184 907

Hydrological calculations for Bridge at Chainage 184.
907m
A)
B)
Input Data
Design Chainage
Skew Angle
Catchment Area ,A
Proposed span details
=
=
=
=
Pier /internal wall width

Abutment /External wall width
Bed level
=
=
=
184.907
0
3.000
1
0
0
1.20
346.189
Empirical Formula
Description
Dicken's
Ryve's
Value of C adopted in the present case

Catchment area (M) (Sq Km)
Discharge, Q (Cumecs)
19.000
3.000
43.311
10.000
3.000
20.801
(From Article-4 of IRC:SP:13-2004)
By Rational Method
Area of catchment, A
Length of longest stream, L
The fall in level between source and bridge site, H
Average grade-source to site (in percent)
R
=
=
=
=
=
=
50 year 24 hour point rainfall
16
cm
3.000
2.257
15
(H/L)*100
tc
=
=
=
=
=
Time of concentration
0.9 x L / (M 0.1 x S 0.2)
Where,
1.349
hr.
L in miles and M in sq miles
Areal Reduction Factor (for tc=1.349 hr and area=3 sq km)
0.85
(From Table under Para 2.1.1 of B
and Flood Wing Report No. RBF Runoff Coefficient
0.415 x (R x F)0.2
0.70
=
=
=
tc hr. ratio
1 hr. ratio
=
=
R50(24)
R50(1)
70 mm
R50(tc)
=
=
=
=
=
K x R50(1)
Design Flood Discharge ,

Q
=
=
0.560
1.000
(For Zone-3 from Figure - 4 of Bridges and

Flood Wing Report No. RBF - 16)
tc hr. ratio / 1 hr. ratio

0.56
16
cm
(For Subzone-3h from Figure - 3.7 : Krishna and Penner Basin o

Flood Wing Report No. RBF - 16)
39.2
mm
50 year rainfall intensity (mm/hr) lasting for tc hr. duration
R50(tc)/tc
29.061
mm/hr.
0.278 x C I A
16.952
m3/sec
Longitudinal Section
346.700
346.650
346.600
f(x) = - 0.00353x + 346.964
346.550
Column M
Linear (Column M)
346.500
346.450
346.400
346.350
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
D)
Average Bed Slope of River, S

Manning's Coefficient,n
=
=
0.003200
0.055
Discharge by
Dicken's formula
Ryve's formula
Rational Method
Design Discharge as per above methods
DPR Discharge
Maximum Discharge
=
=
=
=
=
=
43.311
20.801
16.952
31.201
31.201
31.201
cumecs
cumecs
cumecs
cumecs
cumecs
cumecs
HFL Calculation
Design Discharge
31.201
cumecs
(Rugosity Co- efficient,n table 5.1 of IRC:SP:13
349.000
348.500
348.000
347.500
347.000
346.500
346.000
345.500
0.000
2.000
4.000
6.000
Column D
8.000
10.000
Column E
12.000
14.000
16.000
Check: It should not be more tha

(Cl. 6.2.1, IRC:SP:13-2004)
Distance (m)
RL of Existing
GL (m)
RL of Modified
GL (m)
HFL (m)
Area, a
(sqm)
Wetted Perimeter,p
(m)
0.000
2.696
7.190
11.930
14.000
348.834
348.290
346.491
346.650
347.969
347.500
346.620
346.648
348.129
347.969
348.788
348.788
348.788
348.788
348.788
4.658
9.679
6.633
1.529
2.836
4.494
4.966
2.076
An1=
22.500
14.372
C/S area of stream ,An1 =

Average depth
(i.e davg considered with in the entire
cross section), d avg=
Wetted perimeter P =
Hydraulic Radius, (r=An1/P) =
Discharge (Q) =
Lowest Bed Level
22.500 m2
1.446 m
14.372 m
1.566 m
31.201 m3/sec
346.620 m
E)
Afflux calculations
Design Discharge
Area of C/S at bridge location
Velocity of Water V=Q/A
HFL
Bed Level
Effective Linear waterway provided (no of spans *length of each span
(i.e c/c of bearings))-(no. of piers * width of pier)-(Abutment width)
=
=
=
=
=
31.201
22.500
1.387
348.788
346.620
L provided
18.800
=
=
26.812
348.788
Average depth of flow at bridge cross section (d avg)

( i.e davg considered b/w the Extream edges of the bridge cross section)
2.599
Area before construction, An1

Average velocity prior to construction, Vn1=Q/An1
=
=
51.977
0.600
Area after construction,An1* (An1* calculated from RLs which we have considered in
between the Extream edges of the bridge cross section taken from the topo survey)
22.500
48.858
0.639
0.005
348.792
Regime width
HFL (Without Afflux)
4.8 x Q^0.5
Net C/S area of flow under bridge,

An2=(An1-(no. of piers*width of piers * depth (d avg))-(width of abutment*depth (davg))), An1
calculated as mentioned above so we have to deduct two times of abutment thickness
Average Velocity after construction, Vn2= Q/An2
Afflux due to construction (by Molesworth Formula),
h= [(Vn1^2)/17.88+0.015] [ (An1/An2)^2-1]
Design HFL
F)
i.
Scour Depth calculations

Normal scour depth
Dsm = 1.34 x (Db2/ksf)1/3
(As per article-9 of SP:13-2004)
Dsm is the normal ( mean) depth of scour below HFL in m

Db is the discharge in cumec per m width of effective waterway
ksf is the silt factor for sample of bed material
Ksf = 1.76 x (dm) 0.5
(cl.703.2.2 of IRC :78-2000)
dm is the weighted mean diameter of bed material in mm

According to Clause 703.1.1 IRC:78-2000 To provide for an adequate margin of safety, the scour for foundation shall be designed
for larger discharge over the discharge obtained (IRC:5)
Design discharge is increased in percnetage depending upon the catchment area
Actual Discharge calculated
=
31.201
Increase in design discharge for scour depth calculation
=
30%
Discharge per m width of the Linear water way Db
=
2.16
Silt factor for the bed material ksf
=
2.060
ii.
Normal scour depth, Dsm
1.758
Maximum scour depth

Clause 703.3 of IRC:78-2000
Flood without seismic combination
The maximum scour depth may be adopted as
2 x Dsm
For Box
3.517
1.27 x Dsm
For Abutments
=
2.233
Flood with seismic combination
For considering load combination of flood and seismic load together with other appropriate combinations given elsewhere
, the maximum scour depth given above may be reduced by 0.9
The maximum scour depth may be adopted as
0.9 x 1.27 x Dsm
For Abutments
=
2.010
Normal Scour level
For abutment
=
346.555
For Pier
=
345.271
H.
Check for free board

Free board is the difference between HFL and road formation level
Free board required (Cl.107.1 of IRC :5-1998)
Min FRL required for New bridge
=
=
1.750
350.542
m
km
degree
km2
20.000 m
0.000 m
m
m
m
km2
km
m
=
1.158
1.402
0.009
0.665
Mile2
Mile
Mile
and M in sq miles
e under Para 2.1.1 of Bridges

Wing Report No. RBF - 16)
- 4 of Bridges and
and Penner Basin of Bridges and
table 5.1 of IRC:SP:13-2004)
hould not be more than 1.5*next max. Discharge

IRC:SP:13-2004)
Depth, d (m)
2.168
2.140
0.659
0.819
1.446
Cumecs
Sq.m
m/sec
m
m
m
m
m
m
sq m
m/s
sq m
sq m
m/s
m
m
be designed
cumecs
(As per cl.703.1.1 of IRC:78-2000)
m
From Geotech report
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Four Laning of jalgaon-Gujarat / Maharashtra Border Section of NH-6 from Km 442.100

Km 649.000 in the state of Maharashtra to be executed as BOT (Toll) projects on DBFOT
pattern under NHDP phase IV
Annexure-1
Chaung Name
Proposed chainage
Skew Angle
Twaose chaung
519+906
0
km
Degree
(1) By Unit Hydrograph Method

Step : - 1 Determination of Physiographic Parameter
Area, A
Length of longest stream, L
Length of main stream from bridge gauging site to a point nearest to
centriod of the stream basin along stream course, Lc
Sl No
Equivalent stream slope
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
SUM
(*)
Reduced
Distance
Reduced
Length of
Starting From
Level of
Each Segment
Bridge Site
River Bed
(Li) (km)
(Point of Study)
(m)
(km)
(2)
0.00
1.599
4.068
5.359
7.529
8.448
9.197
14.221
15.695
17.012
21.479
23.105
23.965
(3)
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
400
410
420
440
460
470
(4)
1.60
2.47
1.29
2.17
0.92
0.75
5.02
1.47
1.32
4.47
1.63
0.86
23.97
Reduced level of river bed at the point of study, i.e. 280m

S
=
=
[Sum(Li x (Di-1 + Di))]/L2

7.51
Step : - 2 Determination of Synthetic (1-hr) Unitgraph Parameterrs

Time from the center of Unit rainfall duration to the peak of Unit Hydrograph
tp
=
0.583*[LLc / (S)^0.5]^(0.302)
=
2.287
say
2.30
Peak discharge of hydrograph per unit area
qp
=
1.914*[tp]^(-0.753)
=
1.027
Width of U. G. measured at 50% maximum discharge ordinate
W50
=
1.849*[qp]^(-0.976)
=
1.80
Width of U. G. measured at 75% maximum discharge ordinate
W75
=
0.955*[qp]^(-0.792)
=
0.94
Width of the rising side of U. G. measured at 50% of maximum discharge ordinate
WR50
=
0.738*[qp]^(-0.781)
=
0.72
Width of the rising side of U. G. measured at 75% of maximum discharge ordinate
WR75
=
0.438*[qp]^(-0.641)
=
0.43

Base width of Unit Hydrograph

TB
=
=
7.042*[(tp)^(0.559)]
11.18
11.00
say
Time from start of rise to the peak of unit hydrograph
Tm
=
=
Peak discharge of Unit Hydrograph
Qp
=
=
say
tp + tr/2
2.8
qp * A
57.87
58.00
Step : - 3 Drawing of Synthetic Unitgraph
Estimated parameter of Unitgraph in step-2 were plotted to scale. The plotted points were jo
The discharge ordinates of unitgraph at ti=tr=1 hr interval were summed up and compared w
runoff as calculated below
Time (in hrs)
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
6.25
1-hr Synthetic
U.G. ordinates
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
10.00
12.00
20.00
29.00
43.50
50.00
58.00
50.00
43.50
35.00
31.00
29.00
24.00
22.00
19.00
17.00
15.00
13.50
12.50
11.50
70.00
Qp
60.00
50.00
75% Qp
40.00
W75
30.00
W50
50% of
Qp
20.00
10.00
0.00
0

6.50
6.75
7.00
7.25
7.50
7.75
8.00
8.25
8.50
8.75
9.00
9.25
9.50
9.75
10.00
10.25
10.50
10.75
11.00
11.25
11.50
11.75
12.00
Sum
10.50
9.50
8.50
7.50
6.50
5.50
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.25
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00
156.38
Sum(Qi)
=
=
cumecs
(A*d)/(tr*0.36)
156.59

Since Eq-1 = Eq-2, so unitgraph drawn is in order
Step : - 4 Estimation of design storm duration
The design storm duration
TD
=
=
Say
1.1 * tp
2.53
3.00
Step : - 5 Estimation of point rainfall and areal rainfall

100-yr, 24-hr rainfall
Ratio of 3-hr rainfall to 24-hr rainfall
So, 100-yr 3-hr point rainfall
Areal reduction factor corresponding to area 56.372sq km and TD=3 hrs
So, 100-yr 3-hr areal rainfall
Step : - 6 Time distribution of Areal Rainfall and Calculation of Rainfall Excess
This 100-yr 3-hrs areal rainfall is distributed as below (from Annexure-4.3)
Duration (hrs)
Distribution
coefficient
Storm
Rainfall
(cm)
Hourly Rainfall
Increament
(cm)
1
2
3
0.77
0.93
1.00
8.60
10.39
11.17
8.60
1.79
0.78
Note: Design loss rate in this zone is recommended as 0.5 cm/hr as per part 3.6 of flood estim
Narmadha -Tapi sub zone -3b (revised)
Step : - 7 Estimation of base flow
The design base flow

Adopting a design base flow of 0.05 cumec per sq.km.recommended for this zone (from para 3
for lower Narmada and Tapi subzone-3(b)-(revised)))
Total base flow
design base flow
Qb
=
=
0.05
2.8186
cumec/sq.km
cumecs
Step : - 8 Estimation of 100-yr Flood Peak
For the estimation of the peak discharge the effective rainfall units were re-arranged aga
maximum effective rainfall was placed against the maximum U.G. ordinates, the next lower
the the next lower value of U.G. ordinates and so on as shown below:

Total
Base Flow
100-yr peak flood
U.G. Ordinates
(cumec)
1-hr
effective
rainfall
(cm)
Direct Runoff
(cumecs)
58.00
50.00
50.00
8.10
1.29
0.28
469.94
64.38
14.10
=
=
=
548.42
2.82
551.24

Annexure-1
=
=
56.37
23.80
sq km
km
10.64
=
km
Height
Above
Datum*
(Di)=Differe (Di-1 + Di) Li x (Di-1 +
nce Between
Di) (m*km)
(m)
the Datum
Line and its
R.L (m)
(5)
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
120.00
130.00
140.00
160.00
180.00
190.00
(6)
10.00
30.00
50.00
70.00
90.00
110.00
180.00
250.00
270.00
300.00
340.00
370.00
point of study, i.e. 280m
(7)
15.99
74.07
64.55
151.90
82.71
82.39
904.32
368.50
355.59
1340.10
552.84
318.20
4311.16

i x (Di-1 + Di))]/L2
m/km
ydrograph
[LLc / (S)^0.5]^(0.302)
hrs
hrs
[tp]^(-0.753)
cumecs per sq km
[qp]^(-0.976)
hrs
[qp]^(-0.792)
hrs
charge ordinate
[qp]^(-0.781)
hrs
charge ordinate
[qp]^(-0.641)
hrs

[(tp)^(0.559)]
hrs
hrs
hrs
cumecs
cumecs
. The plotted points were joined to draw synthetic unitgraph.

ummed up and compared with the volume of 1.00 cm direct
Qp
75% Qp
W75
W50
50% of
Qp
Column C
10
11
12
13

cumecs

hrs
hrs
=
=
=
24.00
0.49
11.76
=
=
0.950
11.17
cm
(From Plate-10)
(from Fig-10)
cm
(From Fig 12 (a) or 12 (b))
cm
n of Rainfall Excess
Design Loss
Rate (cm/hr)
Rainfall
Excess
(cms)
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.10
1.29
0.28
s per part 3.6 of flood estimation report lower
ed for this zone (from para 3.7 of flood estimation report
units were re-arranged against the ordinates such that the

. ordinates, the next lower value of effective rainfall against
ow:

cumecs
cumecs
cumecs

Input Data
Chaung Name
Design Chainage
Skew Angle
Catchment Area ,A
Existing/Proposed span details
Pier /internal wall width
Abutment /External wall width
A)
Empirical Formula
Description
Dicken's
Ryve's
Value of C adopted in the present case

Catchment area (M) (Sq Km)
Discharge, Q (Cumecs)
12.000
56.372
246.876
8.500
56.372
124.967
Longitudinal Section
272.500
272.000
f(x) = - 0.0032805958x + 271.909224505
271.500
271.000
270.500
Column I
270.000
Linear (Co
269.500
269.000
268.500
268.000
0
100
200
300
Average Bed Slope of River, S
400
500
600
700
800

Manning's Coefficient,n
Discharge by
SUH Method
Dicken's formula
Ryve's formula
Design Discharge
Maximum Discharge
=
=
=
=
=

D)
HFL Calculation
Design Discharge
276.000
275.000
274.000
273.000
272.000
271.000
270.000
269.000
268.000
0.000
10.000
20.000
30.000
Column D
Column E
Distance (m)
RL of Existing
GL (m)
RL of Modified
GL (m)
0.000
5.126
10.324
14.629
20.585
24.112
39.835
43.277
48.070
54.293
55.000
274.654
274.316
273.327
272.042
271.635
270.882
270.968
271.696
272.271
272.740
274.800
274.654
274.316
273.327
272.042
271.635
270.882
270.968
271.696
272.271
272.740
274.800
C/S area of stream ,An1 =

Average depth
(i.e davg considered with in the entire
cross section), d avg=
Wetted perimeter P =
Hydraulic Radius, (r=An1/P) =
Discharge (Q) =
Lowest Bed Level
E)
40.000
Afflux calculations
Design Discharge
Area of C/S at bridge location
Velocity of Water V=Q/A
118.918 m2
2.318 m
51.848 m
2.294 m
216.017 m3/sec
270.882 m
50.000
60.000

HFL
Bed Level
Effective Linear waterway provided (no of spans *length of each span
(i.e c/c of bearings))-(no. of piers * width of pier)-(Abutment width)
Regime width
HFL (Without Afflux)
4.8 x Q^0.5
Average depth of flow at bridge cross section (d avg)

( i.e davg considered b/w the Extream edges of the bridge cross section)
Area before construction, An1
Average velocity prior to construction, Vn1=Q/An1
Area after construction,An1* (An1* calculated from RLs which we have considered in
between the Extream edges of the bridge cross section taken from the topo survey)
Net C/S area of flow under bridge,
An2=(An1*-(no. of piers*width of piers * depth (d avg))-(2*width of abutment*depth
(davg))), An1* calculated as mentioned above so we have to deduct two times of
abutment thickness
Average Velocity after construction, Vn2= Q/An2
Afflux due to construction (by Molesworth Formula),
h= [(Vn1^2)/17.88+0.015] [ (An1/An2)^2-1]
Design HFL

H.
Check for free board

Free board is the difference between HFL and road formation level
Free board required (Cl.107.1 of IRC :5-1998)
Min FRL required for New bridge
I.
Recommendation
Design Discharge, Q
Design Affluxed HFL
Average Velocity, Vn2
Required vertical clearance
Minimu soffit level required
00

=
=
=
Twaose chaung
519+906 Km
0 degree
=
=
=
=
56.37 Km2
3
18.000 m
1.5 m
1.75 m
(From Article-4 of IRC:SP:13-2004)
Column I
Linear (Column I)
800
0.0033
Cum
RD (m)
0
136
253
326
433
605
717
Avg bed
level
@ C/S (m)
272.185
271.015
270.941
270.925
270.903
269.710
269.583

0.055
551.238
246.876
124.967
339.454
339.454
(Rugosity Co- efficient,n table 5.1 of IRC:SP:13-2004)
cumecs
cumecs
cumecs
cumecs
cumecs
From Annexure-1
000

339.454
50.000
HFL (m)
274.263
274.263
274.263
274.263
274.263
274.263
274.263
274.263
274.263
274.263
274.263
An1=
cumecs
60.000
Area, a
(sqm)
Wetted
Depth, d (m)
Perimeter,p (m)
2.296
6.796
14.441
10.597
52.486
10.089
10.926
10.938
0.349
118.918
5.291
4.493
5.970
3.606
15.723
3.518
4.827
6.241
2.178
51.848
0.936
2.221
2.628
3.381
3.295
2.567
1.992
1.523
=
=
=
216.017
118.918
1.817
2.318
Cumecs
Sq.m
m/sec

=
=
274.263
270.882
m
m
L provided
49.250
=
=
70.548
274.263
m
m
2.318
=
=
118.918
1.817
sq m
m/s
we have considered in
from the topo survey)
118.918
sq m
of abutment*depth
duct two times of
103.851
sq m
2.080
m/s
0.062
274.325
section)

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
1.750 m
276.075 m
216.017
274.325
2.080
0.9
275.225
cumecs
m
m/sec
m
m

184 907

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

184 907

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hydrological calculations for Bridge at Chainage 184.

Pier /internal wall width

Value of C adopted in the present case

(From Article-4 of IRC:SP:13-2004)

Design Flood Discharge ,

(For Zone-3 from Figure - 4 of Bridges and

tc hr. ratio / 1 hr. ratio

(For Subzone-3h from Figure - 3.7 : Krishna and Penner Basin o

f(x) = - 0.00353x + 346.964

Average Bed Slope of River, S

(Rugosity Co- efficient,n table 5.1 of IRC:SP:13

Check: It should not be more tha

C/S area of stream ,An1 =

Average depth of flow at bridge cross section (d avg)

Area before construction, An1

Net C/S area of flow under bridge,

Scour Depth calculations

(As per article-9 of SP:13-2004)

Dsm is the normal ( mean) depth of scour below HFL in m

(cl.703.2.2 of IRC :78-2000)

dm is the weighted mean diameter of bed material in mm

Normal scour depth, Dsm

Maximum scour depth

Check for free board

e under Para 2.1.1 of Bridges

and Penner Basin of Bridges and

table 5.1 of IRC:SP:13-2004)

hould not be more than 1.5*next max. Discharge

Four Laning of jalgaon-Gujarat / Maharashtra Border Section of NH-6 from Km 442.100

(1) By Unit Hydrograph Method

Equivalent stream slope

Reduced level of river bed at the point of study, i.e. 280m

Four Laning of jalgaon-Gujarat / Maharashtra Border Section of NH-6 from Km 442.100

[Sum(Li x (Di-1 + Di))]/L2

Step : - 2 Determination of Synthetic (1-hr) Unitgraph Parameterrs

Four Laning of jalgaon-Gujarat / Maharashtra Border Section of NH-6 from Km 442.100

Base width of Unit Hydrograph

Step : - 3 Drawing of Synthetic Unitgraph

Four Laning of jalgaon-Gujarat / Maharashtra Border Section of NH-6 from Km 442.100

Four Laning of jalgaon-Gujarat / Maharashtra Border Section of NH-6 from Km 442.100

Step : - 5 Estimation of point rainfall and areal rainfall

The design base flow

Step : - 8 Estimation of 100-yr Flood Peak

Four Laning of jalgaon-Gujarat / Maharashtra Border Section of NH-6 from Km 442.100

Four Laning of jalgaon-Gujarat / Maharashtra Border Section of NH-6 from Km 442.100

point of study, i.e. 280m

Four Laning of jalgaon-Gujarat / Maharashtra Border Section of NH-6 from Km 442.100

Four Laning of jalgaon-Gujarat / Maharashtra Border Section of NH-6 from Km 442.100

. The plotted points were joined to draw synthetic unitgraph.

Four Laning of jalgaon-Gujarat / Maharashtra Border Section of NH-6 from Km 442.100

Four Laning of jalgaon-Gujarat / Maharashtra Border Section of NH-6 from Km 442.100

s per part 3.6 of flood estimation report lower

ed for this zone (from para 3.7 of flood estimation report

units were re-arranged against the ordinates such that the

Four Laning of jalgaon-Gujarat / Maharashtra Border Section of NH-6 from Km 442.100

Four Laning of jalgaon-Gujarat / Maharashtra Border Section of NH-6 from Km 442.100

Value of C adopted in the present case

Average Bed Slope of River, S

Four Laning of jalgaon-Gujarat / Maharashtra Border Section of NH-6 from Km 442.100

Four Laning of jalgaon-Gujarat / Maharashtra Border Section of NH-6 from Km 442.100

C/S area of stream ,An1 =

Four Laning of jalgaon-Gujarat / Maharashtra Border Section of NH-6 from Km 442.100

Average depth of flow at bridge cross section (d avg)