Engineering Report AKS Final

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA
ETHIOPIAN ROADS AUTHORITY
Detailed Feasibility Study, EIA Study, RAP Preparation, Detailed

Engineering Design and Tender Document Preparation for
Arbaminch – Kemba – Sawla Road Project
LOT I: Arbaminch - Belta
Engineering Report (Final)
July 2009
Tel. 251-11-6633080/81, Fax251-11-6627768, E-mail: mhdm@ethionet.et, P.O.Box 1553

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
ISO 9001:2000 Certified

Detailed Feasibility Study, EIA Study, RAP Preparation, Detailed Engineering Design and Tender
Document Preparation for Arbaminch – Kemba – Sawla Road Project
Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................1

ES1.1 GENERAL ................................................................................................................................ 1
ES1.2 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYING WORKS ........................................................................................ 1
ES1.3 TRAFFIC STUDY AND PROJECTIONS ......................................................................................... 2
ES1.4 DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW.................................................................................................... 4
ES1.5 GEOMETRIC DESIGN ................................................................................................................ 4
ES1.6 DETAILED FIELD INVESTIGATION WORKS .............................................................................. 5
ES1.7 FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION FOR MAJOR BRIDGE CROSSINGS .............................................. 6
ES1.8 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS ......................................................................... 7
ES1.9 PAVEMENT DESIGN ................................................................................................................. 7
ES1.10 HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 8
ES1.11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ................................................................................... 9
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................10
1.1. PROJECT BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 10
1.2. OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSULTANCY SERVICE ....................................................................... 11
1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE ENGINEERING REPORT........................................................................... 12
1.4. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 12
1.4.1. TERRAIN CLASSIFICATION ..................................................................................................... 14
1.5. KEY PROJECT DATA ............................................................................................................... 16
1.6. PHYSIOGRAPHIC FEATURES AND PROJECT CONTROL POINTS ................................................ 17
1.7. GEOLOGY AND SUBGRADE SOIL OF THE PROJECT AREA ....................................................... 17
1.8. EXISTING TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION................................................................................... 19
1.9. STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT .................................................................................................. 19
2. DESIGN STANDARDS ..........................................................................................21
2.1. GENERAL............................................................................................................................... 21
2.2. GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARD ........................................................................................... 21
2.2.1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 21
2.2.2. GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS COMPARISON ................................................................... 22
2.2.3. COMPARISON OF SELECTED GEOMETRIC DESIGN PARAMETERS............................................ 22
2.2.3.1. TERRAIN CLASSIFICATION ..................................................................................................... 22
2.2.3.2. DESIGN SPEED ....................................................................................................................... 23
2.2.3.3. CARRIAGE WAY AND SHOULDER WIDTHS ............................................................................ 24
2.2.3.4. CAMBER ................................................................................................................................ 25
2.2.3.5. SIGHT DISTANCE ................................................................................................................... 25
2.2.4. HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT ..................................................................................................... 27
2.2.4.1. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................................... 27
2.2.4.2. TANGENT SECTIONS .............................................................................................................. 28
2.2.4.3. THE CIRCULAR CURVE .......................................................................................................... 28
2.2.5. VERTICAL ALIGNMENT ......................................................................................................... 30
2.2.5.1. GRADIENTS ............................................................................................................................ 31
2.2.5.2. CREST VERTICAL CURVES ....................................................................................................... 33
2.2.5.3. SAG VERTICAL CURVES ........................................................................................................... 34
2.2.6. RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................................ 35
2.2.7. TYPICAL CROSS SECTION AND CROSS SECTION ELEMENTS ................................................... 35
2.2.7.1. TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS .................................................................................................... 35
2.2.7.2. CURVE WIDENING ................................................................................................................. 37
2.2.7.3. FILL WIDENING ..................................................................................................................... 37
2.2.7.4. SIDE SLOPES .......................................................................................................................... 38
2.2.7.5. RIGHT OF WAY ...................................................................................................................... 39
2.2.7.6. CLEAR ZONE ......................................................................................................................... 39
2.2.7.7. JUNCTIONS ............................................................................................................................ 40
2.2.7.8. PARKING BAYS AND BUS BAYS .............................................................................................. 40
MH Engineering PLC Ethiopian Roads Authority

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
2.2.7.9. PARKING LANES .................................................................................................................... 40

2.2.7.10. PUBLIC UTILITIES .................................................................................................................. 40
2.2.8. ROAD SIGNS AND FURNITURE ............................................................................................... 41
2.2.8.1. ROAD SIGNING ...................................................................................................................... 42
2.2.8.2. SAFETY BARRIERS ................................................................................................................. 42
2.2.9. PHASING OF HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENT ........................................................ 42
2.2.10. SUMMARY OF GEOMETRIC STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 43
2.3. PAVEMENT DESIGN STANDARD ............................................................................................. 44
2.3.1. GENERAL............................................................................................................................... 44
2.3.2. COMPARISON OF PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS .............................................................. 45
2.3.2.1. DESIGN TRAFFIC .................................................................................................................... 45
2.3.2.2. SUB GRADE STRENGTH .......................................................................................................... 49
2.3.2.3. CLIMATIC ZONES ................................................................................................................... 51
2.3.2.4. MATERIAL SPECIFICATION .................................................................................................... 52
2.3.2.5. STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PAVEMENT .................................................................................... 52
2.3.2.6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................. 58
2.4. HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULICS DESIGN STANDARD .................................................................... 58
2.4.1. GENERAL............................................................................................................................... 58
2.4.2. HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC DESIGN STANDARDS ................................................................... 59
2.4.2.1. CRITERIA AND DESIGN STANDARDS ...................................................................................... 59
2.4.3. HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONAL METHODS AND COMPUTER MODELS .................................. 61
2.4.4. HYDRAULIC DESIGN STANDARDS ......................................................................................... 64
2.4.5. CULVERT DESIGN CRITERIA .................................................................................................. 64
2.4.6. BRIDGE DESIGN CRITERIA ..................................................................................................... 65
2.4.7. STREAM CHANNELS DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................. 66
2.4.8. ROADSIDE CHANNELS DESIGN CRITERIA .............................................................................. 66
2.4.8.1. EROSION AND SCOUR ............................................................................................................. 67
2.5. STRUCTURAL WORKS DESIGN STANDARD ............................................................... 68
2.5.1. GENERAL............................................................................................................................... 68
2.5.2. INVENTORY & CONDITION SURVEY OF DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ............................................ 69
2.5.3. MAINTENANCE MEASURES OF MINOR DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ............................................ 71
2.5.4. METHODS OF DESIGN ............................................................................................................ 72
2.5.4.1. TYPE OF CROSS DRAINAGE STRUCTURES .............................................................................. 72
2.5.4.2. MINOR CROSS DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ................................................................................ 73
2.5.4.3. MAJOR DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ........................................................................................... 76
2.5.4.4. MINIMUM DIMENSIONS OF STRUCTURES ............................................................................... 79
2.5.4.5. BRIDGE DECK CLEARANCE ................................................................................................... 79
2.5.4.6. DESIGN OF BRIDGE ELEMENTS .............................................................................................. 80
2.5.4.7. SUPER-STRUCTURE DESIGN .................................................................................................. 80
2.5.4.8. SUB-STRUCTURE DESIGN....................................................................................................... 81
2.5.4.9. MISCELLANEOUS BRIDGE PARTS DESIGN .............................................................................. 82
2.5.5. MATERIAL PROPERTY ............................................................................................................ 83
3. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ...................................................................................84
3.1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 84
3.2. SURVEY PERSONNEL’S AND INSTRUMENTS ........................................................................... 85
3.3. SCOPE OF THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY .................................................................................. 86
3.4. ROUTE LOCATION ................................................................................................................. 86
3.5. GPS GEODETIC CONTROL ..................................................................................................... 87
3.6. BENCHMARK SET UP ............................................................................................................. 88
4. GEOMETRIC DESIGN .........................................................................................92
4.1. GENERAL............................................................................................................................... 92
4.2. TRAFFIC ................................................................................................................................ 92
4.2.1. CURRENT STATE OF THE ROAD .............................................................................................. 92

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
4.2.2. TRAFFIC SECTIONS ................................................................................................................ 92

4.2.3. TRAFFIC SURVEY PROGRAM .................................................................................................. 93
4.2.4. TRAFFIC VOLUME ON PROJECT ROAD (NORMAL TRAFFIC) ................................................... 96
4.2.5. AADT BY ROAD SECTION ....................................................................................................102
4.2.6. ORIGIN – DESTINATION SURVEY ..........................................................................................103
4.2.6.1. INTERVIEW FORMAT .............................................................................................................103
4.2.6.2. SAMPLING ............................................................................................................................104
4.2.6.3. TRAFFIC ZONING ..................................................................................................................104
4.2.7. NMT TRAFFIC DATA ............................................................................................................109
4.2.8. GENERATED TRAFFIC ...........................................................................................................112
4.2.9. DIVERTED TRAFFIC ..............................................................................................................115
4.2.10. PROJECT ROAD AADT .........................................................................................................117
4.2.11. TRAFFIC FORECAST ..............................................................................................................118
4.2.12. RECOMMENDATION FOR DESIGN STANDARD ........................................................................119
4.3. HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT ....................................................................................................119
4.3.1. TANGENT AND CURVES ........................................................................................................119
4.3.2. SUPER-ELEVATION ...............................................................................................................120
4.4. VERTICAL ALIGNMENT ........................................................................................................121
4.5. CROSS SECTION ....................................................................................................................122
4.5.1. CROSS FALL ..........................................................................................................................122
5. SOILS & MATERIALS INVESTIGATION AND PAVEMENT DESIGN....123
5.1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................123
5.2. FIELD WORKS .......................................................................................................................123
1.2.2 Alignment Soil and Pavement Investigation..............................................................................124
Existing Pavement Investigation ........................................................................................................124
3.1 SUBGRADE INVESTIGATION ...........................................................................................................127
Soil Extension Survey .........................................................................................................................127
Test Pit Investigation .........................................................................................................................128
Subgrade Material Sampling .............................................................................................................129
In-Situ testing .....................................................................................................................................129
5.2.1. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ................................................................................................130
5.2.1.1. ROCK SOURCE FOR CRUSHING AND MASONRY WORKS ..........................................................132
5.2.1.2. NATURAL GRAVEL SOURCES FOR WEARING GRAVEL AND CAPPING LAYER MATERIAL .........134
5.2.1.3. BORROW MATERIAL SOURCES FOR EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION AND REPLACEMENT ......135
5.2.1.4. NATURAL SAND SOURCE FOR CEMENT CONCRETE AND MORTAR WORKS ..............................137
5.2.1.5. WATER SOURCES FOR CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................138
5.3. FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION FOR MAJOR BRIDGE CROSSINGS.......................139
5.3.1. OBJECTIVES ..........................................................................................................................139
5.3.2. METHODOLOGY OF THE INVESTIGATION ..............................................................................140
5.3.3. VISUAL OBSERVATIONS AND TEST PITTING ..........................................................................141
5.3.4. CONDUCTING DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST (DCP) ...................................................141
5.3.5. CONDUCTING SCHMIDT HAMMER TEST ................................................................................142
5.3.6. DETERMINATION OF BEARING CAPACITY .............................................................................142
5.3.7. FOUNDATION MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION ....................................................................145
5.4. GEOTECHNICAL HAZARD .............................................................................................153
5.4.1. GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS ......................................................................153
5.4.1.1. TREATMENT OF EXPANSIVE SOILS ........................................................................................153
5.4.1.2. SLOPE STABILITY OF THE PROJECT AREA ..............................................................................154
5.5. PAVEMENT DESIGN ........................................................................................................164
5.5.1. GENERAL..............................................................................................................................164
5.5.2. DETERMINATION OF DESIGN TRAFFIC ..................................................................................164
5.5.3. SUB-GRADE DESIGN .............................................................................................................168
5.5.4. DESIGN OF PAVEMENT THICKNESS .......................................................................................170

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
6. HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS......................................................................172

6.1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................172
6.1.1. RETURN PERIODS ............................................................................................................173
6.2. RAINFALL ANALYSIS AND IDF CURVES GENERATION....................................................173
6.3. DELINEATION OF CATCHMENTS .................................................................................174
6.3.1. COMPUTATIONS OF CATCHMENT PARAMETERS .....................................................................174
6.3.2. PEAK DISCHARGE COMPUTATIONS ........................................................................................174
6.3.3. OPENING SIZE DETERMINATIONS ...........................................................................................174
6.4. HYDRAULIC ADEQUACY OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ...........................................174
6.4.1. HYDRAULICALLY INADEQUATE BRIDGES ...............................................................175
6.4.2. HYDRAULICALLY ADEQUATE BRIDGES ...................................................................177
7. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS & DESIGN ...........................................................182
7.1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................182
7.2. INVENTORY AND CONDITION SURVEY OF STRUCTURES .....................................182
7.3. STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY OF EXISTING STRUCTURES..................................................184
7.3.1. STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY OF HYDRAULICALLY INADEQUATE BRIDGES ........185
7.3.2. STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY OF HYDRAULICALLY ADEQUATE BRIDGES ...........189
7.4. STRUCTURAL DESIGN....................................................................................................197
ANNEXURE
ANNEX I - PROJECT SETTING OUT DATA
ANNEX II - ALIGNMENT DATA
ANNEX III – SUBGRADE EXTENSION & LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
ANNEX IV – HYDROLOGY – HYDRAULICS AND STRUCTURAL DESIGN
AND ANALYSIS
ANNEX IV – COMPLIANCE TO COMMENTS

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES1.1 General
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) has allocated sufficient budget for
the Detailed Engineerng Design, Tender Document Preparation of Arbaminch – Kemba -
Sawla Road Project. And hence the consultancy service for the Detailed Engineering
Design, Tender Document Preparation of the project has been signed between Ethiopian
Roads Authority and MH Engineering Plc on the 10th of October 2007 and notice to
commence the services was issued on the 22nd of November 2007 and service started
from the same date.
The project road is located in the southern part of the country in Southern Nations and
Nationalities People Regional State with its start at a village called Shele Mazoria, 20Km
from Arbaminch on the Arbaminch – Jinka road and connects Arbaminch to Sawla via
Kemba.
The project road starts from a junction on Arbaminch Jinka road which is 470Km from
the capital along Addis – Butajira – Sodo – Arbaminch – Jinka road and traverses in the
westerly direction to the end of the project, Sawla, passing through a number of towns
and rural villages with a total estimated length of 138.30Kms. Out of the total length the
first 60km section of the project has been allocated under Lot 1 and this engineering
report concentrates mainly on the Arbaminch – Belta, km0+000 – km60+000, section of
the project.
The project road will shorten the additional 270Km trip from Arbaminch to Sawla,
through Arbaminch – Sodo – Sawla, by nearly half length and will also connect the towns
and many villages of the two ethnic groups, Gamo and Gofa in the Gamo Gofa Zone.
ES1.2 Topographic Surveying Works
During the detailed engineering investigation stage the detailed topography surveying
was carried out by the companies and in the course of the surveying works appropriate
equipment and manpower has been allocated which are necessary to carry out the extent
of topographic surveying. The surveying work was carried out in compliance with ERA’s
Geometric design Manual, Chapter 4 Survey Requirements and the methodology
MH Engineering PLC Page 1 Ethiopian Roads Authority

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
proposed by the Consultant. The entire road feature data collected, GPS processing and a
monograph is submitted to ERA along with the Topographic Surveying Report. .
ES1.3 Traffic Study and Projections
Current state of the Project road

The road can be divided into two distinct sections depending on pavement condition
and traffic.
The first section of the road up to Kemba town (78Km) is an existing gravel road which
may be classified as DS6 road having an average width of 5m, under the jurisdiction of
the Southern Rural Roads Authority until recently. The road surface condition can
generally be rated as fair to poor.
Between Kemba and Sawla, there is no defined road; due to lack of reconstruction
and/or maintenance, there exists only a trail which could be passable with difficulty by
a 4WD, even in the dry season.
Traffic Sections
Prior to undertaking traffic surveys, traffic stations were selected based location of key
junctions, urban settings and traffic generating centers. Accordingly, the road was
divided into homogenous traffic sections. The details of these sections have been
addressed under section 4.2.2 of this report
Traffic Survey program

In order of determining the traffic flow intensity, travel pattern and purpose, vehicle
composition and preparing a database for traffic projections over the design life of the
road, the consultants have carried out a traffic survey. The traffic survey includes
manually taking traffic volume counts and Origin – Destination surveys at selected
locations.
Traffic Survey on the project road, which consists of traffic counting and origin
destination survey, was carried out from 18 to 29 February 2008 (which corresponds to

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
the high economic activity season according to ERA’s count program). Surveys
involved:
• Classified link counts for both motorized traffic (MT) and non-motorized
(NMT) traffic comprising 7-day and 3-day counts respectively
• Road side interviews for drivers on the road (MT) to establish details of
origin and destination - 2 days.
The motorized traffic surveys recorded all vehicle movements in each direction on an
hourly basis classified into eight main vehicle categories as per ERA traffic count
format. In addition, non-motorized traffic movements were also registered in order to
capture the travel & transport pattern of local people.
Traffic Volume on Project Road

The traffic counts were carried out for 12 hours (0600-1800 hrs.) for 7 days at the
selected survey stations. Moreover, a 24-hour (0600-0600 hrs.) count was carried out
for two days at the same survey stations for capturing night traffic movement (1800-
0600 hrs.). The average 12-hour to 24-hour traffic flow ratio by vehicle class was then
computed and applied to the daily counts to compute the daily 24-hour traffic volumes
for seven days, which were then averaged to compute the average daily traffic (ADT).
ERA regularly carried out traffic counts regularly three times a year, in February, July
and November. This data was useful in deriving seasonal correction factors for
converting ADT to AADT. As there is no record of historical traffic counts along the
Arbaminch – Kemba - Sawla road, historical traffic data from adjacent roads (Sodo -
Arbaminch & Sodo - Sawla) was used to derive seasonal correction factors to convert
the ADT to AADT. The computed AADT values by station are summarized in tables
below. There is no existing traffic between Km78 and Km138 (i.e. last two sections of
the road, namely Kemba - Gelma & Gelma - Sawla), due to the poor condition of the
road. On this section of the road, there exists only a trail which could be passable with
difficulty by a 4WD only in the dry season. Thus, future traffic will be the generated
and the diverted traffic in this section of the road.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Traffic Forecast
The projection of traffic is important in the effective planning of road improvements and
also in the determination of construction design standards. In order to forecast future
traffic on the project road, the project planning and design phase (ongoing) was assumed
to be completed by end of 2008, followed by the tendering stage which is assumed to
take a year (2009). The construction phase would last 3 years to 2012. Year 2013 is
therefore considered the year when the project road is open to traffic, upon which traffic
projections are based.
Recommendation for design standard

The total traffic on the project road is likely to reach a level of 713VPD by 2032 from a
base year (2013) level of 134VPD. Based on ERA’s design manual, the estimated
travel demands the DS4 standard on this road and DS5 paved has been justified based
on the outputs of the economic analysis
ES1.4 Design Standard Review
A design standard review was made before the detailed design stage and a report was
submitted to ERA. This report summarized the design standards to be used for the
project. A review of all the appropriate standards and recommendations for the use of
one document for each of the main design elements (geometric, pavement, structure
and hydrology) were included in the report. The standards for design of roads and
bridges as adopted by ERA were adapted where possible and adequate explanation was
given where different standards were recommended.
ES1.5 Geometric Design
The Geometric Design of the road project is designed following the ERA geometric
design manual-2002 adopting design standard DS5 (Paved).
The geometric aspect of the project which consists of the design elements such as the x-
section, the horizontal and vertical alignments is designed based on the following

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
general design standard values for road standard DS5 as per ERA geometric design
manual - 2002.
Road reserve (right-of-way) - 50m in rural and town sections.
Carriage way width - 7.0m (2 lanes)
Minimum horizontal curve radius - 20m (on switchback curves)
Maximum gradient - 12% (absolute maximum)
Minimum gradient - 0.0% (on bridge limits and

maintaining 0.5% minimum gradient as per
the standard has been adopted in other
sections)
Maximum Superelevation - 8% Rural Sections and 4% in town

sections.
Widening - 0.6 – 1.5m for curvature depending on

the radius of curve
Normal Crown - 2.5% for carriage away and

3.0% for Shoulder
The horizontal and vertical alignment data of the project has been annexed with this
report
ES1.6 Detailed Field Investigation Works
The field investigation team has been sent to the project area to carry out the field
investigation work in June 2008.
The main part of the fieldwork included existing pavement condition survey, construction
materials investigation, and foundation investigation. Besides visual soil extension survey
of the sub grade materials were conducted and representative samples were collected for
3 – point modified Proctor – CBR – swelling and classification tests. Based on the desk
study as well as site investigation, construction material sources were located and
samples were collected for quality tests, which includes natural gravel sources for
wearing course and capping layer, rock sources for masonry and crushed aggregates, sand

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
sources for concrete and mortar works and water sources for compaction and concrete
mixing. Moreover sources of borrow material for Embankment construction and
replacement of weak sub grade are located and representative samples were collected for
testing. In addition to the sub grade and construction materials, the foundation conditions
of the major crossing sites were investigated through test pits.
The pertinent samples were collected and submitted to TCDSCo Construction Materials
Central Laboratory and tested there.
The test results of the collected soil samples are summarized and presented under Annex
III in the appendix of Soils and Materials report.
The field investigation team has been sent to the project area to carry out the field work
in the beginning of June 2008 and after successfully completing the field investigation
work the team has returned peacefully in the fourth week of June 2008.
A person assigned by the Client has attended all the field activities, starting from
sampling to loading and shipment of the samples.
ES1.7 Foundation Investigation for Major Bridge Crossings
Field foundation investigation was carried out at the major bridge crossing sites. There
are 13 major bridge crossing sites in the Arbaminch – Sawla section, out of which 8 of
them have existing bridges and the remaining 5 have no bridges. The purpose of
foundation investigation at these crossing sites is to determine the type and extent of
foundation material, and characterize their engineering properties for foundation design.
For bridge crossing with existing structures, bearing capacities are required if extension
or replacements of the bridges are required, or to identify any foundation problems and
propose appropriate solutions to alleviate foundation problems. The field investigation
was carried at proposed abutment positions on river banks and river bed material. During

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
field investigation, GPS-recording and photographs were taken at proposed abutment and
pier positions
The details of field and laboratory investigations for the first 60Km section of the project
which are carried at proposed bridge crossing sites, characterization of engineering
properties of foundation material for foundation design is presented under section 5.3 of
this engineering report.
ES1.8 Geological and Geotechnical Hazards
Special geological and geotechnical features, Hazards, problematic soils, instable slopes
that require special attention during detail field investigations and design stage are
assessed and the detail investigation which are made for the project includes but not
limited the following:
• Treatment of Expansive soils
• Slope Stability of the project area
ES1.9 Pavement Design
The pavement is one of the high cost items in any road construction project, whether new
construction or upgrading or rehabilitation. Therefore, careful approach needs to be
considered, for the following factors, in order to achieve the aim of a well designed
pavement:
− Riding comfort acceptable to road users;
− Economy (implementation / construction and life time /
maintenance);
− Limited surface deflection
Various pavement design methods have been developed in different parts of the world.
Each method has been developed based on local experience and conditions with respect
to climate, availability of materials, sub-grade conditions, traffic type, volume and
composition, economic trends and traffic growth trends, pavement performance records,
etc.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Based on the outputs of the traffic survey/projections and the feasibility of the project it
was noted that the road should be designed and constructed in Paved DS5 standard i.e,
paved road with double surface dressing. Hence, the pavement design for the project has
been undertaken based on ERA Pavement Design Manual Volume 1, Flexible Pavements
and Gravel Roads.
ES1.10 Hydrology/Hydraulic Analysis
The hydrological study was undertaken in order to compute and evaluate peak discharges
for all watercourses crossing the project road. The hydrological analysis was undertaken
using available maps and aerial photographs together with available Meteorological data
of the project area.
The procedures that are followed in the hydrological/hydraulic design of the Drainage
Structures include:
• Determining the general pattern and identification and description of

catchments;
• Analysis of rainfall data to determine the design storm corresponding to the
specified return periods
• Catchment Area delineations and computations of Catchment parameters like
Catchment Area, Stream length, Soil Type, Land Use & CN Numbers etc
• Determining the design and review peak flood discharges,
• Evaluating the design and review peak flood discharges
• Determinations of Waterway dimensions (Opening Sizes) for all the drainage
structures.
• And for existing structures, Hydraulic Adequacy of the opening sizes of the of
all the Existing structures.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
ES1.11 Structural Analysis and Design
The Structural Analysis and Design Part is carried out after the Final Required Opening Sizes of
all the Drainage Structures was determined from the Hydrological/Hydraulic Analysis and
Design. The tasks carried out in the final Structural Analysis and Design are: -
• Finalizing the Detailed Inventory and Condition Survey Report of ALL the Drainage
Structures in the Project Road.
• Checking the Structural Adequacy of the Structures especially the Major Drainage
Structures.
• Collecting the Final Hydrological/Hydraulic Analysis and Design and Reviewing and
Checking the adequacy of the Existing Drainage Structures
• Carrying out the FINAL STRUCTURAL Analysis and Design of the Drainage
Structures (determining and selecting the type, size of the superstructure and
substructures for new structures and determining and selecting replacement structures
for those existing structures deemed to be INADEQUATE.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Project Background
It is needless to say that transport plays a crucial role in facilitating economic

development particularly in the context of Ethiopia’s geography, pattern of settlement
and economic activity. The need for people to move, utilization for natural resources,
improved agricultural production and market condition, access to social facilities, land
utilization and sustainable growth, all require transport as a catalyst.
To address these problems and development constraints caused by poor condition and
restricted access to market and ports, the Government of Ethiopia formulated in 1996, a
ten year Road Sector Development Program (RSDP). Since then the Government has
made huge amount of investment towards improvement of the road conditions through
upgrading/rehabilitation of the existing roads as well as construction of new ones. These
investments include the rehabilitation or upgrading of the main trunk, link and rural roads
and construction of new roads to expand the network.
As has been the case in the past, the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia (FDRE) continues its commitment to give the road sector the highest priority
and is preparing more projects for funding by donors and from the national budget.
Individual road projects are selected for inclusion in the RSDP on the basis of need
assessment and taking into account level of traffic, road condition and access problems,
etc.
Owing to the above the Government, represented by Ethiopian Roads Authority, has
allocated sufficient budget to finance payments for the consultancy services for the Detail
Feasibility, Environmental Impact Assessment studies and Preliminary Engineering
Designs and Detailed Engineering Design and Tender Document preparation and
Preparation of Resettlement Action Plan for Arbaminch – Kemba - Sawla Road Project.
MH Engineering plc has been assigned with the task of the above consultancy services
and has signed the contract agreement on the 10th of October 2007 and notice to
commence the services was issued on the 22nd of November 2007 and service started
from the same date.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
1.2. Objectives of the Consultancy Service
The principal objectives of the consulting services as per the Terms of Reference cited in
the above-mentioned Client/ Consultant service agreement are:
• To conduct socio economic and financial feasibility and EIA studies and
determine the viability of the road project.
• To carryout preliminary design of the proposed alignment
• To carryout detailed topographic survey,
• To carryout detailed engineering design;
• To prepare a complete set of Tender Document that will serve as a basis for
tendering the project on a procurement method (ICB or NCB) as agreed with
the Client.
• To prepare resettlement action plan (RAP) for the proposed road project.
The detailed scope of the services as detailed out in the TOR shall include all office and
field works including but not limited to:
• Traffic survey/forecast
• Traffic and Axle load studies
• Socio-Economic evaluation and analysis
• Environmental Impact Assessment
• Preliminary design of the proposed road alignment
• Evaluation and analysis of financial feasibility of the project
• Recommendation on pavement type
• Detailed survey and investigation: road, materials, drainages/bridges
• Detailed Engineering Design
• Preparation of RAP

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
• Construction quantities
• Cost estimate
• Tender document preparation
1.3. Objectives of the Engineering Report
The main objective of the engineering report is to compile all engineering works of the
project and form a comprehensive reference.
1.4. Brief Project Description
The project road is located in the southern part of the country in Southern Nations and
Nationalities People Regional State with its start at a village called Shele Mazoria, 20Km
from Arbaminch on the Arbaminch – Jinka road and connects Arbaminch to Sawla via
Kemba.
The project road starts from a junction on Arbaminch Jinka road which is 470Km from
the capital along Addis – Butajira – Sodo – Arbaminch – Jinka road and traverses in the
westerly direction to the end of the project, Sawla, passing through a number of towns
and rural villages with a total estimated length of 138.30Kms.
The project road will shorten the additional 270Km trip from Arbaminch to Sawla,
through Arbaminch – Sodo – Sawla, by nearly half length and will also connect the towns
and many villages of the two ethnic groups, Gamo and Gofa in the Gamo Gofa Zone.
The project location map is shown below under Figure 1-1

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Figure 1-1 Location Map
End of Project, Km138+300
Project Start,
Km0+000
Figure 1-1 Project Location Map

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
1.4.1. Terrain Classification
According to the Geometric Design Manual, 2002 of the Ethiopian Roads Authority, the
terrain through which the road alignment traverses can be classified into flat, rolling,
mountainous and escarpment, depending on the transverse terrain properties of the
project road.
The terrain of the project alignment may be described as escarpment/mountainous over

the largest portion of the project with some sections characterized by rolling and flat
physiographic features. Accordingly, the terrain classification made for the road
alignment under Lot 1, Km 0+000 – Km 60+000, are tabulated below under Table 1.1

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 1.1a - Summary of Terrain Type
Sl.No Start End Stretch Terrain Class

1 0+000.000 6+100.000 6.10 Flat
2 6+100.000 7+900.000 1.80 Rolling
3 7+900.000 8+400.000 0.50 Mountainous
4 8+400.000 18+450.000 10.05 Escarpment
5 18+450.000 21+050.000 2.60 Mountainous
6 21+050.000 25+130.000 4.08 Escarpment
7 25+130.000 26+520.000 1.39 Mountainous
8 26+520.000 27+400.000 0.88 Escarpment
9 27+400.000 28+200.000 0.80 Mountainous
10 28+200.000 31+100.000 2.90 Escarpment
11 31+100.000 34+370.000 3.27 Mountainous
12 34+370.000 39+000.000 4.63 Escarpment
13 39+000.000 40+500.000 1.50 Mountainous
14 40+500.000 44+400.000 3.90 Escarpment
15 44+400.000 45+510.000 1.11 Mountainous
16 45+510.000 51+750.000 6.24 Escarpment
17 51+750.000 52+300.000 0.55 Mountainous
18 52+300.000 52+730.000 0.43 Escarpment
19 52+730.000 54+000.000 1.27 Mountainous
20 54+000.000 55+050.000 1.05 Rolling
21 55+050.000 56+150.000 1.10 Escarpment
22 56+150.000 57+750.000 1.60 Mountainous
23 57+750.000 60+000.000 2.25 Escarpment
Table 1.1b - Summary of Terrain Type

Terrain Length (Km) Percentage (%)
Flat 6.10 10.17%
Rolling 2.85 4.75%
Mountainous 14.59 24.32%
Escarpment 36.46 60.77%
Total 60.00 100.00%

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
1.5. Key project data
A summary of the project data is given below in Table 1.2.
Project Name Arbaminch – Kemba - Sawla Road Project
Client Ethiopian Roads Authority
Consultant MH Engineering Consulting Engineers Plc.
Funding Agency The Government of Ethiopia.
Type of Service Phase I: Detail Feasibility, Environmental Impact Assessment

studies and Preliminary Engineering Design
Phase II: Detailed Engineering Design, Tender Document
preparation and Preparation of Resettlement Action
Plan
Length of Project Approximately 140 Km (as per the RFP)
Project Location Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR)
Consultancy
Contract Signed on October 10th, 2007
Commencement November 22nd, 2007
Date
Planned Duration 8 Months For Phase-I
6 Months For Phase-II
Project Cost 4,327,858.00ETB

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
1.6. Physiographic Features and Project Control Points
The project road takes off the Arbaminch – Jinka road at the village of Shelle Mazoria to
the right and traverses in the Northwest direction along the entire length of the route
corridor.
Beginning from the project start up to Kemba town the road is an existing gravel road,
which is in bad condition, having an average width of 5m whereas the rest of the project
section doesn’t have any road which could be categorized under any class of road
standard; it is simply a trail road due to lack of reconstruction and/or maintenance.
Project Control Points
As stated in the TOR; the control points of the project road are the towns/villages of
Shelle Mazoria, Chamo, Geresse, Kemba, Zala, Gelta and Sawla.
The towns/villages traversed by the project route are listed in the table below.
Table 1.3 Towns/Villages traversed by the existing route

No. Town/Village Chainage
1 Shelle Mazoria (Start of the Project) 0+000
2 Shelle town 5+300 – 6+400
3 Geresse Village/Town 31+000 – 33+700
4 Bula Village 43+900 – 44+500
5 Belta Village 58+900 – 60+000
6 Kemba Town 77+300 – 78+500
7 Otolo Village 90+000 – 90+700
8 Sawla town (end of project) 138+300
1.7. Geology and Subgrade Soil of the Project Area
According the geological map of Ethiopia at scale of 1:2,000,000, the 1:500, 000 scale
geological map of Omo River Project Area, and preliminary field observation, the project
route corridor is comprised of Jimma Volcanic (Pjb), and Alluvial, Lacustrine Deposits
(Q) and (Peqf) as shown below under Fig. 1.2

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Legend
Q-
Alluvial and
Lacustrine Deposits:
Sands, silts, clays,
diatomite, limestone
and Beach Sand
Pjb-
Jimma Volcanic
(Lower Part) flood
basalts with minor
Salic flow
ARy-
Yavello Group:
Quartzo Feldspathic
gneiss and Granulites
Fig. 1.2 - Geology of the project area
The Jimma basalts are pre- lift tertiary volcanic rocks with thick basaltic base rock and
thin salic rocks. They form the dominant terrain throughout the project route with thin
layer (2-3m) of residual reddish and yellowish silty clay soils on top in hilly and
mountainous terrains. The residual soils get thicker in rolling terrains. They are dark in
colour, fine grained, aphanitic to prophyritc texture, massive to widely jointed and
moderately fractured. They cover the hilly and mountainous sections of the project. The
weathered and fractured part can be used as natural gravel wearing course and the fresh
ones can be used for aggregate crushing.
The Alluvial and Lacustrine deposits form the flat terrains of the project route with
reddish silty clay soil formations and brownish clay soil in very flat terrains of poor
subgrade drainages. They cover the flat sections with reddish silty clay soil formations
and brownish sand and silts around the rivers. The reddish clay soils are suitable
materials for construction of Embankments.
The subgrade soil will be evaluated in terms of their suitability for road foundations and
source for borrows. Pertaining to the regional geological formation the subgrade soils
along the project route are generally similar. The pre-dominant subgrade soil is reddish

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
clay soil. They are residual soils formed from decomposition of parent rock from
weathering. These soils can be rated as good subgrade soils and don’t require subgrade
treatment during construction. In the mountainous section, they are thinly layered
overlying rocky subgrade. There are also pockets of dark brown clay soils between Km
90+000 and Km 105+000 that need special attentions.
1.8. Existing Traffic/Transportation
The project road acts as a link between Arbaminch –Jinka and Sawla –Sodo roads. Up on
construction it will act as short alternative route to Arbaminch from Sawla and
surrounding areas. Currently, the access to Arbaminch from Sawla is via Sodo and
Awassa which by far is longer than the project route.
Between Arbaminch and Kamba, the main transport pattern of the populations is carried
out by non-motorized transport and motorized transport mainly small trucks and buses.
The trucks transport agricultural products specially coffee, vegetables, cash crop and
fruits from the project area to central markets of the region and the country. They also
serve as public transport. The volume of motorized traffic between Shelle Mazoria and
Geresse is higher than the traffic volume between Geresse and Kamba. Currently, there is
no motorized traffic between Kemba and Sawla due to problem of accessibility.
1.9. Structure of the Report
This report presents Draft Engineering Report and prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the TOR of the project. It encompasses the summary of all engineering
activities which are undertaken in the course of the design works.
In this report the summary of all activities under Lot 1 of the project for the section
between Km0+000 – 60+000 have been addressed.
This report has been divided into 10 Chapters, of which the contents briefly are:
Chapter 1 : Introduction (this Section) provides the introductory information

on the project;
Chapter 2 : Design Standards
Chapter 3 : Topographic Surveying;

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Chapter 4 : Geometric Design
Chapter 5 : Soils and Materials Investigation and Pavement Design;
Chapter 6 : Hydrology and Hydraulics,
Chapter 7 : Structural Analysis and Design;
Annex : Appendices

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
2. DESIGN STANDARDS
2.1. General
ERA has developed a design standard manual from current international practice by
appropriately modifying to take account of local experience and conditions as part of the
decision to use a uniform framework. The standard establishes road classifications and
design criteria under different traffic loading. The consultant has reviewed ERA’s design
standards and submitted a report of the review and the adopted standards. The design
standard review report includes design standards for geometric designs, pavement
designs, earthworks, hydrology and structural designs by reviewing ERA’s design
manual and other internationally accepted standards. Summary of the design standards
discussed in the successive chapters.
2.2. Geometric Design Standard
2.2.1. Introduction
Basically design standards are selected based on functional classification of road and
traffic. The function of the road is determined by the character and anticipated level of
service that the road would render. Typically this relates into categorization or
classification of the road as Trunk Road, Access Road, Collector Road., Link Road etc.
for which a generic definition is given indicating its primary function and purpose.
Various geometric design manuals have their own definition and classification systems.
Road standards are also selected based on the road’s intended capacity to accommodate
traffic. Normally, for high traffic volumes a higher set of design standard (i.e, wider
carriageways, gentle curves, flatter vertical gradient, full overtaking distances etc.) are
associated while the vice versa is true for low traffic.
The project road under consideration is functionally classified as a LINK road in

accordance with ERA’s functional road classification.
It is required that appropriate standards and combinations of geometric design elements

should fulfill the following controlling factors and criteria:

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
• Topography, land use and physical features.
• Road function and control of access.
• Traffic volume and capacity.
• Design speed and other speed controls.
• Environmental considerations.
• Road safety considerations.
• Economic and Financial considerations.
Therefore, in adopting a certain geometric design standard these factors (including

others) are taken into consideration implicitly within the standards.
2.2.2. Geometric Design Standards Comparison
The following international standards have been compared in the design standard report.
i. ERA’s Design manual
ii. American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO), USA
iii. Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL), UK
iv. Kenya Road Design Manual (KRDM), Kenya
2.2.3. Comparison of Selected Geometric Design Parameters
2.2.3.1. Terrain classification
The geometric design elements of a road depend primarily on the terrain through which
the road passes. According to ERA Design Manual, terrain properties are generally
categorized into four classes as follows:
FLAT: Flat or gently rolling country, which offers few obstacles to the
construction of a road, having continuously unrestricted horizontal and vertical
alignment (transverse terrain slope up to 5 percent).

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
ROLLING: Rolling, hilly or foothill country where the slopes generally rise and fall
moderately and where occasional steep slopes are encountered, resulting in some
restrictions in alignment (transverse terrain slope from 5 percent to 25 percent)
MOUNTAINOUS: Rugged, hilly and mountainous country and river gorges. This
class of terrain imposes definite restrictions on the standard of alignment obtainable and
often involves long steep grades and limited sight distance (transverse terrain slope from
25 percent to 50 percent).
ESCARPMENT: In addition to the terrain classes given above, a fourth class is

added to cater to those situations whereby the standards associated with each of the
above terrain types cannot be met.
We refer to escarpment situations inclusive of switchback roadway sections, or side hill

transverse sections where earthwork quantities are considerable, with transverse terrain
slope in excess of 50 percent).
In general, construction costs will be greater as the terrain becomes more difficult and
higher standards will become less justifiable or achievable in such situations than for
roads in either flat or rolling terrain. Drivers should also expect lower standards in such
conditions and therefore adjust their driving accordingly, so minimizing accident risk.
Design speed will therefore vary with terrain.
2.2.3.2. Design Speed
Design speed is defined as the speed which is used to determine the various geometric
design features of the roadway, such as horizontal curve radius, maximum gradient, super
elevation, curtailed sight distance and so on. During selection of design speed factors
such as functional classification, topography, adjacent land use and anticipated operating
speed are considered.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
The design speed recommended for the different terrain classifications under different
standards are as follows:
Table 2.1: Design Speed

Design speed (Km/hr)
Terrain Type
ERA AASHTO TRRL KRDM
100- 100-
ADT <400 -
200 400
Flat/Plain 70 60 70 80
Rolling 60 50 60 50-80
Hilly/Mountainous 50 30 50 30-50
Escarpment 40 - - -
In general, construction cost for higher speed, higher road standard, will be greater as the
terrain becomes rolling, escarpment or mountainous which may not be justifiable or may
not at times be attainable. Further higher speed increases accident risk. As indicated in
the table above all standards give rather similar design speed for their respective terrain
classification. Under the circumstance the design speed of 70KPH is recommended for
flat terrain, 60KPH for rolling terrain, 50KPH for mountainous terrain and 40KPH for
escarpment terrain, as per ERA's geometric standard provisions.
2.2.3.3. Carriage Way and Shoulder Widths
The standards give values for different terrain class as follows:
Table 2.2: Carriage Way and Shoulder Width for DS5 road
ERA AASHTO TRRL KRDM
Terrain Classification
c/w* sh* c/w* sh* c/w sh c/w sh
Flat/Plain 7 - 6 0.6 5 1 8 -
Rolling 7 - 6 0.6 5 1 8 -
Hilly/Mountainous 7 - 6 0.6 5 1 8 -
Escarpment 7 - 6 0.6 5 1 8 -
c/w*- Carriage way width in meters
Sh* - Single side soft shoulder width in meters

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
2.2.3.4. Camber
The camber for unpaved carriage way and shoulder is generally more than paved carriage
way. In a gravel road, a low camber creates drainage problems thus affecting the
pavement and a high camber tends to wash the gravel away faster, besides inconvenience
to traffic. Values of recommended camber by different design standards for the straight
stretches are as follows:
Table 2.3: Camber
Surface Camber (%)

Category ERA AASHTO TRRL KRDM
Paved
2.5 2.0 - 6.0 4.0 - 6.0 4
C/W
Shoulder 4
2.0 - 6.0 4.0 - 6.0 4
(soft) (unpaved)
The project road will be constructed as a DS5 paved road with 0.50m shoulder provision
to hug the asphalt pavement, therefore a 2.5% and 4.0% camber is recommended for the
carriageway and shoulders respectively for the straight stretches of the project road as per
ERA's design standard.
2.2.3.5. Sight Distance
Sight distance is defined as the distance at which a driver of a vehicle can see an object of
specified height in front of him, assuming adequate light and visual acuity and clear
atmospheric conditions. This distance is dependent on the height of the driver’s eye
above the road surface, the specified object height above the road surface, and the height
of sight obstructions within the line of sight.
The driver’s eye is assumed to be at 1.07m height and object at 0.15m above road surface
for stopping sight distance calculations. For overtaking sight distance object height of
1.30m is used because vehicles are the objects that must be seen when passing.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
The recommendations for sight distance under various standards are as follows:
Table 2.4: Minimum Stopping Sight Distance
Speed Minimum Stopping Sight Distance, m

KPH ERA AASHTO TRRL KRDM
30 30 35 25 -
40 45 50 35 40
50 55 65 50 55
60 85 85 65 75
70 110 105 87 95
80 155 130 120 120
Table 2.5: Minimum Overtaking Sight Distance
Speed Minimum Overtaking Sight Distance, m

KPH ERA AASHTO TRRL KRDM
30 217 200 - -
40 285 270 - -
50 345 345 140 250
60 407 410 180 325
70 482 485 240 400
80 573 540 320 475
As can be observed from the above tables, all values of sight distances are similar except
for that of overtaking sight distance of TRRL which is rather low. The desirable
minimum sight distances recommended for the project roads are as per ERA are as
follows:

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 2.6: Recommended Sight Distances

Minimum
Speed Minimum Stopping
Overtaking Sight
KPH Sight Distance (m)
Distance (m)
30 30 217
40 45 285
50 55 345
60 85 407
70 110 482
80 155 573
2.2.4. Horizontal Alignment
2.2.4.1. Design considerations
Design elements of horizontal alignment are the following.
Straight section (tangent)
• Circular curves
• Transition curve (spiral)
• Super elevation
• Widening on curves
The limiting values are determined in various international standards based on the above
considerations and are presented in the table below.
Table 2.7: Design Standards for Horizontal Curves
Curve ERA AASHTO KRDM

Elements F R M E F R H/M F R H/M
Design Speed 70 60 50 40 60 50 30 80 50 30
Min. radius
175 125 85 50 105 70 25 350 100 60
(m)
Max super-
elevation in 8 8 8 8 12 12 12 6 6 6
%
F = Flat R = Rolling H/M = Hilly & Mountainous E = Escarpment

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
TRRL manual for unpaved road doesn't give specific values of minimum radius and
super elevation for different terrain types. It is stated in the manual that "On unpaved
roads, the cross fall is designed to remove rainwater quickly and effectively, and will be
dependent on local conditions and materials. Values of super elevation lower than the
value of the cross fall will fail to drain the surface; whist higher values will be likely to
result in erosion. On unpaved roads, the maximum super elevation will therefore be the
elimination of adverse cross fall.
The above table depicts that ERA's design values are within reasonable range. However,
in escarpment and mountainous section of the project departures from ERA’s standard
are expected and have been adopted after getting approval from ERA.
2.2.4.2. Tangent Sections
Long tangent sections increase the danger from headlight glare and usually lead to
excessive speeding; hence the maximum length of a tangent section should not exceed
4.0 kilometers.
2.2.4.3. The Circular Curve
For calculation of the minimum horizontal radius, R min, for a particular design
V2D
R min =
127(e + f )
speed, the following equation shall be used:
Where,
VD =Design Speed (Km/h)

e =Maximum super elevation (%/100)
f =Side friction coefficient

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
REVERSE CURVES, BROKEN-BACK CURVES, AND COMPOUND CURVES
The occurrence of abrupt reverse curves (having a short tangent between two curves in
opposite directions) should be avoided. Such geometrics make it difficult for the driver to
remain within his lane. It is also difficult to super-elevate both curves adequately, and this
may result in erratic operation.
The "broken-back" arrangement of curves (having a short tangent between two curves in
the same direction) should be avoided except where very unusual topographical or right-
of way conditions dictate otherwise.
The use of compound curves affords flexibility in fitting the road to the terrain and other
controls. Caution should however be exercised in the use of compound curves, because
the driver does not expect to be confronted by a change in radius once he has entered a
curve. Their use should also be avoided where curves are characterized by sharp
compound curves with large differences in curvature introduce the same problems as are
found at the transition from a tangent to a small-radius curve. Where the use of
compound curves cannot be avoided, the radius of the flatter circular arc should not be
more than 50 percent greater than the radius of the sharper curve; i.e. R1 should not
exceed 1.5R2. A compound curve on this basis is suitable as a form of transition from
either a flat curve or a tangent to a sharper curve, although a spiral transition curve is
preferred.
SWITCHBACK CURVES
Switchback or hairpin curves are used where necessary in traversing mountainous and
escarpment terrain. Employing a radius of 20m or less, with a minimum of 10m, they are
generally outside of the standards for all road design standard.
The minimum outer radii for design vehicles DV2 through DV4 are 12.5m, 14.1m, and
12.5m, respectively. Minimum inner radii are 8m, 7.4m, and 6m, respectively.
Switchback requirements can be determined for allowing passage of only a single DV4
and a DV1, which is recommended to Design Standards DS4 and DS5.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
SUPER ELEVATION
In urban areas where traffic congestion or extensive marginal development acts to curb
top speeds, it is common practice to utilize a low maximum rate of super elevation,
usually 4 percent. Similarly, either a low maximum rate of super elevation or no super
elevation is employed within important intersection areas or where there is a tendency to
drive slowly because of turning and crossing movements, warning devices, and signals.
Super elevation is a requirement for all standards of roads.
SUPER ELEVATION RUNOFF
In design of curves without spirals the super elevation runoff is considered to be that
length beyond the tangent run out. Empirical methods are employed to locate the super
elevation runoff length with respect to the point of curvature (PC). Current design
practice is to place approximately two-thirds of the runoff on the tangent approach and
one-third on the curve, as shown in Figure 2.1 below.
Figure 2.1 Circular Curve Transition
2.2.5. Vertical Alignment
Two major aspects of vertical alignment are vertical curvature, which is governed by
sight distance and comfort criteria, and gradients, which are related to vehicle
performance and level of service. There are two types of vertical curves – summit (or

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
crest) and sag (or valley) curves which are introduced at vertical grade changes. The
lengths of vertical curves are controlled by sight distance requirements. However longer
curve lengths are always recommended for better aesthetics and riding comforts.
The various standards recommend different criteria for crest and sag vertical curve
requirements based on grade change. The provisions in various standards are summarized
below along with recommendations for the project road.
2.2.5.1. Gradients
The recommendations provided by the different standards are as follows:
a) ERA
ERA’s Geometric Design Standard recommends values for maximum grade for DS5 road
standard based on terrain and design speed as follows:
Table 2.8: ERA max gradient
Max. Gradient
Terrain Speed
Desirable Absolute
Flat 70 4 6
Rolling 60 5 7
Mountainous 50 7 9
Escarpment 40 7 9
b) AASHTO
AASHTO recommends values for maximum grade based on terrain and design speed as
follows:

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 2.9: AASHTO max gradient
Max. gradient for design speed

Terrain
30 40 50 60 70 80
FLAT 7 7 7 7 7 6
Rolling 10 10 9 8 8 7
Hilly/Mountainous 12 11 10 10 10 9
c) TRRL
TRRL recommends values for maximum grade of 10% for all speed and terrain, where
ADT is between 100 and 400.
d) KRDM
The gradients are related to speed and terrain:
Table 2.10: KRDM max gradient
Max. gradient for design speed

Terrain
30 40 50 60 70 80
Flat - - - - 7.0 6.0
Rolling - - 9.0 8.0 7.5 7.0
Hilly/Mountainous - 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 -
It may be observed from above that the basis of deciding maximum gradient are different
for different standards. Basically ERA’s values will be used as a guide line for design.
However, as our project is characterized by mountainous/escarpment terrain over 70% of
the project length, departure from ERA standard is mandatory and the other standards
will be considered.
Standards for desirable maximum gradients were set to assure user comfort and to avoid
severe reductions in the design speed. When occasional terrain anomaly is encountered
that requires excessive earthworks to reduce the vertical alignment to the desirable
standard, an absolute maximum gradient from ERA manual can be used. Therefore,
maximum gradient should be used for short length to avoid this problem

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Minimum gradient of 0.5%, for roads in cuttings, is to be adopted to facilitate drainage in

flat sections.
2.2.5.2. Crest Vertical Curves
Minimum lengths of crest and sag vertical curves have been recommended based on
design Speeds and stopping sight distance requirements. They provide for ride comfort,
appearance, and most importantly, safety. These are usually express in terms of “K”
value.
ERA
The minimum lengths based on type of terrains described with respect to K values are:
Table 2.11: ERA's K Values
Flat Rolling Mountainous Escarpment

Crest Vertical
18 10 5 3
Curve
Sag Vertical
18 12 8 4
Curve
AASHTO
The minimum lengths based on speed described with respect to K values are:
Table 2.12: AASHTO's K Values
Speed in KPH 30 40 50 60 70 80
Crest Vertical Curve 2 4 7 11 17 26
Sag Vertical Curve 6 9 13 18 23 30
TRRL
TRRL recommends different lengths for safe stopping sight distance and overtaking sight
distances related to speed based on K values. These are as follows:

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 2.13: TRRL's K Values
Speed in KPH 30 40 50 60 70 80
Crest Vertical
1.5 3 5 10 16 30
Curve
Sag Vertical Curve 0.7 1.3 2.2 3.5 4.8 8.1
KRDM
KRDM recommends a different basis of determining length of curve based on sight

distance and vertical curve radii. The vertical curve radii are equivalent to K values
multiplied by 100. The values in the following table are read from minimum curve radii
vs. sight distance curves.
Table 2.14: KRDM K Values
Speed in KPH 40 50 60 70 80
Crest Vertical Curve 3.5 5.5 8 11 15
Sag Vertical Curve 6.5 8 12 15 18
2.2.5.3. Sag Vertical Curves
Lengths of sag vertical curves depend on the following four factors:
• head light sight distance
• riding comfort
• drainage control
• braking distance
A combination of the above factors also contributes to determine the minimum length of
curve.
The values recommended under different standards are as follows:

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 2.15 Minimum Length of Sag Curves
Speed Minimum Length of Curve (m)

(Kph) AASHTO TRRL NAASRA KDRM
30 40
40 50
Not
50 65 30 60
60 80 40 80 considered
70 95 50 100
80 100 65 120
2.2.6. Recommendation
ERA provisions are recommended for adoption. However, as our project is characterized
by mountainous/escarpment terrain for 85% of Lot - I of the project length, departure
from ERA standard is mandatory and the other standards were considered. The summary
of the vertical/horizontal alignment data are annexed with this report under Annex II
2.2.7. Typical Cross Section and Cross Section Elements
The capacity of the road is highly dependent on the width of traffic lane that will govern
the safety and convenience of traffic. The carriageway widths do also have a profound
influence on the capacity of the road section. Generally, in most design standards a width
of 3.6 meters is adopted for each traffic lane wherever possible.
2.2.7.1. Typical Cross Sections
Typical cross – sections have been developed based on ERA’s Geometric design manual
for DS5 standard as shown in the following figure.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Typical Sections of the Project

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
2.2.7.2. Curve Widening
Curve widening is applied to horizontal curves with small radii so that the operating
conditions are compatible with those on large radii curves or straights.
Table 2.16: ERA's Geometric Design Manual Widening Due to Curvature
Radius of Curve
Curve (m) Widening (m)
>250 0.0
120-250 0.6
60-120 0.9
40-60 1.2
20-40 1.5
<20 *
Note: * To be catered for with the provision given for Hairpin (switchback) curves
Widening due to curvature will be applied on the inner side of the horizontal curves
2.2.7.3. Fill Widening
Normally, fill widening is applied at high fill areas for psychological comfort of drivers.
It is applied to either or both sides where required and will be added to curve widening
values, if any. The height of fills is measured vertically from edge of shoulder to toe of
fore slope.
Table 2.17: ERA's Geometric Design Manual Widening Due to Fill
Height of Fill Length of Transition

Fill (m) Widening (m) (Runout Taper) (m)
0.0 - 3.0 None None
3.1 - 6.0 0.30 15
6.1 - 9.0 0.60 20
Over 9.0 0.90 25

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
2.2.7.4. Side Slopes
The selection of side slopes is dependent upon safety considerations, height of fill or cut
and type of material.
Table 2.18: ERA's Geometric Design Manual Slope Ratio Table
Height of Slope Slope in Fill Slope in Cut

Material
(m) (H:V) (H:V)
0.0 – 1.0 4:1 3:1
Earth or Soil 1.0 – 2.0 3:1 2:1
> 2.0 2:1 1.5:1
Black Cotton 0.0 – 2.0 6:1
-
Soil > 2.0 4:1
0.0 – 2.0 0.5:1 1.25:1
Rock*
Over 2.0 0.25:1 1:1
Note: * Values are nominal; may vary according to existing condition.
Table 2.19 Side Slopes and back slopes on for decomposed rock and weathered
rock, the standard of Transport Construction Design Share Company (TCDSCo) is
recommended.
Material Height of Side Slope Back Zone Description

Slope Cut Fill Slope
Decomposed Rock 0.0 – 1.0 m 1:2 1:3 1:3 Recoverable
1.0 – 2.0 m 1:2 1:2 1:2 Non - Recoverable
Over 2.0 m 1:2 2:3 1:1 Critical
Weathered Rock 0.0 – 2.0 m 1:2 2:3 2:1 Critical
Over 2.0 m 1:2 1:1 3:1 Critical

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
2.2.7.5. Right of Way
According to ERA’s Geometric Design Manual “Right-of-ways, or road reserves, are

provided in order to accommodate road width and to enhance the safety, operation and
appearance of the roads. The width of right-of-way depends on the cross section elements
of the highway, topography and other physical controls together with economic
considerations. Although it is desirable to acquire sufficient right-of-way to
accommodate all elements of the cross section and appropriate border areas, right-of-way
widths should be limited to a practical minimum in both rural and developed areas
affecting the economy of the inhabitants.”
For DS5 standard of road the recommended right of way width is 50m. However, in
situations where minimum removal of obstructions is mandatory, a right of way width of
30m will be adopted.
2.2.7.6. Clear Zone
For adequate safety, it is desirable to provide an unencumbered roadside recovery area

that is as wide as practical on a specific highway section. The cleared width should be a
minimum of 15 meters from the centerline of the roadway.
Lateral clearances between roadside objects and obstructions and the edge of the
carriageway should normally be not less than 1.5 meters. New pipe and box culvert
installations must be designed with a 1.5-meter clearance from the edge of the shoulder.
Horizontal clearance to road signs, marker posts, etc. shall be a minimum of 1.0m from
the edge of the carriageway.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
2.2.7.7. Junctions
Junctions along the existing part of the project road require to be improved within the
limitations of the existing conditions, such as space constraint, angle of intersection and
developments along the roads at junctions.
The design of the junction should allow transition from one route to another or through
movement on the main route and intersecting route with minimum delay and maximum
safety. Hence, the layout and operation of the junction should be oblivious to the driver,
with good visibility between the conflicting movements.
The junction design will strictly consider safety, operational comfort, capacity and
economy.
2.2.7.8. Parking bays and Bus bays
Rural bus lay-byes serve to remove buses from the traffic lanes. Parking bays are
provided for taxis and other vehicles to stop outside the roadway.
The location and design of lay-byes shall provide ready access in the safest and most
efficient way possible. The design and provision of lay-byes will be made in accordance
with ERA design guidelines.
2.2.7.9. Parking Lanes
Parking lanes differ from parking bays in that they allow for parking of vehicles rather
than buses and taxis.
It is imperative to make provision of parking lane along with the traffic lane in urban
areas where the degree of urbanization is higher. The parking lane width for parallel
parking is 3.0m, which may be reduced to 2.5m where available space is limited.
2.2.7.10. Public Utilities
All road improvements generally entail adjustment of utility facilities. These utility
facilities include:

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
• Sanitary sewers
• Water supply lines
• Telephones lines
• Drainage and irrigation lines
In the provision of the public utilities, the factors which are stipulated in ERA design
guidelines will be considered in the course of the design works.
2.2.8. Road Signs and Furniture
The basic objective of ancillary road works design is to arrange the physical elements of
the facility to meet the typical characteristics of drivers and vehicles. The geometric
design of a highway addresses the elements of location, functional class, alignment,
profile, cross section, intersections and control of access. Roadside safety, drainage,
traffic control and aesthetic qualities are also incorporated into roadway design. The use
of these elements in proper combination is the task of the roadway designer. The design
should properly reflect driver safety, comfort and convenience. Inadequate design may
cause early obsolescence or other financial loss through remedial reconstruction or
maintenance.
The safety consideration to be made in the course of the design works includes but not
limited to the following;
• Steel guard rails
• Masonry barrier walls
• Provision of regulatory and warning road signs
• Reflective guide posts
• Geometric design consistency
• Speed limit provision in hazardous sections
• Etc

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
2.2.8.1. Road Signing
Signing is required to be in place in the project before the roadway is opened to traffic.
The signing includes:
• placing desired standard signs and guide signs at appropriate locations on the
plan sheets;
• determining actual sizes of all guide signs;
• determining length and size of all sign supports;
• making detailed drawings of individual directional signs;
• identifying requirements for delineators, object markers and distance

reference markers; and
• Computing quantities for all applicable pay items and preparing a summary of
quantities.
2.2.8.2. Safety Barriers
Barriers protect road side facilities from vehicle impact. The risk of these types of
accidents can be reduced by using safety barriers. The purpose of the barrier is to absorb
or deflect the impact with as little severity as possible.
Safety barriers should be placed sufficiently far from the carriageway edge so as not to
cause a hazard to vehicles, nor to reduce the effective width of the carriageway.
In the course of the design works barriers like steel guardrails and masonry barrier walls
were considered.
2.2.9. Phasing of Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
It is stated in ERA's Geometric Design manual "Phasing of the vertical and horizontal
curves of a road implies their coordination so that the line of the road appears to a driver
to flow smoothly, avoiding the creation of hazards and visual defects. It is particularly
important in the design of high-speed roads on which a driver must be able to anticipate

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
changes in both horizontal and vertical alignment well within the safe stopping distance.
It becomes more important with small radius curves than with large."
The conditions stated in ERA's manual for phasing of horizontal and vertical alignment
have been applied by balancing safety, economy and aesthetics.
2.2.10. Summary of Geometric Standard Recommendations
As discussed above ERA’s standard with respect to geometric requirements more or less
provides reasonable values as compared to the other standards considered. Owing to
applying uniformity in the design of the project road, the ERA design standard will be
adopted.
Due to social and physical constraints at escarpment/mountainous section of the project,

some of the geometric design elements will call for special relaxation in isolated
stretches. These have been considered very carefully and were adopted after making
discussion with ERA. The lists of the horizontal and vertical alignment data of the project
together with departure demanding sections are annexed with this report. In these
departure demanding sections, adequate signage and cautions to the vehicle drivers will
then be necessary to help drivers to anticipate the peculiar situation well in time.
The summary design standards to be used for DS5 design standard which is selected as a
basis for our project road geometric design is shown below under Table 2.20

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 2.20: Geometric Design Parameters for Design Standard DS5 (paved)
Urban/Peri-
Design Elements Unit Flat Rolling Mountainous Escarpment
Urban
Design Speed Km/h 70 60 50 40 50
Min. stopping Sight
m 110 85 55 45 55
Distance
Min. passing Sight
m 275 225 175 125 175
Distance
% Passing Opportunity % 25 25 15 0 20
Min. Horizontal Curve
m 175 125 85 50 85
Radius
Transition Curves Required No No 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 Super-elevation % 8 8 8 8 4
Crest vertical Curve k 31 18 10 5 10
Sag Vertical Curve k 25 18 12 8 12
Normal Cross fall (Paved) % 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Shoulder Cross fall (un
% 4 4 4 4 4
Paved)
Right of Way m 50 50 50 50 50
2.3. Pavement Design Standard
2.3.1. General
Pavements are the main structural elements of a road that carry the load imposed from
wheel loads of the traffic and distribute to the underlying Subgrade layer. In
proportioning the sizes of the pavement layers it is important that they should be thick
enough to support the traffic loads and to prevent over loading of the Subgrade soil. From
feasibility study, it was concluded that the project road should be constructed to paved
road with DS5 standard.
In addition to the Ethiopian Standard, the standards taken for comparison are

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
• Kenyan Design Manual, part III, Material and Pavement Design for New
Roads, 1981
• Tanzanian Pavement and Material Design Manual, 1999
The basic design parameters for design of gravel roads considered for comparison are
Traffic volume
Assessing and evaluating the strength of sub grade soils
Locally available construction materials
Drainage Conditions
Environmental factors
2.3.2. Comparison of Pavement Design Parameters
2.3.2.1. Design traffic
One of the major design input for pavement design is traffic volume.
The traffic volume will be determined from classified traffic count (normal traffic) made
at the base year, adjusted for seasonal variations and project to road opening year and
generated and diverted traffic expected at the beginning of the design period.
Based on ERA pavement design manual, the traffic is classified in to five categories as
indicated below under table 2.21:
Table 2.21: Traffic Categorization
Vehicle
Type of Vehicle Description
Code
Passenger cars, minibuses (up to 24-passenger
1 Small car seats), taxis, pick-ups, and Land Cruisers, Land
Rovers, etc.
Medium and large size buses above 24 passenger
2 Bus
seats
Small and medium sized trucks including tankers
3 Medium Truck
up to 7 tons load

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Vehicle
Type of Vehicle Description
Code
4 Heavy Truck Trucks above 7 tons load
Trucks with trailer or semi-trailer and Tanker
5 Articulated Truck
Trailers
Traffic volume, expressed as AADT (Average Annual Daily traffic) is required both in
terms of total traffic volume (all vehicles) and commercial vehicle. For pavement design
purpose one directional traffic of the AADT at the first year of the road opening will be
forecasted in order to get the total traffic volume over the design period of the road.
For design of paved road, axle load is required for vehicles from code 2 to 5 of the above
table. The effect of small cars on pavement design is minimal. For this particular project
there are no permanent vehicle weigh stations in the project surrounding and conducting
the axle load survey may result in unreliable outputs. This is because presently the
economic activities of the area is limited due to extreme deterioration of the road for
existing road condition as a result existing traffic does not reflect the actual traffic trend
over the area. Therefore, default value from axle load study in Ethiopia is taken as shown
in table 2.22.
Table 2.22 Truck Factor
Truck
Type of Vehicle
Factor
Car 0.001
Land Rover 0.01
Small Bus 0.07
Large Bus 0.77
Small Truck 0.12
Medium Truck 0.96
Heavy Truck 4.5
Truck Trailer 8.5

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Finally, the cumulative ESAs over the design period (N) are calculated as the products of
the cumulative one-directional traffic volume (T) for each class of vehicle and the mean
Equivalency factor for that class and added together for each direction. The higher of the
two directional values should be used for design. Since number of lane in each direction
is one, 100% of the traffic will be taken for design. The following traffic classes are
considered.
Table 2.23 Traffic Classes for Flexible Pavement Design (ERA Manual)
Traffic classes Range (106 ESAs)

T1 < 0.3
T2 0.3 - 0.7
T3 0.7 - 1.5
T4 1.5 - 3.0
T5 3.0 - 6.0
T6 6.0 - 10
T7 10 - 17
T8 17 – 30
In the Kenyan standard, the procedure of determining cumulative standard axle load for
pavement design is the same. However, the range traffic classes are different from ERA
Manual.
Vehicle classification in Kenyan Manual is as follows
• Private cars-passenger motor vehicles with seating not more than 9 peoples,
including driver
• Light good vehicle- all good vehicles of not more than 15kN un-laden weight
• Buses-all passengers motor vehicles with seating not more than 9 peoples,
including driver
• Medium good vehicle- all two axle good vehicle with more than 15kN un-
laden weight
• Heavy good vehicle- all good vehicle with more than two axle

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
• Commercial vehicles-includes buses and good vehicles with more than 15KN
un-laden weight
For pavement design private cars and light goods vehicle are not considered. For single
carriage way with width of less than or equal to 7m, 70 to 80 % of commercial vehicle
and sum of the standard axle in both directions is used. The traffic classes based on
Kenyan Manual are shown below under table 2.24
Table 2.24 Traffic class by the Kenyan design manual
Traffic Classes Range of ESA (106)

T1 25 - 60
T2 10 - 25
T3 3 - 10
T4 1-3
T5 0.25 – 1
In Tanzanian Manual, The procedure of determining cumulative ESA for pavement

design is similar to ERA and Kenyan manuals, but different in vehicle and axle load
classification. Traffic considered for pavement design are only heavy vehicles, those with
registered un-laden weight of 3 tons and above and buses of 40 or more seats are shown
below under Table 2.25
Table 2.25Vehicle classification (Tanzanian Manual)
Heavy Vehicle Category Definition

- 2 axles including steering axle, and
Medium Good Vehicle, MGV
- 3 ton empty weight
Medium Good Vehicle, HGV
Medium Good Vehicle, HGV
Buses - Seating capacity of 40, or more

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
For each heavy vehicle category, the total E80 growth rate, is calculated from the formula
E80 growth rate: ((1+H/100)x(1+V/100)-1)x100
Where:
H= growth rate in traffic volume for heavy vehicle category
V= growth rate in vehicle equivalency (E80 per vehicle) for heavy vehicle
category
Since, the design carriageway width is 7m, with one lane in each direction; total E80, in
the heavier lane will be taken for pavement design. The following traffic classes based on
Tanzanian Manual are considered for design.
Traffic class by the Tanzanian design manual

Traffic Load Class(TLC) Design traffic loading(E80*106)
TLC 02 <0.2
TLC 05 0.2 to 0.5
TLC 1 0.5 to1
TLC 3 1 to 3
TLC 10 3 to 10
TLC 20 10 to 20
TLC 50 20 to 50
2.3.2.2. Sub grade strength
The Sub grade type and strength will be determined from site visual inspection, test
pitting, laboratory testing and expressed by CBR (California Bearing Ratio) Values. The
sub grade classification in all the three manuals is shown below. Note that the CBR value
are 4 day soaked CBR for wet climatic zones.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 2.26 Subgrade classification (ERA manual)
Sub grade Range

Classes (CBR %)
S1 2
S2 3-4
S3 5-7
S4 8-14
S5 15 - 29
S6 >30
Sub-grade bearing strength class by the Tanzanian design manual is depicted below under
Table 2.27
Table 2.27 Subgrade Classes using Tanzanian Manual
Wet or moderate climatic zones

Subgrade Classes
4 days soaked value
S3 3–6
S7 7 – 14
S15 Min 15
Sub-grade bearing strength class by the Kenyan design manual is tabulated below under
table 2.28
Table 2.28 Subgrade Classes using Kenyan Manual
Soil Classes CBR range

S1 2-5
S2 5 - 10
S3 7 - 13
S4 10 - 18
S5 15 - 30
S6 >30

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
2.3.2.3. Climatic Zones
Since climate has considerable on road performance by affecting the moisture under
pavements, hence it should be taken into account during design.
In ERA manual, for determination of design moisture content for Subgrade soils, the
effect of climate is divided into three categories;
• Category 1: The water table is with 7m of the proposed road surface
• Category 2:The water table is deep, but the rainfall can influence Subgrade
moisture content under the road
• Category 3: Deep water table and arid climate
The project road fall under category 1 and the Subgrade moisture content is determined at
4 day soaked CBR.
In Tanzanian Manual, as indicated below under table 2.29, climatic zone are divided into
three zones based on the number of months in the year with surplus of rainfall over
potential evaporation.
Table 2.29Climatic Zones (Tanzanian Manual)
Climatic
No of months per year with higher rain fall than evaporation
Zone
Dry Less than 1 month
Moderate 1 to 3 months
Wet More than 3 months
Thus, it falls under wet climatic zone.
In Kenyan Manual, the climatic zone are divided in to two: wet areas with mean annual
rainfall exceeding 500mm for which CBR is measured after 4 day soaking and dry zones
with mean annual rainfall less than 500mm for which CBR will be measured at optimum
moisture content. The project road, falls under wet climatic zone.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
2.3.2.4. Material Specification
The materials required for surface dressing are surfacing material, base course and sub-
base course. In all manuals, the surfacing material is surface dressing/ treatment. Since,
there is no natural material that satisfies the specification requirements for base course,
crushed material will be taken. For sub-base course material, granular material either
crushed or natural will be considered.
ERA manual
Surfacing: SD
Base course: Granular road base: GB1-GB3
Sub-base course: Granular Sub-base: GS
Kenyan Manual
Surfacing: SD
Base course; Crushed base course chart B4
Sub-base course: for crushed sub-base course, chart SB3
Tanzanian Manual
Surfacing: ST
Base course: CRR-CRS; Granular crushed
Sub-base course: G45-G25, natural granular.
2.3.2.5. Structural Design of Pavement
For structural design of paved road with surface treatment, based on the above mentioned
design inputs, climate, on the available construction material, traffic and Subgrade class
are provided in the form of design catalogue (charts) in all the three manuals as shown
below.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Note that the traffic class adopted in this sub section has taken from traffic data
calculated during preliminary design stage which is slightly varying from the traffic count
calculated in detail as shown in section 5 of this document. The traffic class has been
taken consistency so that it will not affect the pavement design standard selected.
Structural Design using ERA manual
Based on ERA design manual, the required pavement layers with surface dressing,
crushed based course and sub-base layer is obtained from design catalogue( chart 1)
shown below.
Table 2.30 Pavement Layer according to ERA Manual

Pavement Layer (mm)
Subgrade
Section Chainage (Km) Traffic Base Capping
Class Surfacing Sub base
class Course layer
I 0+000 - 45+000 S2 T4 DSD 200 250 300
II 45+000 - 78+000 S3 T4 DSD 200 275 --
III 78+000 - 138+300 S3 T3 DSD 200 225 --
Structural Design Kenyan Manual
Based on Kenyan design manual, the required pavement layers with surface dressing,
crushed based course and crushed sub-base is obtained from design catalogue( chart 9)
shown below. If there is natural gravel borrow that can meet the specification
requirement for sub-base, chart6 can be used.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 2.31 Pavement Layer according to Kenyan Manual
Pavement Layer (mm)

Subgrade
Section Chainage (Km) Traffic Base Capping
Class Surfacing Sub base
class Course layer
I 0+000 - 45+000 S1 T4 DSD 150 375
II 45+000 - 78+000 S2 T4 DSD 150 175
III 78+000 - 138+300 S1 T4 DSD 150 375
Tanzanian Manual
The required pavement layers with surface treatment with crushed based course and
natural granular sub-base course is obtained from table 2.32 as shown below. If there is
natural gravel borrow don’t meet the specification requirement for sub-base, it can be
substituted with G60. or G80 material
Table 2.32 Pavement Layer according to Tanzanian Manual
Sub- Pavement Layer (mm)

Section Chainage (Km) grade Traffic Base Capping
Surfacing Sub base
Class class Course layer
I 0+000 - 45+000 S15 TLC3 ST 150 CRS 200 CM
II 45+000 - 78+000 S7 TLC3 ST 150 CRS 200 CM
III 78+000 - 138+300 S15 TLC1 ST 150 CRS 200 G 45
• Cement or lime stabilized sub base course(CM)
• Crushed stones and oversize (CRS)
The following figures depict the design catalogues/charts used for the comparison of the
pavement design
Fig 1: Structural design catalogue (ERA manual)

Fig 2: Structural design catalogue (Kenyan manual)
Fig 3: Pavement Design chart (Tanzanian Manual)

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
2.3.2.6. Conclusion and recommendation
By comparing the Tanzanian, Kenyan and Ethiopian standards, it is found that the
Kenyan standard gave the highest pavement thickness which makes it more costly than
the ERA standard. The Tanzanian standard recommends cement stabilized sub-base layer
which is unnecessary for our specific case as our project road has abundant construction
material sources.
Moreover, the ERA pavement manual is specifically prepared for use in Ethiopian road,
and thus suitable and compatible for this project. Therefore, the pavement design for the
project has been undertaken based on ERA Pavement Design Manual Volume 1, Flexible
Pavements and Gravel Roads.
2.4. Hydrology/Hydraulics Design Standard
2.4.1. General
The main purpose of the hydrological study for this project is the computation and
evaluation of peak discharges of all the watercourses embraced in the Contract in which
the main objective is to determine opening sizes of drainage structures.
The maximum discharge of a waterway is a function of its catchment area, catchment

slope, catchment soil type and vegetation (land cover and land use), intensity of rainfall,
duration of storm etc. Various methods of deriving the peak or maximum discharge have
been developed over the years, which are aimed at predicting maximum discharge, by
assuming possible appropriate values for each of the factors affecting discharge.
Some of these methods are more appropriate for larger catchments and others are more
appropriate for smaller catchments. Therefore in this study the most appropriate method
will be applied for each case. In this study the maximum flood for all minor and major
crossings will be computed. The computation will be accomplished based on Ethiopian
Roads Authority (ERA) Drainage Design Manual (2002).

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
2.4.2. Hydrologic/Hydraulic Design standards
The Criteria and computational method that will be utilized for the design of minor and
major drainage structures are explained below.
2.4.2.1. Criteria and Design standards
The Consultant has established the appropriate return flood periods for the major and
minor drainage Structures as per the Criteria set in ERA Drainage Manual 2002 and peak
design flood discharge calculation will be conducted based upon these return periods
using the different methods and models described below depending up on the size of
catchments area and availability of appropriate data.
Then the water levels have been established and the adequacy of existing waterway areas
will be checked and also new structures will be designed where required by design and/or
the opening size of the existing structure is inadequate.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
2.33 DESIGN STORM FREQUENCY (YRS) BY GEOMETRIC DESIGN

CRITERIA
Geometric Design Standard

Structure Type
DS1/DS2 DS3/DS4 DS5/6/7 DS8/9/10
Gutters and Inlets* 10/5 2 2 -
Side Ditches 10 10 5 5
Ford/Low-Water Bridge - - - 5
Culvert, pipe (see Note)

25 10 5 5
Span<2m
Culvert, 2m<span <6m 50 25 10 10
Short Span Bridges

50 50 25 25
6m<span<15m
Medium Span Bridges
100 50 50 50
15m<span<50m
Long Span Bridges
100 100 100 100
spans>50m
Check/Review Flood 200 200 100 100

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
2.4.3. Hydrologic Computational Methods and Computer Models
Hydrologic Analysis Procedure Flow chart

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
The Hydrologic analysis currently that will be carried out are:
• Identification of all catchment areas using 1:50,000 scale topographic map;
• Determining soil type, land-use, land cover data from the Ministry of Water
Resources GIS database of scale 1:250000. This will be supplemented by field
observation.
• Rainfall time-intensity-frequency relationships Rainfall Regime B2 for the

catchment area;
• Runoff/slope/discharge characteristics of the catchment area Location, capacity

and type of drainage facilities required;
• Computation of water run-off quantities to be taken up by drainage structures will

be carried out using different acceptable calculation methodologies depending on
the size of the catchment area and estimated run-off coefficient. The run-off
coefficients will be determined using available information and following field
reconnaissance made by our hydrologist.
• Checking adequacy of existing drainage structures by carrying out the

Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Figure 2.3: ERA Intensity–Duration–Frequency Curves that is applicable for the project
area.
For small catchment areas, the run-off quantity estimation will be made by the Rational
Method or the SCS Method which relates run-off to the catchment characteristics, time of
concentration and rainfall intensity for a particular storm recurrence interval.
Depending on the limitations of the available data, the intensity Duration frequency curve
will be produced and compared with that of the ERA Manual, if no extreme rain fall data
is available the Curve in the Manual shall be used. In view of the fact that this manual
recommends an intensity-duration-frequency curve by studying a number of sites and
regionalizing the country.
As per the Recommendation in ERA Drainage Manual 2002, the hydrologic methods
approved by ERA and limitations on their use are:
• Rational method shall be used only for catchment areas less than 50 hectares

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
• SCS and other unit hydrograph methods for catchment areas greater than 50
hectares
• Catchment area regression equations shall be used for all routine designs at
sites where applicable;
• Gumbel or Log Pearson III analyses shall preferably be used for all routine
designs provided there is at least 10 years of continuous or synthesized record
for 10-year discharge estimates and 25 years for 100-year discharge estimates;
• Suitable computer programs such as WSPRO, HEC-HMS, and HEC-

GEOHMS may be used to facilitate tedious hydrologic calculations.
2.4.4. Hydraulic Design Standards
Hydraulic design is done following ERA 2002 Drainage Guideline supported by standard
hydraulic software like HEC-RAS and HY-8 recommended as well by Federal Highway
Authority of America (FHWA).
Detailed design work of determining the span and height (opening) of the drainage
structures will be conducted using the collected input data for hydrologic and hydraulic
studies. The theoretical calculations will be counter-checked with field information
gathered from the local people about their recollection of the past flood events and
historical high watermarks (HWM).
2.4.5. Culvert Design Criteria
The following design limitations are required for the culverts.
Allowable Headwater is the depth of water that can be ponded at the upstream end of the
culvert that will be limited by one or more of the following:
• Non-damaging to upstream property;
• No higher than the shoulder or 0.3 m below the edge of shoulder;
• Equal to an HW/D not greater than 1.5;

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
• Not higher than the low point in the road grade; and/or
• Equal to the elevation where flow diverts around the culvert.
The Headwater is the flood depth that:
• Does not exceed 0.5 cm increase over the existing 100-year in the vicinity of
buildings or dwellings, and
• Has a level of inundation that is tolerable to upstream property and roadway

for the review discharge.
Maximum Velocity: For the maximum velocity limit in the culvert barrel:
• use 0.8 meters per second when streambed material is not known,
• If clogging is probable, consider installation of a sediment trap or size culvert

to facilitate cleaning.
Flood Frequency: The flood frequency used to design or check the culvert shall be based
on the values given in Table 2.33. An economic assessment or analysis to justify the
flood frequencies greater to lesser than the minimum flood frequencies listed in Table
2.33.
2.4.6. Bridge Design Criteria
The following are the criteria related to the hydraulic analyses for the sufficiency of the
bridge.
Design Floods: For such purposes as the evaluation of backwater, clearance, and
overtopping shall be established.
Backwater: Backwater and/or increases over existing condition up to 0.5 m during the
passage of the 100-year flood, if practicable.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Clearance: A minimum clearance conforming to the requirements of the Bridge Design

Manual (usually 12.-1.5 meters) shall be checked.
2.4.7. Stream Channels Design Criteria
The following criterion applies to natural channels:
• The hydraulic effects of flood plain encroachments shall be evaluated for

frequency-based peak discharges from the design frequency to the
design/check/review recurrence intervals on any major highway facility, as
deemed necessary by the designer.
• If relocation of a stream channel is unavoidable, the cross-sectional shape,

meander, pattern, roughness, sediment transport, and slope should conform to the
existing conditions insofar as practicable. Some means of energy dissipation may
be necessary when existing conditions cannot be duplicated.
• Stream bank stabilization shall be provided when appropriate, because of any

stream disturbance, such as encroachment, and should include both upstream and
downstream banks, as well as the local site.
• Features such as dikes and levees with natural channel modifications should have
a 5-meter minimum top width with access for ERA maintenance equipment.
Turnaround points shall be provided no further than 500 meters apart and at the
end of any such feature.
2.4.8. Roadside Channels Design Criteria
The following criteria apply to roadside channels:
• Channel side slopes should not exceed the angle of repose of the soil
and/or lining and shall be 2:1 (Horizontal to vertical) or flatter in the case
of rock-riprap lining.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
• Flexible lining shall be designed according to the method of Allowable

Tractive Force.
• The design discharge for permanent roadside ditch linings should have a
10-year frequency while temporary linings shall be designed for the 2-year
frequency flow using Manning equation.
• Channel freeboard shall be 1 meter or two velocity heads, whichever is

larger.
Manning's Equation
For a given channel geometry, slope, and roughness, and a specified value of discharge, a
unique value of depth occurs in steady uniform flow. It is called the normal depth. The
normal depth is used to design channels in steady, uniform and is computed from
Manning's Equation:
Q = (1/n) AR2/3S1/2
Where : - Q = discharge, m3/s.
n= Manning's roughness coefficient
(can be obtained from ERA Drainage Design manual)
A= cross-sectional area of flow, m2
R= hydraulic radius = A/P, m
P= wetted perimeter, m and S = channel slope, m/m
2.4.8.1. Erosion and scour
As ERA 2002 manual indicated, the introduction of a culvert / bridges to convey the
stream flow beneath a highway can cause an increase in flow velocity downstream of the
structure. The increased flow velocity may be sufficient to cause erosion and degradation

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
of the channel profile. This effect can be detrimental to downstream land users and to the
culvert itself. Where the natural stream velocity exceeds the erosive velocity, then the
increased velocity at the culvert outfall will accelerate this naturally occurring process.
This must be avoided to protect lower lands and the roadway Embankment.
The flow velocity at the outlet of the roadway drainage works shall not exceed the
erosive velocity of the channel or the natural velocity of the channel, whichever is greater
or provide scour/ erosion protection work.
In general if culvert outlet velocity is greater than V = 5.34 m/s an energy dissipater is
needed. Culvert hydraulic performance will be assessed using HY-8 program. Scour
depth estimation for river bed characteristics of the crossings will be estimated using
HEC-RAS scour assessment module.
2.5. STRUCTURAL WORKS DESIGN STANDARD
The Consultant will carry out the Structural Analysis and Design of the structures using
the opening sizes (Span, height) determined from the Hydrology/Hydraulics Analysis and
Design part. The Analysis and Design works will be executed strictly as per ERA’s
Design Manuals.
2.5.1. General
Our design experience alerts us that designs compatible with our country construction
techniques and capability must be prepared in order to achieve the most economical
structural design.
During Structural design of drainage structures, the design will be made taking into
account the load system defined in ERA Bridge Design Manual, which specifies
AASHTO HL-93 plus the dynamic load allowance are generated for the limit state design
for bridges.
All existing structure falling within the alignment of the project road will be inspected in
detail and a report will be made on their overall condition using existing data, field
investigations and analysis.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Structures of less than 6m shall be specified as standard structures, which shall be fully
designed with supporting hydraulic and structural calculation. The new pipe and culverts
shall be designed using ERA’s design standards (2002) and the consultant shall provide
details of invert levels and dimensions of side drains.
The consultant considers the following points during the design of major drainage
structures (Bridges)
• Evaluation of bridge sites and bridge span arrangements, to determine the

alignments are proper or not;
• The location bridge structure and approaches upstream and downstream

during horizontal alignment design ;
• The minimum gradients for the all drainage structure during vertical
alignment design;
• Longitudinal sections of bridge approaches; and
• Elevations of the structure.
2.5.2. Inventory & condition survey of drainage structures
Detail inventory and condition survey of structures along the alignment and their type,
geometric & physical conditions will be studied and recorded. The detailed inventory
includes Existing structural condition of the structure, span, width, scour condition,
siltation condition, for all the elements of super structure and/or substructure. The
conditions of various furnitures of the minor and major drainage structures (guard rails,
parapet walls, curb inlets, weep holes, wing walls, end walls etc.) and their capacity will
be recorded.
Existing structures will be thoroughly inspected and a report will be prepared about their
condition including all the relevant parameters. The condition structural assessment
survey of the structures will also be carried out. We expect the previous design document

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
from the Client such as design calculation; As-built drawings and these will be collected,
reviewed and checked for their structurally adequate and their discharge capacity
considering the current traffic loading & hydrological analysis.
During the condition survey of minor drainage structures (concrete structures), the
consultant will inspect the following and record in a format to be prepared by the
consultant.
A) Foundation Problems
• Deterioration of Foundation
• The concrete elements of the foundation for slab-culverts and others will be
inspected to check for cracking and spalling off and/or reinforcement
corrosion where possible.
• The masonry will be examined for loss of mortar, fractured missing stones.
• Scouring of River Beds and Banks
• Degrading scour
• General scour due to restriction of the water way by the drainage structure.
• Structural faults due to settlement of the foundations
• Differential Settlements
B) Sub-Structure Problems
• Defects and deterioration in reinforced concrete. This includes cracking,

deterioration of reinforced concrete and corrosion of reinforcement.
• Defects in masonry. This includes cracking loss of mortar, loss/missing

stones, weathering, spalling or splinting and growth of vegetation.
• Drainage and water linkage

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
• Movement of the structures
C) Super-Structures
• Cracking of concrete
• Concrete peel off. This includes scaling of concrete element, spalling of

concrete element and accidental damages.
• Corrosion of reinforcements
• Porous concrete
• Leakage of water
D) Side Drains:
• The damages/defects of side drain such as scour situation, discharge capacity

etc will be studied and their respective causes (grade, shape, etc) will be
identified. They will be checked for adequacy of flow and problems of erosion
and siltation will be investigated. Appropriate solutions will be recommended
for the improvement or change of side drains and included in the final
engineering design.
2.5.3. Maintenance measures of Minor Drainage Structures
The minor drainage structures, for which the investigations dictated to be replaced or
rehabilitated due to their structural and discharge capacity, the consultant designs the
structures so that they capable of to bear the present loads and adequate for the
calculated discharge.
Usually the minor structures are specified as standard structures, which will be fully
designed with supporting hydraulic and structural calculations.
The strength of existing structures will be determined by strength evaluation of the major
components of the structures, etc. The analysis as stated above and the result of the

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
existing condition survey will determine the need & feasibility of strengthen or
reconstruction /rehabilitation of existing structures. The optimum solutions concerning of
the existing structures shall be established with due regard to economy, applicable
construction methods and future use of the roads.
2.5.4. Methods of Design
The limit state design method (strength design or load & Resistance factor method LRFD
Method) will be used for all structures. This method is technically safe and economical.
2.5.4.1. Type of Cross Drainage Structures
The desired life of a road pavement can only be achieved by providing suitable surface,
subsurface drainage along the road, cross drainage structures; protection works and
ensuring proper drainage schemes of water from the pavement layers. The types of
drainage structure specified for a particular location are often determined based on
economic considerations in addition to peak flow, waterway opening, water surface
elevation near the structure, velocity of flow and scour characteristics of the river bed.
Major Drainage structures (Bridges): are used where they are more economical than
minor drainage structures. They are also employed to satisfy land use requirements, to
mitigate environmental harm possible with minor drainage structures, to avoid floodway
and to accommodate large debris.
Minor drainage structures (Culverts): are used where major drainage structures are not
hydraulically required, where debris is tolerable, and where they are more economical
than a bridge.
Drainage structure design standards are a set of goals that establish a definite course of
action or method of action and that are selected to guide and determine present and future
decisions of drainage design.
All drainage structures will be designed in accordance with the current edition of ERA
Drainage and Bridge Design Manual- 2002.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Required Structural Schemes
The following cross drainage and drainage structure schemes have been accessed during
site visit keeping in view the topography of the area in the vicinity of the approaches.
• The major and minor bridges with adequate waterway opening for the design
discharge to pass without overtopping or creating damage or excessive
backwater.
• Culverts for required discharge as per the requirements of topography of the

area.
• Side drains on both sides of the road where the section is fully in cut. These
would drain the water to natural ground as per topography.
• Where one side of the pavement is in cut section - side drain on cut side only
with natural drainage out of the pavement area.
• Where the approach is entirely on fill but the natural ground slopes towards
the pavement - side drain at the higher ground side which would either drain
out naturally or would be led out of the pavement layers by suitable cross-
drain.
2.5.4.2. Minor Cross Drainage Structures
Structures of less than 6m span are defined as minor cross drainage structures (Culverts)
and structures with span 6m and above are defined as major cross drainage structures.
Different possible type of minor and major cross drainage structures with selection basis
are discussed in subsequent paragraphs.
In general, minor cross drainage structures may be provided in following types:
• Reinforced concrete pipe culvert with concrete/masonry sub-structure;
• Reinforced concrete box culvert; and
• Reinforced concrete slab culvert with concrete/masonry substructure.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
PIPE CULVERTS
Concrete Pipes
For small discharges, pipe culverts with single row of pipes depending upon the
discharge may be used as far as possible as they are cheaper than slab culvert and
concrete box culvert.
Relief culverts in form of pipes will be provided at suitable locations on longitudinal

section of the road where down gradients is suitable for free drainage of storm water.
These relief pipe culverts balance the discharge from either side of the road.
The use of headwalls and/or wing walls with pipe culverts is generally dependent on
factors such as the slope and stability of the channel.
Selection of Material
The availability and susceptibility to corrosion, which would require additional cost for
the application of bitumen coating to the metal pipes to mitigate the problem result
Armco Pipes to have high overall Cost as compared to concrete pipe.
Therefore, considering the durability, anti corrosion nature, less maintenance and
economy, it is proposed to provide reinforced concrete pipes.
REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB CULVERTS
Reinforced Concrete slab culverts are adopted where the founding strata is acquire good
bearing capacity. They are usually specified for larger discharges, where the provision of
pipe culverts is limited due to high discharge. Reinforced Concrete slab culverts are also
useful for cattle crossing during dry weather.
In areas where good quality stone is available, stone masonry for substructure and parapet
walls is found economical in comparison to concrete substructure.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS
Reinforced concrete box culverts are constructed with single or multiple square or
rectangular opening and wing walls at both ends when bank at the crossing is unstable.
They are usually specified for larger flows.
In situation where bearing' capacity of soil is low or couldn’t be determined

confidentially, Reinforced concrete box culvert is preferred over RC slab culvert. But due
to high cost of steel and concrete in comparison to stone masonry, it is easy to determine
that cost of RC box culvert is higher when compared to same size of RC slab culvert with
stone masonry substructure.
In general, it has been found that stream beds are having red clay soil mixed with gravel
and boulder. Sound rock is available at some locations where proposed alignment
crossing the streams. Therefore, firm founding strata with good bearing capacity is
envisaged. Good quality stone is also available in abundance for stone masonry
substructure.
Therefore, in view of economy and easy availability of materials, it is proposed to

provide slab culvert with stone masonry substructure where it is not possible to provide
pipe culverts.
Sizes and Shape
The culvert size and shape are selected based on engineering and economic criteria
related to site conditions. Depending upon the waterway requirements single/ double pipe
culverts or slab culverts will be provided. The following absolute minimum sizes shall be
used to avoid maintenance problems and clogging due to silting:
• In case of pipe culverts for cross drainage works, minimum of 750 millimeter
diameter pipe will be adopted where cross slopes are not less than 3%; and
• In case of RC slab culverts for cross drainage works, minimum span of 2m

with 1.5m clear height will be used.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Land use requirements can dictate larger or different barrel geometry than required for
hydraulic considerations, site characteristics, structural criteria, or environmental criteria.
MATERIAL SELECTION
Concrete and Stone masonry are more prevalent materials for construction of culverts. In
evaluating the selection of material, a comparison of both the materials has been made
considering the followings points:
• Location,
• Durability (service life),
• Cost,
• Availability,
• Construction and maintenance ease,
• Structural strength,
• Abrasion and corrosion resistance, and
• Water tightness requirements.
As good quality stone is available in abundance in project area, stone masonry is selected
for substructure, foundation, headwall and wing wall etc.
2.5.4.3. Major Drainage Structures
GENERAL
All Bridges will be designed in accordance with the current ERA's Bridge Design Manual
2002. The standards are based on mathematical calculations, the terrain, experience and
research, and finally to be approved by Ethiopian Roads Authority. It closely follows
Bridge structural Design and analysis practice of American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) where the Drainage Design Manual is directly
derived and is based mainly on the LRFD (Load and Resistance Factor Design)
Methodology for Bridge design.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
The LRFD design method consist of a complete bridge across a certain waterway that
should be able to carry certain specified loads for a certain design working life period,
usually 50 and 100 years.
Factors for Selection of Type of Bridges
In selecting the type of superstructure, substructure, foundations and span of structure for
a particular site, the following factors are considered:
• Geometry: Horizontal and vertical clearances, permissible structure depth and

support widths;
• Hydrological & Hydraulic Design Considerations: Bridge length, waterway

and pier spacing to accommodate flood discharge, backwater effects,
Waterway traffic during construction; Scour characteristics;
• Geotechnical Design Considerations: Foundation requirement, facility of

construction
• Cost & Ease of Construction' & Maintenance: Sub-surface conditions, total

time of construction, construction details, requirements for any future
extension;
• Appearance: Similarity to and harmony with surroundings, congruence with

the environment, shape of structure;
• Material of Construction:- Availability of Reinforcement steel, Pre-stressing

steel, concrete, cement, stone;
• Method of Construction:- Cast-in-situ, Pre-cast; and
• Safety.
DESIGN LOADINGS ON STRUCTURES
The design loading that will be used for the structural design of the drainage structures
will be selected as per ERA’s Bridge Design Manual 2002. When the Limit State design
method is adopted, the load factors will be selected as detailed and prescribed in ERA’s
Design Manuals.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
VEHICULAR LIVE LOAD
The design live load that will be used to design structures is HL-93 as per ERA’s manual.
Vehicular live loading on the roadways of bridges or incidental structures, designated as
HL-93, shall consist of a combination of the:
• Design truck or design tandem and
• Design lane load
Consideration should be given to site-specific modifications to the design truck, design

tandem, and/or the design lane load under the following conditions:
• The roadway is expected to carry unusually high percentages of truck traffic;
• Flow control, such as a stop sign, traffic signal, or control booth, causes trucks
to collect on certain areas of a bridge or to not be interrupted by light traffic;
or
• Special industrial loads are common due to the location of the bridge.
DEAD LOADS
The self-weight of all reinforced concrete elements will be calculated on the basis of a
concrete density of 24kN/m3. For other types of materials, the Unit Weights prescribed in
ERA Bridge Manual will be used. A superimposed dead load as specified on ERA’s
manual will be used in the deck design to allow for the possible future addition of an
asphalt-wearing course up to 100 mm thick.
SECONDARY AND ASSOCIATED LIVE LOADS
Longitudinal forces due to braking and traction will be considered in accordance with the
ERA Design Manual and Loads due to vehicle collision with bridge parapets will be
taken from the ERA Design Manual and used in the design of the structures.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
WIND AND STREAM FORCE LOADINGS
The forces exerted on bridge piers by rivers at the predicted flood level will be assessed
in accordance with ERA Design Manual and wind forces will be considered in assessing
the critical load case as per the ERA Design Manual and taken in to account in the
structural analysis and design.
2.5.4.4. Minimum Dimensions of Structures
The minimum dimensions of bridges should correspond with the roadway or carriageway
width as determined according to the ERA Geometric Design Manual-2001, Chapter 2:
Summary of Standards and Departures from Standards, Section 2.2: Design Standards.
The width is to be measured between the inside of the railings  or the curbs. During the
structural analysis and design, the design will be made in such a way that they fulfill the
minimum dimension specified for the bridge elements in ERA Bridge Design Manual,
Chapter 2: General Requirements.
2.5.4.5. Bridge Deck Clearance
The waterway below the superstructure must be designed to pass the design flood and the
floating debris carried on it. This should apply even after several years of sedimentation
under or downstream of the bridge. Therefore, the freeboard above the design water level
should not be less than in the Table below, unless more reliable data are provided in the
calculations.
Discharge Q (m3/s) Vertical clearance (m)
0 - 3.0 0.3
3.0 - 30.0 0.6
30 to 300 0.9
> 300 1.2
Vertical Clearance at Design Flood Level (DFL)

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
These clearance measurements should be increased on rivers with a history of unusually

large floating debris or for navigational requirements. The backwater effect (afflux)
should be calculated for all bridges with a design water velocity exceeding 1.0 m/s.
2.5.4.6. Design of Bridge elements
Live load responses for HL-93 plus the dynamic load allowance will be generated for the
Strength limit state design of Bridges. Multiple presence reduction factors specified in
ERA Bridge Design Manual will be applied. Centrifugal force effects are included if the
horizontal alignment of a Bridge is curved due to a geometric constraint. The dynamic
load allowance values will also be applied.
The consultant will prepare final design of the bridge structure based on final
geotechnical investigation, final hydrological reports and topography surveys and the
preliminary designs of the bridge structure. The bridges design will be carried out strictly
following the Design Standards approved by the Client.
As a rule the objectives in a bridge design are safety, serviceability, economy,

constructability and aesthetics. Appropriate bridge’s types and spans will be determined
and appropriate loadings and load factors will be considered for the design of the
following elements of the bridge:
2.5.4.7. Super-Structure Design
The general design notion of bridge superstructure design is:
• To avoid, as much as possible, joints of a deck; either construction or expansion,

to minimize the dynamic effects they may cause
• To improve the weather and corrosion resisting effects of the whole bridge
• To reduce inspection efforts and maintenance costs
• to increase structural effectiveness and redundancy

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Accordingly, the superstructure design of the bridges will be carried out so as to satisfy
all the criteria of the Design Standard and detailed engineering drawings will be produced
with proper scale, which will be the basis for the preparation of the Bill of Quantities.
2.5.4.8. Sub-structure Design
The substructure design consists of the design of Abutments, Wing walls, Piers &
Retaining Walls etc.
I. ABUTMENTS
Abutments are earth-retaining structures made of masonry and reinforced concrete and
support the superstructure at the beginning and end of a bridge. They can be seen as
retaining walls with the additional function of supporting vertical dead and live
superstructure load.
The design objective of the design is to design an abutment safe against bearing capacity,
crushing, overturning, sliding and is economical. And the common design constraints are
the bearing capacity of the founding material, height of the structure and economy.
II. PIERS
Piers are structural elements, which sustain superstructure dead and live loads, carry their
own weight and transmit all loads to the foundation soil. They are constructed of masonry
or reinforced concrete. The selection of type of piers depends on the form and size of
superstructure, safety, aesthetics and economy.
The arrangements and shape of piers will be designed in such a way to cause minimal
obstruction and disturbance to the flow.
III. RETAINING WALLS
The design approach and criteria of the design of retaining wall is the same as for
abutment design, discussed above, except for neglecting some load types such as
vehicular live load.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
IV. FOUNDATION (FOOTINGS)
Foundation is the ultimate bearer of all the loads on the bridge. It is usually made of
footings and piles. Footings are economical and easily constructible foundation types, in
our country’s context. They are most recommended for a reasonably good founding
material in bearing capacity and scour resistance at a reasonably shallow depth and with
less eccentricity of loading. The depth of footings will be determined taking in to
consideration the character of the foundation materials and the possibility of
undermining. The footings will be founded a minimum of some depth below the
maximum anticipated depth of scour, as the Design Standards order. Footings will be
designed considering the highest anticipated ground water table.
Piles are foundation structures used to carry and transfer the total load of the bridge to the
bearing ground located at some depth below the riverbed. The main components of pile
foundations are the pile cap and the piles. Piles are mainly made of reinforced concrete,
sometimes with metal shell/casing.
2.5.4.9. Miscellaneous Bridge parts Design
In order to finalize the bridge design work, besides designing the major structural part of
the bridge, as discussed before, the bridge design will also be well detailed for the
miscellaneous parts: bearings, expansion joints, railings, deck drainages and utility lines.
The consultant has prepared a separate drawing that details for all major structures i.e.
bridges and box/slab culverts in accordance with their individual requirements. All
structural drawings will be two fold; one giving contoured site location and dimension
detail, whilst others will portray the reinforcement details of the structure's separate
elements.
All the construction details for erosion control around the bridges will be shown on the
site location plans, including other ancillary works. The guardrails for the bridge will be
properly detailed on the drawings. Bar bending schedules for each structure will be issued
as separate documents. Using the above information the consultant prepares the Quantity
and cost estimation for the all bridge structure of the project road.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
2.5.5. Material property
The following material properties are used in the design of the bridge.
A. Concrete
The classes of concretes used in the design of the bridge are described below:
Concrete Strength
Minimum cylindrical (15cm Cylinder)
Classes of concrete
compressive Strength at 28days , fc’[Mpa]
C-20 20
Lean concrete, C-15 10
B. Reinforcement steel
Reinforcing bars shall be deformed except for the spirals, hoops and wire fabric. The
minimum nominal yield strength of deformed bars is as stated below.
AASHTO M31 M Grade-60 400…….420Mpa. (Minimum yield strength for steel

diam. > 20mm)
Grade-40 ….300Mpa (Minimum yield strength for steel diam. < or = 20mm)

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
3. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
3.1. Introduction
Topographic survey is one of the most important and crucial field tasks that form the base
data for the project construction. The topographic survey is basic pre - requisite to
capture all the physical futures along the project corridor to enable the selection of
feasible and most useful alignment and later to design and to facilitate the establishment
of final centerline of the project road and land acquisition requirements. The topographic
survey work methodology consists of following main tasks.
• Route location
• Establishment of geodetic control points using the most important

technological advance in surveying that is the Global Positioning System
(GPS)
• Setting up of permanent beacons to serve as a reference system during road

construction
• Development of control traverse-line and geometric level-line.
• Detailed field survey using Total Stations and Automatic Levels, which will
have a different precision according to the topographic operations.
• Data Processing and CAD;
• Development of Land acquisition plan 1:2,000 scale; and
• Delivery of survey Report including Diagrams and Monographs
• Ground surface and Structural location survey
For carrying the survey work the consultant approached EMA (Ethiopian Mapping
Authority) and collected details data relate to national Bench Mark in the Project
Corridor and deployed high and precision instruments like GPS, Total station, and Auto
level in compliance to the TOR. Personnel and the survey instrument used in this project
and their accuracy are mentioned below.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 3.1: List of Survey Instrument
S/No Survey Instrument Model/ make No Degree of Accuracy

Promark-3GPS-System Static Mode with at least
1 Ground positioning 300 Dual-frequency 5satellitestracking per site
system instruments receiver. Horizontal: 0.005m+1ppm
Vertical: 0.01m+2ppm
With minimum 1” angular
2 Total Station Power Set-3030R measurement & (2+2ppm xD) mm
distance accuracy
With maximum tolerance in mm for
3 Automatic level Level B20 by SOKKIA single section equal to:±15∗√K,
where Κ is the distance in Km.
The co-ordinates of the survey points referenced to the National Survey Grid by a closed
traverse and all levels related to National Benchmarks. The reliability of the National
Benchmarks was confirmed in the field before they are used.
3.2. Survey Personnel’s and Instruments
The surveying team assigned for the project consists of 2-senior surveyors, 1-surveyor
and 1-advanced surveying technician of 4 members. Hence in order to achieve the
required output within scheduled time the consultant were deployed 2-total stations,3
Promark GPS units and 2-TOYOTA Station wagon Cars this all tabulated below in detail.
Table 3.2: Personnel’s Inducted for the surveying work
No Name of staff Job Title Position on the Project
1 Wondu Tigabu Senior surveyor Coordinator/GPS& Location Surveyor

2 Worku Deresse Senior surveyor Coordinator/GPS& Location Surveyor
3 Gashaw Seyoum Surveyor GPS & Total Station Operator
4 Israel Worku Advanced Technician Total Station & Level Operator

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 3.3: Instruments Used for the Surveying Work
No Name of Instruments Quantity Specification
1 GPS Instrument 3 Promark-3

2 Total Station 2 Power set 3030R
3 Automatic Level 1 B20
4 Station Wagons /Car/ 2 For Wheel Drive TOYOTA
5 Lap Top Computer 2 Toshiba & Dell
6 Printer 1 HP ink jet
3.3.Scope of the Topographic Survey
The main Scope of the Topographic survey is to carry out ground survey and all activities
along the length of the proposed alignment corridor, to examine the road alignment and
cross section and bridge sites and culvert sites that are considered necessary to complete
the detailed design and the estimation of quantities following engineering recognized
Engineering Procedures all according to the requirement stipulated in the TOR.
3.4.Route Location
Introduction
Route location is an art of mostly transferring of map/paper location to a ground. As a

prerequisite for this task, the consultant had been undertaking the route selection of the
project.
Prior to conducting the topographic survey the consultant defined the best alternative
route that will be feasible both economically, technically and socially.
A rapid and critical general examination (reconnaissance) was carried out by location
engineer at the end of December 2007. And the engineer determined the optimum route
between the two extreme points.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
The route location this segment was carried out using 1:50,000 maps and aerial
photographs conducted by Ethiopian Mapping Authority (EMA).
Abney level was used to check the gradient during flagging. Flagging is the process of
selecting route location for the detail topographic surveying, which is run as a base line or
framework for the above task.
To find the best position for selected route the location crew progressed ahead of survey
crew on foot examining the area in detail and picking controls, he flags to stones, rocks
and highlights with white paint set on the ground.
Project Route under Lot 1, Shele Mazoriya, 0+000 – Km60+000
To conduct the route location the consultant had been undertaking the route selection by
carrying out desktop studies. To determine the terrain classification, the entire length of
the road corridor was studied using plan, plan profile and x-section data prepared by
T.C.D.E., accomplished by 1:50,000 scale topographic map.
Only few sections were relocated. The route location was carried out on these relocation
stretches using a hand held GPS and Abney level. The coordinates of the relocation of
the route alignment are loaded into a hand held GPS.
The location engineer transferred on the ground the required data, which was prepared on
desktop studies, guided by hand held GPS and subsequently checked the gradient by
Abney level.
3.5. GPS Geodetic Control
Global Positioning System (GPS) observations were fixed at 3.0 - 3.5 Km intervals along
the road length. The geodetic GPS Points were placed in highly accessible sites with
appropriate concrete benchmarks, protected against impact to guaranty their stability and
integrity.
The observations were carried out with 3units of Promark-3 GPS-System 300 Dual-
frequency receivers using Static Mode by tracking minimum 8 satellites per site in order
to determine 3-D WGS84 co-ordinates. The baseline measurement were maintained an
accuracy level of 10 mm + 5ppm with at least 35 minutes of observation.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Using highly post-processing GNSS Solutions software, the WGS84 co-ordinates

transformed into the National Grid, U.T.M. co-ordinates based on Clark 1880 (Modified)
Spheroid - Datum: Adindan (30th Arc).
A clear and intelligible monograph of the vertexes with a brief description of the location,
photograph and diagram for each of this were prepared and annexed in a separate volume
under Topographic Surveying Report.
Correlation to the Ethiopian Grid System
To secure and validate reasonable initial point, the couple primary control points have
been automatically tied to the national grid system, reference point called EMA-0537 S-6
Adindan (30th meridian) datum conducted for Blue Nile river basin Ethiopian, surveyed
1977 (G.C). These are also detailed on a separate volume under Topographic Surveying
Report
3.6.Benchmark Set Up
Benchmark (secondary control points) referenced in the field on reliable points on

appropriate beacons protected against impact to guaranty their stability and integrity.
These benchmarks established at 100-500m intervals prior to initiation of the survey
work as stipulated in the TOR or as deemed necessary to suit with the site conditions.
Care had been taken while establishing these points to locate them at safe places within
the Right of Way (ROW) and away from main construction area to ensure no disturbance
to the permanent benchmarks during construction period.
Lists of all benchmarks were tabulated with the following details
• Identification number,
• Co-ordinates (x, y and Z),and
• Description

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
(A) Control Traverse Line
A control traverse-line were established along the design road, closed, checked and
adjusted on to geodetic GPS points. Control beacons were established to serve the
construction phase.
Traverse vertexes were located in correspondence on appropriate concrete benchmarks at

100-500m intervals. Control traverse-line was determined by measurement of angles and
distances.
Each angular measurement was executed four times using a 3030R SOKKIA electronic
Total Station, considering 0.0015 grades as a maximum difference between the extreme
values.
Distance measurements were carried out using 3030R SOKKIA EDM, considering 2cm
in distance as a maximum difference between extreme values measured.
The recording device FLASH CARD was used in order to transfer field data directly into
Personal Computer for processing.
The tolerances on the angular closure in grades were: ±0.020∗√N-1, where Ν is the
number of vertexes.
The tolerance on distance in meters is given by: 0. 05∗K, where Κ is the distance in Km.
Firstly, the traverse-line were tied and adjusted into GPS Points and into the National
Triangulation System in order to determine U.T.M. planes co-ordinates.
Secondly, the plane co-ordinates were transformed in a Local Grid to be used for map
preparation. All traverse points are shown on an appropriate diagram.
(B) Geometric Level-Line
The geometric level-line was developed along the Control Traverse-line.
The elevation of benchmarks were obtained by Differential Leveling Method using

AUTOMATIC LEVEL B20 by SOKKIA, with a maximum tolerance in mm for single
section equal to:
±15∗√K, where Κ is the distance in Km.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Additional elevation control points were determined during this operation phase. The
level-line was tied-in and adjusted on the existing benchmarks of the National Leveling
Network, or on the GPS points.
(C) Collection of cross Section data
Along the whole road route a topographic survey were carried out for a maximum of
100m and 50m minimum band width. The random points were surveyed on a square grid
not exceeding 20m spacing with accuracy 5cm, starting from traverse points or additional
intermediate stations. Where the land shows marked irregularities of slope, a close survey
grid was used. The SOKKIA 3010 Total Station instrument, with suitable software was
used for this purpose.
I Longitudinal Section
Collection of longitudinal centerline points were done at intervals of 20m in straight

sections and 10m to 15m apart on horizontal and vertical curves depending on the degree
of sharpness of the curves. In case of bridge and culvert and riverbeds the points collected
included the bottom of the cause ways and riverbeds.
II Cross Sections
In Shele Mazoria – Kamba town section where there is an existing road, the points
collected apart from the centerline and edges of existing pavement were incorporated
mid-point of each traffic lane in each direction, edge of formation, toe line, ditch bottom
and top.
In the remaining section of the project, Kamba-Sawla section for new route points
collected included all break points. The cross sections were collected at intervals of 20m.
All culvert and bridge details like invert level were picked up.
Major Drainage Cross section
Detailed cross section points were collected included top and bottom of banks, at break
points and at center of the rivers. The cross sections were extended 100 and above meters
both upstream and downstream.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Collection of Land Acquisition
During the detail topographic survey the Consultant collected the positions of all
obstacles within the Right of Ways (ROW) including electric poles, houses, trees and
farmlands. This data plotted against the horizontal alignment to identify properties
affected by the project to will form the land acquisition plan.
(D) Data Processing and CAD
The consultants made widespread use of computerized system while carrying out
investigation and survey activities. This permits an easier, more efficient and rapid
management and guarantees a continuous control of all activities and aspects of the work.
Specific programs are used to transfer and process field data into computer. Computer
programs such as AutoCAD are used for preparation of drawings and graphics, using
software modules that operate inside AutoCAD that are specifically designed for maps
and for road projects.
The electronic field books and other topographic data are placed in ASCII and/or DXF
formats or MS Excel files under a separate volume on the topographic surveying report.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
4. GEOMETRIC DESIGN
4.1. General
Geometric Design is an essential component in the design development of a highway

and the geometric features of a highway design includes cross section elements,
horizontal and vertical alignment, junctions and design of Road furniture.
The project road belongs to the functional classification of link road and is designed to
the DS5 paved standard. The design criteria and the standards used to this road class
are discussed in Chapter 2, Design Standards.
4.2. Traffic
4.2.1. Current state of the road
The road can be divided into two distinct sections depending on pavement condition
and traffic.
The first section of the road up to Kemba town (78Km) is an existing gravel road which
may be classified as DS6 road having an average width of 5m, under the jurisdiction of
the Southern Rural Roads Authority until recently. The road surface condition can
generally be rated as fair to poor.
Between Kemba and Sawla, there is no defined road; due to lack of reconstruction
and/or maintenance, there exists only a trail which could be passable with difficulty by
a 4WD, even in the dry season.
4.2.2. Traffic Sections
Prior to undertaking traffic surveys, traffic stations were selected based location of key
junctions, urban settings and traffic generating centers. Accordingly, the road was
divided into homogenous traffic sections. The sections are shown in Table 4.1

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 4.1: Sections on the Project Road based on traffic movement
Section No. Description Stretch on the road
1.1 Arba Minch (Shelle jn.)- Geresse 0+000 to 30+000

1.2 Geresse- Kemba 30+000 to 78+000
2.1 Kemba- Gelma 78+000 to 110+000
2.2 Gelma- Sawla 110+000 to 138+300
4.2.3. Traffic Survey program
In order of determining the traffic flow intensity, travel pattern and purpose, vehicle
composition and preparing a database for traffic projections over the design life of
the road, the consultants have carried out a traffic survey. The traffic survey
includes manually taking traffic volume counts and Origin – Destination surveys at
selected locations.
Traffic Survey on the project road, which consists of traffic counting and origin
destination survey, was carried out from 18 to 29 February 2008 (which
corresponds to the high economic activity season according to ERA’s count
program). Surveys involved:
• Classified link counts for both motorized traffic (MT) and non-motorized
(NMT) traffic comprising 7-day and 3-day counts respectively
• Road side interviews for drivers on the road (MT) to establish details of
origin and destination - 2 days.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
TABLE 4.2: TYPES OF SURVEY AT EACH STATION
Station Station Dates

Type of Surveys Remark
No. Name (Feb 08)
7 days, 2 nights count for MT
Junction counts (MT & NMT)
1 Shele Jn. 18 to 24 & 3 days count for NMT
Road Side Interviews (RSI) 2 days
Classified link counts, MT and 7 days, 2 nights count for MT
2 Geresse 21 to 27
NMT & 3 days count for NMT
Classified link counts, MT and 7 days, 2 nights count for MT
3 Kemba 23 to 29
NMT & 3 days count for NMT
4 Gelma 21 to 27 & 3 days count for NMT
5 Sawla 21 to 27 & 3 days count for NMT
Fig 4.1: Location of Traffic & O-D stations
Sodo
Mela
Sawla 5 To SODO & ADDIS ABABA
Gelma 4
Kemba 3
Beto Geresse2
Jinka A/Minch
(Shele Jn.) 1
Kako
Konso
. O/D Station
Traffic count station
Project road

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
The motorized traffic surveys recorded all vehicle movements in each direction on an
hourly basis classified into eight main vehicle categories as per ERA traffic count
format. In addition, non-motorized traffic movements were also registered in order to
capture the travel & transport pattern of local people.
These are classified as follows:
a) Motorized Traffic (MT):
• Motor Cycles
• Cars: all cars and taxis
• Utilities: Four-Wheel Drive Station Wagons, Pick-ups, Jeeps and Vans
• Small Buses: buses with up to 27-passenger seats
• Large Buses: buses with over 27-passenger seats
• Light Trucks: 2 axles small trucks of up to 3.5 tons load
• Medium Trucks: 2 axles medium sized trucks above 3.5 tons & up to 7.5
tons load
• Heavy Trucks: 3 axles’ trucks and tankers above 7.5 tons & up to 12 tons
load.
• Articulated/Draw-bar Trailers: > 3 axles truck trailers and tankers above
12 tons load.
b) Non-Motorized Traffic (NMT):
• Bicycles
• Pedestrians
• Pack animals
• Hand carts and Animal drawn carts.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
4.2.4. Traffic Volume on Project Road (Normal Traffic)
Normal traffic represents the traffic, which would in any event occur if no
improvement is made. Normal traffic was computed based on classified traffic counts
made by the consultant.
The traffic counts were carried out for 12 hours (0600-1800 hrs.) for 7 days at the
selected survey stations. Moreover, a 24-hour (0600-0600 hrs.) count was carried out
for two days at the same survey stations for capturing night traffic movement (1800-
0600 hrs.). The average 12-hour to 24-hour traffic flow ratio by vehicle class was then
computed and applied to the daily counts to compute the daily 24-hour traffic volumes
for seven days, which were then averaged to compute the average daily traffic (ADT).
A significant amount of night traffic has been recorded at all stations (23-50% of
daytime traffic). Specifically, the night counts at Gelma station recorded the highest
levels of night traffic, amounting up to 50% of daytime traffic volumes. This could be
explained by the on-going road work on Sawla-Kako road (Gelma being on the road).
As sated earlier, ERA regularly carried out traffic counts regularly three times a year, in
February, July and November. This data was useful in deriving seasonal correction
factors for converting ADT to AADT. As there is no record of historical traffic counts
along the Arbaminch – Kemba - Sawla road, historical traffic data from adjacent roads
(Sodo - Arbaminch & Sodo - Sawla) was used to derive seasonal correction factors to
convert the ADT to AADT. The computed AADT values by station are summarized in
tables below. There is no existing traffic between Km78 and Km138 (i.e. last two
sections of the road, namely Kemba - Gelma & Gelma - Sawla), due to the poor
condition of the road. On this section of the road, there exists only a trail which could
be passable with difficulty by a 4WD only in the dry season. Thus, future traffic will be
the generated and the diverted traffic in this section of the road.

Detailed Feasibility Study, EIA Study, RAP Preparation, Detailed Engineering Design and Tender Document Preparation for Arbaminch – Kemba –
Sawla Road Project
Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 4.3: Shele Jn. station Adjusted Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)-Two-way
Traffic Count Site No: 1 Date: 18 to 24
Location : Shele jn. Month/Year: Feb-08 Market days
Day Car Utilities S/bus L/bus S/truck M/truck H/truck Truck/trl Total M'cycles
Thursday 0 39 32 16 17 4 9 2 117 6
Friday 0 24 23 8 20 3 7 2 88 4
Saturday 0 21 21 13 30 3 6 1 95 9
Sunday 0 33 31 12 30 6 12 3 128 6
Monday 0 32 29 8 30 4 10 2 115 3
Tuesday 4 46 41 18 27 8 9 5 157 5
Wednesday 0 24 19 15 18 3 2 0 82 2
7 days Average 1 31 28 13 25 4 8 2 112 5
24/12 hr adj.factor 1.00 1.30 1.20 1.09 1.30 1.20 1.22 1.22 1.19
Adjusted ADT 1 41 34 14 32 5 9 3 138 6
seasonal adjustment.
factor 1.00 0.99 0.94 1.03 1.29 1.01 0.97 1.00 1
Adjusted ADT 0.5 40.3 31.6 14.6 41.4 5.4 9.2 2.5 145 6
Vehicle composition 0.3% 27.7% 21.7% 10.1% 28.7% 3.7% 6.3% 1.7% 100.0%

Sawla Road Project
Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 4.4: Geresse station Adjusted Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)-Two-way
Traffic Count Site No:2 Date: 21 to 27
Market
Location : Geresse Month/Year: Feb-08 days
0 5 0 4 12 0 3 0 23 32
0 5 1 4 10 0 1 0 19 35
0 5 0 4 9 0 1 0 17 26
0 2 0 4 11 0 2 0 18 0
0 8 0 4 13 0 1 0 25 43
0 6 0 4 11 0 1 0 21 37
0 8 0 4 9 1 1 0 23 24
0 5 0 4 10 0 1 0 21 28
24/12 hr adj.factor 1.00 1.98 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.44
Adjusted ADT 0 10 0 4 17 0 1 0 33 40
seasonal adj. factor 1.00 0.99 0.94 1.03 1.29 1.01 0.97 1.00 1
Adjusted ADT 0.0 10.2 0.1 3.8 22.4 0.1 1.2 0.0 38 40

Sawla Road Project
Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 4.5: Kemba station Adjusted Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)-Two-way
Location : Kemba Month/Year: Feb-08 Market days
Thursday 0 13 0 1 13 0 4 0 30 12
Friday 0 9 0 2 10 0 2 0 22 6
Saturday 0 15 0 2 12 0 6 0 34 12
Sunday 0 13 1 1 13 2 2 0 29 11
Monday 0 11 0 1 10 0 2 0 24 10
Tuesday 0 21 0 2 15 0 2 0 39 13
Wednesday 0 15 0 1 10 1 0 0 26 13
7 days Average 0 14 0 1 12 0 2 0 29 11
24/12 hr adj.factor 1.00 1.52 1.00 1.00 1.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25
Adjusted ADT 0 21 0 1 18 0 2 0 43 13
Adjusted ADT 0 20 0 1 24 0 2 0 48 13

Sawla Road Project
Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 4.6 Gelma station Adjusted Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)-Two-way
Location : Gelma Beto-Gelma-Mela Month/Year: Feb-08 Market days
Car Utilities S/bus L/bus S/truck M/truck H/truck Truck/trl Total M'cycles
Thursday 0 23 0 7 9 3 2 2 46 10
Friday 2 24 2 4 8 2 2 0 44 13
Saturday 0 24 0 4 19 4 4 0 55 56
Sunday 0 21 0 5 24 3 1 0 54 26
Monday 0 21 0 10 16 3 2 0 52 24
Tuesday 0 21 0 6 17 2 2 0 48 25
Wednesday 0 22 0 6 16 3 2 0 50 24
7 days Average 0 22 0 6 16 3 2 0 50 25
24/12 hr adj.factor 1.00 1.29 1.00 1.00 2.69 1.83 2.25 1.00 2.1
Adjusted ADT 0 29 0 6 42 5 5 0 88 54
Adjusted ADT 0.3 28.4 0.3 6.2 54.0 5.2 4.7 0.3 99 54

Sawla Road Project
Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 4.7 Sawla station Adjusted Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)-Two-way
Location : Sawla Sawla-Sodo Month/Year: Feb-08 Market days
Car Utilities S/bus L/bus S/truck M/truck H/truck Truck/trl Total M'cycles
Thursday 8 70 12 6 36 2 3 1 138 3
Friday 5 86 7 3 113 3 24 3 244 13
Saturday 0 119 17 5 83 51 37 0 312 33
Sunday 0 106 8 5 112 22 11 3 267 19
Monday 0 92 10 15 108 31 22 5 283 17
Tuesday 0 100 15 9 72 10 7 4 217 13
Wednesday 0 50 12 12 44 9 14 3 144 12
7 days Average 2 89 12 8 81 18 17 3 229 16
24/12 hr adj.factor 1.00 1.19 1.00 1.00 1.32 1.34 1.33 1.00 1.05
Adjusted ADT 2 106 12 8 107 24 22 3 284 17
Adjusted ADT 1.9 105.2 10.9 8.1 138.0 24.6 21.7 2.7 313 17

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
4.2.5. AADT by Road Section
Taking into account the evidence from the study traffic, the following base
estimates of motorized traffic volumes have been assigned to the trafficable
sections of the road as shown in Table 4.8 below.
Table 4.8: Traffic Flow by Road Section
L’ Small Large M/ H/ Truck/

Section Car S/ Truck Total
rover bus bus Truck Truck Trailer.
A/Minch (Shelle
0 25 16 9 32 3 5 1 92
Jn.)-Geresse
Vehicle
0% 28% 17% 10% 35% 3% 6% 1%
composition (%)
Geresse - Kemba 0 15 0 2 23 0 2 0 43
Vehicle
0% 36% 0% 6% 54% 1% 4% 0%
composition (%)
Traffic on the first section (Shele Jn.-Geresse) is relatively high reaching more than
90 vehicles/day (due to the influence of a large-scale state cotton farm in the area).
The second motorable road section (Geresse - Kemba) is estimated to carry close to
50 vehicles/day. The section from Kemba - Sawla is impassable and carries no
motorized traffic at present. As can be seen from the table above, concentration of
Utilities & Small trucks prevails on both motorable sections.
The traffic figures presented in the above table represent the traffic as of present
(year 2008). Hence, adjustment is needed so that normal traffic volume reflects
traffic for the year of road opening

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
4.2.6. Origin – Destination Survey
4.2.6.1. Interview Format
An origin-destination survey was conducted through roadside interviews (RSI) at

three sites corresponding to traffic count stations, namely:
• North of Arba Minch
• Gelma junction and
• North of Sawla.
The program of the RSI was shown in the previous section as part of the program of
traffic surveys. The OD surveys were undertaken during day time hours (approximately
10 hours from about 8:00 am to 6:00 pm) for 2 days.
The information recorded during the interviews is listed below.
• Time of the interview
• Type/Class of vehicle and its registration (plate) number
• Where the trip started (Origin)
• Where the trip will end (Destination)
• Type of cargo
• Volume of cargo/actual carrying capacity
• Number of passengers (excluding driver) carried/ actual carrying capacity
• Frequency of using the project road for similar journeys
• If the trip would be along the planned A/Minch-Kemba-Sawla road

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
4.2.6.2. Sampling
A total of 453 drivers were interviewed over the 2-day period, representing about 41% of
total 2 days traffic passing the interview stations in the same period. Sample size of the
O-D survey in respective stations is presented in Table 4.9.
Table 4.9: O-D survey sample size
Survey Station Interview sample % of total 2 days traffic

A/Minch 209 40%
Gelma 44 45%
Sawla 200 42%
The number of vehicles intercepted by vehicle category is also shown in table 4.10
below:
Table 4.10: Number of vehicles intercepted

Light passenger/goods
Buses Trucks Total
vehicles
163 95 195 453
Percentage 36% 21% 43%
4.2.6.3. Traffic Zoning
The observed origin and destination points were combined into zones as a first step in
building matrices of the observed travel pattern. The zones were carefully selected so as
to capture the likely traffic movement patterns in the most representative way. These are
described in Table 4.11.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 4.11: Zoning System for the Arba Minch-Kemba-Sawla Road
Zone Zones w.r.t.

Major nodes
No. project road
Zones within the direct influence of the project road (up to 50 Km radius)
Arba Minch and surroundings including Shele, Kemba, Gidole &
1
Chencha
Sawla and surroundings, including Gelta, Geresse, Beto, Mela and
2
Selamber
Zones outside the direct influence of the project road
3 North Jima, Welkite, Sodo, Hosaina, Butajira
4 North East Shashemene, Awassa, Addis Ababa, North and Eastern Ethiopia
5 South Jinka, Konso, Omorate, Woito, Yabelo, , Moyale, Mega and Turmi
6 South West Bulki, Bonga, Wacha, Tepi, southwest Ethiopia
7 East Dila, Yirga Alem, Kibre Mengist and Hagere Mariam
Traffic Flow Pattern

Given the travel & transport pattern existing amongst the various zones specified above
and as shown in the OD matrix below, the major conclusions drawn as regards to the
travel characteristics are:
• About 39% of the trips are localized trips, trips between the internal zones (within
the area of influence of the road) originating and terminating in the internal
zones.
• 43% of the trips relate to internal vs. external zones of transport, involving the
interaction between the study project zones of transport with areas outside the
zone of influence of the project road. Of these the majority of trip interaction is
with northern external zonal area (northern zones) which constitutes about 41%
of the internal-external trips, followed by the North eastern external zone (31%),
the remaining being with South and South western transport zones. These trips
are characterized by medium to fairly long distance trips

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
• 18% of the trips use entirely external to external transportation zones and thus are
through traffic without having to do with internal transportation zones. These
trips could be taken as long distance south-north trips, the internal zones only
providing passage.
It could thus be concluded that the project road has much of regional attributes as well as
national attributes, providing connectivity between the project zone of influence and
immediate transport/traffic zones. The functional serviceability of the road tends also to
lie within the link road classification as per ERA’s road classification guideline.
Table 4.12: OD matrix- summary of all stations
Zones of Destination
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 66 3 0 33 28 0 0 130
2 6 101 42 26 0 0 0 176
Zones of Origin
3 0 36 0 0 6 2 0 43
4 0 17 0 0 33 3 0 53
5 11 1 0 36 0 0 0 48
6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
83 158 44 95 66 5 0 451
Vehicle Utilization
From the OD survey results, it has been observed that all vehicles classes are fairly
utilized as no vehicle was seen moving empty; specifically, under the light passenger/
goods vehicles category, the proportion of vehicles ‘¼ loaded’ was 15% while that of half
loaded was 19% and that of ‘¾ loaded-fully loaded’ was 66%.
Small and large buses are also almost fully utilized fleets; the percentage of ‘¾ loaded-
fully loaded’ buses being 90%, and while 5% were half loaded and the other 5% was ‘¼
loaded’. Trucks, on the other hand, showed a relatively lower level of utilization, where
85% were ‘¾ loaded-fully loaded’ while 2% were half loaded and the remaining 13%
were ‘¼ loaded-empty’.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Load Characteristics of Goods Vehicles

For analyzing the commodity flow on the project road, the Consultants identified major
commodities being transported. Accordingly, these commodities were grouped and
assigned numeric codes, as detailed in Table 4.13.
Table 4.13: Commodity Type by main category

Code Group Possible Commodity Type
0 Empty Un Laden
Food Grain, Fruit, Vegetable, cereal, coffee, Oil
1 Agricultural product
seed
2 Livestock Cattle, sheep, goat
3 Fuel wood or charcoal Charcoal, etc
4 Water Water
Beer, soft drink, edible oil, sugar, milk
5 Processed food or drinks
products etc.
6 Machinery, equipment Machinery and transport equipment
7 Logs or lumber Wood, Timber etc
8 Construction materials, cement
9 Petrol, Diesel, Kerosene, Gas
Miscellaneous household
10 Household items, finished products
goods
11 Chemicals or fertilizes
Medicines and
12
pharmaceuticals
13 Other or unknown Other Items
Results from the survey depict that agricultural products (mainly cotton and banana) are
the principal commodity along the road. The percentage distribution of commodity is
given in Table 4.14.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 4.14: Percentage Distribution of Commodities on project road

Commodity Category Commodity Flow
Description Code (Percentage)
Empty 0 2%
Agricultural product 1 40%

Livestock 2 4%
Water 4 15%
Processed food or drinks 5 11%
Machinery, equipment 6 5%
Logs or lumber 7 5%
Construction materials, cement 8 9%

Petrol, Diesel, Kerosene, Gas 9 7%
Miscellaneous household goods 10 1%
Total 100%
Trip frequency
The consultant has categorized the possible responses into four intervals of trip
frequencies for analysis purpose. These are very frequent trip (several times/day -
once/day), frequent trip (several times/week- once/week), less frequent trips (several
times/month), and occasional trips (i.e. once/month- once in more than one month). With
this arrangement, Table 4.15 below indicates the trip frequency by vehicle type.
Table 4.15: Vehicle trip frequency on project road

Light passenger/goods
Buses Trucks
vehicles
Very frequent trips 28% 39% 55%
Frequent trips 46% 41% 33%
Less frequent trips 13% 7% 4%
Occasional trips 13% 14% 7%

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Stated Trip Response for Diverted traffic

In order to determine the potential for diversion of traffic from the adjoining road
network to the project road, the Consultant carried out a stated preference survey as part
of the OD survey. Vehicle drivers were asked: ’If there was a good, improved road from
A/Minch to Sawla, would you use that route for this trip?’ Over 50% of respondents near
A/Minch & Sawla gave an affirmative answer. The survey result is summarized below in
Table 4.16.
Table 4.16: Stated Vehicle Trip Responses by station
A/Minch Sawla
Will you use Arba Minch - 52% - Yes 50% - Yes

Sawla Road if improved? 48% - No 50% - No
4.2.7. NMT Traffic Data
NMT traffic counts were conducted alongside MT traffic counts. Data from NMT counts
by station are summarized in Tables 4.17 – 4.21 below. In order to convert NMT traffic
counts into ADT and subsequently AADT, night factors computed for motorcycles at
each station were applied, due to the similarities in their trip-making behavior as they
make mainly localized movements. Seasonal correction factor of 1.05 was then applied to
obtain AADT values for the NMT traffic.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 4.17 : Shele Jn. Station- Non- Motorized Adjusted Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
Location : Shele Junction Month/Year: Feb-08
Hand carts/animal
Day Bicycles Pedestrian Pack animals Total
drawn carts
Monday 157 1166 20 29 1371
Tuesday 497 1550 43 25 2114
Wednesday 173 1088 19 16 1295
3 days Average 275 1268 27 23 1593
24/12 hr adj.factor 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19

Adjusted ADT 328 1509 32 28 1896
seasonal adj. factor 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05
Adjusted ADT 344.0 1583.9 33.7 28.9 1991
Vehicle composition 17.3% 79.6% 1.7% 1.5% 100.0%
Table 4.18: Geresse station- Non- Motorized Adjusted Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
Location : Geresse Month/Year: Feb-08
Hand
Pack carts/animal
Day Bicycles Pedestrian animals drawn carts Total
Thursday 3 1080 6 0 1088
Friday 2 773 2 0 777
Saturday 4 1214 11 0 1228
3 days Average 3 1022 6 0 1031
24/12 hr
adj. factor 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44
Adjusted ADT 4 1471 9 0 1484
Adjusted ADT 4.3 1545.0 9.3 0.0 1559
Vehicle
composition 0.3% 99.1% 0.6% 0.0% 100.0%

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 4.19: Kemba Station-Non- Motorized Adjusted Average Annual Daily Traffic
(AADT)
Location : Kemba Month/Year: Feb-08
Hand
Pack carts/animal
Day Bicycles Pedestrian animals drawn carts Total
Monday 17 1316 16 0 1348
Tuesday 11 1046 12 1 1070
Wednesday 21 1381 21 2 1425
3 days Average 16 1248 16 1 1281
24/12 hr adj. factor 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25

Adjusted ADT 20 1560 20 1 1601
Adjusted ADT 20.8 1637.6 21.2 1.3 1681
Vehicle
composition 1.2% 97.4% 1.3% 0.1% 100.0%
Table 4.20: Gelma station- Non- Motorized Adjusted Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)

Location : Gelma Month/Year: Feb-08
Hand carts/animal
Day Bicycles Pedestrian Pack animals drawn carts Total
Thursday 99 1505 198 0 1802
Friday 109 975 129 0 1213
Saturday 172 1105 148 0 1425
3 days Average 127 1195 158 0 1480
24/12 hr adj.factor 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50

Adjusted ADT 190 1793 238 0 2220
Adjusted ADT 199.5 1882.1 249.4 0.0 2331

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 4.21: Sawla station- Non- Motorized Adjusted Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)

Location : Sawla Month/Year: Feb-08
Hand carts/animal
Day Bicycles Pedestrian Pack animals drawn carts Total
Thursday 2 130 15 0 147
Friday 0 544 37 0 581
Saturday 3 940 21 0 964
3 days Average 2 538 24 0 564
24/12 hr adj. factor 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50

Adjusted ADT 3 807 37 0 846
Adjusted ADT 2.6 847.4 38.3 0.0 888
It has been reported that at all stations, about a quarter of pedestrians and almost all pack
animals were carrying commodities (pack animals counted refer to those animals
carrying goods and not people).
4.2.8. Generated Traffic
Generated traffic can take two forms:
(i) Traffic generated due to a decrease in transport costs, i.e. traffic associated with
existing users driving more frequently or driving further than before, or with new
trips being undertaken; and
(ii) Modal shift in which low cost movements are replaced by higher. It is the change
in mode, rather than the quantity of trips, however, which is generated by
improvement.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
(I) Generated traffic due to decrease in transport costs and improved accessibility
The project road as of present could be rated as poor gravel road, characterized by high
roughness values relating to road ride surface (pavement) and poor road geometrics
resulting in high VOCs and increased journey time among others. The improvement
effects, involving changes in geometric and pavement features of the road, are expected
to result in faster movement, decreased transportation cost and increased demand for
transportation- passenger & freight.
It is expected that the proposed improvement of the existing poor gravel road to a
standard gravel road will reduce the existing road roughness (in terms of IRI) ranging
between 22 and 25 m/Km to decrease to 4-5 IRI (m/Km). The results from the HDM 4
modeling (HDM 4 VOC relationship in RED) suggest a decrease in vehicle operating
cost (VOC) by 50% (which may alternatively be interpreted as saving in VOC of
equivalent proportion). For upgrading to paved standard, it is estimated that the average
reduction in unit vehicle operating costs will be around 55%, based on a reduction in road
roughness from 22-25 IRI to 2.5 IRI (surface dressed road in fair-good condition).
The conventional approach to estimate generated traffic is to use the concept of

consumer’s surplus, involving demand relationships. That is to say, the evaluation of
demand for transport due to change in price (referred to as the price elasticity of demand),
in turn triggered by improved provisioning of transport infrastructure and services. The
TRL ORN 5 states that for developing countries the price elasticity of demand for
transport with respect to generated traffic varies between -0.6 and -2.0. In the absence of
empirical studies on price-demand relationships, (demand for transport in response to
changes in prices of transport services) in Ethiopian context, a conservative assumption
of an elasticity value of -1.0 is adopted for all traffic (passenger & freight), i.e. a 1%
decrease in transport costs is assumed to lead to a 1% increase in traffic in relation to
predicted changes in average vehicle operating costs -this is consistent with the default
value applied in the World Bank’s Road Economic Decision Model (RED)-. This gives a
generation factor of about 45% for passable sections of the road (Arbaminch - Kemba).
(ii) Generated traffic due to modal shift

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles may make up between 75-85% of the traffic
volume on roads such as A/Minch-Sawla on which suppressed demand is considerable
(specifically on the Kemba - Sawla section). The most significant source of potential
benefit from modal change lies in the transfer from non-motorized modes to motorized
modes following road improvement, as a result of lower vehicle operating costs,
reductions in fares and tariffs and introduction of commercial transport services on
formerly access-constrained road sections. The following forms of modal shift are
assumed to result from the road upgrading:
• Freight transport employing animals or human portage will partly shift to trucks
and
• Pedestrian can partly shift to buses
Previous section 4.2.7 depicts the adjusted NMT count in all five stations. Generated
freight & passenger traffic has been estimated for passable and non-passable sections of
the road based on the NMT count data.
Freight Traffic
It is assumed that with the construction of the proposed road, 50 percent of goods and
commodities transported by pack animals or human portage will be transported by
vehicles. The method used for estimating modal shift for freight traffic is as follows:
a) Add up the counted average pack animal and human portage -assuming one third
of the counted pedestrian is loaded- and multiply by 0.50 (i.e. 50% is assumed to
transfer to the use of vehicles). Pack animals & humans are assumed to carry
40kgs on average (i.e. 0.04 ton).
b) Divide (a) above by 5 (which is the average load factor for small & medium
truck) to arrive at the daily generated vehicular traffic.
Passenger Traffic
Likewise the passenger traffic is also calculated taking into consideration people walking
along the route. Accordingly, it is assumed that with the construction of the proposed
road, 50 percent of pedestrians will tend to use vehicles.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
The procedure applied in determining the modal shift for passenger traffic volume is as
follows:
a) Take the counted average pedestrian and multiply by 0.50 (i.e. 50% -the
percentage of economically active pedestrian assumed to use vehicles).
b) Divide step (a) into two and further divide the one half by 25 and the other half by
40 (which corresponds to small and medium buses respectively).
Based on the above, the daily generated traffic for A/Minch-Kemba section is assumed to
be 4 freight & 28 passenger vehicles while that of Kemba-Sawla is assumed to reach 3
freight & 27 passenger vehicles for the first year of opening of traffic.
4.2.9. Diverted Traffic
Diverted traffic is traffic that diverts to the project road from an alternative route while
keeping the same origin and destination. The results of classified traffic survey and the
O-D survey are considered as primary base for estimating diverted traffic to the project
road.
Improved communication between the Woredas along the project road can be seen as a
principal justification for improving the project road. Though the five Woredas along the
project road fall into Gamo Gofa zone (with its capital in Arbaminch), interaction
between neighboring Woredas (especially Kemba & Zala) is almost impossible due to the
condition of the road. Current commercial linkages between Woredas appear to be very
limited. Evidently, there is a need for people living in neighboring Woredas to interact &
meet for administrative, commercial as well as private reasons. At present traffic from
Zala & Sawla has to travel 270Kms via Sodo to reach Arbaminch. The proposed study
road will reduce the distance from Arbaminch to Sawla by about half to some 140 Km
(see detail in table below). A direct route from Arbaminch to Sawla is expected to reduce
the excessive road distance that is now required to be travelled between these towns and
may generate significant economic interaction between the two areas.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 4.22: Comparison between project and alternate road
Distance between A/Minch and Sawla Distance between A/Minch and Sawla
via Sodo via Kemba
Distance Condition Distance Condition
Sections Pavement Pavement
(Km) (m/Km) (Km) (m/Km)
A/Minch-
Sodo- Good-Fair
139 DST Kemba- 140
A/Minch (51%)
Sawla
Sodo- Good-Fair
131 Gravel
Sawla (80%)
Total 270 Total 140
Clearly there is a substantial level of suppressed traffic and it is likely that the reduction
in trip time and length following construction of the project road would generate
significant growth in divertible traffic. An assessment is thus required of how much
existing and potential traffic might divert to the new route. The likely flows for diversion
are derived from the origin-destination survey evidence (specifically revealed & stated
preference survey) and a comparative analysis of present and prospective road state and
travel time on different routes over the network.
The volume of traffic between Arbaminch region and the eastern part is likely to be low,
but it is unlikely to be zero; very few vehicles that would benefit from travel distance
saving were identified from the revealed O/D surveys (i.e. about 20 ADT expected to
divert to the Arbaminch-Sawla road once it is upgraded). This result has been combined
with the stated preference survey to arrive at the percentage of diverted traffic.
The estimation of diverted traffic is expected to come primarily from the Sawla – Sodo -
Arbaminch alternate road. On the basis of the results of the origin-destinations surveys
undertaken for the current study (i.e based on the revealed & stated preference survey
output at Arbaminch - Shele Junction.- & Sawla stations - refer tables 4.13 & 2.16 of
section 4.2.6 ), the consultant has made an estimate of the potential diversion to the
project road, if constructed. Therefore, it is estimated that about 10% of the existing
traffic using the Sawla – Sodo - Arbaminch road would divert to Arbaminch – Kemba -

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Sawla road. The proportion of diverted traffic is then multiplied by AADTs of the
alternate road to come up with the diverted traffic for the project road by vehicle types.
Estimate of diverted traffic from the alternate road is shown in Table 4.23 below.
Table 4.23: Estimated Diverted Traffic
ADT of the Small Large Small Medium Heavy Truck

Car Utility Total
Alternate Road Bus Bus Truck Truck Truck Trailer
A/Minch-Sodo-
Sawla* 1 72 65 20 30 56 32 8 283
(2007 est.)
10% ADT 0 7 7 2 3 6 3 1 28
Total Diverted
0 7 7 2 3 6 3 1 28
ADT
*Weighted sum of Sodo-Sawla & Sodo Arbaminch roads. Count as of 2006 increased by
7% to reflect data for 2007.
4.2.10. Project Road AADT
There are three kinds of traffic that are considered to be occurring once the road is
improved; these are normal, generated and diverted traffic. Currently, there is no normal
traffic flow on the Kemba-Sawla section of Arbaminch-Kemba-Sawla road. Therefore,
on this section of the road, it is assumed that only modal shift from non-motorized
transport & diverted traffic would realize once the road is improved.
A growth rate of 7% per annum has been used for normal traffic to take into account the
time between opening of road to traffic (assumed to take place in 2013) and the time
traffic count has been undertaken (2008). Details on the base year will be discussed in the
next section.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 4.24: Estimated Opening Year Traffic on project road (2013)
Section ID 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 Whole Route**
Normal* 129 60
Generated
• Normal 58 27
• Modal transfer 30 31 34 27
Diverted 28 28 28 28
Total AADT 245 146 63 55 134
*Projected to reflect year of opening of road to traffic (2013)

**Traffic levels for the entire road have been worked out as the weighted sum of
the traffic on the road sections, the weights being the length of respective road
sections.
4.2.11. Traffic Forecast
The projection of traffic is important in the effective planning of road improvements and
also in the determination of construction design standards. In order to forecast future
traffic on the project road, the project planning and design phase (ongoing) was assumed
to be completed by end of 2008, followed by the tendering stage which is assumed to
take a year (2009). The construction phase would last 3 years to 2012. Year 2013 is
therefore considered the year when the project road is open to traffic, upon which traffic
projections are based.
With regards to the function of the project road in the overall network and its functional
classification (mostly link road), the applicable appraisal period is 20 years and
consequently the period covered by the traffic forecasts is from 2013-2032.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Traffic projection exercise for the project road for the appraisal period, i.e. 2013 - 2032,
would consist of projecting the opening year AADT (including normal, generated and
diverted traffic) to the future by using year-to-year normal growth rates.1
4.2.12. Recommendation for design standard
The total traffic on the project road is likely to reach a level of 713VPD by 2032 from a
base year (2013) level of 134VPD. Based on ERA’s design manual, the estimated travel
demands the DS4 standard on this road and DS5 paved has been justified based on the
outputs of the economic analysis.
4.3. Horizontal Alignment
4.3.1. Tangent and Curves
The project road is mainly characterized by mountainous/escarpment nature in more than

70% of the project section. Hence, especially in mountainous/escarpment sections, is
characterized by sharp curves that have no enough sight distance. Moreover, the approach
roads of a number of drainage structures are noted to have horizontal curvature with low
radii. These sections demanded design improvements like, increasing the radius of the
curve, widening of the existing road carriageway, etc. In these mountainous and
escarpment sections, maximum efforts have been exerted while designing the horizontal
alignment to avoid tight horizontal curves on steep gradient and long tangent. Hence,
departure from the minimum radius was necessitated.
The minimum radius demanded by DS5 road standard is 50m. However, it appears from
the horizontal alignment data, which are annexed with this report, that there are a number
of sections with radius less than the minimum requirement of the standard under
consideration. Fitting these sections to the required standard will have an impact on the
properties within the ROW supplemented with excessive deep cuts. It will also incur
exaggerated cost due to earthwork quantity implication due to the curvature and/or
alignment improvements to suit the standard.
1
Note: Because of its negligible share and insignificant impact on the road surface, Motor Cycle traffic has
not been included in traffic forecasting.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
The horizontal alignment in flat rolling section of the project is designed with fairly long
tangents and smooth curves. However there are no tangent sections exceeding the
maximum length set in the ERA design manual (4Km). There are no sharp or hairpin
curves, reverse curves, isolated curve, broken-back curves.
In the course of the design works no spirals were required for the road class and also not
used in the project. The horizontal alignment data have been annexed at the end of the
report.
4.3.2. Super-elevation
Super-elevation, where required, was provided according to the following

formula:
e + f = V2/ 127 R
Where:
f = Coefficient of friction
E = Super-elevation
V = Speed in Km/h and
R = Radius in meters
Side friction factors as a function of design speed are extracted from ERA Design
Manual and are shown here under Table 4.25
Table 4.25: Side Friction Factors: 8% maximum Super elevation

Design Speed
(Km/h) 20 30 40 50 60 70 85 100 120
Side Friction 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.10
(f)

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
4.4. Vertical Alignment
Length of vertical curves depends on change in gradient and sight distance, which in
turn depends on design speed.
L=KA,
where
K= Horizontal distance required to achieve 1% change in grade
A= Algebraic difference in grade bridged by the curve
The factor of sight distance is incorporated in the K value. ERA Manual tabulates
minimum K values corresponding to stopping and passing sight distances both for sag
and crest curves that have shown below.
Table 4.26: K Values for Crest and Sag Curve

Design Speed K for Crest VC K for Sag VC
Km/hr ERA Design ERA Design

85 60 36
70 31 25
60 18 18
50 10 12
40 5 8
30 3 4
Gradients
Vertical alignment is also designed within the requirement of the selected standard of the
road and generally gradients are gentle to steep. Smooth gradient has also been
established taking advantage of the terrain condition.
However, in escarpment/mountainous sections of the project road, longitudinal gradients

exceeding 12% were noticed in substantial sections. The expected absolute maximum

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
gradient, which is to be applied over short distance in any section of the project, is 9%.
Applications of gradients exceeding 9% and below 12% have been necessitated in deep
cuts and high fills supplemented with provision of retaining walls along road side to meet
the standard requirement.
Due to social and physical constraints at escarpment/mountainous section of the project,

some of the vertical design elements have necessitated special relaxation. These stretches
have been depicted together with the vertical alignment data under Annex II of this
report. These have been considered very carefully and adequate signage & cautions to the
vehicle drivers will then be necessary to help drivers to anticipate the peculiar situation
well in time.
Minimum gradient of 0.5%, for roads in cuttings, is to be adopted to facilitate drainage in

flat sections.
4.5. Cross section
4.5.1. Cross fall
A -2.5% and 3.0% cross fall were used for carriageway and shoulder respectively
throughout the project in all tangent sections. On curve sections 8.0% and 4.0%
were used as a maximum rate of Superelevation in rural and town sections
respectively.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
5. SOILS & MATERIALS INVESTIGATION AND PAVEMENT DESIGN
5.1. Introduction
The field investigation team has been sent to the project area to carry out the field
investigation work in June 2008.
This sub section of the report deals with detail field investigations and collecting the
relevant information for the detail Engineering design and tender document preparation of
the Arbaminch – Kamba - Sawla road project (For the project section under Lot 1,
Km0+000 – Km60+000).The field work included sub-grade materials investigation and
sampling construction materials location and sampling and foundation investigation. The
collected soil samples were collected and submitted to TCDSCo Construction Materials
5.2. Field works
The main part of the fieldwork included existing pavement condition survey, construction
materials investigation, and foundation investigation. Besides visual soil extension survey
of the sub grade materials were conducted and representative samples were collected for 3
– point modified Proctor – CBR – swelling and classification tests. Based on the desk
study as well as site investigation, construction material sources were located and samples
were collected for quality tests, which includes natural gravel sources for wearing course
and capping layer, rock sources for masonry and crushed aggregates, sand sources for
concrete and mortar works and water sources for compaction and concrete mixing.
Moreover sources of borrow material for Embankment construction and replacement of
weak sub grade are located and representative samples were collected for testing. In
addition to the sub grade and construction materials, the foundation conditions of the
major crossing sites were investigated through test pits.
The pertinent samples were collected and submitted to TCDSCo Construction Materials

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
The test results of the collected soil samples are summarized and presented under Annex
III in the appendix of Soils and Materials report.
The field investigation team has been sent to the project area to carry out the field work in
the beginning of June 2008 and after successfully completing the field investigation work
the team has returned peacefully in the fourth week of June 2008.
A person assigned by the Client has attended all the field activities, starting from sampling
to loading and shipment of the samples.
1.2.2 Alignment Soil and Pavement Investigation
The alignment soil and existing pavement investigation is carried out to determine and
classify the natural soil formation so that it is possible to determine the structural pavement
design for new or upgrading the existing pavement composition. Thus, the following field
exploration works were conducted:
Existing Pavement Investigation

During field investigation work, the Consultant has assessed the existing road condition
thorough out the project route. The task includes identifying the type of wearing course
materials, taking record of the type of the distresses and measures the carriageway width and
driving condition. The thickness of existing pavement was also determined from test pit dug
for investigation of sub-grade soil as mentioned in the above section.
From condition survey subjective Determination of the IRI and rating of severity level of
carriageway defects from typical speed, driving condition and prevailing surface damage is
made.
The road under this section carriageway with an average width of 4.31 meters with thickness
gravel wearing course less than 100mm and non-existent in many sections.
Based on the actual road width, the existing road, the wearing course pavement materials are
loose, weathered and decomposed basaltic gravel mixed with light brown to dark brown silty
clay soils.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Major pavement Defects

The main pavement defects of the project route are gravel loss, potholes, rutting, loose
oversized gravels and rock boulders, Lack of appropriate crown slope and side drainage and
erosion gullies.
Oversized Gravels and Boulders
The gravel wearing course material contains oversized material ranging from 150mm to
200mm thick on the average. They make driving difficult by forming irregular surface
forming protruding surfaces. The riding quality is rated as very poor with average driving
speed between 20- 30km/hr and the driving speed is less than 20km/hr in mountainous and
escarpment section. Since gravel wearing material didn’t meet gradations requirement for
interlocking, they are loose and easily displaced sideways and to the middle by wheels of
moving vehicle. The oversized material covers 100% of the existing road section, except in
section where they are totally lost or not provided. In mountainous and escarpment section,
there is no wearing course and the road surface is made up of uneven and irregular boulders.
It requires re-construction and re-surfacing.
Crown slope
Crowing of the carriageway by providing lateral slope is required for draining surface runoff
to side ditches so that moisture will not infiltrate to pavement material and underneath sub-
grade layers. There are no cumbers slopes throughout the whole length of the existing road.
This lead to accumulation of water on main carriageway during rainy periods which in-turn
paves way for the formation of potholes, erosion gullies and other pavement defects.
Absence of crown slope( reversed in some sections, km 38+400, at horizontal curves

alignment in mountainous and escarpment section, will lead overturning of moving vehicle
causing accidents. They need reconstruction.
Summary pavement defects for the carriageway of the rating of severity level and estimated
surface roughness are presented in table 5.1

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 5.1 Summary of the Existing Condition (km 0 to km 60)
MAJOR PAVEMENT SURFACE AVERAGE TERRAIN AVERAGE SURFACE ROAD

DEFECT MATERIAL DRIVING ROAD ROUGHNESS CONDN
(M/KM) RATING
SPEED WIDTH(M)
(KPH)
OVER SIZED , AND, GRAVEL 20-30 MOUNTAIN 4.31 22 5

LOOSE GRAVEL; OUS/
POTHOLES, LOSS OF ESCARPM
CAMBER SLOPE,
ENTS
COMPLETE LOSS OF
GRAVEL WEARING
COURSE AND
DEFORMATION OF
SUBAGRDE
The rating of surface damage severity level for carriageway is based on the Road Monitoring
for Maintenance Management, volume 2, Damage catalogue for Developing Countries.
According surface damage ratings of 1 &2 represents good surface conditions with tolerable
damages. Surface rating 3 represents intermediate surface condition with minor defects
requiring maintenance without other considerations; rating 4 and 5 represent very poor
surface conditions with major defects requiring major maintenance or rehabilitation work.
Hence from summary of road condition survey presented above, the project road requires
major maintenance/ rehabilitation works for the existing road. Besides, the thickness of the
wearing course is less than 100mm; it will be treated as new road. Hence, carrying of in-situ
density and CBR tests, sampling and laboratory testing of existing wearing course is not
required.
Road Side Elements
This includes the side ditch and road side encroachments. Since the condition survey of the
carriageway dictates heavy maintenance/ re-construction, they will also be treated in the same

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
way. However, from assessments during road condition survey, their existing condition is
described hereunder.
Drainage
Concerning surface drainage, side drainage (ditches) that collects runoff from carriageway
and discharging away from the road or to appropriate cross-drainage structures are required.
However, there is no provision of side ditches for more than 75% section of the existing road.
There is earth ditches in few sections. It requires new construction
Road side Encroachments
There are obstructions to traffic movements from debris of mass slide from unstable cut
slopes. The factors causing the slide are disturbing stability of natural slopes by construction
interference, and enhanced by infiltration of moisture from surface run off during rainy period
that weakens the shear strength of the slope material and increases the weight of slope
material. It covers the mountainous section from km6+000 to km31+000. It requires cleaning
of the debris from the roadway and flattens the slope to stable slopes parallel to adjacent
sections. It also requires planting the open cut face with tress of grasses and provides furrow
ditches to prevent erosion.
3.1 Subgrade Investigation
Soil Extension Survey

Visual soil extension survey was conducted and the different soil types along the alignment
have been mapped and classified according to color, texture and composition. It should be
noted that in many cases, clear distinction between the individual soil types could not be made
due to their similarity in origin and soil properties, and gradual transitions from one soil type
to the other.
The results of the soil extension survey, together with outcomes of test pit excavation and
local geologic and physiographic features, help preliminary delineation of homogenous
sections and setting of sampling intervals. Before the commencement of the field soil

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
investigation, a visual sub grade soil extension survey has been carried out to determine the
type and extent of the sub grade materials along the route alignment.
Sub grade soils with nearly similar soil type are grouped together and their extent was
determined. These extensions were then used to avoid narrow soil stretches from being
overlooked during test pitting and sampling process.
Thus, the soil extension survey of the project road is presented as follows;
Table 5.2 Soil Extension Survey of the project road
Stations
From To Visual Description of Soil Materials
0+000.000 7+600.000 Dark brown to reddish brown silty CLAY
7+600.000 14+300.000 Weathered GRAVEL mixed with dark brown silty clay
14+300.000 25+050.000 Light brown to dark brown silty CLAY mixed with gravels
25+050.000 34+500 Reddish brown to light /dark brown silty CLAY
34+500.000 38+700.000 Weathered GRAVEL mixed with dark brown silty clay
38+700.000 39+500.000 Dark brown silty CLAY
39+500.000 43+000.000 Reddish brown to light /dark brown silty CLAY
Test Pit Investigation

To examine engineering behavior of the indigenous sub-grade soils, test pits were excavated
along the centerline of the project road alignment at an average interval of 500m (unless there
is a soil variation within a short interval) and representative samples were retrieved for
laboratory testing.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Upon completion of the sampling processes the vertical profile of each test pit has been
logged and the excavated material carefully backfilled.
Subgrade Material Sampling

Based on the soil extension survey, the sub-grade materials investigation was conducted by
digging test pits every 500m. The depth of soil pits extends a minimum of 1m. Then the test
pit walls are properly described and logged. Finally representative samples were collected
from the test pits, i.e. samples were collected from each layer having minimum thickness of
200mm.
The samples are collected in labeled sample bags, which states:

- the project name
- station of sampling
- depth of sampling
- type of material and
- the type of test required
And before tying up the sample bags, sample tags are inserted, which give the information
about the material type and the required tests.
To determine the engineering properties of the roadbed materials, 114 samples were tested in
the laboratory. Out of the collected samples, 28 are tested for 3-point modified Proctor –
CBR, swelling and classification and the remaining 86 samples were tested only for
classification.
Finally before leaving the pits, i.e. after completing the logging and sampling, the test pits
were backfilled, compacted and leveled to the original levels.
In-Situ testing
The determination of the in-situ strength and characteristics of the existing pavement layer
including the sub-grade is also paramount important in the design of pavement in
recommendation of appropriate measures for rectification of observed pavement defects. The
in-situ strength of the sub-grade is investigated using a DCP apparatus which is a simple,

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
economical, fast and important indicator of residual road strength. This test was carried out on
the sub-grade to determine the in-situ CBR of sub-grade soil.
The DCP test was carried out every 0.5 km interval using a DCP instrument complying with
TRL’s specification. The test was conducted at alternating left, right and center of the carriage
way. The test results were processed using the UK-DCP software package. The DCP data are
analyzed and converted to CBR value using the following empirical relationships between
CBR values and penetration resistance (strength).
TRRL equation: Log10 (CBR) = 2.48 – 1.057 * Log10 (strength)
Fig 5.1 Sub-grade laboratory CBR Vs In-situ CBR from DCP
As it can be seen from the graph, the strength of the in-situ sub-grade material as determined
from the DCP test is usually higher than the laboratory test. The possible reason for this is that
the DCP test is conducted in a relatively dry state while the laboratory test is conducted after
four days soaking of sub-grade material.
5.2.1. Construction Materials
Construction materials location and sampling was conducted taking into consideration of the
volume of materials required for the re-construction/maintenance purpose. In locating the
construction material sources, emphasis is given to environmental considerations.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Approximate quantity estimates have been calculated for natural gravel sources, borrow
sources and rock sources as per their natural geometric shapes. In estimating the quantities,
first the geometric shape was determined and as per its geometric shapes and after reducing
the overburden volumes, the volume of the material is estimated. The overburden to be
removed from the materials is determined by measuring the thickness over the materials
which doesn't represent construction materials. Among the geometric shapes, half
hemisphere, cone, triangular prism, rectangular prisms are usually observed. The volumes of
these shapes in association with the combination of two are used according to the shapes of
materials encountered.
For the rock, natural gravels and borrow materials, the sources are located and representative
samples are collected based on the following criteria:
• accessibility
• available quantity
• quality of the material for the intended purpose
• overburden material and its use as construction material
• disturbance to local community and displacement
However for the water source, all the intermittent and perennial streams, rivers and springs
are listed. And for the natural sand sources, only the stream/river beds that bear sand and can
be used for the construction purpose are recorded. The location of all the construction material
sources is properly described with respect to the chainage of the project road. And finally
most of the sources are photographed during site investigation.
The team during site investigation understands that there is a plenty of construction materials
at appropriate interval enough for both road construction and maintenance works.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
5.2.1.1. Rock source for crushing and masonry works
Based on the information gathered during the site visit, there are many rock sources within the
project area that can be used as sources of masonry stone and for crushing to get aggregates
for cement concrete and pavement works.
Generally the rock types observed in the project area are basaltic nature. In five river banks
along the road project under consideration there is also a potential basaltic rock sources for
crushing and masonry works.
The project route for about 7o% of the project alignment is characterized by mountainous and
escarpment terrain. Therefore there is cut and fill around the escarpment and mountainous
sections, which require retaining structures. Therefore the need of masonry works in the
project area is considered during site investigation. As per site investigation of the team most
rock sources are good sources of masonry stones. Rock sources were made to locate within
economical hauling distance. And out of the located sources, samples were collected from
four rock sources for laboratory testing such as LAA, ACV, SSS, water absorption and
specific gravity.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 5.3 Rock sources for crushing and masonry works under Lot 1 of the project
Station Source Location Coordinate Description of Overburden Accessi Test for

Quantity
(Km) Name Material Material bility
X y z ( m3 )
12+378.79 Berbere 322384.266 652377.147 1392.253 River Boulder Yes -----

River ----
ample
21+715.26 Sago 317029.13 649282.246 1395.83 River Boulder Yes -----
River ----
ample
27+776.86 314169.677 652174.646 1937.645 Widely jointed 50cm brown Yes -----
both and fresh to silty clay,
on LHS & slightly Farm land
>100,000
RHS weathered with scattered
basaltic surface tree
rocks
38+394.15, 0310465 0657752 2237 Widely jointed 40cm brown Needs to LAA, SSS,
1400 m and fresh to silty clay soil, be water
RHS slightly Covered with maintain absorption,
---- >50,000
weathered scattered bush ed specific
purpul basaltic gravity
rock
42+110.16 Boka 309041.935 660257.852 2183.447 River Boulder Yes -----
River ----
ample
71+105.77 0300866 0667767 2521 Widely jointed 50cm brown Yes LAA, SSS,
LHS and fresh to silty clay soil, water
---- slightly >100000 Farm land absorption,
weathered with scattered specific
basaltic rock Bamboo gravity
44+592.43 Kara 308295.454 661520.659 2308.8 River Boulder Yes -----
River ----
ample
52+482.53 Musso 308406.105 665780.829 2595.499 River Boulder Yes ----
----
River ample
78+800 297746.79 670724.535 1763.488 Widely jointed 50cm Yes -----
RHS and fresh to Weathered and
slightly decomposed
---- weathered >100000 basaltic gravel
basaltic rock with reddish
silty clay,
Farm land

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
5.2.1.2. Natural gravel sources for wearing gravel and capping layer material
In the project area quality natural gravel that can be used for wearing gravel and capping layer
are obtained from the weathered and decomposed basalts. The types of natural gravel
materials produced from the sources vary from fractured and highly weathered rock to
fractured and moderately weathered rock. The fractured and highly weathered natural gravel
material can be used for replacement of poor roadbed materials as well as for capping layer.
The fractured and moderately weathered natural gravel, which is high quality natural gravel,
can be considered suitable as wearing gravel. Since there is a problematic soil available along
the road that needs a replacement, special attention was given to locate natural gravel sources
that can be used for wearing gravel and also for capping layer. Therefore many natural gravel
sources were located and out of which 7 samples were collected for modified Proctor - CBR,
swelling, gradation and classification tests.
To summarize the project area is sufficient natural gravel sources that can be used for wearing
gravel and capping layer material.
Table 5.4 Natural gravel source for subbase and capping layer material
Offset Description Location Coordinate Overburden Accessibility Test for
Distance of Material Material
Station
from
(Km) X y z
Existing Quantity
Road ( m3 )
Weathered 320710 651236 1880
and Classification,
decomposed Modified
basaltic Proctor, 3 pt
15+177.91 LHS
gravel CBR / 4 days
mixed with soaked / &
Roadside reddish silty Linear
borrow clay soil >60000 Negligible Yes Shrinkage
Weathered 310021 657141 2260
and Classification,
decomposed Modified
basaltic Proctor, 3 pt
36+528.98 RHS
gravel CBR / 4 days
Existing mixed with soaked / &
Roadside reddish silty Linear
borrow clay soil >100,000 Negligible Yes Shrinkage

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Offset Description Location Coordinate Overburden Accessibility Test for
Station
from
(Km) X y z
Existing Quantity
Road ( m3 )
Weathered 317427.41 648991.01 1400.32
and
decomposed
basaltic 30cm brown
21+199.87RHS gravel silty clay
mixed with soil, Farm
light brown land and
Roadside silty clay scattered
borrow soil >20000 bush Yes -----
Weathered 315727.69 650692.96 1641.674
basaltic
gravel
24+729.62 RHS
mixed with
Roadside brownish
borrow clay soil >20000 Negligible Yes -----
Weathered 313714.16 653349.64 2068.234
basaltic
gravel
29+164.07 LHS mixed with
reddish
Roadside brown silty
borrow clay soil >25000 Negligible Yes -----
Weathered 298226 670600 1851 Classification,
basaltic Modified
gravel Proctor, 3 pt
77+442.15, 200
mixed with CBR / 4 days
m RHS
brownish soaked / &
Existing silty clay Linear
borrow soil >100000 Negligible Yes Shrinkage
5.2.1.3. Borrow material sources for Embankment construction and replacement
About 30% of the road alignment is located in flat to rolling terrain. And based on the
investigation made, most of the road sections located in these sections is affected by flooding,
which needs to be raised. Therefore for the section of the road with good to acceptable sub
grade materials, the side borrow is considered as borrow source that can be used for
Embankment construction and replacement of the weak sub grade. Thus the samples collected
for roadbed testing is also considered representative of the side borrow material.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
For the section of the proposed road located within the black cotton soil stretches, which is
unsuitable roadbed material, side borrow can not be used. Therefore for such stretches borrow
material sources are located and samples collected for standard/modified Proctor – CBR,
swelling and classification tests. In addition to borrow sources where samples taken, many
possible borrow material sources were located.
To summarize, like the other construction material sources, there are sufficient borrow
materials that can be used for replacement of poor roadbed materials and Embankment
construction.
Table 5.5, Borrow material sources for Embankment construction and replacement
Offset Location Coordinate Description Overburden Accessibility Test for
Station
from
(Km) X y z
Existing Quantity
Road ( m3 )
Existing 325012 653265 1340 Weathered >100,000 Negligible Yes Classification,
Roadside basaltic Modified
borrow gravel Proctor, 3 pt
8+204.91 LHS mixed with CBR / 4 days
reddish clay soaked / &
Linear
Shrinkage
Roadside 324918.36 653077.64 1336.75 Reddish >20000 Negligible Yes -----
borrow silty clay
8+284.12LHS mixed with
scattered
gravel
Roadside 316036 650348 1591 Reddish >100,000 Negligible Yes Classification,
borrow silty clay Modified
23+558.22LHS mixed with Proctor & 3 pt
few gravel CBR / 4 days
soaked /
Roadside 309210 661146 2269 Reddish >50000 20cm brown Yes Classification,
borrow silty clay silty clay Modified
43+084.26
soil, Farm Proctor & 3 pt
RHS
Land CBR / 4 days
soaked /

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Offset Location Coordinate Description Overburden Accessibility Test for
Station
from
(Km) X y z
Existing Quantity
Road ( m3 )
Roadside 308407.2 665780.86 2596.021 Reddish >30000 30cm brown Yes -----
borrow silty clay silty clay,
52+482.53 Farm Land
RHS with
scattered
bush
Roadside 308421 668961 2711 Highly >100000 60cm brown Yes Classification,
borrow weathered clay soil Modified
basaltic Farm Land Proctor, 3 pt
55+917.55
gravel with CBR / 4 days
RHS
light brown soaked / &
silty clay Linear
Shrinkage
Roadside 305673 669598 2725 Reddish >50000 30cm Yes Classification,
borrow silty clay decomposed Modified
64+201.59
soil covered Proctor & 3 pt
RHS
with CBR / 4 days
Eucalyptus soaked /
Roadside 303625.73 668277.62 2755.086 Weathered >20000 30cm brown Yes -----
borrow and silty clay,
decomposed Farm Land
67+372.96
basaltic with
LHS
gravel with scattered
reddish silty bush
clay
5.2.1.4. Natural sand source for cement concrete and mortar works
To construct the drainage structures for the new alignment, maintain and widen the existing
ones and also to provide the required drainage structures required for the existing road,
cement concrete work is required, which in turn requires natural sand.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Therefore trial was made to locate all the possible sand sources that bear sand within the
project area. And based on the investigation made, streams/rivers that bear quality sand are
found along the road alignment. Out of the observed sand sources four samples were sampled
for laboratory testing, i.e. for soundness, gradation, clay lumps, organic impurity and mortar
making property tests.
The summary of all sand sources in the project under Lot 1, Km0+000 – 60+000 including
their location and types are shown below.
Table 5.6, Natural sand sources for concrete and mortar works
Name of Location Coordinate Accessibility Test for
Station river Description of
(Km) for sand X y z Material
source
0312630.12 0653967.842 2250.053 Fine to medium grained
31+766.64, app sand with gravel.
8Km RHS, ------ (Currently serves as Yes
Otora sand sand source around
Geresse village)
0307144 0670814 2393 soundness,
gradation,
Moloho Fine to coarse sand clay lumps,
61+728.89 RHS Yes
river (good quality sand) organic impurity
and mortar
making
0299588 0668321 2125 soundness,
gradation,
Bulkie Fine to coarse sand clay lumps,
74+818.61 Yes
River (good quality sand) organic impurity
and mortar
making
5.2.1.5. Water Sources for construction
Water is required for compaction, concrete and mortar works. Therefore trial was made to
locate all the perennial water sources along the project road as well as intermittent
streams/rivers that drain the area. And based on the investigation, there are plenty of water
sources available within the project area. The summary of all water sources within the project
area under Lot 1, Km0+000 – 60+000 is shown below. Out of the possible water sources five

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
samples were sampled to check the water quality such as PH, total dissolved solids, Cl and
Sulphate content tests.
Table 5.7, Water sources in the project area under Lot 1, Km0+000 – 60+000
Location Coordinate Accessibility Test for
Station Name of Type of Reliability of
X y z
(Km) river /stream water source water source
0322310 0652705 1370 PH, total
dissolved
Berbere River solids, Cl and
Sulphate content
12+132.06 river Perennial Yes tests
321750.351 651712.078 1458.252
13+462.06 --- Stream Perennial Yes ---
317035.528 649291.379 1389.725
21+716.06 Sago River river Perennial Yes ---
Godoro River 309951.977 657947.835 2097.447
39+038.28 river Perennial Yes ---
0309112 0659207 --- PH, total
dissolved
solids, Cl and
Sulphate content
40+846.23 Boka River river Perennial Yes tests
Kara River 306952.879 662983.04 2557.814
Musso River 308406.105 665780.829 2595.499
Belta River 309287.161 670242.606 2445.517
298522.189 669706.833 1905.248
Bayo River
/ in Kamba
Town /
76+828.72 Stream Perennial Yes ---
5.3. FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION FOR MAJOR BRIDGE CROSSINGS
5.3.1. Objectives
Field foundation investigation was carried out at the major bridge crossing sites. There are 13
major bridge crossing sites out of which 8 of them have existing bridges and the remaining 5
have no bridges. The purpose of foundation investigation at these crossing sites is to

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
determine the type and extent of foundation material, and characterize their engineering
properties for foundation design.
For bridge crossing with existing structures, bearing capacities are required if extension or
replacements of the bridges are required, or to identify any foundation problems and propose
appropriate solutions to alleviate foundation problems. The field investigation was carried at
proposed abutment positions on river banks and river bed material. During field investigation,
GPS-recording and photographs were taken at proposed abutment and pier positions
The details of field and laboratory investigations for the first 60Km section of the project
which are carried at proposed bridge crossing sites, characterization of engineering properties
of foundation material for foundation design is presented in subsequent sections.
5.3.2. Methodology of the Investigation
The foundation investigations for bridges include the following activities

• Visual inspection of their prevailing geological formations, and structures, stratography
and stream characteristics;
• Test pitting
• Conducting Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) test
• Conducting Schmidt Hammer re-bound test
• Collecting representative samples for laboratory testing
Based on the field assessment it was found that, the foundation material can be grouped into
two: those with soil foundation material and others with rock outcrops of different degree of
weathering and fracturing. For bridge crossings with soil and mixture of soil and boulder
materials, test pits were dug at proposed abutment and pier positions and Dynamic Cone
Penetration Test (DCP) were conducted. Representative samples were collected from test pits
for laboratory testing. The laboratory tests include gradations, Atternerg limits, natural
moisture content and specific gravity.
For bridge sites with rock outcrop foundation material, geological description of rock
formations, geological structures mainly joints, fractures, bedding, and degree of weathering

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
were made. Schmidt Hammer re-bound test were also carried on rock materials and from the
re-bound readings of this test compressive strength of the rocks were estimated.
5.3.3. Visual observations and Test pitting
Visual observations were carried out on the geological formations at proposed crossing sites
and open faces u/s and d/s of the crossing site. For bridge crossings with soil foundation
material test pits were dug at proposed abutment and pier positions on river banks in order to
visualize the foundation material variation with depth. Location of ground water table was
also observed within the test pits. Log of test pits is presented in the soils and materials report
under ANNEX III of the report.
Representative samples were collected from test pits for laboratory tests, Atterberg limits,
gradation, natural moisture content and specific gravity tests. Samples of riverbed material
were also collected for Atterberg limits and gradation tests. Laboratory test result carried on
samples of foundation material is presented in Annex V of the soils and materials report.
5.3.4. Conducting Dynamic cone penetration test (DCP)
The dynamic cone penetration test is used for rapid in-situ measurement of the mechanical
properties of the foundation materials. The DCP equipment used for the investigation
consisting of stem (rod), and a cone tip (60˚). It is manually operated equipment and the result
from the tests can be correlated to estimates other properties of foundation material. The rate
of penetration(mm/blows) is a good indicator of the material being penetrated i.e lower values
of penetration implies higher stiffness of the material being penetrated and vice versa. At the
bed rock level/big boulders, the DCP test shows complete rebound. DCP tests were carried at
least five points on each the river banks. DCP test data and layer analysis is presented Annex
IV of the soils and materials report.
The DCP test data was correlated to SPT values with correlation values given in A Design
Manual for Small Bridges, Overseas Road Note 9, shown below. Bearing capacity of the
foundation material was then estimated from SPT values.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 5.8 Typical correlation between DCP and SPT values
DCP value SPT value

mm/blow blows/300mm
5 50
6 44
7 38
8 33
9 28
10 24
12 22
14 18
16 16
18 15
20 14
5.3.5. Conducting Schmidt Hammer test
For rock outcrop foundation material, Schmidt Hammer test was carried and from the re-
bound readings of this test compressive strength of the rocks was determined. The Schmidt
Hammer re-bound tests is non-destructive test used to estimate the in-situ compressive
strength of rock foundation. At each abutment positions ten Schmidt Hammer re-bound
readings were taken. Correlations between re-bound readings and uni- axial compressive
strength (ultimate) have been developed and are available in the form of chart (Miller chart).
The graph gives range of compressive with minimum, average and maximum values. The
average values of the reading were taken in estimating the ultimate compressive strength.
5.3.6. Determination of Bearing capacity
Recommendations of bearing capacities for foundation design is made based on visual site
assessments, testing pitting, laboratory test results carried on representative samples collected
from test pits, and N- values correlated from DCP testing. The equations used for bearing
capacity determination are shown below.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
For proposed foundation with footing, the allowable bearing capacity; qa is then estimated
from correlated SPT N-values using Meyerhof equation shown below
where
qa = allowable bearing pressure for AH0 = 25-mm or 1-in. settlement,
kPa or ksf
Kd = 1 + 0.33D/B < 1.33
The F factors for N55, are as follows:
F1-0.05
F2-0.08
F3-0.3
F4-1.2
This bearing capacity is 25mm settlement under foundation with width of B measured
perpendicular to the water flow.
For cohesion less material, the SPT N-values are corrected using the following equation to
account for increase in bearing capacity from densification of the foundation material from
settlements
N55’ = N55 x CN x h1 x h2 x h3 x h4
where
N55’:- is corrected blow cout
N55:- SPT blow count correlated from DCP
CN:- adjustment factor for effective overburden pressure(po’) using
CN = (95.76/po’)1/2
h1:- correction factor for energy ration taken to be 1
h2:- correction factor for rod length taken to be 0.75 for rod length of
4-6m
h3:- correction factor for sampler taken to be 1
h4:- correction factor for whole diameter taken to be 1

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Since the rate of settlement is very low for cohesive soils, allowable bearing capacities are
recommended based on SPT values correlated from measured DCP testing.
Foundation settlements flow were calculated from correlation of Atterberg limits and
gradation tests and bearing capacities were re-computed by Meyrhof’s bearing capacity
equation from correlation of N and effective angle of internal friction (φ’) using equation
φ’= 25+28(N55/qeff)^1/2, where qeff is effective overburden pressure
For soft cohesive soil foundation material, ultimate bearing capacity was also estimated from
correlation of N versus qu with equation
qu = kN
where
k –is usually taken to be 12
N- is corrected N70 i.e (N70’)
For rock foundation material the allowable bearing capacity was then calculated by applying
factor of safety of 3 to ultimate compressive strength estimated from Schmidt Hammer re-
bound test. i. e ( Q all= Qult/3) assuming that the foundation level will be taken to un
weathered rock level. For weathered rock presumptive allowable bearing capacity values
given in literatures is made based on filed assessment of the foundation material (geologic
formation, degree of weathering and fracturing of the rock outcrops), and Schmidt Hammer
test carried on rock outcrops. Presumptive bearing capacities are available for different rock
classes grouped based on their uni-axial ultimate compressive strength and degree of
weathering and fracturing
Comparison was made between the estimated bearing capacities and recommended allowable
presumptive bearing capacities in design manuals and literatures.
Note: The bearing capacity was estimated assuming rectangular footing for foundation depth
of up to 6m from top ground surface.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
5.3.7. Foundation Material Characterization
1) Berbere River: Station Km 12+132.06

The co-ordinates of the bridge site location tracked with hand held GPS is Easting of
322310and northing of 652714. The river stream has wide and shallow cross-section with
gentle longitudinal slope and river transported alluvial deposits of sand gravel and boulder as
river bed material. Test pit was dug at the river bed and representative sample was collected
for Atterberg limit and classification tests. From visual observation of river crossing U/s and
D/s of the stream rock bed is expected at 3-4m depth below the river bed. There is no existing
bridge of this crossing.
Foundation at abutment positions

The foundation material at both Kamba and at A/Minch side abutment positions is alluvial
deposits of sand gravel and rock boulder mixtures.
From laboratory test carried out on the representative sample, it is classified as GP( poorly
graded sands, gravel sand with mixture of little or no fines). For preliminary design,
presumptive bearing capacity of 600kPa for mixture of coarse grained soil, boulder clay can
be taken. Since the ground water table is at river bed level, presumptive value of 300kPa is
recommended.
A/Minch side abutment ( Berbere river) Kamba side abutment ( Berbere river)

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
River bed material ( Berbere river)
2) Sago River Bridge: station Km: 21+468.27

The co-ordinates of the bridge site location tracked with hand held GPS is Easting of
317207and northing of 649073. The river stream has U- shaped wide cross-section and with
gentle longitudinal slope. The river bed material at the bridge crossing is a mixture of water
transported gravels and sand with some surface boulders. There is existing girder bridge with
masonry abutments on this river crossing.

The foundation material at kamba side abutment positions is whitish, moderately weathered,
rock with sand grains. The average joint spacing is 20cm. The joints have an average opening
of 2.5 cm width with no joint fillings.
The foundation material at A/minch side abutment position is river transported rock boulders
overlying rock bed material.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Kamba side abutment ( Sago river Bridge) A/Minch side abutment ( Sago river Bridge)
Schmidt Hammer re-bound test

Schmidt Hammer re-bound test was carried on, Kamba side abutment position and the reading
with corresponding ultimate compressive strength is shown below under table 5.9
Table 5.9 Schmidt Hammer re-bound readings and corresponding Ultimate compressive
strength at abutment position of sago River Bridge
Location Position Rebound Reading “k” Average Ultimate Compressive
of Test Value of Strength “S”
reading (kg/sq.cm)
Girder -90 No of test Min. Avg Max

50.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 582 660+78 738
46 56 58 52 52 52 52 48 48 44
Dividing, Q ult of 660 kg/sq.cm obtained from, Schmidt Hammer re-bound test, by factor of
safety of 3, Qall of 220 kg/sq.cm (2200kPa) is obtained for sound the rock bed material at
sound condition. However due to fracturing, allowable bearing capacity of 1000kPa
recommended for broken rocks of any kind can be taken for design.
3) Gudro River: Station 38+500.61

The co-ordinates of the bridge site location tracked with hand held GPS is Easting of 310372
and northing of 657536. The stream cross-section is narrow and deep with rock bed material.
There is Slab Bridge with masonry abutment on this crossing.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000

The foundation material at both abutment positions is pinkinsh to reddish, massive, coarse
grained (quartizitic), vesicular basaltic rock.
Schmidt Hammer Rebound test

Schmidt Hammer re-bound test was carried at abutment positions and the reading with
corresponding ultimate compressive strength is shown in table 5.10
strength at abutment positions of Gudro River.

of Test Value of Strength “S” (kg/sq.cm)
the
reading
Abutment -90 No of test Min. Avg Max
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 36.4 359 410+71 481
42 36 40 36 30 32 48 34 36 30
Dividing, Qult of 410 kg/sq.cm obtained from, Schmidt Hammer re-bound test, by factor of
safety of 3, Qall of 137 kg/sq.cm( 1370kpa) is obtained for the rock in sound condition.
However due to fracturing, allowable bearing capacity of 1000KPa is recommended.
4) Boka River: Station Km 40+846.23

The co-ordinates of this bridge site location tracked with hand with hand held GPS is Easting
of 309127 and northing of 659204. It has narrow cross-section with boulders river bed
material. There is existing slab bridge on this crossing.
Foundation Material at Abutment Positions
As it was observed at U/s and D/s of the bridge crossing site, the river bed material is material
is dark, massive, aphinitic basaltic rock. At the abutment positions there are big water
transported boulders overlying the rock bed.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Schmidt Hammer re-bound test was carried on rock bed material and the reading with
strength at abutment position of Boka River.
Locati Position Rebound Reading “k” Average Ultimate Compressive

on of Test Value the Strength “S” (kg/sq.cm)
reading
Abut -90 No of test Min. Avg Max
ment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 48.8 567 640+73 677
52 52 42 46 48 52 48 46 50 52
safety of 3, Qall of 213 kg/sq.cm ( 2130 kPa) is obtained. However due to fracturing,
allowable bearing capacity of 1000KPa is recommended.
5) Kara Bridge: Station Km43+042.62

The co-ordinates of the bridge site location tracked with hand held GPS is Easting of 3091255
and northing of 660996. It is wide and deep valley with steep longitudinal grade. The river
bed material is rock boulders. There is existing girder bridge on masonry abutments.

The foundation material at both abutment positions are reddish to pinkish rock boulders. No
foundation problem was detected at this bridge site.

Schmidt Hammer re-bound test was carried on rock boulders.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
strength at rock boulders at abutment position of musso river bridge.

of Test Value Strength “S” (kg/sq.cm)
the
reading
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 44.2 425 500+75 575
54 56 52 52 42 44 50 52 50 46
Dividing, Qult of 500 kg/sq.cm obtained from, Schmidt Hammer re-bound test, by factor of
safety of 3, Qall of 167kg/sq.cm (1670 kPa) is obtained for the rock in sound condition. Since
the foundation material is rock boulders, allowable bearing capacity of 1000kPa
recommended for broken rocks of any kind can be taken for foundation design.
6) Musso River Bridge: station Km 51+533.39

The co-ordinates of the bridge site location tracked with hand with hand held GPS is Easting
of 303354 and northing of 664954. It has wide U-shaped cross-section with gentle
longitudinal slope at the bridge crossing site. However, at the d/s of the bridge crossing site,
the river has very deep and steep cross-section. The river bed materials are rock boulders.
There is existing girder bridge on masonry abutments.

The foundation material at both abutment positions are reddish to pinkish rock boulders. No
foundation problem was observed at this bridge location. However, there is problem land
slide at bridge approach.

Schmidt Hammer re-bound test was carried on rock boulders and deck and the reading with

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
strength at rock boulders at abutment position of Kara River.
of Test Value Strength “S”
the (kg/sq.cm)
reading
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 44.2 425 500+75 575
38 42 36 42 42 44 50 52 50 46
safety of 3, Qall of 167kg/sq.cm (1670 kPa) is obtained for the rock in sound condition. Since
the foundation material is rock boulders, allowable bearing capacity of 1000kPa
recommended for broken rocks of any kind can be taken for foundation design.
7)Halilo river: station Km 59+413.43
The co-ordinates of the bridge site location tracked with hand with hand held GPS is Easting
of 308912 and northing of 670685. It has wide U-shaped cross-section with flat longitudinal
slope at the bridge crossing site. The river bed material is light brown sandy silty clay with
gravel and big boulder. At this crossing, there is existing bridge.
Test pit was dug at abutment positions on river bank material and representative samples were
taken for laboratory test of classifications. Besides Test pitting DCP tests were also conducted
at both side abutment positions.
A/Minch Side abutment position
From test pit dug up to depth of 2.2m, the foundation material at A/Minch side river bank, the
foundation material is dark brown silty clay soil up to depth of 1.5m and overlying, sandy
silty with rounded gravels and boulders. From this test pit, ground water table was observed at
depth of 1.0 m from top surface.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
From DCP testing, average rate of penetration of 71.8mm/blows was obtained for top 2m silty
clay soils. The corresponding SPT value of per 300mm (N55) for this layer is 3.8.
Allowable bearing capacity for footing foundation with various widths calculated based on
this SPT N- value at different foundation level is shown below
Table 5.14 Recommended Bearing capacity at A/ Minch side abutment position

(Halilo River)
Depth N55 N’55 qall,Kpa qall,Kpa qall,Kpa qall,Kpa qall,Kpa

from 2m 3m 4m 5m 6m
top(m) width width width width width
1 3.8 6.47 125 89 72 61 54
2 3.8 6.47 142 98 77 65 57
Below this layer average DCP testing rate of penetration of 2.92mm/ blows obtained for depth
of 2 to 2.5m and then refusal due to big boulders/rocks. Based on the laboratory Atterberg
limit and gradation tests test on representative sample collected from depth of 2.0m to 2.2m,
they are classified as SM,u (silty-sand and sand –silt mixtures). For this layer presumptive
allowable bearing capacity of 400kpa for dense sand and gravel mixture is recommended. To
take into account the effect of shallows ground water allowable bearing capacity of 300kpa is
recommended.
Sawla side abutment position

As it was observed from test pitting and results of DCP testing the foundation material at
Sawula side abutment positions is a reddish brown silty clay soil as top soil for an average
depth of 0.4m overlying dark brown silty clay foundation material. From test pit dug for depth
of 2m No ground water was observed within the test pit.
Based on the laboratory Atterberg limit and gradation tests test on representative sample
collected from depth of 2.0m to 2.4m, they are classified According to Unified Soil
Classification System, they are grouped as MH (In organic clay of low to medium plasticity).

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
From DCP testing, average rate of penetration at both abutments is 24.3mm/blows are
obtained for top 3.5m with corresponding SPT value of 10.9 per 300mm (N55) penetrations
correlated from DCP testing is taken for determination of bearing capacity for this layer.
Allowable bearing capacity for footing foundation with various widths calculated based on
this SPT N- value at different foundation level is shown below
Table 5.15 Recommended allowable bearing capacity at Sawula side abutment

position (Halilo River)
Depth N55 qall,Kpa qall,Kpa qall,Kpa qall,Kpa qall,Kpa
from 2m width 3m width 4m width 5m 6m width
top(m) width
1 10.9 210 183 171 163 183
2 10.9 240 201 184 173 183
3 10.9 269 219 196 183 183
4 10.9 210 237 209 194 183
Below this layer presumptive allowable bearing capacity of 400kpa for dense sand and gravel
mixture is recommended. To take into account the effect of shallows ground water allowable
bearing capacity of 300kpa is recommended.
5.4. GEOTECHNICAL HAZARD
5.4.1. Geological and Geotechnical Hazards
Special geological and geotechnical features, Hazards, problematic soils, instable slopes that
require special attention during detail field investigations and design stage are assessed and
summarized as follows.
5.4.1.1. Treatment of Expansive soils
As it was observed on the site there are stretches of sub-grade soil with potential of expansion.
It covers the section from Km 38+700 to Km 39+500, Km 56+150 to Km 58+900, they exhibit
volume change on wetting exerting uplift forces on pavement structures thereby causing

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
distresses. up on site investigation the mentioned stations have a minimum of 1 m depth
black cotton soils
They require special treatment either by replacement or in-situ treatments.

Removal of expansive soils and replacement with better non-expansive material, the
following recommendation as per ERA pavement Design Manual, are made.
• Where the finished road level is designed to be less than 2meters above ground level,
remove the expansive soil to a minimum depth of 600mm over the full width of the
road, or
• Where the finished road level is designed to be greater than 2meters above ground
level, remove the expansive soil to a depth of 600mm below the ground level under
the un surfaced area of the road structure, or
• Where the expansive soil does not exceed 1meter in depth, remove it to its full depth
5.4.1.2. Slope stability of the project area
General
Since the project route traverses though mountainous and escarpment terrains, there are
sections with active sliding and others susceptible to sliding. The active sliding sections are
located in the beginning section of the project .The main cause for the slide is disturbance of
stability on natural slope that was in state of equilibrium during previous construction. The
road alignment goes on either toe of the slope or steep cross-section of the escarpments.
During construction, the slope material was excavated and removed, which resulted in
removal of lower support and reducing shear resistance of the slope material and hence
triggering of mass movements. It requires avoidance of further cut of the slope materials for
either widening of the road or use for borrow materials.
Other factor that contributed to the slides is infiltration of moistures through joints and
fractures. The moisture infiltration has double negative effects on slope stability; it increases
weight of slope material by saturation and simultaneously decreasing shear resistance of slope
material. It requires moisture control by provision of drainage facility by furrow ditches,

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
paved ditches and cross-drainage structures and plantation of trees. The tree roots stabilize
slope material by acting as reinforcements and absorbing moistures.
The slope material is mainly jointed, fractured and decomposed basalts and tuff materials. The
stability of these materials can be affected by slight interference and infiltration of moisture
through joints and fracture. There are also many open cut faces that can be easily affected by
erosions.
Beside the actively sliding sections, there are steep, open cut section of similar slope material
and the road alignment passing at the toe of the slopes. These sections could be easily
triggered for sliding up on widening of the road during new construction. They require
precautions during the new design and construction in order to avoid possible extensive mass
slides that could affect the road function to the extent of closure.
During field work, the consultant has assessed section with active slide and those with steep
cross-section (slope) susceptible to sliding and proposed the following mitigation measures.
The best solution to mitigate the problem is re-location of the route. However due to steep,
mountainous nature of the project rout, it seems impossible in most sections. Hence, the
solution proposed is to minimize the mass movement and stabilize with time by controlling
the external construction interference and environmental factors.
During field work, visual investigation of the slope material was made. The investigation
included identifying the type material, geological formations and structures. Based on this
visual and filed and laboratory investigations made on subgarde soils, recommendations for
slopes in cut sections are made. For fill sections slopes provided in ERA Geometric Design
manuals will be used. Accordingly, the slope material and recommended cut slopes for
sliding sections are as follows:
Section from Km 9.8 to Km 10 (Easting of 323811, northing of 652915), RHS, site photo 1
At this section there is open cut surface with jointed, fractured and decomposed basaltic rock
slope material, on the RHS of the route alignment. The road goes at the face of the
escarpments. Even though at the time of field inspection, there was no water, there is v-
shaped section on the face of the mountain that could act as waterway for runoff during rainy
period.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Site photo1.: Open cut face, Km 10
In order to avoid possible mass movements, the following solutions are proposed.
• Avoid further cutting of the slope material by extending the road to the left
(2:3)H: V
• Provide cross- drainage structure( pipe) at the lowest point of the slope
• Provide furrow ditches to prevent run – off coming to the road
• Plant the open surface with shrubs or trees
Section from Km 11.5(Easting of 322848, northing of 652364) to Km 12.1(Easting of

322623, northing of 652678), RHS, site photo 2
This section is also located on the right side of the road with tuffacious material at the bottom
and soils and gravel matrix on top with vegetation cover. It is section with potential of sliding
up on further interference.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
site photo 2: Section prone to sliding: Km 11.5 to Km 21.1
In order to avoid possible mass movements, the following solutions are proposed.
• Avoid further cutting of the slope material by extending the road to the left, if
possible.
• If cutting of the slope is unavoidable, adopt slope of 2: 3( H: V)
• Plant any to open surface with shrubs or trees
Section from Km13.3 to Km14.4, WP 19, RHS

This section is main problematic section of the existing route with certain section actively
sliding and the remaining sections prone to sliding on RHS and very steep cross-section on
the LHS. During the field assesment, the following points were noted.
From Km 13.3 (Easting of 321780, northing of 651869), to Km 13.55 (Easting of 321704

northing of 651869, RHS, Site photo-3.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
In this section, the slope material is loose, unconsolidated, highly weathered and fractured
basaltic gravel with little reddish silty soil. It has also vegetation covers on top. It is cohesion
less material that can easily triggered for sliding. There is slide debris on the road.
There is also small crick/stream flowing from top of the cliff to the road that requires
installation/ provision of cross-drainage pipe.
Site photo-:3 Potentially unstable slope: Km 13.3 to Km 13.55
From Km 13.9 to Km 14.1, site photo 4, the slope material is soil matrix of gravel mixed with
reddish silty soil and currently, it is under state of active slide. There is debris (talus) on the
road. The natural slope is cut to steeper (unstable) slopes during previous construction. The
cliff was left open faces with vegetation covers removed from top that could act as
reinforcements. The surface runoff can easily infiltrate, increase slope weight and reduce
shear strength.
Site photo 4:, active sliding section from Km 13.9 to Km 14.1,and debris on the road

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
In order to stabilize the slope and prevent further progress of the slide upwards, the proposed
solutions include
• Avoid further cut of the slope in new design, if not possible, adopt slope of 2:3(H to
V)
• Intercept surface water coming from the upper surface and drain away from the reach
of the slide prone mass by furrow ditch
• Provide cross-drainage structure(pipe) at the stream coming from top of the cliff and
concrete paved water way at the inlet and outlet of the pipe
• If possible avoid high fill/ Embankment that could result in expensive fill due to cliff
on LHS
• Furnish paved water way to prevent infiltration of surface runoff to road Embankment
and slope material
• Plant the slope with shrubs or trees on open surface
• Provide short retaining masonry retaining wall(2m high) to keep the debris away from
the road
From Km 14.1 to Km 14.4, site photo 5; the slope material is highly jointed and
decomposed basaltic rock. There is small scale sliding of top soil.
Site photo 5: From Km 14.1 to Km 14.4, steep cut face of weathered and decomposed rock
with sliding top soil

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
It requires construction of the slope to natural slope to stabilize the top overburden material.
Section from Km 22.15(Easting of 3168 21 and northing of 649637) to Km23 (Easting of

316622 and northing of 649708, LHS, site photo 6 (22.1 to 22.4)
The slope material is highly fractured, jointed and decomposed rock with matrix of soil and
rock fragments on top that requires slight triggering for sliding.
Site photo 6: Km 22.8 to 23, steep cut face prone to sliding
• The Avoid further cut of the slope, by widening the road to the right on new design, if
not Adopt slope of 3:2(H to V)
• It requires adjusting of cut slope to natural slopes,
• Keep the slope surrfce coverved with vegetation/trees

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Section from Km23.1 (Easting of 3168 21 and northing of 649637 to Km23.5 (Easting of 316447
and northing of 649988 (Wp 196 to WP 197), LHS, site photo 7
The slope material is highly fractured and jointed basaltic rock. The rock falls on the rock.
During rainy period, the infiltration of moisture through joints and fractures is expected the
accelerate rate of rock fall.
Site photo7: Rock fall from Km 23.1 to Km 23.5
In order to mitigate the problem and avoid further sliding, the following remedial solutions
are proposed
• Avoid further disturbance of the slope by widening only to the right; If not possible
to avoid cuts provide rock containment area with short berms If cutting of the slope is
unavoidable, adopt slope of 1: 3( H: V)
• It requires adjusting of top of slope to natural slopes
• Keep the slope covered with vegetation
Section from Km 23.9 (Easting of 315852 and northing of 650194) to Km 24.4 (Easting
of 315769 and Northing of 610655, LHS, site photo 8 (23.9 to 24.7)
This section is another critically sliding section of the project route. The slope material is
weathered, jointed and decomposed basaltic rock. Slide of top weathered and decomposed

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
soil matrix with rock fragments is observed at Km 24.9. Active slide of rock fall was observed
at Km 25.4. The road alignment goes at the toe of moving mass. It is obvious that the slide is
brought about by construction interferences. Unless otherwise, re-routing is made, it is
difficult to avoid rock falls in deeps cuts of such weathered and jointed rock cliffs.
(a) (b)
Site photo 8: : (a) Km 24.9 Section with mass slide (b) Km 25.4, section with rock fall LHS
The proposed remedial solution includes

• Avoid further disturbace of the slope by widening only to the right; If not possible to
avoid cuts provide short rock containment masonry retaining wall with berms of 2m
clear width behind the retaining wall
• It requires adjusting of top of slope to natural slopes
• Keep the slope covered with vegetation for erosion protection
• Provide paved ditch
Another section prone to sliding was observed from Km28.6 (Easting of 314035 and Northing
of 652958) to Km 29 (Easting of 313847 and northing of 653171), LHS, site photo 9
The slope material is highly weathered and decomposed rock and requires precaution to avoid
possible slide during construction.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Site photo 9: Section prone to sliding; Km 28.6 to Km 29
Other areas susceptible to sliding include

Km 35.8( 34.85) (Eating of 310782, Northing of 655908), RHS
Km 37( 36.12)( Easting of 310232 and northing of 656718), to Km 36.3( easting of 310018
and northing of 656872), RHS
Approach to Musso River, Km 52+300, there is also active slide on RHS. It is rotational type
of slope failure due construction disturbance for bridge approach.
For the remain sliding section we propose
Material description Slope
Fractured, jointed and decomposed 1:3 (H:V)

Rock
Soil overburden section rock section 2:3 (H:V)
Soil 3:2(H:V)

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
5.5. PAVEMENT DESIGN
5.5.1. General
The pavement is one of the high cost items in any road construction project, whether new
construction or upgrading or rehabilitation. Therefore, careful approach needs to be
considered, for the following factors, in order to achieve the aim of a well designed pavement:
− Riding comfort acceptable to road users;

− Economy (implementation / construction and life time / maintenance);
− Limited surface deflection
Various pavement design methods have been developed in different parts of the world. Each
method has been developed based on local experience and conditions with respect to climate,
availability of materials, sub-grade conditions, traffic type, volume and composition,
economic trends and traffic growth trends, pavement performance records, etc.
It is suggested in the feasibility report that the road should be designed and constructed in
Paved DS5 standard i.e, paved road with double surface dressing. Moreover, as mentioned in
sub section 2.3.2.6, the pavement design for the project has been undertaken based on ERA
Pavement Design Manual Volume 1, Flexible Pavements and Gravel Roads.
5.5.2. Determination of Design Traffic
The base year traffic at time of road opening, 2013 forecasted for design period of 20 years
with growth rates for each traffic category and forecast of GDP for medium growth scenario
is shown in table 5.16 below.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 5.16(a): Projected two way traffic for design period of 20 years
Link : A/Minch-Kemba
Year Car L'rover S/bus L/bus S/truck M/truck H/truck Truck/trl Total
2013 0 52 31 24 59 9 10 2 188
2014 0 58 34 26 66 10 11 2 207
2015 0 64 38 29 72 11 12 2 228
2016 0 70 42 32 80 12 13 2 252
2017 0 77 46 35 88 14 14 3 277
2018 0 85 51 39 97 15 16 3 306
2019 0 94 56 43 106 16 17 3 337
2020 1 104 62 47 117 18 19 4 371
2021 1 113 67 52 127 20 21 4 404
2022 1 123 73 56 137 21 22 4 439
2023 1 134 80 61 149 23 24 5 477
2024 1 146 87 67 161 25 26 5 518
2025 1 159 95 73 174 27 28 5 563
2026 1 174 103 79 189 29 31 6 612
2027 1 189 113 86 204 32 33 6 665
2028 1 206 123 94 221 34 36 7 723
2029 1 225 134 103 239 37 39 8 786
2030 1 245 146 112 259 40 42 8 854
2031 1 266 158 121 279 43 46 9 923
2032 2 288 172 132 301 47 49 9 998
Table 5.16(b) Traffic growth rates

Car L'rover S/bus L/bus S/truck M/truck H/truck Truck/trl
2013-2020
Year (%) 10.20 10.20 10.20 10.20 10.20 10.20 10.20 10.20
2021-2030
Year (%) 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25
2031-2035
Year (%) 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.40 7.70 7.70 7.70 7.70

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Estimation of Cumulative Standard Axle Loading (ESA)

Truck Factor
Design traffic is one of the inputs required while designing the pavement structures. For this
particular project there are no permanent vehicle weigh stations in the project surrounding and
conducting the axle load survey may result in unreliable outputs. This is because presently the
economic activities of the area is limited due to extreme deterioration of the road for existing
road condition as a result existing traffic does not reflect the actual traffic trend over the area.
Therefore, default value from axle load study in Ethiopia is taken for pavement design
purpose as shown in table 5.17.
Table 5.17 Truck Factor
Type of Vehicle Truck Factor

Car 0.001
Land Rover 0.01
Small Bus 0.07
Large Bus 0.77
Small Truck 0.12
Medium Truck 0.96
Heavy Truck 4.5
Truck Trailer 8.5
Design Lane
For the design of paved road, one-directional traffic volume at the opening year is calculated
from two way traffic forecasted and tabulated in Table 5.20 (a).
The traffic volume on the design lane is assumed to be 55% of the total traffic served by the
road. This is to account one directional traffic volume may be a possibility of greater than the
other direction. Hence, the one directional traffic flow at opening year of 2013 is taken 55%
of the two ways traffic, shown in table 4.4 (a) of the same year for pavement design purpose.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Accordingly one directional Traffic flow at opening year of 2013 for Link: A/Minch-Kemba
in Table 5.18.
Table 5.18: One directional Traffic flow at opening year of 2013
Link: A/Minch-Kemba
Year Car L'rover S/bus L/bus S/truck M/truck H/truck Truck/trl Total
2013 0 29 17 13 33 5 5 1 103
Average Growth Rate

Traffic growth rates for each car types are estimated by calculating weighted average as
shown in table 5.19 below.
Table 5.19 Weighted Average Growth rate

Year Car L'rover S/bus L/bus S/truck M/truck H/truck Truck/trl
2013-2020 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2
2021-2030 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3
2031-2035 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7
Weighted
Average 9.42% 9.42% 9.42% 9.42% 8.98% 8.98% 8.98% 8.98%
Equivalent Standard Axle (ESA)

Calculating the vehicles equivalence factor and the baseline traffic volume for the design lane
the equivalent standard axle load of the project road was computed using the following
formula and the results are reported in the subsequent table,
ESA = AADT*365*TF [(1+i) N – 1]

i
Where, ESA = Equivalent Standard Axle,
TF = Truck Factor (Table 4.5)
AADT = Average Daily Traffic of baseline traffic (Table 4.6)
i = Average growth rate (%) (Table 4.7)
N = Design period in years (20)

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Accordingly the cumulative ESA determined for design period of 20 years is summarized for
both Link1: A/Minch-Kemba and Link2: Kemba-Sawla in Tables 5.20.
Table 5.20 Cumulative ESA for Link: A/Minch-Kemba

Vehicle Design
Type Car L'rover S/bus L/bus S/truck M/truck H/truck Truck/trl traffic (ESA)
AADT 0 29 17 13 33 5 5 1
TF 0.001 0.01 0.07 0.77 0.12 0.96 4.5 8.5
ESA 0 5,677 23,297 195,966 73,740 89,381 418,976 158,280 965,317
From cumulative ESA determined for design period of 20 years and ERA Pavement design
manual Volume 1, traffic categories are determined and summarized in Table 5.21 for Link:
A/Minch-Kemba
Table 5.21 Traffic category for the road project

Cumulative ESA
Section Station ( in millions) Traffic category
Link: A/Minch - Kemba 0+000 to 60+000 1.0 T3
5.5.3. Sub-grade Design
The strength of the road sub-grade for flexible pavements is commonly assessed in terms of
the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and this is dependent on the type of soil, its density, and
its moisture content.
The structural catalog given in ERA manual requires that the subgrade strength for design be
assigned to one of six strength classes reflecting the sensitivity of thickness design to sub-
grade strength. The classes are defined in the following table. For sub-grades with CBRs less
than 2, special treatment is required.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 5.22 Sub-grade Strength Classes
Sub-grade Strength Classes
Classes Range (CBR %)
S1 2
S2 3–4
S3 5–7
S4 8 – 14
S5 15 – 29
S6 30+
For design purposes, the road is divided in to homogenous sections. The alignment soils have
been subdivided into different sub-groups, largely based on their CBR and AASHTO soil
classification, and their general behavior, composition, range of laboratory test results, extent
of occurrence, etc. The design CBR is the 90%-ile value of the CBR’s of the homogenous
sections i.e the CBR value which is 10% of the test results fall below.
The homogenous sections together with the design CBR values and the recommended sub-
grade classes are presented as follows; Note that the detail soil test results are attached in the
soil and materials report.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Table 5.23 Design CBR and Sub-grade Classes of the project road, Km0+000 – 60+000
Station Design
Sub-grade
CBR Remark
Start End Class
(90-ile)
0+000.000 7+600.000 3 S2 -
7+600.000 14+300.000 8 S4 -
14+300.000 25+050.000 3 S2 -
25+050.000 34+500.000 4 S2 -
34+500.000 60+000.000 8 S4 -
5.5.4. Design of Pavement Thickness
The required pavement layers for Traffic Class of T3 from Table 4.9 and sub-grade classes of
S2 and S4 from Table 4.9 with double surface treatment, crushed base course and natural sub-
base material from ERA pavement Design Manual, Volume I, Chart 1, are summarized in
table 5.24.
Table 5.24 Design Pavement Layers for Lot 1 of the project, Km0+000 – 60+000
Station Design Proposed Pavement structure
CBR Surfacing Base Sub Capping
Types of Traffic /90-ile Soil base Layer
Start End surface class / Class
0+000.000 7+600.000 DBST T3 3 S2 SD 200 150 250
7+600.000 14+300.000 DBST T3 8 S4 SD 200 150 --
14+300.000 25+050.000 DBST T3 3 S2 SD 200 150 250
25+050.000 34+500.000 DBST T3 4 S2 SD 200 150 250
34+500.000 60+000.000 DBST T3 8 S4 SD 200 150 --
Where: DBST: Double Surface Dressing

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Typical Pavement structures of the road project are presented as follows;

T3 Vs S2 T3 Vs S4
DBST DBST
200 mm 200 mm
150 mm 150 mm
250 mm ‐
0+000 ‐ 7+600, 7+600 ‐ 14+300
14+300 ‐ 25+050 34+500 ‐ 60+000
25+050 ‐ 34+500
Double Surface Dressing Double Surface Dressing

200 mm Granular Road base 200 mm Granular Road base
150 mm Granular Sub base 150 mm Granular Sub base
250mm Granular Capping Layer

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
6. HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS
6.1. Introduction
The main purpose of the hydrological/Hydraulics study for this project is the computation and
evaluation of peak discharges of all the watercourses embraced in the Contract in which the
main objective is to determine opening sizes of drainage structures. Accordingly, the
Consultant has undertaken DETAILED HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND
STRUCTURAL DESIGN FOR ALL THE DRAINAGE STRUCTURES WHICH CAN BE
FOUND ATTACHED WITH THIS REPORT AS ANNEX 4 IN EXCEL SPREADSHEETS.
The Hydrologic/ Hydraulic computation is done mainly based on Ethiopian Roads Authority
(ERA) Drainage Design Manual (2002) and other internationally accepted Standards.
THE HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN IS DONE USING

ACCEPTED MODELS SPECIFICALLY THE SCS MODEL ETC. MODELLING
SOFTWARES LIKE HEC-HMS AND HEC-RAS ARE USED IN CONJUNCTIONS WITH
GIS SOFTWARES LIKE ARCGIS, ARCVIEW, GLOBAL MAPPER ETC. THE
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGNS IS CONDUCTED USING WSPRO
HYDRAULIC MODEL OF THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF AMERICA
(FHWA) AS PER THE RECOMMENDATION OF ERA (ETHIOPIAN ROADS
AUTHORITY) WHICH IS THE STATE –OF – THE – ART METHOD OF HYDRAULIC
DESIGN.
THE PROCEDURES THAT ARE FOLLOWED IN THE HYDROLOGICAL/HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF THE
DRAINAGE STRUCTURES INCLUDE:
• Determining the general pattern and identification and description of catchments;

• Analysis of rainfall data to determine the design storm corresponding to the
specified return periods
• Catchment Area delineations and computations of Catchment parameters like
Catchment Area, Stream length, Soil Type, Land Use & CN Numbers etc
• Determining the design and review peak flood discharges,
• Evaluating the design and review peak flood discharges

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
• Determinations of Waterway dimensions (Opening Sizes) for all the drainage

structures.
• And for existing structures, Hydraulic Adequacy of the opening sizes of the of all
the Existing structures.
6.1.1. RETURN PERIODS
In this Project, the maximum Peak Flood for all crossing sites is computed using the Return Periods
recommended in ERA Drainage Manual 2002 selected carefully considering the Road Standards and
the Design Life Span of such envisaged structures which for this project are:
1. 50 Year Design and 100 Year Check (Review) Return Periods for the Major Drainage
Structures (Bridges)
2. 25 Year Design and 50 Year Check (Review) Return Periods for the Slab and Box
Culverts whose span is between 2 – 6 meters.
3. 10 Year Design and 25 Year Check (Review) Return Periods for the Pipe Culverts whose
span is less than 2m.
6.2. RAINFALL ANALYSIS and IDF curves generation
The Consultant tried to develop tailor made IDF Curves and 24-Hour Depth-Frequency
curves for the Project area from rainfall data gathered in the project area to make comparison
with the Regionalized ERA IDF Curves. However, the available Rainfall Data in the Project
area for which we collected from the Ethiopian Meteorological Agency was of extremely
short duration.
Obviously, it would give a very wrong and inaccurate results if we attempted to carryout
Rainfall Analysis and generate our tailor made IDF Curves from such an EXTREMELY short
duration data. Therefore, for our FINAL Hydrologic Design purposes, the ERA Regionalized
drainage Map of Ethiopia is used to derive the various Rainfall Intensities that were utilized in
the Rational Method and the SCS Model. The theory behind these Models is given in the
following section.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
6.3. DELINEATION OF CATCHMENTS
For this project, the Catchment delineations are performed in ArcView GIS V.3.3 with GIS
Hydrology Extensions using the Digital Elevation Model generated by the Global Mapper V.8
GIS Software from the SRTM 30mx30m GRID digital topographic map which gives accurate
catchment delineations and which are checked and corroborated with Geo-referenced
Topographic Maps of 1:50000 Scale. The delineated Catchment area of each structure can
be found under annex 4.
6.3.1. COMPUTATIONS OF CATCHMENT PARAMETERS
After the Catchment areas are delineated, catchment properties like stream length and area are
digitized & determined from the stream network generated by ArcView while the particular Land Use
Coverage, Soil Types and CN Numbers are computed using ArcView Spatial Analyst v.2.0a from the
Digital Land Use and Soil Type Digital GIS Maps of Ethiopia.
6.3.2. PEAK DISCHARGE COMPUTATIONS
For the Return periods determined, the Peak Design and Review Flood Discharges are computed by
the Rational Method for Pipe Culverts whose catchment area is less than 0.5Km2 and by the SCS
Model for catchment areas greater than 0.5Km2 and less than 300Km2 whose times of concentrations
are less than 10 hours by using the IDF & the 24 Hour Rainfall Depths for the chosen Return Periods
and the catchment parameters computed as described above.
6.3.3. OPENING SIZE DETERMINATIONS
After the Peak Design and Review Discharges are computed, the required opening sizes are computed
by the Manning’s Formula using the peak design and Review discharges computed above for the Pipe,
Slab and Box Culverts and for the Bridges by the WSPRO (Water Surface Profile) Model of the
American Highway Authority as recommended in ERA Drainage Manual 2002 using the
SURVEYED River Cross-sections and Stream Channel parameters like the stream slope.
6.4. HYDRAULIC ADEQUACY OF EXISTING STRUCTURES
There are a number of existing bridges, slab and Pipe Culverts in the Road Project. The Condition
survey of the ALL THE DRAINAGE STRUCTURED was accomplished previously during the period
immediately following the Inception Site Visit and using the data acquired by the Condition survey,

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
the Hydraulic Adequacy of the existing drainage structures is determined though other factors
specially Structural Adequacy highly influences the decision whether to retain the structures or not.
Details of the Condition Survey and the Hydraulic Adequacy Calculations are given below in the
Tables as annexes together with the Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis Spreadsheets.
After the FINAL HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS is executed, the Hydraulic adequacy of all the
drainage structures was accomplished. Accordingly, there are a number of Drainage structures that
will be retained and a number of structures that need to be demolished or abandoned. It happened that
some box and slab culverts are to be DEMOLISHED AND UPGRADED TO BRIDGES while some
Pipe Culverts need to be demolished and upgraded to Slab Culverts. The paramount important details
are given below one by one.
From the number of existing bridges in the Project, some bridges are to be retained as they are found
hydrologically and structurally adequate while others need to be demolished. In addition to the
existing bridges, NEW BRIDGES are also proposed as their Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis indicates
that the existing Box and slab culverts at these new locations be demolished and replaced by bridges.
Some other bridges have to be abandoned because the route has been changed. The full analysis report
can be found attached with this report as Excel Spreadsheets under annex 4.
6.4.1. HYDRAULICALLY INADEQUATE BRIDGES
There are in TOTAL SEVEN EXISTING BRIDGES in the Project alignment out of which
THREE BRIDGES are INADEQUATE HYDRAULICALLY AND NEED TO BE
DEMOLISHED WHILE ONE BRIDGE, the Godoro River Bridge has to be abandoned
because of alignment change. These previous THREE bridges are STRUCTURALLY in good
condition but they are not adequate HYDRAULICALLY. Please refer to the CONDITION
SURVEY OF THE BRIDGES. These bridges may be serviceable for many years but when
the Design 50 Year Return Period and the Review (Check) 100 Year Return Period Peak
Discharges happen, these bridges will be OVERTOPPED which may lead to their Structural
failure. The Consultant’s recommendation is to demolish them and replace them with bigger
and higher bridges. The case of each bridge under Lot 1, Km0+000 – Km60+000 is discussed
below.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
BOKA RIVER BRIDGE AT ST. 40+850

The Boka River at the crossing point has a catchment area of 5.45Km2 and has Design and
Review Peak Discharges of 92.10m3/sand 111.60m3/s respectively. The High-water Mark
from the Hydrological/Hydraulic Analysis shows it should be at a height of 2.93m from the
river bed. Assuming a 1.50m free-board, the Clear Height needed will be 4.43m. From the
Condition Survey, the 8.65m Span Bridge has a clear height of 3.50m from the river bed.
From the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis carried out, the existing bridge is NOT
HYDRAULICALLY SUFFICIENT to accommodate the Design and Review Peak
Discharges. The Structural condition of the Bridge is under a separate volume under
Hydrology, Hydraulics and structural report.
BOKA RIVER BRIDGE
KENCHAME RIVER BRIDGE AT ST. 59+413

The Kenchame River at the crossing point has a catchment area of 101.6Km2 and has Design
and Review Peak Discharges of 654.19m3/sand 775.44m3/s respectively. The Highwater Mark
from the Hydrological/Hydraulic Analysis shows it shall be at a height of 2.29m from the
river bed. Assuming a 1.50m free-board, the Clear Height needed will be 3.79m. However

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
from the Condition Survey, the Bridge has a clear height of only maximum 3.4m from the
bed. Hence, the existing bridge is NOT HYDRAULICALLY SUFFICIENT to accommodate
the Design and Review Peak Discharges. Structurally however, the Bridge is in good
condition.
KENCHAME RIVER BRIDGE
6.4.2. HYDRAULICALLY ADEQUATE BRIDGES
A number of the existing bridges on the project alignment have been found adequate
hydrologically/hydraulically and structurally and they need to be retained. The Case of each
bridge under Lot 1 is discussed one by one below.
ZUGRO RIVER BRIDGE AT ST. 21+470

The Zugro River at the crossing point has a catchment area of 44.54Km2 and has Design and
from the Hydrological/Hydraulic Analysis shows it shall be at a height of 2.17m from the
river bed. Assuming a 1.50m free-board, the Clear Height needed will be 3.67m. From the

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Condition Survey, the 20m Span Bridge has a clear height of 5.4m from the river bed. From
the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis carried out, the existing bridge is
Discharges.
ZUGRO RIVER BRIDGE
GODORO RIVER BRIDGE AT ST. 38+377

The Godoro River at the crossing point has a catchment area of 32.82Km2 and has Design
and Review Peak Discharges of 224.88m3/sand 270.25m3/s respectively. The High-water
Mark from the Hydrological/Hydraulic Analysis shows it be at a height 3.53m from the river
bed. Assuming a 1.50m free-board, the Clear Height needed will be 5.03m. From the
Condition Survey, the 12m Span Bridge has a clear height of 7.0m from the river bed. From
Discharges. However, this bridge has to be abandoned because the Route Alignment has to be
changed because Geometric Design constraints.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
GODORO RIVER BRIDGE
KARA RIVER BRIDGE AT ST. 43+050

The Kara River at the crossing point has a catchment area of 1.27Km2 and has Design and
Review Peak Discharges of 36.67m3/sand 43.30m3/s respectively. The High-water Mark from
the Hydrological/Hydraulic Analysis shows it be at a height 3.20m from the river bed.
Assuming a 1.50m free-board, the Clear Height needed will be 4.70m. From the Condition
Survey, the 20m Span Bridge has a clear height of 5.30m from the river bed. From the
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis carried out, the existing bridge is HYDRAULICALLY
SUFFICIENT to accommodate the Design and Review Peak Discharges.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
KARA RIVER BRIDGE
TELO RIVER BRIDGE AT ST. 51+530

The TELO River at the crossing point has a catchment area of 32.82Km2 and has Design and
from the Hydrological/Hydraulic Analysis shows it be at a height 1.49m from the river bed.
Assuming a 1.50m free-board, the Clear Height needed will be 2.99m. From the Condition
Survey, the 19.60m Span Bridge has a clear height of 3.05m from the river bed. From the
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis carried out, the existing bridge is HYDRAULICALLY
SUFFICIENT to accommodate the Design and Review Peak Discharges.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
TELO RIVER BRIDGE

Detailed Feasibility Study, EIA Study, RAP Preparation, Detailed Engineering Design and
Tender Document Preparation for Arbaminch – Kemba – Sawla Road Project
Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
7. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS & DESIGN
7.1. Introduction
The Structural Analysis and Design Part is carried out after the Final Required Opening Sizes
of ALL the Drainage Structures was determined from the Hydrological/Hydraulic Analysis
and Design. The tasks carried out in the FINAL Structural Analysis and Design are: -
1. Finalizing the Detailed Inventory and Condition Survey Report of ALL the
Drainage Structures in the Project Road.
2. Checking the Structural Adequacy of the Structures especially the Major
Drainage Structures.
3. Collecting the Final Hydrological/Hydraulic Analysis and Design and Reviewing
and Checking the adequacy of the Existing Drainage Structures
4. Carrying out the FINAL STRUCTURAL Analysis and Design of the Drainage
Structures (determining and selecting the type, size of the superstructure and
substructures for new structures and determining and selecting replacement
structures for those existing structures deemed to be INADEQUATE.
7.2. INVENTORY AND CONDITION SURVEY OF STRUCTURES
Detail inventory and condition survey of the existing structures in the project and their
type, geometric & physical conditions is studied and recorded. The detailed inventory
includes Existing structural condition of the structure, span, width, scour condition,
siltation condition, for all the elements of super structure and/or substructure.
The condition of various furniture of the minor and major drainage structures (guard
rails, parapet walls, curb inlets, weep holes, wing walls, end walls etc.) and their
capacity is recorded. The Condition Survey Report as excel spreadsheets has been
attached in the Hydrology, Hydraulics and Structural report
Existing structures are thoroughly inspected and a report is prepared about their
condition including all the relevant parameters. The condition & structural assessment

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
survey of the structures is also carried out. During the condition survey of the Major
& Minor drainage structures, the consultant has inspected the following and recorded
in the format prepared by the consultant.
Foundation Problems
Deterioration of Foundation
- The concrete elements of the foundation and others will be inspected
to check for cracking and spalling off and/or reinforcement corrosion
where possible.
- The masonry will be examined for loss of mortar, fractured missing
stones.
- Scouring of River Beds and Banks

- Degrading scour
- General scour due to restriction of the water way by the drainage
structure.
- Structural faults due to settlement of the foundations
- Differential Settlements
Sub-Structure Problems
- Defects and deterioration in reinforced concrete. This includes
cracking, deterioration of reinforced concrete and corrosion of
reinforcement.
- Defects in masonry. This includes cracking loss of mortar,
loss/missing stones, weathering, spalling or splinting and growth of
vegetation.
- Drainage and water linkage
- Movement of the structures
Super-Structures
- Cracking of concrete
- Concrete peel off. This includes scaling of concrete element, spalling
of concrete element and accidental damages.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
- Corrosion of reinforcements
- Porous concrete
- Leakage of water
7.3. STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY OF existing structures
There are a number of existing bridges, slab and Pipe Culverts in the Road Project.
The Condition survey of the bridges was accomplished and using the data acquired by
the Condition survey, the Hydraulic Adequacy of the existing bridges is determined
though other factors specially Structural Adequacy highly influences the decision
whether to retain the structures or not. Details of the Condition Survey and the
Hydraulic Adequacy Calculations are detailed in the hydrology, Hydraulics and
Structural Report.
For the Final Detail Engineering Design, the Structural Adequacy of the existing
structures is checked and below is presented the structural adequacy Assessment of
the Major Drainage Structures (The Hydraulic Adequacy Assessment is presented in
Chapter 6 Above).
FOR THE DRAINAGE STRUCTURES WHICH ARE DEEMED ADEQUATE TO PASS THE PEAK
DESIGN & REVIEW DISCHARGES, THEIR STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY ASSESSMENT IS
EXECUTED.
For the drainage structures which the investigations dictated them to be replaced or
rehabilitated due to their structural & hydraulic capacity INADEQUACY, the
consultant has PREPARED THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF
THE NEW structures so that they are capable of bearing the design standard loads &
adequate TO SAFELY PASS the calculated PEAK Design and Review discharges.
These are detailed in the hydrology, Hydraulics and Structural Report.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
7.3.1. STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY OF HYDRAULICALLY

INADEQUATE BRIDGES
There are a number of existing bridges in the Project some of which will be retained
while others need to be demolished. In addition to the existing bridges, NEW
BRIDGES are also proposed as their Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis indicates that the
existing slab bridges and culverts at these new locations be demolished and replaced
by bridges. The full analysis report of ALL THE BRIDGES can be found in the
hydrology, Hydraulics and Structural Report.
.
There are in TOTAL SEVEN EXISTING BRIDGES in the Project alignment out of
which THREE BRIDGES are INADEQUATE HYDRAULICALLY AND NEED TO
BE DEMOLISHED WHILE ONE BRIDGE, the Godoro River Bridge has to be
abandoned because of alignment change. These previous THREE bridges are
STRUCTURALLY in good condition but they are not adequate HYDRAULICALLY.
These bridges may be serviceable for many years but when the Design 50 Year
Return Period and the Review (Check) 100 Year Return Period Peak Discharges
happen, these bridges will be OVERTOPPED which may lead to their Structural
failure. The Consultant’s recommendation is to demolish them and replace them with
bigger and higher bridges. The case of each bridge under Lot 1 of the project is
discussed below.
BOKA RIVER BRIDGE AT ST. 40+850

The Boka River at the crossing point has a catchment area of 5.45Km2 and has
Design and Review Peak Discharges of 114.53m3/sand 135.63m3/s respectively. From
the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis carried out, the existing bridge is NOT
Discharges. The Structural condition of the Bridge HOWEVER is fairly good.
I. SUPERSTRUCTURE CONDITION

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
From the data collected and the Condition Survey, it is found out that the
Superstructure is in very good conditions. The Concrete Slab Bridge is in good
conditions (observed from its bottom) though the top surface has vegetation growing
on it and a bit silted but there are NO cracks or defects that are excessive to bring
detrimental damage to the structural adequacy of the Bridge except that Posts and
railings are missing.
II. SUBSTRUCTURE CONDITION

The substructure elements of the Bridge (the Abutments and Wing walls) are in fairly
good conditions. It just needs a little maintenance works. Therefore, structurally the
substructure is in relatively safe condition.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
III. FOUNDATION CONDITION

The foundation of the existing bridge is in good condition. With its rock foundation,
there is no adverse scouring and siltation problem observed.
KENCHAME RIVER BRIDGE AT ST. 59+413

The Kenchame River at the crossing point has a catchment area of 101.6Km2 and has
Design and Review Peak Discharges of 654.19m3/sand 775.44m3/s respectively. The
existing bridge is NOT HYDRAULICALLY SUFFICIENT to accommodate the
Design and Review Peak Discharges. Structurally however, the Bridge is in good
condition.
Superstructure is in very good conditions. The Concrete Deck Slab and the Girders
are all in good conditions and there are NO cracks or defects that are excessive to
bring detrimental damage to the structural adequacy of the Bridge. After so many
years of Construction, it is still in good condition. Structurally therefore, the
Superstructure is in very good condition except that it does not have posts and
railings.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000

The substructure elements of the Bridge (the Abutments and Wing-walls) are in good
conditions and during the Condition survey and the subsequent site visits, the
Substructure is found to be in good conditions except that there is some damage to the
pointing of the masonry of the abutment and wing-walls. Otherwise, the substructure
is found in safe condition.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000

The foundation of the existing bridge is in good condition. There is no adverse
scouring and siltation problem observed.
7.3.2. STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY OF HYDRAULICALLY

ADEQUATE BRIDGES
A number of the existing bridges on the project alignment have been found adequate
hydrologically/hydraulically and structurally and they need to be retained. The Case
of each bridge under Lot 1 is discussed one by one below.
ZUGRO RIVER BRIDGE AT ST. 21+470

The Zugro River at the crossing point has a catchment area of 44.54Km2 and has

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000

Discharges. The Structural condition of the Bridge is also good.
(observed from bottom) are all in good conditions except that the bridge shows signs
of aging and vegetation growth on the top of the deck but there are NO cracks or
defects that are excessive to bring detrimental damage to the structural adequacy of
the Bridge. However, Posts and railings are missing. Apart from that, structurally
however, the Superstructure (Deck and girder) is in fairly good condition.

The substructure elements of the Bridge (the Abutments and Wing-walls) are in fairly
good conditions except signs of aging and minor scouring of the pointings of the

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
wing-walls on Arbaminch side. With proper maintenance applied, this bridge can be
salvaged rather than replace it and expend on a brand new bridge.
ZUGRO RIVER BRIDGE

The foundation of the existing bridge is in fairly good condition except that a little
maintenance is needed to reinforce the rocky foundation that shows signs of being
scoured on the Kemba Side.
GODORO RIVER BRIDGE AT ST. 38+377

The Godoro River at the crossing point has a catchment area of 32.82Km2 and has
Discharges. However, this bridge has to be abandoned because the Route Alignment
has to be changed because Geometric Design constraints.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Superstructure is in relatively good conditions. The Concrete slab bridge is in good
conditions except that the bridge shows minor signs of aging and silting up on the top
of the deck but there are NO cracks or defects that are excessive to bring detrimental
damage to the structural adequacy of the Bridge. However, Posts and railings are
missing. Apart from that, structurally however, the Superstructure is in fairly good
condition.

The substructure cannot be said in good conditions. There is serious scouring at both
abutment positions due to lack of proper anchorage in to the rock bed. It requires
protection works by constructing concrete cut off walls and dowel bars. It needs also
maintenance works on the Arbaminch Side Wing-walls as the fill in the Wing-walls is
eroded and washed away. However, the Wing-walls do not directly support the
superstructure loads, rather they are used to retain earth. The abutment is okay and if
the Wing-walls and other minor defects are corrected, it can be salvaged. In any case,

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
this bridge is going to be abandoned because of alignment change. However, this

existing bridge can be used as a detour if salvaged.
GODORO RIVER BRIDGE

KARA RIVER BRIDGE AT ST. 43+050

The Kara River at the crossing point has a catchment area of 1.27Km2 and has

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000

Discharges. Structurally also, it is found to be very good. However, the existing
bridge is an over capacity design as a slab culvert or slab bridge is adequate to handle
the Design Discharges.
bring detrimental damage to the structural adequacy of the Bridge. After few years
since Construction, it is as good as a brand new bridge. The Posts and railings are also
in very good conditions. Structurally therefore, the Superstructure is in very good
condition.

The substructure elements of the Bridge (the Abutments and Wing-walls) are in very
good conditions and during the Condition survey and the subsequent site visits, the

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
Substructure is found to be in excellent conditions. Therefore, structurally the

substructure is in very good condition.

TELO RIVER BRIDGE AT ST. 51+530

The TELO River at the crossing point has a catchment area of 32.82Km2 and has
Discharges. The Structural condition of the Bridge is also very good.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
bring detrimental damage to the structural adequacy of the Bridge. Recently
constructed, it is as good as a brand new bridge. The Posts and railings are also in
very good conditions. Structurally therefore, the Superstructure is in very good
condition.

The substructure elements of the Bridge (the Abutments and Wing-walls) are in very
good conditions and during the Condition survey and the subsequent site visits, the
Substructure is found to be in excellent conditions. Therefore, structurally the
substructure is in very good condition.

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
TELO RIVER BRIDGE

7.4. STRUCTURAL DESIGN
FOR THE MAJOR DRAINAGE STRUCTURES WHICH THE INVESTIGATIONS AND THE
ANALYSIS DICTATED THEM TO BE REPLACED OR REHABILITATED DUE TO THEIR STRUCTURAL
& DISCHARGE CAPACITY INADEQUACY AND FOR NEW BRIDGES, THE CONSULTANT
HAS PREPARED THE FINAL STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF THE NEW
STRUCTURES SO THAT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF BEARING THE DESIGN STANDARD LOADS &
ADEQUATE TO SAFELY PASS FOR THE CALCULATED PEAK DESIGN AND REVIEW DISCHARGES.
Using the Design Opening Sizes of the Existing and New Structures, the Consultant
determined their span and opening heights from the Hydrological/Hydraulic Analysis

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
and the Cross-section geometry of the streams. Next, the optimum and feasible types
of substructure and superstructures are selected for each drainage structure and FOR
THE MAJOR AND MINOR DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, STRUCTURAL
DESIGN DRAWINGS ARE PREPARED.

Detailed Feasibility Study, EIA Study, RAP Preparation, Engineering Report
(Final) Detailed Engineering Design and Tender Document
Preparation for Arbaminch – Kemba – Sawla Road Project
Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
ANNEXURE

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
ANNEX I - PROJECT SETTING OUT DATA

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
ANNEX II - ALIGNMENT DATA

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
ANNEX II (a) – HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT DATA

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
ANNEX II (b) – VERTICAL ALIGNMENT DATA

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
ANNEX III – SUBGRADE EXTENSION &
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
ANNEX III (a) – SUBGRADE EXTENSION

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
ANNEX III (b) – LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
ANNEX IV – HYDROLOGY – HYDRAULICS AND

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
ANNEX IV-I – HYDROLOGIC – HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
ANNEX IV-II –STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Lot 1 : Km 0+000 – Km 60+000
ANNEX IV – COMPLIANCE TO COMMENTS

Engineering Report AKS Final

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

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

Engineering Report AKS Final

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA

ETHIOPIAN ROADS AUTHORITY

Detailed Feasibility Study, EIA Study, RAP Preparation, Detailed

LOT I: Arbaminch - Belta

Engineering Report (Final)

Tel. 251-11-6633080/81, Fax251-11-6627768, E-mail: mhdm@ethionet.et, P.O.Box 1553

ISO 9001:2000 Certified

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................1

MH Engineering PLC Ethiopian Roads Authority

2.2.7.9. PARKING LANES .................................................................................................................... 40

MH Engineering PLC Ethiopian Roads Authority

4.2.2. TRAFFIC SECTIONS ................................................................................................................ 92

MH Engineering PLC Ethiopian Roads Authority

6. HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS......................................................................172

MH Engineering PLC Ethiopian Roads Authority

ES1.2 Topographic Surveying Works

MH Engineering PLC Page 1 Ethiopian Roads Authority

ES1.3 Traffic Study and Projections

Current state of the Project road

Traffic Survey program

MH Engineering PLC Page 2 Ethiopian Roads Authority

Traffic Volume on Project Road

MH Engineering PLC Page 3 Ethiopian Roads Authority

Recommendation for design standard

ES1.4 Design Standard Review

ES1.5 Geometric Design

MH Engineering PLC Page 4 Ethiopian Roads Authority

Road reserve (right-of-way) - 50m in rural and town sections.

Carriage way width - 7.0m (2 lanes)

Minimum horizontal curve radius - 20m (on switchback curves)

Maximum gradient - 12% (absolute maximum)

Minimum gradient - 0.0% (on bridge limits and

Maximum Superelevation - 8% Rural Sections and 4% in town

Widening - 0.6 – 1.5m for curvature depending on

Normal Crown - 2.5% for carriage away and

ES1.6 Detailed Field Investigation Works

MH Engineering PLC Page 5 Ethiopian Roads Authority

ES1.7 Foundation Investigation for Major Bridge Crossings

MH Engineering PLC Page 6 Ethiopian Roads Authority

ES1.8 Geological and Geotechnical Hazards

ES1.9 Pavement Design

MH Engineering PLC Page 7 Ethiopian Roads Authority

ES1.10 Hydrology/Hydraulic Analysis

• Determining the general pattern and identification and description of

MH Engineering PLC Page 8 Ethiopian Roads Authority

ES1.11 Structural Analysis and Design

MH Engineering PLC Page 9 Ethiopian Roads Authority

It is needless to say that transport plays a crucial role in facilitating economic

MH Engineering PLC Page 10 Ethiopian Roads Authority

1.2. Objectives of the Consultancy Service

• To carryout preliminary design of the proposed alignment

• To carryout detailed topographic survey,

• To carryout detailed engineering design;

• Traffic and Axle load studies

• Socio-Economic evaluation and analysis

• Environmental Impact Assessment

• Preliminary design of the proposed road alignment

• Evaluation and analysis of financial feasibility of the project

• Recommendation on pavement type

• Detailed survey and investigation: road, materials, drainages/bridges

• Detailed Engineering Design

MH Engineering PLC Page 11 Ethiopian Roads Authority

• Tender document preparation

1.3. Objectives of the Engineering Report