1 STRUCTURAL DESIGN REVIEW REPORT

1.1 General

The following design documents have been collected, studied and reviewed in respect of
drainage and structures design:

 Design Review Standard Report

 Final Engineering Design Review Report
 Engineering Drawings
 Bill of Quantity

The Supervision Consultant (SC) has reviewed the design document and provided
recommendation by evaluating the Design Standard Report for the procedure and
requirements set out in ERA Drainage Design Manual (DDM), ERA Bridge Design Manual
(BDM) and ERA SDD. The Kessa-Gimjabet-Azena-Ambela Road Project is reviewed with
respect to major and minor structures. Based on the review outcome of the hydrology and
hydraulics recommendation, some additional and resizing of minor and major drainage
structures are proposed. In addition, structural changes that have been observed (since the
previous design report by the design consultant, DC) have also been incorporated into the
review.

1.2 Project Description

The scope of work broadly includes all preparatory works of the general works required to
accomplish the project, construction of the permanent works including the road, Bridges,
culverts, and ancillary works. Main structural parts of works to be executed in the contract
and detailed design in phase one which is cover from 0+000 to Km 24+000 are presented
below.

Table 1.2.1: Existing Major and Minor Structures on the segment

No. Description Unit Existing Quantity

1 Bridge No. 3
2 Slab Culvert No. 2
Pipe Culverts(all
3 No. 24
sizes)
Irrigation
4 No. 3
Canals/Culverts

1.3 Major and Minor Drainage Structure Review

1.3.1 Major Drainage Structures

There are three existing major drainage structures in this Segment. The types of existing
structures are slab bridges which are simply supported spans and all the superstructures
composed of RC Deck-Slab.

Table 1.3.1: Existing Major Structures on the segment

Super-
Cell Span Clear Sub-Structure
No Station Type Structure
No. Width Height Type
Type
Masonry
Slab RC Deck-
1 3+866 1 7.00 3.00 Abutment and
Bridge Slab
Wing Wall
Masonry
Slab RC Deck-
2 8+698 1 6.30 2.50 Abutment and
Bridge Slab
Wing Wall
Masonry
Slab RC Deck-
3 12+354 1 10.00 5.00 Abutment and
Bridge Slab
Wing Wall

The DC (Design Consultant) proposed to replace the first two of these structures and to keep
the third one. In our case a team comprises Bridge Engineer, Hydraulic Engineer and
Material engineer visit those Structures and review the recommendation of the DC, based on
Hydraulic analysis and geometric review we recommend the following.

1) Bridge at 3+900

The structures which found at this station are a combination of Slab Bridge and four barrels
pipe culverts. The bridge has 7 Mt. clear span and each concrete pipes has 48” diameter. The
statuses of all structures are in a good condition but due to hydraulic requirements the
structures will replace by Girder Bridge.

2) Bridge at 8+726

At this station found slab Bridge which has clear span 6.3 Mt. the status of the structure is in
a very good condition. The structure where found along the river is in a sag point and cannot
smoothly run out the flood at downstream and also difficult to channelizing. On the other side
if satisfies hydraulic requirements we can keep it.

3) Bridge at 12+354

The structure has 10 Mt. Single span with 7.32 Mt widths. The substructure is constructed by
masonry and the superstructure is constructed by concrete with slab. The status of the
Superstructure, Railing, wing walls and abutment is in a good condition except bottom of slab. The slab bottom requires patching work to cover
the exposed bottom reinforcement bar.

Table 1.3.2: Design Consultant and Supervision Consultant Proposal on the segment

Design Consultant Proposal Supervision Consultant Proposal

No Station Type Catch Design Check Cell Span Clear Catch Design Check Clear
Design Consultant Cell Span Design Consultant
ment Dischar Dischar Widt ment Discha Disch Heigh
No. Height Proposal No. Width Proposal
Area ge ge h Area rge arge t
Due to hydraulic
Replace the exisiting
Slab requirements the structures
1 3+866 53.620 157.750 182.680 1 12.00 3.50 structure by the proposed 49.740 149.01 178.80 1 14.00 4.10
Bridge will replace by Girder
size
Bridge.
Replace the exisiting Satisfies hydraulic
Slab
2 8+698 3.531 25.089 27.598 1 7.00 3.00 structure by the proposed 4.162 25.41 32.11 1 7.00 1.50 requirements we can keep
Bridge
size it.

Keep the existing structure Satisfies hydraulic

Slab
3 12+354 16.17 79.61 92.19 1 10.00 5.00 but it needs down stream 14.296 74.74 89.80 1 10.00 7.32 requirements we can keep
Bridge
and upstream wing wall it.
 Existing Bridges which need rehabilitation

The Supervision Consultant recommends that based on satisfied hydraulic requirements and
existing statues of the bridges we keep the last two bridges however, both of them need a
rehabilitation works should be done accordingly. The bridge at km 8+698 where found along
the river is in a sag point and cannot smoothly run out the flood at downstream so need a
channelization work.

The bridge at km 12+354 the status of the Superstructure, Railing, wing walls and abutment
is in a good condition except bottom of slab. The slab bottom requires patching work to cover
the exposed bottom reinforcement bar.

The SC recommends that the Existing Bridge shall be kept with the following essential repair
works. The other repair works on the super structure like plastering the honeycomb and
peeloff.etc…

 Bridges changed to culverts

There is no any bridge, which falls in this category not proposed by the DC and proposed by
the SC.

 Newly added Bridges

There is no any bridge, which falls in this category not proposed by the DC and proposed by
the SC.

1.3.2 Minor Drainage Structures

Along the segment which is cover from 0+000 to Km 24+000 are 41 crossings have been
recommended for minor drainage structures by the hydrology review and requirements. 32
are Reinforced Concert pipe (RCP) culverts in which 2 of them are double cell RCP and the
remaining 9 are adopted as either Reinforced Concert Box or Reinforced Concrete Slab
culverts. The 3 Culverts are act as an Irrigation Canals. The following table shows total
number comparison between the design and design review Team.

Table 1.3.3: Design Consultant and Supervision Consultant Proposal on the segment

No. of Total Minor Drainage Structure

N
Structure Type
o Existin Supervision
Design Consultant
g Consultant

1 RC Pipe 24 31 32
2 Slab/Box 2 4 6
Irrigation
3 3 3 3
Canals/Culverts
a) Newly added Pipe Culverts
 Where hydrology and geometry requires, the need for additional relief culverts will be
important to make sure that the road serves to the best. Accordingly, pipe culverts with
minimum opening size, were added due to sag in vertical curves, local needs, and that for
streams were not accounted for in the previous design. In addition, 7 additional pipe culverts
(which have a catchment area with hydrological analyses and hydraulic analyses) are
proposed by the Design Consultant and the Design review Team accepting this all new
Proposed RCP and add 2 New Proposal a total of 9 RCP to be added. Please refer the
schedule for detail. The 2 New slab/box Culvert proposed by the DC changed to RCP by SC
based on hydrologic analysis.

Design Supervision
No. Structure Type Consultant Consultant New
New Proposal Proposal
1 RC Pipe 7 2
2 Slab/Box 2 0
Irrigation
3 0 0
Canals/Culverts

New RCP Proposal By Supervision Consultant

Design
Catchment Check/ Span/
Design Structure Clear No. of Flow
Station Area Review Diamete
Discharge Type Depth Spans Direction
(Km2) Discharge r (m)
(m)
0+000 0.036 0.47 0.62 PC 48” 1.22 1 R-L
1+880 0.225 3.38 4.45 PC 48” 1.22 2 L-R

3+280 0.089 1.16 1.52 PC 48” 1.22 1 L-R

6+397 0.109 1.28 1.68 PC 48” 1.22 1 R-L

11+67 PC 48”
0.092 1.08 1.43 1.22 1 L-R
6
13+65 PC 48”
0.109 1.45 1.90 1.22 1 L-R
0
14+28 PC 48”
0.062 0.80 1.05 1.22 1 L-R
3
14+70 PC 48”
0.085 1.22 1.61 1.22 1 L-R
0
16+15 PC 48”
Relief 0.00 0.00 1.22 1 L-R
0
17+68 PC 48”
0.199 1.59 2.09 1.22 1 L-R
3
19+95 PC 48”
0.015 0.21 0.28 1.22 1 L-R
2
b) Omitted pipe culvert

There is no any omitted RCP, which falls in this category not proposed by the DC and
proposed by the SC.