SODO(DIMTU) JUNCTION-BILATE MILITARY

TRIANING CENTER ROAD PROEJCT

Dimtu Town
START OF
PROJECT

Ethiopian Roads
Administration

Bilate military training center

GONDWANA ENG.PLC IN ASS.WITH YLS ENG.
END OF PROJECT PLC
Jan 2023
 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2

Project Name: Sodo Junction (Dimtu) - Blate Military Training Center

Road Project
Project No: S/42/NCB/RFP/GOE/2014EFY
Funding: The Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia (FDRE)
Client: Ethiopian Roads Administration (ERA)

Consultant: Gondwana Engineering plc in Sub-consultancy with YLS

Engineering PLC.
Type of Service: Consultancy Services for Construction Supervision.
Project Period: 36 months, and 24 months for Defect Liability Period.

Consultancy Contract: ETB 35,573,398.50

Signed on: 7th July, 2022
Commencement Date: 21th of July 2022
Planned Duration: 36 months
Project Cost: ETB 2,375,680,864.47 Including VAT
 OBJECTIVES OF THE
3
SERVICE

 The service consists the following main activities

 reviewing of the previous design document
 Redesign any sections which may require revision
 and supervising the construction of all works to be
undertaken under the work contract.
 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE
PROJECT
4

 Sodo Junction (Dimtu) - Blate Military Training Center Road

Project is located in SNNPRS
The project road starts at Dimtu- which is about 330 km from the

Capital Addis Ababa.

The project has

 3designed documents and

Main access road

Airfield

Compound road

 1 facility to be design

 Ceremonial area.
 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
5

 The purpose of the design review is

 To review all design documents as per the

recommended standard
 To countercheck the design document with the actual
ground condition.
 To identify the issues and make recommendations
 START UP OF THE SERVICE
6

 KICK-OFF MEETING
 Kick-Off Meeting was held on July22/2022 at ERA

Northern Region Head office at Addis Ababa.

 The regional directorate director has created

awareness for the urgency of the works contract

 He has also advised the consultant to perform the

supervision service to the required standard without

compromising the quality of construction.
 TECHNICAL AND COST
7
REVIEW
 TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY
 REVIEW OF GEOMETRIC DESIGN
 HYDROLOGICAL AND STRUCTURAL DESIGN
REVIEW
 SOIL AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATION REVIEW
 PAVMENT DESIGN REVIEW
 REVIEW OF MEASUREMENT AND CONTRACT
COST
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY

 The Consultant and Contractor joint survey team

have been engaged in verification of control points
 Almost all of the GPS and BM points established
by the design consultant were available.
 But some of the control points are established in
the construction area.
 Reestablish in parallel out of construction area.
 TOPOGRAPHICAL
9
SURVEY

Sample picture of GPS and

 REVIEW OF GEOMETRIC DESIGN
10

Horizontal alignment
Based on the design traffic, the project road is classified as DC5
road standard and all review has been made accordingly.
MAIN ACCESS ROAD
Radius of curvature.
Due to the flat terrain type of the project area all radius of

curvatures is reasonably larger except at one location noticed with

30-meter radius.
This smaller radius is at compound road which is unable to make it

larger due to right of way problem.

Moreover, since the section is in compound road it is confirmed that

the section is safe for lesser speed of 30km.hr

 REVIEW OF GEOMETRIC
11
DESIGN
Length of access road.
 During reviewing the horizontal alignment of the original
design document minor chainage error has been observed
 Through consultation with the design consultant the chainage
error has been resolved.
 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
 Revision has been made for the following reasons.
 Insufficient embankment as this may cause overtopping at such
flat terrain.
 Highly raised embankment which may cause overturning of
vehicles.
 REVIEW OF GEOMETRIC
12
DESIGN
COMPOUND ROADS.
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT
 Except few segments, all roads are designed properly as
per the required standard.
 However, the horizontal alignment of part of Road OO has
been found closer to the strip width of the runway section.
 This road is also aligned across the end section of the
runway.
 Hence Part of Road OO is proposed to be located at the
new taxiway location towards the existing building.
 REVIEW OF GEOMETRIC
13
DESIGN
 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
 Due to minor revision made on the main access
road the final level of all compound roads has been
updated accordingly.
 Vertical alignment of last section of road WW’ has
been revised to avoid steep gradient noticed at the
end section of the main access road.
 REVIEW OF GEOMETRIC
14
DESIGN


AIRFIELD
 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT
 Physical requirement of the runway has been checked in
respective of ICAO, Aerodrome design manual doc
9157 AN/901
 The design runway has been noticed lack of runway end
safety area provision.
 The starting point of the runway is situated at 6.5meter fill
 REVIEW OF GEOMETRIC
15
DESIGN
 As per the requirement of annex 14 and ICAO standard
runway end safety area, RESA with a length of 240 meter
shall be proposed.
 Due to previously fixed orientation of the runway alignment
there is space limitation at the start and end point of the
runway which governed the total available length.
 The main control point at the two ends of the runway is
 The existing access road Alignment
 The BILATE river bank which is found closer to the end of
the runway.
 REVIEW OF GEOMETRIC
16
DESIGN
The designed runway is limited to a total length of 3.3km while the original
design length was 3.12km.
As per the referred UNIFIED FACILITES CRITREA, UFC

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE USA standard for a design aircraft of C-

130 the runway length is 1525meter
The original design length of the runway is much higher than this length

requirement.
To provide all required facilities ,the paved part of the revised runway is

planned to be reduced to 2820 meter while the requirement is 1525meter.

 As per the ICAO standard the length 2820 meter is also confirmed to

accommodate commercial plane facilities like Bombardier Q400.

The runway strip width recommended for code number 4 is 75meter each

side while the design runway strip is 42 meter each side.

The runway strip 42 meter each side is permissible for code number 2.
 REVIEW OF GEOMETRIC
17
DESIGN
 Horizontal alignment.
 The Orientation of the airfield is previously fixed
along the existing unpaved runway, there is no
revision made on the horizontal alignment
 Vertical alignment.
 The proposed final level of the subject runway is
fixed with the level of the existing airfield.
 The previously proposed final level with six meter
fill height has been revised during design review.
 REVIEW OF GEOMETRIC
18
DESIGN
 Taxiway and Apron.
 The designed taxiway and apron have been found as per the required

standard.
 Issues related to relocation of taxiway and apron had been raised by the

care taker consultant Ethiopian Construction Design and Supervision

Works Corporation, Transport Design and Supervision Works Section.
 The request was forwarded from the Bilate military training center officials

 To make the apron out of the compound for security reasons if there is an

intention to use the airfield for commercial purpose.

 Relocated to the opposite direction which requires the Employer’s final

consent.
 The newly located taxiway and apron, will have additional access road with

a length of 238m.
 REVIEW OF GEOMETRIC
19
DESIGN
 Length of Taxiway.
In the original design the total length of taxiway is found as 260meter long.
As per the ICAO standard for code letter 4D the recommended length is 176meter.

However considering some tolerance 200 meter taxiway is proposed.

 Runway Marking.
The quantities are underestimated BUT all marking types are proposed
 Indicator and Signaling Device
 In the engineering design report
 wind direction indicators,

 landing direction indicators,

 Signaling lamp , signal panels and signal area ARE proposed to be provided

N o drawing and quantity is estimated in the bill of quantities.

 REVIEW OF GEOMETRIC
20
DESIGN
PHYSICAL CHARACTERSTIC OF BILATE AIRFIELD
ORIGINAL DESIGN REVISED DESIGN
crown crown
Section width(m) length(m) slope(%) Grade (%) Surfacing Section width(m) length(m) slope(%) Grade(%) Surfacing
Runway 45 3000 1.5 0.3 Paved Runway 45 2700 1.5 0.43 Paved
Shoulder 7.5 3000 2.5 0.3 Paved Shoulder 7.5 2700 2.5 0.43 Paved
Strip 12 3000 2.5 0.3 Unpaved Strip 12 2700 2.5 0.43 Unpaved
Stop way 60 60 1.5 0.3 paved Stop way 60 60 1.5 0.43 paved
RESA NO NO NO NO NO RESA 90 240 2.5 5 and 0.43 Unpaved
Taxiway 23 260 1.5 1 Paved Taxiway 23 200 1.5 0.27 Paved
Shoulder 7.5 260 2.5 1 Paved Shoulder 7.5 200 2.5 0.27 Paved
Strip 12 260 2.5 1 Unpaved Strip 12 200 2.5 0.27 Unpaved
Apron 180 120 1.5 1 Paved Apron 180 120 1.5 0.27 Paved
 REVIEW OF GEOMETRIC
21
DESIGN

Typical section
 7 different types of typical section has been proposed for main access
Road and compound roads.
 The main access road has
 Dimtu town section,
 Village sections,
 Section in the military training center compound
 Section for unsuitable sub grade material
 The compound road has one type of typical section with a total width
of 7m carriageway and 50cm wide concrete lined inlet for side gutter.
 The typical section for runway taxiway and Apron is also proposed as
per the requirement of ICAO standard.
 HYDROLOGICAL AND HYDRAULICS
RECOMMENDATION REVIEW
22
 HYDROLOGICAL AND HYDRAULICS
RECOMMENDATION REVIEW
23
 HYDROLOGICAL AND HYDRAULICS
RECOMMENDATION REVIEW
24
 HYDROLOGICAL AND HYDRAULICS
RECOMMENDATION REVIEW
25
 HYDROLOGICAL AND HYDRAULICS RECOMMENDATION REVIEW

26
 HYDROLOGICAL AND HYDRAULICS RECOMMENDATION REVIEW

27

 
 HYDROLOGICAL AND HYDRAULICS RECOMMENDATION REVIEW

28
29
 HYDROLOGICAL AND HYDRAULICS
RECOMMENDATION REVIEW
30
 HYDROLOGICAL AND HYDRAULICS
RECOMMENDATION REVIEW
31
 HYDROLOGICAL AND HYDRAULICS RECOMMENDATION REVIEW

32
 HYDROLOGICAL AND HYDRAULICS RECOMMENDATION REVIEW

33
 SOIL AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATION REVIEW

34
 SOIL AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATION REVIEW

35
 SOIL AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATION REVIEW

36
 SOIL AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATION REVIEW

37
 SOIL AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATION
REVIEW
38
 SOIL AND MATERIAL
INVESTIGATION REVIEW
39
 SOIL AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATION REVIEW

40
 SOIL AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATION REVIEW

41


 REVIEW OF MEASUREMENT AND CONTRACT COST

42

 1000 GENERAL
 All items in this series are reviewed and found that
the same has been proposed as per ERA standard
specification.
 2000 SITE CLEARANCE
 Minor difference between the design and the revised
quantity has been seen.
 The reason is due to vertical alignment revision made
on main access, compound road and airfield section.
 REVIEW OF MEASUREMENT AND CONTRACT COST

43

3000 DRAINAGE
 Underestimated quantity for vehicular crossing and overestimated
quantity of curb stone size of 20 by 25,
 4000 Earthworks
 The major quantity difference has been seen from the revision of
the airfield section.
 The main reason is due to inclusion of additional section namely
RESA.
 5000 SUBBASE, ROAD BASE
 The change in quantity has been noticed due to the reduced

paved length of the runway section.

 REVIEW OF MEASUREMENT AND CONTRACT COST

44

 6000 BITUMINOUS SURFACINGS & ROAD BASES

 The change in quantity has been noticed due to the reduced paved length of the

runway section.
 Due to revised pavement thickness of asphalt concrete the quantity in revised

design is lesser than that of the design quantity.

 9000 ANCILARY WORKS
 The main item underestimated in the design document is road marking.
 The design drawing didn’t consider the quantity for the airfield section.

 Runway marking is considered and the quantity for the same item is

revised.
 Summary of cost comparison for design quantity and actual estimated

quantity is shown in the next pages.

 REVIEW OF MEASUREMENT AND CONTRACT COST

45

 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 The project design document has a design concept difference on the airfield
section in relation to the end safety area facility.
 The pavement structure thickness proposed for the airfield is higher than
the required thickness.
 From the engineering design report, it is learnt that the reason for higher
thickness recommendation of Asphalt concrete is assumption of 80% CBR
requirement for base course.
 According to the current practice and specification of base course material
the CBR requirement for base course is 100% and above.

 REVIEW OF MEASUREMENT AND CONTRACT COST

46

 The requirement of base course to this strength will bring the

asphalt concrete thickness from 130mm to 100 mm.
 As per ICAO manual recommendation asphalt concrete on the
shoulder of the airfield is half of the thickness proposed for the
runway which makes the revised thickness to 50 mm.
 Regarding project cost comparison due to some overestimated
quantities during design stage the total cost estimated in the
revised design is below the design cost.
 As shown in the cost comparison summary the contract cost
before contingency and vat is birr 1,883,501,292.50 where as the
revised estimated cost is birr 1,633,881,433.86 .This
shows a saving of 13.15%.
47

THANK YOU