Nyamagasani 1 Hydropower Project, Uganda, 2208521A

Detailed Design Review GEOTECHNICS Rev E 20-Jun-2019

Design Review Sheet (DRS) GEOTECHNICS

Details of Design Work Package being reviewed Review
Design Review Stage: Detailed
Design Consultant: VS Consulting (Pvt) Ltd. Reviewer Names: Aaron Rastall, Robert Kingsland
Design
Reviewer Role: Owner’s Engineer
Report Title: Geotechnics Revision Revision Date: Revision No:
Revision No:
Date:
January
Geological Investigation Report for Nyamughasani Hydro Power Project 2 09/04/2018 A
2015
N1 HPP Slope Stability Analysis Report from Intake up to Forebay Tank; Report February
00 01/05/2018 B
No. V-001/SF/04 2017
N1 HPP Slope Stability Analysis Report from Intake up to Forebay Tank; Report November
01 28/08/2018 C
No. VSC/NYAM/GEO/001 2017
N1 HPP Stability Calculations of Structures, Report No. V-001/SF/07 March 2017 00 01/04/2019 D
N1 HPP Design Basis for seismic force evaluation, Report No. V-001/SF/06 March 2017 00 20/06/2019 E
February
Seepage Analysis Report - Nyamagasani I - Hydro Power Project Uganda R0
2017
Scheme Freeze Drawings March 2017 A
Geological Investigation Services – Final Report - Nyamagasani Hydro Power 5 October
01
Project (Ref: 2017/124) 2017
Seepage Analysis Report - Nyamagasani I - Hydro Power Project Uganda March 2018 R1
PH Drawings March 2018 B
Method Statement for Construction of Head Works and Upper Head Race Area March 2018
Risk Assessment for Construction of Causeway and Excavation of Upper HRC 20 March
Along the River to Weir 2018
Nyamagasani 1 SOP on Construction of Causeway and Excavation of Upper
26/3/2018 001
Headrace
Slope stability analysis along penstock trace VSC/NYAM/GEO/003 March 2018 00
PH Drawings April 2018 D
N1 PH – slope stability and settlement analysis April 2018 00
N1 PH – slope stability and settlement analysis August 2018 02
Pebble tank drawings June 2019 R1
May/Jun
Intake canal drawings R0
2019
May/Jun
Weir and aqueduct design reports and drawings R0
2019

Page 1 of 16

This package comprises:
Specifications Spreadsheets Calculations
Drawings Supplier data Reports
Other
Referenced
Item No. Reviewer’s Comments
Document
Slope Stability Analysis Report
SS1 Geological Colluvial soils?
Investigation Report Are colluvial soils anticipated anywhere along the
Slope Stability alignment given the steep slopes present?
Analysis Report Currently only residual soil are referenced. Are all
boulders mapped/encountered assumed to be core
stones within a residual soil matrix? It is noted that
“the possibility of landslides has been ruled out”.
DRS Revision B comment:
Given colluvial soils are expected, why are no
colluvial layers evident in any of the slope stability
analysis? What design parameters (peak and
residual) have been assigned to colluvial soils?
Boulders have been mapped, however do these
boulders pose a risk to infrastructure (penstock,
powerhouse etc.)? If so, what
remedial/stabilisation measures are proposed?
DRS Revision C comment:
Talus soils observed (refer OE June site visit report)
on site within upper headrace. Geotechnical
model/slope stability analysis to be updated
following receipt of additional investigations report.
In addition, colluvial soils were noted in drainage
lines that intersect the headrace trace. Slope
analysis should also be completed for these soil
profiles. Note: the talus and drainage line colluvial
Page 2 of 16
Nyamagasani 1 Hydropower Project, Uganda, 2208521A
Detailed Design Review GEOTECHNICS Rev E 20-Jun-2019
Comment Type
1 Critical issue – to be resolved
2 Important issue – request change
3 Discussion item – potential change (address during next stage)
4 Note to Designer – no change necessary
Comment Open /
Date Designer’s Responses Date
type Closed
22/04/17 2 Response A : 23-05-2017
The colluvial soils are expected.
All boulders mapped. The boulders are marked as
Gneiss in way point map.
Response B: 02-06-2017
-Colluvial soil deposits might be available on flat
areas of the project route.
29/05/17 -No colluvial was observed in Borehole/test pit
logging. Hence, we didn’t consider colluvial soil in
Slope stability analysis.
-There is no risk due to the boulders in
powerhouse area and part of the penstock area
has to investigate. OPEN
Response C: 23-02-2018
Stability analysis was differed until the right-hand
13/07/17
side road excavation carry out.
Further response
With the change of alignment and siphon bridge
29 Mar
position, the slope stability analysis is now 2019
shifted to left bank from siphon bridge left bank
pier to existing access on left bank pass new
position of entry tank. This is in process now.
Stability of right bank has been addressed from
weir to end of pebble tank after Alpigeo visit

Referenced
Item No. Reviewer’s Comments
Document
soils are expected to have different shear strength
parameters.
DRS Revision D comment:
Slope stability with respect to upper headrace
colluvial soils to be addressed during detailed
design. Refer process outlined in memorandum
“Upper Headrace – procedure for excavation of
slopes and slope stability assessment”
DD DRS Revision D comment:
Right bank cannot be considered “fully addressed”
as the process is iterative and continuous through
design and construction. Refer “Upper Headrace –
procedure for excavation of slopes and slope
stability assessment”
SS3 Slope Stability DRS Revision A comment:
Analysis Report Shear strength parameters for Layer 3
Table 6 Layer 3 design parameters are too high and not
considered appropriate. Two boreholes (BH1, BH2)
have been drilled along the channel alignment,
both to 10m. BH1 has been logged as firm clay with
silt, cobbles and boulders from 0-10m, whilst BH2
has been logged as silt with clay from 0-4m and
completely weathered granite from 4-10m. Core
recovery was poor at both locations. For slope
stability assessment, Layer 2 should be assumed
min 10m deep.
Geotechnical models adopted for each section
assessed should consider nearby boreholes in
addition to test pits.
DRS Revision B comment:
Slope stability reassessment pending
DRS Revision C comment:
Page 3 of 16
Nyamagasani 1 Hydropower Project, Uganda, 2208521A
Detailed Design Review GEOTECHNICS Rev E 20-Jun-2019
Comment Open /
Date Designer’s Responses Date
type Closed
26/02/18 recommended rock bolting that was described in
the submission of 8 Mar 2019 the “Design
changes to UHR Nym 1” in sections 3.2 and 3.3.
During the visit by OE, client and Alpigeo
together on 21 Mar 2019, it was noted that there
is a need to address some loose boulders on right
bank that may affect the right bank pier of siphon
bridge. It was recommended that these boulders
to be pushed down manually using levers before
construction of the pier. Therefore right bank
1/4/19 stability issue can be considered as fully
addressed.
22/04/17 2 Response A: 23-05-2017
We understand your comment. We will correct
this when correct parameters are available.
Response B: 02-06-2017
Re assessment will be provided when additional
investigation parameters are available.
Response C: 23-02-2018
Revised slope stability analysis report (R1) was OPEN
submitted on Nov 2017 and same report is
attached herewith.
Response C: 12-03-2018
To be provided.
29/05/17
13/07/17
 Nyamagasani 1 Hydropower Project, Uganda, 2208521A
Detailed Design Review GEOTECHNICS Rev E 20-Jun-2019

Referenced Comment Open /

Item No. Reviewer’s Comments Date Designer’s Responses Date
Document type Closed
As per Rev B comment

DRS Revision D comment:

Slope stability: Lower headrace (Ch+400 to Forebay
tank) Design parameters for highly to moderately
weathered rock is accepted – however refer to 26/02/18
Revision A comment above (i.e. boreholes drilled
with the chainages analysed – 0+400 to 1+900 –
predominately only encountered completely
weathered rock), review borehole logs along the
alignment (refer extract below) and revise
geological layer depths for each slope stability
section as required.

DRS Revision E comment:

16/03/18
Revised stability assessment to be submitted by
end of April 2018 or before

SS4 Slope Stability Missing analysis 22/04/17 2 Response A : 23-05-2017

Analysis Report No slope stability assessment between Ch0-140, This area with huge boulders on left hand side of
Section 3.5 however this section has up to 5 batter slopes with the canal. We proposed to analysis the section
an access road at the toe and construction stage when the preliminary site clearing done before
excavation significantly deeper than finished excavation.
surface level. Suggest a section be assessed
between these chainages. Response B: 02-06-2017
25/05/17 Reassessment will be provided when additional CLOSED
DRS Revision B comment: investigation parameters are available.
Slope stability assessment pending
13/07/17 Response C: 23-02-2018
DRS Revision C comment: This comment is no more applicable as HRC
Slope stability assessment pending. Note that located in RHS.
where the geotechnical model/design parameters
Further Response
Page 4 of 16
 Nyamagasani 1 Hydropower Project, Uganda, 2208521A
Detailed Design Review GEOTECHNICS Rev E 20-Jun-2019

Referenced Comment Open /

Item No. Reviewer’s Comments Date Designer’s Responses Date
Document type Closed
do not change, only the critical slope/critical This is addressed in response to item SS1 above
construction staging needs to be assessed 26/02/18 29 Mar
2019
DRS Revision D comment:
Slope stability with respect to upper headrace
(CH0-140) to be addressed during detailed design.
Refer process outlined in memorandum “Upper
Headrace – procedure for excavation of slopes and
slope stability assessment”

DD DRS Revision D comment:

Comments consolidated in SS1 - Closed

SS5 Slope Stability Drained and undrained parameters
Analysis Report Undrained parameters are the same as drained for
Table 6 the inferred parameters of Layer 1 and 3.
DRS Revision B comment:
The parameters should be reviewed when further
test data is available. However, when these results
are available, we expect to see a difference
between the drained (lower) and undrained shear
strength (higher).
DRS Revision C comment:
As per Rev B comment. Consider adopting drained
parameters from shear box test results as opposed
to undrained parameters. Groundwater conditions
currently assumed already provides a conservative
assessment.
DRS Revision D comment:
Slope stability: Lower headrace (Ch+400 to Forebay
tank) The results from the (R1) slope stability report
derives parameters from shear box test from Teclab
report (Oct 2017). These results are significantly
higher than the original report from CaCl (Jan,
22/04/17 2 Response A :23-05-2017
Layer 03 soil parameters are taken from the
literatures. We couldn’t find the different
parameters for both drained and undrained
29/05/17 conditions. Hence, we used same parameters for
both cases.
For layer 01, Same parameters (drained
parameter) were used due to the lag of
geotechnical investigation results. But drained
parameters are lesser than the undrained
parameters. Hence, the design is safer.
OPEN
13/07/17 Response B: 02-06-2017
The parameters will be reviewed when additional
investigation parameters are available.
Response C: 23-02-2018
Revised slope stability analysis report (R1) was
26/02/18 submitted on Nov 2017 and same report is
attached herewith.
Response C: 12-03-2018
To be provided.

Page 5 of 16
 Nyamagasani 1 Hydropower Project, Uganda, 2208521A
Detailed Design Review GEOTECHNICS Rev E 20-Jun-2019

Referenced Comment Open /

Item No. Reviewer’s Comments Date Designer’s Responses Date
Document type Closed
2015) due to samples not being saturated prior to
testing. With reference to the extract below, we
suggest developing lower bound drained
parameters from p-q plots using shear box test
results from the samples below. The usual process
can then be used to obtain undrained parameters.

Reanalyse slopes with new parameters.

Contact us if unsure of process.

DRS Revision E comment:

Revised stability assessment to be submitted by
end of April 2018 or before

14/03/18

Page 6 of 16
 Nyamagasani 1 Hydropower Project, Uganda, 2208521A
Detailed Design Review GEOTECHNICS Rev E 20-Jun-2019

SS7 Slope Stability Additional slope analysis scope 22/04/17 2 Response A : 23-05-2017
Analysis Report The slope stability analysis is limited to the HRC up We will identify the critical sections in penstock
General to the forebay tank. What are the intentions about line & roads and do the analysis. This report can
addressing other areas requiring stability be submitted before construction of them.
assessment (e.g. access roads and penstock)?
Response B: 02-06-2017
DRS Revision B comment: 29/05/17 Reassessment will be provided when additional
Reissue of slope stability assessment report investigation parameters are available.
pending
13/07/17 Response C: 23-02-2018
DRS Revision C comment: Some information requested from the site.
As per Rev B comment To be submitted.
26/02/18
DRS Revision D comment: Response C: 12-03-2018
Stability assessment from forebay to PH pending To be provided.

DRS Revision E comment: 14/03/18

Stability assessment from forebay to PH to be
submitted by end of April 2018 or before
Response A : 24-04-2018
Slope Stability DD DRS Revision A comment: 9/04/18 The slope stability report provided for the power
Analysis Report The penstock trace stability report has now been house area OPEN
Penstock trace submitted and overall is well presented. Comments
as follows: Further response
- Stability of slopes upslope of PH outstanding (note Penstock part from powerhouse to the anchors 29 Mar
this includes assessment of anchor block A-47). This A47a & A47b which are about 23m away from 2019
assessment will be in alluvial soils. We understand powerhouse have been incorporated in to the
that this will be submitted with the powerhouse report on slope stability of powerhouse. Revised
design documentation. CLOSED report was submitted on 12 Feb 2019.
- To ensure bearing and stability issues are
addressed, all footings need to be founded on the
‘highly to completely weathered rock’ layer as
indicated on drawings. DCP results from TP26,28
and 31 indicate this layer is between 1.7-2.1m
below ground surface level, however some cross-
section drawings indicate a footing depth less than
this. Footings to be inspected by the VSH geologist
and deepened where required. The relevant
drawings should be modified to note the required

Page 7 of 16
 Nyamagasani 1 Hydropower Project, Uganda, 2208521A
Detailed Design Review GEOTECHNICS Rev E 20-Jun-2019

bearing capacity, the requirement to found in

highly to completely weathered rock and for this to
be verified by a geologist. OPEN – IFC dwgs don no
capture notes. Alternatively, submit anchor block
inspection reports 1/05/18

DD DRS Revision B comment:

Slope stability report reviewed with the following
comments
1. Every slope was assessed against a FOS=1.5,
however ER FOS varies between 1.05-1.3 for the PH
2. Earthquake condition analyses adopted
horizontal acceleration coefficient of 0.24g instead
of 0.16g
3. The bench width in the analysis is only ~1m,
however the design bench width is 5m
4. Where is the analysis incorporating bifurcation
anchor blocks?
Once the analysis is updated with these changes, it
is anticipated most, if not all cases should satisfy
FOS requirements.
Following these changes, is the FOS is still not
satisfied, the geotechnical model can be revised
once excavation commences and Kevin can inspect
the cut slopes.

DD DRS Revision D comment: 1/4/19

1. Refer RevA DD DRS comment above that is still
open
2. Please provide stability analysis for critical
sections of penstock (other than PH area) e.g.
Anchor block 5

SS8 N1 PH – slope  The stability analysis is generally 28/08/18 Response

stability and
settlement analysis
satisfactory, although the construction
limitation of completing the work in 5m
strips is very restrictive and it may be
worth comparing this against the relaxing
the batter slopes so that the FOS
Page 8 of 16
 Revised stability report submitted on 12 Feb
2019 addressing the concerns. 29 Mar
 Effect to penstock from settlement of 2019 OPEN
powerhouse was addressed in the report
submitted on 12 Oct 2018. This was
commented and the need for type expansion
 Nyamagasani 1 Hydropower Project, Uganda, 2208521A
Detailed Design Review GEOTECHNICS Rev E 20-Jun-2019

requirements can be satisfied for all the joint required to take lateral deflection in
temporary stages; this alternative may addition to axial extension was urged. Details
prove to be more expedient and cost of a new expansion joint of below type which
effective can take 20mm of lateral deflection was
 The ground profile in the model doesn’t submitted. Evidence of use of proposed
look to match the design drawings bellow type joint in similar situation required
by OE. Enclosed in this submission is a list
 The arbitrary RL datum adopted makes it
of projects provided by the expansion joint
difficult to compare with the design supplier.
 The report provides no discussion about
the settlement analysis; are the computed
settlement values acceptable?
 Does the total settlement include the
settlement prior to the application of the
footing loads?
 There are some unusual peaks in the
settlement plot that look anomalous (see
below); these should be checked

DD DRS Revision D comment: 1/4/19

Some construction stages (with earthquake load
case) assessed have a calculated FOS<1 which is not
acceptable. To close this issue the report needs to
be resubmitted with acceptable FOS achieved.
Currently drained design parameters have been
used for this assessment. It is suggested undrained
design parameters be adopted.

Stability of Structures

Page 9 of 16
 Nyamagasani 1 Hydropower Project, Uganda, 2208521A
Detailed Design Review GEOTECHNICS Rev E 20-Jun-2019

S1 Stability Pebble tank stability 22/04/17 3 Response A : 23-05-2017

Calculations of The floating stability calculations indicate the We will do sensitivity analysis and clear the
Structures Report required factors of safety are only just met. This doubts in comments.
Section 7 calculation depends greatly on the top of the tank,
yet the typical sections show that the depth of soil Response C: 23-02-2018
is variable. Can some sensitivity analysis be done to To be submitted as the structure are on RHS side.
consider the range of soil loads that may occur?
Also is this soil cover at risk of scour? If so, what Response C: 12-03-2018
measures will be taken to confirm that there will be To be provided in DD stage.
no loss of soil over the life of the structure.
29/05/17 Further response
DRS Revision B comment: With the change of concept design, the new 29 Mar
Noted. Awaiting the provision of the sensitivity detail design is in the process now. The 2019 OPEN
analysis comments will be addressed in it.

DRS Revision C comment: 13/07/17

Accepted proposal from VS during design meeting
that sensitivity analysis can be provided for review
during detailed design phase

DRS Revision E comment: 14/03/18

Stability calculations to be provided minimum 1
month prior to commencement of pebble tank
construction

S2 Stability Pebble tank foundations 22/04/17 3 Response A : 23-05-2017

Calculations of The calculations have been carried out assuming a The sub soil condition under the pebble tank will
Structures Report ground condition of weathered rock. This is a key be confirmed in detailed design report.
Section 7 assumption; will this be confirmed with additional
Geological testing?
Investigation Report Response C: 23-02-2018
DRS Revision B comment: 29/05/17 To be submitted as the structure are on RHS side.
CLOSED
Noted. Awaiting the confirmation of the ground
conditions. Response C: 12-03-2018
To be provided in DD stage.
DRS Revision C comment:
Accepted proposal from VS during design meeting 13/07/17 Further response
that revised stability checks can be provided for
review during detailed design phase

Page 10 of 16
 Nyamagasani 1 Hydropower Project, Uganda, 2208521A
Detailed Design Review GEOTECHNICS Rev E 20-Jun-2019

During recent visits, the ground for foundation 29 Mar

DRS Revision E comment: was confirmed to good rock. The stability in 2019
Stability calculations to be provided minimum 1 14/03/18 detailed design stated in SS1 above will cover this
month prior to commencement of excavation
works for construction
DD DRS Revision D comment:
Rock foundation noted. Comment (with respect to
stability) consolidated in S1 – closed

S4 Stability DRS Revision C comment: 13/07/17 3 Response C: 23-02-2018

Calculations of Given the powerhouse will be founded on alluvial To be provided.
Structures Report soils Settlement assessment will be required.
Response C: 12-03-2018
DRS Revision E comment: 14/03/18 To be provided in DD stage.
Stability calculations to be provided minimum 1 Response A : 24-04-2018
month prior to commencement of powerhouse Settlement analysis calculations are attached
excavation works

DD DRS Revision B comment: 1/05/18

What is the design basis for 5m over
excavation/reinstatement? Can this bridging layer
be reduced? This is a significant earthworks
undertaking and would need to be closely managed Further response
Final revised design of powerhouse covered all the CLOSED
to ensure adequate compaction, mitigate 29 Mar
groundwater inflow etc. The proposed compaction concerns stated. Use of geogrid introduced to avoid 2019
differential settlement. Geogrid of required
standard should be included.
capacity provided. Since there is no differential
We suggest the proposed ground treatment be
settlement expected, the uniform settlement will
revised.
not generally affect the turbine and crane as those
machines will stand in its fully installed position
The settlement analysis has been reviewed with the relative to powerhouse base within the building.
following comments:
1. Check modulus parameters, some look low (e.g.
SM, GP), some are too high (e.g. embankment –
GW)
2. Total settlement has been assessed, however
what differential settlement is expected given the
depth to rock varies across the PH foundation?

Page 11 of 16
 Nyamagasani 1 Hydropower Project, Uganda, 2208521A
Detailed Design Review GEOTECHNICS Rev E 20-Jun-2019

3. What settlement limits apply to the powerhouse

equipment? (especially the turbines and travelling
cranes)
4. Check the depth to rock; the borehole drilling
showed a depth less than that used in the model.

DD DRS Revision D comment:

Closed

Scheme Freeze Drawings

D1 Ground Section Drainage 22/04/17 3 Response A: 23-05-2017

Details Of HRC Catchment drains are proposed along the toe of cut We will rectify this and correct drainage system
slopes adjacent to the access road however no cut drawings shall be submitted to client engineer to
off drains are proposed upslope of cut batters for approval.
the HRC. How will scour of batter slopes and within
backfill between the HRC and toe of batter be Response C: 23-02-2018
controlled? To be provided.
29/05/17
DRS Revision B comment: Response C: 12-03-2018
Updated design drawings pending To be provided.
OPEN
13/07/17
DRS Revision C comment:
Drawings to include typical drainage details
(addressing various conditions anticipated) with a
note on drawings requesting inspections to provide Further response
specific design advice/ drainage detailing (if As built drawings with detailed drainage 29 Mar
required) as construction progresses management plan is under way. This shall be 2019
submitted before end of May 2019
DRS Revision E comment: 16/03/18
Refer Rev C comment

D3 Powerhouse DRS Revision C comment: 13/07/17 2 Response C: 23-02-2018

drawings Powerhouse drawings have not been received for Already submitted.
review.
Please submit. Response C: 12-03-2018 CLOSED
To be provided.
DRS Revision D comment: 26/02/18

Page 12 of 16
 Nyamagasani 1 Hydropower Project, Uganda, 2208521A
Detailed Design Review GEOTECHNICS Rev E 20-Jun-2019

Updated drawings (PH at upstream location) Response C: 24-04-2018

pending The slope stability report and drawings are
16/03/18 attached.
DRS Revision E comment:
Additional details required in next issue of PH
drawings package:
- details of proposed ground improvement (note
BH3 encountered groundwater between 2.5-
3.0mbgl)
- bearing capacity requirements
- proposed retaining wall details
- at least one section should detail all available
Geotech data
- detail nearest critical cut slope (for slope stability
analysis)

01/05/18
DD DRS Revision B comment: Further comments
A detailed set of PH drawings review comments Please refer to the separate excel sheet provided
provided in attached document. Refer
“N1_PHdwg_OEcomments_010518.pdf”

DD DRS Revision D comment:

Closed

D4 General DRS Revision C comment: 13/07/17 3 Response C: 23-02-2018

A note should be included on any civil works Set of drawings will be submitted soon.
drawing requiring excavation of slopes, stating
geological inspections/mapping be undertaken of Response C: 12-03-2018
each new batter slope to as it is exposed. To be provided. OPEN
Any design changes/ stabilisation measures
proposed should be implemented immediately as it Response C: 24-04-2018
will be more efficient and feasible to carry out the The report cover the expected inspection /
works as the excavation progresses rather than
Review etc.
Page 13 of 16
 Nyamagasani 1 Hydropower Project, Uganda, 2208521A
Detailed Design Review GEOTECHNICS Rev E 20-Jun-2019

after the excavation is complete or the

infrastructure constructed.

DRS Revision E comment: 16/03/18

Refer Rev C comment

D5 Upper HRC DRS Revision C comment: 13/07/17 1 Response C: 23-02-2018

(~chainage 0+0m- Current concept design is not feasible and not Several concepts were submitted, finally Option
0+350m) accepted for scheme freeze. Concept design 05 on RHS bank was selected as feasible.
options to be resubmitted and include:
- additional topographic survey
- results from geological mapping,
identifying rock outcrop etc.
- updated horizontal alignment
- updated cross sections
- slope stability analysis
- foundation assessment
- constructability discussion
- safety in design discussion
- interface with access road / access road
alignment
- discussion on other design issues (e.g.
scour / rockfall protection) CLOSED

Options/considerations discussed included:

- aqueduct with horizontal alignment closer
to river
- buried HRC with temporary excavation
support and/or access road constructed on
top to limit excavation within talus
- move the HRC horizontal alignment
towards the river to limit the amount of
excavation in the talus
- reducing the cut slope angles and/or use
retaining structures within the talus slopes
- articulate canal with more closely spaced
construction joints/water stops where
founded within the talus materials

Page 14 of 16
 Nyamagasani 1 Hydropower Project, Uganda, 2208521A
Detailed Design Review GEOTECHNICS Rev E 20-Jun-2019

DRS Revision D comment: 26/02/18

Item conditionally closed subject to accepted
responses from A. Noble email “Nyamagashani -01
upper section scheme freeze package” February 20,
2018

DD DRS Revision D comment: 1/4/19

Comment superseded, refer comments U1 and U2

Upper Headrace Canal

U1 Method Statement Slope stability requirements 09/04/18 1

for Construction of The method statement (MS) references the WSP
Head Works and memo dated 7 March (Nyamagasani 1 - Upper
Upper Head Race Headrace – procedure for excavation of slopes and
Area slope stability assessment), but does not include
the requirements set out in this document. The MS
should be amended to include the relevant
processes.

Permanent access road 09/04/18

There is no provision in the MS for the construction
of a permanent access road. This is a requirement
of the ER and should be incorporated.
OPEN
Erection of the pipe bridge 09/04/18
Section 4.2 states “The first 1/3 of the truss which
will weigh about 2 tons will be brought on to the
scaffolding platform using the said excavator on to
the left bank end”. There is a need to include a
barrier to prevent trafficking of the platform by the
excavator. Failure to do so would place the
platform at risk of a large unplanned loading which
could result in collapse.

Risk Assessment for The risk assessment (RA) makes no reference to the 09/04/18
Construction of staged excavation process and geologist
Page 15 of 16
 Nyamagasani 1 Hydropower Project, Uganda, 2208521A
Detailed Design Review GEOTECHNICS Rev E 20-Jun-2019

Causeway and supervision as outlined in the OE memo MEM-007

Excavation of Upper dated 7 March, 2018, nor does it mention the
HRC Along the River upper headrace canal or reference the UHRC MS
to Weir document and the noted controls.

The RA should be amended to include these key

risk items and noted control measures.

Nyamagasani 1 SOP The SOP is a general document that outlines 09/04/18

on Construction of precautions to be taken for controlling the erosion
Causeway of spoil material into the river. Given the dynamic
And Excavation of nature of the UHC design, the erosion and
Upper Headrace sediment controls should be reviewed following
completion of the design.

U2 Drawings - Upper Refer drawings mark ups issued by R.Kingsland 28/8/18 2

head race canal - email dated 25/8/18: “FW: Your files were sent
Layout, invert levels successfully to andrew.noble@wsp.com and 2
and IPipe LS, Truss others”
columns details as
Detailed design
drawings. Pebble DD DRS Revision D comment: 1/4/19
tank and the Exit New scheme under review
tank as IFC
drawings.
DD DRS Revision E comment: 20/6/19
Revised concept
drawings and design Comments have been provided as Mark- ups on the
documentation for submitted documentation. These have been
Pebble tank, intake provided in three separate emails on 20/06/19.
canal, weir and
aqueduct

END OF REVIEW COMMENTS

Page 16 of 16