Weir Design

Final year project on Engulie SSI Project 2014
Acknowledgment
We would like to express our gratitude to all those who help us for the success and
accomplishment of the final project, whose support was either direct or indirect during our
project progress.
We would like to give special thanks to our advisor Efrem Yitbarek, who gave us a complete
and series comments, suggestion and give the direction how to we do the project. We would like
also give tanks for Ahmed Muhamud and Tediross Tafese who gave the data and directions for
the completeness of the project.
Above all, we owe much attribute to the almighty God who gave us a life worth living and the
strength to accomplish this work.
Our thanks will still be incomplete if we did not mention the effort of our friends and classmates
for giving us encouragement, valuable discussions throughout the work of this Project.
BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page i

ACRONYM
AMC=Anticipated moisture condition
BM=Bench mark
TR=Retention time
Tc= Time concentration
ARF=Areal rain fall
TP= Peak time
MASL=Mean sea level
CN=curve number
D/S = Down stream
D/S HFL= Downstream high flood level
D/S LSL=Downstream lowest score level
D/S TEL =Downstream total energy level
JHC=Jump height curve
SCS-CN = The United States Soil Conservation Service curve number
TWRC =Tail water rating curve
U/S =upstream
U/S HFL= upstream high flood level
U/S LSL=upstream lowest score level
U/S TEL= Upstream total energy level
UTM =universal transfer Mercator
BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page ii

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ........................................................................................................... I
ACRONYM ............................................................................................................................. II
LIST OF FIGURE .................................................................................................................... V
LIST OF TABLE ..................................................................................................................... V
2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
2.1 Objective of the project .......................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 site description ....................................................................................................................... 2
3 HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 4
3.1 Data Availability .................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Data Consistency Test ............................................................................................................ 4
3.2.1 Rough screening of the data……………………………………………………………………6
3.2.2 Plotting the data………………………………………………………………………………...7
3.2.3 Testing for Outlier………………………………………………………………………………7
3.3 Base Flow Estimation............................................................................................................. 9
3.4 Design Rain fall Computation ................................................................................................ 9
3.5 Design Flood Analysis ......................................................................................................... 15
3.6 Design Storm Analysis ......................................................................................................... 15
3.6.1 Rainfall profile………………………………………………………………………………...16
3.6.2 Run off synthesis………………………………………………………………………………17
3.7 Peak flood analysis ............................................................................................................... 17
3.7.1 SCS unit hydrograph method………………………………………………………………….17
3.7.2 Flood Mark Method…………………………………………………………………………...21
3.7.3 Rational method……………………………………………………………………………….22
4 HEAD WORK DESIGN ............................................................................................ 25
4.1 Head Work Site Selection..................................................................................................... 25
4.1.1 Geology of the area……………………………………………………………………………25
4.1.2 Upstream and downstream of the headwork site……………………………………………...25
4.1.3 Availability of construction materials…………………………………………………………25
BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page iii

4.2 Selection of Weir Type and Weir Parameters........................................................................ 26

4.2.1 Weir Type Selection…………………………………………………………………………..26
4.2.2 Weir parameter………………………………………………………………………………...27
4.3 Design of the Ogee Weir profile and cross section ................................................................ 30
4.3.1 Hydraulics jump calculation…………………………………………………………………..32
4.3.2 Design of energy dissipation head work………………………………………………………34
5.1 Stability analysis of weir ...................................................................................................... 38
5.1.1 Self weight of the structure……………………………………………………………………38
5.1.2 Water pressure (Hydrostatic pressure (Ph))…………………………………………………...39
5.1.3 Silt pressure……………………………………………………………………………………39
5.1.4 Uplift pressure (Pu)……………………………………………………………………………39
5.2 Analysis of under sluice ....................................................................................................... 42
5.2.1 Gate for sluice…………………………………………………………………………………43
5.3 Design of Head Regulator (intake canal) .............................................................................. 43
5.4 Design of stilling basin ......................................................................................................... 44
5.5 Design of Retaining Wall ..................................................................................................... 44
5.5.1 Wall height fixation…………………………………………………………………………...45
5.5.2 Stability Analysis of Downstream Retaining wall…………………………………………….48
6 CROP WATER REQUIREMENT ............................................................................ 51
6.1 Reference Eva transpiration (ETO) ....................................................................................... 51
6.2 Processing of rainfall data .................................................................................................... 52
6.3 Effective rainfall .................................................................................................................. 52
6.4 Soil data calculation ............................................................................................................. 55
6.5 Irrigation scheduling ............................................................................................................ 56
7.1 Secondary canal ................................................................................................................... 59
7.2 Culvert design ...................................................................................................................... 62
8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ......................................................... 65
9 REFERENCE ............................................................................................................. 66
10 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................. 67
BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page iv

LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 1: location of project area ............................................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Rough Screening of the data on arithmetic graph paper .............................................. 7
Figure 3: Hydrograph discharge verses time ............................................................................ 21
Figure 4: Stage discharge curve ............................................................................................... 27
Figure 5: hydraulic jump profile .............................................................................................. 33
Figure 6: jump and tail water height curve ............................................................................... 34
Figure 7: design weir section layout ........................................................................................ 37
Figure 8: External pressure forces for weir structure ................................................................ 39
Figure 9: opening head regulator size ...................................................................................... 43
Figure 10: upstream retaining wall .......................................................................................... 45
Figure 11: crop irrigation schedule .......................................................................................... 55
Figure 12: crop irrigation schedule .......................................................................................... 57
Figure 13:pipe culvert section layout ....................................................................................... 63
Figure 14: percent rainfall profile chart for 24 hr storm ........................................................... 70
Figure 15: plan of head work structure .................................................................................... 71
LIST OF TABLE
Table 1: daily heaviest rain fall data consistency test ................................................................. 4
Table 2: decreasing order rainfall data ....................................................................................... 7
Table 3:D_ index different peak rainfall distribution ............................................................... 12
Table 4Design rainfall arrangements: ...................................................................................... 17
Table 5: General Soil profile ................................................................................................... 18
Table 6: Direct run off computation ........................................................................................ 19
BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page v

Table 7: Peak run off rate ........................................................................................................ 19
Table 8: Peak Discharge Analysis Using Complex Hydrograph Method .................................. 20
Table 9: Flood mark method for discharge computation ......................................................... 22
Table 10: Rational Method Runoff Coefficients ...................................................................... 22
Table 11: Average Rainfall Intensity in mm per hour Duration, Return period......................... 23
Table 12: weighted coefficient ................................................................................................ 24
Table 13: The design flood level at river cross section of the weir ........................................... 26
Table 14: hydraulics jump calculation ..................................................................................... 33
Table 15:D/S impervious floor thickness every 1m by Bligh’s theory ...................................... 36
Table 16: Stability analysis of weir design............................................................................... 40
Table 17: calculation of reference evapotranspiration (ETO) ................................................... 51
Table 18: processing of rainfall record data ............................................................................. 53
Table 19:Processing of dry rainfall data .................................................................................. 54
Table 20: average effective rainfall ......................................................................................... 54
Table 21: Bill of quantity analysis ........................................................................................... 63
Table 22: wind speed calculation ............................................................................................. 67
Table 23: sun shine calculation ................................................................................................ 67
Table 24: humidity calculation ................................................................................................ 68
Table 25: rainfall data ............................................................................................................. 69
BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page vi

Abstract
Engulie irrigation project is located in Amhara National Regional State,West Gojam Zone, Mech
woreda, Abiyot Fana kebele at 77km from the Regional town Bahir Dar. The GPS location of the
proposed headwork site of the project is about at UTM coordinate of Easting 295269m and
Northing 1251001m.
The project mainly contains hydrological analysis of the project from the metrological data of
Merawi town station. On this part it mainly contains highest rain fall data, Geological data,
Hydrological analysis, Consistency test ,Estimation of peak discharge head work structure and
canal.
Hydrology analysis includes the occurrence of 49 years rainfall data. The peak discharge is
designed by using SCS-CN method which is 146.8559m3/s.
The headwork structure include the weir, under sluice, head regulator, stilling basin and retaining
wall are designed based on peak discharge. The weir type, we should have to consider the
availability of construction materials, peak discharge and the river bed material as well as weir
height. The weir type is ogee weir and the weir height is 1.5m.
The crop water requirement also include in the design part of the project to determine the
maximum water requirement of different types of crop. The Engulie diversion irrigation project
has been proposed to help the society living around the project to be able to produce crops
throughout the year. The command area is located nearby the boundary of the river. The project
is planned to irrigate 52.69ha of land. The maximum quantity of water that the crop requires with
50% efficiency and 18hr irrigated 2.81l/s/ha.
Next to these, main canal profile and dimensions are designed based on the base flow of the
river. Canal dimensions are 0.6m depth and 1m width with trapezoidal cross_ section.
BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page vii

BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page viii

2 INTRODUCTION
General
Irrigation and drainage development is an important sector for agricultural sustainability of a
country. The whole process of the work requires systematic and integrated management to
achieve the ultimate desired goal of agricultural development. Irrigation development process
begins with the preliminary resource assessment of a certain area and then proceeds to the next
more detail processes. From start to the end irrigation development in general requires higher
investment, appropriate technology (traditional and/or modern), skilled manpower and
conducive environment. Apart from such behaviours of irrigation, its roles in agricultural
sustainability are unquestionable and must be practiced at each level of different sectors.
The source of water for irrigation is obtained through abstractions from rivers, springs and
water harvesting schemes. Abstraction of irrigation water from such sources requires also
appropriate study and design for sustainability of its future for the intended purpose. One and
the main irrigation water abstraction method is the use of diversion weirs to raise the level of
water in such a way that the intended command area is incorporated in future irrigation.
Such diversion weirs are sluice gate, canal head regulator retaining wall and other part of
structure may be designed by well qualified engineers at regional and zoned level and also by
woreda levels and even by users traditionally.
However irrigation weir designers working at various levels require adequate data and general
procedure to proceed to the designing. The main purposes of this design guideline is to enable
engulie kebele so that they are able to design smaller weirs usually broad crested weirs either in
local materials or in masonry/concrete following the most acceptable procedures of design. As
indicated above irrigation structures are capital intensive and we must be sure to minimize the
risk of failure and that is following accepted engineering rules/ways.
For the indicated reasons this simple guideline includes all necessary data requirements, steps,
important equations, examples and reasons of selection. However the guideline must be
transferred to the users through a brief training.
BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page 1

2.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT

 Determination of annual rainfall analysis River flow & Flood analysis
 Selection of weir type and weir cross section
 Hydraulic design of diversion weir
 Structural design of weir
 Design of head regulator
 Retaining wall
2.2 M ETHODOLOGY
In the designing of this final year project on diversion weir we will use the following
procedures:
 Data collecting from different sources and we get:
 A 49 year highest rain fall data
 Geological data
 Hydrological analysis
 Consistency test
 Estimation of peak discharge from the given rainfall data
 Flood mark method
 Weir designing
 Selection of site and weir type
 Weir height determination
 Stability analysis
 under sluice, head regulator and stilling basin
 Design retaining wall, pipe culvert, main canal and secondary canal.
 Using these methods we analysis and design our proposed wire on engulie River.
2.3 SITE DESCRIPTION

Engulie irrigation project is located in Amhara National Regional State, West Gojam Zone,
Mecha woreda, Abiyot Fana kebele. The project is found at 77km from the Regional town Bahir
Dar, of which 52km is on Bahir Dar- Wotet Abay asphalt road, 19km on Wotet Abay -Rim
gravel all weather road and the remaining 6kms on dry weathered road. The first bench mark
(BM-1) of the diversion weir is geographically located at 295269m (UTM) Easting and
1251001(UTM) Northing. The command area extends from 294346.86m to 1253787.88m
(UTM) Easting and from 294346.86m to 1253787.88m (UTM) Northing. The location of the
project area is described here.
Figure 1: location of project area

3 HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS
3.1 DATA AVAILABILITY
Mostly for the proposed projects has not metrological data so have taken the nearly metrological
stations. Our project Motet Abay diversion headwork or Engulie irrigation project the
metrological data was taken Merawi and Bahir Dar.
Hydrologists are interested in the frequency of occurrence of rainfall of different magnitudes,

and so study the statically properties of rainfall data. Finally, there is special cause of trying to
estimate the largest rainfall that is physically possible over a given area. For the design of
structures such as large dam and diversion head work, where frailer due to over topping flood
would have catastrophic consequence interims of environmental or physical damage or lose of
life. The daily heaviest rainfall data from 1960 to 2008 is taken from this meteorological station.
3.2 DATA CONSISTENCY TEST

The daily heaviest rainfall data of Engulie meteorological station from 1960 to 2008 is taken for
the design. Hence, 49 years of daily heaviest rainfall data is available. These data should be
checked for its consistency by higher and lower outlier testes.
Table 1: daily heaviest rain fall data consistency test
heaviest
no. Year rn(x) y=log(x) (y-y ̅)^2 (y-y ̅)^3
1 1960 116.3 2.06558 0.081552 0.023289
2 1961 114.1 2.057286 0.076884 0.021318
3 1962 110 2.041393 0.068323 0.017859
4 1963 108.7 2.03623 0.065651 0.016821
5 1964 105.5 2.023252 0.059169 0.014393
6 1965 102 2.0086 0.052255 0.011945
7 1966 90.5 1.956649 0.031203 0.005512
8 1967 86.9 1.93902 0.025285 0.004021
9 1968 85.7 1.932981 0.023401 0.00358
10 1969 83.3 1.920645 0.019779 0.002782
11 1970 80 1.90309 0.01515 0.001865
12 1971 79.9 1.902547 0.015016 0.00184

13 1972 77.6 1.889862 0.012068 0.001326

14 1973 77.4 1.888741 0.011823 0.001286
15 1974 75.8 1.879669 0.009933 0.00099
16 1975 73.4 1.865696 0.007343 0.000629
17 1976 72 1.857332 0.005979 0.000462
18 1977 71.3 1.85309 0.005341 0.00039
19 1978 70.4 1.847573 0.004565 0.000308
20 1979 65.4 1.815578 0.001265 4.5E-05
21 1980 64.3 1.808211 0.000796 2.24E-05
22 1981 64.3 1.808211 0.000796 2.24E-05
23 1982 62 1.792392 0.000153 1.9E-06
24 1983 61.1 1.786041 3.64E-05 2.2E-07
25 1984 61.1 1.786041 3.64E-05 2.2E-07
26 1985 58.8 1.769377 0.000113 -1.2E-06
27 1986 58.3 1.765669 0.000206 -2.9E-06
28 1987 58.3 1.765669 0.000206 -2.9E-06
29 1988 57.3 1.758155 0.000477 -1E-05
30 1989 57.1 1.756636 0.000546 -1.3E-05
31 1990 57.1 1.756636 0.000546 -1.3E-05
32 1991 56.2 1.749736 0.000916 -2.8E-05
33 1992 53.8 1.730782 0.002423 -0.00012
34 1993 52 1.716003 0.004096 -0.00026
35 1994 52 1.716003 0.004096 -0.00026
36 1995 50.7 1.705008 0.005625 -0.00042
37 1996 47.4 1.675778 0.010863 -0.00113
38 1997 39 1.591065 0.035699 -0.00674
39 1998 38.7 1.587711 0.036977 -0.00711
40 1999 38 1.579784 0.040089 -0.00803
41 2000 37.4 1.572872 0.042905 -0.00889
42 2001 37.3 1.571709 0.043388 -0.00904
43 2002 37.3 1.571709 0.043388 -0.00904
44 2003 36.6 1.563481 0.046883 -0.01015
45 2004 36.6 1.563481 0.046883 -0.01015
46 2005 35.9 1.555094 0.050585 -0.01138
47 2006 35.9 1.555094 0.050585 -0.01138
48 2007 34.5 1.537819 0.058654 -0.01421
49 2008 27.5 1.439333 0.116058 -0.03954

Sum 3152.7 87.22031 1.236013 -0.01721

mean 64.34081633 1.780006
stadev 23.4375315 0.160469
skew -0.09044
Mean = 𝑛𝑖=1 𝑦𝑖 /N
Checking data reliability
Number of data (N) =49
𝑛 (𝑦𝑖−𝑦)²
standard devation=[ 𝑖=1
𝑛−1
]^½
Standard deviation,  n1  23.4375315
Mean ( 𝑥) =64.34081633
 n1 23.4375315
Standard error of mean,  n  = =3.348218785
n 7
The relative standard =  n / y *100 = (3.348218785/64.34081633)*100=5.2%< 10%. Hence the

data series could be regarded as reliable and adequate.
𝑛
𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 −𝑥 )³
skewnes= , skewness= -0.09044
( 𝑛−1)(𝑛 −2)𝑠³
3.2.1 ROUGH SCREENING OF THE DATA
The basic procedure begins with an initial, rough screening of the data. For rainfall totals, we
advise tabulating daily observations by observations from several collection stations should be
available. This will allow visual detection of whether the observations have been consistently or
accidentally credited to the wrong day, whether they show gross errors or whether they contain
misplaced decimal points. An analysis of the frequency distribution of one-day rainfall might
also be useful. Other observations have their specific sources of error. One should be aware of
these and the methods of detecting them. Verifying the completeness of the data and checking of
the observer. The missing of the observation is clearly recorded. In most cases, it is convenient -
and perfectly acceptable - to use yearly totals as long as by ‘year’ one means ‘water year’
(hydrological year). This definition removes any risk of the seasons’ being split over two years.

So our data is completeness in this testing method of data; since the observation no specific
removing data.
3.2.2 PLOTTING THE DATA
After doing the rough of data test, one plot the graph by using time verses heaviest rainfall to
check the continuity of a given data.
Table 2: decreasing order rainfall data

heaviest heaviest heaviest
140
Year rn(x) Year rn(x) Year rn(x)
1960 116.3 1977 71.3 1993 52 120
1961 114.1 1978 70.4 1994 52
100
1962 110 1979 65.4 1995 50.7
rainfall(mm)
1963 108.7 1980 64.3 1996 47.4 80
1964 105.5 1981 64.3 1997 39
1965 102 1982 62 1998 38.7 60
1966 90.5 1983 61.1 1999 38
1967 86.9 1984 61.1 2000 37.4 40
1968 85.7 1985 58.8 2001 37.3
1969 83.3 1986 58.3 2002 37.3 20
1970 80 1987 58.3 2003 36.6
0
1971 79.9 1988 57.3 2004 36.6
1972 77.6 1989 57.1 2005 35.9 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020
1973 77.4 1990 57.1 2006 35.9 time(year)
1974 75.8 1991 56.2 2007 34.5
1975 73.4 1992 53.8 2008 27.5
1976 72
Figure 2: Rough Screening of the data
on arithmetic graph paper
The fugire shows a time series of yearly rain fall total at the Bahir Dar Metrological Department
from 1960 to 2008.It does not show any obvious trends discontinuity. So none of the data is
remove in this test method of checking or verifying.
3.2.3 TESTING FOR OUTLIER

Outliers are data points that depart from the trend of the remaining data. The detention or
retention of these outliers can significantly affect the magnitude. The outlier test is done to check
whether the adopted data is within the limited range or not.
From the Water Resources Council method recommends that adjustments be made for outliers
are data points that depart significantly from the trend of the remaining data. The retention or

deletion of these outliers can significantly affect the magnitude of statistical parameters
computed from the data, especially for small samples. Procedures for testing outliers require
judgment involving both mathematical and hydrologic considerations. According to the Water
Resources Council (1981), if the station skew is greater than +.0.4, tests for high outliers are
considered first; if the station skew is less than -0.4, tests for low outliers are considered first.
Where the station skew is between a0.4, tests for both high and low outlier should be applied
before eliminating any outliers from the data set. For our skewers value is-0.09044 this value is
less than -0.4, so we required to check the Lower outlier.

Yh  Y  K n S y
Higher outlier

Where: Y = mean of data in log unity
K n = From table for sample size N
For data N=49


Y  1.780006
K n  2.760
SY= 0.160469 (from applied hydrology book)
Test for lower outlier
Where YL is the low outlier thresholds in log units


YL  Y  K n S y
YL  1.78006  2.760 * 0.160469  1.33716556
loweroutlier=10𝑌𝐿 =21.74mm
The Lowest recorded value is (27.5mm) which is greater than lower outlier (21.74mm). Hence
lower recorded data will not eliminate. From the test result it is conclude that the daily lowest
rainfall data recorded from E.C year 1960 t0 2008 depart significantly from the trend of the data
series, and hence the data could be said from 1960 t0 2008 E.C consistent for flood frequency
analysis.

3.3 BASE FLOW ESTIMATION

The flow of magnitude occurring during dry periods of the year (lean flow), would be known for
irrigation schemes for modern irrigation practice and development. The lean flow estimation has
been done using the experience of the local people and the existing irrigation practice of the wet
or dry season. This river base flow estimation is determined during field study and flotation
method. In Engulie River, the discharge magnitude was estimated to be around 2.7m3/sec. To
plan the size of the irrigable area that the project supports considering the water potential
available, downstream utilization allowance and crop water requirement. The maximum quantity
of water that the crop requires with 50% efficiency and 18hr irrigation may be 2.81l/s/ha (given).
The size of irrigable area is determined as fallow.
𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 (𝑙⁄(𝑠)

Max irrigable area =
max 𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑑 ( 𝑙⁄(𝑠⁄(𝑕_𝑎)
2.7(𝑚 ^3⁄𝑠)
Max irrigable area = =320.8ha
3∗2.81(𝑙⁄(𝑠⁄𝑕_𝑎 ))
3.4 DESIGN RAIN FALL COMPUTATION

After checking the consistency of the data for lower outlier, the 49 years data optained from
engulie metrologcal station is taken as representive for the analysis.The frequency factor
equation as proposed by Chow (1951) and it is applicable to many probability distributions used
in hydrologic frequency analysis. For a given distribution, a K-I relationship can be determined
between the frequency factor and the corresponding return period. This relationship can be
expressed in mathematical terms or by a table. Frequency analysis begins with the calculation of
the statistical parameters required for a proposed probability distribution by the method of
moments from the given data. For a given return period, the frequency factor can be determined
from the K-f relationship for the proposed distribution, and the magnitude the observed data will
be changed to point rain fall using extreme value distributions.
1) Normal the extrem value type I

Distribution, cow (1953) derived the expression, the empirical for this distribution is:
xT=X +σ n −1 ∗K t
Where 𝑋𝑇 =the data of random hydrologic series with a return period T
𝑋= the mean value of the data
𝜎𝑛−1 = the standard deviation of the data
(𝑥−𝑥 )^2
Kt = frequency factor 𝜎𝑛−1 = 𝑁 −1
𝑇
kt= - 6/𝜋 0.5772 + 𝑙𝑛 𝑙𝑛 𝑇−1
T express return period 50 years duration

Kt=2.5922
Xt=64.34081633+(2.5922*23.4375315)=125.096mm
2) Log normal distribution
The frequency factor can be expressed and has the value of corresponding to an exceeding
probability of p (p = 1/T).and can be calculated by finding the value of an intermediate variable
1 1
w= ln(𝑝 2 ) 2 (0≤P≤ 0.5 ) ……………………1
1
w=ln (1−𝑝 ) ^0.5 (p≥ 0.5)……………………………2
Then the frequency factor will calculated using the approximation equation:
2.515517 + 0.802853 ∗ 𝑊 + 0.010328 ∗ 𝑊^2
𝐾𝑇 = 𝑊 −
1 + 1.432788 ∗ 𝑤 + 0.189269 ∗ 𝑤 2 + 0.001308 ∗ 𝑊^3
Where w is the intermediate variable
KT is the frequency factor
𝑋𝑇 = 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 + 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 ∗ 𝑆𝑇𝐷𝐸𝑉
1
[ 2 ]0.5 where W is intermediate variable
W=ln⁡
𝑝
1
W = (ln⁡
( ))0.5 For T=50 years, p=1/T=1/50=0.02 by using case 1
0.02 2

W =2.7971
2.515517 + 0.802853 ∗ w + 0.010328 ∗ w^2
KT = W −
1 + 1.432788 ∗ w + 0.189269 ∗ w 2 + 0.001308 ∗ w^3
K T =2.227
OR 𝐾𝑇 = 2.227 Table 12.3.1 (for T=50 ventichow page 179)
Xt=64.34081633+(2.227*23.4375315)=116.536mm
3) log person type III
skew is between -0.8 and -0.9 for return period 50 years

skewness= -0.09044
kt=2 for 50 return period
Xt=64.34081633+(2*23.4375315)=111.222mm
4) Gumbell (Extreme Value Type I)

Gumbell (1958) introduced the concept of extreme value distribution and develops a model for
production of hydrologic events such as floods peaks, max rain fail, max wind speed. Etc. He
defend a flood as a largest flow in the year (365 day) and termed as the annual series of flood
flows a series of largest values of flood .i e flood flows which are the largest of all the flows
occurring on each of the 365 days of a year. For our calculation we use the modified equation of
Gumbell. In this case magnitude 𝑋𝑇 (the Gumbll value) hydrologic event may be represented as
the mean of the variant plus the product of the standard deviation & frequency factor. The
empirical for this distribution is:
xT=X +σn −1 ∗K t
(𝑥 −𝑥 )^2
𝜎𝑛−1 = 𝑁 −1
Kt = frequency factor
𝑌𝑇 −𝑌 𝑛
𝑘𝑡 = (Using modified Gumbell frequency analysis equation 𝑋𝑇 is calculated.
𝑆𝑛
𝑦𝑇 =the reduced variant for the given return period.

𝑇 𝑇
𝑦𝑇 =-[ln (ln𝑇−1 )] or 𝑦𝑝 = − 0.834 + 2.303 ∗ log 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑇−1 = 3.902
T=return period, for weir and small dam the return period (T) = 50 year.
𝑌𝑛 =The reduced mean as a function of sample size N
𝑆𝑛 = the reduced standard deviation as a function of sample size N
𝑆𝑛 =1.1601 and 𝑌𝑛 =0.5462 for N=49 respectively by interpolate (source: hydrology principle
analyisis and design ranguth, relation between Gumbell’s reduced standard deviation & sample
size, table 15.1, page 368)
Reduced mean=64.34081633
Reduced stdev=23.4375315
3.902 −0.5462
𝐾𝑡 = = 2.8926
1.1601
𝑋𝑇 = 64.34081633+(2.89334*23.4375315)=130.888mm
5) D_Idex Test Method
The D-Index test is supposed to be the better goodness to select the best distribution for the given
data. Hence, in this study it was used to
XI=ranked values from metrological data

XI’=calculated values for each XI
Determine the best statistical distribution to estimate the peak rainfall. The D-index for the
comparison of the fit of various distributions is given by:
𝑛
D-index = (1/Xm)* 𝑖=1 𝐴𝑏𝑠 𝑋𝐼 − 𝑋𝐼′ n=49
When Xm= mean of the rainfall data
Table 3:D_ index different peak rainfall distribution
Log person person
Rank XI Normal type III Log Normal Type III Gumbell
XI -'XI' XI -'XI' XI -'XI' XI -'XI' XI -'XI'
1
116.3 3.814155 16.40153 -110.136 0.173024 87.60412
2
114.1 8.718344 23.05043 -70.8537 5.015522 75.92452
3
110 9.211622 25.02945 -52.2713 5.493962 66.49059

4
108.7 11.42196 28.64602 -38.1308 7.711373 61.51163
5
105.5 11.11868 29.73967 -29.702 7.429138 55.52254
6
102 10.118 30.16729 -23.9114 6.459976 49.78756
7
90.5 0.838444 22.37779 -27.6944 -2.77937 36.42985
8
86.9 -0.74756 22.37082 -24.7048 -4.31743 31.24495
9
85.7 -0.09228 24.72182 -20.16 -3.60699 28.66615
10
83.3 -0.76244 25.89482 -17.4704 -4.21501 25.04832
11
80 -2.43386 26.25032 -16.2025 -5.81738 20.6595
12
79.9 -0.9883 29.95115 -12.1592 -4.29576 19.57629
13
77.6 -1.81162 31.66821 -10.6673 -5.03584 16.38105
14
77.4 -0.5926 35.78704 -7.37069 -3.7261 15.36014
15
75.8 -0.82209 38.91691 -5.7252 -3.85703 13.00284
16
73.4 -1.89255 41.80439 -5.0955 -4.82064 9.90054
17
72 -1.9976 46.45538 -3.65289 -4.81 7.846253
18
71.3 -1.43177 52.87312 -1.67371 -4.119 6.534216
19
70.4 -1.09028 60.62812 -0.03826 -3.64217 5.059627
20
65.4 -4.86892 66.59721 -2.62989 -7.27441 -0.48155
21
64.3 -4.76389 80.16753 -1.43442 -7.01099 -2.09276
22
64.3 -3.57171 101.2905 0.760336 -5.6473 -2.57692
23
62 -4.68914 132.9192 0.564985 -6.57885 -5.33659
24
61.1 -4.41315 197.4932 1.688803 -6.10112 -6.67395
25
61.1 -3.2408 384.6293 3.639994 -4.70949 -7.09093
26
58.8 -4.36922 8006.537 3.225868 -5.59914 -9.78922
27
58.3 -3.69559 -415.301 4.553003 -4.66493 -10.6703

28
58.3 -2.51702 -198.118 6.327368 -3.20133 -11.0355
29
57.3 -2.33058 -127.972 7.054435 -2.70224 -12.386
30
57.1 -1.33317 -92.1158 8.539277 -1.36082 -12.9229
31
57.1 -0.12153 -69.8451 10.18665 0.23066 -13.2471
32
56.2 0.207883 -55.2717 10.90106 0.981111 -14.4595
33
53.8 -0.94107 -46.0215 10.08687 0.300956 -17.1608
34
52 -1.46406 -38.509 9.848348 0.302552 -19.2517
35
52 -0.15621 -30.7037 11.38974 2.200781 -19.5329
36
50.7 -0.1119 -25.1989 11.61537 2.913855 -21.105
37
47.4 -2.02456 -22.3606 9.829775 1.764442 -24.6684
38
39 -8.98637 -25.052 2.937765 -4.3187 -33.3238
39
38.7 -7.78787 -19.8905 4.144645 -2.09832 -33.8714
40
38 -6.91734 -15.2211 4.956417 -0.02499 -34.8119
41
37.4 -5.85998 -10.3967 5.880109 2.468789 -35.6454
42
37.3 -4.19655 -4.85903 7.324251 5.87826 -35.9724
43
37.3 -2.30123 1.184639 8.899633 9.943508 -36.1932
44
36.6 -0.93806 7.199377 9.82056 14.08142 -37.1082
45
36.6 1.345649 14.99405 11.50711 20.05112 -37.3175
46
35.9 3.232443 23.8817 12.58955 27.10408 -38.2215
47
35.9 6.264518 36.70951 14.5183 37.99016 -38.4204
48
34.5 8.626693 55.06024 15.29111 54.07669 -40.0144
49
27.5 6.878459 89.26537 10.96002 84.82102 -47.2037
Sum(absolute) 14.466 8613.826 262.643 181.0571 26.0352
Sum/mean 0.22483 133.8781 4.08211 2.814031 0.40465

when we check D_ Index Test the normal distrubition is selected for our analysis to minimize
the risk or minimum ratio of sum/mean. So the point design rain fall is 110.747mm.
3.5 DESIGN FLOOD ANALYSIS

2
The river of Engulle at the proposed diversion point has around 52.89km of watershed size and
the design peak flood is analyzed by using SCS-CN/Complex Unit Hydrograph Methods.
Maximum probable flood is a hypothetical flood at a selected location, whose magnitude is such
that there is no chance to exceed. It is estimated by combining the most hydrological and
meteorological conditions considered reasonably possible at the particular location under
consideration.
As we have described earlier 49 years daily or monthly heaviest Rainfall data obtained from
mehrawi Meteorological station is used for determination of maximum probable flood. Based on
the available data, the following methods are used to estimate the design flood from rain fall
data.
3.6 DESIGN STORM ANALYSIS
From the observed data point rain fall was calculated using different statistical distributions. As
we see from the above calculation Gumbell (Extreme value Type I) distribution has higher rain
fall depth value of 130.888mm but when we check D Index Test the normal distrubition is
selected for our analysis to minimize the risk. So the point design rain fall is 110.747mm.
Time of concentration (Tc)

It is defined, as the time needed water to flow from the most remote point in a watershed to the watershed outlet. It
is a function of the topography, geology, and land use within the watershed.
The time of concentration is calculated using the Cryptic formula

𝐿𝑖 3
𝑇𝑐 = 0.948 ^0.385
𝐻𝑖
Where: Tc = time of concentration (hrs)
Li = length of flow (km)
Hi = elevation difference (m)

Given length of watershed and elevation

Length of main watercourse from watershed divide L M 13873.6
to proposed diversion or storage site
Elevation of watershed divide opposite to the H1 M
2309.70
head of the main water course
Elevation of stream bed at proposed diversion H2 M
2027.48
or storage site
TC=0.948(L^3/H) 0.385
L=13873.69m=13.87369km
H=H1-H2=2309.70-2027.48=282.22
Tc=0.948*((13.87369^3)/ 282.22)^0.385=2.251976132hr≈ 2.25hr Therefore,
Time of concentration (Tc) =2.25 hrs, Since Tc <3hr.
Duration of excess rainfall difference, D =Tc/6=0.375hr
Time to peak (Tp) = D/2+0.6*Tc =1.537hr
Base time, (Tb) = 2.67*Tp =4.105hr
Retention time, (TR) = 1.67*Tp=2.5678hr
3.6.1 RAINFALL PROFILE

Rainfall profile is the distribution of design rainfall with respect to time in the whole watershed
area. It needs developed models for the selected drainage area. But, there is no sufficient
modelling data in the vicinity and adaptation of standard curves is the only option. When we
design this project We have use the standard curve from Design of Diversion weir: by Rozgar
Baban (1956). IDD Manual is used to compute rainfall profile of the project area.
Design Point Rainfall =110..747mm
Area=52.89km2
ARF =1-0.044A^0.275=0.868967
where A=52.89km2
Areal rainfall=0.868967*110.747=96.2355mm
3.6.2 RUN OFF SYNTHESIS
The runoff in mm is determined from the catchment input data and design rainfall. To conclude
the runoff, the rainfall profile is used to determine the actual areal rainfall depth for each time
interval. The incremental rainfall depth is determined by subtracting the required time interval
rainfall depth from the proceeding time interval depth. These incremental are tabulated 1, 2, 3, 4,
5 and 6 in descending orders and arranged as 6, 4, 3, 1, 2, and 5. Based on the rearranged on the
rearranged order incremental rainfall was calculated. The rearranged incremental rainfall depth is
shown in the table below.
Table 4 Design rainfall arrangements:
Desig Rearran Rearranged

n Rainf ged Rainfall(mm)
point Rainf all Increme order
Rainf all Profil ntal descend Ascend Increme Accumul
Time all Profil e Rainfall ing ing ntal ative
(hr) (mm) e (%) (mm) (mm) Order Order
0-0.375 96.23 24.32 23.40 23.40 23.40 1 6 2.983 2.9833
0.375-
0.75 96.23 35.5 34.16 10.759 10.75 2 4 4.811 7.79
0.75-
1.125 96.23 45.4 43.69 9.527 9.527 3 3 9.527 17.322
1.125-
1.5 96.23 48.5 46.67 2.983 4.81 4 1 23.404 40.726
1.5-
1.875 96.23 53.5 51.48 4.811 3.849 5 2 10.75 51.485
1.875-
2.25 96.23 57.5 55.33 3.849 2.983 6 5 3.849 55.33
3.7 PEAK FLOOD ANALYSIS

3.7.1 SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
For drainage basin where no runoff has been measured the CN method can be used to estimate
the depth of direct runoff from the rain fall depth. The equation for this method is derived using

the assumption that the ratio of actual retention to a potential maximum retention is equal to the
ratio of actual run off to potential maximum run off the later being rain fall minus initial
abstraction.
F Q
= P−I And F=P-Ia -Q
S a
a (P−I )2
Then Q=(P−0.8s)
This method involves;

 Conversion of rain fall into discharge using the CN graph
 Development of these discharges into a basin hydrograph using SCS dimensionless unit
hydrograph
 Determination of the drainage coefficient (q) as the peak of the hydrograph.
the soil profile is the topography the area of The river transports small sized gravel, soils, and
deposits based on thoese information the the group of the soil profile is expresed bellow.
Table 5: General Soil profile
Land use Area Area % Hydrology Group CN(Value)
Coverage condtion from vent
(Km2) chow
Forest Land 1.67 Poor A 45
3.157497
Cultivated Land 46.17 87.29438 Good B 71
Grazing land 5.04 Poor A 68
9.529212
52.89
𝑛
CN(II)= 𝑘=0
area% ∗ CN(value)/100 =69.87969
Curve number (CN) is achieved based on USSCS method by watershed characterization in terms
of land cover, treatment, hydrologic condition and soil group. From the watershed analysis curve
number at condition II =69.8796
Peak rainfall is found at an antecedent moisture condition III state, this value has to be changed
to antecedent moisture condition III.

23 ∗CN (II )
CN(III)= 10+0.13∗CN (II )) =84.21728
Curve number at antecedent moisture condition III = 84.21728

25400
S= Maximum run of potential difference, = -254 = (25400/84.21728)-254=47.60081mm
𝐶𝑁
 p  0.2S   p  0.2 * 47.60081

2 2
Q =
p  0.8S P+0.8∗47.60081
Where, P=used the rearranged cumulative run-off depth (mm)
Table 6: Direct run off computation

Incremental Accumulative Direct runoff
Incremental
Time design rain design rain Incremental
accumulative loss (mm)
fall (mm) fall (mm) runof
0-0.375 2.983301 2.983301 1.040585 1.040585 1.942716
0.375-0.75 4.811775 7.795076 0.064869 -0.97572 5.787491
0.75-1.125 9.527315 17.32239 1.098763 1.033894 8.493421
1.125-1.5 23.40447 40.72686 12.35743 11.25867 12.1458
1.5-1.875 10.75913 51.48599 19.6628 7.305372 3.453758
1.875-2.25 3.84942 55.33541 22.46977 2.806968 1.042452
Where, Q: direct surface runoff in depth (mm)
P: Storm rainfall (mm)
S: maximum potential difference between rainfall and runoff (mm), starting at the
time the storm begins
The peak runoff rate derived from triangular hydrograph is expressed as,
0.21AQ
qp 
TP
Where, q p: Peak runoff rate (m3/s/mm)
A: watershed area (km2) =52.89km^2
Q: runoff volume (mm) = area under the hydrograph
T P: time of peak (hrs) =1.537hr
Base time, (Tb) = 2.67*Tp =4.105hr
Table 7: Peak run off rate

Time Incremental Qp for Incremental Hydrograph

runoff incremental
runoff
(mm) (m3/s)
1 2 Begin time peak end time(Tb) H
time(Tp)
0-0.375 1.040585 7.519 0 1.537 4.105 H1
0.375-0.75 -0.97572 -7.050 0.375 1.912 4.48 H2
0.75-1.125 1.033894 7.4712 0.75 2.287 4.855 H3
1.125-1.5 11.25867 81.359 1.125 2.662 5.23 H4
1.5-1.875 7.305372 52.775 1.5 3.037 5.605 H5
1.875-2.25 2.806968 20.284 1.875 3.412 5.98 H6
Table 8: Peak Discharge Analysis Using Complex Hydrograph Method

Time H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 SUM
0 0 0
0.375 0 0 0
0.75 0 1.7202893 0 1.7202893
1 0 2.867149 1.21524 4.082389
1.125 0 3.4405789 1.82286 0 5.2634376
1.5 0 5.1608685 3.64572 19.8502 0 28.656734
1.537 0 5.3306037 3.82557 21.8087 1.27087 32.235741
1.875 0 6.8811581 5.46857 39.7003 12.8801 0 64.930136
1.912 0 7.0508934 5.64843 41.6588 14.151 0.488285 68.997392
2 0 6.80927 6.07619 46.317 17.1735 1.64964 78.02558
2.287 0 6.0212598 7.47128 61.509 27.031 5.437242 107.46979
2.662 0 4.9916298 6.38025 81.3591 39.9111 10.3862 143.02831
3 4.06359 5.39688 70.6506 51.5204 14.84686 146.4783
0 5.28923 69.4784 52.7912 15.33516 146.85596
3.037 3.9619998
3.412 0 2.9323698 4.19822 57.5977 45.0822 20.28411 130.09455
4 1.31791 2.4875 38.9687 32.9945 15.63962 91.40823
4.105 1.0296136 2.18202 35.6421 30.836 14.81024 84.499958
4.48 0 1.091 23.7614 23.127 11.84819 59.827573
4.855 0 11.8807 15.418 8.886137 36.184821
5 7.2868 12.4372 7.74081 27.46481
5.23 0 7.70902 5.924084 13.633105
5.605 0 2.96203 2.9620299
5.98 0 0

160
146.8559646
140
120 H1
100 H2
Q m3/s
H3
80
H4
60
H5
40
H6
20
SUM
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
time hr
Figure 3: Hydrograph discharge verses time

The maximum discharge from the above hydrograph reading is 146.8559646m3/s.
3.7.2 FLOOD M ARK METHOD

1
V   R2/3  S ,
n
Where, R = Hydraulic radius = (Area/Perimeter) =A/P
S= average river bed slope
n=manning roughness coefficient
V=flow velocity
Q V  A
Manning’s Roughness coefficient

The Manning’s roughness coefficient is taken from standard table based on the river nature and
river feature. The riverbanks are defined and relatively smooth. Manning’s roughness coefficient
(n = 0.035) is adopted.
Note that the peak flood mark that has been surveyed during the field work is at elevation
2028.55masl.therefor the peak flood discharge is 110.1699m3/s at 2028.55 m.a.s.l.

Table 9: Flood mark method for discharge computation

Sr.no Elevation Water Area Wetted Hydraulic Velocity Discharge
(m) Depth (m2) Perimeter radius(R) (m/s) (m3/s)
(m) (m)
1 2026.55 0 0.00 1.00 0 0 0

2 2027.05 0.5 3.23 7.43 0.434724 1.481717 4.785947
3 2027.55 1 12.07 20.42 0.591087 1.818544 21.94983
4 2028.05 1.5 23.55 25.86 0.910673 2.425853 57.12884
5 2028.55 2 37.69 31.29 1.204538 2.923053 110.1699
6 2029.05 2.5 54.50 42.05 1.296076 3.069328 167.2784
7 2029.55 3 79.25 70.56 1.123158 2.789866 221.0969
3.7.3 RATIONAL METHOD

It is the simplest method to determine the peak discharge from drainage basin runoff.
Therefore, Q= CIA/360
3
Q= peak discharge, m / s
C = runoff coefficient
I = rainfall intensity, mm/hr
A = drainage area, ha
Note that our calculation allows you to use a variety of units. The Rational method runoff
coefficient (c) is a function of the soil type and drainage basin slope. A simplified table is shown
below. See the references at the bottom of the page for more complete tables including impact of
slope.
Table 10: Rational Method Runoff Coefficients

Ground Cover Runoff Coefficient, c
Lawns 0.05 - 0.35
Forest 0.05 - 0.25
Cultivated land 0.08-0.41
Meadow 0.1 - 0.5
Parks, cemeteries 0.1 - 0.25

Unimproved areas 0.1 - 0.3

Pasture 0.12 - 0.62
Residential areas 0.3 - 0.75
Business areas 0.5 - 0.95
Industrial areas 0.5 - 0.9
Asphalt streets 0.7 - 0.95
Brick streets 0.7 - 0.85
Roofs 0.75 - 0.95
Concrete streets 0.7 - 0.95
The Rainfall intensity (i) is typically found from Intensity/Duration/Frequency curves for rainfall
events in the geographical region of interest. The duration is usually equivalent to the time of
concentration the drainage area. The storm frequency is typically stated by local authorities
depending on the impact of the development. 1 year, 2 year, 5 year, 10 year, 25 year, 50 year,
100 year storm frequency may be specified.University of kansas June 1997 the Table Contains
Average Rainfall Intensity in in mm per hour Dration,Return period.
Table 11: Average Rainfall Intensity in mm per hour Duration, Return period
Hr:Mn 1 year 2 year 5 year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year
2:15 0.77 0.95 1.21 1.4 1.66 1.86 2.06
2:20 0.74 0.92 1.18 1.36 1.61 1.81 2.01
2:25 0.72 0.89 1.14 1.32 1.57 1.76 1.96
2:30 0.69 0.86 1.11 1.28 1.53 1.72 1.91
2:35 0.67 0.84 105 1.25 1.49 1.68 1.86
Intensity is in inch/hr from the table

so we need intensity in mm/hr
Time Concentration is 2.25hr equvalent to time duration

from the above table, the rainfall intensity of 50 year returned period for duration period of
2.25hr is 1.76inch/hr which is equivalent to 44.704mm/hr.
Table 12: weighted coefficient
land coverage C A (km) C*A
cultivated land 0.245 46.17 11.31165
grazing land 0.37 5.04 1.8648
Forest 0.15 1.67 0.2505
Total 52.89 13.42695
weighted coeffitiont,Cw =C1A1+C2A2+C3A3/A1+A2+A3 =0.253866
Intensity=44.704mm/hr
Qpeak =CiA/360 =166.7329m³/s

4 HEAD WORK DESIGN

4.1 HEAD WORK SITE SELECTION
Having decided upon the location of weir, the actual site is selected with the following
considerations:
 A reasonably wide and well defined channel with reliable banks is favored;
 The associated canal alignment should enable adequate command without excessive
excavation or embankment;
 With respect to the adjoining(situated next to) land surface, the elevation of water
surface upstream of the weir should not be so low as to require an excessively high weir
to divert the water at the intake;
 Easy arrangement of flow diversion during construction
 Availability of construction material at the nearest place.
 Sustainable for environment effects.
4.1.1 GEOLOGY OF THE AREA
The project surrounded in all the test pits taken at the command area the depth of the soil is very
deep which is greater than 2m. The command area is highly dominated by clay and heavy clay
soil. The soil PH ranges from 4.39 to 5.82 showing acidic condition.
4.1.2 UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM OF THE HEADWORK SITE

Presently the majority of the bed is covered by surface flowing water in the area. The surface
regimented with gravel and alluvia soil in the above of gravel soil formation.
4.1.3 AVAILABILITY OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

According to the Geological report of the project, required natural construction materials have
been assessed. Here source areas for rock, clay borrow areas and very fine clay sand soil formed
has been indicated.

4.2 SELECTION OF WEIR TYPE AND WEIR PARAMETERS

4.2.1 WEIR TYPE SELECTION
When we select the weir type, we should have to consider the availability of construction
materials, simplicity of the structure/practicality , nature of foundation and the river bed material
as well as weir height. The peak discharge estimated is 146.8559m^3/sec. A weir type that can
dissipate the energy of water falling from height needs to have better energy dissipation
efficiency, because the weir shape is capable of resisting the impact from a jet (pressurized
stream of fluid) of water. In addition to this the river carries sizable boulders and cobbles
towards the diversion site during flood season. In this respect an ogee type weir is preferable.
Table 13: The design flood level at river cross section of the weir
Sr.no Elevation Water Area Wetted Hydraulic Velocity Discharge
(m) Depth (m2) Perimeter radius(R) (m/s) (m3/s)
(m) (m)
1 2037.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2038 0.5 2.83 6.9 0.410145 1.425327 4.033675
3 2038.5 1 10.98 18.8 0.584043 1.804067 19.80865
4 2039 1.5 21.45 22.35 0.959732 2.512211 53.88692
5 2039.5 2 32.34 30.1 1.074419 2.708561 87.59486
6 2039.9 2.425 49.0578 40.451 1.238 2.9766 146.86
7 2040 2.5 52 41.01 1.267983 3.024814 157.2903
8 2029.55 3 71.15 68.1 1.044787 2.658529 189.1544

3.5
3
t.water depth(mm)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
discharge(m3/s
Figure 4: Stage discharge curve

4.2.2 WEIR PARAMETER
4.2.2.1 W EIR HEIGHT
The weir height is determined based on the maximum command area elevation which is required
to irrigate the maximum possible irrigable area and consists of head losses: (1) across the head
regulator, (2) due to slope of main canal (3) required to drive the full supply level in the main
canal. The analysis is shown as follow: Length of the weir depends on the physical feature of the
river at the site of the weir and taking into account the area of submergence on upstream side of
weir axis. Actual river crest length is equal to bank to bank width of the over flow section of the
river from the given top map is 15m.The maximum Elevation of flood is 2039m.a.s.l. That
means the HFL before construction and the velocity head is 2039.9masl. 0.467318m.
 River bed level=2037.5m.a.s.l.
 Maximum command area elevation=2037.6m.a.s.l
 Maximum flood elevation=2039.9m.a.s.l
 Distance from the head work site=1768m
 Free board=0.2
 Slope of the canal=0.001
 Head losses the turn out =0.02m

 Head regulator loss=0.15m

 Head loss canal slope = 0.4m
 Canal flow depth taken =0.6m
 Full supply level=river bed level+head loss turn out+head regulator loss+canal slope
loss
Full supply level: = 2037.6m+0.17+0.4+0.6=2038.77masl

Weir crust level=2038.47+0.2=2038.97
Weir height=2038.97-2037.5=1.47 ≈1.5m
Accordingly the weir height was fixed to be 1.5m and the corresponding crest level was fixed to
be 2038.77masl
4.2.2.2 W EIR CREST LENGTH

Length of the weir depends on the physical feature of the river at the site of the weir and taking
into account the area of submergence on upstream side of weir axis. From the Lacey’s regime
width formula, the width of the river and geology of the abatements at the proposed weir axis,
the crest length of the over flow weir section can be determined.
 Lacey’s regime width=4.75(Q) ^0.5=57.5613m

 Actual river crest length is equal to bank to bank width of the over flow section
of the river from the given top map is =15m.
 So, considering the actual site conditions of the river banks stability and width
of the river channel, the crest length of the weir is considered as 15m.
4.2.2.3 D ISCHARGE OVER THE WEIR SECTION

The over flow over the weir would be affected by the shape of the weir; because of the
coefficient of flow (discharge) Cd varies with the type of weir and shape. Since the type of weir
selected for Engule project is ogee and the coefficient of discharge Cd was assumed to be 2.2.The
overflow section of the weir is designed in order to pass 100% of the flood without considering
to accommodate through the under sluice portion. The usual ogee weir formula is used for the
evaluation of the discharge that could pass over the weir and it is expressed as:
Qd= Cd*L* He3/2

Where: Qd = Design discharge =146.85m3/s

Cd= Coefficient of Discharge =2.2 (from Irrigation and Hydraulic Structures)
L= Overflow length of a weir=15m

He= Energy head including velocity head (m)
2/3 2/3
 Qd   146.85 
Head over the weir crest, He       2.705m
 2.2  L   2.2 15 
River bed level = 2037.5m.a.s.l
Weir crest level, 2038.97m.a.s.l
U/s TEL = crest level + He
= 2038.97+2.705m= 2041.617m
But High flood level before construction of the weir D/S HFL is =2039.9 m.a.s.l
𝑄
Approach velocity (va) = , p=weir height
𝐿∗(𝑃+𝐻𝑒)
𝑄
va) = =146.86/(15*(1.5+2.705)= 2.33m/s
𝐿∗(𝑃+𝐻𝑒)
Velocity head, a
𝒗𝟐
ha=𝟐𝒈=0.276m
U/s HFL=U/s TEL – head loss due to approach velocity (ha)

=2041.67m -0.276=2041.39m
Hd=He-ha=2.705-0.276=2.42m
When p/Hd > 1.33, then the velocity of approach has been found to have a negligible effect up on
discharge
So, the velocity of approach cannot neglected
Therefore; Hd=He-ha=2.42m
4.2.2.4 A FFLUX
The rise of the maximum flood level in the river upstream of the weir after construction is known
as afflux. The amount of afflux will determine the top levels of guide banks and marginal banks.
By providing a higher afflux, the waterway, the length of the weir can be reduced, but it will
increase the cost of training works and the risk of failure by outflanking. At the same time, the
discharge intensity and the consequent scour shall go up, and hence, the sections of loose
protections upstream and downstream as well as the depths of pile lines at either ends shall have
to be increased, thereby making it costly. It is, therefore, always desirable to limit the afflux to a
safe value of 1.0 to 1.2 meters, however, in steep reaches with rocky bed, a higher value of afflux
may be permitted.
U/s HFL =2041.67masl

Afflux = U/s HFL –D/s HFL =2041.67-2039.9=1.7m
1.2<1.7., however, in steep reaches with rocky bed; a higher value of afflux may be permitted.
We have taken afflux 1m
4.3 DESIGN OF THE OGEE WEIR PROFILE AND CROSS SECTION

Downstream profile
The ogee weir with the vertical face on the u/s and ogee shaped crest on the d/s. Based on
experiments approval to avoid negative pressure including consideration of practicability,
hydraulic efficiency, stability and economy, the eqn. is derived. The portion of the dawn stream
is defined as:
𝑋 1 𝑦
𝑋 𝑛 = 𝐾 ∗ 𝐻𝑑 𝑛−1 ∗ 𝑦 , i.e (𝐻 )^𝑛 = 𝑘 ∗ 𝐻 ., the ogee is has the vertical u/s face. Hence from the
𝑑 𝑑
construction point of view and stability, it is better to provide the u/s slope 1:1and d/s slope 0.7:1
Therefore n=1.85, K=2. So, the value of a, b, r 1 & r2, as shown in the figure and table below
Relation b/n Hd, a, b, R1 & r2
Parameter Hd A B r1 r2
Relation 2.42 0.175*Hd 0.282*Hd 0.5*Hd 0.2*Hd
Value 2.42 0.424 0.98 1.21 0.48
𝑥 1.85 𝑥 1.85 𝑥 1.85
From d/s equation y = substituting the valves, Y= =
2∗𝐻𝑑 0.85 2∗2.42^0.85 4.24
To have efficient curvature, it is better to determine the tangent point.

dy/dx=v/h=1/0.7
𝑥 1.85 −1 1
Dy/dx=1.85 = 𝑥 0.85 = 3.2 ∗
4.24 0.7

x= 3.936
For x= 3.936, y= 3.12
Based on this value, the coordinate of y=0 to y=1.5m is tabulated as follow as:
Downstream profile
X 0 0.915 1.330 1.765 1.995 2.583 2.809 3.18 3.318
Y 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.5
Upstream profile
The u/s profile from the axis is computed using the following eqn.
y=0.724*(x+0.27*He) ^1.85/He^0.85+0.126*He-0.4315*He^0.375*(x+0.27He)^0.625.
The upstream profile extended up to x=-0.27*Hd=0.27*2.42=0.65 where the depth of flow at the
design discharge above the weir crest.
y=0.724*(x+0.27*1.51) ^1.85)/1.51^0.85+0.126*1.51-0.4315*1.52^0.375(x+0.27*1.51)^0.627, The
upstream profile at an interval of 0.05m in the x direction and the corresponding y is presented in
the following table.
Upstream profile
X 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0.65
Y
0.0045 0.007 0.017 0.0349 0.059 0.09 0.2127 0.248583
Therefore the upstream profile extends up to the point of coordinates (-0.65., 0.258m)
 Bottom width of weir (B) determined the sum of The length is the sum of b, length at the
toe for 60° curve (Li) and X
B= 3.31+0.68+0.5= 4.68m≈ 4.8𝑚

The bottom width should be sufficient so that the maximum compressive stress with in allowable
limit &tension does not develop.
Design discharge, Q=146.86m3/sec
Regime width including under sluice=17m
Allowing for divide wall and scouring sluice Effective crest length = 15m
Weir height (h) = 1.5m
Q 146 .86
Intensity of discharge (q) = L = = 9.790667m^3/s/m
15
Silt factor f = 1.76 md where md the particle size = 1 for 50%finer (see appendix 5)
(9.79 2
Scour depth= 1.35(q^2/f) ^ (1/3) =1.35* 1,76 )^1/3 =4.061574189
4.3.1 HYDRAULICS JUMP CALCULATION

 Weir crest length = 15m
 Weir height (h) = 1.5m
 •Pre-jump depth = y1
 Post -jump depth =y2
Energy equation b/n section 0-0 and 1-1;

v0^2 V1^2
p+Hd+ =y1+ assume the hydraulic jump at section 1-1 and section 2-2 is
2g 2g
V1^2
1.5+2.42=3.92m=y1+ , v1=q/y1
2g
q
Hence 3.92=y1+ (y1 ) ^2/2g, by trial and error y1=1.39m
q 9.78
Velocity, v1=y1 =1.39 =7.04m/s
v1 7.04
Fr1= (𝑔𝑌1)^0.5= =1.9 supercritical flow
(9.81∗1.39)^0.5
Assume hydraulic jump b/n section 1-1 and 2-2

y1 0.5 1.39
Y2= ∗ 1 + 8F12 − 1) = ∗ (1 + 8 ∗ 1.92)^0.5 − 1)=3.1m and
2 2
𝑞 9.78
V2=𝑦2 = 3.1 =3.15m/s
V2 3.15
The Froude number at section 2-2 is Fr2= (g∗Y2)^0.5=(9.81∗3.1)^0.5=0.2, the flow is subcritical flow.
(y2−y1)^3 (3.1−1.39)^3
Dissipated energy due to jump, E= = =0.29m
4∗y1∗y2 4∗1.39∗3.1
The hydraulic jump length=5(y2-y1) =5(3.1-1.39) =8.55m

The Froude (Fr) =1.9 and velocity, V1 =7.04m/s

Figure 5: hydraulic jump profile

Neglecting losses between point A and B and considering similar datum using the principle of
energy equation .refer the weir profile.
h+ He = y1 + ha where He = 2.705m
𝑄 146.86
𝑞= = = 9.79𝑚2/𝑠
𝐿 15𝑚
Table 14: hydraulics jump calculation
2
Q(m3/s) q(m /s) He(m) Y1(m) V(m/s) Fr Y2(m)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 1.33 0.72 0.21 6.34 4.42 1.9
40 2.66 1.14 0.4 6.67 3.36 3.3
60 4 1.49 0.59 6.77 2.81 4.3
80 5.33 1.76 0.75 7.11 2.62 5.4
100 6.67 2.09 0.92 7.24 2.41 6.6

120 8 2.36 1.1 7.27 2.21 7.5
146.86 9.79 2.70 1.3 7.53 2.10 8.2
160 10.66 2.86 1.4 7.61 2.05 8.3

9
8
jump hiht curve depth(m)
7
tail water and
6
5
4
jhc
3
twrc
2
1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
q(m2/s)
Figure 6: jump and tail water height curve
It is the jump characteristic for Y2>Y2' thought the range of q. As the TWRC is lower than HJC
the hydraulic jump forms at a certain section down steam of the toe. For the formation of the
jump, the horizontal apron may be depressed by excavation the river bed downstream of the toe
of the spillway to increase the toe water depth. The depth of depression can be taken as the
difference b/n the tail water depth and post jump depth.
4.3.2 DESIGN OF ENERGY DISSIPATION HEAD WORK

Design of Impervious floor thickness
The Seepage head should be cheeked designing the impervious floor using different theories. It
may occur under a no flow condition, where the head difference is the difference between the
weirs crest level and the downstream bed level or under a full discharge condition with a
hydraulic jump in the stilling basin.
U/s cut off

U/s pile level = u/s HFL-1.5R, R= 1.35(q^2/f)^1/3= 4.06139
2041.67-(1.5*4.06139) = 2035.57 m.a.s.l
Depth of u/s pile (d1) = river bed level-U/s pile level
=2037.5m.a.s.l-2035.57m.a.s.l =-1.92m.
That means, there is 1.92m to provide cut of the upstream weir.

D/s cut off
D/s cut off level = d/s HFL -1.75R =2039.9m -1.75*4.06139 =2032.8m.a.s.l
Depth of downstream pile (d2) =river bed level –d/s cut off level
d2 =2037.5m-2032.8m =4.69m
Creep length
The creep length, L=C*Hs, where C is the creep coefficient, (c=12 for coarse grained sand) from
Garg.
L =12*1.5=18m
Hence, the total length of 18m
1.5 1.5
D/s apron length (Ld) =2.21*c =2.21*12 = 9𝑚
13 13
Length of u/s impervious floor

Lu=L-(Ld+B+2d1+2d2)
Lu =18m-(9+4.8+2*1.92+2*4.69) = -9m
The analysis shows, there is no need of providing U/S impervious floor, hence, the U/S cut off
should be located at the heel of the weir.
Floor thickness determination L=Lu+2d1+b+2d2+Ld = 0+2*1.92+4.8+2*4.69+9=27m
Bligh’s theory
To check the safety of hydraulics structure on pervious foundation, the following two criteria
should be satisfied
1/ the sub soil hydraulic gradient should be less than the permeable value to prevent piping
failure
I<1/C I=H/L, H/l =1.5/27=0.05, 1/c=1/12=0.084 therefore 0.05,<0.084 safe
2/ the floor should be sufficient thickness to prevent its rupture due to uplift pressure
To improve the safety of floor the thickness should be provide by this;
T=4/3*(h/G-1), where the, h=H-(H/L)l
Material of specific gravity (G) for concrete=2.4
i) The thickness of u/s impervious apron
Nominal thickness of the u/s impervious apron= 0.5m

Nominal length of u/s impervious =1.5m
For the u/s, as the upward and downward forces are balanced, nominal thickness,(0.5m) masonry
may be enough for the downstream, the floor should be enough to resist up lift pressure
developed due to the seepage water. Hence, using Bligh’s theory, the thickness of the floor can
be calculated as shown below table.
The unbalanced pressure head at any point is given by: h=H-(H/L)l and the floor thickness is
given by
T=4/3(h/G-1) and the values are tabulated –on table below
Table 15:D/S impervious floor thickness every 1m by Bligh’s theory
Point Creep length(m) Pressure head(m) Calculated floor Recommended
thickness(m) floor thickness(m)
at toe 8.64 1.02 0.971428571 1
at 1m from toe 9.64 0.9644 0.918518519 1
at 2m from toe 10.64 0.9088 0.865608466 0.9
at 3m from toe 11.64 0.85333 0.812698413 0.85
at 4m from toe 12.64 0.7977 0.75978836 0.8
at 5m from toe 13.64 0.742222 0.706878307 0.7
at 6m from toe 14.64 0.686666 0.653968254 0.65
at 7m from toe 15.64 0.631111 0.601058201 0.6
at 8m from toe 16.64 0.575555 0.548148148 0.55
at 9m from toe 17.64 0.52 0.495238095 0.5
at 10m from toe 18.64 0.464444 0.442328042 0.45
at11m from toe 19.64 0.408888 0.389417989 0.4
at12m from toe 20.64 0.3533333 0.336507937 0.35
at13m from toe 21.64 0.297777 0.283597884 0.3
at14m from toe 22.64 0.2422222 0.230687831 0.25
at15m from toe 23.64 0.186666667 0.177777778 0.2
at16m from toe 24.64 0.131111111 0.124867725 0.2
at17m from toe 25.64 0.075555556 0.071957672 0.2
at18m from toe 26.64 0.02 0.019047619 0.2
at18.39m from toe 27.02 0 0 0

Figure 7: design weir section layout

5 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF HEAD WORK

5.1 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF WEIR
The designed should be safe against sliding, overturning and tension crack. The followings are
the major forces considered in the design of the weir overflow section by which the stability
analysis was computed.
 Self weight of the over flow weir, W

 Hydrostatic pressure, Ph
 Silt pressure, Ps
 Up lift pressure
In the computation process the structure considering monolithic section & a unit length of the
weir & earth quake force is assumed to be negligible.
Note: sign convention
 Vertical forces downward is positive and upward is negative
 Horizontal forces towards upstream positive and towards downward negative.
 Moments clock wise moment negative and anticlockwise moment positive.
5.1.1 SELF WEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE

For the ease of calculating moment arm for each section of the curved profile of the ogee, the
curved surface was assumed to be linear at proper intervals so that a trapezium section can be
obtained. Now the total section of the weir was divided in to sub sections as shown in figure
below
𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔𝑕𝑡(𝑊) = 𝛾𝑐 ∗ 𝐴𝑐
Where: gc= unit weight of massonery=24KN/m3

Ac= area of the concrete

Figure 8: External pressure forces for weir structure

5.1.2 WATER PRESSURE (HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE (PH))
These are the forces acting on the weir due to the reservoir created upstream of the overflow
section 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. It has the four components P w1, Pw2, Pw3 and P w4 as shown in fig
below. 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 following formula
𝑕 12
Pw1= γw acting at h1/3 in KN/m where h1 is the weir height.
2
And for the pressure at u/s curved surface (Z), (P w2) = γW*Z*b in KN/m.
𝑕 22
Tail water pressure (Pw3) = γw
2
5.1.3 SILT PRESSURE

The gradual accumulation of significant deposit silt, against the face of the weir generates a
result of horizontal pressure Ps on the upstream section of the weir. Its magnitude is a function of
the sediment depth at worst condition with a height equals to silt height (hs).
5.1.4 UPLIFT PRESSURE (PU)
Equilibrium seepage patterns will develop under a weir section due to pores or discontinuous. It is
given by
1. Pond level case

h 1 ∗B
2. Pu = γw where B= bottom width of the weir,
2
3. Dynamic
PU1= γw*h2*B acts at B/2 from the toe
PU 2 =0.5*B* γw*(h1-h2)
Where h1 is the water depth in u/s and h2 is the tail water depth=3.1m.
The stability analysis is done for expected sever different load combinations. This is the
condition when the weir body is subjected to design flood water and pond levels with all intakes
and sluice gates are closed, tail water depth at the downstream level and silt pressure equivalent
to the silt height is acting on the upstream face of the overflow section.
Water pressure and Uplift pressure for two cases
Pond level case
Weir height (h) =1.5m, height of u/s curved surface (Z) =0.25m and tail water depth=1.3m
Table 16: Stability analysis of weir design
Type of load vertical load horizontal load moment Moments point O
(pressure) arm
+ve -ve +ve -ve +ve -ve
W1 2.94 4.14 12.17

W2 1.803 3.54 6.938
W3 4.173 2.71 11.3088
Self weight W4 9.988 1.88 18.77
W5 5.976 1.05 6.275
W6 3.381 4.31 14.57
W7 30.009 3.405 102.18
W8 21.666 2.575 55.789
W9
15.687 1.745 27.374
W10 3.735 0.915 3.417
W11
1.125 0.33 0.375
Silt pressure 2.81 0.416 1.172

Water Pw1 11.25 0.5 5.625

pressure Pw2 1.225 4.47 0.6125
Pw3 8.45 0.43 3.66
Pw4 3.25 0.166 0.54
Uplift Up1 62.4 2.4 149.79
pressure UP2 4.8 3.2 15.37
Sum of forces 103.828 67.2 8.45 14.06 264.59 171.96
Summation of forces and moment for:

Pond level case
 Sum of vertical force =36.62KN/m
 Sum of horizontal force = 5.61KN/m
 Sum of stabilizing moment (M+) =264.59KNm/m
 Sum of overturning moment (M-) =171.96KNm/m
Factor of Safety
i. Factor of safety against overturning (FO): the factor of safety against overturning should
not be less than 1.5.
Fo =
M 
=
264.593
=1.54> 1.5 it is safe
M 
171.968
ii. factor of safety against Sliding(Fs) =  *

V f
the valve of 𝜂 range from 0.65- 0.75.for
H f
calculation we have taken the maximum range 0.75
36.62
=0.65* 5.62 = 4.23 > 1.5 safe!
iii. Tension, by the Middle third rule if e<B/6 no tension
Location of the resultant force from the toe, 𝑋 =

M n et
=
264.56  171.968
= 2.5m
V f 36.2
Eccentricity, e = 0.5*B - 𝑋 = 0.5*4.8-2.5 =-0.1m.the eccentricity is the resultant force acts

near heel.
B
 Eccentricity, e=-0.1m < = 1.5/6=0.25m (no tension)
6
5.2 ANALYSIS OF UNDER SLUICE

Some of the important roles that the under sluice plays are;
 Enables the canal to flow silt free water from surface as much as possible.
 The Scour of the silt deposited in front of the canal off take (regulator) Preserve a clear
 Defined river channel approaching the regulator.
In addition to the supply of water to the intake and the removal of silt, this acts to remove the
boulder that comes to wards it.
Design consideration
To ensure the proper scouring its capacity should be at least double the canal discharge.
Considering this, the opening size of the gate is 1.5 m*1m. The discharge passing is computed
using the following formula.
Q=Cd*L*H*(2*g*h) ^0.5
=0.62*1*1.5* 2 ∗ 9.81 ∗ 0.276 =1.73m3 /sec
The under sluice can discharge 1.82𝑚 3 /sec which is more than two times of the head regulator.
Hence, during non-rainy time, it is possible to flush the silt easily when required.
Hydrostatic force exerted on sheet opening.
Water depth=1.5 m
Width of the opening=1m
Hydro Static water Pressure for head of 1.5m at the gate=15KN/m2
The critical case in the case of under sluice is during non-flow condition. The high flood
condition is expected during summer. In this condition, water is not required for irrigation. If
water is not required for irrigation, the under sluice should be fully opened.

5.2.1 GATE FOR SLUICE

The gate for under sluice is to be vertical sheet metal of size 1.5m x 1m for the closure of the
opening space providing some extra dimensions for the groove insertion. Gross area of sheet
metal for the gate will be 1.5m x 1m. The grooves are to be provided on the walls using angle
iron frames at the two sides of the gate opening.
5.3 DESIGN OF HEAD REGULATOR (INTAKE CANAL )

The head regulator is a structure at the head of a canal taking off from a reservoir behind a weir.
It is provided to;
 Regulate supply in the canal
 Control the entry of silt in the canal

 Shut out the river floods
Figure 9: opening head regulator size
Q=cd*(2*9.81*h) ^0.5*A
Where h= water depth=0.6m
Cd=0.62
Q=L*H*0.62*(2*9.81*h) ^0.5
Q =0.4*0.6*0.62*(2*9.81) ^0.5=0.5m3/s
The capacity of the discharge has at least the base flow and the gate dimensions are determined
as water depth H=0.6m and width 0.4m
The gate of Water pressure is, 𝑃 = ᵞ𝑤 × 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑕𝑒𝑖𝑔𝑕𝑡 = 10 ∗ 0.6 = 6𝐾𝑁/𝑚2

5.4 DESIGN OF STILLING BASIN
The transition from super critical to subcritical flow takes place in the form of hydraulic jump.
The stilling basin is designed to insure that the jump occurs always at such location that the flow
velocity entering the erodible d/s channels are incapable causing harmful scour.
The design of a particular stilling basin is depend on the magnitude of Froude number and other
characteristics of flow to be handled.
𝑣1 𝑞
Fr1= =
(𝑔𝑦 1) (𝑔𝑦 1^3)
7.04
Fr1= =1.9
(9.81∗1.39)^0.5
Basins for Froude numbers between 1.7 and 2.5

From above calculation the Froude Number is 1.9 it is Froude numbers between 1.7 and 2.5.
Therefore, the flow for this basin will be in the form designated as pre-jump stage. Because such
flows are not attended by active turbulence, baffles are not required. The basin should be long
enough to contain the flow it undergoing retardation.
5.5 DESIGN OF RETAINING WALL

1) The common concern in design of retaining wall is that the masonry section of the
retaining wall must have sufficient self-weight to resist the thrust due to earth pressure
occurs at the back without overturning, sliding, tension and compressive stress developed
within the body of the structure. The Maximum design flood and the flood jump height
govern the height of the retaining wall with some free board provided to protect
overtopping of flood and scouring of the banks. The triangular wedge of the retained soil
is assumed to assist the stabilizing effect.
2) The passive earth pressure is assumed to be counter balanced by the equivalent active
earth pressure and it is ignored.
The loads considered are:

 Dead weight.
 Pressure due to back fill.
 Hydrostatic pressure.

Available data are:

 𝛾𝑑𝑟𝑦 =19𝐾𝑁
𝑚3
 𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑡 =12𝐾𝑁 ⁄𝑚 3
 𝛾𝑤 =10𝐾𝑁 ⁄𝑚 3
 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑦 = 2.3
5.5.1 WALL HEIGHT FIXATION

The existing topographical condition at the weir axis and HFL are considered to be most
governing parameters to fix the wall height. The HFL level after construction of the weir (u/s
HFL) = 2041.67masl
U/s wall height = U/s HFL – river bed level + free board, Adapt 0.5m free board
U/s wall height = 2041.67masl – 2037.5masl + 0.5m =4.57m.
Figure 10: upstream retaining wall
Wall height = u/s HFL-river bed level + free board

=2041.67– 2037.5 + 0.5m=4.57m
Assume top width T=0.5m
 Dead load
W1=T*H*𝛾𝑚𝑎𝑠 = 0.5*4.57*23=52.56𝐾𝑁/𝑚
W2=1/2*(B-T)*H*𝛾𝑚𝑎𝑠 = W2*(B-0.5) =52.56(B-0.5)

 Back fill load
W3=1/2*(B-T)*H*𝛾𝑑𝑟𝑦 = 43.41*(B-T)
 Earth pressure load (P)
1 1
𝑕1 = 3 ∗ 𝐻 = 3 ∗ 4.57 =1.52𝑚
2 2
𝑕2 = ∗ 𝐻 = ∗ 4.57 =3.05𝑚
3 3
1 2 2
𝑃1 = 2 ∗ 𝐾𝑎 ∗ 𝑕1 ∗ 𝛾𝑑𝑟𝑦 = 0.5 ∗ 0.33 ∗ 1.52 ∗ 19=7.24KN/m
𝑃2 = 𝐾𝑎 ∗ 𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑡 ∗ 𝑕1 ∗ 𝑕2 = 0.33 ∗ 12 ∗ 𝑕1 ∗ 𝑕2 =18.36𝐾𝑁/𝑚

1 2
𝑃3 = 2 𝐾𝑎 ∗ 𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑡 ∗ 𝑕2 = 0.5 ∗ 0.33 ∗ 12 ∗ 3.05 2 =18.42 𝐾𝑁/𝑚
1 2 2 2 2
𝑃4 = 2 ∗ 𝛾𝑤 ∗ ∗𝐻 = 0.5 ∗ 10 ∗ ∗ 4.57 =46.41KN/m
3 3
The summation of overturning forces

Po=p1+p2+p3+p4=7.24+18.36+18.36+46.41=90.37kn/m
Stability analysis of upstream retaining wall
Total stabilizing forces= 𝑊1 + 𝑊2 + 𝑊3 = 52.56 + 52.56 𝐵 − 𝑇 + 43.41(𝐵 − 𝑇)
=52.56+95.97(B-T)
Stabilizing moments (Ms)
𝑇 0.5
𝑀1 = 𝑃1 ∗ 2 = 7.24 ∗ =1.81KNm/m
2
𝐵−𝑇 𝐵−0.5
𝑀2 = 𝑃2 ∗ 𝑇 + = 18.36 𝐵 − 0.5 ∗ (0.5 + )
3 3
𝐵−𝑇 𝐵 − 0.5
𝑀3 = 𝑃3 ∗ 𝑇 + = 18.36 𝐵 − 0.5 ∗ (0.5 + 2 ∗ ( )
3 3
Total (Ms) = 𝑀1 + 𝑀2 + 𝑀3
Over turning moment (Mo)
1 1
𝑀1 = 𝑃1 ∗ 𝑕2 + 3 𝑕1 = 7.24 ∗ (3.05 + 3 ∗ 1.52) =25.75KNm/m
𝑕2 3.05
𝑀2 = 𝑃2 ∗ = 18.36 ∗ =27.99KNm/m
2 2
𝑕2 3.05
𝑀3 = 𝑃3 ∗ = 18.36 ∗ =27.99KNm/m
2 2
𝑕2 3.05
𝑀4 = 𝑃4 ∗ = 46.41 ∗ =70.77KNm/m
2 2

Summation of overturning moments (Ms)

𝑀𝑠 = 𝑀1 + 𝑀2 + 𝑀3 + 𝑀4 = 152.5𝐾𝑁𝑚/𝑚
Factor of safety against sliding (Fs) is given by
𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠 (𝑊𝑡 )
Fs =µ 𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠 (𝑝𝑜 )
, µ = 0.65 Fs must be greater than 1.5
52.56+95.97(𝐵−0.5)
1.5=0.65
90.37
, from this B=2.13: take 2.5m
Now based on B, 𝑊2 = 52.56 ∗ 2.5 − 0.5 = 105.12𝐾𝑁𝑚/𝑚
𝑊3 = 43.41 2.5 − 0.5 = 86.82𝐾𝑁𝑚/𝑚
Summation of stabilizing forces (Ws) will be
Wt=𝑊1 + 𝑊2 + 𝑊3 = 52.56 + 105.12 + 86.82 = 244.5𝐾𝑁/𝑚
𝐵−𝑇 2.5 − 0.5
𝑀2 = 𝑊2 ∗ 𝑇 + = 105.12 ∗ 0.5 + = 122.64𝐾𝑁𝑚/𝑚
3 3
𝐵−𝑇 2
𝑀3 = 𝑊3 ∗ 𝑇 + 2 = 86.82 ∗ (0.5 + ∗ 2.5 − 0.5 = 159.17𝐾𝑁𝑚/𝑚
3 3
Summation of stabilizing moments (Ms)
Ms=𝑀1 + 𝑀2 + 𝑀3 = 1.81 + 122.64 + 159.17 = 283.62𝐾𝑁𝑚/𝑚
µ∗𝑊𝑠 0.65∗283 .62
Check factor of safety against sliding (Fs) = = = 2.0 safe.
𝑃𝑜 90.37
2
𝑀𝑠 − 𝑀𝑜 = 283.62 − 152.5 = 131.12

𝑖=1
stabilizing moment 283.62
Factor of safety against overturning (Fo) = = = 3.27 safe
overturning moment 86.82
131 .12
Check for tension X = = 0.54
244 .5
B 2.5
Eccentricity (e) = 2 − X = − 0.54 = 0.71
2
B 2.5 B
Now compare e and 6 = = 0.42, e is less than
6 6
It is also safe against tension
Use this as left and right retaining wall for u/s of weir.
Downstream retaining wall

D/S wall height = d/s HFL-river bed level + freeboard

h =2039.9-2037.5+0.5=2.9m
But the downstream depth Y2 of hydraulic jump is 3.1m so the downstream wall height is
greater than 3.1m+free board.3.1m+0.5m=3.6m.Therefore we have taken 3.6m
𝐻 3.6
h1= 3 = = 1.2𝑚
3
𝐻 2∗3.6
𝑕2 = 2 ∗ 3 = =2.4m
3
Assume the top width (T) =0.5m

𝑊1 = 𝑇 ∗ 𝑕1 ∗ 𝛾𝑚𝑎𝑠 = 0.5 ∗ 1.2 ∗ 23 =12.65KN/m
1
𝑊2 = ∗ 𝐵 − 𝑇 ∗ 𝛾𝑚𝑎𝑠 ∗ 𝐻 = 0.5 ∗ 𝐵 − 0.5 ∗ 23 ∗ 3.6
2
=37.95*(B-0.5) KN/m
Back fill load
1
𝑊3 = 2 ∗ 𝐵 − 𝑇 ∗ 𝐻 ∗ 𝛾𝑑𝑟𝑦 = 0.5 ∗ 𝐵 − 𝑇 ∗ 3.6 ∗ 19 =31.35*(B-0.5) KN/m
Summation of resistive force = 𝑊1 + 𝑊2 + 𝑊3

=12.65+37.95(B-0.5) +31.35(B-0.5)
Earth pressure load
1
𝑃1 = 2 ∗ 𝐾𝑎 ∗ 𝛾𝑑𝑟𝑦 ∗ 𝑕1 2 = 0.5 ∗ 0.33 ∗ 19 ∗ 1.2=3.47985KN/m
𝑃2 = 𝐾𝑎 ∗ 𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑡 ∗ 𝑕1 ∗ 𝑕2 = 0.33 ∗ 12 ∗ 1.2 ∗ 2.4=9.5832KN/m

1
𝑃3 = 2 ∗ 𝐾𝑎 ∗ 𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑡 ∗ 𝑕2 2 = 0.5 ∗ 0.33 ∗ 12 ∗ 2.42 =9.5832KN/m
1
𝑃4 = ∗ 𝛾𝑤 ∗ 𝑕2 2 = 0.5 ∗ 10 ∗ 2.22 =24.2KN/m
2
5.5.2 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF DOWNSTREAM RETAINING WALL

Summation of earth pressure force = 𝑃1 + 𝑃2 ∗ 𝑃3 + 𝑃4
=3.47985+9.5832+9.5832+24.2=46.8463KN/m
Stabilizing moments (Ms):
𝑇 0.5
𝑀1 = 𝑊1 ∗ 2 = 12.65* 2 =3.1625KNm/m
𝐵−𝑇 (𝐵−0.5)
𝑀2 = 𝑊2 ∗ (𝑇 + ) =37.95*(B-0.5)*(0.5+ )
3 3
2
𝑀3 = 𝑊1 ∗ (𝑇 + 𝐵 − 𝑇 ∗ =31.35*(B-0.5)*(0.5+ (B-0.5)*2/3)
3

Summation of stabilizing moments (Ms):

Ms=𝑀1 + 𝑀2 + 𝑀3
𝐵−0.5
=3.1625+37.95(B-0.5)*(0.5+ )+31.35*(B-0.5)*(0.5+ (B-0.5)*2/3)
3
Overturning moments (Mo):

1
𝑀1 = 𝑃1 ∗ (𝑕2 + 3 ∗ 𝑕1 ) =3.47985*(2.2+1/3*1.1) = 8.931615KNm/m
𝑕2
𝑀2 = 𝑃2 ∗ =9.5832*2.2/3 =7.02768KNm/m
3
𝑕2
𝑀3 = 𝑃3 ∗ =9.5832*(2.2/3) =7.02768KNm/m
3
𝑕2
𝑀4 = 𝑃4 ∗ =24.2*(2.2/3) =17.7467KNm/m
3
Summation of overturning moments (Mo):
Mo=𝑀1 + 𝑀2 + 𝑀3 + 𝑀4 =8.931615+7.02768+7.02768+17.7467 =40.7337KNm/m
Factor of safety against sliding (Fs):
µ∗resisting force
Fs = overturning force
0.65∗12.65+37.95(B−0.5) +31.35(B−0.5))
= > 1.5
46.8463
From this B is greater than 1.88m, take 2m
Now we can determine 𝑊3 and 𝑊2 from B value of 2m
𝑊2 =56.925𝐾𝑁/𝑚
𝑊3 =47.025𝐾𝑁/𝑚
Summation of resistive force (Ws)
𝑊𝑠 = 𝑊1 + 𝑊2 + 𝑊3
=12.65+56.925+47.025
=116.575KNm/m
Now check factor of safety against sliding
µ ∗resisting force
Fs=
overturning force
0.65∗116.575
= =1.62 safe
46.8463

Factor of safety against overturning (Fo):

Ms=𝑀1 + 𝑀2 + 𝑀3
𝐵−0.5
=3.1625+37.95(B-0.5)*(0.5+ )+31.35*(B-0.5)*(0.5+ (B-0.5)*2/3)
3
=3.1625+ (37.95(2-0.5)*(0.5+0.5)) + (31.35*(2-0.5)*(0.5+ (2-0.5)*2/3))= 130.625
stabilizing moment 130.625

Fo= = =3.2 safe
overturnig moment 40.7337
Check factor of safety against tension

summation of moments 89.89
𝑋= = =0.77
summation of (Ws ) 116.575
𝐵 2
Eccentricity (e) = 2 − 𝑋 , − 0.77 = 0.23
2
𝐵 2
Now compare e and = 6 = 𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 0.333 safe! Use as for left and right d/s retaining wall.
6

6 CROP WATER REQUIREMENT

Water requirement of crop is the total quantity and the way which a crop requires water from the
time it is sown until harvested time. Every crop requires a certain quantity of water after a certain
fixed interval thought out its period of growth. If the natural rain is sufficient and timely so
satisfy both this requirement no irrigation water is required for raising crops. But in the dry
period of season the crops need irrigation water requirement.
6.1 REFERENCE EVA TRANSPIRATION (ETO)

Introduction
The ETO represents the potential evaporation of well watered gross crop. To determine ETO by
using, the pen man-Montith Method from climate data on:
 Temperature
 Humidity
 Sunshine
 Wind speed
 Rain fall data Climate data collection
Temperature data
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg
max 28.7 29.5 30.6 30.3 29.2 26.3 23.9 24 25.1 26.2 27.5 27.9 27.43333
min 7.2 8.4 11.1 12.1 12.9 13.1 12.9 12.8 12.1 11.1 9 6.8 10.79167
Table 17: calculation of reference evapotranspiration (ETO)
Min Max
Month Temp Temp Humidity Wind Sun Rad ETo
°C °C % km/day Hours MJ/m²/day mm/day
January 7.2 28.7 7 53 9.6 21.1 3.39
February 8.4 29.5 7 59 9.6 22.5 3.87
March 11.1 30.6 6 74 9.1 23.1 4.48

April 12.1 30.3 6 83 9 23.4 4.81
May 12.9 29.2 7 75 8.3 22 4.54

June 13.1 26.3 9 78 7 19.7 4.26

July 12.9 23.9 11 64 4.5 16 3.59
August 12.8 24 12 58 2.5 13.2 3.22
September 12.1 25.1 10 57 6.4 19 3.72
October 11.1 26.2 9 56 5.5 16.7 3.41
November 9 27 8 52 9.6 21.3 3.45
December 6.8 27.9 8 48 9.8 20.8 3.2
Average 10.8 27.4 8 63 7.6 19.9 3.83
6.2 PROCESSING OF RAINFALL DATA

The rainfall contributes to greater or lesser extent in satisfying CWR, depending on the location.
The amounts of rainfall which can be depend upon in the probability of exceedance and
representing a dry year. The dependable rainfall (80%) is used for the design of the irrigation
system capacity. Rainfall in wet, normal and dry years: Defined of the rainfall 20,50 and 80%
probability of exceedance representing a wet , normal and dry year with respectively.
6.3 EFFECTIVE RAINFALL

Defined as that part of the rainfall which is effectively used by the crop after rainfall losses due
to surface run off and deep percolation have been accounted .An estimate the respective rainfall
can be obtained by computing probability from rainfall records. The different steps are involved
 Tabulate yearly rainfall totals for given period

 Arranged data in descending order of magnitude
 Interpolate the given data required
Fa=100*m/ (N+1)
N=number of records
M=rank number
Fa=plotting position

Table 18: processing of rainfall record data
Rank Rain Fa
Year 1338.7 fall(descending) Ra.no
1961 1291.4 32 2036 1 2.380952
1962 1512.2 15 1945.8 2 4.761905
1963 1777 4 1844.7 3 7.142857
1964 1068.7 42 1777 4 9.52381
1965 1557.7 12 1682.9 5 11.90476
1966 1485.2 19 1671.4 6 14.28571
1967 1609.9 9 1627.7 7 16.66667
1968 1627.7 7 1614.6 8 19.04762
1969 1682.9 5 1609.9 9 21.42857
1970 1844.7 3 1564.3 10 23.80952
1971 1453.9 23 1557.7 11 26.19048
1972 2036 1 1557.7 12 28.57143
1973 1945.8 2 1545.2 13 30.95238
1974 1671.4 6 1540 14 33.33333
1975 1467.8 22 1512.2 15 35.71429
1976 1545.2 13 1500.5 16 38.09524
1977 1297.3 31 1495.5 17 40.47619
1978 1280 33 1494.6 18 42.85714
1979 1118.2 40 1485.2 19 45.2381
1980 1396.9 26 1481.7 20 47.61905
1981 1309.9 29 1468.6 21 50
1982 1257.2 34 1467.8 22 52.38095
1983 1216.7 35 1453.9 23 54.7619
1984 1494.6 18 1422.5 24 57.14286
1985 1214.3 36 1413.7 25 59.52381
1986 1152.7 39 1396.9 26 61.90476
1987 1305.5 30 1364.9 27 64.28571
1988 1614.6 8 1338.7 28 66.66667
1989 1422.5 24 1309.9 29 69.04762
1990 1557.7 11 1305.5 30 71.42857
1991 1413.7 25 1297.3 31 73.80952
1992 1564.3 10 1291.4 32 76.19048
1993 1085.3 41 1280 33 78.57143
1994 1185.2 38 1257.2 34 80.95238
1995 1364.9 27 1216.7 35 83.33333
1996 1207.4 37 1214.3 36 85.71429
1997 1500.5 16 1207.4 37 88.09524

1998 1468.6 21 1185.2 38 90.47619

1999 1540 14 1152.7 39 92.85714
2000 1481.7 20 1118.2 40 95.2381
2001 1495.5 17 1085.3 41 97.61905
2002 1338.7 28 1068.7 42 100
Interpolation of wet, normal and dry rainfall estimation

Fa Elevation
P20 1612.308
P50 1468.6
P80 1266.314
Table 19:Processing of dry rainfall data
month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pidry(80%) 3.06 2.39 8.9 26.7 95.5 207.30 422.6 389.2 201.4 94.1 20.2 3.5
Pidray=Piav*Pdry/Pave, Pdry= P80=1266.314
Pave= 122.9481mm
Pidray=monthly rainfall dry year for month i
Piav=average monthly rainfall for month i
Pave= average yearly rainfall
Pdry =yearly rainfall at 80% probability of exceedance
Table 20: average effective rainfall
Total
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct nov dec
RF(mm) 2.6 1.6 6.8 21.2 75.6 166.9 371.2 344.9 173.8 81.6 17.1 2.8 1266.1
EF.Rf(mm) 2.6 1.6 6.7 20.7 66.5 122.3 162.1 159.5 125.5 70.9 16.6 2.8 757.6
Crop Water:-Crop water requirements, schemes water supply and irrigation schedules
Essential information collected from the field should include
1. Crop and crop variety
2. First and last planting date
3. Indicative yield level
4. Indicative irrigation practices:
5. Crop characteristics’

Figure 11: crop irrigation schedule
6.4 SOIL DATA CALCULATION

Information from the soil surveys carried out area show two distinct soil categories:
 Red Sandy Loams,
 Red Loamy and
 Red Sandy, covering 23% of the command area, relatively shallow and free-
draining, particularly suitable for upland crops;
 Black Clay Soils, covering 77%, deep but poorly drained, suitable mainly for paddy
and deep rooting crops like cotton.
Therefore our soil data is known as sandy Clay Soils; we selected Black clay soil in the above
category.
The Soil module is essentially data input, requiring the following general soil data:
 Total Available Water (TAW)
 Maximum infiltration rate
 Maximum rooting depth
 Initial soil moisture depletion

6.5 IRRIGATION SCHEDULING

To determine the irrigation water supply for a given crop in terms of frequency and irrigation
depth, assuring optimal crop growth and efficient water use.
An important element is the irrigation scheduling, which has several application possibilities:
to develop indicative irrigation schedules: for agricultural service to establish improved
rotational delivery.
 To evaluate existing irrigation practices on water use efficiency and water stress
condition.;
 To evaluate crop production under rain conditions, to assess feasibility of
supplementary irrigation and to develop appropriate irrigation schedules.
 To develop alternative water delivery schedules under restricted water supply
conditions.

Figure 12: crop irrigation schedule
The flow of the maximum demand requirement discharge is 2.8l/s/ha

7 M AIN CANAL
The main canal conveys water from the source to the secondary canals. The main canal runs
almost along the contour line for a total length of 1768m from a capacity of 0.5m3/sec. It is
unlined canal depending up on geological condition. And also a trapezoidal unlined canal to
avoid risks that comes from the river edge and to minimize seepage loss, this increases efficiency
of canal.
Design canal
The main canal is designed starting from the diversion head work to supply the secondary and
tertiary canal. Hence to avoid scarcity of water especially during supplement condition, it is
designed for max expected base flow including loss through the canal.
By using manning’s formula.

 Area =(b+1.5Y)*Y
 wetted perimeter(P) =𝑏 + 2𝑌 ∗ 1 + 𝑚2 = b+3.6Y
 hydraulic radius(R) =A/p
 canal depth (Y) = d+ free board
2 1
𝐴∗𝑅 3 ∗𝑆 2
 Then the canal discharge (Q), 𝑄= 𝑛
Where b is width of canal & y is depth of canal

n= manning coefficient
S = Slope of the canal and
m = is the side slope of the canal which is 1.5
The full supply discharge of the canal =maximum demand water requirement *command area *
three workers daily
2.81L/s/ha*52.89ha*3= 0.5m3/sec
The design discharge (Q) = 0.5m3/sec
Side slope of the canal (m) = 1.5
Bed slope of canal (S) = 0.001
Roughness coefficient (n) =0.035

2 1
𝐴∗𝑅 3 ∗𝑆 2
𝑄= 𝑛
(0.5*0.035)/ (0.001) ^0.5= (b+1.5Y)*Y*((b+1.5Y)*Y/ (b+3.6Y)) ^ (2/3)

0.55339859 = (b+1.5Y)*Y*((b+1.5Y)*Y/ (b+3.6Y)) ^ (2/3)
Assume the bottom width of the canal is 1m
b=1m, by trial and error, Y= 0.6m
Therefore, the canal has a width of 1m and the canal flow depth would be (Y+ freeboard) this is
0.6m+0.3m= 0.9m.
Sectional view main canal
7.1 SECONDARY CANAL

Secondary canal is constructed to distributes or convey water from the main canal to the
command irrigable area. Generally primary canals distribute water from the source to the
secondary canals which in turn supply the tertiary canals. The water then passes to the field
canals and so to crops. In Engule irrigation project we have three secondary canals, which is
secondary canal one, secondary canal two and secondary canal three. The command area in the
canal, two and three one is 14.7ha, 19.5ha and 18.69ha respectively.
The full supply discharge of the canal =maximum demand water requirement *command area *
8 working hours per day.
Secondary canal 1

Q1=2.81L/s/ha*15.7ha*3= 132.351L/S=0.132m3s
 Side slope of the canal (m) = 1
 Bed slope of canal (S) = 0.0005
 Roughness coefficient (n) =0.035
2 1
𝐴 ∗ 𝑅3 ∗ 𝑆 2
𝑄=
𝑛
(0.132*0.035)/ (0.0005) ^0.5= (b+Y)*Y*((b+Y)*Y/ (b+2.828Y)) ^ (2/3) Assume the bottom

width of the canal is 0.4m
b=0.4m, by trial and error, Y= 0.34m=0.4m and freeboard, d=0.4m+0.2m=0.6m.
d=0.6m
Q2=2.81L/s/ha*19.5ha*3= 164.385L/S=0.163m3s
Side slope of the canal (m) = 1
2 1
𝐴 ∗ 𝑅3 ∗ 𝑆 2
=
𝑛
(0.163*0.035)/ (0.0005) ^0.5= (b+Y)*Y*((b+Y)*Y/ (b+2.828Y)) ^ (2/3))
0.26m3/s= (b+Y)*Y*((b+Y)*Y/ (b+2.828Y)) ^ (2/3))

Assume the bottom width of the canal is 0.4
b=0.4m, by trial and error, Y= 0.42m=0.4 and freeboard, d=0.4m+0.3m=0.7m

Q3=2.81L/s/ha*18.69ha*3= 157.5567L/S=0.16m3s
Side slope of the canal (m) = 1
2 1
A ∗ R3 ∗ S 2
Q=
n
(0.157*0.035)/ (0.0005) ^0.5= (b+Y)*Y*((b+Y)*Y/ (b+2.82Y)) ^ (2/3
0.26m3/s= (b+1.5Y)*Y*((b+1.5Y)*Y/ (b+2.828Y)) ^ (2/3))
Assume the bottom width of the canal is 0.4m
b=0.4m, by trial and error, Y= 0.42m=0.5m and freeboard, d=0.5m+0.3m=0.8m
d=0.8m
b= 0.4m

7.2 CULVERT DESIGN

Culvert is closed conduit used to conveyed water from one area to another area. These structures
are elements to convey water under roads or railway lines. Our canal passes under two road
constructed line so we need two culverts. The flow water through the culverts calculated in must
drainage design work is:-
Q=µ*A*(2*g*h) ^0.5
Where Q, discharge rate (m³/s)
A, wet cross section (m²)
G, gravitational acceleration (g=9.81m/s
H, head loss (m)
µ, Coefficient
Q and having set a value for h, the wet cross section (a) can be calculated. The permitted head
loss depends upon the total available head in the canal section in which structure is located.
When this load is limited culverts and bridge is usually designed for small discharge of 0.5m3s, e
head loss is 5cm (From irrigation and drainage book).
Design calculation for culvert
Q=µ*A*(2*g*h) ^0.5
Where Q, discharge rate (m³/s)
A, wet cross section (m²)
G, gravitational acceleration (g=9.81m/s)
H, head loss (m)
µ, Coefficient
Q=0.5m³/s discharges from the main canal
The common Coefficient value used for culverts are,µ=0.8-0.9, we have taken 0.8
A=Q/ µ *(2*(2*g*h) ^0.5g*h) ^0.5=0.5/0.8* (2*9.81*0.05) ^0.5=0.63m2
The diameter D=896mm, take D=900mm

Figure 13: pipe culvert section layout
Table 21: Bill of quantity analysis
Unit Quantity
Activity description of
head work structure
1.0 Weir body

1.1 Earth Excavation M3 28.92
1.2 hard rock excavation M3 36.14
1.3 Lean Concrete (C10) M3 14.4
1.4 Masonry M3 93.6
Sub total
2.0 Downstream apron M3
2.1 Earth Excavation M3 76.5
2.2 Hard rock excavation M3 8.5
2.3 lean concrete M3 1.85
2.4 Backfill M3 61.2
Subtotal
3.0 upstream pile
Subtotal
4.0 downstream pile
4.3 Backfill M3 2.6

Subtotal
5.0 upstream retaining wall
for both left and right
side
5.1 earth Excavation M3 20.945
5.2 Hard rock excavation M3 26.18066
5.4 Masonry M3 80.8878
Subtotal
6.0
upstream retaining wall
for both left and right
side
6.1 earth Excavation M3 23.5
6.2 Hard rock excavation M3 32
6.3 lean concrete M3 20
6.4 Masonry M3 106.8648
6.5 Backfill M3 30
subtotal
7.0 Main canal
7.1 Earth excavation M3 5728.32
7.2 masonry M3 7637.89
7.3 Back fill M3 1909.44

8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Engulie diversion irrigation project has been proposed to help the society living around the
project to be able to produce crops throughout the year. The command area is located nearby the
boundary of the river. The project is planned to irrigate 52.89ha of land. From design point of
view every parameters should be inspected carefully and the suggested parameters must be
considered based on the favours of the real site condition. The design of the Engulie diversion
irrigation project contains the hydrological analysis of the project, design of headwork structure
(weir, under sluice, gate, and retaining wall), main canal, secondary canal, crop water
requirement and the total cost estimation of the project.
The ogee type weir is selected in order to dissipate the higher energy due to higher discharge and
boulders that comes from river flow. It is structurally safe but the design analysis and
construction of ogee type is difficult as compared to broad crested weir type short crested weir
tye. In the design of weir the cut-off depth on the down steam pile is very, so were commended
the length should be less than 4.57m.
Generally, the project is proposed to construct for the purpose of irrigation by considering the
local community to reduce or eliminate the scarcity of food allowance. To attain this goal local
community should participate to make the designed project perfect and real through providing
necessary information during feasibility and reconnaissance study.

9 REFERENCE
rd
1. Design and Hydrology Principle Analysis Ender son 3 edition.
2. Flood Frequency Analysis A.Ramanchandra Rao Khaled H.Hamed
3. Engineering Hydrology K Subramanian, third edition Tata McGrawl, 2008
4. Screening of Hydrological Data, The authors, E. R. Dahmen and M. J. Hall
5. Small Scale Design of Weir Irrigation By Chalachew Abebe
6. Applied Hydrology, Ven Te Chow, DavidR.Maidment LarryW.mays
7. Water Resource Development and Management Officers FAO Sub Regional Office For East
and South Africa. By Andreas P.SVVA and Karen FRENKEN.
8. Irrigation, Waterpower & Water Resource Engineering, by Dr K.R. Arora third edition
August 2001.standared publisher distributer.
9. Irrigation Engineering and Hydraulic Structures by Santosh Kumar Garg,

10 APPENDIX
Table 22: wind speed calculation
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1992 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6
1993 0.6 0.7 0.9 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6
1994 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6
1995 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6
1996 0.5 0.6 0.7 1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5
1997 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5
1998 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4
1999 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5
2000 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3
2001 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4
2002 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
2003 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5
2004 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4
2005 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.1 1 0.9 1 1.1 1
2006 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.2 1 1 1 1.1 1
2007 1 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 1 1 1.1 1 0.9
2008 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.9 0 0 0
2009 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.4 * 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.8 1 0.9 0.9
2010 0.9 0.8 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7
Avg 0.63 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.89 0.92 0.7 0.68 0.6 0.6684 0.621 0.6
Km/day 53.2 59 73 83 75 78.1 63.9 57.7 57.3 56.415 52.42 48
Table 23: sun shine calculation

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1985 9.9 9.5 9.3 8.9 7.6 7 4.5 5.1 6.4 8.8 9.7 9.8
1986 10 9.8 9.2 9.1 9.2 5.7 5.4 4.9 6.3 9.2 10 9.7
1987 9.6 9.5 9.3 8.6 5.8 8.9 5.7 4.6 7.6 7.8 9.7 9.8
1988 9.5 8.3 9.7 9.3 8.7 6.7 2.9 3.9 5.5 8.4 10.2 10
1989 10.1 9.4 7.5 8.9 7.7 6.6 4.6 5 6.9 8.8 9.7 8
1990 9.1 9 7.6 8.4 9.2 8.1 4.9 5.8 5.6 9.3 10.1 10
1992 8.3 9.1 8.7 8.4 8.8 7.8 5.2 3.5 6.4 7 7.9 9.4
1993 9.8 8.9 8.8 8.1 7.8 6.6 4.5 5.4 5.7 7.5 9.5 9.4
1994 9.6 9.2 9.8 9.4 8.2 6 3.6 4.2 6.9 9.1 9.3 10
1995 10.2 9.3 9.6 9 7.7 7 4.5 4.4 6.8 9.6 9.6 9.2
1996 9.6 10.2 8.9 8.9 6.4 6.9 5.4 4.3 6.9 9.6 9 10
1997 9.1 10.2 8.4 8.3 7.9 6.2 5.2 5.3 8.1 7.9 9.1 10
1998 9.6 10.1 9 9.7 8.5 8.1 3.3 3.6 6.4 8.4 10.1 11
1999 9.6 10.7 10.4 9.7 8.5 7.1 4.7 5 6.5 7.4 10.4 10
2000 10.4 10.3 10.3 7.3 8.8 7.7 4.9 3.6 6.6 7.3 9.5 9.7
2001 10.3 9.8 7.9 9.5 * 5.3 4.2 3.9 7.3 8.3 9.6 9.9
2002 8.7 9.6 8.8 10 9.9 7.4 5.8 5 7 8.9 9.5 10

2003 10.3 9.3 8.8 9.8 8.5 6.5 3.8 3.5 5.5 9.5 9.6 10
2004 9.7 9.8 9.9 7.9 9.7 6.2 5.4 4.6 6.2 8.7 9 9.7
2005 9.3 10 8.8 8.6 8.7 7.1 3.8 5.1 6.2 8.8 10 10
2006 9.8 10 8.8 8.8 7.7 7 4.7 3.8 5.7 8.8 9.6 9.6
2007 9.2 8.6 9.6 8.9 8.2 6.6 3.6 4.5 5.8 8.8 9.3 10
2008 9 9.8 10.2 10.7 8 8 5.1 4.2 5.8 8.5 9.7 9.4
ave(hr) 9.59 9.58 9.1 8.98 8.25 6.97 4.59 4.49 6.4 8.53 9.56 9.8
Table 24: humidity calculation

Mont
h Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1986 49.2 44 38.2 41.8 39.6 65.5 75.5 76 75.5 64.2 54.3 54
1987 49.9 41.6 42.5 40.7 61.3 67 74.3 76 70 66.1 55.3 56
1988 51.6 51 39.2 35.8 51.5 67.8 79.6 78 72.4 65.2 57.5 51
1989 52.5 45.9 44.8 42.4 54.6 63.5 74 74 72.7 60 52.3 60
1990 55.1 54.2 49.2 41.7 46.9 56.5 75.5 78 74 59.8 54.3 52
1992 54.3 48.3 44 46.6 49.1 61.8 73.4 78 68.8 68.5 63.9 61
1993 59.5 51.5 46.3 53.1 56 68.3 74 75 72.9 67.7 60.2 52
1994 50.1 50.1 41.1 42.1 57.5 71.2 79.1 79 72.3 59.9 58.2 52
1995 46.4 43.3 42.4 40.2 51.1 66.9 75.6 78 70.2 56.5 53.5 54
1996 48.1 41 45.1 45.4 61.5 71.8 74.2 78 73.8 60.5 59.6 54
1997 48.6 43.3 44 48.7 64.6 72.6 74.4 75 68.7 67.5 62.3 58
1998 53 44.8 45.3 36.6 53.6 66.6 80.2 80 74.6 67 54.9 48
1999 53.5 34.7 33.2 38.7 57 63.7 75 75 71.9 67.6 54.2 56
2000 48 40 39.8 56.1 53.2 67.3 72.9 76 71.2 68.2 58.3 57
2001 51.4 46.2 38.8 41.5 51.8 69.3 76.2 80 72.3 66.3 58 58
2002 55.5 49.5 46.8 40 41 64.9 71 74 71.6 58.8 54.5 54
2003 49.2 45.3 41.7 36.1 38 66.6 76.5 77 74 59.8 55.2 51
2004 54.9 48.4 41.5 47.9 45.5 64.2 73.4 75 71.4 60.3 58.9 55
2005 53.1 44.4 46.7 39.9 45.6 66.4 82 79 77 67.3 53.1 42
2006 42.9 38.7 35.6 38.4 62 69.9 81.3 81 69.5 54.5 45.6 45
2007 53.2 56.7 47.4 48.4 51.7 66.8 79 79 66.1 64 58 49
2008 46.9 50.7 43.3 50.1 59.4 69.6 78.4 79 73.3 64.8 56 50
2009 34.5 43.8 42.5 39.8 42.9 55.6 66.9 181 71.6 69.6 60.5 59
2010 50.3 42.9 38.3 43.1 58.6 68.3 79.6 82 77 66 57.8 54
Avg 50.48 45.8 42.4 43.1 52.3 66.3 75.9 81.8 72.2 63.7 56.51 53
% 7.1 6 6 6 7 9 10 12 10 9 8.029 10

Table 25: rainfall data

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1961 0 0 32.5 18.6 3.9 150.4 244.4 474 189 118.2 89.6 19
1962 0.9 0 0 1 104 115.5 419.1 427 154 34 35.4 0
1963 0 4 1 62.7 120 169 552 380 143 13 52.8 15
1964 0 0 0 111 76.4 178.1 537.5 399 324 147.5 4 0
1965 5.2 0 11.5 0 12.8 60.3 464.7 191 172 95.6 54.6 1.2
1966 7.2 16.6 10.8 1.9 146 171.7 367.9 556 200 58.6 21.1 0
1967 0 0 25.8 17.3 20.3 135.2 475.7 343 191 169.4 107.1 0
1968 0 0 0 2.3 101 286.1 523.8 371 264 49.1 13 0
1969 20.4 5 19.5 15.6 89 124.3 649.5 491 194 16.7 2.3 0.6
1970 0 0 0 52.5 126 85.3 463.7 530 218 201.1 6.1 0
1971 2 0 0 18.2 60.3 405 524.9 461 206 164.7 3.2 0
1972 17.2 0 0 13.5 11.6 200.8 448.3 417 190 49.9 105.8 0
1973 0 0 0 1.6 247 258.1 471 648 252 156.8 1.4 0
1974 0 0 6.8 0 363 235.2 350.8 553 378 56.2 0.4 2.2
1975 14.5 5.5 0 7.4 8.6 217.3 558 442 254 106.6 22.7 35
1976 0 4.1 4 21.3 101 213.2 379.2 449 242 14.1 30.1 11
1977 0 0 6 0 43 230.1 643.8 257 147 197.9 15 4.8
1978 1.8 0 9.4 67.9 41.1 266.7 350 212 201 123.2 23.9 0.1
1979 9.9 0 0.1 1.3 97.1 180.2 463.4 254 163 110.3 0.1 0.2
1980 0 4.4 16.1 51.8 27.9 136.1 349.2 321 154 55.5 3.2 0
1981 0 0 0 68.5 45.3 66 636.4 383 132 57.7 8 0
1982 19.9 0 36.9 11.3 145 239.5 287.5 332 159 73 6 0
1983 0 0.3 0 0.5 27.5 124.2 335.9 458 170 126.8 14.1 0
1984 0 0 4.4 0.3 66.3 234.8 381 310 210 0 0.1 9.8
1985 3.5 0 2.9 66.3 129 186.5 446.9 385 206 64.3 4.4 0
1986 0 0.3 5.1 16.5 9.4 212.4 410.7 273 171 115.9 0 0
1987 0 0.1 0.8 8.3 198 204.5 208.1 302 124 97.2 9.3 0
1988 1.2 26.9 0 0 31.6 164.9 467.1 274 192 116.6 31 0.2
1989 0 0 7.9 9.8 123 184.9 417.9 513 291 66 0 1.2
1990 4.6 1 16.9 0.3 9.8 83.6 482.2 560 226 38.4 0 0
1991 0 0.1 8.3 24.8 97.1 173.1 557.2 368 228 100.5 0.9 0
1992 0 0 4.3 63.7 49.9 114.4 305.6 447 157 206.6 65.3 0
1993 5.5 0 12.2 27.4 106 207.8 476.5 343 252 114.9 18.9 0
1994 0 0.8 0 21.7 112 190.3 314.1 272 146 19.2 3.7 5.6
1995 0 4.1 7.2 19.2 76.5 261.4 417.5 260 106 20.5 8.4 4.7
1996 0 0.7 28 49 99.2 261.6 295.2 359 212 33.9 26.7 0

1997 0 0 19.4 29.1 238 121.7 233.5 218 180 135.5 23.4 10
1998 0 0 18.8 0.6 108 196.5 384 433 241 115.3 1.1 3
1999 9 0 0 8.1 45.7 129.9 393.6 486 196 197.3 3 0
2000 0 0 0.3 90.3 61.2 153.7 314.2 512 226 179.3 3 0
2001 0 0 1 22.7 54.8 257.3 379.6 522 143 86.7 2.5 13
2002 0 1.2 8.2 15.9 2 437.2 461.8 395 155 17.8 0.5 1
2005 0.4 2.7 52 20.4 107 214.6 445.7 285 297 109.6 22.6 0
2006 0.4 0 0.8 0.8 235 407 536.1 449 285 163.2 0.2 11
2007 7.55 1.77 26.9 25.5 99.3 455 273.5 271 280 86.9 52 0
2008 12.1 0 0 142 188 328.9 386 302 190 57.2 31.2 0
2009 1 35.5 21 47.2 158 199.4 470.3 469 117 108.1 19.9 22
2010 3 0 1.1 27.6 167 321 333.7 331 146 71.1 24.4 0
Ave 3.067 2.3973 8.91 26.7 95.6 207.31 422.68 389 201 94.12292 20.2583 3.5
Figure 14: percent rainfall profile chart for 24 hr storm

Figure 15: plan of head work structure




Weir Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Weir Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final year project on Engulie SSI Project 2014

BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page i

BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page ii

BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page iii

4.2 Selection of Weir Type and Weir Parameters........................................................................ 26

BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page iv

Figure 2: Rough Screening of the data on arithmetic graph paper .............................................. 7

Figure 3: Hydrograph discharge verses time ............................................................................ 21

Figure 4: Stage discharge curve ............................................................................................... 27

Figure 5: hydraulic jump profile .............................................................................................. 33

Figure 6: jump and tail water height curve ............................................................................... 34

Figure 7: design weir section layout ........................................................................................ 37

Figure 8: External pressure forces for weir structure ................................................................ 39

Figure 9: opening head regulator size ...................................................................................... 43

Figure 10: upstream retaining wall .......................................................................................... 45

Figure 11: crop irrigation schedule .......................................................................................... 55

Figure 12: crop irrigation schedule .......................................................................................... 57

Figure 13:pipe culvert section layout ....................................................................................... 63

Figure 14: percent rainfall profile chart for 24 hr storm ........................................................... 70

Figure 15: plan of head work structure .................................................................................... 71

Table 2: decreasing order rainfall data ....................................................................................... 7

Table 3:D_ index different peak rainfall distribution ............................................................... 12

Table 4Design rainfall arrangements: ...................................................................................... 17

Table 5: General Soil profile ................................................................................................... 18

Table 6: Direct run off computation ........................................................................................ 19

BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page v

Table 7: Peak run off rate ........................................................................................................ 19

Table 8: Peak Discharge Analysis Using Complex Hydrograph Method .................................. 20

Table 9: Flood mark method for discharge computation ......................................................... 22

Table 10: Rational Method Runoff Coefficients ...................................................................... 22

Table 12: weighted coefficient ................................................................................................ 24

Table 14: hydraulics jump calculation ..................................................................................... 33

Table 15:D/S impervious floor thickness every 1m by Bligh’s theory ...................................... 36

Table 16: Stability analysis of weir design............................................................................... 40

Table 17: calculation of reference evapotranspiration (ETO) ................................................... 51

Table 18: processing of rainfall record data ............................................................................. 53

Table 19:Processing of dry rainfall data .................................................................................. 54

Table 20: average effective rainfall ......................................................................................... 54

Table 21: Bill of quantity analysis ........................................................................................... 63

Table 22: wind speed calculation ............................................................................................. 67

Table 23: sun shine calculation ................................................................................................ 67

Table 24: humidity calculation ................................................................................................ 68

Table 25: rainfall data ............................................................................................................. 69

BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page vi

BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page vii

BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page viii

BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page 1

2.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT

2.3 SITE DESCRIPTION

Figure 1: location of project area

BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page 3

Hydrologists are interested in the frequency of occurrence of rainfall of different magnitudes,

3.2 DATA CONSISTENCY TEST

Table 1: daily heaviest rain fall data consistency test

BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page 4

13 1972 77.6 1.889862 0.012068 0.001326

BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page 5

Sum 3152.7 87.22031 1.236013 -0.01721

The relative standard =  n / y *100 = (3.348218785/64.34081633)*100=5.2%< 10%. Hence the

3.2.1 ROUGH SCREENING OF THE DATA

BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WREED Page 6

3.2.2 PLOTTING THE DATA

Table 2: decreasing order rainfall data

The relative standard =  n / y 100 = (3.348218785/64.34081633)100=5.2%< 10%. Hence the