PDR - Bole-Waterdino, Rev. 2 - Final

Bole Junction-Waterdino Horticulture and Bole Ethiopian Roads Authority
– Abomsa Design and Build Road Project Final Pavement Design Report
December 2018 Bole Junction – Waterdino Road Section
Table of Content
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Location ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Purpose and Scope of the Report ........................................................................................... 3
2. SUB-GRADE SOILS AND DESIGN CBR............................................................................................... 4
2.1 Sub-grade Soils ........................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Problematic Soil Stretches ...................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Expansive Soil Stretches ............................................................................................................. 4
2.2.2 Weak Soil Stretches ................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Uniform Sections..................................................................................................................... 6
3. DESIGN OF PAVEMENT STRUCTURES ............................................................................................. 9
3.1 Design Traffic .......................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.1 Traffic Projection .......................................................................................................... 10
3.1.2 Cumulative Equivalent Standard Axle .................................................................... 12
3.2 Pavement Design Using ERA PDM 2013 ............................................................................... 17
3.3 Pavement Design Using AASHTO Design Guide 1993 ........................................................... 18
3.4 Comparison of Designed Pavement with Employer’s Requirement..................................... 22
3.5 Final Recommended Pavement Structures........................................................................... 23
3.6 Design of Shoulder ................................................................................................................ 23
3.7 Pavement Materials Requirements ...................................................................................... 23
3.7.1 Borrow Material for Embankment/Replacement .................................................................... 24
3.7.2 Natural Gravel for Sub-base..................................................................................................... 24
3.7.3 Quarry Sources for Crushed Aggregates and Masonry............................................................ 26
3.7.4 Water Source ........................................................................................................................... 27
3.7.4 Sand Source.............................................................................................................................. 28
3.7.4 Bituminous Materials ............................................................................................................... 29
3.7.5 Special Design Considerations ................................................................................................. 30
3.7.5.1 Problematic Soils ................................................................................................................... 30
3.7.5.2 Design Recommendations on Expansive Soils ...................................................................... 30
3.7.5.3 Design Recommendations on Weak Soils ............................................................................. 32
3.7.6 Side Slope Stability ................................................................................................................... 32
ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR i

3.7.7 Treatment Method for Embankment on expansive soils, weak soils and normal soils .......... 36
3.7.8 Treatment Method for Erodible Soil Stretches ........................................................................ 39
3.7.9 Settlement Analysis.................................................................................................................. 41
Annex
Annex-1 Laboratory Test Results

Annex-2 Traffic Analysis
List of Abbreviations
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AC Asphalt Concrete
BA Bole - Abomsa
BW Bole Junction – Waterdino Section
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
ESAL Equivalent Standard Axle Load
ERA Ethiopian Roads Authority
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
FDD Field Dry Density
MDD Maximum Dry Density (g/cm3)
PI Plasticity Index
ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR ii

List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Location Map of the Project ................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3-1 Resilient Modulus of Sub-grade Soil ................................................................. 19

Figure 3-2 Correlation between PI and ratio of cohesion to SPT N values .......................... 34
Figure 3-3 Stability analysis output for fill height=2.8m without improved subgrade, FS=1.85
........................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 3-4 Stability analysis output for fill height=2.8m along expansive and weak stretches
with improved subgrade and side fill, FS=6.0 ...................................................................... 35
Figure 3-5 Typical road template for fill sections along expansive stretches ........................ 38
Figure 3-6 Typical road template for fill sections along normal stretches ............................. 38
Figure 3-7 Typical road template for cut sections ............................................................... 39
Figure 3-8 Plan view of settlement due to road embankment ........................................ 42
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Expansive Soil Stretches along Bole Junction – Waterdino Section ...................... 5
Table 2-2 Weak Soil Stretches along Bole Junction – Waterdino Road Section .................... 5
Table 2-3 Selected homogenous sections for pavement design ............................................ 7
Table 2-4 Selected homogenous sections along BA and BW ................................................ 7
Table 2-5 Selected homogenous sections for pavement design ............................................ 8
Table 3-1 Summary of normal AADT based on October 2017 Traffic Count ....................... 10
Table 3- 2 Annual growth rates for normal traffic in percent ................................................ 11
Table 3- 3 Estimated Traffic Generation / Diversion in percent............................................ 11
Table 3-4 Summary of project traffic projection over design period, from 2020 to 2034 ....... 12
Table 3-5 Equivalency factors for different vehicle category ................................................ 13
Table 3-6 Design Traffic - Cumulative ESALs ..................................................................... 14
Table 3-7 Summary of ESALs over the design period, from 2020 to 2034 (Average EF used)
........................................................................................................................................... 15
Table 3-8 Summary of ESALs over the design period, from 2020 to 2034 (EF from ERA
used)................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 3-9 Summary of design traffic and subgrade class .................................................... 17
Table 3-10 Pavement Structures Provided by ERA PDM 2013 ........................................... 17
Table 3-11 Pavement layers properties and coefficient ....................................................... 20
Table 3-12 Pavement Structures Provided by AASHTO method ......................................... 22
Table 3-13 Pavement structures recommended from AASHTO and ERA design ................ 22
Table 3-14 Final pavement structures recommended for Bole – Abomsa and Bole Junction –
Waterdino sections ............................................................................................................. 23
Table 3-15 Summary of laboratory test results for Borrow source ....................................... 24
Table 3-16 Summary of laboratory test results for natural gravel source ............................. 25
Table 3-17 Summary of gradation for natural gravel materials ............................................ 25
Table 3-18 Laboratory test results for quarry stones for crushed aggregate and masonry .. 27
Table 3-19 Summary of laboratory test results for water ..................................................... 28
ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR iii

Table 3-20 Summary of laboratory test results for Legeferda River Sand............................ 28
Table 3-21 Requirements of Asphalt Binder (AASHTO M-20) ............................................. 29
Table 3-22 Minimum and Maximum MC-30 Requirements (AASHTO –M82) ...................... 30
Table 3-23 Recommended slope ratios by ERA Geometric Design 2013 ........................... 32
Table 3-24 Summary of high fill road sections ..................................................................... 33
Table 3-25 Summary of Input Parameters for Stability Analysis .......................................... 34
Table 3- 26 Summary of Expansive Stretches .................................................................... 37
Table 3- 27 Summary of Eroded Road Sections along Bole Junction – Waterdino Section . 40
ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR iv

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
The FDRE, represented by Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA), has allocated

sufficient budget to finance payments for the design and construction works of
Bole Junction-Weterdino Horticulture (BW) and Bole-Abomsa (BA) Design-Build
Road Projects through the Design and Build contract delivery strategy in
accordance with the overall road sector strategy.
In so doing, Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA), (hereinafter called “Employer”),

has signed contract agreement with Eshetu Lemma Road Contractor for the
Design and Construction of the Road Project after a local competitive bid.
During the design and construction stage work items such as Detailed Feasibility
Study, Environmental Impact Assessment, Resettlement Action Plan and
Detailed Engineering Design of the road project will be considered.
Subgrade investigation for the full section of Bole Junction – Waterdino

Horticulture and Bole-Abomsa was carried out 18th of October to 26th of October
2017 by a team of experts based on the contractor’s work schedule. During the
subgrade investigation, different activities were carried out including test pitting
and sampling of the subgrade, in-situ testing such as Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer (DCP) and Field Density testing.
This report is a part of the detail engineering design. It deals with the pavement
design for Bole Junction - Waterdino road section. The pavement design, which
is carried out after the soil and material investigation, is an important component
for every engineering design of road projects. The design process of pavement
structures mainly includes; determination of the nature of the sub-grade soils,
assessment of potential problematic soil condition, assessment of the availability
of construction materials and determination of pavement structures thickness.
1.2 Project Location
The Bole Junction-Weterdino Horticulture and Bole-Abomsa Design-Build Road

Project, is located in Eastern part of the country in Oromia Regional state in the
Main Ethiopian Rift Valley about 182km south east of Addis Ababa.
The project road begins about 182km south east of Addis Ababa at Bole Town,
which is found driving about 161km on Addis-Adama-Metehara main road and
then turning right at a place known as 55 Mazoria before reaching Metehara and
driving 21km on Nurera Junction-Bole-Abomsa gravel road.
ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR 1

The project has two road segments separated only by a 55m road that is part of
the Melkasa-Sodore-Nurera-Metehara road. The coordinates of the beginning
and end points of the first road segment, i.e. Bole Junction – Wererdino
Horticulture are (955802.98N, 582941.39E) and (954711N, 590801E)
respectively and the second road segment Bole-Abomsa are (955760.71N,
582908.12E) and (939023.87N, 591072.47E), respectively.
The road has a total length of about 30.5km and when constructed it will be part
of the road that connects to the town of Bole, Weterdino Horticulture which is
found in Boset Woreda and the nearby farm development area on one wing and
Abomsa Town- seat of the Merti Woreda on the other wing. For Bole Junction-
Weterdino Horticulture segment, there exists a dry weather road of poor
pavement and geometric condition for about3.5Km (km 0+000 – km 3+500) and
the next 6km is a newly constructed gravel road with smooth horizontal curves
and gentle vertical gradient followed by a 1km foot track at the end. The second
road segment, Bole-Abomsa, has an existing gravel road with poor pavement
condition for the whole stretch.
The Location Map of the project road is shown in Figure 1-1 below.
Figure 1-1 Location Map of the Project

1.3 Purpose and Scope of the Report
This report mainly deals with the pavement design. The pavement design
includes the determination of the pavement structures type and its thickness.
The report has three sections;
Section - 1: this section briefly presents the project background, project

description, content and purpose of the report.
Section - 2: discusses the analysis of the subgrade soils along Bole Junction
– Waterdino road section.
Section - 3: presents the determination of the pavement thickness design

using ERA Pavement design manual together with the AASHTO design guide.
Side slope stability analysis and computation of settlement due to road
embankment is also included in this section.

2. SUB-GRADE SOILS AND DESIGN CBR
2.1 Sub-grade Soils
The strength of the sub-grade soil is usually determined in terms of the

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and is dependent on the type of soil, its density
and moisture content. The natural subgrade soil is divided into two layers
vertically at some location as per the test pit logging. The top/first layer is in the
average depth range of 0 – 200 cm while the second layer depth is in the
average range of 70 – 200cm. Most of the excavated test pits only have first
layer, i.e. first layer extend 200cm depth.
Generally the project road subgrade material is dominated by brown to dark

brown silty clay soil and rock. From the laboratory test results on soil samples,
for Bole Junction – Waterdino road section, the top/first layer is classified into
three groups (A-7-5, A-7-6 and A-2-7) while the second layers are classified into
two groups (A-7-5 and A-7-6). A-7-5 takes the highest proportion with 73% for
the top layer while A-7-6 and A-2-7 comprises of 19% and 8% of the top layer,
respectively. As for the first layer, A-7-5 comprises the highest proportion with
93% for the second layer while A-7-6 comprises 7% for the second layer.
The plasticity index of the soil samples is in the range of 16 – 41% for Bole
Junction – Waterdino section. This shows that the project soils have low to high
plasticity. The CBR values at 95% MDD of the subgrade is in the range of 1 –
5.6% for Bole Junction – Waterdino section.
In general, the project In-situ subgrades are fair to poor with respect to bearing
capacities when compacted but are naturally found in loose state as confirmed
from the In-situ Field Density tests. Problematic soil stretches (i.e. Weak soil and
expansive soil) are summarized in section 2-2 below.
2.2 Problematic Soil Stretches
2.2.1 Expansive Soil Stretches
During the site visit, it was observed that dark brown silty clay soil is
encountered between km 3.0 and km6.0 and between km7.5 and 8.3 along Bole
Junction – Waterdino section. Dark brown silty clay soil depicts expansive
behavior.
The laboratory test results also showed that the subgrade soil along the
aforementioned stretches, have medium to high expansiveness. Road stretches
with expansive soil are delineated and presented in table below.

Table 2-1 Expansive Soil Stretches along Bole Junction – Waterdino

Section
Expansive soil stretches
Chainage, km Expansiveness, Degree of
Depth, cm
From To ex expansion
0+630 1+500 55 - 200 55 High
2+650 3+650 30 – 200 67 High
3+650 4+650 20 – 90 29 Medium
4+650 5+650 0 - 70 57 High
5+650 6+650 0 – 100 36 Medium
7+650 8+650 30 – 200 44 Medium
8+700 9+700 20 - 200 49 Medium
As per ERA technical specification (2013), expansive soils shall be removed to a

minimum depth of 0.6m and replaced with a material having minimum CBR
value of 7%. Hence, for the potentially expansive soils stretches as mentioned in
Table 2-1 above, a minimum of 0.6m of the potentially expansive natural soil
/below the natural road bed level for existing road/ shall require undercutting and
replaced with suitable, non-expansive material. The replacement depth may
increase due to stability requirement.
2.2.2 Weak Soil Stretches
Beside the expansive soils stretches listed in Table 2-1 above, there are weak
soil stretches with CBR value less than 3%. The weak soil stretches along Bole
Junction – Waterdino section are shown in the table below.
Table 2-2 Weak Soil Stretches along Bole Junction – Waterdino Road Section
Weak soil stretches
Chainage, km
Depth, cm CBR, % Remark
From To
0+500 1+500 55 – 200 2.0
3+650 4+650 20 - 90 2.1
All the weak stretches
5+650 6+650 0 - 100 2.4 are also expansive
stretches.
7+650 8+650 30 - 200 1.0
8+700 9+700 20 - 200 1.3

As mentioned in Table 2-2 above, all weak stretches are also expansive
stretches; hence the weak stretches will be at least treated with similar
treatment as expansive stretches. Soil replacement depth for weak soil
stretches may depend on the fill/embankment height, side slope stability and
quality of improved subgrade material. Weak soils at deeper depths may not be
replaced if they are below the depth of influence zone and satisfy side slope
stability requirement. The need for replacement and replacement depth will be
discussed in section 3 below.
2.3 Uniform Sections
For reasons of economical design of the pavement and ease of construction, the
project road is required to be categorized into homogeneous sections having
reasonably similar soil properties. Accordingly, the methodology recommended
by Tanzanian Pavements and materials design manual, “CUSUM”, has been
adopted for the determination of fair homogeneous sections in respect of the
bearing strength of the subgrade soil. In accordance with this design guide, the
cumulative sum differences from the average values are plotted against
chainages. The homogeneous sections are then indicated by locating the
change in slopes along the chainages for Bole Junction – Waterdino section.
The plotting of CUSUM against chainages based on CBR values at 95% MDD is
shown in figures below.
Figure 2-1 plotting of CUSUM against chainages along Bole Junction –

Waterdino

From the above graph, it is shown that there are number of short homogeneous
sections. Considering such short sections in the pavement design will result in
inconveniences and be impractical during the construction of the road. Hence
the homogeneous sections from the above graph are modified based on
judgment and experience to reasonably longer sections to suit the design and
construction of the road. Table 2-3 presents the homogenous sections as per the
CUSUM chart above.
Table 2-3 Selected homogenous sections for pavement design

**CBR values at
*Uniform Length,
Road section Segment 95% of MDD for the
sections km
sections
Segment I 0+000 – 2+000 2.0 2, 15, 15
Bole Junction -
Segment II 2+000 – 6+500 4.5 2.1, 2.4, 4, 5.6
Waterdino
Segment III 6+500 – 10+646 4.1 1.0, 1.3, 15, 15
* The station of the homogenous sections are refined based on soil extension survey.
** CBR of 15% is considered for rock stretches
From the cumulative frequency curves of the soaked CBR values at 95% MMDD
plotted for the respective uniform pavement segments, the 90th percentile values
(which is the highest CBR value in the lowest 10% bracket) have been
considered as the design sub-grade CBR values which is often considered as
the safe design CBR values.
The design sub-grade CBR values obtained are summarized in Table 2-4 below.
Based on ERA’s pavement design manual 2013, the existing sub-grade soil is
thus classified in to ERA’s sub-grade classes as shown Table 2.4 below.
Table 2-4 Selected homogenous sections along BA and BW

Natural ERA’s
Road section Segment Uniform sections subgrade subgrade
CBR class
Segment I 0+000 – 2+000 5.0 S3
Bole Junction –
Segment II 2+000 – 6+500 2.0 S1
Waterdino
Segment III 6+500 – 10+646 2.0 S1
Geometric design shows that the project road is predominately fill section. Hence,
the depth of influence zone for the wheel load will be mainly in fill material. As
per ERA specification, the minimum CBR for fill material is 5%.

Table 2-5 Selected homogenous sections for pavement design

Fill
Natural
material Design
Road Uniform subgrade
Segment CBR/sub subgrade
section sections CBR/subg
grade class
rade class
class
Segment I 0+000 – 2+000 5.0% / S3
Bole
Junction – Segment II 2+000 – 6+500 2.0% / S1 5%/S3 5%/S3
Waterdino
Segment III 6+500 – 10+646 2.0% / S1
As mentioned in section 2.2 above, the weak stretches are also expansive
stretches, hence the weak stretches will be at least treated with similar treatment
as expansive stretches; i.e. the top 0.6m will be replaced with non-expansive
material having a minimum CBR of 7%. For weak road sections with low fill
height and cut sections where the influence zone goes into the natural subgrade,
the aforementioned treatment will provide a single uniform section with subgrade
class of S3. Hence, Bole Junction – Waterdino road section is considered as a
single segment with subgrade class of S3.

3. DESIGN OF PAVEMENT STRUCTURES
The pavement compositions for different sub-grade class have already been
defined in the Employer’s requirement on which the tendering is based on. As
required by the employer’s requirement, it is necessary to perform analysis and
prepare pavement design which accord to the criteria set in employer’s
requirement. Accordingly two design approaches have been considered to
determine the required pavement structure type and thickness of the pavement
layers. These are ERA pavement design manual (2013) and the AASHTO guide
for structural design of pavements (1993). These design approaches are widely
used in design of various primary roads in the country.
The basic input parameters such as the design CBR and design traffic values are
considered the same for both design approaches. Moreover, the material
properties considered in the pavement structure for both design approaches are
also considered the same.
3.1 Design Traffic
The design traffic is expressed in terms of the number of total cumulative

Equivalent Axle Loads (ESALs) estimated over the design life of the pavement.
Based on the ERA’s design manual the cumulative number of traffic expressed
in millions of ESALs are grouped in to ranges of ESALs, which are then assigned
a specific traffic class varying from T1 to T11.
According to the ToR expressed in the employer’s requirement, the cumulative

ESALs on the project road is grouped in ERA traffic class T5. The opening year
considered for the traffic forecast is 2020.
In order to verify this traffic projection, a classified traffic count has been
conducted by the DB contractor in October 2017 following the procedure
indicated in ERA 2013 PDM. The vehicle count was conducted at two stations at
the junction to Waterdino at km1+900, Bole South, along Bole Abomsa road: one
station counting the existing Bole-Abomsa road traffic; the other counting the
existing Bole Junction waterdino road traffic. Summary of the vehicle count
survey result are presented in Annex II of this report.
The AADT obtained from this current vehicle count has been used as base year
normal traffic for traffic projection and calculating cumulative ESAL for the project
road. The normal traffic based on current vehicle count (October 2017) for the
various vehicles categories for year 2017 is presented in Table 3-1 below.
Seven days vehicle counts were conducted at each count stations of which five
days were for 12hours and two days were for 24 hour continuous count.

Passage of each vehicle flowing in each direction within the 12/24 hour count
period was systematically and continuously recorded in a format prepared as per
ERA manual. The vehicle movements flowing in each direction were recorded
separately.
Night time factor were determined from the two days 24hours counts. The
average of the two was then used to convert the 12hours daily count into 24
hours indexed daily traffic.
The average daily traffic for each count stations were then taken as the average
of the seven days indexed 24 hours traffic. Seasonal factor of 1.05 were used to
account for seasonal variation. The traffic volume in the Bole-Abomsa and Bole
Junction-Waterdino stretch are considered. The ADT for the two count stations in
each respective direction are averaged to determine the AADT for each
segment.
Table 3-1 Summary of normal AADT based on October 2017 Traffic Count
Large
Large Large 2- 3 or 4 AADT
Small Mediu : 4 to
Car Smal Bu : 2- : 3- Axle Axle (both
Year Truck m 6
s l Bus s Axle Axle Traile Trailer directio
s Trucks Axle
Truck Truck r s n)
Truck
2017
(Bole 45 6 85 4 112 0 0 1 0 0 253
Abomsa)
2017
(Bole
Junction 13 0 9 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 37
Waterdin
o)
Source: DB Contractor October 2017 Analysis
As seen in above table, the current normal AADT traffic in the Bole Junction
Waterdino segment for year 2017 is very low. However as most of the
investment area is in the waterdino side, it is recommended to adopt the higher
traffic and also to consider the entire project road as single traffic section. Hence,
the Bole Abomsa traffic data is adopted for projection for entire project.
3.1.1 Traffic Projection
The annual growth rate for normal traffic, traffic generation rates, estimated
traffic diversion and equivalency (truck) factor for the vehicles is adapted from
the concept design report as presented in Table 3-2 to 3-3 below.

Table 3- 2 Annual growth rates for normal traffic in percent
3 or
Large:
Mediu Large: 2- Large: 2- 4
Small Small 4 to 6
Year Cars Bus m Axle 3-Axle Axle Axle
Bus Trucks Axle
Trucks Truck Truck Trailer Traile
Truck
rs
2017-
7.9 7.9 7.4 8.4 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7
2019
2020-
11.2 9.6 9.1 9.6 10.4 10.4 10.4 11.2 11.2 11.2
2024
2025-
11 9.1 9.1 9.6 9.6 10 10 10 10 10
2029
2030-
10 8.5 8.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.8 9.8 9.8
2034
Source: Concept Design Report
Table 3- 3 Estimated Traffic Generation / Diversion in percent
3 or
Large:
Vehicle Mediu Large: 2- Large: 2- 4
Small Small 4 to 6
Types/ Cars Bus m Axle 3-Axle Axle Axle
Bus Trucks Axle
year Trucks Truck Truck Trailer Traile
Truck
rs
2020 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Source: Concept Design Report
It is expected that at the completion of the project impletion and opening of the
road to traffic, significant amount of traffic estimated at 30% of the normal traffic
will be generated that mainly originate from the agricultural investment
developing within the project area. As the route is mainly intended to serve the
project investment area, and it is a dead end in waterdino side, there will be no
diverted traffic considered. The effect of all traffics, i.e. normal, generated and
diverted traffics, are considered in traffic projection and computation of
cumulative ESAL.
It is expected that the project will be completed and open to traffic by year 2020.
Hence, year 2020 is considered as the initial year traffic for analysis. Traffic

projection were thus made using the growth rates shown in the tables above for
15 consecutive years of the design period (i.e. starting from 2020 until 2034) as
shown in Table 3-4 below.
Table 3-4 Summary of project traffic projection over design period, from 2020 to 2034
Large: Large:
Mediu 2- Axle 3 or 4
Passen Small Small 2- Large: 4 to 6
m Trailer Axle Total
ger Bus Trucks AxleTr 3-Axle Axle
Trucks s Trailers
Year Cars Bus ucks Trucks Trucks
2020 76 11 139 7 186 - 0 1 - 0 420
2021 84 12 151 7 205 - 0 1 - 1 462
2022 94 13 165 8 227 - 0 1 - 1 509
2023 104 14 180 9 250 - 0 1 - 1 560
2024 116 15 197 10 276 - 1 1 - 1 617
2025 129 17 214 11 303 - 1 2 - 1 676
2026 143 18 234 12 332 - 1 2 - 1 742
2027 158 20 255 13 364 - 1 2 - 1 814
2028 176 22 279 14 399 - 1 2 - 1 893
2029 195 24 304 16 437 - 1 2 - 1 980
2030 215 26 328 17 476 - 1 2 - 1 1,066
2031 236 28 354 18 519 - 1 3 - 1 1,161
2032 260 30 383 20 566 - 1 3 - 1 1,264
2033 286 33 413 22 617 - 1 3 - 2 1,377
2034 314 36 446 24 673 - 1 4 - 2 1,499

Source: Current DB Contractor Projection
3.1.2 Cumulative Equivalent Standard Axle
Recent axle load survey conducted by the concept design consultant and also
other conducted at Modjo in June 2014 for modjo river bridge approach project
has been used for computation of the Equivalent standard axle load for every
vehicles category. Equivalency factor recommended by ERA 2013 manual has
also been referred for comparison as seen in Table 3.5.

Table 3-5 Equivalency factors for different vehicle category
Large: 3 or 4
Large: 3- Large: 4 2- Axle
Passe Small Small Medium 2- Axle
Axle to 6 Axle Trailer
nger Bus Trucks Trucks AxleTru Trailer
Trucks Trucks s
Cars Bus cks s
TDF from
ERA 2013
0.00 0.15 1.00 0.70 2.50 5.00 3.50 7.50 5.00 6.00
TDF -
Concept
0.00 0.45 2.34 1.64 2.65 9.51 9.51 15.63 9.51 15.63
TDF from
recent
Survey at
0.00 0.05 2.29 0.00 0.32 2.12 1.92 15.32 5.00 9.04
Modjo
AVG TDF 0.00 0.22 1.88 0.85 1.82 5.54 4.98 12.82 6.50 10.22
The cumulative equivalent standard axle load (ESAL) over the design period with
the traffic shown in Table 3-4 and equivalency factors as in Table 3-5 are
summarized in Table 3-7 and Table 3.8 below (source: DB Contractor).
To account for lateral wander and overtaking traffic the directional split is
considered to be 0.6. As per ERA PDM (2013), 100% of cumulative ESAL on
design lane shall be used for pavement design for roads with single lane in each
direction; hence lane distribution factor equals to 1 is used. The 15 years
cumulative ESAL calculated as above using the average equivalency factor is
4.17 million whilst using the EF from ERA 2013 is 4.2 million ESAL. The
cumulative ESAL using EF from concept is 5.7 million.
All the above estimated ESALs are similar and fall in the range of ERA traffic
Class T5 (ESAL range from 3 to 6 million). The design ESAL as recommended
by the employer’s requirement was T5 traffic class. This verifies that the design
traffic to be used for pavement design purpose which is T5 Class is in line with
the value recommended by the employer’s requirement which is also T5 class.
The design traffic, cumulative ESAL for the project is given in Table 3.6 below.

Table 3-6 Design Traffic - Cumulative ESALs
Design life, Cumulative ESAL,

Traffic class
years million
Employers
Requirement 15 - T5
Project Estimate 15 4.2 T5

Table 3-7 Summary of ESALs over the design period, from 2020 to 2034 (Average EF used)
Large: 2- Large: 3- Large: 4

Small Small Medium 2- Axle 3 or 4 Axle
AxleTruc Axle to 6 Axle
Bus Trucks Trucks Trailers Trailers
Year Cars Bus ks Trucks Trucks Total
2020 - - 1,019 137,056.2
- 503 57,029 1,264 74,297 389 2,555
2021 - - 1,133 150,583.1
- 552 62,219 1,385 82,024 429 2,841
2022 - - 1,260 165,451.2
- 605 67,881 1,518 90,555 474 3,159
2023 - - 1,401 181,794.0
- 663 74,058 1,664 99,972 523 3,513
2024 - 726 80,797 1,824 110,369
-
578 3,907
- 1,558 199,758.5
2025 - - 1,714 218,551.9

- 792 88,149 1,999 120,965 635 4,297
2026 - - 1,885 239,114.8
- 865 96,171 2,191 132,577 699 4,727
2027 - - 2,074 261,613.9
- 943 104,923 2,401 145,305 769 5,200
2028 - - 2,281 286,231.6
- 1,029 114,471 2,631 159,254 846 5,720
2029 - - 2,509 313,167.7
- 1,123 124,887 2,884 174,542 930 6,292
2030 - - 2,755 340,168.8
- 1,218 134,878 3,144 190,251 1,014 6,908
2031 - - 3,025 369,506.4
- 1,322 145,669 3,427 207,374 1,105 7,585
2032 - - 3,322 401,383.6
- 1,434 157,322 3,735 226,038 1,205 8,329
2033 - - 3,647 436,020.9
- 1,556 169,908 4,071 246,381 1,313 9,145
2034 - 1,688 183,501 4,438 268,555
-
1,431 10,041
- 4,005 473,658.2
4.17
Total Cumulative ESAL on Design Lane, Millions =

Table 3-8 Summary of ESALs over the design period, from 2020 to 2034 (EF from ERA used)
Large: 2- Large: 3- Large: 4 to

Small Small Medium 2- Axle 3 or 4 Axle
AxleTruc Axle 6 Axle
Bus Trucks Trucks Trailers Trailers
Year Cars Bus ks Trucks Trucks Total
2020 - 348 30,388 1,045 101,870 - 273 1,495 - 598 136,018.4
2021 - 382 33,154 1,145 112,464 - 302 1,663 - 665 149,774.9
2022 - 419 36,171 1,255 124,161 - 333 1,849 - 740 164,926.8
2023 - 459 39,462 1,376 137,073 - 368 2,056 - 822 181,616.3
2024 - 503 43,053 1,508 151,329 - 406 2,286 - 914 199,999.8
2025 - 549 46,971 1,653 165,857 - 447 2,515 - 1,006 218,996.4
2026 - 599 51,246 1,811 181,779 - 491 2,766 - 1,106 239,798.3
2027 - 653 55,909 1,985 199,230 - 541 3,043 - 1,217 262,577.2
2028 - 712 60,997 2,176 218,356 - 595 3,347 - 1,339 287,521.0
2029 - 777 66,547 2,384 239,318 - 654 3,682 - 1,473 314,835.6
2030 - 843 71,871 2,599 260,856 - 713 4,043 - 1,617 342,542.6
2031 - 915 77,621 2,833 284,333 - 777 4,439 - 1,775 372,693.8
2032 - 993 83,831 3,088 309,923 - 847 4,874 - 1,949 405,505.2
2033 - 1,077 90,537 3,366 337,817 - 923 5,351 - 2,141 441,212.0
2034 - 1,169 97,780 3,669 368,220 - 1,007 5,876 - 2,350 480,070.3
4.2
Total Cumulative ESAL on Design Lane, Millions =

Bole Junction–Waterdino Horticulture and Ethiopian Roads Authority
Bole–Abomsa Design and Build Road Project Final Pavement Design Report
3.2 Pavement Design Using ERA PDM 2013
ERA’s pavement design manual 2013 has been used to determine the type and
thicknesses of the pavement structure for project road. The basic input
parameters for the pavement design are the design traffic class and design sub-
grade class. The design traffic class for main alignment, as shown in Table 3-7
above, is T5. The traffic class and subgrade class considered for pavement
design are shown in table below.
Table 3-9 Summary of design traffic and subgrade class
Road Section Design Traffic Class Design Subgrade Class
Bole Junction - Waterdino T5 S3
For the above design traffic and design sub-grade class the pavement
structures recommended for Bole Junction – Waterdino road sections by ERA
PDM 2013 are summarized in table below.
Table 3-10 Pavement Structures Provided by ERA PDM 2013

Pavement Structures as per Chart D1 of ERA PDM 2013
Road Section Traffic Class T5
Pavement Layer
Material description
layer type thickness, mm
Surfacing 50 Flexible asphalt concrete (AC)
Crushed stone road base
Bole Junction - Road base 175
(GB1)
Waterdino
Sub-base 325 Granular sub-base (GS)
Subgrade Soil having a minimum CBR of 5% (S3)

3.3 Pavement Design Using AASHTO Design Guide 1993
A) Management Considerations
I. Performance Period: The performance period is defined as the period of

time that an initial pavement structure will last before it needs rehabilitation.
It is thus the same as the structural design period (SDP) or design life
according to TRL Road Note 31. The project road is classified main
access. The design period of the pavement for main access is 15 years as
per the recommendation in Table 2.1 of ERA Pavement Design Manual
(2013).
II. Reliability: It is a means of incorporating a degree of certainty into the

design process and is taken as percentage value. The reliability factor
accounts for chance variations in both traffic prediction and performance
prediction, and therefore provides a predetermined level of assurance that
the pavement sections will survive the period for which it is designed.
AASHTO recommends a value between 75 and 95. A percentage value of
85% is recommended for this project.
III. Standard Deviation: for flexible pavement design, a standard deviation

value of 0.45 is recommended.
IV. Serviceability Loss: the serviceability loss is the total change in

Serviceability Index over time. It is defined as the difference between the
initial Serviceability Index and the terminal Serviceability Index. The
measure of serviceability is the Present Serviceability Index (PSI), which
ranges from 0 (Impossible Road) to 5 (Perfect road). AASHTO suggests a
terminal serviceability index of 2.0 for roads with lesser traffic volumes. The
recommended initial serviceability for flexible pavements is 4.2. Therefore,
the change in serviceability index (PSI) will be 2.2.
B) Characterization of Materials Properties
The AASHTO procedure uses the resilient modulus to characterize the

roadbed material. Since the roadbed for this project is evaluated based on
CBR values, it can be converted to resilient modulus values using the
correlation chart given below.

Source: American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA)
Figure 3-1 Resilient Modulus of Sub-grade Soil
Based on the above chart, for minimum subgrade CBR of 5% (S3), 8% (S4)
and 15% (S5), the resilient modulus are 6,000psi, 8000psi and 12000psi,
respectively.
C) Traffic Loading
The AASHTO design procedure is also based on the equivalent single axle
load (ESAL). An equivalent axle load of 18kips is used which is equal to 80KN.
Therefore, the results from previous section can be used. Hence, for the
purpose of this design a cumulative ESAL equal to 5 million is considered.
D) Design of Pavement Structures
The AASHTO design procedure uses the concept of Structural Number (SN)
Analysis for a pavement structure design. The structural number of a
pavement is expressed as a function of the estimated traffic, resilient modulus,
standard deviation, reliability and change in serviceability index. The graphical
representation of the concept of SN analysis is shown below.

To determine the layer thickness the following relationship is followed;
SN = a1D1 + a2D2m2 + a3D3m3
Where a1, a2, a3 are layer coefficient based on material quality

D1, D2, D3 are Layer thicknesses
m2, m3 are Drainage coefficients
The pavement structures strength and their coefficients used in the pavement
design are summarized in table below.
Table 3-11 Pavement layers properties and coefficient

Pavement layer Material properties Layer co-efficient
Asphalt concrete (AC) Mr = 450,000psi 0.45
Crushed stone road base Min. CBR = 100%, Mr =30,000 0.14
Natural gravel sub-base Min. CBR = 30%, Mr=15,000 0.11
It is assumed that the pavement layers are exposed close to saturation greater
than 25% of the time and the drainage quality is good. Thus the value for the
drainage coefficients is taken as 1.0. In-house excel template is used for
pavement design. AASHTO pavement design for sub-grade class S3 is shown
below.

Pavement Design as per AASHTO Pavement Design Guide, 1993
Input Parameters
Reliability = 85 % Traffic class - T5

Standard deviation = 0.45 -
Equivalent Standard Axel Load (ESAL) = 5.0 mill. Min. subgrade CBR =5% - S3
Resilient Modulus of natural subgrade = 6000 Psi
Initial Serviceability 4.2 -
Terminal Serviceability 2.2 -
Pavement Structure Thickness Design
Layer coefficients
Asphalt concrete, a1=
0.45
E=3000MPa, Mr=450,000psi/3105MPa Drainage coefficient
Crushed stone road base, a2 =
0.14 m2 = 1
CBR =100%, Mr=30,000psi
Natural gravel Sub-base, a3 =
0.11 m3 = 1
CBR =30%, Mr=15,000psi
Required minimum SN = 4.46 From the graph
Thickness of AC
SN with GB1 road base as roadbed = 2.52 From the graph
Thickness of AC 5.6 in 142.2 mm
2.6 145 mm
Thickness of crushed stone road base (GB1)

SN with sub-base as roadbed = 3.24 From the graph
Thickness of road base = 4.8 in 121.8 mm
0.7 125 mm
Thickness of natural gravel sub-base (GS)

SN with natural subgrade or borrow
material as roadbed (S3) = 4.46 From the graph
Thickness of sub-base = 10.9 in 277.6 mm
1.2 280 mm
Total calculated SN = 4.47 OK!
Recommended Pavement Structure Thickness

mm
145 Asphalt Concrete surface course (AC)
125 Crushed stone road base (GB1)
280 Natural gravel sub-base (GS)

The summary of the pavement structure layers are presented in table below.
Table 3-12 Pavement Structures Provided by AASHTO method

Pavement Structures as per AASHTO
Road section Traffic Class T5

Pavement Layer
Material description
layer type thickness, mm
Surfacing 145 Flexible asphalt concrete (AC)
Road base 125 Crushed stone road base (GB1)

Bole Junction -
Waterdino
Sub-base 280 Granular sub-base (GS)
Subgrade Soil having a minimum CBR of 5% (S3)
3.4 Comparison of Designed Pavement with Employer’s Requirement
The type and thickness of the pavement structure for the project road is
defined/specified by the Employer’s Requirement for different sub-grade class.
The pavement structure so defined by the Employer’s Requirement for sub-
grade class S3 and pavement design by AASHTO and ERA design procedure
for similar sub-grade class is indicated in table below.
Table 3-13 Pavement structures recommended from AASHTO and ERA design
Pavement type and thickness, mm
Design Granular
Design Crushed Granular
Method subgrade capping
Traffic Surfacing stone sub-
class layer/selected
AC road base base
subgrade fill
(GB1) (GS)
(GC)
Employer’s
S3 T5 50 175 225 130
Requirement
ERA PDM
S3 T5 50 175 325 -
2013
AASHTO
S3 T5 145 130 280 -
method
As can be seen in table above, the surfacing layer in AASHTO design is

relatively thicker than ERA design. It can be concluded that AASHTO pavement
design is conservative and uneconomical. ERA design is relatively similar with
the one recommended in the employer’s requirement. The only difference
observed with ERA design and employer’s requirement is that ERA design
recommends using 325mm sub-base without capping layer, on the other hand
the employer’s requirement recommends using capping layer of 130mm and
reduce the sub-base thickness to 225mm.

Considering the layer co-efficient recommended for sub-base layer (0.105) and
capping layer (0.08) in ERA PDM 2013, the equivalent thickness of sub-base
(225mm) plus the capping layer (130mm) is required to substitute sub-base
thickness of 325mm. Hence, it can be concluded that the pavement thickness
recommended by the employer’s requirement is similar with ERA design.
3.5 Final Recommended Pavement Structures
As discussed above, the AASHTO design procedure provides conservative and

uneconomical design than ERA PDM 2013. ERA design gives similar design with
the employer’s requirement provision. This can be due to the fact that the
recommended pavement structure in the employer’s requirement is based on
ERA design procedure. It can be concluded that the pavement thickness
provided by the employer’s requirement is sufficient to carry the estimated traffic
loading as verified by the current traffic study. The final recommended pavement
structures for Bole Junction - Waterdino section is shown in table below.
Table 3-14 Final pavement structures recommended for Bole – Abomsa and Bole
Junction – Waterdino sections
Pavement type and thickness, mm
Design
Design Granular
Road Sections subgrade Crushed Granular
Traffic Surfacing capping
class stone road sub-base
AC layer
base (GB1) (GS)
(GC)
Bole Junction -
S3 T5 50 175 225 130
Waterdino
3.6 Design of Shoulder
As per the employer’s requirement, the road is classified as highway. The road
shall have gravel surfaced shoulder for all soil stretches other than expansive
soils. Gravel shoulders in both sides shall be leveled with 400mm of natural
gravel.
On expansive soil stretches, shoulders shall be sealed with DBST as per the
employer’s requirement. The pavement layers from the main carriageway shall
be extended towards the shoulders.
3.7 Pavement Materials Requirements
The pavement materials used in the new pavement structure shall satisfy the
minimum requirements specified by ERA’s technical specification 2013 as
indicated in the soils and materials report. Moreover, the requirements for
bitumen are specified as follows.

3.7.1 Borrow Material for Embankment/Replacement
The project road mostly traverses a flat plain therefore the pavement is
designed to rest on embankment and hence it is necessary to identify adequate
borrow material sources within the project route corridor.
There is no plenty of borrow materials sources in the project due to the

prevailing flat topography. However, three source are identified which can be
used as borrow for embankment. The laboratory test results for the borrow
materials is shown in table below.
Table 3-15 Summary of laboratory test results for Borrow source

CBR
Sr. Station Location Material at Swell
LL % PI %
No co-ordinate Description 95% %
MDD
km5.4-BA,
E- 585238
1 Offset 150m Pumice - NP 66 0.03
N-951344
LHS
km10.5-BA, Brownish silt
E- 588021
2 Offset 200m mixed with 48 17 36 1.6
N-947412
RHS gravel
Km8.2-BW,
E- 588992 Reddish brown
3 offset 20m 48 18 5 2.5
N-956252 silty sand
RHS
ERA 2013 Specification for borrow for embankment < 60% < 30% ≥ 5% ≤ 2%
ERA 2013 Specification for Granular Capping (GC) ≤ 60% ≤ 30% ≥15% ≤ 2%
The borrow material fulfills all the requirements set in ERA 2013 specification
except the swell at km8.2-BW. Hence, the two borrow sources along Bole
Junction – Abomsa are considered to be suitable for embankment use and
capping Layer. It is however advisable to use material having preferably LL and
PI of less than 50% and 25% respectively and CBR-swell less than 1.5% for
granular capping layer material (GC).
3.7.2 Natural Gravel for Sub-base
The laboratory test results indicate that the strength requirement for sub-base
are satisfied for the gravel sources. However, the plasticity requirement is not
satisfied for all sources. This is could be due to the fact that representative
samples are sampled from the shallower depth since most of this sources are
not open pits. A better quality material is expected at deeper depths, hence, the
samples will be taken once the sources are open and the suitability checks will

be performed again. The laboratory test results for natural gravel sources is
shown in table below.
Table 3-16 Summary of laboratory test results for natural gravel source
Station Location co- Material

No CBR PI LL
ordinate Description
km4.4-BA, E - 583762
Brownish silt
1 offset 500m N - 951605 70 14 44
mixed with gravel
RHS
km7.1-BA, E - 586334
Brownish silt
2 offset 50m N – 950159 76 13 39
mixed with gravel
RHS
km9.3-BA, E - 587361 Grayish brown silty

3 offset 150m N – 948185 sand mixed with 31 24 54
RHS gravel
Km19.0-BA, E - 590336
Grayish sandy silt
4 offset 1km N - 938623 70 20 48
mixed with gravel
RHS
ERA 2013 Specification for sub-base Min.

Max. 12 Max. 45
30
The gradation of the natural gravel sources is shown in table below.
Table 3-17 Summary of gradation for natural gravel materials

Test Sieve Size (mm)
Station 37.5 19.0 4.75 1.0 0.425 0.075
Percent (%) by Mass of Total Aggregate Passing Test Sieves
km4.4 – BA, offset 500m 90.3 72.4 46.4 28.9 26.4 21.2
RHS
km7.1 – BA, offset 50m 92.1 73.6 31.4 17.9 16.3 13.6
RHS
km9.3 – BA, offset 150m
95.9 89.9 59.7 35.1 31.5 26.9
RHS
km19.0 – BA, offset 1km 95.9 85.7 66.0 49.8 41.8 30.7
RHS
Grading Requirement for
Natural Gravel Sub-base
(ERA Standard Technical 70 - 100 50 - 100 30 - 100 17 - 75 11 - 56 5 - 25
Specification-2013 –
Grading A)

Regarding the grading composition of the samples the following remarks are
taken, the gravel samples at km4.4- BA and km7.1- BA satisfies grading
requirement. On the other hand, the samples at km9.3 and km19.0 have fine
contents which are above the grading limits. As it mentioned above, the source
material will be re-sampled and checked again.
3.7.3 Quarry Sources for Crushed Aggregates and Masonry
The identified quarry stone source for asphalt aggregate, base course and
concrete works was subjected to different laboratory tests and the results were
compared with the ERA standard technical specification 2013 to check their
suitability.
Indicative tests such as coating and stripping, specific gravity, water absorption,
Sodium Sulphate Soundness (SSS), Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV), Ten
percent Fines Value (TFV) and Los Angeles Abrasion (LAA) tests are
conducted on the samples to assess the quality. The comparison of laboratory
test results with the corresponding specifications is illustrated in table below.
As indicated in the laboratory test results summary, the quarry stone source at
km9.3 satisfies the requirement for base course. However, this source does not
satisfy the requirement for asphalt aggregate and concrete aggregate. The
quarry source at km18.5 has high water absorption and does not satisfy the
requirement for masonry work. The rock samples are sampled from the
surface, this may affect the quality of the rock. Hence, the rock at the quarry
sources will be re-sampled and their suitability will be checked again.

Table 3-18 Laboratory test results for quarry stones for crushed aggregate and
masonry
Soundne
Coating Specific Water ss loss ACV TFV LAA Comp.
Sr. Station and Gravity Absorption by (%) (KN) Dry (%) streng
No Stripping (%) Na2SO4 th
(%) (MPa)
Km9.3 -
BA, offset
1 150m RHS < 95 2.7 3.9 - 24 146 34 28
E– 587311
N - 948190
km18.5,
offset 2km
RHS
2 - - 7.6 - - - - 28
E– 590485
N - 939472
ERA’s
Specification
Requirements Dry TFV
≥ 110
for crushed
Base Course
ERA’s
Specification
Max Dry TFV Max
Requirements > 95 < 2.0 Max. 10
25 > 160 30
for Asphalt
Aggregate
ERA’s
Specification
Requirements Max
Max. 15
for Cement 40
Concrete
Aggregate
3.7.4 Water Source
Water from water source (i.e. Awash and Arba dino River) are sampled during
the field work. Results of the tests conducted on the water samples, along with
the corresponding specification requirements are as given in Table below.

Table 3-19 Summary of laboratory test results for water

Chloride Sulphate
Item Source TDS
Station Content Content
No. name PH (mg/l)
(mg/l) (mg/l)
km 0.0-BA, Awash
1 7.1 19.0 27.2 212
offset 150m river
RHS
Arba dino
2 7.0 9.0 14.6 142
km 19.7-BA river
Specification Requirement (ERA

7-9 < 400ppm* < 500ppm < 2000ppm
2013 Technical Spec)
Note * – mg/l = ppm
As illustrated in the table above, all the laboratory test results satisfy ERA
standard technical specification requirements of water for cement concrete
works. Hence, the water sources can be used for concrete and earthworks.
3.7.4 Sand Source
No natural sand source was found along Bole – Abomsa route corridor. The
natural sand source at Legeferda River (located 15km from Bole town) can be
a potential source. The test result for this sand source is shown in table below.
Table 3-20 Summary of laboratory test results for Legeferda River Sand
Legeferda river ERA 2013
Quality Tests
sand Specification
Soundness Loss by Sodium Sulfate (AASHTO T-104) 16.1% Max 10%
Clay lumps and friable particles (AASHTO T-112) 0.6% Max 3%
Material finer than 0.075mm sieve (AASHTO T – 11) 1.0% Max 3%
Sand Equivalent (AASHTO T – 176) 89% Min 75%
Organic impurities (AASHTO T – 21) Color Plate 1 Color plate. 1 or 2
7 days Mortar strength (AASHTO T – 71) 19.1 Min 15MPa
As can be seen in table above, the sand source satisfy all ERA specification
requirements except soundness loss. Crushed rock sand can be considered as
alternative option.

3.7.4 Bituminous Materials
Bitumen for Asphaltic Surfacing (Mixture)
As hot air temperature >24 oC (Max. 30.8oC) prevails in the project area, it is
recommended to use 60/70 penetration Grade Bitumen (asphalt cement) as
binder for all bituminous surfacing mixtures for this specific segment of project
road.
The quality of the penetration grade bitumen shall satisfy the minimum
requirements as specified in the relevant project technical specifications.
Appropriate mix design (job mix formula) will be performed during the
construction phase to determine the optimum bitumen content required in the
bituminous mixture. Table below presents the requirements for the asphalt
binder as per AASHTO M-20.
Table 3-21 Requirements of Asphalt Binder (AASHTO M-20)

Solubility in
Flash Loss on Tests on Residue
Testing Ductility Trichloroethy
Penetration Point heating
Center (cm) lene Ductility
(OF) (%) Penetration
(%) (cm)
AASHTO – Min.
Min. 60 Min. 100 Min. 99 Min. __ Min.54 Min.50
M20 450
Max. 70 Max. __ Max. __ Max. 0.8 Max.__ Max.__
Specification Max. __
Prime Coat
Cut back bitumen is used for priming of granular base layers. The most widely
and successfully used primer in most road projects is medium curing cutback
of grade MC30. This MC30 cutback bitumen shall be used for the project road
to prime the finished / completed base surface. Its actual application rate shall
be determined during construction phase based on site trials that will provide
optimal application with adequate penetration and bonding and reasonable
drying time.
The MC30 cutback can be imported or prepared on site; in both cases, the
cutback bitumen to be used shall satisfy the quality requirements of the
relevant project technical specifications.

Table 3-22 Minimum and Maximum MC-30 Requirements (AASHTO –M82)

Absolute Ductility
Distillation Residue Viscosity (cm)
Kinematic (Percentage by volume from at 60 OC
Viscosity Flash Water of total distillate to; ) Solubility in
distillation (pa.s)
at Point Content Trichloroethylene
to
60OC (OF) (%) (%)
225 680 OF
(mm2/s) 260 OC 315 OC
O
C (%)
Min.
Min.__ Min. Min.40 Min.75 Min.30 Min. Min. 99
MC-30 Min. 30 38 Min.50
Max. __ Max. Max. Max.120 100 Max. __
Spec. Max. 60 Max. Max.__
0.2 Max. 70 93 Max. __
__
25
3.7.5 Special Design Considerations
3.7.5.1 Problematic Soils
During the site visit, dark gray clay soil was encountered along km3 – 6 and
km7.5 – 8.3 for Bole Junction – Waterdino section. The laboratory test results
showed that the subgrade soil along most parts of the aforementioned
stretches have medium to high expansiveness. Road stretches with expansive
soil are presented in Table 2-1 above.
Beside the expansive soils stretches, stretches with soils having CBR less
than 3% are encountered. These stretches are considered as weak soil
stretches. Weak soil stretches are shown in Table 2-2 above. All weak
stretches are also expansive stretches.
3.7.5.2 Design Recommendations on Expansive Soils
As discussed in sub-section 2.2 above, the sub-grade soil along some parts of
the project road exhibit medium to high expansiveness. As per ERA standard,
expansive soils shall be removed to a minimum depth of 0.6m and replaced
with a suitable non-swelling material having minimum CBR value of 7%.
Replacement over the full formation width of the pavement is required when
the road height (embankment + pavement) is less than 2m. Where the road fill
height is more than 2m (embankment + pavement), replacement of the natural
subgrade is required for the outer parts of the pavement at both sides of the
shoulder; i.e. the areas that lie between the outer edges of the shoulder and
the toes of the embankment shall be replaced.
Side slopes along expansive soil stretches shall be in range of 1:4 to 1:6 (V:H)
and side ditch (if any) shall be placed 4 to 6m away from the toe of the side
slope along expansive soil stretches. For high fill sections slope flattening may

not be pragmatic, hence side berms instead of slope flatten may be

considered along these sections.
In Cut sections with expansive soil stretches, if there exist, the depth of
replacement shall be 1m below subbase within the carriageway+shoulder on
both sides of the road in-order to move the expansive soil as much away from
the influence zone. As the cut section shall be widened to 4meter away from
the shoulders in both sides, the expansive soil in the widened sections shall
require to be replaced by 60cm from surface and shall be properly compacted
and trimmed with a slope of 1:10 (V:H) to drain flow of water to the side
ditches at the corners.
The following are additional principal methods recommended in the design in

order to minimize seasonal moisture fluctuations in expansive soils and
thereby reduce the risk of associated damage to the pavement. The methods
are specified for the purpose of providing the most favorable conditions
possible under the circumstances:
 Provide nearest possible constant moisture contents over the full width of
the carriageway below the embankment.
 Shoulders shall be sealed in both sides for all expansive soil stretches.
Widening of shoulders is beneficial in construction on expansive soils and
should be applied whenever economically possible.
 For all expansive soil stretches, side slopes shall be flatter as much as
practicable.
 Side drains should be avoided in areas with expansive soils as much as

possible. If side drains cannot be avoided due to site conditions then they
shall be kept at a minimum distance of 4m from the toe of the
embankment. Side fills made of expansive soils requires erosion protection
by grassing, but no trees shall be planted on the embankment slopes.
 As expansion pressure and potential volume change increase with

increase in the dry density of swelling soils, hence it should not be
attempted to densify expansive soils. Any attempt to compact expansive
soils to higher density will not be practical and not achievable. Their density
should not exceed maximum 93% MDD (Modified Compaction) during road
bed preparation.
 In addition, the road bed of the expansive clays should be kept moist
during road bed preparation and should immediately be covered by the
appropriate fill/improved sub-grade without undue delays; culverts and

drainage pipes shall not be directly laid on expansive soils; trees should not
be planted and allowed to grow near the road.
 Materials used for replacement of expansive soils shall have a minimum

CBR of 7% at 95% MDD and 4 days soaked and be as impermeable as
possible. Plastic soils (PI 15 to 30%) shall be used wherever available at
economical haulage distances.
3.7.5.3 Design Recommendations on Weak Soils
As discussed in sub-section 2.2 above, beside the expansive soils, there are
also weak soil stretches with CBR value less than 3% along some part of the
project road. The replacement material quality and replacement depth
depends on the fill height. The detail analysis and recommendation for the
weak stretches will be discussed in section 3.7.6 below.
3.7.6 Side Slope Stability
In general for cut / fill sections slope ratios as recommended in ERA’s

Geometric Design Manual 2013 shall be used. The recommended back and
side slopes by ERA Manual 2013 are shown in table below.
Table 3-23 Recommended slope ratios by ERA Geometric Design 2013

Side Slopes (V:H)
Height of
Material Type Back Slope (V:H)
Slope Cut Fill
0.0m - 1m 1:3 1:3

Earth Soil 1m - 2m 1:2 1:2
Over 2m 2:3 2:3
0.0m -2m 4:5 2:1
Strong Rock
over 2m 1:1 4:1
1:2
0.0m -2m 2:3 2:1
Weathered Rock
over 2m 1:1 3:1
0.0m - 1m 1:3 1:3
Decomposed Rock 1m - 2m 1:2 1:2
Over2m 2:3 2:3
Black Cotton Soil 0- 2m 1:6
- -
(expansive soil) Over 2m 1:4
Slope stability analyses are performed to verify if the recommended side and
back slope ratios in table above is suitable for the project road natural
subgrade soil, i.e. to check if the natural subgrade soil will be able to support

the road embankment and/or the recommended back slope ratios will be
stable. The stability of the side slope is analysed using slope stability analysis
software called SLIDE, which is slope stability program for soil and rock slopes.
High fill sections along weak and/or expansive stretches are critical in terms of
slope instability. The summary of fill heights range on expansive and weak soil
stretches is shown in table below.
Table 3-24 Summary of high fill road sections

Expansive and Weak stretches
Road Section
Station Max. Fill Height, m
0+630 – 1+500 2.1
Bole Junction -
2+650 – 6+650 2.8
Waterdino
7+650 – 9+700 1.7
The natural subgrade soils CBR along weak and/or expansive stretches is in
range of 1% - 3% along high fill sections. The shear strength (cohesion) of the
sub-grade material which is used as input parameters in stability analysis is
back-calculated from its CBR values. CBR values are correlated with DCP
values (mm/blow) using equation 1 below.
Log10 (CBR) = 2.48 – 1.057 Log10 (mm/blow) ----- Eqn. 1
DCP values are correlated with SPT N value using equation 2 below. This
equation is derived based on the correlation of mm/blow and SPT N value
given in Table 3.4 of ‘Overseas Road Note 9’.
SPT N = 240.9*(mm/blow)-0.97 ----- Eqn. 2
Cohesion is derived from SPT N value based on Figure 3-2 below. The shear
strength parameter for the pavement structure is assumed based on literatures
and previous experience.

Figure 3-2 Correlation between PI and ratio of cohesion to SPT N values
The summary of input parameters used for stability analyses are summarized
in table below.
Table 3-25 Summary of Input Parameters for Stability Analysis

Materials Properties
Cohesion, Internal friction Unit weight,

Material Type
kPa angle, deg. kN/m3
Weak and/or expansive
10.0 0.0 16.0
natural subgrade soil
Fill material/ Improved
30.0 5.0 18.0
subgrade
Pavement structure 5.0 40.0 20.0
I. Slope Stability analysis along Expansive and Weak Stretches
Slope stability analyses outputs for high fill sections on expansive and weak
soils are shown in figures below.

Figure 3-3 Stability analysis output for fill height=2.8m without improved subgrade,
FS=1.85
Figure 3-4 Stability analysis output for fill height=2.8m along expansive and weak
stretches with improved subgrade and side fill, FS=6.0

Based on the slope stability analyses results shown above, it can be

concluded that no replacement of the natural subgrade soil along the
expansive stretches is required in terms of slope stability. However, a
minimum of the top 0.6m of natural subgrade soil along expansive soil shall be
replaced with non-expansive material having minimum CBR of 7% to eliminate
the effect of seasonal moisture fluctuation on the road embankment and
pavement. The fill material for embankment shall be built with S3 material. The
replacement layer and fill material shall be properly compacted to at least 95%
MDD.
For weak stretches, stability analysis results indicated that no replacement is

required. However, all weak stretches are also expansive stretches, hence the
aforementioned remedial measure for expansive stretches will be implemented
along weak stretches.
The in-situ density test results conducted along the project road showed that
the subgrade soils are in loose state. Hence, efforts shall be made to
adequately densify the natural soil (upper layer) of the soil immediately below
the top soil removal by loosening, adding sufficient water and adequately re-
compacting to at least 93% of the MDD. Same shall be done after the removal
of unsuitable soil but compacted to at least 90% MDD.
3.7.7 Treatment Method for Embankment on expansive soils, weak soils

and normal soils
Based on the slope stability analysis discussed above for the project road, the
following treatment measures are recommended:
Embankments: for the project road, it is recommended that Embankments

shall be made with material satisfying S3 material requirement (CBR 5 to 7%).
Treatment for Expansive and Weak Soils:
Where expansive soils are encountered, expansive soils shall be removed to a

minimum depth of 0.6m and replaced with a suitable non-swelling material
having minimum CBR value of 7%.
Replacement over the full formation width of the pavement is required when
the road height (embankment + pavement) is less than 2m. Where the road fill
height is more than 2m (embankment + pavement), replacement of the natural
subgrade is required for the outer parts (unpaved area) of the pavement at
both sides of the shoulder; i.e. the areas that lie between the outer edges of
the shoulder and the toes of the embankment shall be replaced.

After removing the expansive soil the underlying surface shall be reasonably
compacted to at least 90% MDD from the surface before commencing filling up
with the replacement material. This will help to reasonably densify the layers
beneath. Start filling up the replacement layers immediately. As much as
possible avoid constructing the replacement activity (excavation and
replacement) during rainy or wet season in order to avoid the underlying
natural soil from being saturated. For expansive soil sections, other required
treatments as discussed in section 3.7.5.2 above shall apply. The expansive
stretches are shown table below.
Table 3- 26 Summary of Expansive Stretches

Road Section Station Remark
0+630 – 1+500
*Expansive and Weak
Bole Junction - Waterdino 2+650 – 6+650
stretches
7+650 – 9+700
*For stretches which are both weak and expansive, the remedial measure recommended for
expansive stretch shall govern.
Actual stretches of expansive soils shall be verified on site jointly with the Engineer.
Treatment for Normal Soils:
For normal subgrade sections where the natural subgrade soils are loose in
their natural state, the following are recommended:
 Remove about 20cm of top soil, scarify the underlying soil layer to
minimum depth of 50cm, add water to moisten the soil to optimum and re-
compact properly to at least 93% of the maximum dry density (heavy
compaction). This will also have an effect to reasonably densify the
underlying layers.
 Start filling up embankment layers immediately.
Typical road templates based on the recommendations given above are

shown in figures below.

5%
Figure 3-5 Typical road template for fill sections along expansive stretches
Figure 3-6 Typical road template for fill sections along normal stretches

Figure 3-7 Typical road template for cut sections
3.7.8 Treatment Method for Erodible Soil Stretches
Erodible stretches were observed in the road sections considered as seen in the
table here under. Erosion gullies may also be formed at any time of the road service
life due to nature of soil and topographic feature of the area. It is more pronounced in
steep grades where erosion phenomenon is likely to be aggravated due to gravity.
Erosion gullies wherever encountered within or adjacent to the road prism shall
require to be filled with suitable embankment material compacted in layers to at least
90% of maximum dry density. Up to 50cm lift thickness can be used. As much as
practicable, rock fill/ quarry waste or granular materials can be used to fill up bottom
layers. For the upper layers, materials with sufficient amount of plastic fines can be
used in order to adequately bind the surface layer /and make it as impermeable as
possible/ to improve the surface resistance to erosion. The top surface shall then
require to be properly trimmed off following the natural contour/road profile so as to
provide smooth flow of water away from the surface.

Table 3- 27 Summary of Eroded Road Sections along Bole Junction – Waterdino

Section
Eroded Section: Bole Junction – Waterdino Road Section
Starting station co-ordinate

Starting Chainage Length, m
Easting Northing
km7+000 588040 956977 20
km8+330 589028 956111 30
km9+100 589697 955788 40

3.7.9 Settlement Analysis
In addition to slope stability analysis, immediate settlement of subgrade soil

due to road embankment load is computed for high fill section. The program
Settle3D is used for the settlement calculation.
Young modulus of the subgrade soil is main input parameter for calculating
immediate settlement. As per AASHTO Bridge Design Specification Manual,
the Young modulus of cohesive soil can be correlated with SPT-N value using
the equation 3 below.
Es = 0.4*N------- Eqn. 3
Where, Es = Young modulus of the soil, MPa

N = SPT N value
As it is mentioned in soils and materials report, Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

(DCP) testing along the project road is performed during field work. DCP
testing data (mm/blow) are correlated with Standard Penetration Test Number
(SPT-N) using equation 1 given above.
Based on DCP testing, the mm/blow along the high fill section is in the range
of 5.0 – 19.0. Using equation 2 above, the SPT N value with the
aforementioned DCP data is in the range of 14.0 – 50.0.
Based on equation 3 above and SPT N value of 14.0 – 50.0, the Young
modulus of the natural subgrade soil is in the range of 5.6MPa – 20.0MPa.
The lower bound of the calculated Young modulus (i.e. Es=5.6MPa) is used in
calculating the immediate settlement to be on the safe side.
Compression index of the sub-grade soil is computed from its liquid limit based
on equation proposed by Skempton (1944), Compression Index = 0.009 x (LL-
10). The liquid limit of natural subgrade soil along the expansive stretches is in
the range of 60 – 90%. The compression index will be 0.45 – 0.72 with the
aforementioned liquid limits.
Fill height of 2.8m is used for settlement calculation. As can be seen in the
figures below, the immediate settlement of 37mm is computed from settlement
analysis. Since road construction is stage construction and immediate
settlement occurs immediately after the construction of the embankment, the
effect of the immediate settlement post construction will be less than
aforementioned settlement. The plan view of the settlement analysis output is
shown in figure below.

Figure 3-8 Plan view of settlement due to road embankment
The effect of consolidation settlement due to road embankment load is

expected to be negligible in the project road as the natural subgrade soil is in
relatively dry state (not in saturated condition) and the embankment will be
constructed in dry season. Consolidation settlement occurs due to a
dissipation of water which occupies the voids/pores in saturated soil caused by
a change in stress in soil body from the external applied load. Even if
somehow the subgrade soil get saturated in the future after the construction of
the road embankment, no additional settlement is expected unless there is
significant permanent stress increase in the subgrade soil after the saturation
of subgrade soil.

PDR - Bole-Waterdino, Rev. 2 - Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDR - Bole-Waterdino, Rev. 2 - Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

PDR - Bole-Waterdino, Rev. 2 - Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bole Junction-Waterdino Horticulture and Bole Ethiopian Roads Authority

ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR i

Annex-1 Laboratory Test Results

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR ii

Figure 1-1 Location Map of the Project ................................................................................................... 2

Figure 3-1 Resilient Modulus of Sub-grade Soil ................................................................. 19

ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR iii

ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR iv

1.1 Project Background

The FDRE, represented by Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA), has allocated

In so doing, Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA), (hereinafter called “Employer”),

Subgrade investigation for the full section of Bole Junction – Waterdino

1.2 Project Location

The Bole Junction-Weterdino Horticulture and Bole-Abomsa Design-Build Road

ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR 1

Figure 1-1 Location Map of the Project

ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR 2

1.3 Purpose and Scope of the Report

Section - 1: this section briefly presents the project background, project

Section - 3: presents the determination of the pavement thickness design

ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR 3

2. SUB-GRADE SOILS AND DESIGN CBR

2.1 Sub-grade Soils

The strength of the sub-grade soil is usually determined in terms of the

Generally the project road subgrade material is dominated by brown to dark

2.2 Problematic Soil Stretches

2.2.1 Expansive Soil Stretches

ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR 4

Table 2-1 Expansive Soil Stretches along Bole Junction – Waterdino

As per ERA technical specification (2013), expansive soils shall be removed to a

2.2.2 Weak Soil Stretches

ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR 5

2.3 Uniform Sections

Figure 2-1 plotting of CUSUM against chainages along Bole Junction –

ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR 6

Table 2-3 Selected homogenous sections for pavement design

Table 2-4 Selected homogenous sections along BA and BW

ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR 7

Table 2-5 Selected homogenous sections for pavement design

ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR 8

3. DESIGN OF PAVEMENT STRUCTURES

3.1 Design Traffic

The design traffic is expressed in terms of the number of total cumulative

According to the ToR expressed in the employer’s requirement, the cumulative

ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR 9

3.1.1 Traffic Projection

ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR 10

Table 3- 2 Annual growth rates for normal traffic in percent

Source: Concept Design Report

Table 3- 3 Estimated Traffic Generation / Diversion in percent

Source: Concept Design Report

ESHETU LEMMA ROAD CONTRACTOR 11

2020 76 11 139 7 186 - 0 1 - 0 420

2021 84 12 151 7 205 - 0 1 - 1 462

2022 94 13 165 8 227 - 0 1 - 1 509

2023 104 14 180 9 250 - 0 1 - 1 560

2024 116 15 197 10 276 - 1 1 - 1 617

2025 129 17 214 11 303 - 1 2 - 1 676