Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction .........................................................................................................................2

1.1 Background......................................................................................................................2
1.2 Scope ................................................................................................................................3
2.0 Methodology ........................................................................................................................4
2.1 Objectives.........................................................................................................................4
3.0 Site Conditions.....................................................................................................................5
3.1 Existing Road Structure ..................................................................................................5
3.2 Issues affecting use of embankment material .................................................................6
4.0 Pavement Design .................................................................................................................6
4.1 Design Considerations .....................................................................................................6
4.1.1 Design Life .................................................................................................................6
4.1.2 Traffic ........................................................................................................................6
4.1.3 Pavement Types..........................................................................................................7
4.2 Design ...............................................................................................................................8
4.2.1 Geometric Design .......................................................................................................8
4.2.2 Pavement Structure Design .........................................................................................8
4.3 Auxiliary Works ............................................................................................................ 11
4.4 Costing ........................................................................................................................... 12
5.0 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 13
6.0 Recommendation ............................................................................................................... 13
 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
Following a joint site visit on the 10th October,2020 between Guyanese Senior Minister of the
Ministry of Public works, Hon. Bishop Juan Edghill, and Surinamese Minister of Public Works
Hon. Dr. Riad Nurmohamed to Moleson Creek, Corentyne, the Government of Guyana through
the Ministry of Public Works has dispatched a technical team on a fact-finding mission to the
proposed landing site of the Guyana-Suriname Bridge. The team’s main aim was to conduct
preliminary investigations into existing conditions along the proposed embankment while
recommending a methodology and design for the execution of the project. It comprised of Ms.
Shinella Quintyn (Designs Department Manager), Ms. Lloyda Amsterdam (Materials Laboratory
Manager) and Mr. Thomas Giddings (Civil Engineer within the Designs Department).

IMG#1: Image showing existing conditions at Proposed Access Road

1.2 Scope
The team’s priorities centered around fundamental highway design considerations namely; the
geotechnical and geometric properties of the existing embankment. Economic and social
background of the area were also noted through informal interactions with the community
members. Attempts were made by the team to arrive at the proposed landing site of the bridge but
the poor existing site conditions coupled with the large hiking distance severely hindered progress.
The length of the proposed road is then therefore approximated to 2.5km which includes provisions
for bridge approaches.

IMG#2: Map showing path hiked along Proposed Access Road

 2.0 Methodology

Geometric data gathered through the exercise included multiple cross sections at various critical
sections. Intersecting road alignments were also paid keen attention along with residential access
and access to farmlands. The existing drainage infrastructure including those intersecting the
embankment were noted.

The geotechnical investigation sought to visually classify the in-situ soil material and conditions
while also observe how the material responds to the existing vehicular traffic. Interactions were
also encouraged with the local community members to better understand the type & volume of
existing traffic and the main economic activity of the area.

2.1 Objectives
The investigation into the proposed access road for the Guyana-Suriname linkage project centered
around three (3) primary objectives:

• Assess to the full extent possible the existing geotechnical, geometric and social conditions
that could affect the project
• Prepare a preliminary design taking into consideration all the critical observations from the
site investigation
• Make recommendations to further steps necessary to allow for the detailed design of the
project
 3.0 Site Conditions

3.1 Existing Road Structure

The existing embankment was measured at 11.28m (37 feet) in width but this narrowed to 6.71m
(22 feet) at approximately 800m inwards from the entrance. No existing road structure was
observed and the embankment mostly comprised of fat clays which are known to be highly plastic
and often times expansive. Tracks left by the passage of heavy vehicles highlighted the inability
of the soil to support any traffic loading with some tire depressions measuring greater than 600mm
(2 feet) in depth. The primary traffic observed were large agriculture purposed tractors with light
vehicles being unable to traverse the road in its current state. A narrow firmer stratum of about
900mm (3ft) in width exists along the extreme Eastern side of the embankment with an
approximate elevation difference of a positive 200-300mm. It is assumed that it is under this
stratum exists the community’s water supply.

IMG#3: Image highlighting the current state of the embankment.

The embankment is bordered by two parallel drainage channels running north to south and
connecting with drainage outlets running West to East. They measure about 3.048m (10 feet) in
depth but are fairly overgrown with vegetation. This however does not hinder drainage in the area
as it is evident that the major drainage outlets are still functioning effectively. A total of 5
intersecting drainage structures were observed along the embankment path; 2 HDPE culverts (both
found without head & wingwalls) and 3 composite bridge structures. Two intersecting
embankment alignments were also encountered running East to West. These provide direct access
for the community farmers to their farmlands.

3.2 Issues affecting use of embankment material

Through the classification of the existing material as fat clays and the visual observations of the
material’s ability to withstand the existing load, it can be deduced that if the material is retained
for the construction of the existing road, settlement is highly likely. The risk of slope stability
failure is also great especially in portions where the embankment narrows (0+800m >). However,
a true representation of the degree of expected settlement is not possible without a consolidation
test being performed.

4.0 Pavement Design

4.1 Design Considerations
4.1.1 Design Life
The proposed design life for this roadway is 15 years.

4.1.2 Traffic
According to the 2016 publication of Statistical Digest by the Guyana Tourism Authority (GTA),
Guyana enjoyed an annual total of 17,714 visitor arrivals from Suriname. This represented a
20.74% stake of the annual visitors received by Guyana from the Caribbean and a growth rate of
4.55% of tourists when compared to the previous year.1 Utilizing these data, it was extrapolated
that the annual single lane design traffic is 7379 vehicles when an average of 3 persons is
considered per vehicle. This resulted in a design Equivalent Singe Axle Load (ESAL) of
3,100,000.

IMG#4: Image highlighting the ESAL calculations used for the pavement design

1
Guyana Tourism Authority. (2016). Guyana Tourism Statistical Digest. https://guyanatourism.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/12/2016-Statistical-Digest-Final-Printed-Version.pdf
4.1.3 Pavement Types
Conventional Flexible Pavement
Flexible pavement involves the use of unbound material layers which cumulatively achieve the
required structural number for the pavement. Due to its familiarity among local contractors, the
use of this pavement type would allow for an easier implementation when compared to others.
However, due to the main economic activity in the area being farming, it can be expected that large
machinery such as combine harvesters and tracked excavators will traverse this roadway. These
heavy vehicles, through their use of tracks, chip the conventional asphaltic concrete surfacing thus
allowing for the creation of potholes.

Flexible pavements also allow for traffic loads to penetrate deeper depths when compared to other
pavements. This may prove especially detrimental when the embankment is checked for settlement
and slope stability.

Rigid Pavement

Rigid pavements allow for the reduction of traffic loads being transmitted deeper into the
pavement. They reduce the overburden placed on the embankment by requiring less pavement
layers thus reducing the magnitude of any possible settlement and/or slope failures. Rigid
pavements also require far less maintenance when compared over its life span with flexible
pavements while also being resistant to damages from agriculture machinery. It however, requires
a significantly higher initial costs than flexible pavements and it was for this reason that rigid
pavements were only suggested for farm access.

Geosynthetic Reinforced Flexible Pavements

This involves the use of a single or multiple geosynthetic fabrics to improve the structural capacity
of the pavement. They can include the use of geo-textiles, geo-grids and geocells individually or
collectively. These fabrics allow for the reduction in thickness of the conventional pavement layers
while maintaining similar structural performance. While primarily advantageous, a major
disadvantage about the use of geosynthetics involve uncertainty over its source. Many suppliers of
these materials do not possess the prerequisite certification required to verify the authenticity of
the fabric. Fabrics however, which do come with required certification often encounter project
delays due to import requirements, usually being 1 month.

4.2 Design
4.2.1 Geometric Design
The geometric design of the proposed roadway was designed to standards recommended by
AASHTO, A Policy of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. The designer assumes that the
road will follow it’s existing path with only minor modifications, if necessary, to the horizontal
alignment.

IMG#5: Image highlighting the Proposed Cross Section of the road up to Chainage 1+000

IMG#6: Image highlighting the Proposed Cross Section of the road up from Chainage 1+000 to 2+500

4.2.2 Pavement Structure Design

It is highly recommended that irrespective of the design option selected, the existing weak
subgrade material along the embankment should be excavated to a depth of 36 inches and disposed.
Furthermore, a granular fill composed of white sand, of thickness 28 inches, followed by a layer
of white sand/ laterite mixture, of thickness 8 inches, be placed and compacted. These layers would
provide crucial access to the proposed bridge during its construction while, more-so, greatly
assisting in surcharging the subgrade. This greatly reduces the possibility of settlement during the
service years of the roadway. Following the construction of the bridge, the excess material should
be removed and the new pavement started utilizing the remaining white sand layer as the subgrade.

Flexible Pavement

The following design parameters are used:

• Reliability – Chapter 2 of AASHTO Design of Pavement Structures, 1993 recommend a

reliability range of 80-99.9% for pavements classified as interstate or freeway. This design
will use a reliability of 85%.
• Standard Deviation – A factor allowing for compensation for any variation on the
construction site or traffic projections. It usually ranges from 0.3-0.4 for rigid pavements
and 0.4-0.5 for flexible pavements. A standard deviation of 0.45 was selected.
• Serviceability – Defined as the ability to serve the type of traffic which use the facility. A
standard change of serviceability value of 2.0 is being used.
• Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus – This design caters for a granular subgrade fill (white
sand) achieving a minimum resilient modulus of 9,500 PSI.

The resulting required structural number was found to be 3.55 which was achieved by using:

Layer Thickness
Asphaltic Concrete Surfacing 4”
Crushed Aggregate Base 9”
White Sand/ Laterite Subbase 10”
White Sand Subgrade Fill 18”
TABLE#1: Table showing proposed layer thicknesses for conventional flexible pavement

It must be noted that this pavement design would require regular maintenance due to the possible
damage from tracked agriculture machinery.
Geosynthetic Reinforced Flexible Pavement

The design synopsis of the geosynthetic reinforced flexible pavement contains similar parameters
that are consistent with that of the conventional flexible pavement but with reduction of layer
thicknesses through the use of geosynthetics. Through the use of a program supplied by Tencate,
the following pavement layers are recommended:

Layer Thickness
Asphaltic Concrete Surfacing inclusive of a 4”
composite paving geogrid layer
Crushed Aggregate Base inclusive of a layer of 6”
geogrid
White Sand/ Laterite Subbase 8”
White Sand Subgrade Fill 18”
TABLE#2: Table showing proposed layer thicknesses for geosynthetic reinforced flexible pavement

It must be noted that the use of a paving geo-grid would assist in the life cycle of the asphalt
through the repulsion of water entering the pavement layers while providing reinforcement to the
asphalt from heavy axle loads (specifically common with overladen transport & farming vehicles).
Also, the use of geo-grid within the aggregate base would assist in confinement thus limiting the
possibility of slope stability failures.

Rigid Pavement (Accesses to farms)

Flexible pavements are known to become damaged on edges especially if these edges are prone to
the passage of vehicular traffic. In order to combat this, a rigid pavement slab of 3.66m (12feet)
length is proposed at each farm access. The slab will be of minimum compressive strength 5000psi
and be composed of 20mm (3/4”) diameter corrugated steels bars at 200mm (8”) centres both
ways.
4.3 Auxiliary Works
Important auxiliary works required in the project include:

• Removal of vegetation and felling of trees along proposed carriageway

• De-silting of existing drains
• Filling of portion of existing earthen drains alongside the recreation of slopes
• Construction of reinforced concrete headwalls and wingwalls for existing culverts
• All necessary repairs for existing composite bridges

IMG#7: Image highlighting the proposed headwall & wingwall cross section

IMG#8: Image highlighting the proposed headwall & wingwall details

4.4 Costing

TABLE#3: Table showing proposed costing for project

It must be noted that although the cost for the conventional flexible pavement may be less than the
other option, this design does not protect the embankment in any way from potential slope failures
that may occur. Protection against these risks during the implementation of the conventional
flexible pavement may see the cost surpass the geosynthetic reinforced flexible pavement.
 5.0 Conclusion

In its entirety, the road is envisioned to be 2,500m in length and cost approximately $645,517,200.
The road can be expected to service 7,739 vehicles for its first year with considerations being made
for moderate increases in traffic over its 15-year design life.

6.0 Recommendation

Following the conclusion of the preliminary design, the following are recommended to allow for
the successful completion of the detailed design:

• A full topographical survey of the embankment to the proposed location of the bridge. This
should include both accompanying parallel drainage channels.
• Laboratory testing of the in-situ subgrade materials. This would allow for a detailed design
against possible slope stability and settlement failures.
• Widening at possible locations may affect storage canal for the farmers. Hence a hydraulic
study of the drainage network should accompany the design.