﺇﻧﺸﺎء ﻗﺎﺉﻤﺔ ﺟﺮﺩ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﺎﺕ ‪ FDR‬ﻭ ‪ ، SFDR‬ﻭﺗﻤﺖ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺔ ﺑﺈﺩﺭﺍﺝ ﺇﺟﻤﺎﻟﻲ‬
‫‪ 13‬ﻗﺴﻤﺎً ﻓﻲ ‪ 5‬ﻃﺮﻕ ﻓﻲ ﻗﺎﺉﻤﺔ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪19‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ‪ :3‬ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺪﺍﻧﻲ‬
‫ﺟﻤﻊ ﻓﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺩﺍء ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻗﺴﺎﻡ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﺎﺭﺓ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﻣﺴﺢ ﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻒ‬
‫ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺃﺩﺍء ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻗﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﺉﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻒ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻘﺎً ﻟﻮﺛﺎﺉﻖ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺨﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺗﻢ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ‪ 18‬ﻗﺴﻤﺎً‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍً ﻣﻦ ‪ 8‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺻﻞ ‪ 50‬ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ‪ FDR‬ﻣﻦ ﻭﻛﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﻭ ‪ .MnDOT‬ﺍﻝ‬

‫ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪.4‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .4‬ﺧﺮﻳﻄﺔ ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ ﻣﻴﻨﻴﺴﻮﺗﺎ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺛﻤﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺃﻗﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﺃﻗﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺪﺍﻧﻲ ﻭﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺗﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .14‬ﺗﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﺃﻗﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻘﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﺜﺒﻴﺖ‬
‫ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ﻭ ‪، BaseOne‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺎﺕ ‪ FDR‬ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮﺓ‪.‬‬

‫‪20‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .14‬ﺃﻗﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺪﺍﻧﻲ‬

‫ﻭﺻﻒ ﻝ‬
‫ﺇﺿﺎﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﺻﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ‪GPS‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻊ‬
‫‪N45.80619 ، W95.75600‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ‪CCS-1‬‬
‫‪N45.80006 ، W95.74364‬‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬
‫‪N45.79781 ، W95.73904‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺇﻱ‬
‫‪N45.79068 ، W95.72472‬‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪2‬‬
‫‪N45.79781 ، W95.73904‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪،‬‬
‫‪ 48.27‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪52.7‬‬ ‫ﺇﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺭﻏﻮﻱ‬
‫‪N45.78254 ، W95.70755‬‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻗﺴﻢ ‪3‬‬ ‫ﻗﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ‪55‬‬

‫‪N45.78254 ، W95.70755‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬

‫ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ‪1‬‬
‫‪N45.77802 ، W95.69679‬‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪4‬‬
‫‪N45.77564 ، W95.69030‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺤﻜﻢ‬
‫‪N45.77245 ، W95.68037‬‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪5‬‬
‫‪N45.572480 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬
‫‪W93.200385‬‬
‫ﻣﺘﺠﻪ ﺟﻨﻮﺑﺎ‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰ ‪CSAH 27‬‬ ‫ﺇﻱ‬ ‫ﻗﺴﻢ ‪3‬‬
‫‪N46.042917 ،‬‬
‫‪ 300‬ﺷﺎﺭﻉ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬
‫‪W93.284399‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫‪N45.996414 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬
‫‪W93.282972‬‬
‫ﻣﺘﺠﻪ ﺟﻨﻮﺑﺎ‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺎﺑﻴﻚ ‪،‬‬
‫‪ 300‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪250‬‬ ‫‪CSS1‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪2‬‬
‫‪N45.996414 ،‬‬
‫ﺍﻓﻲ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ‪65‬‬

‫‪W93.282972‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫‪N45.996414 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬
‫‪W93.282972‬‬
‫ﻣﺘﺠﻪ ﺟﻨﻮﺑﺎ‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ‪ 250‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪220‬‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻜﻢ ‪FDR‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬
‫‪N45.996414 ،‬‬
‫ﺍﻓﻲ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬
‫‪W93.282972‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫‪92.742007- ، 44.457644‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺟﻮﺩﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬
‫ﻭ ‪CSAH 1‬‬ ‫ﺭﻭﺯﻓﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ‪2005‬‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪CSAH 9‬‬ ‫‪ 7‬ﺷﺎﺭﻉ‪ .‬ﺷﻤﺎﻝ‬
‫‪92.701402- ،44.398512‬‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪2‬‬
‫‪92.701402- ،44.398512‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬
‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪Goodhue‬‬
‫ﻭ ‪CSAH 9‬‬ ‫ﺭﻭﺯﻓﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪1998‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪2‬‬ ‫ﺟﻨﻮﺏ ‪CSAH 7‬‬
‫ﻗﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ‪52‬‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪92.711542- ،44.324617‬‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻗﺴﻢ ‪3‬‬
‫‪N44.225104 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪W92.812648‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫‪N44.224436 ،‬‬ ‫ﺟﻮﺩﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺩﺓ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺯﻓﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪2012‬‬ ‫‪W92.791824‬‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪CSAH ،‬‬
‫‪ 1‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪2‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫‪ 11‬ﺷﺎﺭﻉ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺩﺓ‪13 .‬‬
‫‪N44.218432 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪W92.849133‬‬
‫ﻗﺴﻢ ‪3‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬

‫‪21‬‬
 ‫ﻭﺻﻒ ﻝ‬
‫ﺇﺿﺎﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﺻﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ‪GPS‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻊ‬
‫‪N44.195693 ،‬‬
‫ﻓﻘﻂ‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪W92.758123‬‬
‫ﺣﺪ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ ﺷﺮﻕ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺃﻗﺼﻰ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ‪2‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﺩﺝ ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺕ ﺍﻷﻣﻴﺎﻝ‬
‫‪N44.195929 ،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺑﺎﺳﻢ‬ ‫ﻣﻊ ‪، BaseOne‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﺩﺝ ‪،‬‬
‫‪W92.741329‬‬
‫‪ ، 27‬ﻣﻦ ‪240‬‬ ‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪2‬‬ ‫‪CSAH 19‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻓﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ‪2‬‬ ‫ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻗﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪N44.196027 ،‬‬
‫ﻣﻴﻼ ﺷﺮﻗﺎ‬ ‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍ ‪2006 ،‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪W92.750816‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ‬ ‫ﻗﺴﻢ ‪3‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫‪N44.007426 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪W92.984520‬‬
‫‪CSAH 10‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫)ﺷﺎﺭﻉ ‪(650‬‬
‫‪N44.007461 ،‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ‪CSAH 3‬‬ ‫ﺭﻭﺯﻓﻠﺖ ‪2010 ،‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﺩﺝ ‪،‬‬
‫‪W92.959059‬‬
‫)‪ 130‬ﺟﺎﺩﺓ(‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪2‬‬ ‫‪CSAH 10‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰ ‪CSAH 5‬‬
‫‪N44.007461 ،‬‬
‫)‪ 160‬ﺟﺎﺩﺓ‪(.‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪W92.959059‬‬
‫ﻗﺴﻢ ‪3‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫‪N44.405221 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﻮﺏ‬ ‫‪W92.269540‬‬
‫ﺑﺤﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪FDR‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻉ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰ ‪CSAH 33‬‬ ‫‪N44.392522 ،‬‬
‫ﺗﻢ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﺑﺸﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﻴﺮﺓ‬ ‫‪W92.269688‬‬
‫ﻓﺉﺔ ‪ 2) 5‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ(‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪2‬‬ ‫‪CSAH 9‬‬
‫ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺑﺎﺳﻢ ‪W‬‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺃﺿﻴﻒ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻭﺩ‬ ‫‪N44.374231 ،‬‬
‫ﺭﻭﺯﻓﻠﺖ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪2014‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻓﻲ‪.‬‬ ‫‪W92.269907‬‬
‫ﻗﺴﻢ ‪3‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫‪N44.367660 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪W92.391777‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬
‫ﺗﻘﻊ ﻏﺮﺏ‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ‪ 63‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮ ‪FDR‬‬ ‫‪N44.368517 ،‬‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﺑﺸﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪ 5.3‬ﺃﻣﻴﺎﻝ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺑﺎﺳﻢ‬ ‫ﻣﻊ ‪BaseOne‬‬ ‫‪W92.420748‬‬ ‫ﻭﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺑﺎﺳﻢ) ‪CSAH 16‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪2‬‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪16‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻱ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ‪2011 - .‬‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪ 16‬ﺟﺎﺩﺓ‪(.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺩﺓ‪.‬‬ ‫‪N44.368633 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪W92.446878‬‬
‫ﻗﺴﻢ ‪3‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫‪N44.286512 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪W93.060588‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ‪ TH 60‬ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫‪ 12‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ‪ FDR‬ﻣﻊ ‪4‬‬ ‫‪N44.299273 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ‪TH 246‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺭﺍﻳﺲ ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﺑﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻦ‬ ‫‪W93.060793‬‬
‫ﻧﻴﺮﺳﺘﺮﺍﻧﺪ ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪2‬‬ ‫‪CSAH 26‬‬
‫ﺗﺴﻄﻴﺢ‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻻﻣﺐ ﺍﻓﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‪N44.320078 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪W93.060666‬‬
‫ﻗﺴﻢ ‪3‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬

‫‪22‬‬
 ‫ﻭﺻﻒ ﻝ‬
‫ﺇﺿﺎﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﺻﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ‪GPS‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻊ‬
‫‪N44.337684 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪W93.209279‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫‪ CSAH‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪TH 3‬‬
‫‪ 10‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ‪ FDR‬ﻣﻊ ‪4‬‬ ‫‪N44.345505 ،‬‬
‫‪ ، 20‬ﻭﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺑﺎﺳﻢ ‪158‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺭﺍﻳﺲ ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﺑﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻦ‬ ‫‪W93.217988‬‬
‫ﺳﺎﻧﺖ ﺇﻱ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻘﺐ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪2‬‬ ‫‪CSAH 29‬‬
‫ﺗﺴﻄﻴﺢ‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻛﺎﺑﻮﺕ ﺍﻓﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‪N44.352077 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪W93.235863‬‬
‫ﻗﺴﻢ ‪3‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫‪N45.540472 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪W92.759370‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬
‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪،‬‬
‫‪CSAH 12‬‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ‬ ‫‪N45.540472 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺑﺎﺳﻢ ‪CSAH 81 ،‬‬
‫)ﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﺗﺮﻳﻞ(‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮ‬ ‫‪W92.753970‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪2‬‬ ‫ﺭﻳﺪ ﺍﻓﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭ ‪ 810‬ﺷﺎﺭﻉ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻗﺴﻢ ‪3‬‬
‫‪N45.450185 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪W92.878031‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ‬ ‫‪N45.450158 ،‬‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻟﻴﻨﻜﻮﻟﻦ‪.‬‬ ‫‪W92.878031‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻘﺐ ‪CSAH 74‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪2‬‬
‫ﻭﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺎﺕ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﺭﻉ ‪347‬‬
‫‪N45.450740 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪W92.854223‬‬
‫ﻗﺴﻢ ‪3‬‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫‪92.812268- ، 45.491551‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰ ‪CSAH 9‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ‪ /‬ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺑﺎﺳﻢ ‪CSAH 11 ،‬‬
‫ﺍﻭﺭﻳﻮﻝ ﺍﻓﻲ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮ‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪2‬‬
‫ﺷﺎﺭﻉ ‪375‬‬
‫(‪)CR 70‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻗﺴﻢ ‪3‬‬
‫‪92.905036- ، 45.404538‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪،‬‬
‫ﺁﻳﻔﻴﻮﻭﺩ ﺗﺮﻳﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ‪ /‬ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻘﺐ ‪CSAH 19‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻮﻓﺘﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪2‬‬
‫ﺳﺘﺎﻳﺴﻲ ﺗﺮﻳﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻓﻲ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻗﺴﻢ ‪3‬‬
‫‪92.882992- ، 45.408214‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪،‬‬
‫ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻟﻴﻨﻜﻮﻟﻦ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻘﺐ ‪CSAH 77‬‬
‫)‪ (14‬ﻭﺳﺘﺎﻳﺴﻲ‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪2‬‬
‫ﻓﺮﺍﻧﻜﻠﻴﻦ ﺭﻭﺯﻓﻠﺖ‬

‫ﻟﻮﻓﺘﻮﻥ ﺍﻓﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺮﻳﻞ )‪(19‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻗﺴﻢ ‪3‬‬
‫‪N45.433226 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫‪W92.820123‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬
‫ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺔ‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ‬
‫ﺑﺤﺚ ﻭﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ‪ (9) .‬ﻭ‬ ‫ﻓﺮﺍﻧﻜﻠﻴﻦ ﺭﻭﺯﻓﻠﺖ‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺑﺎﺳﻢ ‪CSAH 20 ،‬‬

‫ﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﺗﺮﻳﻞ )‪(12‬‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪2‬‬ ‫ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻓﻮﺭﺑﻲ‪.‬‬

‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻗﺴﻢ ‪3‬‬

‫‪23‬‬
 ‫ﻭﺻﻒ ﻝ‬
‫ﺇﺿﺎﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﺻﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ‪GPS‬‬ ‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻊ‬
‫‪ 6‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﺭﻏﻮﻱ‬ ‫‪N43.921733 ، W-‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﺰﺭﻗﺎء‬
‫ﺃﺳﻔﻠﺖ‬ ‫‪94.021258‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪TH 30 ،‬‬

‫‪ 3.1‬ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ‪ -‬ﺣﺒﺎﻝ‬

‫ﺗﻢ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺣﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺳﻤﻚ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﻭﺣﺎﻟﺘﻪ )ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ .(5‬ﺗﻢ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺘﺼﺪﻋﺔ ﻹﻧﺸﺎء ﺳﻤﻚ‬
‫ﺭﺻﻴﻒ ‪ HMA‬ﻭﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻒ ﻭﻧﻘﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻭﻻﻳﺔ ﺃﻳﻮﺍ ﻹﺟﺮﺍء ﻣﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺩﺍء ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺒﺮﻱ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .5‬ﺟﻬﺎﺯ ﺣﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 3.2‬ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ‪ -‬ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺮﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ‬

‫ﻳﻮﻓﺮ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺮﻭﻃﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺳﺎً ﻟﻤﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻟﻼﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻘﺎً ﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻻﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺮﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﻀﺤﻠﺔ )‪D6951 / D6951M-09‬‬
‫‪ ، (ASTM‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺩﻓﻊ ﻣﺨﺮﻭﻁ ﻣﻌﺪﻧﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ ﻣﺘﻜﺮﺭﺓ ﺑﻮﺯﻥ ‪ 17.6‬ﺭﻃﻞ )‪8‬‬
‫ﻛﺠﻢ( ﺑﻤﺴﺎﻓﺔ ﻗﻄﺮﺓ ‪ 2.26‬ﻗﺪﻡ )‪ 575‬ﻣﻠﻢ(‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻗﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺮﻭﻁ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻛﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ ﻭﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﻪ ﻟﺘﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﻗﻴﺎﺱ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻟﻤﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺺ ﺣﺘﻰ ‪ 5‬ﺃﻗﺪﺍﻡ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ .‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺗﺤﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻟﻴﻔﻮﺭﻧﻴﺎ )‪ ، (CBR‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﻧﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻤﻞ‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﺟﻬﺎﺯ ‪ DCP‬ﻣﻦ ﻗﻀﻴﺐ ﻓﻮﻻﺫﻱ ﻗﻄﺮﻩ ‪ 5/8‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻃﺮﻑ ﻣﺨﺮﻭﻃﻲ ‪ 60‬ﺩﺭﺟﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻌﻠﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺐ ﺳﻨﺪﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﻘﻀﻴﺐ ﻓﻮﻻﺫﻱ ﺛﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺐ ﻛﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﻟﻠﺴﻤﺎﺡ ﻟـ‬

‫‪24‬‬
 ‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﺭﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﺯﻥ ﻭﺇﺳﻘﺎﻃﻪ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﻜﺮﺭ ﻭﺿﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺪﺍﻥ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻻﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺒﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﻟﻠﺴﻤﺎﺡ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺻﻼﺕ ﺳﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺒﺎﻥ ﻭﻟﺘﺤﻮﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﺔ ﺑﻜﻔﺎءﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺯﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻗﻂ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻗﻀﻴﺐ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ )ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪.(6‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ .6‬ﺟﻬﺎﺯ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪.DCP‬‬

‫ﺑﻤﺠﺮﺩ ﺗﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﺟﻬﺎﺯ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻭﺿﻊ ‪ DCP‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻞ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻲ ﻟﻠﻘﻀﻴﺐ ﻟﺘﻮﻓﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺻﻔﺮﻱ‪ .‬ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﺇﻣﺴﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺐ ﻋﻤﻮﺩﻳﺎً ‪ ،‬ﻳﺮﺗﻔﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﺯﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺐ ‪ 575 ،‬ﻣﻢ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺪﺍﻥ ‪ ،‬ﺛﻢ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺨﻔﺾ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻗﻴﺎﺱ ﺗﻐﻠﻐﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺐ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻛﻞ ﻗﻄﺮﺓ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺉﻌﺔ ﻭﻣﺆﺷﺮ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ )‪ .(DPI‬ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ DCP‬ﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮ ‪ CBR‬ﻷﻏﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫‪.‬ﺗﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ‪ 5‬ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺽ ‪)ASTM D6951(.‬‬

‫ﻣﻜﺎﻓﺊ‪5 .‬‬ ‫‪ .     ‬‬ ‫‪)٪( = 292 /‬‬

‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻻﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ DPI‬ﻭ ‪ CBR‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ‪ DPI‬ﻟﻜﻞ ﻗﻄﺮﺓ ﻟﺤﺴﺎﺏ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ‪ DPI‬ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ‪ 75‬ﻣﻢ )‪ 3‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ( ﻭ ‪ 150‬ﻣﻢ )‪ 6‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ(‪ .‬ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺃﻭﻝ ﻫﺒﻮﻁ ﺟﻠﻮﺱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﺎﺑﺎﺕ‪.‬‬

‫ﺛﻢ ﺗﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ‪ DPIs‬ﻟﺤﺴﺎﺏ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ‪ CBR‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺃﻭﺻﻰ ﺑﻬﺎ ﺳﻼﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﺪﺳﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺠﻴﺶ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ‪.‬‬

‫‪25‬‬
‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ‪ 5‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻌﺪﻝ ﻭﻓﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻃﻔﺎﻝ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ‪ .٪10‬ﻭﺣﺪﺍﺕ ‪ DPI‬ﻓﻲ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻠﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﻧﻈﺮﺍً ﻷﻥ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ‬
‫‪ CBR‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ‪ ، ٪10‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ‪ 5‬ﻓﻲ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻻﺕ‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ‪ DCP‬ﻷﻗﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻭﻗﻴﻢ ‪ CBR‬ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﺍﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ‪ 15‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ .62‬ﺗﻢ ﺍﻹﺑﻼﻍ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺐ ‪ CBR‬ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ‪ 100‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ‪.100‬‬

‫‪26‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .15‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 81 ،‬ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﺨﺮﺟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﺐ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﺨﺮﺟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﺐ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪17.7 0 29 0 14.7‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4.6‬‬ ‫‪1.5‬‬
‫‪20.7 5 33.6 5 16.2‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4.3‬‬ ‫‪6.3‬‬ ‫‪2.6‬‬
‫‪22 10 35.3 10 17.3‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪5.9‬‬ ‫‪7.9‬‬ ‫‪3.3 15 36.9 15 18‬‬
‫‪23.6‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪7.2‬‬ ‫‪8.8‬‬ ‫‪3.8 20 37.8 20 18.5‬‬
‫‪24.9‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪8.7‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪4.2‬‬
‫‪26.4 25 39 25 18.9‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪10.2‬‬ ‫‪10.9‬‬ ‫‪5.1 30 39.9 30 19.8‬‬
‫‪27.9‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪5.2‬‬
‫‪29.7 35 41 35 19.9‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪12.7‬‬ ‫‪13.2‬‬ ‫‪5.3 40 42.2 40 20‬‬
‫‪30.4‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪14.3‬‬ ‫‪5.7 32 45 45 20.4‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪15.8‬‬ ‫‪6.2 33.5 50 50 20.9‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .16‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 81 ،‬ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ‬

‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬
‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺓ‪s ٪‬‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻖ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫)ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪85.3‬‬ ‫‪3.00‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.00‬‬ ‫‪15.00‬‬ ‫‪1.50‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.20‬‬ ‫‪11.00‬‬ ‫‪2.60‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.40‬‬ ‫‪7.00‬‬ ‫‪3.30‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.00‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.00‬‬ ‫‪5.00‬‬ ‫‪3.80‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪1.24‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪0.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪0.80‬‬ ‫‪4.00‬‬ ‫‪4.20‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.80‬‬ ‫‪9.00‬‬ ‫‪5.10‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪0.20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪0.20‬‬ ‫‪1.00‬‬ ‫‪5.20‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪0.20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪0.20‬‬ ‫‪1.00‬‬ ‫‪5.30‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪0.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪0.80‬‬ ‫‪4.00‬‬ ‫‪5.70‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.00‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.00‬‬ ‫‪5.00‬‬ ‫‪6.20‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪27‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .17‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 11 ،‬ﺷﺎﺭﻉ ‪ ، 375‬ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ‪ /‬ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ‬

‫ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪13.4 0 15.2 0‬‬ ‫‪14.9‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬
‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪2.3‬‬ ‫‪16.4 5 17.5 5‬‬ ‫‪1.9‬‬ ‫‪16.8‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪17.4 10 18.2 10‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪17.9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪4.5‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪17.9 15 19.2 15‬‬ ‫‪3.9‬‬ ‫‪18.8‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪4.8‬‬ ‫‪18.4 20 20 20‬‬ ‫‪4.6‬‬ ‫‪19.5‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪5.2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪18.6 25 20.2 25‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪5.1‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪5.6‬‬ ‫‪5.5‬‬ ‫‪19 30 20.7 30‬‬ ‫‪5.7‬‬ ‫‪20.6‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪19.4 35 35‬‬ ‫‪6.2‬‬ ‫‪21.1‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪6.4‬‬ ‫‪19.8 40 40‬‬ ‫‪6.5‬‬ ‫‪21.4‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪45 45‬‬ ‫‪6.9‬‬ ‫‪21.8‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪50 50‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ -18‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 11 ،‬ﺷﺎﺭﻉ ‪ ، 375‬ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ‪ /‬ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮ‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪50.4‬‬ ‫‪4.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.80‬‬ ‫‪24.00‬‬ ‫‪2.40‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.87‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.87‬‬ ‫‪9.33‬‬ ‫‪3.33‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.60‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.60‬‬ ‫‪8.00‬‬ ‫‪4.13‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.33‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.33‬‬ ‫‪6.67‬‬ ‫‪4.80‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪1.53‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪0.60‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪0.60‬‬ ‫‪3.00‬‬ ‫‪5.10‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.00‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.00‬‬ ‫‪5.00‬‬ ‫‪5.60‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.00‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.00‬‬ ‫‪5.00‬‬ ‫‪6.10‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪0.70‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪0.70‬‬ ‫‪3.50‬‬ ‫‪6.45‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪0.90‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪0.90‬‬ ‫‪4.50‬‬ ‫‪6.90‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪50‬‬

‫‪28‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .19‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 20 ،‬ﺷﺎﺭﻉ ‪ ، Furuby‬ﺗﺤﻜﻢ ‪FDR‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪23 0 22.4 0 19.6‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪2.7‬‬ ‫‪2.6‬‬ ‫‪2.5 25.7 5 25 5 22.1‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4.4‬‬ ‫‪4.5‬‬ ‫‪4 10 26.9 10 23.6‬‬
‫‪27.4‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪5.5‬‬
‫‪29 15 28.4 15 25.1‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪7.9‬‬ ‫‪7.6‬‬ ‫‪7.2‬‬
‫‪30.9 20 30 20 26.8‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪9.8‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪9.3‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪9.1 25 31.7 25 28.7‬‬
‫‪32.8‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪11.8‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪10.330 33.4 30 29.9‬‬
‫‪34.8‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪13.8‬‬ ‫‪12.6‬‬ ‫‪11.8‬‬
‫‪36.8 35 35 35 31.4‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪15.4‬‬ ‫‪14.4‬‬ ‫‪13.4‬‬
‫‪38.4 40 36.8 40 33‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪16.8‬‬ ‫‪16.3‬‬ ‫‪15.245 38.7 45 34.8‬‬
‫‪39.8‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪18.5‬‬ ‫‪17.8‬‬ ‫‪16.750 40.2 50 36.3‬‬
‫‪41.5‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .20‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪Chisago ، CSAH 20 ، Furuby Road ، FDR control‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪46.1‬‬ ‫‪5.20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪5.20‬‬ ‫‪26.00‬‬ ‫‪2.60‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪74.2‬‬ ‫‪3.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.40‬‬ ‫‪17.00‬‬ ‫‪4.30‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪83.2‬‬ ‫‪3.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.07‬‬ ‫‪15.33‬‬ ‫‪5.83‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪72.6‬‬ ‫‪3.47‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.47‬‬ ‫‪17.33‬‬ ‫‪7.57‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪3.53‬‬ ‫‪68.1‬‬ ‫‪3.67‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.67‬‬ ‫‪18.33‬‬ ‫‪9.40‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪77.6‬‬ ‫‪3.27‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.27‬‬ ‫‪16.33‬‬ ‫‪11.03‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪74.2‬‬ ‫‪3.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.40‬‬ ‫‪17.00‬‬ ‫‪12.73‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪75.8‬‬ ‫‪3.33‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.33‬‬ ‫‪16.67‬‬ ‫‪14.40‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪74.2‬‬ ‫‪3.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.40‬‬ ‫‪17.00‬‬ ‫‪16.10‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪81.3‬‬ ‫‪3.13‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.13‬‬ ‫‪15.67‬‬ ‫‪17.67‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪29‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .21‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺎﺑﻚ ‪ ، TH 65 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ، 1‬ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻢ ‪ ، FDR‬ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻢ ‪FDR‬‬

‫ﺍﻧﻜﺴﺮ ﻣﺒﻜﺮﺍ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻢ ﺗﺘﻢ ﺇﺯﺍﻟﺘﻬﺎ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪23.7 0 24.3 0 15‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪2.9‬‬ ‫‪2.3‬‬ ‫‪4.8‬‬
‫‪26.6 5 26.6 5 19.8‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4.5‬‬ ‫‪3.8‬‬ ‫‪6.6 10 28.1 10 21.6‬‬
‫‪28.2‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪6.2‬‬ ‫‪5.3‬‬ ‫‪7.6 15 29.6 15 22.6‬‬
‫‪29.9‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪7.3‬‬ ‫‪6.2‬‬ ‫‪8.5‬‬
‫‪31 20 30.5 20 23.5‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪8.1‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪9.4 25 31.3 25 24.4‬‬
‫‪31.8‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪9.1‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪10 30 32.3 30 25‬‬
‫‪32.8‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪9.8‬‬ ‫‪8.7‬‬ ‫‪10.6‬‬
‫‪33.5 35 33 35 25.6‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪10.4‬‬ ‫‪9.4‬‬ ‫‪11.340 33.7 40 26.3‬‬
‫‪34.1‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪10.2‬‬ ‫‪11.945 34.5 45 26.9‬‬
‫‪34.7‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪11.6‬‬ ‫‪10.7‬‬ ‫‪12.5‬‬
‫‪35.3 50 35 50 27.5‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :22‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺎﺑﻚ ‪ ، TH 65 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ، 1‬ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻢ ‪ ، FDR‬ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻢ ‪FDR‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪46.1‬‬ ‫‪5.20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪5.20‬‬ ‫‪26.00‬‬ ‫‪2.60‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪82.2‬‬ ‫‪3.10‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.10‬‬ ‫‪15.50‬‬ ‫‪4.15‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪79.4‬‬ ‫‪3.20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.20‬‬ ‫‪16.00‬‬ ‫‪5.75‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.00‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.00‬‬ ‫‪10.00‬‬ ‫‪6.75‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪2.23‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.60‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.60‬‬ ‫‪8.00‬‬ ‫‪7.55‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.00‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.00‬‬ ‫‪10.00‬‬ ‫‪8.55‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.40‬‬ ‫‪7.00‬‬ ‫‪9.25‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.30‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.30‬‬ ‫‪6.50‬‬ ‫‪9.90‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.40‬‬ ‫‪7.00‬‬ ‫‪10.60‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.10‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.10‬‬ ‫‪5.50‬‬ ‫‪11.15‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪30‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .23‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺎﺑﻚ ‪ ، TH 65 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ CSS1 ، 2‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ‪CSS1 rut‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪30.6 0 29.2 0 29.6‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪2.6‬‬ ‫‪2.9‬‬ ‫‪2.1‬‬
‫‪33.2 5 32.1 5 31.7‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4.1‬‬ ‫‪4.6‬‬ ‫‪3.6 10 33.8 10 33.2‬‬
‫‪34.7‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪5.2‬‬ ‫‪5.9‬‬ ‫‪4.9 15 35.1 15 34.5‬‬
‫‪35.8‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪6.3‬‬ ‫‪7.2‬‬ ‫‪6.4 20 36.4 20 36‬‬
‫‪36.9‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪7.2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪8.2‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪7.4 25 37.4 25 37‬‬
‫‪37.8‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪8.1‬‬ ‫‪9.2‬‬ ‫‪8.2 30 38.4 30 37.8‬‬
‫‪38.7‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪9.1‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪9.2 35 39.2 35 38.8‬‬
‫‪39.7‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪9.9‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪9.8 40 40.2 40 39.4‬‬
‫‪40.5‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪10.7‬‬ ‫‪11.9‬‬ ‫‪10.845 41.1 45 40.4‬‬
‫‪41.3‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪11.6‬‬ ‫‪11.842.2 50 50 41.4‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .24‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺎﺑﻚ ‪ ، TH 65 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ CSS1 ، 2‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﻧﻮﻉ ‪CSS1 rut‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪47.4‬‬ ‫‪5.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪5.07‬‬ ‫‪25.33‬‬ ‫‪2.53‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪81.3‬‬ ‫‪3.13‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.13‬‬ ‫‪15.67‬‬ ‫‪4.10‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.47‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.47‬‬ ‫‪12.33‬‬ ‫‪5.33‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.60‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.60‬‬ ‫‪13.00‬‬ ‫‪6.63‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪2.34‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.93‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.93‬‬ ‫‪9.67‬‬ ‫‪7.60‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.80‬‬ ‫‪9.00‬‬ ‫‪8.50‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.87‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.87‬‬ ‫‪9.33‬‬ ‫‪9.43‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.60‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.60‬‬ ‫‪8.00‬‬ ‫‪10.23‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.80‬‬ ‫‪9.00‬‬ ‫‪11.13‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.13‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.13‬‬ ‫‪5.67‬‬ ‫‪11.70‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪31‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .25‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺎﺑﻚ ‪ ، TH 65 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ EE ، 3‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ‪EE rut 0‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪25 0 24 0 29‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪2.2‬‬ ‫‪2 27 5 26.2 5 31‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪3.5‬‬ ‫‪3.5‬‬ ‫‪3.5 10 27.5 10 32.5‬‬
‫‪28.5‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪4.5‬‬ ‫‪4.9‬‬ ‫‪4.8 15 28.9 15 33.8‬‬
‫‪29.5‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪5.7‬‬ ‫‪5.7‬‬ ‫‪5.8 20 29.7 20 34.8‬‬
‫‪30.7‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪6.7‬‬ ‫‪6.5‬‬ ‫‪6.9 25 30.5 25 35.9‬‬
‫‪31.7‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪7.6‬‬ ‫‪7.3‬‬ ‫‪7.7 30 31.3 30 36.7‬‬
‫‪32.6‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪8.5‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪8.7‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪8.8 35 32.7 35 37.8‬‬
‫‪33.5‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪9.5‬‬ ‫‪9.5‬‬ ‫‪9.9 40 33.5 40 38.9‬‬
‫‪34.5‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪10.3‬‬ ‫‪10.7‬‬
‫‪35 45 34.3 45 39.7‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪11.2‬‬‫‪36 50 35 50 40.2‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬
‫‪11.9‬‬ ‫‪11.9‬‬ ‫‪12.355 35.9 55 41.3‬‬
‫‪36.9‬‬ ‫‪55‬‬
‫‪12.7‬‬ ‫‪12.9‬‬ ‫‪12.960 36.9 60 41.9‬‬
‫‪37.7‬‬ ‫‪60‬‬
‫‪13.7‬‬ ‫‪13.7‬‬ ‫‪38.7 65 37.7 65‬‬ ‫‪65‬‬
‫‪14.7‬‬ ‫‪38.770 70‬‬ ‫‪70‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .26‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺎﺑﻚ ‪ ، TH 65 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ EE ، 3‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ‪EE rut 0‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪59.6‬‬ ‫‪4.13‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.13‬‬ ‫‪20.67‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪89.8‬‬ ‫‪2.87‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.87‬‬ ‫‪14.33‬‬ ‫‪3.50‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.47‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.47‬‬ ‫‪12.33‬‬ ‫‪4.73‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.00‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.00‬‬ ‫‪10.00‬‬ ‫‪5.73‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪2.21‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.93‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.93‬‬ ‫‪9.67‬‬ ‫‪6.70‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.67‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.67‬‬ ‫‪8.33‬‬ ‫‪7.53‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.27‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.27‬‬ ‫‪11.33‬‬ ‫‪8.67‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.93‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.93‬‬ ‫‪9.67‬‬ ‫‪9.63‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.40‬‬ ‫‪7.00‬‬ ‫‪10.33‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.47‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.47‬‬ ‫‪7.33‬‬ ‫‪11.07‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪32‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .27‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ، 5‬ﺗﺤﻜﻢ ‪ ، FDR‬ﻭﺿﻊ ‪ 1/10‬ﻓﻲ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪16.8 1 16.1 1 17.2‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪2.9‬‬ ‫‪2.6 19.8 5 19 5 19.8‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4.9‬‬ ‫‪4.8‬‬ ‫‪4.3 10 20.9 10 21.5‬‬
‫‪21.7‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪7.2‬‬ ‫‪6.5‬‬ ‫‪6.3‬‬
‫‪24 15 22.6 15 23.5‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪9.2‬‬ ‫‪8.7‬‬ ‫‪8.5‬‬
‫‪26 20 24.8 20 25.7‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪10.7‬‬ ‫‪10.325 26.8 25 27.5‬‬
‫‪27.8‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪12.4‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪12.8‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪11.730 28.9 30 28.9‬‬
‫‪29.2‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪13.6‬‬ ‫‪14.7‬‬ ‫‪13.335 30.8 35 30.5‬‬
‫‪30.4‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪14.8‬‬ ‫‪16.1‬‬ ‫‪15 40 32.2 40 32.2‬‬
‫‪31.6‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪16‬‬ ‫‪17.4‬‬ ‫‪17 45 33.5 45 34.2‬‬
‫‪32.8‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪17.6‬‬ ‫‪18.4‬‬ ‫‪19.250 34.5 50 36.4‬‬
‫‪34.4‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬
‫‪19.7‬‬ ‫‪19.4‬‬ ‫‪36.5 55 35.5 55‬‬ ‫‪55‬‬
‫‪21.4‬‬ ‫‪38.2 60 60‬‬ ‫‪60‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .28‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ، 5‬ﺗﺤﻜﻢ ‪ ، FDR‬ﻭﺿﻊ ‪ 1/10‬ﻓﻲ‪.‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0.00‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬
‫‪41.8‬‬ ‫‪5.67‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪5.67‬‬ ‫‪28.33‬‬ ‫‪2.83‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪68.1‬‬ ‫‪3.67‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.67‬‬ ‫‪18.33‬‬ ‫‪4.67‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪61.8‬‬ ‫‪4.00‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.00‬‬ ‫‪20.00‬‬ ‫‪6.67‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪57.5‬‬ ‫‪4.27‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.27‬‬ ‫‪21.33‬‬ ‫‪8.80‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪3.68‬‬ ‫‪66.8‬‬ ‫‪3.73‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.73‬‬ ‫‪18.67‬‬ ‫‪10.67‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪77.6‬‬ ‫‪3.27‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.27‬‬ ‫‪16.33‬‬ ‫‪12.30‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪81.3‬‬ ‫‪3.13‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.13‬‬ ‫‪15.67‬‬ ‫‪13.87‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪89.8‬‬ ‫‪2.87‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.87‬‬ ‫‪14.33‬‬ ‫‪15.30‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪85.3‬‬ ‫‪3.00‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.00‬‬ ‫‪15.00‬‬ ‫‪16.80‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪79.4‬‬ ‫‪3.20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.20‬‬ ‫‪16.00‬‬ ‫‪18.40‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪33‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :29‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ EE ، 2‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ‪EE rut 0‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪24.1 0 18.1 0 22.2‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪2.2‬‬ ‫‪2.6‬‬ ‫‪1.826.3 5 20.7 5 24‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪3.8‬‬ ‫‪3.7‬‬ ‫‪3.1 10 21.8 10 25.3‬‬
‫‪27.9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪4.9‬‬ ‫‪4.7‬‬ ‫‪4.5‬‬
‫‪29 15 22.8 15 26.7‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪6.5‬‬ ‫‪5.8‬‬ ‫‪5.8 20 23.9 20 28‬‬
‫‪30.6‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪7.6‬‬ ‫‪6.6‬‬ ‫‪7.2 25 24.7 25 29.4‬‬
‫‪31.7‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪9.3‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪7.4‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪10.330 25.5 30 32.5‬‬
‫‪33.4‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪10.9‬‬ ‫‪8.5‬‬ ‫‪11.2‬‬
‫‪35 35 26.6 35 33.4‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪12.6‬‬ ‫‪9.6‬‬ ‫‪13 40 27.7 40 35.2‬‬
‫‪36.7‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪13.9‬‬ ‫‪10.7‬‬ ‫‪13.9‬‬
‫‪4538 28.8 45 36.1‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪11.9‬‬ ‫‪14.8‬‬
‫‪39.1 50 30 50 37‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬
‫‪16.2‬‬ ‫‪13.4‬‬ ‫‪15.8‬‬
‫‪40.3 55 31.5 55 38‬‬ ‫‪55‬‬
‫‪14.7‬‬ ‫‪16.8 60 32.8 60 39‬‬ ‫‪60‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .30‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ EE ، 2‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ‪EE rut 0‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪55.6‬‬ ‫‪4.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.40‬‬ ‫‪22.00‬‬ ‫‪2.20‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪97.3‬‬ ‫‪2.67‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.67‬‬ ‫‪13.33‬‬ ‫‪3.53‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪11.67‬‬ ‫‪4.70‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪97.3‬‬ ‫‪2.67‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.67‬‬ ‫‪13.33‬‬ ‫‪6.03‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪2.78‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.20‬‬ ‫‪11.00‬‬ ‫‪7.13‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪66.8‬‬ ‫‪3.73‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.73‬‬ ‫‪18.67‬‬ ‫‪9.00‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.40‬‬ ‫‪12.00‬‬ ‫‪10.20‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪83.2‬‬ ‫‪3.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.07‬‬ ‫‪15.33‬‬ ‫‪11.73‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.20‬‬ ‫‪11.00‬‬ ‫‪12.83‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.13‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.13‬‬ ‫‪10.67‬‬ ‫‪13.90‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪34‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .31‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ، 1‬ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ‪ CSS1‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺧﺘﻢ ﺭﻗﺎﻗﺔ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ﻋﺎﻣﻴﻦ‬

‫* ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﺑﺨﻂ ﻋﺮﻳﺾ‬ ‫* ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﺑﺨﻂ ﻋﺮﻳﺾ‬ ‫ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﺨﺮﺟﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻮﺍﺓ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪0 29 13.8 0 14‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.2‬‬ ‫‪2.5 15 5 16 5 31.5‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3.6‬‬ ‫‪3.1‬‬
‫‪16 10 17.4 10 34.6‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪2.5‬‬ ‫‪4.7‬‬ ‫‪2.4 15 18.5 15 37‬‬
‫‪16.5‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪3.1‬‬ ‫‪5.5‬‬ ‫‪2.8 20 19.3 20 39.8‬‬
‫‪17.1‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪3.3‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪6.4‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3.2 25 20.2 25 43‬‬
‫‪17.3‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪3.9‬‬ ‫‪7.7‬‬ ‫‪2.4 30 21.5 30 17.9‬‬
‫‪45.4‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪4.4‬‬ ‫‪9.2‬‬ ‫‪1.5‬‬
‫‪18.4 35 23 35 46.9‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪5.1‬‬ ‫‪11.1‬‬ ‫‪1.6 40 24.9 40 48.5‬‬
‫‪19.1‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪5.3‬‬ ‫‪12.7‬‬ ‫‪1.5 45 26.5 45 50‬‬
‫‪19.3‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪5.9‬‬ ‫‪14.2‬‬ ‫‪2.5‬‬
‫‪19.9 50 28 50 52.5‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .32‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ، 1‬ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ‪ CSS1‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺧﺘﻢ ﺭﻗﺎﻗﺔ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ﻋﺎﻣﻴﻦ‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪79.4‬‬ ‫‪3.20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.20‬‬ ‫‪16.00‬‬ ‫‪1.60‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.40‬‬ ‫‪12.00‬‬ ‫‪2.80‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.60‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.60‬‬ ‫‪8.00‬‬ ‫‪3.60‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.40‬‬ ‫‪7.00‬‬ ‫‪4.30‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪2.01‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.10‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.10‬‬ ‫‪5.50‬‬ ‫‪4.85‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.90‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.90‬‬ ‫‪9.50‬‬ ‫‪5.80‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.00‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.00‬‬ ‫‪10.00‬‬ ‫‪6.80‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.60‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.60‬‬ ‫‪13.00‬‬ ‫‪8.10‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.80‬‬ ‫‪9.00‬‬ ‫‪9.00‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.10‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.10‬‬ ‫‪10.50‬‬ ‫‪10.05‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪35‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :33‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ، 3‬ﺃﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺭﻏﻮﻱ ﻣﺜﺒﺖ ‪ ،‬ﻧﻮﻉ ‪FA rut 0‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪34.9 0 34.5 0 35.3‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪2.1‬‬ ‫‪2.4‬‬ ‫‪2.4 37 5 36.9 5 37.7‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪3.4‬‬ ‫‪3.9‬‬ ‫‪4.2 10 38.4 10 39.5‬‬
‫‪38.3‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪4.6‬‬ ‫‪4.7‬‬ ‫‪5.3 15 39.2 15 40.6‬‬
‫‪39.5‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪5.6‬‬ ‫‪5.9‬‬ ‫‪6.6 20 40.4 20 41.9‬‬
‫‪40.5‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪6.2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪7.1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪7.1 25 41.6 25 42.4‬‬
‫‪41.1‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪7.5‬‬ ‫‪7.5‬‬ ‫‪7.9‬‬
‫‪42.4 30 42 30 43.2‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪8.7‬‬ ‫‪8.3‬‬ ‫‪9.3 35 42.8 35 44.6‬‬
‫‪43.6‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪10.6‬‬ ‫‪9.6‬‬ ‫‪10.840 44.1 40 46.1‬‬
‫‪45.5‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪12.5‬‬ ‫‪11.4‬‬ ‫‪12.845 45.9 45 48.1‬‬
‫‪47.4‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪14.7‬‬ ‫‪13.3‬‬ ‫‪14.7‬‬
‫‪49.6 50 47.8 50 50‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .34‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ ، 3‬ﺃﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺭﻏﻮﻱ ﻣﺜﺒﺖ ‪ ،‬ﻧﻮﻉ ‪FA rut 0‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪52.9‬‬ ‫‪4.60‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.60‬‬ ‫‪23.00‬‬ ‫‪2.30‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪83.2‬‬ ‫‪3.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.07‬‬ ‫‪15.33‬‬ ‫‪3.83‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪10.33‬‬ ‫‪4.87‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪11.67‬‬ ‫‪6.03‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪2.85‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.53‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.53‬‬ ‫‪7.67‬‬ ‫‪6.80‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.67‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.67‬‬ ‫‪8.33‬‬ ‫‪7.63‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.27‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.27‬‬ ‫‪11.33‬‬ ‫‪8.77‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪81.3‬‬ ‫‪3.13‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.13‬‬ ‫‪15.67‬‬ ‫‪10.33‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪65.5‬‬ ‫‪3.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.80‬‬ ‫‪19.00‬‬ ‫‪12.23‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪61.8‬‬ ‫‪4.00‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.00‬‬ ‫‪20.00‬‬ ‫‪14.23‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪36‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .35‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ BaseOne ، 4‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻛﺘﺐ ‪BaseOne rut 0‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪17 0 18 0 18.4‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪2.1‬‬ ‫‪2.3‬‬ ‫‪1.8‬‬
‫‪19.1 5 20.3 5 20.2‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪3.8‬‬ ‫‪3.1‬‬ ‫‪2.8 10 21.1 10 21.2‬‬
‫‪20.8‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪4.5‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪4.1‬‬
‫‪21.5 15 22 15 22.5‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪5.4‬‬ ‫‪4.5‬‬ ‫‪4.9 20 22.5 20 23.3‬‬
‫‪22.4‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪5.5‬‬ ‫‪6 25 23.5 25 24.4‬‬
‫‪23‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪7.1‬‬ ‫‪6.4‬‬ ‫‪6.6 30 24.4 30 25‬‬
‫‪24.1‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪7.8‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪7.4‬‬
‫‪24.8 35 25 35 25.8‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪8.8‬‬ ‫‪7.6‬‬ ‫‪8.1 40 25.6 40 26.5‬‬
‫‪25.8‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪9.5‬‬ ‫‪8.5‬‬ ‫‪9.1 45 26.5 45 27.5‬‬
‫‪26.5‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪10.3‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪9.7‬‬
‫‪27.3 50 27 50 28.1‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬
‫‪10.9‬‬ ‫‪9.7‬‬ ‫‪10.155 27.7 55 28.5‬‬
‫‪27.9‬‬ ‫‪55‬‬
‫‪11.7‬‬ ‫‪10.5‬‬ ‫‪10.860 28.5 60 29.2‬‬
‫‪28.7‬‬ ‫‪60‬‬
‫‪12.5‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪11.7‬‬
‫‪29.5 65 29 65 30.1‬‬ ‫‪65‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .36‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻏﻼﺱ ‪ ، TH 55 ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ BaseOne ، 4‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ‪BaseOne rut 0‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪59.6‬‬ ‫‪4.13‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.13‬‬ ‫‪20.67‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪11.67‬‬ ‫‪3.23‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.93‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.93‬‬ ‫‪9.67‬‬ ‫‪4.20‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.47‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.47‬‬ ‫‪7.33‬‬ ‫‪4.93‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪1.93‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.80‬‬ ‫‪9.00‬‬ ‫‪5.83‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.73‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.73‬‬ ‫‪8.67‬‬ ‫‪6.70‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.40‬‬ ‫‪7.00‬‬ ‫‪7.40‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.53‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.53‬‬ ‫‪7.67‬‬ ‫‪8.17‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.73‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.73‬‬ ‫‪8.67‬‬ ‫‪9.03‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.27‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.27‬‬ ‫‪6.33‬‬ ‫‪9.67‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪37‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .37‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 74 ،‬ﺷﺎﺭﻉ ‪ ، 347‬ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪28.1 0 27.4 0 27.8‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪2.9‬‬ ‫‪2.4‬‬ ‫‪1.4 531 29.8 5 29.2‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4.4‬‬ ‫‪3.7‬‬ ‫‪2.9 10 31.1 10 30.7‬‬
‫‪32.5‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪6.2‬‬ ‫‪5.1‬‬ ‫‪3.2 15 32.5 15 31‬‬
‫‪34.3‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪7.9‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪6.2‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪4.4‬‬
‫‪2036 33.6 20 32.2‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪8.9‬‬ ‫‪7.3‬‬ ‫‪5.8‬‬
‫‪2537 34.7 25 33.6‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪10.3‬‬ ‫‪8.4‬‬ ‫‪6.6 30 35.8 30 34.4‬‬
‫‪38.4‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪11.6‬‬ ‫‪9.5‬‬ ‫‪7.4 35 36.9 35 35.2‬‬
‫‪39.7‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪12.6‬‬ ‫‪10.5‬‬ ‫‪8.6 40 37.9 40 36.4‬‬
‫‪40.7‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :38‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 74 ،‬ﺷﺎﺭﻉ ‪ ، 347‬ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺮ‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪54.6‬‬ ‫‪4.47‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.47‬‬ ‫‪22.33‬‬ ‫‪2.23‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪89.8‬‬ ‫‪2.87‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.87‬‬ ‫‪14.33‬‬ ‫‪3.67‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪11.67‬‬ ‫‪4.83‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪2.64‬‬ ‫‪97.3‬‬ ‫‪2.67‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.67‬‬ ‫‪13.33‬‬ ‫‪6.17‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪11.67‬‬ ‫‪7.33‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.20‬‬ ‫‪11.00‬‬ ‫‪8.43‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.13‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.13‬‬ ‫‪10.67‬‬ ‫‪9.50‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.13‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.13‬‬ ‫‪10.67‬‬ ‫‪10.57‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬

‫‪38‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .39‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪ ، Chisago ، CSAH 24 ، Lofton Ave‬ﺗﺤﻜﻢ ‪FDR‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪18.8 0 22.4 0 25.5‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪2.2‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪2.3 21 5 24.4 5 27.8‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4.1‬‬ ‫‪3.6‬‬ ‫‪4.2‬‬
‫‪22.9 10 26 10 29.7‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪5.3‬‬ ‫‪4.9‬‬ ‫‪5.9 15 27.3 15 31.4‬‬
‫‪24.1‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪6.9‬‬ ‫‪6.4‬‬ ‫‪7 20 28.8 20 32.5‬‬
‫‪25.7‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪8.4‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪8.4‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪8.5 25 30.8 25 34‬‬
‫‪27.2‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪9.9‬‬ ‫‪9.6‬‬ ‫‪9.7‬‬
‫‪28.7 30 32 30 35.2‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪11.3‬‬ ‫‪10.9‬‬ ‫‪11.235 33.3 35 36.7‬‬
‫‪30.1‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪12.7‬‬ ‫‪12.4‬‬ ‫‪13 40 34.8 40 38.5‬‬
‫‪31.5‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪13.9‬‬ ‫‪13.8‬‬ ‫‪14.745 36.2 45 40.2‬‬
‫‪32.7‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪15.6‬‬ ‫‪15.7‬‬ ‫‪17 50 38.1 50 42.5‬‬
‫‪34.4‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .40‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 24 ، Lofton Ave ،‬ﺗﺤﻜﻢ ‪FDR‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪56.5‬‬ ‫‪4.33‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.33‬‬ ‫‪21.67‬‬ ‫‪2.17‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪69.6‬‬ ‫‪3.60‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.60‬‬ ‫‪18.00‬‬ ‫‪3.97‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪92.2‬‬ ‫‪2.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.80‬‬ ‫‪14.00‬‬ ‫‪5.37‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪92.2‬‬ ‫‪2.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.80‬‬ ‫‪14.00‬‬ ‫‪6.77‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪3.22‬‬ ‫‪75.8‬‬ ‫‪3.33‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.33‬‬ ‫‪16.67‬‬ ‫‪8.43‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.60‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.60‬‬ ‫‪13.00‬‬ ‫‪9.73‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪92.2‬‬ ‫‪2.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.80‬‬ ‫‪14.00‬‬ ‫‪11.13‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪81.3‬‬ ‫‪3.13‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.13‬‬ ‫‪15.67‬‬ ‫‪12.70‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪89.8‬‬ ‫‪2.87‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.87‬‬ ‫‪14.33‬‬ ‫‪14.13‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪63.0‬‬ ‫‪3.93‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.93‬‬ ‫‪19.67‬‬ ‫‪16.10‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪39‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :41‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 19 ، Stacy Trail ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ‪ /‬ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪rut = 0 ،‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪14.8 0 14.8 0 14.5‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪5.7‬‬ ‫‪2.9‬‬ ‫‪4.6‬‬
‫‪20.5 5 17.7 5 19.1‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪7.2‬‬ ‫‪3.6‬‬ ‫‪8.5‬‬
‫‪22 10 18.4 10 23‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪8.8‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪12.5‬‬
‫‪23.6 15 18.8 15 27‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪10.2‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪15.8‬‬
‫‪25 20 19.8 20 30.3‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪11.7‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪5.5‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪18 25 20.3 25 32.5‬‬
‫‪26.5‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪14.2‬‬ ‫‪5.7‬‬ ‫‪20.5‬‬
‫‪29 30 20.5 30 35‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪17.2‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪23.9‬‬
‫‪3532 20.8 35 38.4‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪22.2‬‬ ‫‪6.5‬‬ ‫‪29.1‬‬
‫‪4037 21.3 40 43.6‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪27.7‬‬ ‫‪6.6‬‬ ‫‪36.5‬‬
‫‪42.5 45 21.4 45 51‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪33.7‬‬ ‫‪6.7‬‬ ‫‪48.5‬‬
‫‪48.5 50 21.5 50 63‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :42‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪ ، CSAH 19 ، Stacy Trail ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ‪ /‬ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺮ ‪rut = 0 ،‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪25.6‬‬ ‫‪8.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪8.80‬‬ ‫‪44.00‬‬ ‫‪4.40‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪60.7‬‬ ‫‪4.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.07‬‬ ‫‪20.33‬‬ ‫‪6.43‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪61.8‬‬ ‫‪4.00‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.00‬‬ ‫‪20.00‬‬ ‫‪8.43‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪65.5‬‬ ‫‪3.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.80‬‬ ‫‪19.00‬‬ ‫‪10.33‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪5.93‬‬ ‫‪92.2‬‬ ‫‪2.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.80‬‬ ‫‪14.00‬‬ ‫‪11.73‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪72.6‬‬ ‫‪3.47‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.47‬‬ ‫‪17.33‬‬ ‫‪13.47‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪54.6‬‬ ‫‪4.47‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.47‬‬ ‫‪22.33‬‬ ‫‪15.70‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪32.3‬‬ ‫‪7.13‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪7.13‬‬ ‫‪35.67‬‬ ‫‪19.27‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪26.0‬‬ ‫‪8.67‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪8.67‬‬ ‫‪43.33‬‬ ‫‪23.60‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪17.9‬‬ ‫‪12.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪12.07‬‬ ‫‪60.33‬‬ ‫‪29.63‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪40‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .43‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﺑﺸﺎ ‪ CSAH 9 ، FDR ،‬ﻣﻊ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺉﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺪﻟﺔ ‪ 2) 5‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ( ‪ ،‬ﻣﻐﻠﻖ ﻣﺆﺧﺮﺍً ﻓﻲ ﺻﻴﻒ ‪2017‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪15.7 0 18.3 0 19.7‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪1.8‬‬ ‫‪2.1‬‬ ‫‪1.7‬‬
‫‪17.5 5 20.4 5 21.4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪3.1‬‬ ‫‪3.7‬‬ ‫‪2.9‬‬
‫‪18.8 10 22 10 22.6‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪4.1‬‬ ‫‪4.9‬‬ ‫‪4.3 15 23.2 15 24‬‬
‫‪19.8‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪4.7‬‬ ‫‪6.4‬‬ ‫‪5.3 20 24.7 20 25‬‬
‫‪20.4‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪5.6‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪6.7‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪6.4‬‬
‫‪21.3 25 25 25 26.1‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪6.3‬‬ ‫‪7.7‬‬ ‫‪7.822 30 26 30 27.5‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪7.5‬‬ ‫‪9.3‬‬ ‫‪8.7 35 27.6 35 28.4‬‬
‫‪23.2‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪8.3‬‬ ‫‪10.2‬‬ ‫‪9.6‬‬
‫‪24 40 28.5 40 29.3‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪9.3‬‬ ‫‪11.1‬‬ ‫‪10.2‬‬
‫‪4525 29.4 45 29.9‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪10.2‬‬ ‫‪12.1‬‬ ‫‪10.850 30.4 50 30.5‬‬
‫‪25.9‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .44‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﺑﺎﺷﺎ ‪ CSAH 9 ، FDR ،‬ﻣﻊ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺉﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺪﻟﺔ ‪ 2) 5‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ( ‪ ،‬ﻣﻐﻠﻖ ﻣﺆﺧﺮﺍً ﻓﻲ ﺻﻴﻒ ‪2017‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪66.8‬‬ ‫‪3.73‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.73‬‬ ‫‪18.67‬‬ ‫‪1.87‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪94.7‬‬ ‫‪2.73‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.73‬‬ ‫‪13.67‬‬ ‫‪3.23‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.40‬‬ ‫‪12.00‬‬ ‫‪4.43‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪10.33‬‬ ‫‪5.47‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪2.21‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.53‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.53‬‬ ‫‪7.67‬‬ ‫‪6.23‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪10.33‬‬ ‫‪7.27‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.47‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.47‬‬ ‫‪12.33‬‬ ‫‪8.50‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.73‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.73‬‬ ‫‪8.67‬‬ ‫‪9.37‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.67‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.67‬‬ ‫‪8.33‬‬ ‫‪10.20‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.67‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.67‬‬ ‫‪8.33‬‬ ‫‪11.03‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪41‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .45‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﺑﺸﺎ ‪ CSAH 16 ، 12 ،‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮ ‪ FDR‬ﻣﻊ ‪ BaseOne‬ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻱ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻣﺆﺧﺮﺍً ﻣﺤﻜﻢ ﺍﻹﻏﻼﻕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻼﻁ ﻓﻲ ﺧﺮﻳﻒ ‪2016‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪17 0 22.1 0 21.9‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪2.1‬‬ ‫‪3.1 519 24.2 5 25‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪2.9‬‬ ‫‪3.6‬‬ ‫‪5.3 10 25.7 10 27.2‬‬
‫‪19.9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪3.7‬‬ ‫‪4.6‬‬ ‫‪6.7 15 26.7 15 28.6‬‬
‫‪20.7‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪4.6‬‬ ‫‪5.5‬‬ ‫‪7.6 20 27.6 20 29.5‬‬
‫‪21.6‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪5.4‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪6.8‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪8.1 25 28.9 25 30‬‬
‫‪22.4‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪6.3‬‬ ‫‪7.3‬‬ ‫‪9.5 30 29.4 30 31.4‬‬
‫‪23.3‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪7.5‬‬ ‫‪8.1‬‬ ‫‪10.335 30.2 35 32.2‬‬
‫‪24.5‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪8.2‬‬ ‫‪8.8‬‬ ‫‪11.440 30.9 40 33.3‬‬
‫‪25.2‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪9.1‬‬ ‫‪9.7‬‬ ‫‪12.345 31.8 45 34.2‬‬
‫‪26.1‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪10.4‬‬ ‫‪27 50 32.5 50‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .46‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﺑﺎﺷﺎ ‪ CSAH 16 ، 12 ،‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮ ‪ FDR‬ﻣﻊ ‪ BaseOne‬ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻱ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ‪ ،‬ﻣﺆﺧﺮﺍً ﻣﻼﻁ ﻣﻐﻠﻖ ﺧﺮﻳﻒ ‪2016‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪50.4‬‬ ‫‪4.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.80‬‬ ‫‪24.00‬‬ ‫‪2.40‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪83.2‬‬ ‫‪3.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.07‬‬ ‫‪15.33‬‬ ‫‪3.93‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.13‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.13‬‬ ‫‪10.67‬‬ ‫‪5.00‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.80‬‬ ‫‪9.00‬‬ ‫‪5.90‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪2.04‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.73‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.73‬‬ ‫‪8.67‬‬ ‫‪6.77‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.87‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.87‬‬ ‫‪9.33‬‬ ‫‪7.70‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.87‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.87‬‬ ‫‪9.33‬‬ ‫‪8.63‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.67‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.67‬‬ ‫‪8.33‬‬ ‫‪9.47‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.80‬‬ ‫‪9.00‬‬ ‫‪10.37‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪0.33 -‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪0.33 -‬‬ ‫‪1.67 -‬‬ ‫‪10.20‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪42‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .47‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺑﻠﻮ ﺇﻳﺮﺙ ‪ TH 30 ، 6 ،‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ )‪ 15‬ﺳﻢ( ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺇﺳﻔﻠﺘﻴﺔ ﺭﻏﻮﻳﺔ ﻣﺜﺒﺘﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺷﺒﻖ = ‪ 1/10‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﺴﺘﺨﺮﺟﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻮﺍﺓ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪18 0 21.8 0 27.2‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪1.8‬‬ ‫‪1.9‬‬ ‫‪1.9‬‬
‫‪19.8 5 23.7 5 29.1‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪2.9‬‬ ‫‪3.2‬‬ ‫‪3.6‬‬
‫‪20.9 10 25 10 30.8‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪3.7‬‬ ‫‪4.7‬‬ ‫‪4.9 15 26.5 15 32.1‬‬
‫‪21.7‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪5.2‬‬ ‫‪6.1‬‬ ‫‪6.7 20 27.9 20 33.9‬‬
‫‪23.2‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪6.3‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪7.6‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪8.2 25 29.4 25 35.4‬‬
‫‪24.3‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪7.2‬‬ ‫‪9.3‬‬ ‫‪10 30 31.1 30 37.2‬‬
‫‪25.2‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪8.8‬‬ ‫‪10.9‬‬ ‫‪12.235 32.7 35 39.4‬‬
‫‪26.8‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪9.7‬‬ ‫‪12.5‬‬ ‫‪13.8‬‬
‫‪27.7 40 34.3 40 41‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪14.6‬‬ ‫‪15.4‬‬
‫‪29 45 36.4 45 42.6‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪12.4‬‬ ‫‪16.2‬‬ ‫‪16.7‬‬
‫‪30.4 50 38 50 43.9‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .48‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺑﻠﻮ ﺇﻳﺮﺙ ‪ TH 30 ، 6 ،‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ )‪ 15‬ﺳﻢ( ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺇﺳﻔﻠﺘﻴﺔ ﺭﻏﻮﻳﺔ ﻣﺜﺒﺘﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺷﺒﻖ = ‪ 1/10‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪67.5‬‬ ‫‪3.70‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.70‬‬ ‫‪18.50‬‬ ‫‪1.85‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.40‬‬ ‫‪12.00‬‬ ‫‪3.05‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.30‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.30‬‬ ‫‪11.50‬‬ ‫‪4.20‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪88.6‬‬ ‫‪2.90‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.90‬‬ ‫‪14.50‬‬ ‫‪5.65‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪2.86‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.60‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.60‬‬ ‫‪13.00‬‬ ‫‪6.95‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.60‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.60‬‬ ‫‪13.00‬‬ ‫‪8.25‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪79.4‬‬ ‫‪3.20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.20‬‬ ‫‪16.00‬‬ ‫‪9.85‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.50‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.50‬‬ ‫‪12.50‬‬ ‫‪11.10‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪74.2‬‬ ‫‪3.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.40‬‬ ‫‪17.00‬‬ ‫‪12.80‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪85.3‬‬ ‫‪3.00‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.00‬‬ ‫‪15.00‬‬ ‫‪14.30‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪43‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .49‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﺩﺝ ‪ CSAH 10 ، FDR ،‬ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪2010‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪15.8 0 14.7‬‬ ‫‪0 13.9‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪1.6‬‬ ‫‪1.8‬‬ ‫‪17.4 5 16.5‬‬ ‫‪1.9‬‬ ‫‪5 15.8‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪2.6‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪18.4 10 17.7‬‬ ‫‪2.8‬‬ ‫‪10 16.7‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪3.9‬‬ ‫‪3.8‬‬ ‫‪19.7 15 18.5‬‬ ‫‪3.8‬‬ ‫‪15 17.7‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪20.8 20 19.7‬‬ ‫‪4.5‬‬ ‫‪20 18.4‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪6.1‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪5.9‬‬ ‫‪21.9 25 20.6‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪5.6‬‬ ‫‪25 19.5‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪6.8‬‬ ‫‪7.2‬‬ ‫‪22.6 30 21.9‬‬ ‫‪6.7‬‬ ‫‪30 20.6‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪7.9‬‬ ‫‪8.5‬‬ ‫‪23.7 35 23.2‬‬ ‫‪7.9‬‬ ‫‪35 21.8‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪9.2‬‬ ‫‪9.9‬‬ ‫‪25 40 24.6‬‬ ‫‪8.9‬‬ ‫‪40 22.8‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪10.3‬‬ ‫‪11.3‬‬ ‫‪26.1 45 26‬‬ ‫‪10.1‬‬ ‫‪45 24‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪11.6‬‬ ‫‪12.9 27.4 50 27.6‬‬ ‫‪11.4‬‬ ‫‪50 25.3‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .50‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﺩﺝ ‪ CSAH 10 ، FDR ،‬ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪2010‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪71.0‬‬ ‫‪3.53‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.53‬‬ ‫‪17.67‬‬ ‫‪1.77‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪10.33‬‬ ‫‪2.80‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪10.33‬‬ ‫‪3.83‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.00‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.00‬‬ ‫‪10.00‬‬ ‫‪4.83‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪2.39‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪10.33‬‬ ‫‪5.87‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪10.33‬‬ ‫‪6.90‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.40‬‬ ‫‪12.00‬‬ ‫‪8.10‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.47‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.47‬‬ ‫‪12.33‬‬ ‫‪9.33‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.47‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.47‬‬ ‫‪12.33‬‬ ‫‪10.57‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪92.2‬‬ ‫‪2.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.80‬‬ ‫‪14.00‬‬ ‫‪11.97‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪44‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .51‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺭﺍﻳﺲ ‪ CSAH 29 ، 10 ،‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ‪ FDR‬ﻣﻊ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻨﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺷﻘﻮﻕ ﻣﺮﺉﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺮﺍﻛﺐ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ﻋﺎﻣﻴﻦ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪16.2 0 16‬‬ ‫‪0 18‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪2.1‬‬ ‫‪2.6‬‬ ‫‪18.3 5 18.6‬‬ ‫‪2.3‬‬ ‫‪5 20.3‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4.2‬‬ ‫‪4.6‬‬ ‫‪20.4 10 20.6‬‬ ‫‪4.4‬‬ ‫‪10 22.4‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪5.8‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪22 15 22‬‬ ‫‪6.6‬‬ ‫‪15 24.6‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪7.8‬‬ ‫‪7.8‬‬ ‫‪24 20 23.8‬‬ ‫‪9.3‬‬ ‫‪20 27.3‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪10.3‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪9.8‬‬ ‫‪26.5 25 25.8‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪25 30‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪13.2‬‬ ‫‪11.7 29.4 30 27.7‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪30 33‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪16.6‬‬ ‫‪14.2 32.8 35 30.2‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫‪35 38‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪19.5‬‬ ‫‪16.9 35.7 40 32.9‬‬ ‫‪21.6‬‬ ‫‪40 39.6‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪21.2‬‬ ‫‪19.5 37.4 45 35.5‬‬ ‫‪23.1‬‬ ‫‪45 41.1‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪22.7‬‬ ‫‪21.4 38.9 50 37.4‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﺴﻄﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻦ ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺗﺸﻘﻘﺎﺕ ﻣﺮﺉﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺮﺍﻛﺐ ﻟﻤﺪﺓ ﻋﺎﻣﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .52‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺭﺍﻳﺲ ‪CSAH 29 ، 10 in. FDR with ،‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪52.0‬‬ ‫‪4.67‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.67‬‬ ‫‪23.33‬‬ ‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪59.6‬‬ ‫‪4.13‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.13‬‬ ‫‪20.67‬‬ ‫‪4.40‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪72.6‬‬ ‫‪3.47‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.47‬‬ ‫‪17.33‬‬ ‫‪6.13‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪56.5‬‬ ‫‪4.33‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.33‬‬ ‫‪21.67‬‬ ‫‪8.30‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪4.41‬‬ ‫‪50.4‬‬ ‫‪4.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.80‬‬ ‫‪24.00‬‬ ‫‪10.70‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪46.1‬‬ ‫‪5.20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪5.20‬‬ ‫‪26.00‬‬ ‫‪13.30‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪31.7‬‬ ‫‪7.27‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪7.27‬‬ ‫‪36.33‬‬ ‫‪16.93‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪50.4‬‬ ‫‪4.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.80‬‬ ‫‪24.00‬‬ ‫‪19.33‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪64.2‬‬ ‫‪3.87‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.87‬‬ ‫‪19.33‬‬ ‫‪21.27‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.57‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.57‬‬ ‫‪7.83‬‬ ‫‪22.05‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪45‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :53‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺭﺍﻳﺲ ‪ CSAH 26 ، 12 ،‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ‪ FDR‬ﻣﻊ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺎﺕ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪18.4 0 16.1‬‬ ‫‪0 14.6‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪1.9‬‬ ‫‪2.4‬‬ ‫‪20.3 5 18.5‬‬ ‫‪1.7‬‬ ‫‪5 16.3‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪3.3‬‬ ‫‪3.1‬‬ ‫‪21.7 10 19.2‬‬ ‫‪2.7‬‬ ‫‪10 17.3‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪4.6‬‬ ‫‪4.2‬‬ ‫‪1523 20.3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪15 18.6‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪5.6‬‬ ‫‪5.2‬‬ ‫‪24 20 21.3‬‬ ‫‪4.7‬‬ ‫‪20 19.3‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪6.8‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪6.5‬‬ ‫‪25.2 25 22.6‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪5.9‬‬ ‫‪25 20.5‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪7.5‬‬ ‫‪26.4 30 23.6‬‬ ‫‪6.8‬‬ ‫‪30 21.4‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪9.1‬‬ ‫‪8.4‬‬ ‫‪27.5 35 24.5‬‬ ‫‪8.1‬‬ ‫‪22.735‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪9.1‬‬ ‫‪28.4 40 25.2‬‬ ‫‪9.4‬‬ ‫‪40 24‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪11.1‬‬ ‫‪10.3 29.5 45 26.4‬‬ ‫‪10.8‬‬ ‫‪45 25.4‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪11.8‬‬ ‫‪11.3 30.2 50 27.4‬‬ ‫‪11.9‬‬ ‫‪50 26.5‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪ 4‬ﻓﻲ‪ .‬ﺗﺴﻄﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .54‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺭﺍﻳﺲ ‪ CSAH 26 ، 12 ،‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ‪ FDR‬ﻣﻊ‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪61.8‬‬ ‫‪4.00‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.00‬‬ ‫‪20.00‬‬ ‫‪2.00‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪10.33‬‬ ‫‪3.03‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.47‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.47‬‬ ‫‪12.33‬‬ ‫‪4.27‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.80‬‬ ‫‪9.00‬‬ ‫‪5.17‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.47‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.47‬‬ ‫‪12.33‬‬ ‫‪6.40‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪10.33‬‬ ‫‪7.43‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.20‬‬ ‫‪11.00‬‬ ‫‪8.53‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.93‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.93‬‬ ‫‪9.67‬‬ ‫‪9.50‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.47‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.47‬‬ ‫‪12.33‬‬ ‫‪10.73‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.87‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.87‬‬ ‫‪9.33‬‬ ‫‪11.67‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪46‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .55‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﺩﺝ ‪ Co Hwy 27 ، 2006 ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﻣﻊ ‪BaseOne‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪15.8 0 16 0 25.1‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪2.3‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪1.6 18.1 5 18 5 26.7‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪3.8‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪2.6‬‬
‫‪19.6 10 19 10 27.7‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪4.9‬‬ ‫‪4.1‬‬ ‫‪2.9 15 20.1 15 28‬‬
‫‪20.7‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪5.9‬‬ ‫‪5.4‬‬ ‫‪3.7 20 21.4 20 28.8‬‬
‫‪21.7‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪6.8‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪6.1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪4.8 25 22.1 25 29.9‬‬
‫‪22.6‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪7.4‬‬ ‫‪6.9‬‬ ‫‪5.5 30 22.9 30 30.6‬‬
‫‪23.2‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪8.4‬‬ ‫‪7.8‬‬ ‫‪5.9 35 23.8 35 31‬‬
‫‪24.2‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪9.3‬‬ ‫‪8.9‬‬ ‫‪6.5 40 24.9 40 31.6‬‬
‫‪25.1‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪10.6‬‬ ‫‪9.7‬‬ ‫‪7.3 45 25.7 45 32.4‬‬
‫‪26.4‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪11.7‬‬ ‫‪10.4‬‬ ‫‪7.9 50 26.4 50 33‬‬
‫‪27.5‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .56‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﺩﺝ ‪ Co Hwy 27 ، 2006 ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻴﻒ ﻣﻊ ‪BaseOne‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪63.0‬‬ ‫‪3.93‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.93‬‬ ‫‪19.67‬‬ ‫‪1.97‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪11.67‬‬ ‫‪3.13‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.67‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.67‬‬ ‫‪8.33‬‬ ‫‪3.97‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪10.33‬‬ ‫‪5.00‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪2.00‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.80‬‬ ‫‪9.00‬‬ ‫‪5.90‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.40‬‬ ‫‪7.00‬‬ ‫‪6.60‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.53‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.53‬‬ ‫‪7.67‬‬ ‫‪7.37‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.73‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.73‬‬ ‫‪8.67‬‬ ‫‪8.23‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.93‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.93‬‬ ‫‪9.67‬‬ ‫‪9.20‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪1.60‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1.60‬‬ ‫‪8.00‬‬ ‫‪10.00‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪47‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .57‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪ Goodhue ، CSAH 11 ، FDR‬ﻣﻦ ‪2012‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪016 15.2 0 16.2‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪1.4‬‬ ‫‪2.2‬‬ ‫‪1.7‬‬
‫‪17.4 5 17.4 5 17.9‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪2.7‬‬ ‫‪3.6‬‬ ‫‪3.1 10 18.8 10 19.3‬‬
‫‪18.7‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪3.9‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪4.1 15 20.2 15 20.3‬‬
‫‪19.9‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪5.2‬‬ ‫‪6.2‬‬ ‫‪5.2 20 21.4 20 21.4‬‬
‫‪21.2‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪6.8‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪7.7‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪6.3 25 22.9 25 22.5‬‬
‫‪22.8‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪8.1‬‬ ‫‪9.4‬‬ ‫‪7.6 30 24.6 30 23.8‬‬
‫‪24.1‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪9.2‬‬ ‫‪10.8‬‬ ‫‪9 35 26 35 25.2‬‬
‫‪25.2‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪10.7‬‬ ‫‪12.2‬‬ ‫‪10.540 27.4 40 26.7‬‬
‫‪40 26.7‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪12.2‬‬ ‫‪13.6‬‬ ‫‪12.145 28.8 45 28.3‬‬
‫‪28.2‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪13.4‬‬ ‫‪14.7‬‬ ‫‪13.550 29.9 50 29.7‬‬
‫‪29.4‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .58‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪ Goodhue ، CSAH 11 ، FDR‬ﻣﻦ ‪2012‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪71.0‬‬ ‫‪3.53‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.53‬‬ ‫‪17.67‬‬ ‫‪1.77‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪94.7‬‬ ‫‪2.73‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.73‬‬ ‫‪13.67‬‬ ‫‪3.13‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.40‬‬ ‫‪12.00‬‬ ‫‪4.33‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.40‬‬ ‫‪12.00‬‬ ‫‪5.53‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪2.77‬‬ ‫‪92.2‬‬ ‫‪2.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.80‬‬ ‫‪14.00‬‬ ‫‪6.93‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪89.8‬‬ ‫‪2.87‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.87‬‬ ‫‪14.33‬‬ ‫‪8.37‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.60‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.60‬‬ ‫‪13.00‬‬ ‫‪9.67‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪87.5‬‬ ‫‪2.93‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.93‬‬ ‫‪14.67‬‬ ‫‪11.13‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪85.3‬‬ ‫‪3.00‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.00‬‬ ‫‪15.00‬‬ ‫‪12.63‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.47‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.47‬‬ ‫‪12.33‬‬ ‫‪13.87‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪48‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .59‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪ Goodhue ، CSAH 7 North ، FDR‬ﻣﻦ ‪2005‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪19.1 0 20 0 20.4‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪1.6‬‬ ‫‪1.9‬‬ ‫‪1.620.7 5 21.9 5 22‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪3.3‬‬ ‫‪3.9‬‬ ‫‪2.7 10 23.9 10 23.1‬‬
‫‪22.4‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪5.2‬‬ ‫‪5.2‬‬ ‫‪4.3 15 25.2 15 24.7‬‬
‫‪24.3‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪6.3‬‬ ‫‪6.7‬‬ ‫‪5.8 20 26.7 20 26.2‬‬
‫‪25.4‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪7.5‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪8.2‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪7 25 28.2 25 27.4‬‬
‫‪26.6‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪8.7‬‬ ‫‪9.8‬‬ ‫‪8.4 30 29.8 30 28.8‬‬
‫‪27.8‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪9.8‬‬ ‫‪11.2‬‬ ‫‪9.7 35 31.2 35 30.1‬‬
‫‪28.9‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪10.8‬‬ ‫‪12.5‬‬ ‫‪10.940 32.5 40 31.3‬‬
‫‪29.9‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪11.9‬‬ ‫‪13.6‬‬ ‫‪11.8‬‬
‫‪4531 33.6 45 32.2‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪13‬‬ ‫‪14.9‬‬ ‫‪13 50 34.9 50 33.4‬‬
‫‪32.1‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .60‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪ Goodhue ، CSAH 7 North ، FDR‬ﻣﻦ ‪2005‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪74.2‬‬ ‫‪3.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.40‬‬ ‫‪17.00‬‬ ‫‪1.70‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪79.4‬‬ ‫‪3.20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.20‬‬ ‫‪16.00‬‬ ‫‪3.30‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪79.4‬‬ ‫‪3.20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.20‬‬ ‫‪16.00‬‬ ‫‪4.90‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪94.7‬‬ ‫‪2.73‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.73‬‬ ‫‪13.67‬‬ ‫‪6.27‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪2.73‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.60‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.60‬‬ ‫‪13.00‬‬ ‫‪7.57‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪92.2‬‬ ‫‪2.80‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.80‬‬ ‫‪14.00‬‬ ‫‪8.97‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.53‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.53‬‬ ‫‪12.67‬‬ ‫‪10.23‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪11.67‬‬ ‫‪11.40‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.07‬‬ ‫‪10.33‬‬ ‫‪12.43‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪2.40‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2.40‬‬ ‫‪12.00‬‬ ‫‪13.63‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪49‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .61‬ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪ Goodhue ، CSAH 7 South ، FDR‬ﻣﻦ ‪.rut 1/10 in ، 1998‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ‪ # #‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕ )ﺳﻢ( ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ‪#‬‬

‫‪16.8 0 18.3 0 20.8‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪2.2‬‬ ‫‪2.6‬‬ ‫‪2.2 519 20.9 5 23‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪4.6‬‬ ‫‪4.3 10 22.9 10 25.1‬‬
‫‪20.8‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪5.2‬‬ ‫‪6.1‬‬ ‫‪6.2‬‬
‫‪22 15 24.4 15 27‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪6.6‬‬ ‫‪7.7‬‬ ‫‪8 20 26 20 28.8‬‬
‫‪23.4‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪8.1‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪9.3‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪10.2‬‬
‫‪24.9 25 27.6 25 31‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪9.7‬‬ ‫‪11.6‬‬ ‫‪12.2‬‬
‫‪26.5 30 29.9 30 33‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪11.4‬‬ ‫‪13.9‬‬ ‫‪14.535 32.2 35 35.3‬‬
‫‪28.2‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪13.1‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬ ‫‪16.940 34.3 40 37.7‬‬
‫‪29.9‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪15.4‬‬ ‫‪19.3‬‬ ‫‪18.645 37.6 45 39.4‬‬
‫‪32.2‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪17.3‬‬ ‫‪21.8‬‬ ‫‪20.2‬‬
‫‪34.1 50 40.1 50 41‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .62‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ ، DCP‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ‪ Goodhue ، CSAH 7 South ، FDR‬ﻣﻦ ‪.rut 1/10 in ، 1998‬‬

‫‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻛﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻞ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪٪‬‬ ‫ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ )ﺳﻢ(‬ ‫‪ #‬ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪52.0‬‬ ‫‪4.67‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.67‬‬ ‫‪23.33‬‬ ‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪63.0‬‬ ‫‪3.93‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.93‬‬ ‫‪19.67‬‬ ‫‪4.30‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪83.2‬‬ ‫‪3.07‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.07‬‬ ‫‪15.33‬‬ ‫‪5.83‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫‪79.4‬‬ ‫‪3.20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.20‬‬ ‫‪16.00‬‬ ‫‪7.43‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪3.95‬‬ ‫‪71.0‬‬ ‫‪3.53‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.53‬‬ ‫‪17.67‬‬ ‫‪9.20‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪63.0‬‬ ‫‪3.93‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪3.93‬‬ ‫‪19.67‬‬ ‫‪11.17‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫‪58.5‬‬ ‫‪4.20‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.20‬‬ ‫‪21.00‬‬ ‫‪13.27‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬
‫‪59.6‬‬ ‫‪4.13‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.13‬‬ ‫‪20.67‬‬ ‫‪15.33‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪49.6‬‬ ‫‪4.87‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.87‬‬ ‫‪24.33‬‬ ‫‪17.77‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬
‫‪61.8‬‬ ‫‪4.00‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪4.00‬‬ ‫‪20.00‬‬ ‫‪19.77‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪50‬‬
 ‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ ‪ DCP‬ﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻭﻋﻼﺟﺎﺕ ﺗﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪.63‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .63‬ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﻧﺘﺎﺉﺞ ‪ DCP‬ﻟﻌﻼﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‬

‫ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ‪CBR‬‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻣﺆﺷﺮ ‪) DCP‬ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ(‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﻼﺝ‬

‫‪* 229.5‬‬ ‫‪1.24‬‬ ‫‪81‬‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ‬
‫‪* 181.4‬‬ ‫‪1.53‬‬ ‫ﺗﺸﻴﺴﺎﻏﻮ ‪CSAH 11‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ‪ +‬ﺍﻻﺳﻤﻨﺖ‬
‫‪71.1‬‬ ‫‪3.53‬‬ ‫ﺷﻴﺰﺍﺟﻮ ‪CSAH 20‬‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻜﻢ ‪FDR‬‬
‫‪* 118.9‬‬ ‫‪2.23‬‬ ‫ﻗﺴﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺎﺑﻚ ‪1‬‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻜﻢ ‪FDR‬‬
‫‪* 112.7‬‬ ‫‪2.34‬‬ ‫ﻗﺴﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺎﺑﻚ ‪2‬‬ ‫ﺃﺳﻤﻨﺖ ‪CSS1 +‬‬
‫‪* 120.1‬‬ ‫‪2.21‬‬ ‫ﻗﺴﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺎﺑﻚ ‪3‬‬ ‫ﺇﻱ‬
‫‪67.9‬‬ ‫‪3.68‬‬ ‫ﻗﺴﻢ ‪ Douglass TH55 4‬ﻗﺴﻢ‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻜﻢ ‪FDR‬‬
‫‪92.9‬‬ ‫‪2.78‬‬ ‫‪ Douglass TH55 3‬ﻗﺴﻢ ‪1‬‬ ‫ﺇﻱ‬
‫‪* 133.6‬‬ ‫‪2.01‬‬ ‫‪ Douglass TH55‬ﻗﺴﻢ ‪55 2‬‬ ‫ﺃﺳﻤﻨﺖ ‪CCS1 +‬‬
‫‪90.4‬‬ ‫‪2.85‬‬ ‫‪ Douglass TH‬ﻗﺴﻢ ‪TH 55 5‬‬ ‫ﺇﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺭﻏﻮﻱ‬
‫‪* 139.8‬‬ ‫‪1.93‬‬ ‫‪Douglass‬‬ ‫‪BaseOne‬‬
‫‪98.4‬‬ ‫‪2.64‬‬ ‫‪ -74‬ﻧﺪﻯ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ‬
‫‪78.8‬‬ ‫‪3.22‬‬ ‫ﺷﻴﺰﺍﺟﻮ ‪CSAH 20‬‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻜﻢ ‪FDR‬‬
‫‪39.8‬‬ ‫‪5.93‬‬ ‫‪Chisago CSAH 19‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ‪ +‬ﺍﻻﺳﻤﻨﺖ‬
‫‪* 120.1‬‬ ‫‪2.21‬‬ ‫ﻭﺍﺑﺸﺎ ‪CSAH 9‬‬ ‫‪ AB‬ﻣﻊ ‪ 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ‪FDR‬‬
‫‪* 131.4‬‬ ‫‪2.04‬‬ ‫ﻭﺍﺑﺎﺷﺎ ‪CSAH 16‬‬ ‫‪BaseOne‬‬
‫‪90.0‬‬ ‫‪2.86‬‬ ‫ﺑﻠﻮ ﺇﻳﺮﺙ ‪TH 30‬‬ ‫ﺇﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺭﻏﻮﻱ‬
‫‪* 110.0‬‬ ‫‪2.39‬‬ ‫ﺩﻭﺩﺝ ‪CSAH 10‬‬ ‫ﺭﻭﺯﻓﻠﺖ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪2010‬‬

‫‪55.4‬‬ ‫‪4.41‬‬ ‫ﺃﺭﺯ ‪CSAH 29‬‬ ‫‪ 10‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ‪ FDR + 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺑﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻦ ‪12‬‬
‫‪* 113.2‬‬ ‫‪2.33‬‬ ‫ﺃﺭﺯ ‪CSAH 26‬‬ ‫ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ‪ FDR + 4‬ﺑﻮﺻﺔ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺑﻴﺘﻮﻣﻴﻦ‬
‫‪* 134.3‬‬ ‫‪2.00‬‬ ‫ﺩﻭﺩﺝ ‪CSAH 19‬‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪BaseOne 2006‬‬
‫‪93.3‬‬ ‫‪2.77‬‬ ‫‪Goodhue CSAH 11‬‬ ‫ﺭﻭﺯﻓﻠﺖ ‪2012‬‬
‫‪94.8‬‬ ‫‪2.73‬‬ ‫‪Goodhue CSAH 7N‬‬ ‫ﻓﺮﺍﻧﻜﻠﻴﻦ ﺭﻭﺯﻓﻠﺖ ‪2005‬‬

‫‪62.7‬‬ ‫‪3.95‬‬ ‫‪Goodhue CSAH 7S‬‬ ‫ﻓﺮﺍﻧﻜﻠﻴﻦ ﺭﻭﺯﻓﻠﺖ ‪1998‬‬

‫* ﻧﺴﺐ ‪ CBR‬ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ‪ 100‬ﺗﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﻻﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺆﺷﺮ ‪ DCP‬ﻭ ‪ ٪CBR‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ﻗﺪ ﻻ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺛﻮﻗﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻗﻴﻢ ‪ CBR‬ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺗﺠﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻻﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺆﺷﺮ ‪ DCP‬ﻭﻧﺴﺒﺔ ‪ CBR‬ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ‪ .٪100‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎﺕ ﻟﻨﺴﺐ ‪ CBR‬ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ‪ 100‬؛ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﻻ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺉﻮﻳﺔ ‪ CBR‬ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ‪٪100‬‬
‫ﻣﻮﺛﻮﻗﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﻢ ﻗﻴﺎﺱ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺻﻤﺎﻣﺎﺕ ‪) DCP‬ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ( ﻟﻜﻞ ﻋﻼﺝ ﺗﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﻭﺗﻢ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻤﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪.64‬‬

‫‪51‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .64‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻗﻴﻢ ‪ CBR‬ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻨﻔﺔ ﻟﻌﻼﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ‪DCP‬‬ ‫ﻋﻼﺝ‬

‫)ﻣﻢ ‪ /‬ﺿﺮﺑﺔ(‬ ‫ﺭﺗﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﻼﺝ‬
‫‪1.94‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ‬
‫‪2.00‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪BaseOne‬‬
‫‪2.175‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫ﺃﺳﻤﻨﺖ ‪CSS1 +‬‬
‫‪2.495‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﻫﻨﺪﺳﻲ‬
‫‪2.855‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫ﺇﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺭﻏﻮﻱ‬
‫‪3.04‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻜﻢ ‪FDR‬‬
‫‪3.73‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ‪ +‬ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻢ ﺑﺘﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺗﺼﺎﻋﺪﻱ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺃﻥ ‪ SDFR‬ﻣﻊ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﺼﻼﺑﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ‪ SFDR‬ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﻟﻼﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺃﺩﻧﻰ ﺻﻼﺑﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎﺩﺍً ﺇﻟﻰ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ‪ DCP‬ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺗﺠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﺍﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ‪ 15‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ، 64‬ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﻫﺠﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﻠﺐ ‪ /‬ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ‪ BaseOne‬ﺃﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻼﺑﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺿﺢ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﻣﺆﺷﺮ ‪ .DCP‬ﺃﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﻃﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﺎﻳﺮ ‪ /‬ﺍﻷﺳﻤﻨﺖ ‪ ، EE ،‬ﺍﻹﺳﻔﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻮﻱ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻃﺮﻕ ‪ FDR‬ﺃﻗﻞ ﺻﻼﺑﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺿﺢ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﻣﺆﺷﺮ‬
‫‪.DCP‬‬

‫‪ 3.3‬ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻻﺿﻄﺮﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﺮﻱ‬

‫ﺗﻢ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﺮﻱ ﺑﻨﺎء ًﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻮﺍﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺃﺩﺍء ﺍﻟﺮﺻﻒ ﻃﻮﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻯ )‪ ، (LTPP‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺤﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﺉﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻬﺎ ﻭﻃﻮﻟﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺳﻤﻜﻬﺎ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﺍً ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻐﺎﺛﺔ‪ .‬ﺷﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﺉﻘﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺭﻗﻢ ﻣﻦ ‪ 1‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ، 3‬ﻣﻊ ‪ 3‬ﺗﺸﻴﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺪﺓ )‪ .(Elkins et al. 2003‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻛﻞ ﺍﺳﺘﻐﺎﺛﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺭﻣﺰ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ 1‬ﻭ ‪ .9‬ﻳﻌﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ 65‬ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻐﺎﺛﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ‪ .LTPP‬ﺗﻢ ﺍﻹﺑﻼﻍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺉﺞ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﻖ‬

‫ﻭﺷﺪﺗﻬﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ - 65‬ﻣﻌﺎﻳﻴﺮ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺏ‬

‫ﺳﻤﺎﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ‬

‫ﻭﺣﺪﺓ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺩ‬ ‫ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻐﺎﺛﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺪﻡ‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺴﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻌﺮﺽ‬
‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺪﻡ‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺴﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻟﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺪﻡ‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫ﺇﻋﻴﺎء‬
‫ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺘﺎﺡ‬ ‫ﻗﺪﻡ‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫ﺃﺧﺪﻭﺩ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺘﺎﺡ‬ ‫ﻗﺪﻡ‪2‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻗﻴﻊ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺘﺎﺡ‬ ‫ﻗﺪﻡ‪2‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫ﻧﺰﻳﻒ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺘﺎﺡ‬ ‫ﻗﺪﻡ‪2‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫ﻓﻘﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﻄﺎء ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺘﺎﺡ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ‪.‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﻖ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺘﺎﺡ‬ ‫ﻗﺪﻡ‪2‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫ﺧﺮﺏ‬

‫‪performed for pavements that are sufficiently old, and not all of the sections in this study were old‬‬
‫‪It should be mentioned that distress identification and pavement condition evaluation are typically‬‬

‫‪52‬‬
sections had been maintained with overlays; therefore, some of the underlying distress was not visible.
enough to be evaluated )that is, they did not exhibit any distress(. Some of the older pavement

The results of a pavement surface condition evaluation are presented in Table 66.

Table 66. Distress evaluation results

LTTP
Severity
Low - High Distress
(3–1) Measurement Location )ft( Code Section Name
1 210 ft 24–0 3
3 10 7 1
2 5 25 1
2 5 31 1
sealed 20 76 1
25 ft 124–92 3
2 8 118 1
2 5 124 1 CSAH 81 River
Chisago
2 10 131 1 Road
2 6 143 1
2 6 147 1
3 8 174 1
3 10 188 1
2 7 212 1
sealed 10 234 1
2 6 262 1
3 12 104 1
3 12 161 1
1 10 200–190 2
1 36 240–104 –
3 12 261 1 CSAH 11, 375th Chisago
1 16 316–300 2
1 26 350–324 2
3 12 341 1
3 12 468 1
1 2 67 1
2 24 96 1
3 24 225 1
TH 65, Section 1 Kanabec
3 24 318 1
3 24 389 1
3 18 469 1
2 10 50 1
1 90 90–0 CL
3 24 108 1
3 24 167 1
3 24 237 1
3 24 275 1 TH 65, Section 2 Kanabec
3 24 325 1
2 18 350 1
3 7 394 1
3 24 430 1
3 24 489 1

53
 LTTP
Severity
Low - High Distress
(3–1) Measurement Location )ft( Code Section Name
3 24 4 1
3 13 65 1
3 24 97 1
1 289 410–121 CL
3 24 174 1
3 24 243 1 TH 65, Section 3 Kanabec
3 24 335 1
3 24 422 1
3 12 450 1
3 4 320 1
3 12 310 1
1 4 113 1
2 24 259 1
TH 55, Section 5 Douglas
3 24 315 1
2 13 382 1
1 9 62 1
1 9 72 1
2 12 78 1 TH 55, Section 2 Douglas
2 1 164 9
3 24 498 1
3 24 74 1
2 24 178 1
TH 55, Section 1 Douglas
3 24 318 1
2 24 447 1
1 47 362–321 1
TH 55, Section 3 Douglas
1 17 408–391 1
3 24 36 1
3 24 175 1
2 24 218 1 TH 55, Section 4 Douglas
1 38 350–312 CL
3 10 350 1
1 12 14 1
Blue
1 12 158 1 TH 30
Earth
1 12 341 1
1 12 20 1
1 9 86 1
2 30 120–90 2
1 6 102 1
1 9 123 1
2 4 135 1
1 106 250–144 2
1 12 217 1 CSAH 19 Dodge
1 12 294 1
2 4 338–334 2
2 12 376–364 2
1 12 400 1
2 31 431–400 2
1 6 442 1
1 12 481 1

54
 LTTP
Severity
Low - High Distress
(3–1) Measurement Location )ft( Code Section Name
1 12 37 1
1 12 153 1
CSAH 11 Goodhue
1 12 271 1
1 12 432 1
1 12 16 1
1 3 92 1
2 CL 117 1
2 4 131 1
1 12 206 1
2 3 276 1
2 12 302 1
1 3 307 1
2 8 323 1
CSAH 7 North Goodhue
1 3 335 1
2 12 341 1
1 6 365 1
1 6 377 1
1 3 382 1
1 3 394 1
2 3 400 1
1 2 430 1
2 10 492 1
Between Wheelpaths 500–0 9
21 159 1
CSAH 7 South Goodhue
1 12 195 1
23 365 1
1 25 63–38 2
1 23 123–100 2
1 12 113 1
2 12 115 1
1 12 180 1
1 12 183 1 CSAH 19 Chisago
1 12 272 1
1 12 305 1
1 12 341 1
1 12 415 1
1 12 451 1

sections Chisago CSAH 74, Chisago CSAH 24, Wabasha CSAH 9, Wabasha CSAH 16, Rice CSAH
Rutting was measured for all pavements in the wheel path, with values between 0 and 0.1 inches. Pavement
it was therefore not possible to see the cracks so that a crack inspection could be performed.
19 are not included in Table 66; these roads had been maintained with recent surface treatments, and
29, Rice CSAH 26, and Dodge CSAH

examples of longitudinal cracking and high-severity transverse cracks. Very little distress was observed
Observed distresses were mostly transverse cracks of light to medium severity, with occasional

55
not had time to reflect through the overlay. Based on the research team’s observations, such was not the case.
in the case where a thick HMA overlay was placed to cover relatively severe distress and the distress had
observable. In such situations, it seems reasonable to surmise that these roads are performing well, except
of the roads had been maintained with surface treatments and overlays, and no detectable defects were
CSAH 7 North, which had a mix of low- and medium-severity transverse cracks averaging every 28 feet. Many
feet; however, many of these were classified as high severity. The most cracks were noted on Goodhue County
road was TH 55 Section 2 in Kanabec County, where an average of one transverse crack was noted every 50
on the roads on the primary system. The most distress observed on a primary

56
 – DYNAMIC MODULUS IN INDIRECT TENSION TESTING MODE
CHAPTER 4: LABORATORY TESTING
rut measurement, dynamic modulus, and so on )Ghasemi et al. 2018a, Ghasemi et al. 2018b(.
evaluating system is required. There are several ways to evaluate pavement )layer( performance, including
to measure and predict pavement performance, a repeatable, well-established, and field-calibrated condition
performance is the ability of a pavement to satisfactorily serve traffic over time. In order
According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials )AASHTO(, pavement

of the amplitude of the sinusoidal stress and sinusoidal strain in a steady state response )Ghasemi et al. 2016(.
between stress and strain for a linear viscoelastic material under sinusoidal loading. It is defined as the ratio
The dynamic modulus │E*│ is a complex number that describes the relationship

according to the protocol specified by Kim et al. )2004( using 6-inch )152.4 mm( diameter, 1.5-inch )38.1
in mechanisticempirical pavement design. The indirect tension )IDT( mode dynamic modulus test is performed
for mixture evaluation and characterizing the stiffness of a material )SFDR cores in the present study( for use
The dynamic modulus is a performance-related property that can be used
transformers )LVDTs( with a 50.8mm gauge length located on each side of a specimen’s face )Figure 7(.
and vertical deformations are measured from two loose core–type miniature linear variable differential
mm( thick specimens. Sinusoidal loading is applied in a controlled stress mode. Horizontal

Load strip

6-inch )152.4 mm(

diameter specimen

Horizontal and
vertical LVDTs

Figure 7. IDT dynamic modulus test setup

is 40 to 60 microstrains and the target vertical compressive strain should be under 100 microstrains )Kim et al.
for different specimen diameters and gage lengths. Based on these results, the target horizontal tensile stain
a linear viscoelastic solution and calculated coefficients for Poisson’s ratio and dynamic modulus
between 0.1 and 25 Hz. In order or the measurement to remain linear viscoelastic, Kim et al. )2004( presented
two replicate specimens at five temperatures between 14°F and 130°F )-10°C and 54.4°C( and six loading rates
Based on the AASHTO TP 62-07 specification, testing must take place on at least
.(2004

57
 ME Design software to determine the temperature and rate-dependent behavior of an asphalt concrete layer.
or timedependent stiffness characteristic of the pavement material. It is used in the AASHTOWare Pavement
asphalt concrete is the dynamic modulus. This property represents the temperature and frequency-dependent
One of the important parameters used in mechanistic-empirical pavement design for

concrete was homogenous and isotropic, with the same modulus values in both tension and compression.
the time rate of stress and strain in the asphalt concrete )Kim et al. 2004(. It was assumed that the asphalt
stiffness loss with low-frequency cycle loads. Linear viscoelastic theory was used in this study, which considers
/SFDR specimens were found to be generally less stiff in comparison to HMA specimens but experienced less
specimens are tested under this protocol, stiffness decreases as the load cycle frequency decreases. FDR
cycle loads and low-speed vehicles simulated with low-frequency cycle loads. Typically, when HMA pavement
per unity time that were placed on the specimen, with high-speed vehicles simulated with high-frequency
2, 1, 0.5, 0.2, and 0.1 Hz(. Differences in vehicle speed were simulated by varying the number of cycles of load
in the IDT mode was performed at three temperatures )4.4, 21.1, and 37.8°C( each at seven frequencies )10, 5,
In the present study, the dynamic modulus test

testing. Twenty cores were considered initially for preparation and testing. Table 67 presents the specimen IDs.
Collected cores were transferred to Iowa State University. Field cores were evaluated for

Table 67. Specimen IDs

Group No. Description of Pavement and Base Specimen No.

1 3.5%+1.5% cement Kanabec TH 65 Sec 2-2 1
2 6 in. foamed asphalt CSS1 Kanabec TH 65 Sec 3-2 2
3 FDR from 2005 Chisago CSAH 20 #2 3
4 Emulsion stabilized Kanabec TH 65 Sec 1-2 4
5 FDR control Kanabec TH 65 Sec 1-3 5
5 FDR control #3 Chisago 347th St. #1 6
6 FDR 2-3 Goodhue CSAH 7N 7
7 Engineered emulsion #1 Kanabec TH 65 Sec 8
2 CSS1 3.5%+1.5% cement Blue Earth TH 20 9
8 FDR stabilized with BaseOne upper 4 in. - 2011 #2 Chisago CSAH 81 #2 10
9 Foamed asphalt N #1 Goodhue CSAH 7N 11
7 Engineered emulsion 3-3 Goodhue CSAH 7 12
4 Emulsion stabilized 2-1 Douglas TH 55 Sec 13
2 CSS1 3.5%+1.5% cement #2 Kanabec TH 65 Sec 14
9 Foamed asphalt 3-3 Chisago CSAH 74 15
3 FDR from 2005 3-1 Kanabec TH 65 Sec 16
3 FDR from 2005 #2 Douglas TH 55 Sec 17
10 Emulsion stabilized Wabasha CSAH 16 18
7 Engineered emulsion Kanabec Sec 3-1 19
4 Emulsion stabilized Chisago CSAH 11 #3 20

Chisago 374th St.#1, Kanabec Sec 3-2, Kanabec Sec 2-2, Douglas Sec 3-1, and Douglas Sec 3-3 )Nos. 4, 8, 9, 11,
Among these 20 specimens, No. 10 )Wabasha CSAH 16 #2( broke during the test, and specimens

58
 remaining 14 specimens were prepared for testing. Table 68 lists these specimens with their
and 15, respectively( were not qualified for testing because they were not sufficiently intact. Therefore, the
descriptions.

Table 68. Prepared specimens for laboratory testing

Description of Pavement and Base Test SectionDistrict County Specimen Group No.
3.5%+1.5% cement 11 Blue Earth TH 30 #1 1
6 in. foamed asphalt CSS1 28 Kanabec TH 65 Sec 2-3 2
Goodhue CSAH 7N #3
FDR from 2005 1 2 Goodhue CSAH 7N #1 3
Goodhue CSAH 7N #2
CSAH 74 #2
Emulsion stabilized 1 8 Chisago 4
CSAH 74 #3
TH 65 Sec 1-3
FDR control 1 8 Kanabec 5
TH 65 Sec 1-2
FDR 1 8 Chisago CSAH 20 #2 6
TH 65 Sec 3-3
Engineered emulsion 3 8 Kanabec 7
TH 65 Sec 3-1
Emulsion stabilized 1 8 Chisago CSAH 81 #2 10

replicates, while groups 4, 5, and 7 each had two replicates. Groups 1, 2, 4, 6, and 10 had one replicate each.
in those groups were not sufficiently intact to qualify for testing or broke before testing. Group 3 had three
with some groups only containing one specimen; Groups 8 and 9 are missing because the specimens placed
was obtained for one location, the specimens were placed in groups. The groups are numbered 1 through 10,
In cases where more than one specimen

Table 69 presents the dynamic modulus values obtained from laboratory testing.

59
 Table 69. Dynamic modulus data

le, modulus in MPaSamp Conditions

20 19 18 17 16 14 13 12 7 6 5 3 2 1 Temp, °C Freq, Hz
5554 9333 19553 10046 7369 4418 9946 5508 4920 10793 10256 12090 5314 9865 10 4.4
5404 8919 14135 10061 6856 4242 9555 5259 4806 10422 9777 11547 5148 9064 5 4.4
5149 8624 13704 9685 5943 4065 8877 4999 4549 10022 9411 10993 5005 8217 2 4.4
4874 8364 13200 9087 4945 3907 8467 4764 4298 9545 9065 10377 4826 7630 1 4.4
4652 7993 12792 8481 4009 3749 8160 4520 4013 9113 8682 9829 4702 6980 0.5 4.4
4293 7653 12258 7916 3619 3605 7653 4216 3762 8579 8188 9172 4537 6251 0.2 4.4
4083 7427 11934 7592 3393 3477 7215 3940 3331 8185 8001 8744 4579 5735 0.1 4.4
4132 6570 12554 6150 8376 2960 4615 3719 3048 5790 7458 7548 5537 5926 10 21.1
3890 6202 11786 5713 7717 2820 7058 3405 2849 5396 6961 6915 5384 4070 5 21.1
3573 5858 11221 5191 7309 2637 6431 3135 2587 4908 6459 6277 5113 3446 2 21.1
3250 5392 10637 4630 6662 2567 5273 2880 2371 4474 6095 5678 4796 2992 1 21.1
2960 5057 10034 4170 6015 2399 4919 2636 2194 4158 5653 5115 4557 2580 0.5 21.1
2570 4759 9395 3677 5536 2157 4502 2392 1947 3788 5164 4554 4284 2159 0.2 21.1
2282 4489 8768 3369 5164 2042 4231 2203 1850 3471 4898 4179 4048 1858 0.1 21.1
2825 4596 7332 3792 4726 2298 4209 2497 1914 5504 5529 4449 2837 2313 10 37.8
2471 4144 6799 3411 4297 2104 3720 2320 1824 5116 5091 4057 2698 2023 5 37.8
2155 3811 6273 3017 3974 1926 3260 2060 1613 4637 4618 3553 2494 1655 2 37.8
1824 3507 5720 2651 3528 1674 2887 1824 1362 3944 4209 3156 2305 1396 1 37.8
1559 3268 5177 2334 3214 1544 2534 1618 1263 3518 3764 2803 2143 1202 0.5 37.8
1286 3030 4617 1992 2826 1447 2178 1412 1101 3138 3332 2460 1944 1002 0.2 37.8
1119 2803 4188 1766 2570 1291 1798 1308 1040 3277 3013 2280 1804 879 0.1 37.8

60
 susceptibility( of the mixture.Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide )According to the AASHTO
of the material. The greater the shift factor, the greater the temperature dependency )temperature
of shifting at each temperature required to form the master curve describes the temperature dependency
as a function of time formed in this manner describes the time dependency of the material. The amount
respect to time until the curves merge into a single smooth function. The master curve of dynamic modulus
using the principle of time-temperature superposition. The data at various temperatures are shifted with
master curve constructed at a reference temperature )generally taken as 70°F(. Master curves are constructed
2015(, the stiffness of HMA at all levels of temperature and time rate of load is determined from a

The master modulus curve can be mathematically modeled by a sigmoidal function described as follows:

 
  + = |∗log| 
 ( + )log    + 

where,

reduced time of loading at reference temperature  =  

minimum value of E*  =
δ + α = maximum value of E*
β, γ = parameters describing the shape of the sigmoidal function.

The shift factor can be shown in the following form:

  ) ( =  / 

where,

t = time of loading at desired temperature

a)T( = shift factor as a function of temperature
at reference temperature T = temperature of interest.  =  
reduced time of loading

all other data points are shifted according to this reference temperature for the master curves.
created and presented in Figures 8 to 15. Twenty-one degrees is selected as the reference temperature, and
Using a sigmoid function, dynamic modulus master curves are

61
 100,000

10,000

4 degree
21 degree
1,000
37 degree
Fit

100
1.E+06 1.E+04 1.E+02 1.E+00 1.E-02 1.E-04
Frequency, Hz

Figure 8. Dynamic modulus master curve for group 1 stabilized with foamed asphalt.

10,000
|E*|, MPa

1,000
4 degree
21 degree
37 degree
Fit

100
1.E+05 1.E+03 1.E+01 1.E-01 1.E-03 1.E-05
Frequency, Hz

Figure 9. Dynamic modulus master curve for group 2 stabilized with CSS1 3.5%+1.5% cement.
|E*|, MPa

62
 100,000

10,000

4 degree
21 degree
1,000
37 degree
Fit

100
1.E+06 1.E+04 1.E+02 1.E+00 1.E-02 1.E-04
Frequency, Hz

Figure 10. Dynamic modulus master curve for group 3 with FDR.
|E*|, MPa

100,000

10,000

4 degree
21 degree
1,000
37 degree
Fit

100
1.E+06 1.E+04 1.E+02 1.E+00 1.E-02 1.E-04
Frequency, Hz

Figure 11. Dynamic modulus master curve for group 4 stabilized with emulsion.
|E*|, MPa

63
 100,000

10,000

4 degree
21 degree
37 degree 1,000
Fit

100
1.E+06 1.E+04 1.E+02 1.E+00 1.E-02 1.E-04
Frequency, Hz

Figure 12. Dynamic modulus master curve for group 5 with FDR control.

10,000
|E*|, MPa

1,000
4 degree
21 degree
37 degree
Fit

100
1.E+06 1.E+04 1.E+02 1.E+00 1.E-02 1.E-04
Frequency, Hz

Figure 13. Dynamic modulus master curve for group 6 with FDR.
|E*|, MPa

64
 10,000

1,000
4 degree
21 degree
37 degree
Fit

100
1.E+06 1.E+04 1.E+02 1.E+00 1.E-02 1.E-04
Frequency, Hz

Figure 14. Dynamic modulus master curve for group 7 stabilized with EE.

100,000
|E*|, MPa

10,000

4 degree
17 degree 1,000
37 degree
Fit

100
1.E+05 1.E+03 1.E+01 1.E-01 1.E-03 1.E-05
Frequency, Hz

Figure 15. Dynamic modulus master curve for group 10 stabilized with emulsion.

pavements are also presented to show the difference between FDR/SFDR material behavior and that of HMA.
curves of the various FDR/SFDR layers. In addition, typical dynamic modulus master curves for two HMA
agreement with in situ testing results. Figure 16 shows a comparison among the dynamic modulus master
|E*|, MPa

foamed asphalt had the next highest dynamic modulus values. The laboratory test results are also in a good
the highest dynamic modulus value and thus, by inference, the highest stiffness. Sections with FDR and
specimen from Chisago County CSAH 81 )Read Ave.( #2 )group 10(, which is stabilized with emulsion, had
Among the tested specimens, the

65
 Figure 16. Comparing dynamic modulus of different treatments.

included herein only to confirm the shape of an HMA master curve compared to an FDR/SFDR master curve.
in this study, since they were both tested using the same setup in the same laboratory. The Cell 21 data are
between HMA and FDR/SFDR will be drawn between the TH 220 specimen and the specimens taken
of TH 220 and different from that of all of the FDR/SFDR specimens. Going forward in this report, comparisons
imply that the Cell 21 HMA is less stiff than the TH 220 HMA, the shape of the master curve is similar to that
Tang et al. )2012(, which used a compression setup for that dynamic modulus testing. Although the results
test setup as was used for this study. The data for HMA in Cell 21 of the MnRoad test track was taken from
with a 3-inch mill and overlay construction method and was tested at Iowa State University using the same
21 and TH 220, are also presented in Figure 16. Section TH 220 )District 2( was constructed in 2012
sections’ behaviors at various loading rates, the dynamic modulus master curves for two HMA sections, Cell
In order to be able to compare the SFDR

degradation under low-speed traffic in comparison to HMA layers. This will be further discussed later.
traffic speeds. Therefore, it may follow that FDR/SFDR base layers may not experience as much performance
material behavior for lower traffic speeds, while higher-frequency behavior is intended to represent higher
to faster traffic loads. Low-frequency behavior for the dynamic modulus master curve is intended to represent
general, asphalt mixes are expected to exhibit less stiffness in response to slower traffic loads than in response
proportion of their dynamic modulus stiffness at low frequencies in comparison to the HMA specimens. In
In general, it appears that the FDR/SFDR specimens retain a higher

group 6 )FDR(. Table 70 summarizes the obtained ranking based on dynamic modulus values at 21.1
)asphalt emulsion(, group 7 )engineering emulsion(, group 2 )CSS1+Cement(, group 1 )foamed asphalt(, and
10 with asphalt emulsion exhibited the highest stiffness, followed by groups 3 and 5 )FDR(, group 4
frequency of 5 Hz )an intermediate frequency(.ᵒAt an intermediate temperature and load frequency, group
Co )an intermediate temperature( and a loading

66
 Table 70. Treatment performance ranking based on dynamic modulus value

Dynamic Dynamic Treatment Treatment )Number of

Modulus )ksi( Modulus )MPa( Rank Replicates(
1709 11786 1 Group 10-Emulsion )1(
983 6782 2 Group 3-FDR )3(
896 6179 3 Group 5-FDR )2(
794 5474 4 Group 4-Emulsion )2(
696 4804 5 Group 7- EE )2(
595 4102 6 1-Foamed asphalt )1(
590 4070 7 Group 2- CSS1+Cement )2( Group1
413 2849 8 Group 6-FDR )1(

of Table 70 shows that the groups with the lowest number of replicates are ranked the highest and lowest.
1, 6, and 10 have only one replicate and would be considered to have the least reliable results. A review
and 7 had two replicates and would be considered to have results with intermediate reliability, while groups
group 3 had three replicates and would be considered to provide the most reliable results. Groups 2, 4, 6,
Recall that

Mollenhauer et. al. )2009( developed an empirical relationship between the vehicle speed and the
derived frequency. Their findings are presented in Table 71 and Figure 17.

Table 71. Vehicle speed and corresponding frequency

128.7 96.6 80 60 31.4 16.2 7.9 2.9 Speed )kph(

80 60 49.7 37.3 19.5 10.1 4.9 1.8 Speed )mph(
26.7 20.4 17.3 13.2 7.1 3.9 1.9 0.8 Frequency )Hz(

67
 20
18
16
14
12
0.9321y= 0.4496x 10
R² = 0.9996 8
6
4
2
0
60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0
Speed )mph(

Figure 17. Frequency as a function of vehicle speed.

give the percent of dynamic modulus stiffness that each table cell represents in comparison to that at 50 mph.
was taken as the baseline vehicle speed. For each of the slower vehicle speeds, the numbers in parentheses
are provided for vehicle speeds of 2, 10, 20, and 50 mph. For the purposes of the following analysis, 50 mph
HMA master curves that are being used for comparison herein. The results are presented in Table 72. Columns
for each group of FDR/SFDR specimens based on the master curves. Similar calculations are provided for the
between loading frequency and vehicle speed, it is possible to estimate the dynamic modulus stiffness
Using the empirical correlation
Frequency )Hz(

68
 Table 72. Comparing stabilizing agents for various vehicle speed zones

50 mph 20 mph 10 mph 2 mph

Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted
Treatment modulus – Treatment modulus – Mpa Treatment modulus – Mpa Treatment modulus – Mpa Treatment )number of
rank MPa rank )% of 50 mph( rank )% of 50 mph( rank )% of 50 mph( replicates(
1 13,452 1 (93) 12,574 1 (89) 11,926 1 (78) 10,479 Group 10-Emulsion )1(
comparison only )not
in. mill and overlay, for
2 12,299 2 (85) 10,494 2 (74) 9,128 2 (50) 6,158
TH 220 HMA – 3-
applicable(
3 7,744 3 (92) 7,099 3 (85) 6,621 3 (72) 5,558 Group 3-FDR )3(
4 6,955 4 (93) 6,464 4 (88) 6,093 4 (75) 5,244 Group 5-FDR )2(
5 5,624 5 (93) 5,238 5 (88) 4,937 5 (75) 4,221 Group 4-Emulsion )2(
6 5,282 6 (94) 4,946 6 (89) 4,694 6 (78) 4,118 Group 7- EE )2(
Group 2- CSS1+Cement
8 4,341 8 (92) 4,160 7 (92) 4,012 7 (84) 3,637
(2)
Group1 1-Foamed
7 5,585 7 (85) 4,765 8 (75) 4,179 8 (54) 2,993
asphalt )1(
10 3,228 10 (92) 2,964 9 (86) 2,770 9 (73) 2,347 Group 6-FDR )1(
comparison with TH
Cell 21 HMA - for
9 4,288 9 (78) 3,363 10 (64) 2,747 10 (38) 1,628
220 HMA only )not
applicable(
Weighted average )by
)n/a( 6,422 )n/a( (93) 5994 )n/a( (87) 5,586 )n/a( (75) 4,781 replicates( of all
FDR/SFDR sections
Ratio of FDR/SFDR %
)n/a( 1.09 1.17 1.49
to TH 220 %

69
 in comparison to the TH 220 HMA specimens by 1.09, 1.17, and 1.48 for 20, 10, and 2 mph, respectively.
25 indicates that FDR/SFDR retains a greater amount of dynamic modulus stiffness as vehicle speed decreases
the same vehicle speeds. The ratio of FDR/SFDR percentage to TH 220 percentage in the bottom row of Table
contrast, the percentage of retained stiffness for the TH 220 HMA is 85%, 74%, and 50% for
for the FDR/SFDR specimens is 93%, 87%, and 75% for vehicle speeds of 20, 10, and 2 mph, respectively. By
of replicates for each group. This weighted average implies that the calculated dynamic modulus stiffness
average of stiffness and percent of stiffness at 50 mph is provided. The weighting is calculated by the number
there is some change in the 7th, 8th, and 9th ranked groups. At the bottom of the chart, a weighted
stiffness. The groups that are ranked 1 through 6 hold their same ranking regardless of vehicle speed, while
replicate in this group. The results for the rest of the FDR/SFDR specimens are ranked according to calculated
for group 10; note that group 10 is considered to have low reliability because there is only one
TH 220 HMA specimens were calculated to be stiffer in comparison to all FDR/SFDR specimens, except
analysis will use the TH 220 HMA results for comparison with the FDR/SFDR results. For all speeds, the
were tested in the same laboratory with the same setup as the FDR/SFDR specimens, the subsequent
while the Cell 21 specimens saw a 75% reduction. As mentioned previously, since the TH 220 HMA specimens
in comparison to the FDR/SFDR materials: the TH 220 specimens saw a 50% reduction from 50 mph to 2 mph
72 decrease as the vehicle speed decreases. However, a greater reduction is calculated for the HMA materials
All dynamic modulus stiffness values for all of the materials in Table

filling ruts or milling and filling at a relatively low cost in comparison to replacing an entire pavement section.
by slowmoving heavy vehicles while the FDR/SFDR base is not, it may be possible to provide repairs by
or not the overlay is placed over an FDR/SFDR base. However if the HMA layer is compromised
HMA overlay, the HMA overlay will have the same performance challenges for slow-moving vehicles, whether
as the agricultural vehicles that are common on lower-volume roads. If an FDR/SFDR base has an
will likely retain stiffness performance better in comparison to HMA for heavy, slow-moving vehicles, such
/SFDR retains more stiffness as vehicle speed decreases in each case. This suggests that an FDR/SFDR base
stiffness for the FDR/SFDR specimens is never higher than that of the TH 220 HMA, it does imply that the FDR
Although these calculations imply that the weighted average of the dynamic modulus

70
 RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND

5.1 1993 AASHTO PAVEMENT DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS

carry loads for a given combination of soil support, estimated traffic, terminal serviceability, and environment.
properties and is commonly used in pavement design practices. It expresses the capacity of pavements to
number )SN(, which is an index of pavement strength. SN depends on layer thickness and base material
The AASHTO pavement design procedure )AASHTO 1993( is based on the structural

that the design will last; the level of reliability must increase as the traffic volume increases. The AASHTO
pavement layer materials. In addition, it also incorporates a level of uncertainty in the process to ensure
design variables such as traffic loading, environmental effects, serviceability, pavement layer thickness, and
are computed.Guide for Design of Pavement Structures )The AASHTO design method incorporates several
program. After the SN is known, the layer coefficients are evaluated and the required layer thicknesses
to the number of 18 kip ESALs. Then the SN can be determined by using design charts or a computer
pavement and 2.0 is a pavement in need of rehabilitation. Next, the known traffic volumes must be converted
determined. The serviceability is expressed as an index from 4.2 to 0, where 4.2 is a newly constructed flexible
AASHTO 1993( first requires the desired terminal serviceability to be

equation is widely used and has the following form as the final design equation for flexible pavement:
observed or measurable pavement characteristics with pavement performance )outcomes(. This empirical
AASHO Road Test conducted in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Empirical equations are used to relate
is selected. The design procedure recommended by AASHTO is based on the results of the extensive
treatments used for an SFDR layer, the 1993 AASHTO pavement design procedure for flexible pavements
To evaluate the structural effects of the different stabilization

Δ   
( log )
1.5 − 4.2
8.07−  + 2.32 log   9.36 log)   + 1( − 0.20 + + 0    = (18log) 
1094
+ 0.4
95.1 )   + 1(

for a given reliability   =  number of 18 kip )80 kN( single axle load applications; = 18 where

+ 2 2  + 1 1   =  structural number of the pavement )   = standard deviation; = 0 ;  normal deviation
are layer coefficients for the surface, base, and subbase, respectively, and 3 and ,2  ,1 in which ,(3 3 

Δ    = are the thicknesses of the surface, base, and subbase, respectively; 3 and ,2  ,1 

effective roadbed soil resilient modulus.  =  change in serviceability; and

5.2 MNDOT GE METHOD

a material compared to Class 5 and Class 6 base aggregate. Two road structure design methods are currently
used in the design of pavement structures in Minnesota. The GE factor represents the relative strength of
The granular equivalent factor is an indicator of the structural capacity of road materials

71
 on the design traffic and subgrade soil strength. The thickness of each layer can be calculated as follows:
was adopted by MnDOT during the 1950s. Both methods allow users to determine a required GE value based
by local agencies in Minnesota: the soil factor and R-value methods. The soil factor design method
implemented

3 3  + 2 2  + 1 1   = 

bituminous material )mm )in.((, 1 is the total granular thickness determined from Figure 18,    where
3 is the thickness of the aggregate base material )mm )in.((, 2 is the thickness of the
are the GE factors shown in Table 73. 3  ,2  ,1 is the thickness of the aggregate subbase )mm )in.((, and

equation to estimate the  (  In many cases, the R-value is estimated from the subgrade soil resilient modulus )
value using the R-value.R Mor CBR. Christopher et al. )2006( recommend the following

   ( = 1000 + 555 × )  −      ( ) 

GE provided by the HMA layer and aggregate base layer, the remaining GE is provided by the FDR/SFDR layer.
Figure 19, the required amount of GE for the pavement section is obtained )Table 75(. After subtracting the
guide, respectively. Based on the amount of traffic and the subgrade soil properties )R-values( and using
soil properties )R-values( in Table 74 are taken fromMnPAVE software and MnDOT’s flexible pavement design
MnDOT’s flexible pavement design guidance. The subgrade soil classes shown in Figure 19 and the subgrade
that the GE factors for the HMA layer and aggregate base in Table 73 are taken from documents related to
coefficients for the FDR and SFDR layers are back-calculated and presented in Table 73. It should be noted
Using Figure 18 and the available historical documents, layer

72
 http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/projectdelivery/pdp/tools/r-value.pdf

Figure 18. Bituminous pavement design chart

Table 73. GE factors

on GE FactorsificatiSpec lType of Materia

25.2 2360 Bituminous Pavement
1.50 2331 (Rng )CIliecycRce aln-PICold
50.1 1223 vementaPConcrete ized lubbR/nt BreakingeavemP
1.00 1223 6R)FDReclamation Pavement s tuminouiB
1.00 3138 ( Aggregate Base Class 5 and
0.75 3138 lAggregate Base Class 3 and 4 Se
50.0 2B2.9143 liarteaMar lected Granu

elivery/pdp/tools/9-ton-design.pdf http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/projectdSource:

73
 MnDOT 2018b

Figure 19. Minnesota soil map fromMnPAVE software

Table 74. Soil classifications, MnDOT soil factor, and stabilometer R-values by soil type

aluevR- TMnDO dfieinUM TAS TOAASH laexturMnDOT T

)assumed( actoril FSo onitcafiiasslC onitcafiiasslC onitcafiiasslC
75 50 GMGP- A-1 levarG
70 75 MSP-S -1, A-3A dSan
70 75 C, SSM 2A- ndSay amLo
oamLSandy
30 75 C, SSM 2A-
(yalc 10%>)c iastlPy lightlS
oomLSandy
20 100 C, SSM A-4
% clay(20–10)c itaslP
20 100 H M ,LM A-4 oamL
20 100 H M ,LM A-4 Loamlt iS
20 100 C, SMS A-6 maoLay ly CdSan
12 100 LC 6-A ay LoamlC
12 021 LC/LM 6A- Sandy Cllty CiS
12 021 CS A-7 aylay Loam
12 021 LC/LM A-7 ayllty CiS
10 130 CH ,LC A-7 aylC

Notes:
Soil factors from state.
2007, page 5-3.0)26(. R-values based on data collected by MnDOT through 1974.
R-values from Table 5-3.3)a( of MnDOT Pavement Manual, July

Source: MnDOT 2017

74
 Table 75. Back-calculated GE values for SFDR layers

Back-
calculated Required Design R- Aggregate base FDR/SFDR HMA
SFDR GE GE ESALs value thickness )in( thickness )in( thickness )in( Treatment Section
Kanabec TH 65
1.16 27.96 1360000 20 13 6 4 FDR
section #1
CSS1 3.5%+1.5% Kanabec TH 65
1.18 27.96 1360000 20 13 6 3.5
Cement section #2
Kanabec TH 65
1.46 27.96 1360000 20 13 6 2.75 EE
Section #3
4 in.
1.25 22.88 252532 12 8 BaseOne+4 in. 3.5 BaseOne Wabasha CSAH 16
FDR
1.16 22.28 228786 12 13 4 3.5 FDR Wabasha CSAH 9
1.55 28.22 607000 12 6 6 5.75 Foamed asphalt 30 Douglas TH 55
Blue Earth TH
1.26 24.31 452296 15 9 5 5 BaseOne
Section #4

75
 5.3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

were transferred to Iowa State University for further laboratory performance tests as part of the ensuing task.
identification were conducted on the test sections, with the results presented in this Task 3 report. Field cores
funding contributions from the Minnesota LRRB. In situ tests including coring, DCP, and pavement distress
fromMnDOT. For the remaining cases, information from secondary highways was collected, reflecting
three of the cases, information from primary highways was collected, reflecting funding contributions
on 24 pavements was collected for multiple sections of each pavement from eight counties in Minnesota. In
During this study, information

ash/cement showed the highest DCP index )mm/blow(, which means it had the lowest in situ stiffness.
appears that emulsions, emulsion/cement hybrids, and BaseOne showed the highest in situ stiffness. Fly
Based on the resulting DCP data, it

through such thin treatments. Overall, it appears that this inventory of FDR/SFDR roads are performing well.
likely that these roads are not experiencing much distress, because higher severity distress would reflect
as seal coats or slurry seals( or overlays. In such cases, no distresses were observed. It seems
roads. In some cases, the roads had been recently covered with thin maintenance surface treatments )such
a 50 ft spacing was observed on a primary highway; occasional longitudinal cracks were observed on various
a minimum spacing of 28 feet on one of the oldest roads. One case of high-severity transverse cracks at
performing well. Low- to medium-intensity longitudinal cracks are the most common distress observed, with
The visual distress survey results indicated that the roads are generally

these problems were to occur only close to the surface, they would be relatively easy to correct.
over the FDR/SFDR base layer, it could suffer performance problems under the slow-moving loads; however, if
from the FDR/SFDR layers than is typical under faster-moving vehicles. However, if an HMA overlay is placed
design vehicle loads are slow-moving vehicles, it would be possible to expect a greater amount of support
the FDR/SFDR base layers would retain performance to a greater degree than HMA. In cases where the critical
situations that are consistent with loads imposed by heavy, slow-moving vehicles, it was inferred that
modulus stiffness values of the FDR/SFDR specimens were generally less than that for HMA. However, for
by vehicles traveling at various speeds. The analysis of the laboratory test results indicated that the dynamic
the performance of test specimens taken from the reclaimed layers, considering loads that would be imposed
5, 2, 1, 0.5, 0.2, and 0.1 Hz(. Dynamic modulus master curves were created and used to evaluate and compare
was performed on the field cores at three temperatures )4.4, 21.1, and 37.8°C( each at seven frequencies )10,
Dynamic modulus testing in the indirect tension mode

1.46, respectively. BaseOne, CSS1+cement, and control FDR layers provided GE values of 1.1 to 1.2. The back-
CSS1 3.5%+1.5% cement-stabilized layer. Foamed asphalt and EE provided the highest GE values of 1.55 and
for foamed asphalt stabilized FDR, engineering emulsion stabilized FDR, BaseOne stabilized FDR, and
factor for SFDR layers having the design ESALs and R-values for subgrade soils. GE values were determined
Minnesota GE analysis was performed to back-calculate the granular equivalent

76
 have likely been using GE values for the FDR or SFDR layers consistent with current recommendations.
calculated GE values were between 1.16 and 1.53, indicating that designers

makers may want to consider the use of FDR/SFDR as a base for reasons other than structural capacity.
the FDR/SFDR bases under study in this report have been performing well in this regard; therefore, decision
road defects that are often reflected through traditional HMA overlays. The visual distress surveys indicate that
for overlaying pavement layers, FDR and SFDR bases are well known for destroying crack patterns and other
with modest expense through maintenance or rehabilitation activities. In addition to providing support
FDR/SFDR base; however, if the resulting performance issue is near the surface, the issue might be corrected
slow-moving vehicles could compromise the performance of any HMA overlays that are placed on top of the
design consideration, increasing the GE values after referring to Table 25 could be warranted. Note that such
be generally retained for FDR/SFDR design. However, for cases where slower-moving vehicles are the critical
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the current GE values

77
 REFERENCES
Fourth Ed. American Association of StateGuide for Design of Pavement Structures. AASHTO. 1993.
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

Second Edition.Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide: A Manual of Practice. AASHTO. 2015.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

MS-21. Asphalt Institute, College Park, MD.Asphalt Cold-Mix Recycling. Asphalt Institute. 1983.

California Department ofFull-Depth Reclamation Using Engineered Emulsion. Caltrans. 2013.

Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
/hq/maint/Pavement/Offices/Pavement_Engineering/PDF/FDR_E_Design_G uide_August_2013.pdf
.http://www.dot.ca.gov

California Department of Transportation,Full-Depth Reclamation Using Foamed Asphalt. Caltrans. 2012.

Sacramento, CA.
/Offices/Pavement_Engineering/PDF/FDRFA_Design_Guide_06-05-12_final.pdf
.http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint/Pavement

Chevron, San Ramon, CA.Recycling Manual. Chevron USA. 1982.

Final Report of Project KU-93-Evaluation of Cold In-Place Recycling. Cross, S. A. and B. M. Ramaya. 1995.
1. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.

Analysis of Full-Depth Reclamation Trial Sections inDiefenderfer, B. K. and A. K. Apeagyei. 2011a.

Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research, Charlottesville, VA.Virginia.
.http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/11-r23.pdf

Diefenderfer, B. K., and A. K. Apeagyei. 2011b. Time-Dependent Structural Response of Full-Depth

No.Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Reclamation.
2253, pp. 3–9.

Long-Term Pavement PerformanceElkins, G. E., P. N. Schmalzer, T. Thompson, and A. Simpson. 2003.

Information Management System: Pavement Performance Database User Guide.
FHWA-RD-03-088. Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.

Roadway SurfacingFederal Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration. 2005.
Photo Album: Companion Document to Context Sensitive Roadway Surfacing Selection Guide.
Central Federal Lands Highway Division, Lakewood, CO.Options

Ghasemi, P., J. Podolsky, R. C. Williams, and E. Dave. 2016. Performance Evaluation of Coarse-Graded
presented at International Conference on Transportation and Development, June 26–29, Houston, TX.
Mixtures Using Dynamic Modulus Results Gained from Testing in the Indirect Tension Mode. Paper
Field

78
 Ghasemi, P., M. Aslani, D. K. Rollins, and R. C. Williams. 2018a. Principal Component Analysis-Based
Deformation in Asphalt Pavement: Elimination of Correlated Inputs and Extrapolation in Modeling.
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization,Predictive Modeling and Optimization of Permanent
pp. 1–19.

Ghasemi, P., M. Aslani, D. K. Rollins, R. C. Williams, and V. R. Schaefer. 2018b. Modeling Rutting
of Asphalt Pavement Using Principal Component Pseudo Inputs in Regression and Neural Networks.
International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology.Susceptibility

IllinoisSpecial Provision for Full-Depth Reclamation )FDR( with Emulsified Asphalt. IDOT. 2012.
Department of Transportation, Springfield, IL.
-Guides-&Handbooks/Highways/Local-Roads-and-Streets/Special-Provisions/LR400-4.pdf
.http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Doing-Business/Manuals

Iowa Department ofStandard Specifications for Highway and Bridge Construction. Iowa DOT. 2012.
.https://www.iowadot.gov/specifications/Specificationsseries2012.pdfTransportation, Ames, IA.

Pavement Recycling Guidelines for State and Local GovernmentsKandhal, P. S. and R. B. Mallick. 1997.
FHWA-SA-98-042. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.Participant’s Reference Book.
.https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/recycling/98042/

Kim, Y. R., Y. Seo, M. King, and M. Momen. 2004. Dynamic mosdulus testing of asphalt concrete in
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, indirect tension mode.
No.1891, pp. 163–173.Transportation

Lewis, D. E., D. M. Jared, H. Torres, and M. Mathews. 2006. Georgia’s Use of Cement-Stabilized
of the Transportation Research Board, Reclaimed Base in Full-Depth Reclamation.
No. 1952, pp. 125–133.Transportation Research Record: Journal

Context Sensitive Roadway SurfacingMaher, M., C. Marshall, F. Harrison, and K. Baumgaertner. 2005.
Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division, Lakewood, CO.Selection Guide.
Federal Highway

Determination of Structural Layer Coefficient forMarquis, B., D. Peabody, R. Mallick, and T. Soucie. 2003.
Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. Roadway Recycling Using Foamed Asphalt.
.http://rmrc.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/p26final.pdfRecycled Materials Resource

Minnesota Department of Transportation, St.Standard Specifications for Construction. MnDOT. 2018a.

Paul, MN.

Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN.MnPAVE Flexible. MnDOT. 2018b.

.http://www.dot.state.mn.us/app/mnpave/

79
 Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul,Flexible Pavement Design Guidance. MnDOT. 2017.
/stateaid/projectdelivery/pdp/tools/flexible-pavement-designguidance.pdfMN.
.http://www.dot.state.mn.us

Mollenhauer, K., M. Wistuba, and R. Rabe. 2009. Loading frequency and fatigue: In situ conditions and
Workshop on Four Point Bending, September 24–25, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal.
impact on test results. Paper presented at the 2nd European

Developing Standards andMorian, D. A., M. Solaimanian, B. Scheetz, and S. Jahangirnewjad. 2012.

Department of Transportation, Harrisburg, PA.Specifications for Full-Depth Pavement Reclamation.
Pennsylvania

Nantung, T., Y. Ji, and T. Shields. 2011. Pavement Structural Evaluation and Design of Full-Depth
presented at the Transportation Research Board 90th Annual Meeting, January 23–27, Washington, DC.
Reclamation )FDR( Pavement. Paper

Geotechnical Engineering Manual: Design and Construction Guidelines for Full-DepthNYSDOT. 2015.
State of New York Department of Transportation, Albany, NY.Reclamation of Asphalt Pavement.
/divisions/engineering/technical-services/technical-servicesrepository/GEM-27b.pdf
.https://www.dot.ny.gov

NCAT Report 09-Recalibration of the Asphalt Layer Coefficient. Peters-Davis, K. and D. H. Timm. 2009.
03. National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
.http://www.eng.auburn.edu/files/centers/ncat/reports/2009/rep09-03.pdf

PortlandFull-Depth Reclamation: Recycling Roads Saves Money and Natural Resources. PCA. 2005.
/2014/04/R_FDR_SR995.pdfCement Association, Skokie, IL.
.http://cncement.org/wpcontent/uploads

Romanoschi, S. A., M. Hossain, A. Gisi, and M. Heitzman. 2004. Accelerated Pavement Testing Evaluation
of the Structural Contribution of Full-Depth Reclamation Material Stabilized with Foamed Asphalt.
No. 1896, pp. 199–207.Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Board,

Cold In-Place Recycling Literature Review and PreliminarySalomon, A. and D. E. Newcomb. 2000.
Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN.Mixture Design Procedure.

Standard Method of Test for Full-Depth Reclamation Using Asphalt Emulsion - Job MixSCDOT. 2012.
South Carolina Department of Transportation, Columbia, SC.Formula Preparation.

Structural Evaluation of Asphalt Pavements with Full-DepthTang, S., Y. Cao, and J. F. Labuz. 2012.
Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN.Reclaimed Base.

Materials Division, Pavement Design andGuidelines for 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design. VDOT. 2003.
Evaluation Section, Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, VA.
.http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/materials/bu-mat-moi-vi.pdf

80
 Performance Evaluation of VariousWu, Z., J. L. Groeger, A. L. Simpson, and R. G. Hicks. 2010.
-10-020. Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC.Rehabilitation and Preservation Treatments.
FHWA-HIF

81
 APPENDIX A
ONLINE INFORMATION SURVEY QUESTIONS
Q1: What types of full-depth reclamation )FDR( experience has your county had? )check all that apply(
have completed the survey.( Non-stabilized FDR )No stabilization additives incorporated.( .1
No FDR experience )Thanks for your participation; you may .2
Stabilized FDR )SFDR( )Stabilization additives such as emulsion, fly ash, or chemicals incorporated.( .3
Q2: If your county has used SFDR before, what stabilization agents did you use? )check all that apply(
Foamed asphalt .3 2. Fly ash 1. Asphalt emulsion
Others .6 5. Cement 4. Lime
Please provide more details if you have selected “Others.”

Q3: Please describe the SFDR mix design method your county has used.
2. Superpave gyratory compactor )SGC( 1. Marshall
4. Others )Outside party such contractor, consultant, or testing lab( 3. Hveem
Please provide more details if you have selected “Others.”

Q4: Frequently encountered construction problem.

None .1
after construction Failure to meet density and/or consistency specification .2
Curing/low strength and load-induced failure shortly .3
subgrade and support for construction equipment Others .4
Insufficient .5
Please briefly explain the causes, consequences, and correction measures of the construction problems.

you have any historical documentation regarding your FDR projects? )check all that apply( Q5: Do
and material information .1
Performance records )IRI, PQI, etc.( .2
Mix design
costs FWD or other strength testing .4 records QC/QA records .3
Maintenance records and maintenance .6 Construction costs .5
Q6: For the projects that have any historical records as mentioned in the previous question, when were the
projects constructed? )check all that apply(
2 – 5 years .2 1. > 2 years
< 10 years .4 3. 5 – 10 years
Q7: May we contact you by phone for further details?
1. Yes 2. No

A-1
 APPENDIX B
FDR PROJECT INVENTORY
 Year of
Construction Stabilization Method Road Location
2015 None CSAH 65 Otter Tail
2010 None Glenwood St City of Duluth
2011 None Arrowhead Rd City of Duluth
2011 None Swan Lake Rd City of Duluth
2015 None PECAN AVE City of Duluth
2013 None Carver Ave. City of Duluth
2013 None City of Duluth Skyline Pkwy and 7th St
2012 Cement South Diamond Lake Rd Hennepin
2012 Cement South Diamond Lake Rd Hennepin
2012 BaseOne CSAH 3 McLeod
2012 BaseOne CSAH 33 McLeod
2004 None CSAH 3 Watonwan
1998 None CSAH 7 South Goodhue
2005 None CSAH 7 North Goodhue
2012 None CSAH 11 Goodhue
2010 None TH 65 District 3
2010 3.5% emulsion; 1.5% cement TH 65 District 3
2010 cement CSS1 + cement TH 65 District 3
2009 3.5% emulsion; 1.5% TH 55 District 4
2009 emulsion TH 55 District 4
2009 foam TH 55 District 4
2009 BaseOne TH 55 District 4
2009 None TH 55 District 4
2009 emulsion TH 16 District 6
2009 foam TH 248 District 6
2010 foam TH 30 District 7
2010 none TH 30 District 7
2010 emulsion + cement TH 70 District 1
2010 geogrid TH 70 District 1
2010 none TH 70 District 1
2010 non-woven textile TH 70 District 1
2011 emulsion TH 72 District 2
2011 emulsion TH 72 District 2
2011 mill + fill TH 72 District 2
2008 none TH 76 District 6
2010 none TH 109 District 6
2011 none CSAH 1 Pope
2003 none CSAH 8 Pope
2011 none CSAH 11 Pope
2012 none CSAH 16 Pope
2010 none CSAH 18 Pope
2005 none CSAH 22 Pope
2009 none CSAH 22 Pope
2011 none CSAH 27 Pope
2007 none CSAH 28 Pope
2011 none CSAH 28 Pope
2015 emulsion CSAH 28 Pope
2004 none CSAH 29 Pope
2011 none CSAH 29 Pope
2013 none CSAH 30 Pope

B-1