Project : Bahir Dar – Tis Esat Design and Build Road Project

Document Title : Draft Geotechnical Design Report, 0 – 21+200

Client : Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA)

Consultant : Value Engineering PLC

Contractor : MELCON Construction PLC.

S.
Reference Comments Responses to comments
No.
1 General Comments  Each table and figure must be cited in the text with their  Comment accepted, and the tables and
specific numbers and not using expressions such as “in figures are cited accordingly in the final
the figure below” or “in the table above.” report.

 The 1995 EBCS volumes for foundations design and  Comment accepted. EBCS EN 1997-1
seismic design (EBCS 7 -1995 and EBCS 8 – 1995) are & 2:2013 is now referred.
cited in the report. These codes are no more usable.
Accordingly, more pertinent and recent documents must
be employed.

 The document FAA AC 150-5320-6e is cited as a source  It is a U.S. Department of

of an empirical relationship for the subgrade modulus
(Page 19 – 20). What is this document, after all?
 Provide a list of references with full information in
accordance with an adopted standard. Each source must
be cited accordingly.
Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration Advisory Circular used
for Airport Pavement Design and
Evaluation. It was supposed to be used
for the minor structures using the sub
grade reaction from the sub grade
CBR. However, now that light weight
dynamic penetration test is conducted
on the minor structure locations, the
design manual circular is no more used
in this final report.
 Comment accepted, and list of
references are incorporated in this final
report.

 It is advised that the main text is clearly separated from

S.
Reference Comments Responses to comments
No.
the attached factual reports.
 Noted.
Geology of The  The report identifies that the entire road alignment
Project Area crosses a single geological unit termed as Quaternary
Plateau Basalt (Qb1) in accordance with the Geological
Map of Ethiopia (Mengesha et al. 1996) and that this unit
belongs to the Cenozoic volcanic and associated
sedimentary rocks - one of the three major geological
categories of Ethiopia – and that is well noted.

 With regard to seismicity, the report identifies the entire

stretch to belong to the aseismic zone (no seismicity) of
the country in accordance with a document cited by the
report author with no further detailed information (There
is no list of references in the report). The hazard map in
 Comment accepted. Project site
Figure 2-3 and the associated table (Table 2-1) taken
location is rectified, and information
from this source are based on a return period of only 100
from Global Seismic Hazard
2 years, though not stated, and is hence obsolete.
Assessment Program (GSHAP) is
Furthermore, the project site is mistakenly indicated in
used to analyze the seismicity of the
the map as if it were in Addis Ababa.
project area.
 Even though the seismicity of the area is not expected to
be significant, it is suggested that more recent data
based on the worldwide accepted return period of 475
years be used to make appropriate and rational
assessment. Even though the recent Ethiopian seismic
code (ES EN 1998, 2015) is based on this return period,
it unfortunately has conflicting information with regard to
seismic design ground motions and is not recommended
for use. Instead, one can resort to the online-available
information of the Global Seismic Hazard Assessment
Program (GSHAP) conducted in the 1990s to establish
the seismic hazard.
3 Cuts and  The report characterizes the soils encountered in most  During the recent site visit, it was
Embankments sections of the road alignment as black to dark brown noticed that road excavation started at
silty CLAY with low water infiltration rate. This was cited this stretch just on the left hand side of
S.
Reference Comments Responses to comments
No.
as the cause for seasonal flooding observed in some the existing road between the
sections of the route such as the RHS of 4+700 to 5+200. inundated area and existing road. The
As a protection measure against the flooding hazard, excavation work has changed the
provision of a 2m-high retaining wall on the LHS is morphology of the area in such a way
proposed. It is, however, not clear that the previously stagnant (logged)
water on this stretch is drained to the
excavated area.
 why the protection is to be provided on the LHS,  The flooding is on the LHS, and
while the flooding is reported to be on the RHS; rectified accordingly.
and  The recommendations are
 how a retaining wall was selected as the optimum revised considering the recent
solution. change.

 The report identifies swampy/marshy sections at two  Comment accepted, and a sketch
sections: on both sides of Km 7+600 to Km 8+400 and on (typical section) is included in this final
the LHS of Km 9+180 +9+360 and acknowledges the report (Appendix 3).
need for special treatment. However, the suggested
remedy needs clarity and should be supported using a
sketch showing the various layers stated in the
appropriate section (free-draining replacement to
subgrade level) with unambiguous terms.
 The current rainy season prevails the existence of more  Comment accepted. After having a
flooded plains and swampy section in addition to recent site visit, additional sections are
mentioned in the geotechnical report, and hence more included in this final report.
investigation must be done to identify those.
 No slides and slumps are reported over the entire project 
alignment. Neither are hazards anticipated from faults
and lineaments, according to the report.
 The summary of soil test data provided in Table 3-1 
shows that the material encountered over the great
majority of the stretch of Km 7+000 to Km 21+190
exhibited consistently high plasticity (LL>60; PI>30),
rather low strength (CBR of 1 to 2) and too large swelling
(5 to 10%). It is consistently classified as A-7-5(20)
according to the AASHTO classification system. The
material is thus characterized as unsuitable as a
S.
Reference Comments
No.
subgrade material. An exception to this is the short
section from Km 10+500 to Km 11+000, which is
described as a granular material classified as A-2-7(1).
 Employer’s Requirement of the project
 The summary further shows that a complete investigation
along the route (including CBR and swell test) was
conducted only at an interval of 1km. Unless, in this
particular case, the Contractor believes no value will be
added by a more detailed investigation scheme,
standards and manuals require that investigation at this
stage be conducted at a 0.5km interval.
 It is stated in the draft report that, as
 In regards to the treatment of the unsuitable subgrade
material, the stretch is subdivided into shorter sections
with one of the following three treatment methods
recommended to each one (Table 3-2):
 Excavate and replace full road width for a
minimum earthwork cover of 1.0m;
 Excavate and replace full road width to a depth of
0.6m;
 Excavate and replace part of the width that is not
sealed to a depth of 0.6m.
Responses to comments
states: ‘Collect Samples for CBR-value
(three point CBR) and moisture-density
relationship at every 1km for pavement
design.’ In addition, ERA Site
Investigation Manual – 2013 requires to
conduct CBR and Swell tests at 1 km
interval.
per the Employer’s Requirement, the
expansive soil stretches shall be
treated in line with ERA Standard
Technical Specification, 2013, Section
4106. The treatment methods have
also been incorporated in the draft
report clearly.

On the other hand, Table 3-1 shows the same subgrade

material (A-7-5(20)) over almost the entire alignment in
this section. The basis for selection among the listed
treatment methods for the different sections of the road is
thus not clear. Clarifications to this end are required, and
the rationale for the suggested treatment in each case
needs to be provided.
 Drainage problems including active gully formations both  The water source for the development
parallel and across the road alignment have been of the gullies has been the channeled
identified, especially in the section between Km 15+400 and bank overflow from Musheme
and Km 18+300, and remedies suggested. The proposed River. As indicated in this final report
treatment measures need to be rationalized and well that it has been observed that there
explained, as this is a serious matter that could was an existing channel that has been
S.
Reference Comments Responses to comments
No.
determine the proper functioning of the road. blocked by the existing road
embankment. Consequently, as per the
new design drainage schedule, the flow
of the Musheme river has been guided
to the old channel using cross drainage
structures (slab culvert) at station
15+400 and a new channel at 15+980.
In addition, the new alignment avoids
using the formed gully, except from
17+980 to 18+120. Therefore, this
proposal avoids the active gully
propagation (across and parallel to the
road alignment) on most of the RHS up
to 18+300. Whereas on sections where
the road overlaps with the formed gully,
treatment is provided in this final report.
Typical section is provided in Appendix
4.
4 Foundations of  The reported investigation results for both the minor and  General: It is stated in the submitted
Structures major structure sites are highly doubtful lacking clarity. draft report that detailed geotechnical
The following are some of them: investigations (using core drilling) are
mandatory to determine the bearing
capacity of the foundations. Terms of
Reference (proposal) for the detailed
geotechnical investigation for the entire
project alignment is prepared, and
submitted separately for your review.
Consequently, a separate geotechnical
investigation and foundation
recommendation report for the major
drainage structures will be prepared
and submitted later on, and comments
related to major drainage structures
are replied here considering this.

 The existence of only two bridge sites (at Km  It Is stated in the draft report on the
S.
Reference Comments
No.
10+130 and Km 18+310) is described on Page
25, whereas three sites are listed and briefly
described in Table 5-2 on Page 27.
 The foundation soil descriptions in Column 3 of
Table 5-2 appear suddenly without prior
description of what type of investigation was
carried out at each site.
 In all three cases, it is stated in the table that an
upper soil layer overlies a basaltic rock formation
without indicating the thickness of the soil layer.
 The two sites at Km 10+130 and Km 18+310 that
are almost 8 km apart are described identically
(word by word) casting doubt on reliability.
 With regard to minor drainage structures, 10
locations are identified in Table 5-3. But it is not
clear whether DCP has been conducted or would
be conducted in the future (see 2nd paragraph on
Page 28 that is suggestive of an investigation yet
to be investigated).
 The use of the empirical relation given on Page
28 to estimate the bearing capacity is not
sufficiently described and demonstrated. This
Responses to comments
same paragraph that ‘in addition to
a newly designed pedestrian bridge
… there are two major drainage
structures … found at 10+130 …
and … at 18+310.’ Thus, the
statement on the paragraph and
the table are consistent.
 It is indicated in the report that only
preliminary visual assessment has
been conducted on locations of
major drainage structures locations,
and together with geological map,
site characterization has been
conducted for the foundation soil
description.
 The preliminary thickness (from
visual assessment of the area and
geological map) of the layers has
been indicated in column 5 of Table
5-2 of the draft report.
 Only preliminary visual assessment
was conducted on the locations of
major structures, and thus, the
materials will be described properly
during detailed investigation.
 It is clearly indicated in Table 5-3
(column 6), Tables 5-8 to 5-13 and
Appendix 2 (DCP Data) that DCP
has been conducted in all minor
drainage (Box/Slab culvert)
structure locations. The statement
on the indicated paragraph is
rectified.
 Comment accepted, and the
Contractor has tried to elaborate it
sufficiently in this final report.
S.
Reference Comments Responses to comments
No.
doubt is further exacerbated by rather low values
of the bearing capacity at some depths, as low as
30 kPa (see Tables 5-8 to 5-13).
 In general, the investigation at the sites of the drainage
structures, especially the major ones, must be
investigated much more carefully, and the data analyzed
and interpreted by a well-qualified and experienced
geotechnical engineer. It is believed that this is also in
the best interest of the DB Contractor.

In this regard, it is strongly recommended that a detailed

geotechnical investigation is carried out at each major
(bridge) structure site involving
 The Contractor has already
submitted a proposal for detailed
 borehole drilling,
geotechnical investigation on major
 field tests,
drainage structure sites, separately
 sampling, and
for your review, that incorporated
 laboratory investigation.
your suggestions.
Each support location of a bridge site must be
investigated by at least a borehole, the depth of which
and accompanying testing and sampling frequency would
be decided after inspection of each site by the
Supervising Engineer (geotechnical) and holding
subsequent discussion with the DB Contractor. Any
attempt to conduct the design of the bridges on the basis
of the geotechnical information provided in this report is
not acceptable.