GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT

From: To:
Sri B.S.S.Srinivas YadavM.tech, The Chief Engineer(P),
Chief Engineer (FAC), Water resources department,
Central Designs Organisation, Kadapa.
Near Iron Yard, Sai Balaji Complex,
Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada- 520012.

LR NO.:CE/CDO/DIV-5/DEE13/AEE38/ANNAMAYYAPROJECT/16/2023/180/2023DT:16-l 1-2023.
Sir,
Sub: WRD-Annam ayya Project across Cheyyeru river -Permanent
restoration of Annamayya Project near Badanagadda Village in
Rajampet Manda) of Annamayya District - Report on Hydraulic
Simulation, Hydraulic design and Dam Break analysis -Observations -
Regarding.
Ref: 1 CE (P), WRD, Kadapa Lr. No. CE(P)/WRD/KDP/fS2/AEE
IANP/New Approval Dt. 09-06-2022
2 T.O. Lr. No. CE/CDO/EE l/DEE3/AEE7/
Annamayya Project/56 /2022/109 Dt: 15.06.2022
3 Note on feasibility stage Geotechnical investigations of the proposed
Dam with additional spillway across the Cheyyeru river of
Annamayya project dated 11.11.2022
4 CE (P}, WRD, Kadapa Lr. No. CE(P)/WRD/KDP/SE(D&QC)
/DW/EE(D)/ DEE4/ AEE/ANP/Dt. 14.11.2022
5 T.O. Lr. No. CE/COO/EE I/DEE3/AEE7/
Annamayya Project/56 /2022/192 Dt: 05.12.2022
6 CE {P}, WRD, Kadapa Lr. No. CE(P)/WRD/KDP/SE(D&QC)
/DW/EE(D)/ DEE4/ AEE/ Dt. 11.04.2023
7 T.O. Lr. No. CE/CDO/EE I/DEE3/AEE7/ Annamayya Project/56
/2022/54/2023 Dt: 20.04.2023
8 CE (P}, WRD, Kadapa Lr. No. CE(P)/WRD/KDP/SE(D&QC)
/DW/EE(D)/ DEE4/ AEE/ Dt. 24.05.2023
9 CE (P), WRD, Kadapa Lr. No. CE(P)/WRD/KDP/SE(D&QC)
/DW/EE(D)/ DEE4/ AEE/ Dt. 09.05.2023
10 CE (P), WRD, Kadapa Lr.No. CE(P)/WRD/K DP/SE
(D&QC)/DW/EE(D)/DEE4/AEE/ Dated 17.07.2023
11 T.O. Lr. No. CE/COO/EE l/DEE3/AEE9/ Annamayya Project/I I I
Dt: 14.08.2023
12 CE (P), WRD, Kadapa Lr.No. CE(P)/WRD/KDP/SE (D&QC)/
DW/EE(D)/DEE4/AEE Dated 12.10.2023

In the reference I 2 cited, the Chief Engineer (P), Kadapa submitted Report on Hydraulic
th

simulation, Hydraulic Design & Dam Break Analysis and drawings and requested for approval of
the General Alignment Drawing.
 The revised proposals are scrutinized in this office and certain observations made are as
follows:
(i) Generally barrage is designed for low head and only for diversion purpose where as
dam is designed for high head with storage purpose. In the present case the barrage
proposed in conjunction with gravity dam with high head of 19.60 m
(FRL: +203.600M - Crest level: +184.000M) to dispose of the total discharge
computed based on the PMF. The Hydraulic design needs detailed analysis,
considering high head of 19.60m
, . (ii) The required discharge through the barrage bays is calculated as 18,199 cumecs
considering the discharge through the existing Spillway as 5097 cumecs. The
calculations substantiating the discharge through the Spillway may be furnished duly
considering the new tail water level as + I94.520 M for the PMF of 23,296cumecs as
furnished by CWC. The same tail water level shall be considered in finalising the
hydraulic design of Barrage and existing spiHway.
(iii) As per the APERL report, the trunnion platform for the existing spillway structure the
level of spillway of radial gates i.e. + 194.200M is free from submergence for a
discharge of 1,00,000 cusecs and below when reservoir level is@ FRL condition. The
trunnion platform was not submerged for discharge of 64,000 cusecs and below under
free flow condition. The reservoir level realized is +195.770M.
Hence, it is opined that the barrage spillway bays shall be designed to pass a discharge
of 7.58 lakh cusecs (21,484 cumecs) and 64000 cusecs (1812 cumecs) through the
existing spillway to avoid submergence of spillway trunnion platform. This aspect may
be examined.
(iv) For the given cross sections of the river submitted vide reference 12th cited, the Tail
water level for the discharge of 2.85 lakh cusecs at 500m downstream of the barrage
axis is arrived in this office to + 186.83 M, whereas the TWL given for the same
discharge in APERL report is + 185.650M.
Hence, the project authorities are requested to compare the cross sections of the
river given to APERL in 2012 with the cross sections of the present survey and verify
whether any variation is there and if so, the reason for change in cross sections may be
studied. The copies of cross sections /Net level plans which were furnished to APERL
for conducting 3D model studies during 2012 may be furnished to this office.
(v) In the hydraulic design the uplift calculations and exist gradient calculations are not
furnished. The cistern length and cut-off bottom levels are to be finalized based on
uplift and exit gradient calculations.
(vi) The discharge through the barrage bays is computed using the formula furnished in
clause 4.1.2.2 of IS 11485:2014. The discharge coefficient is considered as 0.715. The
basis for considering the value as 0. 715 may be furnished. As per the clause 4.1.2.2,
the discharge coefficient varies from 0.62 to 0.81.
(vii) In the present case, a breast wall is proposed from +192.000 m to +206.650 m (14.65m
height) over the gate height of 8 m.
The top of breast wall may be kept at F.R.L+F.B.(0.300m) = +203.600+o.3=203.900M
tl

The discharge calculations are computed in this office based on formula as per the
procedure enunciated by Rangaraju. K.G in his book "Flow through Open channels" is
adopted for calculation of discharge through the Flat crested weir with breast wall.
q = Cd x A x sqrt(2g fl H) in which
fl H =(Ht-Cc a) for free flow and
fl H = (Ht - H3) for submerged flow
Where
Cc is co-efficient of contraction (the value may be taken as 0.61)
a is the gate opening
Cd is the co-efficient of discharge which is a function of a/sqrt(H 1)
H1 is the upstream water depth
H3 is the submerged depth just downstream of gate opening.

-
..
N

BACKFLOW
,.,,, ,,
_/,,,, ,, ,,
/
,,. /
Venacontracla
, / ,, , / /
,,
I

®
I

®
I

Q)
As the present case is sluice gate with breast wall, the discharge is computed as shown
in the figure based on the above formula and the discharge is worked out to 17,436
cumecs, which is lower than 18,199 cumecs. This aspect may be examined.
(viii) Observed maximum flood level and corresponding flood discharge and location of
observation shall be furnished.
(ix) General arrangement drawing duly showing the existing spillway and proposed
barrage shall be furnished. The proposal of joining the both structures ( old and new )
and left side and connection with right abutment shall be furnished.
(x) Arrangement of secondary protection i.e., C.C.blocks and launching apron with
existing spillway shall be furnished, as the downstream bed level of the spillway and
the barrage bay portion differ by 6m approximately.
(xi) The provision for additional vent in the Barrage considering inoperative condition shall
be studied and report may be furnished.
(xii) Vertical gates are proposed in the present proposals. The proposal with radial gates
with breast wall has to be examined considering operational efficiency of the radial
gate in more than that of the vertical gates.
(xiii) A copy of BID document may be furnished to this office.

I
 . th ·11 factor considered is , J.5' by the
(xiv) In the hydraulic calculation s submitted, . e s1 I E ·neering College are furnished.
Its conducted m loca ngt
agency. The laboratory resu fl ed and authenticated by APERL.
The silt factor 'r value shall be duly con irm ther reputed organisation for
. • f report from any o .
(xv) The Geotechnical mvest1ga ion . d ·ts evaluation for foundatio n
assessment of subsoil strata at Barrage locat~on an I
design comprising of the following may be furnished. .
• An index map indicating Locations of bore holes drilled bed I I at a
• Log of boreholes to a depth of about 15 to 25 m below the deepeSt eve be
spacing of one per bay in at least three rows. One row of the bore holes may
along barrage / weir axis, the second at a distance of about 15 m upstre~ of the
axis and third at a distance of about 30 - 40 m downstream of the axts. The
location of the boreholes along the axis shall be staggered with reference to those
along the upstream and downstream lines. However, these are essential whenever
presence of clay stratum is detected in the foundation. The extent, depth and
location of clay layer should be carefully assessed.
• Depth wise Sub-soil details in the bore holes drilled In-situ permeability values.
• Standard Penetration test (SPT) along with Dynamic Cone Penetration Test results.
In case of sandy strata, standard penetration test results for a depth of at Jeast 8 to
12 mat a spacing of 40 -50 m along the transverse direction (along river width)
and at a spacing of 30 m in the longitudinal direction (along the flow). For sandy
soil, grain size distribution curves from undisturbed samples obtained at 3 meter
intervals from each bore hole. Dry densities, relative densities and angle of internal
friction.
• If clayey strata are encountered, undisturbed samples of the clay layers from the
proposed foundation level up to a depth of 8 m below the foundation level for each
bay. The analyzed values of shear parameters, Design of Weirs, Barrages and
Canals void ratio, consolidation characteristics, moisture content, in situ density,
sensitivity and permeability.
• Specific recommendations of Geologist of GSI for the Stabilisation of foundations
and its methodology shall be furnished.
• Laboratory test results of disturbed and undisturbed samples which includes
• Mechanical analysis
• Atterberg limits
• Specific gravity
• In-situ density
• Tri-axial shear test under consolidated un-drained condition (CU) and
consolidated drained condition (CD)
• Rock core samples tested for density, specific gravity, uni-axial
compressive strength (UCS), Modulus of Elasticity, Poison's ratio
• Relative density of sand
• Assessment of liquefaction potential
• Site specific earthquake coefficients
 • Determination of modulus of Sub-grade
soil reactions as per IS 9214-1979.
Mo dulu s of sub grade reaction at the
proposed foundation level. If the
structure is long or if there is wide
variation in the properties of the
foundation material, the values of mod
ulus of sub grade reaction in each
unit I bloc k separated by double pier
shall be determined. Modulus of
sub-grade reaction is_ essential as it is prop
osed to design the floor as R.C.C
raft supported on elastic medium.
(xvi) In the general layout the cuto ff is proposed
as sheet pile or diaphragm wall. Feasibility
studies like bore holes along the sheet pile
s for driving sheet piles to proposed depth
otherwise, if the river bed consist of or
boulders or is made up of stiff clay may
furnished. be
(xvii) The structural designs for RCC
raft, Piers, Abutments with stability anal
furnished. ysis may be
(xviii) Settlement analysis considering
the loading conditions shall be furnished.
(xix) Possibility of identification of cavi
ty formation in Dolomite rock and detailed
dolomite formation may be obtained for study of
GSI.
(xx) The methodology for densification
of subsoil may be furnished.
(xx.i) As per the agreement, proof chec
k of designs has to be carried out by a
agency. As Annamayya project comes und third party
er the purview of Dam safety act 2021 and
considering the complexity of the proj
ect where in the barrage is proposed
conjunction with existing gravity Spillway in
, it is opined to utilize the service of CW
as third party for proof check. C

Hence, the Chief Engineer (P), Kadapa

is here with requested to furnish the
hydraulic design duly incorporating
the modifications required as per the
observations to third party agency i.e. CW above
C for proof check in the first instance and
same may be submitted to COO for taking then
necessary action.

Yours faithfully,
Sd/-16.11.2023
Chief Engineer,
Central Designs Organisation,
Vijayawada.

//t .c. f/~

Executive Engineer,
Division-V,
COO, Vijayawada.