Project: 4/6 Laning of NH-5 fron Tuni to Anakapalli

Document: D:\99088\RH\Vol. II (Part-B)\Hydrology\Appendices

Hydrology

Sheet: 1 of 7
Date: October 2000
Revision: R0

Appendix 1.1 (i)

Calculation
Detail of the Bridge
PWD No. / Name of the Bridge :319/1 (Varaha Bridge)
Old Chainage 318.210 km
(on existing NH-5)
New Chainage318.238 km
(on new alignment)

Flood Estimation BY Synthetic Unit Hydrograph (SUH) Method

Step-1 Preparation of Catchment Area Plan
A catchment plan showing the river/stream , contours and spot levels was prepared for determining
the physiographic parameters. These are as follow:

Step-2 Determination of Physiographic Parameters

i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
Sl.
No.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Area (A)
=
1032.4 sq km
Length of the longest stream (L)
=
61.37 km
Length of the longest stream from a point opposite
C.G. Of catchment to point of study (L=
32.46 km
Equivalent stream slope (S)
R.D. Starting R.L. Of
Length of
Height
Di-1+Di Li.(Di-1+Di)
From Bridge River Bed
Each
Above
Site
Segment (Li)Datum (Di)
(km)
(m)
(km)
(m)
(m)
(km.m)
0.00
10.80
19.01
31.24
38.19
40.34
46.19
53.73
55.16
58.44
61.37

11.50
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
300.00
500.00
700.00
900.00

0.00
10.80
8.21
12.22
6.95
2.15
5.85
7.54
1.43
3.28
2.93

Total
Note:

S=

0.00
8.50
28.50
48.50
68.50
88.50
108.50
288.50
488.50
688.50
888.50

0.00
8.50
37.00
77.00
117.00
157.00
197.00
397.00
777.00
1177.00
1577.00

61.37

0.00
91.80
303.94
941.17
813.56
337.08
1153.09
2994.57
1108.78
3857.32
4624.16
16225.46

Datum is the reduced level at the point of study.

Sum [Li (Di-1+Di)]

------------------=
L^2

4.3081

,Say

4.308 m/km

Step-3 Determination of Synthetic 1-hr Unitgraph Parameters

tp=
=
qp=
=
W50=
=
W75=
=

time from the centre of rainfall excess duration to the U.G.peak (hr)

0.376{(L.Lc) /( S^0.5)}^0.

7.4038

,Say

7.5 hr

discharge per unit area (cumec/sq km)

1.215/(tp)^0.

0.30193

,Say

0.302 cumec/sqkm

width of U.G. Measured at 50% of peak discharge ordinate (hr)

2.211/(qp)^1.

7.961

,Say

8.0 hr

width of U.G. Measured at 75% of peak discharge ordinate (hr)

1.312/(qp)^1.

4.360

,Say

Draft Detailed Project Report

D:\99088\DPR Report\DPR_ii_i\Hydrology\274021989.xls

4.4 hr

Roads & Highways

Project: 4/6 Laning of NH-5 fron Tuni to Anakapalli

Document: D:\99088\RH\Vol. II (Part-B)\Hydrology\Appendices
Hydrology

Sheet: 2 of 7
Date: October 2000
Revision: R0

Appendix 1.1 (i)

Calculation
WR50=
=
WR75=
=
TB=
=
Tm=
=
Qp=

width of the rising limb of U.G. Measured at 50% of peak discharge ordinate (hr)

0.808/(qp)^1.

2.851

,Say

2.9 hr

width of the rising limb of U.G. Measured at 50% of peak discharge ordinate (hr)

0.542/(qp)^0.

1.721

,Say

1.7 hr

26.741

,Say

27.0 hr

base width of unit hydrograph (hr)

7.621(tp)^0.6

time from start of rise to the peak of the U.G. (hr)

tp+tr/2

8.0

8.0 hr

Peak discharge of Unit Hydrograph (cumec)

qp*A

311.80

,Say

312.0 cumec

Step-4 Drawing of a Synthetic Unitgraph

Estimated parameters of unitgraph in step-3 were plotted to scale on a graph paper as shown in figure. The plotted
points were joined to draw synthetic unitgraph. The discharge ordinates (Qi) of the unitgraph at ti=tr=1 hr interv
were summed up i.e. 2868.0 cumec.hr as shown in the figure and compared with the volume of
1.00 cm direct runoff depth over the catchment with the formula
Sum Qi . ti = A*d/0.36*t

2867.90 cumec.hr

Where

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Total

1032.4
1
1

Sq km
cm
hr

1-hr U. G. Ordinate
(cumec)
0.0
6.0
20.0
45.0
85.0
150.0
220.0
300.0
312.0
300.0
260.0
215.0
180.0
150.0
125.0
105.0
90.0
75.0
60.0
49.0
39.0
30.0
22.0
15.0
8.0
5.0
2.0
0.0

Synthetic Unit Hydrograph

350.0

300.0

250.0
Discharge (cum e c)

Time
(hr)

A=
d=
tr=

200.0

150.0

100.0

50.0

0.0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Tim e (hr)

2868.0

In case the Sum (Qi.ti) for the unitgraph drwn is higher or lower than the volume worked out by the above formula, then the
falling limb and/ or rising limb may be suitably modified to get the correct volume under the hydrograph, taking care to get
the smooth shape of the hydrograph.

Draft Detailed Project Report

D:\99088\DPR Report\DPR_ii_i\Hydrology\274021989.xls

Roads & Highways

Project: 4/6 Laning of NH-5 fron Tuni to Anakapalli

Document: D:\99088\RH\Vol. II (Part-B)\Hydrology\Appendices
Hydrology

Sheet: 3 of 7
Date: October 2000
Revision: R0

Appendix 1.1 (i)

Calculation
Step-5 Estimation of Design Storm Duration
For this subzone based on the samle studies Design Storm Duration, (TD), is taken as 1.1 times basin lag, i.e. (tp),
(Refer: Flood Estimation Report for Eastern Coast
Region (Subzone-4a))

So, the design storm duration (TD

8.25

hr

,Say

8.0

hr

Step-6 Estimation of Point Rainfall and Areal Rainfall

50-yr, 24-hr point rainfall

26.00
= cm

Ratio of 50-yr, 24-hr point rainfall

0.75
to 50-yr, 8-hr point rainfall =
Hence,
50-yr, 8-hr point rainfall
19.5
= cm

(Refer Ptate - 9.4a of Flood Estimation Report for

Eastern Coast Region (Subzone -4a))
(Refer Figure - 10 of Flood Estimation Report for
Eastern Coast Region (Subzone-4a))

Ratio of 50-yr, 8-hr point rainfall to 50-yr, 8-hr areal rainfall

(Refer Fig. 12(a) & 12(b) or Table A-2 of Flood
=
0.78
Estimation Report For Eastern Coast Region (Subzone -4a))

Hence,
50-yr, 8-hr areal rainfall

15.21
=

Step-7 Time Distribution for Areal Rainfall and Estimation of Effective Rainfall Units
50-yr, 8-hr areal rainfall15.21
(Ir) =

cm was distributed with distribution coefficient as below.

(Refer: Table A-3 of Flood Estimation Report for Eastern Coast Region (Sub-zone - 4a))

Design Loss rate of 0.75 cm/hr under section 3.11 of Flood Estimation Report has been adopted. The following table
shows the computation of 1-hr effective rainfall units in coloumn {4} by substracting the design loss rate in column {3}
from 1-hr rainfall increament in column {2}.
Duration Distribution
Storm 1-hr RainfallDesign Loss
1-hr Effective
Coefficient
Rainfall Increament
Rate
Rainfall
(hr)
(cm)
(cm)
(cm/hr)
(cm)
{1)
{2}
{3}={2}*Ir
{4}
{5} {6}={4}-{5}
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

0.50
0.68
0.78
0.86
0.91
0.96
0.99
1.00

7.605
10.343
11.864
13.081
13.841
14.602
15.058
15.210

7.605
2.738
1.521
1.217
0.761
0.760
0.456
0.152

0.750
0.750
0.750
0.750
0.750
0.750
0.750
0.750

6.855
1.988
0.771
0.467
0.011
0.010
0.000
0.000

Step-8 Estimation of Base Flow

The design base flow is computed by the following formula vide section 3.12 of Flood Estimation Report
qb
0.536/(A^0.523)
=
0.014 cumec/sq km
Total base flow =qb*catchment area 14.682 cumec

Draft Detailed Project Report

D:\99088\DPR Report\DPR_ii_i\Hydrology\274021989.xls

Roads & Highways

Project: 4/6 Laning of NH-5 fron Tuni to Anakapalli

Document: D:\99088\RH\Vol. II (Part-B)\Hydrology\Appendices
Hydrology

Sheet: 4 of 7
Date: October 2000
Revision: R0

Appendix 1.1 (i)

Calculation
Step-9 Estimation of 50-yr Flood Peak
For the estimation of the peak discharge, the effective rainfall units were rearranged against the unitgraph ordinates such
that the maximum effective rainfall was placed against the maximum U. G. Ordinates, the next lower value of effective
rainfall against the next lower value of U. G. Ordinate a nd so on as shown in column { 2} and {3} in the following table.
Summation of the product of U. G. Ordinate and the effective rainfall gives the total direct runoff as under:
DurationU. G. Ordinates
1-hr Effective
Rainfall
(hr)
(cumec)
(cm)
{1)
{2}
{3}
0
0.00
1
6.00
2
20.00
3
45.00
4
85.00
5
150.00
6
220.00
7
300.00
1.988
8
312.00
6.855
9
300.00
0.771
10
260.00
0.467
11
215.00
12
180.00
13
150.00
14
125.00
15
105.00
16
90.00
17
75.00
18
60.00
19
49.00
20
39.00
21
30.00
22
22.00
23
15.00
24
8.00
25
5.00
26
2.00
27
0.00
Total
=
Base Flow
=
50-yr Flood Pe =
Say,

Direct
Runoff
(cumec)
{4}

596.3
2138.8
231.3
121.4

3087.8
14.7
3102.4

cumec

3100.0

cumec

Draft Detailed Project Report

D:\99088\DPR Report\DPR_ii_i\Hydrology\274021989.xls

Roads & Highways

Project: 4/6 Laning of NH-5 fron Tuni to Anakapalli

Document: D:\99088\RH\Vol. II (Part-B)\Hydrology\Appendices
Hydrology

Sheet: 5 of 7
Date: October 2000
Revision: R0

Appendix 1.1 (i)

B

Flood Estimation By Slope Area Method (Manning's Equation)

Observed HFL =

14.523 m
(Cross-Section At Bridge Site)

Actual Modified
Average Horizontal
Chainage H.F.L Bed Level
Bed Level Height Height Distance
(m)
(G.T.S)
(m)
(m)
h
h'
x
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.000
1.000
3.680
20.089
42.848
64.842
81.236
86.343
92.398
93.398

14.523

12.830
12.829
10.682
10.695
10.951
10.853
10.898
11.218
13.357
13.400

14.523
12.829
10.682
10.695
10.951
10.853
10.898
11.218
13.357
14.523

0.000
1.694
3.841
3.828
3.572
3.670
3.625
3.305
1.166
0.000

0.847
2.768
3.835
3.700
3.621
3.648
3.465
2.236
0.583

1.000
2.680
16.409
22.759
21.994
16.394
5.107
6.055
1.000

Total

Area of Cross-Section, A
Wetted Perimeter, P
Hydraulic Mean Depth, R =
Longitudinal Slope, S
Velocity of Stream, V
Discharge, Q = A x V

=
=
=
=
=
=
Say,

Area
6x7
8

0.847
7.417
62.920
84.208
79.640
59.797
17.696
13.536
0.583

Difference Wetted
in h
Perimeter
h"
sqrt(7*7+9*9)
9
10

1.694
2.147
0.013
0.256
0.098
0.045
0.320
2.139
1.166

###

326.645 Sq m
96.034
m
3.401
m
0.0008
2.092 m/sec (Manning's coeff., n

1.967
3.434
16.409
22.760
21.994
16.394
5.117
6.422
1.536
96.034

0.030 )

683.273 m3/sec
680.000 cumec

Cross Section At Bridge Site

15.000
14.000

R L (m)

13.000
12.000
11.000
10.000

10.000 30.000 50.000 70.000 90.000

0.000
20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100.000
R D (m)
Column O

Column P

Observed HFL = 14.523 m

Draft Detailed Project Report

D:\99088\DPR Report\DPR_ii_i\Hydrology\274021989.xls

Roads & Highways

Project: 4/6 Laning of NH-5 fron Tuni to Anakapalli

Document: D:\99088\RH\Vol. II (Part-B)\Hydrology\Appendices
Hydrology

Sheet: 6 of 7
Date: October 2000
Revision: R0

Appendix 1.1 (i)

Recommendation
A)

Calculation of Design Flood Discharge, Qd

i)
ii)

Flood Discharge by SUH Method=

3100.00 cumec
Flood Discharge by observed HFL at site (By Manning's Eq.)
(at the bridge)
=
680.00 cumec

Now, these discharges have been compared. Final design discharge has been taken as the
highest of the two discharges but if higher discharge is greater than 1.5 times of the other, the
design flood discharge has been limited to 1.5 times of the lower discharge. (Ref: IRC, SP-13)
Therefore,
Design flood discharge, Qd 1.5 x 680.000 cumec
Recommended Design Flood Discharge, Qd= 1020.0 cumec
B)

Calculation of HFL Corresponding to Design Flood Discharge (Qd)

(Cross-Section At Bridge Site)
Actual Modified
Average Horizontal
Chainage H.F.L Bed Level
Bed LevelHeight Height
Distance
(m)
(G.T.S)
(m)
(m)
h
h'
x
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.000
1.000
3.680
20.089
42.848
64.842
81.236
86.343
92.398
93.398

15.516

12.830
12.829
10.682
10.695
10.951
10.853
10.898
11.218
13.357
13.400

15.516
12.829
10.682
10.695
10.951
10.853
10.898
11.218
13.357
15.516

0.000
2.687
4.834
4.821
4.565
4.663
4.618
4.298
2.159
0.000

1.344
3.761
4.828
4.693
4.614
4.641
4.458
3.229
1.080
Total

Area of Cross-Section, A
Wetted Perimeter, P
Hydraulic Mean Depth, R =
Longitudinal Slope, S
Velocity of Stream, V
Discharge, Qd = A x V

=
=
=
=
=
=

1.000
2.680
16.409
22.759
21.994
16.394
5.107
6.055
1.000

Area
6x7
8

1.344
10.078
79.214
###
###
76.076
22.767
19.549
1.080

Difference Wetted
in h
Perimeter
h"
sqrt(7*7+9*9)
9
10

2.687
2.147
0.013
0.256
0.098
0.045
0.320
2.139
2.159

###

### Sq m
###
m
4.279
m
###
2.438 m/sec (Manning's coeff., n
### m3/sec

2.867
3.434
16.409
22.760
21.994
16.394
5.117
6.422
2.379
97.777

0.030 )

Total Length of the proposed bridge ###

m
Assuming, pier width of the bridge = 1.00
m
So,
Linear water way available
= 1 ###
m
Channel Width
93.398
m
Since proposed linear waterway is more than the channel width, hence there will not be any afflux.
So,
Recommended HFL

### m

Draft Detailed Project Report

D:\99088\DPR Report\DPR_ii_i\Hydrology\274021989.xls

Roads & Highways

Project: 4/6 Laning of NH-5 fron Tuni to Anakapalli

Document: D:\99088\RH\Vol. II (Part-B)\Hydrology\Appendices
Hydrology

Sheet: 7 of 7
Date: October 2000
Revision: R0

Cross Section At Proposed Bridge Site

16.000
15.000

R L (m )

14.000
13.000
12.000
11.000
10.000
10.000
30.000
50.000
70.000
90.000
0.000
20.000
40.000
60.000
80.000
100.000
R D (m )
Original x-section

Column P

Observed HFL (14.523 m)

Recommended HFL = 15.516 m

Draft Detailed Project Report

D:\99088\DPR Report\DPR_ii_i\Hydrology\274021989.xls

Roads & Highways