Final Option Study Report 23-08-2017

Preparing Feasibility Study for Construction of
Kas umer Khan Canal system Option’s Study of Diversion Structure
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. CONSTRUCTION OF WEIR FOR FEEDING PROPOSED KAS UMER KHAN CANAL
SYSTEM............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Location:..................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Scope of Study........................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Hydrology................................................................................................................... 2
1.4.1 Metrological data;.........................................................................................4
1.4.2 Stream flow data...........................................................................................5
1.5 Design Flood.............................................................................................................. 6
1.5.1 Flood Estimation by Gauge Data:.................................................................6
1.5.2 Frequency Analysis of Flood Data:...............................................................8
1.5.3 Rainfall Runoff Modelling:.............................................................................8
1.6 Available Irrigation Water Supplies.............................................................................9
1.7 Sedimentation Studies..............................................................................................10
1.7.1 General:......................................................................................................10
1.8 Hydraulics................................................................................................................. 10
1.8.1 Tail Water Rating Curve for Intake Structure..............................................10
1.9 Option Study............................................................................................................. 11
1.9.1 Merits and Demerits...................................................................................13
1.10 Summary of Cost......................................................................................................20
1.11 Appendices............................................................................................................... 20
Structural Drawings with Plan and X- Sections of all the option........................................20
List of Tables
Table 1: Kurram, Kaitu and Tochi Rivers Catchment Areas at Various Locations.......................4
Table 2: Mean Monthly Rainfall in the Kurram Basin (inch)........................................................5
Table 3: Inventory of the Stream Flow Gauging Stations............................................................6
Table 4: Flow data at Dara Tang................................................................................................7
Table 5: Results of Flood Frequency Analysis............................................................................8
Table 6: Water availability (cusecs) for pre and post Kurram Tangi and Baran Dam Raising
Project.......................................................................................................................... 9
Table 7: Suspended Sediment Load at Dara Tang...................................................................10
Table 8: Tail Water Rating Curve Intake Structure....................................................................11
Table 9: Summary of the Cost..................................................................................................20
List of Figures
Figure 1: Schematic Layout of Study Area...................................................................................3
Figure 2: Monthly Maximum and Minimum Temperature at Bannu (oC)......................................5
Figure 3: Spread of Flood at Dara Tang based on Gauge Data from 1971 to 2014.....................7
Figure 4: Spread of Flood at Dara Tang based on Gauge Data from 1971 to 2014.....................8
Figure 5: Tail Water Rating Curve Diversion Weir (KUKCS)......................................................11
EGC|RHC|AGES
TOC-I
EGC|RHC|AGES
TOC-II
1. CONSTRUCTION OF WEIR FOR FEEDING PROPOSED KAS UMER KHAN CANAL

SYSTEM
1.1 Introduction
There is a vast tract of about 85897 acres of fertile cultureable land lying between foot hills & right
bank of the River Indus in Tehsil Isa Khel of District Mianwali. The whole of the area is almost barani
except a small tract on the left bank of the River Kurram which is being irrigated through a seasonal
canal named as Kas Umar Khan. The proposed project area is bounded by River Indus on the East,
River Kurram on the South and low hills on the Western side up to Kamar Mashani town.
There were many proposals and studies carried out in the past in order to enhance the existing
canal cultureable command area but all the efforts gone futile for one or the other reason. Recently
NDC submitted a feasibility report for increasing its gross area to 83,044 Acres. The consultants
have made soil study of the area for updating the feasibility and concluded that at least GCA of
85897 acres of fertile barani cultureable land is available which can be irrigated easily through
diversion of water from Kurram River against 83,044 acres by the NDC.
In order to irrigate the command area, the consultants have worked on five (5) proposals for the
diversion weir at Kurram River to divert the available flows into the proposed command area and
upgrade the existing canal system to boost up the economy of the area for improving the life of the
poor people which are listed as under:
1) Ungated Concrete weir with undersluice Gated pocket;
2) Gated Concrete Weir with Undersluice pocket;
3) Flexible Stone Weir with undersluice Gated pocket;
4) Needle Structure with undersluice gated pocket;
5) Rubber dam.
1.2 Location:
Sr. Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 above structures are proposed 1400 feet downstream the abandoned railway
bridge in Punjab province boundary whereas the Sr. No 4 flexible needle structure is proposed
along the axis of the railway bridge partly in KPK province and partly in Punjab province.
1.3 Scope of Study
The Scope of option study is to analyze for the five (5) type of diversion weir structures as described
above and to make choice of one which best fit to the site conditions regarding durability, better
command over the river without loss of incoming flows and maximum diversion of flows to command
area. As per TOR’s of the Consultancy Services Agreement; the consultants required to check and
ensure the adequacy of the hydraulic, structural, mechanical and electrical Design Criteria and
make modifications where necessary.
 Feasibility Study for Kas Umar Khan system Project by NDC 1998;
 Hydraulic Model Study Reports Kas Umar Khan Canal Project, IRR-744/Hyd./Canal, April
1979 and IRR-945/Hyd./KAS UMAR, June 1990;
 Drawings of Kas Umar Khan Canal System Project.
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-1
1.4 Hydrology
The major rivers contributing to the flows at Dara Tang include Kurram, Kaitu, Tochi, Baran,
Gambilla (Tochi River after confluence of Baran Algad is called Gambilla), Kashu Algad, Larkhe
Algad and many other small tributaries. Figure 1 shows a schematic layout of the Kurram River
system and its tributaries. The river water is diverted at Kurran-Garhi Head works and a few other
points for irrigation purposes in Kurram-Gambilla, Domail and Marwat Plains.
The catchment area of Kurrarm River and its tributaries is made up of rugged steep sloping
mountains. It is located partly in Afghanistan in snow covered areas of Koh-e-Sufaid in Paktia and
Paktika Provinces at an elevation of over 8000 ft. and partly in Pakistan in Sulaiman. Kohat,
Bhitanni. Shinghar and Maiwat Ranges in District Bannu and tribal agencies of North Waziristan,
South Waziristan, etc. The Kurram Valley is 70 mile long with the wide Parachinar Plateau situated
in the upper part of the river. The remaining portion of the valley up to Thal is narrow and encircled
by low hills. About half of this plateau is under cultivation with the resources made up of forest
reserves. The Kurram. Kaitu and Tochi rivers carry perennial flow from many small streams in snow
covered Koh-e-Sufaid. Large scale erosion has resulted from intense rainstorms on the steep
slopes.
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-2
Figure 1: Schematic Layout of Study Area

The catchment areas of Kurram, Kaitu and Tochi rivers have been computed at different locations
and are shown in Table 1 below:
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-3
Table 1: Kurram, Kaitu and Tochi Rivers Catchment Areas at Various Locations
Sr. No. Description Area (miles2)
1 Kurram River at Thal Gauging Station 2,006

2 Kurram River at KurramTangi Damsite 2,464
3 Kaitu River at Spinwam 1,962
4 Kaitu River at Confluence with Kurram river 1,994
5 Kurram River at Confluence of Kaitu River 2,600
6 Kurram River at Kurram Garhi Headworks 4,632
7 Tochi River at Tangi Post 1,980*
8 Tochi river at outfall into Kurram river 3,816
9 Kurram River at Proposed Weir Site (Dara Tang) 9,775
The hydrology study is based on the following data:
1.4.1 Metrological data;
 Climate
The rainfall in the area varies with latitude and altitude of the area. The average rainfall varies from
a minimum of 13” in the lower catchment to 30” in the upper catchment. There are two distinct
rainfall seasons;
i. Monsoon/summer season extending from July to September
ii. Western Disturbance extending from December to March
Average monthly rainfalls observed at Bannu in the South, Miran Shah in the middle and Parachinar
in the north are shown in Table 2.
The Climate of Project area is dry and hot in summer and cold in winter. The summer season
begins in April and continues till October. The mean maximum temperature during the hottest
months of June and July are 40 o C and 38o C respectively. In May and June, the humidity is very
low. The area is under periodic dust storms. The cool wave starts from somewhere in October.
December and January are the coldest months with mean minimum temperature of about 21 o C and
19o C. Temperature data for Bannu is shown in Figure 2.
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-4
Table 2: Mean Monthly Rainfall in the Kurram Basin (inch)
Stations
Month Bannu Miran Shah Parachinar
1970-2014 1941-1967 1970-2002
Jan 0.55 1.68 1.88
Feb 1.3 2.88 2.99
Mar 1.79 4.78 5.29
Apr 1.03 3.62 3.74
May 0.7 2.47 2.84
Jun 0.76 1.63 1.92
Jul 2.26 4.14 3.94
Aug 2.8 3.83 3.81
Sep 0.63 2.01 2.18
Oct 0.46 1.12 1.23
Nov 0.22 0.77 0.63
Dec 0.5 1.41 1.12
Total 13.01 30.34 31.58
1.4.2 Stream flow data
Figure 2: Monthly Maximum and Minimum Temperature at Bannu (oC)
The stream flows of Kurram, Kaitu and Tochi rivers at different gauging stations, as given in Table
3, are mainly being monitored on daily basis and maintained by Surface Water Hydrology Project
(SWHP) WAPDA; Irrigation Department (ID) Khyber Pukhtoonkhwa (KPK); and Hydrology
Department, KPK. Daily discharge data of these stations was collected to ascertain water availability
at Dara Tang.
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-5
Table 3: Inventory of the Stream Flow Gauging Stations
Sr.
Station River Agency Period of Record
No.
1 Thal Kurram SWHP 1970–2010
2 Kurram Garhi Headworks Kurram PID, KPK 1971-2014
3 Dara Tang Kurram SWHP 1982-1985
4 Dara Tang Kurram Hydrology, KPK 1997-2014
5 Spinwam Kaitu PID, KPK 1980-2013
6 Tangi Post Tochi SWHP 1978-1996
 Important Components of the River System
As indicated earlier, water of Kurram River and its tributaries is diverted for irrigation purposes at
many locations through permanent or temporary weirs subject to the availability subject to
availability of water in the river; the most important being the Kurram-Garhi Headworks where most
of the flow is diverted out of the flows generated in the upper catchments. Lower down, there are
small diversions with no permanent structures; mostly exploiting flows generated in the lower
catchments; like the one located for Kas Umar Khan Canal at Dara Tang.
 Future Development in the Upper Catchment
A number of interventions are proposed across Kurram River and its tributaries such as Kurram
Tangi Dam, Thal Canal, Spaira Ragha Canal, Sheratalla Canal and diversion of flows from Tochi
River towards Baran Dam. The impact of these interventions were also studied in detail and water
availability was estimated considering these future interventions.
1.5 Design Flood
A diversion structure has been proposed for Kas Umar Khan Canal Project to divert flows from the
Kurram River at Dara Tang. For the safe design of the structure, it is necessary to estimate the
probability of important historic floods. The structures in the main river are normally designed for a
flood having a reasonable return period and should cater for maximum flood recorded at the
respective location. There is discharge data available at Dara Tang based on the gauge installed
by KPK, Irrigation Department, which has sufficient length of time (1971 to 2014) (intake location).
The flood was estimated using 1 day annual maximum flood data at Dara Tang. A rainfall runoff
model for the whole basin was also setup for the confirmation of flood data.
1.5.1 Flood Estimation by Gauge Data:
For this purpose, flood data from the KPK, Irrigation Department at Dara Tang was used (available
from 1971 to 2014). The selected data is given in Table 4 and its spread in different years is shown
in Figure 3.
Table 4: Flow data at Dara Tang
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-6
Discharge Discharge
Year Year
Cusecs Cusecs
1971 12550 1996 36000
1972 85285 1997 52425
1973 22000 1998 71561
1974 83887 1999 42732
1975 12550 2000 36270
1976 5976 2001 71501
1977 114645 2002 18370
1978 178962 2003 57372
1979 137816 2004 20337
1980 114645 2005 51892
1981 17120 2006 41945
1982 7180 2007 41945
1983 13950 2008 16272
1984 100664 2009 21337
1985 83887 2010 75725
1991 22379 2011 52425
1992 42772 2012 45963
1993 71561 2013 149844
1994 16885 2014 52425
1995 36270
Figure 3: Spread of Flood at Dara Tang based on Gauge Data from 1971 to 2014
1.5.2 Frequency Analysis of Flood Data:
The flood frequency analysis was conducted by fitting several distributions to instantaneous flood
records of Kurram River at Dara Tang station.
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-7
The best fit was achieved by GEV and Log Pearson Type-III distribution. Several distributions such
as Exponential, GEV, Gumbel, Weibull, Normal, Log Normal, Gamma, Generalised Gamma,
Inverse Gamma and Pearson Type-III were also tested.
A set of criteria including Chi-Squared Test, Kolmogorov - Smirnov tests and proximity of distribution
statistics to those of the data and visual inspection was applied to select the best distribution in each
case. The results showed that GEV and Log Pierson Type-III are most appropriate approach for this
data as shown in Figure 4. The frequency analysis were carried out using both of these approaches
and shown in Table 5. As flood of GEV is bit higher compared to Log Pearson type-III, therefore it
was recommended.
GEV
LPIII
Figure 4: Spread of Flood at Dara Tang based on Gauge Data from 1971 to 2014
Table 5: Results of Flood Frequency Analysis
Return Log Pearson Type-III GEV

Period (Years) (Cusecs) (Cusecs)
100 182,000 197,000
50 164,000 164,000
20 137,000 133,000
10 113,000 109,000
5 86,400 84,500
3 64,100 65,100
2 44,800 47,800
1.5.3 Rainfall Runoff Modelling:
The estimation of flood for Kurram Basin has been carried out by a hydrological model HEC-HMS
(Hydrologic Engineering Center – Hydrologic Modelling System). Model selection, development,
calibration and design estimation with hydrological model are discussed in this Section.
The result of rainfall runoff modelling show that 100 year return period flows are slightly less than
the observed flows at Dara Tang (182,400 cusecs). This might be due to very limited rainfall data
over the large basin. To be on the conservative side, flood estimated using flood frequency analysis
has been adopted for the design flood. The 100 year flood (design flood for intake structure)
197,000 cusecs say 200,000 cusecs has been recommended.
1.6 Available Irrigation Water Supplies
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-8
The model generated flows by addition of all the flows generated in the upper and lower catchment
and exfiltration whereas withdrawals were deducted. The flows at Dara Tang was calculated using
Q Dara Tang is the flow at Dara Tang (cusecs), Q KGH is the inflow at Kurram Garhi Headworks
(cusecs), QKGB is the flow from Kurram Gambilia & Bannu (Cusecs), QB&M is the flow from Bhattian &
Marwat (Cusecs), QEX is exfiltration (cusecs), QBD is flow from Baran dam (Cusecs), Q T is flow from
Tochi river (Cusecs), QD is flow from Domail (Cusecs) and QI are the irrigation losses (Cusecs).
The estimated and observed flows (1982 to 1985) were compared and found reasonable agreement
The monthly flows series for long term at Dara Tang were estimated from 1971 to 2015 for pre
Kurram Tangi Dam and raising of Baran Dam and flows for post Kurram Tangi Dam and Baran Dam
from 1971 to 2001. The results exhibit that the minimum flow is 236 cusecs in the month of January
and water is available in excess of 450 cusecs from March to December. The interventions in the
upper basin will greatly impact the flows in low flow months as shown in Table 6.
the following equation (1):
QDara Tang = 3/16 x (QKGH) + (QKGB) + (QB&M) + (QEX) + (QBD) + (QT) + (QD) - (QI)......... (1)
Where;
Table 6: Water availability (cusecs) for pre and post Kurram Tangi and Baran Dam
Raising Project
Pre Kurram Tangi & Baran Post Kurram Tangi & Raising
Months
Raising (1971-2015) (1971-2001)
Jan 579 135
Feb 708 262
Mar 2086 500
Apr 4475 896
May 3670 583
Jun 1526 363
Jul 2084 628
Aug 3762 765
Sep 1131 376
Oct 631 321
Nov 711 238
Dec 673 243
1.7 Sedimentation Studies
1.7.1 General:
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-9
The construction of a weir/barrage over a natural stream influences its natural regime; weirs
decrease the natural flow velocity and the sediments starts to accumulate at the head of the pond
developed due to the construction of weir and in the bed of the pond or in front of the inlet of the
power tunnels or other structures within the flow path.
The Kurram River carries a lot of silt especially in the monsoon season. There are two gauging
stations at Kurram River (Thal at Kurram River and Tochi River at Tangi Post with sediment record.
The sediment load of the Kurram River flows between Thal to Kurram River at Dara Tang and of the
Tochi River was estimated on the basis of annual sediment load. The suspended sediment for
Kurram River was estimated separately for before its confluence with Tochi River. Similarly Tochi
River suspended sediment was estimated at the confluence point of Kurram River. Total sediment
inflow was estimated by the addition of these two streams sediment load .Total sediment inflow at
Dara Tang is determined as 22.66 million tons and shown in Table 7. The bed load is normally
considered as 10 to 15 % of the sediment load, thus the total sediment is 24.92 say 25 million tons.
Table 7: Suspended Sediment Load at Dara Tang
tons/km
mi2 km2 mst M tons 2
Sr. Avg Avg

Watershe Watershe Record
No Station River sed sed SSSY
d area d area Years
. yield yield
Kurra 1968-
1 Thal 2,006 5,200 3.77 3.37 647.35
m 2005
1962-66,
2 Tangi Post Tochi 1,980 5,132 1979- 5.14 4.59 894.19
1995
Kiatu River
at Outfall
3 1,994 5,169 3.75 3.35 647.35
into Kurram
River
Tochi River
at
Confluence
4 3,816 9,891 9.91 8.84 894.19
Point with
Kurram
River
Kurram
River at
5 Dara Tang 5,959 15,446 11.20 10.00 647.35
w/o Tochi
River
Kurram
6 River at 9,775 25,338 21.11 22.66 894.19
Dara Tang
1.8 Hydraulics
1.8.1 Tail Water Rating Curve for Intake Structure
As per hydraulic model study report carried out at Irrigation Research Institute Nadipur for Kas
Umar Khan Canal No IRR-744/Hyd./Canal, April 1979; the gauge discharge data relationship of
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-10
Kurram River at Dara Tang upto discharge of 80000 cusecs is available. The maximum flood
discharge as per hydrological study report for 100 years returned period at Dara Tang is 200000
cusecs. The consultants have updated the Tail Water Rating Curve for this discharge; both for
average normal water levels and 2.0 feet retrogressed water levels. The new Tail water curve is
given in Table 8 and Figure 5.
Table 8: Tail Water Rating Curve Intake Structure
Discharge Average Normal Retrogressed Discharge Average Retrogressed

(cusecs) Water Levels (ft) Water Levels (cusecs) Normal Water Water Levels
(ft) Levels (ft) (ft)
2000 727.72 724.45 80000 736.63 734.41
5000 729.92 726.91 100000 737.17 735.01
10000 731.59 728.78 125000 737.71 735.62
20000 733.27 730.65 150000 738.16 736.12
40000 734.95 732.52 175000 738.53 736.54
60000 735.93 733.62 200000 738.86 736.90
Figure 5: Tail Water Rating Curve Diversion Weir (KUKCS)
1.9 Option Study
i) The option study report cover design calculations, layout plan and drawings for the Five (5)
options to make the choice of any one proposed diversion weir on Kurram River at Dara
Tang site and its auxiliary works. After the choice for the type of Diversion Weir, the updating
feasibility study, preparing tender stage drawings, PC-1, estimate and BOQ will be carried
out and therefore our major comments relate to identify any discrepancies shortcoming and
inadequacies which to be rectified to make it fit for the construction. Suggestions include
review and updating of topographic survey, geotechnical investigations, tail water rating
curve, design criteria, feasibility report, drawings etc;
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-11
ii) All hydraulic calculations are based on modified Gibson Curve Cd value with maximum of
3.33. Comprehensive models for the diversion weir which was carried out by the feasibility
consultants at Hydraulic Station Nandipur;
iii) The maximum flood discharge is based on the historical floods at Dara Tang site of Kurram
River. The discharge computed on 100 years return period is 200000 cusecs as per
hydrological study report of Kurram River by the consultants;
iv) The existing profile of NSL at proposed weir site has average level of RL. 725 ft;
v) The Consultants have proposed upstream floor levels 724.0 ft and 725.0 ft, for the
undersluice and weir portions whereas crest levels 726.50 ft and 728.0 ft in the undersluice
and weir portions for gated weir and crest level 727.5 ft and 736.0 for undersluice and weir
portions in case of ungated weir. The surface flow analysis carried out for design discharge
of 200000 cusecs. The upstream high flood water level are 742.36 ft and 749.11 ft for gated
and ungated weirs respectively;
vi) For gated weir with undersluice gated pocket; the analysis was made on the basis of
proposed upstream floor levels 724.0 ft and 725.0 ft and crest levels 726.50 ft and 728.0 ft in
the undersluices and weir portions with the design discharge of 200000 cusecs using
updated “Tail Water Rating Curve”, the calculated upstream water level is 742.36 ft. The
downstream basin level calculated are 710.0 ft and 712.0 ft with 20% concentration of flow
for 2.0 ft retrogression for undersluice and weir portions;
vii) For ungated weir with undersluice gated pocket; the analysis made on the basis of proposed
upstream floor levels 724.0 ft and 725.0 ft and crest levels 727.50 ft and 736.0 ft in the
undersluice and weir portions with the design discharge of 200000 cusecs using updated
“Tail Water Rating Curve”, the calculated upstream water level is 749.11 ft. The downstream
basin level calculated are 702.0 ft and 706.0 ft with 20% concentration of flow for 2.0 ft
retrogression for undersluice and weir portions;
Similarly for Flexible Stone Weir with Undersluice Gate Pocket and Flexible Needle
Structure with Undersluice Gated Pocket; the analysis made on the basis of proposed
upstream floor levels 724.0 ft and 725.0 ft and crest levels 727.50 ft and 736.0 ft in the
undersluice and weir portions with the design discharge of 200000 cusecs using updated
“Tail Water Rating Curve”, the calculated upstream water level is 749.11 ft. The downstream
basin level calculated are 702.0 ft and 706.0 ft with 20% concentration of flow for 2.0 ft
retrogression for undersluice and weir portions;
viii) The normal pond level for gated weir will be choice of the designer keeping in view to
increase the command area under gravity system whereas in case of ungated weir the
normal pond level be 736.0 ft;
ix) The designed basin floor length for gated undersluice and weir are 130.0 ft and 120.0 ft
whereas for ungated undersluice and weir are 175.0 ft and 125.0 ft;
x) The subsurface flow design of diversion weir is made on the basis of 4 No. cutoffs/piles both
for undersluice and weir. The bottom of upstream sheet piles for gated structure for
undersluice and weir are 697.83 ft and 704.50 ft whereas for the downstream piles are 688.0
ft and 695.0 ft;
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-12
xi) The bottom of upstream sheet piles for ungated structure for undersluice and weir are
695.20 ft and 712.30 ft whereas for the downstream piles are 680.0 ft and 682.0 ft
respectively;
xii) The stability and overturning analysis carried out for Divide Wall, Abutments and Wing Walls
is based on PGA/EQ factor of 0.15 according to the site as per Seismic value of zone. The
weight and angle of internal friction of silt and sand taken in the design required to be used
after verification from Geo Tech data;
1.9.1 Merits and Demerits
A.) Ungated Concrete Weir with Undersluice Gated Pocket

The total proposed length of the structure is 1147.0 feet. It consists of ungated weir of width 1038
feet, gated undersluice pocket of 102.0 feet and divide wall of 7.0 feet. The undersluice portion has
3 No gates and 2No piers. The proposed width of pier and each bay is 6.0 feet and 30.0 feet
respectively.
The salient features of the structure are as given in the Table below.
a) Proposed Parameters
Design discharge at intake structure 200000 cusecs

Normal pond level RL 736.0 feet
Maximum Average High flood level RL 749.11 feet
Total proposed width of intake structure 1147.0 feet
Number of bays in main weir portion 1

Number of bays undersluice portion 3
Width of Pier of undersluice portion 6.0 feet
Width of Divide wall 7.0 feet
Design flood level downstream the weir 738.86 feet
Design flood level d/s with 2.0 feet retrogression 736.90
Lacey’s silt factor (for mean diameter of particle size from 64 mm to 254 0.80
mm
b) Proposed Design Parameters
Parameter Undersluice Weir
Crest level RL (feet) 727.50 736.0

u/s floor level RL (feet) 724.0 725.0
u/s concrete floor length (feet) 50.0 50.0
u/s glacis slope 3.14H:1V 1H:1V
d/s glacis slope 3H:1V 2.531H:1V
Stilling basin level RL (feet) 702.0 706.0
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-13
End cill top level (feet) 710.0 708.50

Top level of concrete block aprons and
708.0 706.50
loose stone (feet) aprons
Stilling basin length (feet) 175.0 125.0
Clear width (feet) 3 bays each 30.0 1038.0
Pier width (feet) 6.0 -
Overall width (feet) 102.0 1038.0
Size of u/s concrete block aprons 8 blocks (4’x4’) 4 blocks (4’x4’)
Size of d/s concrete block aprons 17 blocks (4’x4’) 8 blocks (4’x4’)
Size of u/s stone aprons 4’x131’ 4’x65’
Size of d/s stone aprons 6’x85’ 6’x40’
Pile levels U/S D/S
Undersluice 695.20 680.0
Weir 712.30 682.0
Froude No. Undersluice Weir
3.22 3.88
Width between abutments (feet) 1147.0
Merits:
i) Gates and Operation Bridge Cost in Weir Portion is Saved

ii) Comparatively Low Maintenance Cost
Demerits:
i) The Crest Level is to be Designed Keeping in View the Required Pond Level (RL 736.0 feet)
ii) High Flood level (RL 749.11 feet) Comparing Existing Flood Levels.
iii) Environmental Issues
iv) No Control on River
v) Excessive Sediment Deposits in weir portion ultimately reaching in canal bed.
B.) Gated Concrete Weir with Undersluice Gated Pocket
The total proposed length of the structure is 1147.0 feet. It consists of gated weir of width 1074.0
feet, undersluice pocket of 66.0 feet and divide wall of 7.0 feet. The weir has 30 No bays and 29 No
piers whereas as the undersluice portion has 2 No bays and 1No pier. The proposed width of pier
and each bay is 6.o feet and 30.0 feet respectively.
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-14


Lacey’s silt factor (for mean diameter of particle size from 64 mm to
0.80
254 mm

u/s glacis slope 2.4 H:1V 2H:1V
d/s glacis slope 3H:1V 3.1 H:1V
714.50 716.00
Clear width (feet) 2 bays each 30.0 30 bays each bay 30.0
Pier width (feet) 6.0 6
Pile levels U/S D/S
Weir 704.50 695.0
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-15

2.86 2.96
Merits:
i) Low Crest level, achieving Designed Pond Level through Gates.

ii) Maximum High Flood Level (742.36 feet) Equals Existing Flood level and no Rise.
iii) No Environmental Issues
iv) Effective Control on River
v) Very Effective at Low Supplies Without any Loss of Water
vi) Easy to flush the deposited silt
Demerits:
i) Additional Investment Cost for Gates and Operation Bridge in Weir Portion;
ii) High Maintenance Cost.
C.) Flexible Stone Weir with undersluice Gated pocket
The total proposed length of the structure is 1147.0 feet. It consists of flexible stone weir of width
1038 feet, gated undersluice pocket of 102.0 feet and divide wall of 7.0 feet. The flexible stone weir
consists of loose stone dry hand packed apron covered with precast concrete slab of size
(10’x10’x2.50’) with maximum spacing between the two slabs 1.0”. The undersluice portion has 3No
gates and 2No piers. The proposed width of pier and each bay is 6.o feet and 30.0 feet respectively.


mm
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-16

Top level of concrete block aprons and 708.0 706.50
Froude Number
8 blocks (4’x4’) 4 blocks (4’x4’)
Size of u/s concrete block aprons
17 blocks (4’x4’) 8 blocks (4’x4’)
Size of d/s concrete block aprons
Pile levels U/S D/S
Weir 712.30 682.0
3.22 3.88
Merits:
i) Gates and Operation Bridge Cost in Weir Portion is Saved;

ii) Bit Low in Cost than Ungated Concrete Weir Structure and Gated Weir Structure.
Demerits:
i) The Crest Level is to be Designed Keeping in View the Required Pond Level (RL 736 feet);
ii) High Crest Level Structure Required Rather than RL 736.0 feet for Proper Operation of Lift
Pumps;
iii) High Flood Levels (RL 749.11 feet) at Crest Level RL 736.0 feet Comparing Existing Flood
Levels.
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-17
iv) Environmental Issues

v) No Control on River
vi) Excessive Sediment Deposits in weir portion ultimately reaching in canal bed.
vii) Loss of Water in Low Supplies Which Suffer to Irrigation Supplies.
D.) Flexible Needle Structure with undersluice gated pocket
The proposed structure consists of ungated flexible stone weir cum needle, total length 2049.30
feet, gated undersluice pocket of 102.0 feet and divide wall of 7.0 feet. The top layer flexible stone
structure is proposed 18Gabions, size (3’x3’x2.50’). The top level of the structure is at RL 736.0.
The designed top width of the flexible stone weir cum needle is 18.0 feet. It has ten (10) steps of
height 2.50 feet and width 7.50 feet. The undersluice portion has 3No bays and 2No piers. The
proposed width of each bay and pier is 30.0 feet and 6.0 feet respectively.

Total width of weir and needle structure 2049.30 feet

mm
Parameter Undersluice Weir cum Needle

Crest level RL (feet)) 727.50 736.0
708.0 706.50
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-18
Parameter Undersluice Weir cum Needle

3.22 3.88
Pile levels U/S D/S
Weir 712.30 682.0
Merits:
i) It is Improved Modified Form of Present Arrangement;

ii) Comparatively Low Cost
iii) Gates and Operation Bridge Cost in Weir Portion is Saved.
Demerits:
i) The Height of Structure is to be Designed Higher than RL 736.0 feet Keeping in View the
Required Pond Level for Better Operation of Lift Pumps;
ii) High Crest Level Structure Required
iii) No Control on River
iv) High Maintenance Cost
v) Environmental Issues
vi) Loss of Water in Low supplies.
vii) Lengthy Heavy Structure
viii) Excessive Sediment Deposits in pocket Portion
ix) Excessive O&M Cost
E.) Rubber Dam
The height of proposed diversion weir is minimum 12.0 feet whereas the rubber dam height as per
Draft Working Paper” REVIVAL OF DEGRADED RIVER CHANNELS IN PUNJAB
-CONSTRUCTION OF RUBBER DAM IN RIVER SUTLEJ NEAR BAHAWALPUR” by Ghulam
Hussain Qadri (Ex-Chief Engineer-Irrigation Deptt. Punjab) on hydraulic and ecological revival to
recharge the groundwater in the surrounding areas particularly of Ravi, and Sutlej Rivers by
construction of ‘Rubber Dam’, the proposed height is 8.20 feet (2.50 m). The paper further predicts
that such arrangement will require branching section to divert water during floods in the river and
these Inflatable rubber weirs have been used worldwide and may have a life of over 30 years.
Merits
i) No gated and bridge structure required

ii) cost of concrete for crest portion saved
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-19
Demerits
i) May not suit to the local condition

ii) Not a tested option in our system
iii) Similar heavy structure as barrage with concrete floors, sheet piles, upstream and
downstream blocks and stone apron and abutment walls on both sides.
iv) Difficult operation
v) Imported material and Technology
1.10 Summary of Cost
The summary of the cost of each type of structure and its appurtenant structures is given in Table 9
below:
Table 9: Summary of the Cost
Option. # Type of Weir Structure Estimated Cost (Rs. M)
1 Ungated Weir with Undersluice Gated Pocket 4,189.50
2 Gated Weir with Undersluic Gated Pocket 4,100.55
3 Flexible Weir with Undersluice Gated Pocket 3,846.31
4 Needle Structure with undersluice gated pocket 2,487.52
5 Rubber Dam -
1.11 Appendices
STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS WITH PLAN AND X- SECTIONS OF ALL THE OPTION
EGC|RHC|AGES
Page-20

Final Option Study Report 23-08-2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Final Option Study Report 23-08-2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Option Study Report 23-08-2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preparing Feasibility Study for Construction of

Kas umer Khan Canal system Option’s Study of Diversion Structure

1. CONSTRUCTION OF WEIR FOR FEEDING PROPOSED KAS UMER KHAN CANAL

1.3 Scope of Study

Figure 1: Schematic Layout of Study Area

Sr. No. Description Area (miles2)

1 Kurram River at Thal Gauging Station 2,006

The hydrology study is based on the following data:

1.4.1 Metrological data;

Table 2: Mean Monthly Rainfall in the Kurram Basin (inch)

1.4.2 Stream flow data

Figure 2: Monthly Maximum and Minimum Temperature at Bannu (oC)

Table 3: Inventory of the Stream Flow Gauging Stations

1.5 Design Flood

1.5.1 Flood Estimation by Gauge Data:

Table 4: Flow data at Dara Tang

1.5.2 Frequency Analysis of Flood Data:

Table 5: Results of Flood Frequency Analysis

Return Log Pearson Type-III GEV

1.5.3 Rainfall Runoff Modelling:

1.6 Available Irrigation Water Supplies

1.7 Sedimentation Studies

Table 7: Suspended Sediment Load at Dara Tang

Sr. Avg Avg

1.8.1 Tail Water Rating Curve for Intake Structure

Table 8: Tail Water Rating Curve Intake Structure

Discharge Average Normal Retrogressed Discharge Average Retrogressed

Figure 5: Tail Water Rating Curve Diversion Weir (KUKCS)

1.9 Option Study

1.9.1 Merits and Demerits

A.) Ungated Concrete Weir with Undersluice Gated Pocket

Design discharge at intake structure 200000 cusecs

Number of bays in main weir portion 1

Parameter Undersluice Weir

Crest level RL (feet) 727.50 736.0

Parameter Undersluice Weir

End cill top level (feet) 710.0 708.50

i) Gates and Operation Bridge Cost in Weir Portion is Saved

Design discharge at intake structure 200000 cusecs

Total proposed width of intake structure 1147.0 feet

Number of bays in main weir portion 30

b) Proposed Design Parameters

Parameter Undersluice Weir

Parameter Undersluice Weir

i) Low Crest level, achieving Designed Pond Level through Gates.

Design discharge at intake structure 200000 cusecs

Total proposed width of intake structure 1147.0 feet

Number of bays in main weir portion 1

b) Proposed Design Parameters

Parameter Undersluice Weir

i) Gates and Operation Bridge Cost in Weir Portion is Saved;

iv) Environmental Issues

Design discharge at intake structure 200000 cusecs

Total width of weir and needle structure 2049.30 feet

Number of bays in main weir portion 1

Parameter Undersluice Weir cum Needle

Parameter Undersluice Weir cum Needle