Crown Agents international

The United Kingdom

Department for International Development (DFID)

The African Community Access Programme (AFCAP)

Prime Ministers Office - Regional Administration
and Local Government (PMO -RALG)
Project Reference: AFCAP/TAN/008

Research Consultant to Support the Design,

Construction and Monitoring of Demonstration Sites
for District Road Improvements in Tanzania

Bago - Talawanda- Bagamoyo District - Pwani Region

Construction Report
April 2012
 Construction Report

Africa Community Access Programme (AFCAP8)

Research Consultant to Support the Design, Construction and Monitoring of
Demonstration Sites for District Road Improvement in Tanzania
Contract Reference: AFCAP/TAN/008

Table of Contents Page

Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................i

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................1
1.1 The Africa Community Access Programme (AFCAP)...............................................1
1.2 The Road Network ........................................................................................................1
1.2.1 Road Maintenance Fund ...........................................................................................2
1.3 Background to AFCAP Tanzania.................................................................................2
2 The AFCAP Project Rationale ................................................................................................4
2.1 Tanzanian Pavement and Materials Guideline Design..............................................4
2.2 EOD Design Philosophy...............................................................................................4
2.2.1 Environmentally Optimised Design Process..............................................................5
2.3 AFCAP Pavements........................................................................................................6
2.3.1 Pre-Construction Data ...............................................................................................7
2.3.2 Estimated Construction Costs (Engineer’s Estimate)................................................8
2.4 The Design of the Rural Access Roads......................................................................8
2.4.1 Road Alignment .........................................................................................................8
2.4.2 Extent of Earthworks..................................................................................................8
2.4.3 Subgrade Design Bearing Capacity ..........................................................................8
2.4.4 Pavement Design ......................................................................................................9
2.4.5 Specifications...........................................................................................................12
3 The Constructed Demonstration Pavements .....................................................................17
3.1 Constructed Demonstration Sections ......................................................................17
3.1.1 Experimental Pavements on Expansive Clays/Black Cotton Soils .........................17
3.1.2 Section 5 - Geosynthetics........................................................................................18
3.1.3 Section 4– Geocells.................................................................................................19
3.1.4 Section 14 - Slurry Seal ...........................................................................................19
3.1.5 Construction Materials .............................................................................................19
3.1.6 Passing Bays ...........................................................................................................22
3.2 Construction Costs.....................................................................................................22
3.2.2 Environmentally Optimised Design..........................................................................26
3.3 Quality Control ............................................................................................................28
3.4 Standard Gravel Pavement ........................................................................................29
3.5 Concrete Strips ...........................................................................................................29
3.6 Concrete Geocells ......................................................................................................29
3.7 Double Sand Seal........................................................................................................30
3.8 Hand Packed Stone ....................................................................................................30
3.9 Slurry Seal ...................................................................................................................31
3.10 Double Surface Dressing ...........................................................................................31
3.11 Single Otta Seal and a Sand Seal..............................................................................32
3.12 Engineered Natural Surface.......................................................................................32
3.13 Discussion and Conclusions.....................................................................................33
4 Maintenance Requirements, Capacity and Cost................................................................34
4.1.1 Execution of maintenance .......................................................................................34
4.1.2 Community Participation..........................................................................................34
4.1.3 Whole Life Costs......................................................................................................34
5 Monitoring of the Demonstration Section and Interpretation of the Data.......................40
5.1 The Base-Line Data.....................................................................................................40

AFCAP 8 p. i
 Construction Report

5.2 Monitoring Beacons ...................................................................................................40

5.3 AFCAP – Monitoring Programme..............................................................................40
5.4 Monitoring Methods....................................................................................................41
5.4.1 Visual Inspection......................................................................................................41
5.4.2 Photographic Logging..............................................................................................41
5.4.3 Surface Profile Measurement ..................................................................................41
5.4.4 Rut Measurement ....................................................................................................41
5.4.5 Surface Roughness Measurement ..........................................................................42
5.4.6 Surface Texture Measurement ................................................................................42
5.4.7 Classified Traffic Counts..........................................................................................43
5.4.8 GPS Monitoring .......................................................................................................43
5.4.9 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Testing .....................................................................44
5.5 Data and Results.........................................................................................................44
5.6 Surface Performance..................................................................................................45
5.7 Future Monitoring Framework...................................................................................45
6 Information Dissemination...................................................................................................46
7 Conclusions and Recommendations..................................................................................47
7.1 General Comment .......................................................................................................47
7.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................48
7.3 Recommendations......................................................................................................49
7.4 Future Work.................................................................................................................49
Appendix A - Photographs at 500m intervals before construction............................................51
Appendix B - Photographs Detailing the Construction Methodology .......................................58
Appendix C - Test Results............................................................................................................138
Appendix D – Whole Life Economic Analysis Data ...................................................................188
Appendix E - Photographs Detailing Monitoring Methods .......................................................197
Appendix F - Traffic Count Data ..................................................................................................199
Appendix G - Schedule of Drainage Structures .........................................................................201
Appendix H – Monitoring field sheets .........................................................................................203
Appendix I - Monitoring Database Compact Disc ......................................................................204

Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by Mr Stephen Conlon and Mr James Mitchell (Roughton International).
This work would not be a success without the commitment of the Prime Ministers Office-Regional
and Local Government in particular Ms. Elina Kayanda and Mr. Niels Kofoed.
The Bagamoyo District Engineer’s team, headed by Eng. Samson Kalesi, performed exceptionally
throughout the entire project and the support of Mr. Rob Geddes and Mr. Nkululeko Leta of Crown
Agents has been instrumental in the progress of the project. The assistance provided by Eng. John
Malissa and staff of the Central Materials Lab in Dar es Salaam during the design and construction
phases is also greatly appreciated.
A great many people and organisations have made significant contributions to the research of this
project. Their co-operation is much appreciated and gratefully acknowledged. The actual
comments and observations made by respondents have not been attributed to individuals within
the text to protect and observe confidentiality.

AFCAP 8 p. ii
 Construction Report

Africa Community Access Programme (AFCAP8)

Research Consultant to Support the Design, Construction and Monitoring of
Demonstration Sites for District Road Improvement in Tanzania
Contract Reference: AFCAP/TAN/008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The United Republic of Tanzania located in Eastern Africa has a road network of over 55,000 km.
It is estimated that some 45% of the road network in Tanzania is in goof or fair condition. These
roads largely consist of gravel or earth surfaces which deteriorate rapidly and cause access
problems during the wet seasons. Poor accessibility is highly problematic in rural areas where the
majority of the population rely on agriculture and transport services for a means on income.
AFCAP's goal is to promote low cost, sustainable solutions for rural access. Improving the
sustainability and affordability of rural access will lead to improved access to economic
opportunities, and health and education services; thereby creating opportunities for pro-poor
growth and poverty alleviation. AFCAP 8 aims at identifying low-cost, locally resource based
methods of improving problematic lengths of road to provide sustainable rural access.
An Environmentally Optimised Design ethos has been implemented to carry out research on a rural
access road in Bagamoyo. The approach adopted is to utilise a number of different demonstration
sections at specific locations along access roads according to the requirements of the surrounding
road environment. The pavement types selected for demonstration cover 8 different forms of
construction including concrete geocells, concrete strips, surface dressing, Otta seals, sand seals,
slurry seals, hand packed stone and engineered natural materials.
The Environmentally Optimised Design approach required experienced engineers to spent
significant time in the field in order to identify and understand the particular problems that will be
encountered, in order to explore that various possible solutions. This approach suggests the use of
more expensive and substantial pavement structures for problematic sections of road, and less
expensive options for flat, well draining sections that are unlikely to present access problems. This
will provide a sustainable solution for year round accessibility at minimum cost.
The construction of the demonstration sections is now complete and this report includes a
description of the pavement construction methods. In order to monitor the demonstration sections,
various base line data have been collected. Further monitoring will take place to facilitate
comparison and conclusions to be drawn regarding pavement design for rural access roads. Data
records have been collected in a similar method to that of other AFCAP projects so that
comparisons with other demonstration sections in other countries can be made.
It is concluded that all weather access can be provided using techniques which are suitable for
local procurement and local supervision but during the design phase it is important that detailed
investigations of all successful construction techniques within the project area be investigated.
These should then be applied or adapted as appropriate to prevent the use of pavement
construction methodologies which are not suited to local resources and skills.
The contract documents should encourage, or require, Contractors to use local labour. This has
economic benefits for the local community, provides some feeling of ownership and helps create a
pool of experienced labour in the area which will be of value in future construction and in
maintenance of the existing roads.
Maintenance considerations should be taken into account when selecting pavement types, for
example, gravel surfaces and bituminous seals require significantly more routine and periodic
maintenance than concrete roads. Despite the higher initial cost of some surfacing options, lower
long term maintenance considerations may render these more economically and environmentally
sustainable over standard gravel wearing course. The designer must consider not only the

AFCAP 8 p. i
 Construction Report

maintenance requirements of each surface type but also whether maintenance will actually be
carried out and the effects of non performance, if this seems likely. Within this project area it must
be recognised that maintenance is likely to depend largely on the willingness of the communities to
contribute labour.
Implementation of the construction phase has highlighted problems which occur when research
work is carried out under a more or less conventional construction contract. There is a lack of
flexibility which makes changes and adjustments either too expensive or impossible whilst the
nature of the contract makes it very difficult to force the contractor to rectify small areas of poor
work. These problems are likely to be magnified when, as in this case, the research element is
simply a part of a larger, conventional contract which must reflect the realities of the commercial
world and an over-riding desire to complete the Contract.
It is necessary that a long term monitoring regime follows through on the base line data capture
conducted during this work. This will involve monitoring the performance and deterioration of the
trial pavements and the gravel wearing course control sections, taking into consideration the
environments to which they are subjected, the standard of construction, the traffic and the
maintenance required and actually carried out.

Project Aims
This project has a number of different aims and they are as follows:
• Improve sustainable access to economic and social opportunities for poor rural
communities;
• Provide all weather access to district roads using Environmentally Optimised Design.
• To demonstrate alternative pavement surfaces suitable for low volume roads in Tanzania
which will dramatically reduce the demand for gravel;
• To identify cost effective community based construction methods;
• To create a design philosophy/design concept for low volume rural roads;
• Change current design ideology for low volume rural roads, which presently involves
extensive re-gravelling works;
• To promote the use of locally sourced construction materials and investigate the use of
alternative ‘marginal’ materials – materials presently considered substandard, but which
can actually perform satisfactorily on low volume roads;
• To promote the use of labour based construction methods to provide employment for
people in local communities and help maintain the rural road network after construction is
completed;
• Aim towards incorporation of these design concepts as part of the Tanzanian Pavement
and Materials Design Manual in the future once the long term performance of these
pavements has been ascertained.

AFCAP 8 p. ii
 Construction Report

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Africa Community Access Programme (AFCAP)
The Africa Community Access Programme is designed to address the challenges of providing
reliable access for poor communities. Reliable access is essential for rural communities in Africa.
Access is required to reach basic services and all kinds of economic and social opportunities1.
AFCAP supports innovative field research and puts this knowledge into practical use. The
programme is based around a portfolio of research, demonstration, advisory and training projects.
These identify and support the uptake of low-cost, proven solution for rural access that maximise
the use of local resources. Project outputs then feed directly into the regional and national rural
1
transport policies ad strategies for poverty reduction .
AFCAP will benefit rural communities in Africa. The programme will mean that they have improved
access to investments in other sectors; better access to health and education services, improved
road safety and greater gender equality in how the transport sector operates1.
1.2 The Road Network
In the United Republic of Tanzania there are over 33 million citizens spread over 945,000 square
kilometres of land area who depend on 114 Local Government Authorities (LGAs) to provide them
2
with road network services . The Government of Tanzania is committed to providing high quality
and responsive services to all Tanzanians wherever they are in the country.
There are currently no paved district roads in Tanzania. The district road network consists of earth
and gravel roads. The road network in Tanzania for 2008/2009 is shown in Table 1. The local
government authorities (LGAs), with support from PMO-RALG, are responsible for managing the
classified, local road network, consisting of 56,625 km of district, feeder and urban roads. The
network of which is in good of fair condition is around 55%. The remaining roads, mainly with earth
surface, are in poor condition causing them to rapidly deteriorate during heavy rains.
These largely earth and gravel based rural networks are imposing huge maintenance burdens on
poorly resourced authorities and governments. The resultant maintenance demand is high,
threatening the future sustainability of the entire network. Despite the high maintenance costs,
these low volume rural roads are not sufficiently covered in the Tanzanian pavement design
manual.
3
Table 1 Tanzania Mainland Road Network Length

Road Class Paved (km) Unpaved (km) Total (km)

Trunk 5,150 7,636 12,786
Regional 722 19,504 20,226
District 0 29,337 29,337
Feeder 0 22,703 22,703
Urban 790 5,207 5,997
Total 6662 84387 91049

1
Africa Community Access Programme, http://www.crownagents.com/afcap/about-afcap.
aspx, August 2011.
2
Introduction to LGA’s, Prime Minister’s Office Regional Administration and Local
Government, http://www.pmoralg.go.tz/lga/index_intro. php, 2004.
3
Annual Report 2008/2009, Roads Fund Board, The United Republic of Tanzania, June 2009.

AFCAP 8 p. 1
 Construction Report

1.2.1 Road Maintenance Fund

Low volume rural roads should be maintained to a standard which allows year round access to vital
community facilities. Current design philosophies and ideologies promote rehabilitation of
continuous road sections – on rural roads; this generally involves re-gravelling the entire length.
This is inefficient, costly and environmentally un-sustainable in the long term.
The Roads Fund Board does not have enough funds to carry out all the maintenance required on
the road network in Tanzania. The problematic costs associated with gravel road are highlighted
3
below in Table 2 - Coverage of Total Maintenance Needs . The maintenance costs are increasing
every year and the maintenance budget is not adequate to fund this maintenance. In other words,
the funding for road maintenance is unsustainable. It is clear to see the benefits of a more
sustainable road network at district level.

Table 2 - Coverage of Total Maintenance Needs3

Year 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009

Maintenance Needs (Tsh
186.6 208.0 210.0 226.4 291.5
Billions)
Maintenance Budget (Tsh
65.4 71.5 76.2 195.0 195.0
Billions)
Percentage Coverage 35 34 36 86 67

1.3 Background to AFCAP Tanzania

The aim of the AFCAP project is to improve sustainable access to economic and social
opportunities for poor rural communities. A further aim of the project is to provide all weather
access on district roads using environmentally optimised design. Environmentally optimised design
involves applying robust pavements at specific problematic locations along the road and applying
less expensive and less wasteful designs in areas which are perfectly satisfactory all year round.
The problematic sections along the roads will provide the locations of different trial sections using
different sustainable solutions.
These pavements will dramatically reduce the demand for gravel, provide a smoother running
surface to reduce vehicle operating costs, reduce travel times and dust pollution. The project
focuses on demonstrating different low cost solutions that once demonstrated, can be repeated
across Africa.
The project is also focused on using locally available materials. Substantial effort was made to use
the local knowledge of the District Engineer’s and the stakeholders in order to locate suitable gravel
material. A number of borrow pits were located in the vicinity of the road.
At present, Tanzania has a modern and comprehensive pavement design manual, which details
the design process for major arterial and trunk routes. However, there are a high percentage of
low volume rural roads which are not catered for in current design manuals. These small rural
roads link villages with local amenities such as shops, schools and community health facilities.
Being low volume rural roads, they are generally not given the same priority in maintenance and
rehabilitation schedules, with the costs involved in repairing and maintaining them to the standards
outlined in current design manuals rarely justifiable.
Thus, the purpose of this project is to formulate new design methods and strategies, and
accommodate these in current design standards and practices in Tanzania.

AFCAP 8 p. 2
 Construction Report

Two roads have been selected for these demonstrations in Tanzania. One road is located in the
coastal region in the Bagamoyo District, which shares the typical problems of the coastal regions
such as sandy subgrades and flat marshy areas containing black cotton soil. The second road is
located on the slope of Kilimanjaro in the Siha District; the road is steep and winding in nature
passing through agricultural landscape. At the time of this report, the construction for the project in
Siha had not started and as a result, this report only covers the construction in Bagamoyo. The
road in Bagamoyo passes from Bago to Talawanda as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Location of the Bagamoyo Road (Bago to Talawanda)

AFCAP 8 p. 3
 Construction Report

2 THE AFCAP PROJECT RATIONALE

2.1 Tanzanian Pavement and Materials Guideline Design
Current pavement design in Tanzania does not address the need for an improved design
methodology, or standard, for low volume rural roads. The Tanzanian Pavement Design Manual
(or TPMDM as it will be referred to from this point forward), details the design of major trunk and
arterial roads.
The TPMDM uses a combination of axle loading and subgrade strength to allocate pavement
designs to specific road sections. These pavement designs determine the entire pavement
structure, material type and specification for each layer.
However, arterial and trunk roads have a much higher traffic volume than is experienced on many
rural roads, thus material quality and specifications must be of a much higher standard. In the case
of low volume roads, these specifications for material can be relaxed to allow the use of readily
available, locally sourced materials. These materials may not meet the specification for arterial or
trunk roads, but, where lower traffic volumes are involved; stresses and deteriorating factors are
generally lower. This allows the consideration of materials such as natural gravels, volcanic
cinders, calcrete and coral rocks, which may be readily available, but due to specifications in
current design manuals and local engineering principles, are not given consideration in pavement
construction. Current design beliefs held by many engineers regard these materials as being
substandard. While this may be the case for high volume roads, many of these materials are ideal
for rehabilitating lower volume roads, but are not given consideration as no information is available
on their suitability.
Trials have been carried out in various countries investigating cost effective, efficient and
environmentally sustainable methods of rehabilitating and maintaining low volume rural roads in
order to provide year round access for local communities. These methods utilised locally sourced
materials and involved the improvement of only areas, which in their un-rehabilitated state,
prevented year round access. This challenges the current unsustainable method of gravelling
these roads from start to finish.
This process has become known as Environmentally Optimized Design (EOD) or Spot
Improvement Design (SID). It is an aim of this project to introduce such design ideas to engineers
in Tanzania.
2.2 EOD Design Philosophy
An inherent problem encountered with developing and maintaining low-volume rural roads is
determining whether full rehabilitation is required or whether remediating trouble spots is more
beneficial. In developing countries where the majority of people live in the countryside, vast
networks of low volume roads develop. In such cases it can be more beneficial to improve roads
on a ‘spot improvement’ basis rather than undertaking full remediation (unless areas requiring spot
improvement are >75% of total road). For an entire section of road to be fully rehabilitated involves
high expense, may only serve relatively few people and is not a priority on district roads. By
utilizing funding to remediate sites over a number of routes, a cost effective method of benefiting
numerous communities is developed, allowing basic access to vital amenities such as health care,
schools and markets. Spot improvement differs to maintenance as it is done after basic access
has been lost.
Environmentally Optimized Design ensures that specifications and designs support the functions of
different road sections - assessing local environment and limited available resources. This requires
analysing a broad spectrum of solutions to rectify different road sections depending on their
individual requirements, ranging from engineered natural surfaces to bituminous pavements. A key

AFCAP 8 p. 4
 Construction Report

cornerstone of this method is that the chosen solution must be achievable with materials, plant and
contractors available locally4.
2.2.1 Environmentally Optimised Design Process
Environmentally Optimised Design (EOD) has been defined as a system of road design that
considers the variation of different road environments along the length of the road such as steep
5
gradients, wet and marshy areas as well as passage over easy terrain .
The Spot Improvement Design (SID) methodology is applied to the EOD and concentrates on
ensuring that each section of a road is provided with the most suitable pavement type for the
5
specific circumstances to provide basic access along the road.
A typical rural road situation is shown in Figure 2, where an earth track leads to an isolated
community some way from a main road. During the dry season the road is passable. During the
wet season much of the road may perform quite well but there will be some difficult problematic
sections which will render the road impassable. As an example, the track, shown in Figure 2, is
taken to be in the following condition:

Good Quality Lengths – Make up a large percentage of the road

Standard Lengths – Make up a large percentage of the road

Problematic Sections – Make up a small percentage of the road
So the EOD philosophy challenges the standard rural access road design of applying a gravel
wearing course from start to finish. The EOD method asks if the standard design is sufficient for
problematic areas and is the standard design necessary for the good areas. The correct design
needs to be undertaken for the different sections of the road as they are assessed. An under-
design of poor sections can lead to premature failure of problematic areas and an over-design will
often be a waste of funds which would be better spent on the problematic sections.
The EOD design philosophy proposes using minimal resources on the good sections, some
resources on the standard sections and the majority of resources on the problematic sections.
For example, the EOD design philosophy may lead to the following design:

Good Quality Lengths – Engineered Natural Surface (Estimated cost 30% of Standard
Gravel Surface)

Standard Lengths – Standard Gravel Surface

Problematic Sections – Suitable Economically Viable Robust Pavement Structure
(Estimated Cost 500% of Standard Gravel).

4
Key Management Issues for Low Volume Rural Roads in Developing Countries, R Petts,
Road Asset Management Seminar, Chandigarh, India, March 2008.
5
Local Resource Solutions to Problematic Rural Road Access in Lao PDR, SEACAP
Acess roads on Route 3, Roughton International Scientific Paper, April 2009.

AFCAP 8 p. 5
 Construction Report

Figure 2 Environmentally Optimised Design Process

Main Road
Village

Steep Standard Marshy Good Steep Good

Good
Standard
Problematic

The EOD/SID philosophy aims to replace a standard gravel pavement design with more robust
pavements at specific problematic locations along rural access roads and to replace less expensive
wasteful pavements in areas which are perfectly satisfactory all year round, resulting in a more
economical road design.
It is clear to see the potential savings and benefits from adopting this approach to rural road
design. Gravel roads are becoming uneconomical and practically unsustainable, where gravel is
becoming increasingly scarce and only available at long haulage distances. This design
philosophy offers a more sustainable and economical solution to standard gravel road design.
This design philosophy has been applied for the design of these roads by spending significant time
in the field, understanding which sections perform well in the wet season and which sections
prohibit basic access. Once the problem sections were established, suitable solutions were
applied to these areas in order to provide basic access during the rain season. By demonstrating
this design philosophy, engineer’s in Tanzania will be able to follow the procedures taken in this
report to implement a suitable EOD/SID that suits their particular problems along district roads in
the future.
2.3 AFCAP Pavements
The AFCAP Tanzania project follows on from a previous project in Laos People’s Democratic
Republic (PDR) in South East Asia, entitled SEACAP 17 – Local Resource Solutions to
Problematic Rural Road Access in Laos PDR. The SEACAP project aimed to identify cost-effective
community orientated approaches for improving all year access to remote rural areas through low-
cost and local resource based improvement of roads in Laos PDR. Alternative pavements and
surfacing to the standard gravel pavement were tested by way of trials on short problematic
sections of selected roads. Several of these pavements were previously trialled in Vietnam and
Cambodia through DFID research. The pavements being demonstrated in Bagamoyo have been
shown to work well in other countries under similar projects in the past. The lengths of the various
demonstration sections vary from 180 – 1670 m.
The pavements types selected for the demonstrations in Bagamoyo were as follows:

Gravel Wearing Course, this construction comprises 150 mm of gravel wearing course
with a bearing capacity of CBR≥25% constructed on an in-situ subgrade.

AFCAP 8 p. 6
 Construction Report

Double Sand Seal, this seal consisting of a machine applied film of bitumen followed by
the application of excess sand which is lightly rolled into the bitumen. Constructed in two
layers a sand seal is used as a permanent bituminous surfacing on low volume roads.

Single Otta Seal with a Sand Seal, the Otta seal surface comprises a layer of binder
followed by a layer of aggregate that is rolled into the binder using a roller or loaded trucks.
It is different to surface dressing in that an 'all in' graded gravel or crushed aggregate is
used instead of single sized chippings. The layer is thicker and more bitumen is used.
The surface is blinded with a bitumen/sand mix. The added sand seal layer gives extra
protection against moisture ingress and environmental effects on the underlying layers.

Hand Packed Stone, this surface consists of a layer of large stones into which smaller
chips are packed. Remaining voids are filled with sand or gravel to form a strong and
semi-impervious matrix.

Concrete Geocells, manufactured plastic formwork is used to construct in-situ concrete
paving. The plastic formwork is sacrificial and remains embedded in the concrete creating
a form of block paving.

Concrete Strips (Unreinforced), this surface uses concrete under the wheel tracks of a
vehicle. The strips also contain transverse concrete strips between the wheel tracks to
help stop excessive erosion down the centre of the strips

Concrete Strips (Reinforced), this surface is similar to the latter but a layer of 4 mm steel
reinforcement was used in the concrete where the pavement has an expansive soil
subgrade

Double Surface Dressing, This method involves 2 spray applications. A primary coat is
sprayed onto the road followed by a large single sized aggregate. Following this, the
secondary bituminous application and dressing with smaller sized aggregate. Typical
aggregate sizes are 19 – 10 mm for larger aggregate and 13 – 6 mm for smaller
aggregate.

Slurry Seal, a relatively thin surfacing, consisting of fine aggregates - typically <10 mm,
bitumen emulsion, water, cement/lime and occasionally an additive also. The constituent
materials can be mixed in a normal concrete mixer before being spread on the road
surface. Spreading can be carried out by hand or machine application.

Engineered Natural Surface, this construction is used where the existing subgrade
material comprises natural gravel with the same engineering characteristics as the
pavement layer.
2.3.1 Pre-Construction Data
Before the selection of the different pavements the following data was gathered:

Horizontal gradient;

Subgrade bearing capacity;

Visual assessment;

Cross drainage;

Cost data;

Distance from Bagamoyo;

Proximity to construction materials;

Availability of construction materials;

AFCAP 8 p. 7
 Construction Report

Traffic;
For the design of the pavements trial pits were taken along the alignment of the road to determine
the subgrade bearing capacity. Test results of the gravel from local borrow pits were also
ascertained.
2.3.2 Estimated Construction Costs (Engineer’s Estimate)
Local construction costs were made available by PMO-RALG and used to prepare the engineers
estimate for the pavements. The rates received during tender were considerably more expensive
than estimated. It was concluded that these expensive rates were submitted by the contractors
because they were unfamiliar with the technologies involved in the project and tendered with high
rates to hedge against adverse risk involved in their construction. However, it is suggested that
once these technologies are used more commonly across Tanzania, and local contractors become
familiar with the methodology then the cost will consequently be reduced.
2.4 The Design of the Rural Access Roads
2.4.1 Road Alignment
The road alignment generally followed the existing alignment of the access road before
construction. Any sharp bends in the road were smoothed out during the clearing and grubbing
phase of the project by the Contractor. No detailed alignment design was carried out by the
Consultant, the District Engineer’s Office, or the Contractor. Data from a handheld GPS was taken
before and after the Construction of the road. The method of using a handheld GPS is very simple,
inexpensive and available to District Engineer’s in Tanzania. Photographs of the road alignment
prior to construction are available in Appendix A - Photographs at 500m intervals before
construction.
2.4.2 Extent of Earthworks
For this project one simple item was used for heavy grading and compaction of the road of the
roadbed. This item included all earthworks, formation of the roadbed and side drains. The use of a
simplified item allowed for easier pricing by the contractor and easier supervision and quantity
calculations for payment by the District Engineer.
2.4.3 Subgrade Design Bearing Capacity
The road in Bagamoyo is located in a moderate climatic zone. As a result, the subgrade class is
based on the 4 day soaked CBR value. Table 3, below, shows how to the subgrade is classified
based on the CBR value. Soil with a CBR of < 3% is classified as low strength.

AFCAP 8 p. 8
 Construction Report

Table 3 Subgrade CBR Classification6

CBRdesign [%]
Density for
Subgrade Wet or Dry climatic zones (both requirements determination of
class moderate shall be met) CBRdesign [% of
climatic zones MDD]
4 day soaked
value Tested at OMC 4 days soaked value

S15 Min 15 Min 15 Min 7 95 BS-Heavy

S7 7 -14 7 -14 3 - 14 93 BS-Heavy
S3 3-6 3-6 2-6 100 BS-Light

The design subgrade bearing capacity was investigated during the design phase of the project.
Alignment trial pits of the various soils were taken and a summary of the design subgrade bearing
capacity is shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Summary of the Design Subgrade Bearing Capacity

Chainage (km) Length

Section Surfacing Type Subgrade
Start End (km) CBR

Single Otta seal with a sand seal (26

1 0.030 0.230 0.200 S3
mm)
2 5.340 5.520 0.180 Hand Packed Stone (150 mm) Low Strength
3 5.560 6.080 0.520 Concrete Strips (100 mm - Reinforced) Low Strength
4 6.080 7.750 1.670 Geocells (75 mm) Low Strength
5 8.000 8.240 0.240 Double Surface Dressing (20 mm) Low Strength
6 8.320 8.820 0.500 Geocells (75 mm) Low Strength
Concrete Strips (100 mm -
7 9.980 10.670 0.690 S7
Unreinforced)
8 11.200 11.400 0.200 Double Sand Seal (20 mm) S7
9 12.200 12.580 0.380 Gravel Wearing Course Low Strength
10 16.240 17.100 0.860 Concrete Strips (100 mm - Reinforced) Low Strength
11 18.480 18.740 0.260 Concrete Strips (100 mm - Reinforced) Low Strength
12 19.000 19.200 0.200 Gravel Wearing Course Low Strength
13 19.480 20.040 0.560 Gravel Wearing Course Low Strength
14 20.040 20.260 0.220 Slurry Seal (8 mm) S3

2.4.4 Pavement Design

The different pavements being demonstrated in Bagamoyo are shown in Table 6. The pavements
being constructed in Bagamoyo initially followed the pavement design in the TPMDM. Changes
were made to allow for variations in the material, based on what was available in the respective

6
Pavement and Materials Design Manual, Ministry of Works, The United Republic of
Tanzania, 1999.

AFCAP 8 p. 9
 Construction Report

region. Additionally, surface materials such as concrete and segmental block surfaces were
accommodated in the designs and these are not covered in the TPMDM at present.
Therefore, the TPMDM was used to get the traditional pavement design, with suitable alterations
made as required to obtain the modified environmentally optimised design.
The pavement design set out in the TPMDM and the revised pavement design for a bitumen
pavement for the road in Bagamoyo is shown below in Table 5. The modifications of the pavement
design are justified from a research paper entitled Collaborative Research Programme on Highway
Engineering Materials in the SADC Region published by the TRL. This research paper dictates
that the pavement can be reduced to the thickness shown below if the shoulders of the road are
sealed. The use of sealed shoulders gives a structural benefit by maintaining a drier environment
under the running surface. The provision of a sealed shoulder decreases the risk of using weaker
materials in the upper pavement layers. 7
Table 5 Modifications to the Standard Pavement Design

Standard Bitumen Revised Bagamoyo Bitumen

Pavement Types
Pavement Design Pavement Design

Type Bitumen Surface Bitumen Surface

Surface Layer
Thickness Varies Varies
Type Natural Gravel CBR ≥ 60% Natural Gravel CBR ≥ 60%
Base
Thickness 150 150
Type Natural Gravel CBR ≥ 25% -
Subbase
Thickness 150 mm -
Improved Type Natural Gravel CBR ≥ 15% Natural Gravel CBR ≥ 15%
Subgrade Thickness 150 mm 150 mm
Improved Type Natural Gravel CBR ≥ 7% -
Subgrade Thickness 150 mm -
Subgrade Type CBR < 7% CBR < 7%

7
Collaborative Research Programme on Highway Engineering Materials in the SADC
Region, C. Gourley, Volume 1 Performance of Low Volume Sealed Roads: Results and
Recommendations from Studies in Southern Africa, Transport Research Laboratory,
Crowthorne, United Kingdom, November 1999.

AFCAP 8 p. 10
 Construction Report

Table 6 Pavement Structures for the AFCAP Bagamoyo Demonstration Sections

Single Otta Double Concrete Concrete Hand

Double Sand
Pavement Types Seal with a Surface Slurry Seal Strips Strips Geocells Packed
Seal
Sand Seal Dressing (Unreinforced) (Reinforced) Stone

Bitumen Bitumen Bitumen Bitumen

Surface Type Concrete Concrete Concrete Stone
Surface Surface Surface Surface
Layer
Thickness 26 mm 20 mm 20 mm 8 mm 100 mm 100 mm 75 mm 150 mm
Bedding
Thickness 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 mm
Sand
Natural Natural Natural Natural
Type Gravel CBR ≥ Gravel CBR ≥ Gravel CBR ≥ Gravel CBR ≥
Base
60% 60% 60% 60%
Thickness 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm
Natural Natural Natural Natural
Natural Gravel
Type Gravel CBR ≥ Gravel CBR Gravel CBR Gravel CBR
Subbase CBR ≥ 45%
45% ≥ 45% ≥ 45% ≥ 45%
Thickness 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm
Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural
Natural Gravel
Improved Type Gravel CBR ≥ Gravel CBR ≥ Gravel CBR ≥ Gravel CBR ≥ Gravel CBR Gravel CBR Gravel CBR
CBR ≥ 15%
Subgrade 15% 15% 15% 15% ≥ 15% ≥ 15% ≥ 15%
Thickness 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm 100 mm 100 mm 100 mm 100 mm
Natural Natural Natural Natural
Improved Type Gravel CBR ≥ Gravel CBR Gravel CBR Gravel CBR
Subgrade 7% ≥ 7% ≥ 7% ≥ 7%
Thickness 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm 150 mm
Subgrade Type CBR = 3% CBR = 9% CBR ≤ 2%* CBR = 3% CBR = 9% CBR ≤ 2%* CBR ≤ 2%* CBR ≤ 2%*

*Indicates expansive clay subgrade

AFCAP 8 p. 11
 Construction Report

2.4.5 Specifications
Overview
The Specification for this project was formed predominantly using the Tanzanian Standard
Specification for Road Works8. Other sources used included SATCC Standard Specifications for
Road and Bridge Works and specifications from the SEACAP Project in South East Asia9.
Methodology
General Specifications are sourced from the Tanzanian Standard Specification for Road Works
2000 wherever possible. However, other sources which were reviewed and utilised include the
SEACAP Project, which supplied the information for concrete pavements and segmental block
paving, such as hand packed stone blocks and concrete paving bricks. These are contained in the
Special Specifications9.
These documents supplied a standard specification using the standard materials, construction
methods and method of measurement for each of the required processes. In reality, this project is
based on very low volume roads and the use of marginal materials is required and permitted.
Tanzanian Standard Specification for Road Works
The Tanzanian Standard Specification for Road Works was compiled in 2000 under the Institutional
Cooperation between the Ministry of Works for Tanzania, the Central Materials Laboratory (CML)
and the Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA). Its aim is to establish technical
standards, guidelines and specifications for road and highway engineering.
Outlined below in are the main sections from the Specification, where series 8000 was introduced
by the Consultant to introduce alternative pavements not covered in the Tanzanian Standard
Specification9.
Table 7 Section Reference for Tanzanian Standard Specification for Road Works

Series Description

1000 General
2000 Drainage
3000 Earthworks and Pavement Layers of Gravel or Crushed Stone
4000 Bituminous Layers and Seals
5000 Ancillary Roadwork’s
8000 Concrete and Alternative Pavements

Marginal Materials
This project promotes the use of locally sourced construction materials the use of alternative
‘marginal’ materials – materials presently considered substandard, but which can actually perform
satisfactorily on low volume roads. The specification for construction materials may not always
meet current accepted standards, but, on these roads, traffic levels and pavement stresses are
low, therefore material specifications can be relaxed. This is imperative to the success of this

8
Standard Specification for Road Works, Ministry of Works, The United Republic of
Tanzania, 2000.
9
Research Consultant to Support the Design, Construction and Monitoring of
Demonstration Sites for District Road Improvements in Tanzania: Design Report,
Roughton International, November 2010.

AFCAP 8 p. 12
 Construction Report

methodology, as locally sourced materials invariably cannot always meet the high standards
required by current specifications.
A thorough investigation was carried out to locate suitable materials for construction of the road
pavements. These investigations included locating suitable materials for construction of the
selected subgrade, subbase, base and surfacing layers. Materials were tested to determine their
suitability and the pavement design was based on the suitable materials which have been located
in the area.
The key materials that were used in this project that do not meet the specifications set out in the
TPMDM but may be considered suitable for low volume rural roads in Tanzania include the
following;

Grading requirements for the sand seal

Grading, plasticity index, and the ten percent fines value Otta seal aggregate

Grading requirements of the crusher dust for the slurry seal

CBR requirements for the pavement layers

Grading requirements for the surface dressing aggregate
Details test for results for all materials are available in Appendix C - Test Results.
Sand
Figure 3, below, shows the grading requirements for a sand seal as set out in the TPMDM. The
blue curve indicates the grading of the local sand available in Bagamoyo. The results indicate that
the material is too coarse and too fine for a sand seal according to the Tanzanian specification.
However, experience has shown that for low volume rural roads this material should perform
satisfactorily.
Figure 3 Grading Envelope for Quartzitic Sand

100

90
80

70
% passing

60

50
40

30

20

10
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01
sieve size (mm)

Quartzitic Sand Envelope 1 Envelope 2

AFCAP 8 p. 13
 Construction Report

Otta Seal Aggregate

Figure 4, below, shows the grading envelope for an Otta seal aggregate as stated in the TPMDM.
The curve indicates that the gravel is too coarse and too fine and that it is not suitable for an Otta
seal. However, for this project a mosquito net was used to screen some of the fines and the
oversize material was removed by hand to adapt the material to meet the grading specification.
Furthermore, the material does not meet the PI and TFV requirements, as shown in Table 8. By
screening the fine material from the gravel it also reduced the PI. The ten percent fines values also
do not meet specification requirements but are considered suitable for low volume rural roads.
Table 8 Otta Seal Aggregate Requirements

Quartzitic Gravel TPMDM Specification

PI 26 12
TFV (Dry) 50 90
TFV (Wet) 45 54

Figure 4 Grading Envelope for the Quartzitic Gravel

100

90

80

70
% passing

60

50

40
30

20
10

0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
sieve size (mm)

Quarzitic Gravel Envelope 1 Envelope 2

Crusher Dust
Figure 5, below, shows the grading envelope for crusher dust in a slurry seal, as stated in the
TPMDM. The curve indicates that crusher dust is too fine to be used in a slurry seal. The result
meant that additional water needed to be added to the slurry to make it flow easily.

AFCAP 8 p. 14
 Construction Report

Figure 5 Grading Envelope for the Crusher Dust

100

90

80

70
% passing

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
sieve size (mm)

Crusher Dust Envelope 1 Envelope 2

Surface Dressing Aggregate

The surface dressing aggregate did not meet the grading specification set out in the TPMDM.
Table 9 shows that the aggregate is too coarse and too fine to meet the specification. The
aggregate came from a quarry in the Lugoba/Chalinze area. The aggregate in this area is granite
and is generally considered high quality. The quarries in the Lugoba/Chalinze area supply most
crushed stone for construction in Dar es Salaam. Despite the fact that this material failed the
grading requirements, the material meets the other requirements and the aggregate was
considered suitable for low volume roads.
Table 9 14 mm Aggregate Grading

14 mm Aggregate Specification
Sieve Size
(% Passing)

20 mm 100 100
14 mm 99 85 - 100
10 mm 54 0 - 30
5 mm 2 -
2 mm 2 -
425 µm 1 < 1. 0
75 µm 1 < 0. 5

AFCAP 8 p. 15
 Construction Report

Marly Limestone
As it is the AFCAP project rationale to use locally available material, two very interesting borrow
pits were utilised along the road in Bagamoyo. Our research has indicated that this material is a
marly Limestone. The material has a self cementing property and our testing has indicated that the
material CBR increases over time. A simple test was used to study the self cementing properties
of the material. A sample of the marly Limestone was brought to the lab, the sample was split in
two, the CBR of the material was then tested for one half of the sample, the other half was
compacted into a CBR mould and left untouched for one month. Then after the one month period
had elapsed the CBR mould was soaked for 4 days and the test was carried out on the sample.
The results of the tests are shown below in Table 10. The TPMDM does not cover this type of
material and it is believed that this material is abundant along the east coast of Tanzania. It is clear
that this material could have large implications for use in roads in Tanzania.
Table 10 Marly Limestone CBR Results

Normal CBR Procedure CBR After 1 Month

Borrow pit no. Borrow pit 3 Borrow pit 4 Borrow pit 3 Borrow pit 4

CBR (%) (100% BS-Heavy) 30 58 35 77

Both borrow pits were trialled as pavement layers for different pavement types, including the
bitumen pavements, geocells and the concrete strips. The performance of each of the materials
will be monitored and their performance will be compared. Conclusions on their performance for
low volume road construction will be made, possible specifications for the material in low volume
rural road construction and recommendations for further study of this material will be drawn.
Conclusions
The Consultant would not have used these ‘marginal’ materials if we did not think that they would
perform reasonably well. These materials are considered fit for their purpose. However, the
performance of these ‘marginal’ materials will be assessed during the monitoring period and
recommendations will be made on their suitability for low volume rural roads in Tanzania. The
technical advisor to the project oversaw all the decisions made with regards using these materials.

AFCAP 8 p. 16
 Construction Report

3 THE CONSTRUCTED DEMONSTRATION PAVEMENTS

3.1 Constructed Demonstration Sections
In total fourteen demonstration sections were to be constructed in Bagamoyo. Two of the three
gravel wearing course sections were constructed as control sections (sections 8 and 11). These
control sections have varying topographic conditions. Due to problems encountered during the
construction of geocell sections these were reduced accordingly and 13 sections were completed.
A full list of the demonstration sections constructed is shown in Table 11. Detailed photographs of
the construction of each section are available in Appendix B - Photographs Detailing the
Construction Methodology.
Table 11 Schedule of Demonstration Sections in Bagamoyo

Chainage (km) Length

Section Surfacing Type
Start End (km)

1 0.030 0.230 0.200 Single Otta Seal with a Sand Seal (26 mm)
2 5.340 5.520 0.180 Hand Packed Stone (150 mm)
3 5.560 6.080 0.520 Concrete Strips (100 mm - Reinforced)
4 6.080 6.740 0.660 Geocells (75 mm)
5 8.000 8.240 0.240 Double Surface Dressing (20 mm)
6 9.980 10.670 0.690 Concrete Strips (100 mm - Unreinforced)
7 11.200 11.400 0.200 Double Sand Seal (20 mm)
8 12.200 12.580 0.380 Gravel Wearing Course (150 mm)
9 16.240 17.100 0.860 Concrete Strips (100 mm - Reinforced)
10 18.480 18.740 0.260 Concrete Strips (100 mm - Reinforced)
11 19.000 19.200 0.200 Gravel Wearing Course (150 mm)
12 19.480 20.040 0.560 Gravel Wearing Course (150 mm)
13 20.040 20.260 0.220 Slurry Seal (8 mm)
Total Length 5.170

3.1.1 Experimental Pavements on Expansive Clays/Black Cotton Soils

Expansive soils, such as Black Cotton Soil, are fairly widespread across Tanzania. The
mechanism of expansion is that of seasonal wetting and drying, with consequent movement of the
water table. Soils at the edge of the road wet up and dry out at a different rate than those under a
surfacing, thus bringing about differential movement. It is this movement, rather than low soil
strength, most expansive soils being strong in the equilibrium moisture condition, which brings
about failure. Differential movement will result in longitudinal cracks in the surfacing, thus
facilitating the ingress and egress of water and accelerating the moisture change cycle. Failure of
10
embankments and severe deterioration of the ride quality are also likely.
It was decided to experiment with some new design methods for the project in Bagamoyo. The
ideal solution for treatment of areas of black cotton soil is removing it entirely. However, this is
costly and uneconomical for a rural road. An alternative option was excavating 600 mm to 1000

10
Pavement and Materials Design Manual, Ministry of Works, The United Republic of
Tanzania, 1999.

AFCAP 8 p. 17
 Construction Report

mm of the material, replacing it with non-plastic fill, use the excavated soil to increase the slope of
the shoulders and reshape and re-compact the base and surface every few years.
The cost of this method was considered to be unjustifiable for a low volume rural road. The
modified experimental design method used for this project provides surfacing such as hand packed
stone, concrete strips (reinforced) or geocells on top of an improved subgrade layer that can
accommodate some movement in the subgrade and can be easily maintained. Their performance
will be monitored and recommendation for their suitability on low volume rural roads will be made.
In addition we are experimenting with a synthetic geo-grid system with a double surface dressing to
prevent movement in the black cotton soil subgrade. This method is discussed below in 3.1.2.
3.1.2 Section 5 - Geosynthetics
Two geosynthetic materials were used in the construction of section 5 (double surface dressing);
as a result, section 5 was divided into 5 sub-sections numbered from 5. 1 to 5. 5. The subgrade
on this section is expansive clay (black cotton soil) and as a result we used a Fornit 30 base
reinforcement geosynthetic. This involves installing a base reinforcement grid and applying the
natural gravel base course over the gravel. For this project the Fornit 30 was laid flat on the G15
improved subgrade and 300 mm of Marley limestone gravel was compacted in two layers on top of
the Fornit 30.
The use of the Fornit 30 geo-grid reinforcement has proven to provide substantial improvement to
the structural capacity of road construction over problematic soils. For example, in Ireland, where
road construction has occurred over the peat bogs, Fornit 30 geo-grid has successfully been used
at the subgrade/sub base interface, to help stiffen the sub base/ base course layers and therefore
reduce the risk of rutting at the surface course. We therefore considered that such solutions could
be used to control the mechanisms associated with the wetting and drying of expansive clays
which underlie certain parts of section 5. This method of constructing bitumen pavements on
expansive clays is unique to this project and could have massive affects on the approach to
constructing on expansive clays in Tanzania and across Africa if it proves to be successful.
The second geosynthetic that was used on section 5 was the Fortrac 3D-30 surface erosion control
geosynthetic. This material is used to reduce the wearing of the bitumen surface, and reduce the
period between reseals and prolong the life of the pavement. The geo-grid was laid flat on the
base course and a standard double surface dressing was laid directly on top of the geo-grid.
The performance of these geosynthetic materials will be assessed during the monitoring period.
The various sub-sections of section 5 are shown below in Table 12.

Table 12 Section 5 Sub-Sections

Chainage (km)
Length
Section Surfacing Type
(km)
Start End

5 8.000 8.240 0.240 Double Surface Dressing (20 mm)

5.1 8.000 8.080 0.080 No geosynthetic
5.2 8.080 8.150 0.070 Fornit 30 base reinforcement geosynthetic
Fornit 30 base reinforcement & Fortrac 3D-30 surface
5.3 8.150 8.180 0.030
erosion control
5.4 8.180 8.220 0.040 Fortrac 3D-30 surface erosion control geosynthetic
5.5 8.220 8.240 0.020 No geosythetic

AFCAP 8 p. 18
 Construction Report

3.1.3 Section 4– Geocells

Significant problems were encountered during the construction of the two proposed geocell
sections. The completion of these sections was greatly hampered by the clearing of materials,
which were sourced from South Africa, through Dar es Salaam Port. Due to a miscommunication
between the supplier and the contractor the required South African Development Community
(SADC) certificate of origin was not supplied. This resulted in the contractor incurring a tax on
importing the geocells.
Along with this the contractor issued a statement indicating that as geocells are a relatively new
technology in the Tanzanian construction industry and the local contractor’s unfamiliarity with the
pavement material it was not understood that concrete was required to cover the geocell mat and
was thus not taken into account during tender. This was despite detailed tender documents
highlighting the need for concrete in the construction of these pavement sections.
A revised length of geocell pavement was agree upon which lead to the removal of Section 6 and
Section4 being reduced by approximately 1000m, leaving the total length of geocell pavement to
be constructed at 600m.
3.1.4 Section 14 - Slurry Seal
Section 13 was divided into two sub-sections. The first sub-section 13.1 contains lime as the
additive in the slurry and the second sub-section 13.2, contains cement as the additive.
Comparisons will be made of the performance of the two different mixes over the monitoring
period.
Table 13 Section 13 Sub-Sections

Chainage (km) Length

Section Surfacing Type
Start End (km)

13 20.040 20.260 0.220 Slurry Seal (8 mm)

13.1 20.040 20.150 0.110 Slurry Seal with lime additive
13.2 20.150 20.260 0.110 Slurry Seal with cement additive

3.1.5 Construction Materials

Four borrow pits were located in the vicinity of the road. Borrow pit number 1 was located during
the design phase, however this borrow pit was not utilised during the construction phase as the
other borrow pits were considered sufficient. A summary of the properties and location of the
materials is shown in Table 14. It has been concluded that BP 4 is the superior borrow pit with a
high CBR. It has also been shown that BP 3 contains some smectite (clay). However, both marly
limestone gravels were used as pavement layers for each of the different pavement types and their
performances will be compared over the monitoring period.
The marly limestone from borrow pit number 4 was used in the construction of the hand packed
stone. There was an abundance of marly limestone in the area. The stone is very strong and
cubic in shape which made the stone very suitable for the construction of the hand packed stone.
The stone was also used in the construction of the headwalls of the culverts, the cut-off walls of the
drifts and to line the ditches on sections 2 and 4.

AFCAP 8 p. 19
 Construction Report

The gravel from BP 2 was used as the Otta seal aggregate. Some of the fines and the oversize
material were removed from the gravel before it was used in the Otta seal.
Table 14 Borrow Pit Summary

Chainage Offset Borrow Pit CBR CBR

Description PI
(km) (km) No. (95%) (98%)

2.700 1.25 Red Quartzitic Gravel BP 2 26 20 -

Marly Limestone
8.030 0.00 BP 4 14 46 52
Gravel
Marly Limestone
13.860 0.00 BP 3 14 25 30
Gravel

Table 15, indicates which borrow pit each pavement layer came from during construction. This is
important to note because some of the pavement layers have higher specifications than required
and some have lower specifications than indicated in the design.

AFCAP 8 p. 20
 Construction Report

Table 15 Schedule of Pavement Layers

Chainage (km) Length Pavement Layers (mm)

Section Surfacing Type
Start End (km) G7 G15 G45 G60 GWC

1 0.030 0.230 0.200 Single Otta Seal with a Sand Seal 150 BP 2 - - - 150 BP 4 - -
2 5.340 5.520 0.180 Hand Packed Stone 150 BP 2 100 BP 3 150 BP 4 - - - -
3 5.560 6.080 0.520 Concrete Strips 150 BP 2 100 BP 3 150 BP 4 - - - -
4 6.080 6.740 0.660 Geocells 150 BP 2 100 BP 3 150 BP 4 - - - -
5 8.000 8.240 0.240 Double Surface Dressing 150 BP 2 150 BP 3 150 BP 4 150 BP 4 - -
6 9.980 10.670 0.690 Concrete Strips - - 100 BP 3 150 BP 3 - - - -
7 11.200 11.400 0.200 Double Sand Seal - - 150 BP 3 - - 150 BP 4 - -
8 12.200 12.580 0.380 Gravel Wearing Course - - - - - - - - 150 BP 3
9 16.240 17.100 0.860 Concrete Strips 150 BP 3 100 BP 3 150 BP 3 - - - -
10 18.480 18.740 0.260 Concrete Strips 150 BP 3 100 BP 3 150 BP 3 - - - -
11 19.000 19.200 0.200 Gravel Wearing Course - - - - - - - - 150 BP 3
12 19.480 20.040 0.560 Gravel Wearing Course - - - - - - - - 150 BP 3
13 20.040 20.260 0.220 Slurry Seal 150 BP 3 - - - - 150 BP 3 - -
Total Length (km) 5.170

AFCAP 8 p. 21
 Construction Report

3.1.6 Passing Bays

Passing bays were installed at regular intervals along the various different demonstration sections
to allow vehicles to pass sufficiently. The road has a 3 m carriageway, in general, and a 1 m
shoulder on either side of the carriageway. The passing bays are particularly important on the
concrete strips sections. Although the passing bays are important to allow the vehicles to pass
adequately and safely, the shoulder is generally sufficient in an emergency scenario for most
vehicles to pass each other. The passing bays were originally going to be constructed using a
concrete surface, however, this is extremely expensive and it was agreed between the District
Engineer, the Consultant and a representative from PMO-RALG that the passing bays would
remain as gravel. A schedule of passing bays is shown in Table 16.
Table 16 Schedule of Passing Bays

Passing Bays

Section Chainage (km)

2 5+420
3 5+600
3 5+830
4 6+100
4 6+400
4 6+600
4 6+880
4 7+580
5 8+110
6 8+400
6 8+640
7 10+100
7 10+440
10 16+340
10 16+480
10 16+720
10 17+100
11 18+620
11 18+680

3.2 Construction Costs

The construction costs for one kilometre of each of the pavements and a square metre cost for
each of the pavements using the contractor that constructed the different pavements is shown in
Table 21.
In each case the cost per square metre is the cost of the designated pavement construction above
the prepared subgrade. On this basis the cost of Engineered Natural Earth is nil since this is,
effectively, the prepared subgrade in an area where the in situ material is of a high enough quality
to act as the road pavement/ surface.

AFCAP 8 p. 22
 Construction Report

It is the consultant’s belief that some of the rates for construction received by the contractor’s in
Bagamoyo were unjustifiably high. An analysis of these rates highlights some of these
irregularities.
Table 17 Aggregate Bid Rates

Tanzanian Schillings
Item Description Unit
Bid 1* Bid 2 Bid 3

Natural Aggregate, Otta Seal 148,500 503,900 18,000 m³

Surface Dressing, 14 mm aggregate 148,500 432,000 85,000 m³
Surface Dressing, 7 mm aggregate 148,500 550,000 85,000 m³

*Indicates the contractor that won the contract in Bagamoyo

Firstly, it is worth noting that the contractor had priced the natural aggregate for the Otta seal as
crushed aggregate from a quarry. When it came to constructing the pavement, the contractor
wanted to use a crushed rock aggregate and was very reluctant to use a natural aggregate
because the contractor was worried that the quality of the pavement would suffer from using a
natural aggregate. Consequently, since a natural aggregate was used in the pavement, but the
contractor had priced the aggregate as a crushed rock aggregate, the cost of the pavement is
higher than it should have been if the contractor had priced this item correctly. The rates for the
three bids are shown in Table 17. It can be concluded that bid 3, 18,000 Tshs is close to the ‘real
cost’ for the natural aggregate for the Otta seal.
Table 18 Cement Mortared Stone Walls Bid Rates

Tanzanian Schillings
Item Description Unit
Bid 1* Bid 2 Bid 3

Cement Mortared Stone Walls 150,000 125,000 115,000 m³

*Indicates the contractor that won the contract in Bagamoyo

The District Engineer has indicated that the cost of cement mortared stone walls is very expensive
for all the bids, put particularly high for bid 1, which was the contractor who won the contract. This
rate is considered overpriced, especially considering the fact that there was more than enough
suitable stone in the area and the fact that their was no risk to the contractor that they would be
unable to perform the task because the contractor had a number of skilled masons and their
workmanship was of a very high standard.
Table 19 Natural Gravel Bid Rates

Tanzanian Schillings
Item Description Unit
Bid 1* Bid 2 Bid 3

Natural Gravel Class, G7 18,500 18,000 19,000 m³

Natural Gravel Class, G15 19,200 18,000 19,000 m³
Gravel Wearing Course 19,200 35,000 30,000 m³
Natural Gravel Class, G45 34,500 35,000 30,000 m³
Natural Gravel Class, G60 62,300 35,000 81,000 m³

AFCAP 8 p. 23
 Construction Report

*Indicates the contractor that won the contract in Bagamoyo

The rates for natural gravel class, G7 and G15 from all 3 contractors were very similar, between
18,000 and 19200 Tsh. The rate for natural gravel class, G45 is between 30,000 and 35,000 Tsh
and the cost of natural gravel class, G60 is 35,000, 62500 and 81,000 Tsh. However, all the gravel
came from the same borrow pits and the haulage distance is similar. Even taking into account the
extra passes with a roller to compact G45 and G60 to a higher field density, it does not justify the
huge extra costs that the contractors have included in there rates.
Table 20 Bitumen Bid Rates

Tanzanian Schillings
Item Description Unit
Bid 1* Bid 2 Bid 3

Prime Coat, MC-30 4,100 2,800 3,500 litres

80/100 penetration grade bitumen 4,100 3,400 3,000 litres
Otta Seal, MC-3000 cutback bitumen 6,350 3,400 3,500 litres
Sand Seal, MC-3000 cutback
4,500 3,400 3,500 litres
bitumen

*Indicates the contractor that won the contract in Bagamoyo

The rates for bitumen vary significantly. The rates used during construction are from bid 1. This
contractor’s rates are the highest out of the three bids. It is concluded that these high rates are
down to the contractor’s lack of experience with bitumen work, lack of quality equipment and lack of
skilled staff. Another possibility for the high rates is that it may have been very difficult for the
contractors to price for short lengths of various different bitumen works. If only one bitumen
pavement was selected for each of the demonstration sections you would expect the price to
reduce significantly. Also, there is no real reason for the contractor price the MC-3000 for the Otta
seal higher than for the sand seal.
Conclusions
Based on the abovementioned analysis, it is concluded that the contractor’s have over priced some
of the items. However, it is expected that once the contractors in Tanzania become familiar with
the techniques of these various different surfacing options there will be less risk involved and the
rates will reduce.

AFCAP 8 p. 24
 Construction Report

Table 21 Construction Costs

Chainage (km) Costs (Tshs) Costs (USD)

Length
Section Surfacing Type
(km) Total Cost/km Cost/m² Total Cost/km Cost/m²
Start End
(Tshs) (Tshs) (USD) (USD)

1 0.030 0.230 0.200 Single Otta seal with a sand seal (26 mm) 128,527,500 25,706 85,685 17.137
2 5.340 5.520 0.180 Hand Packed Stone (150 mm) 97,707,000 19,541 65,138 13.86
3 5.560 6.080 0.520 Concrete Strips (100 mm - Reinforced) 99,786,780 19,957 66,525 14.15
4 6.080 6.740 0.660 Geocells (75 mm) 97,303,500 19,461 64,869 12.97
5 8.000 8.240 0.240 Double Surface Dressing (20 mm) 149,190,090 29,838 99,460 19.89
6 9.980 10.670 0.690 Concrete Strips (100 mm - Unreinforced) 78,540,930 15,708 52,361 11.14
7 11.200 11.400 0.200 Double Sand Seal (20 mm) 118,797,250 23,759 79,198 15.84
8 12.200 12.580 0.380 Gravel Wearing Course 14,832,000 2,966 9,888 1.98
9 16.240 17.100 0.860 Concrete Strips (100 mm - Reinforced) 99,786,780 19,957 66,525 14.15
10 18.480 18.740 0.260 Concrete Strips (100 mm - Reinforced) 99,786,780 19,957 66,525 14.15
11 19.000 19.200 0.200 Gravel Wearing Course 14,832,000 2,966 9,888 1.98
12 19.480 20.040 0.560 Gravel Wearing Course 14,832,000 2,966 9,888 1.98
13 20.040 20.260 0.220 Slurry Seal (8 mm) 101,525,000 20,305 67,683 13.54
Total Length 5.170

*For comparison purposes, costs in this table, originally tendered in Tshs, are shown in US dollars at the June 2010 exchange rate of USD 1 = Tshs 1500

AFCAP 8 p. 25
 Construction Report

3.2.2 Environmentally Optimised Design

The EOD approach states that you spend a small amount of resources on the good lengths of the
road, spend some resources on the standard sections of the road and spend most resources on
the problematic sections and as a result you will have a make cost saving compared to gravelling
the entire road from start to finish. An analysis of this philosophy was investigated for this project.
Table 22 gives a summary of what was done on each section of the road length, varying from
engineered natural earth, gravel wearing course and the different surfaces.
Table 22 Summary of all Road Sections

Chainage (km) Length Pavement Layers (mm)

Surfacing Type
Start End G7 G15 G45 G60 GWC
(km)
0.000 0.030 0.030 Engineered Natural Earth (Red Soil) - - - - -
Single Otta seal with a sand seal (26
0.030 0.230 0.200 150 - - 150 -
mm)
0.230 3.730 3.500 Engineered Natural Earth (Red Soil) - - - - -
Engineered Natural Earth (Quartzitic
3.730 5.340 1.610 - - - - -
Gravel)
5.340 5.520 0.180 Hand Packed Stone (150 mm) 150 100 150 - -
5.520 5.560 0.040 River Crossing (Drift) - - - - -
5.560 6.080 0.520 Concrete Strips (100 mm - Reinforced) 150 100 150 - -
6.080 6.740 0.660 Geocells (75 mm) 150 100 150 - -
6.680 8.000 1.320 Gravel Wearing Course - - - - 100
8.000 8.240 0.240 Double Surface Dressing (20 mm) 150 150 150 150 -
8.240 8.320 0.080 Gravel Wearing Course - - - - 100
8.320 8.820 0.500 Geocells (75 mm) 150 100 150 - -
8.820 9.980 1.160 Gravel Wearing Course - - - - 100
Concrete Strips (100 mm -
9.980 10.670 0.690 - 100 150 - -
Unreinforced)
Engineered Natural Earth (Light Red
10.670 11.200 0.530 - - - - -
Soil)
11.200 11.400 0.200 Double Sand Seal (20 mm) - 150 - 150 -
11.400 12.200 0.800 Gravel Wearing Course - - - - 100
12.200 12.580 0.380 Gravel Wearing Course - - - - 150
12.580 13.520 0.940 Gravel Wearing Course - - - - 100
Engineered Natural Earth (Marley
13.520 14.180 0.660 - - - - -
Limestone)
14.180 16.240 2.060 Gravel Wearing Course - - - - 100
16.240 17.100 0.860 Concrete Strips (100 mm - Reinforced) 150 100 150 - -
17.100 18.480 1.380 Gravel Wearing Course - - - - 100
18.480 18.740 0.260 Concrete Strips (100 mm - Reinforced) 150 100 150 - -
18.740 19.000 0.260 Gravel Wearing Course - - - - 400
19.000 19.200 0.200 Gravel Wearing Course - - - - 150
19.200 19.480 0.280 Gravel Wearing Course - - - - 100
19.480 20.040 0.560 Gravel Wearing Course - - - - 150
20.040 20.260 0.220 Slurry Seal (8 mm) - 150 - 150 -
Total Length 20.260

AFCAP 8 p. 26
 Construction Report

Table 23 Summary of EOD

Length Length Costs per km Cost

Surface
(%) (km) (USD) (USD)

Engineered Natural Earth 32 6.33 8,905 56,366

Gravel Wearing Course 40 8.09 16,926 136,930
Concrete Strips (Unreinforced) 14 2.77 59,966 166,106
Geocells 14 2.77 72,257 200,152
Surfacing* 28 5.54 66,111 366,258
Cost of EOD 100 20.26 27,619 559,553
Cost of Double Surface
100 20.26 107,778 2,183,589
Dressing
Cost of Standard Gravel
100 20.26 16,926 342,918
Solution

*Surfacing cost is the average of the two cheapest solutions;

**For comparison purposes, costs in this table, originally tendered in Tsh, are shown in US dollars at the June
2010 exchange rate of USD 1 = Tsh 1500

Table 23 above shows a summary of the costs associated with environmentally optimised design
for this project. The costs include all earthworks, clearing, grubbing, and removal of topsoil and
trees, drainage and passing bays. The cost used for surfacing is the average cost of the two
cheapest solutions; concrete strips and geocells. The analysis indicates that the cost of the EOD
approach is more expensive than the standard gravel solution. The total cost of gravelling the
entire road is 62% of the EOD approach. Also shown, is the cost of a double surface dressing for
the entire length of the road. This is included in the analysis because it is assumed that under
normal circumstances, if a district road was to be upgraded to bitumen standard then the double
surface dressing would be most common choice. It is considerably more expensive to use a
double surface dressing for the entire length of the road than either the environmentally optimised
design approach or the standard gravel solution.
A number of other aspects should be taken into account for this project. Firstly, as this is a
demonstration project to showcase the different surfaces available, we suspect that we received
high rates because so many different pavements were being used and in many cases only for short
lengths of the road. In reality, if you were to adopt the EOD approach you would probably only use
one or two of the cheapest pavements, economies of scale would dictate that if you were to use
just one or two pavements and increase the quantity of these pavements it would bring the costs
down. One can assume that this would be the case.
Secondly, a number of the pavements were constructed through three of the villages along the
road. It was not essential that these paved roads were constructed in order to provide year round
access along the road, but were introduced to demonstrate how a pavement surface can be used
to reduce dust pollution in highly populated areas.
In total 40% of the road was gravelled during construction. The objective of EOD is not to gravel
such large lengths of road; it had originally been proposed to construct longer engineered natural
earth sections. It was requested by the District Engineer to use the contingency funds to gravel
some additional sections to make the road better as a whole. However, for our analysis we will not
take this into account for the costs.

AFCAP 8 p. 27
 Construction Report

This analysis also does not to take into account maintenance and the whole life cost of the
pavements. The whole life cost analysis is covered in section 4.1.3.
It is important to note that the contractor issued a statement towards the end of the project, prior to
constructing the geocell sections, that due to their lack of familiarity they had not tendered for
concrete to cover the geocell mat in the price of the pavement. This has lead to the tendered cost
of the geocell pavement being much lower than what its actual cost will be.
It is also worth noting that the District Engineer had just upgraded an earth road to gravel standard
from Talawanda to Lugoba, a road that continues on from the project road.
The construction of this road finished before the beginning of the long rains in Tanzania (March
2011). After a few a rains the road became impassable. The road was not impassable for the
entire length but it was at specific problematic locations that prevented access. This highlights the
fact that a gravel road does not guarantee basic access and the problems associated with it. It has
already been seen during the most recent rain season that the project road provides all weather
access.
Conclusions
For this project, the cost of the standard gravel solution was less expensive than the EOD
approach. However, there are a number of viable reasons for this and it is recommended that
another project should be carried out where the primary objective is to just apply the EOD
approach and only one pavement should be used for each of the problematic sections, gravelling
should only be carried out on necessary sections, the remainder of the road should be engineered
natural earth and a detailed analysis should follow.
3.3 Quality Control
Throughout the course of the construction it was a key to take measurements and testing to control
the quality of the work. Numerous samples of the construction materials were tested at Tanroads
Central Materials Lab in Dar es Salaam. The contractor regularly took concrete cubes for testing
the strength of the concrete. The results were of an acceptable standard. All test results are
available in Appendix C - Test Results.
The field team spot checked the invert levels of the pipe culverts. All spot checks met required
levels and slope.
The field team tested the field density of the roadbed, improved subgrade and pavement layers
using the Troxiler method. After testing the field density of the improved subgrade layer for section
7, it was revealed that it did not meet the specification and the contractor was instructed to re-
compact that section. All other sections met the required specification.
The layer thickness was spot checked and verified by a combination of core drilling and dumpy
level by the field engineer and District Engineer’s office. The G7 improved subgrade layer did not
meet required thickness and the contractor was requested to scarify, add more material and
compact the G7 layer in order to meet specification. The repeating of the layer thickness took the
contractor several weeks and resulted in large additional cost to the contractor.
The bitumen distributor was calibrated for each of the different spray rates and bitumen types
before the bitumen work began.
Photographs of each of these testing methods are available in Appendix B.

AFCAP 8 p. 28
 Construction Report

3.4 Standard Gravel Pavement

Three sections were constructed as control sections using a 150 mm gravel wearing course layer.
The purpose of these sections is to compare the performance and cost of the demonstration
pavements that are new to Tanzania to the current solution rural low volume rural roads, a gravel
wearing course. For this project the gravel wearing course was constructed using Marly limestone
gravel with a CBR≥25% and also meeting the shrinkage product and grading coefficient
requirements set out in the TPMDM.
Advantages
This pavement is advantageous over other pavements because it is relatively cheap and utilises
local materials.
Disadvantages
A gravel pavement does not guarantee that a road will remain passable throughout the year. This
method is not sustainable in the long term and has high maintenance requirements, utilising gravel
which is a finite resource. Also, this pavement increases vehicle operating costs and the surface
texture does not compare to the smooth running surface of a paved road.
3.5 Concrete Strips
The construction method is similar to any other concrete work. The concrete was cast in-situ using
formwork and concrete mixers on a prepared natural gravel subbase of 150 mm thickness. No
dowels were used in between the concrete. Once the concrete was constructed, gravel was
spread down the centre of the strips and as a shoulder for the strips. The additional gravel was
compacted using a pedestrian roller. An intermittent concrete strip was installed at 5 m intervals
down the centre of the strips to prevent water from flowing down the centre of the strips during the
rain season. The thickness of the concrete used was 100 mm and the compressive strength was
20 MPa.
An additional layer of 4 mm steel mesh was used on the sections with an expansive clay subgrade
to help accommodate some movement in the subgrade.
Advantages
The cost of this pavement is relatively cheap compared with some of the other pavements, making
more efficient use of concrete than other concrete pavements. The pavement is not complicated
and easily constructed. The pavement is suitable for labour based construction utilising local
labour, small concrete mixers and a pedestrian roller.
Disadvantages
Difficulties occur when vehicles meet each other along the strips. This problem was overcome by
using passing bays at regular intervals. However, it is accepted that not all vehicles will use these
and there will be edge breaks on the strips and this will increase maintenance costs. Though the
pavement is very simple to construct and the steps involved are not complicated, the construction
of this pavement does take a very long time compared to the other pavements.
3.6 Concrete Geocells
The concrete geocell pavement requires two trenches to be excavated along either side of the road
200 mm wide by 150 mm deep to “tuck in” the geocells. A thin layer of sand is spread to level the
base. Reinforcement bars are cut to short lengths and used to peg the geocell formwork into place
which is then tightened using rigging strings. The concrete used for the geocells should be mixed
to a “pumpable” consistency using 6-13mm coarse aggregate and locally sourced alluvial sand.
The concrete mixture is spread and levelled flush to the top of the geocells. It is important that the

AFCAP 8 p. 29
 Construction Report

concrete does not form a slab over the top of the geocell formwork. The concrete is finished and
cured as with other concrete work.
Advantages
This pavement has all of the advantages of the concrete slabs such as the use of locally sourced
materials and the fact that little sophisticated equipment is required. Construction is well suited to
labour based work. The resulting pavement is of a high strength and therefore offers long
serviceability with little maintenance. The flexibility of the geocell mat allows a small amount of
movement in the pavement and should therefore not crack in the presence of subsurface
deficiencies but will deform slightly. It is hoped that pavement thickness can be reduced in future
whilst maintaining performace and therefore reduce costs.
Disadvantages
Many contractors and labourers may be unfamiliar with the geocell pavement and a geocell expert
was mandatory on site as a requirement of the manufacturer. Lack of familiarity with the geocell
material caused slow production. Though the pavement is very simple to construct and the steps
involved are not complicated, the construction of this pavement is time consuming compared to the
other pavements. It is hoped that as contractors gain familiarity with geocell construction then
these problems will be easily avoided.
3.7 Double Sand Seal
This pavement comprised a marly limestone natural gravel base of 150 mm primed with MC-30
bitumen at a rate of 1 l/m². The sand used in the surface is locally sourced quartzitic (alluvial)
sand. The sand did not meet specification for a sand seal as set out in the TPMDM. However,
since the aim of this project was to fully utilise locally sourced materials and this marginal material
was seen as fit for its purpose it was consequently used in this demonstration. The MC-3000
bitumen was sprayed at a rate of 1.2 l/m² and the sand was spread at a rate of 0.011 m³/m² for
both layers, as specified by the TPMDM, and rolled with a 12 tonne pneumatic tyre roller, these
spray rates were deemed acceptable for the material used on low volume roads. Areas that
showed signs of bleeding were blinded with sand for several days after construction. A one month
period elapsed between successive seals, during which time the road was open to traffic.
Advantages
This surface uses local sand and was quick to construct. The gravel base course is much cheaper
than a crushed rock base.
Disadvantages
The contractor had difficulties in locating MC-3000 bitumen in Tanzania and was unwilling to cut
80/100 penetration grade bitumen because they did not have the necessary skills or knowledge to
do so, they also did not have suitable plant to do so. The contractor’s bitumen distributor had a
total spray bar width of 2.3 m, which required the contractor to make more than once pass to spray
the full width of the road. The preferred method would be to have a wider spray bar and to spray
the section in a single pass with the bitumen distributor. The rate of 4500 Tshs per litre of bitumen
made this pavement very expensive when compared to the hand packed stone and the concrete
pavements.
3.8 Hand Packed Stone
This pavement was constructed from stone that was sourced from borrow pit number 3 at chainage
8+030 km. The stones are naturally cubic in nature and were ideally suited for the construction of
the hand packed stone pavement. The stones have a nominal thickness of 150 - 200 mm and
neatly placed on a 50 mm bed of sand constructed. The stones were placed tightly placed side by

AFCAP 8 p. 30
 Construction Report

side and a hammer was used to compact them into the bed of sand. Smaller stones were then
packed into the voids between larger stones and sand was used to fill the remaining voids between
the stones.
Advantages
This pavement is suitable for labour based construction, easily constructed, cost effective, utilises
local materials and can be easily maintained by local authorities, contractors and stakeholders.
The pavement can be constructed on flat or steep sections and depending on our findings during
the monitoring period, may be suitable to be constructed on expansive clay.
Disadvantages
The resulting surface is very rough and only desirable for short problematic lengths of road.
Suitable rock sources must be available within an economic haulage distance. The construction
requires a high level of expertise and a significant amount labour and may not be suitable for a
general contractor.
3.9 Slurry Seal
This surface was constructed by adding crusher dust, cationic stable grade emulsion (60%
bitumen), water, cement/lime into a concrete mixer and then spreading the resultant mixture onto
the roadbed using rubber squeegees. Several trial mixes of the slurry were carried out before
construction. The final mix included the following:

Adding of 69 litres of crusher dust;

Slowly adding 2.25 litres of cement/lime;

Very slowly pouring 10.5 litres of water into the mixer;

Slowly pouring 17 litres of bitumen emulsion into the mixer;

Very slowly pouring 9 additional litres of water into the mixer;
The mix should flow easily and have a creamy consistency. The slurry was the placed into a
wheelbarrow, placed on the roadbed with shovels and spread using rubber squeegees. Once
spread evenly a drag, made from a mosquito net, and was used to give the surface a smooth
finish. Approximately 4 hours later once the slurry began to break, the seal was compacted using a
lightly loaded truck. The total length of the slurry seal section is 220 m. The first 110 m of the
section was constructed using lime in the slurry mix and the remaining 110 m of the section was
constructed using cement in the slurry mix. This pavement was primed with MC-30 bitumen at a
rate of 1.0 l/m² before construction of the slurry seal.
Advantages
This surfacing is suitable for labour based construction, can be constructed quickly, is suitable for
low traffic volumes, and does not require high tech equipment or highly skilled labour.
Disadvantages
This method is expensive, does not utilise local materials, is not suitable for steep gradients and
requires significant maintenance relative to other pavement types.
3.10 Double Surface Dressing
This pavement comprised a marly limestone natural gravel base of 150 mm primed with MC-30
bitumen at a rate of 1.0 l/m². The bitumen used for this surfacing was 80/100 penetration grade
bitumen. The first layer of bitumen was sprayed at a rate of 1.4 l/m² and 14 mm aggregate was
spread at a rate of 0.011 m³/m². The second layer of bitumen was sprayed at a rate of 1.0 l/m² and

AFCAP 8 p. 31
 Construction Report

the aggregate was spread at a rate of 0.007 m³/m². The aggregate was rolled with a 12 tonne
pneumatic tyre roller.
Advantages
Most contractors are familiar with this surfacing type in Tanzania. Suitable chippings and bitumen
are readily available in Tanzania. This surfacing is durable, suitable for steep gradients and high
traffic volumes.
Disadvantages
The rate of 4,100 Tsh per litre of bitumen and the extra cost associated with crushed aggregate
made this pavement very expensive when compared to the other pavements
3.11 Single Otta Seal and a Sand Seal
This pavement comprised a marly limestone natural gravel base of 150 mm primed with MC-30
bitumen at a rate of 1.0 l/m². The aggregate used in this seal was sourced from borrow pit number
2. The aggregate was quartz and the fines had to be screened from the gravel before construction.
The aggregate used came from borrow pit number 2. The sand used in the surface is locally
sourced quartzitic (alluvial) sand. The sand did not meet specification for a sand seal as set out in
the TPMDM. However, since the aim of this project was to fully utilise locally sourced materials
and these marginal material were seen as fit for their purpose and they were consequently used in
this demonstration. The MC-3000 bitumen was sprayed at a rate of 1.7 l/m² and the aggregate
was spread at a rate of 0.016 m³/m² for the Otta seal layer. For the sand cover seal, the MC-3000
bitumen was sprayed at a rate of 0.8 l/m² and the sand was spread at a rate of 0.011 m³/m² and
rolled with a 12 tonne pneumatic tyre roller, these rates are as specified in the TPMDM were
deemed acceptable for the materials used on low volume roads.. A one month period elapsed
between successive seals, during which time the road was open to traffic.
Advantages
Both the gravel for the Otta seal and the sand for sand seal were sourced locally and the surfaces
were constructed quickly. The use of a standard gravel base course resulted in a cheaper non
erodible dust free running surface.
Disadvantages
The contractor had difficulties in locating MC-3000 bitumen in Tanzania and was unwilling to cut
80/100 penetration grade bitumen because they did not have the necessary skills or knowledge to
do so, they also did not have suitable plant to do so. The contractor’s bitumen distributor had a
total spray bar width of 2.3 m, which required the contractor to make more than once pass to spray
the full width of the road. The preferred method would be to have a wider spray bar and to spray
the section in a single pass with the bitumen distributor. The rate of 6500 Tsh per litre of bitumen
made this pavement very expensive when compared to the hand packed stone and the concrete
pavements.
3.12 Engineered Natural Surface
This pavement utilises the existing in-situ soil which is graded, reshaped and compacted to form
the carriageway. This pavement was constructed with a crossfall of 4% to divert water in the side
ditches. Three different in-situ soils were used to form this pavement in Bagamoyo, consisting of
an in-situ marly limestone, quartzitic gravel and red sandy soil.
Advantages
This pavement is very low cost and suitable for low traffic volumes. The pavement is suitable for
local maintenance and can be constructed using simple grading equipment.

AFCAP 8 p. 32
 Construction Report

Disadvantages
This pavement requires a high level of maintenance. This pavement may become impassable
during heavy rains if not properly maintained and the drainage must be kept working at all times.
Furthermore, there can be dust pollution problems during the dry season.
Photographs detailing the method of constructing each of the pavements are available in Appendix
B - Photographs Detailing the Construction Methodology.
3.13 Discussion and Conclusions
The contractor’s workmanship for the concrete pavements was of a high standard. The contractor
did not attempt to use excess water in the mix, always compacted the concrete and cured the
concrete using sand. As a result, there was no bleeding or cracking in the concrete. The
contractor regularly took concrete cubes for quality control, yielding adequate results.
The contractor had a number of skilled masons, and the stone (marly limestone) available locally
was very suitable for the hand packed stone pavement. Consequently, the hand packed stone
pavement was constructed to a high standard.
For this project the bitumen pavements were not as successful as the other pavement types. In
order to construct a bitumen pavement specialist equipment is required. The contractor was
unable to obtain a small bitumen heater for the project, significant effort was made by the
consultant, the contractor and the DE’s office to try and locate a suitable bitumen heater. The
bitumen distributer that the contractor had was very old (1983), the spray bar was an inadequate
length for the road width, the temperature gauges attached to the spray bar did not work and the
motor to circulate the bitumen in the distributer was unreliable and frequently broke down. The
contractor’s equipment was not suitable for cutting bitumen and as a result they had to locate MC-
3000 bitumen from local suppliers. The contractor expressed concern throughout the project that
they had serious difficulties in locating MC-3000 bitumen in Dar es Salaam. MC-3000 bitumen is
not available locally in Tanzania. Reliability of machinery was a factor in the speed of construction;
concrete mixers often broke down requiring concrete to be mixed and poured by hand, greatly
slowing production of concrete strip and geocell sections.
Furthermore, successful construction requires skilled technicians with experience in the
construction of bituminous pavements. The contractor did not have skilled workers that were
familiar with bitumen pavement construction. The contractor has benefited significantly from the
experience of the consultants experienced staff. Based on the foregoing, it can only be concluded
that these are the reasons that led the contractor to bid extremely high rates for bitumen.
During construction a minimum level of quality control must adhered to. The contractor was often
found to be not carrying out work to the required standard; this was evident in the layer thickness of
the G7 improved subgrade layer which had to be repeated. The field density results generally
yielded high results, as did the concrete cube results. However it is advised that as much quality
control as possible is implemented during construction.

AFCAP 8 p. 33
 Construction Report

4 MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS, CAPACITY AND COST

4.1.1 Execution of maintenance
Realistic predictions of future maintenance during the life of the rural road are important. All
pavements will require maintenance to preserve them. Failure to maintain will lead to accelerating
deterioration as ruts become gullies and surfacing faults turn into ever larger potholes
The maintenance requirements for the road pavement will vary considerably depending on the
pavement design, quality of construction and the traffic to which it is subjected. There is, in
general, a trade-off between pavement first cost and subsequent maintenance costs. This trade-
off, however, is not constant but will vary with conditions of use. A gravel pavement used on a
stretch of straight and level embankment will require substantially less maintenance than the same
pavement employed on a steep gradient with severe curves.
The most cost effective choice of pavement can be assessed on the basis of the estimated whole
life cost of the pavement, that is the initial construction cost plus the amortised costs of future
pavement maintenance. Whilst such analysis assumes maintenance will be carried out, it should
also consider the case where little or no maintenance is provided due to lack of funds.
In the case of roads carrying substantial traffic this estimation is complicated by the need to
consider the cost implications for that traffic, i.e. Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC), of varying road
conditions resulting from alternative maintenance scenarios together with variations in the
maintenance requirements generated by different traffic levels. In the case of rural roads with
extremely light traffic maintenance requirements will be the result more of environmental effects
(primarily, if not wholly, rainfall) than of repetitive traffic loading, particularly in the cases of natural
and gravel surfaces where wheel loading is also significant.
4.1.2 Community Participation
Providing year round access need not involve maintaining entire road lengths. The proposed
methodology involves selecting areas which in their poor condition prevent year round access, then
rehabilitate only these. In addition, these works should incorporate locally sourced materials,
locally sourced labour and labour based construction methods wherever possible. This allows the
roads to be easily maintained by the local residents during its lifetime. This is imperative to the
11
success of this methodology .
4.1.3 Whole Life Costs
The bulk of routine maintenance (vegetation control, drainage maintenance, etc.) is common to all
roads regardless of pavement type. For this analysis assessment has been carried out of only the
maintenance requirements of the various pavement types including both regular detail surface
maintenance and heavy or periodic maintenance.
Any evaluation of whole life costs is strictly a provisional estimate and it would be unwise to place
too much reliance on it. However, an initial estimate of whole life costs has been prepared using
the same rates during construction in Bagamoyo. The initial construction cost includes all
earthworks, clearing, grubbing and removal of top soil, drainage and passing bays. This estimate
has been made using assumptions shown below:

Gravel pavement (Flat): Grade twice yearly; Re-gravel in years 10 and 18

Gravel Pavement (Hilly): Grade thrice yearly; Re-gravel in years 10 and 18

11
Research Consultant to Support the Design, Construction and Monitoring of
Demonstration Sites for District Road Improvements in Tanzania: Design Report,
Roughton International, November 2010.

AFCAP 8 p. 34
 Construction Report

Geocells: Replace 5% of the pavement after each 5 years

Concrete Strips: Replace 5% of the pavement after each 5 years

Reinforced concrete strips: Replace 6% of the pavement after 5 years

Hand Packed Stone: Replace 6% of the pavement each 5 years

Single Otta Seal with Sand Seal: Single sand seal after the first 8 years and every
subsequent 4 years and replace 2% of the pavement

Double Sand Seal: Single sand seal after the first 6 years and every subsequent 4 years
and replace 3% of the pavement

Slurry Seal: Single sand seal every 3 years and repair 2% of the pavement

Double Surface Dressing: Single surface dressing every 6 years and replace 2% of the
pavement

AFCAP 8 p. 35
 Construction Report

Table 24 Comparison of the Whole Life Costs of the Bagamoyo Demonstration Pavements ($USD/km)

Gravel Gravel Concrete Concrete Hand Single Otta Double

Working Geocells - Double Sand
Pavement Pavement Strips Strips Packed Seal with Slurry Seal Surface
Life 75 mm Seal
- Flat - Hilly (Unreinforced) (Reinforced) Stone Sand Seal Dressing
Year 0 -19822 -19822 -75168 -62877 -77041 -77034 -95634 -89147 -77632 -109409
Year 1 -3733 -5600
Year 2 -3733 -5600
Year 3 -3733 -5600 -12287
Year 4 -3733 -5600
Year 5 -3733 -5600 -3261 -2646 -4026 -4025
Year 6 -3733 -5600 -13309 -12287 -12664
Year 7 -3733 -5600
Year 8 -3733 -5600 -12647
Year 9 -3733 -5600 -12287
Year 10 -13477 -15344 -3261 -2646 -4026 -4025 -13309
Year 11 -3733 -5600
Year 12 -3733 -5600 -12647 -12287 -12664
Year 13 -3733 -5600
Year 14 -3733 -5600 -13309
Year 15 -3733 -5600 -3261 -2646 -4026 -4025 -12287
Year 16 -3733 -5600 -12647
Year 17 -3733 -5600
Year 18 -13477 -15344 -13309 -12287 -12664
Year 19 -3733 -5600
Year 20 -3733 -5600 -3261 -2646 -4026 -4025 -12647
Salvage 7929 7929 30067 31438 38520 30814 47817 44573 38816 54704
NPV 6% -65,247 -85,449 -60,377 -45,806 -58,684 -64,109 -97,854 -96,186 -105,883 -94,273
NPV 10% -50,946 -65,396 -60,760 -47,041 -59,894 -64,236 -96,393 -94,235 -101,115 -94,127

AFCAP 8 p. 36
 Construction Report

Table 25 Pavement Type in Order of NPV for Whole Life Costs

Whole NPV Whole

Life Cost Life Cost
Pavement Type Pavement Type
- -
6% 10%
USD/km USD/km

Concrete Strips Concrete Strips

62877 -45,806 -47,041 62877
(Unreinforced) (Unreinforced)
Concrete Strips
77041 -58,684 -50,946 19822 Gravel Pavement - Flat
(Reinforced)
Concrete Strips
Geocells - 75 mm 75168 -60,377 -59,894 77041
(Reinforced)
Hand Packed Stone 77034 -64,109 -60,760 75168 Geocells - 75 mm
Gravel Pavement - Flat 19822 -65,247 -64,236 77034 Hand Packed Stone
Gravel Pavement - Hilly 19822 -85,449 -65,396 19822 Gravel Pavement - Hilly
Double Surface Double Surface
109409 -94,273 -94,127 109409
Dressing Dressing
Double Sand Seal 89147 -96,186 -94,235 89147 Double Sand Seal
Single Otta Seal with Single Otta Seal with
95634 -97,854 -96,393 95634
Sand Seal Sand Seal
Slurry Seal 77632 -105,883 -101,115 77632 Slurry Seal

An economic analysis was performed for the various sections of road using the HDM4 – Road User
Costs (RUC) model available from the World Bank12. This tool allows a cost benefit analysis to be
performed for a road using a “with” and “without” project alternative for a project life of 20 years.
Each section of the road was modelled as 1km stretch and the data obtained from the base line
monitoring process was used to determine a prediction of the IRI and surface roughness values
over the life of each pavement, with continued monitoring these values can be modified to provide
a more accurate analysis. Detailed results from the economic analysis are available in Appendix D
– Whole Life Economic Analysis.
Table 25, given above, shows the Net Present Value (NPV) of the whole life costs of the different
pavement types. The different pavement types are ranked. The Table shows 6% rankings to the
left and 10% rankings to the right.
As noted above, these results must be viewed with caution. Although the rankings change
somewhat depending on whether a 6% or 10% discount rate is adopted the overall pattern is much
the same with only minor differences.
Two key features emerge from this analysis, the first is that the concrete pavements and the hand
packed stone outrank the gravel pavements on hilly terrain, highlighting the short sightedness of re-
gravelling steep roads and the expensive whole life cost involved. The other key feature worth
noting is that the gravel pavements outrank the bitumen pavements; this is result of the extremely
high rate that was quoted for bitumen. However, it is important to also note that the whole life costs
shown in this table only includes regular maintenance and does not reflect the cost of emergency
maintenance for wash outs and a gravel pavement offers no guarantee that the road will be kept

12
HDM-4 Road User Costs Model, Version 2.00, Roads and Highways – Road Software Tools,
The World Bank, 2011.

AFCAP 8 p. 37
 Construction Report

open at all times during the rain season. In addition, a gravel road cannot compete with the
superior finish of a sealed road.
An analysis was also performed to calculate the total society costs of each pavement type. These
can be seen, again ranked by NPV, in Table 26 Pavement Type in Order of NPV for Total Society
Costs The total society costs include the financial implications to the road user in terms of vehicle
operating costs, such as those associated with vehicle maintenance and fuel. These give an
overall more accurate representation of the cost of each pavement type.
Table 26 Pavement Type in Order of NPV for Total Society Costs

Total Society Total Society

NPV NPV
Pavement Type Cost - Cost - Pavement Type
6% 10%
USD/km USD/km

Concrete Strips Concrete Strips

1,123,688 645,193 483,539 1,123,688
(Unreinforced) (Unreinforced)
Geocells 1,139,810 659,238 496,977 1,139,810 Geocells
Concrete Strips (Reinforced) 1,136,290 660,125 498,767 1,136,290 Concrete Strips (Reinforced)
Single Otta Seal with Sand Single Otta Seal with Sand
1,187,414 684,370 509,732 1,187,414
Seal Seal
Double Sand Seal 1,177,717 686,033 519,061 1,177,717 Double Sand Seal
Gravel Flat 1,414,228 701,294 530,484 1,414,228 Slurry Seal
Slurry Seal 1,206,693 702,185 544,859 1,206,693 Hand Packed Stone
Double Surface Dressing 1,218,658 719,807 550,220 1,218,658 Double Surface Dressing
Hand Packed Stone 1,263,269 725,718 559,218 1,263,269 Gravel Flat
Gravel Hilly 1,451,568 796,113 576,703 1,451,568 Gravel Hilly

There is a noticeable difference in the results in this analysis from those not including road user
costs. It is noticeable that pavement types which exhibit a smoother running surface, characterised
by a lower International Roughness Index (IRI) value, performed better under this analysis. Hand
packed stone is highlighted as a less desirable pavement option due to its rough surface finish
which results in very high road user costs. The use of a double surface dressing performs poorly in
this analysis due to its high initial and maintenance costs as highlighted in Table 27 Internal Rate of
Return by Pavement Type
This analysis also emphasises the cost of the use of gravel on rural roads, a combination of regular
maintenance at high cost and poor surface conditions resulting in large road user costs highlight
the inefficient use of gravel to surface rural roads in Tanzania and across Africa.
It is important to note that this analysis is based on the construction rates made available from the
contractor of the Bago – Talawanda road. Due to complications in the use of geocell technology,
the price of concrete was not included for this section, thus it appears a cheaper and more cost
effective surface option than it would otherwise be.
As previously stated, the HDM4-RUC model facilitates a cost benefit analysis of “with” and
“without” project alternatives through this analysis an internal rate of return (IRR) is calculated
taking into account construction, maintenance and road user costs. Each pavement type was
modelled individually against a “without” project alternative of natural gravel wearing course, as this
would otherwise be the approach adopted by local government to surface a rural road such as this.

AFCAP 8 p. 38
 Construction Report

These results are shown in Table 27 Internal Rate of Return by Pavement Typeranked in order of
IRR.
Table 27 Internal Rate of Return by Pavement Type

Whole Life Road User CO2

Total Society
Pavement Type Costs - Costs - Emissions - IRR
Costs - USD/km
USD/km USD/km Tons

Concrete Strips
42,023 1,081,665 1,123,688 709.9 26.83%
(Unreinforced)
Geocells 58,145 1,081,665 1,139,810 709.9 21.25%
Concrete Strips (Reinforced) 54,625 1,081,665 1,136,290 709.9 20.50%
Single Otta Seal with Sand
146,222 1,041,192 1,187,414 682.7 17.15%
Seal
Double Sand Seal 97,810 1,079,907 1,177,717 707.3 16.52%
Slurry Seal 112,538 1,094,155 1,206,693 707.7 14.84%
Hand Packed Stone 62,320 1,200,949 1,263,269 692.9 12.66%
Double Surface Dressing 92,697 1,125,961 1,218,658 702.4 11.15%
Gravel Flat 106,035 1,308,193 1,414,228 839.9 N/A
Gravel Hilly 151,310 1,308,193 1,451,568 839.9 N/A

It is important to note that road user costs are clearly the major contributor to the overall society
costs of each pavement option over a design life of 20 years. It therefore crucial that sufficient
monitoring of these demonstration sections is carried out in order to provide reliable data for the
simulation of these pavements for future economic analysis. As previously stated these analyses
were carried out using only the base line data to predict future conditions, with further monitoring
the input data will be modified to present a more accurate analysis.
What can be identified from these results is that concrete surfacing options, most notably
unreinforced concrete strips, provide a cost effective solution to surfacing low volume rural roads,
illustrated by an IRR of 26.83% against a the use of gravel.
Double surface dressing is presented as the least attractive surfacing option financially due to a
combination of high initial and maintenance costs and high road user costs. A hand packed stone
surface presents a better IRR value due to its low construction and maintenance costs but has the
highest road user costs of any of the alternative surfacing options.
Whilst these results demonstrate the financial comparison and benefits of each pavement type, it is
important to consider other factors when selecting a surface option for a low volume rural road, for
example vertical and horizontal alignment and dust pollution amongst others.
The first conclusion that can be made is that all of the alternative surface options trialled provide a
more sustainable and cost effective solution than the application of a gravel wearing course.
Secondly, it is clear that both unreinforced and reinforced concrete strips present the most cost
effective pavement method in providing year round access to rural communities with a single Otta
seal with sand seal being the bituminous section which provides the best return.

AFCAP 8 p. 39
 Construction Report

5 MONITORING OF THE DEMONSTRATION SECTION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA

5.1 The Base-Line Data
It is crucial that the long term performance of these pavements are monitored and assessed. After
the construction of the access road a set of base line data was gathered. Monitoring will continue
at six month intervals, for a two year period by the Consultant and a further eight years by the
District Engineer’s office. The pavement conditions will be assessed by comparing the monitoring
results with the base line data.
5.2 Monitoring Beacons
During the construction process, the contractor installed monitoring beacons at regular intervals
along either side the demonstration sections. The spacing of these beacons is dependent on the
length of the demonstration section; sections under 200 m in length have monitoring beacons
installed at 10 m intervals and sections over 200 m in length have beacons installed at 20 m
intervals. The monitoring beacons serve two purposes:

To divide up the demonstration section into segments to allow easy identification of the
various areas, and.

To provide a consistent and easy identification of monitoring locations for cross section,
photographic logging etc. for the long term monitoring framework.
The beacons have been surveyed and their position fixed with the intent that damaged or missing
beacons can be reinstated as necessary during the monitoring period.

5.3 AFCAP – Monitoring Programme

Once the various demonstration sections were constructed, monitoring beacons were installed on
both sides of the road, parallel to the carriageway. For the demonstration sections of 200 m
lengths or less, base line data will be gathered at 10 m intervals. For sections greater than 200 m
in length, base line data will be gathered at 20 m intervals. We will only monitor where there is a
beacon. The base line measurements were carried out using the following:

Visual inspection;

Photographic logging;

Surface profile measurement between beacons;

Rut measurement using a standard straight edge;

Surface roughness using a MERLIN apparatus;

Surface texture by sand patch testing;

Classified traffic counts;

GPS Monitoring;

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer.
Additionally, if one or more of the pavements fail during the monitoring period we will take DCP
tests to assess the mode of failure. Photographs detailing the monitoring methods are available in
Appendix E - Photographs Detailing Monitoring Methods.

AFCAP 8 p. 40
 Construction Report

5.4 Monitoring Methods

5.4.1 Visual Inspection
A visual inspection foot survey was carried out along the four sealed pavement surfaces of the
road. It was not necessary to carry out the survey along the unsealed sections of the trial as the
deterioration of these sections is highly proportional to rainfall and weather conditions as apposed
to stress from vehicle loading. The inspection allowed for the location of various modes of surface
distress and deformation to be recorded to enable a survey by survey historical reference of the
deterioration of the demonstration section surfaces.
Markings to indicate various modes of surface distress such as potholes, linear cracking, crocodile
cracks and others were recorded on pre set out data sheets. The data sheets split the road section
into 10 or 20 meter segments in relation to the roadside monitoring beacons for that section. This
method allows areas of considerable surface distress to be easily identified and the rate of
deterioration monitored between surveys.
A short description of each demonstration section was also recorded. This detailed the condition of
the road surface with regards to distress and erosion of the surface and shoulders, drainage
condition and any potential future areas of concern.
5.4.2 Photographic Logging
Photographic logging of the demonstration sections was carried out to provide a visual indication of
the condition of the road, facilitating comparisons during the long term monitoring programme.
Each trial section is photographed from the centreline of the road at each of the roadside
monitoring beacons ensuring the photograph is taken at head height with the road surface in the
centre of the photograph. Carrying out the logging in such a manner ensures that each segment is
photographed from approximately the same position throughout all future monitoring periods.
5.4.3 Surface Profile Measurement
Surface profile measurements are taken at every beacon location to monitor gravel loss across the
carriageway and shoulders.
The procedure involves the use of a dumpy level and levelling staff. A measuring tape is laid
across the road and used to locate the levelling staff at 50cm intervals across the road’s cross
section for measurements to be taken. Collecting this data enables the production, logging and
comparison of surface profiles at regular intervals along the road throughout future monitoring
surveys.
Dumpy levels and levelling staffs are common equipment and simple to use, these were obtained
from the contractor and the Tanzanian roads authority Central Materials Lab in Dar Es Salaam.
5.4.4 Rut Measurement
Measurements were taken for rut measurements using a 2m standard straight edge and a marked
wedge. This survey was carried out as the relationship between rutting and deflection is well
documented, therefore with a comprehensive range of rut depth measurements on each trial
section, realistic models of deterioration against traffic loading can be produced.
Surface rut measurements were taken between each set of monitoring beacons to ensure
consistency in all future monitoring surveys. Rut depth is recorded across each wheel path of a
road, the as the demonstration sections have been constructed as part of a single lane road. The
road is mainly utilised by motorcycles travelling in both directions with occasional one way traffic of
cars of four wheel drive, this has creating two visible wheel paths across which measurements
were taken.

AFCAP 8 p. 41
 Construction Report

Rutting is caused by the deformation of the surface and sub base material due to vehicular loading.
The rigid concrete strip surfacing will not exhibit uniform rutting, as any compaction of the sub
grade material will more than likely lead to cracking in the strips. Rutting of the gravel wearing
course will be dramatically effected by rainfall and water run off and therefore it is not possible to
form a relationship between rutting and vehicle loading. Following this, it was not necessary to
perform this survey on all sections of the road and measurements were only carried out on the
flexible sealed surfaces.
The surface rut measurement test is simple and straightforward and makes use of readily available
equipment that was made by local workers in the nearby villages. This equipment is now
remaining with the District Engineer for use in future monitoring stages.
5.4.5 Surface Roughness Measurement
Testing was carried out using a MERLIN machine, acquired from the Tanzanian roads authority
Central Materials lab in Dar es Salaam, to measure the surface roughness of each demonstration
section. The MERLIN machine records the longitudinal unevenness of a road surface through
taking numerous readings along each wheel path of a section of road. A probe attached to a pivot
arm with a pointer moves over a chart when unevenness in the road causes the probe to be
displaced.
Taking approximately two hundred readings along each wheel path of a road section will produce a
sufficient histogram from which a value of the International Roughness Index (IRI) can be obtained.
Carrying out this test over both wheel paths of a demonstration section will produce an IRI value for
that section. The MERLIN machine is wheeled along each wheel path of the monitored section
stopping at appropriate intervals depending on the length of the section in order to achieve two
hundred readings per wheel path. On a 200m section the MERLIN is stopped and a reading
marked on the field sheet after each rotation of the wheel requiring two passes of each wheel track
to be completed.
Road surface roughness is an important measure of road condition and has been used in
determining vehicle operating costs for the demonstration sections.
5.4.6 Surface Texture Measurement
A sand patch test was used to monitoring the surface texture of all concrete and bituminous
surface options. The sand patch method is a simple test which involves the use of a measuring
cylinder of volume 50ml filled with sand meeting the grading illustrated in Table 28 Sand Patch
Test Particle Grading. This is poured onto the dry clean surface of the road and spread in a
circular motion using a wooden paddle 65mm in diameter with a hard rubber disc secured to the
face. The sand is spread to the largest diameter which results in the surface depressions being
filled with sand to a level of the peaks and troughs. The diameter of the resulting circle is then
measured a 45 degree intervals. From these measurements an average can be obtained and
texture depth calculated.
Testing was carried out on all bituminous and concrete surface options at 100m intervals. This
test method uses very basic equipment that can be made in nearby villages.
Table 28 Sand Patch Test Particle Grading

Sieve Size (mm) % passing

0.600 100
0.300 90-100
0.150 0-15

AFCAP 8 p. 42
 Construction Report

5.4.7 Classified Traffic Counts

Traffic counts were carried out by the contractor at the beginning and the end of the construction
phase of the project. The traffic counts were carried out for seven days consecutively from
03/09/2010 to 09/09/2010, before construction and from 13/08/2011 to 19/08/2011, after
construction. Day 1 to day 5 was 12 hour traffic counts and day 6 to day 7 was 24 hour traffic
counts. Two count stations were established, the first station at Bago village (Ch. 0+640) and the
second at Ludiga village (Ch. 11+040).
The main points to note from traffic data are that the majority of the traffic consists of pedestrians,
bicycles and motorcycles. Also, most of the traffic on this road is contained in the first 2-3 km of
the road and the traffic vastly decreases the further down the road you travel. Furthermore, a
visual inspection of the traffic over the past year of construction indicates that the trucks along the
road are mostly seasonal and heavily linked to the harvesting season of crops. The results of
these traffic counts are displayed in Table 29 below.
Table 29 Traffic Counts on the Project Roads

Bago village Ludiga village

Chainage 0+640 km Chainage 11+040 km

Before After Before After

Pedestrian 2664 1172 1410 1122

Bicycle 2186 1720 1224 1303
Motorcycle 1557 1471 292 1045
Saloon Car 14 28 5 11
Pick Up/ 4WD 55 94 34 30
2-Axle Truck/Bus 82 2 0 2
3-Axle Truck 0 0 0 0

The current traffic counts provide little data to make any significant conclusions at this stage.
Significant variations in results may be due to seasonal activities such as pineapple harvesting.
These seasonal variations should be taken into account when scheduling and carrying out future
traffic counts to ensure consistency in the data collected.
Future traffic accounts, which will occur at 6 month intervals for the 2 year monitoring period, will
facilitate further analysis. It is expected that these future traffic counts will demonstrate a greater
increase in vehicle numbers as the benefits of the new road are recognised by the surrounding
population. Detailed traffic count data is available in Appendix F - Traffic Count Data.
5.4.8 GPS Monitoring
A drive through survey has been carried out to monitor the relationship between vehicle speed and
surface condition. The driver was instructed to drive down the road trying to maintain a target
speed of 50-55 km/h where possible and slowing for rough or dangerous sections to achieve a
comfortable and safe journey. The GPS unit records the trip information and this can be used to
highlight the areas at which the driver was forced to slow down due to the road condition. A drive
through survey was carried out before and after construction of the demonstration sections. A
graphical representation of these surveys is shown in Figure 6. From this it is clear that there is an
improvement in access along the road after construction of the demonstration sections. Minimum

AFCAP 8 p. 43
 Construction Report

speeds post construction are much higher than minimum speeds before the demonstration
sections had been implemented. The average speeds from the GPS survey before and after
construction are 22.1 km/h and 42.4 km/h respectively. The dips in vehicle speed post construction,
for example those at approximately chainage 5.5 km and 7.2 km are due to drifts that have been
constructed at those locations and are not areas where access is a problem.

Figure 6 - GPS Drive through Survey

Pre Construction
65 Post Construction
60

55

50

45

40
Speed (km/h)

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Chainage (km)

5.4.9 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Testing

Standard Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing was carried out at 100m intervals on all
gravel and bituminous surfaces of the road following completion of construction. The DCP
equipment involves an 8kg weight which is raised and dropped over a distance of 575mm and a
60° cone to penetrate the surface. The weight is lifted and dropped 5 times and the depth of
penetration is recorded on a field sheet. Measurements are recorded at 5 blow intervals until the
depth of penetration reaches 800mm. A penetration rate can then be calculated from the recorded
measurements and can be used to calculate the CBR value of the various pavement layers
identified.
This testing was carried out to monitor the performance of the pavement layer materials following
construction with the road in use. DCP testing is an affordable and simple method to measure
pavement strength. Equipment was obtained from a South African supplier and will remain with the
District Engineer to be used in future monitoring procedures.
5.5 Data and Results
The consultant has written a database which contains information pertaining to each of
demonstration sections. The results of these surveys and the required field sheets have been
included on a database contained on a Compact Disk available in Appendix I - Monitoring
Database Compact DiscI. Field sheets have also been provided in Appendix H – Monitoring field
sheets

AFCAP 8 p. 44
 Construction Report

Appendix I - Monitoring Database Compact Disc.

The analysis of results can only be conducted when a time series of data is available and will form
a part of the future monitoring reports.
5.6 Surface Performance
The long term performance of these pavements will be assessed after the monitoring period.
Maintenance will be an important factor in the long term performance of these surfaces. The
bitumen pavements will require reseals at regular intervals and the concrete pavements will require
pothole maintenance.
5.7 Future Monitoring Framework
After collection of all required base line data the consultant will implement the future monitoring
framework which determines the monitoring work to be carried out for the next 10 years.
The consultant will monitor the road for two years following collection of the base lined data. This
will be at 6 month intervals. The above mentioned methods of monitoring will be carried out on
these occasions. Following this the district engineers with continue to monitor the road for eight
years collecting data on a yearly basis. It is important that the Bagamoyo District Engineer and his
staff are suitably trained over the 2 year monitoring phase in order for the work to be successfully
handed over and continued after this period. A training methodology for each monitoring method
will be compiled and the training and involvement of personnel will be documented in the report
following each stage of monitoring.
Consistency in the methods of data collection is imperative to the credibility of the results and
conclusions that can be drawn from long term monitoring. Therefore it is important that methods
used in collection of the base line data are closely adhered to. Maintenance of the monitoring
beacons is also crucial to the accuracy and time frame in which the monitoring can be carried out.
Sufficient maintenance of monitoring beacons should be carried out in the routine maintenance by
the district engineer’s team.
It is also important that the timing of the monitoring surveys is consistent. As this part of Tanzania
is subject to two rainy seasons, the long rains during March to May, and the short rains from
October to December, sufficient scheduling of the future monitoring programme is important to
ensure consistency in monitoring conditions. A draft schedule for each monitoring stage has been
set out below in Figure 7.

Figure 7 - Future Monitoring Schedule

Base Line 6 Months 12 Months 18 Months 24 Months

September/
Date April 2012 October 2012 April 2013 October 2012
October 2011

AFCAP 8 p. 45
 Construction Report

6 INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
An important aim of this project is knowledge transfer and it is imperative that the lessons learned
from this project are properly communicated to the local government authorities in Tanzania,
government authorities in other Sub-Saharan African countries facing similar problems to those
faced in Tanzania and the international community.
Capacity building is also critical and it was the responsibility of the consultant to assist the local
government authorities and the contractor with any technical aspects involved in the construction of
the different pavements. During the construction period of the project before the bitumen work
began, the consultant held a one day bitumen workshop to explain to explain the construction
method of the different pavements to the local district council and the contractor. The workshop
helped to prepare the contractor for the bitumen and to let them know what was required of them
once they began. The workshop was presented by the technical advisor to the project.
Two research students are also undertaking part-time M.SC research programmes at the
University of Dar es Salaam on the AFCAP project in Bagamoyo. The two research students have
been involved since the tender stage of the project. The two students both work full time for
Tanroads and their research programmes are part funded by Tanroads and AFCAP.
During the construction phase of the project a journalist training programme was held for young
Tanzanian journalists from Dar es Salaam. The training programme was conducted by the TRL
and the project road in Bagamoyo was used as an example for the journalists to write a story on
the work under AFCAP. The aim of the training programme was to build a closer relationship with
the journalists from the newspapers in Dar es Salaam and the Tanzanian Road Fund and the work
that they are doing throughout Tanzania.
Once the long term monitoring of the pavements is completed the consultant will prepare
guidelines for selecting viable surface options for rural roads design guides for the various solutions
and standard specifications and propose any amendments to the Tanzanian Manuals for Pavement
13
and Materials Design and Field Testing .
The consultant will also be taking part in site visits to the demonstration sites and regional
workshops in order to disseminate the findings and outputs of the research programme. Also,
since this assignment is a component of a set of inter-related projects across Africa under the
AFCAP programme we will be sharing and exchanging knowledge and experiences between other
projects within the AFACP programme. Furthermore, we will participate in a group study visit to
Mozambique where a similar project is being implemented with AFCAP13.
All reports and findings from this project will be made available to the public online from the DFID
website.
The consultant would further like to recommend that the project findings are submitted to
international conferences as possible research papers and present the conclusions and
recommendations in order to try and make the international community aware of the research that
is being carried out in Sub-Saharan Africa under the AFCAP programme.

13
Terms of Reference, Department for International Development, Africa Community Access
Programme, 2009

AFCAP 8 p. 46
 Construction Report

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 General Comment
Owing to the long term nature of this project there are only limited conclusions to be drawn at this
intermediate stage.
The design process has shown the requirement for experienced engineers to spend time in the
field understanding the particular problems of the route(s) and exploring the possible solutions.
Solutions adopted should take account of both local materials and available local skills.
The construction process has provided data regarding the cost of constructing various types of
alternative pavement and the problems which may be found in their construction. It has also
highlighted the problems which can be encountered when trying to implement a research operation
on the back of a regular commercial construction contract.
Unsurprisingly, data shows that the cost of improved pavements is higher than that of gravel and
basic surfaces. Accordingly it is recommended that an Environmentally Optimised Design
philosophy is considered as the normal approach to basic access road provision whereby the
simplest pavement structures are used for undemanding, flat sections of road and the higher cost,
improved structures be used on sections prone to failure, typically steep gradients.
At this stage, the advantages and disadvantages for each pavement structure, other than the
construction costs, cannot be clearly defined and it would be difficult to compile a design
methodology that made a definitive recommendation for a specific pavement structure in particular
circumstances. This emphasises that in order to draw conclusions in respect of specific pavement
types, the medium and long term monitoring of the trial sections is of critical importance. However,
general comments and thoughts from the current short term performance of the various pavements
types in the short time since they were constructed are summarised in Table 30 below.
Table 30 Advantages and Disadvantages of Implemented Pavement Types

Maintenance Reduction
Likely Cost Advantage
Small Contractor
Populated Areas
Local Materials

Marshy Areas
Steep Terrain

Low Strength
Flat terrain

Subgrades

Suitability
Pavement Type

Gravel Pavement + + - - - + + + -
Un-reinforced Concrete - + + + + - + + +
Concrete Strips (Reinforced) - + + + + + + + +
Concrete Geocells - + + + + + + + +
Concrete Strips (Unreinforced) - + + + + - + + +
Concrete Paving Blocks - + + + + - + - +
Hand Packed Stone + + + - + + + + -
Single Otta Seal with a Sand Seal - + - + + - + - +
Double Sand Seal - + - + - - + - +
Slurry Seal - + - + + - + - -
Double Surface Dressing - + + + + - + - +
Engineered Natural Surface + + - - - - + + -

AFCAP 8 p. 47
 Construction Report

Note: + indicates positive advantage; - indicates a probable disadvantage

7.2 Conclusions
Only limited conclusions can be made at this early stage of the project. The roads will be
monitored for two years following construction after which more substantial conclusions can be
drawn.
The following are the preliminary conclusions for the project so far:

It can already been seen that the demonstration sections provide all weather access along
the entire length of the road. Necessary maintenance will be a key factor in assuring that
the road remains passable all year round.

Incorporation of local materials and use of local labour is important in the design and
selection of the different pavement structures and should be included wherever possible.
This is critical for cost-effective and sustainable solutions for low volume rural roads and an
important requirement for the EOD philosophy.

Concrete block paving, concrete pavements and bituminous bound pavements can be
undertaken successfully by small scale contractors using imported and local materials.
These initially expensive pavements result in sustainable pavements with reduced
maintenance needs.

Concrete strips appear likely to offer the best value for money of all surfacing options
demonstrated. However, thought needs to be given to the locations and design of passing
bays to ensure their proper use.

All of the pavements, but in particular the Engineered Natural Surface will perform much
better during the wet season if the drainage is functional. A detailed drainage investigation
should be conducted at the design stage resulting in drainage designed to function ‘with
nature’ ensuring that water is not routed incorrectly. Routine drainage maintenance before
the wet season will be of great help in ensuring that the road remains open throughout the
wet season.

Geocell pavements are suited to small contractors as suitable concrete can be mixed in
small mixers using local materials. However, it is essential that sufficient knowledge and
training is given to contractors for the use of new materials and techniques.
Modifications were made to the Tanzanian standard designs and these are deemed appropriate
and suited to the locations. However, final recommendations on specifications and design
guidelines will be made after the monitoring period.
The material investigations in the two regions for this project cannot simply be applied to other
regions in Tanzania and a detailed materials investigation should be carried out before any similar
project.
The construction cost of the all-weather surface types exceeds the construction cost of the
standard gravel road significantly. However, there are potential long term savings and benefits
from adopting the Environmentally Optimised Design approach to rural road design. It is concluded
that these all-weather surface types should be applied at the problematic spots on a rural access
road where they are needed to maintain all weather access or, possibly, for social reasons rather
than along the entire length. This design philosophy offers a more sustainable and economical
solution to standard gravel road design.

AFCAP 8 p. 48
 Construction Report

Maintenance considerations and costs should be taken into account when selecting pavement
types, for example gravel surfaces and bituminous seals require significantly more routine and
periodic maintenance that concrete roads. Stone surfaces are potentially most suited for long term
community maintenance without significant outside assistance or funding.
7.3 Recommendations
As this is a research and demonstration project it is not expected that future roads implementing
the EOD philosophy will make use of such a wide range of pavement types at short section
lengths. Costs for this project are expected to be higher than those of future projects for these
reasons. Conclusions from the future monitoring of this project will allow recommendations to be
made as to the most suitable pavement types for particular conditions. It is assumed that as
contractors become more familiar with these new materials and methods as well as the use of
fewer pavements types over longer section lengths will result in a noticeably lower cost per km and
m2 for each pavement type.
Suitable equipment, knowledge and skill are crucial for the completion of the work to an acceptable
standard. The contractor’s unfamiliarity with bitumen resulted in high bid rates and a lower quality
of work on these sections. Thus, the costs of the bitumen pavements are expected to reduce once
local contractors become more familiar with the materials and methods involved in this surfacing.
When using contractors to undertake small scale but accurate work in which they have little or no
expertise, it is vital that considerable training is provided in order that the non-standard or
unfamiliar construction techniques are conducted properly. It is recommended that small scale
local contractors are trained and given a tender advantage over large international contractors.
This will empower local communities, provide a sense of ownership within communities and ensure
that expertise and economic benefit remains in communities. It is important that suitable
supervision and quality control are provided on site to ensure the work of inexperienced contractors
meet the specifications.
There should be further study carried out on the use of marly limestone in road construction
including the possible use of lime stabilisation of the material. The use of hand packed stone,
concrete strips and concrete geocells should be investigated for further use on expansive clays on
low volume rural roads.
Some materials used did not meet specification according to the Tanzanian pavement design
manual, however these were deemed acceptable for use on low volume rural roads. Findings from
the future monitoring of this project will enable recommendations and modifications to be made to
the Tanzanian pavement design manual as to the future use of such materials in low volume roads.
7.4 Future Work
Long Term Monitoring
It has been agreed that in order for this work to be of value beyond that discussed in this report it is
necessary for a long term monitoring regime to follow through on the base line data capture.
The consultant will monitor the demonstration sections for two years following the collection of the
base line data. The consultant will carry out all monitoring methods as previously detailed at 6
month intervals. The consultant will analyse the collected data and use the results to draw
guidelines and specifications and make recommendations with regard to the various surfaces.
Following this, the district engineers will continue to monitor the demonstration site for a further
eight years on a yearly basis.

AFCAP 8 p. 49
 Construction Report

As with any data collection, consistency in monitoring methods and conditions is fundamental to
the accuracy of the results. It is important that previous monitoring methods are replicated and the
future monitoring schedule is appropriately planned with regards to seasonal weather conditions
Maintenance Considerations
After the collection of the base line data the condition of the demonstration sections will be
monitored at 6 month intervals. During these monitoring exercises, the deterioration and defects
on the gravel sections will be highlighted as a comparison with the demonstration sections. The
consultant must also monitor and comment on the implementation and effectiveness of
maintenance on the project roads.
It is important that the road is maintained to an accessible standard however it is equally important
that the true deterioration of the road surface is monitored over a sufficient time period in order to
obtain realistic and reliable data or pavement deterioration. It is also crucial that all monitoring
beacons are sufficiently maintained and easily located to improve the accuracy and time taken at
each monitoring phase. Therefore it is important that an acceptable maintenance programme is
agreed with the district engineer to facilitate the most reliable and accurate monitoring data whilst
ensuring that year round access is maintained and the road does not reach a state in which costly
major maintenance is required.

AFCAP 8 p. 50
 Construction Report

APPENDIX A - PHOTOGRAPHS AT 500M INTERVALS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION

Chainage 0 km Chainage 0.5 km

Chainage 1.0 km Chainage 1.5 km

Chainage 2.0 km Chainage 2.5 km

AFCAP 8 p. 51
 Construction Report

Chainage 3.0 km Chainage 3.5 km

Chainage 4.0 km Chainage 4.5 km

Chainage 5.0 km Chainage 5.5 km

AFCAP 8 p. 52
 Construction Report

Chainage 6.0 km Chainage 6.5 km

Chainage 7.0 km Chainage 7.5 km

Chainage 8.0 km Chainage 8.5 km

AFCAP 8 p. 53
 Construction Report

Chainage 9.0 km Chainage 9.5 km

Chainage 10.0 km Chainage 10.5 km

Chainage 11.0 km Chainage 11.5 km

AFCAP 8 p. 54
 Construction Report

Chainage 12.0 km Chainage 12.5 km

Chainage 13.0 km Chainage 13.5 km

Chainage 14.0 km Chainage 14.5 km

AFCAP 8 p. 55
 Construction Report

Chainage 15.0 km Chainage 15.5 km

Chainage 16.0 km Chainage 16.5 km

Chainage 17.0 km Chainage 17.5 km

AFCAP 8 p. 56
 Construction Report

Chainage 18.0 km Chainage 18.5 km

Chainage 19.0 km Chainage 19.5 km

Chainage 20.0 km

AFCAP 8 p. 57
 Construction Report

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS DETAILING THE CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY

Section 1 - Single Otta Seal with a Sand Seal (0+030 km to 0+230 km)

1: Before construction
Chainage: 0+050 km

2: After heavy grading and compaction

of the roadbed
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 22/12/2010

3: After spreading and compaction of

layer 150mm of G7 improved subgrade
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 20/01/2010

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 58
 Construction Report

Section 1 - Single Otta Seal with a Sand Seal (0+030 km to 0+230 km)

4: After spreading and compaction of

layer 150mm of G60 pavement layer
Date: 18/05/2011

5: Using a theodolite to set out the final

width of the road, 5m road width
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 17/05/2011

6: Construction of stone-masonry lined

ditch
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 19/05/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 59
 Construction Report

Section 1 - Single Otta Seal with a Sand Seal (0+030 km to 0+230 km)

7: G60 base after construction of lined

drains
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 20/06/2011

8: Completed MC-30 prime coat sprayed

at a rate of 1 l/m²
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 10/07/2011

9: Sweep clear all loose material from

the surface
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 23/07/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 60
 Construction Report

Section 1 - Single Otta Seal with a Sand Seal (0+030 km to 0+230 km)

10: Screen the fines and the oversize

material from the gravel
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 15/07/2011

11: Spray MC-3000 bitumen at a rate of

1. 7 l/m²
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 23/07/2011

12: Spread aggregate evenly across the

surface at a rate of 0. 016 m³/m²
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 23/07/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 61
 Construction Report

Section 1 - Single Otta Seal with a Sand Seal (0+030 km to 0+230 km)

13: Roll the aggregate into the bitumen

using a 12 tonne pneumatic tyred roller
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 23/07/2011

14: The Otta seal should receive as

many passes as possible with the roller
for the next 2 days
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 23/07/2011

15: For the following week after

construction, add additional gravel to the
tyre tracks or anywhere that bleeding
occurs
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 24/07/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 62
 Construction Report

Section 1 - Single Otta Seal with a Sand Seal (0+030 km to 0+230 km)

16: The road should be trafficked for as

long as possible before the next seal
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 26/07/2011

17: The Otta seal surface texture one

day after construction
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 24/07/2011

18: The Otta seal surface texture three

weeks after construction
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 15/08/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 63
 Construction Report

Section 1 - Single Otta Seal with a Sand Seal (0+030 km to 0+230 km)

19: Clear the surface of any loose

material
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 17/08/2011

20: Spray MC-3000 bitumen at a rate of

0. 8 l/m²
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 17/08/2011

21: Spread sand at a rate of 0. 011

m³/m²
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 17/08/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 64
 Construction Report

Section 1 - Single Otta Seal with a Sand Seal (0+030 km to 0+230 km)

22: Completed Otta seal with sand seal

section
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 04/10/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 65
 Construction Report

Section 2 - Hand Packed Stone (5+340 km to 5+520 km)

1: Before construction

2: After heavy grading and compaction

of the roadbed
Chainage: 5+340 km
Date: 03/12/2010

3: After spreading and compaction of

150mm of G7 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 5+540 km
Date: 21/01/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 66
 Construction Report

Section 2 - Hand Packed Stone (5+340 km to 5+520 km)

4: After spreading and compaction of

100mm G15 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 5+340 km
Date: 25/03/2011

5: After spreading and compaction of

150mm of G45 pavement layer
Chainage: 5+340 km
Date: 19/05/2011

6: After spreading of 50mm of bedding

sand for hand packed stone pavement
Chainage: 5+440 km
Date: 26/05/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 67
 Construction Report

Section 2 - Hand Packed Stone (5+340 km to 5+520 km)

7: Use of string lines to ensure line and

level of hand packed stone
Chainage: 5+440 km
Date: 26/05/2011

8: Placing and packing of stone blocks

Chainage: 5+440 km
Date: 19/05/2011

9: Hand packed stone section is

constructed in 1. 5 m half width sections
to accommodate traffic
Chainage: 5+440 km
Date: 26/05/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 68
 Construction Report

Section 2 - Hand Packed Stone (5+340 km to 5+520 km)

10: Compact 1m gravel shoulder using

pedestrian roller
Chainage: 5+400 km
Date: 23/06/2011

11: Fill the voids between the stones

with sand
Chainage: 5+500 km
Date: 04/07/2011

12: Completed hand packed stone

section
Chainage: 5+340 km
Date: 04/07/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 69
 Construction Report

Section 2 - Hand Packed Stone (5+340 km to 5+520 km)

13: Nominal thickness of 150 - 200mm

Chainage: 5+440 km
Date: 26/05/2011

14: Surface texture

Chainage: 5+500 km
Date: 15/08/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 70
 Construction Report

Section 3 - Concrete Strips Reinforced (5+560 km to 6+080 km)

1: Before construction
Chainage: 5+960 km

2: After heavy grading and compaction

of the roadbed
Chainage: 5+880km
Date: 08/01/2011

3: After spreading and compaction of

150mm of G7 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 5+880km
Date: 27/01/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 71
 Construction Report

Section 3 - Concrete Strips - Reinforced (5+560 km to 6+080 km)

4: After spreading and compaction of

100mm of G15 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 5+880 km
Date: 25/03/2011

5: After spreading and compaction of

150mm of G45 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 5+920 km
Date: 18/05/2011

6: 4 mm steel reinforcement used in

concrete over the expansive clay
sections
Chainage: 5+920 km
Date: 08/06/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 72
 Construction Report

Section 3 - Concrete Strips - Reinforced (5+560 km to 6+080 km)

7: After construction of concrete strips

and gravel shoulder
Chainage: 5+920 km
Date: 28/06/2011

8: Completed concrete strips section

Chainage: 5+560 km
Date: 15/08/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 73
 Construction Report

Section 4 - Concrete Geocells (6+080 km to 6+740 km)

1: Before construction
Chainage: 6+200 km

2: After heavy grading and compaction

of the roadbed
Chainage: 6+080 km
Date: 29/12/2010

3: After spreading and compaction of

150mm of G7 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 6+080 km
Date: 08/03/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 74
 Construction Report

Section 4 - Concrete Geocells (6+080 km to 6+740 km)

4: After spreading and compaction of

100mm of G15 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 6+180 km
Date: 25/03/2011

5: After spreading and compaction of

150mm of G45 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 6+180 km
Date: 16/05/2011

6: Construction of lined drains using

marly limestone
Date: 08/06/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 75
 Construction Report

Section 4 - Concrete Geocells (6+080 km to 6+740 km)

7: Completed lined drain

Date: 08/06/2011

8: Setting out of trenches for securing

geocells
Date: 07/11/2011

9: Excavating trench for securing

geocells
Date: 07/11/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 76
 Construction Report

Section 4 - Concrete Geocells (6+080 km to 6+740 km)

10: Spreading thin layer of sand to level

base
Date: 07/11/2011

11: Setting out pegs to secure geocells

Date: 07/11/2011

12: Laying out of geocells

Date: 07/11/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 77
 Construction Report

Section 4 - Concrete Geocells (6+080 km to 6+740 km)

13: 15m of geocell section cut to size

and secured
Date: 07/11/2011

14: Concrete pour and spreading

Date: 08/11/2011

15: Levelling concrete using straight

edge
Date: 08/11/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 78
 Construction Report

Section 4 - Concrete Geocells (6+080 km to 6+740 km)

16: Smoothing concrete finish

Date: 08/06/2011

17: Brush stroke finish to concrete

Date: 08/11/2011

18: Curing of concrete with sand

Date: 09/11/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 79
 Construction Report

Section 4 - Concrete Geocells (6+080 km to 6+740 km)

19: Completed Concrete Geocell

Section
Chainage: 6+080
Date: 06/02/2012

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 80
 Construction Report

Section 5 – Double Surface Dressing (8+000 km to 8+240 km)

1: Before construction
Chainage: 8+000 km

2: After heavy grading and compaction

of the roadbed
Chainage: 8+000 km
Date: 22/12/2010

3: After spreading and compaction of

150mm of G7 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 8+000 km
Date: 16/03/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 81
 Construction Report

Section 5 – Double Surface Dressing (8+000 km to 8+240 km)

4: After spreading and compaction of

150 mm of G15 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 8+000 km
Date: 31/03/2011

5: Place Fornit 30 base reinforcement

geosythetic on the G15 surface to
accommodate movement from the
expansive clay subgrade
Chainage: 8+080 to 8+180 km
Date: 24/06/2011

6: Dumping and spreading of G45

subbase
Chainage: 8+080 to 8+180 km
Date: 24/06/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 82
 Construction Report

Section 5 – Double Surface Dressing (8+000 km to 8+240 km)

7: After spreading and compaction of

150 mm of G45 subbase
Chainage: 8+000 km
Date: 28/06/2011

8: After spreading and compaction of

150 mm of G60 base
Chainage: 8+000 km
Date: 04/07/2011

9: Completed MC-30 prime coat sprayed

at a rate of 1 l/m²
Chainage: 8+080 km
Date: 26/07/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 83
 Construction Report

Section 5 – Double Surface Dressing (8+000 km to 8+240 km)

10: Place Fortrac 3D-30 geosythetic on

to reduce erosion of the surface dressing
Chainage: 8+150 to 8+220 km
Date: 26/07/2011

8: Completed first layer of surface

dressing
Chainage: 8+000 km
Date: 27/07/2011

9: Surface texture of first layer of surface

dressing
Chainage: 8+080 km
Date: 15/08/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 84
 Construction Report

Section 5 – Double Surface Dressing (8+000 km to 8+240 km)

10: Surface texture of surface

dressing including Fortrac 3D-30
geosythetic
Chainage: 8+150 to 8+220 km
Date: 26/07/2011

8: Completed double surface dressing

Chainage: 8+000 km
Date: 19/08/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 85
 Construction Report

Section 6 - Concrete Strips (9+980 to 10+670 km)

1: Before construction
Chainage: 10+220 km

2: After heavy grading and compaction

of the roadbed
Chainage: 9+960 km
Date: 04/02/2011

3: After spreading and compaction of

100mm of G15 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 10+040
Date: 31/03/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 86
 Construction Report

Section 6 - Concrete Strips (9+980 to 10+670 km)

4: After spreading and compaction of

150mm of G45 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 10+060 km
Date: 28/04/2011

5: Setting out centre line of concrete

strips
Chainage: 9+980 km
Date: 04/05/2011

6: Set out concrete strip

Chainage: 9+980 km
Date: 07/05/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 87
 Construction Report

Section 6 - Concrete Strips (9+980 to 10+670 km)

7: Construction of formwork for concrete

strips
Chainage: 9+980 km
Date: 07/05/2011

8: Concrete pour
Date: 09/05/2011

9: Compact concrete
Date: 09/05/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 88
 Construction Report

Section 6 - Concrete Strips (9+980 to 10+670 km)

10: Insert contraction joints

Date: 09/05/2011

11: Brush stroke finish to the concrete

Date: 09/05/2011

12: Curing the concrete with sand

Date: 09/05/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 89
 Construction Report

Section 6 - Concrete Strips (9+980 to 10+670 km)

13: Partially completed concrete strip

section (100mm thickness)
Date: 16/05/2011

14: Dumping of gravel for the shoulders

and the centre of the strips
Date: 12/06/2011

15: Compact the shoulder and

intermittent gravel with a pedestrian
roller
Date: 23/06/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 90
 Construction Report

Section 6 - Concrete Strips (9+980 to 10+670 km)

16: Excavate gravel for intermittent

concrete
Date: 15/07/2011

17: Pour intermittent concrete strip

Date: 15/07/2011

18: Cure the intermittent concrete with

sand
Date: 15/07/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 91
 Construction Report

Section 6 - Concrete Strips (9+980 to 10+670 km)

19: Completed concrete strips section

Chainage: 9+980 km
Date: 16/08/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 92
 Construction Report

Section 7 – Double Sand Seal (11+200 to 11+390 km)

1: Before construction
Chainage: 11+300 km

2: After heavy grading and compaction

of the roadbed
Chainage: 11+280 km
Date: 20/01/2011

3: After spreading and compaction of

150 mm of G15 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 11+280 km
Date: 31/03/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 93
 Construction Report

Section 7 – Double Sand Seal (11+200 to 11+400 km)

4: After spreading and compaction of

150 mm of G60 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 11+260 km
Date: 29/06/2011

5: Spraying prime coat in half width

sections
Chainage: 11+240 km
Date: 08/07/2011

6: Completed MC-30 prime coat sprayed

on 4. 6 m width carriageway
Chainage: 11+200 km
Date: 24/07/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 94
 Construction Report

Section 7 – Double Sand Seal (11+200 to 11+400 km)

7: Spray MC-3000 bitumen at a rate of 1.

2 l/m²
Chainage: 11+260 km
Date: 24/07/2011

8: Spread sand at a rate of 0. 011 m³/m²

Chainage: 11+240 km
Date: 24/07/2011

9: Roll the sand into the bitumen using a

12 tonne pneumatic tyre roller. The road
should be immediately opened to traffic
Chainage: 11+200 km
Date: 24/07/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 95
 Construction Report

Section 7 – Double Sand Seal (11+200 to 11+400 km)

10: The sand seal should be receive as

may passes with the roller as possible
over the next 2 days
Chainage: 11+260 km
Date: 24/07/2011

11: The road should be trafficked for as

long as possible between successive
seals
Chainage: 11+280 km
Date: 15/08/2011

12: The road should be cleared of any

loose material before beginning the
second seal
Chainage: 11+300 km
Date: 17/08/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 96
 Construction Report

Section 7 – Double Sand Seal (11+200 km to 11+400 km)

13: Spray MC-3000 bitumen at a rate of

1. 2 l/m²
Chainage: 11+300 km
Date: 17/08/2011

14: Spread sand at a rate of 0. 011

m³/m²
Chainage: 11+300 km
Date: 17/08/2011

15: Compact the sand as soon as

possible using a pneumatic tyre roller
(12 tonnes)
Chainage: 0+030 km
Date: 17/08/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 97
 Construction Report

Section 7 – Double Sand Seal (11+200 km to 11+400 km)

13: Some bleeding occurred during

rolling of pavemet
Chainage: 11+300 km
Date: 17/08/2011

14: Any bleeding was blinded with sand

Chainage: 11+300 km
Date: 17/08/2011

15: Completed double sand seal section

Chainage: 11+200 km
Date: 06/10/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 98
 Construction Report

Section 8 – Gravel Wearing Course (12+200 to 12+580 km)

1: Before construction
Chainage: 12+400

2: After heavy grading and compaction

of the roadbed
Chainage: 12+540
Date: 20/01/2011

3: After spreading and compaction of

150mm of gravel wearing course
Chainage: 12+540
Date: 31/03/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 99
 Construction Report

Section 8 – Gravel Wearing Course (12+200 to 12+580 km)

4: Completed gravel wearing course

section
Chainage: 12+200
Date: 18/08/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 100
 Construction Report

Section 9 – Concrete Strips (16+240 to 17+100 km)

1: Before construction
Chainage: 16+400 km

2: After heavy grading and compaction

of the roadbed
Chainage: 16+460 km
Date: 29/12/2010

3: After spreading and compaction of

150mm of G7 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 16+460 km
Date: 08/02/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 101
 Construction Report

Section 9 – Concrete Strips (16+240 to 17+100 km)

4: After spreading and compaction of

100mm of G15 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 16+420 km
Date: 12/04/2011

5: After spreading and compaction of

150mm of G45 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 16+400 km
Date: 08/06/2011

6: Completed concrete strips section

Chainage: 16+240 km
Date: 18/08/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 102
 Construction Report

Section 10 – Concrete Strips (18+480 to 18+740 km)

1: Before construction
Chainage: 18+480 km

2: After heavy grading and compaction

of the roadbed
Chainage: 18+480 km
Date: 29/12/2010

3: After spreading and compaction of

150mm of G7 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 18+480 km
Date:20/02 /2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 103
 Construction Report

Section 10 – Concrete Strips (18+480 to 18+740 km)

4: After spreading and compaction of

100mm of G15 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 18+540 km
Date: 11/04/2011

5: After spreading and compaction of

150mm of G45 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 18+480 km
Date: 16/06/2011

6: Completed concrete strips section

Chainage: 18+480 km
Date: 18/08/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 104
 Construction Report

Section 11 – Gravel Wearing Course (19+000 to 19+200 km)

1: Before construction
Chainage: 19+100 km

2: After heavy grading and compaction

of the roadbed
Chainage: 19+000 km
Date: 29/12/2011

3: After spreading and compaction of

150mm of gravel wearing course
Chainage: 19+480 km
Date: 11/04/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 105
 Construction Report

Section 11 – Gravel Wearing Course (19+000 to 19+200 km)

4: Completed gravel wearing course

section
Chainage: 19+000 km
Date: 18/08/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 106
 Construction Report

Section 12 – Gravel Wearing Course (19+480 to 20+040 km)

1: Before construction
Chainage: 19+480 km

2: After heavy grading and compaction

of the roadbed
Chainage: 19+480 km
Date: 29/12/2011

3: After spreading and compaction of

150mm of gravel wearing course
Chainage: 19+480 km
Date: 11/04/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 107
 Construction Report

Section 12 – Gravel Wearing Course (19+480 to 20+040 km)

4: Completed gravel wearing course

section
Chainage: 19+480 km
Date 18/08/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 108
 Construction Report

Section 13 – Slurry Seal (20+040 to 20+260 km)

1: Before construction
Chainage: 20+260 km

2: After heavy grading and compaction

of the roadbed
Chainage: 20+260 km
Date: 29/12/2010

3: After spreading and compaction of

150mm of G15 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 20+260 km
Date: 04/02/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 109
 Construction Report

Section 13 – Slurry Seal (20+040 to 20+260 km)

4: After spreading and compaction of

150mm of G60 improved subgrade layer
Chainage: 20+260 km
Date: 16/06/2011

5: Clear the surface of any dust and

loose material
Chainage: 20+180 km
Date: 05/07/2011

6: Lightly wet the roadbed before prime

coat
Chainage: 20+240 km
Date: 05/07/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 110
 Construction Report

Section 13 – Slurry Seal (20+040 to 20+260 km)

7: Spray prime coat of 700 mm width

Chainage: 20+260 km
Date: 05/07/2011

8: Spray prime coat of 2150 mm width

Chainage: 20+260 km
Date: 05/07/2011

9: Spray prime coat of 2150 mm width

Chainage: 20+260 km
Date: 05/07/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 111
 Construction Report

Section 13 – Slurry Seal (20+040 to 20+260 km)

10: Completed MC-30 prime coat

sprayed on 5m width carriageway
Chainage: 20+260 km
Date: 05/07/2011

11: Close the road to traffic for at least

24 hours after prime coat
Chainage: 20+260 km
Date: 05/07/2011

12: Spread sand to soak up any pools of

excess bitumen
Chainage: 20+240 km
Date: 06/07/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 112
 Construction Report

Section 13 – Slurry Seal (20+040 to 20+260 km)

13: Sweep the dust and loose material

from the road surface
Chainage: 20+240 km
Date: 15/07/2011

14: Place wooden strips of 8 mm

thickness to ensure the correct thickness
is achieved
Chainage: 20+240 km
Date: 15/07/2011

15: Add 69% crusher dust to a cement

mixer
Chainage: 20+240 km
Date: 15/07/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 113
 Construction Report

Section 13 – Slurry Seal (20+040 to 20+260 km)

16: Add to 2% cement or lime to the

mixer
Chainage: 20+240 km
Date: 15/07/2011

17: Add 6% water to the mixer

Chainage: 20+240 km
Date: 15/07/2011

18: Add 17% cationic stable grade

bitumen emulsion to the mixer
Chainage: 20+240 km
Date: 15/07/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 114
 Construction Report

Section 13 – Slurry Seal (20+040 to 20+260 km)

19: Add additional 5% water to the mixer

until the mix has a creamy consistency
Chainage: 20+240 km
Date: 15/07/2011

20: Half fill wheelbarrows with the slurry

Chainage: 20+240 km
Date: 15/07/2011

21: Shovel the slurry onto the road and

spread evenly with rubber squeegees
Chainage: 20+240 km
Date: 15/07/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 115
 Construction Report

Section 13 – Slurry Seal (20+040 to 20+260 km)

22: Use squeegees to give as smooth a

finish as possible
Chainage: 20+240 km
Date: 15/07/2011

23: Use a drag to smooth out the surface

Chainage: 20+240 km
Date: 15/07/2011

24: Allow the slurry 3-4 hours to set

Chainage: 20+240 km
Date: 15/07/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 116
 Construction Report

Section 13 – Slurry Seal (20+040 to 20+260 km)

25: As soon as the slurry gets to the

point where it will not stick to the tyres of
a vehicle it should be compacted using a
pneumatic tyre roller (or truck) and then
the surface should immediately be
opened to traffic
Chainage: 20+240 km
Date: 15/07/2011

26: Finished slurry seal surfacing

Chainage: 20+200 km
Date: 18/07/2011

24: Slurry seal surface texture

Chainage: 20+240 km
Date: 29/07/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 117
 Construction Report

Engineered Natural Earth

1: Engineered Natural Earth - Red Soil

0+230 to 3+370 km
Chainage: 0+500 km
Date: 18/08/2011

2: Engineered Natural Earth – Quartzitic

Gravel 3+730 to 5+340 km
Chainage: 4+000 km
Date: 18/08/2011

3: Engineered Natural Earth – Light Red

Soil 10+670 to 11+200 km
Chainage: 10+680 km
Date: 16/08/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 118
 Construction Report

Engineered Natural Earth

4: Engineered Natural Earth – Marley

Limestone 13+520 to 14+180 km
Chainage: 13+540 km
Date: 18/08/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 119
 Construction Report

Construction of Drifts

1: Excavation

2: Excavation of cut-off wall and toe of

drift

3: Pour concrete toe of drift and concrete

base of cut-off wall

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 120
 Construction Report

Construction of Drifts

4: Construction of masonry cut-off wall

and guidestones

5: Lay steel mesh

6: Wet surface before concrete pour

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 121
 Construction Report

Construction of Drifts

7: Pour concrete

8: Compact concrete

9: Brush stroke finish the concrete

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 122
 Construction Report

Construction of Drifts

10: Curing the concrete

11: Excavation of gabion mattress

12: Gabion mattress

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 123
 Construction Report

Construction of Culverts

1: Excavation

2: Setting level of culvert

3: Cast concrete bed

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 124
 Construction Report

Construction of Culverts

4: Lay concrete pipe

5: Construct formwork around concrete

and bed

6: Pour concrete for encasing of the

concrete pipe

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 125
 Construction Report

Construction of Culverts

7: Compacting concrete

8: Construction of apron

9: Construction of masonry headwall and

wingwall

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 126
 Construction Report

Construction of Culverts

10: Finished headwall

11: Curing the concrete

12: Backfilling of culvert using in-situ

material

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 127
 Construction Report

Construction of Culverts

13: Backfilling of culvert using gravel

material

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 128
 Construction Report

Construction of Scour Checks (9+980 to 10+670 km)

1: Excavation
Date: 06/05/2011

2: Construction of stone masonry

Date: 06/05/2011

3: Packing of stone rip-rap

Date:06/05/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 129
 Construction Report

Construction of Scour Checks (9+980 to 10+670 km)

4: Completed scour checks

Date: 12/05/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 130
 Construction Report

Verification of Layer Thickness

Checking the road levels using a dumpy

level

Core drilling to verify layer thickness

Core drilling to verify layer thickness

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 131
 Construction Report

Quality Control of Pipe Culverts

Verification of the invert level and slope

of pipe culverts

Photograph Description

Calibration of the Bitumen Distributor

Calibrating the bitumen spray rates

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 132
 Construction Report

Verification of Field Density

Testing field density using the Troxiler

method

Testing field density using the Troxiler

method

Testing field density using the Troxiler

method

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 133
 Construction Report

Borrow Pit 2 (Red Quartzitic Gravel)– 2+700 km

Stockpiled gravel
Chainage: BP2 – 2+700
Offset: 1. 25 km
Date: 16/03/2011

Borrow pit inspection

Chainage: BP2 – 2+700
Offset: 1. 25 km
Date: 04/03/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 134
 Construction Report

Borrow Pit 3 (Marly Limestone)– 13+860 km

Removal of top soil from borrow pit

Chainage: BP3 – 13+860
Offset: 0 km
Date: 16/03/2011

Transition from top layer of borrow pit to

bottom layer of borrow pit
Chainage: BP3 – 13+860
Offset: 0 km
Date: 16/03/2011

Marly limestone
Chainage: BP3 – 13+860
Offset: 0 km
Date: 16/03/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 135
 Construction Report

Borrow Pit 3 – 13+860 km (Marly Limestone)

Top layer of BP 3 (Contains clay)

Chainage: BP3 – 13+860
Offset: 0 km
Date: 16/03/2011

Bottom layer of BP 3
Chainage: BP3 – 13+860
Offset: 0 km
Date: 16/03/2011

Side of BP 3
Chainage: BP3 – 13+860
Offset: 0 km
Date: 16/03/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 136
 Construction Report

Borrow Pit 4 – 8+030 km (Marly Limestone)

Marly limestone
Chainage: BP4 – 8+030
Offset: 0 km
Date: 27/08/2010

Marly limestone
Chainage: BP4 – 8+030
Offset: 0 km
Date: 16/05/2011

Marly limestone
Chainage: BP4 – 8+030
Offset: 0 km
Date: 16/05/2011

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 137
 Construction Report

APPENDIX C - TEST RESULTS

Sand Test Results
TANZANIA NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY

SUMMARY SHEET
SOIL TESTS
SAND CENTRAL MATERIALS LABORATORY

Project: Bago - Talawanda Road Date: 21/10/2010 Date: 21/10/2010

Client:
Location: Borrow pit Chaniage 0+000km Offset: ~ 4km
Contract No. 2010/2011/
Responsible Technician:

Location/ Chainage Results Specification

Sample No BS 882: 1990
Depth (m) % passing
Grading 75mm
63mm
50mm
37.5mm
20mm
10mm
5mm 100
2mm 99
1.18mm 87
600µm 56
425µm 46
212 µm 25
150µm 19
75µm 10
Atterberg Limits LL (%)
PL (%)
PI (%)
LS (%)
Moisture Content %
Particle Density kg/m3
Bulk Density kg/m3
Soil classification BSCS
3
Compactoin MDD (kg/m )
BS Light / Heavy OMC (%)
Field FDD (kg/m3)
Density FMC (%)
CBR (%) 90 % heavy DD
(Unsoaked) 95 % heavy DD

100 % heavy DD

CBR (%) 90 % heavy DD

(4 days soaked) Swell (%)

95 % heavy DD

100 % heavy DD
Swell (%)

AFCAP 8 p. 138
 Construction Report

Aggregate Test Results

TANZANIA NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY

SUMMARY SHEET

AGGREGATES TESTS CENTRALS MATERIALS LABORATORY

Project: Bagamoyo - Talawanda road Date: 29/10/2010 Date: 29/10/2010

Client:
Contract No. 2010/2011/ Aggregate Tests from Quarry in Lugoba Approved :

Responsible Technician:

Location Lugoba

Lab No.
Type of rock
Grading 75mm
50mm
28mm
20mm
14mm
10mm
5mm
2mm
1.18mm
600µm
425µm
75 µm
Dust content < 425µm (%)
Filler content < 75µm (%)
Moisture content %
Plasticity index %
Specific gravity ρs 2.954
Relative density ρd - ρs - ρa
Water absorption % 0.2
Flakiness index %
Bitumen Affinity % 80
Elongation index %
ACV %
TFV (10% FACT)
(Soaked)
kN 90
TFV (10% FACT)
(Dry)
kN 100
AIV %
LAA - Los Angeles %
Abrasion Value Grading : B 27
SSS % Loss

AFCAP 8 p. 139
 Construction Report

Aggregate Tests - Double Surface Dressing

TANZANIA NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY

SUMMARY SHEET

AGGREGATES TESTS CENTRALS MATERIALS LABORATORY

Project: Bago - Talawanda road Date: 22/4/2011 Date: 22/4/2011

Client:
Contract No. Checked : Approved :
Responsible Technician:

Location Lugoba Lugoba

Lab No. 7mm 14mm

Type of rock
Grading 75mm
50mm
28mm
20mm 100 100

14mm 99 99

10mm 98 54

5mm 14 2

2mm 0 2

1.18mm 0 1

600µm 0 1

425µm 0 1

75 µm 0 1

Dust content < 425µm (%)

Filler content < 75µm (%)
Moisture content %
Plasticity index %
Specific gravity ρs
Relative density ρd - ρs - ρa
Water absorption %
Flakiness index % 27 15

Bitumen Affinity %
Elongation index %
ACV %
TFV (10% FACT)
(Soaked)
kN 120
TFV (10% FACT)
(Dry)
kN 160

AIV %
LAA - Los Angeles %
Abrasion Value Grading : B
SSS % Loss

AFCAP 8 p. 140
 Construction Report

Borrow Pit Test Results

Borrow Pit 1 Test Results – 15 +330 km – Grey Quartzitic Gravel
TANZANIA NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY

SUMMARY SHEET

SOIL TESTS
CENTRAL MATERIALS LABORATORY

Project: Bagamoyo - Talawanda road Date: 02/09/2011 Date: 02/09/2011

Client: M/s AFCAP
Checked Approved
Contract No.
Responsible Technician:

Location 15+330 15+330

Sample No. GREY 1 GREY 2
Borrow Pit Borrow Pit 1
Grading 75mm
63mm
50mm 100
37.5mm 88 100
20mm 75 85
10mm 53 56
5mm 40 40
2mm 17 19
1.18mm 9 12
600µm 5 8
425µm 4 7
212 µm 3 6
150µm 2 5
75µm 2 4
Atterberg Limits LL (%) 36 36
PL (%) 23 22
PI (%) 13 14
LS (%) 7 7
Moisture Content %
Particle Density kg/m3
Bulk Density kg/m3
Soil classification BSCS
Compactoin MDD (kg/m3)
BS Light / Heavy OMC (%)
Field FDD (kg/m3)
Density FMC (%)
CBR (%) 95 % heavy DD

(Unsoaked) 98 % heavy DD

CBR (%) 100 % light DD

(4 days soaked) Swell (%)

95 % heavy DD

100 % heavy DD
Swell (%)

AFCAP 8 p. 141
 Construction Report

Borrow Pit 2 Test Results – 2 +700 km – Red Quartzitic Gravel

TANZANIA NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY

SUMMARY SHEET

SOIL TESTS
CENTRAL MATERIALS LABORATORY

Project: Bagamoyo - Talawanda road Date: 01/03/2011 Date: 3/1/20111

Client:
Checked Approved
Contract No. 2010/2011/
Responsible Technician:

Location (km) 2+700

Sample No. S-4
Borrow Pit Borrow Pit 2
Grading 75mm
63mm
50mm
37.5mm 100
20mm 91
10mm 77
5mm 60
2mm 21
1.18mm 13
600µm 12
425µm 11
212 µm 10
150µm 10
75µm 9
Atterberg Limits LL (%) 54
PL (%) 24
PI (%) 30
LS (%) 14
Moisture Content %
Particle Density kg/m3
Bulk Density kg/m3
Soil classification BSCS
Compactoin MDD (kg/m3) 2140
3
BS Heavy MDD 95% (kg/m ) 2033
BS Heavy OMC (%) 6.8

CBR (%) 95 % heavy DD

(Unsoaked) 98 % heavy DD

CBR (%) 100 % light DD

(4 days soaked) Swell (%)

95 % heavy DD 20
100 % heavy DD

Swell (%) 1.79

AFCAP 8 p. 142
 Construction Report

TANZANIA NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY

SUMMARY SHEET

SOIL TESTS
CENTRAL MATERIALS LABORATORY

Project: Bagamoyo - Talawanda road Date: 02/09/2011 Date: 02/09/2011

Client: M/s AFCAP
Checked Approved
Contract No.
Responsible Technician:

Location 2+700 2+700 2+700

Sample No. RED 1 RED 2 RED 3
Borrow Pit Bowor Pit 2
Grading 75mm
63mm
50mm 100 100
37.5mm 100 96 96
20mm 94 86 79
10mm 72 74 64
5mm 61 56 48
2mm 31 25 20
1.18mm 22 17 12
600µm 19 15 10
425µm 18 14 9
212 µm 16 12 8
150µm 15 11 7
75µm 13 10 6
Atterberg Limits LL (%) 48 52 51
PL (%) 22 29 25
PI (%) 26 23 26
LS (%) 14 11 14
Moisture Content %
Particle Density kg/m3
Bulk Density kg/m3
Soil classification BSCS
Compactoin MDD (kg/m3)
BS Light / Heavy OMC (%)
Field FDD (kg/m3)
Density FMC (%)
CBR (%) 95 % heavy DD

(Unsoaked) 98 % heavy DD

CBR (%) 100 % light DD

(4 days soaked) Swell (%)

95 % heavy DD

100 % heavy DD
Swell (%)

AFCAP 8 p. 143
 Construction Report

Borrow Pit 3 Test Results – 13 +860 km – Marly Limestone

TANZANIA NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY

SUMMARY SHEET

SOIL TESTS
CENTRAL MATERIALS LABORATORY

Project: Bagamoyo - Talawanda road Date: 01/03/2011 Date: 3/1/20111

Client:
Checked Approved
Contract No. 2010/2011/
Responsible Technician:

Location (km)
Sample No. S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4
Depth (m)
Grading 75mm
63mm 100 100
50mm 88 94 100
37.5mm 76 72 87 100
20mm 59 54 79 91
10mm 50 47 58 77
5mm 42 38 48 60
2mm 33 32 41 21
1.18mm 31 31 40 13
600µm 30 30 39 12
425µm 30 30 39 11
212 µm 30 29 39 10
150µm 29 29 38 10
75µm 27 25 36 9
Atterberg Limits LL (%) 35 32 33 54
PL (%) 19 16 18 24
PI (%) 16 16 15 30
LS (%) 9 9 7 14
Moisture Content %
3
Particle Density kg/m
3
Bulk Density kg/m
Soil classification BSCS
3
Compactoin MDD (kg/m ) 1913 2045 2012 2140
BS Heavy MDD 95% (kg/m3) 1817 1943 1911 2033
BS Heavy OMC (%) 11.7 9.6 7.8 6.8

CBR (%) 95 % heavy DD

(Unsoaked) 98 % heavy DD

CBR (%) 100 % light DD

(4 days soaked) Swell (%)

95 % heavy DD 21 14 16 20
100 % heavy DD
Swell (%) 0.01 0.01 0.02 1.79

AFCAP 8 p. 144
 Construction Report

TANZANIA NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY

SUMMARY SHEET

Project: Bagamoyo - Talawanda road

CENTRAL MATERIALS LABORATORY

CH (km): 13+860 Borrow Pit 3 Sample No. S 5 Offset: 0+000

Client : TP Depth (m)
Contract No. 2010/2011/ Date: 3/2/2011 Date: 3/2/2011
Responsible Technician: Checked Approved

%passing
sieve size(mm)
75
63
50 100
37.5 91
20 73
10 43
5 31 3
CBR(4days soaked) V/s DD(kg/m )
2 26 100
1.18 25
0.600 25
0.425 24
CBR-4days soaked-(%)

0.212 23 10
0.150 22
0.075 16
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%) 30 1
Plastic Limit (%) 19
Plasticity Index (%) 11
Linear Shrinkage (%) 6
GM 2.34 0.1
MDD (Kg/m3) 2069 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100
DD (Kg/m3)
OMC (%) 8.7
Field Moisture (%)
Data entry autocalc
Three Point CBR Values DD (kg/m3) CBR (%) %MDD Swell (%)
(2,5 kg) 3 layers/62 blows 1889 20 91
(4,5 kg) 5 layers/30 blows 1995 26 96
(4,5 kg) 5 layers/62 blows 2085 41 101 0.24

Particle Size Analysis

100

90

80

70

60
% passing

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse sieve size(mm)

SILT SAND GRAVEL

AFCAP 8 p. 145
 Construction Report

TANZANIA NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY

SUMMARY SHEET

Project: Bagamoyo - Talawanda road

CENTRAL MATERIALS LABORATORY

CH (km): 13+860 Borrow Pit 3 Sample No. S 6 Offset: 0+000

Client : TP Depth (m)
Contract No. 2010/2011/ Date: 3/2/2011 Date: 3/2/2011
Responsible Technician: Checked Approved

%passing
sieve size(mm)
75
63
50
37.5 100
20 61
10 43
5 34 3
CBR(4days soaked) V/s DD(kg/m )
2 28 100
1.18 28
0.600 27
0.425 27
CBR-4days soaked-(%)

0.212 26 10
0.150 25
0.075 19
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%) 30 1
Plastic Limit (%) 16
Plasticity Index (%) 14
Linear Shrinkage (%) 9
GM 2.26 0.1
MDD (Kg/m3) 2067 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050
DD (Kg/m3)
OMC (%) 8.8
Field Moisture (%)
Data entry autocalc
Three Point CBR Values DD (kg/m3) CBR (%) %MDD Swell (%)
(2,5 kg) 3 layers/62 blows 1855 32 90
(4,5 kg) 5 layers/30 blows 1939 33 94
(4,5 kg) 5 layers/62 blows 2037 36 99 0.13

Particle Size Analysis

100

90

80

70

60
% passing

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse sieve size(mm)

SILT SAND GRAVEL

AFCAP 8 p. 146
 Construction Report

Borrow Pit 4 Test Results – 8 +000 km – Marly Limestone

TANZANIA NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY
SUMMARY SHEET

Project: Bagamoyo - Talawanda road

CENTRAL MATERIALS LABORATORY

CH (km): Borrow Pit 4 - 8+000km Sample No. S 7 Offset:

Client : 8+000 Depth (m)
Contract No. 2010/2011/ Date: 18/2/2011 Date: 18/2/2011
Responsible Technician: Checked Approved

%passing
sieve size(mm)
75
63
50 100
37.5 92
20 72
10 52
5 43
CBR(4days soaked) V/s DD(kg/m3)
2 37 100
1.18 34
0.600 32
0.425 31
CBR-4days soaked-(%)

0.212 28 10
0.150 27
0.075 24
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%) 30 1
Plastic Limit (%) 19
Plasticity Index (%) 11
Linear Shrinkage (%) 6
GM 2.08 0.1
MDD (Kg/m )
3
1980 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
DD (Kg/m3)
OMC (%) 11.5
Field Moisture (%)
Data entry autocalc
Three Point CBR Values DD (kg/m3) CBR (%) %MDD Swell (%)
(2,5 kg) 3 layers/62 blows 1775 23 90
(4,5 kg) 5 layers/30 blows 1876 46 95
(4,5 kg) 5 layers/62 blows 1975 54 100 0.1

Particle Size Analysis

100

90

80

70

60
% passing

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
sieve size(mm)

Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse

SILT SAND GRAVEL

AFCAP 8 p. 147
 Construction Report

Marly Limestone Test Results – Normal procedure and CBR after 1 month
TANZANIA NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY

SUMMARY SHEET
SOIL TESTS
CENTRAL MATERIALS LABORATORY

Project: Bago - Talawanda Road Date: May 06,/2011 Date: May 06,/2011
Client:
Checked Approved
Contract No. 2010/2011/
Responsible Technician:

Location/ Chainage SIDE BOTTOM TOP SIDE BOTTOM TOP

Sample No B/PIT3 B/PIT3 B/PIT3 B/PIT4 B/PIT3 B/PIT3 B/PIT3 B/PIT4
Remarks NORMAL PROCEDURE CBR AFTER 1 MONTH
Grading 75mm
63mm 100
50mm 95 100 100
37.5mm 86 75 92
20mm 67 53 75
10mm 99 55 43 59
5mm 93 46 35 49
2mm 79 41 32 42
1.18mm 74 40 31 40
600µm 72 39 30 38
425µm 71 38 30 37
212 µm 70 36 29 33
150µm 69 34 28 32
75µm 65 28 25 30
Atterberg Limits LL (%) 32 29 30 32
PL (%) 18 14 18 19
PI (%) 14 15 12 13
LS (%) 9 6 9 9
Moisture Content %
Particle Density kg/m3
Bulk Density kg/m3
Soil classification BSCS
Compactoin MDD (kg/m3) 1990 2023 2070 2010 1990 2023 2070 2010
BS Light / Heavy OMC (%) 11.2 10.4 9.3 10.7 11.2 10.4 9.3 10.7
Field FDD (kg/m3)
Density FMC (%) 3.8 3.8 2.7 2.9 3.8 3.8 2.7 2.9
CBR (%) 90 % heavy DD
(Unsoaked) 95 % heavy DD

100 % heavy DD
CBR (%) 90 % heavy DD
(4 days soaked) Swell (%)

95 % heavy DD

100 % heavy DD 14 30 22 58 18 35 35 77
Swell (%) 1.98 0.21 1.06 0.17 1.11 0.46 0.45 0.49

AFCAP 8 p. 148
 Construction Report

Field Density Test Results

G60 Base Course

AFCAP 8 p. 149
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 150
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 151
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 152
 Construction Report

G45 Subbase

AFCAP 8 p. 153
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 154
 Construction Report

G15 Improved Subgrade Layer

AFCAP 8 p. 155
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 156
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 157
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 158
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 159
 Construction Report

G7 Improved Subgrade

AFCAP 8 p. 160
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 161
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 162
 Construction Report

Roadbed

AFCAP 8 p. 163
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 164
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 165
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 166
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 167
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 168
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 169
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 170
 Construction Report

Gravel Wearing Course

AFCAP 8 p. 171
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 172
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 173
 Construction Report

Field Quality Control for Bitumen Spraying and Aggregate Spreading Rate

AFCAP 8 p. 174
 Construction Report

Concrete Cube Results

Mix Designs for 20 MPa and 30 MPa Concrete – 7 day results
TANZANIA NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY

SUMMARY SHEET

CONCRETE TEST

Project: BAGO-TALAWANDA RD Location: BAGAMOYO Date:4/10/2010

Client: Lab no: Date:
Responsible technician: Checked: Approved:

Contractor: Jansons Construction Co. Ltd Construction part:

Pore
Air temp.
SLUMP Volume Concrete Temp.(ºC) Sampling
(ºC)
(%)
Measured
Design (cm)
(cm)

Cement type : Aggregates :

Cube dimensions Density Age of cube Compressive Strength

Lab No. Marking 3 Date made Date tested individual Average
WXDXH (g/cm ) (days)
(mm X mm X mm) (Mpa) (Mpa)
A C30 150 x 150 x 150 2.553 27/09/2010 10/04/2010 7 27.1

A C20 150 x 150 x 150 2.589 27/09/2010 10/04/2010 7 18.1

AFCAP 8 p. 175
 Construction Report

Mix Designs for 20 MPa and 30 MPa Concrete – 28 day results

TANZANIA NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY

SUMMARY SHEET

CONCRETE TEST

Project: BAGO-TALAWANDA RD Location: BAGAMOYO Date:25/10/2010

Client: Lab no: Date:
Responsible technician: Checked: Approved:

Contractor: Construction part:

Pore
Air temp.
SLUMP Volume Concrete Temp.(ºC) Sampling
(ºC)
(%)
Measured
Design (cm)
(cm)

Cement type : Aggregates :

Cube dimensions Density Age of cube Compressive Strength

Lab No. Marking 3 Date made Date tested individual Average
WXDXH (g/cm ) (days)
(mm X mm X mm) (Mpa) (Mpa)
B C30 150 x 150 x 150 2.555 27/09/2010 25/10/2010 28 36.2
C C30 150 x 150 x 150 2.555 27/09/2010 25/10/2010 28 41.2

B C20 150 x 150 x 150 2.614 27/09/2010 25/10/2010 28 21.5

C C20 150 x 150 x 150 2.579 27/09/2010 25/10/2010 28 27.1

AFCAP 8 p. 176
 Construction Report

Concrete Cube Results for Concrete Strips

AFCAP 8 p. 177
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 178
 Construction Report

7 Day Cube Test Results for Concrete Drifts

AFCAP 8 p. 179
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 180
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 181
 Construction Report

28 Day Cube Results for Concrete Drifts

AFCAP 8 p. 182
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 183
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 184
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 185
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 186
 Construction Report

AFCAP 8 p. 187
 Construction Report

APPENDIX D – WHOLE LIFE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DATA

Without Project Alternative (Gravel Wearing Course) Annual Data

Road Work Costs (M$) Road Total

CO2
User Society
Year Emissions
Capital Recurrent Total Costs Costs
(tons)
Costs Costs Costs (M$) (M$)

1 0.020 0.004 0.024 0.031 0.055 22.040

2 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.034 0.037 23.609
3 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.036 0.040 25.302
4 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.039 0.043 27.035
5 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.042 0.046 28.737
6 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.046 0.050 30.579
7 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.050 0.054 32.505
8 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.055 0.059 34.868
9 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.063 0.067 38.475
10 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.054 0.068 37.399
11 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.058 0.062 39.522
12 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.064 0.067 42.331
13 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.069 0.073 45.026
14 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.077 0.080 48.283
15 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.085 0.089 52.337
16 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.095 0.099 57.493
17 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.108 0.112 64.205
18 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.092 0.105 59.184
19 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.099 0.103 62.961
20 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.109 0.113 68.061
-
Salvage 0.008 -0.008
Total 0.020 0.094 0.106 1.308 1.414 839.952
PV 6% 0.020 0.055 0.072 0.701 0.773
PV 10% 0.020 0.041 0.060 0.500 0.559

AFCAP 8 p. 188
 Construction Report

Otta Seal with Sand Seal Annual Data Comparison between Otta Seal with Sand Seal and GWC

Road Work Costs Decrease Road Total

Road Work Costs (M$) Road Total CO2
CO2 (M$) User Society
User Society Emissions
Year Emissions Year Costs Costs
Capital Recurrent Total Costs Costs Capital Recurrent Total Decrease
(tons) Decrease Decrease
Costs Costs Costs (M$) (M$) Costs Costs Costs (tons)
(M$) (M$)
1 0.096 0.000 0.096 0.028 0.124 19.265 1 -0.076 0.004 -0.072 0.003 -0.069 2.776
2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.030 20.344 2 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008 3.266
3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.031 21.495 3 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.009 3.807
4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.033 22.719 4 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.010 4.316
5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.035 24.024 5 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.007 0.011 4.713
6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.038 25.486 6 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.012 5.093
7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.041 27.013 7 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.009 0.013 5.492
8 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.041 0.054 28.265 8 0.000 -0.009 -0.009 0.014 0.005 6.603
9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.044 29.909 9 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.019 0.023 8.566
10 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.047 0.047 31.681 10 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.007 0.020 5.718
11 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.052 33.573 11 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.007 0.011 5.949
12 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.052 0.065 35.243 12 0.000 -0.009 -0.009 0.011 0.002 7.087
13 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.056 0.056 37.280 13 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.014 0.017 7.746
14 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.060 0.060 39.495 14 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.016 0.020 8.788
15 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.066 0.066 41.704 15 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.019 0.023 10.633
16 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.067 0.079 43.985 16 0.000 -0.009 -0.009 0.029 0.020 13.508
17 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.071 0.071 46.504 17 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.037 0.041 17.702
18 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.076 0.076 49.152 18 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.015 0.029 10.031
19 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.082 0.082 51.852 19 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.017 0.021 11.109
20 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.090 0.102 53.805 20 0.000 -0.009 -0.009 0.019 0.011 14.256
Salvage -0.048 -0.048 Salvage 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.040 0.000
Total 0.096 0.051 0.146 1.041 1.187 682.795 Net Present Value (M$) at 6% 0.104
PV 6% 0.096 0.025 0.120 0.564 0.684 10% 0.049
PV 10% 0.096 0.016 0.105 0.405 0.510 Internal Rate of Return (%) 17.1%
Emissions Decrease (tons) 157.2

AFCAP 8 p. 189
 Construction Report

Hand Packed Stone Annual Data Comparison between Hand Packed Stone and GWC

Road Work Costs Decrease Road Total

Road Work Costs (M$) Road Total CO2
CO2 (M$) User Society
User Society Emissions
Year Emissions Year Costs Costs
Capital Recurrent Total Costs Costs Capital Recurrent Total Decrease
(tons) Decrease Decrease
Costs Costs Costs (M$) (M$) Costs Costs Costs (tons)
(M$) (M$)
1 0.077 0.000 0.077 0.032 0.109 19.476 1 -0.057 0.004 -0.053 -0.001 -0.054 2.564
2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.034 20.516 2 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.003 3.093
3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.036 21.583 3 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.004 3.720
4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.039 22.521 4 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.004 4.514
5 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.040 0.044 24.218 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002 4.519
6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.043 0.043 25.520 6 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.007 5.059
7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.046 0.046 26.873 7 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008 5.632
8 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.049 0.049 28.293 8 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.010 6.574
9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.053 29.834 9 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.010 0.014 8.641
10 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.053 0.057 31.816 10 0.000 0.009 0.009 0.001 0.010 5.583
11 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.057 0.057 33.810 11 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.005 5.712
12 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.061 0.061 35.320 12 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.007 7.010
13 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.065 0.065 37.254 13 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008 7.772
14 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.071 0.071 39.432 14 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.009 8.851
15 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.071 0.075 42.207 15 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.014 10.130
16 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.076 0.076 44.860 16 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.020 0.024 12.632
17 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.082 0.082 47.658 17 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.027 0.030 16.547
18 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.089 0.089 50.369 18 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.003 0.016 8.815
19 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.097 0.097 53.501 19 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.006 9.460
20 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.108 0.112 57.855 20 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 10.206
Salvage -0.031 -0.031 Salvage 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.023 0.000
Total 0.077 0.016 0.062 1.201 1.263 692.916 Net Present Value (M$) at 6% 0.048
PV 6% 0.077 0.009 0.076 0.650 0.726 10% 0.014
PV 10% 0.077 0.006 0.079 0.466 0.545 Internal Rate of Return (%) 12.7%
Emissions Decrease (tons) 147.0

AFCAP 8 p. 190
 Construction Report

Concrete Strips Reinforced Annual Data Comparison between Concrete Strips Reinforced and GWC

Road Work Costs Decrease Road Total

Road Work Costs (M$) Road Total CO2
CO2 (M$) User Society
User Society Emissions
Year Emissions Year Costs Costs
Capital Recurrent Total Costs Costs Capital Recurrent Total Decrease
(tons) Decrease Decrease
Costs Costs Costs (M$) (M$) Costs Costs Costs (tons)
(M$) (M$)
1 0.077 0.000 0.077 0.029 0.106 19.541 1 -0.057 0.004 -0.053 0.002 -0.051 2.500
2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.031 20.667 2 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.007 2.942
3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.033 21.863 3 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.007 3.440
4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.035 23.174 4 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008 3.861
5 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.036 0.040 24.382 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.006 4.354
6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.039 25.819 6 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.007 0.011 4.760
7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.041 27.350 7 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.009 0.013 5.155
8 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.044 29.096 8 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.011 0.015 5.772
9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.047 0.047 30.864 9 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.016 0.019 7.611
10 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.049 0.053 32.636 10 0.000 0.009 0.009 0.006 0.015 4.763
11 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.052 34.619 11 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.010 4.903
12 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.055 0.055 36.709 12 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.012 5.621
13 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.059 0.059 38.918 13 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.010 0.014 6.108
14 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.064 0.064 41.166 14 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.012 0.016 7.117
15 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.065 0.069 43.694 15 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.020 8.643
16 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.069 0.069 46.336 16 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.026 0.030 11.157
17 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.074 0.074 49.128 17 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.034 0.038 15.077
18 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.080 0.080 52.038 18 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.012 0.025 7.146
19 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.085 0.085 54.701 19 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.014 0.018 8.260
20 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.093 0.097 57.290 20 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.016 10.772
Salvage -0.039 -0.039 Salvage 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.000 0.031 0.000
Total 0.077 0.016 0.055 1.082 1.136 709.990 Net Present Value (M$) at 6% 0.113
PV 6% 0.077 0.009 0.074 0.586 0.660 10% 0.060
PV 10% 0.077 0.006 0.077 0.421 0.499 Internal Rate of Return (%) 20.5%
Emissions Decrease (tons) 130.0

AFCAP 8 p. 191
 Construction Report

Concrete Strips Unreinforced Annual Data Comparison between Concrete Strips Unreinforced and GWC

Road Work Costs Decrease Road Total

Road Work Costs (M$) Road Total CO2
CO2 (M$) User Society
User Society Emissions
Year Emissions Year Costs Costs
Capital Recurrent Total Costs Costs Capital Recurrent Total Decrease
(tons) Decrease Decrease
Costs Costs Costs (M$) (M$) Costs Costs Costs (tons)
(M$) (M$)
1 0.063 0.000 0.063 0.029 0.092 19.541 1 -0.043 0.004 -0.039 0.002 -0.037 2.500
2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.031 20.667 2 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.007 2.942
3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.033 21.863 3 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.007 3.440
4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.035 23.174 4 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008 3.861
5 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.036 0.039 24.382 5 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.007 4.354
6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.039 25.819 6 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.007 0.011 4.760
7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.041 27.350 7 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.009 0.013 5.155
8 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.044 29.096 8 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.011 0.015 5.772
9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.047 0.047 30.864 9 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.016 0.019 7.611
10 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.049 0.051 32.636 10 0.000 0.011 0.011 0.006 0.016 4.763
11 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.052 34.619 11 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.010 4.903
12 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.055 0.055 36.709 12 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.012 5.621
13 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.059 0.059 38.918 13 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.010 0.014 6.108
14 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.064 0.064 41.166 14 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.012 0.016 7.117
15 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.065 0.068 43.694 15 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.020 0.021 8.643
16 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.069 0.069 46.336 16 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.026 0.030 11.157
17 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.074 0.074 49.128 17 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.034 0.038 15.077
18 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.080 0.080 52.038 18 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.012 0.025 7.146
19 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.085 0.085 54.701 19 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.014 0.018 8.260
20 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.093 0.096 57.290 20 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.016 0.017 10.772
Salvage -0.031 -0.031 Salvage 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.000 0.024 0.000
Total 0.063 0.011 0.042 1.082 1.124 709.990 Net Present Value (M$) at 6% 0.128
PV 6% 0.063 0.006 0.059 0.586 0.645 10% 0.076
PV 10% 0.063 0.004 0.062 0.421 0.484 Internal Rate of Return (%) 26.8%
Emissions Decrease (tons) 130.0

AFCAP 8 p. 192
 Construction Report

Concrete Geocells Annual Data Comparison between Concrete Geocells and GWC

Road Work Costs Decrease Road Total

Road Work Costs (M$) Road Total CO2
CO2 (M$) User Society
User Society Emissions
Year Emissions Year Costs Costs
Capital Recurrent Total Costs Costs Capital Recurrent Total Decrease
(tons) Decrease Decrease
Costs Costs Costs (M$) (M$) Costs Costs Costs (tons)
(M$) (M$)
1 0.075 0.000 0.075 0.029 0.104 19.541 1 -0.055 0.004 -0.052 0.002 -0.049 2.500
2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.031 20.667 2 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.007 2.942
3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.033 21.863 3 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.007 3.440
4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.035 23.174 4 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008 3.861
5 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.036 0.040 24.382 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.006 4.354
6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.039 25.819 6 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.007 0.011 4.760
7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.041 27.350 7 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.009 0.013 5.155
8 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.044 29.096 8 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.011 0.015 5.772
9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.047 0.047 30.864 9 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.016 0.019 7.611
10 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.049 0.052 32.636 10 0.000 0.010 0.010 0.006 0.016 4.763
11 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.052 34.619 11 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.010 4.903
12 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.055 0.055 36.709 12 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.012 5.621
13 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.059 0.059 38.918 13 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.010 0.014 6.108
14 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.064 0.064 41.166 14 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.012 0.016 7.117
15 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.065 0.068 43.694 15 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.021 8.643
16 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.069 0.069 46.336 16 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.026 0.030 11.157
17 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.074 0.074 49.128 17 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.034 0.038 15.077
18 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.080 0.080 52.038 18 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.012 0.025 7.146
19 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.085 0.085 54.701 19 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.014 0.018 8.260
20 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.093 0.096 57.290 20 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.017 10.772
Salvage -0.030 -0.030 Salvage 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.022 0.000
Total 0.075 0.013 0.058 1.082 1.140 709.990 Net Present Value (M$) at 6% 0.114
PV 6% 0.075 0.007 0.073 0.586 0.659 10% 0.062
PV 10% 0.075 0.005 0.076 0.421 0.497 Internal Rate of Return (%) 21.3%
Emissions Decrease (tons) 130.0

AFCAP 8 p. 193
 Construction Report

Double Surface Dressing Annual Data Comparison between Double Surface Dressing and GWC

Road Work Costs Decrease Road Total

Road Work Costs (M$) Road Total CO2
CO2 (M$) User Society
User Society Emissions
Year Emissions Year Costs Costs
Capital Recurrent Total Costs Costs Capital Recurrent Total Decrease
(tons) Decrease Decrease
Costs Costs Costs (M$) (M$) Costs Costs Costs (tons)
(M$) (M$)
1 0.109 0.000 0.109 0.030 0.139 19.603 1 -0.090 0.004 -0.086 0.002 -0.084 2.438
2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.031 20.725 2 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.006 2.885
3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.033 21.917 3 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.007 3.385
4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.035 23.199 4 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008 3.836
5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.038 24.515 5 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.008 4.222
6 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.039 0.052 25.856 6 0.000 -0.009 -0.009 0.007 -0.002 4.724
7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.041 27.380 7 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.012 5.125
8 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.045 0.045 29.126 8 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.011 0.014 5.742
9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.048 30.865 9 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.015 0.019 7.610
10 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.052 32.438 10 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.003 0.016 4.961
11 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.054 0.054 34.642 11 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.008 4.880
12 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.057 0.070 36.686 12 0.000 -0.009 -0.009 0.006 -0.002 5.644
13 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.061 0.061 38.577 13 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.012 6.449
14 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.066 0.066 40.540 14 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.011 0.015 7.743
15 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.071 0.071 42.778 15 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.014 0.018 9.559
16 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.073 0.073 45.534 16 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.022 0.026 11.958
17 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.078 0.078 48.147 17 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.030 0.034 16.058
18 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.084 0.097 50.396 18 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.007 0.008 8.788
19 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.091 0.091 53.320 19 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.012 9.642
20 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.099 0.099 56.189 20 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.010 0.014 11.873
Salvage -0.055 -0.055 Salvage 0.000 0.000 0.047 0.000 0.047 0.000
Total 0.109 0.038 0.093 1.126 1.219 702.431 Net Present Value (M$) at 6% 0.054
PV 6% 0.109 0.021 0.113 0.607 0.720 10% 0.009
PV 10% 0.109 0.015 0.116 0.434 0.550 Internal Rate of Return (%) 11.2%
Emissions Decrease (tons) 137.5

AFCAP 8 p. 194
 Construction Report

Double Sand Seal Annual Data Comparison between Double Sand Seal and GWC

Road Work Costs Decrease Road Total

Road Work Costs (M$) Road Total CO2
CO2 (M$) User Society
User Society Emissions
Year Emissions Year Costs Costs
Capital Recurrent Total Costs Costs Capital Recurrent Total Decrease
(tons) Decrease Decrease
Costs Costs Costs (M$) (M$) Costs Costs Costs (tons)
(M$) (M$)
1 0.089 0.000 0.089 0.028 0.117 19.315 1 -0.069 0.004 -0.066 0.003 -0.062 2.725
2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.030 20.436 2 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008 3.173
3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.032 21.659 3 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.009 3.643
4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.034 22.973 4 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.009 4.062
5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.036 24.355 5 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.010 4.382
6 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.037 0.051 25.650 6 0.000 -0.010 -0.010 0.008 -0.001 4.929
7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.040 27.207 7 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.010 0.014 5.298
8 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.043 0.043 29.005 8 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.012 0.016 5.863
9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.047 0.047 30.838 9 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.016 0.020 7.637
10 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.048 0.062 32.598 10 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.006 4.801
11 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.052 34.604 11 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.007 0.010 4.918
12 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.056 0.056 36.720 12 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.012 5.611
13 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.060 0.060 38.875 13 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.009 0.013 6.151
14 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.062 0.076 41.245 14 0.000 -0.010 -0.010 0.014 0.005 7.038
15 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.067 43.715 15 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.019 0.022 8.622
16 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.072 0.072 46.232 16 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.023 0.027 11.261
17 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.078 0.078 48.228 17 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.030 0.034 15.977
18 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.080 0.093 51.994 18 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.012 7.190
19 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.085 0.085 54.416 19 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.014 0.018 8.545
20 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.093 0.093 57.249 20 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.016 0.020 10.813
Salvage -0.045 -0.045 Salvage 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.000 0.037 0.000
Total 0.089 0.053 0.098 1.080 1.178 707.313 Net Present Value (M$) at 6% 0.087
PV 6% 0.089 0.029 0.104 0.582 0.686 10% 0.040
PV 10% 0.089 0.020 0.103 0.416 0.519 Internal Rate of Return (%) 16.5%
Emissions Decrease (tons) 132.6

AFCAP 8 p. 195
 Construction Report

Slurry Seal Annual Data Comparison between Slurry Seal and GWC

Road Work Costs Decrease Road Total

Road Work Costs (M$) Road Total CO2
CO2 (M$) User Society
User Society Emissions
Year Emissions Year Costs Costs
Capital Recurrent Total Costs Costs Capital Recurrent Total Decrease
(tons) Decrease Decrease
Costs Costs Costs (M$) (M$) Costs Costs Costs (tons)
(M$) (M$)
1 0.078 0.000 0.078 0.029 0.107 19.541 1 -0.058 0.004 -0.054 0.002 -0.052 2.500
2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.031 20.705 2 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.006 2.904
3 0.000 0.012 0.012 0.033 0.045 21.832 3 0.000 -0.009 -0.009 0.004 -0.005 3.470
4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.035 23.153 4 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008 3.881
5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.038 24.516 5 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.008 4.221
6 0.000 0.012 0.012 0.039 0.051 25.829 6 0.000 -0.009 -0.009 0.007 -0.001 4.750
7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.041 27.374 7 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.009 0.012 5.131
8 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.045 0.045 29.128 8 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.010 0.014 5.740
9 0.000 0.012 0.012 0.046 0.058 30.795 9 0.000 -0.009 -0.009 0.017 0.008 7.679
10 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.049 0.049 32.685 10 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.005 0.018 4.714
11 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.053 34.651 11 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.009 4.871
12 0.000 0.012 0.012 0.056 0.068 36.715 12 0.000 -0.009 -0.009 0.008 -0.001 5.616
13 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.060 0.060 38.905 13 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.010 0.013 6.121
14 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.065 0.065 40.653 14 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.012 0.016 7.629
15 0.000 0.012 0.012 0.067 0.079 43.701 15 0.000 -0.009 -0.009 0.018 0.010 8.635
16 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.072 0.072 46.278 16 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.024 0.028 11.215
17 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.077 0.077 48.287 17 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.031 0.035 15.918
18 0.000 0.012 0.012 0.080 0.092 52.006 18 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.012 0.013 7.178
19 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.085 0.085 54.401 19 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.014 0.018 8.561
20 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.094 0.094 56.643 20 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.015 0.019 11.419
Salvage -0.039 -0.039 Salvage 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.000 0.031 0.000
Total 0.078 0.074 0.113 1.094 1.207 707.799 Net Present Value (M$) at 6% 0.071
PV 6% 0.078 0.044 0.110 0.592 0.702 10% 0.029
PV 10% 0.078 0.033 0.105 0.425 0.530 Internal Rate of Return (%) 14.8%
Emissions Decrease (tons) 132.2

AFCAP 8 p. 196
 Construction Report

APPENDIX E - PHOTOGRAPHS DETAILING MONITORING METHODS

Monitoring Methods

1: Monitoring Beacon

2: Surface Profile Measurement

3: Surface Rut Measurement

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 197
 Construction Report

Monitoring Methods

4: Surface Roughness Meaurement

(MERLIN)

5: Surface Texture Measurement

Photograph Description

AFCAP 8 p. 198
 Construction Report

APPENDIX F - TRAFFIC COUNT DATA

Before Construction

Traffic Counting Data (Bago village; Ch. 0+640)

Day Saloon Pick up/ 2-axle truck/ 3-axle
Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle
No. Car 4WD bus truck
Day 1 470 215 140 1 6 5 0
Day 2 492 438 254 3 14 25 0
Day 3 370 341 229 4 9 15 0
Day 4 298 282 174 2 1 4 0
Day 5 279 270 303 2 8 20 0
Day 6 347 335 223 0 11 2 0
Day 7 408 305 234 2 6 11 0
Total 2664 2186 1557 14 55 82 0

Traffic Counting Data (Ludiga village; Ch. 11+040)

Day Saloon Pick up/ 2-axle truck/ 3-axle
Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle
No. Car 4WD bus truck
Day 1 242 174 29 1 0 0 0
Day 2 153 174 42 0 1 0 0
Day 3 118 144 40 0 5 0 0
Day 4 114 158 41 2 5 0 0
Day 5 138 135 38 0 10 0 0
Day 6 404 217 57 1 8 0 0
Day 7 241 222 45 1 5 0 0
Total 1410 1224 292 5 34 0 0

AFCAP 8 p. 199
 Construction Report

After Construction

Traffic Counting Data (Bago village; Ch. 0+640)

Day Saloon Pick up/ 2-axle truck/ 3-axle
Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle
No. Car 4WD bus truck
Day 1 178 304 219 6 1 2 0
Day 2 169 211 181 4 28 0 0
Day 3 126 197 165 6 6 0 0
Day 4 132 275 323 2 16 0 0
Day 5 121 228 144 2 15 0 0
Day 6 190 217 204 4 8 0 0
Day 7 256 288 235 4 20 0 0
Total 1172 1720 1471 28 94 2 0

Traffic Counting Data (Ludiga village; Ch. 11+040)

Day Saloon Pick up/ 2-axle truck/ 3-axle
Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle
No. Car 4WD bus truck
Day 1 131 142 90 3 5 0 0
Day 2 148 146 124 3 1 0 0
Day 3 187 166 147 0 7 1 0
Day 4 113 122 104 2 4 1 0
Day 5 150 175 140 0 4 0 0
Day 6 184 266 198 1 4 0 0
Day 7 209 286 242 2 5 0 0
Total 1122 1303 1045 11 30 2 0

AFCAP 8 p. 200
 Construction Report

APPENDIX G - SCHEDULE OF DRAINAGE STRUCTURES

Schedule of Drainage Structures
Pipe
Type of Diameter Total Span Chainage Direction of
Length Other
Structure (mm) of Drift (m) (km) Water Flow
(m)
Drift - - 12 0+475 -
Culvert 600 7.3 - 0+795 Skewed
Culvert 600 7.3 - 1+170 - Access
Culvert 600 7.3 - 1+580 - Access
Culvert 600 7.3 - 1+650 - Access
Culvert 600 7.3 - 1+700 - Access
Culvert 600 5.5 - 1+890 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 2+190 90°
Culvert 600 7.3 - 2+715 - Access
Drift - - 13 3+830 -
Culvert 600 7.3 - 3+980 Skewed
Drift - - 26 5+540 -
Culvert 600 5.5 - 5+835 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 5+835 90°
Culvert 600 7.3 - 6+180 - Skewed
Culvert 600 7.3 - 6+355 Skewed
Culvert 600 7.3 - 6+500 Skewed
Culvert 600 7.3 - 6+690 Skewed
Culvert 600 7.3 - 6+920 Skewed
Culvert 600 5.5 - 7+340 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 8+150 90°
Drift - - 6 8+580 90°
Drift - - 11 8+670 -
Drift - - 11 8+945 -
Culvert 600 5.5 - 9+190 90°
Drift - - 10 9+310 -
Drift - - 10 9+560 -
Drift - - 14 10+160 -
Culvert 600 5.5 - 11+020 90°
Culvert 600 7.3 - 11+400 Skewed
Culvert 600 7.3 - 11+510 Skewed
Culvert 600 7.3 - 11+700 - Access
Culvert 600 5.5 - 11+850 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 12+030 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 12+500 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 12+920 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 13+375 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 14+355 90°
Culvert 600 7.3 - 14+550 Skewed
Culvert 600 7.3 - 14+855 Skewed
Culvert 600 7.3 - 14+920 Skewed
Drift - - 10 15+095 -
Culvert 600 5.5 - 15+305 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 15+480 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 15+560 90°
Drift - - 10 15+640 -

AFCAP 8 p. 201
 Construction Report

Schedule of Drainage Structures

Culvert 600 5.5 - 15+830 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 15+910 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 16+100 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 16+260 90°
Culvert 600 7.3 - 16+550 - Skewed
Culvert 600 5.5 - 16+690 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 16+760 90°
Drift - - 10 16+885 -
Culvert 600 5.5 - 17+065 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 17+580 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 17+640 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 17+680 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 17+905 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 18+060 90°
Culvert 600 7.3 - 18+340 Skewed
Culvert - 5.5 - 18+550 90°
Culvert 600 7.3 - 18+920 Skewed
Drift - - 15 19+490 -
Culvert 600 5.5 - 19+820 90°
Culvert 600 5.5 - 19+960 90°

AFCAP 8 p. 202
 Construction Report

APPENDIX H – MONITORING FIELD SHEETS

AFCAP 8 p. 203
 VISUAL INSPECTION FIELD SHEET
AFCAP 8 Date: Monitor:
Tanzania Surface: From: To:
Section: Length:

CH:

CH:

CH:

CH:

CH:

Visual Distress Sheet - Monitor 1-1_1 p.1

 Traffic Count Survey AFCAP 8
Count Station: Date:
From (Time): 6h00 To (Time): 7h00
Category Counts Total Counts Total
Direction Towards Talawanda Away from Talawanda
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
1 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
2 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
3 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
4 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 Bicycles 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Animal Cart/
6 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Hand Cart
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 Motor Cycle 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
8 Saloon Car 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
4WD; Pickup;
9 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minibus
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tractor,
10 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Utility Truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bus; 2-axle
11 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
12 3-axle truck 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
From (Time): 7h00 To (Time): 8h00
Category Counts Total Counts Total
Direction Towards Talawanda Away from Talawanda
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
1 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
2 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
3 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
4 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 Bicycles 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Animal Cart/
6 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Hand Cart
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 Motor Cycle 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
8 Saloon Car 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
4WD; Pickup;
9 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minibus
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tractor,
10 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Utility Truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bus; 2-axle
11 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
12 3-axle truck 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60

Traffic Count Sheets-Count 1-1 p.1

 65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
From (Time): 8h00 To (Time): 9h00
Category Counts Total Counts Total
Direction Towards Talawanda Away from Talawanda
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
1 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
2 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
3 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
4 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 Bicycles 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Animal Cart/
6 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Hand Cart
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 Motor Cycle 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
8 Saloon Car 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
4WD; Pickup;
9 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minibus
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tractor,
10 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Utility Truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bus; 2-axle
11 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
12 3-axle truck 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
From (Time): 9h00 To (Time): 10h00
Category Counts Total Counts Total
Direction Towards Talawanda Away from Talawanda
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
1 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
2 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
3 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
4 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 Bicycles 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Animal Cart/
6 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Hand Cart
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 Motor Cycle 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
8 Saloon Car 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
4WD; Pickup;
9 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minibus
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tractor,
10 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Utility Truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bus; 2-axle
11 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
12 3-axle truck 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90

Traffic Count Sheets-Count 1-1 p.2

 From (Time): 10h00 To (Time): 11h00
Category Counts Total Counts Total
Direction Towards Talawanda Away from Talawanda
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
1 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
2 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
3 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
4 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 Bicycles 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Animal Cart/
6 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Hand Cart
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 Motor Cycle 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
8 Saloon Car 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
4WD; Pickup;
9 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minibus
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tractor,
10 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Utility Truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bus; 2-axle
11 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
12 3-axle truck 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
From (Time): 11h00 To (Time): 12h00
Category Counts Total Counts Total
Direction Towards Talawanda Away from Talawanda
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
1 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
2 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
3 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
4 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 Bicycles 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Animal Cart/
6 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Hand Cart
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 Motor Cycle 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
8 Saloon Car 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
4WD; Pickup;
9 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minibus
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tractor,
10 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Utility Truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bus; 2-axle
11 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
12 3-axle truck 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90

Traffic Count Sheets-Count 1-1 p.3

 From (Time): 12h00 To (Time): 13h00
Category Counts Total Counts Total
Direction Towards Talawanda Away from Talawanda
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
1 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
2 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
3 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
4 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 Bicycles 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Animal Cart/
6 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Hand Cart
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 Motor Cycle 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
8 Saloon Car 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
4WD; Pickup;
9 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minibus
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tractor,
10 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Utility Truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bus; 2-axle
11 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
12 3-axle truck 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
From (Time): 13h00 To (Time): 14h00
Category Counts Total Counts Total
Direction Towards Talawanda Away from Talawanda
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
1 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
2 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
3 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
4 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 Bicycles 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Animal Cart/
6 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Hand Cart
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 Motor Cycle 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
8 Saloon Car 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
4WD; Pickup;
9 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minibus
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tractor,
10 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Utility Truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bus; 2-axle
11 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
12 3-axle truck 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90

Traffic Count Sheets-Count 1-1 p.4

 From (Time): 14h00 To (Time): 15h00
Category Counts Total Counts Total
Direction Towards Talawanda Away from Talawanda
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
1 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
2 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
3 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
4 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 Bicycles 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Animal Cart/
6 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Hand Cart
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 Motor Cycle 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
8 Saloon Car 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
4WD; Pickup;
9 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minibus
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tractor,
10 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Utility Truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bus; 2-axle
11 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
12 3-axle truck 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
From (Time): 15h00 To (Time): 16h00
Category Counts Total Counts Total
Direction Towards Talawanda Away from Talawanda
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
1 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
2 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
3 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
4 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 Bicycles 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Animal Cart/
6 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Hand Cart
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 Motor Cycle 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
8 Saloon Car 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
4WD; Pickup;
9 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minibus
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tractor,
10 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Utility Truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bus; 2-axle
11 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
12 3-axle truck 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90

Traffic Count Sheets-Count 1-1 p.5

 From (Time): 16h00 To (Time): 17h00
Category Counts Total Counts Total
Direction Towards Talawanda Away from Talawanda
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
1 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
2 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
3 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
4 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 Bicycles 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Animal Cart/
6 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Hand Cart
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 Motor Cycle 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
8 Saloon Car 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
4WD; Pickup;
9 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minibus
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tractor,
10 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Utility Truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bus; 2-axle
11 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
12 3-axle truck 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
From (Time): 17h00 To (Time): 18h00
Category Counts Total Counts Total
Direction Towards Talawanda Away from Talawanda
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
1 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
2 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
3 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
4 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 Bicycles 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Animal Cart/
6 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Hand Cart
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 Motor Cycle 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
8 Saloon Car 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
4WD; Pickup;
9 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minibus
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tractor,
10 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Utility Truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bus; 2-axle
11 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
12 3-axle truck 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90

Traffic Count Sheets-Count 1-1 p.6

 From (Time): 18h00 To (Time): 19h00
Category Counts Total Counts Total
Direction Towards Talawanda Away from Talawanda
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
1 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
2 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
3 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
4 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 Bicycles 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Animal Cart/
6 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Hand Cart
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 Motor Cycle 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
8 Saloon Car 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
4WD; Pickup;
9 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minibus
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tractor,
10 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Utility Truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bus; 2-axle
11 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
12 3-axle truck 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
From (Time): 19h00 To (Time): 20h00
Category Counts Total Counts Total
Direction Towards Talawanda Away from Talawanda
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
1 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
2 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
3 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
4 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 Bicycles 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Animal Cart/
6 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Hand Cart
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 Motor Cycle 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
8 Saloon Car 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
4WD; Pickup;
9 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minibus
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tractor,
10 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Utility Truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bus; 2-axle
11 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
12 3-axle truck 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90

Traffic Count Sheets-Count 1-1 p.7

 From (Time): 20h00 To (Time): 21h00
Category Counts Total Counts Total
Direction Towards Talawanda Away from Talawanda
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
1 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
2 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
3 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
4 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 Bicycles 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Animal Cart/
6 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Hand Cart
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 Motor Cycle 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
8 Saloon Car 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
4WD; Pickup;
9 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minibus
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tractor,
10 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Utility Truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bus; 2-axle
11 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
12 3-axle truck 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
From (Time): 21h00 To (Time): 22h00
Category Counts Total Counts Total
Direction Towards Talawanda Away from Talawanda
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
1 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
2 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
3 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
4 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 Bicycles 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Animal Cart/
6 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Hand Cart
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 Motor Cycle 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
8 Saloon Car 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
4WD; Pickup;
9 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minibus
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tractor,
10 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Utility Truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bus; 2-axle
11 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
12 3-axle truck 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90

Traffic Count Sheets-Count 1-1 p.8

 From (Time): 22h00 To (Time): 23h00
Category Counts Total Counts Total
Direction Towards Talawanda Away from Talawanda
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
1 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
2 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
3 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
4 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 Bicycles 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Animal Cart/
6 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Hand Cart
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 Motor Cycle 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
8 Saloon Car 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
4WD; Pickup;
9 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minibus
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tractor,
10 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Utility Truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bus; 2-axle
11 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
12 3-axle truck 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
From (Time): 23h00 To (Time): 24h00
Category Counts Total Counts Total
Direction Towards Talawanda Away from Talawanda
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
1 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian-
2 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
3 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Male
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predestrian
4 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Load-Female
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 Bicycles 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Animal Cart/
6 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Hand Cart
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
7 Motor Cycle 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
8 Saloon Car 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
4WD; Pickup;
9 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Minibus
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tractor,
10 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
Utility Truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bus; 2-axle
11 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
truck
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
12 3-axle truck 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 65 70 75 80 85 90

Traffic Count Sheets-Count 1-1 p.9

Africa Community Access Programme (AFCAP)
Research Consultant to Support the Design, Construction and Monitoring
of Demonstration Sites for District Road Improvement in Tanzania
Bago-Talawanda Road
Measurement of the Road Profile
Supervisor: Date:
Trial Section:
Profile
Chainage (km) Location BS IS FS HC RL Remarks
AFCAP 8 - Bago-Talawana , Tanzania
Consultant: Roughton International

SAND PATCH TEST FORM

Access Road No.: Type of Pavement:

Tested by: Checked by: Date:

Location Diametre (mm) Texture depth (mm)

2
(KM) D1 D2 D3 D4 Average 63660/D
Surface Rut Measurements
Section: Pavement Type:

Chainage from: Date:

Chainage to:
Chainage LHS RHS
(km) From CL From CL
Roughton International

Test Section:

Wheel-path:

Date:

Operator:
Road Maintenance Management System for the Republic of Seychelles

a Machine for Evaluating Roughness using Low-cost InstrumentatioN

MERLIN Roughness Calibration Sheet

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120

121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130

131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140

141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150

151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160

161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170

171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180

181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190

191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
 DCP Field Worksheet
Project: Tested By: Chainage:

Location: Date: Offset:

BLOW No READING mm DN mm/blow BLOW No READING mm DN mm/blow

0 (zero reading) 190
5 195
10 200
15 205
20 210
25 215
30 220
35 225
40 230
45 235
50 240
55 245
60 250
65 255
70 260
75 265
80 270
85 275
90 280
95 285
100 290
105 295
110 300
115 305
120 310
125 315
130 320
135 325
140 330
145 335
150 340
155 345
160 350
165 355
170 360
175 365
180 370
185 375
 Construction Report

APPENDIX I - MONITORING DATABASE COMPACT DISC

AFCAP 8 p. 204