Feasibility Study+Preliminary Design Peshwar Torkham

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT
for
Peshawar Torkham Motorway
CONSULTANCY SERVICES
PERTAINING TO FEASIBILITY STUDY
AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF
PESHAWAR - KABUL MOTORWAY

Peshawar Tortham Motorway- Section I
Submitted to:
National Highway Authority
July2017
Submitted by:
Associated Consultancy Centre (Pvt.) Ltd. (ACC) in association
with
SAMBO Engineering Co. Ltd. (South Korea),
ACE-TES Lahore & Assign International
for
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary................................................................................................................... v
CHAPTER-1 ................................................................................................................ 1
BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Peshawer Tortham- Section I ...........................................................................2
CHAPTER-2 ............................................................................................................... 3
OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ............................................................................ 3
CHAPTER-3............................................................................................................... 4
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA ................................................................................ 4
CHAPTER-4 ............................................................................................................... 7
HYDROLOGICAL INVESTIGATION ............................................................................. 7
4.1 General ........................................................................................................... 7
4.2 Climatic Characteristic Analysis ...................................................................... 7
4.3 Rainfall Frequency Analysis .......................................................................... 10
4.4 Rainfall-Runoff Method ................................................................................ 14
CHAPTER-5.............................................................................................................. 15
HYDRAULIC INVESTIGATION .................................................................................. 15
5.1 Hydraulic Analysis for Major Streams and Nullahs ....................................... 15
5.2 Hydraulic Analysis for Cross-Drainage Structures/ Culverts ......................... 20
5.3 Hydraulic Design Analysis for Side Channels .................................................29
CHAPTER-6 ............................................................................................................. 32
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 32
References ................................................................................................................ 33
ANNEXURES............................................................................................................. 34
Annexure A: Historical Climatic Data for Peshawar ................................................ 35
Annexure-B: Catchments Delineation of Major Streams/ Nullahs ............................ 39
Annexure-C: Hydrologic and Hydraulic Parameters relating Bridges over Major
Streams/ Nullahs ..................................................................................................... 50
Annexure-D: Hydraulic Outputs of Major Streams/ Nullahs .................................... 53
Annexure-E: Scour Depth Estimation by Lacey Regime Theory .............................. 64
ii
for
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of Peshawar-Torkhum Road ........... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 2: Geo-referenced location of proposed alignment under study ..................... 3
Figure 3: Peshawar-Torkhum Proposed Alignment Location Map ........................... 4
Figure 4: Average Temperature Pattern ................................................................... 8
Figure 5: Average Rainfall Patter .............................................................................. 8
Figure 6: Long Term Maximum Temperature Pattern in Study Area ........................ 9
Figure 7: Long Term Minimum Temperature Pattern in Study Area ......................... 9
Figure 8: Long Term Annual Rainfall Pattern in Study Area ................................... 10
Figure 9: Hydrology of Study Alignment .................................................................. 11
Figure 10: HEC-SSP Computer Modei ....................................................................... 12
Figure 11: Rainfall Frequency Curve for Study Alignment (Gumbel) ........................ 12
Figure 12: Rainfall Frequency Curve for Study Alignment (GEV) ..............................13
Figure 13: Computer Model HEC-HMS ...................................................................... 14
Figure 14: Scheme of runoff generation due to rainfall ............................................29
Figure 15: Scheme of protective measures for the road ............................................ 30
Figure 16: Schematic of Drop Structure along embankment .....................................31
iii
for
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Rainfall Estimates of Standard Return Periods (in mm) ..............................13

Table 2: Flood Characteristics through the proposed bridges along alignment .........17
Table 3: Proposed X- Drainage Structures ................................................................ 21
Table 4: Schedule of Proposed X-Drainage Structures .............................................. 22
iv
for
Summary
The trade via Afghanistan towards Central Asian countries and from Arabian sea
has been centuries old activity through road connectivity. With the passage of time,
the traffic has increased tremendously, exerting pressure on existing road
infrastructure, arising need for an improved road infrastructure from Peshwar to
Torkham to meet the expanding communication needs, especially after CPEC
(China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) initiative. The current hydrological investigation
is carried out to study the hydrological regime and allied impacts for safe
development and operation of Peshawar-Torkham Expressway (approx 47 km) in
the northern part of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan.
The Peshawar-Torkham proposed alignment falls in the areas mainly in terrains with
barren and rugged mountains where several small streams and nullahs cross the
alignment. The area falls in the climate mostly under semiarid Mediterranean
influence and less monsoon effects with annual total around 400 mm. The average
temperature in summer varies from 18 to 40 oC whereas the winter average
temperatures range from 2 to 25 oC. However, the extreme temperatures could be
below 0 oC in winters and more than 40 oC in summers. The long term temperature
analysis (1974 to 2015) does not present any major deviation in the temperatures
both in summer and winters. Whereas long term rainfall pattern shows an increasing
trend in annual totals due to the fact that monsoon rains are moving upward towards
northern parts of the country. However, the study alignment moves further upward,
where such impact would not be that significant as Mediterranean disturbances
having more influence in upper parts of the alignment.
Based on the rainfall and runoff analysis in connection with the topography of the
area, there have been proposed 22 bridges to safely pass the runoff generated from
the upstream and adjoining areas. The design parameters for the bridges have been
provided based on hydraulic analysis under the study in order to pass the standard
floods safely (100-year). For bridges over major streams and nullahs, scour depth
analysis have also been provided. Similarly, for overland flow and minor natural
channels, 132 culverts have been proposed (including modification of 11 existing
ones) for which design parameters are also provided to safely pass standard flood
of 50-year recurrence interval.
The road is located in the range where topography varies from mild to steep. The
road may come mostly under the effect of direct flow from the hills in the form of
torrents as flash flood; also carrying mud/boulders on its way. To avoid this,
drainage channels along the road on hill sides connected to the nearest x-culverts
may be provided to protect the road, for which design has also been proposed. The
overland flow from the road itself may be passed through road-side drop structure
and connected to corresponding culvert or existing conveyance system
(watercourse or drain). In the design of culverts, there has been kept cushion for
such overland flow from the road itself, giving 20% (0.2 to 0.3 m) freeboard for all
culverts.
v
for
CHAPTER-1
BACKGROUND
The subject road is connecting Peshawar with Kabul through Torkham and Jalalabad.
Peshawar is the capital of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the administrative centre and
economic hub for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Peshawar is
situated in a large valley near the eastern end of the Khyber Pass, close to the Pak
Afghan border. Known as “City on the Frontier”, Peshawar’s strategic location on the
cross roads of Central Asia and South Asia has made it one of the most culturally vibrant
and lively cities in the greater region. Peshawar is connected to Motorway system of
Pakistan through Motorway M-1.
Peshawar Northern Bypass having a definition of 4-lane dived Expressway provides link
between Motorway M-1 and Start Point of Peshawar – Kabul Motorway. Total Length of
the existing road from Peshawar (Hayatabad) to Kabul (Abdul Haq Square) is
approximately 281 KM (Project alignment between Peshawar and Kabul is shown in
Figure 1). The project is divided into following three sections:
Table 1: Project Sections
Sr. No. Section Name of Section Length (KM)

1 Section - I Peshawar – Torkham (Pakistan) 50
2 Section – II Torkham – Jalalabad (Afghanistan) 76
3 Section - III Jalalabad –Kabul (Afghanistan) 155
Figure 1: Existing Alignment of Peshawar-Kabul Project
From Peshawar to Torkham, the terrain is very difficult in some reaches where the
alignment mostly follows valleys and hill slopes. Although the design is completed by
1
for
NHA for the section between Peshawar and Torkham but it is envisaged that the
consultant shall provide further value addition and improvement.
From Torkham to Jalalabad the existing 2-lane is being upgraded to 4-lane by FWO. The
work is held up due to various reasons, it shall now be redesigned/upgraded to
Motorway Standard. The distance from Torkham to Jalalabad is 76 Km.
From Jalalabad to Kabul using Kabul – Nangarhar Highway the existing road measures
139 km. The terrain is mountainous with hard rock and steep vertical slopes. Especially
about 50 km section after Sarobi. It is envisaged that total Motorway length shall be
around 265 Km1. Tunnels exist in Afghanistan section of the Highway.
1.1 Peshawar- Torkham, Section I
In the first phase, the Consultant has been advised to carry out feasibility study and
preliminary design of Peshawar-Torkham Section. The Consultant have studied various
alignment alternates in order to achieve stipulated motorway standards. Options of
provision of tunnels in mountainous reach was also investigated. Final proposed
Motorway alignment from Peshawar-Torkham is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Project Alignment of Peshawar-Torkham (Section-I)
On completion of alignment study, requirement of cross drainage structures has been

investigated and preliminary design of structures has been carried out. The subject
report has been prepared as the "Hydrology & Hydraulic Study Report" for Peshawar-
Torkham Section as required by the deliverables of the TOR of the project.
1
As per TOR the length is 281 km.
2
for
CHAPTER-2
OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
The main objective of the study is to carry out hydrological investigations with
reference to the proposed alignment from Peshawar to Torkham in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, expanding over a length of about 47 km. The
specific scope of the study however is:
1. To carry out hydrological investigation with the analysis of rainfall and
flood records supplemented by detailed field investigations for
development of new road alignment and providing required
2. Analyze and propose required cross-drainage structures for the safe
development and operation of the proposed alignment such as bridges,
culverts, support structures etc. against standard flood conditions (100
years for bridges and 50 years for culverts)
3. Submit recommendations based upon concise analysis supported by field
data for embankment, crossing/ drainage bridges, culverts etc. along the
proposed alignment.
The flyovers and other road crossing bridges are not discussed being not scope
of study. The geo-referenced location of the subject road is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 3: Geo-referenced location of proposed alignment under study
3
for
CHAPTER-3
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
The proposed alignment from

Peshawar to Torkham would be a
major road of about 47 km. This
existing single carriageway (N-5)
provides access from Peshawar to
Torkham. However, the expanding
traffic load demands an expressway
for smooth transportation of goods to
and from Afghanistan and onwards.
The proposed 4-lanes dual alignment
starts from Peshawar near Jamrud and
approx 4 km from Peshawar Ring Road (Figure 3). It runs parallel to the existing
N-5 whereas the distance apart varies from 0.5 to 2 km with terrain varying in
elevation. The proposed alignment crosses several small and medium streams
and nullahs (perennial/ non-perennial) where crossing bridges and drainage
structures would be required. Such considerations would be of importance to be
taken care for the safety of the road.
Proposed
Alignment
Figure 4: Peshawar-Torkham Proposed Alignment Location Map
4
for
The climate of the area in which the new alignment falls is semiarid subtropical
continental highland type. The mean annual rainfall is approximately 450 mm, of
which 200 mm falls in March and April, with warm summers and cool winters. The
area falls out of the monsoon belt where the major portion of rainfalls occurs due
to western disturbances. The average daily maximum temperature of the hottest
month is 36°C and the average daily minimum of the coldest is -0.5°C.
The study alignment mainly falls in the Khyber Agency – Federally Administered
Tribal Areas. This the geological region of Pre-aravallis, metamorphic in general
including Precambrian and younger intrusions. The massive grey limestone with
sand and clay beds that makes up the Carboniferous Khyber Formation and the
slate, phyllites and schists with minor limestone and quartzite beds of the
Ordovician-Silurian Landi Kotal Formation in the eastern part of the Khyber
Agency. Mesozoic sediments occur in the western part of the Khyber Agency
(Kruseman and Naqvi, 1988). Near Warsak on the boundary with the Peshawar
Vale is a granite intrusion (Shah et al., 1980). In the western part Jurassic
limestone has been found (Meissner at al.,1975).
The Khyber Agency is mountainous without any well developed alluvial plain.
According to the available information, approximately 20 test-and tube wells have
been drilled in different valleys. The lithological data on two boreholes in the
Jamrud – Landi Kotal area indicate an ill-sorted mixture of clay and gravels,
probably with low transmissivity values. The depth to water level is quite large
(more than 30 m). If these boreholes are representative of the whole area, then
the groundwater development is not viable (Kruseman and Naqvi, 1988).
The land use is generally mild hilly terrain with barren and rugged mountains,
without a well-developed alluvial plain. However, the green valleys are also seen.
But it also has some beautiful valleys with plain cultivable lands. The elevation
varies from about 396 to 1050 along the alignment however, the hills are higher
than these. The soils are derived mainly from the local weathering of bedrock,
deposited by streams and rivers, though loess also occurs to some extent.
Landforms in the area are varied and include piedmont, plains, valleys, gravel
fans, rough broken land and gullied land. Level areas are loamy, while lowlands
are slightly to strongly calcareous. The content of organic matter and available
phosphorus is very low.
5
for
The population is scattered in the area with minimal road and other civil facilities.
Due to recent insurgencies in the FATA areas, it is also badly affected due to
refugees affecting the natural land use/ land cover of the area. The development
of new highway will play a major role in the development of this under-privileged
area as well as help further developing the trade.
6
for
CHAPTER-4
HYDROLOGICAL INVESTIGATION
4.1 General
The hydrological investigation under the current study has been carried out to
analyze the climate cum flow regime in connection with the development of
Peshawar to Torkham highway extending over a stretch of 46 about. For such
development it is necessary to take all necessary deign and protection measures
for safe operation of the road after its development for its service life. The design
considerations and measures could be: appropriate embankment/ alignment,
cross drainage structures including bridges, culverts and drops structures to
safeguard against possible rainfall/ flooding or surface runoff, and inundation
impacts. For such type of structures, the recurrence interval is generally adopted
as 100 year for large bridges and 50 year for small structures and culverts
(Mutreja, 1990).
The land use layout of proposed alignment is such that it mainly passes through
mountainous terrains where the runoff flux due to rainfalls could be either from
the hills along the road or the natural steams or nullahs crossing the alignment.
This section therefore focuses to estimate the runoff flux to the road alignment so
that the protective measures and cross-drainage structures could be proposed to
safeguard the alignment. For this purpose, there could be two different
approaches or sometimes the combination of both to estimate the runoff
magnitude of standard return periods viz. i) Discharge frequency analysis using
observed data, and ii) well practiced and acceptable rainfall-runoff methods
making use of observed rainfall which is mostly available along with physical
characteristics of the catchment areas from where the runoff is generated. Such
hydrological analyses have been presented hereafter.
4.2 Climatic Characteristic Analysis

The study alignment falls in the arid to semi-arid region. In order to analyze the
climatic characteristics of area, it was explored to find weather data source or
climatic station in the area exit in such area. The Peshawar is the only climatic
station where Pakistan Meteorological Department has long term rainfall and
temperature record which has been obtained accordingly and analyzed under the
current study from 1974 to 2015 (41 years). The average temperature pattern
shows that the summer temperatures vary from 18 to 40 oC whereas the winter
average temperatures range from 2 to 25 oC (Figure 4). However, the extreme
temperatures could be below 0 oC in winters and more than 40 oC in summers.
7
for
The rainfall is due to more Mediterranean influence and less monsoon effects
with annual total around 400 mm (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Average Temperature Pattern
Figure 6: Average Rainfall Pattern
The temperature extremes were analyzed for study area as it plays significant
role in the material selection. For this purpose, long term annual maximum and
minimum temperatures were analyzed from the observed temperature data and
the results are shown in Figure 6. The general trend shows that during summer
the maximum temperature is higher than 45 oC with extremes of 48 oC. However,
8
for
looking at long term averages, no significant rise in maximum temperature is

observed (1974 to 2015). However, for winter temperatures, if we ignore the
outlier of year 2012 (15 oC), the average trend almost remains the same over the
period of 1974 to 2015.
Figure 7: Long Term Maximum Temperature Pattern in Study Area
Figure 8: Long Term Minimum Temperature Pattern in Study Area
Whereas long term rainfall pattern shows an increasing trend in annual totals
(Figure 8). This is due to the fact that monsoon rains are moving upward towards
9
for
northern parts of the country – the unprecedented flood of 2010 and thereafter.
However, the study alignment moves further upward, where such impact would
not be that significant as Mediterranean disturbances having more influence in
upper parts of the alignment.
Figure 9: Long Term Annual Rainfall Pattern in Study Area
4.3 Rainfall Frequency Analysis

The alignment falls in the area where there are several small and medium
streams crossing the proposed alignment (Figure 9). The frequency analysis of
historical floods records if available plays significant role in hydrological studies to
analyze the flooding threat from nearby or crossing rivers/ streams to a point of
interest in terms of flood magnitude, its inundation effects and flood elevation.
This also allows deciding viable protection measures and suggesting x-drainage
structures. There are 22 locations where x- drainage bridges are proposed and
132 sites where culverts are identified. However, there is neither possible
gauging for discharge measurement nor any long term discharge record exists in
the area.
10
for
Figure 10: Hydrology of Study Alignment
Alternatively, long term rainfall extreme events play significant role to estimate
the standard rainfalls (100, 50, or 25 years). These standard rainfalls would be
then used to convert into runoff using standard rainfall-runoff methods, such as
SCS Synthetic Unit Hydrograph method. Therefore, under the current study, such
approach was followed. For the estimation of rainfall of standard recurrence
intervals, Generalized Extreme Value Distribution (GEV) is mostly used. In this
case, it is Type-I i.e. Gumbel Distribution for extreme events (a two parametric
distribution) which is well suited for most Pakistani catchments especially relating
frequency analysis. The frequency analysis of observed annual maximum
rainfalls (1974 to 2015) was carried out using widely accepted HEC-SSP
software developed by US Army Corps of Engineers (Figure 10). This ensures
more rigorous analysis for better decision making. The estimated rainfall
frequency curves are shown in Figure 11 (Gumbel) and Figure 12 (GEV).
11
for
Figure 11: HEC-SSP Computer Model
General Frequency Analytical Plot for Rainfall at Peshawar

Return Period
1.0 1.1 2 5 10 50 200 1000 10000

1000.0
Annuall Maximum Rainfall (1974-2015) in mm
100.0
10.0
0.9999 0.999 0.99 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.02 0.005 0.001 0.0001
Probability
Computed Curve Expected Probability Curve
5 Percent Confidence Limit 95 Percent Confidence Limit
Observed Events (Weibull plotting positions) Hig h Outlier
Figure 12: Rainfall Frequency Curve for Study Alignment (Gumbel)
12
for
General Frequency Analytical Plot for Rainfall at Peshawar

Return Period
1.0 1.1 2 5 10 50 200 1000 10000

1000.0
Annuall Maximum Rainfall (1974-2015) in mm
100.0
10.0
0.9999 0.999 0.99 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.02 0.005 0.001 0.0001
Probability
Computed Curve Expected Probability Curve
5 Percent Confidence Limit 95 Percent Confidence Limit
Observed Events (Weibull plotting positions) Hig h Outlier
Figure 13: Rainfall Frequency Curve for Study Alignment (GEV)
The rainfall estimates for standard return periods of 50-year and 100-year are
drawn in Table 1, which indicate difference in standard rainfall estimates as 14%
to 21% between Gumbel and GEV distributions. However, for rainfall frequency
analysis relating major events, a recent global survey on the distribution of annual
maxima of daily rainfall by Apalexiou and Koutsoyiannis (2012) have provided
that GEV (Log Pearson Type III) distribution is most suitable for large return
periods. Therefore, the maximum estimates were adopted under the current
study and also in the light of increasing rainfall trends in Figure 4.
Table 1: Rainfall Estimates of Standard Return Periods (in mm)
S.No. Distribution 50-Year 100-Year
1 Gumbel 177 204
2 GEV 201 248
Difference 14% 22%
13
for
4.4 Rainfall-Runoff Method

The standard rainfall estimates made in Section 4.3 were converted into runoff of
standard return periods (100 and 50 years) to analyze the behavior of floods in
relation to the alignment either through crossing steams for determining
clearance and size of bridges or suggesting structures like culverts for drainage
purposes. For this, SCS Synthetic Unit Hydrograph method was used to carry out
rainfall-runoff analysis using HEC-HMS Computer Model (Figure 13) to simulate
floods of desired return periods at points of interest along the proposed
alignment. For this purpose, GIS applications were made for estimating the
catchments characteristics (watershed area, main stream length, average slope,
land use etc.) used as input in the model (Annexure-B).
Figure 14: Computer Model HEC-HMS
All such discharge estimates from each identified crossing stream and small
catchments overland flow to the alignment, were studied through hydraulic
analysis presented in the coming sections. This was done in order to see the
impact to the alignment and suggest accordingly the protective measures and
design parameters for necessary drainage structures.
14
for
CHAPTER-5
HYDRAULIC INVESTIGATION
5.1 Hydraulic Analysis for Major Streams and Nullahs

The main objective of this investigation was to analyze the behavior of potential
flood from major streams and nullahs passing the subject Peshawar-Torkham
proposed alignment in order to see the impact of flooding on the alignment and
assess the capacity of required bridges and drainage structures. This would help
suggesting the bridge design, embankment height and/or allied protection
measures. Using the detailed topographic, cross sectional and longitudinal profile
data, it is possible to study the flood behavior/ inundation extent and suggest
measures under given potential flood conditions.
In order to carry out the
hydraulic study, the analysis
was carried out using HEC-
RAS Hydraulic Model
because of its wide range
applicability. The US Army
Corps of Engineers’ River
System (HEC-RAS 5.01)
model allows performing
multi-purpose one and two-
dimensional steady and
unsteady flow river
hydraulics analysis. The
model was applied in the
current study to analyze the
flow profiles of potential
flood (100-year in this case)
along the alignment..
In order to model the potential floods behavior through the proposed 22 bridges
and crossing streams, the following data were provided as input to HEC-RAS
model;
 Observed X-sectional data at 100 m intervals from upstream (1.0 km) and
downstream (0.5 km) of the alignment
 Existing structures and protections
 Average slope of reach
15
for
 Magnitude of flood/ discharge (100-year) at the starting point of each study

reach
 Manning’s roughness coefficient for natural streams taken as n= 0.025
 Known highest flood marks from the physical field conditions for
calibration/validation purposes.
 The existing alignment and ground NSL
The model was run simultaneously in calibration/ validation process and the final
outcomes of the modeling results were drawn in Table 2, wherein the finish levels
of the road have been proposed in contrast to the highest flood levels through the
proposed bridges, keeping in view the safety of the proposed highway. The
hydraulic parameters for the bridges over these streams and nullahs are also
given in Annexure-C, whereas the hydraulic model outputs are given in
Annexure-D for further elaboration.
All the bridges have been so proposed to have sufficient capacity as the floods in
these areas also bring lot more mud and boulders along due to bare mountains
and steep slopes. For this purpose, the scour depth calculations have also been
made using Lacey Regime Theory (Lacey, 1946). The conditions of Lacey’s
regime are very rarely achieved and are very difficult to maintain in practice.
However, in rivers and streams only in bank full stage or high flood conditions, it
may be considered to achieve temporary or quasi-regime. The recognition of this
fact can be utilized to deal with the issues concerning scour and floods. The total
scour depth for each proposed bridge is therefore given in Table 2, whereas the
estimations are also provided in Annexure-E. As per general rule, the piling depth
for bridges is taken as double the scour depth.
16
for
Table 2: Flood Characteristics through the proposed bridges along alignment
RD/
Location on Total
Bridge Catchment 100-year discharge/ Deck Level Highest
Pesh- Scour
Structure Location/ Name of Size Area design capacity (top of road) Flood Level
S.#. Torkhum Depth
Road Type stream
Cell x 2
km km cumecs cusecs m m m
Span (m)
Chaura Khwar near 481.00
1 7+060 Bridge 7 x 40 425.31 2356 83119 497.225 8.02
Jamrud (481.00)
532.780
2 8+650 Bridge Nullah 1 x 30 0.53 12.72 449 542.500 1.26
(532.790)
537.060
3 8+890 Bridge Nullah 1 x 40 0.73 17.50 617 542.500 1.33
(537.060)
538.110
4 9+580 Bridge Nullah 1 x 40 1.41 34 1197 543.86 1.96
(538.110)
Khyber Khwar at Ali 753.670

5 21+920 Bridge 2 x 40 70.00 341 12016 758.966 4.21
Masjid (753.670)
Khyber Khwar 772.00

6 22+560 Bridge 2 x 30 69.80 340 11995 785.351 3.11
(RD22+560) (772.00)
Khyber Khwar 779.100

7 22+765 Bridge 2 x 25 69.60 339 11960 785.63 3.42
(RD22+765) (779.10)
17
for
RD/
Location on Total
Pesh- Scour
S.#. Torkhum Depth
Road Type stream
Cell x 2
Span (m)

8 23+950 Bridge 4 x 30 63.00 307 10831 810.38 4.07
(RD23+950) (803.900)
824.50
9 24+700 Bridge Nullah 2 x 35 7.70 92.3 3257 828.000 1.85
(824.50)

10 25+615 Bridge 1 x 40 56.00 273 9613 840.540 3.12
(RD25+615) (836.17)
867.030
11 25+810 Bridge Chingai Khwar 2 x 20 3.29 79 2780 870.000 2.59
(867.000)
Kagga Khwar at 953.100

12 28+700 Bridge 2 x 30 8.45 145 5113 956.000 3.17
Wali Khel (953.190)
958.630
13 30+460 Bridge Dand Khwar 1 x 25 9.00 154 5449 962.000 2.98
(958.630)
1003.660
14 33+000 Bridge Bori Khwar 1 x 20 6.80 117 4117 1006.000 2.87
(103.660)
1013.66
15 33+587 Bridge Sawal Khwar 1 x 20 9.00 154 5449 1017.000 3.05
(1013.660)
18
for
RD/
Location on Total
Pesh- Scour
S.#. Torkhum Depth
Road Type stream
Cell x 2
Span (m)
1019.750
16 35+002 Bridge Nullah 1 x 25 1.36 32.8 1158 1024.000 1.93
(1019.760)
1024.870
17 36+410 Bridge Nullah 1 x 40 5.60 96 3390 1041.675 2.60
(1024.870)
949.130
18 39+680 Bridge Nullah 3 x 30 0.80 19.2 677 958.000 1.62
(949.110)
898.550
19 40+545 Bridge Wuch Tangi 1 x 40 9.75 117 4124 922.9 2.71
(898.560)
804.16
20 43+230 Bridge Nullah 1 x 30 3.20 55 1939 808.000 2.29
(804.160)
738.540
21 45+215 Bridge Nullah 1 x 40 15.00 181 6373 749.726 2.73
(738.570)
22 46+300 Bridge Giani at Torkham 4 x 25 29.20 350 12349 711.000 708.290 4.25
19
for
5.2 Hydraulic Analysis for Cross-Drainage Structures/ Culverts

On the basis of inundation analysis and cross-drainage needs at the point of
interests along the proposed alignment, it was analyzed to assess the required
design capacity of proposed culverts at 132 locations to safely pass flow of
certain magnitude (50 years return period) to withstand the embankment as well
as smooth operation of the alignment under such standard flood conditions.
All such analysis was carried out using a well established computer model HY-8
Culvert Analysis to determine the design parameters of culvert at each point of
interest. The software has been structured to be self-contained and is mostly
used by roadway design engineers.
HY-8 Culvert Analysis Model
For this purpose, GIS applications were also made for estimating the catchments
characteristics (watershed area, main stream length, average slope, land use
etc.). This was done first estimating the standard runoff from standard rainfalls
(50 years) using HEC-HMS Computer Mode. The standard flow at respective
point of interest was estimated for using as input in the HY-8 Culvert Analysis
Computer Model to estimate viable culvert parameters (shape, number of cells,
width, height, freeboard).
20
for
On the basis of analysis, total 132 box culverts have been proposed including
improvement of 11 existing ones (Table 3). The design parameters are given in
Table 4 providing sufficient design capacity to safely pass the runoff generated
especially from the steep slopes along the road which also bring sediment/
boulders along with due to generally bare mountains. For such purposes, the
sufficient viable capacity of the culverts has been proposed.
Table 3: Proposed X- Drainage Structures
S.No. Structures Nos.
1 New Box culverts 121
Modification/ rehabilitation of existing into

2 11
Box culverts
Total 132
21
for
Table 4: Schedule of Proposed X-Drainage Structures
(Manning’s n=0.020 for concrete culverts; Curve Number for SCS Runoff Estimation CN=75 )
Associated Design Capacity

Runoff Generated
Culvert Parameters Catchment of Culverts (Q
(Qobs)
Area design)
S.# Station Remarks
Span (L) Height 2
No. of Cells km cumecs cumecs
m (H) m
1 0+229 Provide new box culvert 2 3 3 0.115 1.94 11.82

3 1+000 Provide new box culvert 1 2 2.5 0.100 1.69 2.64
22
for

Runoff Generated
(Qobs)
Area design)
S.# Station Remarks
Span (L) Height 2
m (H) m

23
for

Runoff Generated
(Qobs)
Area design)
S.# Station Remarks
Span (L) Height 2
m (H) m

24
for

Runoff Generated
(Qobs)
Area design)
S.# Station Remarks
Span (L) Height 2
m (H) m

Dismantle existing structure
73 23+245 1 3 4
and provide new box culvert 0.224 3.78 8.43
74 23+572 1 3 4
23+655 1 3 4
75 and provide new box culvert 0.120 2.03 8.43
77 24+583 1 2 4
24+884 1 3 4
25
for

Runoff Generated
(Qobs)
Area design)
S.# Station Remarks
Span (L) Height 2
m (H) m

79 25+172 2 3 2.5
80 25+382 2 3 4
82 26+114 1 3 3
26
for

Runoff Generated
(Qobs)
Area design)
S.# Station Remarks
Span (L) Height 2
m (H) m

31+940 Provide new box culvert 1 2 2

102 0.090 1.52 2.00
103 32+400 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4

0.075 1.27 4.62

0.089 1.49 3.30
115 39+752 1 2 1.5
116 39+866 1 2 1.5
27
for

Runoff Generated
(Qobs)
Area design)
S.# Station Remarks
Span (L) Height 2
m (H) m

40+005 1 2 1.5
28
for
5.3 Hydraulic Design Analysis for Side Channels

Storm water management of roads should be integrated with management of
surrounding land and development. However, the drainage of runoff from the
along the road and its surface should be so designed to avoid any damage or
ponding to the road surface for safe operation of the highways.
The road is located in the range where topography varies from mild to steep. The
road may come mostly under the effect of direct flow from the hills in the form of
torrents as flash flood (Figure 14). The main threat to the road would be from
such torrents which are flash floods in the form of sheet flow and may damage
the road if no protective measures are adopted to control and their safe passage.
The case would be more critical as the flood water carry mud/boulders on its way.
Rainfall
NSL
Slope along the road

Runoff
Road
Figure 15: Scheme of runoff generation due to rainfall
For example an area of 500 m upto 50 m height of hill with 43 mm critical rainfall
(in 15 minutes) may bring about 0.24 cumecs (8.5 cusecs) to the road using
following Rational formula:
Q=CiA (1)
Where
Q = Discharge in cusecs
29
for
C = Runoff Coefficient (taken 0.80 in present case)
i = Rainfall intensity (inches per hour)
A = Area in acres
So Q = 0.8 x 1.72 x 6.2
= 8.53 cusecs (0.24 cumecs)
To avoid this, drainage channels along the road on hill sides connected to the
x-culverts may be provided to protect the road. Further, reinforced retaining walls
would also be required especially at steep slopes. The scheme along with design
of side channel is shown in Figure 15.
Rainfall
NSL
Slope along the road

Runoff
Retaining Proposed side channels

walls
2:1 0.8 m
Road
0.5 m
Figure 16: Scheme of protective measures for the road
Adequate cut-off must be provided such that the maximum length of flow path in
the road drainage channel does not exceed up to a reasonable length, preferably
200 m. The cut-off must discharge to a natural watercourse. In the instant case, it
is proposed that drainage may be provided from the sides connecting through
drop structures with proper riprap arrangements (Figure 16) to avoid any rill
development of the embankment. Under the propose alignment, there is at least
one cross-drainage structure at about 300 m apart so the road overland flow may
be diverted to the nearest one through drop structures. And the given proposed
culverts have suffici9ent capacity with 20% freeboard to accommodate such
overland flows.
30
for
Figure 17: Schematic of Drop Structure along embankment
31
for
CHAPTER-6
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The major findings and recommendations of the study are:

i. The Peshawar-Torkham proposed alignment falls in the areas mainly in
terrains with barren and rugged mountains where several small streams and
nullahs cross the alignment.
ii. The area falls in the climate mostly under Mediterranean influence and less
monsoon effects with annual total around 400 mm. The average temperature
in summer varies from 18 to 40 oC whereas the winter average temperatures
range from 2 to 25 oC. However, the extreme temperatures could be below
0 oC in winters and more than 40 oC in summers.
iii. The long term temperature analysis (1974 to 2015) does not present any
major deviation in the temperatures both in summer and winters. Whereas
long term rainfall pattern shows an increasing trend in annual totals due to the
fact that monsoon rains are moving upward towards northern parts of the
country. However, the study alignment moves further upward, where such
impact would not be that significant as Mediterranean disturbances having
more influence in upper parts of the alignment.
iv. Based on the rainfall and runoff analysis in connection with the topography of
the area, there have been proposed 22 bridges to safely pass the runoff
generated from the upstream and adjoining areas. The design parameters for
the bridges have been provided based on hydraulic analysis under the study
in order to pass the standard floods safely (100-year), besides scour depth
analysis.
v. Similarly, for overland flow and minor natural channels, 132 culverts have
been proposed (including modification of 11 existing ones) for which design
parameters are also provided to safely pass standard flood of 50-year
recurrence interval.
vi. The road is located in the range where topography varies from mild to steep.
The road may come mostly under the effect of direct flow from the hills in the
form of torrents as flash flood; also carrying mud/boulders on its way. To
avoid this, drainage channels along the road on hill sides connected to the
nearest x-culverts may be provided to protect the road, for which design has
also been proposed.
vii. The overland flow from the road itself may be passed through road-side drop
structure and connected to corresponding culvert or existing conveyance
system (watercourse or drain). In the design of culverts, there has been kept
cushion for such overland flow from the road itself, giving 20% (0.2 to 0.3 m)
freeboard for all culverts.
32
for
References
 Kruseman, G.P. and Naqvi, S.A.H., (1988), Hydrogeology and Groundwater

Resources of the North-West Frontier Province Pakistan, A joint publication of
WAPDA Pakistan and Institute of Applied Geosciences, Delft Netherlands.
1988
 Lacey, G. (1946), A general theory of flow-in alluvium. Journal of the
Institution of Civil engineering. London, Vol.27, 16-47, Vol.28, pp. 425-451.
 Meissner, C.R., M. Hussain, M.A. Rashid and U.B. Sethi,1975. Geology of the
Parachinar Quadrangle, West Pakistan. US Geol. Survey; Prof. Paper 716-F;
24 pp.
 Mutreja K. N. (1990), Applied Hydrology, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company, Ltd, New Delhi, 1990.
 Papalexiou, S.M., and D. Koutsoyiannis (2012), A global survey on the
distribution of annual maxima of daily rainfall: Gumbel or Fréchet?, European
Geosciences Union General Assembly 2012, Geophysical Research
Abstracts, Vol. 14, Vienna, 10563, European Geosciences Union, 2012.
 Shah, S.M.I., R.A. Siddiqi, and J.A. Talent, 1980. Geology of the eastern
Khyber Agency, North Western Frontier Province, Pakistan. Records of the
Geol. Survey Pakistan; Vol. 44.
33
for
ANNEXURES
34
for
Annexure A: Historical Climatic Data for Peshawar
Annual Daily Maximum and Total Annual rainfall
Daily Maximum Rainfall Annual Total Rainfall

Years
(mm) (mm)
1974 19.40 190.20

1975 53.50 434.90
1976 102.00 612.16
1977 113.50 452.07
1978 68.50 497.78
1979 54.40 403.97
1980 45.50 372.37
1981 56.00 393.29
1982 40.70 326.36
1983 84.70 710.24
1984 86.80 521.98
1985 62.00 340.81
1986 47.50 416.05
1987 52.40 342.57
1988 44.30 360.90
1989 35.00 251.03
1990 55.00 453.91
1991 62.00 384.42
1992 56.00 579.93
1993 67.00 466.51
1994 51.00 642.52
1995 55.00 618.73
1996 142.00 667.35
1997 30.00 299.54
1998 47.00 569.73
1999 48.00 407.44
2000 33.00 258.89
2001 27.00 263.22
2002 30.00 299.03
2003 65.00 904.73
2004 68.00 453.04
2005 72.00 625.00
2006 56.00 497.50
35
for
Daily Maximum Rainfall Annual Total Rainfall

Years
(mm) (mm)
2007 84.00 575.40

2008 78.00 719.90
2009 187.00 533.00
2010 274.00 839.00
2011 122.10 568.00
2012 88.00 480.00
2013 80.00 551.00
2014 30.00 326.00
2015 65.00
36
for
Daily Annual Maximum and Minimum Temperature
Daily Maximum Temperature Daily Minimum Temperature

Years o o
( C) ( C)
1974 46.00 0.00

1975 47.00 0.00
1976 46.00 0.00
1977 45.00 1.00
1978 47.00 -1.00
1979 45.00 2.00
1980 45.00 0.00
1981 45.00 0.00
1982 45.00 0.00
1983 44.30 -1.60
1984 46.10 -1.30
1985 45.00 2.00
1986 48.00 1.10
1987 45.00 1.70
1988 44.80 2.30
1989 45.50 -0.50
1990 45.00 2.40
1991 44.20 1.00
1992 46.60 1.50
1993 47.30 0.00
1994 48.60 1.00
1995 50.00 -0.50
1996 47.00 -1.00
1997 44.00 0.00
1998 46.50 0.50
1999 49.50 2.00
2000 46.00 1.00
2001 46.00 -1.00
2002 46.00 2.50
2003 48.00 2.00
2004 44.50 2.00
2005 47.00 0.50
2006 44.00 -0.50
2007
2008
37
for
Daily Maximum Temperature Daily Minimum Temperature

Years o o
( C) ( C)
2009
2010
2011 46.00 0.00
2012 45.00 -15.00
2013 44.00 0.00
2014 44.00 1.00
2015 43.00 2.00
38
for
Annexure-B: Catchments Delineation of Major Streams/ Nullahs
Chaura Khwar at RD 7+060
Nullah at RD 8+650
39
for
Nullah at RD 8+890
Nullah at RD 9+580
40
for
Khyber Khwar at RD 21+920
41
for
42
for
Nullah at RD 24+700
43
for
Chigai Khwar at RD 25+810
Kagga Khwar at Wali Khel at RD 28+700
44
for
Dand Khwar at RD 30+460
Bori Khwar at RD 33+000
45
for
Sawal Khwar at RD 33+587
Nullah at RD 35+002
46
for
Nullah at RD 36+410
Nullah at RD 39+680
47
for
Wuch Tangi at RD 40+545
Nullah at RD 43+230
48
for
Nullah at RD 45+215
Giani at Torkham at RD 46+300
49
for
Annexure-C: Hydrologic and Hydraulic Parameters relating Bridges over Major Streams/ Nullahs
Catchment
100-Year Channel
Channel Flow Flow
Discharge Velocity
Velocity at Area at Area at
Main at HFL HFL
Catchment Average Bridge Bridge bridge bridge
stream (Curve Bridge (before (with
Area Slope Size Location location location
Name of Stream/ Length Number Location bridge) bridge)
S.No. Location (before (before (with
Nullah CN for (with
bridge) bridge) bridge)
SCS bridge)
Runoff=75)
2 Cell x 2 2
km Km m/m cumecs m/sec m/sec m m m m
Span
Chaura Khwar
1 7+060 425.31 38.70 0.0388 2356 7 x 40 2.81 2.86 837.20 824.65 479.22 479.30
near Jamrud
2 8+650 Nullah 0.53 0.93 0.0690 12.72 1 x 30 0.49 0.55 26.12 23.05 532.79 532.78
3 8+890 Nullah 0.73 0.96 0.2190 17.5 1 x 40 0.63 0.64 27.60 27.14 537.06 537.06
4 9+580 Nullah 1.41 1.40 0.2764 34 1 x 40 0.92 1.10 36.91 30.90 538.11 538.11
Khyber Khwar at
5 21+920 70.00 20.00 0.0070 341 2 x 40 1.76 1.89 193.68 179.97 753.67 753.65
Ali Masjid
Khyber Khwar
6 22+560 69.80 19.80 0.0071 340 2 x 30 1.77 2.15 192.48 158.17 771.94 771.91
(RD22+560)
Khyber Khwar
7 22+765 69.60 19.60 0.0071 339 2 x 25 2.20 2.47 154.18 137.13 779.14 779.10
(RD22+765)
Khyber Khwar
8 23+950 63.00 18.00 0.0361 307 4 x 30 1.48 1.55 207.35 197.46 803.90 803.91
(RD23+950)
50
for
Catchment
100-Year Channel
Channel Flow Flow
Discharge Velocity
Main at HFL HFL
Nullah CN for (with
SCS bridge)
Runoff=75)
2 Cell x 2 2
Span
9 24+700 Nullah 7.70 4.53 0.0838 92.3 2 x 35 0.94 1.43 97.89 64.43 823.24 823.28
Khyber Khwar
10 25+615 56.00 16.00 0.0406 273 1 x 40 1.74 2.50 156.70 109.40 836.24 836.17
(RD25+615)
11 25+810 Chingai Khwar 3.29 2.33 0.3425 79 2 x 20 0.90 1.53 87.73 51.71 867.00 867.03
Kagga Khwar at
12 28+700 8.45 3.49 0.2146 145 2 x 30 1.55 1.58 93.32 91.82 953.09 953.10
Wali Khel
13 30+460 Dand Khwar 9.00 4.50 0.1756 154 1 x 25 1.75 2.02 87.91 76.33 958.68 958.63
14 33+000 Bori Khwar 6.80 4.00 0.1595 117 1 x 20 0.81 2.74 144.33 42.71 1003.48 1003.84
15 33+587 Sawal Khwar 9.00 4.50 0.1818 154 1 x 20 1.08 2.94 142.30 52.35 1013.74 1015.13
16 35+002 Nullah 1.36 1.60 0.1119 32.8 1 x 25 0.63 0.99 52.46 33.04 1019.76 1019.75
17 36+410 Nullah 5.60 3.20 0.1678 96 1 x 40 2.44 2.44 39.32 39.32 1024.87 1024.87
18 39+680 Nullah 0.80 1.76 0.1403 19.2 3 x 30 1.07 1.12 18.02 17.14 949.10 949.13
19 40+545 Wuch Tangi 9.75 6.50 0.1418 117 1 x 40 1.65 1.73 70.99 67.81 898.56 898.55
51
for
Catchment
100-Year Channel
Channel Flow Flow
Discharge Velocity
Main at HFL HFL
Nullah CN for (with
SCS bridge)
Runoff=75)
2 Cell x 2 2
Span
20 43+230 Nullah 3.20 5.10 0.2049 55 1 x 30 1.45 1.45 37.89 37.89 802.82 802.82
21 45+215 Nullah 15.00 8.00 0.1373 181 1 x 40 1.61 1.79 112.21 100.99 738.57 738.54
22 46+300 Giani at Torkham 29.20 8.00 0.1415 350 4 x 25 1.88 1.98 186.30 177.07 708.28 708.30
52
for
Annexure-D: Hydraulic Outputs of Major Streams/ Nullahs
Bri dge 7+060 P l an: Bri dge 7+060 7/23/2017

Bridge of Chaura Khwar at RD 7+060 (Q=2356 cumecs)
.025
505 Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
500
Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
495
Elevation (m)
490
485
480
475
470
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Station (m)

Bridge of Nullah at RD 8+650 (Q= 12.72 cumecs)
.025
550 Legend
EG PF 1
548
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
546 Ground
Bank Sta
544
542
Elevation (m)
540
538
536
534
532
530
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (m)
53
for

.025
548 Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
546 Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
544
Elevation (m)
542
540
538
536
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station (m)

Bridge of Nullah at RD 9+590 (Q= 34 cumecs)
.025
565 Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
560 Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
555
Elevation (m)
550
545
540
535
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (m)
54
for
Bridge 21+920 P lan: Bridge 21+920 7/23/2017

Bridge of Khyber Khwar at RD 21+920 (Q=341 cumecs)
.025
764 Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
762
Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
760
Elevation (m)
758
756
754
752
750
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Station (m)

.025
790 Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
785 Ground
Bank Sta
780
Elevation (m)
775
770
765
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Station (m)
55
for

.025
795 Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
790 Ground
Bank Sta
785
Elevation (m)
780
775
770
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (m)

Bridge ofKhyber Khwar at RD 23+950 (Q= 307 cumecs)
.025
818 Legend
EG PF 1
816 WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
814 Ground
Bank Sta
812
Elevation (m)
810
808
806
804
802
800
0 100 200 300 400 500
Station (m)
56
for

Bridge of Nullah at RD 24+700 (Q=92.3 cumecs)
.025
832 Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
830 Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
828
Elevation (m)
826
824
822
820
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Station (m)

.025
842 Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
840 Ground
Bank Sta
838
Elevation (m)
836
834
832
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station (m)
57
for

Bridge of Chingai Khwar at RD 25+810 (Q=79 cumecs)
.025
882 Legend
EG PF 1
880 WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
878 Ground
Bank Sta
876
Elevation (m)
874
872
870
868
866
864
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Station (m)

Bridge of Kagga Khwar at RD 28+700 (Q=145 cumecs)
.025
960 Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
958 Ground
Bank Sta
956
Elevation (m)
954
952
950
0 50 100 150 200
Station (m)
58
for

Bridge of Dand Khwar at RD 30+460 (Q=154 cumecs)
.025
975 Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
970 Ground
Bank Sta
965
Elevation (m)
960
955
950
0 50 100 150 200
Station (m)

Bridge of Bori Khwar at RD 33+000 (Q=117 cumecs)
.025
1006 Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
1005 Ground
Bank Sta
1004
Elevation (m)
1003
1002
1001
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (m)
59
for

Bridge of Sawal Khwar at RD 33+590 (Q=154 cumecs)
.025
1035 Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
1030 Ground
Bank Sta
1025
Elevation (m)
1020
1015
1010
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Station (m)
Bri dge 35+002 P l an: Bri dge35+002 7/23/2017

.025
1045 Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
1040 Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
1035
Elevation (m)
1030
1025
1020
1015
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (m)
60
for

.025
1070 Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
1060 Ground
Bank Sta
1050
Elevation (m)
1040
1030
1020
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station (m)

Bridge of Nullah at RD 39+680 (Q=19.2 cumecs)
.025
975 Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
970 Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
965
Elevation (m)
960
955
950
945
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station (m)
61
for

Bridge of Wuch Tangi at RD 40+545 (Q=117 cumecs)
.025
960 Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
950
Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
940
Elevation (m)
930
920
910
900
890
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Station (m)
Bridge 43+230 P lan: Bridge43+230 7/23/2017

.025
830 Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
825 Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
820
Elevation (m)
815
810
805
800
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (m)
62
for

.025
760 Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
755 Ground
Bank Sta
750
Elevation (m)
745
740
735
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Station (m)
Bridge 46+300 P lan: Bridge46+300 7/23/2017

.025
720 Legend
EG PF 1
718 WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
716 Bank Sta
714
Elevation (m)
712
710
708
706
704
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (m)
63
for
Annexure-E: Scour Depth Estimation by Lacey Regime Theory
64
for
D50 P=4.75*sqrt(Q)
Design
L
100-Year Lacey silt factor Sy
(Soil Type river width relation (actual channel
Discharge [1.76 SQRT(D50)] (scour depth)
S.# Location AASHTO to select Lacey width)
Q
A-1-b) Equation
mm cumecs f m m m
1 7+060 0.074 2356 0.479 230.559 228.000 8.02
2 8+650 0.074 12.72 0.479 16.941 32.650 1.26
3 8+890 0.074 17.5 0.479 19.871 38.490 1.33
4 9+580 0.074 34 0.479 27.697 26.250 1.96
5 21+920 0.074 341 0.479 87.714 75.890 4.21
6 22+560 0.074 340 0.479 87.586 57.73 3.11
7 22+765 0.074 339 0.479 87.457 43.560 3.42
8 23+950 0.074 307 0.479 83.227 111.750 4.07
9 24+700 0.074 92.3 0.479 45.635 75.010 1.85
10 25+615 0.074 273 0.479 78.483 45.960 3.12
11 25+810 0.074 79 0.479 42.219 42.770 2.59
65
for
D50 P=4.75*sqrt(Q)
Design
L
100-Year Lacey silt factor Sy
(Soil Type river width relation (actual channel
Discharge [1.76 SQRT(D50)] (scour depth)
S.# Location AASHTO to select Lacey width)
Q
A-1-b) Equation
mm cumecs f m m m
12 28+700 0.074 145 0.479 57.198 50.320 3.17
13 30+460 0.074 154 0.479 58.946 29.710 2.98
14 33+000 0.074 117 0.479 51.379 25.380 2.87
15 33+587 0.074 154 0.479 58.946 27.710 3.05
16 35+002 0.074 32.8 0.479 27.204 29.870 1.93
17 36+410 0.074 96 0.479 46.540 27.900 2.60
18 39+680 0.074 19.2 0.479 20.813 19.470 1.62
19 40+545 0.074 117 0.479 51.379 30.160 2.71
20 43+230 0.074 55 0.479 35.227 23.580 2.29
21 45+215 0.074 181 0.479 63.905 45.850 2.73
22 46+300 0.074 350 0.479 88.864 79.590 4.25
66

Feasibility Study+Preliminary Design Peshwar Torkham

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Feasibility Study+Preliminary Design Peshwar Torkham

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT

Figure 1: Location of Peshawar-Torkhum Road ........... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 1: Rainfall Estimates of Standard Return Periods (in mm) ..............................13

Sr. No. Section Name of Section Length (KM)

Figure 1: Existing Alignment of Peshawar-Kabul Project

1.1 Peshawar- Torkham, Section I

Figure 2: Project Alignment of Peshawar-Torkham (Section-I)

On completion of alignment study, requirement of cross drainage structures has been

Figure 3: Geo-referenced location of proposed alignment under study

The proposed alignment from

Figure 4: Peshawar-Torkham Proposed Alignment Location Map

4.2 Climatic Characteristic Analysis

Figure 5: Average Temperature Pattern

Figure 6: Average Rainfall Pattern

looking at long term averages, no significant rise in maximum temperature is

Figure 7: Long Term Maximum Temperature Pattern in Study Area

Figure 8: Long Term Minimum Temperature Pattern in Study Area

Figure 9: Long Term Annual Rainfall Pattern in Study Area

4.3 Rainfall Frequency Analysis

Figure 10: Hydrology of Study Alignment

Figure 11: HEC-SSP Computer Model

General Frequency Analytical Plot for Rainfall at Peshawar

1.0 1.1 2 5 10 50 200 1000 10000

Figure 12: Rainfall Frequency Curve for Study Alignment (Gumbel)

General Frequency Analytical Plot for Rainfall at Peshawar

1.0 1.1 2 5 10 50 200 1000 10000

Figure 13: Rainfall Frequency Curve for Study Alignment (GEV)

Table 1: Rainfall Estimates of Standard Return Periods (in mm)

S.No. Distribution 50-Year 100-Year

1 Gumbel 177 204

2 GEV 201 248

Difference 14% 22%

4.4 Rainfall-Runoff Method

Figure 14: Computer Model HEC-HMS

5.1 Hydraulic Analysis for Major Streams and Nullahs

 Magnitude of flood/ discharge (100-year) at the starting point of each study

Table 2: Flood Characteristics through the proposed bridges along alignment

Khyber Khwar at Ali 753.670

Khyber Khwar 772.00

Khyber Khwar 779.100

Khyber Khwar 803.910

Khyber Khwar 836.170

Kagga Khwar at 953.100

5.2 Hydraulic Analysis for Cross-Drainage Structures/ Culverts

HY-8 Culvert Analysis Model

Table 3: Proposed X- Drainage Structures

S.No. Structures Nos.

1 New Box culverts 121

Modification/ rehabilitation of existing into

Table 4: Schedule of Proposed X-Drainage Structures

Associated Design Capacity

1 0+229 Provide new box culvert 2 3 3 0.115 1.94 11.82

Associated Design Capacity

18 9+220 Provide new box culvert 1 3 2.5 0.125 2.11 4.69

Associated Design Capacity

39 14+840 Provide new box culvert 1 3 4 0.225 3.80 8.43

Associated Design Capacity

60 18+990 Provide new box culvert 1 2 2 0.066 1.11 2.00

Associated Design Capacity

Dismantle existing structure

Associated Design Capacity

99 30+780 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.090 1.52 4.62