Page No.

Reference Comments Response

1 Traffic Volume • Different figures for traffic volume of opening • Comment is accepted and correction has
year have been indicated on page 3 and 8 been made accordingly.
which is 322 and 329 respectively. Please,
use a single correct figure for traffic volume.
Similarly include the correct project length
since same has been inconsistently
indicated as 121.2km and 121.8km.

8 Projected Road • In your report, it has been stated that.... • Comment is accepted and correction has
Traffic Considering AADT and the design classes been made accordingly.
listed under the category of Link Road which
is from DC2-DC7, the project road falls
under the category of Design Class DC5.
But, according to ERA 2013 Geometric
Design manual, category of Link Road is
from DC3-DC7. Hence, please correct.

9 Geometric Design • According to ERA Geometric Design manual

Standard 2013, the geometric design is influenced by
numerous factors and controlled by specific
design criteria as follows;

o Traffic volume expected to use the o Addressed in Section 1.5. Detailed

road analysis is shown in the Feasibility
Study Report.
o Composition of traffic

o The design vehicle o Addressed in Section 2.3

o Design speed o Addressed in Section 2.5

o Terrain type o Addressed in Table 1.3

Page No. Reference Comments Response

o Road side population and land use
o Addressed in Sections 1.4 and 1.5 by
way of indication of locations of
Towns and estimation of Non-
motorized traffic which subsequently
has impact on the design of road
cross-section in the detailed design.

o Pavement type o The design standards to be adopted

during design are addressed in
Section 3. However the detailed
design will be presented in the
Engineering Report.

o Soil type and climate o General aspect of the climate of the

region is addressed in Table 1.2.
However the detailed aspects of
these issues will be presented in the
Material and Site Investigation
Report as well as Engineering
Report.

o Construction technology o This issue will be addressed in the

Tender Documents.

o Functional classification of the road o Addressed in Section 2.2.2.

o Safety o This issues will be addressed in the

course of the detailed design
o Economy and environmental
consideration

• Hence, we would like to advise you to • It is believed that most of the above issues
incorporate all the stated factors in you have been addressed in the report as shown
Page No. Reference Comments
report.
1 Structural Design • The design drawings of the culverts show •
of Kombolcha reduced width excluding the walkway from
bypass Road the carrageway
Project • It has been indicated that, there is
discrepancy in grade of concrete detail •
shown on the box culvert section drawing
(cylindrical strength of 20MPa (Grade 25)
and the box culvert wing walls (cylindrical
strength of 24MPa (Grade 30).
• There is also a discrepancy in the grade of •
reinforcement detail shown on the box
culvert section drawing (yield strength of
300MPa (<20mm dia.) and 400MPa
(>=20mm dia.) and the box culvert wing wall
(yield strength of 500MPa).
Response
above. However some of the issues will be
Culverts section drawings are prepared
based on highway design cross section; it
incorporates all required width of the
carriageway.
The design of Box culvert and wing wall is
done for concrete grade of C-30. It is typing
error and please correct the General Note of
Box Culvert wing wall design drawing as
Grade of Concrete from C-25 to C-30.
The Rebar grade description of Box Culvert
is similar with the wing wall. Similarly it is
typing error and please correct the General
note of Wing wall design drawing as yield
strength of 300MPa (<20mm dia.) and
400MPa (>=20mm dia.)