Hydrology, Hydraulic Design For Weldia Town

Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Ali-Alamoudi Stadium spur Road Project Draft Hydrology, Hydraulic
Report
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................2
1.1 Project Background.....................................................................................................2
1.2 Scope and Objectives..................................................................................................3
1.3 Purpose of this Report and Its Contents......................................................................3
2. DESIGN STANDARDS AND DATA COLLECTION..............................................4
2.1 Design Standards.........................................................................................................4
2.1.1 Design Frequency or Return Period................................................................................................4
2.1.2 Methods of Design Flood Computation...........................................................................................6
2.2 Data Collection............................................................................................................7
2.2.1 Longitudinal Slope............................................................................................................................7
2.2.2 Rainfall data, stream flow data and topographic maps..............................................................7
3. HYDROLOGY..........................................................................................................10
3.1 General......................................................................................................................10
3.2 Catchment area Delineation......................................................................................10
3.3 Rainfall - Runoff Models...........................................................................................11
3.3.1 Rational Method..................................................................................................................................11
3.3.2 The United States Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Method of Estimating Flood..........................15
4. HYDRAULICS.........................................................................................................20
4.1 General......................................................................................................................20
4.2 Hydraulic Design Standard........................................................................................20
4.2.1 Manning’s Formula of Hydraulic Analysis..................................................................................20
5. Summary....................................................................................................................22
5.1. Cross Drainage Structures.....................................................................................................................22
5.2 Side Ditches and Interceptor Ditches.....................................................................................................23
6. Conclusion and Recommendation.............................................................................25
1
Zeluel Yohannes General Contractor in JV with
Bokra Construction and Trading P.L.C
Report
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
To address development constraints caused by poor condition of roads and restricted

access and, owing to the importance of the road transport in supporting social and
economic growth and in meeting poverty reduction objectives, the Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia has placed an increased emphasis on improving the quality and size
of the road infrastructure. The government of Ethiopia formulated in 1996, a ten year
Road Sector Development Program (RSDP). To this end, the government has made a
huge amount of investment towards improvement of the road network; both qualitatively
and quantitatively. These investment outlays cover the rehabilitation or upgrading of the
main trunk, link and rural roads and construction of new roads to expand the network.
As has been the case in the past, the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia (FDRE) continues its commitment to give the road sector the highest priority
and is preparing more projects for funding by donors and from the national budget.
Individual road projects are selected for inclusion in the RSDP on the basis of needs
assessment and taking into account the level of traffic, road condition and access problem
etc. In accordance with the above and its overall road sector strategy, the FDRE,
represented by Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA), has allocated sufficient budget to
finance payments for the design and construction works of Woldia Town Section Road
Upgrading Design and Build Project through the Design and Build contract delivery
strategy.
The Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA) of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
(the Employer) signed a contract agreement with Zeluel Yohannes General Contractor on
the 24th day of January, 2018 for Design and Construction of woldia Town section road
Project.
As part of his assignment, the contractor has carried out detail field investigation on
hydrology & drainage investigation carried out on the project from project start to end of
the project.
Location and Accessibility of the Project
The project road, an existing gravel road having a total approximate length of 5.36 km is
located within Amhara region inside Woldia town. The project is supplementary to the
previous contract. And is having three segments, segment 1, segment 2 and segment 3
with length of 1.276 km, 0.703 km and 0.128 km respectively. The segments serve to give
access to the Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Ali-Alamoudi Stadium.
2
Report
Figure 1 Location Map of the Project Area
1.2 Scope and Objectives
Amongst other supplementary matters, the scope and objectives discussed in this report
are:
 Collecting existing drainage related data,

 Checking the sufficiency of the existing structures,
 Conducting field investigation and identifying cross drainage locations ,
 Developing and defining criteria and computational methods to be used for the
hydrological and hydraulic analysis of, culverts, bridges , and ditches
 Estimating design floods,
 Providing design type, size, and location of new drainage structures,
3
Report
1.3 Purpose of this Report and Its Contents
The main purposes of this Design report are:
 To give detail description of the hydrological study and hydraulic analyses and
computations made, including the assumption and the design criteria used, for the
evaluation of existing; and design of new drainage facilities,
 To provide a schedule showing the design discharge and the respective opening
sizes of the structures.
This Design report is divided into four chapters including this introductory section. The
second chapter presents design standard of the project, data collection, climate, and
topography and soil type.
The third chapter deals with hydrological study. In this section, the design discharge is
estimated by using appropriate rainfall depth, topographic map, soil type, using the
information acquired through site visit and manuals. The design flood is computed using
rational formula.
The fourth chapter deals with waterway design of drainage structures. For the design
discharge estimated, adequate, economical and sustainable drainage system that suite the
site conditions are provided using appropriate hydraulic computation as per and Ethiopian
Roads Authority Drainage Design Manual (ERA DDM – 2013).
2. DESIGN STANDARDS AND DATA COLLECTION
2.1 Design Standards
2.1.1 Design Frequency or Return Period
Design Frequency or return period is indicative of the frequency with which a certain
magnitude of rainfall/runoff occurs in that period. The number of times a flood of a given
magnitude can be expected to occur on average over a long period of time. Design
frequency can be expressed with probability. The probability of being equal or exceeded
in any year can be defined by the following expression.
1
P( X≥ X T )=
T
Where: P = Frequency Exceedance
T= Occurrence of design flood exceeded or equalled once (Return period), in
years
Since it is not economically feasible to design a structure for the maximum runoff a
watershed is capable of producing, a design frequency must be established according to
the cost, potential flood hazard to property, expected level of service, and budgetary
constraints, and considering the magnitude and risk associated with damages from
inundation.
4
Report
The recurrence interval values shown in the table below are used for hydraulic design of
drainage facilities based on the ERA DDM recommendation.
Table 1.1: Design Return period selection
5
Report
2.1.2 Methods of Design Flood Computation
As per ERA DDM recommendations the design discharges are computed using
 Rational Method for catchment areas equal to or less than 0.5 km2 and
 Soil Conservation Services (SCS) unit hydrograph method for catchments
area greater than 0.5 km2.
6
Report
2.2 Data Collection
Different data are collected such as rainfall, topographic maps, satellite imagery, and
site findings. The data were used for the drainage study.
2.2.1 Longitudinal Slope
The longitudinal slope for the this has been collected from the highway department.
2.2.2 Rainfall data, stream flow data and topographic maps
IDF, geomorphology & soil, land use & land cover, topographic maps and aerial
photograph were collected including the following geo information.
Digital Elevation Model (30mX30m resolution)
Geomorphology/soil and land use/cover of the project area.
Vegetation and Land Use
Land use and land cover for each catchment is identified from examination by
physical assessment done on site. Based on the obtained data segment 1 traverses
through agricultural land. Segment 2 is partly neighboured to agricultural, and
some section of it is aside the Huda real-estate. Whereas, segment 3 is short and
it receives some sheet flow from the Stadium compound.
Site findings
Careful study of the catchment area, existing drainage structures including their
history has been performed during the group site visit.
Segment 1 has been found to be provided with two slab culverts and one pipe
culvert. The other structure is ford. Of the slab culverts one at 0+195, performs
well, to the contrary, the other one (@ 0+550) is almost blocked. The pipe culvert
was found to be totally clogged. Those blocked structures are usually overtopped
by flood during wet season according to flood marks and eye witnesses. Segment
1 was found to be provided with side ditch of varying size between from 1 m x 1
m and 1 m width x 0.7 m height. For the first 150 meters and additionally about
50 meters after the junction location with segment 2, the ditch is not providing
the intended function. That is because the ditch has been directed against the
natural grade. Whereas, the other sections of the ditch are in better condition
except siltation problem as a result of lack of routine term maintenance.
7
Report
Picture 1 Silted up side ditch around km 0+040 (segment 1)
Picture 2: Blocked slab culvert at km 0+550 (segment 1)
8
Report
Segment 2 has cross drainage structure at one location. The structure is double
pipe culvert of size 42 inches. All the waterways crossing segment 1 contribute to
this location. Every normal flood over topes the structure as the structure size is
not comparable to the flood magnitude the stream is conveying.
Picture 3: Existing Structure at km 0+540 (Segment 2)
Segment 3 is the shortest one of the two segments. There is neither cross nor
longitudinal drainage structure at this segment. Flashy flow from the stadium
access roads approach it. And the magnitude of flow seems very manageable.
The most series problem the team of professionals able to identify was the waste
material (dug soil) hauling aside and within the stream lines. Encroaching the
waterway by some other “stranger” material disturbs the water line equilibrium
condition and may also affect the process to reach equilibrium, if the stream
hydraulic characteristics is not in equilibrium. Besides the hauled material will be
eroded by the flowing water and block or reduce the opening of cross drainage
structures as already has been seen at km 0+550 of segment 1.
Picture 4: Hauled waste material upstream of the crossing location

(@ 0+550 of Segment 1)
9
Report
3. HYDROLOGY
3.1 General
The hydrological study was undertaken in order to estimate and evaluate peak
discharges for all watercourses crossing the project road. Calculation of these peak
discharge values enabled the determination of the hydraulic opening sizes and types
of waterway required.
There are many methods developed for calculation of the design flood but their
applicability depends mainly on the availability of hydrological data. As most of the
methods have parameters which depends on climate and morphological condition.
The climate data (rainfall and intensity) and morphological condition of the project
area were collected and investigated to determine input data for the methods of flood
calculation like runoff coefficient and rainfall intensity of the project.
3.2 Catchment area Delineation
The study of the watershed characteristics extensively studied using site investigation,
satellite imagery and the DEM having30mx30m resolution, (Data regarding
catchment areas i.e. watershed size and shape, stream slope, stream length and land
slope).
3.3 Rainfall - Runoff Models
There are various recognized methods and approaches for hydrologic/hydraulic

design of drainage facilities. The choice among the different methods depends on the
availability of hydro-meteorological data required by those models and their
appropriateness and applicability in the particular area of interest.
In areas like Ethiopia where there is scarcity of hydro-meteorological data, it is very

difficult and often impossible to use most of the state-of-the art models found
commercially. It is, therefore, essential to adapt to some empirical formulas, which
can reasonably and safely enable to estimate the flood associated with the required
return period.
As per the ERA DDM 2013 and the recommendations of AASHTO guidelines, the
following rainfall/runoff methods have been applied for flood estimation:
• SCS dimensionless hydrograph for catchment areas greater

than 0.5 km2
• Rational method for catchment areas less than 0.5 km2
10
Report
3.3.1 Rational Method
The Rational Method is most accurate for estimating the design storm peak runoff for
areas up to 50 ha (0.5 km2). The consequences of applying the Rational Method to
larger catchments is to produce an over estimate of discharge and a very conservative
design.
The Rational formula is expressed as:
Q = 0.278C I A
Where:
Q = Maximum rate of runoff, m3/s
C = Runoff coefficient representing a ratio of runoff to rainfall (Table 3-2)
I = Rainfall intensity for a duration equal to the time of concentration and for
design return period, mm/hr
A = catchment area tributary to the design location, km2
i) Runoff Coefficient (C)
Values shown in Table 3-1 are stipulated in AACRA DDM for determination of C
(for urban catchments), depending on terrain type and hydrologic soil grouping.
Table 3.1: Runoff Coefficients, C, Value for rational Formula
Description of Area Runoff Coefficients

Business: Downtown areas 0.70-0.95
Neighborhood areas 0.50-0.70
Residential: Single-family areas 0.30-0.50
Residential: Multi units, detached 0.40-0.60
Residential: Multi units, attached 0.60-0.75
Suburban 0.25-0.40
Residential (0.5 hectare lots or more) 0.30-0.45
Apartment dwelling areas 0.50-0.70
Industrial: Light areas 0.50-0.80
Industrial: Heavy areas 0.60-0.90
Parks, cemeteries 0.10-0.25
Playgrounds 0.20-0.40
Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40
Unimproved areas 0.10-0.30
11
Report
ii) Rainfall Intensity
The ERA DDM classifies the country into eight rainfall regions. Accordingly our
project falls in region C. For each region there is an already developed Intensity -
Duration - Frequency (IDF) curves. Therefore, the rainfall intensity given in the ERA
DDM was adopted for the hydrologic analysis. See fig 3-1
Fig 3-1 IDF Curve of Rainfall Region C
iii) Travel Time and time of concentration
The rainfall intensity used in the rational method is determined from the travel Time (T t)
especially while dealing with interceptor ditch hydrology and storm water discharge
estimation. The average time for water to flow through a reach or other stream or valley
length. In order to determine travel time, Velocity Method has been adopted. In case of very
concentrated flow (the streams) the Kirpitch’s formula has been used.
Velocity Method
The velocity method is applicable to sheet flow, shallow concentrated flow, pipe flow, or
channel flow. It is based on the concept that the travel time, Tt in minutes, for a flow segment
is a function of the length of flow (L, in meters) and the velocity (V, in m/s):
Tt= L/60V
12
Report
Here V stands for velocity, and it can be determined by empiricalrelationship between the
velocity and the slope:
V = k1S0.5
Where, V = velocity (m/s)

S = Slope (percent)
K1= intercept coefficient
The value of k1 is a function of the land cover, with values for selected land covers given in
the following table.
Table 3.2: Intercept Coefficients for Velocity vs, Slope Relationship
Land Cover/Flow Regime K1

Forest with heavy ground litter; hay meadow (overland flow) 0.076
Trash fallow or minimum tillage cultivation; contour or strip cropped; 0.152
woodland (overland flow)
Short grass pasture (overland flow) 0.213
Cultivated straight flow (overland flow) 0.274
Nearly bare and untilled (overland flow); alluvial fans in western mountain 0.305
regions
Grassed waterway (shallow concentrated flow) 0.457
Unpaved (shallow concentrated flow) 0.491
Paved area (shallow concentrated flow); small upland gullies 0.619
The Kirpitch’s formula is as follows
Where, Tc = Time of concentration (hr)

∆H = Difference in elevation b/n hydraulically farthest point and the crossing
location (m)
L = Length of mainstream (m)
iv) Frequency Factor
As per ERADDM, the frequency factor is used to magnify the less frequent storms,
i.e. storms with recurrence interval greater than 10yr. Table 3-3 shows the frequency
factor values.
13
Report
Table 3.3: Frequency Factors for Rational Formula
Recurrence Interval (years) Cf
5 1.0
10 1.0
25 1.1
50 1.2
100 1.25
3.3.2 The United States Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Method of Estimating
Flood
This method is developed by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service for calculating rates of runoff and
requires the same basic data as the Rational Method: catchment area, a runoff factor, time of
concentration, and rainfall. The SCS approach, however, is more sophisticated in that it considers also
the time distribution of the rainfall, the initial rainfall losses to interception and depression storage,
and an infiltration rate that decreases during the course of a storm. With the SCS method, the direct
runoff can be calculated for any storm, either real or fabricated, by subtracting infiltration and other
losses from the rainfall to obtain the precipitation excess.
i) Catchment Area
The catchment area will be determined from topographic maps and field surveys. For large catchment
areas it might be necessary to divide the area into sub-catchment areas to account for major land use
changes, obtain analysis results at different points within the catchment area, or locate storm water
drainage structures and assess their effects on the flood flows. A field inspection of existing or
proposed drainage systems has been made to determine if the natural drainage divides have been
altered. These alterations could make significant changes in the size and slope of the sub-catchment
areas.
ii) Rainfall
The SCS method is based on a 24-hour storm event which has a Type II storm distribution. The Type
II storm distribution is a typical time distribution which the SCS has prepared from rainfall records. It
is applicable for interior rather than the coastal regions and should be appropriate for Ethiopia. To use
14
Report
this distribution, it is necessary for the user to obtain the 24-hour rainfall value for the frequency of
the design storm desired.
iii) Rainfall – Runoff equation
A relationship between accumulated rainfall and accumulated runoff was derived by SCS from
experimental plots for numerous hydrologic and vegetative cover conditions. Data for land-treatment
measures, such as contouring and terracing, from experimental catchment areas were included. The
equation was developed mainly for small catchment areas for which daily rainfall and catchment area
data are ordinarily available. It was developed from recorded storm data that included total amount of
rainfall in a calendar day but not its distribution with respect to time. The SCS runoff equation is
therefore a method of estimating direct runoff from 24-hour or 1-day storm rainfall. The equation is:
( P−Ia )2
Q=
( P−Ia ) +S
Where: Q = accumulated direct runoff, mm

P = accumulated rainfall (potential maximum runoff), mm
Ia= initial abstraction including surface storage, interception, and infiltration
prior to runoff, mm
S = potential maximum retention, mm
The relationship between Ia and S was developed from experimental catchment area data. It removes
the necessity for estimating Ia for common usage.
The empirical relationship used in the SCS runoff equation is:
Ia = 0.2*S
Substituting 0.2*S for Ia, the SCS rainfall-runoff equation becomes:
( P−0.2∗S )2
Q=
( P+ 0.8∗S )
S is related to the soil and cover conditions of the catchment area through the CN. CN has a range of
0 to 100, and S is related to CN by:
15
Report
25400
S=
CN −254
iv) Runoff Factors
Runoff is rainfall excess or effective rainfall - the amount by which rainfall exceeds the capability of
the land to infiltrate or otherwise retain the rainwater. The principal physical catchment area
characteristics affecting the relationship between rainfall and runoff are land use, land treatment, soil
types, and land slope.
A. Land Use
Land use is the catchment area cover, and it includes both agricultural and non-agricultural
uses. Items such as type of vegetation, water surfaces, roads, roofs, etc. are all part of the land
use. Land treatment applies mainly to agricultural land use, and it includes mechanical
practices such as contouring or terracing and management practices such as rotation of crops.
The SCS uses a combination of soil conditions and land-use (ground cover) to assign a runoff
factor to an area. These runoff factors, called runoff curve numbers (CN), indicate the runoff
potential of an area. The higher the CN, the higher is the runoff potential.
B. Hydrologic Soil Groups
Soil properties influence the relationship between rainfall and runoff by affecting the rate of
infiltration. The SCS has divided soils into four hydrologic soil groups based on infiltration
rates (Groups A, B, C, and D). These shall be given to the effects of urbanization on the
natural hydrologic soil group. If heavy equipment can be expected to compact the soil during
construction or if grading will mix the surface and subsurface soils, appropriate changes shall
be made in the soil group selected. Also runoff curve numbers vary with the antecedent soil
moisture conditions, defined as the amount of rainfall occurring in a selected period preceding
a given storm. In general, the greater the antecedent rainfall, the more direct runoff there is
from a given storm. A five-day period is used as the minimum for estimating antecedent
moisture conditions.
C. Runoff Curve Numbers
The ERA Design Manual gives a series of tables related to runoff factors. The tables are
based on an average antecedent moisture condition, i.e., soils that are neither very wet nor
16
Report
very dry when the design storm begins. Curve numbers shall be selected only after a field
inspection of the catchment area and a review of cover type and soil maps. Care shall be taken
in the selection of curve numbers (CN's). Use a representative average curve number, CN, for
the catchment area. Selection of overly conservative CN’s will result in the estimation of
excessively high runoff and consequently excessively costly drainage structures. Selection of
conservatively high values for all runoff variables results in compounding the runoff
estimation. It is better to use average values and design for a longer storm frequency.
v) Time of Concentration (Tc)
Time of concentration (Tc) is the time for runoff to travel from the hydraulically most distant point of
the catchment area to a point of interest within the catchment area. Tc for the river bridge hydrology is
computed by using Kirpich time of concentration formula shown below. Kirpich assumes that the
catchment coverage is Agricultural area, well-drained soil and steep watershed slope.
Tc = 0.0147* L1.155 S-0.385 (Kirpich SCS Equation)

Where Tc = time of concentration (min)
L = length of overland flow (m)
H = elevation difference between the most remote and outlet, m
vi) Ia/p Parameter
Ia/p is a parameter that is necessary to estimate peak discharge rates. Ia denotes the initial abstraction
and P is the 24 hour rainfall depth for a selected return period. The 24 rainfall depth is taken from the
ERA DDM. For a given 24 hour rainfall distribution Ia/P represents the fraction of rainfall that must
occur before runoff begins.
vii) Peak Discharge Estimation
The following equation were used for the estimation of the peak discharge in SCS method
qp =qu*A*Q
Where qp = peak discharge, m3/s
qu = unit peak discharge, m3/s/km2/mm
A = drainage area, Km2
Q = depth of runoff, mm
17
Report
The unit peak discharge is obtained from the following equation, which requires the time of
concentration (tc) in hours and the initial abstraction rainfall (Ia/p) ration as input:
2
qu = ∝∗10Co+C 1 logtc +C 2 (logtc )
Where Co, C1 and C2 = regression coefficients given in table 3-4 for various Ia/p ratios:
= unit conversion factor equal to 0.000431 in SI unit.
Table 3-1: Coefficients for SCS Peak Discharge Method
Rainfall Type Ia/P C0 C1 C2

0.1 2.3055 -0.51429 -0.1175
0.2 2.23537 -0.50387 -0.08929
0.25 2.18219 -0.48488 -0.06589
0.3 2.10624 -0.45695 -0.02835
I
0.35 2.00303 -0.40769 0.01983
0.4 1.87733 -0.32274 0.05754
0.45 1.76312 -0.15644 0.00453
0.5 1.67889 -0.0693 0

0.1 2.0325 -0.31583 -0.13748
0.2 1.91978 -0.28215 -0.0702
IA 0.25 1.83842 -0.25543 -0.02597
0.3 1.72657 -0.19826 0.02633
0.5 1.63417 -0.091 0

0.1 2.55323 -0.61512 -0.16403
0.3 2.46532 -0.62257 -0.11657
0.35 2.41896 -0.61594 -0.0882
II
0.4 2.36409 -0.59857 -0.05621
0.45 2.29238 -0.57005 -0.02281
0.5 2.20282 -0.51599 -0.01259

0.1 2.47317 -0.51848 -0.17083
0.3 2.39628 -0.51202 -0.13245
0.35 2.35477 -0.49735 -0.11985
III
0.4 2.30726 -0.46541 -0.11094
0.45 2.24876 -0.41314 -0.11508
0.5 2.17772 -0.36803 -0.09525
The result of hydrological design /peak flood computation using SCS method and Rational is
presented in the appendixes.
18
Report
4. HYDRAULICS
4.1 General
In the previous chapter, the runoff for each catchment area is determined. The
next step is to provide adequate, economical and sustainable drainage system that
suite the site conditions for the estimated design discharge. This section deals
with design of waterway and selection of appropriate drainage structure type.
4.2 Hydraulic Design Standard
The chief aim of this task was to determine the opening sizes of the drainage
structures from the rate of flood runoff (discharge) and the volume of runoff that
will pass through the structures. At this stage we have used the HY- 8 Hydraulic
modelling tool for major culverts and spreadsheet calculations the for pipe
culverts.
4.2.1 Manning’s Formula of Hydraulic Analysis
This method deploys the hydraulic characteristics of the stream influencing the
maximum discharge, such as velocity of flow, slope of the waterway, cross
sectional area of the water way and shape and roughness of the waterway.
Accordingly, the following Manning’s equation is used for high-water
computations:
2 1
1
Q= ∗R 3∗S 2∗A
n
Where:
Q = Discharge in [m3/sec]
R = Hydraulic mean depth [m] = A/P
A = Cross-sectional flow area [m2]
P = Wetted perimeter [m]
S = Longitudinal bed slope [%]
n = Manning’s roughness coefficient
19
Design Report
5. Summary
As the main goal of this design is to propose sustainable and economical drainage
facilities, careful assessment and decision has been made in order to make the proposals
site specific. In this regard, slab culverts and pipe culverts have been recommended as
crossing structures in accordance with the expected design discharge and conformity to
the highway design. Both sides of the road segments are also provided with rectangular
ditches as storm drainage system. In addition, where there is treat of flooding from
neighbouring areas interceptor ditches have been recommended to segment 1 road.
5.1. Cross Drainage Structures
The detailed Hydrological/ Hydraulic analysis carried out, has revealed necessity of 5
cross drainage structures for segment 1 and single cross drainage structures for each of
the other two segments.
Tables summarizing our investigation, the hydrology study and hydraulic design are
presented as follows.
Table 5.1. a. Slab culvert crossings for Segment 1
Existing structure Remark

Check No
Design
No Station /Review Span Height of
Discharge No
Discharge Cell
Span Height Dia of
cell
m3/s m3/s m m m m in.
1 0+000 4.43 5.24 2 1.5 1 --- --- --- New
Replace the
existing
structure, since
extending it is
2 0+195 7.00 8.28 2 1.5 1 3 2.5 --- 1 difficult as the
new road is
much wider than
that of the
existing one
Replace the
existing
structure, as the
3 0+390 9.69 11.29 4 1.8 1 Ford
existing one is
substandard and
insufficient
Replace the
Almost
4 0+550 10.83 12.61 4 1.8 1 5 --- 1 existing blocked
Blocked
structure
Replace the
Totally
5 0+680 0.63 0.79 1 1 1 --- --- 1 blocked existing
Blocked
structure
Zeluel Yohannes General Contractor in JV with 20

Design Report
Table 5.1. b. Slab culvert crossing for Segment 2
Existing
Check / No Structure
Design
Statio Review Heig of
No Dischar Span No
n Dischar ht Ce Remark
ge of
ge ll Dia
cel
l
m3/s m3/s m m in.
Replace
the
existing
1 0+540 33.75 39.30 4 2.5 1 42 2 structure,
because of
insufficien
cy
Table 5.1. c. Pipe culvert crossing for Segment 3
Existing
Check / No Structure
Design
N Statio Review Diamet of
Dischar No
o n Dischar er Ce
ge Diamet of
ge ll Remar
er cel
k
l
m3/s m3/s inches in.
1 0+017 2.08 2.62 48 1 --- --- New
5.2 Side Ditches and Interceptor Ditches

Side drains keep water off the surface of the road thereby help the foundations of the
road to be dry. Effective side drains will reduce the need for maintenance by preventing
deterioration of the surface and will provide a drier and hence safer road.
Analysis has also been made hydrologically to the side ditches and respective size has
been provided.

Design Report
Table 5.2.a. Required Road Side Ditch Sizes to accommodate storm water
Ditch
Ditch
depth
Seri Ditch bottom
Station includin
al Length width:
g free
No. b
board H
m m m m
Segment 1 (RHS)
1 0+000 1+276 1263 0.60 0.60
Segment 1 (LHS)
1 0+000 1+276 1263 0.60 0.60
Segment 2 (RHS)
1 0+000 0+703 699 0.60 0.60
Segment 2 (LHS)
1 0+000 0+280 280 0.60 0.60
2 0+280 0+340 60 0.60 0.65
3 0+340 0+538 198 0.60 0.60
4 0+542 0+703 161 0.60 0.60
Segment 3 (LHS)
1 0+000 0+135 133.4 0.60 0.60
Segment 3 (RHS)
1 0+000 0+135 133.4 0.60 0.60
Segment 1, on its LHS, is neighboured to relatively wide area, without defined

waterway, that drains to the road starting from km 0+550 in a sheet flow mode. In
order to manage the sheet flow approaching the road, interceptor ditch has been
designed that accommodates the estimated discharge.
Table 5.3 a. Interceptor Rectangular Ditch at Segment 1
Ditch
Ditch
depth
Ditch botto
Seri includi
Station Lengt m Outfall Location
al ng free
h width:
No. board
b
H
m m m m
0+54 0+58
1 32 0.60 0.60 structure at 0+550
8 0
0+58 0+67
2 98 6.00 0.60 structure at 0+680
0 8
0+68 0+80 the flow will be added
3 118 0.80 1.13
2 0 to succeeding ditch

Design Report
section (0+800 to
1+120)
the flow will be added
0+80 1+12 to succeeding ditch
4 320 0.80 1.35
0 0 section (1+120 to
1+276)
1+12 1+27 Natural Waterway at
5 156 0.80 1.55
0 6 end of the road
6. Conclusion and Recommendation

There is bad practice of hauling waste materials in the waterways as already discussed in the
previous section. We have seen huge amount of waste soil encroaching the waterways in all
the three well defined streams crossing segment 1. A 558 m long section of the waterway
that crosses segment 1 at km 0+550 has changed the stream morphology because of this
action. As a result, the existing structure at the place was found to be almost (about 95%)
silted up. Unless sound solution is given to this problem the sustainability of the newly
structures will become under question. We recommend stabilization or removal of the
hauled material. As the area is susceptible to siltation due to both continual agricultural
practices and in future due to mismanagement of urban solid waste, all the proposed
structures shall be cleared before and after wet seasons so that full functionality of structures
will be achieved.


Hydrology, Hydraulic Design For Weldia Town

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

Hydrology, Hydraulic Design For Weldia Town

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Ali-Alamoudi Stadium spur Road Project Draft Hydrology, Hydraulic

1.1 Project Background

To address development constraints caused by poor condition of roads and restricted

Location and Accessibility of the Project

Figure 1 Location Map of the Project Area

1.2 Scope and Objectives

 Collecting existing drainage related data,

1.3 Purpose of this Report and Its Contents

The main purposes of this Design report are:

2. DESIGN STANDARDS AND DATA COLLECTION

2.1 Design Standards

2.1.1 Design Frequency or Return Period

Table 1.1: Design Return period selection

2.1.2 Methods of Design Flood Computation

2.2 Data Collection

2.2.1 Longitudinal Slope

2.2.2 Rainfall data, stream flow data and topographic maps

Digital Elevation Model (30mX30m resolution)

Geomorphology/soil and land use/cover of the project area.

Vegetation and Land Use

Picture 1 Silted up side ditch around km 0+040 (segment 1)

Picture 2: Blocked slab culvert at km 0+550 (segment 1)

Picture 3: Existing Structure at km 0+540 (Segment 2)

Picture 4: Hauled waste material upstream of the crossing location

3.2 Catchment area Delineation

3.3 Rainfall - Runoff Models

There are various recognized methods and approaches for hydrologic/hydraulic

In areas like Ethiopia where there is scarcity of hydro-meteorological data, it is very

• SCS dimensionless hydrograph for catchment areas greater

• Rational method for catchment areas less than 0.5 km2

3.3.1 Rational Method

The Rational formula is expressed as:

C = Runoff coefficient representing a ratio of runoff to rainfall (Table 3-2)

A = catchment area tributary to the design location, km2

i) Runoff Coefficient (C)

Table 3.1: Runoff Coefficients, C, Value for rational Formula

Description of Area Runoff Coefficients

ii) Rainfall Intensity

Fig 3-1 IDF Curve of Rainfall Region C

iii) Travel Time and time of concentration

Where, V = velocity (m/s)

Table 3.2: Intercept Coefficients for Velocity vs, Slope Relationship

Land Cover/Flow Regime K1

The Kirpitch’s formula is as follows

Where, Tc = Time of concentration (hr)

iv) Frequency Factor

Table 3.3: Frequency Factors for Rational Formula

Recurrence Interval (years) Cf

iii) Rainfall – Runoff equation

Where: Q = accumulated direct runoff, mm

Substituting 0.2*S for Ia, the SCS rainfall-runoff equation becomes:

iv) Runoff Factors

B. Hydrologic Soil Groups

C. Runoff Curve Numbers

v) Time of Concentration (Tc)

Tc = 0.0147* L1.155 S-0.385 (Kirpich SCS Equation)

vi) Ia/p Parameter

vii) Peak Discharge Estimation

Table 3-1: Coefficients for SCS Peak Discharge Method

Rainfall Type Ia/P C0 C1 C2

4.2 Hydraulic Design Standard

4.2.1 Manning’s Formula of Hydraulic Analysis