Designing an Irrigation Project in Ethiopia

THE OUTLINE OF THE DESIGN PROJECT
 INTRODUCTION
 HYDROLOGY
 HEAD WORK
 DESIGN OF CANAL AND CANAL STRUCTURS
 IRRIGATION WATER DEMAND REQUIRMENT
 WATER APPLICATION METHOD
 DRAINAGE
 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Back Ground of Irrigation Development in Ethiopia
Ethiopia is believed to have considerable land and water resources for agriculture, which is a
major source of food production for the population of the nation and the prime sector for food
security. Even thougth Ethiopia is endowed with water resource that could be tapped and used
for irrigation; this country is already suffering from food storage ironically, because of the
increasing population and chronic drought occurring in most part of the country.
Irrigation development in Ethiopia dates back several centuries, if not millennia, while modern
irrigation was started by the implementation of commercial irrigated sugar estate in the early
1950. Despite huge irrigation potential of the country, only a little more than 6% is yet
developed. In order to insure food security at the household level for Ethiopians fast growing
population, small, medium and large scale irrigation infra-structure needs are to be developed. In
Ethiopia about 97703ha of land is developed under medium and large scale irrigation schemes.
These schemes are constructed during 60s and they are mainly constructed in Awash valley.
According to the irrigation development plan of the country a total of 274612ha land (147474ha
under large and medium scale, 127138ha under small scale) irrigation will develop until the year
2016. [Dr.Mekonen 2005]
Development of Irrigation contributes a valuable share in the production of agricultural products
which enhances the removal of food security problem & leads the economic growth of a country
where there are sufficient water resources for this purpose.
Different study document shows, in our country, there are sufficient resources of water that can
be utilized for various purposes. But only few percent of existing water resources is
underutilization. On other side there are a number of chronically food insecure families. This
may be due to lack of good attitude, skill & budget. Nowadays, the degrees of these problems are
slightly in the stage of minimizing as per activities of past indicate because of attention given to
irrigation practices by Ethiopian government & other concerned bodies.
Similarly, Melka-Gobera Irrigation Project study has been executed to increase the agricultural
product, its operation managed by farmers of the project area. It is a small scale irrigation
project. The project is located in Amhara regional state in South Wollo zone, in Argoba special
woreda.
At the project area, agriculture is the main pillar of the economy, which depends on the annual
crops. For the production of annual crops there is insufficient & non- uniform rainfall
distribution for the production of annual crops at this project area. Therefore, the study found out
that the existence of the promise of gathering additional agricultural product by irrigation. Again,
supplementing yearly crops by irrigation can be undertaken. Hence, it is possible gather product
twice & more per year. As per this study, executing the irrigation practices during dry & wet
seasons, the livelihood of population of the project can be improved due to the registered
economic growth as a result of agriculture product increment.
1.2. Description of the Project Area

1.2.1.Location
Melka-Gobera Small-Scale Irrigation Project is found in Amhara National Regional state
(ANRS), South Wollo Administrative Zone of Argoba Special Woreda about 37km far, to the
East, from main Asphalt road (Dessie to Addis Ababa) passing via Harbu Town. It is also 57km
far, to the south-east, from Kombolcha town. The proposed irrigation project is to be undertaken
on Gobera River and the headwork structures are specifically located at an altitude varying from
1193.0 to1157.0m at msl and geographical coordinates of Longitude varying from 610565.73E
to 612491.06E using UTM and Latitude varying from 1201600.86N to1200891.4N using UTM.
1.2.2. Accessibility
It can be accessed by Bahir Dar- Dessie- Haribu, 517km asphalted road, and 37km gravel road
which links Haribu to Medina (the center of Arigoba Woreda). The project area is located 6.5km
away from Medina town which can be accessed through gravel road. Walking along the river for
about 800m is required to reach to the specific site.
1.3. Objectives of the Study
1.3.1. General Objective
The main objective of Melka-Gobera irrigation project includes:
 To increase potential agricultural production by designing a suitable irrigation

system by maximum utilization of the water resources available in the project area.
 For growth and development of national economy.
 To increase employment opportunities
1.3.2. Specific Objective
 Estimation of peak flood which is necessary for the design of weir at the specified
outlet point.
 Design of structurally and hydraulically stable weir at the proposed site.
 Assessing the demand of water requirement for the selected crops under the project.
 Determine the layout and design of canal and ancillary structure.
 Selection and design of efficient surface water application system.

 Design of proper drainage system to remove the excess water from the command
area.
1.4.Scope of the study

The study uses meteorological stations from kombolcha and Bati National Meteorological 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 gobera and adjacent watersheds
which have basically an influence to the watershed of gobera.
1.5 Methodology
The study has primarily focused to preparation & collection of the secondary data required to
undertake the given assignment at required standards. Interdisciplinary team of experts has
assessed and collected necessary data both at office and field survey/investigation. After the team
has moved to the field, detail field observation and investigation has been conducted to carefully
select and decide which site will be hydraulically best and then various topographic;
geotechnical, social and environment data had been collected.
The following methods /procedures, but not the only one, have been used in the accomplishment
of this service:
 Site identification:
 Local farmers interview and discussion
 Previous assessment studies
 Transect walk along the river longitudinal axis.
 Topographic survey:
 Surveying the head work ( as part of the whole topo map ) area with sufficient
radius to u/s and d/s reaches, using Total station
 Flow estimation
 Physical observation on flood mark indications and local information about high
flood and base flow condition of the river Analyzing the recorded rainfall data
and use water shed inputs for further.
2.HYDROLOGY
2.1 General
The knowledge of Hydrology used in engineering is used mainly in connection with
design and operation of hydraulics structures. The magnitudes of the flood expected over
spill way, in urban storm drainage system, are among the equations calling hydraulic
studies.The collection of relevant hydrological data and analysis should be the important
task to be conduct before any hydraulic structure is designed, however; the absence of
gauging stations in the catchment may make the hydraulic analysis of the project
difficulty.
The study of hydrology of any catchment of a river proposed for construction site play crucial
role prior to any form of factors that may cause effect on the design and planning of the project.
Hydrological data for the study area were found to be very limited, however some information
from kombolcha and Bati National Meteorological station on annual daily maximum stream
flows which is adjacent to the project area and also some more information from the manuals
related to the study area.
2.2. Watershed characteristics

In any small scale modern irrigation system, most of the headwork component structures are to
be designed considering the magnitude of flood produced by a fifty years return period design
rainfall. Once the rainfall is determined the next step is to investigate about the characteristics of
the watershed.
Determination of catchment area, main stream length and the vertical elevation difference are the
major and the primary activity for watershed runoff simulation using various accepted models.
Melka-Gobera irrigation project has a total catchment area of 73.02956km^2 having the main
stream length of 17km the maximum watershed elevation being 1193m and the minimum
elevation is 1157m.
The major land use types in the watershed area are:
 Cultivated lands
 Grass lands
 Forest lands
 Shrubs and Bush lands and
 Exposed surface
2.3. Hydro-meteorological data availability
2.3.1 Hydrometric data

Hydrologists and designers are faced with lack of good or non-recorded hydrometric data on the
target stream/river and on local weather and climate conditions. Stream gauging stations are non-
existent in remote rural areas of the region and even meteorological stations are almost rare near
small rivers in the region Therefore investigating other stations near the project area is the
primary step in hydrological analysis of the given Gobera river watershed
2.3.2. Climate
There are two hydro-meteorological stations these are, Kombolcha and Bati. Kombolcha
metrological stations are nearest to the watershed and it includes all components of the climate
relative to the other stations are given as follows:
2.3.2.1 Rainfall
The monthly total rainfall data record extending between 1994 to 2008 is analyzed. Out of the
total 180 monthly records, there are no months having missing data. The data source is the
National Meteorological Services Agency (NMSA).The average annual rainfall at Bati Station is
about 944.5 mm. The monthly rainfall distribution as shown in Figure 2.1with better rainfall
distribution from July to September. Nearly 60 % of the annual rainfall occurs from July to
September.
Average monthly rainfall

300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 2.1Average rainfall
Rainfall coefficient (RC) which is defined as the ratio of mean monthly rainfall to rainfall
module (one-twelfth of the annual total) is shown in Table 2.1.
Rainfall coefficients:
 Less than 0.6 represent a dry month;
 Greater than 0.6 represent a rainy month;
 0.6 - 0.9 represent small rain;
 1.0 - 1.9 represent big rains with moderate concentration;
 2.0 - 2.9 represent big rains with high concentration.
Table 2.1 Monthly Rainfall and Rainfall coefficients
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Average 33.97 24.69 75.27 91.34 34.25 38.28 182.24 217.15 146.97 33.98 40.44 19.39 945
RC (mean) 0.43 0.31 0.96 1.16 0.44 0.49 2.32 2.76 1.87 0.43 0.51 0.25
Accordingly, July and august represents big rainfall with high concentration while Moderate concentration
of rainfall is in September.
2.3.2.2Temperature
Temperature is an important weather element which indicates the relative degree of molecular
activity, or heat, of a substance. Several factors influence temperature of the area latitude,
altitude, distance from large water bodies, direction of prevailing wind, etc. Maximum
temperature usually occurs on day time and minimum temperature during night. Temperature is
normally decreasing with increasing altitude. Maximum temperatures during the day are
important factors to determine potential evapo-transpiration. Recording minimum temperature is
useful to identify the occurrence of frost, which damages the growth of plants. The temperature
of the project area is estimated from Bati station. Therefore, the mean, maximum, and minimum
annual temperature of the project area as shown in Table 2.2 is 21.54, 31.8, and 10.1oC
respectively. Maximum temperatures occur in the months May and June and minimum
temperatures September - November.
Table 2.2: Estimated Monthly Average Temperatures of Bati
Elemen Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Yearly
t Average
Tmin 12.2 13.9 15.8 16.7 18.2 18.2 17 15.8 12.6 10.4 10.1 14.4 14.61
Tmax 26.3 27.5 29.4 31.2 31.8 30.3 29 29 27.7 26.3 25 28.2 28.48
Tavg 19.25 20.7 22.6 23.95 25 24.25 23 22.4 20.15 18.35 17.55 21.3 21.54
2.3.2.3 Wind Speed

Wind movement creates turbulence and replaces air at the water surface with less moist air and
increase evaporation. Hence, the higher the wind speed is the more the evaporation. Monthly
wind speed variation is from 0.63– 1.3m/sec; the yearly average is 0.90 m/sec. Table 2.3 shows
the average monthly wind speed at Bati meteorological station which has been adopted for the
project site.
Table 2.3: Average Monthly Wind Speed (m/sec) at Bati

Element Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly
. Average
Wind
0.83 0.89 0.98 0.94 0.93 1.12 1.30 1.04 0.73 0.63 0.71 0.78 0.90
speed
2.3.2.4 Sunshine duration

Solar radiation provides nearly all of the energy that reaches the earth surface. Sunshine hours
duration is thus a factor to determine radiation and the potential evapo-transpiration. The longer
the sunshine hour is the more the evapo-transpiration. The average monthly duration of sunshine
hours at Bati is 8.05 hours. Sunshine hour’s duration is minimum in the rainy season July to
September while relatively high for the rest of months. The maximum sunshine hours duration of
10.0 hours occurs in may. Mean daily sunshine hours duration is shown in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4: Mean Daily Sunshine Hours Duration at Bati
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Yearly Average
6.5 8.2 7.9 8.0 10.0 8.2 6.7 7.1 7.2 9 9.7 8.1 8.05
2.3.2.5 Relative humidity

Relative humidity, the water vapour contained in the atmosphere, is expressed as the percentage
of the ratio of actual to saturation vapour pressure. More evaporation takes place in a dry air than
in air with high relative humidity. The relative humidity data for the project area is also taken
from Bati station. The average relative humidity data at Bati as shown in Table 2.5 varies from
about 71% to 45%. The yearly average is 61%.
Table 2.5: Average Relative Humidity at Bati in %
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly
Average
71 63 64 63 51 45 59 68 65 60 60 65 61
2.4 DESIGN RAINFALL AND DESIGN FLOOD ESTIMATION

2.4.1 Data Quality Test
The daily heaviest rain fall data of Combolcha metrological station from 1953 to 2006 is used for
the design
Table 2.6: Daily Heaviest Rainfall data
S/no. Year Heaviest Rainfall (mm/day)=Xi
1 1953 55.3
2 1954 54.6
3 1955 59
4 1956 41
5 1957 61.9
6 1958 53.6
7 1959 63
8 1960 41.2
9 1961 54.5
10 1962 51.4
11 1963 51.2
12 1964 76
13 1965 34.2
14 1966 41
15 1967 65
16 1968 53.5
17 1969 47.6
18 1970 59.5
19 1971 45.1
20 1972 43.4
21 1973 15
22 1974 58.1
23 1975 94.5
24 1976 39.5
25 1977 60.7
26 1978 48.9
27 1979 56.4
28 1980 38
29 1981 62.3
30 1982 58
31 1983 82.8
32 1984 49.6
33 1985 62.4
34 1986 42.8
35 1987 50.5
36 1988 67.9
37 1989 74.8
38 1990 59
39 1991 42.2
40 1992 52.4
41 1993 52.4
42 1994 58.5
43 1995 33.8
44 1996 42.7
45 1997 54.3
46 1998 68.4
47 1999 61.2
48 2000 50.6
49 2001 71.6
50 2002 64.4
51 2003 60.9
52 2004 46.8
53 2005 70.4
54 2006 64.8
2.4.1.1 Data Consistency Test

The daily heaviest rain fall data of Combolcha metrological station from 1953 to 2006 is used for
the design. Hence 54 years heaviest rain fall data is available. These data should be checked for
its consistency.
Table 2.7: Daily heaviest rainfall
Heaviest
S/no Rainfall Descendin Y=logX (Y-
Year (Y-Ym)^3 (Xi-Xm)^2
. (mm/day)=X g order i Ym)^2
i
1 1953 55.3 94.5 1.975 0.062 0.015564 0.106
2 1954 54.6 82.8 1.918 0.037 0.007108 0.140
3 1955 59 76 1.881 0.024 0.003728 16.208
4 1956 41 74.8 1.874 0.022 0.003251 195.275
5 1957 61.9 71.6 1.855 0.017 0.002155 47.968
6 1958 53.6 70.4 1.848 0.015 0.001808 1.888
7 1959 63 68.4 1.835 0.012 0.001306 64.415
8 1960 41.2 67.9 1.832 0.011 0.001195 189.725
9 1961 54.5 65 1.813 0.008 0.000662 0.225
10 1962 51.4 64.8 1.812 0.007 0.000632 12.774
11 1963 51.2 64.4 1.809 0.007 0.000574 14.244
12 1964 76 63 1.799 0.005 0.000398 442.090
13 1965 34.2 62.4 1.795 0.005 0.000335 431.562
14 1966 41 62.3 1.794 0.005 0.000325 195.275
15 1967 65 61.9 1.792 0.004 0.000287 100.519
16 1968 53.5 61.2 1.787 0.004 0.000227 2.173
17 1969 47.6 60.9 1.785 0.003 0.000204 54.377
18 1970 59.5 60.7 1.783 0.003 0.000189 20.484
19 1971 45.1 59.5 1.775 0.002 0.000116 97.497
20 1972 43.4 59 1.771 0.002 0.000092 133.959
21 1973 15 59 1.771 0.002 0.000092 1597.927
22 1974 58.1 58.5 1.767 0.002 0.000071 9.771
23 1975 94.5 58.1 1.764 0.001 0.000057 1562.299
24 1976 39.5 58 1.763 0.001 0.000053 239.447
25 1977 60.7 56.4 1.751 0.001 0.000017 32.786
26 1978 48.9 55.3 1.743 0.000 0.000005 36.894
27 1979 56.4 54.6 1.737 0.000 0.000001 2.033
28 1980 38 54.5 1.736 0.000 0.000001 288.119
29 1981 62.3 54.3 1.735 0.000 0.000001 53.669
30 1982 58 53.6 1.729 0.000 0.000000 9.156
31 1983 82.8 53.5 1.728 0.000 0.000000 774.282
32 1984 49.6 52.4 1.719 0.000 0.000000 28.881
33 1985 62.4 52.4 1.719 0.000 0.000000 55.144
34 1986 42.8 51.4 1.711 0.000 -0.000003 148.208
35 1987 50.5 51.2 1.709 0.000 -0.000004 20.017
36 1988 67.9 50.6 1.704 0.000 -0.000010 167.080
37 1989 74.8 50.5 1.703 0.001 -0.000011 393.067
38 1990 59 49.6 1.695 0.001 -0.000028 16.208
39 1991 42.2 48.9 1.689 0.001 -0.000048 163.177
40 1992 52.4 47.6 1.678 0.002 -0.000112 6.626
41 1993 52.4 46.8 1.670 0.003 -0.000171 6.626
42 1994 58.5 45.1 1.654 0.005 -0.000367 12.432
43 1995 33.8 43.4 1.637 0.008 -0.000688 448.341
44 1996 42.7 42.8 1.631 0.009 -0.000839 150.653
45 1997 54.3 42.7 1.630 0.009 -0.000866 0.454
46 1998 68.4 42.2 1.625 0.010 -0.001013 180.255
47 1999 61.2 41.2 1.615 0.012 -0.001362 38.762
48 2000 50.6 41 1.613 0.013 -0.001442 19.133
49 2001 71.6 41 1.613 0.013 -0.001442 276.421
50 2002 64.4 39.5 1.597 0.017 -0.002155 88.848
51 2003 60.9 38 1.580 0.021 -0.003110 35.117
52 2004 46.8 34.2 1.534 0.037 -0.007048 66.815
53 2005 70.4 33.8 1.529 0.039 -0.007627 237.959
54 2006 64.8 15 1.176 0.302 -0.166071 96.549
∑ X =2968.6 mm Xm=(∑ X )/ N =54.974074 ∑( X− Xm)2=9284.064
2
σn−1=
√ ∑ ( X− Xm )
( N −1 )
=¿ 13.235
∑Y
∑ Y =93.19 mm Ym= =1.726 ∑ ( Y −Ym )2=0.7676 ∑ ( Y −Ym )3=−0.1540
N
2
N ∑ ( Y −Ym )3 54∗(−0.1540)
Sy=
√
∑ ( Y −Ym )
¿−1.731
( N −1 )
=0.1203 Cs= =
( N −1 )( N −2 ) Sy ( 54−1 )∗ (54−2 )∗0.12033
3
Where: Xm=meanof annual rainfall

σn−1=¿Standerd deviation
∑ Y =¿Summation of common logarithm
Ym=¿Mean of common logarithm
Sy=¿Standerd deviation of common logarithm
Cs=coefficient of skewness
Before proceeding to the other analysis, the adequacy of rainfall data series should be checked
and it should be realized. The data series could be considered and adequate if relative standard
error e10%, where, e is the relative standard error.
Se 1.801 Sy
e= = ∗100=3.276 But , Se= =1.801, standared eror
Xm 54.97 √N
3.276% < 10% ok! Therefore the data is reliable and adequate
2.4.1.2 Tests for Outliers
Outliers are data points that depart from the trend of the remaining data. The detention or retention
of these outliers can significantly affect the magnitude. As shown from the above calculation the
station Skew is Less than -0.4, so based on the following principle the Cs value falls In the 1st case
therefore it needs checking for lower outliers.
Table 2.8: Comparation of outlier with skewness
Case 1 If Skew ness (Cs) < -0.4 check for lower outlier
Case 2 If Skew ness (Cs) > +0.4 check for higher outlier
Case 3 If Skew ness (Cs), -0.4<CS< +0.4 check for both outlier
Determination of threshold value for lower outliers of daily heaviest rainfall, because coefficient
of skewness is belongs to case 1.
To detect the outlier the following frequency equations are applied.
Lower outlier Yl=Ym + Kn∗Sy
Where: Ym = mean of data in log unity
Kn = from table for sample size N
From Table for data N=54,Ym=1.726,Sy=0.1203,Kn=2.7968 and
Skew ness coefficients Cs = -1.731
Lower outlier Yl=Ym−Kn∗Sy
¿ 1.726−2.7968∗0.1203
¿ 1.389
Antilog (Yl) =10^1.389=24.50
The lowest recorded daily heaviest rain fall data is 15 mm in the 1973 which is less than the
threshold value of lower outliers. Hence the daily heaviest rain fall data recorded in 1973, 15mm,
departs significantly from the threshold value of low outliers.
Table 2.9: Revised data of daily heaviest rainfall (after outlier tests)
Heaviest
S/n Rainfall Descendin Y=logX
Year (Y-Ym)^2 (Y-Ym)^3 (Xi-Xm)^2
o (mm/day)=X g order i
i
1 1953 55.3 94.5 1.975 0.05727 0.013704 0.183
2 1954 54.6 82.8 1.918 0.03309 0.006019 1.273
3 1955 59 76 1.881 0.02093 0.003029 10.704
4 1956 41 74.8 1.874 0.01898 0.002615 216.923
5 1957 61.9 71.6 1.855 0.01411 0.001676 38.090
6 1958 53.6 70.4 1.848 0.01242 0.001384 4.530
7 1959 63 68.4 1.835 0.00979 0.000968 52.878
8 1960 41.2 67.9 1.832 0.00917 0.000878 211.072
9 1961 54.5 65 1.813 0.00590 0.000453 1.509
10 1962 51.4 64.8 1.812 0.00569 0.000429 18.734
11 1963 51.2 64.4 1.809 0.00529 0.000385 20.506
12 1964 76 63 1.799 0.00400 0.000253 410.942
13 1965 34.2 62.4 1.795 0.00349 0.000206 463.468
14 1966 41 62.3 1.794 0.00341 0.000199 216.923
15 1967 65 61.9 1.792 0.00309 0.000172 85.964
16 1968 53.5 61.2 1.787 0.00256 0.000130 4.965
17 1969 47.6 60.9 1.785 0.00235 0.000114 66.069
18 1970 59.5 60.7 1.783 0.00221 0.000104 14.226
19 1971 45.1 59.5 1.775 0.00147 0.000057 112.961
20 1972 43.4 59 1.771 0.00121 0.000042 151.987
21 1974 58.1 59 1.771 0.00121 0.000042 5.625
22 1975 94.5 58.5 1.767 0.00096 0.000030 1503.245
23 1976 39.5 58.1 1.764 0.00079 0.000022 263.358
24 1977 60.7 58 1.763 0.00075 0.000020 24.718
25 1978 48.9 56.4 1.751 0.00023 0.000003 46.626
26 1979 56.4 55.3 1.743 0.00004 0.000000 0.451
27 1980 38 54.6 1.737 0.00000 0.000000 314.293
28 1981 62.3 54.5 1.736 0.00000 0.000000 43.187
29 1982 58 54.3 1.735 0.00000 0.000000 5.161
30 1983 82.8 53.6 1.729 0.00005 0.000000 732.877
31 1984 49.6 53.5 1.728 0.00006 0.000000 37.556
32 1985 62.4 52.4 1.719 0.00028 -0.000005 44.512
33 1986 42.8 52.4 1.719 0.00028 -0.000005 167.141
34 1987 50.5 51.4 1.711 0.00063 -0.000016 27.335
35 1988 67.9 51.2 1.709 0.00072 -0.000019 148.150
36 1989 74.8 50.6 1.704 0.00102 -0.000033 363.730
37 1990 59 50.5 1.703 0.00108 -0.000035 10.704
38 1991 42.2 49.6 1.695 0.00165 -0.000067 183.015
39 1992 52.4 48.9 1.689 0.00219 -0.000103 11.078
40 1993 52.4 47.6 1.678 0.00342 -0.000200 11.078
41 1994 58.5 46.8 1.670 0.00434 -0.000286 7.682
42 1995 33.8 45.1 1.654 0.00672 -0.000550 480.850
43 1996 42.7 43.4 1.637 0.00973 -0.000960 169.737
44 1997 54.3 42.8 1.631 0.01096 -0.001147 2.040
45 1998 68.4 42.7 1.630 0.01117 -0.001181 160.572
46 1999 61.2 42.2 1.625 0.01228 -0.001361 29.939
47 2000 50.6 41.2 1.615 0.01470 -0.001782 26.299
48 2001 71.6 41 1.613 0.01521 -0.001876 251.911
49 2002 64.4 41 1.613 0.01521 -0.001876 75.198
50 2003 60.9 39.5 1.597 0.01947 -0.002716 26.746
51 2004 46.8 38 1.580 0.02444 -0.003822 79.715
52 2005 70.4 34.2 1.534 0.04084 -0.008255 215.259
53 2006 64.8 33.8 1.529 0.04294 -0.008897 82.296
2
N √
∑ X =2953.6 mm , Xm= ∑ X =55.73 , ∑ ( X− Xm )2=7655.99 , σn−1= ∑ ( X−Xm ) =12.13
( N −1 )
∑Y
∑ Y =92.01 mm , Ym= =1.736 , ∑ ( Y −Ym )2=0.4598 3
∑ ( Y −Ym ) =−0.00226
N
2
N ∑ ( Y −Ym )3 53∗(−0.00226)
Sy=
√
∑ ( Y −Ym )
¿−0.054
( N −1 )
=0.094 Cs= =
( N −1 )( N −2 ) Sy ( 53−1 )∗( 53−2 )∗0.094 3
3
2.4.2 Design Rain fall Computation

After checking the consistency of the data for higher and lower outlier, the 53 years data is
obtained as representative for the analysis. The probability of occurrence of maximum probable
rain fall is estimated as follow:
I. Normal distribution method
II. Gamble method
III. Log Normal distribution method
IV. Log Pearson Type III Distribution Method.
VI. Pearson Type III Distribution Method.
I. Normal distribution method
XT =Xm + KT∗σn−1 Where KT=frequency factor
2.51557+0.01033 w 2
KT =w−
1+1.143279 w+ 0.1992 w2 +0.00131 w3
1
w=(ln (1/ pr 2))0.5=2.797 where , pr= Where: T=Return period, for
50
diversion Weir 50 years return periods is recommended.
XT =Xm + KT∗σn−1=55.73+ 2.054∗12.13=80.645 mm

II. Gamble method
YT −Yn
XT =Xm + KT∗σn−1 Where KT =
Sn
Table 2.10: Reduced mean y n in Gumbel's extreme value distribution, N = sample size
N 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 0.4952 0.499 0.503 0.507 0.510 0.512 0.5157 0.518 0.520 0.5220
6 5 0 0 8 1 2
20 0.5236 0.525 0.526 0.528 0.529 0.530 0.5320 0.533 0.534 0.5353
2 8 3 6 9 2 3
30 0.5362 0.537 0.538 0.538 0.539 0.540 0.5410 0.541 0.542 0.5430
1 0 8 6 2 8 4
40 0.5436 0.544 0.544 0.545 0.545 0.546 0.5468 0.547 0.547 0.5481
2 8 3 8 3 3 7
50 0.5485 0.548 0.549 0.549 0.550 0.550 0.5508 0.551 0.551 0.5518
9 3 7 1 4 1 5
60 0.5521 0.552 0.552 0.553 0.553 0.553 0.5538 0.554 0.554 0.5545
4 7 0 3 5 0 3
70 0.5548 0.555 0.555 0.555 0.555 0.555 0.5561 0.556 0.556 0.5567
0 2 5 7 9 3 5
80 0.5569 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.5580 0.558 0.558 0.5585
0 2 4 6 8 1 3
90 0.5586 0.558 0.558 0.559 0.559 0.559 0.5595 0.559 0.559 0.5599
7 9 1 2 3 6 8
10 0.5600
0
Table2.11: Reduced standard deviation Sn in Gumbel's extreme value distribution, N = sample
size
N 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 0.9496 0.967 0.983 0.997 1.009 1.020 1.0316 1.041 1.049 1.0565
6 3 1 5 6 1 3
20 1.0628 1.069 1.075 1.081 1.086 1.091 1.0961 1.100 1.104 1.1086
6 4 1 4 5 4 7
30 1.1124 1.115 1.119 1.122 1.125 1.128 1.1313 1.133 1.136 1.1388
9 3 6 5 5 9 3
40 1.1413 1.143 1.145 1.148 1.149 1.151 1.1538 1.155 1.157 1.1590
6 8 0 9 9 7 4
50 1.1607 1.162 1.163 1.165 1.166 1.168 1.1696 1.170 1.172 1.1734
3 8 8 7 1 8 1
60 1.1747 1.175 1.177 1.178 1.179 1.180 1.1814 1.182 1.183 1.1844
9 0 2 3 3 4 4
70 1.1854 1.186 1.187 1.188 1.189 1.189 1.1906 1.191 1.192 1.1930
3 3 1 0 8 5 3
80 1.1938 1.194 1.195 1.195 1.196 1.197 1.1980 1.198 1.199 1.2001
5 3 9 7 3 7 4
90 1.2007 1.201 1.202 1.202 1.203 1.203 1.2044 1.204 1.205 1.2060
3 0 6 2 8 9 5
10 1.2065
0
Yn= Reduced mean in Gamble’s extreme value distribution for N sample size from table;
Sn= Reduced standard deviation in Gamble’s extreme value distribution for N=53 sample size
from table;
T=Return period, for diversion Weir 50 years;
σn−1 = Standard deviation of annual rain fall; and
Xm= Mean of all values annual rain fall.
For sample size N=53, Yn =0.5497, and Sn =1.1658
T 50
YT=-(ln (ln( ) ¿) =-(ln (ln ( ¿ ¿ ¿=3.9
(T −1) 50−1
YT −Yn 3.9−0.5497
KT = = =2.8738
Sn 1.1658
XT =Xm + KT∗σn−1=55.73+ 2.874∗12.13=90.589 mm
The maximum probable point rain fall of 50 years return period is 90.589mm.
III. Log Normal distribution method
XT =Ym+ KT∗Sy , where: KT=frequency factor
2.51557+0.01033 w 2
KT =w−
1+1.143279 w+ 0.1992 w2 +0.00131 w3
1
w=(ln (1/ pr 2))0.5=2.797 where , pr= Where: Pr=probability
50
XT =Ym+ KT∗Sy=1.736+ 2.054∗0.094=1.929
XT=101.929=84.93mm
IV. Log Pearson Type III Distribution Method.
In this method the Varity is first transformed into logarithmic form ( base 10 ) and the
transformed data is then analyzed . If X is the Varity of random hydrologic series then
the series of Y varieties where:
Y = log X are obtained, for this Y series for any recurrence interval T.
YT =Ym+ KT∗Sy
Where: KT = a frequency factor which is a function of T and the coefficient of skew ness, CS.
2
Sy=
√ ∑ ( Y −Ym )
( N −1 )
= standard deviation of the Y verity sample
N ∑ ( Y −Ym )3
Cs= =¿-0.054,
( N −1 )( N −2 ) Sy 3
Where: Ym =mean of the value ,N = sample size
The variation of KT =f (CS, T) is given in ----------- the annex -------.
For recurrence interval T=50
KT =f (CS, T) =f (-0.054, 50) =2.02484
YT =Ym+ KT∗Sy=1.736+2.02484∗0.094=1.926
1.926
XT=10 =84.4mm
VI. Pearson Type III Distribution Method.
For the Pearson type III, the same procedure applies like log Pearson type III except that if Y is
the log series it have to be changed in to X variables, and their mean and standard deviation
XT =Xm + KT∗σn−1=55.73+ 2.02484∗12.13=80.29mm.
2.4.2.1 Selection of Distribution (Testing For Goodness of Fit)
The validity of probability distribution function proposed to fit the empirical frequency
distribution of a given sample may be tested analytically by D-index test. The D-index tests for
the comparison of the fit of various distributions in the upper tail are given by:
D-index = (1/x) ∑Abs (xi-ẍ)
Where xi and ẍ are the ith highest observed and computed values for the distribution respectively.
The distribution giving the least D-index is considered to be the best fit distribution
Table 2.12
Statistical parameter original data Log transformed data

Mean 55.7300 1.736
stand.deva. 12.130 0.094
Sk.coeffic. -0.054 -0.054
1. Normal distribution
ẍ =xi+Kt*σy
Kt=W-(2.51557+0.01033W^2)/(1+1.143279W+0.1992W^2+0.00131W^3)
W= (ln (1/pr) ^2) ^0.5
Table 2.13
Rank Xi p=(m/n+1) Kt ẍ Abs(xi- ẍ)
1 94.5 0.019 3.665 138.95 44.45
2 82.8 0.038 2.898 117.96 35.16
3 76 0.057 2.435 105.54 29.54
4 74.8 0.075 2.097 100.24 25.44
5 71.6 0.094 1.828 93.77 22.17
6 70.4 0.113 1.602 89.83 19.43
Total 176.19
1
|( xi−ẍ )|
Xm ∑
D-index=
176.19
D-index= =3.16
55.73
2. Log normal Distribution
Table 2.14
Rank Yi p=(m/n+1) Kt ẍ Abs(Yi- ẍ)
1 1.975 0.019 3.665 2.32 0.34
2 1.918 0.038 2.898 2.19 0.27
3 1.881 0.057 2.435 2.11 0.23
4 1.874 0.075 2.097 2.07 0.20
5 1.855 0.094 1.828 2.03 0.17
6 1.848 0.113 1.602 2.00 0.15
Total 1.37
1
|(Yi− ẍ)|
Ym ∑
D-index=
1.37
D-index= =0.79
1.736
3. Log Pearson Type III
The difference from Log normal distribution is only the value of Kt.
Kt=Z+(Z^2-1)k+1/3(z^3-6*Z)K^2-(Z-1)k^3+ZK^4+1/3K^5
Where K=Cs/6 =-0.05095
Z=W-(2.51557+0.01033W^2)/(1+1.143279W+0.1992W^2+0.00131W^3)
Where W= (ln(1/pr)^2)^0.5
Table 2.15
Rank Yi p=(m/n+1) Kt ẍ Abs(Yi- ẍ)
1 1.975 0.019 3.553 2.31 0.33
2 1.918 0.038 2.832 2.18 0.27
3 1.881 0.057 2.391 2.11 0.22
4 1.874 0.075 2.066 2.07 0.19
5 1.855 0.094 1.807 2.02 0.17
6 1.848 0.113 1.588 2.00 0.15
Total 1.34
1
|(Yi− ẍ)|
Ym ∑
D-index=
1.34
D-index= =0.77
1.736
4. Person type III
Table 2.16
1 94.5 0.019 3.553 137.60 43.10
2 82.8 0.038 2.832 117.15 34.35
3 76 0.057 2.391 105.00 29.00
4 74.8 0.075 2.066 99.86 25.06
5 71.6 0.094 1.807 93.51 21.91
6 70.4 0.113 1.588 89.66 19.26
Total 172.69
The difference from normal distribution is the value of Kt found as Log Pearson Type III.
1
|( xi−ẍ )|
Xm ∑
D-index=
172.69
D-index= =3.1
55.73
5. Gamble Distribution
ẍ =Xi+Kt*σn-1
Kt= 0.7801*(0.5772+ln(ln(T/(T-1))))
Table2.17
1 94.5 0.019 2.639533 126.52 32.0
2 82.8 0.038 2.091271 108.17 25.4
3 76 0.057 1.767306 97.44 21.4
4 74.8 0.075 1.535095 93.42 18.6
5 71.6 0.094 1.353097 88.01 16.4
6 70.4 0.113 1.202806 84.99 14.6
Total 128.4
1
|( xi−ẍ )|
Xm ∑
D-index=
128.4
D-index= =2.3
55.73
Comparing the value of D-index for the above calculation, we get the least value for Log Pearson
type III; this indicates that Log Pearson type III distribution is the best fit probability distribution
to the data. But the rain fall obtained by Gamble distribution is greater than that of log Pearson
type III distribution so to be more safe take Gambles distribution, in addition Gambles is the
most common used method of distribution for practical work. Hence peak daily point rainfall of
50 years return period is 90.59mm.
2.4.3 Design flood estimation
2.4.3.1 Estimating Time of Concentration
The time of concentration Tc is defined as the time required for a drop of water falling on the
most remote part of the drainage basin to reach the basin outlet.
To calculate the time of concentration the water course is divided according to its slope .The
longest water course is divided into different intervals and the time of concentration is computed
using Kirpich formula.
L3 0.385
Tc=∑Tci ,Where Tci=0.948( )
∆H
Where: L=water course (stream) length in km
∆H=elevation difference
Tci= Time of concentration for each divided stream length
Tc= total time of concentration
From the total catchments area starting remotest water shed point to the out let the time of
concentration is calculated as follow.
Table 2.18: Time of concentration computation
Time of
Elevati
concentration in
Length on
(hr)=
(km.) Differen 3 0.385
ce in m 0.948( L )
∆H
0.000 0.00 0.000
0.291 5.86 0.115
0.134 9.88 0.039
0.581 14.01 0.183
0.327 59.06 0.054
0.186 36.10 0.034
0.636 112.09 0.091
0.650 39.29 0.140
0.093 24.47 0.018
0.867 59.84 0.166
0.171 10.15 0.051
1.123 73.84 0.207
0.979 5.93 0.466
0.090 18.86 0.019
0.130 9.98 0.037
0.090 0.60 0.072
0.519 6.44 0.217
0.183 13.11 0.049
0.332 8.40 0.117
0.131 0.40 0.129
0.089 3.12 0.038
0.649 18.85 0.186
0.911 26.99 0.239
0.257 7.96 0.089
0.182 0.01 0.687
0.130 11.51 0.035
0.410 15.43 0.118
0.273 0.92 0.218
0.259 6.27 0.098
0.726 20.93 0.203
0.388 9.32 0.135
0.183 6.15 0.066
0.130 0.96 0.091
0.274 4.59 0.118
0.387 12.37 0.120
0.183 4.21 0.077
0.517 5.52 0.229
0.364 9.55 0.124
0.129 6.08 0.044
0.456 9.16 0.163
0.330 7.46 0.122
0.205 3.02 0.099
0.545 11.70 0.183
0.130 3.18 0.057
1.184 26.91 0.324
0.111 3.52 0.046
0.002 4.49 0.000
16.918 6.116
The total time of concentration Tc=6.116hr is greater than 3hr.Hence the recommended
minimum practical time increment is one hour (1hr).
Rainfall Profile.
Rainfall profile is the distribution of the proportion of design rainfall during every incremental
time on the watershed area during the 24 hours duration. Well-developed models are needed to
determine such an event for the selected basin area. But there are no sufficient modeling studies
in the vicinity and adaptation of standard curves has been taken as the only option. Designer of
this project has adopted the standard curve from Design Guidelines for Small Scale Irrigation
Projects in Ethiopia. With the aid of rainfall profile versus duration curve the percentages of
design rainfall distribution on the catchment area are computed for the first most intensive storm
duration from the graph as follows:
Figure: 2.2
The areal to point rainfall is found from the table for the given catchment area 73.02956Km
square and duration by the interpolation which is found between 50 and 75.
Table 2.19
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 that relate directly with the size of watershed
area and type of the gauging station. (IDD manual).
For the case of Sewer3 irrigation project, Total
watershed area = 73.02956 Km2
Type of gauging station = Daily rainfall (24 hr.)
Aerial to point Rainfall ratio (%) is found from the above table for the given catchment area and
duration by interpolation.
Rainfall profile in (mm) =Rainfall profile (%) x Daily point rainfall (mm)
Area rainfall (mm) =Areal to point rainfall ratio (%) x rainfall profile (mm).
Table 2.20: Design rain fall arrangement for design rain fall, p=90.59mm
Daily Rainfall Rain Arial to Area Increme Descen Re
point rain profile fall point R.F rain fall ntal ding arranged
Duratio fall (mm) (%) profile ratio (%) (mm) Rain fall order order
n (mm) (mm)
Hr Mm % Mm Mm Mm mm Mm
0-1hr 45 40.77 67.31 27.44 27.44 1 6
1-2hr 58 52.54 75.24 39.53 12.09 2 4
2-3hr 67 60.70 79.24 48.09 8.56 3 3
90.59
3-4hr 72 65.22 82.16 53.59 5.49 4 1
4-5hr 76 68.85 84.08 57.89 4.30 5 2
5-6hr 79 71.57 83.31 59.62 1.73 6 5
2.4.3.2 Estimating Runoff Curve Number (CN)
The curve number of the catchment was determined based on the guide prepared by the US Soil
Conservation service. Based on the hydrologic soil group, land cover, antecedent moisture
content and treatment of the catchment the curve number was determined for different plots. The
results of the curve number assigned for each plot and the corresponding catchment
characteristics are presented in the watershed study report of this project. Accordingly the curve
number was found to be 92.115.
2.4.3.3 Estimation of direct runoff
25400 25400
S= −254= −254=21.7423
CN 92.115
Substituting the value of “S” in the above equation,
( I −0.2∗S)2 (I −0.2∗21.74 )2 (I −4.348)2
Q= = =
( I + 0.8∗S) ( I +0.8∗21.74) (I +17.392)
Where: S=Maximum potential difference b/n rain fall and runoff (mm)
Q= Direct surface runoff (mm)
I=Accumulated design rain fall (mm)
Table2.21: Direct runoff corresponding to incremental rain fall
Time Rearranged Incremental Accumulative
order Design Rain Rain fall (mm) Direct runoff (mm)
fall (mm) Accumulative Incremental
0-1hr 6 1.73 1.73 0.000 0.000

1-2hr 4 5.49 7.23 0.337 0.337
2-3hr 3 8.56 15.79 3.945 3.608
3-4hr 1 27.44 43.23 24.936 20.991
4-5hr 2 12.09 55.32 35.733 10.797
5-6hr 5 4.30 59.62 39.669 3.936
2.4.3.5 Computation of Peak Flood
D
Tp¿ +0.6 Tc
2
Tb¿ 2.67 Tp , Where: Tp= Time to peak (in hr.)
Tb= Time to base (in hr.)

D
Tp¿ +0.6 Tc=0.5+0.6∗6.116=4.17
2
Tb ¿ 2.67 Tp=2.67∗4.17=11.13
Peak rate of discharge created by 1mm runoff excess on the whole of the catchment, QP:
0.21 AQ 0.21∗73.02956∗1
QP= = =3.68 m 3 / s/mm.
Tp 4.17
Where: QP=peak run off rate (m3/sec)
A=Catchment area (km2)
Q=Run off volume (mm)
Tp=Time to peak.
Table 2.22: Computation of the Peak for each incremental runoff

Time Incremen Qp for 1mm Qp for Incremental Hydrograph
tal runoff Incremental Begin Peak end time
runoff(m (m3/S.mm) runoff(m3/s) time time (hr.)
m) (hr.) (hr.)
0-1hr 0.000 3.68 0.00 0 4.17 11.13
1-2hr 0.337 3.68 1.24 1 5.17 12.13
2-3hr 3.608 3.68 13.28 2 6.17 13.13
3-4hr 20.991 3.68 77.20 3 7.17 14.13
4-5hr 10.797 3.68 39.71 4 8.17 15.13
5-6hr 3.936 3.68 14.48 5 9.17 16.13
For ascending case:Q=(Qp-Qb)/(Tp-Tb)*(Tp-Ti)
For decending case:Q=Qp+(Qp-Qe)/(Te-Tp)*(Tp-Ti)
Where: Qp=peak discharge(m3/s)
Qb= beginning discharge(m3/s)
Qe=end discharge(m3/s)
Tb=time of beginning (hr.)
Tp=time to peak (hr.)
Ti=incremental time (hr.)
Te=time to end(hr)
Qn=Qp/Tp (Tn-Tb) Where: Qn=peak incremental runoff (m3/s)
Qn=maximum discharge at that hour
Tp=time to peak (hr.)
TN=incremental time (hr.)
Tb=time of binging (hr.)
Example: Q1=0/4.17(1-0) =0
Q2=1.24/4.17 (2-1) =0.297 =0.297(Tn-Tb)
Table 2.23 Synthesis of complex Hydrograph

Time
(hr.) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 QTOTAL
0 0.000 0
1 0.000 0.000 0
2 0.000 0.297 0.000 0.297
3 0.000 0.594 3.185 0.000 3.779
4 0.000 0.891 6.370 18.513 0.000 25.774
4.17 0.000 0.941 6.911 21.660 1.619 31.131
5 0.000 1.188 9.555 37.026 9.522 0.000 57.291
5.17 0.000 1.240 10.096 40.173 11.141 0.590 63.240
6.00 0.000 1.091 12.740 55.539 19.044 3.472 91.886
6.17 0.000 1.060 13.281 58.686 20.663 4.062 97.752
7.17 0.000 0.883 11.318 77.199 20.185 7.534 117.119
8.17 0.000 0.705 9.419 76.337 39.707 11.006 137.174
9.17 0.000 0.527 7.520 65.370 33.686 14.478 121.581
11.13 0.000 0.178 3.798 32.904 22.608 10.295 69.783
12.13 0.000 1.899 21.936 16.956 8.236 49.027
13.13 0.000 10.968 11.304 6.177 28.449
14.13 0.000 5.652 4.118 9.770
15.13 0.000 2.057 2.057
16.13 0.000 0.00
As shown in the above table the peak inflow discharge =137.174m3/s

And hence the design discharge≈ 137.174 m3 /s
160 Unit Hydrograph
140
120
Discharge (m^3/s)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time(hr)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 QTOTAL
Figure 2.3: Synthesized hydrograph for Melka-Gobera weir design

3. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF THE WEIR
3.1 WATER RESOURCES AVAILABILTY
3.1.1 Base Flow
Melka-Gobera River is ungauged river. The only means of estimating base flow of the river is by
local people’s information and measuring the river flow in critical seasons. The base flow
recorded in critical season, April 20/2010, by using floating method is 150L/sec.The local
peoples (farmers) also confirms April is the driest month. So the study team decides to use this
flow for the demand and supply analysis of the project.
3.1.2 Seasonal flow condition

The sources of irrigation water for this diversion project are Melka-Gobera river perennial lean
flow. In the case of diversion irrigation scheme the water availability for irrigation system
depend on the minimum lean flow, which should greater or equal to the scheme irrigation
demand, So the project is designed based on the available surface water resource. According to
the local elder’s information, the lean flow decreases from time to time.
3.1.3 Demand –Supply Analysis

The design base flow has to match the maximum demand in order to plan the size of the irrigable
area that the project supports in dry season irrigation.
Irrigable area = base flow (l/s)/ Maximum demand (l/s/ha)
= 150l/s/ (2.2l/s/ha = 68.2 ha.
But we have 65 hectares of land so out of 150 l/sec; 143 liters of water will be diverted for this
project.
3.2 Head work site selection

The geological formation of the river cross section at the weir axis, the ease with which the
intake canal can be taken away from the river safely and the head required to irrigate the
maximum elevated command area were considered in selecting the head work site. Accordingly
a section of the river at a geographic location of 610563.892(UTM) Easting and 1201596.144
(UTM) Northing was selected for weir.
3.3 Weir type selection
The height of the weir that needs to be constructed to command the higher elevated command
area is 2.4m. Therefore a weir type that can dissipate the energy of water falling from this height
needs to have better energy dissipation efficiency. In this respect an ogee type weir is preferable.
Besides constructing a broad crested type weir in a river reach where the risk of boulder in
crushing its sharp edge is higher is not advisable. Based on these two factors an ogee type weir is
selected for Melka-Gobera irrigation project so that a better dissipation of energy from a high
weir (2.4m) can be obtained and the risk of crushing of the edges of the weir can be minimized
by allowing boulders to flow smoothly in an ogee weir. The proposed weir is to be constructed
by cyclopean concrete with reinforced concrete capping. The cyclopean concrete consists of 60%
C-25 concrete and 40% graded stone of size less than 10cm diameter, with external cover of
single reinforced C-20 concrete.The following physical design parameters are deduced from
Engineering hydrology reports, the graph curves prepared and from surveying data made at the
proposed weir site. The lowest river bed level at the weir axis was determined to be 1189.8masl
and crest level of weir to be 1192.20 during the field surveying work.
3.4 Weir height Determination

The weir height is fixed from different point of view. Some of them are the level of the
maximum irrigated command area, different minor and major losses of the canal route system,
canal alignment, formation condition and working condition, head loss across the head regulator.
Having these into account, the weir height is fixed to be 2.4m.The crest length of the weir is
fixed based on the weir height and flood condition. Hence the crest length according to the weir
height is fixed to be 17.36m.There for the weir height is found as follows:
Crest level of weir=Elf+VI+Hf+D=1189.5+2.25+0.15+0.3=1192.20
where:
Efl=highest elevation at the field
VI=vertical interval
Hf=head loss at the intake
D=depth of water, but weir height=crest level of weir-river bed level
=1192.20-1189.80=2.4m
Accordingly the weir height was fixed to be 2.4m and the corresponding crest level was fixed to
be 1192.2m.The design flood for the proposed diversion weir is computed in the hydrology part
of this study. The 50 years return period design discharge was determined to be 137.174m3/s. and
the crest length to be given that 17.36m.
3.5. 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 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.
3.6 Flow analysis over the weir body

The shape of the weir selected can affect the over flow pattern above the weir. The coefficient of
flow varies with the type of weir and shape. Since the type of weir selected for this project is
ogee the coefficient of discharge was assumed, Cd, was assumed to be 2.225 for the first trial.
The depth of approach head (weir height/head of water above the crest i.e. h/Hd) and
submergence was then checked whether a correction factor needs to be applied for the assumed
coefficient of discharge or not. Generally for h/Hd<1.33m a correction factor for the coefficient
of discharge needs to be applied based on standard curves. In the same manner for
(hd+d)/He<1.7m a correction factor for the coefficient of discharge needs to be applied based on
standard curves where d is the tail water depth. The overflow section of the weir is designed in
order to pass 100% of the flood without considering to accommodate through the under sluice
portion. The usual ogee weir formula is used for the evaluation of the discharge that could pass
over the weir and it is expressed as:
The discharge coefficient for this ogee weir is affected by depth of approach and D/S apron
interference and submergence effect. Hence it is fixed as shown bellow:
Figure: 3.1 the cross section of ogee weir
Considering the silt deposited, we take 0.5 meter free space while 2.225m is filled with silt.
Qd= Cd*L* He3/2

Where: Qd = Design discharge =137.174m3/s
Cd= Coefficient of discharge (2.225 for ogee weir)
L= Overflow length of a weir=17.36m
He= Energy head including velocity head (m)
The depth of approach head (weir height/head of water above the crest i.e. h/Hd) and
submergence need to be checked whether a correction factor needs to be applied for the assumed
coefficient of discharge or not.
Check based on approach depth
Q=CdLHe3/2 C=2.225
He= (Qd/CdL) 2/3 = (137.174/2.225*17.36)^2/3
He=2.328 m
Q
The approach velocity, Va= …………………………………………………… 1
L(Hd+ p)
Va2 Va2
where, Hd=He- => =He-Hd………………………………………2
2g 2g
Q 137.174
But Va= = by subistuting velocity head in equation(2) we get:
L ( Hd+ p ) 17.36 ( Hd+0.5 )
2
137.174
( ) ∗1
17.36 ( Hd +0.5 )
=He−Hd
2∗9.81
-Hd^3+1.328Hd^2+2.078Hd-2.6=0
By trial and error, Hd will be 1.129m.
Cd Q L Hd Ha=(Q/L*(P+Hd))^2/(2*g) He-Hd h/Hd
2.225 137.174 17.36 1.129 1.225 1.199 2.126
h
Since =2.126>1.33, C=2.225 is correct based on approach depth condition.
Hd
Check based on d/s apron and submergence effect
U/s HFL = U/s bed level +weir height+Hd
=1189.8+2.4+1.129=1193.329
U/s TEL =U/s HFL +approach velocity head
=1193.329+1.225=1194.554m
D/s HFL=River bed +Tail water depth…………1
Tail water depth= D/s HFL- River bed, where D/s HFL=1192.105 which
is given.
=1192.105-1189.8=2.305
D/s TEL=D/sHFL+V2/2g, where, the velocity head is Computed in the
above table which is 1.225m.
D/sTEL=1192.105+ 1.225=1193.33m
hd=U/S TEL-D/S HFL=1194.554-1192.105=2.449
(hd+d)/He= (2.449+2.305)/2.328=2.042,
where, d=Tail water depth=2.305m
Hence 2.042>1.7, the d/s apron interference for Cd is negligible effect.
Afflux=U/s TEL-D/S TEL
Afflux =1194.554-1193.33m =1.224m, so it is safe.
4.
3.7 Weir dimensions and profiles

The upstream and downstream profiles of the ogee weir were determined based on the latest
standards set by the US Corps of Arms. The origin and the coordinate system used to plot these
profiles is shown in figure below.
Upstream profile
The x and y coordinates of the upstream profile of the weir was determined by the following
formula.
Y=0.724*(X+0.27Hd) 1.85/Hd0.85+0.126Hd-0.4315Hd0.375*(X+0.27Hd) 0.625 ………..1
discharge above the weir crest. Hd was determined to be 1.129 in the above table. Therefore the
upstream profile extends up to the point of coordinates (-0.30483, 0.123m). The whole upstream
profile at an interval of 0.1m in the x direction is presented in the following table.
Table 4.5: Coordinates of the upstream weir profile with respect to the weir crest level
x Y
0.0000 0.000
-0.1000 0.011
-0.2000 0.051
-0.2646 0.123
Downstream Profile
The x and y coordinates of the curved surface of the downstream profile of the weir was
determined by the following formula (US Corps of Arms-for vertical weir).
X1.85=2*Hd0.85*Y…………..2
According to the US Corps of Arms the downstream profile needs to be constructed up to the
point where dy/dx of the above equation results the slope of the tangent profile which is usually
taken as 1 for construction simplicity and stability. To have efficient curvature, it is better to
determine the tangent point.
dy/dx=v/h=dy/dx=1/1
dy/dx=1.85*X^(1.85-1)/2Hd^0.85/1
X0.85=2.217/1.85, X= (2.217/1.85)^0.85
X=1.237
y=0.669
This point was found to be (1.237, 0.669m). The full downstream profile determined by the
above equation is presented in the table below using 0.10m interval in the x direction. The
downstream tangent profile extends from the point (1.237, 0.669m) where the curved profile
ends to the point h/8 above the toe of the weir (determined to be 0.30m). h is the height of the
weir. It has a slope of 1:1 (H: V).The foot curve (circular curve) profile needs to be made from
the end of the tangent profile to the point tangent to the weir toe level with a radius of 0.60m
(h/4).
Table 4.6: Coordinates of the d/s weir profile with respect to the weir crest level
X Y=X1.85/2*Hd0.85
0.000 0.000
0.100 0.00637
0.200 0.02297
0.300 0.04863
0.400 0.08280
0.500 0.12512
0.600 0.17531
0.700 0.23317
0.800 0.29850
0.900 0.37118
1.000 0.45106
1.1000 0.53804
1.200 0.63200
1.237 0.66900
Figure 3.2: Weir profile
3.8 Hydraulic Jump Computation
In the determination of pre and post jump depths the basic energy equation between upstream
face of the weir and the point where the hydraulic jump starts to form (where depth y 1is
achieved). The head loss between these two points due to friction is assumed to be zero. This is
described in fig 4.5 below.
Accordingly: h + He = Y1 + Hv
h + He = Y1 + (q2/2gy12)……………………..……………………………1
Where: h = Weir height
He = Head over the crest including the velocity head (m)
Hv = Velocity head at the point where hydraulic jump starts to be formed (m) at Y1
= (q2/2gy12)
q = Discharge intensity (m3/sm)=Qd/L
g = acceleration due to gravity=9.81m2/s
From equation 1 above the value of Y1 was determined for different values of q as in table
4.7.The value of Y2 was determined by the following formula:
Y1
Y 2= ∗¿………………………………………………….2
2
q
where: f = where: f=Froude number
√ gy 13
To illustrate for the peak discharge assume the river bed lowered by about 0.4m from the original
river bed due to retrogression i.e. 1189.8-0.4=1189.4. Hence neglecting the minor loss and
Appling equation 1 above the value of y1 is determined as follow by iteration.
2.4+2.328+0.4=y1+v12/2*g
5.128=y1+(q/y1)2/2*g where q=Q/L= 137.174/17.36=7.90
19.62y13-100.61136y12+62.41=0, by trial and error or by using iteration y1=0.864
y1 19.62y13-100.61136y12+62.41=0 Remark
0.864 0.0000 using iteration

Then the value of Y2 is evaluated as follow:
Y1
Y 2= ∗¿
2
F12=q2/gy13, where F1=Froude number=9.86
Y2=3.42
Check and balancing
Cistern level=D/s HFL-y2=1192.105-3.42=1188.685 which is less than 1189.4
Hence take the cistern level as 1188.685.
Second trial
Ef1=U/S TEL-Cistern level=y1+(q2/ (2*g*y12))
=5.894= y1+(q2/ (2*g*y12))
Y1= (0.169664065y^3+0.53969084) ^0.5=0.789 by trial and error or by using iteration.
F1^2=q2/gy1 y2=(y1/2)*((8*f1^2+1)^0. 5.584=Y1+q^2/

y1 Remark
3 5-1) (2*g*y1^2)
Using
0.789 12.95 3.64 5.894
iteration
Cistern level=D/s HFL-y2=1192.105-3.44=1188.465 which is less than 1188.816.Hence take the

cistern level as 1188.465.
Third trial
Ef1=U/STEL-Cistern level=y1+ (q2/ (2*g*y12))
1194.554-1188.465 =6.089= y1+ (q2/ (2*g*y12))
Y1= ((19.62y^3+62.41)/119.6618)^0.5=0.772, by trial and error.
F1^2=q2/gy1 y2=(y1/2)*((8*f1^2+1)^.5 5.738=Y1+q^2/

y1 Remark
3 -1) (2*g*y1^2)
Using
0.772 13.82 3.69 6.089
iteration
Cistern level=D/s HFL-y2=1192.105-3.69=1188.415 which is less than 1188.66

Hence take the cistern level as 1188.415.
Fourth trial
Ef1=U/STEL-Cistern level=y1+ (q2/ (2*g*y12)) =1194.554-1188.415=6.139
6.139= y1+ (q2/ (2*g*y12))
Y1= ((19.62y^3+62.41)/120.44718)^0.5=0.770.by using trial and error.
F1^2=q2/gy y2=(y1/2)*((8*f1^2+1)^.5- 5.775=Y1+q^2/

y1 Remark
13 1) (2*g*y1^2)
Using
0.770 13.93 3.697 6.139
iteration
Cistern level=D/s HFL-y2=1192.105-3.697=1188.408 which is almost equal to 1188.415. Hence
take the cistern level as 1188.415.
The length of horizontal the jump expected to be formed is computed using the formula
presented as follows:
Lhj = 5*(Y2-Y1) =14.635m, for safety take 15m. Where: Lhj= length of horizontal jump
Figure 3.3: Energy equations between upstream face of the weir and the point where the
hydraulic jump starts to form.
3.9 The relation b/n tail water and sequent jump depth curve
and its Implications
The relation of the tail water and jump depths for different discharges determines the scouring
effect of the flow on the river bed and bank. The tail water depth is lower than the jump depth for
higher discharges and is lower for low discharges. This implies the jump depth will have a
velocity that will scour the bed and banks of the river unless sloping apron with cutting of the
river bed is provided. The maximum difference between the jump and tail water depths at the
design discharge is 1.392m and the calculated jump depth is 3.697m. Therefore excavating the
bed of the river for a length of 15m with a depth of 1.392m should be done up to which the jump
is going to occur.
3.10 Design of impervious and pervious apron
3.10.1 Determination of cutoff (scour depth)
Depth of scour below high flood level
1 /3
q2
R=1.35( ) , f=1.76√ d=1.76*√ 18.74=7.62, where, d is average particle size in (mm)
f
2 1/ 3
7.9
R=1.35(
7.62 )
=2.72
Reduce level of bottom of u/s cut off

=u/s HFL-1.5R
=1193.329m-1.5*2.72
=1189.249
Depth of u/s cutoff below river bed level “d1”
d1 =RBL-1189.249
=1189.8-1189.249
=0.551m, so provide 1m cutoff depth
Reduce level of bottom of d/s cut off
=actual d/s HFL-2R, considering retrogression effect of 0.4m
=1192.105-2*2.72-0.4
=1186.265
Depth of d/s cutoff below river bed level “d2”
d2=cistern level (RBL)-1186.56 where: RBL= reduced bed level
=1189.249-1186.265
=2.984, so provide 3.0m cutoff depth
3.10.2 Design of impervious apron length
Under seepage through the structure is checked for two cases:
(a), Under a no flow condition where the head difference is the difference between the weirs
crest level and the downstream bed level.
(b), Under a full discharge condition with a hydraulic jump in the stilling basin.
Case a
Percolation head, HW=crest level-cistern level
=1192.2-1189.249
=2.951
Case b
Percolation head, HW= (U/F HFL – cistern level) - y1
=1193.329-1189.249-0.770
=3.31
The creep length, L=C*Hw, where C is the creep coefficient, we take C=9 for mixture of
boulders, gravels and cobbles.
L=9*3.31=29.79 take 30m.
D/S impervious apron
Hw
Ld/s=2.21*c*
√ 10
=2.21∗9∗ √ 3.31/10=11.44 ≈ 11.5 m .
Check with energy dissipater
If the tail water depth is very low during high flood, the hydraulic jump will be formed and the
water may shoot up out of the provided apron length. So the provided apron length should be
checked weather it is sufficient or not to accommodate the maximum jump. The computed length
of jump is 15m and d/s impervious apron 11.5m. Hence length of d/s impervious apron is taken
as 15m.
U/S impervious apron
Lu/s=L-(Ld/s+B+2d1+2d2)
=28.5-(15+3.4+4.83+2*1+2*3)
=-2.7m –ve sign indicates no need of u/s apron but provide nominal length of 1.3m.
3.10.3 Design of pervious apron (protection work) length

Protection works are required on the u/s and d/s in order to obviate the possibility of scour hole
traveling close to the impervious floor of the weir and to relive any residual uplift pressure
through the filter. But in Melka-Gobera case river bed material is covered with gravel, and
boulder that can act as protection work, so it is not important to provide protection works. But
for safety of the structure 5m away from the end of impervious floor 1.5m deep, 23.6m length,
0.5 top width and 0.8 bottom width cut off across the river is provided.
3.10.4 Design of impervious floor thickness

From practical point of view, the u/s apron (impervious floor) mostly covered by river deposit,
one thickness cover of the structure, and uplift pressure is also counter balanced by the weight of
the standing water. Hence provide nominal thickness of 0.5m u/s of the weir.
3.10.4.1Thickness of d/s impervious apron

The thickness of concrete at the particular point under consideration resisting the uplift pressure
under no flow condition or (case (a)) is determined as follows:
4 Hr
t= ( ), where, Hr=is the residual head remaining at a point
3 G−1
Hw
Hr=Hw - ( Lp) where HW=Percolation head
L
L=Total creep length
Lp =Length at a point where to
Calculate the thickness
G=unit weight of floor material =2.3
Point G Hw Lp L Hr t
A 2.3 2.951 6.7 30 2.29 2.348
B 2.3 2.951 11.53 30 1.81 1.856
C 2.3 2.951 16.53 30 1.32 1.354
D 2.3 2.951 21.53 30 0.83 0.851
When a hydraulic jump forms in the basin under the maximum flow condition (case (b)) the
thickness of concrete is determined from:
4 Hr
t= ( ), where, H r = u/s HFL-cistern level-y1
3 G−1
=is the uplift head at the point of the hydraulic jump on the stilling basin
Point G Hw Lp L Hr t
A 2.3 3.31 6.7 30 2.57 2.64
B 2.3 3.31 11.53 30 2.04 2.092
C 2.3 3.31 16.53 30 1.49 1.528
D 2.3 3.31 21.53 30 0.93 0.953
The concrete thickness to be adopted for the structure is the greater of the two cases. Hence,
maximum flow condition is adopted, that means the second case.
3.10.4.2 Check for the exit gradient
b=Total length of impervious apron, assume b= 20.5
d2=d/s cutoff depth=3.00m, Hw=3.31
Hw
∗1 1
GE= d 2 ………………………………1 Where: λ= (1+ √ 1+α 2)
2
π∗√ λ
b 20.5
α= = =6.83
d2 3
1
λ= ( 1+ √ 1+ 6.832 )=3.95
2
3.31/3∗1
GE= =0.1767
π∗√ 3.95
The maximum permissible exit gradient for mixture of gravel, boulder, cobble and sand is less
than1/4 or 0.25 and Lanes creep coefficient is 2.5 to3.0. Which is greater than the GE=0.1767
then the structure is safe against piping.
3.10.4.3 Checking the thickness of the impervious floor by khoslas
Pressure at key points of u/s cutoff
1 b 20.5
λ= ( 1+ √ 1+ α 2 ), where: α = = =20.5
2 d1 1
1
= ¿
2
100 λ−2
фC1=100- фE, Where фE= cos−1 ( ¿ )¿
π λ
=100-19.722
100
=80.278% = ∗35.5
180
=19.722%
100 λ−1
фD1=100- фD, Where фD= cos−1 ( ¿ )¿=
180 λ
=100-13.833
100
=86.167% = ∗24.9
180
=13.833%
Ct=correction for thickness фC1
= ( фD 1−ф
d1
C1
)∗t=
86.17−80.28
1
∗0.5=2.94where 0.5 is the nominal thickness of u/s apron.
Cif=correction for interference of d/s cutoff on фC1

d +D D
Cif=19*(
b
)¿
√
b'
, Where D=depth of pile whose influence has to be
Determined on the adjacent pile depth d.

b’=distance b/n two piles
d= depth of pile on which the effects of a Depth (D) is to be calculated
b=Total floor length
d +D D
Cif=19*(
b
)¿
√
b'
3
=19*¿)¿
√ 20
=1.436
Corrected фC1=80.28-2.94-1.436
= 75.897%
The residual pressure head at C1=Hw* Corrected фC1
=3.31*0.759=2.51229
2.51229
Floor thickness at point c1= =1.9325 m where 2.3=G
2.3−1
From practical point of view, the u/s apron (impervious floor) mostly covered by river deposit,
one thickness cover of the structure, and uplift pressure is also counter balanced by the weight of
the standing water. Hence provide nominal thickness of 0.5m.
Pressure at key points of d/s cutoff
1( b 20.5
λ= 1+ √ 1+ α 2 ), where α = = =6.83
2 d2 3
1
= ¿
2
100 −1 λ−2 100
фE= cos ( ¿ )¿ = ∗60.4 ==33.56
π λ 180
100 λ−1 100
ф D= cos−1 ( ¿ )¿ = ∗41.67 =23.13
180 λ 180
Ct=correction for thickness фE
= ( фE−ф
d2
D
)∗t= 33.56−23.15
3
∗0.78=2.705
Cif=correction for interference of u/s cutoff on d/s cutoff фE

d +D D
Cif=19*(
b
)¿
√
b'
, Where D=depth of pile whose influence has to be
Determined on the adjacent pile depth d.

b’=distance b/n two piles
d= depth of pile on which the effects of another
Depth (D) is to be calculated
b=Total floor length
d +D D 1
Cif=19*(
b
)¿
√
b'
=19*¿)¿
20 √
=0.829
Corrected фE=33.56+2.705+0.829
= 40.15%
The residual pressure head at E=Hw* Corrected фE
=3.83*0.4015=1.538
1.538
Floor thickness at the E1= =1.18 m
2.3−1
By assuming the uplift pressure is usually varying linearly from u/s to the d/s the pressure head
(uplift) at intermediate are calculated in the table below.
Table 4.8 Thickness correction
Points distance from u/s pressure head Thickness after adopted

correction thickness
A (toe) 2.09 6.70 1.61 2.45
B 1.88 11.53 1.45 1.91
C 1.67 16.53 1.29 1.34
D 1.46 21.53 1.12 1.20
3.11 Structural design of the weir
3.11.1 Stability Analysis of the weir
3.11.1.1 Forces acting on the weir

The followings are the major forces considered in the design of the weir overflow section by
which the stability analysis was based.
 Self-weight of the structure
 External water pressure
 Silt pressure
 Uplift pressure
Structural damage due to seismicity is considered to be negligible. In the computation process of

the stability analysis for the structure earth quake force is therefore assumed to be negligible.
Self-weight of the structure
For the ease of calculating moment arm for each section of the curved profile of the ogee, the
curved surface was assumed to be linear at proper intervals so that the total section of the weir
was divided in to different sections as shown in figure 4.7 be
Figure 4.7: Self weight determination
Exte
rnal water pressure
These are the forces acting on the weir due to the reservoir created upstream of the overflow
section, tail water, and the dynamic pressure created at the toe due to change in the momentum
of the flow. The external water pressure on the upstream face of the weir is calculated for sever
case i.e. for the design discharge level. The water pressure that could be exerted on the weir body
due to a change in momentum as the water flows over the curved toe surface was also calculated
and incorporated in the analysis. This is calculated based on the basic momentum formula as
shown in table 4.9. These two forces are labeled as Pwdv and Pwdh.
Uplift pressure
The sub surface flow (seepage) may build up uplift pressure under the foundation especially on
pervious foundation. This effect is also considered in the stability analysis of the structure.
Silt pressure
As a result of the weir construction the water surface of the flow will be substantially reduced
which will enhance deposition of silts and soils as well as cobles and stones. This will produce
pressure on the upstream section of the weir. This effect is considered in the stability analysis.
The worst condition, silt level at the crest level, is considered in the analysis. An average value
of 10.84KN/m3 was used for the submerged unit weight of the silt and 300 for internal angle of
friction. The silt pressure is computed using the widely used Rankin’s formula.
Psilt= gs *h2*(1-sinФ)/(1+sinФ))/2
Where: Psilt= Silt pressure
gs = the unit weight of the silt
h= the height of the silt to be deposited= weir height
Ф=angle of internal friction
The stability analysis of the weir against all disturbing forces is checked for two critical
conditions, i.e. for maximum flood condition and for no tail water condition.
a. Maximum flood condition
Consider summation of momentum around counter clock wise direction is +ve and clock wise
direction is –ve and unit weight of concrete is 23KN/M^2 and water is 10KN/M^2.
Table 4.9 weir stability analysis

Magnitude of forces (KN) Moment at "o"(KN.M)
Vertica
Force designation l Horizontal Lever arm in m Resisting Disturbing
Weight of weir and
impervious apron
W1 5.75 24.25 139.44
W2 54.05 22.15 1197.21
W3 44.85 22.80 1022.58
W4 272.09 17.42 4738.45
W5 219.65 12.50 2745.63
W6 154.10 7.50 1155.75
W7 138.00 2.50 345.00
W8 26.45 0.25 6.61
W1' 20.98 23.04 483.29
W2' 20.61 22.64 466.57
W3' 17.94 22.24 398.99
W4' 14.44 21.84 315.46
W5' 10.76 21.44 230.78
W6' 7.18 21.04 150.98
W7' 3.50 20.64 72.16
W8' 0.28 20.24 5.59
W1'' 0.51 23.11 11.69
W2'' 0.69 22.57 15.58
W3'' 1.33 22.17 29.58
W4'' 1.79 21.77 39.06
W5'' 1.79 21.37 38.34
W6'' 1.79 20.97 37.63
W7'' 1.79 20.57 36.91
W8'' 1.61 20.17 32.48
W9'' 0.07 19.90 1.37
Hydrostatic Pressure
Pw1 -23.52 2.38 55.98
Pw2 -28.80 1.98 57.02
Pw3 2.66 0.24 0.65
Silt pressure
Psilt -10.40 1.98 20.58
Hydrodynamic
pressure
Pwdh -27.9776 1.26 35.26
Pwdv -39.48 20.13 794.73
Weight of water
Ww1 43.94 23.85 1047.97
Ww4 345.75 7.50 2593.13
Weight of silt
Ws 33.82 23.85 806.63
Uplift pressure
Pu1 -284.52 12.25 3485.31
Pu2 -148.85 16.40 2441.00
Sum 972.68 88.04 18165.47 6889.89
Checking for sliding Checking for overturning
∑ Fv 0.6∗972.68 ∑MR 18165.47
Fs=μ = =6.63 >1.5…… OK Fo= = =2.6>1.5…… OK
∑ FH 88.04 ∑ MD 6889.89
Checking for tension development
B ∑ MR−∑ MD 18165.47−6889.89
e= −x where x= = =11.59
2 ∑ FV 972.68
B 24.5 B 24.5
e= −x = −11.59=0.66 < = =4.08 … … … … … … … ..OK
2 2 6 6
Checking for bearing capacity
Maximum base pressure=ΣV/B*(1+6*e/B)
=1406.04/24.5* (1+6*7.9/24.5)
=167.96 KN/m2<200KN/m2 so it is safe.
b. No tail water condition
Magnitude of forces
(KN) Lever arm Moment at "o"(KN.M)
Force designation Vertical Horizontal in m Resisting Disturbing
Weight of weir
and impervious
apron
W1 5.75 24.25 139.44
W2 54.05 22.15 1197.21
W3 44.85 22.80 1022.58
W4 272.09 17.42 4738.45
W5 219.65 12.50 2745.63
W6 154.10 7.50 1155.75
W7 138.00 2.50 345.00
W8 26.45 0.25 6.61
W1' 20.98 23.04 483.29
W2' 20.61 22.64 466.57
W3' 17.94 22.24 398.99
W4' 14.44 21.84 315.46
W5' 10.76 21.44 230.78
W6' 7.18 21.04 150.98
W7' 3.50 20.64 72.16
W8' 0.28 20.24 5.59
W1'' 0.51 23.11 11.69
W2'' 0.69 22.57 15.58
W3'' 1.33 22.17 29.58
W4'' 1.79 21.77 39.06
W5'' 1.79 21.37 38.34
W6'' 1.79 20.97 37.63
W7'' 1.79 20.57 36.91
W8'' 1.61 20.17 32.48
W9'' 0.07 19.90 1.37
Hydrostatic
Pressure
Pw2 -28.80 1.98 57.02

Silt pressure
Psilt -10.40 1.98 20.58
Hydrodynamic
pressure
Weight of water
Ww1 43.94 23.85 1047.97
Weight of silt
Ws 33.82 23.85 806.63
Uplift pressure
Pu1 -284.52 12.25 3485.31
Pu2 -148.85 16.40 2441.00
sum 666.41 39.20 15571.70 6003.92
∑ Fv 666.41 ∑MR 15571.70
Fs=μ = =10.2>1.5 OK Fo= = =2.6>1.5 OK
∑ FH 39.20 ∑ MD 6003.92
B ∑ MR−∑ MD 15571.70−6003.92
e= −x where : x= = =14.36
2 ∑ FV 666.41
B 24.5 B 24.5
e= −x = −14.36=−2.11< = =4.08 … … … … . OK
2 2 6 6
Checking for bearing capacity
=1099.77/24.5* (1+6*7.31/24.5)
3.11.2 Weir, Apron and sluice Protection Work (Capping)

In order to avoid cracking and shearing of the weir, apron and under sluice during overflowing
and incoming of boulders, RCC of thickness 200 mm is provided with proper capping. The
nominal reinforcement is taken as 0.13% of the concrete cross sectional area per meter width.
Hence, Asteel=0.0013*1000*200=260mm2
Thus, Provide φ 14 @ C/C 300mm.
Actual area of steel=3.14*14^2/4*1/0.3 =512.35mm2
Since Asteel=260 mm2<512.35 mm2 it is ok!
Covering of the reinforcement=50mm+14/2=57mm. 57 mm as gross covering depth. But it is
easy for fixing 50 mm gross covering thickness. The spacing of the reinforcement bar should
be less than three times the effective depth or 450 mm, which is smaller of the two. Effective
depth, de=300-50=250mm
Hence the actual spacing, 300 mm<3*250=>300mm<750mm.Hence it is ok.
The spacing @ c/c should be account the diameter of the reinforcement when Intermediate
smaller or larger size of the reinforcement is applied during actual operation. This capping
should also apply for divide wall with reinforcement size of φ 14 mm with C/c spacing of
300 mm.This capping detail is provided for the weir, apron, under sluice and Divide wall and
check the design drawing for further information.
3.12 DESIGN OF DIVIDE WALL, SCOURING

SLUICE AND HEAD REGULATOR
3.12.1 Divide wall
The divide wall will separate the main weir proper from the under sluice side reduce the
disturbance of flow in the canal head regulator side. Considering the wall height, the load’s
acting on the wall and the materials proposed for wall construction (i.e. the wall is masonry)
provides a divide wall of 1.0m thickness of rectangular section.
Stability analysis of divide wall
Forces Momentum about pt A
Vertical Horizontal Lever arm
Designation (kN/m) (KN/m) (m) Mr Mo
W1 52.8 1 52.80
W2 22 1.00 22.00
Ps 5.1744 0.47 2.41
Pw 1.8 0.20 0.36
Total 74.8 6.97 74.80 2.77
∑V 0.6∗74.8 ∑ Mr 74.80
Fs=μ = =6.43 >1.5…… OK Fo= = =27>1.5 ……..OK
∑H 6.97 ∑ Mo 2.77
B ∑ MR−∑ MD 74.8−2.77
e= −x where x= = =0.96
2 ∑ FV 74.8
B 2 B 2
e= −x = −0.96=0.04 < = =0.33 ……….OK
2 2 6 6
3.12.2 Scouring sluice
Souring sluice openings (a size 1.4x 1.00 meters) have been provided in the body of the
diversion weir close and adjacent to the head regulator. The provision of this opening would
allow the silt laden lower layer of water to pass out, reduces silt entry into the canal, passes low
floods, guide the lean flow to the head regulator, and passes also normal floods there by reducing
the afflux and subsequently slightly lowering the highest flood level. The discharge passing
through the under sluice is determined by the discharge formula:
Q=Cd∗A∗√ 2∗g∗he ………………………………..1
Where: Cd= Coefficient of discharge=0.60 for broad crested weir
L= Crest length=1m
H=gate height=1.4m,where:A=1*1.4=1.4m^2
he=head causing flow=Crest level-center of opening
= 1192.20-(1189.8+1+0.7), sill level =1m above the river bed level,FB=0.7
= 0.7m
Q=0.60*1.4*(2*9.81*0.7) ^0.5=3.11m3/s
Therefore the cross section and discharge that can pass through the under sluice is computed to
be 1.4m2 and 3.11m3/s respectively. It is believed in different irrigation literatures that the
discharge passing the under sluices need to be at least 5 times the dry base flow of the river.
Compared to the base flow during the dry periods the discharge that can pass through the
assumed under sluice opening is found to be 5 times more the dry period’s base flow (which is
(5*150/1000)=0.75m3/s). Therefore the assumed under sluice opening which is 1.4mX1m was
accepted.
3.12.2.1 Design of under sluice gate
The gate of the under sluice is to be vertical sheet metal of 1.4m x 1.00m for the closure of the
opening space. Providing some extra dimensions for groove insertion. Gross area of sheet metals
for the under sluice gate will be 1.45m x 1.1m (allowing 5cm insertion for grooves). The grooves
are to be provided on the walls using angle iron frames at the two sides of the gate openings. The
gate (sheet metals) is provided with stiffening angle irons. A vertical raised gate is designed for
the under sluice. These gates simply raised by farmers without spindle.
3.12.2.2 Design of under sluice gate thickness
Hydrostatic water pressure, Pa=1.4*10=14KN/m2
Hydro Static water Pressure for head of 1.4m at the bottom of the gate=14kN/m2=1.4N/cm2
The allowable tensile and bending stress of the steel during wet conditionδ =0.45*300=135
K∗P∗a2
N/mm2=13500N/cm2.Hence bending stress in flat plate should be, δ =
100∗S2
Where S=thickness of the sheet metal (cm)
P=Hydrostatic pressure (N/Cm)=1.4N/cm2
K=Non-dimensional factor
a =minor support length which related with K
1.4
For b /a= =1 , K=45.06 from the table for different supporting condition.
1
K∗P∗a2 0.5 45.06∗1.4∗1002 0.5
S=( ) =( ) =0. 68 cm
100∗δ 100∗13500
Hence considering incoming boulders and transported materials, take S=6.8 mm
Weight of gate= gsteel *s*a*b, Where s=thickness (m) =0.0068 m
h=gate height (m)=1.4m ,b=width=1m ,gs=Density of steel =7800kg/m3
Weight of gate=7800*0.0068*1*1.4=74.3kg.
Hence the weight of the sheet metal gate is light; we can use stiffening materials for further
safety. 3.12.3 Head Regulator
The head regulator is located on both side of the weir body. The intake sill level is fixed based on
route alignment and optimal elevation to command the possible irrigable area. Hence, the intake
sill level is fixed at 1.8m above the minimum river bed level at weir axis. The minimum river
bed level and intake levels are 1189.8 and 1191.6 m.a.s.l. respectively. The lean flow was
measured on April 20/2010 is 150 l/sec. In usual case, this time is the driest time. Hence, this
figure is the real representative of the lean flow. Therefore this figure indicates that, the river has
a good flow. Hence, the main canal on the left and the right is designed to serve an area of 50.5
and 14.5 hectares of land with a design discharge of 111.1 l/sec (0.111m^3/s)and 31.9
l/sec(0.0319m^3/s) respectively at the canal head. The maximum duty for the locality is 2.2
l/s/ha.The flow through the canal head regulator is supposed to be orifice flow, and hence the
coefficient of discharge through the head regulator, Cd=0.6. The water level (pond level) of the
canal head regulator to the weir side assumed equal to the weir crest level i.e. 1192.2 masl, and
the water level difference, he, between pond level and center half of intake slot is 0.30m. So the
discharge, Qd, through the main canal on the left and the right is determined as follows by:
Q=Cd∗A∗√ 2∗g∗he
The capacity of opening provided to the left is checked as follow;
Coefficient discharge (Cd)= 0.60
Opening area, A= 0.6X0.6= 0.36 m2
Acceleration due to gravity (g) =9.81 m2/s
Head causing flow (he) = Pond level-center of off take
=1192.2 - (1191.6+0.3) = 0.3m
Q=Cd∗A∗√ 2∗g∗he =0.6*0.36*(2*9.81*0.3)0.5=0.524m3/s>>Qd=0.111m3/sec and 0.0319
m3/sec Safe!
3.12.3.1 Design of head regulator gate
The gate of the off take canal is to be vertical sheet metal of 0.6m x 0.6m for the closure of the
opening space providing some extra dimensions for groove insertion. Gross area of sheet metals
for the off take canal gate will be 0.7m x 0.70m (allowing 5cm insertion for grooves). The
grooves are to be provided on the walls using angle iron frames at the two sides of the gate
openings. The gate (sheet metals) is provided with stiffening angle irons.
3.12.3.1.1 Design of head regulator gate thickness
Hydrostatic water pressure, Pa=0.6*10=6KN/m2
Hydro Static water Pressure for head of 0.6m at the bottom of the gate=6kN/m2=0.60N/cm2
The allowable tensile and bending stress of the steel during wet condition=0.45*300=135
N/mm2=13500N/cm2
K∗P∗a2
Hence bending stress in flat plate should be, δ =
100∗S2
Where S=thickness of the sheet metal (cm)
P=Hydrostatic pressure (N/Cm)=0.60N/cm^2
K=Non-dimensional factor
a =minor support length which related with K
b 0.6
For = =1 , K=28.7 from the table for different supporting condition.
a 0.6
K∗P∗a2 0.5 28.7∗0.6∗602 0.5
S=( ) =( ) =0.214 cm
100∗δ 100∗13500
Hence considering incoming boulders and transported materials, take 3S=6.42mm
3.12.3.2 Design of operation slab and Breast wall
To avoid spilling of water during HFL over the canal regulator gate, a R.C.C wall is provided
from the gate top level up to the HFL (i.e. known as breast wall). A vertical raised gate is
designed for the head regulator. These gates are slides over the breast wall-using spindle during
opening and closing. The thickness of the breast wall is simply determined from
recommendations (point of construction) rather than the imposed load. The thickness required
for the imposed load is less than this nominal value taken 0.2m.For the breast wall, the minimum
reinforcement area is taken as 0.15% along the respective direction. Hence
Asteel=0.0015*1000*200=300
Asteel=300mm2, Provide φ 12 @C/c 200 mm

Considering cover thickness of 50 mm, effective depth, de=D-(50+12/2) =200-(50+12/2)=144
Hence spacing of reinforcement=200mm <3*de=432mm
Asteel=3.14d^2/4*t
Asteel=3.14*12^2/4*5=565.2 mm2
Therefore the actual provided steel area per meter width is 565.2 mm2/m>300 mm2/m …..Ok!
Hence, provide t = 0.20m = 20cm thickness for the breast wall work. And provide the
reinforcement bar of 12mm @200mm c/c spacing in all directions with reinforcement covers of
50mm for the breast wall.
3.13 Retaining wall Design

Considering the geology of the abutment on both sides of the bank, the provisions of 10m and
21.83m length of wing walls both u/s and d/s are required respectively.The general consideration
in design of retaining walls is that the masonry section of the retaining wall must have enough
self-weight to resist the thrust due to earth pressure and water pressure without overturning,
sliding, and tension developed within the body of the structure. The height of Maximum design
flood or the jump depth governs the height of the retaining wall with some free board provided.
Since for the case of this project the jump depth is higher than the tail water depth hence the
downstream retaining wall is based on the level of the jump depth and free board (0.5m).
However the upstream retaining wall design is based on the high flood level on the upstream and
free board. The determination of the dimensions of the retaining wall on the upstream and
downstream sides of the weir is explained in the subsequent section.
3.13.1 Upstream wing wall
U/s wing wall Height (H) = (U/S HFL –bank bed level) +FB, by assuming FB = 0.5m
= (1193.329-1189.8) +0.5
= 4.029m take 4.03m
Bottom width, B (50% to 70% of H) we take the average=60%
B = 0.6*4.03= 2.418m take 2.5m
3.13.1.1 Stability analysis of u/s guide wall
Unit weight of selected material for back fill=16 KN/m3
Unit weight of masonry=22kN/m3
Angle of repose of the soil=300, µ=0.6 and assume top width=0.6m
Vertical Horizontal Lever arm
Designation (kN/m) (KN/m) (m) Mr Mo
W1 52.8 2.2 116.16
W2 73.15 0.83 60.96
W3 53.2 1.97 104.63
W4 22 1.25 27.50
Ps 32.63 1.167 38.07
Total 201.15 32.634 309.25 38.07

∑V 0.6∗201.15 ∑ Mr 309.25
Fs =μ = =3.7 >1.5……. OK Fo= = =8.12>1.5……….. OK
∑H 32.634 ∑ Mo 38.07
B 2.5 B 2.5
e= − X= −1.35=−0.1< = =0.42 OK where
2 2 6 6
∑ MR−∑ MD 309.25−38.07
x= = =1.35
∑ FV 201.15
Check for bearing capacity
=201.15/2.5* (1+6*-0.1/2.5)
3.13.2 Downstream wing wall

D/S wing wall Height (H) = Post jump depth+FB
= 3.697 +0.5
=4.197m take 4.2m`
Bottom width, B, (50% to 70% of H) we take the average 60%
B = 0.6*4.2= 2.39m take 2.6m
3.13.2.1Stability analysis of d/s guide wall
Designatio Vertical Horizontal Lever arm
n (kN/m) (KN/m) (m) Mr Mo
W1 52.8 2.2 116.16
W2 73.15 0.83 60.96
W3 53.2 1.97 104.63
W4 22 1.25 27.50
Ps 32.63 1.167 38.07
Total 201.15 32.634 309.25 38.07
∑V 0.6∗201.15 ∑ Mr 309.25
Fs =μ = =3.7 >1.5….. OK! Fo= = =8.12>1.5……. OK!
∑H 32.634 ∑ Mo 38.07
B 2.5 B 2.5
e= − X= −1.35=−0.1< = =0.42……………………….. OK!
2 2 6 6
∑ MR−∑ MD 309.25−38.07
Where: x= = =1.35
∑ FV 201.15
Check for bearing capacity
=201.15/2.5* (1+6*-0.1/2.5)
=61.51 KN/m2<200KN/m2 so it is safe!
4 General canal Alignment

The conveyance system consists of two main canals to irrigate total command area of 65ha.The
main canal starts from water abstraction site (diversion weir) on both right and left side and
conveys water for a length of 621.56m. Main canal on the right side is aligned along contours
and supplies to two tertiary canals while the left supplies to one secondary unit and one tertiary
canals.
4.1 Main canal design

The main canal run for 252m and 369.52m length starting from the diversion intake up to inlet of
SC-1-1 & TC-2-2 in the left and right side respectivly. The canal capacity was determined based
on crop water requirements prepared for the proposed cropping pattern.The maximum design
capacity of the main canal adopted for 50.5ha and 14.5 ha is 111.1 l/sec and 31.9 l/sec to the left
and right sides of the river respectivly based on the a duty of 2.2 l/sec/ha for 14hr daily irrigation
cycle. The main canal starting from the intake is masonry lined canal with rectangular section.
The hydraulic parameters for each variable are calculated using flow master.
Figure 4.3 Typical sections for masonry canal

Table 4.1 Hydraulic parameters of the main canal
Q Fb(m
Canal (m3/s) B(m) d(m) ) A (m2) Pw R=A/P m S n V(m/s)
MC-1 0.111 0.500 0.430 0.170 0.215 1.360 0.158 0.000 0.001 0.018 0.510
MC-2 0.032 0.400 0.210 0.290 0.084 0.820 0.102 0.000 0.001 0.018 0.380
4.2 Secondary canal design

There is only one secondary canal, SC-1-1, that emerge from the left main canal. The capacity of
secondary canal is determined by multiplying the irrigable area under their supply tertiary canals
and the duty of irrigation, i.e. it supplies water to the command area, (42.7 ha), with the design
capacity of 93.94 l/sec. They are designed to be trapezoidal section constructed from earthen.
The design principle is the same like that of main canal.The irrigation canal sections are designed
according to manning’s formula as follow. The hydraulic variables are calculated by flow master
program.
1 2 / 3 1 /2
Q = n AR S
Where
Q = Design discharge, m3/s
R = Hydraulic radius of the canal, m
A = Wetted cross sectional area of canal, m2
n = Manning’s roughness coefficient
S = Bed slope of the canal
Table 4.2 Hydraulic parameters of secondary canals
Q
(m^3/s
Canal ) B(m) d(m) Fb A (m^2) Pw R=A/P m S n V(m/s)
SC-1-1 0.094 0.500 0.270 0.330 0.208 1.264 0.165 1.000 0.001 0.025 0.450
4.3 Tertiary canal design

There are five tertiary canals in the design layout. In all cases, the tertiary canals (TC) as much as
possible run along the contour direction. The capacities of each TC were determined based on
the areas they serve using the duty of 2.2 l/sec/ha .The irrigation canal sections are designed
according to manning’s formula as follow. The hydraulic variables are calculated using flow
master.
1
Q= n
AR 2 / 3 S1 /2 , Where
Q = Design discharge, m3/s
R = Hydraulic radius of the canal, m
A = Wetted cross sectional area of canal, m2
n = Manning’s roughness coefficient
S = Bed slope of the canal
The shape of the canal cross section, is trapezoidal with 1 to 1 side slope as shown below
FB
d 1
1
B
Figure 4.2 Typical sections for earthen channel

A=b*d+md2 , P=b+2d(m2+1)
R=A/P
Where;
b = Bed width of the canal, m
d = Water depth of the canal, m
FB = free board of the canal, m
p = wetted perimeter of the canal, m
Using the above formula the hydraulic parameters of each canal are computed and tabulated in
table 4.3 below.
Table 4.3 Hydraulic parameters of tertiary canals
Canal Q Water
descriptio des(m^3/ Depth A R=A/ V(m/s
n s) B(m) d(m) Fb (m^2) Pw P m S n )
TC-1-1 0.017 0.300 0.130 0.320 0.056 0.668 0.084 1.000 0.001 0.025 0.290
TC -1-1-
1 0.056 0.400 0.220 0.300 0.136 1.022 0.133 1.000 0.001 0.025 0.400
TC -1-1-
2 0.038 0.400 0.18 0.300 0.104 0.909 0.115 1.000 0.001 0.025 0.360
TC -2-1 0.015 0.300 0.120 0.300 0.050 0.639 0.079 1.000 0.001 0.025 0.280
TC -2-2 0.017 0.300 0.130 0.300 0.056 0.668 0.084 1.000 0.001 0.025 0.290
4.4 Field Canal

Field canals run almost perpendicular to the contour lines; this implies that it is necessary to
construct drop structures where it is required. The design discharge of the fields’ canals is similar
to the tertiary canal corresponding to each field canals. The differences between field and tertiary
canal lay on the fact that, the field canals will supply to the plots whereas the tertiary canals feed
to a number of field canals. A farm block served by a field canal is bounded by field canal and
tertiary drain. Almost a design furrow length of 50-150 meters was selected as the maximum
feasible after examination of the ground slopes, soil types and infiltration rate and their irrigation
practices.

Designing an Irrigation Project in Ethiopia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Designing an Irrigation Project in Ethiopia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE OUTLINE OF THE DESIGN PROJECT

1.2. Description of the Project Area

1.3. Objectives of the Study

1.3.1. General Objective

The main objective of Melka-Gobera irrigation project includes:

 To increase potential agricultural production by designing a suitable irrigation

 For growth and development of national economy.

 To increase employment opportunities

1.3.2. Specific Objective

 Design of structurally and hydraulically stable weir at the proposed site.

 Determine the layout and design of canal and ancillary structure.

 Selection and design of efficient surface water application system.

1.4.Scope of the study

 Local farmers interview and discussion

 Previous assessment studies

 Transect walk along the river longitudinal axis.

2.2. Watershed characteristics

 Shrubs and Bush lands and

2.3. Hydro-meteorological data availability

2.3.1 Hydrometric data

Average monthly rainfall

2.3.2.3 Wind Speed

Table 2.3: Average Monthly Wind Speed (m/sec) at Bati

2.3.2.4 Sunshine duration

2.3.2.5 Relative humidity

2.4 DESIGN RAINFALL AND DESIGN FLOOD ESTIMATION

2.4.1.1 Data Consistency Test

Where: Xm=meanof annual rainfall

2.4.2 Design Rain fall Computation

XT =Xm + KT∗σn−1=55.73+ 2.054∗12.13=80.645 mm

For sample size N=53, Yn =0.5497, and Sn =1.1658

XT =Xm + KT∗σn−1=55.73+ 2.874∗12.13=90.589 mm

Statistical parameter original data Log transformed data

2.4.3.2 Estimating Runoff Curve Number (CN)

0-1hr 6 1.73 1.73 0.000 0.000

Tb= Time to base (in hr.)

A=Catchment area (km2)

Q=Run off volume (mm)

Table 2.22: Computation of the Peak for each incremental runoff

Table 2.23 Synthesis of complex Hydrograph

As shown in the above table the peak inflow discharge =137.174m3/s

Figure 2.3: Synthesized hydrograph for Melka-Gobera weir design

3.1.2 Seasonal flow condition

3.1.3 Demand –Supply Analysis

3.2 Head work site selection

3.4 Weir height Determination

3.5. Tail Water Depth Computation

3.6 Flow analysis over the weir body

Qd= Cd*L* He3/2

3.7 Weir dimensions and profiles

0.864 0.0000 using iteration

F1^2=q2/gy1 y2=(y1/2)*((8*f1^2+1)^0. 5.584=Y1+q^2/

Cistern level=D/s HFL-y2=1192.105-3.44=1188.465 which is less than 1188.816.Hence take the

F1^2=q2/gy1 y2=(y1/2)*((8*f1^2+1)^.5 5.738=Y1+q^2/

Cistern level=D/s HFL-y2=1192.105-3.69=1188.415 which is less than 1188.66

F1^2=q2/gy y2=(y1/2)*((8*f1^2+1)^.5- 5.775=Y1+q^2/

Reduce level of bottom of u/s cut off

3.10.3 Design of pervious apron (protection work) length

3.10.4 Design of impervious floor thickness

3.10.4.1Thickness of d/s impervious apron

Cif=correction for interference of d/s cutoff on фC1

Determined on the adjacent pile depth d.

Cif=correction for interference of u/s cutoff on d/s cutoff фE

Qd= CdL He3/2

F1^2=q2/gy1 y2=(y1/2)((8f1^2+1)^0. 5.584=Y1+q^2/

F1^2=q2/gy1 y2=(y1/2)((8f1^2+1)^.5 5.738=Y1+q^2/

F1^2=q2/gy y2=(y1/2)((8f1^2+1)^.5- 5.775=Y1+q^2/