David Rose Final Design Report

Design Report
Caribbean Development Bank

&
Government of Guyana
Basic Needs Trust Fund 7th Programme
Contract No. CA 124/GUY
Provision of Design & Supervision

Services for the Rehabilitation of
Community Roads within Region No. 3 & 4
Final Design Report
For
David Rose Street, Bagotville, West Bank Demerara
16th September 2015
Caribbean Engineering & Management Consultants, Inc.

Lot 117, John Smith Street, Campbellville, Georgetown, Guyana, South America
Tel # - (592) 227-0481, 226- 2773, 226-2758. Fax (592) 226-3930
Executive Summary
This report covers the final design of David Rose Street, Bagotville, West Coast Demerara which was identified by
Basic Needs Trust Fund (BNTF) for rehabilitation works under the BNTF Seventh Programme funded by the
Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) and Government of Guyana (GoG). This final design encompasses field
investigations inclusive of in-situ California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests and engineering surveys. Condition surveys of
the two culverts were also conducted and proposed rehabilitation works are also presented in this report.
The pavement design for this project is based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (1993). Flexible pavements were considered based on
the existing conditions, available materials, practicality and cost effectiveness for pavement rehabilitation and
reconstruction. The material selection, constructability, flexibility of future pavement rehabilitation, upgrades and long
term durability have also been taken into consideration during the pavement selection process. Based on the 24
hours traffic study, the projected traffic over the 15-year design life was less than 50,000 ESALs for this street. As
such, the minimum design traffic loads of 50,000 ESALs were used in the design as recommended in the AASTHO
Guide.
Based on our visual assessment, pavement testing and geotechnical investigation, pavement sections were
noticeably deteriorated with potholes, depressions and waterlogged. As such, rehabilitation strategies were proposed
for the various pavements. The works generally consist of rehabilitating the existing base course with white
sand/sand clay and crushed stone and sealing of the roads with a layer of asphaltic concrete. The western section of
the street will require full construction from sub-grade to wearing course.
Reinforced concrete head and wing walls are proposed at the entrance and also for the Glasgow road intersection.
Head and wing walls are proposed at the intersection since the roadway width is narrow and will continue to get
narrower if headwalls are not installed. All roadside drains are to be either de-silted or reshaped as appropriate.
Based on the calculated quantities and other estimated costs a final sum of US$178,949(GY$36,684,537) was
computed for construction works which is 99% of the total allocated budget of the project.
Utilities companies were also notified and provided feedback on existing water lines and wires/cables. The
construction phase will be completed within four (4) months. A Gantt chart of the consultants schedule is also
provided in
Appendix 7.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................1
1.0
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................1
2.0
Project Background...........................................................................................................................................2
2.1
Historical and Physical Profile ......................................................................................................................2
2.2
Demographics ..............................................................................................................................................3
2.2.1
Economic Profile ..................................................................................................................................3
2.2.2
Social Profile ........................................................................................................................................4
2.2
3.0
Environmental and Social Assessment ........................................................................................................6

Final Design ......................................................................................................................................................8
3.1
Condition Surveys ........................................................................................................................................8
3.2
Design Approach & Proposed Design ........................................................................................................10
3.2.1
Methodology...........................................................................................................................................10
3.2.2
Materials Selection .................................................................................................................................12
3.2.3
Traffic Demand and Loading ..................................................................................................................13
3.2.3
Geotechnical Investigation .....................................................................................................................13
3.2.4.1
Test Pits & Boreholes ....................................................................................................................13
3.2.4.2
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) .............................................................................................14
3.2.5
Road Structure and Drainage.................................................................................................................14
3.2.6
Road Marking & Signs............................................................................................................................14
3.3
Proposed Design ........................................................................................................................................15
3.3.1
Geometric Design ..............................................................................................................................15
3.3.2
Design Criteria .......................................................................................................................................17
3.3.2.1
Estimate ESAL AASTHO 1993...................................................................................................17
3.3.2.2
Subgrade Resilient Modulus..........................................................................................................18
3.3.2.3
Pavement Structural Number ........................................................................................................18
3.3.3
3.4
Proposed Scope of Works......................................................................................................................19

Recommended Design ...............................................................................................................................20
3.5 Cost Estimate & Procurement ...........................................................................................................................21

4.0
Limitations and Construction Issues ...............................................................................................................22
Appendices ..................................................................................................................................................................23
Appendix 1 Design Calculations & Condition Survey ............................................................................................24
Appendix 1A Traffic Survey & Analysis (Estimated ESAL Value .........................................................................25
Appendix 1B Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCP) & California Bearing Ratio ...............................................26
Appendix 1C Existing Pavement Profile & Test Pits............................................................................................27

Appendix 1D AASTHO 1993 - Algorithm Analysis (Structural Number) ..............................................................28
Appendix 1E Interlayer Checks ...........................................................................................................................29
Appendix 2- Photographs ........................................................................................................................................30
Appendix 3- Final Design Drawings.........................................................................................................................33
Appendix 4-Final Estimate.......................................................................................................................................34
Appendix 5-Correspondences .................................................................................................................................35
Appendix 6-Framework for Environmental and Social Assessment ........................................................................36
Appendix 7-Consultant Work Schedule ...................................................................................................................38
List of Tables
Appendices
List of Figures
Figure 1-Showing a Satellite Image of the Project Area at an Altitude of 3781 ft...................................................2
Figure 2-Deteriorated Roadway Chainage 0+420m .................................................................................................. .8
Figure 3-Deteriorated Roadway- Chainage 0+280m................................................................................................. .8
Figure 4-Deteriorated Roadway ,Chainage 0+690m ................................................................................................. .9
Figure 5-Glasgow Road Intersection,Chainage 0+0590m ....................................................................................... .9
Figure 6- Showing gradient of finished road and clay shoulders..........................................................................15
Figure 7- Glasgow Intersection: Deteriorated carriageway, Chainage 0+615m ...................................................31
Figure 8- Deteriorated Carriageway with minor depressions, Chainage 0+690m ................................................31
Figure 9- Deteriorated Carriageway with depressions, Chainage 0+500m ...........................................................31
Figure 10-Test Pit at Chainage 0+710m ...................................................................................................................32
Figure 11-Garbage Along Side Roadway ................................................................................................................ .32
Figure 12-Deteriorated Carriageway showing large depressions .........................................................................32
List of Tables
Table 1-Diversification of skills amongst residents..................................................................................................3
Table 2-Population Disaggregated by sex (Source La-Grange/Nismes NDC) ........................................................4
Table 3-Social Development Profile to produce more marketable residents. ........................................................5
Table 4-Pavement Design Inputs ..............................................................................................................................17
Table 5-Proposed Scope of Works ...........................................................................................................................19
Table 6-Section 1:Chainage 0+000m - 0+615m (Road width 3.65m / 12ft.) ...........................................................20
Table 7-Section 2:Chainage 0+615m- 0+690m (Road width 2.43m / 8ft.) ..............................................................20
Table 8-Section 2:Chainage 0+690m - 0+745m (Road width 2.43m / 8ft.) .............................................................20
Table 9 - Summary of Final Estimate .......................................................................................................................21
Appendices
Appendix 1Design Calculations & Condition Survey
Appendix 1A Traffic Survey & Analysis (Estimated ESAL Value
Appendix 1B Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCP) & California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
Appendix 1C Existing Pavement Profile & Test Pits
Appendix 1D AASTHO 1993 - Algorithm Analysis (Structural Number)
Appendix 1E Interlayer Checks
Appendix 2- Photographs
Appendix 3- Final Design Drawings
Appendix 4-Final Estimate
Appendix 5-Correspondences
Appendix 6-Framework for Environmental and Social Assessment
Appendix 7-Consultant Work Schedule
1.0 Introduction
Caribbean Engineering and Management Consultants Inc (CEMCO) was engaged by the Caribbean Development
Bank (CDB) to produce engineering design, construction drawings and supervisory services for the improvement of
David Rose Street, located in Bagotville, West Bank Demerara, Region 3. The length and width of this street is 745
meters and 3.7 meters respectively. The roadway will directly benefit approximately 850 residents in the Bagotville
community.
The allocated CDB budget for end of construction cost is US$179,080 (GY$36,711,400) with a total budget utilization
of US$178,949(GY$36,684,537).
CEMCO is tasked with conducting all investigations and produce engineering designs and estimates for constructing
this roadway and supporting infrastructure within the Clients budget. Tender Documents is a deliverable of the Final
Design Phase.
An initial site visit was made to the sites by representatives of BNTF, [Mr. Utoh Project Engineer] and CEMCOs
design and supervision team, [Team Leader, Mr. P. Bonar Chief Engineer and others] and members of the
respective communities on the 23rd June 2015. Surveys and field work started on the 24th June 2015.
This report presents the findings of our assessment of the roads (condition survey), the sub-surface investigation and
analysis, the plans, profiles and cross sections obtained from the surveys, the required design interventions, the
proposed design for the pavements and associated infrastructure as well as final cost estimates and
recommendations.
This Report is intended to provide the Client with all the necessary information required to make an informed decision
on the preferred design option to be pursued as well as the scope of intervention and prioritization.
2.0
Project Background
2.1 Historical and Physical
Profle
Bagotville is located on the West Bank of Demerara; Administrative Region No. 3: approximately five (5) miles (8
Kilometres) from Georgetown and is accessible via the Demerara Harbour Bridge. In 1848 a group of slaves bought
the village from a proprietor known as Mr. Bagot, hence the name Bagotville. Residents normally hold an annual
village day fair to showcase cultural food, games and to appreciate a sense of community unity.
Bagotville is bordered by La-grange to the south, Nismes to the north and Demerara River to the east. The
community is divided into residential housing and farmlands. It is accessible at all times by buses which traverse the
main roads from early in the morning to late in the evenings throughout the year. Most of the houses within Bagotville
are comprised of timber and concrete structures; that have readily access to potable water, electricity and garbage
disposal services (NDC and Private Sectors). Community Streets in Bagotville consist of a flexible pavement design
with a Double Bituminous Surface Treatment.
Figure 1-Showing a Satellite Image of the Project Area at an Altitude of 3781 ft.
Approximate GPS Coordinates (UTM)

Starting Point UTM Coordinates:
E 0367211, N 0747171 (Intersection at Public Road)
Glasgow Road Intersection UTM Coordinates:
E 0366614, N 0747231
Ending Point UTM Coordinates:
E 0366483, N 0747233
2
2.2
Demographics
2.2.1
Economic Profle
Based on the stakeholders meeting held on the 20th June, 2014 it was identified that most of the working population
are involved the following sectors:
Earning/Living
Occupation/Skills
Skills Needed
Men
Qualified
-Teachers
-Private and Public Sectors Employees
Craftsmen e.g.
-Carpenters
Skilled
-Welders
-Electricians
-Masons)
Unskilled
-Farmers
-Hydroponics
-Self-employed
Women
-Teachers
Qualified
-Nurses,
-Private and Public Sectors Employees
Skilled
Unskilled
-Self-employed
-Sewing
-Housewives
-Catering
Table 1-Diversification of skills amongst residents

The unemployment rate in the community is high even though farming is the major economic activity within the
village. Farmers usually take their produce to neighbouring markets to wholesale/retail; this in turn means residents
would have to travel to nearby markets such as Vreed-en-Hoop (two miles) away or utilize markets in the capital city
of Georgetown e.g. La Penitance, Bourda and Stabroek when travelling home after work. Residents also indicated
that persons would also seek employment outside of Bagotville in Georgetown and as far as the Hinterland and
would periodically visit/send remittance to family members.
The 2006 Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) indicated in Region #3; Essequibo Islands/West
Demerara: that forty percent (40%) of the population currently lives in poverty.
2.2.2
Social Profle
Population
During the Stakeholders meeting on the 20th June,2014 the following information was submitted by the LaGrange/Nismes Neighbourhood Democratic Council in relations to David Rose Street.
The population is approximately 850 residents (Males 390, Females 460)
Number of Households 99
Approximately twenty-four percent (24%) or 200 persons of the population are children under the age of 14
years.
Approximately one percent (1%) of the households are headed by a single parent, who are mostly women.
Age
Males
Females
Adults ( 25 years)
140
200
Youths (14-24 years)
131
179
Child ( 14 years )
119
81
Sub-Total
390
460
Total
850
Table 2-Population Disaggregated by sex (Source La-Grange/Nismes NDC)

Residents within Bagotville have access to potable water, electricity and garbage disposal services via NDC and the
private sector; however only fifty percent (50%) of the households have indoor toilets.
The ethnic composition of this community is approximately:
African
- 90%
East Indian
- 10%
Some of the Community Infrastructure/ Social Services availability to residents in Bagotville are listed below:
Nursing/Medical Station/ Clinic
- NO
Childcare Centre
- YES
Schools (Nursery, Primary & Secondary)
- YES
Library
- YES
Police Station
- YES
Womens Shelter
- NO
Children Services
- NO
According to the La-grange/Nismes NDC all of the social services within the community are adequately equipped and
staffed to meet the needs of the community. Residents have also indicated their availability to participate in
community
works from which youths can benefit; whether it be paid work or skills development.
Sex
Needs
Males
Recreational Facilities
Challenges
The males will be more

socially rounded.
Do not have access to
Skills Training
Females
Impact
training facilities
-Homecare
Becoming
equipped
with
necessary skills to make
-Parenting
themselves marketable.
-Sewing
Table 3-Social Development Profile to produce more marketable residents.
2.2 Environmental and Social Assessment

To achieve the main objectives of this consultancy TOR, the following methodology has been used thus far to conduct
the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for the selected roads and to prepare the initial Environmental
assessment (ES).This has provided information that is required to identify the issues and recommendations for the
proposed roads respectively.
The pertinent environmental and social issues regarding environmental impacts of the project, establishing the need
for the project, specific features of the rehabilitated roadway as well as willingness of community to support project
and dealing with temporary inconveniences of such works, are based largely on views expressed by stakeholders in
the specific areas where the roads are to be constructed. On June 23rd 2015, a site inspection of the David Rose
Street, Bagotville site, was undertaken by representatives of BNTF and CEMCO Inc. to discuss the proposed roads
and future implications with community residents, NDC and PMC members. The stakeholders (villagers) were
engaged during the Initial BNTF/Consultant visit where detailed discussion based on critical issues highlighted in the
TOR was undertaken. The key points listed below guided the discussions with the community.
1. Description of Project Funding activities.
2. Description of field and design works to be carried out as part of consultancy.
3. Description of likely designs.
4. Community involvement in discussion regarding specific features of the roadway.
5. Discussion of mitigation measures to be implemented through the contract documents and technical
specification as well as supervision of project.
6. Discussions with community to garner their views on environmental impacts such as dust, noise, oil spills etc.
Recommendation for best management of these impacts.
7. Identification of point person to provide feedback and liaison services for the community.
Key issues identified by stakeholders in Bagotville in relation to David Rose Street:
1. David Rose Street has 1 private school and approximately 5 shops, residents raised concerns whether these
facilities will be affected and requested that access be maintained at all times during construction.
2. Speed humps should be included in designs.
3. Area is prone to flooding and a culvert located in the last street (Glasgow Road Intersection) is sinking and
should also be fixed.
4. Residents should be consulted to fill vacancies for labourer positions during construction.
5. Barriers should be placed on the road to prevent Puran Bros waste collection and other larger trucks from
accessing the area.
6. Road should be built to accommodate the extensive thru - traffic.
6
7. Workers and contractors should adhere to safety practices.

8. Will de-silting of canal be part of project?
9. Residents recommended that parking on the roadway should be discouraged.
In addition an Environmental Reconnaissance focused on the following key areas:
1. Proximity of schools, places of worship and other social services to the existing roadways.
2. Proximity of residences to the roadway to be rehabilitated and likely social impacts.
3. Dust noise and other construction phase impacts.
4. Identification of alterative diversions for traffic where applicable.
5. Best construction methods to allow safe access of public during construction.
6. Placement of construction signs and other safety equipment.
7. Waste management practices during construction.
8. Proximity of waterways to the site; is construction likely to impact water quality? Best construction methods
to deal with such impacts.
9. Possibility of project affecting flora and fauna.
10. General public safety.
This process will underpin the success of the overall project through contributing to build a consensus for the
recommended roadway design and through recommendations for best construction practices to minimize
environmental impacts. In keeping with the TOR, an Environmental Management Guideline document will be
prepared that would deal with the following.
1. Identification of environmental and social impacts of the project.
2. Best Construction Practices/Recommendation to minimize Environmental and Social Impacts
3. Monitory and Management recommendations for Construction Phase Impacts.
4. Reporting Framework for environmental monitoring.
5. Measures to evaluate environmental performance and compliance.
The Environmental Management Recommendations and guidelines will follow international best practices and will
meet or exceed EIA guidelines outlined by the Guyana EPA and the Project TOR.
3.0
Final Design
3.1
Surveys
Condition
Chainage 0+000m to 0+590m

The pavement between 0+000m to 0+590m is a Double Bituminous Surface Treatment (DBST) and a crushed stone
base which is found to be in a poor condition with medium to high severity of pavement distress. The subgrade
consists of an average of 200mm white sand and 125mm white sand/sand clay. The pavement distresses
predominately found as depressions and potholes. HDPE culvert exists at the entrance but doesnt have headwalls
nor wingwalls and there is a failed timber revetment at this location.
Drains appear to be partially functioning.
There are currently one roadside shop and an abandoned car which needs to be removed to accommodate scarifying
and grading of road materials.
Figure 2-Deteriorated Roadway Chainage 0+420m
Figure 3-Deteriorated Roadway- Chainage 0+280m
Chainage 0+590m to 0+690m

The pavement between 0+590m to 0+690m is a Double Bituminous Surface Treatment (DBST) and a white
sand/sand clay base which is found to be in a poor condition with high severity of pavement distress. The subgrade
consists of an average of 250mm white sand. There is no crusher run base existing. The pavement distresses
predominately found as depressions and potholes. Steel pipe culvert exists at chainage 0+600m but doesnt have
headwalls nor wingwalls and the road width is narrow over the culvert.
Between chainage 0+690m to 0+745m there isnt any existing road materials hence full road construction has to be
done.
Drains appear to be partially functioning.
Figure 4-Deteriorated Roadway ,Chainage 0+690m
Figure 5-Glasgow Road Intersection,Chainage 0+0590m
3.2 Design Approach & Proposed Design

3.2.1 Methodology
1. Field Investigation and surveys were conducted over the period 24th June 2015 to 30th June 2015.
To collect inventory information related to the roadway, lengths, widths, existing cross sections,
grade profiles, and structures type and sizes, drainage, safety issues and data related to any
special use issues that should be attended to during road design. Information of the direct
beneficiaries and businesses along the three roadways were also collected.
Geotechnical Investigation to obtain soil strata and CBR of sub grade.
The existing condition of the timber bridge and existing HDPE pipe culvert and the need for
rehabilitation works.
Continuous 24 hours traffic survey.
2. Using the results of the data obtained pavement and geometric design drawings were done using the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures (1993). This section incorporates the following parameters:
Design Variables (traffic; time constraints; reliability and environmental impacts)
Performance criteria (level of service expected during design life)
Material Properties (Load bearing characteristics of the various pavement materials and supporting
road bed soils)
Flexible pavements were considered based on the existing conditions, practicality and cost effectiveness for both
pavement rehabilitation and widening.
Under AASHTO 1993 pavement design protocol, the Design Structural Number (SNDesign) for every pavement is
determined to estimate the viability of the rehabilitation strategy over the design life of the pavement for a known
Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL). SNDesign for the various pavements is calculated using the following formulation:
.eq (1)
Where i = every layer in the proposed structural layer of the pavement after rehabilitation;
n = Number of material layers;
ai = Structural Coefficient of ith layer;
Di = Layer thickness of ith layer; and
mi = Drainage Coefficient of ith layer.
10
The basic concept of pavement design based upon AASHTO, 1993 protocol for flexible pavements requires firstly
determining the required thickness of the pavement based upon the level of traffic. The associated performance
period is then corrected for any environmental-associated losses (Pi = Initial Serviceability = 4.5 and Po =
Terminal Serviceability = 2.0) for a suitable pavement design over a design life of the pavement, the following
equation is used
to estimate the New Structural Number (called SNNew):
.eq(2)
Where
w18 = ESAL repetitions expected during the design life;
ZR and So= Reliability and Standard Deviation of the usage of pavement and type of structure
(75% and 0.44, respectively);
SNNew = New Structural Number that the pavement must satisfy;
Pi = Initial Serviceability =4.2;
Po= Terminal Serviceability = 2.0; and
MR = Subgrade Resilient Modulus (estimated form the back-calculation protocol).
Equation 2 was developed as a regression model and is the primary flexible pavement design protocol that is used by
AASHTO, 1993 pavement design manual. It relates the ESALs to Structural Number, serviceability drop and subgrade
resilient modulus using reliability concepts. The derivation of this equation is based upon AASHTO Road test that was
performed in USA in the 1960s. For a rehabilitation strategy to be activated, the following rationale has to satisfy:
SNreq > SNeffective
eq(3)
Once the scenario presented in Eq. 2 is satisfied, a rehabilitation alternative will be chosen such that the following
condition is satisfied.
SNDes > SNReq.eq(4)
The various rehabilitation and reconstruction options being presented in the latter sections were based on the above
mentioned design criterion with the pertinent information obtained from our geotechnical investigation.
1. Design reinforced HDPE concrete culverts.
2. From the designs produced cost estimate were prepared using current prices.
11
3.2.2
Materials Selection
The following are typical materials available and used in road and highway construction in Guyana:
Bitumen: Typically imported and is used during the hot mix asphalt production.
Crushed Gravel (1st Grade Crushed Stone): Crushed stone used in road construction in Guyana comes
from the Essequibo county with the Highland natural region and is delivered to Georgetown via barges and
trucks. The use of this material as a road base or aggregate for asphaltic concrete is extensive throughout
Guyana. There are basically two types of material available, Gabbro and Granite; the former is the preferred
choice for both road base and asphaltic concrete applications. The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) for this
material ranges from 60% to 100%.
White Sand (WS): This natural sand is fine to medium grained and is readily available along the hilly sand
and clay natural region. White sand is extensively used locally for road construction and is mainly used as an
improved subgrade, drainage layer or as a component for blending with other materials to be mentioned
below.
White Sand/ Sand Clay (WS/SC): It is one of the most extensively used road construction materials
throughout Guyana. It is readily available from open pits at Timehri, East Bank Demerara. Historically the
sand clay is typically mixed with white sand in ratios of 75:25 to 60:40 depending on the plasticity derived
during material sampling and testing. The moisture content of the material can be difficult to control due to
the local climatic and ground conditions in the pits. The CBR for the WS/SC typically ranges from 25%-50%
and
the common practice is to utilize it in the base of low volume local roads and sub-base on primary roads.
12
3.2.3
Traffic Demand and Loading
The predicted loading is simply the predicted number of 80 kN (18,000 lbs) along with the ESALs that the pavement
will experience over its design lifetime, which is 15 years for this project. The traffic study was for a continuous 24
hours period which was conducted for each of the roadway. (See Appendix I). The formula below represents the
ESAL and is used in to estimate the ESAL value for each roadway (See Appendix I). AASTHO 1993 recommended,
when the ESAL value is less than the minimum value, 50,000 ESAL should be used for low volume community roads.
This scenario was applicable for David Rose Street.
..Eq(5)
Where:
ADT Annual Daily Traffic
T Percentage of Trucks
Tf Truck Factor
G (1+r)0.58y
D - Directional Distribution Factor
L - Lane Distribution Factor
Y Design Years
These pavement parameters are explained in Appendix 1.
3.2.3
Geotechnical Investigation
3.2.4.1 Test Pits & Boreholes

Several boreholes were taken on the streets identified under this project. The results of these boreholes are given in
Appendix 1C. The chip sealed (DBST) surfaces can be considered non existing since it is badly damage throughout
the entire roadway. The sub-base layers are in excess of 150 mm in thickness. Based on the material types, their
recommended structural coefficients were utilized to produce the structural design of the pavement. Test-pits were
also executed to determine the immediate and 24 hours water table. The immediate water table was recorded as
1.2 m
below the road level likewise the 24 hours depth measured as 0.7 m below the surface.
13
3.2.4.2 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)

The U.S. Army Corps developed the DCP and the correlation between the test results (DCP index) and CBR. The
CBR value can be related to the subgrade resilient modulus relationship developed by the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation (AASHTO). The subgrade resilient modulus is essential in the AASHTO pavement
design method and could be determined by multiple methods including Benkelman Beam, DCP/CBR and laboratory
testing. The geotechnical investigation program incorporates the DCP/CBR method, coupled with AASHTO
correlation of subgrade resilient modulus is preferred. It is because Benkelman Beam testing is not possible in
severely deteriorated sections.
A total of one twelve (12) tests were conducted in the open borehole through the existing base/subbase/subgrade
layer where possible. The test results were analyzed with CBR values ranging from 2% to 11%, with an average of
4.8%. It is entirely possible that localized pockets of fill and excessive moisture have affected the test results and
such anomalies were exempted from the data set. The DCP testing results are summarized in the boreholes
summary tables and field notes are enclosed in Appendix 1C of this report. Equation (6) represents the relationship
with the CBR and DCP values and is recommended by the ARMY Corps of Engineers with respect to ASTM
D6951/D6951M.
In Situ CBR (%) = 292/ (DCP1.12) ..Eq(6)
3.2.5
Road Structure and Drainage
The existing HDPE pipe culvert at the entrance to this street will be upgraded with wing and head walls. The existing
900 mm diameter HDPE pipe will be cleaned and reused. Also, head and wing walls will be installed at the Glasgow
road intersection and the 900 mm diameter existing steel barrel pipe will be cleaned and reused. All roadside earthen
drains will be de-silted and reshaped.
3.2.6
Road Marking & Signs
This is a community access road; lane marks and edge marks will not be included in this contract except for the
junction linking the roadway with the West Bank Demerara Main Public Road (30m from the WBD Main Road).
Painting of speed humps, stop marking, stop lines and installation of STOP signs are included for installation and as
detailed on drawings.
Four (4) speed humps are included in the scope of works at chainages 0+30m, 0+245m, 0+590m and 0+615m.
14
3.3 Proposed Design

3.3.1
Geometric Design
The existing road width from 0+00m to 0+615m is 3.05m (10ft.) while 0+615m to 0+745m has an existing road width
of 2.44m. Follow field data analysis which comprised of boreholes and test pits; there was visible evidence of existing
sub base layers which allowed for the expansion of the current roadway from 3.1m to 3.67m (12ft). This expansion is
only scheduled for the first section of the roadway as this is the most trafficked region and due to the limitations of the
budget. However there will an extension of the roadway from 0+690m to 0+745m which requires full reconstruction
as there is no existing sub base layer (trial test pit dug at 0+710m only indicating clay layer); This further extension of
the 2.44m (8ft.) roadway is to incorporate a more easily flow of access to the burial ground. The entire roadway will
have a cambered of 2% to accommodate rainfall runoff and a graded shoulder slope of 3% as shown in cross
sectional figure below. For Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 2000 to 4000 for residential access roads; a width of
3.05m 3.6m is recommended. Road widths may be reduced by 0.3m to 0.6m based on the engineers judgement
regarding space available as what was done for chainage 0+590m to 0 + 745m. (AASHTO Geometric Standards
Green Book).
Figure 6- Showing gradient of finished road and clay shoulders
15
There is currently large earthen drains located on northern side of the roadway spanning a width of 3.05m with a
slope gradient of approximately 1:2. The flow direction is from west to east and outflows into the West Bank
Demerara Public Road main drain which discharges into Canal Polder No. 1 main canal. The proposed drainage
work includes the desilting and reshaping of the drains but the depth and slope gradient will be maintained as there is
no visible signs of slope failures along the carriageway. The current width of the clay shoulders exceeds 1.22m
(4ft.) and will not present any future slippage of the roadway. At Glasgow road intersection the radius of the transition
zone was determined in relation to the width of the existing and proposed road carriageways hence for the 2.44m
width road a transition radius of 3.05m (10ft.) was utilized. Likewise a transition radius of 4.57m (15ft.) was used at
the entrance of the roadway i.e. the junction of David Rose Street and West Bank Demerara Main Public Road (The
2011 AASHTO Green Book for Geometric Standards was considered).
16
3.3.2
Design Criteria
Design parameter
Value
Initial Serviceability Index, P0
4.2
Terminal Serviceability, Pt
2.0
Total Change in Serviceability, PSI
2.2
Design Life, years
15
Reliability, R %
75
Standard Deviation, So
0.4
Subgrade Resilient Modules, MR (Mpa)
(3000) 2% CBR
Pavement Layer Coefficients

New Asphalt
0.44
Old Asphalt layer
0.25
Existing (old) base
0.08
Crushed gravel base (1st grade crushed stone)
0.141
Sand and clay sub-base layer (white sand/sand clay)
0.11
White Sand Layer
0.07
Existing Asphalt (Fair to Good condition)
0.42
Pulverized materials
0.12
Burnt Earth
0.05
Table 4-Pavement Design Inputs

Note: The Design Parameters based on Chapter 4 of AASHTO Pavement Design Guide, 1993 and the Pavement
Layer Coefficients are from AASHTO 1993 and MI-183 Adaption and Verification of AASHTO Pavement Design
Guide for Ontario Conditions. Other Pavement Layer Coefficients of local materials are based on the previous test
done.
3.3.2.1 Estimate ESAL AASTHO 1993
A 24 hours traffic survey was conducted at the entrance to David Rose Street on the 15th June 2015 and is
summarized in Appendix 1A. The 15 years design ESAL traffic analysis with an annual compound growth rate of 4%
is also presented in Appendix 1A. The design lane and directional distribution factor were taken as 100 % since the
roadway is one-carriageway with two directions of traffic: Equation 5 was utilized in the estimation of the ESAL value.
The estimated 15 years ESAL value calculated is 18,484 hence, a design ESAL value of 50,000 was used in this
design. AASTHO guide recommended that the minimum ESAL should be 50,000 for secondary community access
roads.
17
3.3.2.2 Subgrade Resilient Modulus

The subgrade resilient modulus was found to range from 2 % to 11.0 % hence, the minimum CBR value was used to
determine the Structural Pavement Number. The field testing data, test pits and calculation sheet for the CBR is
attached to Appendix 1B of this report.
3.3.2.3 Pavement Structural Number
The pavement structural number was computed as 2.25 for David Rose Street. (See Appendix 1D). The structural
number was calculated from equation 2 by a trial and error method which is presented in Appendix 1D. After the
structural numbers were generated, interlayer checks were required to estimate the minimum thickness for each
layer. Interlayer checks are enclosed in Appendix 1E.
18
3.3.3
Proposed Scope of Works
The table below highlights the proposed scope of works with alterations made to maximize the usage of the budget
without comprising the durability of the road.
Description
Comments
i.
Construction of asphalt concrete surface

and upgrade base course for the entire
roadway.
ii.
Concrete culvert head and wing walls will

be constructed at the entrance and at the
Glasgow intersection.
iii.
The width of the road is 3.67m (12ft) from

chainage 0+000 to 0+615 m and 2.44m
(8 ft) from 0+615m to 0+745m.
iv.
Full reconstruction is required

chainage 0+690m to 0+ 745m.
v.
Earthen drains will be reshaped and desilted.
vi.
Construction of clay shoulders both sides of

carriageway.
vii.
4 painted speed humps remains
from
i)
HDPE pipe at the entrance will be reused

likewise steel pipe at the Glasgow
intersection. Headwalls and wing walls at
the intersection are necessary since the
road width is extremely narrow.
ii) Test pits shows that there is existing road

material from chainage 0+ 615m to
0+690m; hence full reconstruction will not
be required.
iii) The western section the roadway width will
be constructed to an 8ft finished
carriageway and the base layer will be 10
ft because of the shoulder width and depth
of the drains. If the 12ft roadway is
maintained at this location revetment will
be necessary and will have significant cost
increase.
viii. Road markings are introduced. (e.g STOP

signs at the entrance)
Table 5-Proposed Scope of Works
19
3.4 Recommended Design

The tables below highlight the proposed road profile layers and the existing layers.
Existing Pavement Structure
Proposed Pavement Structure
Deteriorated DBST Removed
38 mm Asphalt Concrete
50 mm Crusher Run (Avg Remaining)
100 mm Crusher Run
150 mm WWS/SC(Avg Remaining)
50 mm Crusher Run (Avg Remaining)
200 mm WS(Avg Remaining)

200 mm WS
Table 6-Section 1:Chainage 0+000m - 0+615m (Road width 3.65m / 12ft.)
125 mm WS/SC(Avg Remaining)
38 mm Asphalt Concrete
100 mm Crusher Run

Table 7-Section 2:Chainage 0+615m- 0+690m (Road width 2.43m / 8ft.)
Clay
38mm Asphalt Concrete

100 mm Crusher Run
125 mm WS/SC(Avg Remaining)
Table 8-Section 2:Chainage 0+690m - 0+745m (Road width 2.43m / 8ft.)
Drainage & Structures

Reinforced concrete head and wing walls are proposed at the entrance and same for the Glasgow road intersection.
The 900 mm diameter HDPE pipe will be used likewise for steel pipe at the intersection. Road-sides earthen drains
will
be desilted and reshaped.
20
3.5 Cost Estimate & Procurement

The table below presents a summary of the estimated cost. Based on the calculated quantities and anticipated
variations, a cost of US$8,220(GY$1,685,000) was estimated for Preliminaries and Miscellaneous;
US$136,926 (GY$28,069,837) for Incidental Roadworks; US$4,181(GY$857,200) for Drainage Works, and
US$29,622(GY$6,072,500) for Structural and Incidentals, resulting in an overall subtotal of
US$178,949(GY$36,684,537).
The complete estimate is provided in Appendix 4.
BILL OF QUANTITIES GRAND SUMMARY
Contract Name: Basic Needs Trust Fund Seventh Programme
Contract - David Rose Street, Bagotville, WBD
Contract No.:
Amount
(USD)
General Summary
Bill No.A: Preliminaries
8,220.00
Bill No. B : Incidental Road Works
Amount
(GYD)
1,685,000.00
136,926.00
28,069,837.00
4,181.00
857,200.00
29,622.00
6,072,500.00
Sub-total of Bills
178,949.00
36,684,537.00
CBD's Allocated End of Construction Cost
179,080.00
36,711,400.00
Bill No. C: Drainage Works

Bill No. D: Structures and Incidential Works
Note: 1 USD = 205 GYD
Table 9 - Summary of Final Estimate
21
4.0
Limitations and Construction Issues
There will be several issues which will arise during the construction phase; some of which are listed below.
During construction of the reinforced concrete headwalls and wing walls of the culvert there will be minor
inconvenience caused from the rerouting of traffic at the junction of David Rose Street and WBD Public
Road i.e. there will be one way flow of traffic at the head of the roadway during construction.
Structures to be removed include a side shop located at 0+015m and an abandoned car on the edge of the
roadway.
GWI The underground water utility line will be temporarily relocated to remove the possibility of rupturing
any pipelines which may cause further distress to residents. A lump sum (Bill D-Structures; Item D1.2.1) has
been included in the Final Estimates to accommodate for this.
GPL- The existing power utility poles are located within a close proximity of the proposed roadway.
Most of the residential entrances are timber bridges and out of the proposed road carriageway hence no
problems during construction.
22
Appendic
es
23
Appendix 1 Design Calculations & Condition Survey
24
Appendix
1A
Traffic Survey & Analysis (Estimated ESAL Value)
25
Project Name:
Client
Description:
Prepared By:
Checked By:
Reference:
Community Roads Improvement

BNTF - CDB & GoG
Estimate ESAL - David Rose Street, Bagotville, WBD
K. Rajana
P. Deodat
AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures 1993
ESAL Definition
The 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures states that "the damage effect of the passage of an axle of any mass (commonly called load) can be represented by a number of 18-kip equivalent single axle loads or ESAL's."
Variables in ESAL Calculations
According to the AASHTO Guide, several variables can impact the load equivalency factors and therefore will impact the calculated ESAL's. The variables are: pavement type (rigid or flexible), thickness, and terminal serviceability used for design. This spreadsheet program only calculates ESAL's
for flexible pavements. The thickness and terminal serviceability variables are accounted for at the bottom of the AASHTO ESAL calculation sheets with notes on suggest input values for various applications.
Axle Load and Type
Vehicles - (24 Hrs Traffic)
Passenger Cars
Passenger Buses
Small Canters/Vans/ Jeeps / Pick Ups
Large Canters
Sand Trucks
Garbage Trucks (Full)
West to East
East to West
Axle 1 (k)
46
12
6
0
0
1
50
10
6
0
0
1
2S
2S
2S
2S
8S
8S
Axle 2 (k)
2S
4S
4S
4S
24 T
24 T
Gross
Weight
Axle 3 (k)
S
4
S
6
S
6
S
S
32
S
32
Comments on Variables
Equivalency Factor
Axle 1
Axle 2
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.613
1.56
0.002
0.02
0.02
0.02
1.08
1.23
Axle 3
Two-Way Average Daily Traffic
ADT
132
Typical ranges are 50-800 vehicles for residential streets, 700-5,000 vehicles for collectors, and 3,000-50,000+ vehicles for arterials.
Number of Years
YRS
15
Pavement designs typically have a design life ranging from 15-30+ years.
Growth Rate (%)
GR
Growth rates typically range from 1 to 3 percent per year; this growth rate is applied to all traffic, not just trucks.
Growth Factor
1.40666296
Total Growth Factor
GF
20.02358764
Directional Distribution Factor (%):
DD
100
A 50-50 split between traffic going in each direction on the roadway typically is used (e.g., a Directional Distribution of 50%). In some cases, however, a difference in traffic patterns
may necessitate a directional distribution other than 50%, such as a particular area generating more trips over a long period of time than the number of trips that it attracts. AASTHO
recommended that the factor can vary from 30 % to 70 %. Since the vehicle will be traversing on the same wheel path most of the time (road with 12 ft), the factor is taken as 100%.
Design lane distribution refers to the percent of vehicles in one direction that use one lane of the roadway the most. For example, on 4-lane divided highways (e.g., 2 lanes in each
direction), 90% of the traffic on average uses the right (or driving lane) and 10% of the traffic uses the left lane (or passing lane). Indian Roads Congress (IRC - 37-2001)
recommended that for a single laneroad, the factor is 1; for a two -lane road with single carriagewa, the factor is 0.75, for a four lane single carriageway it is 0.40. Clause 2.2.1 in the
AASTHO under Taffic provide a table to estimate the Lane Factor.
Design Lane Distribution Factor (%)
LD
100
Percentage of Trucks (%)
TP
1.515151515
Truck Factor (ESALs/Truck)
Final Design ESAL's
TF
1.2
Function of the Growth Rate and the design live of the pavement.
Typical ranges include 1-3% for residential streets, 3-15% for collectors, and 5-30% for arterials.
The truck factor characterizes the average number of ESALs per truck. FHWAs Traffic Monitoring Guide (TMG) provides guidance on such characterizations. Vehicles such as
motorcycles, passenger cars, vans and pickup trucks have negligible impact on the truck factor. Buses can truck factors ranging from 0.57 ESALs/bus for a typical-length, empty bus to
up to 6.17 ESALs/bus for articulated buses with all seats filled and standing passengers. Similarly, the truck factor for trucks can have a very large range, depending on configuration and
weight restrictions. Passenger car equivalent for trucks = 1.2 (Which was used for WCD and EBB Road esign Project since Since overloaded truck is common and was encountered
during the axle load tests, an average truck factor of 1.2 ESAL/truck is utilised to address this issue.). The safety factor incorporated would also future truck upgrades to satisfy the
request of local residents.
18,484
Since the ESAL Value is less than the minimum recommended by AASTHO 1993, 50,000 ESAL will be use in this design
Recommended ESAL
50,000 (50,000 ESALs for low volume access roads)
Appendix
1B
Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCP) & California Bearing Ratio
26
Name
of
Project:
BNTF
Roads
Upgrade
Project
Road:
David Rose Street, Bagotville, WBD
Borehole No. 1
:
Chainage:
0+010 m
Lane:
Northern Lane @ 450mm offset from edge (Northern)
No. Of
Blows
(1)
0
Accumulative Penetration
Per
Penetration/
Blow Set/mm
mm (2)
(3)
10
Penetration
Per
Blow/mm (4)
Hammer Blow
Factor
(5)
DCP Index (6)
CBR % (7)
94
84
16.8
17
12.4
147
53
10.6
11
20.8
188
41
8.2
27.7
240
52
10.4
10
21.2
294
54
10.8
11
20.3
355
61
12.2
12
17.7
411
56
18.7
19
11.0
445
34
34.0
34
5.6
467
22
22.0
22
9.2
500
33
33.0
33
5.8
525
25
25.0
25
7.9
560
35
35.0
35
5.4
580
20
20.0
20
10.2
652
72
72.0
72
2.4
1
1
1
1
729
786
830
870
77
57
44
40
77.0
57.0
44.0
40.0
1
1
1
1
77
57
44
40
2.3
3.2
4.2
4.7
907
37
37.0
37
5.1
937
30
30.0
30
6.5
1
1
955
980
18
25
18.0
25.0
1
1
18
25
11.5
7.9
1
1
1
1
100
5
103
0
105
3
107
5
109
25
25
23
22
25.0
25.0
23.0
22.0
1
1
1
1
25
25
23
22
7.9
7.9
8.7
9.2
22
23
22.0
23.0
1
1
22
23
9.2
8.7
23
22
20
23.0
22.0
20.0
1
1
1
23
22
20
8.7
9.2
10.2
1
1
1
1
1
7
112
0
114
3
116
5
118
5
Name
BNTF Roads Upgrade Project
of
Projec
t:
Road:
Borehole No. 2
:
Chainage:
0+060 m
Lane:
Southern Lane 450mm offset from edge
No. OfName
Accumulative
Penetration
Penetration
Hammer Blow
DCP Index (6)
CBR % (7)
of
BNTF Roads
Blows Projec
Per Upgrade Project
Per
Factor
Penetration/
(1) t:
Blow Set/mm
Blow/mm (4)
(5)
mm (2)
(3)
Road: 19
0
Borehole
5
65No. 3
46
9.2
1
9
24.3
:
5
106
41
8.2
1
8
27.7
Chainage:
0+120 m
5
146
40
8.0
1
8
28.4
Lane:
Center of Roadway
5
188
42
8.4
1
8
26.9
No. Of
Penetration
Hammer Blow
DCP Index (6)
CBR % (7)
5
9.0 Per
1
9
24.9
Blows233 Penetration/45 Per
Factor
(1) 287
(5)
5
10.8 Blow/mm (4)1
11
20.3
mm (2) 54 Blow Set/mm
4
152(3)
38.0
1
38
5.0
0 439
0
1
5 541
43
56
43
56.0
8.6
56
3.2
26.2
76
46
33
46.0
6.6
46
4.0
35.3
578
110
37
34
37.0
6.8
37
5.1
34.1
605
145
27
35
27.0
7.0
27
7.3
33.0
633
183
28
38
28.0
7.6
28
7.0
30.1
658
221
25
38
25.0
7.6
25
7.9
30.1
680
273
22
52
22.0
10.4
22
10
9.2
21.2
1
1
1
1
1
700
718
736
755
771
340
20
18
18
19
16
67
20.0
18.0
18.0
19.0
16.0
33.5
1
1
1
1
1
34
10.2
11.5
11.5
10.8
13.1
5.7
10
20
18
18
19
16
787
625
16
38
16.0
38.0
13
16
38
13.1
5.0
1
1
803
819
655
16
16
30
16.0
16.0
30.0
1
1
14
16
16
30
13.1
13.1
6.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
495
834
849
863
872
891
906
920
934
948
960
973
986
100
0
101
3
102
6
104
1
105
6
107
2
111
5
426
496
545
587
680
703
724
745
764
782
799
815
832
847
863
877
892
905
920
934
949
963
975
990
100
5
101
9
103
3
104
7
106
0
107
4
108
9
15
15
14
9
19
15
14
14
14
12
13
13
14
13
13
15
15
16
43
86
70
49
42
25
23
21
21
19
18
17
16
17
15
16
14
15
13
15
14
15
14
12
15
15
14
14
14
13
14
15
15.0
15.0
14.0
9.0
19.0
15.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
14.0
13.0
13.0
15.0
15.0
16.0
14.3
86.0
70.0
49.0
42.0
25.0
23.0
21.0
21.0
19.0
18.0
17.0
16.0
17.0
15.0
16.0
14.0
15.0
13.0
15.0
14.0
15.0
14.0
12.0
15.0
15.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
Name
of
Projec
t:
Road:
Borehole No. 4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
11
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
15
15
14
9
19
15
14
14
14
12
13
13
14
13
13
15
15
16
14
86
70
49
42
25
23
21
21
19
18
17
16
17
15
16
14
15
13
15
14
15
14
12
15
15
14
14
14
13
14
15
14.1
14.1
15.2
24.9
10.8
14.1
15.2
15.2
15.2
18.1
16.5
16.5
15.2
16.5
16.5
14.1
14.1
13.1
14.8
2.0
2.5
3.7
4.4
7.9
8.7
9.6
9.6
10.8
11.5
12.2
13.1
12.2
14.1
13.1
15.2
14.1
16.5
14.1
15.2
14.1
15.2
18.1
14.1
14.1
15.2
15.2
15.2
16.5
15.2
14.1
:
Chainage:
0+180 m
Lane:
Southern lane 450mm offset from edge
No. OfName
Accumulative
Penetration
Penetration
Hammer Blow
of
Blows Projec
Per
Per
Factor
Penetration/
(1) t:
Blow Set/mm
Blow/mm (4)
(5)
mm (2)
(3) Rose Street, Bagotville, WBD
Road: 10
David
0
Borehole
5
60No. 5
50
10.0
1
:
5
99
39
7.8
2
Chainage:
0+240 m
5
138
39
7.8
3
Lane:
Northern Lane 450mm offset from edge
5
183
45
9.0
4 Blow
No. OfName
Accumulative
Penetration
Penetration
Hammer
of
David Rose 120
Street, Bagotville,
WBD
5
303
24.0
5
Blows Projec
Per
Per
Factor
Penetration/
(1)
Blow
Set/mm
Blow/mm
(4)
(5)
1
355
52
52.0
6
t:
mm (2)
(3)
Road:
David
Rose
Street,
Bagotville,
WBD
1
405
50
50.0
7
0
10
Borehole
1
450
45
45.0
8
5
73No. 6
63
12.6
11
:
1
495
45
45.0
9
5
115
42
8.4
12
Chainage:
0+300 m
1
537
42
42.0
10
5
153
38
7.6
13
Lane:
Center of Roadway
1 Of
570
33
33.0
11 Blow
187
34
6.8
14
No.5
Accumulative
Penetration
Penetration
Hammer
Name of
Blows
Per Street,
Per 32.0
Factor
Bagotville,
Penetration/
1
602 David Rose
32
12
5
221
34
6.8WBD
15
Projec
(1)
Blow Set/mm
Blow/mm
(5)
mm
(2)
1
627
25
25.0
13
5
262
41
8.2 (4)
16
t:
(3)
0
10
11
0
5
7
1
1
650
23 Street, Bagotville,
23.0
14
5
48
9.6
17
Road: 310
David Rose
WBD
5
50No. 7
53
45
59
55
48
53
40
52
54
10.6
10.4
10.8
9.6
8.0
22
31
43
51
1
673
23
23.0
15
Borehole
4
422
112
28.0
18
5
1
1
1
5
1
1
5
1
1
5
1
1
2
5
3
1
1
5
1
2
1
1
5
3
1
5
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
104
101
113
87
98
78
37
45
33
42
58
11.6
7.4
9.0
6.6
8.4
23
32
44
52
:
694
21
21.0
16
486
64
64.0
19
Chainage:
0+360
m
713
19
19.0
17
122
147
109
140
172
35
43
42
31
39
59
11.8
7.0
8.6
8.4
6.2
7.8
24
33
45
53
545
59
59.0
20
Lane:
Northern 51
Lane @ 450mm
offset from edge
732
19
19.0
18
165
193
182
140
180
223
43
46
42
31
40
10.2
8.6
9.2
8.4
6.2
8.0
25
34
46
54
589
44
44.0
21
18
18.0
19
Name of 750
202
252
223
172
224
277
37
59
41
32
44
54
11.8
10.8
7.4
8.2
6.4
8.8
26
35
47
55
Bagotville,
626 David Rose Street,
37
37.0WBD
22
Projec 767
17
17.0
20
245
320
261
208
293
365
43
68
38
36
69
88
34.0
13.8
29.3
8.6
7.6
7.2
27
36
48
56
659
33
33.0
23
t:
783
16
16.0
21
349
375
372
297
255
435
104
55
36
47
79
70
20.8
55.0
39.5
70.0
7.2
9.4
28
49
37
57
Road: 800
David Rose
WBD
17.0
22
390
440
424
41
65
52
41.0
65.0
52.0
29
50
335
341
520
38
86
85
28.7
85.0
7.6
38
58
Borehole
No. 8
814
14
14.0
23
505
65
65.0
432
380
385
480
600
42
45
44
56
80
42.0
44.0
56.0
80.0
9.0
30
39
51
59
:
831
17
17.0
24
475
565
450
429
540
665
43
70
44
60
65
43.0
17.5
44.0
60.0
65.0
31
40
52
60
Chainage:
0+420 m
845
14
14.0
25
Lane:
Southern 55
Lane @ 450mm
offset from edge
513
611
483
472
595
38
46
33
43
38.0
46.0
33.0
43.0
55.0
32
41
53
860
15
15.0
26
Name of 637
547
522
513
34
39
41
42
34.0
39.0
41.0
42.0
33
42
54
879 David Rose Street,
19
19.0WBD
27
Bagotville,
Projec 551
579
560
32
38
32.0
38.0
34
43
888
9
9.0
28
t:
607
599
585
28
39
34
28.0
39.0
34.0
35
44
902
14
14.0
29
Road:
637
614
38
29
38.0
29.0
36
45
916
14
14.0
30
Borehole No. 9
680
639
43
25
43.0
25.0
37
46
930
14
14.0
31
:
1
943
13
13.0
Chainage:
0+480 m
1 Lane:
956
13
13.0
Center of Roadway
1 Name of 970
14
14.0
David Rose Street,
Bagotville,
1
982
12
12.0WBD
Projec
1
996
14
14.0
t:
1
12.0
Road: 100
David Rose
WBD
8 No. 10
1
102
12
12.0
Borehole
0
:
3
105
35
11.7
5
Chainage:
0+540 m
Lane:
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Southern Lane @ 450mm offset from edge
Name of
Projec
t:
Road:
Borehole No. 11
:
Chainage:
0+600 m
Lane:
Northern Lane @ 450mm offset from edge
Name of
Projec
t:
Road:
Borehole No. 12
:
DCP Index (6)
CBR % (7)
10
22.2
29.3
29.3
9
DCP Index
(6)
24
52
24.9
CBR
% (7)
8.3
3.5
50
3.7
45
13
45
8
4.1
17.1
4.1
26.9
42
8
7
DCP 33
Index
(6)
32
7
25
8
23
10
10
11
8
23
28
12
9
7
8
21
64
19
12
7
9
6
8
59
19
10
9
6
8
44
18
12
11
7
8
6
9
37
17
34
14
29
9
8
7
33
16
21
55
40
70
7
9
17
41
65
52
29
85
8
14
65
42
44
56
80
9
17
43
18
44
60
65
14
38
46
33
43
55
15
34
39
41
42
19
32
38
9
28
39
34
14
38
29
14
43
25
14
13
13
14
12
14
12
12
12
4.4
30.1
5.8% (7)
34.1
CBR
6.0
34.1
7.9
27.7
8.7
23.2
23.2
20.8
28.4
21.2
20.3
8.7
7.0
18.8
31.0
24.9
35.3
26.9
9.6
2.8
10.8
33.0
26.2
26.9
37.8
29.3
18.4
3.0
10.8
26.2
24.3
26.9
37.8
28.4
21.7
4.2
11.5
31.0
18.4
27.7
36.5
25.6
20.3
5.1
12.2
26.2
30.1
32.0
15.4
5.6
6.6
5.8
13.1
32.0
23.7
9.8
3.3
4.8
2.5
12.2
4.6
2.7
3.5
30.1
6.8
2.0
15.2
2.7
24.9
4.4
4.2
3.2
2.2
12.2
11.8
4.3
4.2
3.0
2.7
15.2
5.0
4.0
5.8
4.3
3.3
14.1
5.6
4.8
4.6
4.4
10.8
6.0
5.0
24.9
7.0
4.8
5.6
15.2
5.0
6.7
15.2
4.3
7.9
15.2
16.5
16.5
15.2
18.1
15.2
18.1
18.1
18.6
Chainage:
0+660 m
Lane:
No. Of
Penetration
Hammer Blow
Blows
Per
Per
Factor
Penetration/
(1)
Blow Set/mm
Blow/mm (4)
(5)
mm (2)
(3)
0
0
DCP Index (6)
CBR % (7)
54
54
10.8
53
11
20.3
107
53
10.6
54
11
20.8
165
58
11.6
55
12
18.8
222
57
11.4
56
11
19.1
318
96
24.0
57
24
8.3
385
67
67.0
58
67
2.6
446
61
61.0
59
61
2.9
504
58
58.0
60
58
3.1
550
46
46.0
61
46
4.0
587
37
37.0
62
37
5.1
617
30
30.0
63
30
6.5
643
26
26.0
64
26
7.6
Appendix
1C
Existing Pavement Profile & Test Pits
27
Name of Project:
Road:
Borehole No. :
Chainage:
Lane:
0+010 m
Northern Lane @ 450mm offset from edge (Northern)
Existing Pavement Profile :
Material
Asphaltic Concrete
Crusher Run (Base)
Thickness (mm)
None
70
White Sand/ Sand Clay
105
White Sand
200
Clay
Continuous
Remarks:
(i) DCP started on the White Sand / Sand Clay Layer.

(ii.) Insitu CBR (%) = 292/ (DCP^1.12)
(iii.) Insitu CBR equation is recommended by the ARMY Corps of Engineers. (ASTM D6951/D6951M )
Name of Project:
Road:
Borehole No. :
Chainage:
Lane:
0+060 m
Southern Lane 450mm offset from edge
Existing Pavement Profile:
Material
Asphaltic Concrete
Crusher Run (Base)
White Sand
Clay
Thickness (mm)
None
90
60
70
Continuous
Remarks:
(ii.) Insitu CBR (%) = 292/ (DCP^1.12)
(iii.) Insitu CBR equation is recommended by the ARMY Corps of Engineers. (ASTM D6951/D6951M )
Name of Project:
Road:
Borehole No. :
Chainage:
Lane:
0+120 m
Center of Roadway
Material
Asphaltic Concrete
Crusher Run (Base)
White Sand
Clay
Thickness (mm)
None
80
140
260
Continuous
Remarks:
(ii.) In-situ CBR (%) = 292/ (DCP^1.12)
(iii.) In-situ CBR equation is recommended by the ARMY Corps of Engineers. (ASTM D6951/D6951M )
Name of Project:
Road:
Borehole No. :
Chainage:
Lane:
0+180 m
Southern lane 450mm offset from edge
Material
Asphaltic Concrete
Crusher Run (Base)
White Sand
Clay
Thickness (mm)
None
70
70
190
Continuous
Remarks:
(ii.) In-situ CBR (%) = 292/ (DCP^1.12)
Name of Project:
Road:
Borehole No. :
Chainage:
Lane:
0+240 m
Northern Lane 450mm offset from edge
Material
Asphaltic Concrete
Crusher Run (Base)
White Sand
Clay
Thickness (mm)
None
50
90
190
Continuous
Remarks:
(ii.) In-situ CBR (%) = 292/ (DCP^1.12)
Name of Project:
Road:
Borehole No. :
Chainage:
Lane:
0+300 m
Center of Roadway
Material
Asphaltic Concrete
Crusher Run (Base)
White Sand
Clay
Thickness (mm)
None
40
120
250
Continuous
Remarks:
Done in Failure Zone
(ii.) In-situ CBR (%) = 292/ (DCP^1.12)
Name of Project:
Road:
Borehole No. :
Chainage:
Lane:
0+360 m
Material
Asphaltic Concrete
Crusher Run (Base)
White Sand
Clay
Thickness (mm)
None
70
140
210
Continuous
Remarks:
(ii.) In-situ CBR (%) = 292/ (DCP^1.12)
Name of Project:
Road:
Borehole No. :
Chainage:
Lane:
0+420 m
Material
Asphaltic Concrete
Crusher Run (Base)
White Sand
Clay
Thickness (mm)
None
80
170
270
Continuous
Remarks:
(ii.) In-situ CBR (%) = 292/ (DCP^1.12)
Name of Project:
Road:
Borehole No. :
Chainage:
Lane:
0+480 m
Center of Roadway
Material
Asphaltic Concrete
Crusher Run (Base)
White Sand
Clay
Thickness (mm)
None
100
100
240
Continuous
Remarks:
(ii.) In-situ CBR (%) = 292/ (DCP^1.12)
Name of Project:
Road:
Borehole No. :

10
Chainage:
Lane:
0+540 m
Material
Asphaltic Concrete
Crusher Run (Base)
White Sand
Clay
Thickness (mm)
None
90
120
180
Continuous
Remarks:
(ii.) In-situ CBR (%) = 292/ (DCP^1.12)
Name of Project:
Road:
Borehole No. :

11
Chainage:
Lane:
0+600 m
Material
Asphaltic Concrete
Crusher Run (Base)
White Sand
Clay
Thickness (mm)
None
None
130
270
Continuous
Remarks:
(ii.) In-situ CBR (%) = 292/ (DCP^1.12)
Name of Project:
Road:
Borehole No. :

12
Chainage:
Lane:
0+660 m
Material
Asphaltic Concrete
Crusher Run (Base)
White Sand
Clay
Thickness (mm)
None
None
120
275
Continuous
Remarks:
(ii.) In-situ CBR (%) = 292/ (DCP^1.12)
Appendix
1D
AASTHO 1993 - Algorithm Analysis (Structural Number)
28
AASHTO FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN

SN Determination - References: AASTHO 1993
The tables below solve the AASHTO Equation for Flexible Pavement Design: Log10 W18 = ZR S0 + (9.36 log10 (SN+1)) - 0.2 + log10 (PSI/(4.2-1.5)/[(0.4+(1094/
(SN+1)
W18 = estimated traffic load over design life (expressed as an 18Kip Equivalent Single Axel Load) 50,000 ESALs for low volume access roads
Soil Resilient Modus (Mr) = 1,500 * CBR
Materials
Resilient Modulus (Mr) = 1500 x CBRvalue
Reliability R = 75%
Crushed Stone
1500x (60% ) = 90,000psi
ZR - Standard normal deviate = 0.674 (Table 4.1 p i.62)
White Sand/ Sand Clay 1500 x(20% ) = 30,000psi
Standard deviation = 0.4
Present serviceability index (P0) = 4.2
White sand
1500 x (10 % ) = 15,000psi
Clay Subgrade
1500 x (2% ) = 3000psi
Terminal Serviceability (Pt) = 2
Change in Serviceability Index (PSI) = (P0-Pt) = 2.2
5.19
+ 2.32 log10MR 8.07
Min Value from

DCP
Minimum SN Required for clay sub grade

W18
5000
0
Solution
log10W18
4.7
0.2 PSI/2.
7
0.2 0.81481
5
log10(PSI/2.7 0.4 0.4+1097/

(SN+1)
)-0.088941083 0.4
3.02
5.19
2.32*log10M 8.07
8.06692131 8.0
R
1
7
MR
300
0
9.36*log10
(SN+1)
3.21
0.2 PSI/2.
7
0.2 0.81481
5
log10(PSI/2.7 0.4 0.4+1097/

(SN+1)
)-0.088941083 0.4
18.7
2
5.19
2.32*log10M 8.07
9.68853172 8.0
R
1
7
MR
1500
0
9.36*log10
(SN+1)
2.39
0.2 PSI/2.
7
0.2 0.81481
5
log10(PSI/2.7 0.4 0.4+1097/

(SN+1)
)-0.088941083 0.4
52.3
2
5.19
2.32*log10M 8.07
10.3869213 8.0
R
1
7
MR
3000
0
9.36*log10
(SN+1)
1.37
0.2 PSI/2.
7
0.2 0.81481
5
log10(PSI/2.7 0.4 0.4+1097/

(SN+1)
)-0.088941083 0.4
191.7
4
5.19
2.32*log10M 8.07
11.4938426 8.0
R
2
7
MR
9000
0
ZR
s0
ZR s0 SN
SN+1 9.36*log10
0.67
0.4 0.2 2.2
3.2 (SN+1)
4.73
4
7
0
4.8 Must be Greater than Log10 W18
Minimum SN Required for White Sand Base

W18
5000
0
Solution
4.9
log10W18
4.7
ZR
s0
ZR s0 SN
SN+1
0.67
0.4 0.2 1.2
2.2
4
7
0
Must be Greater than Log10 W18
Minimum SN Required for White Sand Base/Sand Clay

W18
5000
0
Solution
4.8
log10W18
4.7
ZR
s0
ZR s0 SN
SN+1
0.67
0.4 0.2 0.8
1.8
4
7
0
Must be Greater than Log10 W18
Minimum SN Required for Crusher Run - Base

W18
5000
0
Solution
log10W18
4.7
4.9
ZR
s0
ZR s0 SN
0.67
0.4 0.2 0.4
4
7
0
Must be Greater than Log10
W18
SN+1
1.4
Appendix
1E
Interlayer
Checks
29
Project: Basic Needs Trust Fund (Seventh Programme)

Inter -layer Checks
Note: Structural Number computations were performed with imperial units because the layer coefficient derived by AASTHO Guide are in imperial units and
computations must be performed in imperial units.
Chainage
0+010 m
Materials
SN1
Layer Coefficient
Propose
d
(inche
s)
Existing
(Inches)
0.4
0.6
0.4
AC
SN2
0.8
Interlayer
Checks (Inches);
Greater than
(Minimum
Thickness)
Existing
SN
Values
1.5
C.R
1.53
0.131
0.524
WS/SC
0.76
0.1
4.2
4.2
WS
7.3
0.09
0.42
SN3
1.2
SN4
2.2
0.42
0.72
0.72
Total SN (Actual)
2.264
Materials
AC
SN1
C.R
0.4
SN2
Proposed
SN
Values
Chainage
0+060 m
Propose
Layer Coefficient
d
Existing
(inche
(Inches)
s)
0.4
1.5
0.131
3.6
Interlayer
Checks (Inches);
Greater than
(Minimum
Thickness)
1.14
Existing
SN
Values
Proposed
SN
Values
0.6
1.53
0.4716
0.7
6
0.9
0.524
0.8
SN3
WS/SC
9
0.1
2.4
WS
2.8
0.09
2.8
0.9
1.2
SN4
2.2
2
0.252
0.252
Total SN (Actual)
2.276
1.6236
Chainage
0+120 m
Materials
Coefficient
SN
0.4
Layer
Existing
(Inches)
AC
0.4
C.R
0.131
3.15
Interlayer
Proposed
Checks (Inches);
(inches)
Greater than
(Minimum
1.5
Existing
SN
Values
Proposed
SN
Values
0.6
SN
2
0.8
1.53
0.41265
0.524
SN
1.2
WS/S
C
0.1
5.51
5.51
0.76
0.551
0.551
SN
2.2
Total SN
(Actual)
1.88435
2.5957

Inter -layer Checks
Materials
Coefficient
SN
Layer
AC
1.5
Chainage
0+180 m
Existin
Propose
g
d
(Inche
(inche
s)
s)
0.4
Existing
SN
Values
Interlayer
Checks (Inches);
Greater than
(Minimum
Thickness)
Proposed
SN
Values
0.6
0.4
C.R
0.36156
SN2
0.8
WS/SC
6
SN3
1.2
WS
0.6732
SN4
2.2
0.131
2.76
0.524
0.1
2.76
0.09
0.6732
7.48
1.53
0.76
0.6
7.48
Total SN (Actual)
Materials
SN1
AC
Layer Coefficient
0.4
C.R
0.262
SN2
0.8
WS/SC
5
SN
Chainage
0+240 m
Propose
Existing
d
(Inches)
(inche
s)
0.4
1.5
0.131
0.524
0.1
0.6
5.3
2.3972
1.63476
Interlayer
Checks (Inches);
Greater than
(Minimum
Thickness)
Existing
SN
Values
Proposed
SN
Values
0.6
2
3.54
1.53
0.76
0.5
0.5
1.2
WS
0.6732
SN4
2.2
0.09
0.6732
7.48
7.48
6.4
Total SN (Actual)
2.2972
Materials
Layer Coefficient
Chainage 0+300 m
Propose
Interlayer
d
Checks (Inches);
Existing
(inche
Greater than
(Inches)
s)
(Minimum
Thickness)
1.4352
Existing
SN
Values
Proposed
SN
Values
SN1
AC
SN2
0.8
SN3
1.2
SN4
2.2
0.4
0.4
1.5
C.R
0.20567
WS/SC
4.72
WS
0.8856
0.131
0.524
0.1
0.09
0.8856
0.6
1.57
4.72
9.84
1.53
0.76
0.472
9.84
Total SN (Actual)
2.4816
0.472
6.7
1.56327

Inter -layer Checks
Materials
SN1
AC
Layer Coefficient
0.4
1.5
0.4
C.R
0.36156
SN2
0.8
Existing
SN
Values
0.6
2.76
1.53
0.1
5.51
0.09
0.8343
9.27
0.76
0.551
9.27
0.551
5.8
Total SN (Actual)
2.5093
Materials
SN1
AC
Layer Coefficient
C.R
0.41265
SN2
0.8
Existing
SN
Values
6.69
0.09
0.9567
10.63
3.15
1.53
1.8735
0.669
10.63
0.669
5.8
Total SN (Actual)
2.63835
Materials
SN1
AC
0.4
Layer Coefficient
0.4
1.5
Proposed
SN
Values
0.6
3.15
0.1
WS
0.9567
SN4
2.2
1.74686
0.131
0.41265
WS/SC
6.69
SN3
1.2
Chainage 0+420 m
Propose
Interlayer
d
Checks (Inches);
Existing
(inche
Greater than
(Inches)
s)
(Minimum
Thickness)
0.4
1.5
0.4
Proposed
SN
Values
0.524
WS
0.8343
SN4
2.2
Interlayer
Checks (Inches);
Greater than
(Minimum
Thickness)
0.131
WS/SC
5.51
SN3
1.2
Chainage
0+360 m
Propose
d
Existing
(inche
(Inches)
s)
Chainage 0+480 m
Propose
Interlayer
d
Checks (Inches);
Existing
(inche
Greater than
(Inches)
s)
(Minimum
Thickness)
-
2.03835
Existing
SN
Values
Proposed
SN
Values
0.6
SN2
0.8
SN3
1.2
SN4
2.2
C.R
0.524
WS/SC
4
WS
0.8505
0.131
0.524
0.1
0.09
0.8505
9.45
1.53
0.76
0.4
9.45
Total SN (Actual)
2.3745
0.4
7.5
1.7745

Inter -layer Checks
Note: Structural Number computations were performed with imperial units because the layer coefficient
Chainage
0+540 m
Propose
Existing
d
Materials
Layer Coefficient
(Inches)
(inche
s)
SN1
AC
0.4
C.R
0.46374
SN2
0.8
0.4
1.5
0.131
Existing
SN
Values
Proposed
SN
Values
0.6
3.54
0.1
WS
0.9567
SN4
2.2
Interlayer
Checks (Inches);
Greater than
(Minimum
Thickness)
1.53
0.524
WS/SC
7.09
SN3
1.2
derived by AASTHO Guide are in imperial units and
7.09
0.09
0.9567
0.76
0.709
10.63
10.63
0.709
4.1
Total SN (Actual)
2.7897
2.12944
Chainage 0+600 m
Materials
SN1
AC
Layer Coefficient
0.4
1.5
0.4
C.R
0
SN2
0.8
SN3
1.2
Interlayer
Checks (Inches);
Greater than
(Minimum
Thickness)
Existing
SN
Values
0.6
0.131
0.524
0.1
WS
0.9
0.09
5.11
0.9
1.53
0.76
0.511
10
10
0.511
6.3
Total SN (Actual)
2.535
Materials
Coefficient
Proposed
SN
Values
WS/SC
5.11
SN4
2.2
Propose
d
(inche
s)
Existing
(Inches)
Layer
Chainage 0+660 m
Existin
Propose
Interlayer
g
d
Checks (Inches);
(Inche
(inche
Greater than
s)
s)
(Minimum
Thickness)
SN1
0.4
1.411
Existing
SN
Values
Proposed
SN
Values
AC C.R
0.4
0.6
SN2
0.8
1.5
WS/SC
4.72
0.131
0
0.1
0
0.524
4.72
1.53
0.76
0.472
0.472
SN3
1.2
SN4
2.2
WS
0.81
0.09
6.7
0.81
Total SN (Actual)
2.406
1.282

Inter -layer Checks
Materials
SN1
AC
SN2
0.8
Layer Coefficient
0.4
Full
Reconstructio
n
Propose
Interlayer
Existing
d
Checks (Inches);
(Inches)
(inche
Greater than
s)
(Minimum
Thickness)
0.4
0.131
0.393
C.R
0
WS/SC
0.09
1.53
2.07
10
7.9
0.5
0
0
SN4
2.2
0
WS
Proposed
SN
Values
1.5
0.6
0.1
SN3
1.2
Existing
SN
Values
0.9
Total SN (Actual)
2.393
Appendix 2- Photographs
30
Figure 7-Glasgow Intersection: Deteriorated carriageway, Chainage 0+615m

(Taken: 23/06/2015)
Figure 8- Deteriorated Carriageway with minor depressions, Chainage 0+690m

(Taken:23/06/2015)
Figure 9-Deteriorated Carriageway with depressions, Chainage 0+500m

(Taken: 23/06/2015)
31
Figure 10-Test Pit at Chainage 0+710m

(Taken: 25/06/2015)
Figure 11-Garbage Along Side Roadway

(Taken: 23/06/2015)
Figure 12-Deteriorated Carriageway showing large depressions

(Taken: 23/06/2015)
32
Appendix 3- Final Design Drawings
33
Tel. # - (592)-227-0481, 226-2773, 226-2758

Fax. # - (592)-226-3930
Email - cemco@networksgy.com
DAVID ROSE STREET

BAGOTVILLE
WEST BANK DEMERARA (REG.3 )
Statio
Sch
Bagostown
Cemetery
Sch
Health Centre
Nandy
Park
CANAL #1
Greenfiel
Park
Ch
Nismes
Nismes
Ch
Sluice
Gate
Healt
Centre
Sluice
Gate
Factory
Ch
Oilmill
Sch
Ch
Ch
Ch
Stanleytown
Sluice
Gate
L. Long
Notes
No.
Revision
Date
Initials
Legend
Drawn
L. Long
Designed
P. Deodat
Checked
P. Deodat
Approved
RB Latchmansingh
Consultant:
Client:
BASIC NEEDS TRUST FUND(BNTF)

Project:
Title:
Date:
LOCATION PLAN DAVID ROSE STREET
Dwg. No.:
SEPTEMBER, 2015 CM/BNTF7/DRAR/DES/00
Scale:
--
Status:
Sheet:
1 of 1
ML 1-1
-
PLAN - DAVID ROSE STREET
ML 2-2
ML 1-1
ML 3-3
ML 2-2
-
ML 4-4
ML 3-3
ML 5-5
ML 4-4
-
ML 7-7
ML 6-6
ML 5-5
ML 6-6
-
ML 8-8
ML 7-7
ML 8-8
-
Longitudinal Profile
PROFILE OF DAVID ROSE STREET
Typical Design Cross SectionRehabilitation
CH0+030 TO
0+615
CH0+615 TO
0+690
Typical Design Cross Section-Re-Construction

-
CH0+690 TO 0+745
PROFILE & CROSS

SECTIONS OF DAVID ROSE
STREET
DOUBLE 900MM CULVERT#1: PLAN

& SECTIONOF DAVID ROSE STREET
900mm CULVERT#2: PLAN &

SECTIONOF DAVID ROSE STREET
ROAD MARKINGS - DAVID ROSE

STREET
Appendix 4-Final Estimate
34
Basic Needs Trust Fund

BILL OF QUANTITIES GRAND SUMMARY

Contract Name: Basic Needs Trust Fund Seventh Programme
Contract - David Rose Street, Bagotville, WBD
Contract No.:
General Summary
Bill No.A: Preliminaries
Amount
(USD)
Amount
(GYD)
8,220.00
1,685,000.00
136,926.00
28,069,837.00
4,181.00
857,200.00
29,622.00
6,072,500.00
Sub-total of Bills
178,949.00
36,684,537.00
CBD's Allocated End of Construction Cost

Note: 1 USD = 205 GYD
179,080.00
36,711,400.00
Bill No. B : Incidental Road Works

Bill No. C: Drainage Works
Bill No. D: Structures and Incidential Works
BNTF - Seventh Programme

Bill No. A - Preliminaries
Basic Needs Trust Fund (BNTF) - Seventh Programme

Funded By: Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) & Governement of Guyana (GoG)
Item
Number
A.1
Item Description
Unit
Quantity
Rate GYD
Amount
GYD
PRELIMINARIES
A.1.1
Mobilisation and Demobilisation.
LS
275,000
A.1.2
Surveys and Setting out
LS
450,000
A.1.3
Temporary Works
LS
75,000
A.1.4
Allow for coordinating with utility companies for the location/relocation

of utility services and all related works
LS
40,000
A.1.5
Testing of materials. As directed by engineer
LS
85,000
A.1.6
Testing of the Works . As directed by engineer
LS
125,000
A.1.9
Pavement markings (STOP and Lane marking at entrance from

Public Road) and road signs ( 1Nr "STOP") . These should be
according to drawings and final location as directed by Engineer.
LS
185,000
A.2
Contractor's Facilities
A.2.1
Contractor's Welfare
LS
50,000
A.2.2
Provision for Contractor's Office, Plant, Yard and Store
LS
40,000
LS
150,000
A.3
A.3.1
Engineer's Facilities
Allow a sum for rental of a site office for the Engineer (10'-0" x 10'-0")
with furniture, appliances and janitorial services. Engineer must be
supplied with drinking water on a daily basis. Site office should be
maintained during the project life.
Sub-Total Carried Forward
1,475,000

Bill No. A - Preliminaries

Item
Nr
Item Description
Quantity
Brought Forward
A.4
Unit
Rate
(GYD)
Amount
(GYD)
1,475,000
Miscellaneous
A.4.1
Contractor's Programe
LS
35,000
A.4.2
Safety and Traffic Management
LS
50,000
A.4.3
Progress photographs
LS
25,000
A.4.4
Provided and erect project sign board having a diemension of 1.5m x

1.5m. Details and location will be provided in the final construction
drawings.
LS
100,000
PRELIMINARIES TOTAL
1,685,000
Bill B - Roadworks
BNTF Seventh Programme


Item
Nr
Item Description
ROADWORKS
B.1
Clearing and grubbing

Clearing and grubbing of roadway and shoulder. As per
Specifications Section 4 Site Clearance.
B.1.1
B.2
B.2.1
B.2.2
B.3
B.3.1
B.4
B.4.1
B.5
B.5.1
B.6
B.6.1
General Excavation
Scarify existing carriageway; average 150mm deep and compact to
95% of the maximum dry proctor density. As per Specifications
Section 5 Earthwork and Related Operations.
Excavation to Subgrade Level. As indicated in Profile Drawings. Subgrade should be compacted to design levels. As per Specifications
Section 5 Earthwork and Related Operations.
Surface Preparation
Grade, shape and compact existing shoulders to falls.As per
Specifications Section 5 Earthwork and Related Operations.
Imported Clay
Supply, place and compact in shoulders.As per Specifications As
per Specifications Section 5 Earthwork and Related Operations.
Sub Base - White Sand
Supply, place and compact White Sand in 150mm single layers.
Layers shall be compacted to a density of at least 95% of the
maximum density as determined by ASTM D- 1557 method A. As
per Specifications Section 7 White Sand Sub-base.
Lower Sub Base - White Sand / Sand Clay
Include the cost of all materials, multiple handling, stockpiling,
blending, placing, dewatering, pumping, compaction and trimming at
optimum moisture content, all clearing and grubbing of materials
pits, all stripping of overburden from the pits, if required, and all
incidentals necessary to complete the work. Layers shall be
compacted to a density of at least 95% of the maximum density as
determined by ASTM D- 1557 method A. A. As per Specifications
Section 8 Sand Clay/White Sand Sub base.
Sub-Total Carried Forward
Quantity
2,750
2,544
137
1,363
277
67
25
Unit
Rate
(GYD)
Amount
(GYD)
120
330,000
200
508,878
1,200
164,634
100
136,280
200
55,399
4,550
305,183
10,000
251,524
1,751,899
Bill B - Roadworks
BNTF Seventh Programme


Item
Nr
Item Description
Quantity
Rate
(GYD)
Unit
Brought Forward
B.7
B.7.1
B.8
B.8.1
Granular base course

Supply, place and compact crushed stone (CBR 60%) in single layer
100 mm thick. Base course should be placed and compact 300 mm
both sides of the road to allow for vehicles wheels on shoulder. As
per Specifications Section 10 Graded Aggregate Material for Base
Course.
Bituminous prime coat
Bituminous prime coat material applied to a prepared base course
surface at a rate of 0.25 Imp. Gal/yd2. Base extends 300 mm both
side into the shoulder must be prime coated. As per Specifications
Section 11 Prime and Tack Coats.
B.9
Bituminous surface dressing
B.9.1
Supply, spread and compact hot mix asphaltic concrete wearing

course 38mm thick using refinery bitumen. As per Specifications
Section 18.
B.10
Speed Humps
Construction of Speed humps according to drawings or as directed
by Engineer. Rate should include for painting of humps. As per
Specifications Section 18.
B.11
Provisional Sum
Provisional Sum to be used as directed by the Engineer.
Total
Amount
(GYD)
1,751,899
324
3,200
2,557
PS
30,000
9,732,591
1,150
3,679,860
4,250
10,865,488
No
60,000
240,000
1,800,000
28,069,837
Basic Needs Trust Fund

Bill C - Drainage

Item
Item Description
Nr
Quantity
Drainage
C.1.1
Desilt and reshape existing earthen drain and dispose of

all excavated materials.As per Specifications Section 5
Earthwork and Related Operations.
Provisional Sum
Total
PS
C.2
Unit
1,520
Rate
(GYD)
235
Amount
(GYD)
357,200
500,000
857,200

Bill D- Structures Incidential Works

STRUCTURES
Item
Item Description
Number
D
STRUCTURES AND INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION
Amount
Quantity
Unit
Amount
(GYD)
Rate (GYD)
D.1
D.1.1
CULVERTS - Type 1
Temporary Works
D.1.1.1
Allow for construction of cofferdams, de-watering site and

removal of cofferdams after completion of construction works
LS
150,000
D.1.1.2
Allow for the removal of all timber revetments work in way of

construction and stockpile for NDC
LS
75,000
LS
100,000
LS
150,000
D.1.1.3
D.1.2
D.1.2.1
Allow for cleaning and de-silting existing culvert and disposing

of all materials. Include for cleaning ends of culvert to receive
concrete works.
Relocation of Utilities
Allow for GWI to relocate water line. Include for all bends,etc.
D.1.3
Section 5- Earthworks/Excavation
D.1.3.1
Excavation for foundation slabs, both sides of existing HDPE

pipe.
50
500
25,000
D.1.3.2
Load up and transport surplus excavated material from site to

an approved location
50
300
15,000
D.1.4
Section 5-White Sand Embankment
18
4,500
80,222
29
4,500
130,500
15,000
30,000
1.80
40,000
72,000
16
50,000
775,000
1,700
kg
400
680,000
55
1200
66,000.00
6.0
80000
480,000.00
Filling to make up levels over 450mm thick spread level and

compact to not less than 95% of the Standard Proctor Dry
Density
Additional Sand Fill
Filling to make up levels over culvert and wing walls spread
D.1.4.2 level and compact to not less than 95% of the Standard
Proctor Dry Density
D.1.4.1
Imported granular backfill; 2" diameter boulder

D.1.4.3
Filling to make up levels; at inlet and outlet. 2m width
D.1.5
Section 20: Concrete for Structures and other Uses
2.00
Plain in-situ concrete 15N/mm (cube strength)

D.1.5.1
Blinding beds 75mm thick; poured against white sand

Reinforced in-situ concrete 25N/mm2 (cube strength)
D.1.5.2
Concrete for Structure including headwall,wingwalls and toe.

Rates should include for form works.
Reinforcement bars; deformed high yield steel; BS 4449
D.1.5.3
Bar reinforcement; 12mm diameter (foundation, headwall,

wingwall and toe)
Finishes
D.1.6
Supply and apply two coats of oil paint to headwalls and

wing walls.
HDPE Pipe
D.1.7
Supply, transport and install HDPE - Pipe 900 mm

Grand Total for Type 1 Culvert
2,233,500

Bill D- Structures Incidential Works

Estimated Amount
STRUCTURES
Item
Number
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Rate (GYD)
Amount
(GYD)
D.2
CULVERT - Type 2
D.2.1.
Temporary Works
D.2.1.1
Allow for construction of cofferdams, de-watering site and

removal of cofferdams after completion of construction works
L.S
150,000
D.2.1.2
Allow for cleaning and de-silting existing culvert and disposing

of all materials. Include for cleaning ends of culvert to receive
concrete works.
LS
100,000
D.2.2
Relocation of Utilities
D.2.2.1
Allow for GWI to relocate water line. Include for all bends,etc.
LS
200,000
D.2.3
Section 5- Earthworks/Excavation
D.2.3.1
Excavating trenched for foundations; not exceeding 5.00

feet deep starting from built- up ground level
50
550
27,500
D.2.3.2
Load up and transport surplus excavated material from site to

an approved location
50
150
7,500
D.2.4
Section 5-White Sand Embankment
D.2.4.1
Filling to make up levels over 12" thick spread level and

compact to not less than 95% of the Standard Proctor Dry
Density
12
4,500
54,000
28
4,500
126,000
8,000
24,000
40,000
40,000
Additional Sand Fill

D.2.4.2
Filling to make up levels over culvert and wing walls spread

level and compact to not less than 95% of the Standard
Proctor Dry Density
D.2.5
Imported granular backfill; 2" diameter boulder
D.2.5.1
Filling to make up levels; at inlet and outlet
D.2.6
Section 20: Concrete for Structures and other Uses
Plain in-situ concrete 15N/mm

D.2.6.1
(cube strength)
Blinding beds 75mm thick; poured against white sand

2
D.2.6.2
Reinforced in-situ concrete 25N/mm (cube strength)

Concrete for Structure including headwall,wingwalls and toe.
Rate should include for form works.
10
50,000
500,000
D.2.6.3
Reinforcement bars; deformed high yield steel; BS 4449

Bar reinforcement; 12mm diameter (foundation, headwall,
wingwall and toe)
Finishes
1,360
kg
400
544,000
D.2.6.4
Supply and apply two coats of oil paint to headwalls and

wing walls.
55
1,200
66,000
D.2.7
Provisional Sum
PS
2,000,000
Grand Total for Type 2 Culvert
1,839,000
Grand Total for both Culverts
6,072,500
Appendix 5-Correspondences
35
July 15 2015
The
Chief
ExecutiveOfficer
GuyanaTelephone& TelegraphCo.,
69 Brickdam,
Georgetown,
Guyana.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Basic Needs Trust Fund - Seventh Programme

REHABILITATION OF ACCESS ROADS AND DRAINAGE
The Basic Needs Trust Fund Office has received funding from the Caribbean Development Bank (COB) under the
I
<:>
BNTF Seventh Programme for the improvement of access roads and drainage in communities.
We have been engaged by the Bank to provide engineering services to the following access roads:
David Rose Street, Bagotville, West Bank Demerara.
Mahagony Street, Samatta Point, Golden Grove, East Bank Demerara.
Market Street, Beterverwagting, East Coast Oemerara.
We are requesting
your kind assistance to alert us of any infrastructure,
with which the Contractor
underground
cables and otherwise,
may have to take careful Consideration during the construction period. It will be
mutually beneficial if plans can be provided beforehand showing the actual location of these infrastructures so as to
afford a smooth construction programme and prevent any damages and disruptions.
We would appreciate receiving such information and guidance by July 20 2015.
Sincerely you'W
:
.................. !
..
~
R. B.
Latchmb h
Managing Director
New address-117 John Smith Street, Campbellville,
Georgetown Tel:223-8823
CE.MCOinc.
Tel: (+592) 226-2758, 226-2773 & 227-0481, 227-0542 Facsimile: 226-3930. E-mail: info@cemcoguyana.com
Registered Office@above address. Registered # 2820
July152015
The Chief Executive Officer
Corporate Complex,
Guyana Water Inc.,
Vllissengen Road and Church Street,
. Bel Air Park,
Georgetown,
Guyana.
Dear Sir/Madam,
The Basic Needs Trust Fund Office has received funding from the Caribbean Development Bank (COB) under the
BNTF Seventh Programmefor the improvement of access roads and drainage in communities.
We have been engaged by the Bank to provide engineering services to the following access roads:
'
'----"
Mahagony Street, Samatta Point, Golden Grove, East Bank

Demerara.
Market Street, Beterverwagting, East Coast Demerara.
We are requesting your kind assistance to alert us of any infrastructure, pipelines and otherwise, with which the
'
Contractor may have to take careful consideration during the construction period. It will be mutually beneficial if plans
can be provided beforehand showing the actual location of these infrastructures so as to afford a smooth
construction programme and prevent any damages and disruptions.
Attached are pictures showing existing GWI mains that are of concern to the
Bagotvilleproject. We would appreciate receiving such information and guidance by July 20
2015.
Sincerely yours,
cc:
. '-....,.,'
Mr. M. Singh, Project Manager, BNTF

New address 117 John Smith Street, Campbellville, Georgetown Tel:223-8823
CE.MCO Inc.
Tel: (+592) 226-2758, 226-2773 & 227-0481, 227-0542 Facsimile: 226-3930. E-mail: info@cemcoguyana.com
Figure 1- Showing GWI main relatively
Figure 2-Showing
close to proposed road construction
Proposed Road Upgrade Site, David Rose Street-Bagotville.
site. {Source: CEMCO- 23rd June, 2015, Bogotvil/e)
{Source: CEMCO- 23rd June, 2015, Bagotville)
July152015
The
ProjectManager
CommercialOffice,
Guyana Power & Light,
Middle Street
Georgetown,
Guyana.
Dear Sir/Madam,

. The Basic Needs Trust Fund Office has received funding from the Caribbean Development Bank (COB) under the.
BNTF Seventh Programme for the improvement of access roads and drainage in communities.
We have been engaged by the Bank
to provide
engineering services to the following access roads:

Mahagony Street, Samatta Point, Golden Grove, East Bank Demerara.
Market Street, Beterverwagting, East Coast Demerara.
We are requesting your kind assistance to alert us of any infrastructure with which the Contractor may have to take
careful consideration during the construction period. It will be mutually beneficial if plans can be provided beforehand
showing the actual location of these infrastructures so as to afford a smooth construction programme and prevent
any damages and disruptions.
We would appreciate receiving such information and guidance by July 20 2015.
Sincerely your(:\
l:~
whl
~l ..
R. B. Latchma~sing
Managing Directs
cc:
Mr. M. Singh, Project Manager, BNTF
Mr. B. Dyndayll, Guyana Power& Lights

New address 117 John Smith Street, Campbe\lvi\le, Georgetown Tel:223-8823
CEMCOhic.
Tel: ( +592) 226-2758, 226-2773 & 227-0481, 227-0542 Facsimile: 226-3930. E-mail: info@cemcoguyana.com
Appendix 6-Framework for Environmental and Social Assessment
36
Framework for Environmental and Social Assessment.

The Environmental and Social Assessment (EA) will be conducted to satisfy the requirements of the TOR and
guidelines as outlined in the Environmental Protection Act, 1996. The assessment will encompass the various stages
of the project (Design, Construction and Post construction) to identify and document the environmental and social
impacts of the project.
The Environmental Reconnaissance will focus on the following key areas:
1. Proximity of schools and other social services to the proposed sites.
2. The types of impacts likely to be generated by the implementation of the project.
3. Situational analysis of traffic scenario within the area.
4. Proximity of nearest waterway to the site, is construction likely to impact water quality.
5. Utilities
6. Waste management and general health and safety.
Social Assessment
The details of the stakeholder concerns during the initial engagement will form part of the assessment. This includes:
1. Discussions with community to garner their views on environmental impacts such as dust, noise, oil spills
etc. Recommendation for best management of these impacts.
2. Identification of point person to provide feedback and liaison services for the community.
Environmental Management Plan.
Mitigation measures will provided and tailored to reduce the potential adverse impacts of the project to the point
where the impacts are insignificant or within acceptable limits through effective best practices. The plan will cover the
following areas:
Vegetation & Biodiversity
Wildlife & Impact on Threatened or Endangered Species
Prevention of Water and Soil Pollution
Prevention of Air Pollution and Hazards
Prevention of Noise Pollution and Hazards
Disposal of Waste
Traffic Management
Social Impacts
Reporting requirement
Monitoring Framework
37
Appendix 7-Consultant Work Schedule
38
Basic Needs Trust Fund (BNTF)- Seventh Programme

David Rose Street,Bagotville,WBD
ID
Task Name
CONSULTANT'S WORK PROGRAMME
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Commencement of Consultancy Services

Design Services
Preliminary Design Services
General Project Meeting
Initial Survey: setting out, Elevation of Existing structures i.e. drainage, roadways, culverts and
utilities
Pertinent Data Collection (e.g. DCP, Traffic Survey, Test Pits, Condition Survey of Culverts)
Engineering Design for Culverts and Carriageway
Preliminary Design Drawings
Preliminary Estimates of Cost
Preparation and Submission of Preliminary Design Report
End of Preliminary Design Services
Final Design Services
Preparation and Submission of Final Designs and Construction Drawings
Preparation and Submission of Technical Specifications
Final Cost Estimates
Preparation of Tender Documents
End of Final Design Services
Pre-construction Services
Tender Period
Evaluation of Tenders Received - Procurement Process
End of Pre-construction Services
Technical Inspection of Construction Services
Provision of Requsite Technical Personnels - Engineers, Site Inspectors etc.
Monitoring of Construction Works, Environmental and Social Aspects.
David Rose Street-Bagotville Phase 1- Culverts Construction
David Rose Street-Bagotville Phase 2- Desilting & Reshaping of drains, Excavation of Carriageway,
Place WS/SC to bring up formation levels
Duration
Start
383 days
Tue 23-06-15
0 days
Tue 23-06-15
62 days
31 days
1 day
Wed 24-06-15
5 days
Wed 24-06-15
14 days
4 days
4 days
30 days
0 days
30 days
Wed 01-07-15
Tue 21-07-15
Wed 01-07-15
Wed 24-06-15
Tue 04-08-15
Mon 07-09-15
Mon 07-09-15
Mon 07-09-15
Mon 07-09-15
Mon 07-09-15
Tue 15-09-15
Wed 07-10-15
Wed 07-10-15
Mon 16-11-15
Tue 24-11-15
Fri 04-12-15
Fri 04-12-15
Fri 04-12-15
Fri 04-12-15
25 days
Fri 15-01-16
7 days
8 days
4 days
7 days
0 days
35 days
28 days
7 days
0 days
265 days
3 days
87 days
Qtr 2, 2015
Apr May Jun
Qtr 3, 2015
Jul
Aug Sep
Qtr 4, 2015
Oct Nov Dec
23-06
Tue 23-06-15
Tue 23-06-15
Tue 23-06-15
4 days
8 days
15
Mar
04-08
15-09
24-11
Qtr 1, 2016
Jan Feb Mar
Qtr 2, 2016
Apr May Jun
Qtr 3, 2016
Jul
Aug Sep
Qtr 4, 2016
Oct Nov Dec
28
32 days
Fri 19-02-16
64 days
34
Assessment, Preparation and Submission of Monthly Progress Reports etc.

David Rose Street-Bagotville-Phase 1
Preparation and processing of Interim Payment Certificates.
Final Inspection, Assessment of Completed Works, Issuance of Take Over Certificate
30 days
14 days
Wed 06-01-16
Wed 06-01-16
Wed 10-02-16
Fri 25-03-16
Fri 04-12-15
Tue 05-04-16
35
Submission of Final Reports, Asbuilt Drawings, Financials and Maintenance Plans etc.
45 days
Tue 05-04-16
36
End of Technical Inspection of Construction Services

Defects Correction Period
End of Consultancy Services
0 days
133 days
0 days
Mon 06-06-16
Tue 07-06-16
Thu 08-12-16
29
30
31
32
33
37
38
David Rose Street-Bagotville Phase 3- Place and Compact C.R base and lay asphaltic surface
Project: Access and Drainage Infra-structure

Sub-projects
Date: Wed 16-09-15
7 days
7 days
7 days
Task
Project Summary
Inactive Milestone
Manual Summary Rollup
Progress
Split
External Tasks
Inactive Summary
Manual Summary
Deadline
Milestone
External Milestone
Manual Task
Start-only
Summary
Inactive Task
Duration-only
Finish-only
Page 1

David Rose Final Design Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

David Rose Final Design Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

David Rose Final Design Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Report

Caribbean Development Bank

Provision of Design & Supervision

16th September 2015

Caribbean Engineering & Management Consultants, Inc.

Historical and Physical Profile ......................................................................................................................2

Economic Profile ..................................................................................................................................3

Social Profile ........................................................................................................................................4

Environmental and Social Assessment ........................................................................................................6

Condition Surveys ........................................................................................................................................8

Design Approach & Proposed Design ........................................................................................................10

Materials Selection .................................................................................................................................12

Traffic Demand and Loading ..................................................................................................................13

Geotechnical Investigation .....................................................................................................................13

Test Pits & Boreholes ....................................................................................................................13

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) .............................................................................................14

Road Structure and Drainage.................................................................................................................14

Road Marking & Signs............................................................................................................................14

Proposed Design ........................................................................................................................................15

Geometric Design ..............................................................................................................................15

Design Criteria .......................................................................................................................................17

Estimate ESAL AASTHO 1993...................................................................................................17

Subgrade Resilient Modulus..........................................................................................................18

Pavement Structural Number ........................................................................................................18

Proposed Scope of Works......................................................................................................................19

3.5 Cost Estimate & Procurement ...........................................................................................................................21

Limitations and Construction Issues ...............................................................................................................22

Appendix 1C Existing Pavement Profile & Test Pits............................................................................................27

Approximate GPS Coordinates (UTM)

Table 1-Diversification of skills amongst residents

The population is approximately 850 residents (Males 390, Females 460)

Youths (14-24 years)

Table 2-Population Disaggregated by sex (Source La-Grange/Nismes NDC)

Schools (Nursery, Primary & Secondary)

The males will be more

necessary skills to make

2.2 Environmental and Social Assessment

7. Workers and contractors should adhere to safety practices.

Chainage 0+000m to 0+590m

Figure 2-Deteriorated Roadway Chainage 0+420m

Figure 3-Deteriorated Roadway- Chainage 0+280m

Chainage 0+590m to 0+690m

Figure 4-Deteriorated Roadway ,Chainage 0+690m

Figure 5-Glasgow Road Intersection,Chainage 0+0590m

3.2 Design Approach & Proposed Design

Geotechnical Investigation to obtain soil strata and CBR of sub grade.

Continuous 24 hours traffic survey.

Design Variables (traffic; time constraints; reliability and environmental impacts)

Performance criteria (level of service expected during design life)

SNreq > SNeffective

Traffic Demand and Loading

3.2.4.1 Test Pits & Boreholes

3.2.4.2 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)

Road Structure and Drainage

Road Marking & Signs

3.3 Proposed Design

Figure 6- Showing gradient of finished road and clay shoulders

Initial Serviceability Index, P0