Design Standards Report

DESIGN STANDARDS REPORT
Detailed Engineering Design and Tender Document

Preparation for the Upgrading of the Road
between Azezo and Metema
1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................3
1.1 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 HISTORICAL INFORMATION.................................................................................................. 4
1.3 OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE.......................................................................................................... 4
2 GEOMETRIC DESIGN..............................................................................................5
2.1 GEOMETRIC DESIGN MANUAL............................................................................................. 5
2.2 ROAD NUMBER AND FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION..............................................................5
2.3 OBJECTIVE......................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 APPROACH........................................................................................................................ 5
2.4.1 Existing Road Characteristics.......................................................................6
2.4.2 Terrain Classification.....................................................................................6
2.4.3 Design Traffic................................................................................................7
2.4.4 Safety........................................................................................................... 7
2.4.5 Economy.......................................................................................................8
2.4.6 Environment.................................................................................................8
2.5 DESIGN STANDARDS........................................................................................................... 8
2.6 TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS...............................................................................................10
2.7 DEPARTURES FROM STANDARDS.......................................................................................11
2.7.1 Gradients....................................................................................................11
2.7.2 Design Speed.............................................................................................12
2.8 JUNCTIONS AND ACCESS ROADS......................................................................................12
2.9 SAFETY AND MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN ITEMS....................................................................13
2.10 ACCOMMODATION OF TRAFFIC..........................................................................................13
2.11 ANCILLARY ROADWORKS.................................................................................................. 14
3 DRAINAGE............................................................................................................. 16
3.1 DESIGN FLOOD RETURN PERIOD.......................................................................................16
3.2 FREEBOARD AND BACKWATER EFFECT.............................................................................17
3.3 THE RISK OF OVERTOPPING AT EXISTING STRUCTURES....................................................18
3.4 SIZING OF CULVERTS AND BRIDGES.................................................................................18
3.5 CULVERTS........................................................................................................................ 18
3.6 BRIDGES.......................................................................................................................... 19
3.7 DRAINS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND SIDE DRAINS............................................................20
3.7.1 Drain Sizing................................................................................................20
3.7.2 Hydraulic Roughness..................................................................................20
3.8 PERMISSIBLE FLOW VELOCITIES.......................................................................................21
3.9 HYDROLOGICAL STUDY..................................................................................................... 22
3.9.1 Flood Peak Estimates for Small Drainage Structures.................................22
3.9.2 Flood Peak Estimates for Large Drainage Structures.................................22
3.10 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................. 23
4 PAVEMENT............................................................................................................. 24
4.1 GENERAL......................................................................................................................... 24
4.1.1 AASHTO.....................................................................................................25
4.1.2 Road Note 31.............................................................................................25
4.1.3 TRH 4......................................................................................................... 25
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Azezo – Metema Road Upgrade May 2004
Design Standards Report 1
4.2 PROPOSED PAVEMENT LAYERS......................................................................................... 26
5 STRUCTURES........................................................................................................28
5.1 GENERAL......................................................................................................................... 28
5.2 DESIGN STORM................................................................................................................ 28
5.3 DECK WIDTH.................................................................................................................... 28
5.4 DESIGN LOADING............................................................................................................. 29
5.5 CARRIAGEWAY LOADING................................................................................................... 29
5.6 DESIGN METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................... 29
5.7 SUPERSTRUCTURE........................................................................................................... 29
5.8 SUBSTRUCTURE............................................................................................................... 30
5.8.1 Piers........................................................................................................... 30
5.8.2 Abutments..................................................................................................30
5.9 BEARINGS........................................................................................................................ 30
5.10 EXPANSION JOINTS........................................................................................................... 30
5.11 FOUNDATIONS.................................................................................................................. 31
5.12 REINFORCEMENT.............................................................................................................. 31
5.13 MISCELLANEOUS.............................................................................................................. 31
6 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................32
6.1 GEOMETRIC DESIGN......................................................................................................... 32
6.2 DRAINAGE........................................................................................................................ 33
6.3 PAVEMENT....................................................................................................................... 34
6.4 STRUCTURES................................................................................................................... 35
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Topography Classification...........................................................................7
Table 2-2: Design Standards.........................................................................................9
Table 2-3: Geometric Design Standard DS4.................................................................9
Table 4-1: Possible Road Conditions at End of Design Life.....................................26
Table 6-1: Design Standards.......................................................................................32
Table 6-2: Geometric Design Standards DS4.............................................................32
Table 6-3: Recommended Design Flood Return Periods..........................................34
ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A: FIGURE 1 - TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
DESIGN STANDARDS REPORT
Detailed Engineering Design and Tender Document

Preparation for the Upgrading of the Road
between Azezo and Metema
Note: All references to calendar dates in this report, refer to the European
calendar and not the Ethiopian calendar.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The upgrading of the Project Road between Azezo and Metema, located in the
Amhara Regional Administrative State in north-western Ethiopia (see Locality Map),
was initiated by the Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA). The length of the Project Road
is approximately 185km. The Technical Proposal and Financial Proposal submitted by
the joint venture between BKS Global Ltd. (BKS) and Continental Consultants (CC) in
response to the ERA Request for Proposal with reference RFP ACHI/24/11.343 and
dated 29 November 2002, were subsequently accepted by the ERA who appointed
the joint venture (BKS/CC) for the project.
An Inception Report for this Project Road was submitted to ERA on 11 February
2004. It describes the planning of the project and includes the findings after a first
field trip was undertaken. Preliminary recommendations on design standards were
included in the Inception Report.
This Design Standards Report deals comprehensively with the Consultant’s proposals
on design standards to be applicable for the design of the road upgrading. Other
international design standards were reviewed and specific standards are
recommended for this project. When approved, these standards will form the basis for
the design of the upgrading of the Project Road.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.2 HISTORICAL INFORMATION
This road is considered as part of the main Trans African Highway that begins in Cairo
and terminates in South Africa, crossing several countries of the continent. The road
was first constructed as an access road to gravel road standard. Then the design of
the road to the standard of a feeder road together with the construction supervision
was commissioned to a local consulting firm, Transport Construction Design Share
Company. The Ethiopia Roads Authority, Own Force Construction unit, has executed
the construction of the first 75km portion of the road. Sur Construction Share
Company constructed the remaining 110km portion of the road.
1.3 OBJECTIVES
The objectives with the design standards recommended in this report are to ensure
that the design meets the following requirements:
 A paved road surface is required;

 The design life traffic demand has to be catered for;
 A cost effective design is required;
 The safety of the travelling public and pedestrians should be incorporated;
 It should comply with the national policy that the development of road
infrastructure has to adopt a stress-free environment.
1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE
The report starts with an introduction in Chapter 1 that includes the background to the
project, and the objectives of the proposed design standards. The remaining chapters
are structured to deal with the main design elements in the following sequence:
Chapter 2 - Geometric Design
Chapter 3 - Drainage
Chapter 4 - Pavement
Chapter 5 - Structures
Chapter 6 Includes the final recommendations.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2 GEOMETRIC DESIGN
2.1 GEOMETRIC DESIGN MANUAL
The design standards as contained in the Geometric Design Manual, 2001 released
by the Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA), are adopted as the basis for the geometric
design of the Project Road - in the rest of the report it is referred to as the ERA
Geometric Design Manual only.
2.2 ROAD NUMBER AND FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
According to the ERA Geometric Design Manual, the Project Road is classified as
Class III, a Main Access Road. The number of the Project Road for the section from
Azezo to Metema is C34 (refer Appendix A, Table A-2 in the ERA Geometric Design
Manual).
2.3 OBJECTIVE
The basic objective of the design standards proposed in this report is to provide a
safe and acceptable paved road, complying with the agreed design standards, at an
economic cost, for its design life period.
2.4 APPROACH
The approach is to identify individual components like horizontal and vertical

alignments, carriageway and formation widths, cross-falls, intersections etc., and set
standards for them with appropriate considerations for vehicles, human beings and
environmental factors. These elements are geometrically combined to generate an
efficient road layout to provide a smooth, fast and safe movement to traffic. External
influences of funds, adjacent land use and, specific as well as isolated local
conditions have also to be accounted for adequately.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
The elements which influence the geometric design standards are:
 Existing road characteristics

 Terrain classification
 Traffic
 Safety
 Economy
 Environment
2.4.1 Existing Road Characteristics
The existing road is a gravel-surfaced road with no defined shoulders. The road
alignment, which has been constructed to a feeder road standard, has a fairly smooth
alignment and is generally acceptable. However, there are certain sections which
have difficult alignment characteristics due to the topography and certain control
points at river crossings, which resulted in sharp horizontal curves or switchback
curves and steep gradients. The section from km 61 to km 89 is mountainous where
steep gradients, as much as approximately 12 percent, are encountered.
The surface of the Project Road is generally in a fair condition with certain sections
and patches which are in a poor condition due to failure or a lack of maintenance.
With all the existing bridges and smaller drainage structures still in place and in a fair
condition, this road qualifies as an all weather road.
2.4.2 Terrain Classification
The design elements of the Project Road depend primarily on the terrain through
which the road passes. Referring to the ERA Geometric Design Manual, the terrain
properties of the Project Road area may be classified as indicated in Table Table -1:
Topography Classification-1 below.
Table Table Table Table Table Table Table -1: Topography Classification-1:
Topography Classification-1: Topography Classification-1:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
on-1: Topography Classification-1: Topography Classification-1:
Topography Classification-1: Topography Classification-1:
Topography Classification
Section Flat Rolling Mountainous Escarpment Total
km 0 - km 76 19 36 11 10 76km
km 76 - km 185 31 62 8 8 109km
km 50 98 19 18 185km
Total
(%) 27 53 10 10 100%
2.4.3 Design Traffic
The traffic is one of the important components which dictates the design standards to
be adopted for the road upgrading and also forms the basis for the pavement design.
The traffic studies for the Project Road have not yet been completed. The proposals
put forward in the Inception Report inter alia include the review of existing data, new
traffic surveys, and an estimation of the design traffic.
Historic daily traffic volumes obtained from the Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA)
indicate typical Average Daily Traffic Volumes ranging between 100 and 200 vehicles.
With a steady growth of traffic it is tentatively estimated that the projected traffic for
the design period of the proposed road will not exceed 600 vehicles per day.
However, the future traffic flow will be based on an estimate of the annual traffic
growth. The traffic studies and projections will be discussed in detail in the
Engineering Report once the studies have been completed.
2.4.4 Safety
Road safety is optimised through linking geometric elements to design speed. It is

therefore important to design the road such that it meets the driver’s expectancy.
Changes in a specific standard for example the horizontal radii, has to be consistent
over substantial lengths of the road, supported by adequate informatory and
cautionary road signage.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
With the design of the Project Road, and by applying the standards contained in the
ERA Geometric Design Manual, it will be endeavoured to meet the highest safety
requirements.
2.4.5 Economy
Road projects are normally capital intensive. The design of the Project Road will be
carried out with construction costs as well as future maintenance costs in mind. This
will require a careful optimisation between the total capital expenditure and the quality
of the end product.
2.4.6 Environment
An Environmental Impact Study is going to be carried out with the following

objectives:
 to describe the existing environment of the project area;
 to identify possible environmental impacts (positive and negative), of the proposed
road;
 to propose mitigation measures to avoid or minimise negative impacts associated
with the proposed road;
 to prepare an environmental monitoring and management plan.
2.5 DESIGN STANDARDS
The geometric design is based on a 15-year design life. Although the existing ADT is
low, it is expected that once the construction of the Project Road has been completed,
the development along the route will be fast enough to soon warrant a bituminous
surface with a projected AADT between 200 to 600 vehicles. The geometric design of
the project road is being developed to cater for this situation.
As mentioned earlier the functional classification of the road is a Main Access Road
according to the ERA Geometric Design Manual. The design standard classification
for the Project Road according to the projected AADT could be DS4. However to
abide to the geometric parameters specified in the TOR, DS3 is chosen as the new
road standard(see Table 5-2 in the ERA Geometric Design Manual).
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
The design standards vs. road classification and AADT for a DS3 road are shown in
Table Table -2: Design Standards-2 below (see Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 in the ERA
Geometric Design Manual as well):
Table Table Table Table -2: Design Standards-2: Design Standards-2: Design
Standards-2: Design Standards
Description Standard
Road Functional Classification Main Access Road
Design Standard DS3
Design Traffic Flow (AADT) 200 - 1000
Surface Type Paved
Carriageway Width (m) 7
Shoulder Width (m) Flat 1.5-3
Rolling 1.5-3
Mountainous 0.5-1.5
Escarpment 0.5-1.5
Parking Lane Width in Towns (m) 3.5
Footway Widths in Towns (m) 2.5
Design Speed (km/h) Flat 100
Rolling 85
Mountainous 70
Escarpment 60
Urban/Peri-Urban 50
The prescribed Geometric Design parameters for Design Standard DS3 (Paved) are
shown in Error: Reference source not found3 (see Table 2-5 in the ERA Geometric
Design Manual as well):
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table Table Table Table Table -3: Geometric Design Standard DS3-3: Geometric
Design Standard DS3-3: Geometric Design Standard DS3-3:
Geometric Design Standard DS3-3: Geometric Design Standard
DS3
Design Element Unit Flat Rolling Mountainous Escarpment Urban/Peri- Urban
Design Speed km/h 100 85 70 60 50
Min. Stopping Sight Distance m 205 155 110 85 55
Min. Passing Sight Distance m 375 340 275 225 175
% Passing Opportunity % 50 33 25 0 20
Min. Horizontal Curve Radius m 395 270 175 125 85
Transition Curves Required Yes Yes No No No
Max. Gradient (desirable) % 3 4 6 6 6
Max. Gradient (absolute) % 5 6 8 8 8
Minimum Gradient % 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Maximum Superelevation % 8 8 8 8 4
Crest Vertical Curve k 105 60 31 18 10
Sag Vertical Curve k 51 36 25 18 12
Normal Crossfall % 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Shoulder Crossfall % 4 4 4 4 4
Right of Way m 50 50 50 50 50
2.6 TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS
The typical cross-sections that are applicable to the Project Road and access roads
are shown in Figure 1 in Annexure A. The cross-section includes a guardrail where
the fill embankment requires an additional widening of 300mm.
Once the detail survey of the road has been received and the detail design has been
started with, there may be further refinement of the cross-section required.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Widening of switchback curves, lower radii curves and embankment will be provided
according to the ERA Geometric Design Manual. In accordance with the prescribed
standards and design practice, the pavement widening will be applied on both sides
of the curve for the full length of the circular curve and tapered back to the standard
road width over no less than the transition length.
The normal road cross-fall will be 2.5% and the shoulder cross-fall 4.0%. The
prescribed maximum superelevation for a DS3 Design Standard in urban areas is
4.0% and in all terrain, except on urban sections, it is 8.0%.
Transition curves will be provided on all curves in flat and rolling terrain and a clothoid
will be used. Where transition curves will be provided, the superelevation runoff will
be applied over the whole length of the transition curve and therefore the whole of the
circular curve will be in full superelevation. In the design of curves without transition
curves, two-thirds of the superelevation runoff length will be placed on the tangent
approach and one–third on the curve.
2.7 DEPARTURES FROM STANDARDS
The geometric standards prescribed are usually for new roads or for major upgrades
of existing roads. The upgrading of the Project Road involves relatively minor
improvements of geometric features, mainly required for the safety of vehicular traffic.
Strict adherence to the geometric standards for new roads may not always be
appropriate for upgrading the entire length of an existing road of this nature,
especially where sections are located in very difficult topography where alternative
alignments are almost impossible or will be very costly and negative for the
environment.
However, uniformity of design standards is one of the essential requirements of a

road alignment. In a given section, there must be consistent application of a design
element to avoid unexpected situations being created for the drivers.
With all these facts in mind, it is proposed to depart from certain design standards
mentioned above. These departures in specific design elements are motivated below.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.7.1 Gradients
Where it is not possible, even with potential alternative re-alignments, to reduce
existing gradients to the required desirable maximum of 6%, or furthermore to an
absolute maximum of 8%, these areas will be listed and submitted to ERA for
approval.
2.7.2 Design Speed
The minimum design speed required for mountainous and escarpment terrain for a
DS3 road is 70km/h and 60km/h respectively. These design speeds corresponds to
the minimum horizontal curve radii of 175m and 125m respectively.
Although the prescribed minimum design speeds would be desirable for the Project
Road, the topography and site conditions in certain sections of the mountainous and
escarpment areas, especially at switchback curves, do not allow such large radii
horizontal curves. By applying bigger radii curves in these sections would not be
feasible at all due to steep gorges that will require high retaining walls to create a
suitable road platform. Similarly, very deep cuttings could also result where existing
radii have to be increased to achieve the minimum radius of 85m.
For the reasons mentioned above, it is proposed to retain the existing design speeds
in these specific areas where the alignment does not allow the minimum design
speeds of 70km/h and 60 km/h respectively. Once the road alignment has been
reviewed and all options evaluated in the detail design, a list will be drawn up of all
the departures and submitted to ERA for approval.
Where certain improvements and upgrading of the existing alignment in these areas
are viable, it will be proposed during the design of the Project Road.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.8 JUNCTIONS AND ACCESS ROADS
At Azezo, the layout of the junction of the Project Road with the surfaced road to
Gonder and the positions and layouts of all existing intersections at major roads,
access roads and streets along the Project Road will be evaluated, fixed and
designed according to the ERA Geometric Design Manual, the ERA Typical Detail
Drawings and the development plans of the towns and villages.
On the detail drawings, each intersection layout will be fully described in terms of road
geometry, widenings, curve radii, setting out data, levels, road markings and traffic
signs as well as the limits of pavement construction extended into adjacent side
roads. All details will be consistent with current practice in Ethiopia and the proposals
will be submitted to ERA for approval.
2.9 SAFETY AND MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN ITEMS
Although the Project Road is an existing road, it will be upgraded and designed in
such a way that safety and economy form the foundation for the design. Amongst
other safety items which will be carefully looked at in the design phase are safety rest
areas, scenic look out positions, bus and taxi lay-byes, parking bays, parking lanes,
pedestrians and animals, emergency escape ramps, safety barriers, road signs etc.
Provision will be made in the towns and villages for parking lanes, parking lay-byes
and or lay-byes for busses and taxis. Sidewalks will also be provided in towns for
pedestrians and for villagers to sell local produce. The town development plans will be
incorporated in these designs.
Once the accident statistics of the Project Road have been received and studied, the
red spots along the route will be identified and safety measures considered to
eliminate or reduce the accidents. Where safety measures need to be applied
according to the red spots, especially in the mountainous areas where long
descending gradients exist, the provision of emergency escape ramps will be
investigated and carefully looked at. If an arrestor bed is needed for a specific section
of road, the exact location, feasibility and type of escape ramp will be evaluated
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
according to the topography of the surrounding area. Proposals for emergency
escape ramps will be submitted to ERA for approval.
2.10 ACCOMMODATION OF TRAFFIC
Drawings with specifications, showing the different types of traffic accommodation

which will be needed during construction will be prepared as per general practice in
Ethiopia and also in line with international practices where applicable The design
proposals will be submitted to ERA for approval.
2.11 ANCILLARY ROADWORKS
The design proposals for road markings and traffic signs to be applied throughout the
project in each type of location, including inside and outside towns, at road junctions
and at bus/taxi lay-byes will be done according to the ERA Typical Design Drawings
and as per general practice in the country and also in line with international practices
where applicable.
As dense fog is common on the Project Road, for safety reasons and better visibility
on the road, it is proposed to provide yellow paint marking lines on the edges of the
travelling lanes on the entire length of the Project Road. The material requirements for
road marking will also be described within the appropriate Specifications.
The ERA Typical Detail drawings and additional typical detail drawings which will be
prepared, will indicate the selected range of traffic signs required for this project with
appropriate drawing notes to specify the criteria for sign locations. The direction signs
which will be recommended, will also be based on the current adopted system used in
Ethiopia and as specified by TCDE. The positions of all the road signs will be
indicated on the layout drawings.
Kerbing will be provided in urban areas where justified for drainage purposes.
For safety purposes, it is proposed to provide galvanized guardrails (crash barriers)

on all bridge approaches, on fill sections with embankment heights exceeding 3.0m,
and on high side fills. Guide posts (marker posts) are proposed at all potential
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
hazards such as culvert headwalls and at abrupt changes in the alignment where it
will be spaced at 20m intervals, i.e. along the outside edge of all horizontal curves
where the fill embankments are between 2m and 3m high.
Kilometer posts will also be provided in accordance with the ERA Geometric Design
Manual.
Existing overhead and possible underground services, e.g. power- and pipe lines are
present in the towns and villages. These services, where affected by the road
upgrading, will be relocated and protected in consultation with the service owners and
ERA. Depending on the type of service, it might either be accommodated in sleeves
underneath the Project Road or overhead across the Project Road.
All the ancillary works on the Project Road in the town sections will be done in
conjunction with ERA and the applicable local authorities to eventually tie in with the
development master plans of the towns and villages.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
3 DRAINAGE
3.1 DESIGN FLOOD RETURN PERIOD
When a return period is selected for the design of a particular structure, it is accepted
that the risks of larger floods involving damage to the structure and traffic disruptions
do not justify the construction of a more expensive structure. Design flood return
periods are therefore generally based on benefit/cost analyses (i.e. a comparison of
the present values of capital and maintenance costs with the benefits achieved for
different return periods). The volume of information needed makes this type of
analyses impractical.
There are no international standards for the selection of design flood return periods
and many countries prescribe “minimum” design return periods, which are based on
benefit/cost analyses of many structures. In special cases it may be necessary to
consider longer design return periods and this is usually left to engineering judgement
rather than poor calculation.
The recommendations with regard to the selection of design flood return periods
described below are based on “minimum” standards as given in the ERA Drainage
Design Manual - 2001 and the ERA Bridge Design Manual - 2001.
The design return periods for various hydraulic components along the road can be
divided into two sections, those dealing with minor drainage and generally used
where there is to be regular maintenance and public safety is not at risk, such as
streets, kerbs, kerb inlets, side drains and canals. The other section consists of major
drainage systems such as culverts and bridge structures where maintenance may be
less frequent and public safety is more at risk.
Minor drainage systems are designed for flood peaks with shorter return periods to
minimise the inconvenience to the public and to convey storm water to the major
drainage systems. The ERA Drainage Design Manual gives guidelines of the
“minimum” design return periods for minor drainage systems. These guidelines will be
used for the basis of the design, but longer return period floods to specific areas such
as the escarpment section of the road as the risk may be considered high.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Major drainage structures are designed for flood peaks with longer return periods to
minimise the risk of damage to the structure and to the public. The ERA Drainage
Design Manual classifies the design return period by size of structure. These flood
return periods will be used for the basis of the design. In the case of existing
structures, the capacity of the structures will be verified against the respective design
return period and check review flood return periods as well.
The approach to be adopted for estimating design discharges is described in Section

3.9.
3.2 FREEBOARD AND BACKWATER EFFECT
The ERA Drainage Design Manual and the ERA Bridge Design Manual give
guidelines for freeboard along drains as well as for culvert and bridge openings.
The freeboard for lined drains is to be reduced from the 0,3m to limit the depth of
lined side drain specifically in long cuttings. This will be based on a function of the
flow depth dependant on super or sub-critical flow conditions.
The freeboard for structures is to be modified from those indicated in the ERA
Drainage Design Manual and the ERA Bridge Design Manual to the following:
 -0.5m with H/D <= 1.2 for small pipe and box culverts;
 0.3m minimum where debris is anticipated for bridge and box culverts;
 F= 0.8 log (Qdesign) -1.3 for bridges and box culverts.
The maximum backwater effect at drainage structures is to be limited to 0.5m where

floor elevations of structures are 1.5m above the natural design flood elevation, or
1.0m below the floor elevation for structures lower than this. For the 100-year flood,
the backwater level should be 0.3m below the floor elevation.
3.3 THE RISK OF OVERTOPPING AT EXISTING STRUCTURES
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
There is always a risk that the required design flood can exceed the capacity of the
existing large structures or bridges. If the capacity is noticeably smaller, the risk in
terms of the structure being overtopped will be qualified with regards to the structure
capacity. With regard to new structures the design return periods given represent
more or less the optimum design points (capital costs, damage costs, etc.) for the
road category and structure type.
The risk can be described as the probability (P) that an event having a return period
of T years will be equaled or exceeded at least once during a design life of N years,
and is given by: P = 1-(1-1/T)N
This implies for example that the risk of the 10-year event being equaled or being
exceeded in any one year is only 0.1 (or 10%). There is almost a 100% probability
that it will be equaled or exceeded at least once in the next 50 years.
The check design flood given in the ERA Drainage Design Manual will be used as the
basis for which overtopping of the structure will not be allowed.
3.4 SIZING OF CULVERTS AND BRIDGES
The distinction between culverts and bridges has been based on the size of the
structure. The hydraulic behavior of culverts and bridges is quite different, and
generally a bridge is referred to as a structure which allows water to pass freely
beneath, whilst a culvert is usually sized for inlet control. With regards to the existing
structures, an effective span of more than 6m is defined as a bridge.
3.5 CULVERTS
For ease of maintenance and cleaning of debris, it is recommended that for new
structures a minimum diameter of 1.0m be used for pipe culverts and a minimum
width of 1.0m be used for box culverts, regardless of their lengths. The minimum size
may be reduced to 0.75m if the gradient exceeds 3%. As many of the culverts exist
and may only require lengthening, the pipes and culvert sizes are to be retained
where ever possible.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
For the design of small drainage structures, the use of inlet control with a ratio
between upstream head and height of culvert (H/D) of 1.2 will be used. This yields
approximately the optimum hydraulic section, and will be used for determining the
height of embankment over the culvert taking into account the norms for freeboard. In
the case of existing culverts this will also apply for determining the structure capacity.
In extreme circumstances H/D = 1.5 will be used.
The discharge for inlet control will be determined from the standard formula given in
the ERA Drainage Design Manual.
Estimation of the flow velocities at the culvert outlets will be determined for sizing of
erosion protection measures or structures where required.
The outflow velocities will be kept as low as possible for new culverts where possible.
In situations where the velocities exceed those permissible minimum velocities for the
in situ material, additional erosion protection measures will be allowed for in the final
design phase.
3.6 BRIDGES
Bridge structures are designed for free flow conditions which are hydraulically
different to the hydraulic approach applied to culvert structures. As there is the
possibility that some of the existing structures will require replacement, the checking
of the design capacity of the existing structures against the design criteria is required.
If the design criteria are not met for the existing structures, the risk of overtopping as
determined against the check review flood will be determined. If this criteria is not
met, a new structures based on the design criteria will be determined.
To determine the bridge hydraulics at the existing bridge sites for various flood peaks,
the aid of computer design packages such as HEC-RAS, a River Analysis System
(RAS) developed by the Hydrological Engineering Center (HEC), is to be used. To
determine the necessary design criteria, the following flood levels will be determined:
 flood levels for normal river flow conditions;

 flood levels with the existing bridge structures;
 flood levels with new bridge structures where required.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Verification on the design of the existing bridge structure will be based on the
combined available depth (normal flow depth, backwater depth and freeboard) to the
soffit of the existing structure.
3.7 DRAINS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND SIDE DRAINS
3.7.1 Drain Sizing
The ERA Drainage Design Manual indicates a minimum depth of drains of 0.6m in
mountainous and escarpment terrain, and 1.0m elsewhere. During the detail design of
the Project Road, the details of roadside drains will be determined. Trapezoidal drains
will be used in flat to rolling terrain. To limit excavation quantities and to reduce the
depth of drain, ‘v’ drains will be used in long cuttings. In mountainous and escarpment
conditions where there is underlying rock, the possibility of constructing a retaining
wall to support and protect the road fill and to allow drainage between the retaining
wall and cut face will be investigated at the final design phase.
Where drains are to be constructed in town sections, the drain dimension will be
restricted in width to allow cover beams to be placed over the structure at accesses
for vehicles and pedestrians.
Free surface flow conditions will apply to open drains even in residential areas where
cover beams are required.
3.7.2 Hydraulic Roughness
The determination of hydraulic roughness coefficients and their variation for natural
rivers and types of linings applied to drains, is usually based on engineering
judgement. Some of the factors that play a role in the choice of the roughness factor
‘n’ applied in the Manning formula are:
 Surface roughness
 Vegetation
 Irregularities
 Alignment
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
 Siltation and scouring
 Obstructions
 Discharge or flow depth
 Seasonal changes
 Suspended materials and bed load
Guidelines for selecting the roughness coefficient (n) are given in the ERA Drainage
Design Manual.
3.8 PERMISSIBLE FLOW VELOCITIES
The maximum permissible flow velocity is the highest velocity that will not cause
significant erosion or scour, and thereby cause structural damage to any part of the
road system. Each type of in situ material or surface will in turn have its own limiting
velocities.
Unlined drains and natural channels in unprotected soils are considered erodable.
This also varies, depending on the type of soil and the duration of flow.
Grass lined channels and drains are similar in respect to unlined drains with a
possible increase of 30% to the permissible flow velocity if effective root coverage has
taken place. The effective lining of drains with grass in the lower lying areas will be
taken into account in the design phase as the lower rainfalls and excessive heat must
be considered.
Lined surfaces will consist generally of cast in-situ concrete or grouted stone pitching.
The maximum permissible velocity does not always play a factor in choice of lining,
but may be governed by other factors such as water carrying sand, gravel and stones,
and the tendency for fast flowing water to uplift the lining and displace it.
The minimum permissible flow velocity, or non-silting velocity, is the lowest velocity
that will not cause sedimentation or siltation. This velocity is uncertain and cannot be
easily determined. For the basis of the design, a value of 0.6m/s is accepted as a
minimum value where siltation is not very high.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.9 HYDROLOGICAL STUDY
3.9.1 Flood Peak Estimates for Small Drainage Structures
The hydrology required for small drainage areas has two functions. Firstly estimation
of flood peaks at each existing structure is required in order to qualify the design
capacity against the flood peak estimate. Secondly, the flood peak estimates are
required for design of the side drains, checking of existing structures and sizing of any
new structures that are required.
For these smaller drainage structures the ‘rational method’ is proposed for
determining flood peak estimates. Various run-off factors for land use, soil type,
topography, and other pertinent factors will be applied. Where available the 1:50000
base maps will be utilized in determining catchment areas and for taking out the
relevant drainage course lengths and heights.
Other information required such as rainfall data, will be obtained from the relevant
ministry of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and checked against the data
given in the ERA Drainage Design Manual.
Estimation of times of concentration, rainfall intensities, and other relevant information

will be determined or sourced from the ERA Drainage Design Manual.
3.9.2 Flood Peak Estimates for Large Drainage Structures
As for the smaller drainage structures, the catchment areas will be determined from
the 1:50 000 base maps where available.
The hydrology required for larger drainage structures is primarily to qualify the
capacity of the structure against the design flood peak estimate. These flood peak
estimates will be determined by analysing historical data of measured maximum
annual flood peaks on the various larger river systems where sufficient information is
available from the relevant ministry of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
In the situation were the information is not available, or insufficient, a deterministic

approach such as the TRRL East Africa method or Rational method as for small
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
drainage areas will be applied. Allowance for storage within the catchment areas will
be taken into account by routing the various smaller catchment area flood peak
hydrographs through the river system.
3.10 CONCLUSIONS
The design standards and guidelines given in the above sections expanded upon
those given in the ERA Drainage Design Manual, and where changes or relaxation to
these criteria have been made, these have been indicated. It is proposed the ERA
Drainage Design Manual standards and guidelines with the relevant proposed
changes be adopted.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
4 PAVEMENT
4.1 GENERAL
It is proposed that the standards used in pavement design be based on the Draft ERA
Pavement Design Manual 2001 as well as the following three design approaches
being used world wide namely:
 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures as published by the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
 Overseas Road Note 31: A Guide to the Structural Design of Bitumen-surfaced
Roads in Tropical and Sub-tropical Countries, published by the Overseas Centre
of the Transportation Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, United Kingdom.
 TRH 4: Structural Design of Interurban and Rural Road Pavements, published by
the State Road Authority, South Africa.
The three manuals listed above will be checked for their compliance with the Draft
ERA Pavement Design Manual 2001.
The AASHTO design method is widely used in the world at large but is primarily
based on American experience and has been developed for the North American
market. As such it makes use of the structural number and coefficients to depict the
strength (or stiffness) values of the different pavement layers. Road Note 31 is based
on research conducted in countries throughout the world, including extensive work in
Africa and is widely used in East African countries. TRH 4 has been developed from
research primarily done in South Africa and is based on Heavy Vehicle Simulator
(HVS) work as well as the mechanistic design principles. TRH 4 is now widely used,
particularly in Southern Africa.
All three the abovementioned design approaches will be used and checked together
with the Mechanistic Design. The most appropriate regarding the expected life and
cost will be recommended. Looking at the different approaches for the setting of
standards as briefly discussed below, it seems likely that the TRH 4 will be
recommended at this point in time.
The standards set for pavement designs are primarily based on the importance of the
road, service level, traffic and construction standards. The following is a brief
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
summary of the approach taken in the above mentioned documents in setting
standards:
4.1.1 AASHTO
The standards are based on the volume of traffic to be expected, the functional
classification of the road and road users acceptance of serviceability. The analysis
period suggested in the document is 20 to 50 years for high volume rural roads, 15 to
25 years for low volume paved roads and 10 to 20 years for unpaved roads. Service
level is expressed in terms of the terminal serviceability (psi) and is 3.0 for 12% road
users stating it as unacceptable, 2.5 for 55% road users and 2.0 for 85% road users.
To consider variation in design parameters, the method introduces reliability concepts
and suggests that for rural principal arterials and rural collectors, the level of reliability
should be between 75% and 95% and for local roads the reliability should be between
50% and 80%.
4.1.2 Road Note 31
This design method does not present any guidelines on the selection of standards as
defined above although it recognises the expectations of road users for an acceptable
level of the surface condition. These expectations are built into the catalogue of
designs which consider traffic classes and is based on number of equivalent single
axles over the design life. The document recommends an economic analyses period
of between 10 and 20 years and a design life of 15 years.
4.1.3 TRH 4
The document classifies roads into major interurban freeways and roads with a very
high level of service (category A), major collectors and rural roads with a high level of
service (category B) and lightly trafficked rural roads with a moderate level of service
(category C). The first category is for 3 million to 50 million equivalent single axles
(ESA) over the design life and a terminal psi of 2.5, category B for 0.2 million to 12
million ESA and a terminal psi of 2.0 and category C for less than 3 million ESA and a
terminal psi of 1.5. The recommended design life in the document is 10 to 30 years
for category A and 10 to 20 years for categories B and C. In order to relate
serviceability to manifestations of distress and also to use the mechanistic design
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
method, the document provides some guidance to possible road conditions at the end
of the design life as shown in Table Table -2: Possible Road Conditions at End of
Design Life-2below.
Table Table Table Table Table Table -2: Possible Road Conditions at End of
Design Life-2: Possible Road Conditions at End of Design Life-2:
Possible Road Conditions at End of Design Life-2: Possible Road
Conditions at End of Design Life-2: Possible Road Conditions at
End of Design Life-2: Possible Road Conditions at End of Design
Description Road Category
A B C
Rut Depth (mm) 20 20 20
Rutting over Road Length (%) 5 10 20
Cracking Crocodile cracking, surface loss and pumping at cracks
Cracking over Road Length (%) 5 10 20
The Project Road is considered as part of the main Trans African Highway that begins
in Cairo and terminates in South Africa. The road is classified as a feeder road of
strategic importance with traffic volumes expected to increase due to increased import
and export activities between Ethiopia and Sudan, probably carrying between 0.7
million and 3 million ESA over a design life of 15 years. The actual ESA will be
calculated once the traffic figures are available. The road can therefore be classified
as a T3 to T4 class according to Road Note 31 and a category B according to TRH 4.
This implies that the terminal serviceability be accepted as 2.0, the design life be 20
years and that cracking, surface loss, pumping and 20mm rutting be expected over
10% of the road length after the design life has expired.
4.2 PROPOSED PAVEMENT LAYERS
It is foreseen that the following pavement layers will be considered in the design:
 Asphalt concretesurface treatment
 Crushed stone base
 Selected gGravel sub-base layer
 Improved or in situ sub-grade
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
It is important to recognise the potential of the in situ material to scour and erode.
Suitable measures will have to be devised to avoid this to happen.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
5 STRUCTURES
5.1 GENERAL
The existing bridges and major drainage structures on the Project Road are all in a
fair condition, but some will require rehabilitation and maintenance. It is possible that
new bridges will be required where the existing bridges are inadequate to
accommodate the necessary stormwater runoff.
The roadway widths on the bridges vary between 7.05m and 7.4m and the raised
curbed sidewalks for pedestrians on the bridges vary between 0.5m and 0.7m in
width. The existing dimensions of the roadway and raised curbed sidewalks are within
acceptable standards and because of the unnecessary high cost implications, it is
recommended not to widen the existing bridges. However, if ERA insists that the
bridges need to be widened, it would be advisable to widen the bridges on one side
only. The construction of the widening section would be easier and it would be
cheaper to widen the bridges on one side only. The only negative implication of
widening to one side only will be that the horizontal road alignment will need to be
adjusted to tie in with the new centre line of the bridge. As most of the existing bridges
are located on a long straight section of road, a kink in the road alignments might be
unavoidable.
If the foundations of bridges, which need to be widened, are not on rock, exploratory
holes will be drilled to obtain the necessary geotechnical information.
5.2 DESIGN STORM
The design storm determination will be evaluated as described in the section on

Hydrology.
5.3 DECK WIDTH
The deck width requirements will be decided by the road geometry requirements, as
outlined in the section on Road Geometry. Should any extensions be required of the
existing structures, the design approach outlined here will be applicable.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.4 DESIGN LOADING
The standards in the ERA Bridge Design Manual will be used for the design of
bridges and other major structures. The structures will be designed for vehicular
loads, collision loads, horizontal earth pressures, and possible settlement. Earthquake
analysis where applicable and as specified in the ERA Bridge Design Manual – 2001
will also be carried out.
All the bridges and major drainage structures encountered during the inspections
were concrete bridges. Some of the structures have concrete decks with masonry
walls.
5.5 CARRIAGEWAY LOADING
The nominal values of the carriageway permanent and transient loads, and their most
critical combinations will be determined according to the provisions of the ERA Bridge
Design Manual.
5.6 DESIGN METHODOLOGY
All new drainage structures will be analysed as plane frame structures on elastic
supports. Each widened section of the structure will be designed to carry the
necessary loads. The materials used for the widened section of the structure will be
the same as for the original structure as far as possible. The ERA Standard Detailed
Drawings will be used where possible.
The types of repair that will be done to reinforced concrete bridges if required, will be :
 Repair of structural elements

 Repair of cracks
 Reinstatement of concrete cover to reinforcement
5.7 SUPERSTRUCTURE
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
It is proposed to provide reinforced concrete (RC) solid slabs or RC T-beams,
depending on the span of the bridge. Solid slabs will be used for spans less that 10m,
and RC T-beams for 10m<Span<25m.
5.8 SUBSTRUCTURE
5.8.1 Piers
It is proposed to use RC solid-wall type piers with storm-deflector ends to reduce

water-drag effects and avoid debris entanglement on multiple column arrangements.
However, where conducive, masonry or other locally available materials will be

considered for use. The ultimate choice will be determined by the site requirements.
5.8.2 Abutments
It is proposed to use RC solid-wall type abutments designed as cantilevers. Splayed

wing walls will be dictated by the site requirements.
However, where conducive, masonry or other locally available materials will be

considered for use.
5.9 BEARINGS
It is recommend to use laminated elastomeric bearings for their economy and load-
carrying capabilities. They also require minimal maintenance and have a long service
life.
5.10 EXPANSION JOINTS
It is proposed to use asphaltic plug expansion joints, which provide a good riding
surface without further treatment.
5.11 FOUNDATIONS
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
The decision on the foundation type will depend on the nature of the underlying
material and it’s load-bearing characteristics with regard to stiffness, strength and
displacements. The provisions of the ERA Bridge Design Manual will be used as a
guide to the design.
5.12 REINFORCEMENT
Bar reinforcement will be determined by the provisions of the ERA Bridge Design
Manual. The two main bar types to be considered for use, depending on their
availability, are:
High Yield Bars 460 N/mm2 Deformed Type 2

2
Mild Steel Bars 250 N/mm Plain Round
Reinforcement of a similar or better specification will be sourced from an approved

supplier in Ethiopia or in the immediate region to control project costs.
5.13 MISCELLANEOUS
Other appurtenant bridge items will be determined on a site-specific basis. It is

proposed that the deck surfacing be asphalt for its advantages in waterproofing the
deck and in providing a uniform blacktop with the double-sealed carriageway.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
6 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 GEOMETRIC DESIGN
The recommendations on the design standards and geometric design standards are
shown in Table Table -3: Design Standards-3 and Table Table -2: Geometric Design
Standards DS4-2.
Table Table Table Table Table -3: Design Standards-3: Design Standards-3:
Design Standards-3: Design Standards-3: Design Standards
Description Standard
Road Functional Classification Main Access Road
Design Standard DS4
Design Traffic Flow (AADT) 200 - 1000
Surface Type Paved
Carriageway Width (m) 6.7
Shoulder Width (m) Flat 1.5
Rolling 1.5
Mountainous 0.5
Escarpment 0.5
Parking Lane Width in Towns (m) 3.5
Footway Widths in Towns (m) 2.5
Design Speed (km/h) Flat 85
Rolling 70
Mountainous 60
Escarpment 50
Urban/Peri-Urban 50
Table Table Table Table Table Table -2: Geometric Design Standards DS4-2:
Geometric Design Standards DS4-2: Geometric Design Standards
DS4-2: Geometric Design Standards DS4-2: Geometric Design
Standards DS4-2: Geometric Design Standards DS4
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Design Element Unit Flat Rolling Mountainous Escarpment Urban/
Peri-
Urban
Design Speed km/h 85 70 60 50 50
Min. Stopping Sight Distance m 155 110 85 55 55
Min. Passing Sight Distance m 340 275 225 175 175
% Passing Opportunity % 25 25 15 0 20
Min. Horizontal Curve radius m 270 175 125 85 85
Transition curves required - Yes Yes No No No
Max. Gradient (desirable) % 4 5 7 7 7
Max. Gradient (absolute) % 6 7 9 9 9
Minimum Gradient % 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Maximum Superelevation % 8 8 8 8 4
Crest Vertical Curve K 60 31 18 10 10
Sag Vertical Curve K 36 25 18 12 12
Normal Cross-fall % 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Shoulder Cross-fall % 4 4 4 4 4
Right of Way m 50 50 50 50 50
The typical cross-sections proposed are shown in Annexure A, Figure 1.
The departures from the standards above might include vertical gradients steeper
than 9%, and reducing the design speed at certain sections in the mountainous and
escarpment areas to correspond with the radii of the existing sharp and switchback
curves where alternative alignments might not be possible or feasible. However, the
consultant will look at all options in order not to depart from these standards. In
extreme cases with no other options, any departures will only be done with the prior
approval of ERA.
6.2 DRAINAGE
The recommended design flood peak estimates and check review floods for culverts
and large structures are based on those indicated in the ERA Drainage Design
Manual. These flood peaks will be used as a basis on which to determine the
adequacy of the existing structures.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
In the situation of any of the existing structures being undersized, these will be
checked for overtopping using the check review flood. In the situation where the
structure is not overtopped the structure will be retained, or otherwise a new structure
opening recommended or additional drainage added.
The recommended design flood peak for drains is based on factors such as safety,
maintenance and optimum shape to accommodate the topography and residential
environment. The existing side drains will require upgrading.
The recommendations on the design flood return periods are shown in Table Table -3:
Recommended Design Flood Return Periods-3.
Table Table Table Table Table -3: Recommended Design Flood Return Periods-3:
Recommended Design Flood Return Periods-3: Recommended
Design Flood Return Periods-3: Recommended Design Flood
Return Periods-3: Recommended Design Flood Return Periods
TYPE OF STRUCTURE RECOMMENDED DESIGN CHECK REVIEW FLOOD
RETURN PERIOD RETURN PERIOD
(Years) (Years)
Drains in Residential Areas 2 -
Side Drains 10 -
Culverts, Pipes < 2m 10 25
Culverts, 2m < Span > 6m 25 50
Short Span Bridge, 6m < Span > 15m 50 100
Medium Span Bridge, 15m < Span > 50m 50 100
Long Span Bridge, Span > 50m 100 200
The hydrology for the area will generally be determined using deterministic methods,
and for larger catchment areas historical data will be analysed where available. In the
situation where historical data is not available, or insufficient, the flood peak estimates
will be routed through the river system to determine the flood peaks.
6.3 PAVEMENT
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
For an expected design life of 20 years, it is foreseen that the following pavement
layers will be considered in the design of the Project Road:
 Asphalt concrete surface treatment
 Crushed stone base
 Selected gravel sub-base layer
 Improved or in situ sub-grade
It is important to recognise the potential of the in situ material to scour and erode.
Suitable measures will have to be devised to avoid this to happen.
6.4 STRUCTURES
The bridges and major drainage structures are all existing structures and are in a fair
condition. The following recommendations are made for the different bridge elements:
 For the design loading, it is proposed to use the Limit State Design approach,
based on the principles outlined in ISO 2394. The base design code proposed is
BS 5400: Part 4: 1990.
 The carriageway loading will be determined according to the provisions of
BS5400: Part 2.
 For the superstructure it is proposed to provide RC solid slabs for spans less than
10m, and RC T-beams for 10m<span<25m.
 For the substructure it is proposed to use RC solid-wall type piers and abutments.
Where conducive, masonry or other locally available materials will be considered
for use. The ultimate choice will be determined by the site requirements.
 Laminated elastomeric bearings are recommended.
 Asphaltic plug expansion joints are proposed.
 For foundations the provisions of BS8004 will be used.
 Bar reinforcement will be determined by the provisions of BS4449.
 Consideration will also be given to locally available materials and easy
construction methods.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Design Standards Report - Final

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Design Standards Report - Final

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Detailed Engineering Design and Tender Document

ANNEXURE A: FIGURE 1 - TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS

Detailed Engineering Design and Tender Document

 A paved road surface is required;

1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE

2.1 GEOMETRIC DESIGN MANUAL

2.2 ROAD NUMBER AND FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

The approach is to identify individual components like horizontal and vertical

 Existing road characteristics

2.4.1 Existing Road Characteristics

2.4.2 Terrain Classification

2.4.3 Design Traffic

Road safety is optimised through linking geometric elements to design speed. It is

An Environmental Impact Study is going to be carried out with the following

2.5 DESIGN STANDARDS

Road Functional Classification Main Access Road

Design Standard DS3

Design Traffic Flow (AADT) 200 - 1000

Surface Type Paved

Carriageway Width (m) 7

Shoulder Width (m) Flat 1.5-3

Parking Lane Width in Towns (m) 3.5

Footway Widths in Towns (m) 2.5

Design Speed (km/h) Flat 100

Design Element Unit Flat Rolling Mountainous Escarpment Urban/Peri- Urban

Design Speed km/h 100 85 70 60 50

Min. Stopping Sight Distance m 205 155 110 85 55

Min. Passing Sight Distance m 375 340 275 225 175

Min. Horizontal Curve Radius m 395 270 175 125 85

Transition Curves Required Yes Yes No No No

Max. Gradient (desirable) % 3 4 6 6 6

Max. Gradient (absolute) % 5 6 8 8 8

Minimum Gradient % 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Crest Vertical Curve k 105 60 31 18 10

Sag Vertical Curve k 51 36 25 18 12

Normal Crossfall % 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

2.6 TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS

2.7 DEPARTURES FROM STANDARDS

However, uniformity of design standards is one of the essential requirements of a

2.7.2 Design Speed

2.9 SAFETY AND MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN ITEMS

2.10 ACCOMMODATION OF TRAFFIC

Drawings with specifications, showing the different types of traffic accommodation

2.11 ANCILLARY ROADWORKS

For safety purposes, it is proposed to provide galvanized guardrails (crash barriers)

3.1 DESIGN FLOOD RETURN PERIOD

The approach to be adopted for estimating design discharges is described in Section

3.2 FREEBOARD AND BACKWATER EFFECT

The maximum backwater effect at drainage structures is to be limited to 0.5m where

3.3 THE RISK OF OVERTOPPING AT EXISTING STRUCTURES

3.4 SIZING OF CULVERTS AND BRIDGES

 flood levels for normal river flow conditions;

3.7 DRAINS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND SIDE DRAINS

3.7.1 Drain Sizing

3.7.2 Hydraulic Roughness

3.8 PERMISSIBLE FLOW VELOCITIES

3.9.1 Flood Peak Estimates for Small Drainage Structures

Estimation of times of concentration, rainfall intensities, and other relevant information

3.9.2 Flood Peak Estimates for Large Drainage Structures

In the situation were the information is not available, or insufficient, a deterministic

4.1.2 Road Note 31

Rut Depth (mm) 20 20 20