Final Year Project of Hydraulic Engineering PDF

Bahir Dar University
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
School of Civil and Water Resource Engineering

Department of Water Resource and Environmental
Engineering
Final year project

On
Timbel Diversion Headwork Design
NAME ID no
1. Asmamaw Mesfin 202/2001

2. Awel Mohammed 216/2001
3. Awoke Tiruye 218/2001
4. Daniel Alem 359/2001
Advisor:- Mr. Chalachew Abebe. (Msc. In Hydraulic structure)
Submission date June 18,2013

Timble Diversion Headwork Design
Acknowledgment
We would like to express our gratitude to all those who gave us the possibility to complete
final project. Especially we are deeply indebted to express our thanks to our advisor
Chalachew Abebe who gave us a complete and series comments and suggestion how to we
go. He also gave countless help and advices that encourage us to finalize this project
We would like to give exceptional thanks to our families whose patient love and help enabled
us to complete this work with no worry about financial.
Finally we can’t forget our friends and classmates for giving us encouragement, valuable
discussions throughout the work of this Project
G.C 2005 WRED Page i

Table of Content
Acronym................................................................................................................................... vi
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................vii
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 General ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Objective of the project ............................................................................................... 1
1.2.1 Specific objectives .......................................................................................................... 1
1.2.2 General objectives ........................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Description of the Study Area ..................................................................................... 3
1.4.1 Site description................................................................................................................ 3
2 Hydrology Analysis .......................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Meteorological data Availability................................................................................. 3
2.2 Data Consistency Test ................................................................................................. 3
2.3 Data Outlier Test ......................................................................................................... 3
2.3.1 Checking data reliability ................................................................................................. 5
2.4 Design Rain fall Computation ..................................................................................... 6
2.5 Design Flood Analysis ................................................................................................ 7
2.6 Design Storm Analysis ................................................................................................ 8
2.6.1 Time of concentration (Tc) ............................................................................................. 8
2.6.2 Rainfall profile ................................................................................................................ 8
2.6.3 Run off synthesis............................................................................................................. 9
2.6.4 Peak flood analysis by SCS unit hydrograph method ..................................................... 9
2.7 Tail Water Depth Computation ................................................................................. 14
2.7.1 Average river bed slope ................................................................................................ 15
2.7.2 Manning’s Roughness coefficient ................................................................................. 15
3 HEAD WORK DESIGN ................................................................................................ 16

3.1 Headwork Site Selection ........................................................................................... 16
3.2 Geology of the area ................................................................................................... 17
3.2.1 Left and Right Bank of the head work site ................................................................... 17
3.2.2 Upstream and downstream of the Head work site ........................................................ 17
3.2.3 Availability of construction materials ........................................................................... 17
3.3 Selection of Weir Type and Weir Parameters ........................................................... 17
3.3.1 Weir Type Selection...................................................................................................... 17
3.3.2 Weir parameter.............................................................................................................. 18
3.4 Hydraulics of the weir ............................................................................................... 19
3.4.1 Discharge over the weir section .................................................................................... 19
3.4.2 Afflux ............................................................................................................................ 20
3.4.3 Design of the Ogee Weir Profile and X-Section ........................................................... 21
3.4.4 Hydraulic jump calculation ........................................................................................... 23
G.C 2005 WRED Page ii

3.4.5 Selection of Stilling Basin type ..................................................................................... 25

3.4.6 Comparison between Tail water and Hydraulic Jump Curve ....................................... 27
3.4.7 Determination of Scour depth ....................................................................................... 28
3.4.8 Length of pervious floor ............................................................................................... 29
4 Structural design of the weir ......................................................................................... 37

4.1 Stability analysis of the weir ..................................................................................... 37
4.1.1 Self weight of the structure ........................................................................................... 38
4.1.2 External water pressure (Hydrostatic pressure (Ph))..................................................... 38
5 Design of under Sluice, Divide wall,and Retaining Wall ............................................ 40

5.1 Design of under sluice ............................................................................................... 40
5.2 Design of Divide wall ............................................................................................... 41
5.3 Hydraulics of divide wall ........................................................................................ 41
5.4 Breast wall & Operation Slab.................................................................................... 42
5.5 Design of Retaining Wall .......................................................................................... 43
5.5.1 Wall height fixation ...................................................................................................... 43
5.5.2 U/s retaining wall stability analysis .............................................................................. 45
5.5.3 D/s retaining wall stability analysis .............................................................................. 46
6 Main canal ....................................................................................................................... 46

6.1 Main canal design...................................................................................................... 47
7 BILL OF QUANTITY ................................................................................................... 50
8 Conclusion and recommendation .................................................................................. 55
9 Reference ......................................................................................................................... 56
10 Appendices ................................................................................................................... 57
G.C 2005 WRED Page iii

List of figures
Figure 2-1፡Run off hydrograph for full duration .................................................................................. 14
Figure 2-2፡ Stage discharge curve ........................................................................................................ 16
Figure 3-1፡Geological cross section at the weir axis ............................................................................ 19
Figure 3-2: ogee weir profile ................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 3-3: Haydraulic calculation .......................................................................................................... 24
Figure 3-4: type II stilling basin .............................................................................................................. 26
Figure 3-5 tail water and hydraulic jump curve........................................................................................ 27
Figure 3-6 pressure calculation at key points ........................................................................................... 37
Figure 4-1 Force acts on the weir............................................................................................................ 38
Figure 5-2 retaining wall......................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 6-1 main canal cross-section ......................................................................................................... 48
G.C 2005 WRED Page iv

List of tables
Table 2-1፡Daily havest rainfall data consistency test ............................................................................. 3
Table 2-2: Estimation of time of concetration ............................................................................................ 8
Table 2-3 Design rainfall arrangements ..................................................................................................... 9
Table 2-4: Direct runoff computation ...................................................................................................... 12
Table 2-5: Computation of hydrograph for each increment of runoff ........................................................ 12
Table 2-6: Hydrograph components for each incremental runoff ............................................................... 12
Table 2-7: Tail water depth computation ................................................................................................. 15
Table 3-1: U/S profile of the ogee weir .................................................................................................... 21
Table 3-2: D/S Profile the ogee weir ........................................................................................................ 22
Table 3-3: U/S Face curve parameters ...................................................................................................... 22
Table 3-4: stillng basin design for type II basin ........................................................................................ 25
Table 3-5: stilling basin design variables .................................................................................................. 26
Table 3-6 Tail water depth and jump height depth .................................................................................. 27
Table 4-1 stability analyisis of weir .......................................................................................................... 39
Table 4-2 factor of safety against ............................................................................................................ 39
Table 5-1 divided wall height determination ............................................................................................ 42
Table 5-4 U/S retaing wall height determinations ..................................................................................... 45
Table 5-5 U/S retaing wall stability analyisis ............................................................................................ 45
Table 5-6 U/S factor of safety against of retaing wall................................................................................ 45
Table 5-7 D/S retaing wall height determination ...................................................................................... 46
Table 5-8 D/S retaing wall stability analyisis ............................................................................................ 46
Table 5-9 D/S factor of safety againsty of retaing wall .............................................................................. 46
Table 6-1: Quantity of work ................................................................................................................. 50
Table 9-1 antecedent rainfall conditions and curve no (for Ia=0.2S) ........................................................ 57
Table 9-3 unit weight of material ......................................................................................................... 58
G.C 2005 WRED Page v

Acronym
AMC=Anticipated moisture condition

CN=curve number
D/S Bed level= Down stream bed level
D/S HFL= Downstream high flood level
D/S LSL=Downstream lowest score level
D/S TEL =Downstream total energy level
JHC=Jump height curve
SCS-CN = The United States Soil Conservation Service curve number
TWRC =Tail water rating curve
U/S bed level=up stream bed level
U/S HFL= upstream high flood level
U/S LSL=upstream lowest score level
U/S TEL= Upstream total energy level
G.C 2005 WRED Page vi

Abstract
Timble Small Scale Irrigation Project is found in Amhara region, Awi zone and 93KM far from
Bahir Dar. The project is done on TIMBEL River to irrigate 200ha of land. The weather
condition is Weyna Dega agro ecological zone.
This design report contains the back ground of the project, design of head work and other
structures and bill of quantity. In the back ground part objective, significance, working
methodology, location, catchment characteristic, and weather condition of site and water
sources of project are stated.
For safe and economical design of head work, we have developed the 50 year return period
from 35 years daily heaviest rain fall data records. This design rain fall has been estimated to
be 113.58mm generated from a storm of 3.608hr time of concentration and 1hr duration
based on the advanced pattern of storm, incremental rainfall, widely applicable in Ethiopia.
The design flood has been estimated to be 72.6m3/s occur at time of peak (5.66hr) analyzed
based on SCS-CN-method.
On the other hand in the headwork design part we attempt to encompass all prominent
features of the headwork (weir), under sluice, head regulator, stilling basin and retaining wall
are designed based on peak discharge. The weir is designed for the peak discharge with a
height of 1.62m and crest width of 38m (i.e. it is from bank to bank). To be structurally safe
the ogee type weir is selected. Next to these, main canal dimensions are designed based on
the base flow of the river. Canal dimensions are 0.7 depth and 0.8m width with trapezoidal
cross_ section. (at the outlet, it has to be masonry rectangular )
G.C 2005 WRED Page vii

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Amhara region is endowed with different natural resources, agro-ecologies, biodiversities and huge
manpower. The economy of the region largely depends on subsistence agriculture, which is
traditional and rain fall dependant. The presence of erratic and variable nature of rainfall, farmland
scarcity, poor soil fertility, occurrences of plant and livestock diseases and crop pests, absence or low
use of modern inputs make the practice low productive and traditional type. Due to these increase the
water efficiency by constructing permanent structure like dam, diversion structure etc.
The existing insufficient or unreliable rainfall dependent traditional agriculture is not in a position to
feed the increasing population. In this rationale on top of the need of different intensification efforts,
it is a must to support the current food production with irrigation.
The region has great potential for surface and subsurface water resource. The Timbile River is one of
the surface resources at west Gojam zone in Amhara region. We design diversion structure (diversion
weir) on this river to expand the traditional diversion structure to modern irrigation by constructing
permanent structure. This permanent structure increase the water efficiency by constructing lined
canal on places of high seepage canal routes, quantity and quality of productivity and buildup the
living standard of the people around the area.
1.2 Objective of the project
1.2.1 Specific objectives

Specific objective of the project is to design a stable and economical head work structure that can
resist the anticipated loads over the weir structure. To achieve the main objective, the following
analyses are done:
 Determination of annual rainfall analysis
 River flow & Flood analysis
 Selection of weir type and weir cross section
 Hydraulic design of diversion weir
 Structural design of weir
 Design of under sluice
G.C 2005 WRED Page 1

1.2.2 General objectives

The general objective of our design diversion irrigation project is to transform the existing traditional
farming system in to modernize irrigation scheme there by to boost productivity so as to advance the
income and living standard of the local community to cultivate surplus agricultural product. And also
to cultivate their crops more than two times in one season. The value of the project is first of all
guarantees the farmers’ goals of increasing levels of income, levels of food security in the household,
employment opportunities and general improvement of their standards of living are sustained through
effective management of their irrigation system. And also used for contractors to improve their own
income. The designer also benefited from this project.
1.3 Methodology
In the designing of this final year project on diversion weir we will use the following procedures:
 Data collecting from different sources and we get:
 50,000 scale top map and a 35 year highest rain fall data
 Geological and socio economic repot
 Hydrological analysis
 Consistency test
 Estimation of peak discharge from the given rainfall data
 Tail water depth computation
 Weir designing
 Selection of site and weir type
 Weir height determination
 Stability analysis
 Design of divide wall , under sluice, head regulator and stilling basin
 Design retaining wall and main canal.
 Description of the Study Area

1.4 Description of the Study Area
1.4.1 Site description

The project is found in Amhara region, Awi zone and 93KM far from Bahir Dar. The project is done
on TIMBEL River to irrigate 200ha of land on both sides of the river. The weather condition is
Weyna Dega agro ecological zone. The site is accessible from Chagni by using dry weather road.
2 Hydrology Analysis
2.1 Meteorological data Availability

Rainfall and other related meteorological data availability is the main thing for any projects that
inquire hydrological analysis. Hence in this project Enjibara meteorological data is taken for
determining Timbile design discharge computation. Because this station is found near the water shed
area. The daily heaviest rainfall data from 1973 to 2007 is taken from this meteorological station.
2.2 Data Consistency Test

The daily heaviest rainfall data of Enjibara meteorological station from 1973 to 2007 is taken for the
design. Hence, 35 years of daily heaviest rainfall data is available. These data should be checked for
its consistency by higher and lower outlier testes.
2.3 Data Outlier Test

Outliers are data points that depart from the trend of the remaining data. The detention or retention of
these outliers can significantly affect the magnitude. The outlier test is done to check whether the
adopted data is within the limited range or not.
Table 2-1፡Daily havest rainfall data consistency test
Descending Log
NO YEAR Rf Rank new Rf log(x)
order (Y)
1 1973 62.4 166 1 2.22 113.2 2.05
2 1974 56.4 113.2 2 2.05 96.6 1.98
3 1975 79.5 96.6 3 1.98 90.4 1.96
4 1976 48.1 90.4 4 1.96 89.2 1.95
5 1977 50.9 89.2 5 1.95 87 1.94
6 1978 63.3 87 6 1.94 79.6 1.90
Descending Log
NO YEAR Rf Rank new Rf log(x)
order (Y)
7 1979 71.7 79.6 7 1.90 79.5 1.90
8 1980 53.3 79.5 8 1.90 75.2 1.88
9 1981 71.5 75.2 9 1.88 73.6 1.87
10 1982 113.2 73.6 10 1.87 72.1 1.86
11 1983 72.1 72.1 11 1.86 72.1 1.86
12 1984 66.2 72.1 12 1.86 71.7 1.86
13 1985 96.6 71.7 13 1.86 71.5 1.85
14 1986 42.6 71.5 14 1.85 70.3 1.85
15 1987 48.2 70.3 15 1.85 69.8 1.84
16 1988 64 69.8 16 1.84 68.7 1.84
17 1989 75.2 68.7 17 1.84 68.6 1.84
18 1990 69.8 68.6 18 1.84 67.2 1.83
19 1991 68.6 67.2 19 1.83 66.2 1.82
20 1992 79.6 66.2 20 1.82 64.1 1.81
21 1993 67.2 64.1 21 1.81 64 1.81
22 1994 89.2 64 22 1.81 63.3 1.80
23 1995 55.3 63.3 23 1.80 62.4 1.80
24 1996 51.6 62.4 24 1.80 58.4 1.77
25 1997 87 58.4 25 1.77 56.4 1.75
26 1998 53.6 56.4 26 1.75 55.3 1.74
27 1999 68.7 55.3 27 1.74 53.6 1.73
28 2000 166 53.6 28 1.73 53.3 1.73
29 2001 90.4 53.3 29 1.73 51.6 1.71
30 2002 64.1 51.6 30 1.71 51.4 1.71
31 2003 51.4 51.4 31 1.71 50.9 1.71
32 2004 73.6 50.9 32 1.71 48.2 1.68
33 2005 58.4 48.2 33 1.68 48.1 1.68
34 2006 70.3 48.1 34 1.68 42.60 1.63
35 2007 72.1 42.6 35 1.63
2306.10
Sum 2472.1 64.14 67.83
Mean 70.6314 1.83 15.34
Standard Deviation(dn-1) 22.442 0.12
Skewness coefficient(Cs) 1.08
No of data(N) 35

As shown from the above calculation the station Skewness is greater than 0.4, test for higher and lower
outliers are required. This is done to check whether the adopted data is within the limited range or
not.
2.3.1 Checking data reliability

Number of data (N) =35
Standard deviation, n1  22.442
Mean ( 𝑋̅) =70.631mm
Standard error of mean, n  n1 = 5.37

n
Relative standard= n / x *100 = (5.37/70.631)*100=7.603 %< 10%. Hence the data series could be
regarded as reliable and adequate.
a) Test for higher outlier

Higher outlier Yh Y KnSy

Where: Y = mean of data in log unity
Kn = From table for sample size N

For data N=35, Y 1.833
, Kn  2.628 SY=0.116 (from Subramanian engineering hydrology
Table7.3 and Table7.4)

Yh Y KnSy
1.8332.628*0.116 2.136
ℎ𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑟 = 10𝑌ℎ
ier (10)2.136 136.844mm
Higheroutl
The highest recorded value from Enjibara Town metrological station is (166mm) is greater than the
higher outlier (136.844mm). Therefore, the highest value from recorded data, i.e. (166mm) will be
excluded from the hydrological analysis
b) Test for lower outlier


Yl YKnSy
1.8332.628
*0.1161.529
Loweroutli er10yh
 (10)1.529  33.792mm
The Lowest recorded value is (42.6mm) which is greater than lower outlier (33.729mm). Hence no
lower outlier date will eliminated. Therefore, the recorded data is consistent for both outliers.
Conclusion: From the test result it is conclude that the daily heaviest rainfall data recorded from
1973to 2007 E.C year do not depart significantly from the trend of the data series, and hence the data
could be said consistent for flood frequency analysis.
2.4 Design Rain fall Computation

After checking the consistency of the data for both higher and lower outlier, the 34years data obtained
from Enjibara metrological station is taken as representative for the analysis (Now the data is reduced
to 34 years). The observed data will be changed to point rain fall using Gumbel methods.
Gumbell (Extreme Value Type I)
Gumbell (1958) introduced the concept of extreme value distribution and develops a model for
production of hydrologic events such as floods peaks, max rain fail, max wind speed. etc. He defend a
flood as a largest flow in the year (365 day) and termed as the annual series of flood flows a series of
largest values of flood .i e flood flows which are the largest of all the flows occurring on each of the
365 days of a year. For our calculation we use the modified equation of Gumbell. In this case
magnitude 𝑋𝑇 (the Gumble value) hydrologic event may be represented as the mean of the variant
plus the product of the standard deviation & frequency factor. The empirical for this distribution is:
xT=X̅+σn−1 ∗Kt
Where 𝑋𝑇 =the data of random hydrologic series with a return period T
𝑋̅= the mean value of the data
𝜎𝑛−1 = the standard deviation of the data
∑(𝑥−𝑥̅ )^2
𝜎𝑛−1 = √ 𝑁−1

Kt = frequency factor
𝑌𝑇−𝑌𝑛
𝑘𝑡 = (Using modified Gumbell frequency analysis equation 𝑋𝑇 is calculated.
𝑆𝑛
𝑦𝑇 =the reduced variant for the given return period.
𝑇 𝑇
𝑦𝑇 =-[ln (ln𝑇−1)] or 𝑦𝑝 = − [0.834 + 2.303 ∗ log (𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑇−1)] = 3.902
T=return period, for weir and small dam the return period (T) = 50 year.
𝑌𝑛 =The reduced mean as a function of sample size N
𝑆𝑛 = the reduced standard deviation as a function of sample size N
𝑆𝑛 =1.127 and 𝑌𝑛 =0.540 for N=34respectively (source: hydrology and soil conservation2nd edition,
relation between Gumbell’s reduced standard deviation & sample size, table 7.3&7.4, page 105)
3.902−0.540
𝐾𝑡 = =2.98
1.127
𝑋𝑇 = 67.826+2.98*15.336= 113.58mm
2.5 Design Flood Analysis

The river at the proposed diversion point has 15.58km2 of watershed size and the design peak flood is
analyzed by using SCS-CN/Complex Unit Hydrograph Methods.
Maximum probable flood is a hypothetical flood at a selected location, whose magnitude is such that
there is no chance to exceed. It is estimated by combining the most hydrological and meteorological
conditions considered reasonably possible at the particular location under consideration.
As we have described earlier 34years daily heaviest Rainfall data obtained from Enjibara
Meteorological station is used for determination of maximum probable flood. Based on the available
data, the following methods are used to estimate the design flood from rain fall data.

2.6 Design Storm Analysis

From the observed data point rain fall was calculated using different statistical distributions. As we
see from the above calculation Gumbell (Extreme value Type I) distribution has higher rain fall depth
value of 113.58 is selected for our analysis to minimize the risk. So the point design rain fall is
113.58mm
2.6.1 Time of concentration (Tc)

It is defined, as the time needed water to flow from the most remote point in a watershed to the
watershed outlet. It is a function of the topography, geology, and land use within the watershed.
The time of concentration is calculated using the Cripitch formula
𝐿𝑖 3
𝑇𝑐 = ∑ 0.948 ( ) ^0.585
𝐻𝑖
Where: Tc = time of concentration (hrs)
Li = length of flow (km)
Hi = elevation difference (m)
Table 2-2: Estimation of time of concetration
Elevation height dff.(m) L(m) L(km) Tc(hr)

1902 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
1900 2 69.35 0.07 0.03
1880 20 801.82 0.80 0.23
1860 20 1455.39 1.46 0.46
1840 20 2127.88 2.13 0.72
1820 20 1051.12 1.05 0.32
1800 20 1010.28 1.01 0.30
1780 20 2709.77 2.71 0.95
1763 17 1731.26 1.73 0.60
sum 139 10956.87 3.61
From the above table Tc=3.608hr
2.6.2 Rainfall profile

Rainfall profile is the distribution of design rainfall with respect to time in the whole watershed area.
It needs developed models for the selected drainage area. But, there is no sufficient modelling data in

the vicinity and adaptation of standard curves is the only option. When we design this project We
have use the standard curve from IDD Manual and used to compute rainfall profile of the project area.
Design Point Rainfall = 113.58mm

Area=15.58km2
2.6.3 Run off synthesis
The runoff in mm is determined from the catchment input data and design rainfall. To conclude the
runoff, the rainfall profile is used to determine the actual areal rainfall depth for each time interval.
The incremental rainfall depth is determined by subtracting the required time interval rainfall depth
from the proceeding time interval depth. These incremental are tabulated 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in
descending orders and arranged as 6, 4, 3, 1, 2, and 5. Based on the rearranged on the rearranged
order incremental rainfall was calculated. The rearranged incremental rainfall depth is shown in the
table below
Table 2-3 Design rainfall arrangements
Design
Rainfall Rainfall Arran Rearranged Asce
Time point incremental Cumulative
Profile Profile Rank ged p(mm) nding
(hr) Rainfall rainfall p, (mm)
(%) (mm) order incremental Order
(mm)
0-1 113.58 45 51.11 51.11 1 1 6 3.41 3.41

1.0-2.0 113.58 58 65.88 14.77 2 2 4 5.68 9.09
2.0-3.0 113.58 67 76.1 10.22 3 3 3 10.22 19.31
3.0-4.0 113.58 72 81.78 5.68 4 4 1 51.11 70.42
4.0-5.0 113.58 76 86.32 4.54 5 5 2 14.77 85.19
5.0-6.0 113.58 79 89.73 3.41 6 6 5 4.54 89.73
2.6.4 Peak flood analysis by SCS unit hydrograph method

For drainage basin where no runoff has been measured the CN method can be used to estimate the
depth of direct runoff from the rain fall depth. The equation for this method is derived using the
assumption that the ratio of actual retention to a potential maximum retention is equal to the ratio of
actual run off to potential maximum run off the later being rain fall minus initial abstraction.
𝐹 𝑄
= 𝑃−𝐼 And F=P-𝐼𝑎 -Q
𝑆 𝑎

(𝑃−𝐼 )2
𝑎
Then Q=(𝑃−0.8𝑠)
The method involves
 Conversion of rain fall into discharge using the CN graph

 Development of these discharges into a basin hydrograph using SCS dimensionless unit
hydrograph
 Determination of the drainage coefficient (q) as the peak of the hydrograph.
Design flood is calculated SCS (The United States Soil Conservation Service). This method is
derived in 1986 that is primarily used for assessing the project storm aiming for the determination of
the design flood of rural catchments. It is widely adopted for design flood estimation. The approach
considers, watershed parameters, like Area, Curve number, and time of concentration. The curve
number's a function of soil type, vegetation, land use, cultivation practice and antecedent moisture
condition. Estimation of Hydrologic soil cover complex number is made based on the top map , field
trip to the Watershed and the result of detail study of other catchments with similar features and the
estimated wet antecedent moistures condition II (AmcII) is 81.84. But commonly for design flood
estimation antecedent moisture condition III (Amc III) is considered and for antecedent moisture
condition II of 81.84, the corresponding value of antecedent moisture condition III is shown below
the calculation.
Catchments area estimated =15.58 km2
Curve number (CNII)=81.84,Conversion factor(CF)=1.1271
Curve number (CNIII)=CF*CNII=92
The time to peak flow:
Tp  D TL  D 0.6Tc
2 2
Where, TP፡ time to peak
D፡ duration of excess rainfall
TL፡ time of lag

TC፡ time of concentration
Tc=3.608, D = Tc/6=0.6hr D will be 1hr since time of concentration is greater than 3hr
Tp =0.5D+0.6*3.608 =2.665
S  25400
hr; Tb
254
=2.67Tp=2.67*2.665=7.115hr CN
Where, N: an arbitrary curve number varying from 0 to 100.
Thus, if N = 100, then S=0 and p=Q
S  25400
254 22.087mm
92
Q
p0.2S2
p0.8S
Where, Q: direct surface runoff in depth (mm)
P: Storm rainfall (mm)
S: maximum potential difference between rainfall and runoff (mm), starting at the time the
storm begins
The peak runoff rate derived from triangular hydrograph is expressed as,
qp  0.21AQ
TP
Where, q p: Peak runoff rate (m3/s/mm)
A: watershed area (km2) =15.58km2
Q: runoff volume (mm) = area under the hydrograph
T P: time of peak (hrs) =2.665hr

qp  0.21*15.58*1 1.228m3/s/mm
2.665
Table 2-4: Direct runoff computation
Incremental design Cumulative design Direct Incremental

Time rain fall (mm) rain fall (mm) runoff Incremental loss
0-1 3.41 3.41 0 0 3.41
1.0-2.0 5.68 9.09 0.89 0.89 4.79
2.0-3.0 10.22 19.31 6.21 5.33 4.9
3.0-4.0 51.11 70.42 50 43.79 7.32
4.0-5.0 14.77 85.19 64.02 14.01 0.75
5.0-6.0 4.54 89.73 68.37 4.35 0.19
Table 2-5: Computation of hydrograph for each increment of runoff

Time Incremental Qp for incremental Incremental Hydrograph
runoff (mm) runoff (m3/s)
0 1 2 Begin time peak end
time(Tp) time(Tb)
0-1 0 0 0 2.66 7.12
1.0-2.0 0.89 1.11 1 3.66 8.12
2.0-3.0 5.33 6.65 2 4.66 9.12
3.0-4.0 43.79 54.69 3 5.66 10.12
4.0-5.0 14.01 17.5 4 6.66 11.12
5.0-6.0 4.35 5.44 5 7.66 12.12
Table 2-6: Hydrograph components for each incremental runoff

Time H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 SUM
0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.42
2.66 0.00 0.69 1.65 2.34
3.00 0.00 0.83 2.50 0.00 3.33
3.66 0.00 1.11 4.14 13.55 18.80
4.00 0.00 1.02 4.99 20.52 0.00 26.54
4.66 0.00 0.69 6.65 34.07 4.33 45.75

Time H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 SUM
5.00 0.00 0.62 6.16 41.05 6.57 0.00 54.39
5.66 0.00 0.49 5.17 54.69 10.90 1.35 72.61
6 0.00 0.42 4.66 50.52 13.13 2.04 70.79
6.66 0.00 0.29 3.68 42.43 17.50 3.39 67.29
7 0.00 0.22 3.17 38.26 16.19 4.08 61.92
7.12 0.00 0.20 2.99 36.79 15.71 4.33 60.02
7.66 0.09 2.18 30.17 13.59 5.44 51.47
8 0.02 1.67 26.00 12.26 5.03 44.98
8.12 0.00 1.49 24.53 11.79 4.88 42.69
9.00 0.18 13.73 8.33 3.81 26.05
9.12 0.00 12.26 7.86 3.66 23.78
10.00 1.47 4.40 2.59 8.46
10.12 0.00 3.93 2.44 6.37
11.00 0.47 1.37 1.84
11.12 0.00 1.22 1.22
12.00 0.15 0.15
12.12 0.00 0.00
The peak discharge is determined as the maximum of horizontal sum of each incremental runoff
which is equals to 72.61m3/s.

80
70 H3
H4
60
H5
50 H6
Discharge (m3/sec)
H-TOTAL
40
30
20
10
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
-10
Time (hr)
Figure 2-1፡Run off hydrograph for full duration
2.7 Tail Water Depth Computation

Tail water depth of the river is equal to the flood depth and amount at the anticipated weir site before
construction of the weir. It is used to crosscheck peak flood estimated by the SCS unit hydrograph
method with flood mark method and to see the flood feature after the hydraulic jump.
The water discharge is calculated by Manning’s open channel formula. Basic inputs for the analysis
and the detail procedure are described as follows.
V  1 R2/ 3  S ,
n
Where, R = Hydraulic radius = (Area/Perimeter) =A/P
S= average river bed slope
n=manning roughness coefficient
V=flow velocity
QV  A

2.7.1 Average river bed slope

Average riverbed slope is estimated by using either slope area or best-fit line method. The water
level of the river is taken at different points along the river channel around the headwork site. And
then, average water surface slope is considered as the river bed slope i.e. (slope= 0.005)
2.7.2 Manning’s Roughness coefficient

The Manning’s roughness coefficient is taken from standard table based on the river nature. The river
at the headwork site has meandering feature and curving nature. The riverbanks are defined and
relatively smooth. Manning’s roughness coefficient (n = 0.035) is adopted.
Table 2-7: Tail water depth computation

Sr.no Elevation Water Area Wetted Hydraulic Velocity Discharge
(m) Depth (m2) Perimeter radius(R) (m/s) (m3/s)
(m) (m)
1 1767 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1767.5 0.5 9.37 21.86 0.43 1.15 10.77
3 1768 1 21.76 27.98 0.78 1.71 37.17
4 1768.43 1.43 35.1972 34.9999 1.005637159 63.182601 72.61
5 1768.5 1.5 37.67 36.14 1.04 2.08 78.23
6 1769 2 57.8 44.98 1.29 2.39 138.03
7 1769.5 2.5 85.69 67.27 1.27 2.37 203.45
8 1770 3 124.72 89.56 1.39 2.52 314.22

Stage Curve
3.5
2.5
Depth (m)
1.5 Stage Curve
0.5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Discharge (M^3/sec)
Figure 2-2፡ Stage discharge curve
From the rating curve, the tail water depth (D/S HFL) corresponding to the flood discharge (i.e. Q
=72.61m3/sec) is found to at 1768.43m masl, which is 1.43m above the riverbed level.
3 HEAD WORK DESIGN
3.1 Headwork Site Selection

Having decided upon the location of weir, the actual site is selected with the following
considerations:
o A reasonably wide and well defined channel with reliable banks is favored;
o The associated canal alignment should enable adequate command without excessive
excavation or embankment;
o With respect to the adjoining(situated next to) land surface, the elevation of water
surface upstream of the weir should not be so low as to require an excessively high
weir to divert the water at the intake;
o Easy arrangement of flow diversion during construction
o Availability of construction material at the nearest place.

3.2 Geology of the area

The project is surrounded by hill, some undulated, flat and mountain lands, which covered by
Medium stiff silty clay, Boulder, and slightly jointed basaltic rocks.
3.2.1 Left and Right Bank of the head work site

The bed of the river has sediments deposits of fine silts having relatively short depths. The left and
the right side of the riverbank are composed of alluvium deposit and it needs a river training work.
3.2.2 Upstream and downstream of the Head work site

Presently the majority of the bed is covered by surface flowing water. The surface sediments are
dominated with gravels, cobbles and boulders, silt etc. They are rounded to sub-rounded, strong, and
dominated with basaltic rocks.
3.2.3 Availability of construction materials

According to the Geological report of the project, required natural construction materials have been
assessed. Here source areas for rock, clay borrow areas and fine aggregate (sand) have been indicated.
3.3 Selection of Weir Type and Weir Parameters
3.3.1 Weir Type Selection
When we select the weir type, we should have to consider the availability of construction materials,
simplicity of the structure/practicality , nature of foundation and the river bed material as well as weir
height. The peak discharge estimated is 72.61𝑚3 /sec. A weir type that can dissipate the energy of
water falling from height needs to have better energy dissipation efficiency, because the weir shape is
capable of resisting the impact from a jet (pressurized stream of fluid) of water. In addition to this the
river carries sizable boulders and cobbles towards the diversion site during flood season. In this
respect an ogee type weir is preferable.

3.3.2 Weir parameter
3.3.2.1 Weir height
The weir height is determined based on the maximum command area elevation which is required to
irrigate the maximum possible irrigable area and consists of head losses: (1) across the head
regulator, (2) due to slope of main canal (3) required to drive the full supply level in the main canal.
The analysis is shown as follow:
 River bed level=1765.98m.a.s.l.
 Maximum command area elevation= 1764.22m.a.s.l
 Maximum flood elevation=1941.25m.a.s.l.
 Distance from the head work site=2000m
 Head loss at the turn out=0.05m
 Head regulator loss=0.06m
 Water depth required =0.5m
 loss in the canal=2.67m
 Free board=0.1
 Total loss=head loss across head regulater + loss in the canal + head loss at the turn out
=0.06+2.67+0.05=2.78m
 Full Ssupply Level=1767.5
 Canal outlet level=1767.5-0.5=1767m.a.s.l
 Weir crust level= 1764.22+0.5+0.1+2.78=1767.6m.a.s.l
 weir height=1767.6-1765.98masl=1.62m
Accordingly the weir height was fixed to be 1.62m and the corresponding crest level was fixed to
be 1767.6m.a.s.l
3.3.2.2 Weir crest length

Length of the weir depends on the physical feature of the river at the site of the weir and taking into
account the area of submergence on upstream side of weir axis. From the Lacey’s regime width
formula, the width of the river and geology of the abatements at the proposed weir axis, the crest
length of the over flow weir section can be determined.

 Lacey’s regime width=4.75(Q) ^0.5=40.48m

 Actual river crest length is equal to bank to bank width of the over flow section of the
river from the given top map is =38m
 So, considering the actual site conditions of the river banks stability and width of the river
channel, the crest length of the weir is considered as 38m.
So, considering the actual site conditions of the river banks stability and width of the river channel,
the crest length of the weir is considered a 38m
Figure 3-1፡Geological cross section at the weir axis
3.4 Hydraulics of the weir
3.4.1 Discharge over the weir section

The over flow over the weir would be affected by the shape of the weir; because of the coefficient of
flow (discharge) Cd varies with the type of weir and shape. Since the type of weir selected for
Timbile project is ogee and the coefficient of discharge Cd was assumed to be 2.2.
The overflow section of the weir is designed in order to pass 100% of the flood without considering
to accommodate through the under sluice portion. The usual ogee weir formula is used for the
evaluation of the discharge that could pass over the weir and it is expressed as:

Qd= Cd*L* He3/2
Where: Qd = Design discharge =72.61m3/s
Cd= Coefficient of Discharge =2.2 (from Irrigation and Hydraulic Structures, Arora, third
edition august 2001.)
L= Overflow length of a weir=38m
He= Energy head including velocity head (m)
   
2/ 3 2/ 3
He Qd 72.61
Head over the weir crest,     0.9m
 2.2L  2.238
River bed level = 1765.98m.a.s.l
Weir crest level, = 1767.6m.a.s.l
U/s TEL = crest level + He
= 1767.6+0.9m= 1768.51m.a.s.l
But High flood level before construction of the weir D/S HFL is =1767.41m (From
Rating curve)
Assume He =Hd
When p/H d > 1.33, then the velocity of approach has been found to have a negligible effect up on discharge
va =Q/ (L (Hd+P))
Va = (72.61/ (38*(0.9+1.62)))
Va =0.755m/s
Ha=VA^2/ (2g)
Ha=0.755^2/ (2*9.81)
Ha=0.029m
Hd =0.9m
p  1.621.33the velocity of approach can be neglected
Then; H 0.9
d
3.4.2 Afflux
The rise in the water level on the upstream compared to level in the downstream at the time of
passage of the design flood. Lesser waterway would result in larger afflux and vice versa.

The rise in the maximum flood level of the river upstream of the weir after construction is known as
afflux. The amount of afflux will determine the top levels of guide banks and marginal banks. By
providing a higher afflux, the waterway and, therefore, the length of the weir can be reduced, but it
will increase the cost of training works and the risk of failure by outflanking. At the same time, the
discharge intensity and the consequent scour shall go up, and hence, the sections of loose protections
upstream and downstream as well as the depths of pile lines at either ends shall have to be increased,
thereby making it costly. It is, therefore, always desirable to limit the afflux to a safe value of 1.0 to
1.2 meters, however, in steep reaches with rocky bed, a higher value of afflux may be permitted.
Afflux=u/s HFL-D/s HFL
1768.51masl-1767.41masl= 1.1m
3.4.3 Design of the Ogee Weir Profile and X-Section
3.4.3.1 Upstream profile

The x and y coordinates of the upstream profile of the weir was determined by the following formula.
Y=0.724*(X+0.27Hd) 1.85/Hd0.85+0.126Hd-0.4315Hd0.375*(X+0.27Hd) 0.65
The upstream profile extends up to the point x=-0.27Hd where Hd is the depth of flow at the design
discharge above the weir crest. Hd was determined to be 0.9m. Therefore the upstream profile
extends up to the point of coordinates (-0.21m, 0m). The upstream profile at an interval of 0.04m in
the x direction is presented in the following table.
Table 3-1: U/S profile of the ogee weir
X 0 -0.0405 -0.081 -0.1215 -0.162 -0.2025 -0.21

Y 0.12617 0.09783 0.07094 0.04583 0.02309 0.00423 0.00157
3.4.3.2 Downstream profile

Based on experiments approval to avoid negative pressure including consideration of practicability,
hydraulic efficiency, stability, and economy, the eqn. is derived.
The type of ogee selected is vertical u/s face. Hence X1.85=2*He0.85*y
Hence, from the construction point of view and stability, it is better to provide 1:1 d/s slope.

𝑋 1.85
𝑌 = 2∗𝐻𝑒 0.85 Where, He=Hd
𝑋 1.85
Y=X1.85/ (2*He0.85) = X1.85 /2*(0.9)0.85 𝑌 = 2∗0.90.85
𝑋 1.85
𝑌= 1.65
To have efficient curvature, it is better to determine the tangent point.
𝑑𝑦 𝑉 1
= =
𝑑𝑥 ℎ 1
𝑑𝑦 1.85𝑋1.85−1 1
= =
𝑑𝑥 1.65 1
1.65
𝑋 0.85 = 1.85 , 𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑋0.99𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑌 = 0.59𝑚
Based on the above formula the coordinate of x for y=0 to y=1.62are tabulated as follows:
Table 3-2: D/S Profile the ogee weir
X 0 0.64689 0.94091 1.17147 1.36856 1.54401 1.70392

Y 0 0.27 0.54 0.81 1.08 1.35 1.62
Table 3-3: U/S Face curve parameters

parameter Hd A b r1 r2
relation 0.8 0.175*Hd 0.282*Hd 0.5*Hd 0.2*Hd
Value 0.8 0.14 0.2256 0.4 0.16
From the ogee weir profile the radius of the bucket is H/4 where H is weir height (i.e.=1.62/4=0.41m)
and the point at which the bucket starts is at H/8(i.e.=1.62/8=0.2m)
The bottom width of the ogee shape weir is calculated by taking of the value of y =1.62m then find
the value of x from downstream profile equation (i.e.Y=X1.85/ (2*He0.85)) then x will be 1.7m finally
bottom width will be 1.7+b=1.7+0.23=1.93m provideB=2m) see the figure below.

Figure 3-2: ogee weir profile
3.4.4 Hydraulic jump calculation

As discussed in on geologic report, the riverbed is alluvial deposit and hence stilling basin for energy
dissipation is required. Both left and right side banks are not sound rock, a wing walls are required at
u/s and D/s sides, to protect the scouring of the bank due to the formation of jumps, and not to flow
the river out of riverbank in high flood cases. The length of wing walls is determined based on the
length of Jump, and it is calculated as shown below.
Neglecting losses between A and B considering similar datum
Weir crest length = 38m
Weir height = p=1.62m
Pre-jump depth = y1
Post -jump depth =y2

Figure 3-3: Haydraulic calculation
Neglecting losses between point A and B and considering similar datum

p + He = y1 + v12/2g
p+He=q2/(y1*2g)
1.62+0.9=y1+1.912/(y1*2*9.98)
2.52=y1+0.816/y12
y1=((y13+0.186)/2.52)0.5
by trial and eirr
y1=0.24
V1=q/y1
V1=1.91/0.24=7.961
𝑣1 7.961
𝐹𝑟 = = = 5.188 Supercritical flow
√𝑔𝑦1 √9.81∗0.24
𝑦1 0.227
𝑦2 = (√1 + 8 ∗ 𝐹𝑟2 − 1) 𝑦2 = (√1 + 8 ∗ 5.1882 − 1) =1.65m
2 2
Hydraulic jump length (L) =5*y2=5*1.65=8.25m

3.4.5 Selection of Stilling Basin type

A stilling basin is a channel structure of milder slope, placed at the outlet of a spillway, chute or other
high velocity flow channel, whose purpose is to confine all or part of the hydraulic jump or other
energy reducing action and dissipate some of the high kinetic energy of the flow. The basins are
usually provided with special appurtenances including chute blocks, sills and baffles piers.
Chute blocks: are used to form a serrated device at the entrance to the stilling basin. Their function is
to reduce the incoming jet and lift a portion of it from the floor producing a shorter length of jump
than would be possible without them.
The sill: is usually provided at the end of stilling basin. Its function is to reduce further the length of
the jump and to control scour. The sill has additional function of diffusing the residual portion of high
velocity jet that may reach the end of the basin.
Baffle piers: are blocks placed in the intermediate position across the basin floor. Their function is to
dissipate energy mostly by impact action. They are useful in small structures with low incoming
velocities. They are unsuitable where high velocities make cavitations possible.
Stilling Basins types
1. Basins for Froude numbers less than 1.7:- no special stilling basin is needed
2. Basins for Froude numbers between 1.7and 2.5:- pre-jump stage
3. Basins for Froude numbers between 2.5and 4.5(type I ) transition flow stage
4. Basins for Froude numbers greater than 4.5 and velocity less than 15m/s (type II) provide
basin with chute blocks, baffle blocks and end sills.
5. Basins for Froude numbers greater than 4.5 and velocity greater than 15m/s (type III) in this
case baffle block is not provided.
The incoming velocity at the downstream of the spillway is 7.89m/s, which is less than 15m /s and
the Froud number, is 5.28. Therefore, stilling basin type II is selected the length of the stilling basin,
the height h3 of the baffle block and the height h4 of end sill are obtained from table below.
Table 3-4: stillng basin design for type II basin

Froude
no 5 6 8 10 12 14 16
L/y2 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8
h3/y1 1.5 1.7 2 2.3 2.7 3 3.3
h4/y1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9

By using interpolation the ratio for Fr=5.28 is tabulated below
Table 3-5: stilling basin design variables
Fr 5 5.2 6
L/y2 2.3 2.34 2.5
h3/y1 1.5 1.54 1.7
h4/y1 1.2 1.24 1.3
𝐿
= 2.34, 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑌2 𝑖𝑠 Post − jump depth
𝑌2
𝐿 = 2.34𝑌2 = 2.34 ∗ 1.65 = 3.86
ℎ3
= 1.54, 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑌1 𝑖𝑠 Pre − jump depth
𝑌1
ℎ3 = 1.544𝑌1 = 1.54 ∗ 0.24 = 0.37
ℎ4
= 1.24, 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑌1 𝑖𝑠 Pre − jump depth
𝑌1
ℎ3 = 1.24𝑌1 = 1.24 ∗ 0.24 = 0.3
Figure 3-4: type II stilling basin

3.4.6 Comparison between Tail water and Hydraulic Jump Curve

To compare the rating curves of the hydraulic jump and the tail water condition, different discharges
which are less than or equal to the maximum flood are accounted as shown in the above table and the
figure is shown below.
Table 3-6 Tail water depth and jump height depth
Iteration
of Y1
Eo =
H Q q P He
He+P y1 V1 Fr y2
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.50 10.77 0.28 1.62 0.26 1.88 0.04 7.03 11.19 0.62
1.00 37.17 0.98 1.62 0.58 2.20 0.13 7.49 6.62 1.16
1.43 72.61 1.91 1.62 0.91 2.53 0.24 7.96 5.19 1.65
TWD & JHC

1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
depth(m)
1.00
0.80 Tail water depth
0.60 y2
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00
discharge(m^3/s
Figure 3-5 tail water and hydraulic jump curve
The relation of the tail water and jump depths for different discharges determines the scouring effect
of the flow on the riverbed and bank. The results of this analysis as it is plotted in the figure above
shows that the tail water depth is lower than the jump depth throughout all the discharges. as the
TWRC is lower than HJC, the hydraulic jump forms at a certain section downstream of the toe. For the

formation of the jump, the horizontal apron may be depressed by excavating the river bed downstream of the
toe of the spillway to increase the tail water depth. The depth of depression may be equal to the difference b/n
the tail water depth and post jump depth.
3.4.7 Determination of Scour depth

Discharge (Q) =72.61m3/sec
Weir crest length (L) =38m
Intensity of discharge =Q/L =72.61/38=1.91m^3/se/m
Particl diamater=D50=1mm
Silt factor f =1.76√𝒎𝒓=1.76√𝟏 =1.76
 2  2
1/ 3 1/ 3
Scour depth: R 1.35* q  1.35*1.91  1.72m
f  1.76
U/S HFL =1768.51m.a.s.l
River bed level=1765.89m.a.s.l
D/s HFL before retrogression = 1767.41m.a.s.l
A) U/s cut off
The upstream lowest scour level (U/S LSL) is estimated by

U/S LSL = U/SHFL-k*Rs ............the factor k is taken as 1.5
=1768.51-1.5*1.72= 1765.93masl
Then, the upstream scour depth, d1, is determined using the following relation
d 1 = River Bed Level – U/S LSL
= 1765.89-176.93=-0.05 provide d1=1m
A) D/s cut off
The down-stream lowest scour level (D/S LSL) is estimated by

D/S LSL = D/S HFL- K*Rs .................the factor k is taken as 2
=1767.41-2*1.72=1763.97amsl
Then the downstream scour depth, d2 will be, is determined using the following relation
d 2 = River Bed Level – D/S LSL
=1765.99-1763.97=2.01provide 2m
3.4.8 Length of pervious floor

The piping phenomenon can be minimized by reducing the exit gradient, i.e. by increasing the creep
length. The creep length can be increased by increasing the pervious floor length and by providing
upstream and downstream cut-offs.
3.4.8.1 Bligh’s creep theory

The exit gradient, the hydraulic gradient of the seepage flow under the base of the weir floor,
according to the creep flow theory proposed by Bligh is
L =Hs/ Gs= CHs
Where L = 2d1+B+ 2d2 = total creep length
d1 and d2 = depths of upstream and downstream cut-off
B = Horizontal floor length between the two cut-off
Hs = the seepage head, the difference in water levels u/s and d/s of the weir=1.62m
C=coefficient of creep based on bed material which is =15
Total creep length=coefficient of creep based on bed material*weir hegit
=15*1.62=24.3
The length of the downstream pervious floor, Ld, is given by
𝐻𝑠 1.62
Ld = 2.21C√ 10 =2.21*15√ 10 =13.34 provide 14m
Total creep length except u/s apron

=2(d1+d2) +d/s apron + weir bottom width
=2(1+2) +10+2=26.6m
=26.6m.but the required total floor length is 24.3. (24.3<26.6).thus the provision is of
the u/s floor is not important but in order to insure safety added 1.5 to the total length.
∴ Ld= 26.6+1.5=28.1≅ 28𝑚

Limitations of Bligh's theory
1. This theory made no distinction between horizontal and vertical creep.

2. Did not explain the idea of exit gradient - safety against undermining cannot simply be
obtained by considering a flat average gradient but by keeping this gradient will be low
critical.
3. No distinction between outer and inner faces of sheet piles or the intermediate sheet piles,
whereas from investigation it is clear, that the outer faces of the end sheet piles are much
more effective than inner ones.
4. A loss of head does not take place in the same proportions as the creep length. In addition,
the uplift pressure distribution is not linear but follows a sine curve. In case of two piles
the width between should be greater than twice the head or the piles are not effective.
After studying a lot of dam failure constructed based on Bligh’s theory, Khosla came out with the
following main points.
i. From observation of Siphons designed on Bligh's theory, by actual measurement of pressure,

with the help of pipes inserted in the floor of two of the siphons،
ii. Does not show any relationship with pressure calculated on Bligh's theory. This led to the
following provisional conclusions:
iii. Outer faces of end sheet piles were much more effective than the inner ones and the horizontal
length of the floor.
Intermediated piles of smaller length were ineffective except for local redistribution of
pressure.
3.4.8.2 Khosla's theory for exit gradient:
GE  H . 1  
d2  
2
 1 1  b
2 d2
Where Ge=safe exit gradient =1/5 (see Appendix table 21)

d2=depth of downstream cutoff=2m
b=horizontal length=u/s apron + d/s apron + weir bottom width=1.5+14+2 =17.5
H=maximum seepage head =1.62m
  17.5 =8.75
2
  1 18.75 =4.9
2
2
GE  H . 1
d2  
GE  1.62. 1 1/ 7<1/5 safe

2  4.9
Floor thickness at the toe
𝐻
Firstly ℎ= 𝐿𝑏
Pressure head and thinks required at point A
Where b=length from d/s to the toe =22.5
H=maximum seepage head =1.62m
L=total creep length =28m

h= pressure head
1.62
ℎ= ∗ 22.5 = 1.3
28
4 ℎ
𝑡= ∗( )
3 𝐺−1
Where t = the thickness of the floor
G = relative density of the floor material take 2.4

h= Pressure head=1.3m
4 1.3
𝑡= ∗( ) = 1.24 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒 1.2𝑚
3 2.4 − 1
Pressure head and Thickness required at point B
𝐻
ℎ= 𝑏
𝐿
Where b=12.5
H= 1.62m
L= 28m
h= pressure head
1.62
ℎ= ∗ 12.5 = 0.72
28
4 ℎ
𝑡= ∗( )
3 𝐺−1

Where t = the thickness of the floor

G = relative density of the floor material take 2.4
h= Pressure head=0.72
4 0.72
𝑡= ∗( ) = 0.688𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒 0.7𝑚
3 2.4 − 1
For the upstream apron, nominal thickness i.e 0.5 is provided because the poundage can stabilize its
uplift pressure and piles have nominal thickness i.e.0.5m due to the insignificance of its thickness.
Pressure calculation at key point u/s cutoff
B=17.5
D1=1
𝑏 17.5
𝛼= = = 17.5
𝑑1 1
1 + √1 + α2 1 + √1 + 117.52
λ = = = 9.26
2 2
100 λ − 2) 100 9.26 − 2)

𝜑𝐸 = 𝑐𝑜𝑠 −1 ( )= 𝑐𝑜𝑠 −1 ( ) = 21.32%
𝜋 λ 𝜋 9.26
100 λ − 1) 100 9.26 − 1)

𝜑𝐷 = 𝑐𝑜𝑠 −1 ( )= 𝑐𝑜𝑠 −1 ( ) = 14.93%
𝜋 λ 𝜋 9.26
Therefore 𝜑𝐶 1 = 100 – 𝜑𝐸=100-21.32=78.68%
φD 1 = 100 − φ D=100-14.93=85.07%
φE 1 = 100%

Correction due to floor thickness at c1
𝜑𝐷1 − 𝜑𝐶1 85.07 − 78.68

𝐶𝑡1 = ∗ 𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 = ∗ 0.5 = 6.4%(+𝑣𝑒)
𝑑1 1
Correction for interference at c1
𝐷+𝑑 𝐷
𝐶 = 19 ( ) (√ ′ )
𝑏 𝑏
Where D=depth of d/s cutoff =2m
d= depth of u/s cutoff =1
b’=distance between cutoffs=16.7
b=total floor length =17.5
2+1 2
𝐶𝑚1 = 19 ( ) (√ ) = 1.13%(+𝑣𝑒)
17.5 16.7′
Therefore corrected φC 1= 𝜑𝑪 𝟏 +Ct1+Cm1=78.68+6.4+1.13=86.2%
Pressure calculation at key point d/s cutoff
b=17.5
d2=2m
𝑏 17.5
𝛼= = = 8.75
𝑑2 2
1 + √1 + α2 1 + √1 + 8.752
λ = = = 4.9
2 2
100 λ−2 100 4.9 − 2

𝜑𝐸2 = 𝑐𝑜𝑠 −1 ( )= 𝑐𝑜𝑠 −1 ( ) = 29.84%
𝜋 λ 𝜋 4.9
100 λ−1 100 4.9 − 1

𝜑𝐷2 = 𝑐𝑜𝑠 −1 ( )= 𝑐𝑜𝑠 −1 ( ) = 20.7%
𝜋 λ 𝜋 4.9
φC =0
Correction due to floor thickness at E2
𝜑𝐸2 − 𝜑𝐷2 29.84 − 20.7

𝐶𝑡2 = ∗ 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑛 = ∗ 0.5 = 2.3%(−𝑣𝑒)
𝑑2 2
Correction for interference at E2
𝐷+𝑑 𝐷
𝐶 = 19 ( ) (√ ′ )
𝑏 𝑏
Where D=depth of u/s cutoff =1m
d= depth of d/s cutoff =2m
b’=distance between cutoffs=16.7
b=total floor length =17.5
1+2 1
𝐶𝑚2 = 19 ( ) (√ ) = 0.8%(−𝑣𝑒)
17.5 16.7
Therefore corrected φE 2= φE 2-Ct2-Cm2=29.84-2.3-0.8=26.74%

Downstream and upstream protection work
𝐻∗𝑞
𝐿2 + 𝐿3 = 18 ∗ 𝐶 √
10 ∗ 75
Where C is coefficient =15
H=seepage head =1.62m
L2=downstream apron length =14m
L3= downstream protection length
𝑄 72.61
𝑞= = = 1.91
𝐿 38
1.62 ∗ 1.91
𝐿2 + 𝐿3 = 18 ∗ 15√ = 14.66𝑚
14 ∗ 75
Therefore the downstream protection length L3=10.405-10=0.4m. Upstream protection is 1.5 times
the upstream pile depth (d1)
=1.5*1.2=1.8 m

Figure 3-6 pressure calculation at key points
4 Structural design of the weir
4.1 Stability analysis of the weir

The designed section has to be safe against sliding, overturning and tension crack. The followings are
the major forces considered in the design of the weir overflow section by which the stability analysis
was computed.
 Self weight of the over flow weir, W

 Hydrostatic pressure, Ph
 Silt pressure, Ps
 Up lift pressure
In the computation process the structure considering monolithic section & a unit length of the weir&
earth quake force is assumed to be negligible.
Note: sign convention
 Vertical forces downward is positive and upward is negative

 Horizontal forces towards upstream positive and towards downward negative.

 Moments clock wise moment negative and anticlockwise moment positive.
4.1.1 Self weight of the structure

For the ease of calculating moment arm for each section of the curved profile of the ogee, the curved
surface was assumed to be linear from the weir height to the toe. Therefore, the weir will be divided
in to two sections.
𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡(𝑊) = 𝛾𝑐 ∗ 𝐴𝑐
Where: gc= unit weight of cyclopean concrete=23KN/m3
Ac= area of the cyclopean concrete
Figure 4-1 Force acts on the weir
4.1.2 External water pressure (Hydrostatic pressure (Ph))

These are the forces acting on the weir due to the reservoir created upstream of the overflow section.
This includes hydrostatic and uplift pressure.

ℎ2
𝑃𝑤 = 𝛾𝑤 ∗
2
Where: Pw= hydrostatic pressure
the weir is calculated for case i.e. water raise up to crest level of the weir.
Table 4-1 stability analyisis of weir
Lever
arm
(about
code the
Dimension Load toe) Moment
Width Depth Vertical Horizontal R Positive Negative
Pw 1.62 1.62 0.00 13.12 0.54 0.00 7.09
W1 1.00 1.62 38.88 0.00 1.50 58.32 0.00
W2 1.00 1.62 19.44 0.00 1.33 25.92 0.00
Ps 12.96 1.62 0.00 4.22 0.54 0.00 2.28
U 2.00 1.62 16.20 0.00 1.33 21.60 0.00
Sum 16.58 6.48 74.52 17.35 5.25 105.84 9.37
Table 4-2 factor of safety against

Over turning = (M+ve/M-ve) >1.5 Fo 8.99 >1.5 OK
Sliding = (µxFv/Fh),---µ=0.7 >1.5 Fs 2.35 >1.50 OK
Tension: X= (Net Moment/Sum Fv),
e=x-B/2, e<B/6 X 1.28
B/6= 0.33 e 0.28 <B/6 OK

5 Design of under Sluice, Divide wall, and Retaining Wall
5.1 Design of under sluice

Some of the important roles that the under sluice plays are;
 Enables the canal to flow silt free water from surface as much as possible
 Scour the silt deposited in front of the canal off take (regulator)
 Preserve a clear and defined river channel approaching the regulator.
In addition to the supply of water to the intake and the removal of silt, this acts to remove the boulder
that comes to wards it.
Design consideration
 To ensure proper scouring its capacity should be at least double the canal discharge.
 The crest of the under sluice should be lower than the crest of the head regulator at least by
1m to 1.2m if special silt exclusion is not provided. (Source; Irrigation and water power
engineering Dr.B.C.PunmiaDr.Pande.B.B.LAL, 12th Etd. Newdelhi, laxmi, publication, 1992.
Gargpp 183 )
The sill level of this under sluice is fixed to be 0.77 m higher than the minimum river bed level.
Hence the sill level of the under sluice=1765.98+0.77=1766.75masl where the canal sill level is
1766.75masl
Considering this, the opening size of the gate is 1.2 m*1.2 m. Considering Orifice (opening or vent)
flow and pond level case, the discharge passing is computed using the following formula.
Q=Cd*A (2*g*h) ^0.5
=0.62*1.2*1.2*√2 ∗ 9.81 ∗ 0.6 =3.06𝑚3 /s

Therefore the discharge that can pass through the under sluice is computed to be 3.06m3/s. It is
believed in different irrigation literatures that the discharge passing the under sluices need to be at
least 5 timesbase flow(5*0.5=2.5m3/s). When we compared with the base flow during the dry periods
the discharge that can pass through the assumed under sluice opening is found to be
(Q=0.62*1.2*1.2*√2 ∗ 9.81 ∗ 0.6 =3.06𝑚3 /s). Therefore, the assumed under sluice opening which is
1.2mX1.2m is established.

5.1.1 Design of under Sluice gate
Table 5-1 design of under sluice
Description Under sluice gate Recommended

Height of gate, H 1.20 1.20
Width of gate, W 1.20 1.20
Groove depth, gt 0.05 0.05
Water Depth (maximum) 1.20 1.20
Silt Depth (maximum) 1.20 1.20
Allowable stress, ton/m2 16500.00 16500.00
Unit weight of Water, ton/m3 1.00 1.00
Unit weight of silt, ton/m3 0.35 0.35
Water Pressure, PW, (ton) 0.72 0.72
Silt Pressure Pressure, (ton) 0.25 0.25
Total Pressure, PT (ton) 0.97 0.97
Length (W+2*gt) 1.30 1.30
Moment Maximum, M=P*L2/8 0.21 0.21
Thichness, t, m 0.008 0.006
Factor of safety, fs 3.00 4.00
s‫ﻻ‬ 7.85 7.85
(weight of gate), W1 (kg) 84.29 64.12
5.2 Design of Divide wall

Divide wall is intended in order to create separation between outlet canal and natural river path. The
dived wall allows safe and stable base flow to the canal outlet. Flow turbidity created by existing flow
impact over the weir body is also abridged.
5.3 Hydraulics of divide wall

The essential case for the determination of wall height is when there is maximum flood and hence the
U/S HFL, from the previous calculation,
 U/S HFL=1768.51masl
 River bed level=1765.98m
 The divide wall height should at least reach the u/s HFL to allow gate operating during
floods.

 Maximum wall height =u/s HFL-river bed level+free board

 Maximum wall height =1768.51-1765.98+0.6=3.13m, provide 3.1 m wall height
The forces that exist in the divided wall are self-weight of the structure, silt and water pressures that
occur in the side of the weir. Thus, the worst case is considered, but for the under sluice side it is
stabilizing and we intentionally left it, and provide only for the upstream side only.
Table 5-2 divided wall height determination
Descriptions values
U/S HFL 1768.51
U/S RBL 1765.98
Free bored (assume) 0.6
divided wall height 3.13
width 0.5
5.4 Breast wall & Operation Slab

A vertical raised opening is designed for the head regulator and under sluice so that it can reduce the
overtopping of flow over the under sluice. This gate is slide over the breast wall-using spindle during
opening and closing. For easy operation of these gates, operation slab is provided. The size of the
operation slab is fixed from the point of construction and free movement.
The thickness of the slab is seen from the recommendation of thickness for R.C.C slabs in different
constructions (two-way slab).
The recommendation is
L
= 20 to 35
t
whereL = length of the greater span=1.30m.
t = thickness of slab
Take L =
30 => t= L = 1.30/30 = 0.043m, Provide t= 0.2m
t 30
The reinforcement is provided in accordance with the minimum percentage of reinforcement. Hence,
As= 0.15% of gross area of the section (Gross area= 0.2*1.30= 0.26m2)
As  0.15*0.26 0.00039
m2
100 =390mm2
S  1000
*as 2 𝜋∗122
Spacing as is assumed bar Φ12mm bars as =𝜋𝑑4 = = 113𝑚𝑚2
As 4
1000*113
S= 390 = 289.74mm
Provide Φ12 bars at 200 mm c/c spacing in both directions with minimum reinforcement cover of
25mm for slab and breast wall.
5.5 Design of Retaining Wall
The common concern in design of retaining wall is that the masonry section of the retaining wall
must have sufficient self-weight to resist the thrust due to earth pressure occurs at the back without
overturning, sliding, tension and compressive stress developed within the body of the structure. The
Maximum design flood and the flood jump height govern the height of the retaining wall with some
free board provided to protect overtopping of flood and scouring of the banks.
5.5.1 Wall height fixation

The existing topographical condition at the weir axis and HFL are considered to be most governing
parameters for fixing the wall height. As calculated earlier, the HFL level after construction of the
weir (u/s HFL) = 1768.51masl
Hence the level of divide wall and weir body foundation should be the same and is 1765.98m.asl
U/s wall height = U/s HFL – river bed level + free board, Adapt 0.6m free board
U/s wall height = 1768.51masl – 1765.98masl + 0.6m = 3.13m
Provide 3.13m wall height and the top level of the divide wall
=1765.98masl + 3.13m =1769.11masl
D/s wall height = (D/s HFL – river bed level) + free board
= 1767.51 masl – 1765.98masl + 0.6m =2.03m
Provide 2.03m wall heights at d/s end of the weir and the top level of the divide wall
= 1765.98masl + 2.03m=1768.01masl
Figure 5-1 retaining wall

5.5.2 U/s retaining wall stability analysis
Table 5-3 U/S retaing wall height determinations

River bed
level 1765.98 top 2
u/s HFL 1768.51 bottom 2.1
free board 0.6
wall ht= 3.13
water
depth 1.62
RL 1766.58
Table 5-4 U/S retaing wall stability analyisis

Lever Arm,
Code Load R Moment
Vertic Horizon Poseti Negat
al tal ve ive
W1 144.0 1.0 144.0
W2 3.6 2.0 7.3
w soil 0.981255 0.1
Ps 30.7 1.0 32.0
SUM 148.6 30.7 151.3 32.0
Table 5-5 U/S factor of safety against of retaing wall

Tension: X= (Net Moment/Sum Fv), e=x-B/2,
e<B/6 X 0.802734
B/6= 0.35 e 0.247266 <B/6 OK

5.5.3 D/s retaining wall stability analysis
Table 5-6 D/S retaing wall height determination
River bed level 1765.98 top 1.5

d/s HFL 1767.41 bottom 1.7
free board 0.6
wall ht= 2.03
water depth 1.62
RL 1766.58
Table 5-7 D/S retaing wall stability analyisis

Lever Arm,
Code Load R Moment
Vertic Horizon Poseti Negat
al tal ve ive
W1 70.0 0.8 52.5
W2 11.7 1.7 19.5
w soil 3.182025 0.3
Ps 12.9 0.7 8.7
SUM 84.9 12.9 72.0 8.7
Table 5-8 D/S factor of safety againsty of retaing wall

Tension: X= (Net Moment/Sum Fv), e=x-B/2,
e<B/6 X 0.74495
B/6= 0.33333 e 0.25505 <B/6 OK
Therefore, the proposed divide wall section is structurally stable. thus, bearing in mind the wall
height the load’s acting on the wall and the materials proposed for wall construction Provide
2m*2.1m*3.13m and 1.5m*1.7m*2.03m (top, bottom, and height) divide wall dimensions for U/s and
D/s respectively.
6 Main canal
The main canal runs almost along the contour line for a total length of 4000m and a capacity of
0.4m3/sec. It has two part depending up on the construction material and geological condition. In

which the first 2000m is a trapezoidal lined canal to avoid risks that comes from the river edge and to
minimize seepage lose, this increases efficiency of canal. The second part of the canal is unlined
canal of trapezoidal canal.
6.1 Main canal design

The main canal is designed to supply other canals for irrigated area. Hence to avoid scarcity of water
especially during supplement condition, it is designed for max expected base flow including loss
through the canal.
There design is shown in the following table using manning formula.
 Area =(b+mY)*Y
 wetted perimeter(P) =𝑏 + 2𝑌 ∗ √1 + 𝑚2
 hydraulic radius(R) =A/p
 canal depth (Y) = d+ free board
2 1
𝐴∗𝑅 3 ∗𝑆 2
Then the canal discharge (Q) = 𝑄= 𝑛
Where b is width of canal & y is depth of canal
n= manning coefficient
S = Slope of the canal and
m = is the side slope of the canal

Figure 6-1 main canal cross-section
Therefore from the above equation the dimension of the canal is calculates as follow
The full supply discharge of the canal =Duty*command area *correction factor (take 1.5)
1.38Lt/s/ha*200ha*1.5
= 414 l/s ~0.4m3/sec
The design discharge (Q) = 0.4𝑚3 /sec
Side slope of the canal (m) = 1.5
Average longitudinal bed slope of canal (S) = 0.001
Based on these a hydraulic economic efficient channel the one which can pass maximum
discharge with minimum perimeter is calculated using the formula
b/Y =1.6 or b = 1.6Y and A/Y2 =2.1
5
𝑄×𝑛 ((𝑏+𝑌)𝑌)3
1 = 2 …………….**
𝑆2 [𝑏+2𝑌×√1+𝑚2 ]3
Substitute b=1.6Y from equation **Y= 0.5m and b = 1.6*0.5= 0.8m
Therefore the canal dimensions are width (b) = 0.8m and canal depth (d)

d=Y +free board =0.5+0.2 =0.7m
6.2 Design of canal Head Regulator

The canal way gate should have a capacity of passing about 1.5 times base flow
1.5∗500𝑙/𝑠
Qs=1.5*base flow= = 0.75𝑚3 /𝑠
1000
The gate for canal head regulator is to be vertical sheet metal of size 0.7 m x 0.7m for the closure of
the opening space providing some extra dimensions for the groove insertion.
The area of the canal head regulator =h*w=0.7*0.7=0.49m2
Driving head,hd=h/2=0.7/2=0.35m
For the orifice flow, Qd=Cd*A√2𝑔ℎ = 0.6 ∗ 0.49√2 ∗ 9.81 ∗ 0.35 = 0.77𝑚3 /𝑠,safe
Table 6-1 design of canal head regulator
Description Undersluice gate

Height of gate, H 0.70
Width of gate, W 0.70
Groove depth, gt 0.05
Water Depth (maximum) 0.70
Silt Depth (maximum) 0.70
Allowable stress, ton/m2 16500.00
Unit weight of Water,
ton/m3 1.00
Unit weight of silt, ton/m3 0.35
Water Pressure, PW, (ton) 0.25
Silt Pressure Pressure, (ton) 0.09
Total Pressure, PT (ton) 0.33
Length (W+2*gt) 0.80
Moment Maximum,
M=P*L2/8 0.03
Thichness, t, m 0.004
Factor of safety, fs 3.00
s‫ﻻ‬ 7.85
(weight of gate), W1 (kg) 14.22

7 BILL OF QUANTITY
Table 7-1: Quantity of work
S/N Description No Unit Area Quantity

Weir Body , cut off and D/S
1 Apron
1.1 U/S cut off
Excavation 1 m3 56.0
3
Lean concrete 1 m 0.8
Reinforced concrete 1 m3 15.2
Reinforcement bar, φ16 380 Kg 749.3
1.2 D/S cut off
Excavation of Hard rock 1 m3 112.0
Lean concrete 1 m3 0.8
3
Reinforced concrete 1 m 32.0
1.3 D/S Apron
3
Cyclopean Concrete 1 m3 64.0
Reinforced concrete 1 m3 68.4
Reinforcement bar, φ16 440 kg 832.9
1.4 U/S Apron
3
1.5 Weir Body
Cyclopean Concrete 1 m3 0.81 30.8
3
Reinforced concrete 1 m 4.02 152.8
Form work 1 m2 129.6
2 Divide Wall
Excavation 1 m3 7.8
Masonry 1 m3 6.2
2
Masonry 1 m 1.2
3 Under Sluice
Excavation 1 m3 9.0
3
4 Operation Slab and Breat wall
Reinforced Concrete m3 0.3
Form work 1 m2 0.66
5 Retaining wall
5.1 U/S Retaining wall
Masonry 1 m3 55.6
3
Masonry 1 m 1.4
5.2 D/S Retaining wall 1.4
Masonry 1 m3 27.8
3
Masonry 1 m 0.2
8 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
EIA is discipline associated with feasibility checkup of a project against the environmental, social &
economical aspects.
In a broad sense EIA is the systematic process to identify, predict and evaluate the potential impact of
proposed action and project relative to:-
 Physical
 Biological
 Cultural and

 Socio economic component of a total environment.
8.1 General and Specific Objective of EIA

The general objective of EIA is to inform the process of decision making by identifying the
potentially significant impacts and risk of development proposals. The ultimate aim of EIA is,
To promote sustainable development by ensuring the development proposal and not undermine
critical resources and ecological functions or the well being, life style and livelihood of the
communities and the people who depend on them.
The specific objective (immediate objectives) of EIA includes:-
 Improving the environmentally friend design of the proposal

 Ensure the resources are used approximately & efficiently
 Identify approprpriate mitigation measure for the potential impacts of the
proposal and facilitates informed decision making
Long-term objectives of EIA include:-
 Protect human health and safety

 Avoid irreversible change and serious damage to the environment.
 Safeguard values, natural area and ecosystem components and
 Enhance the social aspects of the proposal
8.1.1 Screening
Screening is the process of EIA whether a project requires an EIA or not
International unions all major donor countries screens out whether a particular project needs to run
EIA or not. Different agencies and governments in the world have adopted different approaches.
Irrigation and agricultural related development projects are generally requiring a full EIA according
to agreed organizations.
8.1.2 Scoping
After screening & when decision has made for further environmental assessment of a project, the next
stage is to determine the scope of EIA study. Scoping helps the progress of EIA by identifying:-

a. The main problems and issues surrounding the project

b. The positive and negative impact of the project
c. The spatial and temporal institutional boundaries of the project and its impact
d. The data requirement for undertaking a full EIA
The main problems and the negative impact of Timbel diversion project are:-
i. Spreading transmission diseases like malaria

ii. Land acquisition
iii. Flooding during summer seasons
iv. Impact on down stream
The main positive impact is:-
i. Job opportunity of the society

ii. Productivity of the surrounding community
8.2 Impacts and their mitigation measures
Table 8-1impact and possible mitigation measures
S.No Description of Impacts Possible Mitigation measures
1. Reduction of air quality due to  Watering of the area from which dust is
generated.
Dust formation from construction
2. Loss of flora and fauna due to weir  locate projects far away from sensitive areas
construction in the site  carry out necessary rehabilitation measures when
phasing out a project
3. Disturbance of ecosystem because of  avoid construction materials during breeding
extraction of sand, gravel & rock for seasons in both water and terrestrial ecosystems
construction material.  avoid the use of dynamite(explosive)
4. Change of the living condition of  Construct fish ladders so that the fishes jump
and migrate against the flow of the water freely.
fish when its migration route is
blocked by constructions of weir.

5. Land use conflict may occur when  Compensation may need to be considered for
the area is occupied. those whose housing, land resources, welfare or
livelihood are directly affected by projects.
 give employment opportunity
6. Transmission of disease between  Sanitary or precaution measures can be
human and animals. accomplished through a comprehensive health
awareness campaign.
 Avoid stagnating water and give consecutive
awareness to reduce the occurrence of malaria
and other related diseases.
Source:- Dr. Belayneh Ayele, 2005 E.C. EIA lecture note, published by BDU college of
Agricultural and Environmental science, Bahir dar.

9 Conclusion and recommendation

The TIMBEL diversion irrigation project has been proposed to help the society living around that
place to be able to produce crops during dry season. The Timbel diversion irrigation project has
expected economic life time of 50 years and is effectively used to irrigate 200ha of command land
area.
In this project the ogee weir type is selected in order to dissipate the higher energy due to higher
discharge and boulders that comes from river flow. It is structurally safe but the design analysis and
construction of ogee type is difficult as compared to broad crested weir type.
In this design all parameters that suggested must be considered based on the given dimension and the
selected site. In order to get stable serviceability of the weir, canal, retaining wall and divide wall, the
construction material of the structure should be done based on the design manual and the appropriate
time.

10 Reference
1. Irrigation and Water Power Engineering Dr.B.C.Punmia Dr.Pande.B.B.LAL, 12th
Etd.Newdelhi, laxmi, publication, 1992.
2. Engineering Hydrology K Subramanya, third edition Tata McGrawl, 2008
3. Applied Hydrology, Ven Te Chow, DavidR.Maidment LarryW.mays
4. Irrigation, Waterpower & Water Resource Engineering, by Dr K.R. Arora third

edition August 2001.standared publisher distributer.
5. Irrigation Engineering and Hydraulic Structures by Santosh Kumar Garg,
6. IDD Manual

11 Appendices
Table 11-1 antecedent rainfall conditions and curve no (for Ia=0.2S)
Curve Number Factor to Convert Curve number for

Condition II to
for
Condition I Condition III
Condition II
10 0.40 2.22
20 0.45 1.85
30 0.50 1.67
40 0.55 1.50
50 0.62 1.40
60 0.67 1.30
70 0.73 1.21
80 0.79 1.14
90 0.87 1.07
100 1.00 1.00

Sr.No Type of soil Value of Safe Hydraulic gradient should be

C
less than
1 Fine sand 15 1/15
2 Coarse grained sand 12 1/12
3 Sand mixed with boulder and gravel 5 to 9 1/5 to 1/9
4 Light sand and mud 8 1/8
Table 11-2 unit weight of material

Unit weight of materials
Stone massonry KN/m^3 22.00
Mass concrete KN/m^3 23.00
Reinforced concrete KN/m^3 24.00
Water KN/m^3 10.00
specific weight of silt KN/m^3 18
Bottom width 2
Top width 1
weir height 1.62
tail water depth 1
He 1
α ( angle of internal friction) 25

Final Year Project of Hydraulic Engineering PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Final Year Project of Hydraulic Engineering PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bahir Dar University

School of Civil and Water Resource Engineering

Final year project

1. Asmamaw Mesfin 202/2001

Advisor:- Mr. Chalachew Abebe. (Msc. In Hydraulic structure)

Submission date June 18,2013

G.C 2005 WRED Page i

2 Hydrology Analysis .......................................................................................................... 3

3 HEAD WORK DESIGN ................................................................................................ 16

G.C 2005 WRED Page ii

3.4.5 Selection of Stilling Basin type ..................................................................................... 25

4 Structural design of the weir ......................................................................................... 37

5 Design of under Sluice, Divide wall,and Retaining Wall ............................................ 40

6 Main canal ....................................................................................................................... 46

7 BILL OF QUANTITY ................................................................................................... 50

8 Conclusion and recommendation .................................................................................. 55

G.C 2005 WRED Page iii

G.C 2005 WRED Page iv

G.C 2005 WRED Page v

AMC=Anticipated moisture condition

G.C 2005 WRED Page vi

G.C 2005 WRED Page vii

1.2 Objective of the project

1.2.1 Specific objectives

G.C 2005 WRED Page 1

1.2.2 General objectives

G.C 2005 WRED Page 2

1.4 Description of the Study Area

1.4.1 Site description

2.1 Meteorological data Availability

2.2 Data Consistency Test

2.3 Data Outlier Test

Table 2-1፡Daily havest rainfall data consistency test

G.C 2005 WRED Page 4

2.3.1 Checking data reliability

Mean ( 𝑋̅) =70.631mm

Standard error of mean, n  n1 = 5.37

b) Test for lower outlier

G.C 2005 WRED Page 5

2.4 Design Rain fall Computation

Where 𝑋𝑇 =the data of random hydrologic series with a return period T

𝑋̅= the mean value of the data

𝜎𝑛−1 = the standard deviation of the data

G.C 2005 WRED Page 6

𝑦𝑇 =the reduced variant for the given return period.

𝑌𝑛 =The reduced mean as a function of sample size N

𝑆𝑛 = the reduced standard deviation as a function of sample size N

2.5 Design Flood Analysis

G.C 2005 WRED Page 7

2.6 Design Storm Analysis

2.6.1 Time of concentration (Tc)

Elevation height dff.(m) L(m) L(km) Tc(hr)

2.6.2 Rainfall profile

G.C 2005 WRED Page 8

Design Point Rainfall = 113.58mm

2.6.3 Run off synthesis

Table 2-3 Design rainfall arrangements

0-1 113.58 45 51.11 51.11 1 1 6 3.41 3.41

2.6.4 Peak flood analysis by SCS unit hydrograph method

G.C 2005 WRED Page 9

The method involves

 Conversion of rain fall into discharge using the CN graph

Qd= CdL He3/2

Y=0.724(X+0.27Hd) 1.85/Hd0.85+0.126Hd-0.4315Hd0.375(X+0.27Hd) 0.65

The type of ogee selected is vertical u/s face. Hence X1.85=2He0.85y

relation 0.8 0.175Hd 0.282Hd 0.5Hd 0.2Hd