machine fabricated gabions –...

Government of Nepal

Machine Fabricated Gabions – Nepal

Rural Access Programme (RAP) Phase 3

State-of-the-Industry Report

June 2016

State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes) Report

Page i

Machine Fabricated Gabions - Nepal

CONTENTS

DOCUMENT CONTROL ............................................................................................... iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................... iv

1. Summary ................................................................................................................. 1

2. Introduction and Background ............................................................................... 2

2.1. Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 2

2.2. Industries in Nepal ........................................................................................................................ 4

3. Desk Study .............................................................................................................. 4

3.1. Maccaferri ..................................................................................................................................... 4

3.2. Historical Development - Nepal .................................................................................................... 5

4. Factory Inspection ................................................................................................. 6

4.1. Procedure ..................................................................................................................................... 6

4.2. Programme ................................................................................................................................... 6

4.3. Summary Table ............................................................................................................................ 7

4.4. Photographs ................................................................................................................................. 9

5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 10

5.1. Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 10

5.2. Recommendation ........................................................................................................................ 11

Annex 1: Field Visit Reports ...................................................................................... 12

Annex 2: Meeting Notes ............................................................................................. 13

Annex 3: Inspection Data Sheets .............................................................................. 14

Annex 4: Case Study .................................................................................................. 15


Page ii

TABLE OF FIGURES

Table 1: Combination of mesh type, mesh wire and box size: ............................................................. 3

Table 2: List of Factories visited by CMS .............................................................................................. 4

Table 3: Weight of Wires for Machine woven and Hand woven gabion boxes .................................... 5

Table 4: Diameter of wires in Standard Specifications ......................................................................... 6

Table 5: Factory Inspection Plan ........................................................................................................... 7

Table 6: Summary Table ....................................................................................................................... 8


Page iii

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Document revisions and authorisation Details Signature and Date

Version 30th June 2016

Summary of revisions made Main Report Submission

Revisions prepared by Mahendra Kumar Shrestha

Revisions checked by William Seal

Version authorised by Michael Green


Page iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CMS

DC

DFID

DoLIDAR

DoR

DRSP

DTMP

GI

JV

LEP

LRBP

Ltd

Kg

Km

mm

N

NS

PVC

Pvt

Contract Management Specialist

District Coordinator

Department for International Development

Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads

Department of Road

District Road Support Programme

District Transport Master Plan

Galvanised Iron

Joint Venture

Labour based Environmentally friendly Participatory approach

Local Roads Bridge Programme

Limited

Kilogramme

Kilometre

Millimetre

Newton

Nepal Standard

Ploy Vinyl Chloride

Private

RAP

SWG

T

TMO

UK

Yr

Rural Access Programme

Standard Wire Gauge

Tonne

Technical Management Office

United Kingdom

Year

State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes)

Page 1

1. SUMMARY

Rural Access Programme – Phase 3 (RAP3) is a 4-year DFID funded project covering 14 Districts

in Nepal. It aims to improve people’s incomes and resilience through employment, sustainable

access to markets and improved access to economic opportunities. Expected outputs include

improved and sustainable access due to climate resilient rural transport infrastructure,

maintenance, upgrading and road/trail-bridge construction.

New road construction projects have been commenced in 4 core districts – Humla, Mugu, Bajura

and Kalikot, prioritised as per DoLIDAR’s DTMP procedures. For these new construction roads

huge quantities of gabion boxes are required. As planned, procurement of gabion boxes and its

delivery were performed in Yr-I and Yr-II. However, during February 2016 on a DC field visit note

(Refer Annex1: FIELD VISIT REPORTs) to Kalikot (03rd - 15th January 2016) and later to Bajura

(12th -19th February 2016), some quality issues had been raised regarding gabion boxes supplied

by Hulas Wire Industries Ltd. The quality issues were: mechanical connections of end panels to

main body and size of diaphragms and end panels of the gabion boxes.

TMO held a meeting on 27th January 2016 and 25th February 2016 (Refer Annex2: Meeting Notes)

with Hulas. Meeting discussed on quality issues, possible solution, resumption of supply for

balance quantities and field visits. Meeting on 25th decided that a cost reduction in the invoices is

acceptable to Hulas for rectification done by RAP-3 on already delivered items. Similarly, a pro-

rata basis cost reduction in the invoices was agreed for undersized diaphragms and end panels. It

was agreed that RAP-3 would not continue receiving additional poor quality gabion boxes and

would only resume receiving goods if RAP-3 had the assurance that Hulas can supply gabion

boxes according to RAP-3 standards. In addition, it was decided that, RAP3 would send CMS to

carry out factory visit to see if there are scopes to improve the production technique. CMS visited

six numbers of mechanical weaving suppliers to understand the status and capability of the

industries in Nepal and to explore to what extent Hulas and other factories were following the

standard specification.

CMS visited six factories in which four viz Hulas Wire Industries Limited (Hulas), Kamal Rolling

Mills Pvt. Ltd. (Kamala), Pioneer Wires Pvt. Ltd. (Pioneer) and Premier Wires Pvt. Ltd. (Premier) are based at Biratnagar, Morang and two viz Super Wire & Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Super Wire)

and Gabionet Environment Solution Pvt. Ltd. (Gabionet) are based at Hetauda, Makwanpur.

Based on the findings from factory visit, a meeting was organised with Hulas on 11th April 2016.

RAP-3 suggested the Supplier to add Cut-Edge selveding machine in their armoury so that the

product substantially matches to the standard specification. However, to re-start ongoing supply RAP-3 asked Hulas to improve the tightness of mesh to selvedge wire connection by stringent


Page 2

manual means and shall use a common selvedge wire for joining end panels to the main body.

After remedying the defects, RAP-3 allowed the suppler to re-start the supply with extended time

up to 17th June 2016.

2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2.1. OVERVIEW

What is a gabion? A meaning of gabion in Wikipedia is ‘A gabion (from Italian gabbione meaning

“big cage”, from Italian gabbia and Latin cavea meaning “cage”) is a cage, cylinder, or box filled

with rocks, concrete, or sometimes sand and soil for use in civil engineering, road building, military

applications and landscaping’.

In Standard Specification for Road and Bridge works under a Gabion heading it has been

described as ‘Gabion shall consist of steel wire mesh crates. The steel wire shall be mild steel wire

complying with NS 169-2045. All wires used in the manufacturing crates and diaphragms, binding

and connecting lids and boxes shall be galvanised with an heavy coating of zinc by an electrolytic

or hot dip galvanising process. The weight of deposition of zinc shall be in accordance with NS

163-2045. Zinc coating shall be uniform and be able to withstand minimum number of dips and

adhesion test specified as per NS 163-2045. Tolerance of diameter of wire shall be +/- 2.5%

percent. The tensile strength shall be 380 to 500 N/mm2’.

However, there are Special clauses used similar to RAP3 and Maccaferri’s product specification. SP 200: Specification for machine made gabion wire net (Matches with Maccaferri’s product

speciation) describes:

Gabion definition: Gabions are boxes made of hexagonal double twisted woven wire

mesh, divided into cells by means of diaphragms which helps to reinforce and strengthen

the structures. They are interconnected with other similar units and filled with stones at the

project site to form flexible, permeable and monolithic structures such as gravity retaining

walls, channel linings, weirs etc.

Key recommendations are:

Adjust specification to acknowledge that bulk of Nepal factories are not equipped with

Mechanical Selvedging Machine and also cannot mechanically join end panels to main

body. However should use a common Selvedge to join the end panels to main body.

Incorporate incentives to seek to improve the industry, e.g. a financial preferences in

evaluation for those equipped and using mechanical selvedge machine. Thereafter once a

base of factories are equipped, make this mandatory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscaping


Page 3

Manufacturing: All gabions shall be machine woven rectangular units made from double

twist hexagonal mesh of heavy galvanized mild steel wire.

Selvedging:

Main body: All edges of standard gabion should be mechanically selvedged in such

a way as to prevent unravelling of the mesh and to develop the full strength of the

mesh.

End panels and internal diaphragms: Alll sides of end panels and internal

diaphragms, except the bottom should be mechanically sevedged in such a way

as to prevent unravelling of the mesh and to develop the full strength of the mesh.

Connection of end panels to main body: The end panels in Box gabions should be

mechanically connected with the main body at the manufacturing site by selvedging both

to a common selvedge wire in such way to prevent the separation of the end panel from

main body even in extreme conditions.

Connection of internal diaphragm with main body: All the gabions having length equal

or more than 2.0m must have internal diaphragms at a distance not more than 1.0m. All

the diaphragms of the gabions should be connected with spiral wires.

Wire Specification: The wire used for the manufacturing of gabions and mattresses shall

be annealed mild steel complying with BS 1052:1980 or NS 169:2045 with an average

strength of 380-500 N/mm2 and shall be galvanized before weaving as specified in BS

443:1982 or NS 163:2045.

Combination of mesh type, mesh wire and box sizes: Gabions and mattresses shall be

of the mesh type, wire diameter and box sizes as shown on the table below:

Table 1: Combination of mesh type, mesh wire and box size:

S. N. Mesh type

Mesh Wire

Selvedge wire

Lacing wire

Box Size Tolerances in Box sizes

1. 100mmx120mm

3.0mm 3.9mm 2.4mm L=1.5m, 2m, 3m, 4m B= 1m, 2m

H= 0.5m, 1m

+/- 5% on each

Nowadays, Gabion structures are being used in various Civil Engineering structures. A gabion

wall is a retaining wall made of stacked stone-filled gabions tied together with wire. Gabion walls

are usually battered (angled back towards the slope), or stepped back with the slope, rather than

stacked vertically.

Gabions have been used from ancient times but only recently it has been used widespread. In Nepal both handmade and machine made gabion boxes are in use. However, the Standard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retaining_wall

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batter_(walls)


Page 4

specifications for Road and Bridge works, mentions about handmade gabion boxes and its wires

requirement for fabrication but nothing has been mentioned about the machine made gabion

boxes. CMS had carried out an extensive study on machine made v/s handmade gabion boxes

about two years ago and came into conclusion that machine woven gabion boxes are superior in

terms of uniformity, strength, looks and are easily available which has been producing by 6/7

suppliers in Nepal. However, it is very costly to be transferred to the district like Humla and thus

recommend as a special case in inaccessible districts to use the hand woven gabion boxes as

gabion wires manual transportation is easier than machine made gabion box manual transportation.

2.2. INDUSTRIES IN NEPAL

Initially, only handmade gabion boxes were in use in Nepal. Maccaferri initiated for machine

fabricated gabion box production and first production of gabion boxes was in 1996. Since then

many gabion box factories are in operation. Following are the list of factories that were visited by

CMS for his study. Though Maccaferri was approached for factory visit on several occasion

(verbally and in writing), but researcher did not receive authorization from Maccaferri.

Table 2: List of Factories visited by CMS

S. N. Name of Factories Address First Production date

1. Hulas Wire Industries Ltd. (Hulas)

Tankesunwari, Biratnagar, Morang 2011

2. Pioneer Wires Pvt. Ltd. (Pioneer)


3. Kamala Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. (Kamla)


4. Premier Wire Pvt. Ltd. (Premier)


5. Super Wire & Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Super Wire)

Industrial Area, Hetauda, Makawanpur

2010

6. Gabionet Env. Solution Pvt. Ltd (Gabionet)

Newapani, Hetauda, Makawanpur 2014

3. DESK STUDY

3.1. MACCAFERRI

Maccaferri is an International pioneer and world leader in the production of gabions and retaining

structures used for river training, earth control, soil conservation etc. It was established in 1879 in

Italy. Over the last 130 years Maccaferri has been producing mechanically woven hexagonal

shaped double twisted steel wire mesh products. Over the time, it has developed technically


Page 5

efficient and economic combination of mesh wire, mesh sizes and box sizes. Now it’s a global

company, with more than 70 subsidiaries operating in 5 continents, with an on-site presence in

more than 100 countries, and nearly 3000 employees. It has highly-specialized professionals

trained in designing and developing complex solutions in the civil engineering, geotechnical and

environmental construction markets. It has environmentally-friendly products and applications.

Maccaferri (Nepal) Pvt. Ltd. established in 1997 in Nepal is an associated company of Officine

Maccaferri, Italy. Its product machine made mechanically selvedged double twist gabion boxes are

being widely used in Nepal, but whether it is made in Nepal or imported from India is doubtful. It’s

a pioneer in Nepal and other agencies in Nepal followed its specification for the production of

gabion boxes. Now, apart from gabion boxes, Maccaferri has other products in market such as

geotextiles, geosynthetics, geo-grids to geomembranes, etc.

Recently upon RAP3’s request Maccaferri conducted a workshop in RAP3, TMO, Lalitpur, which

was brief but was able to provide knowledgeable information on machine fabricated gabion boxes

such as mechanical connection in between selvedge and mesh connection. In fact this workshop

was very valuable for conducting research on gabion producing factories in Nepal.

3.2. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT - NEPAL

When did gabion structures start in Nepal? Perhaps, there is no concrete answer for it. Years

before Maccaferri was established in Nepal, handmade gabion boxes were used for civil engineering retaining structures. For example Lamosangu-Jiri feeder road (110Km) was first build

under LEP approach in 1985 that extensively used handmade gabion structures. There are many

heavy coated machine fabricated gabion box factories now in Nepal. In parallel to machine

fabricated boxes, handmade gabion boxes are also extensively being used in the Civil Engineering

structures. The researcher carried out extensive study for machine fabricated v/s handmade

gabion boxes about two years ago. The result of the study was the hand weaving gabion boxes

require extra thickness of wire to compensate for equivalent retaining force. Additionally, machine

made gabions are considered better due to tightness of twisting, uniformity of mesh which is good

for uniform load distribution, stronger than handmade gabions whatsoever big size of the mesh

wire is used, high productivity, etc.

Table 3: Weight of Wires for Machine woven and Hand woven gabion boxes

Gabion box Weight in Kg per box for Hand

woven Weight in Kg per box for Hand

woven

3x1x1m 39.41 29.64

2x1x1m 27.26 20.96

1.5x1x1m 19.88 15.73

http://www.maccaferri.com/com/products/

http://www.maccaferri.com/com/applications/


Page 6

However, in a wider context, a gradual move to machine fabricated gabion boxes by projects is

taking place in Nepal. RAP-3 has given emphasis on machine fabricated gabion boxes and it is

procuring it in all districts except Humla. In Humla, machine fabricated gabion boxes transportation

is costly through air lift and it is near impossible by other means. Hence, in district like Humla where

road is not accessible, handmade gabion boxes shall be a better solution as GI wire transportation

is easier.

DoR specification (as of July 2001) is related to the hand woven gabion boxes and it does not

speak about machine woven gabion boxes. The specification for machine woven gabion boxes

shall be included in DoR specification. The difference in DoR specification and standard machine

fabrication gabion boxes in use are as in table 4:

Table 4: Diameter of wires in Standard Specifications

Mesh Opening DoR Specification Machine made specification Selvedge

Wire Mesh Wire

Binding Wire

Selvedge Wire Mesh Wire Binding

Wire 100mmx120mm 7 swg

(4.47mm) 10 swg (3.25mm)

12 swg (2.64mm)

3.9mm 3.0mm 2.64mm

4. FACTORY INSPECTION

4.1. PROCEDURE

A data sheet was developed (Refer Annex 3: Factory Inspection Data Sheets) for a number of

variables checked during factory inspection to know whether gabion box product matches to the

standard specification or any difference therein.

In general, all the factories produce mesh by mesh weaving machines and its edges being

mechanically connected with selvedge wire. However, all factories except Kamala Rolling Mills

have manual connection of Selvedge wire to mesh in cutting edge portion. Interestingly, Hulas

Wire Industries uses two separate selvedge wires for end panels to main body joint but all other

factories uses only a common sevedged wire in this connection.

4.2. PROGRAMME

A factory inspection plan was as shown in the following table. On 16th to 18th March, CMS inspected

Biratnagar based factories on companion with Morang DTA team [On 16th: Harihar Bhandari (DTL),

Dristi Lamichnaney (Graduate Engineer), on 17th: Hem Bahadur Thapa (SAME) and on 19th: Ram

Ratan Yadav (SAME)] and on 9th April, he inspected Hetauda based factories on companion with

GE, Biraj Adhikari.


Page 7

Table 5: Factory Inspection Plan

S. N. Name of Factories Time (2016) 16 Mar 17 Mar 18 Mar 9 Apr

1. Hulas Wire Industries Ltd.

2. Pioneer Wires Pvt. Ltd.

3. Kamala Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.

4. Premier Wire Pvt. Ltd.

5. Super Wire & Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd.

6. Gabionet Env. Solution Pvt. Ltd

4.3. SUMMARY TABLE

Table 6 shows a summary table of the factory visit inspection. Four factories produces wires and

use it for gabion boxes production. Two factories imported wires from these factories for gabion

boxes production.


Page 8

Table 6: Summary Table S N

Description Hulas Wire Industries Ltd. Pioneer Wires Pvt. Ltd. Kamala Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Premier Wire Pvt. Ltd. Super Wire & Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Gabionet Env. Solution Pvt. Ltd

1 First Production Date 2011 2010 2009 2011 2010 2014

2 Mesh Weaving Machine Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

3 Cut-Edge Sevedging Machine No No Yes No No Yes (2m width but not used)

4 QA/ QC Facilities Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

5 Factory Laboratory yes yes yes yes No Yes

6 Where do they perform test In House, In India In House In House In House In Kathmandu (4 times a month)

In House

7 What test do they perform For GI: Tensile strength, Elongation, Zinc coating, Uniformity, Diameter, Adhesion, Wrapping etc., For boxes: Physical test such as dimension of box mesh opening etc.

For GI: Zinc coating, Tensile test, Uniformity, Diameter, Adhesion, Wrapping, For boxes: Physical test such as dimensions, mesh opening etc.

For GI: Zinc coating, Tensile test, Diameter, Uniformity, Adhesion, Wrapping, For boxes: Physical test such as dimensions, mesh opening etc.

For GI: Zinc coating, Tensile test, Diameter, Uniformity, Adhesion, Wrapping, For boxes: Physical test such as dimensions, mesh opening etc.

For GI: Zinc coating, Diameter, For boxes: Physical test such as dimensions, mesh opening etc. (Note: receives wires with test certificates)

For GI: Zinc coating, Diameter, Uniformity, Wrapping, For boxes: Physical test such as dimensions, mesh opening etc.

8 Capacity of Output 10 tonnes/day ~18 tonnes/day (by two machines)

14.4 tonnes/day (4.8T/8hrs and machine operates for 3 shifts)

20 tonnes/day ( with three machines)

6 tonnes/day 8 tonnes/day

9 Major Clients Rural Access programme - Phase 3, Local Roads Bridge Programme (LRBP), Kalika-Rasuwa JV, Arun-Kabeli Power Ltd, Nepal Hydro Developer Pvt Ltd

Hazama corporation, 1,000,000m2 gabion boxes to Indian Projects India, Lama and Nagarjun JV, Bajraguru Construction Pvt Ltd, Marushin Shitaka Construction Company Inc, Japan

Rural Access programme - Phase 3, District Road Support Programme (DRSP), Nana Construction Pvt Ltd, Gauri-Parbati Construction, Mahadev Khimti Nirman Sewa

Kalika Construction Pvt Ltd, Rasuwa -SBA JV, Arun-Kabeli Power Ltd, Mahadev Khimti Nirman Sewa, K S Construction Pvt Ltd.

Rural Access programme - Phase 3, Kalika Construction Pvt Ltd, Tundi Construction Pvt Ltd, GIZ, Sapana Construction Pvt Ltd

Kalika Construction Pvt Ltd, Rasuwa Construction Pvt Ltd, GIZ, Shrestha Construction, Lama Construction Pvt Ltd, Ank-Lumbhini JV

10 Sources of Wires In house ( Self-made) In house ( Self-made) In house ( Self-made) In house ( Self-made) Domestic supply Domestic supply

11 Product Specification referred Maccaferri and NS 163 Maccaferri and NS 163 Maccaferri and NS 163 ASTM A641, Maccaferri and NS 163

Maccaferri and NS 163 Maccaferri and NS 163

12 PPE used Hand gloves only Hand gloves only Hand gloves only Hand gloves only No No

13 Literature / Promotional materials

Yes Yes Yes No Yes No

14 No of labours for Gabion box production

100 140 120 (in 3 shifts) 140 48 73


Page 9

4.4. PHOTOGRAPHS

Photographs 1 & 2: A meeting before factory Inspection between RAP team (Premier) and factory team and a mesh weaving machine (Pioneer)

Photographs 3 & 4: Cut-Edge selvedging machine (Kamala Rolling) and mostly women group working for cut edge selveding and end panel connection to main body (Hulas)

Photographs 5 (Premier) & 6 (Superwire): RAP-3 team inspecting the size of Gabion box and two selvedge ends


Page 10

Photographs 7 & 8: Tensile strength testing machines (Hulas) and a factory lab for zinc coating test (Pioneer)

5. CONCLUSION

5.1. FINDINGS

Total six numbers of machine fabricated gabion box factories were visited by the researcher. Interesting findings of the Inspection are:

All factories have mesh weaving machines producing mesh size of 100mmx120mm but Gabionet can also produce mesh size 60mmx80mm using mesh wire 2.2mm and selvedge wire 2.7mm.

Kamala has cut-edge sevedging machine. Gabionet has small 2m width cut-edge selveding machine but has not used till the date due to its short length.

No factory except Kamala complies the standard International / RAP3 specification (Maccaferri) in totality such as mechanical connection of end panels with the main body.

All factories except Hulas use a common selvedge wire for the connection of end panels to the main body.

End panels and diaphragms shall be 1mx1m size with respect to the standard specification, but it is found that all the manufacturers are using the size 0.95mx1m. It is due to the mesh size is of 100mm x120mm and diaphragms or end panels used 9 mesh + ½ mesh =9x100 + 1x50 = 0.95m.

All factories uses mesh wire (3mm), Selvedge wire (3.9mm) and binding wires (2.4mm) for mesh size 100mmx120mm.

Four Biratnagar based factories produces GI wire and uses the same wire for gabion box production. Two factories Super wire and Gabionet uses domestic wires produced by these 4 factories.

All factories have lab facilities in its factory premises except Superwire who conducts test on lab at Kathmandu four times a month and received wires with test certificates.

Kamala Rolling only uses male workers whereas other factories uses about 70% women as factory workers.

All factories use labours between age group 18 to 55 years. Factories like Hulas, Pioneer supplies GI wires and gabion boxes to India.


Page 11

Apart from zinc coating gabion boxes PVC coating gabion boxes are also being produced by some factories which can be used in corrosive climate or under water gabion structures!

5.2. RECOMMENDATION

The factory inspection was a very relevant and important means to understand about the gabion boxes that are being producing in Nepal and whether these match to the standard specification or not. This inspection gave ideal knowledge to the researcher. He shall review bidding document and amend the specification in upcoming procurement of gabion boxes to make sure there is correlation in what RAP-3 can practically accept such as size of diaphragms and end panels i.e. 0.95mx1m instead of 1mx1m.

Further, we can encourage the factories to produce the gabion boxes that more closely match the standard specification. For that the factories shall add cut-edge sevedging machine to their armoury so that the product matches to the standard specification which stresses that ‘The end panels in Box gabions should be connected with the main body at the manufacturing site by selvedging the both to a common selvedge wire in such a way to prevent the separation of the end panel from main body even in extreme condition’. RAP proposes to amend its bid document giving preference to the factories which provides mechanical cut edge selvedging.


Page 12

ANNEX 1: FIELD VISIT REPORTS

Field visit report (KAL) – 03 to 15 Jan 2016

FIELD VISIT REPORT

SUBJECT: Observations/ Issues/ Recommendations ACTION

1. Overall Impression The physical progress is encouraging on SS and construction is on full swing with mobilisation of almost all RBGs. However, quality of works is not satisfactory at all. What was observed at sites indicates that there has not been much senior level (RE, EO and DTL) interventions towards quality assurance of works. The lower tier of supervising staffs (STSs and IoW) does not seem to have been guided and backstopped in a proper and timely manner as part of engineering control from DTA management. Whatever was achieved seems to have been merely from the effort of STSs. The major noticeable deficiencies pinpointed during last TMO’s visit by BS and HNL (March 2015) still continues to appear till now. Even though there has been noticeable progress in settling issues like land disputes in some sections, relocation of electric poles; one cannot see progress on quality management of works. DTA management should put well thought-out plans and strategies in place to rescue from current haphazard and ad-hoc site management. Adequate orientation and training to field technicians (especially IoWs and STSs), regular field supervision and monitoring by RE and EO, standard work procedures (method statements) as defined by the specifications and necessary checklists for supervision of major works needs to be immediately in place so as to streamline construction procedures in pursuit of quality throughout the length of the road. The physical progress on JR is not as encouraging as on SS mainly because of one year late start of work and harsh/steep/rocky terrain. It is likely that this road may still remain incomplete by the time all other RAP’s 6 new roads are completed. Even with full efforts in place, it looks challenging to complete the road in three working seasons including this year.

2. Issues on Quality and Work Management

2.1 Gabion work (lacing, bracing and stone filling) The proper method of gabion crates filling, lacing and bracing (horizontal) does not seem to have been followed. The lacing of gabion boxes with each other is found only on the front face sides and not on the inner sides, and in some cases there is no lacing even on front face. Horizontal bracing also lacks many things. It was so frustrating that selvedge wires of adjacent boxes have been twisted each other to tie one box to other in many cases. Selection and laying of stone inside the box looks good on the front face whereas the inner part of the box has been packed so carelessly as if it is a simply heap of stone made in a haste. (ref: photo 7) Discussed with field team and explained the proper method. Field team needs to refer to LRN training manual and road specifications as well to develop a “method statement”. Continuous spiral lacing with three turns at approx. 15 cm on all sides of

EO/RE/IoW/STS

Visit to: KALIKOT Dates: 03 to 15 Jan 2016

Reported by: Hom Nath Lamsal

Purpose: Engineering Monitoring Visit from TMO on two district roads in Kalikot: Sanighat-Shipkhana (SS) and Jarkot-Ramnakot (JR)

Visit Team:

Hom Nath Lamsal, Bishnu Ram Bista (DTL), Sunil Tandukar (RE), Mahesh Bhattarai (NGO PC) along with 3 IoWs and all STSs on their respective road sections (IoW of JR was on leave, who was met on the way back to site)



two adjacent boxes is the standard method. Horizontal bracing needs to make loop covering two meshes and should adequately tightened between inner and outer faces of the box. In addition, proper straightening for removal of creases and bends to form a straight-edged boxes, installing to specified line and level at prepared foundation base and lacing one box to other along all edges prior to filling stones are the basic requirements of gabion wall construction. It was observed that the diaphragm of 1.5*1*1 sized box has been installed not at equidistance from the end panels – at one meter from one end and at 0.5 m from the other end. The diaphragm should be tied at the centre of the boxes i.e. at 0.75 m from either end. 2.2 Dry Stone Wall Stone block selection and laying seems very poor in most of the dry walls built. No bond stones was seen. Selection and making of appropriate size stone is vital in dry wall construction. RBGs should be advised and instructed to use hammer dressed stone for bonding. A set of “bond stones” (for details please refer LRN training manual) is mandatory at specified interval to form interlocking between front and back face in random masonry wall construction. Inconsistent and inadequate width of wall was observed in many locations, especially in case of composite wall (ref: photo 9). Guiding threads on both sides of the wall is essential to make the wall to specified line and slope. Field team needs to be fully oriented about the standard method statement of dry wall construction. The height of soil fill above the top of dry wall differs largely case by case, so, it is advised to maintain an optimum height of 30 cm above wall top on the inner side decreasing to zero to front side for stability of the backfill. 2.3 Laying of Geotextile Field team seems to be ignorant about the proper method as to how geotextile is laid on the back of retaining wall. Adequate lapping and joints lack in most of the cases. It was found that in majority of cases there is no geotextile laid throughout the whole length and height of the wall. Field technicians repeatedly say that geotextile theft is rampant and any un-buried part is likely to be stolen all the time. SC and NGO staff should work together to overcome this situation by having consultations/meetings with LRUCs/LRCCs to investigate who is stealing and what appropriate actions could be taken at local level. Necessary instructions was given in the field during the visit as to where and how this material needs to be laid. In almost all cases, there is no continuation of geotextile up to top of dry wall in case of composite wall, as a result there seems sink holes formed due to loss of fine particles of backfill (ref: photo 8). It should be kept in mind that the geotextile should extend the whole height of both dry and gabion portion in case of composite wall. (refer to RAP3 guideline on retaining wall foundation drain and geotextile laying circulated by TMO on 11 Feb 2011.) 2.4 Use of Wheelbarrows On SS, majority of wheelbarrows are out of orders. Use without repairing deflated tyre and loose nut/bolts are common. It is surprising to mention here that this problem had been flagged up during TMO’s visit in March 2015. No diligent efforts seem to have been taken to bring all barrows into good conditions though some of the barrows have been repaired. DTA management needs to quickly assess the requirements for spare parts and then proceed with procurement in order to deliver to sites at the earliest possible. (ref: photo 11) 2.5 Retaining Wall Drainage Although all IoWs and STSs seem to be aware of mandatory provision of foundation drainage for retaining walls, they are reluctant to build it citing various reasons such as difficulties in excavating drain canals due to hard rocks etc. Works have already been

EO/RE/IoW/STS EO/RE/IoW/STS DTL/RE EO/RE/IoW/STS



initiated at first seven hairpin bends. Field team is not considering to build sub-soil drain for retaining wall foundation, two bends (out of seven) in the initial 2 km have already had two layers of gabion. Necessary rectifications need to be made by dismantling few gabion boxes for transverse drains. The question has now arisen as to who shall bear the cost of dismantling and re-building the gabion crates for such rectifications. It is the SIDeF who should be held liable for the money wasted. At almost all places where foundation drainage system has been built, either the outlet of transverse drain is not extended sufficiently to discharge the water or it is buried under the fill soil mass coming from foundation excavation. Field team was fully explained about the right method of lay out of drains for its proper functioning. For further details, refer to RAP3 guidelines mentioned in Para 2.3 above. It is instructed to field team to compulsorily take photographs of foundation drainage for all locations prior to laying gabion boxes. 2.6 Backfilling and Compaction Use of rammers was not widely seen at backfill sites but RBG members say they have been using rammers. There seems no sign of compaction in many cases. Even if there is compaction, the proper method of doing it in 15 cm horizontal layers has not been followed. The supervising staffs should be strictly instructed to adequately guide/instruct RBGs on the right method of backfilling and compaction since TMO has been repeatedly putting emphasis on the need of compaction of fill behind every retaining wall. 2.7 Breast Wall and Side Drain In water logged and swampy area where breast walls have been proposed to protect cut slope, dry stone side drain has to be compulsorily built to intercept water irrespective of the steepness of road’s longitudinal gradient. There is a need to build side drains almost throughout the length after ch 15+300 on SS where the alignment falls in wet paddy fields. In areas requiring breast wall on such wet land, It is instructed to build breast wall together with the side drain forming an integrated unit. 2.8 Provisions for Spoil Management Attempts seem to have been taken to safely manage spoils by building toe walls at many locations in SS corridor. However, the quality of dry stone walls built to serve this purpose is of very poor quality at some places. Such toe walls should be equally of good quality as of retaining wall. (ref: photo 6) 2.9 Quality of Tools There are cases of poor quality of tools, especially hammers, chisels and shovels. The early breakage of hammers is the most striking (ref: photo 12). There are around 10 to 15 hammers observed to be broken and brought back at each site stores. This is very uncommon in the history of RAP that branded (TATA) stuffs have so inferior quality. TMO will explore if there is any liabilities left with the suppliers under the previous contract. This is a lesson learned for TMO procurement unit that hammers should also undergo destructive field tests just like chisels prior to approval of sample. 2.10 Quality of Gabion Weaving (on-going contract) There are some quality issues in currently Hulas-supplied gabion boxes. The end panels of a box have not been mechanically connected with the bottom panel by selveding to a common selvedge wire. Instead, the end panel appears to be a separate unit of 1m*1m size with selvedge wires on all four sides and attached to the main body by loosely lacing its selvedge wire with that of bottom panel. Even though our specifications do not fully cover the weaving pattern in greater details, the boxes woven and fabricated in that pattern will not have adequate strength to prevent bulging. Other deficiencies found are dimensions of diaphragm mostly being 96-97 cm*96-97 cm and

IoW/STS RE/IoW/STS IoW/STS TMO TMO



selvedge wire of one side of main body not knotted tightly with the selvedge wire of other side. TMO will hold meeting with Hulas to seek clarifications and take further actions. 2.11 Rock Drill Operation There are three rock drills mobilised for rock breaking (two in SS and one in JR). They had temporarily come to stoppage due to fuel shortage for a couple of weeks. Now, all machines are set to resume after arrangements of fuel. 2.12 Land Disputes There still remain disputes distinctly at two locations viz. 10+650 to 10+810 and 14+617 to 14+800 where DTA and field staffs are making efforts to resolve. RAP may have to show some flexibility regarding the demand of landowner to do construction by themselves if issues remains unresolved for a protracted period. If there is commitment on equal and transparent distribution of wages within the group, we should not have objection to allow land owner’s separate groups. If resolution of disputes for these two cases sows the seed for emergence of disputes in other areas, it would be worth holding up for some couple of months because there is not big volume of work in these disputed sections. 2.13 Relocation of Private House, Toilets and Public taps There is a private house lying within the road width at ch 14+740 (SS) for which necessary processes have already been initiated by DTA. The task now is to get the landlord agreed on RAP proposal for relocation (it is heard that landlord’s demand is not fulfilled by RAP’s proposal, his demand is to build RCC house). DTA/SC/NGO should continue negotiating with him by clearly explaining RAP’s policy of reinstatement and relocation of private and public property. There are some private toilets that are to be dismantled during road construction. Necessary actions need to be initiated to relocate these in coordination with the respective owners. Likewise, some few public taps also fall on the road which have to be relocated in consultation with the concerned users. 2.14 Relocation of Electric Pole It is good to report that long-standing problem of electric poles relocation after 15 km (SS) has now been resolved. All poles within the road width have now been shifted away from the road. 2.15 Taking Photographs and Maintaining Records As reported by field staffs, there is no systematic way of taking photographs of major works in stages. SC is instructed to take photographs of key stages in case of major works like foundation base preparation with installation of sub-surface drains, installation and filling of every layer of gabion retaining walls etc. 2.16 Use of Pipe Level of Auto Level Field staffs seem to have put only eye judgement to fix slope, line and level without aid of any equipment. As field staffs are equipped with Pipe Level/Auto Level, they should make us of these equipment to achieve accuracy in measurement such as in foundation slope, sub-soil drain’s slope, fixing outward road surface slope etc. 2.17 Stores, Record Keeping and Verifications Store record keeping is not satisfactory in all sit stores of SS. There are a lot of overwriting and corrections making it difficult to read and verify the tools/materials records. Stock book registers and bin cards need to be thoroughly checked and verified.

NGO/SC DTA/SC/NGO RE/IoW RE/IoW RAP OM/ storekeeper



It is instructed to transfer all records in a new register with clean hand-writing. Furthermore, periodic verification of all tools and materials should be done time to time (at least twice a year) by RAP’s OM. 2.18 Preparation of EMP No EMP has been prepared yet. However, field staffs are collecting field data to feed into EMP. DTA is instructed to expedite the task of EMP based on the approved IEE reports for both roads as it is an important document to monitor the site specific environmental mitigation measures planned for implementation during road construction.

EO/RE

3. Consultant Staffing and Coordination in Work Supervision/Management There had been a long absence of RE (more than 6 months) in the district, on account of which team building and coordination among SC staffs seem to have been severely affected. SIDeF has now mobilised its RE to the district. It is clearly visible and understandable that there is no coordination between IoWs and STs. It is felt that IoWs have been deployed for only RBG bill preparation and it is the only STS who is solely responsible for line/layout and supervision of works. If that is really the case, why to have 3 IoWs for 18 km road only for billing purpose, one quantity surveyor can deliver the task of measurement and bill preparation for the whole road. Measurement and billing is only the part of IoWs’ tasks and responsibilities, they have to devote larger proportion of their input in supervision of works and they are in-charge of site for a specified length. They are responsible for overall day-to-day management of sites under their jurisdiction. RE’s immediate task is to coordinate all of his staffs, maintain effective and efficient communication within them and develop the team as a well-integrated and coordinated unit. He needs to provide adequate coaching and orientation to his staff on the standard method of works in order to standardise the construction procedures and make all field activities happen in a consistent manner to achieve desired quality.

RE

4. Site Safety and Safeguards 4.1 Site Safety When asked, RBG members said they were aware of safe working methods. They bring the safety checklist card at sites. But, it is not convincing that the designated safety officer do safety checks every day prior to work start. Field staffs need to be constantly vigilant on whether RBG members are following safe working procedures or not and ask them to bring the card every day and to perform necessary checks before and during work by the designated safety officer. There is a high risk of stacked stone (up to 3 m height) over temporary wall in the first 2 km section of SS having a serpentine of seven loops. If one stack collapses, the stones will roll down the hill and will induce disastrous accidents to the RBGs working below on the lower part of serpentine. Discussed with the field team and advised to spread the broken stone over full width of road and not to make pile of more than 1 m height. 4.2 Use of Safety Gears Majority of RBG members were seen wearing hard hat and gumboot. The use of these two safety wares - helmet and gumboots needs to be made compulsory for all RBGs irrespective of nature and location of sites. Other safety gears such as gloves and goggles shall be used depending on the nature of work. Provide gloves and goggles to all stone breaking RBG members as none of them are wearing these safety gears. 4.3 Condition of First Aid Materials For additional RBGs formed this year who have been working for last three months, no first aid materials have so far been provided. DTL is making attempts to procure first aid

IoW/STS IoW/STS DTL/NGO



kits after taking approval from TMO as there is no provision of first aid materials for newly formed RBGs under the current NGO contract. For old RBGs as well, NGO need to assess the need for timely replenishment because some RBGs are likely to run out of some items soon. 4.4 Use of Latrines Almost all RBGs build temporary latrines last year for which NRs 500 was paid. A few latrines can be seen this year which do not seem to be used. We need to urge all RBGs to build latrines nearby their sites. The amount of NRs 500 is too insufficient. We used to pay 500 during RAP2. This amount now needs to be increased to 1000 to cover the cost of local materials and labour.

DTA/SC

5. Design Vs Site Implementation In case of SS, even though design were finalised after thorough verifications at site, the work actually implemented differs much in many cases. Variations in design are inevitable only when site condition changes. Not all staffs have copies of final design, some staffs seem to be using older versions as well. No attempts seem to have been taken by senior supervising staffs as to whether the site implementation is matching the design or not. In case of deviations and alterations in designs, such changes should be properly documented by updating estimates. RAP allocates funds based on the final design. If any changes need to be made, these have to be properly documented and reported to TMO. There are some cases of retaining wall’s base width being inadequate. The retaining walls are of sub-standard quality both in terms of design and quality after 15 km (SS) compared to earlier sections. RE needs to adequately backstop IoW and STS in this section. As for the design of JR, a lot of changes still need to be made as reported by field staffs. It is questionable what site verifications of design were previously carried out and what comments were furnished to the design engineer. To overcome this situation, RE is instructed to look into details of design and gather information from the field and then coordinate with the design engineer to finalise the design. DTA to follow up.

RE/EO/DTL

6. Layout of Hairpin Bends Majority of hairpin bends have just been started on SS. It is known from discussions with the field staffs that STSs set out the curve by making references to key points (BC, MC and EC) previously surveyed, without proper guidance from IoWs and engineers. It is realised that the whole process of line/layout and supervision seems to have been undertaken solely by the respective STSs. In this backdrop, RE and EO are strongly instructed to check the curvature and gradient for all hairpin bends with a view to confirming that bends have been set out with adequate radius and within acceptable gradient. DTL to follow up this.

RE/EO/DTL

7. Some Specific Issues on Jarkot-Ramnakot 7.1 End Point of Road The track opened length of 5.5 km has now become 5.9 km after stage 2 survey/design because of the need to relocate some hairpin bends. SC has produced design only up to 5 km. Despite RAP’s commitment being only 5 km, it would be logical to take the road at least nearby the VDC centre which is not far away from the surveyed end point of road. So, it is advised to undertake construction for whole 5.9 km. 7.2 Construction Difficulties – first 3.4 km The first 3.4 km section encompassing nine hairpin bends in steep terrain poses tremendous challenges in construction. Not all the sections can be worked on concurrently because excavated boulder may fall down even under controlled

DTA/SC SC



conditions of excavation. Construction has already been started on some initial sections, where significant attempts seem to have been taken to stack the excavated rock within road width, there is still likelihood of some rock pieces being rolled down to the foot hill on the farm land where there is a main trail passing through. There is already some damages to the farmland which is likely to be further destroyed as the construction progresses. Existing foot trail should be diverted further away to minimise/eliminate the risks to pedestrians. Necessary cautionary flags and signboards needs to be erected at appropriate locations to warn the outsiders passing through this zone. Furthermore, necessary reclamation and reinstatement of farm land should be done at RAP’s cost. (ref: photo 13) 7.3 Irrigation Canal An irrigation canal runs along the road from ch 3+500 to 4+100 posing difficulties with positioning of road in relation to the canal. DTA is required to check design as to how this has been dealt with in the design. 7.4 Land Disputes There is a land dispute in the initial section (ch 1+00 to 1+120) at 2nd hairpin bend. There is a room for relocation of the bend to avoid the land. Site conditions permits to shift the loop without any compromise on the gradient. 7.5 Spoil Management Despite most of the section falling on steep terrain, utmost attention needs to be paid to safely dispose surplus materials by building catch (toe) walls at appropriate locations to the extent possible.

DTA/SC SC SC

8. Visit to DDC/DTO A courtesy visit was paid to acting LDO (DTO chief). He was briefed about the current changes made to the implementation arrangements of SED. He requested to speed up the process for DTO building construction. Nothing was assured in this regard, however he was informed that Design of the building is still underway. He also requested RAP for support to revise/update DTMP because DDC thinks that it does not address fully the need of the district.

9. Gabion Boxes Provided to DDC Previous DTA had provided 20 nos. of gabion boxes to DDC at their repeated requests for urgent use in local hydro power canal rehabilitation. Nothing had been reported to TMO in this respect. This was known to TMO only when present DTA reported the stock of gabion to TMO citing some crates given to DDC during the tenure of earlier DTL. This is actually against RAP code of ethics that DFID’s grants whether in the form of cash or kind shall not be used for the purpose other than specified by the programme policies. LDO seems positive to return the boxes if asked by RAP. It is yet unclear under what conditions gabion boxes were given to DDC by then DTL. Present DTL needs to make efforts to bring back this materials in consultation with the previous DTL.

DTL

10. Progress on Karnali Corridor Road It is a good news for RAP that the initial section of Karnali Corridor being undertaken by Nepal Army since last year has seen significant progress on steep rocky sections and it can be believed that the road may be tractor passable up to Sanighat by the end of this working season.

Attention for further action (Tick appropriate box)

Management Engineering SED Finance Resilience PMV Audit Admin

√ √ √



Distribution: SMT, All DCs, DTA KAL, SIDeF

Photographs:

Photo 1: Retaining wall in progress at 8th hairpin bend ch 2+640 - SS

Photo 2: Retaining wall in progress at 10th hairpin bend ch 3+000 - SS

Photo 3: 11th hairpin bend is nearing completion - SS

Photo 4: Spoil management by building toe walls plus bioengineering (brush layers) ch 3+380 - SS

Photo 5: A recently finished section with composite retaining walls and toe walls ch 11+760 - SS

Photo 6: A poorly built toe wall to contain spoils, at least top portion needs to be rectified with larger stones ch 14+850 - SS


Photo 7: A badly constructed gabion wall with no box-to-box lacing and haphazardly filled rubble stone needs correcting before laying next layer above ch 14+920 - SS

Photo 8: A sinkhole formation resulting from loss of fine particles of backfill due to wrong laying of geotextile - SS

Photo 9: Insufficient width of foundation base of retaining wall already built (in water-logged area), which needs to have adequate base width and foundation drain for the remaining part 16+470 - SS

Photo 10: Reinstatement of foot trail ch 16+000 - SS

Photo 11: Damaged wheelbarrows dumped at store yard- SS

Photo 12: Surprisingly broken sledge hammers - SS


Photo 13: Farmland destroyed by debris from road construction which needs to be properly reclaimed/reinstated ch 2+120 to 210 - JR

Photo 14: RBG members engaged in retaining wall construction ch 2+280 - JR

Photo 15: A steep section encompassing four hairpin bends in steep slope is difficult to work on concurrently from ch 2+550 to 3+340 - JR

Photo 16: Jarkot village, the zero point of the road starts right from the suspension bridge – a long bridge (>100m) is required as the Karnali Corridor Road is on the other side (right side) of the river

Field visit report (BAJ) – 12 to 19 Feb 2016

FIELD VISIT REPORT


1. Overall Impression The physical progress is encouraging on MTC despite some bottle-neck sections being still remained un-started. There seems noticeable improvements on quality aspects of works. However, field team needs to make further attempts to improve quality as pinpointed in the subsequent Paras. MK has seen less physical progress as compared to MTC, mainly because of having a large of nos. of hairpin bends (21 nos.) on 11 km length, around one third of the bends not being started yet. The period from the last few months onwards has witnessed a tangible improvements in the quality of works.

2. Physical Progress, Quality and Work Management 2.1 Review of Last Field Visit Notes The various areas of weaknesses and lapses depicted in the last field visit notes (26 Nov-05 Dec 2015) have been attempted to overcome by DTA. However, DTA needs to pay more attention to the following areas:

Revision of Design and Estimates (sec. 1.1) Retaining Wall Drainage (sec. 2.5) Identification of Critical Sections (sec 3.2) Start-up of Work at Hairpin Bends (sec 3.3) Site Safety and Safeguards (all sub-sections under section 5)

The detailed observations made during this visit and the recommendations provided have been discussed and presented in the subsequent sections.

2.2 Recovery Plan and Overall Progress Tracking The recovery plan of BAJ stipulates the need of having 14 and 6 nos. of SBGs (local) on top of existing 26 and 45 nos. of RBGs on MK and MTC respectively. Owing to present shortage of some tools, only 5 SBGs have been mobilised so far. Nonetheless, when looking at the progress charts in the recovery plan, MK has cumulative actual progress marginally below the target line, while MTC has the progress above the target line by cushion of approx. 4 million. In absence of full mobilisation of all SBGs, the contribution to the progress may have resulted from increased efficiency of existing RBGs. This does not imply that we do not need more SBGs after assessment of progress for this short period of time. So, we should continue having all SBGs to compensate any unforeseen backlog of progress in future.

Visit to: BAJURA Dates: 12 to 19 Feb 2016

Reported by: Hom Nath Lamsal

Purpose: Engineering Monitoring Visit from TMO on two district roads in Bajura: Maure-Kailashmandu (MK) and Maure-Toli-Chhatara (MTC)

Visit Team:

Hom Nath Lamsal, Ramesh Neupane (DTL), Kamal Bhandari (EO), Janak Kharel (GE), Rukmini Maharjan (GE), along with all IoWs and STSs on their respective road sections.



2.3 Inventory of Critical Sections and Progress Tracking DTA has not yet finalised an inventory of critical sections, which is needed for micro-level construction planning and progress tracking. We have been emphasising on this sort of planning requirement to see whether some difficult-to-build sections might remain incomplete or not even at the end of stipulated time. If yes, we need to devise appropriate strategies to timely cope with such situations. So, DTA needs to urgently work out this, start mobilising resources and take remedial measures to overcome the constraints, if required.

2.4 Physical Progress Even though construction is gaining momentum and a noticeable physical progress is seen on MTC in this season, there is still a need to prioritise the works. Few hairpin bends and some other sections like 3+000 to 4+000 km, the forest section after 13+800 and the last bottle-neck section after 16+000 has yet remained un-touched. DTA should set equal priority to these section as in other critical sections.

MK is critical in terms of achieving physical progress. Out of 21 hairpin bends, only a 14 bends have hardly been initiated leaving 7 nos. of bends (requiring high walls and heavy cutting) has remained un-attempted so far. Efforts need to be made to mobilise newly formed local SBGs. DTA has cited the reason of shortage of some tools (like spade, mason hammers) as a constraint for mobilisation of SBGs. As a contract for bulk procurement of tools from TMO is already in place, TMO will chase up early delivery of some items to BAJ as far as possible; and if it is not possible TMO will advise DTA for direct procurement of some items o tools for immediate mobilisation of newly formed local SBGs.

Besides, DTA needs to put top priority to re-assign works to existing RBGs/SBGs only at those sections having high volume of works e.g. hairpin bends.

DTA/TMO

2.5 Gabion work (lacing, bracing and stone filling) There has been noticeable changes in lacing, bracing and filling of gabion boxes over the last few months. Straightening the boxes and laying to the desired line/level still need to be improved. Field team should always be strict to tight filling of gabion with appropriate sized stones and proper lacing/bracing. The binding wire procured so far is not sufficient to effect the lacing and bracing as per our standard. DTA to calculate additional quantities and send to TMO for variation under the current contract. There is no need to have horizontal bracing over the entire width of the wall, only the outer compartment (exposed) needs to be braced horizontally with 4 nos. of wires for an exposed area of 1m*1m, each bracing wire wrapping two meshes on both side of the compartment.

DTL/EO

2.6 Dry Stone Wall Even though there has been tangible improvements seen in the making of dry wall, there still needs to have more efforts to improve the quality of laying stones. Some dry walls were observed in which no improvements are being made. (Ref: photo 9). IoWs and STSs are to be instructed strictly that in the event of failure to comply with the specifications, they shall be held responsible and necessary actions may have to be initiated from DTA management if they are still negligent. Besides, necessary re-work or deductions may have to be made from RBG bills if it is the lacking on the part of RBGs disobeying technician’s instruction.

EO/GE/IoW/STS

2.7 Laying of Geotextile EO/IoW



Field team needs to constantly inspect that geotextile is laid for all cases of gabion and composite wall. In some cases no geo-textile was found to have been placed citing the reason of shortage, where the wall should not have been started. Now, district has sufficient stock of the material from the current lot of procurement.

2.8 Conditions of Wheelbarrows It was reported that about 40 barrows (out of 138 procured) have broken legs and handle making them unusable at all. Discussed with field team about how repairs could be done and advised to transport all such wheel barrows to electric welding shops down to feeder road nearby Maure. Field team should take necessary measures to preserve this valuable equipment and strictly instruct RBGs for its proper use. In case of careless handling by RBG members, they need to be clearly warned that a deduction shall be made from their bills.

EO/IoW

2.9 Retaining Wall Drainage The field team now seems to be aware of mandatory provision of wall foundation drainage even though there were serious lacking in cases of some high retaining walls already started last year. There are still some ambiguities on the layout of the drains, such as longitudinal drain not being aligned just behind the wall at the bottom because of some rocks encountered in excavation (even if it is breakable ) (Ref: photo 10). In almost all cases, the outlets of the transverse drain have not been extended up to the exposed ground line to facilitate the flow of water. It is to be clearly understood by the field team that layout and spacing of drains should follow the standard pattern as far as possible, however only in case of unavoidable difficult site conditions, the layout and spacing could be adjusted to suit the specific sites. In addition, the transverse drains should be sufficiently extended beyond the front face of retaining wall for free passage of ground water out of the structure foundation. There have been discussions and instructions at length on many occasions, any lapses found from now onwards will not excusable and someone shall be held responsible as part of performance evaluation of field staffs.

EO/IoW

2.10 Backfilling and Compaction IoWs and STSs should be strict on compaction of backfill in horizontal layers of 15 cm. RBGs could be asked to make local wooden rammers if externally procured metallic rammers are insufficient. There is still more instruction required to be given to RBGs with regard to proper method of backfilling and compaction.

IoW/STS

2.11 Provisions for Spoil Management Attempts seem to have been taken to safely manage spoils by building toe walls at many locations. However, there are still some sections requiring toe walls to contain spoils such as in forest areas after 13+800 on MTC. Only appropriately located and designed walls can serve the purpose of retaining spoils. So, field technicians should wisely select location and design of wall to contain the excess mass to the maximum extent possible.

EO/IoW

2.12 Quality of Gabion Weaving (on-going contract) Just like in KAL, there are some quality issues in currently Hulas-supplied gabion boxes. The end panels of a box have not been mechanically connected with the bottom panel by selveding to a common selvedge wire. Instead, the end panel appears to be a separate unit of 1m*1m size with selvedge wires on all four sides and attached to the main body by loosely lacing its selvedge wire with that of bottom panel. The boxes woven and fabricated in that pattern will not have adequate strength to prevent bulging. Other deficiencies found are dimensions of diaphragm and end panel mostly being 91-95 cm*100 cm and selvedge wire of one edge of main body not knotted tightly with the selvedge wire of other edge, defective mesh (large and unevenly woven) . TMO

TMO/DTA



is holding meetings with Hulas and further supply has been stopped until the issue is settled down. The defects of loose end panel connection have now been agreed to rectify by properly lacing for which certain amount of labour input shall be deducted from the supplier’s invoice. A separate circular will be sent by TMO to the concerned districts to this effect. The boxes having very big and uneven meshes which looks unfit for our work even after minor repairs should be kept aside for replacement by the supplier.

2.13 Rock Drill Operation As discussed in the field DTA will initiate the process for mobilising rock drill groups for some hard rock/boulder sections, for which DTA needs to select the operators and provide them necessary training. DTA needs to coordinate with KAL DTA and TMO to fix timing for the training because we have only one drill mechanic to look after all 4 new construction districts.

DTL/EO

2.14 Relocation of Private House and Public Utilities There are a few houses that seem to fall within the road width on MTC. Most visible is a house at around 2 km and other houses need to be confirmed whether these lie within the road width or not based on the current alignment and the road design. DTA then need to start up the relocation process for the confirmed houses by first preparing drawing and estimates and then seek TMO consent to move forward. Likewise, necessary process need to be initiated for public utilities like public tap, irrigation canal, water supply line etc.

DTL/EO

2.15 Taking Photographs and Maintaining Records As reported by field staffs, there is no systematic way of taking photographs of major works in stages. Field team is instructed to take photographs of key stages in case of major works like foundation base preparation with installation of sub-surface drains, installation and filling of every layer of gabion retaining walls etc.

EO/IoW

2.16 Use of Pipe Level of Auto Level Field staffs seem to have put only eye judgement to fix slope, line and level without aid of any equipment. As field staffs are equipped with Pipe Level/Auto Level, they should make us of these equipment to achieve accuracy in measurement such as in foundation slope, sub-soil drain’s slope, fixing outward road surface slope etc.

EO/GE/IoW

2.17 Field Staffing and Frequency of Site Visits After having assessed the field situation, it seems supervision input is still not at the desired level as evidenced from very common lapses in construction. It is strongly advised to increase the frequency of visits of IoWs/GEs and EO. Adequate time has to be spent at sites to dig out the problems and to find out best possible solutions instead of walking through the sites in haste. DTL is required to coordinate and manage all supervising staffs on how often each individual staff should go to the sites and what to inspect at what frequency. DTL himself needs to visit site at required interval to make sure that things are moving well over the entire alignments.

DTL

2.18 Change in Design There have been numerous cases of changed design found when checking the existing design with the actual site implementation. The budget TMO has allocated for BAJ roads is based on the original design and the district recovery plan is also based on the quantity derived from that design. In this backdrop, DTA needs to produce necessary documentation on design reflecting the requisite changes in the estimate so that we can achieve timely cost and time control of these road projects.

DTL/EO/GE



2.19 Layout of Hairpin Bends and Sequence of Work There are some hairpin bends on both roads set out by IoWs and STSs only and no substantive input from EO and DTL seems to have been provided. EO is instructed to check the curvature and gradient for all hairpin bends with a view to confirming that bends have been set out with adequate radius and within acceptable gradient. DTL to follow up this and have to provide inputs for critically located loops. Furthermore, the there is no proper sequence of works followed at hairpin bends, mainly in the second half length of MK, where significant volume of box cuts have already been executed without erecting retaining wall on the lower arm of the bend, apparently resulting in the wastage of excavated mass which could have been utilised in the backfill. Both retaining wall and box cut should go simultaneously, which make it easy to backfill behind the wall with the soils from roadway excavation from the upper arm of the loop.

DTL/EO/GE

2.20 Hydropower Canal Crossing The initial section of MK crosses a canal of local hydropower plant. DTA verbally reported that they have now changed the original design and proposed diverting canal for some length on the inner side in order to ease the construction of crossing structure. The proposed design has to be discussed with the hydropower operation committee and make necessary coordination with them prior to initiating the implementation. The detailed design and estimates need to be finalised soon.

DTL/EO

2.21 Sub-soil Drain There is good attempt to build a sub-soil drainage system covering entire cutting and filling area at 11th hairpin bend of MK (5+200) lying in wet/waterlogged land. Discussed in the field that branch drains need to be uniformly spaced, and size of both main and branch drains should be kept adequate to collect and facilitate flow of ground water. Please see LRN Training Manual as a reference for the design.

EO/GE/IoW

2.22 Retaining Wall Base Width A few cases of composite wall (e.g. at 10+340 - MTC) being of inadequate base width in proportion to wall height were also observed, where instructions were given to rectify to the maximum extent possible. EO should be more watchful whether the standard design is being followed or not. IoW should be held responsible for checking every retaining wall with regard to height/base width ratio right at the stage of foundation base preparation and should report to EO in case ambiguities arise.

EO/IoW

3. Site Safety and Safeguards 3.1 Site Safety When asked, RBG members said they were aware of safe working methods. They do not bring the safety checklist card at sites. But, it is not convincing that the designated safety officer do safety checks every day prior to work start. Field staffs do not seem to be vigilant enough whether RBG members are following safe working procedures or not and ask them to bring the card every day and to perform necessary checks before and during work by the designated safety officer. DTA management needs to instruct all field staffs whether RBGs are adopting safe working procedure or not and EO need to constantly check how IoWs and STSs are seriously taken this matter, and then he may have to give warning to those staffs who do not seem to give adequate advice and instruction to RBGs in respect of safety.

EO/IoW/STS

3.2 Use of Safety Gears Not all of RBG members were seen wearing hard hat and gumboot. The use of these two safety wares - helmet and gumboots needs to be made compulsory for all RBGs

IoW/STS



irrespective of nature and location of sites. Other safety gears such as gloves and goggles shall be used depending on the nature of work. Provide gloves and goggles to all stone breaking RBG members as none of them are wearing these safety gears (if DTA has some quantity in stock).

3.3 Condition of First Aid Materials Most of the RBGs have already run out of first aid materials. DTA management needs to arrange for immediate replenishment seeking consent from TMO.

DTL/NGO

3.4 Children at Sites Some RBG members usually bring their children at sites. When asked, they reply saying that they do not have other family members to take care of their kids at home. DTA needs to get SMs involved to find out the reality of the problems and how many such cases exist in our construction sites. DTL shall consult with TMO’s SED unit once the actual field situation is assessed.

DTL/NGO

3.5 Use of Latrines No temporary latrines were seen being made at construction sites. DTA to instruct field staffs to have RBGs/SBGs build latrines at their respective sites in line with the recent circular issued by TMO.

EO/IoW

Attention for further action (Tick appropriate box)

Management Engineering SED Finance Resilience PMV Audit Admin

√ √ √

Distribution: SMT, ETL, SED TL, All DCs and DTA KAL

Photographs:

Photo 1: A gabion retaining wall recently built with significant improvement in quality 8+0660-MTC

Photo 2: A recently finished road section with reinstatement of approaches of an existing foot trail 8+910 - MTC


Photo 3: RBG members engaged in road widening works-MTC

Photo 4: A gabion retaining wall in progress in an unstable section 11+100 - MTC

Photo 5: Improvements are being made in lacing, bracing and filling of gabion boxes-MTC

Photo 6: The initial section of MK just before the 1st hairpin bend

Photo 7: Laying gabion boxes just started at 13th hairpin bend 5+480 - MK

Photo 8: Women RBG members in hauling the excavated soil with wheelbarrow - MK


Photo 9: A poorly laid dry stone retaining wall which was instructed to rectify approx. 9+500 - MK

Photo 10: Improperly laid foundation drains needing re-work at 5th hairpin bend 1+040 - MK


Page 13

ANNEX 2: MEETING NOTES

Meeting Notes

Page 1 of 2

Meeting Notes Date, Time: 27 January 2016, 15:00-15:45

Location RAP3 Meeting Room

Subject Quality Issues in Fabrication of Gabion Boxes

(Supply of Heavy Coated Machine Fabricated Gabion Boxes and GI Wires to Kalikot – Contract No: RAP3/2015/006)

Present RAP: Bill Seal (BS) Mahendra Shrestha (MS) Hom Nath Lamsal (HNL) Hulas: Keshab Timilsena (KT) Raju Khadka (RK)

Reported by: HNL

Ref. MATTERS ARISING ACTION

1. Background / Purpose

Meeting was called to discuss the quality concerns in weaving of the gabion boxes supplied under the above-mentioned contract.

2. Quality Issues - Gabion Fabrication

BS briefed on RAP’s concerns on the quality of weaving in recently supplied boxes. He pointed out two major lapses in the weaving – one is end panels of the box being loosely connected to the bottom panel as a separate panel not forming an integrated unit and the other is connection of selvedge wire of one edge to another being very week such that two pieces of selvedge are likely to come apart. It is a matter of serious concern that the end panel connected in that pattern is susceptible to separation from the main body even under normal loading conditions. The photos of both defects were presented in the meeting. In general the gabions do not have the overall appearance of a proper fully machine-fabricated product (as demonstrated in photos shown of other supplier’s products).

He added that RAP expects a good quality product from reputed company Hulas and the standard of weaving should be equivalent to internationally recognised specifications of Maccaferri Gabions, which states that “the end panels shall be attached by mechanically twisting the cut ends of the mesh wires at the bottom of the panel to the selvedge wire on the base of the gabion”. The specification under the current contract also says that gabion boxes shall be manufactured with all components mechanically connected at the production facility.

KT put forward his views that he is also concerned with the quality of weaving after having looked at the photos. As he himself is not a technician, he will consult with his technical personnel at the factory, and then will report to RAP on how to deal with these issues. He also assured that no consignments will be despatched to KAL until these issues are settled.

KT requested to make available e-copy of the photos presented in the meeting. HNL confirmed that RAP will send immediately to Hulas after this meeting via e-mail. Hulas will provide a comprehensive written response on the issue as a matter of urgency.

KT

RAP

3. AOB

MS reported that there is a typo error in the BoQ of Humla contract. There is no separation of quantities for Piplang and Shreenagar sites. It was agreed that quantities be separated for each

RAP

Meeting Notes

Page 2 of 2

delivery site based on the original bids received and an amendment be issued by RAP to this effect. However this issue was discussed with the Supplier (KT) just after the contract concluded and it was informally agreed with the Supplier that he supplies the quantities as per bid document i.e. delivery of SN A and B items to RAP3 Store, Piplang, Humla and SN C and D items to RAP3 Store, Shreenagar, Humla

NEXT MEETING: To be called as required

Meeting Notes

Page 1 of 3

Meeting Notes

Date, Time: 26th February, 2016, 11:00 hours

Location RAP3 Meeting Room

Subject Meeting for

Supply of heavy coated machine fabricated gabion boxes and GI wires for Bajura and Kalikot (RAP3/2015/005 and 006 respectively)

Attendees Supplier( Hulas )

1. Keshav Timilsina, Managing Director, KT 2. Raju Khadka, Sales Officer, Kathmandu Branch -RK 3. Sanjeev Kr. Jha , Marketing Manager+ Chief Technical Officer-SKJ

RAP-3 1. Bill Seal, ETL - BS 2. Ram Prasad Thapaliya , LRN CS – RPT 3. Hom Nath Lamsal, LRN CS - HNL 4. Mahendra K Shrestha, CMS – MS 5. Ashrika Sharma, Graduate Engineer –AS

Reported by: AS

Ref MATTERS ARISING ACTION

1. Background/Purpose

Hulas is responsible for supplying machine made gabion boxes to RAP-3 new construction districts like BAJ and KAL. One of the field visit from HNL, the District Co-ordinator’s (DC) identified that the gabion boxes that had been dispatched in the site do not comply with the technical specifications of RAP-3. As a result of which, RAP-3 instructed the supplier to stop further supply and withheld any kind of payment in regard to the above mentioned contract packages.

As a follow up to the meeting held on 27th January, 2016 held with RAP-3 and Hulas, today’s meeting was called to find possible solutions to the issue.

2 2.1) Quality issue on the delivered gabion boxes:

As discussed in the earlier meeting, the technical expert from Hulas, SKJ participated in the meeting.

Referring to the pictures from DC’s last visit, MS pointed out the major lapses that RAP-3 had observed in regard to the gabion boxes:

a) Mechanical Selvedging and end panel connection to the main body: All edges of the gabion seem to be manually selvedged with loose connection of mesh

wire with the selvedge. As per the specifications stated in the contract, gabion boxes should be manufactured with all components mechanically connected with each other.

end panels of the box being loosely connected to the bottom panel as a separate panel not forming an integrated unit

Connection of selvedge wire of one edge to another being very weak such that two pieces of selvedge are likely to come apart (appears to be not mechanically selvedged).

b) Size of diaphragms and end panel:

Meeting Notes

Page 2 of 3

Most of the gabion boxes were found to be undersized. HNL explained that the gabion meshes were found to be have non-uniform dimensions giving the mesh an overall tapered appearance. When measurement were done in the field, he found major lapses on the length of the end panel A height and the width of the end panel is expected to be 1m. Even with an acceptable tolerance of 3% as per the technical specification, the end panels were found to be much shorter i.e, extreme to extreme width was found to 95cm, and inner to inner width of 91 cm. This would result in deviation in the overall volume of work related to gabion boxes.

c) Mesh Opening HNL pointed out that the boxes observed in the site were found to have large and

uneven openings. He also informed that in case of machine made gabions, manufacturing defects like these are very common. However, the supplier should have prevented the dispatching of such defective items.

After raising the above concerns, SKJ responded by saying that the issues that RAP-3 highlighted are very much true and that Hulas agrees its flaws without any dispute.

He agreed that the mesh were all machine weaved but the selvedging was being done manually and were indeed loose. SKJ also informed that when a technician was sent to site for verification on these issues after the last meeting, RAP-3’s concerns were found to be legit.

BS pointed out that when the technical specification states machine made, it means that both weaving and selvedging be done by machines. And therefore, the samples have been dispatched are unacceptable to RAP. On enquiring on why wasn’t Hulas able to deliver mechanically selvedged boxes, KT responded by saying that, he wasn’t aware of such practices and asserted that no gabion boxes manufacturer was doing it. Regardless of these matters it is RAP3’s impression that there has been a significant deterioration in the recent quality of the Hulas product in comparison with the previous contracts.

BS then asked MS to find out how many gabion factories there were in Nepal and try to get in touch with them to see how the connection between selvedge wires and the end panels were being done.

KT informed the members that the issues, though being very new to him, are of grave concern to Hulas as well.

MS

2.2) Possible Solution:

To deal with the present issue, RAP-3 proposed two solutions:

BS informed that a hefty portion of the gabion boxes had already been supplied to the district, it would be reasonable to try to repair the works than to replace it completely. The supplier was informed that RAP-3 intends to carry out the repair of the gabion boxes according to our technical specification and would charge Hulas on the cost of the rectification works. Hulas would also be given the option to remove substandard boxes from site and to replace them with new acceptable boxes. Hulas elected to accept a cost reduction based on the repair input managed by RAP3.

For the undersized items, the payment would be done on a pro-rata basis.

MS distributed a tentative estimate of rectification of the works in KAL to show what items of work the cost would cover. KT has agreed to the above terms; to bear the cost of repairing the gabion boxes in both KAL and BAJ and to accept the valuation of gabion boxes on pro-rata basis.

MS,KT

3) Resumption of Supply for Balance quantity

3.1) Sample Study:

Meeting Notes

Page 3 of 3

The meeting was followed by a sample inspection in RAP-3 TMO itself. Which confirmed that the connection of the selvedge wire of one wire to another were loose. The dimensions were also checked against RAP-3 standard; the width of end panels were found to be shorter than our requirement.

BS added that RAP-3 cannot continue receiving additional poor quality gabion boxes and informed the committee that RAP-3 will only resume receiving goods if we had the assurance that Hulas can supply gabion boxes according to RAP-3 standards.

Fig: Sample inspection of gabion boxes

3.2) Field Visits

The meeting made it clear that it was in the best interest of RAP-3 to make sure that there would no compromises when it comes to quality. Therefore, BS asked MS to carry out factory visits to see if there are scopes to improve the production technique. On asking KT, if Hulas would approve a field visit to the factory to inspect the manufacturing process of the gabion boxes, KT assured to allow a field visit to Hulas factory in Biratnagar. Factory inspection visits to a number of mechanical weaving suppliers will be made as soon as possible. RAP3 what to fully understand the status and capability of the industry in Nepal and what extent Hulas are following national norms albeit below international style specifications used by DoR and other Programmes.

MS,KT

NEXT MEETING:

Notes:


Page 14

ANNEX 3: INSPECTION DATA SHEETS


Page 15

ANNEX 4: CASE STUDY


Page 16

A case study on ‘Supply of Heavy Coated Machine Fabricated Gabion Boxes for Bajura and Kalikot District, Contracts: RAP3/2015/005 and 006’

RAP and Hulas Wire Industries Ltd signed contracts ‘Supply of Heavy Coated Machine Fabricated Gabion Boxes for Bajura (RAP3/2015/005) and Kalikot District (RAP3/2015/ 006) on 23rd

September 2015. However, during February 2016 on a DC field visit note to Kalikot (03rd - 15th

January 2016) and later to Bajura (12th -19th February 2016), some quality issues had been raised

in Hulas-supplied gabion boxes. The quality issues were: mechanical connections of end panels

to main body and size of diaphragms and end panels of the gabion boxes.

TMO held a meeting on 27th January 2016 and 25th February 2016 with Hulas. Meeting discussed

on quality issues, possible solution, resumption of supply for balance quantities and field visits.

Meeting on 25th decided that a cost reduction in the invoices is acceptable to Hulas for rectification

done by RAP-3 on already delivered items. Similarly, a pro-rata basis cost reduction in the invoices

is agreed for undersized diaphragms and end panels. It was agreed that RAP-3 cannot continue

receiving additional poor quality gabion boxes and will only resume receiving goods if RAP-3 had

the assurance that Hulas can supply gabion boxes according to RAP-3 standards. Besides, RAP3

will send CMS to carry out factory visit to see if there are scopes to improve the production

technique. The factory visits to a number of mechanical weaving suppliers were to understand the

status and capability of the industries in Nepal and what to extent Hulas are following the standard

specification.

CMS visited six factories in which four were Hulas Wire Industries Limited (Hulas), Kamal Rolling

Mills Pvt. Ltd., Pioneer Wires Pvt. Ltd. and Premier Wires Pvt. Ltd. based at Biratnagar, Morang

and two were Super Wire & Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Gabionet Environment Solution Pvt. Ltd.

based at Hetauda, Makwanpur.

After CMS visited the factories and formulated his findings, a meeting was organised with Hulas

on 11th April 2016. RAP-3 suggested the Supplier to add Cut-Edge selveding machine in their

armoury so that the product matches to the standard specification. However, to re-start ongoing

supply RAP-3 asked Hulas to improve the tightness of mesh to selvedge wire connection by

stringent manual means and shall use a common selvedge wire for joining end panels to the main

body. After remedying the defects, RAP-3 allowed suppler to re-start the supply with extended time

up to 17th June 2016.

machine fabricated gabions –...

Documents