Engineering Report on Design of 5 Bridges in Uganda

Ministry of Works & Transport June 2010
Engineering Report Detailed Design of Semiliki,

Kaguta, Karujumba, Kabaale and Kanyamateke

i
Engineering Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS i

LIST OF TABLES ii

LIST OF FIGURES ii

LIST OF ANNEXES iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iv
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 SCOPE OF PROPOSED WORKS .................................................................................................................... 1
2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 FIELD SURVEYS ......................................................................................................................................... 5
3 HYDROLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 6
3.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE SITES ........................................................................................................... 6
3.3 RETURN PERIOD ......................................................................................................................................... 7
3.4 FLOOD ANALYSIS METHODS ...................................................................................................................... 7
3.5 THE FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 8
3.6 THE TRRL MODEL METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 9
3.7 FLOOD ESTIMATES ................................................................................................................................... 10
3.8 HYDRAULIC DESIGN CRITERIA AND THE HEC-RAS RIVER ANALYSIS SYSTEM.................................... 10
3.9 THEORETICAL BASIS FOR THE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 11
3.10 COMPUTATION PROCEDURE .................................................................................................................... 13
3.11 BRIDGE MODELING GUIDELINES .............................................................................................................. 14
3.12 CULVERT MODELING GUIDELINES ........................................................................................................... 16
3.13 ANALYSIS METHODOLGY ........................................................................................................................ 17
3.14 KABAALE BRIDGE ................................................................................................................................... 19
3.15 KAGUTA BRIDGE ..................................................................................................................................... 29
3.16 SEMILIKI BRIDGE ..................................................................................................................................... 39
3.17 KARIJ UMBA BRIDGE ................................................................................................................................ 49
3.18 KANYAMATEKE BRIDGE ......................................................................................................................... 60
4 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS ....................................................................................................................... 68
4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 68
4.2 FIELD SURVEYING ................................................................................................................................... 68
4.3 PROCESSING THE FINAL DRAWINGS ........................................................................................................ 68
4.4 OUTPUTS .................................................................................................................................................. 69
5 GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................ 85
5.1 OBJ ECTIVES ............................................................................................................................................. 85
5.2 SITE LOCATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 85
5.3 SCOPE OF WORK ...................................................................................................................................... 85
5.4 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS ................................................................................. 85
5.5 CHALLENGES ........................................................................................................................................... 86
5.6 LOGGINGS ................................................................................................................................................ 87
5.7 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ................................................................................................................... 95
5.8 LABORATORY TESTING ........................................................................................................................... 96

ii
5.9 INTERPRETATION OF THE LABORATORY TESTS RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 97
5.10 EVALUATION OF THE BEARING CAPACITIES ........................................................................................... 97
TEST RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................ 100
6 STRUCTURAL DESIGNS ......................................................................................................................... 106
6.1 DEFINITIONS AND BRIDGE COMPONENTS ............................................................................................. 106
6.2 HIGHWAY BRIDGE DEAD LOADS (RDM, REF: 5.1.2) ........................................................................... 106
6.3 HIGHWAY BRIDGE LIVE LOADS (RDM, REF: 6.2.1) ............................................................................. 107
6.4 MINIMUM EARTHQUAKE FORCES FOR STRUCTURES ............................................................................ 108
7 APPROACH ROADS ................................................................................................................................. 110
7.1 DESIGN CRITERIA .................................................................................................................................. 110
8 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........................................................... 112
8.1 PROJ ECT OBJ ECTIVES ............................................................................................................................ 112
8.2 BASELINE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 112
8.3 RELEVANT LEGISLATION RELATED TO BRIDGES .................................................................................. 114
8.4 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ...................................................................... 115
8.5 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ...................................................................................................... 116
8.6 IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ............................................................................................................. 117
8.7 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN ................................................................. 118
8.8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 118
9 PRICING OF WORKS ............................................................................................................................... 119
9.1 PRICING OF BILLS OF QUANTITIES ........................................................................................................ 119

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: LOCATIONS OF THE 5 PROPOSED BRIDGE CROSSINGS .............................................................. 6
TABLE 2: FLOOD FLOW ESTIMATES AT THE GAUGING SITE FOR THE CANDIDATE DISTRIBUTIONS ....... 24
TABLE 3: DESIGN FLOWS AT KABAALE BRIDGE SITE ............................................................................ 25
TABLE 4: DESIGN STORMS FOR DIFFERENT RETURN PERIODS FOR KABAALE SITE ............................... 25
TABLE 5: DESIGN FLOODS FOR THE KABAALE BRIDGE SITE BEFORE ADJ USTING FOR STORAGE .......... 26
TABLE 6: DESIGN FLOODS FOR THE KABAALE BRIDGE SITE AFTER ADJ USTING FOR STORAGE ............ 26
TABLE 7: FLOW CONDITIONS AROUND BRIDGE SITE ............................................................................. 27
TABLE 8: FLOOD FLOW ESTIMATES AT THE GAUGING SITE FOR THE CANDIDATE DISTRIBUTIONS ....... 35
TABLE 9: DESIGN FLOWS AT KAGUTA BRIDGE SITE .............................................................................. 36
TABLE 10: DESIGN STORMS FOR DIFFERENT RETURN PERIODS FOR KAGUTA SITE ............................... 36
TABLE 11: DESIGN FLOODS FOR THE KAGUTA BRIDGE SITE BEFORE ADJ USTING FOR STORAGE .......... 37
TABLE 12: DESIGN FLOODS FOR THE KAGUTA BRIDGE SITE AFTER ADJUSTING FOR STORAGE ............ 37
TABLE 13: FLOW CONDITIONS AROUND BRIDGE SITE ........................................................................... 38
TABLE 14: FLOOD FLOW ESTIMATES AT THE GAUGING SITE FOR THE CANDIDATE DISTRIBUTIONS ..... 43
TABLE 15: DESIGN FLOWS AT SEMILIKI BRIDGE SITE ........................................................................... 44
TABLE 16: DESIGN STORMS FOR DIFFERENT RETURN PERIODS ............................................................. 44
TABLE 17: DESIGN FLOODS FOR THE SEMILIKI BRIDGE SITE BEFORE ADJUSTING FOR STORAGE .......... 45
TABLE 18: DESIGN FLOODS FOR THE SEMILIKI BRIDGE SITE AFTER ADJUSTING FOR STORAGE ............ 45
TABLE 20: FLOOD FLOW ESTIMATES AT THE GAUGING SITE FOR THE CANDIDATE DISTRIBUTIONS ..... 55
TABLE 21: DESIGN FLOWS AT KARUJ UMBA BRIDGE SITE ..................................................................... 56
TABLE 22: DESIGN STORMS FOR DIFFERENT RETURN PERIODS FOR KARUJ UMBA SITE ........................ 56
TABLE 23: DESIGN FLOODS FOR THE KARUJUMBA BRIDGE SITE BEFORE ADJ USTING FOR STORAGE.... 57
TABLE 24: DESIGN FLOODS FOR THE KARUJUMBA BRIDGE SITE AFTER ADJ USTING FOR STORAGE ...... 57
TABLE 26: DESIGN STORMS FOR DIFFERENT RETURN PERIODS FOR KANYAMATEKE SITE ................... 64

iii
TABLE 27: DESIGN FLOODS FOR THE KANYAMATEKE BRIDGE SITE BEFORE ADJ USTING FOR STORAGE
....................................................................................................................................................... 65
TABLE 28: DESIGN FLOODS FOR THE KANYAMATEKE BRIDGE SITE AFTER ADJ USTING FOR STORAGE . 65

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: MAP OF UGANDA SHOWING THE LOCATIONS OF THE PROPOSED BRIDGE CROSSINGS ............ 7
FIGURE 2: CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS AT BRIDGE ............................................................................... 15
FIGURE 3: TYPICAL CULVERT CROSSING (RIGHT: ENERGY AND HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE FOR A FULL
FLOWING CULVERT) ....................................................................................................................... 16
FIGURE 4: KABAALE BRIDGE SITE AND CATCHMENT ........................................................................... 19
FIGURE 5: LANDSCAPE TYPE IN THE R. MAYANJ A CATCHMENT ........................................................... 20
FIGURE 6: R. MAYANJA CATCHMENT GEOLOGY .................................................................................. 21
FIGURE 7: MONTHLY RAINFALL AND EVAPORATION VARIATION (SOURCE: HYDROCLIMATIC STUDY
(2001)) ........................................................................................................................................... 22
FIGURE 8: FLOW DATA FOR RIVER MAYANJ A ....................................................................................... 23
FIGURE 9: ANNUAL MAXIMUM FLOWS FOR R. MAYANJ A ..................................................................... 23
FIGURE 10: FITS FOR VARIOUS DISTRIBUTIONS TO R. MAYANJ A DATA. CLOCKWISE STARTING FROM
THE UPPER LEFT CORNER ARE FITS FOR NORMAL, LOGNORMAL, EXTREME VALUE AND WEIBULL
DISTRIBUTIONS RESPECTIVELY ...................................................................................................... 24
FIGURE 11: BRIDGE CONFIGURATION SHOWING THE 50-YEAR FLOOD LEVEL ...................................... 27
FIGURE 12: SCOUR CONDITIONS FOR THE 100-YEAR FLOOD CONDITIONS ............................................ 28
FIGURE 13: KAGUTA BRIDGE SITE AND ITS CATCHMENT ...................................................................... 29
FIGURE 14: LANDSCAPE TYPES IN THE R. ASWA CATCHMENT .............................................................. 30
FIGURE 15: LAND-USE TYPES IN R. ASWA CATCHMENT ....................................................................... 31
FIGURE 16: R. ASWA CATCHMENT GEOLOGY ........................................................................................ 32
(2001)) ........................................................................................................................................... 33
FIGURE 18: FLOW DATA FOR RIVER ASWA AT PURANGA ..................................................................... 34
FIGURE 19: ANNUAL MAXIMUM FLOWS FOR R. MAYANJ A ................................................................... 34
FIGURE 20: FITS FOR VARIOUS DISTRIBUTIONS TO R. MAYANJ A DATA. CLOCKWISE STARTING FROM
FIGURE 23: SEMILIKI BRIDGE SITE AND CATCHMENT .......................................................................... 40
(2001)) ........................................................................................................................................... 41
FIGURE 25: FLOW DATA FOR RIVER SEMILIKI AT BWERAMULE ........................................................... 42
FIGURE 26: ANNUAL MAXIMUM FLOWS FOR R. SEMILIKI AT BWERAMULE ......................................... 42
FIGURE 27: FITS FOR VARIOUS DISTRIBUTIONS TO R. SEMILIKI DATA. CLOCKWISE STARTING FROM
FIGURE 29: PROFILE ALONG CHANNEL CENTRELINE SHOWING THE PASSAGE OF THE 50 YEAR FLOOD 47
FIGURE 31: KARUJ UMBA BRIDGE SITE AND CATCHMENT .................................................................... 49
FIGURE 32: LANDSCAPE TYPES IN THE R. NYAMUGASANI CATCHMENT .............................................. 50
FIGURE 33: LAND-USE TYPES IN R. NYAMUGASANI CATCHMENT ........................................................ 51
FIGURE 34: R. NYAMUGASANI CATCHMENT GEOLOGY ........................................................................ 52

iv
FIGURE 35: MONTHLY RAINFALL AND EVAPORATION VARIATION FOR ZONE MW (SOURCE:
HYDROCLIMATIC STUDY (2001))................................................................................................... 53
FIGURE 36: FLOW DATA FOR RIVER NYAMUGASANI AT KATWE-CONGO ROAD ................................. 54
FIGURE 37: ANNUAL MAXIMUM FLOWS FOR R. NYAMUGASANI........................................................... 54
FIGURE 38: FITS FOR VARIOUS DISTRIBUTIONS TO R. NYAMUGASANI DATA. CLOCKWISE STARTING
FROM THE UPPER LEFT CORNER ARE FITS FOR NORMAL, LOGNORMAL, EXTREME VALUE AND
WEIBULL DISTRIBUTIONS RESPECTIVELY...................................................................................... 55
FIGURE 41: KANYAMATEKE BRIDGE SITE AND CATCHMENT ............................................................... 60
FIGURE 42: LANDSCAPE TYPES IN THE R. KANYAMATEKE CATCHMENT ............................................. 61
FIGURE 43: LAND-USE TYPES IN R. KANYAMATEKE CATCHMENT ....................................................... 62
FIGURE 44: R. KANYAMATEKE CATCHMENT GEOLOGY ....................................................................... 63
FIGURE 45: MONTHLY RAINFALL AND EVAPORATION VARIATION FOR ZONE MW (SOURCE:
HYDROCLIMATIC STUDY (2001))................................................................................................... 64
FIGURE 48: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF SEMILIKI BRIDGE SITE .................................................................. 70
FIGURE 49: LONGITUDINAL PROFILE ALONG CENTRE-LINE OF THE PROPOSED ROAD ACROSS SEMILIKI
BRIDGE .......................................................................................................................................... 71
FIGURE 50: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF KAGUTA BRIDGE SITE .................................................................. 73
FIGURE 51: LONGITUDINAL PROFILE ALONG CENTRE-LINE OF THE PROPOSED ROAD ACROSS KAGUTA
BRIDGE .......................................................................................................................................... 74
FIGURE 52: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF KARUJUMBA BRIDGE SITE ............................................................ 76
FIGURE 53: LONGITUDINAL PROFILE ALONG CENTRE-LINE OF THE PROPOSED ROAD ACROSS
KARUJ UMBA BRIDGE ..................................................................................................................... 77
FIGURE 54: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF KABAALE BRIDGE SITE ................................................................. 79
KABAALE BRIDGE ......................................................................................................................... 80
FIGURE 56: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF KANYAMATEKE BRIDGE SITE ....................................................... 82
KANYAMATEKE BRIDGE................................................................................................................ 83

LIST OF ANNEXES AND ABBREVIATIONS
ANNEX A1: HYDROLOGICAL DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR KABAALE BRIDGE
ANNEX A2: HYDROLOGICAL DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR KAGUTA BRIDGE
ANNEX A3: HYDROLOGICAL DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR SEMILIKI BRIDGE
ANNEX A4: HYDROLOGICAL DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR KARUJUMBA BRIDGE
ANNEX A5: HYDROLOGICAL DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR KANYAMATEKE BRIDGE
GOU Government of Uganda
MoWT Ministry of Works and Transport
km Kilometre
m Metre
m
3
Cubic metre
% Per cent

1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction

The Government of Uganda (GoU), represented by the Ministry of Works and Transport
(MoWT) intends to improve five (5) strategic bridges along the road network in the
country to standards required to cope with the present and anticipated growth, with the
sole aim of achieving the targets of Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP). The MoWT
has therefore embarked on addressing the bottlenecks on classified and feeder roads
network by removing major impediments to effective and efficient movement of goods,
services and people.

1.2 Scope of Proposed Works

The Consultants scope of works included, but not limited to, the following:

- design and tender documentation of Semiliki Bridge and approach roads,

- design and tender documentation of Kaguta Bridge and approach roads,

- design and tender documentation of Karujumba Bridge and approach roads,

- design and tender documentation of Kabaale Bridge and approach roads,

- design and tender documentation of Kanyamateke Bridge and approach roads,

- Environmental and Social Impact Assessments of the Project.

1.2.1 Hydrological Investigations and Analysis
The assignment involved carrying out drainage investigations to assess the requirements for
the approach roads and for purposes of determining suitable types and sizes of five bridges.

1.2.2 Topographic Surveys
The assignment involved carrying out topographic surveys to provide data that would
subsequently be used during the design the five strategic bridges. Using Leica T180 Total
Station, land-surveying techniques were used to capture the location and elevation of
features and spot heights at each bridge site.

The following details were targeted while collecting data:
a) Spot heights for enabling accurate representation of the terrain;
b) Centre-line of the existing road, estimated by measuring the width of the road;
c) The center-line of the water channel/river also estimated by measurement of the
channel/river width;
d) Heights along the banks of the water channel/river;
e) Changes in terrain features such as break lines in the general slope;
f) Location of trial pits for geotechnical investigations or soil samples, and;
g) Trees and other vegetation.


2

1.2.3 Geotechnical and Materials Investigations

The investigations were aimed at determining the geotechnical properties of the soils where
the bridges are to be constructed and the existing subsurface condition to enable the
Engineer to determine the bearing capacities of the soils hence design the foundations. The
investigations involved identifying suitable sources of construction materials. The samples
collected from the trial pits from the bridge sites were taken for laboratory testing and
analysis at the Ministry of Works and Transport, Central Materials Laboratory, Kireka.

1.2.4 Structural Designs

For all bridges, the loads to be considered are the permanent loads, with the appropriate
primary live loads, together with those due to wind and temperature range and difference, as
well as temporary erection loads; during erection.

Design loads are selected and applied in such a way that the most adverse total effect is
caused in the element or structure under consideration.

The design of foundations is based on the principles set out in CP 2004.

1.2.5 Designs of Approach Roads

All the bridge approaches are designed to the Ministry of Works and Transport Class B
Gravel standards with the following parameters Ref: Ministrys Roads Design Manual:

Table 1.2.5.1a: Bridge Approaches (Road Design) Class

Design
Class
Capacity
[pcu x
1,000/day]
Road-way
width[m]
Maximum
Design speed
Kph
Mountainous
B Gravel 2 6 8.6 50

Table 1.2.5.1b: Road Design Class (continued)

Design class
Right of Way
width [m]
Road way
width [m]
Carriage way
Shoulder
width
[m]
Width
[m]
Lane
width
[m]
No. of
lane

B Gravel 30 8.6 5.6 2.8 2 2 x 1.5


3

Table1.2.5.2: Geometric Design Parameters for Design Standard B Gravel

Design Element Unit Flat Rolling Mountainous
Design Speed km/h 80 60 50
Min. Stopping Sight Distance m 115 75 60
Min. Passing Sight Distance m 545 410 345
Min. Horizontal Curve Radius m 240 130 85
Max. Gradient (desirable) % 4 6 9
Max. Gradient (absolute) % 6 8 11
Minimum Gradient in cut % 0.5 0.5 0.5
Maximum Super elevation % 7 7 7
Crest Vertical Curve stopping Kmin 32 14 9
Crest Vertical Curve passing Kmin 310 176 126
Sag Vertical Curve stopping Kmin 25 15 11
Normal Cross fall % 4 4 4
Shoulder Cross fall % 4 4 4
Right of Way m 30 30 30

It is observed that all bridges have big spans of ranging from 35m to 110m.

1.2.6 Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
The purpose of the environmental impact assessment was to identify potential significant
environmental impacts, including impacts on the ecological and socioeconomic
components of the environment. The findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment
will contribute to the accountable decision making with regard to the upgrading of the
bridges and approach roads, and ensure that the necessary mechanisms are put in
place to effectively manage the potential impacts. The objectives of the impact study
were:
- to identify and evaluate the environmental impacts of upgrading the bridges and
approach roads on the biophysical (ecological and physical) and socio-economic
characteristics, during construction and operation;
- to provide the basis for environmentally sound decision-making in which all reasonable
alternatives are examined;
- to undertake a comprehensive public participation exercise whereby interested and
affected parties (I&APs) are identified and given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project;
- to identify and describe procedures and activities that will enhance the positive impacts
and avoid or mitigate the negative environmental impacts;
- to address medium to long term management and monitoring during all phases of the
road project (site preparation, construction, operation and maintenance) by implementing
an environmental management plan.

The environmental study included:
- Scoping and public consultation,
- Description of the proposed project,
- Description of the affected environment (ecological, physical and socioeconomic),
- Environmental impact identification and evaluation,
- Environmental Impact Management Plan.

The Environmental Impact Assessment was carried out in compliance with the Uganda
Environmental guidelines on bridge and road construction.

4

The cost estimates for all the works is given below.

SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES FOR THE WORKS

SUMMARY BILL ALL BRIDGES Amount
SIMILIKI BRIDGE 3,284,143,800
KAGUTA BRIDGE 1,370,516,175
KARUJUMBA BRIDGE

941,412,675
KABAALE BRIDGE 2,705,425,800
KANYAMATEKE BRIDGE 960,396,675
TOTAL 9,261,895,125


5

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background

The Government of Uganda (GoU), represented by the Ministry of Works and Transport
(MoWT) intends to improve five (5) strategic bridges along the road network in the
country to standards required to cope with the present and anticipated growth, with the
sole aim of achieving the targets of Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP). The MoWT
has therefore embarked on addressing the bottlenecks on classified and feeder roads
network by removing major impediments to effective and efficient movement of goods,
services and people.

Detailed designs have been completed, and this is the Design Report.

2.2 Field Surveys

Field surveys were carried out and all relevant site plans and the vertical and horizontal
alignments for all proposed bridges and approach roads were produced.

Geotechnical investigations for ground conditions were carried out to determine:

- the bearing capacity of the soils as an input to the structural design,

- water table depth as a general input into the design,

- construction materials required for the structures, river training and the approach
roads, and

- construction materials required for bridge approaches embankment fills and gravel
pavement and wearing course.

Topographic surveys were carried out to establish data and basic drawings for the
detailed designs, including location, elevation, foundation levels and hydraulic
dimensioning of the structures and river-training protective measures for the
watercourses.

Hydrological field investigations were carried out to determine hydraulic effectiveness of
the proposed dimensions of all the structures, including freeboard.


6

3 HYDROLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSIS
3.1 Introduction
Under the terms of reference of the consultancy services for detailed design of 5
strategic bridges around Uganda, the hydrologist was required to carry out drainage
investigations to assess the requirements for the approach roads for purposes of
determining suitable types and sizes of the bridge crossings.

This report reviews the procedure that was adopted in the hydrologic analysis and
hydraulic design of the bridges; assessment of the data collected during the field study,
analysis the hydrological characteristics, presentation of the alternative bridge
configurations and recommendations of the best designs.

3.2 Description of the bridge sites
The proposed bridge crossings are located in several districts in northern, central and
western Uganda (
Figure 1, Table 1). The terrain varies considerably with elevations ranging from 628m asl
at Semiliki to 1,781 m asl at Kanyamateke. The river widths also vary considerably from
about 12 m for Karujumba to more than 80 m at Kabaale.

During the field visits it was noted that the river flow depths were below flood levels at
virtually all the sites. This is not surprising given that the timing of early October
coincided with the end of the dry season just before the start of the short rains for most
parts of Uganda. However, early approximations were that the water depths varied
between 1.2 m for Kanyamateke to over 4 m for Semiliki.

The predominant land uses included light forest cover and thickets with agriculture and
livestock rearing practiced in some places. The main crops include cassava and
matooke, coffee, sun flower, cocoa etc.

Table 1: Locations of the 5 proposed bridge crossings
Site River District Elev.
(m asl)
Catchment
Area (km
2
)
Sub-county
Kabaale Mayanja Kiboga/
Nakaseske
1058 4,568 Kyankwanzi (Kiboga),
Ngoma (Nakaseke)
Kaguta Aswa Lira 1000 4,667 Okwang, Ogur
Semiliki (at
Rwebisengo)
Semiliki Bundibugyo 628 33,165 Rwebisengo
(Bundibugyo) and
Buguma (DR Congo)
Karujumba Nyamugasani Kasese 1109 242 Kyondo and Kyarumba
Kanyamateke Kanyamateke Kisoro 1781 738 Busanza


7

Figure 1: Map of Uganda showing the locations of the proposed bridge crossings

3.3 Return period
The Road Design Manual (1994) recommends that design return periods for structures
in rural areas be selected as follows:
- Minor structures - 10-25 years
- Major bridges and culverts - 25-50 years

The factors considered in selecting the design return period include construction cost
and level of acceptable risk to life and property and design life of project (physical life or
economic life). In this study, the 50 year return period flood has been used in sizing of
the structures. The 100 year flood has been used to check if overtopping conditions
occur. The 100 year flood event is also used to evaluate the bridge foundation against
scour.

3.4 Flood analysis methods
By definition flood flows are rare events and data availability is a major issue.
Sometimes, the data is completely unavailable (in ungauged sites) or where flow data
are available, extreme flood conditions may be such that no flow measurements can be
taken and estimates have to be made (i.e. extrapolation of rating curves). Careful

8

consideration of the available data is important before selecting the analysis method. In
order of preference, Watkins and Fiddes (1984) recommend the following methods for
estimating design floods:

a) Methods based on analyzing flow data i.e. Extreme value analysis, Flood
transposition, Slope-area method, Bank full flows
b) Regional flood formulae like envelope curves
c) Rainfall runoff models i.e. the rational method, unit hydrograph techniques and
synthetic hydrograph
d) Hybrid methods based on a regionalization of rainfall runoff models i.e. the
ORSTOM method (developed in West Africa), TRRL method (based on 14
catchments in Kenya and Uganda), the SCS curve number method and the
generalized tropical flood model.

The choice between these methods depends on whether the detailed shape of the flood
or the probable maximum flood is needed and on availability of the reliable flow records
at the design site or nearby sites, whether on the same river or some other catchment. It
also depends on availability of suitable data.

In the current assignment, 4 of the 5 rivers have measured discharge records. These are
R. Mayanja, R. Aswa, R. Semiliki and R. Nyamugasani. For the gauged rivers, statistical
analysis using flood frequency estimation was carried out in deriving the design flood
magnitudes.

Where measured flow data is not available, the Road Design Manual (1993) appears to
favour use of the SCS curve number method in cases where measured flow data is not
available. However, the TRRL East African model has been found to provide more
reliable estimates for small catchments especially in areas where the gauging network is
very sparse. The following advantages of the method make it suitable for applying in the
study area.

a) It was experimentally derived and tested using measurements of rainfall and
runoff 14 representative catchments in Kenya and Uganda for 4 years and is
specifically tailored for use in flood estimation for highways bridges and culverts.
b) The methodology for development of the model made extensive use of reliable
rainfall records for over 867 stations available in the archives of the East African
Meteorological Department with a record length of 10-40 years. Depth-duration
data were obtained for stations in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda (Busia, Kasese,
Wadelai, Matuga, Atumatak, Entebbe, Gulu, Kampala, Jinja, Mbarara, Tororo,
and Fort Portal).
c) It incorporates both unit hydrograph approaches and regionalization techniques.
d) It was designed to provide estimates of peak discharges at recurrence intervals
of 5-25 and up to an upper limit of 50-100 years for small catchments of up to
200 km
2
.
e) Areal reduction factors for East African rain gauge networks as well as variations
in vegetation are also incorporated in the model
3.5 The flood frequency analysis methodology
The methodology used for estimating the design flood for different recurrence intervals
using statistical analysis of extremes was as follows:

9

a) From a record of daily historical flows, the annual maximum values (the
maximum daily flow for each year) were selected
b) From a number of candidate statistical distributions the distribution that best fits
the annual maximum flows was selected. Four candidate distributions were
selected for the current study namely: Normal, Lognormal, Extreme Value and
Weibull distributions
c) The parameters of the distribution were estimated and the growth curve derived
d) The flood flows corresponding to the set return periods at the gauging stations
were estimated
e) A suitable factor to convert mean daily flows into peak flow values was applied.
The factor takes into account the shape of the flood hydrograph and depends on,
among others, the catchment size, time taken to route the flow through channels
and available storage (in lakes and swamps). The factor can vary between 1 and
2.5 for large catchment. For smaller catchments, a much higher factor may be
needed
f) Where the gauging station location is different from the bridge site (which is
normally the case), the flows were transferred to the bridge site using the Flood
Transposition method. In this method, it is assumed that the catchment
characteristics for the catchment contributing the two (gauging station and bridge
site) do not vary considerably and the flood generation mechanisms are similar.
In this case, the flows at the two points are proportional to the areas of their
catchments. Therefore, the flow at the bridge site is simply estimated as the flow
at the gauging site multiplied by the ratio of the two areas.
3.6 The TRRL model methodology
The steps involved in estimating the design flood for different recurrence intervals using
the TRRL Model were derived from Watkins and Fiddes (1984) in as follows:
a) The catchment upstream of each bridge site was generated using an SRTM90
digital elevation model (DEM) of the area
b) Catchment area (A), land slope and channel slope were measured from the map
c) From site inspection the catchment type was established and the surface cover
flow time (TS) was computed using equation 7.27 and Table 7.16
d) Soil type was determined by both geo-technical investigations and available soil
maps the soil permeability class and slope class were established using Table
7.10 and 7.11 and, entering these into Table 7.12 or 7.13, the basic runoff
coefficient (CS) was determined.
e) The land use factor (CL) and catchment wetness factor (CW) were determined
from Tables 7.14 and 7.15
f) The runoff coefficient (CA)was computed using equation 7.22
g) The base time (TB) was computed from equation 7.29
h) The Kampala Equation (equation 4.11) was used to estimate the areal reduction
factor to take into account that tropical catchments rarely receive rainfall
uniformly over the entire catchment.
i) The design storm rainfall (P) for each recurrence interval, to be allowed for during
base time was then computed.
j) The average flow
) (Q
during base time was calculated from

10

B
A
T
PA C
Q
360
=
(Equation 1)
k) The design peak
)
(Q
was the computed from

Q F Q =
(Equation 2)
l) Where and appropriate value of F is taken from Table 7.17

3.7 Flood estimates
In cases where both methods (frequency analysis and TRRL method) were used, the
method that gave higher estimates was selected for use in hydraulic design. This
approach was used for the 4 bridge sites that had measured flow data, namely Kabaale
(R. Mayanja), Kaguta (R. Aswa), Semiliki (R. Semiliki) and Karujumba (R.
Nyamugasani). The flood estimates for Kanyamateke (R. Kanyamateke) were based on
only the TRRL method, since there was no suitable gauging nearby on which to base
statistical analysis.

3.8 Hydraulic Design Criteria and the HEC-RAS River Analysis System
Flow analysis and bridge design were carried out using the HEC-RAS River Analysis
System developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Centre.
The software has been widely used in different countries for hydraulic analysis and
design of hydraulic structures including bridges and culverts. It consists of a graphical
user interface, analysis components, data preparation, storage and management
capabilities, graphics and reporting facilities.

The HEC-RAS system contains four 1-dimensional river analysis components for:
a) Steady flow water surface profile computations
b) Unsteady flow simulation
c) Movable boundary sediment transport computations
d) Water quality computations
e) Hydraulic design features that can be invoked once the basic water surface
computations have been carried out
Program capabilities
HEC-RAS is designed to perform one-dimensional hydraulic calculations for a full
network of natural and constructed channels. For the current assignment, use was made
of the steady flow water surface profile component. The following features of the steady
flow component make it particularly suitable for the assignment.
a) The steady flow water surface profiles component is intended for calculating
water surface profiles for steady gradually varied flow. The system can handle a
full network of channels, a dendritic system or a single river reach. The steady
flow component is capable of modeling subcritical, supercritical, and mixed flow
regime water surface profiles.
b) The basic computational procedure is based on the solution of the one
dimensional energy equation. Energy losses are evaluated by friction (Mannings
equation) and contraction/expansion (coefficient multiplied by change in velocity

11

head). The momentum equation is utilized in situations where the water surface
profile is rapidly varied. These situations include mixed flow regime calculations
(i.e. hydraulic jumps), hydraulics of bridges, and evaluating profiles at river
confluences (stream junctions).
c) The effects of various obstructions such as bridges, culverts, dams, weirs, and
other structures in the flood plain may be considered in the computations. Also
capabilities are available within the system for assessing the change in water
surface profiles due to channel modifications etc.

Special features of the steady flow component include: multiple plan analyses; multiple
profile computations; multiple bridge and/or culvert opening analysis; bridge scour
analysis; split flow optimization; and stable channel design and analysis.
3.9 Theoretical basis for the hydraulic analysis
The theoretical framework for the flow calculations is founded on long established
principles of fluid dynamics including mass, energy and momentum conservation
(Featherstone and Nalluri, 1995; Brunner et al., 2001). A number of implicit assumptions
are made in the steady flow analysis component of the software including;

a) Flow is steady
b) Flow is gradually varied (except at hydraulic structures such as bridges, culverts,
and weirs. At these locations, where the flow can be rapidly varied, the
momentum equation or other empirical equations are used instead)
c) Flow is one dimensional (i.e. velocity components is directions other than the
direction of flow are not accounted for)
d) Rivers have small slopes, say less than 1:10

Below is a review of some of the key issues of interest.
Equations for the basic profile calculations
In the HEC-RAS system, water surface profiles are computed from one cross-section to
the next by solving the Energy equation with an iterative procedure called the standard
step method. The energy equation is written as follows
e
h
g
V
Z Y
g
V
Z Y + + + = + +
2 2
2
1 1
1 1
2
2 2
2 2
o o
(3)
Where
Y
1
, Y
2
= depth of water at cross sections
Z
1
, Z
2
= elevation of the main channel inverts
V
1
, V
2
= average velocities (total discharge/total flow area)
2 1
,o o = velocity weighting coefficients
g = gravitational acceleration
h
e
= energy head loss

the energy head loss (h
e
) between two cross sections is comprised of friction losses and
contraction or expansion losses. The equation for the energy loss is as follows.


12

g
V
g
V
C S L h
f e
2 2
2
1 1
2
2 2
o o
+ = (4)
Where: L = discharge weighted reach length

f
S = representative friction slope between two sections
C = expansion or loss coefficient
The distance weighted reach length, L, L is calculated as

rob ch lob
rob rob ch ch lob lob
Q Q Q
Q L Q L Q L
L
+ +
+ +
= (5)

Where
rob ch lob
L L L , , = cross section reach lengths specified for flow in the left
overbank, main channel, and right overbank respectively
rob ch lob
Q Q Q + + = arithmetic average of the flows between sections for the left
overbank, main channel, and right overbank respectively
Cross section subdivision for conveyance calculations
The determination of the total conveyance and the velocity coefficient for a cross section
requires that flow be subdivided into units for which the velocity is uniformly distributed.
The approach used in HEC-RAS is to subdivide the flow into the overbank areas using
the input cross section n-value break points (location where the Mannings n-values
change) as the basis for subdivision. Conveyance is then calculated within each
subdivision from the following form of Mannings equation based on SI units

n
AR
K
KS Q
f
3 2
2 1
=
=
(6)
Where: K = conveyance for the subdivision
n = Mannings roughness coefficient for the subdivision
A = flow area for subdivision
R = hydraulic radius for subdivision (area/wetted perimeter)

The program then sums up all the incremental conveyances in the overbanks to obtain
the conveyance for the left and right overbank. The main channel is normally computed
as a single conveyance element. The total conveyance for the cross section is obtained
by summing the three subdivision conveyances (left, channel and right).
Composite Mannings n for the channel
Flow in the main channel is not subdivided, except when the roughness coefficient is
changed within the channel area. HEC-RAS tests the applicability of subdivision of
roughness within the main channel portion of a cross section, and if it is applicable, the
program will compute a single composite main channel n value.

13

Evaluation of Mean Kinetic Energy Head
Because the HEC-RAS software is a one dimensional water surface profiles program,
only a single water surface and therefore a single mean energy are computed at each
cross section. For a given water surface elevation, the mean energy is obtained by
computing a flow weighting energy from the three subsections of a cross sections (left
overbank, main channel, and right overbank).
Friction loss evaluation
Friction loss is evaluated in HEC-RAS as a product of
f
S and L (equation 6.2) where
f
S is the representative friction slope for a reach and L is is defined by equation 6.3. The
friction slope (slope of the energy grade line) at each cross section is computed from
Mannings equation as follows:

2
|
.
|
\
|
=
K
Q
S
f
(7)
Alternative expressions for the representative friction slope used in HEC-RAS are
explained in (Brunner et al., 2001) and include:

a) Average conveyance equation
b) Average friction slope equation
c) Geometric mean friction slope equation
d) Harmonic mean friction slop equation
Contraction and expansion loss evaluation
Contraction and expansion losses in HEC-RAS are evaluated by the following equation:

g
V
g
V
C h
ce
2 2
2
2 2
2
1 1
o o
= (8)

Where: C = contraction or expansion coefficient

The program assumes that a contraction is occurring whenever the velocity head
downstream is greater than the velocity head upstream and vice versa. Typical C values
are available in standard textbooks and manuals on Hydraulics.
3.10 Computation procedure
The unknown water surface elevation at a cross section is determined by an iterative
solution of equations 6.1 and 6.2 as follows:

a) Assume a water surface elevation (WS2) at the upstream cross section (or
downstream cross section if a supercritical profile is being computed)
b) Based on the assumed water surface elevation, determine the corresponding
total conveyance and velocity head

14

c) With values from step 2, compute
f
S
and solve equation 6.2 for
e
h

d) With values from steps 2 and 3, solve equation 6.1 for WS2.
e) Compare the computed value of WS2 with the value assumed in step 1; repeat
steps 1 through 5 until the values agree within 0.003m, or a user defined
tolerance.
3.11 Bridge modeling guidelines
HEC-RAS computes energy loses caused by structures such as bridges and culverts in
three parts:

a) One part consists of losses that occur in the reach immediately downstream from
the structure, where expansion of the flow generally takes place
b) The second part consists of losses at the structure itself, which can be modeled
with several different methods.
c) The third part consists of losses that occur in the reach immediately upstream of
the structure, where the flow is generally contracting to get through the opening.

Cross section locations
The bridge routines utilize four user defined cross sections in the computations of energy
losses due to the structure (numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Figure 2). During the hydraulic
computations the program automatically formulates two additional cross sections inside
the bridge. Whenever the user is performing water surface computations through the
bridge, additional cross sections should always be included both downstream and
upstream of the bridge to prevent any user-entered boundary conditions from affecting
the hydraulic results through the bridge.

15

Figure 2: Cross section locations at bridge
Contraction and expansion losses
Losses due to contraction and expansion of flow between cross sections are determined
during the standard step profile calculations. Mannings equation is used to calculate
friction losses, and all other losses are described in terms of a coefficient times the
absolute value of the change in velocity between adjacent cross sections. When the
velocity head increases in the downstream direction, a contraction coefficient is used;
and when the velocity head decrease, an expansion coefficient is used.
Hydraulic computations through the bridge
The bridge routines in HEC-RAS allow the modeller to analyse a bridges with several
different methods without changing the bridge geometry. The bridge routines have the
ability to model low flow (class A, B, and C) when the bridge opening operates as an
open channel. The routines can also model high flows which are flows that come into
contact with the maximum low chord of the bridge deck. The energy equation is mainly
used in both cases though other alternative equations like momentum balance, Yarnell

16

equation in case of low flows or the pressure and weir flow method in case of high flows.
In cases of combination flows (when low flows and high flows occur) and iterative
procedure is used to determine the amount of each flow and the appropriate equations
applied.
Selecting a bridge modelling approach
The choice of the modelling approach depends significantly of the type of flow (low or
high) and local conditions like level of obstruction by the piers, predominant type of
losses level of obstruction by the bridge deck, whether the bridge is submerged or not
etc. other factors include the bridge skew to the flow direction, and presence of multiple
bridge openings at a cross section.
3.12 Culvert modeling guidelines
Because of the similarity between flow in bridges and culverts, culverts are modeled in a
similar manner to bridges. Figure 3 shows a typical box culvert crossing and illustrates
the similarities between culvert and bridge crossings. The selection of lay out cross
sections, the use of ineffective areas of flow, the selection of loss coefficients and most
other aspects of bridge analysis apply to culverts as well. The most common types of
culvert crossings includes circular, box (rectangular), arch, box arch, low profile arch,
high profile arch, elliptical and semi-circular. Flow conditions at the entrance and exit of
the culverts are defined by the contraction and expansion coefficients which are unique
to each culvert type. The head losses are computed by multiplying this coefficient by the
absolute head difference between two cross sections (one upstream and the other
downstream of the culvert section).

Figure 3: Typical culvert crossing (right: energy and hydraulic grade line for a full
flowing culvert)


17

3.13 Analysis Methodolgy
The following methodology was adopted for the hydrological analysis and hydraulic
design of the bridges;

Data collection and inventory of the existing structures:
Review of the existing design and assessment reports. Field studies to obtain site data
like location, type, geometrics and condition. Detailed data concerning flow conditions
(discharge) and river cross-sections is useful in the hydraulic design of the crossings.
Flow data (where available), rainfall, etc was also be collected from the respective
agencies. This involved collection of historical flood data including high water marks,
river cross-sections (upstream, downstream and at bridge site), existing activities and
manmade features in the flood plain. Evidence of bridge overtopping and scour was
also collected. Use was made of existing reports, the MoWT Road Design Manual,
maps, drawings and such other documents. Field visits were also carried out for on-site
assessments of the sections.

Hydrological analysis
Hydrological analysis involved determination of discharges with different return periods
for each site on the basis of which performance of alternative bridge designs were
evaluated. Determination of the discharges was based on the following procedure

a) Estimation, for each site, of catchment area, rainfall, catchment slope, flow
velocities, cross-sectional area, roughnesses (in river and flood plain) etc. To
obtain this information, use was made of existing reports, topographical maps
(1:50000 scale) and digital datasets using GIS techniques.
b) Estimation of the flood discharges corresponding to specific return periods (QT)
which included Q10, Q25, Q50, and Q100. The bridges were designed to pass
the 50 year flood (Q50). The proposed bridge designs were then crosschecked
against failure resulting from the 100-year flood (Q100). For the rivers that had
flow gauging stations flood estimation was based on both the TRRL method and
flood frequency analysis using measured data.
c) Using the survey data the elevations corresponding to each of the above
discharges were computed

Analysis of alternatives
This was an iterative process involving an evaluation of the alternative designs, selection
of the most appropriate and refinement to suit conditions on ground. The HEC-RAS
software used to carry out hydraulic analysis of alternatives. For each site, selection was
made on the basis of assessing the suitability of the design for given conditions of
flooding. In particular, issues of concern included;


18

a) Availability of acceptable freeboard under flood conditions
b) Assessment of the backwater effects vis--vis flooding damage
c) Comparisons with historical occurrence of flooding

Bridge types
The bridge material will depend on the considerations of the structural and materials
engineers. However, for purposes of the hydraulic design, it is assumed that the bridges
will be made of reinforced concrete reinforced concrete decks and rounded piers. The
other consideration was the Mabey Bridge system (www.mabebridge.co.uk) which are
made of steel trusses. However, based on information available at the design stage, the
prefabricated members are single lane. To get the necessary two lanes, we would have
to lay two Mabey bridges side-by-side which would be too expensive.

Evaluation and selection
The selection of a best alternative was accomplished by comparison of the study
results and considerations to acceptable limitations and controls. Best alternative means
the bridge configuration that meets all or most of the following criteria.

a) Backwater will not significantly increase flood damage to property upstream of
the crossing.
b) Velocities through the structure(s) will not damage the highway facility or unduly
increase damages to adjacent property.
c) Existing flow distribution is maintained to the extent practicable.
d) Level of traffic service is compatible with that commonly expected of the class of
highway and projected traffic volumes.
e) Minimal disruption of ecosystems and values unique to the floodplain and
stream.
f) Cost for construction, maintenance and operation, including probable repair and
reconstruction, and potential liabilities are affordable.
g) Pier and abutment location, spacing, and orientation are such to minimize flow
disruption, debris collection and scour.
h) Proposal is consistent with the intent of the standards and criteria of the Ministry
of Works guidelines.

Documentation of design
All information pertinent to the selection of the "best" alternate was documented as
follows:

a) A report including all computations (design floods, scour, sizing, etc)
b) Sketch of proposed structure(s) and roadway grade in plan and profile showing
crown grade elevation, super structure, limits and elevations of any channel

19

modifications as well as a table or performance curve forming a depiction of the
natural and post-design water surface elevations at the upstream section for the
design flood.

3.14 Kabaale Bridge
Introduction
The Kabaale site is located on River Mayanja at GPS location 378534E and 124008N
(Figure 4). It is located at the border between the sub-counties of Lwebisanja in Kiboga
district and Ngoma in Nakaseke district. The site is located at an elevation of 1058m asl
while the catchment area is 4,658 km
2
. At the site, the river exits from a swamp and
enters another swamp downstream with a total clear length of about 500m. The width of
the river at the proposed site is about 80m but the flood plain extends over 250 m at
least. The water is quite clear with no evidence of sediment transportation. However,
evidence of bank erosion during flooding exists.

Figure 4: Kabaale Bridge Site and Catchment


20

Catchment characteristics
Landscape
The upstream of the catchment is characterised by a rolling terrain with numerous hills
drained by wide valleys (Figure 5). The areas close to the bridge site are generally flat
and swampy. The elevation varies between 1040 masl and 1600 masl. The land slopes
are generally low, varying between 7% in the upper reach and 4% in the lower reach.
The average slope is 5.6% while the channel slope is 0.04%.

Figure 5: Landscape type in the R. Mayanja catchment
Land cover
The land cover in the basin consists of a combination of open shrubs with herbaceous
and sparsely distributed trees. Small scale agriculture is the dominant activity in the
upstream areas while livestock rearing is the dominant activity in the lower reaches. The

21

river flood plains are dominated by permanent papyrus swamps which provide extensive
storage of flood water thereby providing some attenuation of the peak flows.

Geology and Soils

The upper reach of the R. Mayanja catchment is mainly made up of undifferentiated
basement system gneisses (Figure 6). The lower reach is made up of unconsolidated
material which is eroded from the upstream areas and deposited due to reduction in
channel slopes. The soils range from sandy to sandy loams. The valleys are filled with
clayey mixtures.

Figure 6: R. Mayanja Catchment Geology
Climate
The area falls within climatic zone L according to the Uganda Hydroclimatic Study
(2001). The zone receives an average of 1270 mm of rainfall which is principally spread
over 2 rainy seasons: The long rains of March to May and the short rains of September
to November (Figure 7). During the dry months, evaporation can be very high (in the
order of 5 times the rainfall).

22

Figure 7: Monthly Rainfall and Evaporation Variation (source: Hydroclimatic Study
(2001))

Flood estimation results
Both flood frequency analysis and the TRRL method were used for flood estimation as
detailed below.
Flood frequency analysis
The data used for frequency analysis was obtained for gauge number 83218 on
Kapeeka Kakunga road (Figure 4). Figure 8 shows the daily flow data for the gauge
while Figure 9 shows the extract of annual maximum daily flows. The annual maximum
flows range from 25 m
3
/s in 2000 to 43 m
3
/s in 2006. The extensive swamp storage
attenuates this flood magnitude quite significantly. Therefore, when compared with the
catchment area, the flood magnitudes are quite low. For 8 years out of the 9 years of
record the annual maximum flows occur in October and November during the second
rainy season that lasts from September to December though it can sometimes extend to
January.

23

1998 2000 2001 2002 2004 2005 2006
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
F
l
o
w

(
m
3
/
s
)
River Mayanja (83218)

Figure 8: Flow data for River Mayanja
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
A
n
n
u
a
l

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

F
l
o
w

(
m
3
/
s
)
River Mayanja (83218)

Figure 9: Annual maximum flows for R. Mayanja

The fits for the various distributions are not particularly good (Figure 10). There is some
clustering of the annual maximum flows. This is probably because the data length is
relatively short (13 years). Therefore, the strategy adopted for estimating the design
flows was to carry computations using all candidate distributions and select the one with
the higher flow estimates for each return period.

24

24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Annual maximum flow (m
3
/s)

Observed data
Normal distribution
95% confidence bounds
24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
3
/s)

Observed data
Lognormal distribution

24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
3
/s)

Observed data
Extreme value distribution
24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
3
/s)

Observed data
Weibull distribution
Figure 10: Fits for various distributions to R. Mayanja data. Clockwise starting
from the upper left corner are fits for Normal, Lognormal, Extreme value and
Weibull distributions respectively

Estimates for the lognormal distribution are higher than those for other distributions
(Table 2). The lognormal distribution has, therefore, been selected for estimating the
flood flows at Kabaale bridge site.

Table 2: Flood flow estimates at the gauging site for the candidate distributions

T (Years) Q
T
(m
3
/s) for each of the candidate distributions
Normal Lognormal Extreme Value Weibull
10 134.9 139.1 129.5 131.0
20 143.8 152.7 134.2 137.4
50 154.0 169.5 139.1 144.3
100 160.7 181.7 142.1 148.7

Estimates of the design flood at the bridge site were made using the flood transposition
method. The ratio of the area of the bridge site catchment (area = 4,658 km
2
) to the
gauging site catchment (area = 2,297 km
2
) was computed as 1.99. The estimates of the
design flood at Kabaale bridge site are shown in table 3.


25

Table 3: Design flows at Kabaale bridge site

T (Years) Q
T
(m
3
/s)
Flow Gauge Kabaale Bridge
10 139.1 276.7
20 152.7 303.6
50 169.5 337.0
100 181.7 361.3

TRRL method
In the TRRL method, use was made of results from direct analysis of observed intensity
data from various parts of East Africa to derive the design rainfall storms. The method
involved initially setting the runoff coefficient (percentage of rainfall that is converted to
runoff) using factors like land use, catchment slope class, soil class, surface cover and
catchment wetness factor. The hydrograph base time was then estimated from
catchment area and slope class. The base time can be thought of as being made of 3
components viz. the storm duration, time taken for the surface runoff to drain into the
stream system, and the flow time down the stream and river system to the bridge site.

The mean 24 hour rainfall (also called the 2-year, 24 hour rainfall) was estimated from a
storm rainfall map of East Africa and found to be between 60 and 70 mm in most parts of
Uganda. Factors of 1.49, 1.74, 1.95 and 2.2 were then applied to derive the design
storm having return period of 10, 25, 50 and 100 years respectively. Table 4 shows the
computed design storms for the site.

Table 4: Design storms for different return periods for Kabaale site

T (years) Design storm (mm)
10 114.8
25 129.5
50 154.0
100 175.0

Each of the above design rainfall were adjusted by applying 2 factors:

a) An area reduction factor to take into account the variability of rainfall in space
b) A rainfall ratio to take into account the movement of the design storm in time.

The average and peak flow during base time for each return period was computed using
equations 1 and 2 given above and applying a peak factor of 2.5 which applies for humid
regions.


26

Table 5 shows the design floods that were obtained for each bridge site using the TRRL
model. The bank-full flows were computed using Mannings equation of friction flow to
check whether occurrence of the design floods would cause the rivers to bust their
banks. From the values of the bank-full flows it is clear that the design floods can be
carried within the river banks.

Table 5: Design floods for the Kabaale bridge site before adjusting for storage

T (years) Peak flood (m
3
/s)
10 277.4
25 312.9
50 372.1
100 422.9

The above design floods should be adjusted to take into account the effect of storage
within the basin and catchment shape. The river basin has extensive swamps that
provide considerable storage. The peak flows are therefore greatly attenuated. About
20% of the basin is filled with papyrus swamps. This was estimated to result in a 15%
attenuation of the peak flows and the flow values were adjusted accordingly. The length
of the catchment is 121km while the width is 49km giving a ratio of 2.5 which is within
the range of 2-6 and is assumed in the derivation of the TRRL approach and therefore
no further adjustments were carried out. Table 6 shows the final estimates of flood flows.

Table 6: Design floods for the Kabaale bridge site after adjusting for storage

T (years) Adjusted Peak Flood
(m
3
/s)
10 249.7
25 281.6
50 334.9
100 380.6

Bridge Design Results
The proposed bridge is a multiple span bridge with vertical abutments and 45 degree
wing-walls (Figure 11). The end spans (between abutments and first pier from each
bank) are 10 m wide. There are 6 internal spans (pier to pier) each 15m wide. The total
bridge width is 110m while the effective flow area is 300 m
2
. Each of the 7 piers is of the
round-nose type and is 0.5m wide. The bridge deck high chord is 1052.9 m high, while
the deck low chord is 1052.0 m. The invert level at lowest point of the river is 1048.5 m
giving a clear height of 3.5m. The 50-year flood level is 1051.1 m giving a free board of
0.9 m.

27

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
KabaleWithBridge Plan: Plan 01 1/10/2010

Stati on (m)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Legend
EG 50-year
WS 50-year
Cri t 50-year
Ground
Bank Sta
.075 .03 .075

Figure 11: Bridge configuration showing the 50-year flood level

The flow velocity at the bridge site is about 1.65m/s and the Froude number is 0.32
(Table 7). Therefore, flow through the bridge is subcritical.

Table 7: Flow conditions around bridge site

Assessment of the scouring conditions around the abutments using the 100 year flood
indicates a maximum scour hole depth of 1.8 m and 1.4 m for the left and right
abutments respectively (Figure 12). There is, therefore, a need to protect the abutments
against scour with riprap. Pier scour is negligible.

28

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
Bridge Scour RS = 36.8
Stati on (m)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Legend
WS 100-year
Ground
Bank Sta
Contr Scour
Total Scour

Figure 12: Scour conditions for the 100-year flood conditions


29

3.15 Kaguta Bridge
Introduction
The Kaguta bridge site is located on River Aswa in Lira district at GPS location 501047E
and 275998N (Figure 13). At this section, the river serves as the border between the
sub-county of Orit, Erute County, Lira district and the sub-county of Amoyai, Otuke
County, Pader district. The site is at an elevation of 997 asl and the catchment area is
4,667 km
2
. The site is located at a 90degree bend within a gorge of about 3.5 m depth.

The width of the river at the proposed site is about 20m but the flood plain extends over
200 m at least. The water carries sediment that is eroded from the upstream areas in
Karamoja. There is evidence of bank erosion during flooding.

Figure 13: Kaguta bridge site and its catchment
Landscape
The upstream of the catchment (area of Labwor in Kotido district) is characterised by a
relatively hilly terrain with wide valleys (Figure 14). The areas close to the bridge site are
made up of shallow gorges with flood plains that may extend 200 m on either side of the
river. The elevation varies between 997 masl and 1868 masl with a mean of 1088 masl.

30

The slopes vary between 8% in the upper reaches and 1.9% in the lower reaches. The
average slope is 2.5% while the channel slope is 0.034%.

Figure 14: Landscape types in the R. Aswa catchment
Land-use
Woodlands, pasture lands and grasslands are dominant in the upstream areas.
Subsistence agriculture is dominant in the mid to lower reaches. The main crops grown
include maize, sunflower, sorghum, millet. The flood plains tend to be bushy with
somewhat dense tree cover.

31

Figure 15: Land-use types in R. Aswa catchment

Geology and Soils
The catchment is mainly made up of a combination of granitoid, undifferentiated and
unconsolidated sediments as well as basement system gneisses (Figure 16). The soils
range from sandy to sandy loams. The valleys are filled with gravely soils and clayey
mixtures.

32

Figure 16: R. Aswa catchment geology

Climate
The area falls within climatic zone I according to the Uganda Hydroclimatic Study (2001).
The zone receives an average of 1340 mm of rainfall which falls in one rainy season
from April to mid November (Figure 17). The dry season is from November to March.
January is the driest month and evaporation can be 10 times the rainfall received.

33

Figure 17: Monthly rainfall and evaporation variation (source: Hydroclimatic study
(2001))

detailed below.

Flow data was obtained for gauge number 86201 at Puranga. Figure 18 shows the daily
flow data for R. Aswa at the gauging station while Figure 19 shows the extract of annual
maximum flows. The annual maximum flows range from 26 m
3
/s in 1965 to 208 m
3
/s in
1970. The flows are mainly driven by flush flooding in the headwater areas of Labwoh,
Jie and Bokora but also the rainy season in the area from April to October. The annual
maximum series is dominated by flows in the months of August and September which
coincides with the peak of the rainy season.

34

1952 1954 1957 1960 1963 1965 1968 1971 1974 1976 1979
0
50
100
150
200
250
F
l
o
w

(
m
3
/
s
)
River Aswa I (86201)

Figure 18: Flow data for River Aswa at Puranga
1949 1954 1960 1965 1971 1976 1982
0
50
100
150
200
250
A
n
n
u
a
l

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

F
l
o
w

(
m
3
/
s
)
River Aswa I (86201)

Figure 19: Annual maximum flows for R. Mayanja

The fits for the various distributions are not particularly good (Figure 10). There is some
clustering of the annual maximum flows but the fits are generally good.

35

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Observed data
Normal distribution
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Observed data
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Observed data
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Observed data
Figure 20: Fits for various distributions to R. Mayanja data. Clockwise starting

The Weibull and lognormal distributions fit the measured data better than the other
distributions (Table 8). The normal distribution estimates are higher and seem more
consistent with estimates using the TRRL method. The lognormal distribution has been
used to make the flood estimates for Kaguta bridge site.


T (Years) Q
T
(m
3
10 196.4 209.9 203.0 199.0
20 218.8 257.6 219.9 225.9
50 244.0 324.5 237.0 256.8
100 260.8 378.4 247.5 277.8

method. The bridge site commands a catchment area of 4,667 km
2
while the gauge site
commands and area of 5,002 km
2
. Therefore, the ratio of the area of the bridge site
catchment to the gauging site catchment was computed as 0.93. The estimates of the
design flood at Kaguta bridge site are shown in Table 9.


36

Table 9: Design flows at Kaguta bridge site

T (Years) Q
T
(m
3
/s)
Flow Gauge Kaguta Bridge
10 209.9 195.8
20 257.6 240.4
50 324.5 302.8
100 378.4 353.1

TRRL method
computed design storms for the four catchments.

Table 10: Design storms for different return periods for Kaguta site

10 114.8
25 129.5
50 154.0
100 175.0

Each of the above design rainfall were adjusted by applying 2 factors


regions.
Table 11 shows the design floods that were obtained for each bridge site using the
TRRL model. The bank-full flows were computed using Mannings equation of friction
flow to check whether occurrence of the design floods would cause the rivers to bust

37

their banks. From the values of the bank-full flows it is clear that the design floods can
be carried within the river banks.

Table 11: Design floods for the Kaguta bridge site before adjusting for storage

3
/s)
10 246.0
25 277.5
50 330.0
100 375.0

within the basin and catchment shape. The river basin has limited swamps that provide
minimal storage. The peak flows are therefore greatly attenuated. About 5% of the basin
is filled with papyrus swamps. This is estimated to result in a 5% attenuation of the peak
flows and the flow values were adjusted accordingly. The length of the catchment is 123
km while the width is 42 km giving a ratio of 2.5 which is within the range of 2-6 that is
assumed in the derivation of the TRRL approach and therefore no further adjustments
were carried out. Table 12 shows the final estimates of flood flows

Table 12: Design floods for the Kaguta bridge site after adjusting for storage

(m
3
/s)
10 233.7
25 263.6
50 313.5
100 356.3

The proposed bridge is a 3 span bridge with vertical abutments (Figure 21). The end
spans (between abutments and first pier from each bank) are 10 m wide. The internal
span (pier to pier) is 10 m wide. The total bridge width is 25 m while the effective flow
area is 135 m
2
. Each of the 2 piers is of the round-nose type and is 0.5m wide. The
bridge deck high chord is 1001.5m high, while the deck low chord is 1000.6m. The invert
level at lowest level of the river is 993.7m giving a clear height of 5.9m. The 50-year
flood level is 998.5m giving a free board of 2.1 m.


38

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
Kaguta RC Bridge Plan: Plan 05 3/2/2010

Stati on (m)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Legend
EG 50yr
WS 50yr
Cri t 50yr
Ground
Bank Sta
.075 .03 .075


The flow velocity at the bridge site is about 2.86 m/s and the Froude number is 0.45
(Table 7). Therefore, flow through the bridge is subcritical.


indicates a maximum scour hole depth of 8.3m and 7.1 m for the left and right abutments

39

respectively (Figure 22). There is, therefore, a need to protect the abutments against
scour with riprap.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
986
988
990
992
994
996
998
1000
1002
Stati on (m)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Legend
WS 100yr
Ground
Bank Sta
Contr Scour
Total Scour


3.16 Semiliki Bridge
The Semiliki site is located on River Semiliki in Bundibugyo district at GPS location
193470E and 126013N (Figure 23). The site is located in the western arm of the Rift
Valley and is at an elevation of 628 m asl. The catchment area upstream of the bridge
site is 33,165 km
2
. At this point, the river also serves as the Uganda/Congo border. The
width of the river at the proposed site is about 50m. The river exits from Lake George
and receives numerous tributaries from Mountain Rwenzori. The river drains into Lake
Albert

40

Figure 23: Semiliki Bridge Site and Catchment
Landscape
The river has its headwaters in the Mountain ranges of Muhabura and Rwenzori where
elvations can be as high as 5,000 m asl while the bridge site is located in the rift valley at
628 m asl. The areas close to the bridge site are flat plains and swamps. The slopes
vary between 60% in the upper reaches and 8% in the lower reaches. The mean land
slope is 15% while the mean stream slope is 0.5%.
Land-use
There is a transition from high forests to woodland as you move from the upstream
areas to the mid-stream areas. The lower areas are dominated by subsistence
farmlands and savannah grasslands. The river plain within the rift valley is covered by
frequent swamps that can sometimes be as wide as 2-5 km.
Geology and Soils
The geology of the area is mainly shaped by the forces that created the mountain ranges
and the rift valley. Gneisses, amphibolites and quartzites dominate the basin. The lower
reach is shaped by sediments transported by the river. The river bed is rocky
characterised by rocky mixtures ranging from a few millimetres to several centimetres in
diameter. Larger rocks can also be transported during flood events. The soils range from

41

sandy, sandy loams and clayey aggregates. The valleys are filled with gravely soils and
clayey mixtures.

Climate
The area falls within climatic zone L according to the Uganda Hydroclimatic Study
(2001). The zone receives an average of 1270 mm of rainfall annually though this area
of Bundibugyo receives only about 800 mm of rain. The annual rainfall is spread over 2
rainy seasons: The long rains from March to May and the short rains from September to
November (Figure 24). During the dry months, evaporation can be high, in the order of 7
times the rainfall.

Figure 24: Monthly rainfall and evaporation variation (source: Hydroclimatic study
(2001))

detailed below.

Flow data was obtained for gauge number 85205 at Bweramule. The gauging site has a
catchment area of 23,621 km
2
. Figure 25 shows the daily flow data for R. Nyamugasani
at the gauging station while Figure 26 shows the extract of annual maximum flows. The
flow station broke down in the late 1970s and was only reinstated after the year 2000.
Therefore, there are no flow records for the 1980s and 1990s and this may affect the
accuracy of the flood frequency analysis. Nevertheless, there are still 28 years of
records to analyse, which is considered a reliable sample. The annual maximum flows
range from 198 m
3
/s on 24-July-1954 to 492 m
3
/s on 1-May-1963. The flows are mainly
driven by heavy rains in the mountains. Annual maximum flows are most likely to occur
during the second rainy season with 20 of the 28 annual maximum values occurring

42

during the second half of the calendar year . Sometimes the peak flows occur in October
or November during the short rainy season. The October-December floods may be
caused by the El Nio phenomenon.

1954 1960 1965 1971
0
100
200
300
400
500
F
l
o
w

(
m
3
/
s
)
River Semuliki (85205)

Figure 25: Flow data for River Semiliki at Bweramule

1949 1954 1960 1965 1971
0
100
200
300
400
500
A
n
n
u
a
l

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

F
l
o
w

(
m
3
/
s
)
River Semuliki (85205)

Figure 26: Annual maximum flows for R. Semiliki at Bweramule

Figure 27 shows the fits for the various distributions to the annual maximum data while
Table 14 shows the estimated flows for the various return periods. From visual

43

inspection of the plots, the lognormal distribution provides the best fit to the annual
maximum data. The analysis was therefore based on the lognormal distribution.

400 500 600 700 800 900
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Observed data
Normal distribution
400 500 600 700 800 900
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Observed data
400 500 600 700 800 900
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Observed data
400 500 600 700 800 900
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Observed data

Figure 27: Fits for various distributions to R. Semiliki data. Clockwise starting


T (Years) Q
T
(m
3
10 492.0 490.0 514.9 502.3
20 526.0 533.9 544.1 536.3
50 564.3 588.1 573.7 573.0
100 589.8 627.2 591.9 596.7

method. The bridge site commands a catchment area of 33,165 km
2
commands and area of 23,261 km
2
design flood at Semiliki bridge site are shown in table 15.


44

Table 15: Design flows at Semiliki bridge site

T (Years) Q
T
(m
3
/s)
Flow Gauge Semiliki Bridge
10 490.0 687.9
20 533.9 749.6
50 588.1 825.7
100 627.2 880.7

TRRL method

Table 16: Design storms for different return periods

10 98.4
25 111.0
50 132.0
100 150.0



regions.


45


Table 17: Design floods for the Semiliki bridge site before adjusting for storage

3
/s)
10 586.2
25 661.3
50 786.4
100 893.6


Table 18: Design floods for the Semiliki bridge site after adjusting for storage

(m
3
/s)
10 574.5
25 648.0
50 770.6
100 875.7

Bridge design results
The proposed bridge is a multiple span bridge with vertical abutments (Figure 28). The
end spans (between abutments and first pier from each bank) are 15 m wide each.

There are 6 internal spans (pier to pier) each 15 m wide. The total bridge width is 110 m
while the effective flow area is 284 m
2
. Each of the 4 piers is of the round-nose type and
is 0.75m wide. The bridge deck high chord is 627.9 m high, while the deck low chord is
626.5 m. The invert level at lowest level of the river is 622.1 m giving a clear height of
4.4 m. The 50-year flood level is 626.6 m giving a free board of 0.6 m.


46

To provide additional relief to the bridge and also reduce on the approach water levels,
eight box culverts are provided in the flood plain on the Ugandan side. Each culvert has
a span of 5 m and a rise of 1 m rise. The culverts are placed at 200 m separation centre
to centre.

100 200 300 400 500
623
624
625
626
627
Rwebisengo_culverts Plan: Plan 02 1/19/2010

Stati on (m)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Legend
EG 50-year
WS 50-year
Cri t 50-year
Ground
Bank Sta
.075 .03 .075


The flow velocity upstream of the bridge site is about 3.8 m/s and the Froude number is
0.6 while downstream the velocity and Froude number are 4.7 m/s and 0.8 respectively
(Table 19, Figure 29). The flow velocities are, therefore, quite high. The fast flow would
cause damage to the bridge structure and downstream. A downstream length of at least
100 m should be protected against damage using riprap.


47

14950 15000 15050 15100 15150 15200 15250
622
623
624
625
626
627
Rwebisengo_culverts Plan: Plan 02 1/19/2010
Mai n Channel Di stance (m)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Legend
EG 50-year
WS 50-year
Cri t 50-year
Ground
Semi l i ki Semi l i ki

Figure 29: Profile along channel centreline showing the passage of the 50 year
flood



48

Assessment of the scouring conditions around the abutments (Figure 30) using the 100
year flood indicates that the scour depths are as follow:

1. Pier scour +contraction scour
Left bank = 1.26 m
Channel = 6.99 m
Right bank = 1.26 m
2. Left bank + contraction scour = 4.51 m
3. Right bank + contraction scour = 5.17 m
There is, therefore, a need to protect the abutments and the channel bed against scour
with riprap. The foundation depth for the bridge should take into account the depths of
the scour holes.

50 100 150 200 250 300
616
618
620
622
624
626
Stati on (m)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Legend
WS 100-year
Ground
Bank Sta
Contr Scour
Total Scour



49

3.17 Karijumba Bridge
Introduction
The Karujumba site is located on River Nyamugasani in Kasese district at GPS location
824269E and 7174N (Figure 31). The site is at an elevation of 1109 m asl and
commands a catchment of 242 km
2
. The width of the river at the proposed site is about 2
m. The river drains into Lake Edward.

Figure 31: Karujumba Bridge site and Catchment
Landscape
The river has its headwaters in the Rwenzori Mountains at an elevation of about 4,000 m
asl while the bridge site is located at an elevation of 1,109 m asl. The areas close to the
bridge site are made up of rolling hills separated by relatively flat plains (Figure 32). The
slopes vary between 42% in the upper reaches and 21% in the lower reaches. The
mean land slope is 34% while the mean stream slope is 9%.

50

Figure 32: Landscape types in the R. Nyamugasani Catchment
Land-use
There is a transition from high forests to woodland as one moves from the upstream
areas to the mid-stream areas (Figure 33). The lower areas are dominated by
subsistence farmlands while in the proximity of the river there is a scattering of
occasional swamps within the flood plains.

51

Figure 33: Land-use types in R. Nyamugasani Catchment

Geology and Soils
The geology of the area is mainly shaped by the forces that created the Rwanzori
Mountains. Gneisses, amphibolites and quartzites dominate the basin (Figure 34). The
lower reach is shaped by sediments transported by the river. The river bed is rocky
characterised by rocky mixtures ranging from a few millimetres to several centimetres in
diameter. Larger rocks can also be transported during flood events. The soils range from
sandy to sandy loams. The valleys are filled with gravely soils and clayey mixtures.

52

Figure 34: R. Nyamugasani Catchment geology
Climate
The area falls within climatic zone MW according to the Uganda Hydroclimatic Study
(2001). The zone receives an average of 1222 mm of rainfall annually though Kasese
area receives about 750 mm of rainfall. The annual rainfall is spread over 12 rainy
seasons: The long rains from March to May and the short rains from August to
November (
Figure 35). During the dry months, evaporation can be very high, in the order of 6 times
the rainfall.

53

Figure 35: Monthly rainfall and evaporation variation for Zone MW (source:
Hydroclimatic study (2001))

detailed below.
Flow data was obtained for gauge number 84228 at Katwe-Congo Road. The gauging
site has a catchment area of 400 km
2
. Figure 36 shows the daily flow data for R.
Nyamugasani at the gauging station while Figure 37 shows the extract of annual
maximum flows. The flow stations broke down in the late 1970s and were only reinstated
in 1998. Therefore, there are no flow records for this periods and this may affect the
accuracy of the flood frequency analysis. Nevertheless, there are still 31 years of
records to analyse, which is considered a reliable sample. The annual maximum flows
range from 13 m
3
/s in 1959 to 117 m
3
/s in 1963. The flows are mainly driven by heavy
rains in the mountains. The annual maximum flows usually occur in May at the peak of
the first rainy seasons. Sometimes the peak flows occur in October or November during
the short rainy season. The October-December floods may be caused by the El Nio
phenomenon.

Figure 38 shows the fits for the various distributions to the annual maximum data while
Table 20 shows the estimated flows for the various return periods. From visual
inspection of the plots, the lognormal distribution provides the best fit to the annual
maximum data. The analysis was therefore based on the lognormal distribution.


54

1954 1960 1965 1971 1976 1982 1987 1993 1998 2004
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
F
l
o
w

(
m
3
/
s
)
River Nyamugasani (84228)

Figure 36: Flow Data for River Nyamugasani at Katwe-Congo Road

1954 1960 1965 1971 1976 1982 1987 1993 1998 2004
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
A
n
n
u
a
l

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

F
l
o
w

(
m
3
/
s
)
River Nyamugasani (84228)

Figure 37: Annual maximum flows for R. Nyamugasani

55

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Observed data
Normal distribution
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Observed data

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Observed data
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Observed data

Figure 38: Fits for various distributions to R. Nyamugasani data. Clockwise
starting from the upper left corner are fits for Normal, Lognormal, Extreme value
and Weibull distributions respectively


T (Years) Q
T
(m
3
10 187.6 191.5 203.5 190.6
20 208.3 228.9 221.8 215.1
50 231.6 279.7 240.4 243.2
100 247.2 319.7 251.8 262.2

method. The bridge site commands a catchment area of 242 km
2
commands and area of 250 km
2
design flood at Kaguta bridge site are shown in table 21.


56

Table 21: Design flows at Karujumba bridge site

T (Years) Q
T
(m
3
/s)
Flow Gauge Karujumba
Bridge
10 191.5 103.0
20 228.9 123.1
50 279.7 150.4
100 319.7 171.9

TRRL method

Table 22: Design storms for different return periods for Karujumba site

10 98.4
25 111.0
50 132.0
100 150.0



regions.

57


Table 23: Design floods for the Karujumba bridge site before adjusting for storage

3
/s)
10 100.5
25 113.3
50 134.8
100 153.1


Table 24: Design floods for the Karujumba bridge site after adjusting for storage

T (years) Adjusted Peak Flood (m
3
/s)
10 93.4
25 105.4
50 125.3
100 142.4

The proposed bridge is a 2 span bridge with vertical abutments (
Figure 39). The 2 spans are 10m internal wide each. The total bridge width is 20 m while
the effective flow area is 46.2 m
2
. The central pier is of the round-nose type and is 0.5m
wide. The bridge deck high chord is 1112.5 m high, while the deck low chord is 1112.0
m. The invert level at lowest level of the river is 1109 m giving a clear height of 3 m. The
50-year flood level is 1111.43m giving a free board of 0.57 m.

58

60 70 80 90 100
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
Karujumba With Bridge Plan: Plan 06 3/2/2010

Stati on (m)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Legend
EG 50-year
WS 50-year
Cri t 50-year
Ground
Bank Sta
.075 .03 .075


0.81 while downstream the velocity and Froude number are 6.1 m/s and 1.41
respectively (Table 25). This means that the flow changes from subcritical to super
critical at the bridge site. The fast super critical flow would cause damage to the bridge
structure and downstream. A downstream length of at least 100 m should be protected
against damage using riprap.



59

indicates the contraction scour depth is negligible, the maximum pier scour depth is 1.33
m and the maximum abutment scour depth is 3.94 m (
Figure 40). There is, therefore, a need to protect the abutments against scour with
riprap.

40 60 80 100 120
1106
1108
1110
1112
1114
Stati on (m)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Legend
WS 100-year
Ground
Bank Sta
Contr Scour
Total Scour



60

3.18 Kanyamateke Bridge
Introduction
The Kanyamateke site is located on River Kanyamateke in Kisoro district at GPS
location 793604E and 9865481N (Figure 41). The site is at an elevation of 1781 m asl
with an escarpment on one side. The catchment area is 738 km
2
. The width of the river
at the proposed site is about 20 m. The river flows in a westerly direction into Congo
before draining into Lake Edward.

Figure 41: Kanyamateke Bridge Site and Catchment
Landscape
The river has its headwaters at the border between Uganda and Rwanda at an elevation
of about 4,100 m asl while the bridge site is located at an elevation of 1,799 m asl
(Figure 42). The bridge cross-section is a deep gorge with hill sides on either side that
rise very rapidly. The slopes vary between 25% in the upper reaches and 8% in the
lower reaches. The mean land slope is 22% while the mean stream slope is 0.3%.

61

Figure 42: Landscape types in the R. Kanyamateke Catchment
Land use
The main land use is subsistence agriculture especially in the low land and the hill
slopes (Figure 43) while 15-20% of the basin is covered by tropical forests.

62

Figure 43: Land-use types in R. Kanyamateke Catchment

Geology and Soils
Geologically, the area is made up of gneisses, quartzites and other basaltic and igneous
rocks (Figure 44). The riverbed is gravely with mixture of transported rocks. The soils
range from sandy to sandy loams. The valleys and swamps are filled with clayey
mixtures.

63

Figure 44: R. Kanyamateke Catchment Geology
Climate
The area falls within climatic zone CW according to the Uganda Hydroclimatic Study
(2001). The zone receives an average of 1120 mm of rainfall annually. There are two
rainy seasons: the main season September to December with peak in
October/November and secondary season March to May with a peak in April (Figure 45).
During the dry months, evaporation can be very high, in the order of 3 times the rainfall.

64

Figure 45: Monthly rainfall and evaporation variation for Zone MW (source:
Hydroclimatic study (2001))

River Kanyamateke has no gauging station. Flood estimation was, therefore, based on
the TRRL method.
TRRL method

Table 26: Design storms for different return periods for Kanyamateke site

10 114.8
25 129.5
50 154.0
100 175.0

65



equations 1 and 2 given above and applying a peak factor of either 2.5 for humid regions
or 1.7 for forested areas.

TRRL model.

Table 27: Design floods for the Kanyamateke Bridge site before adjusting for
storage

3
/s)
10 277.4
25 312.9
50 372.1
100 422.9

minimal storage. The peak flows are therefore greatly attenuated. About 20% of the
basin is filled with lakes and swamps. This is estimated to result in a 20% attenuation of
the peak flows and the flow values were adjusted accordingly. The length of the
catchment is 64 km while the width is 24 km giving a ratio of 2.7 which is within the
range of 2-6 that is assumed in the derivation of the TRRL approach and therefore no
further adjustments were carried out. Table 28 shows the final estimates of flood flows

Table 28: Design floods for the Kanyamateke bridge site after adjusting for
storage

(m
3
/s)
10 221.9
25 250.3
50 297.7
100 338.3


66

The proposed bridge is a 3 span bridge with vertical abutments (Figure 46). The end
spans (between abutments and first pier from each bank) are 7 m wide. There are
internal span (pier to pier) is 10 m wide. The total bridge width is 25 m while the effective
flow area is 90.1 m
2
. Each of the piers is of the round-nose type and is 0.5m wide. The
bridge deck high chord is 1750 m high, while the deck low chord is 1749 m. The invert
level at lowest level of the river is 1743 m giving a clear height of 7 m. The 50-year flood
level is 1747.3 m giving a free board of 1.7 m.
80 90 100 110
1744
1746
1748
1750
1752
1754
Kinya With Bridge Plan: Plan 03 3/2/2010

Stati on (m)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Legend
EG 50-year
WS 50-year
Cri t 50-year
Ground
Bank Sta
.075 .03 .075


about 0.8 while downstream the velocity and Froude number are 6.6 m/s and 1.2
respectively (Table 29). This means that the flow conditions are mainly supercritical. The
fast super critical flow would cause damage to the bridge structure and downstream. A
downstream length of at least 100 m should be protected against damage using riprap.


67


indicates the maximum scour depth (contraction + pier + abutment) is 1.75 m (Figure
47).

70 80 90 100 110
1742
1744
1746
1748
1750
1752
1754
Stati on (m)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Legend
WS 100-year
Ground
Bank Sta
Contr Scour
Total Scour



68

4 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS

4.1 Introduction
The assignment involved carrying out surveys to provide data that would subsequently be
used during the design five strategic bridges; Semiliki, Kaguta, Karujumba, Kabaale and
Kanyamateke in Uganda under the Ministry of Works and Transport. The surveys were
carried out from 8
th
to 30
th
October 2010, while the computations and processing of final
drawings was completed before the end of January 2010. The field team comprised of a
Senior Surveyor, Surveyor, Chainman and a Porter. The surveys were done alongside
hydrological, geotechnical and materials investigations on the bridge sites.

This report provides information on the procedures and methods used in the survey, the
outputs from the survey and recommendations on the usage of the outputs. The major
outputs of the survey include four plan drawings of each bridge site together with profiles
taken along the centre-lines of the existing roads. Text files containing coordinates of
observation points are also available.

4.2 Field Surveying
Using Leica T180 Total Station, land-surveying techniques was used to capture the location
and elevation of features and spot heights at each bridge site. The Total Station inputs the
coordinates of the instrument location, the height of the instrument above the ground and the
height of the target (prism), at the point to be fixed. The output from the Total Station
includes coordinates of the point where the target is positioned.

At each site, a Temporary Benchmark (TBM) was constructed using concrete and steel bars.
The benchmark would be assigned coordinates derived from a handheld GPS. The GPS
gives the approximate location of the area, and hence making it easy to identify the location
of the bridge site with respect to other features on the national or district map. To get a
reference bearing, a second GPS location at some distance from the first point within the
bridge site, would be determined. Using the two known GPS points, a bearing line would be
computed and used to orient the Total Station.

The following details were targeted while collecting data:

a) Spot heights for enabling accurate representation of the terrain;
b) Centre-line of the existing road, estimated by measuring the width of the road;
c) The center-line of the water channel/river also estimated by measurement of the
channel/river width;
d) Heights along the banks of the water channel/river;
e) Changes in terrain features such as break lines in the general slope;
f) Location of trial pits for geotechnical investigations or soil samples, and;
g) Trees and other vegetation.

4.3 Processing the Final Drawings
The final drawings were generated using AutoCAD Land Development, which does not only
have ordinary drafting tools available in the AutoCAD software, but also has additional tools
to:

- import points into AutoCAD;
- create a surface from points, break-lines and other sources;

69

- generate terrain visualization products such as contours;
- generate sections and profiles along selected paths and so on.

The above tools (together with many more) are the special software contained in the Civil
Design module of AutoCAD Land Development.

4.4 Outputs
The site maps and profiles along the roads were generated for each bridge site. The
drawings show the relative locations of the bridge, the approach roads, water channel and
the surrounding terrain. The profiles show the changes in elevation along the centre-line of
the approach roads on either side of the bridge.

The detailed maps and profiles of each site are presented below:

4.4.1 Semiliki Bridge Site:
The Semiliki site is located on River Semiliki in Bundibugyo district at GPS location
193470E and 126013N. The site is located in the western arm of the Rift Valley and is at
an elevation of 628 m asl. Currently, there is no existing bridge structure at the site and
people pass from one side to other by using rowboats. The river is fast flowing and the water
level is more than 4m in depth at deep points.

The topographical map and a profile of the bridge site are attached on the next pages of this
report (see Figures 48 and 49).


70

Figure 48: Topographic Map of Semiliki Bridge Site

71

Figure 49: Longitudinal Profile along Centre-line of the Proposed Road across Semiliki Bridge

50m

72

4.4.2 Kaguta Bridge Site:
The Kaguta bridge site is located on River Aswa in Lira district at GPS location 501047E
and 275998N. The site is at an elevation of 997m asl and the site is located at a
90degree bend within a gorge of about 3.5 m depth. Currently, there is no existing bridge
structure at the site and people pass from one side to other by using rowboats. The river is
fast flowing and the water level is more than 2m in depth at deep points.



73

Figure 50: Topographic Map of Kaguta Bridge Site

74

Figure 51: Longitudinal Profile along Centre-line of the Proposed Road across Kaguta Bridge
25m

75

4.4.3 Karujumba Bridge Site
The Karujumba site is located on River Nyamugasani in Kasese district at GPS location
824269E and 7174N. The site is at an elevation of 1109 m asl and commands a
catchment of 242 km
2
. The width of the river at the proposed site is about 20 m. The river
drains into Lake Edward. Currently, there is an existing timber foot bridge structure at the site
used by people to pass from one side to other.


76

Figure 52: Topographic Map of Karujumba Bridge Site


77

Figure 53: Longitudinal Profile along Centre-line of the Proposed Road across Karujumba Bridge

15m

78

4.4.4 Kabaale Bridge Site
The Kabaale site is located on River Mayanja at GPS location 378534E and 124008N.
The site is located at an elevation of 1058m asl. The width of the river at the proposed
site is about 80m but the flood plain extends over 250 m at least. Currently, there is no
existing bridge structure at the site and people pass from one side to other by using
rowboats. The water is quite clear with no evidence of sediment transportation.



79

Figure 54: Topographic Map of Kabaale Bridge Site


80

Figure 55: Longitudinal Profile along Centre-line of the Proposed Road across Kabaale Bridge
50m

81

4.4.5 Kanyamateke Bridge Site
The Kanyamateke site is located on River Kanyamateke in Kisoro District at GPS
location 793604E and 9865481N. The site is at an elevation of 1781 m asl with an
escarpment on one side. The width of the river at the proposed site is about 20 m. There
is an existing timber bridge structure at the site used by light vehicles and people to pass
from one side to other.


Ministry of Works & Transport
82
June 2010

Figure 56: Topographic Map of Kanyamateke Bridge Site

83
June 2010

Figure 57: Longitudinal Profile along Centre-line of the Proposed Road across Kanyamateke Bridge
15m
84
June 2010

4.4.6 Usage of the Drawings
1. The drawings are plotted at any scales above 1:200, for visibility of text.
2. The profiles in the drawing are plotted at the same scale as the drawing scale.
3. The vertical exaggeration in the elevation on the profiles was set at 10.
4. Symbols used for the different features in each drawing are defined in the legend
adjacent to it.

85
June 2010

5 GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS INVESTIGATIONS

5.1 Objectives
The geotechnical investigations were carried out from 8
th
to 30
th
October 2009 on proposed 5
Bridges: Semilki, Kaguta, Karujumba, Kabaale and Kanyamateke Bridges in Uganda. The
investigations were aimed at determining the geotechnical properties of the soils where the
bridges are to be constructed and the existing subsurface conditions to enable the Engineer
to determine the bearing capacities of the soils for designig the foundations. The
investigations also involved identifying suitable sources of construction materials.

The objective of the geotechnical survey was to:
- Evaluate the allowable bearing capacity of the soils and to proposed foundations for
the bridges.
- Determine the soil profile and classify the subsoil that underlies the foundations to a
depth of 5m where possible.
- Determine the angle of repose of foundation soils.
- Determine the cohesion and other properties of the underlying sois.
- Assess the groundwater conditions and implications on foundation excavations.
- Generally get any other information relevant for design of foundations.

5.2 Site Locations
The following bridge sites were investigated:
- Semiliki Bridge in Bundibugyo District at the border between Uganda and DRC
- Kaguta Bridge in Lira District across Aswa River between Ogur and Okwang Sub-
counties
- Karujumba Bridge in Kasese District between Kisinga and Kyarumba Sub- counties.
- Kabaale Bridge in Nakaseke District across Mayanja River between Kyankwanzi and
Ngoma Sub-counties.
- Kanyamateke Bridge in Kisoro District across Kanyamateke River in Busanza Sub-
county.

5.3 Scope of Work
The scope of work involved:
- determining the geotechnical conditions of the bridge sites,
- determining the depth at which the bridge footings should be located and;
- identifying suitable sources of construction materials for the above sites.

In order to achieve those objectives the following tasks had to be carried out:

5.4 Field Investigations and Laboratory Tests
The fieldwork involved the excavation of trial pits, logging, performing in-situ tests and
collection of samples for laboratory tests. The presence Gravel suitable for embankment fills
and wearing course of the bridge approaches was also investigated.

At every site, six trial pits were excavated and samples collected as follows:
- To determine the bearing capacities of the soils, two trial pits were dug at the
proposed bridge axis on either side of the rivers where possible. From these,
samples were collected for laboratory tests
- Four trial pits were excavated at places between 30 and 50 meters on both sides of
the dam axis. Visual soil classification for different layers was done up to a depth of
5m or up to the water table. Results are hereunder attached.

86
June 2010

The samples collected from the trial pits from the bridge sites mentioned above, were taken
for laboratory tests and analysis at the Ministry of Works and Transport (MoWT), Central
Materials Laboratory, Kireka.

The following tests were duly carried out:
- Sieve analysis,
- Atterbergs Limits,
- Direct Shear Tests,
- Bulk Density,
- Maximum Dry Density,
- Optimum Moisture Content, and
- BS Heavy Compaction to 95% MDD.

Field and laboratory test results, were used to identify the underlying soil profile and
determine the engineering properties of the foundation soil strata and properties of sampled
construction materials. The findings formed the basis for the design of the bridges and
identification of suitable sources of construction materials.

The geotechnical investigations were aimed at determining the following parameters:

- The soil profile of the proposed site,
- The in-situ properties,
- The loggings and location of the water table,
- The shear strength parameters of the soils,
- Soil classification up to a depth range of 1.0 - 5.0 m (where possible);
- The depth of the silting of the existing dams, and
- The Bearing Capacity of the foundation soils.

The field investigations carried out in accordance to BS 5930: 1981, Code of Practice for
Site Investigations involved visiting five (5) strategic bridge sites to carry out field tests,
excavate trial pits, collect disturbed and undisturbed samples, log the pits and in some cases
locate possible sources of construction materials.

At each site, three to six trial pits were excavated and disturbed samples were collected. The
following general visual observations were noted:

- The water table in most of the pits was near the ground surface;
- The average deposited river sediments was about 500 mm in depth;
- The riverbeds were covered with boulders transported from upstream and it was not
possible to excavate to a depth of 3m, without mechanized auger tools.

The disturbed samples were tested at MoWT, Central Materials Laboratory, Kireka.

5.5 Challenges
Some of the difficulties faced while carrying out this exercise were:
- On Semiliki Bridge no pits were logged on the Congolese soils as we were denied
access by the authorities hence the assumption used is that the soils on that side of
the bridge are the same as on the Ugandan side.

87
June 2010

- On Kanyamateke Bridge, only three trial pits were excavated due to the terrain of the
area. We also found the access road under construction hence reaching the site was
difficult while the existing timber bridge had failed and could no longer be used by
vehicles. Furthermore, the riverbed below the existing road is more than 5 meters
deep although the trial pits were excavated to only 5 meter depth.

Approach Road to Kanyamateke Bridge
under Reconstruction
Collapsed Kanyamateke Bridge

Visual details of soil profiles according to depth at the various bridge sites were recorded as
follows:

5.6 Loggings

(a) Kabaale Bridge Kiboga/Nakaseke District
The area investigated in general has a sedimentary rock from a depth of about 700mm on
average. Then the rock deepens to about 2500mm. At a depth between 1500mm and
3000mm the water table is struck on Kyankwanzi Sub-county side where as the water table
is deeper on the Ngoma Sub-county side. In both cases the water table depth deepens as
you move further from the river banks.

Visual Field Results from the Trial Pits at Kabaale Bridge Site:

Trial pit No.1 (36 N 0378598: UTM 0124300) at Alt 1044m
- 0 500mm : black, firm and sticky organic clay with roots in the upper 300mm
- 500 2000mm: dense reddish-brownish and black sedimentary rock which could be
crushed with a pick- axe. It hardens as the depth increases. This rock continued
beyond 2m depth.
- On further enquiries from residents, it was noted that the rock depth is more than two
meters.

- 0 400mm : black , soft organic clay soil
- 400 - 900mm: soft dark brown clayey SILTS
- 900 - 1200mm: Stiff Reddish Brown gravely silts
- 1200 2000mm : dense light brown sandy gravels
- The water table was struck at a depth of 1.5 meters.

88
June 2010

- 300 1200mm: homogeneous soft and loose, brown silts
- 1200 4000mm: blackish brown very hard (dense) sedimentary rock but can be
crushed with a pick- axe.

- 0 300mm : brownish black , sticky and firm organic clay soil
- 300 800mm: slightly cemented brownish black gravely sand
- 800 1100mm: dense yellowish light brown sandy gravel
- 1100 5000mm: dense yellowish grey brown gravely sand turning to whitish grey
with some brown as the depth increases.

- At 900mm depth, a dense and very hard reddish brown sedimentary rock was struck.
- The rock thickness is more than 2000mm and at a depth of 3000 mm the water table
was struck.

- At 700mm depth, a dense and very hard reddish brown sedimentary rock was struck.
- The rock thickness is more than 1800mm and at a depth of 2500 mm the water table
was struck

(b) Kaguta Bridge Lira District
The area under investigated had in general silts on both sides of the river. But at a depth of
about 600mm, a rock was struck in one of the pits. The type of rock is a black igneous,
fissured rock as seen from the following photo. It is also present at the riverbed.

Fissured Rock on River Bed

89
June 2010

Trial Pit

Visual Field Results from the Trial Pits at Kaguta Bridge Site:

- 0 120mm : black, firm organic clay soil
- 120 1000mm: light brown, loose clayey silt
- 1000 1900mm: yellowish light brown, dense and firm silty clay
- 1900 5000mm: yellowish brown light grey, homogeneous, firm and sticky, silty clay

Trial Pit No. 1, Kaguta Trial Pit No. 2, Kaguta

- 0 600mm : black, firm organic clay soil with roots in the upper 200mm
- 600 2900mm: light brown, loose to firm to dense, sandy silts
- 2900 5000mm: brown grey, sticky and firm, clayey silt

Trial pit No.3 (36 N 0500922: UTM 0276307) at Alt 1014m,
- 0 400mm : brown, firm organic clay soil with roots in the upper 200mm,

90
June 2010

- 400 600mm: brown, dense and slightly cemented, gravely sand,
- At 600mm depth a dense and hard rocky formation was struck. On excavation,
cemented, whitish grey gravely sand with mica particles was formed. Up to a depth
of 2000mm, the rock had no visible fissures and appeared to deepen further. In
comparison to the depth of the riverbed, the rock extends to more than 4000mm.

Trial Pit No. 3, Kaguta Trial Pit No. 4, Kaguta

- 0 500mm : black, firm, organic clay soil with roots in the upper 200mm
- 500 2200mm: brown, loose and soft, sandy silt
- 2200 2700mm: whitish brownish grey, loose, sandy silt
- The water table was struck at 2700mm depth. It will be noted that as one moves
towards the downstream, the water table levels are high.

- 0 500mm : black, firm, organic clay soil with roots in the upper 200mm
- 500 1200mm: brown, loose and soft, clayey silt
- 1200 1700mm: reddish brown, sticky, clayey silt
- 1700 2100mm: yellowish brownish grey, soft, clayey silt
- 2100 2500mm: reddish brown, firm and sticky, clayey silt
- 2500 5000mm: light brown, homogeneous and soft sandy silt

Trial Pit No. 5, Kaguta

- Trial pit No.6 (36 N 0500942: UTM 0276389) at Alt 1010m
- 0 300mm : black, firm organic clay soil with roots in the upper 100mm

91
June 2010

- 300 1100mm: reddish light brown, loose and soft, sandy silt
- 1100 5000mm: reddish light brown grey, sticky and firm, silty clay

(c) Kanyamateke Bridge Kisoro District
The bridge is to cross Kanyamateke River. The existing timber bridge failed and can not be
crossed by vehicles. Because the road was cut at the edge of a hill, excavation of six (6) pits
could not be done. Furthermore, exaction could only be done for five (5) meter depth while
the river level is more than five meter deep. In fact, by the time of the exercise, the depth
was nine (9) meters from the road level.

In general, the soils are a result of weathering and laterization of the in-situ rocks. Due to the
weathering, these rocks can be crushed in fingers. When crushed, the resulting soils are
silts. They could not be used as a fill material.

Visual Field results from the trial pits:

- 0 300mm: brown, soft organic clay soil with roots in the upper 100mm.
- 300 500mm: yellowish brown, loose and soft, silt from weathered rock.
- 500 1000mm: brown to dark brown, loose and soft, gravely silt.
- 1000 2000mm: reddish brown, dense, weathering rock.

The rocks in the midst of this pit are so much weathered that can even be cut with hoes.
These rocks are either Whitish grey or reddish brown.

- 0 300mm : yellowish brown, firm silt
- 300 1600mm: whitish grey with reddish brown, soft, rocks and boulders
- 1600 2300mm: yellowish brown, gravely silt
- 2300 4000mm: reddish yellowish brown, medium dense, silt from weathering rock.

Trial Pit No. 1, Kanyamateke Trial Pit No. 2, Kanyamateke

Trial Pit No.3 (35 N 0793503: UTM 9865778) at Alt 1794m
- 0 400mm : black brown, medium dense, gravely silt with roots in the upper 50mm
- 400 3000mm: whitish brown, homogeneous and firm, gravely silt
- 1600 2300mm: yellowish brown, gravely silt

92
June 2010

Trial Pit No. 3, Kanyamateke

(d) Karujumba Bridge Kasese District
The bridge is to cross Nyamugasani River. The existing timber bridge is weak hence cannot
be crossed by vehicles. The River meanders at the edge of a hill. It will be noted that at a
distance of less than fifteen (15) meters from the riverbanks, the water table level is very
high. It is at the river level implying that the soils along the river have a high degree of
permeability.

Visual Field Results from the Trial Pits:

Trial pit No.1 (35N 0824191: UTM 0007478)
- 0 400mm : black, organic clay soil with roots in the upper 200mm
- 400 1000mm: reddish brown, medium dense, gravelly sand with some pebbles.

A very hard igneous rock was struck at 1000mm depth.

Trial Pit No. 1, Karujumba Trial Pit No. 2, Karujumba

Trial Pit No.2 (35 N 0824209: UTM 0007495)
- 0 300mm : black, soft, organic clay soil with roots
- 300 1200mm: yellowish dark brown, firm , silty clay with boulders ranging between
75 500mm
- 1200 3000mm: yellowish brown, loose and soft , clayey gravely sand with boulders
ranging between 75 500mm

93
June 2010

Trial pit No.3 (35 N 0824169: UTM 0007488)
- 0 1700mm : whitish grey, soft, gravely silt soil with roots in upper 200mm
- 1700 2000mm: black, soft , sandy silt
- the water table was struck at 1.5m depth.
- the pit is five meters from the riverbank.


Trial pit No.4 (35 N 0824146: UTM 0007482)
- 0 900mm: whitish dark grey, loose, silt soil with mica particles.
- 900 1800mm: whitish dark grey, firm , sandy silt with cobbles ranging between 50
300mm
- the water table was struck at 1.5m depth.
- the pit is seven meters from the riverbank.

Trial pit No.5 (35 N 0824138: UTM 0007542)
- 0 200mm: black, loose, organic clay with roots
- 200 2300mm: whitish grey turning to brownish at a depth of 1700mm, firm , silty
sand with pebbles ranging between 25 100mm
- the water table was struck at 2100mm depth.
- the soils collapse at a depth of 2200mm.


94
June 2010

Trial pit No.6 (35 N 0824126: UTM 0007532)
- 0 400mm: black, loose, organic clay with roots
- 400 1100mm: whitish grey, loose , silty sand with pebbles ranging between 15
200mm

Trial pit No.7 (35 N 0824177: UTM 0007477)
- 0 700mm: Black, loose, organic CLAY with roots
- 700 1700mm: Reddish Brown, loose, clayey SAND.
- 1700 3500mm: Light brown, dense, gravelly SAND.
- A rock was hit at 3500mm depth.

(e) Semiliki Bridge Bundibugyo District
The bridge is to cross Semiliki River. There is no existing bridge. It will be noted that at a
distance of less than one hundred (100) meters from the riverbanks, the water table level is
very high. Furthermore, we were denied entry to the Democratic Republic of Congo soil.
Hence only three pits were excavated on the Ugandan side. We also noted that there was no
clear access to the river on both sides.

Visual Field results from the trial pits:

Trial pit No.1 (36 N 0193425: UTM 0126339) at alt 635m
- 0 500mm: dark grey, soft and sticky, clay.
- the pit is at 20m from the riverbank.

Trial Pit No. 1, Semiliki Trial Pit No. 2, Semiliki

- 0 500mm: dark grey, soft and sticky, clay.

- 0 200mm: black, soft and sticky, clay with roots at the upper 200mm depth.

95
June 2010

- 200 900mm: reddish brown, soft and sticky, clay
- 900 2000mm: black, soft and sticky, clay

- 0 200mm: black, soft and sticky, clay with roots at the upper 200mm depth.
- 200 350mm: reddish brown, soft and sticky, silty clay
- 350 1100mm: reddish brown dark grey, soft and sticky, clay.\
- 1100 2000mm: black, soft and sticky, clay.

Trial Pit No. 3, Semiliki Trial Pit No. 4, Semiliki

5.7 Construction Materials
In view of the fact that these are major bridges, the following materials are anticipated to be
used for construction works:
- Cement in concrete
- Washed Sand in concrete
- Reinforcement bars in concrete
- Hardcore and clayey Sand for fills
- Water in concrete

(a) Kabaale Bridge Nakaseke District
- Cement can be got from Luweero town about 76km from the site
- Aggregates can be crushed at Buwanga about 5km but there is no existing quarry
although on can purchase from the Gulu Road contractors.
- Reinforcement bars will be purchased from Luweero town
- Hardcore can be crushed at Buwanga.
- Water from the river will be used.
- Murram for fills is about 10km away near Buwanga.
- N.B. There is no car access road to Buwanga.

(b) Kaguta Bridge Lira / Otuke District
- Cement can be got from Lira town about 33km from the site
- A Quarry at Angetta was identified as a good source of aggregates and Hardcore. It

96
June 2010

is about 25km from site.
- Reinforcement bars will be purchased from Lira town
- Three Murram pits for fills along Lira Pader road were identified, about 15km from
site although when tested the clay content was 3%.
- Sand will collected from Agweng about 14Km from the site.

(c) Kinyamateke Bridge Kisoro District
- Cement can be got from Kisoro town about 14km from the site
- The SBI Quarry was identified as a good source of aggregates. It is about 7km from
site
- Reinforcement bars will be purchased from Kisoro town.
- Hardcore can be obtained from the nearby hills as this is a hilly area.
- Murram pit for fills is about 10km along the road to site.
- Sand is in a radius of about 10Km in Butanza sub-county.

(d) Karujumba Bridge Kasese District
- Cement can be got from Kasese town about 70km from the site
- The Quarry along Kasese Fortportal road was identified as a good source of
aggregates and hardcore. It is about 30km from Kasese town.
- Reinforcement bars will be purchased from Kasese town.
- Murram for fills is within the area although there is no existing murram pit. No
samples were collected although people willing to sell were identified.
- Sand will be obtained from Nyamugasani River.

(e) Semiliki Bridge Bundibugyo District
- Cement can be got from Fortportal town about 60km from the site
- The Quarry at Karugutu town was identified as a good source of aggregates and
hardcore. It is about 25km from site. Unfortunately, the aggregates are hand
crushed.
- Reinforcement bars will be purchased from Fortportal town.
- Murram pit for fills is along Fortportal-Bundibugyo road. The samples were collected
but the clay content was small although it is the murram used for construction of
roads in the district.
- Sand will also be obtained from Karuguta.

5.8 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing was carried out on samples recovered in accordance to BS 1377: 1990;
Methods of Test of Soils for Engineering Purposes.

Individual tests were conducted according to the following test procedures:
- Natural moisture content Part 2: 3.2
- Sieve analysis Part 2: 9.2
- Liquid limit Part 2: 4.3
- Plastic limit Part 2: 5.3
- Plasticity index Part 2: 5.4
- Shear Part 2

97
June 2010

- Permeability Part 2

The test results summaries are given in Tables in the Appendix C.

5.9 Interpretation Of The Laboratory Tests Results And Recommendations
Laboratory classification test results provided the basis for identifying the types and
physical properties of the soils. The soils were classified according to the Unified Soil
Classification System.

5.10 Evaluation of the Bearing Capacities
The maximum pressures (Bearing Capacities) the soils are capable of resisting were
estimated from the shear strength parameters obtained from the laboratory testing with
the following assumptions:
- Tezarghis equations are valid;
- A square footing of 1m;
- The mode of failure is by shear and factor of safety is 3.

(a) Kaguta Bridge Lira / Otuke District

Trial Pit 1
(a) up to 2m depth the soil has a clay content of 67% and a sand content of 21%. the soil
is classified as a sandy fat clay (CS)
- the liquid limit is 35% hence an indicator a mixture of sand or silt that affects the
properties of the soil.
- the bearing capacity of the soil is as low as 39KN/m
2
. Also considering the fact that
the soil is of the clay type, the compressibility is, very thus a high value of settlement,
hence, it is not advisable to locate the foundation in the upper 2m. The base should
be founded at a lower depth.

(b) the sample tested between 2-5m depth has 16% of fines and 84% of sand, hence the
soil is classified as a clayey sand (SC)
- the soil does not have a plastic limit implying predominance of sand or silt.
- the allowable bearing capacity value is 130 KN/m
2
. This value also appears small for
the size of bridge expected hence the base should be founded deeper than 5m.
- all abutments shall have raft/matt foundations, with scour control protection
works

Trial Pit 2
As in (b) above , the soil is classified as clayey SAND (SC) for all levels up to 5m depth.
It should be noted that the bearing capacity increases with depth increase from 44KN/m2
at 2m depth to 255KN/m
2
at 4m depth. This bearing capacity is above 150KN/m2 which
is fair to carry the bases. But because the soil is sand, to avoid differential settlement, a
Matt or Raft foundation is recommended. The depth should not be less than 4m.
Murram Sample
The soil is gravelly SAND (SP) with little fines .The liquid limit is 37% and plastic limit is
17%. The soil can be used as a fill material.

(b) Kabaale Bridge Kiboga/Nakaseke Districts

98
June 2010

Trial Pit 1
Only 43% pass the 2mm sieve implying that the gravels are 57%. Also 26% are fines.
Also since the soil has a plastic limit, then clay predominates in the fines. Hence, the soil
is classified as clayey gravel (GC).
The bearing capacity was not evaluated.

Trial Pit 2
Only 16% pass the 2mm sieve implying that the gravels are 84%. Also 9% are fines. Also
since the soil has no plastic limit, then sand is the other component. Hence, the soil is
classified as sandy gravel (GP). This sample was collected at 1.5m depth when a rock
was struck, so the bearing capacity value (58KN/m
2
) is of little importance.

Trial Pit 3
Only 25% pass the 2mm sieve implying that the gravels are 75%. Also 17% are fines.
Since the soil has a plastic limit, then clay is the other soil component in this sample.
Hence, the soil is classified as clayey gravel (GC).
The allowable bearing capacity value is 81KN/m
2
. This value is small in comparison to

Trial Pit 4
64% pass the 2mm sieve implying that the gravels are 36%. Also 29% are fines. Since
the soil has a plastic limit, then clay is a component in this sample. Sand has a
percentage of 35%.
Hence, the soil is classified as clayey sand (SC) with some gravel
The allowable bearing capacity value is 126KN/m
2
. This value is small in comparison to
From the above three pits, the depth of the foundation should be more than 5m through
the rocks.
- All abutments shall have raft/matt foundations

(c) Semiliki Bridge Bundibugyo District
As already stated in the field investigation results, the water table depth is high and the
sample was collected from only on trial pit.
- 100% pass the 2mm sieve implying that the gravels are 0%. Also 80% are fines.
Since the soil has a high liquid limit, then clay is the major component in this sample.
- Hence, the soil is classified as a fat clay with some gravels
- The allowable bearing capacity value is 52KN/m
2
. This value is small in comparison
to the size of bridge expected hence the base should be founded deeper than
3m.The foundation should be deeper than the riverbed.
- piling recommended for all piers, while all abutments shall have raft/matt
foundations

(d) Kanyamateke Bridge Kisoro District

99
June 2010

As already stated in the field investigation results, the samples was collected from trial
pits that are only 5m deep whereas the river is more than 5m from the road level. To
avoid exposing the foundation from river eroding, the bases should be at deeper depths
than 5m.

Trial Pit 2
Since the soil has a moderate liquid limit, then sand is the component in this sample.
The other component is clay due to the plastic limit value.
- Hence, the soil is classified as a sandy clay (CL) with some gravels
- The allowable bearing capacity value is 98KN/m
2
. This value is small in comparison
to the size of bridge expected hence the base should be founded deeper than
5m.The foundation should be deeper than the riverbed.

Trial Pit 3
Since the soil has a moderate liquid limit, then sand is the major component in this
sample. The other component is clay due to the plastic limit value and gravel.
- Hence, the soil is classified as a gravely sand (SP) with some fines
all abutments shall have raft/matt foundations, with scour control protection
works

(e) Karujumba Bridge Kasese District
Since the soil has a moderate liquid limit, then sand is the other dominant component
in this sample.
- Hence, the soil is classified as a sandy gravel with some fines
- The allowable bearing capacity value could not be evaluated due to the sample being
too coarse. But as already stated, the water table is near hence the need to deepen
the foundations to below the river bed. Also for these types of soils with a high water
table, the allowable bearing capacity is not more than 150KN/m
2.

- all abutments shall have raft/matt foundations, with scour control protection
works

(f) Conclusion
- The further down the foundations are placed the better bearing capacities and
stability of the bridges.
- In all Kaguta, Karujumba and Kanyamateke Bridges all abutments shall have
raft/matt foundations.
- In Semiliki Bridge, the recommendation would be to have piling for all piers, while all
abutments shall have raft/matt foundations.
- In Kabaale Bridge, the recommendation would be to have raft/matt foundations for all
piers and abutments.
- Construction materials in most cases are found within a 25km radius from the sites.
Unfortunately, in most areas, the contractor will have to open new quarries and the
aggregates are hand crushed.

100
June 2010

TEST RESULTS

101
June 2010

102
June 2010

103
June 2010

104
June 2010

105
June 2010

106
June 2010

6 STRUCTURAL DESIGNS

6.1 Definitions and Bridge Components
Superstructure
In a bridge, that part of the structure, this is supported by the piers and abutments

Substructure
In the bridge, the wing walls and the piers, towers and abutments that support the
superstructure

Foundations
That part of the substructure in direct contact with, and transmitting load to the ground.

Applicable Design Loads
For all bridges, the loads to be considered are the permanent loads, with the appropriate
primary live loads, together with those due to wind and temperature range and difference,
and where erection is being considered temporary erection loads.

Design loads shall be selected and applied in such a way that the most adverse total
effect is caused in the element or structure under consideration.

The design of foundations shall be based on the principles set out in CP 2004.

6.2 Highway Bridge Dead Loads (RDM, Ref: 5.1.2)
The factors, yfL to be applied to all parts of the dead load, irrespective of whether these
parts have an adverse or relieving effect, shall be taken for all load combinations as
follows:

Design Superimposed Dead Load (RDM, Ref: 5.2.2)
The factor, yfL, to be applied to all parts of the superimposed dead load, irrespective of
whether these parts have adverse or relieving effect, shall be taken for all load
combinations as follows:

Wind Load (RDM, C5.3.1.1)
For small and/or low structures, wind usually does not govern.

Temperature (RDM, Ref: 5.4.2)
For all bridges, extremes of shade air temperatures for the location of the bridge shall be
obtained from available maps of isotherms and a 50-year return period may be adopted.

The design range of movement shall be taken as 1.3 times the appropriate nominal value
for the ultimate limit state and 1.0 times the nominal value for the serviceability limit state.

For the Ultimate Limit State For the Serviceability Limit State
Steel 1.05 1.0
Concrete 1.15 1.0
1.75 1.20

107
June 2010

Earth Pressure on Retaining Structures (RDM, Ref: 5.8.1)
Where filling materials is retained by abutments or other parts of the structure, the loads
calculated by soil mechanics principles from the properties of the filling materials shall be
regarded as nominal loads.

For all design load combinations, yfL, shall be taken as follows:

In the absence of more exact calculations the nominal load due to live load surcharge for
suitable material properly consolidated may be assumed to be:

a) For HA loading: 10 kN/m
2
;
b) For HB loading
45 units: 20 kN/m
2
(intermediate values);
25 units: 10 kN/m
2
(by interpolation);
c) For RU loading: 50 kN/m
2
on areas occupied by tracks;
d) For RL loading: 30 kN/m
2
on areas occupied by tracks.

6.3 Highway Bridge Live Loads (RDM, Ref: 6.2.1)

Nominal Uniformly Distributed Load (UDL) (RDM, Ref: 6.2.1)
The UDL shall be taken as 30 kN per linear meter of notional lane for loaded lengths up
to 30 m, and for loaded lengths in excess of 30 m, it shall be derived from the equation.

W = 151(
1
/
L
)
0.475
but not less than 9.

Where L is the loaded length (in m) and W is the load per metre of the lane (in
kN)

Nominal Knife Edge Load (KEL) (RDM, Ref: 6.2.2)
The KEL per notional lane shall be taken as 120 kN

Design HA Loading (RDM, Ref: 6.2.7)
For design, HA load considered alone, yfL, shall be taken as follows:

Design HB Loading (RDM, Ref: 6.3.4)

For design HB load, yfL, shall be taken as follows:

Longitudinal Load (RDM, Ref: 6.6)

1.5 1.00
For Combination 1 1.50 1.20
For Combination 2 & 3 1.25 1.00
For Combination 1 1.30 1.10
For Combination 2 & 3 1.10 1.00

108
June 2010

The longitudinal load resulting from traction or braking of vehicles shall be taken as more
severe of nominal load for type HA or HB, applied at the road surface and parallel to it in
one notional lane only.

The nominal load for HA shall be 8 kN/m of loaded length plus 200kN, subject to a
maximum of 700kN, applied to an area one notional lane wide x the loaded length.

The nominal load for HB shall be 25% of the total nominal HB load adopted, applied as
equally distributed between the eight wheels of two axles of the vehicle, 1.8 m apart.

For the longitudinal and primary live load, yfL, shall be taken as follows:

Accidental Load Due to Skidding (RDM, Ref: 6.7)

The nominal load shall be taken as 250 kN. Type HA loading, applied in accordance with
(RDM, Ref: 6.4.1), shall be considered to act with the accidental skidding load.

For the skidding and primary live load, yfL, shall be taken as follows:

6.4 Minimum Earthquake Forces for Structures
Structures located in areas of expected seismic activity or in mining zones shall be
designed for a minimum horizontal seismic loadings assumed to act non-concurrently in
the direction of each of the main axes of the structures in accordance with:

F
tot
= C
s
G
DL

Where C
s
is the seismic base shear coefficient and is determined from

C
s
= aby
and G
DL
is the permanent load (dead load)

(a) the coefficient a is the design bedrock acceleration ratio given by
a = a
o
I, where a
0
= 0.15, for Bundibugyo region
I = 1.5, for bridge structures to be used immediately after
earthquake

(b) the coefficient b is the elastic design factor for the site and is given by
b = b
o
S < 2.5
Where b
o
is the elastic design response spectrum factor for bedrock
foundation and standard damping of 5% as determined from

b = 1.2S/T
2/3
2.5
For HA load 1.25 1.00
For HB load 1.10 1.00
1.25 1.00

109
June 2010

S is the subsoil classification and site condition factor = 1.5 and T is
the fundamental period of vibration of the structure from translational
motion in the direction considered

T = C
1
H
3/4

Where T is the fundamental period in seconds
H is the height of the bridge above the base in meter
C
1
= 0.075 for reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames.

(c) The values y are given as function of the type of structural system, y = 0.5 for
reinforced concrete shear walls.

110
June 2010

7 APPROACH ROADS

7.1 Design Criteria

Tables 7.1 Combined: Geometric Design Parameters for all the
Design Classes of roads

Design Element Unit
Gravel B
Flat Flat Rolling Mountainous
Design Speed km/h 120 80 60 50
Min. Stopping Sight
Distance
m 205 115 75 60
Min. Passing Sight
Distance
m 795 545 410 345
Min. Horizontal Curve
Radius
m 710 240 130 85
Max. Gradient (desirable) % 3 4 6 9
Max. Gradient (absolute) % 4 6 8 11
Minimum Gradient in cut % 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Maximum Super
elevation
% 7 7 7 7
Crest Vertical Curve
stopping
Kmin 103 32 14 9
Crest Vertical Curve
passing
Kmin 664 310 176 126
Sag Vertical Curve
stopping
Kmin 50 25 15 11
Normal Cross fall % 2.5 4 4 4
Shoulder Cross fall % 4 4 4 4
Right of Way m 60 30 30 30

111
June 2010

7.1.1 Designs of Approach Roads

All the bridge approaches are designed to the Ministry of Works and Transport Class B
Gravel standards with the following parameters Ref: Ministrys Roads Design Manual:

Table 7.1.1 a: Bridge Approaches (Road Design) Class

Desi gn
Cl ass
Capaci t y
[ pcu x
1,000/day]
Road-way
wi dt h[m]
Maximum
Design speed
Kph
Mountai nous
B Gravel 2 6 8.6 50

Table 7.1.1b: Road Design Class (continued)

Design class
Right of Way
width [m]
Road way
width [m]
Carriage way
Shoulder
width
[m]
Width
[m]
Lane
width
[m]
No. of
lane

B Gravel 30 8.6 5.6 2.8 2 2 x 1.5

Table7.1. 2: Geometric Design Parameters for Design Standard B Gravel

Design Element Unit Flat Rolling Mountainous
Design Speed km/h 80 60 50
Min. Stopping Sight Distance m 115 75 60
Min. Passing Sight Distance m 545 410 345
Min. Horizontal Curve Radius m 240 130 85
Max. Gradient (desirable) % 4 6 9
Max. Gradient (absolute) % 6 8 11
Minimum Gradient in cut % 0.5 0.5 0.5
Maximum Super elevation % 7 7 7
Crest Vertical Curve stopping K
min
32 14 9
Crest Vertical Curve passing K
min
310 176 126
Sag Vertical Curve stopping K
min
25 15 11
Normal Cross fall % 4 4 4
Shoulder Cross fall % 4 4 4
Right of Way m 30 30 30

112
June 2010

8 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The bridge sites are located in various districts of Uganda; namely Lira, Kiboga, Bundibugyo,
Kasese and Kisoro.

8.1 Project Objectives
The overall objectives of the proposed project are:

- the provision of improved road communication to the population of Uganda,

- the contribution to the countrys economic recovery,

- the reduction of environmental degradation through sustainable development.

The purpose of the environmental impact assessment is to identify potential significant
environmental impacts, including impacts on the ecological and socioeconomic components
of the environment. The findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment will contribute to
the accountable decision making with regard to the upgrading of the bridges and approach
roads, and ensure that the necessary mechanisms are put in place to effectively manage the
potential impacts. The objectives of the impact study were:

- to identify and evaluate the environmental impacts of upgrading the bridges and
approach roads on the biophysical (ecological and physical) and socio-economic
characteristics, during construction and operation;
- to provide the basis for environmentally sound decision-making in which all
reasonable alternatives are examined;
- to undertake a comprehensive public participation exercise whereby interested and
affected parties (I&APs) are identified and given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed project;
- to identify and describe procedures and activities that will enhance the positive
impacts and avoid or mitigate the negative environmental impacts;
- to address medium to long term management and monitoring during all phases of the
road project (site preparation, construction, operation and maintenance) by
implementing an environmental management plan.

The environmental study included:
- Scoping and public consultation,
- Description of the proposed project,
- Description of the affected environment (ecological, physical and socioeconomic),
- Environmental impact identification and evaluation,
- Environmental Impact Management Plan.

The Environmental Impact Assessment was carried out in compliance with the Uganda
Environmental guidelines on bridge and road construction.

8.2 Baseline Conditions
The topography, land-use and climate vary considerably for every bridge as shown hereunder.

8.2.1 Kabaale Bridge Site
The land cover in the basin consists of a combination of open shrubs with herbaceous and
sparsely distributed trees. Small scale agriculture is the dominant activity in the upstream

113
June 2010

areas while livestock rearing is the dominant activity in the lower reaches. The river flood
plains are dominated by permanent papyrus swamps which provide extensive storage of
flood water thereby providing some attenuation of the peak flows.

The upper reach of the R. Mayanja catchment is mainly made up of undifferentiated
basement system gneisses. The lower reach is made up of unconsolidated material which is
eroded from the upstream areas and deposited due to reduction in channel slopes. The soils
range from sandy to sandy loams. The valleys are filled with clayey mixtures.

The area falls within climatic zone L according to the Uganda Hydroclimatic Study (2001).
The zone receives an average of 1270 mm of rainfall which is principally spread over 2 rainy
seasons: The long rains of March to May and the short rains of September to November.
During the dry months, evaporation can be very high (in the order of 5 times the rainfall).

8.2.2 Kaguta Bridge Site
Woodlands, pasture lands and grasslands are dominant in the upstream areas. Subsistence
agriculture is dominant in the mid to lower reaches. The main crops grown include maize,
sunflower, sorghum, millet. The flood plains tend to be bushy with somewhat dense tree
cover.

The catchment is mainly made up of a combination of granitoid, undifferentiated and
unconsolidated sediments as well as basement system gneisses. The soils range from sandy
to sandy loams. The valleys are filled with gravely soils and clayey mixtures.

The area falls within climatic zone I according to the Uganda Hydroclimatic Study (2001). The
zone receives an average of 1340 mm of rainfall which falls in one rainy season from April to
mid November. The dry season is from November to March. January is the driest month and
evaporation can be 10 times the rainfall received.

8.2.3 Semiliki Bridge Site
There is a transition from high forests to woodland as you move from the upstream areas to
the mid-stream areas. The lower areas are dominated by subsistence farmlands and
savannah grasslands. The river plain within the rift valley is covered by frequent swamps that
can sometimes be as wide as 2-5 km.

The geology of the area is mainly shaped by the forces that created the mountain ranges and
the rift valley. Gneisses, amphibolites and quartzites dominate the basin. The lower reach is
shaped by sediments transported by the river. The river bed is rocky characterised by rocky
mixtures ranging from a few millimetres to several centimetres in diameter. Larger rocks can
also be transported during flood events. The soils range from sandy, sandy loams and clayey
aggregates. The valleys are filled with gravely soils and clayey mixtures.

The area falls within climatic zone L according to the Uganda Hydroclimatic Study (2001).
The zone receives an average of 1270 mm of rainfall annually though this area of
Bundibugyo receives only about 800 mm of rain. The annual rainfall is spread over 2 rainy
seasons: The long rains from March to May and the short rains from September to
November. During the dry months, evaporation can be high, in the order of 7 times the
rainfall.

8.2.4 Karujumba Bridge Site
There is a transition from high forests to woodland as one moves from the upstream areas to
the mid-stream areas. The lower areas are dominated by subsistence farmlands while in the
proximity of the river there is a scattering of occasional swamps within the flood plains.

114
June 2010

The geology of the area is mainly shaped by the forces that created the Rwanzori Mountains.
Gneisses, amphibolites and quartzites dominate the basin. The lower reach is shaped by
sediments transported by the river. The river bed is rocky characterised by rocky mixtures
ranging from a few millimetres to several centimetres in diameter. Larger rocks can also be
transported during flood events. The soils range from sandy to sandy loams. The valleys are
filled with gravely soils and clayey mixtures.

The area falls within climatic zone MW according to the Uganda Hydroclimatic Study (2001).
The zone receives an average of 1222 mm of rainfall annually though Kasese area receives
about 750 mm of rainfall. The annual rainfall is spread over 12 rainy seasons: The long rains
from March to May and the short rains from August to November. During the dry months,
evaporation can be very high, in the order of 6 times the rainfall.

8.2.5 Kanyamateke Bridge Site
The main land use is subsistence agriculture especially in the low land and the hill slopes
while 15-20% of the basin is covered by tropical forests.

Geologically, the area is made up of gneisses, quartzites and other basaltic and igneous
rocks. The riverbed is gravely with mixture of transported rocks. The soils range from sandy
to sandy loams. The valleys and swamps are filled with clayey mixtures.

The area falls within climatic zone CW according to the Uganda Hydroclimatic Study (2001).
The zone receives an average of 1120 mm of rainfall annually. There are two rainy seasons:
the main season September to December with peak in October/November and secondary
season March to May with a peak in April. During the dry months, evaporation can be very
high, in the order of 3 times the rainfall.

8.3 Relevant Legislation Related to Bridges

8.3.1 Environmental Management Framework in Uganda
At the national level, National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) works with lead
agencies. According to National Environmental Statute (NES), a lead agency is any ministry,
department, parastatal agency, local government system or public office in which or to whom any
law vests function of control or management of any segment of the environment.

In line with the national program on decentralization, National Environmental Statute provides for
the transfer of environmental management responsibilities to districts, municipalities and rural
communities at the grass roots. Environmental related activities in districts are facilitated by
District Environmental Officers (DEOs) who are direct employees of their respective districts.

8.3.2 The Constitution of Uganda 1995
The constitution is the supreme law. It provides for environmental protection and conservation. It
stipulates that the state shall promote sustainable development and public awareness of the need
to manage land, air and water resources in a balanced and sustainable manner for the present
and future generations.

It further provides that the utilization of the natural resources of Uganda are to be managed in
such a way as to meet the development and environment needs of present and future
generations of Ugandans. In particular, the state is required to take all possible measures to
prevent or minimize damage and destruction to land, air and water resources due to pollution or
other causes.

115
June 2010

8.3.3 The National Environmental Management Statute, 1995
The National Environmental Statute is contemplated as a coordinating statute. Its provisions are
to be carried out through cooperation between the NEMA, Local authorities and other government
agencies (lead agencies) through a system of consultation.

The Statute also enables local administration to be involved in the management of the
environment. The statute creates District Environment Committees charged with the management
of environment issues at the district level. Environment Committees are created at the lowest
levels of local government structures to enable public participation in environmental decision-
making at those levels.

8.3.4 Land Act
The principle legislation on land tenure in Uganda is the Land Act. This gives power to an
authorized undertaker to enter upon any land after an agreement with the occupier or owner of
the land and carry out lawful acts thereon. In cases where there is no consensus between the
landowner and the undertaker, the Minister may compulsorily acquire that land. Provisions for this
are in the Constitution.

Like any other laws relating to the environment, the Land Act is to be read together with the
provisions of the Constitution and the National Environment Statute, and all regulations and rules
relating to the conservation of the natural environment.

8.3.5 The Town and Country Planning Act, 1964
The 1995 Constitution provides that government may, in pursuit of laws made by parliament, and
the policies of government, regulate the use of land. The principal statute on land use and land
planning in urban and rural areas is the Town and Country Planning Act. The Act establishes the
Town and Country Board, which is charged with the duty of planning and for the orderly
development of towns and rural areas.

8.4 Evaluation of Potential Environmental Impact
8.4.1 Impacts Related to Construction Activities
Loss of Vegetation Cover
The construction of the proposed bridges and approach roads will have an adverse environmental
impact resulting from loss of trees or other land cover of ecological importance.

Additional tree planting is proposed to compensate for the lost shrubs, and to provide for
landscaping and screening.
Spoil Material
During the construction of the structures, there will be some significant excavation, and the
excavated material will need to be disposed of. Improper disposal may have an adverse effect on
the environment. The material should either be disposed of in proper landfill sites, or properly
used in the landscaping works within the works sites.
Erosion of Access Roads
The approach roads to the bridges will be constructed and these new road works may become
susceptible to erosion. The drainage for these approach roads will need to be carefully
considered.
Loss or Damage to Land
There will be no relocation or resettlement of people as a result of the Project. Some loss of
cultivation land may occur, but no building or other property will be destroyed. The owners of

116
June 2010

crops and land are eligible for compensation as per the existing law in place, and this should be
allowed for.
Temporary Limitations to Access
During bridge construction works, some temporary inconvenience will be caused to the
population. This will be minimised by construction of temporary access river crossings and by
proper timing of construction activities to cause least inconvenience.
Loss or Destruction of Historical or Cultural Sites
In the course of consultations with the community there seems to be no sites of archaeological,
historical or cultural significance within the proposed works. However, in course of the actual
construction, if some graveyards are found at the proposed bridge sites, it will be imperative to re-
locate them in consultation with the community.
Materials for Construction and Disposal
Construction materials such as sand, aggregates, boulders, etc will have to be used for various
works especially at the bridge works. If poorly handled, they can be unsightly and dangerous. The
contractor should apply best engineering practices available in the construction procedures.
Increased Level of Noise
The effect of noise and dust on the local population will be insignificant because most of the
construction works will be low key and labour based.
Working Conditions
The Project will employ local labour during construction. This will be drawn from the local
population so that adverse effects of associated with labour camps are avoided. All the staff
should be provided with protective clothing and protected exposure to hazards. Safety regulations
will need to be observed.

8.4.2 Impacts Related to the Operation of the Systems
Saving in Terms of Time and Money on the part of the Households
With improved road communication systems, households in the Project area will have indirect
gains through reduced expenditure on transport fares on agricultural products as well as
timesaving in movement to markets and other businesses. Time saved may be put to other use
while the saved money could be invested or used to improve the standard of living in the homes.
Community Consultation
The consultations revealed that the community is supportive of the project, which they consider
as overdue for intervention.

8.5 Proposed Mitigation Measures
Virtually, all the undesirable impacts identified in the previous CHAPTERS have been minimised
in the design or can be minimised by implementing appropriate measures.

8.5.1 Construction Phase
The mitigation plan addresses the negative impacts generated by the construction works.

The mitigation measures include the following:

117
June 2010

- provision of adequate safety procedures and supervision of works, including the provision
of appropriate training for the workforce, especially when undertaking potentially
hazardous activities,

- minimisation of the amount of land taken by construction activities and adequate mitigation
of the effects on the owner or user of the land that has to be taken,

- restriction of working time to daylight hours to minimise rate of accidents, disruption due to
noise and impact of dust generation,

- advance warning of works to be given to farmers and compensation payable for loss of
crops if any are destroyed,

- ensuring that contractors complete all reinstatement work to a high standard before
approval is given,

- local sourcing of materials and labour,

- employment of people who come from near construction work sites so that there is no
need to have workers camps, and

- careful siting of contractors compound to avoid delivery and construction traffic passing
through residential areas.

8.5.2 Operation Phase
The mitigation plan also addresses the negative impacts generated by the operation of the
systems, which will have a more long-term impact.

Measures include:

- establishment and enforcement of safety procedures,

- institutional strengthening and training to enable respective officers to implement the
necessary monitory and management measures, and

- minimisation of environmental degradation at approach roads by providing proper
drainage and protection works.

8.6 Implementation Procedure
Implementation of the mitigation plan is very important to the Project. Recommendations of the
mitigation plan should, therefore, be incorporated in the following:

- bridge designs,

- construction contract documents,

- terms of reference for the consultants,

118
June 2010

- monitoring requirements for implementation by the Client and the contractors.

The mitigation plan should be implemented at the site supervision stage of the Project for the
short and long-term impacts, but should also be continued after completion of works for the long-
term impacts.

8.7 Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan
The Project should try to achieve and demonstrate sound environmental control and active
management and monitoring of environmental performance. The best approach will be to
develop, implement and maintain a well structured Environmental Management System (EMS)
integrated with overall management activity and addressing all aspects of desired environmental
performance. The system should be based on implementation of proposed mitigation measures in
this study.

After designing and incorporating the recommended mitigation measures into the final
engineering designs, monitoring will be relatively straightforward. Sampling or testing
programmes are required to determine the accuracy of impacts predicted or the efficacy of
mitigation recommended; hence, no special scientific training or experience will be needed to
monitor the mitigation plan.

Contract documents, which are within the purview of the Client, can prescribe that environmental
mitigation and/or enhancement be completed satisfactorily before final payment is made to the
contractor.

8.8 Conclusions and Recommendations
The proposed mitigation measures, the environmental management and monitoring plan if
implemented by Ministry of Works and Transport (MoWT) are sufficient to minimise the potential
negative impacts of the Project to the environment. It is therefore recommended that MoWT be
allowed to implement the project.

119
June 2010

9 PRICING OF WORKS

9.1 Pricing of Bills of Quantities

Rates from recent similar contracts in Uganda have been used to estimate the cost of the works.
The costed Bills of Quantities are given under separate cover and the grand summary as given in
table below.

GRAND SUMMARY

SUMMARY BILL ALL BRIDGES Amount
SIMILIKI BRIDGE 3,284,143,800
KAGUTA BRIDGE 1,370,516,175
KARUJUMBA BRIDGE

941,412,675
KABAALE BRIDGE 2,705,425,800
KANYAMATEKE BRIDGE 960,396,675
TOTAL 9,261,895,125

120
June 2010

ANNEXES

121
June 2010

APPENDIX A: Computation of design floods using the TRRL
approach

122
June 2010

Table A1: Kabaale Bridge
10 yrs 25yrs 50 yrs 100 yrs
Area km2 A 4,568 4,568 4,568 4,568
Catchment slope Average Sr 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7%
Slope class Table 7.11 S 4 4 4 4
Surface cover flow time Forest, very steep (Table 7.16) Ts (hr) 2 2 2 2
Soil class Fairly permeable (Table 7.10) I 4 4 4 4
Basic runoff coeficient Table 7.12 Cs 32% 32% 32% 32%
Land use factor Grass cover - Table 7.14 CL 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Catchment wetness factor Wet zone, perennial streams - Table 7.15 Cw 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percentage of runoff Equation 7.22 Ca 16% 16% 16% 16%
Base time Equation 7.29 TB 128.7 128.7 128.7 128.7
2yr, 24 hr rainfall millimeters - Figure 3.6 70 70 70 70
10:2 year ratio Table 3.6 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64
n:2 year ratio Figure 3.11 1.64 1.85 2.20 2.50
Constant b Table 4.6 b 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Constant n Table 4.5 n 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Area reduction factor Equation 4.11 ARF 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
Rainfall ratio Equation 4.3 RR 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11
n-yr 24-hr stormdepth 70.4 79.4 94.4 107.2
Average flow during base time Equation 7.31 111 125 149 169
Peak factor Humid zone - Table 7.17 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
n-yr peak flow m3/s 277 313 372 423
Parameter Description Abrev. Return period (n)

123
June 2010

Table A2: Kaguta Bridge
Area km2 A 4,668 4,668 4,668 4,668
Catchment slope Average Sr 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
Land use factor Grass cover - Table 7.14 CL 1 1.0 1.0 1.0
Catchment wetness factor Dry zone, perennial streams - Table 7.15 Cw 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
10:2 year ratio Table 3.6 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64
n-yr peak flow m3/s 246 278 330 375

124
June 2010

Table A3: Semiliki Bridge
Area km2 A 33,166 33,166 33,166 33,166
Catchment slope Average Sr 13% 13% 13% 13%
Land use factor Intensive cultivation - Table 7.14 CL 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
10:2 year ratio Table 3.6 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64
n-yr peak flow m3/s 586 661 786 894

125
June 2010

Table A4: Karujumba Bridge
Area km2 A 242 242 242 242
Land use factor Dense vegetation - Table 7.14 CL 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
10:2 year ratio Table 3.6 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64
Peak factor Forest - Table 7.17 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
n-yr peak flow m3/s 100 113 135 153

126
June 2010

Table A5: Kanyamateke Bridge

Area km2 A 977 977 977 977
Soil class Permeable (Table 7.10) I 5 5 5 5
Land use factor Dense vegetation - Table 7.14 CL 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
10:2 year ratio Table 3.6 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64
Area reduction factor Equation 4.11 (T=8) ARF 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71
Peak factor Forest zone - Table 7.17 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
n-yr peak flow m3/s 172 194 231 262

Engineering Report on Design of 5 Bridges in Uganda

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Engineering Report on Design of 5 Bridges in Uganda

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Ministry of Works & Transport June 2010

Engineering Report Detailed Design of Semiliki,

Você também pode gostar