Drainage Structures Design Review

Design Review and Construction Supervision of the
Upgrading from Gravel to Paved (Bituminous) standard of

Musita -Lumino / Busia -Majanji Road (104 kms)
DRAINAGE STRUCTURES DESIGN REVIEW
By Eng PM Batumbya
Contents
1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 5
Overview of the Drainage Design Report ............................................................................... 5
2.1
Design Consultants categorisation of drainage structures ............................................... 5
2.2
Existing drainage structures ........................................................................................... 5
2.3
BoQ Value of Structures (Series 6000) ............................................................................ 5
2.4
Recommended drainage structures ................................................................................ 6
2.5
Summary of the Design Engineers findings: .................................................................... 6
Design Review...................................................................................................................... 7
3.1
Design Review Methodology.......................................................................................... 7
3.2
Summary of the Design Review Consultants Field Assessment of the current state of the
existing drainage structures...................................................................................................... 7
3.3
Review of the Standards and /or Departures adopted by the Design Consultant ................ 9
3.3.1
Culvert pipes ............................................................................................................. 9
3.3.2
Box culverts .............................................................................................................. 9
3.3.3
Side drains ................................................................................................................10
3.4
Recommended Drainage structures...............................................................................10
3.5
Review of the Appropriateness of the Design and Details for the Drainage structures, the
resulting quantities and Completeness of the Designs ...............................................................11
4
Review outcomes ................................................................................................................12

4.1
Major structures re-designed ........................................................................................12
Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................13
Executive Summary
The design review for the drainage structures is based on the ToR for the Design Review
Consultants assignment. The designs were prepared by Smec in association with New Plan. The
procedure for design of road drainage structures in Uganda is set out in the Road Design Manual
Volume 2 Drainage Design, Ministry of Works, Housing and Communications, updated 2010.
This report is based on a review of the (i) Design Report, (ii)the book of drawings, (ii) the
review by the hydrologist/hydraulic specialist and (iv) the relevant references to the MOWT
Road and Bridge Design manuals and guidelines
Review findings
1. Drainage structures have been classified by the design consultant into two categories of
Major and Minor structures with major structures comprising: Bridges, Slab culverts, and Box
culverts. The minor structures are named as: concrete or metallic single or multiple cell openings
and all the road side drainage facilities.
2. Current state of the drainage structures has been established through a field assessment
of cross and side drains. Appendix 1-3.1(a) and Appendix 1-3.1(b) present summary of the
physical and functional state at each chainage. The comparison table below shows the
findings during the design and design review phase respectively:
Design Consultants findings
Design Review Consultants findings
1) Poor state of the drainage structures was reported

to be a major issue along the road contributing to
the road damage;
2) Majority of the facilities were found inadequate
3) Where the length of the pipe culvert lines is shorter
than the road carriageway, the road becomes
narrowed in width
4) There are several locations of marshes and swampy
stretches through which the road traverses being
overtopped during the regular rainy seasons
5) The cover over most of the pipe culverts has been
worn off leading to broken culvert pipe lines
6) Inadequate hydraulic capacity has led to the
addition of culvert lines alongside existing ones;
however, the works have reduced the riding quality
of the road without effectively addressing the
capacity problem
7) The construction of the drainage structures is poor
and regular maintenance is lacking
8) Some of the structures have outlived their service
life
9) The poor quality of the elements have led to poor
structural capacity of a number of pipe culvert lines.
10) There are no existing bridges on any of the two
Musita-Lumino and Busia-Majanji road links
1) Regular or routine maintenance is missing and

therefore the asset has deteriorated much more
than if there was deliberate road overseer work
supported by spot repairs
2) The predominant size of the pipe culverts is 600
mm diameter in concrete; only a few are 900 and
none bigger than that.
3) Majority of culvert lines are shorter than the
width of the carriageway and the shoulders and
thus the road becomes narrower at culvert
crossings which reduces riding comfort
4) The majority of culverts are partially blocked
while a few are totally blocked by silting and
vegetation particularly where the velocities are
low.
5) The majority of culverts have adequate cover but
a number of lines have very little cover and thus
are exposed to damage by the traffic
6) Almost 50% of the culvert lines have missing end
structures, making them less safe for motorized
traffic especially at high speed
7) The anti-scour structures in the form of aprons
and rip rap protection are missing in about 50%
of the culverts
8) Where the side drains have been lined using
stone pitching, the drainage is evidently efficient
9) There is only one box culvert and it is on the
Busia-Majanji road link
3. Recommended drainage structures by the Design Consultant have been indicated and the
table below presents the summary of quantities of the design and design review status:
Design Consultant
Pipe culverts
Quantity
Single 900 mm
53
Twin 900 mm
7
Single 1050mm
7
Twin 1050mm
1
Single 1200 mm
4
Twin 1200 mm
4
Box culverts
2mx2m single cell
3m x2m single cell
6
3
Design Review
Pipe culverts
Single 900 m m
Twin 900 mm
Single 1200 mm
Twin 1200 mm
Box culverts: 2000 x1500 mm high

Single cell
Twin cell
3
Quantity
29
7
7
3
13
12
Design Consultant
4m x2m single cell
4
4mx2m twin cell
3
4m x2.5m single cell
3
4m x2.5m twin cell
Design Review
Triple cell
4. The resulting drawings in the design review give an interpretation of the revised hydraulic
structures which were determined through a review by Dr Michael Kizza.
Introduction
The Drainage structures design review is assigned to the Consultant teams Drainage Engineer. The
review is based on a consideration of the Design Consultants Final Report, drawings as well as on
information contained in UNRAs documents for Consultancy Services for Feasibility Study, Detailed
Engineering Design, Tender Assistance and Project Management for Upgrading of Roads to
Bituminous Standards: Lot E Roads. The two relevant ToRs in the assignment for the design review
phase are:
vii.
Inspect all drainage structures and design all remedial works or replacement drainage elements
including outfalls
Inspect all bridges, prepare report and design minor repair works
viii.
The designs were prepared by Smec in association with New Plan. The procedure for design of road
drainage structures in Uganda is set out in the Road Design Manual Volume 2 Drainage Design, Ministry
of Works, Housing and Communications, updated 2010. The six particular documents that formed the
basis for the review include the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Detailed Design Report Pkg 1: Road E1.1/E1.2 - Musita-Lumino/Busia-Majanji: Hydrology Report

V1
Design Drawings
ToR for the Design Review assignment
MoW&T 2010 Vol2 Drainage Design Manual
The Hydrology/Hydraulics studies Design Review Report by Eng Dr Michael Kizza
UNRA Notes on Value Engineering Rev A
Overview of the Drainage Design Report
2.1
Design Consultants categorisation of drainage structures
The design Consultant classified all drainage structures into two broad categories of major and minor
with major structures comprising: Bridges, Slab culverts, and Box culverts. The minor structures are
named as: concrete or metallic single or multiple cell openings and all the road side drainage facilities.
2.2 Existing drainage structures
The report has presented a summary of the findings by category and state of the existing drainage
structures; however, due to non availability of Appendix 5A, 5B of the Design Report this review could
not readily verify the information contained in the summary.
2.3 BoQ Value of Structures (Series 6000)
The items under structures have been included in the BoQ in line with the MoWT General Specifications
for Road and Bridge Works. The Construction contract document has Ushs 2,659,781,300 as the
quoted price for the Series 6ooo pay items. This design review sets out to design the recommended
structures up to cost estimates using the construction contract rates.
2.4 Recommended drainage structures

The Design report gives the following summary of culverts and box culverts:
The design review compares elsewhere the Hydrologists recommendations with the above.
2.5
Summary of the Design Engineers findings:
The design reviewer has read the design Consultants findings including a summary on page 38 in the
Final Design Report and below is the design reviews understanding of the situation at the time of
design phase:
1) Poor state of the drainage structures was reported to be a major issue along the road
contributing to the road damage;
3) There are several locations of marshes and swampy stretches through which the road
traverses being overtopped during the regular rainy seasons
4) Inadequate hydraulic capacity has led to the addition of culvert lines alongside existing ones;
however, the works have reduced the riding quality of the road without effectively addressing
the capacity problem
5) The cover over most of the pipe culverts has been worn off leading to broken culvert pipe lines
6) Where the length of the pipe culvert lines is shorter than the road carriageway, the road
becomes narrowed in width
7) The construction of the drainage structures is poor and regular maintenance is lacking
8) Some of the structures have outlived their service life
9) The poor quality of the elements have led to poor structural capacity of a number of pipe
culvert lines.
10) There are no existing bridges on any of the two Musita-Lumino and Busia-Majanji road links
3
3.1
Design Review
Design Review Methodology
This review is firstly aimed at presenting the current state of functionality and structural integrity of
the existing structures (as highlighted in the foregoing section), and, secondly highlights the Review
Consultants findings regarding the proposed designs of the drainage structures on MusitaLumino/Busia-Majanj/Busia_Majanji road. Therefore the aspects considered in this review include:
1) Summary of the Design Review Consultants field assessment of the current state of the
existing drainage structures
2) Review of the standards and /or departures adopted by the Design Consultant
3) Review of the appropriateness of the design and details for the drainage structures, the
resulting quantities and completeness of the designs
3.2
Summary of the Design Review Consultants Field Assessment of the current state of
the existing drainage structures
The field assessment was conducted through physical visual observation and measurements from the
start to the end of the project road. The assessment focused on: physical condition and cause of
deterioration/damage, and possible improvements for traffic safety. The two tables in 1/ 3.1 presents
a summary of the findings with photographic evidence for the two road links (Musita-Lumino and
Busia-Majanji); however, the following is a snapshot of the findings:
1) The predominant size of the pipe culverts is 600 mm diameter in concrete; only a few are 900
and none bigger than that.
2) Majority of culvert lines are shorter than the width of the carriageway and the shoulders and
thus the road becomes narrower at culvert crossings which reduces riding comfort
3) The majority of culverts have adequate cover but a number of lines have very little cover and
thus are exposed to damage by the traffic
4) Almost 50% of the culvert lines have missing end structures, making them less safe for
motorized traffic especially at high speed
5) The majority of culverts are partially blocked while a few are totally blocked by silting and
vegetation particularly where the velocities are low.
6) The anti-scour structures in the form of aprons and rip rap protection are missing in about 50%
of the culverts
7) Regular or routine maintenance is missing and therefore the asset has deteriorated much
more than if there was deliberate road overseer work supported by spot repairs
8) Where the side drains have been lined using stone pitching, the drainage is evidently efficient
9) There is only one box culvert and it is on the Busia-Majanji road link
The table 3.1 below hence summarises and compares the findings by the design consultant and the
design review consultant.
Table 3.1 Comparison of Current State of Existing Structures

Design Consultants findings
11) Poor state of the drainage structures was reported
to be a major issue along the road contributing to
the road damage;
13) Where the length of the pipe culvert lines is shorter
than the road carriageway, the road becomes
narrowed in width
14) There are several locations of marshes and swampy
stretches through which the road traverses being
overtopped during the regular rainy seasons
15) The cover over most of the pipe culverts has been
worn off leading to broken culvert pipe lines
16) Inadequate hydraulic capacity has led to the
addition of culvert lines alongside existing ones;
however, the works have reduced the riding quality
of the road without effectively addressing the
capacity problem
17) The construction of the drainage structures is poor
and regular maintenance is lacking
18) Some of the structures have outlived their service
life
19) The poor quality of the elements have led to poor
structural capacity of a number of pipe culvert lines.
20) There are no existing bridges on any of the two
Musita-Lumino and Busia-Majanji road links
Design Review Consultants findings

10) Regular or routine maintenance is missing and
therefore the asset has deteriorated much more
than if there was deliberate road overseer work
supported by spot repairs
11) The predominant size of the pipe culverts is 600
mm diameter in concrete; only a few are 900 and
none bigger than that.
12) Majority of culvert lines are shorter than the
width of the carriageway and the shoulders and
thus the road becomes narrower at culvert
crossings which reduces riding comfort
13) The majority of culverts are partially blocked
while a few are totally blocked by silting and
vegetation particularly where the velocities are
low.
14) The majority of culverts have adequate cover but
a number of lines have very little cover and thus
are exposed to damage by the traffic
15) Almost 50% of the culvert lines have missing end
structures, making them less safe for motorized
traffic especially at high speed
16) The anti-scour structures in the form of aprons
and rip rap protection are missing in about 50%
of the culverts
17) Where the side drains have been lined using
stone pitching, the drainage is evidently efficient
18) There is only one box culvert and it is on the
Busia-Majanji road link
3.3
Review of the Standards and /or Departures adopted by the Design Consultant
3.3.1 Culvert pipes

The design review is not focused on interrogating the design Consultants design philosophy or
efficiency of the structures as this is the domain of the design review hydrology/hydraulic specialist.
This review is for examining and reporting on the structural designs and details comparing them with
standard guidelines and best practice.
3.3.1.1
Minimum and Maximum Size set
The design has adopted 900 mm diam as the minimum size for the concrete cross and relief culverts
based on UNRA guidelines. This is commendable since any size below 900 mm diameter presents
maintenance problems as smaller sizes require more regular maintenance to stay efficient; moreover,
numerous lines may be required to be clustered to meet the hydraulic capacity at a given water body
crossing.
The review has shown that the design does not use culverts bigger than 1200 mm diam, preferring to
use box culverts for bigger structures. This is commendable
3.3.1.1.1
Pipe Bedding
The design adopts three standards for bedding namely Class A, B and C and leaves the use of one or
the other to the supervising consultant based on the nature of the foundation material encountered.
3.3.1.2 Material for Headwall set
The design uses solely concrete headwall for the culvert pipe ends, the relatively higher cost than if
stone or concrete block / brick masonry was adopted notwithstanding. The designer has justified his
decision based on two major considerations namely:
1) That concrete is a better quality material than brick or stone masonry, and
2) That UNRA had recommended use of concrete.
It is true that concrete for headwall and other end structures has superior properties and quality and
the design review designs have also adopted the same material.
3.3.1.2.1 Flare Angle of Wingwall
The design has set 450 as flare angle as recommended by MOWT Road and Bridge design Vol. 2
Drainage Design Guidelines for culverts up to 1200 mm diameter.
3.3.1.3 Drop Inlet
The design has prepared a sound solution for a drop inlet. The bottom and side walls are made of
concrete grade 25/20 reinforced with rebars. The details are found to be sufficient to enable the
contractor to prepare shop/production drawings.
3.3.2 Box culverts
The designer adopted a single size (2000mm) for the inner cell width and 1300 mm as internal clear
height. The hydrology/hydraulic design reviewer has extensively examined and reported on the
original designs.
9
3.3.2.1 Detailing
The design presents a single cell, double cell and triple cell box culvert, very well detailed. This review
finds the structural design and detailing of the barrel, wingwalls at a 300 flare recommended by UNRA,
head wall, and apron adequate; however, in line with the design review, a completely different size of
culvert module has been adopted.
3.3.3
Side drains
3.3.3.1 Urban/Trading Centres Drain type

The approach adopted by the design consultant was to use a rectangular section concrete side drain
in trading centres. Where side /service roads have been designed the drainage is enhanced by curb
openings to enable water to flow from the main road across on to the service road and into the drain.
A cast iron grating is proposed for pedestrian crossing.
3.3.3.2 Rural drains
Three types have been adopted. All of them are lined using stone pitching and comprise:
Type A paved channel gutter which essentially is a 1000 mm wide inclined flat gutter with a rock
masonry at the far end.
Type B- paved channel, 1000 mm wide for flows exceeding the erosion velocity or where the slope
exceeds 3%.
Type C- Trapezoidal channel with a 500 mm wide base.
It is noted that the design does not explicitly include unlined side drains. These are useful as mitre
drains or offshoots and as main channels in rolling terrain.
3.4 Recommended Drainage structures
Section 2.4 above shows the design consultants summary of drainage structures. Herebelow is a
summary by number of lines of the same based on the design review:
Table 3.2: Summary by number of lines for the pipe and box culverts
Drainage Structure
Musita-Lumino Busia-Majanji
Single 900 mm dia
13
16
Double 900 mm dia
5
2
Pipe Culverts
Single 1200 mm dia
5
2
Double 1200 mm dia
3
Single cell
9
4
Box culverts
Double cell
10
2
2000x1500 high
Triple cell
1
-
The design review demonstrates a significant difference in the overall quantities of the pipe culverts
and box culverts from the original design as in the comparison table below:
10
Table 3.3: Comparison of original and design review quantities of pipe and box culverts
Design Consultant
Pipe culverts
Quantity
Single 900 mm
53
Twin 900 mm
7
Single 1050mm
7
Twin 1050mm
1
Single 1200 mm
4
Twin 1200 mm
4
Box culverts
2mx2m single cell
3m x2m single cell
4m x2m single cell
4mx2m twin cell
4m x2.5m single cell
4m x2.5m twin cell
6
3
4
3
3
3
Design Review
Pipe culverts
Single 900 m m
Twin 900 mm
Single 1200 mm
Twin 1200 mm
Box culverts: 2000 x1500 mm high

Single cell
Twin cell
Triple cell
Quantity
29
7
7
3
13
12
1
3.5
Review of the Appropriateness of the Design and Details for the Drainage structures, the
resulting quantities and Completeness of the Designs
The design review has established that the original designs are well prepared and are able to give
sufficient information for the contractor to prepare production drawings for the drainage structures.
A few areas have been identified as having facts that are incorrectly derived as presented in the table
3.4 below.
Table 3.4 Findings on Completeness of Design and Detail of the Drainage structures
Structural element designed Major features

Remarks
by Design Consultant
900 mm diam Pipe culvert
Concrete class 25/20; cover 1. Longitudinal section to be revised to
to steel-25 mm; steel single
show single layer
layer of 6mm Diam Mild steel 2. Quantity of concrete m3/m = 25
3. Quantity of rebars kG/m = 13
End structures for pipe culvert Where applicable, drop inlet The detailing is complete
provided; concrete aprons
provided, head wall and
wing walls are provided
Box culvert
2000 x 1500 mm high internal The detailing is complete
dimensions, endwalls and
apron plus riprap outfall
Rectangular section concrete Complete with cast iron Cast iron grating is vulnerable to vandalism
culvert
grating heavy duty
due to high demand of steel products for
ingots for steel rolling mills. Recommend
concrete covers for sustainability
11
Review outcomes
Based on the sizes for pipe culverts, box culverts, and concrete lined and stone pitched drains from a
fresh study/investigation by the hydrology/hydraulics review expert Dr Kizza, the drainage engineer
proceeded to prepare fresh drawings for the drainage structures. The full details are presented in the
book of drawings Appendix 1-4.0 and these drawings will be the basis for the overall design review,
cost review and for the contractor to prepare the production drawings.
4.1 Major structures re-designed
The summary of structures by category for Musita-Lumino and Busia-Majanji road links is presented in
the tables1 below:
Musita-Lumino culvert crossings
Musita-Lumino
Left Drains
Right drains
Total
12,588
10,483
23,071
25,118
26,751
51,869
9,640
8,560
18,200
Lining type
Grass
Stone pitching
Concrete
Total
47,346
45,794
Percent
25%
56%
20%
93,140
100%
Musita-Lumino side drains

Musita-Lumino
Culvert Size
Number
Percent
Circular 900mm diameter
26
41%
17
27%
Box 1.5m high x2.0m wide
20
32%
Total no of crossings
63
100%
Busia-Majanji culvert crossings

Busia-Majanji
Number
Percent
18
69%
2
8%
6
23%
26
100%
Culvert Size
Box 1.5m high x2.0m wide
Total no of crossings
Side drains on Busia-Majanji Road

Lining type
Grass
Stone pitching
Concrete
Total
1
Left Drains
2,829
8,891
2,420
14,140
Source: Design Review Report by Dr Michael Kizza
12
Busia-Majanji
Right drains
4,543
8,401
1,640
14,584
Total
7,372
17,292
4,060
28,724
Conclusion
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The design review has examined the original drawings and details of the culverts and box
culverts, as well as drains and the end structures namely headwall, wing wall at 450 and 300
flare, drop inlets, aprons and anti-scour measures. It was established that the steel and the
concrete quantities for the 900 mm diam culvert had been underestimated; secondly the
section shows double layers whereas there should be a single layer of steel fabric.
The design for a cast iron grill over the concrete drains in urban /trading centres is found not
recommended on the grounds that these covers would be highly vulnerable to vandalism for
scrap steel. Instead the review has detailed a precast concrete cover.
The design review has introduced a 1200 diam concrete culvert
The design review has introduced a grass lined or earth drain for rural areas for side drains
and mitres drains / offshoots for section of low velocities.
A set of drawings has been prepared as part of this review exercise.
13
APPENDIX 1-3.1 (a)

FINDINGS FROM THE FIELD ASSESSMENT OF DRAINAGE STRUCTURES FOR MUSITA -LUMINO ROAD
LINK
CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING CULVERTS ON MUSITA-LUMINO ROAD LINK

Chainage
0+460 FW
Physical Condition and

proposal
for
improvement
Partially blocked by silt
and debris. Extend and
construct
end
structures
Description
Photographs
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe culvert, Length
7.9m
0+600 LHS
In need of cleaning and

construction of end
structures
Access
culvert:
600mm, Armco
pipe culvert
Length 5.1m
0+750 RHS
In
need
cleaning/desilting
construction of
structures
Access
culvert:450mm,
concrete
pipe
culvert
Length 3.6m
of
and
end
14
0+755 LHS

proposal
for
improvement
Sound and efficient
1+600 FW
In need of cleaning
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
8.2m
1+735 FW
In need of repair to
apron
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
8.8m
2+560 FW
Almost fully silted; in

need of desilting and
cleaning of apron
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
8.6m
Chainage
Description
Photographs
Access
culvert:600mm,
concrete
pipe
culvert
Length 6.1m
15

Chainage
3+140 FW

proposal
for
improvement
This is duct for the high
pressure water main
Description
Photographs
Cross
culvert:450mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.2m
5+020 FW
Silted and in need of

desilting and cleaning of
the aprons
Cross
culvert:600mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.5m
5+060 FW
Partially (50%) silted ;

broken
headwall
,
extend either end and
wing walls to be
replaced;.
regular
maintenance of the
aprons
Cross
culvert:600mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.8m
5+533 FW
Sound ; however in
need
o
regular
maintenance
Cross
culvert:600mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
9.1m
16

Chainage
5+540 FW
6+6
63 FW
6+714 FW
6+727 FW

proposal
for
improvement
Partially silted; in need
of desilting, extension
to either end and
construction of end
structures
Description
Photographs
Cross
culvert:600mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.9m
Shorter
than
carriageway width; over
50% silted and in need of
extension to both ends
complete with end
structures
Cross
culvert:600mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
6.8m
In need of extension at
either end, construction
od end structures and
maintenance
Cross
culvert:600mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.7m
Sound but in need of

regular maintenance at
the aprons
Cross
culvert:600mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.1m
17

Chainage
6+750 FW

proposal
for
improvement
Lengthen by extension
since being knocked by
vehicles, and keep
regular maintenance
Description
Photographs
Cross
culvert:600mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.8m
6+980 FW
Sound
but needs
regular maintenance
Cross
culvert:600mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.0m
7+110 FW
Sound
but
maintenance
needs
Cross
culvert:600mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.0m
7+138 FW
Extend either end by 1 m
Cross
culvert:600mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.7m
18

Chainage
7+160 FW

proposal
for
improvement
Desilt
and
keep
maintenance
Description
Photographs
Cross
culvert:600mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.4m
10+520 FW
Desilt
and
keep
maintenance , the soil is
kept stable by the grass
roots
Cross
culvert:600mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
9.0m
11+261 FW
Short but self-cleansing
Skew
culvert:600mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.6m
11+269 FW
Self-cleansing
Skew
culvert:600mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.3m
19

Chainage
11+269 FW

proposal
for
improvement
Sound state
Description
Photographs
Skew
culvert:600mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length 8.3m
11+465
Sound condition but

needs maintenance
Type/material:
C.P.C, relief culvert
Diameter: 450mm
Length: 10.4m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched and
good condition.
Performance:
flowing
water,
vegetation
blockage
11+680
Poor
maintenance
leading to blockage by
silt
Type/material:
C.P.C, cross culvert
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 8.5m
Head/wing
wall:
stoned pitched and
good condition.
Performance:
blocked
20

Chainage
11+688

proposal
for
improvement
End wall repairs needed
and regular
maintenance lacking
Description
Photographs
Type/material:
Diameter: 900mm
Length: 8.4m
Head/wing
wall:
concrete and poor
condition.
Performance: silted
13+150
Sound physical state
Type/material:
Diameter: 450mm
Length: 8.4m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched and
good condition.
Performance:
flowing water,
14+226
Needs regular
maintenance
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
double barrel
Length: 8.0m
Head/wing
wall:
concrete and good
condition.
Performance:
flowing water but
partially blocked
21

Chainage
14+238

proposal
for
improvement
Needs construction of
end structures
Description
Photographs
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 6.9m
Head/wing wall: no
headwalls.
Performance:
flowing water
15+870 FW
Sound although shorter

than carriageway and
shoulders by 1 m each
end, given that speeds
on this stretch are high
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
7.5m
16+837 FW

cleaning; extend by 1 m
either end to cater for
relatively high speeds
on this stretch
Cross
culvert
600mm
C.P.C,
Length 7.5m
22

Chainage

proposal
for
improvement
sound
16+956 FW
18+180 LHS
Photographs
Skew culvert(relief
culvert) 600mm
C.P.C, Length 8.3m
Sound
Access
culvert
600mm
C.P.C
Length 5.7m Offset
5.7m
Over 80% silted and

drop
inlet
needs
desilting
Skew culvert(relief
culvert) 600mm
C.P.C, Length 9.1m
17+920 RHS
18+170 FW
Description
Offshoot draining
water
towards
Mpungwe
Secondary School
23

Chainage
18+803 FW

proposal
for
improvement
Partially silted (about 60
to 70%) but strong .
needs extension by 1 m
at either end to cope
with the high speeds
and large sugar cane
carrying trucks along
this stretch
Description
Photographs
Cross
culvert
600mm
C.P.C,
Length 7.2m
18+810 FW
Almost fully silted; to be

desilted and extended
by 1 m either end
Cross
culvert
600mm
C.P.C,
Length 7.2m
19+717 FW
Sound and clean
Cross
culvert
,900mm
C.P.C,
Length 8.1m
Sound end structures

but
needs
regular
maintenance
Access
culvert
600mm
C.P.C
Length 7.7m
20+033 RHS
24

Chainage
20+88620+930 RHS

proposal
for
improvement
Outfall needs repair to
check scour and gorge
formation
Description
Photographs
Stone pitched drain

Length -44m
Width -1.65m
20+88620+911 LHS
Needs cleaning
Stone pitched drain

Length -25m
Width -1.60m
20+874 RHS
Sound
Access
culvert,
300mm
C.P.C,
Length 6.2m, Offset
of 3.3m from new
centreline
20+910 FW
Inefficient size although

working. This needs
replacement
Cross
culvert,
450mm
C.P.C,
Length 10.4m
25

Chainage
21+105 FW

proposal
for
improvement
Sound
but
needs
cleaning the apron and
outfall
Description
Photographs
Cross
culvert
600mm C.P.C
Length 8.0m
22+320 FW
Sound
Cross culvert 900mm

C.P.C,
Length 8.2m
22+330 FW
Over 80% silted and in

need of end structures
Cross
culvert600mm
C.P.C,
Length 8.3m
22+660 RHS
Sound
Access
culvert600mm
C.P.C,
Length 6.3m, Offset
of 10.5m
26
24+000 FW

proposal
for
improvement
Sound form
25+820 FW
Sound form
Cross
culvert,
900mm
C.P.C,
Length 7.7m
28+655 FW
Sound
but
almost
flowing full barrel
Cross
culvert,
600mm
C.P.C,
Length 7.6m
Chainage
Description
Photographs
Cross
culvert,
900mm
C.P.C,
Length 8.1m
27

Chainage
29+480 FW
29+986 FW
30+903

proposal
for
improvement
end
structures
to
improve safety
Description
Photographs
Cross
culvert,
900mm
C.P.C,
Length 8.2m
Needs desilting
Skew
(Relief)
culvert, 600mm
C.P.C, Length 8.6m.
Stone pitched head
and wing walls.
Fully silted
Needs desilting and

regular maintenance
Skew
(Relief)
culvert, 900mm
C.P.C, Length 9.2m.
Concrete head and
wing walls.
Partially silted with
vegetation
blockage
28

Chainage
31+181

proposal
for
improvement
Provide end structures
at the outlet to improve
safety and efficiency
Description
Photographs
Relief
culvert,
600mm
C.P.C,
Length 9.65m.
Stone pitched head
and wing walls at
the inlet.
No head/wing walls
at the oulet.
31+975
Provide a rip rap outfall

mat to prevent further
scour
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 8.3m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched and
in good condition.
Performance:
no
vegetation
or
sediment blockage
32+335
Further improvement
can be gained by placing
rip rap on the toe of the
apron
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 10.1m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched and
in good condition.
Performance:
no
vegetation
or
sediment blockage
29

Chainage
32+860

proposal
for
improvement
Desilt and exercise
regular maintenance
Description
Photographs
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 8.0m
Head/wing
wall:
concrete and in
good condition.
Performance:
sediment blockage
33+383
Efficient hydraulics but

improve by wing wall
and apron repair with
emphasis on riprap or
gabion mattress at the
outfall
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 9.2m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched and
broken.
Performance:
flowing water
34+340
Swamp raising, replace

broken end structure
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 6.4m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched and
broken.
Performance:
flowing water
30

Chainage
34+347

proposal
for
improvement
Extend the ends by 1 m,
construct
end
structures
Description
Photographs
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 7.9m
No Head/wing wall
Performance:
flowing water
34+350
Extend outlet end by 1 m

and construct end
structures
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 7.9m
Head/wing wall at
Inlet: stone pitched
and good condition.
No Head/wing wall
at outlet
Performance:
flowing water
34+461
Sound but I need of

regular maintenance
Type/material:
Diameter: 900mm
Length: 8.4m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched and
good condition.
Performance:
flowing
water,
vegetation
blockage
31

Chainage
34+466

proposal
for
improvement
Sound form but needs
maintenance
Description
Photographs
Type/material:
Diameter: 900mm
Length: 8.5m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched and
good condition.
Performance:
flowing
water,
vegetation
blockage
34+470
Needs river training to

improve flow and end
structures
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 8.4m
Head/wing wall at
outlet:
stone
pitched and good
condition.
No Head/wing wall
at intlet
Performance:
partial
sediment
blockage
35+823
Sound form
Type/material:
C.P.C, skewed relief
culvert
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 17.7m
Head/wing
wall:
brickwork,
fair
condition.
Performance:
flowing water, no
blockage
32
37+840

proposal
for
improvement
Needs desilting
37+944
Desilt regularly
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length:7.75m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitch, good
condition.
Performance:
flowing
water,
vegetation
blockage
38+750
Desilt and repair broken

end structure
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 8.0m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched, good
condition.
Performance:
flowing
water,
silted
Chainage
Description
Photographs
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 8.0m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitch, good
condition.
Performance:
flowing
water,
vegetation
and
sediment blockage
33

Chainage
40+003

proposal
for
improvement
Desilt
Description
Photographs
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 8.0m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched, poor
condition.
Performance:
flowing
water,
partial
sediment
blockage
40+158
Desilt and repair end

structures for safety
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 10.8m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched, poor
condition.
Performance:
flowing
water,
partial
sediment
blockage
40+268
Needs
shoulder
charging
to
check
erosion behind the end
structures
Type/material:
Diameter: 900mm
Length: 8.2m
Head/wing
wall:
concrete,
poor
condition.
Performance:
flowing water
34

Chainage
40+254

proposal
for
improvement
Desilt
Description
Photographs
Type/material:
Diameter: 900mm
Length: 8.0m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched, good
condition.
Performance:
flowing
water,
partial
sediment
blockage
42+387
Needs
shoulder
recharging, apron
Type/material:
culvert
Diameter: 900mm
Length: 7.6m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched, poor
condition.
Performance:
flowing
water,
partial
sediment
blockage
42+540
Clear vegetation
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 7.8m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched, good
condition.
Performance:
flowing
water,
partial
sediment
blockage,
vegatation
blockage
35

Chainage
42+521

proposal
for
improvement
Desilt
and
clear
vegetation
Description
Photographs
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 8.0m
Head/wing
wall:
concrete,
fair
condition.
Performance:
flowing
water,
partial
sediment
blockage,
vegatation
blockage
42+675
Desilt
and
vegetation
clear
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 8.2m
Head/wing
wall:
concrete,
good
condition.
Performance:
flowing
water,
partial
sediment
blockage,
vegatation
blockage
42+900
Desilt
and
keep
regularly desilted
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 9.4m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched, good
condition.
Performance:
flowing
water,
partial
sediment
blockage at inlet
and full blockage at
outlet.
36

Chainage
43+248

proposal
for
improvement
Desilt
and
keep
regularly desilted
Description
Photographs
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 8.4m
Head/wing
wall:
concrete,
good
condition.
Performance:
flowing
water,
partial
sediment
blockage at inlet
and full blockage at
outlet.
43+651
Outfall in need of
strengthening by rip rap
or gabion baskets to
check undermining of
end structure
Type/material:
culvert
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 12.3m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched, good
condition.
Performance:
flowing water, no
blockage
44+075
Provide rip rap for

outfall to reinforce the
apron
Type/material:
culvert
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 9.3m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched, poor
condition.
Performance:
flowing water, no
blockage
37

Chainage
44+826

proposal
for
improvement
Desilt
and
keep
regularly maintained
Description
Photographs
Type/material:
culvert
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 11.2m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched, good
condition.
Performance:
flowing
water,
partial
sediment
blockage
45+125
Repair apron and place

rip rap or gabion
mattress
to
check
underscour
Type/material:
culvert
Diameter: 900mm
Length: 10.6m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched, good
condition.
Performance:
flowing water, no
blockage
45+294
Regular
required
Type/material:
culvert
Diameter: 900mm
Length: 9.7m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched,poor
condition.
Performance:
flowing water, no
blockage
maintenance
38

Chainage
45+475

proposal
for
improvement
Desilt and keep regular
maintenance
45+995
Repair
outlet
end
structure
and keep
desilted
47+190
Desilt
Description
Photographs
Type/material:
culvert
Diameter: 900mm
Length: 10.2m
Head/wing
wall:
stone
pitched,
damaged at inlet
Performance:
flowing
water,
partial
sediment
blockage
Type/material:
No. Of barrells: 2
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 10.7m
Head/wing
wall:
stone
pitched,
damaged at outlet
Performance:
flowing
water,
partial
sediment
blockage,
vegetation
blockage
Type/material:
No. Of barrells: 2
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 6.2m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched, good
condition.
Performance:
flowing
water,
partial
sediment
blockage
39

Chainage
47+441
Physical Condition
proposal
improvement
Repair damaged
structure at inlet
keep desilted
and
for
Description
Photographs
end
and
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 1m
Head/wing
wall:
stone
pitched,
damaged at inlet
Performance:
flowing
water,
partial
sediment
blockage
47+452
Desilt and extend the

outfall
Type/material:
Diameter: 600mm
Length: 6.2m
Head/wing
wall:
stone pitched, good
condition.
Performance:
flowing
water,
partial
sediment
blockage
47+796
Sound form
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.1m,
okay,
ConditionHeadwall- concrete
40

Chainage
48+215

proposal
for Description
improvement
Desilt
and
regular Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
maintenance
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.1m,
Conditionfully
blocked
Headwall- concrete
48+172

maintenance
Skew
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
9.7m,
Condition- halfway
blocked
Headwall- concrete
49+263
Sound form
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.7m,
Conditionokay
Headwall-stone
pitching
41
Photographs

Chainage
49+325

proposal
for
improvement
Construct
end
structures and desilt
Description
Photographs
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.9m,
Conditionfully
blocked
No
Headwall
50+277
Sound form
Cross
culvert:
900mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.8m,
Conditionokay
Headwall-stone
pitching
50+305

maintenance
Cross
culvert:
900mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.0m,
Conditionfully
blocked Headwallstone pitching
42

Chainage
52+200

proposal
for Description
improvement
Desilt and keep regular Skew
culvert:
600mm metallic
maintenance
pipe
culvert,
Length
9.3m,
Condition- halfway
blocked
Headwall-stone
pitching
52+620

maintenance
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.6m,
Condition- halfway
blocked
Headwall-stone
pitching
52+870
Cut away vegetation,

desilt and keep regular
maintenance
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
9.4m,
Condition- halfway
blocked
Headwall-stone
pitching
43
Photographs

Chainage
52+621

proposal
for Description
improvement
Desilt and keep regular Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
maintenance
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.9m,
Condition- halfway
blocked
Headwall-stone
pitching
54+073
Keep desilted regularly
Skew
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
10.0m,
Condition- halfway
blocked
Headwall-stone
pitching
54+088
Keep desilted regularly
Cross
culvert:
900mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.8m,
Condition- halfway
blocked
Headwall-stone
pitching
44
Photographs

Chainage
54+102

proposal
for Description
improvement
Unblock , desilt and Cross
culvert:
keep
regular 600mm metallic
pipe
culvert,
maintenance
Length
10.6m,
Conditionfully
blocked
Headwall-stone
pitching
54+880

maintenance
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.8m,
Condition- halfway
blocked
Headwall-stone
pitching
56+270
Unblock
desilted
Skew
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.7m,
Conditionfully
blocked
Headwall-stone
pitching
and
keep
45
Photographs

Chainage
57+235

proposal
for Description
improvement
culvert:
600mm concrete
maintenance
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.5m,
Conditionfully
blocked
Headwall-concrete
57+770
Unblock
and
keep
desilted regularly
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.8m,
Conditionfully
blocked
Headwall-stone
pitching
57+855
Raise the cover to the

culvert, unblock and
keep
regular
maintenance
Skew
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
11.7m,
Conditionfully
blocked
Headwall-stone
pitching
46
Photographs

Chainage
58+590

proposal
for Description
improvement
Desilt and keep regular 5No.Cross culvert:
(1No.)900mm,fun
maintenance
ctional
(1No.)600mm,fun
ctional
(3No.)600mm,
fully blocked
concrete
pipe
culverts,
Length
9.4m,
Headwall-concrete
58+605

maintenance
Cross
culvert:
900mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
9.6m,
Condition- halfway
blocked
Headwall-stone
pitching
58+830

maintenance
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.9m,
Condition- halfway
blocked
Headwall-stone
pitching
47
Photographs

Chainage
59+625

proposal
for Description
improvement
Desilt and keep regular Skew
culvert:
600mm concrete
maintenance
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.8m,
Condition- halfway
blocked
Headwallstonepitching
61+700
Construct
end
structures for safety and
desilt
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.0m,
Conditionfully
blocked
63+235

maintenance
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.6m,
Condition- halfway
blocked
Headwall-stone
pitching
48
Photographs

Chainage
63+250

proposal
for Description
improvement
Repair
the
broken Cross
culvert:
headwall, desilt and 600mm concrete
keep
regular pipe
culvert,
Length
8.6m,
maintenance
Conditionfully
blocked
Headwall-stone
pitching
64+433
Sound form
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.8m,
Condition- okay
64+489

maintenance
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.0m,
Condition- halfway
blocked
49
Photographs

Chainage
64+800

proposal
for Description
improvement
Remove
vegetation, Cross
culvert:
desilt and keep regular 600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
maintenance
Length
7.8m,
Condition- halfway
blocked,
outlet
covered
with
vegetation
Headwall-stone
pitching
64+842
Sound form
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.8m,
Condition- okay
Headwall-stone
pitching
65+290

maintenance
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.8m,
Conditionfully
blocked
Headwall-stone
pitching
50
Photographs

Chainage
65+800

proposal
for
improvement
Sound form
Description
Photographs
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.0m,
Condition- okay
Headwall-stone
pitching
66+638

maintenance
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.8m,
Conditionfully
blocked
Headwall-brick
work
66+750

maintenance
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
13.1m,
Conditionfully
blocked
Headwall- concrete
51

Chainage
66+905

proposal
for Description
improvement
culvert:
600mm concrete
maintenance
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.1m,
Condition- half way
blocked
Headwallpitching
67+450

maintenance
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.9m,
Condition- half way
blocked
Headwallpitching
70+126

maintenance
stone
stone
Cross
culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.0m,
Conditionfully
blocked
Headwallpitching
stone
52
Photographs

Chainage
71+135

proposal
for Description
improvement
culvert:
600mm concrete
maintenance
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.0m,
Conditionfully
blocked
Headwallpitching
73+320
Sound
stone
Cross culvert:
(3No.)900mm
(2No.)600mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.1m,
Conditionokay
Headwallpitching
75+727
Sound form
stone
Cross culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.0m,
Condition- okay
Headwallpitching
stone
53
Photographs

Chainage
76+115
Physical Condition
proposal
improvement
Unblock, desilt
repair broken LHS
structure
and
for
and
end
Description
Cross culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.9m,
Condition- halfway
blocked,
culvert
broken on the LHS
Headwallwork
0+062
Lumino
Bypass
Repair headwall
Photographs
brick
Cross culvert:
(1No.)900mm
(1No.)600mm
(1No.)450mm
concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
8.7m,
Conditionokay but headwall
damaged at outlet
Headwallpitching
0+430

maintenance
stone
Skew culvert:
600mm concrete
pipe
culvert,
Length
7.9m,
Condition- halfway
blocked
Headwallpitching
stone
54
APPENDIX 1-3.1 (b)

FINDINGS FROM THE FIELD ASSESSMENT OF DRAINAGE STRUCTURES FOR BUSIA -MAJANJI ROAD
LINK
CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING CULVERTS ON BUSIA-MAJANJI ROAD LINK
Chainage
1+110
Physical Condition
and proposal for
improvement
No wingwalls and
damaged headwall.
Replace
end
structures
Description
Photographs
Cross culvert: 900mm

metallic culvert
Length 8.0m
Condition-headwall
damaged, outlet covered
with vegetation growth
Headwall- stone pitching
1+550
Desilt and carry our

river training
Cross culvert: box culvert

1.0x1.56m, Length 17m
Condition-halfway blocked
Headwall-concrete
4+450
Unblock and keep

regular maintenance

cross pipe culvert
Length 10.8m
Condition-fully blocked
Headwall- concrete
55

Chainage
5+764
Physical Condition
and proposal for
improvement
Remove vegetation
and keep desilted and
maintained
Description
Photographs

cross pipe culvert
Length 9.2m
Condition- open but outlet
covered with vegetation
5+816
Regular maintenance

cross pipe culvert
Length 7.8m
Conditionheadwall
damaged, 30% silted
6+980
Regular maintenance

cross pipe culvert
Length 8.7m
Condition- halfway blocked
56

Chainage
8+351
Physical Condition
and proposal for
improvement
Construct
end
Description
Photographs

cross pipe culvert
Length 9.5m
Condition- halfway blocked
Headwall- stone pitching at
inlet, no headwall at outlet
8+590
Repair broken end


cross pipe culvert
Length 10.0m
Conditionhalfway
blocked,
headwall
damaged at outlet
10+280
Desilt
and
maintained
Cross culvert: probably

(2No.)600mm cross pipe
culvert
Length 8.2m
Condition- fully blocked
keep
57

Chainage
10+310
Physical Condition
and proposal for
improvement
Sound form
Description
Photographs

cross pipe culvert
Length 7.8m
Condition- okay
10+880
Desilt
and
keep
regular maintenance

cross pipe culvert
Length 7.8m
Condition- half way blocked
11+315
Desilt, clear the inlet

and outlet and keep
regular maintenance

cross pipe culvert
Length 8.6m
Headwall- brick work
58

Chainage
11+888
Physical Condition
and proposal for
improvement
and outlet and keep
regular maintenance
Description
Photographs

culvert
Length 8.8m
Condition- fully blocked,
outlet has gabion
14+720

and outlet and keep
regular maintenance

cross pipe culvert
Length 9.7m
15+481
Replace
end
structures and keep
regular maintenance

metallic culvert
Length 8.7m
Condition- open but some
vegetation growth at
outlet
59
16+275
Physical Condition
and proposal for
improvement
Repair the aprons and
reinforce with rip rap
or gabion mattresses
at the outfalls
16+320
Sound form

cross pipe culvert
Length 9.8m
Condition- okay
17+390

and outlet and keep
regular maintenance

culvert
Length 7.6m
Chainage
Description
Photographs

cross pipe culvert
Length 9.8m
Condition- okay
Headwall- concrete
60

Chainage
17+930
Physical Condition
and proposal for
improvement
Sound
form
but
improve by erecting
rip rap for outfall
strengthening
Description
Photographs
Skew culvert: 600mm

metallic culvert
Length 9.5m
Condition- okay
19+020

and outlet and keep
regular maintenance
cross culvert: probably

450mm
concrete pipe culvert
Length 10.5m
Headwall- concrete
20+119
Sound form
cross culvert: 600mm

Length 7.9m
Condition- okay
Headwall- concrete
61

Chainage
21+565
Physical Condition
and proposal for
improvement
Clear the vegetation
and keep regular
maintenance
Description
Photographs
Cross
culvert:
(2No.)600mm
Length 8.8m
21+602

and outlet and keep
regular maintenance

Length 9.8m
22+193

and outlet and keep
regular maintenance

Length 7.8m
62

Chainage
23+123
Physical Condition
and proposal for
improvement
and outlet and keep
regular maintenance
Description
Photographs

Length 7.8m
Headwall- block work
24+301

and outlet and keep
regular maintenance

Length 7.2m
25+246

and outlet and keep
regular maintenance

metallic culvert
Length 8.9m
63

Chainage
25+374
Physical Condition
and proposal for
improvement
Sound form but repair
the end structures
Description
Photographs

metallic culvert
Length 8.8m
Condition- okay
25+741

and outlet and keep
regular maintenance

Concrete pipe culvert
Length 8.5m
26+100

and outlet and keep
regular maintenance;
repair
the
end
structures

metallic culvert
Length 9.2m
64

Chainage
26+840
Physical Condition
and proposal for
improvement
Sound form
Description
Photographs

Concrete pipe culvert
Length 10.8m
Condition- okay
65
Appendix 1-4.0
Book of drawings
66
DRAWING NUMBER
UNRA/ML-BM/DS:001REV
TITLE
BOX CULVERT GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING
SINGLE CELL BOX CULVERT DETAILS
DOUBLE CELL VOX CULVERT DETAILS
TRIPLE CELL BOX CULVERT DETAILS
BOX CULVERT WINGWALL DETAILS
BOX CULVERT APRON DETAILS (45 DEGREES)
BOX CULVERT APRON DETAILS (30 DEGREES)
PIPE CULVERT GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING
PIPE CULVERT END STRUCTURES
DROP INLET DETAILS
BUSIA-MAJANJI END STRUCTURES SCHEDULE
MUSITA-LUMINO END STRUCTURES SCHEDULE
BUSIA-MAJANJI SCOUR PROTECTION DETAIL AND SCHEDULE
MUSITA-LUMINO SCOUR PROTECTION DETAIL AND SCHEDULE
MUSITA-LUMINO STANDARD SIDE DITCH DETAILS AND SCHEDULES.
BUSIA-MANJI STANDARD SIDE DITCH DETAILS AND SCHEDULES.
DESIGN REVIEW CEC / MBW
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
C:\Users\user\Desktop\Title Block\MBW LOGO.jpg
JULY 2015
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
Rev. No.
DATE
Desrcription Of Revision
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
Jasper Close, Naguru,
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda
UGANDA NATIONAL ROADS AUTHORITY

PLOT 11, YUSUF LULE ROAD
P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
Email: executive@unra.go.ug
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
DIMENSIONS OF STRUCTURE FOR MULTIPLE PIPES (m)
DIMENSIONS OF STRUCTURE SINGLE PIPE (m)

A
0.60
0.90
1.40
1.90
1.20
2.60
3.20
0.70
0.90
1.30
1.60
1.50
2.15
4.00
4.80
1.00
1.20
1.60
2.05
1.80
2.45
4.90
5.70
1.30
STRUCTURE
A 142 BRC Mesh
ELEVATION
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
TWIN
0.90
1.60
1.60
2.80
3.65
6.10
6.95
1.30
TRIPLE
0.90
1.60
1.60
4.30
5.15
7.60
8.45
1.30
TWIN
1.20
1.60
2.05
3.40
4.25
6.70
7.55
1.30
TRIPLE
1.20
1.60
2.05
5.20
6.05
8.50
9.35
1.30
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807
NEWPLAN Ltd.
SMEC Limited
1
Rev. No.
JULY 2015
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW
CEC / MBW
CONSULTANT
Plot M655
P.O.Box 41292,
Kampala, Uganda
in association
with
Crusader House,
3 Portal Avenue,
P.O. Box 7544,
Kampala, Uganda

P O BOX 28487
KAMPALA - UGANDA
Tel: +256 312 233 100,
Fax: +256 414 232 807

Drainage Structures Design Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drainage Structures Design Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Review and Construction Supervision of the

Upgrading from Gravel to Paved (Bituminous) standard of

Overview of the Drainage Design Report ............................................................................... 5

Design Consultants categorisation of drainage structures ............................................... 5

Existing drainage structures ........................................................................................... 5

BoQ Value of Structures (Series 6000) ............................................................................ 5

Recommended drainage structures ................................................................................ 6

Summary of the Design Engineers findings: .................................................................... 6

Design Review Methodology.......................................................................................... 7

Culvert pipes ............................................................................................................. 9

Box culverts .............................................................................................................. 9

Side drains ................................................................................................................10

Recommended Drainage structures...............................................................................10

Review outcomes ................................................................................................................12

Major structures re-designed ........................................................................................12

Design Consultants findings

Design Review Consultants findings

1) Poor state of the drainage structures was reported

1) Regular or routine maintenance is missing and

Box culverts: 2000 x1500 mm high

Detailed Design Report Pkg 1: Road E1.1/E1.2 - Musita-Lumino/Busia-Majanji: Hydrology Report

Overview of the Drainage Design Report

2.4 Recommended drainage structures

Summary of the Design Engineers findings:

Table 3.1 Comparison of Current State of Existing Structures

Design Review Consultants findings

3.3.1 Culvert pipes

3.3.3.1 Urban/Trading Centres Drain type

Box culverts: 2000 x1500 mm high

Structural element designed Major features

Musita-Lumino side drains

Circular 900mm diameter

Circular 1200mm diameter

Box 1.5m high x2.0m wide

Busia-Majanji culvert crossings

Side drains on Busia-Majanji Road

Source: Design Review Report by Dr Michael Kizza

APPENDIX 1-3.1 (a)

CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING CULVERTS ON MUSITA-LUMINO ROAD LINK

Physical Condition and

In need of cleaning and

CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING CULVERTS ON MUSITA-LUMINO ROAD LINK

Physical Condition and

Almost fully silted; in

CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING CULVERTS ON MUSITA-LUMINO ROAD LINK

Physical Condition and

Silted and in need of

Partially (50%) silted ;

CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING CULVERTS ON MUSITA-LUMINO ROAD LINK

Physical Condition and

Sound but in need of

CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING CULVERTS ON MUSITA-LUMINO ROAD LINK

Physical Condition and

Extend either end by 1 m

CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING CULVERTS ON MUSITA-LUMINO ROAD LINK

Physical Condition and

Short but self-cleansing

CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING CULVERTS ON MUSITA-LUMINO ROAD LINK

Physical Condition and

Sound condition but

CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING CULVERTS ON MUSITA-LUMINO ROAD LINK

Physical Condition and

Sound physical state

CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING CULVERTS ON MUSITA-LUMINO ROAD LINK