1 Pavement Design: 1.1 Subgrade Properties

1 Pavement Design
A road pavement is a structure consisting of superimposed layers of specially selected materials sitting
on the subgrade (instu soil), whose primary function is to distribute the applied vehicle loads to the
subgrade to levels that will not damage the instu material. The design therefore comprised
establishment of layer thicknesses and their respective suitable materials.
The design process involved the following:
 Establishment of subgrade material properties including strength;
 Establishment of the expected vehicle load repetitions over the design period;
 Establishment of the climatic conditions under which the pavement will operate;
 Determination of the different layer thicknesses;
 Design of the surface layer.
1.1 Subgrade properties

Samples of subgrade material were collected and taken to the material laboratory to establish their
properties. Tests conducted on the samples included: Atterberg limits to determine the consistency of
the material and these included tests like Plasticity test, Liquid limit, Plasticity index and Shrinkage limit;
California Bearing Ratio (CBR), Compaction test and Gradation test.
Whereas all these tests are important in understanding the behavior of the material, for purposes of this
design, only the Atterberg limits and CBR shall be considered in the classification of the subgrade.
In tandem with the laboratory tests, instu tests were conducted to establish the instu strength of the
subgrade in terms of CBR using a Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP). Table 1-1 present a summary of
the test results for the subgrade material. The detailed results are attached as appendix 1.
Table 1-1: Summary of Subgrade Test results

SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS OF THE SUBGRADE MATERIAL
District Laboratory Tests DCP Results
Gomba Test Max Min Average SD 10th Percentile Test Max Min Average SD 10th Percentile
PI 19 8 15.44 2.5 11.6
CBR 32 8 18.1 6.48 12 CBR 50 4 37 15 13
SN 2.27 0.13 1 0.54 0.19
SNP 3.15 1.27 2.7 0.32 2.27
Kayunga PI Only one point shows PI, suggesting the material is sandy
CBR 22 5 12.33 5.96 5 CBR 50 9 31 16 9
SN 1.46 0.24 0.69 0.39 0.13
SNP 2.82 1.81 2.39 0.28 1.85
Kasese PI 16 10 13 2.1 -
CBR 31 24 27 2.7 - CBR 50 17 27 9 20
SN 1.95 0.56 1.31 0.38 0.55
SNP 2.91 2.3 2.59 0.2 2.31
Mayuge PI 28 16 20.17 3.76
CBR 28 7 17.14 4.1 7 CBR 50 12 40 12 27
SN 1.72 0.27 1.16 0.42 0.26
SNP 3.04 2.46 2.81 0.18 2.52
From the results, it can be observed that the PI is less than 30% for all the sites. This means that the
subgrade material is not very sensitive to moisture changes. Accordingly, there is no need for subgrade
improvement.
The difference between the laboratory CBR values and the instu CBR values for Gomba, Kayunga and
Kasese was very close showing not much difference between the soaked CBR and the Instu CBR. This
confirms the fact that the material is not very sensitive to moisture variation. Accordingly, the CBR
values obtained using the DCP were confidently adopted for design. However, for Mayuge, there is a big
difference between the 10th Percentile values of the Laboratory and the instu test. There is a high risk
using the 10th Percentile value from the DCP test. Accordingly, the minimum value of the instu test was
adopted for design.
Therefore, the CBR values shown in Table 1-2 were adopted for subgrade classification.
Table 1-2: Design CBR value and Subgrade Class
Site /District Subgrade CBR Value for Design (%) Design Subgrade Class
Gomba 13 S4
Kayunga 9 S4
Kasese 20 S5
Mayuge 12 S4
1.2 Traffic Projection

In order to establish the anticipated number of traffic load repetitions over the entire design period, a
traffic projection was conducted. This involved:
i. Conduction of traffic count to establish the current level of traffic;
ii. Calculation of the daily equivalent standard axles (DESA);
iii. Selection of the design period and traffic growth rate;
iv. Estimation of the Million Equivalent Standard Axle(MESA), which is the projection of traffic
repetitions; and
v. Determination of the design traffic class.

1.2.1 Traffic count
Traffic counts were conducted by counting the number of vehicles within the different vehicle classes
for a period of 5 consecutive days 12 hours each day. Whereas the recommended period for traffic
count is 7 days, because of the low level of traffic on these roads, a 5 day count was deemed sufficient.
The 12 hour count was converted to a 24 hour count using a factor of 1.33 as recommended in the
district road manuals.
The average daily 24 hour count was determined for each vehicle class. This was later multiplied by the
Equivalent Standard Axle (ESA) factor for each vehicle class. The ESA factors used were adopted from
TRH16 of 1991. The factors in the Construction manual for volume roads were considered to be too high
for the type of vehicles using these roads and could easily lead to an over design. Table 1-3, Table 1-4,
Table 1-5 and Table 1-6 show the summary of the results of the traffic count.
Mayuge Site
Table 1-3: Traffic Summary for Mayuge site

Vehicle category Total 5 day 12 Total 5 day 24 Hours = Average 24 Hour ESA Factors Daily ESA per
Hours (5D12H) (5D12H*1.33) Count vehicle class
Bicycles 511 679.63 135.926 0 0
Motorcycles 2,183 2903.39 580.678 0 0
Passenger cars 61 81.13 16.226 0 0
Pick-up/4-wheel 61 81.13 16.226 0 0
drive
Small bus 0 0 0 0.15 0
Bus/coach 0 0 0 0.73 0
Small truck 0 0 0 0.15 0
Medium Truck 85 113.05 22.61 0.7 15.827
Large Truck 2 0 0 0 0
Axle
3 – axle truck 0 0 0 1.7 0
4 – Axle Truck 0 0 0 1.8 0
5 - axle 0 0 0 2.2 0
6- Axle 0 0 0 3.5 0
Tractor 2 2.66 0.532 0.3 0.1596
2-axled trailer 0 0 0 0
Total Daily Equivalent Standard Axle (DESA) 15.9866
Kayunga Site
Table 1-4: Traffic Summary for Kayunga site

Vehicle category Total 5 day Total 5 day 24 Average 24 ESA Factors Daily ESA per
12 Hours Hours = Hour Count vehicle class
(5D12H) (5D12H*1.33)
Bicycles 1,455 1935.15 387.03 0 0
Motorcycles 1,549 2060.17 412.034 0 0
Passenger cars 24 31.92 6.384 0 0
Pick-up/4-wheel 23 30.59 6.118 0 0
drive
Small bus 0 0 0 0.15 0
Bus/coach 0 0 0 0.73 0
Small truck 10 13.3 2.66 0.3 0.798
Medium Truck 18 23.94 4.788 0.7 3.3516
Large Truck 2 0 0 0 0
Axle
3 – axle truck 0 0 0 1.7 0
4 – Axle Truck 0 0 0 1.8 0
5 - axle 0 0 0 2.2 0
6- Axle 0 0 0 3.5 0
Tractor 1 1.33 0.266 0.3 0.0798
Kasese Site
Table 1-5: Traffic Summary for Kasese site
Vehicle category Total 5 day Total 5 day 24 Average 24 ESA Daily ESA per
12 Hours Hours = Hour Count Factors vehicle class
(5D12H) (5D12H*1.33)
Bicycles 54 71.82 14.364 0 0
Motorcycles 1896 2521.68 504.336 0 0
Passenger cars 43 57.19 11.438 0 0
Pick-up/4-wheel 8 10.64 2.128 0 0
drive
Small bus 0 0 0 0.3 0
Bus/coach 0 0 0 0.73 0
Small truck 27 35.91 7.182 0.15 1.0773
Medium Truck 0 0 0 0.7 0
Large Truck 2 Axle 0 0 0 0
3 – axle truck 0 0 0 1.7 0
4 – Axle Truck 0 0 0 1.8 0
5 - axle 0 0 0 2.2 0
6- Axle 0 0 0 3.5 0
Tractor 0 0 0 0.3 0
Gomba
Table 1-6: Traffic Summary for Gomba site
Vehicle category Total 5 day 12 Total 5 day 24 Hours Average 24 ESA Daily ESA per
Hours (5D12H) = (5D12H*1.33) Hour Count Factors vehicle class
Bicycles 732 973.56 194.712 0 0
Motorcycles 3554 4726.82 945.364 0 0
Passenger cars 229 304.57 60.914 0 0
Pick-up/4-wheel 391 520.03 104.006 0 0
drive
Small bus 0 0 0 0.15 0
Bus/coach 0 0 0 0.73 0
Small truck 0 0 0 0.3 0
Medium Truck 116 154.28 30.856 0.7 21.5992
Large Truck 2 Axle 1 1.33 0.266 1.52 0.40432
3 – axle truck 1 1.33 0.266 1.7 0.4522
4 – Axle Truck 0 0 0 1.8 0
5 - axle 0 0 0 2.2 0
6- Axle 0 0 0 3.5 0
Tractor 8 10.64 2.128 0.3 0.6384
1.2.2 Design period and growth rate

According to the construction manual for low Volume sealed roads of 2019 and the flexible pavement
design manual 2010 both of the Ministry of Works and Transport, the design period for these types of
roads is 10 years.
The recommended traffic growth rate is a factor of the country’s GDP which has been on average
between 4.5% and 6.5% for the past ten years. Accordingly, a rate 5.5% growth rate was adopted for the
projection of future traffic.
1.2.3 Traffic projection

Projected future traffic was estimated using the formula:
Where:
A = Total ESA / day (DESA)
R = Traffic growth rate
x = design life in years
y = number of years before start of design life
For this design, y was taken to be one (1) year. Accordingly, Table 1-7 presents the projected traffic in
the different districts.
Table 1-7: Projected Cumulative Equivalent Standard Axle
Site DESA (A) Growth Rate Projected Traffic

(R) (CESA)
Mayuge 15.9866 5.5 79261.19
Kayunga 4.2294 5.5 20969.27
Kasese 1.0773 5.5 5341.228
Gomba 23.09412 5.5 114500.1
To check the sensitivity of the projected traffic with the changes in traffic growth rate, a sensitivity
analysis was conducted for different traffic growth rate up to 10% and the results are presented in Table
1-8.
Table 1-8: Traffic projections for the different traffic growth rates
SITE TRAFFIC PROJECTION AT DIFFERENT GROWTH RATES
Growth rate 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Mayuge 72859 74930 77063 79261 81526 83860 86264 88741 91293 93922 96631 99422 102296
Kayunga 19276 19823 20388 20969 21568 22186 22822 23477 24152 24848 25565 26303 27063
Kasese 4910 5049 5193 5341 5494 5651 5813 5980 6152 6329 6512 6700 6894
Gomba 105252 108243 111325 114500 117772 121143 124616 128195 131881 135680 139593 143624 147776
According to design traffic classes for low volume roads as presented in Table 1-9, it can be noted that
for Mayuge site, from the growth rate of 4% to 9.5%, the projected traffic falls within one band (0.01 –
0.1). For Kayunga, from 4% to 10% growth rate, the projected traffic is within one traffic class (0.01 –
0.1) while for Kasese, from 4% to 10 % growth rate, the projected traffic is within the same traffic class
(< 0.01). And likewise for Gomba, from 4% to 10% growth rate, the traffic falls within the same class (0.1
– 0.3).
This implies that slight changes in traffic growth rate do not significantly affect the design traffic class
adopted for design.
Table 1-9: Design Traffic Class
Traffic Classes (ESA x 106)

TLC1 TLC2 TLC3 TLC4 TLC5
< 0.01 0.01 - 0.1 0.1 – 0.3 0.3 – 0.5 0.5 – 1.0
1.2.4 Distribution of traffic

According to the Pavement manual of Ministry of Works and Transport of 2010, the traffic distribution
factor which depends on the width of the road must be factored in. For a road of width between 4.5 and
6 m, a distribution factor of 0.8 is recommended. However for Kasese where the carriageway is likely to
be less than 4.5m due to the hilly terrain, a factor of 2 was adopted.
Accordingly after factoring, the design traffic classes shown in

Table 1-10 were adopted for design.
Table 1-10: Design Class for the different districts
Site Design MESA Design Traffic Class

Mayuge 0.06 TLC2
Kayunga 0.02 TLC2
Kasese 0.01 TLC2
Gomba 0.09 TLC2
1.3 Climatic assessment

The climate of the regions where the roads are located was assessed in terms of their Weinert Number
Value. The Weinert is related to the mean annual rainfall as per Table 1-11. Generally, the climate of
Uganda according to https://www.climatestotravel.com/climate/uganda is described as warm, with
average temperatures ranging between 20 °C and 25 °C (68 °F and 77 °F), and annual rainfall ranging
between 900 and 1,500 millimeters. Accordingly, from the table, the Weinert Number is between 2 and
4.
Table 1-11: Indicative Weinert Number values
Weinert Thornthwaite Moisture Typical Mean Annual

Description
N Value Index, Im Rainfall (mm)
Arid 5+ <-40 <250
Semi-arid 4 to 5 -20 to -40 250-500
Semi-arid to Sub-tropical
2 to 4 -20 to +20 500-1000
(Savanna)
Humid Tropical (Equatorial) <2 +20 to +100 >1000
Rational Road Drainage Design R6990 – TRL PR/INT/244/2002
1.4 Materials
1.4.1 Gravel
Gravel samples were collected and taken to the Central Material Laboratory for testing to establish their
properties. Test results are not yet ready. However, in the proximity of some sites, there are gravel
sources that had been tested before in the previous works. These sources are in Mayuge, Kasese and
Kayunga and the test results are presented in Table 1-12.
Heavy Compaction
3 Point Soaked CBR
Properties
District Sample Identification
MDD OMC PI (%) No of Blows Degree of CBR (%)
3
(mg/m ) Compaction (%)
Kasese KIRAMBAILO B/P 3 + 10 88 10
500 LHS ROAD SIDE 2.19 8 17 30 96 36
65 101 57
B/P 4+700 LHS O/S 10 87 6
4.0Km 2.16 10 19 30 97 34
65 102 52
B/P 4+700 LHS O/S 10 89 7
5.0Km 2.1 11 17 30 97 30
65 103 43
Kayunga RUGASA B/P,11+600 10 89 11
0//S 3Km RHS 2.14 11 17 30 97 40
65 103 57
Mayuge MAYUGE B/P 10 88 7
2.07 10 21 30 96 29
65 102 40
Table 1-12: Test results of Gravel
According to specification, the recommended field compaction densities for the Subbase course and
Base course are 95% and 98% respectively. Accordingly, the CBR values shown in Table 1-13 were
adopted for design.
Table 1-13: Design CBR for the pavement layers
Site Design CBR (Subbase) Design CBR (Base

Course)
Mayuge 30 40
Kayunga 30 50
Kasese 30 50
Gomba - -
1.4.2 Aggregates
Aggregates are needed in the construction of the surface. Samples were collected and testing is
ongoing.
1.4.3 Bitumen
Bitumen acts like a binder as well as a sealant in the construction of the surface. The common types of
bitumen used are Pen grade 80/100, Cutback MC 3000, MC 70 and MC 30, and Bitumen Emulsions K1-60
and K1-70.
For surface dressing, K1-70 is preferred to K1-60 because it has a low rate of flow.
1.5 Design of pavement layers
1.5.1 Catalogue Method

Pavement layers were selected using Table 1-15 for a combination of Subgrade classes and Traffic class.
The summary of the design parameters is as presented in the Table 1-14.
Table 1-14: Design Parameters
Site Weinert number Subgrade Class Traffic Class

Mayuge <4 S4 TLC2
Kayunga <4 S4 TLC2
Kasese <4 S5 TLC2
Gomba <4 S4 TLC2
Table 1-15: Design Catalogue

SG CBR
<0.01 0.01-0.1 0.1-0.3 0.3-0.5 0.5-1.0
150 G60 150 G60 150 G60 175 G80 200 G80
S2 (3-4%) 150 G15 125 G30 150 G30 175 G30 175 G30
150 G15 175 G15 175 G15 200 G15
125 G65 150 G60 150 G60 175 G60 200 G80
S3 (5-7%) 150 G15 100 G30 150 G30 150 G30 150 G30
100 G15 150 G15 150 G15 150 G15
175 G40 150 G60 150 G60 175 G60 200 G80
S4 (8-14%)
120 G30 200 G30 200 G30 200 G30
175 G40 125 G60 150 G60 175 G60 175 G80
S5 (15-29%)
125 G30 150 G30 150 G30 150 G30
S6 (>30%) 150 G40 150 G60 175 G60 175 G60 200 G80
Hence, the pavement layers for the different sites are as presented in Table 1-16.
Table 1-16: Pavement Layer thicknesses
Site/District Mayuge Kayunga Kasese Gomba

Pavement Base 150 G60 150 G60 125 G60 150 G60
Structure Subbase 120 G30 120 G30 125 G30 120 G30
1.5.2 Structural number method

The structural Number method is based on the formula:
SN = a1D1 + a2D2M2 +a3D3M3

Where:
SN is the design Structural number of the structure;
a1, a2 and a3 are layer coefficients for the surface, base and Subbase respectively;
M2, and M3 and drainage factors; and
D1, D2 and D3 are layer thicknesses (inch).
For a pavement that will be exposed to saturation condition of less than 25%, M2 and M3 = 1. For thin
surfaces that don’t have significant structural contribution, a1D1 = 0.
There for the formula reduces to:
SN = a2D2 +a3D3
The values of a2 and a3 are selected from Table 1-17 according to the properties of the layer material.
Table 1-17: Layer coefficients
Layer Type Condition Coefficient

Surface treatment ai = 0.2
ai = (29.14 CBR - 0.1977 CBR2 +
Default
0.00045 CBR3) 10-4
CBR > 100% a2 = 0.145
CBR = 100% a2 = 0.14
CBR = 80%
Granular unbound With a stabilised layer
a2 = 0.135
roadbase underneath
With an unbound
a2 = 0.13
granular layer underneath
CBR = 65% a2 = 0.12
CBR = 55% a2 = 0.107
CBR = 45% a2 = 0.1
Marshall stability = 2.5 MN ai = 0.135
Bitumen treated
gravels and sands
Equation ai = 0.075 + 0.039 UCS – 0.00088(UCS)2
Cemented3 CB 1 (UCS = 3.0 – 6.0 MPa) ai = 0.18
CB 2 (UCS = 1.5 – 3.0 MPa) ai = 0.13
aj = -0.075 + 0.184(log10 CBR) –
Equation
0.0444(log10 CBR)2
Granular unbound CBR = 40% a3 = 0.11
sub-bases CBR = 30% a3 = 0.1
CBR = 20% a3 = 0.09
CBR = 15% a3 = 0.08
CBR = 10% a3 = 0.065
Cemented (UCS = 0.7 – 1.5 MPa) ai = 0.1
For a pavement structure consisting of subbase and base whose materials have CBR of 30 and 50
respectively, a3 =0.1 and a2 =0.103.
The design SN for a combination of traffic class and subgrade class was determined from Table 1-18.
Table 1-18: Structural Numbers for the different Traffic and subgrade Class combinations

< 0.01 0.01 – 0.1 0.1 – 0.3 0.3 – 0.5 0.5 – 1.0
S1 (<3%) Special subgrade treatment required
S2 (3-4%) 1.05 1.7 1.95 2.05 2.30
S3 (5-7%) 0.95 1.45 1.70 1.85 2.1
S4 (8-14%) 0.8 1.25 1.55 1.65 1.85
S5 (15-29%) 0.7 1.0 1.25 1.35 1.5
S6 (>30%) 0.6 0.7 0.85 0.95 1.0
For Mayuge, Kayunga and Gomba with traffic class TLC2 and Subgrade Class S4, SN = 1.25 while for
Kasese with traffic class S5 and subgrade class S4, SN = 1.0.
Therefore the equations are:
1.25 = 0.103D2 + 0.1D3, for Mayuge, Kayunga and Gomba; and
1.0 =0.103D2 = 0.1D3 for Kasese.
Assuming a Subbase thickness D3 = 125mm (5inch);
D2 = 7.3 Inch (185mm) for Mayuge, Kayunga and Gomba

D2 = 4.8 inch (122 mm) for Kasese
Hence, the pavement structures are as presented in Table 1-19.
Table 1-19: Pavement layer structure
Site/District Mayuge Kayunga Kasese Gomba

Pavement Base 185 G50 185 G50 125 G50 185 G50
Structure Subbase 125 G30 125 G30 125 G30 125 G30
1.5.3 Comparison of designs

The pavement structure in Table 1-16 developed using catalogue method has thinner layers than the
pavement structure in Table 1-19 developed using structural number but requires high quality material
that may not be readily available.
To achieve the specification for the pavement structure in Table 1-16, the material must be improved by
chemical stabilization. In the absence of good quality lime for chemical stabilization, the design in Table
1-19 provides a better option.
The other advantage with the pavement structure in Table 1-19 is that the pavement crown is raised
farther above the side drain invert hence providing a better environment condition for the pavement.
Therefore, the design in Table 1-19 was adopted.
Diagrammatically, the pavement structures are illustrated in Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2
185mm, G50
125mm, G30
Figure 1-2: Pavement Structure for Mayugea, Kayunga and Gomba
125mm, G50
125mm, G30
Figure 1-1 : Pavement Structure for Kasese

1.6 Surface Design
1.6.1 Definition of surfaces
A surface is the top most layer of the pavement which directly receives the load from vehicle tires.
Surfaces can be categorized as structural or non structural depending on its functions. Most of the low
volume road surfaces are thin in nature and hence non structural. The different types of surfaces for low
volume roads include: Double Surface Dressing, Single surface Dressing, Single Surface Dressing with
Sand Capping, Otta seal either double or single, thin premix and Sand seals.
1.6.2 Identification of appropriate surfaces

Choice of which surface to apply was done using the chart presented in It can be noted that the
selection of the surfaces depends on a number of factors such as traffic level, service life requirement,
impact of traffic turning action, gradient, material quality, pavement and base quality and suitability for
labour based method.
Surfaces such as SS- Sand Seal, SIS-Slurry Seal and CS-Cape Seal were not considered in this design. The
choice of surface for each road was done by considering the different factors and identifying surfaces
suitable in the given condition.
The identification of the seals is presented in Figure 1-3: Suitable Sealing Options for different
environment. In the figure, the surfaces suitable for a given condition are indicated in bold letters while
those which are less suitable are indicated but not bolded. Seals that are not suitable have not been
included. The most preferred options are indicated at the bottom of the table in the order of preference
depending on how frequent they appear in the table.
For all the roads, the most appropriate options were found to be Double Otta Seal, and Single Otta Seal
plus Sand Seal. Single Surface Dressing was found as the less preferred.
However, it can be noted that the chart shown in Figure 1-3: Suitable Sealing Options for different
environment is not exhaustive. Seals such as SCS+SS- Single Surface Dressing plus Sand Seal and Premix
are not captured. Further, the chart considers SCS and DCS as less suitable for execution using labour-
based methods and instead preference is given to DOS-Double Otta Seal. But experience has shown
otherwise. Otta Seal involve use of hot bitumen which is considered unsafe for application using labour
based methods.
In addition, Otta Seals require rolling for longer periods of time; moreover, using pneumatic rollers
which are not readily available to most local contractors. So, the choice of DOS and SOS+SS as the most
suitable for contractors with low experience and capacity as presented in the chart is misguiding.
Therefore, for this design, the options selected for the different sites are presented in Table 1-21.
Table 1-20: Appropriate Sealing options of the different sites
Road names and their appropriate types of surfaces

Parameter Degree Bufulubi - Kyando - Nawanyago - Kisozi Kyerima - Nakaseeta - Nyaruzigati - Kyapa - Kitabu
Buyemba (Mayuge) (Kamuli) Lukoonda (Kayunga) (Kasese)
Short
Service life Medium
Long DOS, DCS, SOS+SS DOS,DCS, SOS+SS DOS,DCS, SOS+SS DOS,DCS,SOS+SS
Light SCS, DOS,DCS, SOS+SS SCS, DOS,DCS, SOS+SS
Traffic Level Medium DCS, DOS, SOS+SS
Heavy DOS, DCS, SOS+SS
Low SCS, DOS,DCS, SOS+SS SCS, DOS,DCS, SOS+SS
Impact of traffic
Medium DCS, SOS+SS, DOS DCS, SOS+SS, DOS
turning action
High
Mild SCS, DOS,DCS, SOS+SS SCS, DOS,DCS, SOS+SS
Gradient Moderate DOS, DCS, SOS+SS
Steep DOS
poor
Material Quality Moderate DOS, DCS, SCS, SOS+SS DOS, DCS, SCS, SOS+SS DOS, DCS, SCS, SOS+SS DOS, DCS, SCS, SOS+SS
Good
Poor
Pavement Quality Moderate DCS, SOS+SS, DOS, SCS DCS, SOS+SS, DOS, SCS DCS, SOS+SS, DOS, SCS DCS, SOS+SS, DOS, SCS
Good
Suitability for labour-based methods DOS, DCS, SCS, SOS+SS DOS, DCS, SCS, SOS+SS DOS, DCS, SCS, SOS+SS DOS, DCS, SCS, SOS+SS
Contractor Low DOS, SOS+SS DOS, SOS+SS DOS, SOS+SS DOS, SOS+SS
experience/ capability Moderate
High
Low DOS, SOS+SS DOS, SOS+SS DOS, SOS+SS DOS, SOS+SS
Maintenance
Moderate
capability
High
Appropriate Options in order of most
DOS, SOS+SS, DCS, DOS, SOS+SS, DCS DOS, SOS+SS, SCS DOS, SOS+SS, SCS
preference
Table 1-21: Adopted Sealing Options for the different sites
SN District Name of Road Sealing Option

1 Mayuge Bufulubi – Kyando - Buyemba SCS+SS
2 Gomba Kifampa - Kisozi SCS+SS
3 Kayunga Lukoonda - Lugasa SCS+SS
4 Kasese Nyaruzigati – Kyapa - Kitabu SCS+SS
Premix
Where SCS+SS = Single Surface Dressing plus Sand Seal
1.6.3 Design of Single of Single Surface Dressing plus Sand Seal

Surface dressing is a seal comprising of a layer of single size aggregates (uniform aggregates) laying on a
layer of bitumen. The bitumen acts as a sealing membrane preventing surface water from infiltrating
into the base. The aggregates protect the layer of bitumen from being removed by vehicle tyres and also
protect the bitumen from direct sun rays. The design process involves establishment of the different
properties of the aggregates such as gradation, flakiness Index, crushing value etc.
For this design however, since the test results for aggreagtes were not available, here, only
recommendation for the type of materials has been presented.
1.6.4 Aggregates
Aggregates for use must meet the specification presented in Table 1-22.
Table 1-22: Specification for Aggregates
Test Sieve Nominal Size of Aggregates (mm)

(mm) 20 14 10 6.7
26.5 100 - - -
20 85-100 100 - -
14 0-30 85-100 100 -
10 0-5 0-30 85-100 100
6.7 - - 0-5 85-100
4.75 - - - 0-40
2.36 - - - 0-5
0.425 (fines) < 0.5 <0.5 < 0.5 <2
0.075 (dust) < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 <1
Max. Flakiness
20 25 25 30
Index
AADT >1000vpd AADT <1000vpd
10% FACT (dry)
Min =160KN Min =120KN
10% FACT
Minimum 75% of dry 10% FACT
(wet)
Aggregates for Single Surface Dressing shall be 14mm nominal complying with the grading requirement
presented in Table 1-22. Aggregate application rate shall be determined after establishing the actual
gradation curve for the aggregates to be used. However, for bidding purposes, a spread rate of 12 litres
/m2 has been adopted.
The material for Sand Seal shall comply with the grading requirement for aggregates of nominal size
6.7mm. The application rate for Sand will be taken to be 10 litres /m2.
1.6.5 Bitumen
There are different types of bitumen that can be used. For the options adopted, only bitumen emulsions
K1-70 and cutback bitumen MC30 shall be used for the seal and priming respectively. Bitumen shall be
applied in two layers. The application rates provided here are for bidding purposes only but the actual
application rate shall be determined after testing the aggregates. Table 1-23 gives the summary of the
application rates of both aggregates and bitumen.
Table 1-23: Application rates for bitumen and aggregates
Surfacing type Binder type Application rate of Application rate of binder

aggregate
Single surface Cationic emulsions K1- 1st layer: 1st application before spreading
dressing 70, 14mm aggregate @ aggregate 1.0 L/m2
13L/m2
2nd Layer: 2nd application after spreading 1st layer
6.7mm aggregate of aggregate - 1.4 L/m2
/Sand @ 10L/m2
1.6.6 Cold Premix
A cold premix is a mixture of aggregates and bitumen. Aggregates used must be well graded with size
range from 0 – 14mm. the grading requirement of the aggregates is presented in Table 1-24.
Table 1-24: Grading requirement for aggregates for premix
Sieve size (mm) Coarse Fine

20 100
14 80 – 100 100
5 54 – 72 62 – 80
2.36 42 – 58 44 – 60
1.18 34 – 48 36 – 50
0.6 26 – 38 28 – 40
0.3 18 – 28 20 – 30
0.15 12 – 20 12 – 20
0.075 6 – 12 6 – 12
Bitumen Content (80/100) by weight of
aggregate 5 – 7% 5.5 – 7.4%
Thickness (mm) 40 – 50 30 – 40
The recommended bitumen is K160 at application rates shown in the table. As a guide, if it is assumed
that the density of the aggregate is 1550kg/m3 and the bitumen content is 7%, then the application rate
per square metre for a premix of 25mm is estimated as follow:
Weight of aggregate in 1m2 = 0.025 x 1 x 1550kg =38.75kg
Weight of bitumen is 7% of the weight of aggregates = 0.07 x 38.75 =2.7125kg
This is the weight of the residual bitumen. If the bitumen emulsion has 60% of residual bitumen, the
weight of bitumen emulsion is 2.7125/0.6 = 4.52kg/m2.
Therefore the application rate per square meter is 4.52.

Appendix
Traffic Count Data
Table 1: Data for the traffic count carried out on Buyemba – Kyando Road in Mayuge District 24th to 28th Jun 2019
Vehicle category Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Total Count Average 12 hour
over 12 count
Hours
Bicycles 98 93 107 141 72 511 42.5
Motorcycles 257 437 366 747 376 2,183 181.91
Passenger cars 00 23 13 19 06 61 5.08
Pick-up/4-wheel drive 07 36 00 15 03 61 5.08
Small bus 00 00
Bus/coach 00 00
Small truck 00 00
Medium Truck 19 24 22 14 06 85 7.08
Large Truck 2 Axle 00 00
3 – axle truck 00 00
4 – Axle Truck 00 00
5 - axle 00 00
6- Axle 00 00
Tractor 02 02 0.167
2-axled trailer 00 00
Table 2: Data for the traffic count carried out on Kyerima – Naseeta – Lukonda Road in Kayunga District 24th to 28th Jun 2019
Vehicle category Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Total Average 12 hour
Over count
12
Hours
Bicycles 261 260 401 323 210 1,455 121.25
Motorcycles 263 233 490 356 225 1,549 129.08
Passenger cars 4 6 4 7 3 24 02
Pick-up/4-wheel drive 2 4 4 7 6 23 1.92
Small bus 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Bus/coach 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Small truck 02 00 00 10 00 10 0.833
Medium Truck 02 03 04 03 06 18 1.50
Large Truck 2 Axle 00 00
3 – axle truck 00 00
5 - axle 00 00
6- Axle 00 00
Tractor 01 00 01 04 00 06 0.5
2-axled trailer
3-axled trailer
4-axled trailer
Table 3: Data for the traffic count carried out on Kifampa - Kisozi Road in Gomba District 24th to 28th Jun 2019
At chainage 0+000
Vehicle category Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Total Count Average 12 hour
over 12 Hours count
Bicycles 103 155 178 149 147 00 00 732 61
Motorcycles 497 801 806 779 671 00 00 3554 296.17
Passenger cars 14 20 76 65 54 00 00 229 19.08
Pick-up/4-wheel drive 16 33 113 121 108 00 00 391 32.58
Small bus 00 00
Bus/coach 00 00
Small truck 00 00
Medium Truck 06 09 42 34 25 00 00 116 9.67
Large Truck 2 Axle 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 01 0.083
3 – axle truck 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 01 0.083
5 - axle 00 00
6- Axle 00 00
Tractor 04 04 00 00 08 0.67
Table 4: Data for the traffic count carried out on Kifampa – Kisozi Road in Gomba District 24th to 28th Jun 2019
At chainage 3+000
Vehicle category Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Total Count over Average 12 hour
12 hours count
Bicycles 115 160 150 207 183 00 00 815 67.92
Motorcycles 486 399 466 393 350 00 00 2094 174.5
Passenger cars 5 10 10 08 41 00 00 74 6.17
Small bus 00 00 00 00
Bus/coach 00 00 00 00
Small truck 00 00 00 00
Medium Truck 21 08 10 03 03 00 00 45 3.75
3 – axle truck 00 00 00 00
4 – Axle Truck 00 00 00 00
5 - axle 00 00 00 00
6- Axle 00 00 00 00
Tractor 00 00 06 00 00 00 00 06 0.5
Table 5: Data for the traffic count carried out on Kifampa – Kisozi Road in Gomba District 24th to 28th Jun 2019
At Chainage 8+400
Vehicle category Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Total Count Over Average 12 hour
12hours count
Bicycles 162 143 160 118 77 00 00 660 55
Motorcycles 246 262 244 182 261 00 00 1195 99.58
Passenger cars 30 44 36 37 02 00 00 149 12.42
Small bus 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Bus/coach 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Small truck 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Medium Truck 02 01 03 12 02 00 00 20 1.67
3 – axle truck 00 00 00 00
4 – Axle Truck 00 00 00 00
5 - axle 00 00 00 00
6- Axle 00 00 00 00
Tractor 00 00 00 00
Table 6: Data for the traffic count carried out on Nyaruzigati – Kyapa - Kitabu Road in Kasese District 25th to 28th Jun 2019
Vehicle category Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Total Average 12 hour
Count count
Over 12
hours
Bicycles 08 11 14 07 14 00 00 54 4.5
Motorcycles 412 389 362 422 311 00 00 1896 158
Passenger cars 14 11 07 09 03 00 00 43 3.58
Small bus 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Bus/coach 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Small truck 03 04 02 07 11 00 00 27 2.25
Medium Truck 00 00 00 00
3 – axle truck 00 00 00 00
4 – Axle Truck 00 00 00 00
5 - axle 00 00 00 00
6- Axle 00 00 00 00
Tractor 01 03 02 00 00 00 00 00
Appendix 2 Laboratory Results for subgrade material
CLIENT : MINISTRY OF WORKS AND TRANSPORT (MELTEC)
PROJECT : DESIGN OF A LOW COST SEAL FOR KISOZI-KIFAMPA ROAD (18Km) IN GOMBA DISTRICT
DATE : JULY 2019
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR SUBGRADE SOILS TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH BS 1377: PARTS 2 AND 4: 1990
Heavy
Percentage Passing Atterberg Limits
Compaction
Soaked CBR AASHTO
L/S SP GM
Location (% ) at 95% of GI Designation/group General Rating
(% ) (% ) (% )
Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve MDD OMC MDD, OMC classification
Sieve 50.0 mm Sieve 37.5 mm LL % PL % PI %
28.0mm 20mm 10mm 6.3mm 5.0mm 2.0mm 0.600mm 0.425mm 0.300mm 0.212mm 0.150mm 0.075mm Mg/m3 (% )
0 + 000 RHS 100 99 91 86 66 52 48 43 27 - - 1.90 12 13 0.8 69 1.19 - A-4(0) Fair to poor
0+250 LHS 100 99 94 87 72 63 55 47 33 22 11 1.87 14 16 9 783 1.03 2 A-6(2) Fair to poor
0+750 RHS 100 99 97 92 90 80 71 69 34 15 19 1.85 13 14 8 736 0.59 11 A-6(11) Fair to poor
1 + 000 LHS 100 73 53 44 30 26 25 21 19 17 15 28 12 16 2.08 11 31 7 175 2.41 -3 A-2-6(0) Excellent to good
2 + 000 LHS 100 97 92 76 62 56 53 42 39 36 33 25 12 13 2.01 9 25 6 318 1.75 0 A-2-6(0) Excellent to good
3 + 000 RHS 100 90 83 68 52 45 40 30 17 13 1.94 14 14 7 581 1.25 2 A-6(2) Fair to poor
4 + 000 LHS 100 93 79 58 48 36 30 27 24 35 19 16 2.03 11 32 7 336 1.98 -1 A-2-6(0) Excellent to good
5 + 000 RHS 100 86 75 56 42 36 31 31 16 15 1.92 13 27 7 525 1.52 0 A-2-6(0) Excellent to good
5 + 500 LHS 100 99 98 87 78 61 53 49 46 29 14 15 1.86 14 13 7 546 1.23 3 A-6(3) Fair to poor
6 + 000 RHS 100 94 87 76 71 58 52 49 46 31 16 15 1.91 13 15 7 497 1.31 3 A-6(3) Fair to poor
7 + 000 RHS 100 99 91 88 78 72 68 65 33 20 13 1.86 15 19 6 528 0.75 6 A-6(6) Fair to poor
8 + 000 LHS 100 98 95 84 78 65 56 50 46 30 15 15 1.9 14 13 6 468 1.2 3 A-6(3) Fair to poor

9 + 000 LHS 100 95 86 74 60 55 41 34 30 27 26 10 16 1.91 14 14 6 330 1.84 0 A-2-6 (0) Excellent to good
10 + 000 LHS 100 92 86 72 63 59 57 33 17 16 1.86 15 18 8 688 0.94 6 A-6(6) Fair to poor
11 + 000 RHS 100 99 97 90 78 70 55 48 44 42 29 12 17 1.9 14 12 8 560 1.4 3 A-6(3) Fair to poor
12 + 000 LHS 100 99 96 86 79 64 55 51 48 33 17 16 1.98 13 14 7 553 1.18 4 A-6(4) Fair to poor
13 + 000 RHS 100 82 70 52 39 32 27 30 - - 1.86 14 16 0.2 14 1.64 - A-2-4(0) Excellent to good
14 +000 LHS 100 97 92 81 75 59 51 46 42 33 16 17 1.91 13 9 6 450 1.32 3 A-6(3) Fair to poor
15 + 000 RHS 100 88 78 59 49 44 40 29 16 13 1.96 11 19 6 468 1.33 1 A-6(1) Fair to poor
16 + 000 RHS 100 99 96 89 72 62 61 44 35 30 26 21 13 8 1.99 16 20 5 305 1.78 -1 A-2-4(0) Excellent to good
17 +000 LHS 100 92 85 74 63 43 32 27 23 21 - - 1.86 18 13 0.4 25 1.82 - A-2-4(0) Excellent to good
17 + 600 LHS 100 99 94 90 80 76 74 71 32 18 14 1.83 13 8 6 540 0.63 8 A-6(8) Fair to poor
KEYS
LL : Liquid Limit OMC : Optimum Moisture Content SP : Shrinkage Product MC : Moisture Content
PL : Plastic Limit MDD : Maximum dry density GM : Grading Modulus CBR : California Bearing Ratio
PI : Plastic Index L/S : Linear shrinkage GI : Grading Index AASHTO : American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials
BS : British Standards
CENTRAL MATERIALS LABORATORY

PROJECT : DESIGN OF A LOW COST SEAL FOR KYERIMA-NAKASEETA-LUKONDA ROAD (4.0Km) IN KAYUNGA DISTRICT
DATE : JULY 2019
Heavy
Compaction
Soaked CBR AASHTO
L/S SP GM
(% ) (% ) (% )
MDD MDD, OMC classification
Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve OMC
0 + 000 RHS 100 81 78 69 57 33 28 25 18 28 - - 1.73 8 5 0.6 34 1.97 - A-2-4(0) Excellent to good
0+500 LHS 100 81 75 67 47 31 25 23 22 30 12 18 1.95 15 16 10 470 2.06 -1 A-2-6(0) Excellent to good
1 + 000 LHS 100 99 81 69 58 32 26 23 16 27 - - 1.94 9 22 0.3 17 2 - A-2-4(0) Excellent to good
2 + 000 LHS 100 97 78 72 55 49 47 47 38 29 - - 1.63 9 6 0.1 6 1.6 - A-4(0) Fair to poor
3 + 000 RHS 100 70 60 46 37 30 26 24 - - 1.72 8 10 7 420 1.77 - A-2-4(0) Excellent to good
4 + 000 LHS 100 99 83 71 62 47 38 36 29 24 - - 1.97 10 15 7 434 1.71 - A-2-4(0) Excellent to good
KEYS

PROJECT : DESIGN OF A LOW COST SEAL FOR BUFULUBI-KYANDO-BUYEMBA ROAD (5.6Km) IN MAYUGE DISTRICT
DATE : JULY 2019
Heavy
Compaction
Soaked CBR AASHTO
L/S SP GM
(% ) (% ) (% )
Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve MDD OMC MDD, OMC classification
0 + 000 RHS 100 68 57 54 48 47 47 42 44 16 28 1.78 13 18 13 702 1.57 - A-7-6(0) Fair to poor
1 + 000 LHS 100 93 81 62 58 51 47 43 41 30 14 16 2.05 11 13 11 638 1.54 2 A-6(2) Fair to poor
2 + 000 LHS 100 87 68 55 45 38 33 31 36 17 19 1.92 14 21 10 550 1.76 1 A-2-6(1) Excellent to good
3 + 000 RHS 100 97 93 62 37 32 24 23 22 22 37 19 18 2.03 11 28 10 320 2.23 -2 A-2-6(0) Excellent to good
4 + 000 LHS 100 97 90 78 73 62 59 56 52 28 - - 1.78 17 7 0.6 44 1.16 - A-4(0) Fair to poor
5 + 000 RHS 100 96 81 66 62 58 55 53 51 34 14 20 1.91 15 10 10 620 1.32 6 A-6(6) Fair to poor
5 + 380 LHS 100 97 82 75 67 61 47 41 37 35 29 9 20 1.97 13 23 9 549 1.63 2 A-2-6(2) Excellent to good
KEYS

PROJECT : DESIGN OF A LOW COST SEAL FOR NYARUZIGATI-KYAPA-KITABU ROAD (3.3Km) IN KASESE DISTRICT
DATE : JULY 2019
Heavy
Compaction
Soaked CBR AASHTO
L/S SP GM
(% ) (% ) (% )
MDD MDD, OMC classification
Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve OMC
Sieve 50.0 mm Sieve 37.5 mm LL % PL % PI % 3
28.0mm 20mm 10mm 6.3mm 5.0mm 2.0mm 0.600mm 0.425mm 0.300mm 0.212mm 0.150mm 0.075mm Mg/m (% )
0 + 000 RHS 100 98 97 89 71 65 57 53 50 40 27 14 13 1.98 13 24 6 390 1.42 4 A-6(4) Fair to poor
1 + 000 LHS 100 93 88 45 21 19 16 15 13 11 26 16 10 2.03 10 28 5 95 2.55 -3 A-2-4(0) Excellent to good
2 + 000 LHS 100 96 93 73 59 48 37 27 25 33 17 16 2.01 7 25 8 472 1.79 -1 A-2-6(0) Excellent to good
3 + 000 RHS 100 90 86 51 23 19 15 14 13 12 31 18 13 2.04 9 31 6 114 2.55 -4 A-2-6(0) Excellent to good
KEYS
DCP Results
UK DCP V3.1
DCP Section Properties Report
Project Name: BUFULUBI-KYANDO-BUYEMBA ROAD (5.6Km) IN MAYUGE DISTTRICT
Number of Tests: 23 Location: All Tests
Section Start End Length (km) Tests Parameter Maximum Minimum Mean SD 10th %ile
1 0.000 5.330 5.330 23 CBR (Base) % 0 0 0 0 0
CBR (Sub-base) % 91 13 42 24 14
CBR (Subgrade) % 50 12 40 12 27
SN 1.72 0.27 1.16 0.42 0.26
SNP 3.04 2.46 2.81 0.18 2.52
Surface Thickness (mm) 0 0 0 0 --
Base Thickness (mm) 0 0 0 0 --
Sub-base Thickness (mm) 455 87 288 100 --
Pavement Thickness (mm) 455 87 288 100 --
UK DCP V3.1
Tests Summary Report
Project Name: BUFULUBI-KYANDO-BUYEMBA ROAD (5.6Km) IN MAYUGE DISTTRICT
Test Details Upper Layers Test Layers Pavement Strength

No. Test Date Chainage Location Offset Surface Type Surface Base Type Base Sub-base Subgrade SN SNP
(km) (m) Moisture Thickness Thickness CBR (%)
(mm) (mm)
1 04-Jul-19 0.000 Carriageway -- Unpaved 0.51 (Dry) -- -- 377 16 1.67 2.73
2 04-Jul-19 0.250 Carriageway 1.30 Unpaved 0.51 (Dry) -- -- 277 50 0.80 2.62
Report
13
Date: 16-Jul-2019
04-Jul-19 3.000 Carriageway 1.50 Unpaved 0.51 (Dry) -- -- 244 50 0.89
Page 1 of 1
2.82
Report Date: 16-Jul-2019 Page 1 of 1

UK DCP V3.1
Project Name: KISOZI-KIFAMPA ROAD IN KAYUNGA DISTRICT
1 0.000 17.780 17.780 73 CBR (Base) % 0 0 0 0 0
CBR (Sub-base) % 112 9 42 25 14
CBR (Subgrade) % 50 4 37 15 13
SN 2.27 0.13 1.00 0.54 0.19
SNP 3.15 1.27 2.70 0.32 2.27

UK DCP V3.1

(mm) (mm)

UK DCP V3.1

(mm) (mm)

UK DCP V3.1

(mm) (mm)
72 07-Jul-19 17.780 Carriageway -- Unpaved 0.37 (Very Dry) -- -- 207 50 0.89 2.95
UK DCP V3.1
Project Name: KYERIMA -NAKASETA ROAD (4.0Km) IN KAYUNGA DISTRICT
1 0.000 4.200 4.200 18 CBR (Base) % 0 0 0 0 0
CBR (Sub-base) % 37 8 16 8 8
CBR (Subgrade) % 50 9 31 16 9
SN 1.46 0.24 0.69 0.39 0.13
SNP 2.82 1.81 2.39 0.28 1.85
Report Date: 16-Jul-2019 Surface Thickness (mm) 0 0 0 0 -- Page 3 of 3
UK DCP V3.1
Project Name: KYERIMA -NAKASETA ROAD (4.0Km) IN KAYUNGA DISTRICT

(mm) (mm)
UK DCP V3.1
Project Name: NYARUZIGATI-KYAPA-KITABU ROAD ROAD (3.3Km) IN KASESE DISTRICT
1 0.750 3.250 2.500 11 CBR (Base) % 0 0 0 0 0
Report Date: 16-Jul-2019 CBR (Sub-base) % 38 14 25 8 14 Page 1 of 1
CBR (Subgrade) % 50 17 27 9 20
SN 1.95 0.56 1.31 0.38 0.55
SNP 2.91 2.30 2.59 0.20 2.31
UK DCP V3.1
Project Name: NYARUZIGATI-KYAPA-KITABU ROAD ROAD (3.3Km) IN KASESE DISTRICT

(mm) (mm)

1 Pavement Design: 1.1 Subgrade Properties

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

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

1 Pavement Design: 1.1 Subgrade Properties

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1 Pavement Design

The design process involved the following:

 Establishment of subgrade material properties including strength;

 Determination of the different layer thicknesses;

 Design of the surface layer.

1.1 Subgrade properties

Table 1-1: Summary of Subgrade Test results

Table 1-2: Design CBR value and Subgrade Class

1.2 Traffic Projection

i. Conduction of traffic count to establish the current level of traffic;

ii. Calculation of the daily equivalent standard axles (DESA);

iii. Selection of the design period and traffic growth rate;

v. Determination of the design traffic class.

Table 1-3: Traffic Summary for Mayuge site

Table 1-4: Traffic Summary for Kayunga site

1.2.2 Design period and growth rate

1.2.3 Traffic projection

Table 1-7: Projected Cumulative Equivalent Standard Axle

Site DESA (A) Growth Rate Projected Traffic

Table 1-9: Design Traffic Class

Traffic Classes (ESA x 106)

1.2.4 Distribution of traffic

Accordingly after factoring, the design traffic classes shown in

Table 1-10: Design Class for the different districts

Site Design MESA Design Traffic Class

1.3 Climatic assessment

Table 1-11: Indicative Weinert Number values

Weinert Thornthwaite Moisture Typical Mean Annual

Table 1-13: Design CBR for the pavement layers

Site Design CBR (Subbase) Design CBR (Base

1.5 Design of pavement layers

1.5.1 Catalogue Method

Table 1-14: Design Parameters

Site Weinert number Subgrade Class Traffic Class

Table 1-15: Design Catalogue

TLC1 TLC2 TLC3 TLC4 TLC5

Site/District Mayuge Kayunga Kasese Gomba

1.5.2 Structural number method

SN = a1D1 + a2D2M2 +a3D3M3

There for the formula reduces to:

Layer Type Condition Coefficient

TLC1 TLC2 TLC3 TLC4 TLC5

1.25 = 0.103D2 + 0.1D3, for Mayuge, Kayunga and Gomba; and

1.0 =0.103D2 = 0.1D3 for Kasese.

Assuming a Subbase thickness D3 = 125mm (5inch);

D2 = 7.3 Inch (185mm) for Mayuge, Kayunga and Gomba

Hence, the pavement structures are as presented in Table 1-19.

Table 1-19: Pavement layer structure

Site/District Mayuge Kayunga Kasese Gomba

1.5.3 Comparison of designs

Therefore, the design in Table 1-19 was adopted.

Figure 1-2: Pavement Structure for Mayugea, Kayunga and Gomba

Figure 1-1 : Pavement Structure for Kasese

1.6.2 Identification of appropriate surfaces

Table 1-20: Appropriate Sealing options of the different sites

Road names and their appropriate types of surfaces

Table 1-21: Adopted Sealing Options for the different sites

SN District Name of Road Sealing Option

1.6.3 Design of Single of Single Surface Dressing plus Sand Seal

Table 1-22: Specification for Aggregates

Test Sieve Nominal Size of Aggregates (mm)

Table 1-23: Application rates for bitumen and aggregates