Concept Engineering Design (MelkaJilo - Awash) (Draft) r1 - Compressed

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA
ETHIOPIAN ROADS ADMINISTRATION
Consultancy Services for Detail Feasibility Study and

Preparation of Procurement Document of Adama -
Awash – Meisso – Dire Dawa Public Private
Partnership (PPP) Road Project
CONCEPT ENGINEERING DESIGN

REPORT
(for MELKAJILO-AWASH ROAD SECTION)
UPDATED DRAFT
October 2023
Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers &

Consultants Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad, India
in Joint Venture with
Net Consult PLC, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Consultancy Services for Detail Feasibility Study and Preparation Ethiopian Roads Administration (ERA)
of Procurement Document of Adama - Awash – Meisso – Dire Concept Design – Melkajilo-Awash section (Draft)
Dawa Road Project October 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
Background and Purpose............................................................................................... 1
Contract Data................................................................................................................. 1
Objectives & Scope of the Consultancy Service ............................................................. 2
Project Description ......................................................................................................... 3
Region, Zones, Woredas and Towns along the Project.................................................. 6
Climate .......................................................................................................................... 6
2 EXISTING FEATURES OF THE ROUTE CORRIDORS ..................................................... 8
3 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES AND RECOMMENDATION ....................12
METHOD OF ROUTES IDENTIFICATION.......................................................................... 12
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES: ROUTES A, B, C AND D IN THE SECTION FROM
MELKA JILO TO AWASH ........................................................................................................ 12
3.2.1 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE A .......................................................................................... 13
3.2.2 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE B .......................................................................................... 13
3.2.3 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE C .......................................................................................... 13
3.2.4 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE D .......................................................................................... 14
3.2.5 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE E .......................................................................................... 14
GEOMETRIC DESIGN ASPECT...................................................................................... 15
3.3.1 LENGTH OF THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES .................................................................. 15
3.3.2 TERRAIN ................................................................................................................ 16
3.3.3 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND TOTAL EARTHWORK QUANTITY .......... 18
Hydrology and Hydraulics Aspect ................................................................................ 20
3.4.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 20
3.4.2 DATA ACQUIRED FOR THE ROUTE SELECTION.......................................................... 20
3.4.3 METHODOLOGY FOR HYDROLOGY ........................................................................... 20
3.4.4 HYDRAULICS DESIGN OF THE DRAINAGE STRUCTURES............................................. 26
Structural Design Aspect.............................................................................................. 27
3.5.1 GENERAL .............................................................................................................. 27
3.5.2 MAJOR ASSUMPTION TAKEN IN THE QUANTITY COMPUTATION ................................ 29
STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................... 31
3.6.1 GENERAL .............................................................................................................. 31
3.6.2 STRATEGIC COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE ROUTES ................... 31
EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATION ....................................................................... 32
3.7.1 MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 32
RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................................. 35
4 SOIL AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATION ...........................................................................36
GENERAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 36
4.1.1 Physiography ........................................................................................................ 36
4.1.2 Climate ................................................................................................................. 36
Soil and Material investigation ..................................................................................... 38
4.2.1 Site investigation works ........................................................................................ 38
4.2.2 Pavement Condition of the Existing Road ............................................................. 39
Sub-grade Investigation ............................................................................................... 39
4.3.1 Soil Extension Survey ........................................................................................... 39
Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

In Joint Venture with Net Consult P.L.C.
4.3.2 Test pitting ............................................................................................................ 40

4.3.3 Sampling............................................................................................................... 40
Construction Materials Investigation ............................................................................ 41
4.4.1 Rock for crushed aggregate and masonry works .................................................. 42
4.4.2 Natural Gravel Source for Sub-base and Capping Layer ...................................... 43
4.4.3 Borrow Material..................................................................................................... 44
4.4.4 Natural Sand for Mortar and Cement Concrete Works .......................................... 45
4.4.5 Water Sources ...................................................................................................... 46
Laboratory Testing ....................................................................................................... 46
4.5.1 Classification Tests ............................................................................................... 46
4.5.2 Moisture-Density and CBR Tests .......................................................................... 46
4.5.3 Quality Tests on Rock, sand and Water samples .................................................. 47
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION................................................................. 48
4.6.1 General ................................................................................................................. 48
4.6.2 Sub-grade Materials.............................................................................................. 48
4.6.3 Laboratory CBR .................................................................................................... 48
4.6.4 CBR Swell ............................................................................................................ 49
4.6.5 Subgrade AASHTO Soil Classification .................................................................. 50
4.6.6 Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index of soils ................................................................ 52
4.6.7 Expansive Soil Stretches ...................................................................................... 55
4.6.8 Analyses of Test Results of Construction Materials .............................................. 55
4.6.9 Rock Source for Crushing and Masonry Works..................................................... 55
4.6.10 Analyses of Test Results of Natural Gravel Materials............................................ 56
4.6.11 Laboratory Test Results of Borrow Materials for Embankment and Replacement
Materials ............................................................................................................................. 57
4.6.12 Laboratory Test Results of Natural Sand for Cement Concrete and Mortar Works 58
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 59
Construction Materials ................................................................................................. 60
Bituminous Surfacing ................................................................................................... 60
5 Traffic Findings ..................................................................................................................62
General ........................................................................................................................ 62
Objectives of the study ................................................................................................. 62
Review of Historical Data ............................................................................................. 62
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES ...................................................................................... 74
5.4.1 ADAMA – AWASH SEGMENT .................................................................................... 74
TRAFFIC SURVEYS......................................................................................................... 76
ORIGIN-DESTINATION (OD), WILLINGNESS TO USE (WTU) AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY
(WTP) SURVEYS ...................................................................................................................... 78
TRAFFIC COUNT RESULTS ............................................................................................. 79
5.7.1 TRAFFIC COMPOSITION ........................................................................................... 79
5.7.2 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) CALCULATION....................................................... 86
ORIGIN-DESTINATION SURVEY RESULTS......................................................................... 90
5.8.1 O/D ZONES ............................................................................................................ 91
5.8.2 O/D MATRIX........................................................................................................... 91
SEASONAL VARIATION IN TRAFFIC FLOWS .................................................................... 100
ESTIMATION OF PROJECT ROAD AADT ........................................................................ 110
5.10.1 NORMAL TRAFFIC ................................................................................................. 110
5.10.2 DIVERTED TRAFFIC TO THE PROJECT ROAD ........................................................... 113
5.10.3 MODAL SHIFT TO RAILWAY ................................................................................... 117
5.10.4 GENERATED TRAFFIC ........................................................................................... 119

TRAFFIC PROJECTION.................................................................................................. 120

5.11.1 TRAFFIC GROWTH RATES ..................................................................................... 120
FORECASTED TRAFFIC FOR THE PROJECT ROAD (MELKAJILO – AWASH SECTION) ......... 126
FORECASTED TRAFFIC FOR THE EXISTING ROAD (MELKAJILO – AWASH SECTION) .......... 132
FORECASTED COMBINED TRAFFIC FOR MELKAJILO – AWASH SECTION .......................... 138
DESIGN CLASS AND NUMBER OF LANES ............................................................. 144
6 Pavement Design.............................................................................................................154
General ...................................................................................................................... 154
Design Period ............................................................................................................ 154
Departures from Standards ........................................................................................ 154
Traffic Loading ........................................................................................................... 154
6.4.1 Medium Traffic loading:....................................................................................... 157
6.4.2 Full Traffic loading:.............................................................................................. 157
Design CBR Values ................................................................................................... 158
Pavement Compositions ............................................................................................ 160
Adopted Design Requirements for the design of the pavement structure ................... 162
Pavement design output ............................................................................................ 163
Design of Shoulder .................................................................................................... 164
7 GEOMETRIC DESIGNS ..................................................................................................165
Geometric Design Manuals ........................................................................................ 165
Terrain Classification ................................................................................................. 165
Design Speed ............................................................................................................ 166
Cross Section Elements ............................................................................................. 166
Horizontal Alignment .................................................................................................. 167
7.5.1 Tangent Section.................................................................................................. 167
7.5.2 Circular Curves ................................................................................................... 167
7.5.3 Transition Curves................................................................................................ 168
7.5.4 Super-elevation Application ................................................................................ 169
7.5.5 Horizontal Sight Distance .................................................................................... 170
Vertical Alignment ...................................................................................................... 172
7.6.1 Maximum Gradient.............................................................................................. 172
7.6.2 Minimum Gradient .............................................................................................. 173
7.6.3 Critical Length of Gradient and Climbing Lane .................................................... 173
7.6.4 Minimum Length of Vertical Curves .................................................................... 174
Phasing of Horizontal and Vertical Alignment............................................................. 174
Road Widening .......................................................................................................... 175
Road Furniture and Markings ..................................................................................... 175
7.9.1 Traffic Signs ........................................................................................................ 175
7.9.2 Marker Posts and Guardrail ................................................................................ 176
7.9.3 Pavement Markings ............................................................................................ 176
Additional Safety and Miscellaneous Items ................................................................ 176
Summary of Geometric Design Parameters ............................................................... 176
Analysis of Performed of Geometric Concept Design................................................. 184
7.12.1 Digital Terrain Model ........................................................................................... 184
7.12.2 Horizontal Alignment ........................................................................................... 184
7.12.3 Vertical Alignment ............................................................................................... 185
Link Roads and Interchanges .................................................................................... 187
8 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS ..................................................................................189

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 189

8.1.1 General ............................................................................................................... 189
8.1.2 Study Area .......................................................................................................... 189
Methodology .............................................................................................................. 191
Data collection ........................................................................................................... 191
Catchment Area Delineation ...................................................................................... 191
Basin characteristics determination............................................................................ 193
8.5.1 Rainfall Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 197
Peak flow or discharge estimation.............................................................................. 197
Hydraulic Design ........................................................................................................ 198
8.7.1 General ............................................................................................................... 198
8.7.2 Culverts .............................................................................................................. 198
8.7.3 Bridges ............................................................................................................... 199
Conclusion and Recommendation ............................................................................. 200
9 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS ...........................................................................................203
General ...................................................................................................................... 203
9.1.1 Topography/Geomorphology and Remotely Sensed Data .................................. 203
9.1.2 Geology and Hydrogeology................................................................................. 203
9.1.3 Geology of the Project Area ................................................................................ 203
9.1.4 Climate ............................................................................................................... 204
9.1.5 Seismic Hazard................................................................................................... 205
Slope Design Criteria ................................................................................................. 206
9.2.1 Design of Embankments and Cuttings ................................................................ 207
Subsurface and Sub Surface Drainage ...................................................................... 208
9.3.1 Cross Drainage Structure Foundations ............................................................... 208
10 STRUCTURAL DESIGNS ................................................................................................211
General ...................................................................................................................... 211
Purpose of the report ................................................................................................. 211
Data collection ........................................................................................................... 211
Findings From the Concept Design documents. ......................................................... 211
Bridge design standard .............................................................................................. 213
10.5.1 Design Loads and Method .................................................................................. 213
10.5.2 Design Philosophy .............................................................................................. 214
10.5.3 Load and resistance factor design ...................................................................... 214
General Design and Location Features ...................................................................... 217
10.6.1 General ............................................................................................................... 217
10.6.2 Location Features ............................................................................................... 217
10.6.3 Bridge site Arrangement ..................................................................................... 220
Broad structural system ............................................................................................. 221
Structure Selected for the Study ................................................................................ 222
10.8.1 Reinforced Concrete Pipe ................................................................................... 222
10.8.2 Slab/Box Culverts ............................................................................................... 223
10.8.3 Bridges ............................................................................................................... 224
10.8.4 River Crossings .................................................................................................. 225
10.8.5 Overpass Structures ........................................................................................... 227
10.8.6 Flyover bridges ................................................................................................... 228
10.8.7 Interchanges ....................................................................................................... 229
10.8.8 Railway Crossings .............................................................................................. 230
10.8.9 Crossing structures on link roads ........................................................................ 230

Material ...................................................................................................................... 231

10.9.1 Concrete ............................................................................................................. 231
10.9.2 Pre-stressed Concrete ........................................................................................ 232
10.9.3 Stone Masonry.................................................................................................... 232
10.9.4 Reinforcement .................................................................................................... 232
10.9.5 Pre-stressing Steel.............................................................................................. 232
Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 232

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Key Contract Data ....................................................................................................... 1
Table 1-2: Region, Zones, Woredas and Towns along the Project ............................................... 6
Table 2-1: Region, Zones, Woredas and Towns along the Project ............................................. 11
Table 3-1: Comparison of Parameters ....................................................................................... 14
Table 3-2: Estimated Length of Proposed Alternative Routes in the First Section (Melka Jilo to
Awash) ....................................................................................................................................... 15
Table 3-3: Terrain Classification based on Natural Ground Slopes Perpendicular to the Ground
Contours .................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 3-4: Terrain classification of Alternative A......................................................................... 16
Table 3-5: Terrain classification of Alternative B......................................................................... 16
Table 3-6: Terrain classification of Alternative C ........................................................................ 17
Table 3-7: Terrain classification of Alternative D ........................................................................ 17
Table 3-8: Terrain classification of Alternative E......................................................................... 17
Table 3-9: Comparison of Alternative Alignments with Respect to Rise & Fall ........................... 19
Table 3-10: Comparison of Alternative Alignments with Respect to Earthwork ........................... 19
Table 3-11: Daily maximum rainfalls .......................................................................................... 22
Table 3-12: Design Storm Frequency (yrs) by Geometric Design Criteria (ERADDM 2013 Table
2.1) ............................................................................................................................................ 22
Table 3-13: Soil Groups and Characteristics .............................................................................. 24
Table 3-14: Coefficients for SCS peak Discharge Method .......................................................... 25
Table 3-15: Equations for Calculating Culvert Capacity for Inlet Control .................................... 27
Table 3-16: Summarized Structures Cost for Different Options Including Drainage ............ 30
Table 3-17: Multi Criteria Analysis of Alternative Routes of Melka Jilo – Awash ......................... 34
Table 4-1: Monthly Maximum and Minimum Mean Temperature at Awash Arba Metrological
Station ....................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 4-2:: Awash Arba Mean Monthly and Annual Rainfall ....................................................... 38
Table 4-3:: Soil Extension .......................................................................................................... 39
Table 4-4:: Rock sources along the project route ....................................................................... 42
Table 4-5:: Natural Gravel Source for Wearing Course, Sub-base and Capping Layer .............. 43
Table 4-6: Borrow sources for embankment construction and replacement works ..................... 44
Table 4-7:: Sand sources for concrete and mortar works ........................................................... 45
Table 4-8:: Water Sources ....................................................................................................... 46
Table 4-9: Type of Tests and Methods employed for different Materials .................................... 47
Table 4-10:: Properties of the CH, MH, and CL & ML soil groups ............................................... 54
Table 4-11: Laboratory Test Results of the Rock Samples ......................................................... 55
Table 4-12:: Laboratory Test Results of Natural Gravel Materials (Sub base) ........................... 56
Table 4-13: Laboratory Test Results of Borrow Materials ..................................................... 57
Table 4-14: Laboratory Test Results of River Sand .................................................................... 58
Table 5-1: Historical AADT Data for Adama-Awash Segment (2006 to 2019) ............................ 64
Table 5-2; Historical AADT Data for Awash-Mieso Segment (2006 to 2019) .............................. 65
Table 5-3: Historical AADT Data for Awash-Mille Segment (2006 to 2019) ................................ 66
Table 5-1: Historical AADT Data for Mieso-Dengago Segment (2006 to 2019) .......................... 67
Table 5-5:. Historical AADT Data for Mieso-Erer Segment (2006 to 2019) ................................. 68
Table 5-6: Historical Average Annual AADT Growth Rates for Different Segments (2006 – 2019)
.................................................................................................................................................. 72
Table 5-7: Comparison of ERA and Consultant’s Traffic Data .................................................... 72
Table 5-8: Adama – Awash Projected Motorized Traffic Expressway Road Option ................... 74
Table 5-9: Forecast total traffic on the project route, AADT (Scott Wilson Study, 2007) ............. 76

Table 5-10: Summary of Vehicular Traffic Data By Vehicle Category at Station TC1 (Direction-1)
.................................................................................................................................................. 79
.................................................................................................................................................. 80
.................................................................................................................................................. 80
.................................................................................................................................................. 81
.................................................................................................................................................. 82
.................................................................................................................................................. 82
.................................................................................................................................................. 83
.................................................................................................................................................. 83
.................................................................................................................................................. 84
.................................................................................................................................................. 84
.................................................................................................................................................. 85
.................................................................................................................................................. 85
Table 5-22:. ADT Calculation for survey station TC1 (Adama-Awash) ....................................... 86
Table 5-23: ADT Calculation for survey station TC2 (Awash – Mille).......................................... 87
Table 5-24:. ADT Calculation for survey station TC3 (Awash – Mieso) ...................................... 87
Table 5-25:. ADT Calculation for survey station TC4 (Mieso – Erer – Dire Dawa) ...................... 88
Table 5-26: ADT Calculation for survey station TC5 (Mieso – Dengago) .................................... 88
Table 5-27: ADT Calculation for survey station TC6 (Harar – Dengago) .................................... 89
Table 5-28: ADT Calculation for survey station TC7 (Dire Dawa – Dewelle) .............................. 89
Table 5-29: Zoning Scheme for OD Analysis ............................................................................. 91
Table 5-30: Partial OD Matrix Results for Awash Survey Location ............................................. 92
Table 5-31: Partial OD Matrix Results for Mieso Survey Location .............................................. 92
Table 5-32: Partial OD Matrix Results for Dire Dawa Survey Location ....................................... 93
Table 5-33: Partial OD Matrix Results for Dengago Survey Location ......................................... 94
Table 5-34: Partial Willingness to Use Results for the Awash Survey Location .......................... 95
Table 5-35: Partial Willingness to Use Results for the Mieso Survey Location ........................... 96
Table 5-36: Partial Willingness to Use Results for the Dengago Survey Location ...................... 97
Table 5-37: Partial Willingness to Use Results for the Dire Dawa Survey Location .................... 99
Table 5-38: Summarized OD Matrix for all vehicle types and survey locations ......................... 100
Table 5-39: Analysis of Seasonal Variation of Traffic for Adama-Awash Segment ................... 101
Table 5-40: Analysis of Seasonal Variation of Traffic for Awash-Mieso Segment ..................... 102
Table 5-41: Analysis of Seasonal Variation of Traffic for Awash-Mille Segment ....................... 104
Table 5-42: Analysis of Seasonal Variation of Traffic for Mieso-Erer Segment ......................... 105
Table 5-43: Analysis of Seasonal Variation of Traffic for Mieso –Asebe Teferi – Dengago
Segment .................................................................................................................................. 106
Table 5-44: Analysis of Seasonal Variation of Traffic for Dengego - Harar Segment ................ 108
Table 5-45: Analysis of Seasonal Variation of Traffic for Dengego – Dire Dawa Segment ....... 109
Table 5-46: Analysis of Seasonal Variation of Traffic for Dire Dawa – Dewelle Segment ......... 110

Table 5-47: Projected AADT for the Opening Year for Awash - Mieso Segment ...................... 111
Table 5-48: Projected AADT for the Opening Year for Adama – Awash Segment .................... 111
Table 5-49: Projected AADT for the Opening Year for Awash-Mille Segment .......................... 112
Table 5-50: Projected AADT for the Opening Year for Mieso-Erer-Dire Dawa Segment........... 112
Table 5-51: Projected AADT for the Opening Year for Mieso-Dengago Segment ..................... 112
Table 5-52: Total OD Matrix for the Awash-Mille Road Segment ............................................. 114
Table 5-53: OD of vehicles on the Awash-Mille route willing to use the project route ............... 115
Table 5-54: Calculation of Diverted Traffic Percentage from the Awash-Mille Segment ........... 115
Table 5-55: Diverted Traffic to new route from Awash-Mille Segment ...................................... 115
Table 5-56: Total OD Matrix for the Awash-Mieso Road Segment ........................................... 116
Table 5-57: OD of vehicles on the Awash-Mieso route willing to use the project route ............. 116
Table 5-58: Calculation of Diverted Traffic Percentage from the Awash-Mieso Segment ......... 116
Table 5-59: Diverted Traffic to new route from Existing Melkajilo-Awash Segment .................. 117
Table 5-60: Estimation of Rail Freight Modal Shift Factor......................................................... 118
Table 5-61: Estimation of Rail Passenger Modal Shift Factor ................................................... 118
Table 5-62: Expected Modal Shift of Passenger and Freight Vehicular Traffic to Railway
(Melkajilo-Awash Segment) ...................................................................................................... 119
Table 5-63: Estimation of Travel Speed for Existing Road and Project Option ......................... 119
Table 5-64: Estimate of Generated Traffic Factor for Project Option (Melkajilo-Awash) ........... 120
Table 5-65: Generated Traffic for the Melkajilo-Awash Segment .............................................. 120
Table 5-66: GDP, Population and per Capita Income Development (MOFED, 2020) ............... 121
Table 5-67: Comparison of GDP and GDP PCI trends (Source: IMF, 2020 & World Bank, 2020)
................................................................................................................................................ 122
Table 5-68: Recommended GDP, Population, and GDP PCI values for the planning period .... 122
Table 5-69: Calculation of Transport Demand Elasticity with respect to GDP ........................... 124
Table 5-70: Calculation of Traffic Growth Rates for the Project Design Period ......................... 126
Table 5-71: Projected Motorized Traffic for Melkajilo-Awash (Low Growth Scenario) - Combined
................................................................................................................................................ 127
Table 5-72: Projected Motorized Traffic for Melkajilo-Awash (Low Growth Scenario) – Direction-1
................................................................................................................................................ 127
Table 5-73: Projected Motorized Traffic Melkajilo-Awash (Medium Growth Scenario) - Combined
................................................................................................................................................ 128
Table 5-74: Projected Motorized Traffic Melkajilo-Awash (Medium Growth Scenario) – Direction-
1 .............................................................................................................................................. 129
Table 5-75: Projected Motorized Traffic Melkajilo-Awash (Medium Growth Scenario) – Direction-
2 .............................................................................................................................................. 130
Table 5-76:. Projected Motorized Traffic Melkajilo-Awash (High Growth Scenario) – Combined
................................................................................................................................................ 130
Table 5-77: Projected Motorized Traffic Melkajilo-Awash (High Growth Scenario) – Direction-1
................................................................................................................................................ 131
................................................................................................................................................ 131
Table 5-79: Estimation of Opening Year (2026) Traffic on the Existing Melkajilo-Awash Section
................................................................................................................................................ 132
Table 5-80: Projected Motorized Traffic Melkajilo-Awash Existing Road (Low Growth Scenario) –
Combined ................................................................................................................................ 133
Direction-1 ............................................................................................................................... 133
Direction-2 ............................................................................................................................... 134

Table 5-83: Projected Motorized Traffic Melkajilo-Awash Existing Road (Med. Growth Scenario)
– Combined ............................................................................................................................. 134
Direction-1 ............................................................................................................................... 135
Direction-2 ............................................................................................................................... 136
Table 5-86: Projected Motorized Traffic Melkajilo-Awash Existing Road (High Growth Scenario) –
Combined ................................................................................................................................ 136
Direction-1 ............................................................................................................................... 137
Direction-2 ............................................................................................................................... 137
Table 5-89: Forecasted Combined Traffic (existing & new roads within Park) (Combined, Low
Scenario) ................................................................................................................................. 138
Table 5-90: Forecasted Combined Traffic (existing & new roads within Park) (Direction 1, Low
Scenario) ................................................................................................................................. 139
Scenario) ................................................................................................................................. 140
Table 5-92: Forecasted Combined Traffic (existing & new roads within Park) (Combined, Med.
Scenario) ................................................................................................................................. 140
Table 5-93: Forecasted Combined Traffic (existing & new roads within Park) (Direction-1, Med.
Scenario) ................................................................................................................................. 141
Scenario) ................................................................................................................................. 141
Table 5-95: Forecasted Combined Traffic (existing & new roads within Park) (Combined, High
Scenario) ................................................................................................................................. 142
Table 5-96: Forecasted Combined Traffic (existing & new roads within Park) (Direction-1, High
Scenario) ................................................................................................................................. 143
Scenario) ................................................................................................................................. 143
Table 5-98:. LOS Criteria for Class-I 2-lane 2-way rural highway (HCM 2010) ......................... 146
Table 5-99: Lane Number Requirements for Melkajilo-Awash Segment Outside Awash Park
Limits (Based on Medium Traffic Scenario and Multilane Highway Consideration)................... 147
Table 5-100: Projected Traffic on the Existing Road (Both Directions, Medium Scenario) ........ 148
Table 5-101: Projected Combined Traffic on the Existing & Project Roads (Both Directions,
Medium Scenario) .................................................................................................................... 148
Table 5-102: LOS analysis results for Two-Lane Two-Way Option (Combined Traffic for existing
and project route, Medium Traffic Scenario)............................................................................. 150
Table 5-103: LOS analysis results for Four Lane Multilane Highway Option (Combined Traffic for
existing and project route, Medium Traffic Scenario) ................................................................ 151
Table 5-104: LOS analysis results for Six Lane Multilane Highway Option (Combined Traffic for
existing and project route, Medium Traffic Scenario) ................................................................ 151
Table 5-105:. Forecasted Traffic (Melkajilo - Awash Segment) (Project Route) ........................ 152
Table 5-106: Forecasted Traffic (Melkajilo - Awash Segment) (Existing Road) ........................ 153
Table 6-1: Projected Traffic (Melkajilo - Awash) Direction -1 .................................................... 154
Table 6-2: Projected Traffic (Awash - Melkajilo) Direction -2 .................................................... 156
Table 6-3:: Equivalent Factor Assumed for Medium Traffic Loading Scenario .......................... 157
Table 6-4:: Equivalent Factor Assumed for Full Traffic Loading Scenario................................. 157
Table 6-5:: Equivalent Factor Assumed for Link roads adopt Half Loading Scenario ................ 157
Table 6-6: Cumulative ESA per lane for the two Scenario under Different Loading, Million ...... 157

Table 6-7: Homogeneous Sections and Subgrade CBR Values ............................................... 159
Table 6-8: Pavement Thicknesses (Melakjilo-Awash road segment) ........................................ 163
Table 6-9: Pavement Structure Design for Link road ................................................................ 164
Table 7-1: Terrain Classification ............................................................................................... 165
Table 7-2: Design Speed vs Terrain Category as per AASHTO for Main Line Expressway ...... 166
Table 7-3: Design Speed vs Terrain Category as per ERA’s Design Manual for Link Roads .... 166
Table 7-4: Minimum Horizontal Curve Radii for Paved Roads (ERA Geometric Design Manual
2013) ....................................................................................................................................... 167
Table 7-5: Stopping Sight Distance Design Values for Paved Roads ....................................... 170
Table 7-6: Passing Sight Distance Values for Paved Roads .................................................... 171
Table 7-7: Maximum Gradients according to ERA’s Standard .................................................. 172
Table 7-8:: Maximum Gradients according to ERA’s Standard ................................................. 172
Table 7-9:: Climbing Lane Criteria ............................................................................................ 173
Table 7-10: Minimum Vertical Curve K Value according to ERA’s Standard............................. 174
Table 7-11: Widening on Curves and High Fills according to ERA standard ............................ 175
Table 7-12: Geometric Design Standard Parameters for Mainline Expressway ........................ 176
Table 7-13: Geometric Design Standard Parameters for Link Roads, Interchange Ramps and
Slip Roads ............................................................................................................................... 179
Table 7-14: Horizontal Alignment Data ..................................................................................... 184
Table 7-15: Proportion of Curve and Straight Section .............................................................. 185
Table 7-16: Vertical Alignment Data ......................................................................................... 185
Table 7-17: Proportion of Severity of Grade ............................................................................. 186
Table 7-18: Proposed Link Roads ............................................................................................ 187
Table 8-1: Return Period Based on the Size of Catchments and Type of Structures ................ 197
Table 8-2: Box/Slab Culvert Dimension (60+000-126+386.6)................................................... 198
Table 8-3: Design Flood at the Bridges (60+000-126+386.6) .................................................. 199
Table 8-4: Freeboard vs. Design Discharge Values ................................................................ 200
Table 8-5: Bridge Dimension (60+000-126+386.6) .................................................................. 200
Table 8-6: Sample Site Visit Photos ......................................................................................... 201
Table 9-1: Slope Ratio Table – Vertical to Horizontal ............................................................... 207
Table 9-2: Recommended bearing capacities and footing depth Major Crossing Structures .... 208
Table 10-1: List of River Crossings bridges .............................................................................. 226
Table 10-2: List of overpass structures .................................................................................... 227
Table 10-3: flyover bridges locations ........................................................................................ 229
Table 10-4: Location where crossing culverts meet the flyover bridge. ..................................... 229
Table 10-5: List of Interchanges ............................................................................................... 229
Table 10-6: List of Railway crossing ......................................................................................... 230
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Location Map ............................................................................................................. 4
Figure 1-2: Location Map Close-up .............................................................................................. 5
Figure 2-1: The Existing Route Corridors Superimposed on Satellite Imagery ............................. 8
Figure 3-1: Plan View Alternative Routes From MelkaJilo-Awash .............................................. 15
Figure 4-1: Maximum and Minimum Temperatures for Awash Arba Metrological Station ........... 36
Figure 4-2: Rainfall distribution of the Country ........................................................................... 37
Figure 4-3: Mean monthly rainfall in the project vicinity (Awash Arba) ........................................ 38
Figure 4-4: CBR Value versus Chainage................................................................................... 48
Figure 4-5: CBR Swell vs Station ............................................................................................... 49
Figure 4-6: AASHTO Classification of Subgrade soils and their percentage composition ........... 50

Figure 4-7: Variation of Plasticity Index (%) of the Sub-grade Soils ............................................ 52
Figure 4-8: Plasticity Chart for Subgrade.................................................................................... 54
Figure 5-1: Adama-Awash Historical Traffic Trend, 2006 - 2019 (Source: ERA Database, 2020)
.................................................................................................................................................. 70
Figure 5-2: Awash-Mieso Historical Traffic Trend, 2006 - 2019 (Source: ERA Database, 2020) 70
Figure 5-3: Awash – Mille Historical Traffic Trend, 2006 - 2019 (Source: ERA Database, 2020) 71
Figure 5-4: Mieso - Dengago Historical Traffic Trend, 2006 - 2019 (Source: ERA Database,
2020) ......................................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 5-5: Mieso – Erer Historical Traffic Trend, 2006 - 2019 (Source: ERA Database, 2020).. 72
Figure 5-6: Comparison of ERA and Consultant’s Traffic Data ......................................................... 74
Figure 5-7: Locations for Traffic and O/D Surveys .......................................................................... 78
Figure 5-8: Calibrated Speed-Flow Curve for Multilane Highways (HCM 2010)........................ 145
Figure 5-9: Intersection type based on traffic flows .................................................................. 152
Figure 5-10: Recommended Half Trumpet Interchange between the existing and project roads
................................................................................................................................................ 153
Figure 6-1: Plot of CUSUM against Chainages ........................................................................ 158
Figure 7-1: Transition Curve Requirements as Per ERA and AASHTO Manuals...................... 169
Figure 7-2: Method of Super-elevation Application for Spiral Curve ......................................... 169
Figure 7-3:: Method of Super-elevation Application for Simple curve ....................................... 170
Figure 7-4: Schematic Representation of Proposed Location of Link Roads, Toll Plazas and
Interchanges ............................................................................................................................ 188
Figure 8-1 Section 2 (60+000-126+388.6) Study area.............................................................. 190
Figure 8-2: Melkajilo-Awash Expressway Design-Build Road project Delineated catchment
Section2 Section1 (60+000-126+386.6km) .............................................................................. 192
Figure 8-3 Melkajilo-Awash Expressway Design-Build Road project Catchments’ Soil Type
Section1 (60+000-126+386.6km) ............................................................................................. 194
Figure 8-4 Melkajilo=Awash Expressway Design-Build Road project Catchments’ Land use
/Cover types Section1 (60+000-126+386.6km) ........................................................................ 196
Figure 9-1: Geological Map of the Project Area ....................................................................... 203
Figure 9-2: Rain fall distribution of the country ......................................................................... 204
Figure 9-3: Seismic Hazard map of Ethiopia and the specific project area. (Ethiopian Standard
(EN-1998:2015)) ...................................................................................................................... 206
ANNEXES
Annex 1.1 : Typical Cross sectional Drawings

Annex 1.2 Horizontal alignment data
Annex 1.3 Vertical alignment data
Annex 2.1: Subgrade Soils
Annex 2.2: Test Pit Logs
Annex 3.1: Time of Concentration
Annex 3.2: Curve Number and Design Discharge
Annex 3.3: Drainage List

ABBREVIATIONS
A Absolute
Algebraic Difference
Area
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AC Asphalt Concrete
ACV Aggregate crushing value
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
Alt. Alternative
Amsl Above Mean Sea Level
ANP Awash National Park
Arf Area Reduction Factor
ASTER Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
Av. Average
BCR Benefit Cost Ratio
BDM Bridge Design Manual
BOQ Bill of Quantity
BS British Standards
oC Degree Celsius
c/w Carriage-Way
CBR California Bearing Ratio
CESA Cumulative Equivalent Standard Axle
CN Curve Number
Co. Company
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CRGE Climate Resilient Green Economy
CSA Central Statistical Authority
d Distance
D Desirable
DBM Dense Bituminous Macadam
DBST Double Bituminous Surface Treatment
Design Class
DC
Dead load of structural components and nonstructural attachments
DCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer test/value
DD Down drag
DDM Drainage Design Manual
Deg. Degree
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DTM Digital Terrain Model
DV Design Vehicle
DW Dead load of wearing surfaces and utilities
E East

ECA Environmentally Critical Area

EF Equivalent Factor
EFY Ethiopian Fiscal Year
EH Earth pressure load
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Return
EMA Ethiopian Mapping Agency
EN Ethiopian Standard Norme
EPA Environmental Protection Authority
ERA Ethiopian Roads Authority
ERADDM Ethiopian Roads Authority Drainage Design Manual
ERCA Ethiopian Revenue and Customs Authority
ES Earth surcharge load
ESAL Equivalent Standard Axle Load
ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
ETB Ethiopian Birr
EUROCODE European Standard
EV Dead load of earth fill
EW Expressway
f Friction Factor
F/I/M Few/Intermediate/Many
FD Flow Depth in m
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic Ethiopia
FDT Field density Test
G Grade
GDEM Global Digital Elevation Model
GDP Gross Domestic Product
G/M/P Good/Moderate/Poor
Gov. Government
GPS Global Positioning System
GTP Growth and Transformation Plan
GWC Gravel Wearing Course
H Height
HDM Highway Development and Management
HL Head Loss
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
HW Head Water
HWM High Water Mark
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GF Growth Factor
Ia Initial Abstraction
IMF International Monetary Fund
IMT Intermediate Modes of Transportation
km Kilometer
Kpa Kilopascal
L Length

Large
LAA Los Angeles Abrasion (%)
L/M/H Low/Moderate/High
LHS Left Hand Side
LL Liquid Limit (%)
LS Lump Sum
Ltd Limited
LULC Land Use Land Cover
m Meter
M Medium
masl meters above sea level
MAT Mean Annual Temperature (0c)
Max. Maximum
MCA Multi-criteria Analysis
MDD Maximum Dry Density (gm/cc)
MESA Million Equivalent Standard Axle
MH Silt of High Plasticity
MI Silt of Medium Plasticity
ML Silt of Low Plasticity
MPa Mega Pascal
mm Millimeter
MR Resilient Modulus
MT Motorized Traffic
MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
n Manning’s Coefficient
N North
NAF Night Adjustment Factors
NF Night Factor
NMT Non-motorized Traffic
No. Number
NPV Net Present Value
OD Origin Destination
OMC Optimum Moisture Content (%)
P Precipitation
PAP Project Affected Persons
PI Plasticity Index
PIw Weighted Plasticity Index
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration
PL Plastic Limit (%)
P.L.C. Private Limited Company
Po Initial serviceability index
PPP Public Private Partnership
PRDI Personal Real Disposable Income
PSI Serviceability loss
Pt Terminal serviceability index
Pvt. Private

Q Discharge
QC Quality Control
R Radius
RAP Resettlement Action Plan
RCB Reinforced Concrete Box
RCBG Reinforced Concrete Box Girder
RCDG Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder
RCP Reinforced concrete pipe
RCS Reinforced Concrete Slab
Ref. Reference
RFP Request for Proposal
RFQ Request for Quotation
RHS Right Hand Side
RoW Right of Way
RSDP Road Sector Development Program
RSM Route selection Manual
Second
Slope
S
Small
South
SBST Single Bituminous Surface Treatment
SCF Seasonal Conversion Factor
SCS Soil Conservation Services
SG Specific gravity
SN Structural Number
So Standard Deviations
SSS Sodium Sulphate Soundness (%)
STD Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Tc Time of Concentration
TC Traffic count
ToR Terms of Reference
TRL Transport Research Laboratory
TRRL Transport and Road Research Laboratory
TW Tail Water
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
UN United Nations
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
V Value
VAT Value Added Tax
(V:H) (Vertical: Horizontal)
VOC Vehicle Operating Cost
West
W
Weight
WA Water Absorption (%)
WGS World Geodetic System
WTP Willingness to Pay

WTU Willingness to Use

W18 Cumulative Equivalent Standard axles
yrs Years
ZR Standard Normal Deviation
4WD Four Wheel Drive

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
E.1 INTRODUCTION
The Government of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) represented by the
Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA) has allocated funds through the Road Sector Development
Programs (RSDPs) for Consultancy Services for Detail Feasibility Study and Preparation of
Procurement Document of Adama - Awash – Meisso – Dire Dawa Public Private Partnership
(PPP) Road Project.
Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in Joint Venture with Net
Consult P.L.C. were awarded the work of preparation of Detail Feasibility Study and Preparation
of Procurement Document of Adama - Awash – Meisso – Dire Dawa Expressway Road
Project vide Procurement Ref. No.: S/65/ICB/RFP/GOE/2011 EFY and the commencement date
is February 21, 2020 as per ERA letter Ref. No. AA19/28/16-157 dated 20/02/2020
As part of the contract, this Concept Engineering Design Report has been prepared for Melkajilo-
Awash road section. The purpose of this report is to present the details of the engineering aspect
of the concept design activity.
E.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW

Key Features of the Project
Adama- Awash- Meisso- Dire Dawa Road Project is located in the Eastern part of Ethiopia under
the administration of Oromia, Afar, Amhara, Somali and Dire Dawa Regional States. The project
starts at Adama Town, located around 90kms from Addis Ababa along the existing Adama Toll
Road. The road then stretches towards the eastern direction passing on the outskirts of towns
like Metehara, Awash, Meisso and ends at Dire Dawa. According to measurements on the site,
the project route has a total of about 410kms via Kulubi Town and 350kms Via Bike Town. The
first 60km of the road from Adama is excluded from this service as it is planned to be constructed
as toll road from the public money borrowed from African development bank. The rest of the road
passing through Awash, Meisso and ending at Dire Dawa is identified to be developed by the
private sector through PPP (Public Private Partnership). Therefore, considering the route will
most probably follow the route along Bike as it is mentioned in the ToR, the study area / project
corridor will have an approximate length of 290km measured along the existing road via Afdem,
Bike and Erer. However, this length is expected to be shorter since alignment improvements are
expected owing to the fact that the road is going to have high standard.
In reference to the study already conducted from Adama – Awash, the beginning of the study
which is expected to be around 60km from Adama (near Melka Jilo) with coordinates E571532,
N988113 (according the Employer’s Requirement). However, as mentioned in the ToR the end
will be in Dire Dawa connected to Dire Dawa – Dewele road. The exact location is not
mentioned, i.e. this is to be decided after the Conceptual Design is concluded.
Land use pattern along the Expressway/project corridor is mainly based on mixed farming
(growing crops and livestock rearing) in Oromia and Amhara (Minjar Shenkora) Woredas; and
pastoralism for the two Woredas of Afar and semi – pastoralists and pastoralists for all the
Woredas in Somali National Regional State.
The project route passes mostly through the Middle Ethiopia in Rift Valley River Basin. The
project area is flat and rolling in nature. The project road traverses adjacent towns and populated
villages.
The entire project corridor has been divided into two sections; Section I: – Melka Jilo (60km from
Adama) to Awash
In Joint Venture with Net Consult P.L.C. i
Section II: – Awash – Meisso – Dire Dawa

Section II has been further divided into two construction packages
Package I : Awash – Meisso
Package II : Meisso to Diredawa
The present report is limited to the Melkajio - Awash section only.
Region, Zones, Woredas and Towns along the Project
The project roads traverse along a number of towns and villages, which are listed in the table
below.
No. Region Zone Woreda Towns /Cities
1. Adama Adama
Oromia East Shewa Zone
2. Boset
3. Amhara North Shewa Zone Minjar Shenkora Melkajilo
4. Oromia East Shewa Zone Fentale Metehara
5. Awash National Park
Awash Fentale
6. Awash
Afar Zone III (Awash City)
7. Amibara
8. Oromia West Hararge Meisso Meisso
9. Gumbi Bordede
10. Meisso Mullu
11. Somali Afdem Afdem
Shinile
12. Beki Beki
13. Erer Erer
14. Dire Dawa Dire Dawa Dire Dawa City Dire Dawa
Based on desktop and site assessments, it was observed that the section from Melkajilo to
Meisso follows one common existing route whereas the section from Meisso to Dire Dawa has
two existing routes. The first alignment from Meisso – Dire Dawa which is about 210kms long is
the asphalt road via Chiro (Asebe Teferi), Hirna, Kulubi and Dengego. The second alignment of
about 150kms is a deteriorated gravel road via Afdem, Bike and Erer.
According to the Description of Services of the ToR Section 2, it is mentioned that since this
route is going to be shorter for Addis Ababa bound traffic, much of the traffic from Djibouti Port to
Addis Ababa currently using the road via Semera, which is composed of over 90% of Ethiopia’s
external trade, is expected to be diverted to the project road. Therefore, with respect to road
safety, the existing road via Hirna would be accident prone since it has winding alignment due
to the terrain condition above and since its corridor is highly populated.
Moreover, considering the expected high traffic, the road standard is expected to be high and
possibly expressway standard. Nevertheless, this fact has been refined to more detail in the
feasibility study part of the consultancy service. High standard roads have stringent geometric
criteria. Therefore, as mentioned before, from the initial assessment, to get an optimal road
geometric design without excessive earthwork and structural work, the terrain favorable is the
corridor via Erer. Moreover, this issue was dealt in detail during the route selection process.
The routes traverses in a north easterly direction along the eastern foot of the Ethiopian Rift
Valley escarpment, parallel to the rift system. The road in its entirety lies within the Awash River
basin.
The Awash river basin is one of the 12 river basins of Ethiopia. It drains the central and eastern
highlands of the country. It has a catchment area of about 110,000 km2. The river starts from

In Joint Venture with Net Consult P.L.C. ii
Ginichi town west of the capital Addis Ababa. It travels along the Rift Valley and ends in Lake
Abe on the border between Ethiopia and Djibouti.
Through its journey, the river flows from an altitude of 3000 m above sea level (m.a.s.l.) to 250
m.a.s.l. with a total length of about 1200 km. The average total rainfall ranges from 1600 mm in
the highlands to 160 mm in the lowlands.
The majority of the rivers in the basin and selected routes are alluvial rivers which have flood
plains, and channels or river routes that are formed in sediment that is consolidated loosely.
Because of flooding and loose river banks, the rivers maintained a primary route and formed a
side channel. The banks of the rivers are eroding when the water in the rivers rises and the
resulted sediments deposited in the beds of the river or flood plains. The rivers broke down
further into braided and meandering for some cases.
Further to km 150 to the end of the project, bedrock river types formed when the water cuts
through new levels of sediment, resulting the bed rock below were observed. However, the
mixed bedrock-alluvial rivers were dominant with a characteristic that falls into both of the above
categories which usually flow through different bedrock layers and areas with alluvial deposits.
E 3 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES AND RECOMMENDATION

Five routes have been identified based on desktop study in the vicinity of Awash Park, i.e., two
routes by avoiding the park passing in the north and south side and three routes through the
park.
Alternative Route A
This route basically follows the northern side of Awash Park, departing from the remaining three
routes around km 79 and follows a southwesterly direction up to km 100.8 then follows the
easterly direction up to km 126.1 then southeasterly direction to join the remaining alternatives
around km 141.1 and terminates around km 144.2 on Awash to Djibouti Road. This alternative
entirely avoids Awash Park.
This alternative has a combination of flat and rolling terrain, with limited stretches of mountainous
terrain requiring very deep cuts as well as high fill sections.
This alternative crosses Awash River at one location and one railway line.
Alternative Route B
This route basically follows the southern side of Awash Park, departing from the remaining two
routes around km 96 and follows a southwesterly direction up to km 110 then follows the
northwesterly direction to join the remaining alternatives around km 144 and terminates around
km 144.6 on Awash to Djibouti Road. This alternative entirely avoids Awash Park.
This alternative has dominantly rolling terrain (64%) followed by flat terrain (32%), with limited
stretches of mountainous terrain.
This alternative requires overpasses over the existing railroad and trunk road to Awash twice.
Moreover, crosses Awash River and four major tributaries of Awash where there are large
valleys especially at two locations requiring very large box cut in order to satisfy the vertical
alignment requirement. In addition, link road to Awash Town needs additional crossing for Awash
River. Also, this route passes through sugar plantation for about 1km length.
Alternative Route C

In Joint Venture with Net Consult P.L.C. iii
This route goes along with Alternative-D up to km101.9 and passes through Awash Park
basically following the north easterly direction to avoid passing through core area of the park and
joins with Alternative-D at km121. Then, after 2.6km it joins with Alternative-A and terminates
around km 126.6 on Awash to Djibouti Road. This alternative has dominantly flat terrain.
Since this route traverses through the park for about 13km, needs provision of animal
overpasses / underpasses every 1km. Even though this route passes through Awash Park
boundary, it avoids the area delineated as core park area.
This alternative requires overpasses over the existing railroad as well as Awash River at one
location each.
Alternative Route D
This route is similar to Route C except between km 101.9 and km122.5. It joins with the existing
trunk road (the existing trunk road will be upgraded to expressway standard ) between km 105.2
and 116.4 while it passes through Awash National Park basically following the easterly direction
to join the Alternative – C and Alternative -A at km122.5 and km125 respectively and terminates
This route traverses through the park for about 15.5km, and mostly on the existing route.
Moreover, this route passes through Awash Park core area for about 6.3km.
location each.
Alternative Route E
This route goes along with Alternative-C up to km 90.4 and passes through Awash Park basically
following the north easterly direction to avoid passing through core area of the park and joins with
Alternative-C at km125.6. Then, after 2.7km it joins with Alternative-A and terminates around km
127.2 on Awash to Djibouti Road. This alternative has dominantly flat terrain.
location each.
In the evaluation and assessment of the Alternative routes with Engineering, Social,
Environmental, Administrative and Economic Evaluation, Alternative C is found to be the best
alignment in aggregate using the Multi-criteria analysis. However, alternative E was chosen by
the client in negotiation with the Wildlife authority with inclusion of 5km overfly bridge while the
expressway is crossing the park
E 4 SOIL AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATIONS

The Soil and Material Investigation, as an integral part of the service, is intended to present
findings from the desktop, field, and laboratory investigations that were carried out to address the
project objectives with regards to soils and materials investigation. It addresses the general
features of the route alignment concerning the identification of type, extent, and properties of the
soils along the selected route, construction material investigation, preliminary bridge foundation
investigation and the geotechnical investigations conducted to characterize the soils and

In Joint Venture with Net Consult P.L.C. iv
materials along the route. Furthermore, it addresses the traffic survey and forecast as well as the
pavement design process.
Subsequent chapters will discuss in details the field investigation, results of analysis, and
conclusions and recommendations drawn based on findings from site reconnaissance, results of
the laboratory testing, and desk study. The essence of the investigation, findings and
recommendations are as follow:
 To assess the lateral extent and physical properties of the alignment soils and materials,
a soil extension survey was conducted along with test pitting during the field investigation.
Emphasis has been given to identifying problematic soils such as black cotton soils areas
to propose remedial measures and rocky sections which may require blasting for further
widening. Based on the field observations, the materials along the project road are
categorized into the following major groups:
o Light brown silty clay soil
o Dark to Dark brown clay soil
o Light brown silty clay soil with fractured gravel
 During the field investigation, test pits were dug at approximate nominal intervals of
around 1km with each pit attaining a target depth of a minimum of 1.1 m. The test pit was
to determine the existing pavement composition and the type of soil in the subgrade
including extraction of material samples for laboratory testing. Samples collected during
the investigation have been subjected to AASHTO soil classification (Grading and
Atterberge limit tests), moisture - density relationship, CBR test, and CBR swell test. The
test frequency was scheduled in such a manner that classification tests at 1km and
compaction and CBR test at 3km interval.
 Field investigation also to identify potential construction materials sources has been
carried out. Moreover, all laboratory tests were carried out following the TOR on samples
from each type of material collected from the site.
E.5 TRAFFIC FINDINGS

Based on the past traffic studies, Traffic features of Awash – Mille & Meisso – Dengego
sections and present scenario in and around the project corridor, the assigned traffic on the
project corridor is as given below. Detailed discussion on the traffic findings are discussed in the
respective section of this report.
Assumptions on the traffic assignments on the expressway:
1. 60% of the traffic shall be diverted to the expressway from Awash – Mille section
2. Estimated Maximum Modal Share of railway (40% of the total traffic)
3. Expressway year of opening for the traffic – 2026.
Assigned Traffic Features on the project corridor (Medium Senario)
Projected AADT
Year Mediu Articulated

Cars Utilities Small Large Light Heavy Total
m trucks
/Taxi (4-WD) Bus Bus trucks Trucks (Nos)
trucks (T&T)
Melkajilo-Awash
2026 157 1,264 1,692 545 614 201 184 2,087 6,743

In Joint Venture with Net Consult P.L.C. v
Traffic growth rates (Realistic Scenario) for the project corridor have been analyzed and adopted
as given below:
Cars/ Utilities Small Large Light Medium Heavy Articulate
Year
Taxi (4-WD) Bus Bus trucks trucks Trucks d trucks
2026 - 2035 11.92% 11.92% 12.68% 12.68% 10.20% 10.20% 10.20% 9.35%
2036 - 2046 11.16% 11.16% 11.92% 11.92% 8.80% 8.80% 8.80% 8.80%
Traffic Projections (20yrs) for the Meisso – DireDawa section of the project corridor is given in the
table below:
Projected Traffic Features (20 yrs) for Melakjilo-Awash Section (Medium Scenario)
Year Cars 4WD S/Bus L/Bus S/Truck M/Truck H/Truck T&T Total
2026 157 1,264 1,692 545 614 201 184 2,087 6,743
2027 176 1,415 1,906 614 677 221 203 2,282 7,493
2028 197 1,583 2,148 692 746 244 223 2,495 8,328
2029 220 1,772 2,420 779 822 269 246 2,728 9,257
2030 246 1,983 2,727 878 906 296 271 2,983 10,292
2031 276 2,220 3,073 990 998 326 299 3,262 11,444
2032 308 2,484 3,462 1,115 1,100 360 329 3,567 12,727
2033 345 2,780 3,902 1,257 1,212 396 363 3,901 14,156
2034 386 3,112 4,396 1,416 1,336 437 400 4,266 15,749
2035 432 3,483 4,954 1,595 1,472 482 441 4,664 17,523
2036 484 3,898 5,582 1,798 1,622 531 486 5,101 19,501
2037 538 4,333 6,247 2,012 1,765 577 529 5,549 21,551
2038 598 4,816 6,992 2,252 1,921 628 575 6,038 23,820
2039 665 5,354 7,825 2,520 2,090 683 626 6,569 26,332
2040 739 5,951 8,758 2,821 2,273 744 681 7,147 29,114
2041 821 6,616 9,802 3,157 2,474 809 741 7,776 32,195
2042 913 7,354 10,970 3,533 2,691 880 806 8,460 35,608
2043 1,015 8,175 12,278 3,954 2,928 958 877 9,205 39,389
2044 1,128 9,087 13,742 4,426 3,186 1,042 954 10,015 43,579
2045 1,254 10,101 15,380 4,953 3,466 1,134 1,038 10,896 48,222
2046 1,394 11,228 17,213 5,544 3,771 1,233 1,129 11,855 53,368
E 6 PAVEMENT DESIGN
The Pavement Design is carried out using the above AASHTO 1993 empirical equations by
adopting the design requirement inputs listed in section 6 below. The design traffic is considered
129.5 million and the Design CBR of the subgrade is taken as 5% at 95% of MDD at modified
compaction level. The recommended pavement structure is presented in Table below.
Pavement Thicknesses (Melakjilo-Awash Road Segment)

In Joint Venture with Net Consult P.L.C. vi
Station
Pavement thicknesses, mm
(km)
Upper
Dense Crushe Lower
Subgra Bitumino d Stone Natural
S. de Design us Aggreg Gravel Capping
No design CESAL Surfacing Macadam ate subbas
From To
CBR (AC) (DBM), Base e (CBR>
Base course course, 15%)
Course (CBR > (CBR >
100%) 30%)
1 65+000 126+558 5 129.5 110 200 200 200 200
Pavement Structure Design for Link Road
Recommended
Cumulative number of
Design Traffic Class

Pavement
Design Sub-grade
Structures (mm)
ESAs (106)
Location
Sec. No
Sub base (GS)

Name
Crushed Base
Class
Course (GB1)
1 Metehara Link road 93+300 AC
2 Awash Link road 120+640 7.9 T6 S3 50 200 350
3 Mille road link 126+940
E.7 GEOMETRIC DESIGNS

Geometric Design Manuals
The following Manuals are adopted for the Geometric Design of the Mainline Expressway as well
as Link Roads. Since ERA’s Manual doesn’t explicitly provide design parameters for Expressway
Standard roads, AASHTO manual is adopted for the mainline expressway.
Author or Agency Title
AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and

AASHTO
Streets. Latest edition, version
Ethiopian Roads Authority ERA’s Latest Version Geometric Design Manual
Terrain Classification
Slope shading mechanism was used to give the digital ground model different colors for the four
terrain types above so as to determine which section dominantly falls in the terrain category as

In Joint Venture with Net Consult P.L.C. vii
per ERA Geometric Design Manual guidelines. Based on this about 64% has rolling terrain and
the remaining 36% has flat terrain.
Summary of the Geometric Design Parameters
The following tables provide summary of the geometric design parameters adopted for the
Concept Design of the Mainline Expressway, Link Roads, Interchange Ramps and Slip Roads.
The Geometric Design Standard Parameters for Mainline Expressway
Design parameter
Standard Parameter
Ref values for Main Road
Design Class Expressway
GENERAL
G.1 Nominal right -of-Way Width [m] 90
Design Speed [km/h]
Flat 120
G.2
Rolling 100
For other terrain types 80
G.3 Minimum Stopping Sight Distance [m]
120 km/h design speed 285
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT
Maximum Length of Straight between consecutive
H.1 4000
Curves [m]
Minimum Length of Straight between Consecutive Curves of Same Hand [m]
H.2 should have sufficient length to provide super-elevation runoff lengths and the
tangent run-out lengths
H.3 Minimum Horizontal Curve Radius [m]
H.4 Minimum Length of Horizontal Curve [m]
Central angle equal to or less than
300 + 30 meters for
5 0
every 10 decrease in
deflection angle
H.5 Maximum Radius for Use of Transition Curve [m]
length of Transition Curve [m] – to be equal to super-elevation runoff as per
H.6
AASHTO Manual for e = 6%
CROSS SECTION
C.1 No. of carriageways 2
C.2 Lane Width [m] 3.60
C.3 Number of Lanes 4
C.4 Carriageway Width [m] 2x3.60 m = 7.2m
Inner Hard Shoulder Width [m] 1.5m
C.5 Outer Hard Shoulder Width [m] 3m
Outer Soft Shoulder Width [m] 0.75m

In Joint Venture with Net Consult P.L.C. viii
Design parameter
Standard Parameter
Ref values for Main Road
Total prism width of each carriageway at the top
C.C.6 7.2+1.5+3+0.75=12.45m
(surfacing level)
9m outside of the park,
C.7 Median Width [m] and Newjersy barrier
inside of the park
Not required for R>
C.8 Curve Widening [m]
750m
C.9 Carriageway Normal Cross fall [%] 2.5
C.10 Soft Shoulder Normal cross fall [%] 4. 0
Maximum Super elevation and runoff length shall
C.11 be as per the Requirements of AASHTO – Latest
Version for 6% Maximum Super elevation.
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
Maximum Gradient [%]
Flat 3.0
V.1
Rolling 4.0
For other terrain types 6.0
V. 2 Minimum Gradient [%] 0.3
Critical Length of Grade shall be as per AASHTO manual Figure 3-28 for
V.3
15km/h speed reduction
Minimum 'K' Values for Vertical Crest Curves
V.4a
Minimum 'K' Values for Vertical Sag Curves
V.4b
Geometric Design Standard Parameters for Link Roads, Interchange Ramps and Slip
Roads
Design parameter values for
Standard Parameter
Ref. link Road
Design Class Modified DC5
GENERAL
50m total (25m on both sides
GL. 1 Right -of -Way Width [m]
from centerline)
GL. 2a Design Speed Link roads [km/h]
Flat 85
Rolling 70
Mountainous 60
Urban 50
Minimum Design Speed Loops & Ramps
GL. 2b 50
[km/h]
GL. 3a Minimum Stopping Sight Distance Link Roads [m]
85 Km/h design speed 155
In Joint Venture with Net Consult P.L.C. ix

Ref. Standard Parameter
link Road
Minimum Stopping Sight Distance Loops
GL.3b 65
& ramps [m]
CROSS SECTION for Link Road
C.1 Carriageway Lane Width [m] 3.5
C.3 Carriageway Width [m] 2x3.5 = 7.0 for rural section
-1.5m (paved with DST
C.4 Shoulder [m]
shoulder for rural open areas.
Minimum Horizontal clearance between Carriageway Edge & Face of
C.5
Abutment [m]
shoulder + room to
Absolute
accommodate a crash barrier
Curve Widening as per ERA Geometric
C.6 Not required for R>250m
Design Manual 2013 [m]
C.7-A Carriageway Normal Cross fall [%] 2.5
C.7-B Hard Shoulder Normal cross fall [%] 2.5
C.7-C Soft Shoulder Normal cross fall [%] 4. 0
Maximum Super elevation and runoff
C.8 length shall be as per the Requirements
of ERA Geometric Design Manual 2013.
HORIZONTAL ALIGNEMT
HL.1a Minimum Horizontal Curve Radius for Link Roads (with emax = 8%) [m]
HL.1b Minimum Horizontal Curve Radius for Loops/ramps (with emax = 8%) [m]
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
Maximum Gradient for Link Roads [%]
V.1 Flat 4
Rolling 6
Mountainous 8
Escarpment 8
Urban 7
V. 2 Minimum Gradient 0.3
Maximum Gradient for Loops/ramps and
slip roads shall be as per the
V3
Requirements of AASHTO – Latest
Version
Critical Length of Gradients as per ERA
Geometric Design Manual 2013
In Joint Venture with Net Consult P.L.C. x

link Road
VL. 4a Minimum 'K' Values for vertical Crest Curves
VL. 4b Minimum 'K' Values for Vertical Sag Curves
AUXILIARY LANES
Entrance taper =90m
AL.1 Taper Length [m]
Exit taper =200m
460m [merging with highway];
AL. 2 Auxiliary lane length [m]
170m [diverging from highway]
AL-3 Auxiliary lane width [m] 3.6
SLIP ROADS / RAMPS/U-TURN LANE*
CROSS SECTION
R-C.1 Carriageway Lane Width [m] 3.6
1 for Single/2 for Dual Direction
R-C.2 Number of Lanes
Ramp
2.0m for Dual Direction Ramp
R-C.3 Median Width [m] (including 2 x 0.5m marginal
strip]
1x3.6 = 3.6 for Single
carriageway
R-C.4 Carriageway Width [m]
2 x 3.6 = 7.2 for Dual
Carriageway
2.5 inner side AC Paved and
R-C.5a Hard Shoulder Width Single Lane [m]
1.0 m outer side AC paved
R-C.5b Hard Shoulder Width Double Lane [m] 2.5 outer side AC Paved
R-C.6 Earth Shoulder Width [m] 0.75m (both sides)
*To be widened to 5m on curves.
Digital Terrain Model
The preliminary geometric design was carried out based on the above parameters and
requirements based on DTM produced from data obtained from Geospatial Information Institute
(GII) for 64.56km (Except from km 107.7 to 109.7) and data obtained from Advanced Spaceborne
Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) Global Digital Elevation Model (GDEM)
Satellite Imagery for the remaining 2km (km 107.7 to 109.7).
Analysis of Performed of Geometric Concept Design
Horizontal Alignment
The project road has length of 67.4km and three link roads with different lengths as shown below
was the output of the design study. The minimum curve radii adopted was 700 which is above
the minimum required for design speed of 100km/h which is 455m, where the road stretches
along a mountainous terrain. As no topographical constraints were encountered in the adopted

In Joint Venture with Net Consult P.L.C. xi
route corridor no departures from design standards was introduced. Moreover, since the project
road traverses dominantly over a flat and rolling terrain, the curvatures are smooth and more
than half of the stretch is of straight section.
Vertical Alignment
90.36% of the gradient in section one have gentle gradient (<2%) and only 9.64% have rolling
gradient (2 to 4%). There are no sections with mountainous gradient (>4%).
Moreover, more than 10 % of the vertical curves attain the required k-value standard. And the
remaining 10% of the curves achieve the standard for rolling terrain.
Link Roads and Interchanges
Link roads at three locations are proposed at the outskirts of the relatively larger towns
(Metehara, Awash and Mille road as shown below). The proposed link roads are designed based
on ERA’s Geometric Design Manual DC5 Standard. These link roads form connection between
the proposed expressway and existing road from Melkajilo-Awash giving access to the nearby
settlements. All These roads terminate on the expressway forming a T type intersections
(forming three legged junction) using trumpet type interchanges.
Name Station Length (m)
Metahara 99+334 1491
Awash 120+940 8000
Mile exit 126+940 1348
E.8 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS

The road drainage design comprises mainly two major components namely hydrological study
and hydraulic analysis of drainage facilities.
The general procedure followed to conduct the concept design for Hydrology and Hydraulics for
the road is:
o Field Visit
o Data collection
o Conduct Hydrology and Hydraulic Design of the road
Procedure followed to conduct the Hydrological Study is:
o Analysis of Collected Data
o Catchment Area Delineation
o Basin Characteristics determination
o Hydrologic Soil groups
o Land Use and Land Cover
o Rainfall Data Analysis and Forecast of three stations Meisso, Hirna and DireDawa
o Design Flood Frequency Selection based on ERADDM 2013
o Runoff Estimation
o The Rainfall – Runoff model used is the SCS method
Procedure followed to conduct the Hydrological Study is:
Standard procedures for hydraulic computation were adopted for the design of cross drainage
structures. For culverts, equations for calculating culvert capacity for Inlet Control were adopted
whereas for bridges stage discharge calculations were done based manning’s equation.
This study identifies sufficient number of drainage structures. The total number of drainage
structures proposed during this concept Design is 91 including 4 bridges, 29 box/Slab culverts
and 58 pipe culverts.

In Joint Venture with Net Consult P.L.C. xii
E.9 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS

This Geotechnical Design, as an integral part of the service, is intended to present findings from
the desktop, field, and laboratory investigations that were carried out to address the project
objectives. It addresses the general features of the route alignment concerning the identification
of type, extent, and properties of the geological formation along route, seismic zoning, foundation
of structures, and assessment of problematic soils.
Subsequent chapters will discuss on the following findings and corresponding recommendations
are drawn from the geotechnical characterization.
1. Geological formation of the area:
The geo logical formation of the area composes of mixture of Nazareth series, Afar
series, Rhyolitic volcanic Centers, and conglomerates (around awash area) weathered
rocks randomly distributed)
2. Problematic soils
Problematic Soil stretches such as expansive soil, compressive soil and erodible soils
have been encountered along different locations of the route.
3. Subsurface and surface drainage
Subsurface water has not encountered along the project route. Due to climatic nature of
the route (dry to semi dry) and geographic location surface water will not have significant
influence on the geotechnical property (such as bearing capacity of foundation, saturation
of embankment) of the route.
4. Seismic Zoning
Based on the Ethiopian Standard (EN-1998:2015) seismic code the project route has
been zoned in to three seismic regions in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA).
These zones ranges from 0.1 to 0.115.
5. Bearing Capacity depth of foundations for drainage structures
Bearing capacity of crossing structures has been estimated for 33 locations. Most of the
locations are found with good to very good bearing capacity (greater than 400kpa). And
the remaining are found with less with bearing capacity less than 400kpa which is weak
for structure foundation.
E.10 STRUCTURAL DESIGNS

A key objective of this report is to identify impediments and obstacles at the pre-design phase to
anticipate the overall project look if it is taken one stage up from the pre-design stage. The aim,
therefore, is to develop pre-engineered standards for structures system that can be installed in
the project route and to give proposal to develop standardize approaches to designing and
constructing structures. Specifically, it is to come up with various feasible bridge and structures
schemes and to decide on one or more final concepts for further consideration.
The study used basic data and physical information of the road to investigate and
analyses the project’s relevant factors including technical and economic considerations.
Thus, founded on the hydraulic size output and preliminary geometry of the road we took
time to view the surrounding area and analyze the locations of the crossing structures to
determine their suitability for the intended purpose of the project and to make decisions
or proposal on our feet. The decision made; in combination with other disciplines, can be
In Joint Venture with Net Consult P.L.C. xiii
used on the proposed road Project in providing information before proceeding with the
development of the plan.
The study has incorporated not only structures for drainage requirement of the area but also
structures at road interchanges, overfly bridges in Awash Park, link roads, and pedestrian and
railway crossings as a whole. Hence, Drainage structures (major and minor), vehicular
underpass and overpass structures, interchanges, overfly bridges, pedestrian bridges and
railway crossings and their effect on the technical and environmental soundness as well as
economical and financial workability is reflected in the report. The summary of the type and
number of structures is presented in the table below.
Type of Structure Total Number Remarks
Box/Slab Culverts 29 Waterway Crossing
Bridges 4 Waterway Crossing
Vehicular Underpass Asphalt main road, track and Rail
Vehicular Overpass 6 Track and Asphalt main Road
Pedestrian overpass 5 Footpath
Pedestrian underpass Footpath
Reinforced Concrete
Pipe 58 Waterway Crossing
Railway Crossings 3 Overpass structure
Interchanges 3 Overpass structure
At four locations in
Awash Park for
Overfly bridge mobility of animals For a total length of 5km
Details of Overfly bridges are below

Beginning
Station Ending Station Length (m)
FB01 103+430 104+569 1139
FB02 107+030 107+820 790
FB03 109+120 109+497 377
FB04 111+690 114+413 2723
To make key decision at this study level; AASHTO along with ERA Standard, technical
specification and drawings were used. Particularly, the standard drawings of minor
drainage structures with some modification and addition, and the guide line under
chapter 2 (preliminary design/layout of bridge and culvert) of ERA BDM 2013 (volume II)
has been used. Moreover, the traditional minimum depth for constant depth
superstructure as set in AASHTO section 2.5.2.6 were functional. For those river
crossing structures, the vertical clearances were fixed based on the hydraulic output as a
minimum criterion and as per ERA BDM 2013 (Volume II), section 2.3.3. In a similar
fashion for the vertical clearance of overpass/underpass structures and railways, ERA
and AREMA Standard specification were applied. The material and the structural system
of the structures were selected as per the guidelines of the manuals and outputs like
hydraulic size geotechnical investigation result and geometry. Moreover, technical
In Joint Venture with Net Consult P.L.C. xiv
requirement of structures, easy of construction and time were taken into account for
simple implementation of the project.
The report correspondingly suggests standards and design methodology which can
further assist during the detail design stage and gives estimated cost of structures as an
input for financial analysis and economic viability of the project

In Joint Venture with Net Consult P.L.C. xv
1 INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The Government of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) represented by the
Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA) has allocated funds through the Road Sector Development
Programs (RSDPs) for Consultancy Services for Detail Feasibility Study and Preparation of
Procurement Document of Adama - Awash – Meisso – Dire Dawa Public Private Partnership
(PPP) Road Project.
As part of the contract, this Concept Engineering Design Report has been prepared for Melakjilo-
Awash road section. The purpose of this report is to present the details of the engineering aspect
of the concept design activity.
CONTRACT DATA
The key contract data and descriptions are provided in the table below:
Table 1-1: Key Contract Data
Project Name: Consultancy Services for Detail Feasibility Study and Preparation
of Procurement Document of Adama - Awash – Meisso – Dire
Dawa Public Private Partnership (PPP) Road Project
Project No: Procurement Ref. No.: S/65/ICB/RFP/GOE/2011 EFY
Funding: The government of Federal Democratic Republic Ethiopia (FDRE)
Consultant: Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in
Joint Venture with Net Consult P.L.C.
Project Period:
Contract Signed Date February 5, 2020
Consultancy Contract 9 (nine) months from the date of commencement of the services or
Duration: such other time as the parties may agree in writing
Commencement Date: February 21, 2020 as per ERA letter Ref. No. AA19/28/16-157
dated 20/02/2020
Total Project Cost:: Sum of ETB 10,430,500.00 (Ethiopian Birr: Ten Million, Four
Hundred Thirty Thousand Five Hundred Only) and USD
463,335.00 (USD; Four Hundred Sixty Three Thousand Three
Hundred Thirty Five only). This amount is inclusive of local taxes,
15% VAT and Specified Provisional Sum of ETB 2,100,000.00.
Payment Schedule: If the Consultant has an intention to take Advance Payment, ten
(10) percent of the lump-sum amount shall be paid upon
submission of unconditional Advance Payment Guarantee as per
the attached format in section 9 of the RFP. If the Consultant does
not have an intention to take Advance Payment, the ten (10)
percent amount shall be paid by distributing the amount equally in
the subsequent payments indicated below.
 Ten (10) percent of the lump sum fee payable upon

submission of Final Inception Report;
 Twenty (20) percent of the lump sum fee payable upon

In Joint Venture with Net Consult P.L.C. 1
completion of the Draft Feasibility Study Report;
 Twenty (20) percent of the lump sum fee payable upon

completion of the Final Feasibility Study Report
including the Concept Engineering Design Report and
approval of the PPP Board;
 Twenty (20) of the lump sum fee after the submission of the
Draft Procurement Documents including the RFQ, the
RFP, the PPP agreement, the PPP Implementation
Agreement, the Output Specifications, the Performance
Standards and Penalty Regime as in a suitably
advanced stage.
 Twenty (20) of the lump sum fee after the submission of the
Final Procurement Documents and Final completion
report including any reports mentioned in this terms of
reference.
Note:
Lump-Sum amount referred above is the total sum of Fees and
Reimbursable and VAT but excluding Specified Provisional Sum.
OBJECTIVES & SCOPE OF THE CONSULTANCY SERVICE

The Scope of services includes:
 Preparation of Detailed Feasibility Study Report and Procurement Plan,
 Analysis of PPP options for the proposed corridor including a financial model, a summary
of the risk allocation and an implementation plan for its execution,
 Request for qualification,
 Fully developed PPP Agreement and Implementation Agreement and other related forms
based on the Ethiopian PPP proclamation provisions and international best practices.
 Preparation of Output specifications, and
 Request for Proposal with an advanced and robust payment mechanism and penalty
regime, and
 Detail Environmental and Social Study of the project
Detail Feasibility Study task includes:
 Conducting optimum route selection and concept design;
 Consolidating all existing studies carried out and performing additional work to the study
of research on this project before as reflected in the background and compiles a
comprehensive feasibility study report and given all the potential PPP options possible
that will demonstrate technical feasibility, financial viability, affordability, value for money,
risk allocation, etc.; and
 The PPP Advisor is required to produce, in close liaison with the Authority, a
comprehensive feasibility study for the project. The feasibility study needs to clearly
demonstrate affordability for the full project cycle and propose the optimal value-for
money solution for the Authority to achieve its desired outcomes. The feasibility study
is to be conducted in compliance with PPP policy, proclamation, regulations, directives
and guidelines of Ethiopia and international best practices.

 Upon completion of the Feasibility Study, it is also required from the PPP Advisor to
develop complete set of procurement documents. Potential PPP Advisor should
be aware that these documents must be close to final drafts when submitted
together with procurement plan for PPP Board approval.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Adama- Awash- Meisso- Dire Dawa PPP Road Project is located in the Eastern part of Ethiopia
under the administration of Oromia, Afar, Amhara, Somali and Dire Dawa Regional States. The
project starts at Adama Town, located around 90kms from Addis Ababa along the existing
Adama Toll Road. The road then stretches towards the eastern direction passing on the outskirts
of towns like Metehara, Awash, Meisso and ends at Dire Dawa. According to measurements on
the site, the project route has a total of about 410kms via Kulubi Town and 350kms Via Bike
Town. The first 60km of the road from Adama is excluded from this service as it is planned to be
constructed as toll road from the public money borrowed from African development bank. The
rest of the road passing through Awash, Meisso and ending at Dire Dawa is identified to be
developed by the private sector through PPP (Public Private Partnership). Therefore, considering
the route will most probably follow the route along Bike as it is mentioned in the ToR, the study
area / project corridor will have an approximate length of 290km measured along the existing
road via Afdem, Bike and Erer. However, this length is expected to be shorter since alignment
improvements are expected owing to the fact that the road is going to have high standard.
In reference to the study already conducted from Adama – Awash, the beginning of the study
which is expected to be around 60km from Adama (near Melka Jilo) with coordinates E571532,
N988113 (according the Employer’s Requirement). However, as mentioned in the ToR the end
will be in Dire Dawa connected to Dire Dawa – Dewele road. The exact location is not
mentioned, i.e. this is to be decided after the Conceptual Design is concluded.
Land use pattern along the Expressway/project corridor is mainly based on mixed farming
(growing crops and livestock rearing) in Oromia and Amhara (Minjar Shenkora) Woredas; and
pastoralism for the two Woredas of Afar and semi – pastoralists and pastoralists for all the
Woredas in Somali National Regional State.
The road the project route passes mostly through the Middle Ethiopia in Rift Valley River Basin.
The project area is flat and rolling in nature. The project road traverses adjacent towns and
populated villages. Awash National park is locate along this route corridor and the expressway is
expected to cross the park partially with overfly bridge.
Moreover, the following is a brief description to give a general picture on the export corridor from
Adama to the Djibouti Port. This corridor follows two main routes starting from Awash. The first
one is via Mille which is about 757km to Galafi on the border with Djbouti (according to ERA
Geometric Design Manual Table A-2). The second one is via Meisso, Kukubi and Dire Dawa.
This one is about 638km to Dewele on the border with Djbouti. The first one via Mille is mostly on
flat and rolling terrain which has in most cases gentle road alignment. However, the mid-section
of the second one from Meisso to Dire Dawa has mountainous terrain with winding alignment
which is subject to numerous accidents. Therefore by avoiding this section, i.e. traversing on the
flat and rolling terrain from Meisso to Dire Dawa via Afdem, Bike and Erer which along the Ethio
Djibouti Railway has a shorter length i.e. reduces by as much as 60km in addition to having
gentle road alignment will greatly enhance the export corridor.

Figure 1-1: Location Map

Figure 1-2: Location Map Close-up

REGION, ZONES, WOREDAS AND TOWNS ALONG THE PROJECT

The project roads traverse along a number of towns and villages, which are listed in the table
below.
Table 1-2: Region, Zones, Woredas and Towns along the Project
No. Region Zone Woreda Towns /Cities

1. Adama Adama
Oromia East Shewa Zone
2. Boset
3. Amhara North Shewa Zone Minjar Shenkora Melkajilo
4. Oromia East Shewa Zone Fentale Metehara
5. Awash National Park
Awash Fentale
6. Awash
Afar Zone III (Awash City)
7. Amibara
8. Oromia West Hararge Meisso Meisso
9. Gumbi Bordede
10. Meisso Mullu
11. Somali Afdem Afdem
Shinile
12. Beki Beki
13. Erer Erer
14. Dire Dawa Dire Dawa Dire Dawa City Dire Dawa
CLIMATE
Agro-Climate
The project corridor lies exclusively under climatic zone of Kolla (Hot-Warm), where the
elevation ranges from about 1700 to 800 masl. The elevation in the first section near Melkajilo is
1073 m and rises a bit to about 1640 m near KM 75 and lowers afterwards to reach 830 m near
Awash, at project end.
Climate
In Metahara and Fentale Woreda, which covers most of the project stretch, the average annual
temperature is 25.0 °C. The driest month is December, with 4 mm of rain and June is the
warmest month of the year. The temperature in June averages 28.4 °C. At 21.4 °C on average,
December is the coldest month of the year. The variation in annual temperature is around 7.0
°C.
Towards the end of the project, in Awash Fentale woreda, the town Awash lies on 916m above
sea level. The average temperature in Awash is 25.8 °C. The temperatures are highest on
average in June, at around 29.1 °C. At 22.3 °C on average, December is the coldest month of
the year. The variation in annual temperature is around 6.8 °C.
Rainfall
The average annual rainfall is 537 mm in Fentale Woreda, Metehara. In August, the
precipitation reaches its peak, with an average of 134 mm. There is a difference of 130 mm of
precipitation between the driest and wettest months.

There is not much rainfall in Awash all year long. Precipitation here averages 567 mm. The least
amount of rainfall occurs in December. The average in this month is 7 mm. In August, the
precipitation reaches its peak, with an average of 129 mm. The variation in the precipitation
between the driest and wettest months is 122 mm. Towards the end of the project, near Dire
Dawa, the mean annual temperature is 25°C, where maximum and minimum are 35°C and
25°C. The highest temperatures are in May and June, where the lowest temperature is during
the month of December.

2 EXISTING FEATURES OF THE ROUTE CORRIDORS

Based on desktop and site assessments, it was observed that the section from Melkajilo to
Meisso follows one common existing route whereas the section from Meisso to Dire Dawa has
two existing routes. The first alignment from Meisso – Dire Dawa which is about 210kms long is
the asphalt road via Chiro (Asebe Teferi), Hirna, Kulubi and Dengego. The second alignment of
about 150kms is a deteriorated gravel road via Afdem, Bike and Erer. The following figure
shows these alignments superimposed on satellite imagery that shows the topography of the
routes’ corridors.
Figure 2-1: The Existing Route Corridors Superimposed on Satellite Imagery

The Following are Pictures of the Routes Corridor with Dominantly Flat Terrain from Melkajilo-
Awash
Flat terrain ground covered trees at the beginning of the project road
Flat terrain ground covered with grass land and trees
Access roads branching from the existing asphalt road and running along the project road corridor

Awash Town located at the end of the project road
Vegetation cover and rolling terrain of the road corridor near Awash town
Typical topography of the road and high tension power transmission line running parallel the road corridor

Table 2-1: Region, Zones, Woredas and Towns along the Project
According to the Description of Services of the ToR Section 2, it is mentioned that since this
route is going to be shorter for Addis Ababa bound traffic, much of the traffic from Djibouti Port
to Addis Ababa currently using the road via Semera, which is composed of over 90% of
Ethiopia’s external trade, is expected to be diverted to the project road. Therefore, with respect
to road safety, the existing road via Hirna would be accident prone since it has winding
alignment due to the terrain condition and since its corridor is highly populated.
Moreover, considering the expected high traffic, the road standard is expected to be high and
possibly expressway standard. Nevertheless, this fact has been refined to more detail in this
feasibility study part of the consultancy service. High standard roads have stringent geometric
criteria. Therefore, as mentioned before, from the initial assessment, to get an optimal road
geometric design without excessive earthwork and structural work, the terrain favorable is the
corridor via Erer. Moreover, this issue was dealt in detail during the route selection process.
The routes traverses in a north easterly direction along the eastern foot of the Ethiopian Rift
Valley escarpment, parallel to the rift system. The road in its entirety lies within the Awash River
basin.
The Awash river basin is one of the 12 river basins of Ethiopia. It drains the central and eastern
highlands of the country. It has a catchment area of about 110,000 km 2. The river starts from
Ginichi town west of the capital Addis Ababa. It travels along the Rift Valley and ends in Lake
Abe on the border between Ethiopia and Djibouti. Through its journey, the river flows from an
altitude of 3000 m above sea level (m.a.s.l.) to 250 m.a.s.l. with a total length of about 1200 km.
The average total rainfall ranges from 1600 mm in the highlands to 160 mm in the lowlands.
The majority of the rivers in the basin and selected routes are alluvial rivers which have flood
plains, and channels or river routes that are formed in sediment that is consolidated loosely.
Because of flooding and loose river banks, the rivers maintained a primary route and formed a
side channel. The banks of the rivers are eroding when the water in the rivers rises and the
resulted sediments deposited in the beds of the river or flood plains. The rivers broke down
further into braided and meandering for some cases.
Further to km 150 to the end of the project, bedrock river types formed when the water cuts
through new levels of sediment, resulting the bed rock below were observed. However, the
mixed bedrock-alluvial rivers were dominant with a characteristic that falls into both of the above
categories which usually flow through different bedrock layers and areas with alluvial deposits.

3 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES AND RECOMMENDATION

METHOD OF ROUTES IDENTIFICATION
Identification of alternative routes involves the following tasks:
 Data compilation and desk review of available documentation
 Corridor demarcation and preliminary identification of alternative routes based on
secondary data.
The desk review includes engineering, social, environmental and economic aspects. The
reviewed documents are collected from different sources including ERA, Ministry of Water &
Energy, the Ethiopian Institute of Geological Surveys, the Ethiopian Mapping Agency, the
Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, the Ethiopian
Environmental Protection Authority and the regional states’ governments. The main documents
collected are listed below:
Topographic maps scale 1:250,000 and 1:50,000
o
Geological map of Ethiopia, scale 1:2,000,000
o
Terrain satellite imageries developed by SRTM and Google Earth
o
Land use and land cover map, scale 1:1,000,000
o
Hydro-geological map, scale 1:1,000, 000
o
Meteorological statistics
o
ERA and EPA EIA procedural guidelines
o
Population statistics - demographic details of all towns and villages along the
o
alignment
o Costs of road materials and various items of road work
o Type of soils and availability of construction materials
o Past traffic data
o Socio-economic conditions, past and present, as well as plans/projections for
future of the weredas traversed by corridor of routes’ alternatives.
Using information extracted from the desk study alternative road corridors, which fulfill the
requirements of ERA’s design manuals, has been identified. The road corridors are further
refined and preliminary potential alternative routes were formulated.
As final step the alternative routes have been refined on the basis of the findings of the desktop
study, field surveys, stakeholders’ consultations and preliminary engineering design & analysis
made. A detailed description of the routes is presented in the following sections.
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES: ROUTES A, B, C AND D IN THE SECTION FROM MELKA
JILO TO AWASH
Four routes have been identified based on desktop study in the vicinity of Awash Park, i.e., two
routes by avoiding the park passing in the north and south side and two routes through the park.
The identification was carried out based on Google Earth satellite imagery as well as
topographic maps of scale 1:50,000. The boundary of the park as well as its core area data was
obtained from Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA). Alternative routes basically
follow the same alignment up to km 79 starting from Adama to Awash (mostly on the left side of
the existing road) then Alternative A departs to the north side which is followed by Alternative B
departing to the south around km 96. Alternative C runs in the middle until all meet around the
end of the project. Alternative D departs from Alternative C around km 101.7 towards the
existing road and joins with the existing road from km 105.3 to 116.3 and rejoins Alternative C
around km 122.5. Moreover, except Route B which crosses the existing road twice via proposed
overpass bridges and Route D the remaining two alignments stay on the left side of the existing
alignment throughout. Reference can be made to the figure 3-1
3.2.1 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE A
This route basically follows the northern side of Awash Park, departing from the remaining three
routes around km 79 and follows a southwesterly direction up to km 100.8 then follows the
easterly direction up to km 126.1 then southeasterly direction to join the remaining alternatives
around km 141.1 and terminates around km 144.2 on Awash to Djibouti Road. This alternative
entirely avoids Awash Park.
This alternative has a combination of flat and rolling terrain, with limited stretches of
mountainous terrain requiring very deep cuts as well as high fill sections.
This alternative crosses Awash River at one location and one railway line.
3.2.2 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE B
This route basically follows the southern side of Awash Park, departing from the remaining two
routes around km 96 and follows a southwesterly direction up to km 110 then follows the
northwesterly direction to join the remaining alternatives around km 144 and terminates around
km 144.6 on Awash to Djibouti Road. This alternative entirely avoids Awash Park.
This alternative has dominantly rolling terrain (64%) followed by flat terrain (32%), with limited
stretches of mountainous terrain.
This alternative requires overpasses over the existing railroad and trunk road to Awash twice.
Moreover, crosses Awash River and four major tributaries of Awash where there are large
valleys especially at two locations requiring very large box cut in order to satisfy the vertical
alignment requirement. In addition, link road to Awash Town needs additional crossing for
Awash River. Also, this route passes through sugar plantation for about 1km length.
3.2.3 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE C

This route goes along with Alternative-D up to km101.9 and passes through Awash Park
basically following the north easterly direction to avoid passing through core area of the park
and joins with Alternative-D at km121. Then, after 2.6km it joins with Alternative-A and
terminates around km 126.6 on Awash to Djibouti Road. This alternative has dominantly flat
terrain.
location each.

3.2.4 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE D

This route is similar to Route C except between km 101.9 and km122.5. It joins with the existing
trunk road (the existing trunk road will be upgraded to expressway standard ) between km 105.2
and 116.4 while it passes through Awash National Park basically following the easterly direction
to join the Alternative – C and Alternative -A at km122.5 and km125 respectively and terminates
This route traverses through the park for about 15.5km, and mostly on the existing route.
Moreover, this route passes through Awash Park core area for about 6.3km.
location each.
3.2.5 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE E

This route goes along with Alternative-C up to km 90.4 and passes through Awash Park
basically following the north easterly direction to avoid passing through core area of the park
and joins with Alternative-C at km125.6. Then, after 2.7km it joins with Alternative-A and
terminates around km 127.2 on Awash to Djibouti Road. This alternative has dominantly flat
terrain.
location each.
Table 3-1: Comparison of Parameters
Description Route A Route B Route C Route D Route E

Total Length from Melka Jilo to Awash
84.2km 84.6km 66.5km 68.0km 67.18km
Difference in length with Route C
Diff. with Diff. with - Diff. with Diff. with
Route C - Route C - Route C - Route C –
17.8km 18.2km 1.5km 0.68km
Terrain Classification
Flat 53.9% 44.4% 60.2% 64.4% 68.03%
Rolling 44.9% 53.3% 39.8% 35.6% 30.49%
Mountainous 1.2% 2.2% - - 1.49%
Escarpment - - - -
The following figures depict the alternative routes.

Figure 3-1: Plan View Alternative Routes From MelkaJilo-Awash
GEOMETRIC DESIGN ASPECT

As per the requirements of the ToR, preliminary geometric design of three alternative routes
were considered for MelkaJilo to Awash section. The following sections describe and compare
the routes with respect to length, terrain type and alignment (horizontal and vertical) property.
3.3.1 LENGTH OF THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Length of the routes is determinant to the achievement of the main objectives of the project road
that is basically trip time saving. As outlined in the tables below, Alternative Route C is the
shortest and considerably shorter than the two alternatives which have almost equal lengths.
Table 3-2: Estimated Length of Proposed Alternative Routes in the First Section (Melka
Jilo to Awash)
Alternative Length (km)
Alternative Route A 84.2
Alternative Route B 84.6
Alternative Route C 66.4
Alternative Route D 68.0
Alternative Route E 67.18

3.3.2 TERRAIN
The geomorphology of the terrain has been analyzed using topographic maps of 1:50,000 scale,
satellite imageries and site assessment. Based on this, the terrain has been classified as flat,
rolling, mountainous and escarpment on the basis of the ground slope as defined below.
Table 3-3: Terrain Classification based on Natural Ground Slopes Perpendicular to the
Ground Contours
Terrain Type Natural Ground Slopes Perpendicular to

the Ground Contours
Flat Below 3%
Rolling Between 3% and 25%
Mountainous Between 25% and 50%
Escarpment Above 50%
Based on the above criteria the alternative routes are classified as shown in the tables below.
Table 3-4: Terrain classification of Alternative A
From To Length Terrain Classification

60+000.0 73+800.0 13800.0 Flat
73+800.0 87+400.0 13600.0 Rolling
87+400.0 90+700.0 3300.0 Flat
90+700.0 98+900.0 8200.0 Rolling
98+900.0 99+900.0 1000.0 Mountainous
99+900.0 102+200.0 2300.0 Rolling
102+200.0 112+400.0 10200.0 Flat
112+400.0 123+000.0 10600.0 Rolling
123+000.0 141+100.0 18100.0 Flat
141+100.0 144+242.0 3142.0 Rolling
Table 3-5: Terrain classification of Alternative B

60+000.0 73+800.0 13800.0 Flat
73+800.0 79+700.0 5900.0 Rolling
79+700.0 82+900.0 3200.0 Flat
82+900.0 92+300.0 9400.0 Rolling
92+300.0 98+500.0 6200.0 Flat
98+500.0 102+400.0 3900.0 Rolling
102+400.0 106+800.0 4400.0 Flat
106+800.0 111+100.0 4300.0 Rolling
111+100.0 116+600.0 5500.0 Flat
116+600.0 117+100.0 500.0 Rolling
117+100.0 118+000.0 900.0 Mountainous
118+000.0 125+500.0 7500.0 Rolling
125+500.0 130+000.0 4500.0 Flat
130+000.0 131+100.0 1100.0 Rolling


131+100.0 131+700.0 600.0 Mountainous
131+700.0 134+400.0 2700.0 Rolling
134+400.0 134+800.0 400.0 Mountainous
134+800.0 144+639.0 9839.0 Rolling
Table 3-6: Terrain classification of Alternative C
From To Length Terrain Type

60+000.0 73+800.0 13800.0 Flat
73+800.0 79+700.0 5900.0 Rolling
79+700.0 82+900.0 3200.0 Flat
82+900.0 92+300.0 9400.0 Rolling
92+300.0 98+500.0 6200.0 Flat
98+500.0 105+500.0 7000.0 Rolling
105+500.0 114+300.0 8800.0 Flat
114+300.0 115+500.0 1200.0 Rolling
115+500.0 123+600.0 8100.0 Flat
123+600.0 126+558.4 2958.4 Rolling
Table 3-7: Terrain classification of Alternative D

60+000.0 73+800.0 13800.0 Flat
73+800.0 79+700.0 5900.0 Rolling
79+700.0 82+900.0 3200.0 Flat
82+900.0 92+300.0 9400.0 Rolling
92+300.0 98+500.0 6200.0 Flat
98+500.0 104+300.0 5800.0 Rolling
104+300.0 124+900.0 20600.0 Flat
124+900.0 128+058.0 3158.0 Rolling
Table 3-8: Terrain classification of Alternative E

60+000.000 73+800.000 13800 Flat
73+800.000 79+700.000 5900 Rolling
79+700.000 82+900.000 3200 Flat
82+900.000 92+300.000 9400 Rolling
92+300.000 98+000.000 5700 Flat
98+000.000 99+000.000 1000 Flat
99+000.000 100+000.000 1000 Rolling
100+000.000 106+000.000 6000 Flat
106+000.000 107+000.000 1000 Rolling
107+000.000 109+000.000 2000 Flat

109+000.000 110+000.000 1000 Rolling

110+000.000 124+000.000 14000 Flat
124+000.000 125+000.000 1000 Mountainous
125+000.000 127+180.235 2180.235 Rolling
Table 3-8: Summary of Terrain Classification of Proposed Alternative Routes
Alternative Terrain Classification

Flat Rolling Mountainous Escarpment
Length, Length, Length, Length,
% % % %
km km km km
Alternative Route A 45.4 53.9 37.8 44.9 1.0 1.2
Alternative Route B 37.6 44.4 45.1 53.3 1.9 2.2
Alternative Route C 40.1 60.2 26.5 39.8
Alternative Route D 43.8 64.4 24.3 35.6
Alternative Route E 45.7 68.03 20.48 30.49 1.49 1
3.3.3 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND TOTAL EARTHWORK QUANTITY

As discussed above, a preliminary design was conducted for the three alternative alignments
based on DTM produced from 30mx30m resolution DEM data obtained from Satellite Imagery.
Summary of the main parameters of the alignments are included in the annex.
The horizontal as well as vertical alignments of the road for the three alternatives were
compared based on the following criteria.
For horizontal alignment two aspects, i.e. the amount of relatively sharper curves and frequency
of curves (degree of winding) were compared for the three options. The first aspect was
measured by considering the number and percentage of horizontal circular curves with radius
less than 1000m. The second aspect considered was by using degree of curvature, i.e. total
curvature (sum of degree of curve) and degree of curvature per km (sum of degree of curve
divided by total length in km). The following tables summarize these facts.
Table 3-9: Comparison of Alternative Alignments with Respect to Radius of Curves
Radius less than

Total Number of
Alternative 1000m
Horizontal Curves
No. %
Alternative Route A - 0.0% 22
Alternative Route B - 0.0% 23
Alternative Route C - 0.0% 17
Alternative Route D - 0.0% 18
Alternative Route E - 0.0% 17
Note: Minimum radius adopted on Routes C and D is 2400m whereas almost half of Routes A
and B have radius equal to 1000m which makes route C much better than A and B and almost
equal to D in terms of gentleness of horizontal alignment.
Table 3-10: Comparison of Alternative Alignments with Respect to Degree of Curves
Alternative Degree of Curves

Total Curvature (deg.) Horizontal Curvature

(deg./km)
Alternative Route A 812.1 9.6
Alternative Route B 747.3 8.8
Alternative Route C 254.3 3.8
Alternative Route D 333.2 4.9
Alternative Route E 275 4.3
Note: Based on the above criteria Alternative Route C has exceedingly better horizontal
alignment than A and B and slightly better than D as compared to the other options.
For vertical alignment the frequency and amount of steep gradients were compared with respect
to two aspects. The first one is by considering the total length and percentage of gradient higher
than 4%. The second aspect considered was by considering the rise and fall (up and down), i.e.
total rise and fall length, rise and fall per km and total number of rise and fall. These aspects are
intended to give clear picture of difficulty faced due to the extent and frequency of steep vertical
alignment as well as undulation. The following tables summarize these facts.
Table 3-11: Comparison of Alternative Alignments with Respect to Gradient
Alternative Gradient > 4% Gradient > 3%

Total Length % Total Length %
(m) (m)
Alternative Route A - 0.0 9838 11.7
Alternative Route B 1182 1.4 15550 18.4
Alternative Route C - 0.0 3287 4.9
Alternative Route D - 0.0 4645 6.8
Alternative Route E 1576.348 3 2729.964 8
Based on the above consideration Alternative C has advantage over the rest.
Table 3-9: Comparison of Alternative Alignments with Respect to Rise & Fall
Rise & Fall

Alternative
Total Rise & Fall (m) Rise & Fall (m/km) No. of Rise & Fall
Alternative Route A 986 12 155
Alternative Route B 1243 15 114
Alternative Route C 728 11 73
Alternative Route D 676 10 62
Alternative Route E 745 14 80
Note: Based on the above analysis with respect to vertical alignment, Alternative Route D has
advantage over the rest in all aspects.
Based on the preliminary alignments and satellite imagery data of 30mx30m resolution,
earthwork was estimated for the three alternative alignments. It is very critical to consider the
amount of earthwork (cut and fill) estimated in order to compare and contrast the economic
viability of the possible alternative alignments. The following table summarizes the total
estimated amount of earthwork for the three alternatives for each section.
Table 3-10: Comparison of Alternative Alignments with Respect to Earthwork
Roadway Unit Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative

Earthwork Route A Route B Route C Route D Route E
Total Fill m3 4,975,611 5,431,454 6,435,822 6,303,367 --
Roadway Unit Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative

Earthwork Route A Route B Route C Route D Route E
Total Cut m3 11,904,484 150,055,116 2,077,437 1,902,107 --
As can be seen from the above table Alternative D of Section 1 has the lowest earthwork
quantity while Alternative A has considerably higher quantity and Alternative B has exceedingly
high earthwork quantity making it almost impractical, i.e. alternative B cannot be considered for
further investigation. Moreover, considering that there is a about 18km and 16.5km length
decrement of alternative C and D respectively from the other two options Routes C and D can
be considered as the better options.
Moreover, there are similarities between Alternatives C and D in the various aspects
considered. The advantage gained in one aspect is lost in the other. In other words, considering
that there is a 1.5km length increment of alternative D while there is a slight reduction of
earthwork as compared to alternative D and similarly considering that there is marked similarity
of geometric parameters, it cannot conclusively be decided that one is better than the other at
this stage. Therefore, the final decision will be based on the multi-criteria analysis at the end in
consideration of other remaining aspects.
HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS ASPECT
3.4.1 INTRODUCTION
The life of roads and utilities depend on the drainage system installed in the area. Roads
surface which are poorly drain can have higher maintenance and operation cost. Stream
crossing systems shall be designed for minimum cost, to the desired level of hydraulic
performance up to an acceptable risk level, and to mitigate impacts on stream and environment.
In order to design safe and economical and feasible road route four possible alternatives are
considered.
The watershed area considered at this stage is for the relatively large ones, more than 0.5Km 2
only, as the areas below that are to be accommodated by minimum recommended pipe
diameter.
3.4.2 DATA ACQUIRED FOR THE ROUTE SELECTION
In order to conduct the concept design, the Consultant has collected required data: These are:
• Softcopy of road plan-profile of the project route
• Contour with 10 meter interval extracted from the 30mX30m Digital Elevation Model of
the project area.
• Regionalized daily maximum rainfall for respective return period from ERADDM-2013
• Google Imagery of the project area
• Land use & Vegetation map of the project area
• Soil map of the project area
• Site visit data ( soil & land use)
• Field investigation about river morphology & channel characteristics
• Drainage Design Manuals
3.4.3 METHODOLOGY FOR HYDROLOGY
In order to compare the alternatives and select the best route the methodology followed is to
compute the design discharge for drainage areas and determine the size of the structure
following the appropriate procedures. There are four routes for this section, the sizing is made
using short cut methods to save time without affecting the comparison parameters.
3.4.3.1 General
The road drainage design comprises mainly two major components namely hydrological study
and hydraulic analysis of drainage facilities.
The hydrological study or investigation deals with design flood estimation by analyzing rainfall
data, stream flow records, topographical map and aerial photographs and inspection of
watershed.
3.4.3.2 Data Collection and analysis
As discussed above, the available data set including maps, rainfall data, previous hydrological
studies, standard manuals and reference material were collected and reviewed to obtain
information on physiographic, geomorphology, soil type, land use and land cover, catchments
parameters of rivers and streams crossing the road, rainfall intensity and distribution to carry out
the hydrological analysis based on appropriate standard procedures and practices.
3.4.3.3 Catchment Area Delineation
Having the road route coordinates and overlaying it in the geo-referenced topographic Map and
DEM 30x30 resolution the drainages that cross the road route are identified and accordingly the
catchment areas for each drainages is carefully delineated using DEM 30x30m resolution data
with ArcGIS 10.4. The drainages for the alternative routes are considered only for the large
watersheds having more than 0.5Km2.
The catchments parameters such as average stream slope, length of longest watercourse,
elevation difference between the crossing points and watershed divide and channel slope is
determined from the maps
3.4.3.4 Basin Characteristics Determination

a) Hydrologic Soil Group
Hydrologic soil grouping for each catchment was identified from examination of available soil
map shape file of scale 1:250,000 using ArcGIS. The dominant soil types in the three alternative
routes are mainly Litosols, Orthic, Luvisols, Vertic Cambisols, Choromic Cambisols, Eutric
Cambisols, and Eutric Regosols which are put in their soil group and used for CN estimation.
b) Land Use and Land Cover

Land use and land cover for each catchment are identified from examination of available land
use and land cover maps of scale 1:250,000 using ArcGis10.4 and physical assessment at
selected and representative spots. From the Map available the land use and land cover within
the four alternatives the road corridors are mainly dense shrubs, moderately cultivated, bushed
grassland and Open .
3.4.3.5 Rainfall Data Analysis
a) Frequency Analysis
The proper procedure for the design of structures collection of rainfall data of reasonable data
years and quality is from different rainfall stations that represent the project and conduct
frequency analysis for different return periods as per the standard of the road and compared
with the regionalized values from ERDDM 2013 and decide which take considering safety of the
road and cost.
For this route selection task as the best route is not selected the regionalized daily maximum
rainfall which represents the area is take taken From ERADDM 2013.The project area falls in A4
and the value (obtained from ERADDM 2013 Table 5-19 ) is as shown in the table below.
Table 3-11: Daily maximum rainfalls
Return period(year) 10 25 50 100 200
Rainfall(mm) 72.28 82.55 89.97 97.2 104.32
3.4.3.6 Selection of Design Frequency

The frequency of the flood for the design of drainage structures depends on the risk likely to be
encountered during the anticipated service life of the road. Return period with which a given
flood can be expected to occur is the reciprocal of the probability or chance that the flood will be
equaled or exceeded in a given year. The drainage facilities are to be designed for recurrence
interval as per ERADDM 2013 drainage design manual recommendations based on the road
standard.
Table 3-12: Design Storm Frequency (yrs) by Geometric Design Criteria (ERADDM 2013
Table 2.1)
EW1/DC8/DC7
Structure Type
Design Check
Gutters and Inlets* 5/5/5 10/10/10
Side Ditches 10/10/10 25/25/25
Ford/Low- Water Bridge
Culvert, pipe (see Note) Span<2m 25/25/25 50/50/50
Culvert, 2m<span<6m 50/50/50 100/100/100
Short Span Bridges 6m<span<15m 50/50/50 100/100/100
Medium Span Bridges 15m<span<50m 100/100/100 200/200/200
Long Span Bridges spans>50m 100/100/100 200/200/200
3.4.3.7 Flood Estimation Method

Rainfall - Runoff Models
In order to determine the size of new drainage facilities or check capacity of existing structure,
the design discharge is an essential parameter. The following methods for the calculation of
peak discharges are used.

• Frequency Analysis Method:- Used when continuous gauged data exceeding 10 years is
available
• Rational Method:- When the catchments size is less than 50hectars (0.5Km 2)
• SCS Method:- will be used for applicable watershed areas;
• Hydrograph method:: For larger catchment sizes and analysis for situations where SCS
method is not recommended.
From the methods above SCS method is used as the minor structures are not considered.
a. Time of Concentration
Time of concentration is the time required for water to flow from hydraulically remote point of
catchments area to the point under investigation. The most intense rainfall that contributes to
the outflow will be that duration equal to the time of concentration.
Overland Flow Path Selection
In drainage system design, the overland flow path is not necessarily perpendicular to the
contours shown on available mapping. Often, the land will be graded and swales and streets will
intercept the flow that reduces the time of concentration. Care should be exercised in selecting
overland flow paths in excess of 60m in urban areas and 120 m in rural areas. The time
concentration is calculated by the Equation 4.3 of ERADDM 2013 as follows
Calculation of the Time of Concentration for Overland Flow:
The kerby formula is recommended for the calculation of Tc in this case. It is only applicable to
parts where the slope is fairly even.
Tc = 0.604(rL/S0.5)0.467
Where:
Tc = time of concentration (hours)
r = roughness coefficient obtained from Table
L = hydraulic length of catchment, measured along flow path from the Catchment
boundary to the point where the flood needs to be determined (km)
S = Slope of the catchment = H/1000L (m/m)
H= Height of most remote point above outlet of catchment (m)
Calculation of Time of Concentration for Defined Watercourses
In a defined watercourse, channel flow occurs. The recommended empirical formula for
calculating the time of concentration in natural channels was developed by the US Soil
Conservation Service:
Tc = (0.87L2/1000 Sav)0.385
Where:
Tc = time of concentration (hours)
L = hydraulic length of catchment, measured along flow path from the Catchment
boundary to the point where the flood needs to be determined (km)

Sav = Average slope (m/m)

Total Time of Concentration: is the sum of the time of concentration for overland flow plus
time of concentration for defined water course.
The Curve Number

The CN number is selected according to soil type, moisture condition and land cover/use of the
watershed area. Then, knowing the soil group and the antecedent moisture condition class, a
curve number (CN) is established from the table below which are representative of a large
variety of conditions.
Table 3-13: Soil Groups and Characteristics
Having the soil group classification and using (ERADDM 2013 table 5.12 cultivated agricultural
land, 5.13 other agricultural land and table 5.14 arid and semi-arid range lands) the CN values
are computed for each drainage structures.
Knowing the curve number (CN), the value of S (ultimate total abstraction) can be obtained
from:
25400
S  254
CN
Where, S, is related to hydrologic soil properties, land cover and management conditions as
well as the soil moisture status of the catchment prior to rainfall event and expressed by a
dimensionless response index termed the catchment curve number (CN),
As the soil type may vary at some spots during implementation and validation of the soil
infiltration catchment area runoff during the d revision of hydraulic structure when found
necessary the soil parameter should be related with the curve number and the opening size of
the structure is to be designed accordingly.
The SCS runoff model is used to estimate direct runoff from 24-hour or 1-day storm using the
equation given below:

R(t) = [ P(t) - Ia]2

[P(t) - Ia + S]
The relationship between Ia and S is developed from experimental catchment area data as
follows.
Ia = 0.2S
From these, the following equation is derived:
R(t) = [P(t) - 0.2S]2

[P(t) + 0.8S]
Where:
R(t)= accumulated direct runoff (mm)
P(t) = accumulated rainfall (potential maximum runoff), (mm)
S = Potential maximum abstraction (mm)
CN = runoff curve number
Peak discharge is determined as per ERADDM 2013 i.e. using 24 hrs different return period
rainfalls P(t).. The following equation can be used to compute a peak discharge with the SCS
method:
qp = quARt
Where,
qp = peak discharge, m3/s (ft3/s)
qu = unit peak discharge, m3/s/km2/mm (ft3/s/ mi2/in)
A = drainage area, km2 (mi2 )
Rt = depth of runoff, mm (in).
The unit peak discharge is obtained from the following equation, which requires the time of
concentration (tc) in hours and the initial abstraction/rainfall (Ia/P) ratio as input:
qu = α10C0+ C1logtc+C2(log(tc))2
Where,
Co, C1, and C2 = regression coefficients given in table 3.8 for various Ia/P ratios
α = unit conversion constant equal to 0.000431 in SI units and 1.0 in CU units.
Table 3-14: Coefficients for SCS peak Discharge Method

The design discharge for drainages of the three alternative routes is as shown in the annex.
3.4.4 HYDRAULICS DESIGN OF THE DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
3.4.4.1 General
Design of effective drainage system that allows quick and safe disposal of water from the
vicinity of the road is essential to make the road safe from flood damage. The amounts of runoff
expected from each sub-catchment that are crossed by the proposed alignment are estimated.
3.4.4.2 Culverts
Culverts are designed hydraulically to pass safely the design flood safely from one side of the
road to another. Standard procedures for hydraulic computation were adopted for the design of
cross drainage structures. HY8 Culvert Analysis & HEC-RAS software is to be used for the
analysis as well as design of the culverts.
Opening area culverts were designed hydraulically to pass the design flood safely considering
the following general principles.
• The size culverts are determined to produce the design discharge to an acceptable
upstream water level i.e. the elevation of upstream ponding should not cause
unacceptable damage or adverse effect to adjacent property.
• The headwater is not allowed to be higher than shoulder or would be 30 mm below the
edge of the shoulder
• The headwater is not allowed to be higher than the low point in the road grade
• The minimum size of pipe culvert dimension would be 1200mm
• In addition to estimated runoff, amount and rate of debris bolder and amount of silt load
to fix the size of cross drainage structures
• The culverts are located to fit natural channels as much as possible.
3.4.4.3 Bridges
Among the drainage structures design of bridges opening sizes is the most important and the
hydraulic analysis is to be made based on the river geometry, roughness coefficient and slope
of the river using the Manning’s formula as shown in equation below.
1
Qn  AR 2 /3
S 1/ 2
n
Where,
Qn Discharge at the design return period N, in m3/s
n Manning’s roughness coefficient
S Longitudinal slope
A Cross sectional flow area in m2
R Hydraulic radius in m
R=A/P where A is flow area and P is wetted perimeter
The hydraulic analysis of bridge will include a detail hydraulic computation showing stage-
discharge curve development, scour and afflux (backwater) computation due to constriction.
After conducting a hydraulic analysis, safe and economical water way of the proposed bridge
will be determined.
To conduct this analysis HEC-RAS software is to be used to determine the opening size, back
water effect, general scour and local scour.
As the final route is to be selected after comparisons of the alternatives a short cut method is to
be used. For inlet controlled flow the formula in table 3.15 is to be used for culverts and girder.
The bridges sizing is conducted assuming the flow depth equal depth opening then adding 0.5m
for free board as the effect is same for the three alternative routes.
Table 3-15: Equations for Calculating Culvert Capacity for Inlet Control
Type of Structures Equations
Box culverts HW/h=1.0: Q= 1.35 * h1.500 * w

(Slab and Girder/Slab HW/h=1.2: Q= 2.00 * h1.500 * w
Culverts) HW/h=1.5: Q= 2.31 * h1.503 * w
Concrete pipe culverts HW/h=1.0 Q= 1.15 * d2.506

HW/h=1.2 Q= 1.54 * d2.500
HW/h=1.5 Q= 2.07 * d2.454
Where,
Q = discharge in m3/sec
h = height of box culvert in m
w = width of box culvert in m
d = diameter of concrete pipe in m
Using the above formula the size of the drainage structures for the three alternatives is as
shown in the annex.
STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASPECT
3.5.1 GENERAL
Two of the most important considerations in selecting the route for a proposed highway are the
physical features of the area and how these features relate to the geometric design controls. In
Adama- Melka-Jilo (km 60) – Awash road segment two of the physical features that affects the
selection process (in terms of structures to be provided) were analyzed in the previous studies
through the process of selection. These are the drainage patterns and the land use of the
surrounding area along the alternatives.

The alternatives share a common route till they approach the Awash national park and divides
into three different paths. The first two routes (alternative A and B) follow the north and south
side of the Awash park respectively and join each other at the other end of the park. While
Alternative C traverses through the park to join the remaining alternative right after the national
park.
Alternative C comes with two options so that the alignment goes with the national park and the
wild animals without causing any significant effect. The first option is provision of ridged framed
structures for wild animal crossing in a kilometer interval and the second one is provision of
overpass bridge for about 13km of the park length, Or tunnel in replacement of the overpass
bridge. Currently, the request from client, further provided one additional option (Option D)
which is closely similar to Option C up to km 105+000 where it diverts to the existing road within
the park and join again at km 116+400. Though this option itself is with in the park region, no
further attention was considered to bring together the wild animals within the park and the
upgrade of the existing road as of option There is also option E its closely similar to option c with
5km overpass bridge of the park length.
Therefore, a total ofsix alternative were compared in the previous studies and one more
additional option is added presently in relation to the requirement of structures from drainage
point of view or land use of the area.
Alternative A: - The road passes through the left side (North Direction) of the
park without affecting the park
Alternative B: - The road passes through the right side (South Direction) of the
park without affecting the park
Alternative C1: - The road passes through the park and 10 underpasses and 3
overpass structures were proposed for wild animal crossings nearly in a
kilometer interval.
Alternative C2: - Follows the same path as C1 but instead of provision of
structures for wild animal crossing, the proposal considered to traverse the park
area with a continuous overpass bridge.
AlternativeC3: - Similarly Alternative C3 follows same path as C1 but the

proposal considered a tunnel to cross the Awash national park.
Alternative D: - upgrading the existing road within the park without any advanced
action to the wild life in the park.
Alternative E: - Follows the same path as C2 but instead of provision of
structures for wild animal crossing, the proposal considered to traverse the park
area with 5km continuous overpass bridge.
The previous study has considered three fundamental different alternatives which
further increased to five in the process of coordination the national park and its wild life
with the road to be constructed. The choice of the alternatives and the approach to
select the best out of them is respectable. Recently with an additional one option the
study can be said completed, in terms of finding the alternative wile crossing the park
area.
The alternative alignments were compared as to the cost effect they made as a result of
the difference. The assumption and the Computation of the quantities for the
alternatives as shown in the previous studies were presented below, and the same
approach has been used to compare the recent option with the previous ones.
3.5.2 MAJOR ASSUMPTION TAKEN IN THE QUANTITY COMPUTATION
3.5.2.1 Waterway Bodies
The type of superstructures recommended is Reinforced Concrete bridges and all of the
substructures are R.C abutments and piers. The total width of river crossing bridges has a width
of 12.45m to fit the carriageway width of the expressway including the shoulder except option D
which reduces its width while crossing the park area.
3.5.2.2 Vehicular Crossing
The specific type of vehicular crossing either overpass or underpass can be decided on the
detail study during construction of the project. However, for quantity estimation purpose
vehicular crossings are considered as overpass. Hence, the bridges are reinforced concrete
girder with total width of 7.30m+2X1.5m=10.30m and vertical clearance of 6.0m.
3.5.2.3 Pedestrian Crossing
Type of pedestrian crossing either overpass or underpass can be decided on the site based on
specific site condition. However, for quantity estimation purpose two overpass pedestrian
crossings were considered. Both of the overpass bridges are reinforced concrete girder with a
width of 4.5m and vertical clearance of 6.0m. Additional crossing are also reserved for future
demand during implementation phase of the project
3.5.2.4 Wildlife Animal Crossing
The specific type of animal crossing can be made either underpass or overpass whichever is
feasible and appropriate for the purpose. 13 crossings structures proposed in the section of the
road that passes through the park area (Option C1). Thus, the overpass structures with a width
of 6.5m minimum and railing height of 2m and soil fill on the structure to support grass and small
trees and approaching fill was assumed and under pass structure with clear span of 7m and
clear height of 4m. However, the wild life authority asked for the road to pass either on bridge or
through tunnel where option C2 and C3 emerged. These options may minimize the impact of
the road on the park, however, they are an expensive options. To be comprehensive the
estimated cost of a continuous overpass bridge and tunnel included in this report.
3.5.2.5 Railway Crossings
The minimum clearance is 8m measured from top of rail to the soffit of the bridge. The span of
the railway crossings proposed is 40m Box Girder superstructure supported on Reinforced
concrete abutment.

3.5.2.6 13km Continuous Overpass

The type of superstructures recommended is Reinforced Concrete bridges and all of the
substructures are R.C abutments and piers. The total width of the bridges has a width of 12.45m
to fit the carriageway width of the expressway including the shoulder.
3.5.2.7 Tunnel
11.68km of tunnel is considered in the section of the road which passes through the park.
Double tunnel proposed and the cost of construction for the tunnel is taken from India tunnel
called Cheneni-Nashri which cost 540mill dollars with a length of 9.28km.
Cheneni-Nashri Tunnel comprises two tubes that run parallel to each other — the main traffic
tunnel of diameter 13 m (which is almost equivalent to width requirement of Adama-Awash
Expressway on one side) and a separate safety or escape tunnel of diameter 6 m alongside.
The two tubes — each approximately 9.28km long are connected by 29 cross passages at
regular intervals of every 300 meters along the entire length of the tunnel. The 29 cross
passages between the two tunnels will be used to evacuate, through the escape tunnel, a user
who might be in distress or to tow away any vehicle that might have broken down in the main
tunnel.
The Chenani-Nashri Tunnel, is a road tunnel in the Indian union territory of Jammu and Kashmir
on NH 44 (former name NH 1A before renumbering of all national highways). The work was
started in 2011 and was inaugurated on 2 April 2017 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
It is India's longest road tunnel with a length of 9.28 km (5.8 mi). It is the first tunnel in the India
with a fully integrated tunnel control system. The tunnel reduces the distance between Jammu
and Srinagar by 30 km and travel time by two hours. The size and function of the Cheneni-
Nashri tunnel is similar to that of the subject project the cost per killometer in birr is calculated
used for this comparison. Source: National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)
Cost of different options are presented below and estimated bill of quantities for structure works
annexed with this report.
Table 3-16: Summarized Structures Cost for Different Options Including Drainage
Cost (Birr)
Alternative
Minor Major Total Rank
A 211,199,353.23 2,256,056,201.54 2,467,255,554.77 3.00
B 172,596,458.02 822,605,896.27 995,202,354.29 1.00
C1 125,637,374.59 2,949,864,214.41 3,075,501,589.00 4.00
15,845,832,726.4
C2 103,189,648.93 15,949,022,375.34 6.00
1
C3 55,475,482.65 40,674,904,972.75 40,730,380,455.39 7.00
D 128,310,510.22 1,716,125,841.03 1,844,436,351.26 2.00
E 64,899,162.15 7,453,736,341.10 7,518,635,503.25 5.00

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS
3.6.1 GENERAL
The project road is expected to serve great strategic benefits. These are:
•It is expected to serve as a main import / export corridor as it is clearly stated in the ToR
as “Over 90% of Ethiopia’s external trade passes through the port of Djibouti and uses
the Djibouti Corridor.
• The road provides better access to areas that have potentials for agricultural
development, tourism and other activities.
• The project road is expected to further strengthen the socio-economic tie between the
Oromia, Afar and Amhara Regional States.
3.6.2 STRATEGIC COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Apart from providing better access to the project influence area, there is significantly different
strategic benefit obtained by implementing the shorter and the alternative having the better
alignment in terms of better geometry of the proposed alternative routes as it is expected to
achieve the strategic consideration of providing better import / export corridor as described in
the above section.

EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATION

3.7.1 MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS
In general multi - criteria analysis was carried out based on ERA's Route Selection Manual
proposed weighting criteria. The following are definition of the criteria as well as methodology
followed during determination of score.
 Road Length (km): This is an easily measurable item. The shortest route length should
be given the maximum score, with the other routes given a lower score proportionate to
their length compared to the shortest length.
 Terrain: This scores 5.0 maximum for 100% flat terrain. It is suggested that 100%
escarpment terrain should score zero, with 100% rolling terrain scoring 66% x 5 = 3.33
and 100% mountainous terrain scoring 33% x 5 = 1.67.
 Earthworks: The maximum score should be given for the route with the lowest earthwork
cost, with the other routes given a lower score proportionate to their cost compared to
the lowest cost.
 Pavement: Scored in a similar manner to earthworks.
 Culverts and Bridges: Scored in a similar manner to earthworks.
 Availability of Natural Construction Materials: The total non-availability of construction
materials (such as sources of rock or alluvial sand or gravel) at say maximum 30km
intervals within a few km of a proposed route should score zero. This is only likely to be
a possibility if the route is located within a totally flat area. The maximum score would be
appropriate if there were adequate sources of materials along the length of the
alignment, with an intermediate score if neither scenario was appropriate.
 Presence of Geo-hazards: A route with lengthy escarpment terrain or passing over major
lengths of problematic soils should score a value approaching zero, whereas a route on
flat or gently rolling terrain with no major cuts or fills or problematic soils would probably
score the maximum. The presence of active faults and volcanic hazards will also require
the score to be lowered.
 Total estimated cost of construction: This is an easily measurable item. The least cost
route should be given the maximum score and the scores for the other routes given a
lower score proportionate to their cost compared to the lowest cost.
 Community Access: The option that provides access to the greatest number of potential
road users and access to the greatest range of community services, such as education
and health care, should be given the maximum score. A new rural access road would
probably have the maximum score.
 Development Potential: Will the route provide considerable development potential (high
score), such as increased economic activity and urban expansion on otherwise marginal
land, or does the route mainly pass through terrain that would be very difficult to
develop, such as mountain or escarpment terrain (low score)?
 Public Transport: To what extent will the new route affect the logistics of public transport
such as buses and three-wheeler taxis? Is this likely to bring down fares (high score)
due to improved road access? Will it shorten travel times (high score)?
 Resettlement: This refers to the number of dwellings that would have to be demolished
due to the road footprint and the consequent resettlement of the inhabitants. Clearly if
large numbers of inhabitants will require resettlement, then this would score the

minimum, and if only very small numbers are involved, then this would score the
maximum.
 Severance: To what extent will the new route sever existing communities located on
either side of the route? Clearly a heavily trafficked dual carriageway road with a central
reservation will have the potential to create much more severance (i.e. a low score)
compared to a single carriageway road with little traffic. Any route passing directly
through a settlement will also create more severance (low score) than one which
bypasses the settlement (high score). Severance of access to important community
assets, such as agricultural land and places of worship should also be considered.
 Cultural Heritage: Does the route bypass all known cultural heritage sites (high score)?
Will the location of the route impact these sites or spoil the function or enjoyment of such
sites, either due to noise or visual intrusion (low score)?
 Road Safety: Will the final road be safe to drive on and safe for pedestrians? A tortuous
alignment in mountainous or escarpment terrain is likely to be less safe (low scoring)
than a less sinuous alignment in flat or rolling terrain (high score). Roads passing
through densely populated settlements are likely to be less safe compared to roads
bypassing such settlements. A rural road with limited access is likely to be safer
compared to an urban road with numerous junctions.
 Air/noise Pollution: With the absence of pollution data, this will always be a subjective
scoring but, with regard to air pollution, the worst-case (i.e. low score) scenario for a
sealed pavement will mainly depend on the combination of three factors: the volume of
heavy traffic; the number of steep grades; and the proximity of settlements. For an
unsealed pavement with the potential to give rise to dust, a high volume of traffic and the
proximity of many settlements might also result in a low score unless provision was
made for sealing the road within settlements. Proximity of settlements will also be the
key decider in the potential for noise impacts.
 Environmental Issues: These are dealt with in Chapter 8, in particular section 8.4.5, with
the scoring being determined from equation 8-1.
 Viability: This characteristic mainly refers to economic viability and cost benefit ratio. Can
the cost of construction and future maintenance (whole-life cost) be justified compared to
the economic benefits that the road will provide? The greater the cost benefit ratio, the
higher the score.
 Road User Benefits: The impacts, positive and negative, on those using the road,
whether motorized, non-motorized or pedestrian. These will include travel time,
operating costs, comfort and safety.
 Sustainability: This characteristic is associated with the comparative cost of maintaining
the road if it is affected by geo-hazards, including for example, disruption by major
landslides, continuing erosion, continuing effects of black cotton soils causing expansion
and contraction of the ground underneath the road pavement (low score). It might also
include the possibility of flooding due to siltation of the roadside and cross drains, and
the high maintenance costs involved in drain and culvert clearance.
 Strategic Impact: Will the new route have a significant strategic impact (high score) for
the province or country as a whole, for example forming part of an international corridor
link, or is it a side road that will benefit only a few local farmers (low score).

Table 3-17: Multi Criteria Analysis of Alternative Routes of Melka Jilo – Awash
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Primary Max.
No. Secondary Criteria
Criteria Score
Data Score Data Score Data Score Data Score Data Score
1.1 Road Length 9 84.2 7.1 84.6 7.06 66.4 9 68 8.79 67 8.9
1.2 Terrain 5
Flat (%) 5 53.9 2.7 44.4 2.22 60.2 3.01 64.4 3.22 68.03 3.4
Rolling (%) 3.33 44.9 1.5 53.3 1.78 39.8 1.33 35.6 1.19 30.49 1.01
Mountainous (%) 1.67 1.2 0.02 2.2 0.04 0 0 0 0 1.49 0
Escarpment (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.3 Earthworks (Birr x 106) 4 1571.27 2.77 14188.78 0.31 1089.72 4 1088.5 4 3045.57 1.43
Engineering
1.4 Pavement (Birr x 106) 3 4018.24 2.33 4005.78 2.34 3124.4 3 3200.64 2.93 4607.11 2.03
Culvert and Bridges (Birr

1.5 4 1066.91 3.92 1046.6 4 1122.48 3.73 1228.62 3.41 2450 1.37
x 106)
Availability of Materials
1.6 4 M 3 M 2.8 M 3 M 3 M 4
(G/M/P)
1.7 Geo-hazards (F/I/M) 4 I 2.8 I 2.3 I 3.6 I 3.6 I 3
1.8 Cost (Birr x 106) 7 10905.05 5.36 28147.14 2.08 8343.87 7 9742.39 6 16734.61 3.55
Sub-Total 40 31.49 24.92 37.66 36.13 28.689
Community Access
2.1 1 P 0 P 0 M 1 M 1 M 1
(G/M/P)
Development Potential
2.2 3 M 1 M 1 G 3 G 2 G 2
(G/M/P)
Public Transport
2.3 2 P 1 P 1 M 2 M 2 M 2
(G/M/P)
2.4 Resettlement (F/I/M) 3 M 1 I 2 F 3 F 3 F 3

Social
2.5 Severance (F/I/M) 3 M 1 M 1 F 3 F 3 F 2
2.6 Cultural Heritage (F/I/M) 4 I 2 I 2 F 4 F 2 F 3
2.7 Road Safety (G/M/P) 3 P 1 M 2 G 3 G 3 G 3
2.8 Pollution (L/M/H) 1 L 1 L 1 L 1 L 1 L 1
Sub-Total 20 8 10 20 17 17
From Section 4 20 13.5 12.5 11.75 13 12.75

Environmental
Sub-Total 20 13.5 12.5 11.75 13 12.75
Viability (From Section

4.1 7 9.40% 5 1.90% 4 18.50% 7 11.20% 5.5 14% 6
9)
Economic Road User Benefit

4.2 3 G 3 G 3 G 3 G 3 G 3
(G/M/P)
Sub-Total 10 9.3 8.6 10 10 9
5.1 Sustainability (G/M/P) 5 M 4 M 3 G 5 G 5 G 5
Strategic Impact
Administrative 5.2 5 G 5 G 5 G 5 G 5 G 5
(G/M/P)
Sub-Total 10 9 8 10 10 10
Total 100 71.29 64.02 89.41 86.13 77.44
Rank 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd

Legend :
(F/I/M) - Few/Intermediate/Many (G/M/P) - Good/Moderate/Poor (L/M/H) - Low/Moderate/High

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the assessment carried out, Alternative Route C of from MelkaJilo to Awash are the
most preferred alternatives with respect to the multi criteria analysis as shown in the table above.
However the wild life authority recommended the expressway to follow the alterative alignment of
E with 5km long fly over bridge. The cost is significantly high but on the multi criteria analysis it
has rank of 3rd. Later the client negotiated with the wild life authority to follow Alternative E. The
consultant was informed by email to follow alternative E for the preparation of the concept design
and the concept design was carried out for this alignment and the report is prepared accordingly.

4 SOIL AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATION

GENERAL INFORMATION
4.1.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY
The project road from Melkajilo - Awash traverses generally on flat and rolling for most
sections and the terrain Classification of the Project Road.
4.1.2 CLIMATE
Melkajilo – Awash Road falls under the climatic zone of Kola (elevation 500 – 1500m).
According to the National Atlas for Schools of Ethiopia 1984 and Atlas of Ethiopian Rural
Economy 2006, the climatic condition of the country is classified into the following zones:
 “Kur”; 3300m a.s.l. and above (annual mean temp. of <10oC.)

 “Dega”; 2300 – 3300 meters .a.s.l. (annual mean temp. of 10 to 15oC.)
 “Weina Dega”; 1500 – 2300 meters a.s.l. (annual mean temp. of 15 to 20oC.)
 “Kola” , 500 – 1500m a.s.l. (annual mean temp of about 30oC)
 “Berha”, below 500-m. a.s.l. with annual mean temperature of 30-40oC.
According to the climatic data for Awash Arba station, the maximum mean temperature is
recorded from July to October with a temperature ranging from 36.80C to 38.30C and. The
maximum and minimum temperature for the stations are illustrated in the table 4.1
hereunder.
Table 4-1: Monthly Maximum and Minimum Mean Temperature at Awash Arba
Metrological Station
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Maximum 32.7 31.6 33.3 33.6 33.9 34.2 36.8 38.1 38.1 38.3 36.6 32.5
Minimum 18.9 18.4 19.8 20.3 22.0 22.3 23.5 24.1 24.3 20.8 22.5 18.2
Figure 4-1: Maximum and Minimum Temperatures for Awash Arba Metrological
Station

Maximum Temperature Minimum Temperature
38.3
38.1
38.1
36.8
36.6
34.2
33.9
33.6
33.3
32.7
32.5
31.6
RAINFALL (MM)
24.3
24.1
23.5
22.5
22.3
20.8
20.3
19.8
22
18.9
18.4
18.2
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MONTH
The Mean monthly and annual rainfall for the project area is assessed from the
meteorological data of Awash Arba station as depicted in table below. Besides, the annual
rainfall distribution throughout the country based on Atlas of Ethiopian Rural Economy 2006
is shown in figure 4.2 below.
Figure 4-2: Rainfall distribution of the Country
(Source- Atlas of Ethiopian Rural Economy 2006)
As shown in the above Map, the project area will have annual rainfall mostly between 400
and 800 mm. The mean monthly rainfall for the project area is illustrated in the table below.

Table 4-2:: Awash Arba Mean Monthly and Annual Rainfall
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Rain
fall 9.3 10.6 28.1 30.8 39.2 22.1 95.8 90.8 53.6 29.5 16.9 5.2 431.9
(mm)
The maximum mean monthly rainfall is recorded in the months of July to September is the
rainy period of the project area. The maximum rainfall (mm) for the meteorological stations in
the vicinity is illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 4-3: Mean monthly rainfall in the project vicinity (Awash Arba)
Awash Arba
95.8
90.8
RAINFALL (MM)
53.6
39.2
30.8
29.5
28.1
22.1
16.9
10.6
9.3
5.2
JAN F E B M A R A P R MA Y J U N JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

MONTH
SOIL AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATION
4.2.1 SITE INVESTIGATION WORKS

Field works were conducted to assess the overall condition of the project area and to collect
pertinent data required for the design of the pavement.

During the field investigation, assessment of road condition and the sub-grade materials,
investigation of sub-grade and construction materials were done. The methodology applied
for investigating the sub-grade material includes visual description for sub-grade soil
extension and opening of trial pits manually. In addition, logging of test pits, photographing
and taking representative and disturbed samples were also part of the investigation.
4.2.2 PAVEMENT CONDITION OF THE EXISTING ROAD

The overall assessment of the condition of the road tends to be not accessible and these
road were not previously constructed.
SUB-GRADE INVESTIGATION
The sub-grade investigation generally involves in-situ and laboratory investigation. The in-
situ investigation includes visual soil extension survey, test pitting and logging and
photograph test pits. Laboratory investigation on the other hand includes testing of disturbed
soil samples in accordance with commonly used standards such as AASHTO and BS
standards. In the sections below the sub-grade investigations in the main alignment of the
project are outlined.
4.3.1 SOIL EXTENSION SURVEY

Comprehensive surveys of the subgrade soils forming the route corridor were made during
the detailed site investigation period, so as to delineate soils with similar characteristics.
During the survey emphasis were given to determine the extents of problematic subgrade
soils such as expansive subgrade soils which exhibit volume change upon wetting and
subgrade soils which are weak with respect to bearing capacity. Besides, the extensions
were used to avoid short soil stretches from being overlooked. The soil extension will also
help to identify the anticipated classes of excavation during earthwork activities. The
subgrade soil extension for the project road along the project centerline is presented in the
table below.
Table 4-3:: Soil Extension
Station Expected
S.
Visual Soil Description Suitability as Excavation
No. From To
Roadbed
Melkajilo to Awash (Km 60+000 to Km 126+558)
1 60+000 62+000 Light brown silty clay soil Suitable Normal

2 62+000 65+500 Dark brown clay soil Unsuitable Normal
4 79+500 82+000 Rock Suitable Hard

Station Expected
S.
Visual Soil Description Suitability as Excavation
No. From To
Roadbed
6 105+000 108+500 Dark brown clay Unsuitable Normal
Normal /Hard
Rock overlain by Dark brown clay Unsuitable/Sui (Consider half
7 108+500 118+000
(˜40cm) table Normal and half
Hard)
8 118+000 120+000 Rock Suitable Hard
9 120+000 126+558 Light brown alluvial deposit Suitable Moderate
From the subgrade soils extension survey, problematic expansive subgrade soils comprise
nearly 11.7 km of the route corridor which is about 17.6%. This will be further verified from
the field and laboratory investigation to take indispensable treatment. Besides, rock sections
which may entail hard excavation covered 9 km which is about 13.5% observed on the
project. The left over road sections for the most part are covered with Light brown silty clay
soil. These soil types are rated as fair to good to be used as subgrade.
4.3.2 TEST PITTING
Test pitting is an effective way of sub-grade investigation since the actual strata of the sub-
grade soils can be seen, and samples can be collected from the required layers within the
depth of the test pit. The test pits were therefore dug at an interval of 1km, as per the
Requirement.
The methodology adopted for trial pitting was:

 Opening of a trial pit by using labors,
 Measuring the layer thickness of each strata in the pits
 Description of the layers, logging.
 Collecting representative samples from the layer(s) with weakest material within the
depth of the pit for laboratory test.
 Photographing the pits.
The test pits were dug to a depth of 100cm to 150cm and samples were collected from
layers having a thickness greater than 20cm within the material thickness of the sub grade.
The samples collected at every 1km are tested for soil classification purpose (Gradation,
Atterberg limits); and samples at every 3km intervals were tested for modified Proctor, 3
point CBR and swell, in addition to classification tests.
4.3.3 SAMPLING
Sampling is made for the following tests:

 Grading, Atterberg limits , Moisture- Density relationships and CBR tests and swell

For the section of the road from km 60+000 to km 126+558, a total of 7 samples for proctor-
CBR tests, and 19 samples for Atterberg limits and gradation tests were taken consecutively.
Sufficient samples sizes were collected for each tests mentioned above.
Photos 2:1: Material Sampling field activities.
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INVESTIGATION

A desktop study has been made prior to conducting materials investigation within the project
vicinity. Thus, geological formation of the project area, and knowledge of local people were
incorporated in the desktop study to assess the availability of construction material sources.
While investigating the construction materials, due attention has been given to identify the
exact location of the materials and estimates of their quantities, thickness of overburden
materials, accessibility and environmental impacts due to the disturbance of the natural
conditions.
The following tasks have been undertaken during the investigation of construction materials:
 Review of existing literature and maps like Geologic maps and Topographic maps.
 Excavation of trial pits.
 Description of soil profiles including overburden thickness and identification of the
horizons that are suitable for meeting the materials requirements for pavement
design.
 Collection of samples for laboratory tests.
 Labeling the information required
 Re-instating the pits
 Estimate quantity/ volume of borrow and quarry materials
Accessibility of each construction material source, which is important for access of trucks
and other heavy equipment, is evaluated as the offset distance from the proposed route.
Quantity estimation was carried out for rock, gravel and borrows materials. This is done with
the aid of hand held GPS to measure the coordinate of boundary of the materials. Area of
the material was calculated and depth of usable material from the borrow pits and the quarry
site was measured. From the total height the thickness of overburden and unusable material
has been reduced to get the final quantity.

The overburden thickness is assessed with respect to its thickness and its use as borrow
materials for embankment construction and as improved sub grade. Moreover the presence
of bushes and trees is also taken into account to decide whether the source shall be
considered or not. Environmental considerations are given emphasis for the disturbance
caused to local community by blasting activities and displacement.
The following sections discuss the presence, quality and quantity of each of the construction
material required for the project.
4.4.1 ROCK FOR CRUSHED AGGREGATE AND MASONRY WORKS

During the site visit indicates the availability of sound rock sources that can be used
for crushed stone are identified ,however the suitability will be verified after
confirmed by the Laboratory test result weather and which can be used for masonry
stone, course aggregates for cement concrete works, crushed aggregate for base
course, surface dressing and asphalt concrete or not.
The collected rock samples were sent to central laboratory for the following tests:
 Los Angeles Abrasion Test , Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV), Ten percent Fine
Value (TFV), Sulfate Soundness, Stripping and Specific Gravity
Table 4-4:: Rock sources along the project route
Sr. GPS Material Estimated Overburden

Station (km) Access Remark
No Coordinate description Qty.(m3) Material
60+000 Offset
4.7km back to E-0567739 Scattered
1 Basalt 800,000 Required Sampled
Adama N-0985316 bushes
Melkajilo road
76+133 Offset
E-0586908 Scattered
2 Basalt 50,000 Required Located
82m RHS bushes
N-0989870
77+799 ,Offset E-0587473 Rhyolitic Scattered

3 100,000 Required Located
1.97km RHS N-0987480 welded tuff bushes
81+116 Offset E-591263 Welded tuff Scattered

145m RHS N-0987480 rock bushes
87+352,offset E-0597626 Welded tuff Scattered

1.8km LHS N-0987626 rock bushes

122+778,Offset E-0628844 Rhyolite Scattered

569m RHS N-0997636 rock bushes
4.4.2 NATURAL GRAVEL SOURCE FOR SUB-BASE AND CAPPING LAYER
Detailed survey of the project area reveals that abundant granular materials which can be
used as sub base materials. Three possible source of gravel material could be obtained at
88+184,Offset 515m, LHS , 100+418,Offset 732m RHS, 103+058,Offset 595m,RHS,
104+308,Offset 656m,RHS 115+781,Offset 1.9 km, RHS, and 118+151,Offset 885m, RHS.
Samples were collected from these sources and sent to central laboratory for the following
laboratory tests:
 Modified Proctor – CBR and swell, Gradation and Atterberg Limits
The summary of laboratory test results of the sampled natural gravels are summarized and
presented in Annex of this report.
Table 4-5:: Natural Gravel Source for Wearing Course, Sub-base and Capping Layer
Station Estimate
(Km) Material Over
Sr. GPS d Access
Description burden Remark
No Coordinate Quantity
Material
(m3)
88+184,Offse E-598150 Scattere
1 t 515m, LHS N-986233 Dark Grey Scoria 500,000 Required Sampled
d bushes
89+388,Offse E-599414 Rayolite origin
Scattere
2 t 1.69 km, N-987345 highly welded 500,000 Required Located
d bushes
LHS Tuff
89+809,Offse E-599849
Welded Rayolite Scattere
3 t 1.96 km N-987581 500,000 Required Located
Tuff d bushes
,LHS
100+418,Offs E-610429 Rayolate welded Scattere
4 et 732m RHS N-985212 500,000 Required Sampled
tuff d bushes
5 et 595m,RHS N-985754 500,000 Required Sampled
tuff d bushes
6 et 656m,RHS N-986341 500,000 Required Sampled
tuff d bushes
112+491,Offs E-621666 A trachyte origin
Scattere
7 et 2.6km,RHS N-989904 of high strength 500,000 Required Located
d bushes
welded tuff

115+781,Offs E-623891 Trachytic rock

Scattere
8 et 1.9 km, N-992334 formation with 500,000 Required Sampled
d bushes
RHS brown clay soil
118+151,Offs E-625331
Scattere
9 et 885m, N-994483 Greyish Tuff 500,000 Required Sampled
d bushes
RHS
4.4.3 BORROW MATERIAL
Suitable borrow sources for embankment construction and replacement of weak sub-grade
are found at 68+522,Offset 1.17km,RHS , 79+617,Offset 136m,RHS and
124+813,Offset 715m,RHS and Located 65+963,Offset 1.22km,RHS , 71+947,Offset
1.31km,RHS , 76+847,Offset 273m,RHS, 78+611,Offset 220m,RHS , 80+228,Offset
133m,RHS, 81+116,offset 145m ,RHS, 81+799,offset 188m,RHS and 82+568,offset
844,RHS in the project area.
Samples were collected from these sources for laboratory testing. The collected samples are
transported to Central Laboratory for the following tests.
 Grading , Atterberg Limits, Standard Proctor and CBR and Swell
Generally it can be concluded that the area is sufficiently supplied with borrow sources
additionally, the subgrade material can be used for replacement and embankment, since
fulfill the requirement.
Table 4-6: Borrow sources for embankment construction and replacement works
Sr Station GPS Material Estimate Over

Access
. (Km) Coordina Description d burden Remark
N te Quantity Material
o 65+963,Offs E- Black and (m3)
Red Scoria Scattered Require Locate
1 et 577262 500,000
(cinder) bushes d d
1.22km,RHS N-
68+522,Offs 989242
E- Light whitish
et 579476 to grey silt Scattered Require Sample
2 with gravel 300,000
1.17km,RHS N- bushes d d
989725 material
71+947,Offs E- Black and
et 582903 Red Scoria Scattered Require Locate
3 (cinder) 500,000
1.31km,RHS N- bushes d d
989607
76+847,Offs E- Black and
et 587473 Red Scoria Scattered Require Locate
4 500,000
273m,RHS N- bushes d d
989418

78+611,Offs E- Light grayish

et 589035 silty sandy Scattered Require Locate
5 soil 500,000
988627
79+617,Offs E- Welded Tuff Sample
et 589956 Scattered Require d
6 500,000
136m,RHS N- bushes d
988213
80+228,Offs E- Welded Tuff
et 590492 Scattered Require Locate
7 500,000
987920
81+116,offs E- Welded Tuff
et 145m 591263 Scattered Require Locate
8 500,000
,RHS N- bushes d d
987480
81+799,offs E- Welded Tuff
et 591868 Scattered Require Locate
9 500,000
987129
82+568,offs E- Black and
1 et 844,RHS 592408 Red scoria Scattered Require Locate
500,000
0 N- bushes d d
986224
124+813,Off E- Round
set 630390 basaltic
1 Scattered Require Sample
715m,RHS N- gravel with 500,000
1 silty sandy bushes d d
998479
soil
4.4.4 NATURAL SAND FOR MORTAR AND CEMENT CONCRETE WORKS
Two Natural Sand sources have been identified that are deemed for mortar and concrete
work is available in the road corridor.
The source is sampled for the following laboratory tests:
 Gradation, Soundness, Clay Content, and Organic Impurity
Table 4-7:: Sand sources for concrete and mortar works

Sr. Station (Km) GPS Access

No Coordinate
60+000,Offset 3.1km Required
E-569726
1 back to Adama -Melkajilo
N-985537
road
E-599849 Required
2 89+809,Offset 2km,LHS
N-987581
4.4.5 WATER SOURCES
Water is required for compaction, mortar and concrete works. For the section two locations
of water sources have been identified; all five of them are sampled for quality tests. The
samples are tested for PH, TDS (total dissolved solids), Chloride and Sulphate content.
Table 4-8:: Water Sources
Station (Km) River

Sr. GPS Access
Name
No Coordinate
100+322,Offset E-611216
1 Awash Required
8.5km,RHS N-977446
89+809,Offset E-599849
2 Required
2km,LHS N-987581
LABORATORY TESTING
4.5.1 CLASSIFICATION TESTS
The tests conducted for AASHTO classifications were liquid limit, plastic limit and wet sieve
analysis. These tests are indicators of the physical properties of the subgrade soils and
borrow materials. The samples were tested at Net Consult P.L.C laboratory.
4.5.2 MOISTURE-DENSITY AND CBR TESTS
For the design of pavement structures, CBR tests were conducted on the subgrade soils and
borrow materials to be used as fill, capping layer and sub base. The method of testing for
both subgrade and for borrow pit materials is AASHTO – T180. The CBR test was
conducted at three levels of compaction to observe the changes in the subgrade material

density with increased compaction effort and to determine the CBR of the material at the
required dry density that can be reasonably achieved on site during construction.
4.5.3 QUALITY TESTS ON ROCK, SAND AND WATER SAMPLES
Quality tests on the above material have been carried out at central laboratory in accordance
with the methods and procedures specified in the AASHTO and BS Manuals.
The tested conducted construction materials and methods used in conducting the tests are
listed in the table below.
Table 4-9: Type of Tests and Methods employed for different Materials
Sub- Natural
Test Method Rock Sand Water
Type of Test grade/Borrow Gravel
Employed Samples Samples Sources
materials
3 – Point Soaked CBR AASHTO T-193   - - -
Moisture Density AASHTO T-180   - - -
AASHTO T-89
Atterberg Limits   - - -
&T-90
Sieve Analysis AASHTO T-88   - - -
Soil Classification
(based on sieve analysis
AASHTO M-145   - - -
and Atterberg Limit
tests)
AASHTO T-
Grading -  -  -
27&T-11
Los Angeles Abrasion
AASHTO T-96 - -  - -
Value (LAA)
Aggregate Crushing BS 812 PART
- -  - -
Value (ACV) 110: 1990
Ten Percent Fine Value BS 812 PART
- -  - -
(TFV) 111: 1990
Sodium Sulfate
AASHTO T-104 - -   -
Soundness (SSS)
Specific Gravity and
AASHTO T-85 - -  - -
Absorption
Coating and Stripping AASHTO T-182 - -  - -
Silt and Clay Content AASHTO T11-85 - - -  -
Mortar Making Property AASHTO T71-80 - - -  -
Sand Equivalent AASHTO- T 176 - - -  -
Organic Impurities AASHTO T21-81 - - -  -

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.6.1 GENERAL
During the fieldwork, samplings of construction materials were undertaken and the samples
carried to the Net Consulting Engineers P.L.C laboratory for pertinent tests that can help to
define the type and quality of the respective materials.
The tests are conducted accordingly, and the results are reported for the samples of the sub
grade and the construction materials. The results are then analyzed using the ERA Manual
2013, and discussed in detail in the subsequent sections.
4.6.2 SUB-GRADE MATERIALS
As mentioned above, 19 samples of sub-grade materials were collected from the main road
alignment at every 1km interval to assess the properties of the road bed materials.
Classification tests (sieve analysis, atterberg limits,) were conducted on samples collected at
every 1km, whereas modified proctor, three point CBR and swell tests were conducted on
samples collected at interval of 3km. The test results are summarized and presented in
Appendix.
4.6.3 LABORATORY CBR
The CBR (California Bearing Ratio) test indirectly measures the shearing resistance of a soil
under controlled moisture and density conditions. Thus, to know the strength classes of the
road subgrade CBR tests were conducted on the subgrade soil samples. In general, the
interval of sampling for CBR test is 3.0km.Therefore; laboratory CBR tests have been
undertaken on the subgrade soil samples compacted with modified proctor of 4.54 kg
rammer and surcharge weight of the same.
Figure 4-4: CBR Value versus Chainage

CBR Vs Chainage
90
80
70
60
CBR (%)
50
40
30 CBR
20
10 5% CBR
0
Chainage (Km)
The subgrade CBR test results versus chainage graph reveals that s1, s2, s3, s5, s6 have
compositions of 29%, 14%, 14%, 29% and 14% respectively, since the subgrade class
classified as per ERA manual 2013, where; S1 = 2, S2=3-4, S3=5-7, S4=8-14, S5=15-30
and S6=>30.
The CBR values at 95% MDD of the subgrade vary from 2 to 79% with a mean value of 18.4
%. From the collected 7 sample for CBR test, 57.1 % which is 4 samples have CBR values
greater than 5%. About 42.9% of the road section which is 3 samples has CBR values less
or equal to 5% and these subgrade soils are anticipated to be need treatment. Section with
weak CBR and which exhibit expansiveness shall be properly treated.
4.6.4 CBR SWELL

The CBR swell test is conducted to measure the swelling potential of a soil and its
consequence on the pavement performance. Therefore, CBR swell tests are carried out on
the subgrade soil samples to assess the same. The subgrade soil consists of soils having a
swell value in excess of 3% in comparable proportion with that of subgrades having swell
value below 3%. Thus the Laboratory test result confirms 42.8% of subgrade soils having
swell in excess of 3% demand geotechnical attention. Accordingly, such sections shall be
treated by replacing the same with non-swelling fill material.
Figure 4-5: CBR Swell vs Station

Swell Vs Chainage
10
9
8
7
Swell (%)
6
5
4
3% Swell
3
2 Swell
1
0
Chainage (Km)
4.6.5 SUBGRADE AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Combining the results of Atterberg limit and gradation tests, it is possible to classify the
subgrade material in line with AASHTO methods.
Accordingly, the classification test result reveals that the sub-grade materials along the road
are classified into Six different groups: A-7-5, A-4 ,A-2-7,A-5,A-2-5 and A-7-6 Out of the six
groups A-7-5 comprises 42% of the sub-grade material (the largest proportion) and the
remaining A-4 ,A-2-7,A-5,A-2-5 and A-7-6 have compositions of 21%, 16%, 11%, 5% and
5% respectively.
Figure 4-6: AASHTO Classification of Subgrade soils and their percentage

composition

AASHTO Soil Classification Percentages (19 Samples)

A-7-6
5%
A-4
A-2-7 21%
16%
A-2-6
5%
A-5
11%
A-7-5
42%
A-4 A-7-5 A-5 A-2-6 A-2-7 A-7-6
The CBR values at 95% of the maximum dry density of the 8, A-7-5 (42%) materials tested
for CBR are between 2% and 16% inclusive. The Group Index of the material varies
between 13 and 20. Black cotton and dark clay soil sections mentioned in the soil extension
table above have CBR Value between 1% and 3%. Materials with this CBR usually exhibit
poor subgrade strength. AASHTO classification, M145-91, classifies this type of material as
clayey material and rates it as poor subgrade. The relationship between CBR and Group
Index is also in alliance with the AASHTO system since for higher group indices the CBR
results are lower and vice versa.
All the percent swell of this class of soil, A-7-5, is above 3%, which indicates that the swell
potential of the soil is high and hence this has expansive nature. 88.9% of test result of
Liquid Limit is below 60%, then again the remaining 11.1% is above. All tests for Plasticity
index (PI) value in this group has a Plasticity index (PI) less or equal to 30% which is
100%.The PI and the LL test results also indicate that the soil is less to medium plastic, and
confirms that the material has less to medium expansiveness behavior.
This group of soil is dominant in the section from Km 62+000 to Km 65+000, Km 108+000 to
Km 117+000. Hence, these sections of the road can be classified as weak sub grade
sections with expansive nature.
The CBR values at 95% of the maximum dry density of the 1, A-7-6 (5%) materials tested for
CBR are 2%. The Group Index of 6. Materials with this CBR Mostly exhibit poor subgrade
strength. AASHTO classification, M145-91, classifies this type of material as clayey material
and rates it as fair to poor subgrade. The relationship between CBR and Group Index is also

in alliance with the AASHTO system since for higher group indices the CBR results are lower
and vice versa.
The next major material type found in the section is 4, A-4 (21%), 3, A-2-7 (16%), 2 A-5
(11%) and 1, A-2-6 (5%) material. The CBR values at 95% of the maximum dry density of
this material are between 4% and 79% inclusive. The Group Index (GI) of the material varies
between 0 and 14. Most of the materials in this group are light brown silty clay soil
mentioned in the soil extension table above. Materials with this CBR and Group index
usually exhibit good subgrade strength, which is in line with the CBR and Group Index
results mentioned above. Moreover, these group subgrade material can be considered as a
borrow source for embankment as well as capping material. AASHTO classification, M145-
91, classifies these types of materials as silty or clayey gravel and sand material and rates
them as excellent to good sub grade.
In general, out of the 7 samples tested for CBR test, 3 of them (42.9%) have a CBR Value
less or equal to 5%.This implies the section of the road Km 62+000 to Km 65+000, has a
subgrade class below S3, It therefore necessary to place sufficient thickness of fill material
of S3 quality over these subgrade materials so that the stress at the in-situ subgrade level
reduces to almost Zero stress.
4.6.6 LIQUID LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS

The plasticity of a soil is its ability to undergo deformation without cracking or fracturing. A
plastic soil can be molded into various shapes when it is wet. Plasticity in soils is due to
presence of clay minerals. The clay particles carry a negative charge on their surface. In
contact with water clay particles are separated by layers of adsorbed water which allow them
to slip over one another. When the soil is subjected to deformations, the particles do not
return to their original positions, with the result that the deformations are plastic (irreversible).
In accordance with ERA Flexible Pavement Design Manual 2013 Section 4.2.6, materials
with PI value more than 45% and LL more than 90% are generally not suitable for
embankment. Moreover, clay materials having LL in excess of 60% and PI more than 30%
are marginal material and vulnerable to volume change upon drying and wetting.
An indication of the nature of the material along any road section may be given by a variation
in plasticity index (PI). The PI is influenced by the type and proportion of clay particles
present within the material, and high PI values are often indications of the potential for
expansion.
Figure 4-7: Variation of Plasticity Index (%) of the Sub-grade Soils

Plastisity Distribution of Subgrade Samples

80
Plasticity Values (%)
70
60
50
40 UL PI
30
20 UL LL
10 LL Value
0
PL Value
Chainage (Km)
The variation of Plasticity Index (PI) along Melkajilo to Awash road project is presented in
the figure above which shows values ranging between 5% and 27%. In addition their liquid
limit is in the range of 32% soils up to 69%. As per ERA manual soil having a liquid limit
exceeding 60% or a plasticity index exceeding 30 when determined in accordance with the
requirements of AASHTO T-89 and T-90 are considered poor road bed foundations. As it
can see from the above chart 10.5% of the road section have a high liquid limit value this
may suggest that the soils could easily be changed from the plastic state to the liquid state
with a small/little increase in moisture content/water.
The soils general exhibits the following physical properties.
 High Liquid Limit often more than 60% reaching up to 10.5%

 Relatively low PI value below 30%
The plasticity chart on the figure below helps to classify the type of soils based on their
plasticity characteristics (i.e. Atterberg Limits and indicates of soils).Generally materials
falling above the A-Line are Classified as clays and below the A-Line are classified as silts.
The line labelled “A” above a liquid limit of 50 separates soils of high plasticity, or fat
clays (above line), from elastic clays, soils of low compressibility (below line). At liquid
limits less than 50, line “A” separates soils of medium plasticity (above line) from soils of
medium compressibility (below “A” line). Using this graph, critical lower limits of liquid limit
and plasticity index can be ascertained.
The fine grained soils in the route corridor are generally grouped under the CH, MH and CL,
ML soil Classification system. The General behavior of this soil groups is expressed here
under

Table 4-10:: Properties of the CH, MH, and CL & ML soil groups
Soil Group Compressibility Shear Strength Workability

MH,CH (high plasticity Fair to poor and poor
High Poor
silts & clays) respectively
ML, CL (medium & low ) Fair to poor and poor Fair and good to fair
Fair
plasticity silt & clays respectively respectively
As seen from the plasticity Chart below plotted based on the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) depicts that most of the subgrade soils fall under ML group and these
groups (ML represents: Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock floor, silty or clayey fine sands
and CL represents: Inorganic clays or low to medium plasticity, gravely clays, silty clays, lean
clays) so that these soil sections generally can be classified as good foundation material.
On the other hand, the MH soil groups (Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine
sandy or silty soils, elastic silts) cover considerable road section and this section generally
can be classified as poor foundation material. The plasticity chart for the collected subgrade
samples is shown in the figure below.
Figure 4-8: Plasticity Chart for Subgrade
Plasticity Chart-Subgrade Samples

90
80
70
60
Plastic Limit,%
"U" Line
50 CH
40
30
CL "A" Line
20
10 MH
ML
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Liquid Limit,%

4.6.7 EXPANSIVE SOIL STRETCHES

From visual subgrade soil extension survey and confirmed from laboratory test results,
black cotton soils which are deemed to have expansive potential were encountered in the
flat and sagging areas of the project road which generally covers a total of 11.7 km (
~17.6%) of the route corridor.
Expansive soils exhibit particularly large volumetric changes (shrinkage and swell) following
variations in their in-service moisture contents. In accordance with ERA Standard Technical
Specification 2013 clause 4103 and 4106. Therefore, the expansive soil along the project
length should be treated properly so that the pavement will perform well in its service life.
4.6.8 ANALYSES OF TEST RESULTS OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
The material quality requirements are mainly taken from ERA’s Flexible Pavement Design
Manual 2013. If requirements for a particular case are not found, other manuals such as
AASHTO and BS specifications are referred to.
4.6.9 ROCK SOURCE FOR CRUSHING AND MASONRY WORKS

Samples of rock were taken from potential sources of rock at Km 60+000 Offset 4.7km back
to Adama Melkajilo road tested for Aggregate Crushing Value [ACV], Los Angeles Abrasion
[LAA], Soundness, Ten percent Fine Value, Abrasion, and Stripping/Bitumen Affinity tests.
Based on the test results, the source at Km 60+000 Offset 4.7km ,(Offset back to Adama -
Melkajilo road),is satisfies all quality test requirements of ERA Standard Technical
Specification 2013 for use as wearing course, road base, chipping and coarse aggregate for
cement concrete and the remaining sources are Located and mostly the same type basaltic
property. However, one produces effectively and goes deep, it may fulfill the base course
and masonry stone requirement. The results of laboratory tests conducted on the sample
from these sources are summarized in the table below.
Table 4-11: Laboratory Test Results of the Rock Samples
Sound
Materi Abra ness Coating
Water
Sr. al sion ACV TFV TFV by &
Station (km) Absor
No descri % (%) (KN) (KN) Na2SO Strippin
ption
ption Dry Wet 4 g (%)
(%)
(%)

Sound
Materi Abra ness Coating
Water
Sr. al sion ACV TFV TFV by &
Station (km) Absor
No descri % (%) (KN) (KN) Na2SO Strippin
ption
ption Dry Wet 4 g (%)
(%)
(%)
60+000 Offset 4.7km
1 back to Adama Basalt 13 12 315 1 >95
Melkajilo road
Specification Requirements for crushed Max.
≥110
Base Course (ERA 2013) 29
Specification Requirements for Asphalt Max

≤2 ≥160 < 12
Aggregate (ERA 2013) 21 -
25
4.6.10 ANALYSES OF TEST RESULTS OF NATURAL GRAVEL MATERIALS
Six samples of natural gravel material from borrow pit at 88+184,Offset 515m, LHS,
100+418,Offset 732m RHS, 103+058,Offset 595m,RHS, 104+308,Offset 656m,RHS,
115+781,Offset 1.9 km, RHS and 118+151,Offset 885m, RHS, were collected and tested for
modified proctor, CBR, swell tests, Atterberg Limits.
As per the test result, three pits at 100+418,Offset 732m RHS, 104+308,Offset 656m,RHS
and 118+151,Offset 885m, RHS fulfill all the required specification limit, but then again pit
88+184,Offset 515m, LHS , 103+058,Offset 595m,RHS and 115+781,Offset 1.9 km, RHS
the PI value outlying the specification requirement specified on ERA standard Manual 2013
which is maximum 12, therefore these pits required further valuation.
The laboratory test results of natural gravel sources are summarized in the table below.
Table 4-12:: Laboratory Test Results of Natural Gravel Materials (Sub base)
Atterberg
CBR @ 95%
Limits
Material AASHTO T AASHTO T
S
No.
Station Description 89, T 90 193
PI CBR Swell
% % %
1 88+184,Offset Dark Grey Scoria 15 60 0.13

Atterberg
CBR @ 95%
Limits
Material AASHTO T AASHTO T
S
No.
Station Description 89, T 90 193
PI CBR Swell
% % %
515m, LHS
100+418,Offset Rayolate welded tuff
2 9 32 0.28
732m RHS
3 13 85 0.15
595m,RHS
4 12 45 0.19
656m,RHS
115+781,Offset Trachytic rock
5 1.9 km, RHS formation with brown 22 49 0.61
clay soil
118+151,Offset Greyish Tuff
6 10 48 0.29
885m, RHS
Min
Specification for Subbase Max 12 <1.5%
30
4.6.11 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS OF BORROW MATERIALS FOR EMBANKMENT AND

REPLACEMENT MATERIALS
The possible sources of borrow materials for embankment construction and replacement of
problematic soil were investigated and tested for classification, modified proctor, three point
CBR and swell tests.
As per the test results of the borrow pits all can be considered as a source of material for
embankment and replacement of unsuitable materials.
Further sampling and testing can be carried out during detail study and construction to
delineate the area and to confirm the quality of the materials.
The laboratory test results of the borrow materials are tabulated below.
Table 4-13: Laboratory Test Results of Borrow Materials

Sr. Material CBR at

Station (km) PI Swell
No description 95% MDD
Light whitish to
68+522,Offset
1 grey silt with 17 22 0.23
1.17km,RHS gravel material
79+617,Offset
2 Welded Tuff 29 27 0.41
136m,RHS
Round basaltic
124+813,Offset
3 gravel with silty 14 16 1.8
715m,RHS
sandy soil
Specification
<30 ≥ 5% <2%
Requirement for fill
4.6.12 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS OF NATURAL SAND FOR CEMENT CONCRETE AND MORTAR
WORKS
Sample of sand was collected from 60+000, Offset 3.1km back to Adama -Melkajilo road
and 89+809, and Offset 2km, LHS, having a potential sand source for the entire route. The
source was tested for, Sand Equivalent, organic impurities and clay lamps, soundness loss
by Sodium sulfate. And the test results of the sand samples are summarized as follows.
Table 4-14: Laboratory Test Results of River Sand
Soundne Organic
GPS Sand
Sr. Station ss loss Impurity Clay
 Coo Equivale
No (km) by Color Lumps
rdinate nt
Na2SO4 Standard
(%) Plate No.
60+000,Offset
3.1km back to E-569726
1 91 6 2 5.7
Adama -Melkajilo N-985537
road

2
89+809,Offset E-599849
96 1 2 4.7
2km,LHS N-987581
Specification Color
requirement (ERA 2013 <10 plate No. <3
Technical Spec) 4
However, clay lumps test result of both sources are faraway the specification requirement,
therefore, the option of improving the quality is mandatory. Hence, washing out the fine
particles is important.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
From visual observation and laboratory test results of the subgrade soil in the section, the
following are noted:
1. The sub-grade material dominantly comprise of, Light brown silty clay and Dark
brown clay.
2. 57% of the soil classification is mainly A-2-7, A-2-6, A-5 and A-4 which can be
rated as Excellent to Good subgrade material, as per AASHTO classification ;
meanwhile 43% of tested sample classification is A-7-5,A-7-6 and this soil can
be rated as fair to poor subgrade material, as per AASHTO classification.
3. Expansive soil covers a total of 11.7 km (~17.6%) of the route corridor.
4. 10.5% of the samples have a Liquid Limit more than 60% but the remaining
89.5% less than 60%, which indicates that the clay content of the soil is as such
low to medium, and hence is not sensitive to moisture change.
5. 100% of the tested samples have a Plasticity Index of less than 30%, which
shows that the plasticity of the soil is low to medium.
6. The CBR value ranges between 1% and 5%, which indicates that the subgrade
strength is poor.
7. 57.1% of the samples have a CBR value 5% and more, which indicates that the
sub grade strength is fair.
8. From the collected 7 sample for swell test, 42.8 % which is 3 samples have the
swell values above 3%, which are considered as unsuitable and need special
treatment for this sections.
From the above, it can be concluded that the subgrade soil of the road is poor to fair in terms
of bearing capacity, and from the LL and PI test results it seems that the soils are not
sensitive to moisture change.
However, the treatment required to improve the performance of subgrade is therefore to limit
the amount of stress that reaches the in-situ sub grade soil and to limit the moisture change
in the sub grade layer in the sections of expansive clay soil and have low bearing capacity
sections which is below 5%.This can be achieved by providing adequate thickness of fill
material with good CBR over the in-situ subgrade and by excavation and replacement of the
in-situ soil to the depth the moisture fluctuation is limited or by counter balancing the swell
pressure of the soil.

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Six granular materials have a possibility source for sub base, three borrow pits for fill
material source, six rock quarries, two sand and two water sources have been identified and
tested during the study of the project road.
i) In addition to the sited potential sources of borrow materials, it is prevailed from the
subgrade property of the project road there could be possibly of obtaining sufficient
and suitable borrow materials from every cut section to be incorporated in the
embankment works. These materials, (native subgrade) as depicted in the laboratory
assessment have a CBR of above 5% and a lesser swelling potential in the stretch of
the project road. Therefore, regarding borrow materials there is sufficient and suitable
materials that can be incorporated in the permanent works along the stretch of the
project road.
ii) Six of the sampled natural gravel material comply with the requirements for granular
subbase but pit at km 88+184,Offset 515m, LHS and 115+781,Offset 1.9 km, RHS
the PI value outlying the specification hence, it can be improved by blending with
appropriate material or test it again after production. Generally, the natural subbase
source on the project vicinity is sufficient. Additionally traced locations of natural
gravel material sources are available on the project at 89+388, Offset 1.69 km, LHS
and 112+491, Offset 2.6km, RHS as indicated in table 2-3 which were not sampled.
These traced locations can be considered as additional source that fulfill the required
quantity during construction period.
iii) From the sampled one rock sources the source at Km 60+000 Offset 4.7km back to
Adama Melkajilo road can be utilized for base course, concrete and asphalt
aggregate production, masonry stone and rock fill works. Additionally traced locations
of basaltic stone sources are available on the project at 76+133 Offset 82m RHS,
77+799 ,Offset 1.97km RHS, 81+116 Offset 145m RHS, 87+352,offset 1.8km LHS
and 122+778,Offset 569m RHS as indicated in table 2-2 which were not sampled.
These traced locations can be considered as additional source that fulfill the required
quantity during construction period.
iv) Both the two natural sand sources are fulfill the specification requirement but clay
lump, therefore, the option of improving the quality is mandatory.
v) The two water sources satisfy the required specifications and can be utilized for
compaction as well as concrete works.
BITUMINOUS SURFACING
i) The AC materials quality and construction methodology shall also be adhered to
ERA’s Standard Technical Specification 2013.
ii) Performance Grade Asphalt Binder selection based on defined in Superpave
Series No.1 (SP-1) Specification and Testing, with all directions/verifications.

iii) The priming material shall be MC-30 cut back bitumen complying with AASHTO
M 82.
iv) RC-70 cutback bitumen complying with AASHTO M 81 or M 82, as applicable,
should be used for tack coat.
v) For the mainline highway, Anti-rutting (track resistant) modifiers shall be used for
wearing course asphalt mix AC-12.5 for all sections of mainline expressway,
interchange ramp, and mainline bridge decks. Anti-rutting (track resistant)
modifiers shall be used for binder course asphalt mix AC-19 for all sections of
mainline expressway and mainline bridge decks and longitudinal gradient’s 3.0%
or more.
It may also worth to note that further investigations need to be carried out in the section in
the course of construction so that additional materials sources can be located at closer
intervals for economical use of locally available materials and to expedite the progress of the
project.

5 TRAFFIC FINDINGS
GENERAL
The traffic engineering study report section presents surveys and analyses carried out to forecast the
traffic for the subject project. The analysis results will be used as inputs in the analysis and design of
pavements as well as carrying out economic feasibility analysis. The analysis includes determining
the base year and forecasted Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for the project sections over the
project horizon, and it takes different elements into account including normal and diverted traffic and
traffic due to modal shifts to other modes such as railway. The study also includes willingness-to-use
and willingness-to-pay surveys and analysis in addition to other travel, trip and vehicle characteristics.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The objective of the study is to forward recommendations on how the section from Melkajilo -Awash
road should be upgraded to a higher standard by considering options proposed by the Ethiopian Roads
Authority (ERA), in consideration of the passage of the segment through the Awash National Park
and its potential interference with the Park’s natural habitat. The traffic engineering analysis does not
involve the use of specialized transport planning packages due to the scope and time limit of the study
defined by the requirements of the terms of Reference for the services.
REVIEW OF HISTORICAL DATA
The Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA) conducts traffic count survey thrice a year on all roads in the
country under its jurisdiction. According to ERA, the traffic survey has been carried out since 1952
G.C. The period to carry out the traffic survey is classified on the seasonal periods based on traffic
activities throughout the country: high, medium and low economic activity seasons. Consequently,
the traffic survey is conducted in the following periods every year;
 Cycle 1: from 01 to 07 of February;
 Cycle 2: from 01 to 07 of July;
 Cycle 3: from 01 to 07 of November.
ERA conducts the traffic count for seven consecutive days for 12 –hours period (6:00 AM – 6:00 PM)
in which the two weekdays are full 24- hour count (i.e. one on market day and the other on normal
weekend). The traffic survey is performed manually and grouped into eight vehicle categories.
Accordingly, the traffic data that has been collected every year can be obtained either from ERA web
page or from the head office upon request.
Tables 5.1 to 5.5 show ERA historical AADT data (2006 – 2019) for the Adama-Awash, Awash-
Mieso, Awash-Mille, Mieso-Dengago, and Mieso-Erer road segments, respectively. Similarly the
trends for the same sections are also shown in Figures 5.1 to 5.5, respectively. Truck-trailers
constitute a significant share of the traffic for these three segments with 24%, 31% and 42% for the
Adama-Awash, Awash-Mieso and Awash-Mille segments, respectively, which is in line with the fact
that the routes carry a significant share of the country’s import-export freight traffic.
The average traffic growth rates for different vehicle categories has been determined for the period of
2006 to 2019 based on ERA’s historic AADT data (Table 5.6), for the Awash-Mieso and adjacent
road segments. The growth rates have shown significant annual variations for the 2006 – 2019 period,
which has also resulted in very high and unrealistic average annual growth rates for most of the
vehicle categories.
The ERA AADT data is also compared with the Consultant’s own traffic count results as shown in
Table 5.7 and Figure 5.6. Since ERA AADT Data for 2020 was unavailable at the time of compilation

of this report, the consultant has estimated the 2020 AADT based on the historic average traffic
growth rates (Table 5.6) and the actual 2019 ERA AADT data. The ERA AADT results (both actual
2019 and estimated 2020 values) deviate significantly from the consultant’s results for 2020, for
individual vehicle types as well as total traffic.

Table 5-1: Historical AADT Data for Adama-Awash Segment (2006 to 2019)
(Source: ERA Database, 2020)

% Land % Small % Large % Small % Medium % Heavy % Truck
Year Car % change Total
change Rover change Bus change Bus change Truck change Truck change Truck change Trailer
2006 55 214 199 87 171 231 175 867 1,999
2007 68 24 228 7 246 24 152 75 225 32 276 19 247 41 1,000 15 2,442
2008 52 -24 207 -9 233 -5 138 -9 186 -17 319 16 298 21 1,007 1 2,440
2009 63 21 289 40 461 98 209 51 224 20 454 42 387 30 1,584 57 3,671
2010 76 21 233 -19 380 -18 216 3 256 14 433 -5 361 -7 1,248 -21 3,203
2011 86 13 297 27 366 -4 135 -38 352 38 445 3 378 5 1,319 6 3,378
2012 170 98 425 43 478 31 199 47 487 38 524 18 626 66 1,620 23 4,529
2013 269 58 505 19 650 36 506 154 486 0 749 43 722 15 1,354 -16 5,241
2014 263 -2 588 16 686 6 366 -28 573 18 819 9 976 35 1,484 10 5,755
2015 267 2 636 8 829 21 469 28 513 -10 945 15 1,001 3 1,781 20 6,441
2016 427 60 557 -12 715 -14 507 8 603 18 809 -14 760 -24 1,732 -3 6,110
2017 427 0 557 0 715 0 507 0 603 0 809 0 760 0 1,732 0 6,110
2018 247 -42 401 -28 660 -8 442 -13 473 -22 865 7 845 11 1613 -7 5,546
2019 349 41 494 23 755 14 550 24 712 51 851 -2 998 18 1,496 -7 6,205

Table 5-2; Historical AADT Data for Awash-Mieso Segment (2006 to 2019)
% Land % Small % Large % Small % Medium % Heavy % Truck %

Year Car total
change Rover change Bus change Bus change Truck change Truck change Truck change Trailer change
2006 15 100 63 43 27 95 55 34 432
2007 22 47 178 78 171 171 77 79 126 367 109 15 91 65 222 553 996
2008 12 -45 161 -10 164 -4 72 -6 57 -55 176 61 106 16 76 -66 824
2009 17 42 246 53 271 65 102 42 47 -18 288 64 298 181 387 409 1,656
2010 24 41 128 -48 162 -40 75 -26 88 87 191 -34 104 -65 95 -75 867
2011 22 -8 131 2 195 20 87 16 105 19 128 -33 169 63 112 18 949
2012 31 41 148 13 186 -5 90 3 120 14 145 13 64 -62 140 25 924
2013 17 -45 141 -5 181 -3 67 -26 107 -11 148 2 125 95 155 11 941
2014 20 18 135 -4 193 7 79 18 94 -12 153 3 118 -6 112 -28 904
2015 29 45 157 16 186 -4 68 -14 116 23 163 7 94 -20 89 -21 902
2016 36 24 113 -28 180 -3 106 56 120 3 137 -16 51 -46 97 9 840
2017 32 -11 159 41 250 39 123 16 179 49 157 15 125 145 347 258 1,372
2018 43 34 142 -11 172 -31 71 -42 165 -8 146 -7 90 -28 773 123 1602
2019 52 21 205 44 362 110 173 144 305 85 406 178 538 498 924 20 2965

Table 5-3: Historical AADT Data for Awash-Mille Segment (2006 to 2019)

Car Rover Bus Bus Truck Truck Truck Trailer Total
change change change change change change change change
Year
2006 6 91 74 7 33 77 78 643 1009
2007 10 67 86 -5 64 -14 9 29 52 58 55 -29 174 123 753 17 1203
2008 6 -40 95 10 86 34 10 11 53 2 57 4 105 -40 805 7 1217
2009 11 83 77 -19 90 5 16 60 70 32 106 86 312 197 1,078 34 1,760
2010 11 0 71 -8 65 -28 15 -6 48 -31 61 -42 131 -58 814 -24 1216
2011 7 -36 86 21 97 49 19 27 47 -2 62 2 177 35 841 3 1336
2012 13 86 114 33 118 22 22 16 100 113 89 44 110 -38 937 11 1503
2013 12 -8 86 -25 133 13 11 -50 89 -11 94 6 219 99 1027 10 1671
2014 7 -42 71 -17 76 -43 12 9 69 -22 71 -24 185 -16 1171 14 1662
2015 9 29 73 3 92 21 15 25 74 7 103 45 265 43 1216 4 1847

2016 22 144 101 38 140 52 55 267 121 64 97 -6 150 -43 1308 8 1994
2017 24 9 185 83 233 66 21 -62 180 49 93 -4 149 -1 1001 -23 1886
2018 57 138 156 -16 235 1 95 352 254 41 308 231 427 187 1,095 9 2,672
2019 63 11 122 -22 172 -27 61 -36 186 -27 153 -50 160 -63 1114 2 1817
Table 5-4: Historical AADT Data for Mieso-Dengago Segment (2006 to 2019)

Car change Rover change Bus change Bus change Truck change Truck change Truck change Traile
change Total
Year r
2006 132 186 441 48 184 86 73 38 1,188
2007 94 -29 162 -13 338 -23 73 52 83 -55 173 101 76 4 49 29 1,048
2008 90 -4 149 -8 464 37 52 -29 75 -10 193 12 135 78 67 37 1,225
2009 76 -16 176 18 507 9 59 13 78 4 218 13 211 56 75 12 1,400
2010 76 0 279 59 767 51 59 0 101 29 410 88 315 49 151 101 2,158
2011 65 -14 175 -37 844 10 63 7 262 159 240 -41 87 -72 91 -40 1,827

2012 38 -42 173 -1 603 -29 88 40 373 42 320 33 165 90 140 54 1,900
2013 30 -21 97 -44 534 -11 52 -41 150 -60 136 -58 112 -32 115 -18 1,226
2014 23 -23 168 73 664 24 44 -15 330 120 245 80 112 0 120 4 1,706
2015 41 78 165 -2 529 -20 72 64 389 18 350 43 301 169 302 152 2,149
2016 32 -22 162 -2 398 -25 101 40 214 -45 134 -62 137 -54 145 -52 1,323
2017 33 3 244 51 360 -10 92 -9 222 4 388 190 373 172 276 90 1,988
2018 85 158 457 87 662 84 139 51 233 5 603 55 587 57 1164 322 4428
2019 76 -11 532 16 676 2 138 -1 341 46 879 46 795 35 1,224 5 4,661
Table 5-5:. Historical AADT Data for Mieso-Erer Segment (2006 to 2019)

Car change Rover change Bus change Bus change Truck change Truck change Truck change Trailer change Total
Year
2006 0 30 2 0 19 5 10 7 73
2007 0 0 27 -10 12 500 0 0 9 -53 7 40 11 10 2 -71 68

2008 0 0 26 -4 2 -83 0 0 12 33 12 71 11 0 0 -100 63

2009 0 0 24 -8 1 -50 0 0 14 17 22 83 16 45 1 0 77
2010 0 0 12 -50 1 0 0 0 13 -7 11 -50 2 -88 1 0 40
2011 0 0 33 175 35 3400 0 0 41 215 37 236 28 1300 8 700 182
2012 0 0 24 -27 20 -43 0 0 28 -32 29 -22 20 -29 20 150 141
2013 0 0 56 133 3 -85 0 0 17 -39 49 69 65 225 1 -95 191
2014 1 0 23 -59 29 867 1 0 27 59 36 -27 31 -52 5 400 153
2015 2 100 70 204 63 117 7 600 70 159 58 61 54 74 65 1200 389
2016 2 0 21 -70 14 -78 1 -86 30 -57 38 -34 41 -24 13 -80 160
2017 0 -100 13 -38 7 -50 2 100 20 -33 17 -55 18 -56 6 -54 83
2018 0 0 14 8 3 -57 0 -100 10 -50 10 -41 8 -56 8 33 53
2019 0 0 11 -21 3 0 0 0 14 40 10 0 14 75 0 -100 52

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Car Land Small Large Small Medium Heavy Truck

Rover Bus Bus Truck Truck Truck Trailer
Figure 5-1: Adama-Awash Historical Traffic Trend, 2006 - 2019 (Source: ERA
Database, 2020)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 5-2: Awash-Mieso Historical Traffic Trend, 2006 - 2019 (Source: ERA Database,
2020)

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 5-3: Awash – Mille Historical Traffic Trend, 2006 - 2019 (Source: ERA Database,
2020)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 5-4: Mieso - Dengago Historical Traffic Trend, 2006 - 2019 (Source: ERA
Database, 2020)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 5-5: Mieso – Erer Historical Traffic Trend, 2006 - 2019 (Source: ERA Database,
2020)
Table 5-6: Historical Average Annual AADT Growth Rates for Different Segments (2006 –
2019)

Land Small Large Small Medium Heavy Truck
Segment Car Rover Bus Bus Truck Truck Truck Trailer
Awash-Mieso 16 11 25 20 42 21 64 95
Adama-Awash 21 9 14 23 14 12 16 6
Awash Mile 34 6 12 49 21 20 33 5
Mieso-Erer 0 18 341 40 19 26 110 153
Mieso-Dengego 4 15 8 13 20 38 42 54
Dengego-Harar 0 2 -1 15 11 37 35 22
Dengego-Dire Dawa 14 10 5 12 23 52 48 61
Table 5-7: Comparison of ERA and Consultant’s Traffic Data
Segment Count Cars 4WD S/Bus L/Bus S/Truck M/Truck H/Truck T&T Total
ERA (2019) 349 494 755 550 712 851 998 1496 6205
Adama - ERA (2020)* 421 537 860 679 810 950 1,162 1,585 7,004
Awash Consultant (2020) 167 576 893 232 635 169 118 2299 5,088
Difference (2020) 255 -38 -33 447 175 782 1044 -715 1916
Awash - ERA (2019) 52 205 362 173 305 406 538 924 2965
Mieso ERA (2020)* 60 227 452 207 433 490 884 1,802 4,556

Consultant (2020) 48 591 732 184 223 119 137 641 2,676
Difference (2020) 12 -364 -280 24 210 370 747 1161 1880
ERA (2019) 0 11 3 0 14 10 14 0 52
Mieso - ERA (2020)* 0 13 13 0 17 13 29 0 85
Erer Consultant (2020) 0 46 0 0 41 34 8 0 129
Difference (2020) 0 -33 13 0 -25 -21 22 0 -44
ERA (2019) 57 156 235 95 254 308 427 1095 2627
Awash - ERA (2020)* 76 165 263 142 307 370 567 1155 3,045
Mille Consultant (2020) 111 767 693 81 193 77 110 1906 3,936
Difference (2020) -34 -601 -430 61 114 293 457 -751 -891
ERA (2019) 76 532 676 138 341 879 795 1224 4661
Mieso - ERA (2020)* 79 613 728 156 409 1,217 1,132 1,880 6,215
Dengego Consultant (2020) 14 155 695 81 254 144 101 356 1,799
Difference (2020) 65 458 34 76 155 1073 1032 1524 4416
ERA (2019) 68 365 479 65 221 579 443 260 2480
Dengego ERA (2020)* 68 372 472 75 244 793 599 317 2,940
- Harar Consultant (2020) 21 189 589 19 215 91 60 109 1,293
Difference (2020) 47 183 -117 56 29 702 539 207 1646
*ERA (2020) Traffic was estimated based on the historic average traffic growth rates (Table 5.4) and
the 2019 ERA count data from ERA Database (2020),
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
ERA (2019)
ERA (2019)
ERA (2019)
ERA (2019)
ERA (2019)
ERA (2019)
ERA (2020)*
ERA (2020)*
ERA (2020)*
ERA (2020)*
ERA (2020)*
ERA (2020)*
Consultant (2020)
Difference (2020)
Consultant (2020)
Difference (2020)
Consultant (2020)
Difference (2020)
Consultant (2020)
Difference (2020)
Consultant (2020)
Difference (2020)
Consultant (2020)
Difference (2020)
Adama - Awash Awash - Mieso Mieso - Erer Awash - Mille Mieso - Dengego Dengego - Harar
Cars 4WD S/Bus L/Bus S/Truck M/Truck H/Truck T&T

Figure 5-6: Comparison of ERA and Consultant’s Traffic Data
*ERA (2020) Traffic was estimated based on the historic average traffic growth rates (Table 5.4) and
the 2019 ERA count data from ERA Database (2020),
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES

5.4.1 ADAMA – AWASH SEGMENT
The feasibility and Concept Design study of this segment had already been conducted by Beijing
Expressway Supervision Co., Ltd., in JV with Beza Consulting Engineers in 2014 under a contract
agreement with Ethiopian Roads Authority (Client). In 2019, NET Consulting Engineers and
Architects have carried out a Consultancy Service for Reviewing the Concept Design, Cost Estimate
and Bidding Document as well as Update the ESIA and Feasibility and Preparation of RAP for the
Design and Build of Adama-Awash Expressway project. Traffic and Origin/Destination (OD) surveys
were simultaneously conducted at Adama, Abomsa, Metehara and Awash. Table 5.8 presents the
forecasted traffic for road sections between Adama and Awash for a 20 years design period between
2020 and 2040.
Table 5-8: Adama – Awash Projected Motorized Traffic Expressway Road Option
(Beijing Expressway Supervision Co., Ltd., in JV with Beza Consulting Engineers, 2014)

Year Car Utility S. Bus L. Bus S. Truck M. Truck L. Truck T/T Sum
2020 144 440 540 198 552 419 303 1,834 4,430
2021 159 487 606 222 602 457 331 1,983 4,846
2022 176 538 679 249 657 498 361 2,144 5,302
2023 194 595 761 279 717 544 394 2,319 5,802
2024 215 658 853 312 782 593 430 2,507 6,350
2025 237 728 956 350 854 647 469 2,710 6,951
2026 263 804 1,072 393 931 706 511 2,931 7,611
2027 290 890 1,202 440 1,016 770 558 3,168 8,334
2028 321 984 1,347 493 1,108 841 609 3,426 9,129
2029 355 1,088 1,510 553 1,209 917 664 3,704 10,000
2030 393 1,203 1,693 620 1,319 1,001 724 4,005 10,957
2031 406 1,245 1,837 673 1,305 989 716 4,187 11,359
2032 447 1,369 2,053 752 1,411 1,070 775 4,513 12,389
2033 491 1,505 2,295 841 1,525 1,157 838 4,864 13,516
2034 540 1,654 2,565 939 1,649 1,251 906 5,243 14,748
2035 593 1,818 2,867 1,050 1,784 1,353 979 5,652 16,096
2036 652 1,998 3,205 1,174 1,929 1,463 1,059 6,092 17,571
2037 717 2,197 3,582 1,312 2,085 1,582 1,145 6,567 19,185
2038 788 2,415 4,003 1,466 2,255 1,710 1,238 7,078 20,953
2039 866 2,654 4,475 1,639 2,438 1,849 1,339 7,630 22,889
2040 952 2,917 5,001 1,832 2,636 1,999 1,447 8,224 25,010
2.4.2 Mieso – Erer – Dire Dawa – Dewelle Segments

A study conducted in 2007 by Scott Wilson entitled “Preparatory Studies for the Upgrading of Mieso
– Dire Dawa – Dewelle Road” has carried out a detailed economic feasibility study by dividing the
project into the following five sections: (i) Mieso-Erer (102km); Erer-Melka Jebdu (51km); Melka
Jebdu-Hidnu (28km); Hidnu- Dewelle (Guelile) (191km); and Dire Dawa-Shinile (10km).
Traffic and origin-destination surveys were conducted and a traffic model was developed under this
study. For both survey types, the ERA vehicle classification and standards were used and the surveys
were undertaken between October and November 2006. To build the base-year model for 2006, a
zoning system comprising 26 zones was developed. The zones comprised of specific road links and
nodes (towns) to represent the main attraction areas through the network and identify origin-
destination pairs likely to use the road network (Scott Wilson Study, 2007). Traffic growth rates were
determined for the project route for different time periods by considering the historical traffic data,
volume of import and export commodities, gross domestic product (GDP), pertinent population data,
passenger and freight movements, fuel consumption and vehicle fleet. The forecasted total traffic for
the period between 2006 & 2031 are shown in Table 5.9 for the central growth scenario (Scott Wilson
Study, 2007).

Table 5-9: Forecast total traffic on the project route, AADT (Scott Wilson Study, 2007)
Mieso - Erer Errer - Melka Jebdu Melka Jebdu - Hindu Hindu - Dewelle
Year Car Bus Truck Total Car Bus Truck Total Car Bus Truck Total Car Bus Truck Total
2006 18 - 14 32 50 45 27 123 - - - - 57 19 170 246
2007 19 - 15 35 55 50 30 135 - - - - 62 21 186 269
2008 21 - 17 38 59 54 33 147 - - - - 67 22 205 295
2009 23 - 19 41 64 59 36 159 - - - - 73 24 225 322
2010 24 - 20 45 69 64 40 173 - - - - 79 27 247 353
2011 27 - 23 49 75 70 44 189 - - - - 85 29 1,368 1,483
2012 105 9 1,571 1,685 159 88 1,591 1,837 4 14 1,270 1,288 93 32 1,515 1,640
2013 117 18 1,738 1,872 175 106 1,756 2,037 8 27 1,402 1,437 100 35 1,673 1,808
2014 130 27 1,939 2,095 194 125 1,956 2,276 12 41 1,562 1,615 110 38 1,864 2,012
2015 144 36 2,163 2,342 215 146 2,179 2,540 16 55 1,740 1,811 120 42 2,076 2,239
2016 159 44 2,411 2,615 237 167 2,428 2,832 20 68 1,939 2,027 132 47 2,313 2,491
2017 175 49 2,686 2,910 260 184 2,705 3,149 22 75 2,160 2,257 144 51 2,576 2,772
2018 191 54 2,992 3,238 285 203 3,013 3,501 24 83 2,406 2,514 158 57 2,870 3,085
2019 209 60 3,333 3,602 312 224 3,357 3,892 26 92 2,681 2,799 173 63 3,197 3,433
2020 229 66 3,713 4,009 341 247 3,739 4,327 29 101 2,986 3,116 189 69 3,562 3,820
2021 250 72 4,126 4,448 373 272 4,154 4,799 31 111 3,318 3,460 207 76 3,957 4,240
2022 273 80 4,584 4,937 407 299 4,615 5,321 34 122 3,686 3,843 226 84 4,396 4,706
2023 298 88 5,092 5,478 444 329 5,128 5,901 37 135 4,095 4,267 247 92 4,884 5,223
2024 326 96 5,658 6,080 485 362 5,697 6,544 41 148 4,550 4,739 269 101 5,426 5,797
2025 356 106 6,286 6,748 530 398 6,329 7,257 45 163 5,055 5,262 294 111 6,029 6,434
2026 387 116 6,952 7,455 576 436 7,000 8,012 49 178 5,590 5,818 320 122 6,668 7,109
2027 420 127 7,689 8,237 626 477 7,742 8,845 53 195 6,183 6,431 348 133 7,375 7,856
2028 457 139 8,504 9,100 680 522 8,563 9,766 57 214 6,838 7,110 378 146 8,156 8,680
2029 497 152 9,405 10,055 740 572 9,470 10,782 62 234 7,563 7,860 411 160 9,021 9,591
2030 540 167 10,402 11,109 804 626 10,474 11,905 68 257 8,365 8,689 446 175 9,977 10,599
2031 587 183 11,505 12,275 874 686 11,585 13,144 74 281 9,252 9,606 485 192 11,035 11,712
TRAFFIC SURVEYS
Traffic counts were conducted to estimate average annual daily traffic and vehicle composition on the
project road. In order to have the current levels of motorized traffic (Normal Traffic) on the study
road, traffic count has been carried out on seven locations along and at the vicinity of the project road.
The seven locations for classified Manual Mounts of motorized vehicles are as follows (Also shown
in Figure 5.7, below):
 1.0 km from Awash on the Adama-Awash Segment;

o This location has been selected to capture the total combined traffic that will use the
Awash-Mieso and Awash-Mille routes
 1.0 km from Awash on the Awash-Mille Segment;
o A significant share of the Awash-Mille traffic is expected to divert to the new project
route (Awash-Mieso). Therefore, it was important to capture the traffic on this
segment to determine the diverted traffic.
 1.0 km from Mieso on the Awash-Mieso Segment;
o The location helps to capture the total traffic that will diverge into the Mieso-Erer-
Dire Dawa route (existing gravel road) & the Mieso-Kulubi-Dengago route.
 5.0 km from Mieso on the Mieso-Erer Segment;
o This location is selected to capture the existing traffic on the gravel road along this
route which will be useful in forecasting the traffic diversion to the proposed parallel
route
 1.0 km from Dengego on the Mieso-Asebe-Teferi-Dengego Segment;
o This location helps to capture the traffic on the existing mountainous route before it
splits into traffic towards Dire Dawa and Harar
 5.0 km from Dengego on the Dengego-Harar Segment;
o This traffic is useful in assessing the potential traffic diversion from Harar direction
to project route and the proposed Mieso-Erer-Dire Dawa route in case of
implementation of both routes,
 At the Shinile Toll Plaza on the Dire Dawa-Dewelle Toll Road (Data received from Ethiopian
Toll Roads Enterprise).
o The project route and the proposed Mieso-Erer-Dire Dawa route will eventually
connect to the existing Dire Dawa – Dewelle toll road. Therefore, this location will
help to assess the potential diversion of Dire Dawa – Dewelle – Djibouti traffic to the
new routes.

Figure 5-7: Locations for Traffic and O/D Surveys
The traffic survey was conducted between 30/10/2020 and 05/11/2020. The traffic count survey has
been recorded for all vehicle movements in each direction classified into ten main vehicle categories.
Similar to the ERA’s traffic count, it has been carried out for 7 consecutive days from 6:00 a.m. to
6:00.p.m. In addition, night count (6:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m) has been conducted for two days at each site,
including one market day. Non-motorized traffic was excluded from the count since the Awash-Mieso
segment is being planned as a tolled expressway serving mobility purposes along the major import-
export corridor of the country. By definition, Expressways are limited access facilities catering only
for motorized non-local traffic. Therefore, it is expected that NMT users (which are mainly local will
not have access to this facility.
ORIGIN-DESTINATION (OD), WILLINGNESS TO USE (WTU) AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY
(WTP) SURVEYS
The OD survey was conducted in order to establish the movement pattern on the project road through
roadside interviews with vehicle drivers/crew. In order to ascertain the origins and destinations of the
vehicles using the road, their trip lengths (distance travelled), vehicle type and axle configuration,
capacity, volume of load, trip purpose, occupancy and the commodity flow pattern, etc has been
collected for three days (two weekdays and one weekend) at each of the twelve survey locations
chosen for this purpose.

The WTU and WTP surveys were conducted simultaneously with the O-D survey through road side
interview. The WTU survey helps to establish whether road users will be willing to continue using (if
an existing route) or divert to the new route (if an alternative new route), under non-toll conditions
(where no user charges are expected). The WTP is a survey which extract information from road
user’s on whether they are willingness to pay for the use of the road at the time of operation, whether
it is an existing or alternative new route. The data that is collected from this survey is used to examine
the wish of the road users to continue using or divert to a new route, and their perspective on road
tolling systems, however, the tolling charge will be decided on the actual benefits, in terms of VOC’s,
reduction travel time saving, and loan payment (if existed).
The OD, WTU, WTP surveys were conducted simultaneously at the following four locations and
survey was conducted for two full days at each location:
 1.0 km from Awash on the Awash-Mille Segment;
 1.0 km from Mieso on the Awash-Mieso Segment;
 5.0 km from Dengego on the Dengego-Harar Segment;
 At the Shinile Toll Plaza on the Dire Dawa-Dewelle Toll Road.
The reasons for selection of these locations for the survey is described in section 5.5
TRAFFIC COUNT RESULTS
5.7.1 TRAFFIC COMPOSITION
As described above, classified traffic volume counts at seven locations were conducted for seven days
between 30/10/2020 and 05/11/2020. The traffic counts were normally carried out for 12 hours (0600-
1800 hrs) each day. However, a 24-hour (0600-0600) count was carried out for two days at each
survey station to get an idea regarding the proportion of traffic at night during 1800 to 0600 hr. The
motorized vehicles were classified into nine categories as indicated below:
1. Cars (including taxis)
2. Utility Vehicles (4WD)
3. Small Buses
4. Large Buses
5. Small Trucks
6. Medium Truscks
7. Heavy Trucks
8. Truck-Trailers
9. Others (including construction and agricultural machineries).
The daily traffic count data are summarized in Tables 5.10 to 5.21, by vehicle category and direction
of travel for each of the survey stations.
Table 5-10: Summary of Vehicular Traffic Data By Vehicle Category at Station TC1
(Direction-1)
Adama in[ Adama Awash Section]

Day Date Cars 4WD S/Bus L/Bus S/Truck M/Truck H/Truck T&T Others Total
1 30/10/20 30 154 172 53 51 52 61 126 699
2 31/10/20 43 220 419 83 87 37 39 470 1398
3 01/11/20 41 97 60 17 280 67 25 536 1123
4 02/11/20 2 8 246 73 184 25 41 379 958
5 03/11/20 50 243 341 86 133 39 52 576 1520
6 04/11/20 24 52 81 81 137 30 18 382 805
7 05/11/20 14 168 268 53 124 37 0 735 1399
Total 204 942 1587 446 996 287 236 3204 0 7902
Average 29 135 227 64 142 41 34 458 0 1129
Night
Date Cars 4WD S/Bus L/Bus S/Truck M/Truck H/Truck T&T Others Total
30/10/20 56 306 324 80 105 41 14 476 1402
5/11/20 26 303 236 116 83 51 41 608 1464
(Direction-2)
Adama out [ Adama Awash Section]

1 30/10/20 15 148 305 124 68 52 106 341 1159
2 31/10/20 47 186 300 67 71 74 57 803 1605
3 01/11/20 17 84 59 2 154 16 9 496 837
4 02/11/20 7 15 195 40 158 23 18 543 999
5 03/11/20 30 192 335 55 152 46 50 946 1806
6 04/11/20 22 43 80 45 110 46 31 448 825
7 05/11/20 31 159 284 30 144 40 0 921 1609
Total 169 827 1558 363 857 297 271 4498 0 8840
Average 24 118 223 52 122 42 39 643 0 1263
Night
31/10/20 23 226 253 69 192 44 40 826 1673
5/11/20 26 162 198 40 87 57 37 819 1426
(Direction-1)
Awash in [ Awash - Mille]

1 30/10/20 27 281 161 29 77 45 28 567 1215
2 31/10/20 28 213 203 30 94 24 75 443 1110
3 01/11/20 25 121 174 22 82 26 22 306 778
4 02/11/20 13 161 276 46 117 42 46 387 1088
5 03/11/20 43 189 217 33 132 40 65 623 1342
6 04/11/20 1 2 53 115 260 164 99 569 1263
7 05/11/20 9 179 206 74 93 31 47 761 1400
Total 146 1146 1290 349 855 372 382 3656 0 8196
Average 21 164 184 50 122 53 55 522 0 1171
Night
2/11/20 27 63 60 27 64 72 54 140 507
4/11/20 18 124 121 61 55 34 28 343 784
(Direction-2)
Awash out [ Awash - Mille]

1 30/10/20 31 163 237 45 99 30 35 586 1226
2 31/10/20 18 147 189 25 84 37 49 624 1173
3 01/11/20 7 156 203 6 86 30 7 500 995
4 02/11/20 20 109 240 6 120 45 37 411 988
5 03/11/20 46 147 226 42 107 19 80 698 1365
6 04/11/20 0 0 58 95 221 150 74 534 1132
7 05/11/20 5 119 247 53 100 51 35 809 1419
Total 127 841 1400 272 817 362 317 4162 0 8298
Average 18 120 200 39 117 52 45 595 0 1185
Night
4/11/2020 17 46 33 15 48 40 32 203 434
5/11/2020 13 98 114 30 47 27 23 574 926

(Direction-1)
Mieso IN [Awash - Mieso]

1 30/10/20 20 76 290 33 158 28 20 350 975
2 31/10/20 7 92 160 47 78 43 34 172 633
3 01/11/20 12 139 186 51 85 45 39 282 839
4 02/11/20 14 70 108 22 69 35 50 76 444
5 03/11/20 34 70 99 15 61 31 39 95 444
6 04/11/20 9 61 240 32 291 233 148 416 1430
7 05/11/20 14 60 151 44 101 92 92 332 886
Total 110 568 1234 244 843 507 422 1723 0 5651
Average 37 189 411 81 281 169 141 574 0 1884
Night
4/11/2020 6 42 56 17 159 54 72 168 0 574
5/11/2020 1 89 103 13 5 66 29 38 0 344
(Direction-2)
Mieso OUT [Awash - Mieso]

1 30/10/20 21 56 293 31 69 23 18 320 831
2 31/10/20 7 120 173 58 82 56 54 339 889
3 01/11/20 9 141 151 35 63 41 38 363 841
4 02/11/20 3 87 97 21 43 13 48 152 464
5 03/11/20 21 65 82 18 65 32 28 222 533
6 04/11/20 4 66 237 42 354 215 220 517 1655
7 05/11/20 8 67 183 32 125 82 104 347 948
Total 73 602 1216 237 801 462 510 2260 0 6161
Average 24 201 405 79 267 154 170 753 0 2054
Night
4/11/2020 3 44 72 23 169 51 80 219 0 661
5/11/2020 1 81 89 20 51 60 59 126 0 487

(Direction-1)
Mieso IN [MIESO – ERER - DIREDAWA]

1 30/10/20 0 6 0 0 6 3 2 0 0 17
2 31/10/20 6 42 0 0 44 20 2 0 0 114
3 01/11/20 0 6 0 0 12 2 1 0 0 21
4 02/11/20 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 9
5 03/11/20 0 7 0 0 8 0 3 0 0 18
6 04/11/20 0 5 0 0 18 5 1 0 0 29
7 05/11/20 0 7 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 11
Total 6 77 0 0 96 31 9 0 0 219
Average 2 26 0 0 32 10 3 0 0 73
Night
4/11/20 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 5
5/11/20 0 10 0 0 1 10 2 0 0 23
(Direction-2)
Mieso OUT [MIESO - ERER - DIREDAWA]

1 30/10/20 0 2 0 0 4 2 1 0 0 9
2 31/10/20 3 42 0 0 42 34 2 0 0 123
3 01/11/20 0 2 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 14
4 02/11/20 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5
5 03/11/20 0 3 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 10
6 04/11/20 0 3 0 0 12 8 0 0 0 23
7 05/11/20 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 5
Total 3 56 0 0 77 47 6 0 0 189
Average 1 19 0 0 26 16 2 0 0 63

Night
4/11/20 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
5/11/20 0 6 0 0 10 16 0 0 0 32
(Direction-1)
Dengago in [Mieso - Hirna - Dengago]

1 30/10/20 15 31 706 50 206 189 175 281 1653
2 31/10/20 35 126 788 115 236 203 135 274 1912
3 01/11/20 6 96 420 44 102 75 66 353 1162
4 02/11/20 1 23 220 4 91 56 20 102 517
5 03/11/20 5 67 133 0 50 44 9 81 389
6 04/11/20 1 64 130 20 96 63 41 125 540
7 05/11/20 17 71 227 4 123 38 48 101 629
Total 80 478 2624 237 904 668 494 1317 0 6802
Average 11 68 375 34 129 95 71 188 0 972
Night
30/10/20 0 3 18 0 6 1 2 10 0 40
5/11/20 0 1 11 1 6 1 1 8 0 29
(Direction-2)
Dengago Out [Mieso - Hirna - Dengago]

1 30/10/20 21 15 662 38 189 192 164 299 1580
2 31/10/20 13 86 726 83 229 148 175 244 1704
3 01/11/20 5 115 392 34 114 56 33 140 889
4 02/11/20 2 32 224 16 74 34 25 134 541

5 03/11/20 0 71 147 4 61 34 15 148 480

6 04/11/20 5 54 155 5 80 51 28 97 475
7 05/11/20 18 58 273 2 114 37 38 107 647
Total 64 431 2579 182 861 552 478 1169 0 6316
Average 9 62 368 26 123 79 68 167 0 902
Night
31/10/20 0 1 19 1 4 1 0 14 40
5/11/20 0 5 14 0 11 2 1 16 49
(Direction-1)
HARER in [Harar - Dengago]

1 30/10/20 19 235 714 11 201 110 69 59 1418
2 31/10/20 22 243 666 18 207 113 74 59 1402
3 01/11/20 32 206 642 10 153 41 39 37 1160
4 02/11/20 4 29 101 0 59 27 18 48 286
5 03/11/20 4 74 96 0 56 45 15 44 334
6 04/11/20 7 38 146 6 70 66 22 80 435
7 05/11/20 32 99 581 0 124 61 37 48 982
Total 120 924 2946 45 870 463 274 375 0 6017
Average 17 132 421 6 124 66 39 54 0 860
Night
30/10/20 0 7 14 2 8 2 0 10 0 43
5/11/20 1 11 16 0 23 7 2 19 0 79
(Direction-2)
HARER Out [Harar - Dengago]

1 30/10/20 27 192 653 19 155 92 65 50 1253
2 31/10/20 19 222 663 30 161 105 74 54 1328
3 01/11/20 31 193 598 8 153 36 56 42 1117
4 02/11/20 3 32 87 5 63 22 13 33 258
5 03/11/20 4 87 78 4 70 29 19 45 336
6 04/11/20 5 33 166 7 57 71 42 74 455
7 05/11/20 34 72 549 9 133 56 38 82 973
Total 123 831 2794 82 792 411 307 380 0 5720
Average 18 119 399 12 113 59 44 54 0 817
Night
31/10/20 0 5 16 0 10 1 1 6 39
5/11/20 0 5 13 2 9 4 2 10 45
5.7.2 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) CALCULATION

As described in the previous section, the traffic counts were conducted for 12 hours for 5-days and
24-hours for 2-days. Therefore, the 12-hrs traffic count data has to be converted into an equivalent 24-
hour traffic data using the night factors. The night factor is determined by dividing the average 2-days
24-hours data with the average 2-days daytime traffic data. Then, the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is
determined by multiplying the average 5-days daytime traffic with the night factor. The ADT
calculations for the differer road sections are shown in Tables 5.22 to 5.28. For the Adama-Awash and
Awash-Mille segments, the calculated night factors based on the traffic count data were slightly on
the high end compared to previous experience on the routes. Therefore, the night factor values of
Awash-Mieso, which were reasonable based on experience, have been adopted for the two segments.
Table 5-22:. ADT Calculation for survey station TC1 (Adama-Awash)
Adama - Awash
Time (1 hour
Cars 4WD S/Bus L/Bus S/Truck M/Truck H/Truck T&T Others Total
Interval)
Average 2-day
45 314.5 514.5 130 193.5 90.5 83.5 1061.5 2433
counts
Average 2-night
66 499 506 153 234 97 66 1365 2983
count
Average 24-hours
111 813 1020 283 427 187 150 2426 5416
2 days count

Night Factor
(Calculated) 2.5 2.6 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.8 2.3
Night factor
1.3 2.0 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3
(Adopted)
Average 5 days
57 228 423 110 293 81 68 1116 2375
count
ADT 74 458 590 163 422 111 97 1497 3413
% 1.4 8.7 11.2 3.1 8.0 2.1 1.8 28.3 125.8
Table 5-23: ADT Calculation for survey station TC2 (Awash – Mille)
Awash - Mille
Time (1 hour
Cars 4WD S/Bus L/Bus S/Truck M/Truck H/Truck T&T Others Total
Interval)
Average 2-day
17 136 314 131 359 201 128 951 2236
counts
Average 2-night
38 166 164 67 107 87 69 630 1326
count
Average 24-hours 2
55 302 478 198 466 287 197 1581 3561
days count
Night Factor
(Calculated)
3.2 2.2 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7
Night factor
1.3 2.0 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3
(Adopted)
Average 5 days
48 343 413 72 191 67 89 1183 2405
count
ADT 63 689 575 107 275 91 126 1588 3514
% 1.5 16.8 14.0 2.6 6.7 2.2 3.1 38.8 0.0 85.8
Table 5-24:. ADT Calculation for survey station TC3 (Awash – Mieso)
Awash - Mieso
Time(hourly T&
Cars 4WD S/Bus L/Bus S/Truck M/Truck H/Truck Others Total
Interval T
Average
18 127 406 75 436 311 282 806 2460
2days count
Average 2
6 128 160 37 192 116 120 276 0 1033
night count
Average24
hours 2 days 23 255 566 112 628 427 402 1082 0 3493
count
Night factor 1.3 2.0 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3
Average 5
30 183 328 66 155 69 74 474 1379
days count
ADT 39 368 457 98 223 95 105 636 2021

% 1.9 18.2 22.6 4.9 11.0 4.7 5.2 31.5 100.0
Table 5-25:. ADT Calculation for survey station TC4 (Mieso – Erer – Dire Dawa)
Meiso – Erer- Diredawa

Time(hourly T&
Cars 4WD S/Bus L/Bus S/Truck M/Truck H/Truck Others Total
Interval T
Average
0 9 0 0 18 8 1 0 34
2days count
Average 2
0 9 1 0 6 15 1 0 0 31
night count
Average24
hours 2 days 0 17 1 0 24 22 2 0 0 65
count
Night factor 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.9 3.0 0.0
Average 5
2 23 0 0 28 13 3 0 68
days count
ADT 0 46 0 0 37 37 8 0 129
% 0.0 36.0 0.0 0.0 28.7 28.7 6.5 0.0 0.0 100
Table 5-26: ADT Calculation for survey station TC5 (Mieso – Dengago)
MEISO - DENGEGO
Time( an
T&
hour Cars 4WD S/Bus L/Bus S/Truck M/Truck H/Truck Others Total
T
Interval
Average
36 88 934 47 316 228 213 394 2255
2days count
Average 2
0 5 31 1 14 3 2 24 79
night count
Average24
hours 2 days 36 93 965 48 330 231 215 418 2334
count
Night factor 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1

Average 5
15 147 667 65 227 153 109 340 1722
days count
ADT 15 155 689 66 236 154 110 360 1787
% 0.8 8.7 38.6 3.7 13.2 8.6 6.2 20.2 0.0 100.0
Table 5-27: ADT Calculation for survey station TC6 (Harar – Dengago)
Harar - Dengego
Time( an
T&
hour Cars 4WD S/Bus L/Bus S/Truck M/Truck H/Truck Others Total
T
Interval
Average
56 299 1249 20 307 160 105 120 2313
2days count
Average 2
1 14 30 2 25 7 3 23 103
night count
Average24
hours 2 days 57 313 1278 22 332 167 107 142 2416
count
Night factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.2
Average 5
26 231 649 18 210 111 74 103 1422
days count
ADT 26 242 664 19 227 116 76 123 1494
% 1.8 16.2 44.4 1.3 15.2 7.8 5.1 8.2 0.0 100.0
Table 5-28: ADT Calculation for survey station TC7 (Dire Dawa – Dewelle)
Dire Dawa - Dewelle

Day Car 4WD S/Bus L/Bus S/Truck M/Truck H/Truck T&T
1 20 114 46 58 86 171 53 479
2 21 121 49 60 96 171 62 427
3 23 136 51 68 117 189 48 516
4 22 127 39 28 95 46 22 396
5 28 161 65 99 142 297 21 519
6 20 117 45 42 94 102 26 389
7 18 103 51 47 94 121 59 506

Dire Dawa - Dewelle

8 20 119 54 51 101 134 41 552
9 16 94 26 25 58 60 4 229
10 32 184 55 41 99 94 23 523
11 24 137 44 29 90 53 28 486
12 19 112 35 53 85 154 11 416
13 24 142 50 61 104 172 21 356
14 23 135 40 63 88 190 32 482
15 23 132 41 57 88 165 38 554
16 22 131 41 62 105 172 22 598
17 24 139 41 52 119 122 14 661
18 19 114 41 36 94 78 24 544
19 19 112 42 48 93 127 30 474
20 22 127 46 49 122 110 22 521
21 18 106 30 51 98 135 47 728
22 20 120 50 41 88 102 90 766
23 15 86 30 48 102 119 54 775
24 18 107 36 48 99 120 69 729
25 16 93 39 27 84 49 52 768
26 15 85 39 45 85 121 64 648
27 18 102 25 41 99 95 63 616
28 18 107 40 55 112 140 56 699
29 15 89 29 47 116 106 59 599
30 17 98 24 43 111 95 39 632
ADT 20 118 41 49 99 127 40 553
ORIGIN-DESTINATION SURVEY RESULTS

In order to establish the movement pattern on the project road, roadside interviews with vehicle
drivers/crew were conducted. Trip lengths (distance travelled), vehicle type, axle configuration,
capacity, volume of load, trip purpose, occupancy and commodity type, etc have been collected for
two days at each of the selected four OD survey locations. The total sample size for the OD survey at
all of the survey locations was 3,385.

5.8.1 O/D ZONES

Based on the results of the OD survey data, the different origins and destinations were grouped into a
zoning system, in such a way that captures the travel patterns between the major traffic generation and
attraction points in the project vicinity and beyond. Accordingly, the following 11 zones (Table 5.29)
were defined, to reasonably distinguish the travel patterns.
Table 5-29: Zoning Scheme for OD Analysis
Zone Included Production & Attraction Points

1 Addis Ababa, Adama, Modjo, Bishoftu, other cities and towns in the Western, North-
Western, and Southern parts of the Country accessing the project area via Adama
2 Towns along and adjacent to the Awash-Mille road segment between Awash and Gewane
3 Towns/cities between Awash and Mieso, including those along the Mieso-Asebe Teferi
area.
4 Intermediate town/cities along and adjacent to the existing Mieso-Erer-Dire Dawa segment
(excluding the Mieso and Dire Dawa)
5 Attraction/Production centers along the Dire Dawa-Shinile-Dewelle road
6 Djibouti, Tajura
7 Semera, Mille, Asayita, and other cities/towns adjacent to the route to Djibouti beyond the
junction to Dessie route
8 Dessie, Kombolcha, Alamata, Mekelle, and other areas accessible via this route
9 Towns like Mechara, Bedesa, Gelemso, that are accessible via the road joining the Mieso-
Asebe Teferi-Dengego route at Arba Reketi
10 Haramaya, Harar, Jigjiga and other locations along that route/region
11 Hirna, Kulubi, Boreda, Karamile, Kobo and other towns along the Arba Reketi to Dengego
segment.
5.8.2 O/D MATRIX

An O/D Matrix provides a picture of existing spatial pattern of travel in the study area. Its main
purpose is as input to an assignment model with an aim to predict future traffic flows on road
network. Tables 5.30 to 5.33 show the partial OD matrix of vehicles for the four survey locations of
Awash, Mieso, Dire Dawa and Dengago. The OD pairs with very low counts (< 3 vehicles) have been
intentionally removed, hence partial matrix, to make the table fit to page. However, all OD matrix
values have been used in the calculation of traffic diversions. Similarly, Tables 5.34 to 5.37 show the
partial OD matrix of willingness to use results for the four survey locations. The summarized O/D
Matrix based on the aforementioned zonal scheme is also shown in Table 5.38. These findings will be
utilized in subsequent sections for the determination of diverted traffic.

Table 5-30: Partial OD Matrix Results for Awash Survey Location

Vehicle destination
Addis Gebre Grand
Adama Ababa Asela Derba Dukem Fincha Guracha Ginir Holeta Jimma Kuyu Metehara Modjo Mugher Awash 07 Awash 08 Awash 40 Gewane Werer Chiro Kebena Dire Dawa Koisha Djibouti Logiya Mille Semera Dessie Mekelle Woldiya Harar Total
Adama 5 1 1 7
Addis Ababa 1 3 1 225 11 1 26 19 296
Dukem 1 1 2 4
Modjo 105 1 106
Awash 07 82 5 8 5 5 1 3 113
Awash 08 3 2 6
Awash 40 3 1 69 73
Vehicle Origin
Awash 40 1 14 15
Gewane 1 1 7 2 1 13
Werer 1 4 7 1 1 14
Kebena 2 1 1 1 5
Kesem 1 3 5 9
Dire Dawa 2 1 3 3 3 13
Djibouti 55 327 5 25 24 85 7 4 19 5 20 4 214 17 5 1 4 5 2 1 4 903
Logiya 14 1 2 18
Semera 3 27 3 1 1 36
Adigrat 4 4
Mekelle 13 1 1 15
Grand Total 59 408 5 25 24 85 7 4 19 5 20 10 214 17 110 5 92 12 9 5 6 7 4 345 19 5 31 6 31 5 4 1687
Table 5-31: Partial OD Matrix Results for Mieso Survey Location

Vehicle destination
adama addis ababa asebe awash bedesa chiro Dijibouti diredawa fiche hirna jigjiga kulibe mieso Modjo Grand Total
adama 6 5 14 42 28 4 3 103
addis ababa 1 58 28 8 102
asebe 7 7 14
awash 1 95 16 1 2 17 132
boko 11 4 15
Vehicle Origin
chiro 12 2 56 2 97 169
Dijibouti 46 72 1 4 2 25 189
diredawa 28 42 26 1 102
harer 5 6 1 1 13
hirna 6 1 1 2 2 12
jigjiga 8 8
mieso 2 2 6 145 1 1 2 160
Modjo 1 78 1 86
Grand Total 124 133 9 101 5 263 190 77 4 7 13 4 119 27 1129
Table 5-32: Partial OD Matrix Results for Dire Dawa Survey Location

Vehicle destination
adama Addis Ababa awash Ayshada dewele Dijibouti dire dawa Dukem fiche harer jimma modjo sebeta Grand Total
adama 2 2
Addis Ababa 35 35
Ayshada 2 2
Vehicle Origin
dewele 8 3 11
Djibouti 17 46 2 1 3 5 2 7 2 11 3 108
dire dawa 4 11 12 28
dukem 3 3
harer 2 3 5
jimma 2 2
modjo 3 3
Grand Total 17 46 2 4 14 51 13 5 2 10 2 11 3 201
Table 5-33: Partial OD Matrix Results for Dengago Survey Location

Vehicle destination
adama Addis Ababa asebe awash aysha chiro dewele Djibouti dire dawa Dukem haremaya harer hawasa hirna jigjiga kara mile kersa kobo kulibe Modjo Grand Total
adama 2 9 3 14
Addis Ababa 3 1 50 16 70
awaday 1 1 2
chiro 2 5 7
Dijibouti 7 8 15
diredawa 1 1 38 2 42
Vehicle Origin
haremaya 2 2 7 4 15
harer 12 35 2 5 6 1 1 45 2 2 8 2 3 1 4 129
hirna 1 10 2 13
jigjiga 3 5 4 5 1 18
kara mile 3 6 9
kersa 1 4 5
kobo 13 13
kulbi 1 1 2
modjo 7 1 8
Grand Total 17 43 2 5 1 7 2 5 65 2 6 154 1 2 33 8 6 3 1 4 368
Table 5-34: Partial Willingness to Use Results for the Awash Survey Location

Addis Gebre Grand

Adama Ababa Awash 07 Awash 08 Awash 40 Chiro Derba Dessie Dire Dawa Djibouti Dukem Fincha Guracha Gewane Ginir Harar Holeta Jimma Kebena Koisha Kuyu Logiya Mekelle Mille Modjo Mugher Semera Werer Woldiya Total
Adama 5 1 1 7
Addis Ababa 1 3 212 1 11 19 1 26 283
Adigrat 4 4
Awash 07 82 5 5 5 1 3 8 113
Awash 08 3 2 6
Awash 40 4 83 88
Dire Dawa 3 2 1 3 2 12
Vehicle Origin
Djibouti 51 307 5 23 2 1 5 23 80 6 4 4 19 5 4 20 1 210 17 864

Dukem 1 1 2 4
Gewane 1 7 2 1 13
Kebena 2 1 1 1 5
Kesem 1 3 5 9
Logiya 14 1 2 18
Mekelle 13 1 1 15
Modjo 99 1 100
Semera 3 28 3 1 1 37
Werer 1 7 1 1 14
Grand Total 55 389 110 5 92 5 23 6 7 326 23 80 6 12 4 4 19 5 6 4 20 19 31 5 210 17 31 9 4 1629
Table 5-35: Partial Willingness to Use Results for the Mieso Survey Location

Vehicle destination
adama addis ababa asebe awash bedesa chiro Djibouti dire dawa fiche hirna jigjiga kulibe mieso modjo Grand Total
adama 4 5 14 42 28 4 3 101
addis ababa 1 60 28 8 102
asebe 4 4
awash 4 99 10 2 2 6 119
boko 11 4 15
Vehicle Origin
chiro 6 29 2 97 134
Djibouti 46 72 1 4 2 25 189
dire dawa 17 18 25 1 65
harer 5 6 1 1 13
hirna 5 1 1 7
jigjiga 8 8
mieso 1 2 3 144 1 2 153
modjo 1 84 1 86
Grand Total 98 107 6 67 5 262 189 70 4 7 13 4 106 25 1014
Table 5-36: Partial Willingness to Use Results for the Dengago Survey Location

Vehicle destination
adama Addis Ababa awash chiro Dijibouti dire dawa haremaya harer jigjiga kara mile kersa kobo modjo Grand Total
adama 2 9 3 14
Addis Ababa 3 1 50 16 70
arbamich 1 1
asela 1 1
awaday 1 2
awash 1 1
chelenko 1 1
Vehicle Origin
chiro 2 5 7
Dijibouti 7 8 15
dire dawa 1 38 2 42
haremaya 2 2 7 4 15
harer 11 35 5 6 1 45 8 2 3 4 128
hirna 1 10 2 13
jigjiga 3 5 4 5 18
kara mile 3 6 9
kersa 1 3 4
modjo 7 1 8
Grand Total 16 43 5 7 5 66 6 141 33 8 6 3 4 354

Table 5-37: Partial Willingness to Use Results for the Dire Dawa Survey Location
Vehicle destination
adama Addis Ababa asela awash Ayshada dewele Djibouti dirdawa Dukem fiche harer modjo sebeta Grand Total
adama 2 2
Addis Ababa 35 35
Ayshada 2 2
dewele 8 3 11
Vehicle Origin
Djibouti 17 46 1 2 1 3 5 2 7 11 3 107
dire dawa 4 10 12 27
dukem 3 3
harer 2 3 5
hawassa 1 1
jimma 2 2
modjo 3 3
Grand Total 17 46 1 2 4 13 62 13 5 2 10 11 3 199

Table 5-38: Summarized OD Matrix for all vehicle types and survey locations
Destination Zone
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
1 0 4 140 0 80 572 46 35 7 105 9 998
2 13 205 8 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 238
3 96 14 246 0 2 2 0 0 0 5 4 369
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Origin Zone
5 97 0 1 0 26 14 5 10 0 46 0 199
6 1,163 0 8 0 9 5 0 3 0 29 2 1,219
7 51 6 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 64
8 22 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
9 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
10 96 0 8 0 63 9 1 1 0 14 20 212
11 9 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 41
Total 1,566 230 416 0 188 602 65 49 7 227 35 3,385
SEASONAL VARIATION IN TRAFFIC FLOWS

The traffic data used to determine the ADTs shown in previous sections were determined through a
seven days count during October/November 2020. The project road traffic, however, is susceptible to
seasonal variations, particularly those caused by the seasonality of the climate and agricultural
activities in the project area. For assessing the seasonal variations of traffic flow along the project
road, ERA’s past-classified traffic count data for the project road under study was obtained and
analyzed to determine the seasonal variation factors. The traffic surveys were carried out by ERA
thrice a year with the timings:
 January/February (Cycle 1);
 June-July (Cycle 2);
 October/November (Cycle 3).
Since the consultant’s traffic count was conducted in Oct/Nov of 2019, which falls in the ERA cycle,
the seasonal variation for the third cycle was calculated by dividing the Annual Average AADT
values for the 2013 to 2019 period with the annual average of the 3rd cycle for the same period. Tables
5.39 to 5.46 show the calculation of the seasonal variation factors for each of the road segments.

Table 5-39: Analysis of Seasonal Variation of Traffic for Adama-Awash Segment

Land Small Large Small Mediu Heavy Truck
Year Cycle Car Rover Bus Bus Truck m Truck Trailer Total
Truck
Cycle 1 465 607 782 515 498 852 849 1,422 5990
Cycle 2 258 463 610 195 549 883 1,037 1,374 5369
2013
Cycle 3 82 497 652 591 533 812 865 1,636 5668
Average 268 522 681 434 527 849 917 1477 5676
Cycle 1 24 106 223 99 144 156 370 1,018 2140
Cycle 2 441 975 1,159 566 575 1,388 1,256 1,703 8063
2014
Cycle 3 522 1,007 1,176 600 709 1,496 1,412 1,928 8850
Average 329 696 853 422 476 1013 1013 1550 6351
Cycle 1 530 903 1,095 887 932 1,412 1,515 1,799 9073
Cycle 2 295 446 1,024 421 532 1,145 1,154 1,607 6624
2015
Cycle 3 189 705 811 550 741 981 1,315 1,737 7029
Average 338 685 977 619 735 1179 1328 1714 7575
Cycle 1 499 712 875 616 832 1,204 1,221 1,624 7583
Cycle 2 499 712 875 616 832 1,204 1,221 1,624 7583
2016
Cycle 3 499 712 875 616 832 1,204 1,221 1,624 7583
Average 499 712 875 616 832 1204 1221 1624 7583
Cycle 1 610 898 1,114 663 691 1,310 920 1,641 7847
Cycle 2 893 959 1,141 1,167 1,194 1,291 1,170 1,624 9439
2017
Cycle 3 370 436 478 434 412 731 814 2,120 5795
Average 624 764 911 755 766 1111 968 1795 7694
Cycle 1 314 433 1,149 557 572 1,344 1,488 1,782 7639
Cycle 2
2018
Cycle 3 218 432 769 599 582 1,087 1,022 1,411 6120
Average 266 433 959 578 577 1216 1255 1597 6880
Cycle 1 362 468 1,155 708 903 1,408 1,499 1,581 8084
Cycle 2 521 519 694 615 544 633 679 810 5015
2019
Cycle 3 420 685 1,102 896 1,011 1,269 1,554 1,982 8919
Average 434 557 984 740 819 1103 1244 1458 7339
Third Cycle
329 639 838 612 689 1083 1172 1777 7138
Average
Yearly Average 394 624 891 595 676 1096 1135 1602 7014
Seasonal
1.20 0.98 1.06 0.97 0.98 1.01 0.97 0.90 0.98
Factors

Table 5-40: Analysis of Seasonal Variation of Traffic for Awash-Mieso Segment


Year Cycle Car
Total
Cycle 1 17 166 233 73 128 149 44 152 962

Cycle 2 23 143 193 88 44 168 209 187 1055
2013
Cycle 3 35 159 185 56 350 196 131 294 1406
Average 25 156 204 72 174 171 128 211 1141
Cycle 1 27 212 210 114 65 147 174 141 1090
Cycle 2 10 91 275 129 102 194 134 204 1139
2014
Cycle 3 11 79 125 31 88 140 98 82 654
Average 16 127 203 91 85 160 135 142 961
Cycle 1 33 268 258 92 202 169 151 151 1324
Cycle 2 34 243 252 88 171 158 124 111 1181
2015
Cycle 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Average 22 170 170 60 124 109 92 87 835
Cycle 1 24 93 127 68 82 100 52 80 626
Cycle 2 24 93 127 68 82 100 52 80 626
2016
Cycle 3 24 93 127 68 82 100 52 80 626
Average 24 93 127 68 82 100 52 80 626
Cycle 1 25 122 217 125 189 200 212 168 1258
Cycle 2 30 117 156 102 134 136 71 100 846
2017
Cycle 3 22 74 101 51 77 115 137 224 801
Average 26 104 158 93 133 150 140 164 968
Cycle 1 48 90 142 70 129 141 73 336 1029
Cycle 2
2018
Cycle 3 65 205 242 73 289 203 55 2,052 3184
Average 57 148 192 72 209 172 64 1194 2107
Cycle 1 61 159 246 189 165 263 71 936 2090
Cycle 2 22 262 587 139 314 532 834 1,235 3925
2019
Cycle 3 136 357 506 340 833 1,051 1,492 1,734 6449
Average 73 259 446 223 437 615 799 1302 4155
Third Cycle
Average 42 138 184 88 246 258 281 638 1874
Yearly
Average 35 151 214 97 178 211 201 454 1542
Seasonal
Factors 0.83 1.09 1.17 1.10 0.72 0.82 0.72 0.71 0.82

Table 5-41: Analysis of Seasonal Variation of Traffic for Awash-Mille Segment

Year Cycle Car
Total
Cycle 1 27 171 431 17 135 176 58 1,122 2137

Cycle 2 11 84 145 14 102 134 249 1,513 2252
2013
Cycle 3 14 109 102 17 156 143 129 1,309 1979
Average 17 121 226 16 131 151 145 1315 2123
Cycle 1 12 91 157 21 141 152 332 1,891 2797
Cycle 2 11 60 71 20 61 48 49 1,234 1554
2014
Cycle 3 8 99 120 11 73 100 311 1,227 1949
Average 10 83 116 17 92 100 231 1451 2100
Cycle 1 21 110 147 8 102 289 861 871 2409
Cycle 2 12 86 206 40 122 136 149 2,118 2869
2015
Cycle 3 11 62 106 21 78 76 74 2,086 2514
Average 15 86 153 23 101 167 361 1692 2597
Cycle 1 17 101 176 34 96 103 103 2,236 2866
Cycle 2 17 101 176 34 96 103 103 2,236 2866
2016
Cycle 3 17 101 176 34 96 103 103 2,236 2866
Average 17 101 176 34 96 103 103 2236 2866
Cycle 1 9 176 170 13 58 103 121 1,551 2201
Cycle 2 21 470 650 36 497 124 117 2,003 3918
2017
Cycle 3 25 255 354 43 238 136 119 1,406 2576
Average 18 300 391 31 264 121 119 1653 2898
Cycle 1 38 95 155 67 142 138 108 1452 2195
Cycle 2
2018
Cycle 3 66 199 399 119 331 237 150 2045 3546
Average 52 147 277 93 237 188 129 1749 2871
Cycle 1 64 224 326 96 232 225 142 2185 3494
Cycle 2 22 262 587 139 314 532 834 1235 3925
2019
Cycle 3 145 251 336 268 780 926 1460 1969 6135
Average 77 246 416 168 442 561 812 1796 4518
Third
Cycle
Average 41 154 228 73 250 246 335 1754 3081
Yearly
Average 30 155 251 55 195 199 271 1699 2853
Seasonal
0.72 1.01 1.10 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.81 0.97
Factors

Table 5-42: Analysis of Seasonal Variation of Traffic for Mieso-Erer Segment

Year Car Total
Cycle Rover Bus Bus Truck Truck Truck Trailer
Cycle 1 0 64 1 0 19 29 49 1 163
Cycle 2 0 25 7 0 14 26 47 1 120
2013 0 79 0 0 17 91 99 0
Cycle 3 286
Average 0 56 3 0 17 49 65 1 190
Cycle 1 0 3 0 0 2 9 8 0 22
Cycle 2 0 44 59 1 48 76 46 8 282
2014 3 40 58 1 57 51 62 13
Cycle 3 285
Average 1 29 39 1 36 45 39 7 196
Cycle 1 4 98 82 14 90 75 78 46 487
Cycle 2 2 68 58 5 78 57 53 62 383
2015 1 43 50 3 41 42 31 86
Cycle 3 297
Average 2 70 63 7 70 58 54 65 389
Cycle 1 2 21 14 1 30 38 41 13 160
Cycle 2 2 21 14 1 30 38 41 13 160
2016 2 21 14 1 30 38 41 13
Cycle 3 160
Average 2 21 14 1 30 38 41 13 160
Cycle 1 0 22 12 2 31 25 33 9 134
Cycle 2 1 11 7 4 21 21 14 7 86
2017 0 7 3 1 9 5 8 2
Cycle 3 35
Average 0 13 7 2 20 17 18 6 85
Cycle 1 0 5 1 0 7 8 8 7 36
Cycle 2
2018 0 23 5 0 12 11 8 8
Cycle 3 67
Average 0 14 3 0 10 10 8 8 52
Cycle 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cycle 2 0 21 3 0 22 7 10 1 64
2019 0 13 5 0 19 24 32 0
Cycle 3 93
Average 0 11 3 0 14 10 14 0 52
Third
Cycle
Average 1 32 19 1 26 37 40 17 175
Yearly
Average 1 31 19 2 28 32 34 14 161
Seasonal
Factors 0.94 0.95 0.98 1.89 1.06 0.87 0.85 0.81 0.92

Table 5-43: Analysis of Seasonal Variation of Traffic for Mieso –Asebe Teferi – Dengago
Segment


Year Cycle Car Rover Bus Bus Truck Truck Truck Trailer Total
Cycle 1 41 74 405 68 79 107 115 151 1040

Cycle 2 24 108 531 51 146 133 99 115 1207
2013
Cycle 3 25 109 667 38 225 167 123 78 1432
Average 30 97 534 52 150 136 112 115 1226
Cycle 1 24 185 751 54 336 253 103 117 1823
Cycle 2 14 125 554 37 238 196 89 113 1366
2014
Cycle 3 31 176 600 32 408 279 153 134 1813
Average 23 162 635 41 327 243 115 121 1667
Cycle 1 29 133 418 37 390 265 200 279 1751
Cycle 2 27 132 266 68 190 110 69 149 1011
2015
Cycle 3 28 120 499 90 135 264 216 204 1556
Average 28 128 394 65 238 213 162 211 1439
Cycle 1 32 162 398 101 214 134 137 145 1323
Cycle 2 32 162 398 101 214 134 137 145 1323
2016
Cycle 3 32 162 398 101 214 134 137 145 1323
Average 32 162 398 101 214 134 137 145 1323
Cycle 1 29 371 462 106 429 161 232 226 2016
Cycle 2 69 360 618 171 237 1,004 888 602 3949
2017
Cycle 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Average 33 244 360 92 222 388 373 276 1988
Cycle 1 67 280 547 139 225 291 183 914 2646
Cycle 2
2018
Cycle 3 103 633 777 138 241 915 991 1414 5212
Average 85 457 662 139 233 603 587 1164 3929
Cycle 1 62 429 642 101 307 658 602 915 3716
Cycle 2 75 579 695 194 333 957 906 1438 5177
2019
Cycle 3 90 588 690 118 383 1021 876 1320 5086
Average 76 532 676 138 341 879 795 1224 4660
Third
Cycle
Average 44 255 519 74 229 397 357 471 2346
Yearly
Average 44 255 523 90 247 371 326 465 2319
Seasonal
0.99 1.00 1.01 1.21 1.07 0.93 0.91 0.99
Factors

Table 5-44: Analysis of Seasonal Variation of Traffic for Dengego - Harar Segment
Year Cycle Car Rover Bus Bus Truck Truck Truck Trailer Total
Cycle 1 50 95 504 77 104 110 114 126 1180

Cycle 2 30 181 658 45 185 137 138 109 1483
2013
Cycle 3 52 285 845 32 306 269 176 88 2053
Average 44 187 669 51 198 172 143 108 1572
Cycle 1 21 249 860 33 247 184 150 140 1884
Cycle 2 19 195 632 23 165 135 144 134 1447
2014
Cycle 3 73 288 799 27 388 218 253 128 2174
Average 38 244 764 28 267 179 182 134 1835
Cycle 1 47 171 492 21 466 358 207 210 1972
Cycle 2 62 256 650 69 580 458 474 317 2866
2015
Cycle 3 24 100 420 58 167 271 240 166 1446
Average 44 176 521 49 404 362 307 231 2095
Cycle 1 52 211 498 89 234 158 159 121 1522
Cycle 2 52 211 498 89 234 158 159 121 1522
2016
Cycle 3 52 211 498 89 234 158 159 121 1522
Average 52 211 498 89 234 158 159 121 1522
Cycle 1 72 499 733 115 556 501 271 211 2958
Cycle 2 80 468 801 174 245 1,087 966 524 4345
2017
Cycle 3 57 490 824 106 250 837 599 562 3725
Average 70 486 786 132 350 808 612 432 3676
Cycle 1 66 189 595 144 185 347 207 536 2269
Cycle 2
2018
Cycle 3 99 673 844 145 255 810 868 629 4323
Average 83 431 720 145 220 579 538 583 3296
Cycle 1 65 450 668 84 266 684 573 378 3168
Cycle 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019
Cycle 3 139 646 769 111 397 1054 757 401 4274
Average 68 365 479 65 221 579 443 260 2481
Third
Cycle
Average 71 385 714 81 285 517 436 299 2788
Yearly
Average 57 300 634 80 271 405 341 267 2354
Seasonal
0.80 0.78 0.89 0.98 0.95 0.78 0.78 0.89
Factors

Table 5-45: Analysis of Seasonal Variation of Traffic for Dengego – Dire Dawa Segment
Year Cycle Car Total
Cycle 1 44 98 488 97 102 105 121 145 1200
Cycle 2 16 176 797 37 156 123 113 118 1536
2013
Cycle 3 17 125 784 19 138 99 155 102 1439
Average 26 133 690 51 132 109 130 122 1392
Cycle 1 13 175 797 40 169 163 200 223 1780
Cycle 2 11 172 675 20 131 123 205 222 1559
2014
Cycle 3 26 201 658 16 263 189 192 169 1714
Average 17 183 710 25 188 158 199 205 1684
Cycle 1 43 179 450 21 398 278 235 292 1896
Cycle 2 37 206 581 44 569 374 451 334 2596
2015
Cycle 3 37 168 634 106 252 318 308 233 2056
Average 39 184 555 57 406 323 331 286 2183
Cycle 1 56 232 481 89 346 153 185 147 1689
Cycle 2 56 232 481 89 346 153 185 147 1689
2016
Cycle 3 56 232 481 89 346 153 185 147 1689
Average 56 232 481 89 346 153 185 147 1689
Cycle 1 59 453 576 107 444 175 286 265 2365
Cycle 2 120 470 930 164 573 1,254 723 951 5185
2017
Cycle 3 54 589 873 119 200 1,006 818 1,269 4928
Average 78 504 793 130 406 812 609 828 4159
Cycle 1 56 152 588 92 157 209 136 546 1936
Cycle 2
2018
Cycle 3 130 533 914 118 494 928 800 1540 5457
Average 93 343 751 105 326 569 468 1043 3697
Third Cycle
Average 53 308 724 78 282 449 410 577 2881
Yearly
Average 51 263 663 76 301 354 320 439 2467
Seasonal
0.96 0.85 0.92 0.98 1.07 0.79 0.78 0.76 0.86
Factors

Table 5-46: Analysis of Seasonal Variation of Traffic for Dire Dawa – Dewelle Segment

Year Cycle Car
Total
Cycle 1 0 87 16 8 94 77 20 85 387
Cycle 2 0 60 9 12 35 52 16 84 268
2013
Cycle 3 25 50 57 58 122 123 136 126 697
Average 8 66 27 26 84 84 57 98 451
Cycle 1 0 111 15 11 36 27 9 30 239
Cycle 2 21 60 39 59 124 121 143 73 640
2014
Cycle 3 0 55 11 10 41 14 5 19 155
Average 7 75 22 27 67 54 52 41 345
Cycle 1 21 60 39 59 124 121 143 73 640
Cycle 2 0 135 14 10 54 32 21 29 295
2015
Cycle 3 35 92 77 59 188 191 198 199 1039
Average 19 96 43 43 122 115 121 100 658
Cycle 1 6 79 13 11 73 36 31 35 284
Cycle 2 6 79 13 11 73 36 31 35 284
2016
Cycle 3 6 79 13 11 73 36 31 35 284
Average 6 79 13 11 73 36 31 35 284
Cycle 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 Cycle 2 0 75 10 7 49 32 7 14 194
Cycle 3 22 83 44 27 131 147 189 37 680
Average 7 53 18 11 60 60 65 17 291
Third
Cycle
Average 18 72 40 33 111 102 112 83 571
Yearly
Average 9 74 25 24 81 70 65 58 406
Seasonal
Factors 0.54 1.03 0.61 0.71 0.73 0.68 0.58 0.70 0.71
ESTIMATION OF PROJECT ROAD AADT

5.10.1 NORMAL TRAFFIC
This represents the traffic, which would in any event occur if no improvement is made. The base year
for traffic projection is 2020, on which study traffic surveys and baseline data have been based. The

normal traffic has been projected for the estimated opening year of 2026 for the project road as
follows:
- The 2020 AADT was determined by applying the seasonal factors to the 2020 ADT,
- The AADT between 2021 to 2026 were then calculated by applying the opening year Traffic
Growth Factor to the 2020 AADT as follows:
AADTi+1 = AADTi (1 + GF/100),
- For the opening year growth factors, the consultant opted to use own estimates instead of
growth rates determined from ERA historic traffic data because those values have shown
significant variations as shown in prior sections of this report and may significantly
overestimate the opening year traffic. Therefore, the consultant has opted to adopt the traffic
growth rates from the medium growth scenario which is described in section 5.11 of this
report.
Accordingly, the calculated normal traffic on the project and adjacent routes between 2020 and 2026
are shown in Tables 5.47 to 5.51.
Table 5-47: Projected AADT for the Opening Year for Awash - Mieso Segment
Awash - Mieso
Attribute Cars 4WD S/Bus L/Bus S/Truck M/Truck H/Truck T&T Total
ADT (2020) 39 368 457 98 223 95 105 636 2,021
% of Total ADT 1.9 18.2 22.6 4.9 11.0 4.7 5.2 31.5 100
Seasonal factors 1.23 1.61 1.60 1.87 1.00 1.25 1.31 1.01
AADT 2020 48 591 732 184 223 119 137 641 2,676
Opening year GF 11.9 11.9 12.7 12.7 10.2 10.2 10.2 9.4
AADT 2021 53 662 825 207 246 131 151 701 2,977
AADT 2022 60 741 930 233 271 145 167 766 3,313
AADT 2023 67 829 1,048 263 299 160 184 838 3,687
AADT 2024 75 928 1,181 296 329 176 202 916 4,103
AADT 2025 84 1,038 1,330 334 363 194 223 1,002 4,568
AADT 2026 94 1,162 1,499 376 400 214 246 1,095 5,086
Table 5-48: Projected AADT for the Opening Year for Adama – Awash Segment
Adama - Awash
ADT (2020) 74 458 590 163 422 111 97 1497 3413
% of Total ADT 2.2 13.4 17.3 4.8 12.4 3.2 2.8 43.9 100.0
AADT 2020 91 736 946 305 424 139 127 1507 4274
Opening year GF 11.9 11.9 12.7 12.7 10.2 10.2 10.2 9.4

AADT 2021 102 824 1,066 343 467 153 140 1,648 4,742
AADT 2022 114 922 1,201 387 514 168 154 1,803 5,263
AADT 2023 128 1,032 1,353 436 567 185 170 1,971 5,841
AADT 2024 143 1,155 1,524 491 625 204 187 2,155 6,485
AADT 2025 160 1,292 1,718 553 689 225 206 2,357 7,200
180 1446 1936 623 759 248 227 2577 7996
AADT 2026
Table 5-49: Projected AADT for the Opening Year for Awash-Mille Segment
Awash – Mille
ADT (2020) 63 689 575 107 275 91 126 1588 3514
% of Total ADT 3.1 34.1 28.5 5.3 13.6 4.5 6.2 78.6 173.9
AADT 2020 100 767 693 119 273 86 150 1377 3564
Opening year GF 10.0 10.7 16.0 16.0 13.1 13.1 13.1 9.5
AADT 2021 110 849 803 138 309 97 169 1,508 3,983
AADT 2022 121 940 932 160 349 110 191 1,652 4,454
AADT 2023 133 1,040 1,081 186 395 124 216 1,808 4,984
AADT 2024 146 1,152 1,254 216 447 140 245 1,980 5,580
AADT 2025 160 1,275 1,455 250 505 159 277 2,168 6,250
AADT 2026 173 1562 1791 458 580 174 302 2198 7239
Table 5-50: Projected AADT for the Opening Year for Mieso-Erer-Dire Dawa Segment
Mieso - Erer - Diredawa

ADT (2020) 0 46 0 0 37 37 8 0 129
% of Total ADT 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 0.4 0.0 6.4
Seasonal factors 0.94 0.99 1.01 1.89 1.12 0.91 0.90 0.80 0.96
AADT 2020 0 46 0 0 41 34 8 0 129
Opening year GF 10.7 10.7 11.4 11.4 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.3
AADT 2021 0 51 0 0 45 37 8 0 141
AADT 2022 0 57 0 0 49 40 9 0 155
AADT 2023 0 63 0 0 54 44 10 0 170
AADT 2024 0 69 0 0 59 48 11 0 186
AADT 2025 0 77 0 0 64 52 12 0 204
AADT 2026 0 85 0 0 70 57 13 0 224
Table 5-51: Projected AADT for the Opening Year for Mieso-Dengago Segment

Mieso - Dengago
ADT (2020) 15 155 689 66 236 154 110 360 1787
% of Total ADT 0.8 8.7 38.6 3.7 13.2 8.6 6.2 20.2 100.0
AADT 2020 14 155 695 81 254 144 101 356 1,799
Opening year GF 11.9 11.9 12.7 12.7 10.2 10.2 10.2 9.4
AADT 2021 16 173 783 91 280 159 111 389 2,002
AADT 2022 18 194 882 102 308 175 123 426 2,228
AADT 2023 20 217 994 115 340 193 135 466 2,479
AADT 2024 23 243 1,120 130 374 213 149 509 2,760
AADT 2025 25 272 1,262 146 413 234 164 557 3,073
AADT 2026 28 304 1,422 165 455 258 181 609 3,421
5.10.2 DIVERTED TRAFFIC TO THE PROJECT ROAD

Diverted traffic represents traffic that diverts to the project road from alternative roads, while at the
same time, keeping the same origin and destination as before. The diverted traffic to the Awash-Mieso
segment is expected to come significantly from Awash-Mile-Djibouti corridor as it significantly
reduces the travel time and cost for the long distance traffic, assuming also that the planned Mieso –
Erer – Dire Dawa route will also be implemented connecting the traffic to the Dire Dawa – Dewelle –
Djibouti route. For the Mieso-Erer-Dire Dawa segment, the diverted traffic is expected to come from
users of the existing mountainous route via Mieso-Asebe-Teferi-Dengego to Harar/Dire
Dawa/Jigjiga/Djibouti.
The project road, by considering the full segment (i.e. Awash-Mieso-Erer-Dire Dawa) will have
significant distance reductions of over 100km for long distance traffic to Djibouti implying significant
travel time and operating cost reductions. Accordingly, the terrain of the proposed corridor is pre-
dominantly flat, implying significant travel time and operating cost savings. The fact that the routes
are planned as dual carriageway expressways also adds to the expected savings. Therefore, a
significant portion of the traffic on alternative routes is expected to divert to the new routes to rip the
anticipated benefits.
The estimation of the diverted traffic is based on the analysis of the OD matrix at each of the key
decision points, by identifying OD pairs with potentials to divert to the project segments, and the
proportion of users on those potential OD pairs that are willing-to-use the project route. Although, a
willingness-to-pay survey was conducted at all OD survey locations, it was found during the survey
that the final decision on paying the tolls to use the route comes from the vehicle owners rather than
the drivers. Therefore, the willingness to pay survey results from the survey may not be considered
reliable and may require some adjustment as shown in the following sections.
Diverted Traffic to the Awash-Mieso Segment

Table 5.52 shows the OD matrix with the total traffic for the Awash-Mille segment. From this OD
matrix, vehicles traveling between the OD pairs between zones 1-6, 2-6, 3-6, 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3 have
the potential to divert to the Awash-Mieso segment. Accordingly, Table 5.53 shows the willingness to
use results with the highlighted cells indicating those willing to use the segment among the users with
potential to divert to the project route. The calculation of the diverted traffic proportion based on these
data is shown in Table 5.54. The diverted traffic from the Awash-Mille to Awash-Mieso segment is
also shown in Table 5.55.
Table 5-52: Total OD Matrix for the Awash-Mille Road Segment
Destination Zone
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
1 4 1 336 46 35 422
Origin Zone
2 13 205 8 12 238
3 4 14 1 19
4 0
5 1 2 1 9 13

6 879 6 5 5 3 5 2 905
7 51 6 1 3 1 62
8 21 1 3 25
9 0
10 1 1 1 3
11 0
Total 969 230 16 0 11 345 61 48 0 5 2 1,687
Table 5-53: OD of vehicles on the Awash-Mille route willing to use the project route
Destination Zone
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 317 46 35
2 12
3 1
4
Origin Zone
5 1 9
6 840 6 3 5 2
7 1
8
9
10 1 1
11
Table 5-54: Calculation of Diverted Traffic Percentage from the Awash-Mille Segment
Total traffic from O/D (Table 5.52) 1,687

Total traffic with potential to use (from O/D) (Table 5.52) 1,222
% of traffic with potential to use 72.4%
Total willing to use (from O/D) (Table 5.53) 1,164
% willing to use (from O/D) 95.3%
Diverted Traffic (As % age of opening year Awash-Mille AADT) 69.0%
(% of diverted traffic adjusted down to 60% to account for reliability of WTP survey)
Table 5-55: Diverted Traffic to new route from Awash-Mille Segment
Diverted traffic
from Awash-Mille 104 937 1,075 275 348 105 181 1,319 4,343
Segment, 2026
Diverted Traffic from Existing Awash-Mieso Segment to New Project Route

In addition to the traffic diverted from the Awash-Mille route, more traffic is expected to divert to this
segment from the existing traffic on the Awash-Mieso segment headed to the mountainous route
between Mieso and Dire Dawa via Asebe Teferi and Kulubi. Accordingly, the expected diversion rate
and diverted traffic is estimated based on the OD and willingness to use survey results for those pairs
of OD zones with the potential to divert to this segment, as shown in Tables 5.56 to 5.58.
Table 5-56: Total OD Matrix for the Awash-Mieso Road Segment
Destination Zone
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
1 139 74 189 7 16 9 434
2 0
3 92 246 1 4 343
4 0
Origin Zone
5 96 1 4 1 102
6 189 2 191
7 2 2
8 1 1
9 19 19
10 24 1 25
11 9 3 12
Total 430 0 391 0 77 190 4 1 7 16 13 1,129
Table 5-57: OD of vehicles on the Awash-Mieso route willing to use the project route
Destination Zone
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 67 189 16
3
5 60 1
Origin Zone
6 189 2
7
8
9
10 24
11
Table 5-58: Calculation of Diverted Traffic Percentage from the Awash-Mieso Segment
Total traffic from O/D 1,129

Total traffic with potential to use (from O/D) 592
% of traffic with potential to use 52.4%
Total willing to use (from O/D) 548

% willing to use (from O/D) 92.6%

Diverted Traffic (As % age of opening year Awash-Mieso AADT) 48.5%
Diverted Traffic from Existing Melkajilo – Awash Segment to New Project Route
Considering the higher traffic within the Adama-Awash segment and expected higher savings in time
and cost by diverting to the new project route, a slightly higher diversion rate of 80% has been
adopted in determining the diverted traffic from the existing Melkajilo – Awash segment to the new
parallel route. The diverted traffic is shown in Table 5.59.
Table 5-59: Diverted Traffic to new route from Existing Melkajilo-Awash Segment
Diverted Traffic
from from Existing 144 1,157 1,548 499 607 199 182 2,062 6,397
Melkajilo - Awash
5.10.3 MODAL SHIFT TO RAILWAY

The new Addis Ababa Djibouti Railway line has been in operation since 2018 and it runs more or less
parallel to the project road segment. The railway line provides both passenger and freight services,
however, it is currently not operating at the expected capacity both in passenger and freight volumes.
Therefore, although there is some modal shift to the rail line already, this is expected to grow in the
coming years, at least until the rail line reaches the expected capacity. Data from the Rail operator
Ethio-Djibouti Standard Gauge Railway J.V. Company (EDR) indicate that the passenger capacity for
the line is about 1600 passengers per day, whereas for freight it is around 5,000,000 tons/year (EDR,
2020). The expected modal shift of vehicular traffic to railway (passenger and freight) is estimated
based on the already existing modal split and the expected modal share information obtained from
EDR and the country’s ten years perspective plan issued by the Ministry of Transport (EDR, 2020 and
MOT, 2020). Accordingly, the anticipated modal shift to railway for passengers and freight is taken as
the difference between the modal share of rail at capacity and the current modal share, and the results
are shown in Table 5.60 & 5.61. The passenger service was only running during 2018 and parts of
2019, and had to be shut-down until late 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The expected
reduction in vehicular traffic is then estimated by applying the passenger modal shift factor to
passenger vehicles (cars, 4W/D, S/Bus, L/Bus) and the freight modal shift factor to freight vehicles,
and the results are shown in Table 5.62.

Table 5-60: Estimation of Rail Freight Modal Shift Factor
(Data Source: MOT 10 years Plan (2020 to 2030)

Target for 2019/20 2020 2021 2022 2023/ 2024/ 2025/ 2026/ 2027 2028/ 2029
Description
10 years efficiency /21 /22 /23 24 25 26 27 /28 29 /30
Load
transported by
16.1 16.3 16.2 17.1 17.4 19.1 18.5 19.7 20.9 22.1 23.3
freight vehicles
(in million tons)
Increasing Load
the transported by
country’s Freight
import and Vehicles b/n
export Addis-Djibouti
total load 15.3 15.5 15.4 16.2 16.5 18.1 17.6 18.7 19.9 21.0 22.1
train (in million
from 17.7 tons)
million (Assuming 95%
tone to share of
30.41 country total)
million ton Load
transported by
Addis-Djibouti 1.4 1.46 1.66 2.42 2.7 2.84 2.98 4.89 4.89 4.89 4.89
train (in million
tons)
Total cargo
along Addis-
16.7 16.9 17.1 18.7 19.2 21.0 20.6 23.6 24.7 25.9 27.0
Djibouti
Corridor
Modal Shift to
9.7 13.0 14.0 13.5 14.5 19.8 18.9 18.1
Rail (Addis- 8.4% 8.6% 20.7%
% % % % % % % %
Djibouti)
Remaining Modal Shift Until Capacity is reached (Modal Shift in
2026/27 - 2019/20)
12%
Table 5-61: Estimation of Rail Passenger Modal Shift Factor
(Data Source: EDR, 2020 & ERC, 2019)

Actual Daily Passengers Transported between Addis-Dewelle, 2018 (EDR, 2020) 500
Maximum Line Capacity, passengers/day 1,600
Estimated Operational Capacity (Assuming 90% efficiency) 1,440

Current Modal Share of Rail for Passenger (Based on 2018 data) 34.7%
Estimated Maximum Modal Share of Rail (Ethiopian Railway Corporation, 2019) 40%
Remaining Modal Shift to Rail 5%
Table 5-62: Expected Modal Shift of Passenger and Freight Vehicular Traffic to
Railway (Melkajilo-Awash Segment)
Modal Shift to
Rail (%) 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0%
Traffic
8 67 89 29 84 27 25 285 613
Shifting to Rail
5.10.4 GENERATED TRAFFIC

Generated traffic is the traffic that results from economic, social and environmental development of
the
Project area. Generated traffic is expected to emerge as soon as the road is open to traffic. Studies in
developing countries estimate the price elasticity of demand for transport between a range of -0.6 to -
2.0 (Overseas Road Note 5, TRRL, 1988). This means that a one per cent decrease in transport costs
leads to a one per cent increase in traffic. Where the change in transport costs are relatively small,
generated traffic benefits will represent a small component of total benefits. By contrast, when the
change in transport costs is large, then generated traffic benefits are more likely to be high.
The estimation of generated traffic is based on estimating the shape of the demand function, which is
expressed as an elasticity of demand. This shows the responsiveness of quantity demanded to a
change in cost. In the case of generated traffic, the demand for trip making is related to expected
reductions in journey costs and travel time. For the current case, savings in journey time have been
used. This is expressed as a travel cost function time. The following simplified generated traffic factor
model (RAFU, 2006) is used:
The travel speeds and travel times were obtained using the Moving Observer method for the existing
road while the assumed geometric design speed parameters are used for the planned options (Table
5.63).
Table 5-63: Estimation of Travel Speed for Existing Road and Project Option
Road Section Without project (Existing) Condition With Project Condition

Length Speed Travel Time Length Speed Travel Time

(km) (km/hr) (min) (km) (km/hr) (min)
Melkajilo-Awash 60 70 51 60 100 36
Based on the calculated travel times, the reduction in travel cost (i.e. travel time) is used to estimate
the proportion of generated traffic for the low, medium and high scenarios, and the results are shown
in Table 5.64.
Table 5-64: Estimate of Generated Traffic Factor for Project Option (Melkajilo-Awash)
Low Medium High

 (Elasticity) -0.6 -1.2 -2
Cijp (minutes) 36 36 36
Cijb (Minutes) 51 51 51
Generated Traffic Factor (GTF) 0.18 0.36 0.60
Since the calculated Generated Traffic Factors (GTF) shown above are relatively high and given the
fact that the corridor is relatively developed due to the existing trunk road and associated economic
activities, the consultant has opted to use a more realistic GTF value of 0.15 to determine the
generated traffic. The generated traffic is calculated by applying the GTF to the diverted traffic from
existing Melkajilo-Awash route in the opening year and the results are shown in Table 5.65.
Table 5-65: Generated Traffic for the Melkajilo-Awash Segment
Generated 174 232 75 91 30 27 309 960
Traffic 22
TRAFFIC PROJECTION
5.11.1 TRAFFIC GROWTH RATES
In specifying forecast traffic growth rates for the projection of stream of freight traffic using the road
in the future, a simple model has been used that combines the effect of GDP growth on travel demand
for freight vehicles. On the other hand, forecast growth rates for passenger traffic were computed
using a model that combines the effect on travel demand of population growth and of changes in per
capita incomes. Two models of the following forms were, therefore, applied:
ΔT = e (ΔGDP)
Where:
ΔT = the change in freight transport
ΔGDP = the change in GDP
e = the income elasticity for freight travel demand.
and
ΔT = ΔP + e (ΔC)
Where:

ΔT = the change in passenger transport

ΔP = the change in population
ΔC = the change in per capita income
e = the income elasticity for passenger travel demand.
The Ethiopian Gross Domestic Product

The recent National GDP, per-capita income, and population trends for Ethiopia are shown in Table
5.66. The country has been registering high growth rates between the 2004/05 and 2018/19 time
periods with an average GDP growth rate of 10%, and an average GDP Per Capita Income of 7.6%.
The average annual population growth for the same period was 2.8%. The IMF and World Bank
historical trends between 2000 and 2019 (Table 5.67) also show relatively high average GDP growth
rates at 9.1% and 8.9%, respectively, and GDP PCI growth rates of 6.7% and 6.0%.
The Ethiopian Government still anticipates a steady 10% per annual GDP growth rates for the coming
ten years (MOFED, 2020). This scenario seems optimistic given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic
and its expected impact on the global economy. However, the IMF forecasted growth scenarios for
2020 to 2025, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, puts the average annual GDP & GDP PCI
growth rates at 6.0% and 4.4%, respectively. Given the aforementioned, historical and forecasted
growth scenarios, the consultant has come up with a recommended GDP growth scenarios (low,
medium, and high) by making some adjustments as shown in Table 5.68.
Table 5-66: GDP, Population and per Capita Income Development (MOFED, 2020)
GDP at constant % GDP per % %

Year Population
MKT price ETB Change capital Income Change Change
2004/05 91044.09 1,262.75 76346311
2005/06 100908.38 10.8 1,361.79 7.8 78489206 2.8
2006/07 112149.36 11.1 1,473.71 8.2 80674348 2.8
2007/08 124827.00 11.3 1,596.25 8.3 82916235 2.8
2008/09 135450.50 8.5 1,688.91 5.8 85233913 2.8
2009/10 152517.26 12.6 1,889.93 11.9 87639964 2.8
2010/11 169599.20 11.2 2,057.99 11.2 90139927 2.9
2011/12 184354.33 8.7 2,186.37 6.2 92726971 2.9
2012/13 203527.18 10.4 2,400.08 9.8 95385785 2.9
2013/14 224490.48 10.3 2575.286 7.3 98094253 2.8
2014/15 247837.49 10.4 2765.857 7.4 100835458 2.8
2015/16 271134.21 9.4 2945.638 6.5 103603501 2.7
2016/17 297163.10 9.6 3142.995 6.7 106400024 2.7
2017/18 317370.19 6.8 3271.858 4.1 109224559 2.7
2018/19 343711.91 8.3 3455.082 5.6 112078730 2.6

Average 10.0 7.6 2.8
Table 5-67: Comparison of GDP and GDP PCI trends (Source: IMF, 2020 & World Bank,
2020)
Year Annual Growth Rate (%) GDP Annual Growth Rate (%) GDP PCI
based on constant MKT Price ETB based on constant MKT Price ETB
IMF, 2020 World Bank, 2020 IMF, 2020 World Bank, 2020
2000 9.8 6.1 6.9 3.1
2001 7.4 8.3 4.3 5.2
2002 1.6 1.5 -1.1 -1.4
2003 -2.1 -2.2 -7.8 -4.9
2004 11.7 13.6 8.9 10.4
2005 12.6 11.8 9.7 8.7
2006 11.5 10.8 8.7 7.8
2007 11.8 11.5 9.0 8.4
2008 11.2 10.8 9.4 7.8
2009 10 8.8 8.3 5.8
2010 10.6 12.6 8.9 9.5
2011 11.4 11.2 9.6 8.1
2012 8.7 8.6 7.0 5.6
2013 9.9 10.6 8.2 7.5
2014 10.3 10.3 8.6 7.2
2015 10.4 10.4 8.7 7.4
2016 8 9.4 6.3 6.5
2017 10.2 9.6 8.5 6.7
2018 7.7 6.8 6.0 4.1
2019 9 8.3 6.2 5.5
Average
9.1 8.9 6.7 6.0
(2000 to 2019)
2020 1.9 0.3
2021 0 -1.6
2022 8.9 7.2
2023 8.8 7.1
2024 8.6 6.9
2025 8 6.3
Average
6.0 N/A 4.4 N/A
(2020 to 2025) (IMF)
Table 5-68: Recommended GDP, Population, and GDP PCI values for the planning
period

Low Scenario
National Population Growth in GDP
Forecast period GDP Growth PCI
2026 - 2036 7.5 2.8 6.6
2036 - 2046 7 2.8 6.6
Medium Scenario
2026 - 2036 8.5 2.8 7.6
2036 - 2046 8 2.8 7.6
High Scenario
2026 - 2036 9.5 2.8 8.6
2036 - 2046 9 2.8 8.6
Transportation Demand Elasticity with respect to GDP

Empirical evidence have long established that demand for transport tends to expand at somewhat
faster rate than the economic growth rate as measured by national and /or regional GDPs. The growth
in traffic is typically about 2% per annum higher than the growth in the economy to support and serve
this growth. Findings drawn from international studies generally suggest transport demand elasticity
as found between 1 and 2. The consultant has attempted to determine the transport demand elasticity
for freight and passenger traffic based on observed passenger and freight traffic (expressed in vehicle-
kilometers) for the period 2003 to 2019 (Source: ERA Traffic Database, 2020). In addition, the
historical GDP and GDP PCI for the same period were also used (IMF, 2020). The consultant has
come-up with reasonable elasticity values for the three growth scenarios by making certain
adjustments to the calculated values based on previous studies and findings from international studies.
The results of the elasticity calculations and consultant’s recommended values are shown in Table
5.69.
Accordingly, the Annual growth rates for freight and passenger traffic for the anticipated planning
period of the project road have been established based on the formulae described above and the
consultant’s recommended GDP and transport demand elasticity values. The results are shown in
Table 5.70.

Table 5-69: Calculation of Transport Demand Elasticity with respect to GDP

GDP @ GNI Per
Annual Annual Annual Annual GDP, % GNI Per
Buses Trucks & Annual Constant Capita, %
Year Cars VKT Growth, Growth, Trucks VKT Growth, Total VKT Growth, Annual Capita,
VKT Trailers VKT Growth, % MKT, Billions Annual
% % % % Growth ETB
of ETB Growth
2003 1,191,586 1,148,901 2,376,338 903,729 5,620,554 390.432 5,472.69
2004 1,236,270 3.7 1,327,638 15.6 2,544,632 7.1 866,000 -4.2 5,974,540 6.3 436.113 11.7 5,958.08 8.9
2005 1,293,201 4.6 1,505,577 13.4 2,822,949 10.9 1,099,049 26.9 6,720,776 12.5 491.063 12.6 6,538.79 9.7
2006 1,389,814 7.5 1,786,887 18.7 3,198,387 13.3 1,190,277 8.3 7,565,365 12.6 547.536 11.5 7,106.00 8.7
2007 1,699,755 22.3 2,185,051 22.3 3,790,644 18.5 1,501,580 26.2 9,177,030 21.3 612.145 11.8 7,743.18 9.0
2008 1,766,281 3.9 2,456,734 12.4 3,815,553 0.7 1,450,342 -3.4 9,488,910 3.4 680.705 11.2 8,474.82 9.4
2009 2,065,539 16.9 2,927,071 19.1 4,812,943 26.1 1,843,270 27.1 11,648,823 22.8 748.775 10.0 9,175.50 8.3
2010 2,128,843 3.1 3,222,950 10.1 4,897,342 1.8 1,699,018 -7.8 11,948,153 2.6 828.146 10.6 9,988.29 8.9
2011 2,492,302 17.1 3,889,205 20.7 5,777,146 18.0 2,044,393 20.3 14,203,046 18.9 922.554 11.4 10,951.72 9.6
2012 2,519,603 1.1 4,045,298 4.0 5,996,057 3.8 2,122,960 3.8 14,683,918 3.4 1,002.82 8.7 11,717.05 7.0
2013 2,733,651 8.5 4,483,670 10.8 6,747,059 12.5 2,309,239 8.8 16,273,619 10.8 1,102.10 9.9 12,674.25 8.2
2014 2,873,811 5.1 4,895,736 9.2 7,141,878 5.9 2,379,943 3.1 17,291,368 6.3 1,215.61 10.3 13,759.55 8.6
2015 3,142,060 9.3 5,315,501 8.6 7,731,747 8.3 2,727,897 14.6 18,917,205 9.4 1,342.04 10.4 14,951.32 8.7
2016 4,380,626 39.4 6,639,352 24.9 9,656,741 24.9 3,340,849 22.5 24,017,568 27.0 1,449.40 8.0 15,893.13 6.3
2017 4,635,276 5.8 7,612,563 14.7 11,184,121 15.8 3,687,150 10.4 27,119,110 12.9 1,597.38 10.2 17,239.93 8.5
2018 4,440,474 -4.2 6,914,888 -9.2 10,343,971 -7.5 3,548,335 -3.8 25,247,668 -6.9 1,720.42 7.7 18,275.47 6.0
2019 5,306,189 19.5 8,119,920 17.4 12,017,941 16.2 4,032,174 13.6 29,476,224 16.7 1,874.69 9.0 19,409.60 6.2
Average 10.2 13.3 11.0 10.4 11.2 10.3 8.2
Correlation 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Elasticity Calculated 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.1 Data Sources: ERA Traffic Database, 2020;

IMF, 2020
Elasticity, ERA 2003 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Recommended (2026 - 2036) 1.20 1.30 1.20 1.10
Recommended (2036 - 2046) 1.10 1.20 1.10 1.10

Table 5-70: Calculation of Traffic Growth Rates for the Project Design Period
Low Scenario
Elasticity Average annual Traffic Growth
Growth
Forecast GDP Population in GDP Car/ Truck Car/ Truck
year Growth Growth PCI Utility Bus Truck Trailer Utility Bus Truck Trailer
2026 – 2036 7.5 2.8 6.6 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 10.72 11.38 9.00 8.25
2036 – 2046 7.0 2.8 6.6 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 10.06 10.72 7.70 7.70
Medium Scenario
Elasticity
Average annual Traffic Growth
Growth
2026 - 2036 8.5 2.8 7.6 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 11.92 12.68 10.20 9.35
2036 - 2046 8.0 2.8 7.6 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 11.16 11.92 8.80 8.80
High Scenario
Elasticity Average annual Traffic Growth
Growth
2026 - 2036 9.5 2.8 8.6 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 13.12 13.98 11.40 10.45
2036 - 2046 9.0 2.8 8.6 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 12.26 13.12 9.90 9.90
FORECASTED TRAFFIC FOR THE PROJECT ROAD (MELKAJILO – AWASH SECTION)

Considering the base year traffic as (2020), the consultant has established the opening year traffic of 2026
by forecasting the normal traffic of 2020 to 2026, and adding the diverted and generated, and deducting the
traffic shifting to railway. Thus, based on the obtained traffic of 2026 (opening year) and directional split of
48/52 (Based on consultant’s traffic count results), the traffic projections has been carried out for the
Melkajilo-Awash segment (project route excluding the traffic on the existing road) for project appraisal
period of 20-years considering each of the three scenarios (low, medium, high). The projections are shown
in Tables 5.71 to 5.79.

Table 5-71: Projected Motorized Traffic for Melkajilo-Awash (Low Growth Scenario) - Combined
No. Year Cars 4WD S/Bus L/Bus S/Truck M/Truck H/Truck T&T Total
0 2026 157 1,264 1,692 545 614 201 184 2,087 6,743
1 2027 174 1,400 1,884 607 670 219 200 2,259 7,412
2 2028 192 1,550 2,099 676 730 239 219 2,445 8,148
3 2029 213 1,716 2,337 753 795 260 238 2,647 8,959
4 2030 236 1,900 2,603 838 867 284 260 2,865 9,853
5 2031 261 2,103 2,900 934 945 309 283 3,101 10,837
6 2032 289 2,329 3,230 1,040 1,030 337 308 3,357 11,921
7 2033 320 2,578 3,597 1,159 1,123 367 336 3,634 13,115
8 2034 354 2,855 4,006 1,290 1,224 400 366 3,934 14,431
9 2035 392 3,161 4,462 1,437 1,334 436 399 4,259 15,881
10 2036 435 3,500 4,970 1,601 1,454 476 435 4,610 17,480
11 2037 478 3,852 5,503 1,772 1,566 512 469 4,965 19,118
12 2038 526 4,239 6,093 1,962 1,687 552 505 5,347 20,912
13 2039 579 4,666 6,746 2,173 1,817 594 544 5,759 22,878
14 2040 638 5,135 7,469 2,406 1,957 640 586 6,203 25,032
15 2041 702 5,651 8,270 2,663 2,107 689 631 6,680 27,394
16 2042 772 6,220 9,157 2,949 2,269 742 680 7,195 29,984
17 2043 850 6,846 10,138 3,265 2,444 799 732 7,749 32,823
18 2044 936 7,534 11,225 3,615 2,632 861 788 8,345 35,937
19 2045 1,030 8,292 12,428 4,003 2,835 927 849 8,988 39,352
20 2046 1,133 9,127 13,761 4,432 3,053 999 914 9,680 43,098
Table 5-72: Projected Motorized Traffic for Melkajilo-Awash (Low Growth Scenario) – Direction-1
0 2026 75 607 812 262 295 96 88 1,002 3,237
1 2027 83 672 904 291 321 105 96 1,084 3,558
2 2028 92 744 1,007 324 350 115 105 1,174 3,911
3 2029 102 824 1,122 361 382 125 114 1,270 4,301
4 2030 113 912 1,250 402 416 136 125 1,375 4,729
5 2031 125 1,010 1,392 448 454 148 136 1,489 5,202
6 2032 139 1,118 1,550 499 494 162 148 1,612 5,722
7 2033 154 1,238 1,727 556 539 176 161 1,744 6,295

8 2034 170 1,370 1,923 619 588 192 176 1,888 6,927
9 2035 188 1,517 2,142 690 640 209 192 2,044 7,623
10 2036 209 1,680 2,386 768 698 228 209 2,213 8,391
11 2037 230 1,849 2,641 851 752 246 225 2,383 9,176
12 2038 253 2,035 2,925 942 810 265 242 2,567 10,038
13 2039 278 2,239 3,238 1,043 872 285 261 2,764 10,981
14 2040 306 2,465 3,585 1,155 939 307 281 2,977 12,016
15 2041 337 2,713 3,970 1,278 1,011 331 303 3,206 13,149
16 2042 371 2,986 4,395 1,416 1,089 356 326 3,453 14,392
17 2043 408 3,286 4,866 1,567 1,173 384 351 3,719 15,755
18 2044 449 3,617 5,388 1,735 1,264 413 378 4,006 17,250
19 2045 494 3,980 5,966 1,921 1,361 445 407 4,314 18,889
20 2046 544 4,381 6,605 2,127 1,466 479 439 4,646 20,687
Table 5.73. Projected Motorized Traffic for Melkajilo-Awash (Low Growth Scenario) – Direction-2
0 2026 82 657 880 283 319 104 96 1,085 3,506
1 2027 90 728 980 316 348 114 104 1,175 3,854
2 2028 100 806 1,091 351 380 124 114 1,271 4,237
3 2029 111 892 1,215 391 414 135 124 1,376 4,659
4 2030 123 988 1,354 436 451 147 135 1,490 5,123
5 2031 136 1,094 1,508 486 491 161 147 1,613 5,635
6 2032 150 1,211 1,679 541 536 175 160 1,746 6,199
7 2033 166 1,341 1,871 602 584 191 175 1,890 6,820
8 2034 184 1,484 2,083 671 636 208 191 2,046 7,504
9 2035 204 1,644 2,320 747 694 227 208 2,215 8,258
10 2036 226 1,820 2,585 832 756 247 226 2,397 9,090
11 2037 249 2,003 2,862 922 814 266 244 2,582 9,941
12 2038 274 2,204 3,168 1,020 877 287 263 2,781 10,874
13 2039 301 2,426 3,508 1,130 945 309 283 2,995 11,896
14 2040 332 2,670 3,884 1,251 1,017 333 305 3,225 13,017
15 2041 365 2,939 4,300 1,385 1,096 358 328 3,474 14,245
16 2042 402 3,234 4,761 1,533 1,180 386 353 3,741 15,592
17 2043 442 3,560 5,272 1,698 1,271 416 381 4,029 17,068
18 2044 486 3,918 5,837 1,880 1,369 448 410 4,339 18,687
19 2045 535 4,312 6,463 2,081 1,474 482 441 4,674 20,463
20 2046 589 4,746 7,156 2,305 1,588 519 475 5,034 22,411
Table 5-73: Projected Motorized Traffic Melkajilo-Awash (Medium Growth Scenario) - Combined

2026 157 1,264 1,692 545 614 201 184 2,087 6,743
2027 176 1,415 1,906 614 677 221 203 2,282 7,493
2028 197 1,583 2,148 692 746 244 223 2,495 8,328
2029 220 1,772 2,420 779 822 269 246 2,728 9,257
2030 246 1,983 2,727 878 906 296 271 2,983 10,292
2031 276 2,220 3,073 990 998 326 299 3,262 11,444
2032 308 2,484 3,462 1,115 1,100 360 329 3,567 12,727
2033 345 2,780 3,902 1,257 1,212 396 363 3,901 14,156
2034 386 3,112 4,396 1,416 1,336 437 400 4,266 15,749
2035 432 3,483 4,954 1,595 1,472 482 441 4,664 17,523
2036 484 3,898 5,582 1,798 1,622 531 486 5,101 19,501
2037 538 4,333 6,247 2,012 1,765 577 529 5,549 21,551
2038 598 4,816 6,992 2,252 1,921 628 575 6,038 23,820
2039 665 5,354 7,825 2,520 2,090 683 626 6,569 26,332
2040 739 5,951 8,758 2,821 2,273 744 681 7,147 29,114
2041 821 6,616 9,802 3,157 2,474 809 741 7,776 32,195
2042 913 7,354 10,970 3,533 2,691 880 806 8,460 35,608
2043 1,015 8,175 12,278 3,954 2,928 958 877 9,205 39,389
2044 1,128 9,087 13,742 4,426 3,186 1,042 954 10,015 43,579
2045 1,254 10,101 15,380 4,953 3,466 1,134 1,038 10,896 48,222
2046 1,394 11,228 17,213 5,544 3,771 1,233 1,129 11,855 53,368
Table 5-74: Projected Motorized Traffic Melkajilo-Awash (Medium Growth Scenario) – Direction-1
2026 75 607 812 262 295 96 88 1,002 3,237
2027 84 679 915 295 325 106 97 1,095 3,597
2028 94 760 1,031 332 358 117 107 1,198 3,997
2029 106 851 1,162 374 395 129 118 1,310 4,443
2030 118 952 1,309 422 435 142 130 1,432 4,940
2031 132 1,065 1,475 475 479 157 143 1,566 5,493
2032 148 1,192 1,662 535 528 173 158 1,712 6,109
2033 166 1,335 1,873 603 582 190 174 1,872 6,795
2034 185 1,494 2,110 680 641 210 192 2,047 7,559
2035 208 1,672 2,378 766 707 231 212 2,239 8,411
2036 232 1,871 2,679 863 779 255 233 2,448 9,360
2037 258 2,080 2,999 966 847 277 254 2,664 10,344
2038 287 2,312 3,356 1,081 922 301 276 2,898 11,433
2039 319 2,570 3,756 1,210 1,003 328 300 3,153 12,639
2040 355 2,857 4,204 1,354 1,091 357 327 3,431 13,975
2041 394 3,176 4,705 1,515 1,187 388 356 3,733 15,454
2042 438 3,530 5,266 1,696 1,292 422 387 4,061 17,092

2043 487 3,924 5,893 1,898 1,405 460 421 4,418 18,907
2044 542 4,362 6,596 2,124 1,529 500 458 4,807 20,918
2045 602 4,849 7,382 2,378 1,664 544 498 5,230 23,146
2046 669 5,390 8,262 2,661 1,810 592 542 5,690 25,616
Table 5-75: Projected Motorized Traffic Melkajilo-Awash (Medium Growth Scenario) – Direction-2
2026 82 657 880 283 319 104 96 1,085 3,506
2027 91 736 991 319 352 115 105 1,186 3,896
2028 102 823 1,117 360 388 127 116 1,297 4,330
2029 114 921 1,258 405 427 140 128 1,419 4,814
2030 128 1,031 1,418 457 471 154 141 1,551 5,352
2031 143 1,154 1,598 515 519 170 155 1,696 5,951
2032 160 1,292 1,800 580 572 187 171 1,855 6,618
2033 180 1,446 2,029 653 630 206 189 2,028 7,361
2034 201 1,618 2,286 736 695 227 208 2,218 8,189
2035 225 1,811 2,576 830 766 250 229 2,426 9,112
2036 252 2,027 2,903 935 844 276 253 2,652 10,140
2037 280 2,253 3,249 1,046 918 300 275 2,886 11,206
2038 311 2,505 3,636 1,171 999 327 299 3,140 12,386
2039 346 2,784 4,069 1,311 1,087 355 325 3,416 13,693
2040 384 3,095 4,554 1,467 1,182 387 354 3,717 15,139
2041 427 3,440 5,097 1,642 1,286 421 385 4,044 16,742
2042 475 3,824 5,705 1,837 1,399 458 419 4,399 18,516
2043 528 4,251 6,385 2,056 1,523 498 456 4,787 20,482
2044 587 4,725 7,146 2,301 1,657 542 496 5,208 22,661
2045 652 5,253 7,997 2,576 1,802 589 540 5,666 25,075
2046 725 5,839 8,951 2,883 1,961 641 587 6,165 27,751
Table 5-76:. Projected Motorized Traffic Melkajilo-Awash (High Growth Scenario) – Combined
2026 157 1,264 1,692 545 614 201 184 2,087 6,743
2027 178 1,430 1,928 621 684 224 205 2,305 7,574
2028 201 1,617 2,198 708 762 249 228 2,545 8,509
2029 227 1,830 2,505 807 849 278 254 2,811 9,561
2030 257 2,070 2,855 920 946 309 283 3,105 10,745
2031 291 2,341 3,254 1,048 1,054 345 316 3,430 12,078
2032 329 2,648 3,709 1,195 1,174 384 352 3,788 13,579
2033 372 2,996 4,228 1,362 1,308 428 392 4,184 15,268
2034 421 3,389 4,819 1,552 1,457 476 436 4,621 17,171
2035 476 3,834 5,492 1,769 1,623 531 486 5,104 19,315

2036 538 4,337 6,260 2,016 1,808 591 541 5,638 21,730
2037 604 4,868 7,082 2,281 1,987 650 595 6,196 24,263
2038 679 5,465 8,011 2,580 2,184 714 654 6,809 27,095
2039 762 6,135 9,062 2,918 2,400 785 719 7,483 30,264
2040 855 6,887 10,251 3,301 2,638 863 790 8,224 33,808
2041 960 7,732 11,595 3,735 2,899 948 868 9,038 37,774
2042 1,078 8,680 13,117 4,224 3,186 1,042 954 9,933 42,213
2043 1,210 9,744 14,838 4,779 3,501 1,145 1,048 10,916 47,181
2044 1,358 10,938 16,784 5,406 3,848 1,258 1,152 11,997 52,742
2045 1,525 12,279 18,987 6,115 4,229 1,383 1,266 13,185 58,968
2046 1,712 13,785 21,478 6,917 4,647 1,520 1,392 14,490 65,940
2026 75 607 812 262 295 96 88 1,002 3,237
2027 85 686 925 298 328 107 98 1,106 3,636
2028 96 776 1,055 340 366 120 110 1,222 4,084
2029 109 878 1,202 387 408 133 122 1,349 4,589
2030 123 993 1,370 441 454 149 136 1,491 5,158
2031 140 1,124 1,562 503 506 165 151 1,646 5,797
2032 158 1,271 1,780 573 564 184 169 1,818 6,518
2033 179 1,438 2,029 654 628 205 188 2,008 7,329
2034 202 1,627 2,313 745 699 229 209 2,218 8,242
2035 228 1,840 2,636 849 779 255 233 2,450 9,271
2036 258 2,082 3,005 968 868 284 260 2,706 10,430
2037 290 2,337 3,399 1,095 954 312 286 2,974 11,646
2038 326 2,623 3,845 1,238 1,048 343 314 3,268 13,006
2039 366 2,945 4,350 1,401 1,152 377 345 3,592 14,527
2040 410 3,306 4,920 1,585 1,266 414 379 3,947 16,228
2041 461 3,711 5,566 1,793 1,391 455 417 4,338 18,132
2042 517 4,166 6,296 2,028 1,529 500 458 4,768 20,262
2043 581 4,677 7,122 2,294 1,680 550 503 5,240 22,647
2044 652 5,250 8,057 2,595 1,847 604 553 5,759 25,316
2045 732 5,894 9,114 2,935 2,030 664 608 6,329 28,304
2046 822 6,617 10,309 3,320 2,231 730 668 6,955 31,651
2026 82 657 880 283 319 104 96 1,085 3,506
2027 92 744 1,003 323 356 116 107 1,198 3,939

2028 104 841 1,143 368 396 130 119 1,324 4,425
2029 118 951 1,303 420 442 144 132 1,462 4,972
2030 134 1,076 1,485 478 492 161 147 1,615 5,588
2031 151 1,217 1,692 545 548 179 164 1,783 6,281
2032 171 1,377 1,929 621 610 200 183 1,970 7,061
2033 193 1,558 2,198 708 680 222 204 2,176 7,940
2034 219 1,762 2,506 807 758 248 227 2,403 8,929
2035 248 1,993 2,856 920 844 276 253 2,654 10,044
2036 280 2,255 3,255 1,048 940 307 282 2,932 11,299
2037 314 2,531 3,682 1,186 1,033 338 309 3,222 12,617
2038 353 2,842 4,166 1,342 1,136 371 340 3,541 14,090
2039 396 3,190 4,712 1,518 1,248 408 374 3,891 15,737
2040 445 3,581 5,330 1,717 1,372 449 411 4,276 17,580
2041 499 4,020 6,030 1,942 1,507 493 451 4,700 19,643
2042 560 4,513 6,821 2,197 1,657 542 496 5,165 21,951
2043 629 5,067 7,716 2,485 1,821 595 545 5,676 24,534
2044 706 5,688 8,728 2,811 2,001 654 599 6,238 27,426
2045 793 6,385 9,873 3,180 2,199 719 658 6,856 30,663
2046 890 7,168 11,168 3,597 2,417 790 724 7,535 34,289
FORECASTED TRAFFIC FOR THE EXISTING ROAD (MELKAJILO – AWASH SECTION)

In order to evaluate different alignment options within the Awash Park portion of the Melkajilo-
Awash section, it is necessary to determine the projected traffic on the existing road for the same
design period as the project route so as to obtain the combined total projected traffic. The
opening year AADT for the existing route is determined by deducting the diverted traffic from the
2026 total AADT and the estimated modal shift to rail (Table 5.80). The projection of traffic on the
existing road to the design year was determined based on the opening year AADT and the same
traffic growth rates established for the project route. Tables 5.81 to 5.89 show the 20-years
projected traffic considering each of the three scenarios (low, medium, high).
Table 5-79: Estimation of Opening Year (2026) Traffic on the Existing Melkajilo-Awash Section
Diverted Traffic
from from Existing 144 1,157 1,548 499 607 199 182 2,062 6,397
Melkajilo - Awash
Remaining Traffic
on Existing 36 289 387 125 152 50 45 515 1,599
Melkajilo-Awash
Modal Shift to Rail 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0%
from Existing (%)
Traffic Shifting to 2 14 19 6 18 6 5 62 133
Rail

Combined
2026 34 275 368 118 134 44 40 454 1,466
2027 38 304 410 132 146 48 44 491 1,611
2028 42 337 456 147 159 52 48 532 1,771
2029 46 373 508 164 173 57 52 575 1,948
2030 51 413 566 182 188 62 56 623 2,142
2031 57 457 630 203 205 67 62 674 2,356
2032 63 506 702 226 224 73 67 730 2,591
2033 70 561 782 252 244 80 73 790 2,851
2034 77 621 871 281 266 87 80 855 3,137
2035 85 687 970 312 290 95 87 926 3,452
2036 94 761 1,080 348 316 103 95 1,002 3,800
2037 104 837 1,196 385 340 111 102 1,079 4,156
2038 114 922 1,325 427 367 120 110 1,162 4,546
2039 126 1,014 1,467 472 395 129 118 1,252 4,973
2040 139 1,116 1,624 523 425 139 127 1,348 5,442
2041 153 1,229 1,798 579 458 150 137 1,452 5,955
2042 168 1,352 1,991 641 493 161 148 1,564 6,518
2043 185 1,488 2,204 710 531 174 159 1,684 7,135
2044 203 1,638 2,440 786 572 187 171 1,814 7,812
2045 224 1,803 2,702 870 616 202 185 1,954 8,555
2046 246 1,984 2,991 963 664 217 199 2,104 9,369
Direction-1
2026 16 132 177 57 64 21 19 218 704
2027 18 146 197 63 70 23 21 236 773
2028 20 162 219 71 76 25 23 255 850
2029 22 179 244 79 83 27 25 276 935
2030 25 198 272 87 90 30 27 299 1,028
2031 27 219 303 97 99 32 30 324 1,131
2032 30 243 337 109 107 35 32 350 1,244
2033 33 269 375 121 117 38 35 379 1,369
2034 37 298 418 135 128 42 38 411 1,506
2035 41 330 466 150 139 46 42 444 1,657
2036 45 365 519 167 152 50 45 481 1,824
2037 50 402 574 185 163 53 49 518 1,995
2038 55 442 636 205 176 58 53 558 2,182

2039 60 487 704 227 190 62 57 601 2,387

2040 67 536 779 251 204 67 61 647 2,612
2041 73 590 863 278 220 72 66 697 2,859
2042 81 649 955 308 237 77 71 751 3,129
2043 89 714 1,058 341 255 83 76 809 3,425
2044 98 786 1,171 377 275 90 82 871 3,750
2045 107 865 1,297 418 296 97 89 938 4,106
2046 118 952 1,436 462 319 104 95 1,010 4,497
Direction-2
2026 18 143 191 62 69 23 21 236 762
2027 20 158 213 69 76 25 23 255 838
2028 22 175 237 76 83 27 25 276 921
2029 24 194 264 85 90 29 27 299 1,013
2030 27 215 294 95 98 32 29 324 1,114
2031 30 238 328 106 107 35 32 351 1,225
2032 33 263 365 118 116 38 35 380 1,348
2033 36 291 407 131 127 42 38 411 1,483
2034 40 323 453 146 138 45 41 445 1,631
2035 44 357 504 162 151 49 45 481 1,795
2036 49 396 562 181 164 54 49 521 1,976
2037 54 435 622 200 177 58 53 561 2,161
2038 60 479 689 222 191 62 57 604 2,364
2039 65 527 763 246 205 67 61 651 2,586
2040 72 580 844 272 221 72 66 701 2,830
2041 79 639 935 301 238 78 71 755 3,097
2042 87 703 1,035 333 257 84 77 813 3,389
2043 96 774 1,146 369 276 90 83 876 3,710
2044 106 852 1,269 409 298 97 89 943 4,062
2045 116 937 1,405 452 320 105 96 1,016 4,448
2046 128 1,032 1,556 501 345 113 103 1,094 4,872
– Combined
2026 34 275 368 118 134 44 40 454 1,466
2027 38 308 414 133 147 48 44 496 1,629
2028 43 344 467 150 162 53 49 542 1,810
2029 48 385 526 169 179 58 54 593 2,012
2030 54 431 593 191 197 64 59 649 2,237

2031 60 483 668 215 217 71 65 709 2,488

2032 67 540 753 242 239 78 72 776 2,767
2033 75 604 848 273 264 86 79 848 3,077
2034 84 676 956 308 290 95 87 927 3,424
2035 94 757 1,077 347 320 105 96 1,014 3,809
2036 105 847 1,213 391 353 115 106 1,109 4,239
2037 117 942 1,358 437 384 126 115 1,206 4,685
2038 130 1,047 1,520 490 418 137 125 1,313 5,178
2039 145 1,164 1,701 548 454 149 136 1,428 5,724
2040 161 1,294 1,904 613 494 162 148 1,554 6,329
2041 179 1,438 2,131 686 538 176 161 1,690 6,999
2042 199 1,599 2,385 768 585 191 175 1,839 7,741
2043 221 1,777 2,669 860 637 208 191 2,001 8,563
2044 245 1,975 2,987 962 693 226 207 2,177 9,474
2045 273 2,196 3,343 1,077 753 246 226 2,369 10,483
2046 303 2,441 3,742 1,205 820 268 245 2,577 11,602
Direction-1
2026 16 132 177 57 64 21 19 218 704
2027 18 148 199 64 71 23 21 238 782
2028 21 165 224 72 78 25 23 260 869
2029 23 185 253 81 86 28 26 285 966
2030 26 207 285 92 95 31 28 311 1,074
2031 29 232 321 103 104 34 31 340 1,194
2032 32 259 361 116 115 38 34 372 1,328
2033 36 290 407 131 127 41 38 407 1,477
2034 40 325 459 148 139 46 42 445 1,643
2035 45 363 517 166 154 50 46 487 1,829
2036 51 407 582 188 169 55 51 532 2,035
2037 56 452 652 210 184 60 55 579 2,249
2038 62 503 730 235 200 66 60 630 2,486
2039 69 559 817 263 218 71 65 685 2,748
2040 77 621 914 294 237 78 71 746 3,038
2041 86 690 1,023 329 258 84 77 811 3,360
2042 95 767 1,145 369 281 92 84 883 3,716
2043 106 853 1,281 413 306 100 91 961 4,110
2044 118 948 1,434 462 332 109 100 1,045 4,547
2045 131 1,054 1,605 517 362 118 108 1,137 5,032
2046 145 1,172 1,796 578 394 129 118 1,237 5,569

Direction-2
2026 18 143 191 62 69 23 21 236 762
2027 20 160 215 69 77 25 23 258 847
2028 22 179 243 78 84 28 25 282 941
2029 25 200 274 88 93 30 28 308 1,046
2030 28 224 308 99 102 33 31 337 1,163
2031 31 251 347 112 113 37 34 369 1,294
2032 35 281 391 126 124 41 37 403 1,439
2033 39 314 441 142 137 45 41 441 1,600
2034 44 352 497 160 151 49 45 482 1,780
2035 49 394 560 180 166 54 50 527 1,981
2036 55 441 631 203 183 60 55 577 2,204
2037 61 490 706 227 200 65 60 627 2,436
2038 68 544 790 255 217 71 65 683 2,693
2039 75 605 885 285 236 77 71 743 2,977
2040 84 673 990 319 257 84 77 808 3,291
2041 93 748 1,108 357 280 91 84 879 3,639
2042 103 831 1,240 399 304 99 91 956 4,025
2043 115 924 1,388 447 331 108 99 1,041 4,453
2044 128 1,027 1,553 500 360 118 108 1,132 4,926
2045 142 1,142 1,739 560 392 128 117 1,232 5,451
2046 158 1,269 1,946 627 426 139 128 1,340 6,033
Table 5-86: Projected Motorized Traffic Melkajilo-Awash Existing Road (High Growth Scenario)
– Combined
2026 34 275 368 118 134 44 40 454 1,466
2027 39 311 419 135 149 49 45 501 1,647
2028 44 352 478 154 166 54 50 553 1,850
2029 49 398 545 175 185 60 55 611 2,079
2030 56 450 621 200 206 67 62 675 2,336
2031 63 509 707 228 229 75 69 746 2,626
2032 71 576 806 260 255 83 76 824 2,952
2033 81 651 919 296 284 93 85 910 3,319
2034 91 737 1,048 337 317 104 95 1,005 3,733
2035 103 833 1,194 385 353 115 106 1,110 4,199
2036 117 943 1,361 438 393 129 118 1,226 4,724
2037 131 1,058 1,539 496 432 141 129 1,347 5,274
2038 148 1,188 1,741 561 475 155 142 1,480 5,890

2039 166 1,334 1,970 634 522 171 156 1,627 6,579
2040 186 1,497 2,228 718 573 188 172 1,788 7,350
2041 209 1,681 2,521 812 630 206 189 1,965 8,212
2042 234 1,887 2,851 918 693 226 207 2,159 9,177
2043 263 2,118 3,226 1,039 761 249 228 2,373 10,257
2044 295 2,378 3,649 1,175 836 274 250 2,608 11,466
2045 331 2,669 4,128 1,329 919 301 275 2,866 12,819
2046 372 2,997 4,669 1,504 1,010 330 303 3,150 14,335
– Direction-1
2026 16 132 177 57 64 21 19 218 704
2027 19 149 201 65 71 23 21 240 790
2028 21 169 229 74 80 26 24 266 888
2029 24 191 261 84 89 29 27 293 998
2030 27 216 298 96 99 32 30 324 1,121
2031 30 244 340 109 110 36 33 358 1,260
2032 34 276 387 125 123 40 37 395 1,417
2033 39 313 441 142 136 45 41 437 1,593
2034 44 354 503 162 152 50 46 482 1,792
2035 50 400 573 185 169 55 51 533 2,015
2036 56 453 653 210 189 62 56 588 2,267
2037 63 508 739 238 207 68 62 647 2,532
2038 71 570 836 269 228 75 68 711 2,827
2039 79 640 946 305 250 82 75 781 3,158
2040 89 719 1,070 344 275 90 82 858 3,528
2041 100 807 1,210 390 302 99 91 943 3,942
2042 112 906 1,369 441 332 109 100 1,036 4,405
2043 126 1,017 1,548 499 365 119 109 1,139 4,923
2044 142 1,141 1,751 564 401 131 120 1,252 5,503
2045 159 1,281 1,981 638 441 144 132 1,376 6,153
2046 179 1,438 2,241 722 485 159 145 1,512 6,881
– Direction-2
2026 18 143 191 62 69 23 21 236 762
2027 20 162 218 70 77 25 23 261 856
2028 23 183 248 80 86 28 26 288 962
2029 26 207 283 91 96 31 29 318 1,081
2030 29 234 323 104 107 35 32 351 1,215

2031 33 265 368 118 119 39 36 388 1,365

2032 37 299 419 135 133 43 40 428 1,535
2033 42 339 478 154 148 48 44 473 1,726
2034 48 383 545 175 165 54 49 522 1,941
2035 54 433 621 200 183 60 55 577 2,183
2036 61 490 708 228 204 67 61 637 2,456
2037 68 550 801 258 225 73 67 700 2,743
2038 77 618 906 292 247 81 74 770 3,063
2039 86 694 1,024 330 271 89 81 846 3,421
2040 97 779 1,159 373 298 98 89 930 3,822
2041 109 874 1,311 422 328 107 98 1,022 4,270
2042 122 981 1,483 478 360 118 108 1,123 4,772
2043 137 1,101 1,677 540 396 129 119 1,234 5,333
2044 154 1,237 1,897 611 435 142 130 1,356 5,962
2045 172 1,388 2,146 691 478 156 143 1,490 6,666
2046 193 1,558 2,428 782 525 172 157 1,638 7,454
FORECASTED COMBINED TRAFFIC FOR MELKAJILO – AWASH SECTION

The alignment of the road segment between Melkajilo and Awash partially passes through the
Awash National Park. In order to minimize the restrictions on the movement of wild animals within
the parks natural habitat, it is necessary to avoid fencing of the road environment so that animals
can cross the roads freely. This implies that the proposed road cannot be designed as a full-
fledged expressway for this section. Therefore, it shall be designed as either a 2-lane 2-way
highway or a multilane highway by combining the alignment and traffic of the new project
route with that of the existing road within the vicinity of the park. Therefore, the projected
combined traffic on the two routes (existing & project) is determined by summing the results for
the two roads from the previous two sections. Tables 5.90 to 5.98 show the projected combined
traffic for the three growth scenarios.
Table 5-89: Forecasted Combined Traffic (existing & new roads within Park) (Combined, Low
Scenario)

2026 191 1,539 2,059 663 748 245 224 2,540 8,209
2027 212 1,704 2,294 739 815 267 244 2,750 9,023
2028 234 1,886 2,555 823 888 291 266 2,977 9,920
2029 259 2,089 2,845 916 968 317 290 3,222 10,907
2030 287 2,313 3,169 1,021 1,056 345 316 3,488 11,995
2031 318 2,560 3,530 1,137 1,151 376 345 3,776 13,192
2032 352 2,835 3,932 1,266 1,254 410 376 4,087 14,512
2033 390 3,139 4,379 1,410 1,367 447 409 4,424 15,966
2034 432 3,475 4,877 1,571 1,490 487 446 4,789 17,568
2035 478 3,848 5,433 1,750 1,624 531 486 5,185 19,334
2036 529 4,260 6,051 1,949 1,770 579 530 5,612 21,281
2037 582 4,689 6,699 2,158 1,907 624 571 6,044 23,274
2038 641 5,161 7,418 2,389 2,053 672 615 6,510 25,458
2039 705 5,680 8,213 2,645 2,212 723 662 7,011 27,851
2040 776 6,251 9,093 2,929 2,382 779 713 7,551 30,474
2041 854 6,880 10,068 3,243 2,565 839 768 8,132 33,350
2042 940 7,572 11,147 3,590 2,763 904 827 8,759 36,502
2043 1,035 8,334 12,342 3,975 2,976 973 891 9,433 39,959
2044 1,139 9,172 13,665 4,401 3,205 1,048 960 10,159 43,749
2045 1,253 10,095 15,130 4,873 3,451 1,129 1,033 10,942 47,907
2046 1,380 11,111 16,752 5,395 3,717 1,216 1,113 11,784 52,468
Scenario)
2026 92 739 988 318 359 117 107 1,219 3,940
2027 102 818 1,101 355 391 128 117 1,320 4,331
2028 112 905 1,226 395 426 139 128 1,429 4,762
2029 124 1,003 1,366 440 465 152 139 1,547 5,235
2030 138 1,110 1,521 490 507 166 152 1,674 5,757
2031 153 1,229 1,694 546 552 181 165 1,812 6,332
2032 169 1,361 1,887 608 602 197 180 1,962 6,966
2033 187 1,507 2,102 677 656 215 196 2,124 7,664
2034 207 1,668 2,341 754 715 234 214 2,299 8,433
2035 229 1,847 2,608 840 780 255 233 2,489 9,280
2036 254 2,045 2,904 935 850 278 254 2,694 10,215
2037 279 2,251 3,216 1,036 915 299 274 2,901 11,171
2038 308 2,477 3,560 1,147 986 322 295 3,125 12,220
2039 339 2,726 3,942 1,270 1,062 347 318 3,365 13,368
2040 373 3,001 4,365 1,406 1,143 374 342 3,624 14,628

2041 410 3,302 4,833 1,556 1,231 403 369 3,904 16,008
2042 451 3,635 5,351 1,723 1,326 434 397 4,204 17,521
2043 497 4,000 5,924 1,908 1,428 467 428 4,528 19,180
2044 547 4,403 6,559 2,113 1,538 503 461 4,876 21,000
2045 602 4,846 7,262 2,339 1,657 542 496 5,252 22,995
2046 662 5,333 8,041 2,590 1,784 584 534 5,656 25,184
Scenario)
2026 99 800 1,071 345 389 127 116 1,321 4,269
2027 110 886 1,193 384 424 139 127 1,430 4,692
2028 122 981 1,328 428 462 151 138 1,548 5,158
2029 135 1,086 1,480 477 504 165 151 1,676 5,672
2030 149 1,203 1,648 531 549 180 164 1,814 6,237
2031 165 1,331 1,836 591 598 196 179 1,963 6,860
2032 183 1,474 2,044 658 652 213 195 2,125 7,546
2033 203 1,632 2,277 733 711 232 213 2,301 8,302
2034 224 1,807 2,536 817 775 253 232 2,491 9,135
2035 248 2,001 2,825 910 845 276 253 2,696 10,054
2036 275 2,215 3,146 1,013 921 301 276 2,918 11,066
2037 303 2,438 3,484 1,122 991 324 297 3,143 12,102
2038 333 2,684 3,857 1,242 1,068 349 320 3,385 13,238
2039 367 2,954 4,271 1,375 1,150 376 344 3,646 14,483
2040 404 3,251 4,728 1,523 1,239 405 371 3,927 15,847
2041 444 3,578 5,235 1,686 1,334 436 399 4,229 17,342
2042 489 3,938 5,797 1,867 1,437 470 430 4,554 18,981
2043 538 4,334 6,418 2,067 1,547 506 463 4,905 20,778
2044 592 4,770 7,106 2,289 1,666 545 499 5,283 22,750
2045 652 5,249 7,868 2,534 1,795 587 537 5,690 24,912
2046 717 5,778 8,711 2,806 1,933 632 579 6,128 27,283
Table 5-92: Forecasted Combined Traffic (existing & new roads within Park) (Combined, Med.
Scenario)
2026 191 1,539 2,059 663 748 245 224 2,540 8,209
2027 214 1,722 2,321 747 824 270 247 2,778 9,122
2028 239 1,928 2,615 842 908 297 272 3,037 10,138
2029 268 2,157 2,946 949 1,001 327 300 3,321 11,269
2030 300 2,414 3,320 1,069 1,103 361 330 3,632 12,529
2031 336 2,702 3,741 1,205 1,215 397 364 3,972 13,932
2032 376 3,024 4,215 1,358 1,339 438 401 4,343 15,494

2033 420 3,385 4,750 1,530 1,476 483 442 4,749 17,234
2034 470 3,788 5,352 1,724 1,626 532 487 5,193 19,173
2035 526 4,240 6,031 1,942 1,792 586 537 5,678 21,333
2036 589 4,745 6,795 2,189 1,975 646 591 6,209 23,740
2037 655 5,275 7,605 2,449 2,149 703 643 6,756 26,236
2038 728 5,864 8,512 2,741 2,338 765 700 7,350 28,998
2039 809 6,518 9,526 3,068 2,544 832 762 7,997 32,056
2040 900 7,245 10,662 3,434 2,768 905 829 8,701 35,443
2041 1,000 8,054 11,933 3,843 3,011 985 902 9,467 39,194
2042 1,112 8,953 13,355 4,301 3,276 1,071 981 10,300 43,349
2043 1,236 9,952 14,947 4,814 3,565 1,166 1,067 11,206 47,952
2044 1,374 11,062 16,729 5,388 3,878 1,268 1,161 12,192 53,053
2045 1,527 12,297 18,723 6,030 4,220 1,380 1,263 13,265 58,705
2046 1,697 13,669 20,955 6,749 4,591 1,501 1,375 14,432 64,969
Scenario)
2026 92 739 988 318 359 117 107 1,219 3,940
2027 103 827 1,114 359 396 129 118 1,333 4,379
2028 115 925 1,255 404 436 143 131 1,458 4,866
2029 129 1,035 1,414 455 480 157 144 1,594 5,409
2030 144 1,159 1,594 513 529 173 159 1,743 6,014
2031 161 1,297 1,796 578 583 191 175 1,906 6,687
2032 180 1,452 2,023 652 643 210 192 2,085 7,437
2033 202 1,625 2,280 734 708 232 212 2,279 8,272
2034 226 1,818 2,569 827 781 255 234 2,493 9,203
2035 253 2,035 2,895 932 860 281 258 2,726 10,240
2036 283 2,278 3,262 1,050 948 310 284 2,981 11,395
2037 314 2,532 3,651 1,176 1,032 337 309 3,243 12,593
2038 349 2,814 4,086 1,316 1,122 367 336 3,528 13,919
2039 388 3,129 4,573 1,473 1,221 399 366 3,839 15,387
2040 432 3,478 5,118 1,648 1,329 434 398 4,176 17,013
2041 480 3,866 5,728 1,845 1,445 473 433 4,544 18,813
2042 534 4,297 6,410 2,065 1,573 514 471 4,944 20,808
2043 593 4,777 7,175 2,311 1,711 560 512 5,379 23,017
2044 659 5,310 8,030 2,586 1,862 609 557 5,852 25,465
2045 733 5,903 8,987 2,894 2,025 662 606 6,367 28,178
2046 815 6,561 10,058 3,239 2,204 721 660 6,928 31,185
Scenario)

2026 99 800 1,071 345 389 127 116 1,321 4,269
2027 111 896 1,207 389 429 140 128 1,444 4,743
2028 124 1,002 1,360 438 472 154 141 1,579 5,272
2029 139 1,122 1,532 493 520 170 156 1,727 5,860
2030 156 1,256 1,726 556 573 188 172 1,889 6,515
2031 174 1,405 1,945 626 632 207 189 2,065 7,244
2032 195 1,573 2,192 706 696 228 209 2,258 8,057
2033 219 1,760 2,470 795 767 251 230 2,469 8,962
2034 245 1,970 2,783 896 846 277 253 2,700 9,970
2035 274 2,205 3,136 1,010 932 305 279 2,953 11,093
2036 306 2,468 3,534 1,138 1,027 336 308 3,229 12,345
2037 341 2,743 3,955 1,274 1,117 365 335 3,513 13,642
2038 379 3,049 4,426 1,425 1,216 398 364 3,822 15,079
2039 421 3,389 4,954 1,595 1,323 433 396 4,159 16,669
2040 468 3,768 5,544 1,786 1,439 471 431 4,524 18,430
2041 520 4,188 6,205 1,998 1,566 512 469 4,923 20,381
2042 578 4,655 6,945 2,237 1,704 557 510 5,356 22,542
2043 643 5,175 7,772 2,503 1,854 606 555 5,827 24,935
2044 714 5,752 8,699 2,802 2,017 660 604 6,340 27,587
2045 794 6,394 9,736 3,136 2,194 718 657 6,898 30,527
2046 883 7,108 10,896 3,509 2,387 781 715 7,505 33,784
Table 5-95: Forecasted Combined Traffic (existing & new roads within Park) (Combined, High
Scenario)
2026 191 1,539 2,059 663 748 245 224 2,540 8,209
2027 216 1,741 2,347 756 833 272 249 2,806 9,221
2028 244 1,969 2,675 862 928 304 278 3,099 10,359
2029 277 2,227 3,049 982 1,034 338 310 3,423 11,640
2030 313 2,520 3,476 1,119 1,152 377 345 3,780 13,081
2031 354 2,850 3,962 1,276 1,283 420 384 4,175 14,704
2032 400 3,224 4,516 1,454 1,429 467 428 4,612 16,531
2033 453 3,647 5,147 1,658 1,592 521 477 5,094 18,588
2034 512 4,126 5,866 1,889 1,774 580 531 5,626 20,904
2035 579 4,667 6,686 2,153 1,976 646 592 6,214 23,514
2036 656 5,279 7,621 2,455 2,201 720 659 6,863 26,454
2037 736 5,927 8,621 2,777 2,419 791 724 7,543 29,537
2038 826 6,653 9,752 3,141 2,659 869 796 8,289 32,985
2039 927 7,469 11,032 3,553 2,922 956 875 9,110 36,843
2040 1,041 8,385 12,479 4,019 3,211 1,050 961 10,012 41,158
2041 1,169 9,412 14,116 4,546 3,529 1,154 1,057 11,003 45,986

2042 1,312 10,566 15,968 5,143 3,878 1,268 1,161 12,092 51,390
2043 1,473 11,862 18,063 5,818 4,262 1,394 1,276 13,289 57,437
2044 1,653 13,316 20,433 6,581 4,684 1,532 1,403 14,605 64,207
2045 1,856 14,949 23,114 7,444 5,148 1,684 1,541 16,051 71,787
2046 2,084 16,781 26,147 8,421 5,657 1,850 1,694 17,640 80,274
Scenario)
2026 92 739 988 318 359 117 107 1,219 3,940
2027 104 836 1,127 363 400 131 120 1,347 4,426
2028 117 945 1,284 414 445 146 133 1,487 4,972
2029 133 1,069 1,464 471 496 162 149 1,643 5,587
2030 150 1,209 1,668 537 553 181 166 1,815 6,279
2031 170 1,368 1,902 612 616 201 184 2,004 7,058
2032 192 1,548 2,167 698 686 224 205 2,214 7,935
2033 217 1,751 2,470 796 764 250 229 2,445 8,922
2034 246 1,980 2,816 907 851 278 255 2,700 10,034
2035 278 2,240 3,209 1,034 948 310 284 2,983 11,287
2036 315 2,534 3,658 1,178 1,057 346 316 3,294 12,698
2037 353 2,845 4,138 1,333 1,161 380 348 3,620 14,178
2038 397 3,194 4,681 1,508 1,276 417 382 3,979 15,833
2039 445 3,585 5,295 1,705 1,402 459 420 4,373 17,685
2040 500 4,025 5,990 1,929 1,541 504 461 4,806 19,756
2041 561 4,518 6,776 2,182 1,694 554 507 5,281 22,073
2042 630 5,072 7,665 2,469 1,862 609 557 5,804 24,667
2043 707 5,694 8,670 2,792 2,046 669 613 6,379 27,570
2044 794 6,392 9,808 3,159 2,248 735 673 7,010 30,819
2045 891 7,175 11,095 3,573 2,471 808 740 7,704 34,458
2046 1,000 8,055 12,550 4,042 2,716 888 813 8,467 38,532
Scenario)
2026 99 800 1,071 345 389 127 116 1,321 4,269
2027 112 905 1,221 393 433 142 130 1,459 4,795
2028 127 1,024 1,391 448 483 158 144 1,611 5,387
2029 144 1,158 1,586 511 538 176 161 1,780 6,053
2030 163 1,310 1,807 582 599 196 179 1,966 6,802
2031 184 1,482 2,060 663 667 218 200 2,171 7,646
2032 208 1,677 2,348 756 743 243 223 2,398 8,596
2033 235 1,897 2,676 862 828 271 248 2,649 9,666

2034 266 2,145 3,050 982 922 302 276 2,925 10,870
2035 301 2,427 3,477 1,120 1,027 336 308 3,231 12,227
2036 341 2,745 3,963 1,276 1,145 374 343 3,569 13,756
2037 383 3,082 4,483 1,444 1,258 411 377 3,922 15,359
2038 430 3,460 5,071 1,633 1,382 452 414 4,310 17,152
2039 482 3,884 5,736 1,848 1,519 497 455 4,737 19,158
2040 541 4,360 6,489 2,090 1,670 546 500 5,206 21,402
2041 608 4,894 7,340 2,364 1,835 600 549 5,722 23,913
2042 682 5,495 8,304 2,674 2,017 660 604 6,288 26,723
2043 766 6,168 9,393 3,025 2,216 725 664 6,910 29,867
2044 860 6,924 10,625 3,422 2,436 797 729 7,595 33,388
2045 965 7,773 12,019 3,871 2,677 875 802 8,346 37,329
2046 1,084 8,726 13,596 4,379 2,942 962 881 9,173 41,743
DESIGN CLASS AND NUMBER OF LANES

The concept of Capacity and Level of Service (LOS) is one of the key aspects in the design and
operational performance of transport facilities. The Highway Capacity Manual-2010 (HCM 2010)
defines capacity and LOS as follows:
“The capacity of a facility is the maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles reasonably can
be expected to traverse a point or a uniform section of a lane or roadway during a given time
period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions”
“Level of Service (LOS) is a quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic
stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, and comfort and
convenience.”
The HCM 2010 provides detailed methodologies for the design of new transport facilities (Design
Analysis) and performance assessment of existing transport facilities (Operational Analysis).
For multilane highways, capacity analysis procedures are based on calibrated speed-flow
curves for sections with various free-flow speeds operating under base conditions, where base
conditions indicate presence of no heavy vehicles and driver population dominated by regular or
familiar users of the facility (Figure 5.8).

Figure 5-8: Calibrated Speed-Flow Curve for Multilane Highways (HCM 2010)
Analysis methodologies are provided that account for the impact of a variety of prevailing
conditions, including:
 Lane widths
 Lateral clearances
 Number of lanes (For freeways/expressways)
 Type of median (For multilane highways)
 Frequency of interchanges (freeways) or access points (multilane highways)
 Presence of heavy vehicles in the traffic stream
 Driver populations dominated by occasional or unfamiliar users of a facility
For two-lane two-way rural highways, there are two distinct classes of these highways (HCM
2010):
 Class I: Motorists expect to travel at relatively high speeds, including major intercity
routes, primary arterials, and daily commuter routes. Serve primarily mobility needs.
 Class II: Motorists do not necessarily expect to travel at high speeds, including access
routes, scenic and recreational routes, and routes through rugged terrain. Serve primarily
accessibility needs.
In the context of the current project route, which serves as a major import/export outlet of the
country, the approaches for class-I 2-lane 2-way rural highway apply. For such highways, the

capacity and LOS analysis are based on two key parameters, i.e. Average Travel Speed (ATS)
and Percent Time Spent Following (PTSF) (Table 5.98).
Table 5-98:. LOS Criteria for Class-I 2-lane 2-way rural highway (HCM 2010)
Accordingly, the design class and required number of lanes for the project route are determined in
the following sections as per the HCM 2010 procedures.
Segment outside the Awash National Park
Given the significance of the proposed route in terms of the country’s import-export transport and
contribution to the economy, it is necessary to design the facility as a high mobility route as a
multilane highway. According to the HCM 2010, the required number of lanes for a given design
traffic volume and specified minimum LOS under peak conditions can be determined as follows:
Ni = DDHV/(PHF*MSF*fHV*fp)
Where
Ni = Required number of lanes per direction,
vp = passenger-car equiv. flow rate for peak 15-minute period, pc/h,
DDHV = Directional Design Hour Volume for the full peak hour, veh/h,
PHF = peak-hour factor,
MSF = Maximum Service Flow rate for a given LOS
fHV = heavy-vehicle adjustment factor.
fHV = 1/(1 + PHV(ET-1)
PHV = proportion of Heavy Vehicles, expressed as a decimal,
EHV = passenger-car equivalent for trucks,
In the absence of actual peak hour traffic data, the DDHV can be estimated from the AADT as
follows:
DDHV = AADT * K * D

where
K: proportion of daily traffic occurring during the peak hour,
D: proportion of peak hour traffic traveling in the peak direction of flow,
The Free Flow Speed (FFS) for a given multilane highway can be estimated as follows:
FFS = BFFS - fLW - fLC - fM - fA

Where:
FFS = Base Free Flow Speed
BFFS = base free-flow speed, km/h,
fLW = adjustment for lane width, km/h,
fLC = adjustment for right-shoulder lateral clearance, km/h,
fM = adjustment for median type, km/h, and
fA = adjustment for access points, km/h.
Table 5.99 shows the results of lane number requirements to provide LOS-D under peak hour
conditions based on Medium Traffic Scenario for the opening year (2026), mid-life (2036), and
design year (2046). The following is the description of the input values:
- The AADT, D-factor, and PHV are determined from the traffic analysis results.
- The K-factor (9%) PHF (0.9) ET (1.5 for flat terrain conditions) and fP (1 for familiar users)
have been adopted based on evaluation of relevant literature and applicable project route
conditions.
- The FFS has been estimated to be 82km/hr, based on adoption of 90km/hr BFFS, 3.6-m
lanes, 1.2-m shoulder widths, undivided highway, and access point density of 3 per
kilometer.
Accordingly, a four-lane multilane highway (2 lanes per direction) is recommended to provide
acceptable operational level of service.
Table 5-99: Lane Number Requirements for Melkajilo-Awash Segment Outside Awash Park
Limits (Based on Medium Traffic Scenario and Multilane Highway Consideration)
Yea AADT K D DDH PHF MSF PHV ET fHV fp Number of Lanes (N)
r V (LOS
D)
Calculated Recommended
2026 6,743 0.0 0.5 316 0.9 1700 33.7 1. 0.8 1 0.2 2.0
9 2 % 5 6
2036 19,50 0.0 0.5 913 0.9 1700 28.6 1. 0.8 1 0.7 2.0
1 9 2 % 5 7
2046 53,36 0.0 0.5 2,498 0.9 1700 24.3 1. 0.8 1 1.8 2.0
8 9 2 % 5 9

Segment Within Awash National Park

As described in the previous section, in order to limit the impact on the National Park Habitat, it
has been proposed to evaluate the options of merging the new route with the existing road within
the vicinity of the park, either as a 2-lane 2-way highway or a multilane highway. Accordingly, in
order to minimize the additional interference with the natural habitat that might occur due to a new
separate alignment of the project route, an alternative alignment is evaluated by combining the
alignment of the new project route with that of the existing road within the vicinity of the
park. Three alternative options have been identified and evaluated in this section in terms of the
design class and number of lanes of the combined alignment:
- Option-1: Two-Lane Two-Way Highway
- Option-2: Four Lane Multilane Highway
- Option-3: Six Lane Multilane Highway
Table 5.100 shows the projected traffic on the existing road for the Medium Traffic Scenario. The
projected combined traffic on the two routes (existing & project) is also determined by summing
the results for the two roads (Table 5.101).
Table 5-100: Projected Traffic on the Existing Road (Both Directions, Medium Scenario)
2026 34 275 368 118 134 44 40 454 1,466
2027 38 308 414 133 147 48 44 496 1,629
2028 43 344 467 150 162 53 49 542 1,810
2029 48 385 526 169 179 58 54 593 2,012
2030 54 431 593 191 197 64 59 649 2,237
2031 60 483 668 215 217 71 65 709 2,488
2032 67 540 753 242 239 78 72 776 2,767
2033 75 604 848 273 264 86 79 848 3,077
2034 84 676 956 308 290 95 87 927 3,424
2035 94 757 1,077 347 320 105 96 1,014 3,809
2036 105 847 1,213 391 353 115 106 1,109 4,239
2037 117 942 1,358 437 384 126 115 1,206 4,685
2038 130 1,047 1,520 490 418 137 125 1,313 5,178
2039 145 1,164 1,701 548 454 149 136 1,428 5,724
2040 161 1,294 1,904 613 494 162 148 1,554 6,329
2041 179 1,438 2,131 686 538 176 161 1,690 6,999
2042 199 1,599 2,385 768 585 191 175 1,839 7,741
2043 221 1,777 2,669 860 637 208 191 2,001 8,563
2044 245 1,975 2,987 962 693 226 207 2,177 9,474
2045 273 2,196 3,343 1,077 753 246 226 2,369 10,483
2046 303 2,441 3,742 1,205 820 268 245 2,577 11,602
Table 5-101: Projected Combined Traffic on the Existing & Project Roads (Both Directions,
Medium Scenario)

2026 191 1,539 2,059 663 748 245 224 2,540 8,209
2027 214 1,722 2,321 747 824 270 247 2,778 9,122
2028 239 1,928 2,615 842 908 297 272 3,037 10,138
2029 268 2,157 2,946 949 1,001 327 300 3,321 11,269
2030 300 2,414 3,320 1,069 1,103 361 330 3,632 12,529
2031 336 2,702 3,741 1,205 1,215 397 364 3,972 13,932
2032 376 3,024 4,215 1,358 1,339 438 401 4,343 15,494
2033 420 3,385 4,750 1,530 1,476 483 442 4,749 17,234
2034 470 3,788 5,352 1,724 1,626 532 487 5,193 19,173
2035 526 4,240 6,031 1,942 1,792 586 537 5,678 21,333
2036 589 4,745 6,795 2,189 1,975 646 591 6,209 23,740
2037 655 5,275 7,605 2,449 2,149 703 643 6,756 26,236
2038 728 5,864 8,512 2,741 2,338 765 700 7,350 28,998
2039 809 6,518 9,526 3,068 2,544 832 762 7,997 32,056
2040 900 7,245 10,662 3,434 2,768 905 829 8,701 35,443
2041 1,000 8,054 11,933 3,843 3,011 985 902 9,467 39,194
2042 1,112 8,953 13,355 4,301 3,276 1,071 981 10,300 43,349
2043 1,236 9,952 14,947 4,814 3,565 1,166 1,067 11,206 47,952
2044 1,374 11,062 16,729 5,388 3,878 1,268 1,161 12,192 53,053
2045 1,527 12,297 18,723 6,030 4,220 1,380 1,263 13,265 58,705
2046 1,697 13,669 20,955 6,749 4,591 1,501 1,375 14,432 64,969
The three options have been evaluated and compared using the HCM-2010 operational analysis
methodology for 2-lane 2-way rural highways and multilane highways.
Option-1: Two-Lane Two-Way Highway
The analysis for such facilities depends on the Average Travel Speed (ATS) and Percent Time
Spent Following (PTSF) as described above. Accordingly, the following procedures were followed
in order to establish the two parameters:
- Calculation of ATS:
ATS = FFS - 0.0125vp - fnp
Where,
ATS = average travel speed for both directions of travel combined, km/h,
FFS = estimated free-flow speed, km/h,
FFS = BFFS - fLS - fA
BFFS = base free-flow speed, km/h,
fLS = adjustment for lane width and shoulder width,
fA = adjustment for access points,

vp = service flow rate (passenger-car equivalent flow rate for peak 15-minute, pc/h.)
fnp = adjustment for percentage of no-passing zones,
Calculation of service flow rate:
vp = DHV/(PHF*fHV*fG)
DHV = two-way demand volume for the full peak hour, veh/h,
DHV = AADT * K * D
AADT: Average Annual Daily Traffic (veh/day)
K: proportion of daily traffic occurring during the peak hour
D: proportion of peak hour traffic traveling in the peak direction of flow
PHF = peak-hour factor,
fG = grade adjustment factor, and
fHV = heavy-vehicle adjustment factor.
fHV = 1/(1 + PHV(ET-1)
PHV = proportion of Heavy Vehicles, expressed as a decimal,
EHV = passenger-car equivalent for trucks,
- Calculation of PTSF:
PTSF = BPTSF + fd/np
PTSF = percent time spent following,
BPTSF = base percent time spent following, for both directions of travel combined
BPTSF = 100 [1 - e(-0.000879vp)]
fd/np = adjustment for the combined effect on percent time spent following of directional
distribution of traffic and percent no-passing zones,
The analysis results for option-1 are summarized in Table 5.102 According to the results, the
expected LOS is “E” for mid-life (2036) and “F” for design year (2046), which may be too low and
thus not recommended for such a route with major economic significance for the country.
Table 5-102: LOS analysis results for Two-Lane Two-Way Option (Combined Traffic for existing
and project route, Medium Traffic Scenario)
AAD PH f AT BPTS PTS
Year K DHV PHV ET fHV vp FFS LOS
T F G fnp S F fd/np F
8,209 0.0 739 0.9 33.7 1.2 0.94 1 876.2 83 2. 70 54 9 63 D
2026
9 % 2
23,740 0.0 2,137 0.9 28.6 1.1 0.97 1 2442. 83 0. 52 88 1.8 90 E
2036
9 % 0 8

64,969 0.0 5,847 0.9 24.3 1.1 0.98 1 6655. 83 0. N/A 100 0.7 100 F
2046
9 % 0 8
Option-2: Four Lane Multilane Highway

As described in the previous section, capacity and LOS analysis for multilane highways are
based on calibrated speed-flow curves for sections with various free-flow speeds operating
under base conditions. Therefore, the FFS and demand flow rate (pc/hr/lane) have to be
estimated in order to determine the LOS on such facilities under prevailing operational conditions.
The FFS is estimated as per the procedures described in earlier sections. The demand flow rate,
vp, in pc/hr/lane, can be determined as follows, where the variables are as described in the
previous sections.
vp = DDHV/(PHF*N*fHV*fp)
Table 5.103 shows the results of LOS analysis for the four lane multilane option. The result for
mid-life (2036) is LOS-B, which is very good for peak conditions. The LOS-E result for design
year (2046) can also be considered reasonably acceptable for peak conditions.
Table 5-103: LOS analysis results for Four Lane Multilane Highway Option (Combined Traffic for
existing and project route, Medium Traffic Scenario)
Year AADT K D DDHV PHF N PHV ET fHV fp vp FFS LOS
2026 8,209 0.09 0.52 384 0.9 2 33.7% 1.5 0.86 1 249.4 84 A
2036 23,740 0.09 0.52 1,111 0.9 2 28.6% 1.5 0.87 1 705.7 84 B
2046 64,969 0.09 0.52 3,041 0.9 2 24.3% 1.5 0.89 1 1894.7 84 E
Option-3: Six Lane Multilane Highway

Table 5.104 shows the results of LOS analysis for the six-lane highway option, following the same
procedure described above. The LOS results of “A” for mid-life (2036) and “C” for design year
(2046) are both very good and may be justified to be an over-design of the facility. In addition,
given the requirements to reduce the impact on Awash National Park due to the extra right-of-way
for the six-lane facility, it is recommended to opt for the four-lane multilane highway option.
However, further economic and environmental impact analysis may be recommended to evaluate
the trade-offs in having a separate alignment for the project route as a four-lane highway versus a
combined alignment of the existing & project roads as a four-lane highway within the boundary of
the Awash National Park.
Table 5-104: LOS analysis results for Six Lane Multilane Highway Option (Combined Traffic for
existing and project route, Medium Traffic Scenario)
Year AADT K D DDHV PHF N PHV ET fHV fp vp FFS LOS
2026 8,209 0.09 0.52 384 0.9 3 33.7% 1.5 0.86 1 166.2 84 A

2036 23,740 0.09 0.52 1,111 0.9 3 28.6% 1.5 0.87 1 470.4 84 A
2046 64,969 0.09 0.52 3,041 0.9 3 24.3% 1.5 0.89 1 1263.1 84 C
Evaluation of Junction Types at Entry and Exit from the Awash Park Segment
If the existing road and the project road are to be merged within the boundary of the Awash
National Park, there is a need to design an appropriate junction type at the entry and exit from the
park where the two alignments intersect. There are generally two options, namely, at-grade
junction and grade-separated junction. The selection of the appropriate junction type needs to
consider several factors into consideration including the function of the roads, the traffic volume,
safety, expected performance, cost, right-of-way and other factors. The project route is a high
priority route which serves as a major import/export corridor of the country. It also links with the
Addis-Adama Expressway and is also being planned as a toll road all the way to Dire Dawa and
Dewelle. Drivers expect high performance in terms of travel time and speed on such roads.
Therefore, it is usually recommended to avoid at-grade junctions that may create bottlenecks and
also violate driver expectancy on such uninterrupted flow facilities. There are different guides on
the selection of appropriate junction types based on traffic flows and other parameters. Figure 5.9
shows one of such guides that recommends junction types based on the daily traffic volumes on
the intersection roads. Using this guide and the AADT data for the project and existing routes
(Tables 5.105 & 5.106) it shows roundabout/signals for the mid-life (2036) and Grade-Separation
for the design year (2046). However, given the priority of the project route as a tolled road and to
meet driver expectancy for uninterrupted flow on the tolled expressway, it is recommended to
install a grade-separated junction in the form of a Half-Trumpet similar to the schematic shown in
Figure 5.10.
Figure 5-9: Intersection type based on traffic flows
Table 5-105:. Forecasted Traffic (Melkajilo - Awash Segment) (Project Route)
Medium Scenario

2026 157 1,264 1,692 545 614 201 184 2,087 6,743
2036 484 3,898 5,582 1,798 1,622 531 486 5,101 19,501
2046 1,394 11,228 17,213 5,544 3,771 1,233 1,129 11,855 53,368
Table 5-106: Forecasted Traffic (Melkajilo - Awash Segment) (Existing Road)
Medium Scenario
2026 34 275 368 118 134 44 40 454 1,466
2036 105 847 1,213 391 353 115 106 1,109 4,239
2046 303 2,441 3,742 1,205 820 268 245 2,577 11,602
Figure 5-10: Recommended Half Trumpet Interchange between the existing and project
roads

6 PAVEMENT DESIGN
GENERAL
This Report presents the pavement design of the section from Km 60+000 to 126+558 of the
Melkajilo - Awash Road Project. Most road agencies and standards make use of sub grade soil
strength and axle load as an input for pavement design of paved roads. Thus, these two
parameters have to receive utmost attention and consideration. In general, overestimating sub
grade soil strength and underestimating axle load will result in premature pavement failures. In
addition, underestimating sub grade soil strength and overestimating axle load will increase the
project cost and makes it uneconomical. Therefore, proper sub grade soil strength and axle load
evaluation and interpretation are crucial elements from both technical and economic perspective.
DESIGN PERIOD
Depending on functional classification of the road, ERA 2013 Pavement Design Manual proposes
an analysis period of 10-20 years for different type road. Considering the function of the project
road in the overall network as Trunk Road, 20 years has been adopted for pavement design life. It
has been also assumed that year 2026 (giving tendering, mobilization and construction times) has
been considered as the base year when the project road will be opened to traffic, upon which
traffic projections will be based.
DEPARTURES FROM STANDARDS

The design of the pavement structures for the project road is done based on AASHTO Pavement
design manual 1993 and ERA Flexible Pavement Design Manual 2013. There are no other
departures from the standards while designing the flexible pavement for this project.
TRAFFIC LOADING
The damaging effect of a vehicle to pavement structures is not only dependent on the number of
repetition of the traffic which was determined from traffic survey, but also from magnitude of the
axle load. The relative damaging factor, equivalency factor (EF), of a vehicle is determined from
ratio of axle load of each vehicle class to standard axle load (8160 kg) with the equation:
EF = (Axle load (kg)/8160)4.5

No axle load survey was carried out as part of the present study. This is because the current
traffic is very limited in number and composition. The options, therefore, country's average as
presented in ERA 2013 Flexible Pavement Design Manual and Consultant Adama-Awash
Previous traffic study adopted.
Considering the base year traffic (2026), and the proposed growth rates, and generated and
diverted traffic, the traffic projections exercise has been carried out for the entire project appraisal
period. The results of the traffic projections for all the motorized modes on the project road are
summarized in Tables below and details are discussed in the feasibility report.
Table 6-1: Projected Traffic (Melkajilo - Awash) Direction -1
Traffic Forecast (Medium growth scenario)

Year Growth Period 2026-2036


Car 4WD S.B L.B S.T M.T H .T T.T
% 11.9 11.9 12.7 12.7 10.2 10.2 10.2 9.4
% 11.2 11.2 11.9 11.9 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8
Car 4WD S.B L.B S.T M.T H .T T.T TOTAL
2026 75 607 812 262 295 96 88 1,002 3,237
2027 84 679 915 295 325 106 97 1,095 3,597
2028 94 760 1,031 332 358 117 107 1,198 3,997
2029 106 851 1,162 374 395 129 118 1,310 4,443
2030 118 952 1,309 422 435 142 130 1,432 4,940
2031 132 1,065 1,475 475 479 157 143 1,566 5,493
2032 148 1,192 1,662 535 528 173 158 1,712 6,109
2033 166 1,335 1,873 603 582 190 174 1,872 6,795
2034 185 1,494 2,110 680 641 210 192 2,047 7,559
2035 208 1,672 2,378 766 707 231 212 2,239 8,411
2036 232 1,871 2,679 863 779 255 233 2,448 9,360
2037 258 2,080 2,999 966 847 277 254 2,664 10,344
2038 287 2,312 3,356 1,081 922 301 276 2,898 11,433
2039 319 2,570 3,756 1,210 1,003 328 300 3,153 12,639
2040 355 2,857 4,204 1,354 1,091 357 327 3,431 13,975
2041 394 3,176 4,705 1,515 1,187 388 356 3,733 15,454
2042 438 3,530 5,266 1,696 1,292 422 387 4,061 17,092
2043 487 3,924 5,893 1,898 1,405 460 421 4,418 18,907
2044 542 4,362 6,596 2,124 1,529 500 458 4,807 20,918
2045 602 4,849 7,382 2,378 1,664 544 498 5,230 23,146
2046 669 5,390 8,262 2,661 1,810 592 542 5,690 25,616

Table 6-2: Projected Traffic (Awash - Melkajilo) Direction -2

% 11.9 11.9 12.7 12.7 10.2 10.2 10.2 9.4
% 11.2 11.2 11.9 11.9 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8
Car 4WD S.B L.B S.T M.T H .T T.T TOTAL
2026 82 657 880 283 319 104 96 1,085 3,506
2027 91 736 991 319 352 115 105 1,186 3,896
2028 102 823 1,117 360 388 127 116 1,297 4,330
2029 114 921 1,258 405 427 140 128 1,419 4,814
2030 128 1,031 1,418 457 471 154 141 1,551 5,352
2031 143 1,154 1,598 515 519 170 155 1,696 5,951
2032 160 1,292 1,800 580 572 187 171 1,855 6,618
2033 180 1,446 2,029 653 630 206 189 2,028 7,361
2034 201 1,618 2,286 736 695 227 208 2,218 8,189
2035 225 1,811 2,576 830 766 250 229 2,426 9,112
2036 252 2,027 2,903 935 844 276 253 2,652 10,140
2037 280 2,253 3,249 1,046 918 300 275 2,886 11,206
2038 311 2,505 3,636 1,171 999 327 299 3,140 12,386
2039 346 2,784 4,069 1,311 1,087 355 325 3,416 13,693
2040 384 3,095 4,554 1,467 1,182 387 354 3,717 15,139
2041 427 3,440 5,097 1,642 1,286 421 385 4,044 16,742
2042 475 3,824 5,705 1,837 1,399 458 419 4,399 18,516
2043 528 4,251 6,385 2,056 1,523 498 456 4,787 20,482
2044 587 4,725 7,146 2,301 1,657 542 496 5,208 22,661
2045 652 5,253 7,997 2,576 1,802 589 540 5,666 25,075
2046 725 5,839 8,951 2,883 1,961 641 587 6,165 27,751
Based on this review, the estimated cumulative Equivalent Standard Axle Loads on the project
road are calculated as presented below for the road project assuming two traffic loading
scenarios.

6.4.1 MEDIUM TRAFFIC LOADING:

For the predicted AADT and truck composition, equivalent factor for the axle load is determined
from the previous Adama – Awash road traffic study loading beyond legal limit referring axle load
measurements in the vicinity in recent years. These equivalent factors below are assumed to
represent medium traffic loading for the road project.
Table 6-3:: Equivalent Factor Assumed for Medium Traffic Loading Scenario
Car Utility S. Bus L. Bus S. Truck M. Truck H. Truck T/T

0.00 0.00 0.2 1.37 0.56 1.84 7.47 12
Source: Consultant Adama-Awash Previous traffic study
6.4.2 FULL TRAFFIC LOADING:

For the predicted AADT and truck composition, equivalent factor for the axle load is determined
considering the full loading beyond legal limit referring axle load measurements in the vicinity in
recent years. These equivalent factors below are assumed to represent 100% traffic loading for
the road project.
Table 6-4:: Equivalent Factor Assumed for Full Traffic Loading Scenario

0.00 0.00 0.3 2 1.5 5 12 17
Source: ERA manual 2013
Table 6-5:: Equivalent Factor Assumed for Link roads adopt Half Loading Scenario

0.0001 0.001 0.15 1 0.7 2.5 3.5 8.5
Source: ERA manual 2013
Traffic forecasting is an uncertain process even with a developed economy and stable economic
condition. In a developing economy, the problem becomes more intractable.
The traffic growth rate can be linearly related to GDP. This is normally preferable since it explicitly
takes in to account changes in overall economic activity, but it has the disadvantages that in order
to use the relationship for forecasting, a forecast of GDP is needed.
Prediction of traffic loading is even worse as it is related to driver behavior, vehicle owner and the
legal enforcement and the overall road asset management strategy and technology adopted.
However, for the pavement design purpose it is attempted to predict the traffic loading in terms of
equivalent axle load for the two scenarios as shown below.
Table 6-6: Cumulative ESA per lane for the two Scenario under Different Loading, Million

CESAL*10^6
Segment Chainage Direction
Medium loading Full loading
Km 60+000 to
Melkajilo - Awash 1 119.5 175.0
Km 126+558
Km 126+558 to
Awash - Melkajilo 2 129.5 189.5
Km 60+000
The base year and projected traffic for the design period for each category of vehicle have been
extracted from traffic and transport analysis report. Design traffic loading (ESA) has been
estimated using the estimated traffic data, EF as estimated above and lane distribution factors of
0.4.
The damages that vehicles do to a road depend very strongly on the axle loads of the vehicles
and normally expressed in terms of Equivalent Factor (EF). For this pavement design purpose,
recommended medium traffic loading scenario. Based on this analysis, both the medium and full
loading scenario on each direction can reasonably be considered and classified as more than
T10 traffic class (50 – 80* MESA) as per ERA manual 2013.However, for this pavement design
purpose adopt the highest Medium Loading scenario value which is 129.5 Million ESA is
considered.
Because of ERA manual 2013 traffic class considered only up to 80 million ESA, AASHTO
flexible pavement thickness design procedures are based on cumulative expected 18-kip
equivalent single-axle loads (ESAL) during the analysis period is more reliable for this pavement
design purpose.
DESIGN CBR VALUES
Whether laboratory or in-situ testes are used to obtain subgrade strength, each sample or each
test will usually give different results and these can sometimes cover a considerable range. For
design purposes it is important that the strength of the subgrade is not seriously underestimated
for large areas of pavement or overestimated to such an extent that there is a risk of local failure.
For the subject road project, the design CBR values adopted by taking the lower ten percentile
value, i.e. that value which is exceeded by 90 percent of the readings. Since characteristics of the
subgrade change significantly over sections of the route, different subgrade strength values for
design have been calculated for each homogenous section.
The entire route alignment was subdivided in to two sections of fairly homogenous subgrade
strength regimes. The subgrade CBR values of the whole route alignment determined at 95% of
MDD were used to delineate the homogeneous sections. The design CBR values for each
homogenous sections are shown below.
Figure 6-1: Plot of CUSUM against Chainages

CUSUM against Chainage

40
20
CUSUM
-20
Segment-1 Segment-2
-40
Chainage
Table 6-7: Homogeneous Sections and Subgrade CBR Values
90th Percentile value

Uniform Pavement
Design Chainage (Km) of native
Segment
material(CBR)
1 60+000 – 110+000 2
2 110+000 – 126+558 2
As the expressway traverses along a new alignment, there will be a considerable filling and
cutting requirements to attain the design vertical grades. In determining the design sub-grade
strength it is thus rational to consider the strength of the available side fill material which will be
used for the embankments and replacement of unsuitable native soils. Therefore, fill material as
well as replacement materials shall have a minimum CBR value of 5%.
In light of this, the AASHTO pavement design method uses average values of the design input
parameters. Hence an average CBR value of 5% is considered for the AASHTO method.

The pavement design is intended to be carried out by employing AASTHO Pavement

design manual 1993.
PAVEMENT COMPOSITIONS
PAVEMENT STRUCTURE DESIGN FOR THE ROAD
Structural Number (SN)
The Structural Number is an abstract number that is used to express the structural strength of the
pavement required for a given combination of soil resilient modulus (MR), cumulative Equivalent
Standard Axles, serviceability and other design requirements as discussed in subsequent
sections. Accordingly the Structural Numbers (SN) the total pavement and the SN for the
individual layer of the pavement were determined based on the design procedures stipulated in
the AASTHO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, 1993. The AASHTO equation used to
determine the SN is:
Where:
W18 = Cumulative Equivalent Standard axles over the Design Period

ZR = Standard Normal Deviations
So = Combined Standard Error of the Traffic and Performance Prediction
ΔPSI = Difference between the Initial Design Serviceability Index and the Design Terminal
Serviceability Index
MR = Resilient Modulus
SN = Structural Number

Pavement thicknesses
Once the Design Structural Number for initial pavement structure is determined, it is necessary to
identify pavement thicknesses which when combined will provide the load carrying capacity
corresponding to this design SN using the appropriate layer coefficients which represent the relative
strength of each pavement layer. These layer coefficients express the empirical relationship
between SN and thicknesses and are measures of the relative ability of the pavement material to
function as a structural component. The average vales of layer coefficients for pavement materials
are established in AASHTO Road test, and also can be estimated from nomogram included in the
AASHTO Design Guide using certain physical properties of the pavement material. The following
AAASHTO procedures and empirical equations are applied in determination the pavement
thicknesses.
SN = a1D1+a2D2+a3D3m3+a4D4m4
Where:
a1, a2, a3,, = layer coefficients representative of surface, base, and subbase courses
D1, D2 and D3 = Actual thicknesses (in inches for the corresponding pavement layer)
m2, m3 = Drainage coefficients for unbound materials
Design Requirements

In order to determine the appropriate pavement thicknesses, it is required to select design

requirements as inputs in the above the AASHTO empirical relationship. For this preliminary route
selection report the design requirements for both Melkajilo-Awash (Km 60+000 to Km 126+558) road
segments adopt the same design requirements.
The design requirements are selected in general based on the road standard, traffic volume,
pavement material characteristics and environmental conditions. The design requirements are
grouped into four major categories:
 Design variables
 Performance criteria
 Material properties for structural design
 Structural Characteristics
The design requirements under each category that suit the standard of the road and the site
condition are selected in order to determine the appropriate pavement thicknesses. The selected
inputs are shown below.
Adopted Design Requirements for the design of the pavement STRUCTURE
Design Variables
Analysis/Performance period: 20 years

Traffic (CESA, in millions): 129.5 for Melkajilo - Awash segment
Reliability Factor, % it reflects traffic & performance predictions. For AASHTO Guide 1993 the R
interval of interstate freeways is 80-99.9. Due to heavy traffic, our project adopts a reliability level
of 98%, as a function.
Standard Normal Deviation (Zr).This variable tells how widely either design inputs -Traffic &
Performance - may vary in the future. For 98% Reliability, the corresponding Standard Normal
Deviate will be -2.054
Standard Deviations, (So); Under AASHTO guidelines, 0.40 for flexible pavements is taken.
Performance Criteria
Serviceability loss (PSI) - It is serviceability index. Condition of pavements are rated with a
present serviceability index (PSI) ranging from 5 (perfect condition) to 0 (impossible to travel).
Initial serviceability index (Po) – Po is considered to be that PSI immediately after the
pavement is open. AASHTO values are from 4.7

Terminal serviceability index (Pt): PSI is assumed to represent the lowest acceptable level
before resurfacing or reconstruction becomes necessary. We assume Pt = 2.5 (Road class: Major
Collectors and all Arterials). ΔPSI, 2.2, is the disparity between Po and Pt, applied prism design.
Material Properties for the Structural Design

Roadbed Resilience Modulus (MR). The Modulus reflects the property of the soil which indicates
the stiffness or elasticity of the soil under dynamic loading. As MR equation reflects lab tests, MR
could be envisaged from CBR using empirical equation MR (psi) ~ 1500 x CBR.
Pavement Layer characteristics

Asphalt Concrete Surfacing
Resilience Modulus: 450,000
Layer Coefficients: 0.44
Dense Bitumen Macadam (Base)

Upper crushed Stone aggregate

Lower Natural Gravel subbase

Pavement Structural Characteristics

Coefficient of drainage (m2): refers to the selection of inputs to treat the effects of certain level of
drainage on predicted pavement performance. In this case, the drainage factor of 1 for good level
of drainage considered.
PAVEMENT DESIGN OUTPUT
The Pavement Design is carried out using the above AASHTO 1993 empirical equations by
adopting the design requirement inputs listed above. The design traffic is considered 129.5 million
and the Design CBR of the subgrade adopt 5% at 95% of MDD at modified compaction level. The
recommended pavement structure is presented in Table below.
Table 6-8: Pavement Thicknesses (Melakjilo-Awash road segment)
Station Subgra Design

S. (km) de CESAL
Pavement thicknesses, mm

No design Upper
CBR Dense Crushe Lower
Bitumino d Stone Natural
us Aggreg Gravel Capping
Surfacing Macadam ate subbas
From To
(AC) (DBM), Base e (CBR>
Base course course, 15%)
Course (CBR > (CBR >
100%) 30%)
1 60+000 126+558 5 129.5 110 200 200 200 200
Table 6-9: Pavement Structure Design for Link road
Recommended Pavement
Cumulat
Lengt Structures (mm)
ive Design Design
Sec. h(m) Crushed
Location number Traffic Sub-grade
No Base Sub base
of ESAs Class Class AC
Course (GS)
(106)
(GB1)
1 Metehara 1631 7.9 T6 S3 50 200 350
2 Awash 3415 7.9 T6 S3 50 200 350
Mille
3 8001 7.9 T6 S3 50 200 350
road
DESIGN OF SHOULDER
Shoulders are an essential element of the structural design of a road, providing lateral support for
the pavement layers and accommodate stopped vehicles in case of emergency. Besides
shoulders are provided to facilitate the internal drainage of the pavement layers and protect the
pavement from the adverse effect of water.
For this detail, a paved road it is reasonable to provide paved shoulder rather than unpaved. This
is because it greatly improves pavement performance by ensuring that the zone of seasonal
moisture variation does not penetrate to the outer wheel track, it reduces erosion of the shoulders
(especially on steep gradients) besides it minimizes maintenance costs by avoiding the need for
regular re-gravelling.
Considering this fact, it is recommended that the whole section of the expressway main line,
interchange ramps and link road of the project to design and construct paved Shoulder using
50mm Asphalt concrete surfacing.

7 GEOMETRIC DESIGNS
GEOMETRIC DESIGN MANUALS
The following Manuals are adopted for the Geometric Design of the Mainline Expressway as well
as Link Roads. Since ERA’s Manual doesn’t explicitly provide design parameters for Expressway
Standard roads, AASHTO manual is adopted for the mainline expressway.
Author or Agency Title
AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and

AASHTO
Streets. Latest edition, version
Ethiopian Roads Authority ERA’s Latest Version Geometric Design Manual
TERRAIN CLASSIFICATION
Terrain class has to be determined for the road corridor independently of the final alignment that
is to be designed. It is determined by counting the number of 5m contours crossed by straight line
connecting two ends of the road section. As per ERA Manual 2013 four categories have been
defined which apply to all roads as shown below.
 Flat: 0 - 10 five meter contours per km. The traverse ground slopes perpendicular
to the ground contours generally are below 3%
 Rolling: 11 - 25 five meter contours per km. The traverse ground slopes
perpendicular to the ground contours generally are between 3% and 25%.
 Mountainous: 26 - 50 five meter contours per km. The traverse ground slopes
perpendicular to the ground contours generally are above 25%.
 Escarpment: More than 50 five meter contours per km. The traverse ground
slopes perpendicular to the ground contours generally are above 50%.
Slope shading mechanism was used to give the digital ground model different colors for the four
terrain types above so as to determine which section dominantly falls in the terrain category given
above. Based on this the following terrain classification was produced for the section between
Melakjilo and Awash.
Table 7-1: Terrain Classification

60+000 73+800 13800 Flat
73+800 79+700 5900 Rolling
79+700 82+900 3200 Flat
82+900 92+300 9400 Rolling
92+300 98+500 6200 Flat


98+500 113+900 15400 Rolling
113+900 123+700 9800 Flat
123+700 127+397 3697 Rolling
Based on this table, out of the 67.4km length about 33km falls under flat terrain and the remaining
34.4km falls under rolling terrain, i.e. 49% is flat and 51% is rolling.
DESIGN SPEED
Considering the existing physical conditions of the project route, the design speed against the
terrain category should be as per the tables below. This is in accordance with AASHTO 2011 and
ERA’s Geometric Design Manual 2013. However, it must be emphasized that these speeds are
intended to provide an appropriate consistency between geometric elements and are not
indicators of actual vehicle speeds at any particular location on the road section.
Table 7-2: Design Speed vs Terrain Category as per AASHTO for Main Line Expressway
Terrain
Urban/Peri-
urban
Design speed (km/h)

for Mainline 120 100 80 80 80
Expressway
Table 7-3: Design Speed vs Terrain Category as per ERA’s Design Manual for Link Roads
Terrain
Urban/Peri-
urban
Design speed (km/h)

85 70 60 50 50
for DC-5
CROSS SECTION ELEMENTS

The cross-section of a road must provide accommodation for moving and parked vehicles,
drainage, public utilities and pedestrians. Generally, a cross-section consists of carriageway,
shoulder, drainage features, walkways and side slopes of the earthwork.
Different standards suggest different geometric dimensions considering the volume and type of
traffic using the road and based on the respective conditions in the countries of the standards.
However, for the project at hand, AASHTO and ERA’s Geometric manual has been adopted for
the project, i.e. AASHTO for the Mainline and ERA for the link roads. The parameters adopted is

included in Tables 7-13 and 7-14. Drawing presentation of the Typical Sections are included in
the Appendix part.
The design elements of the horizontal alignment include the tangent, the circular curve, the
transition curve and the super-elevation sections. The values of these design elements primarily
depend on the transverse topography through which the project route passes as well as the
associated construction cost.
7.5.1 TANGENT SECTION
Tangent sections may often be beneficial in flat country from aesthetic point of view but are less
so in rolling or mountainous terrain. From a safety standpoint, they provide better visibility and
more passing opportunities. However, long tangent sections increase the danger from headlight
glare and usually lead to excessive speeding. According to ERA Geometric Design Manuals,
maximum tangent length is limited to 4000m as per ERA’s 2002 Manual and 20 times the design
speed in km/h measured in meters as per ERA’s 2013 Manual.
In the 2011 AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, specific values for
maximum or minimum tangent lengths are not specified. But the following statement is listed
under General Controls for Horizontal Alignment: "Although the aesthetic qualities of curving
alignment are important, passing necessitates long tangents on two-lane highways with passing
sight distance on as great a percentage of the length of highway as feasible." This statement
clearly supports the application of long tangents, especially for the design of two-lane, rural
highways.
Considering that headlight glare is minimum on the mainline expressway, maximum tangent
length of 4000m is adopted to be supplemented with proper safety furniture. For the link roads 20
times the design speed (in km/h) measured in meters as per ERA’s 2013 Manual is deemed
appropriate.
7.5.2 CIRCULAR CURVES
The following table indicates, based on ERA‘s Geometric Design Manual, for maximum super-
elevation rates of 8% (link roads) and 6% (mainline expressway) for the minimum radii to be used
in the design of the horizontal curves on rural section of the road and a maximum super-elevation
rate of 4% for the minimum radii to be used in urban sections (applicable for link roads) of the
road project.
Table 7-4: Minimum Horizontal Curve Radii for Paved Roads (ERA Geometric Design
Manual 2013)
Design f(Side Friction Rmin_ Rmin_ Rmin_

Speed (km/h) Factor) e= 8% (Rural) e= 6% (Rural) e= 4% (Rural)
20 0.23 15 15 15

Design f(Side Friction Rmin_ Rmin_ Rmin_

Speed (km/h) Factor) e= 8% (Rural) e= 6% (Rural) e= 4% (Rural)
25 0.20 17 18 19
30 0.21 25 27 30
40 0.19 50 50 55
50 0.17 80 85 95
60 0.16 120 135 145
70 0.14 175 195 215
80 0.13 240 270 300
85 0.12 280 310 350
100 0.11 410 455 515
120 0.10 610 685 780
7.5.3 TRANSITION CURVES

According to the ERA’s and AASHTO Manuals, transition curves are related to design speeds.
Moreover, ERA’s manual states that “For Ethiopian roads, transition curves are a requirement for
trunk and link road segments having a design speed of equal to or greater than 80 km/hr. The
following table summarizes the requirement of transition curves.” Moreover, it is also mentioned
that it is required for radius below the values shown in the table below.

Figure 7-1: Transition Curve Requirements as Per ERA and AASHTO Manuals
Transition Required if Radius

Design Speed (km/hr)
of curve is less than:
80 380
90 480
100 592
110 716
120 852
7.5.4 SUPER-ELEVATION APPLICATION

In alignment design with spirals the super-elevation runoff is incorporated over the whole of the
transition curve. For alignment with no spiral provision, the current design practice is to place
approximately two-thirds of the runoff on the tangent approach and one-third on the curve.
Figure 7-2: Method of Super-elevation Application for Spiral Curve

Figure 7-3:: Method of Super-elevation Application for Simple curve
7.5.5 HORIZONTAL SIGHT DISTANCE

As per ERA’s Manual the following values are used for the determination of sight lines.
a) Driver's eye height: 1.05 meters
b) Object height for stopping sight distance: 0.2 meters
c) Object height for passing sight distance: 1.30 meters
d) Object height for decision sight distance 0.00 meters
Stopping Site Distance: As per ERA’s manual, the following values are provided for Stopping
Sight Distance of paved roads.
Table 7-5: Stopping Sight Distance Design Values for Paved Roads
Design
Stopping Sight Distance (m)
Speed Coefficient
of Friction
Km/hr Grade = 0% Grade = -5% Grade = -10%
20 0.42 18 18 19
25 0.41 23 24 25
30 0.40 30 32 33
40 0.37 45 47 50
50 0.35 65 70 75
60 0.33 85 90 105

Design
Stopping Sight Distance (m)
Speed Coefficient
of Friction
Km/hr Grade = 0% Grade = -5% Grade = -10%
70 0315 110 120 140
80 0.305 140 155 180
85 0.295 155 175 205
90 0.29 170 195 230
100 0.285 210 240 285
110 0.28 245 285 340
120 0.28 285 330 400
Passing Sight Distance: As per ERA’s manual, the following values are provided for Passing
Sight Distance of paved roads.
Table 7-6: Passing Sight Distance Values for Paved Roads
Design Speed Coefficient Passing Sight Distance to Allow

(Km/hr) of Friction Maneuver to be Aborted (m)
20 0.42 -
25 0.41 50
30 0.40 80
40 0.37 135
50 0.35 180
60 0.33 230
70 0315 270
80 0.305 310
85 0.295 330

Design Speed Coefficient Passing Sight Distance to Allow

(Km/hr) of Friction Maneuver to be Aborted (m)
90 0.29 345
100 0.285 375
110 0.28 405
120 0.28 425
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
7.6.1 MAXIMUM GRADIENT
AASHTO’s Manual 2011 suggests maximum gradients for Freeway (Expressway) Roads based
on vehicle performance and driver characteristics as is shown in the following table.
Table 7-7: Maximum Gradients according to ERA’s Standard
Design Speeds (km/h)

Type of
80 90 100 110 120 130
Terrain
Grades (%)a
Level 4 4 3 3 3 3
Rolling 5 5 4 4 4 4
Mountainous 6 6 6 5 - -
a
Grades 1% steeper than the value shown may be provided in urban areas with right-of-way
constraints or where needed in mountainous terrain.
ERA’s Geometric Design Manual 2013 suggests maximum gradients for DC5 roads which is to be
adopted for the Link Roads.
Table 7-8:: Maximum Gradients according to ERA’s Standard
Maximum Gradient (%), for

Design Standard (DC-5)
Topography
D A

Flat 4 6
Rolling 6 8
Mountainous 8 10
Escarpment 8 10
Urban 7 9
Note: (D) is desirable values; (A) is absolute values

7.6.2 MINIMUM GRADIENT
The minimum gradient recommended as per ERA’s and AASHTO standard is 0.5% for the usual
case. However, flat and level gradients on uncurbed paved highways are acceptable when the
cross slope and carriageway elevation above the surrounding ground is adequate to drain the
surface laterally.
7.6.3 CRITICAL LENGTH OF GRADIENT AND CLIMBING LANE
As per ERA’s Manual, the following values of Critical Length of Gradient above which a Climbing
Lane is required and Maximum Desirable Length of Gradient are provided.
Table 7-9:: Climbing Lane Criteria
Design Critical Length of Gradient above Maximum Desirable

Gradient, %
Class which a Climbing Lane is Required Length of Gradient
5 240 800
6 200 700
7 170 600
DC-5
8 150 500
9 130 400
10 Required 400
However, it is stated in ERA Geometric Design Manual 2013 section 9-11 that “Climbing lanes
must be considered for roads when present traffic volumes are greater than 400 ADT”.

7.6.4 MINIMUM LENGTH OF VERTICAL CURVES

Minimum lengths of both crest and sag vertical curves satisfying sufficient sight distance all the
road safety requirements recommended by ERA Geometric Design Manuals based on the
minimum “k” values are shown below.
Table 7-10: Minimum Vertical Curve K Value according to ERA’s Standard
Minimum Crest K Values for Paved Roads

Design Speed
Minimum Sag K Values
(km/h) For Stopping Sight For Passing Sight
Distance* Distance
20 1 10 1
30 2 50 2.5
40 5 90 4
50 10 130 6.5
60 17 180 9
70 30 245 12
85 55 350 18
100 100 480 25
120 185 680 36
*Object height is 0.2m.

PHASING OF HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
Horizontal and vertical alignments should not be designed independently. They complement each
other and poorly designed combinations can spoil the good points and aggravate the deficiencies
of each. Horizontal alignment and profile are among the more important of the permanent design
elements of the highway. Excellence in their design and in the design of their combination
increase usefulness and safety, encourage uniform speed and improve appearance almost
always without additional cost.
When the horizontal and vertical curves are adequately separated or when they are coincident,
no phasing problem occurs and no corrective measure is required. Where defects occur, phasing
may be achieved either by separating the curves or by adjusting their lengths such that vertical
and horizontal curves begin and end at a common station. In some cases depending on the
curvature, it is sufficient if only one end of each of the curves is at a common station.

Concerning this issue it is stated in the manual that the correct phasing of vertical curves restricts
the designer in fitting the road to the topography at the lowest cost. Therefore, phasing is usually
bought at the cost of extra earthwork and the designer must decide at what point it becomes
uneconomical. In cases when the advantage due to phasing is aesthetic, the designer will have to
balance the cost of trial alignments against their elegance. However if the phasing is for the
reasons of safety it will automatically be accepted.
ROAD WIDENING
The table below gives the road widening values to be used in the design according to ERA
Geometric Design manual.
Table 7-11: Widening on Curves and High Fills according to ERA standard
Fill Widening
Radius of
Curve Widening
Curve (m)
Height of Fill (m) Amount (m)
>250 0.0 0.0 – 3.0 0.0
120 – 250 0.6 3.0 – 6.0 0.3
60 – 120 0.9 6.0 – 9.0 0.6
40 – 60 1.2 Over 9.0 0.9
20 – 40 1.5
<20 *
*Switchbacks are to be design for passage of single DV4 and a DV1 vehicles for DC-5 road
standard. as switchback
ROAD FURNITURE AND MARKINGS
Traffic signs provide essential information to drivers for their safe and efficient maneuvering on
the road. Marker posts assist in a timely perception of the alignment ahead.
Road markings supplement traffic signs and marker posts or serve independently to indicate
certain regulations or hazardous conditions.
7.9.1 TRAFFIC SIGNS
The safety and efficiency of a road depends to a considerable degree on its geometric design.
However, physical layout must also be supplemented by effective traffic signing as a means of
informing and warning drivers and controlling drivers.

Hence, the reflective traffic signs provided in ERA’s design manual in cases of sharp curves,
winding alignments, cross road, road intersections, steep grades, pedestrian crossings, animal
crossing areas, villages and town entry, for speed limit, etc. are to be applied for the project.
7.9.2 MARKER POSTS AND GUARDRAIL
Marker posts have the function of controlling traffic to encourage safe and expeditious operation.
Guideposts and guardrail are intended to make drivers aware of potential hazards such as abrupt
changes in shoulder width, abrupt changes in the alignment, approach to structures, etc.
Moreover, kilometer Posts and RoW marker posts are to be provided as appropriate.
7.9.3 PAVEMENT MARKINGS
Pavement markings consists of centerlines, lane lines, no overtaking lines, edge lines, stop and
pedestrian crossings, and various word and symbol markings.
ADDITIONAL SAFETY AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
There are a number of steps to enhance safety. Some of these are:
 Traffic calming measures such as rumble strips and humps;
 Road marking, signage and lighting;
 Segregating pedestrian and motorized vehicle in populate areas for link roads;
 Provision of Bus-lay-bys, parking bays and parking lane for link roads and
 Provision of crash barriers.
SUMMARY OF GEOMETRIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
The following tables provide summary of geometric design parameters adopted for the Concept
Design of the Mainline Expressway, Link Roads, Interchange Ramps and Slip Roads.
Table 7-12: Geometric Design Standard Parameters for Mainline Expressway
Design parameter
Standard Parameter
values for Main Road
Ref
GENERAL
G.1 Nominal right -of-Way Width [m] 90
Design Speed [km/h]
G.2 Flat 120
Rolling 100

Design parameter
Standard Parameter
Ref
For other terrain types 80
G.3 Minimum Stopping Sight Distance [m]
Maximum Length of Straight between consecutive

H.1 4000
Curves [m]
Minimum Length of Straight between Consecutive Curves of Same Hand [m]

H.2 should have sufficient length to provide super-elevation runoff lengths and the
tangent run-out lengths
H.3 Minimum Horizontal Curve Radius [m]
H.4 Minimum Length of Horizontal Curve [m]
Central angle equal to or less than
300 + 30 meters for

0
5 every 10 decrease in
deflection angle
H.5 Maximum Radius for Use of Transition Curve [m]

Design parameter
Standard Parameter
Ref
length of Transition Curve [m] – to be equal to super-elevation runoff as per

H.6
AASHTO Manual for e = 6%
CROSS SECTION
C.1 No. of carriageways 2
C.2 Lane Width [m] 3.60
C.4 Carriageway Width [m] 2x3.60 m = 7.2m
Inner Hard Shoulder Width [m] 1.5m
C.5 Outer Hard Shoulder Width [m] 3m
Outer Soft Shoulder Width [m] 0.75m
Total prism width of each carriageway at the top

C.C.6 7.2+1.5+3+0.75=12.45m
(surfacing level)
C.7 Median Width [m] 9m
Not required for R>

C.8 Curve Widening [m]
750m
C.9 Carriageway Normal Cross fall [%] 2.5
C.10 Soft Shoulder Normal cross fall [%] 4. 0
Maximum Super elevation and runoff length shall

C.11 be as per the Requirements of AASHTO – Latest
Version for 6% Maximum Super elevation.

Design parameter
Standard Parameter
Ref
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
Maximum Gradient [%]
Flat 3.0
V.1
Rolling 4.0
For other terrain types 6.0
V. 2 Minimum Gradient [%] 0.3
Critical Length of Grade shall be as per AASHTO manual Figure 3-28 for
V.3
15km/h speed reduction
Minimum 'K' Values for Vertical Crest Curves

V.4a
Minimum 'K' Values for Vertical Sag Curves

V.4b
Table 7-13: Geometric Design Standard Parameters for Link Roads, Interchange Ramps
and Slip Roads
Design parameter values

Standard Parameter
for link Road
Ref.
Design Class Modified DC5


for link Road
GENERAL
50m total (25m on both sides

GL. 1 Right -of -Way Width [m]
from centerline)
GL. 2a Design Speed Link roads [km/h]
Flat 85
Rolling 70
Mountainous 60
Urban 50
Minimum Design Speed Loops & Ramps

GL. 2b 50
[km/h]
GL. 3a Minimum Stopping Sight Distance Link Roads [m]
Minimum Stopping Sight Distance Loops

GL.3b 65
& ramps [m]
CROSS SECTION for Link Road
C.1 Carriageway Lane Width [m] 3.5
C.3 Carriageway Width [m] 2x3.5 = 7.0 for rural section
C.4 Shoulder Width [m] -1.5m (paved with DST

shoulder for rural open


for link Road
areas.
Minimum Horizontal clearance between Carriageway Edge & Face of

C.5
Abutment [m]
shoulder + room to
Absolute accommodate a crash
barrier
Curve Widening as per ERA Geometric

C.6 Not required for R>250m
Design Manual 2013 [m]
C.7-A Carriageway Normal Cross fall [%] 2.5
C.7-B Hard Shoulder Normal cross fall [%] 2.5
C.7-C Soft Shoulder Normal cross fall [%] 4. 0
Maximum Super elevation and runoff

C.8 length shall be as per the Requirements
of ERA Geometric Design Manual 2013.
HORIZONTAL ALIGNEMT
HL.1a Minimum Horizontal Curve Radius for Link Roads (with emax = 8%) [m]
Minimum Horizontal Curve Radius for Loops/ramps (with emax = 8%)

HL.1b
[m]


for link Road
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
Maximum Gradient for Link Roads [%]
V.1 Flat 4
Rolling 6
Mountainous 8
Escarpment 8
Urban 7
V. 2 Minimum Gradient 0.3
Maximum Gradient for Loops/ramps and

slip roads shall be as per the
V3
Requirements of AASHTO – Latest
Version
Critical Length of Gradients as per ERA

Geometric Design Manual 2013
VL. 4a Minimum 'K' Values for vertical Crest Curves
VL. 4b Minimum 'K' Values for Vertical Sag Curves


for link Road
AUXILIARY LANES
Entrance taper =90m

AL.1 Taper Length [m]
Exit taper =200m
460m [merging with

highway];
AL. 2 Auxiliary lane length [m]
170m [diverging from
highway]
AL-3 Auxiliary lane width [m] 3.6
SLIP ROADS / RAMPS/U-TURN LANE*
CROSS SECTION
R-C.1 Carriageway Lane Width [m] 3.6*
1 for Single/2 for Dual

R-C.2 Number of Lanes
Direction Ramp
2.0m for Dual Direction

R-C.3 Median Width [m] Ramp (including 2 x 0.5m
marginal strip]
1x3.6 = 3.6 for Single

carriageway
R-C.4 Carriageway Width [m]
2 x 3.6 = 7.2 for Dual
Carriageway
2.5 inner side AC Paved and

R-C.5a Hard Shoulder Width Single Lane [m]
1.0 m outer side AC paved


for link Road
R-C.5b Hard Shoulder Width Double Lane [m] 2.5 outer side AC Paved
R-C.6 Earth Shoulder Width [m] 0.75m (both sides)
*To be widened to 5m on curves.

ANALYSIS OF PERFORMED OF GEOMETRIC CONCEPT DESIGN
The preliminary geometric design was carried out based on the above parameters and
requirements based on DTM produced from data obtained from Geospatial Information Institute
(GII) for 64.56km (Except from km 107.7 to 109.7) and data obtained from Advanced Spaceborne
Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) Global Digital Elevation Model (GDEM)
Satellite Imagery for the remaining 2km (km 107.7 to 109.7). Horizontal and vertical alignment
data are shown in tables below and Typical Sections are included in the Appendix. Moreover,
plan-profile drawings are included in a separate volume.
7.12.1 D IGITAL TERRAIN MODEL
Using Geospatial Information Institute (GII) data for the first 52km and ASTER GDEM data for the
remaining section, digital ground modelling was done.
7.12.2 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT
The following table shows the designed horizontal alignment data.
Table 7-14: Horizontal Alignment Data
PI Spiral- Spiral-
Curve Design Tangent e
Radius in Out
No. STATION NORTHING EASTING Speed Length (%)
Length Length
BOP 60000.00 988112.916 571531.594
1 63024.10 989705.618 574102.294 120 5000 777.701 0 0 NC
2 67901.61 990896.764 578844.872 120 5000 606.201 0 0 NC
3 73091.78 990921.535 584040.869 120 5000 824.489 0 0 NC
4 76532.21 989827.823 587318.330 100 8000 734.074 0 0 NC
5 82050.96 987155.380 592151.535 120 7000 870.905 0 0 NC
6 87540.44 985754.953 597468.594 100 7000 707.426 0 0 NC
7 91117.48 985552.982 601044.702 100 8000 536.936 0 0 NC
8 95+764.686 985914.932 605679.500 120 8000 683.932 0 0 NC
9 99+499.371 986834.310 609302.678 100 700 340.26 0 0 5.20
10 100+437.178 987734.650 609701.923 100 700 145.737 0 0 5.20
11 102+842.422 989364.374 611476.455 120 4500 376.398 0 0 2.50
12 104+389.418 990586.910 612427.252 120 5600 716.585 0 0 NC
13 107+747.296 992637.768 615095.849 120 5000 586.587 0 0 NC
14 115+340.627 998536.798 619885.548 100 8000 2797.98 0 0 NC

PI Spiral- Spiral-
Curve Design Tangent e
Radius in Out
No. STATION NORTHING EASTING Speed Length (%)
Length Length
15 122+050.271 1000019.846 626647.226 120 5000 868.31 0 0 NC
16 124+266.832 999734.752 628862.667 120 4000 407.588 0 0 2.50
17 125+731.693 999257.673 630250.629 100 3900 655.366 0 0 NC
EOP 127+396.946 999260.860 631928.011
As can be seen from the table above, minimum curve radii adopted was 700 which is above the
minimum required for design speed of 100km/h which is 455m, where the road stretches along a
mountainous terrain. As no topographical constraints were encountered in the adopted route
corridor no departures from design standards was introduced. Moreover, since the project road
traverses dominantly over a flat and rolling terrain, the curvatures are smoot and more than half of
the stretch is of straight section.
The table below shows the proportion of curved and straight section.
Table 7-15: Proportion of Curve and Straight Section
Total Length Curved Section Straight Section

(km) km % km %
67.4 28.4 42 39 58
7.12.3 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
The following table shows the designed vertical alignment data.
Table 7-16: Vertical Alignment Data
Curve
PVI Grade Distance L K-Value Sag/Crest
No.
Station Level
BOP 60000 1065.247 -0.99 2780.708
1 62780.71 1037.608 -1.01 2332.57 600 31148.21 CREST
2 65113.28 1013.975 -0.65 866.64 300 817.742 SAG
3 65979.92 1008.374 -1.1 852.636 350 773.279 CREST
4 66832.56 999.004 -0.5 1125.855 350 584.382 SAG
5 67958.41 993.374 -1.02 1389.639 350 675.939 CREST
6 69348.05 979.23 -0.5 1428.138 250 482.835 SAG
7 70776.19 972.089 1.44 1858.126 250 128.8 SAG
8 72634.31 998.864 0.38 2212.801 350 329.112 CREST
9 74847.11 1007.217 2.98 793.991 300 115.12 SAG
10 75641.1 1030.905 -1.71 1606.667 470 100.057 CREST
11 77247.77 1003.369 0.36 706.01 500 241.622 SAG
12 77953.78 1005.879 -0.6 1604.065 300 314.741 CREST
13 79557.85 996.293 -0.88 488.513 300 1070.003 CREST
14 80046.36 992.003 -0.3 3515.517 300 515.505 SAG
15 83561.88 981.595 -0.44 1348.917 300 2142.538 CREST

Curve
PVI Grade Distance L K-Value Sag/Crest
No.
Station Level
16 84910.79 975.712 0.73 889.339 350 299.846 SAG
17 85800.13 982.215 -1.56 1262.479 400 174.356 CREST
18 87062.61 962.482 3.33 441.527 200 40.894 SAG
19 87504.14 977.175 -0.42 2440.594 400 106.811 CREST
20 89944.73 966.991 0.47 1273.516 300 339.863 SAG
21 91218.25 972.919 -0.9 1441.544 300 220.004 CREST
22 92659.79 959.971 -0.32 2388.72 400 691.585 SAG
23 95048.51 952.333 0.29 921.41 400 656.698 SAG
24 95969.92 954.999 -0.34 1037.06 400 633.545 CREST
25 97006.98 951.452 0.51 1306.987 400 468.487 SAG
26 98313.97 958.14 2.53 1495.413 400 197.982 SAG
27 99809.38 996.007 0.5 3037.329 500 246.044 CREST
28 102846.7 1011.193 2.66 623.174 400 185.422 SAG
29 103469.9 1027.753 1.64 1266.26 400 394.97 CREST
30 104736.1 1048.576 -1.1 1611.246 650 236.884 CREST
31 106347.4 1030.861 -3.69 932.647 400 154.322 CREST
32 107280 996.433 -0.54 2388.057 400 127.07 SAG
33 109668.1 983.452 -0.98 2024.356 400 912.546 CREST
34 111692.5 963.575 -2.77 1683.394 480 269.139 CREST
35 113375.8 917.023 -0.5 1786.757 400 176.572 SAG
36 115162.6 908.089 -0.86 1826.949 250 699.754 CREST
37 116989.6 892.427 0.3 985.567 400 345.641 SAG
38 117975.1 895.384 -0.71 2359.601 600 594.839 CREST
39 120334.7 878.662 0 1427.408 600 846.648 SAG
40 121762.1 878.662 -1.08 3654.337 400 371.222 CREST
41 125416.5 840.834 1.14 801.962 250 112.942 SAG
42 126354.7 849.944 4 560.258 250 87.316 SAG
43 126915 872.35 1.1 481.946 300 103.632 CREST
EOP 127396.9 877.672
For the analysis purpose, the gradient is categorized into three classes to measure the severity of
gradients as provided below.
0 to 2% Gentle gradient with insignificant impact on vehicle operation
2 to 4% Rolling gradient with little impact on vehicle operation
>4% Mountainous gradient with significant impact on vehicle operation
Table 7-17: Proportion of Severity of Grade

Grade Length (km) Proportion (%)

0 to 2% 60.90 90.36
2 to 4% 6.50 9.64
>4% - -
As it can be seen in the above table, 90.36% of the gradient have gentle gradient and only 9.64%
have rolling gradient. There are no sections with mountainous gradient.
.
LINK ROADS AND INTERCHANGES
Link roads at three locations are proposed at the outskirts of the relatively larger towns. These
are as follows.
Table 7-18: Proposed Link Roads
Name Station Length (m)

Metahara 99+334 1491
Awash 120+940 8000
Mile exit 126+940 1348
The proposed link roads are designed based on ERA’s Geometric Design Manual DC5 Standard.
These link roads form connection between the proposed expressway and existing road from
Melkajilo to Awash giving access to the nearby settlements. All these roads terminate on the
expressway forming a T type intersection, i.e., forming three-legged junction.
As per ERA GDM Section 12.3.2., for three-leg junctions with traffic volumes of up to 30,000
AADT on the four-lane major road (3,000 vehicles per hour) and the minor road is DC7 - DC3
trumpet type interchange layout is deemed appropriate. Design parameters adopted are extracted
from AASHTO summarized in Error! Reference source not found. above. The following is a
schematic drawing representing proposed location of link roads, toll plazas and interchanges.

Figure 7-4: Schematic Representation of Proposed Location of Link Roads, Toll Plazas and
Interchanges

8 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS

INTRODUCTION
8.1.1 GENERAL
This report deals with hydrological and hydraulics design of Melkajilo-Awash Expressway
Concept Design road project.
This report is, therefore, prepared to submit detail analysis and site visit recommendations made
in the course of the design work. The current concept design is prepared in for section between
km60+000 and km126+388.6. In undertaking this exercise, ERA’s Drainage Design Manual
(ERADDM 2013) procedures and methodologies are followed.
At the end of the report, recommendations are provided to mitigate possible risks and problems
that may arise in some stretches after construction. Justifications and analyses for every
recommendation made are also included in the report.
This study identifies sufficient number of drainage structures. The total number of drainage
structures proposed during this concept Design is 91 including 4 bridges, 29 box/Slab culverts
and 58 pipe culverts.
8.1.2 STUDY AREA

The Melkajilo-Awash Design-Build project expressway route passes through the Middle Ethiopia
in Rift Valley River Basin. Figure 8.2 shows the project study area.
The project area is flat in nature. Concentrated flow coming from upstream gets dispersed in the
flat part of the catchments and becomes divided in to separate flows forming artificial channel. As
a result, pipe and multiple box/slab culverts are proposed to cater for the design floods in the
medium and minor artificial streams in addition to the bridge on defined channels.

Figure 8-1 Section 2 (60+000-126+388.6) Study area

METHODOLOGY
The hydrological design and analysis is undertaken according to the following three-stage
process.
 Desk study to collect information

 Site visit to observe the existing condition of the road and railway road structures
 designing drainage structures
During desk study stage, types of data required for the concept design were identified and
collected. These data include maps from Ethiopian Mapping Authority and related data obtained
from different sources. In the second stage, i.e. site visit, number and type of existing structures
were surveyed.
DATA COLLECTION
The following important data have been collected and used to carry out the design of
hydrological and hydraulics based on appropriate standard procedures and practices. The
following listed data and as well as many more data are used in the study:-
1) Geo referenced 1:50,000 map which is obtained from Ethiopian Mapping Agency EMA]
2) Land Use and Land Cover Maps of Ethiopia 1:1000,000 which is obtained from Ministry
of Agriculture
3) Soils and Geomorphology Maps of Ethiopia 1:1000,000 which is obtained from Ministry
of Agriculture
4) Digital elevation model (DEM) 90x90m and 30x30m which is obtained from (SRTM)-
Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission.
CATCHMENT AREA DELINEATION
Catchment areas were carefully delineated using DEM 30x30m resolution data with ARCGIS
10.1. Subsequently the delineated catchments were overlaid on a geo-referenced 1:50,000
scale Topographic map of the project area. Since small catchments are identified more clearly
on Topographic map than on arc view DEM files, these small catchments were delineated
observing contour lines on the Topographic map.
Moreover, streams and gullies that were identified as important during the field visit are also
been delineated again to make those compatible with the site condition. The catchment areas
delineated as part of this concept design are shown in in Figure 8.1.
Other catchment parameters such as average stream slope, length of longest watercourse and
elevation difference were determined from topographic map scale 1:50,000 and satellite images
using Global Mapper Software for the selected catchments.
580000 600000 620000

1000000
1000000
#%
#Y
#Y UY
#Y
#Y#Y
#
[
%
%
U
#Y
Y
U
%
#
Y
#
Y
#
Y
#
Y
U
% #Y
Y#Y# Y
# Y
#Y
#Y# Y#%
U
%Y# %
U
#Y# U %Y
U #%
# Y
Y U
#
##Y U
%
#Y
Y #
Y #
Y #
Y
#
Y
[ Y# %
% [%
U%
U# #%U%
U
U
%
Y%
U%
U%
U%
U%
UY
#Y
#Y#Y
# #Y
Y #Y
# Y #Y
# # Y
Y # % # Y
U Y
980000
980000
LEGEND
Proposed Drainage
structures N
[
% Bridge
U
% Slab/box
#
Y CP
Road route alignment
Fentale main canal 2000 0 2000 4000 Meters
Catchment areas 1:250000
580000 600000 620000
Figure 8-2: Melkajilo-Awash Expressway Design-Build Road project Delineated catchment Section2 Section1 (60+000-
126+386.6km)

BASIN CHARACTERISTICS DETERMINATION
a) Hydrologic Soil Group

Hydrologic soil grouping for each catchment was identified from examination of available soil
map shape file of scale 1:1000, 000 using ARCGIS10.1 and physical assessment done on site.
Catchment delineation of each soil group was conducted using ARCGIS10.1 software. For a
given catchment, dominant and associated soil types were identified using the software.
Weighted average technique was used in order to accurately determine factors like Runoff
coefficient (C) and Curve Number (CN).

580000 600000 620000
1000000
1000000
#%
#Y #Y
UY#Y#Y
#
[
%
%Y
#Y
#Y
C6
-3 65 C-67 C-68
C6
- 4C-
C-61 C6
-2
U
B-1
C6
-0
U
%
C5
-9
#
Y
C-58
#
Y
C5
-7
#
Y
C-56
#
Y
C-55
U
% #Y
Y#Y# Y
# Y
#Y
#Y #%
U
UY
C1
-1 C-1 2 C-13 C-14 C5
-4
C-10
#
C1
-5
C1
-6 C5
-3
%Y# %
C-17
U %Y
U
C5
-2
C0
-9
#
C0
-8
#Y #%
C-18
Y U
C-07 C1
-9
C-06
#
C-20
Y
C-05
#Y#
#Y
C-04
U
%
C2
-1
#Y
Y #
Y
C0
-3
C0
-2
C0
-1 C2
-2
#
Y
C2
-3
#
Y
C-51
#
Y
C2
-4
[ Y# %
%
B-3
[%
C-25
U%
U#
B-2
#%U%
U C4
-9
U
%
C5
-0
Y%
U% # # Y
# % # Y
U Y
C2
-6
C-48
U% #Y Y
C-47
U%
U%
UY #Y
# Y
C2
-7
C2
-8 C4
-4 C4
-6
#Y
#Y#Y
# # Y
Y
C2
-9 C-30C C4
-1 C4
-2 C4
-3 C-45
3
-1 C4
-0
C3
-2 C-39
C-33 C-3 4 C-3 5 C-38
C3
-6 C-37
980000
980000
LEGEND
Proposed Drainage
N
structures Soils
[
% Bridge
Mollic Andosols
U
% Slab/box
Eutric Cambisols
#
Y CP
Lithosols
Road route alignment 2000 0 2000 4000 Meters
Rock Surface
Fentale main canal 1:250000
Vertic Cambisols
Catchment areas Vitric Andosols
580000 600000 620000
Figure 8-3 Melkajilo-Awash Expressway Design-Build Road project Catchments’ Soil Type Section1 (60+000-126+386.6km)

b) Land Use and Land Cover

Land use and land cover for each catchment are identified from examination of available land
use and land cover maps of scale 1:1000, 000 using ARCGIS10.1 and physical assessment
done on site. Based on general classification, the land within all catchment areas is
predominately shrub land and grass land.

580000 600000 620000
1000000
1000000
#%
#YUY
#Y
#Y#Y
#
[
%
%Y
#Y
#Y
C-63 C-67
C-64C-65 C-68
C-61
C-6 2
B-1
U
C-6 0
U
%
C-59
#
Y
C-58
#
Y
C-57
#
Y
C-56
#
Y
C-5 5
U
%
C-10
#Y
Y#Y# Y
C-1 1
# Y
#Y
#Y
C-1 2 C-13 C-14
Y#%
U C-5 4
#
C-15
%
U
C-5 3
C-16
%Y#
C-17
# U %Y
U
C-52
C-0 9
#%
C-08 C-18
#Y
C-0 7
# Y
C-1 9
U
C-0 6
C-20
Y
C-05
#
#Y U
%
C-2 1
#Y
C-04
Y ##
03
Y
C-02C-
C-2 2
C-01
Y #
Y
C-23
C-5 1
#
Y
C-2 4
[ Y# %
%
B-3
[%
C-25
U%
U
B-2
#%U%
U
U
%
C-5 0
#% # Y
C-49
C-26
YU%
U% # # Y
# %
U Y
C-48
U% #Y#Y Y
C-2 7
U% # Y
C-47
C-28
UY
#Y
#Y # Y
C-29 C-42 C-4 3 C-44 C-45 C-4 6
#Y
# Y
C-3 0C-31 C-41
C-4 0
C-32 C-33 C-39
C-34 C-35 C3
-6 C-3 8
C-37
980000
980000
LEGEND
Landuse
N
Proposed Drainage BUSHED SHRUBBED GRASSLAND
structures
DENSE SHRUBLAND
[
% Bridge
EXPOSED ROCK SURFACE
U
% Slab/box
OPEN GRASSLAND
#
Y CP
OPEN SHRUBLAND
Road route alignment 2000 0 2000 4000 Meters
SALT FLATS
Fentale main canal
1:250000
Catchment areas
580000 600000 620000
Figure 8-4 Melkajilo=Awash Expressway Design-Build Road project Catchments’ Land use /Cover types Section1 (60+000-
126+386.6km)

c) Terrain Classification
The topography (terrain characteristics) of most catchments areas along the route is flat.
Cross sectional slope for each catchment is determined based on topographical maps
and contour data developed from DEM (Digital Elevation Model).
8.5.1 RAINFALL DATA ANALYSIS

For this Hydrological/Hydraulics design review analysis ERA drainage design manual
recommended A2 region DDF and IDF curves of are used.
PEAK FLOW OR DISCHARGE ESTIMATION

The hydrologic design is carried out according to drainage manual, ERA (2013).
a) Selection of Design Frequency
The frequency of the flood for the design of drainage structures depends on the risk likely to
be encountered during the anticipated service life of the road. Return period with which a
given flood can be expected to occur is the reciprocal of the probability or chance that the
flood will be equaled or exceeded in a given year. The drainage facilities have been
designed for recurrence interval as shown on the Table 2.1 as per Drainage Design Manual
of ERA recommendation for EW1 road classification.
Considering classification of the road as EW1/DC8, EW1/DC8 design standard has been
used per the ERA Drainage Design Manual 2013 recommendation as shown in the Table
3.1.
Table 8-1: Return Period Based on the Size of Catchments and Type of Structures
Structure Type EW1/DC8/DC7
Design Chec
k
Gutters and Inlets* 5/5/5 10/10/10
Side Ditches 10/10/10 25/25/25
Ford/Low-Water Bridge --- -
Culvert, pipe Span<2m 25/25/25 50/50/50
50/50/50 100/100/100
Culvert, 2m<span <6m
Short Span Bridges, 6m<span<15m 50/50/50 100/100/100

Medium Span Bridges, 15m<span<50m 100/100/100 200/200/200
Long Span Bridges, spans>50m 100/100/100 200/200/200
b) Flood Estimation Method
The three methods have been adopted as per ERA’s Drainage Design Manual (ERADDM)
to calculate the peak discharge depending on the size of the catchment area. These two
methods are:-
 for catchment area < 0.5km2  Rational Method

 for catchment area > 0.5km2 and <65km2  The United States Soil Conservation
Service method (SCS)
 Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Flood Estimation Method (Snyder’s method) for
Catchment area >65km2
HYDRAULIC DESIGN
8.7.1 GENERAL
The Hydraulic Study undertaken for this project is basically aimed at determining the
required dimension for adequate new drainage facilities. There are various drainage
facilities that can be employed in respect to highway hydraulic structures. For the project
side ditches, pipes, slab and box culverts as well as bridges have been particularly used to
handle the drainage requirement of the project. The following sections present brief design
methodologies taken for each of the facilities.
8.7.2 CULVERTS
As suggested in ERADDM and in order to ease the design procedure, HY8 culvert analysis
software which is part of the HYDRAIN software package is used to produce performance
curves for representative sizes of pipe culverts. From the performance curves, the capacity
of each culvert has been determined for HWD/D between 1 to 1.2. Thus from the
performance curves, discharge capacity was determined for each culvert type of the project.
Table 8-2: Box/Slab Culvert Dimension (60+000-126+386.6)

Sta. Catc Design Design Structure No. of Span(m) Height
h. Id Discharge Discharge Type span (m)
m3/s m3/s
64+864 C-08 6.33 9.79 SC/BC 1 3 2
67+809 C-10 25.93 26.37 SC/BC 2 3 2
75+577 C-18 8.33 10.00 SC/BC 1 2 2
77+008 C-20 10.00 10.00 Box 1 3 2
78+515 C-21 9.10 10.93 SC/BC 1 2 2
85+886 C-26 19.06 22.52 SC/BC 3 3 2
86+471 C-27 1.20 1.30 SC/BC 1 3 2
87+065 C-29 1.20 1.50 SC/BC 1 3 2
87+389 C-30 2.70 3.30 SC/BC 1 3 2

Sta. Catc
Design Design Structure No. of Span(m) Height
h. Id
Discharge Discharge Type span (m)
m3/s m3/s
87+597 C-31 2.70 3.30 SC/BC 1 3 2
88+042 C-32 2.70 3.30 SC/BC 1 3 2
88+717 C-33 9.93 11.46 SC/BC 2 3 2
91+867 C-38 23.84 28.88 SC/BC 1 3.5 3
93+573 C-42 99.90 117.99 SC/BC 4 4 3
94+928 C-43 101.32 119.66 SC/BC 4 4 3
97+148 C-44 11.67 14.14 SC/BC 1 3 2
97+262 C-45 88.01 103.98 SC/BC 3 4 3
97+886 C-47 8.72 10.54 SC/BC 1 2.5 2
100+940 C-51 13.00 15.73 SC/BC 1 3 2
102+102 C-53 112.57 133.00 SC/BC 3 6 3
102+672 C-54 17.43 21.10 SC/BC 1 3 3
113+647 C-59 46.16 54.53 SC/BC 2 3 3
115+990 C-62 20.77 25.16 SC/BC 1 3 3
117+573 C-64 57.72 68.19 SC/BC 1 6 4.0
122+124 C-70 55.85 65.99 SC/BC 1 6 4.0
122+685 C-71 14.57 17.66 SC/BC 1 3 2.5
126+175 C-76 2.80 3.50 SC/BC 1 3 2
Awash Link Road Slab/Box culvert
2+970 CL-1 74.21 89.72 SC/BC 3 3 3
7+375 CL-2 46.10 55.85 SC/BC 2 3 3
8.7.3 BRIDGES
Bridge Hydraulics
Bridge structures are costly to build hence it is essential to protect such assets from flood
damage.
Simple Manning equation is used to conduct bridge hydraulic modelling. Information and
measurement gathered during site visit is used and the following bridge and multiple
slab/box culverts hydraulic finding have been obtained as shown in Table 4.2.
a) Design floods
Since there is no gauged data at this location, SCS method is applied to estimate the design
flood. The resulting design discharge values are shown in table 4.2. These discharge values
were used in determining the opening sizes of major structures.
Table 8-3: Design Flood at the Bridges (60+000-126+386.6)
Q design,
Station, km Index X Y CA, km2
m3/s
83+533 B-1 593594 986788 10.02 57.34
85+384 B-2 595381 986305 8.46 60.76
124+006 B-3 628568 999554 48.23 119.93
Mille Link Road Bridge Crossing
359.38 949.90
631524 999672
0+930 BL-1

b) Hydraulics parameters
Manning coefficient of the Bridge is determined based on filed survey of the natural channels
of the rivers. The manning coefficient from inventory of the river channel is estimated and
longitudinal slopes of the stream from topographic survey.
The clearance required between the waterway and the bottom of the superstructure to pass
floating debris carried by the flood have been adopted according to ERA’s Bridge Design
Manual whose values are as stated in Table 4.3 below.
Table 8-4: Freeboard vs. Design Discharge Values
Discharge, Q (m3/s) Freeboard (m)

0 – 3.0 0.3
3.0 – 30.0 0.6
30.0 – 300.0 0.9
>300 1.2
a. Bridge size
The Bridge opening data are i.e. Bridge length, no of span and other Bridge parameters are
obtained in table 4-4.
Table 8-5: Bridge Dimension (60+000-126+386.6)
Design
Design No. of
BR. Sta. Span
Bridge Discharg Discharge Structur span
Index e m3/s m3/s e Type Height
83+533 B-1 48.98 57.34 Bridge 1 15 4
85+384 B-2 52.66 60.76 Bridge 1 20 3
Controlled by road
124+006 B-3 grade Bridge 3 30 10
Mille Link Road Bridge Crossing
0+930 BL-1 804.61 949.90 Bridge 1 60 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Relief pipe culverts are included to alleviate long ditch flood overtopping problem and for
identified creeks.
Since the road section from 60+000 to 126+386 is rocky and flat may not require paved ditch
but the section from 123+963 to the end is highly erodible it may require paved ditch.

The complete review list of drainage structure is shown in Appendix 1.2.
Table 8-6: Sample Site Visit Photos
Station Photo 1 Photo 2
65+647
67+809
83+533
85+866


9 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS
GENERAL
9.1.1 TOPOGRAPHY/GEOMORPHOLOGY AND REMOTELY SENSED DATA
There exist topographic maps, remotely sensed data like aerial photography, and satellite
imagery at various scales mainly at the Ethiopian Mapping Agency. Google Earth Maps of
the project area were also examined. The existing topographic maps are at scales of
1:2,000,000, 1:250,000 and 1:50,000. A review of relevant portions of the maps and
remotely sensed data was made in relation to the road project.
9.1.2 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The route corridor has been reviewed based on the revised geological map of Ethiopia 1:
2,000,000 compiled by V. Kazmin (UN) 1972 and visual observation of geological,
geomorphological and geo hydrological setting.
9.1.3 GEOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA
Lithology
The geological formation of the project area based on the revised geological map of Ethiopia
1: 2,000,000 compiled by V. Kazmin (UN) 1972, and visual observation is summarized
hereunder. The predominant geological setting of the project area is illustrated and
discussed hereunder.
Figure 9-1: Geological Map of the Project Area
Legend:

9.1.4 CLIMATE
The climatic condition of the area as shown in the following map is dry to semi dry. Such
weather condition is favorable with respect to stability and bearing capacity of foundation
materials and other geotechnical properties of soils.
Figure 9-2: Rain fall distribution of the country

9.1.5 SEISMIC HAZARD

Maps can be drawn by using seismic evidence and historical data which indicate the
epicenter areas of earth quakes and these are then zoned according to the activity. A
seismic zoning map therefore, shows the zones of different seismic danger in a particular
area. Hence, it provide with a broad picture of the earth quake risk that can be involved in
seismic regions.
The East African Rift System is considered by many to be the best example of continental
rifting on the land. It represents the most extensive currently active zone of continentally
rifting on earth. The distribution of earthquake epicenters in the project is found to be
associated with seismically active faults.
Basic information has been taken from Ethiopian standard ES EN 1998:2015. Ethiopia is
divided into zones of approximately equal seismic risks based on the known distribution of
past damaging earthquakes. By definition, the hazard within each zone can be assumed to
be constant (Refer Table 9.1 below). The hazard map is preliminary and is processed
from instrumentally recorded earthquake catalogue.
This map is based on the amplitudes to be expected during 475 years return period
(10% probability of exceedance in 50 years). To this reference return period, an importance
factor equal to 1.0 is assigned.
The parameter PGA, the ratio of the bedrock acceleration to the acceleration of gravity
depends on the seismic zone.
As it has been illustrated in the map hereunder, the route corridor of all the alternative routes
traverse along the rift valley as shown below. Hence, the PGA of the project area has been

estimated 0.1 to 0.115.
*The peak ground acceleration (PGA) during an earthquake measured in units of 'g' (gravity)
Figure 9-3: Seismic Hazard map of Ethiopia and the specific project area. (Ethiopian
Standard (EN-1998:2015))
Based on the Ethiopian Standard (EN-1998:2015) seismic code the project route can be
zoned in to three seismic regions in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA) ranges from
0.1 to 0.115.
SLOPE DESIGN CRITERIA

Instability of slopes are dependent on many factors; out of which, some basic factors are
discussed below.
 Shear strength of the soils
 Slope geometry
 Seepage forces (pore pressure)
 Loading
 geology
 Environmental conditions, etc.
Based on these factors slope ratio of back slopes and embankment slopes shall be
determined. ERA 2013 geotechnical and geometric design manuals recommendations shall

be considered as initial design criteria. Besides, analysis shall be conducted if special

characteristic of material other than described in ERA manuals encountered.
9.2.1 DESIGN OF EMBANKMENTS AND CUTTINGS
On the flat terrain and sag alignment sections, it is recommended to have high fill
embankment sections. Fills should have enough height to protect against overtopping by
floods which are likely to occur in the rainy season. Weak black cotton soils will need
replacement by imported material.
Fill and cut slopes will be as per the provision table tabulated hereunder. High fills may
require fill benches and/or retaining walls. The slope for high fills will mainly depend on the
type of material used for the fill. Granular materials usually require 1:1 slope. The slope
stability problems concerns mainly for the deep cut and high fill areas and problematic soils.
Table 9-1: Slope Ratio Table – Vertical to Horizontal
Slope Ratio Table
Material Side slope

Slope Height (m)
description (V:H) Back slope (V:H)
Cut Fill
0 -2 4:5 2: 1
Slightly
2-10 1:1 4: 1
weathered to
Sound Rock Benched with 4:1 slope every 10m
>10 1:1
with 3m wide benches
0-2 2:3 2: 1
10-Feb Moderately 1:1 2: 1
1:02
Weathered Rock Benched with 2:1 slope every 10m
>10 1:1
with 3m wide benches
0-1 1:3 1: 3
1-2 Highly Weathred 1:2 1: 2

2-10 to Decomposed 2:3 1: 1.5
Rock and Earth
or Soil Benched with 1:1.5 with 3m wide
>10 2:3 benches for Earth or soil; use
maximum 7m bench to bench height
0-2 - 1:6
Expansive soil 1:2
>2 1:4
For slopes which may not be stable with the recommended back slopes in the table above
and for all slide susceptible areas, slope stability analysis should be carried out during detain
design phase, based on the findings from additional investigations and laboratory testing
programs, and results of engineering analysis; and design and construct appropriate
mitigation measures to ensure stability of the slopes.

SUBSURFACE AND SUB SURFACE DRAINAGE

Climatic condition of the area, as discussed above, is found dry to semi dry; hence, we have
not observed subsurface drainage across the route.
Due to the favorable climatic condition and geomorphological set up stability of slopes will
not be problem in the project.
9.3.1 CROSS DRAINAGE STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS
Detail geotechnical investigation shall be conducted on foundation of bridges to characterize
the subsurface geological formation and compute bearing capacity and settlement of the
foundation influence zone. Nevertheless, preliminary foundation characterization and
recommendation of bridges as well as major culverts (slab or box) has been carried out and
the same is presented below.
Bearing capacity of foundations for cross drainage structures are estimated from geological
formations and material property. Hence the estimated bearing capacity (kpa) and
foundation depth are presented hereunder for preliminary design of sub structures.
Table 9-2: Recommended bearing capacities and footing depth Major Crossing
Structures
Presumed Foundation Depth

Type of
SN Station Foundation Condition Bearing beneath Lowest
structure
Capacity (kpa) river bed (m)
1 62+231 Slab/box Deposits of silty clay soil 300 3.5
Deposits of conglomerates
3 67+809 Slab/box (silty clay, sand granular 200 3
material )
material )
material )
material )
8 81+200 Slab/box Weathered rock 500 1
9 83+533 Bridge Weathered rock 500 1
10 85+384 Bridge highly weathered rock 400 1
material )
material )


Type of
structure
material )
material )
material )
material )
material )
material )
material )
material )
material )
22 98+000 Slab/Box (silty clay, sand granular 150 3
material )
23 99+148 Slab/Box (silty clay, sand granular 450 3
material )
material )
material )
material )
material )


Type of
structure
material )
32 123+963 Bridge (silty clay, sand granular 400 3
material )
material )

10 STRUCTURAL DESIGNS
GENERAL
Conceptual studies of highway structures are typically initiated to support the planning and
programming process as one part of the overall study of the road. the conceptual studies
phase tries to identify, define, and consider sufficient courses of action to address the
crossing structures' needs and deficiencies initially identified during the planning and route
selection process.
This section, therefore, assimilates the information about the investigations made by the
review consultants on the bridges and structures on the Melkajilo – Awash proposed road
segment and takes this information to the change made during the process of review, with
the necessary adjustment.
Consequently, the structural concept design review was made, following the revised output
of hydraulic recommendation for the water crossing structures and Geometric and Ecological
requirements for vehicular, railway, pedestrian, and animal crossing.
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
This report provides essential data for determining recommended structures, calculating
related quantities, and estimating implementation costs, ensuring a comprehensive
understanding of the project's scope and potential outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION
The proposed route has been studied twice in the previous times. This study distinguishes
itself from its predecessors by incorporating a unique feature— an flyover bridge strategically
positioned in four different locations, collectively spanning approximately 5.03 kilometers,
within the core zone of Awash Park. Unlike the previous examinations of the proposed route,
this study not only revisits the raw data employed in earlier analyses but also delves into the
comprehensive review and refinement of crucial components such as concept design and
employer's requirements. Additionally, a thorough examination of various essential elements
was conducted, encompassing the General Map, General Description of Local Conditions,
revised and processed Surface Data, Topographic Map, revised soil extension, revised
Hydrology study output, Design standards conforming to ERA and AASHTO, as well as
considerations for Geometric Design, including User and Operating Data. The inclusion of
specific details, such as the number of traffic lanes, shoulders, pedestrian sidewalk
requirements, and the typical roadway cross-section, demonstrates a thorough and general
approach to the preparation of this report. The integration of an extensive flyover bridge
network within the core zone signifies a commitment to innovative and sustainable solutions
in the development of the proposed route.
FINDINGS FROM THE CONCEPT DESIGN DOCUMENTS.
The Melkajilo – Awash stretch forms a section of the larger Adama - Awash Road. In 2015,
Beijing Expressway Supervision Co. Ltd, in joint venture with Beza Consulting Engineers,
conducted a comprehensive study on this segment, which was subsequently revisited and
revised by Net Consulting Engineers in 2019.
The previous studies encompassed a thorough examination of diverse bridge types
designed for various purposes along the Melkajilo – Awash Road segment. The outcomes of
these studies demonstrated a remarkable degree of convergence, highlighting the
comprehensive nature of the assessments conducted.

The studies encompassed a thorough evaluation of a wide range of structures designed for
stream and river crossings, including pipe culverts, slab/box culverts, and medium to large-
span bridges. Furthermore, the analysis considered the implementation of underpass and
overpass structures, strategically proposed for accommodating vehicles, and pedestrians,
and facilitating the movement of wild animals. These suggestions were adapted to align with
geometric and ecological requirements, especially within the Awash Park area, expecting
smooth mobility for wildlife while addressing the challenges posed by various obstacles.
The Current study that has been initiated by the wildlife authority focuses on road alignment
that redirects the alignment further to the north direction and construction of an flyover bridge
along the alignment extending no less than 5kilometers, strategically designed to facilitate
the unrestricted mobility of wildlife and minimize the impact on the Awash Park’s ecological
balance and preserve its biodiversity. This approach underscores a commitment to
harmonizing infrastructural development with the conservation and protection of the natural
habitat within the Awash Park area.
In examining the structures within the Melkajilo – Awash Road Segments, both within the
park area and beyond, it becomes apparent that the intended structure types remain largely
consistent with the previous studies. The current evaluation echoes the inclusion of
structures for stream and river crossings, such as pipe culverts, slab/box culverts, and
medium to large-span bridges, aligning closely with the findings of past assessments.
However, this study introduces a pivotal shift by proposing a realignment that slightly turns
away from the very core zone of the park. This strategic adjustment aims to uphold the
ecological integrity of the park while incorporating an expansive flyover bridge spanning not
less than 5 kilometers. As a result, one distinguishing feature of this study is the
incorporation of flyover bridges at various sites inside the Awash Park core zone. This one-
of-a-kind addition attempts to improve animal mobility inside the park by creating safe
pathways for wildlife. These overpass structures within the park core zone are purposefully
placed to improve animal migration, harmonizing with both geometric and biological
concerns in overcoming difficulties within the park. In addition to structures for crossing
streams and rivers, such as pipe culverts, slab/box culverts, and medium to large-span
bridges, the inclusion of flyover bridges underscores a comprehensive approach to address
ecological needs.
Moreover, building upon the recommendations of the previous studies, the ongoing
evaluation continues to advocate for the incorporation of railways, underpasses, and
overpass structures. These structures serve a vital purpose, addressing the needs of
vehicles and pedestrians.
In conclusion, the insights gathered from the previous studies on the Melkajilo – Awash
Road Segments stand as paramount pillars shaping the ongoing and future initiatives. The
meticulous examinations of various bridge types, the strategic placement of underpass and
overpass structures, and the complex understanding of ecological considerations within the
Awash Park area provide a robust foundation. This wealth of information not only informs the
current study but also plays a pivotal role in steering the direction of infrastructural
development toward a harmonious coexistence with the surrounding environment. As we
forge ahead, the valuable lessons from these studies serve as guiding beacons, facilitating a
balanced and sustainable approach that prioritizes both human accessibility and the
preservation of the unique ecosystems along the Melkajilo–Awash Road segment.

BRIDGE DESIGN STANDARD

Standards play a pivotal role in concept design, serving as the foundational framework that
ensures consistency, compatibility, and efficiency in the creation and implementation of
ideas. These established norms act as guiding principles, offering a common language and
set of specifications that facilitate communication among designers and stakeholders.
The Structural design standards from the Ethiopian Roads Authority, along with
specifications for roads and bridges, AASHTO 2010, and other globally acknowledged
standards, were integrated to formulate a proposed conceptual design applicable for
utilization in detailed engineering design.
Generally, contemporary guidelines for bridge design and minor drainage structures share
commonalities, incorporating thorough research findings on structural behavior and material
properties. However, notable divergences arise in loading standards across different
countries or regions. ERA, historically aligning with AASHTO as its design benchmark, has
fashioned its own standard rooted in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 3rd
edition, 2004. This adaptation involves modifications to specific conditions and requirements
within Ethiopia.
The ERA Bridge Design Manual 2013 draws its foundation from a comprehensive
examination of design standards from various countries. Noteworthy among these are the
AASHTO and EUROCODE 1,2,3 (Europe) Codes, serving as references. Simultaneously,
the Ethiopian Building Code Standard, EBCS, stands as a significant influence on the
manual, reflecting the distinctive design considerations pertinent to Ethiopia.
10.5.1 DESIGN LOADS AND METHOD
With respect to the structural analysis and design of different types of structures, the review
consultant used the following design criteria and loading assumptions in preparing the
structural design or checking and adopting the design drawings.
Design method: The design method outlines the approach and methodology used to
analyze and design the structures. The chosen method should be efficient in terms of time,
resources, and computational efforts. This is especially important in the concept design
phase where multiple design alternatives are often considered. Different design methods
may be suitable for different types of structures or loading conditions. Selecting the
appropriate design method allows for flexibility in accommodating various design constraints
and requirements. The chosen design method can influence the overall design philosophy.
In the conceptualization of all structures, the fundamental strategy employed for concept
design involves the thoughtful application of the Load and Resistance Factor Design method
(LRFD), a method extensively examined in preceding studies. The LRFD methodology takes
into account the diverse nature of design loads, classifying them into various types with
varying degrees of variability—live loads exhibiting more dynamism compared to relatively
stable dead loads. As a result, unique multipliers are assigned to each load type within the
LRFD framework. The resistance, primarily determined by the estimated peak resistance of
a member, undergoes reduction through the application of a resistance factor. Underscoring
the LRFD approach, it is crucial for the diminished resistance to surpass the cumulative load
effects to ensure that the design meets its criteria.

Design Loads: Highway structures must adhere to design codes and standards that specify
the acceptable limits for different types of loads. By considering these design loads, the
conceptual design can ensure that the structure meets or exceeds regulatory requirements.
In the conceptual design of bridges, the significance of design load takes center stage, with
a focus on adhering to the standard loads outlined in Chapter 3 of the ERA BDM 2013 for
Bridges. Both the current study and the previous studies have employed the ERA 2013
Bridge Design Manual, utilizing its prescribed loadings and procedures for evaluating
concept design documents associated with structures. The design method and design loads
referenced in the ERA Bridge Design Manual 2013 play a pivotal role in guiding the design
procedure undertaken by the design consultant for the preparation of the structural concept
design, establishing its acceptability.
Accurate load determination plays a critical role in the cost estimation process.
Understanding the precise load requirements allows for the selection of appropriately sized
components, equipment, and materials, directly influencing the overall project cost. Whether
it's structural loads in construction or operational loads in engineering systems,
miscalculations can lead to overestimation or, more critically, underestimation of resource
needs.
In the preparation of this report, attention has been given to load considerations to provide a
foundation for a realistic and efficient cost estimation process. By understanding and
incorporating the actual load parameters at the concept stage, we aim to deliver a design
that not only aligns with performance expectations but also minimizes unnecessary
expenses, contributing to a more economical conceptual design.
10.5.2 DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
In the conceptual design of bridges, we adhere to the LRFD philosophy, as outlined in

AASHTO LRFD and Ethiopian Roads Authority specifications. This approach ensures
consistent safety levels across components, integrating risk assessment and reliability
theory. Unlike past methods, LRFD accommodates variability in both loads and resistances.
It emphasizes ongoing monitoring and maintenance to manage uncertainties over the
bridge's lifespan, promoting long-term structural integrity. This commitment to safety and
adaptability guides our design, ensuring strength in the face of changing conditions.
10.5.3 LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN

LRFD incorporates load and resistance factors as statistically based multipliers, accounting
for load variability and material uncertainties. Despite the complexity, the LRFD method
offers guidelines for selecting factors during detailed design. While emphasizing the equal
importance of all limit states, adherence to the general LRFD design equation is crucial for
specific bridges. In summary, LRFD enhances bridge conceptual design by integrating
statistical factors, ensuring structural integrity under diverse conditions.
In essence, the incorporation of LRFD and the consideration of Service, Fatigue and
Fracture, Strength, and Extreme Event Limit States collectively contribute to good

conceptual design, ensuring the bridge's reliability, safety, and adaptability throughout its
lifecycle.
10.5.3.1 Service Limit State
The service limit state provides restrictions on stress, deformation, and crack width under
regular service conditions. It provides experience-related provisions that cannot necessarily
be derived solely from statistical or strength considerations.
The service limit state is intended to control deflections in superstructures and cracks in
prestressed concrete structures. For the service limit state, failure means that stresses,
deformations, or crack widths exceed the limitations established by AASHTO. However, it
does not necessarily mean collapse or inability of the component to resist the applied loads.
Considering a Service Limit State in the conceptual design of a bridges is crucial for
ensuring the structure's functionality and long-term performance. This involves assessing
factors such as load modifiers related to ductility, redundancy, and operational importance.
By addressing guidelines and initial assumptions for serviceability aspects early in the
conceptual design process, we can optimize the bridge's configuration to meet specific
operational requirements while maintaining durability. This practical approach helps prevent
issues like excessive deflections or vibrations that could compromise the bridge's usability
over time. Ultimately, integrating the Service Limit State into conceptual design enhances
the bridge's functionality, ensuring it serves its intended purpose effectively throughout its
operational life.
10.5.3.2 Fatigue and Fracture Limit State
The fatigue and fracture limit state provides restrictions on stress range as a result of a
single-design truck occurring at the number of expected stress range cycles. It also provides
material toughness requirements as set forth in the AASHTO Material Specifications. The
fatigue and fracture limit state consists of two load combinations intended to produce the
greatest effect of a stress range on a structural component which controls the possibility for
cracking in steel members from a single truck loading, as specified in AASHTO LRFD Article
3.6.1.4. These two load combinations are designated Fatigue I and Fatigue II, and they
relate to infinite load-induced fatigue life and finite load-induced fatigue life, respectively.
In the conceptual design of a bridge, the consideration of the Fatigue and Fracture Limit
State is essential for evaluating the structure's resilience against repetitive loading and
potential long-term damage. This involves assessing the susceptibility of bridge components
to fatigue, which occurs when materials undergo cyclic loading over time. By accounting for
potential fatigue and fracture issues in the early stages of design, we can make informed
decisions about material selection, detailing, and construction methods to enhance the
bridge's durability. This approach helps mitigate the risk of structural fatigue-related failures,

ensuring that the bridge can withstand the challenges of its operational lifespan without
compromising safety or performance. Integrating the Fatigue and Fracture Limit State into
conceptual design contributes to the overall durability and reliability of the bridge structure.
10.5.3.3 Strength Limit State
In the conceptual design of a bridge, it is imperative to incorporate the Strength Limit State,
which ensures that both local and global strength and stability requirements are met. This
involves withstanding specific statistically significant load combinations anticipated over the
bridge's design life. All structural members must satisfy ultimate capacity requirements under
varying live load and wind load conditions. While these combinations may not typically occur
in the bridge's day-to-day operation, accounting for them is vital for long-term resilience. The
conceptual design considers five designated strength load combinations, denoted as
Strength I through Strength V.
It's worth noting that at this conceptual stage, a detailed design has not been undertaken.
However, insights from previous project data are leveraged to inform decisions related to the
Strength Limit State requirements. This data-driven approach enhances the accuracy of
strength assessments and contributes to the robustness of the conceptual design. In the
event of a failure in the Strength Limit State, where the bridge's resistance is surpassed,
there is a risk of extensive distress and structural damage. Nonetheless, the primary
objective remains to uphold overall structural integrity throughout the bridge's operational
life, emphasizing the importance of integrating the Strength Limit State into the conceptual
design process.
10.5.3.4 Extreme Event Limit State
Within the initial stages of conceptualizing a bridge, significant emphasis is placed on

addressing the Extreme Event Limit State. This critical aspect ensures the structural survival
of the bridge when faced with major seismic events, floods, vessel collisions, vehicle
impacts, or ice flows. The extreme event limit state takes into account unique loadings with
return periods that may extend beyond the expected design life of the bridge. Specifically, it
involves the thorough analysis of earthquake loads, blast loading, ice loads, vehicular
collision forces, and vessel collision forces, with each loading scenario considered
independently. The corresponding load combinations for this limit state, namely Extreme
Event I and Extreme Event II, are characterized by distinct live load factors.
It's important to clarify that, at this early conceptual stage, detailed design work has not been
undertaken. Instead, insights from past projects with similar requirements are drawn upon to
guide decisions related to the Extreme Event Limit State. In the context of the extreme event
limit state, failure does not signify a complete loss of structural integrity or collapse under
extreme loading conditions. However, allowances are made for the effects of extreme events
to potentially cause damage to the structure, permitting stresses and deformations well into
the inelastic range. This approach ensures the bridge's resilience under extreme conditions,

recognizing that the detailed design phase will further refine and adapt these considerations
based on the unique characteristics of the current project.
In conclusion, the detailed consideration of load and resistance factors, serviceability,

fatigue, fracture, strength, and extreme event limit states in bridge conceptual design is vital
for selecting the appropriate section and material. Each factor influences the structural
requirements and performance criteria, guiding choices in section geometry and material
properties. Understanding the specific demands of serviceability ensures long-term
functionality, while fatigue and fracture limit states inform durability against repetitive loading.
The strength limit state addresses stability under varied conditions, and the extreme event
limit state prepares for rare but severe scenarios. This comprehensive approach ensures
that the selected section and material align with the bridge's anticipated operational
challenges, enhancing overall safety and reliability.
GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES
10.6.1 GENERAL
During the preliminary phase of a bridge design, several critical decisions must be made
which set the course for the final design phase. These decisions relate to general design
requirements and location features, and they directly influence whether the bridge design
and construction will be successful or burdened with problems.
Conceived preliminary designs cannot be made efficient during the final design, regardless
of how well the individual bridge components are designed. Therefore, general design
considerations and location features must be carefully addressed early in the design
process.
This subdivision describes several important location features. It also describes fundamental
design objectives, including safety, serviceability, constructability, economy, aesthetics,
security, and roadway drainage.
10.6.2 LOCATION FEATURES

During the conceptual design phase, critical location features such as route location, bridge
site arrangement, and clearances, as well as geometric considerations, must be carefully
addressed. To inform these design decisions, a comprehensive site visit was carried out,
delving into the existing design studies and established practices for highway bridges. The
project encompasses a considerable number of major culverts and medium to large-span
bridge structures. Additionally, it includes a substantial an flyover bridge situated within the
Awash Park core zone. This distinctive feature necessitates design solutions that not only
cater to the requirements of highway users but also uphold the environmental integrity of the
area.

10.6.2.1 Locations
The location and alignment of the bridge must satisfy both the on-bridge and under-bridge
requirements. The bridge has been designed for the alignment of the roadway it is
supporting. This can result in a tangent bridge if the alignment is straight or slightly curved, a
curved bridge if the alignment has a significant curve, or a flared bridge to allow for a varying
roadway width.
The preliminary design has also considered the need for skewed substructure units. A skew
may be necessary if the feature that is being crossed (such as a roadway, railway, or
waterway) is not oriented perpendicular to the bridge.
The proposed bridges have been established to facilitate a cost-effective design,

construction, operation, inspection, and maintenance. It is supposed to also provide the
desired level of traffic service and safety, and it must minimize adverse highway impacts.
Likewise, the flyover bridge planned for integration within the Awash Park section must align
smoothly with the intended purpose and structural requirements. Its design will intricately
follow the course of the supporting roadway, resulting in a span that is either straight for
areas with a linear alignment or gently curved for sections with notable turns.
The orientation of features to be traversed, whether roadways, railways, or major waterways,

are not aligned. The flyover bridges are positioned strategically at four distinct locations
within Awash Park. The overarching objective is to deliver optimal traffic service and safety
while mitigating any adverse impacts on the natural environment of the park.
10.6.2.2 Waterway and Flood Plain Crossing

For bridges over waterways or floodplains, it is best to avoid hydraulic problems by carefully
selecting the bridge location rather than to minimize hydraulic problems later in the design
process caused by an unfavorable bridge location. Therefore, the Bridges over waterways
have been aligned and located based on the following considerations:
- Hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics of the waterway, including flood history,
channel stability, and any tidal ranges and cycles obtained from the site visit.
- Effect of the proposed bridge on flood flow patterns
- Scour potential at the bridge foundations
- Potential for creating new flood hazards or worsening existing flood hazards, both
upstream and downstream
- Various environmental impacts on the waterway

However, a more detailed investigation and design together with other disciplines is required
during the detail design stage.
10.6.2.3 Bridge sites
The initial hydraulic size assessment identifies two bridges, distinct from the one at Awash
River. These bridges' width and construction are subsequently defined to align with the
ground profile at waterway points, with adherence to the hydraulic recommendation as the
baseline criterion.
In selecting the location for small or medium-sized bridges, the decision has to be reached
between the easiest river crossing and the shortest road alignment. The choice of location
then becomes an economic decision. Whereas for large span Structures the most economic
bridge site and the one that has potentially the longest service life is a location that:
- Is on a straight reach of the river

- Is beyond the disturbing influence of larger tributaries
- Has well-defined banks
- Has reasonably straight approach roads
- Permits as perpendicular crossing as possible
- Has a good foundation condition
The first two crossing points are in close proximity, separated by less than 2km at kilometers
83+533 and 85+384, with suggested spans of 15m and 20m, respectively. The third
crossing, situated at km 24+006 over the Awash River, ascends the steep northern
escarpment of the Eastern (Great) Rift Valley and is advised to be a triple span of 30m.
The first two bridges are situated in a flat section, characterized by a straight river reach and
well-defined banks, unaffected by the influence of branching rivers. In these instances, the
provided hydraulic size can be maintained without the need for widening or extensive river
training. This allows for a design that perfectly aligns with the natural width of the river,
ensuring an economical and stable structure. However, the crossing over the Awash River
demands a distinct approach, mandating the span to be adjusted to suit the unique
characteristics of the river crossing location and fulfill geometric requirements.
The bridges are located in seismic risk areas and the assessment of earthquake risk should
be considered, it may have an important bearing when long lengths of alignment encounter
active faults or where large structures, including major bridges, might be required to be
constructed in the vicinity of active faults and seismically active zones. In view of this, the
support width of the substructure has been proposed to be wider than 0.7m and we
recommend the structure above the ground, which is most affected during an earthquake be
separated from the effects of earthquake forces by introducing a mechanism that will help
the structure to resist during the detail design phase.

10.6.3 BRIDGE SITE ARRANGEMENT

10.6.3.1 General
When defining the bridge site arrangement, any possible future variations in the alignment or
width of the bridge or of the waterway, highway, or railway spanned by the bridge have been
considered. For example, if the roadway or railway being crossed may be widened in the
future, then consideration should be given to locating the bridge’s substructure units to
facilitate the future roadway width. Moreover, the determination of the bridge width
incorporates thoughtful consideration of the width of the roadway.
10.6.3.2 Traffic Safety
When establishing the bridge site arrangement, careful attention has been given to traffic
safety. AASHTO LRFD Article 2.3.2.2 provides guidance for the protection of portions of the
bridge, protection of people or vehicles on the bridge, geometric requirements, roadway
surface requirements, and vessel collision protection requirements and the same has been
used while predesigning the crossing structures.
10.6.3.3 Clearances and Geometry Considerations
In addition to route location and bridge site arrangement considerations, bridges must also
be designed to satisfy all clearance and geometry requirements. The two basic types of
clearance requirements are vertical clearance and horizontal clearance. Clearances must be
considered for navigational, highway, railroad, and environmental requirements.
10.6.3.4 Navigational Clearances
During the course of the site visit none of the waterways has been found navigable,
However, if a need arises in the future both vertical and horizontal clearances must be
established and satisfied according to the need and guidelines of ERA technical
specification.
Aside from the waterway crossings along the alignment, there are pedestrian overpasses
strategically positioned along the alignment and flyover bridges within the Awash Park core
zone. The vertical clearance of these structures has been carefully determined to align with
specified dimensions, ensuring smooth passage for vehicles, pedestrians, and wild animals.
This foresighted approach not only enhances the functionality of the current infrastructure
but also anticipates and accommodates potential future needs for unimpeded mobility and
accessibility along the alignment and throughout the park.
Pedestrian overpass bridges adhere to a specific guideline stipulating a minimum
operational vertical clearance of 5.3m through or under road bridges, measured from the
paved surface. Additionally, for flyover bridges, a mandatory 4m clearance is required,
measured from the ground surface to the overhead obstruction. This meticulous specification
is designed with an awareness of the park's wildlife, including common inhabitants like
camels. These clearance provisions not only prioritize safety standards but also demonstrate
thoughtful consideration of the park's unique ecological characteristics, fostering a
harmonious coexistence between infrastructure and the natural environment.
10.6.3.5 Highway Vertical Clearances
Vertical clearance requirements are established to prevent collision damage to the
superstructure. Requirements for vertical clearance are defined in AASHTO’s A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Vertical clearance is measured from the top of
the roadway surface to the bottom of the lowest superstructure component. For complex

structures, it may be necessary to investigate the vertical clearance at several locations to

ensure that the controlling value has been determined. Correspondingly Minimum vertical
clearance as specified in ERA Bridge design manual section 2.3.3 and ERA technical
specification serious 1000 were used in the general arrangement drawings of major
structures.
10.6.3.6 Highway Horizontal Clearances
The roadway width on the bridge should not be less than the width of the approach
roadways, including shoulders, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
Horizontal clearance requirements under the bridge are established to prevent collision
damage to the substructure. Horizontal clearance requirements were used to determine the
type of abutment selected.
10.6.3.7 Railroad Overpass Clearances
Railway bridges have clearance requirements that are set forth in American Railway
Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA), Manual for Railway
Engineering. Clearances for railroad bridges have to satisfy the design standards of the
Association of American Railroads, AASHTO, local laws, and any additional requirements of
the railroad owner.
As trains grow larger and move faster, it is critical to ensure clearance along the tracks.
Determination of the precise dimensions of the clearance envelopes along the tracks was
made in consideration of the future expansion. The envelopes can vary based on the types
of equipment that will travel on a particular section of track as well. Therefore, a clear width
of 40m is considered at this preconception level and a clear height of 8m in case of high
voltage overhead electrification infrastructure is needed.
BROAD STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
Selecting the superstructure type depends on several factors: cost, span lengths, depth of
structure (relates to road profile and vertical clearance), bridge curvature, and speed of
construction.
The initial hydraulic size assessment indicates that two bridges fall within the medium-size
category. It's important to note that the bridge over the Awash River is not factored into this
categorization based on its hydraulic size requirements; it inherently belongs to the large
span category based on its specific location and geometric requirements.
Considering the aforementioned span classifications, specific structural choices become
apparent. In cases where the span is medium and other engineering parameters permit,
frame structures and conventional bridge types utilizing reinforced concrete girders to
support the deck emerge as viable options. Additionally, for such kind of span requirements,
falsework-formed reinforced concrete deck slabs can be considered. However, for bridges
with multiple spans, a combination of the aforementioned bridge types, with the incorporation
of intermediate support, may be more suitable to meet the hydraulic size demands. This
approach ensures that the chosen superstructure aligns with the specific characteristics and
requirements of each bridge, taking into account factors such as span length, traffic load,
and environmental conditions.
For Awash River bridges, a more complex and specialized approach is imperative. The
structural design for such a large span necessitates meticulous consideration beyond the
scope of conventional options. A reinforced concrete open-spandrel deck arch bridge is

recommended and harmoniously blends into the landscape. This Arch bridge, with its
inherent ability to gracefully span great distances, emerges as an ideal candidate for this
specific location. The arch's unique structural behavior, characterized by its load-bearing
capability and the distribution of forces along its curved form, aligns smoothly with the
challenges posed by large spans. A reinforced concrete arch structure spanning about 129m
becomes the focal point. The arch's inherent stability and aesthetic appeal make it a fitting
choice, providing an elegant solution that harmonizes with the natural surroundings.
Incorporating advanced materials, such as high-strength alloys and innovative construction
techniques, becomes crucial in ensuring the durability and resilience of these remarkable
arch bridges.
When selecting the portion of the bridges that supports the superstructure and distributes all
bridge loads, factors such as geotechnical investigation which cannot be determined
precisely at this stage should be known clearly. However, in consideration of the vertical
grade and the presumed bearing capacity reinforced concrete or masonry substructure can
be proposed. These earth retaining and pillar structures will support the superstructure and
the roadway at the beginning, middle, and end of the bridges.
STRUCTURE SELECTED FOR THE STUDY
10.8.1 REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE

Concrete pipe as a drainage structure has been in use for over many years. This has given
us evidence of what has worked and what has not worked so well that, over time, it is
possible to eliminate problems and achieve higher and higher performance levels. This
evolution over time has allowed concrete pipeline systems to deliver a lower-risk
construction solution.
Fifty tow pipe culverts are recommended, each with a minimum internal diameter of
1220mm. Two of these culverts are positioned within the section from km111+690 to
km114+410, where the flyover bridge is proposed. Their construction is optional, and
contingent on specific requirements. These reinforced concrete pipe culverts are planned to
be prefabricated, meeting the specified material requirements.
 C-35 reinforced concrete, Minimum cylinder Compressive Strength at 28 days of 28
Mpa and which Shall Conform to ERA Technical Specification 2013.
 Reinforcement bars of Ø6 and Ø8 with a tensile strength of 300mpa.
Since the concrete pipe is a rigid pipe system that is over 85% dependent on the pipe
strength and only 15% dependent on the strength derived from the soil envelope, installation
is made easy.
Concrete’s rigidity and mass allow for easy and secure placement in the trench, without
disrupting line or grade. Plus, precast concrete pipe joints are easily assembled, which helps
minimize the time needed for installation. When installation time matters, or when the soil
poses challenges to installation, precast concrete pipe is quite simply the most logical and
responsible option.
Concrete pipe has an unlimited range of pipe strengths from which to choose, and strength
is demonstrated prior to installation. By specifying concrete pipe:

 The designer has more control over pipe strength than any other facet of the project.
 There is less reliance on quality installation by the installer.
 There is lower embedment material cost.
 There is less compaction required.
 It is easier to maintain grades and alignment.
 There are no excess deflection concerns
 There is a lower life cycle cost of the project
 There is a lower maintenance cost over the design life of the project
 There is a reduced likelihood of failure
 A lower risk for the specifier, designer and owner of the project, and reduced overall
liability to the public after the project has been commissioned.
Concrete pipe offers a variety of joints from soil-tight to pressure. They are not affected by
the type of backfill used for the installation. Joint performance can be demonstrated in the
plant prior to pipe installation, and joint integrity can be field tested in a variety of ways. With
concrete pipe, deflection will not compromise field joint test capability. The cross-sectional
rigidity of concrete pipe makes joint assembly a simple operation. Rigid joint integrity will
minimize the likelihood of embedment intrusion and subsidence of overfill, often referred to
as infiltration.
Joints between the pipes shall be sealed with concrete capping or any other method to
prevent infiltration of water and fine soils. Depending on the foundation material of the
project investigated during site data collection, pipe bedding ‘B’ has been assumed to
provide uniform support for the entire length of the pipe. To prevent scouring at the inlet and
outlet level masonry and concrete paved waterway and cut-off walls have been assumed.
However, all pipe culverts have been assumed in such a way to be designed with a proper
inlet and outlet of erosion protections at every pipe cross-section during the detail design
phase.
10.8.2 SLAB/BOX CULVERTS
A culvert is a structure constructed over running water or physical obstruction. The main
purpose of constructing a culvert structure is to provide passage over the obstruction. On the
other hand, these underneath structures can be used by pedestrians and animals to pass
through the structures in areas where provision of such structures is required.
Slab culverts: - a variation of culverts, come in two forms—three-sided or as a simple deck
slab—embedded in the soil on both sides. Acting as a bridge, these slabs span distances
and can be a substitute for box culverts when no artificial flooring is required. They offer a
versatile solution for water passage. Slab culverts do not have bottom slabs; therefore, the
natural flow of water is maintained, and the natural bottom substrate remains intact.
Box culverts: - are four-sided rectangular structures, the lower side pressed into the ground
below, the top serving as the roadway and the lateral sides supported by the soil on either
side of the obstruction. Box Culverts can be used and may be economical for the reasons
mentioned below.
 The box culvert is a rigid frame structure and very simple in construction.

 It is Suitable for non-perennial streams where scrub depth is not significant, but the
soil is weak.
 The bottom slab of the box culvert reduces pressure on the soil.
 Box culverts are economical due to their rigidity and monolithic action and separate
foundations are not required.
 It is used in special cases, weak foundation.
As per the initial Hydrology/Hydraulics report for the project road section, notable box/slab
culverts are proposed at various points. The design adheres to ERA Standard specifications,
featuring clear spans of 2m to 4m for both double and single culverts and a fill height of up to
8.2m for quantity estimation. In cases where existing box culvert dimensions don't align with
standard drawings, the Consultant opts for a conservative design, leaning towards higher
spans and heights based on ERA Standard Drawings.
For slab culverts, ERA Standard Drawings spanning 1-6m and with a fill height of 0.6-8.2m
have been employed. Additionally, a masonry cut-off wall is assumed at the inlet and outlet
levels to mitigate scouring.
10.8.3 BRIDGES
A bridge is a major road structure that is designed to go either over or underneath an
obstacle, Such as a water body, pedestrian crossing area, or any other interchange or road
and railway crossing.
A bridge is therefore designed in consideration of the bridge’s purpose in planning its design.
The structural design can vary greatly, depending on its length, location, anticipated load
weight, and width requirements. Whether clearance is needed below or above the bridge is
another construction consideration. Building budgets and material availability also influence
the type of highway bridge design that is used.
The bridges proposed are overhead types which usually bring the highway over the top of
waterbodies or run on top of another highway when intersected.
Sometimes highway bridge construction involves a complex system of ramps and roads
known as an interchange. In general, an interchange provides a way for vehicles to switch
between multiple intersecting highways. Structures called connector ramps are proposed to
be used by vehicles when changing from one highway to another.
In this case, most of the highway bridges are not used by pedestrians and do not contain
pedestrian walking paths. Instead, they are usually intended to allow vehicles, such as
passenger cars or semi-trucks to safely cross the obstacle.
Bridges require regular upkeep in order to ensure public safety is maintained. Typically,
highway bridge inspection encompasses pinpointing minor issues and ensuring they are
properly repaired. In this regard, the Selection of material and bridge type can help ensure
costly replacements.
Highway bridges can be constructed from a variety of different materials, including concrete,
steel, or stone as well as metal alloys or timber. The bridges can be made from beam, truss,
or arch systems as well as cable-stayed and suspension systems. In our case reinforced
concrete bridges have been selected in consideration of the hydraulic recommended spans,
economy, safety, stability, ease in construction and time required for construction and for the
reasons mentioned below.

 Reinforced Concrete bridges can be formed to match the environment and can be
used for large and small spans (For the span configuration according to the hydraulic
requirement of the rivers)
 Concrete bridges have proven to be resilient against all types of loads and impact.
 Concrete bridges have proven to be durable, even in harsh environments.
 Concrete bridges form redundant load paths, leading to reliable structural
performance.
 Concrete bridges require little maintenance.
 Concrete bridges prove to be economical in initial cost and over the long term.
 Concrete bridges may be formed using a variety of methods and can meet the
demands of any load rating or design features.
 Concrete bridges may include many aesthetic features such as color, shape, texture,
design or patents.
 Concrete bridges may be used anywhere a crossing is required. They may be
reinforced, prestressed, precast, post-tensioned, segmental or cast-in-place to meet
the design requirements.
 Concrete bridges are rapidly constructed using a variety of construction techniques
and local Labor.
10.8.4 RIVER CROSSINGS
According to ERA Classification Bridges are structures with a total clear opening above 6.0
m, and a structure with a clear span opening less than that is a culvert. A small bridge is 6-
15 m, a medium bridge is 15-50m and a large bridge is above 50 m in total length.
In examining the Melkajilo - Awash Road segment, the hydraulic analysis identifies merely
three significant river crossings at station points 83+533, 85+384, and the Awash River
crossing at 124+006, comprising 3.66% of the total river crossing structures. In tandem,
33.7% of these structures take the form of slab/box culverts, while 62.6% are characterized
by pipes. Notably, the geotechnical assessment for the project area advised against the use
of slab culverts in the previous study, a recommendation upheld in the current evaluation.
Consequently, this study endorses the original suggestion of incorporating 21 box culverts
and 48 pipe culverts without modification, along with an additional 7 box culverts and 3 pipe
culverts.
For the first two medium-span bridges, the choice of a beam bridge is grounded in its
simplicity and effectiveness. A beam bridge, supported by horizontal beams or girders
spanning across supports such as piers or abutments, aligns seamlessly with the span
requirements of this category. This classic bridge design is particularly suitable for medium
spans, offering a straightforward and reliable solution. The adaptability of beam bridges to
various materials, particularly reinforced concrete, further enhances their appeal in
addressing the specific needs of the project.
Optional criteria for span-to-depth ratios mentioned in AASHTO 2.5.2.6.3 were used in the
preliminary study and the cantilever part was fixed not to exceed 40% of the spacing of the
girders or 2.8m according to the requirement of the ERA Bridge design manual. The design
depth of a normal girder bridge may vary between 7-10% of the span length in order to avoid
a high superstructure close to the water surface.

The Awash River bridge proposed is a type of Deck Arch Bridge where the deck is
completely above the arch. The spandrel, which is the area between the arch and the deck
has an open reinforced column structure at 17m intervals supported on the arch ring. The
vertical columns support floor beams and deck slab, constructed of Reinforced concrete.
Acknowledging the insights from previous studies that have also recommended the use of
this bridge type, both the preceding research and the current study converge on the same
idea for the Awash River crossing.
The anticipated challenges posed by the river's deep gorge and substantial span have
prompted a consistent recommendation for an open-spandrel arch bridge with the deck
gracefully positioned above the arch. This aligns smoothly with the river's morphology and
addresses the complexities of construction in a region where the bank material is
predominantly rock with near-vertical slopes.
Open-spandrel arch bridges present a compelling solution for spanning large distances,
especially for the Awash River which is characterized by wide gorges with vertical riverbanks
where constructing intermediate supports proves challenging. The inherent structural
simplicity of the open-spandrel design makes it well-suited for situations where intermediate
supports pose challenges, providing an elegant solution to cross-wide gorges with vertical
banks.
The roadway alignment at the Awash Arch Bridge lies in a straight line in the ground plan
and the vertical alignment is in a constant slope of 0.43%, road finished level of 845.49 m at
the center of the bridge. The width of the river at the designed road level is 119.24m, thus
the total bridge length including abutment and wing walls is 129m.
The overall clear width (excluding barriers/Railings) of the superstructure is double 12.45m,
to suit the road approach road width. The roadway surface has a 2.5% slope in the
transverse direction.
The tabulated list below outlines the proposed bridges for river crossings, with a visual
examination conducted to assess the necessity of piles for the bridge foundations.
Recommendations regarding the requirement of piles are provided in the table.
Table 10-1: List of River Crossings bridges
Hydraulic size Span Arrangement Remarks Pile

requirement (Structural Recommendations) Requirements
No Station No Of Span Height No Of Span Clear

cell (m) (m) cell (m) Height
(m)
1 83+533 1 15 4 1 15 ≈4 Not Required
2 85+384 1 20 3 1 20 >7 Required
3 124+006 3 30 10 7 17 ≈ 50.1 Arch Not Required

bridge

10.8.5 OVERPASS STRUCTURES

The span of overpass structures is determined in consideration of the geometrical
requirement of the approaching road, topography, economy, and safety. In accordance with
ERA’s bridge design manual requirement, the clear bridge width of 5.5m is used for
pedestrian overpasses so that it can safely accommodate pedestrians, a bicycle and
pedestrian, cattle and pedestrian, or cart. For vehicular overpasses, a 10m bridge width is
used so as to allow opposing trucks meet safely with average higher speed.
A minimum Vertical clearance (freeboard) of 5.3m is provided for vehicular and pedestrian
overpasses which consider ERA’s Bridge Design Manual – 2013. A normal cross fall of 2.5%
(1 to 40) and longitudinal gradient of 1% (1 to 100) are provided for each bridge.
Pre-stressed Concrete Box Girder type superstructure with a double 20m or 25m
span is recommended for both vehicular and pedestrian overpass crossing structures.
Masonry or reinforced concrete type abutment and reinforced concrete column bent and
reinforced concrete hammer head type pier is recommended for substructure part. The
selection of substructure type considers geometrical limitation of the road, subsurface
conditions, safety, and economy.
For safety considerations, drop protection is provided along both sides of overpass
structures by means of a concrete barrier (railing) and steel wire mesh with a steel frame.
According to our preliminary analysis, the Melkajilo – Awash section has 5 pedestrian and 6
vehicular overpass bridges. All vehicular overpass bridges are pre-stressed concrete girders
with a width of 7.30m+2X1.5m=10.30m and a vertical clearance of 6.0m. The number of
vehicular crossings required for the expressway is shown below.
When creating the pedestrian bridge, we really thought about making it both useful and nice
to look at. The bridge will be wide, about 5.5 meters, so people can walk on it comfortably
and feel safe. We also made sure there's enough space underneath, at least 5.3 meters so
that cars and other things can go through easily. It's all about making a bridge that works
well and looks good too.
Table 10-2: List of overpass structures
No. Station Type of Crossing
1 63+400 Pedestrian
2 66+000 Vehicular
3 77+800 Pedestrian
4 82+640 Vehicular
5 84+100 Vehicular

6 86+100 Pedestrian
7 87+900 Vehicular
8 90+300 Vehicular
9 95+300 Vehicular
10 97+000 Pedestrian
11 99+560 Pedestrian
10.8.6 FLYOVER BRIDGES
Within the heart of Awash National Park, strategic considerations of flyover bridges at four
specific locations have been considered as outlined in the table below. The selected bridge
type for these locations is multiple spans of prestressed clear 30m span box beam,
accompanied by intermediate reinforced concrete pier and abutment supports.
This selection maintains a minimal superstructure depth and ensures a clear vertical
clearance of at least 4 meters above the ground, preserving the unrestricted mobility of wild
animals beneath the bridge.
The 30m span configuration was purposefully chosen to balance the efficient spanning of
distances with a minimal impact on the surrounding ecosystem. Intermediate reinforced
concrete pier supports have been integrated to enhance structural stability, effectively
distributing the load and ensuring the durability of the bridge.
The superstructure of the proposed bridge design is composed of six box beams, with a
clear width of 24.01 meters excluding the crush barriers at the ends. an intermediate
concrete barrier is strategically positioned at the center of the bridge, to effectively divide it
into two distinct ways, and enhance safety.
To ensure stability, the bridges are supported by reinforced concrete cantilever abutments
on each end. Intermediate piers, designed as column types with three columns in a row,
contribute to the overall structural strength. It's noteworthy that the foundation types may
vary at each location, considering both pile and spread footing options have been thoroughly
evaluated to suit the specific conditions of each site within Awash National Park.
A significant aspect of the selected prestressed clear box beam design is its compatibility
with prefabricated superstructure elements, facilitating a faster and more streamlined

construction process. This approach not only advances construction but also reduces
disruptions to the natural environment, aligning with the broader goal of maintaining the
ecological equilibrium within Awash National Park.
Table 10-3: flyover bridges locations
Beginning Ending Length (m) Span No of

Station Station configuration Intermediate
Piers
103+430 104+569 1139 Multiple 30m 35
107+030 107+820 790 24
109+120 109+497 377 11
111+690 114+413 2723 85
Luckily, the proposed flyover bridge doesn't intersect with any significant streams. However,
there are three minor crossing structures where one of the proposed flyover bridges is
located. though they don't have a significant impact on the span configuration and
arrangement.
Table 10-4: Location where crossing culverts meet the flyover bridge.
Station Easting Northing Type No Width Height Diameter

Cell
112+702 618271 996447 RPC 1 1.22
113+647 618939 997103 SC/BC 2 3 3
114+264 619403 997497 RPC 1 1.22
10.8.7 INTERCHANGES
In the new road plan, we discovered specific points where two roads intersect. At these
points, one road facilitates exiting, while the other allows entry onto the freeway.
Successfully navigating these intersections depends on effective cooperation and
communication. The updated design report outlines three such intersections, each intended
to be built with overpass bridges, as illustrated below.
Table 10-5: List of Interchanges

List of Interchanges
No. Station No Cell Width(m) Height(m)
1 (MK93+100) 1 2*25 5.4+S
2 (MK120+640) 1 2*25 5.4+S
3 (MK126+940) 1 2*25 5.4+S
S= Freeboard
10.8.8 RAILWAY CROSSINGS
In the revised design 3 railway crossings are proposed, further to mention only two railway
crossings are proposed in the engineering report of the concept design. According to our
assessment of the location at Km. 120+800 there is a need for the Expressway to cross the
railway line to Hara Gebeya from Awash. So, we confirmed three railway crossing structures
are required. The minimum clearance is 8m measured from the top of the rail to the soffit of
the bridge. The span of the railway crossings proposed is 40m Post-tensioned box Girder
superstructure supported on Reinforced concrete abutment.
Table 10-6: List of Railway crossing
List of Railway Underpass
No. Station No Cell Width(m) Height(m) Remark
1 AK1+500 1 40 8 Link
(MK93+340)
2 AK1+258 1 40 8 Link
(MK120+660)
3 MK. 121+340 1 40 8 Main expressway
10.8.9 CROSSING STRUCTURES ON LINK ROADS

The design assessment of the Awash Link Road has successfully identified ten structures
categorized as minor drainage structures. Within this classification, two are recognized as
slab/box culverts, while the remaining eight take the form of pipe culverts. These structures
play a crucial role in managing water flow and drainage along the road, contributing to its
overall stability and longevity. Additionally, the design proposes the incorporation of one
major drainage structure on the Mille Link Road, proposing an impressive span of 60 meters.
This major drainage structure is intended to efficiently handle the water flow in this specific
section, ensuring the road's resilience against potential water-related challenges and
enhancing its overall infrastructure.
The thorough design proposal of these drainage structures on the Awash Link Roads mirrors
the standards set for expressway structures, ensuring consistency and reliability. Factors
such as design standards, clearance, material selection, and other critical considerations
align with the criteria employed in the proposed expressways. This deliberate uniformity not
only makes more efficient the implementation process but also upholds a high level of
structural integrity across the entire road network.
MATERIAL
The Design proposals would be based on the material properties cited herein.
10.9.1 CONCRETE
Grades of concrete are defined by the strength and composition of the concrete obtained by
mixing the basic ingredients of cement, water, and aggregate, and the minimum strength the
concrete should have following 28 days of initial construction. The grade of concrete is
understood in measurements of N/mm2 (MPa), where it denotes the overall strength.
Class of Concrete is an arbitrary characterization of concrete of various qualities or usages;
usually by compressive cube strength and nominal aggregate size. Concrete strengths are
classified according to the minimum 28-day crushing compressive strength of 150mm cubes
in N/mm2.
Different mixes (M) come in various mix proportions of the various ingredients of cement,
sand, and coarse aggregates.
 Beams, Deck, and other = 30 N/mm2
 Concrete for Railings = 30 N/mm2
 Substructure of Bridges = 30 N/mm2
 Plain concrete under substructures = 15 N/mm2
 Others like Blinding, Mass Concrete = 20 N/mm2
 Concrete for kerbing and channelling = 25 N/mm2
 Blinding concrete = 7 N/mm2: - is that layer cast on the exposed face of the
excavation, prior to further construction.
All the concrete shall comply with the requirement of Division 8400 of ERA technical
Specification 2013.

10.9.2 PRE-STRESSED CONCRETE
The adopted grade of concrete and corresponding specified strength is: -

 fcu,k (150mm cubes) = 40MPa at 28 days
10.9.3 STONE MASONRY
Stone masonry walls may be plain packed stonewalls (un-mortared or dry-stone walling) with
dry joints or otherwise mortared stonewalls with stones bedded in cement mortar as
indicated on the Drawings, as specified, or as may be ordered by the Engineer.
The minimum mass of each stone to be used shall be 10 kg and its minimum dimension
shall be 75 mm. For structures where the stones are shaped, dressed and laid broken
coursed in cement mortar, such as arch barrels, piers and abutments, Class A Stone
Masonry Wall Shall be used in accordance with Class 8905 of ERA technical specification.
Alternatively, Class B Stone masonry wall can be in masonry walls which requires less
exacting than Class A Such as retaining walls, head walls and end walls of minor Drainage
structures.
Class A masonry shall have 2:1 sand: cement mortar, and Class B masonry shall have 3:1
sand: cement mortar unless specified otherwise in the Particular Specification.
The exposed parts of the stones on the wall faces shall be cleaned of all mortar by washing
or wire brushing. The mortar shall be flush pointed to the satisfaction of the Engineer, who
may require a capping and end-treatment of the same mortar. Weep holes shall be provided
as prescribed and shall be cleaned of mortar or any other clogging material that may have
entered during construction.
10.9.4 REINFORCEMENT
The yield strength for deformed reinforcing bar steel would be grade 60 for main bars with
diameters greater than 20mm grade 40 for secondary bars with diameters less than 20mm
and ties with diameters less than 12mm. The minimum yield strength of grade 60
reinforcement steel is 420Mpa, while that of grade 40 is 300Mpa.
10.9.5 PRE-STRESSING STEEL
Pre-stressing steel will be uncoated, low relaxation; seven-wire strands complying with a
tensile strength of 1860Mpa. Wire strands complying with AASHTO ASTM A 416/A 416M,
Type 1860Mpa (Grade 270) also can be used for the project.
COST ESTIMATE
The quantities of the various materials and work items involved in the construction of a
project including bridges and structures are needed for establishing the estimated cost of the
project throughout the design process, and for establishing a basis for comparison of the
contractor’s bids.
Quantities of materials for use in preliminary cost estimates were obtained from the
quantities calculated for previous similar designs. The estimated cost was prepared with not

much detailed information about the project. The worst-case conditions were assumed, such
as deep foundation substructure unless actual conditions are known.

ANNEXES
Annex 1.1 : Typical Cross sectional Drawings

Annex 1.2 Horizontal alignment data
Annex 1.3 Vertical alignment data
Annex 2.1: Subgrade Soils
Annex 2.2: Test Pit Logs
Annex 3.1: Time of Concentration
Annex 3.2: Curve Number and Design Discharge
Annex 3.3: Drainage List

Concept Engineering Design (MelkaJilo - Awash) (Draft) r1 - Compressed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Concept Engineering Design (MelkaJilo - Awash) (Draft) r1 - Compressed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA

ETHIOPIAN ROADS ADMINISTRATION

Consultancy Services for Detail Feasibility Study and

CONCEPT ENGINEERING DESIGN

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers &

in Joint Venture with

Net Consult PLC, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

4.3.2 Test pitting ............................................................................................................ 40

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

TRAFFIC PROJECTION.................................................................................................. 120

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 189

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Material ...................................................................................................................... 231

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Annex 1.1 : Typical Cross sectional Drawings

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

ECA Environmentally Critical Area

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

WTU Willingness to Use

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

E.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW

Section II: – Awash – Meisso – Dire Dawa

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

E 3 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES AND RECOMMENDATION

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

E 4 SOIL AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATIONS

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

E.5 TRAFFIC FINDINGS

Year Mediu Articulated

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Pavement Thicknesses (Melakjilo-Awash Road Segment)

1 65+000 126+558 5 129.5 110 200 200 200 200

Pavement Structure Design for Link Road

Design Traffic Class

Sub base (GS)

3 Mille road link 126+940

E.7 GEOMETRIC DESIGNS

Author or Agency Title

AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and

Ethiopian Roads Authority ERA’s Latest Version Geometric Design Manual

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Design parameter values for

Design parameter values for

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

E.8 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

E.9 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS

E.10 STRUCTURAL DESIGNS

Details of Overfly bridges are below

Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

 Ten (10) percent of the lump sum fee payable upon