Thesis a.H.Y 0684@area

Design of Seysa Small Scale Irrigation Project; Central Zone of Tigray, Towards
Enhancing the Effective and Regulated Water Use for Irrigation
B.Sc. Thesis Proposal Submitted In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering
Department of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering
School of Water Technology
Aksum University
Ethiopia
Advisor: Tilahun Araya (M.Sc.)
June, 2017
DECLARATION
This is to approve that the thesis prepared by the listed group members entitled; Design of Seysa
Small Scale Irrigation Project; Central Zone of Tigray, Towards Enhancing the Effective and
Regulated Water Use for Irrigation, and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Bachelor of Science in hydraulic and water resources engineering compiles with the
regulations of the university and meets the accepted standards with respect to originality and
quality.
S.No. Name ID.No.

1 Araya Hagos AKUR0684/05
2 Berhe Teklemariam AKUR3139/05
3 Alganesh Zeraburuk AKUR0646/05
4 Yalem Gebramariam AKUR1704/05
5 Rewina Tesfay AKUR1466/05
Submitted for the Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Award of the Degree of
Bachelor of Science
In
Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering
At
Aksum University
Under The Guidance Of:
Mr. Tilahun Araya. (M.Sc.)
Aksum University
School of Water Technology
Department of Hydraulic and Water Resource Engineering
Certification
We, the advisors of this thesis, certify that the project work entitled “Design of Seysa Small Scale
Irrigation Project; Central Zone of Tigray, Towards Enhancing the Effective and Regulated
Water Use for Irrigation” and here by recommend for acceptance by Aksum University
Department of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering.
1. Tilahun Araya (M.Sc.)______________________________
Advisor Signature Date
2. ___________________________________________________
Examiner Signature Date

3. _______________ _______________ _______________
Examiner Signature Date

Acknowledgment
Above all, thanks to the Almighty God for granting us his limitless care, love and blessings all
along the way including this for the completeness of this final year project.
Our heartfelt sincere gratitude goes to our advisor Mr. Tilahun Araya (M.Sc.) for his golden
constructive advice, and guidance from the beginning to the completion of our thesis project work.
He advises us properly and makes us to finish our design project successfully.
Secondly, we would like to express our greatest gratitude to the Aksum University School of Water
Technology and to Department of Hydraulic and Water Resource Engineering for teaching us, and
developing our confidence by giving this helpful final year project which plays a great role on our
future career. Finally we would like to thanks for Adwa Water Resource and Irrigation Office for
providing us necessary data and information which is used for our project work.
Last but not least, we would like to thank all our friends and family members who were spiritually
with us, and gave us the strength morally and financially to finalize our design successfully.
i
Executive Summery
Water is vital to life and development in all parts of the world. In our country, agricultural sectors
play a key role in economic growth; as such the irrigation scheme is of high priority in
developmental activities. Design of Seysa Irrigation Project is one of the irrigation study projects
essential to overcome the adverse effect of erratic rainfall dependent agricultural activities in the
region. This study is intended to manage and use the surface water resource wisely at the area in order to
overcome the problems of the adverse effect of erratic rainfall dependent agriculture and to extend
modern irrigation system at the proposed area.
Land use, land slope, soil and hydro – meteorological data were used to characterize the hydrology
of the study area and they are the basic parameter to be considered for determination of PMP and
PMF and then for design of the diversion headwork.
Hydro – meteorological data and soil type were also used for analyzing of crop water requirement
for the selected crops to the command area by using the CROPWAT 8.0 package software.
Our thesis project describes the general description of the project background, objective, problem
statement, and scope of the project work, materials and methods such as hydrological analysis,
design of canals, design of diversion headwork, stability analysis, and crop water requirement. It
also includes discussion with the results, conclusion and recommendation.
ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgment .............................................................................................................................i
Executive Summery ....................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. viii
List of Tables..................................................................................................................................ix
Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. x
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. General ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Description of the Project Area ...................................................................................... 2
1.2.1. Location ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.2. Topography ................................................................................................................ 3
1.2.3. Climate ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.2.4. Soil ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.2.5. Land Use/Land Cover ................................................................................................ 4
1.3. Objective of the Study ..................................................................................................... 5
1.3.1. General Objective ....................................................................................................... 5
1.3.2. Specific Objective ...................................................................................................... 5
1.4. Problem Statement .......................................................................................................... 5
1.5. Scope and Limitation of the Study ................................................................................. 6
2. Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 7
2.1. Head Works...................................................................................................................... 7
2.2. Previous Studies on Design of Diversion Headwork for Irrigation Projects ............. 7
3. Methods and Materials ......................................................................................................... 10
3.1. Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 10
3.1.1. Meteorological & Climatic Data ................................................................................... 10
iii
3.2. Hydrological Data Analysis .......................................................................................... 12
3.2.1. Data Quality Checking ............................................................................................. 12
3.2.1.1. Data Consistency Test ..................................................................................... 12
3.2.1.2. Outlier Test ...................................................................................................... 13
3.2.2. Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) ................................................................. 17
3.2.3. Selection of Probability Distribution Method and Design point Rainfall ................ 21
3.2.4. Probable Maximum flood (PMF) ............................................................................. 23
3.2.5. Base flow .................................................................................................................. 29
3.3. Crop Water Requirement ............................................................................................. 30
3.3.1. Crops and Crop Land Allocation ............................................................................. 30
3.3.2. Net Irrigation Requirement (NIR) ............................................................................ 31
3.3.3. Effective Rainfall ..................................................................................................... 31
3.3.4. Crop Coefficient (Kc) ................................................................................................ 31
3.3.5. Crop Water Requirement ......................................................................................... 31
3.3.6. Field Irrigation Requirement (FIR) .......................................................................... 32
3.3.7. Gross Irrigation Requirement (GIR) ........................................................................ 32
3.3.8. Irrigation Efficiency ................................................................................................. 32
3.3.9. Determination of Design Discharge ......................................................................... 34
3.4. Irrigation Methods and Systems Selection .................................................................. 34
3.4.1. Surface Irrigation Methods....................................................................................... 35
3.4.1.1. Furrow Surface Irrigation Method ............................................................... 35
3.5. Design of Canals and Canal Structures ....................................................................... 36
3.5.1. Selection of canal cross section ................................................................................ 36
3.5.2. Canal Alignment ...................................................................................................... 37
3.5.3. Hydraulic Design of Canal ....................................................................................... 37
iv
3.5.3.1. Criteria’s for Selecting Canal Design Theory .............................................. 38
3.5.4. Canal Structures ....................................................................................................... 46
3.5.4.1. Design of Division Box .................................................................................... 46
3.6. Diversion Head Works .................................................................................................. 47
3.6.1. Selection of Weir Type ............................................................................................ 48
3.6.2. Hydraulic Design of the Weir .................................................................................. 48
3.6.3. Structural design of headwork.................................................................................. 51
3.6.3.1. Design of Weir Wall ........................................................................................ 51
3.6.3.2. Depth of Sheet Piles ........................................................................................ 52
3.6.3.3. Design of Impervious Floor and Protection Works ..................................... 53
3.6.3.4. Water Profile at the Weir Site ....................................................................... 58
3.6.4. Stability Analysis of Weir ........................................................................................ 59
3.6.5. Design of Under Sluice ............................................................................................ 61
3.6.6. Design of Head Regulator ........................................................................................ 62
3.6.7. Design of Silt Excluder ............................................................................................ 63
3.6.8. Design of Canal out Let ........................................................................................... 64
3.6.9. Design of Retaining Wall (Guide wall) .................................................................... 64
3.6.9.1. Design of upstream retaining wall ................................................................. 64
3.6.9.2. Design of Downstream Retaining Wall ......................................................... 67
4. Result and Discussion ........................................................................................................... 70
4.1. Hydro - Meteorological Data Results........................................................................... 70
4.1.1. Precipitation Data Consistency Test Results ............................................................ 70
4.1.2. Precipitation Data Outlier Test Results .................................................................... 70
4.1.3. Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) Result ...................................................... 71
4.1.4. Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Result ................................................................. 71
v
4.2. Crop Water Requirement Result ................................................................................. 72
4.3. Structural Safety and Economical Consideration Results ......................................... 75
5. Conclusion and Recommendation ....................................................................................... 78
5.1. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 78
5.2. Recommendation ........................................................................................................... 78
6. Reference................................................................................................................................ 80
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 81
Appendix A: .............................................................................................................................. 81
Table A.1 Values of reduced mean𝑦n in Gumbel extreme value distribution ............................ 81
Table A.2 Value of reduced standard deviation Sn in Gumbel extreme .................................... 81
Table A.3 Kn value for different sample size ............................................................................. 82
Table A.4 Coefficients of for SCS peak discharge method ........................................................ 83
Appendix B:............................................................................................................................... 84
Table B.1 Evapotranspiration and radiation result from CROPWAT 8.0 .................................. 84
Table B.2 Effective rainfall from CROPWAT 8.0 ..................................................................... 84
Appendix C: .............................................................................................................................. 85
Table C.1 Crop data for Maize ................................................................................................... 85
Table C.2 crop data for Potato .................................................................................................... 85
Appendix D: .............................................................................................................................. 86
Table D.1 Crop soil data ............................................................................................................. 86
Appendix E:............................................................................................................................... 86
Table E.1 Crop water requirement for Maize from CROPWAT 8.0 ......................................... 86
Table E.2 Crop water requirement for Potato from CROPWAT 8.0 ......................................... 87
Appendix F: ............................................................................................................................... 88
Table F.1 Irrigation schedule for Maize ..................................................................................... 88
vi
Table F.2 Crop Irrigation schedule for Potato ............................................................................ 89
Appendix G: .............................................................................................................................. 89
Table G.1 Crop pattern ............................................................................................................... 89
Appendix H: .............................................................................................................................. 90
Table H.1 Scheme supply final result of CROPWAT 8.0 .......................................................... 90
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Location of weir site ...................................................................................................... 2
Figure1.2: Monthly rainfall representation of Adwa station ............................................................ 3
Figure 1.3: Monthly temperature representation of Adwa ............................................................... 4
Figure 3.1: Trend of daily heaviest rainfall .................................................................................... 12
Figure 3.2: Main canal cross section .............................................................................................. 43
Figure 3.3: Weir floor thickness and protection works .................................................................. 57
Figure 3.4: Water profile at the weir the weir structure ................................................................. 59
Figure 3.5: Forces acting on the weir wall in static case ................................................................ 60
Figure 3.6: Force acting on U/s guide wall .................................................................................... 66
Figure 3.7: Force acting on D/S guide wall ................................................................................... 68
Figure 4.1: Outlier test before filled missed data for Adwa station ............................................... 70
Figure 4.2: Outlier test after filled the missed data for Adwa station ............................................ 71
Figure 4.3: Solar radiation of the project area ................................................................................ 72
Figure 4.4: Reference evapotranspiration from CROPWAT 8.0 ................................................... 73
Figure 4.5: Average monthly effective rainfall .............................................................................. 74
Figure 4.6: Comparison of crop water requirement of Maize and Potato ...................................... 74
Figure 4.7: Net irrigation crop water requirement from CROPWAT 8.0 ...................................... 75
Figure 4.8: Floor thickness along the downstream ........................................................................ 76
viii
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Land use and cover of the watershed area ...................................................................... 5
Table 3.1: Meteorological input data ............................................................................................. 10
Table 3.2: Rainfall input data ......................................................................................................... 11
Table 3.3: Runoff input data .......................................................................................................... 11
Table 3.4: Computation of rain fall frequency analysis for 21 years ............................................. 12
Table 3.5: Values of Skewness (Cs) to test for outliers ................................................................. 13
Table 3.6: Determination of threshold value for outliers of daily heaviest rainfall ....................... 14
Table 3.7: Rain fall frequency analysis after filling the missed data ............................................. 16
Table 3.8: Guide line for selecting return periods for different hydraulic structures ..................... 18
Table 3.9: Probable maximum precipitation output ...................................................................... 21
Table 3.10: D - index data fitness test ............................................................................................ 22
Table 3.11: Time concentration analysis........................................................................................ 24
Table 3.12: Computation of available data’s for Gamble method ................................................. 26
Table 3.13: Curve number value for land use of the watershed ..................................................... 28
Table 3.14: Results of peak flood (Q-peak) ................................................................................... 29
Table 3.15: Permissible velocity for unlined canal ........................................................................ 39
Table 3.16: Maximum permissible velocity for lined canal ........................................................... 39
Table 3.17: Side slope for various soils ........................................................................................ 41
Table 3.18: Values of b/y ratio for lining canal ............................................................................. 41
Table 3.19: The value of N for different type of bed material ....................................................... 42
Table 3.20: Recommended values of roughness coefficient for unlined canal .............................. 44
Table 3.21: Forces and moments acting on weir at static case (at worst condition) ...................... 60
Table 3.22: Data of u/s and d/s design retaining wall .................................................................... 65
Table 3.23: The U/S guide banks height and dimensions .............................................................. 65
Table 3.24: Material properties of the guide bank ......................................................................... 65
Table 3.25: Forces and moments acting on Upstream Wing Wall ................................................. 66
Table 3.26: The D/S guide banks height and dimensions .............................................................. 67
Table 3.27: Material properties of the guide bank ......................................................................... 67
Table 3.28: Forces and moments acting on downstream Wing Wall ............................................. 68
ix
Abbreviations
0
C………………………………………………...Degree Celsius
a.m.s.l…………….……………………………...Above Mean Sea Level
AMC……………………………………………..Available moisture content
ARF……………………………………………...Areal rainfall
B/D………………………………………………Width to depth ratio
CN…………………………………………….…Curve number
Cs ……………………………………………….Skewness coefficient
CVR……………………………………..………Critical velocity ratio
CWR……………………………………..…….. Crop water requirement
D/S……………………………………………... Down stream
DRF……………………………………………. Design rainfall
Ea………………………………………………..Application efficiency
Ec………………………………………………. Conveyance efficiency
Ef ………………………………………………..Field efficiency
Ep………………………………………………..Project efficiency
ETc……………………………………………....Evapotranspiration of crop
ETo………………………………………………Reference evapotranspiration
FAO……………………………….……………..Food and agriculture organization
Fb………………………………………………...Freeboard
FIR…………………………….………………....Field irrigation requirement
FSL........................................................................Full supply level
GEV………………………………………….…..General extreme value
GIR……………………………………….……...Gross irrigation requirement
GW……………………………………………....Groundwater
ha………………………………………………...Hectare
HFL……………………………………………...High flood level
HL……………………………………………….Head loss
IR………………………………………………..Irrigation requirement
x
Kc……………………………………………….Crop coefficient
Km………………………………………………kilo meter
MAR…………..…………………………………Mean annual rainfall
NIR………………………………………………Net irrigation requirement
Peff……………………………………………….Effective rainfall
PMF…………………………………………….. Probable maximum flood
PMP…………………………………………….. Probable maximum precipitation
PRF………………………………………………Peak rainfall
S………………………………………………… Soil Moister
TEL…………………………………....…………Total Energy Level
TEL…………………………………………….. Total energy level
TO……………………………..…………………Temperature
U/S……………………………….………………Upstream
UK………………...……………..………………United Kingdom
USA………………………………………..……. United States of America
USSCS…………………………………...……….United States Soil Conservation Service’s
W …………………………………..…………….Weight
Ws………………………… …………………….Water stored
xi
2017
[Final thesis on design of Seysa small scale irrigation project ]
1. Introduction
1.1. General
It is fact that the population of the world as a whole increases significantly from time to time. This
in turn develops the demand of food and results economic crisis. In order to overcome this problem
design of small, medium and large scale irrigation project is essential.
Irrigation has been considered as an engine for agricultural growth all over the world. In Ethiopia,
irrigation has to be considered not only as an engine for agricultural development but also as a
crucial factor for the overall economic growth. About 85% of the total populations directly depend
on agriculture for their livelihood (Awulachew S. B., 2004).
Ethiopia has ample source of water sources and arable lands suitable for spreading and
development of irrigation projects.
Though Tigray region has substantial natural resources such as cultivated land, surface & ground
water resources; there is no enough water for most farmers that enable them to produce more than
one crop per year. There exists frequent crop failure due to shortage of water storage infrastructure
and spatial & temporal variations in rainfall (Haileyesus G.A, 2006). To avoid or minimize these
problems data collection, data analysis and designing of hydraulic structures are the main
methodologies for design and development of irrigation project.
To design a safe, durable and economical hydraulic structure, analysis of the hydrology of the
specific river under consideration as well as the demand supply balance of irrigation water of the
area is a mandatory activity. On top of that, for design purpose of the headwork structure,
appropriate flood frequency analysis technique should be applied for the specific rainstorm
duration.
A flood magnitude that corresponds to a certain recurrence period is major parameter to be

considered for dimensioning headwork and drainage structures.
Similarly, the minimum discharge needs to be estimated for the assessment of reliable water source
availability that will provide sustainable water for irrigating the proposed command area
AKU HWRE Page 1

2017
1.2. Description of the Project Area
1.2.1. Location
The project area is located in the central zone of Tigray Regional State (Northern Part of Ethiopia)
in Adwa Wereda and Tahtay_logomti Tabia which is accessible through the Adwa Tembien main
road and the site is found 25km from Adwa town and 240km from Mekelle city to the east direction
which is a Tekeze basin.The proposed irrigation project is to be undertaken on Seysa River and the
average elevation of the site is located at an altitude of about 2095m m.a.s.l and geographical
coordinate location of 499432m longitude and 1561219 m latitude (UTM).
Figure 1.1: Location of weir site
AKU HWRE Page 2

2017
1.2.2. Topography
The watershed lies with altitudes ranging from 1500 to 2700 m.a.s.l. and with a mean elevation of
2100 m.a.s.l. The river bed level is found at 2100 m.a.s.l. with covering a total catchment area of
the watershed is 66.6km2.
1.2.3. Climate
The study area is characterized by semi-arid to arid climatic conditions with a mean annual rainfall
ranging from 539mm to1053.5mm and with a mean annual minimum and maximum temperature
ranging from 17.5°C to 22°C. The semi-arid climatic zones are located in highland areas whereas
the lowlands have typically of arid condition. The maximum seasonal rainfall occurrence in the
area is between June and September and the mean annual rainfall of the region is about 700 mm,
with highest seasonal rainfall during the summer (kiremt) being 500mm and the lowest in spring
(belg) is 25 mm. The mean seasonal temperature for the region in general varies from 20 to 250C
(Weldu M.H., 2007).
Mean Rainfall Max. Rainfall Min. Rainfall
500
450
400
350
Rainfall (mm)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Time (month)
Figure1.2: Monthly rainfall representation of Adwa station
AKU HWRE Page 3

2017
Temprature
Mini. temprature Maxi.temprature Mean temprature

35
Temprature (⁰c)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Jan feb mar april may june july agust sep. oct nov dec
Time (month)
Figure 1.3: Monthly temperature representation of Adwa
1.2.4. Soil
Crops are dependent on fertility of soils and yield of crops are dependent on good soils and
conversely good soils are dependent on people and the use they make of the land soil provides the
room for water to be used by plants through the root present in the same medium as a habitant for
soil organisms (Weldu M.H., 2007).At the command area the depth of the soil is very deep which
is greater than 2m. The command area is highly dominated by clay loam soil, well drained; silt
loam, black heavy textured soil with PH value ranging from 5.0 - 6.8 which is suitable for
cultivation of potato and maize and other vegetation.
1.2.5. Land Use/Land Cover

According the Tigray Agricultural Development Study Office 2007, the major part of the
watershed, which is grazing land, located at the upper beginning part and some part at the lower
part, is of gentle slope to plain topography. Most of the parts of these steep to very steep hillsides
are covered with forests. The major land use types are grazing land and cultivated land; forest land
has an important share. The proportion of the different land use types is summarized in Table 1.1.
No Land use type Area coverage (sq. _ km) Percentage
AKU HWRE Page 4

2017
1 Cultivated land 36.13 54.2%
2 Grazing land 11.01 16.5%
3 Homestead 13.01 19.5%
4 forest land 5.72 8.6%
5 Miscellaneous land 0.73 1.1%
Total area 66.6km2 100%
Table 1.1: Land use and cover of the watershed area
1.3. Objective of the Study
1.3.1. General Objective

The general objective of the project work is to design Seysa Small Scale Irrigation Project towards
enhancing the effective and regulated water use for irrigation purpose in Seysa. Thereby minimize
the adverse effect of erratic rainfall dependent agricultural activities in the region.
1.3.2. Specific Objective

The specific objectives of the project study are:
˜ Checking data consistency and reliability
˜ Filling missing data
˜ Estimating catchment runoff
˜ Conducting frequency analysis to determine design discharges for the project
˜ Estimating design flood across the cross section of the diversion headwork
˜ Overall design of the diversion headwork
˜ To assess and design the canal lining requirements and select appropriate canal section
1.4. Problem Statement
In our country agriculture serves as a backbone of the economy as well as ensures the wellbeing of
the people, the availability of water resource is quite essential. However, unless the available water
resource is utilized with a balanced approach of the supply and demand and with a careful
consideration of sustainability, satisfying the needs of the future generation will remain in doubt
(Seged M.L., 2007).
At the proposed area there is an area which is suitable for irrigation and a yearly flowing of water
resource through that. However there is lack of water resource controlling and management
AKU HWRE Page 5

2017
systems. Only some farmers are practice traditional cultivating system of their lands by using water
pump (generator) during dry season. Not only this but also there is shortage of rainfall at summer
season and due to this reason the agricultural productivity of the society is low.
In addition to this, due to the above reason raising the water level of the river to be suitable for
supplying of water for irrigation, design and construction of diversion headwork is found to be
quite essential to cultivate crops and extending modern irrigation system in order to support or
enhance the living standard of the society.
1.5. Scope and Limitation of the Study
The project work covers data analysis and processing, detail design of diversion headwork, stability
analysis, crop water requirement analysis and structural design of canal distribution system which
are to be treated separately (scope). Our scope doesn’t included design of drainage structure and
economic analysis.
AKU HWRE Page 6

2017
2. Literature Review
2.1. Head Works
Head works are barriers across a river at the head of an off taking canal. Head works can be either
diversion head works or storage head. Diversion head works, are constructed at the head of the
canal, in order to divert the river water towards the canal, so as to ensure a regulated continuous
supply of silt free water with a certain minimum head in to the canal works. Whereas storage head
work are a barrier, constructed across the river valley to form the storage reservoir (Asawa G.L.,
2008).
The water is supplied to the canal from the reservoir through the canal head regulator. This serve
as multipurpose functions i.e. Hydroelectric power generation, fishery, flood, sediment control,
irrigation development etc. (Garge S.K., 2005).
Diversion headwork provides an obstruction across a river, so that the level of the water is raised
and water is diverted to the channel at required level. The flow of water in the canal is controlled
by the canal head regulator. This increased water level helps the flow of water by gravity and the
increasing the commanded area and reducing the water fluctuation in the river (Garge S.K., 2005).
Normally the water level of any perennial river is such that it can’t be diverted to the irrigation
canal. The bed level of the canal may be higher than the existing water level of the river. In such
cases weir is constructed across the river to raise the water level. Surplus water passes over the
crest of the weir. Adjustable shutters are provided on the crest to raise the water level to some
required height (Bibhabasu M., 2012).
According to the (Charles R. et al., 2003), weirs are used for water level management, flow
measurement environmental enhancement and channel stabilization.
2.2. Previous Studies on Design of Diversion Headwork for Irrigation Projects

For any design of hydraulic structure such as weirs, dams, barrages, etc. proper analysis of
hydrologic data should be done carefully. Hydrology may be defined as the science that deals with
the depletion and replenishment of water resource. It deals with surface as well as ground water as
far as its occurrence, circulation, distribution, etc. concerned (Subramanya K., 1984).
AKU HWRE Page 7

2017
Hydrologic design is important for safety, economy and proper functioning of hydraulic structures.
The hydrologic design estimates the maximum, minimum or average flood which the structure is
expected to handle. This estimate has to be made quite accurately in order that the project can
function properly. All water resources system must be planned for future hydrological events for
which the time of occurrence can be forecasted.
A number of irrigation schemes have been designed and constructed in Ethiopia in the previous
years. Amhara Regional State Water Resources Development Bureau (BOWRD); headwork&
irrigation infrastructure design document on Gimara Wereda (Asfaw.H, et al 2007) which evaluates
the design and study of Gimara irrigation project in Amhara National Regional State is one of the
previous study related to our work. Asfaw’s objective was for design and study of the project to
learn a lesson and generate knowledge on feasibility study and design, implementation and
operation of small scale irrigation projects.
According to Asfaw’s research, the project area has good farmland and the farmers have tried to
use traditional irrigation, but they failed to succeed due to lack of both technical and financial
capacity. The design and study of Gimara irrigation project under modern irrigation scheme was
enable the farmers to use the available water and land resources efficiently and get themselves food
secured. Designers have identified the weir site location by choosing two sites depending on their
geographical location. After a good discussion, decided on the best of them. Gimara irrigation
project will enable the peasants of the project area to positive economic change and improve their
life standard by producing different crops and a good grassing grass for their live stokes using
advanced irrigation. In the research, a methodology was used to design the project work i.e. data
collection, data analysis, design of headwork and canals, discussion with result are the methods.
A recent study report and document by (Hylegebriel Y. A., 2015) deals with feasibility study and
detail design of Arara diversion small scale irrigation project in Amhara Region from source of
Arara river. The project area was faced with the variability of rainfall distribution though the overall
rainfall generally suffices the rain-fed agriculture. Accordingly, the rain-fed agriculture needs
means of supplementing during distribution failures and further full irrigation is required to
maximize the use of the potential land and water resources.
AKU HWRE Page 8

2017
The objective of Arara project was contributing a substantial share in the effort to reduce the risk
of production decrease due to rainfall variability and increase the productivity of the resource in
the project specific area by design of diversion head work on the area. In the research, necessary
data i.e. meteorological, hydrological and climatic data was collected from offices and different
methods has been used using different models and tools which are necessary for design of
headwork irrigation project.
The above viewing recent studies, reports and documents have a great role to strengthening and
developing our design project work, since our project work is similar with the recent designed
projects.
AKU HWRE Page 9

2017
3. Methods and Materials
3.1. Data Collection
3.1.1. Meteorological & Climatic Data

Data describes the physical, meteorological and hydrological as well as topographical characteristic
of the area. The necessary data to be collected are rainfall data, Climatic data and stream flow data.
These data are collected from respective offices which have been recorded from the site and
literature document. Climate is one of the resources of an area, which can enhance or retard most
economic activities. Thus, the knowledge of the climatic resource of an area is of paramount
importance for the planning and execution of any project in general and irrigation projects in
particular. All necessary required meteorological and climate data are rainfall data, temperature
data, wind speed, sunshine hour and stream flows. The mean annual rainfall of the project area for
the period of 1985-2005 year is 700mm.
Month Min. Max.temp(⁰c Average Humidity (%) Wind speed Sunshine

temp(⁰c) ) temp(⁰c) (km/day) (hr)
Jan 8.2 26.9 17.9 30.6 95.04 9.6
Feb 9.1 28.3 19.6 29.3 95.04 9.6
Mar 12.1 30.1 21.2 29 103.68 9.7
April 14.1 30.8 22.7 35.4 129.6 8.9
May 14.4 30.4 23 40.7 120.96 8.8
June 13.8 28.1 21.6 52.2 138.24 7.5
July 13.5 24.1 19.3 72.3 129.6 5
Aug 14.4 23.9 19 78.6 103.68 4.9
Sep. 12.6 26.1 19.1 64.4 69.12 7.1
Oct 10.7 27.9 19.3 46 60.48 9.2
Nov 9.2 28.6 18.5 38.5 77.76 9.5
Dec 7.6 27.1 17.5 34 69.12 9.8
Table 3.1: Meteorological input data
AKU HWRE Page 10

2017
Month Jan Fe Mar Apr Ma Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct No Dec Annual
b y v
Ave 5.3 1.5 20.3 27. 36.7 81. 221. 262. 111. 24.7 11. 3 807.8
rainfal 9 3 9 2 6 4
l
Max 42 9.6 110 91. 97 152 386. 430. 251. 149. 81 25. 1053.5
rain 8 7 7 9 3 8
Min 0 0 0 0 0 25. 132. 123. 14.9 0 0 0 539
rain 3 3 1
Table 3.2:Rainfall input data
Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Annual 10.82 7.42 9.84 14.53 18.93 12.54 20.52 17.52 26.55 32.06
daily
runoff(Q)
Table 3.3: Runoff input data
3.1.2. Daily Heaviest Rainfall Data
In order to compute the PMP and PMF for design of the diversion structure, the daily maximum
rainfall data is necessary and this collected from Adwa Meteorological station with a record period
of 21 years. The heaviest rainfall varies with respect time. Look at the daily heaviest data
variability in the following plot figure (3.4).
Rainfall,mm
160
140
Rainfall (mm)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Time (year)
AKU HWRE Page 11

2017
Figure 3.1: Trend of daily heaviest rainfall
3.2. Hydrological Data Analysis
3.2.1. Data Quality Checking

3.2.1.1.Data Consistency Test
The daily heaviest rainfall data of Adwa Meteorological Station for 21 year is used for the design.
Hence, 21 years heaviest rainfall data are available, the data should be checked for consistency and
reliability. To compute for the consistency test, the following parameters have to be calculated in
Table 3.4.
Annual Y=log (Xi- (Y-

Year
S.no Daily max Xi Xi-Xm Xm)^2 Y-Ym Ym)^2 (Y-Ym)^3
1 1985 76 1.88 16.89 285.13 0.141 0.01983 0.00279212
2 1986 39.7 1.60 -19.41 376.91 -0.141 0.01994 -0.00281573
3 1987 54.6 1.74 -4.51 20.38 -0.003 0.00001 -0.00000002
4 1988 40.9 1.61 -18.21 331.75 -0.128 0.01645 -0.00211078
5 1989 54.1 1.73 -5.01 25.14 -0.007 0.00005 -0.00000031
6 1990 35.2 1.55 -23.91 571.88 -0.193 0.03743 -0.00724028
7 1991 84.4 1.93 25.29 639.38 0.186 0.03472 0.00647046
8 1992 80.6 1.91 21.49 461.64 0.166 0.02767 0.00460205
9 1993 52.5 1.72 -6.61 43.75 -0.020 0.00039 -0.00000781
10 1994 150.5 2.18 91.39 8351.38 0.438 0.19144 0.08376120
11 1995 28.7 1.46 -30.41 925.02 -0.282 0.07959 -0.02245396
12 1996 40.8 1.61 -18.31 335.41 -0.129 0.01673 -0.00216370
13 1997 45.7 1.66 -13.41 179.94 -0.080 0.00641 -0.00051361
14 1998 46.9 1.67 -12.21 149.18 -0.069 0.00474 -0.00032605
15 1999 84.9 1.93 25.79 664.91 0.189 0.03569 0.00674138
16 2000 68.2 1.83 9.09 82.55 0.094 0.00880 0.00082488
17 2001 37.6 1.58 -21.51 462.86 -0.165 0.02716 -0.00447680
18 2002 44.5 1.65 -14.61 213.57 -0.092 0.00840 -0.00076958
19 2003 72.6 1.86 13.49 181.87 0.121 0.01463 0.00176878
20 2004 41.8 1.62 -17.31 299.78 -0.119 0.01412 -0.00167768
21 2005 61.2 1.79 2.09 4.35 0.047 0.00219 0.00010218
2
Average 59.11 1.74 ∑(Xi- Xm) =14606.8
Table 3.4: Computation of rain fall frequency analysis for 21 years
From Table 3.4, ∑Xi = 1158.4mm, ∑ (Y-Ym) 2= 0.57, Ym = 1.74mm
Average (Xm) = 59.11mm, ∑ (Y-Ym) 3= 0.63

AKU HWRE Page 12
2017
∑(X-Xm) 2=14606.79mm, N=21
∑(𝑋−𝑋𝑚)2
Standard deviation (X), 𝛿𝑛 − 1 = √ = 27.02
𝑁−1
∑(𝑌−𝑌𝑚)2
Standard deviation (Y) 𝑆𝑦 = √ = 0.164
𝑁−1
𝑁 ∑(𝑌−𝑌𝑚)3
Skewness coefficient, 𝐶𝑠 = (𝑁−1)(𝑁−2)𝑆𝑦 3 = 0.78
Before proceeding to the other analysis the adequacy of rainfall data series should be checked and
it should be realized. The data series should be considered and adequate if relative standard error,
𝛿𝑒 ≤10%. Where,𝛿𝑒 is the relative standard error and N is sample size.
 n 1 27.02
Standard error of the mean,  n    5.896 < 10%
N 21
n
Relative standard, *100 = 5.896 * 100 = 9.97 % < 10 % (ok).Therefore the data is reliable and
xm 59.11
adequate.
3.2.1.2.Outlier Test
Outliers are data points that depart from the trend of the remaining data. The detention or retention
of these outliers can significantly affect the magnitude. As shown from the Table 3.4, the station
skew is greater than +0.4, so based on the following principle the Cs value falls in the case 2 as it
described in Table 3.5 (Chow, V.T., 1964). Therefore, it needs checking for higher outlier.
Case1 If Skewness(Cs) < -0.4 check for lower outlier
Case2 If Skewness(Cs) > +0.4 check for higher outlier
Case3 If Skewness(Cs) -0.4<Cs<+0.4 check for both outlier
Table 3.5: Values of Skewness (Cs) to test for outliers
AKU HWRE Page 13

2017
Parameters Value log Remark
transferred
Coefficient of Skewness, Cs 0.78 From table 3.4
Standard deviation, Sy 0.164 From table 3.4
Mean, Ym 1.74 From table 3.4
No of data 21 From table 3.4
Kn 2.408 From appendix A: Table A.3 for 21

year
Table 3.6: Determination of threshold value for outliers of daily heaviest rainfall
Higher outlier determination
Since it is stated that the Skewness coefficient is greater than +0.4, our data recorded with respect
to lower outlier is within reasonable range. So, there is no lower outlier. Thus, the data is only
checked for higher outlier. To detect the outlier the following frequency equations are applied.
Higher outlier, Yh =Ym + Kn*Sy ………………………… 3.1
Where, Yh is the higher outlier value, Ym is the mean log value, Sy is the standard deviation, Kn
is critical deviate value of n number of sample size.
From Table 3.6; the value for data are N=21, Ym=1.74, Sy= 0.164, Kn = 2.408, and Cs = 0.78
Then, Yh = 1.74 + (2.408*0.164) = 2.135
Antilog Yh = 136.43mm
The highest record daily heaviest rainfall data was 150.5mm in the period of 1994 year which is
higher than the threshold value of higher outlier. Hence the daily heaviest rainfall data recorded
with respect to highest outlier is out of the range. So the result indicates that the rainfall data is
missing data and then, we are going to fill using filling missed data methods such as simple
arithmetic method, normal ratio method, regression method and inverse distance method.
AKU HWRE Page 14

2017
Out of the twenty one year gauged data, one year has missed data and looking this data we have
filled the data using the methods of filling missed data such as; simple arithmetic method, normal
ratio method, regression method and inverse distance method just by obtaining the maximum
rainfall occurred at the period of data missed from nearby gauged station. During selecting of such
methods first we have to check for what method the obtained data can fit. The data in our hand fit
to simple arithmetic mean method.
Simple arithmetic mean method some time called station average method and the missed record
data is computed as the simple average of the values from the nearby gauges (Chow V.et al., 1988)
recommends using this method only when the annual precipitation value at each of the neighboring
gauges differs by less than 10% from that for the gauge with missing data.
𝑝𝑥 = 1/𝑛 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑝𝑖 ………………………………………………………3.2
Where, PX is the missing precipitation record. P1, P2… Pi are precipitation records at the
neighboring stations and n is number of neighboring stations recorded at that time, so there are
nine number of nearby stations. Those are Shire, Aksum, Wukro, Abyi_ adi, Endabaguna, Hawzen,
Agbe, Edagahamus and Werie with their annual daily maximum rainfall record at the year of
missing occurred are 49.9, 66.4, 100.5, 70, 74.2, 51.7, 84.2, 64.7, 126.12 and their annual rainfall
at that year are 940.4, 856.9, 843.76, 874.25, 788, 776.74, 787, and 915.77mm respectively. The
annual rainfall at Adwa station was 861mm. So let’s check if the annual precipitation value at each
of the neighboring gauges differs by less than 10% from that for the gauge with missing data.
10% of 861mm is 86.1mm, then 861-86.1=774.9mm
= 861+86.1= 947.9mm
Now we have to check all the neighboring gauges for the range between 774.9mm and 947.9mm,
since all are in the range so we can use simple arithmetic mean method.
𝑝𝑥 = 1/9 ∑ 687.72
𝑖=1
P1994= 76.41 mm
AKU HWRE Page 15

2017
The annual daily maximum rainfall is determined by simple arithmetic mean method of filling
missed data is found to be 76.41 mm. So the missed record sample in year 1994 is discarded and
instead of the data we will use 76.41 mm.
Yearly
Y=log
Year Daily (Xi-
Xi
S.NO max Xi-Xm Xm)^2 Y-Ym (Y-Ym)^2 (Y-Ym)^3
1 1985 76 1.88 20.414 416.7 0.16 0.024665 0.003873779
2 1986 39.7 1.60 -15.886 252.4 -0.12 0.015618 -0.001951745
3 1987 54.6 1.74 -0.986 1.0 0.01 0.000180 0.000002423
4 1988 40.9 1.61 -14.686 215.7 -0.11 0.012552 -0.001406349
5 1989 54.1 1.73 -1.486 2.2 0.01 0.000089 0.000000840
6 1990 35.2 1.55 -20.386 415.6 -0.18 0.031406 -0.005565785
7 1991 84.4 1.93 28.814 830.2 0.20 0.041039 0.008313781
8 1992 80.6 1.91 25.014 625.7 0.18 0.033333 0.006085786
9 1993 52.5 1.72 -3.086 9.5 0.00 0.000013 -0.000000047
10 1994 76.41 1.88 20.824 433.6 0.16 0.025405 0.004049265
11 1995 28.7 1.46 -26.886 722.9 -0.27 0.070692 -0.018795458
12 1996 40.8 1.61 -14.786 218.6 -0.11 0.012792 -0.001446766
13 1997 45.7 1.66 -9.886 97.7 -0.06 0.004076 -0.000260242
14 1998 46.9 1.67 -8.686 75.4 -0.05 0.002766 -0.000145434
15 1999 84.9 1.93 29.314 859.3 0.21 0.042085 0.008633624
16 2000 68.2 1.83 12.614 159.1 0.11 0.012105 0.001331846
17 2001 37.6 1.58 -17.986 323.5 -0.15 0.022074 -0.003279605
18 2002 44.5 1.65 -11.086 122.9 -0.08 0.005685 -0.000428679
19 2003 72.6 1.86 17.014 289.5 0.14 0.018817 0.002581251
20 2004 41.8 1.62 -13.786 190.1 -0.10 0.010524 -0.001079565
21 2005 61.2 1.79 5.614 31.5 0.06 0.003968 0.000249932
Average 55.59 1.72 6293.2 0.389885 0.000762852
Table 3.7: Rain fall frequency analysis after filling the missed data
From Table 3.7, ∑Xi = 1167.31mm, ∑ (Y-Ym) 2= 0.39, Ym = 1.72mm
Average (Xm) = 55.59mm, ∑ (Y-Ym) 3= 0.000763
∑(X-Xm) 2= 39634.5mm, N=21
∑(𝑋−𝑋𝑚)2
Standard deviation (X), 𝛿𝑛 − 1 = √ = 17.74
𝑁−1
AKU HWRE Page 16

2017
∑(𝑌−𝑌𝑚)2
Standard deviation (Y) 𝑆𝑦 = √ = 0.14
𝑁−1
Skewness coefficient, 𝐶𝑠 = (𝑁−1)(𝑁−2)𝑆𝑦 3 = 0.0155
Before proceeding to the other analysis the adequacy of rainfall data series should be checked and
it should be realized. The data series should be considered and adequate if relative standard error
(𝛿𝑒)≤10%,
𝑆𝑒 3.87 𝛿𝑛−1 17.74

𝛿𝑒 = = ∗ 100 = 6.96 % Where, 𝑆𝑒 = = = 3.87
𝑋𝑚 55.59 √𝑁 √21
6.96% ≤ 10% (ok!). Therefore the data is reliable and adequate.
3.2.2. Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP)

PMP is a hypothetical precipitation that would be observed at a selected location during some
period, whose magnitude is such that never be exceeded. It is estimated by combining the most
common hydrological and meteorological conditions observed reasonably possible at the particular
location under consideration.
The design storm is characterized by its duration and temporal distribution. In the absence of
continuous records of rainfall, the design storm can be derived from the 24 hour, rainfall. The
objective of the frequency analysis is to relate the magnitude of the extreme events with their
frequency of occurrence using probability distribution. The hydrologic system producing the runoff
(storm rainfall system) is also considered to be stochastic, space-independent and time -invariant.
After checking consistency (reliability and outliers) test, the rainfall data are obtained as
representative for the analysis.
In the analysis of rainfall frequency, the probability of occurrence of a particular extreme rainfall
(24 hr. maximum rainfall) is important. Such information is obtained by the frequency analysis of
point rainfall depth .Then the probability of occurrence of point rain fall (24 hr. maximum rain fall)
is estimated for a recurrence interval of 50 years, for diversion weirs (Subramanian K., 1994).
The prediction of peak flows from rainfall over a catchments involves estimation of daily maximum
rainfall for a given return period and conversion of the daily maximum rainfall to run off
hydrograph at the desired location.
AKU HWRE Page 17

2017
To analyze the PMP in T years we can use the frequency distribution functions methods such that
normal distribution method, Gambles method, log Pearson type three method and log normal
distribution methods. But the data in hand may fit to only one of them. Therefore, before employing
the methods, the data have to be checked for the fittest one.
The suitability of the methodology for different countries is different. Example, Germany log
Pearson type three, UK GEV and USA Log Pearson type three. However, in case of Ethiopia no
institute proposed a certain methodology. The sample statistics of data distribution should be tasted
for goodness of fit criteria as satisfactory basis for selection. Before we are going to determine the
design rainfall we have to fix return period first. From the table 3.8, Taking return period of 50
years the design rainfall for the diversion headwork structure for project area can be determined
(Subramanian K., 1994).
Sr.no Structure recommended return

period(t)
1 spillway storage is more than 60Mm3/s 100 years
2 barrage and minor dam(storage less than 100years
60Mm3/s
3 spillway small reservoir dam on the convey side 10-20 years
4 pickup weir 50-100 years
5 small bridge on the main high way 50-1000years
Table 3.8: Guide line for selecting return periods for different hydraulic structures
A. Normal Distribution Method
XT=Xm +KT* 𝜎𝑛−1 ………………………………………………………..3.3
Where, XT is the annual maximum rain fall, Xm is the mean rain fall data, KT is the frequency
factor, 𝜎𝑛−1 is the standard deviation.
2.51517 + 0.01033𝑤 2
𝐾𝑇 = 𝑤 −
1 + 1.143279𝑤 + 0.1992𝑤 2 + 0.00131𝑤 3
1
𝑤 = (ln (𝑝2 ))0.5, p=1/T=1/50=0.02
w =2.797
AKU HWRE Page 18

2017
KT=2.348
XT=Xm + KT*𝜎𝑛−1 = 55.59+ 2.348 * 17.74 = 97.24mm
Therefore the maximum probable point rain fall of 50 years return period analyzed in normal
distribution method is 97.24mm.
B. Gumbel Distribution Method
This distribution is applicable to extreme hydrologic events such as maximum daily rain fall, rain
intensity and peak flood flows and expressed by an equation:-
XT=Xm+ KT* 𝜎𝑛−1 …………………………………………3.4
Where, Xm is mean of the annual maximum daily rainfall KT is Frequency factor, Yt is a

reduced variant T is the return period.
KT= Yt  Yn
Sn
Yt =-ln [ln ( T )]
T 1
Where, Yn is reduced mean in Gamble’s extreme value distribution for sample size from Appendix
A. Table A.1, Sn is reduced standard deviation in Gamble’s extreme value distribution for sample
size (from Appendix A. Table A.2), 𝜎𝑛−1 is standard deviation of annual rain fall.
𝛿𝑛 − 1 = √
∑(𝑋−𝑋𝑚)2
Where, Xm =
 X =55.59 mm (from Table 3.7)
𝑁−1 N
∑(𝑋−𝑋𝑚)2
𝛿𝑛 − 1 = √ = 17.74
𝑁−1
Yt=- ln [ln (50/49)]=3.902
For N=21, Yn=0.5252, and Sn =1.0696
𝑌𝑇 − 𝑌𝑛 3.902 − 0.5252
𝐾𝑇 = = = 3.157
𝑆𝑛 1.0696
XT=Xm + KT*𝜎𝑛−1 =55.59+3.157*17.74 = 111.6mm

AKU HWRE Page 19
2017
Therefore, the maximum probable point rainfall of 50 year return period analyzed in Gumbel
method is 111.6mm.
C. Log Pearson Type III Distribution Method
This distribution is extensively used in USA for project sponsored by U.S government. In this the
variant is first transformed into logarithmic form (base 10) and the transformed data is then
analyzed. If X is the variant of random hydrologic series of Y variants:-
Y= logx, YT =Ym + Kz*Sy ……………………………………….3.5
Where, Ym is mean of value is 1.72(from Table 3.7) Kz is frequency factor which is a function of
recurrence interval T and the coefficient of skew Cs, Sy is standard deviation of the variant sample:-
∑(𝑌−𝑌𝑚)2
𝑆𝑦 = √ = 0.14
𝑁−1
And Cs=coefficient of skew of variant Y.
𝐶𝑠 = (𝑁−1)(𝑁−2)𝑆𝑦 3 =0.016
N is sample size = 21
The variation of kz = f (Cs, T) is given in table (Chow, V.T., 1959).
Kz = f (Cs, T) = f (0.016, 50) = 2.063, using interpolation technique
YT =Ym+ kz*Sy= 1.72+2.063 *0.14 = 2.01
XT = antilog (YT) = antilog (2.02) =102.1 mm
Therefore the maximum probable point rainfall of 50 years return period analyzed in log Pearson
Type III distribution method is 102.1 mm.
D. Log Normal Distribution Method
Log normal distribution method is especial type of Log Pearson Type I distribution method with
Cs=0.
From table (Chow, V.T., 1959) for Cs = 0, T50, kz =2.054
AKU HWRE Page 20

2017
Y50=Ym + kz*Sy……………………………………………3.6
=1.72+2.054*0.14=2.008
XT=Antilog (YT)
= antilog (2.008) = 101.756mm
Therefore the maximum probable point rainfall of 50 years return period analyzed in Log Normal
distribution method is 101.756mm.
Methods Maximum storm (p) calculated (for return period of 50

years)
Normal Distribution Method 97.24mm
Gumbel Method 111.6mm
Log Pearson Type Three Method 102.1 mm
Log normal Distribution Method 101.756 mm
Table 3.9: Probable maximum precipitation output
3.2.3. Selection of Probability Distribution Method and Design point Rainfall

The collected data can be tested using different probability distribution techniques. The most
commonly used distribution methods to fit extreme rainfall events are;Normal, Gumbel, Log
Normal, Pearson Type III and Log Pearson Type III. The best fitting distribution to be used for
design can be done or identified by using D-index test and sometime called diagnostic test.
D-Index test
D-index test is called diagnostic test of selecting suitable distribution. After checking the
consistency of the data for higher and lower outlier, the recorded rainfall data are obtained as
representative for the analysis using D-index.
1 6
𝐷 − 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = (X ) ∗ ∑𝑖=1 Abs(Xi − Xi′ )……………………………3.7
m
Where Xi and Xi’ are the ith highest observed and computed values for the distribution
respectively.
AKU HWRE Page 21

2017
The D-Index test is believed to show the better goodness or fitness of the data to frequency models.
Hence in this study it was used to determine the best statistical distribution to estimate the peak
rainfall (USWRC, 1981).
Rank Xi Norma Log Normal Log Pearson Type III Gumbel EVI Method
l
Xi-X' Xi-X' Xi-X' Xi-X'

1 84.9 13.10 28.52 38.73 12.86
2 84.4 0.68 3.10 4.93 1.47
3 80.6 5.64 5.97 6.31 1.88
4 76.41 7.94 10.09 11.14 2.89
5 76 12.79 15.73 16.97 6.64
6 72.6 13.89 17.05 18.26 6.74
Sum 80.47 80.47 96.34 32.48
D–Index (error) 0.972 1.448 1.733 0.5842(ok)
Table 3.10:D-index data fitness test
The smallest error D - index value was found to be for the Gumbel EVI Type I Distribution which
is 0.5842. Accordingly the design rain fall was found to be 111.6 mm for the Gumbel EVI Type I
Distribution.
Finally the peak rainfall found to be 111.6mm which computed from Gamble method. But for
design we have to multiply by area reduction factor.
As the area of the catchment gets larger and larger, confidence of all hydrological incidences
generally becomes less and less. This may be taken care of by introducing an aerial reduction factor
(ARF).
ARF is estimated by relationship:-
Arial design rainfall= design point rainfall * ARF
AKU HWRE Page 22

2017
Where, ARF is area reduction factor
ARF = 1- (0.044*A0.275) = 1- (0. 044 * 66.560.275) = 0.8604
Then Design Rainfall, DRF = PRF * ARF=111.6* 0.8604 = 96.02mm
3.2.4. Probable Maximum flood (PMF)

Maximum design discharge is the peak river discharge that corresponds to a certain return period.
The maximum design discharge Qmax is used in the design, to determine the back water curve
results from constructing the weir which enables to predict the highest water level that occurs
average once every T years, where T is the selected return period of the discharge. The peak
discharge determines the water afflux on the weir and hence the height of the weir, wing walls and
the cross bridge is estimated.
The methods which can be used to estimate the magnitude of peak flood is; rational method,
empirical method, Gumbel method and USSCS method.
I. Rational Method
The rational formula is found to be suitable for peak flow prediction in small catchments areas of
up to 50km2.This method assumed that; the peak flow occurs when the entire watershed is
contributing to the flow, the rainfall intensity is the same over the entire drainage area, the rainfall
intensity is uniform over time duration equal to the time of concentration, Tc, and the frequency of
the computed peak flow is the same as that of the rainfall intensity (Subramanya K., 1982). The
equation of rational method is given by:-
1
Qp = 3.6 (𝐶 ∗ 𝐼𝑡𝑐,𝑝 ∗ 𝐴) …………………………………………….3.8
Where, Q is the maximum rate of runoff, m3/s, C is dimensionless runoff coefficient depending
upon land use, Itc, p is design rainfall intensity in mm/ hour and A is the drainage area, km2.
Design Parameters
A. Time of concentration, Tc
The time of concentration is the time required for water to travel from the hydraulically most
remote point of the basin to the point of interest. The slope of the catchment area varies with 1.2%
AKU HWRE Page 23

2017
to 5.0% with the average slope of 2.25%. For small natural catchments, a formula derived from
data published by Kirprich for agricultural areas could be used to give Tc in hours by the following
relationship.
𝑳
𝑻𝒄(𝒉𝒓) = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟐𝟓( )^𝟎. 𝟖..........................................................................3.9
√𝑺
Time of
Length(m) Slop Concentration
197.0 0.012 0.092
1996.0 0.021 0.50
2998.0 0.047 0.51
7681.0 0.0420 1.12
Total ∑L = 12872m Mean=0.0225 Total Tc = 2.22 hr
Table 3.11: Time concentration analysis
Total time of concentration is 2.22 Hr.
B. Rainfall Intensity, I
The rainfall intensity, I, is the average rainfall rate, in inches per hour, for a storm duration equal
to the time of concentration for a selected return period. Rainfall intensity, duration curve and
frequency curves are necessary to use the rational method. Itcp, is a function of return period and
time of concentration.
C. Runoff Coefficient, C
The runoff coefficients for different land uses within a watershed are used to generate a single,
weighted coefficient that will represent the relationship between rainfall and runoff for that
watershed. The ground cover and a host of other hydrologic abstractions considerably affect the
coefficient.
1
Therefore the peak discharge is, QP = 3.6 (𝐶 ∗ 𝐼𝑡𝑐,𝑝 ∗ 𝐴)
II. Empirical Formula
AKU HWRE Page 24

2017
The empirical formula used for the estimation of peak flood are essentially regional formula based
on statistical correlation of the observed peak and important catchment’s properties. To simplify
the form of the equation, only a few of the many parameters affecting the flood peaks are used. For
example, almost all the formula use the catchment’s area as a parameter affecting the peak flood
and most of them neglect the flood frequency as a parameter. In view of these the empirical formula
are applicable only in the region for which they were developed.
E.g. Dr. Admassu′s empirical formula is one of the applicable for some part of Ethiopia.
QP = Q (1+ Kz* CV), where: Q = 0.87 * A0.7
√6 𝑇
𝐾Z = − ( 0.5772 + 𝑙𝑛 (𝑙𝑛 (𝑇−1))),
𝜋
Where A is catchment area (km2), Kz is frequency factor, T is return period, CV is the average
coefficient of variation.
CV = 0.38 for most catchment.
√6 50
Kz = - (0.5772 + ln (ln (50−1))) = 2.5923
𝜋
Q = 0.87 * 66.60.7 = 18.9 m3/s
QP = 18.9(1+ 2.5923*0.38) = 37.52 m3/s
III. Gumbel Method
Ten year recorded runoff data are given (refer table 3.3), Then to determine the peak discharge first
we have to determine the mean discharge and other required data for the calculation as shown
below in tabular form.
year runoff Q-Qm (Q-Qm)^2

1999 10.82 -6.253 39.10
2000 7.42 -9.653 93.18
2001 9.84 -7.233 52.32
2002 14.53 -2.543 6.47
2003 18.93 1.857 3.45
AKU HWRE Page 25

2017
2004 12.54 -4.533 20.55
2005 20.52 3.447 11.88
2006 17.52 0.447 0.20
2007 26.55 9.477 89.81
2008 32.06 14.987 224.61
Table 3.12: Computation of available data’s for Gamble method
Qm = 17.073 m3/s
∑(𝑄 − 𝑄𝑚)2=541.565m3/s
QT=Qm+ KT* 𝜎𝑛−1
Where Qm is the mean of the annual maximum daily runoff discharge, T is the annual maximum
rainfall of T years return period (design storm), KT is frequency factor expressed as;
Yt  Yn
KT=
Sn
Yt =-ln [ln ( T )]
T 1
Where, Yt is the reduced variant and it is a function of T, Yn is the reduced mean in Gamble’s
extreme value, distribution for sample size, Sn is the reduced standard deviation in Gamble’s
extreme value distribution for Sample size and 𝜎𝑛−1 is standard deviation of annual runoff
discharge.
∑(Q − Qm)2
δn − 1 = √
N−1
∑𝑄
Qm = =17.073 m3/s
𝑁
∑(Q−Qm)2
δn − 1 = √ = 7.76
N−1
Yt =- ln [ln (50/49)] =3.902
For N=10, Yn = 0.4952, and Sn = 0.9496).
AKU HWRE Page 26

2017
𝑌𝑇−𝑌𝑛 3.902−0.4952
𝐾𝑇 = = = 3.5876
𝑆𝑛 0.9496
QT=Qm + KT*𝜎𝑛−1 =17.073+ 3.5876*7.76= 44.91 m3/s
IV. SCS Curve Number Method

The SCS peak flow method calculates peak flow as a function of drainage basin area, potential
watershed storage and the time of concentration. This rainfall-runoff relationship separates total
rainfall into direct runoff, retention, and initial abstraction. SCS curve number method assumed
that CN should be 40 or greater, Ia/p should be between 0.1 and 0.5, TC should be 0.1 and 10 hr,
Fp factor is applied only for ponds and swamps that are not in the tc flow path and basin should
have one main channel or branch with nearly equal time of concentration.
Design Parameters of the SCS Curve Number Method Are:

A. Soils
The soil type or classification, the land use and land treatment, and the hydrologic condition of the
cover are the watershed factors that will have the most significant impact on estimating the volume
of rainfall excess, or runoff.
B. Hydrologic Condition
Hydrologic condition represents the effects of cover type and treatment on infiltration and runoff.
It is generally estimated from the density of plant and residue cover across the drainage area. Good
hydrologic condition indicates that the cover has a low runoff potential, while poor hydrologic
condition indicates that the cover has a high runoff potential.
C. Runoff Curve Number (CN) Determination
The Soil Conservation Service's curve numbers are dimensionless numbers indicating the runoff
potential of a basin. The development of the curve number method was based on 24-hour rainfall-
runoff data. It is based on the catchment properties of Hydrologic soil group, Land use and
treatment, Ground surface conditions and Antecedent moisture conditions (Ponce. 1985).
Curve numbers were developed on the basis of average antecedent moisture conditions, which is
AMC II. By changing from AMC II to the PMF peak flow rate is increased by about 50 percent.
These curve numbers can be adjusted to AMC I or III using equation 3.10, so that an adjustment is
required as follows in Table 3.13.
AKU HWRE Page 27

2017
Land use Area ratio Hydro Textural Stream Curve Weighted Sum weighted
or cover Class Flow No. "CN" "CN"
logic
Potential 'CN'
Area Ratio Soil AMC CN
(Km2 group
)
Cultivated 36.13 0.542 A heavy Poor 41 22.242

Land clay
Forest 11.01 0.165 B silt cay Fair 48 7.935

Land
Grazing 13.01 0.195 B light cay Good 35 6.837 II 41.74

Land
Home 5.72 0.086 B None Good 55 4.724

Stead
miscellane 0.73 0.011 III 71.87

ous land
66.60 1 41.74
Table 3.13: Curve number value for land use of the watershed
The CN of the watershed area is estimated by the area weighted relation for the whole catchment,
which is given by:
CN 
 Ai * CNi = 41.74
 Ai
This is the curve number for the antecedent condition II. The corresponding CN for the antecedent
condition III is 71.84.
Calculate the retention SR using the curve number
S = (25400/CN) - 254
S = (25400/71.84)-254 = 99.60
AKU HWRE Page 28

2017
Depth of direct runoff using equation
Qd= (P-0.2S) 2/ (P+0.8S)
= (111.6 -0.2* 99.60)2 / (111.6 + 0.8*99.60)
= 43.94mm
Ia / P is f (CN, P), Ia/P = 0.125
𝐼𝑎
Coefficients, C0, C1 and C2aref( , 𝑅𝑓 𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑒)
𝑝
C0 = 2.0099, C1 = - 0.309094 and C2 = -0.124024 (from Appendix A Table A.4)
Peak flow using equation

2
𝑞𝑢 = 0.000431 ∗ (10𝑐0+𝑐1∗𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑡𝑐 +𝑐2 (𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑡𝑐) )
2
𝑞𝑢 = 0.000431 ∗ (102.0099−0.309094𝑙𝑜𝑔2.22−0.124024(𝑙𝑜𝑔2.22) )
= 0.03345 m3/s/Km2/mm
𝑄𝑝 = 𝑞𝑢 ∗ 𝐴 ∗ 𝑄𝑑………………….3.10
= 0.0337*43.94*66.6
= 97.91m3/s
Estimation methods Peak discharge

Empirical method 37.52m3/s
Gumbel method 44.91m3/s
USSCS curve number method 97.91 m3/s
Table 3.14: Results of peak flood (Q-peak)
Therefore, select 97.91m3/sis to be safe and reliable from estimation of design flood using (USSCS)
method.
3.2.5. Base flow

Base flow is the sustained or “fair weather” runoff of prior precipitation that was stored temporarily
in the watershed, plus the delayed subsurface runoff from the current storm.
AKU HWRE Page 29
2017
Application of low flow frequency analysis includes determination of minimum downstream
release requirement for irrigation planning and design hydropower, water supply, water quality
management.
In our project area, the base flow is measured by floating method and the measured parameters are
average depth of flow (d =0.45m), width (3.5m) and velocity (0.45 m/s); its value was 0.71m3/s
which is much more than duty of the project. For maintain the structural safety of the structure
going to be design the base flow should be added in to the maximum discharge calculated by SCS
curve number method.
Qd = Qcalculated + base flow
= 97.91 m3/s + 0.71 m3/s = 98.62 m3/s
3.3. Crop Water Requirement
Crop Water requirement is the depth needed to meet the water loss through evapotranspiration of
a disease free crop growing in large fields under restricting soil condition including soil water and
fertility achieving full production potential under the given growing environment (FAO-24, 1983).
3.3.1. Crops and Crop Land Allocation

Crop Selection is the selecting suitable crop in relation to the available water supply and climatic
condition of an area is very essential step in crop water demand assessment. Generally crop
selection is based on the variables i.e. suitability of soil, method of irrigation, climate, water
requirement, market, yield response factor and water utilization efficiency profit and socio
economic aspect value.Since the command area is highly dominated by clay loam soil, well
drained; silt loam, black heavy textured soil with PH value ranging from 5.0 - 6.8 which is suitable
for cultivation of potato and maize and other vegetation. Not only this but also they can be easily
irrigate by surface irrigation system.Taking those variables into consideration, the crop types are
selected for our project work are Maize and from vegetables Potato.
Cropping Pattern is the sequence in which plants (crops) are grown on the total area. The cropping
pattern of the project (e.g. Crops, crop rotation and intensity) is essential input consideration in the
overall project planning. The overall objective of cropping pattern is maximizing the utilization of
land water in order that the beneficiaries are capable of implementing the proposed program in
terms of supplying the labour & other inputs required to increase the percentage of the total cropped
AKU HWRE Page 30

2017
area. Cropping pattern depends on the factors such that availability of water, type of soil, climatic
conditions, value of crop and socio-economic aspects.
3.3.2. Net Irrigation Requirement (NIR)

The net irrigation requirements of the crop are calculated using the field water balance. The
variables include crop evapotranspiration (ETcrop), rain fall (Peff), Ground water contribution
(GW) and stored soil water at the beginning of each period (Ws).
NIR = ETcrop – (Peff + GW + Ws) ……………………………………3.11
3.3.3. Effective Rainfall

Effective rainfall can be defined as the rainfall that is stored in the root zone and can be utilized by
crop. All the rainfall that falls is not useful or effective. Some of the seasonal rainfall that fall will
be lost as unnecessary deep-percolation, surface run off and some water may remain in the soil
after the crop is harvested. There are different methods for calculating the effective rainfall from
entered monthly total rainfall data. However, as the rainfall varies from year to year in both
magnitude and frequency, dependable, rather than average rainfall is selected (see figure 4-5).
3.3.4. Crop Coefficient (Kc)
Where field conditions differ from the standard conditions, correction factors are required to adjust
Etc. The crop coefficient is used to relate the potential evapotranspiration (ETo) to the consumptive
use of the crop (ETc). It can be presented as:-
Etc= ETo*Kc ………………………………………………………3.12
The selection of Kc depends on the information of the crops, date of growing, climatic data-these
are wind speed and humidity, length of the total growing season, including initial stage,
development stage, mid-season stage and late season stages.
3.3.5. Crop Water Requirement

The water requirement of crops may be contributed from different sources such as irrigation
requirement, effective rainfall, soil moisture storage and ground water contributions.
CWR=IR+ER+S+GW …………………….........................................3.13
Where, CWR is the crop water requirement, IR is the irrigation requirement, ER is the effective
rainfall, S is carry over soil moisture in the root zone, GW is ground water contribution.
AKU HWRE Page 31

2017
Factor affecting crop water requirement are amount of precipitation, temperature, day light hour,
stage of growth, wind velocity, quality of water, soil characteristic, humidity. The knowledge of
the total water requirement is essential to know the total volume at water to be stored in the
reservoir (demand), the area that can be irrigated with available and usable volume or discharge,
to decide the economics of the project, to assess and recover charge for water supplied, to compare
the utilization and efficiency at the project and to assess and recover charges for water supplied
(see figure 4-7).
3.3.6. Field Irrigation Requirement (FIR)

FIR is the amount of water required to meet NIR, the water lost in the field water courses and
during field application of water.
𝑁𝐼𝑅
FIR= 𝐸𝑎
Where, Ea is the application efficiency, NIR is net irrigation requirement (see figure 4.7), FIR is
Field irrigation Requirement.
3.3.7. Gross Irrigation Requirement (GIR)

The total amount of water applied through irrigation is termed as gross irrigation water
requirement. In other words it is net irrigation requirement plus loss in water application and other
losses. The total water applied to satisfy ET and losses is known as gross irrigation requirement
(GIR).
To estimate the gross irrigation requirement of the project it is important to know the efficiency
with which the project is to operate. The project efficiency is the product of other efficiencies such
as conveyance, application and field channel efficiency. These efficiencies are described in the
following sections.
𝑁𝐼𝑅
GIR= 𝐸𝑃
Where, NIR is Net irrigation requirement, Ep is project efficiency.
3.3.8. Irrigation Efficiency

I. Field Application Efficiency (Ea)
AKU HWRE Page 32

2017
It is the ratio between water directly available to the crop and that received at the field inlet. It is
expressed as:-
𝑤𝑠
Ea=𝑤𝑓 ∗ 100
Where, Ea is application efficiency, Wf is water delivered to the irrigated plot, Ws is water stored
in the root zone.
As Ea has already given in the CROPWAT 8.0 software computer package, and its value Ea is
70%in computing net irrigation requirement.
II. Field Canal Efficiency (Eb)
It is the ratio between water received at the field inlet and that received at the inlet of the block of
fields. It is expressed as
𝑤𝑝
Eb = 𝑤𝑓 *100
Where, Eb is the Field canal efficiency, WP is water received at the field inlet, Wf is water
delivered to the field channel.
Generally for the purpose of irrigation demand assessment a figure of 0.85 is considered
appropriate. Unlined field canal can be considered to ensure adequacy of stored water Eb is
0.7(Arora, K.R., 2003).So, for our design project work for unlined field canal, Eb is recommended
to be 0.7 for unlined canal.
III. Conveyance Efficiency (Ec)
The efficiency of the conveyance is recommended if; Continuous supply substantial change in flow
use 0.9, Rotational supply in the project of (3000-7000 ha) & rotation area of (70 – 300 ha) with
efficient management use 0.8, Rotational supply in large scheme (> 10000 ha) use 0.7 and Small
scheme (< 1000 ha) use 0.65 (Arora, K.R., 2003). For our project work Area, small scheme of
<1000 ha = 0.65
IV. Project Efficiency (Ep)
It is the ratio between water made directly available to the crop and that released at the head works.
It is expressed as:-
𝐸𝑝 = 𝐸𝑏 ∗ 𝐸𝑐 ∗ 𝐸𝑎 = 0.7 * 0.65*0.7 = 0.318
AKU HWRE Page 33

2017
3.3.9. Determination of Design Discharge
The net scheme irrigation requirement computes the total irrigation water needs at scheme level
over a certain time step. It is calculated on a monthly basis taking into account the Irrigation
requirement of the crops in the field over the period under analysis and the correspondent cropped
area. It is expressed in average mm/day, in mm/month and in l/s/ha.
As the irrigation requirement represent, the net scheme irrigation requirement does not take into
consideration soil water contribution to the crop. The peak (maximum) net scheme irrigation
requirement has been found to be 0.3l/s/ha in dry season from CROPWAT 8.0. The total irrigable
land of area which is 80 ha can be designed using equation 3.14.
maximum net irrigation requirement∗total irrigation area

Design discharge = ……3.14
project efficiency
𝑙
𝑠
Therefore design discharge= (0.3 ℎ𝑎 ∗ 80 ℎ𝑎)/(0.7 ∗ 0.65 ∗ 0.7)
= 75.40l/s
Since the irrigation water is not applied for 24hr, we need to multiply the design Discharge by the
working time factor. Adopting 12 hours of irrigation, the design discharge becomes as below where
project efficiency (Ep) is 0.318.
0.3∗80 24
𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 = ∗ 12 =150.71 l/s= 0.151 m3/s.
0.318
3.4. Irrigation Methods and Systems Selection

There are a large number of considerations which must be taken into account in the selection of an
irrigation system. These factors will vary in importance from location to location and crop to crop.
The suitability of the various irrigation methods, i.e. surface, sprinkler or drip irrigation depends
mainly on the following factors of natural conditions (soil type, slope, climate, water quality and
availability), Type of crop, Type of technology, Costs and benefits.
For our irrigation project, among the various irrigation methods, surface irrigation method has been
selected due to the suitability of the topography condition which is the most common method
employed in the world and also the most utilized in Ethiopia.
AKU HWRE Page 34

2017
3.4.1. Surface Irrigation Methods
Irrigation water may be applied to crop by loading it on the field surface, by applying it beneath
the soil surface, by spraying it under pressure or by applying it in drops. The common methods of
irrigation are surface, subsurface, sprinkler and drip.
The water supply, the type of soil, the topography of the land and the crop to be irrigated determine
the correct method of irrigation to be used. Whatever the method of irrigation, it is necessary to
design the system for the most efficient use of water by the crop. (Micheal A., 1997).
In surface irrigation, water is applied directly to the soil surface from a channel located at the upper
reach of the field. Gravity provides the major driving force to spread water over the irrigated field.
Once distributed over the surface of the field and after it has entered the soil, water is often
redistributed by forces other than gravity.
3.4.1.1.Furrow Surface Irrigation Method
Care should be taken when choosing the method which is best suited to the local circumstances,
i.e. depending on slopes, soil types, selected crop types, amount of water available, etc. of the
command area.
Furrow irrigation is a surface irrigation system that applies water to the soil by allowing water to
flow down slope, in evenly spaced channels called furrows, rills, or corrugations. These small
channels convey water down the field to the plants either growing in the furrows or on beds between
the furrows. Furrow irrigation systems differ from border irrigation in that only part of the ground
surface is covered with water. Water enters the soil by both vertically downward and lateral
infiltration. Depending on the soil, crop spacing, farm equipment used etc. spacing between
furrows varies from 60 to 120 cm. Depending on the soil texture furrow length ranges from 20 to
300 m or even more. To avoid overtopping and scouring problems furrow inflow rates are normally
limited to 2 to 15 m3/hr/ furrow (Micheal, A., 1997).
The furrow method of irrigation is used in irrigation of row crops (such as Maize, Cotton, Tobacco,
Potatoes, Sugarcane, and Groundnut). Since our selected crops are Maize and Potato they are
suitable for furrow surface irrigation method. Furrows are particularly well adapted to irrigating
crops which are subjected to injury from pounded surface water or susceptible to fungal root.
Furrow irrigation is suitable to most soils except sands, which provide poor lateral distribution.
AKU HWRE Page 35

2017
3.5. Design of Canals and Canal Structures
Irrigation scheme which utilize weir a barrage or a storage reservoir necessitates the construction
of network of canals. The entire system of canals (main and branches) distributed over the field are
to be designed properly for certain realistic value of maximum discharge, that must pass through
them so as to provide sufficient irrigation to the command area; the success of the flow irrigation
depends on the perfect design of the network of canals.
When the rain fall in the area is not enough to satisfied crop water demand, additional water has to
be applied from available water source based on their quality for irrigation proposes to get the
expected crop using the water application methods i.e. sprinkler irrigation, trickle irrigation and
canal (surface water) irrigation.
The implementations depend up on the economy, type of crop to be grown, type of soil, climatically
condition and topography of area to be irrigated. For our design project, we select canal (surface)
irrigation method; the selection is depending on topography, low capital investment and
successfully used in irrigation of crops like potato, maize, & vegetable etc.
3.5.1. Selection of canal cross section

Irrigation canals have various type of cross section like trapezoidal, parabolic, circular, triangular,
and rectangular cross section. Canal cross sections design varies greatly depending up on the soil
condition, flow requirements, cost of construction and safety. Looking this parameter trapezoidal
canal cross section is suitable for our design project work due to our design project work area have
sandy loam soil type.
If we need to select rectangular or triangular cross section on the sandy soil, the walls of the cross
section will collapse inside the canal and quit causing canal blockage because of sandy soils is
cohesion less soils. So, trapezoidal canal is preferred instead of other cross section because it
minimizes the slope of the wall.
Velocity of flow in case of trapezoidal section the ratio of the flow area to the contact area with the
wall is very high. Thus result in decreasing the effect of the viscous force on the flow velocity of
water thereby making it move faster. In addition to this flow condition trapezoidal maximum
discharge can be achieved with very easy construction process and more stability by geometry
itself.
AKU HWRE Page 36

2017
When we see safety of cross section, something falls to the canal it is easier to climb the wall with
gradually gradient of trapezoidal section. Generally trapezoidal canal cross section is selected
based on the stability.
3.5.2. Canal Alignment

A canal has to be aligned in such a way that it covers the entire area proposed to be irrigated. It is
clear that irrigation water, (in flow type) should reach the field by gravity to accomplish the
requirement. Irrigation canal is always aligned in such a way that the water gets proper command
over the whole irrigable area (Sahasrabudhe, M., 1994).
The canal alignment should be consider economical, safety and social conflicts i.e. the alignment
should be straight, short should cross the natural stream, drainage as far as possible, not pass
through the valuable lands, religious places, villages, etc. to avoid unnecessary compensation and
unwanted conflict. In addition to this the alignment should not pass through the sandy soil as the
percolation in the loss soil will be more and the duty of the soil will be less and the alignment
should not pass through the water logged area because the canal may be collapsed due to the heavy
moisture in the area.
3.5.3. Hydraulic Design of Canal

Canal is designed in a way which, it’s longitudinal and cross section is fixed out to suit
requirements; thus various canals dimension like bed width, depth, side slope, longitudinal slope,
etc. are to be fixed in the design of irrigation canal. Irrigation canals are designed to take the
maximum discharge safely which is called full supply discharge.
Regime channels
While design a properly functioning channel, one must think to design such a channel in which
neither silting nor scouring take place, such channel is known as stable channel or regime channel,
so whatever silt has entered in to the channel at its head; it keeps in the suspension so that it doesn’t
it settle down and deposited at any point of the channel. The velocity of the channel should be such
that, it doesn’t produce local silt by erosion of channel bed and side slope (Blench, T., 1957).
 Kennedy’s theory
AKU HWRE Page 37

2017
He defined the critical velocity (Vo) in a channel as the mean velocity which will just keep the
channel free from silting or scour and related it to the depth of flow by the equation by introducing
factor m, up on the type of the soil, m which is called the critical velocity ratio. (C.V.R)
𝑉𝑜 = 𝐶1 ∗ 𝑚 ∗ 𝑦 ∗ 𝐶2 = 0.55𝑚𝑦 ∗ 0.64
Where, C1 & C2 are constant depend up on silt charge.
C1 = 0.55 & C2 = 0.64
I. Lacey’s theory
Lacey argue that a channel showing no silting no scouring may actually not be in regime and he
classify in to three regime conditions.
a. True regime
Artificially constructed channel having a certain fixed section and a certain fixed slope and only
full filling the requirements of, Q is constant, flow uniform, silt charge amount is constant, silt
grade is constant, type and size of silt is always the same and channel is flowing through a material
which can be scoured as easily as it can be deposited, but in practices all the above listed condition
can never be satisfied.
b. Initial regime and final regime
When only the bed slope of the channel varies and its cross section or wetted perimeter remains
unaffected, even the channel is an exhibit no silting no scouring properties called initial regime.
they can be achieved only a working stability due to the rigidity of their banks, their slope and
velocities are higher and cross sections narrower than what would have been, if the side where not
rigid. And regime theory is not applicable to them, as they are in fact not the channel in alluvium.
3.5.3.1.Criteria’s for Selecting Canal Design Theory
Design of channel by Kennedy’s theory varies depending up on selecting bed slopes, to fit the
topographical slope & B/D ratio. He doesn’t fix regime slope for irrigation channel as that of the
lacey’s theory. Lacey indicated that the true regime shape of the channel is semi elliptical, but he
did not give any equation for its shape; The true regime condition defined by lacey are hypothetical
not real in practice, the canal passes through the different bed of soil it is difficult to use single
Lacey’s factor, f, and Lacey did not consider silt charge rather silt grade. Moreover Lacey did not
AKU HWRE Page 38

2017
take in to account the increase in silt concentration due to loss of water evaporation and seepage
(Arora K.R., 2002).
Hence the lacey’s equations are Empherical and highly specific for channels flowing in particular
regions. This equation cannot be universally applied. Moreover the value of silt factor is required
in the use of lacey’s theory, since information on particle size; it is preferred to use Kennedy’s
theory for the design of channels.
A. Permissible Velocity
Depending on whether there is a non-erodible or an erodible canal, a permissible velocity can be

used as criteria for a design of the canal. A minimum permissible velocity is that which will not
start sedimentation. It is determined by sediment transport capacity of the flow. A maximum
permissible velocity is that which will not cause erosion of the canal. This velocity is very uncertain
and variable and can be estimated only with experience and judgment (Chow V.T., 1983).
Type of soil Maximum permissible velocity
Loam clay soil or loam 0.38-1.37
Clay soil 0.41-1.67
Heavy clay 0.45-1.7
Sandy clay 0.52-1.83
Ordinary 0.6-0.9
Moorum 1.5
Gravel hard rock >3
Table 3.15: Permissible velocity for unlined canal

Type of lining Maximum permissible velocity(m/s)
Boulder lining 1.5
Brick tile lining 1.8
Cement concrete 2.7
Table 3.16: Maximum permissible velocity for lined canal

B. Full Supply Discharge (FSD)
AKU HWRE Page 39

2017
The maximum discharge capacity of the channel for which it is discharged is known as full supply
discharge the water level of the canal corresponding to full supply discharge in full supply level
(FSL) (Basak S.K., 1999).
The capacity of the canal should be such as to full fill the max peak demand of all the crops that
are required to be irrigated at any one time amongst all the season. (Garge A.K., 2003)
In this project, the irrigated crops and the net crop requirement obtained from the CROPWAT 8.0
software is 0.3l/s/ha.
Design Input data
A) Command area
The main project activities include design of main canal, design of headwork & stability analysis
weir structures. The source of the project is Seysa River proposed to irrigate a total area of 80hain
which 122households are supposed to be direct beneficiaries and the total length of the canal from
weir to the highest field point 1010.2m and the elevation of the highest field command area is
2097.41m.
B) Time factor
A time factor is a factor used to calculate design discharge for specific area which obtained by
dividing the actual flow hours required for irrigation along the main canal to one day (24hrs).
𝟐𝟒
Time factor = 𝒕𝒊 (𝒉𝒓)
C) Canal side slope

I. Side slope for unlined canal
The slope to be given to the sides depends on the angle of the internal friction for a particular soil.
In other word the slope adopted should also be remembered that the side slopes adopted in cutting
and filling are not the same.
Soil type Side slope (Horizontal: vertical )
Cutting Embankment
Sound rock 1/8 :1 1:1
Poor rock 1/2: 1 1:1
Gravelly soil 3/4 : 1 1:1
Compact clay soil 1:1 1:1
Clay soil 11 : 1 111 : 1 2:1
AKU HWRE Page 40

2017
Loam soil 1:1 2:1
Sandy loam soil 2:1 to 3:1 2:1 to 3:1
Sandy soil 3:1 4:1
Table 3.17: Side slope for various soils

II. Side slope for lined canal
The canal can be made fairly water tight by limiting the canal section with various materials. In
ordinary lined canal, the steepest satisfactory side slope from design point of view is ranging from
1.25:1 to 1.5:1 (Subramanya, K., 1982).
D) Longitudinal slope
Canal bed slope depends up on the slope of the natural ground for economy in the earth work and
bed slope should be the same as the ground slope as in the case of contour canal because it affects
the velocity of flow. For large canals, Q > 15 m3/s use (0.10 to 0.30 %), for intermediate canals use
(0.20 to 0.40 %), small canals Q < 0.3 m3/s use (0.30 to 0.50%) (Subramanya, K., 1982).
For Q (m3/s) b/y ratio
0-3 1
0.3-2 0.03*Q+1
2-30 0.03*Q+1
>30 0.03*Q+1
Table 3.18: Values of b/y ratio for lining canal

E) Roughness Coefficient
The roughness of the canal bed affects the velocity of the flow. The roughness is caused due to the
ripples formed on the bed of the canal. So the roughness coefficient was introduced by the R.G
Kennedy to calculate the mean velocity flow.
The value of “n” depends on the type of the bed material of the canal which can influence on flow
characteristics of the channel (Basak S.K., 1999).
Material Coefficient(n)
AKU HWRE Page 41

2017
Wood 0.013-0.165
Steel 0.0125-0.018
Concrete 0.013-0.018
Masonry 0.02-0.036
Earth 0.0225-0.035
Table 3.19: The value of N for different type of bed material
F) Free board
The gap between full supply level and the bank level of the canal is known as free board and the
amount of free board depends up on canal size, discharge and wave action etc.
According to the lacey’s free board is given by formula.
Fb = 0.20 + 0.15Q1/3, where, Q is canal capacity [m3/s]
Data available:
Lined trapezoidal main canal
 Design discharge =0.151 m3/s

 N=0.035 for masonry bed material and longitudinal slope S=0.004 for Q < 0.3 m3/s.
Since our canal is aligned in alluvial sandy soil to minimize loss of water, geo-membrane lining
trapezoidal canal is provided.
For the design of lined canals, uniform flow equations for open channel flow can be used.
1
A × 1 × R 3 × S 2 …………………………………………...3.15
2
Q=
n
Where: Q is design discharge in m3/s, A is the x-sectional area of flow m2, R is hydraulic radius
in m, S is longitudinal slope of the canal, n, is manning’s roughness coefficient.
A= by+my2
P=b+2y√1 + 𝑚2 where, P is the perimeter and y is the depth flow. Use side slope 1.5:1 (is
ranging from 1.25:1 to 1.5:1), and then from this m value is 1.5.
But for b/y ratio lined canal for discharge <0.3m3/s we have,
b/y=1
A=by+1.5y2=y*y +1.5y2
A=y2+1.5y2=2.5y2 P=b+2y√1 + 1.52
Perimeter =b+3.6y =y+3.6y=4.6y
AKU HWRE Page 42

2017
𝐴 by+1.5y^2
R= = = 2.5y2/4.6y = 0.5435y
𝑃 b+3.6y
1
Q=𝑛 *A*R2/3*S1/2
1
0.151m3/s = *2.5y2*(0.5345y) 2/3*0.0041/2
0.035
Then, y = 0.33m
From the above b/y ratio b = y =0.33m
Perimeter =1.5m
Top width = 1.3m
Q 0.151
Then V = = but, from the above area, A = 2.5y2 = 0.27m2
A A
Q 0.151
V= = = 0.57m/s
A 0.27
V= 0.57m/s, < 2m/s, this implies that our canal does not cause either silting or scouring.
1
FB = 0.2+0.15 Q 3 = 0.2+0.15(0.151)1/3= 0.28m
Free board = 0.28 m
Here total depth of canal = FB + y= 0.33m+0.28m = 0.61m
Figure 3.2: Main canal cross section
Secondary canals:
AKU HWRE Page 43

2017
Main canal is the largest canal in the system. It takes off directly from canal head works, which
may be a diversion head works or a storage head works. No direct irrigation is done from main
canal. Secondary canal is then, received water from main canal and transfer water to tertiary canal
or direct irrigation can be takes place from this canal.
Unlined canal were designed based up on soil texture that is, design of secondary canal for erodible
(alluvial) bed. Secondary canal are the branch of main canal in either direction taking off at regular
interval. In general, in secondary canal direct irrigation can be used, but at a time direct out let may
be provide. Secondary canals are usually feeder channel for tertiary and field channel. In this
project, there are only two secondary canals and there is no tertiary canal.
Procedure for design of unlined canals on the Kennedy's theory

The following procedure can be used for canal design.
 Assume trial depth of flow of Y and determine the critical velocity VO.
𝑄
 Determine the area of flow, A, from 𝐴 = 𝑉 .
𝑂
 Workout the canal cross sectional parameter

 Calculate the actual mean velocity V in the canal from the Kutter’s formula, manning
formulas or chezy equation.
 Compare VO and V, if the same, the assumed depth of flow "Y" is right if not the same
assumes another 'y' and repeat step1 through Kutter’s formulas (Subramanya K., 1982).
Canal condition Values of (n)

Very good 0.0225
Good 0.025
Indifferent 0.0275
Bad 0.35
Table 3.20: Recommended values of roughness coefficient for unlined canal
Design: - In this project, only two secondary canals to design. The first secondary canal is to be
design to irrigate 35ha and the second one is for 45ha command area.
Available data:-
35ha
Discharge, Q1 in m3/s = *0.151=0.07 m3/s
80ha
AKU HWRE Page 44

2017
Design of secondary unlined Canal for 35ha (Q1 = 0.07m3/s)
First trial
Let’s try by, y=0.25m
VO = 0.55*m*y0.64 =0.55*1.2*0.250.64=0.27m/s
From continuity equation, Q=A*V,
𝑄 0.07
Then area 𝐴 = 𝑉 = = 0.24 𝑚2
0.27
By taking side slop for sandy loamy soil, 2H: 1V for sandy loamy soil, m =2.0
𝐴−𝑚𝑦^2 0.24−(3∗0.252 )
A =b*y +my2=𝑏 = = = 0.46𝑚
𝑦 0.25
Perimeter = 1.58m
Then from this we can get the value of R
𝐴 0.24
R= 𝑃 = 1.58 = 0.152𝑚
After calculating this value we calculate flow velocity by Kutter’s formula as follows
1 0.00155
+(23+ )
0.035 s
V=[ 0.00155 0.035 ]*√𝑅𝑆………………………………………..3.16
1+(23+ s )∗
√R
Where, V is flow velocity m/s, R is hydraulic radius in m, S is bed slope of the canal, and n is
roughness coefficient and S is bed slope, for unlined canal, =0.0020 ranges from (0.1% to 0.35%).
1 0.00155
+(23+ )
0.035 0.0020
V =[ 0.00155 0.035 ]*√0.152 ∗ 0.0020 =0.29m/s ≠ 0.27m/s
1+(23+ 0.0020 )∗
√0.152
Second trial
Use for second trail, y = 0.29m
VO = 0.55*m*y0.64 = 0.55*1.2*0.290.64= 0.3m/s
From continuity equation, Q =A*V
𝑄 0.07
Then area 𝐴 = 𝑉 = = 0.24𝑚2
0.3
By taking side slop for sandy loamy soil, 2H: 1V for sandy loamy soil, m =2.0
𝐴−𝑚𝑦^2 0.24−(2∗0.292 )
A = b*y +my2= 𝑏 = = = 0.24𝑚, for m=2.0
𝑦 0.29
Perimeter = 1.53m
Then from this we can get the value of R
𝐴 0.24
R = 𝑃 = 1.53 = 0.157𝑚
AKU HWRE Page 45

2017
After calculating this value we are going to calculate flow velocity by Kutter’s formula by using
the equation 3.16.
1 0.00155
+(23+ )
0.035 𝑆
V=[ 0.00155 0.035 ]*√𝑅𝑆 = 0.3m/s =Vo = 0.3m/s……… ok.
1+(23+ 𝑆 )∗
√𝑅
This implies that our secondary canal does not cause either silting or scouring.
Free Board
Fb = 0.2+0.15𝑄1/3
Fb = 0.2+0.15𝑄1/3 =0.2+0.15(0.07)1/3=0.26m
3.5.4. Canal Structures

3.5.4.1.Design of Division Box
Division structures or box regulate the flow from one canal to another or to several others. They
usually consist of a box with vertical walls in which controllable opening are provided. Metal or
wooden sluice gates or stop logs are usually installed to regulate the division of flow of all times
and to shut off in any branch when desired.
In this our design Project work, we use one division box to distribute the amount of discharge from
main canal to secondary canals.
Available data:-
 Qo, discharge through main canal =0.151m3/sec
 Q1, discharge through secondary canal Q=0.07m3/sec
 Q2, discharge through secondary canal =0.081m3/sec
 Y, depth of main canal = 0.33m
 B, bed width of the main canal = 0.33m and side slop for lined main canal is recommended
to be 1.5H: 1V, m=1.5.
From broad crest formula to divide proportionally is used.
Q=CL (H) 3/2 …………………………………………….3.17
Where, Q is discharge over rectangular weir sill (m3/s), C is the discharge coefficient and use 1.77,
L is effective length of crest openings in m, H is the over flow depth (m).
AKU HWRE Page 46

2017
A=by+my2 = 0.33*0.33+ (1.5*0.332) = 0.27m2
Q 0.151
V1= A1 = = 0.63 m/s
0.24
𝑣2 0.532
Then from this Ha = 2g= =0.02
2∗9.81
Use hs (sill height)=0.15m
Hd= y-hs = 0.33m-0.15m = 0.18m
H= Ha+ Hd= 0.02+0.18 = 0.2m
Now by applying equation 3.17, Q = CL (H) 3/2

𝑄1 0.07
L1=𝐶∗𝐻 3/2 = =0.44m
1.77∗0.23/2
L1 Q1 L1∗Q2 0.44∗0.081
Using proportionality, = , then, L2= = =0.51m
L2 Q2 𝑄1 0.07
B=b+2my
Where, B is width of division box, b is width of main canal, m is side slope, y- depth of main
canal.
B=0.33+2*1.5*0.33=1.32m
And height of division box, h
h = y+fb+fb’
Where, y is the depth of flow of main canal, Fb is free board of main canal, Fb’ is free board of
division box, let take Fb’ as the 0.3 (ranges for 0.2 to 0.65m)
Then h=0.33+0.3+0.28=0.91m
3.6. Diversion Head Works

A diversion head work weir is constructed across river to rise water level to that the required
amount of water on an irrigation field can be directed also the off taking canals sufficiently.
Diversion head work is sometimes known as canal head work. The purpose of diversion head work
is mainly for head maintenance with less storage capacity.
Location of Headwork In order to fix the best site for the diversion headwork, one has to have
clear information of the site. Generally topographic maps are required for the purpose. However,
AKU HWRE Page 47

2017
one can also have a walk along the river to find out possible sites for the headwork. Factors to be
considered when selecting the site for diversion weirs are; location of the irrigated area, stability
of the river bank, construction materials and resources, topographic survey, and hydrological data.
The selecting site should be economical having short main canal river, bank should stable, should
be in straight reach, good foundation available at the site, site easily accessible by road.
3.6.1. Selection of Weir Type

The weir may be broadly divided in to three based on design feature:
Vertical drop weir: This type of weir was used in most case, particularly suitable for land clay
and consolidated gravel foundation.
Rock fill weir: It is suitable for fine sandy foundation. Such weir requires huge quantity of stone
and is economical only when the stone is easily available.
Concrete glacis or sloping weir: This type of weir is used on permeable foundation and is
generally provided with low crest, with counter balance get.
In deciding the type of the weir, conditions should be considered i.e. economy of construction,
foundation condition, size of the project, head across the weir and practically during
implementation.
Taking all the above factors of the project into account, the case for our design project work&
suitability of for gravel foundation, masonry weir of vertical drop is selected.
3.6.2. Hydraulic Design of the Weir

Available Data:
m3
 Q peak =98.62 (refer data from hydrology)
s
 River bed level=2100m.a.s.l
 Afflux=1.0m (the heading up of water on upstream side of the structure. For economical case and
safety, the afflux value should be within the range (1m – 1.2m)) (Garge S.K., 2003).
 Retrogression=0.5m (the scouring of the d/s of the river bed due to the construction of the
weir. The recommended value is ranging from 0.3 – 0.5m for high flood discharge condition
(Garge, S.K., 2003).
Determination of the crest level
AKU HWRE Page 48

2017
Average level of highest field = 2097.4m
Head loss across the field = 0.1 m, recommended 0.1 to 0.35 (Garge, S.K., 2003)
Head loss at the turn out = 0.15 m, for vertical broad crest weir (Garge, S.K., 2003).
Head loss at the head regulator = 0.32 m for broad crested vertical weir
Water depth required = 0.33m (refer data from canal design part)
Slope of the canal * distance of the highest point from the weir = 0.004 * 1010.2 =4.041m
The crest level of the weir=2097.4+0.1+0.15+0.32+0.33m +1.44 = 2102.341m
Weir height = Crest Level of the Weir – River Bed Level
=2102.341m-2100m
H=2.34m take 2.5m for safe design.
Water Way
It is the width provided at the site for the river water to flow. In other word, it is the length of the
weir. Approximate water way to provide between the abutments may be calculated from lacey’s
regime perimeter formula
Pw =4.75√𝑄 ……………………………………………3.18
Where, Pw is the wetted perimeter at the site at the river. But in this case, it denotes the length of
the weir between the abutments in meter and denoted by L.
𝐿 = 4.75√98.62 =47.2m
Since our water way gained above is very wide it should be multiplied by factor 0.45 (boulder,
gravel foundation). But, if our foundation is alluvial soil take 1(Arora K.R., 1988).
Hence, Le=0.45*47.2=21.23m
If, there is measured actual waterway or the actual width of the river is given, decision is made by
comparing the calculated water way and actual water way of the river. Here, minimum of the two
should be taken to be more economical.
Discharge Intensity
design discharge(Q) 98.62
Discharge intensity (q) =length of waterway(L)=21.23=4.645𝑚2 ⁄𝑠𝑒 is an overflow rate over the weir.
Normal scour depth (R)
AKU HWRE Page 49

2017
𝑞2
R=1.35( 𝑓 ) 1/3 ……………………………………..3.19
Where, q is discharge intensity, f is lacey’s silt factor, R is the scour depth.

f = 1.76(dm)0.5
13
 q2  4.6452
1/3
Take Lacey’s silt factor, f=1 R=1.35   = 1.35( ) =3.76m
1
 f 
Regime velocity, V
Under the flood condition when the weir expected to attain regime condition
𝑞 4.646𝑚2 ⁄𝑠𝑒
𝑅𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝑣) = = = 1.24m/s
𝑅 3.76m
𝑉 2 1.242 𝑚/𝑠
Approach Velocity head (ha) =2𝑔= =0.0784m
2∗9.81
Total energy level (TEL)

Upstream (U/S) TEL = Crest level + He, where, He is head over the crest
To find height of energy line above the crest (m) (He) or head over the crest,
Q = Cd*Le*He3/2 ……………………………..3.20
𝑄
q =𝐿𝑒 = 𝐶𝑑 ∗ 𝐻𝑒 3/2
Where Q is design discharge (m3/s), Cd is discharge coefficient (usually cd is 1.705 for broad
crested weir), He is head over energy line above the crest and Le is effective length of the weir.
𝑞 2/3 4.646 2/3
Therefore, He=(𝐶𝑑) =(1.705) =1.95m
Upstream (U/S) TE =Crest level of weir +He

=2102.34+1.95=2104.29 m.a.s.l
D/S TEL = U/S TEL- Afflux
=2104.29– 1= 2103.29m.a.s.l
U/S HFL =U/S TEL – Ha
=2104.29 – 0.0784=2104.21m.a.s.l
D/S HFL = U/S HFL-Afflux
=2104.21m – 1.0=2103.21m.a.s.l
D/S HFL before construction = D/S HFL – retrogression
=2103.21– 0.5 =2102.71m.a.s.l
The crest level of under sluice is equal to the river bed level=2100m
AKU HWRE Page 50

2017
Head regulator=is kept 1.2 to 1.5m higher than the crest level of the under sluice (say 1.5m),
therefore the crest level of head regulator=2100+1.5=2101.5m
Bed level of canal=crest level of head regulator-canal flow depth
=2101.5-0.33 =2101.2m, which means crest level of head regulator is equal to full supply
level=2101.5m,
Pond level= full supply level + modular head=2101.5m +0.55m=2102.5m
Therefore, Height of shutter (S) = Pond level - crest level of weir
=2102.5m – 2102.34m = 0.39 ≈ 0.4m
3.6.3. Structural design of headwork

3.6.3.1.Design of Weir Wall
The weir is with u/s face vertical and d/s face with slope 1:1.
Top Width
The top width of weir wall (B ' ) is given as the following:-

' H
(i) B = .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .3.21
G 1
Where, B ' is the Top width of weir wall and is generally, 1.5 to 1.8, H is depth of water over the
weir wall at the time of maximum flood, G is specific gravity of weir material is 2.4. (Range 2-
2.4) (Arora K.R., 2003),
H=He-ha =1.95-0.0784, H =1.87m
1.87
B'= =1.7m
2.24  1
(ii) B’ = s+1 since, B’=0.4+1=1.4m
3𝐻
(iii) B’= 2𝐺 =1.25m
Note: Since B ' 1.7 which is in of range (1.5-1.8m), Therefore, take minimum top width of the weir
is the largest of the three condition which is ~1.7m
Bottom Width
The bottom width should be sufficient so that the maximum compressive stress with in allowable
limit &tension does not develop.
AKU HWRE Page 51

2017
𝐻+𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟
(i)𝐵 = ……………………………3.22
√𝐺−1
1.87  2.5
B= =4.0m.
2.24  1
(ii), No flow condition
This occurs when the u/s water level at the pond level and there is no tail water on the downstream.
The over turning moment (Mo) about toe the weir
 W Hs 2
MO  ………………………………………3.23
6
Where H is the seepage head (Height of weir+ shutter),  W weight of the water (9.81KN/m2)
Hs = H + s =2.5 + 0.4 =2.9m
=13.75KN.m
The resting moment is due to the weight of the weir for a vertical up stream face of the weir.
𝛾𝐻𝑠𝐺
Mr= (B2 + B’B – B’2)…………………………….3.24
12
9.81∗2.9.∗2.24
= (B2 + 1.7B – 1.72)
12
=5.31 (B2 + 1.7B – 1.72)

Equating the over turning and the resisting moment, we get
13.75 = 5.31 (B2 + 1.7B – 1.72) ⟹ 𝐵 = 1.64𝑚
(iii) High flood condition
During high flood the over turning moment is from difference between upstream and downstream
water pressure diagrams
𝛾ℎ𝐻 2 9.81∗2.52 ∗1.85
Mo = ( ) ⟹( ) = 56.71KN
2 2
𝛾𝐻(𝐺−1)
Mr= (B2 +a2)
12
9.81∗2.5(2.24−1)
= (B2 +B’2)
6
B=2.88m
B = max [4.0, 1.64, 2.88] ⟹ Adopt B = 4.0m, since the bottom width of the weir is selected during
high flood condition  4.0m.
3.6.3.2.Depth of Sheet Piles
Level of u/s pile = u/s HFL – 1.5R = 2104.21 – 1.5 * 3.76 = 2098.57m.a.s.l
AKU HWRE Page 52

2017
Depth of u/s pile bed level (d1) = d1 = river bed level – level of u/s pile
= 2100-2098.57 = 1.43m
Level of d/s pile = D/S HFL – 2R = 2103.21 – 2*3.76 = 2095.69m.a.s.l
Depth of D/S pile (d2)) = river bed level – level of D/S pile
= 2100- 2095.69 = 4.31m
Seepage head = pond level (crest level) – D/S bed level = 2102.5 – 2100 = 2.5m
So, the maximum seepage head for the worst condition is 2.5m.
The depth of downstream pile is always greater than the depth of the upstream pile because of for
decreasing or minimizing of the piping problem.
3.6.3.3.Design of Impervious Floor and Protection Works
I. Impervious Floor
The total floor length must be greater than L > CHs
Seepage head, (Hs) = height of weir+ shutter

=2.5m+0.4m=2.9m
By Bligh’s theory, the total creep length (L) is given by:
L=CHs ……………………………………..3.25
Where, C is Bligh ' s coefficient
Creep coefficient taken as (5-10) for gravel foundation, Let us take C=10
L=10*2.9=29m
Length of downstream impervious floor, L d
L=2d1+Lu+B+L d +2d2
Hs
For no shutter…….. L d = 2.21*C
10
Hs 2.9
For shutter, Ld =2.21*10 =2.21*10
13 13
Ld=10.44m  10.5m
Length of upstream impervious floor, L 1
Lu=L- (Ld+B+2d 1 +2d 2 )
=29-(10.5+4+2*1.43+2*4.31) =2.96m ≈3m for safe design of the u/s floor
AKU HWRE Page 53

2017
Therefore, total length of impervious floor, will be
=Lu+B+Ld =3+4+10.5 =17.5m
Total creep length changed = length of impervious floor +2d 1 +2d 2

=17.5+2*1.43+2*4.31=28.98m
II. Protection Work
Downstream Protection Work
D/S protection work the total length of d/s floor and d/s protection work is given by
Hs *q
Lt =18C .......... .......... .......... .3.26
13 * 75
2.9 * 4.645
Lt =18*10 =21.16 m
13 * 75
Length downstream protection=Lt - Ld
=21.16-10.5=10.66m
Minimum length d/s concrete block=1.5d2 = 1.5*4.31=6.615 say 6.47m, provided 1m*1m*1m
concrete block cover 0.5m thick in filter.
Minimum length d/s lunch apron=2.5d2=2.5*4.31=10.78=11m
𝑑1
Thickness lunch apron= t=√10* 6 =0.75 m
Upstream Protection Work
Minimum length u/s concrete block=1d1=1*1.43=1.43m, Provided 1m*1m*1m concrete block

cover 0.5m thick gravel.
Minimum length u/s lunch apron=2d1=2*1.43=2.86 =3m
Thickness lunch apron=t =0.75m
Thickness of the impervious floor by Bligh’s theory
Seepage head (Hs) = 2.9m
Creep length (L) = 28.98 m.
Specific gravity=2.24
Residual head at the toe of weir wall,
Hs
HA=HS- (2 * d1  lu  B)
L
AKU HWRE Page 54

2017
2.9
HA = 2.9- (2 *1.43  3  4)  1.91m
28.98
Floor thickness at the point A, will be
HA 1.91
tA= 1.33 ( ) =1.33*( )  2.04m . Therefore provide a thickness of 2.04m for a length
G 1 2.24  1
of 3.5m.
Thickness of d/s Floor after 3.5m from the function of the weir wall,
HS
HB = HS-  2.9  2.9 / 28.98 * (2 * 1.43  3  3.5  4) =1.56m
L
H 1.56
tB=1.33 ( ) =1.33*( )  1.67m , provide a thickness of 1.67 m for the next 3.5m (from
G 1 2.24  1
3.5 to 7m from the toe)
At a distance 7 m from the toe of the wall, point C
HS
HC = HS-  2.9  2.9 * (2 * 1.54  3  3.5  4  4) / 28.98 =1.14m
L
H 1.14
tC =1.33 ( ) =1.33*( )  1.22m
G 1 2.24  1
Provide a thickness of 1.22m for next 3.5m (7to 10.5m from toe)
Check by Khosla’s Theory
Exit gradient (GE): check against piping
Take exit gradient for boulder or gravel mix sand Creep coefficient (C=6) and safe hydraulic
gradient GE will be 1/6.
Length of the floor, b = creep length changed – 2d1 – 2d2 = 28.98 – 2*1.43 – 2*4.31 = 17.5m
𝑏 17.5 1+√1+𝛼² 1+√1+4.1²
d2 = 4.31m, α = 𝑑₂ = 4.31 = 4.1, ℎ = = = 2.6
2 2
𝐻𝑠 1
GE = * ………………………………………..3.27
𝑑₂ 𝜋√ℎ
2.9 1 1 1
= 4.31 ∗ 𝜋√2.6 = 0.1333 = 7.511 < 6 (safe).
Uplift pressure
𝑏 17.5
U/s pile, b = 17.5m. d1 =1.43 m, α = 𝑑₁= 1.43 = 12.24
1+√1+𝛼² 1+√1+12.24²
ℎ = = = 6.64
2 2
AKU HWRE Page 55

2017
100 1−ℎ 100 1−6.64
𝜙𝐷₁ = cos −1 ( )= cos −1 ( ) = 82.3%
𝜋 ℎ 𝜋 6.64
100 2−ℎ 100 2−6.64
𝜙𝐶₁ = cos −1 ( )= cos−1 ( ) = 74.62%
𝜋 ℎ 𝜋 6.64
Thickness correction for Fc1

(𝜙𝐷₁−𝜙𝐶₁) (82.3−74.62)
𝐹𝑐1 = + ∗ t1 = = +5.16%, Where t=1m
𝑑₁ 1.43
Correction for mutual interference

𝑑+𝐷 𝐷
Effect of pile 2 on pile 1= + 19( ) ∗ √𝑏′
𝑏
Where, D is depth of pile whose effect is required on another pile, (D =1.43 – 1.22 = 0.21m), b’ is
distance b/n two piles (17.5m), d is the depth of the pile on which the influence occur (d=4.31-
2.04=2.27m).
0.35  2.27  0.21 

Correction for influence=+19* *  =0.38.2%
17.5  17.5 
Corrected (𝜙𝐶 1 )=74.62%+5.16%+0.382%=80.2%
𝑏 17.5
D/s pile, b = 17.5m. d2 =4.31 m, α = 𝑑₂= 4.31 = 4 and ℎ = 2.6
100 ℎ−2 100 2.56−2
𝜙𝐸 = cos−1 ( )= cos−1 ( ) = 42.98%
𝜋 ℎ 𝜋 2.56
100 ℎ−1 100 2.6−1
𝜙𝐷 = cos −1 ( )= cos−1 ( )=28.9 %
𝜋 ℎ 𝜋 2.6
Thickness correction for 𝜙𝐸

𝜙𝐸−𝜙𝐷 (49.98−28.9)∗1.22
Correction for 𝜙𝐸 = −( ) *t= = −5.83%
d2 4.41
Correction for mutual interference

𝑑+𝐷 𝐷
Effect of pile 1 on pile 2 = - 19( ) ∗ √𝑏′
𝑏
Where, D is depth of pile whose effect is required on the another pile

(D=4.31 – 2.04 = 2.27m), b’ is distance b/n two piles =17.5m
D=the depth of the pile on which the influence occur (d=1.43-1.22=0.21m)
0.35  2.27  0.21 

Correction for influence=-19* *  = -38.2%
17.5  17.5 
Corrected pressure for Pile 2: 𝜙𝐸 = 42.98 -5.69-0.382 = 36.9%
Check against uplift pressure
AKU HWRE Page 56

2017
Pressure at the toe A
∅𝑐1−∅𝐸1 80.2−36.9
ϕA = 𝜙𝐸1 + ( ) ∗ 𝑡, ϕA = 36.9% + ( ) ∗ 10.5 = 63%
𝑏 17.5
Residual head (HA), H A A*H S =63%*2.9m =1.83m
h 1.83
Thickness of the floor =   1.4758m  2.04m  ok
G  1 2.24  1
Pressure at the toe B(3.5m from toe)
80.2−36.9
Percentage Pressure (𝜙𝐵) = 36.9% + ( ) ∗ 7 = 54.2%
17.5
H B B*H S
Residual head (HB), =54.2%*2.9m =1.57m
h 1.57
Thickness of the floor =   1.28m  1..67m  ok
G  1 2.24  1
Pressure at the toe C (6m from toe)
79.44−36.9
Percentage Pressure (𝜙𝐵) = 36.9% + ( ) ∗ 3.5 = 45.4%
17.5
H C C *H S
Residual head (HC), =45.4%*2.9m =1.32m
h 1.32
Thickness of the floor =   1.094m  1.22m  ok
G  1 2.2  1
Therefore, we can conclude that thickness of floor is safe by Khosla’s theory.
Figure 3.3: Weir floor thickness and protection works
AKU HWRE Page 57

2017
3.6.3.4.Water Profile at the Weir Site
Water surface profiles at the weir site are required for structural design of weir (stability), design of
wing walls and protection works, safe level of embankments to accommodate the flow and checking whether
the intakes receive water at all stages.
Water profile downstream of the weir
Construction of a weir increases the TEL and thus this energy has to be dissipated before the flow
reaches the river channel. Since the flow over the weir is supercritical, the energy can be dissipated
by formation of a hydraulic jump at the downstream part of the diversion headwork structure.
Hydraulic jump
Hydraulic jump is a phenomenon of rapidly varied flow at which the state of flow changes from
supercritical to sub critical. A hydraulic jump occurs only when the upstream flow is supercritical
(F1>1). At the hydraulic jump, the energy of flow will be lost.
Hydraulic jump on a horizontal surface
Y1 and y2are called conjugate depths of a hydraulic jump.
To determine the water depth, y1 the well-known Bernoulli equation is used.
𝑉₁²
H + He = y1+ + 𝐻𝐿 …………………………………..3.28
2𝑔
Y1 is depth before jump (pre jump depth), Y2 is depth after jump (post jump depth), HL is the head
loss.
Neglect the head loss and continuing the processes.
𝑞₁ 4.64 𝑉₁² 21.53
Where: V1 = 𝑦₁= 𝑦₁
, and 2𝑔
= 𝑦²∗19.62
18.327
= 2.5+ 1.95 = y1 + 𝑦²∗19.62
= 4.45*y12 = y13 +1.1

Then by rearranging the equation, this yields y13- 4.45y12+1.1 =0
By trial and error y1=0.53m
3 𝑞² 3 4.64²
Critical depth is expressed by, yc = √ 𝑔 = = √ 9.81 = 1.30m
There or the actual value of y1 is 0.53m

𝑞₁ 4.64
V1 = 𝑦₁ = 0.53 = 8.75m/s
AKU HWRE Page 58

2017
𝑉₁ 8.75
Froude number F1 = = = 3.84
√𝑔𝑦₁ √9.81∗0.53
𝑦₁∗(√1+8𝐹₁2 −1) 0.53∗(√1+8∗3.842 −1)

Then the sequent depth y2 = = = 2.62m
2 2
(𝑦₂−𝑦₁)³ (2.62−0.53)³
Head loss, HL = = = 1.65m
4𝑦₁𝑦₂ 4∗0.53∗2.62
The length of jump, Lj= 5(y2-y1) = 5(2.62-0.53) = 10.45m

y3 =d/s HFL –bed level
= 2102.71-2100 =2.71m.
As y3>y2 the jump occurs on weir face, and there is no need of design stilling basin.
Figure 3.4: Water profile at the weir the weir structure
3.6.4. Stability Analysis of Weir

The design section has to be safe against sliding; overturning & tension requirement .stability
analysis of our design project work, weir is carried out by considering the various external Forces
acting on it. Therefore the most dominant forces identified are; water pressure, self-weight of
structure, sediment load, up lift pressure.
Analysis of the weir for three conditions should be taken for there is no flow downstream, submerged
flow and when the weir is empty. But it is observed that from the above three conditions the static
AKU HWRE Page 59

2017
conditions when there is no flow downstream is considered the critical one, therefore analysis of the
weir only for static condition is carried out.
3
Unit weight of water and masonry are taken to be 9.81 and 23.5 KN/m respectively, which are
the basic property of material to calculate the stability analysis of the weir structure. For masonry
3
unit weight is with the range of 23 to24 KN/m .
Figure 3.5: Forces acting on the weir wall in static case

No Load Forces(KN) Lever arm(m) Moments(KN-m)
Vertical Horizontal Overturning Resisting
(positive) (negative)
1 PH = 30.7 1/3(2.5) = 0.833 25.6
0.5*9.81*2.52
2 PU = -49.05 2 131
3
(4) =2.67
0.5*9.81*2.5*4
3 W1 = 99.88 ½(1.7)+(4-1.7) = 314.6
23.5*2.5*1.7 3.15
4 W2 = 67.6 2 103.4
3
(4-1.7)
0.5*23.5*(4-
= 1.53
1.7)*2.5
Sum 118.4 30.7 156.6 418
Table 3.21: Forces and moments acting on weir at static case (at worst condition)
∑ 𝑉 = 118.4 KN ∑ 𝑀O =156.6 KN-m
∑ 𝐻 = 30.7 KN ∑ 𝑀r = 418 KN-m
Safety factors
∑ 𝑀𝑟 418
Overturning stability, SO = ∑ 𝑀𝑜 = 156.6 =2.67> 1.5 (safe)
AKU HWRE Page 60

2017
∑𝑉 118.4
Sliding stability, Ss = ∑𝐻
= 30.7 = 3.86> 1.5 (safe)
∑𝐻 30.7
Ss = ∑𝑉
=118.4 = 0.26< 0.75(safe)
∑ 𝑀𝑟−∑ 𝑀𝑜 418−156.6
Check for tension: 𝑥̅ = ∑𝑉
= = 2.2
118.4
𝐵 4 𝐵 4
̅ = – 2.2 = 0.2< = (safe)
e = | 2 - 𝑥| 2 6 6
Thus, the structure is safe and stable in static condition.
3.6.5. Design of Under Sluice

They are opening provided in the body of a weir or any cut at low levels. They are located in the
smaller compartment in front of still pond. These sluices are perfectly control by means of gates
which are operated from top.
Naturally the sluices should be located quite below the crest of the head regulator (Generally 1.8m
below). Thus the scouring sluices maintenance the channel clear and defined in front of the head
regulator.
The sluices can also be used during the peak flood period to the lower discharge over the crest of
the weir. Under sluices is used for quick lower of u/s high flood level because the discharge
intensity over the sluice portion is greater than that is the weir portion. (Sahasrabudhe, 1994)
This structure has crest at level to develop a deep channel pocket, which will help to bring flow dry
weather discharge towards this pocket, thereby ensuring easy division of water in to the canal
through the head regulator.
The discharging capacity of under-sluices may be selected based on the consideration of they
should be able to ensure sufficient scouring capacity for which the discharge capacity should at
least twice the full supply discharge of the main canal at its head, they should be able to pass the
dry weather flow and low floods during the month excluding the rainy season without the necessity
of dropping the weir Shutters and they should be able to dispose of 10 to 15% the high flood
discharge during several floods. (Garge, S.K, 2003). Let’s Assume the under sluice passé about
15% of the total discharge.
Twice the discharge of the off taking canal capacity Q=2*0.151=0.302 m3/sec
Qu = under sluice discharge = 0.15*98.62 = 14.8m3/s
Therefore, Q sluice will be maximum of the above. Q sluice=14.8m3/sec
AKU HWRE Page 61

2017
Providing one under sluice with 2m width (divide wall is provided between the proper weir and
the under sluice).
𝑚3
𝑄 14.8 7.4 𝑠
𝑞= = =
𝐿 2 𝑚
The minimum length of d/s floor (Ld)
ℎ 2.5
Ld = 3.87√10 = = 3.87√ 10 = 1.935m (for under sluice without shutter)
Total length of downstream impervious floor and d/s protection is given by,
𝐻∗𝑞 2.5∗7.4
L = 27√10∗75 = = 27√ 10∗75 = 4.24m
Depth of sheet pile from scour consideration:

1
 q2 3
R  1.35  from equation 3.19 , for f=1
 f 
1
 7.4 2  3
R  1.35   5.13m
 1 
Bottom level of d/s cut off = D/S HFL - 1.5R

= 2102.71m -1.5*5.13= 2095.0m
Bottom level of u/s cut off = U/S HFL-1.25R
= 2104.21m -1.25*5.13= 2097.8m
3.6.6. Design of Head Regulator

The regulation is provided by the gate which is fixed in such a way that, the discharge or desired
capacity of water can easily flow in to the intake canal. The intake canal is placed so as the top
level should be less than or equal to the crest level of the proper weir.
Design procedure
Full supply of off taking canal = 0.151m3/s
Full supply of canal = Pond level-Modular head
= 2102.5 - 0.55 = 2101.95m
Water depth in the canal at head = 0.33m
Safe exit gradient for canal bed material = 1/6 for gravel and boulder and sand mix.
AKU HWRE Page 62

2017
Crest level of head regulator = crest level of under sluice +1.8 = 2100 +1.5 = 2101.5m
[Sahasrabudhe, 1994]
The water way for regulator is for the full supply discharge of 0.151m3/sec can pass through it.
Discharge Q through the regulator is given as, [Garge S.K., 2003]
2 2
𝑄= ∗ 𝐶𝑑1 ∗ √2𝑔 ∗ 𝐵(ℎ + ℎ𝑟)3 + 𝐶𝑑2 ∗ 𝐵ℎ1√2𝑔(ℎ + ℎ𝑣)
3
Where Cd1 = 0.557 and Cd2 = 0.8
h1 = depth of D/S water level in the channel above the crest
= D/s FSL (HFL)-crest level
= (D/S TEL–ha) – 2102.34 = 2103.11m – 0.074 -2102.34= 0.7m
hv = head due to velocity which is very small and ignored
h= 0.55 difference of water level U/S and D/S of the crest.
Neglecting Velocity head hv we get
2
Q = 3 *0.557*√2 ∗ 9.81*B (0.55) 3/2+0.8*B*0.7√2 ∗ 9.81(0.55)
0.151m3/s = 2.476B
Then, B = 0.06m: provide B = 0.1m
 Provide 2 piers of 1.5m thickness each on the side .(Garge S.K., 2003)
 Overall waterway of the regulator = 1.5*2+0.1=3.1m
3.6.7. Design of Silt Excluder

It is design that the bottom layer of water which is highly charged with silt and sediment will pass
down the tunnels and escape over the floor of the under-sluice way(s),since the gates of the under
sluice way(s) shall be kept open up to the top of the tunnels. The clearer water over the top of the
roof of the excluder tunnels will thus enter the canal through the head regulator.
Design procedure
Full supply discharge of canal = 0.151𝑚3 /𝑠𝑒𝑐
Crest level of the under sluice = 2100m
Crest level of the head regulator = 2101.5m
Usually, two or three bays of under sluice of the weir are covered by the excluder.
However excluder covering only one bay has been designed [Garge S.K., 2003]
Design discharge =15% to 20% of canal discharge [Garge S.K., 2003]
AKU HWRE Page 63

2017
20
Q = 100 ∗ 0.151 = 0.0302𝑚3 /𝑠𝑒𝑐
A minimum velocity of 2 to 4.5m/sec must be maintained through the tunnels in order to keep them
free from sediment. Therefore 2m/sec is adopted for the design
0.0302𝑚3 /𝑠𝑒𝑐
Area of cross section A = = 0.0151𝑚2
2𝑚/𝑠𝑒𝑐
Height of tunnels generally varies from 0.5 to 0.6m for Sandy River and 0.8 to 1.2m for boulder
Stage River [Garge S.K., 2003].
Take thickness of roof slab =0.15m ranged from (0.1 to 0.25m)
Height of tunnel (h) =2101.5-0.15-2100= 1.35m
𝐴 0.0151
Total clear width =ℎ = = 0.0112𝑚
1.35
For clear span of 0.02m (Garge, S.K., 2003)

0.0112
Number of tunnel = = 0.56 ≈ 1 𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙
0.02
Assume thickness of divide wall =0.3m

Overall width =0.02*1+0.3=0.32m
Only one bay sluice will be used for silt excluder.
3.6.8. Design of Canal out Let

The head regulate crest level is fixed 2101.5m&canal bed level is 2101.02m
Right side canal capacity canal is 0.151m3/s.
Out let size
Q=CLH3/2 where C is the discharge coefficient 1.7, L is the out let length, H is the water depth in
canal (0.33𝑚) ≈ 0.4𝑚 (from main canal design part)
𝑄
L=𝐶∗𝐻 3/2
0.151
L=1.7∗0.333/2=0.4685≅ 0.47𝑚
Therefore out let size 0.47m*0.4m (length & height)
3.6.9. Design of Retaining Wall (Guide wall)

3.6.9.1.Design of upstream retaining wall
DATA
weir wall height 2.5 m
AKU HWRE Page 64

2017
The head over the weir, h 1.87 m.
sequent depth, D2 2.62 m.
U/s river bed (RBL) 2100 m
Depth of depression(D) 0.5 m
U/S Retaining wall length 3 m
D/S Retaining wall length 10.66 m
D/S High flood level (D/S HFL) 2103.29 m
U/S High flood level (U/S HFL) 2104.21 m
Table 3.22: Data of u/s and d/s design retaining wall
Upstream wing wall
Free board ------------------------------------------ FB 0.5 M
The height of wall is(U/S HFL-RBL+FB)-------H 5.71 M
Top width (30-H/12)--------------------------------Tw 0.5 M
Bottom width (0.5-0.7 *H) -------------------------Bw 4 M
the top Elevation of the u/s retaining wall is 2105.71 M
Bottom min. 0.71 M
Thickness(H/8)----Bt max. 0.95 M
Therefore, the max footing height 0.71 M
Table 3.23:The U/S guide banks height and dimensions
Foundation Thickness t= 0.5 m.
Ym of masonry gm.= 23.5 KN/m3
Ys of silt(Fill) gsilt= 20 KN/m3
Yco of masonry gRCC= 25 KN/m3
Angle of Repose ɸ= 30 Deg.
Ka=(1-sinf)/(1+sinf) K= 0.33
bt =D/2-D 0.25 M
bh =10-15cm 0.15 M
Table 3.24: Material properties of the guide bank
AKU HWRE Page 65

2017
Figure 3.6: Force acting on U/s guide wall

Item Forces(KN.m) Lever Moment about
Description arm, m toe, KN.m
Vertica Horizonta Resisting Overturning

l l
+ve -ve +ve -ve
Self-weight, 67.09 0.25 16.77

W1
Self-weight, 234.82 1.67 391.37

W2
Silt pressure, 199.85 2.83 566.24

Ps2
Active -66.62 1.90 -126.79

pressure,Ps1
TOTAL 501.77 0.0 0.00 -66.62 974.39 -126.79

0
Table 3.25: Forces and moments acting on Upstream Wing Wall

U/s stability analysis of retaining wall
∑V=3202.76 KN, ∑H=233.42 M R  974.39 , ∑Mo= -126.79
Safety factors, Overturning stability, S o   MR  974.39  7.68  1.5, OK!

 Mo 126.79
AKU HWRE Page 66
2017
V  501.77  7.53  1.5OK!

Sliding stability, S S 
 H 66.62
Check for tension. x    1.689m ; e   x   1.689  0..312
M B 4
V 2 2
B/6=11/6=0.67m
B
Sincé e=0.312m<  0.67m no tensión. Thereforethe structureissafe in design.
6
3.6.9.2.Design of Downstream Retaining Wall

Upstream wing wall
Free board ------------------------------------------ FB 0.5 M
The height of wall is(D/S HFL-(RBL-D)+FB)-------H 4.41 M
Top width (30-H/12)--------------------------------Tw 0.5 M
Bottom width (0.5-0.7 *H) -------------------------Bw 3.1 M
the top Elevation of the u/s retaining wall is 2104.41 M
Bottom min. 0.59 M
Thickness(H/8)----Bt max. 0.79 M
Therefore, the max footing height 0.59 M
Table 3.26: The D/S guide banks height and dimensions
The D/S guide walls are designed in similar procedure as of the U/S. Thus the top level of the guide
bank is governed by D/S HFL and free board.
Foundation Thickness t 0.5 m

Ym(unit weight of masonry) Gm 23.5 KN/m3
Ys of silt(unit weight of silt) gsilt 20 KN/m3
Yco , unit weight of concrete grcc 25 KN/m3
Angle of Repose f1 30 Deg.
Ka=(1-sinf)/(1+sinf) Ka 0.33
bt =D/2-D 0.25 m
bh =10-15cm 0.15 m
Table 3.27: Material properties of the guide bank
AKU HWRE Page 67

2017
Figure 3.7: Force acting on D/S guide wall

Forces(KN) Lever Moment
arm, m about toe
Item KN.m
Description
Vertical Horizontal Resisting Overturning
+ve -ve +ve -ve
Self-weight, 51.82 0.25 12.95

W1
Self-Weight, 134.73 1.37 184.12

W2
Silt pressure, 114.66 2.23 256.07

Ps2
Active -38.22 1.47 -56.18

pressure, Ps1
TOTAL 301.20 0.00 0.00 -38.22 453.15 -56.18
Table 3.28: Forces and moments acting on downstream Wing Wall

D/s stability analysis of retaining wall
∑V= 301.2 KN, ∑H=38.22 M R  453.15 KN m, ∑Mo= -56.18 KN m
AKU HWRE Page 68

2017
Where V is the summation of the vertical force, H is the horizontal force or destabilized force
acting on the weir body, MR is the resistance moment against the destabilizing force and MO is the
overturning moment which causes to fail the structure.
Safety factors, Overturning stability, S o   MR  453.15  8.07  1.5, OK!

 Mo 56.18
V
Sliding stability, S S  
301.2
 7.88  1.5OK !
H 38.22
Check for tension x  

M B 3.1
 1.32m ; e  x   1.32  0..2321,B/6=11/6=0.67m
V 2 2
B
Sincé e=0.2321m<  0.67m no tensión. Therefore it is structurally safe.
6
AKU HWRE Page 69

2017
4. Result and Discussion
4.1. Hydro - Meteorological Data Results
4.1.1. Precipitation Data Consistency Test Results

The daily heaviest rainfall data of Adwa Meteorological Station for twenty-one years have been
used for our design project. Hence, those heaviest rainfall data was checked by relative standard
error, 𝛿𝑒 ≤10%, and they are adequate and reliable.
4.1.2. Precipitation Data Outlier Test Results

Outliers are data points that depart from the trend of the remaining data. In our project design work,
the hydro – meteorological data was checked by Log – Pearson type III outlier detection method.
Out of the twenty – one year gauged data, one year was missed data and the data falls above the
high outlier and it was considered as outlier. This outlier indicates that we have missing input data
and this filled by the help of missing data analysis method. For our case, the data in our hand was
fitted to simple arithmetic mean method due to the annual precipitation value at each of the
neighboring gauged differs by less than 10% from that for the gauged with missed data.
Higher outlier Lower outlier Annual daily max.rainfall

160
140
120
Rainfall, (mm)
100
80
60
40
20
Time (year)
Figure 4.1: Outlier test before filled missed data for Adwa station
AKU HWRE Page 70

2017
Annual max.rainfall Higher outlier Lower outlier

160
140
120
Rainfall ( mm)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Time (year)
Figure 4.2: Outlier test after filled the missed data for Adwa station
4.1.3. Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) Result

PMP is a hypothetical precipitation that would be observed at a selected location during some
period, whose magnitude is such that never be exceeded. It was estimated by combining the most
common hydrological and meteorological data. The return period is fixed to 50 year for weir design
and we have been used different types of frequency distribution methods during the analysis of
PMP in T years. We can fix PMP analysis method depending up on the statistical characteristics
of the data present on our hand. The statistical parameters of data have critical role in fixing PMP
analysis method and their behavior ordered to us to fix the frequency analysis method. So, the
statistical parameter of our data was fixed to Gumbel EVI type I frequency distribution method.
According to D-Index test of data fitness, our data was only fitted to Gumble EVI type I method
because it has minimum error (E = 0.5842). The result of PMP using Gumbel EVI type I
distribution method was 11.6mm.
4.1.4. Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Result

Maximum design discharge (PMF) is the peak river discharge that corresponds to a certain return
period. In order to design economical and safe PMF, first the land use and land cover characteristics
of the catchment area and hydrologic events and conditions at the area should be carefully analyzed.
We have been designed by considered different factors which mainly affect the magnitude of PMF
AKU HWRE Page 71

2017
significantly i.e. curve number value, average slope of the watershed, soil and hydrologic condition
of the drainage area. From PMF determination methods, USSCS curve number method was
selected for our design work because it considers all the parameters of the catchment area. So we
have used the final design discharge (PMF) 98.62m3/s for our design work by USSCS Method.
4.2. Crop Water Requirement Result

CROPWAT version 8.0is a software program used to estimate the crop evapotranspiration and crop
water requirement that uses FAO, 1992.The main basic input of CROPWAT 8.0 software are
climate data, rainfall data and soil condition of the area. We are used Penman – Monteith method
for calculating crop evapotranspiration and radiation because it’s reliable one from others. As
graphically shown below, reference evapotranspiration and solar radiation value was drawn along
y-axis and the respective time is drawn along x-axis in order to compare ETo and Rad.
Solar radation (Rad)

25
Solar radation (MJ/m²/day )
20
15
10
Time (month)
Figure 4.3: Solar radiation of the project area
AKU HWRE Page 72

2017
Reference evapotranspiration (ETo)
Reference evaporation (mm/day )

6
Time (month)
Figure 4.4: Reference evapotranspiration from CROPWAT 8.0

Effective rainfall are determined by the CROPWAT 8.0 from the input of rainfall data and we
expect that effective rainfall is less than the actual rainfall because not all rainfall available for
plant use due to lost through deep percolation, runoff and evaporations.
The effective rainfall for this scheme is calculated using CLIMWAT/CROPWAT software using
USDA Soil Conservation Service. Just their comparison shown graphically in figure 4.5Rainfall
and effective rainfall are drawn along y-axis and time drawn along x-axis.
Rain (mm) Effective rain (mm)

300
250
Rainfall (mm)
200
150
100
50
Time (month)
AKU HWRE Page 73

2017
Figure 4.5: Average monthly effective rainfall
Two crops i.e. Maize and Potato are selected to grow at the area depending up on the climatic and
suitability of the soil nature,profit and socio economic consideration. Their water requirement was
done by CROPWAT8.0 and graphically drawn as water requirement along x-axis and time along
y-axis.
water req. for potato water req. for maize
35
Crop water req.(mm)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Aug
Aug
Aug
Apr
May
May
May
Jun
Jun
Jun
Jul
Jul
Jul
Time (month)
Figure 4.6: Comparison of crop water requirement of Maize and Potato

The net scheme irrigation requirement computes the total irrigation water needs at scheme level
over a certain time step and it is expressed in average mm/day, in mm/month and in l/s/ha. The
crop water requirement the peak (maximum) net scheme crop water requirement has been found to
be 0.3l/s/ha in dry season from CROWAT 8.0 and the total command area is 80 ha. So, we have
been calculated the total discharge needed for the total command area, just by considering all the
project efficiency and time factor was 0.151 m3/s. canal cross-sections are fixed and calculated
depending up on the design discharge.
AKU HWRE Page 74

2017
In mm/day In mm/month In l/s/ha

90
Crop water req. (mm)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Time (month)
Figure 4.7: Net irrigation crop water requirement from CROPWAT 8.0
4.3. Structural Safety and Economical Consideration Results
Diversion weir is situated in the river and its function is to dam up the water level in order to ensure
a constant minimum depth of water upstream of the weir and to allow the quantity of water for
operational purposes (amount of service water) to be diverted from the river irrespective of the
regime. Our head regulator was also expected for a discharge capacity of at least 0.151m3/s which
is the demand at the command area.
A diversion structure has to be designed in such a way that it may be able to pass a high flood of
sufficient magnitude (called the design flood) safely. Therefore while designing structures it has to
be considered a flood value against which these structures can be designed to be safe. It can neither
use a very high value nor a very low value because very high value needs much more investment
and that of very low value may cause damage on the structure.
So, considering the above facts, our design of diversion headwork structure used a design flood of
50years frequency for the purposes of design of items. Thus design floods of 98.62m3/s (refer
hydrological analysis (PMF)) have been adopted for the design of our diversion headwork
structure.
4.3.1. Safety for Uplift Pressure and Floor Thickness
Determination of the water uplift pressure and its distribution under hydraulic structures is a
significant part for the floor thickness design. Failures of weirs on permeable foundations may
AKU HWRE Page 75

2017
occur as a result of sub-surface flow actions. A weir may fail when the uplift pressure creates an
overturning moment in excess of the superstructure’s balancing moment. To avoid this, safety
factor was considered (SF = 4/3) to the thickness of floor at the point to be calculated against uplift
pressure. Happening, the uplift pressure must be estimated correctly and the structure dimensioned
properly. To avoid undermining of the foundation by the piping action at the toe of the foundation,
the calculated exit gradient must be less than the recommended safe hydraulic gradient or
percolation coefficient. The pressures at different key points are calculated with Khosla’s simple
profiles and the values are corrected for the piles mutual interference and thickness of the floor.
We have been recommend that, safe hydraulic gradient (GE = 1/6). Our calculated exit gradient (GE
1 1
= 1/7.511)was less than the recommended safe hydraulic gradient < 6 which is safe against
7.511
piping or undermining of water through the foundation.The weir floor thickness are graphically
below. The floor thickness calculated both by Bligh’s and Khosla’s theory are drawn along y-axis
and length of floor are drawn along x-axis.
Floor thickness by bligh's theory Floor thickness by khosla's theory

2.5
floor thickness (m)
1.5
0.5
0
13.7 17.2 20.7 31.7
Distance along the downstream floor (m)
Figure 4.8: Floor thickness along the downstream

As the distance along downstream floor increased, the seepage head and floor thickness becomes
decreased. The graph shows that the uplift pressure decreases as the creep length progresses to the
downstream end, but this does not mean that the residual uplift pressure head does linearly vary
from upstream to downstream. This means that the thickness required at the upstream is thicker
than to the downstream.
AKU HWRE Page 76

2017
The result of the above graph (figure 4.8) shows that, the safely calculated floor thickness by
Khosla’s theory is less than the floor thickness calculated by Bligh’s theory. This result indicates
that the calculated floor thickness are much enough safe against uplift pressure.
4.3.2. Stability against Overturning Result
We have been checked the stability of the weir only for the worst condition or at static condition
because if the stability of the weir structure at worst condition is safe; it’s also safe at dynamic
condition.
It is necessary to keep the stabilizing moment more than the destabilizing moments. In case of our
diversion structure this criterion is analyzed and the result were implied that the stabilizing moment
greater than destabilizing moment for the worst condition.
The stabilizing moment is greater than destabilizing moment for the worst condition (see table
3.24). Factor of safety against overturning for weir section is 2.67 which is greater than the
recommended values (i.e. 1.5-2.0). As a result, there is no lifting up of the structures heel and the
structure is not susceptible to any tension on the base.
4.3.3. Stability against shear and Sliding Result
Our diversion structure was checked for stability against shear and sliding and the result manifested
that the diversion structure is safe against shear and sliding for worst condition. Sliding stability
was calculated as the ratio of vertical force to the horizontal force acting on the weir body. As a
result, the factor of safety against sliding for weir section were 0.26,which is less than the
recommended values (i.e. 0.75). This result shows as the self-weight of the weir body or the vertical
force are much more than the horizontal force (see weir stability analysis). This implies that the
head-work is safe against sliding by flood.
AKU HWRE Page 77

2017
5. Conclusion and Recommendation
5.1. Conclusion
The probable maximum precipitation result is evaluated based on D-index test of data fitness
analysis method, statistical characteristic of the data. During the analysis the of D-index test of data
fitness result shows that Gamble EVI type I PMP determination method has minimum error and it
is fitted to our data so, the data fitness analysis method able to select significantly safe PMP value.
We have been calculated PMF by considering different factors of catchment characteristics and
hydrological condition which mainly affect the magnitude of PMF significantly. So our PMF result
is safe.
From all types of canal sections, trapezoidal canal cross section was selected for both lined and
unlined canal cross section irrigation distribution system because it is stable by geometry itself and
it has economical cross section.
Our design of diversion headwork structure used a design flood of 50 years frequency of occurrence
and we have done structural and stability analysis considering the return period. The result of
stability analysis shows that the diversion headwork is safe against all modes of failure.
The result of design off taking canal discharge shows that small amount of the River water flow
diverted to the off taking canal and then to the command area. Compared to amount of the water
flow through the River, design of the diversion headwork on the study area doesn’t have impact on
downstream water users and ecosystem.
5.2. Recommendation
As our study is limited to the design of diversion headwork and canal structures, it will have good
significance if the design of drainage structure and economic analysis is included at the command
area.
We have designed the diversion headwork, canal structures and irrigation water requirement;
hence, research should be continued considering the irrigation water quality based on different
laboratory tests.
AKU HWRE Page 78

2017
It’s good to check and analyze the salinity condition of the unsaturated soil zone; where fertile soil
for crops is found, as large amount of discharge is needed to leach and percolate the salt, if extended
research is done in the area to sustain the soil quality.
AKU HWRE Page 79

2017
6. Reference
Awulachew, S. B., 2004. Agricultural water management and poverty in Ethiopia
Seged, M. L., 2007. Impact of irrigation on poverty and environmental in Ethiopia
Subramanya, K., 1982. Engineering hydrology, India institute of technology, Kanpur,
Haileyesus et al., 2006. Tigray Water Work Construction and Enterprise Manual (TWWCAEM)
Weldu, M.H., et al., 2007. Tigray agricultural development and evaluation of climate change
impact on agriculture
Arora, K.R., 2003. Irrigation, Water Power and Water Resources Engineering.
Chow V.T. (1964). Hand Book of Applied hydrology. McGraw Hill International Book Company.
FAO. (1983). Guide lines for computing crop water requirements, Irrigation and Drainage paper
No.24, 56.Rome, Italy.
Garg, S.K., 2005. Irrigation and hydraulic structures. New Delh: Khanna publishers.
Bibhabasu M., 2012, Diversion Head works, Module. SAL institute of Engineering and
Research. June 25, 2005
Asawa G.L, 2008. Irrigation and Water Resource Engineering. New age international publishers,
New Delhi.
Asfaw, H., 2007.Amhara Regional State Water Resources Development Bureau (BOWRD);
headwork& irrigation infrastructure design document on Gimara Wereda
United State Water Resources Council (USWRC), 1981guidelines for determining flood flow
frequency, Bulletin NO.17B, pp. 15-19.
Charles Rickard, Rodney Day and Jeremy Purse glove (2003). River Weirs – Good Practice
Manual. ISBN 1844321428.
Sahasrabudhe, J. (994. Irrigation Engineering and Hydraulic Structures.

Micheal, A. (1997). Irrigation theory and practice .A recent study report and document by
Hylegebriel, Y. A., 2015, feasibility study and design small scale irrigation project.
AKU HWRE Page 80

2017
Appendix
Appendix A:
Table A.1 Values of reduced mean𝑦̅n in Gumbel extreme value distribution
Table A.2 Value of reduced standard deviation Sn in Gumbel extreme
AKU HWRE Page 81

2017
Table A.3Kn value for different sample size
AKU HWRE Page 82

2017
Table A.4 Coefficients of for SCS peak discharge method
AKU HWRE Page 83

2017
Appendix B:
Table B.1 Evapotranspiration and radiation result from CROPWAT 8.0
Month Min Temp Max Temp Humidity Wind Sun Rad ETo
°C °C % km/day hours MJ/m²/day mm/day
Jan 8.2 26.9 31 95 9.6 20.3 3.86
Feb 9.1 28.3 29 95 9.6 21.9 4.31
Mar 12.1 30.1 29 104 9.7 23.7 5
April 14.1 30.8 35 130 8.9 23.2 5.45
May 14.4 30.4 41 121 8.8 22.9 5.32
June 13.8 28.1 52 138 7.5 20.7 4.83
July 13.5 24.1 72 130 5 17 3.58
Aug 14.4 23.9 79 104 4.9 16.9 3.36
Sep 12.6 26.1 64 69 7.1 19.9 3.87
Oct 10.7 27.9 46 60 9.2 21.7 4.02
Nov 9.2 28.6 39 78 9.5 20.4 3.89
Dec 7.6 27.1 34 69 9.8 19.9 3.49
Average 11.6 27.7 46 99 8.3 20.7 4.25
Table B.2 Effective rainfall from CROPWAT 8.0

Months Rain(mm) Effective rain(mm)
Jan 5.3 5.3
Feb 1.5 1.5
Mar 20.3 19.6
April 27.9 26.7
May 36.7 34.5
June 81.3 70.7
July 221.9 143.1
August 262.2 151.2
Sept 111.6 91.7
Octo 24.7 23.7
Nove 11.4 11.2
Dec 3 3
Total 807.8 582.2
AKU HWRE Page 84

2017
Appendix C:
Table C.1 Crop data for Maize
Table C.2 crop data for Potato
AKU HWRE Page 85

2017
Appendix D:
Table D.1 Crop soil data
Appendix E:
Table E.1 Crop water requirement for Maize from CROPWAT 8.0
AKU HWRE Page 86

2017
Table E.2 Crop water requirement for Potato from CROPWAT 8.0
AKU HWRE Page 87

2017
Appendix F:
Table F.1 Irrigation schedule for Maize
AKU HWRE Page 88

2017
Table F.2 Crop Irrigation schedule for Potato
Appendix G:
Table G.1 Crop pattern
AKU HWRE Page 89

2017
Appendix H:
Table H.1 Scheme supply final result of CROPWAT 8.0
AKU HWRE Page 90

Thesis a.H.Y 0684@area

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

Thesis a.H.Y 0684@area

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Design of Seysa Small Scale Irrigation Project; Central Zone of Tigray, Towards

Enhancing the Effective and Regulated Water Use for Irrigation

Department of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering

School of Water Technology

Advisor: Tilahun Araya (M.Sc.)

S.No. Name ID.No.

1. Tilahun Araya (M.Sc.)______________________________

Advisor Signature Date

Examiner Signature Date

Examiner Signature Date

Executive Summery ....................................................................................................................... ii

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. viii

1.1. General ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Description of the Project Area ...................................................................................... 2

1.2.1. Location ...................................................................................................................... 2

1.2.2. Topography ................................................................................................................ 3

1.2.3. Climate ....................................................................................................................... 3

1.2.4. Soil ............................................................................................................................. 4

1.2.5. Land Use/Land Cover ................................................................................................ 4

1.3. Objective of the Study ..................................................................................................... 5

1.3.1. General Objective ....................................................................................................... 5

1.3.2. Specific Objective ...................................................................................................... 5

1.4. Problem Statement .......................................................................................................... 5

1.5. Scope and Limitation of the Study ................................................................................. 6

2. Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 7

2.1. Head Works...................................................................................................................... 7

3. Methods and Materials ......................................................................................................... 10

3.1. Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 10

3.1.1. Meteorological & Climatic Data ................................................................................... 10

3.2.1. Data Quality Checking ............................................................................................. 12

3.2.1.1. Data Consistency Test ..................................................................................... 12

3.2.1.2. Outlier Test ...................................................................................................... 13

3.2.2. Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) ................................................................. 17

3.2.4. Probable Maximum flood (PMF) ............................................................................. 23

3.2.5. Base flow .................................................................................................................. 29

3.3. Crop Water Requirement ............................................................................................. 30

3.3.1. Crops and Crop Land Allocation ............................................................................. 30

3.3.2. Net Irrigation Requirement (NIR) ............................................................................ 31

3.3.3. Effective Rainfall ..................................................................................................... 31

3.3.4. Crop Coefficient (Kc) ................................................................................................ 31

3.3.5. Crop Water Requirement ......................................................................................... 31

3.3.6. Field Irrigation Requirement (FIR) .......................................................................... 32

3.3.7. Gross Irrigation Requirement (GIR) ........................................................................ 32

3.3.8. Irrigation Efficiency ................................................................................................. 32

3.3.9. Determination of Design Discharge ......................................................................... 34

3.4. Irrigation Methods and Systems Selection .................................................................. 34

3.4.1. Surface Irrigation Methods....................................................................................... 35

3.4.1.1. Furrow Surface Irrigation Method ............................................................... 35

3.5. Design of Canals and Canal Structures ....................................................................... 36

3.5.1. Selection of canal cross section ................................................................................ 36

3.5.2. Canal Alignment ...................................................................................................... 37

3.5.3. Hydraulic Design of Canal ....................................................................................... 37

3.5.4. Canal Structures ....................................................................................................... 46

3.5.4.1. Design of Division Box .................................................................................... 46

3.6. Diversion Head Works .................................................................................................. 47

3.6.1. Selection of Weir Type ............................................................................................ 48

3.6.2. Hydraulic Design of the Weir .................................................................................. 48

3.6.3. Structural design of headwork.................................................................................. 51

3.6.3.1. Design of Weir Wall ........................................................................................ 51

3.6.3.2. Depth of Sheet Piles ........................................................................................ 52

3.6.3.3. Design of Impervious Floor and Protection Works ..................................... 53

3.6.3.4. Water Profile at the Weir Site ....................................................................... 58

3.6.4. Stability Analysis of Weir ........................................................................................ 59