Kikrayna Irri Project Enginering Report (Repaired)

July 12, 2013 Kikirayna Small Scale Irrigation Project Engineering Detail Report
Amhara National Regional State

North Gondar Water Resources Development
Department
Feasibility Study and Detail Design of

Kirkir_Ayana Diversion Small-Scale Irrigation Project
In
Collaboration with University of Gondar
Under the Financial support of IFAD
BY Teshager Melese
Sisay Asires(instr)
Jul. 12, 13
Gondar,
|Page
.FEASIBILITY STUDY & DETAIL DESIGN REPORT STRUCTURE

Table of Contents Page N
.FEASIBILITY STUDY & DETAIL DESIGN REPORT STRUCTURE.................................i

LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................v
SALIENT FEATURE.....................................................................................................................vi
1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background..................................................................................................................................1
1.1.1 Description of the Project Area............................................................................................1
1.1.1.1 Location...........................................................................................................................1
1.1.1.2 Accessibility....................................................................................................................3
1.1.1.3 Previous irrigation practice..............................................................................................3
1.2 Objectives of the study................................................................................................................3
1.2.1 Specific Objectives...............................................................................................................3
1.3 Scope of the study........................................................................................................................3
1.4 Methodology................................................................................................................................4
2 Hydrology.................................................................................................................................4
2.1 Hydro-metrological data availability..................................................................................................4
2.1.1 Climate.................................................................................................................................4
2.1.2 Daily Heaviest Rainfall Data.................................................................................................6
2.1.3 Base flow data.....................................................................................................................6
2.1.4 Watershed characteristics...................................................................................................6
2.2 Design flood analysis...................................................................................................................6
2.2.1 Design Rainfall computation................................................................................................7
2.2.2 Outlier Test..........................................................................................................................7
2.2.2.1 Checking for variance.......................................................................................................8
2.2.2.2 D-Index test......................................................................................................................9
2.2.3 Peak Discharge Determination...........................................................................................10
2.2.3.1 General..........................................................................................................................10
|Page
2.2.3.2 Peak flood analysis by The United States Soil Conservation Service/SCS / method.......10
2.2.3.3 Time of concentration (Tc).............................................................................................10
2.2.3.4 Curve number (CN)........................................................................................................11
2.2.3.5 Areal Rainfall..................................................................................................................11
2.2.4 Direct Run off Analysis.......................................................................................................11
2.2.5 Flood mark Method...........................................................................................................15
2.2.6 Tail Water Depth Computation..........................................................................................15
2.2.6.1 Average river bed slope.................................................................................................16
2.2.6.2 Manning’s Roughness coefficient..................................................................................16
2.2.6.3 Discharge of the river.....................................................................................................16
2.2.6.4 Selected design flood.....................................................................................................18
SECTION-II: HEADWORK DESIGN.........................................................................................19
2.3 HEADWORK STRUCTURES DESIGN.............................................................................................20
2.3.1 Headwork site selection.....................................................................................................20
2.3.2 River Geomorphology........................................................................................................20
2.3.2.1 River Bed condition........................................................................................................20
2.3.2.2 River Bank condition......................................................................................................21
2.3.3 Sources of construction materials......................................................................................21
2.3.3.1 Rock for Masonry and Crushed Coarse Aggregate.........................................................21
2.3.3.2 Fine Aggregates..............................................................................................................22
2.3.3.3 Water.............................................................................................................................22
2.4 Headwork type selection...........................................................................................................22
2.5 Hydraulic design of headwork structure....................................................................................22
2.5.1 Weir Height Determination................................................................................................22
2.5.2 Base flow of the River........................................................................................................22
2.5.3 a. Crest length....................................................................................................................23
2.5.4 Top and bottom width.......................................................................................................23
2.5.5 U/S and D/S HFL Calculation & Determination..................................................................23
2.5.6 Hydraulic Jump Calculation................................................................................................24
2.5.7 Impervious floor.................................................................................................................26
2.5.7.1 D/s impervious floor (Ld)................................................................................................26
2.5.7.2 U/s impervious floor (Ld)...............................................................................................26
|Page
2.5.8 Cut off Depth Calculation...................................................................................................27

1. U/s cut off..............................................................................................................................27
2. D/s cut off..............................................................................................................................27
2.6 Stability Analysis of weir............................................................................................................27
2.7 Under Sluice, and Canal outlet...................................................................................................29
2.7.1 Under sluice.......................................................................................................................29
2.7.2 Canal outlet level...............................................................................................................30
2.8 Retaining Walls..........................................................................................................................31
2.8.1 Upstream Retaining Wall...................................................................................................31
2.8.2 Downstream retaining wall................................................................................................33
2.9 Bill of Quantity and cost estimation...........................................................................................35
SECTION-III: IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS INFRASTRUCTURE.................38
3 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS DESIGN......................................................39
3.1 Irrigable area description...........................................................................................................39
3.1.1 Topography........................................................................................................................39
3.1.2 Climate...............................................................................................................................39
3.1.3 Soil characteristics.............................................................................................................39
3.1.4 Existing Irrigation Practices in the Project Area.................................................................39
3.1.5 Irrigation water requirement.............................................................................................40
3.1.5.1 Crop Water Requirement (CWR)....................................................................................40
3.1.5.2 Irrigation efficiency (Ep).................................................................................................40
3.1.5.3 Irrigation duty................................................................................................................40
3.1.5.4 Irrigation methods.........................................................................................................41
3.2 Irrigation and drainage system layout.......................................................................................42
3.2.1 Conveyance System...........................................................................................................43
3.3 Design of the canal system........................................................................................................43
3.3.1 Main Canal.........................................................................................................................44
3.3.2 Tertiary canal.....................................................................................................................46
3.3.3 Field Canals........................................................................................................................46
3.4 Canal structures design..............................................................................................................46
3.4.1 Design of Division box........................................................................................................46
3.4.2 Turn outs............................................................................................................................48
Drop...............................................................................................................................................49
|Page
3.5 Irrigation infrastructure bill of quantities and cost estimate.....................................................52

4 PROJECT SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE...............................................58
4.1 Headwork operation and maintenance.....................................................................................58
4.2 Irrigation and drainage system operation and maintenance.....................................................58
4.2.1 Operation...........................................................................................................................58
2. Maintenance.............................................................................................................................58
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.....................................................................60
REFERENCE................................................................................................................................61
5. Hydraulic structural design guideline for small scale irrigation projects in Amhara Region..........61
|Page
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1.1: OUTLIER TEST ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................7
TABLE 1.2: TEST FOR GOODNESS TO FIT USING D-INDEX.............................................................................................9
TABLE 1.3: DESIGN RAINFALL ARRANGEMENT.....................................................................................................................11
TABLE 1.4:DIRECT RUNOFF ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................................12
TABLE 1.5: HYDROGRAPH COORDINATES...................................................................................................................13
TABLE 1.6: RIVER PROFILE....................................................................................................................................16
TABLE 1.7: STAGE DISCHARGE ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................17
TABLE 1.8: WEIR STABILITY ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................................27
TABLE 1.9:U/S RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................33
TABLE 1.10: D/S RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................34
TABLE 1.11: HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS OF MAIN CANAL...........................................................................................44
TABLE 1.12: HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS OF DIVISION BOXES.....................................................................................48
TABLE 1.13: HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS OF TURNOUTS..............................................................................................49
TABLE 1.14: HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS OF DROPS......................................................................................................50
TABLE 1.15: SUMMARY OF BILLS...............................................................................................................................54
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1: LOCATION MAP OF THE PROJECT AREA.....................................................................................................2
FIGURE 1.2: COMPLEX HYDROGRAPH........................................................................................................................14
FIGURE 1.3: RIVER CROSS SECTION AT THE PROPOSED WEIR SITE..............................................................................15
FIGURE 1.4:STAGE DISCHARGE RATING CURVE.........................................................................................................17
FIGURE 1.5: HYDRAULIC JUMP PROFILE AT THE PROPOSED WEIR SITE........................................................................25
FIGURE 1.6: WEIR X-SECTION.....................................................................................................................................28
FIGURE 1.7: TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF MASONRY RETAINING WALL00(U/S) 34
FIGURE 1.8: IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM LAYOUT........................................................................................43
FIGURE 1.9: TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS OF MAIN CANAL...........................................................................................45
FIGURE 1.10: TYPICAL DIVISION BOX PLAN...............................................................................................................46
FIGURE 1.11: TYPICAL TURNOUT PLAN......................................................................................................................49
FIGURE 1.12: TYPICAL LONGITUDINAL SECTION OF VERTICAL DROP..........................................................................51
|Page
SALIENT FEATURE
Headwork Structure
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: - 22m
|Page
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.1.1 Description of the Project Area
1.1.1.1 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).
|Page
LOCATION MAP
Figure 1.1: Location map of the project area
|Page
1.1.1.2 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.
1.1.1.3 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
1.2 Objectives of the study
1.2.1 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
1.3 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.
|Page
1.4 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
|Page
Section І: hydrology
2 Hydrology
2.1 Hydro-metrological data availability
2.1.1 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.
|Page
2.1.2 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.
2.1.3 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.
2.1.4 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.
|Page
2.2 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.
2.2.1 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.
2.2.2 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
|Page
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.
2.2.2.1 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
|Page
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.
2.2.2.2 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.
|Page
2.2.3 Peak Discharge Determination
2.2.3.1 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.
2.2.3.2 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.
2.2.3.3 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 L2 3 Ln 3
Tc=∑ 0.948
H1 {( ) ( ) +
H2
+…+ ( ) }
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.
|Page
2.2.3.4 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
2.2.3.5 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
2.2.4 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,
|Page
( 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=
Tp
Where, A=Catchment area (Km2)
Tp=Time to peak (hr)
Q = Incremental run-off (mm)
Table 1.4: Direct Runoff analysis
Duratio Cumulative Incremental Peak Runoff Time of Time to Time to

n (hr) 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

|Page
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
3
From the analysis, the 50 years return period design run off is 107.26m /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
|Page
1
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
SUM
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure 1.2: Complex Hydrograph
2.2.5 Flood mark Method

During 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.
|Page
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
2.2.6 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.
|Page
2.2.6.1 Average river bed slope
Northing Easting Partial Distance Cum.Distance Elevation

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
2.2.6.2 Manning’s Roughness coefficient

The Manning’s roughness coefficient is taken from standard table based on the river nature. The river at the
headwork site has 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.
2.2.6.3 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
|Page
Table 1.7: Stage discharge analysis
wet perim wet area Hydraulic Velocity Discharg

Elevation 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)
|Page
2.2.6.4 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.
|Page
SECTION-II: HEADWORK DESIGN
|Page
2.3 HEADWORK STRUCTURES DESIGN
2.3.1 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.
2.3.2 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.
2.3.2.1 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.
|Page
2.3.2.2 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.
2.3.3 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.
2.3.3.1 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..
|Page
2.3.3.2 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.
2.3.3.3 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.
2.4 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.
2.5 Hydraulic design of headwork structure
2.5.1 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
2.5.2 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.
|Page
2.5.3 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
2.5.4 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
2.5.5 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
|Page
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.
2.5.6 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.
|Page
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
|Page
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 y 1 √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.
2.5.7 Impervious floor

2.5.7.1 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.
2.5.7.2 U/s impervious floor (Ld)

No u/s impervious apron is needed
2.5.8 Cut off Depth Calculation

2.5.8.1 U/s cut off
No apron is required.
2.5.8.2 D/s cut off

For some undermining problem which can be created after construction, give cut of depth of o.45m
|Page
2.6 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

Lever
Description Width Depth Load Arm Moment
Vertical Horizontal 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
|Page
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
2.7 Under Sluice, and Canal outlet
2.7.1 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.
|Page
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= = =0. 70 m
CHe 3/ 2 1. 7 x 0 . 503/2
2.7.2 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)
|Page
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 1 st 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.
.
2.8 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.
|Page
2.8.1 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
|Page
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
|Page
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
2.8.2 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

Type of force vertical load Horizontal

KN force KN moment arm m moment
|Page
(-) (+)
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
U/S DRAWING
0.5
1.7
Figure 1.7: Typical cross section of masonry retaining wall (U/S)
|Page
2.9 Bill of Quantity and cost estimation
The quantities of the various items have been worked out as per the final design and final drawings
prepared for the scheme. The unit rates analysis has been carried out based on the data available in
the vicinity of the project area.
Bill No. 1 General Items

Ite Uni Quantit Rate Amount
m Description t y (Birr) (Birr)
1.1 Allow for mobilization L.S 1 30000 30000
1.2 Allow for demobilization L.S 1 30000 30000
Allow for contractor’s camp facilities

-4*5m2, Living room for contractor’s
key personnel, CIS and internally
painted clip wood wall, Masonry floor
cement screened and well ventilated
room complete with doors and
windows. No. 1 80000 80000
5*5m2, store constructed from CIS

with doors and windows, Masonry
floor cement screened No. 1 35000 35000
Barbed wire fence 50*20m and 1.5m

high treated timber post complete with
3m wide gate and a CIS guard house 14,158
1.3 (1.5*2m) No. 1 .1 14158.08
Dewatering of open trenches and

excavation, temporary diversion of the 55,000.0
1.4 river flow and pumps L.S 1 0 55000
Provide project indicator post starting
1.5 from the construction time L.S 1 1000 1000
Provision of as built drawings for the
1.6 project L.S 1 2000 2000
247,158.0
Total for General Items 8
|Page
Bill No. 2- Headwork Structure
Uni Quantit Unit
Description t y Rate Total Cost
Head Work structures
1 Weir body
1.1 hard rock excavation M3 17.94 660 11840.4
1.2 Earth Excavation M3 11.96 60 717.6
3
1.3 Lean Concrete (C10) M 3.718 1700 6320.6
1.4 Masonry work with 1:3 ratio M3 89.661 1300 116559.3
1.5 Reinforced Concrete 0
1.5. 2424.6 71426.5180
1 Concrete (C20) M3 29.458 9 2
1.5.
2 Reinforcing bars ф 12 Kg 630 55 34650
Subtotal 241,514.42
2 Under sluice
2.1 Hard rock excavation M3 0.546 660 360.36
2.2 Earth Excavation M3 0.364 60 21.84
3
2.3 Masonry work with 1:3 ratio M 2.184 1300 2839.20
2.4 Lean Concrete (C10) M3 0.338 1700 574.60
2.3 Reinforced Concrete 0.00
2.3. 2424.6
1 Concrete (C20) M3 0.858 9 2080.38
2.3.
2 Reinforcing bars ф 12 Kg 35 55 1925.00
Subtotal 7,801.38
3 Downstream apron
3.1 Hard rock excavation M3 42.68 660 28168.80
3
3.2 Earth Excavation M 23.1 60 1386.00
3
3.3 Masonry work with 1:3 ratio M 22.88 1300 29744.00
3.4 Reinforced Concrete 0.00
3.4. 2424.6
1 Concrete (C20) M3 38.324 9 92923.82
3.4.
2 Reinforcing bars ф 12 Kg 650.765 55 35792.08
Sub total 188,014.69
4 Left side Retaining wall
4.1 Hard rock excavation M3 0 660 0
4.2 Earth Excavation M3 15 60 900
|Page
4.3 Back fill M3 6.5 53 344.5
3
4.4 Lean concrete (C10) M 1.95 1700 3315
4.5 Masonry work with 1:3 ratio M3 33.8 1300 43940
4.6 Plastering M2 32.5 169.15 5497.375
Sub total 53,996.88
5 Right side Retaining wall
3
5.1 Hard rock excavation M 0 660 0
5.2 Earth Excavation M3 23 60 1380
5.3 Back fill and compaction M3 8 53 424
3
5.4 Lean concrete (C10) M 2.6 1700 4420
4.5 Masonry work with 1:3 ratio M3 55.9 1300 72670
5.6 Plastering M2 41.6 169.15 7036.64
Sub total 85,930.64
6 Gates
6.1 under sluice
6.1.
0.546 1840 1004.64
1 6mm metal Sheets M2
6.1.
4 45 180
2 Stiffening angle iron (50*50*5) M
6.1.
5 90 450
3 Angle iron for groove(50*50*5) M
6.1. 16mm reinforcement bar for 1.5 55 82.5
4 handling Kg
6.2 Head regulator 0
6.2.
0.408 1400 571.2
1 4mm metal Sheets M2
6.2.
2.5 45 112.5
2 Stiffening angle iron (40*40*5) M
6.2.
M 2.2 90 198
3 Angle iron for groove(40*40*5)
6.2. 16mm reinforcement bar for
1.5 55 82.5
4 handling Kg
Sub total 2681.34
Total cost for Head work 579,939.35
|Page
SECTION-III: IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE
INFRASTRUCTURE
|Page
3 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS DESIGN
3.1 Irrigable area description
3.1.1 Topography
Topography is an important factor for the planning of any irrigation project as it influences method of
irrigation, drainage, erosion, mechanization, and cost of land development, labor requirement and choice of
crops.
The topographic feature of the project command area is mainly gently sloping type and flat surface.
However, it has identified to be suitable for surface irrigation the project command area is situated at the
right side of Kirkirayana River (to the East side of the river).
3.1.2 Climate
As per the hydrological analysis and on the basis of the traditional Ethiopian Agro-Ecological Zones (MOA,
2001), the TDWIP area is basically classified as Moist Kolla agro-ecological zone, indicating better moisture
condition in the area in wet seasons. There is no belg rain season in the project area. Despite the fact that the
Meher rains are considered adequate, there is notable variation in terms of onset, distribution and withdrawal
from year to year affecting crop production in general and crop productivity in particular.
The nearby station for the project we take Gondar meteorological station. And it has adequate and consistent
data for irrigation infrastructure design.
3.1.3 Soil characteristics

Soil properties (physical, chemical, etc.) greatly influence the growth and thereby yield of crops which are
going to be grown. The command area has predominantly sandy loam and black cotton soil. Most of the
study area soils are categorized as deep soil (>=1 meter depth). Soils of the command area are suitable for most of the
selected crops to be grown.
3.1.4 Existing Irrigation Practices in the Project Area

The pressure of survival and the need for additional food supplies to meet the demands of the increasing
population is necessitating a rapid expansion of irrigation schemes. Thus, irrigation is becoming a basic part
of well developed agriculture wherever there is water and irrigable land potential. Accordingly, traditional
irrigation practices are under taken by a few farmers. So, the farmers in the project area are very much
interested in the idea of modern scheme contraction.
|Page
3.1.5 Irrigation water requirement
3.1.5.1 Crop Water Requirement (CWR)
The calculation of crop water requirement is a very important aspect for planning of any irrigation project.
Several methods and procedures are available for this. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the
United Nations has also made available several publications on this subject and other issues related with this.
The computer program available in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56 “CROPWAT” has been used
for the calculation of Crop Water requirement. This program is based on Penman-Monteith approach and
procedures for calculation of crop water requirements and irrigation requirements are mainly based on
methodologies presented in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24 “Crop Water Requirements” and No.
33 “Yield Response to Water”.
3.1.5.2 Irrigation efficiency (Ep)

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 dependent 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 operations (simultaneously and continuous or Rotational water supply), and
availability of structures (for controlling and distribution and measuring and monitoring).
On the basis of these factors, the project has planned to impose surface irrigation method (using furrows).
The canal system is lined other than tertiary and field canals. Hence, the conveyance efficiency has been
estimated to be 90%, distribution efficiency 85%, and field application efficiency 60%. As a result of these
the overall irrigation efficiency has been estimated to be 50%.
3.1.5.3 Irrigation duty

Irrigation duty is the volume of water required per hectare for the full flange of the crops. Moreover, it helps
in designing an efficient irrigation canal system since it enables to determine the amount of water.
The area, which will be irrigated, can be calculated by knowing the total available water at the source and
the overall duty for all crops required to be irrigated in different seasons of the years.
The proposed cropping pattern of Kirkirayana diversion irrigation project has showed a maximum net
irrigation water requirement (NIWR) in the month of February with the amount of 3.9 mm/day for 24
working hours (for overall proposed crops).
|Page
However, for the designing of the irrigation water application and the flows in the entire canal systems, from
the overall proposed crops the one that has maximum NIWR was used for irrigation duty calculation.
Accordingly, maize has showed the maximum NIWR (i.e. 5.47 mm/day); and hence taken for the irrigation
project duty calculation as indicated here below:
For Kirkirayana River Diversion Irrigation Project, it is decided to adopt 60% field application efficiency,
85% distribution efficiency, and 90% conveyance efficiency as the soil is sandy loam and black cotton
textured and the canal systems are estimated to be lined except tertiary and field canals. Hence, the
overall/project efficiency for the selected surface irrigation method has been estimated to be 50%
(60/100*90/100*85/100) which is rounded to 50%.
For the designing of the project, the GIWR is given as follows:
GIWR = 5.47/0.50 = 10.49 [mm/day]
The GIWR, 10.49 mm/day, represents the daily quantity of water that is required to be applied. This water
quantity is also used for the determination of the canal discharge in consideration of the time of flow and is
defined as the duty, expressed as l/s/ha.
The duty is calculated by:
Duty (D) = GIWR × 1000 × 10 / (t × 60×60)
Where; Duty – the duty [l/s/ha]
GIWR – Gross Irrigation Requirement [mm/day]
t – Daily irrigation or flow hours [hrs]
The duty for the GIWR of 10.49 mm/day and 16 hours of daily irrigation time (t = 16), is supported to be
used with furrow irrigation method. Hence, Duty for 16 working hours, as the site is nearer to farmers’
village and local farmers have experiences in irrigation, is computed as follows:
Duty (D) = (10.49 x 1000 x 10) / (16 x 3600) = 1.82l/sec/ha.
3.1.5.4 Irrigation methods

Among the different irrigation systems surface irrigation system will be used for the project area; and the
irrigation water will be obtained from Kirkirayana River and by constructing diversion weir and conveying
the water commonly through lined main and canal and then leading to earthen secondary and field (SC&FC)
canals; and finally irrigation takes place mostly in furrows.
|Page
For this project, among the various irrigation methods, surface irrigation method has been selected. Of the
surface irrigation methods furrow, border and basin irrigation methods can be used to supply irrigation water
to the plants/crops. However, each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. Care should be taken
when choosing the method which is best suited to the local circumstances, i.e., depending on slopes, soil
types, selected crop types, amount of water available, etc. of the command area.
Based on the above factors surface irrigation method has been proposed for the proposed crops in this
project. The method allows applying light irrigation and can be laid out in sloping fields along the contour.
Furrow irrigation method is best suited for most of the proposed and row planted crops. In general, furrow
irrigation method is simple, manageable and widely practiced irrigation method. This method is suitable for
row crops that cannot stand in water for long periods. The only thing required to use this method is row
planting of crops. Besides, basin and border irrigation method would be used for the non-row planted crops.
Rotational flow water distribution is also recommended for the project area.
3.2 Irrigation and drainage system layout

The irrigation system layout for the project is prepared taking the following points into consideration besides
other factors.
 A primary concern in the layout of the system is that it serves the purpose of conveying and
distributing water to the command area.
 The excavation and earth fill volumes not be excessive, otherwise the construction costs can be
tremendous.
 The selection of longitudinal bed slope is made taking into account the existing slopes of the terrain,
so as to minimize deviations in canal routing.
 Curves in canals should not be too sharp.
The proposed irrigation system layout comprises one main canal. The main canal runs for most of its length
parallel to the contours and for lengths through which it runs across contours; drop structures and chute
structures are designed. Hence, no need of constructing such as flume or culvert rather it is supposed to pass
it with a simple cover slab allowing the drainage water over the canal. The main canal is masonry lined for
its total length (820 meters).
|Page
W
LO
F
ER
R
IV
Figure 1.8: Irrigation and drainage system layout
3.2.1 Conveyance System

The conveyance system consists of one Main canal to irrigate total command area of 30 ha. The main canal
starts from Water abstraction site on right side and conveys water for a length of 920m.
Main canal is aligned along contours and supplies to secondary canals and field canals.
The main canal is decided to be masonry lined because of the following main reasons;
 The available water source is scarce for this specific project, requiring minimizing of
conveyance losses to increase efficiency.
 The route of these canals is steep so it will aggravate erosion if it is left unlined.
3.3 Design of the canal system

Flow Depth and Section Capacity
The earthen canals have been designed with a trapezoidal shape and the lined ones with rectangular x-section
using Manning's Formula:
|Page
2 /3 1/2
AxR xS
Q=
n
Where Q= discharge (m3/s)
R= Hydraulic radius (Flow area/wetted perimeter)
S= Hydraulic gradient/bed slope
n= Manning's roughness coefficient, n=0.022 is adopted for the earth channels and n=0.018
for masonry lined part of the main canal.
3.3.1 Main Canal Dimensioning

The main canal is designed for a discharge of 55l/s and depending on the site specific condition, appropriate
slope is provided. Hydraulic parameters of the main canal are shown below.
Table 1.11: Hydraulic Parameters of main canal
Valu Bed BW FSD FB V WP QR QD

Reach SS
e of n Slope (m) (m) (m) (m/sec) (m) (m3/s) (m3/s)
0+000-1+400 0.018 1000 0.5 0.33 0.17 0.44 1.02 0:1 0.280 0.280
BW= Canal bottom width QR= Required discharge
FSD= Full supply depth QD= Designed Discharge
FB= Free board
SS= Side slope
Vel= Velocity
|Page
1 1
1 OGL-FSL 1
FB
FB
FSD FSD
0.35
0.35
0.35 BW 0.35
0.35 BW 0.35
Typical Section for BTL >=OGL
NOT TO SCALE
NOT TO SCALE
FB
0.6 0.6
1.5 FSD 1.5
1 1
0.3
0.3 BW 0.3
Typical Section for,CBL>OGL

NOT TO SCALE
Figure 1.9: Typical Cross Sections of main canal
|Page
3.3.2 Tertiary canal
Tertiary canals and Field canals are not to implement on farm land. The farmers can take water directly from
the off takes on main canal at their convenient. Hence the work volumes are not included in the BoQ
3.3.3 Field Canals

This project is traditionally used by farmers so no need to design field canals. They can use the existing field
canal layout.
3.4 Canal structures design
3.4.1 Design of Division box

At different points of the main and secondary canals division boxes are provided which proportionate the
flow to the secondary canal and tertiary canals. Sheet metal gates are provided at the outlet of the boxes. The
design parameters are discussed below.
B2
0.35 0.35
Q2
0.4
0.4
L2
0.35
0.35
Q1
B1
L1
Lo
Qo
B
0.35
0.35
0.4 0.4
Figure 1.10: Typical Division Box plan
|Page
Using broad crested formula,
Q= CL (h)3/2
Where; Q= discharge over rectangular weir/intake (opening), m 3/s
C = discharge coefficient, c= 1.7
L= effective length of crest form in m
h= over flow depth, m
Assuming equal discharge coefficient & sill height for two or three dividing canals, the proportion becomes.
Q1/ Q2= Q2/ Q3 =L1/ L2 = L2/ L3

Where Q1= is flow in canal 1
Q2 = is flow in canal 2
Q3 = is flow in canal 3
L1= is effective crest length of weir/intake sill across opening to canal 1
L2= is effective crest length of weir/intake sill across opening to canal 2
L3 = is effective crest length of weir/intake sill across opening to canal 3
Q1= CL1 (h)3/2,
L1 = Q1/Ch3/2
L2 = L1*Q2/ Q1
L3 = L1*Q3/ Q1
The depth of (height of) the division box,
D= d+fb
The width of the division box,
B= b+2*m*D
Where b= base width of the incoming canal
D= total canal depth of the incoming canal
|Page
Table 1.12: Hydraulic parameters of Division Boxes
division box, (m)Top width of

(Sc or Tc )1, (m3/s)Design discharge to
MC/Sc bed width for

flow (m3/s)Incoming
incoming discharge
division box ,(m)

(m)
Name of
Depth of
Division
Chainage
box
/code/
(m)
MC- TC1 0+350 0.0091 0.5 1.20 0.6
0.280
MC- TC2 0+450 0.0091 0.5 1.20 0.6
0.280
MC- TC3 0+520 0.0091 0.5 1.20 0.6
0.280
MC- TC4 0+600 0.0091 0.5 1.20 0.6
0.280
MC- TC5 0+700 0.0091 0.5 1.20 0.6
0.280
MC- TC6 0+800 0.0091 0.5 1.20 0.6
0.280
MC- TC7 0+920 0.0091 0.5 1.20 0.6
0.280
MC- TC8 1+050 0.0091 0.5 1.20 0.6
0.280
MC-TC9 1+200 0.0091 0.5 1.20 0.6
0.280
3.4.2 Turn outs

18 turn outs are providing on9 tertiary canals (TC). The design hydraulic parameter has been described in the
table below.
Where,
Q=discharge, b=bottom width, d= flow depth +freeboard, L=length, Lup =length of upstream
protection, Ldp=length of downstream protection work, fb= free board
Table 1.13: Hydraulic parameters of Turnouts
|Page
No. of Q
D=d+fb, Ldp,
Canal Name Turn (m^3/s B (m) L (m) Lup, (m) Remark
(m) (m)
outs )
TC-Fc 18 0.280 0.5 0.5 1.5 0 1.7
|Page
Figure 1.11: Typical Turnout plan
3.4.3 Drop structures

The drops are provided at places where the ground slope is steeper than the canal bed slopes. For
easy of construction and operation all drop heights with in the scheme are made standard. There are
9 vertical drops with standard dimensions (USBR type).The design procedures are shown below.
a. Critical hydraulic
1. Design discharge, Q (m3/s)

2. Height of drop, h (m)
0. 734 Q
(m)
3. Width of drop, bc = d 3/2
Where d = water depth of the canal, m
4. Critical discharge, q = Q/bc

1/3
q2
5. Critical depth, dc =
()
g
6. Lip height, a = dc/2, a  0.15
b. Stilling basin
18.46 √Q
,m
1. Basin width, B = Q+9.91
1. 1dc dc 3
2. Basin length, L =
[
2 .5+
h
+0 .7 ( )]
h
√ hdc, m
All the hydraulic parameters computed using the above procedures in tabular form where,
L1=U/S protection
L2= D/s protection
b1=top width of drop wall =0.4m
|Page
t=Thickness of the stilling basin=0.4m
Table 1.14: Hydraulic parameters of drops

on
q
Q V b H d h b1 (m2/s/ dc L B t a bc L1 L2
Drops onDrops
(m3/s) (m/s) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
Chainage (m)
)
0+350
MC
0.280 1.22 0.50 0.12 0.12 1.0 0.3 0.183 0.15 1.0 0.63 0.4 0.15 0.30 1.5 1.5
0+750 0+650 0+550 0+450
MC
0.280 1.22 0.50 0.12 0.12 1.0 0.3 0.183 0.15 1.0 0.63 0.4 0.15 0.30 1.5 1.5
MC
0.280 1.22 0.50 0.12 0.12 1.0 0.3 0.183 0.15 1.0 0.63 0.4 0.15 0.30 1.5 1.5
MC
0.280 1.22 0.50 0.12 0.12 1.0 0.3 0.183 0.15 1.0 0.63 0.4 0.15 0.30 1.5 1.5
MC
0.280 1.22 0.50 0.12 0.12 1.0 0.3 0.183 0.15 1.0 0.63 0.4 0.15 0.30 1.5 1.5
0+850
MC
0.280 1.22 0.50 0.12 0.12 1.0 0.3 0.183 0.15 1.0 0.63 0.4 0.15 0.30 1.5 1.5
MC
0+920
0.280 1.22 0.50 0.12 0.12 1.0 0.3 0.183 0.15 1.0 0.63 0.4 0.15 0.30 1.5 1.5
Figure 1.12: Typical longitudinal section of vertical drop
|Page
3.4.4 Flume
Flume is across drainage that is used to carry the canal over deep channels with small discharge. At main
canal chainage 1+200 there is gulley which should be crossing the main canal. To cross the gulley we
recommend flume crossing structure. There is only one flume and it is reinforced concrete type of simply
supported with masonry retaining wall.
3.5 Irrigation infrastructure bill of quantities and cost estimate

The volume of works and their corresponding rates are tabulated below.
Volume of works and cost estimates

BILL NO-3 Irrigation Infrastructure
S/no Uni Quantit Unit Total
t y rate cost (birr)
Item of work description (birr)
Irrigation Infrastructure
1 Main Canal
1.1 Earth work
1.1.1 Clearing and grubbing m2 3003 12 36036
1.1.2 Excavation (soil) m3 3150 60 189000
1.1.3 Back fill and compaction m 3
840 53 44520
Masonry work
1.2 0
Masonry work with 1:3 ratio
1.2.1 m3 1020.6 1300 1326780
Plastering with 1:2 ratio 169.1 461,779.
1.2.2 m2 2730 5 50
2,058,115.
Sub total 50
|Page
2 TERTIARY-CANAL
Earth work
2.1 0 -
64,800.
2.1.1 Clearing and grubbing m2 5400 12 00
Excavation (soil) 123,120.
2.1.2 m3 2052 60 00
29,364.
2.1.3 Back fill and compaction m3 554.04 53 12
217,284.
Sub total 12
3 Division Box
3
3.1 Masonry work with 1:3 ratio m 13.478 1300 17521.92
3.2 stone pitching m3 7.5816 180 1364.69
3.3 C-10 concrete bedding m3 1.769 1700 3007.37
169.1
3.4 Plastering with 1:3 ratio m2 58.968 5 9974.44
3.5 Gate 0.00
2
3.5.1 4mm thick sheet metal m 6.48 1400 9072.00
3.5.2 Stiffening angle iron (30*30*4) m 40 50 2000.00
3.5.3 Angle iron for groove(40*40*4) m 84 80 6720.00
16mm reinforcement bar for
3.5.4 handling Kg 35 55 1925.00
51,585.
Sub total 41
4 Turn out
32,500.
4.1 Masonry work with 1:3 ratio m3 25 1300 00
9,000.
4.2 stone pitching m3 50 180 00
147,050.
4.3 C-10 concrete m3 86.5 1700 00
169.1 24,526.
4.4 Plastering with 1:2 ratio m2 145 5 75
4.5 Gate -
4,018.
4.5.1 4mm thick sheet metal m2 2.87 1400 00
m 700.
4.5.2 Stiffening angle iron (30*30*4) 14 50 00
m 2,592.
4.5.3 Angle iron for groove(40*40*4) 32.4 80 00
|Page
16mm reinforcement bar for 770.
4.5.4 handling Kg 14 55 00
221,156.
Sub total 75
5 Drop structure
5.1 Masonry work with 1:3 ratio m3 26 1300 33800
5.2 stone pitching m3 35.1 180 6318
169.1
5.3 Plastering with 1:3 ratio m2 36.4 5 6157.06
46,275.
Sub total 06
6 Flume
6.1 Earth work
912.
6.1.1 Clearing & grubbing m2 76 12 00
600.
6.1.2 Ordinary soil excavation m3 10 60 00
318.
6.1.3 Back fill and compaction m3 6 53 00
Masonry work
6.2 -
12,350.
6.2.1 Masonry work with 1:3 ratio m3 9.5 1300 00
169.1 10,741.
6.2.2 Plastering with 1:2 ratio m2 63.5 5 03
6.2.3 Concrete work -

6.2.3. 5,695.
1 C-10 concrete bedding m3 3.35 1700 00
6.2.3. 35,100.
2 C-25 concrete work m3 13.5 2600 00
6.2.3. Reinforcement supply, cutting
3 ,bending and installing -
441.
1 12mm bar Kg 9 49 00
12,740.
2 16mm bar Kg 260 49 00
78,897.
Sub total 03
Total cost of infrastructure 2,673,313.
87
sn Items cost summary Remark

|Page
1 General Item 247,158.08
2 Headwork 579,939.35
Infrastructur
3 e 2,673,313.87
Grand Total 3,500,411.30
15% VAT 525,061.69

Total 4,025,472.99
Table 1.15: Summery of bills
4 PROJECT SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
4.1 Headwork operation and maintenance

Operation at the diversion weir mainly focuses on the diversion of a controlled flow of river water, timely
cleaning of floating debris in front of intake and removal of sediment deposits in front of the weir and intake
structures.
4.2 Irrigation and drainage system operation and maintenance
4.2.1 Operation
The operation of the irrigation system depends mainly on the method of water delivery at farm level. The
farmers would organize themselves and form groups in order to handle the water management. For better and
efficient water management, crop diversification should be avoided within a group. This would reduce the
complexity of water distribution system of the scheme during one irrigation season.
To ensure equitable distribution of water the amount of water released through field canals should be
proportional to the available command area.
 In order to minimize the water losses during conveyance and application:

 Water users association (WUA) should assign gate keeper who is responsible to control
unnecessary gate opening, damage and losses through gates.
|Page
 Ever damage on the canal system, crossing structure and gates should be followed by the WUA
and immediate action should be undertaken.
 For technical failure beyond the capacity of the local community should be informed to the
Wereda irrigation and Drainage sector and immediate action should be taken.
 Frequent supervision to the canal system is needed. Remove silt, weed, and any flow blocking
objects from the canal system.
 Land leveling of each farm block access uniform water distribution within the block.
 Water application should be done by furrow rather than flooding.
 Uniform cropping season and pattern within nearby blocks is good for irrigation water
management.
4.2.2 Maintenance
The performance of an irrigation canal system depends not only on how the system is operated, But also on
the condition of the canals. Irrigation canals function well so long as they are kept clean and if they are not
leaking. If no attention is paid to the canal system, plants may grow and the problem of siltation may arise.
Even worse, the canals may suffer from leakages. Plant growth and sedimentation not only impede the flow
in a canal, they also diminish the area of the cross-section. As a consequence, the canal capacity may
diminish A reduction in the capacity may result in overtopping and a limit on water supply to the fields. The
available water will also be reduced when there are leakages in a canal.
To protect the system from these problems, the canals should be maintained on a regular basis. Even when a
canal is well maintained, serious technical problems may arise. These problems need to be solved by repair
or improvement works.
A repair should usually be done as soon as possible, depending on the severity of the problem.
Improvements, such as the lining of a canal section, may be postponed until the end of an irrigation season,
when canals are dry and farmers have more time available.
After a serious problem is found on an inspection tour, a team of workers or farmers should be available for
repair as soon as possible. Such a team should be formed at the beginning of the irrigation season in order to
have it on call in case of emergencies. The same team may be asked to do the improvement works. If
necessary, a contractor may be asked to do the job.
A good maintenance programmed can prolong the life of canals. A routine, thorough programmed should be
kept to. Maintenance of an irrigation canal system is usually carried out in between two irrigation seasons, or
at times of low water demand. It consists of cleaning, weeding, de-silting, re-shaping, and executing minor
repairs.
|Page
 Bushes or trees on canal embankments should be removed. They may obstruct the water flow and
their roots will open the compacted soil in the banks and cause the development of leakages.
 Breaches and rat holes in the embankments should be filled with compacted soil, inside as well as
outside of the embankment. For compacting, the soil should be wetted.
 Plants silt and debris in the canal should be removed. While cleaning the canal bed, care must be
taken that the original shape of the cross-section is kept. For this, a wooden frame, or template, with
the exact dimensions of the designed cross-section of the canal being cleaned, can be of great help.
 Weak sections and sections of canal embankments where people or animals cross the canal should be
strengthened with compacted soil or with bricks.
 Eroded sections of a canal should be rebuilt to the original shape.
The expense for O&M should be collected from the beneficiaries. Of course, much of the task is done by the
labor and skill of the community. For cost incurring activities beneficiaries have to collect money based on
the proportion of the command area they owned. Households with more command area contribute more
money. Farmers should contribute twice in a year unless special damage is happened to the system. The
amount of money to be contributed by each Household shall be determined by the beneficiaries using the
water users association.
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

 The infrastructure of this project area is designed to irrigate about 40 ha of land by taking its supply
from the Kirkirayana diversion weir irrigation project. The maximum duty of the command area for
16 hours per day irrigation with overall project efficiency of 50% is 1.82l/s/ha. The method of
irrigation of the project area is furrow surface irrigation in which the main and secondary canals are
working continuously.
 As the water source is the main constraint, the main canal system is designed to be rectangular
masonry lined.
 The reason why both the main and secondary canals are to be lined is to avoid erosion problem, since
the terrain is sloppy in nature. In addition to this it reduces maintenance cost and increases
conveyance efficiency to make effect the limited water source.
 The layout is designed as far as possible to avoid cross-structures within the system.
 The design of the canal dimensions of the irrigation canal is done by applying the manning’s uniform
flow equation. The variable of the hydraulic parameters are calculated using iteration or flow master
program.
|Page
 The project is socially accepted, environmentally safe and economically feasible.
The following recommendations are drown:
1. For better performance and long service year of the project regular inspection and maintenance
is highly required.
2. Farmers training, how to operate and maintain the project structures as a whole and available
and water resources has a paramount important.
3. The irrigation hours per day and per week should be flexible based on base flow amount of each
week or month.
4. There should physical and biological soil and water conservation practice for the command area
to mitigate erosion.
REFERENCE
1. Design Guide line on Irrigation Structures PartI-B,Ministry of water Resources,(July,2002),Addis

Ababa, Ethiopia.
2. Irrigation Engineering and Hydraulic Structures ,Santosh KumarGarg,Khanna Publisher,23 rd edition
2009,Delhi
3. Theory and Design of Irrigation Structures, V-II,SC Gupta,7 th edition,2007NEM
CHAND&BROS,Roorke,India.
4. Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation Development Department (IDD) manual,
5. Hydraulic structural design guideline for small scale irrigation projects in Amhara Region
6. Reinforced Concrete Analysis and design, S.S.Ray
|Page
|Page

Kikrayna Irri Project Enginering Report (Repaired)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Kikrayna Irri Project Enginering Report (Repaired)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kikrayna Irri Project Enginering Report (Repaired)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

July 12, 2013 Kikirayna Small Scale Irrigation Project Engineering Detail Report

Amhara National Regional State

Feasibility Study and Detail Design of

Under the Financial support of IFAD

.FEASIBILITY STUDY & DETAIL DESIGN REPORT STRUCTURE

.FEASIBILITY STUDY & DETAIL DESIGN REPORT STRUCTURE.................................i

2.5.8 Cut off Depth Calculation...................................................................................................27

3.5 Irrigation infrastructure bill of quantities and cost estimate.....................................................52

 Type: - Broad Crested weir

1.1.1 Description of the Project Area

1.1.1.3 Previous irrigation practice

1.2 Objectives of the study

1.2.1 Specific Objectives

1.3 Scope of the study

2.1 Hydro-metrological data availability

2.1.3 Base flow data

2.1.4 Watershed characteristics

2.2.1 Design Rainfall computation

2.2.2 Outlier Test

Table 1.1: Outlier test analysis

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

2.2.2.1 Checking for variance

Where, δn-1 = Standard deviation = 14.31

N = Number of recorded data = 35

2.2.2.2 D-Index test

Table 1.1: Test for goodness to fit using D-index

2.2.3.3 Time of concentration (Tc)

The formula is,

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

 Conversion factor = 1.1133

2.2.3.5 Areal Rainfall

Table 1.3: Design Rainfall Arrangement

2.2.4 Direct Run off Analysis

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

 Peak run-off for incremental;

Table 1.4: Direct Runoff analysis

Duratio Cumulative Incremental Peak Runoff Time of Time to Time to

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

Figure 1.2: Complex Hydrograph

2.2.5 Flood mark Method

Figure 1.3: River cross section at the proposed weir site

2.2.6 Tail Water Depth Computation

Northing Easting Partial Distance Cum.Distance Elevation

Table 1.6: River profile

2.2.6.2 Manning’s Roughness coefficient

2.2.6.3 Discharge of the river

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

wet perim wet area Hydraulic Velocity Discharg

Figure 1.4: Stage Discharge Rating Curve

2.3.1 Headwork site selection

2.3.2 River Geomorphology