AFCAP TAN 008 Demon Sites Design Report Final

Crown Agents international
The United Kingdom

Department for International Development (DFID)
The African Community Access Programme (AFCAP)

Prime Ministers Office - Regional Administration
and Local Government (PMO -RALG)
Project Reference: AFCAP/TAN/008
Research Consultant to Support the Design,

Construction and Monitoring of Demonstration Sites
for District Road Improvements in Tanzania
1.Lawate - Kibongoto - Siha District - Kilimanjaro Region

2.Bago - Talawanda- Bagamoyo District - Pwani Region
Design Report
November 2010
Roughton International Draft Design Report
Africa Community Access Programme (AFCAP8)

Research Consultant to Support the Design, Construction and Monitoring of
Demonstration Sites for District Road Improvement in Tanzania
Contract Reference: AFCAP/TAN/008
Table of Contents Page

Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................4
1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................10
1.1 Project Description .....................................................................................................10
1.2 Tanzanian Rural Roads ..............................................................................................10
1.3 Demonstration Road Study .......................................................................................11
2. Current Knowledge and Design Methods...........................................................................12
2.1 Existing Tanzanian Pavement and Materials Design Manual ................................12
2.2 Reasoning Behind Environmentally Optimised Design .........................................12
2.3 Environmentally Optimised Design Process ...........................................................13
2.4 Current Research and Knowledge - SEACAP..........................................................14
3. Low Volume Rural Road Design Philosophy .....................................................................18
3.1 General.........................................................................................................................18
3.2 Visual Analysis............................................................................................................18
3.3 Subgrade Assessment ...............................................................................................18
3.4 Traffic Analysis ...........................................................................................................20
3.5 Condition Assessment...............................................................................................22
3.6 CuSum Analyses.........................................................................................................22
3.7 Drainage Assessment ................................................................................................22
3.8 Materials Investigations .............................................................................................23
3.9 Pavement Materials ....................................................................................................23
3.10 Pavement Design ........................................................................................................24
3.11 Geometric Design .......................................................................................................34
4. Description of the Demonstration Roads ...........................................................................38
4.1 Road Description ........................................................................................................38
4.2 Climate of the Project Areas......................................................................................39
4.3 Geological Survey.......................................................................................................41
4.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................41
5. Demonstration Road Study..................................................................................................44
5.1 Visual Analysis............................................................................................................44
5.2 Subgrade Assessment ...............................................................................................47
5.3 Traffic Analysis ...........................................................................................................56
5.4 Condition Assessment...............................................................................................58
5.5 CuSum Analyses.........................................................................................................59
5.6 Drainage Assessment ................................................................................................61
5.7 Construction Material Investigations........................................................................67
5.8 Pavement Materials ....................................................................................................71
5.9 Demonstration Pavement Design .............................................................................73
5.10 Geometric Design .......................................................................................................76
5.11 Conclusions ................................................................................................................77
6. Strip Maps..............................................................................................................................78
6.1 General.........................................................................................................................78
6.2 Explanation of the Strip Map .....................................................................................78
6.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................81
7. Demonstration Pavement Sections.....................................................................................82
7.1 General.........................................................................................................................82
7.2 Demonstration Sites in Bagamoyo ...........................................................................83
Research Consultant to Support the Design, 2
Construction and Monitoring of Demonstration
Sites for District Road Improvement in Tanzania
7.3 Demonstration Sites in Siha ......................................................................................90

7.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................96
8. Construction and Maintenance Capabilities of the LGAs................................................98
8.1 General.........................................................................................................................98
8.2 Bagomoyo District ......................................................................................................98
8.3 Siha District .................................................................................................................98
8.4 Cost Concerns ............................................................................................................99
9. Stakeholder Involvement................................................................................................... 100
9.1 General...................................................................................................................... 100
9.2 Stakeholder Meetings.............................................................................................. 100
10. Tender Dossier ................................................................................................................... 104
10.1 Description ............................................................................................................... 104
10.2 Tender Documents .................................................................................................. 104
10.3 Specifications........................................................................................................... 104
11. Recommendations and Conclusions............................................................................... 106
Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 108
Appendix A Photographs at 500 m Intervals along the Roads ..................................... 108
Appendix B Pin Test Results......................................................................................... 120
Appendix C Jar Test Results......................................................................................... 126
Appendix D Materials Investigation (Alignment Materials)............................................ 130
Appendix E Traffic Calculations .................................................................................... 142
Appendix F Condition Assessment............................................................................... 148
Appendix G Drainage Structure Schedule .................................................................... 156
Appendix H Material Investigations (Construction Materials) ....................................... 158
Appendix I Strip Maps.................................................................................................. 188
Appendix J Drawings.................................................................................................... 190

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Aims
This project has a number of different aims and they are as follows:
Provide sustainable access to economic and social opportunities for poor rural
communities;
Provide all weather access to district roads using Environmentally Optimised Design.
Demonstrate alternative pavement surfaces suitable for low volume roads in Tanzania
which will dramatically reduce the demand for gravel;
Identify cost effective community based construction methods;
Create a design philosophy/design concept for low volume rural roads;
Change current design ideology for low volume rural roads, which presently involves
extensive re-gravelling works;
Promote the use of locally sourced construction materials and investigate the use of
alternative marginal materials materials presently considered substandard, but which
can actually perform satisfactorily on low volume roads;
Promote the use of labour based construction methods to provide employment for people
in local communities and help maintain the rural road network after construction is
completed;
Aim towards incorporation of these design concepts as part of the Tanzanian Pavement
and Materials Design Manual in the future.
Environmentally Optimised Design and Spot Improvement

The different pavement structures being used for this project are significantly more expensive than
a standard gravel pavement (which is not always appropriate under certain conditions) and as a
result, the pavement types are best used under an Environmentally Optimised Design (EOD)/ Spot
Improvement Design (SID) philosophy.
EOD has been defined as a system of road design that considers the variation of different road
environments along the length of the road such as steep gradients, wet and marshy areas as well
as passage over easy terrain. The SID methodology is applied to EOD and concentrates on
ensuring that each section of a road is provided with the most suitable pavement type for the
specific circumstances to provide basic access along the road.1
Description of the Demonstration Roads

Two demonstration roads were considered for inclusion in the project.
The demonstration roads are:
i) Bago to Talawanda in Bagomoyo District
ii) Lawate to Kibongoto in Siha District
From the description of both roads, it is clear that both require spot improvements to ensure year
round access for local communities, who otherwise would be cut off during certain times of the year
when the roads are impassable.
1
Local Resource Solutions to Problematic Rural Road Access in Laos (PDR), Roughton
International Scientific Paper, April 2009
The issues are outlined below:

1. The road from Bago to Talawanda suffers predominantly from issues stemming from the
lack of drainage and poor subgrade materials. Areas with black cotton soil are impassable
in wet conditions, while large erosion channels also make travelling along this road very
difficult. Provision of an improved cross section and drainage structures would alleviate a
lot of these problems;
2. In Siha the primary issue is steep gradients and slippery road surfaces. In these areas,
vehicles struggle to ascend these grades in wet conditions. Surfacing options need to be
considered to accommodate this.
3. Careful consideration needs to be given to these surface options as steep grades and
sharp turns create high stresses, which some surfaces cannot handle;
4. Both roads fall within the Moderate climate as defined in the Tanzanian Pavement and
Materials Design Manual. This climate category shall be required for the pavement design;
5. Geological data shows sands and gravels are available in Bagomoyo and use of these
should be encouraged in construction of any new pavements where appropriate.
6. Red soils and volcanic materials are available in the Siha region; these volcanic materials
can also be investigated for use in construction of the pavement in this area.
Pavement Structures
Various pavements were considered for use on the project roads. Several of these pavement
types follow on from a similar project in Laos PDR, under the South East Asia Community Access
Programme (SEACAP). The different pavement types being demonstrated in Tanzania include:
1. Double Sand Seal
2. Single Otta Seal with a Sand Seal
3. Double Otta Seal
4. Slurry Seal
5. Double Surface Dressing
6. Bitumen Penetration Macadam
7. Un-reinforced Concrete Slabs
8. Lightly Reinforced Concrete Slabs
9. Concrete Geocells
10. Concrete Strips
11. Hand Packed Stone
Design Issues
Traffic levels were calculated based on data from the relevant District Engineers. Axle loading had
to be assumed due to the lack of an axle load survey. On low volume rural roads, an axle load
survey is not always justified and assumed axle loading may have to be adopted.
The subgrade strength was assessed by means of pin tests. These were useful in terms of giving
a subgrades strength of hard or soft. However, the pin test is a simple tool for gauging in-situ
strength; it should not replace DCP testing or laboratory CBR testing. Laboratory CBR testing was
also carried out for the demonstration roads, and results generally confirmed observations made
during pin testing. These results classified the subgrade bearing capacity for the different sections
of the roads. Jam jar tests were carried out to try to classify the soils, but, these proved to be less

useful. It was difficult determine layer boundaries and the tests provided little additional useful
information.
An initial drainage system for the roads was designed by means of a hand written strip map. By
driving along the road and visually assessing where low points and water crossings were, the field
team recorded the chainage of probable locations for drainage structures on a hand written strip
map and by taking Global Positioning System (GPS) co-ordinates of these locations. Photographs
of these sites were also taken.
The gradient of the roads was assessed using a handheld GPS. The gradient was used as a good
indication of the difficult sections along the roads.
A visual assessment of the most problematic sections along the roads was done. This investigation
required spending time along the road during the wet season and identifying the poor sections and
recording these locations using a handheld GPS and by taking photographs of each of the defects.
The Tanzanian Pavement and Materials Design Manual did not adequately cover all pavement
options however, this was already known to be the case. Modifications were made to the
standard designs and these are deemed appropriate and suited to the locations.
A number of gravel sources were located in the proximity of each of the two roads with the intent of
using natural gravel in the pavement layers, as opposed to crushed rock, when constructing the
demonstration sections. In Siha, a number of volcanic gravels were located. In Bagamoyo, the
local materials found include quarzitic river gravel and decomposed granite gravel. In Bagamoyo,
the area has reasonable quantities of Gneiss stone which is suitable for construction purposes and
efforts were made to include this stone in the design. This stone is to be used in the hand packed
stone pavement, as well as the construction of the culvert headwalls, wingwalls, lined drains and
scour checks.
Strip Maps
It was the aim of the Consultant not to carry out a detailed topographic survey of the road as this
can be both time consuming and expensive and in many cases would only provide minimal
advantage. Instead the Consultant produced a strip map using data from a handheld GPS and
combining a number of different investigations. This strip map was used successfully to tender the
projects.
The data from the investigations was combined and put into a strip map using Microsoft Excel and
used to assess which sections were suitable as demonstration sections. The strip map produced
for this project combines the different profiles from the GPS data with a drainage system for each
of the roads and provides the following information to the designer:
1. Vertical Gradients
2. Subgrade Type
3. Alignment Trial Pits
4. Subgrade Bearing Capacity
5. Road Condition Sections Based on Speed
6. Features and Observations including Drainage System
7. Demonstration Sections
8. Pavement Layers
9. Visually Assessed Poor Sections
10. Photographs

Once the above information was placed into the strip map the following factors were used to
indicate the poor sections along the road:
1. The gradient of the road
2. The in-situ subgrade
3. Visual Assessment
When all three factors were lined up in the strip map with a corresponding chainage it made it
much easier to select the final demonstration sections along the road.
Selection of Demonstration Sections

There are numerous situations where a number of pavement types are suited to the same location.
In such cases and under normal circumstances, cost is the main factor in deciding which pavement
to use over another suitable pavement.
Since the aim of this project is not only to provide all weather access, but also to demonstrate the
different pavement options available, an attempt was made to incorporate as many different
pavement options as possible. Where the situation warranted, the cheapest pavement option may
not have been used and a more expensive option may have been selected, even if it was only for a
short section, which is the case with the bitumen pavements through villages.
In most cases, the bitumen pavements were more expensive than the concrete pavements which
are conflicting with the conclusions in Laos PDR. Experience in Laos PDR showed that the
concrete pavement options were more expensive than the bitumen options, while also concluding
that the concrete options are more suitable for labour based construction and have superior
durability.
The expensive cost of bitumen pavements is considered to be due to a lack of experience working
with bitumen and therefore, the contractor was taking on more risk when working with bitumen than
with concrete. Based on these facts, the Consultant felt that it was important to demonstrate the
different bitumen options because it expected that once smaller contractors become more familiar
across Tanzania with the various different seals, the price will significantly be reduced.
Conclusions
Only limited conclusions can be made at this early stage of the project. The roads will be
monitored for deterioration after construction and as a result of the medium to long term nature of
the project, only preliminary conclusions can be drawn now as to the suitability of the pavements.
The following are the preliminary conclusions for the project so far:
1. During the selection process of the different pavement sections, if more than one option is
considered suitable for a particular section then other than the cost and the availability of
local materials, there is no specific defined methodology for using a particular pavement.
2. Any benefits from the durability and long term performance of a particular pavement will be
assessed after the monitoring phase of the project.
3. It is important for skilled engineers to spend significant time in the field, particularly during
the rain season, to clearly identify the problematic areas along the road and assess where
basic access is being lost. This is an important requirement for the EOD philosophy.
4. It is important to incorporate local materials as much as possible in the design and
selection of the different pavement structures. This is critical for cost-effective and
sustainable solutions for low volume rural roads. This is an important requirement for the
EOD philosophy.

5. The strip map was a low cost alternative to a detailed topographic survey and efforts
should be made to incorporate this method for District Roads.
6. The costs of the bitumen pavements are expected to reduce once small contractors
become more familiar with them.
7. It is clear that small contractors need to be better informed about the different pavement
types and would benefit from training in understanding exactly what is required in the
tender documents.

1. INTRODUCTION
Following the acceptance of the Inception Report2 this report describes the next phase of the work,
the pavement design.
1.1 Project Description
At present, Tanzania has a modern and comprehensive pavement design manual, which details
the design process for major arterial and trunk routes. However, there are a high percentage of
low volume rural roads which are not catered for in current design manuals. These small rural
roads link villages with local amenities such as shops, schools and community health facilities.
Being low volume rural roads, they are generally not given the same priority in maintenance and
rehabilitation schedules, with the costs involved in repairing and maintaining them to the standards
outlined in current design manuals rarely justifiable.
Thus, the purpose of this project is to formulate new design methods and strategies, and
incorporate these in current design standards and practices in Tanzania.
Low volume rural roads should be maintained to a standard which allows year round access to vital
community facilities. Current design philosophies and ideologies promote rehabilitation of
continuous road sections on rural roads; this generally involves re-gravelling the entire length.
This is inefficient, costly and environmentally un-sustainable in the long term.
Providing year round access need not involve maintaining entire road lengths. The proposed
methodology involves selecting areas which in their poor condition prevent year round access, then
rehabilitate only these sections. In addition, these works should incorporate locally sourced
materials, locally sourced labour and labour based construction methods wherever possible. This
allows the roads to be easily maintained by the local residents during its lifetime. The specification
for construction materials may not always meet current accepted standards, but, on these roads,
traffic levels and pavement stresses are low, therefore material specifications can be relaxed. This
is imperative to the success of this methodology, as locally sourced materials invariably cannot
always meet the high standards required by current specifications.
1.2 Tanzanian Rural Roads
Almost half of the 130 roads put forward by the District Councils across the selected regions of
Tanzania were visited by the Consultants Field Engineer over a period of three months. The
following important observations regarding the potential selection of the roads were made:
1. Tanzania is a large country where very long travel times can be expected from one region
to the next;
2. There is no significant variation in topography and geology within small areas of Tanzania
and therefore roads within a group or district often show similar characteristics;
3. Traffic volumes vary dramatically between roads in busy urban areas and low volume rural
roads, and;
4. Infrequent but innovative work was observed to have been conducted by the communities
in order to keep the community access roads open throughout the year.
Many of the roads inspected were found to have very low traffic volumes and the criterion for a
rural access road of 50 vehicles per day (vpd) would be very difficult to meet. It is therefore likely
to be difficult to follow the strict definition of a rural access road, whose purpose is to provide all-
year round vehicular access to a rural community, to connect a village to the main road network.
The Consultant found that roads with high volumes of traffic were often alternative routes to large
communities and simply lacked maintenance. Alternatively the Consultant found many of the roads
2
Inception Report Site Selection, Africa Community Access Programme, Research Consultant
to Support the Design, Construction and Monitoring of Demonstration Sites for District Road
Improvement in Tanzania, Contract Reference AFCAP/TAN/008 The Prime Minister's Office of
Regional Administration and Local Government (PMO-RALG), November 2009.
were little more than tracks to a community and very little community based activities to keep the
road open and traffic free flowing were observed.
1.3 Demonstration Road Study
1.3.1 Selection of Demonstration Roads
The Consultant determined that the following points are important and should be, as far as
practicable, considered when selecting the roads:
1. There must be capacity at District Council level to issue tenders and to supervise the
construction;
2. The designs must embrace local resources (materials/contractors/labour and construction
methods)as much as possible;
3. Successful designs should be selected on the basis of life time cost rather than the
construction costs only;
4. It is desirable that the pavement designs are suitable to labour based methods;
5. The demonstration sections must have reasonable traffic levels:
It was the Consultants intention that the demonstration sites for the district road improvements are
selected under the following categories:
The sites are typical of a region;
Accessibility to the sites or proximity to proper utilities;
How difficult it will be to link these roads to other road networks;
The traffic count on the roads, and;
Access to local materials.
Based on the requirements set out by (say what this is in the first instance) PMO-RALG, that a
single road should be considered in each region, the list shown in Table 1 has been compiled. This
list contains the highest rated road in each region, based on the above criteria.
Table 1 Selection of Demonstration Roads

Regional Project
Region (Regional Road Length
Rating Road Road Name
Centre)/ District (km)
Order No.
Pwani (Kibaha)/
1 21.01-1 Talawanda to Bago 20.48
Bagamoyo
Kilimanjaro (Moshi)/
2 13.02-1 Lawate to Kibongoto 13.48
Siha
Tanga (Tanga)/ Mamboleo to Bwembwera to
3 26.03-1 15.80
Muheza Kwabastola
Dodoma (Dodoma)/
4 09.03-1 Ntunda to Hurui 43.00
Kondoa
Morogoro (Morogoro)/
5 16.03-2 Mikese to Msonvizi 24.00
Morogoro Rural
Iringa (Iringa)/
6 08.01-3 Makongati to Igangidungu 7.28
Iringa Rural

2. CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND DESIGN METHODS

2.1 Existing Tanzanian Pavement and Materials Design Manual
Current pavement design in Tanzania does not address the need for an improved design
methodology, or standard, for low volume rural roads. The Tanzanian Pavement Design Manual
(or TPMDM as it will be referred to from this point forward), details the design of major trunk and
arterial roads.
The TPMDM uses a combination of axle loading and subgrade strength to allocate pavement
designs to specific road sections. These pavement designs determine the entire pavement
structure, material type and specification for each layer.
However, arterial and trunk roads have a much higher traffic volume than is experienced on many
rural roads, thus material quality and specifications must be of a much higher standard. In the case
of low volume roads, these specifications for material can be relaxed to allow the use of readily
available, locally sourced materials. These materials may not meet the specification for arterial or
trunk roads, but, where lower traffic volumes are involved, stresses and deteriorating factors are
generally lower. This allows the consideration of materials such as natural gravels, volcanic
cinders, calcrete and coral rocks, which may be readily available, but due to specifications in
current design manuals and local engineering principles, are not given consideration in pavement
construction. Current design beliefs held by many engineers regard these materials as being
substandard. While this may be the case for high volume roads, many of these materials are ideal
for rehabilitating lower volume roads, but are not given consideration as no information is available
on their suitability.
Trials have been carried out in various countries investigating cost effective, efficient and
environmentally sustainable methods of rehabilitating and maintaining low volume rural roads in
order to provide year round access for local communities. These methods utilised locally sourced
materials and involved the improvement of only selected areas, which in their un-rehabilitated
state, prevented year round access. This challenges the current unsustainable method of
gravelling these roads from start to finish.
This process has become known as Environmentally Optimized Design (EOD) or Spot
Improvement Design (SID). It is an aim of this project to introduce such design ideas to engineers
in Tanzania.
2.2 Reasoning Behind Environmentally Optimised Design
An inherent problem encountered with developing and maintaining low-volume rural roads is
determining whether full rehabilitation is required or whether remediating trouble spots is more
beneficial. In developing countries where the majority of people live in the countryside, vast
networks of low volume roads develop. In such cases it can be more beneficial to improve roads
on a spot improvement basis rather than undertaking full remediation (unless areas requiring spot
improvement are >75% of total road). Rehabilitating an entire road section results in high costs
which may not be justified with the few people using it. Subsequently, projects are not considered
further and no work is undertaken. By utilizing funding to remediate sites over a number of routes,
a cost effective method of benefiting numerous communities is developed, allowing basic access to
vital amenities such as health care, schools and markets. Spot improvement differs to
maintenance as it is done after basic access has been lost.
Environmentally Optimized Design ensures that specifications and designs support the functions of
different road sections - assessing local environment and limited available resources. This requires
analysing a broad spectrum of solutions to rectify different road sections depending on their
individual requirements, ranging from engineered natural surfaces to bituminous pavements. A key

cornerstone of this method is that the chosen solution must be achievable with materials, plant and
contractors available locally3.
2.3 Environmentally Optimised Design Process
Environmentally Optimised Design (EOD) has been defined as a system of road design that
considers the variation of different road environments along the length of the road such as steep
gradients, wet and marshy areas as well as passage over easy terrain.4
The Spot Improvement Design (SID) methodology is applied to the EOD and concentrates on
ensuring that each section of a road is provided with the most suitable pavement type for the
specific circumstances5 to provide basic access along the road.
A typical rural road is shown in Figure 1 where an earth track leads to an isolated community some
distance from a main road. During the dry season the road is passable. During the wet season
much of the road may perform quite well but there will be some difficult problematic sections which
will render the road impassable. As an example, the track, shown in Figure 1, is taken to be in the
following condition:
Good Quality Lengths Approximately 60% of the road length
Standard Lengths Approximately 30% of the road length
Problematic Sections Approximately 10% of the road length
So the EOD philosophy challenges the standard rural access road design of applying a gravel
wearing course from start to finish. The EOD method asks if the standard design is sufficient for
problematic areas (10%) and is the standard design necessary for the good areas (60%). The
most appropriate design needs to be undertaken for the different sections of the road as they are
assessed. An under-design of poor sections can lead to premature failure of problematic areas
and an over-design will often be a waste of funds which would be better spent on the problematic
sections.
The EOD design philosophy proposes using minimal resources on the good sections, some
resources on the standard sections and the majority of resources on the problematic sections.
For example, the EOD design philosophy may lead to the following design:
Good Quality Lengths Engineered Natural Surface (Estimated cost 30% of Standard
Gravel Surface)
Standard Lengths Standard Gravel Surface
Problematic Sections Suitable Economically Viable Robust Pavement Structure
(Estimated Cost 500% of Standard Gravel).
3
Presentation Key Management Issues for Low Volume Rural Roads in Developing Countries,
March 2008.
4
Local Resource Solutions to Problematic Rural Road Access in Lao (PDR), Roughton
5
Local Resource Solutions to Problematic Rural Road Access in Lao (PDR), Roughton
Figure 1 Environmentally Optimised Design Process
Main Road
Village
Steep Standard Marshy Good Steep Good
Good
Standard
Problematic
The EOD/SID philosophy aims to replace a standard gravel pavement design with more robust
pavements at specific problematic locations along rural access roads and to replace less expensive
wasteful pavements in areas which are perfectly satisfactory all year round, resulting in a more
economical road design.
The potential savings and benefits from adopting this approach to rural road design are clear.
Gravel roads are becoming uneconomical and practically unsustainable, where gravel is becoming
increasingly scarce and only available at long haulage distances. This design philosophy offers a
more sustainable and economical solution to standard gravel road design.
This design philosophy has been applied for the design of these roads by spending significant time
in the field, understanding which sections perform well in the wet season and which sections
prohibit basic access. Once the problem sections were identified, suitable solutions were applied
to these areas in order to provide basic access during the rain season. By demonstrating this
design philosophy Engineers in Tanzania will be able to follow the procedures taken in this report
to implement an appropriate EOD/SID that suits their particular problems along district roads in the
future.
2.4 Current Research and Knowledge - SEACAP
2.4.1 Introduction
The AFCAP Tanzania project follows on from a previous project in Laos Peoples Democratic
Republic (PDR) in South East Asia, entitled SEACAP 17 Local Resource Solutions to
Problematic Rural Road Access in Laos PDR. The SEACAP project aimed to identify cost-effective
community orientated approaches for improving all year access to remote rural areas through low-
cost and local resource based improvement of roads in Laos PDR. Alternative pavements and
surfacing to the standard gravel pavement were tested by way of trials on short problematic
sections of selected roads. Several of these pavements were previously trialled in Vietnam and
Cambodia through DFID research. The trials were carried out under a normal contract
environment with local supervision.6
2.4.2 Pavement Structures Trialled in Laos PDR
A number of different pavements structures were used in the project in Laos PDR. The pavement
types used in Laos PDR were considered for use in the AFCAP project in Tanzania. The different
pavements used in Laos PDR are as follows:
6
Scientific Paper - Local Resource Solutions to Problematic Rural Road Access in Lao
(PDR), Roughton International, April 2009
Standard NEC Gravel Pavement

Bamboo Reinforced Concrete
Otta Seal
Geocell
Hand Packed Stone
Mortared Stone
Concrete Paving Blocks
Engineered Natural Earth
These pavements were considered for use in this project along with a number of other different
pavement options. The following points are the general conclusions regarding the pavement trials
highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of each:
Standard NEC Gravel Pavement, Engineered Natural Surface and Sand Seal should
not be used on problematic areas as these surfaces will not withstand constant traffic
on steep gradients or high erosive conditions.
Concrete block paving, concrete pavements and bituminous bound pavement
construction can be undertaken successfully by small scale contractors, as the
technology required is common and does not require sophisticated equipment, using
imported and local materials. These initially expensive pavements are expected to
result in sustainable pavements with reduced maintenance needs.
Hand Packed or Mortared Stone Surfaces appear to offer the best value for money and
due to their labour intensive construction process are appropriate for community based
maintenance. However, unless very experienced artisans are used for the block
preparation, extremely rough surfaces will result. Rough surfaces will in general be
unacceptable to road users except in cases where the road was extremely bad and
mostly impassable previously. The standard of surface should improve as the
community gains experience and will be better with mortared rather than hand packed
stone.
Otta seals can be constructed using natural gravel which is out of specification for
normal surface dressed pavements. It produces a durable surface which can be
applied to all but the most severe areas. This construction is ideal for small contractors
as it requires little plant and expertise, provided that a bitumen distributor is available,
but does require labour intensive care during construction.
The construction process for Geocells and Non-Reinforced Concrete pavements is
suited to small scale operations as concrete can be prepared in small mixers using
local materials. However, the success of Geocells will depend on the local availability
of the Geocell fabric or identifying sources for its importation. Three thicknesses of the
Geocell pavement were used in the trials. These were less than that of concrete slabs
however cost savings from the reduced pavement thickness could be negated by the
cost of the plastic Geocell form. The success of the thin Geocell pavements will be
determined during the monitoring phase.
Double Otta Seals, Concrete Blocks (on light gradients) and Concrete pavements can
be applied to steep gradients and sharp corners where traffic action on the surface is
most severe. These pavements are also suited to high traffic volumes, which
increases their potential use throughout the road network. Sand Seals and Single Otta

Seals are ideally suited to urban conditions with low traffic where dust from gravel
roads is unacceptable.7
The construction cost of the all-weather surface types significantly exceeds the construction cost of
the standard gravel road. It is concluded that these all weather surface types should be applied at
the problematic spots on a rural access road where they are needed to maintain all weather
access. This Spot Improvement pavement design philosophy should be applied as widely as
possible given a shortage of funds to provide improved pavements throughout the road length.7
All of the pavements and surfaces, in particular the Engineered Natural Surface, will perform much
better during the wet season if the drainage is functional. A detailed drainage investigation should
be conducted at the design stage resulting in drainage designed to function with nature ensuring
that water is not routed incorrectly. Routine drainage maintenance before the wet season will be of
great help in ensuring that the road remains open throughout the wet season. 7
It is very important to consider the conclusions from Laos PDR and apply them to this project in
Tanzania. By following on from the successes in Laos PDR and avoiding the failure it can lead to
greater success in Tanzania. Other conclusions from Laos PDR that are relevant to this project in
Tanzania and considered during design are as follows:
The design process has shown the need for experienced engineers to spend time in
the field during the design stage understanding the particular problems of the route(s)
and exploring the various possible solutions. Solutions adopted should take account of
both local materials and any available local skills.
Maintenance considerations should be taken into account when selecting pavement
types, for example gravel surfaces and bituminous seals require significantly more
routine and periodic maintenance than concrete roads. Stone surfaces are potentially
most suited for long term community maintenance without significant outside
assistance or funding.
Maintenance of the roads will depend largely on the willingness of the communities to
contribute their labour and on the government providing technical support and budget
support when necessary. 7
It is important to learn the mistakes and triumphs from this project in Laos PDR and these
conclusions were considered throughout the design process of the roads in Bagamoyo and Siha.
7
Scientific Paper - Local Resource Solutions to Problematic Rural Road Access in Lao
(PDR), Roughton International, April 2009
3. LOW VOLUME RURAL ROAD DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

3.1 General
The following section outlines the proposed environmentally optimised design philosophy used in
design of low volume rural roads.
3.2 Visual Analysis
A visual assessment of the most problematic sections along the roads should always be
performed. These problematic sections will be targeted as the most urgent sections along the road
in need of immediate attention. These poor sections may contain defects such as:
1. Steep gradients
2. Sharp bends
3. Muddy tracks
4. Erosion channels
5. Slippery surface
6. Loose Sand
7. Soft wet areas8
Following the identification of poor sections, it is important to select the appropriate solution for
each site. Sites may have more than one solution, incorporating multiple possible methods, which
in combination could resolve the defect.
The EOD and SID philosophy must be considered throughout. Similar defects may require
different solutions depending on region, local resources and environmental changes.
There are many factors which determine the choice of solution. While one solution may appear
most suitable, it may not be financially viable or local expertise and material capabilities may not be
available.
3.3 Subgrade Assessment
3.3.1 In-Situ Strength Assessment
An estimate of the in-situ subgrade strength is required for design purposes. This can be carried
out by means of laboratory testing and in-situ testing. In-situ testing should include Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer (DCP) testing. This is a simple and reliable form of in-situ pavement testing, which
analyses the in-situ strength of the material at its in-situ density and moisture content.
The CBR which is obtained from DCP testing can be correlated with laboratory based CBR tests,
which will give an accurate representation of CBR at all DCP locations.
3.3.2 Trial Pits
Trial pits should be dug to assess the materials in the subgrade and to obtain material for
laboratory testing. These tests should include all CBR testing as defined in the Tanzanian
Pavement and Materials Design Manual.
Laboratory CBR testing should be performed on materials obtained from trial pits along the project
road. These tests shall allow further analysis of subgrade CBR, allowing correlation between
soaked CBR values obtained in the lab and in-situ CBRs obtained from DCP testing.
3.3.3 Soil Profiling
The following parameters are also used to describe the soil profile:
1. Consistency
8
Spot Improvement Manual for Basic Access, TRL, Berkshire, UK, 2006
2. Soil type
3. Moisture
4. Colour
The consistency of a soil is a measure of hardness or toughness of the soil. Consistency gives an
indication of the bearing capacity and shear strength of the soil.
The various types of soil are:
Clay Particles smaller than 0.002 mm. Only visible through an electron
microscope. Clay can be identified by its soapy or greasy feel. If
sufficiently moistened it will also be very sticky and results in the soil
having a high plasticity index.
Silt Particles larger than 0.002 mm and smaller than 0.075 mm. Visible
only through microscope. Silt can be identified by grittiness when
rubbed between the tongue and teeth.
Sand Particles between 0.075 mm and 2.0 mm in size. These particles are
visible. Sand may be further classed as either fine, medium or
coarse. If no clay present the plasticity index will be very low.
Gravel Particles 2.0 mm to 50 mm in size. It is important here to note the
maximum particle size encountered in the horizon (layer). Terms
such as well rounded, rounded or angular to describe the shape of
the particles may also be used if this is a characteristic feature of the
gravel.
Cobbles Particle size varies between 50 mm and 200 mm. It is important
here to note the maximum particle size encountered in the horizon
(layer). Terms such as well rounded, rounded or angular to describe
the shape of the particles may also be used if this is a characteristic
feature of the cobbles.
Boulders These are particles >200 mm. It is important to note
the maximum particle size encountered in the horizon (layer). Terms
such as well rounded, rounded or angular to describe the shape of
the particles may also be used if this is a characteristic feature of
boulders.
Soil types are distinguished on the basis of grain size as identified below. Natural soils, however,
usually consist of two or more of these types and must be noted. The main constituent is
described, and written in capital letters, with adjectives to define the lesser constituents.
For example:
Sandy CLAY is clay with some sand.
SILT SAND is an equal mix of sand and silt.

Clayey GRAVEL is gravel with some clay. 9

Soils should also be profiled by colour, with the colour as per the Burland Disk in Figure 2 below,
being used to describe the soil being tested.
Figure 2 The Burland Colour Disk
3.4 Traffic Analysis

3.4.1 General
The deterioration of road pavements is partly caused by the magnitude of individual wheel loads
and the number of times these loads are applied. For pavement design purposes it is necessary to
consider the total number of vehicles or number of axle loads that are to be applied to the
pavement over the design life of the pavement. For low volume rural roads it is reasonable to
consider a design life of 10 years.
For the purposes of structural design, light motor vehicles such as cars are insignificant and only
the axle loading of the heavy vehicles need to be considered. The design traffic loading is defined
as heavy if the proportion of vehicles with axle loads above 13 tonnes is greater than 50%. Heavy
vehicles are defined as those having three axles, including steering axle and an un-laden weight of
3,000 kg or more10.
3.4.2 Traffic Loading on Rural Roads
As rural roads are single-lane, the traffic tends to be more channelised than on two-lane roads.
This is because vehicles are forced to stay in the centre of the road as the lane width is small and
traffic travelling in both directions is using the same lane. The effective traffic loading in the wheel
path in one direction has been shown to be twice that for a wider road. Therefore, taking into
account the traffic in both directions, the pavement thickness for these roads should be based on
four times the total number of heavy vehicles that travel in one direction.
9
AASHTO, General Specification for Profiling and Describing Trial Pits
10
Pavement and Materials Design Manual, Ministry of Works, The United Republic of Tanzania,
1999
An allowance should be made for an increase in traffic, which would occur in response to the
provision and improvement of the road. This is known as generated traffic.11
Following this initial influx of generated traffic along the road, an estimated fixed percentage
increase of constant traffic growth is established. This rate of increase should be applied per
annum over the normal and diverted traffic. Normal traffic is defined as the traffic which would
pass along the existing road even if no new pavement were provided. Diverted traffic is defined as
the traffic that changes from another route to the project road because of the improved pavement,
but still travels between the same origin and destination.11
In order to determine the total traffic over the design life of the road the Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
in the first year following the construction of the road is estimated. The ADT is defined as the total
annual traffic summed for both directions and divided by 365.
3.4.3 Axle Loading
Whenever a major road project is undertaken an axle load survey will provide details for traffic
loading estimates. However, it is not always practical to do an axle load survey for a low volume
rural road project and as a result, axle loads may need to be estimated. An estimate of the vehicle
loads are calculated and then distributed over each of the axles for each of the different vehicle
classes. It should be noted that axle loads are not distributed over a vehicle evenly and the loads
are weighted more heavily on the rear axle of a vehicle.
3.4.4 Equivalence Factors
Once the axle loads are estimated, equivalence factors must be calculated for each of the axles for
each class of vehicle using the following equation:
Equivalence Factor = (Axle Load (kg) / 8160)4.5
The damage that vehicles do to a road depends very strongly on the axle loads of the vehicles.
For pavement design purposes the damaging power of axles is related to a standard axle of
8160 kg using equivalence factors which have been derived from empirical studies.
In order to determine the cumulative axle load damage that a pavement will sustain during its
design life, it is necessary to express the total number of heavy vehicles that will use the road over
this period in terms of the cumulative number of equivalent standard axles (ESA or E80).12
In order to determine the cumulative ESAs over the design life of the road, the following procedure
should be followed:
1. Determine the ADT for each class of vehicle estimated to travel along the road;
2. Make a future forecast of the traffic flow for each class of vehicle to determine the total
traffic in each class that will travel during the design life of the road;
3. Determine an estimate for the distribution of axle loads for each class of vehicle;
4. Determine the equivalence factor for each axle of each class of vehicle;
5. Determine the equivalence vehicle factor for each class of vehicle (by adding the
equivalence factors for each axle on the vehicle and taking an average of all such
calculations);
11
Overseas Road Note 31, A guide to the structural design of bitumen-surfaced roads in tropical
and tropical sub-countries, TRL, Crowthorne, Berkshire, UK, 1993
12
6. Multiply the number of vehicles over the design period in each class by the equivalence
factor for that class to arrive at an estimate of the number of Equivalent Standard Axles
(ESA);
7. Then double the sum of ESA in both directions (single carriageway < 3.5m paved width.10)
3.5 Condition Assessment

3.5.1 General
A condition assessment must be carried out for all roads. The condition assessment includes
analysis of the gradient, height and the possible travelling speed of a vehicle along the road. After
driving up and down each of the roads and recording the trip data using a GPS, the data can be
analysed and assessed on Microsoft Excel. Graphs and profiles should be produced using the
GPS data and the road divided into homogenous sections.
3.5.2 Gradient
Many of the locations on rural roads which prevent year round access do so because of excessive
gradients and poor surface conditions. Analysis with GPS equipment can give an idea of gradients
of road sections, and combined with visual analysis a determination can be made on the
requirement for spot improvement.
3.5.3 Speed
The speed and the time taken to travel along the road give an indication of the roughness of the
road and indicate the quality of the road surface. By assessing the speed before and after
construction of each of the roads, it will give a good indication of the improvement of the different
sections.
3.6 CuSum Analyses
3.6.1 General
The CuSum Analysis is a method of establishing homogenous sections by analysis of one
parameter at a time. The method utilises plotting of the cumulative sum of the difference from the
average value.13
Once the CuSum is plotted against chainage, a change in slope indicates a change in conditions
along the data.13 Homogeneous sections are defined by areas which have the same slope or
characteristics.
This can then be used as an aide in selecting sections of the road which require spot improvement.
3.7 Drainage Assessment
3.7.1 Condition Assessment of Drainage Structures
Experience has shown that pavements perform better when they have a well designed and
functioning drainage system. A thorough drainage investigation should be carried out during the
design stage of each road construction project.
The drainage assessment should include analysis of the following:
1. Condition assessment of current drifts, culverts, bridges and other drainage structures
along the road;
2. Pavement assessment - cross-drainage and the formation of the current road;
3. Adequacy of current roadside drainage such as side drains and ditches;
4. Future requirements of these structures.
13
1999.
Once a complete check has been performed on all structures, an assessment should be made on
their suitability for their continued use in the road. If the drainage is un-satisfactory, it should be
improved to help guarantee the success of the future road. For example, this can include tasks
such as replacing silted-up culverts, clearing and re-forming roadside drainage or provision of new
roadside drainage if required.
3.8 Materials Investigations
3.8.1 General
A thorough investigation should be carried out to locate suitable materials for construction of the
road pavement. These investigations should locate suitable materials for construction of the
selected subgrade, subbase, base and surfacing layers. Materials should be tested to determine
their suitability and then the pavement design should be based on the suitable materials which
have been located in the area.
3.8.2 Location of Borrow Pits
A complete investigation should be undertaken to locate borrow pits with materials of suitable
quality for pavement construction. These investigations should include trial pitting and profiling of
suitable sources and recording of the location with GPS if possible. An assessment should also be
made as to the quantities of material available in each location visited.
3.8.3 Sources of Rock
Rock sources should be located on the project road where possible. These can provide crushed
rock aggregate for base construction, as well as stone for construction of surface dressing and
concrete for surfacing works.
3.8.4 Material Testing
All materials should be tested to determine whether they meet their respective specifications, as
required by the Tanzanian Pavement and Materials Design Manual. This shall determine whether
the current material meets specification, whether it shall require modification and also whether any
specification shall require (or be permitted) relaxation.
It should be noted that material testing cannot determine suitability of all materials. This is because
traditional soil testing methods give results for some materials, which do not reflect its true
performance in-service some volcanic materials, like volcanic tuff, are prime examples. In these
cases, an engineering decision must be made by someone with sufficient experience and
knowledge to determine suitability of the material in question.
3.8.5 Construction Water
A source of construction water should be found as water will be required in large quantities for
works such as compaction of pavement layers, concrete production and dust suppression during
construction.
3.9 Pavement Materials
3.9.1 General
The new ideology being brought through in this project involves the use of suitable, locally sourced
pavement materials, which are fit for purpose and provide a durable pavement structure at a
reduced cost to traditional methods.
Based on what has been located during the materials investigation, consideration must be given to
different pavement materials in addition to what is traditionally used. Materials should be locally
available and also perform well under in-service conditions. Current design standards available to
engineers in Tanzania typically deal with bituminous surfacings such as surface dressing, Otta
Seal, asphalt and also gravel. Pavement materials consist of crushed rock and natural gravels and
stabilisation is an option where gravels do not meet specification for pavement construction.

However, in the construction of rural roads, crushed rock is usually expensive and may not always
be available without incurring considerable haulage distances. Stabilisation is not a viable option
for a low volume road. To stabilise natural gravel with cement, lime or pozzolan is expensive and
requires some specialist knowledge which may not be available to a local contractor.
The new design philosophy requires the use of what is available allowing the provision of a suitable
pavement structure with minimal costs. However, it must be stressed that while material
specifications can be relaxed, the pavement must still perform over its design life.
3.10 Pavement Design
3.10.1 General
Initial pavement design should be based on the Tanzanian Pavement and Materials Design
Manual. Changes may be required to allow for variations in material, depending on what is
available in the respective regions. Additionally, surface materials such as concrete and segmental
block surfaces must be considered in the designs and these are not covered in the TPMDM at
present.
Therefore, the TPDM is used to get the traditional pavement design, with suitable alterations made
as required to obtain the modified environmentally optimised design. It should be noted that all
changes to the design must be justified and any relaxation of material specification must not be
detrimental to the performance of the pavement.
3.10.2 Design Subgrade Classification
Design CBR values of subgrade and pavement materials shall be specified at the moistures
contents presented in Table 2 below14
As seen in Table 2, roads which are in a wet or moderate climate must have all materials specified
by their soaked CBR value. Therefore, all materials used in these pavements must meet the
required soaked CBR value as per the TPMDM. Soaking generally results in a much lower CBR
value for materials, sometimes making the sourcing of suitable local material more difficult. Hence
the reason for relaxation of some specifications quoted in the TPMDM if it is justifiable.
Materials used in roads construction in a dry region must have their base, subbase and subgrade
specified by the CBR at optimum moisture content. However, if the surfacing is gravel, this must
meet soaked CBR requirements.
The subgrade design class (i.e. S3, S7 or S15) should be classified as per the TPMDM. This is
outlined in Table 3 below.
14
1999
Table 2 Design Moisture Contents Dependent on Climatic Zone (TPMDM)
Climatic zone Layer
Subgrade CBR Gravel Wearing

Subbase Base Course
Design Course
OMC OMC OMC
Dry Soaked
Additional requirements for minimum CBR after 4 days
soaking. Both CBR requirements, soaked and un-soaked,
shall be met.
Moderate Soaked Soaked Soaked Soaked
Wet Soaked Soaked Soaked Soaked
Table 3 Design Subgrade CBR Strength Classification as per TPDM
Range
Subgrade Classes*
Wet/Moderate CBR (%)
Low Strength <3
S3 36
S7 7 14
S15 Min 15
3.10.3 Design Traffic Classification

Traffic loading should be calculated as outlined in the traffic section of this report or as per the
Tanzanian Pavement and Materials Design Manual. This shall provide the design traffic loading in
equivalent standard axles (ESA) to be used in the pavement design. Traffic classes (as shown in
Table 4 below) can then be selected and applied to the road sections.
Table 4 Traffic Classes as per TPMDM
Loading (ESA x 106) Traffic Class

<0.2 TLC 02
0.2 0.5 TLC 05
0.5 1.0 TLC 1
1.0 3.0 TLC 3
3.0 10.0 TLC 10
10.0 20.0 TLC 20
20.0 50.0 TLC 50

3.10.4 Pavement Design

Surfacing
The following surfacing materials were considered for use on the demonstration sites. A brief
description of the surfacing is given below.
Bituminous Surfaces
Bituminous surfacing combines a bituminous mixture with aggregate to form a durable, relatively
impermeable and flexible pavement surface.
Double Sand Seal
A double sand seal is a simple bituminous surface, suitable for use on low volume rural roads. A
description and photograph is shown in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3 Sand Seal Surface
Sand Seal Surfacing
Sand seals consist of a bituminous surfacing

made with natural sand. Constructed in two
layers a sand seal is used as a permanent
bituminous surfacing on low volume roads
while a single layer is not sufficiently durable
unless combined with an underlying Otta seal
or surface dressing. Sand seals are also used
as a maintenance remedy on existing surface
treated roads.
Slurry Seal
Slurry seal is a thin bituminous surfacing, constructed from a mixture of fine aggregate and bitumen
emulsion. A photograph and further description is shown in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4 Slurry Seal Surface
Slurry Seal Surfacing
Slurry Seal is a relatively thin surfacing,

consisting of fine aggregates - typically
<10 mm, bitumen emulsion, water, cement and
occasionally an additive also. The constituent
materials can be mixed in a normal concrete
mixer before being spread on the road surface.
Spreading can be carried out by hand or
machine application.

Otta Seals
Single Otta Seal
Single Otta seal consists of one relatively thick (~16 mm), single bituminous binder layer, overlain
with graded aggregate. Aggregate is compacted into the binder through rolling and the effects of
trafficking. Single seals are not commonly used due to the high quality workmanship required for
satisfactory performance. Typical instances where they may be used include diversions, haul
roads, temporary accesses or for maintenance resealing work on traditional chip seals15.
Single Otta Seal with Sand Seal
This is a Single Otta seal blinded with a bitumen/sand mix. The added sand seal layer gives extra
protection against moisture ingress and environmental effects on the underlying layers.
Construction involves bitumen being sprayed over the finished seal followed by a layer of sand with
a grading of 0-2 mm. Compaction is carried out by a tyred roller or loaded truck to form the
finished single - sand seal surface16 17.
Double Otta Seal
Double Otta seal involves two applications of Single Seal to give two combined bituminous layers
giving a total thickness of 32 mm. An 8 12 week gap between construction of both layers should
be observed. It is recommended for use on high stress areas, such as those with high traffic
volumes, steep gradients or zones with repeated acceleration and braking actions. Extensive
rolling is required for both layers during and after construction16.
Otta seal construction is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5 Otta Seal Construction in Laos PDR
Otta Seals
Otta Seals were developed in Norway

and can be used as a single seal, double
seal or a combination of single and slurry
seal. Its definitive advantage is its ability
to allow the use of materials which would
not meet specifications for other
surfaces, such as surface dressing or
asphalt.
However, higher quantities of bitumen
are required for construction than a
surface dressing and control must be
maintained during construction to ensure
quality of the material. Extensive rolling
is required
15
The Otta Seal Surfacing: An Economic Practical Alternative to Traditional Bituminous Surface
Treatments, Norwegian Public Roads Administration and InfraAfrica Consultants, October
2007.
16
The Otta Seal Surfacing: An Economic Practical Alternative to Traditional Bituminous Surface
Treatments, Norwegian Public Roads Administration and InfraAfrica Consultants, October
2007.
17
The Design, Construction and Maintenance of Otta Seals, Guideline no. 1, Botswana Roads
Department, June 1999.
Surface Dressings
Double Surface Dressing
This method involves 2 spray applications. A primary coat is sprayed onto the road followed by a
large single sized aggregate. Following this, the secondary bituminous application and dressing
with smaller sized aggregate. Typical aggregate sizes are 19 10 mm for larger aggregate and 13
6 mm for smaller aggregate. Typical dressed surface can be seen in Figure 6 below.
Figure 6 Surface Dressing
Surface Dressing
Surface dressing is a common and well

known surfacing option worldwide. It is a
simply constructed, relatively cheap and
durable surface option.
Stone quality must be high for all surface
dressing chippings, which is often a
limiting factor in its suitability. This is the
distinct advantage Otta Seal has over
Surface Dressing.
Penetration Macadam
Penetration macadam shall be considered for areas where there are steep gradients, sharp turns
and/or where dust pollution is an issue. A description and photograph of this option is shown in
Figure 7 below.
Figure 7 Penetration Macadam Construction
Penetration Macadam
This surfacing is constructed by first

applying a layer of coarse aggregate
followed by a layer of bitumen. The void
space between the large aggregate is
then filled with a layer of finer aggregate
followed by a second application of
bitumen. A third layer of fine aggregate is
placed on top and then compacted to give
the final pavement layer.

Concrete Surfaces
Un-reinforced Concrete Slab
Un-reinforced concrete slabs provide a strong durable road pavement, with the lack of
reinforcement eliminating excessive costs relating to steel. Concrete pavements are suited to
small contractors as concrete can be manufactured using small mixers and local materials for use
on the projects. Elimination of reinforcement means continuous pours are possible, with delays
only incurred from the provision of contraction joints, which are spaced at closer intervals than in a
reinforced slab. More suited to areas with good quality sub-grade, in areas of weakness
reinforcement may have to be considered18.
Lightly Reinforced Concrete Slab
Similar to above, slightly more expensive due to the added reinforcement but this gives added
strength and higher load bearing capacity. Useful in areas of relatively weak sub-grade to improve
pavement strength, preventing excess stress and cracking. A photograph of a lightly reinforced
slab under construction is available in Figure 8.
Concrete Geocells
Concrete Geocells are an inexpensive and versatile method for placing concrete in a number of
situations, one of these being road construction. This method of construction can be used in
highway, urban and rural road construction. The Geocell comes as a cellular mat, in which the
interstices are filled with concrete. The cells provide formwork for the concrete slab as it is being
poured and allows for quick progress in construction.
Installation of the product is quick and it can be used as an overlay on the previous pavement,
suitable for steep roads, has a 20 year life with minimum maintenance and can take loads up to
200 tonne axles. This product can utilise small local contractors, local work force and local
materials to provide employment and positive local benefits19.
A photograph of concrete Geocells is shown in Figure 8 below.
Concrete Strips
Concrete strips use concrete under the wheel tracks of a vehicle. The strips also contain
transverse concrete strips between the wheel tracks to help stop excessive erosion down the
centre of the strips. A photograph of concrete strip is shown below in Figure 8.
18
Low Volume Concrete Roads, Bryan Perrie, Cement and Concrete Institute, Midrand, South
Africa, 2000.
19
Website: Hyson Cells: http://www.hysoncells.co.za/apps/apps.html, accessed December 3rd
2009.
Figure 8 Concrete Surfacing Options

Concrete Surfacing Options
Lightly reinforced concrete slab, constructed

using 8 mm steel mesh. Simple and
effective form of labour based construction.
Lightly Reinforced Concrete Slab Description
Concrete Geocells, as can be seen on the

left, provide both the formwork and
reinforcement for the concrete slab.
Concrete can be produced on-site, with the
Geocells then being filled and finished
manually.
Concrete Geocell Surfacing Description
Concrete strips are an efficient method of

providing a good running surface for vehicle
traffic. Instead of surfacing the entire
pavement, only the wheel tracks are
constructed. This allows year round access
at a minimal cost.
Concrete Strips Description

Segmental Block Surfaces

Hand Packed Stone Blocks
This labour-based construction method provides a surface consisting of large stones into which
smaller chips are packed. Remaining voids are filled with sand or gravel to form a strong and
semi-impervious matrix20. Figure 9 shows hand packed stone which was used in Laos PDR.
Concrete Paving Bricks
Concrete paving blocks are precast in moulds and then laid side by side on a prepared subbase,
see Figure 9. Gaps between blocks are filled with fine material to form a strong and semi-
impervious layer.
Figure 9 Segmental Block Surfaces
Hand Packed Stone and Concrete Paving Blocks
Hand Packed Stone:

Hand packed stone surface as carried
out during the SEACAP projects in LAO
PDR.
Provides the opportunity for labour
based work methods, however, it
requires skilled masons in order to knap
the stone correctly and provide a good
running surface. In the absence of this,
the surface can be very rough.
Concrete Paving Blocks:

Concrete paving blocks provide another
opportunity for labour based construction
methods and they do not require the
same skilled workforce as for hand
packed stone.
Photograph Description
20
South East Asia Community Access Programme (SEACAP), Completion of Construction
Report, Roughton International, March 2008.
3.10.5 Pavement Layers

The pavement layers generally consist of the base, subbase and sometimes a selected subgrade
layer.
Pavement layers should be chosen based on material available in the local area provided it is
suited to purpose. As stated previously, relaxation from current specification is possible, but, these
relaxations must be reasonable and justifiable and not cause un-due risk of pavement failure.
Common materials which could be given consideration include natural gravel, lateritic soils, coral
rock, volcanic cinders and calcrete. These should be tested to determine their strengths and
characteristics, after which a determination should be made on their suitability for each respective
pavement layer.
Natural Gravel
For major roads natural gravel can be used as subbase material where it provides a strong
foundation layer to resist vertical forces and being cohesion-less material, it inhibits capillary action
preventing water rising to the layers above. For this project, considering low volume rural roads,
natural gravel is considered appropriate for base and subbase.
Lime Stabilised Natural Gravel
This process uses either hydrated lime or quicklime to chemically improve the bearing capacity of
the gravel. Usually a common resource, lime can provide an alternative option to cement when
available.
The stabilising process involves addition of stabilising agent (lime) to the soil, thorough mixing with
sufficient water to achieve optimum moisture content, compaction of the mixture and then curing to
allow sufficient strength development21.
High lime contents of 6-8% can produce high tensile strengths in some materials. However, lime
treatment is not suitable for all materials, especially if they contain high silica contents (causes
alkali-silica reaction), sulphide minerals (can form acids) or high proportions or soluble salts22.
Cement Stabilised Natural Gravel
This method is used to improve bearing capacity and decreases the moisture susceptibility of the
natural gravel. Cement powder is mixed with the gravel in a similar fashion to lime as previously
described, allowed to harden and cure to form a mechanically improved base layer.
Cement stabilised materials are subject to cracking, typically due to shrinkage effects, thermal or
both. Cracks therefore must be controlled to prevent detrimental effects to the pavement. This can
be achieved by controlling the cement content or by replacing part of the cement fraction with
supplementary pozzolanic materials21.
3.10.6 Pavement Construction on Expansive Soils
Expansive soils, such as Black Cotton Soil, are fairly widespread across Tanzania. The
mechanism of expansion is that of seasonal wetting and drying, with consequent movement of the
water table. Soils at the edge of the road wet up and dry out at a different rate than those under a
surfacing, thus bringing about differential movement. It is this movement, rather than low soil
strength, most expansive soils being strong in the equilibrium moisture condition, which brings
about failure. Differential movement will result in longitudinal cracks in the surfacing, thus
facilitating the ingress and egress of water and accelerating the moisture change cycle. Failure of
embankments and severe deterioration of the ride quality are also likely.
21
Overseas Roadnote 31, A Guide To The Structural Design Of Bituminous Surfaced Roads In
Tropical And Subtropical Countries, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, United
Kingdom, 1993.
22
Promoting the Use of Marginal Materials, Project Report, Cook J.R, Gourley C.S, Bishop E.C,
TRL, Crowthorne, England, 2002.
The average moisture in a roadbed beneath a black topped pavement usually approximates to
optimum, and slight seasonal changes produce some movement. It follows that, if the exposed
roadbed is in either a very wet or a very dry condition when the pavement is constructed, excessive
movement will take place soon after, as the roadbed nears its optimum moisture content, and this
initial movement can be much greater than subsequent seasonal movement. Both of these
conditions should be avoided.
Ideally, expansive soils should be excavated to their full depth. Where this is not economically
feasible, such as on low volume rural roads, there are two practical alternatives:
1. The expansive soil should be excavated to at least 600 mm depth as shown in Figure 10,
since moisture changes decrease in magnitude with increasing depth, and be replaced
with non-expansive, non-plastic fill. The excavated soil should be spread on the shoulders
to lengthen their slope, thereby extending the distance from the sides of the road over
which transpiration will be reduced.
2. Where a short life is acceptable as in the case of most minor roads, and maintenance
funds are available, the method is to treat the soil as non-expansive and to reshape and re-
compact the base and surface every few years.
In all these cases, care must be taken to keep side drains as far as possible from the road and to
keep them as shallow as possible, since deep drains aggravate the effects of seasonal change in
moisture conditions.23
Figure 10 Construction on Expansive Soils23
23
1999
3.11 Geometric Design

3.11.1 Introduction
A suitable crossfall is required to provide adequate surface drainage, whilst not being so great that
it poses a danger to road users. The ability of a surface to drain is dependant on its surface type
and roughness. On unpaved roads the value is governed both by the need to remove surface
water from the surface and also by the need for it not to be so excessive that it may lead to surface
erosion.24
As is seen in all countries around the world, an improvement in road surface quality invariably
allows an increase in speed. It is not advantageous to improve the road to such an extent that it
allows excessive speed, endangering the lives of local pedestrian and bicycle traffic. As these are
small rural roads, a design speed of 60 km/h has been chosen, with the idea that vehicles should
be able to comfortably travel at this speed along improved sections of the road. As always, there
are exceptions where people will exceed this speed, however, this must be regulated by
enforcement by local authorities. This will help maintain a balance between a comfortable speed
for people to travel along the road and safety for all road users.
Gradient is a major part of vertical alignment and is related to vehicle performance and level of
service. For low levels of traffic flow with only a few four wheel drive vehicles, the maximum
traversable gradient is reported as 20% and two wheel drive trucks are similarly recorded as
successfully tackling gradients of 15%, except when heavily laden. As most low volume rural;
roads generally have heavily laden animal drawn carts and small trucks, the standards have
proposed a general gradient limit of 10%. This can increase to 15% over short sections in areas of
difficult terrain. Regional experience has dictated that gradients on unsealed roads, in excess of
6%, are unsustainable in the medium to long term. However, in many cases the gradient cannot be
changed, in these cases it is proposed to use a suitable concrete pavement.
For this project, a single lane carriageway with passing bays at regular intervals is considered
suitable. This is more economical and suitable for roads with a low traffic volume.
3.11.2 Tanzania Pavement and Materials Design Manual
The Tanzanian Pavement Design manual specifies a crossfall of 4-6% for gravel roads to ensure
rapid removal of surface water, preventing potholes developing. Cross sections and carriageway
widths are not specified.
At a meeting25 the PMO-RALG pointed out that the minimum road width for rural roads in Tanzania
is 5.4 m. However this can be reduced to a minimum width for steep hilly terrain of 4.5 m. At this
meeting it was noted that this project will also inform the Government on appropriate geometric
standards for low volume rural access roads.
3.11.3 SEACAP
Geometric design undertaken in the SEACAP project was based on best practice drawn from the
Lao Road Design Manual and the review of regional and international documents. The Geometric
Standards for low volume rural roads as devised during the SEACAP26 project are shown in
Table 5.
24
Overseas Road Note 6 A Guide to Geometric Design, Overseas Unit Transport Research
Laboratory, Crowthorne, United Kingdom, 1988.
25
Minutes of Road Selection Meeting and Site Visits that were held from Friday
20 November 2009 to Monday 23 November 2009, Africa Community Access Programme
(AFCAP), Research Consultant to Support the Design, Construction and Monitoring of
Demonstration Sites for District Road Improvement in Tanzania, 2009
26
SEACAP 3 Maintaining Appropriate Local Road Standards and Specifications and
Developing a Strategy for the MPWT Research Capacity, Low Volume Rural Roads
Standards and Specifications, Project Report, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne,
United Kingdom, January 2008.
Table 5 Low Volume Rural Roads Geometric Standards

Design Parameter Comment Definition
Design speed for Terrain:

Design Speed Defined by Terrain
Flat Rolling Rolling Mountainous
50 km/h 40 km/h 30 km/h
Carriageway Defined by vehicle Minimum 2.5 m, Maximum 3.5 m

body widths and
number of non-
Shoulder motorised road users Min.1 m, Max.1.5 m each side of road
Defined by terrain with Flat Rolling Mountainous

Maximum Gradient a limit of 6% for gravel
surfacing. 6% 8% 10%1
Defined by Gravel 6%2

Cross Fall surfacing
type Sealed 4%
1. Gradients up to 15% permitted in cases where lower gradients would incur excessive earthworks and
construction cost and where lengths of alignment >10% are kept to <300m.
2. Gravel crossfall must be maintained between 4 and 6%.
Values for crossfall/camber are 6% for unpaved roads (must be maintained between 4-6%) and 4%
for paved roads Table 5.
The SEACAP criteria for selecting low volume rural road widths are detailed in Table 6 following
this. It outlines different road widths or methods of obtaining the road width, depending on vehicle
size and traffic volume.
Table 6 Criteria for Selecting Road Widths
Criteria Decision
If maximum vehicle width >2.3 m Use Lao Road Design Manual
If maximum axle weight >4.5 t Use Lao Road Design Manual
If 4-wheeled traffic AADT>150 Use Lao Road Design Manual
If maximum vehicle width >1.8 m and <2.3 m Use 1 m+3.5 m+1 m, total 5.5 m road width
If maximum vehicle width <1.8 m and total

Use 1 m+2.5 m+1 m, total 4.5 m road width
AADT of non-motorised road users is <150
If maximum vehicle width <1.8 m and total
Use 1.5 m+2.5 m+1.5 m total 5.5 m road width
AADT of non-motorised road users is >150

3.11.4 Austroads Rural Road Design Manual

The Austroads Rural Road Design Manual specifies a crossfall of 5% for earth roads, 4% for gravel
roads, 3% for Bituminous seal coat and 2-3% for concrete. Shoulder crossfalls can be up to 2%
steeper than the carriageway.
The Austroads Rural Road Design27 guide states that lane width should be based on
considerations of traffic, vehicle dimensions, speed and the volume of traffic. This guide states that
the desirable lane width on rural roads is of the order of 3.5 m; however lane widths as narrow as
3.0 m may be used on low volume roads. Shoulder width is measured from the outer edge of the
traffic lane to the edge of usable carriageway. It is recommended that the minimum width of a road
shoulder should be 1.0 m.
The guide discusses single lane carriageways with traffic less than 150 vehicles per day and
recommends that, in such cases, the traffic lane width should be at least 3.5 m. A width of less
than 3.5 m may result in excessive shoulder wear due to vehicles driving on the shoulder and a
width greater than 4.5 m may lead to two vehicles trying to pass with each remaining on the lane.
27
Rural Road Design, Guide to the Design of Rural Roads, Austroads, Sydney Australia, 1993
4. DESCRIPTION OF THE DEMONSTRATION ROADS

4.1 Road Description
4.1.1 Bago to Talawanda (Bagomoyo)
The road goes from Bago to Talawanda and links up with a regional road at Bago and is close to a
trunk road, as seen in Figure 11. The terrain is rolling in nature and contains a number of small
villages and farms. The road is a sandy earth road and the subgrade varies along the course of
the road. The road has sections of black cotton soil, sand, silt and clay. It also contains a number
of steep sections. The road has poor drainage and has no culverts, drifts or ditches. The only
drainage structures on the road are an old arch bridge and a recently constructed concrete bridge
near Talawanda. Photos of the road at 500 m intervals are available in Appendix A.
Figure 11 Location of Road in Bagomoyo
4.1.2 Lawate to Kibongoto (Siha)

The road from Lawate to Kibongoto has a subgrade consisting of brown/red silt for about the first
2.5 km. This material has been mixed, scarified and compacted with some local volcanic gravels
and acts as a very good gravel wearing course. The gravel wearing course extends to km 3+500.
The road has a reasonably high level of traffic travelling through the market at the beginning of the
road, but has very little traffic for the remainder of the road. The remainder of the road has a
surface of clayey red soil which is the in-situ material for most of the road. There is a gravel pit
located about 11.5 km from Lawate (the start of the road), but there seems to be no other borrow
pit located along the road. This road is in fair condition generally and is a typical rural road in the
Kilimanjaro Region passing through hilly, agricultural landscape. Some maintenance problems are
encountered mainly in the steepest hills.
The location of the road is shown in Figure 12 below, while photos of the road, taken at 500 m
intervals are available in Appendix A.

Figure 12 Location of Road in Siha
4.2 Climate of the Project Areas

4.2.1 Bagamoyo (Dar es Salaam)
Bagamoyo has a very humid climate and relatively stable temperatures, both in terms of night-to-
day, and summer-to-winter. The driest and coolest season is June through early October. Short
rains occur from November through February (especially December), and long rains occur March
through May, peaking in April as shown in Figure 13. Temperatures are high from November to
May and at their highest in January as shown in Figure 14.
4.2.2 Siha (Moshi)
The highest rainfall occurs between mid March and early May, and slightly less between the
beginning of November and late December. Maximum rainfall occurs in the forest belt and on the
south side of the mountain where it reaches 2000 mm per year. Normally the drier seasons are
associated with clear, dry weather which can last for many weeks. The best weather is generally
encountered in the mornings, and convectional rainfall, if any, tends to come in mid-afternoon.
Temperatures are generally mild.
The rainfall in both districts follows the same trend with the Short rains in November and
December and the Long rains starting in March and ending in June as shown in Figure 13. Ideally
the start date for the contracts would be May which is the end of the wet seasons and would be the
start of the nine month dry period which should be sufficient for the construction to be completed.

Figure 13 Annual Rainfall Data
400 Long Rains

A v e ra g e A n n u a l R a in fa ll (m m ) 350
Dar Es Salaam (Bagamoyo)
Moshi (Siha)
300
250
200
150 Short Rains
100
50
0
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July
Figure 14 Annual Temperature Data
29 Dar Es Salaam (Bagamoyo)

A v e ra g e T e m p e ra tu re (C )
28 Moshi (Siha)
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July
For the purpose of pavement design, Tanzania is divided into three climatic zones:
A dry zone in the interior;
A large moderate zone;
Several wet zones, mainly at high altitudes28.
The climatic zones are demarcated on the basis of the number of months in a year with surplus
rainfall over potential evaporation as presented in Table 7.28
Table 7 Description of Climatic Zones
Climatic zone Number of months per year with higher rainfall than evaporation
Dry Less than 1 month

Moderate 1 to 3 months
Wet More than 3 months
28
1999
Although there is some difference in the annual rainfall for the two different project roads, both
roads are located in a moderate climate zone.
4.3 Geological Survey
4.3.1 General
A number of geological maps were obtained from Geological Survey of Tanzania in Dodoma. The
maps were then studied to give an indication of the subsurface materials located in the proximity of
the project roads.
4.3.2 Bagomoyo
The project road in Bagamoyo passes through a number of lithological sections described in the
geological index of the map. The geological survey suggests that the following soils and materials
should be present between Bago and Talawanda:
Alluvial coastal sands
Coastal red grey sands
Alluvial river gravel, sands and river terrace sediments and black soils
Coarse white sands and grits with quartz pebble beds and low percentage of clays.
Cemented horizons occur at the base of the sequence
Grey Sands (with superficial black cotton soils and mbuga)
Red mauve sands with thin basal quartz pebble beds
On further investigation of the road in Bagamoyo, these descriptions from the geological maps
describe the area adequately. Quartzitic river gravels, washed out sand, black soils and red and
grey sands are all commonplace between Bago and Talawanda.
4.3.3 Siha
Similarly, the geological survey suggests that the following soils and materials should be present in
Siha:
Thick red soil
Undifferentiated (volcanic deposits)
Outwash from lahars and other volcanic rocks
The road in Siha is surrounded by thick red soils for its entirety. The map also describes the area
as undifferentiated which refers to volcanic deposits such as volcanic tuff which is available in the
area.
Lahar refers to deposits from volcanic mud flows. This material was washed towards the slope of
Kilimanjaro when Mt. Meru exploded and filled the entire plain around the area, mostly on the slope
towards Kilimanjaro. These volcanic deposits were later investigated for their use in pavement
layers.
4.4 Conclusions
From the description of both roads, it is clear that both require spot improvement to ensure year
round access for local communities, which otherwise would be cut off during certain times of the
year when the roads are impassable.
The issues are outlined below:
1. The road from Bago to Talawanda suffers predominantly from issues stemming from the
lack of drainage and poor subgrade materials. Areas with black cotton soil are impassable
in wet conditions, while large erosion channels also make travelling along this road very
difficult. Provision of an improved cross section and drainage structures would alleviate a
lot of these problems;

2. In Siha the primary issue is steep gradients and slippery road surfaces. In these areas,
vehicles struggle to ascend these grades in wet slippery conditions. Surfacing options
need to be considered to accommodate this.
3. Careful consideration needs to be given to these surface options as steep grades and
sharp turns create high stresses, which some surfaces cannot handle;
4. Both roads fall within the Moderate climate as defined in the TPDM. This climate category
shall be required for the pavement design;
5. Geological data shows sands and gravels are available in Bagomoyo and these should be
used in construction of any new pavements.
6. Red soils and volcanic materials are available in the Siha region; these can also be
investigated for use in construction of the pavement in this area.

5. DEMONSTRATION ROAD STUDY

5.1 Visual Analysis
5.1.1 Bagomoyo Region
During the investigations stage, a visual assessment of the most problematic sections along the
roads was performed. These sections were targeted as the most urgent sections along the roads
in need of immediate attention, and are outlined in Table 8 below.
There are many factors which determine the choice of solution. While one solution may appear
most suitable, it may not be financially viable or local expertise and material capabilities may not be
available.
Table 8 Summary of Visually Assessed Poor Sections in Bagomoyo
Max.
Section Chainage (km) Problem Gradient Possible Solution
(%)
Start End
Diversion Humps/ Concave
1 2.75 3.56 Erosion Channels 5.8%
Pavement
Deep Erosion of the Change Road Alignment/
2 5.36 7.22 10%
Carriageway Suitable Pavement Option
Slippery Surface/
3 16.57 16.97 8.9% Suitable Pavement Option
Erosion Channels
Section 1
The red soil shown in Figure 15 is highly erosive. During the rain season, the water flows directly
down the road and requires an immediate solution. The proposed solution here is to use a
concrete pavement, put a reverse camber on the road and use the pavement to act as a drain
allowing the water to pass down the centre of the road and then lead the water to mitre drains at
suitable locations. Alternatively, diversion humps could be used here to divert the flow of water off
the road and reducing the effect of erosion and/or raise the road and provide earth side drains.
Section 2
As can be seen in Figure 15, this black plastic soil is also erosive. The carriageway has been
eroded more than 500 mm below the surrounding land. In this case, it is considered more
appropriate to change the alignment of the road than to try and build the road back up. Once the
alignment is changed, a suitable pavement structure will be applied.
Section 3
In Figure 15 grey/black clay can be seen on the road, which becomes very slippery in periods of
rain. This combined with a max gradient of 8.9% causes the road to be impassable. The solution
is to provide a suitable pavement structure to the section.

Figure 15 Photographs of Poor Sections in Bagomoyo

Poor Sections in Bagomoyo
Section 1:
Erosion Channels
Section 2:
Deep erosion of the carriageway
Section 3:
Slippery surface and erosion channels
5.1.2 Siha Region

A similar visual assessment to that carried out in Bagomoyo was done in Siha. In Siha, the road
suffers more from being very slippery in wet conditions. This combined with steep gradients makes
much of the road impassable to most traffic in periods of wet weather.
Breakdowns of these poor sections are shown in Table 9 below.

Table 9 Visually Assessed Poor Sections in Siha
Max.
Section Chainage (km) Problem Gradient Possible Solution
(%)
Start End
1 0 0.23 Dust Pollution 1.4 Bitumen Pavement
2 1.97 2.16 Steep 14.2 Robust Pavement
3 2.29 2.54 Very Steep 19.9 Robust Pavement

Very Steep/ Sharp
5 3.23 3.62 19.4 Robust Pavement
bends
Very Steep/ Sharp
bends

Very Steep/ Sharp
bends
13 10.69 11.23 Steep/ Sharp bends 17.4 Robust Pavement

Very Steep/ Sharp
bends
Examples of a robust pavement include various concrete pavements and concrete paving blocks.
Section 1
The marketplace at the beginning of the road in Siha is shown in Figure 16. The marketplace has
pedestrians constantly travelling through it and the area suffers from high levels of dust during the
dry season. The proposed solution here is to use a bitumen pavement to reduce dust and provide
a more durable solution than the existing gravel pavement shown.
Section 12
The photograph in Figure 16 is the typical scenario along the road in Siha. The road is very steep
and winding in nature. With gradients over 30% along this road, the solution to most of the
problems along this road is to use various concrete pavements. In many locations, the road is too
steep to use bitumen pavements. When spraying bitumen, too many problems would develop with
bitumen flowing down the steep hills. As a result, concrete is considered a better solution.

Figure 16 Photographs of Poor Sections in Siha

Poor Sections in Siha
Section 1:
Dust pollution for residents of the
village.
Section 2:
Steep gradient making climbing and
descending the hill risky and/or
extremely difficult in wet conditions.
5.2 Subgrade Assessment

5.2.1 Subgrade Sections
The roads were split into specific sections based on a visual identification of the road subgrade and
the section in general. Each section was given an individual description. The sections were used
to identify changes in subgrade; identify isolated rock outcrops; in-situ gravel; washed out sand;
topography and existing bridges. The sections for Siha and Bagamoyo are shown in Table 10 and
Table 11 respectively. The start and end points of the different sections were recorded by taking
waypoints from a handheld GPS and by spraying paint on the nearest tree. A number of
photographs of each section were also taken.
Splitting the road into different sections greatly helped in the design process. It made it much
easier to refer to different sections of the road when having a description attached to it rather than
just a chainage. This was particularly helpful on the road in Bagamoyo, where the road is very long
and the soils along the road vary significantly from section to section. There were not very many
useful landmarks in Bagamoyo, such as drainage structures, to use as reference points and the
division of the road into sections was a very useful investigation.

Roughton International /WG Design Report
Table 10 Road Sections by Visual Identification of Surface Material (Subgrade) Lawate to Kibongoto
Start End
Section Description of the Road Surface Subgrade and Section in General
(km) (km)
1 0.000 0.170 Brown Silty CLAY with some stones and rock outcrops
2 0.170 1.360 Brown Silty CLAY with some sand and small stones
Brown Silty CLAY with some sand and small stones. This section crosses a small river and there are large rock outcrops on
3 1.360 1.540
both sides of the river
4 1.540 1.980 Brown Silty CLAY with some sand and small stones underneath an imported gravel surface layer
5 1.980 2.470 Brown Silty CLAY with rocks visible at the surface. Remnants of previously imported gravel surface. Long gradient.
6 2.470 12.440 Red CLAY
12.44
7 13.110 Light brown CLAY with hard outcrops (weathered rock). Steep section both sides of a small bridge.
0
13.11
8 13.480 Red CLAY
0
Africa Community Access Programme (AFCAP8) 48

Research Consultant to Support the Design, Construction and Monitoring
of Demonstration Sites for District Road Improvement in Tanzania
Roughton International/WG Design Report
Table 11 Road Sections by Visual Identification of Surface Material (Subgrade) Bago to Talawanda
Start End
(km) (km)
1 0.000 0.479 Red sandy clayey SILT. Some washed out sand of about 50 - 100 mm depth on the surface
The road passes through a small forest and gradually changes from a red sandy clayey SILT to a short, soft section of black
2 0.479 0.512
cotton soil
3 0.512 0.779 Red sandy clayey SILT
4 0.779 0.841 Soft section of black cotton soil mixed with some red sandy SILT
5 0.841 1.333 Red sandy clayey SILT
6 1.333 1.383 Red silty CLAY mixed with black cotton soil
7 1.383 1.915 Red sandy clayey SILT with a thin layer of sand on the road surface
8 1.915 1.966 Soft sandy silty CLAY
9 1.966 2.998 Red clayey sandy SILT with up to 50 mm of sand on the surface of some areas
10 2.998 3.256 Red clayey SILT with a layer of up to 100 mm of sand on the surface
11 3.256 3.801 Red sandy clayey SILT with a thin layer of sand on the road surface
12 3.801 3.885 Dark brown clay with some sand on the surface with a small hill containing up to a 1 m thick layer of natural gravel.
13 3.885 4.015 Short, flat section of dark brown sandy SILT
Dark brown clay with some sand or silt on or near the road surface. Large parts of the section also include a layer of up to
14 4.015 5.272
500 mm of natural gravel which can be seen sporadically on or near the road surface
15 5.272 5.333 Short, flat section with natural gravel on the surface with a gradual change towards black cotton soil, possibly with some silt
16 5.333 5.981 Soft section of black cotton soil with some sand or silt
17 5.981 6.121 Slack hill with dark brown clay with traces of natural gravel underneath
Black cotton soil section in slack, hilly terrain. Deep erosion of the road surface (up to 1 m under the terrain). There is also
18 6.121 6.539
small traces of gneiss
19 6.539 6.669 Black cotton soil with sporadic occurrence of sandstone cobbles, boulders and bed rock
Black cotton soil with slightly less sandstone but with some large boulders on the surface. There is also deep erosion of the
20 6.669 6.869
carriageway

Roughton InternationalOWG Design Report
Start End
(km) (km)
Black cotton soil with lateritic gravel on the surface. Also, sandstone cobbles and boulders are present as bed rock and on
21 6.869 6.946
the surface
Black cotton soil with small amounts of lateritic gravel for the first hundred meters. This section crosses the old arch bridge
22 6.946 7.768
with black cotton soil both sides of the bridge
23 7.768 7.896 Black silty CLAY gradually changing to light brown lateritic silty CLAY with a slightly sandy road surface
24 7.896 8.132 Light brown silt with a large number of lateritic cobbles and boulders embedded in the road surface
25 8.132 8.563 There is a gradual change to black cotton soil with some lateritic gravel near the road surface
26 8.563 8.838 Flat, soft black cotton soil section
27 8.838 8.905 Gradual change from pure black cotton to a brown clay with some lateritic gravel
28 8.905 9.029 Mixture of brown clay and lateritic gravel and a gradual change to black cotton soil with some silt and sand
29 9.029 9.069 Short, flat, soft black cotton soil section
30 9.069 9.735 Hilly section consisting of brown lateritic SILT - CLAY
31 9.735 10.263 The road crosses a small hill with a relatively firm lateritic SILT - CLAY
Short, flat section with about 100 mm washed down sand on the surface. Black cotton soil or a dark brown clay is expected
32 10.263 10.315
underneath
33 10.315 12.172 Long hilly section containing red silty CLAY
12.172 12.679
34 Brown clay and black cotton soil section. The section is mainly flat with a hill at the end of the section
12.679 12.883
35 12.883 13.060 Flat section consisting of brown clay and black cotton soil with some lateritic gravel on the surface
36 13.060 13.645 Dark brown silty CLAY gradually containing more silt and lateritic gravel
37 13.645 14.518 Lateritic gravel section with bed rocks and rocks on the surface towards the end of the section
14.518 15.235
38 Sandy SILT with lateritic gravel. Isolated spots of dark brown clay also
15.235 16.006
39 16.006 16.053 Small hill containing large amounts of lateritic gravel
40 16.053 16.912 Black cotton soil section with some lateritic gravel and sand

Start End
(km) (km)
41 16.912 17.211 Black cotton soil section with some sand and silt on the surface
17.211 18.602 Black cotton soil section with some sand and silt on the surface. This section crosses the river near Talawanda and the soil
42
18.602 19.114 changes to pure black cotton on both sides of the river
43 19.114 19.739 Dark brown sandy silty CLAY. The section also contains one small hill with lateritic gravel
44 19.739 19.778 Small outcrop of lateritic bed rock
45 19.778 20.022 Black cotton soil section with some sand and silt
46 20.022 20.087 The section contains a small hill consisting of black cotton soil with some sand and silt
47 20.087 20.205 Black cotton soil section with some sand and silt
Black cotton soil section with some sand and silt. Well maintained section which was recently been graded and has ditches
48 20.205 20.48
leading to Talawanda

5.2.2 In-Situ Subgrade Tests

Pin Test
In the place of DCP testing, pin tests were carried out along the length of the two roads. The test
was used to try gauge the initial strength of the existing road surface material (subgrade). The test
was carried out using a one meter long piece of 12 mm steel rebar and a lump hammer. The rebar
was hammered 200 mm into the ground using the hammer. The test was taken along the
centreline of the road and not in the wheel tracks as it was too difficult to penetrate the material
where the road had been compacted by traffic.
A test was taken at each subgrade section along the road. A larger number of tests were taken at
sections where the soil type was uncertain. The point at which the test was taken was recorded by
handheld GPS, and by placing a blue marking on the nearest tree, using spray paint, with the letter
H or S, indicating a hard or soft subgrade. A soft section was a section where the rebar
penetrated the subgrade easily and a hard section is where it took a lot of effort to penetrate the
subgrade.
The results of the pin test are available in Appendix B. A summary of the results for each subgrade
section for the two roads is shown below. In conclusion, the pin test allows some insight into the
strength of the soil.
For example, in Bagamoyo the sandy soils were hard and the plastic soils were soft. The lab test
results were consistent with this. Problems arise at the borders between the subgrade sections. At
these points the results were often conflicting. In Siha, the road contains a lot of rock outcrops and
bed rock which made the results quite sporadic at times. Summaries of the pin test results are
shown in Table 12 and Table 13.
Table 12 Summary of Pin Test Results for Siha
Section Result
1 Hard
2 Soft
3 Hard
4 Soft
5 Hard
6 Soft
7 Soft
8 Soft
Using a DCP is a much more accurate way of calculating the strength of the subgrade. The pin test
method is only to give a preliminary indication, or expected strength of the subgrade. It is not
expected to replace the DCP test or taking alignment trial pits.

Table 13 Summary of Pin Test Results for Bagomoyo

Section Result Section Result
1 Hard 25 Soft
2 Hard 26 Soft
3 Hard 27 Soft
4 Soft 28 Soft
5 Hard 29 Soft
6 Soft 30 Soft
7 Hard 31 Hard
8 Hard 32 Soft
9 Soft 33 Hard
10 Soft 34 Soft
11 Soft 35 Soft
12 Soft 36 Hard
13 Soft 37 Hard
14 Hard 38 Hard
15 Soft 39 Soft
16 Soft 40 Soft
17 Soft 41 Hard
18 Soft 42 Hard
19 Soft 43 Soft
20 Soft 44 Soft
21 Soft 45 Hard
22 Soft 46 Soft
23 Hard 47 Soft
24 Soft 48 Soft
5.2.3 Jam Jar Tests

A simple settlement test was carried out to test the different soil types along the roads. The
procedure for carrying out this test is as follows:
1. Obtain a cylindrical glass jar at least 300 mm tall and with a diameter of at least 100 mm
and half fill it with soil.
2. Then fill the jar with water up to three quarters of its height. Add a small spoonful of salt.
3. Shake the jar well until all the contents are mixed.
4. Place the jar on a flat surface and wait until all the soil has settled and the water is clear.
This can take up to 3 hours.
5. The soil will settle in layers with larger particles at the bottom and small ones on top. It
should be possible to identify three main layers: a coarse layer (stones), a sand layer and a
fine layer. The coarse layer contains particles larger than 2 mm. The sand layer contains
particles smaller than 2 mm but which are visible to the naked eye. The fine layer contains
particles that are too small to be seen by the naked eye29.
29
Spot Improvement Manual for Basic Access, TRL, Berkshire, UK, 2006
The soil samples were taken using a mattock. At least one jar test was taken in each subgrade
section along the road between Lawate and Kibongoto. The points at which the jar tests were
taken were recorded by taking a waypoint from a handheld GPS and by placing a gold spray paint
marking on the nearest tree.
The road between Bago and Talawanda had too many sections and there were too few jars to take
tests at every section. As a result, it was felt that the best course of action was to pay particular
attention to the sections where the soil type is uncertain. A jar test was also carried out on two of
the gravel sources and the river sand along the Bago to Talawanda road.
The results of this test were not very accurate for the alignment materials. It was very difficult to tell
the difference between clay, silt and sand. The border lines were very unclear and very difficult to
tell by visual inspection. The above-mentioned jar tests are much better suited as an initial form of
testing when looking for suitable gravel materials (when checking prospective gravel pits), than as
a reliable and final material testing tool for road design.
The results of the jar tests are available in Appendix C.
5.2.4 Subgrade Classification
CBR Classification
Both the road in Siha and Bagamoyo are located in a moderate climatic zone. As a result, the
subgrade class is based on the 4 day soaked CBR value. Table 14, below, shows how the
subgrade is classified based on the CBR value.
Table 14 Subgrade CBR Classification30
CBRdesign [%]
Density for
Subgrade Wet or determination
Dry climatic zones (both requirements
class moderate of CBRdesign [%
shall be met)
climatic zones of MDD]
4 day soaked
Tested at OMC 4 days soaked value
value
S15 Min 15 Min 15 Min 7 95 BS-Heavy
S7 7 -14 7 -14 3 - 14 93 BS-Heavy
S3 3-6 3-6 2-6 100 BS-Light
Alignment Trial Pits and Laboratory Tests in Bagamoyo

Appropriate tests were completed and the full list of tests and results are available in Appendix D.
The material assessments are in accordance with the TPMDM requirements assuming that the
roads are located in a moderate climate. The different alignment material types are shown in
Table 15.
30
1999
Table 15 Alignment Material Types for Bagomoyo

Alignment Material Number Soil Type and Material Description
Plastic Soils
1 Grey/ Black Plastic soil
2 Grey Plastic Soil
3 Light Grey Plastic Soil
Sandy Soils
4 Red Soil
5 Light Red Soil
Alignment Material Type 1 (Grey/ Black Plastic soil)

The grey/black plastic soil represents the most difficult material along the alignment of the road in
Bagamoyo. The field investigation indicated that this soil may exhibit expansive properties. The
PIW is the Plasticity Index weighted for the samples content of particles <425 m. This value is
used as an indicator of an expansive soil. If the soil has a PIW value greater than 20% then the soil
should be considered expansive.
The PIW (Plasticity index * material passing 0.425sieve/100) on average is 22.6 which should be
considered to have an expansive potential. However, the swell is 0.4% which may not indicate
high expansiveness. Once a soil has been identified as having expansive properties, the soil shall
then be classified as either low, medium or high expansiveness as indicated in the Tanzanian
Pavement and Materials Design Manual.
For this project the soil should be classified as low expansiveness and the soil will be classified as
a low strength soil with a CBR < 3%.
Alignment Material Type 2 (Grey Plastic soil)
The grey plastic soil represents the second most difficult plastic soil along the alignment of the road
in Bagamoyo. The average PIW value is 15.63 and does not exhibit expansive properties. The
swell percentage is low to moderate. The soil is on the border line with low-strength soil. However,
by applying higher compaction, say 98% if possible, the CBR strength is about 6, so close to S7
subgrade class. For this project, the soil will be classified as an S3 subgrade class. The soil will
need improved subgrade layers.
Alignment Material Type 3 (Light Grey Plastic soil)
The light grey plastic soil represents the least difficult plastic soil along the road alignment in
Bagamoyo. The average PIW value for this soil is 11.2 and shows that the material does not exhibit
expansive properties. The swell is low to moderate. The soil is an S3 soil according to the
TPMDM, however by applying higher compaction could most likely be classified as S7. One soil
(PI 15, GM 1.24, CBR=12% at 95% compaction) sample is of much better quality than the rest and
could probably be considered for being utilized as improved subgrade.
Alignment Material Type 4 (Red soil)
The sandy soils are the best materials located along the alignment of the road in Bagamoyo.
The material exhibits a high CBR at 98% compaction, at around about 60%, and the PI is relatively
low, at around 8. The relatively high MDD, around 2050, also indicates that the material has good
properties. Due to the soils fine grading, the material may exhibit two OMCs one false and one
true but the density may show little difference.

This material is an S3 soil according to the TPMDM, with a CBR value of 3% at 93% compaction.
However, if higher compaction can be achieved in the field can probably be classified as a higher S
class.
Bagamoyo - Alignment Material Type 5 (Light Red soil)
The light red soil is very similar to the latter but is more fine grained which results in a lower MDD
and slightly lower CBR at OMC. Surprisingly, the material exhibits higher soaked CBR than the
previous. This material is an S7 subgrade according to the TPMDM, with a CBR value of 9% at
93% compaction.
Alignment Trial Pits and Laboratory Tests in Siha
Similarly, the road from Lawate to Kibongoto, in Siha, was split into three different alignment
material types as seen in Table 16. A full list of laboratory tests and results for the alignment
materials are available in Appendix D.
Table 16 Alignment Material Types in Siha
Alignment Material Number Soil Type and Material Description

Plastic Soils
1 Brown Clayey SILT
2 Red Clay
3 Light brown Clay
Alignment Material Type 1 (Brown clayey SILT)
This road had been previously gravelled and as a result, there was gravel material present in the
sample. It may be an option to rip and mix the underlying gravel material in order to improve the
subgrade and give the new subgrade a higher S class. The field investigation did not indicate that
the soil is expansive. The material will be considered an S3-S7 subgrade class depending on the
compactive effort.
Alignment Material Type 2 (Red Clay)
The red clay, which is the material that is present for the majority of the road, is an S3 subgrade
class. The field investigation did not indicate that the material has expansive properties.
Alignment Material Type 3 (Light brown Clay)
The light brown clay is an S3 subgrade class. However, the material is marginal to S7 if higher
compaction can be achieved. The soil does not exhibit expansive properties.
5.3 Traffic Analysis
5.3.1 General
It was originally hoped that the demonstration sites would be built along roads meeting a criterion
of 50 vehicles per day. However, after inspecting the proposed district roads for this project and
realising that 50 vpd was not realistic it was decided that the roads selected for demonstration
would be on those roads on which there would be a potential for 50 vpd once construction was
finished.
5.3.2 Traffic Loading on Rural Roads
The District Engineers were asked if they had traffic counts for the two roads but none was
available. However, during the selection phase traffic counts were given to the Consultant for other
similar roads. So the information that was available at the time was used in estimating these traffic
flows.

For this project, the number of vehicles travelling along the road in both directions was estimated
by the field team based on their experience of spending significant time on the project roads during
the design phase of the project and being aware of a realistic traffic flow along the roads.
It was then estimated that there would be a sudden increase in traffic along the roads which would
occur in response to the provision and improvement of the road, called generated traffic.31 This
generated traffic was estimated as at being 50% of the initial traffic during the design phase of the
project and 200% in the first year after construction.
Following this initial influx of generated traffic along the road, an estimated fixed percentage
increase of constant traffic growth was established. This fixed rate of increase was chosen as 10%
per annum over the design life of the road. The figure of 10% is to represent the increase in
normal traffic and diverted traffic.
In order to determine the total traffic over the design life of the road the Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
in the first year following the construction of the road was estimated. The ADT is defined as the
total annual traffic summed for both directions and divided by 365.
5.3.3 Axle Loading
It was impractical to do an axle load survey and as a result, axle loads were estimated. An axle
load survey was available to the Consultant from the Chalinze-Segere-Tanga project in Tanzania.
This gave a good, realistic indication of the axle loads for each of the different vehicle classes. The
axle loads estimated are available in Appendix E.
It was estimated that the vehicles travelling along the road would be full 50% of the time, empty
30% of the time and overloaded 20% of the time. An estimate of the vehicle loads were then
distributed over each of the axles, for each of the different vehicle classes. Axle loads are not
distributed over a vehicle evenly and the loads are weighted more heavily on the rear axle of a
vehicle.
5.3.4 Equivalence Factors
Once the axle loads were estimated, the equivalence factors were calculated for each of the axles
for each class of vehicle using the following equation31:
Equivalence Factor = (Axle Load (kg) / 8160)4.5
The damage that vehicles do to a road depends very strongly on the axle loads of the vehicles.
For pavement design purposes the damaging power of axles is related to a standard axle of
8160 kg, using equivalence factors which have been derived from empirical studies.
5.3.5 Design Traffic Loading
The above methods were used to calculate the design traffic loading for both roads. The
calculations for design traffic loading are contained Appendix E and a summary is shown below in
Table 17.
31
Table 17 Summary of Design Traffic Loading
Design Loading (ESA x 106)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Road Name Pessimistic Realistic Optimistic
30% Actual Design 300%
Decrease in Traffic Traffic Increase in Traffic
Talawanda to Bago 0.05 0.16 0.50
Lawate to Kibongoto 0.05 0.17 0.51
Scenario 2 is expected to be the realistic design traffic loading for the roads. Both roads fall into
the Traffic Load Class (TLC) 02 in the Tanzanian Pavement Design Manual. TLC 02 is defined as a
design traffic loading of less than 0.2 million equivalent standard axles (mesa).
5.4 Condition Assessment
5.4.1 General
A condition assessment was done for each of the roads. The condition assessment includes
analysis of the gradient, height and the possible travelling speed of a vehicle along the road. After
driving up and down each of the roads and recording the trip data using a GPS, the data was
analysed and assessed on Microsoft Excel. A number of graphs/profiles were produced using the
GPS data; these graphs are available in Appendix F. Also, the road was divided into homogenous
sections by analysing the GPS data recorded based on speed.
5.4.2 Gradient
The gradient was used to give a good indication of the sections that are impassable along the
roads during the wet season. Steep slopes combined with slippery surfaces in the rain season can
lead to the loss of basic access. The road was divided into different terrain types by gradient as
shown in Table 18 below.
Table 18 Terrain Type as Defined by Gradient
Vertical Gradient
0% 3% Flat
3% 5% Slight
5% 10% Moderate
10% 15% Steep
15% 50% Very Steep
The road in Siha is extremely steep, with gradients of over 30% and with over 60% of the road
being moderate, steep or very steep. The road in Bagamoyo is not steep with almost 80% of the
road having a gradient of 5% or less. Graphs of the gradient versus chainage are available in
Appendix F. These graphs were used in the selection of the trial section in Siha, where any
gradient above 5% requires a robust pavement.
Due to the steep nature of the road in Siha, the gradient alone was enough to assess the various
demonstration sections. A visual assessment was also done, but this only highlighted and
confirmed the problems related to the gradient. In Bagamoyo, there is only one moderate to steep
gradient.
A summary of gradient categories for both road sections is shown in Table 19.

Table 19 Length of Different Gradient Categories for Both Roads

Length Flat Slight Moderate Steep Very Steep
Bagamoyo
km 14 4 3 0.1 0.01
% 70 17 13 0.6 0.05
Siha
km 3 3 4 3 1
% 22 20 31 19 8
5.4.3 Speed
The speed and the time taken to travel along the road give an indication of the roughness of the
road and indicate the quality of the road surface. By assessing the speed before and after
construction of each of the roads, it will give a good indication of the improvement of the different
sections. Table 20 gives a summary of the average speed and the average time taken to travel up
and down each of the two roads.
Table 20 Average Speed and Travel Times for Both Roads

Parameter Bagamoyo Siha
Length (km) 20.5 14
Average Speed (km/hr) 19 27
Average Time Taken (mins) 66 39
It is important to note that even though the road in Siha is much steeper, and the height differential
is much greater than the road in Bagamoyo, the average speed travelling along the road in Siha is
significantly greater. This gives an indication that the road surface in Bagamoyo is rougher than
that in Siha.
5.5 CuSum Analyses
5.5.1 General
The CuSum Analysis is a method of establishing homogenous sections by analysing one
parameter at a time. In summary, it involves comparing a specified parameter to its average value.
Areas of homogeneity are shown on a graph as a section with a similar gradient. Where the
gradient of the graph line changes, so does the parameter which is being analysed, therefore, that
is where the section properties change. By locating the sections with similar gradients, the
corresponding homogenous sections can be defined.
5.5.2 CuSum Analysis Based on Speed
For this project, speed was the parameter used to define homogenous sections. It was originally
hoped to use these different sections to select the different demonstration sections but in the end
the data was not used to its full potential.
The theory behind using this to select the demonstration sections is that where the average speed
is slow, the section is poor and where the average is fast, the section is good. Limited analysis
was done on this possible method of selecting trial sections and further work will have to be done
to assess how valid an indicator this is.
It was simpler to use the gradient, the subgrade and a visual assessment to select the
demonstration sections. The different homogenous sections defined by speed are shown in
Table 21 and Table 22 on the following page. The average speed will be assessed for each
section after construction so a comparison of the roughness before and after construction can be
done.
Table 21 Road Sections Based on CuSum Analysis for Speed in Bagomoyo

Section Chainage (km) Average Speed (km/hr)
1 0.000 0.440 0.15
2 0.440 0.75 0.57
3 0.750 1.975 1.37
4 1.975 2.512 19.94
5 2.512 3.00 14.23
6 3.000 3.105 35.00
7 3.105 3.95 14.97
8 3.950 4.800 27.83
9 4.800 5.250 19.88
10 5.250 6.250 25.00
11 6.250 7.400 13.23
12 7.400 8.000 23.94
13 8.000 10.700 17.58
14 10.700 14.150 31.63
15 14.150 14.450 15.92
16 14.450 14.850 30.22
17 14.850 15.250 16.06
18 15.250 16.900 24.17
19 16.900 18.400 37.27
20 18.400 19.150 18.52
21 19.150 20.480 21.97
Table 22 Road Sections Based on CuSum Analysis for Speed in Siha

Section Chainage (km) Average Speed (km/hr)
1 0.000 1.381 30.30
2 1.381 1.488 10.60
3 1.488 1.975 26.00
4 1.975 2.435 16.50
5 2.435 4.782 30.00
6 4.782 5.090 18.50
7 5.090 7.031 26.00
8 7.031 7.580 20.40
9 7.580 8.191 26.50
10 8.191 8.386 13.70
11 8.386 9.661 27.80
12 9.661 10.378 22.80
13 10.378 11.335 11.60
14 11.335 12.132 18.50
15 12.132 13.000 13.60
16 13.000 13.48 18.70

5.6 Drainage Assessment

A schedule of drainage structures is provided in Appendix G. The following pages discuss
drainage options considered for the demonstration roads.
5.6.1 Culverts
Culverts are the most commonly used structures on low volume roads and provide a relatively
inexpensive drainage solution where a full-scale bridge is not required (see Figure 17). There are
two main types of culvert, relief culverts and stream culverts. Relief culverts are placed at low
points in the road or where there is no defined stream but the topography of the ground requires
some allowance for cross drainage. Stream culverts simply allow the watercourse to pass
underneath the roadway.32
Culverts can be constructed by numerous methods and combinations. Common examples include
corrugated plastic pipes, steel pipes or arches, precast or in-situ concrete, boxes or box shapes
consisting of a concrete slab (or timber) resting on blockwork.33
The culvert should be constructed on sound foundations such as rock and located in the original
stream bed, with its invert level following the natural grade of the channel. In certain cases
realignment of the stream may be possible; however, it is advisable to try to follow the streams
original route to avoid future problems.
Pipe diameters should be sufficiently large to allow entry for cleaning - typical sizes are 600 mm
and 900 mm with the lager diameter preferable. The grade should be no less than 1.25% for pipes
and 0.5% for boxes to avoid silt blockages. Outlets should be at ground level, however, where the
culvert may be constructed on a steep slope, any drop at the outlet should be provided with means
of reducing water velocity and thus reducing serious erosive damage at the discharge end. This
can be done by widening the outlet or using a stilling well. 32
Figure 17 Photograph of Small 300 mm Pipe Culvert
300 mm Pipe Culvert
Photograph of a typical 300 mm pipe

culvert. In reality, culvert sizes as small
as these should be avoided, as they are
difficult to keep clear of debris. A culvert
should be large enough to allow easy
cleaning, maintenance and removal of
any foreign objects which may become
lodged in it.
32
Low Cost Structures for Rural Roads (Final Draft): A Practical Planning Design, Construction
and Maintenance Guide, Global Transport Knowledge Partnership, United Kingdom, June
2009.
33
Spot Improvements Manual for Basic Access, TRL Ltd., United Kingdom, 2006.
5.6.2 Drifts
Drifts are a basic, inexpensive form of watercourse crossing. They are designed to provide a firm
driving surface in a river bed so as traffic can pass in periods of moderately high water levels, while
also causing minimal disturbance to flow. They come in two forms, either relief drifts or small
watercourse drifts. Relief drifts take water from side drains where the road is on sloping ground
and the uphill section cannot be drained using mitre drains. Small watercourse drifts are used
where flows are very small or perennial and both allow the water cross the road34 35
Types of drift construction include concrete slabs, cement bonded stone paving, dry pitched stone
paving and gabions with gravel or broken stone. Selection depends on factors such as the nature
of the river bed, expected water volume and flow rates, availability of different construction
materials and cost of labour34. See Figure 18, showing a small concrete drift structure on the
Lawate to Kibongoto road in Kilimanjaro region.
Variations such as vented drifts, causeways or Irish bridges, allow water pass through openings in
a similar fashion to a culvert, but can withstand overtopping without damage. Openings in vented
drifts should also be constructed large enough to help prevent blockages and allow entrance when
cleaning or periodic maintenance is required34.
All drifts should have guide stones to inform road users of the drift width when flooded. They
should also have an entrance and exiting ramp, sloped at 510%, which extends above the annual
flood water level. Selection of the gradient depends on the expected traffic type using the road,
10% for cars and light trucks, 7.5% for minibuses and medium trucks and 5% for heavy lorries and
other large vehicles. All drift structures also require proper foundations and anchoring as well as
scour protection to the road prism34.
Figure 18 Small Drift in Kilimanjaro Region
Drift Structure
Photograph of a drift structure in

Kilimanjaro Region. These structures
allow vehicles cross small water courses
in periods of wet weather. They are
designed to allow over-topping,
however, even when covered in water,
vehicles should be able cross under all
but the most severe circumstances.
34
Low Cost Structures for Rural Roads (Final Draft): A Practical Planning Design, Construction
and Maintenance Guide, Global Transport Knowledge Partnership, United Kingdom, June
2009.
35
5.6.3 Roadside Drainage

Unlined Drains
An unlined drain is a simple excavated ditch, where water can be collected and transferred to an
area where it can flow away, as seen in Figure 19. Drains should be as short as possible, with a
gradient of around 2% levelling out to 0% at the end to allow water exit at a low velocity. The base
should typically be at least 0.5m wide. However, if it is following an existing water course it should
remain at the same width as that watercourse. The drain side slopes should be a maximum of 45.
Excavated material should be spread as far as possible away from the drain structure to prevent
material being washed back into it during periods of heavy rain. Light vegetative growth, such as
grass, on the sides of the drain can be beneficial and should be encouraged, as it helps prevent
erosion36 but needs to be maintained to prevent overgrowth.
Figure 19 Un-lined Roadside Drain
Un-lined Drains
Un-lined roadside drains, which remove

water from the pavement to an area
where it can then be discharged.
Lined Drains
Drains can be protected against erosion by lining with an erosion resistant material, such as stone
pitching, masonry or bricks, as seen in Figure 20. In such situations it is also important to ensure
that water can enter the drain, unimpeded from the road surface. If water cannot enter the drain, it
will erode the soil between the edge of the road and the side drain, eventually undermining the
drain structure36.
36
Figure 20 Lined Roadside Drains
Lined Drains
Photo of an old roadside drain lined with

concrete slabs. In areas with large water
volumes and where water may be
moving quickly, lined drains protect
against the ensuing erosive effects.
5.6.4 Scour Checks

Scour checks reduce the speed of water in the side drain, as shown in Figure 21, resulting in less
erosion. In general they can be made from local materials, including timber, bamboo and stones.
Rigid scour checks should not be made from concrete or wet masonry in loose soil. Scour checks
should be provided at a sufficient spacing to keep the water below that which will cause erosion.
The spacing depends upon the type of soil and the gradient of the side drain. Table 23 should be
used as an initial guideline37.
Figure 21 Sketch of Scour Checks29
Scour Checks
Scour checks help reduce the speed of

water in a roadside drain, preventing
excessive erosion from occurring.
37
Table 23 Spacing Guide for Scour Checks29

Gradient of Side Drain Spacing of Scour Checks
(%) (m)
<2 Not necessary
2-5 15
5-8 8
8-10 5
> 10 3
5.6.5 Mitre Drains

Side drains overtop or erode if the volume of water is high. If the drain overtops, water can
damage the surface of the road. Whenever the road is inclined and if the gradient of the terrain
permits it, a mitre drain should be provided. A mitre drain diverts water away from the road, as
seen in Figure 22 below. 37
A mitre drain should turn away from the side drain at an angle of 45. The side drain should be
blocked where the mitre drain starts to ensure that all the water in the side drains enters the mitre
drain. The mitre drain should have a gradient of around 2% that reduces to 0% at the exit so that
the water leaves at very low speed. The base of the mitre drain should be at least 0.5 metres wide
and the sides should have a maximum slope of 45. The excavated soil should be spread far from
the mitre drain so that it is not washed back into the same drains when it rains. 37
Mitre drains should be provided at a spacing according to Table 24, although this can be reduced if
overtopping or erosion becomes critical. 37
Figure 22 Sketch of Mitre Drains38
Mitre Drains
Mitre drains divert water away from the

road and the roadside drains in areas
where they may be at risk of overflowing.
This reduces
Table 24 Spacing of Mitre Drains38

Gradient of Side Drain Spacing of mitre drains
(%) (m)
<2 100
2-5 60
5-8 40
8-10 20
> 10 10

5.6.6 Surface Water Diversion Humps

In many situations, the carriageway/track can be at a lower level than the surrounding land and has
no camber. In such instances, accumulating water cannot exit to the surrounding land and instead
flows down the track, causing erosion of the surface. In order to prevent erosion damage it is
important to ensure that water does not accumulate on the track and cannot flow along the surface.
One simple way to do this is by creating gravel diversion humps on the road surface38.
A diversion hump is a ridge which is constructed diagonally across the carriageway, as seen in
Figure 23 channelling water off the road surface and into mitre drains at the side of the track. It is
recommended that humps are installed on all tracks that are sufficiently inclined and which may
allow water flow along their surfaces. Removal of this surface water prevents accumulation and
subsequent deterioration from potholes which would form in low points in the track. Humps should
be constructed to the spacing illustrated in Table 25. If longitudinal erosion still continues, these
spacings may be reduced38.
Table 25: Frequency of Surface Water Diversion Humps38
Spacing of Diversion Humps (m)

Gradient of Track (%)
Clay Sand
<2 100 50
2-4 60 30
4-6 40 *
6-8 25 *
>8 * *
* Not recommended
Figure 23: Sketch of Water Diversion Humps38
38
5.7 Construction Material Investigations

5.7.1 Introduction
This section discusses the different gravel materials that were found and tested to investigate their
suitability to be used for pavement layers.
5.7.2 Location of Borrow Pits
Investigations were done to locate a number of gravel sources for each of the access roads. In
Bagamoyo, the local elders in the villages were consulted to try and establish local gravel sources.
As a result, two gravel sources were located. The field team employed local workers to create
tracks, dig trial pits and take samples of the material for relevant laboratory tests. In Siha three
gravel sources are available. Two borrow pits were located with the help of the District Engineer.
Location of Materials in Bagamoyo
The chainage and offset of the proposed borrow pits are shown in Table 26. The two borrow pits
are located at opposite ends of the road and will help to reduce the haulage distances. The offset
tracks were created by the field team, however, it is expected that the contractor will establish
shorter tracks at a later stage.
Table 26 Location of Borrow Pits 1 and 2 in Bagomoyo

Name Chainage(km) Offset(km) Description
Borrow Pit 1 15.56 1.62 Grey Decomposed Granite Gravel
Borrow Pit 2 2.72 1.25 Red Quartzitic Gravel
A hand written map with the location of the borrow pits is available in Appendix H. A detailed trial
pit investigation was taken for the borrow pits in Bagamoyo. Samples were taken for testing to
assess their suitability for their use in pavement layers. Trial pit logging forms, as shown in
Appendix H were used in Bagamoyo and quantities of material were estimated for each of the
borrow pits. The profiling parameters for each of the borrow pits are shown in Table 27 and
Table 28.
Initial investigations on borrow pit 1 indicated that there is 3000-5000 m3 of grey decomposed
granite gravel. Based on the visual inspection, this material may be suitable for use in an otta seal
or a sand seal. Investigations on borrow pit 2 indicated that there is approximately 5000 m3 of red
quarzitic gravel.
Samples for each of these materials were taken to the Central Materials Lab in Dar es Salaam for
testing.
Table 27 Profiling Parameters for Borrow Pit 1

Borrow Pit 1 -Grey Decomposed Granite Gravel
Soil Type Natural Gravel Decomposed Granite Gravel
Consistency Dense
Moisture Slightly Moist
Colour Dark Grey
Origin Transported
Atterberg Limits,. Grading, Linear Shrinkage,
Tests to be Carried Out
Swell and Ten Percent Fines


Borrow Pit 2 -Red Quarzitic Gravel
Soil Type Natural Gravel - Quartzitic Gravel
Consistency Dense
Colour Dark Reddish Brown
Origin Transported
MDD and OMC, CBR at OMC, CBR 4 day
Tests to be Carried Out soaked, Atterberg Limits, Grading, Swell, Linear
Shrinkage and Ten Percent Fines
Construction Materials Siha

Borrow pits 1 and 2 are at the same location. Borrow pit 1 is at the bottom of a hill and borrow pit 2
is at the top, above borrow pit 1. Both borrow pits are well established. Borrow pit 3 is located on
the left hand side of the Moshi to Arusha road before Kilimanjaro Airport. All locations are provided
in Table 29.
The haulage distance for these materials is significant. It is expected that the contractor should be
able to locate material suitable for improved subgrade closer to the road itself and this material
from the borrow pits will be used for subbase and base material. A hand written map with the
location of the borrow pits is available in Appendix H.
Table 29 Locations of Borrow Pits 1, 2 and 3 in Siha

Name Chainage (km) Offset (km) Description
Borrow Pit 1 0 11.48 Volcanic Tuff
The profiling parameters for each of the borrow pits are shown in Table 30, Table 31 and Table 32.
This material had also been previously used by the District Engineer on other projects and shown
to be of good quality. The materials were tested for suitability for use in Otta Seal surfacing. The
following tests were carried out on this material: MDD/OMC, CBR at OMC, CBR 4 day soaked,
Atterberg Limits, Grading, Linear Shrinkage, Swell (%) and Ten Percent Fines.

Profiling Parameters
Material type Volcanic Tuff
Colour Pale Red
Consistency Dense
Origin Volcanic


Material type Volcanic tuff
Colour Light Grey
Consistency Dense
Origin Volcanic

Material type Volcanic tuff
Colour Dark Brown
Consistency Dense
Origin Volcanic
5.7.3 Analysis of Borrow Pit Material

The construction materials found in preliminary investigations were analysed and assessed using
the Tanzanian Materials and Pavement Design Manual requirements assuming that the roads are
located in a moderate climate. A summary of the pavement material design characteristics, as
stated in the TPMDM is shown in Table 33.
Table 33 Pavement Material Characteristics
PI (General
Material CBR
Req)
Wet/Mod Climate dmax Field Density
Wet/Moderate
Granular at
4 day soak Climate
OMC
G80 80 8 2/3 98% MDD, BS-heavy
G60 60 10 compacted 98% MDD, BS-heavy
G45 45 14 layer 95% MDD, BS-heavy
G25 25 16 thickness 95% MDD, BS-heavy
Construction Materials - Bagamoyo

Borrow Pit 1
The laboratory test results for borrow pit 1 are located in Appendix H The Atterberg limits for the
material from borrow pit 1 show large variation in the samples tested. The material is generally too
fine to be used in an Otta seal unless some of the fines are screened out. The grading indicates
that the material should not be used in a sand seal. With an average PI of 17.3% the material will
probably not be suitable for a sand seal even if screened for oversize material and fine material.
Visual assessment of stockpiled material will determine whether the material can be used or not as
there is a rather large variation in the test results.
Although no CBR values were taken, the material satisfies the other requirements for a gravel
wearing course. As the shrinkage product value is about 240 it should be considered to be used in
built-up areas as the dust problem will be reduced.

Borrow Pit 2
The laboratory test results for borrow pit 2 are located in Appendix H. The Atterberg limits for the
material from borrow pit 2 show large variation in the samples tested. The material is marginal for
an Otta seal, with a high percentage of fine and coarse material and the PI is also high.
Apart from this material being on the borderline for G25 requirements, it does not comply with the
Tanzanian Design Manual for unbound materials. At OMC, 98% compaction the material achieves
a CBR of 62% and has an average PI value of 20.4%. The GM is relatively high, around 2.0 and
the material should not be ruled out to be used in pavement layers. Visual assessment of
stockpiled material will determine whether the material can be used or not as there is a rather large
variation in the test results.
As a gravel wearing course the material satisfies the requirements for minor roads. The shrinkage
product is about 350 and the material should preferably be used in built up areas due to dust
problems.
Construction Materials Siha
Borrow Pit 1
The low dry density of 1536kg/m3 confirms that this is material is volcanic tuff. In general, volcanic
tuff has a different behaviour to other normal types of material. The workability during
construction may be different and in particular they are sensitive to moisture.
Apart from some oversize material in the grading, the material falls within the Otta seal grading
envelope (medium high to dense low). However, as this is a volcanic tuff, it yields high voids and
the binder content will have to be adjusted upwards to be used in an Otta seal. The 10% FACT
values of 7 kN and 9 kN, wet and dry respectively, are very low but unfortunately, commonly used
soil testing methods do not really reflect the properties of these types of volcanic materials. This is
based on the experience of the Consultant. The water absorption value of 20.7% is also very high.
The material satisfies the G45 CBR criteria and G60 at 100% compaction. It is non-plastic and
should be considered for use in both subbase and base layers. Practically, this material can not be
considered for use as an Otta seal aggregate because the water absorption is so high and would
require too much bitumen to make it work.
Borrow Pit 2
The fines content for this material is quite high, but the GM value is reasonable, at 2.0. It has a
high PI value of 11 and has a soaked CBR of 91% at 98% compaction. Based on the test results
the material satisfies the G60 criteria and can be considered to be used in both subbase and base
layers. The material is too fine to be used in an Otta seal but in practice could be more workable
than the borrow pit 1 material if the some of the fine material is screened.
Borrow Pit 3
This material has a high soaked CBR of 113% at 100% compaction and low PI value of 7% and
can be used in all pavement layers. The grading also indicates that it can also be used as an Otta
seal aggregate with some screening of oversize material and also as a gravel wearing course,
preferably with a sand cushioning layer.
5.7.4 Conclusions
Bagomoyo
In Bagamoyo, the availability of good gravel material was limited. Initial tests showed that the red
quarzitic gravel was only marginal for G25. As a result, other options were explored. The idea of
using the red sandy soils or the red quartzitic gravel in Bagamoyo for subbase and base was
considered. By using these materials, the shoulders of the road would also need to be sealed, and
then a dry climate approach to the pavement design would be adopted instead of a moderate
climate. By sealing the shoulders this would reduce the seasonal moisture variation in the
pavement. However, sealing the shoulders of the road was not considered a practical, cost
effective solution for low volume rural roads. By sealing the shoulders, in effect you are just
widening the road.
Also, the use of lime and cement to stabilise the pavement layers was considered. This proved to
be uneconomical for low volume rural roads. It was decided to continue with the project without any
suitable gravel material for pavement layers in Bagamoyo and further testing would be carried out
on locally available materials once they are stockpiled. Following the tender of the project, further
investigations indicated more gravel sources available for the road in Bagamoyo. Tests are
currently being carried out on recently discovered materials. This new gravel material will not be
discussed in this report but will be discussed in the Construction Report for the project once full
analysis of the material is carried out.
Siha
In Siha a number of good gravel pits were found in the preliminary investigations. Three borrow pits
were found and between the three different materials, we found material suitable for G45, G60 and
G80 pavement layers. All results are available in Appendix H.
5.8 Pavement Materials
Selection should be based on availability of local material and effectiveness as an appropriate
solution. A guide to surfacing suitability is set out in Table 34 below.
Table 34 Sample Guide to Surfacing Suitability
Maintenance Reduction
Likely Cost Advantage
Small Contractor
Populated Areas
Local Materials
Marshy Areas
Steep Terrain
Low Strength
Pavement Type
Subgrades
Flat terrain
Suitability
Gravel Pavement + + - - - + + + -
Un-reinforced Concrete - + + + + - + + +
Reinforced Concrete - + + + + - + + +
Concrete Geocells - + + + + + + + +
Concrete Strips - + + + + + + + +
Concrete Paving Blocks - + + + + - + - +
Hand Packed Stone + + + - + + + + -
Single Otta Seal with a Sand Seal - + - + + - + - +
Double Otta Seal - + + + + - + - +
Double Sand Seal - + - + - - + - +
Slurry Seal - + - + + - + - -
Double Surface Dressing - + + + + - + - +
Bitumen Penetration Macadam - + + + + - + - +
Engineered Natural Surface + + - - - - + + -
Note: + indicates positive advantage; - indicates a probable disadvantage

5.8.1 Surfacing
The following surfacing materials were chosen for use on the demonstration sites. A brief
description of the surfacing and reason for use is given below.
Double Sand Seal
A double sand seal is a simple bituminous surface, suitable for use on low volume rural roads. It
shall be used in residential locations to limit dust pollution.
Slurry Seal
Slurry seal is a thin bituminous surfacing, constructed from a mixture of fine aggregate and bitumen
emulsion. It shall also be constructed in some residential areas to limit dust pollution.
Otta Seals
Otta Seal surfaces shall be used in areas which have higher traffic volumes and also in areas
where dust control is an issue.
Surface Dressings
The only surface dressing option chosen was a double surface dressing as shown in below. It
shall be used in areas where traffic levels may be above average or areas with a moderate
gradient.
Penetration Macadam
Penetration macadam shall be used in areas where there are steep gradients, sharp turns and/or
where dust pollution is an issue. A description and photograph of this option is shown in below.
Concrete Surfaces
All concrete construction shall be implemented in areas which have steep gradients, poor
subgrades, erosion issues or other problems under which a bituminous surface would not perform.
Un-reinforced slabs shall be used where there problems are mostly involving steep
gradients.
Lightly reinforced slabs shall be used in areas with steep gradients, however, they shall be
able tolerate slightly weaker subgrades than an un-reinforced slab.
Concrete geocells shall be used in areas with steep gradients on which a bituminous
surface cannot be placed. They shall also be used in areas affected by erosion issues.
Concrete strips shall be implemented in areas which have poor subgrades, steep gradient
or areas which suffer the effects of erosion.
Segmental Block Surfaces
Hand packed stone shall be used on areas of expansive soil or areas of soft ground, where a
flexible surface is required. Hand packed stone shall allow some movement of the surface, and
this is important when constructing on expansive soils. Concrete paving blocks shall be used in
areas with a steep gradient or where there are sharp bends.
5.8.2 Pavement Layers
The pavement layers generally consist of the base, subbase and sometimes a selected subgrade
layer. The following materials were considered for use on the project roads:
Natural Gravel
For major roads natural gravel can be used as subbase material where it provides a strong
foundation layer to resist vertical forces and being cohesion-less material, it inhibits capillary action
preventing water rising to the layers above. For this project, considering low volume rural roads,
natural gravel is considered appropriate for base and subbase.

Stabilised Gravel
Lime and cement stabilised gravels were dismissed as a viable pavement material. This was
because of high costs which were not justified for a rural road.
5.9 Demonstration Pavement Design
5.9.1 General
The TPMDM requires that all subgrade is brought up to a design strength of CBR minimum 15% by
constructing one or more improved subgrade layers. A subgrade class S3 requires a G7 improved
subgrade layer and a G15 improved subgrade layer to bring the subgrade up to a CBR of 15%. An
S7 subgrade requires a G15 improved subgrade layer to bring the subgrade up to a CBR of 15. An
S15 subgrade requires no improved subgrade layers.
After carrying out the materials investigation, some pavement designs required modification to suit
the materials which were available in the local areas. These modified designs are outlined below.
5.9.2 Bitumen Pavement Design
The bituminous pavement design was modified from the original as the TPMDM does not have
sufficient sample data for low volume rural roads with a traffic load <0.2 mesa, making it difficult to
achieve a pavement design. For these low volume rural roads in Tanzania, the majority of the ESA
comes from heavy vehicles which are often overloaded and as a result, it was decided to increase
the subbase requirement from G25 to G45 to accommodate the overloaded heavy vehicles.
Subsequently, the thickness was reduced from 150mm to 100mm. The amended design for a
bitumen surface is shown in Table 35.
Table 35 Amended Bituminous Pavement Design

Pavement Layers for a Bitumen Surface
Climate Zone Moderate
Traffic Class TLC 02
Design Traffic Loading ESA 0.2 million ESA
Subgrade Class S3 S7 S15
Max. Design Subgrade Strength (CBR) 6 14 30
Granular Pavement Layers
Bitumen Surface
G80 0 0 0
Base
G60 150 150 150
G45 100 100 100
Subbase
G25 0 0 0
G15 150 150 0
Improved Subgrade
G7 150 0 0
Fill G3 0 0 0
5.9.3 Gravel Road Pavement Design

The design for a gravel road remains the same as in the TPMDM, as no modifications are required.
Materials for gravel wearing course (GWC) shall comply with the requirements given in Table 36.
The given material requirements are valid for fully engineered gravel roads. The CBR
requirements can be reduced to 15% for minor gravel roads; however the given material standards
shall be aimed for wherever it is economically possible.39
39
1999
Table 36 Gravel Wearing Course Specification

Material Properties Requirements
Climate zones
Wet Moderate or Dry
CBR [%] at 95% of MDD (BS-Heavy min 25 after 4 days
Min 25 at OMC
Compaction) soaked
% passing 37.5 mm min 95
Shrinkage product, SP = LS x (%passing 0.425
120-400
mm)
Grading Coefficient GC 16-34
Field dry density, [% of MDD] (BS-Heavy
min 95
Compaction)
For minor roads, pavement and improved subgrade for minor gravel roads should be constructed in
accordance with Table 3740.This design shall be limited to roads with a maximum of 50 AADT.
Table 37 Pavement and Improved Subgrade for Minor Gravel Roads40

Pavement Layers for a Gravel Wearing Course
Max. Design Subgrade Strength (CBR) 6 14 30
Gravel Wearing Course 150 100 100
Improved Subgrade G7 150 0 0
It is important to note that, even though the design standards for gravel pavements in Table 37 are
as set out in the Tanzanian Pavement and Materials Design Manual, it is one of the aims of this
project to compare the different pavement options to the standard gravel pavement in Tanzania for
District Roads. The Districts rarely follow these standards and it is important that we compare
these pavements to what is actually done in Tanzania to have a meaningful whole life cost analysis
comparison. The standard gravel pavement treatment usually consists of a 100 -150mm layer of
gravel regardless of the subgrade and these treatments generally perform well.
5.9.4 Hand Packed Stone, Concrete Geocells and Concrete Strips
The design of the hand packed stones, concrete Geocells and concrete strips follows the
guidelines for the design of a major gravel road with an AADT of 20 100.
The final design for the hand packed stone, geocells and concrete strips is shown in Table 38.
40
1999
Table 38 Pavement Layers for Hand Packed Stone, Geocells and Concrete Strips
Pavement Layers for a Hand Packed Stone, Geocells and Concrete Strips
Traffic Class TLC 02
Design Traffic Loading ESA 0.2 million ESA
Low
strength
Max. Design Subgrade Strength (CBR) 2 6 14 30
Surfacing
Hand Packed Stone 200 200 200 200
Geocells 75/100 75/100 75/100 75/100
Concrete Strips 100 100 100 100
G80 0 0 0 0
Base
G60 0 0 0 0
G45 150 150 150 150
Subbase
G25 0 0 0 0
G15 100 100 100 0
Improved Subgrade
G7 150 150 0 0
5.9.5 Concrete Pavement Design

The TPMDM does not cover the design of concrete pavements. However, when using a concrete
pavement, most of the load is carried by the concrete slab and less by the foundation. Good
resistance against the effect of traffic loading and high tyre pressures, are typical features of
concrete pavements.41 In the case of a concrete pavement, the base layer can be removed
because of the added strength provided by the surface layer.
The design of the different concrete pavements in this project follows the basic design method set
out in the TPMDM, of bringing the subgrade bearing capacity up to a CBR of 15% by means of one
or more improved subgrade layers. The suggested designs for the concrete pavements are
considered appropriate for low volume rural roads because they are suitable for labour based
construction and have a relatively low whole life cost. The following designs can be used in
conjunction with the TPMDM to design low volume rural roads in Tanzania.
For a concrete surface on an S3 subgrade, the subbase was reduced to 100 mm but the layer was
increased to G60 quality. The final pavement design for un-reinforced concrete, lightly reinforced
concrete and concrete paving blocks on an S3 and S7 subgrade are shown in Table 39 and
Table 40 respectively.
The thickness of the concrete pavements will vary. The concrete pavements will be either 75 mm
or 100 mm and tested under similar conditions over a long period of time and conclusions can be
drawn on which thickness is more suitable for low volume rural roads.
41
1999
Table 39 Design for Concrete Pavement on S3 Subgrade

Pavement Layers
Surfacing Concrete Surface Paving Blocks
Thickness 75/100 65
Bedding Sand 0 15
G60 100 0
Subbase G45 0 150
G25 0 0
G15 150 150
Improved Subgrade
G7 150 150
Subgrade Class S3
Table 40 Design for Concrete Pavement on S7 Subgrade

Pavement Layers
Surfacing Concrete Surface Paving Blocks
Thickness 75/100 65
Bedding Sand 0 15
G60 0 0
Subbase G45 150 150
G25 0 0
G15 150 150
Improved Subgrade
G7 0 0
Subgrade Class S7
5.9.6 Weak Subgrades (Black Cotton Soil)

As stated in the previous pavement design section, the ideal solution for treatment of areas of black
cotton soil is removing it entirely. However, this is costly and uneconomical for a rural road. The
alternative option was excavating 600 mm of the material, replacing it with non-plastic fill, use the
excavated soil to increase the slope of the shoulders and reshape and re-compact the base and
surface every few years.
This method was considered to be unjustifiable on these roads. The modified design method
assumes an S3 subgrade class and provides surfacing such as hand packed stone, concrete strips
or geocells that can accommodate some movement in the subgrade and can be easily maintained.
5.10 Geometric Design
5.10.1 Final Geometric Design
A crossfall of 6% shall be used for earth and gravel roads. It was considered having a 3% camber
for the carriageway and 5% for the shoulders for a paved road, which would have been suitable but
concerns over a small contractors ability to do this meant that a crossfall of 4% would remain for
the carriageway and shoulder of a paved road.
A carriageway width of 3.5m, with a 1m gravel shoulder was originally proposed for the project
roads. However, following budget constraints, it was agreed by the Consultant, the District
Engineers, PMO-RALG and Technical Manager for AFCAP that the carriageway width would be
reduced and would not have to meet the specifications set out in the Tanzanian Pavement and
Materials Design Manual.
It was agreed that for the project in Bagamoyo, the carriageway width would be reduced to 3.0m
with a 1.0m gravel shoulder with passing bays at regular intervals.

It was agreed that for the project in Siha, the carriageway width would be reduced to 3.1m for the
first 3.0km of the road. The traffic along this road tends to reduce after km 2.5-3.0. The road width
will then remain as it stands presently and will not be widened. This solution was suggested by the
Technical Manager of AFCAP and agreed by all parties involved.
5.11 Conclusions
TPMDM does not adequately cover all pavement options however, this was already
known to be the case.
Modifications were made to the standard designs and these are deemed appropriate and
suited to the locations.
The availability of suitable local materials is an important consideration in the design

process
The material investigations in the two regions for this project cannot simply be applied to
other regions in Tanzania and a detailed materials investigation should be carried out
before any similar project
Lime/cement stabilisation of natural gravel and sealing the shoulders of the road are not
considered cost effective solutions for low volume rural roads
A single lane carriageway with passing bays at regular intervals is considered suitable for
low volume rural roads

6. STRIP MAPS
6.1 General
The data from the investigations was combined and put into a strip map provided in Appendix I and
used to assess which sections were suitable as trial sections. The strip map produced for this
project combines the different profiles from the GPS data with a drainage system for each of the
roads and provides the following information to the designer:
Vertical Gradients
Subgrade Type
Alignment Trial Pits
Subgrade Bearing Capacity
Road Condition Sections Based on Speed
Features and Observations including Drainage System
Demonstration Sections
Pavement Layers
Visually Assessed Poor Sections
Photographs
Once the above in formation was placed into the strip map the following factors were the main
factors used to indicate the poor sections along the road:
The gradient of the road

The in-situ subgrade
Visual Assessment
When all three factors were lined up in the strip map with a corresponding chainage it made it
much easier to select the final demonstration sections along the road.
The road in Siha is extremely steep and this is what determined the demonstration sections. On
the other hand, while the steep sections in Bagamoyo did influence the trial sections, the real
problem sections are the sections with the low strength, expansive plastic soils (black cotton soil).
These sections cannot be sealed due to their expansive properties and will be gravelled or
provided with an alternative, more flexible surfacing. The final factor in determining the
demonstration sections was a visual assessment. These sections were recorded and added into
the strip map section called Visually Assessed Poor Sections and indicated in orange.
6.2 Explanation of the Strip Map
This section explains the different information combined in the strip map.
6.2.1 Features and Observations
The drainage system was designed and put in the Features and Observations section of the strip
map. This indicates the flow of the water, positions of culverts, drifts, bridges, villages, rock
outcrops and other observations along the alignment of the road together with relevant
photographs. Photographs are shown at culvert and drift spots, notable landmarks as well as the
road in general.
6.2.2 Vertical Gradients
The strip map includes a graph of the vertical gradient along the road. The graph was produced
using the GPS data. Using the graph allows the reader to see the low and high points along the
road. Also, the gradient percentage is shown along with colour code to indicate the gradient from
flat to very steep. Table 41 gives a legend for the varying gradients along the road.

Table 41 Terrain Type as Defined By Gradient
Vertical Gradient
From To Colour Code Gradient Description
0% 3% Flat
3% 5% Slight
5% 10% Moderate
10% 15% Steep
15% 50% Very Steep
6.2.3 Road Condition (Speed)

The road was split into different homogenous sections based on speed. The different sections are
numbered in the strip map and correspond to their change.
6.2.4 Subgrade Type
The change in subgrade type along the roads is contained in the strip map. These subgrade types
are given a colour to make it easier for the reader to visualise the subgrade and the change in
subgrade. The subgrade types correspond to the laboratory tests analysed earlier in the report.
Table 42 and Table 43 give a legend of the different subgrade types in Siha and Bagamoyo
respectively.
Table 42 Subgrade Type in Siha
Subgrade Type
Brown Clayey SILT
Red Clay
Light Brown Clay
Table 43 Subgrade Type in Bagomoyo

Subgrade Type
Grey/Black Plastic Soil
Grey Plastic Soil
Light Grey Plastic Soil
Red Soil
Light Red Soil
6.2.5 Alignment Trial Pits

The strip map shows the location of where the alignment trial pits and indicates the different
sample sizes taken. Table 44 shows the different sample sizes taken for laboratory testing.
Table 44 Alignment Trial Pits
Alignment Trial Pits

Colour Code Sample Size
Small Sample
Medium Sample
Large Sample

Where a large sample included the following tests:
MDD/OMC
CBR at OMC
CBR 4 day soaked
Atterberg Limits
Grading
A medium sample included the following tests:
MDD/OMC
CBR 4 day soaked
Atterberg Limits
Grading
A small sample included the following tests:
Atterberg Limits
Grading
A large sample was taken for the sandy soils in Bagamoyo. A medium sample was taken for the
plastic soils, it was not considered necessary to test the CBR at OMC for these materials as they
would not be used for base and subbase materials. A small sample was taken to relate the
properties of different soils to either a medium sample or a large sample where CBR tests were
taken. At least one large or medium sample was taken for each different material type and small
sample was taken to try and relate other sections by means of grading and Atterberg limits.
6.2.6 Subgrade Bearing Capacity
The subgrade bearing capacity is indicated in the strip map. The different subgrade classes are as
defined in the Tanzanian Pavement and Materials Design Manual. A legend for the subgrade
bearing capacity is shown in Table 45. The subgrade bearing capacity determines the number of
improved subgrade layers and which pavement type should be used.
Table 45 Subgrade Bearing Capacity

Poor
S3
S7
S15
6.2.7 Demonstration Sections and Pavement Layers

The strip map also defines what the contractor should be doing at each section of the road. The
strip map indicates if the road is just being graded or indicates if a pavement option is to be used.
The strip has a change and photographs for each section so that it is easier to know exactly what
section the strip map is referring to. Each of the different demonstration sections is shown on the
strip map and the corresponding pavement layers for each pavement type.

6.3 Conclusions
In conclusion, the strip maps were very successful and were easily understood by tenderers and
contractors. The strip map was a low cost alternative to doing a detailed road survey and was
successfully used for tendering purposes.
The strip map was done entirely on Microsoft Excel 2003. The strip maps are to be used by the
designer to assist in the design of the road and also to be used by the Contractor after the design
has been inserted into the strip map. The strip map was easily understood by the contractors once
a brief explanation was given to them at the pre-tender meeting.
The location of drainage structures is clearly shown at the correct chainage, the direction of the
water flow, high points, low points and possible locations for the mitre drains. This allows the
reader to easily and comprehensively understand the drainage system for the roads. This
combined with the gradient; the location of the different pavements, the pavement structure, the
subgrade bearing capacity and selected photographs along all sections of the roads allows the
reader to implement a detailed EOD/SID suitable for low volume rural roads.
The strip map is to be printed in colour and in standard A3 size. Each kilometre of road is one A3
page. As a result, one drawback to the strip map is that it can be difficult to locate an A3, colour
printer in isolated districts. It is hoped that in the future the basic strip map format can be kept, but
possibly reduce the size from A3 to A4 and to have each page as half a kilometre. Also, introduce
hatching in black and white to replace the colour in the strip maps.

7. DEMONSTRATION PAVEMENT SECTIONS

7.1 General
The following section discusses how the different demonstration sections were selected and how
the different solutions were applied. Demonstration sections were selected mainly based on the
following three factors:
The gradient of the road

The in-situ subgrade
Visual Assessment
These three indicators, once carefully placed together in the strip map, allowed the Consultant to
select the demonstration sections along the road.
Once the demonstration sections were selected, deciding on where to place a different pavement
type involves a number of careful considerations. The main factors considered when selecting the
various demonstration sections included the following:
The cost of the pavement type/ available funding

Relative durability of options
Severity of defect
The availability of materials of a suitable quality
Dust pollution
Traffic volume
Each of the roads was divided into problem, standard and good sections for the purpose of
environmentally optimised design approach, as discussed in Chapter 2. Once the problematic
sections have been identified you can use Table 46 as an indicator, to assess whether each
pavement type is suitable for the problematic section.
Table 46 Pavement Types Assessed Against Key Markers
Maintanence Reduction
Likely Cost Advantage
Small Contractor
Populated Areas
Local Materials
Marshy Areas
Steep Terrain
Low Strength
Pavement Type
Subgrades
Flat terrain
Suitablility
Gravel Pavement + + - - - + + + -
Un-reinforced Concrete - + + + + - + + +
Reinforced Concrete - + + + + - + + +
Concrete Geocells - + + + + + + + +
Concrete Strips - + + + + + + + +
Concrete Paving Blocks - + + + + - + - +
Hand Packed Stone + + + - + + + + -
Single Otta Seal with a Sand Seal - + - + + - + - +
Double Otta Seal - + + + + - + - +
Double Sand Seal - + - + - - + - +
Slurry Seal - + - + + - + - -
Double Surface Dressing - + + + + - + - +
Bitumen Penetration Macadam - + + + + - + - +
Engineered Natural Surface + + - - - - + + -

Note: + indicates a positive advantage
- indicates a probable disadvantage
7.2 Demonstration Sites in Bagamoyo

The road in Bagamoyo was divided into the following sections according to the EOD philosophy:
1. Good Quality Lengths Approximately 56% of the road length
2. Standard Lengths Approximately 16% of the road length
3. Problematic Sections Approximately 28% of the road length
So the solution is to apply robust pavement structures to use the majority of the resources available
on the problematic sections, use some resources on the standard lengths and use minimal
resources on the good quality lengths. This method follows the EOD/SID philosophy. A summary
of the problematic sections are shown in Table 47.
Table 47 Problematic Sections in Bagomoyo

Problematic Sections
Length
Section Chainage (km) Problem Solution
(km)
Start End
Dust Pollution/ High Single Otta Seal with a
1 0.02 0.22 0.20
Traffic Volume Sand Seal
2 5.39 5.59 0.20 Marshy Area Hand Packed Stone
3 5.59 6.11 0.52 Erosion Channels Concrete Strips
Poor Subgrade/Deep
4 6.11 7.77 1.66 Erosion of the Concrete Geocells
Carriageway
8.14 8.34 0.20 Moderate Gradient Double Surface Dressing
8.34 8.84 0.50 Erosion Channels Concrete Geocells
Steep Gradient/ Erosion
7 10.17 10.86 0.69 Concrete Strips
Channels
8 11.31 11.51 0.20 Dust Pollution Double Sand Seal
9 16.11 16.89 0.78 Poor Subgrade Concrete Strips
10 18.61 19.12 0.51 Poor Subgrade Concrete Strips

20.24 20.48 0.24 Dust Pollution Slurry Seal
Total Length 5.70 28% of the Road
The standard sections in Bagamoyo are the lengths of the road that require grading, compaction,
introduction of drainage structures, plus they need a gravel wearing course on some areas. The
standard section in Bagomoyo are summarised in Table 48.

Table 48 Standard Sections in Bagomoyo

Standard Sections
Length
Section Chainage Problem Solution
(km)
Start End
1 2.74 3.57 0.83 Erosion Diversion Humps
Heavy Grading and 2no.
2 12.18 12.68 0.50 Soft Wet Area
Drifts
3 13.07 13.65 0.58 Soft Wet Area
Drift
Heavy Grading and
4 16.89 17.22 0.33 Soft Wet Area
Establish Drainage
5 19.12 19.42 0.30 Slippery Surface Gravel Wearing Course
6 19.42 20.03 0.61 Flood Plain
Drifts
The good sections along the Bagamoyo road are defined by the sandy soils or contain in-situ
gravel which performs reasonably well in the wet season. The road in Bagamoyo, located on an
alluvial plain, has a number of areas along the road with washed out sand on the road which
should allow basic access during the rains. These sections are outlined in Table 49 below.
Table 49 Good Sections in Bagomoyo

Good Sections
Section Chainage (km) Length (km) Solution
Start End
1 0 0.02 0.02 Heavy Grading and Establish Drainage
2 0.22 2.74 2.52 Heavy Grading and Establish Drainage
17.22 18.61 1.39 Heavy Grading and Establish Drainage
7.2.1 Demonstration Sites 1, 8 and 11 - Dust Pollution

Dust pollution is a concern in the dry season, especially in areas where there are villages and
people inhabiting the area. Dust is easily raised by passing traffic and can cause discomfort as
well as various health issues for the local people. It is possible to overcome this by sealing the
road surface through villages, reducing or eliminating the problem and hence significantly
increasing the quality of life of the people living there. There are three villages along the road in

Bagamoyo; these are Bago, Ludiga and Talawanda. A different bitumen pavement was selected
through each village shown in Figure 24.
Figure 24 Surfacing Options for Villages of Bago, Ludiga and Talawanda
Demonstration Sites 1, 8 and 11
Bago Village:
Single Otta Seal with Sand Seal
Ludiga Village:
Double Sand Seal
Talawanda Village:
Slurry Seal

7.2.2 Demonstration Site 2 Marshy Area

This section is the first section along the road that prohibits basic access during the rain season.
The area is flat and becomes very wet and slippery during the rains, as seen in Figure 25. This
section is only a short section and hence the hand packed stone was selected for here.
Experience from Laos PDR shows that the hand packed stone will allow basic access here but the
surface will be extremely rough, so the hand packed stone should only be used for short sections.
Hand packed stone is the cheapest of the pavement options, using local stone found along the
road. This local stone is gneiss and is naturally cubic and appears very suitable.
Figure 25 Surfacing Option for Demonstration Section 2
Demonstration Section 2
Demonstration Site 2:
Hand Packed Stone Surface has been
shown to work in these areas.
7.2.3 Demonstration Site 3 - Erosion Channels

Site 3 suffers from erosion channels; this combined with a moderate gradient needs an immediate
solution. Here, concrete strips were selected. Concrete strips are one of the cheapest options
available because they use a minimal amount of concrete used. Demonstration Site 3 is shown in
Figure 26 below.
Figure 26 Surfacing Option for Demonstration Site 3
Section 3:
Concrete strips shall be used here.

7.2.4 Demonstration Site 4 - Poor Subgrade/ Deep Erosion of the Carriageway

This site can be classified as the most problematic section along the road. It has a low strength,
expansive subgrade, has a maximum gradient of 9.1% and the carriageway has been significantly
eroded. In this situation, where the carriageway has been so deeply eroded, it is preferred to
change the alignment of the road rather than to build it up. Once the alignment is changed, a
concrete geocell pavement will be used. The concrete geocells should be flexible enough to
accommodate some movement in the subgrade. The geocells are among the most durable of the
different options and one of the least expensive options. Demonstration Site 4 is shown in
Figure 27.
Section 4:
Concrete geocells shall be provided in this
location.
7.2.5 Demonstration Site 5 - Moderate Gradient

Demonstration Section 5 has a moderate gradient and is difficult to pass this area in the wet
season. A double surface dressing was selected here. A double surface dressing is very
commonly used in Tanzania and other developing countries. Most contractors are familiar with the
double surface dressing; it is very durable and suitable for moderate to steep gradients. There is
also a number of suitable quarries within reasonable haulage distance in Lugoba which should be
able to provide suitable materials. Demonstration Site 5 is shown in Figure 28 on the following
page.

Section 5:
Double Surface Dressing shall be provided
in this location.
7.2.6 Demonstration Site 6 - Erosion of the Carriageway

In this section the carriageway a vehicles tyre has eroded the carriageway during the rain season.
Improved subgrades will be required here, and a suitable pavement such as concrete geocells will
be used here. Demonstration Site 6 is shown in Figure 29.
Section 6:
Concrete geocells shall be provided in this
location.

7.2.7 Demonstration Site 7 - Steep Gradient and Erosion Channels

This site is the steepest section in Bagamoyo with a maximum gradient of 11.6%. The alignment of
the road has been changed here over time and both paths suffer from erosion channels. Site 7 is
shown in Figure 30. This site has a good subgrade (sandy soils) and is passable with a 4 wheel-
drive during the rains, but not by a 2 wheel-drive vehicle. It will have concrete strips, which are one
of the cheapest options available and suitable for steep gradients.
7.2.8 Demonstration Site 9 - Poor Subgrade
This site can be classified as the second worst section in Bagamoyo. The surface becomes very
slippery during the rains and has a moderate gradient of roughly 7%. This site is impassable
during the rain season and the proposed solution is to use concrete strips. Concrete strips being
easily maintained and able to accommodate some movement in the subgrade. Demonstration
Site 9 is shown in Figure 30.
Figure 30 Surfacing Option for Demonstration Sites 7 and 9,
Section 7:
Has a steep gradient and erosion channels.
Provide Concrete Strips.
Section 9:
Has a poor subgrade. Concrete strips to be
provided to accommodate any movement in
the subgrade material

7.3 Demonstration Sites in Siha

The road in Siha was divided into the following sections according to the EOD philosophy:
1. Good Quality Lengths Approximately 12% of the road length
2. Standard Lengths Approximately 31% of the road length
3. Problematic Sections Approximately 57% of the road length
So the solution is to apply robust pavement structures to the problematic sections, apply a gravel
wearing course to the standard lengths and on the good quality lengths, scarify and compact the
existing gravel material. This method follows the EOD/SID philosophy. A summary of the
problematic sections are shown in Figure 31.
Figure 31 Problematic Sections in Siha

Problematic Sections
Length
(km)
Start End
Dust Pollution/ High Traffic
1 0 0.23 0.23 Double Otta Seal
Volume
Un-reinforced Concrete
2 1.35 1.48 0.13 Steep/ Sharp Bends
Slab
3 1.96 2.54 0.58 Steep Gradient Concrete Geocells
5 4.30 4.99 0.69 Steep Gradient/ Sharp Bends Concrete Paving Blocks
Moderate Gradient/ Sharp
6 4.99 5.95 0.96 Double Surface Dressing
Bends
7 6.42 6.64 0.22 Short Steep Section
Slab
Slab
Slab
10 7.7 8.3 0.60 Steep Gradient/ Sharp Bend Concrete Strips
Slab
Slab
Moderate Gradient/ Sharp Bituminous Penetration
14 11.23 11.71 0.48
Bends/ Dust Macadam
Lightly Reinforced
15 11.71 12.56 0.85 Steep Gradient/ Sharp Bends
Concrete Slabs
Total Length 7.76 57% of the road
The standard sections in Siha are the lengths of the road that are flat but remain very slippery
during the rains as a result of the clayey subgrade. Here gravelling is good option, they do not
have a steep gradient and gravelling the road will be economically viable on these sections. The
standard section in Siha are summarised in Figure 32.

Figure 32 Standard Sections in Siha

Standard Sections
Length
(km)
Start End
The good sections in Siha are the sections that have previously been gravelled. These sections
will be scarified and compacted. The good sections are summarised in Figure 33.
Figure 33 Good Sections in Siha

Good Sections
Length
Section Chainage (km) Solution
(km)
Start End
1 0.23 1.35 1.12 Scarification of Existing Gravel Material
2 1.48 1.96 0.48 Scarification of Existing Gravel Material
7.3.1 Demonstration Site 1 - Dust Pollution

The start point of the road in Siha generates the highest level of traffic along the road. A double
Otta seal was selected at this location. The double Otta seal is suitable for high stress areas and
high traffic volumes. The beginning of the road in Siha has a market either side of the road and on
market days, this short section generates high traffic. In construction of an Otta seal the aggregate
is compacted into the binder by rolling, but also through the effects of traffic. As a result, this high
traffic area was selected for Otta seals. Furthermore, the beginning of the road in Siha is the
closest point to suitable aggregate for an Otta seal and hence, this will reduce haulage distance. A
photograph of the demonstration section is shown in Figure 34.

Demonstration Section 1:
Dust pollution issues to be rectified through
application of a double otta seal.
7.3.2 Demonstration Sites 2, 7, 9, 11, 12 - Short Steep Sections

The road in Siha, as discussed previously, is extremely steep and has sharp bends on nearly every
section. When spraying bitumen on a steep slope you can encounter problems with the bitumen
flowing down the slope. As a result, a series of concrete options were selected in Siha.
Demonstration sections 2, 7, 9, 11, 12 have similar defects, they are short steep sections. For
each of these sections un-reinforced concrete was used. This intuitively seemed like the best
solution, as any contractor can easily pour a concrete pavement and the sections are short
sections requiring no more than a few hundred metres of concrete to make them passable. A
photograph of demonstration section 2 is shown in Figure 35.
Figure 35 Surfacing Options for Demonstration Sections 2, 7, 9, 11 and 12
Demonstration Sites 2, 7, 9, 11 and 12
Demonstration Sections 2, 7, 9, 11 and 12:

All these sections suffer similar issues with
gradient, therefore shall be treated with an un-
reinforced concrete slab

7.3.3 Demonstration Sites 3, 4, 13, 16 - Very Steep Gradients

Geocells were selected for the steepest sections along the road due to the ease of their
construction and the increased flex and durability given by the geocell mat. Photographs of these
sites are shown below in Figure 36.
Figure 36 Surfacing Option for Demonstration Sites 3, 4, 13 and 16
Demonstration Sites 3, 4, 13 and 16
Demonstration Sites 3, 4, 13 and 16:

All have a similar issue with very steep
gradients. This shall be resolved by means of
a geocell concrete pavement.
7.3.4 Demonstration Site 5 - Steep Gradients and Sharp Bends

Here, concrete paving blocks were selected. They are very suitable for labour based construction
and easily maintained. A photograph of demonstration site 5 is shown in Figure 37.
Figure 37 Demonstration Option for Demonstration Site 5
Demonstration Site 5
Demonstration Sites 5:
Has steep gradient and sharp bends. Shall
receive a concrete paving block surface.

7.3.5 Demonstration Site 6 - Moderate Gradient and Sharp Bends

A double surface dressing was selected here. Bitumen pavements were only selected for
moderate slopes along the road due to the problems with spraying bitumen on steep slopes, as
discussed earlier. A photograph of site 6 is shown in Figure 38.
Demonstration Sites 6:
Has moderate gradients and sharp bends.
Shall receive a double surface dressing.

Concrete strips were selected for this site. Concrete strips are suitable for steep sections and are
relatively cheaper compared to the other concrete options. A photograph of site 10 is shown in
Figure 39.

Has steep gradients and sharp bends. Shall
receive concrete strips to allow easier ascent of
hill sections.

7.3.7 Demonstration Site 14 - Moderate Gradient, Sharp Bends and Dust Pollution
A bituminous penetration macadam was selected for this section. The penetration macadam
involves applying a layer of coarse aggregate followed by a layer of bitumen allowing the bitumen
to flow between the voids of the coarse aggregate making it more suitable for moderate slopes.
The penetration macadam section also passes a school and the surface will help to reduce dust
pollution. Demonstration Site 14 is shown in Figure 40.

Has a moderate gradient, sharp bends and
dust pollution problems. It shall receive a
penetration macadam surface.

The lightly reinforced concrete slabs were selected for this section. Unlike the short steep sections
where the un-reinforced concrete was used, this section is a longer, higher stressed area. A
photograph of this section is shown in Figure 41.

Has steep gradients, sharp bends and dust
pollution problems. It shall receive a lightly
reinforced concrete slab due to the fact it is a
longer, higher stressed area than previous
sections.

7.4 Conclusions
In the case where a number of different pavement types are suitable for a particular section, the
cost is the main factor in deciding which pavement to use over another suitable pavement. The
project in Bagamoyo began in August 2010, however at the time of this report the project in Siha
had not been tendered and as a result it was decided not to publish the costs of the different
pavements. The cost of the different pavements will be introduced in the construction report.
Since the aim of this project is not only to provide all weather access, but also to demonstrate the
different pavement options available, the Consultant tried to incorporate as many different
pavement options as possible. Therefore the cheapest pavement option may not have been used
and a more expensive option may have been selected, even if it was only for a short section, which
is the case with the bitumen pavements going through the villages.

8. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE CAPABILITIES OF THE LGAS

8.1 General
The PMORALG in close collaboration with the various District Authorities have for some years
been trying to build up a maintenance capacity in the various Districts. This has been done
through training, introduction of a Spot Improvement approach for maintenance, introduction of
such an important data program as DROMAS (a tool for collection of data for preparation of
contracts and monitoring of works etc). They have also been providing funds for improvement of
office equipment, improved mapping and measuring system, (for example, through the use of GPS,
that if utilised in connection with DROMAS, can enable production of simple digital road-maps , or
potentially also to be used in connection with preparation of various road alignment profiles etc.).
Therefore it is concluded that they have been providing, theoretical, technical and financial support
for computerisation, as well as for improved office and transport facilities. It is fair to say that
PMORALG has invested a significantly and made considerable achievements in this field.
8.2 Bagomoyo District
Bagamoyo District is situated in the so-called coastal zone, and therefore subjected to the typical
climatic conditions which can be expected along the Tanzanian coast. Furthermore, it is also quite
typical from a road-building material-point of view with coral-sand, black cotton and red clayey or
silty soil.
As for the maintenance capacity, the support experienced so far has been encouraging and the
District Engineers office seems to be well motivated and reasonably well equipped to handle the
extra work expected in connection with the upcoming project. They have already completed a
significant bridge structure on the selected road from Bago to Talawanda (Chainage
km 20+480 km). This indicates a serious commitment both from the District Engineers Office, the
District Authorities, as well as PMORALG.
The District Engineers office has acquired a total Maintenance Allocation of 460 million Tanzanian
Shillings, inclusive of 66.8 million Tanzanian Shillings for spot improvements (mainly grading) along
the above mentioned road from Bago to Talawanda. The maintenance in Bagamoyo District has
for some years been executed by using maintenance contracts usually of 3 months duration. This
combined with the overall enthusiasm and professional support experienced can be considered a
good start. Further assignments and road-building techniques also can be accommodated and
dealt with accordingly.
8.3 Siha District
Siha District is situated on the Western side of Mount Kilimanjaro and the selected road from
Lawate to Kibongoto (13.48 Km), is therefore also located on the fertile Western slopes of the
mountain. While the Bagamoyo road is situated within the coastal zone, the Lawate road can be
described as an up-country road-project, although to some degree coloured by the special volcanic
conditions in Kilimanjaro Region. The Bagamoyo road serves an area with a potential for future
farming, whilst the Lawate road serves a heavily populated area and an already intensive and
effective farming community.
Regarding the expected maintenance capacity of this recently established district the District
Engineers personnel proved to be very helpful. The office appears to be staffed by capable
technicians and/or foremen.
This can partly be confirmed by simply studying the selected road from Lawate to Kibongoto, that
has been recently rehabilitated and supervised by the DEO in Siha. When it comes to the
alignment of the road and the layout of a simple and cost effective drainage system, which to some
extent can be re-used in this project, the overall impression indicates that local staff are
professional and capable personnel that can deliver when given the right working conditions.

8.4 Cost Concerns

Presently, the most serious concern is information that funds designated for maintenance
(gravelling) of the road from Lawate to Kibongoto (72 million Tanzanian Shillings), may have been
transferred for use on other roads. This is contradicting information previously supplied by the
DEO in Siha.
The overall Annual Maintenance Allocation is currently 300 million Tanzanian Shillings, which has
mostly been utilised by employing Contractors between class 5 to 6, for Spot Improvement works.
The timing of the Maintenance Contracts is usually decided during the contract negotiations, but
generally from two to three months contract-duration.

9. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
9.1 General
Local stakeholders are participating at every opportunity in the design and construction process in
order to keep people involved and provide work for the local population. Local people have been
very helpful in the materials sampling operations, by digging trial pits, and also in locating borrow
pits, providing local sources for natural gravel materials. It is envisaged that local labour will be
utilised further in the construction phase of the project. Below are the minutes of the meeting
between the District Engineer, the Field Team and the Stakeholders in Bagamoyo.
9.2 Stakeholder Meetings
The District Engineer from the Bagamoyo District Council, Mr. Felix Ngomano, sent letters to the
communities based along the road from Bago to Talawanda. The letters explained that the project
would like to meet with local villagers to explain about the future construction along the road, to get
useful information from them about the road and to answer any questions they had about our
presence there. Two meetings took place, one in Msinune and the other in Ludiga. A list of the
people present at the meeting in Msinune is shown in Table 50.
Table 50 Attendance List from Stakeholder Meeting in Msinune
Present
1 Mr. Felix Ngomano District Engineer, Bagamoyo DC

2 Mr. Nils Bakke Field Engineer/Trainer
3 Mr. Stephen Conlon Assistant Field Engineer
4 Mr. Hamisi K. Mkonga Village Executive Officer
5 Mr. Hassani Mkana Stakeholder
6 Mr. Ramadhani Mtskeni Stakeholder
7 Mr. Stahamiri Kisina Stakeholder
8 Mr. Shabahi Kivungwa Stakeholder
9 Mr. Mhindo Hariri Stakeholder
10 Mr. Iddi Rashidi Mtskeni Stakeholder
11 Mr. Rashid Ramadhani Stakeholder
12 Mr. Halfani Rajabu Stakeholder
13 Mr. Ally O Kissi Stakeholder
First of all, Mr. Ngomano explained to the villagers about the plans for construction on the road
from Bago to Talawanda. Mr. Bakke wanted to make it clear, that the road would not necessarily
look like other tarmac roads the entire distance along the alignment. Mr. Bakke wanted to clarify
that we were looking for practical solutions for the worst sections of the road and that the reason for
this is to benefit all of the District Engineers of Tanzania. He explained that we want to improve the
road but also to try and inspire other District Engineers to try these unconventional solutions. Mr.
Bakke explained that this road was selected because it typically represents the soil types of the
coastal zones of Tanzania and that we are looking for methods that best suit these surroundings.
Mr. Bakke continued by informing everyone that we may need assistance in finding good local
materials. He pointed out that we had already seen some natural gravel along some small sections
of the road but asked if anyone knew of other gravel sources or well graded sand that we would
appreciate them showing us. Mr. Bakke explained that it would be very difficult for us to locate
materials and that we would really appreciate their local knowledge. The villagers said that they

Roughton International Ltd Design Report
knew of a number of gravel sources in the area and that they would come with us and show us
after the meeting.
The villagers wondered why we had put spray paint markings on the trees along the road. Mr.
Conlon explained that we had been undertaking a survey and soil investigation along the road. He
explained that any markings in yellow indicates the chainage along the road, markings in silver are
where we had taken a soil sample, orange is where there is a change in the soil type along the
road and a blue marking with the letter H or S indicates a hard or soft subgrade.
The villagers also asked when we were planning to start construction. Mr. Bakke explained that we
didnt have an accurate start date but that realistically, construction would not begin until after the
rainy season. The villagers informed us that the rain season ends in late May.
Also, the villagers wanted to know what would happen to any houses or crops that were along the
road and if they will get any compensation. Mr. Bakke assured everyone that we would only take
as much land as is absolutely necessary.
The meeting then ended. The villagers were very happy and appreciative of the work that we are
doing and Mr. Halfani Rajabu brought us to see two local gravel sources that were located within
about 1.2 km of the road in Kongwa.
Following our meeting in Msinune, we proceeded to Ludiga for the second meeting. A list of the
people present at the meeting in Ludiga is shown below in Table 51.
Table 51 Attendance List from Stakeholder Meeting in Ludiga
Present
1 Mr. Felix Ngomano District Engineer, Bagamoyo DC

2 Mr. Nils Bakke Field Engineer/Trainer
3 Mr. Stephen Conlon Assistant Field Engineer
4 Mr. Abids William Enzimbali Village Executive Officer - Talawanda
5 Mr. Saidi Omari Zikatimu Talawanda Councillor
6 Mr. Saidi Dibwe Mnyakule Stakeholder
7 Mr. Venans Michael Nyanzu Stakeholder
8 Mr. Dume Tumai Majimoto Stakeholder
9 Mr. Ally Rajabu Lolesa Stakeholder
10 Mr. Abdala Kibindu Mafunye Stakeholder
11 Mr. Taimu Dunia Kibaya Stakeholder
12 Mr. Shabani Saidi Mahugira Stakeholder
13 Mr. Ramadhani Zikatimu Tipwa Stakeholder
14 Mr. Shabani Rehema Msavura Stakeholder
15 Mr. Ramadhani Kaweni Mwasa Stakeholder
16 Mr. Ally Shabani Mahugira Stakeholder
17 Mr. Elimu Semindu Gendaubwele Stakeholder
18 Mr. Ramadhani Mkasi Fumu Stakeholder
The meeting began with Mr. Ngomano explaining to the villagers about the plans to construct a
road from Bago to Talawanda. He mentioned all of the groups involved including Roughton
International, the Bagamoyo District Council, Mama Kayanda and PMO RALG. Mr. Ngomano

introduced Mr. Bakke and Mr. Conlon to the villagers to make it known to them who would be
working on the road.
Mr. Bakke explained that the road would not necessarily look like other tarmac roads for the entire
road length. Mr. Bakke wanted to clarify that we were looking for practical solutions for the worst
sections of the road and that the reason for this is to benefit all of the District Engineers of
Tanzania. He explained that we want to improve the road but also to try and inspire other District
Engineers to try these unconventional solutions. Mr. Bakke explained that this road was selected
because it typically represents the soil types of the coastal zones of Tanzania and that we are
looking for methods that best suit these surroundings.
Mr. Bakke informed the villagers that a part of the reason of having this meeting is to benefit from
their local knowledge of the area and that we would be grateful if they could help us to locate local
materials. Mr. Bakke wanted to highlight the fact that in the past, roads have been constructed
using imported materials and afterwards, it has become apparent that there are plenty of local
materials nearby. Furthermore, he explained that part of our project is to use local materials and if
we were to take materials from another source it would defeat the purpose of the project. Mr.
Bakke said we would like to cooperate closely with them over the course of the project; that they
were dependent on us to build a good road and that we were dependent on them to find local
materials. He pointed out that we had already seen some natural gravel along some small sections
of the road but asked if anyone knew of other gravel sources or well graded sand that we would
appreciate them showing us. Mr. Bakke explained that it would be very difficult for us to locate
materials and that we would really appreciate their local knowledge. Moreover, Mr. Bakke said that
we did not want to spoil too much land, so a gravel source with a large depth would be preferable.
The villagers said that they knew a gravel source near the area and suggested that we use the
sand from the local river. The meeting then ended, the villagers were very happy and appreciative
of the work that we are doing and one of the villagers then brought us to see a local gravel source
in Bwimbwi, located about 1.8 km from the road.

10. TENDER DOSSIER

10.1 Description
The Tender Documents for this project were compiled using the Public Procurement Regulatory
Authority (PPRA) Tanzania, Standard Bidding Documents Procurement of Smaller Works, dated
July 2007.
The Documents contain all of the information required for the contractor to tender an accurate and
realistic price for carrying out the works. Apart from providing general information, standard forms
and other data sheets, they provide important information on material quantities, specifications,
drawings (provided in Appendix J) and the various conditions of the contract.
10.2 Tender Documents
Outlined below is the general layout of the Tender Documentation for this project.
Section 1: Invitation for Bids
Section 2: Instruction to Bidders
Section 3: Bid Data Sheet
Section 4: General Conditions of Contract
Section 5: Special Conditions of Contract
Section 6: Specifications
General Specifications (Standard Specification for Roadworks, 2000)
Special Specifications
Section 7: Drawings
Road Plan and Sections
Pavement Structures
Cross Sections
Typical Cross Sections For Subgrade Class S3
Typical Cross Sections For Gravel Surfacing and Expansive Soils
Typical Cross Sections For Subgrade Class S7
Water Diversion Humps
Standard Pipe Culvert Design
Large Arch Culvert Design
Reinforced Concrete Drift Design
Concave/Convex Effect
Lined Drains, Scour Checks and Monitoring Beacons
Section 8: Bills of Quantities

Section 9: Forms - Bid
Section 10: Forms Security
10.3 Specifications
10.3.1 Overview
The Specification for this project was formed predominantly using the Tanzanian Standard
Specification for Road Works. Other sources used included SATCC Standard Specifications for
Road and Bridge Works and specifications from the SEACAP Project in South East Asia.

10.3.2 Methodology
General Specifications are sourced from the Tanzanian Standard Specification for Road Works
2000 wherever possible. However, other sources which were reviewed and utilised include the
SEACAP Project, which supplied the information for concrete pavements and segmental block
paving, such as hand packed stone blocks and concrete paving bricks. These are contained in the
Special Specifications.
These documents supplied a standard specification using the standard materials, construction
methods and method of measurement for each of the required processes. In reality, this project is
based on very low volume roads and the use of marginal materials is encouraged.
10.3.3 Tanzanian Standard Specification for Road Works
The Tanzanian Standard Specification for Road Works was compiled in 2000 under the Institutional
Cooperation between the Ministry of Works for Tanzania, the Central Materials Laboratory (CML)
and the Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA). Its aim is to establish technical
standards, guidelines and specifications for road and highway engineering.
Outlined below in Table 52 are the main sections from the Specification, where series 8000 was
introduced by the Consultant to introduce alternative pavements not covered in the Tanzanian
Standard Specification.
Table 52 Section Reference for Tanzanian Standard Specification for Road Works
Series Description
1000 General
2000 Drainage
3000 Earthworks and Pavement Layers of Gravel or Crushed Stone
4000 Bituminous Layers and Seals
5000 Ancillary Roadworks
8000 Concrete and Alternative Pavements
10.3.4 Additional Special Specifications

Concrete Geocells
Specifications for geocells were based on specifications provided by Hyson,a supplier of geocells
in South Africa.
Hand Packed Stone
Specifications for hand packed stone were taken from the work carried out in during the SEACAP
studies in South East Asia. These were adapted for use in Tanzania.
Concrete Paving Blocks
Specifications for concrete paving blocks were taken from the work carried out in during the
SEACAP studies in South East Asia. These were adapted for use in Tanzania.
Concrete Pavements
Specifications for un-reinforced and lightly reinforced concrete were taken from the work carried out
in during the SEACAP studies in South East Asia. These were adapted for use in Tanzania.
Concrete Strips
Specifications for the concrete strips were written by the Consultant specifically for this project.

11. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Only limited conclusions can be made at this early stage of the project. The roads will be
monitored for deterioration after construction and as a result of the medium to long term nature of
the project, only preliminary conclusions can be drawn now as to the suitability of the pavements.
The following are the preliminary conclusions for the project so far:
There is potential savings and long term benefits from adopting the Environmentally
Optimised Design approach to rural road design. This design philosophy offers a more
sustainable and economical solution to standard gravel road design.
During the selection process of the different pavement sections, if more than one option is
considered suitable for a particular section then other than the cost and the availability of
local materials, there is no specific, defined methodology for using a particular pavement.
Any benefits from the durability and long term performance of a particular pavement will be
assessed after the monitoring phase of the project.
It is important for skilled engineers to spend significant time in the field, particularly during
the rain season, to clearly identify the problematic areas along the road and assess where
basic access is being lost. This is an important requirement for the EOD philosophy.
It is important to incorporate local materials as much as possible in the design and
selection of the different pavement structures. This is critical for cost-effective and
sustainable solutions for low volume rural roads. This is an important requirement for the
EOD philosophy.
The strip map was a low cost alternative to a detailed topographic survey and efforts
should be made to incorporate this method for District Roads.
The costs of the bitumen pavements are expected to reduce once small contractors
become more familiar with them.
It is clear that small contractors need to be better informed about the different pavement
types and would benefit from training in understanding exactly what is required in the
tender documents.
It is important to learn the mistakes and triumphs from the project in Laos PDR and these
conclusions were considered throughout the design process of the roads in Bagamoyo and
Siha.
TPMDM did not adequately cover all pavement options
Modifications were made to the standard designs and these are deemed appropriate and
suited to the locations
The material investigations in the two regions for this project cannot simply be applied to
other regions in Tanzania and a detailed materials investigation should be carried out
before any similar project
Lime/cement stabilisation of natural gravel and sealing the shoulders of the road are not
generally considered cost effective solutions for low volume rural roads
A single lane carriageway with passing bays at regular intervals is considered suitable for
low volume rural road.

APPENDIX A Photographs at 500m Intervals along the Road
APPENDICES
Appendix A Photographs at 500 m Intervals along the Roads
Photographs for Siha District
Chainage 0 km Chainage 0.5 km
Chainage 1.0 km Chainage 1.5 km





Photographs for Bagomoyo District
Chainage 0 km Chainage 0.5 km






Chainage 20.0 km

APPENDIX B Pin Test Results
Appendix B Pin Test Results

Results of Pin Test in Bagamoyo
Section Chainage (km) Result of Pin Test
2 0.483 Hard
2 0.507 Hard
4 0.800 Soft
3 0.774 Hard
5 0.850 Hard
6 1.356 Soft
6 1.348 Soft
6 1.333 Hard
7 1.383 Hard
8 1.943 Soft
8 1.922 Hard
8 1.962 Hard
9 2.455 Soft
12 3.801 Soft
11 3.753 Soft
11 3.735 Hard
13 3.919 Soft
13 4.015 Soft
14 4.325 Hard
15 5.279 Soft
16 5.446 Soft
16 5.861 Soft
18 6.529 Soft
19 6.606 Soft
20 6.850 Soft
21 6.881 Soft
21 6.905 Hard
21 6.942 Soft
22 7.616 Soft
23 7.981 Hard
24 7.783 Soft
25 8.143 Soft
25 8.477 Soft
27 8.878 Soft
27 8.910 Soft
28 8.950 Soft
28 8.987 Soft
29 9.072 Soft

29 9.033 Soft
30 9.077 Soft
30 9.132 Soft
30 9.216 Soft
30 9.310 Soft
30 9.359 Soft
30 9.359 Soft
30 9.558 Hard
30 9.701 Soft
31 9.746 Soft
31 9.820 Hard
31 9.773 Hard
31 9.947 Hard
31 10.029 Hard
31 10.202 Hard
32 10.268 Soft
33 10.339 Hard
33 10.459 Hard
33 11.032 Hard
33 11.392 Hard
33 11.593 Soft
33 11.692 Soft
33 12.108 Hard
34 12.200 Soft
34 12.473 Soft
34 12.789 Soft
34 12.883 Soft
35 13.060 Soft
36 13.277 Soft
36 13.277 Hard
37 13.974 Hard
37 14.299 Soft
37 14.509 Hard
38 14.538 Soft
38 14.684 Soft
38 14.684 Hard
38 15.075 Hard
38 15.179 Soft
38 15.324 Hard
38 15.496 Hard
38 15.934 Soft

39 16.012 Soft
39 16.053 Soft
40 16.071 Soft
40 16.240 Soft
40 16.293 Soft
40 16.771 Soft
40 16.896 Soft
41 16.944 Hard
41 17.009 Hard
42 17.217 Hard
42 17.230 Hard
42 17.441 Soft
42 17.642 Soft
42 17.941 Soft
42 18.095 Soft
42 18.207 Soft
42 18.385 Hard
42 18.559 Hard
42 18.641 Soft
42 18.866 Soft
42 18.862 Soft
42 18.976 Soft
42 19.044 Soft
42 19.122 Soft
42 19.179 Soft
42 19.281 Soft
42 18.917 Soft
42 18.976 Soft
42 19.040 Soft
42 19.114 Soft
43 19.179 Soft
43 19.281 Soft
43 19.351 Soft
43 19.459 Soft
43 19.588 Soft
43 19.682 Soft
43 19.742 Soft
44 19.770 Soft
45 19.878 Hard
46 20.029 Soft
46 20.075 Soft

47 20.113 Soft
47 20.173 Soft
48 20.470 Soft
Results of Pin Test in Siha
1 0.009 Hard
1 0.021 Hard
1 0.043 Hard
1 0.050 Hard
1 0.065 Hard
1 0.110 Hard
1 0.137 Soft
1 0.164 Soft
2 0.184 Soft
2 1.067 Soft
2 1.357 Hard
3 1.377 Hard
3 1.415 Hard
3 1.535 Hard
4 1.545 Soft
4 1.700 Soft
4 1.832 Soft
4 1.967 Soft
5 1.992 Hard
5 2.281 Hard
6 2.469 Soft
5 2.449 Hard
6 2.847 Soft
6 3.526 Hard
6 3.693 Soft
6 4.485 Soft
6 5.701 Soft
6 6.655 Soft
6 7.545 Soft
6 8.612 Soft
6 9.645 Soft
6 10.658 Soft
6 10.900 Soft

6 11.731 Hard
6 12.431 Soft
7 12.450 Hard
7 12.570 Hard
7 12.560 Soft
7 12.620 Soft
7 12.645 Soft
7 12.670 Soft
7 12.695 Soft
7 12.720 Hard
7 12.745 Soft
7 12.770 Hard
7 12.795 Hard
7 12.820 Hard
7 12.845 Soft
7 12.870 Soft
7 12.920 Hard
7 12.945 Soft
7 12.970 Hard
7 12.995 Hard
7 13.020 Soft
7 13.045 Soft
8 13.115 Soft
8 13.150 Soft
8 13.189 Soft
8 13.254 Soft
8 13.308 Soft
8 13.373 Soft
8 13.399 Soft
8 13.466 Soft

APPENDIX C Jar Test Results
Appendix C Jar Test Results

Chainage Offset Depth Estimated Material Quantity (%) Profiling Parameters
Material Type
(km) (km) (mm) Gravel Sand Silt Clay Consistency Soil type Moisture Colour
Non
River-sand 18.800 0.020 2000 - 75 19 6 Silty SAND Slightly Moist Dark Olive
Cohesive
Gravel Source Non
15.56 1.62 200 90 10 - - Gravel Slightly Mosit Dark Olive
1 Cohesive
Gravel Source Non Dark Reddish
2.72 1.25 200 - - 18 3 Gravel Slightly Moist
2 Cohesive Brown
Results for Bagomoyo

Test Section Depth Estimated Material Quantity (%) Profiling Parameters
No. No. (mm) Gravel Sand Silt Clay Consistency Soil type Moisture Colour
1 1 200 - 50 39 11 Cohesive Sandy SILT Slightly Moist Dark Reddish Brown
2 3 150 - 9 71 20 Cohesive Sandy SILT Slightly Moist Dark Brown
3 3 200 - 15 65 20 Cohesive Silt Slightly Moist Dark Brown
4 4 250 - - 80 20 Cohesive Silt Slightly Moist Dark Reddish Brown
5 5 150 - 5 80 15 Cohesive Silt Slightly Moist Dark Reddish Orange
6 6 300 - 60 20 20 Cohesive Clayey silty SAND Slightly Moist Dark Reddish Orange
7 7 250 - 49 41 10 Cohesive Sandy silt Slightly Moist Dark Brown
10 10 100 - 40 46 14 Non Cohesive Sandy SILT Slightly Moist Light Reddish Orange
11 11 300 - 67 15 18 Cohesive Silty SAND Slightly Moist Dark Reddish Brown
12 12 350 50 24 13 13 Non Cohesive Sandy GRAVEL Slightly Moist Dark Red
13 13 100 80 20 - - Non Cohesive Sandy GRAVEL Slightly Moist Light Grey
14 14 200 - 10 81 9 Cohesive Silt Slightly Moist Dark Grey
15 14 350 40 30 30 - Non Cohesive Silty GRAVEL Slightly Moist Dark Grey
16 15 150 - 50 25 25 Cohesive Silty SAND Slightly Moist Dark Grey

Roughton International /WG DHsign Report
17 21 300 35 20 33 12 Non Cohesive Sandy silty GRAVEL Slightly Moist Dark Olive
18 22 100 - 5 72 23 Cohesive Clayey SILT Slightly Moist Dusky Green
19 24 50 - 3 72 25 Cohesive Clayey SILT Slightly Moist Dark Grey
22 30 100 - - 77 23 Cohesive Clayey SILT Slightly Moist Light Brown
23 31 100 - 10 20 70 Cohesive Clay Slightly Moist Dark Reddish Brown
25 33 100 - 75 18 7 Cohesive Silty SAND Slightly Moist Dark Reddish Brown
26 35 100 30 27 31 12 Cohesive Sandy GRAVEL Slightly Moist Dark Grey
27 36 100 - 50 49 11 Cohesive Sandy SILT Slightly Moist Dark Grey
28 38 50 - 5 92 3 Cohesive Clayey SILT Slightly Moist Dark Gray
30 39 50 50 32 12 6 Non Cohesive Sandy GRAVEL Slightly Moist Dark Olive
31 40 100 - - 20 80 Cohesive Silty CLAY Slightly Moist Dark Grey
32 41 100 - 5 14 81 Cohesive Silty CLAY Slightly Moist Dark Grey
33 42 50 - 10 15 75 Cohesive Silty CLAY Slightly Moist Dark Brown
34 42 50 - - 20 80 Cohesive Silty CLAY Slightly Moist Dark Olive
35 43 50 - 5 13 82 Cohesive Silty CLAY Slightly Moist Dark Grey

Results for Siha

Test Section Depth Estimated Material Quantity (%) Profiling parameters
No. No. (mm) Gravel Sand Silt Clay Consistency Soil type Moisture Colour
1 1 150 5 55 35 5 Cohesive SAND - SILT Slightly Moist Dusky Blue
2 2 200 - 40 42 18 Cohesive Sandy SILT Slightly Moist Dark Yellow
3 3 150 30 25 40 5 Non Cohesive Sandy gravelly SILT Slightly Moist Dark Grey
4 4 100 60 - 27 13 Non Cohesive Silty GRAVEL Slightly Moist Dusky Blue
5 5 150 - 56 24 20 Cohesive Clayey silty SAND Slightly Moist Dusky Red
6 6 100 - 9 82 9 Cohesive Silt Slightly Moist Dark Red
7 6 150 - 40 52 8 Cohesive Sandy SILT Slightly Moist Dark Red
8 6 100 - 2 90 8 Cohesive Silt Slightly Moist Dusky Red
9 7 100 - 68 21 11 Cohesive Silty SAND Slightly Moist Dusky Blue
10 7 150 - 20 73 7 Cohesive Silt Slightly Moist Dusky Red
11 8 100 - 80 16 4 Cohesive Silty SAND Slightly Moist Reddish Brown

APPENDIX D Material Investigations (Alignment Material)
Appendix D Materials Investigation (Alignment Materials)

Alignment Material Types with their respective chainage - Bagamoyo
Start Chainage (km) End Chainage (km) Material Alignment No.
0.000 0.479 4
0.479 0.512 2
0.512 0.779 4
0.779 0.841 2
0.841 1.333 4
1.333 1.383 3
1.383 1.915 4
1.915 1.966 3
1.966 2.998 4
2.998 3.256 4
3.256 3.801 4
3.801 3.885 3
3.885 4.015 3
4.015 5.272 3
5.272 5.333 3
5.333 5.981 1
5.981 6.121 2
6.121 6.539 1
6.539 6.669 1
6.669 6.869 1
6.869 6.946 1
6.946 7.768 1
7.768 7.896 3
7.896 8.132 5
8.132 8.563 2
8.563 8.838 2
8.838 8.905 3
8.905 9.029 3
9.029 9.069 2
9.069 9.735 3
9.735 10.263 5
10.263 10.315 5
10.315 12.172 5
12.172 12.679 2
12.679 12.883 3
12.883 13.060 3
13.060 13.645 2
13.645 14.518 3
14.518 15.235 5


15.235 16.006 3
16.006 16.053 3
16.053 16.912 1
16.912 17.211 2
17.211 18.602 3
18.602 19.114 1
19.114 19.739 2
19.739 19.778 3
19.778 20.022 2
20.022 20.087 1
20.087 20.205 1
20.205 20.480 2

Bagamoyo Alignment Material Type 1 Grey/Black Plastic Soil

Chainage (km) 6.320 7.354 5.576 16.698 18.788
Sample No. CL 1 CL 1A CL 1B CL 1C CL 1D
Sieve size (mm) % Passing
75
63
50
37.5
20
10 100
5 98
2 89 100 100
1.18 85 100 99 99 100
0.600 80 99 96 99 99
0.425 78 98 93 98 98
0.212 73 93 81 98 95
0.150 71 87 69 98 92
0.075 69 76 55 97 84
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%) 61 34 40 45 41
Plastic Limit (%) 25 17 17 24 16
Plasticity Index (%) 36 17 23 21 25
Linear Shrinkage (%) 19 8 11 14 14
GM 0.64 0.26 0.52 0.05 0.18
MDD/OMC
MDD (Kg/m) 1686 - - 1729 -
OMC (%) 15.6 - - 21.1 -
CBR (%) 4 day soaked
93% heavy MDD 2 - - 2 -
95% heavy MDD 3 - - 3 -
98% heavy MDD 3 - - 4 -
100% heavy MDD 4 - - 5 -
Swell (%)
Swell (%) 0.41 - - 0.37 -

Bagamoyo Alignment Material Type 2 - Grey Plastic Soil

Chainage (km) 12.622 8.480 9.066 20.306
Sample No. CL 2 CL 2A CL 2B CL Tal
75
63
50
37.5
20
10 100
5 100 94 100
2 99 80 99
1.18 99 79 95
0.600 98 78 100 86
0.425 97 77 99 81
0.212 96 76 98 67
0.150 95 75 97 62
0.075 92 68 93 56
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%) 32 44 39 33
Plastic Limit (%) 18 23 19 17
Plasticity Index (%) 14 21 20 16
Linear Shrinkage (%) 8 12 11 8
GM 0.12 0.75 0.08 0.64
MDD/OMC
MDD (Kg/m) 1780 - - 1878
OMC (%) 12.9 - - 12.6
93% heavy MDD 4 - - 3
95% heavy MDD 6 - - 4
98% heavy MDD 7 - - 6
100% heavy MDD 9 - - 7
Swell (%)
Swell (%) 0.25 - - 0.07

Bagamoyo Alignment Material Type 3 Light Grey Plastic Soil

Chainage (km) 14.476 4.439 12.860
Sample No. CL 3 CL 3A CL 2C
75
63
50
37.5
20 100
10 99 100
5 89 100 96
2 77 94 76
1.18 76 81 70
0.600 75 62 69
0.425 74 55 69
0.212 73 41 68
0.150 72 35 67
0.075 66 27 66
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%) 38 31 46
Plastic Limit (%) 23 16 25
Plasticity Index (%) 15 15 21
Linear Shrinkage (%) 8 8 11
GM 0.83 1.24 0.89
MDD/OMC
MDD (Kg/m) 1912 1961 -
OMC (%) 11.7 7.8 -
93% heavy MDD 4 5 -
95% heavy MDD 7 12 -
98% heavy MDD 9 18 -
100% heavy MDD 12 20 -
Swell (%)
Swell (%) 0.37 0.09 -

Bagamoyo Alignment Material Type 4 Red Soil

Chainage (km) 2.942 1.075 0.221
Sample No. CL 4 CL 4A CL 4B
75
63
50
37.5
20
10
5
2 100 100 100
1.18 97 98 96
0.600 75 78 73
0.425 59 62 60
0.212 33 35 36
0.150 26 28 33
0.075 19 20 27
Atterberg Limits
GM 1.22 1.18 1.13
MDD/OMC
MDD (Kg/m) 2043 - -
OMC (%) 6.8 - -
CBR (%) at OMC
95% heavy MDD 30 - -
100% heavy MDD 80 - -
93% heavy MDD 3 - -
95% heavy MDD 7 - -
100% heavy MDD 19 - -
Swell (%)
Swell (%) 0.05 - -

Bagamoyo Alignment Material Type 5 Light Red Soil

Chainage (km) 15.174 10.362 11.584
Sample No. CL 5 CL 5A CL 5B
75
63
50
37.5
20
10
5
2 100
1.18 100 97 100
0.600 95 91 94
0.425 89 87 87
0.212 62 71 68
0.150 45 48 52
0.075 31 27 30
Atterberg Limits
GM 0.8 0.86 0.83
MDD/OMC
MDD (Kg/m) 1970
OMC (%) 7.5
CBR (%) at OMC
95% heavy MDD 12
98% heavy MDD 45
100% heavy MDD 53
93% heavy MDD 9
95% heavy MDD 12
98% heavy MDD 16
100% heavy MDD 24
Swell (%)
Swell (%) 0.03

Alignment Material Types with their respective chainage Siha

0 0.17 1
0.17 1.36 1
1.36 1.54 1
1.54 1.98 1
1.98 2.47 1
2.47 12.44 2
12.44 13.11 3
13.11 13.48 2

Siha Material Alignment Type 1 - Brown Clayey SILT

Chainage (km) 0.037 2.393 0.97
Sample No. MAR CL 1A CL 1
75 100 100 100
63 100 100 100
37.5 97 100 100
20 92 99 97
5 75 91 90
2 68 86 85
0.425 55 82 80
0.075 36 79 71
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%) 30.3 52.4 38.3
Plastic Limit (%) 22.2 28.6 23.7
GM 1.0 1.0 1.0
MDD/OMC
MDD (Kg/m3) - - 1708
Field Moisture (%) - - 9.8
OMC (%) - - 16.7
CBR (%) at OMC
90% heavy MDD - - -
95% heavy MDD - - -
98% heavy MDD - - -
100% heavy MDD - - -
CBR (%) 4 days soak Swell (%)
90% heavy MDD - - 1 2.69
93% heavy MDD - - 4 -
95% heavy MDD - - 7 1.94
98% heavy MDD - - 12 -
100% heavy MDD - - 16 1.9

Siha Alignment Material Type 2 Red Clay

Chainage (km) 4.259 10.490 13.344 7.494
Sample No. CL 2A CL 2B CL 2C CL 2
75 100 100 100 100
63 100 100 100 100
37.5 100 100 100 100
20 100 100 100 100
5 100 98 100 100
2 99 98 99 100
0.425 98 97 97 100
0.075 96 94 95 99
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%) 51.6 60.4 53 64.4
Plastic Limit (%) 29.2 43.9 36 41.5
Plasticity Index (%) 22 16 17 23
Linear Shrinkage (%) 14 12 10 15
GM 0 0 0 0
MDD/OMC
MDD (Kg/m3) - - - 1351
Field Moisture (%) - - - 35.1
OMC (%) - - - 28.7
CBR (%) at OMC
95% heavy MDD - - - -
98% heavy MDD - - - -
100% heavy MDD - - - -
90% heavy MDD - - - 1 3.33
93% heavy MDD - - - 3 -
95% heavy MDD - - - 4 2.27
98% heavy MDD - - - 5 -
100% heavy MDD - - - 5 1.58

Siha Alignment Material Type 3 Light Brown Clay

Chainage (km) 12.61
Sample No. CL 3
75 100
63 100
37.5 97
20 92
5 86
2 83
0.425 79
0.075 73
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%) 52.7
Plastic Limit (%) 32.3
Plasticity Index (%) 20
Linear Shrinkage (%) 14
GM 1.0
MDD/OMC
MDD (Kg/m3) 1647
Field Moisture (%) 15.3
OMC (%) 23.4
CBR (%) at OMC
95% heavy MDD -
98% heavy MDD -
100% heavy MDD -
90% heavy MDD 1 2.35
93% heavy MDD 4 -
98% heavy MDD 7 -
100% heavy MDD 8 2.98

APPENDIX E Traffic Calculations
Appendix E Traffic Calculations

Traffic Flow Forecasts for Bago to Talawanda in both directions
Pwani Region, Bagamoyo District - Bago to Talawanda
Pickup /
Vehicle Type Tractor / Bus / 2-Axle
Minibus / 3-Axle Truck Total
(Tanzania Classification) Utility Truck Truck
4WD
Estimated No.of Vehicles per day in Both Directions
2009 Design 4 2 2 0 8
2010 Constr. 6 50% 3 50% 3 50% 0 50% 12
2011 Year 1 12 200% 6 200% 6 200% 1 200% 25
2012 Year 2 13 10% 7 10% 7 10% 1 10% 28
2013 Year 3 15 10% 7 10% 7 10% 1 10% 30
2014 Year 4 16 10% 8 10% 8 10% 1 10% 33
2015 Year 5 18 10% 9 10% 9 10% 1 10% 37
2016 Year 6 19 10% 10 10% 10 10% 2 10% 40
2017 Year 7 21 10% 11 10% 11 10% 2 10% 44
2018 Year 8 23 10% 12 10% 12 10% 2 10% 49
2019 Year 9 26 10% 13 10% 13 10% 2 10% 54
2020 Year 10 28 10% 14 10% 14 10% 2 10% 59
Estimated No.of Vehicles per Annum in Both Directions
2009 Design 1,460 730 730 0 2,920
2010 Constr. 2,190 1,095 1,095 0 4,380
2011 Year 1 4,380 2,190 2,190 365 9,125
2012 Year 2 4,818 2,409 2,409 402 10,038
2013 Year 3 5,300 2,650 2,650 442 11,041
2014 Year 4 5,830 2,915 2,915 486 12,145
2015 Year 5 6,413 3,206 3,206 534 13,360
2016 Year 6 7,054 3,527 3,527 588 14,696
2017 Year 7 7,759 3,880 3,880 647 16,165
2018 Year 8 8,535 4,268 4,268 711 17,782
2019 Year 9 9,389 4,694 4,694 782 19,560
2020 Year 10 10,328 5,164 5,164 861 21,516
Design Traffic 73,456 36,728 36,728 5,817 152,729
Scenario 1 - Pessimistic 364 161 29,071 20,676
0.050 x 10
30% Total ESA =
Scenario 2 - Realistic 1,214 537 96,902 68,921
0.168 x 10
Total ESA =
Scenario 3 - Optimistic 3,642 1,612 290,707 206,762
0.503 x 10
300% Total ESA =

ESA Calculations for Bago to Talawanda

ESA Calculations - Bago to Talawanda
Pick-ups/Minibus/4WD Axle Load (103 kg) Equivalence Factor No. vehicles 106 ESA
50% Full Front 1.5 0.00 36728 0.000018
Rear 2.5 0.00 36728 0.000179
30% Empty Front 1 0.00 22037 0.000002
Rear 1.5 0.00 22037 0.000011
20% Overload Front 2.5 0.00 14691.2 0.000072
Rear 3.5 0.02 14691.2 0.000326
Total ESA for Pick-ups/Minibus/4WD 0.000607
Tractor/Utility Truck Axle Load (103 kg) Equivalence Factor No. vehicles 106 ESA
50% Full Front 2 0.00 18364 0.000033
Rear 3 0.01 18364 0.000203
30% Empty Front 3 0.01 5509 0.000061
Rear 3 0.01 5509 0.000061
20% Overload Front 3 0.01 1102 0.000012
Rear 5 0.11 1102 0.000122
Total ESA for Tractor/Utility Truck 0.000492
Bus/2-Axle Trucks Axle Load (103 kg) Equivalence Factor No. vehicles 106 ESA
50% Full Front 3 0.01 18364 0.000203
Rear 6 0.25 18364 0.004603
30% Empty Front 2 0.00 11018 0.000020
Rear 3 0.01 11018 0.000122
20% Overload Front 6 0.25 7346 0.001841
Rear 12 5.67 7346 0.041662
Total ESA for Bus/2-Axle Trucks 0.048451
3-Axle Trucks Axle Load (103 kg) Equivalence Factor No. vehicles 106 ESA
50% Full Front 5 0.11 2909 0.000321
Middle 10 2.50 2909 0.007262
Rear 10 2.50 2909 0.007262
30% Empty Front 3 0.01 1745 0.000019
Middle 5 0.11 1745 0.000193
Rear 5 0.11 1745 0.000193
20% Overload Front 6 0.25 1163 0.000292
Middle 13 8.13 1163 0.009460
Rear 13 8.13 1163 0.009460
Total ESA for 3-Axle 0.034460
106 ESA
Equivalent Standard Axles based on the Total Number of Heavy Vehicles (not
0.084010
considering a single lane carraigeway)
Design Traffic Loading is Two times the Total Number of Heavy Vehicles in Both
Directions 0.168020739

Traffic Flow Forecasts for Lawate to Kibongoto in both directions

Kilimanjaro Region, Siha District - Lawate to Kibongoto
Pickup /
Vehicle Type Tractor / Bus / 2-Axle
Minibus / 3-Axle Truck Total
(Tanzania Classification) Utility Truck Truck
4WD
Estimated No.of Vehicles per day in Both Directions
2009 Design 20 4 2 0 26
2010 Constr. 30 50% 6 50% 3 50% 0 50% 39
2011 Year 1 60 200% 12 200% 6 200% 1 200% 79
2012 Year 2 66 10% 13 10% 7 10% 1 10% 87
2013 Year 3 73 10% 15 10% 7 10% 1 10% 96
2014 Year 4 80 10% 16 10% 8 10% 1 10% 105
2015 Year 5 88 10% 18 10% 9 10% 1 10% 116
2016 Year 6 97 10% 19 10% 10 10% 2 10% 127
2017 Year 7 106 10% 21 10% 11 10% 2 10% 140
2018 Year 8 117 10% 23 10% 12 10% 2 10% 154
2019 Year 9 129 10% 26 10% 13 10% 2 10% 169
2020 Year 10 141 10% 28 10% 14 10% 2 10% 186
Estimated No.of Vehicles per Annum in Both Directions
2009 Design 7,300 1,460 730 0 9,490
2010 Constr. 10,950 2,190 1,095 0 14,235
2011 Year 1 21,900 4,380 2,190 365 28,835
2012 Year 2 24,090 4,818 2,409 402 31,719
2013 Year 3 26,499 5,300 2,650 442 34,890
2014 Year 4 29,149 5,830 2,915 486 38,379
2015 Year 5 32,064 6,413 3,206 534 42,217
2016 Year 6 35,270 7,054 3,527 588 46,439
2017 Year 7 38,797 7,759 3,880 647 51,083
2018 Year 8 42,677 8,535 4,268 711 56,191
2019 Year 9 46,945 9,389 4,694 782 61,810
2020 Year 10 51,639 10,328 5,164 861 67,991
Design Traffic 367,280 73,456 36,728 5,817 483,281
Scenario 1 - Pessimistic 1,821 230 29,071 20,676
0.052 x 10
30% Total ESA =
Scenario 2 - Realistic 6,069 767 96,902 68,921
0.173 x 10
Total ESA =
Scenario 3 - Optimistic 18,208 2,300 290,707 206,762
0.518 x 10
300% Total ESA =

ESA Calculations for Lawate to Kibongoto

ESA Calculations - Lawate to Kibongoto
Pick-ups/Minibus/4WD Axle Load (103 kg) Equivalence Factor No. vehicles 106 ESA
50% Full Front 1.5 0.00 183640 0.000090
Rear 2.5 0.00 183640 0.000896
30% Empty Front 1 0.00 110184 0.000009
Rear 1.5 0.00 110184 0.000054
20% Overload Front 2.5 0.00 73456 0.000358
Rear 3.5 0.02 73456 0.001628
Total ESA for Pick-ups/Minibus/4WD 0.003035
Tractor/Utility Truck Axle Load (103 kg) Equivalence Factor No. vehicles 106 ESA
50% Full Front 2 0.00 36733 0.000066
Rear 2.5 0.00 36733 0.000179
30% Empty Front 1.5 0.00 11020 0.000005
Rear 2 0.00 11020 0.000020
20% Overload Front 3 0.01 2204 0.000024
Rear 4 0.04 2204 0.000089
Total ESA for Tractor/Utility Truck 0.000383
Bus/2-Axle Trucks Axle Load (103 kg) Equivalence Factor No. vehicles 106 ESA
50% Full Front 3 0.01 18364 0.000203
Rear 6 0.25 18364 0.004603
30% Empty Front 2 0.00 11018 0.000020
Rear 3 0.01 11018 0.000122
20% Overload Front 6 0.25 7346 0.001841
Rear 12 5.67 7346 0.041662
Total ESA for Bus/2-Axle Trucks 0.048451
3-Axle Trucks Axle Load (103 kg) Equivalence Factor No. vehicles 106 ESA
50% Full Front 5 0.11 2909 0.000321
Middle 10 2.50 2909 0.007262
Rear 10 2.50 2909 0.007262
30% Empty Front 3 0.01 1745 0.000019
Middle 5 0.11 1745 0.000193
Rear 5 0.11 1745 0.000193
20% Overload Front 6 0.25 1163 0.000292
Middle 13 8.13 1163 0.009460
Rear 13 8.13 1163 0.009460
Total ESA for 3-Axle Trucks based on traffic approaching Jui Junction 0.034460
106 ESA
Equivalent Standard Axles based on the Total Number of Heavy Vehicles (not
0.08633
considering a single lane carraigeway)
Design Traffic Loading is Two times the Total Number of Heavy Vehicles in Both
Directions 0.172658635

APPENDIX F Condition Assessment
Appendix F Condition Assessment

Siha Graphs
Height vs. Chainage
Siha 1
1,700
Siha 2
Design
1,600
1,500
Height (m)
1,400
1,300
1,200
1,100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Chainage (km)
Gradient vs. Chainage

30% Siha 1
Siha 2
25%
20%
Gradient (%)
15%
10%
5%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Chainage (km)

Height vs. Chainage
Flat
1,700
Slight
Moderate
1,600 Steep
Very Steep
1,500
Height (m)
1,400
1,300
1,200
1,100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Chainage (km)
Speed vs. Chainage
Siha 1
50
Siha 2
45
40
35
Speed (km/h)
30
25
20
15
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Chainage (km)

CuSum of the Speed vs. Chainage
Siha 1
1200
Siha 2
1000
800
CuSum Speed (km/h)
600
400
200
-200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Chainage (km)

Road Alignment
9649600
9649400
9649200 Siha Up
9649000 Siha Down
9648800 Km Markers
9648600
9648400
9648200
9648000
9647800 End
9647600
9647400
9647200
9647000
9646800
9646600
9646400
Y Value
9646200
9646000
9645800
9645600
9645400
9645200
9645000
9644800
9644600
9644400
9644200
9644000
9643800
9643600
9643400
9643200
9643000
9642800
288400
288600
288800
289000
289200
289400
289600
289800
290000
290200
290400
290600
290800
291000
291200
291400
291600
291800
292000
292200
292400
292600
292800
293000
293200
293400
293600
X Value

Bagamoyo Graphs
Height vs. Chainage
Baga 1
260
Baga 2
Design
240
220
200
Height (m)
180
160
140
120
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Chainage (km)
Gradient vs. Chainage

30% Baga 1
Baga 2
25%
20%
Gradient (%)
15%
10%
5%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Chainage (km)

Height vs. Chainage
Flat
260
Slight
Moderate
240 Steep
Very Steep
220
200
Height (m)
180
160
140
120
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Chainage (km)
Speed vs. Chainage
Baga 1
60
Baga 2
50
40
Speed (km/h)
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Chainage (km)

CuSum of the Speed vs. Chainage

Baga 1
600
Baga 2
400
200
CuSum Speed (km/h)
-200
-400
-600
-800
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Chainage (km)

Road Alignment
9296000 Baga 1
Baga 2
9295000
9294000
9293000
9292000
9291000
9290000
Height (m)
9289000
9288000
9287000
9286000
9285000
9284000
9283000
End
9282000
9281000
440000
441000
442000
443000
444000
445000
446000
447000
448000
449000
450000
451000
452000
453000
Chainage (km)

APPENDIX G Drainage Schedule
Appendix G Drainage Structure Schedule

Schedule of Drainage Structures - Bagamoyo
Type of Width of Watercourse Chainage

Diameter (mm) Total Span of Drifts (m)
Structure for Drifts (m) (km)
Drift - 6 12 0.100
Drift - 6 12 0.070
Existing Culvert 3 x 600 - - 0.310
Existing Drift - - - 0.610
Culvert 600 - - 1.350
Exisitng Bridge - - - 1.420
Culvert 600 - - 1.610
Drift - - - 1.900
Culvert 600 - - 2.330
Culvert 600 - - 3.000
Culvert 600 - - 3.200
Culvert 600 - - 3.300
Culvert 600 - - 3.600
Culvert 600 - - 4.220
Culvert 600 - - 4.740
Culvert 600 - - 5.000
Culvert 600 - - 5.980
Existing Culvert 600 - - 6.060
Culvert 600 - - 6.850
Culvert 600 - - 7.090
Culvert 600 - - 7.300
Culvert 600 - - 7.380
Culvert 600 - - 7.640
Culvert 600 - - 8.030
Culvert 600 - - 8.380
Culvert 600 - - 9.080
Culvert 600 - - 9.250
Culvert 600 - - 9.630
Culvert 600 - - 10.210
Culvert 600 - - 10.580
Culvert 600 - - 11.090
Culvert 600 - - 11.640
Culvert 600 - - 11.900
Culvert 600 - - 12.080
Culvert 600 - - 12.280
Drift - 5 11 12.560
Existing Bridge - - - 12.690
Culvert 600 - - 12.880
Culvert 600 - - 12.990
Culvert 600 - - 13.170

Schedule of Drainage Structures - Bagamoyo
Type of Width of Watercourse Chainage

Diameter (mm) Total Span of Drifts (m)
Structure for Drifts (m) (km)
Drift - 6 12 0+490
Drift - 6 12 0+810
Drift - 6 12 1+350
Culvert 600 - - 1+950
Culvert 600 - - 2+020
Culvert 600 - - 2+230
Culvert 600 - - 2+350
Culvert 600 - - 2+700
Drift - 6 12 3+900
Culvert 600 - - 4+080
Drift - 6 12 5+530
Drift - 20 26 5+610
Drift - 8 14 5+920
Culvert 600 - - 7+200
Old Arch Bridge - - - 7+310
Culvert 600 - - 7+560
Culvert 600 - - 7+800
Culvert 600 - - 8+060
Culvert 600 - - 8+320
Drift - 6 12 8+690
Drift - 8 14 8+740
Drift - 6 12 8+770
Drift - 6 12 9+090
Drift - 6 12 9+280
Culvert 600 - - 9+410
Culvert 600 - - 9+450
Culvert 600 - - 9+690
Drift - 8 14 10+310
Culvert 600 - - 10+690
Culvert 600 - - 11+210
Drift - 6 12 12+270
Drift - 6 12 12+600
Drift - 5 11 13+590
Culvert 600 - - 14+560
Culvert 600 - - 14+710
Culvert 600 - - 15+310
Culvert 600 - - 15+370
Culvert 600 - - 15+770
Culvert 600 - - 15+850
Culvert 600 - - 16+040
Culvert 600 - - 16+120
Culvert 600 - - 16+170
Culvert 600 - - 16+430
Culvert 600 - - 16+480
Culvert 600 - - 16+910
Culvert 600 - - 17+070
Culvert 600 - - 17+200
Culvert 600 - - 17+300
Culvert 600 - - 17+350
Culvert 600 - - 17+440
Culvert 600 - - 17+820
Culvert 600 - - 17+880
Culvert 600 - - 17+920
Culvert 600 - - 17+990
Culvert 600 - - 18+320
Drift - 6 12 18+710
Bridge - - - 18+800
Drift - 6 12 18+940
Culvert 600 - - 19+010
Culvert 600 - - 19+520
Drift - 10 16 19+660
Drift - 20 26 19+830
Culvert 600 - - 19+970
Culvert 600 - - 20+120

APPENDIX H Material Investigations (Construction Material)
Appendix H Material Investigations (Construction Materials)
Bagamoyo - Borrow Pit 1 Grey Decomposed Granite Gravel

Sample No. BP 1 BP 1A BP 1B BP 1C BP 1D BP 1E
Overburden (mm) 200 500 150 400 100 1500
Depth of sample (mm) 1500 700 600 700 500 2500
75
63
50 100 100
37.5 100 95 100 100 97 100
20 97 85 97 96 72 89
10 92 82 93 93 61 88
5 84 73 89 79 57 84
2 55 62 77 42 47 71
1.18 33 50 62 30 40 55
0.600 22 31 42 26 32 34
0.425 18 24 33 24 29 27
0.212 14 14 22 21 26 19
0.150 13 12 20 20 25 17
0.075 11 10 17 19 24 14
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%) 31 45 39 42 48 39
Plastic Limit (%) 20 24 24 25 23 24
Plasticity Index (%) 11 21 15 17 25 15
Linear Shrinkage (%) 6 10 9 9 14 8
GM 2.16 2.04 1.73 2.15 2.00 1.88
Ten percent fines value
TFV (10% FACT) (kN)
60 - - - - -
(Wet)
TFV (10% FACT) (kN)
60 - - - - -
(Dry)

Bagamoyo - Borrow Pit 1 Location

Bagamoyo Borrow Pit 1 Layout

Project Title: AFCAP - Bago to Talawanda Date of Visit: 02/02/2010
Chainage: 15.56 km Offset: 1.62 km
GPS Coordinates: Top Left: 37 M 441799 9285874 Top Right: 37 M 441860 9285851
Bottom Left: 37 M 441825 9285822 Bottom Right: 37 M 441875 9285814
65 m
.15 /.45 .3 /.3
59 m 40 m
.2 /1.3
.4 /.3 .5 /.2
51 m
Legend:
Trial Pit - Sampled Trial Pit - Not Sampled
0.1 /0.9 Overburden (OB) thickness/ Material 'Gravel' (Mat.) thickness in metres
Material Description:
Overburden: Clay
Material 'Gravel' Type: Clayey GRAVEL - Dark Grey Decomposed Granite Gravel
Underlying Material: Decomposed Granite
Estimated Quantities:
Area to be Used: 2178 m
Overburden: 600 m
Material 'Gravel' Type: 3000 - 5000 m
Trial Pitting By: Local Labour - Pick and Shovel

Remarks: Underlying material of of poor quality for construction purposes
Surveyed by: Nils Bakke and Stephen Conlon

BP1 Trial Pit Profile

Trial Pit No: BP 1 GPS Coordinates: 37 M 441840 9285837
Terrain Description: Proposed Borrow Pit 1 - Grey Decomposed Granite Gravel
Method of Excavation: Pick and Shovel

Depth of Excavation: 2.5 m
Reason for Stopping Excavation: Sufficient information was gained
Hole Depth (mm) Tests Required/

Description
No. From To Sample No.
Layer: Topsoil
Consistency: Very Loose No laboratory tests
Soil Type: Silty CLAY
Moisture: Slightly Moist
200
Colour: Dark Brown

0
Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
Other Observations: Overburden Material
Layer: Natural Gravel - D. Granite Gravel
Consistency: Loose TFV
Soil Type: Clayey Sandy GRAVEL Atterberg Limits
Moisture: Slightly Moist Grading
1,500
200
BP 1 Colour: Dark Grey Linear Shrinkage

Structure: N/A Sample BP 1
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
Other Observations: Good Quality Gravel
Layer: Decomposed Granite
Consistency: Medium Dense Atterberg Limits
Soil Type: Gravel Grading
Moisture: Slightly Moist Linear Shrinkage
1,500
2,500
BP 1E Colour: Light Grey Sample BP 1E

Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: Weakly Cemented
Other Observations: Poor Quality Gravel
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:

BP1A Trial Pit Profile

Trial Pit No: BP 1A Waypoint Number: 37 M 441875 9285814
Terrain Description: Proposed Borrow Pit 1 - Grey Decompsed Granite Gravel


Description
Layer: Topsoil
500
Colour: Dark Brown

0
Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
Layer: Natural Gravel - Granite Gravel
Consistency: Loose Atterberg Limits
Soil Type: Clayey Sandy GRAVEL Grading
500
700
BP 1A Colour: Dark Grey Sample BP 1A

Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:

BP1B Trial Pit Profile

Trial Pit No: BP 1B Waypoint Number: 37 M 441799 9285874


Description
Layer: Topsoil
150
Colour: Dark Brown

0
Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
150
600
BP 1B Colour: Dark Grey Sample BP 1B

Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:

BP1C Trial Pit Profile

Trial Pit No: BP 1C Waypoint Number: 37 M 441825 9285822


Description
Layer: Topsoil
400
Colour: Dark Brown

0
Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
400
700
BP 1C Colour: Dark Grey Sample BP 1C

Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:

BP1D Trial Pit Profile

Trial Pit No: BP 1D Waypoint Number: 37 M 441860 9285851


Description
Layer: Topsoil
400
Colour: Dark Brown

0
Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
400
700
BP 1D Colour: Dark Grey Sample BP 1D

Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:

Bagamoyo Trial Pit BP1
Bagamoyo Trial Pit BP1A

Bagamoyo Trial Pit BP1B
Bagamoyo Trial Pit BP1C

Bagamoyo Trial Pit BP1D
Bagamoyo Trial Pit BP1E

Bagamoyo - Borrow Pit 2 Red Quartzitic Gravel

Sample No. BP 2 BP 2A BP 2B BP 2C BP 2D
Overburden (mm) 50 200 450 100 200
Depth of sample (mm) 1250 500 700 600 500
75
63
50 100
37.5 100 90 100
20 97 100 87 93
10 100 94 97 83 86
5 95 78 88 80 69
2 56 47 49 75 33
1.18 39 38 34 65 23
0.600 33 32 29 44 17
0.425 31 30 27 36 15
0.212 29 25 24 27 12
0.150 28 23 23 24 11
0.075 27 21 22 22 10
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%) 54 51 48 63 39
Plastic Limit (%) 32 24 27 36 23
Plasticity Index (%) 22 27 21 27 16
Linear Shrinkage (%) 13 15 11 16 9
GM 1.86 2.02 2.02 1.67 2.42
MDD/OMC
MDD (Kg/m) 1940 - - - -
OMC (%) 9.5 - - - -
TFV (10% FACT) (kN)
45 - - - -
(Wet)
TFV (10% FACT) (kN)
50 - - - -
(Dry)
CBR (%) at OMC
95% heavy MDD 30 - - - -
98% heavy MDD 62 - - - -
100% heavy MDD 80 - - - -
93% heavy MDD 4 - - - -
95% heavy MDD 6 - - - -
98% heavy MDD 15 - - - -
100% heavy MDD 19 - - - -
Swell (%) 1.57 - - - -

BP2 Location

Borrow Pit 2 Layout

Waypoint Number: Top Left: 37 M 450222 9291810 Top Right: 37 M 450263 9291869
Bottom Left: 37 M 450266 9291777 Bottom Right: 37 M 450261 9291817
72 m
.1 /.5 .45 /.25 .25 /.5
55 m 53 m
.05 /1.2
.2 /.3 .5 /.3
40 m
Legend:
Trial Pit - Sampled Trial Pit - Not Sampled
0.1 /0.9 Overburden (OB) thickness/ Material 'Gravel' (Mat.) thickness in metres
Material Description:
Overburden: Clay
Material 'Gravel' Type: Clayey GRAVEL - Dark Redesh Brown Quarzitic Gravel
Underlying Material:
Estimated Quantities:
Area to be Used: 2000 m
Overburden: 525 m
Material 'Gravel' Type: 5000 m
Trial Pitting By: Local Labour - Pick and Shovel

Remarks:
Surveyed by: Nils Bakke and Stephen Conlon

BP2 Trial Pit Profile

Trial Pit No: BP 2 Waypoint Number: 37 M 441840 9285837
Terrain Description: Proposed Borrow Pit 2 - Red Quartzitic Gravel


Description
Layer: Topsoil
50
Colour: Dark Brown

0
Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
Layer: Natural Gravel - Quartzitic Gravel
1,250
50
BP 2 Colour: Dark Redesh Brown MDD/OMC

Structure: N/A CBR at OMC
Origin: Transported CBR 4 day soaked
Cementation: N/A Sample BP 2
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:

BP2A Trial Pit Profile

Trial Pit No: BP 2A Waypoint Number: 37 M 450266 9291777


Description
Layer: Topsoil
200
Colour: Dark Brown

0
Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
200
500
BP 2A Colour: Dark Redesh Brown Sample BP 2A

Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:

BP2B Trial Pit Profile

Trial Pit No: BP 2B Waypoint Number: 37 M 450246 9291841


Description
Layer: Topsoil
450
Colour: Dark Brown

0
Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
450
700
BP 2B Colour: Dark Redesh Brown Sample BP 2B

Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:

BP2C Trial Pit Profile

Trial Pit No: BP 2C Waypoint Number: 37 M 450222 9291810


Description
Layer: Topsoil
100
Colour: Dark Brown

0
Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
100
500
BP 2C Colour: Dark Redesh Brown Sample BP 2C

Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:

BP2D Trial Pit Profile

Trial Pit No: BP 2D Waypoint Number: 37 M 450263 9291869


Description
Layer: Topsoil
500
Colour: Dark Brown

0
Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
500
800
BP 2D Colour: Dark Redesh Brown Sample BP 2D

Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:

BP2E Trial Pit Profile

Trial Pit No: BP 2E Waypoint Number: 37 M 450263 9291869


Description
Layer: Topsoil
250
Colour: Dark Brown

0
Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
250
700
BP 2E Colour: Dark Redesh Brown Sample BP 2E

Structure: N/A
Origin: Transported
Cementation: N/A
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:
Layer:
Consistency:
Soil Type:
Moisture:
Colour:
Structure:
Origin:
Cementation:
Other Observations:

Bagamoyo Trial Pit BP2
Bagamoyo Trial Pit BP2A

Bagamoyo Trial Pit BP2B
Bagamoyo Trial Pit BP2C

Bagamoyo Trial Pit BP2D

Siha Borrow Pit 1 Volcanic Tuff

Sample No. BP 1
75 100
63 100
37.5 100
20 92
14 86
5 60
2 30
0.425 11
0.075 2
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%) 41.1
Plastic Limit (%) NP
Plasticity Index (%) NP
Linear Shrinkage (%) NP
GM 3.0
MDD/OMC
MDD (Kg/m3) 1536
OMC (%) 10.5
CBR (%) at OMC
90% heavy MDD 15
95% heavy MDD 37
98% heavy MDD 55
100% heavy MDD 70
93% heavy MDD 17 -
95% heavy MDD 26 0.02
98% heavy MDD 45 -
100% heavy MDD 62 0.35
TFV (10% FACT) (kN)
7 -
(Wet)
TFV (10% FACT) (kN)
9 -
(Dry)
Water absorption
Water absorption (%) 20.7 -


Sample No. BP 2
75 100
63 100
37.5 85
20 70
5 54
2 43
0.425 32
0.075 25
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%) 34
Plastic Limit (%) 22.5
GM 2.0
MDD/OMC
MDD (Kg/m3) 1848
OMC (%) 14.5
CBR (%) at OMC
90% heavy MDD 36
95% heavy MDD 87
98% heavy MDD 130
100% heavy MDD 164
Swell
CBR (%) 4 days soak
(%)
90% heavy MDD 25 0.63
93% heavy MDD 38 -
95% heavy MDD 54 -
96% heavy MDD 65 0.24
98% heavy MDD 91 -
100% heavy MDD 123 0.02
TFV (10% FACT) (kN)
45 -
(Wet)
TFV (10% FACT) (kN)
80 -
(Dry)
Water absorption
Water absorption (%) 10.6 -

Siha - Borrow Pit 1 and 2 Location

Photograph of Borrow Pit 1 Siha


Sample No. BP 3
75
63
50 100
37.5 83
20 74
10 66
5 56
2 48
1.18 44
0.6 38
0.425 35
0.212 29
0.15 24
0.075 17
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%) 30
Plastic Limit (%) 23
GM 2.0
MDD/OMC
MDD (Kg/m3) 1999
OMC (%) 13.3
CBR (%) at OMC
95% heavy MDD 117
98% heavy MDD 132
100% heavy MDD 209
CBR (%) 4 days soak
93% heavy MDD 27
95% heavy MDD 48
98% heavy MDD 54
100% heavy MDD 113
TFV (10% FACT) (kN)
70
(Wet)
TFV (10% FACT) (kN)
90
(Dry)
Water absorption
Water absorption (%) 3.9
Swell (%)
Swell (%) 0.02
Siha - Borrow Pit 3 Location



APPENDIX I Strip Maps
Bagomoyo Stripmaps
Baga Stripmap Strips.xls - 0-1
5
4
3
2
1
Fill
Base
Layers
Surface
Subbase
Photographs
Bedding Sand
Chainage (km)
Sealing Option
Surfacing Type
Subgrade Type
Vertical Gradients
Selected Subgrade
Road Condition (Speed)

Features and Observations

15%
10%
5%
3%
0%
1
Soil
Grey
Black
Grey/
7
3
1
3
2
1
15
G3
G7
Graphs
G15
G25
G45
G60
G80
Red Soil
Light Red
Light Grey
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
50%
15%
10%
5%
3%
Bago to Talawanda Road, Bagamayo district, Pwani Region
230
235
240
245
250
255
S15
S7
S3
Poor
Large
Steep to V.Steep
Chainage (km)
Small
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Medium
Flat to Moderate
Gradients (abs)
Description
Sandy Materials
Plastic Materials
Excavate Trial Pits

0.0
2.1%
4
4
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Design Class 3
Condition Speed 1
Bago Village
2.1%
4
4
0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010

3
1
Bago Village
2.1%
4
4
0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020

3
1
Bago Village
2.1%
4
4
0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030

3
1
Bago Village
2.1%
4
4
0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040

3
1
Bago Village
2.1%
4
4
0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050

3
1
Bago Village
4
4
0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 2.1% 0.060 0.060

3
1
Bago Village
0.0%
4
4
0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070

3
1
Bago Village
4
4
0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.0% 0.080 0.080

3
1
Bago Village
0.0%
4
4
0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090

3
1
Bago Village
0.1
4.3%
4
4
0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100

3
1
Bago Village
4.3%
4
4
0.110 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.110

3
1
Bago Village
0
0
0
0
26
150
150
100
150
4.3%
4
4
0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120

3
1
Bago Village
4.3%
4
4
0.130 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.130

3
1
Bago Village
4.3%
4
4
0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140

3
1
Bago Village
4
4
0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 2.3% 0.150 0.150

3
1
Bago Village
2.3%
4
4
0.160 0.160 0.160

1
0.160 0.160 0.160

3
Bago Village
SINGLE OTTA SEAL AND SINGLE SAND SEAL
2.3%
4
4
0.170 0.170
3
0.170
1
0.170 0.170 Bago Village 0.170

2.3%
4
4
0.180 0.180
3
0.180
1
0.180 0.180 Bago Village 0.180

1.3%
4
4
0.190 0.190
3
0.190
1
0.190 0.190 Bago Village 0.190

0.2
1.3%
4
4
0.200 0.200
3
0.200
1
0.200 0.200 Bago Village 0.200

1.3%
4
4
0.210 0.210
3
0.210
1
0.210 0.210 Bago Village 0.210

4
4
0.220 0.220
3
0.220
1
0.220 3.1% 0.220 0.220

1
Bago Village
3.1%
4
4
0.230 0.230
3
0.230
1
0.230 0.230 Bago Village 0.230

3.1%
4
4
0.240 0.240
3
0.240
1
0.240 0.240 Bago Village 0.240

RED SOIL
3.1%
4
4
0.250 0.250
3
0.250
1
0.250 0.250 Bago Village 0.250

3.1%
4
4
0.260 0.260
3
0.260
1
0.260 0.260 0.260

3.1%
4
4
0.270 0.270
3
1
0.270 0.270 0.270 0.270

3.1%
4
4
0.280 0.280
3
1
0.280 0.280 0.280 0.280

4
4
0.290
3
0.290
1
0.290 0.290 0.7% 0.290 0.290

0.3
0.7%
4
4
0.300
3
0.300
1
0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300

0.7%
4
4
0.310
3
0.310
1
0.310 0.310 0.310 0.310

0.7%
4
4
0.320
3
0.320
1
0.320 0.320 0.320 0.320

0.7%
4
4
0.330
3
0.330
1
0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330

0.7%
4
4
0.340
3
0.340
1
0.340 0.340 0.340 0.340

0.7%
4
4
0.350
3
0.350
1
0.350 0.350 0.350 0.350

4
4
0.360
3
0.360
1
0.360 0.360 0.7% 0.360 0.360

0.7%
4
4
0.370
3
0.370
1
0.370 0.370 0.370 0.370

4
4
0.380
3
0.380
1
0.380 0.380 1.1% 0.380 0.380

1.1%
4
4
0.390
3
0.390
1
0.390 0.390 0.390 0.390

0.4
1.1%
4
4
0.400
3
0.400
1
0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400

1.1%
4
4
0.410
3
0.410
1
0.410 0.410 0.410 0.410

1.1%
4
4
0.420
3
0.420
1
0.420 0.420 0.420 0.420

4
4
0.430
3
0.430
1
0.430 0.430 4.7% 0.430 0.430

4.7%
4
4
0.440
3
0.440
2
0.440 0.440 0.440 0.440

4
4
0.450
3
0.450
2
0.450 0.450 4.7% 0.450 0.450

8.0%
4
4
0.460
3
2
0.460 0.460 0.460 0.460 0.460

8.0%
4
4
3
2
0.470 0.470 0.470 0.470 0.470 0.470

5.0%
2
2
3
2
0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480

5.0%
2
2
3
2
0.490 0.490 0.490 0.490 0.490 Small drift 5 X 6 m 0.490

0.5
5.4%
2
2
3
2
0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500

GREY PS
5.4%
2
2
3
2
0.510 0.510 0.510 0.510 0.510 0.510

4
4
Layer Thickness (mm)

3
2
0.520 0.520 0.520 0.520 5.4% 0.520 0.520

1.9%
4
4
3
2
0.530 0.530 0.530 0.530 0.530 0.530

1.9%
4
4
3
2
0.540 0.540 0.540 0.540 0.540 0.540
1.9%
4
4
3
0.550 0.550 0.550 2 0.550 0.550 0.550
1.4%
4
4
3
2
0.560 0.560 0.560 0.560 0.560 0.560
1.4%
4
4
3
2
0.570 0.570 0.570 0.570 0.570 0.570
4
4
1.4%
3
2
0.580 0.580 0.580 0.580 0.580 0.580
4
4
3
2
0.590 0.590 0.590 0.590 1.5% 0.590 0.590
0.6
4
4
1.5%
3
2
0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600
4
4
1.5%
3
2
0.610 0.610 0.610 0.610 0.610 0.610
4
4
1.5%
3
2
0.620 0.620 0.620 0.620 0.620 0.620
4
4
1.5%
3
2
0.630 0.630 0.630 0.630 0.630 0.630
4
4
1.5%
3
2
0.640 0.640 0.640 0.640 0.640 0.640
4
4
1.5%
3
2
0.650 0.650 0.650 0.650 0.650 0.650
RED SOIL
HEAVY GRADING & ESTABLISH DRAINAGE

4
4
3
2
0.660 0.660 0.660 0.660 1.5% 0.660 0.660
4
4
1.5%
3
2
0.670 0.670 0.670 0.670 0.670 0.670
4
4
3
2
0.680 0.680 0.680 0.680 1.5% 0.680 0.680
4
4
0.5%
3
2
0.690 0.690 0.690 0.690 0.690 0.690
0.7
4
4
0.5%
3
2
0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700
4
4
0.5%
3
2
0.710 0.710 0.710 0.710 0.710 0.710
4
4
0.5%
3
2
0.720 0.720 0.720 0.720 0.720 0.720
4
4
3
2
0.730 0.730 0.730 0.730 0.5% 0.730 0.730
4
4
0.5%
3
2
0.740 0.740 0.740 0.740 0.740 0.740
4
4
3
3
0.750 0.750 0.750 0.750 0.5% 0.750 0.750
4
4
0.5%
3
3
0.760 0.760 0.760 0.760 0.760 High point 0.760
4
4
0.5%
3
3
0.770 0.770 0.770 0.770 0.770 0.770
2
2
0.5%
3
3
0.780 0.780 0.780 0.780 0.780 0.780
2
2
2.0%
3
3
0.790 0.790 0.790 0.790 0.790 0.790
0.8
2
2
2.0%
3
3
0.800 0.800 0.800 0.800 0.800 0.800
2
2
2.0%
3
3
0.810 0.810 0.810 0.810 0.810 Small drift 5 X 6 m 0.810
2
2
3
3
0.820 0.820 0.820 0.820 4.9% 0.820 0.820
2
2
4.9%
3
3
0.830 0.830 0.830 0.830 0.830 0.830
GREY PLASTIC SOIL
2
2
4.9%
3
3
0.840 0.840 0.840 0.840 0.840 0.840
4
4
4.9%
3
3
0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850
4
4
1.0%
3
3
0.860 0.860 0.860 0.860 0.860 0.860
4
4
1.0%
3
3
0.870 0.870 0.870 0.870 0.870 0.870
4
4
1.0%
3
3
0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880
4
4
3
3
0.890 0.890 0.890 0.890 1.0% 0.890 0.890
0.9
4
4
1.0%
3
3
0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900
4
4
1.0%
3
3
0.910 0.910 0.910 0.910 0.910 0.910
4
4
1.0%
3
3
0.920 0.920 0.920 0.920 0.920 0.920
4
4
1.0%
3
3
RED SOIL
0.930 0.930 0.930 0.930 0.930 0.930
4
4
1.0%
3
3
0.940 0.940 0.940 0.940 0.940 0.940
4
4
1.6%
3
3
0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
4
4
3
3
0.960 0.960 0.960 0.960 1.6% 0.960 0.960
4
4
1.6%
3
3
0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970
4
4
1.6%
3
3
0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980
4
4
1.6%
3
3
0.990 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.990
V.Poor Sections ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ###
1.0
p.1
5
4
3
2
1
Fill
Base
Layers
Surface
Subbase
Surfacing
Photographs
Bedding Sand
Chainage (km)
Sealing Option
Subgrade Type
Vertical Gradients
Selected Subgrade


15%
10%
5%
3%
0%
1
Soil
Grey
Black
Grey/
7
3
1
3
2
1
15
G3
G7
Graphs
G15
G25
G45
G60
G80
Red Soil
Light Red
Light Grey
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
50%
15%
10%
5%
3%
230
235
240
245
250
S15
S7
S3
Poor
Large
Steep to V.Steep
Chainage (km)
Small
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Medium
Flat to Moderate
Gradients (abs)
1.0
Description
Sandy Materials
Plastic Materials
Excavate Trial Pits
1.6%
4
4
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Design Class 3
Condition Speed 3
1.6%
4
4
1.010 1.010 1.010 1.010 1.010 1.010

3
3
1.6%
4
4
1.020 1.020 1.020 1.020 1.020 1.020

3
3
High point
1.6%
4
4
1.030 1.030 1.030 1.030 1.030 1.030

3
3
1.6%
4
4
1.040 1.040 1.040 1.040 1.040 1.040

3
3
1.6%
4
4
1.050 1.050 1.050 1.050 1.050 1.050

3
3
4
4
1.060 1.060 1.060 1.060 1.6% 1.060 1.060

3
3
0.4%
4
4
1.070 1.070 1.070 1.070 1.070 1.070

3
3
4
4
1.080 1.080 1.080 1.080 0.4% 1.080 1.080

3
3
0.4%
4
4
1.090 1.090 1.090 1.090 1.090 1.090

3
3
1.1
0.4%
4
4
1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100

3
1
3
0.4%
4
4
1.110 1.110 1.110 1.110 1.110 1.110

3
3
0.4%
4
4
1.120 1.120 1.120 1.120 1.120 1.120

3
3
0.4%
4
4
1.130 1.130 1.130 1.130 1.130 1.130

3
3
0.4%
4
4
1.140 1.140 1.140 1.140 1.140 1.140

3
3
4
4
1.150 1.150 1.150 1.150 0.4% 1.150 1.150

3
3
1.2%
4
4
1.160 1.160 1.160 1.160

3
1.160 1.160
3
1.2%
4
4
1.170 1.170 1.170

3
1.170
3
1.170 1.170
RED SOIL
1.2%
4
4
1.180 1.180 1.180

3
1.180
3
1.180 1.180
1.2%
4
4
1.190 1.190 1.190

3
1.190
3
1.190 1.190
1.2
1.2%
4
4
1.200 1.200 1.200

3
1.200
3
1.200 1.200
1.2%
4
4
1.210 1.210 1.210

3
1.210
3
1.210 1.210
4
4
1.220 1.220 1.220

3
1.220
3
1.2% 1.220 1.220

1.4%
4
4
1.230 1.230 1.230

3
1.230
3
1.230 1.230
1.4%
4
4
1.240 1.240 1.240

3
1.240
3
1.240 1.240
1.4%
4
4
1.250 1.250 1.250

3
1.250
3
1.250 1.250
1.4%
4
4
1.260 1.260 1.260

3
1.260
3
1.260 1.260
1.4%
4
4
1.270 1.270 1.270

3
3
1.270 1.270 1.270

1.4%
4
4
1.280 1.280
3
3
1.280 1.280 1.280 1.280

4
4
1.290
3
1.290 1.290 1.290 1.4% 1.290 1.290

1.3
1.4%
4
4
1.300
3
1.300 1.300 1.300 1.300 1.300

1.4%
4
4
1.310
3
1.310 1.310 1.310 1.310 1.310

1.4%
4
4
1.320
3
1.320 1.320 1.320 1.320 1.320

1.4%
4
4
1.330
3
1.330 1.330 1.330 1.330 1.330

3.2%
3
3
1.340
3
1.340 1.340 1.340 1.340 1.340

3.2%
3
3
1.350
3
1.350 1.350 1.350 1.350 Small drift 5 X 6 m 1.350

3
3
1.360
3
1.360 1.360 1.360 4.4% 1.360 1.360

LGPS
4.4%
3
3
3
1.370
3
1.370 1.370 1.370 1.370 1.370

3
3
3
1.380
3
1.380 1.380 1.380 4.4% 1.380 1.380

4.4%
4
4
3
1.390
3
1.390 1.390 1.390 1.390 1.390

1.4
4.4%
4
4
3
1.400
3
1.400 1.400 1.400 1.400 1.400

4.4%
4
4
3
1.410
3
1.410 1.410 1.410 1.410 1.410

0.8%
4
4
3
1.420
3
1.420 1.420 1.420 1.420 1.420

4
4
3
1.430
3
1.430 1.430 1.430 0.8% 1.430 1.430

0.8%
4
4
3
1.440
3
1.440 1.440 1.440 1.440 1.440

4
4
3
1.450
3
1.450 1.450 1.450 0.8% 1.450 1.450

0.8%
4
4
3
3
1.460 1.460 1.460 1.460 1.460 1.460

0.8%
4
4
3
3
1.470 1.470 1.470 1.470 1.470 1.470

0.8%
4
4
3
3
1.480 1.480 1.480 1.480 1.480 1.480

0.7%
4
4
3
3
1.490 1.490 1.490 1.490 1.490 1.490

1.5
0.7%
4
4
3
3
1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500

0.7%
4
4
3
3
1.510 1.510 1.510 1.510 1.510 1.510

4
4

3
3
1.520 1.520 1.520 1.520 0.7% 1.520

High point 1.520
0.7%
4
4
3
3
1.530 1.530 1.530 1.530 1.530 1.530

0.7%
4
4
3
3
1.540 1.540 1.540 1.540 1.540 1.540
HEAVY GRADING, ESTABLISH DRAINAGE

0.7%
4
4
3
1.550 1.550 1.550 3 1.550 1.550 1.550
0.7%
4
4
3
3
1.560 1.560 1.560 1.560 1.560 1.560
0.7%
4
4
3
3
1.570 1.570 1.570 1.570 1.570 1.570
4
4
0.6%
3
3
1.580 1.580 1.580 1.580 1.580 1.580
4
4
3
3
1.590 1.590 1.590 1.590 0.6% 1.590 1.590
1.6
4
4
0.6%
3
3
1.600 1.600 1.600 1.600 1.600 1.600
4
4
0.6%
3
3
1.610 1.610 1.610 1.610 1.610 1.610
4
4
0.6%
3
3
1.620 1.620 1.620 1.620 1.620 1.620
4
4
0.6%
3
3
1.630 1.630 1.630 1.630 1.630 1.630
4
4
0.6%
3
3
1.640 1.640 1.640 1.640 1.640 1.640
4
4
0.6%
3
3
1.650 1.650 1.650 1.650 1.650 1.650
4
4
3
3
RED SOIL
1.660 1.660 1.660 1.660 0.6% 1.660 1.660
4
4
0.6%
3
3
1.670 1.670 1.670 1.670 1.670 1.670
4
4
3
3
1.680 1.680 1.680 1.680 0.6% 1.680 1.680
4
4
1.8%
3
3
1.690 1.690 1.690 1.690 1.690 1.690
1.7
4
4
1.8%
3
3
1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700
4
4
1.8%
3
3
1.710 1.710 1.710 1.710 1.710 1.710
4
4
1.8%
3
3
1.720 1.720 1.720 1.720 1.720 1.720
4
4
3
3
1.730 1.730 1.730 1.730 1.8% 1.730 1.730
4
4
1.8%
3
3
1.740 1.740 1.740 1.740 1.740 1.740
4
4
3
3
1.750 1.750 1.750 1.750 1.8% 1.750 1.750
4
4
1.8%
3
3
1.760 1.760 1.760 1.760 1.760 1.760
4
4
1.8%
3
3
1.770 1.770 1.770 1.770 1.770 1.770
4
4
1.8%
3
3
1.780 1.780 1.780 1.780 1.780 1.780
4
4
3.2%
3
3
1.790 1.790 1.790 1.790 1.790 1.790
1.8
4
4
3.2%
3
3
1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800
4
4
3.2%
3
3
1.810 1.810 1.810 1.810 1.810 1.810
4
4
3
3
1.820 1.820 1.820 1.820 3.2% 1.820 1.820
4
4
3.2%
3
3
1.830 1.830 1.830 1.830 1.830 1.830
4
4
3.2%
3
3
1.840 1.840 1.840 1.840 1.840 1.840
4
4
2.4%
3
3
1.850 1.850 1.850 1.850 1.850 1.850
4
4
2.4%
3
3
1.860 1.860 1.860 1.860 1.860 1.860
4
4
4.4%
3
3
1.870 1.870 1.870 1.870 1.870 1.870
4
4
4.4%
3
3
1.880 1.880 1.880 1.880 1.880 1.880
4
4
3
3
1.890 1.890 1.890 1.890 2.4% 1.890 1.890
1.9
4
4
2.4%
3
3
1.900 1.900 1.900 1.900 1.900 1.900
4
4
2.4%
3
3
1.910 1.910 1.910 1.910 1.910 1.910
3
3
0.0%
3
3
1.920 1.920 1.920 1.920 1.920 1.920
3
3
0.0%
3
3
1.930 1.930 1.930 1.930 1.930 1.930
3
3
0.0%
3
3
1.940 1.940 1.940 1.940 1.940 1.940
LGPS
3
3
0.0%
3
3
1.950 1.950 1.950 1.950 1.950 60 cm Culvert 1.950
3
3
3
3
1.960 1.960 1.960 1.960 0.0% 1.960 1.960
4
4
0.0%
3
3
1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970
4
4
2.1%
3
4
1.980 1.980 1.980 1.980 1.980 1.980
4
4
2.1%
3
RED SOIL
4
1.990 1.990 1.990 1.990 1.990 1.990
V.Poor Sections ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ###
2.0
p.2
5
4
3
2
1
Fill
Base
Layers
Surface
Subbase
Surfacing
Photographs
Bedding Sand
Chainage (km)
Sealing Option
Subgrade Type
Vertical Gradients
Selected Subgrade


15%
10%
5%
3%
0%
1
Soil
Grey
Black
Grey/
7
3
1
3
2
1
15
G3
G7
Graphs
G15
G25
G45
G60
G80
Red Soil
Light Red
Light Grey
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
50%
15%
10%
5%
3%
210
215
220
225
230
235
S15
S7
S3
Poor
Large
Steep to V.Steep
Chainage (km)
Small
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Medium
Flat to Moderate
Gradients (abs)
Sandy Materials
Plastic Materials
Excavate Trial Pits

2.0
2.1%
4
4
2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000

Design Class 3
Condition Speed 4
2.1%
4
4
2.010 2.010 2.010 2.010 2.010 2.010

3
4
2.1%
4
4
2.020 2.020 2.020 2.020 2.020 2.020

3
4
60 cm Culvert
1.1%
4
4
2.030 2.030 2.030 2.030 2.030 2.030

3
4
1.1%
4
4
2.040 2.040 2.040 2.040 2.040 2.040

3
4
1.1%
4
4
2.050 2.050 2.050 2.050 2.050 2.050

3
4
4
4
2.060 2.060 2.060 2.060 1.1% 2.060 2.060

3
4
1.1%
4
4
2.070 2.070 2.070 2.070 2.070 2.070

3
4
4
4
2.080 2.080 2.080 2.080 0.9% 2.080 2.080

3
4
0.9%
4
4
2.090 2.090 2.090 2.090 2.090 2.090

3
4
2.1
0.9%
4
4
2.100 2.100 2.100 2.100 2.100 2.100

3
4
0.9%
4
4
2.110 2.110 2.110 2.110 2.110 2.110

3
4
3.8%
4
4
2.120 2.120 2.120 2.120 2.120 2.120

3
4
3.8%
4
4
2.130 2.130 2.130 2.130 2.130 2.130

3
4
3.8%
4
4
2.140 2.140 2.140 2.140 2.140 2.140

3
4
4
4
2.150 2.150 2.150 2.150 3.8% 2.150 2.150

3
4
3.8%
4
4
2.160 2.160 2.160 2.160

3
4
2.160 2.160
2.2%
4
4
2.170 2.170 2.170

3
2.170
4
2.170 2.170
2.2%
4
4
2.180 2.180 2.180

3
2.180
4
2.180 2.180
2.2%
4
4
2.190 2.190 2.190

3
2.190
4
2.190 2.190
2.2
1.4%
4
4
2.200 2.200 2.200

3
2.200
4
2.200 2.200
1.4%
4
4
2.210 2.210 2.210

3
2.210
4
2.210 2.210
4
4
2.220 2.220 2.220

3
2.220
4
1.4% 2.220 2.220

1.4%
4
4
2.230 2.230 2.230

3
2.230
4
2.230 60 cm Culvert 2.230

1.4%
4
4
2.240 2.240 2.240

3
2.240
4
2.240 2.240
1.4%
4
4
2.250 2.250 2.250

3
2.250
4
2.250 2.250
1.0%
4
4
2.260 2.260 2.260

3
2.260
4
2.260 2.260
1.0%
4
4
2.270 2.270 2.270

3
4
2.270 2.270 2.270

1.0%
4
4
2.280 2.280
3
4
2.280 2.280 2.280 2.280

4
4
2.290
4
2.290 2.290 2.290 1.0% 2.290 2.290

2.3
1.0%
4
4
2.300
4
2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300

1.0%
4
4
2.310
4
2.310 2.310 2.310 2.310 2.310

1.0%
4
4
2.320
4
2.320 2.320 2.320 2.320 2.320

0.8%
4
4
2.330
4
2.330 2.330 2.330 2.330 2.330

0.8%
4
4
2.340
4
2.340 2.340 2.340 2.340 2.340

0.8%
4
4
2.350
4
2.350 2.350 2.350 2.350 60 cm Culvert 2.350

4
4
2.360
4
2.360 2.360 2.360 0.8% 2.360 2.360

0.8%
4
4
3
2.370
4
2.370 2.370 2.370 2.370 2.370

4
4
3
2.380
4
2.380 2.380 2.380 1.8% 2.380 2.380

1.8%
4
4
3
2.390
4
2.390 2.390 2.390 2.390 2.390

2.4
1.8%
4
4
3
2.400
4
2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400

1.8%
4
4
3
2.410
4
2.410 2.410 2.410 2.410 2.410

1.8%
4
4

3
2.420
4
2.420 2.420 2.420 2.420 2.420

4
4
3
2.430
4
2.430 2.430 2.430 3.5% 2.430 2.430

9.4%
4
4
3
2.440
4
2.440 2.440 2.440 2.440 2.440

4
4
3
2.450
4
2.450 2.450 2.450 9.4% 2.450 2.450

9.4%
4
4
3
4
2.460 2.460 2.460 2.460 2.460 2.460

9.4%
4
4
3
4
2.470 2.470 2.470 2.470 2.470 2.470

1.5%
4
4
3
4
2.480 2.480 2.480 2.480 2.480 2.480

1.5%
4
4
3
4
2.490 2.490 2.490 2.490 2.490 2.490

2.5
1.5%
4
4
3
4
2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500

RED SOIL
1.4%
4
4
3
4
2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510 2.510

4
4

3
5
2.520 2.520 2.520 2.520 6.3% 2.520 2.520

6.3%
4
4
3
5
2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530

0.0%
4
4
3
5
2.540 2.540 2.540 2.540 2.540 2.540
0.0%
4
4
3
2.550 2.550 2.550 5 2.550 2.550 2.550
0.0%
4
4
3
5
2.560 2.560 2.560 2.560 2.560 2.560
0.0%
4
4
3
5
2.570 2.570 2.570 2.570 2.570 2.570
4
4
0.0%
3
5
2.580 2.580 2.580 2.580 2.580 2.580
4
4
3
5
2.590 2.590 2.590 2.590 0.0% 2.590
Msinune Village Msinune Village 2.590
2.6
4
4
0.9%
3
5
2.600 2.600 2.600 2.600 2.600 Msinune Village Msinune Village 2.600
4
4
0.9%
3
5
4
4
0.9%
3
5
4
4
0.9%
3
5
4
4
0.9%
3
5
4
4
2.0%
3
5
4
4
3
5
2.660 2.660 2.660 2.660 2.0% 2.660
4
4
2.0%
3
5
4
4
3
5
2.680 2.680 2.680 2.680 2.0% 2.680
4
4
3.6%
3
5
2.7
4
4
3.6%
3
5
2.700 2.700 2.700 2.700 2.700 60 cm Culvert Msinune Village 2.700
4
4
3.6%
3
5
4
4
3.6%
3
5
4
4
3
5
2.730 2.730 2.730 2.730 3.6% 2.730
4
4
3.4%
3
5
V.Poor Sections ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### 1
4
4
3
5
2.750 2.750 2.750 2.750 3.4% 2.750
1
4
4
3.4%
3
5
1
4
4
4.6%
3
5
1
4
4
4.6%
3
5
1
4
4
4.6%
3
5
2.8
1
4
4
3.1%
3
5
1
4
4
3.1%
3
5
2.810 2.810 2.810 2.810 2.810 2.810
1
4
4
3
5
2.820 2.820 2.820 2.820 3.1% 2.820 2.820
1
4
4
3.1%
3
5
2.830 2.830 2.830 2.830 2.830 2.830
1
4
4
1.4%
3
5
2.840 2.840 2.840 2.840 2.840 2.840
1
4
4
1.4%
3
5
2.850 2.850 2.850 2.850 2.850 2.850
1
4
4
1.4%
3
5
2.860 2.860 2.860 2.860 2.860 2.860
1
4
4
1.4%
3
5
2.870 2.870 2.870 2.870 2.870 2.870
1
4
4
5.8%
3
5
2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880
1
4
4
3
5
2.890 2.890 2.890 2.890 5.8% 2.890 2.890
2.9
1
4
4
5.7%
3
5
2.900 2.900 2.900 2.900 2.900 2.900
1
4
4
5.7%
3
5
2.910 2.910 2.910 2.910 2.910 2.910
1
4
4
5.7%
3
5
2.920 2.920 2.920 2.920 2.920 2.920
HEAVY GRADING & INCLUDE DIVERSION HUMPS

4
4
3.4%
3
5
2.930 2.930 2.930 2.930 2.930 2.930
1
4
4
3.4%
3
5
2
2.940 2.940 2.940 2.940 2.940 2.940
1
4
4
3.4%
3
5
2.950 2.950 2.950 2.950 2.950 2.950
1
4
4
3
5
2.960 2.960 2.960 2.960 3.4% 2.960 2.960
1
4
4
3.4%
3
5
2.970 2.970 2.970 2.970 2.970 2.970
1
4
4
3.4%
3
5
2.980 2.980 2.980 2.980 2.980 2.980
1
4
4
3.4%
3
5
2.990 2.990 2.990 2.990 2.990 2.990
3.0
p.3
5
4
3
2
1
Fill
Base
Layers
Surface
Subbase
Surfacing
Photographs
Bedding Sand
Chainage (km)
Sealing Option
Subgrade Type
Vertical Gradients
Selected Subgrade


15%
10%
5%
3%
0%
1
Soil
Grey
Black
Grey/
7
3
1
3
2
1
15
G3
G7
Graphs
G15
G25
G45
G60
G80
Red Soil
Light Red
Light Grey
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
50%
15%
10%
5%
3%
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
S15
S7
S3
Poor
Large
Steep to V.Steep
Chainage (km)
Small
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Medium
Flat to Moderate
Gradients (abs)
Sandy Materials
Plastic Materials
Excavate Trial Pits

V.Poor Sections 1
0.7%
4
4
3.0
3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000

Design Class 3
Condition Speed 6
0.7%
4
4
3.010 3.010 3.010 3.010 3.010 3.010

3
6
0.7%
4
4
3.020 3.020 3.020 3.020 3.020 3.020

3
6
0.7%
4
4
3.030 3.030 3.030 3.030 3.030 3.030

3
6
Turnout
1
0.7%
4
4
3.040 3.040 3.040 3.040 3.040 3.040

3
6
0.7%
4
4
3.050 3.050 3.050 3.050 3.050 3.050

3
6
1
4
4
3.060 3.060 3.060 3.060 0.7% 3.060 3.060

3
6
0.7%
4
4
3.070 3.070 3.070 3.070 3.070 3.070

3
6
1
4
4
3.080 3.080 3.080 3.080 0.7% 3.080 3.080

3
6
0.7%
4
4
3.090 3.090 3.090 3.090 3.090 3.090

3
6
0.5%
3.1
4
4
3.100 3.100 3.100 3.100 3.100 3.100

3
6
0.5%
4
4
3.110 3.110 3.110 3.110 3.110 3.110

3
7
0.5%
4
4
3.120 3.120 3.120 3.120 3.120 3.120

3
7
0.5%
4
4
3.130 3.130 3.130 3.130 3.130 3.130

3
7
0.5%
4
4
3.140 3.140 3.140 3.140 3.140 3.140

3
7
1
4
4
3.150 3.150 3.150 3.150 0.5% 3.150 3.150

3
7
0.5%
4
4
3.160 3.160 3.160 3.160

7
3.160 3.160
3
1
0.5%
4
4
3.170 3.170 3.170

3
3.170
7
3.170 3.170
1
2.7%
4
4
3.180 3.180 3.180

3
3.180
7
3.180 3.180
1
2.7%
4
4
3.190 3.190 3.190

3
3.190
7
3.190 3.190
1
3.2
2.7%
4
4
3.200 3.200 3.200

3
3.200
7
3.200 3.200
1
2.7%
4
4
3.210 3.210 3.210

3
3.210
7
3.210 3.210
1
4
4
3.220 3.220 3.220

3
3.220
7
3.1% 3.220 3.220

1
3.1%
4
4
3.230 3.230 3.230

3
3.230
7
3.230 3.230
1
3.1%
4
4
3.240 3.240 3.240

3
3.240
7
3.240 3.240
1
1.7%
4
4
3.250 3.250 3.250

3
3.250
7
3.250 3.250
1
1.7%
4
4
3.260 3.260 3.260

3
3.260
7
3.260 3.260
1
1.7%
4
4
3.270 3.270 3.270

3
7
3.270 3.270 3.270

1
1.7%
4
4
3.280 3.280
3
7
3.280 3.280 3.280 3.280

1
4
4
3.290
7
3.290 3.290 3.290 1.7% 3.290 3.290

1
3.3
1.7%
4
4
3.300
7
3.300 3.300 3.300 3.300 3.300

1
1.7%
4
4
3.310
7
3.310 3.310 3.310 3.310 3.310

1
2.9%
4
4
3.320
7
3.320 3.320 3.320 3.320 3.320

1
2.9%
4
4
3.330
7
3.330 3.330 3.330 3.330 3.330

1
HEAVY GRADING & INCLUDE DIVERSION HUMPS

2.9%
4
4
3.340
7
3.340 3.340 3.340 3.340 3.340

1
3.0%
4
4
3.350
7
3.350 3.350 3.350 3.350 3.350

1
4
4
3.360
7
3.360 3.360 3.360 3.0% 3.360 3.360

1
3.0%
4
4
3
3.370
7
3.370 3.370 3.370 3.370 3.370

1
4
4
3
3.380
7
3.380 3.380 3.380 3.0% 3.380 3.380

1
2.9%
4
4
3
3.390
7
3.390 3.390 3.390 3.390 3.390

1
3.4
2.9%
4
4
3
3.400
7
3.400 3.400 3.400 3.400 3.400

1
2.9%
4
4
3
3.410
7
3.410 3.410 3.410 3.410 3.410

RED SOILS
1 4.2%
4
4
3
3.420
7
3.420 3.420 3.420 3.420 3.420

1
4
4
3
3.430
7
3.430 3.430 3.430 4.2% 3.430 3.430
1
4.2%
4
4
3
3.440
7
3.440 3.440 3.440 3.440 3.440
1
4
4
3
3.450
7
3.450 3.450 3.450 5.0% 3.450 3.450
1
5.0%
4
4
3
7
3.460 3.460 3.460 3.460 3.460 3.460
1
5.0%
4
4
3
7
3.470 3.470 3.470 3.470 3.470 3.470
1
5.0%
4
4
3
7
3.480 3.480 3.480 3.480 3.480 3.480
1
1.6%
4
4
3
7
3.490 3.490 3.490 3.490 3.490 3.490
1
3.5
1.6%
4
4
3
7
3.500 3.500 3.500 3.500 3.500 3.500
1
1.6%
4
4
3
7
3.510 3.510 3.510 3.510 3.510 3.510
1
4
4

3
7
3.520 3.520 3.520 3.520 1.6% 3.520 3.520
1
6.5%
4
4
3
7
3.530 3.530 3.530 3.530 3.530 3.530
1
6.5%
4
4
3
7
3.540 3.540 3.540 3.540 3.540 3.540
1
6.5%
4
4
3
3.550 3.550 3.550 7 3.550 3.550 3.550
1
2.2%
4
4
3
7
3.560 3.560 3.560 3.560 3.560 3.560
2.2%
4
4
3
7
3.570 3.570 3.570 3.570 3.570 3.570
4
4
1.9%
3
7
3.580 3.580 3.580 3.580 3.580 3.580
4
4
3
7
3.590 3.590 3.590 3.590 1.9% 3.590 3.590
3.6
4
4
1.9%
3
7
3.600 3.600 3.600 3.600 3.600 3.600
4
4
1.9%
3
7
3.610 3.610 3.610 3.610 3.610 3.610
4
4
1.9%
3
7
3.620 3.620 3.620 3.620 3.620 3.620
4
4
0.0%
3
7
3.630 3.630 3.630 3.630 3.630 3.630
4
4
0.0%
3
7
3.640 3.640 3.640 3.640 3.640 3.640
4
4
0.0%
3
7
3.650 3.650 3.650 3.650 3.650 3.650
4
4
3
7
3.660 3.660 3.660 3.660 0.0% 3.660 3.660
4
4
0.0%
3
7
3.670 3.670 3.670 3.670 3.670 3.670
4
4
3
7
3.680 3.680 3.680 3.680 0.0% 3.680 3.680
4
4
0.0%
3
7
3.690 3.690 3.690 3.690 3.690 3.690
3.7
4
4
1.4%
3
7
3.700 3.700 3.700 3.700 3.700 3.700
4
4
1.4%
3
7
3.710 3.710 3.710 3.710 3.710 3.710
4
4
1.4%
3
7
3.720 3.720 3.720 3.720 3.720 3.720
4
4
3
7
3.730 3.730 3.730 3.730 1.4% 3.730 3.730
4
4
1.4%
3
7
3.740 3.740 3.740 3.740 3.740 3.740
4
4
3
7
3.750 3.750 3.750 3.750 4.2% 3.750 3.750
4
4
4.2%
3
7
3.760 3.760 3.760 3.760 3.760 3.760
4
4
4.2%
3
7
3.770 3.770 3.770 3.770 3.770 3.770
4
4
3.7%
3
7
3.780 3.780 3.780 3.780 3.780 3.780
4
4
3.7%
3
7
3.790 3.790 3.790 3.790 3.790 3.790
3.8
4
4
4.1%
3
7
3.800 3.800 3.800 3.800 3.800 3.800
3
3
4.1%
7
3.810 3.810 3.810 3.810 3.810 3.810
3
3
7
7
3.820 3.820 3.820 3.820 4.1% 3.820 3.820
3
3
4.1%
7
3.830 3.830 3.830 3.830 3.830 3.830

3
3
5.4%
7
3.840 3.840 3.840 3.840 3.840 3.840
3
3
5.4%
7
3.850 3.850 3.850 3.850 3.850 3.850
3
3
5.4%
7
3.860 3.860 3.860 3.860 3.860 3.860
3
3
5.4%
7
3.870 3.870 3.870 3.870 3.870 3.870
3
3
7.2%
7
3.880 3.880 3.880 3.880 3.880 3.880
3
3
7
7
3.890 3.890 3.890 3.890 7.2% 3.890 3.890
3.9
3
3
7.2%
7
3.900 3.900 3.900 3.900 3.900 Small drift 5 X 6 m 3.900
3
3
2.7%
7
3.910 3.910 3.910 3.910 3.910 3.910
3
3
2.7%
7
3.920 3.920 3.920 3.920 3.920 3.920
3
3
2.7%
7
3.930 3.930 3.930 3.930 3.930 3.930
LIGHT GREY PLASTIC SOIL
3
3
2.7%
7
3.940 3.940 3.940 3.940 3.940 3.940
3
3
2.7%
7
3.950 3.950 3.950 3.950 3.950 3.950
3
3
8
7
3.960 3.960 3.960 3.960 2.7% 3.960 3.960
3
3
0.8%
7
3.970 3.970 3.970 3.970 3.970 3.970
3
3
0.8%
7
3.980 3.980 3.980 3.980 3.980 3.980
3
3
0.8%
7
3.990 3.990 3.990 3.990 3.990 3.990
### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ###
4.0
p.4
5
4
3
2
1
Fill
Base
Layers
Surface
Subbase
Surfacing
Photographs
Bedding Sand
Chainage (km)
Sealing Option
Subgrade Type
Vertical Gradients
Selected Subgrade


15%
10%
5%
3%
0%
1
Soil
Grey
Black
Grey/
7
3
1
3
2
1
15
G3
G7
Graphs
G15
G25
G45
G60
G80
Red Soil
Light Red
Light Grey
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
50%
15%
10%
5%
3%
Description
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
S15
S7
S3
Poor
Large
Steep to V.Steep
Chainage (km)
Small
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Medium
Flat to Moderate
Gradients (abs)
Sandy Materials
Plastic Materials
Excavate Trial Pits
0.8%
3
3
4.0
4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000

Design Class 7
Condition Speed 8
0.8%
3
3
4.010 4.010 4.010 4.010 4.010 4.010

7
8
0.8%
3
3
4.020 4.020 4.020 4.020 4.020 4.020

7
8
0.8%
3
3
4.030 4.030 4.030 4.030 4.030 4.030

7
8
2.1%
3
3
4.040 4.040 4.040 4.040 4.040 4.040

7
8
2.1%
3
3
4.050 4.050 4.050 4.050 4.050 4.050

7
8
3
3
4.060 4.060 4.060 4.060 2.1% 4.060 4.060

7
8
2.1%
3
3
4.070 4.070 4.070 4.070 4.070 4.070

7
8
3
3
4.080 4.080 4.080 4.080 2.1% 4.080 4.080

7
8
60 cm Culvert
2.1%
3
3
4.090 4.090 4.090 4.090 4.090 4.090

7
8
1.7%
4.1
3
3
4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100

7
8
1.7%
3
3
4.110 4.110 4.110 4.110 4.110 4.110

7
8
1.7%
3
3
4.120 4.120 4.120 4.120 4.120 4.120

7
8
1.7%
3
3
4.130 4.130 4.130 4.130 4.130 4.130

7
8
1.7%
3
3
4.140 4.140 4.140 4.140 4.140 4.140

7
8
3
3
4.150 4.150 4.150 4.150 1.7% 4.150 4.150

7
8
1.7%
3
3
4.160 4.160 4.160

8
4.160 4.160 4.160

7
1.5%
3
3
4.170 4.170
7
4.170
8
4.170 4.170 4.170

1.5%
3
3
4.180 4.180
7
4.180
8
4.180 4.180 4.180

1.5%
3
3
4.190 4.190
7
4.190
8
4.190 4.190 4.190

4.2
1.5%
3
3
4.200 4.200
7
4.200
8
4.200 4.200 4.200

1.5%
3
3
4.210 4.210
7
4.210
8
4.210 4.210 4.210

3
3
4.220 4.220
7
4.220
8
4.220 1.5% 4.220 4.220

1.5%
3
3
4.230 4.230
7
4.230
8
4.230 4.230 4.230

1.5%
3
3
4.240 4.240
7
4.240
8
4.240 4.240 4.240

1.9%
3
3
4.250 4.250
7
4.250
8
4.250 4.250 4.250

1.9%
3
3
4.260 4.260
7
4.260
8
4.260 4.260 4.260

1.9%
3
3
4.270 4.270
7
8
4.270 4.270 4.270 4.270

1.9%
3
3
4.280 4.280
7
8
4.280 4.280 4.280 4.280

3
3
4.290
7
4.290
8
4.290 4.290 1.9% 4.290 4.290

4.3
1.9%
3
3
4.300
7
4.300
8
4.300 4.300 4.300 High point Start of slack hill 4.300

0.0%
3
3
4.310
7
4.310
8
4.310 4.310 4.310 4.310

0.0%
3
3
4.320
7
4.320
8
4.320 4.320 4.320 4.320

0.0%
3
3
4.330
7
4.330
8
4.330 4.330 4.330 4.330

5.8%
3
3
4.340
7
4.340
8
4.340 4.340 4.340 4.340

5.8%
3
3
4.350
7
4.350
8
4.350 4.350 4.350 4.350

3
3
4.360
7
4.360
8
4.360 4.360 5.8% 4.360 4.360

4.7%
3
3
4.370
7
4.370
8
4.370 4.370 4.370 4.370

3
3
4.380
7
4.380
8
4.380 4.380 4.7% 4.380 4.380

4.7%
3
3
4.390
7
4.390
8
4.390 4.390 4.390 4.390

4.4
4.7%
3
3
4.400
7
4.400
8
4.400 4.400 4.400 4.400

4.7%
3
3
4.410
7
4.410
8
4.410 4.410 4.410 4.410

4.7%
3
3
4.420
7
4.420
8
4.420 4.420 4.420 4.420

3
3
4.430
7
4.430
8
4.430 4.430 4.7% 4.430 4.430

2.4%
3
3
4.440
7
4.440
8
2
4.440 4.440 4.440 4.440
3
3
4.450
7
4.450
8
4.450 4.450 2.4% 4.450 4.450

2.4%
3
3
4.460
7
8
4.460 4.460 4.460 4.460 4.460

2.4%
3
3
7
8
4.470 4.470 4.470 4.470 4.470 4.470

2.4%
3
3
7
8
4.480 4.480 4.480 4.480 4.480 4.480

2.4%
3
3
7
8
4.490 4.490 4.490 4.490 4.490 4.490

4.5
2.4%
3
3
7
8
4.500 4.500 4.500 4.500 4.500 4.500

4.3%
3
3
7
8
4.510 4.510 4.510 4.510 4.510 4.510

3
3

7
8
4.520 4.520 4.520 4.520 4.3% 4.520 4.520

4.3%
3
3
7
8
4.530 4.530 4.530 4.530 4.530 4.530

4.3%
3
3
7
8
4.540 4.540 4.540 4.540 4.540 4.540

4.3%
3
3
7
4.550 4.550 4.550 8 4.550 4.550 4.550
4.3%
3
3
7
8
4.560 4.560 4.560 4.560 4.560 4.560
4.3%
3
3
7
8
4.570 4.570 4.570 4.570 4.570 4.570
3
3
2.9%
7
8
4.580 4.580 4.580 4.580 4.580 4.580
3
3
7
8
4.590 4.590 4.590 4.590 2.9% 4.590 4.590
4.6
3
3
2.9%
LIGHT GREY PLASTIC SOIL (QUARTZITIC RIVER GRAVEL AROUND CHAINAGE 4.6-4.7 km)
7
8
4.600 4.600 4.600 4.600 4.600 Some gravel under hill 4.600
3
3
2.9%
7
8
3
3
2.9%
7
8
3
3
3.3%
7
8
3
3
5.9%
7
8
3
3
5.9%
7
8
3
3
7
8
4.660 4.660 4.660 4.660 5.2% 4.660
Some gravel under hill 4.660
3
3
5.2%
7
8
3
3
7
8
4.680 4.680 4.680 4.680 5.2% 4.680
3
3
5.2%
7
8
4.7
3
3
6.2%
7
8
3
3
6.2%
7
8
3
3
6.2%
7
8
3
3
7
8
4.730 4.730 4.730 4.730 4.6% 4.730
3
3
4.6%
7
8
3
3
7
8
4.750 4.750 4.750 4.750 4.6% 4.750
3
3
2.9%
7
8
3
3
2.9%
7
8
3
3
2.9%
7
8
3
3
2.9%
7
8
4.8
3
3
2.9%
7
8
3
3
2.9%
7
9
3
3
7
9
4.820 4.820 4.820 4.820 2.9% 4.820
3
3
2.9%
7
9
3
3
1.3%
7
9
3
3
1.3%
7
9
3
3
1.3%
7
9
3
3
1.3%
7
9
3
3
5.1%
7
9
3
3
7
9
4.890 4.890 4.890 4.890 5.1% 4.890
4.9
3
3
10.0%
7
9
3
3
10.0%
7
9
3
3
10.0%
7
9
3
3
0.0%
7
9
3
3
0.0%
7
9
3
3
0.0%
7
9
3
3
7
9
4.960 4.960 4.960 4.960 4.6% 4.960
3
3
4.6%
7
9
3
3
9.5%
7
9
3
3
9.5%
7
9
V.Poor Sections ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ###
5.0
p.5
5
4
3
2
1
Fill
Base
Layers
Surface
Subbase
Surfacing
Photographs
Bedding Sand
Chainage (km)
Sealing Option
Subgrade Type
Vertical Gradients
Selected Subgrade


15%
10%
5%
3%
0%
1
Soil
Grey
Black
Grey/
7
3
1
3
2
1
15
G3
G7
Graphs
G15
G25
G45
G60
G80
Red Soil
Light Red
Light Grey
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
50%
15%
10%
5%
3%
145
150
155
160
165
170
S15
S7
S3
Poor
Large
Steep to V.Steep
Chainage (km)
Small
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Medium
Flat to Moderate
Gradients (abs)
Description
Sandy Materials
Plastic Materials
Excavate Trial Pits

5.0
9.5%
3
3
5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000

Design Class 7
Condition Speed 9
4.4%
3
3
5.010 5.010 5.010 5.010 5.010 5.010

7
9
6.9%
3
3
5.020 5.020 5.020 5.020 5.020 5.020

7
9
6.9%
3
3
5.030 5.030 5.030 5.030 5.030 5.030

7
9
6.9%
3
3
5.040 5.040 5.040 5.040 5.040 5.040

7
9
3.5%
3
3
5.050 5.050 5.050 5.050 5.050 5.050

7
9
3
3
5.060 5.060 5.060 5.060 3.5% 5.060 5.060

7
9
3.5%
3
3
5.070 5.070 5.070 5.070 5.070 5.070

7
9
3
3
5.080 5.080 5.080 5.080 4.0% 5.080 5.080

7
9
4.0%
3
3
5.090 5.090 5.090 5.090 5.090 5.090

7
9
5.1
4.4%
3
3
5.100 5.100 5.100 5.100 5.100 5.100

7
9
4.4%
3
3
5.110 5.110 5.110 5.110 5.110 5.110

7
9
4.0%
3
3
5.120 5.120 5.120 5.120 5.120 5.120

7
9
4.0%
3
3
5.130 5.130 5.130 5.130 5.130 5.130

7
9
5.2%
3
3
5.140 5.140 5.140 5.140 5.140 5.140

7
9
3
3
5.150 5.150 5.150 5.150 5.2% 5.150 5.150

7
9
5.2%
3
3
5.160 5.160 5.160 5.160

9
5.160 5.160
7
5.8%
3
3
5.170 5.170 5.170 5.170

9
5.170 5.170
7
5.8%
3
3
5.180 5.180 5.180 5.180

9
5.180 5.180
7
5.8%
3
3
5.190 5.190 5.190

7
5.190
9
5.190 5.190
5.2
3.7%
3
3
5.200 5.200 5.200

7
5.200
9
5.200 5.200
3.7%
3
3
5.210 5.210 5.210

7
5.210
9
5.210 5.210
3
3
5.220 5.220 5.220

7
5.220
9
3.7% 5.220 5.220

3.0%
3
3
5.230 5.230 5.230

7
5.230
9
5.230 5.230
3.0%
3
3
5.240 5.240 5.240

7
5.240
9
5.240 5.240
3.0%
3
3
5.250 5.250 5.250

7
5.250
9
5.250 5.250
7.9%
3
3
5.260 5.260 5.260

7
5.260 5.260 5.260

7.9%
3
3
5.270 5.270 5.270

3
5.270 5.270 5.270

7.9%
3
3
5.280 5.280 5.280

3
5.280 5.280 5.280

3
3
5.290 5.290 5.290

3
5.290 7.9% 5.290 5.290

5.3
2.2%
3
3
5.300 5.300 5.300

3
5.300 5.300 5.300

2.2%
3
3
5.310 5.310 5.310

3
5.310 5.310 5.310

2.2%
3
3
5.320 5.320 5.320

3
5.320 5.320 5.320

2.2%
3
3
5.330 5.330 5.330

3
5.330 5.330 5.330

2.2%
1
1
5.340 5.340 5.340

1
5.340 5.340 Flat black cotton soil section5.340

2.2%
1
1
5.350 5.350 5.350

1

V.Poor Sections ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### 1
1
1
5.360 5.360 5.360

1
5.360 1.7% 5.360

Flat black cotton soil section5.360
1
1.7%
1
1
5.370 5.370 5.370

1
1
1
1
5.380 5.380 5.380

1
5.380 1.7% 5.380
1
1.7%
1
1
5.390 5.390
1
5.390 5.390 5.390 Flat black cotton soil section5.390
5.4
1.7%
1
1
5.400 5.400
1
1
1.7%
1
1
5.410 5.410
1
1 1.7%
1
1
5.420 5.420
1
1
1
1
5.430 5.430
1
5.430 5.430 2.4% 5.430
1
2.4%
1
1
5.440 5.440
1
1
1
1
5.450 5.450
1
5.450 5.450 2.4% 5.450
1
2.4%
1
1
1
5.460 5.460 5.460 5.460 5.460 Flat black cotton soil section5.460
1
2.4%
1
1
1
1
2.4%
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
15
1
150
100
150
200
1.7%
1
1
1
5.5
1
1.7%
1
1
1
1
1.7%
1
1
1
5.510 5.510 5.510 5.510 5.510
HAND PACKED STONE

1
1
1

1
5.520 5.520 5.520 5.520 1.4% 5.520
1
1.4%
1
1
1
5.530 5.530 5.530 5.530 5.530 Small drift 5 X 6 m Flat black cotton soil section5.530
1
1.4%
1
1
1
1
1.4%
1
1
1
1
1.3%
1
1
1
1
1.3%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.3%
1
1
1
1
1
1
5.590 5.590 5.590 5.590 1.3% 5.590
5.6
1
1
1
1.5%
1
1
1
1
1.5%
1
5.610 5.610 5.610 5.610 5.610 Drift 5 X 20 m Flat black cotton soil section5.610
1
1
1
2.2%
1
1
1
1
2.2%
1
1
1
1
2.2%
1
1
1
1
0.0%
1
1
1
1
1
5.660 5.660 5.660 5.660 0.0% 5.660
1
1
1
0.0%
1
1
1
1
1
5.680 5.680 5.680 5.680 0.0% 5.680
1
1
1
0.0%
1
GREY BLACK PLASTIC SOIL

5.7
1
1
1
0.0%
1
1
1
1
1.7%
1
1
1
1
1.7%
1
1
1
1
1
5.730 5.730 5.730 5.730 1.7% 5.730
1
1
1
1.7%
1
1
1
1
1
5.750 5.750 5.750 5.750 1.7% 5.750
1
1
1
1.7%
1
1
1
1
0.8%
1
1
1
1
0.8%
1
1
1
1
0.8%
0
0
0
0
0
150
100
150
100
5.8
1
1
1
1.6%
1
1
1
1
1.6%
1
CONCRETE STRIPS
1
1
1
1
5.820 5.820 5.820 5.820 1.6% 5.820
1
1
1
1.6%
1
1
1
1
1.3%
1
1
1
1
1.3%
1
1
1
1
1
1.3%
1
1
1
1
1.3%
1
1
1
1
1.1%
1
1
1
1
1
5.890 5.890 5.890 5.890 1.1% 5.890
1
5.9
1
1
1.1%
1
1
1
1
1.1%
1
1
1
1
1.1%
1
5.920 5.920 5.920 5.920 5.920 Small drift 5 X 8 m Flat black cotton soil section5.920
1
1
1
0.0%
1
1
1
1
0.0%
1
1
1
1
0.0%
1
1
1
1
0.0%
1
1
1
1
0.0%
1
1
1
1
0.0%
1
1
2
2
0.8%
3
5.990 5.990 5.990 5.990 5.990 5.990
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
6.0
p.6
5
4
3
2
1
Fill
Base
Layers
Surface
Subbase
Surfacing
Photographs
Bedding Sand
Chainage (km)
Sealing Option
Subgrade Type
Vertical Gradients
Selected Subgrade


15%
10%
5%
3%
0%
1
Soil
Grey
Black
Grey/
7
3
1
3
2
1
15
G3
G7
Graphs
G15
G25
G45
G60
G80
Red Soil
Light Red
Light Grey
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
50%
15%
10%
5%
3%
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
S15
S7
S3
Poor
Large
Steep to V.Steep
Chainage (km)
Small
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Medium
Flat to Moderate
Gradients (abs)
Description
Sandy Materials
Plastic Materials
Excavate Trial Pits

6.0
V.Poor Sections 1
0.8%
2
2
6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000

Design Class 3
1
0.8%
2
2
6.010 6.010 6.010 6.010 6.010 6.010

3
1
0.8%
2
2
6.020 6.020 6.020 6.020 6.020 6.020

3
1
3.0%
2
2
6.030 6.030 6.030 6.030 6.030 6.030

3
1
3.0%
2
2
6.040 6.040 6.040 6.040 6.040 6.040

3
1
3.0%
2
2
6.050 6.050 6.050 6.050 6.050 6.050

3
1
2
2
6.060 6.060 6.060 6.060 1.5% 6.060 6.060

0
0
0
0
0
3
150
100
150
100
1
1.5%
2
2
6.070 6.070 6.070 6.070 6.070 6.070

3
1
2
2
6.080 6.080 6.080 6.080 1.5% 6.080 6.080

3
CONCRETE STRIPS
GREY PLASTIC SOIL
1.5%
2
2
6.090 6.090 6.090 6.090 6.090 6.090

3
6.1
4.1%
2
2
6.100 6.100 6.100 6.100 6.100 6.100

3
1
4.1%
2
2
6.110 6.110 6.110 6.110 6.110 6.110

3
1
4.1%
2
2
6.120 6.120 6.120 6.120 6.120 6.120

3
1
5.8%
1
1
6.130 6.130 6.130 6.130 6.130 6.130

1
1
5.8%
1
1
6.140 6.140 6.140 6.140 6.140 6.140

1
1
1
1
6.150 6.150 6.150 6.150 5.8% 6.150 6.150

1
1
5.8%
1
1
6.160 6.160 6.160 6.160 6.160 6.160

1
1
5.8%
1
1
6.170 6.170 6.170 6.170 6.170 6.170

1
1
5.8%
1
1
6.180 6.180 6.180 6.180 6.180 6.180

1
1
5.8%
1
1
6.190 6.190 6.190 6.190 6.190 6.190

1
6.2
2.3%
1
1
6.200 6.200 6.200

1
6.200 6.200 Deep erosion of carraigew Start of hill 6.200

1
2.3%
1
1
6.210 6.210 6.210

1
6.210 6.210 Deep erosion of carraigew Change alignment of road 6.210

1
1
1
6.220 6.220 6.220

1
6.220 2.3% 6.220

Deep erosion of carraigew Change alignment of road 6.220
1
2.3%
1
1
6.230 6.230 6.230

1

1
2.3%
1
1
6.240 6.240 6.240

1

1
2.3%
1
1
6.250 6.250 6.250

1

1
2.3%
1
1
6.260 6.260 6.260

1

1
0.7%
1
1
6.270 6.270 6.270

1

1
0.7%
1
1
6.280 6.280 6.280

1

1
1
1
6.290 6.290 6.290

1
6.290 0.7% 6.290

6.3
0.7%
1
1
6.300 6.300 6.300

1

1
0.7%
1
1
6.310 6.310
1
6.310 6.310 6.310 Deep erosion of carraigew Change alignment of road 6.310
1
1.0%
1
1
6.320 6.320
1
6.320
2

1
1.0%
1
1
6.330 6.330
1
6.330 6.330 6.330 Deep erosion of carraigew Change alignment of road 6.330
1
1.0%
1
1
6.340 6.340 6.340 6.340 6.340 Deep erosion of carraigew Change alignment of road 6.340
1
2.5%
1
1
1
1
1
6.360 6.360 6.360 6.360 2.5% 6.360

1
2.5%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6.380 6.380 6.380 6.380 2.5% 6.380
1
3.1%
1
1
1
6.4
3.1%
1
1
1
1
3.9%
1
1
1
1 3.9%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6.430 6.430 6.430 6.430 3.9% 6.430
1
5.0%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6.450 6.450 6.450 6.450 5.0% 6.450
1
9.3%
1
1
1
1
9.3%
1
1
1
1
9.3%
1
1
1
1
3.7%
1
1
1
6.5
1
3.7%
1
1
1
1
3.7%
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
6.520 6.520 6.520 6.520 3.7% 6.520
1
5.5%
1
1
1
1
5.5%
1
1
1
1
5.5%
1
1
1
1
9.8%
1
1
1
6.560 6.560
0
0
0
0
0
6.560 6.560 6.560
75
150
100
150
1
9.8%
1
1
1
1
1
1
9.4%
1
1
1
1
1
6.590 6.590 6.590 6.590 9.4% 6.590
GREY BLACK PLASTIC SOIL
CONCRETE GEOCELLS (75MM)

6.6
1
1
1
9.4%
1
1
1
1
9.4%
1
1
1
1
9.4%
1
1
1
1
4.4%
1
1
1
1
4.4%
1
1
1
1
4.4%
1
1
1
1
1
6.660 6.660 6.660 6.660 4.4% 6.660
1
1
1
4.4%
1
1
1
1
1
6.680 6.680 6.680 6.680 4.4% 6.680
High point Change alignment of road 6.680
1
1
1
3.0%
1
6.7
1
1
1
3.0%
1
1
1
1
3.0%
1
1
1
1
3.0%
1
1
1
1
1
6.730 6.730 6.730 6.730 3.0% 6.730
1
1
1
3.0%
1
1
1
1
1
6.750 6.750 6.750 6.750 0.9% 6.750
1
1
1
0.9%
1
1
1
1
0.9%
1
1
1
1
0.9%
1
1
1
1
9.5%
1
6.8
1
1
1
9.5%
1
1
1
1
8.4%
1
1
1
1
1
6.820 6.820 6.820 6.820 8.4% 6.820
1
1
1
8.4%
1
1
1
1
5.6%
1
1
1
1
5.6%
1
1
1
1
5.6%
1
1
1
1
5.0%
1
1
1
1
5.0%
1
1
1
1
1
6.890 6.890 6.890 6.890 5.0% 6.890
6.9
1
1
1
5.0%
1
1
1
1
4.4%
1
1
1
1
4.4%
1
1
1
1
4.4%
1
1
1
1
7.5%
1
1
1
1
7.5%
1
1
1
1
1
6.960 6.960 6.960 6.960 7.5% 6.960
1
1
1
9.3%
1
1
1
1
9.3%
1
1
1
1
9.1%
1
6.990 6.990 6.990 6.990 6.990
Condition Speed 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
7.0
p.7
5
4
3
2
1
Fill
Base
Layers
Surface
Subbase
Surfacing
Photographs
Bedding Sand
Chainage (km)
Sealing Option
Subgrade Type
Vertical Gradients
Selected Subgrade


15%
10%
5%
3%
0%
1
Soil
Grey
Black
Grey/
7
3
1
3
2
1
15
G3
G7
Graphs
G15
G25
G45
G60
G80
Red Soil
Light Red
Light Grey
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
50%
15%
10%
5%
3%
140
145
150
155
160
S15
S7
S3
Poor
Large
Steep to V.Steep
Chainage (km)
Small
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Medium
Flat to Moderate
Gradients (abs)
Description
Sandy Materials
Plastic Materials
Excavate Trial Pits

V.Poor Sections 1
9.1%
1
1
7.0
7.000 7.000 7.000 7.000 7.000

Design Class 1

1
8.5%
1
1
7.010 7.010 7.010 7.010 7.010

1

1
8.5%
1
1
7.020 7.020 7.020 7.020 7.020

1

1
6.9%
1
1
7.030 7.030 7.030 7.030 7.030

1

1
6.9%
1
1
7.040 7.040 7.040 7.040 7.040

1

1
1.8%
1
1
7.050 7.050 7.050 7.050 7.050

1

1
1
1
7.060 7.060 7.060 7.060 1.8% 7.060

1

1
1.8%
1
1
7.070 7.070 7.070 7.070 7.070

1

1
1
1
7.080 7.080 7.080 7.080 1.8% 7.080

1

1
1.8%
1
1
7.090 7.090 7.090 7.090 7.090

1

1
1.8%
7.1
1
1
7.100 7.100 7.100 7.100 7.100

1

1
3.6%
1
1
7.110 7.110 7.110 7.110 7.110

1

1
3.6%
1
1
7.120 7.120 7.120 7.120 7.120

1

1
3.6%
1
1
7.130 7.130 7.130 7.130 7.130

1

1
3.6%
1
1
7.140 7.140 7.140 7.140 7.140

1

1
1
1
7.150 7.150 7.150 7.150 6.8% 7.150

1

1
6.8%
1
1
7.160 7.160 7.160

1

1
6.8%
1
1
7.170 7.170 7.170

1

1
8.6%
1
1
7.180 7.180 7.180

1

1
8.6%
1
1
7.190 7.190 7.190

1
7.190 7.190 Change alignment of road 7.190

1
7.2
8.6%
1
1
7.200 7.200 7.200

1
7.200 7.200 60 cm Culvert Foot of hill 7.200

1
8.6%
1
1
7.210 7.210 7.210

1
7.210 7.210 7.210

1
1
1
7.220 7.220 7.220

1
7.220 4.2% 7.220 7.220

4.2%
1
1
7.230 7.230 7.230

1
7.230 7.230 7.230

4.2%
1
1
7.240 7.240 7.240

1
7.240 7.240 7.240

1.6%
1
1
7.250 7.250 7.250

1
7.250 7.250 7.250

1.6%
1
1
7.260 7.260 7.260 7.260 7.260 7.260

1.6%
1
1
7.270 7.270 7.270 7.270 7.270 7.270

2.0%
1
1
7.280 7.280 7.280 7.280 7.280 7.280

1
1
7.290 7.290 7.290 7.290 2.0% 7.290 7.290

7.3
3.5%
1
1
7.300 7.300 7.300 7.300 7.300 7.300

3.5%
1
1
7.310 7.310 7.310 7.310 7.310 Old arch bridge 7.310

3.5%
1
1
7.320 7.320 7.320 7.320 7.320 7.320

3.5%
1
1
7.330 7.330 7.330 7.330 7.330 7.330

1.3%
1
1
7.340 7.340 7.340 7.340 7.340 7.340

1.3%
1
1
7.350 7.350
1
7.350 7.350 7.350 7.350

1
1
7.360 7.360 7.360 7.360 1.3% 7.360 7.360

1.3%
1
1
1
7.370 7.370 7.370 7.370 7.370 7.370
1
1
1
7.380 7.380
0
0
0
0
0
7.380 7.380 2.7% 7.380 7.380
75
150
100
150
2.7%
1
1
1
7.390 7.390 7.390 7.390 7.390 7.390
7.4
2.7%
1
1
1
7.400 7.400 7.400 7.400 7.400 7.400
2.7%
1
1
1
7.410 7.410 7.410 7.410 7.410 7.410
CONCRETE GEOCELLS (75MM)

0.0%
1
1
1
7.420 7.420 7.420 7.420 7.420 7.420
1
1
1
7.430 7.430 7.430 7.430 0.0% 7.430 7.430
0.0%
1
1
1
7.440 7.440 7.440 7.440 7.440 7.440
GREY BLACK PLASTIC SOIL (GNEISS AT CHAINAGE 7.0 km)
1
1
1
7.450 7.450 7.450 7.450 0.0% 7.450 7.450
0.0%
1
1
1
7.460 7.460 7.460 7.460 7.460 7.460
0.0%
1
1
1
7.470 7.470 7.470 7.470 7.470 7.470
0.0%
1
1
1
7.480 7.480 7.480 7.480 7.480 7.480
0.0%
1
1
1
7.490 7.490 7.490 7.490 7.490 7.490
7.5
0.6%
1
1
1
7.500 7.500 7.500 7.500 7.500 7.500
0.6%
1
1
1
7.510 7.510 7.510 7.510 7.510 7.510
1
1

1
7.520 7.520 7.520 7.520 0.6% 7.520 7.520
0.6%
1
1
1
7.530 7.530 7.530 7.530 7.530 7.530
0.6%
1
1
1
7.540 7.540 7.540 7.540 7.540 7.540
0.6%
1
1
1
7.550 7.550 7.550 7.550 7.550 7.550
0.6%
1
1
1
7.560 7.560 7.560 7.560 7.560 60 cm Culvert 7.560
0.6%
1
1
1
7.570 7.570 7.570 7.570 7.570 7.570
1
1
0.6%
1
7.580 7.580 7.580 7.580 7.580 7.580
1
1
1
7.590 7.590 7.590 7.590 1.1% 7.590 7.590
7.6
1
1
1.1%
1
7.600 7.600 7.600 7.600 7.600 7.600
1
1
1.1%
1
7.610 7.610 7.610 7.610 7.610 7.610
1
1
1.1%
1
7.620 7.620 7.620 7.620 7.620 7.620
1
1
1.1%
1
7.630 7.630 7.630 7.630 7.630 7.630
1
1
1.1%
1
7.640 7.640 7.640 7.640 7.640 7.640
1
1
1.1%
1
7.650 7.650 7.650 7.650 7.650 7.650
1
1
1
7.660 7.660 7.660 7.660 1.3% 7.660 7.660
1
1
1.3%
1
7.670 7.670 7.670 7.670 7.670 7.670
1
1
1
7.680 7.680 7.680 7.680 1.3% 7.680 7.680
1
1
1.3%
1
7.690 7.690 7.690 7.690 7.690 7.690
7.7
1
1
1.3%
1
7.700 7.700 7.700 7.700 7.700 7.700
1
1
1.3%
1
7.710 7.710 7.710 7.710 7.710 7.710
1
1
1.7%
1
7.720 7.720 7.720 7.720 7.720 7.720
1
1
1
7.730 7.730 7.730 7.730 1.7% 7.730 7.730
1
1
1.7%
1
7.740 7.740 7.740 7.740 7.740 7.740
1
1
1
7.750 7.750 7.750 7.750 1.7% 7.750 7.750
1
1
1.2%
1
7.760 7.760 7.760 7.760 7.760 7.760
3
3
1.2%
3
7.770 7.770 7.770 7.770 7.770 7.770
3
3
1.2%
3
7.780 7.780 7.780 7.780 7.780 7.780
3
3
1.2%
3
7.790 7.790 7.790 7.790 7.790 7.790
7.8
3
3
1.2%
3
7.800 7.800 7.800 7.800 7.800 60 cm Culvert 7.800
3
3
1.0%
3
7.810 7.810 7.810 7.810 7.810 7.810
3
3
3
7.820 7.820 7.820 7.820 1.0% 7.820 7.820
3
3
1.0%
3
7.830 7.830 7.830 7.830 7.830 7.830
3
3
4.3%
3
7.840 7.840 7.840 7.840 7.840 7.840
3
3
4.3%
3
7.850 7.850 7.850 7.850 7.850 7.850
3
3
4.3%
3
7.860 7.860 7.860 7.860 7.860 7.860
3
3
4.9%
3
7.870 7.870 7.870 7.870 7.870 7.870
3
3
4.9%
3
7.880 7.880 7.880 7.880 7.880 7.880
3
3
3
7.890 7.890 7.890 7.890 4.9% 7.890 7.890
7.9
5
5
4.9%
7
7.900 7.900 7.900 7.900 7.900 7.900
5
5
4.9%
7
7.910 7.910 7.910 7.910 7.910 7.910
5
5
2.0%
7
7.920 7.920 7.920 7.920 7.920 7.920
5
5
2.0%
7
7.930 7.930 7.930 7.930 7.930 7.930

5
5
2.0%
7
7.940 7.940 7.940 7.940 7.940 7.940
5
5
4.8%
7
7.950 7.950 7.950 7.950 7.950 7.950
5
5
7
7.960 7.960 7.960 7.960 4.8% 7.960 7.960
LIGHT RED SOIL
5
5
4.8%
7
7.970 7.970 7.970 7.970 7.970 7.970
5
5
5.0%
7
7.980 7.980 7.980 7.980 7.980 7.980
5
5
5.0%
7
7.990 7.990 7.990 7.990 7.990 7.990
Condition Speed 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ###
8.0
p.8
5
4
3
2
1
Fill
Base
Layers
Surface
Subbase
Surfacing
Photographs
Bedding Sand
Chainage (km)
Sealing Option
Subgrade Type
Vertical Gradients
Selected Subgrade


15%
10%
5%
3%
0%
1
Soil
Grey
Black
Grey/
7
3
1
3
2
1
15
G3
G7
Graphs
G15
G25
G45
G60
G80
Red Soil
Light Red
Light Grey
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
50%
15%
10%
5%
3%
150
155
160
165
S15
S7
S3
Poor
Large
Steep to V.Steep
Chainage (km)
Small
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Medium
Flat to Moderate
Gradients (abs)
Description
Sandy Materials
Plastic Materials
Excavate Trial Pits

8.0
5.0%
5
5
8.000 8.000 8.000 8.000 8.000 8.000

Design Class 7
5.0%
5
5
8.010 8.010 8.010 8.010 8.010 8.010

7
5.8%
5
5
8.020 8.020 8.020 8.020 8.020 8.020

7
5.8%
5
5
8.030 8.030 8.030 8.030 8.030 8.030

7
5.5%
5
5
8.040 8.040 8.040 8.040 8.040 8.040

7
5.5%
5
5
8.050 8.050 8.050 8.050 8.050 8.050

7
60 cm Culvert
5
5
8.060 8.060 8.060 8.060 5.5% 8.060 8.060

7
3.0%
5
5
8.070 8.070 8.070 8.070 8.070 8.070

7
5
5
8.080 8.080 8.080 8.080 3.0% 8.080 8.080

7
LIGHT RED SOIL
3.0%
5
5
8.090 8.090 8.090 8.090 8.090 8.090

7
8.1
3.0%
5
5
8.100 8.100 8.100 8.100 8.100 8.100

7
4.6%
5
5
8.110 8.110 8.110 8.110 8.110 8.110

7
4.6%
HEAVY GRADING AND ESTABLISH DRAINAGE
5
5
8.120 8.120 8.120 8.120 8.120 8.120

7
0.0%
5
5
8.130 8.130 8.130 8.130 8.130 8.130

7
0.0%
2
2
8.140 8.140 8.140 8.140 8.140 8.140

3
High point
2
2
8.150 8.150 8.150 8.150 0.0% 8.150 8.150

3
5.7%
2
2
8.160 8.160 8.160 8.160 8.160 8.160

3
5.7%
2
2
8.170 8.170 8.170 8.170 8.170 8.170

3
5.7%
2
2
8.180 8.180 8.180 8.180 8.180 8.180

3
4.6%
2
2
8.190 8.190 8.190 8.190 8.190 8.190

3
8.2
4.6%
2
2
8.200 8.200 8.200 8.200 8.200 8.200

3
4.6%
2
2
8.210 8.210 8.210

3
8.210 8.210 8.210

2
2
8.220 8.220 8.220

3
8.220 4.6% 8.220 8.220

4.6%
2
2
8.230 8.230 8.230

3
8.230 8.230 8.230

0
0
0
0
20
150
150
100
150
2.3%
2
2
8.240 8.240 8.240

3
8.240 8.240 8.240

2.3%
2
2
8.250 8.250 8.250

3
8.250 8.250 8.250

2.3%
2
2
8.260 8.260 8.260

3
8.260 8.260 8.260

2.3%
2
2
DOUBLE SURFACE DRESSING
8.270 8.270 8.270

3
8.270 8.270 8.270

2.3%
2
2
8.280 8.280 8.280

3
8.280 8.280 8.280

2
2
8.290 8.290 8.290

3
8.290 2.8% 8.290 8.290

8.3
2.8%
2
2
8.300 8.300 8.300

3
8.300 8.300 8.300

2.8%
2
2
8.310 8.310 8.310

3
8.310 8.310 8.310

2.8%
2
2
8.320 8.320
3
8.320 8.320 8.320 60 cm Culvert 8.320

2.8%
2
2
8.330 8.330
3
8.330 8.330 8.330 8.330

2.8%
2
2
8.340 8.340
3
8.340 8.340 8.340 8.340

0.0%
2
2
8.350 8.350
3
8.350 8.350 8.350 8.350

2
2
8.360 8.360 8.360 8.360 0.0% 8.360 8.360

0.0%
2
2
3
8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370
2
2
3
8.380 8.380 8.380 8.380 0.0% 8.380 8.380
0.0%
2
2
3
8.390 8.390 8.390 8.390 8.390 8.390
8.4
0.0%
2
2
3
8.400 8.400 8.400 8.400 8.400 8.400
2.9%
2
2
3
8.410 8.410 8.410 8.410 8.410 8.410
2.9%
2
2
3
8.420 8.420 8.420 8.420 8.420 8.420
2
2
3
8.430 8.430 8.430 8.430 2.9% 8.430 8.430
2.9%
2
2
3
8.440 8.440 8.440 8.440 8.440 8.440
2
2
3
8.450 8.450 8.450 8.450 2.9% 8.450 8.450
2.9%
2
2
3
8.460 8.460 8.460 8.460 8.460 High point 8.460
2.9%
2
2
3
8.470 8.470 8.470 8.470 8.470 8.470
0.0%
2
2
3
8.480 8.480
1
8.480 8.480 8.480 8.480
0.0%
2
2
3
8.490 8.490 8.490 8.490 8.490 8.490
8.5
0.0%
2
2
3
8.500 8.500 8.500 8.500 8.500 8.500
GREY PLASTIC SOIL
0.0%
2
2
3
8.510 8.510 8.510 8.510 8.510 8.510
2
2

3
8.520 8.520 8.520 8.520 5.3% 8.520 8.520
5.3%
2
2
3
8.530 8.530 8.530 8.530 8.530 8.530
5.3%
2
2
3
8.540 8.540 8.540 8.540 8.540 8.540
5.3%
2
2
3
8.550 8.550 8.550 8.550 8.550 8.550
2.6%
2
2
3
8.560 8.560 8.560 8.560 8.560 8.560
2.6%
2
2
3
8.570 8.570 8.570 8.570 8.570 8.570
2
2
2.6%
3
8.580 8.580 8.580 8.580 8.580 8.580
0
0
0
0
0
75
150
100
150
2
2
3
8.590 8.590 8.590 8.590 2.8% 8.590 8.590
8.6
2
2
2.8%
3
8.600 8.600 8.600 8.600 8.600 8.600
2
2
2.8%
3
8.610 8.610 8.610 8.610 8.610 8.610
2
2
2.8%
3
8.620 8.620 8.620 8.620 8.620 8.620
CONCRETE GEOCELLS (75 MM)

2
2
2.8%
3
8.630 8.630 8.630 8.630 8.630 8.630
2
2
2.2%
3
8.640 8.640 8.640 8.640 8.640 8.640
2
2
2.2%
3
8.650 8.650 8.650 8.650 8.650 8.650
2
2
3
8.660 8.660 8.660 8.660 2.2% 8.660 8.660
2
2
2.2%
3
8.670 8.670 8.670 8.670 8.670 8.670
2
2
3
8.680 8.680 8.680 8.680 2.7% 8.680 8.680
2
2
6.7%
3
8.690 8.690 8.690 8.690 8.690 Small drift 5 X 6 m 8.690
8.7
2
2
6.7%
3
8.700 8.700 8.700 8.700 8.700 8.700
2
2
2.4%
3
8.710 8.710 8.710 8.710 8.710 8.710
2
2
2.4%
3
8.720 8.720 8.720 8.720 8.720 8.720
2
2
3
8.730 8.730 8.730 8.730 0.0% 8.730 8.730
2
2
0.0%
3
8.740 8.740 8.740 8.740 8.740 Drift 5 X 8 m 8.740
2
2
3
8.750 8.750 8.750 8.750 0.0% 8.750 8.750
2
2
4.5%
3
8.760 8.760 8.760 8.760 8.760 8.760
2
2
4.5%
3
8.770 8.770 8.770 8.770 8.770 Small drift 5 X 6 m 8.770
2
2
0.0%
3
8.780 8.780 8.780 8.780 8.780 8.780
2
2
0.0%
3
8.790 8.790 8.790 8.790 8.790 8.790
8.8
2
2
5.3%
3
8.800 8.800 8.800 8.800 8.800 8.800
2
2
0.0%
3
8.810 8.810 8.810 8.810 8.810 8.810
2
2
3
8.820 8.820 8.820 8.820 0.0% 8.820 8.820
2
2
0.0%
3
8.830 8.830 8.830 8.830 8.830 8.830
3
3
2.0%
3
8.840 8.840 8.840 8.840 8.840 8.840
3
3
2.0%
3
8.850 8.850 8.850 8.850 8.850 8.850
3
3
2.0%
3
8.860 8.860 8.860 8.860 8.860 8.860
3
3
2.0%
3
8.870 8.870 8.870 8.870 8.870 8.870
3
3
2.4%
3
8.880 8.880 8.880 8.880 8.880 8.880
3
3
3
8.890 8.890 8.890 8.890 2.4% 8.890 8.890
8.9
3
3
2.4%
3
8.900 8.900 8.900 8.900 8.900 8.900
3
3
2.4%
3
8.910 8.910 8.910 8.910 8.910 8.910
3
3
2.4%
3
8.920 8.920 8.920 8.920 8.920 8.920
3
3
2.4%
3
8.930 8.930 8.930 8.930 8.930 8.930
3
3
2.4%
3
8.940 8.940 8.940 8.940 8.940 8.940
3
3
3.5%
3
8.950 8.950 8.950 8.950 8.950 8.950
3
3
3
8.960 8.960 8.960 8.960 3.5% 8.960 8.960

3
3
3.5%
3
8.970 8.970 8.970 8.970 8.970 8.970
3
3
3.5%
3
8.980 8.980 8.980 8.980 8.980 8.980
3
3
3.5%
3
8.990 8.990 8.990 8.990 8.990 8.990
Condition Speed 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
V.Poor Sections ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ###
9.0
p.9
5
4
3
2
1
Fill
Base
Layers
Surface
Subbase
Surfacing
Photographs
Bedding Sand
Chainage (km)
Sealing Option
Subgrade Type
Vertical Gradients
Selected Subgrade


15%
10%
5%
3%
0%
1
Soil
Grey
Black
Grey/
7
3
1
3
2
1
15
G3
G7
Graphs
G15
G25
G45
G60
G80
Red Soil
Light Red
Light Grey
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
Plastic Soil
50%
15%
10%
5%
3%
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
S15
S7
S3
Poor
Large
Steep to V.Steep
Chainage (km)
Small
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Chainage (km)
Medium
Flat to Moderate
Gradients (abs)
Description
Sandy Materials
Plastic Materials
Excavate Trial Pits

9.0
4.6%
3
3
9.000 9.000 9.000 9.000 9.000 9.000

Design Class 3
4.6%
3
3
9.010 9.010 9.010 9.010 9.010 9.010

3
LGPS
5.8%
3
3
9.020 9.020 9.020 9.020 9.020 9.020

3
5.8%
2
2
9.030 9.030 9.030 9.030 9.030 9.030

3
5.7%
2
2
9.040 9.040 9.040 9.040 9.040 9.040

3
High point
5.7%
2
2
9.050 9.050 9.050 9.050 9.050 9.050

3
GREY PS
2
2
9.060 9.060 9.060 9.060 3.9% 9.060 9.060

3
1
3.9%
3
3
9.070 9.070 9.070 9.070 9.070 9.070

3
3
3
9.080 9.080 9.080 9.080 3.9% 9.080 9.080

3
3.9%
3
3
9.090 9.090 9.090 9.090 9.090 9.090

3
Small drift 5 X 6 m
9.1
0.0%
3
3
9.100 9.100 9.100 9.100 9.100 9.100

3
0.0%
3
3
9.110 9.110 9.110 9.110 9.110 9.110

3
0.0%
3
3
9.120 9.120 9.120 9.120 9.120 9.120

3
0.0%
3
3
9.130 9.130 9.130 9.130 9.130 9.130

3
3.7%
3
3
9.140 9.140 9.140 9.140 9.140 9.140

3
3
3
9.150 9.150 9.150 9.150 3.7% 9.150 9.150

3
3.7%
3
3
9.160 9.160 9.160 9.160 9.160 9.160

3
3.7%
3
3
9.170 9.170
3
9.170 9.170 9.170 9.170

3.7%
3
3
9.180 9.180
3
9.180 9.180 9.180 9.180

3.7%
3
3
9.190 9.190
3
9.190 9.190 9.190 9.190

9.2
4.3%
3
3
9.200 9.200
3
9.200 9.200 9.200 9.200

4.3%
3
3
9.210 9.210
3
9.210 9.210 9.210 9.210

3
3
9.220 9.220
3
9.220 9.220 4.3% 9.220 9.220

4.3%
3
3
9.230 9.230
3
9.230 9.230 9.230 9.230

4.3%
3
3
9.240 9.240
3
9.240 9.240 9.240 9.240

4.3%
3
3
9.250 9.250
3
9.250 9.250 9.250 High point 9.250

4.3%
3
3
9.260 9.260
3
9.260 9.260 9.260 9.260

1.4%
3
3
9.270 9.270
3
9.270 9.270 9.270 9.270

1.4%
3
3
9.280 9.280
3
9.280 9.280 9.280 Small drift 5 X 6 m 9.280

3
3
9.290
3
9.290 9.290 9.290 1.4% 9.290 9.290

9.3
1.4%
3
3
9.300
3
9.300 9.300 9.300 9.300 9.300

1.3%
3
3
9.310
3
9.310 9.310 9.310 9.310 9.310

1.3%
3
3
9.320
3
9.320 9.320 9.320 9.320 9.320

1.3%
3
3
9.330
3
9.330 9.330 9.330 9.330 9.330

1.3%
3
3
9.340
3
9.340 9.340 9.340 9.340 9.340

1.1%
3
3
9.350
3
9.350 9.350 9.350 9.350 9.350

3
3
9.360
3
9.360 9.360 9.360 1.1% 9.360

High point 9.360
1.1%
3
3
9.370
3
9.370 9.370 9.370 9.370 9.370
3
3
9.380
3
9.380 9.380 9.380 1.1% 9.380 9.380
1.1%
3
3
9.390
3
9.390 9.390 9.390 9.390 9.390
9.4
1.1%
3
3
9.400
3
9.400 9.400 9.400 9.400 9.400
0.9%
3
3
9.410
3
9.410 9.410 9.410 9.410 60 cm Culvert 9.410
0.9%
3
3
9.420
3
9.420 9.420 9.420 9.420 9.420
3
3
9.430
3
9.430 9.430 9.430 0.9% 9.430 9.430
1.6%
3
3
9.440
3
9.440 9.440 9.440 9.440 9.440
3
3
9.450
3
9.450 9.450 9.450 1.6% 9.450
60 cm Culvert 9.450
2.5%
3
3
9.460
3
9.460 9.460 9.460 9.460 9.460
2.5%
3
3
3
9.470 9.470 9.470 9.470 9.470 9.470
2.5%
3
3
3
9.480 9.480 9.480 9.480 9.480 9.480
3.7%
3
3
3
9.490 9.490 9.490 9.490 9.490 9.490
9.5
3.7%
3
3
3
9.500 9.500 9.500 9.500 9.500 9.500
3.7%
3
3
3
9.510 9.510 9.510 9.510 9.510 9.510
3
3

3
9.520 9.520 9.520 9.520 3.7% 9.520 9.520
2.0%
3
3
3
9.530 9.530 9.530 9.530 9.530 9.530
2.0%
3
3
3
9.540 9.540 9.540 9.540 9.540 9.540
HEAVY GRADING &ESTABLISH DRAINAGE

2.0%
3
3
3
9.550 9.550 9.550 9.550 9.550 9.550
2.0%
3
3
3
9.560 9.560 9.560 9.560 9.560 9.560
3.7%
3
3
3
9.570 9.570 9.570 9.570 9.570 9.570
3
3
3.7%
3
9.580 9.580 9.580 9.580 9.580 9.580
3
3
3
9.590 9.590 9.590 9.590 3.7% 9.590 9.590
9.6
3
3
3.7%
3
9.600 9.600 9.600 9.600 9.600 9.600
3
3
3.7%
3
9.610 9.610 9.610 9.610 9.610 9.610
3
3
3.7%
3
9.620 9.620 9.620 9.620 9.620 9.620
3
3
2.6%
3
9.630 9.630 9.630 9.630 9.630 High point 9.630
3
3
2.6%
3
9.640 9.640 9.640 9.640 9.640 9.640
3
3
2.6%
3
9.650 9.650 9.650 9.650 9.650 9.650
3
3
3
9.660 9.660 9.660 9.660 2.6% 9.660 9.660
3
3
2.6%
3
9.670 9.670 9.670 9.670 9.670 9.670
3
3
3
9.680 9.680 9.680 9.680 2.6% 9.680 9.680
3
3
0.0%
3
9.690 9.690 9.690 9.690 9.690 60 cm Culvert 9.690
9.7
3
3
0.0%
3
9.700 9.700 9.700 9.700 9.700 9.700
3
3
0.0%
3
9.710 9.710 9.710 9.710 9.710 9.710
3
3
0.0%
3
9.720 9.720 9.720 9.720 9.720 9.720
3
3
3
9.730 9.730 9.730 9.730 0.0% 9.730 9.730
5
5
9.740 0.0%
7
9.740 9.740 9.740 9.740 9.740
5
5
9.750
7
9.750 9.750 9.750 3.7% 9.750 9.750
5
5
9.760 3.7%
7
9.760 9.760 9.760 9.760 9.760
5
5
9.770 7.1%
7
9.770 9.770 9.770 9.770 9.770
5
5
9.780 7.1%

AFCAP TAN 008 Demon Sites Design Report Final

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AFCAP TAN 008 Demon Sites Design Report Final

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Crown Agents international

The United Kingdom

The African Community Access Programme (AFCAP)

Research Consultant to Support the Design,

1.Lawate - Kibongoto - Siha District - Kilimanjaro Region

Africa Community Access Programme (AFCAP8)

Table of Contents Page

7.3 Demonstration Sites in Siha ......................................................................................90

Research Consultant to Support the Design, 3

Identify cost effective community based construction methods;

Create a design philosophy/design concept for low volume rural roads;

Environmentally Optimised Design and Spot Improvement

Description of the Demonstration Roads

The issues are outlined below:

Research Consultant to Support the Design, 5

Research Consultant to Support the Design, 6

Selection of Demonstration Sections

Research Consultant to Support the Design, 7

Research Consultant to Support the Design, 8

Table 1 Selection of Demonstration Roads

Research Consultant to Support the Design, 11

2. CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND DESIGN METHODS

Research Consultant to Support the Design, 12

Figure 1 Environmentally Optimised Design Process

Steep Standard Marshy Good Steep Good

Standard NEC Gravel Pavement

Research Consultant to Support the Design, 15

3. LOW VOLUME RURAL ROAD DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Research Consultant to Support the Design, 19

Clayey GRAVEL is gravel with some clay. 9

Figure 2 The Burland Colour Disk

3.4 Traffic Analysis

Equivalence Factor = (Axle Load (kg) / 8160)4.5

3.5 Condition Assessment

Research Consultant to Support the Design, 23

Table 2 Design Moisture Contents Dependent on Climatic Zone (TPMDM)

Climatic zone Layer

Subgrade CBR Gravel Wearing

OMC OMC OMC

Moderate Soaked Soaked Soaked Soaked

Wet Soaked Soaked Soaked Soaked

Table 3 Design Subgrade CBR Strength Classification as per TPDM

Low Strength <3

3.10.3 Design Traffic Classification

Table 4 Traffic Classes as per TPMDM

Loading (ESA x 106) Traffic Class

Research Consultant to Support the Design, 25

3.10.4 Pavement Design

Figure 3 Sand Seal Surface

Sand Seal Surfacing

Sand seals consist of a bituminous surfacing

Figure 4 Slurry Seal Surface

Slurry Seal Surfacing

Slurry Seal is a relatively thin surfacing,

Research Consultant to Support the Design, 26

Figure 5 Otta Seal Construction in Laos PDR

Otta Seals were developed in Norway

Figure 6 Surface Dressing

Surface dressing is a common and well

Figure 7 Penetration Macadam Construction

This surfacing is constructed by first

Research Consultant to Support the Design, 28

Figure 8 Concrete Surfacing Options

Lightly reinforced concrete slab, constructed