2 - Gunji Dam Desighn Revised Print

Gunji Tepi Butie Micro Earth Dam Irrigation Project Design Report
SNNPRS, WIDB /ICSAA /AS- Consult

SOUTH NATION AND NATIONALITIES REGIONAL STATES
WATER AND IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT BUREAU
GUNJI TEPI BUTI MICRO EARTH DAM IRRIGATION PROJECT
Gimbo Wereda, Keffa Administrative Zone, SSNPRS
Final Feasibility Study and Detail Engineering Design
Volume V: Engineering Detail Design Final Report
October, 2018
Hawassa, Ethiopia
Client: Water & Irrigation Development Bureau

Irrigation Construction and Scheme Administration Agency,
Agricultural Growth Program
Telephone: 251-0462210020, 251-0462202038, 251-0462200499
Facsimile: +251-04662-20-20-37
P. O. Box 1782, Hawassa
Consultant: AS-Consultant
P.O.Box:1016
Telephone:+251-911-637919/+251-966-196050/+251-911-651090
E-mail: assefawaterconsult@gmail.com
Hawassa, SNNPRS, Ethiopia

FEASIBILITY STUDY & DETAIL DESIGN REPORT STRUCTURE
Volume I: Watershed Management
Volume II: Engineering Geology
Volume III: Soil and Land Use
Volume IV: Irrigation Agronomy
Volume V: Engineering Design
Volume V-i: Hydrology
Volume V-ii : Dam and Elements Design
Volume V-iii: Irrigation and Drainage Design
Volume VI: Socio Economy
Volume VII: Environmental Impact Assessment
Volume VIII: Financial and Economic Analysis Study

Table of contents page
1. INTRODUCTIONS ..............................................................................................................12
1.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 12
1.2 Dam site selection .......................................................................................................... 12
1.3 Dam Design Criteria........................................................................................................ 13
1.4 Review of geological studies ......................................................................................... 14
1.4.1 Geotechnical investigations ....................................................................................... 14
1.4.2 Foundation Conditions ........................................................................................... 15
1.6 Construction Materials .................................................................................................. 15
1.6.1 Impervious Materials .................................................................................................. 15
1.6.2 Granular, filter and riprap ....................................................................................... 16
1.6.3 Pervious Material .................................................................................................... 16
1.7 Dam type selection........................................................................................................... 1
2. DESIGN OF DAM ELEMENTS ............................................................................................. 2

2.1 Embankment geometry/ cross section/ zoning ..............................................................2
2.1.1 Cut off and core Materials ...........................................................................................2
2.1.2 Central core of dam ..................................................................................................... 3
2.1.3 Shell / Casing of dam.................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Embankment Free Board ................................................................................................ 4
2.2.1 General Design Criteria ................................................................................................ 4
2.2.2 Maximum water level (MWL) determination ........................................................ 4
2.2.3 Effective fetch length (Fe, km) ............................................................................... 5
2.2.4 Wind Speed (V, km/h) .............................................................................................. 6
2.2.5 Significant Wave Height and other parameters ..................................................... 6

2.3 Fixing of Dam Height/ Crest Elevation .......................................................................... 10
2.4 Crest and top width ....................................................................................................... 10
2.4.1 Top width ................................................................................................................ 10
2.4.2 Berms ........................................................................................................................11
2.4.3 Determination of crest length of the dam .............................................................11
2.5 Drainage, filter, and slope protections design ..............................................................11
2.5.1 Seepage analysis ..........................................................................................................11
2.5.2 Seepage Discharge (q).............................................................................................11
2.5.3 Filter material Design .............................................................................................. 12
2.5.4 Chimney Drain /Inclined Filter ................................................................................ 13
2.6 Slope protection............................................................................................................. 14
2.6.1 Upstream Slope protection .................................................................................... 14
2.6.2 Sizing and layer thickness. ...................................................................................... 14
2.6.3 Downstream protection ......................................................................................... 17
2.6.4 Design of Rock toe .................................................................................................. 17
2.6.5 Drainage Trench ...................................................................................................... 17
2.6.6 Seepage control through foundation .................................................................... 17
2.6.7 Special Seepage Control Measures at Contact with Steep Abutments .............. 18
3. STABILITY ANALYSIS OF DAM ........................................................................................ 20

3.1 Method of slope stability .............................................................................................. 20
3.2 Stability analysis ............................................................................................................ 20
3.2.1 Loading condition and allowable factor of safety ................................................... 20
3.2.2 Engineering Properties of Materials ...................................................................... 21

3.2.3 Stability Analysis Results ........................................................................................ 22
4. OUTLET WORKS............................................................................................................... 25
4.1 General layout and arrangement ..................................................................................25
4.1.1 Lay out of outlet conduit and related works ............................................................25
4.1.2 General Design Criteria ...........................................................................................25
4.1.3 Required Outlets Capacities & other Design Data ............................................... 26
4.1.4 Outlet position ....................................................................................................... 26
4.2 Flow regulating structures options ...............................................................................27
4.2.1 Flow regulating structures (OPTION - 1 ) ............................................................... 27
4.2.2 Upstream controlling system (OPTION - 2 ) .......................................................... 27
4.3 Design for downstream outlet. .................................................................................... 28
4.3.1 Head loss Computation ......................................................................................... 28
4.3.2 Irrigation outlet works........................................................................................... 33
4.4 Outlet conduit arrangements ....................................................................................... 34
4.4.1 Outlet conduit type................................................................................................ 34
4.4.2 Safety concerns ...................................................................................................... 35
4.4.3 Gate arrangements ................................................................................................ 36
4.4.4 Downstream Dissipating structure ....................................................................... 36
4.4.5 Selection of downstream Dissipating structure ...................................................37
4.4.6 Deign of Baffle impact basin ..................................................................................37
4.4.7 Pedestrian Bridge................................................................................................... 40
5. Design of Spillway............................................................................................................ 41
5.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 41
5.1.1 Location and Geology of the spillway site ................................................................ 41

5.1.2 Type of spillway .......................................................................................................... 41
5.1.3 Capacity determination .............................................................................................. 41
5.2 Hydraulic Design of Spillway......................................................................................... 42
5.2.1 Basic Hydraulic Design Considerations .................................................................... 42
5.2.2 Spillway Components ............................................................................................ 43
5.2.3 Discharge over the weir......................................................................................... 43
5.2.4 Approach channel .................................................................................................. 44
5.3 Control Section .............................................................................................................. 45
5.3.1 Spillway crest shape .................................................................................................. 45
5.4 Chute channel ................................................................................................................ 47
5.4.1 Water surface profile ............................................................................................. 49
5.4.2 Thickness of chute floor ......................................................................................... 51
5.4.3 Energy Dissipater (Stilling Basin) .......................................................................... 53
5.4.4 Exit Channel ............................................................................................................ 56
6. ANNEXURE ....................................................................................................................... 57
6.1 Annexure of structural design .......................................................................................57
6.2 Annexure of structural design ...................................................................................... 58
6.3 Annexure of structural design ...................................................................................... 58
6.4 APPENDICES -Hydraulic Design of outlet Work (OPTION-1 ) ...................................... 59
6.4.1 Intake and Outlet Conduit ..................................................................................... 59
6.4.2 Head loss Computation ......................................................................................... 62
1.1.1 Downstream Dissipating structure........................................................................... 64
7. References ...................................................................................................................... 68


List of figures
Figure 3-1 Steady State Seepage for Normal case (D/S slope) ...................................................23
Figure 3-2 Steady State Seepage for Normal case (U/S slope) ..................................................23
Figure 3-3 Steady state seepage with earthquake (D/S slope) ................................................. 24
Figure 3-4 Steady state seepage with earthquake (U/S slope) ................................................. 24
Figure 3-5 Sudden drawdown condition slope stability ............................................................ 24
Figure 4-1 Outlet works for Down Stream Control structures (OPTION-1 ) ............................... 27
Figure 4-2 Outlet works for Upstream controlling system (OPTION - 2 ) ................................. 28
Figure 4-3 Inverted elevation of conduit versus energy level. .................................................. 34
Figure 4-4- Problem of dam outlet with steel pipe only. ........................................................... 35
Figure 4-5- The typical isomerteric view of Baffle impact basin( USBR small dams 1987 )......37
Figure 4-6- Modified Baffle impact basin (Hydraulic Structures Design Guideline for Small
scale Irrigation Projects in Amhara, 2009) ......................................................................... 38
Figure 4-7- Designed Baffle impact basin for Gunji SSIP Dam outlet sections ......................... 39
Figure 4-8 - Designed Baffle impact basin for Gunji SSIP Dam outlet plan ............................... 40
Figure 5-1: Crest shape profile ..................................................................................................... 46
Figure 5-2:- Weir Profile................................................................................................................ 47
Figure 5-3:- Chute Section Profile ................................................................................................. 51
Figure 5-4: Proposed stilling basin .............................................................................................. 53
Figure 5-5: Type III basin characteristics ( USBR, 1987, p. 393 ) ............................................... 55

List of tables
Table 2-1:- Freeboard Computation ............................................................................................. 9

Table 2-2: Dam Crest width calculation ........................................................................................ 10
Table 2-3: Permeability of materials at Proctor condition (m/s) ............................................... 12
Table 2-4:- U/s Slope Protection calculated Values ..................................................................... 15
Table 3-1 Loading Conditions and Factors of Safety .................................................................. 21
Table 3-2:- Material Parameters to be used for Different Zones of the Gunji Dam ............... 21
Table 3-3 Loading Conditions and Factors of Safety .................................................................. 22
Table 4-1 :- Summary of head loss computation........................................................................ 30
Table 4-2 :- Summary of reservoir empting time and capacity of conduits . .......................... 31
Table 4-3 :- Summary of international standard Minimum drawdown rates criteria ...............32
Table 4-4 :- Summary of irrigation outlet work pie losses ....................................................... 33
Table 4-5:- Determination of Impact type stilling Basin Dimenstion ........................................ 39
Table 5-1: Classification of Dams ................................................................................................. 42
Table 5-2: Coordinates of downstream crest profile ................................................................. 47
Table 5-3: Coordinates of upstream crest profile....................................................................... 47
Table 5-4: Proposed chute slope ................................................................................................. 48
Table 5-5: Chute Water Surface Profile ....................................................................................... 50
Table 5-6: Uplift Due to Dynamic Force on the Chute and required floor thickness ................52
Table 5-8: Stilling Basin size determination Summary ............................................................... 54
Table 5-8:- Exit Channel size determination summary ............................................................... 56
Table 7-1:- Determination of Impact type stilling Basin Dimenstion ......................................... 66

Abbreviation and acronyms
A.m.s.l - meter above sea level
Ave -average
- Area of steel
C- Discharge coefficient
e- Eccentricity
L/s/ha -liter per second per hectare
Ka- coefficient of active earth pressure
Q- Discharge
R- Hydraulic radius
S - Average Slope
USBR- united states bureau of reclamation
μ- Friction coefficient
δ- Bending stress of flat plate of steel
γ sub-submerged unit weight of silt material

1. INTRODUCTIONS
1.1 General
During the early stages of planning and design, selection of the site and the type of dam
should be carefully considered. It is only in exceptional circumstances that only one type of
dam or appurtenant structure is suitable for a given dam site. Generally, preliminary designs
and estimates for several types of dams and appurtenant structures are required before one
can be proved the most suitable and economical. It is, therefore, important to understand
that the project is likely to be unduly expensive unless decisions regarding the site selection
and the type of dam are based upon adequate study.
1.2 Dam site selection

The selection of Dam site for constructing a dam should be governed by the following
factors.
 The site should have enough storage area
 Water tightness against seepage in the reservoir.
 Suitable foundation must be available.
 For economy, the length of the dam should be as small as possible, and for a given
height, it should store the maximum volume of water.
 A suitable site for the spillway should be available in the near vicinity.
 Dam site elevation should be higher than maximum command area elevation
 Materials required for the construction of dam should be easily available.
 The value of land and property submerged by the proposed dam should be as low as
possible.
 The dam site should be easily accessible, so that it can be economically connected to
important towns and cities.

Based on the above factors the dam site is selected in the geographic coordinate of the
position of the center of Dam axis are 192618 Easting, 821302 m Northing, and 1749 m
minimum altitude.
1.3 Dam Design Criteria

As referred from UBSBR small dam design manual, the basic principle of design is to produce
a satisfactory, functional structure at a minimum total cost. Consideration must be given to
maintenance requirements so that savings achieved in the initial cost of construction do
not result in excessive maintenance costs. To achieve minimum cost, the dam must be
designed for maximum use of the most economical materials available, including
materials excavated for its foundations and for appurtenant structures.
An earth fill dam must be safe and stable during all phases of the construction and the
operation of the reservoir. To accomplish this, the following criteria must be met:
 The embankment, foundation, abutments, and reservoir rim must be stable and must
not develop unacceptable deformations under all loading conditions brought
about by Construction of the embankment, reservoir operation, and earthquake.
 Seepage flow through the embankment, foundation, abutments, and reservoir rim
must be controlled to prevent excessive uplift pressures; piping; instability;
sloughing; removal of material by solutioning ; or erosion of material into cracks,
joints, or cavities. The amount of water lost through seepage must be controlled so
that it does not interfere with planned project functions.
 The reservoir rim must be stable under all operating conditions to prevent the
triggering of a landslide into the reservoir that could cause a large wave to
overtop the dam.
 The embankment must be safe against overtopping or encroachment of freeboard

during occurrence of the IDF (inflow design flood) by the provision of sufficient
spillway and outlet works capacity.
 Freeboard must be sufficient to prevent overtopping by waves.

Camber should be sufficient to allow for settlement of the foundation and

embankment, but not included as part of the freeboard.
The upstream slope must be protected against wave erosion, and the crest and
Downstream slope must be protected against wind and rain erosion.
1.4 Review of geological studies

1.4.1 Geotechnical investigations
The site investigations for the detailed designs were carried out:
 Geological and engineering geological mapping of the headwork site
 Subsurface investigation of the foundation using hand dug test pits and manual augers
 Assessment of possible quarry sites and borrow areas by selected geological traverses
and with the help of the local people
 Soil sampling; both from foundation and borrow areas
 Laboratory testing of the soil samples for classification and consequent determination
of geotechnical parameters for foundation and structural design
 Test pitting and Augur hole at dam site i.e. subsurface explorations at the dam site for
which about three test pits (to a maximum depth of 4m) along the proposed dam
axis.
In addition to this, manual test pits were utilized to characterize borrow areas for the
impermeable fill soil. A total of seven (7) test pits were bored within four proposed borrow
areas (1-3) located within the reservoir area of the project. The first two holes were bored in
the borrow area-1, the other three holes were bored in borrow area two and three whereas,
the last one were bored within fourth borrow area.
The locations of trial pits and trenches for the Dam and quarry area are shown on
Geotechnical report. Extensive in-situ testing and sampling were carried out. Trial pits logs
along with the details of the in-situ and laboratory testing are given in the Geotechnical and
geological report.

1.4.2 Foundation Conditions
The dam foundation at the left flank comprises thick low plasticity clay soil, accordingly this
soil will be partially removed (from 1.5-2.0 m depth) and the general foundation of the dam
has been fixed below 2m depth into the low plastic clay soil but the clay soil will be
appropriate compaction during construction stage and fixed 2 m into residual soil depending
on the geological formations.
On the right abutment on the steeply slope it is covered with weathered aphanitic basalt
and few centimeter to 2.0 m layer of clay soil in this reach the general foundation is
maintained after excavating about 2 m from the ground surface and in the stream bed to
excavate only boulder size rock fragment within 0.5 to 1.0 m depth.
1.5 Seismic hazard

According to the seismic hazard map of Ethiopia, the country has been subdivided in to five
seismic Zones as: Zone (o), Zone (1), Zone (2), Zone (3) and Zone (4), the no hazard, the low
hazard, the moderate hazard, the higher hazard and the highest hazard zones, respectively.
The project area is found within the zone (1) where seismic activities are almost low that
there is no risk in this regard on the proposed engineering structures.
1.6 Construction Materials

1.6.1 Impervious Materials
Potential borrow areas directly upstream of the dam site have been covered by the site
investigations. From the laboratory test, the soil is composed of 0.0% gravel, 18-20% sand,
48-52% silty and 30-32% clay.. The liquid limit of the fines is 52.36-59.67%, while its plastic limit
is 34.26-35.6%, and hence its plasticity index is 18.1-24.07% indicating high plasticity silts (MH)
(following the Unified Soil Classification system. Based on AASHTO Classifications Class he
group of soil classified as A-7-6, Clay soil
As per Anderson the swelling potential have been calculated for each sample and most of
samples found with low swelling potential and degree of expansion. Each sample are
evaluated based on Kempton the significance changes in the volume of clay soil during
shrinkage or swelling and found to be inactive.

At maximum compacted density, the soil possesses a permeability of about 1.88 x 10-5–
2.16x10-5cm/s which is in the impervious category. It is highly impervious, most of the soil
samples are not dispersive so that it will not have erosion problem due to seepage forces
within the dam after the construction.
1.6.2 Granular, filter and riprap
Within the vicinity of the dam site, there are no naturally occurring sources of granular
materials that could be used for filter and riprap bedding zones butt materials for rip rap are
available downstream of dam site.
1.6.3 Pervious Material
The test reveals that the material is composed of 0%- gravel, 24% sand, and 65% silty and 11%
clay. The fine portion of the soil possesses a liquid limit (LL) of 49.98%, a plastic limit (PL) of
30.65% and plasticity index (PI) of 19.03%. As per USCS, the soil falls in a clean silty sand major
soil class. By combining these data, the shell materials are classified in to silt with sand (SM)
soil group. At maximum compacted density, the soil possesses a permeability of about
3.2x10-4cm/s, which is low permeability. The materials can be ameliorating further by
blending with granular materials from upstream of reservoir area or shell materials quarry
site shown a map of locations of construction materials.

Figure: 1-1: Location Map of Construction Materials

1.7 Dam type selection

The selection of Dam site for constructing a dam should be governed by the following
factors.
 Availability of construction materials
 Topography of the site
 Foundation geology condition
 Spillway size and location
 Environmental considerations
 Earthquake zone
 Overall cost
 General considerations
 Construction simplicity
By considering different general factors listed above we have proposed Embankment fill
Dam. When the procedure leads to the selection of an earth fill dam, another decision
must be made; that is, the type of earth fill dam.
The geology study of dam materials as well as samples for canal geology shows
variations in variation in permeability of shell and core materials. Blending of shell
materials with granular materials upstream of abatement of reservoir will improve he he
conductivity of material.
Therefore, ZONED DAM type is recommended for Gunji Tepi Butie Micro Earth Dam
Irrigation project.
SNNPRS, WIDB /ICSAA /AS- Consult Page 1

2. DESIGN OF DAM ELEMENTS
2.1 Embankment geometry/ cross section/ zoning

The design of an earth dam is done on the basis of existing dams of similar characteristics
and recommendations at different guides and the design is finalized by checking the
adequacy of the selected section for the worst loading conditions.
Figure: 2-1: Sectional drawing of Zoned Embankment Fill Dam with chimney drain
The proposed earth fill dam will have a section with outer upstream slope of 1V: 3 H and
downstream slope of 1V: 2.50 H; and impervious core of slope 1V :0.5 H on both sides. The
cut off wall has 2.5- 5 m depth and slope of 1.5-1 H :1 v.
2.1.1 Cut off and core Materials
The proposed dam is an earth fill (gravel fill) dam with an impervious central core
composed of clayey/silty material from borrow areas; in the reservoir, upstream of dam
and downstream nearby areas. The fill material is lateritic clays and silts mostly belong to
MH soils as per USCD and as Clay soil as per ASHTO soil classifications. These soils are
proven with extensive research as core and cut off fill materials for earth fill dam
(H.S.Choi etal , 1994).
The core material at maximum compacted density, the soil possesses a permeability of
about 1.88 x 10-5 cm/s which is in the impervious category. Because of relatively high clay
content of about average 30-32 %, the compacted material is rather impervious and can
be used as a dam core material.

Remark -The core materials soil as classified as MH as per USCS and A-7 clay soil as per
ASHTO soil classifications .Similar soil has been used for core even at large dams like
Shumbert , Gidabao, and Koga due to economic benefit of availability at dam site and
also being at range of soils recommend for core materials at USBR as well as MOWR
small dam design standards.
2.1.2 Central core of dam
In an embankment dam, an adequate impervious zone (also known as core) must be

provided to form the impermeable barrier. A central core has the advantage of providing
higher pressure at the contact between the core and the foundation, thus, reducing the
possibility of leakage and piping. In a common type of embankment dams, a central
impervious core is flanked by much more pervious shells that support the core.
.In general, the minimum width of the core at the base or cutoff should be equal to or
greater than 25% to 50% of the height of the maximum reservoir elevations. The
maximum core width will usually be controlled by stability and availability of impervious
materials. A core top width of 3m is considered to be the minimum for construction
purposes with 0.5 H: 1V external slope. The level of core material is 0.50m higher than
maximum water level. The top of the impervious core should also be maintained
above the maximum water surface to prevent percolation through the embankment
or possible capillary siphoning over the top of the core material when the reservoir
is full. The need for filters or zoning that will prevent erosion of material out of
cracks in impervious zones should also be considered.
2.1.3 Shell / Casing of dam
This is important to impart stability and protect the core. The relatively pervious
materials as suggested by the geologist are to be used for the casing.
The shell material is used to support the central core as shoulder. Since there is no
material constraint in the area, the section dimensions are fixed with the optimum
stability slopes of the upstream and downstream of the dam. Hence, slopes of 3H: 1V for
upstream and 2.5 H : 1 V downstream faces are decided to be the stable shell section
slopes.

2.2 Embankment Free Board

2.2.1 General Design Criteria
One of the basic requirements for design of an embankment dam is to ensure safety
against overtopping caused by wind induced tides and waves by providing adequate
freeboard. Additional allowances for settlement of the foundation and embankment
(known as camber) as well as settlement due to strong ground motion should also be
considered.
 Based on the Hydrological study, USBR design standard and the topography of the
flooded area the required freeboard is computed considering the following:
 From the Reservoir Operation Simulation, the NPL = 1758.00 masl.
 From the 1 in 500 year flood routing, the M.W.L. is 1758.63 m.a.s.l
The USBR minimum recommended wind speed of 161 km/hr (100 mi/hr = 44.7 m/s) for
normal freeboard, and one half of this wind speed, which is 80 km/hr (50 mi/hr = 22.5
m/s) for the minimum freeboard.
The most widely used method for freeboard computation for embankment dams is
based on Saville's method. Using this method, both the normal freeboard and the
minimum freeboard for Gunji SSIP Dam have been computed. The step by step freeboard
computation based on Saville’s method is summarized below.
2.2.2 Maximum water level (MWL) determination
Dam height is the summation of the depth up to the normal pool level and free board.
 Height of normal pool above the lowest river bed = (NPL) - (Lower river bed)
 Where: NPL = 1758.00 masl
 Lowest river bed level = 1749.00 masl
 Height of normal pool =1758.00-1749.00 masl = 9.0 m
As shown in the flood routing the maximum water head over the spillway crest
corresponding to the 500-year return design flood is 0.64 m. Thus, the corresponding
maximum water level (MWL) is 1758.64 m.a.s.l

2.2.3 Effective fetch length (Fe, km)
In reservoirs, fetches are limited by the land surrounding the body of water. The
shorelines are irregular and an effective fetch is calculated from:
i  420
R i  cos2  i
Fe  i  420
i  420
 cos i
i  420
where
Ri = length of radial i
and αi = angle between the central radial from the dam and radial i.
For Gunji SSIP Dam, a trial and error approach has been used to select the critical position
on the dam and direction of the central radial to give the maximum effective fetch. The
radials spanning 450 on each side of the central radial used to compute the effective
fetch is illustrated in Figure 2-1. Accordingly, the fetch lengths for the normal reservoir
water level and maximum reservoir water level are found to be 0.99 km and 1.0 km,
respectively.
Figure: 2-2: Calculation of Effective Fetch

2.2.4 Wind Speed (V, km/h)
Basic wind speed corresponding to a 25 year return period for the specific site should be
used if data is available. However, there is no available instantaneous wind speed data
for the project and no Class 1 Climatologically station is available in the vicinity of the
project site. Therefore, the USBR minimum wind speed recommendation has been
adopted.
USBR recommends that normal freeboard should be based on a minimum wind speed of
100 mi/hr (161 km/h); and for the minimum freeboard the wind speed is taken as half to
two third of the full wind velocity used in calculating the normal freeboard.
For Gunji SSIP Dam , the USBR minimum recommended wind speed of 161 km/hr (100
mi/hr = 44.7 m/s) for normal freeboard; and one half of this wind speed, which is 80 km/hr
(50 mi/hr = 22.5 m/s), for the minimum freeboard have been used.
2.2.5 Significant Wave Height and other parameters
2.2.5.1 Significant wave height (Hs, m)
The significant wave height is calculated by the following relationship.
g  Hs  g  Fe 
0.47
 0.0026  
 V 
2 2
V
2.2.5.2 Wave period (Ts, s)
The wave period is calculated by the following relationship.
g  Ts  g  Fe 
0.28
 0.45   
 V 
2
V
2.2.5.3 Wave length (Ls, m)
The wave length is calculated by the following equation.
Ls  1.56  Ts2
2.2.5.4 Design wave height (H0, m)
The design wave height is calculated by the following equations.
H o  1.67  H s
For Normal Freeboard:

H 0  1.27  H s
For Minimum Freeboard:
2.2.5.5 Steepness ratio
The steepness ratio is calculated by the following equation.
H0
S
Ls
2.2.5.6 Relative run-up (R/H0)
Figure 2.2 below is used to determine the relative run-up R/H0, whose value depends on
the upstream slope of the dam.

Figure: 2-3: Graph Showing Relative Wave Run-up
2.2.5.7 Wave run-up (R, m)
The wave run-up is calculated by the following equation.
R
R  H0
H
2.2.5.8 Average depth of reservoir (D, m)
The river bed level (RBL), normal reservoir level (NWL) and maximum reservoir level
(MWL) elevations are used to calculate the average depth of reservoir. Hence, the
average depth of reservoir is:
NWL  RBL
D
At normal reservoir level: 2
MWL  RBL
D
At maximum reservoir level: 2
2.2.5.9 Wind set up (S, m)
The wind set up is calculated by the following equation.
2.2.5.10 Seich effect (allowance, m)
Considering the effects of seiche arising from strong ground acceleration, an allowance
of 1% of the dam height has been provided for Gunji SSIP Dam.
2.2.5.11Camber (Settlement Allowance, m)
An allowance of 1 to 2% of the height of the dam should be provided for settlement in the
foundation and the embankment. Besides, an allowance of about 1% of the dam height
should be provided for settlement due to strong ground motion. For Gunji SSIP Dam, a
total settlement allowance of 3% of the dam height has been provided.
Summary of the freeboard computations for Gunji SSIP Dam based on the
aforementioned method are shown below.

Table 2-1:- Freeboard Computation
Calculated Item Unit Normal Minimum

Freeboard Freeboard
Water level m 1758.00 1758.63
Effective fetch length km 0.99 1.00
Wind velocity over water surface km/h 161.00 81.00
Significant wave height m 1.11 0.54
Wave period sec 3.19 2.37
Wave length m 15.90 8.74
Design wave height m 1.86 0.69
Wave steepness ratio 0.12 0.08
Relative run-up (rough surface) 0.50 0.50
Wave run-up (R) m 0.93 0.34
Average depth of reservoir m 4.50 4.82
Wind set-up m 0.092 0.022
Free board required m 1.02 0.36
Top of dam m 1759.02 1758.99
River bed level m 1749.00 1749.00
Allowance for seich effect (1% of m 0.10 0.10

height)
Camber (settlement allowance, 3% of m 0.20 0.20
height)
Total free board required m 1.45 0.73
Top of dam, including all allowances m 1759.45 1759.36
Design top of dam m 1759.50 1759.40
Maximum dam height m 10.50 10.40

2.3 Fixing of Dam Height/ Crest Elevation

As can be seen in Table 2-1, the minimum freeboard gives the larger dam crest
requirement, hence, the design top of dam elevation is 1759.40, resulting in a maximum
dam height above the river bed level of 10.40 m.
To avoid over topping of the dam under any circumstances, one-meter high parapet wall
is provided along the upstream edge of the crest of the dam considering uncertainty as
regards wind speed and surge effect of the reservoir in case of earthquake. The parapet
wall is never considered as a part of the freeboard. Therefore he dam crest level will be
1760.4 m.a.s.l
2.4 Crest and top width

2.4.1 Top width
For dams, the top width is generally governed by services of the dam. The crest width
has no appreciable influence on the overall stability of a dam and is determined by the
minimum practicable width for construction purposes, and possible roadway
requirements.
 Depending upon the height of the dam, the minimum top width, according to
USACE, is between 7.5 and 12.0 m.
 The width of dam at crest as per BIS 8826 - 1978 "Guide lines for design of large
earth and rock fill dam" should be fixed according to the working space required
at top and the crest width should not be less than 6.0 m.
There are several empirical formulas to calculate top width
USBR formula, , units in feet
Japanese code, , units in meter
The results are summarized as below: -

Table 2-2: Dam Crest width calculation
Code Unit Dam Height Calculated Top Width
USBR m 11.40 5.33
Japanese m 11.40 7.32

By considering accessibility, cost and workability the recommended top width of the
Dam is 6m.
2.4.2 Berms
Berms on slopping face of the dam are provided considering;
 to reduce the washing of materials down slope
 to increase the slope stability of the dam,
 to ensure construction accessibility and easy for machine movement
Since the proposed dam is Micro Earth dam (11.4 m Dam height) there is no need of
provision of berms both upstream and downstream.
2.4.3 Determination of crest length of the dam
The crest length of the dam at 1760.40 m a.s.l of dam top level is found to be 11.4 m from
the AUTOCAD drawings on reservoir topographic map.
2.5 Drainage, filter, and slope protections design

2.5.1 Seepage analysis
Seepage occurs through the body of all earthen dams and also through their pervious
foundations. The amount of seepage has to be controlled in all impounding dams and the
effect of seepage (i.e. position of phreatic line) has to be controlled for all dams, in order
to avoid their failures from piping effects. The phreatic line of the seepage has been
determined with SEEP/W analysis and it has been checked for its appropriately keeping
the arrangement of joining the chimney drain, horizontal filter and rock toe. The
thickness of inclined and horizontal filters is determined based on the seepage rate
analysis result of SEEP/W analysis.
2.5.2 Seepage Discharge (q)
One of the basic requirements of design of earth dam is to ensure safety against internal
erosion, piping and development of excessive pore pressures in the dam. For the
proposed Dam inclined and horizontal filters are provided in the downstream side. At the
exit of the dam, rock toe is also provided.

In order to design the thickness of vertical filters and horizontal, seepage analyses
through the dam and dam and foundation have to be done using finite element method
(SEEP/W) as respectively.
Table 2-3: Permeability of materials at Proctor condition (m/s)
Material type Permeability (Cm/s)
Clay Core 1.88 X 10-05
Shell 3.3 x 10-6
Filter (assumed) 2.56 x 10-5
Foundation (assumed) 2.35 X 10-05
Figure: 2-4: Seepage through dam body
2.5.3 Filter material Design
Filters in embankment dams and their foundations are required to perform two basic
functions:
 Prevent erosion of soil particles from the soil they are protecting.
 Allow drainage of seepage water.
 Filters are usually specified in terms of their particle size distribution.
 Filters are required to be sufficiently fine, relative to the particle size of the soil they
are protecting (the "base soil

Horizontal blanket drainage: Cedergren (1972): gives a design method for estimating the
discharge capacity of a horizontal drain based on the equation:
 Where: -k1: permeability of drain material – m/s.
 h: vertical thickness of drain – m.
 L1: length of the drain – m
 q: discharge capacity of drain per meter width of drain – m3/s/m
The horizontal drainage filter is provided between the foundation and the dam body so
as to safely remove the seepage from chimney drain and from the foundation to the
drainage trench.
Total discharge through dam & foundation, q = 7.0*10-08 m3/s/m length (from seepage
analysis by SEEP/W software).
Permeability of filter, k = 2.56*10-5 m/s, Length of blanket filter, L = 27.8 m
Thickness of blanket filter, t, is given by:
t = .38 m
The computation gives a thickness 0.38 m but the study team decides 0.6 m thick F1
transition material, which satisfies the filter criteria between the core and shell material
zones in the D/s side of the dam.
2.5.4 Chimney Drain /Inclined Filter
A chimney drain downstream of the core zone to intercept steady-seepage flows and,
under critical conditions, localized high flows due to cracking of the core zone.
`Discharge, q=4.6518.00*10-06 m3/s/m length (from seepage analysis by SEEP/W

software). Permeability of filter, k = 2.56*10-05 m/s.
Angle of discharging face with horizontal,  = tan-1(1/0.4)

Thickness of inclined filter, t, is given by Darcy’s law:
q  kiA
Where: A = t × 1 = t; i = sin  = 0.89.
4.6518*10-06 = 2.56*10-05×0.89 × t
 t = 0.204 m
However, from construction practical considerations and to account for leakage through
cracks in core of the dam and safety of the core, it is proposed to provide a 0.6 m thick
inclined coarse filter for having factor of safety of 3.
2.6 Slope protection

2.6.1 Upstream Slope protection
The upstream slope of the earth dam is protected against the erosive actions of waves by
hand placed rock riprap. In general thickness is determined for two cases these are for
tolerable damage and zero damage in which the latter case is more conservative. The
procedure starts in determining the mean weight of the rock size for riprap then
diameter and thickness successively.
The upstream slopes of embankment dams need protection from erosion by wave action
on the reservoir. Earlier dams were often protected by hand placed rock, but modern
dams are generally protected by dumped rock fill, known as rip-rap.For earth fill dams,
the rip-rap is constructed as a separate layer and should be underlain by a filter to
prevent erosion of the earth fill through the rip-rap.
2.6.2 Sizing and layer thickness.
The sizing of rock needed for rip-rap, and the layer thickness required are determined
from the size of waves expected on the reservoir.
 Riprap Protection can be computed using Effective fetch length and maximum
fetch length.
 Step 1: for the selected material specify the specific weight (lb) and specific gravity.
Besides fix the significant wave height as well as cot (α) of the upstream slope.

 Step 2: Calculate W50, weight of the rock in the riprap where 50% is finer for
tolerable damage and zero damage
Tolerable Damage
Zero Damage
Step 3: Calculate W100 and Wmin as follows:
Step 4: Compute volume as
But rock volume =
Where Wn = weight where n% is finer and Dn = size n% is finer
Step 5: Determine D50, D100 and Dmin, using the volume calculated in Step 4 for respective
Wn.
Step 6: Calculate Riprap layer thickness T= 2xD50 for tolerable and zero damage
Table 2-4:- U/s Slope Protection calculated Values
Description Unit Value remark
Specific unit weight, γ kg/m3 2200
Significant wave height, Hs m 0.69
Specific gravity of rock, Gs 2.65
Slope angle of u/s slope, α Degree 20
Upstream slope, cot(α) 2.75
Weight of rock 50%finer, W50 kg 13.39 Tolerable damage
Weight of rock 50%finer, W50 kg 22.64 Zero damage

Description Unit Value remark
Specific unit weight, γ kg/m3 2200
Weight of rock 100%finer, W100 = 4×W50 kg 53.55 Tolerable damage
Weight of rock 100%finer, W100 = 4×W50 kg 90.57 Zero damage
Minimum Weight of rock,Wmin =W50/8 kg 1.67 Tolerable damage
Minimum Weight of rock,Wmin =W50/8 kg 2.83 Zero damage
Size of rock 50% is finer, D50 m 0.20 Tolerable damage
Size of rock 50% is finer, D50 m 0.24 Zero damage
Size of rock 100% is finer, D100 m 0.32 Tolerable damage
Size of rock 100% is finer, D100 m 0.38 Zero damage
Minimum size of rock, Dmin m 0.10 Tolerable damage
Minimum size of rock, Dmin m 0.12 Zero damage
Riprap layer thickness T =2×D50 m 0.40 Tolerable damage
Riprap layer thickness T =2×D50 m 0.48 Zero damage
Considering Zero damage case the recommended upstream slope protection values for
the proposed Dam are: -
 Minimum Diameter = 0.12m

 Maximum Diameter 0.38m
 Average diameter = 0.24m
Thickness of riprap will be 0.45 m as per table above but he MOWR guide recommends
minimum thickness of 450 mm hand picked rip rap and and 150 mm filler bedding for
wave height 1.5- 3 m. Therefore, 450 mm hand picked rip rap and and 150

2.6.3 Downstream protection
One of the cheapest, simple and effective methods of protecting the downstream from
rainfall and wind action is by planting green grass (turfs) on the slope. Therefore
downstream slope will be protected with 150 mm top soil covered with grass should be
planted for erosion protection.
2.6.4 Design of Rock toe
In order to improve the drainage in the dam body and foundation, and to minimize the
effect of tail water on d/s side of the dam, rock toe is provided.
a) Rock toe a center height of the rock toe is decided based on the back-water depth.
For this, 2 m rock toe is provided at the center of the dam (where the river flow forms
a channel). The side slope of the rock toe is 1 vertical to 1 horizontal. The internal side
slope of the rock toe is kept 1:1 and the outer face should be in line with the
downstream face of the dam.
a) Rock toe a at left and right abatements height of the rock toe is decided based on
hydraulic height of stored water and MOWR recommendation , .15 x head of water.
For this, the height ranges 1- 1.5 m rock toe is provided at. The side slope of the rock
toe is 1 vertical to 1 horizontal. The internal side slope of the rock toe is kept 1:1 and
the outer face should be in line with the downstream face of the dam.
2.6.5 Drainage Trench
To collect the seepage through horizontal filter, foundation and runoffs from d/s side of
the dam body and to discharge it away from the dam, 0.40 m thickness dry stone-
pitching (i.e. bedding on 0.20 m gravel thickness) drainage trench of depth 1.0 m with
bottom width of 0.5 m and side slope of 1:1 is provided at the d/s toe of the dam. Both
side of the drain join to the streambed slope that varies with O.G.L.
2.6.6 Seepage control through foundation
The amount of water entering the foundation is controlled by providing impervious cut
off made of clay material having similar property with core material. As shown in the
geological x-section at the dam axis, the top surface of the valley has Boulder and rock
fragment. Right and left abutments have Reddish in color, low plastic, alluvial and
residual clay soil. At both the abutments and the valley floor there will be seepage loss

through foundation for the upper layers of the weathered rocks. Hence, the provision of
positive cut off up to relatively fresh rock depth is very vital to mitigate through the dam
foundation.
From the above discussions, the cut off trench (preventive measure) at both abutments
and valley floor should be keyed with the underlying massive part of the bedrock at 2.5-
5.0 m depth. The cutoff trench is made to be found dominantly on rock foundation and
on clay soil. The rocks at the dam core foundation comprise fresh to slightly weathered
jointed basalt and hard to fresh jointed basalt.
The cutoff trench will have a center line similar centerline of the crest of the dam. The
pervious foundation will be cut off by a positive cut off trench extending to underlying
massive bedrock at central and extends left and right abutments .A minimum bottom
width of 5 meters a center and 4 meters at abatements. The central area cut off has
slope of 1.5 H : 1 V butt the cut off at bank has 2 H : 1 V . The details of longitudinal cross-
sections can bee seen at dam drawing GUNJHW 3/3 or partly a figure below.
Figure: 2-5: Seepage through dam body
2.6.7 Special Seepage Control Measures at Contact with Steep Abutments
On the abutments, the seepage through the dam travel towards the foot of the
embankment mainly through the transition/inclined filter. At times there is concentration

of seepage at the foot of the abutment if the length of such steep abutment is more. To
prevent such concentration of seepage at the foot of the abutment, the impervious
barrier of 1 m width with thickness equal to that of the horizontal filter may be put at
suitable spacing depending upon the length of steep abutment/ground. The necessity of
providing such barriers and their spacing etc. need to be decided by the site engineer
after the final cutoff trench profile is arrived at, abutments are dressed and stripping
below the seat of the dam is completed.

3. STABILITY ANALYSIS OF DAM
3.1 Method of slope stability

The slope stability analysis is undertaken using the Slope/W computer program based on
the limit equilibrium method and the Morgenstern-Price method was used to obtain the
factors of safety. This particular method has been adopted because, unlike Fellenius or
Bishop’s or Janbu’s methods, the Morgenstern-Price method satisfies both the force and
moment equilibrium conditions. Spencer’s method also satisfies both moment and force
equilibriums and gives factors of safety values very close to those obtained by the
Morgenstern-Price method.
The pore water pressures developed within the body of the dam and in the foundation
under steady state seepage has been initially estimated with the help of the SEEP/W
software. These pore pressures in terms of head have been incorporated in the slope
stability analysis. SEEP/W analysis results were earlier shown in Figure above.
3.2 Stability analysis

3.2.1 Loading condition and allowable factor of safety
The expected loading conditions and the corresponding factors of safety (FOS) that have
been used for the slope stability analyses for the Dam has been presented with Table
below
The stability analysis done based on he following loading conditions listed below.
Case I: - Upstream face
 Steady state seepage;
 Sudden drawdown;
 Steady state seepage with earth quick;
Case II: - Downstream face
 Steady state seepage;
 Steady sate seepage with earth quick and;
 Seismic Loads alpha values taken for analysis are: -
Horizontal Seismic Load: 0.3
Vertical Seismic Load: 0.25

The stability analysis should satisfy minimum factor of safety for loading conditions listed
at table below. Factors of Safety were based on MOWR-ETHIOPIA guide and USBR.
Table 3-1 Loading Conditions and Factors of Safety
Case Loading Condition Critical Slope Minimum Factor of

Safety
I Sudden drawdown U/s 1.3
II Steady State Seepage U/s 1.5
D/s 1.5
III Steady State Seepage with U/s 1.1

earthquake
D/s 1.1
The study team presented the analysis setting and material properties from geotechnical
recommendation (laboratory results) and the assumed from standard values for seep/w
and slope/w analysis.
3.2.2 Engineering Properties of Materials
Based on the recommendations of the geotechnical investigations, the material

properties used for the stability analysis of different zones of the Gunji SSIP Micro Dam
are summarized in Table 3-2 below.
Table 3-2:- Material Parameters to be used for Different Zones of the Gunji Dam
Material Material Property Average Value

Unit weight (kN/m3) 15
Cohesion (kPa) 26.5
Core
Phi (degree) 13.5
Unit weight (kN/m3) 18.0
Cohesion (kPa) 0.0
Filter
Phi (degree) 32.0
Unit weight (kN/m3 18.0
Cohesion (kPa) 18
Granular shell
Phi (degree) 19
Material Material Property Average Value


Cohesion (kPa) 0.0
Riprap
Phi (degree) 42.0
Cohesion (kPa) 0.0
Rock toe
Phi (degree) 38
Unit weight (kN/m3 15.0
Cohesion (kPa) 25
Foundation soil
Phi (degree) 10
Cohesion (kPa) 0.0
Foundation rock
Phi (degree) 42.0
3.2.3 Stability Analysis Results
The minimum required and computed factors of safety against slope failures under the
different loading conditions for Gunji dam are summarized in Table 3-3 As can be seen
from Table 3.3 the proposed dam for Gunji dam are stable under all loading conditions.
Table 3-3 Loading Conditions and Factors of Safety
Case Loading Condition Critical Minimum Factor of Remark

Slope Factor of safety from
Safety Analysis
I Sudden drawdown U/s 1.3 2.32 Ok

II Steady State Seepage U/s 1.5 3.92 Ok
D/s 1.5 2.06 Ok
III Steady State Seepage with U/s 1.1 2.54 Ok
earthquake D/s 1.1 1.77 Ok
The computed critical slip surfaces corresponding to the factors of safety summarized in
Table 3-3 are shown in Figures 3-1 to 3-6.
Based on the stability analyses results, the stable slopes for the proposed earth fill dam
under all loading conditions are upstream slope of 1V : 3 H and downstream slope of

1V:2.5 H to 1V : 2.5H with out berm. The impervious core has a slope of 0.5H : 1V on both
sides.
3.2.3.1 Steady State seepage for normal case I
: - The stability for steady (the reservoir is full and no earth quake) case should be
checked both u/s and d/s faces of the dam.
Figure 3-1 Steady State Seepage for Normal case (D/S slope)
Figure 3-2 Steady State Seepage for Normal case (U/S slope)
3.2.3.2 Steady state with seismic case-
The stability for steady with earth quake should be checked both u/s and d/s faces of the
dam.

Figure 3-3 Steady state seepage with earthquake (D/S slope)
Figure 3-4 Steady state seepage with earthquake (U/S slope)
Figure 3-5 Sudden drawdown condition slope stability
The minimum required and computed factors of safety against slope failures under the
different loading conditions for Gunji dam are summarized in Table 3-2. As can be seen
from Table 3-3, the proposed dam for Gunji is stable under all loading conditions.

4. OUTLET WORKS
4.1 General layout and arrangement

There is one outlet at the left side of the dam to feed the main canals and release water
for downstream is planed to be closed type of irrigation outlets. As optional design two
types of outlet control system are designed namely upstream and down stream control
type.
4.1.1 Lay out of outlet conduit and related works
The outlet work has been arranged after looking different alternatives to be contained in
single intake tower and or outlet conduit works for both bottom outlet and irrigation
outlet conduits. In doing this the following considerations have been observed;
 The irrigation outlet is at lower elevation than the proposed bottom outlet level,
 For the dam safety and economical construction costs it is recommended to have
single outlet with downstream controlling system ( OPTION -1 )
 and upstream controlling system ( OPTION -2 ),
4.1.2 General Design Criteria
The following main design criteria have been considered for the design of the Gunji
irrigation outlets:
 The outlets and all associated them structures should be put possibly on hard
ground, so that economy may be achieved in structures treatment.
 The energy dissipation structure should perfect and sufficient. And should be
designed for the design discharge and maximum head (when reservoir level is at
elevation of FRL).
 Excavation and concrete works should be as minimal as possible.
 The dimension of the outlet openings, have been fixed such that they could pass
the design discharge with minimum available head
 The outlets must be hydraulically and structurally safe.
The outlets bounding surfaces must be erosion resistant to withstand the high scouring
velocities.

4.1.3 Required Outlets Capacities & other Design Data
The irrigation outlet is proposed to serve as both irrigation outlet and bottom outlet
when there is a need to evacuate the reservoir for maintenance works and for
emergency drawdown of the reservoir.
CASE-I irrigation outlet demand
 Irrigation water requirement, 0.110 m3/s ( (1.1 l/s/ha *100 ha) /1000) .
 Downstream minimum water release 20% * .110 m3/s = 0.022 m3/s.
 Total irrigation outlet demand = 0.13 m3/s.
CASE-II maintenance works and for emergency drawdown of the reservoir
According to USACE, drawdown of impoundment, in the case of the need should be

lowered to about 10% of the volume in cases of maintenances, hence drawdown DD of
some 43,727.91 m3 let out in less than one and half a day. A drawdown DD mean
discharge of 90% of the volume being emptied
Volume total 437279.12 m3
Volume for DD 10% 43,727.91 m3
Empting time 12.00 hrs
Design Discharge= 1.01 m3/s
Total outlet demand @ 15% con 1.16 m3/s
Comparing the two requirements the higher one considering all requirements the outlets
have been designed for 1.16 m3/s.
4.1.4 Outlet position
The outlet should be in a position for discharging maximum irrigation water requirement,
when the reservoir water level is at the minimum operating level (MDDL).
The outlet openings invert elevation should be kept above the reservoir dead storage
level (DSL = 1751.32 masl).
On the other hand for irrigation outlets the position of the outlet should be at such a
higher elevation to cover the entire command area. Initially the command area is located
in the left side of the river. Therefore, the outlet should be located in left side with inlet
level of 1751.00 masl

4.2 Flow regulating structures options

4.2.1 Flow regulating structures (OPTION - 1 )
The off-take outlet work is going to be operated with downstream controlling gates at
different discharge requirements. The irrigation inlet is arranged at invert elevation of
1751.32 meet the 50 year return period. The outlet end is located at the downstream toe
of the dam embankment along with the left abutment. The irrigation water released
from the outlet conduit will be confined through baffled outlet energy dissipater before
entering to the main canal..
Figure 4-1 Outlet works for Down Stream Control structures (OPTION-1 )
The intake tower will be submerged is located at elevation is about 1751.32 masl which is
related to the elevation of Main canal full supply level. The intake structure is accessed
when the water level is maximum water level through left abutment. The intake
structure has 3 m height above ground level and has rectangular section of 2.0 m internal
width and length. Trash rack is provided at the opening of the structure and the top slab
is covered by slab.
4.2.2 Upstream controlling system (OPTION - 2 )
The off-take outlet work is going to be operated with upstream controlling gates at
different discharge requirements. The irrigation inlet is arranged at invert elevation of
1751.32 meet the 50 year return period. The outlet is located at the upstream toe of the
dam embankment along with the left abutment. The irrigation water released from the
outlet conduit will be confined through baffled outlet energy dissipater before entering
to the main canal.

Figure 4-2 Outlet works for Upstream controlling system (OPTION - 2 )
Above-reservoir intake structures are necessary when gate controls are located on top of
the structure; access to an internal gate control room is through the top of the structure,
or when operations such as trash raking, stop log or bulk head installation, and fish
screen cleaning are required from the structure deck.
The tower is presupposed situated at the toe of the main dam, where ground
level is about 1752.42 m.a..s.l. This level must signify that the gates will be above the
sediment accumulation level (i.e 1751.32 m.a..s.l ). Its height from bottom to entrance
floor will be 9.08 m to the dam crest. The intake tower should be founded on the
bed rock, its floor, about 1.5 m below the invert level .
NOTE - The hydraulic design and other details of option –II was done at annexure
4.3 Design for downstream outlet.

If a control gate is placed downstream from the conduit entrance, that portion above the
control gate will flow under pressure. The hydraulic design of a gated pressure conduit
follows Bernoulli’s equation.
HT = hL + hv
Where:
HT = total head needed to overcome the various head losses to produce
discharge,
hL = cumulative losses of the system, and
hv = velocity head at the valve.
4.3.1 Head loss Computation
Head losses in outlet works conduits are caused primarily by the frictional resistance
to flow along the conduit sidewalls. Additional losses result from trash rack

interferences, entrance contractions, contractions and expansions at gate installations,

bends, gate and valve constrictions, and other interferences in the conduit.
As per USBR –Small Dam Design Manual the average loss coefficients should be
assumed for computing required conduit and component sizes, and smaller loss
coefficients should be used for computing energies of flow at the outlet. The major
contributing losses of a conduit or pipe system are discussed in this section.
Friction Losses.-For flow in large pipes, the
𝑉2
𝑕 = 𝐾𝑡 + 𝐾𝑖 + 𝐾𝑓 + 𝐾𝑣 + 𝐾𝑜 ∗
2𝑔
Where:
Kt =trash rack loss coefficient (empirical) described by the following:
Kt = 1.45 - 0.45 (An /Ag) – (An /Ag)2
Where:
An = net area through the rack bars;
Ag = gross area of the trash rack; and, and,
Ki is the inlet structure loss coefficient
 1  v2
h e   2  1
C  2g
C is the discharge coefficient, C= 0.68-82 for square entrances (USBR 1987)

With a square inlet shape at the pipe entrance, the total Ki = 0.7
with a 45 degree beveled lip at the pipe entrance, the total Ki = 0.35
Kf is the pipe friction loss coefficient
2 ∗ 𝑔 ∗ 𝑛2 ∗ 𝐿
𝐾𝑓 = 4
𝑅3
Where:
n is the pipe Manning’s friction coefficient ( about 0.080 to 0.012 for steel
pipe);
L is the total length of the conduit in meters; and,
R is the hydraulic radius of the pipe
Kv valve loss coefficient
Equals about 0.15 to 0.2 for a gate valve
and 0.3 to 0.5 for a butterfly valve

Ko outlet loss coefficient kv=1

Summary of head loss computation Equation above can be simplified by expressing
the individual losses in terms of an arbitrarily chosen velocity head. The velocity head
chosen is usually that in a significant section of the system. If the various velocity heads
for the system are related to that in the downstream conduit, area (l), the
conversion for x area is found as follows:
Therefore the discharge rating of conduit can be calculated by the following formula
To analyze the downstream free flow portion of the outlet works, for both maximum
and minimum losses was determined for discharge of 1.16 m3/ s , economical pipe
diameter of .6 m , and pipe length of 69 m .
Table 4-1 :- Summary of head loss computation
Element Area of (a1/ax)2 Coeff. Maximum loss Minimum loss

consideration consideration
element symbol
coeff. (a1/ax) 2*cof. coeff. (a1/ax)2*cof.
Trash rack Ag=1 m2 0.195 Kt 1.16 0.227 0.62 0.122

An=0.64
m2
Entrance 0.283 0.997 Ke 0.50 0.498 0.40 0.399
Conduit 0.283 1.000 Kf 2.32 2.325 1.03 1.033
Gate 0.283 1.000 Kg 0.50 0.500 0.10 0.100
Kv 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000
Total loss KL 4.550 2.654
coefficient
The time of empting reservoir was calculated as follows

Table 4-2 :- Summary of reservoir empting time and capacity of conduits .
Total
Average Day of Reservoir
Elevation Head Discharge Discharge
Elevation Empty (Day)
(m3)
1758.00
1757.50 1757.75 6.13 1.66 95,093.69 0.66
1757.00 1757.25 5.63 1.59 83,248.78 0.60
1756.50 1756.75 5.13 1.52 70,143.40 0.53
1756.00 1756.25 4.63 1.45 55,777.55 0.45
1755.50 1755.75 4.13 1.37 44,433.50 0.38
1755.00 1755.25 3.63 1.28 36,111.27 0.33
1754.50 1754.75 3.13 1.19 29,092.81 0.28
1754.00 1754.25 2.63 1.09 23,378.11 0.25
1753.50 1753.75 2.13 0.98 18,404.68 0.22
1753.00 1753.25 1.63 0.86 14,172.51 0.19
Total days for reservoir empty = 3.89
The outlet size of diameter of .6 meters is sufficient to evacuate the estimate draw dawn
volume of water Q= 1.68 m3/s and also will empty water between minimum operating
level (M.D.D.L) and M.W.W.L with in 3.89 days. When we compared the time with
international standards reviewed below the size of outlet is over safe.
With maximum losses, the discharge is equal to 1.66 m3/s and 5.64 m/s velocities and at
maximum average reservoir water surface elevation 1757.5 m.a.s.l .

Table 4-3 :- Summary of international standard Minimum drawdown rates criteria
State of California (Babbit & Mraz, 1999)
For reservoirs <6.2 Mm3 : 50% of reservoir capacity in less than 7 days. For larger reservoirs
10% of reservoir depth in 7 to 10 day
French practice (Combelles 1985)
Bottom outlets should be capable of reducing load on dam by 50% in 8 days. This
approximates to a dam with a storage capacity of N x 106 m3 requiring a bottom outlet
capacity of N m3/s.
Bureau of Indian Standards (Bureau of Indian Standards 2004)
Varies with class of hazard and isk: 20–50 days for 25% lowering, 40–70 days for 50%
lowering and 80–100 days for 75% lowering. Overall requirement to drawdown the
reservoir within a period of 1 to 4 months.
US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR 1990
Drawdown to 75% height in 10–20 days. Longer for lower risk reservoirs (USBR criterion)
Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland Water (2014) -it-specific drawdown rate, minimum 0.5 m/day
USACE (2016) (US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS)
A low-level outlet conduit or drain is required for emptying or lowering the water in case
of emergency; for inspection and maintenance of the dam, reservoir, and appurtenances;
and for releasing waters to meet downstream water requirements. The outlet conduit may
be an independent pipe or it may be connected to the service spillway conduit. The low
level drain is required to have sufficient capacity to discharge 90% of the storage below the
lowest spillway crest within 14 days, assuming no inflow into the reservoir.

4.3.2 Irrigation outlet works
The outlet works must be sized to deliver the design discharge when the reservoir is at a
minimum. The available head is measured from the minimum reservoir level (dead stage
elevation) to the canal bed level.
Table 4-4 :- Summary of irrigation outlet work pie losses
Discharge 0.17 m3/s

Inlet Elevation 1751.32 K trash 1.16
Entrance Area 0.360 m2 K entrance 0.70
Exit Area 0.283 m2 1.86
Pipe Diameter 0.600 Kgate 1.20
Pipe Slope 0.00125 Kexit 1
f 0.013 2.2
Station DX Ktot Loss(kt*(v2/29) Total Loss
0 0.6 1.86 0.03 0.0324
10 10 0.6 0.41 0.01 0.0072

20 10 0.6 0.41 0.01 0.0072
30 10 0.6 0.41 0.01 0.0072
40 10 0.6 0.41 0.01 0.0072
50 10 0.6 0.41 0.01 0.0072
60 10 0.6 0.41 0.01 0.0072
69 9 0.6 2.2 0.04 0.038
0.6 6.54 0.11 0.113
The outlet capacity at outlet at head equal to outlet conduit diameter i.e .6 m has losses
of .113 m a and slope of conduit is 1/800.

1751.9
1751.8
1751.7
1751.6
1751.5
1751.4
1751.3
1751.2
1751.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Invert Elevation HGL EGL CTL
Figure 4-3 Inverted elevation of conduit versus energy level.
As per slope of conduit the outlet end has an elevation of 1751.23 m.a.s.l and canal CBL is
1751.00 m.a.s.l and hydraulic grade line far above at 1751.81 m.a.s.l. When we evaluate
water deliver capacity to the canal the result is as follows
• Downstream canal water level = 1751.32+ .6 – .113 m = 1751.81 m > 1751 m
Conclusion:
 Therefore a 0.6 m diameter steel conduit is adequate (if a higher downstream

canal level is required to command a larger irrigation area, a larger diameter will
be required)
 Therefore irrigation outlets position which base on canal CBL , 1751 M.a.s.l is much
below than energy levee , safe
4.4 Outlet conduit arrangements

4.4.1 Outlet conduit type
There is one possibility with tow options for pressurized conduit outlet. That is steel pipe
only and steel pipe encased with concrete cover. One of the major safety concerns for a
steel conduit is the potential pipe corrosion on and the joint leakage (particularly for
significant foundation settlements). For these reasons the steel pipe is quite often
protected from corrosion and leakage by a reinforced concrete encasement , which
would permit the use of a smaller pipe size that do not require inspection . Even with the
additional cost of the reinforced concrete conduit encasement (and some additional

outlet structure costs), this is probably a more economical and safe outlet works
arrangement. Therefore the outlet will be steel pipe of .4 mm thick with concrete
encasement around the pipe.
NOTE:- the structural design of concrete encased outlet SAP files are attached at
annexed soft copy documents .
4.4.2 Safety concerns
The interface between the earth embankment and conduit provides a seepage path
under the dam and a potential for piping, particularly for a smooth steel pipe that is not
encased in concrete.
Figure 4-4- Problem of dam outlet with steel pipe only.
With a concrete encasement around the pipe, collars are not necessary as long as care is
taken in placing the concrete and embankment compaction around the pipe. When the
pipe trench is excavated (bottom width equal approximately to the pipe diameter with a
width of about 2 to 2.5 times the pipe diameter at the centerline) and the loose material
is removed, the side slopes and bottom should not be smoothed prior to placement of
the concrete bed for the pipe (this will provide a longer seepage path along the concrete
-earth embankment interface). The sides of the concrete encasement should not be
formed (leave as rough excavated earth lines) , and the exposed concrete surface should
be left as rough as possible (concrete rough screeding only with no toweling ). This will
provide the longest seepage path and a good interlock between the earth and concrete.

Care must be taken to achieve good earth embankment compaction around the
concrete encased pipe. In addition, a sand filter placed around the concrete encased pipe
at the toe of the dam embankment, will assist in preventing a piping failure. Some
foundation settlement may lead to concrete cracking and minor leakage from the
concrete encased pipe. Generally the sand filter should be adequate to prevent piping,
except for embankments /outlet works with large foundation settlement.
4.4.3 Gate arrangements
The main concern at downstream outlet conduit gate type selections and arrangements
is cavitations. Cavitations over time will erode/pit the adjacent metal resulting in poor
valve seating and leakage, and in extreme cases failure of the valve.
 Butterfly valves were designed for on-off operation, and are not really suited to
control/throttle flows because of potential cavitations damage.
 Other valves such as globe valves are much better in resisting cavitations damage;
however, they are expensive, and have a large head loss for the fully open valve.
Installing two valves in series s will reduce the incidence of cavitations. An added benefit
is that the second valve acts as a backup in the event the first valve fails, ensuring that
there will be at least some level of control. The negative in this scenario is the cost of the
second valve.
Generally for reducing the flow rate (particularly for higher reservoir elevations), the
upstream valve should be throttled considerably more than the downstream valve to
reduce the incidence of cavitations. Most of the pressure drop occurs through the
upstream valve, and the downstream valve basically provides a back pressure for the
upstream valve. Another consideration is the potential water hammer and damage to
the conduit/valve during a sudden valve closure (more of a concern with higher pipe
velocities and butterfly valves).
4.4.4 Downstream Dissipating structure
There is a requirement to dissipate the supercritical flows exiting from the outlet conduit
and entering to the canal. The depths and velocities for these flows have been compared
with the downstream depths of flow due to the water levels at the start of the Main
Canal to establish if a hydraulic jump will form naturally without the need for a specific

energy dissipation structure. This has shown that this will not occur and hence there is a
need for some energy dissipation structure directly upstream of the start of the Main
Canal.
Inputs for designing dissipation structures
 Q=discharge maximum = 1.66 m3/s ( from table 4-2 when evacuating water )
 D = is the depth of flow entering the basin =. 6 m
 V = is the velocity of incoming flow
 Therefore velocity of incoming flow will be 5.89 m/s
4.4.5 Selection of downstream Dissipating structure
The options are form baffled outlet energy dissipater and settling basins. Even though
stilling basins is the most common energy dissipation structure MOWR-Ethiopia design
guide recommends baffled outlet energy dissipater for velocity of incoming less than 8
m/s. The USBR SMALL DAMS 1987 small dams 1987 recommends baffled outlet energy
dissipater effective for discharges up to about 11.3m3/s. Therefore baffled outlet energy
dissipater will considered for further design. The typical pictures of Baffle impact basin
has been described with Figure below.
Figure 4-5- The typical isomerteric view of Baffle impact basin( USBR small dams 1987 )
4.4.6 Deign of Baffle impact basin
The previous figure shows the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) impact basin.
As originally developed, this design was not intended for use as a canal structure, but
rather for discharge into channels where the natural tail water would be insufficient to

force a hydraulic jump. Turbulent mixing in the area upstream from the baffle will reduce
the energy content to a certain upper limit, regardless of the energy level of the
incoming flow and regardless of the absence e of any tail water. However, to insure that
the supercritical flow under the baffle does not pass through the structure unimpeded, a
high end sill is required. With the top of the sill level even with the bottom of the baffle,
sufficient tail water is produced in the basin to submerge the jet. Despite a significant
energy reduction in the impact basin, flow conditions over the end sill are far from ideal.
In the absence of any natural tail water outflow will occur at critical depth, with a large
boil over the sill and a plunging jet downstream. Accordingly, significant erosion
protection (e.g. – loose stone riprap over bedding gravel) is required for the discharge
channel.
For use as an outlet structure into a canal where definite tail water levels exist, the
outflow conditions c an be greatly improved by a few minor modifications to the impact
basin, as indicated in the following figure below (Hydraulic Structures Design Guideline
for Small scale Irrigation Projects in Amhara ,2009)
Figure 4-6- Modified Baffle impact basin (Hydraulic Structures Design Guideline for Small
scale Irrigation Projects in Amhara, 2009)

Parameter Value Unit
Max. Discharge 1.66 m3/s
Exit Area 0.283 m2
V 5.89
D = is the depth of flow entering the basin 0.6 m
Fr= 2.43
W/D= 4.8 From Graph
W = is the inside width of the basin 3 M
Table 4-5:- Determination of Impact type stilling Basin Dimenstion
Figure 4-7- Designed Baffle impact basin for Gunji SSIP Dam outlet sections

Figure 4-8 - Designed Baffle impact basin for Gunji SSIP Dam outlet plan
4.4.7 Pedestrian Bridge
The pedestrian bridge for Intake at Option -1, downstream control will provide to access
from the left bank of the dam to submerged intake of 10 m long and 3 m wide and in
case of option –II of 24 m long and 3 m wide will be used to access the Intake Tower
from the Dam Crest. The structural aspects of the Pedestrian Bridge are described at
structure chapter of this report below.

5. Design of Spillway
5.1 General
The spillway is used to dispose the routed flood to downstream from the dam. Spillway is
constructed as a safety measure against overtopping and the consequent damages and
failures. The safety of the dam cannot be secured only with provision of sufficient
discharging capacity of the spillway; the hydraulic design of the spillway must also be
adequate to convey and dissipate the energy associated with water flowing from M.W.L.
of the reservoir to the downstream level.
5.1.1 Location and Geology of the spillway site
Spillway is a structure which passes the flooded water from the reservoir to the
downstream valley without damaging the main dam structure. Topography and
geological condition of the area is the most decisive factors which governs the location
of the spillway. The left-side abutment has relatively steep slope than right side and the
outlet is located in the left side. Therefore, the spill way is recommended to be in the
right abutment and shall be aligned towards the natural gully in order to minimize
spillway length.
5.1.2 Type of spillway
Spillway type selection can be governed by mainly on type of dam, site condition (i.e.
topography), and flood discharge, Simplicity for construction and adaptability for
foundation. Therefore, by considering all factors listed above, un-gated chute spillway is
selected to convey maximum outflow of the routed discharge of 8.40 m³/s with a crest
length of 8.0 m.
5.1.3 Capacity determination
The Main Dam have been classified following the international accepted system
developed by Snyder [Snyder 1964], as summarized in Table 5-1. This has been used as
the basis for selecting the Spillway Design Flood (SDF).

Table 5-1: Classification of Dams
Danger Potential Failure Potential
Category Storage Heigh Failure Spillway Design

(106m3) t (m) Flood
Major: failure cannot be > 60 > 20 Considerable loss of life, PMF

tolerated. excessive damage.
Intermediate 1 - 60 10 - 30 Possible small loss of life, Most severe

damage within capacity of considered
owner. reasonable 40-60% of
PMF.
Minor <1 < 15 No loss of life or cost of 50 to 100 year storm

damage similar to cost of according to cost.
dam.
The design flood for “Major” and “Intermediate” categories of dams is given as a
percentage of the probable maximum flood (PMF). The PMF has effectively an infinite
return period and is estimated empirically.
The reservoir storage for Gunji Dam is 0.5 x 106 m3 and maximum dam height is 11 m.
Hence in terms of “danger potential”, the dam would be in Minor category. As regards
“Failure Potential” the dam, there will be minor loss of life. Therefore, considering both
economy and extent of damage the spill way design shall be in 500 year return period in
addition to the recommended freeboard. The recommended free board is also enough
for maximum flood occurs in 500 years return period in which the wave cannot occur at
the time of peak flood. The Maximum peak flood is 28.38 m3/s.
5.2 Hydraulic Design of Spillway

5.2.1 Basic Hydraulic Design Considerations
In the hydraulic design of the spillway, the following conditions shall be considered:
 Subcritical flow condition in the approach channel and low velocity.
 Critical flow condition as the water passes over the spillway weir crest (i.e. control
section).
 Supercritical flow condition in the discharge channel below the crest.

 Transitional flow at or near the terminus of the chute where the flow transitions
back to subcritical conditions.
5.2.2 Spillway Components
A spillway for embankment dams usually consists of:
 An approach channels
 Control structure
 Discharge channel/Chute section
 Energy dissipater
 Exit channel.
The design shall make sure that each of the spillway components is given a cross-section
big enough to pass the design flood discharge safely, and to suit the hydraulic needs, the
site topography and geological conditions.
5.2.3 Discharge over the weir
The control section of the spillway is designed as ogee shape weir which has good
hydraulic performance. Discharge over the weir is expressed as:
Q  CLeHe 3 / 2
Where
Q = Discharge, Le= effective length,

He = height of energy line above the crest=Hd + V2/2g,
Hd = Design head excluding the velocity head of the approach flow,
C = Discharge coefficient,
The spillway is designed for maximum routed outflow discharge of 8.43 m3/s
Design parameters
Total Crest length: 8 m
Spillway design discharge: 8.43 m3/s
Flow depth over the spillway crest, Hd=0.64 m
 Proposed weir section = Ogee shaped and C=2.1 is adapted.

5.2.4 Approach channel
An entrance channel leads the reservoir water to control section of the spillway.
The approach velocity and crest height have influence on the discharge over the crest.
 A greater approach depth with the accompanying reduction in approach velocity

results in a larger discharge coefficient.
 Thus, for selected head over the crest, a deeper approach will permit a shorter
crest length for the given discharge. Decreasing the crest length, for larger depth
of approach, will significantly increase the cost of excavation, as well as crest
height to achieve such depth of approach.
 The spillway crest was selected based on reservoir operation. Accordingly, the
depth of the Approach channel was selected.
The approach channel is proposed to be excavated with side slopes of 1:1.5 (H: V) for the
left and the right channel side. The bed level of the approach channel is excavated
horizontally until it reaches the control structure, i.e. zero bed slopes. The approach
channel has bed width 8 m with total flow depth of 0.63 m.
A=(B+1.5*Y)*Y (m2)
Where y
Flow depth = P+hd = .5+ 0.63 = 1.13 m,
hd = flow depth over weir,=.63 m
b = bottom width = 8 m and
B = Top Width of the channel = 9.70 m
Approach Velocity Va,
Q
Va   .77m / s .
A
Frictional head loss,

n 2Va 2 L
hf 
R4/3
Where,
L= length of the approach channel, 46 m
n = Manning’s roughness coefficient, 0.020
R=Hydraulic radius,
Va = velocity of Approach
0.02^ 2 * .77 2 * 46
hf   0.0101
.98 4 / 3
Hence, total energy head, ha = Va2/2g, for velocity head of ha=0.03
He= 1.13+0.03-0.0101 =1.15 m

The Froud number for the approach velocity of 0.07 m/s is:
V
Fr   .23  1,
gd
Slope Sf = (n2* V2)/R4/3 =

0.000113 = 1:8874 , take zero slope
The flow condition in the approach channel is maintained to be subcritical and horizontal
floor is provided up to the control section with zero bed slopes.
5.3 Control Section

The control section, having minimum energy and the flow from sub critical to
supercritical. To design the control section, the following are required:
5.3.1 Spillway crest shape
Vertical upstream face ogee shaped is proposed for the spillway control section as
presented in the previous discussions. The downstream profile of the ogee spillway can
be represented by the equation:
n 1
H y
x  e
n
Where (x, y) are the coordinates of the point on the crest profile with the origin at apex
crest, He is the design head including velocity head, K and n are constants depending on
the upstream face.

Figure 5-1: Crest shape profile
For a spillway having a vertical upstream face and K= 0.495 and n =1.85, the downstream
crest is given by:
x1.85  2.H e
0.85
y
For Hd = 0.63,
A down ward slope of glacis 1H: 1V is provided below tangent point of downstream
profile, the horizontal distance, X and the vertical distance, Y are found to be .70 m and
.38 m respectively
The different elements of the curve shown in Figure above are determined with the
following equations.
R2 = 0.195Hd 0.123
R1 = 0.43Hd 0.271
Xc = 0.2Hd 0.126
Yc = 0.07Hd 0.044
The downstream crest shape is computed with Equation above starting from the origin.
Smooth curve with also provided at the junction of the downstream crest shape with the
chute in order to create smooth flow entrance to the chute. The calculated coordinates
of the crest shape are shown in Table below.

Table 5-2: Coordinates of downstream crest profile
X(m) 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.69
Y(m) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.37
The upstream profile is computed by the formula
The result is summerized in the following table
Table 5-3: Coordinates of upstream crest profile
X(m) -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03 -0.17
Y(m) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08
Figure 5-2:- Weir Profile
5.4 Chute channel

The slope of the spillway was fixed based on the natural topography along the proposed
route. In all chute slopes a super critical slope is maintained to keep super critical flow
along the length of the spillway. The total width of the chute will be 8 m. accordingly
considering topography and hydraulic criteria, the chute slopes proposed are shown in
following Table.

Table 5-4: Proposed chute slope
Chain age or length Spillway bed Remark

(m) slope
25 (0 – 25m) 0.000 Approach

channel
15 (25 – 40m) 0.005 Chute channel
15 (40 – 55m) 0.200 Chute channel
15 (55– 70) 0.150 Chute channel
15 (85 – 100) 0.120 Chute channel
15 (100 – 115) 0.300 Chute channel
10 (115 – 125) Horizontal Energy

dissipater
7 (125 – 132) 0.004 Exit channel
The discharge channel of a spillway shall be designed taking the following into
consideration:
 Minimal curvatures.
 A rectangular cross-section.
 Preferably uniform cross section
 Flatter slopes for the upstream portion of the channel, if possible/ economic,
steeper slopes for the downstream portion leading to energy dissipater.
 Trajectory profile shall be designed where the slope changes from flat to steep,
to prevent separation of flow from the channel bottom.
 Detailed computation of water surface profile and free board requirements

should be considered
In the case of choosing a closed cross section (tunnel or culvert), for the discharge
channel, full-flow condition shall be avoided as far as possible. The flow surface in the
transition computed for the design discharge will be kept to calculated height, which
will prevent full flow.

5.4.1 Water surface profile
The water surface profile of the chute channel is calculated using the principles of
momentum equation. The height of chute wall should be sufficient enough to prevent
the flow from overtopping the bank. The freeboard need to be provided for the chute
channel is determined by:
Fb  0.61  0.041Vd 1 / 3
Where V and d are mean velocity (m/s) and depth (m) in the chute reach under
consideration. The analysis is carried out with spreadsheet and the result is presented in
following Table.

Table 5-5: Chute Water Surface Profile
Chain age Z S d v=q/d V2/2g H=Z+d+V2/2g R Sf Av.Sf hf He SUM h Fr. FB water TBL
no surface
25 1758.12 0.005 0.484 2.18 0.24 1758.85 0.43 0.003 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.61 1758.60 1759.22
40 1758.05 0.005 0.42 2.49 0.32 1758.78 0.38 0.005 0.00 0.06 0.00 1758.85 1.22 0.61 1758.47 1759.08
55 1756.55 0.100 0.19 5.48 1.53 1758.27 0.18 0.064 0.03 0.52 0.00 1758.79 3.99 0.61 1756.74 1757.35
70 1753.55 0.200 0.14 7.42 2.80 1756.49 0.14 0.174 0.12 1.79 0.00 1758.28 6.28 0.62 1753.69 1754.30
85 1751.30 0.150 0.15 7.14 2.60 1754.04 0.14 0.153 0.16 2.45 0.00 1756.50 5.94 0.61 1751.44 1752.06
100 1749.50 0.120 0.16 6.72 2.30 1751.95 0.15 0.126 0.14 2.09 0.00 1754.05 5.42 0.61 1749.65 1750.27
115 1745.00 0.300 0.12 8.61 3.78 1748.90 0.12 0.284 0.20 3.07 0.00 1751.97 7.86 0.62 1745.12 1745.73
132 1741.61 0.200 0.14 7.75 3.06 1744.80 0.13 0.200 0.24 4.10 0.00 1748.90 6.71 0.62 1741.74 1742.36

Figure 5-3:- Chute Section Profile
5.4.2 Thickness of chute floor
Naturally the spillway route has steep to moderate downstream slope starting from the
control point, near the abutment, till it joins the streambed. From surface observation and
nearby test pits profile, the route is covered by variably thick residual low plastic clay soil
from initial area to down slope. Below the residual soil depth, the foundation is
characterized by jointed basalt rock. At the junction area with the stream, there is top
colluvial sediment of fine (clayey silt) soil having thickness ranging from few centimetres to
1.5m, decreasing towards the stream course. Below the soil horizon the underlying basalt
rock is found. It is strong and only affected by shallow depth of physical weathering,
ultimately the massive bedrock is found below the soil and jointed rock.
From bearing point of view there will not be significant problem, however the chute floor
should be designed to over the uplift pressure resulting flowing water. A typical
requirement where there is high velocity flow is to make allowance for dynamic uplift forces,
based on the following:
V2
U  0.15 w
2g
SNNPRS, WIDB /ICSAA As Consult

51
Where
U = Uplift (kN/m2),
V = Velocity in each section of the chute (m/s),
 w = density of water (kN/m3)
The thickness of the floor required to counter balance the dynamic uplift pressure is
computed by:
U
t
G 1
Where
t = Floor thickens (m),
U is the uplift pressure in (m),
G= Specific gravity of floor material, 2.4
Table 5-6: Uplift Due to Dynamic Force on the Chute and required floor thickness
Chain age (m) v=q/d Uplift Computed Proposed Remark

floor floor
thickness thickness
0 25 2.18 0.04 0.10
(m) 0.30
(m)
25 40 2.48 0.05 0.10 0.30
40 55 5.46 0.23 0.20 0.30
55 70 7.39 0.42 0.30 0.30
70 85 7.12 0.39 0.30 0.30
85 100 6.70 0.34 0.30 0.30
100 115 8.58 0.56 0.50 0.50
115 132 7.72 0.46 0.40 0.40 Terminal
structure
The thickness of the floor is determined in such a way that it can withstand the uplift
and the scoring effect of the high velocity of the flowing water. The spillway velocity is quite

52
high; thus, the proposed lining material is Reinforced Concrete flooring. Details of the
reinforcement and concrete grade will be reported in the structural design of the dam
appurtenant structures. To minimize movement of concrete blocks and retrogression
effect cutoff walls are also provided at every 20 m throughout the chute length.
5.4.3 Energy Dissipater (Stilling Basin)
At the end of the chute channel an energy dissipater is provided to change the incoming
flow from supercritical to subcritical. The type of energy dissipater depends on Froude
number of the incoming flow. From hydraulic computation at the end of the chute the
velocity is 7.75 m/s and the corresponding flow depth is 0.14 m. The Froude number at the
end of the chute or entrance of the stilling basin is 6.71.
The sequent depth of flow is estimated by the equation:

d1
d2  ( 1  8F1  1) = 1.22 m
2
For Froude number, greater than 4.5 and flow velocity less than 18m/s; the USBR SMALL
DAMS 1987 recommends type III stilling basin which is the most effective means of energy
dissipation due to formation of true jump.
Figure 5-4: Proposed stilling basin

53
The different dimensions of the stilling basin are expressed in terms of the incoming flow
depth i.e. d1=0.14, accordingly the dimensions are shown in following table.
Table 5-7: Stilling Basin size determination Summary
Parameter/Description Value Unit
Q 8.43 m3/s
B 8.00 m
F1 6.71
d1 0.14 m
V1 7.75
d2/d1=0.5*[(1+8F12)1/2-1]
From graph, L/d2 2.57
From graph, h3/d1 1.40
From graph, h4/d1 1.80
d2 1.22 m
Length of Jump, L 3.15 m

54
Figure 5-5: Type III basin characteristics ( USBR, 1987, p. 393 )
Parameter/Description Value Unit

Chute Block Design
Chute Block Height, h1=d1 0.14 m
Chute Block Width, W1=d1 0.14 m
Chute Block Spacing, S1=d1 0.14 m
Baffle Block Height, h3=d1*factor 0.19 m
Baffle Block Width, W3=0.75*h3 0.14 m
Baffle Block Spacing, S3=0.75*h3 0.14 m
End Sill Height, h4=d1*factor 0.24 m
Length b/n chute block and baffle block = 0.98 m
0.8*d2
Thickness of Baffle block = 0.2*h3 0.04 m
Free Board, 0.1(V*1+d*2) 0.90 m
Total Depth of Stilling Basin 2.12 m
From USBR (Small Dams, Page 391 to 400) the basin type is
Type III

55
5.4.4 Exit Channel
The exit channel conveys the spillway flow from the stilling basin to the river
downstream of the dam. The exit channel shall have a mild slope preserving the
subcritical flow and preventing riverbed erosion. The proposed bed slope is So= 0.005
and side slope of 1.5:1 (H:V). The excavated rock from the chute channel excavation will
be damped in either side of the excavated channel. The calculation result is summarized
in the following table.
Table 5-8:- Exit Channel size determination summary
Parameter Value
Q (m3/sec) req. 8.430
B (m) 10.00
D (m) 0.60
Fb (m) 0.40
Side slope(1V:1H 1.5
A=(B+1.5*D)*D (m2) 6.540
P=B+D*13^.5(m) 12.1633
R 0.538
n 0.030
S 0.0050
Va=1/N*R^2/3*S^0.5 (m/sec) 1.56
Vcal= 1.29
Q (m3/sec) Cal. 10.19

56
6. ANNEXURE
6.1 Annexure of structural design

The following structural design analysis and design area attached at annexure
s/n analysis / design software attached

no of files no of sheets type
1 Stability analysis of Geo slop-7 1 .sgx

dam

57

The following structural design analysis and design area attached at annexure

S No. Name of Drawings No. of Size
Drawings
1 Irrigation System Layout 1 A3
2 Dam Plan & Section D/S Control Options-I 3 A3
3 Dam Plan & Section Upstream Control Options-I 3 A3
Inlet, Outlet , Access Bridge Plan and Sections -
4 D/S Control OPTION-II 3 A3
5 Spill Way Plan Sections 5 A3
Total 34

58
6.4 APPENDICES -Hydraulic Design of outlet Work (OPTION-1 )

Outlet works are designed to release water at specific rates. These rates are dictated by
downstream requirements. Delivery of irrigation water is usually determined from project or
farm needs and is related to the consumptive use and to the special water requirements of
the irrigation system. Irrigation outlet capacities are determined from reservoir operation
studies. It is based on a consideration of a critical period of low runoff when reservoir
storages are low and daily irrigation demands are at peak. Outlet works hydraulics design
of OPTION-2 can be referred a annexure
6.4.1 Intake and Outlet Conduit
The size of an outlet conduit for a required discharge varies according to an inverse
relationship with the available head for producing the discharge. This relationship is
expressed by the following equation:
Where:
H = total available head needed to overcome the various head losses to produce the
discharge (m),
Q = required discharge (m3/s),
C = Co-efficient of discharge for submerged orifice.
(Depending on the shape of the orifice, C is considered 0.77)

59
K= loss coefficients,
A = required area of the Inlet (m2), and
g = acceleration due to gravity 9.81(m/s2).
hf = total head lose
hf=kV2/2g
Design
Q=CA(2gh)^0.5 Discharge= 0.056 m3/s
Tower Invert
C= 0.7 Level= 1751.28 m
Pipe center
K= 0.5 Level= 1751.48 m
Gate Size 0.4 0.4 m MDDL= 1758.121 m
Discharge @ Min. Water

Gate Area 0.16 Level 0.57 m3/s

60
Max. Total Day of

Average Discharg Head Net
Elevation Head Discharg Discharge Reservoir
Elevation e Loss Head
e (m3) Empty (Day)
1758.00
1757.50 1757.75 6.27 1.24 1.54 4.73 1.08 95,093.69 1.02
1757.00 1757.25 5.77 1.19 1.41 4.36 1.04 83,248.78 0.93
1756.50 1756.75 5.27 1.14 1.29 3.98 0.99 70,143.40 0.82
1756.00 1756.25 4.77 1.08 1.17 3.60 0.94 55,777.55 0.69
1755.50 1755.75 4.27 1.03 1.05 3.22 0.89 44,433.50 0.58
1755.00 1755.25 3.77 0.96 0.92 2.85 0.84 36,111.27 0.50
1754.50 1754.75 3.27 0.90 0.80 2.47 0.78 29,092.81 0.43
1754.00 1754.25 2.77 0.83 0.68 2.09 0.72 0.38

61
Max. Total Day of

Average Discharg Head Net
Elevation Head Discharg Discharge Reservoir
Elevation e Loss Head
e (m3) Empty (Day)
23,378.11
1753.50 1753.75 2.27 0.75 0.56 1.71 0.65 18,404.68 0.33
1753.00 1753.25 1.77 0.66 0.43 1.34 0.57 14,172.51 0.29
Total days for reservoir empty = 5.96
6.4.2 Head loss Computation
6.4.2.1 Trash rack Losses
The Trash rack consists of 10mm thick by 80mm deep bars flash mounted at the inlet. Where
maximum loss is desirable it is assumed 50% of the rack area is clogged. The loss from trash
rack is computed from the equation:
 vn 2 
ht  k t  

 2 g  , and
2
a   an 
k t  1.45  0.45  n  
 ag   ag 
   
Where:
Kt= trash rack loss coefficient, an = net area through the rack bars

62
ag= gross area of the racks and supports, and, Vn = Velocity Through the net trash rack area
Entrance loss
The loss of head at the inlet of the conduit is computed from the equation:
 1  v2
h e   2  1
C  2g
Where:
v  C 2gH
C= 0.7 for square entrances (USBR SMALL DAMS 1987 1987)
Friction Losses
Based on Darcy-Weisbach equation the pipe friction loss is given by:
L V2
hf  f  
d 2g
Friction factor, f, is 0.013

63
1758.50
1758.00
1757.50
1757.00
Elevation (m)
1756.50
1756.00
1755.50
1755.00
1754.50
1754.00
1753.50
1753.00
1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60
Discharge (m3/s)
1.1.1 Downstream Dissipating structure
There is a requirement to dissipate the supercritical flows exiting from the outlet conduit
and entering to the main canal. The depths and velocities for these flows have been
compared with the downstream depths of flow due to the water levels at the start of the
Main Canal to establish if a hydraulic jump will form naturally without the need for a specific
energy dissipation structure. This has shown that this will not occur and hence there is a
need for some energy dissipation structure directly upstream of the start of the Main Canal.
The typical plan and section showing the design components of the stilling basin has been
described with Figure below.
The stilling devices used more often with outlet works than with spillways are the impact-
type stilling basins and stilling wells. The hydraulic designs of these structures are discussed
in this section.

64
Impact-ripe Stilling Basin type of energy dissipater is an effective stilling device that does
not depend on the tail water. The capacity of an impact-type stilling basin is limited by the
feasibility of the structural design to an incoming velocity of about 50 ft/s (15m/s). Such a
basin can be used with either an open chute or a closed-conduit structure. The design has
proved effective for discharges up to about 400 ft3/s (11.3m3/s); for larger discharges,
multiple basins could be placed side by side. The general dimensions for USBR type impact
type stilling basin are provided based on the graph on figure 10:14 on USBR small dams 1987
is presented as follows.
Where;
W = is the inside width of the basin
D = is the depth of flow entering the basin and is square route of the flow area
V = is the velocity of incoming flow

65
Table 6-1:- Determination of Impact type stilling Basin Dimenstion
Parameter Value Unit
V 8.59
D= 0.4 m
Fr= 4.34
W/D= 6.6 From Graph
W= 2.64 m
H = 3/4*W 1.98 m
L = 4/3*W 3.52 m
a = 1/2*W 1.32 m
b = 3/8*W 0.99 m
c = 1/2*W 1.32 m
d = 1/8*W 0.33 m
e = 1/12*W 0.22 m
t = 1/12*W 0.22 m

66
Riprap Stone Size 0.13 m
Figure: 6-1 Impact type energy dissipater

67
7. References
ARORA,KR Irrigation water power and water resources engineering
Design guide line on irrigation structures prepared by Ethiopia ministry of water resource
SANTOSH KUMAR GARG, Irrigation engineering and hydraulic structures
IDD manual
Paulo C.F.Erbisti, Design of hydraulic gates
Small Scale Irrigation Projects in Amhara Canadian International Development Agency &
Hydrosult Inc. Prepared by: Albert Engel (P.Eng. ) August, 2009
P. Novak, A.I.B. Moffet, (2007) Hydraulic Structures, Tylor and Francis, London & New
York
Lambe, T. W. and Whitman, R. V. (1969). Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New York.
Muni Budhu, (2011) Soil Mechanics and Foundation 3rd edition JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC.,
USA
Manual on Small Small Dam Design and Construction, FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper.
Koga Dam and Irrigation Project design report
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Water Resources design

guideline on irrigation structures, PART-B.
H.S.Choi etal ( 1994), Geotechnical evaluation of lateritic soils for embankment dam design ,
Journal N ew Delhi, India / XIII C IM S T F
Skempton, A W . (1944). Notes on the compressibility of clays. Q. Journal Geology Soc.,

London, Vol. C: pp. 119-135.

68
American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
Manual on Small Small Dam Design and Construction, FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 64
Study and Design of Gidabo Dam and Irrigation Project
Koga Dam and Irrigation Project design report
USACE (2002) (US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS) Engineering and design – ice
engineering. Manual 1110-2-1612.
USACE (2016) (US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS) Code of Federal Regulations,
Title 33 (7-1-16 Edition), Chapter 2, Part 220, Design Criteria for Dam and Lake
Projects. 33 CFR 220.1d.
USBR (1975) Engineering and design – low level discharge facilities for drawdown of
impoundments, Regulation No 1110-2-50
USBR (1990) Criteria and guidelines for evacuating storage reservoir and sizing low
level outlet works. ACER Technical Memorandum No. 3.
USBR (2008) Risk analysis for dam safety: a unified method for estimating probabilities of
failure of embankment dams and piping.

69

2 - Gunji Dam Desighn Revised Print

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 - Gunji Dam Desighn Revised Print

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gunji Tepi Butie Micro Earth Dam Irrigation Project Design Report

SNNPRS, WIDB /ICSAA /AS- Consult

SOUTH NATION AND NATIONALITIES REGIONAL STATES

WATER AND IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT BUREAU

GUNJI TEPI BUTI MICRO EARTH DAM IRRIGATION PROJECT

Gimbo Wereda, Keffa Administrative Zone, SSNPRS

Final Feasibility Study and Detail Engineering Design

Volume V: Engineering Detail Design Final Report

Client: Water & Irrigation Development Bureau

SNNPRS, WIDB /ICSAA /AS- Consult

FEASIBILITY STUDY & DETAIL DESIGN REPORT STRUCTURE

Volume I: Watershed Management

Volume II: Engineering Geology

Volume III: Soil and Land Use

Volume IV: Irrigation Agronomy

Volume V: Engineering Design

Volume V-i: Hydrology

Volume V-ii : Dam and Elements Design

Volume V-iii: Irrigation and Drainage Design

Volume VI: Socio Economy

Volume VII: Environmental Impact Assessment

Volume VIII: Financial and Economic Analysis Study

SNNPRS, WIDB /ICSAA /AS- Consult

Table of contents page

1.2 Dam site selection .......................................................................................................... 12

1.3 Dam Design Criteria........................................................................................................ 13

1.4 Review of geological studies ......................................................................................... 14

1.4.1 Geotechnical investigations ....................................................................................... 14

1.4.2 Foundation Conditions ........................................................................................... 15

1.6 Construction Materials .................................................................................................. 15

1.6.1 Impervious Materials .................................................................................................. 15

1.6.2 Granular, filter and riprap ....................................................................................... 16

1.6.3 Pervious Material .................................................................................................... 16

1.7 Dam type selection........................................................................................................... 1

2. DESIGN OF DAM ELEMENTS ............................................................................................. 2

2.1.1 Cut off and core Materials ...........................................................................................2

2.1.2 Central core of dam ..................................................................................................... 3

2.1.3 Shell / Casing of dam.................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Embankment Free Board ................................................................................................ 4

2.2.1 General Design Criteria ................................................................................................ 4

2.2.2 Maximum water level (MWL) determination ........................................................ 4

2.2.3 Effective fetch length (Fe, km) ............................................................................... 5

2.2.4 Wind Speed (V, km/h) .............................................................................................. 6

2.2.5 Significant Wave Height and other parameters ..................................................... 6

SNNPRS, WIDB /ICSAA /AS- Consult

2.3 Fixing of Dam Height/ Crest Elevation .......................................................................... 10

2.4 Crest and top width ....................................................................................................... 10

2.4.1 Top width ................................................................................................................ 10

2.4.2 Berms ........................................................................................................................11

2.4.3 Determination of crest length of the dam .............................................................11

2.5 Drainage, filter, and slope protections design ..............................................................11

2.5.1 Seepage analysis ..........................................................................................................11

2.5.2 Seepage Discharge (q).............................................................................................11

2.5.3 Filter material Design .............................................................................................. 12

2.5.4 Chimney Drain /Inclined Filter ................................................................................ 13

2.6 Slope protection............................................................................................................. 14

2.6.1 Upstream Slope protection .................................................................................... 14

2.6.2 Sizing and layer thickness. ...................................................................................... 14

2.6.3 Downstream protection ......................................................................................... 17

2.6.4 Design of Rock toe .................................................................................................. 17

2.6.5 Drainage Trench ...................................................................................................... 17

2.6.6 Seepage control through foundation .................................................................... 17

3. STABILITY ANALYSIS OF DAM ........................................................................................ 20