Highway Engineering 1

Instructor:- Yonas Minalu

yoethio2003@gmail.com
1
 CH 2-Highway Route Surveys and Location

2
3
4
5
6
7
 For gathering information about the areas being evaluated.
Generally, these can be divided into:
 Reconnaissance survey
 Desk study and Field study
 Preliminary location survey
Survey and collect necessary data (topography, drainage,
soil, etc.) on alternate corridor routes.
 Final location survey
 Pegging the centre line
 Centre-line Levelling
 Cross-section Levelling
 Intersecting Roads
 Ditches and Streams
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 Example
 Proposed Upgrading Alternatives
 The AFRICON Proposed Upgrading Alternatives
 The AFRICON feasibility study identified and examined three alternative project solutions to address
the future forecast traffic demands for this Addis Ababa to Nazareth road transport corridor. The three
alternative AFRICON project solutions were as follows:-
AFRICON Alternative 1:
 This alternative is essentially the existing road with geometric improvements to a minimum design speed of 85 km/h in urban
areas and 120 km/h in rural areas.
 The road cross section will be upgraded to an undivided 4-lane dual carriageway with surfaced shoulders for the full length of
the route.
 Close to 10 km of total new road formation will need to be constructed.
 All existing drainage culverts will require upgrading to some extent and many culverts will require lengthening and therefore new
in- or outlet structures. New culverts will be required along realigned road sections. Additional erosion measures will need to be
implemented at some culverts.
 This alternative will require upgrading (i.e. widening) of 4 existing bridges and replacement of three bridges.
 Items such as intersections, accesses, roadside furniture, fencing, bus and truck stops, etc. should be carefully investigated during
detail design.
 This alternative will be the least expensive to implement, not considering land expropriation and socio-economic related costs.
 The road geometry can be upgraded to within acceptable design standards, with a reduced design speed in urban areas.
 The re-use of existing infrastructure (i.e. road formation, pavement layers, bridges and drainage culverts) can further reduce costs
for this alternative.
 Some aspects of road safety (i.e. passing opportunities) will be greatly enhanced, but aspects such as poor access road spacing,
presence of hawkers and roadside businesses/properties with direct access will still pose potential road safety hazards.
 The right of way (RoW) area available in urban areas is restricted and extensive expropriation and relocation of existing land
26
users will be required.
AFRICON Alternative 2:
 This alternative deals with an entirely new route alignment.
 The road cross-section will be a divided 4-lane dual carriageway.
 The vertical design speed is limited to 100 km/h to limit mass earthworks but this design will still offer a safe operating speed of
120 km/h, considering that road users are not required to face oncoming traffic during overtaking maneuvers. Phasing of the
horizontal and vertical alignments was not considered but should be evaluated during detail design, approximately km 13 is
according to the Addis-Ababa master plan.
 All bridges will be new structures. The preliminary designs for the new bridges have been done to the requirements of the new
Ethiopian Roads Authority Standard Specifications for Highway Bridge, BDM-2001.
 All elements of surface or subsurface drainage are to be newly constructed. The culvert sizes along of the existing road were used as
a guide to size the new ones, but detailed hydrological and hydraulic calculation will be required during detailed design.
 Items such as intersections, accesses, roadside furniture, bus and truck stops, services etc. should be carefully investigated during the
detailed design.
 This alternative is the most expensive and can potentially be double the cost of Alternative 1, depending on the extent of re-use of
existing infrastructure (Alternative 1). Alternative 2 is 58% more expensive to implement than Alternative 1, not considering
associated expropriation costs.
 High geometric design standards can be implemented for the entire road.
 Total new infrastructure (new route) is required and includes interchanges, bridges and all drainage works. No existing
infrastructure will be re-used.
 All relevant aspects of a road safety assessment can be incorporated into the new road design, thus offering a road with high road
safety conformance.
 This alternative is considered to be best suited as a toll road corridor, therefore no access other than via interchanges will be
considered in this design. The impact on existing accesses will mostly be limited to the Addis-Ababa to Akaki-Beseka section where
the road follows the route according to the Addis-Ababa Master Plan and to a lesser extent in close proximity to the other major
towns.
 Adequate RoW area appears to be available, with perhaps the Master Plan route section up to Akaki-Beseka being the exception.
Some expropriation and relocation of land users may be required along this section as well as to a lesser extent in close proximity to
27 the other major towns. For this alternative the RoW area should preferably be fenced.
AFRICON Alternative 3
 This alternative is essentially a combination of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.
 Existing infrastructure will be utilized as far as practically possible.
 New bypass routes are proposed along the more developed urban areas. These bypass routes closely follow the
alignment according to Alternative 2.
 The operating speed will be 120 km/h for the entire road with a divided or dual carriageway cross section. The road
cross section could be a divided or undivided 4-lane dual carriageway.
 The horizontal design speeds are 120 km/h. The vertical design speed is limited to 100 km/h to limit mass
earthworks.
 The pavement design for Alternative 3 is a combination of the designs proposed for Alternatives 1 and 2.
 Up to three existing bridges can be upgraded (i.e. widened) and re-used. At least 3 new bridges will be required.
 All existing drainage culverts on the adopted alignment will require upgrading to some extent. Many culverts will
require lengthening and therefore new in- or outlet structures. New culverts will be required along realigned road
sections.
 This alternative offers flexibility in terms of construction cost and route alignment.
 The proposed route utilizes existing infrastructure as far as practically possible.
 High geometric design standards can be achieved for the entire road.
 The possible re-use of existing infrastructure can also reduce costs for this alternative. Alternative 3(a), undivided
carriageway, is 17% more expensive than Alternative 3(b), divided carriageway. Alternative 3(b) is 46% more
expensive than Alternative 1.
 Road safety can be improved to an acceptable level, but the spacing of access roads, presence of hawkers and the close
proximity of some roadside businesses and properties will require detail attention.
 Adequate RoW area appears to be available, with perhaps the Master Plan route section up to Akaki-Beseka being the
exception. Some expropriation and relocation of land users may be required along this section as well as to a lesser
28 extend in close proximity to the other major towns.
29
30
31