Final Design Review Report (Sept 2023)

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF
ETHIOPIA
ETHIOPIAN ROADS ADMNISTRATION
FINAL DESIGN REVIEW REPORT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION WORKS
of
SODDO JUNCTION (DIMTU) - BILATE MILITARY TRANINIG CENTER

ROAD PROJECT
GONDWANA ENGINEERING PLC
In Sub-Consultancy with
YLS Engineering PLC
AUGUST 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ VI
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ X
ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS ............................................................................... XII
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... XVI
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Contract Data ................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Scope of Services and Objectives, Consultant Services ........................................... 3
1.4 Project Description ........................................................................................................ 3
1.5 Kick-Off Meeting ........................................................................................................... 6
2. TECHNICAL AND COST REVIEW .................................................................................. 7
2.1 Topographical Survey .................................................................................................. 7
2.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 7
2.1.2 Verification of GPS Control Points ...................................................................... 7
2.1.3 Findings of Surveying Control Points............................................................... 15
2.1.4 Detailed Topographic Survey (X- Section Survey) ......................................... 16
3. REVIEW OF GEOMETRIC DESIGN ............................................................................... 18
3.1 Horizontal Alignment................................................................................................. 18
3.2 Main Access Road ....................................................................................................... 19
3.2.1 Horizontal Alignment ......................................................................................... 19
3.2.2 Design Speed and Super Elevation ................................................................... 19

3.2.3 Vertical Alignment ............................................................................................... 19
3.3 Compound Roads........................................................................................................ 20
3.4 Airfield .......................................................................................................................... 21
3.4.1 Runway Section .................................................................................................... 21
3.4.4 Taxiway and Apron ............................................................................................. 24
3.4.5 Length of Taxiway ............................................................................................... 25
3.4.6 Runway Marking ................................................................................................. 25
3.4.7 Indicator and Signaling Device .......................................................................... 25
3.4.8 Typical Section...................................................................................................... 25
4. HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC DESIGN REVIEW ................................................ 28
4.1 Scope and Objectives .................................................................................................. 28
4.2 Document Reviewed and Data.................................................................................. 28
4.3 Purpose of The Report ................................................................................................ 28
4.4 Design Standards and Data Collection .................................................................... 29
4.4.1 Design Standards ................................................................................................. 29
4.4.2 Methods of Design Flood Computation ........................................................... 30
4.4.3 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 30
4.4.4 Hydrology ............................................................................................................. 31
4.4.5 Rainfall - Runoff Models ..................................................................................... 36
II
4.4.6 Hydraulics of Cross Drainages Structures ....................................................... 47
4.4.7 Design Review Site Findings .............................................................................. 50
4.4.8 Filed Investigation and Findings ....................................................................... 50
4.4.9 Channelization Work .......................................................................................... 54
4.4.10 Existing Canal Reconstruction ........................................................................... 55
4.5 Design Review Schedule ............................................................................................ 55
4.5.1 Revised Minor Cross Drainage .......................................................................... 55
4.6 Roadside Channels Design ........................................................................................ 61
4.6.1 General................................................................................................................... 61
4.6.2 Discharge Estimation ........................................................................................... 61
4.6.3 Hydraulic Capacity .............................................................................................. 62
4.7 Drainage structure at Airfield ................................................................................... 63
4.8 Conclusion and Recommendation ............................................................................ 71
5. PAVEMENT DESIGN AND MATERIALS INVESTIGATION REVIEW ................... 72
5.1 General .......................................................................................................................... 72
5.2 Evaluation of Existing Pavement Condition ........................................................... 72
5.2.1 Visual Subgrade Soil Extension Survey ............................................................ 74
5.2.2 Test Pit Excavation and Sampling ..................................................................... 76
5.2.3 Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................... 77
5.2.4 Identification of Problematic Unsuitable and/or Expansive Soils ............... 81
5.3 Subgrade Design CBR / Homogenous Section ...................................................... 85
5.4 Traffic Count Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 94
5.4.1 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) ............................................................ 94
III
5.4.2 Design Standard and Design Period ............................................................... 101
5.5 Shoulder Design ........................................................................................................ 105
5.6 Airfield Runway Pavement Design ........................................................................ 106
5.6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 106
5.6.2 Soil Investigation ................................................................................................ 107
5.6.3 Traffic ................................................................................................................... 107
5.6.4 Pavement Design ............................................................................................... 108
5.6.5 Design of Shoulder ............................................................................................ 126
5.6.6 Stop Way ............................................................................................................. 128
5.6.7 Strip and Runway End Safety Area (RESA)................................................... 128
5.6.8 Clearway ............................................................................................................. 129
5.6.9 Special Recommendation .................................................................................. 129
5.6.10 Conclusion and Recommendation .................................................................. 132
5.7 Construction Materials Investigation ..................................................................... 133
5.7.1 General................................................................................................................. 133
5.7.2 Borrow for Ordinary Fill ................................................................................... 133
5.7.3 Subbase Material ................................................................................................ 134
5.7.4 Base Course Material and Rock for Crushing ................................................ 135
5.7.5 Masonry Stone and Concrete Aggregate ........................................................ 137
5.7.6 Natural River Sand ............................................................................................ 137
5.7.7 Construction Material Specification ................................................................ 138
6. ADDITIONAL DESIGN SERVICE ................................................................................. 146
6.1. Facilities at Highland Plateau .................................................................................. 146
IV
6.2. Facilities at Low Land Plateau................................................................................. 147
6.3. Volcanic Hot Spring Facilities ................................................................................. 147
7. REVIEW ON TECHNICAL AND PARTICULAR SPECIFICATIONS ..................... 148
7.1 Series 1000: General................................................................................................... 148
7.2 Series 2000: Site Clearance ....................................................................................... 148
7.3 Series 3000: Drainages .............................................................................................. 148
7.4 Series 4000: Earthworks ............................................................................................ 148
7.5 Series 5000: Subbase And Road Base .................................................................... 148
7.6 Series 6000: Bituminous Surfacing & Road Bases ................................................. 149
7.7 Series 8000: Structures .............................................................................................. 149
7.8 Series 9000: Ancillary Works ................................................................................... 149
8. NEWLY PROPOSED MASTERPLAN ........................................................................... 150
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 162
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 164
Appendex-1: Response for Comment ................................................................................... 165
Appendex-2: Kick-Off Meeting .............................................................................................. 166
Appendex-3: Traffic Count and Subgrade Characterization ............................................. 167
Appendex-4: Revised Bill of quantity ................................................................................... 168
Appendex-5: Revised Typical section Drawings................................................................. 169
Appendix 6: Geometric Design Data .................................................................................... 170
Appendix 7: Hydrology and Hydraulics.............................................................................. 171
V
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Contract Data, Consultant Services ......................................................................... 1
Table 1-2: Contract Data, Works ................................................................................................ 2
Table 1-3: Project Description ..................................................................................................... 3
Table 2-1: GPS Coordinate Lists ................................................................................................. 8
Table 2-2: Lists of Benchmarks. .................................................................................................. 9
Table 3-1: Geometric Design Parameters for DC5 Standard Road ..................................... 18
Table 3-2: Airfield Runway Length Using Temperature and Altitude .............................. 23
Table 3-3: Physical Characteristics of Bilate Airfield ............................................................ 25
Table 4-1: Design Frequency for Drainage Facilities Design ............................................... 30
Table 4-2: 24-Hours Rainfall Depth of Beddessa Metrological Station .............................. 35
Table 4-3: 24-hrs rainfall depth of Dimtu metrological station ........................................... 35
Table 4-4: Selected 24-Hrs Rainfall Depth of Beddessa, Dimtu & RR-B2 for Different
Return Period.............................................................................................................................. 36
Table 4-5: Recommended Runoff Coefficient C for Various Selected Land Uses of Urban Area . 37
Table 4-6: Roughness Coefficients (Manning’s n) for Sheet Flow....................................... 41
Table 4-7: Daily Highest Rainfall of Dimtu and Beddessa Rainfall Station in mm .......... 44
Table 4-8: Coefficients for SCS Peak Discharge Method ...................................................... 47
Table 4-9: Comparative Schedules with The Previous Design for Cross Drainage
Structures on The Main Road ................................................................................................... 56
Table 4-10: List of Irrigation Crossing ..................................................................................... 59
Table 4-11: Comparative Cross Drainage Structures Schedules of Compound Road ..... 60
VI
Table 4-12: Maximum Permissible Velocities in Erodible Ditches and Corresponding
Roughness Coefficients ............................................................................................................. 63
Table 4-13: Summary of Side Drain ......................................................................................... 64
Table 5-1: Existing Subgrade Soil Extension Survey Visual Description ........................... 75
Table 5-2: Existing Subgrade Material Investigation Laboratory Test Results ................. 78
Table 5-3: Sections Observed as Unsuitable at Main Access Road ..................................... 82
Table 5-4: Test Result Summery of Existing Subgrade Soil (Airfield Runway) ................ 82
Table 5-5: Compound Road Subgrade Test Result ............................................................... 90
Table 5-6: Design CBR and Subgrade classification Obtained by both Consultants ....... 93
Table 5-7: Unsuitable Sections (Compound Road) ............................................................... 93
Table 5-8: Estimation of ADTT at Dimtu - Soddo Junction (Both Direction) .................... 95
Table 5-9: Annual Growth Rate Estimates by Vehicle Group (Medium Scenario) .......... 96
Table 5-10: Normal Traffic Estimate (2025): Opening Year ................................................. 97
Table 5-11: Projected Traffic for the Proposed Dimtu – Bilate Road Project (Supervision
Consultant) .................................................................................................................................. 98
Table 5-12: Projected Traffic for the Proposed Dimtu – Bilate Road Project (Design
Consultant) .................................................................................................................................. 98
Table 5-13: Equivalent Factor Assumed for Medium Traffic Loading Scenario............... 99
Table 5-14: Equivalent Factor Assumed for Heavy Traffic Loading Scenario ................ 100
Table 5-15: Cumulative ESA per lane for the two Scenario under Different Loading,
Million........................................................................................................................................ 100
Table 5-16: Design Period ....................................................................................................... 103
Table 5-17: Chart B1 (Thin 50mm) Flexible AC Surfacing Granular Road Base for Main
Access Road (ERA Pavement Design Manual 2013)........................................................... 104
VII
Table 5-18: Chart B1 (Thin 50mm) Flexible AC Surfacing Granular Road Base for the
Compound Roads (ERA Pavement Design Manual 2013)................................................. 105
Table 5-19: Typical Pavement Specifications for Pavement Layers .................................. 113
Table 5-20: Allowable Modulus Values and Poisson’s Ratios Used in FAARFIELD .... 114
Table 5-21: Minimum Layer Thickness for Flexible Pavement Structures ...................... 115
Table 5-22: Bilate Airfield Runway Pavement Thickness Using FAARFIELD Software V
2.0................................................................................................................................................ 117
Table 5-23: Compaction requirement for Bilate Airfield pavement as given from the
FAARFIELD Software ............................................................................................................. 118
Table 5-24: Bilate Airfield Runway Pavement Thickness Using ICAO Chart. ............... 121
Table 5-25: Minimum Aggregate Base Course and Surface Layer Thickness. ................ 123
Table 5-26: Bilate Airfield Runway Pavement Thickness Using UFC Chart................... 124
Table 5-27: Pavement Layer Thickness as Per Design Software, Design Charts and DC
..................................................................................................................................................... 124
Table 5-28: Structural Number from Each Design Methods.............................................. 125
Table 5-29: Final Pavement Layer Thickness for Bilate Airfield Runway Project. ......... 126
Table 5-30: Minimum Shoulder Pavement Layer Thickness. ............................................ 127
Table 5-31: Bilate Airfield Shoulder Layer Thickness. ........................................................ 128
Table 5-32: Recommended Treatment of Swelling Soils .................................................... 130
Table 5-33: Unsuitable Sections for the Airfield .................................................................. 131
Table 5-34: To Date Borrow Material Investigations, Sampling and Testing .................. 134
Table 5-35: Summary of Subbase Material Tests Result ..................................................... 134
Table 5-36: Summary of Material Sampling and Testing for Base Course ...................... 136
Table 5-37: Identification of Masonry Stone Production Sites........................................... 137

VIII
Table 5-38: Summary of Bilate River Natural Sand ............................................................ 138
Table 5-39: Gradation Requirements of Subbase ................................................................. 140
Table 5-40: Gradation Requirements of Crushed Subbase ................................................ 140
Table 5-41: Gradation Requirement for Base Courses ........................................................ 142
Table 5-42: Gradation Requirement Crushed Aggregate for Wearing Course ............... 143
Table 5-43: Gradation Requirement of Filler ........................................................................ 143
Table 5-44: Design Requirement Of AC................................................................................ 143
Table 8-1: Comparison of the Scope of Original Compound Road Design with the New
Military Compound Masterplan ............................................................................................ 153
Table 8-2: To-date Status for Compound Roads.................................................................. 157
Table 8-3: Addition and Omission ......................................................................................... 158
Table 9-1: BOQ comparison between the Supervision and Design Consultant. ............ 163
IX
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Location Map of the Project .................................................................................... 5
Figure 2-1: GPS and Bench Marks ........................................................................................... 17
Figure 3-1: Sample Revision Drawing, Layout for the Revised Airfield Runway. .......... 27
Figure 4-1: Regional Rainfall Classification ........................................................................... 34
Figure 4-2: Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curve of Beddessa Meteorological Station ... 39
Figure 4-3: Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curve of Dimtu Meteorological Station ........ 39
Figure 4-4: Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curve of Rainfall Region -B2 .......................... 40
Figure 4-5: Existing Ford on The Proposed Road.................................................................. 51
Figure 4-6: Existing Ford at Station km 5+289 ....................................................................... 51
Figure 4-7: Missed Crossing at Station km 0+050 ................................................................. 52
Figure 4-8: Eroded Culvert Outlet (Left), Eroded Channel Parallel to The Road (Right) 53
Figure 4-9: Sedimentation and Accumulation of Debris ...................................................... 54
Figure 4-10: Recommendation of channelization works. ..................................................... 55
Figure 5-1: Condition of Existing Road................................................................................... 73
Figure 5-2: Test Pit Excavation and Sampling of The Supervision Consultant ................ 77
Figure 5-3: Existing Subgrade Soil CBR With Station Graph .............................................. 81
Figure 5-4: Cumulative SUM of Lab. Soaked CBR vs. Station ............................................ 87
Figure 5-5: CBR verses Number of Samples for (0+000 – 4+000) Graph ........................... 89
Figure 5-6: CBR verses Number of Samples For (4+500–9+000) Graph ............................ 89
Figure 5-7: CBR verses Number of Samples For (9+ 500–20+000) Graph ......................... 89
Figure 5-8: CBR verses number of samples for (20+ 000–24+500) graph........................... 90
Figure 5-9: Pavement Layer Thickness Output Using FAARFIELD v 2.0 ....................... 116
X
Figure 5-10: Flexible Pavement Design Curves for Critical Areas, Dual Tandem Gear 119
Figure 5-11: Flexible Pavement Design Curves for Critical Areas, Dual Wheel Gear ... 120
Figure 5-12: Flexible Pavement Design curves for Army class IV Airfield ..................... 122
Figure 5-13: Natural Sub base source at MM’ 1+000 .......................................................... 135
Figure 5-14: Sampling Rock for External laboratory @BCC0+220 offset 5km quarry
source. ........................................................................................................................................ 136
XI
ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
AADT: Average Annual Daily Traffic (The total yearly traffic volume in both directions
divided by the number of days in the year).
AC: Asphalt Concrete
ADT: Average Daily Traffic (The total traffic volume during a given time period
divided by the number of days in that time period).
AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Aerodrome: An airport or Airfield
ASTM: American Society for Testing and Materials
B/C: Benefic Cost Ratio
BS: British Standard
BC: Base Course
C: Coefficient of Runoff in Rational Formula
Capping Layer: The top of embankment or bottom of excavation prior to construction

of the pavement structure.
CBR: California Bearing Ratio
CDF: Cumulative Damage Factor
CL: Centre Line
CN: Curve Number
DBST: Double Bituminous Surface Treatment
Design Period: The period of time that an initially constructed or rehabilitated

pavement structure will perform before reaching a level of
deterioration requiring more than routine or periodic maintenance.
D/S: Downstream
XII
E: Modulus of Elasticity
ERA: Ethiopian Roads Authority
ESA/ESAL: Equivalent Standard Axles
EIRR/IRR: Economic Internal Rate of Return/ Internal Rate of Return
EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment
EMA: Ethiopian Mapping Agency
ENGS: Ethiopian National Geographic System
ERADDM: Ethiopian Roads Authority Drainage Design Manual
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration
HDM: Highway Decision Modeling software used to decide the feasibility of a project
based on design life, traffic volume and other factors.
HFL: High Flood Level
IDF: Intensity Duration Frequency
ICAO: International Civil Aviation Organization
Ke: Entry Loss for Culvert
Kf: Friction Loss for Culvert
Km: Kilometer
kN: Kilo-Newton (SI unit of Load)
Ksfc: Silt Factor Clay
Ksf: Silt Factor Sand
kPa: Kilo-Pascal (SI Unit of Pressure)
LBL: Low Bed Level
LHS (L/S): Left Hand Side
XIII
LWL: Low Water Level
m: Meter
MDD: Maximum Dry Density
mg: Milligram (one thousandth of a gram)
mm: Millimeter (one thousandth of a meter)
n: Manning’s Rugosity Co-efficient
NMT: Non-Motorized Traffic
NMSA : National Meteorological Services Agency
NPV: Net Present Value
ODS/OD: Origin Destination Survey
OMC: Optimum Moisture Content
ORN–31: Overseas Road Note 31, A Guide to the Structural Design of Bitumen
Surfaced Roads in Tropical and Sub-Tropical Countries (Overseas Centre,
TRL, 1993).
pH: Power of H (symbol for Hydrogen), measure of the acidity and alkalinity of a
solution
PI: Plasticity Index
ppm: Parts per Million
RAP: Resettlement Action Plan
RC: Reinforced Concrete
RED: Road Economic Decision
RESA: Runway End Safety Area
RHS (R/S): Right Hand Side
XIV
RSDP: Road Sector Development Program
SB: Sub Base
SCS: Soil Conservation Services
SI: System International (The international System of Units of Measurement)
SMADA: Storm Water Management & Development Agency
T: Time of Return
TC: Time of Concentration
ToR: Terms of Reference
U/S: Upstream
UTM: Universal Triangular Modeling (Projection of Latitude and Longitude of Ethiopia

are Zoned as Per National Geographic Grid as UTM And Adindan).
VPD: Volume per Day
WC: Wearing Course
XV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, represented by the

Ethiopian Roads Administration, has allocated funds through the road sector
development program (RSDP) for the consultancy services for the construction
supervision of the Soddo Junction (Dimtu) – Bilate Military Training Center
Road project.
The consultancy service signed between Ethiopian Roads Administration and

Gondwana Engineering PLC in sub consultancy with YLS Engineering PLC on the 28th
day of July, 2022 and the commencement of the service started on 21st of July, 2022.
The captioned project is located in South-west of SNNP Regional State, Wolayita Zone,
Duguna Fango Woreda. The starting point of the project, Dimtu town, is 460 km from
Addis Ababa when accessed via Addis – Hawassa – Moricho - Soddo road. The route
stretches 25 km left from the heart of Dimtu town towards the Bilate Military Training
Center, then to the compound road consisting of the intricate road network of 20 km.
The project also includes the construction of Airfield and Ceremonial Area inside the
compound of the military training center.
By reviewing the detailed engineering design prepared by the Design Consultant, the
Supervision Consultant will come up with all amendments necessary and so that
assume full responsibility for the soundness and sufficiency of the detailed engineering
design.
The design review examined the following:
▪ Design specifications and methods adopted by the Design Consultant including the
major inputs considered for the designs.
▪ Sufficiency and accuracy of construction drawings, plans, and technical
specifications.
▪ Correctness of design calculations and other pertinent documents.
▪ Quantities and engineering cost estimates were checked for its accuracy.
XVI
▪ The design requirement of the road embankment and drainage structures were
investigated whether or not to meet the Design Standard requirement or the
sufficiency and accuracy of the horizontal and vertical alignment were verified,
surveying data were analyzed for their accuracy, Bench Marks and triangulation
beacons were checked for their availability and in case of missing, they are re-
established.
As the outcome of this review, the Consultant shall propose to the Employer
amendments of any deemed necessary for the Consultant to verify the soundness and
sufficiency of the detailed engineering design, contract documents, and accuracy of the
bill of quantities.
After getting thorough investigation of the design work review, the required sections
are related mainly to one or another case; Airfield runway alignment and shoulder
pavement thickness design change, Main Access Road and Compound Road alignment
and pavement thickness review, compound road section side and cross drainage
changes and related quantity revision as detailed hereunder:
▪ The vertical alignment on the Main Access Road has been amended by lowering the
embankment at some of the road sections due to inaccessibility for the public and
raising the embankment from km 22+500 to km 25+000 to provide sufficient cover
for crossing structures.
▪ The Compound Road’s horizontal alignment Road OO’ has been found closer to the
strip width of the runway section. Moreover, this road is aligned across the end
section of the runway. Accordingly, centerline shifting of the road is proposed to
avoid overlap with the runway section. Moreover, additional section to connect the
building around end of runway with the Main Access Road is proposed.
▪ The engineering design drawing of the runway lacks of runway end safety area
provision. Accordingly, for the code number 4D of the subject runway as per the
requirement of Annex 14 and ICAO standard runway end safety area (RESA) with a
length of 240 meter is provided. In line with the above controlling measures, the
XVII
designed runway is revised to the total length of 3.3 km while the original design
length was 3.12 km.
▪ To provide all the required facilities, the paved part of the revised runway (takeoff
and landing including Turning Area and Stop-Way) is reduced to 2,820 meters while
the Designer’s paved length was 3,120 meters. Though the length requirement is
1,525 meters, as per the ICAO, Aerodrome Design Manual Standard, the length of
2,820 meters is confirmed to accommodate commercial plane facilities like
Bombardier Q-400 apart from the design aircraft C-130. However, the runway strip
for code number 4 is 75 meters for each sides of the runway whereas the design
runway has a runway strip width of 42 meters to each sides of the runway. This
width is permissible for code number 2.
▪ On the vertical alignment of the original design of the runway, the start point of the
runway is noticed with a more than 6-meters vertical embankment filled with air for
more than 100m lengths along the runway. There is no space from km 0+000
backward to join the alignment with natural ground level for adequate fill side slope
due to the existing crossing compound road as well as the nearby main access road
to be kept unchanged. Hence, modification on the vertical alignment has been
performed.
▪ The Taxiway and Apron have been relocated in the opposite direction of the
previously design location after discussion with the Client and Bilate Military
Training Center Officials. In addition to the newly located Taxiway and Apron, the
additional access road is required and proposed accordingly to connect the Apron
with the Main Access Road for accessibility.
▪ The cross-drainages are revised along both the Main Access Road and Compound
Roads. New cross drainages are introduced at Road-AAI’ km 0+570 (vehicular
crossing), Road-BB’ km 2+040 (vehicular crossing), Road-BCC’ km 0+050 (double
pipe), Road-MM’ 0+859 (double pipe), Road-WW’ 1+906 (single pipe) for the
Compound Road; and at km 24+980 (single pipe) for the Main Access Road.
Capacity enhancement has also been done for the box culvert at km 4+910 and km
XVIII
2+848, and for the pipe culvert at km 5+292 (from single to double pipe) on the Main
Access Road. New channelization works at the outlets of the structures are also
recommended.
▪ Material subgrade strength and unsuitable soil stretches of the design and
supervision consultant vary by far in particular to the Compound Road and the
Airfield runway section.
▪ The pavement thickness for the Main Access Road remains unchanged from the
designer. The compound road capping layer has been modified due to subgrade
characterization revision. The asphalt concrete thickness of the whole airfield
shoulder section is changed from 130mm to 50 mm due to reasons mentioned in the
same section.
According to the scope of the works contract, complementary intervention of

construction building of shades VIP seats, VIP parking, VIP lounge and ancillary service
has been included to be performed during the construction period.
In line with this the supervision consultant has made a number of meetings with
concerned stakeholders regarding the above services and made preliminary design of
Ceremonial Area for the following facilities.
▪ Separate VIP Seats (150 in number), Guest Seats (2000 in number)

▪ Graduate Seats (12000 in number)
▪ Meeting Hall, Clinic, Event Organizers Room
▪ Parade Square, Car Parking and Training Area
The architectural design of the above facilities has been presented for the client and
defense minister higher officials. Since the provisional sum cost of 54million is
contained for the above service in the works contract, the actual cost for the above
facilities is estimated within the revised project cost.
XIX
The Client has forwarded the institutional masterplan regarding the Compound Road
of the subject project and to harmonize the masterplan with the design of the
Compound Roads to avoid any technical problems in the execution of the service.
With this regard we have gone through the comments given by the consultant on the
compound road design drawing and respond for the same. The summarized
comparison between the original design of Compound Roads and the newly prepared
masterplan is presented in section-8 of this report.
As an advice for the new masterplan review, it has major scope change on the design
document of the Compound Road sections. At this stage, we suggest the Employer to
separately consider any issues related to the new masterplan out of this design review
report as it is not parts of the works contract and design documents of the subject
project. However, we advise the Client to arrange a separate meeting in the presence of
all stakeholders to clear out all outstanding issues and have mutual understanding on
the matter.
In this design review report, the amount of works completed and remain for the project
are quantified and compared to the contract amount, the design review quantity, and
the cost increase or reduction as summarized hereunder.
▪ Series 1000: General Items
This item shows a 133.68% increase mainly due to the complimentary intervention
works like Construction of buildings with shade, VIP seats, VIP lounge, VIP parking
areas and ancillary services as complementary interventions to the contract as agreed
and directed by the Employer.
▪ Series 2000: Site Clearance
According to the actual data on the site, the design review procedures, the project
quantities and related amount for this item have been increased by nearly 2.15%.
XX
▪ Series 3000: Drainage Structures
Some activities are underestimated in the original BOQ for this work item. But when
compared to the design review reports, the cost of some specific tasks is increased by
12.82% from the original BOQ due to:
a) The additional quantity generated from shifting of irrigation canal which includes,
open drain excavation, grouted stone pitching and masonry quantity at canal gates
takes larger part for increasing percentage.
b) There is also some increase in quantity for structural excavation and backfilling of
Culverts and Appurtenance.
c) There is also significant decrease in quantity for cast in-situ Class 25/19 Concrete
Curbing (size 20cm x 25cm) as per the reviewed actual design.
d) There is increase in vehicular crossing ditch covers quantity due to compound road
network and pedestrian crossing cover at village and town sections as per
proposed design review.
▪ Series 4000: Earthworks
There have been changes in this category as a result of the Design Review and cost of
this item, Earthworks, which has grown by 41.99 % due to:
a) Due to relocation of Taxiway and Apron whereby additional access road extension
from Apron (km 0+420 to 0+690) has been proposed intending to connect to Main
Access Road. Hence, it gives rise to the percentage increase to quantity.
b) The Engineer's instructions given for gully treatment by rockfill along the Main
Access Road (km 6+480 to 7+480 on both sides). It has been extensively affecting
the structural integrity of the existing subgrade material by frequent erosion due to
upstream runoff from irrigation canal and high flood during rainy seasons.
c) The unexpected encounter of enormous quantity of hard rock excavation which is
considered as common Excavation on the original design at Airfield (Runway
section) from station (km 0+680 to 1+400 Fullwidth). It has been classified as hard
rock excavation.
XXI
d) Change made on vertical alignment of Runway from (km 0+000 to 3+300) which in
return increase common excavation Quantity.
e) Increase on total length of Runway from original length of 3.12 km to 3.3 km which
significantly change the earthwork quantity.
▪ Series 5000: Subbase and Road Base
Due to design review changes made on the length of Airfield (Runway section) paved
sections from 3.12 km to 2.82 km (excluding RESA 240 m from both ends for the
unpaved section) decreased the revised cost of subbase and road base by 17.78% and
16.88% from the original BOQ, respectively.
▪ Series 6000: Bituminous Surfacing and Road base
The design review cost update of Bituminous Surfacing has decreased by 21.30% from
the original BOQ due to changes in the paved length of Runway from 3.12 km to 2.82
km sections and the original BOQ Tack Coat (Emulsion) has increased by 32.17% due to
Runway paved section width change from 84 to 90m to the end. DBST also increase by
8.81% due to introduction of new extension road segment connecting to Main Access
Road from end of Apron. Asphalt Surfacing (AC) also shows decreased by 22.82% due
to change of shoulder asphalt thickness from 130 mm to 50mm and overall decrease of
Runway total length from 3.12 km to 2.82 km as per design review.
▪ Series 8000: Structures
The design review cost increased by 7.86% from the original BOQ due to change from
pipe culvert to box culvert as per Hydrologist recommendation for pipe @km 13+375
and km 12+500 in to box culverts respectively and actual quantity computation.
▪ Series 9000: Ancillary Works
As per Design Review cost update we have noticed Ancillary work increased by
28.63%.
▪ Series 1100: Dayworks: We haven't noticed any changes.
XXII
In general, the cost comparison of the contract cost before contingency and 15% VAT is
ETB 1,883,290,406.69 whereas the revised estimated cost is ETB 2,109,724,471.48. This
shows an expected variation of 12.02% with that of the original cost. Hence, the overall
value of all Bill Groups has increased by ETB 226,434,064.78 (Two Hundred Twenty-Six
Million Four Hundred Sixty-Four birr and 78/100 cents). Regarding the project cost
comparison due to vertical alignment revision made on the airfield - runway section and the
facilities proposed by Bilate Military Training Centre officials on Ceremonial Area the total
project cost has shown variation about 12.02%.
Therefore, the Project's up-to-date estimated cost, which is the project’s up to date
revised Budget at Completion (BAC), including 15% VAT, is estimated at ETB
2,636,080,038.97 (Two Billion Six Hundred Thirty-Six Million Eighty Thousand Thirty-
Eight and 97/100 Cents).
XXIII
Consultancy Services for the Construction Supervision of
Soddo Junction (Dimtu) - Bilate Military Training Center Road Project Final Design Review Report
Ethiopian Roads Administration September 2023
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
The Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has allocated budget
towards the cost of Consultancy Services for Construction Supervision of Soddo Junction
(Dimtu) - Blate Military Training Center Road Project and intends to apply part of the
proceeds to eligible payments for the Contract.
Soddo Junction (Dimtu) - Bilate Military Training Center Road Project is located in the
Southern part of the country, and lies predominantly in the South Regional state in
South Nations, Nationalities and People’s Regional States (SNNPRS) of the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, particularly in the Wolayita Zone, Duguna Fango
Woreda. The project road is classified as an access road as per ERA designs manual 2013
due it is connectively and traffic level. The project road starts at Dimtu- which is about
330 km from the Capital Addis Ababa.
The purpose of the design review is to ascertain if there are issues in the works contract
documents that could cause delays or cost overruns, and if so, to identify the issues and
make recommendations to ensure the works contact is completed on time and within
budget.
1.2 CONTRACT DATA
Table 1-1: Contract Data, Consultant Services
Service Contract
Soddo Junction (Dimtu) - Bilate Military Training Center

Project Name:
Road Project
Project No: S/42/NCB/RFP/GOE/2014 EFY
The Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of

Funding:
Ethiopia (FDRE)
Client: Ethiopian Roads Administration (ERA)
Gondwana Engineering PLC in Sub-consultancy with YLS Engineering PLC Page 1

Service Contract
Gondwana Engineering PLC in Sub-consultancy with YLS

Consultant:
Engineering PLC
Type of Service: Consultancy Services for Construction Supervision.
Project Period: 36 months, and 24 months for Defect Liability Period.
Consultancy Contract: ETB 35,573,398.50
Signed on: 7th of July, 2022
Commencement Date: 21th of July 2022
Planned Duration: 36 months
Project Cost: ETB 2,375,680,864.47 Including 15% VAT
Table 1-2: Contract Data, Works
Works Contract
Construction Works of Soddo Junction (Dimtu) - Blate

Contract Name:
Military Training Centre Road Project
Contract No: W/36/ICB/OC/GOE/2014 EFY
The Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of

Funding:
Ethiopia (FDRE)
Contractor: Powercon PLC
Commencement Date: 17th of March, 2022
Contract Period: 36 months
ETB 2,375,680,864.47 (Two Billion, three Hundred Seventy-

Contract Amount: five Million, six Hundred Eighty-one Thousand Eight
Hundred Sixty-four and Cents forty-seven only)

1.3 SCOPE OF SERVICES AND OBJECTIVES, CONSULTANT SERVICES
The service will be carried out in accordance with generally accepted standards of
professional practice, follow recognized engineering procedures. The Consultant’s scope
of work is understood to cover all activities necessary to accomplish the stated objectives
of these services, while adhering to best practices of the professional, whether or not a
specific activity is cited in this ToR.
The Consultant will render the service with due diligence and efficiency in fully
supervising the construction of the works which are to be executed in accordance with
sound technical administration, financial and economic practices. The Consultant will
perform all duties associated with such tasks to ensure that only the best practice is
followed and that the final product is in all aspects equal to that specified, at the most
economic costs and is executed in full compliance with the specification.
The services consist of carrying out reviewing of the previous design document and
supervising the construction of all works to be undertaken under the work contract.
1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Table 1-3: Project Description
Project Description
Project Name Soddo Junction (Dimtu) - Blate Military Training Center

Road Project
Road Ref. No. S/42/NCB/RP/GoE/2014EFY
Region, Zone Southern Regional State, Wolayita Zone
Starting Point Description Dimtu Town
Ending Point Description Bilate Military Training Center
25km Main Access Road, 3.12km Airfield and 21km

Length (km)
Compound Roads.

Project Description
Road Functional Link road and will be constructed as design class of DC-
Classification 5 with Asphalt Concrete Surfacing (AC) Standard.
Climate Classification Kola,

Elevation (m) (min – max) 1291m and 1500m
**Project location map is shown in the next page.

Start of Project,
Dimtu
End of The Project,
Bilate Military Training

Center
Figure 1-1: Location Map of the Project

1.5 KICK-OFF MEETING
The Kick off meeting was held on 22nd of July, 2022 at ERA Southern Region Projects
Management Head Office, Addis Ababa. During the kick off meeting all the three
parties: The Employer, the Consultant and the Contractor introduced each other and all
necessary issues which are related for the proper implementation of the service were
discussed.
The Regional Program Directorate Director, from the Employer side, has mentioned the
need of Ethiopian Roads Administration for the timely completion of the works contract
without compromising the quality of the design documents. He has also advised the
Consultant to perform the supervision service to the required standard without any
delay which may cause cost overrun on the employers and any unnecessary claims to be
raised during the course of the works contract. The minutes of the meeting are included
as Appendix 1.

2. TECHNICAL AND COST REVIEW
In this section full design document (topographic survey, geometric design, hydrological
and hydraulics recommendation, structural design of minor structures, soil and material
investigation, pavement design and quantities estimated during design stage and during
design review stage including technical and particular specification will be reviewed.
2.1 TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY
2.1.1 Introduction
A joint survey team consisting of Consultant’s and Contractor’s surveyors has conducted
surveying works such as identifying and checking project Control points such as GPSs,
benchmarks and conducting cross-sectional data collection. The jointly conducted
surveying data was monitored for further inspection and compliance to the surveying
requirements.
In accordance with our service contract agreement, we have checked and reviewed the
accuracy of the survey with which the design was made.
▪ The quality and sufficiency of the ground data collected to examine the road
alignment and cross-sections.
▪ All physical features; buildings, drainage structures, utility lines etc adjacent to the
alignment line whether natural or artificial were recorded.
The details of the major works done in connection with surveying activities will be
discussed hereunder.
2.1.2 Verification of GPS Control Points
A total of 30 (15 couples) control points has been available on the project and each couple
is 3km apart along the proposed route. Out of those 30 Control Points, 15 have been
enumerated from GPS 001 to GPS 015 while 15 have been enumerated from GPS 101 to
GPS 115. All couple GPS Control points are inter visible to each other.

Table 2-1: GPS Coordinate Lists
Point ID Easting Northing Elevation S.F. Remark
GPS001 403360.099 766120.917 1484.003 0.9994823 Main Access Road
GPS008 395559.042 745351.002 1251.667 0.9995382 Compound Roads

Point ID Easting Northing Elevation S.F. Remark
GPS014 394816.991 746857.694 1288.342 0.9995344 Airfield
GPS114 394791.594 746898.513 1288.433 0.9995344 Airfield
After verification of primary control point Secondary control points (Benchmarks) are
established in every 100m to 300m interval. Every consecutive BMs’ are inter-visible each
other from the back and forward ones. This method of placing beacons helps to get more
precise results during traverse detail survey and x-section survey activities. Accordingly,
the list of Secondary control points (Benchmarks) established along the alignments
shown below.
Table 2-2: Lists of Benchmarks.
Point ID Easting Northing Elevation Remark
BM1-1 402858.140 765955.152 1495.260 Main Access Road

TPM 1-6A 403138.604 764143.285 1462.002 Main Access Road




TPM5-7A 398104.225 751227.979 1312.344 Main Access Road
TPM6-9A 395418.896 748471.061 1288.126 Main Access Road


BM7-8A 394738.538 746735.596 1274.094 Compound Roads
BM7-8B 394992.693 746764.247 1277.468 Compound Roads
BM7-8C 394995.931 746588.682 1274.908 Compound Roads
BM7-8D 395090.557 746557.940 1275.259 Compound Roads
BM7-8E 395122.565 746496.316 1274.788 Compound Roads
BM7-8F 395118.564 746445.350 1274.561 Compound Roads
BM7-8G 395370.575 746472.799 1276.206 Compound Roads
BM8-1 395518.856 745356.940 1252.211 Compound Roads


BM9-10 396113.776 747503.625 1288.925 Taxiway
BM9-11 396028.842 747598.251 1289.858 Taxiway
BM9-12 395991.033 747741.190 1290.170 Taxiway
BM9-13 395999.354 747831.279 1290.046 Taxiway


BM10-2D 395980.208 747050.888 1290.409 Compound Roads
BM10-2E 396024.880 747161.049 1290.149 Compound Roads
BM10-2F 396019.048 747269.940 1291.036 Compound Roads
BM10-2G 396049.694 747371.736 1289.774 Compound Roads


BM15-1 396925.305 748806.067 1295.200 Airfield
BM15-2 396690.864 748605.992 1293.128 Airfield
BM15-3 396466.714 748383.926 1291.203 Airfield
BM15-4 396178.244 748147.993 1291.245 Airfield (Missed)
BM15-5 395979.813 747920.650 1290.395 Airfield
BM15-6 395683.746 747711.103 1291.157 Airfield
BM15-7 395490.635 747475.289 1292.626 Airfield (Damaged)
BM15-8 395353.555 747405.164 1292.509 Airfield
BM15-9 395168.957 747197.460 1291.136 Airfield
BM15-10 394855.060 746943.584 1288.911 Airfield
2.1.3 Findings of Surveying Control Points
Under the terms of the agreement between the Consultant and the Employer, the
consultant is required to identify all survey ground control points (beacons and bench
marks) which have been established by the design consultant and verify the accuracy of
the survey beacons and reestablish any damaged or missing points.
Accordingly, the Consultant and Contractor joint survey team have been engaged in
verification of control points and noted that almost all of the GPS and BM points
established by the design consultant were available. But some of the control points are
established in the construction area in this regard joint team has going to take the
required corrective measures and reestablish in parallel with the construction works.
The re-establishment of control points includes:
▪ Missed or damaged control points.

▪ Control point that established in construction area.

2.1.4 Detailed Topographic Survey (X- Section Survey)
Since we have got vertical control points (reduced elevations) from differential leveling
activity and horizontal control points (Easting and Northing) from traverse survey
activity, we performed X-section activity which in turn help us to determine the three
dimensions of every point taken on every man made/natural feature, break points,
public utilities, town sections, etc. Located inside the required corridor.
Cross section road corridor was selected according to the terrain type to accommodate
sufficient space for designing of cross-sectional elements.
We have performed Cross section survey at sufficient interval by considering features

like terrain type, curves, towns, break points and possible cross drainage sites. For the
detailed design of the project, the detailed cross-section survey for Main access road,
Airfield and compound roads of the project is carried out. Sample pictures of GPS and
Benchmarks are shown below.

Figure 2-1: GPS and Bench Marks

3. REVIEW OF GEOMETRIC DESIGN
As part of the design review process the supervision consultant has made detail review
on the engineering design drawing and all relevant reports.
3.1 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT
Based on the design traffic, the project road is classified as DC5 road standard. The
geometrical design requirement of DC-5 road standard is shown below.
Table 3-1: Geometric Design Parameters for DC5 Standard Road

3.2 MAIN ACCESS ROAD
3.2.1 Horizontal Alignment
i) Spiral Curve
As per the requirement of DC-5 road standard, there should be a spiral curve provision
for a speed greater than 80 km/hr. accordingly the provision is properly considered at
the Main Access Road at locations where there are horizontal curvatures.
ii) Radius of Curvature
Due to the flat terrain type of the project area all radius of curvatures is reasonably
larger except at one directional change with 30-meter radius. This smaller radius has
been checked and found that the location of the section is at compound road which is
unable to make it larger due to right-of-way problem. Moreover, since the section is in
compound road it is confirmed that the section is safe for lesser speed of 30 km/hr.
iii) Total Length of Main Access Road
During reviewing the horizontal alignment of the original design document, minor
change error has been observed and through consultation with the design consultant
and the change error was resolved accordingly.
3.2.2 Design Speed and Super Elevation
As part of design review, the proposed speed and super elevation of the Main Access
Road has been checked in accordance of ERA geometric design manual 20123. With this
regard, except few super elevation and runoff length correction all the remaining
provisions has been found properly provided. The updated super elevation data is
annexed with this report.
3.2.3 Vertical Alignment
Similar to horizontal alignment the vertical alignment of the same section has been
checked for the whole 25.2km section. As per the initial finding on the original
geometric design it is observed insufficient embankment as this may cause overtopping

at such flat terrain. Moreover, at some section the alignment has been proposed on
highly raised embankment which may cause overturning of vehicles.
Furthermore, even though in the engineering design report section-5.6 under (check for
vertical alignment of main access road) it says that “there is no problem for water to be
drain out from the road prism at crossing drainage’s structure location for section from
station km 22+000 up to end of Main Access Road the proposed vertical alignment has
almost followed the existing pavement level without sufficient cover for most of
crossing drainage structures.
With this regard, the vertical alignment in this section has been again reviewed to get
sufficient cover for structures. The revision of vertical alignment has also considered the
channel excavation of drainage structures at the outlet side to flash with the ground
profile.
3.3 COMPOUND ROADS
During design review process, 30 segments of Compound Roads have been found in
the design document. All these roads are interconnected in the Bilate Military Training
Center to access all building in the compound. The length of these Compound Roads
varies from 173m up to 3.05km.
Except few segments, all roads are designed properly as per the required standard.
However, the horizontal alignment of part of Road OO’ has been found closer to the
strip width of the runway section. Moreover, this road is aligned across the end section
of the runway. Accordingly, centerline shifting of the road is proposed to avoid overlap
with the runway section. Moreover, additional section to connect the building around
end of runway with the main access road is proposed.
Due to minor revision made on the main access road the final level of all compound
roads has been updated accordingly. Furthermore, vertical alignment of last section of

road WW’ has been revised to avoid steep gradient noticed at the end section of the
main access road Updated horizontal and vertical alignment is annexed with this
report.
3.4 AIRFIELD
3.4.1 Runway Section
As part of design review of the subject project proposed physical requirement of the
runway has been checked in respective of ICAO, Aerodrome design manual doc 9157
AN/901 and the following point have been observed.
In the engineering design drawing the design runway has been noticed lack of Runway
End Safety Area (RESA) provision. Moreover, the starting point of the runway is
situated at 6.5meter fill which is not the proper provision of vertical alignment criteria.
Accordingly, for the code number 4D of the subject runway, as per the requirement of
annex 14 and ICAO standard runway end safety area, RESA with a length of 240 meter
shall be proposed.
Moreover, due to previously fixed orientation of the runway alignment there is space
limitation at the start and end point of the runway which governed the total available
length. The main control point at the two ends of the runway is the existing access road
which is situated at some distance back of runway alignment and the Bilate River Bank
which is found closer to the end of the runway. In line with the above controlling
measures, the designed runway is limited to a total length of 3.3km while the original
design length was 3.12km. However, the original design lacks one basic facility of the
airfield namely Runway Ends Safety Area, RESA. Accordingly, in the revised design
such provision is considered and the total length of airfield is changed to 3.3km.
Furthermore, it has been noticed that the original paved section of the runway (takeoff
and landing length) is in excess of the requirement for the military airfield as per the
referred Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), Department of Defense USA Standard.
According to the requirement of military airfield for a design aircraft of C-130 the

runway length is 1,525 meters whereas the original design length of the runway is much
higher than this length requirement.
In this regard, to provide all required facilities the paved part of the revised runway
(takeoff and landing including turning area and stop way) is planned to be reduced to
2,820 meters while the requirement is 1,525 meters. As per the ICAO, aerodrome design
manual standard the length 2,820 meters is also confirmed to accommodate commercial
plane facilities like Bombardier Q-400. However, the runway strip width recommended
for code number 4 is 75 meters each side while the design runway strip is 42 meters each
side. The runway strip 42 meters each side is permissible for code number 2.
Furthermore, according to the comment given by the client it was advised to use the
existing 3km total length for runway. In this connection, detail assessment related to
takeoff and landing length for design aircraft C-130 as per ICAO requirement has been
made to check the previously proposed runway length is sufficiently proposed or the
length had been underestimated. From the engineering design report prepared by the
design consultant it is confirmed that no detail analysis made for runway length except
mentioning to use the existing runway length.
However, as a normal procedure it is clearly stated in ICAO standard that the total
runway length of any airfield is dependent on the takeoff and landing length of the
specific aircraft type. With this regard for determination of total runway length,
parameters like temperature, runway elevation and proposed longitudinal slope to be
used as an input from the project site have been considered. Accordingly, table below
shows the calculation processed and the final runway length to be adopted for the
design aircraft C-130.

Table 3-2: Airfield Runway Length Using Temperature and Altitude
Bilate military airfield Runway Length Determination Using Temperature and altitiude.
Formulas taken from
aerodrome design
unit value Remark manual(Doc9157 AN/901)
A Basic Data
Runway length required for landing at sea level in From Manufacturer brochure/specfification(2500-
1 m 920
standard atmospheric conditions 3000 feet)
Runway length required for take-off at a level site From Manufacturer brochure/specfification(3000-
2 m 1220
at sea level in standard atmospheric conditions 4000 feet)
3 Aerodrome elevation m 1297 Airfeild elevation

4 Aerodrome reference temperature deg C 25 Temprature at project site.
Conversion as per Standard Atmosphere values
5 Temperature in standard atmosphere at aerodrome deg C 6.6 (interpolation)(taken from table 3.1 of Aerodrome
elevation design manual)
6 Runway slope % 0.43 Design gradient
B Correction to runway take-off length
1 Elevation correction m 1589.21 7% per 300m A2+(0.07*A3/300)*A2
2 Elevation and temperature correction m 1881.63 1% per 1 deg C exceeding ISA B1+0.01*(A4-A5)*B1
3 Check for total correction for Elevation and As per ICAO, if combined correction exceeds 35%,
% 0.54 (B2-A2)/A2
temperature other specific study required.
4 Elevation, temperature and slope correction m 1962.54 Slope 10% correction per 1% gradient B2+(B2*0.1*A6)
C Correction to runway landing length
Elevation correction m 1198.42 A1+(0.07*A3/300)*A1
m 1962.54
Corrected runway Take off length
km 1.96
m 1198.42
Corrected runway Landing length
km 1.20
actual runway length. 2000.00
As a conclusion from the above summary the total paved runway length required for the
design aircraft C-130 is closely 2,000 meters whereas the proposed length is 2,820 meters.
Hence, the available length estimated as 2,820 meters is confirmed sufficient for both
landing and takeoff length of the airfield.
As the Orientation of the airfield is previously fixed along the existing unpaved runway,
there is no revision made on the horizontal alignment of the runway section.

The proposed final level of the subject runway is fixed with the level of the existing
Airfield. However, in the original design of runway the start point of the runway is
noticed with more than six-meter vertical embankment fill on air for more than 100m
length along the runway. There is no space from km 0+000 backward to join the
alignment with natural ground level for adequate fill side slope due to existing crossing
compound road as well as nearby main access road to be kept unchanged. Hence, we
found that the vertical alignment of the runway needs revision and appropriate revision
has been made. In doing so to suit the level of the runway with the surrounding area the
section of the runway from km 0+000 up to 1+400 is proposed in cut section with
considerable rock excavation.
3.4.4 Taxiway and Apron
The designed Taxiway and Apron have been found as per the required standard.
However, during kickoff meeting of the subject project, issues related to relocation of
taxiway and apron had been raised by the care taker consultant Ethiopian Construction
Design and Supervision Works Corporation, Transport Design and Supervision Works
Section.
During the discussion it is mentioned that the request was forwarded from the Bilate
Military Training Center Officials for the reason of making the apron out of the
compound for security reasons if there is an intention to use the Airfield for commercial
purpose.
Accordingly, we have redesigned the Taxiway and Apron section to the opposite
direction of the original design location after discussion with the client and the Bilate
Military Training Center Officials. In addition to the newly located taxiway and apron,
additional access road is proposed to connect the apron with the Main Access Road.

3.4.5 Length of Taxiway
In the original design drawing, the total length of taxiway is found as 260 meters long.
However, in design criteria for Taxiway as per the ICAO standard for code letter 4D the
recommended length is 176 meters. However, considering some tolerance 200-meters
Taxiway is proposed.
3.4.6 Runway Marking
Even though the quantities are underestimated, all marking types are proposed as per
the ICAO aerodrome standard recommendation.
3.4.7 Indicator and Signaling Device
Even though in the engineering design report it is mentioned that wind direction
indicators, landing direction indicators, signaling lamp and signal panels and signal area
will be provided as per ICAO Aerodrome design manual recommendation, no drawing
and quantity is estimated in the bill of quantities.
Summary of original and revised geometric criteria’s is shown below and runway lay
out for both the original and revised airfield design is annexed with this report.
Table 3-3: Physical Characteristics of Bilate Airfield

PHYSICAL CHARACTERSTIC OF BILATE AIRFIELD
ORIGINAL DESIGN REVISED DESIGN
crown crown
Section width(m) length(m) slope(%) Grade (%) Surfacing Section width(m) length(m) slope(%) Grade(%) Surfacing
Runway 45 3000 1.5 0.3 Paved Runway 45 2700 1.5 0.43 Paved
Shoulder 7.5 3000 2.5 0.3 Paved Shoulder 7.5 2700 2.5 0.43 Paved
Strip 12 3000 2.5 0.3 Unpaved Strip 12 2700 2.5 0.43 Unpaved
Stop way 60 60 1.5 0.3 paved Stop way 60 60 1.5 0.43 paved
RESA NO NO NO NO NO RESA 90 240 2.5 5 and 0.43 Unpaved
Taxiway 23 260 1.5 1 Paved Taxiway 23 200 1.5 0.27 Paved
Shoulder 7.5 260 2.5 1 Paved Shoulder 7.5 200 2.5 0.27 Paved
Strip 12 260 2.5 1 Unpaved Strip 12 200 2.5 0.27 Unpaved
Apron 180 120 1.5 1 Paved Apron 180 120 1.5 0.27 Paved
3.4.8 Typical Section
For the subject project seven different types of typical section has been proposed for
Main Access Road and compound roads. The Main Access Road has four different types
of typical sections, i.e. for Dimtu town section, village sections, section in the Military

Training Center compound and section for unsuitable subgrade material while the
Compound Road has two types of typical section with a total width of 7m carriageway
and 50cm wide concrete lined inlet for side gutter.
Except the typical section for section km 22+500 to 25+297 which has separate lane for
buses at the right side of the Main Access Road, the remaining typical sections has
uniform lane arrangement at both sides based on their functionality. Moreover, the
typical section for runway taxiway and Apron is also proposed as per the requirement
of ICAO standard.

Figure 3-1: Sample Revision Drawing, Layout for the Revised Airfield Runway.

4. HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC DESIGN REVIEW
4.1 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
The main scope of this section is to review the hydrology and hydraulics report of the
previous design document. This design review report covers road segment from station
0+000-25+297 on the main road and additional 25km internal road design of the
compound road including the airfield section.
4.2 DOCUMENT REVIEWED AND DATA
The followings Design documents and other physiographic data have been collected to
undertake consecutive drainage review of the project:
▪ Final Design Report
▪ Design documents and drawings
▪ Proposed cross drainage structures schedule
▪ Design review plan profile drawings
4.3 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
The main purposes of this report are to review the design document submitted during
the detailed design stage of the project and the specific objectives are
▪ To review the design standard followed
▪ To review the detailed design procedures for determination of peak flood
▪ To review the recommended opening size for major and minor drainage crossings
in the project road.
▪ To review any problems related to hydrology before and after the detail design
documents submitted.
▪ To address any additional information gathered on site which is not included in

the design report.
▪ Observed major hydrology / hydraulics adequacy problems on site and
▪ To provide revised major and minor drainages schedule of the specified project.

4.4 DESIGN STANDARDS AND DATA COLLECTION
4.4.1 Design Standards
4.4.1.1 Hydrologic Design Standards
The hydrologic design is carried out according to Drainage Manual, ERA (2013). Salient
features are reproduced herein.
4.4.1.2 Selection of Design Frequency
Design Frequency or return period is indicative of the frequency with which a certain
magnitude of rainfall/runoff occurs in that period. The number of times a flood of a
given magnitude can be expected to occur on average over a long period of time. Design
frequency can be expressed with probability. The probability of being equal or exceeded
in any year can be defined by the following expression.
1
P( X  X T ) =
T
Where;
P = Frequency of Exceedance
T = Occurrence of design flood exceeded or equalled once (Return period), in years
A design frequency shall be selected commensurate with the facility cost, volume of
traffic, potential flood hazard to property, expected level of service, strategic
considerations, and budgetary constraints, as well as the magnitude and risk associated
with damages from larger flood events. With long highway routes having no practical
detour, and where many sites are subject to independent flood events, it may be
necessary to increase the design frequency at each site to avoid frequent route
interruptions from floods. When selecting a design frequency, potential upstream land
use change which could reasonably occur over the anticipated life of the drainage facility
shall be considered. According to the Geometry Design Standard the road is classified as
DC-5. The recurrence interval values shown in the table below are used for the design of
the drainage facilities.

Table 4-1: Design Frequency for Drainage Facilities Design
4.4.2 Methods of Design Flood Computation
As per revised ERADDM, 2013 recommendations the design discharge is

computed using:
▪ Rational Method for estimating design storm peak runoff for areas up to 50
hectares (≤ 0.5 square km2);
▪ Soil Conservation Services (SCS) unit hydrograph method for computing flood
peaks for catchment area greater than 50 hectares (>0.5 < 65 square km2);
▪ Frequency Analysis Method: For gauged river flow, frequency analysis method
for computing the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF)
4.4.3 Data Collection
The project road design was done strictly following the ERA drainage design manual
2013, the project road standard is DC5 and the following data were collected to conduct
this study.

▪ Meteorological data is collected for Beddessa and Dimtu metrological stations
▪ Topographic map of 1: 50,000 scale collected
▪ Recent satellite imageries of the project area
▪ Field data that are collected from the site investigation
▪ DEM (digital Elevation model) with 30m grid data collected.
▪ Land use, soil and geological map collected.
▪ Arc-GIS 10.7 and Arc hydro software were used for the purpose of delineation.
▪ Villagers’ drainage behaviour observation-based information
4.4.4 Hydrology
4.4.4.1 General
Highway drainage is an important consideration in the overall design of a highway

project. In highway engineering, the diversity of drainage problems is broad and
includes the design of ditches, bridges, culverts, and other crossing structures. The
designs of these drainage structures do require adequate hydrological analysis, which
assesses the flood potential of the watershed area at the road crossing point on a
highway corridor.
The hydrological analysis is the most important step prior to the hydraulic design of any
drainage structure. Assessment of hydrological condition involves study of landscape
characteristics of the watershed area including topographic conditions, soil
characteristics, land cover, land use and climate conditions including atmospheric
temperature and rainfall.
As the relation between the amount of precipitation on a drainage basin and the amount
of runoff from the basin is, complex and too little data is available on the factors
influencing the rainfall –runoff relationship; hydrologic analysis does not bring an exact
solution in peak discharge determination. However, peak discharge generated from a
given basin can be estimated by different methods depending upon physiographic and
climatic factor on the area.

Methods of flood-runoff analysis range from simplified methods to rainfall-runoff

models. Simplified methods may involve use of formulas, previously derived regression
equations, envelope curves, etc. as a basis for making hydrologic estimates. Where
adequate stream flow data are available, frequency analysis of such data can be
performed to develop exceedance frequency relationships. For situations where,
historical stream flow data is non-existent or inadequate to make the required estimates,
a rainfall-runoff simulation model is commonly used for flood-runoff analysis.
Hydrologic studies include design rainfall determination, the resulting peak run off, and
its time distribution at a particular drainage crossing point in relation to the design
period of the proposed structure.
In a broadly speaking the methods and step by step procedures stated in the revised
ERA Drainage Design Manual 2013 has been used to conduct a detailed drainage study
on the Rivers Bridge Project. Rational formula and U.S. Soil Conservation Services (SCS)
Unit hydrograph method was employed to estimate the design discharge depending on
the size of the catchments area as per the recommendation of ERADDM-2013.
4.4.4.2 Frequency Analysis
The objective of frequency analysis of hydrologic data is to relate the magnitude of

extreme events to their frequency of occurrence through the use of probability
distributions. The hydrologic data analysed are assumed to be independent and
identically distributed, and the hydrologic system producing them (e.g., a storm rainfall
system) is considered to be stochastic, space-independent, and time-independent in the
classification scheme. the following distribution were used to estimate the design depth.
4.4.4.2.1 Extreme Value Distributions
The study of extreme hydrologic events involves the selection of a sequence of the largest
or smallest observations from sets of data. For example, the study of peak flows uses just
the largest flow recorded each year at a metrological station out of the many thousands
of values recorded.
The Extreme Value Type I (EVI) probability distribution function
𝑋𝑇−µ
𝐾𝑇 =
𝜎

Where;
XT= Rainfall depth at return period T years
µ =mean value of rainfall
 =Standard Deviation
KT=Frequency factor
For the Extreme Value Type I distribution Chow derived the expression below:
√6 𝑇
𝐾𝑇 = − {0.5772 + 𝑙𝑛 [𝑙𝑛 ( )]}
 𝑇−1
4.4.4.2.2 Normal Distribution
In this distribution, the frequency factor can be expressed with this equation:
𝑋𝑇−µ
𝐾𝑇 =
𝜎
The value of z corresponding to an exceedance probability of P (P = 1/T) can be

calculated by finding the value of an intermediate variable ω:
1 0.5
𝜔 = [𝐿𝑁 ( 2 )]
𝑃
Then Calculating z using the approximation:
2.515517 + 0.80285𝑤 + 0.10328𝑤 0.5

𝘻=𝑤−
1 + 1.432788𝑤 + 0.189269𝑤 2 + 0.001308𝑤 3
When P>0.5, 1-p is substituted for p in the value of z computed, the frequency factor KT
for Normal distribution is equal to Z as mentioned above.
4.4.4.2.3 Log-Pearson Type III Distribution
For this distribution, the first step is to take the logarithms of the hydrologic data, y = log
x. usually logarithms to base 10 are used. The mean y, standard deviation Sy, and
coefficient of skewness Cs are calculated for the logarithms of the data. The frequency
factor depends on the return period T and the coefficient of skewness C s. When Cs = 0,

the frequency factor is equal to the standard normal variable z. When Cs ≠ 0, KT is

approximated by Kite (1977) as:
KT = z + (z2- 1) k + 1/3(Z3 – 6z) k2 - (z2 - l) k3 +zk4+1/3*k5
Where;
k = Cs/6.
Rainfall data of Beddessa and Dimtu metrological stations were analysed to determine
the 24-hr rainfall depth. The Normal, Log – Pearson Type III distributions and Extreme
Value Type-I (Gumbel distribution) method were used to analyse the 24-hr rainfall depth
and accordingly the reviewer used the maximum value by comparing the project specific
finding with ERA DDM-2013 recommendation of rainfall region B2(RR-B2) in order to
make the decision more accurate and safer. See table 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 below.
Figure 4-1: Regional Rainfall Classification

Table 4-2: 24-Hours Rainfall Depth of Beddessa Metrological Station
Estimated max daily rainfall (mm)

Return Period T
MAXIMUM
(Year)
Normal Log- Log-Pearson
EVI
Distribution Normal Type III
500 109.19 139.75 138.41 139.63 139.75

200 103.38 125.64 124.64 125.55 125.64
100 98.57 115.07 114.19 115.01 115.07
75 96.46 110.70 109.85 110.65 110.70
50 93.33 104.54 103.71 104.50 104.54
40 91.52 101.15 100.32 101.11 101.15
25 87.49 93.96 93.15 93.94 93.96
15 82.69 86.05 85.27 86.04 86.05
10 78.46 79.65 78.91 79.64 79.65
5 69.99 68.21 67.65 68.21 69.99
2 53.80 50.72 50.63 50.72 53.80
Table 4-3: 24-hrs rainfall depth of Dimtu metrological station
Estimated Max Daily Rainfall (mm)

Return Period T
Maximum
(Year) Normal Log- Log-Pearson
EVI
500 69.95 73.62 80.83 77.48 80.83

200 67.79 70.51 75.70 73.33 75.70
100 66.00 68.05 71.81 70.15 71.81
75 65.21 66.99 70.19 68.81 70.19
50 64.04 65.46 67.91 66.90 67.91
40 63.37 64.59 66.65 65.84 66.65
25 61.87 62.69 63.98 63.55 63.98
15 60.08 60.50 61.04 60.99 61.04

Estimated Max Daily Rainfall (mm)

Return Period T
Maximum
(Year) Normal Log- Log-Pearson
EVI
10 58.51 58.63 58.68 58.86 58.86

5 55.35 55.07 54.48 54.93 55.35
2 49.32 48.84 48.15 48.51 49.32
Table 4-4: Selected 24-Hrs Rainfall Depth of Beddessa, Dimtu & RR-B2 for Different Return
Period
Return Period (years) 5 10 25 50 100
24 hrs. rainfall data (B2) 69.95 79.68 92.03 101.29 110.61

(regionalized vales), mm
24 hrs. rainfall data 69.99 79.65 93.96 104.54 115.07

(Computed for Beddessa
Station), mm data
24 hrs. rainfall 55.35 58.86 63.98 67.91 71.81
(Computed for Dimtu
Station), mm data
24 hrs. rainfall 69.99 79.68 93.96 104.54 115.07
(Selected value), mm
4.4.5 Rainfall - Runoff Models
As per ERA DDM-2013 recommendations, the design discharge is computed using,

rational method for catchments area equal to or less than 0.5 km2 and Soil Conservation
Services (SCS) unit hydrograph method for catchments area greater than 0.5 km 2 as it
was cited before. In this section of the report the peak flood estimation methods were
clearly discussed by the reviewer and the following rainfall runoff models were adopted
by the reviewer.

4.4.5.1 Rational Method
Used for catchment areas are less than 0.50 km2. The runoff those catchment areas are
estimated using Rational Method. The method of estimating design flood on small
watershed is based, in concept, on the criterion that storms of uniform intensity
distributed evenly over the basin, with maximum rate of runoff equal to a certain
percentage of rainfall intensity occurs when the entire basin area is contributing at the
outlet. This condition is met after the elapsed time tc, time of concentration. The rational
formula equation is a function of catchment area, runoff coefficient and time of
concentration. The equation is expressed as:
Qd = 0.278 C I A
Where;
Qd = Design Discharge in m3/sec
Cf = Frequency factor
C = Runoff Coefficient
A = Drainage area (km2)
I = Rainfall Intensity for duration equal to time of concentration
The parameters which are used in the computation of design flood using rational
formula are discussed as follows.
4.4.5.1.1 Runoff Coefficient
The runoff coefficient depends on characteristics of drainage basin. Runoff coefficient

which is adopted presented on table 4.5 below.
Table 4-5: Recommended Runoff Coefficient C for Various Selected Land Uses of Urban Area
S. No. Description of Area Runoff Coefficients
1 Business: Downtown Areas 0.70-0.95
2 Neighborhood Areas 0.50-0.70

S. No. Description of Area Runoff Coefficients
3 Residential: Single-Family Areas 0.30-0.50
4 Multi Units, Detached 0.40-0.60
5 Multi Units, Attached 0.60-0.75
6 Suburban 0.25-0.40
7 Residential (0.5 hectare lots or more) 0.30-0.45
8 Apartment Dwelling Areas 0.50-0.70
Industrial: Light areas 0.50-0.80

9
: Heavy areas 0.60-0.90
10 Parks, Cemeteries 0.10-0.25
11 Playgrounds 0.20-0.40
12 Railroad Yard Areas 0.20-0.40
13 Unimproved Areas 0.10-0.30
4.4.5.1.2 Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Curve of the Project
Rainfall Intensity-Frequency-Duration Curve or equations are necessary to estimate

design discharge for ungauged watershed using a rainfall runoff model. We have
developed IDF curve using Beddessa and Dimtu meteorological station and compared it
with IDF curve developed for RR-B2. from the above IDF maximum is used to determine
the intensity of the rainfall as shown in figure 4-2, 4-3 and 4-4 below.

Figure 4-2: Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curve of Beddessa Meteorological Station
Figure 4-3: Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curve of Dimtu Meteorological Station

Figure 4-4: Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curve of Rainfall Region -B2
4.4.5.1.3 Time of Concentration
Time of concentration is the time required for water to flow from hydraulically remote
point of catchments area to the point under investigation. The most intense rainfall that
contributes at drainage structures crossing will be that the duration equal to the time of
concentration.
The time of concentration is the sum of sheet flow travel time, shallow concentrated flow
travel time and open channel flow travel time
Sheet flow travel time is computed using Manning’s kinematic equation
0.007 × [𝑛𝐿]0.8
𝑇𝑡 =
[𝑃2 ]0.5 × 𝑠 0.4
Where;
Tt = Travel Time, hr
n = Manning’s Roughness Coefficient (given the table below)

L = Flow Length, m
P2 = 2-years, 24 hours Rainfall, mm
S = Land slope, m/m
Table 4-6: Roughness Coefficients (Manning’s n) for Sheet Flow
Surface Description n1
Smooth Surfaces (Concrete, Asphalt, Gravel, or Bare Soil) 0.011
Fallow (No Residue) 0.05
Cultivated Soils:
Residue Cover < 20% 0.06
Residue Cover > 20% 0.17
Grasses:
Short Grass 0.15
Dense Grasses 0.24
Range (Natural) 0.13
Woods:
Light Underbrush 0.4
Dense Underbrush 0.8
Travel time for shallow concentrated flow is determined from average velocity
computed in from the following expression.
𝑉 = 4.9178(𝑠)0.5……………For unpaved channel
V = 6.1961( s) 0.5 ……………. For paved channel
The above equations are based on the solution Manning’s equation with the following
assumption.
n = 0.050 and r = 0.12… for unpaved area and
n = 0.025 and r = 0.06…………. for paved area
Then the travel time of sheet flow is computed using:
L
Tt =
V

Where;
Tt = Travel Time of The Sheet Flow, second
L = Flow Length, meter
V = Average Velocity in m/s computed by the above equation
Time of Concentration for Defined Watercourses: in this case there is defined channel
though which water flow.
The recommended empirical formula for calculating the time of concentration in natural
channels was developed by the US Soil Conservation Service.
Where;
T = time of concentration (hours).
L = hydraulic length of catchments measured along flow path from the catchment
boundary to the point where the flood needs to be determined (km).
Sav = average slope (m/me) (1085 slop method).
When cross sectional information of the open channel (stream cross section parameter for
the entire reach) is acquired, the average velocity of the open channel flow can be
calculated using manning’s equation.
1 2 / 3 1/ 2
V = r s
n
Where;
V = Average velocity, m/s
r = Hydraulic radius, m (equal to A/Pw)
A = Cross section area of the flow, m2
Pw = Wetted perimeter, m
S = Slope of the hydraulic grade line, m/m

n = Manning’s roughness coefficient
The travel time can be computed for each stream segment from average velocity of flow
computed using the above expression and reach length.
As it is known, the cross section of the stream varies along reach for large catchments
area. Acquiring the cross-sectional information of the stream along entire length is
difficult (it varies). But Kirpich’s equation for time of concentration computation in the
open channel depends only on the stream length and stream slope. These parameters can
be easily determined on the topographic map. Hence, Kirpich’s equation was used for
time of computation in open channel with caution for large catchments (long stream
length) in order not to under estimate the time of concentration. Depending on the slope
of the river, the time of concentration is computed on reach bases
Where;
Tc=Time of concentration, min
Li =Length of stream segment, m
Si = Slope equal to H/L, where H is the difference in elevation between in the segment
(reach), m
For small catchments areas, where the maximum elevation difference of the watershed
could not be determined on the available map scale. The velocity method is adopted. It is
based on the concept of travel time (Tv) for a flow segment is a function of length of flow
(L) and the velocity. The following equations were used:
L
TC =
60 * V
Where:
Tc = Time of concentration [minutes]
L = Distance from remote point to the point of crossing [m]

V = Average velocity [m/sec] (Table 5-7)
4.4.5.2 SCS Unit Hydrograph Method
The SCS Methods is adopted for catchment areas are greater than 0.50km2. The Method
is calculating rates of runoff require the same basic data as Rational Method; Catchment
area, a runoff factor, time of concentration and rainfall. The SCS method is based on 24 –
hour’s storm event, which has a type II time distribution. The type II storm distribution
is a typical time distribution, which SCS has prepared for rainfall records. It is
appropriate to apply in Ethiopia because the distribution is applicable for interior rather
than coastal region.
▪ Rainfall Data Analysis
The available rainfall data for Beddessa and Dimtu rainfall station were collected from
NMA for the year from 2000 to 2020. The instantaneous rainfall data is suitable for the
frequency analysis to determine the design point rainfall of the project area and the 24-
hour annual maximum rainfall data is analysed to determine of design point data of the
project area as follows.
Table 4-7: Daily Highest Rainfall of Dimtu and Beddessa Rainfall Station in mm
Year Dimtu Rainfall max Year Beddessa Rainfallmax (mm)
2000 (mm)
54.4 2000 76.3
2001 51.0 2001 74.5
2002 46.6 2002 40.2
2003 44.0 2003 42.0
2004 40.8 2004 58.9
2005 40.8 2005 43.7
2006 40.5 2006 41.5
2007 50.6 2007 42.8
2008 50.2 2008 42.9
2009 48.6 2009 36.3

Year Dimtu Rainfall max Year Beddessa Rainfallmax (mm)
2010 (mm)
38.8 2010 87.2
2011 63.6 2011 83.3
2012 47.5 2012 95.0
2013 63.0 2013 64.0
2014 50.4 2014 53.1
2015 50.6 2015 38.9
2016 57.2 2016 45.7
2017 44.0 2017 22.2
2018 60.0 2018 41.9
2019 44.4 2019 43.6
2020 48.8 2020 55.7
The detail frequency analysis and IDF-curve development for both meteorological
stations are presented on Appendix-2 of the annex.
4.4.5.2.1 The Curve Number
The potential maximum soil water retention, S, is related to hydrologic soil properties,
land cover and management conditions as well as, the soil moisture status of the
Catchment prior to rainfall event and expressed by a dimensionless response index
termed the catchment curve number (CN)
The CN and S are related as follows:
25400
S= − 254
CN
The CN number is selected according to soil type, moisture condition and land
cover/use of the watershed area.
4.4.5.2.2 Rainfall Runoff Equation
The direct runoff from 24-hour or 1-day storm rainfall using the expression below:

Qu =
( P − 0.2 S )
2
P + 0.8 S
Where;
Qu = Direct runoff (mm)
P = Design rainfall (mm)
S = Potential infiltration or potential maximum soil water retention
After determination of the various input parameters as discussed above, the peak unit
discharge, qu read from a graph as function of ratio of Ia & P and Tc. Ia= initial abstraction
including surface storage, interception, infiltration prior to runoff in mm and P is design
point rainfall.
Then peak discharge is then computed from the following expression:
Q p = q u AQ
Where:
Qp= peak flow (m3/s)
qu = unit peak flow (m3/s/km2/mm)
A = drainage area (km2)
Q = accumulated direct runoff (mm)
The unit peak discharge is obtained from the following equation, which requires the time
of concentration (tc) in hours and the initial abstraction rainfall (Ia/p) ration as input:
qu =
Where;
C0, C1 and C2 = regression coefficients given in table 4-8 for various Ia/p ratios:
= unit conversion factor equals to 0.000431 in SI unit.

Table 4-8: Coefficients for SCS Peak Discharge Method
4.4.6 Hydraulics of Cross Drainages Structures
4.4.6.1 General
Design of effective drainage system that allows quick and safe disposal of water from the
vicinity of the road is essential. The amounts of runoff expected from each sub-catchment
that are crossed by the proposed alignment are estimated in the previous subsection
section. The next step is to analyse the capacity of existing structures and design &

provide adequate, economical and sustainable drainage system that suite the site
condition where required.
The alignment crosses a number minor and major stream which required as it was
described before. Based on the analysis as well as the site condition, appropriate
remedial measures are designed in this section with respect to drainage.
4.4.6.2 Hydraulic Design Standards
The hydraulic design was carried out for newly proposed drainage structures and also
with the existing structures along the project road. The size of the vent sizes was
determined based on the peak design discharge, bed slope of the crossing. In deciding
the type and size of structure, hydraulic efficiency and economy are taken besides local
hydrologic and geomorphologic characteristics.
4.4.6.3 Culvert Design Criteria
The following design criteria are used:
Allowable Headwater is the depth of water that can be pounded at the upstream end of
the culvert that will be limited by one or more of the following:
▪ The size culverts are determined to produce the design discharge to an acceptable
upstream water level i.e. the elevation of upstream ponding should not cause
unacceptable damage or adverse effect to adjacent property.
▪ The headwater is not allowed to be higher than shoulder or would be 0.3 m below
the edge of the shoulder
▪ The headwater is not allowed to be higher than the low point in the road grade
▪ The exit velocity is calculated to determine if there is a need of erosion protection

work at the culvert exists or not
▪ In addition to estimated runoff, amount and rate of debris bolder and amount of
silt load to fix the size of cross drainage structures
▪ The culverts are located to fit natural channels as much as possible.

▪ The slope of the culverts is maintained to be the same as the natural ground
surface
For inlet control, the following equation has been used:
Q = C A N [2g (H – 0.5D)]1/2 ------------------------ (eq.2.5)
Where;
Q = design discharge (m3/s)
H = maximum design headwater level (m)
D = diameter of a pipe culvert or height of a box culvert (m)
g = the acceleration of gravity (9.81m/s2)
A = Cross-sectional area of the culvert, D2/4 for pipe culverts and D x width for box
culverts (m2)
N - is the number of pipe or box culverts of equal size
C- a dimensionless discharge coefficient varying with H/D.
Box culverts
1.0 < H/D < 1.5: C varies linearly from 0.55 to 0.60
Pipe culverts
< H/D < 1.5: C varies linearly from 0.55 to 0.61
Estimation of the outflow velocities was based on balancing the energy equation
between culvert inlet and outlet, assuming non-submerged conditions at the culvert
outlet, and expressed by the following formula:
H1 + z1 = y2 +v2/2g + hf + hl ----------------------------- (eq.2.6)
Where
H1 = depth of flow at point 1 upstream of inlet (m)
z1 = bed level at outflow point 2 (m)
y2 = depth of flow at point 2 (m)

v2 = flow velocity at point 2 (m/s)
g - is the acceleration of gravity (9.81m/s2)
hf = friction losses between point 1 and 2 (m); hf = [(n*v)/r0.667]2 *L
n = Manning’s roughness coefficient (0.015 for smooth concrete)
v = average velocity between 1 and 2 (m/s)
r = average hydraulic radius between 1 and 2 (m)
L = culvert length (m)
hl = losses at inlet (m); hl = k*v22/2g
Where the recommended ‘k’ values are:
▪ Wing walls between 30° and 75° - 0.25

▪ Wing walls 15° and 90° - 0.5
▪ Culvert face shaped to fill slope - 0.7
▪ Wing walls at 0° (extension of culvert sides) - 0.9
4.4.7 Design Review Site Findings
Following a continues site visit and desk review of the design document with the general
plan and profile of the road the following major recommendation has been forwarded.
The drainage structure review checking and assessment reveals that there are minor
crossing culverts, ford /drifts and irrigation canal on the existing road.
4.4.8 Filed Investigation and Findings
a) Crossing Culvert at Station Km 4+910
At station 4+910there is existing ford/drift on the flowing river with eroded outlet.
However, on this location the designer recommends double slab/box culvert with a span
of 2.5m and height of 2m which is found inadequate to convey the excess flood, therefore
it will be better to replace the proposed crossing with larger size. See figure 4-5 below.

Figure 4-5: Existing Ford on The Proposed Road
b) Crossing Culvert at Station km 5+292
There is also existing ford/drift on this stream with eroded outlet. the designer
recommends a single pipe with a diameter of 1. 22m. However, considering the peak
flood generated from the watershed and high siltation, the recommended single pipe
culvert is changed to double pipe with a diameter of 1.22m. See the figure and figure 4-6
below.
Figure 4-6: Existing Ford at Station km 5+289

c) Pipe Culvert @ Station km 0+050 Of BCC’ Road
There is stream on this location. however, it was missed on the design stage. therefore,
considering the peak flood generated from the watershed and channel hydraulics new
double pipe culvert is recommended. See figure 4-7 below.
Figure 4-7: Missed Crossing at Station km 0+050
In addition, on this road segment at station km 0+545 there is existing double pipe
culvert with a diameter of 1.22m which is found hydraulically sufficient and
recommended to kept.
d) Sedimentation and Erosion Protection
Erosion is likely to occur at any concentration of flow. However, it occurs most severely
in high flow concentrations. Locations of potential erosion on some segments of the
project site have been observed. During the site visit deep gulley formation, debris
transport and sliding along or near by the road was observed. Most of the gullies are
developed due to poor hydrological condition of the catchments. Hence in those area a
drop structure at both inlet and outlet, upstream and downstream gulley protections

using gabion as well as road side protection work has to be appreciated. See figure 4-8
and 4-9 below.
Eroded culvert outlet Eroded channel parallel to the road
Figure 4-8: Eroded Culvert Outlet (Left), Eroded Channel Parallel to The Road (Right)
On the other hand, accumulation of debris and sediments at a culvert inlet can result in
the culvert not functioning as designed. The consequences may include damages from
inundation of the road and upstream property. The reviewer has two options for dealing
with the debris and silt problem. The first one is to retain the debris upstream of the
culvert or attempt to pass debris through the culvert. If debris is to be retained by an
upstream structure or at the culvert inlet, frequent maintenance may be required. If
debris is to be passed through the structure or retained at the inlet, a relief opening
should be considered, either in the form of increased barrel size, or a vertical riser,
accordingly for this project minimum pipe size recommended for all stream crossing are
1.22 m or 48” and in addition channelization work at the outlet of the crossing culvert is
proposed till it join a river and/or larger size drain. See figure 4-9 below.

Figure 4-9: Sedimentation and Accumulation of Debris
4.4.9 Channelization Work
The storm water collected from road surface as well as from surrounding watershed
shall be properly removed from the road corridor until it gains sufficient slop to join a
river or another adequate side drain. Accordingly, channelization work is recommended
on most segments of the road to drain the storm water from the outlet of crossing pipe
culvert to down /side river and /or until it achieves self-cleaning velocity. See figure 4-
10 below.
Fully Clogged Pipe Partially Buried Single Pipe with 0.6m

Non-Functional Clogged Pipe Partially Clogged Pipe
Figure 4-10: Recommendation of channelization works.
4.4.10 Existing Canal Reconstruction
All though the construction of irrigation canal is not part of the works contract, due to
slope stake boundary of the designed road prism there are locations of irrigation cannel
to be reconstructed. Accordingly, irrigation cannel with a length of 5.66 km is proposed
to be constructed and the quantity of the same is considered in the bill of quantity.
4.5 DESIGN REVIEW SCHEDULE
4.5.1 Revised Minor Cross Drainage
The drainage structure review checking and assessment reveals that on the Main Access
Road, there are about 36 existing crossing culverts and fords along the existing gravel
road. On the design document the total of 48 crossing is recommended which are pipes
and slab/box culverts. However, on this design review the total of 49 crossing culvert
drainage structures are recommended. In addition, channelization work is recommended
to convey the storm water from the outlet of the culvert to side and down river.
Comparative schedules of the design review with the previous design and existing
crossing are shown in the table below (Note: The Engineer has the intention to convert
the proposed box culvert structures to slab culvert structures based on the suitability of
the subgrade material).

Table 4-9: Comparative Schedules with The Previous Design for Cross Drainage Structures on The Main Road
Existing Structures Opening
Design Design Structure Opening Size Design Review Structure Opening Size
Design Sizes
S/N review Coordinate
Station Remark
o Station Structure Diameter Structure No of Height Span Diameter Structure No of Height Span Diameter Other Hydraulic recooemendation
No of cell
Type Type cell Type cell
Km Km E N m m m m m m m
Proposed size hydraulically
1 0+007.0 0+007.0 403384 766118 PC 1 1.0 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent
2 0+540.0 0+540.0 402899 766067 MPC 3 1.2 BC 1.0 2.0 3.0 BC 1.00 2.00 3.00
sufficent
3 1+116.0 1+116.0 402670 765544 PC 1 1.0 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent
4 1+945.0 1+945.0 403027 764855 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent
5 2+150.0 2+150.0 403111 764671 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent
6 2+440.0 2+440.0 403121 764381 PC 2.0 1.20 PC 2.00 1.22
sufficent
7 2+848.0 2+848.0 403130 763973 PC 1 1.0 BC 1.0 3.0 5.0 BC 1.00 2.00 4.00
sufficent
Proposed size hydraulically Channalization on the outlet till it get
8 3+268.0 3+268.0 403138 763553 MPC 1 1.0 PC 2.0 1.20 PC 2.00 1.22
sufficent sufficent slop
9 4+297.0 4+297.0 403150 762524 PC 1 1.0 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent
Proposed size hydraulically Cutoff walll to protect culvert outlet
10 4+472.0 4+472.0 403103 762348 PC 1 1.0 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent from scouring
11 4+910.0 4+910.0 402881 761980 Ford BC 2.0 2.0 2.5 BC 2.00 3.00 3.00 Replace
12 5+292.0 5+292.0 402682 761654 FORD PC 1.0 1.20 PC 2.00 1.22 Replace
13 5+620.0 5+620.0 402510 761375 MPC 1 1.0 PC 2.0 1.20 PC 2.00 1.22
sufficent
14 6+660.0 6+660.0 401831 760601 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent
15 6+985.0 6+985.0 401585 760388 PC 1 1.0 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent
16 7+160.0 7+160.0 401453 760273 PC 1 1.0 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent
17 10+100.0 10+100.0 400139 757815 PC 1 1.0 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent


Design Sizes
review Coordinate
Station
S/No Station Diameter Height Span Diameter Height Span Diameter Remark Other Hydraulic recooemendation
Structure No of Structure No of Structure No of
Type cell Type cell Type cell

18 10+480.0 10+480.0 400081 757439 PC 2.0 1.20 PC 2.00 1.22
sufficent
19 10+840.0 10+840.0 400026 757083 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent
20 11+310.0 11+310.0 399954 756619 MPC 2 1.0 PC 2.0 1.20 PC 2.00 1.22
sufficent
21 11+450.0 11+450.0 399919 756484 MPC 2 1.2 BC 1.0 2.0 4.0 BC 1.0 2.0 4.0
sufficent
22 11+715.0 11+715.0 399843 756229 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent
23 12+060.0 12+060.0 399745 755899 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent
24 12+289.0 12+289.0 399677 755670 PC 1 1.0 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
25 12+500.0 12+500.0 399620 755477 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
Proposed size hydraulically Channalization require till it get
26 13+734.0 13+734.0 399272 754293 PC 1 1.0 PC 3.0 1.20 PC 3.00 1.22
27 14+480.0 14+480.0 399061 753586 PC 1 1.5*1 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent
28 16+087.0 16+087.0 398468 752098 PC 1 1.0 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
29 16+569.0 16+569.0 398289 751652 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
30 18+375.0 18+375.0 397344 750259 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent
31 18+623.0 18+623.0 397105 750190 PC 1 1.0 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
32 19+033.0 19+033.0 396724 750042 PC 1 1.0 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent


Design Sizes
review Coordinate
Station
S/No Station Diameter Height Span Diameter Height Span Diameter Remark Other Hydraulic recooemendation
Structure No of Structure No of Structure No of
Type cell Type cell Type cell
33 20+000.0 20+000.0 395954 749464 PC 1 1.0 BC 2.0 2.0 2.5 BC 2 2 2.5
34 20+360.0 20+360.0 395823 749132 BC 2.0 2.0 2.5 BC 2 2 2.5
sufficent
35 20+913.0 20+913.0 395576 748638 PC 1 1.0 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
36 21+415.0 21+415.0 395329 748202 BC 2.0 2.0 2.5 BC 2.00 2.00 2.50
sufficent
37 21+960.0 21+960.0 395057 747729 PC 1 1.0 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent
38 22+314.0 22+314.0 394880 747423 PC 1 1.0 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent
39 22+470.0 22+470.0 394802 747288 MPC 2 1.0 PC 2.0 1.20 PC 2.00 1.22
sufficent
Proposed size hydraulically Channalization using grassed
40 23+087.0 23+087.0 394565 746733 PC 1 0.6 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
sufficent earthen ditch till side gorge
41 23+418.0 23+418.0 394590 746403 PC 1 0.6 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
42 23+590.0 23+590.0 394604 746231 PC 1 0.6 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
43 23+785.0 23+785.0 394620 746037 PC 1 0.6 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
44 24+140.0 24+140.0 394647 745683 PC 1 0.6 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
45 24+285.0 24+285.0 394658 745538 PC 1 0.6 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
46 24+450.0 24+450.0 394681 745377 PC 1 0.6 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
47 24+560.0 24+560.0 394775 745377 PC 1 0.6 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
48 24+690.0 24+690.0 394898 745384 PC 1 0.6 PC 1.0 1.20 PC 1.00 1.22
Channalization using grassed
49 24+980.0 24+980.0 395300 745617 PC 1 0.6 PC 1.00 1.22 Replace / new
earthen ditch till side gorge

Table 4-10: List of Irrigation Crossing
Existing Structures Opening Sizes Design Structure Opening Size Design Review Structure Opening Size
Station Coordinate
S/No Remark
Structure Diameter Structure No of Height Span Diameter Structure No of Height Span Diameter
No of cell
Type Type cell Type cell
Km E N m m m m m m m
1 8+260.0 400625 759550 PC 1 1.0 PC 1.0 0.90 PC 1.00 0.90 Irrigation Channel
5 9+815.0 400184 758096 BC 1.0 2.0 4.0 BC 1.00 2.00 4.00 Irrigation Channel
7 12+500.0 399620 755477 PC 1.0 1.22 PC 1.00 1.22 Irrigation Channel

Table 4-11: Comparative Cross Drainage Structures Schedules of Compound Road
Culverts opening Sizes

Cul.
Road name Station Easting Northing Number of Flow
No. Type of Structure Diameter (m)
Span (m) Height (m) Remark
Barrels/cell direction
1 Road-AAI 0+570 395080.96 746804.55 Box Culvert 1 0.8 1 Right Vehicular crossing
2 Road -BB' 2+040 396711.83 746776.89 Box Culvert 1 0.8 1 Right Vehicular crossing
3 Road -BCC' 0+050 394628.08 746618.56 pipe Culvert 1.22 2 Left
4 Road -MM' 0+859 396918.41 747065.51 pipe Culvert 1.22 2 Right
5 Road -OO' 2+150 396408.88 747838.45 pipe Culvert 1.22 2 Left
6 Road -WW' 1+906 395610.55 745631.98 pipe Culvert 1.22 1 Left
There are also additional drainage structures at New ROAD OO’ Station km 0+020, km 0+236.43, km 0+264.09 and km 0+440. To
avoid raised embankment the proposed crossing structures at this location is 0.8 by 1-meter U-ditch with cover. Also, at the
connection between Apron and Main Access Road one crossing stricture at station km 0+625.078 with the same size of 0.8 by 1
meter is proposed.

4.6 ROADSIDE CHANNELS DESIGN
4.6.1 General
Ditches or side drain are provided to intercept and dispose runoff safely as fast as
possible without damaging/eroding the road section. Rectangular concrete ditch is
proposed for longitudinal drains.
The primary aim of storm-drain design is to limit the amount of water flowing along
gutters or ponding at sags to quantities which will not interfere with the passage of
traffic for a common design storm. The storm-drain system consists of surface inlet
structures connected to an underground-pipe system. The inlets are located at points
spaced at intervals calculated to intercept flows and control the water’s spread width
into the traveled lane.
4.6.2 Discharge Estimation
Design discharges of longitudinal drains calculated using rational formula on the reach
bases considering a return period of 10 years
A
QT = C  I 
3 .6
Where:
QT = Peak Discharge in m3/s for T (10) years return period.
C = Runoff coefficient,
A = Area (km2) of the basin intercepted by the pipe
I = Rainfall intensity with return period of 10 years, and duration equal to the
concentration time Tc
Tc = Concentration time,
After the runoff computation at different section of the road, the size of the side drains is
determined for the design runoff with Manning’s formula.

4.6.3 Hydraulic Capacity
A storm drains size, shape, slope, and friction resistance control its hydraulic capacity.
Several flow friction formulas have been advanced which define the relationship
between flow capacity and these parameters. The most widely used formula for
designing storm drains is Manning's Equation. The Manning's Equation has been used
for computing the capacity for roadside channels as shown on the following equations.
for rectangular storm drains, Manning's Equation becomes:
2 1
1
QT =  A  R 3  S 2 = A V
n
Where:
QT = Capacity of ditch for 10 years return period flood, m3/sec
A = Cross sectional area of the ditch, m2
V = Velocity of flow, m/sec
R = Hydraulic radius A/P where P is the wetted perimeter in m and A is the area in m2
S = Average longitudinal slope, m/m
The design discharge (runoff) in the ditch is computed based on the following
assumptions:
▪ Discharge is estimated using Rational Method for different terrain conditions.
▪ In addition to flow contributory width, the catchment area which directly

contribute to the ditch have been delineated and the runoff is determined for each
catchment along the road.
▪ The runoff is estimated on reach bases and the flow velocities are checked on
reach bases too.
▪ The design discharge for permanent roadside ditch linings should have a 10-year
frequency while temporary linings shall be designed for the 5-year frequency
flow.

▪ The maximum velocity for each ditch type is shown in table 5.15 below if the
computed value exceeds the safe velocity of flow thus requires ditches to be
paved to avoid erosion.
Table 4-12: Maximum Permissible Velocities in Erodible Ditches and Corresponding Roughness
Coefficients
Max. Permissible Roughness

Ditch material
velocity (m/sec) Coefficient, n
Sand, loam, fine gravel and volcanic ash 0.6 0.022
Stiff clay 1.1 0.020
Coarse gravel 1.5 0.025
Conglomerate, hard shale & soft rock 2.0 0.040
Hard rock 5.0 0.040
Masonry 3.0 0.025
Concrete 5.0 0.011
The maximum length of the ditch, type and required flow area is determined based on
the allowable velocity above. All roadside channels and/or ditches shall be hydraulically
designed as per ERA-DDM, 2013 and the detail side drain analysis is presented in the
Annex, Appendix-3.
4.7 DRAINAGE STRUCTURE AT AIRFIELD
According to most standards, airfields are designed away from crossing structures as
much as possible. In this regard the Bilate runway is found fully free from crossing
structure. However due to flatter slope provided for the runway section, paved side
ditch at both side of the airfield is proposed for the whole section to drain the
surrounding flow away from the airfield route corridor.

Table 4-13: Summary of Side Drain
Station
Proposed size
Desig n Long utidina Outfall To
Road Depth of channel l drain/
Road leng th Bottom Water Total bottom slop ditch on
name From To (m) Width(m) (m) depth(m) (m/ m) road side
Crossing culvert at station 23+087
of the main road
0+000 0+431 431.00 0.8 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.020 Left
0+431 0+550 119.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.016 Left

Left side drain of road BB'
Road-AAI
0+550 0+780 230.00 0.8 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.007 Left
0+000 0+431 431.00 0.6 0 0.20 0.6 0 0.017 Right of the main road

0+431 0+780 349.00 0.6 0 0.20 0.6 0 0.005 Right
0+000 0+105 105.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.007 Left
0+105 0+165 60.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.023 Left New crossing culvert at station
Road - aa'
24+545
0+000 0+105 105.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.007 Right
0+105 0+165 60.00 0.6 0 0.20 0.6 0 0.023 Right
0+000 0+144 144.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.004 Left
0+144 0+224 80.00 0.6 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.006 Left Right side drain of road II' at
Road - bb
stAtion 1+150
0+000 0+144 144.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.005 Right
0+144 0+224 80.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.006 Right

0+000 1+154 1154.00 0.8 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.013 Left
1+154 1+397 243.00 0.8 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.009 Left
1+397 1+717 320.00 0.8 0 0.60 0.9 0 0.009 Left

Vehicular crossing at station 2+040
1+717 2+040 323.00 1.00 0.60 0.9 0 0.009 Left
2+040 2+278 238.00 0.6 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.013 Left
2+278 2+365 87.00 0.6 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.013 Left
left side drain of road MM'

2+365 2+480 114.60 0.6 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.013 Left
Road - BB'
0+000 1+154 1154.00 0.6 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.013 Right
1+154 1+397 243.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.009 Right
1+397 1+717 320.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.009 Right
Vehicular crossing at station 2+056

1+717 2+056 339.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.009 Right
2+056 2+278 222.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.013 Right
2+278 2+365 87.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.013 Right
left side drain of road MM'

2+365 2+480 114.60 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.013 Right

Station Proposed size

Design
Outfall To
Road Depth of channel Longutidinal
Road length Bottom Water Total bottom slop drain/ ditch
name From To (m) Width(m) (m) depth(m) (m/m) on road side
New crossing culvert require at
0+000 0+050 50.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.004 Left station 0+050 on road -BCC'
0+050 0+545 495.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.004 Left keep existing double pipe culvert at
station 0+545on road -BCC'
0+545 0+589 44.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.004 Left
Road -BCC'
0+000 0+050 50.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.005 Right station 0+050 on road -BCC'
0+050 0+545 495.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.005 Right keep existing double pipe culvert at
station 0+545on road -BCC'
0+545 0+589 44.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.010 Right
0+000 0+013 12.50 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.025 Left Vechicular crossing culvert require
at station 0+013 on road -cc'
0+013 0+183 170.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.011 Left
Vechicular crossing culvert at station
Road -cc' 0+183 0+367 184.23 0.60 0.28 0.60 0.040 Left 0+531 on road TTf'
(small letter)
0+000 0+013 12.50 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.025 Right Vechicular crossing culvert require
at station 0+013 on road -cc'
0+013 0+183 170.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.011 Right
Vechicular crossing culvert at station
0+183 0+367 184.23 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.047 Right 0+531 on road TTf'
0+000 0+399 399.00 0.80 0.50 0.80 0.008 Left station 23+600 on the main road
Vehicular crossing culvert require at
0+399 0+535 136.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.008 Left station 0+399 on road II'
Road -CC'
0+535 0+853 318.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.008 Left station 0+535 on road CC'
(Capital
letter) New crossing culvert require at
0+000 0+399 399.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.008 Right station 23+600 on the main road
0+399 0+535 136.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.008 Right station 0+399 on road II'
0+535 0+853 318.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.008 Right station 0+535 on road CC'
0+000 0+100 100.00 0.80 0.70 1.00 0.009 Left
0+100 0+535 435.00 0.80 0.50 0.80 0.009 Left
Road -DD'
0+535 0+853 318.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.007 Left New crossing culvert require at
(Capital
station 23+600 on the main road
letter)
0+000 0+399 399.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.009 Right
0+399 0+535 136.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.007 Right
0+535 0+853 318.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.007 Right
0+000 0+224 224.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.005 Left

Road - dd' To side drain of road -UU'
0+000 0+224 224.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.005 Right

Station
Proposed size
Road Depth of Design Longutidinal Outfall To
Road length Bottom Water Total channel drain/ ditch
name From To (m) Width(m) (m) depth(m) bottom slop on road side
0+000 0+202 201.60 0.80 0.50 0.80 0.011 Left Left side drain of the main road
around station 23+940
0+202 0+766 564.40 0.80 0.50 0.80 0.006 Left
Road -EE'
station 0+848 on road EE'
(Capital 0+766 0+846 80.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.008 Left
letter)
0+000 0+202 201.60 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.008 Right Left side drain of the main road
around station 23+940
0+202 0+766 564.40 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.008 Right
0+766 0+846 80.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.008 Right station 0+848 on road EE'
Side drain of roadd CC

0+000 0+204 204.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.009 Left
Side drain of roadd DD

0+204 0+370 166.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.009 Left
Road -ee'
Side drain of roadd CC
0+000 0+204 204.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.009 Right
Side drain of roadd DD

0+204 0+370 166.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.008 Right
Crossing culvert require at station
0+000 0+197 197.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.008 Left 24+140 on the main road
Right side drain of road II

0+197 0+310 113.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.006 Left
Left side drain of road II

0+320 0+520 200.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.018 Left
Road -FF' Left side drain of road JJ
(Capital 0+520 0+850 330.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.007 Left
letter) Crossing culvert require at station
0+000 0+197 197.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.008 Right 24+140 on the main road
Right side drain of road II

0+197 0+310 113.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.006 Right

0+320 0+520 200.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.018 Right
Left side drain of road JJ

0+520 0+850 330.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.005 Right
0+000 0+094 93.76 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.008 Left 24+285 on the main road
Crossing at station 0+245 on road

0+094 0+245 150.90 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.006 Left
GG' and Channalized to left side
drain of road bb'
0+245 0+316 71.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.018 Left

0+316 0+520 204.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.018 Left

0+520 0+650 130.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.007 Left
Road -GG' Right side drain of road WW

0+650 0+850 200.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.012 Left
(Capital
letter)
0+000 0+094 93.76 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.008 Right 24+285 on the main road
0+094 0+245 150.90 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.006 Right Crossing at 0+245 and also
Channalized to main road down
0+245 0+316 71.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.018 Right

0+316 0+520 204.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.018 Right

0+520 0+650 130.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.007 Right
Right side drain of road WW

0+650 0+850 200.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.012 Right

Station
Proposed size
Outfall To
Road Depth of Design Longutidinal
Road length Bottom Water Total channel drain/ ditch
name From To (m) Width(m) (m) depth(m) bottom slop on road side
0+000 0+220 220.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.011 Left

Road - ff' To side drain of road -ee'
0+000 0+220 220.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.005 Right

0+000 0+200 200.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.014 Left
0+200 0+400 200.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.008 Left

Left side drain of road DD'
0+400 0+575 175.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.008 Left
0+575 0+740 165.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.009 Left
0+740 0+920 180.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.018 Left Crossing culvert require at station
24+285 on the main road
0+920 1+072 152.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.023 Left
Road -II'
1+072 1+240 168.00 0.80 0.60 0.90 0.009 Left
(Capital
letter) Left side drain of road BB'
0+000 0+200 200.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.008 Right
Left side drain of road CC'

0+200 0+400 200.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.009 Right
Left side drain of road DD'

0+400 0+575 175.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.008 Right
0+575 0+740 165.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.018 Right
0+740 0+920 180.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.018 Right Crossing culvert require at station
0+920 1+072 152.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.023 Right
1+072 1+240 168.00 0.80 0.50 0.80 0.008 Right
0+000 0+170 170.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.016 Left To side drain of main road around
Road - gg'
station 25+202
0+000 0+170 170.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.016 Right
0+000 0+220 220.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.003 Left

Road - hh' Right side drain of road gg'
0+000 0+220 220.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.003 Right
0+000 0+175 175.20 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.003 Left

Road - ii' Left side drain of road DD'
0+000 0+175 175.20 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.003 Right
0+000 0+333 333.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.009 Left
Road -JJ'
0+333 0+840 507.00 0.80 0.50 0.80 0.011 Left Crossing culvert at station
(Capital
letter)
0+000 0+333 333.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.009 Right
0+333 0+840 507.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.011 Right
0+000 0+223 223.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.007 Left

Road - jj' Left side drain of road JJ'
0+000 0+223 223.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.007 Right

Station
Proposed size
Design Outfall To
Road Depth of channel Longutidinal
Road length Bottom Water Total bottom slop drain/ ditch
name From To (m) Width(m) (m) depth(m) (m/m) on road side
0+000 0+300 300.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.018 Left

New crossing culvert at station
0+300 0+840 540.00 0.80 0.50 0.80 0.022 Left 1+906 WW road
0+840 1+906 1066.00 0.80 0.70 1.00 0.019 Left

Road -WW'
Channalized to down forest for a
(Capital
1+906 2+530 624.23 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.015 Left length 10m with similar size
letter)
0+000 1+240 1240.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.018 Right Vehicular rossing culvert at station
1+906 WW road
1+240 1+906 666.00 0.80 0.50 0.80 0.023 Right
Channalized to down forest for a
1+906 2+530 624.00 0.70 0.70 1.00 0.020 Right length 10m with similar size
0+000 0+360 360.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.011 Left 1+200 of WW road
Vehicular crossing culvert at station
Road -TTf'
0+360 0+702 342.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.022 Left 0+350
(Capital
letter)
0+000 0+360 360.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.005 Right 1+200 of WW road
Vehicular crossing culvert at station
0+360 0+702 342.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.022 Right 0+350 and channalization
Road - ZZ'
0+000 0+305 305.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.017 Left
(Capital Right side drain of road KK'
letter)
0+000 0+305 305.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.017 Right
0+000 0+215 215.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.019 Left

Road - zz' Right side drain of road KK'
0+000 0+215 215.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.013 Right
0+000 0+450 450.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.012 Left

Left side drain of road MM'
0+450 0+630 180.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.014 Left
Road - KK' Left side drain of road BB'

0+630 0+957 327.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.016 Left
(Capital
letter)
0+000 0+450 450.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.012 Right
Left side drain of road MM'
0+450 0+630 180.00 0.80 0.50 0.80 0.014 Right

0+630 0+957 327.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.016 Right
0+000 0+300 300.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.014 Left
0+300 0+640 340.00 0.80 0.50 0.80 0.011 Left
0+640 0+859 219.00 0.80 0.70 1.00 0.008 Left
Road MM'
0+859 1+004 145.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.018 Left Existing crossing culvert at station
(Capital
0+859 OF WW road
letter)
0+000 0+300 300.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.014 Right
0+300 0+640 340.00 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.010 Right
0+640 0+859 219.00 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.005 Right
0+859 1+004 145.21 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.018 Right

Station
Prop osed size
Desig n
O utf all To
R oad Dep th of channel Long utid inal
R oad leng th Bottom Water Total bottom slop d rain/ d itch
name From To (m) Wid th(m) (m) d ep th(m) (m/ m) on road sid e
Right side drain of road KK

0+000 0+280 280.00 0.6 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.012 Left
Road NN' Left side drain of road BB

0+280 0+640 360.00 0.6 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.010 Left
(Capital
letter) Right side drain of road KK
0+000 0+280 280.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.012 Right
Left side drain of road BB

0+280 0+640 360.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.008 Right
Road - SS'
0+000 0+239 238.74 0.6 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.025 Left Channalization to ward the forest
(Capital
with simailr size
letter)
0+000 0+239 238.74 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.025 Right
0+000 0+175 175.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.011 Left

Road - uu' Left side drain of road FF'
0+000 0+175 175.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.011 Right
0+000 0+056 56.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.004 Left

Irrigation canal at station 0+056
0+056 0+660 604.00 0.6 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.004 Left
0+660 1+250 590.00 0.6 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.012 Left
1+250 1+550 300.00 0.6 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.005 Left

2+150
1+550 2+150 600.00 0.6 0 0.70 1.00 0.005 Left
2+150 2+250 100.00 0.6 0 0.60 0.9 0 0.010 Left
2+250 2+649 399.00 0.6 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.010 Left
2+649 2+792 143.10 0.6 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.008 Left

2+792 2+904 112.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.017 Left
Road -OO'
2+904 3+409 504.60 0.8 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.028 Left
(Capital
letter)
0+000 0+056 56.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.004 Right
Irrigation canal at station 0+056
0+056 0+660 604.00 0.6 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.004 Right
0+660 1+250 590.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.012 Right
1+250 1+550 300.00 0.6 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.005 Right

2+150 of road OO'
1+550 2+150 600.00 0.8 0 0.70 1.00 0.007 Right
2+150 2+250 100.00 0.6 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.008 Right
2+250 2+649 399.00 0.6 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.008 Right
2+649 2+792 143.10 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.008 Right

2+792 2+904 112.00 0.6 0 0.30 0.6 0 0.019 Right
2+904 3+409 504.60 0.8 0 0.50 0.8 0 0.028 Right

Stati on
Prop osed si z e
Desi g n O utf all To

R oad Dep th of channel Long uti d i nal
R oad leng th B ottom Water Total bottom slop d rai n/ d i tch
nam e From To (m ) Wi d th(m ) (m ) d ep th(m ) (m / m ) on road si d e
23+087
22+560 23+087 527.00 0 .8 0 0.50 0 .8 0 0.020 Left

23+418
23+087 23+418 331.00 0 .6 0 0.50 0 .8 0 0.013 Left

23+590
23+418 23+600 182.00 0 .6 0 0.50 0 .8 0 0.007 Left

23+785
23+600 23+785 185.00 0 .6 0 0.50 0 .8 0 0.007 Left

24+140
23+785 24+140 355.00 0 .6 0 0.50 0 .8 0 0.007 Left

24+285
24+140 24+285 145.00 0 .6 0 0.50 0 .8 0 0.013 Left
24+285 24+450 165.00 0 .6 0 0.50 0 .8 0 0.013 Left New crossing culvert at station
24+450
24+450 24+540 90.00 0 .6 0 0.50 0 .8 0 0.005 Left

24+540
24+540 24+670 130.00 0 .6 0 0.50 0 .8 0 0.013 Left

24+670
24+670 24+970 300.00 0 .6 0 0.50 0 .8 0 0.014 Left
24+970 24+980 10.00 0 .6 0 0.50 0 .8 0 0.005 Left New crossing culvert at station
24+980
24+980 24+988 8.00 0 .6 0 0.50 0 .8 0 0.005 Left

Main road
1+906 of WW' road
(22+560 - 24+988 25+290 302.00 0 .6 0 0.50 0 .8 0 0.012 Left
25+297.87)
23+087
22+560 23+087 527.00 0 .8 0 0.30 0 .6 0 0.020 Right

23+418
23+087 23+418 331.00 0 .6 0 0.30 0 .6 0 0.013 Right

23+590
23+418 23+590 172.00 0 .6 0 0.30 0 .6 0 0.007 Right

23+785
23+590 23+785 195.00 0 .6 0 0.30 0 .6 0 0.007 Right

24+140
23+785 24+140 355.00 0 .6 0 0.30 0 .6 0 0.007 Right

24+285
24+140 24+285 145.00 0 .6 0 0.30 0 .6 0 0.013 Right
24+285 24+450 165.00 0 .6 0 0.30 0 .6 0 0.013 Right New crossing culvert at station
24+450
24+450 24+540 90.00 0.600 0.30 0.60 0.01 Right

24+540
24+540 24+670 130.00 0.600 0.30 0.60 0.01 Right

24+670
24+670 24+980 310.00 0.600 0.30 0.60 0.01 Right

24+980
24+980 24+988 8.00 0.600 0.30 0.60 0.01 Right

1+906 of WW' road
24+988 25+290 302.00 0.600 0.30 0.60 0.01 Right

4.8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The project roads traverse through terrain and soft to moderate terrain. soil’s type is also
varied considerably and some of them are susceptible to erosion and scouring. During
the rainfall season, the anticipated quantity of water is to be collected and disposed
rapidly and quickly.
Generally, the following critical works are recommended:
▪ Proper identification and setting out of proposed crossing structures during

construction.
▪ Proper construction of channelizing structures at the outlet is require to avoid

siltation.
▪ During the construction of pipe culverts, the natural channel invert elevation
should be maintained to find out let.
▪ Routine conservation measure should be done to avoid siltation and erosion.
▪ Moreover, we recommend implementing the designer recommendations also.

5. PAVEMENT DESIGN AND MATERIALS INVESTIGATION

REVIEW
5.1 GENERAL
The purpose of the report is to review the original pavement design and soils and
materials reports of the subject road project prepared by the design consultant (Ethio-
Infra Engineering PLC) and reconfirm the quantity and quality of borrow and quarries
available for layer works and to give the necessary recommendations from project
aspect. For this, we have undertaken, existing road condition survey, natural subgrade
soil investigations, identification of borrow and quarries and laboratory test review and
the technical review of design documents and technical specifications. In addition to the
design review, this report will serve as supplementary input in due course of the
construction supervision activities.
Since the supervision work is commenced after the mobilization of the contractor, and
the permanent construction activities has already been commenced, the design review
activity has to be done along with the supervision work so that there was delay in
collecting subgrade soil sample which was the reason not to finalizing the report on
time. Therefore, based on our findings during the review, we have proposed the
necessary recommended changes and also reconfirm the original design document.
5.2 EVALUATION OF EXISTING PAVEMENT CONDITION
The existing road is constructed to gravel wearing course of average width 6m.
However, the gravel wearing course layer of most of the sections has got severe damage
and possess potholes rutting, and corrugations due to pavement distress, and
longitudinal cracks due to erosion, as seen in the following pictures and the thickness of
gravel wearing course has been decreased to less than 10cm at some sections.
Most of the sections of the road wearing gravel described as red to light brown red ash
gravels. Generally, as per our observation the existing condition of the road is found
being damaged more severely than that mentioned during the design stage so that the
layer shall not be included as sufficient layer whereas it can be scarified and re-used as

embankment material of the project. During field investigation, the existing pavement
condition of the project was surveyed throughout the stretch. This includes the type and
the cause of defects observed on the existing pavement. The types of distress that are
observed along most of the project sections are: -
▪ Potholes, Corrugation and Erosions

▪ Rutting and Raveling
From our reconnaissance and condition survey of the existing road, the existing gravel
material can be described as Sandy silt soil and red ash gravel and it is severally
damaged and has no sufficient thickness as compared to its condition stated at design
stage so that it is required to scarify the top 20cm of the existing road and re-compact to
its 95% MDD before construction of any layer up on it or it can be scarified, temporary
stocked piled, and reused as embankment material or capping layer.
Figure 5-1: Condition of Existing Road

Sample was also taken at some intervals to investigate the quality of the existing gravel
wearing course and also the embankment layers forming the existing road, at most
sections of the road the gravel wearing course thickness is less than 10cm and we have
taken the top wearing course layer at interval of 5km while the underlying layers of the
existing road are taken at 1km interval for all quality tests. The quality test result of
existing wearing course material is summarized as under.
• Subgrade Material Investigation of the Main Access Road, Compound Road and
Airfield Runway
Existing subgrade material investigation was started at early commencement of the

supervision service by the Temporary consultant. However, due to the time overlap of
design review and construction supervision period, there was limited time to undertake
the laboratory testing for all sections. However, the subgrade material investigation
sampling and testing for the main access road has been completed by ECWCS for the
whole length of the Main Access Road.
The following investigation procedures of field and laboratory tests were performed on
the existing subgrade material along the main access road alignment.
▪ Visual sub grade soil extension survey (from km 0+000 to 22+500), Compound
Road and Airfield runway.
▪ Test pit excavation and material sampling for laboratory testing for Main access
road (from 0+000 to 22+500), compound road and Airfield runway.
▪ Laboratory Testing of Main Access Road (from km 0+000 to 22+500), Compound
Roads and Airfield runway.
5.2.1 Visual Subgrade Soil Extension Survey
A visual field soil investigation survey of the natural subgrade soil extension has also
been carried out to determine and differentiate variable soil types based on their texture,
colure, and natural extent that made up the route corridor so that subgrade soils with
nearly similar soil type are grouped together and their extents have been determined.

These extensions were then used to avoid narrow soil stretches from being overlooked
during test pitting and sampling.
The project road natural subgrade soil strata of the existing road are mostly described as
light to yellowish sandy silty clay soil with few gravels and brown to light brown sandy
silty lateritic gravel and at the widening sections light brown to dark brown silty clay
soils, gray to dark gray sandy silty clay and small portion of black clayey silty deposits
are encountered at shallow stretches and structure approaches. Bedded Rock, isolated
boulders and deposited gravel soil mixture could be found on small stretches of the
Main Access Road of which the depth of deposits is variable but mostly exceeds 1m.
The types of natural subgrade material for the project road as visually identified during
design review are shown in table below.
Table 5-1: Existing Subgrade Soil Extension Survey Visual Description
Stretch
Soil Type Material description
From To
0+000 1+000 Brown to Dark Brown Silty Clayey Soil
1+000 2+000 Light to Dark Yellowish Silty Clayey Gravel
2+000 3+000 Dark Brown Silty Soil with Few Gravels
3+000 4+000 Dark Brown Silty Soil with Few Gravels
4+000 5+000 Dark Brown Silty Clayey Soil
5+000 6+000 Light Yellowish Clayey Gravel
6+000 6+200 Stone Fragments and Red Ash Gravel
6+200 6+900 Yellowish Silt Clayey Soil
6+900 7+340 Dark Brown Silty Clayey with Few Gravels
7+740 8+000 Dark Brown Silty Clayey Soil
8+620 9+100 Dark Brown Silty Soil with Gravel

Stretch
Soil Type Material description
From To
20+00 23+000 Light to Dark Brown Silt Clayey Soil
5.2.2 Test Pit Excavation and Sampling
Test pits were excavated on the left right scattered manner of the existing road surface to
such a depth as to enable as also examine the soil property and variability of the
subgrade soils characters at the widening sections. Field identification of subgrade soils
was based on color, texture and grain size as well as on the assessment of their plasticity,
fines content and coarse fractions. Representative samples were collected from the full
depth of test pits in which the vertical soil profile exhibits a reasonable degree of
uniformity.
Test pits were normally dug beneath depth of 1.2m from the surface for sample pit
excavation, in addition to digging by hand, wheal excavator was also engaged for the
sake of reaching the desired depth considering the strata of ground at widening section
and saving time.

Figure 5-2: Test Pit Excavation and Sampling of The Supervision Consultant
This pitting helped us to effectively sample the original ground material at left and right
widening sections which resulted increment of the height and width of the new road. In
the soil and material site investigation report of the detail engineering design of the test
pit excavation says “Test pits were normally dug to a depth of 90-120cm from the surface
of the pavement, every 500m staggered left and right of the road centerline, 1m from the
edge of the carriage way on or close to the wheel truck. Due to which, unsuitable
materials within the widening sections are likely to be overlooked. During the
preparation of this report, main access road sampling had been completed and 20% of
test results are approved, 50% are on progress of testing and reviewing. Test result from
the temporary consultant which was sampled and tested in the external laboratory has
been consumed for the design review.
5.2.3 Laboratory Testing
The soil specimen that are collected from the existing subgrade were tested for Atterberg
limit, proctor density according to AASHTO T-180, three-point CBR, clay content and
volumetric shrinkage limit (for expansive soils) and etc. The summaries of laboratory test
results are presented in the following tables.
The purpose of the subgrade investigation is to determine the design CBR of the existing
sub grade materials and reconfirm the design CBR that is obtained by the design
consultant or give the necessary recommended alternative pavement structures. And

also, the purpose of soil investigation at design review is to identify problematic soil
sections which may had been overlooked during detail design period so that give on
time and cost-effective treatment method during construction.
To review the strength of subgrade material, it is mandatory to determine the

engineering properties like load bearing capacity, soil index properties plasticity and
expansiveness index etc., of the representative soil specimen. Therefore, in order to
determine the above properties of the existing sub grade soil, representative samples
were taken from the existing sub grade materials along the road carriage way including
widening sections at 1km interval scattered left and right of the centerline and tested for
the following tests.
▪ AASHTO Classification and Atterberg limit tests (AASHTO T-89 &90-94)

▪ Moisture density relation tests (AASHTOT 99-1)
▪ Four days soaked three-point CBR & Swell test (AASHTO T193-1)
Thus, the sampling and testing procedure for existing subgrade and original ground
level soil is completed for the main access road sections by the temporary consultant
ECWSC. Quality testing activities are also undergoing for the samples collected from the
road bed after clearing and grubbing activity for both main access road, compound road
and airfield runway especially for those sections which encounter unsuitable subgrade
materials these test results are reported as under, detail test results are annexed.
Table 5-2: Existing Subgrade Material Investigation Laboratory Test Results
S. No Tested Date Chainage Side MDD OMC LL PI Swell CBR
1 6/12/2022 0+000-0+500 FW 1.30 28.2 50 18 1.8 9
2 6/12/2022 0+500-1+000 FW 1.27 34 52 19 4.65 5
3 6/12/2022 1+000-1+500 FW 1.21 26.5 44 13 0.5 50
4 6/12/2022 1+500-2+000 FW 1.38 29.5 54 26 4.98 2


5 6/12/2022 2+000-2+500 FW 1.19 21.2 38 14 1.88 9
6 6/12/2022 2+500-3+000 FW 1.18 22 40 12 2.39 11
7 6/12/2022 3+000-3+500 FW 1.50 17.9 30 9 0.27 11
8 6/12/2022 3+500-4+000 FW 1.36 23.3 41 17 1.82 11
9 6/12/2022 4+000-4+500 FW 1.28 19.3 0 NP 0.57 39
10 6/12/2022 4+500-5+000 FW 1.46 16.9 31 13 1.3 10
11 17/11/2022 5+500-6+000 FW 1.62 16 28 7 0.58 31
12 6/12/2022 5+000-5+500 FW 1.37 18.6 41 16 0.08 45
13 15/11/2022 6+000-6+500 FW 1.43 21 30 7 0.87 14
14 15/11/2022 6+500-7+000 FW 1.48 17.9 30 9 0.86 8
15 15/11/2022 7+000-7+500 FW 1.47 24.3 61 30 5.34 1
16 15/11/2022 7+500-8+000 FW 1.46 25 55 24 5 3
17 15/11/2022 8+000-8+500 FW 1.44 21.4 55 26 1.14 19
18 15/11/2022 8+500-9+000 FW 1.55 18 27 6 0.62 14
19 12/11/2022 9+000-9+500 FW 1.41 19 37 13 0.85 13
20 12/11/2022 9+500-10+000 FW 1.56 16.8 32 12 1.84 10
21 12/11/2022 10+000-10+500 FW 1.42 16.8 43 17 2.64 5
22 12/11/2022 10+500-11+000 FW 1.43 21 48 21 3.96 4
23 12/11/2022 11+000-11+500 FW 1.50 18.5 36 13 3.41 4
24 12/11/2022 11+500-12+000 FW 1.41 22.9 49 22 1.05 7
25 12/11/2022 12+000-12+500 FW 1.44 20.2 37 13 1.42 10
26 12/11/2022 12+500-13+000 FW 1.43 15.7 36 16 1.17 8
27 12/11/2022 13+000-13+500 FW 1.45 17 38 14 0.71 14
28 12/11/2022 13+500-14+000 FW 1.47 19.3 44 16 0.95 10
29 12/11/2022 14+000-14+500 FW 1.53 18.7 39 16 1.89 13


30 7/11/2022 14+500-15+000 FW 1.44 24.5 51 21 5.47 4
31 12/11/2022 15+000-15+500 FW 1.47 19.9 31 12 0.4 22
32 7/11/2022 15+500-16+000 FW 1.45 20 42 16 2.84 4
33 7/11/2022 16+000-16+500 FW 1.45 20 42 16 2.84 4
34 7/11/2022 16+500-17+000 FW 1.4 21 47 19 2.9 7
35 26/10/2022 17+500-18+000 LHS 1.4 20.5 39 15 1.17 24
36 26/10/2022 18+000-18+500 FW 1.43 21.3 49 26 2.07 8
37 24/10/2022 18+500-19+000 FW 1.28 26 46 18 0.93 8
38 24/10/2022 19+000-19+500 FW 1.43 17.7 41 20 1.43 9
39 24/10/2022 19+500-20+000 FW 1.32 28.3 39 9 1.6 6
40 20/10/2022 20+000-20+500 FW 1.38 18.3 42 20 1.11 23
41 20/10/2022 20+500-21+000 FW 1.41 23 34 8 0.84 8
42 19/10/2022 21+000-21+500 FW 1.48 17 36 13 1.18 8
43 20/12/2022 21+500-22+000 FW 1.49 14.3 35 21 1.3 10
44 15/12/2022 22+000-22+500 FW 1.47 20 31 9 0.97 4
45 20/12/2022 22+500-23+000 FW 1.33 24.2 51 26 2.84 5
46 15/12/2022 23+000-23+500 FW 1.44 21.6 43 22 2.86 4
47 20/12/2022 23+500-24+000 FW 1.42 21.5 51 26 4.05 4
48 20/12/2022 24+000-24+500 FW 1.44 24.5 49 24 4.82 2
49 27/10/2022 24+500-25+000 FW 1.46 22.8 50 23 5.28 2

70
60 Designer Subgrade ECWSC Subgrrade Supervision Subgrade
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 5-3: Existing Subgrade Soil CBR With Station Graph
As per the subgrade CBR vs. station graph, from station km 0+000 to 24+500 the bearing
capacity test results of materials at depth up to 1.50m after four days-soaked condition
varies from lower value of 2% to 50% with median value of 11 the lowest CBR values are
obtained at km 7+000 to 7+500 sections while the maximum value is recorded at km
1+000 to 1+500.
5.2.4 Identification of Problematic Unsuitable and/or Expansive Soils
Road bed materials at the sides of the road where the widening embankment layers are
to be constructed were also delineated effectively and tested at the project laboratory.
Therefore, the sections with different texture are effectively delineated especially at
widening sections and cut section of the air field where clearing is done between 17+000
and 23+500 and the exact representative samples of road bed materials at widening
sections are re-sampled and tested. We so far confirm that no unsuitable sections on the
indicated sections of the main access road.
However as per the test result of the whole main access road section, the following
sections are observed as unsuitable sections. The measures to be taken at this section are

replacement of the unsuitable material for a depth of one meter. Based on the geometry
of the section full under cut or undercut at widening section shall be performed.
Table 5-3: Sections Observed as Unsuitable at Main Access Road
Unsuitable Section (Main Access Road) Remark
0+500-1+000 Unsuitable
Furthermore, we have found some samples with unsuitable results on the airfield
runway, most of which have ≥ 55 %, particle size fraction finer than 0.075mm sieve
(which are mixtures of clay and silt or heavy clay), Plasticity index ≥ 30, Liquid Limit ≥
60, CBR (at 95 % MDD) ≤3% and high swell (majority greater than 5% AASHTO T-193)
that indicates the soil samples are soft, compressible with expansive nature. As
compared to the detail design document these airfield soils were not well investigated
and this may be encountered because samples are not taken from all sections. The test
results obtained from airfield runway samples tested at the project laboratory are
tabulated as under.
Table 5-4: Test Result Summery of Existing Subgrade Soil (Airfield Runway)
S. Material
Tested Date Chainage Side MDD OMC LL PI Swell CBR
No Tested
1 15/02/2023 0+000-0+100 Cut Section LHS 1.4 23.5 63 37 4.75 1
2 17/2/2023 0+000-0+100 Subgrade RHS 1.48 21 57 38 5.39 1

S. Material
No Tested
3 1/7/2022 0+140-0+240 Cut Section RHS 1.09 35.2 48 9 0.52 27
4 7/12/2024 0+100-0+300 Subgrade LHS 1.34 24.5 61 29 4.61 2
5 10/5/2022 0+100-0+300 Subgrade RHS 1.4 26.5 65 39 3.67 1
0+000-0+400
(bellow 1.5m
6 25/05/2022 Subgrade LHS 1.51 24 63 29 3.2 3
from the existing
sub grade)
7 15/02/2023 0+300-0+400 Subgrade LHS 1.37 22.5 54 30 5.25 1
8 29/09/2022 0+320-0+400 Cut Section CL 1.39 17.2 70 36 5.9 1
9 29/09/2022 0+320-0+400 Cut Section LHS 1.40 26 60 26 5.73 1
10 29/09/2022 0+320-0+400 Cut Section RHS 1.44 23.5 66 35 5.6 1
11 16/12/2022 0+300-0+540 Cut Section RHS 1.53 22.2 48 21 5.55 2
12 1/3/2023 0+400-0+500 Subgrade LHS 1.42 26.3 62 31 4.54 2
13 6/10/2022 0+400-0+540 Cut Section CL 1.51 20 51 29 2.24 3
14 6/10/2022 0+400-0+540 Cut Section LHS 1.48 22.5 45 20 2.68 3
15 11/10/2022 0+400-0+540 Cut Section RHS 1.52 22.9 52 28 2.79 4
0+400-0+700
(bellow 1.5m
16 25/05/2022 Cut Section LHS 1.57 22 43 28 2.4 4
from the existing
sub grade)
17 0+500-0+680 Cut Section LHS 1.57 17.4 40 15 1.8 8
18 16/01/23 0+540-0+700 Cut Section RHS 1.48 21.7 46 22 3.22 3
19 16/01/23 0+540-0+700 Cut Section LHS 1.45 24 48 21 3.9 1
20 23/02/2023 0+540-0+700 Cut Section FW 1.49 21 60 35 5.01 2
21 12/10/2022 0+700-1+050 Cut Section CL 1.59 19.8 61 31 4.7 3
22 12/10/2022 0+700-1+050 Cut Section LHS 1.44 23 64 34 5.13 3
23 12/10/2022 0+700-1+050 Cut Section RHS 1.54 21.3 61 31 3.01 2
24 19/10/2022 1+050-1+400 Cut Section CL 1.57 19 45 21 4.91 2

S. Material
No Tested
25 19/10/2022 1+050-1+400 Cut Section LHS 1.43 25.5 67 36 4.78 1
26 19/10/2022 1+050-1+400 Cut Section RHS 1.48 21.5 61 29 4.28 2
27 25/05/2022 1+400-1+600 Subgrade LHS 1.57 23 75 36 3.12 2
28 25/05/2022 1+400-1+600 Subgrade CL 1.54 24 58 26 2.9 2
29 25/05/2022 1+400-1+600 Subgrade RHS 1.52 26 66 33 3 2
30 20/06/2022 1+600-1+800 Subgrade CL 1.35 30 72 40 5.7 1
31 20/06/2022 1+600-1+800 Subgrade RHS 1.39 29 69 40 6 1
32 20/06/2022 1+600-1+800 Subgrade LHS 1.33 31.7 76 42 5.85 0.4
33 23/05/2022 1+800-2+100 Subgrade CL 1.6 20 37 14 1.8 8
34 23/05/2022 1+800-2+100 Subgrade RHS 1.64 22 52 20 1.9 5
35 23/05/2022 1+800-2+100 Subgrade Rock Section
36 23/9/2022 1+960-2+200 Subgrade RHS 1.37 23 43 15 1.3 18
37 11/6/2022 2+100-2+300 Subgrade CL 1.50 16.5 34 3 0.94 11
38 11/6/2022 2+100-2+300 Subgrade RHS 1.44 20 36 7 0.96 12
39 11/6/2022 2+100-2+300 Subgrade LHS 1.36 21.6 29 6 0.84 8
40 13/06/2022 2+300-2+500 Subgrade CL 1.43 18.3 35 8 1.03 20
41 13/06/2022 2+300-2+500 Subgrade RHS 1.40 21 0 0 0.95 16
42 13/06/2022 2+300-2+500 Subgrade LHS 1.38 19 0 0 0.59 23
43 14/06/2022 2+500-2+700 Subgrade CL 1.45 20.3 34 10 0.56 10
44 14/06/2022 2+500-2+700 Subgrade RHS 1.41 16.5 0 0 0.5 13
45 14/06/2022 2+500-2+700 Subgrade LHS 1.42 20.3 37 7 0.46 9
46 15/06/2022 2+700-2+900 Subgrade CL 1.46 18.2 41 18 0.68 9
47 14/06/2022 2+700-2+900 Subgrade RHS 1.36 17 41 17 1.27 9
48 14/06/2022 2+700-2+900 Subgrade LHS 1.37 19 39 13 1.14 9
49 15/06/2022 2+900-3+100 Subgrade CL 1.39 18.30 46 20 1.13 13
50 15/06/2022 2+900-3+100 Subgrade RHS 1.38 18.3 41 19 1.03 14
51 15/06/2022 2+900-3+100 Subgrade LHS 1.41 19.7 39 19 0.77 18
52 26/10/2022 3+000-3+300 Cut Section CL 1.29 16.9 33 14 1.09 11

S. Material
No Tested
53 26/10/2022 3+000-3+300 Cut Section LHS 1.34 15.8 33 11 0.9 9
54 26/10/2022 3+000-3+300 Cut Section RHS 1.45 14.6 38 15 0.66 8
The above table test result is from soils sampled at existing subgrade level. However,
due to design changes the subgrade level soil differs from the tabulated data. We are
witnessing a great variation of soil profile at Km 0+100 - km 0+300 where excavation
activities are on progress. Moreover, due to revision of vertical alignment from station
0+640 up to 1+400 there is deep cut section with rock excavation which was not observed
in the first 1.5-meter depth.
5.3 SUBGRADE DESIGN CBR / HOMOGENOUS SECTION
The final pavement structure along the road length is based on the traffic loading and in-
situ subgrade quality. For practical constructability reasons, the pavement structure
cannot be changed for each variance in the subgrade strength.
The selection of the homogenous/uniform section mainly governed by the soaked CBR
curve the engineering properties and the geotechnical characteristic of the subgrade soil.
The CBR test is designed to simulate conditions that will exist at the surface of the
subgrade. It is used primarily to determine empirically the required thickness of flexible
pavements for highways.
A road section for which a pavement design is undertaken should be subdivided into
subgrade areas where the subgrade CBR can be reasonably expected to be uniform, i.e.
without significant variations. It is not practical to create delineations between subgrade
areas that would be too precise and indeed this could be the source of confusion during
construction.
For design purposes, it is important that the strength of the subgrade should not be
underestimated for large areas of pavement or overestimated to such an extent that there

is risk of local failures. The best compromise for design purpose is to use the lower ten
percentile value, i.e. that value which is exceeded by 90% of the readings.
It is important to differentiate between localized poor or good soils and general

subgrade areas. Normally, localized poor soils will be removed and replaced with
suitable materials. Various subgrade quality parameters are therefore used to define
significant sections of similar subgrade strength so that an approximate CBR is defined
for each in-situ subgrade unit. Uniform pavement structures are allocated to each of
these sections.
In order to categorize uniform sections, visual evaluations with regards to their

Engineering properties as well as laboratory results were taken into considerations. CBR
values are also considered while categorizing uniform pavement sections. The laboratory
CBR tells us about the soil characteristics when exposed to its worst/ soaked condition.
Although the selection of uniform sections is thus mainly governed by the laboratory 4
days soaked CBR values, other parameters such as swelling and plasticity have also been
observed while determining the homogenous sections.
The homogeneous sections have been separated initially by adopting cumulative sum
method using laboratory CBR values as a parameter. The method utilizes plotting of the
cumulative sum of difference from average value against station as presented in Figure
below. The limits of possible uniform section are determined from significant change in
slopes, and then the exact boundaries are defined based on the soil extension.

Cumulative Difference CBR vs Station

60
50
Cummulative difference of CBR
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
-10
Stations
Figure 5-4: Cumulative SUM of Lab. Soaked CBR vs. Station
Considering the cumulative sum difference for various parameters as shown above, CBR
based three homogenous sections have been formed. Short sections have been merged
for practical construction consideration. The 90-percentile value was determined using
statistical computations and the corresponding subgrade classes were identified as
summarized in Table below.
After the delineation of fairly homogenous sections, Design CBR values (CBR d) were
determined by taking the 90-percentile CBR value (the CBR value below which only 10%
of results may fall) for respective sections.
The design subgrade determined in this design review is for the main access road and
the airfield runway. The subgrade soil testing was performed by the temporary
consultant ECWSC whereas the runway subgrade characterization was performed at the
project laboratory.
According to the subgrade CBR verses station graph, the project’s main access road is
divided in to three homogenous sections and the design CBR for a homogenous section
is obtained by taking the 90th Percentile of the smallest CBR of the subgrade CBR values.
This is done by sorting the subgrade CBR values in ascending order and plotting a graph
taking, these CBR values as ordinate and the number of samples tested as abscissa. Then
the X- coordinate of the 90th percentile value is then determined by

d = 0.1 * ( n − 1)
Where;
d = offset of the x-coordinate of the 90th percentile from 1 (the X-coordinate of smallest
CBR),
n = number of samples tested.
Once the x-coordinate of the 90-percentile is determined, the design CBR value then
found by reading the corresponding value from the Y- axis.
Therefore, for homogenous section km 0+000 to 24+500, the design subgrade class is S3.
According to ERA pavement design manual 2013, normally, localized poor soils shall be
removed and replaced with suitable materials since it is not economical to make the
design CBR of the section suit for them. Therefore, it would be better economical treating
the localized poor soil subgrade sections separately with improved subgrade material
(CBR ˃ 5) to bring them to S3 class than decreasing the subgrade class and adding
capping layer for the whole section. Then on account of the existing embankment,
improved subgrade layers and CBR of borrow embankment material (˃5), the design
CBR of the section will be brought to S3 class.
• Main Access Road
CBR in
CBR@ ascendin Chart of 90 Percentile
Station 95%MDD g order n-Sample CBR Values Vs Number of data
0+000 9 2 0
0+500 5 5 1 90%.ile CBR Value
1+000 50 9 2 60
1+500 2 9 3
50
2+000 9 11 4 n=9
2+500 11 11 5 40
d=0.1*(9-1)=0.8
CBR Value(%)
3+000 11 11 6 Design CBR=5

3+500 11 39 7 30
4+000 39 50 8
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Number of data

Figure 5-5: CBR verses Number of Samples for (0+000 – 4+000) Graph
CBR in
station 95%MDD g order n-Sample CBR Values Vs Number of data
4+500 10 1 0
5+000 45 3 1 90%.ile CBR Value
5+500 31 8 2 50
6+000 14 10 3 45
6+500 8 13 4 40 n=10
7+000 1 14 5 35 d=0.1*(10-1)=0.9
CBR Value(%)
7+500 3 14 6 30 Design CBR=5
8+000 19 19 7 25
8+500 14 31 8 20
9+000 13 45 9 15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Number of data
Figure 5-6: CBR verses Number of Samples For (4+500–9+000) Graph
CBR in
9+500 10 4 0
10+000 5 4 1 90%.ile CBR Value
10+500 4 4 2
11+000 4 4 3
22
11+500 7 4 4 n=21
12+000 10 5 5 d=0.1*(21-1)=2.0
CBR Value(%)
12+500 8 6 6 17 Design CBR=5

13+000 14 7 7
13+500 10 7 8 12
14+000- 13 8 9
14+500 4 8 10 7
15+000 22 8 11
15+500 4 9 12 2
16+000 4 10 13 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
16+500 7 10 14 Number of data
17+000 24 10 15
18+000 8 13 16
18+500 8 14 17
19+000 9 22 18
19+500 6 23 19
20+000 23 24 20
Figure 5-7: CBR verses Number of Samples For (9+ 500–20+000) Graph

CBR in
20+500 8 2 0
21+000 8 2 1 90%.ile CBR Value
21+500 10 4 2 12
22+000 4 4 3
10
22+500 5 4 4 n=9
23+000 4 5 5 8
d=0.1*(9-1)=0.8
CBR Value(%)
23+500 4 8 6 Design CBR=2
24+000 2 8 7 6
24+500 2 10 8
4
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Number of data
Figure 5-8: CBR verses number of samples for (20+ 000–24+500) graph
Table 5-5: Compound Road Subgrade Test Result
S. Material
No Tested
1 19/11/2022 AAI 0+000-0+400 Subgrade LHS 1.35 24.4 63 33 5.2 1

2 15/12/2022 AAI 0+400-0+770 Subgrade LHS 1.55 19.1 53 27 4.69 3
aa & bb 0+000-
3 23/01/2023 Subgrade LHS 1.42 22.7 61 39 5.35 3
0+220
AA'T'''-AA'T'''
4 23/01/2023 Subgrade CL 1.35 24.4 63 33 5.2 1
0+000-0+400
5 12/12/2022 BB 0+000-0+500 Subgrade LHS 1.40 21 43 17 2.43 9

6 18/01/2023 BB 0+500-1+000 Subgrade RHS 1.31 27 51 25 5.21 1
7 15/12/2022 BB 1+000-1+500 Subgrade RHS 1.47 21 53 30 4.72 2
8 12/12/2022 BB 1+500-2+000 Subgrade RHS 1.43 25.5 69 32 4.97 1
9 13/12/2022 BB 2+000-2+460 Subgrade LHS 1.38 18.3 37 17 2 6
10 6/12/2022 CC 0+000-0+400 Subgrade CL 1.4 24.3 52 19 3.85 5

S. Material
No Tested
11 18/01/2023 c-c 0+000-0+360 Subgrade CL 1.40 22.9 67 36 5.15 2

12 23/01/2023 C-C’ 0+400-0+840 Subgrade RHS 1.44 18.6 65 35 3.91 2
13 6/12/2022 DD 0+000-0+400 Subgrade LHS 1.4 21.7 50 26 5.15 2
14 12/12/2022 DD 0+400-0+840 Subgrade LHS 1.35 27.4 66 32 4.97 1
dd & uu 0+000-
15 18/01/2023 Subgrade LHS 1.42 21.7 49 23 4.36 2
0+220
ee & ff 0+000-
16 18/01/2023 Subgrade LHS 1.38 24.7 61 33 5.39 1
0+380
17 6/12/2022 EE 0+440-0+840 Subgrade CL 1.36 28 55 31 4.66 1

18 6/12/2022 EE 0+000-0+440 Subgrade CL 1.39 22.9 56 31 4.87 1
19 6/12/2022 FF 0+440-0+840 Subgrade CL 1.58 20.6 41 20 3.4 4
20 6/12/2022 FF 0+000-0+440 Subgrade LHS 1.41 27.3 51 26 3.94 3
21 10/11/2022 G-G' 0+000-0+440 Subgrade RHS 1.50 2.6 51 27 4.6 1
22 23/01/2023 G-G' 0+440-0+840 Subgrade RHS 1.29 29 53 15 0.83 60
j-j & i-i 0+000-
23 18/01/2023 Subgrade LHS 1.34 25.9 63 31 4.92 1
0+220
24 15/12/2022 JJ 0+000-0+400 Subgrade CL 1.41 25.2 69 34 4.63 1

25 20/12/2022 JJ' 0+400-0+840 Subgrade LHS 1.54 22.7 47 28 4.56 2
26 18/01/2023 k-k 0+000-0+500 Subgrade CL 1.38 24.9 60 27 4.39 1
27 23/01/2023 K-K' 0+500-0+840 Subgrade LHS 1.34 28.2 64 31 4.92 1
28 20/12/2022 II' 0+000-0+400 Subgrade LHS 1.44 21.5 41 16 1.25 20
29 15/12/2022 II 0+400-0+800 Subgrade CL 1.44 20.5 44 22 3.73 3
30 12/12/2022 II 0+800-1+240 Subgrade RHS 1.50 18.5 53 29 5.08 2
31 18/01/2023 mm 0+000-0+500 Subgrade LHS 1.45 23.4 50 23 5.31 3
32 18/01/2023 mm 0+500-1+000 Subgrade CL 1.43 19.7 39 15 1.24 9
33 18/01/2023 NN 0+300-0+600 Subgrade CL 1.40 23.1 61 29 4.89 2
34 23/01/2023 N-N' 0+000-0+300 Subgrade CL 1.50 21.5 63 45 4.36 2

S. Material
No Tested
35 23/01/2023 O-O' 1+500-2+000 Subgrade CL 1.35 19.5 36 7 1.56 10

36 23/01/2023 O-O' 3+000-3+400 Subgrade LHS 1.16 26.9 54 17 1.9 9
37 18/01/2023 OO 2+000-2+500 Subgrade LHS 1.43 20.5 50 24 4.5 2
38 18/01/2023 OO 2+500-3+000 Subgrade RHS 1.58 21 43 18 1.58 9
TTF-TTF' 0+400-
39 23/01/2023 Subgrade LHS 1.4 26.2 50 29 5.04 1
0+700
40 18/01/2023 TTF 0+000-0+400 Subgrade LHS 1.36 24.5 74 41 5.4 1

41 8/11/2023 WW 0+000-0+500 Subgrade RHS 1.37 25.4 52 20 3.87 1
Cut
42 8/11/2023 WW 0+540-0+900 RHS 1.39 24.6 38 73 4.83 2
Section
43 8/11/2023 WW 1+000-1+660 Subgrade RHS 1.38 23.8 58 25 4.6 1

Cut
44 8/11/2023 WW ' 0+160-0+540 LHS 1.44 24 62 33 4.84 3
Section
Cut
45 8/11/2023 WW ' 0+160-0+540 LHS 1.44 24 62 33 4.84 3
Section
46 8/11/2023 WW ' 0+500-1+000 Subgrade RHS 1.55 21 53 37 5.01 1
Cut
47 23/01/2023 WW ' 0+900-1+260 RHS 1.32 23.7 91 52 4.28 1
Section
Cut
48 23/01/2023 WW ' 1+260-1+700 LHS 1.44 21.3 65 32 4.82 1
Section
Cut
49 23/01/2023 WW’ 2+220-2+500 RHS 1.48 22 51 23 4.66 3
section
50 17/01/2023 WW 2+000-2+500 Subgrade RHS 1.40 24.8 63 31 5.16 1

51 18/01/2023 WW 2+000-2+500 Subgrade LHS 1.40 24.8 63 31 5.16 1
52 18/01/2023 ZZ 0+000-0+300 Subgrade CL 1.39 23.4 63 38 5.3 2

S. Material
No Tested
53 23/01/2023 z-z' 0+000-0+220 Subgrade RHS 1.46 21.3 48 16 0.49 23

54 6/12/2022 BCC 0+000-0+300 Subgrade RHS 1.4 21 50 28 5.08 1
55 20/12/2022 BCC' 0+300-0+580 Subgrade CL 1.38 26.5 54 30 2.6 4
The road section under pavement design consideration of the compound road is divided
into two homogenous sections which are classified as S2 and S1 subgrade classes as per
ERA pavement design manual 2013.
According to our review findings the subgrade class of the main access road and
compound road sections compared with the design consultant is listed under.
Table 5-6: Design CBR and Subgrade classification Obtained by both Consultants
Homogeneous Sections Subgrade CBR Subgrade Class
Designer Consultant Supervision Design Review Design Review
0+000 to 6+500 consultant

0+000 to 4+000 19 5 S4 S3
6+500 to 18+500 4+500 to 9+000 8 5 S4 S3
18+500 to 24+500 9+500 to 20+000 8 5 S4 S3
20+500 to 24+500 - 2 S2
Compound Road Compound Road 2 2 S2 S2
Similar to main access road the unsuitable section of the compound road is summarized
below which is subjected to 1m depth replacement.
Table 5-7: Unsuitable Sections (Compound Road)
Unsuitable Section (Compound Road)

Road Segment & Station Side Road Segment & Station Side
AAI 0+400-0+770 LHS k-k 0+000-0+500 CL

aa& bb 0+000-0+220 LHS K-K' 0+500-0+840 LHS
AA'T'''-AA'T''' 0+000-0+400 CL II 0+400-0+800 CL

Unsuitable Section (Compound Road)

Road Segment & Station Side Road Segment & Station Side
BB 0+500-1+000 RHS II 0+800-1+240 RHS

BB 1+000-1+500 RHS mm 0+000-0+500 LHS
BB 1+500-2+000 RHS NN 0+300-0+600 CL
BB 2+000-2+460 LHS N-N' 0+000-0+300 CL
CC 0+000-0+400 CL OO 2+000-2+500 LHS
c-c 0+000-0+360 CL TTF-TTF' 0+400-0+700 LHS
C-C’ 0+400-0+840 RHS TTF 0+000-0+400 LHS
DD 0+000-0+400 LHS WW 0+000-0+500 CL
DD 0+400-0+840 LHS WW 0+540-0+900 LHS
dd&uu0+000-0+220 LHS WW 0+500-1+000 LHS
ee & ff 0+000-0+380 LHS WW 2+000-2+500 RHS
EE 0+440-0+840 LHS WW 2+000-2+500 LHS
EE 0+000-0+440 CL WW ' 0+500-1+000 LHS
FF 0+440-0+840 CL WW ' 1+260-1+700 LHS
FF 0+000-0+440 LHS WW ' 0+900-1+260 RHS
GG 0+000-0+400 CL WW ' 0+160-0+540 LHS
j-j& i-i 0+000-0+220 LHS z-z' 0+000-0+220 RHS
JJ 0+000-0+400 CL BCC 0+000-0+400 RHS
JJ' 0+400-0+840 LHS BCC' 0+300-0+580 CL
Prilim. OO 1+000-1+469 Full width
5.4 TRAFFIC COUNT DATA ANALYSIS
5.4.1 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
The traffic census was conducted from Nov 17, 2022 up to October. 24, 2022 at Dimtu -
Soddo Junction. And among the counting days 24 hours count were done at mid weak
day and the other at the weekend day as per the count, all the day counts were
converted to the 24hrs count by determining the night factor and then the Average Daily

Traffic (ADT) is calculated. The ADT calculated for each counting station is presented
hereunder.
• Estimation of Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
The ADTT figures shown in the following tables below represent weekly average of 12-
hour (daytime) traffic. The Average Day Time Traffic (ADTT) was converted to Average
Daily Traffic (ADT) using Night Adjustment Factors (NAF). The Average Daily Traffic
(ADT) was determined after the Seven days average 12-hour traffic count or the ADTT is
adjusted by the night factor (i.e., multiplying the average 12-hour count for seven days
by the night factor for each type of vehicle as shown below.
Seven-day time (7 A.M to 7 P.M) count of each vehicle type was summed up. The sum of
day time traffic count of each vehicle type was divided by seven to get the average day
time traffic (for 12 hours). The average day time traffic was multiplied by the night factor
to get the required Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for 24 hours.
Night Factor (NF) is needed to adjust the average day time traffic (12 hours) in order to
estimate the average day time traffic in a way that reflects 24 hours traffic flow on the
road under consideration. The night factor for each vehicle type at the respective section
has been developed after dividing the 24-hour traffic by the day time (12 hour) traffic
recorded on the night time traffic count days.
Table 5-8: Estimation of ADTT at Dimtu - Soddo Junction (Both Direction)
Total
Total
L/ H/ T& (With
Date of Count Motor S/ L/ S/Tr M/Tr (With
Car Rov Tru Trail out
Survey Period Cycle Bus Bus uck uck Motor
er ck er Motor
cycle)
cycle)
17/8/1 12-Hr 162 30 12 3 0 1 9 0 0 217 55

5
18/8/1 12-Hr 504 39 0 11 7 0 12 8 1 582 78
5
19/8/1 12-Hr 629 40 0 17 11 0 24 12 2 735 106
5
20/8/1 12-Hr 821 51 0 25 35 3 38 13 0 986 165
5
21/8/1 12-Hr 699 22 1 22 8 0 21 3 1 777 78
5

Total
Total
L/ H/ T& (With
Date of Count Motor S/ L/ S/Tr M/Tr (With
Car Rov Tru Trail out
Survey Period Cycle Bus Bus uck uck Motor
er ck er Motor
cycle)
cycle)
22/8/1 12-Hr 631 31 0 6 10 0 21 9 4 712 81

5
23/8/1 12-Hr 513 55 0 9 4 4 23 5 0 613 100
5
20/8/1 24-Hr 935 55 0 28 42 3 48 14 0 1125 190
5
22/8/1 24-Hr 761 32 0 14 11 0 31 15 4 868 107
5
12-Hr Weekly
566 38 2 13 11 1 21 7 1 660 95
Average (ADTT)
12-Hr Two days

726 41 - 15.5 22.5 1.5 29.5 11 2 849 123
Average
24-Hr Two days

848 43.5 - 21 26.5 1.5 39.5 14.5 2 996.5 148.5
Average
Night Factors by
1.17 1.06 1 1.35 1.18 1.00 1.34 1.32 1.00 1.17 1.21
vehicle type
Average Daily
660.61 40.62 1.86 18 12.62 1.14 28.31 9.42 1.14 775 114.35
Traffic (ADT)
Table 5-9: Annual Growth Rate Estimates by Vehicle Group (Medium Scenario)
Traffic Growth Estimates by Vehicle Group

Period
Cars & Utilities Buses Trucks
2015-2024 9.5% 10.2% 8.1%
2025- 2034 9.2% 9.9% 7.7%
2035- 2044 8.9% 9.5% 7.3%

Table 5-10: Normal Traffic Estimate (2025): Opening Year
Truck
S/ M/ H/
Road section Car L/R S/Bus L/Bus & Total
Truck Truck Truck
Trailer
Dimtu (Soddo)
54.96 2.51 18.00 16.89 1.44 35.76 11.89 1.44 142.9
Junction
The ADT of the review is very low as compared to the ADT of the detail design count
data this might be because of the counting season that we undertake falls when the
traffic is low since, the project road is surrounded with vast farm land so that the traffic
load will most probably increases during harvest time. We also do not consider the
Generated and Diverted traffic since the time is limited to perform OD analysis.
One of the major parameters in the pavement design is the estimation of the design
traffic loading that will be carried by the road over its design period. The design traffic is
expressed in terms of the annual average daily traffic. Detail analysis of the traffic
projection is indicated in design report. The traffic loading for the pavement design is
predicted based on the traffic growth and prediction analysis indicated in the feasibility
report.
Design service period of 15 years is considered based on the function of the project road
in the overall network as a Main access road. It has been also assumed that year 2025
(giving tendering, mobilization and construction times) has been considered as the base
year when the project road will be opened for traffic, upon which traffic projections will
be based.
The base year, projected traffic for the design period and equivalency factors for each
category of vehicle have been extracted from traffic analysis. Considering the base year
traffic (2025), and the proposed growth rates, and generated and diverted traffic, the
traffic projections exercise has been carried out for the entire project appraisal period.
The results of the traffic projections for all the motorized modes on the project road are
summarized in Tables below and details are discussed.

Table 5-11: Projected Traffic for the Proposed Dimtu – Bilate Road Project (Supervision
Consultant)
Project Year Car L/Rover S/Bus L/Bus S/Truck M/Truck H/Truck Truck Total
Life &
1 2025 54.96 2.51 18.00 16.89 1.44 35.76 11.89 1.44 142
Trailer
2 2026 60.78 2.78 26.93 18.88 1.71 42.36 14.09 1.71 169
3 2027 67.22 3.07 29.79 20.88 1.89 46.85 15.58 1.89 187
4 2028 74.35 3.40 32.95 23.10 2.09 51.82 17.23 2.09 207
5 2029 82.23 3.76 36.44 25.55 2.31 57.31 19.06 2.31 229
6 2030 90.95 4.16 40.30 28.25 2.56 63.38 21.08 2.56 253
7 2031 100.59 4.60 44.57 31.25 2.83 70.10 23.32 2.83 281
8 2032 111.25 5.09 49.30 34.56 3.13 77.53 25.79 3.13 310
9 2033 123.04 5.63 54.52 38.22 3.46 85.75 28.52 3.46 343
10 2034 136.08 6.22 60.30 42.28 3.83 94.84 31.54 3.83 379
11 2035 150.51 6.88 66.69 46.76 4.23 104.90 34.89 4.23 420
12 2036 184.11 8.42 81.58 57.19 5.18 128.31 42.68 5.18 513
13 2037 203.62 9.31 90.23 63.26 5.73 141.91 47.20 5.73 566
14 2038 225.21 10.30 99.80 69.96 6.34 156.96 52.20 6.34 627
15 2039 249.08 11.39 110.37 77.38 7.01 173.59 57.74 7.01 694
Table 5-12: Projected Traffic for the Proposed Dimtu – Bilate Road Project (Design Consultant)
4WD S/ M/ H/
Year Car S/Bus L/Bus T&T Total
+P/up Truck Truck Truck
2025 0 19 111 6 69 17 148 40 410

2026 0 22 121 7 75 19 160 45 449
2027 0 25 132 8 81 21 175 50 492
2028 0 28 143 9 87 23 191 56 537

4WD S/ M/ H/
Year Car S/Bus L/Bus T&T Total
+P/up Truck Truck Truck
2029 0 31 156 10 94 25 208 62 586

2030 0 34 169 11 102 27 227 68 638
2031 0 37 184 12 110 30 247 75 695
2032 0 41 200 13 119 33 270 83 759
2033 0 45 216 15 129 36 296 91 828
2034 0 49 234 17 140 39 324 100 903
2035 0 54 254 19 151 43 355 110 986
2036 0 60 275 21 164 47 389 122 1078
2037 0 66 301 23 178 52 429 135 1184
2038 0 73 330 25 194 57 472 149 1300
2039 0 80 362 28 210 62 520 165 1427
Based on this review, the estimated cumulative Equivalent Standard Axle Loads on the
project road are calculated as presented below for the road project assuming two traffic
loading scenarios.
Medium Traffic loading: for the predicted AADT and truck composition, equivalent
factor for axle loads is determined based on standard axle load or legal limit. These
equivalent factors below are assumed to represent a normal/Medium traffic loading for
the road project.
Table 5-13: Equivalent Factor Assumed for Medium Traffic Loading Scenario
Car Utility S. Bus L. Bus S. Truck M. Truck H. Truck T/T
0.0001 0.001 0.1 0.7 0.3 1.2 2.5 13
Heavy Traffic loading: for the predicted AADT and truck composition, equivalent factor
for the axle load is determined considering overloading beyond legal limit referring axle
load measurements in the vicinity in recent years. These equivalent factors below are

assumed to represent an overloading beyond the legal limit / Heavy traffic loading for
the road project.
Table 5-14: Equivalent Factor Assumed for Heavy Traffic Loading Scenario
Car Utility S. Bus L. Bus S. Truck M. Truck H. Truck T/T
0.0001 0.001 0.38 2.3 0.3 3.5 10.8 22.8
Traffic forecasting is an uncertain process even with a developed economy and stable
economic condition. In a developing economy, the problem becomes more intractable.
The traffic growth rate can be linearly related to GDP. This is normally preferable since it
explicitly takes in to account changes in overall economic activity, but it has the
disadvantages that in order to use the relationship for forecasting, a forecast of GDP is
needed. Prediction of traffic loading is even worse as it is related to driver behavior,
vehicle owner and the legal enforcement and the overall road asset management strategy
and technology adopted. However, for the pavement design purpose it is attempted to
predict the traffic loading in terms of equivalent axle load for the two scenarios as shown
below.
Table 5-15: Cumulative ESA per lane for the two Scenario under Different Loading, Million
Year Dimtu (Juncton) - Soddo (0+000 - 23+500)

Medium /Normal/ Heavy /Overloading/
2025 0.1 0.1
2026 0.2 0.2
2027 0.3 0.3
2028 0.4 0.5
2029 0.5 0.6
2030 0.6 0.8
2031 0.8 1.0
2032 0.9 1.1
2033 1.1 1.3
Year Dimtu (Juncton) - Soddo (0+000 - 23+500)

Medium /Normal/ Heavy /Overloading/
2034 1.2 1.6
2035 1.4 1.8
2036 1.6 2.1
2037 1.8 2.3
2038 2.1 2.6
2039 2.3 3.0
The base year and projected traffic for the design period for each category of vehicle
have been extracted from traffic analysis. Design traffic loading (ESA) has been
estimated using the estimated traffic data, EF as estimated above and lane distribution
factors of 0.5.
The damages that vehicles due to a road depend very strongly on the axle loads of the
vehicles and normally expressed in terms of Equivalent Factor (EF). For this pavement
design purpose, recommended values as presented in ERA Flexible Pavement Design
Manual 2013 have been adopted for normal axle load (medium traffic loading) scenario,
while for overloading condition (Heavy traffic loading) axle load measurements in the
vicinity in recent years is considered. Based on this analysis, the medium (normal) traffic
loading as well as overloading (heavy) traffic loading scenario for the project road can
reasonably be classified in T5 traffic class (3-6 MESA). Considering this and the fact that
to reflect the medium and heavy loading project scenario, T5 has been recommended for
the main access road.
5.4.2 Design Standard and Design Period
5.4.2.1 Road Functional Classification
In the Ethiopian context, road classification is based on the function of the road it serves.
In line with this, the Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA) Geometric Design Manual (2013)
has classified existing roads based on the function they serve. It has also set terms on
which future road classification should base.
Functional classification (the grouping of highways by the character of service they

provide) of roads was developed mainly for transportation planning purposes. ERA’s
Design Standard classifies roads in five (5) categories based on the character of service
they provide. These are Trunk, Link, Main Access, Collector and Feeder roads.
The functional classification of the project road is not set in ERA’s Geometric Design
Manual 2013, Appendix A. However, considering that the project road serves as access
to major highway (Hawassa -Soddo) as well as provincially important centers such as
Soddo and Hawassa town via Dimtu, the Consultant has classified the project road as
Main Access Road.
5.4.2.2 Selection of Design Class
In ERA’s Geometric Design Manual (2013), eight design class categories, designated DC1
to DC8, are included. Each class corresponds with designated AADT category (i.e. an
AADT range) expected to be carried by the road. Thus, the AADT categories and design
standard categories are related one-to-one. In other words, for a road section identified
with a particular AADT range, the related DC category is uniquely determined and
becomes applicable for the entire road section.
After analysis of the data obtained from the traffic survey, as shown in the above section,
the base year (2025) traffic is estimated to be 143, the mid-year (2033) traffic is estimated
to be 310 and horizon year (2039) traffic is estimated to be 694. The design consultant
estimates the traffic at the base year (2025) is 410, 759 at the mid-year and 1427 at the
horizon year. Though there is significance difference exists in the traffic estimate
between the DC and SC, no variation occurs on determining road standard since our
AADT will increases after incorporating generated and diverted traffic. Considering this
AADT and the design classes listed under the category of access Road (which are DC3 –
DC7) the project road falls under the category of Design Class DC5 based on the mid-
year traffic. Therefore, the supervision consultant coincides adopting DC5 Design
Standard for the subject project.
5.4.2.3 Design Period
Determining an appropriate design period is the first step towards traffic forecast and
selection of design class. Many factors may influence this decision, including budget
constraints. However, the designer should follow certain guidelines in choosing an
appropriate design period, considering the conditions governing the project. Some of the
points to consider include:
5.4.2.4 Functional Importance of The Road
▪ Traffic volume
▪ Location and terrain of the project
▪ Financial constraints
▪ Difficulty in forecasting traffic
It generally appears economical to construct roads with longer design periods, especially
for important roads and for roads with high traffic volume. Where rehabilitation would
cause major inconvenience to road users, a longer period may be recommended. For
roads in difficult locations and terrain where regular maintenance proves to be costly
and time consuming because of poor access and non-availability of nearby construction
material sources, a longer design period is also appropriate.
Problems in traffic forecasting may also influence the design. When accurate traffic
estimates cannot be made, it may be advisable to reduce the design period to avoid
costly overdesign. Bearing in mind the above considerations, ERA’s 2013 design manual
prepares the general guidelines as shown in table below:
Table 5-16: Design Period
Road Classification Design Period (Years)
Trunk Road 20
Link Road 20
Main Access Road 15
Other Roads 10
Since the project road is classified as Main access road the design period will be 15 years.
As compared to the AADT of the review, the AADT of the designer is larger therefore,
since this is a draft report, the actual traffic volume by incorporating generated and
diverted traffic will be considered on the latest report. Therefore, taking the traffic class
and subgrade data as discussed in the above sections. we have recommended alternative
pavement structures as per ERA pavement design manual 2013.
Table 5-17: Chart B1 (Thin 50mm) Flexible AC Surfacing Granular Road Base for Main Access
Road (ERA Pavement Design Manual 2013)
Section from km 0+000 – 24+500, Main Access Road
Design Review (Based on ERA manual)
Traffic Subgrade Class Traffic Subgrade Class
T6 S4 T5 S3
200mm GB 200mm GB
Alternate Pavement
200mm GSB 200mm GSB
Option
150mm GCL 150mm GSL
Where;
GB: Crushed Stone Base Course
GSB: Granular Subbase
GCL: Granular Capping Material
CNS: Cohesive None Swelling Material (Improved Subgrade)
Table 5-18: Chart B1 (Thin 50mm) Flexible AC Surfacing Granular Road Base for the Compound
Roads (ERA Pavement Design Manual 2013)
Section from km 0+000 – 22+000 Compound Roads
Review (Based on ERA

Design
Manual)
Subgrade
Traffic Traffic Subgrade Class
Class
T5 S2 T4 S3
175mm GB 175mm GB
Alternate Pavement
200mm GSB 200mm GSB
Option
300 GCL 150mm GCL
Where;
GB: Crushed Stone Base Course
GSB: Granular Subbase
GCL: Granular Capping Material
CNS: Cohesive none swelling material (Improved Subgrade)
5.5 SHOULDER DESIGN
Shoulders are essential parts of the road in that they give additional width to the road
embankment and serve as temporary parking lane and also facilitate as an outlet to the
internal drainage system of the road pavement.
The design document of the project recommends the DBST unbound base course layers
to be extended outwards to form the shoulder and the typical section drawing indicates
that the shoulder is sealed.
We recommend that the pavement materials at shoulders shall be selected in such a way
that the internal drainage of the road pavement is facilitated and not blocked. Therefore,
the crushed, pervious base course material above the granular sub base layer is
preferable as the internal drainage facility. However, leaving the unbound base course
layer unsealed or un-surfaced is not recommended since it allows intrusion of surface
water to the edge of the pavement. It is also easily disseminated by traffic, pedestrian
and cattle foot so that repeated unnecessary re-gravelling and maintenance cost is
incurred. Therefore, we recommend the same sealed shoulder (DBST), extended base
course and sub base layers for the following main reasons.
Minimizing the adverse effect of the moisture fluctuation in expansive soils, due to the
seasonal moisture variation zone of the pavement (especially considering high intensity
of annual rainfall of the project):
▪ Facilitating the internal drainage of the pavement.

▪ Reduces erosion of the shoulders (especially on steep gradients).
▪ Reduces maintenance costs by avoiding the need for re-gravelling at regular
intervals.
▪ Reduces the risk of road accidents, especially where the edge drop between the
shoulder and the pavement is significant or the shoulders are relatively soft.
5.6 AIRFIELD RUNWAY PAVEMENT DESIGN
5.6.1 Introduction
Run way pavements are designed and constructed to provide adequate support for the
loads imposed by airplanes and to produce a firm, stable, smooth, skid resistant, year-
round, all-weather surface free of debris or other particles that can be blown or picked
up by propeller wash or jet blast. To fulfill these requirements, the quality and thickness
of the pavement must not fail under the imposed loads. The pavement must also possess
sufficient inherent stability to withstand, without damage, the abrasive action of traffic,
adverse weather conditions, and other deteriorating influences.
This requires coordination of many design factors, construction, and inspection to assure
the best combination of available materials and workmanship standard for pavement
design are used to design the thickness, life compaction requirement and material
selection.
5.6.2 Soil Investigation
Representative samples were obtained along the whole length of the runway, and
laboratory tests were performed. The test results were discussed in the soil and material
investigation report. Unsuitable/Expansive soils are identified, and further tests are
recommended to identify the level of severity they would cause on the pavement.
The FAA recommends selecting subgrade strength value; that is one standard deviation
(Sample) below the mean laboratory test. It recommends to use a value for design that
reflects the expected long-term subgrade support. Accordingly, since the runway
pavements fall under cut sections, and it seems the subgrade soil has becoming
unsuitable. And hence, a value of 8% CBR subgrade has been used for the design of the
pavement thickness. The CBR value of 8% is selected due to the reason that available
borrows source scores more than 8%.
5.6.3 Traffic
For effective planning and design of airport projects, the knowledge of present and
future traffic movement on the proposed project is essential. The volume and loading
pattern of the current and forecasted future traffic on any proposed airfield project
constitutes the most important factor in determining the feasibility of any planned
project, and in fixing design standards and in estimating the construction and
maintenance costs of projects, as well. Hence, estimate of current traffic and forecast for
the future need to be carried out before any planning and design work is undertaken.
The aircraft which will use the project airport is military aircraft C-130 and Dash 8 series
Bombardier Q400. Hence, a combination or traffic mix of C-130 military air craft and
Dash 8 series Bombardier Q400 is used for the pavement design. Even though no readily
available data is available on the traffic volume, annual departure of 2000 for each of the
aircraft is considered, and a 10% percent growth rate.
5.6.4 Pavement Design
In the design of the pavement of the project, the sub-grade design CBR values and
Traffic loading obtained as discussed above will be used. The design is carried out by
using FAA manual AC No: 150/5320-6F dated 11/10/2016 and FAARFIELD Pavement
Design Software Version 2.
5.6.4.1 Fundamental Design Philosophy
The design of airfield run way pavements is a complex engineering problem which
involves a large number of interacting variables. Although a great deal of research work
has been completed and more is underway, it has been impossible to arrive at a direct
mathematical solution of thickness requirements. For this reason, the determination of
pavement thickness must be based on the theoretical analysis of load distribution
through pavements and soils, the analysis of experimental pavement data, and a study
of the performance of pavements under actual service conditions. From this point of
consideration, a great deal of research has been done to develop empirical correlations
and reliable correlations have been developed. This design report largely adopts the
recommendations made by FAA through the Advisory Circular (AC) No. 150/ 5320-6F
dated October 11th, 2016, “Standardized Method of Reporting Airport Pavement
Strength.”
The Design Philosophy is based on the United States Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recommended
practices.
The basic design considerations made herein include but are not limited to:
▪ The material property of the pavement layers is now uniformly expressed as an

elastic modulus instead of the previous CBR (California Bearing Ratio) for flexible
pavements or k value for rigid pavements.
▪ Gear configurations are considered by adopting theoretical concepts and

empirically developed data.
▪ Various structural considerations have been made in reference to the surface
course, base course, sub-base and sub-grade that can support a C-130 air craft.
▪ The design considers proper and adequate provision of hydraulic facilities as well
as periodic and preventive maintenance.
▪ The design life considered is 20 years from date of completion of the pavement
structure.
As cited in the Advisory Circular, the pavement structural thickness is determined on

the basis of theoretical analysis of load distribution through the pavement and soils, the
analysis of experimental pavement data, environmental factors, Case study Analysis,
among other considerations.
5.6.4.2 Pavement Design Using FAARFIELD Software
▪ Aircraft Traffic Considerations:
This chapter presents mechanistic-empirical pavement design procedures that are

implemented in the FAARFIELD computer program. FAARFIELD uses layered elastic
and three-dimensional finite element-based design procedures for new and overlay
designs of flexible and rigid pavements, respectively.
For flexible pavement design, FAARFIELD uses the maximum vertical strain at the top
of the subgrade and the maximum horizontal strain at the bottom of all asphalt layers as
the predictors of pavement structural life. FAARFIELD provides the required thickness
for all individual layers of flexible pavement (surface, base, and subbase) required to
support a given airplane traffic mix for the structural design life over a given subgrade.
▪ Load:
Pavements should be designed for the maximum anticipated take-off weights of the
airplanes in the fleet regularly operating on the section of pavement being designed. The
design procedure generally assumes 95 percent of the gross weight is carried by the
main landing gears and 5 percent is carried by the nose gear. FAARFIELD provides
manufacturer recommended gross operating weights and load distribution, for many
civil and military airplanes. Using the maximum anticipated take-off weight provides a
conservative design allowing for changes in operational use and traffic, at airports where
traffic regularly operates at less than maximum load. Where arrivals constitute 85% or
greater of that runway’s operations, and for high-speed exit taxiways, the use of aircraft
landing weights for design is permitted. Accordingly, the maximum design weight of C-
130 is 70,317 kg and Q-400 aircraft is 29,347 kg during high gross weight. The annual
departures are assumed to occur for 20-years life.
▪ Landing Gear type and Geometry:
The gear type and configuration dictate how the aircraft weight is distributed to the
pavement and determine pavement response to aircraft loadings. The landing
configuration is extracted from the software data base for both of the aircraft.
▪ Tire Pressure:
Tire pressure has a more significant influence on strains in the asphalt surface layer than
at the subgrade. The expected tire pressure of C-130 military aircraft and Model Q400 is
723.95 kPa and 1565 kPa respectively for main wheel tire.
▪ Total Cumulative Damage:
Cumulative damage factor (CDF) is the amount of the structural fatigue life of a
pavement that has been used up. It is expressed as the ratio of applied load repetitions to
allowable load repetitions to failure, or, for one airplane and constant annual departures:
FAARFIELD analyses the damage to the pavement for each airplane and determines a
final thickness for the total cumulative damage of all aircraft in the evaluation.
FAARFIELD calculates the damaging effects of each airplane in the traffic mix based
upon its gear spacing, load, and location of gear relative to the pavement centerline.
FAARFIELD computes a separate CDF for each failure mode included in the design
procedure. For example, in flexible pavement design, the thickness is adjusted to make
the CDF for subgrade failure equal to 1. An additional computation is then made to find
the CDF for asphalt fatigue cracking. If the asphalt CDF is found to be less than 1, the
asphalt is predicted not to fail in cracking before the subgrade fails. But if the asphalt
CDF is greater than 1, the asphalt is predicted to fail before the subgrade, and
adjustments should be made to base and subbase layers so that asphalt CDF is less than
1 in the final design.
▪ FAARFILD Material Property:
In FAARFIELD pavement layers are assigned a thickness, elastic modulus, and Poisson’s
ratio for selected materials type. Layer thicknesses can be varied, subject to minimum
thickness requirements. Poisson’s ratio is fixed for all materials and the elastic moduli
are either fixed or variable (within a permissible range) depending upon the material.
Materials in FAARFIELD are identified by their corresponding specification designations
as used in AC 150/5370-10;
▪ Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Surfacing:
The HMA surface or wearing course limits the penetration of surface water into the base
course, provides a smooth, skid resistant surface free from loose particles and resists the
shearing stresses induced by airplane wheel loads. To meet these requirements the
surface must be composed of a mixture of aggregates and asphalt binders which will
produce a uniform surface of suitable texture possessing maximum stability and
durability.
▪ Base Course:
The base course distributes the imposed wheel loadings to the pavement subbase and/or
subgrade. The best base course materials are composed of select, hard, and durable
aggregates. The base course quality depends on material type and gradation, physical
properties, and compaction. The quality and thickness of the base course must prevent
failure in the support layers, withstand the stresses produced in the base, resist vertical
pressures that may produce consolidation and distortion of the surface course, and resist
volume changes caused by fluctuations in moisture content.
The standard aggregate base course for flexible pavement design is Item P-209, Crushed
Aggregate Base Course. Item P-208, Aggregate Base Course, may be used as a base for
pavements accommodating aircraft fleets with all aircraft less than 60,000 pounds (27,200
kg) gross weight. Crushed aggregates that can be proven to exhibit a remolded soaked
CBR of 100% or greater may be substituted for a stabilized base course. AC 150/5370-10,
Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, includes the material specifications
that can be used as base courses.
FAARFIELD first computes the structural thickness of base required to protect a layer
with a CBR of 20. FAARFIELD then compares it to the applicable minimum base
thickness requirement from Table, and reports the thicker of the two values as the design
base course thickness.
▪ Subbase:
A subbase is required as part of the flexible pavement structure on subgrades with a

CBR value less than 20. The standard subbase layer (P154) provides the equivalent
bearing capacity of a subgrade with a CBR of 20. Subbases may be aggregate or treated
aggregate. The minimum thickness of subbase is 4 inches (100 mm), see Table.
Any material suitable for use as base course can also be used as subbase. AC 150/5370-
10, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, covers the quality of material,
methods of construction, and acceptance of material.
▪ Subgrade:
The ability of a particular soil to resist shear and deformation varies with its properties,
density, and moisture content. Subgrade stresses decrease with depth, and the
controlling subgrade stress is usually at the top of the subgrade.
In FAARFIELD, the subgrade thickness is assumed to be infinite and is characterized by

either a modulus (E) or CBR value. Subgrade modulus values for flexible pavement
design can be determined in a number of ways. The applicable procedure in most cases
is to use available CBR values as calculated at in-service moisture content and allow
FAARFIELD to compute the design elastic modulus using the following relationship:
E =1500 x CBR, (E in psi).
It is also acceptable to enter the elastic modulus (E) directly into FAARFIELD. Flexible
thickness design in FAARFIELD is sensitive to the strength of subgrade. For this reason,
it is recommended to use a subgrade strength that reflects the in-service strength.
Table 5-19: Typical Pavement Specifications for Pavement Layers
Pavement Flexible
Remark
Layer Pavement
Surface Course P-401/P-403
Stabilized Base P-401/403

Course
P-304
P-304 and P-306 should be used with caution because
it is susceptible to reflective cracking.
P-306
P-209, Crushed Aggregate Base Course, used as a

P-209 base course is limited to pavements designed for
gross loads of 100,000 pounds (45 360 kg) or less.
Base Course P-208, Aggregate Base Course, used as base course is

P-208 limited to pavements designed for gross loads of
60,000 pounds (27 200 kg) or less.
P-211
P-154
Use of P-213 and P-301 as subbase course is not

P-213 recommended where frost penetration into the
Subbase Course subbase is anticipated.
P-219, Recycled Concrete Aggregate Base Course,

P-219 may be used as base depending on quality of
materials and gradation.
P-152
Subgrade
P-155
Pavement Flexible
Remark
Layer Pavement
P-157
P-158
The material property of the pavement layers is now uniformly expressed as an elastic
modulus instead of the previous CBR (California Bearing Ratio) for flexible pavements.
Table 5-20: Allowable Modulus Values and Poisson’s Ratios Used in FAARFIELD
Flexible Pavement psi Poisson’s

Layer Type FAA Specified Layer
(MPa) Ratio
P-501 PCC NA 0.15

Surface
P-401/P-403/P-601 HMA 200,000 (1,380) 0.35
P-401/P-403HMA 400,000 (3,000) 0.35
P-306 Lean Concrete 700,000 (5,000) 0.20
P-304 cement treated base 500,000 (3,500) 0.20

Stabilized Base
and Subbase P-301 soil cement 250,000 (1,700) 0.20
Variable stabilized rigid NA 0.20
150,000 to 400,000 (1,000

Variable stabilized flexible 0.35
to 3,000)
P-209 crushed aggregate Program Defined 0.35
P-208, aggregate Program Defined 0.35

Granular Base
and Subbase P-219, Recycled concrete
Program Defined 0.35
aggregate
P-211, Lime rock Program Defined 0.35
Flexible Pavement psi Poisson’s

Layer Type FAA Specified Layer
(MPa) Ratio
P-154 uncrushed aggregate Program Defined 0.35
Subgrade Subgrade 1,000 to 50,000 (7 to 350) 0.35
User-defined 1,000 to 4,000,000 (7 to

User-defined layer 0.35
30,000)
▪ Minimum Layer Thickness:
Minimum thickness requirements are determined by the gross weight of the heaviest
aircraft in the design traffic mix, regardless of the traffic level. FAARFIELD
automatically establishes the minimum layer thickness requirements based on the traffic
mix entered.
Table 5-21: Minimum Layer Thickness for Flexible Pavement Structures
Maximum Airplane Gross Weight Operating on

Pavement, lbs. (kg)
FAA Specification
Layer Type
Item <12,500 < 100,000 ≥100,000
(5 670) (45 360) (45 360)
P-401, Hot Mix

HMA Surface Asphalt (HMA) 3 in. (75 mm) 4 in. (100 mm) 4 in. (100 mm)
Pavements
P-401 or P-403;
Stabilized Base Not Required Not Required 5 in. (125 mm)
P304; P-306
Crushed P-209, Crushed

Aggregate 3 in. (75 mm) 6 in. (150 mm) 6 in. (150 mm)
Aggregate Base
Base Course
P-208, Aggregate
Aggregate Base 3 in. (75 mm) Not Used Not Used
Base Course
P-154, Subbase 4 in. (100 mm) 4 in. (100 mm)

Subbase 4 in. (100 mm)
Course (If required) (if required)
▪ FAARFIELD Flexible Pavement Design Failure Mode
The design process for flexible pavement considers two failure modes: vertical strain in
the subgrade and horizontal strain in the asphalt layer. Limiting vertical strain in the
subgrade guards against failure by subgrade rutting, and limiting horizontal strain at the
bottom of the asphalt layer guards against pavement failure initiated by cracking of the
asphalt layer. For the horizontal strain mode, FAARFIELD considers horizontal strain in
all asphalt layers in the structure. By default, FAARFIELD computes only the vertical
subgrade strain for flexible pavement thickness design. However, the user has the
option of enabling the asphalt strain computation by selecting the “HMA CDF”
checkbox in the FAARFIELD options screen. In most cases the thickness design is
governed by the subgrade strain criterion however it is good engineering practice to
perform the asphalt strain check for the final design.
Therefore, accounting the aircraft considerations and taking the in-situ sub grade CBR
value to 8%, the FAARFIELD Software determines the required layer thickness for the
Bilate Airfield runway pavement as given in the table below. In addition, the output of
the FAARFIELD Software thickness determination is attached in appendix.
Figure 5-9: Pavement Layer Thickness Output Using FAARFIELD v 2.0
Table 5-22: Bilate Airfield Runway Pavement Thickness Using FAARFIELD Software V 2.0
Thickness Material Poisson’s

Description Remark
(mm) Quality Ratio
HMA/AC 100 0.35
Base Course 250 CBR ≥ 100% 0.35 FAA
Subbase 332 CBR ≥ 30% 0.35 ERA
Improved Subgrade 1000 CBR ≥ 8% 0.35 ERA

(where required)
▪ Compaction:
FAARFIELD computes compaction requirements for the specific pavement design and
traffic mixture and generates tables of required minimum density requirements for the
subgrade. The values in these tables denote the range of depths for which densities
should equal or exceed the indicated percentage of the maximum dry density as
specified in Item P-152. The compaction requirements implemented in the FAARFIELD
computer program are based on the Compaction Index (CI) concept.
If the natural in-place densities of the subgrade are less than required, the subgrade
should be (a) compacted to achieve the required densities (b) removed and replaced with
suitable material at the required densities, or (c) covered with sufficient select or subbase
material so that the in-place densities of the natural subgrade meet the design
requirements. It is a good practice to rework and recompact at least the top 12 inches
(300 mm) in cut areas; however, depending upon the in-place densities, it may be
necessary to rework and recompact additional subgrade material.
The native soil found at Bilate airfield project is cohesive soil and the recommended
compaction requirement for cohesive soil is obtained from the output of the FAARFIELD
Software as given here under.
Table 5-23: Compaction requirement for Bilate Airfield pavement as given from the FAARFIELD
Software
Percent Maximum Dry Depth of compaction from Depth of compaction from

Density (%) pavement surface (mm) top of subgrade (mm)
100 0 - 590 0-4
95 590 - 1123 4 - 537
90 1123- 1928 537- 1341
85 1928 - 2896 1341 - 2309
5.6.4.3 Pavement Design Using ICAO Design Charts
Pavement design used to be designed using design charts before FAARFIELD started to
be used. In this section we shall design the pavement layers by using design charts for
comparison purpose.
Use of the design curves for flexible pavements requires a CBR value for the subgrade
material, a CBR value for the sub-base material, the gross weight of the design aircraft,
and the number of annual departures of the design aircraft. The design curves presented
in ICAO sub section 4.4.13 in Figures 5-10 to 5-11 indicate the total pavement thickness
required and the thickness of bituminous surfacing. Figure 5-11 indicates the minimum
thickness of base course for given total pavement thicknesses and CBR values. For this
specific design of Bilate Airfield project annual departure of 1200 and a total weight of
90,720 kg is used, which are the values indicated in the chart.
Figure 5-10: Flexible Pavement Design Curves for Critical Areas, Dual Tandem Gear
Figure 5-11: Flexible Pavement Design Curves for Critical Areas, Dual Wheel Gear
From the chart the following design parameters could be obtained:
▪ Total Pavement Thickness 23 inches (584.2 mm).

▪ Minimum base course thickness 8.08 inches (223.52mm)
▪ Thickness of Bituminous surface 4 inches (100 mm)
▪ Subbase Thickness 22 – (8.8+4) = 12.8 inches (325mm)
Table 5-24: Bilate Airfield Runway Pavement Thickness Using ICAO Chart.
Layer Thickness Description Thickness (inch) Thickness (mm)
AC 4 100
BC 8.8 225
SB 10.6 325
5.6.4.4 Pavement Design Using UFC Military Aircraft Design Chart
Since we are dealing with military aircraft, it is wise to consider the UFC design charts
for the determination of runway pavement thickness. UFC’s design curves for flexible
pavements requires a CBR value for the subgrade material, a CBR value for the subbase
material, Figures 10-1 through 10-32 are design curves for use in determining the
required pavement thickness for Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force
airfield pavements. The individual curves indicate the total thickness of pavement
required above a soil layer of given strength for a given gross aircraft weight and aircraft
passes.
The minimum allowable thicknesses for aggregate base courses and surface layer in
flexible pavements are listed in table 5-25 for Air Force Airfields. For Bilate Air Field
pavement design, a design CBR of 8 and 30 is considered for subgrade and subbase
respectively. A gross weight of 70,310 kg (155 kips) and 75,500 passes for the 20-year
design period.
Figure 5-12: Flexible Pavement Design curves for Army class IV Airfield
Table 5-25: Minimum Aggregate Base Course and Surface Layer Thickness.
From the chart and table, the following figure could be obtained:
▪ Total thickness = 28 inches (711.2 mm)

▪ Base course and wearing surface = 7 inches (17.8 mm)
▪ Wearing surface = 4 inches (100 mm)
▪ Minimum base course = 6 inches (152.4 mm)
▪ Subbase =28-(6+4) = 18 inches (457.2 mm)
Table 5-26: Bilate Airfield Runway Pavement Thickness Using UFC Chart.
Layer Thickness Description Thickness (inch) Thickness (mm)
AC 4 100
BC 8.8 152.4
SB 10.6 457.2
The table here under shows the pavement layer thickness comparison found from design
charts as well as design software. For pavement layer thickness determined using design
charts, the critical section is chosen over the non-critical pavement layer thickness due to
its higher pavement layer thickness.
Table 5-27: Pavement Layer Thickness as Per Design Software, Design Charts and DC
Pavement Layer
Pavement thickness as per
Pavement Layer Pavement Layer
Layer Layer thickness Design
thickness as per thickness as per
Thickness as per consultant. (mm)
ICAO Design UFC Design
Description FAARFIELD for Base course
Charts. (mm) Charts. (mm)
Software. (mm) of CBR 80%.
(mm)
AC 100 100 100 130

BC 250 225 152.4 200
SB 300 325 457.2 300
CL 150
Hence, there is a difference in thickness between the three approaches and the Design
Consultant. However, since their assumption in the annual departure and design
approach are not the same, the difference is expected. AASHTO pavement design
manual employs a method to determine the structural capacity of a pavement layer. The
Structural Number is an abstract number expressing the structural strength of a
pavement required for given combinations of soil support, total traffic expressed in
ESALs, terminal serviceability and environment. The formula obtained from AASHTO
pavement design manual is:
SN = a1D1 + a2D2 +… + aiDi
Where;
SN = structural number for the pavement
ai = layer coefficient and
Di = thickness of layer in inch.
The wearing surface layer determined by the consultant was by assuming 80% CBR
value for base course. Since the project’s CBR value for the base course is greater than
100%, we must consider the corresponding wearing surface thickness. The table below
shows a comparison of layer thickness based on structural capacity. Design Consultant’s
wearing surface thickness determination is erroneous by which it assumes 80% of CBR
for the base course. The final layer thickness for Bilate Airfield project is decided based
on the determination of their structural number given in the table here.
Table 5-28: Structural Number from Each Design Methods.
Supervision Consultant Design Consultant
Design ICAO UFC design DC corrected for 100%

FAAR field
Methods design chart Chart CBR (Heavy load Scenario)
Computed
Structural 4.67 4.4 4.58 5.13
Number
From the above table, the structural capacity of the pavement layer calculated by the
FAAR field is more efficient than the Design Consultant’s design based on structural
number computation from AASHTO pavement design manual.
However, based on Employer’s comment to accommodate heavy load scenarios. The

design consultant pavement layer thickness is adopted.
Table 5-29: Final Pavement Layer Thickness for Bilate Airfield Runway Project.
Final Pavement Layer thickness.

Layer Thickness Description
(mm)
AC 130
BC 200
SB 300
CL 150
5.6.5 Design of Shoulder
Shoulders are an essential element of the structural design of airport structure, providing
lateral support for the pavement layers. They are especially important when unbound
materials are used in the pavement. Moisture is the most important factor that affects
pavement performance and long-term maintenance costs. Thus, one of the significant
challenges faced by the designers is to provide a pavement structure in which the
detrimental effects of moisture are contained to acceptable limits. This situation therefore
places extra emphasis on drainage and moisture control for achieving satisfactory
pavement life.
Drainage from the adjacent airfield pavement base and subbase must be considered
when establishing the total thickness of the shoulder pavement section. A thicker
shoulder section than structurally required and edge drains may be necessary to avoid
trapping water under the airfield pavement. Typically, this is accomplished by using
minimum base/subbase on the outer edge and tapering back to match with the
base/subbase under the adjacent runway pavement.
Thus, in order to exclude water from the road properly, the top of the shoulders should
be impermeable and an asphalt concrete surfacing is recommended. Sealed shoulders
prevent ingress of water at the edge of the pavement, which is an area vulnerable to
structural damage.
A runway shoulder should also be prepared or constructed so as to be capable, in the

event of an aircraft running off the runway, of supporting the airplane without inducing
structural damage to the aircraft and of supporting ground vehicles which may operate
on the shoulder. However, since shoulder is used occasionally the required strength is
not required to be as strong as the runway. Manuals recommend a surfacing (AC)
thickness equal to half of the AC thickness for runway.
Table 5-30: Minimum Shoulder Pavement Layer Thickness.
Layer Type FAA Specification Item Minimum Thickness, in(mm)
HMA Surface P-401, P-403 2.0 (50)
PCC Surface P-501 8.9 (200)
Aggregate Base Course P-209, P-208, 6.0 (150)
Subbase (if needed) P-154 4.0 (100)
5.6.5.1 UFC Recommendation on shoulder design
Design the pavement thickness for 75% of the gross weight of the design aircraft at 200
passes. Surface with 50mm (2 inches) of AC on a minimum 152mm (6-inch) base of 80
CBR. Provide the outer 43m (140 feet) of runway shoulders and all taxiway shoulders
with dust and erosion control using vegetative cover, liquid palliative, such as asphalt,
or a combination of methods. Thus, sealed shoulders must be provided to ensure a
transition from the full-strength pavement to the unpaved strip of the runway. However,
for the construction convenience the carriage way pavement layer is extended to the
shoulder except the 50-mm surface wearing course is substituted by basecourse layer.
Table 5-31: Bilate Airfield Shoulder Layer Thickness.
Thickness Poisson’s
Description Material Quality Remark
(mm) Ratio
HMA/AC 50 0.35
Base Course 280 CBR ≥ 100% 0.35 FAA
Sub base 300 CBR ≥ 30% 0.35 ERA
CL 150 CBR ≥ 15%
5.6.6 Stop Way
Traffic is rare and dispersed on Stop way. However, sealed stop way must be provided
to ensure a transition from the full-strength pavement to the unpaved strip of the
runway. The stop-way should have the same structures as the adjacent turn-pad
(runway) (sub base, base course thickness) and should be sealed by 100mm Hot Mix
Asphalt.
5.6.7 Strip and Runway End Safety Area (RESA)
A runway strip extends laterally to a specified distance from the runway centerline,
longitudinally before the threshold, and beyond the runway end. The area beyond the
ends of the runway strip is known as Runway End Safety Area. The runway strip and
RESA provide an additional area for Aircraft undershooting or overrunning the runway
during landings or take-offs.
Since the graded portion of a strip is provided to minimize the hazard to an aircraft
running off the runway, it should be graded in such a manner as to prevent the collapse
of the nose landing gear of the aircraft. The surface should be prepared in such a manner
as to provide drag to an aircraft and below the surface, it should have sufficient bearing
strength to avoid damage to the aircraft. To meet these divergent needs, the following
guidelines are provided for preparing the strip. Aircraft manufacturers consider that a
depth of 15 cm is the maximum depth to which the nose gear may sink without
collapsing. Therefore, it is recommended that the soil at a depth of 15cm below the
finished strip surface be prepared to have a bearing strength of California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) value of 15 to 20. The intention of this underlying prepared surface is to prevent
the nose gear from sinking more than 15cm. The top 15cm may be of lesser strength
which would facilitate deceleration of aircraft. FAA also recommends a drop of 4cm
elevation between the paved and unpaved sections of the road. Hence the level of the
strip at the end of shoulder is lower by 4cm than the level of the shoulder.
To fulfil the divergent needs of dragging effect of using lesser strength material on the
top 15cm and sufficient bearing strength material below the top 15cm it is proposed that:
▪ One layers of ordinary surface layer for the top 150mm (CBR of 5% at 95% of MDD
attained by AASHTO T180 and Swell of less than 2.0 %.)
▪ Two layer of sub-base quality material each 150mm thickness below the surface layer.
▪ One layer of capping layer of quality material 200mm thickness below the sub base
layer.
▪ 1000mm ordinary fill is placed for the remaining portion below the capping layer
with CBR of 5% at 95% of MDD attained by AASHTO T180 and Swell of less than
2.0%.
5.6.8 Clearway
Clearway extends longitudinally to a specified distance beyond the runway end and
provide an additional area for Aircraft undershooting or overrunning the runway
during landings or take-offs. An object situated on a clearway which may endanger
aircrafts in the air should be regarded as an obstacle and should be removed. Hence
clearing and grading the area in the clearway is sufficient, and no pavement work is
required.
5.6.9 Special Recommendation
UFC manual recommends the use of rigid pavement where aircraft regularly parked
such as the aprons. UFC ‘s recommendation suggest “The following pavements will be
rigid pavement: all paved areas on which aircraft or helicopters are regularly parked,
maintained, serviced, or preflight checked, on hangar floors and access aprons; on
runway ends (305 meters (1,000 feet)) of a Class-B runway; areas that may be used from
the runway end to 90m (300 feet) past the barrier to control hook skip; primary taxiways
for Class B runways; hazardous cargo, power check, compass calibration, warmup, alert,
arm/disarm, holding, and wash rack pads; and any other area where it can be
documented that flexible pavement will be damaged by jet blast or by spillage of fuel or
hydraulic fluid.” we recommend at least the apron should be a rigid pavement as it is
exposed for oil slippage since frequent parking of air craft .
5.6.9.1 Treatment of Expansive/Weak Sub Grade Clay Soils for Airfield Pavement
As mentioned above, there is expansive clay soils observed on the project, and the test
results confirmed the same. The following treatment measures can be employed to
mitigate its detrimental effect to the pavement layers. The proposed treatment methods
are as per provisions ERA Standard Technical Specification, 2014 and FAA manual AC-
150-5320-6F (except that replacement depth shall be minimum of 1 meter). The treatment
methods are however depending of the degree of expansiveness of the in-situ sub grade
soil. The following table gives the recommendation as per FAA manual AC-150-5320-6F.
As per the table below it falls under medium swell potential. However, the treatment
given for high potential for fluctuation is 300mm stabilization, which requires special
equipment and experience in Ethiopian context. Hence, a treatment method under high
swell potential is considered for variable soil deposit, which is 1.5m.
Table 5-32: Recommended Treatment of Swelling Soils
Percent
Swell
Swell
Potential for
Potential
Measured Moisture Treatment
(Based on
(ASTM D Fluctuation
Experience)
1883)
Compact soil on wet side of optimum (+2% to

Low +3%) to not greater than 90% of appropriate
Low 3-5 maximum density.
High Stabilize soil to a depth of at least 6 in. (150 mm)
Percent
Swell
Swell
Potential for
Potential
Measured Moisture Treatment
(Based on
(ASTM D Fluctuation
Experience)
1883)
Low Stabilize soil to a depth of at least 12 in. (300

Medium 6-10 mm)
High Stabilize soil to a depth of at least 12 in. (300
mm)
Low Stabilize soil to a depth of at least 12 in. (300
mm)
For uniform soils, i.e., redeposited clays,
stabilize soil to a depth of at least 36 in. (900
mm) or raise grade to bury swelling soil at least
High Over 10 36 in. (900 mm) below pavement section or
High
remove and replace with non-swelling soil.
For variable soil deposits depth of treatment

should be increased to 60 in. (1 500 mm).
ERA and other manuals recommend that in order to minimize moisture fluctuation
under the pavement layers due to ingress and egress of water, it is necessary to prevent
moisture variation by providing moisture barrier at the periphery of the airfield. So far
unsuitable section of the airfield is tabulated below.
Table 5-33: Unsuitable Sections for the Airfield
Chainage Side Chainage Side

0+000-0+320 (0 - 1.5m) FW 1+400-1+600 LHS
0+000-0+400 (bellow 1.5m from the existing sub LHS 1+600-1+800 CL

grade)
0+320-0+400 CL 1+600-1+800 RHS
0+320-0+400 LHS 1+600-1+800 LHS
0+320-0+400 RHS
0+400-0+540 CL
Chainage Side Chainage Side
0+400-0+540 LHS
0+400-0+540 RHS
0+400-0+640 (bellow 1.5m from the existing LHS

subgrade)
5.6.10 Conclusion and Recommendation
Regarding the pavement design, both the design and supervision consultant adopt C-130
military aircraft as their critical design air craft for pavement design. The supervision
consultant incorporates Q400 Dash 8 commercial aircraft in the traffic mix. The design
consultant refers UFC (Unified Facility Criteria, USA Army standard) for his pavement
design. The supervision consultant utilizes FAA (Federal Aviation Administration),
ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) and UFC manuals for the design and
made a comparison on the output.
The carriageway and the shoulder pavement thickness computed by the design and
supervision consultant is not the same. The variation is due to the difference on the
assumption considered. The design consultant assumes the basecourse CBR to be 80%
that leads to the AC thickness to be 130mm. The actual project requirement for
basecourse CBR is 100% and hence an adjustment is made to the AC thickness. the
designer extends carriage way pavement thickness to the shoulder. Since shoulder are
not serving as main structural component of the pavement, an adjustment made in
accordance with the requirements on the manual and construction convenience. A
comparative analysis is made on the computed pavement thickness layer including the
design consultant’s pavement layer. The comparison was made based on AASHTO
pavement design manual structural number calculation. An optimized pavement
thickness both in cost and quality has been selected.
The turning pad, Apron and stop way designed in such a way that the runway
pavement thickness is extended. The strip runway end safety area design and weak
subgrade treatment remains the same with design consultant’s recommendation.
However even though the recommended pavement thickness of the runway by the
supervision consultant is 100mm AC, as per the advice given by the client and response
received from the designer, considering the heavy load on the runway the previously
proposed thickness of 130mm is adopted for the runway section. Moreover, the
pavement thickness of the shoulder of the airfield is revised as 50mm AC as per the
revision made by the supervision consultant and no objection consent by the client.
5.7 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INVESTIGATION
5.7.1 General
At initial stage of construction supervision, quarries, borrow pits and natural sand
sources that are proposed in the design document are identified. Accordingly, material
samples of borrow for ordinary fill, sub base, base course, masonry stone and concrete
aggregate for structure have been taken and assessment of their potential adequacy from
the point of view of quality, quantity as well as environmental and social impact has
been done.
5.7.2 Borrow for Ordinary Fill
Borrow pit sites that are located on the design document are identified, and samples are
taken jointly for the required quality tests. Until this reporting period, a total of 2 borrow
pit locations are identified within section from km 0+000 to 4+000 and their quality is
assessed and found to suit the project specification requirement.
There is two Investigation of new borrow pit are undergoing during this reporting
period. The to-date borrow material investigation, sampling and testing progress is
tabulated as under.
Table 5-34: To Date Borrow Material Investigations, Sampling and Testing
S. No. Tested Date Station Side MDD OMC LL PI Swell CBR
1 23/05/2022 BCC 0+420 RHS 1.6 24 49 21 3.8 7

2 24/05/2022 4+000 RHS 1.36 26.8 42 12 0.5 25.3
During the period under review, borrow material production and utilization has been
running at borrow pit locations, BCC 0+420 for construction of embankment fill layers
for both Airfield runway and Main Access Road.
5.7.3 Subbase Material
Subbase layer of the project road is to be constructed with granular sub base material
and production locations proposed in the design are identified. The subbase material
production site located at MM 1+000 (inside the compound road) and Km 8+200 LHS
have been investigated. The subbase material at both locations satisfies the projects
requirement.
However, blending with borrow material having minimal plasticity is advised, since the
subbase source is cohesionless that makes it difficult during placing.
Table 5-35: Summary of Subbase Material Tests Result
S. No. Tested Date Station Side MDD OMC LL PI Swell CBR
1 24/05/2022 MM 1+000 RHS 1.34 28.5 0 0 0 51.5

2 24/05/2022 8+200 RHS 1.5 22.8 0 0 0 50
Figure 5-13: Natural Sub base source at MM’ 1+000
5.7.4 Base Course Material and Rock for Crushing
Proposed quarries for the production of base course material are located at stations
15+600RHS (previous Sunshine production site for Dimtu - Soddo project).
Representative samples of rock for crushed aggregate and base course were taken jointly
from 15+600 RHS by the Caretaker Engineer (ECDSWCo), sent and tested at central
laboratory of Core Consulting Engineers P.L.C. Base course material sampling & testing
is summarized as under.
Table 5-36: Summary of Material Sampling and Testing for Base Course
Sp. Water TPFV Soundness

Location LAA ACV Remark
Gravity Abs. (Dry/Wet) (NA2SO4)
Satisfies
7+780
2.76 1.83 31.56 - - 7.59 Project
LHS)
Requirement
Satisfies
BCC0+220
2.91 1 18 294/278 18 0.3 Project
offset 5km
Requirement
Satisfies
BCC0+220
2.92 1.8 34 199/218 26 0.1 Project
offset 7km
Requirement
Figure 5-14: Sampling Rock for External laboratory @BCC0+220 offset 5km quarry source.
5.7.5 Masonry Stone and Concrete Aggregate
So far, we have identified and located one masonry stone quarry production sites located
at the vicinity of the project from which sample of rock for masonry end wall
construction purpose is taken from the quarries and tested initially at central laboratory
and at site laboratory for the required quality tests. The masonry stone production
sampling and testing summarized under.
Table 5-37: Identification of Masonry Stone Production Sites
Water Specific Production/

Location Offset Remark
Absorption Gravity Utilization
The results
Started/Masonry satisfy the
Km 22+700 50m RHS 1.55 2.7
Work project
requirement
For mortared masonry construction of camp foundation, the contractor is by now

utilizing the stone quarry at Engineer’s camp site.
5.7.6 Natural River Sand
So far there is one proposed river sand locations one at 15km from start of the project
towards the military camp. representative samples have been jointly taken from the
sources and sent to central laboratory for the required quality tests the test result is
summarized as under. For the tests that cannot be performed at site laboratory Because
of the absence of their apparatus like Soundness, Organic Impurity, mortar strength etc.
Table 5-38: Summary of Bilate River Natural Sand
% Clay
(Material Sand Lumps&
Sp. W/ Soundness
Location Finer Equivalent Friable Remark
Gravity Absorption (Mg2so4)
Than (%) Particles
0.075mm) (%)
Retest
15+000 required
(1.5km 2.6 2.99 7.0 5.1 87 3 when
LHS) production
commenced
5.7.7 Construction Material Specification
Specification on construction materials is set by referring ERA's Standard Technical

Specification 2013, TRL Road Note 31 and AASHTO's Specification 2014 Part I and part
II. Locally available construction materials and environmental condition of the project
are the main factors while specifying the construction material.
The locally available construction materials include,
▪ Borrow for replacement, embankment construction and (capping layer) material,

▪ Natural gravel for sub base layer,
▪ Quarry stone for base course, subbase, bituminous works, concrete and masonry
works
▪ Natural sand/crushed sand for mortar and concert works and
▪ Water sources for compaction and concert works.
5.7.7.1 Borrow Material for Fill or Embankment Construction.
Material ranging from soil (i.e. sandy clay soil) through to broken rock (i.e. fresh to
highly weathered rock), can be used for embankment construction, the main limitation
being the ease with which the material can be handled and compacted. Borrow Materials
that are proposed to be utilized in Embankment construction shall meet the following
requirements based on ERA Specification:
▪ The CBR value of not less than 5% after compaction to 95% of Modified AASHTO
density.
▪ For L.L shall not exceed 60% (AASHTO T-89 and T-90)
▪ For P.I shall not exceed 30% (AASHTO T-89 & 90).
▪ The material shall have a maximum organic content of 5% by weight.
▪ Shall not have a swell more than 2% (AASHTO T-193)
▪ The material placed in layers for formation of embankments shall be compacted
95% at Maximum Dry Density as determined by AASHTO T-180.
5.7.7.2 Capping Layer
▪ CBR at 95% of modified AASHTO Density and soaked for 4 days shall not be less
than 15%.
▪ P.I shall be less than 25% (AASHTO T-89 and T-90)
▪ Shall not have a swell exceeding 2% (AASHTO T-193-93)
▪ Compacted with minimum density of 95%MDD of modified AASHTO Density.
5.7.7.3 Subbase Material
The subbase is an important load-spreading layer in a completed pavement. It enables

traffic stresses to be reduced to an acceptable level in the sub grade, it acts as a working
platform for construction of upper pavement layers and it acts as a separation layer
between subgrade and base course. Sub base should be fulfilled:
▪ The minimum soaked CBR at a minimum density of 95% of MDD achieved by

modified AASHTO Compaction should be greater than 30%
▪ PI shall be less than 12 % (AASHTO T-90),
▪ The L.L shall be less than 45 % (AASHTO T-89 and T-90)
▪ Linear shrinkage less than 6%
▪ Flakiness index shall be less than 35 (BS 812, Part 105 or ASTM D 3398)
▪ Compacted with a minimum density of 95% MDD by modified AASHTO
Compaction.
▪ Graduation requirements shall be as per type A or B of ERA Technical
Specification Manual table 5104/1.
Table 5-39: Gradation Requirements of Subbase
Percentage by Mass of Total Aggregates Passing Test

Sieve (%)
Sieve Size (mm)
A B
63 100 -
50.0 100
37.5 70-100 95-100
26.5
20 50-100 60-80
9.5 40-60
4.75 30-100 25-40
2.36 15-30
1.0 17-75
0.425 11-56 7-19
0.075 5-25 5-12
Table 5-40: Gradation Requirements of Crushed Subbase
% Passing (by mass), Crushed Stone B (37.5mm)

Sieve Size (mm)
Lower Upper
50 100 100
37.5 95 100
20 60 100
9.5 40 60
4.5 25 40
2.6 15 30
1.18
0.425 7 19
0.075 5 12
In addition, the following criteria should be used to evaluate a sub-base as a separating

or filter layer:
D15 (coarse layer)

a) The ratio ⁄D (fine layer) should be less than 5
85
D50 (coarse layer)

b) The ratio ⁄D (fine layer) should be less than 25
50
For a filter to possess the required drainage characteristics a further requirement is:
D15 (coarselayer)
c) The ratio ⁄D (fine layer) should lie between 5 and 40
15
Where;
D15 is the sieve size through which 15% by weight of the material passes,
D50 is the sieve size through which 50% passes, and
D85 is the sieve size through which 85% passes.
5.7.7.4 Graded Crushed Stone Base Course
This material is produced by crushing freshly quarried rock (GB1) and may be all-in
product; alternatively, the material may be separated by screening and recombined to
produce a desired particle size distribution.
▪ Flakiness Index < 30%

▪ PI < 4% or Non-Plastic
▪ TPFV > 110 kN, with. or Minimum ratio of Wet/Dry test 75%
▪ ACV < 25
▪ AIV < 25
▪ LAA < 35
▪ SSS < 12%
▪ Nominal size of aggregate is 28mm
▪ Water absorption < 2%
Table 5-41: Gradation Requirement for Base Courses
Percentage by Mass of Total

Test Sieve
Aggregates Passing Test Sieve
(mm)
Nominal Maximum Size 28mm
50 -
37.5 100
28 -
20 70-85
10 50-65
5 35-55
2.36 25-40
0.425 12-24
0.075* 5-12
*For paver-laid materials a lower fine content can be allowed up to a minimum of 3%.
5.7.7.5 Crushed Aggregate for Bituminous Mixes
This material is produced by crushing freshly quarried rock and may be all-in product;
alternatively, the material may be separated by screening and recombined to produce a
desired particle size distribution.
Aggregate requirements for asphalt concrete mixture:
▪ Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV), BS 812 < 25%

▪ Flakiness index (FI) < 35%
▪ Los Angeles Abrasion (LAA) ASTM C131 & C535 < 30%
▪ Sodium Sulphate Soundness Loss (SSS) < 15%
▪ Water Absorption < 2%
▪ Bitumen Affinity (Stripping test) > 95%
▪ Aggregate Impact Value (AIV) < 25
▪ Ten Percent fineness value (TFV) > 160 kN minimum ratio of Wet/Dry test 75%
▪ Nominal size of aggregate is 12.5 mm
Grading Requirement for wearing course material as shown on table below.
Table 5-42: Gradation Requirement Crushed Aggregate for Wearing Course
Percentage by Mass of The Total Aggregate
Sieve Size (mm) Nominal Maximum Stone Size (mm)
19 12.5
25 100
19 90-100 100
12.5 90-100
9.5 56-80
4.75 35-65 44-74
2.36 23-49 28-58
0.3 5-19 5-21
0.075 2-8 2-10
Bitumen Content (%) 4-10 4-11
▪ Filler Gradation
Table 5-43: Gradation Requirement of Filler
Percentage Passing by mass

Sieve size (mm)
Lower Upper
0.6 100 100
0.3 95 100
0.075 70 100
▪ Design Requirement for AC
Table 5-44: Design Requirement Of AC
Types of Tests Requirement

Min. Max.
Stability 9 kN -
Types of Tests Requirement

Min. Max.
Flow 2 mm 3.5 mm
Air Voids 3% 6%
VMA 14% -
VFB 65% 73%
Water Sensitivity 80% -
Lift Thickness(mm) 50%
Binder Content (%of total Mix) 5% 5.5
Filler to Binder ratio 0.6%
Air voids at Refusal 3% -
Film Thickness 6 microns -
Compaction each face 75
Note:
VMA = 13% for max. Nominal size of aggregates 19 mm
VMA= 14% for max. Nominal size of aggregates 12.5 mm
5.7.7.6 Bituminous Mix (Asphalt Concrete)
▪ Binder Content: See the tables above

(Note: The binder content is to be determined by Marshal Design method (ASTM
D1559) during construction phase.)
▪ Bitumen Grade (Penetration): 80/100
▪ Min. Marshal Stability (60°C) compacted at 75 blow or to refusal density: 9KN
▪ Minimum Flow: 2-3.5mm
▪ Air Voids at optimum bitumen content: 3-6%
5.7.7.7 Chipping for Surface Dressing (For Shoulder) MC-3000 As Binder.
The chipping should be with nominal size of 9.5mm. The ALD of the first layer of
aggregate chippings shall be minimum of 5.9mm (see table 6315/1) and the maximum
ALD of the second layer of chippings shall be not more than 50% of the ALD of the first
layer. Application rate of chipping should be as per table 6315/2 of technical

specification.
Chippings shall fulfill the following requirements:
▪ LAA < 35%

▪ ACV < 25%
▪ FI < 25%
▪ Water absorption < 2%
▪ Soundness loss < 12%
6. ADDITIONAL DESIGN SERVICE
According to the scope of the works contract, complementary intervention of

construction building of shades VIP seats, VIP parking, VIP lounge and ancillary service
has been included to be performed during the construction period.
In line with this the supervision consultant has made a number of meetings with
concerned stakeholders regarding the above services and made preliminary design of
Ceremonial Area for the following facilities.
▪ Separate VIP Seats (150 in Number)
▪ Guest Seats (2,000 in Number)
▪ Graduate Seats (12,000 in Number)
▪ Meeting Hall, Clinic, Event Organizers Room
▪ Parade Square
▪ Car Parking
▪ Training Area
The architectural design of the above facilities has been presented for the client and
defense minister higher officials. Since the lump sum cost of 54million is contained for
the above service in the works contract, the actual cost for the above facilities is
estimated within the revised project cost.
Moreover, the consultant has been given instruction on site on the following additional
services which are currently under preliminary design stage which are not part of this
works contract.
6.1. FACILITIES AT HIGHLAND PLATEAU
It shall consist of:
▪ VVIP’s Room (1 in number, 190m2)
▪ VIP’s Rooms (4 in number, each 100m2)
▪ Swimming Pool (180 M2)
▪ Security/Guard House (6 in number)
6.2. FACILITIES AT LOW LAND PLATEAU
▪ Bed Rooms (10 In Number)
▪ Conference Room
▪ Traditional Cafeteria
▪ Situation Room
▪ Sport Fields
6.3. VOLCANIC HOT SPRING FACILITIES
i) Site No. 01
▪ Cultural House Building (Cafeteria / ‘Marefia Bet’)
▪ Swimming Pool
ii) Site No. 02
▪ 4 Steam Rooms
iii) Site No. 03
▪ Cultural Room (having Standard Bed Room, Salon, WC, etc.)
iv) Site No. 04
▪ 4 VIP Steam Rooms
▪ Swimming Pool
▪ Clothing Area
▪ Shower Room
7. REVIEW ON TECHNICAL AND PARTICULAR SPECIFICATIONS
At this design review stage all items of the service have been reviewed and compared
with the original cost.
7.1 SERIES 1000: GENERAL
In this series all items have been reviewed and no significant difference has been
observed regarding all facilities required. However, the estimated PS amount held for
ceremonial area has shown increment as per the facilities proposed by the stakeholder
and presented for the client.
7.2 SERIES 2000: SITE CLEARANCE
In this series minor difference between the design and the revised quantity has been
seen. The reason is due to vertical alignment revision made on main access, compound
road and airfield section.
7.3 SERIES 3000: DRAINAGES
In this series except underestimated quantity for vehicular crossing and overestimated
quantity of curb stone size of 20 by 25, there is no major quantity difference on the
remaining items. Moreover, the grouted stone pitching quantity for canal reconstruction
is found as major cause of variation in this series.
7.4 SERIES 4000: EARTHWORKS
In this series the major quantity difference has been seen from the revision of the airfield
section. The main reason is due to inclusion of additional section namely RESA which
has not been considered in the design document. Moreover, the rock excavation resulted
from vertical alignment change has also made significant increment in the same item.
7.5 SERIES 5000: SUBBASE AND ROAD BASE
In this series the change in quantity has been noticed due to the reduced paved length of
the runway section.
7.6 SERIES 6000: BITUMINOUS SURFACING & ROAD BASES
In this series the change in quantity has been noticed due to the reduced paved length of
the runway section. Furthermore, due to revised pavement thickness of asphalt concrete
on the shoulder of the airfield, the quantity in revised design is lesser than that of the
design quantity.
7.7 SERIES 8000: STRUCTURES
As there are no major drainage structures in the subject project in this series there is no
major quantity difference.
7.8 SERIES 9000: ANCILLARY WORKS
In this series the main item underestimated in the design document is road marking. The
quantity estimated for the same item in the design drawing didn’t consider the quantity
for the airfield section. Accordingly, runway marking as per the ICAO standard is
considered and the quantity for the same item is revised.
Summary of cost comparison for design quantity and actual estimated quantity is shown
in the next pages.
8. NEWLY PROPOSED MASTERPLAN
The client has forwarded the institutional master plan regarding the compound road of
the subject project and to harmonize the masterplan with the design of the compound
roads to avoid any technical problems in the execution of the service.
With this regard we have gone through the comments given by the consultant on the
compound road design drawing and respond as presented below.
▪ Comment
Except for drainage structures there happen projects and road segments with no or
minimum utility crossing requirement at required locations
▪ Response
In the works contract document of the subject project appropriate quantity of service
duct with specified dimension is quantified for the subject project.
▪ Comment
The existing sewer line network is the one structure difficult to map. Due to this
challenge and to minimize damage it is suggested to move some road CC, DD and FF.
▪ Response
The locations of existing utility lines have been properly identified by the supervision
consultant and advised the stake holders to shift the same. Accordingly, if shifting of the
existing sewer line is difficult, shifting of the alignment will be made.
▪ Comment
The existing road and related structures tell us that relatively gentle terrain [road
elevations at grade] is one potential feature of such facilities. However, as per our
review of the proposed road design, most road segments are found to be on high fill,
which has an adverse effect on the accessibility of the various existing features and
future developments of the compound. Hence, we strongly suggest the use of
equivalent slabs or box culverts to make all compound mobility smooth and at grade.
▪ Response
In the geometric design of these compound roads, level of all compound roads is fixed in
reference of the existing road level and adjacent building levels. It is also confirmed that
no significant raised final level in all roads. Moreover, to avoid such raised level in
compound roads all crossing structures in the compound road network is proposed with
appropriate dimensions of U-ditch concrete with cover.
▪ Comment
The designed longitudinal side ditches are found to be open, which we fear may
cause accidents, impede movement, and be unappealing for such a standardized
compound. Thus, we suggest a review of the longitudinal side ditches. By taking
practical lessons from the existing road features, we suggest better alternatives such
as swales if it is not in conflict with the surface hydrology.
▪ Response
In order to intercept and convey the surface flow quickly from the road corridor, we
proposed a U-shaped longitudinal drain. However, to minimize accidents and facilitate
movement, a ditch cover will be provided.
Due to the following limitations, swales are not proposed for this military compound.
▪ As a shallow surface feature, a swale requires sufficient space, so retrofit

opportunities can be limited in narrow streets.
▪ The soil type inside the military compounds is impervious with a hydrological
soil group of ‘’D" (i.e., poorly drained soil), and constructing swales on such a
type of soil is impractical.
Swales are not effective on very flat grades, steep topographies, or/and may even erode
when flow volumes and/or velocities are high.
▪ Comment
As most of the runoff flow goes to the South, Southwest and Southeast direction of the
compound, we suggest that the lower longitudinal side ditches for some road segments
be reviewed or eliminated if possible.
▪ Response.
The longitudinal drain designed was prepared in compliance with ERA-DDM, 2013.
Based on it, a drainage network is set up for each segment of the road, along with an
outfall. As stated in the comment, the stormwater flow inside the compound is guided in
the south, south-west, and south-east directions.
▪ Comment.
Except for one segment, all the rest roads segments are uniform in nature and this is not
how it should happen for such facility comprising various functional zones9residnetial,
admin, academic, health facility, library, general service, store and various outdoor
functions etc.) at various locations. In this manner we strongly seek pavement material
and cross-sectional revision or omission in of some roads. AAI, aa, bb, dd, ee, hh, ii, jj, JJ,
gg, ss, ff and TTf.
▪ Response.
In our view the typical section proposed by the design consultant has been found
appropriate as per similar compound road natures. It is also believed that those facilities
described above will bring major scope change on the subject project.
Moreover, though pavement material change is proposed, there is no technical analysis

made and detail assessment regarding type of pavement material to be proposed in the
comment. Furthermore, omission or revision of cross section of those proposed roads are
subjected for confirmation from the client ands stake holders. Depending on the
proportion of the omitted road section it will also have a contractual claim issue. We also
affirm that road segment AAI proposed for omission by the consultant is necessarily
required to access the newly design ceremonial area.
Summary comparison between the original compound road and new master plan is
presented below.
Table 8-1: Comparison of the Scope of Original Compound Road Design with the New Military Compound Masterplan
The Scope of New Proposed

S. No. The Scope of Original Design
Master Plan
▪ The compound Road Network has a ▪ The new proposed master plan
total of 31 Road segments Which has incorporates a series of changes to
almost the same Typical section that the Existing Road and Design
capable of accommodating Traffic proposed by Design consultant
flow. which has been in Action so far.
▪ Typical section (TCS-4) ▪ Among these change introductions of
 Carriageway (Traffic Lane),7.0m Five different Typical section is one.
1. Typical Section
along with concrete u-ditch  Typical Section LS_1
drainage.  Typical Section LS_2
▪ The typical section for Military  Typical Section LS_3
compound Road which is part of the  Typical Section LS_4
main road from Km 22+500 to km  Typical Section LS_5
25+297 and Road segment BB (Km ▪ LS_1 (35m Width)
00+00-km 2+465) are as follows:  Carriageway 14m width (Two-

Master Plan
▪ Typical section (TCS-5) way Road 7m each)

 Carriageway width (Traffic  Bicycle Lane 6m (3m each side)
Lane),10.0m  Median 8.5m
 Shoulder Lane width,5m (2.5m  Side Green Area 3m (1.5m each
each side) side)
▪ From the above Traffic lane and  Pedestrian Lane 6m (3m each
shoulder Length the total Road width side)
is taken as 15m.  This Typical section incorporates
▪ From the above information the high level of mobility for both
Military compound Road has military and civilians since it is
adopted Two Typical section which Two-way Road with up to two
are already up to work as per Clients Vehicle per each Lane.
and Design consultant consent.  It also Includes mobility Lane For
bicycle and Pedestrian due the
expected Traffic forecast
 All the necessary pieces of

Master Plan
roadside furniture and

accompanying street lights will be
installed.
▪ LS_2 (21m Width)
 Carriageway 10m width (Two-
way Road)
 Bicycle Lane 3m (only one side)
 Road Side Green Area 3m (1.5m
each side)
 Pedestrian Lane 3m (1.5m each
side)
accompanying street lights will be
installed.

Master Plan
▪ LS_3 (12m Width)

 Carriageway 7m width.
side)
▪ The total Military compound Road  All the necessary pieces of
Length is 21.126 km including parts roadside furniture and
of the Main Access Road. accompanying street lights will be
▪ Typical section (TCS-5) installed.
2. Total Compound Road Length
 24.9% (5.262km) ▪ LS_4 (9m Width)
▪ Typical section (TCS-4)  Carriage way 7m
 75.1%  Pedestrian Lane 2.5m (only one
 (15.864km) side)
accompanying street lights will
be installed.

Master Plan
▪ LS_5 (7m Width)

 Carriageway 7m width.
side).
accompanying street lights will
be installed.
Table 8-2: To-date Status for Compound Roads
To date Status for Compound Road
▪ Among 31 Road segments Approval for working Template drawing has been given for 7 Segments:
 Road Segment d-d’ (0.23km)
 Road Segment D-D’ (0.86km)
To date Status for Compound Road
 Road Segment f-f’ (0.23km)

 Road Segment BCC (0.5km)
 Road Segment BB’ (2.0 km)
 Road Segment G-G’ (0.86km)
 Road Segment WW’ (2.53km)
Total Length is 7.19 km, 34.03%
▪ From the above segments Road WW is already on progress which is major earth work Activities such as:
 Clearing and Grubbing within the Road prism has been completed
 Common Excavation and Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable section has been completed
 Segment BCC is also Completed clearing and Grubbing and removal and replacement of unsuitable material is on
progress.
▪ From km 23+000 to 25+297, four pipe culverts have been constructed and completed.
Table 8-3: Addition and Omission
ADDITION AND OMMISSION
▪ The master plan schematic representation illustrates the

▪ Based on newly provided Master plan there is a lot of
military compound road with holistic Design concept
scope change among them:
which includes:
▪ It probably requires omission or revision of the following
Land use comprises of:
road segment in order to comply with newly proposed
 Administration
masterplan keeping in mind other design parameters.
 Library
 Road segment a-a (0.2km)
 Academic
 Road segment b-b (0.2km)
 Services
 Road segment d-d (0.2km)
 Residences
 Road segment e-e (0.4km)
 Open space and green area
 Road segment g-g (0.2km)
 Manufacture and storage
 Road segment h-h (0.2km)
 Infrastructure services like; water reservoir,
 Road segment i-i (0.2km)
power station, telecom and data station, Airport,
 Road segment j-j (0.2km)
Liquid waste treatment area.
 Road segment f-f (0.2km)
▪ Due to incorporation of the above design concept the
 Road segment s-s (0.5km)
newly proposed masterplan has a great deal of impact on
 Road segment u-u (0.2km)
the existing or the road design which has been working
 Road segment AAI-AAI (0.8km) on since the commencement of the project.

 Road segment TTf - TTf (0.7km) ▪ In addition to the above, the master plan has Ring Road
Total Length is 4.2 km that provides access creating a loop throughout the
▪ The Following road segment could be built but, it Requires compound which directly increase the Compound Road
either shifting Horizontal Alignment or Change of Typical total Length from 22.126 km to 51 km Excluding 5 km
section in order to agree with the Master plan which is internal local road (Cobbled Road).
completely Designed incorporating various infrastructures ▪ The masterplan Also has additional Compound Road
and Traffic activity. Network which is proposed on the RHS Side of Main
 Road Segment B-B Access Road that is Extensively differ from original
 Road Segment C-C Design network which is only Limited or prepared
 Road Segment D-D following Only the Existing Road Network.
 Road Segment E-E
 Road Segment F-F
 Road Segment G-G
 Road Segment I-I
 Road Segment J-J
 Road Segment K-K
 Road Segment O-O

 Road Segment w-w
 Road Segment BCC-BCC
 Road Segment M-M
In conclusion, at this stage since the master plan has major scope change on the design document of the Compound Road
sections, we suggest to separately consider any issues related to masterplan out of this design review report as it is not the
part of the works contract and design documents of the subject project.
However, we advise the client to arrange separate meeting for discussion in the presence of all stakeholders to clear out all
issues and have mutual understanding on the matter.
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As discussed in the preceding sub sections, the project design document has a design
concept difference on the airfield section in relation to the end safety area facility.
Moreover, the pavement structure thickness proposed for the airfield is higher than the
required thickness. From the engineering design report, it is learnt that the reason for
higher thickness recommendation of Asphalt concrete is assumption of 80% CBR
requirement for base course. However according to the current practice and specification
of base course material the CBR requirement for base course is 100% and above. Hence
the requirement of base course to this strength will bring the asphalt concrete thickness
from 130mm to 100 mm. However according to the response given by the design
consultant for our revision it is mentioned that the load type used for the airfield is
modified heavy load which makes the base course CBR requirement 100.
The client has also advised to use the thickness 130mm due to expectation of higher load
in the future. In line with this the thickness proposed by the design consultant 130mm is
adopted. Furthermore, as per ICAO manual recommendation asphalt concrete on the
shoulder of the airfield is half of the thickness proposed for the runway which makes the
revised thickness to 50 mm.
Designed width and depth of side drain inside the Military Compound is varying at
different locations based on the design discharge determination. However, it may be
modified to adopt the design typical drawings keeping the minimum design discharge
size, if required for visual aesthetics of a road segment and to reduce contractual
implications, if any.
Regarding project cost comparison due to vertical alignment revision made on the
runway section and the facilities proposed by Bilate military training centre officials on
ceremonial area the total project cost has shown variation about 12.02%.
As shown in the cost comparison summary the contract cost before contingency and vat
is ETB 1,883,290,406.69 whereas the revised estimated cost is ETB 2,109,724,471.48. This
shows an expected variation of 12.02% with that of the original cost.
Table 9-1: BOQ comparison between the Supervision and Design Consultant.
VARIATION
CONTRACT REVISED %
AMOUNT
AMOUNT (ETB) AMOUNT (ETB) VARIED
SERIES DESCRIPTION (ETB)
A B C = B-A (C/A)*100
1000 GENERAL 153,714,356.12 359,205,431.57 205,491,075.45 133.68%
2000 SITE CLEARANCE 5,666,487.75 5,788,364.60 121,876.85 2.15%
3000 DRAINAGE 416,585,302.22 469,999,055.14 53,413,752.92 12.82%
4000 EARTHWORK 321,668,221.00 456,748,504.40 135,080,283.40 41.99%
SUB-BASE AND BASE-

5000 181,896,186.00 150,682,582.89 (31,213,603.11) -17.16%
COURSE
BITUMINOUS
6000 721,372,967.40 567,701,956.26 (153,671,011.14) -21.30%
SURFACINGS
8000 STRUCTURES 18,851,586.84 20,332,549.72 1,480,962.88 7.86%
9000 ANCILLARY WORKS 54,947,201.92 70,677,929.45 15,730,727.53 28.63%
11000 DAYWORKS 8,588,097.44 8,588,097.44 - 0.00%
TOTAL OF BILLS
A 1,883,290,406.69 2,109,724,471.48 226,434,064.78 12.02%
(1000 to 11000)
B PS included in Series 58,100,000.00 58,100,000.00 -
C= A-B Total of series less PS 1,825,190,406.69 2,051,624,471.48 226,434,064.78
D= 10% (C) Contingency (10%) 182,519,040.67 182,519,040.67 -
Total of Series Plus

E = A+D 2,065,809,447.36 2,292,243,512.15 226,434,064.78
Contingency
F VAT 15% (E) 309,871,417.10 343,836,526.82 33,965,109.72
G= E+F Grand Total 2,375,680,864.47 2,636,080,038.97 260,399,174.50
APPENDICES
APPENDEX-1: RESPONSE FOR COMMENT
APPENDEX-2: KICK-OFF MEETING
APPENDEX-3: TRAFFIC COUNT AND SUBGRADE

CHARACTERIZATION
APPENDEX-4: REVISED BILL OF QUANTITY
APPENDEX-5: REVISED TYPICAL SECTION DRAWINGS
APPENDIX 6: GEOMETRIC DESIGN DATA
APPENDIX 7: HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS

Final Design Review Report (Sept 2023)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Design Review Report (Sept 2023)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Design Review Report (Sept 2023)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF

ETHIOPIAN ROADS ADMNISTRATION

FINAL DESIGN REVIEW REPORT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION WORKS

SODDO JUNCTION (DIMTU) - BILATE MILITARY TRANINIG CENTER

GONDWANA ENGINEERING PLC

YLS Engineering PLC

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ VI

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ X

ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS ............................................................................... XII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... XVI

1.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Contract Data ................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Scope of Services and Objectives, Consultant Services ........................................... 3

1.4 Project Description ........................................................................................................ 3

1.5 Kick-Off Meeting ........................................................................................................... 6

2. TECHNICAL AND COST REVIEW .................................................................................. 7

2.1 Topographical Survey .................................................................................................. 7

2.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 7

2.1.2 Verification of GPS Control Points ...................................................................... 7

2.1.3 Findings of Surveying Control Points............................................................... 15

2.1.4 Detailed Topographic Survey (X- Section Survey) ......................................... 16

3. REVIEW OF GEOMETRIC DESIGN ............................................................................... 18

3.1 Horizontal Alignment................................................................................................. 18

3.2 Main Access Road ....................................................................................................... 19

3.2.1 Horizontal Alignment ......................................................................................... 19

3.2.2 Design Speed and Super Elevation ................................................................... 19

3.3 Compound Roads........................................................................................................ 20

3.3.1 Horizontal Alignment ......................................................................................... 20

3.3.2 Vertical Alignment ............................................................................................... 20

3.4 Airfield .......................................................................................................................... 21

3.4.1 Runway Section .................................................................................................... 21

3.4.2 Horizontal Alignment ......................................................................................... 23

3.4.3 Vertical Alignment ............................................................................................... 24

3.4.4 Taxiway and Apron ............................................................................................. 24

3.4.5 Length of Taxiway ............................................................................................... 25

3.4.6 Runway Marking ................................................................................................. 25

3.4.7 Indicator and Signaling Device .......................................................................... 25

3.4.8 Typical Section...................................................................................................... 25

4. HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC DESIGN REVIEW ................................................ 28

4.1 Scope and Objectives .................................................................................................. 28

4.2 Document Reviewed and Data.................................................................................. 28

4.3 Purpose of The Report ................................................................................................ 28

4.4 Design Standards and Data Collection .................................................................... 29

4.4.1 Design Standards ................................................................................................. 29

4.4.2 Methods of Design Flood Computation ........................................................... 30

4.4.3 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 30

4.4.4 Hydrology ............................................................................................................. 31

4.4.5 Rainfall - Runoff Models ..................................................................................... 36

4.4.7 Design Review Site Findings .............................................................................. 50

4.4.8 Filed Investigation and Findings ....................................................................... 50

4.4.9 Channelization Work .......................................................................................... 54

4.4.10 Existing Canal Reconstruction ........................................................................... 55

4.5 Design Review Schedule ............................................................................................ 55

4.5.1 Revised Minor Cross Drainage .......................................................................... 55

4.6 Roadside Channels Design ........................................................................................ 61

4.6.2 Discharge Estimation ........................................................................................... 61

4.6.3 Hydraulic Capacity .............................................................................................. 62

4.7 Drainage structure at Airfield ................................................................................... 63

4.8 Conclusion and Recommendation ............................................................................ 71