Final Report On Hydrological Study - Base-Ruk

Hydrological Study of Construction project of Road RUKOMO-BASE |
FINAL REPORT: HYDROLOGICAL STUDY OF CONSTRUC PROJECT OF

MAIN ROAD RUKOMO-BASE (51.5 km): Verification of Hydraulic Design
of bridges
Prepared by CHICO
Gicumbi, December, 2016.

Table of Contents
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3
II. Methodology............................................................................................................................... 3
III. Collection and analysis of data ...................................................................................................... 4
III.1 Catchment description ............................................................................................................. 4
III.2. Demarcation of Catchment area ............................................................................................ 5
III.3. Choice of return period ........................................................................................................... 6
IV. Hydrological components ............................................................................................................... 7
Rainfall data ................................................................................................................................... 7
Land use ......................................................................................................................................... 8
V. Calculations of peak discharge ..................................................................................................... 8
V.1. Time of concentration ............................................................................................................... 9
V.2. Runoff coefficient..................................................................................................................... 10
V.3. Calculation of Intensity ........................................................................................................... 10
V.4. Estimation of peak discharge for different return periods .................................................. 11
VI. Hydraulic study ....................................................................................................................... 13
VI.1. Calculation of hydraulic parameters.................................................................................... 13
VI.2. Bridge design .......................................................................................................................... 13
VI.3. Protection ................................................................................................................................ 20
VII. Findings after conducting verification study ........................................................................ 21
APPENDIXES ..................................................................................................................................... 22
i
Table 1: Runoff coefficient ................................................................................................................... 10

Table 2: Passage coefficients................................................................................................................. 11
Table 3: Peak discharge for each bridge................................................................................................ 12
Table 4: Dimensions of bridges from the preliminary study ................................................................. 14
Table 5: Hydraulic modeling of reach concerned with the Bridge at Pk 34+860 ................................. 15
Table 6: Hydraulic modeling of reach concerned with the Bridge at Pk 37+193 ................................. 16
Table 7: Verification of hydraulic parameters of bridges of preliminary study .................................... 17
Table 8: Hydraulic modeling of Bridge 2 (20 x 2.5) located at Pk 34+860 .......................................... 18
Table 9: Hydraulic modeling of bridges 2 (20 x 2.5) located at Pk 37+193 ......................................... 19
Table 13: Summary of preliminary design and verification design ...................................................... 21
Figure 1: Topographic map showing the road section BASE-RUKOMO .............................................. 5

Figure 6: Plan view of catchments of segment Kisaro – Base ................................................................ 6
Figure 7: Adjustment in a law of Gumbel of the annual maximum daily rainfall................................... 8
ii
I. Introduction
The strategy of the Ministry of Infrastructure is supporting the overall objectives of Vision 2020
by putting the action on the upgrading of transport infrastructure, particularly roads, by
programming a number of rehabilitation actions, modernization and maintenance. In this
context, the proposed development of the road Rukomo-Base is part of the Government of
Rwanda's policy of improving the transport offer to promote integration areas in the national
economic space and boost trade inter-regions, retained ultimate objective being the increase in
income of the population, combating and reducing poverty and improving living conditions.
The project of construction of road Rukomo-Base have been subjected to the preliminary study
done in 2010. Actually, the project is in progress, and the data which are being used are from
that study. It is in this regard that the verification study has been proposed in order to increase
the accuracy in designing and installation of hydraulic structure.
The objective consists essentially in the elaboration of the hydrological and hydraulic studies
of road BASE-RUKOMO within the framework of verification of the previous technical study
in particular for the two bridges located at Pk 34+386 and Pk 37+193 respectively.
II. Methodology
The basic sequence for the hydraulic analysis of a bridge consists mainly of the following:
 Determine watershed hydrology
 Visit the site and obtain flood history from bridge inspection files, and local residents.
Investigate upstream and downstream for conditions affecting stream stability such as
significant hydraulic features.
 Complete a water surface profile analysis through the bridge reach. This analysis should
include the analysis of the natural situation without any bridge and an analysis of the
existing floodplain situation.
 Bridge opening should be analyzed and then compared with the existing and natural
conditions to choose the optimum bridge channel width for the design flow.
The adopted methodological approach articulates around the activities enumerated below:
1. Inventory and bibliographical research with the various ministerial departments and non-
state board concerning the domain of the evaluation or the use of water resources.
2. Collection of Data and information
3. Identification of the current situation of the area
3
4. Identification of the characteristic parameters of the water regime of the catchment area of
every sector based on the hydro-climatic data as well as the existing historic information.
5. Calculation of the peak discharge
6. Hydraulic analysis of the natural situation, Hydraulic analysis of the existing bridge, and
hydraulic analysis of the proposed bridge
7. Elaboration and presentation of the report.
III. Collection and analysis of data

The preliminary tasks below were made:
 Collection of hydro meteorological data useful for the project as well as the mapping of
the zone.
 Search and analysis of the available document concerning the hydrology and the
climatology of the zone of study,
 Descent on ground to appreciate the situation in situ among which the current states of
the structures, if it exists there;
 Collect data related the permanent stream concerning with the bridges
 Check of the approaches and the methods of calculation for the hydrological data and
the design of the hydraulic structures
 Conception of the methods and the parameters of hydrological calculations which will
be used for the design of two bridges.
III.1 Catchment description

The zone of study is located in the geographical northern region of Rwanda; this region benefits
from a tropical climate by the altitude. This climate is characterized by the relatively monthly
rainfall of around 400 mm (in rainy season). The relief is very uneven, characterized by a
juxtaposition of several hills.
4
Figure 1: Topographic map showing the road section BASE-RUKOMO
III.2. Demarcation of Catchment area

The establishment of the characteristics of catchment area and conditions of flow is based on a
deep recognition made on development plan and on the geographical information system Global
mapper v. 17, and Google earth.
This cartographic document was used to demarcate the catchment area intercepted by the road
in question, to analyze the relief and to estimate the physiographic parameters of catchment
area (such as surface, length of the thalweg, the slope, etc.).
Three principles have been used to demarcate the catchment area:
 Choose the point of the natural release of the catchment area,
 Demarcate the catchment area by drawing perpendicular lines on the rises of contour
lines which drain on our interesting point;
 Evaluation of the surface of the catchment area by using the GLOBAL MAPPER
software, Google earth and ArcGIS.
The demarcation of catchment area is presented in the figure below:
5
Figure 2: Plan view of catchments of segment Kisaro – Base
The whole of catchment area concerning with the construction project of the road BASE-
RUKOMO has the varied slopes. This card rich in topographic information with recognitions
on land as visualized by Google Earth and by the available various cartographic documents
permits to really delimit the pouring basins of dependence of the road networks to study as well
as their physiographic parameters (surface of the basin, length of the-cut-offs, slope, etc.) in
particular the catchment areas concerned with two bridges.
III.3. Choice of return period

The choice of the return period should have considered the capital cost of the developments and
the consequences of an overflowing for a more important frequency, and the highway capacity.
In hydrology, design return periods vary typically from 10 years to 100 years, and in countries
(or places) where the probable maximum precipitation has not been defined, up to 1,000 years.
The choice of return period depends on various factors, including the size of the drainage area,
the risk of failure, the importance of the structure, and the desired degree of conservatism
(Ponce, 2015).
6
IV. Hydrological components

Rainfall data
The characteristics of the rain are involved in estimates of flows from the road catchment as
well as the natural watershed intercepted by any structure by using different calculation
methods. The most being used are the rational method, Crupédix and CIEH method.
The rainfall data used for road construction project are of two types:
-Intensity-duration curve for a certain frequency, and
-Daily rainfall data for along a certain period.
The collected data are the daily and monthly data. This hydrological study is interested with the
annual maximum daily rainfall which is used to determine the peak discharge for road
construction project, or flood control (or mitigation) projects. For this study, the rainfall data to
be used are the daily rainfall data provided by the Rwanda Meteorology Services for a period
of 35 years (from 1980 to 2015). So considering the location of the project, the data are from
the rain gauge stations installed in GICUMBI and RULINDO Districts.
The annual average rainfall is around 1400 mm and the maximum daily rainfall is 90.4 mm
which has been observed at MUGAMBAZI Station (see appendix A). Therefore, the maximum
daily rainfall observed at the nearest stations to the road construction project is 78,7 mm for 10
years. The extreme daily rainfall are used to assess the risk of extreme floods and for different
return periods.
The value of the daily rainfall data shows different frequencies such once every two years (1/2),
once every ten years (1/10), once every twenty years (1/20), once every fifty years (1/50) and
once every hundred years (1/100). According to the size of available data, the use of such data
requires the statistical analysis to identify the type of distribution. To do that some laws are
usually applied in particular:
 Law of Gauss
 Law of Dalton
 Law of Weibull
 Law of Gumbel
 Law of Fuller
Therefore, the law of Gumbel (used for the extremes) adapts itself relatively well to this
adjustment of these annual maximum daily rainfall as indicates the previous studies.
7
Adjustment of Gumbel law of BYUMBA METEO STATION :from

1980 to 2015
100.00
Annual maximum daily rainfall (mm)
90.00 Experimental value

80.00 y = 7.8046x + 51.923
70.00 R² = 1
theoritical value
60.00
50.00
40.00 Lower limit
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
-2.000 -1.000 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000
Reduced value of Gumbel
Figure 3: Adjustment in a law of Gumbel of the annual maximum daily rainfall

So, the daily rainfall of ten-year recurrence is equal to 78, 7 mm and the daily rainfall of
centennial recurrence is equal to 104 mm.
Land use
From the cartographical document and GIS data, and descent on ground, the majority of land
is covered by the forestry and plant. The river concerned with the bridges is surrounded with
tea plantation.
V. Calculations of peak discharge
The primary purposes of road drainage systems are to minimise water depths occurring on road
surfaces during heavy storms and to prevent seepage causing damage to the pavement
construction. Since runoff occurs rapidly from roads, the most critical storm conditions for the
design of surface water drainage systems are normally associated with heavy rainfall events
typically lasting between 2 and 15 minutes (FHWA, 2005).
There exist different formulas to calculate or estimate the peak discharge; therefore the
appropriate formulas are Rational Method for the small basins (catchment areas less than 5
km²), and CIEH (Comité Interafricain d’Etudes Hydrauliques) method which is applicable for
the catchment areas less or equal to 2,500 km2 (250,000 ha) (Tirogo, 2008; Albergel et al.,
1991).
Rational method
𝑸 = 𝑲𝑪𝑰𝑨
8
Where Q: peak discharge for the return period in m3/s
C: Runoff coefficient
I: Rainfall intensity in mm/hr depending on the time of concentration (tc) and return
period (T)
A: Catchment area in ha
K: conversion factor (0.0028)
CIEH Method
The CIEH formula used for central Africa (longitude > 10°) is as follows:
𝑸𝟏𝟎 = 𝟖𝟗𝟑 × 𝑺𝟎.𝟕𝟕𝟑 × 𝑷−𝟐.𝟎𝟓𝟏

𝒂𝒏 × 𝑰𝟎.𝟓𝟔𝟕 × 𝑲𝒓𝟎.𝟗𝟐𝟑 × 𝑫𝒅
Where:
Q: peak discharge for the return period of 10 years in m3/s
S: Catchment area in Km²
Pan: Annual maximum daily rainfall in mm
I: Global index slope (m/km)
Kr: Runoff coefficient corresponding with the return period in m/km
Dd: Drainage density (km-1).
V.1. Time of concentration
It is defined as the time from the beginning of runoff to the time at which the entire watershed
is contributing runoff that reaches the watershed outlet or “travel time from the hydraulically
most remote point in a watershed to the outlet”.
Considering that the almost catchment is in rural area, the time of concentration can be
calculated by PASSINI or Kirpich Formula:
PASSINI Formula:
𝒕𝒄 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟒 × (𝑨 × 𝑳)𝟏⁄𝟑 × 𝑺−𝟎.𝟓
9
Where tc: Time of concentration (min)
A: watershed drainage area (ha)
L: length of flow (m)
S: Slope of flow (m/m)
For the urban area the Kirpich formula will be used:
𝒕𝒄 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝟗 (𝑳)𝟎.𝟕𝟕 /(𝑺)𝟎.𝟑𝟖𝟓
Where L: the largest length of thalweg (m)
S: slope (m/m)
V.2. Runoff coefficient
Watershed runoff coefficients depend upon the land use, soil type and slope of the watershed.
Runoff coefficients are needed to calculate storm water runoff rate using the Rational Method.
Table 1: Runoff coefficient
Type of catchment Values of C

Rocky and impermeable 0.8 – 1
Slightly permeable, bare 0.6 – 0.8
Cultivated of covered with vegetation 0.3 – 0.6
Cultivated absorbent soil 0.2 – 0.4
Sandy soil 0.2 – 0.3
Heavy forest 0.1 – 0.2
For this study, the runoff coefficient has been estimated to be 0.25 due to the type of soil, slope
and crop.
V.3. Calculation of Intensity

The rainfall intensity is derived from the Montana Formula:
𝑰(𝑻, 𝒕𝒄) = 𝒂(𝑻) × 𝒕𝒄 −𝒃(𝑻)
Where I: rainfall intensity depending upon the time of concentration and return period
(mm/hr)
a and b Montana coefficients. a = 572.45 and b= 0.647 corresponding to the time of
concentration 2≤ t ≥ 15 min for a return period of 10 years.
10
Choice of return period
By using MONTANA’S formulas, rainfall intensities for different sub catchment areas as
enumerated before were calculated by using the Montana’s coefficients.
V.4. Estimation of peak discharge for different return periods

The passage coefficient of year flood to another larger return period flood is expressed as
follows: 𝑸𝑻 = 𝑹(𝑻, 𝑸) × 𝑸𝟏𝟎
Where: Q10: decennial discharge,

QT: discharge related to the given return period,
R(T,Q): Passage coefficient.
Table 2: Passage coefficients
T 20 ans 50 ans 100 ans

R(T,Q) 1,12 1,28 1,39
Source : RNRA, 2015
11
The peak discharge was calculated for each catchment corresponding with each bridge.
Table 3: Peak discharge for each bridge
Outlet Flow characteristics

Slope Time of flow Discharge
Culverts location
Area
Runoff coeffient [C]
Length of Talweg
Intensity [I]
[S]
Passini Kirpic Q20 Q50 Q100
method_ Q10
Rational
Method Q10
CIEH
red
Q10_Conside
h
Pk [ha] [-] [m] [m/m] [min] [min] [mm/h] [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s]
34+860 13772.00 0.25 735.20 0.04 161.89 11 21 - 108.502 108.502 121.522 138.882 150.818
37+193 16268.00 0.25 1252.3 0.040 191.18 16 19 - 133.118 133.118 150.755 172.291 187.098
12
VI. Hydraulic study

VI.1. Calculation of hydraulic parameters
The capacity of release of the existing and thrown hydraulic structures is verified by the formula
of Manning-Strickler, expressed in the following way:
𝟐/𝟑
𝑸 = 𝑲 ∗ 𝑨𝒘 ∗ 𝑹𝒉 ∗ 𝑺𝟎.𝟓
Where Q: Discharge (m3/s),
K: roughness Coefficient
Aw: Wetted area, expressed in (m²),
Pw: Wetted perimeter (m)
Rh: hydraulic radius = Sw/Pw, expressed in (m),
S: Slope of the natural flow, expressed in (m/m).
The selection of the most appropriate and economical type of structure to use in a specific
situation will depend on the hydraulic parameters of the site.
The discharge to be safely handled by a structure is dependent on a number of factors, including:

 Size of the drainage area above the structure;
 Watershed characteristics which affect the runoff from the drainage area;
 The degree of control the structure will be expected to achieve;
 Degree of control is dependent on the design objectives of the structure and the
conservation practice which it will accompany.
VI.2. Bridge design
Data collection is vital and requires the gathering of all necessary information for hydraulic
analysis. This should include such information as topography and other physical features, land
use and culture, any existing flood studies of the stream, historical flood data, basin
characteristics, precipitation data, geotechnical data, historical high-water marks, existing
structures, channel characteristics and environmental data (Zevenbergen, et al., 2012).
Bridge opening and Road grade design considerations
In general, given a particular design discharge at a given crossing, the shorter a bridge the more
backwater it will create. The smaller bridge will also have higher velocities through the bridge
13
opening and an increased potential for scour at the bridge foundation. A longer bridge at this
same crossing will generate a smaller amount of backwater and will have lower velocities and
potential for scour. Policy considerations and economics require an understanding of the
impacts that the bridge could have on the flow of water in the floodplain and impacts it might
have on adjacent properties.
The bridge waterway width is directly associated with the bridge length, from abutment to
abutment. Hydraulic capacity should be a primary consideration in setting the bridge length.
This is verified by the Manning’s formula.
𝟐/𝟑
𝑸 = 𝑲 ∗ 𝑨𝒘 ∗ 𝑹𝒉 ∗ 𝑺𝟎.𝟓
Where Q: Discharge (m3/s),
K: roughness Coefficient
Aw: Wetted area, expressed in (m²),
Pw: Wetted perimiter (m)
Rh: hydraulic radius = Sw/Pw, exprimé en (m),
S: Slope of the natural flow, expressed in (m/m).
Freeboard
For a high debris stream: the freeboard should be of 4 feet or more
For low to moderate debris stream the freeboard is calculated as follow:
𝑭𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒃𝒐𝒂𝒓𝒅 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝑸𝟎.𝟑 + 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟖 × 𝑽𝟐
Where: Q: design discharge
V: mean velocity of the design flow through the bridge.
The previous study has proposed two bridges with the following dimensions:
Table 4: Dimensions of bridges from the preliminary study
Location Length (m) Depth (m)

Pk 34+860 2 x 20 2.5
Pk 37+193 2 x 20 2.5
14
VI.5. Verification of preliminary design

The hydraulic verification of bridges was mainly based on their conveyance capacity by considering the recommended range of velocity, and the
acceptable freeboard. FHWA (2005), recommends that the minimum velocity has not to be less than 3 ft/s equivalent to 0.92 m/s, and the maximum
velocity should not exceed 16 ft/s worth to 4.9 m/s in metric system. This section presents the verification of hydraulic characteristics of bridges
proposed by the preliminary study.
a) Hydraulic characteristics of bridges
Before analyzing the flow capacity of the bridge, a modeling of the river was required in order to get the information related to natural situation
and/ or the existing bridge.
Table 5: Hydraulic modeling of reach concerned with the Bridge at Pk 34+860
River Return Min Ch W.S. Crit E.G. E.G. Vel Flow Top Froude
Reach Station period Q Total El Elev W.S. Elev Slope Chnl Area Width number
(m3/s) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m/m) (m/s) (m2) (m)
20 years 121.52 0.04 3.47 3.47 5.14 0.016763 5.71 21.38 6.5 1
Upstream 50 years 138.88 0.04 3.79 3.79 5.6 0.016827 5.96 23.42 6.5 1
100
years 150.82 0.04 3.99 3.99 5.91 0.016934 6.13 24.74 6.5 1
34+860
20 years 121.52 0 2.34 2.34 3.49 0.013571 4.75 25.58 11.2 1

Downstream 50 years 138.88 0 2.55 2.55 3.81 0.0137 4.97 27.94 11.2 1
100
years 150.82 0 2.7 2.7 4.02 0.013635 5.09 29.63 11.2 1
With: Q: Discharge or flow rate
Min Chel El: Minimum Channel Elevation
W.S Elev: Water Surface Elevation
15
Crit W.S: Critical Water Surface Elevation

E.G. Elev: Energy Grade Elevation
E.G. Slope: Energy Grade Slope
Vel Chnl: Velocity Channel
The analysis from Table 4 showed that the maximum water depth is 3.99 m, and the velocity of 6.13 m/s which is largely above the maximum
recommended that is 4.91 m/s, hence the velocity is higher than the maximum required. Furthermore, during the interview with the local residents,
they said that during the heavy rainy season the flood overflows the existing bridge and some areas of tea plantation where the water depth
exceeds the height of tea plant. This led to verify the capacity of the proposed bridge design whether the peak discharge will be evacuated through
its opening.
Table 6: Hydraulic modeling of reach concerned with the Bridge at Pk 37+193
(m3/s) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m/m) (m/s) (m2) (m)
20 years 150.76 0.04 3.99 3.99 5.91 0.016929 6.13 24.74 6.5 1
Upstream 50 years 172.29 0.04 4.35 4.35 6.44 0.017133 6.41 27.05 6.5 1
100 years 187.1 0.04 4.58 4.58 6.8 0.017267 6.59 28.59 6.5 1
37+193
20 years 150.76 0 2.7 2.7 4.02 0.01367 5.09 29.6 11.2 1

100 years 187.1 0 3.11 3.11 4.64 0.013918 5.47 34.2 11.2 1
16
The analysis of the table 5 showed that the velocity and water surface change according to the cross section. Therefore, the velocities for this reach
are higher than the recommended velocity.
Then, the verification of the preliminary design of two bridges was done. For this, the Manning’s formula was used to verify the capacity of bridges
(openings). The related results are depicted in Table 6.
Table 7: Verification of hydraulic parameters of bridges of preliminary study
Return period of 50 years Return period of 100 years

Hydraulic parameters
Bridge at Pk Bridge at Pk Bridge at Pk Bridge at Pk
34+860 37+193 34+860 37+193
138.88 172 150.82 187
Discharge (m/s)
69.00 69.00 69.00 69.00
Strickler coefficient (Ks)
0.0035 0.0040 0.0035 0.004
Slope (m/m)
37.40 37.40 37.40 37.40
Bed width (m)
0.96 1.06 1.01 1.11
Water depth (m)
3.85 4.36 3.98 4.50
Velocity (m/s)
36.05 39.49 37.92 41.54
Cross section (m2)
39.33 39.51 39.43 39.62
Wetted perimeter (m)
Goal seek (solving -0.000480084 2.05183E-06 1.64604E-06 1.97437E-06
method)
0.558 0.621 0.577 0.643
Freeboard (m)
1.522 1.677 1.591 1.753
Total required depth (m)
17
The analysis of Table 6 showed that by keeping the same dimensions of the preliminary study the velocity through the bridge are acceptable as
well as the maximum velocity recommended is 16 ft/s equivalent to 4.91 m/s in metric system, and minimum is 0.92 m/s (AASHTO, 1982).
Considering the freeboard, the maximum required total depth is 1.753 m. Hence, the proposed design size is largely enough may transport the
exceptional flow rate. The proposed bridge allows to overcome the flooding problems which blocks the traffic.
Therefore, a hydraulic modeling for bridge by using HEC-RAS was performed, and the related results are presented in table 7 and 8 for Pk 34+860
and Pk 37+193 respectively.
Table 8: Hydraulic modeling of Bridge 2 (20 x 2.5) located at Pk 34+860
(m3/s) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m/m) (m/s) (m2) (m)
20 years 121.52 0.04 1.09 1.09 1.6 0.002291 3.18 38.2 37.4 1.01
Upstream 50 years 138.88 0.04 1.18 1.18 1.75 0.002239 3.33 41.76 37.4 1.01
100
years 150.82 0.04 1.25 1.25 1.84 0.002207 3.42 44.12 37.4 1.01
34+860
20 years 121.52 0 1.05 1.05 1.56 0.002293 3.18 38.19 37.4 1.01
100
years 150.82 0 1.21 1.21 1.8 0.002208 3.42 44.11 37.4 1.01
Considering to the results provided in table 7, it was noticed that the maximum water surface level is 1.25 m and the maximum velocity is 3.42 m/s
which are acceptable. The maximum water depth to evacuate the peak discharge for 100 years of return period is 1.8 m (including the freeboard).
Hence, the proposed opening is greatly enough.
18
Table 9: Hydraulic modeling of bridges 2 (20 x 2.5) located at Pk 37+193
(m3/s) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m/m) (m/s) (m2) (m)
20 years 150 0.04 1.24 1.24 1.83 0.002209 3.41 43.96 37.4 1.01
Upstream 50 years 172.29 0.04 1.35 1.35 2.01 0.002159 3.57 48.22 37.4 1
100
years 187.1 0.04 1.43 1.43 2.12 0.00213 3.67 50.94 37.4 1
34+386
20 years 150 0 1.2 1.2 1.79 0.00221 3.41 43.95 37.4 1.01
100
years 187.1 0 1.39 1.39 2.08 0.002131 3.67 50.93 37.4 1.01
The analysis of table 8, showed that the bridge with an opening of 2 (20 x 2.5) is greatly enough for different peak discharge in particular 20 years,
50 years, and 100 years, because the maximum total depth (water depth plus the freeboard) is 2.08 m.
19
VI.3. Protection
The failure of many highway hydraulic structures can be traced to unchecked erosion. Erosive
forces which are at work in the natural drainage network are often increased by the construction
of a highway. Interception and concentration of overland flow and constriction of natural
waterways inevitably result in increased erosion potential.
Scour is the result of the erosive action of flowing water, excavating and carrying away material
from the bed and banks of streams. Different materials scour at different rates. Loose granular
soils are rapidly eroded by flowing water, while cohesive or cemented soils are more scour-
resistant. Under constant flow conditions, scour will reach maximum depth in sand- and gravel-
bed material in hours; cohesive bed material in days; glacial till, sandstones, and shale in
months; limestone in years, and dense granite in centuries. Under flow conditions typical of
actual bridge crossings, several floods may be needed to attain maximum scour.
A factor in scour at highway crossings and encroachments is whether it is clear-water or live-
bed scour. Clear-water scour occurs where there is no transport of bed material upstream of the
crossing or encroachment or the material being transported in the upstream reach is transported
through the downstream reach at less than the capacity of the flow.
Total scour at a highway crossing is comprised of three components:

1-Long-term aggradation or degradation,
2-Contraction scour, and
3-Local scour.
Aggradation and degradation are long-term streambed elevation changes due to natural or man-
induced causes which can affect the reach of the river on which the bridge is located.
Aggradation involves the deposition of material eroded from the channel or watershed upstream
of the bridge; whereas, degradation involves the lowering or scouring of the streambed due to
a deficit in sediment supply from upstream.
Contraction scour, in a natural channel or at a bridge crossing, involves the removal of material
from the bed and banks across all or most of the channel width. This component of scour can
result from a contraction of the flow area, an increase in discharge at the bridge, or both. It can
also result from a change in downstream control of the water surface elevation. The scour is the
result of increased velocities and shear stress on the channel bed.
Local scour involves removal of material from around piers, abutments, spurs, and
embankments. It is caused by an acceleration of flow and resulting vortices induced by the flow
20
obstructions. Local scour can also be either clear-water or live-bed scour. Live-bed local scour
is cyclic in nature; that is, the scour hole that develops during the rising stage refills during the
falling stage.
Countermeasures of scour
There are a number of energy dissipator designs which utilize blocks, sills, or other roughness
elements to impose exaggerated resistance to flow. Roughness elements provide the designer
with a versatile tool in that they may be utilized in forcing and stabilizing the hydraulic jump
and shortening the hydraulic jump basin. A key parameter that determines the magnitude of
changes in water level and flow velocity around structures is the Froude number, F, which is
𝑽
defined as: 𝑭=
√𝒈×𝒅
Where: V: velocity
g: acceleration of gravitation (9.81 m/s2).
Steep channel flow, and flow through constrictions is often in a transitional flow state between
subcritical and supercritical. Experimental work conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (HEC14, 2006) indicates that this transition zone occurs between Froude numbers of
0.89 and 1.13. When flow conditions are within this range, an extremely unstable condition
exists in which the inertia and gravity forces are unbalanced. This causes excessive wave action,
hydraulic jumps, localized changes in water-surface slope, and extreme flow turbulence. Non-
uniform, unsteady, and near supercritical flow conditions create stresses on the channel
boundary that are significantly different from those induced by uniform, steady, subcritical
flow. These stresses are difficult to assess quantitatively.
The estimation of amount of local and total scour involves different parameters in particular the
slope of naturel streambed, the bed material size (particle size), and the eventual height between
invert bridge and the streambed.
VII. Findings after conducting verification study

This small section summarizes the findings after the verification study.
Table 10: Summary of preliminary design and verification design
Items Preliminary design Verification design

4. Total number of bridges 2 2
21
5. Bridge’s opening depth

At Pk 34+860 2 x (20 x 2.5) 2 x (20 x 2.5)
At Pk 37+193 2 x (20 x 2.5) 2 x (20 x 2.5)
7. Hydrologic modeling that Not Yes
estimates the water surface level
APPENDIXES
22

Final Report On Hydrological Study - Base-Ruk

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

Final Report On Hydrological Study - Base-Ruk

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hydrological Study of Construction project of Road RUKOMO-BASE |

FINAL REPORT: HYDROLOGICAL STUDY OF CONSTRUC PROJECT OF

Gicumbi, December, 2016.

Table 1: Runoff coefficient ................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 1: Topographic map showing the road section BASE-RUKOMO .............................................. 5

III. Collection and analysis of data

III.1 Catchment description

Figure 1: Topographic map showing the road section BASE-RUKOMO

III.2. Demarcation of Catchment area

Figure 2: Plan view of catchments of segment Kisaro – Base

III.3. Choice of return period

IV. Hydrological components

-Intensity-duration curve for a certain frequency, and

-Daily rainfall data for along a certain period.

Adjustment of Gumbel law of BYUMBA METEO STATION :from

90.00 Experimental value

Figure 3: Adjustment in a law of Gumbel of the annual maximum daily rainfall

V. Calculations of peak discharge

Where Q: peak discharge for the return period in m3/s

K: conversion factor (0.0028)

𝑸𝟏𝟎 = 𝟖𝟗𝟑 × 𝑺𝟎.𝟕𝟕𝟑 × 𝑷−𝟐.𝟎𝟓𝟏

Q: peak discharge for the return period of 10 years in m3/s

S: Catchment area in Km²

Pan: Annual maximum daily rainfall in mm

I: Global index slope (m/km)

Kr: Runoff coefficient corresponding with the return period in m/km

Dd: Drainage density (km-1).

V.1. Time of concentration

Where tc: Time of concentration (min)

A: watershed drainage area (ha)

L: length of flow (m)

S: Slope of flow (m/m)

For the urban area the Kirpich formula will be used:

𝒕𝒄 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝟗 (𝑳)𝟎.𝟕𝟕 /(𝑺)𝟎.𝟑𝟖𝟓

Where L: the largest length of thalweg (m)

V.2. Runoff coefficient

Type of catchment Values of C

V.3. Calculation of Intensity

𝑰(𝑻, 𝒕𝒄) = 𝒂(𝑻) × 𝒕𝒄 −𝒃(𝑻)

Choice of return period

V.4. Estimation of peak discharge for different return periods

Where: Q10: decennial discharge,

T 20 ans 50 ans 100 ans

Table 3: Peak discharge for each bridge

Outlet Flow characteristics

Runoff coeffient [C]

Passini Kirpic Q20 Q50 Q100

VI. Hydraulic study

The discharge to be safely handled by a structure is dependent on a number of factors, including:

VI.2. Bridge design

Bridge opening and Road grade design considerations

Table 4: Dimensions of bridges from the preliminary study

Location Length (m) Depth (m)

VI.5. Verification of preliminary design

Table 5: Hydraulic modeling of reach concerned with the Bridge at Pk 34+860

20 years 121.52 0 2.34 2.34 3.49 0.013571 4.75 25.58 11.2 1

Crit W.S: Critical Water Surface Elevation

Table 6: Hydraulic modeling of reach concerned with the Bridge at Pk 37+193

20 years 150.76 0 2.7 2.7 4.02 0.01367 5.09 29.6 11.2 1

Table 7: Verification of hydraulic parameters of bridges of preliminary study

Return period of 50 years Return period of 100 years

Table 9: Hydraulic modeling of bridges 2 (20 x 2.5) located at Pk 37+193

Total scour at a highway crossing is comprised of three components: