1.

Project name: kikrayna Diversion Irrigation Project

2. Name of the stream: Kikrayna River
3. Location of the weir site

 North:1435398
 East:307812
 Average Altitude: 1102m.a.s.l
 Zone: North Gondar
 Wereda: Tach Armachiho

4. Hydrology

 Design rainfall: 95.22 mm

 Catchment area: 20.77 Km2
 Longest flow path length: 9.72Km
 Design flood: 107.26m3/s
 Design base flow:70 l/s
 Command area:40ha

5. Weir
 Type: - Broad Crested weir
 Weir Height: -2m
 Crest length: - 2
Background

Description of the Project Area

Location

Kirkirayana irrigation project is located mainly at chinqana kebele woymba gote, Tach Armachiho
Wereda of North Gondar Zone in the Amhara Regional state. The proposed irrigation project is to
be undertaken on Kirkirayana River and the headwork structures are specifically located at an
altitude of 1102masl and geographical coordinates of 1435393 N (UTM) & 307816 E (UTM).

Accessibility

The project site can be accessed from the Wereda town, Sanja after driving 8km on all weathered gravel
road. Sanja town is found at about 60km from the Zonal Capital City, Gondar.

Previous irrigation practice

There is no traditional irrigation practice that is conducted in the area. However farmers are much
initiated to use the river for the irrigation purpose

Objectives of the study

Specific Objectives

 To identify, estimate and allocate, according to the water balance study, proportional irrigation
water for the given diversion to make sustainable the rain-fed crop production and make extra
production in the dry season irrigation for 40ha of land (ToR) through irrigation by constructing
diversion structures across the Kirkirayana River and diverting the river flow.
 To appropriately estimate the design flood across the given cross section of the
diversion and/or the surrounding area by using various acceptable hydrological
methods and models, so that after construction of the structure any
unmanaged/overtopping, over flooding, back flooding and scouring ,etc/ will be
minimized and the structure will be safe throughout the life time.
  To estimate reasonably design storm and design flood using required return period
to properly size the recommended hydraulic structures for the purpose.
 to make detail design of the proposed weir with an engineering cost estimate

Scope of the study

The study uses meteorological stations from Gondar station due to various hydrological reasons, therefore
meteorologically the study covers wider areas but hydro-logically the study is limited to data that are entirely
in the Kirkirayana watershed and adjacent watersheds in terms of social inclusions. For water balance study
cases where a downstream release is essential, the study shall cover the study of downstream flow regime
and recharges which is out of the watershed.

Methodology
The study procedure,
 Specific Site identification:
o Field study assessment and measurement
o Review of the reconnaissance survey conducted
o 50,000 scale top map and GIS information
o topography survey at a scale of 1:1000
o Local farmers interview and discussion
o Use of Other secondary data ( Meteorology and that of the woreda)
 Flow estimation
o Physical observation on flood mark indications and local information about high flood and
critical flow condition of the river
o Base flow estimated during the reconnaissance field visit by floating method.
o Base flow estimated during the study field visit by floating method.
o Base flow estimated using aged farmers information

 Topographic survey:
o Surveying the headwork site and the Command area with sufficient radius, using Total
Station
 Section І: hydrology

2. Hydrology
2.1 Hydro-metrological data availability
Climate

Hydrologists and designers are faced with lack of good or recorded hydrometric data on the target
stream/river and on local weather and climate conditions. Stream gauging stations are virtually non-existent
in remote rural areas of Ethiopia; meteorological stations are almost rare. Likewise, at the Project area
location and in the catchment area of this project, there is no meteorological station of any level. Moreover,
there are no recorded flow data for the river. Therefore, data for the hydro-meteorological analysis is taken
from the nearby station and similar areas. Therefore it is technically advisable to use the Gondar rainfall
station for the purpose.
As per the data of the station, March – April are identified as high temperature periods whereas December–
January are low temperature periods. The mean annual rainfall amount is 1101mm (1961 - 1995 data) and
most of it occurred from June to August.
Daily Heaviest Rainfall Data

In order to compute the design flood for design of the diversion structure, the daily maximum rainfall is
collected from Gondar Metrological stations with a record of 35 years. Because this station is the
nearest one as compared to other NMSA stations.

Base flow data

Flow measurement conducted on 18/09/2005, using floating method at the proposed weir site is
70l/s. there is no upstream and downstream users. As to the downstream case since the river joins
Sanja river after few kms, there is no lack of water for environmental maintenance purpose.

Watershed characteristics

The Watershed has marked topographic variation. All types of slopes are present. The dominant slope
class is 3-8% which covers 64.58% of the total area followed by 0-3% which is 18.16%. Sloping and
moderately steep slopping accounts 16.40 and 0.86 percent respectively. There is very steep slope.

Certain physical properties of watersheds significantly affect the characteristics of the runoff and
sediment yield and are of great interest in hydrologic analyses. The rate and volume of runoff, and
sediment yield from the watershed have much to do with shape, size, slope and other parameters of the
landscape. These suggest that there should be some important relations between basin form and
hydrologic performance. If the basin and hydrologic characteristics are to be related, the basin form must
also be represented by quantitative descriptors. These parameters are measured from maps as follows.
 Catchment Area = 20.77 km2
 Stream Length = 9.7 Km
 CN(II) = 82
At the selected reference point, the area of Kirkirayana catchment is 20.7 km 2 and consists of a network of
tributaries.

Kirkirayana River at the headwork site is characterized by well-defined channel system and enough
flows. It looks that the gradient of the river is medium and hence there exists no more deposition.
 Design flood analysis

For the design and analysis of structures to be constructed on the river, estimation of flood
magnitude is an important task. This can be done using different techniques depending on the
data available at or nearby the selected irrigation project site. For this particular case, there are no
river flow data and hence the flood estimation is done using the rainfall data and applying SCS
Curve Method. However this is not the best and only method to be used. The result can be
checked using other river hydraulic or geometry hydrodynamic reactions or checked using flood
mark method.

Design Rainfall computation

Based on the data of 24hr peak rainfall given in Table 2.1 the design rainfall, RF is computed by
using different distributions.

Outlier Test
Higher Limit,Y H =Ymean+ Kn∗Sy , Kn = 2.753 for 35 Years of data.
Lower Limit, Y H =Ymean−Kn∗Sy , .

Table 1.1: Outlier test analysis

Descendin Logarithmi
g c
S.No. Year Max. RF Order Rank Value/Yo/ (Yo-Ym)2 (Yo-Ym)3
1 1961 59 99 1 1.9956 0.0852847 0.0249062
2 1962 50 82 2 1.9138 0.0441900 0.0092894
3 1963 55 69.5 3 1.8420 0.0191504 0.0026501
4 1964 59.2 65.4 4 1.8156 0.0125391 0.0014041
5 1965 48.2 65.4 4 1.8156 0.0125391 0.0014041
6 1966 42.1 65 6 1.8129 0.0119495 0.0013062
7 1967 82 63.5 7 1.8028 0.0098355 0.0009754
8 1968 45 63 8 1.7993 0.0091663 0.0008776
9 1969 51.9 59.3 9 1.7731 0.0048240 0.0003351
10 1970 57.1 59.2 10 1.7723 0.0047227 0.0003246
11 1971 36 59 11 1.7709 0.0045229 0.0003042
12 1972 59.3 57.1 12 1.7566 0.0028129 0.0001492
13 1973 53.1 55 13 1.7404 0.0013515 0.0000497
14 1974 69.5 54.3 14 1.7348 0.0009734 0.0000304
15 1975 65 54.3 14 1.7348 0.0009734 0.0000304
16 1976 65.4 53.1 16 1.7251 0.0004620 0.0000099
17 1977 63.5 51.9 17 1.7152 0.0001338 0.0000015
18 1978 50.3 51.3 18 1.7101 0.0000425 0.0000003
19 1979 44 50.3 19 1.7016 0.0000041 0.0000000
20 1980 54.3 50 20 1.6990 0.0000214 -0.0000001
21 1981 30 48.2 21 1.6830 0.0004224 -0.0000087
22 1982 34.3 47.9 22 1.6803 0.0005412 -0.0000126
23 1983 65.4 45 23 1.6532 0.0025389 -0.0001279
24 1984 43.9 45 23 1.6532 0.0025389 -0.0001279
25 1985 99 44 25 1.6435 0.0036177 -0.0002176
26 1986 37 43.9 26 1.6425 0.0037375 -0.0002285
27 1987 41.3 42.1 27 1.6243 0.0062913 -0.0004990
28 1988 51.3 41.3 28 1.6160 0.0076825 -0.0006734
29 1989 47.9 40.1 29 1.6031 0.0100913 -0.0010137
30 1990 63 37 30 1.5682 0.0183326 -0.0024822
31 1991 31.1 36.8 31 1.5658 0.0189756 -0.0026139
32 1992 36.8 36 32 1.5563 0.0216965 -0.0031958
33 1993 54.3 34.3 33 1.5353 0.0283268 -0.0047676
34 1994 40.1 31.1 34 1.4928 0.0444532 -0.0093725
35 1995 45 30 35 1.4771 0.0512925 -0.0116166
SUM 1830.30   59.6260 0.4460380 0.0070902
MEAN 52.29   1.7036 0.0127439 0.0002026
STANDARD DEVATION 14.31   0.1145    
SKEWNESS COEFICIENT 1.056   0.1472    

Higher Limit, YH = 2.0046

Lower Limit, YL = 1.4026
Upper limit of rainfall = 101.9540 =101.0655mm
Lower Limit of rainfall = 101.3871 = 25.2695mm
Therefore the rainfall values are all within the limits and hence we can use.

Checking for variance

After checking the outliers, the data should be checked for variability. For variability the formula used is
δ ∩−1
α= (√ N∗Mean )
∗100 %

Where, δn-1 = Standard deviation = 14.31

N = Number of recorded data = 35
Mean = 52.29
α = Standard error
 13.09
α= ( √ 48∗48.26 )∗100 %=4.62<10 % Acceptable

Therefore, the data shows relatively good consistency to use as design input.

D-Index test

After checking the consistency of the data for higher and lower outlier, the 35 years data is obtained as
representative for the analysis using D-index. The D-Index test is believed to be the better goodness to
fitness in many literatures. Hence in this study it was used to determine the best statistical distribution to
estimate the peak rainfall. The D-index for the comparison of the fit of various distributions is
summarized as follows.
6
1
D −Index =( )∗∑ |( Xi− Xi' )|
X m i=1
Where Xi and Xi’ are the ith highest observed and computed values for the distribution respectively.
Table 1.1: Test for goodness to fit using D-index
Log Pearson Log Pearson
Normal Type III Normal Type III Gumbel EVI Gumbel
Rank XI XI -'XI' XI -'XI' XI -'XI' XI -'XI' XI -'XI' XI -'XI'
1 99 19.306 12.285 12.319 16.569 9.841 12.452
2 82 6.904 1.981 2.001 4.239 0.691 6.936
3 69.5 2.586 6.466 6.453 5.268 7.166 21.270
4 65.4 4.362 7.607 7.598 7.094 7.936 26.986
5 65.4 2.424 5.250 5.245 5.227 5.323 28.504
6 65 1.136 3.678 3.675 4.021 3.563 30.388
Sum 36.718 37.267 37.291 42.418 34.521 126.535
Sum/Mean 0.702 0.713 0.713 0.811 0.660 2.420
Point Rainfall 81.69 88.68 86.87 82.81 89.39 95.22
Design Point Rainfal =   89.387        

All the candidate distributions give almost identical correlation coefficients. However, the standard errors
are significantly lower for the Gumbel’s EVI Method which is 0.66 that makes. However, since the data
of Gondar is taken for the site which is far by 60km, taking this design storm may underestimate the
flood, for this reason Gumbel’s distribution is selected to be safe. Therefore, the design point rainfall
for 50 years return period is 95.22 mm.
 Peak Discharge Determination

General

The river is not gauged river. The design flood is calculated by using SCS unit hydrograph method. Thus,
it is preferred to base the flood analysis on rainfall data. In the hydrologic analysis for drainage structures,
it must be recognized that there are many variable factors that affect floods. Some of the factors that need
be recognized and considered on an individual site by site basis are; rainfall amount and storm
distribution; catchment area, shape and orientation; ground cover; type of soil; slopes of terrain and
stream(S); antecedent moisture condition; Storage potential (over bank, ponds, wetlands, reservoirs,
channel, etc.). After simulated design flood is obtained based on the actual river and watershed data, the
result is compared with the flood mark method that is checked during field assessment.

Peak flood analysis by The United States Soil Conservation Service/SCS / method

Design flood is calculated by using SCS method. This method is widely adopted and more reliable
simulation method for flood estimation. The approach considers, watershed parameters, like Area, Curve
number, and Time of concentration.

Time of concentration (Tc)

Time of concentration has been calculated by taking the stream profile of the longest streamline and
dividing it in to different elevation ranges. Kirpich formula is adopted for computation.

The formula is,

0.385 0.385 0.385
L1 3 L3 L3
Tc=∑ 0.948
H1 {( ) ( ) + 2
H2 ( ) }
+…+ n
Hn

0.948∗❑
Tc=
❑

 Tc = 1.12 Since Tc> 3hr., duration of excess rainfall difference, D =.0.50

 Time to peak,
T
+0.6∗T c ¿= 0.92 hr
D
p=¿
2

 Base time,
T b=2.67∗T p = 2.46hr
  Recession time,
T r=1.67∗T p=1.54hr.

Curve number (CN)

Curve number (CN) is achieved based on SCS method by watershed characterization in terms of land
cover, treatment, hydrologic condition and soil group. From the watershed analysis curve number at
condition II = 82 since peak rainfall is found at an antecedent moisture condition III state, this value has
to be changed to antecedent moisture condition III.

 Conversion factor = 1.1133

 CN Condition (III) = (Factor from Table x CN condition II) = 82*1.1133 = 91.287

Areal Rainfall

As the area of the catchment gets larger, coincidence of all hydrological incidences becomes less and less.
This can be optimized by changing the calculated point rainfall to aerial rainfall. The conversion factor is
taken from standard table and curves that relate directly with the size of watershed area and type of the
gauging station (IDD manual). The result is shown in Table 2.4 below.

Table 1.3: Design Rainfall Arrangement

Area to Areal Incrementa
Rainfall Point Rainfall l
Design Profile Ratio % (mm) Rainfall Descending
Duration Rainfall (mm) order Rank
(hr)   % mm          
0 95.22 30.0 28.6 68.0 19.4 19.43 19.43 1
0.5   45.0 42.8 78.0 33.4 14.00 14.00 2
1   51.0 48.6 80.0 38.9 5.43 7.22 3
1.5   59.0 56.2 82.0 46.1 7.22 5.43 4
2   63.0 60.0 83.5 50.1 4.02 4.95 5
2.5   68.0 64.8 85.0 55.0 4.95 4.02 6
 Direct Run off Analysis
Input data:
 Design Point Rainfall =95.22mm
 Curve number at antecedent moisture condition III =91.287
 Catchment Area, A =20.77Km2
 Tc= 1.12hr, D = 0.5hr., Tp =0.92hr; Tb =2.46hr; Tr = 1.2hr.
 Direct run-off,

( I −0.2∗S)2
Q=
( I + 0.8∗S)

Where, I = Rearranged cumulative run-off depth (mm

 S = Maximum run off potential difference,

S= ( 25400
CN )
−254

 Peak run-off for incremental;

0.21∗( A∗Q)
Q p= Where, A=Catchment area (Km2)
Tp
Tp=Time to peak (hr)
Q = Incremental run-off (mm)

Table 1.4: Direct Runoff analysis

Durati Cumulativ Incremental Peak Runoff Time of Time to Time to

on (hr) e Runoff Runoff (mm) Incremental Begin (hr) Peak (hr) End (hr)
6 4.02 4.02 0.00 0.00 0.92 2.46
4 5.43 9.45 0.73 0.50 1.42 2.96
3 7.22 16.67 3.87 1.00 1.92 3.46
1 19.43 36.09 17.59 1.50 2.42 3.96
2 14.00 50.09 29.46 2.00 2.92 4.46
5 4.95 55.04 33.84 2.50 3.42 4.96
Table1.5: Hydrograph coordinates

Time H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 SUM
0.00 0.00            
0.50 0.00 0.00         0.00
0.60 0.00 0.37         0.37
0.92 0.00 1.57 0.00       1.57
1.30 0.00 2.99 4.79       7.78
1.42 0.00 3.44 6.73 0.00     10.18
1.70 0.00 2.82 11.18 13.96     27.97
1.92 0.00 2.32 14.72 29.42 0.00   46.47
2.20 0.00 1.70 12.06 48.87 12.07   74.70
2.42 0.00 1.21 9.94 64.33 25.44 0.00 100.91
2.70 0.00 0.58 7.27 52.68 42.26 4.46 107.26
2.92   0.09 5.15 33.36 55.63 9.40 103.63
3.10   0.00 3.45 22.30 49.17 13.39 88.31
3.42     0.37 2.40 37.55 20.56 60.88
3.96     0.00 0.00 18.08 13.36 31.44
4.46         0.00 6.68 6.68
4.96           0.00 0.00

From the analysis, the 50 years return period design run off is 107.26m 3/s. This implies that for
this watershed the peak flood rate per km2 area of the watershed is about 5.164 m3/s/km2

The 6hr synthetic hydrograph is shown using the following graphical representation
 1

H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
SUM

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Figure 1.2: Complex Hydrograph

Flood mark Method

Field assessment and topographic survey, the normal and maximum flood mark points has been
selected by interviewing the local aged farmers and marked in cross section of selected river
geometry. The river is a more channelized one having defined bed and banks dominantly
covered by fresh basalt settings. It is also steeply in slope proving that flood is concentrated in
the outlet in 1.12 hrs time (calculated. There is no overflowing problem.
The cross section of the river looks the following starting from the right side bank of the river (BM-
2, left side )

1106

1105

1104

1103

1102

1101

1100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Figure 1.3: River cross section at the proposed weir site

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. The river cross-section was surveyed.
Average river bed slope

 Elevatio
Northing Easting Partial Distance  Cum.Distance n  
307775.49 1435370.42 0.00 0.00 1102.60  upstream
307782.92 1435378.14 10.72 10.72 1102.26  
307792.07 1435379.91 9.32 20.03 1102.08  
307802.85 1435389.54 14.45 34.48 1102.13
307811.87 1435398.50 12.72 47.20 1102.25 center
307822.24 1435412.92 17.77 64.97 1102.05  
307831.53 1435425.16 15.36 80.33 1102.00  
downstrea
307857.45 1435438.21 29.02 109.35 1101.47 m
slope 0.010

Table 1.6: River profile

Manning’s Roughness coefficient

The Manning’s roughness coefficient is taken from standard table based on the river nature. The river at
the headwork site has got relatively U-shape feature and straight nature. The river banks have bushes and
wooden logs but on the river bed there are out cropped weathered rocks. Hence, Manning’s roughness
coefficient (n = 0.030) is adopted.

Discharge of the river

Input data:
 Manning's roughness coefficient, n = 0.030
 Average river bed slope, S = 0.010
1
V = ×R2 /3 ×√ S
n ,

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

Q=V ∗A
Table 1.7: Stage discharge analysis

Elevatio wet perim wet area Hydraulic Velocity Discharg

n Depth (PW) (a) Radius ® (V) e (Q) Remarks
1102.25 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000  
1102.53 0.280 4.476 0.871 0.195 1.138 0.992
1102.81 0.560 6.358 2.336 0.367 1.739 4.063
1103.09 0.840 11.815 4.832 0.409 1.868 9.025
1103.37 1.120 16.399 8.784 0.536 2.236 19.638
1103.65 1.400 20.015 13.812 0.690 2.647 36.563
1103.93 1.680 23.630 19.836 0.839 3.017 59.836
1104.21 1.960 27.705 26.901 0.971 3.324 89.419
1104.327 2.301 32.480 37.682 1.144 3.702 107.259 computed
flood
114 mark
1104.77 2.520 35.526 44.558 1.254 3.943 175.672

1104.50

1104.00

1103.50

1103.00

1102.50

1102.00

1101.50

1101.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00
Figure 1.4: Stage Discharge Rating Curve

From the above stage discharge table the computed design peak discharge is 107.26m3/s (at a depth of 2.3
m from the river bed)

Selected design flood

Based on the stage analysis result of the flood mark elevation, the amount of flood computed, 107.26m3/s
fall at elevation of 1104.327 (at a depth of 2.3 m from the river bed). But the amount of flood computed at
the flood mark elevation was found to be 114 m3/s which is higher than the computed flood amount using
SCS method above.

However we adopted the scs value of flood i.e. 107.26m3/s because the flood mark flood is a little
exaggerated.

Therefore, the downstream high flood level before construction can be calculated as
⇒ D/S HFL = 1102.25+2.3= 1104.55 masl
.

HEADWORK STRUCTURES DESIGN

Headwork site selection

The headwork site is situated at 307816E, 1435393 N and river bed elevation of 1102.25 m above sea
level. At this site the river course is well defined, matured with fixed width and forms nearly a U-shaped
cross section. The headwork site is characterized by welded and hard basaltic rock. Along some places
the river bed is covered with jointed bedrock (basalt). Since the bedrock has small joints and small
fractures water can’t percolate through the foundation. The river is flowing through a defined channel and
straight reach and its scouring effect on the river course is less as its bed is covered by hard bedrock.

River Geomorphology
It is a common fact that the river development tends to accommodate itself to the local geology that
develops along the structurally weak zones like faults, joints, folds, etc. The drainage system of the study
area is strongly influenced by geological structures and formations, the nature of the vegetation cover and
climate. The nature of geological formations and structures has also strong influence on the development
of the channel.
The present morphology of the Kirkirayana River channel is a function of a number of processes and
environmental conditions, including the composition of the bed and the banks. The river flows in
meandering pattern. Particularly at the diversion site, the river has gentle slope. But as we move some
meters downstream of the diversion site the river take steep slope. The river has narrower section in
upstream direction whereas to downstream side the river section becomes somewhat wider.

River Bed condition

The stream bed at the headwork site shows moderate slope whereas at the lower side of the weir site it is
steep slope. At those areas having steep slope no sediment or deposit has been accumulated., At those
beds from which having gentle slope the river bed is covered by recent coarse alluvial sediment having
same textural characteristic to the older coarse sediment observed at the lower horizon of the left bank.
At the lower section of the river most part of the stream bed is made from the alluvial deposit (cobble,
gravel and sand size) but near right end areas there is exposed welded basalt rock and it extends in
upstream side. From local geological setting, the thickness of the alluvial sediment can reach 1m, below
to which the underlying bedrock could be found. The proposed structure; hence, should lie on the bed
rock, which is exposed at the surface at right and left section. The bedrock is fresh and un-weathered at
the surface when we go deeper.

River Bank condition

Right Bank

This abutment forms nearly small ridge. It is characterized by moderately to highly weathered, jointed
and fractured rock. It is covered by weathered rock with silt clay soil for few centimeter thicknesses on
the top part of this bank. This rock is not extending in the downstream direction instead it is replaced by
red silt clay soil at the river bank but in the upstream side it extends for some meters. At the proposed
weir site the height of this bank is about 1.5m with steeply slope. This rock is good for anchoring the
proposed weir structure and the recommended retaining wall along this side with it.

Left Bank

The left bank of the River geological formation is characterized by consolidated sandstone and
unconsolidated or weathered hard rock. The soil type along this bank is characterized with reddish color
and having fine to intermediate grain size. From visual examination of the pit, there is thin fine silty clay
soil having low plasticity.

Sources of construction materials

During site investigation, natural construction materials required for the construction of the various
proposed engineering structures at the headwork and within the farmland have been assessed, and
possible quarry sites and borrow areas have been identified within the vicinity of the study area as close
to the project site as possible. In addition to identifying the quality, quantity and accessibility conditions
of the construction materials, ownerships of each proposed production sites have also been studied and
described in this report, on separate sub-sections below. The materials needed for the construction of the
structures include rock for masonry stones, aggregates (both coarse and fine), and water.

Rock for Masonry and Crushed Coarse Aggregate

Source or quarry site for rock that can be used for masonry works has been assessed at the immediate
vicinity of the project area. It is found within 200m-500m distance to the right from the proposed
diversion site. It is also found at the far left side of the command area. The source area is characterized by
a hill or a mountain right and left side of the headwork area.

The rock type found at this quarry site is basalt, which has dark gray color, fine grained texture, and high
strength. The rock unit shows closely spaced joints that disintegrated and dislodged fragments of the rock
are observed in large quantity. In addition to this intact and jointed (by widely spaced joints) outcrops of
the rock unit and subsurface extensions are found. At the site large extent exposure of the rock is
available..

Fine Aggregates
Aggregates are highly required for headwork concrete structures and the main canal masonry structures
and other structures that can be constructed in the project. The aggregates required for use in concrete
works are coarse and fine aggregates that can be found from natural deposits or artificially by crushing of
suitable rock.

The project stream itself and other nearby ones have been assessed for natural sand deposits with the help
of the local dwellers. The streams do not possess natural sand along their beds at and nearby the site
because since the stream around the command area is steep the sand cannot be deposited at the project
area. The streams are found at higher elevation part of the region that deposition of suspended sediments
of sand to clay sizes is not possible due to their nature, rather coarser sediments or rock exposures
characterize their bed.

Water
Water for construction purposes can be found from the project stream, Kirkirayana River, itself. The
stream is perennial throughout the year that there is some amount of flow along its course. During this
field time the stream base flow was more than 70 l/second.

Headwork type selection

Looking the availability of natural construction materials and considering the river features and expected
flood amount and other selection criteria (technical simplicity of construction), broad crest type of weir is
chosen.

Hydraulic design of headwork structure

Weir Height Determination

The following major factors have been seen in determining the weir crest level:
 Maximum command area elevation =1103.93
  Main canal Length at max command elevation =218m
 Main canal slope=0.001
 Head regulator Losses =0.1
 Lowest Point of river center=1102.25
Therefore, Weir crest level =1103.93+0.001*218+0.1=1104.25 m
Weir height (h) = 1104.25-1102.25= 2.00m

Base flow of the River

As it is clearly stated in the water balance section of this report, Kirkirayna River the base flow
which measured during may was 70l/s.

a. Crest length
 Lacey’s regime width, L=4.75∗ √ Q ,=4.75∗ √ 107.26 = 49.19 m.
 Actual river section width of the over flow section of the river is = 22m take22m
b. Discharge over the weir section
 Design discharge, Q = 107.26 m3/s

Top and bottom width

According to the Beligh’s formula, top and bottom width of the weir body is determined as follows
Input Data:
P: Height of weir (m) = 2

Q=CLHe 3 /2
2/3 2/3
Q 107 . 26
He=
CL [ ] [ =
1 .7∗22 ] =2. 02 m

He: specific energy head (over flow depth + approaching velocity head (m))
σ : Specific weight of weir body (2.35 for cyclopean concrete)
He 2 .02
T= = =1 .71 m
Top width, √σ −1 √2 .35−1
He+P 2 .28+ 2. 0
B= = =3 . 43 m
Bottom width, √σ −1 √ 2. 35−1
However this computed value of the dimensions shall be fixed after stability analysis of the structure.
After stability analysis safe we fixed Top width=1.0m, Bottom width=2.6m
 U/S and D/S HFL Calculation & Determination

From the stage –discharge curve prepared in hydrology Section the high flood level after construction (i.e.
D/s HFL) corresponding to the design flood is1103.93m a.s.l.
D/s HFL = 1103.93 m amsl ------------------------------------ (a)
U/s HFL = U/s bed level + weir height + Hd ----------------- (b)
Hd is the depth of water over the weir crest. This is calculated by assuming broad crested weir formula.
3
Q=C∗L∗H e 2
Q 32
H e= (
C∗L )
= 2.02m, L is the gross crest length i.e. 13m

The velocity head, ha is computed from the approach velocity as shown below
v
a2
ha =
2g
Where g: acceleration due to gravity = 9.81m/sec 2
Va is Approach velocity determined by
Q
V a=
Lxhd
L is Weir crest length + under sluice length = 21+1 = 22m,
hd is flow depth over the weir and also,
hd =H e−h a
2 2
Q 107 . 26

ha =H e −hd =
( ) (
L∗h d
=
( 22 )∗h d )
(2 g) ( 2∗9 .81 )
By trial and error method, hd is found to be 1.39m
 ha = He-hd = 2.02m-1.39m = 0.63m
 Velocity head, ha = 0.63m

 u/s TEL=weir crest level+He=1104.25+2.02=1106.27

 U/s HFL =U/s TEL –velocity head =1106.27-0.63m = 1105.64m a.s.l

Or
 U/s HFL =weir crest elev+hd =1104.25+1.39m = 1105.64m a.s.l

 Afflux
⇒ Afflux = U/s HFL- D/s HFL = 1105.64m a.s.l – 1103.93m a.s.l = 1.71m.
From the flood level analysis, it is seen that the flood overtops the banks of the river upstream of the
structure. This condition is not allowed to take place as it inundates the canal head at the right side and
has negative impact on the structures. On the left side the flood may scour the bank and may change its
route in that direction. So, it is necessary to construct a structure to confine it.

Hydraulic Jump Calculation

As discussed in the geology report, the river bed is basaltic bedrock and hence no stilling basin for energy
dissipation is required. Both left and right side banks are relatively sound. Retaining walls at upstream
right and left sides are mainly needed to confine the peak flood within the bank. Hence no bank protection
work is needed downstream of the weir site.
The length of wing walls is determined based on the length of Jump, and it is calculated as shown below.
• Weir crest length = 22.0m
• Weir height = H = 2.00m
• Pre-jump depth = y1
• Post -jump depth =y2
Neglecting losses between point U/s and D/s and considering similar datum
z + H e = y1 + ha
But, He = 2.02m
 Figure 1.5: Hydraulic jump profile at the proposed weir site

Q 107.26 m 3/s
q= = =4.88 m 2¿ s
l 22 m
q2 4.882
h a= =
2∗g∗y 2 2∗g∗y 12

4.882
2.02=0
2∗g∗y 12

After iterations Y1 = 0.78m

V1=q/y1=4.88/0.78=6.29m/s
V1 6.29
F r 1= = =1.61
√ g y1 √9.81∗0.78
y1 2 0.78 (
y 2=
2
( √ 1+8∗F r −1 ) y 2=
2
√ 1+ 8∗1.612−1) =1.42 m
Hydraulic jump length (L) for Fr=1.61 from the graph L=5*y2=5*1.42=7.1m.
Here one shall note that as the river bed is hard rock no stilling basin is required. So, only 2.4m
downstream apron is adopted for protecting the weir body from cavity scouring.
Impervious floor

D/s impervious floor (Ld)

The river bed is covered with a hard rock substratum and therefore there is no need of
downstream impervious apron. however to protect the weir body from downstream cavity
undermining problem, nominal length of 1m d/s apron is required.

U/s impervious floor (Ld)

No u/s impervious apron is needed

Cut off Depth Calculation

U/s cut off

No apron is required.

D/s cut off

For some undermining problem which can be created after construction, give cut of depth of
o.45m

Stability Analysis of weir

Stability analysis is carried out to see the already determined weir/intake section is safe against
overturning, sliding, tension. The stability analysis is carried out considering the effect of the
following forces.
• Water pressure
• Weight of the over flow weir section
• Sediment load
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)

Table 1.8: Weir Stability Analysis

Descriptio Lever
n Width Depth Load Arm Moment
Vertica Horizonta
      l l   Positive Negative
W1 1 2 46   2.10 96.6  
W2 1.6 2 73.6   1.07 78.50667  
Pwt   2   19.62 0.67   13.08
Pst   2   38 0.67   25.33333
Sum     119.6 57.62   175.1067 38.41333
∑V = 119.6KN ∑M (+) = 175.12KN.m
∑H =-57.62KN ∑M (-) = 38.41KN.m

i) Factor of safety against overturning (Fo)

Fo=
∑ ( M +) =175 .12 =4 .56
∑ ( M−) 38 . 41 >1.5 Safe!
ii) Factor of safety against sliding (FS)
U∑ FV 0.75∗119. 6
Fs= Fs= =1.56 >1. 5 , safe .
∑ FH µ=0.75, 57. 62
iii) Check for tension (i.e. whether the resultant lies within the middle third)
The location of the resultant force from the toe is given by

X=
∑ M (+)−∑ M (−) =175 .12−35. 41 =1 .17 m
∑V 119. 6
The eccentricity (e) = B/2‒X, B = 2.6m
Hence, e = /1.3‒1.17/ = 0.13m
2.6
=0.43
The eccentricity (e) should be less than B/6 = 6 , Hence the obtained e = 0.13m <
0.43m.
⇒The resultant lays within the middle third no tension
Conclusion: From stability analysis, the designed weir section is safe

Figure 1.6: weir x-section

Under Sluice, and Canal outlet

Under sluice
The under sluice is mainly provided here to remove silt deposition as a result of barrier structure/weir.
Hence the sill level of the under sluice is fixed to facilitate this deposited silt to increase the efficiency of
water abstracting to the main canal through the head regulator from the pocket. The sill level of this sluice
is fixed to be 1.4m above from the minimum bed level. Hence the sill level of the under sluice is
1102.25+1.4=1103.65m.a s.l.
Even if the position of the under sluice is on concave side that is on scouring side, there might be boulders
that may come into the pocket of the under sluice due to the barrier structure. Hence in addition to the
supply of water to the intake and the removal of silt, this acts to remove the boulder that comes to wards
it. Considering this, the opening size of the gate is 0.6m*0.7m
The capacity of under sluice is determined considering the following points.
 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.
From stated above 6 times of the base flow can be taken to fix the under sluice capacity not to exaggerate
the capacity i.e. 6*70=420 l/s. The dimensions of under sluice are determined by using broad crest
formula for maximum flood condition i.e.
• Outlet size
From the weir discharge formula the outlet size is determined as follows
Q = CLHe3/2
Where; C = Coefficient of discharge = 1.7
L = Length of water way (m)
He = head above sill level (neglecting the velocity head) = 0.50m
Q 0 . 42
L= 3/ 2
= =0. 70 m
CHe 1. 7 x 0 . 503/2

Canal outlet level

The head regulator is provided on the right side of the river in reference to the flow direction. The sill
level of this head regulator is fixed from different angle of observations. The main conveyance system is
more than 1.5km. Hence this level is fixed based on the optimum route alignment and the maximum
irrigated command level including minor and major losses criteria. Based on this condition, the sill level
is fixed to be 1103.65m.
• Outlet capacity
The minimum command area is determined by the minimum flow of the river. But the canal capacity
should be determined for maximum command area and the corresponding discharge. In this case the
outlet capacity is fixed considering maximum duty and command area.

Outlet capacity for dry season irrigation = Duty x command area x correction factor (when necessary)

Where, maximum duty for 16 hr irrigation = 1.82 L/s/ha

Command area = 40ha

Outlet capacity = 1.82 L/s/ha x 40ha = 72.8 l/sec

But the project area is drought affected and there is crop failure due short of rain in October. but at that
time the flow is too high and according to the aged people information it is estimated about 4 times the
lean flow (70 l/s) = 280 l/s . Therefore the canal capacity is designed using this flow which can be used
for 1st period irrigation also (October-January). The project has enough command area for 1 st season
irrigation (80ha). But the topomap is surveyed for only 40ha.
• Outlet size
From the weir discharge formula the outlet size is determined as follows
Q = CLHe3/2
Where; C = Coefficient of discharge = 1.7
L = Length of water way (m)
He = head above sill level (neglecting the velocity head) = 0.5m
Q 0 . 28
L= 3/ 2
= =0. 45 m
CHe 1. 7 x 0 . 53/2 Say 0.5m
⇒Adopt water way length = 0.5m, to make easy for maintenance and cleaning.
Hence, provide an outlet size of 0.5m x 0.5m (length x height) .The gate of the off take canal is to be
vertical sheet metal of 0.5m x 0.50m for the closure of the opening space. Provide some extra dimensions
for groove insertion. Gross area of sheet metals for the off take canal gate will be 0.6m x 0.60m (allowing
5cm insertion for grooves and above the weir crest level). The grooves are to be provided on the walls
using angle iron frames at the two sides of the gate openings.
Trash racks of diameter 14mm with c/c spacing of 10cm has to be provided u/s of the gate to prevent
entry of debris to the canal.
.

Retaining Walls
At the two ends of the diversion weir, walls have been provided to safeguard the structure from scour of
banks at the ends and also as a facility to the canal outlet operation and maintenance at the canal outlet
portion. The walls are basically provided to keep the highest flood flow within the weir crest section and
to safeguard areas out of the river bank.

Upstream Retaining Wall

U/s wing wall Height (H) = (U/S HFL –bank bed level)
= (1105.64-1102.25)
= 3.4m
Bottom width, B (50% to 70% of H)
B = 0.5*3.4= 1.7m

Data available:-
3 3 3
γ m=23 KN /m , γ w =10 KN /m , γ soil =19 . KN /m

Angle of repose ( φ ) =300 , Top width=0.5m

W1
Ps
W2

B2

Dimension
H FB HT B1 B2 B
    3.40 0.50 1.20 1.70
 Stability analysis
Table U/s retaining wall
   
Horizonta
vertical l force
Type of force load KN KN moment arm m moment
      (-) (+)
Wt of 50.40350
back Pav 38.76   1.30   4
fill soil Pah   36.57 1.13 41.446068  
weight W1 39.1   0.25   9.775
of the
body W2 46.92   1.13   53.176
  sum 124.78 36.57 3.82 41.446068 113.355
Fo 2.73 >1.5 safe    
∑ 71.9084
Fs 2.56 >1.5 safe M= 4
0.5762
x 8  
e 0.31  
e<B/6
B/6 0.34 safe

Table 1.9: U/s retaining wall analysis

Downstream retaining wall

D/S wing wall Height (H) = 1.70
Bottom width, B, (50% to 70% of H)
B = 0.6*2= 1.2m take 1.2m
Data available:-River bed level=1102.25m, D/S HFL=1103.93 m
3 3 3
γ m=23 KN /m , γ w =10 KN /m , γ soil =19 KN /m

Angle of repose ( φ ) =300 , Top width=0.5m

Dimension
 H FB HT B1 B2 B
    1.70 0.50 0.70 1.20

Stability analysis

   
vertical load Horizontal
Type of force KN force KN moment arm m moment
      (-) (+)
Wt of
back fill Pav 11.31   0.97   10.93
soil Pah   9.14 0.57 5.18  
weight of W1 19.55   0.25   4.89
the body W2 13.69   0.57   7.75
  sum 44.54 9.14 2.35 5.18 23.57
Fo 4.55 >1.5 safe    
∑
Fs 3.65 >1.5 safe ∑M= 18.39
x 0.41  
e 0.19  
B/6 0.20 e<B/6 safe
Table 1.10: D/s retaining wall analysis
Note: during construction period anchoring depths can be extended bellow the bed match greater than
the provided value until sound foundation is existed in both upstream and downstream guide walls and for
All the structures going to be constructed.