MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

ANRSIRRIGATION AND LOW LAND

DEVELOPMENTBUREAU

SOUTH GONDER ZONE DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION AND

LOW LAND DEVELOPMENT

MEHR SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT

FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN REPORT

Contents
Page 1
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

List of tables......................................................................................................................................4
List of figure......................................................................................................................................5
1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................7
1.1 GENERAL...............................................................................................................................7
1.2 LOCATION.............................................................................................................................8
1.3 Accessibility.............................................................................................................................9
1.4 Fieldwork.................................................................................................................................9
1.4 Objective of the Study.............................................................................................................9
1.4.1. Major Objective................................................................................................................9
1.4.2. Specific Objectives.........................................................................................................10
1.5 Methodology..........................................................................................................................11
1.6. Scope of the Study................................................................................................................11
2. HYDROLOGY............................................................................................................................12
2.1 Watershed characteristics.......................................................................................................12
2.2. HYDRO METEOROLOGICAL DATA ASSESSMENT AND VALIDATION................13
2.2.1 HYDROMETRIC DATA...............................................................................................13
2.2.3 METEOROLOGICAL DATA AVAILABILITY..........................................................14
2.3. DESIGN STORM DATA AVAILABILITY AND CHECKING........................................16
2.3.1CONDITIONS FOR UNGAGGED WATERSHED.......................................................16
2.3.2 Demand and Water balance.............................................................................................19
2.4 STORM DISTRIBUTION MODELS...................................................................................20
2.4.1 Determination of design return period............................................................................20
2.4.2 Design Rainfall Computation..........................................................................................20
2.5 DESIGN FLOOD DETERMINATION................................................................................22
2.5.1 Peak flood analysis by SCS unit hydrograph method.....................................................22
2.6 Determination of hydrograph duration..................................................................................27
2.6.1 Storm profile and aerial rainfall......................................................................................28
2.6.2 Design Rainfall Arrangement..........................................................................................29
2.6.3 Direct Run off Analysis...................................................................................................29
2.7 SCS Hydrograph analysis......................................................................................................31

Page 2
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

2.7.2 River Stage discharge analysis........................................................................................34

Discharge of the river...............................................................................................................34
2.7.3 River Channel Cross section...........................................................................................36
2.7.4 Existing water use and Irrigation Practices.....................................................................37
3 SECTION-II: HEAD WORK DESIGN.......................................................................................38
3.1 Headwork Structure Design...................................................................................................38
3.1.1 Headwork site selection..................................................................................................38
3.1.2 Hydraulic design of headwork structure.........................................................................39
3.1.3 Determination of Upstream & Downstream High flood level (HFL).............................43
3.1.4 Hydraulic jump Computation..........................................................................................45
3.1.5 Depth of U/S & D/s Cutoff.............................................................................................48
3.2 Stability analysis of the weir..................................................................................................53
3.3 Retaining wall........................................................................................................................59
4.1 Irrigable area description.......................................................................................................66
4.1.1 Topography and soil........................................................................................................66
4.1.2 Drainage canals design.....................................................................................................66
4.1.3 Canal Off-Takes/Turnouts/........................................................................................66
4.6.2. Crossing structures....................................................................................................67
Method of water application and irrigation efficiency determination......................................67
4.2.1. Irrigation Efficiency.......................................................................................................67
4.2.1 Irrigation Duty.................................................................................................................67
4.3 Hydraulic Design of irrigation canals....................................................................................68
4.3.1 Main canal section selection...........................................................................................68
5. Conclusion and Recommendation...............................................................................................71
6. Bill off Quantity...........................................................................................................................72
7.References....................................................................................................................................77

List of tables

Page 3
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Table 1: Debre Tabor Daily Heaviest Rainfall Data.................................................15

Table 2: Sample Analysis for Debre Tabor Rainfall Station....................................17
Table 3: Peak rainfall estimates using different statistical distributions...................21
Table 4: Test for goodness to fit using D-index........................................................21
Table 5: Determination of Time of Concentration....................................................23
Table 6: Meher watershed slope class.......................................................................25
Table 7: land use coverage of Meher watershed.......................................................25
Table 8: soil texture...................................................................................................26
Table 9: Design arrangement....................................................................................29
Table 10: curve number determination.....................................................................30
Table 11: Direct runoff analysis................................................................................31
Table 12: Synthetic hydrograph................................................................................32
Table 13: River discharge computation at different stager depth.............................35
Table 14: Weir Height Determination......................................................................41
Table 15: Impervious apron thickness......................................................................50

List of figure
Page 4
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Figure 1: location of Meher watershed.......................................................................9

Figure 2: Drainage map of Meher watershed...........................................................13
Figure 3: Trend of daily heaviest rainfall in Debretabor station..............................15
Figure 4: Google earth map of the watershed...........................................................23
Figure 5: Meher watershed slope class....................................................................24
Figure 6: land use coverage of Meher watershed.....................................................26
Figure 7: Soil texture.................................................................................................27
Figure 8: Percent Rainfall Profile Chart for 24 hr. Storm.........................................28
Table 9: Design arrangement....................................................................................29
Figure 9: Synthetic hydrograph.................................................................................33
Figure 8: Longitudinal slope.....................................................................................34
Figure 9: Tail water depth graph...............................................................................36
Figure 10: The river cross-section for Meher weir axis............................................37
Figure 11: Photo showing at Headwork site.............................................................39
Figure 12: energy level.............................................................................................43
Figure 13: Comparison of tail water rating curve and post jump curve...................47
Figure 14: force at high flood condition...................................................................49
Figure 15: plan view of the construction..................................................................51
Figure 16: Weir section view....................................................................................52
Figure 17: U/S retaining wall section view...............................................................63
Figure 18: Downstream retaining wall section view................................................64
Figure 19: main canal section view...........................................................................71
Figure 20: Foot path (road crossing) structure plan for main canal..........................72
Figure 21: section B-B..............................................................................................72
Figure 22: under sluice gate......................................................................................73
Figure 23: canal and turn out gate.............................................................................73
Figure24: store and office plan view.........................................................................74
Figure 25: Store and office front elevation...............................................................75
Figure 26: Store and office R. elevation...................................................................75

Page 5
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

SALIENT FEATURES AND ACRONYMS

Salient Features:
Name of the project: Meher Diversion Irrigation Project
Location of the Weir site using
 Amhara Region
 South Gondar Zone
 GunaBegemdirWoreda
 AtaKeble
 Accessibility from woreda town: 10km
 Easting: ……….UTM 412417.649
 Northing: ……….UTM 1303258.839
 Altitude: ………. 2927.526 m
Climate

Selected Meteorology station:

 For watershed : Debretabor Station

 Number of design storm Data: 28
 Design rainfall: 85.01 mm
Hydrology

 Selected Return period: 50

 Catchment area: 5.84 km2
 Average curve number : 93.3
 Longest flow path length: 5.06Km
 Time of concentration: 0.83hr
 Hydrograph duration :0.14hr
 Selected Design flood: 54.78 m3/sec
 Design base flow: 45lit/s
Headwork structure: Weir type: Broad Crested Masonry Weir

 Gross crest length: 15 m

 Height: 2.6 m

Page 6
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

 Weir crest level: 2929.63m.a.s.l

 U/S HFL: 2931.18m.a.s.l
 D/s HFL: 2928.74 m a.s.l
Under sluice

 Number of undersluice : 1
 Dimension:1m X 1m
Irrigation and drainage systems Infrastructure
 Command area size:35.4ha
 Design discharge of the main canal: 40.5 lit/sec
 No of main canal: 1
 Beneficiary number male 90, female 30 and a total of 120
Project cost (without VAT)

General Items Cost = 260,000.00 Eth.Birr

Headwork Cost = 5,014,866.47 Eth. Birr

Irrigation Infrastructure Cost = 7,497,672.89 Eth. Birr

Total Project Cost with vat= 14,688,420.26Eth.Birr

Cost per hectare= 414,927.13 Eth. Birr

Page 7
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL
Ethiopia has an irrigation potential of 5.3 million ha (Mha) of which 3.7 Mha can be developed
using surface water sources, and 1.6 Mha using groundwater and rainwater management.
Irrigation contributes to rapid transformation of agriculture as present-day agriculture is
dominated by rain fed single crops. The current irrigation development in Ethiopia is about 0.7
Mha, and the performance of the existing schemes is not well understood. As the country is
planning to expand irrigated agriculture in the next five years, it will be useful to review existing
performance and to identify areas for interventions that help revitalize underperforming systems.

It is also known that, Ethiopian government is running to alleviate the impact of persistent famine
and draught in the whole country. This project is considering as part of an effort to assure and
enhance food security and improve the living standard of the farmers through a small-scale
irrigation development. This can be achieved by working together with the community, local and
international NGOs and the government organizations so as to use all the available resources
efficiently. The study and design work of MeherIrrigation Project is carried out by S/Gondar zone
irrigation and lowland development department collaboration with woreda irrigation and low land
development office.

This project was conceived as part of an effort to guarantee and enhance food security and
improve the living standard of the farmers through a small-scale irrigation development. The
project is designed the development of 35.4 hectares of farmers managed small-scale irrigation
scheme. The major source of water for this project is MeherRiver. The position of the weir axis is
fixed based on the minimum relative elevation requirement of the command. The irrigation is
gravitational irrigation system.

1.2 LOCATION
MeherDiversion Irrigation project is found in Amhara National Regional State, South Gondar
Zone, and GunaBegemdirWoreda inAtaKeble. It is located about 10km from Woreda town
Kimrdingay. The weir site at the left side bench mark (BM1) is located at a Geographic

Page 8
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Coordinate of 412417.649 (UTM) Easting, 1303258.839 (UTM) Northing and Altitude of

2927.526 meters.

Figure 1: location of Meher watershed

1.3 Accessibility
Taking our point of reference from the project woreda town, Kimrdingay.it is found after a
journey of 13km in the downstream side of asphalt road in the way ofKimrdingay to gassy.

1.4 Fieldwork

It includes surveying works, visual observation about the geological conditions of the head work
area, gathering firsthand information from the project area elders, and discussion among the study
team members and woreda experts about the technical and social aspects of the project where
conducted.

Page 9
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

1.4 Objective of the Study

1.4.1. Major Objective

The project area faces variability of rainfall distribution though the overall rainfall generally
suffices the rain-fed agriculture. Accordingly, the rain-fed agriculture needs means of
supplementing during distribution failures and further full irrigation is required to maximize the
use of the potential land and water resources. Hence the objective of this project is to contribute a
substantial share in the effort to reduce the risk of production decrease due to rainfall variability
and increase the productivity of the resource in the project specific area. Specifically, the project
is targeted for the following.

 To make sustainable the rain-fed crop production and make extra production in the dry
season possible for 35.4ha of land through irrigation.
 There is a general consensus that irrigation investments will achieve broader food security
and poverty reduction impacts and if efforts are also geared towards up-grading existing
traditional farming practices with support to enhance access to input supply, output
marketing and extension to facilitate access to information and innovations.

1.4.2. Specific Objectives

Other benefits that can be expected to appear with the launching of the project are:

 Efficiency of water use improvement;

 Improved local nutrition/food security gains;
 Improved management of scarce natural resources (land and water);
 Resilience against drought risk;
 Rationale for erosion control and watershed management;
 Rationale for the intensification and modernization of small-holder agriculture and rural
lifestyles.
The engineering study and design enables the realization of the project by the provision of
engineering structures that will allow the appropriate abstraction of the river water for delivery in
to the identified irrigation fields of the study area. Hence, this engineering design is specifically
targeted to:

Page 10
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

 Analyze hydrologic requirements of the project and engineering structures;

 The formulation of sound and stable structure, with necessary provisions that allow safe,
easy and low-maintenance operation in the service life of the project;
 Estimation of construction costs.

1.5 Methodology
In the study and design procedure, Designers used the following steps.
 Site identification:
 GIS information
 Local farmer’s interview and discussion with consultation Woreda and Zone
irrigation and lowland development sector expertise
 On foot travel along the river channel and farm areas
 Topographic survey:
 Surveying the head work area with sufficient radius to u/s and d/s reaches, using
total station.
 Flow estimation
 Physical observation on flood mark indications and local information about high
flood
 base flow measurement of the river
 Analyzing the recorded meteorological data and use watershed inputs for further
analysis.
 Irrigable area identification:
 Using local information
 GPS
 Arc GIS/Arc SWAT is used for watershed delineation

1.6. Scope of the Study

Scope of the study focuses on the following major activities:-
 Studying and adaptation of the river watershed parameters for hydrological
analysis and watershed rehabilitation purpose.
 Collect, analyze and interpretation of daily rainfall from nearby meteorological
station and use for design flood estimation of the project.
Page 11
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

 Measuring and interpretation of base flow of river.

 Propose suitable type of structure to use the water resource for irrigation without
disturbing catchment water balance of the area.
 Planning and layout of the irrigation system, which include irrigation canals ,
alignments, canal spacing, canal length, location of structures, and water profiles
along canal and drains at specified reaches, which is most economical easily
manageable and aligned with topographic feature and geological investigation.

2. HYDROLOGY

2.1 Watershed characteristics

MeherRiverisungaugedPerennialRiverThelocationofthediversionsiteisattheplacewhere the
riverhasgot out toSteep slopechannel reach.
Meher diversionirrigationprojectisa newsite,whichhasbeenrecentlystudiedbythe
zoneteamofexperts.Therearedtraditionaldiversionson thedownstream
ofMeherriversirrigationproject.TheMeherRiverdiversionprojectslocatedin south Gondar
zoneGunabegemdirworeda.
Catchment area = 5.84km2
Longest flow length = 5.061km
The major land use types in the watershed include forest, Cultivated, shrub, grassland and Rock
surface. All the watershed parameters have been determined by using Digital Elevation Model of
20x20m resolution. By using Arc GIS and field ground frothing or data collection, the average
Curve Number in Antecedent Moisture Condition II is found to be 84.98. All the details of the
watershed characterization and development plan is shown in the watershed report.

Page 12
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Figure 2: Drainage map of Meher watershed

2.2. HYDRO METEOROLOGICAL DATA ASSESSMENT AND VALIDATION

2.2.1 HYDROMETRIC DATA

Hydrologists and designers are faced with lack of good or non-recorded hydrometric data on the
target stream/river and on local weather and climate conditions. Stream gauging stations are non-
existent in remote rural areas of the region and even meteorological stations are almost rare near
small rivers in the region. Likewise, at the watershed ofMeher River, there is neither gauged river
nor meteorological station. Therefore investigating other stations near the project area is the
primary step in hydrological analysis of the given Meherwatershed.

Page 13
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

2.2.3 METEOROLOGICAL DATA AVAILABILITY

Rainfall and other related meteorological data availability is core for any projects that inquire
hydrological analysis. However, sufficiently availability of such data in a required position is
rarely happening phenomena in developing countries. One meteorological station available
outside of the watershed has been investigated for which station is nearest either to the command
area or to the watershed or to both. This site is DebretaborMeteorological coordinates for such
sites are collected.

2.2.3.1 Dependable rainfall calculation

The rainfall contributes to a greater or lesser extent in satisfying CWR, depending on the location.
During the rainy season, a great part of the crop's water needs are covered by rainfall, while
during the dry season, the major supply of water should come from irrigation. To be used for
CWR calculation to represent average climatic conditions, The amount of rainfall which can be
depended upon in out of 4 or 5 years corresponding to a 75 or 80% probability of exceedance and
representing a dry year. Usually the dependable rainfall (80%) is used for the design of the
irrigation system capacity. This dependable data is to be used in crop water requirement
calculation by either agronomist or irrigation engineers the detail analysis are refer to (agronomy
report).

2.2.3.2 Daily Heaviest Rainfall Data

Daily heaviest rainfall data is mainly used to compute the design flood from design storm in order
that the design flood can be used again for design of diversion headwork structure. For design
storm computation purpose, Debre Tabor stations are nearer stations for the watershed. Though
the station has relatively more records, Therefore records of years having no missed data are
taken. For this design 28 years, daily maximum rainfall data is process .The following annual
series data was used in storm frequency analysis.

Page 14
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

S.No. Year Max RF (xi) S.No. Year Max RF (xi)

1 1980 42.3 15 1994 81.6
2 1981 50.6 16 1995 42
3 1982 47 17 1996 69.4
4 1983 35.5 18 1997 60
5 1984 45.1 19 1998 55.5
6 1985 69.9 20 1999 59.5
7 1986 57.4 21 2000 49.4
8 1987 44.6 22 2001 42
9 1988 85 23 2002 60.2
10 1989 67.7 24 2003 44.2
11 1990 55.5 25 2004 80
12 1991 47.3 26 2005 66.2
13 1992 62.7 27 2006 41.3
14 1993 81.3 28 2007 44.7
Table 1: Debre Tabor Daily Heaviest Rainfall Data
Figure 3: Trend of daily heaviest rainfall in Debretabor station

annual maximium RF trend

90
80
70
60
f(x) = 0.149890530925014 x − 242.0960591133 Max RF (xi)
50 R² = 0.00764900547293479 Linear (Max RF (xi))
40
30
20
10
0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Page 15
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

2.3. DESIGN STORM DATA AVAILABILITY AND CHECKING

2.3.1CONDITIONS FOR UNGAGGED WATERSHED

For ungauged watersheds or no at site data case, design flood can usually be determined by
estimating the runoff that results from an occurrence of design storm based on meteorological
factors. This hydro-meteorological based flood estimating approach is necessary and the only way
out because stream flow records often are not available at the required diversion weir site level.
The volume of runoff associated with peak discharge and its time distribution is of vital concern
to the designers, who usually need a hydrograph of the inflow design flood for computing flood
routing. United States Soil Conservation Service (SCS) method is the mostly used method
suggested by the US Soil Conservation Service in 1972. It is basically an empirical model more
sophisticated than rational method since it also considers the time distribution of the rainfall, the
initial rainfall losses due to interception and depression storage, and an infiltration rate that
decreases during the course of a storm. Actually the reliability and adequacy of data should be
checked for use in flood frequency analysis to estimate best. Therefore, fulfilling the requirement
of reliable data will be the primary step in weir design. Compilation of the data requirements,
selection of more widely used and accepted hydrologic distribution model, equations and charts
will be the basic task that should be investigated during study.

Page 16
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Rain fall analysis of Debre Tabor weather station

Descending Wuibul Formula
S.No. Year Max RF (xi) Rank (m) (Xi-X')^2 Y= log xi (Y-Y')^2 (Y-Y')^3
Order (R/ (N+1))*100
1 1980 42.3 85 1 207.67 1.63 0.0132 -0.0015 1.16
2 1981 50.6 81.6 2 37.34 1.70 0.0014 -0.0001 2.42
3 1982 47 81.3 3 94.30 1.67 0.0048 -0.0003 3.65
4 1983 35.5 80 4 449.89 1.55 0.0364 -0.0070 4.94
5 1984 45.1 69.9 5 134.81 1.65 0.0076 -0.0007 7.05
6 1985 69.9 69.4 6 173.96 1.84 0.0107 0.0011 8.52
7 1986 57.4 67.7 7 0.48 1.76 0.0003 0.0000 10.19
8 1987 44.6 66.2 8 146.67 1.65 0.0084 -0.0008 11.90
9 1988 85 62.7 9 800.28 1.93 0.0355 0.0067 14.13
10 1989 67.7 60.2 10 120.76 1.83 0.0080 0.0007 16.34
11 1990 55.5 60 11 1.47 1.74 0.0000 0.0000 18.03
12 1991 47.3 59.5 12 88.56 1.67 0.0044 -0.0003 19.83
13 1992 62.7 57.4 13 35.87 1.80 0.0032 0.0002 22.26
14 1993 81.3 55.5 14 604.63 1.91 0.0285 0.0048 24.78
15 1994 81.6 55.5 15 619.48 1.91 0.0291 0.0050 26.55
16 1995 42 50.6 16 216.41 1.62 0.0139 -0.0016 31.01
17 1996 69.4 49.4 17 161.02 1.84 0.0100 0.0010 33.73
18 1997 60 47.3 18 10.82 1.78 0.0014 0.0001 37.27
19 1998 55.5 47 19 1.47 1.74 0.0000 0.0000 39.58
20 1999 59.5 45.1 20 7.78 1.77 0.0011 0.0000 43.38
21 2000 49.4 44.7 21 53.45 1.69 0.0022 -0.0001 45.95
22 2001 42 44.6 22 216.41 1.62 0.0139 -0.0016 48.25
23 2002 60.2 44.3 23 12.18 1.78 0.0015 0.0001 50.77
24 2003 44.2 42.2 24 156.52 1.65 0.0092 -0.0009 55.56
25 2004 80 42 25 542.39 1.90 0.0262 0.0042 58.14
26 2005 66.2 42 26 90.05 1.82 0.0064 0.0005 60.47
27 2006 41.3 41.3 27 237.49 1.62 0.0157 -0.0020 63.83
28 2007 44.7 35 28 144.26 1.65 0.0082 -0.0007 77.78
Sum 1,587.90 1,587.40 406.00 5,366.39 48.75 0.301 0.0068
Mean 56.71 56.69 14.50 191.66 1.74 0.01 0.0002
St. Dev. 13.84 13.87 8.08 210.23 0.10 0.011 0.0025
Cs 0.231
Max 85
Min 35.5

Table 2: Sample Analysis for Debre Tabor Rainfall Station

Data for the station is prepared for quality checking of its stationary, consistency and outliers
which will be essential for use in flood analysis. The station data is checked and the quality is
accepted however, the detail analysis procedure for Debre Tabor station is presented here.

Data Consistency Test

The daily heaviest rainfall data of Debretabor metrological station from 1980 to 2007 is taken for
the design. Hence 28 years of daily heaviest rainfall data is available. These data is checked for its
consistency and reliability.

Page 17
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Checking Data Reliability

Number of data (n) =28

Standard deviation,
δ n−1 = 13.84

Mean, X=56.71 mm
δ n−1
δ n=
Standard error of mean, √n = 2.6

Relative standard,
δ n / x *100 = (2.6/56.71)*100= 4.6 %< 10%
Hence the data series could be regarded as reliable and adequate.

Data Outlier Test

This is done to check whether the adopted data is within the limited range or not.
Input data:
∑ RF=1587.9 mm
X=
∑ RF = 1587.9 mm =56.71
N 28
∑ Y =48.75 mm
Y=
∑ Y = 48.75 =1.74
N 28
∑ (Y −Y )2=0.301 ∑ ( Y −Y )3=0.006 8
S y=
√ ∑ ( Y −Y )2 =
( N −1 ) √ 0.301 =0.106
27

N ∑ ( Y i −Y )
3
28∗0.0068
C s= 3
= =0.23
( N−1 ) ( N−2 ) S y ( 28−1 )( 28−2 )∗( 0.106 )3
Tests for Outliers
Consideration of the outliers depends on the value of skew nests. If coefficient of skew nestsis
b/n -0.4 and +0.4 , we consider both Higher and the lower outliers, in our case Cs is 0.23 so there
is no need of checking the data for lower and higher outliers.

Page 18
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Test for both higher and lower outlier

−

Lower outlierY l =Y −K n S y
−
Where: Y = mean of data in log unity
K n = From table for sample size N

From Table for data N=22,Y =1.74 S y =0.106 , K n=2.534and

Skewness coefficients
C s =0.23
Y L=Y −K ns S y =1.74−2.534∗0.106=1.48
1.48
Loweroutlier=( 10 ) =30.09 mm
The Lowest recorded value is (35.5 mm) which is greater than lower outlier (30.09 mm). Hence,
no lower outlier.
Y H =Y + K ns S y =1.74+ 2.534∗0.106=2.008
2.008
Hig h er outlier=( 10 ) =100.09 mm
The highest recorded value is (85mm) which is lower than the higher outlier (100.09mm).Hence,
no higher outlier. Therefore, the recorded data is consistent for both outliers and it is possible to
use it for analysis.

2.3.2 Demand and Water balance

In this section it is tried to plan the size of the irrigable area that the project supports considering
the water potential available, D/s utilization allowance and crop water requirement. Daily crop
water requirement is estimated. In critical seasons, the total water requirement for the estimated
hectare is found by multiplying the total hectare with demand.

Meher River is Perennial River. The minimum base flow was estimated on April, 2015 E.C to be
45 l/s. Inside the command of the headwork project there is traditional irrigation scheme that will
be alleviated thereby improving water utilization efficiency, and also downstream of the headwork
project, there is irrigation practice using this river Therefore, there will be release of d/s allowance
from the minimum base flow. The base flow 45l/s is not fulfilling the demand or the command
35.4 ha .therefore to fulfill this demand worked by using rotation of water. Therefore design the
system for 45 l/s for dry seasons.

Page 19
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

 Maximum duty of irrigation = 1.14l/sec/ha

 Irrigation hour, = 18hr
 Over all irrigation efficiency = 54%(From Agronomic Report)
 Net irrigation area = 35.4ha.
 Maximum available Water = 40.5 L/s
The project structures are designed by using 40.5l/sec base flow.

2.4 STORM DISTRIBUTION MODELS

2.4.1 Determination of design return period

For our diversion weir structure, 50 years return period has been selected to be used in the
following distributions.

2.4.2 Design Rainfall Computation

After checking the consistency of the data for higher and lower outlier, the 28 years data is obtained as
representative for the analysis. The probability of occurrence of maximum probable rainfall is estimated by
the following methods as shown below.

2.4.2.1 Selection of Distribution

The observed data was tested using different statistical distributions. The most commonly used
distributions to fit extreme rainfall events are: Normal, Gumbell Extreme Value Type I, Log
Normal, Pearson Type III and Log Pearson Type III. The results of the analysis are shown in the
following table.

S.
Method XT remark
N

85.6
1 Normal Distribution -
7

Page 20
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

90.8
2 Lognormal Distribution -
0

93.5
3 Log-Peason Type-III Distribution Largest
3

87.3
4 Pearson Type III Method -
9

93.2
5 Gumble'S Method (EVI Type I) Larger
6

Table 3: Peak rainfall estimates using different statistical distributions

2.4.2.2 Index test
The D-Index test is believed to be the better goodness to fitness test in many literatures. Hence in
this study it is used to determine the best statistical distribution to estimate the peak rainfall. The
D-index for the comparison of the fit of various distributions in upper tail is given as

D-index = (1/Xm)*
Log Log Pearson Pearson Type Gumbel EVI
Rank Xi Normal
Normal Type III III Method

Xi-X' Xi-X' Xi-X' Xi-X' Xi-X'

1 85.00 5.45 3.30 2.10 4.60 2.21

2 81.60 7.23 6.89 6.54 6.97 3.62

3 81.30 10.45 10.98 11.02 10.48 8.89

4 80.60 12.55 13.60 13.85 12.77 12.26

5 69.90 4.26 5.63 6.02 4.61 4.84

6 69.40 5.94 7.50 7.96 6.37 7.12

Sum 45.87 47.89 47.49 45.80 38.94

D-Index 0.809 0.845 0.837 0.808 0.687

- - - - Ok!

Table 4: Test for goodness to fit using D-index

Page 21
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

The distribution giving the least D-index is considered to be the best-fit distribution. The smallest
D index value is found to be for the Gumble distribution, but the maximum point rain fall
distribution to be forlog Pearson Type III distributions.To summarize, selecting a distribution,
which generates the higher value of storm and the minimum D-Index value at the same way here
called Gumble distribution, will be safer for design of weirs and appurtenant structures
accordingly, the design rainfall was found to be 85.01 mm.

2.5 DESIGN FLOOD DETERMINATION

2.5.1 Peak flood analysis by SCS unit hydrograph method

For ungagged rivers, the design flood can be simulated by using SCS unit hydrograph method.
The computation is done using design rainfall or storm estimated earlier, In the hydrologic
analysis of flood using SCS method, rainfall amount and storm distribution; catchment area, shape
and orientation; ground cover; type of soil; slopes of terrain and stream(S); antecedent moisture
conditionIII; Storage potential (over bank, ponds, wetlands, reservoirs, channel, etc.) can be used
and all such data shall be carefully determined before proceeding to SCS simulation.

Time of concentration (Tc)

The time of concentration of a watershed is often defined to be the time required for a parcel of
runoff to travel from the most hydraulically distant part of a watershed to the outlet. The concept
of time of concentration is useful for describing the time response of a watershed to a driving
impulse, watershed runoff. In the context of the SCS method time of concentration is used to
determine the flood duration period for SCS method.

Where: T = time of concentration (hr), L = length of main channel (m), and, S = slope of main
channel.

Page 22
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Figure 4: Google earth map of the watershed

Time of concentration (Tc)

ID Shape_Leng(m) Zmin(m) Zmax(m) slope (slope)^.5 Tc(hr)

1 918.91 3837 3873 0.039 0.20 0.22

2 530.73 3100 3157 0.107 0.33 0.10

3 290.35 3157 3292 0.465 0.68 0.04

4 931.97 3292 3412 0.129 0.36 0.14

5 727.93 3412 3529 0.161 0.40 0.11

6 404.72 3529 3650 0.299 0.55 0.05

7 359.87 3650 3750 0.278 0.53 0.05

8 320.82 3750 3837 0.271 0.52 0.05

9 576.03 3873 4062 0.328 0.57 0.07

total 5061.32 Tc 0.83

Table 5: Determination of Time of Concentration

Page 23
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Slope class
The watershed area slope class of22% is rolling 34% of hilly 30% of mountainous 11%of soft to
moderate. There is also a very small flat (3%). The soil type of the watershed is clay.

Figure 5: Meher watershed slope class

Page 24
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

slope-class
ID area(Km2) slope class area ratio
1 Mountainous 1.75 0-3.5 30%
2 Hilly 2.01 3.5-10 34%
3 Rolling 1.28 10-25 22%
4 Soft to moderate 0.63 25-45 11%
5 flat 0.17 >45 3%
total 5.84 100%

Table 6: Meher watershed slope class

Land cover on the Watershed
From the total watershed area 89% is agricultural land, 4.2% Shrub and Bush Land, 2.4% grass
land and small amount (3.4%) is covered by forest,0.7covered byDerange there is also a very
small built up area (0.2%) in the catchment. The soil type of the watershed is clay.
land use
ID Name area(km2) area ratio area ratio in number

1 Drange 0.04 0.7% 0.007

2 Forest 0.20 3.4% 0.034

3 grass-land 0.14 2.4% 0.024

4 Settlement 0.01 0.2% 0.002

5 shrub-land 0.25 4.2% 0.042

6 cultivated land 5.20 89.1% 0.891

Total 5.84 100% 1.000

Table 7: land use coverage of Meher watershed

Page 25
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Figure 6: land use coverage of Meher watershed

soil texture
Name area(km2) area ratio in number
Id
Texture area area ratio
1 CLAY 5.84 100%
total 5.84 100%

Table 8: soil texture

Page 26
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Figure 7: Soil texture

2.6 Determination of hydrograph duration

As computed in table 7 time of concentration ,US SCS found that duration of rainfall is equal to
one sixth of time of concentration i.e D= Tc/6 = 0.83/6=0.14hr.time of concentration is around
0.83 hours. Therefore, the time increment is TC/6 =0.83/6 = 0.14 hour. Hence, the time increment
can be taken as 0.14 hours.

 Time to peak, TP =0.5*D+0.6*TC=0.5*0.14+0.6*0.83=0.564hr

 Base time, Tb=2.67∗TP=1.51hr
 Lag time, TL=0.6∗TC=0.5hr
 The peak unit rate of discharge QP=0.21*A/Tp=0.21*3.17/0.54=2.17 m3/s/mm

Page 27
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

2.6.1 Storm profile and aerial rainfall

A typical application of the SCS method includes the determination of 24hr distribution of rainfall
over catchment. The storm value based on the selected distribution is assumed to fall in 24 hrs
time starting at the onset of rainfall. Usually this 24 hr rainfall distribution produces the peak
storm at the middle. Based on this assumption for rainfall duration interval of D, the relationship
between duration and rainfall in 24 hr. will be progressive and above 6hrs almost constant. Then
from this graph the % rainfall profile for 24 hr. One major important issue is the design storm is
point storm which should then be converted over the entire watershed. Most commonly tabular
method is used as stated by US SCS method (1972). This is known as the Aerial to point rainfall
ratio table which was formed from watershed size versus rainfall durations of 24 hrs. The table is
annexed at the end of this paper. From determination of rainfall excess duration, the design storm
over the watershed area will be divided into six durations from 0-0.14, 0.14-0.28, 0.28-0.42, 0.42-
0.56, 0.56-0.7, and 0.7-0.84. Therefore, from24 hr. rainfall profile graph and aerial to point table,
values will be taken for each duration from 0.14-0.84 hrs.

Figure 8: Percent Rainfall Profile Chart for 24 hr. Storm

2.6.2 Design Rainfall Arrangement

Input data
Page 28
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

 Length of duration D is known; 0.14hr

 Design storm is computed and known; 85.01 mm
 Look at two important Tabulated data values a) Rainfall profile % in 24 hrs the graph
given b) Arial to point rainfall ratio for the given catchments area given from table for the
area and each duration of hours.
Based on the assumption that the peak lies at the middle, SCS method showed a design
arrangement of 6, 4,3,1,2 and 5 based on the ranks of incremental rainfall as shown in table.

Areal to
Increm Design
Rainfall point Descen Descen
Duration Daily point Rainfall ARF ental Design Increme
profile rainfall ding ding
(hr) rainfall(mm) Profile (%) % RF(mm order ntal
(mm) ratio order order
) Rainfall
(%)

0-0.14 17 14.54 13.5 13.5 13.50 1 6 3.97

0.14-
22 18.82 17.5 4.0 6.35 2 4 6.35
0.28

0.28-
26 22.24 20.6 3.2 6.35 3 3 6.35
0.42
85.52
0.42-
30 25.66 23.8 3.2 6.35 4 1 13.50
0.56

0.56-0.7 38 32.50 0.9 30.2 6.4 6.35 5 2 6.35

0.7-0.84 43 36.78 34.1 4.0 3.97 6 5 6.35

Table 9: Design arrangement

2.6.3 Direct Run off Analysis

A relationship between accumulated rainfall and accumulated runoff was derived by SCS from
experimental plots for numerous soils and vegetative cover conditions. The most critical
assumption of the SCS method is that the ratio of the actual retention to the potential retention is
the same as the ratio of actual runoff to potential runoff, but this assumption has not been
theoretically or empirically justified. The runoff curve number, CN, is then related

Page 29
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

CN has a range from 30 to 100, and the equation is in metric unit; lower numbers indicate low
runoff potential while larger numbers are for increasing runoff potential. The lower the curve
number, the more permeable the soil is. Hydrologic soil cover Curve number (CN) obtained from
a table against land cover, Hydrologic soil cover and the wet antecedent moistures condition III
(AMC-III) is taken .if it is in AMC- II form, will be converted using the following relationship:

23∗AMCII
Conversion Formula, AMC III =
10+ 0.13∗AMCII

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
N sum of sum of
area hydrologic hydrologic Curve No Weighted
o Land Cover weighted weighted
ratio condition soil group
CN CN CN II CN III
1 forest 0.03 good D 77 2.62
2 grass-land 0.02 good D 80 1.92
3 settlement 0.002 good D 86 0.17 84.98 93.3
4 shrub-land 0.04 - D 73 3.07
5 cultivated land 0.89 good D 86 76.63
6 derange 0.01 D 82 0.57

Table 10: curve number determination

To come to computation of direct runoff the major Input data values for Meherwatershed are
Curve number at antecedent moisture condition III = 93.3and Catchment Area, A = 5.84 Km 2.
Hence direct run-off, Q can be computed using the equation:

( P−0.2∗S )
Q=
( P+0.8∗S )

Where, p= Rearranged cumulative run-off depth (mm), S = Maximum run off potential difference,
In using this equation, Note that when P < 0.2*S, the negative squared results wrong values and
hence in this case, the values will be set to zero.

S= ( 25400
92.72 )
−254

Page 30
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Peak incremental run-off which was found in m 3/s/mm can now be converted to m 3/s by
multiplying with incremental direct runoff;

Q P=0.21∗ ( A∗Q
T )
P

Where, Qp = peak flood for each duration in m 3/s, A= Catchment area (Km2), Tp=Time to peak
(hr), Q = Incremental run-off (mm).

35 36 37 38 39 40

24 25 26

Duration(hr Cumulative incremental peak run of Time of Time Time remark

) run off run off increment beginning to peak to end hydrograph

hr mm mm m3/s hr hr hr time vs Q

0-0.14 0.0 0.0 0.01 0 0.56 1.51 H1

0.14-0.28 0.5 0.5 1.07 0.14 0.70 1.64 H2

0.28-0.42 5.5 5.0 10.80 0.28 0.84 1.78 H3

0.42-0.56 15.8 10.3 22.44 0.41 0.98 1.92 H4

0.56-0.7 21.2 5.4 11.82 0.55 1.11 2.06 H5

0.7-0.84 26.9 5.6 12.27 0.69 1.25 2.19 H6

Table 11: Direct runoff analysis

2.7 SCS Hydrograph analysis

A hydrograph is a graph showing the rate of flow (discharge) versus time past a specific point or
diversion point in a river. The rate of flow is typically expressed in metric units of cubic meters
per second (m3/s). It consists of the following basic parameters. The rising limb of hydrograph,
also known as concentration curve, reflects a prolonged increase in discharge from a catchment
area, typically in response to a rainfall event. The recession limb extends from the point of
inflection at the end of the crest segment to the commencement of the natural groundwater flow

Page 31
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

(base flow). It represents the withdrawal of water from the storage built up in the basin during the
earlier phases of the hydrograph. Peak discharge is the highest point on the hydrograph when the
rate of discharge is greatest. Lag time is the time interval from the centre of mass of rainfall
excess to the peak of the resulting hydrograph.

hydrograph
H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 HT
time
0 0 0
0.14 0.01 0 0.02
0.28 0.03 0.3 0 0.40
0.41 0.04 0.5 3.1 0 3.53
0.55 0.06 0.8 6.3 6.14 0 13.29
0.56 0.06 0.8 6.6 6.59 0.2 14.22
0.69 0.08 1.01 9.6 12.40 3.3 0 26.37
0.7 0.08 1.03 9.8 12.85 3.5 0.29 27.54
0.84 0.07 0.88 13.0 19.11 6.7 3.66 43.51
0.98 0.06 0.73 11.08 25.37 10.0 7.03 54.28
1.11 0.1 0.58 9.28 21.66 13.0 10.16 54.78
1.25 0 0.43 7.35 17.91 11.25 13.53 50.51
1.51 0 0.15 3.75 10.95 7.62 9.86 32.35
1.64 0.00 1.95 7.47 5.81 7.98 23.22
1.78 0.0 3.72 3.86 5.97 13.56
1.92 0.0 1.90 3.95 5.82
2.06 -0.1 1.93 1.93
2.19 0.0 0.0

Table 12: Synthetic hydrograph

From the analysis, the 50 years return period design flood is 54.78m 3/s at 1.11hr peak time. This
implies that for this watershed the peak flood rate per km 2 area of the watershed is about
5.84m3/s/km2. This value ensures that high rainfall of the area can generate higher rate of runoff
per km2 of the generating catchment. This simulated design flood shall now be checked with the

Page 32
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

flood mark method which will be computed based on the hydraulics of the channel near the
diversion or outlet point.

Figure 9: Synthetic hydrograph

60

50

40
H1
H2
30
H3
H4
20
H5
H6
10
HT

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-10

2.7.1 Tail water depth Computation

Tail water depth of the river is equal to the flood depth and amount at the proposed 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.
During field visit, the flood mark of the river at the proposed diversion site was marked based on
dwellers information and physical indicative marks. Then tail water depth can determine using
hydraulic toolbox.

Figure 2: Longitudinal slope

Page 33
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

river slope
2930

2929
f(x) = − 0.050916477785031 x + 2928.91881787716
2928 R² = 0.972267644867205
river slope
2927
Linear (river slope)
2926

2925

2924

2923
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

This longitudinal slope (river slope) indicates steep slope.

2.7.2 River Stage discharge analysis

Manning’s Roughness coefficient for the river bed and banks

The Manning’s roughness coefficient is taken from standard table based on the river nature. The
river at the headwork site has relatively U-shape feature and straight nature. The riverbanks have
fracture and the riverbed there are also fracture rock hence Manning’s roughness coefficient (n =
0.03) is adopted.

Discharge of the river

Input data: Manning'sroughness coefficient, n = 0.03

Average river bed slope, S = 0.05

2
1
V = ∗R 3∗√ S
n

Where, R = Hydraulic radius = (Area/Perimeter)

Q=V ∗A

Page 34
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

perime hydraulic mining longitudinal

stage elevation area velocity discharge
ter radius roughness slope
0 2927 0 0 0 0.03 0.05 0 0
0.25 2927.25 0.142 2.86 0.05 0.03 0.05 0 0
0.5 2927.5 0.7 7.9 0.09 0.03 0.05 1.01 0.70
0.75 2927.75 2.07 14 0.15 0.03 0.05 1.48 3.07
1 2928 4.11 18 0.23 0.03 0.05 2.08 8.57
1.25 2928.25 6.5 21.28 0.31 0.03 0.05 2.78 18.10
1.5 2928.5 9.121 22.5 0.41 0.03 0.05 3.38 30.83
1.74 2928.74 11.89 24.2 0.49 0.03 0.05 4.08 48.50
1.75 2928.75 11.9 24.3 0.49 0.03 0.05 4.08 48.58
2 2929 14.9 28.1 0.53 0.03 0.05 4.63 69.00
2.25 2929.25 18.5 30.5 0.61 0.03 0.05 4.88 90.33
2.5 2929.5 22.2 32.9 0.67 0.03 0.05 5.34 118.57
2.75 2929.75 26.3 35.2 0.75 0.03 0.05 5.73 150.81
3 2930 30.6 37.3 0.82 0.03 0.05 6.14 187.80
3.25 2930.25 35.2 39.4 0.89 0.03 0.05 6.53 229.92
3.5 2930.5 39.9 41.4 0.96 0.03 0.05 6.91 275.87
3.75 2930.75 45.2 43.4 1.04 0.03 0.05 7.27 328.71
4 2931 50.3 45.3 1.11 0.03 0.05 7.66 385.21
4.25 2931.25 55.8 46.9 1.19 0.03 0.05 7.99 445.98
4.5 2931.5 61.41 48.6 1.26 0.03 0.05 8.37 513.94
4.75 2931.75 67.3 50.3 1.34 0.03 0.05 8.71 586.29
5 2932 73.3 51.9 1.41 0.03 0.05 9.05 663.39
5.25 2932.25 78.3 53.17 1.47 0.03 0.05 9.38 734.65

Table 13: River discharge computation at different stager depth

Figure 9: Tail water depth graph

Page 35
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

2.7.3 River Channel Cross section

Cross sections of the river channel are required to determine the shape and the cross sectional area
of the channel downstream of the stilling basin. Together with the boundary roughness data, the
area and the shape of the sections determine what water levels will be attained with the discharges
including the design flood that are to be investigated.

Cross section should always be selected perpendicular to the direction of flow. It should be also
selected where the low flow channel is parallel to the flood channel. In some cases when it is not
practical, the cross section should be kept perpendicular to the direction of flow both in the flood
channel and low flow channel by changing the direction of the section at the river banks

Figure 3: The river cross-section for Meher weir axis

Page 36
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

cross section
2933

2932

2931

2930

2929 cross section

2928

2927

2926

2925

2924
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2.7.4 Existing water use and Irrigation Practices

There are traditional irrigation practices below weir site as well. The nearby downstream
irrigation command area is part of the proposed irrigation command area. Hence, implementation
of the project has great acceptance by the direct beneficiaries. The existing traditional irrigation
upgrading and modernization will safe farmers.

Page 37
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

3 SECTION-II: HEAD WORK DESIGN

3.1 Headwork Structure Design

3.1.1 Headwork site selection

The technical suitability and construction cost was the main critical for the headwork type
selection. Considering scale of schemes, easy of construction and maintenance for the site the
broad crest type of weir is selected, it was practically important to put criteria’s such as
considering the flood the channel has to accommodate, the length of the weir crest, topographic
suitability, the relative economic considerations, the availability of enough command area, ideal
main canal length, construction materials and other selection or comparison criteria’s. The site
upstream reach of the headwork has relatively hill slope topography,fractured rock and the river
course transported some boulder materials. To resist the temperature, some boulders impact, to
reduce the maintenance cost and to increase the life of the structure, an external R.C.C cover of
0.2m thick of the weir body capping provision is provided concrete.

During the period of field assessment, it was tried to critically observe all possibilities by moving
d/s from the reference of the potential command area, and beneficiaries’ interest. The potential
command area as well as the high experience of traditional irrigation area is located at the nearby
identified proposed site.

Page 38
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Figure 4: Photo showing at Headwork site

Therefore, the headwork site of the best-selected option is situated at 1303208.839 m N,

412417.649 m E and riverbed elevation of 2927 m above sea level. At this site the river course is
well defined, with fixed width, length and form of river and at this specific site. The headwork site
geological surface and subsurface conditions have been investigated based on the nature of the
proposed structure.At the site and immediate vicinity, the stream flows along moderate slope
course and its bed is mainly covered with slightly weathered and fracture,

3.1.2 Hydraulic design of headwork structure

Weir Height Determination

The following major factors have been reasonably assessed during the field study and the final
topographic map has been investigated whether the target command area can be commanded at

Page 39
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

less weir height or not. By using necessary parameters, the weir crest elevation has been
determined as follows:

 Maximum command area elevation =2928.85 (bed)

 Main canal idle Length (m) =130
 Main canal slope=0.001
 Canal depth =0.4m
 Head regulator Losses =0.1m
 Lowest Point of river center=2927.00
 Deriving Head=0.1m
 Head loss at the Turn out=0.05m
FSL= Maximum command area elevation +Water depth required +head loss on the canal due to
the length +head loss at the turnout
FSL=2928.85m+0.4m+0.001*130m+0.05
FSL=2929.43m
Therefore, Weir crest level =FSL+working head

=2929.43m+0.2=2929.63m

Weir Height (h) = Weir crest level- Minimum river bed level
=2929.63-2927

=2.6m

Required data Value Unit Remark

Minimum river bed level 2927.00 m 2928.500

Average river bed level

Water depth in the Main canal, D 0.400 m From MCD

length of main canal from the head regulator to the 1st off-take 130.00 m From topo

Bed slope of the main canal, So 0.001 m/m From MCD

Maximum command area elevation 2928.85 m From topo

Tail water level from rating curve for QD, TWD 2928.74 m Flood Mark

Design discharge from pervious QD = 48.50 m3/s From Hyd

Page 40
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Deriving Head = 0.100 Assumed

Head loss across head regulator = 0.100 m Assumed

Head loss at the Turn out = 0.050 m Assumed

OUT PUT

Working Head=Driving Head +Head loss in the regulator 0.200

FSL= Maximum command area elevation +Water depth required 2929.43

+head loss on the canal due to the length +head loss at the turnout

FSL = Weir crest level- Working Head (optional) 2929.425

Bottom intake level (BIL) = Max. command level + HL along 2929.025

MC+head loss at the turnout

Bottom intake level (BIL)=FSL- Water Depth (Optional) 2929.025

Weir crest level =Pond level=FSL of the canal +Working Head 2929.63

Weir Crest Level (WCL)=BIL+Water Depth +Working Head 2929.63 m

(Optional)

Weir Height (h) = Weir crest level- Minimum river bed level 2.6 m

available working head =Weir crest level-Bottom intake level (BIL) 0.600 m Ok!

Minimum working head Main Canal full supply discharge=Available 0.200 m

working head-water depth

Thus tell water depth (TWD) in meter 1.74 m 2928.740

Table 14: Weir Height Determination

Weir Type Selection
After detail observation of the available water balance, the target command area, boulder in the
river, and the availability of construction materials, Weir type selected for the given height and
flood amount is Broad Crested Masonry Weir, which could be subjected to the expected
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces that can be generated from peak flood. The weir is to be
constructed with masonry material.

Page 41
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Weir Dimensioning

3.1.3Weir crest length

The weir crest length is fixed using lacey’s wetted perimeter equation. It is determined mainly
considering the streams morphology. The looseness factor is generally kept between 0.5 and 1.
In this case, the designed weir length is fixed 15 meter using approximate the looseness factor

P=4.75*Q 0.5

Where, P is the lacey’s wetted perimeter (m) Q is design flood (m 3 /sec.)

There for p= 4.75*54.780 ^0.5 =35.16m

But the actual width of the river is 15m. So the crest length of weir should be 15m

Top and bottom width

According to the Bligh’s formula, top and bottom width of the weir body is determined as follows

He
Top width, T in m T =
√G−1
H+ H d
Bottom width, B in m B¿
√G−1

Where H: Height of weir (m) = 2.6 m

He: specific energy head (over flow depth + approaching velocity head (m))

G: specific weight of weir body=2.3

He is estimated using broad crested weir formula C=1.7 and L= 15m, Q=54.8m3/sec

( ) ( )
2 2
Q 3 54.8 3
H e= = =1.66 m
1.7∗L 1.7∗15

Substituting these values in the above formulas

1.66
Top width’T = =1.4 m take 1.2m
√2.3−1

Page 42
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

2.6+1.66
Bottom width= B= =3.8m take 3.6m
√ 2.3−1
Provide 1.2 m and 3.6m top and bottom width respectively, But these values are too big to use so
optimize or reduce to economic dimensions checking the stability of the weir be accepted with
varying bottom width&topwidth through checking the stability.

3.1.3 Determination of Upstream & Downstream High flood level (HFL)

Determination of high flood level for both u/s and d/s case of the weir is essential in determining
the retaining wall height as well as for initiation of weir section determination. The determination
of the downstream and upstream high flood level as well as energy level is calculated as shown
below.

Figure 5: energy level

D/s HFL =River bed +Tail water depth ------------------------ (a)

U/S HFL=U/S bed level+ weirheight+Hd…........................................(b)
Where Hd=the depth of water over the weir crest.
The water depth is calculated using the following formula by considering broad crested weir
formula. The velocity head ha is calculated as shown below. The following procedure is used for
calculating the upstream high flood level.

Q=C∗L∗He3/2 C = 1.7, L = 15 Q = 54.8m3/s

Page 43
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

The water depth is calculated using the following formula by considering broad crested weir
formula. The velocity head ha is calculated as shown below. The following procedure is used for
calculating the upstream high flood level.

Q=C∗L∗He3/2,C=1.7,L=15 ,Q=54.8m3/s

( ) ( )
2 2
Q 3 54.8 3
H e= = =1.66 m
1.7∗L 1.7∗15

2
Va
h a= Where g: acceleration due to gravity = 9.81m/sec2
2g

Va is Approach velocity determined by

2
Va
=He-Hd………………………(c)
2g

Since we do not know the velocity of approach

Q
We can compute by he approach velocity, Va = ……………………………………
L∗( Hd+ h )
(d).

2
Va
And as shown from diagramHe-Hd=Ha= Where hd = water depth over the weir, He
2g
=Specific energy above the weir and ha= velocity head over the weir

Substitution of the known parameter values, we can find hd, Hence He-hd=ha …..Ha is known.

He=1.66,L=15 m ,h=2.6m, Q=54.8m3/s

Q 54.8 3.6
Va = = =
L∗( Hd+ h ) 15∗( Hd+ 2.6 ) 2.6+ Hd

( )
2
2 3.6
Va
He-Hd=Ha= = 2.6+ Hd
2g
2∗9.81

Page 44
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

0.38
1.66 -Hd=
( 2.6+ Hd )2

(1.66-Hd)*(2.6 +Hd)2=0.993, By Excel Iteration Hd=1.55m

Ha=He-Hd=1.59–1.55=0.04m

 River bed level = 2927.masl

 Weir top level, = 2929.63m

 D/s T.E.L

Level of D/s T.E.L = HFL before construction + (Va2/2g)

High flood level before construction of the weir (D/S HFL) is = river bed
level+ tail water depth (From tail water curve)
 D/S HFL=2927+1.7=2928.74 m a.s.l
 D/s TEL = D/S HFL +ha =2928.74+ 0.04 m=2928.86m

 U/S HFL =U/s bedlevel+weir height+Hd,

 U/s HFL = 2927+2.6+1.47 m =2931.18 m a.s.l

 Velocity head = 0.04m

 Where u/s TEL = U/s HFL +ha

= 2931.1+ 0.04 m
= 2931.21m a.s.l
Afflux = U/s HFL- D/s HFL

=2931.21m-2928.74=2.4m

Afflux=2.4m provide stilling basin

The width of the weir is governed by existing stream width, maximum permissible afflux and the
proposed weir crest level. The area of submergence, flood protection works; upstream and
downstream cutoffs depend up on afflux. Hence the afflux should be fixed as not to damage or
submerge property by flooding

Page 45
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

3.1.4 Hydraulic jump Computation

Retaining walls at upstream right and left sides are mainly needed to confine the peak flood within
the bank. Hence bank protection work is needed upstream of the weir site to direct the flood in to
the course. However, protection works are required for the downstream case and a need of the
jump profile is necessary. The length of protection walls is determined based on the length of
Jump as well as the nature of the foundation soil. Jump is calculated as shown below.

• Weir crest length = 15 m

• Weir height = H = 2.6m
• Pre-jump depth = y1
• Post -jump depth =y2
Energy at the crest=energy at the jumping point+ head loss. Neglecting the head loss, Ec=Ej

2
V1
Ec=2.6+1.47= y 1+ ............neglecting head l .................... (a)
2g
q2
4.07= y 1+ 2 ................. (b) , q= 3.65m3/m/s
y ∗2 g
From equation (c), y1=0.42m by Excel iteration.
2
y1 q
Y 2= ∗¿-1) and f 1= 3 . From this equation, y2= 2.3 m F1=4.3OSCILLATING JUMP
2 2 g y1

The length of a hydraulic jump

The length of jump calculation is used as a clue for estimation of the bank protection length at
downstream part. From this, the bank protection length on the downstream extends at least up to
jump length but considering of the actual site condition, the bank protection can be extended more
value.
Jump Length, Lj=5*(Y2-Y1) =5*(2.3-0.42) = 10m take 10m
To compare the rating curves of the hydraulic jump and the tail water condition, different
discharges which are less than or equal the maximum flood level are accounted as shown at the
graph below

Page 46
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Figure 6: Comparison of tail water rating curve and post jump curve

2.50

2.00

1.50
y2
TWD
1.00

Hydraulicjump 0.50

0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Discharge intensity
Energy Dissipation
Even if the foundations of the rock materials are fresh basaltic rock, it is better to check the flow
patterns between the tail water curve and the post jump curve. As shown in the graph, thepost
jump curve is greater than that of the corresponding tail water curve almost for all discharges.
This shows that the energy of the jump water is shooting up for more distance and the energy is
high, for this reason I have provide u/s and d/s sufficient cut off depth and impervious floor.

Page 47
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Provision of Impervious apron

The riverbed is scoured during flood flow and large scour holes may develop progressively
adjacent to the solid aprons, which may cause undermining of the weir structure. Thus Lacey gave
a formula to compute the regime scour depth, R, for water way provided is less than the regime
width; Since the river bed is recently weathered rock floor the design of U/s and d/s impervious
floors is design for the case of this project. The length of the downstream impervious floor, Ld is
also given by Bligh as follow:

According to Bligh's Ld =2.21C√(HL/10) = 9.6 m but

The length of jump=5*(2.3-0.42) =10m therefore provides 10m for d/s impervious floors. To see
actual sit condition provides the following nominal lengths of U/s impervious floor=1m
(nominal),Then take the average the length of the jump and the length of d/s impervious floor
=10m

3.1.5 Depth of U/S & D/s Cutoff

The weir foundation weathered rock formation. The remaining is clay soil to the right side of the
embankment.

1
 q2  3
R 1.35
 f 


 f 1.76 d
f = silt factor

This formula applies to if the actual water way is< = lacey’s waterway
Where Rs = is measured from the high flood level (HFL)
Lacey’s silt factor (f =0.6(Fine silt)
q= Q/Le = 54.8/15 =3.65m2/s
Normal scour depth Rs =R = 1.35(q2/f)^1/3 = 3.8m
U/S scour depth (U/S cut off depth from U/S HFL)
=1.25Rs= 1.25*3.8=4.7m
D/S Scour depth (D/S cut off depth from D/S HFL)
=1.5Rs =1.5*3.8 =5.7m
U/S cutoff level (Bottom level of us cutoff) = U/S HFL-1.25Rs

Page 48
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

= 2931.17-4.7= 2926.47m
D/S cutoff level (bottom level of DS cut of) = D/S HFL-1.5Rs
=2928.74-5.7 = 2923.04
Depth of u/s cutoff below the river bed, D1=1.25Rs - (h+Hd)
=4.7- (2.6+1.55) = 0.6m provides 1m
Depth of d/s cutoff below the river bed, D2 = 1.5 Rs – Y2
=5.7 -2.3=3.4m provides 3.4m
To see actual sit condition provides anchorage (cut off) depth1m is provided for u/s and 3.4m
depth for d/s after the removal of recently weathered rock. This cut of depth is to anchor the weir
body with the fresh rock, thereby blocking seepage in b/n the bed rock and the weir. The
weathered rock is exposed at the center of the river but overlain by silt clay soil at the banks, so
removal the specified thickness of weathered rock is done after excavating the overlain silt clay
soil deposit. At the proposed headwork site the stream bed or course is well defined, nearly
straight narrow section channel, and covered by entirely with alluvial deposited of coarser sizes
which are dominated gravel-boulder and little silt intermixed with pebble-cobble. The Up and
down stream also covered by recently thin thickness alluvial to fluvial deposited and underlay by
coarse grained basaltic rock. The recent alluvial deposit unit is not so stable and can’t withstand
any load applied on it so the slightly weathered, fractured basaltic rock and loose recently alluvial
deposit part of the weir structure axis shall be avoid in order making safe the structure. Therefor

the above calculated cut off dimensions should be provided along the river cross section at the
weir site
Figure 7: force at high flood condition
U/S TEL = 2931.213 Afflux

2.4
U/S HFL = 2931.175

D/S TEL = 2928.86

WCL = 2929.63 1.2
D/S HFL = 2928.74
Bottom Intake level = 2929.03

Weir hei (H) = 2.6 Y2 = 2.34 TWD= 1.74

Page 49
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

RBL = 2927.00 Y1 = 0.4200 RBL = 2927.00

1 3.60 10

1.00
3.4

0.500
US Cut of Level= 2926.43

0.50
DS Cut off Level= 2923.61

pressure(residual head ) thicknes pressure(residual head )

creep Length(Lc) h'=h-(h/Lr)*Lc Lx=Lr-Lc h'=h*(Lr-Lx)/Lr thickness
s
2.00 2.42 2.49 24.15 2.42 2.49
2.00 2.42 2.49 24.15 2.42 2.49
6.43 1.98 2.49 19.73 1.98 2.03
9.43 1.68 2.03 16.73 1.68 1.72
12.82 1.34 1.72 13.33 1.34 1.37
16.22 1.00 1.37 9.94 1.00 1.02
21.62 0.46 1.02 4.54 0.46 0.47

Table 15: Impervious apron thickness

Under sluice
The main functions of under sluice are;

 Enables the canal to draw 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.
Here, the under sluice is mainly provided to remove silt deposition and to increase the efficiency
of water abstracting to the main canal through the head regulator.

Page 50
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Figure 15: plan view of the construction

Page 51
MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Page 52
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Figure 16: Weir section view

Canal Capacity
The capacity of the under sluice is determined based on the general guide lines and site conditions
stated below;

 The capacity should be at least five times the canal discharge to ensure proper scouring.
 Capacity of passing about 10% to 20% of the maximum flood discharge at high
floods.During construction, it should be able to pass the prevailing (at least base flow)
discharge of the river.

Gate for the under sluice

Considering this, the opening size of the gate is 1mx1m with spindle-operated gate. The gate of
the under sluice is to be vertical sheet metal of 1m x 1m for the closure of the opening space.
Providingsome extra dimensions for groove insertion. Gross area of sheet metals for the under
sluice gate will be 1.05m x 1.05m (allowing 5cm insertion for grooves). The grooves are to be
provided on the walls using angle iron frames at the two sides of the gate openings. The gate
(sheet metals) is provided with stiffening angle irons. A vertical raised gate is designed for the

Page 53
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

under sluice. 40 mm diameter Spindle is provided for raising the gate. Operation slab and Breast
Wall are also provided to operate and protect the gate respectively.

Head Regulator Design

The head regulator is located on right side of the weir body. The intake sill level is fixed based on
route alignment and optimal elevation to command the possible irrigable area. Hence, the intake
sill level is fixed 2.1m above the minimum river bed level at weir axis. The minimum river bed
level and intake levels are 2927 m and 2929.025m.a.s.l.) Respectively. The lean flow was
measured on April is 40.5 l/sec as per the local people the discharge will not decrease from this
value. Hence, the main canal is designed to serve an area of 35.4 hectares of land. The maximum
duty for the locality is 1.14l/s/ha.The flow through the canal head regulator is supposed to be
orifice flow, and hence the coefficient of discharge through the head regulator, Cd = (0.62-0.65)

3.2 Stability analysis of the weir

Besides satisfying the hydraulic requirements, the designed structure has to be safe against
Overturning, sliding, tension and such related structural parameters.Hence the designed section is
checked for stability requirement.The external forces acting on weir varies from region to region
and hence considering the geology of the area and behavior of the river foundation condition, the
stability analysis is carried out on the effect of the following forces.

Water pressure
Weight of the weir
Silt pressure

The extreme load combination is the case where the head is at crest level of the weir and there is
no flow over the weir (static case). But both static case and dynamic case are checked to optimize
the preliminary weir dimensions.

To carry out the stability analysis, the following considerations are taken

 Water pressure: -The resultant force due to externalwater

= ½ γwh2, a citing at h/3 from base,

Page 54
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Where

γw =is the unit Weight of water (i.e. 9.81 KN/m3) and

h = is the depth of water

 Weight of the over flow weir section: - the weight of the weir body
is the major resisting force and a unit length of the weir
isconsidered.
 Unit weight of masonry =22.4kN/m3
 Silt pressure: - the force due to silt is considered up to canal outlet level and
givenby,
Psilt = ½ ka γsub h2 and it
acts at h’/3 from base
Where ka = coefficient of
active earth pressure

Γsub= submerged unit weight of silt material

h’ = height of silt deposited (i.e. from the river bed up to crest)

Page 55
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

h 2.6

Tw 1.2

B
3.6
w

hd 1.55

U/s Water 3315.0

Unit Wt. rw 10.0 Unit Wt. rm 23.0 Ø 30
Level 4

Coeff. Of
Unit Wt. rc 24.0 Unit Wt. rs 12.0 0.65 Ka 0.33
friction, η

Stability analysis for high flood condition Moment at toe, i.e. pt O

Moments (KN-
Forces (KN)
Descriptio Lever m)
Name of forces Symbol
n Vertica Horizonta arm
(+) (-)
l (+) l (-)

1. Vertical forces

1.1 Down ward

W1 72.45 3.00 217.35

W2 72.45 1.60 115.92

W3 0.00 0.00 0.00

Weight of weir
W4 0.000 0.00 0.00

W5 0.000 0.00

W6 0.000 0.00

Subtotal 144.90 0.00 4.60 333.27 0.00

Weight of Pv1 18.600 3.00 55.80

water Pv2 31.500 0.80 25.20

Page 56
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Subtotal ΣWw 50.100 0.000 81.000 0.000

195.00 414.27
Subtotal of (1) 0.000
0 0

1.2 Upward forces

Pu1 0.000 0.00 0.00

Uplift
Pu2 0.000 0.00 0.00

Subtotal Σpu 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

339.90 747.54
Summation ΣV & ΣM 0.000 0.000
0 0

2. Horizontal force

2.1 u/s water pressure

30.14
Ph1 34.453 0.87
6

2.2 u/s silt pressure

12.05
Ps 13.781 0.87
9

42.20
Summation ΣH & ΣM 0.000 48.234 0.000
5

339.90 747.54 42.20

Total 48.234
0 0 5

1. Sliding

4.58 ok!

Resultant force R,
343.31
KN

Page 57
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

2. Over-turning
Max. Allowable BC
17.71 ok! very stife boulder 350
clay.KN/m2

Min. Allowable BC
75
of fine sand.KN/m2

3. Tension Bottom Width, B 3.60 B/6 = 0.60

åM = åM+ - åM- 705.3

Arm of Resultant force

from toe, X i.e.
2.08
centroidaldistance=åM/åFv
=

Eccentricity, e 0.28 ok!

4. Vertical
stress Pmax/min

Pmax 137.7 ok!

Pmin 51.1 ok!

Stability analysis for no over flow condition

Name of forces Symbol Descriptio Lever Moments (KN-

Forces (KN)
n arm m)

Vertica Horizonta (+) (-)

Page 58
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

l (+) l (-)

1. Vertical forces

1.1 Down ward

W1 72.45 3.00 217.35

W2 72.45 1.60 115.92

W3 0.00 0.00 0.00

Weight of weir
W4 0.00 0.00 0.00

W5 0.00 0.00 0.00

W6 0.00 0.00 0.00

Subtotal of (1) 144.90 0.00 333.27 0.00

1.2 Upward forces

Pu1 0.000 0.00 0.00

Uplift
Pu2 0.000 0.00 0.00

Subtotal Σpu 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

144.90 333.27
Summation ΣV & ΣM 0.000 0.000
0 0

2. Horizontal force

2.1 u/s water pressure

P1 34.453 0.87 30.15

2.2 u/s silt pressure

Ps 13.781 0.87 12.06

42.20
Summation ΣH & ΣM 0.000 48.234 0.000
5

42.20
Total 144.90 48.234 333.27
5

Page 59
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

  Fv
 1 .5
1. Sliding  HF
1.95 ok! Resultant force R = 152.72 KN

Max. Allowable BC
2. Over-turning 7.90 ok! 100
of fine sand.KN/m2

e
 M (  )  1 .5 Min. Allowable BC
75
of fine sand.KN/m3
 M ( )

3. Tension Bottom Width, B 3.60 B/6 0.600

e
M  L L

åM=åM+ - åM- 291.1
F v 2 6
Arm of Resultant force from toe, X i.e. centroidal
2.01
distance=åM/åFv=

If not ok check bottom width

Eccentricity, e = 0.209 ok!
of weir

4. Vertical Pmax/ min 

 V 1 6e 
stress Pmax/min
B  B

Pmax = 54.3 ok!

Pmin = 26.25 ok!

Table 16: weir stability analysis

3.3 Retaining wall

At the two ends of the diversion weir, walls have been provided to safeguard the structure from
scour and also as a facility to the canal outlet operation and maintenance.
The existing topographic condition at the weir axis and HFL are considered to be most

Page 60
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

governing parameters for fixing the wall height.

After construction of the weir (U/S HFL) = 2931.18.a.s.l
Hence the U/s wall height = U/s HFL - foundation level +free board

Retaining wall

Required Data value unite

weir wall height = 2.6 m

The head over the weir = Hd 1.55 m.

seqent depth Y2 2.34 m.

2927.0
U/s river bed = m
0
Depth of depresion 0.000 m
U/S Retaining wal length it is depend on the
m
topography
D/S Retaining wal length equal to the d/s apron m
2928.7
D/S High flood level (D/S HFL) m
4
2931.1
U/S High flood level (U/S HFL) m
8
2928.7
Max. U/s Left & Right Bank Level Y3
4 1.74
1.Upstream Retaining wall stability Analysis(both in left and right side)

Height,Top& Bottom width of wall Footing Design

0.5
0.50 Hw/ min. m
Free board = Frb m 8
Footing height 8-
The height of wall isHw 0.7
4.7 Hw/6 max. m
=H+Hd+Frb=USHFL-RBL+Frb m 8
Top width =( Hw/6 to Hw/12) Footing Front, 0.3
0.4 m
(min40cm) m Length bt 9

Page 61
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Bottom width =0.5-0.7H or B = ½ Bottom 0.1

2.00 Rear, bh m
H to 2/3 H m width 5
The top Elevation of the retaining 2931.68
wall is= Hw+Rbd m
Therefore, The max
0.7
0.345 footing height m
8
Side Slope H:V 19

Stability Analysis of U/s win wall

2931.68 0.39

HPs2
Top width B1= 0.4 m.

Bottom width B= 2.0 m. V Ps

W1 1
W2
Height of wall Hs= 4.7 m. 4.7

FoundatioN Thickness t= 0.8 m.

23.
Ym of masonry gm= 0 KN/m3
17. 2927. W
3
Ys of silt(Fill) gsilt= 0 KN/m 0 3

24. 2926.
Yc of Concrete gRCC= 0 KN/m3 2 0.8
45. 0.1
Angle of Repose f1 = 0 Deg. bt 0.39 1.61 bh 5

Ka=(1-sinf)/(1+sinf) K= 0.2 2.00

Ø value for gravel dence from table =45 45

200KN/m2
Bering capacity of Foundation
materialgravel material

Page 62
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Lever Moment about

Item Description Forces(KN.m)
arm toe(KN.m)

Vertical Horizontal
(m.) (+) (-)
+ve -ve +ve -ve

1. Vertical force

1.1. Self-weight(W1) 41.89 0.195 8.16

1.2. Self-Weight(W2) 86.58 0.93 80.21

1.3. Silt pressure(Ps2) 63.99 1.46 93.64

2. Horizontal force

2.2. Active pressure (Ps1) 10.97 1.56 17.11

0.0
TOTAL 192.46 0 0.00 10.98 182.0 17.11

Sum of V 192.46 Sun of M 164.89

e
 M ()  1.5
Coefficient of friction Mew (µ) For non
Chesive Soil from table = 0.6
0.6  M ( )
FSo of overturning=∑M⁺/∑M⁻ >1.5 10.64 Safe
FSs of sliding =µ*∑V/∑H >1.5  F  1 .5
v
10.52 Safe
 H MF

Fo of Tension e
  L L
F 2 6 v
Mnet =M(+)- (M-) 164.89
B/6 =L/6 0.333
R =Mnet/Sum of V 0.86
Eccentricity,(e) (Absolute value)=│B/2-R│ 0.143 safe
Bearing Capacity
Max compression stress at the toe
P=SV/B(1+6e/B) Pmax = 137.59 Safe 200 KN/m
Tension develop at the heel
P=SV/B(1-6e/B) Pmin = 54.87 Safe 200 KN/m

Page 63
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Figure 17: U/S retaining wall section view

Page 64
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Figure 18: Downstream retaining wall section view

Page 65
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

2.Downstream Retaning
wall
Height,Top & Bottom width of D/s
Footing Design
retaining wall
Page 66
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

0.
0.5
m min. 3 m
0
Free board =Frb 0
Footing height
0.
The height of wall is =Y3+Frb 2.2 m max. 3 m
or Max banck Level-RBL+Frb 7
0.
0.4 Front,
Top width ,b=( Hw/6 to m Footing Length 1 m
0 bt
Hw/12) (min40cm) 9
0.
1.2
m Bottom width Rear, bh 1 m
0
Bottom width B =0.5-0.7Hw 5
292
the top Elevation of the 9.2 m
retaining wall is 4
Therefore, The 0.
0.3 2
max footing 3 m
58 0
Side Slope H:V height 7

Stability Analysis of D/s wing

2929.24 0.40
wall
B1 0. H
Top width = 4 m.
1.
Bottom width B= 5 m. V
2.
Height of wall Hs= 2 m. 2.24
0.
FoundatioN Thickness t= 4 m.
2
gm 3. KN
Ym of masonry = 0 /m3
1
gsil 7. KN
Ys of silt(Fill) t= 0 /m3 2927.00
gR 2
CC 4. KN 0.
Yc Concrete = 0 /m3 2926.63 4
4 0
5. De b .
Angle of Repose f1 = 0 g. bt 0.2 1.17 h 2
0.
Ka=(1-sinf)/(1+sinf) K= 2 1.6

Page 67
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Bering capacity of Foundation material gravel material 200 KN/m2

Lever Moment about
Item Description Forces(KN.m)
arm toe(KN.m)
Resisti Overtur
Vertical Horizontal ng (+) ning (-)
- (m.)
v
+ve e +ve -ve
1. Vertical force
20. 4.1
1.1. Self weight(W1) 61 0.2 2
28. 21.
1.2. Self Weight(W2) 34 0.77 72
20. 23.
1.3. Silt preasure(Ps2) 94 1.13 74
2. Horizontal force
-
2.6
2.2. Active preasure (Ps1) -3.593422299 0.75 8
0. -
69. 0 0.0 49. 2.6
TOTAL 89 0 0 -3.59 58 8

Overturning Stability > 1.5 Fo=SMr/SMo 18.48 Safe

Sliding Stability >1.5
Fss=ɳΣFv/FH 11.67 Safe
Overstressing Stability
ΣM=Mr+Mo 46.90

R=SM/SFv 0.67

L/2 =B/2 0.75

B/
Eccentricity,(e) (Absolute value)=│B/2-R│ e= 0.0789 safe 0.25 2

Bearing Capacity
Max compression stress at the toe Saf K
P=SV/B(1+6e/B) Pmax = 61.30 e 200 N/

Page 68
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

m
K
Saf N/
Tension develop at the heel P=SV/B(1-6e/B) Pmin = 31.88 e 200 m

4IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN

4.1 Irrigable area description
4.1.1 Topography and soil

Meher irrigable command is characterized with moderate slop having an average slop value of 5-
6%. This is suitable for irrigation. The soil type is clay.
The site is found in dega agro climate zone. It has unimodal rainfall, kiremt, in which rainfall on
set is at the end may and end on October-November, and all metrological data are taken from
Debretabor station. The summarized reports are written in the hydrological

4.1.2 Drainage canals design

Drainage canals are provided in the irrigation system. There are 2Drainage structuresCatch drain
is designed to protect the main canal from flood coming from upstream hillside area which is
parallel to the main canal. The catch drain collects flood from upland area and then it delivers to
the natural drainage lines (gullies).

The Super passages are provided when the drain level is above canal water level. The drain
discharge is normally carried through the RCC concrete over top canal level. The canal section
will have similar section with full supply condition i.e. no transition is required.

4.1.3 Canal Off-Takes/Turnouts/

Off-takes are on-farm structures to be built on main canals to divert water to field canals. Thus,
they are opening to field canals but all are designed to supply one way.
There are 30 turn out gats of such structures arranged on main canals i.e. at head of each field
canal. Each of them is to be controlled with simple shutters on which chain is to be attached to lift
to the required level. Flow in off-takes is governed by the orifice formula. Since flow in each field
canal is expected to be same as that of corresponding tertiary canal (i.e. rotation will be within

Page 69
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

field units), size of turnout designed for head regulators of field canal is taken same size as that of
corresponding field canals.

4.6.2. Crossing structures

Flumes are structures used where canals cross over deeply incised streams or rivers where a short
crossing will be cheaper than long detour with a super passage. The structure usually has Concrete
abutments while the flume may be of concrete materials. For larger spans central piers and for
Higher Piers a tie beam will be provided to be economical and structurally safe.

The hydraulic gradient of the flume should be provided between the canal and the river,
dependent on the ground conditions. The canal section upstream and downstream of the flume
should be lined. Reinforced concrete flume is recommended for the main canal crossing structures
in Meher irrigation Project. In this project, one (1) flume structures are designed to pass water.

Method of water application and irrigation efficiency determination

To complete the evaluation of the demand, the efficiency of the water distribution system and of
application must be known. The gross requirement of water for irrigation system is very much
depend on the overall efficiency of the irrigation system, which in turn is dependent on several
factors, method of irrigation, type of canal (Lined and/or unlined), method of operation
(simultaneously and continuous or rotational water supply) and the availability of structures. on
the base of these factors, the project has planned to impose surface irrigation method (using
furrows).

4.2.1. Irrigation Efficiency

To express which percentage of irrigation water used efficiently and which percentage is lost,
the term irrigation efficiency is used. Based on the actual situation of the project, conveyance
efficiency of 85%, distribution efficiency 90% and field application efficiency 70% therefore
the overall efficiency become 54% since farmer are well aware of the irrigation technology in
the area, we have selected8 days per a week and 18 hr of irrigation time per day.

4.2.1 Irrigation Duty

Irrigation duty is the volume of water required per hectare for the full time of outcropping. It
helps in designing an efficient irrigation canal system. The maximum net irrigation water
requirement (NIWR) for overall proposed crop is maize in the month of March with the amount
of mm/day for 18 hours.

NIWR= GIWR*IE

Page 70
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Where; GIWR- Gross irrigation water requirement (mm/day)

NIWR-Net irrigation water requirement (mm/day)

IE- irrigation efficiency (54%)

Therefore, GIWR = Etc/IE = NIWR/IE which gives 4 mm/day the duty is calculated by
Duty (D)=GIWR*1000*10/(t*60*60)

Where; the duty (l/s/ha) the daily irrigation hour is 18hrs therefore the duty (D) is come 1.14
l/s/ha

4.3 Hydraulic Design of irrigation canals

4.3.1 Main canal section selection
The previous structure was not having lined canal and it is unlined canal and it
irrigated both side. The command is found in the both side the geotechnical
investigation of the canal has been carried out in view of permeability, workability,
seepage and instability.
1 2
2 3
AS R
Q=
n
R=A/P
Where
 Q= Design discharge, m^3/s
 R= hydraulic radius of the canal
 A=wetted cross section area of canal, m^2
 P=wetted Perimeter
 N=manning’s roughness coefficient Based on manning equation the final values are

Page 71
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Tabular MAIN CANAL DESIGN

Design of main canal for Rectangular cross section
Given unit Value
Command Area A ha 35.4
Crop water demand Duty l/s/ha 1.14
design flow Qd l/s 40.50 0.041 m3/s
Design side slope m m/m 0
Design bed slope So m/m 0.001
Free board Fb m 0.1
manning’s roughness
coefficient
n 0.017 for concrete
b/d Ratio
Cross section of masonry lined canal
Given Q m3/s 0.041
b/d 1
m 0
n 0.017
So 0.001

Assume d m 0.4
b m 0.4

Calculate A=bd+md2 d2 0.13 m2

P= b+2d(1+m2)1/2 3d 1.08 m
R = A/P d/3 0.12 m
V = 1/nR2/3So1/2 m/s 0.45 m/s
Qd = AV m3/s 0.059 m3/s

Summary of design parameters

Required discharge Qr m3/s 0.041

Side slope Ss 0

Page 72
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Bed slope So 0.001

Depth of flow d m 0.4 d 0.4
Bottom width b m 0.4 take 0.4
Free board F m 0.1
Depth of Canal D m 0.5 take 0.5
Length of MC upto 1st offtake 130.00

Figure 19: main canal section view

Foot path (road crossing) structure for main canal

Figure 20: Foot path (road crossing) structure plan for main canal

Page 73
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Figure 21: section B-B

Figure 22: under sluice gate

Page 74
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Figure 23: canal and turn out gate

Page 75
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Figure24: store and office plan view

Page 76
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Figure 25: Store and office front elevation

Figure 26: Store and office R. elevation

Page 77
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

5.Conclusion andRecommendation

The Geology riverweirIrrigationprojectsiteislocatedintheNationalStateofthe AmharaRegion, south

GondarGunaBegemdirworeda, AtaKeble The geographic-ordinates
ofthesitearedefinedbytheUTMlocationoflongitude412417.649mE,latitude1303258.839mN

and river bed elevation of altitude 2927a.s.l.

The project is located about 13km from woreda town Kimrdingay. The purpose of this irrigation
study report is to assess the technical feasibility of the irrigation engineering component and
present the findings. Hence, it discusses the findings of the field visit and deals with the study and
analysis of irrigation planning, water availability and water distribution system, hydraulic
structures required on farm works. The project is designed to irrigate 35.4haof land.

Themaximumdutycalculatedfor18-hourdailyirrigationperiodis1.14 l/sec/ha which is the bases for

the design of system capacity.

The main canal is right a designed to be masonry lined to avoid excessive seepage. The following
things should be given more attention:
 The WUA has to be responsible for irrigation water fair distribution and the wellbeing of all
infrastructures, keeping k/m gates, crossing structuresetc.
 All gates are framed from top and tied with steel chain to keep them from thief.

 Farmersshouldarrangefurrowsinsucha waythatitcanreduceseepagelossesincathedrae is exposed

to excessiveseepage.
 Any structure in damage has to get an immediate remedial action.
The overall cost per area is high relative to the command b/c of lining of canals to avoid the
excessiveseepagealongtheconveyanceandincreasingefficiencyofthelimitedavailablewater resource.

Page 78
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

5. Bill off Quantity

Project :- Meher Small Scale Irrigation project (weir)
Location :-South Gonder Zone Guna Woreda Ata Kebele
Contructor :
Owner:- Guna Woreda Irrgation and Low Land
Development Office
Budget Source :- FSRP
Uni Quantit Unit rate Total cost
s/n Item of work t y (ET.birr) (ET.birr)

General Items Work

1 Allow for Mobilization ls 20,000.00
2 Allow for demobilization ls 20,000.00
Permanent Store and comp
construction by cis and
3 masonary and screed floor ls 150,000.00
(3*4 m^2 for office and 5*4
m^2 for store
Dewatering of open trenches
and excavations, temporary
4 ls 20,000.00
diversion of the river flow and
pumps
Project sign board
ls 50,000.00
forirrigation project
sub total 1 260,000.00
HEAD WORK STRUCTURE
2 Weir body
2.1 Excavation work
2.1.1 Site clearing at the wier axcess m2 60 25.20 1,512.00
2.1.2 Ordinary soil excavation m3 18 175.00 3,150.00
2.1.3 Weathered rock excavation m3 12 494.12 5,929.41
2.2 Masonry work
2.2.1 Stone masonry work (1:3) m3 93.6 6,599.30 617,694.19
2.3 concret cork
Reinforced concret for
2.3.1 m3 0.252 11,042.78 2,782.78
operation slab
Rcc ф12mm c/c 25 cm both in
vertical and horizontal
2.3.2 kg 9 218.00 1,962.00
including black wire for
operation slab
Page 79
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Concret work for brust wall

2.3.3 m3 0.72 11,042.78 7,950.80
with under sluice bed
2.4 plastering m2 3.6 470.39 1,693.40
Shutter gate (under sluice gate
2.5 with accesseries (1*1m)) with no. 1 30,000.00 30,000.00
6mm thikness
sub total 2 672,674.59
Weir protection
2.6
work/capping
2.6.1 Reinforced concret (1:2:3) m3 21.9 11,042.78 241,836.89
Form work with cuting and
2.6.2 m2 109.5 57.00 6,241.50
bending
ф12mm c/c 25 cm bar both in
vertical and horizontal
2.6.3 kg 805 218.00 175,490.00
including black wire for weir
caping
sub total 3 423,568.39
U/S and D/S Cut off
3 U/S Cut off
3.1 Excavation work
Ordinary soil excavatin(u/s cut
3.1.1 m3 9.00 175.00 1,575.00
off)
Weathered rock excavation(u/s
3.1.2 m3 6.00 494.12 2,964.71
cut off)
3.2 Concret work
Reinforced concret work for
3.2.1 m3 7.50 11,042.78 82,820.85
U/S Cut off (1:2:3)
Form work with cuting and
3.2.2 m2 30.00 57.00 1,710.00
bending
4 U/S apron
4.1 Ordinary soil excavatin m3 0.25 175.00 43.75
4.2 Weathered rock excavation m3 0.25 494.12 123.53
4.3 Concret work
82,820.
4.3.1 Concret work (1:2:3) m3 7.50 11,042.78 85
Form work with cuting and 1,710.
4.3.2 m2 30.00 57.00 00
bending
5 D/S Cut off
5,1 Excavation work
5.1.1 Weathered rock excavation m3 25.50 494.12 12,600.00
5.2 Concret work
5.2.1 Reinforced concret work m3 25.50 11,042.78 281,590.90

Page 80
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

(1:2:3)
Form work with cuting and
5.2.2 m2 204.00 57.00 11,628.00
bending
ф12mm c/c 25 cm bar both in
5.2.3 vertical and horizontal kg 382.00 218.00 83,276.00
including black wire
6 D/S apron
6.1 Excavation work
6.1.2 Oredinary soil excavatin m3 46.13 175.00 8,071.88
6.1.3 Weathered rock excavation m3 30.75 494.12 15,194.12
6.2 Concret work
Reinforced concret work
6.2.1 m3 75.00 11,042.78 828,208.52
(1:2:3)
Form work with cuting and
6.2.2 m2 300.00 57.00 17,100.00
bending
ф12mm c/c 25 cm bar both in
vertical and horizontal
6.2.3 kg 1097.00 218.00 239,146.00
including black wire for d/s
apron
subtotal4 1,670,584.10
Retaining walll
7 U/S left side retaing wall
7.1 Site clearing m2 52.75 25.20 1,329.30
7.2 Ordinary soil excavation m3 26.38 175.00 4,615.63
7.3 Weathered rock excavation m3 26.38 494.12 13,032.35
7.4 Concret work
Concret for retining
7.4.1 m3 3.17 11,042.78 34,950.40
wall(1:2:3)
Form work with cuting and
7.4.2 m2 21.10 57.00 1,202.70
bending
7.5 Masonry work
7.5.1 Stone masonry work(1:3) m3 141.79 6,599.30 935,727.51
7.6 plastering(1:2) m2 109.72 470.39 51,611.13
7.7 Back fill and comoaction m3 141.79 168.00 23,821.06
8 U/S right side retaing wall
8.1 Site clearing m2 33.75 25.20 850.50
8.2 Ordinary soil excavation m3 33.75 175.00 5,906.25
8.3 Weathered rock excavation m3 33.75 494.12 16,676.47
8.4 Concret work
8.4.1 Concret for retining m3 1.95 11,042.78 21,533.42

Page 81
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

wall(1:2:3)
Form work with cuting and
8.4.2 m2 13.00 57.00 741.00
bending
8.5 Masonry work
8.5.1 Stone masonry work m3 87.36 6,599.30 576,514.58
8.6 Plastering(1:2) m2 66.30 470.39 31,186.82
8.7 Back fill and compaction m3 87.36 168.00 14,676.48
9 D/S left side retaing wall
9.1 Site clearing m2 27.00 25.20 680.40
9.2 Ordinary soil excavation m3 27.00 175.00 4,725.00
9.3 Weathered rock excavation m3 27.00 494.12 13,341.18
9.4 Concret work
Concret for retining wall
9.4.1 m3 1.95 11,042.78 21,533.42
(1:2:3)
Form work with cuting and
9.4.2 m2 13.00 57.00 741.00
bending
9.5 Masonry work
9.5.1 Stone masonry work m3 33.15 6,599.30 218,766.69
9.6 Plastering(1:2) m2 33.80 470.39 15,899.16
9.7 Back fill and compaction m3 37.57 168.00 6,311.76
10 D/S right side retaing wall
10.1 Site clearing m2 23.00 25.20 579.60
10.2 Ordinary soil excavation m3 23.00 175.00 4,025.00
10.3 Weathered rock excavation m3 23.00 494.12 11,364.71
10.4 Concret work
10.4. Concret for retining wall
m3 1.65 11,042.78 18,220.59
1 (1:2:3)
Form work with cuting and
10.5 m2 11.00 57.00 627.00
bending
10.6 Masonry work
10.6.
Stone masonry work m3 28.05 6,599.30 185,110.28
1
10.7 Plastering(1:2) m2 13.60 470.39 6,397.30
10.8 Back fill and compacion m3 31.79 168.00 5,340.72
subtotal5 2,248,039.39
Irrigation Inftastructure
11 Main canal
11.1 Excavation work
11.1.
Site clearing m2 1500 25.20 37,800.00
1
11.1. Ordinary soil excavation m3 450 175.00 78,750.00

Page 82
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

2
11.1.
Weathered rock excavation m3 300 494.12 148,235.29
3
11.2 Cart away up to 100m m3 1050 168.00 176,400.00
11.4 Masonry work
11.4. stone masonry work for canal
m3 240 6,599.30 1,583,831.26
1 bed
11.4. Stone masonry work for canal
m3 400 6,599.30 2,639,718.76
2 side
Concret work for canal bed
11.5 m3 100 11,042.78 1,104,278.03
(1:2:3)
11.6 Plastering(1:2) m2 1800 470.39 846,701.01
Shutter offtake gate
0 .4m*0.5m*5mm sheet metal
11.7 no. 1 7,000.00 7,000.00
with angle iron including all
necessry matariales
Sliding(shutter) main canal
gate 0 .4m*0.5m*4mm sheet
11.8 no. 30 6,000.00 180,000.00
metal with angle iron including
all necessry matariales
Sliding(shutter) turn out gate
0.4m*0.4 m*4mm sheet metal
11.90 with angle iron including all no. 30 6,000.00 180,000.00
material for this gate
installation
Back fill and compaction canal
11.10 m3 250 168.00 42,000.00
out side
subtotal6 7,024,714.35
Drainage structure
12 Drainage1
12.1.
Site clearing m2 6 25.20 151.20
1
12.1.
Ordinary soil excavation m3 6 175.00 1,050.00
2
12.1.
Weathered rock excavation m3 2.4 494.12 1,185.88
3
12.2 Cart away up to 100m m3 9.6 168.00 1,612.80
12.3 Back fill & compaction m3 1.6 168.00 268.80
12.4 Masonry work( 1:3mix m3 0.96 6,599.30 6,335.33
ф12mm c/c 25 cm bar both in
12.5 kg 33 218.00 7,194.00
vertical and horizontal
Reinforced concrete work
12.6 m3 0.8 11,042.78 8,834.22
(1:2:3)

Page 83
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Form work with cuting and

12.7 m2 8 57.00 456.00
bending
12.8 Plastering (1:2) m2 8 470.39 3,763.12
13 Dranaig 2
13.1 Site clearing m2 4.5 25.20 113.40
13.2 Ordinary soil excavation m3 4.5 175.00 787.50
13.3 Weathered rock excavation m3 2.25 494.12 1,111.76
13.4 Cart away up to 100m m3 6.75 168.00 1,134.00
13.5 Back fill & compaction m3 0.90 168.00 151.20
13.6 Masonry work( 1:3) m3 0.72 6,599.30 4,751.49
ф12mm c/c 25 cm bar both in
13.7 kg 25 218.00 5,450.00
vertical and horizontal
Reinforced concrete work
13.8 m3 0.6 11,042.78 6,625.67
(1:2:3)
Form work with cuting and
13.9 m2 3 57.00 171.00
bending
13.10 Plastering (1:3) m2 3 470.39 1,411.17
sub total7 52,558.54
14 Flum
14.1 Site clearing m2 3 25.20 75.60
14.2 Ordinary soilexcavation m3 1.2 175.00 210.00
14.3 Weathered rock excavation m3 0.6 494.12 296.47
14.4 Cart away up to 100m m3 2.4 168.00 403.20
14.5 Back fill & compaction m3 0.36 168.00 60.48
14.5 Masonry work( 1:3) m3 0.432 6,599.30 2,850.90
Reinforced concret work(1:2:3)
14.6 m3 0.3 11,042.78 3,312.83
for canal bed
Reinforced concret work(1:2:3)
14.7 m3 0.24 11,042.78 2,650.27
for canal wall
Form work with cuting and
14.8 m2 1.8 57.00 102.60
bending
ф12mm c/c 25 cm bar both in
14.9 vertical and horizontal kg 21.0 218.00 4,578.00
including black wire 0
14.10 Plastering (1:2) m2 2.4 470.39 1,128.93
subtotal8 15,669.28
15 Foot path
15.1 Concrete work
15.1. 11,042.
Reinforced concret work(1:2:3) m3 1.44 78
313.92
1
15.2 ф12mm c/c 25 cm bar both in kg 61 218.00 13,298.00
vertical and horizontal
Page 84
 MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

including black wire

16 Road crossing -
16.10 Concrete work -
16.1.
Reinforced concret work(1:2:3) m3 0.96 11,042.78 10,601.07
1
ф12mm c/c 25 cm bar both in
16.2 vertical and horizontal kg 39 218.00 8,502.00
including black wire
16.3 road clearing km 3 124,005.24 372,015.72
sub tota9 404,730.71
General Items cost 12,772,539.36
VAT(15%) 1,915,880.90
Grand total 14,688,420.26
project cost per hectar ha 35.40 414,927.13

Table: 16 Bill of quantity

7.References
 ERA (Ethiopian Roads Authority), 2002: Drainage Design Manual, Hydrology.
 IRRIGATION ENGINEERING AND HYDRAULIC STRUCTURE (GARGE)
 Irrigation Engineering (ARORA)
 IDD Manual No

Design Guide Line on Hydraulic Structures, Ministry of Water Resource.

 Previous design Reports

 Irrigation structure manual, FAO

Page 85
MEHER HADEWORK DESIGN DOCUMENT

Page 86