Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk Management Program JFPR - ADB - BWDB

Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report
Project Number: 44167-012

December 2013
Bangladesh: Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk

Management Program
(Financed by the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction)
Prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Canada
In association with Resource Planning and Management Consultants Ltd., Bangladesh
For Bangladesh Water Development Board
This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and
ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. (For project preparatory technical
assistance: All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design.
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh

Bangladesh Water
Development Board

Project Preparatory Technical Assistance No. 8054 BAN

Main River Flood and Bank Erosion
Risk Management Program
Final Report, Annex F
Design Issues
September 2013
In association with
Resource Planning
& Management
Consultants Ltd.
Asian Development Bank
Funded by the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction

Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh
Bangladesh Water Development Board

Project Preparatory Technical Assistance 8054 BAN

Final Report, Annex F
Design Issues

September 2013

PPTA 8054: Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk Management Program

Document Status

Title: Designs Issues, Annex F
Annex F1
Geotechnical Investigations
Principal Author: Ahsanul Jalil Khan
Contributions:
Annex F2
Technical Designs for Tranch‐1 Work
Principal Author: Mukhles uz Zaman
Contributions:
Final version: August 2013

Document Development
Draft Final June 2013
Final R1, 15 August 2013 Justify and page setup
R2, 21 August 2013 Combined F1 & F2 two doc files and
page setup
R3, 28 August 2013 Inserted Two Appendix
R4, 01 September 2013 Format cover page and header and
footer
R5, 22 September 2013 Checked for final print
R6, 30 September 2013 Added Annexures page
R7, 28 February 2014 Reprinted R6
Reviewed by:

Page ii September 2013
F1 Geotechnical Investigations

MAIN REPORT

ANNEXES

Annex A Priority Sub‐reach Selection & Sub‐reach Descriptions
Annex A1 Priority Sub‐reach Selection
Annex A2 Sub‐reach Description
Annex B Background Data
Annex B1 National Water Resources Database
Annex B2 Socio‐economic Data
Annex B3 Surveys and Field Visits
Annex C Institutional and Financial Assessment
Annex D Hydrology and Flood Modelling
Annex E River and Charland Morphology and River Engineering
Annex F Design Issues
Annex F1 Geotechnical Investigations
Annex F2 Technical Designs
Annex G Economic Feasibility
Annex G1 Project Cost
Annex G2 Economic Assessment
Annex H Implementation and Procurement Planning
Annex I Social Gender Equity Strategy & Action Plan
Annex J Environmental Impact Assessment
Annex K Involuntary Resettlement
Annex K1 Resettlement Framework
Annex K2 Resettlement Plan

Page iii

Page iv September 2013




Final Report, Annex F1
Geotechnical Investigations

September 2013


Page vi September 2013

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Geo‐technical Investigation ............................................................................................................... 2
2 Study sites with and Soil Data ........................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Borehole Location .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Field and Laboratory Tests ................................................................................................................. 7
2.3 Discussion of Results ........................................................................................................................ 10
3 Sub‐Soil Profile ............................................................................................................................. 11
4 Embankment stability: ................................................................................................................. 16
4.1 Introductory Remarks ...................................................................................................................... 16
4.2 Stability analysis ............................................................................................................................... 17
4.3 Settlement (of foundation soil beneath embankment) ................................................................... 18
4.4 Check for seepage flow .................................................................................................................... 20
4.5 Check for horizontal sliding/pore water pressure within the embankment ................................... 20
4.6 Stability against Earthquake/Check for liquefactions ...................................................................... 21
5 Riverbank Stability ....................................................................................................................... 22
5.1 Data and calculation method ........................................................................................................... 22
5.1.1 Slope angles and Soil characteristics .................................................................................... 22
5.1.2 Calculation method ............................................................................................................... 23
5.2 Calculated Scenarios ........................................................................................................................ 24
5.2.1 Existing Riverbank ................................................................................................................. 24
5.2.2 Designed river bank .............................................................................................................. 25
5.3 Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 28
6 Summery RBP .............................................................................................................................. 29
6.1 General Geotechnical features ........................................................................................................ 29
6.2 Flood embankment stability ............................................................................................................ 29
6.3 Riverbank Protection ....................................................................................................................... 29
7 References ................................................................................................................................... 30

Page vii

List of Tables

Table 2‐1: Location, Bore‐hole depth & coordinate with ground and ground water elevations (Koizuri‐
Hurasagar section) ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Table 2‐2: Location, Bore‐hole depth & Coordinate with ground and ground water elevations (Chouhali‐
Nagarpur section) ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Table 2‐3: Location, Bore‐hole depth & Coordinate with ground and ground water elevations (Jafarganj‐
Bachamara section) ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2‐4: Location, Bore‐hole depth & Coordinate with ground and ground water elevations
(Enayetpur‐Koizuri section) ......................................................................................................................... 6
Table 2‐5: KH‐4 Field and Corrected SPT (N’) .............................................................................................. 8
Table 2‐6: KH‐9 Field and Corrected SPT (N’) .............................................................................................. 8
Table 2‐7: KH‐40 Field and Corrected SPT (N’) ............................................................................................ 8
Table 2‐8: JB‐2 Field and Corrected SPT (N’) ............................................................................................... 8
Table 2‐9: CN‐10 Field and Corrected SPT (N’) ............................................................................................ 9
Table 2‐10: CN‐13 Field and Corrected SPT (N’) .......................................................................................... 9
Table 2‐11: EK‐5 Field and Corrected SPT (N’) ............................................................................................. 9
Table 2‐12: EK‐10 Field and Corrected SPT (N’) ......................................................................................... 10
Table 5‐1: Results of the calculation for existing Slopes ............................................................................ 24
Table 5‐2: Case 1‐ 19 m river bed .............................................................................................................. 26
Table 5‐3: Case 2‐ 39 m river bed ............................................................................................................. 26
Table 5‐4: Results of calculation for designed slopes ................................................................................ 27

Figures

Figure 1‐1 (a&b): Typical Sections of Proposed Flood Embankment ............................................................ 2
Figure 2‐1: Satellite Image of Project Location ............................................................................................. 6
Figure 2‐2: Satellite Image of Bore‐Hole Location ........................................................................................ 7
Figure 3‐1: Bore Hole Log of Koizuri‐Hurashagar (KH) ................................................................................ 12
Figure 3‐2: Bore Hole Log of Enayetpur‐Koizuri (EK) .................................................................................. 13
Figure 3‐3: Bore Hole Log of Chauhali‐Nagarpur (CN) ................................................................................ 14
Figure 3‐4: Bore Hole Log of Jafarganj‐Bachamara (JB) .............................................................................. 15
Figure 5‐1: Profile of the cross sections at the Jamuna River right bank ................................................... 22
Figure 5‐2: Profile of the cross sections at the Jamuna River left bank ...................................................... 22
Figure 5‐3: Safety factor for 35m slopes Figure 5‐4: Safety factor for 15 m slopes .......................... 23
Figure 5‐5: Dimensions of existing slopes ................................................................................................... 24
Figure 5‐6: Typical slip circles at an existing slope ...................................................................................... 25
Figure 5‐7: Slope dimensions of designed slopes ....................................................................................... 26
Figure 5‐8: Safety factor for 35m slopes Figure 5‐9: Safety factor for 15m slopes ........................... 26
Figure 5‐10: Typical slip circles at a designed slope.................................................................................... 27
Figure 6‐1: Comparison designed slope to existing river profile ................................................................ 30

Page viii September 2013

1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is undertaking a feasibility assessment of a flood and riverbank
erosion risk management program covering parts of the main rivers of Bangladesh financed by the
Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction (JFPR). The objective of the Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk
Management Program (MRP) is to reduce the riverbank erosion and flood risks to the adjacent flood
plains while maximizing economic activities in a sustainable and environmentally acceptable manner.
Existing flood embankments dominantly fail from riverbank erosion, and as such the stabilization of the
river pattern is a cornerstone of reducing the flood risk. The MRP builds on and extends the activities of
the Jamuna‐Meghna River Erosion Mitigation Project (JMREMP) (ADB, 2002), implemented in different
phases from January 2003 until June 2011. In addition, a similar project, the Assam Integrated Flood
and Riverbank Erosion Risk Management Investment Project (AIFRERMIP; ADB, 2010) provides
important insight into a number of relevant project elements and processes especially integrating
disaster risk management measures related to flood and riverbank erosion risk management under the
dictate of the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) framework.

Subsequent to the preliminary assessment of geo‐technical aspects certain analytical evaluations have
been made in order to obtain important and relevant geo‐technical parameters. The presentation of
these parameters is basically on the assumption of fairly uniform sub soil strata and their properties and
characteristics generally observed in the locality.

The main objective of present study is to formulate parameters for feasibility design of stability of the
proposed flood embankment/levy/ dykes with some hydraulic structures having regulatory functions.

The report also includes study and design (stability) for River Bank protection measures separately in
the later section.

The following basic data/ information were used as guide line for preliminary analysis of stability –
(a) HFL – 100 years frequency in Brahmaputra Jamuna
50 years frequency in Boral and Hurasagar
(b) Ground level along the alignment of the proposed embankment
(c) Geo‐technical data –
i) Bore holelogs
ii) Field‐lab test results
iii) BWDB data
iv) Results of PIRDP of JMREMP investigation and analysis
(d) Proposed options for typical x‐sections of embankment as shown in Figure 1.1.

The comments and observation received from BWDB design office were answered through a note on
Design Criteria as Appendix‐IV and Comments and Observance as Appendix‐V in Annex F2.

Page 1

Typical Cross section of Embankment ( Height- 5m)
Shoulder
Verge
1
Carriage width 1.5
1 2
3
Sand fill
0.75 1.5 5.5
1 3.5
2.5
Sand fill 60 cm excavated
15.0 3.2 3.0 10.0 8.75

39.95

Typical Cross section of Embankment ( Height- 5m)
Shoulder
Verge
1.0 Temporary Shelter
1
Carriage width 1.5
1
2
2
0.75 1.5 5.5
4.0 1 Sand fill 1 3.5
2
2.5
Sand fill 60 cmexcavated
10.0 8.0 2.0 3.2 3.0 10.0 8.75

44.95

Figure 1‐1 (a&b): Typical Sections of Proposed Flood Embankment

1.2 Geo‐technical Investigation
It is essential to understand the nature and behavior of the soil forming the river bank and also bed
materials for the development of a bank protection work. In the present report relevant geo‐technical
aspects are studied for analysis of flood embankment along the river bank, some distance apart from
the existing bank. However, it is to be noted though that the anticipated failure modes of river bank are
(a) erosion of soil due to wave and/or river current and sliding of slope due to instability induced by bed
erosion or undercutting below water level. These modes of failure may take place where slope angle is
not consistent with geo‐technical conditions prevailing at the site. A soil exploration program was
therefore undertaken to investigate the sub soil condition at the selected project sites for main river
flood embankment and bank erosion risk management program.

Accordingly, for the preliminary project formulation and feasibility study; a number of bore‐holes were
explored through the Ground Water Hydrology Division of BWDB, during November 2011 to February
2012.

Page 2 September 2013

2 Study sites with and Soil Data
2.1 Borehole Location
 At right bank of river Jamuna, 40 Bore Holes (BH) designated as KH‐1 to KH‐40, at Koizuri to
Hurasagar and Bherakhola to Baghabari port in Sirajganj District.
 At right bank of river Jamuna, 14 BH designated as EK‐1 to EK‐14, from Enayetpur to Koizuri in
Sirajganj district.
 At left bank of river Jamuna, 19 BH designated as CN‐1 to CN‐19 from Chouhali to Nagarpur, in
Tangail District
 At left Bank of river Jamuna, 10 BH designated as JB‐1 to JB‐10 from Jafarganj to Bachamara in
Manikganj District.

Depth of Bore‐hole, locations with co‐ordinates are shown in Table 2.1 and Bore Hole (BH) locations on
Satellite image with co‐ordinates are shown in Figure 2.2.

Table 2‐1: Location, Bore‐hole depth & coordinate with ground and ground water elevations
(Koizuri‐Hurasagar section)
District Koizuri– Coordinates Upazila Depth Gr. Elv. GWT
Hurasagar (KH) (m) PWD(m) PWD(m)
KH1 N24°10´33.6´ E 89°41'28´´ Shajadpur 30 10.34 3.25
N673456 E468943
KH2 N24°10´21.8´´ E 89°41'17´´ Shajadpur 20 10.25 3.85
N673090 E468625
KH3 N24°10´04.0´ E 89°41'17´´ Shajadpur 30 10.16 2.87
N672550 E468627
KH4 N24°9´54.5´´ E 89°41'07´´ Shajadpur 20 10.12 2.998
N672252 E468333
KH5 N24°9´45.0´´ E 89°40'53´´ Shajadpur 30 10.35 3.28
N671963 E467922
KH6 N24°9´31.9´´ E 89°40'42´´ Shajadpur 20 9.94 2.64
N671558 E467628
KH7 N24°9´18.1´´ E 89°40'31´´ Shajadpur 30 10.17 3.28
N671136 E467305
KH8 N24°9´04.9´´ E89°40'23.5´´ Shajadpur 20 10.35 2.64
Sirajganj
N670710 E467096
KH9 N24°8´52.6´´ E89°40'10.8´´ Shajadpur 30 10.15 3.28
N670348 E466732
KH10 N24°8´39.7´´ E89°40'0.7´´ Shajadpur 20 9.45 3.125
N669947 E466434
KH11 N24°8´26.9´´ E89°39'57.0´´ Shajadpur 30 10.27 2.64
N669550 E466428
KH12 N24°8´09.8´´ E 89°40'2.6´´ Shajadpur 20 10.25 2.69
N669044 E466490
KH13 N24°7´53.1´´ E89°39'58.3´´ Shajadpur 30 10.11 2.82
N668530 E466365
KH14 N24°6´37.6´´ E89°39'56.9´´ Shajadpur 20 10.05 2.52
N668043 E466328
KH15 N24°7´20.5´´ E89°39'55.9´´ Shajadpur 30 10.09 2.82
N667521 E466301
KH16 N24°7´03.7´´ E89°39'52.5´´ Shajadpur 20 9.81 2.52
N667010 E466215
KH17 N24°6´48.5´´ E89°39'46.9´´ Shajadpur 30 9.43 2.95

Page 3

District Koizuri– Coordinates Upazila Depth Gr. Elv. GWT
Hurasagar (KH) (m) PWD(m) PWD(m)
N666539 E466038
KH18 N24°6´33.0´´ E89°39'52.7´´ Shajadpur 20 10.03 2.69
N666063 E466191
KH19 N24°6´16.4´´ E89°39'01.6´´ Shajadpur 30 10.13 3.115
N665587 E466322
KH20 N24°6´01.5´´ E89°40'09.4´´ Shajadpur 20 10.06 2.69
N665098 E466464
KH21 N24°5´47.6´´ E89°40'14.0´´ Shajadpur 30 10.11 3.125
N664665 E466674
KH22 N24°5´33.3´´ E 89°40'.0´´ Shajadpur 20 10.07 2.62
N664196 E466808
KH23 N24°5´14.5´´ E89°40'12.0´´ Shajadpur 30 9.87 3.125
N663669 E466759
KH24 N24°5´04.0´´ E89°40'01.0´´ Shajadpur 20 9.68 2.69
N663313 E466428
KH25 N24°4´51.6´´ E89°39'55.4´´ Shajadpur 30 9.49 3.125
N662933 E466278
KH26 N24°4´36.3´´ E89°39'46.6´´ Shajadpur 20 9.56 2.515
N662476 E466023
KH27 N24°4´20.4´´ E89°39'39.4´´ Shajadpur 30 8.58 3.1
N663669 E466759
KH28 N24°4´30.4´´ E89°39'24.8´´ Shajadpur 20 7.72 3.4
N662300 E467148
KH29 N24°4´38.5´´ E89°39'15.1´´ Shajadpur 30 7.45 3.45
N662565 E465128
KH30 N24°4´45.6´´ E89°38'56.8´´ Shajadpur 20 7.51 2.49
N662763 E464624
KH31 N24°5´57.2´´ E89°38'33.7´´ Shajadpur 30 9.25 2.82
N663120 E464140
KH32 N24°5´08.1´´ E89°38'22.3´´ Shajadpur 20 7.95 3.1
N663461 E463652
KH33 N24°5´20.4´´ E89°38'04.0´´ Shajadpur 30 9.15 2.72
N663831 E463136
0KH34 N24°5´31.7´´ E89°37'46.9´´ Shajadpur 20 8.31 2.82
N664180 E462651
KH35 N24°5´44.2´´ E89°37'29.0´´ Shajadpur 30 9.05 3.15
N664568 E462148
KH36 N24°4´59.8´´ E89°37'11.5´´ Shajadpur 20 8.11 2.95
N665062 E461656
KH37 N24°4´09.2´´ E89°39'35.4´´ Shajadpur 40 9.07 3.18
N661642 E465689
KH38 N24°5´34.0´´ E89°39'58.5´´ Shajadpur 40 10.01 3.25
N662408 E466347
KH39 N24°5´01.2´´ E89°40'21.4´´ Shajadpur 40 10.12 3.10
N663225 E466960
KH40 N24°5´05.0´´ E89°40'26.1´´ Shajadpur 40 9.81 3.1
N664214 E465417


(Chouhali‐Nagarpur section)
District Chouhali‐ Coordinates Upazila Depth Gr. Elv. GWT
Nagarpur (m) PWD(m) PWD(m)
CN‐1 N24°18´07.3´´ E89°47´42.8´´ Omarpur 40 12.74 3.1
CN‐2 N24°17’38.2´´ E89°48´38.7´´ Norshinghopur 40 12.07 3.1
CN‐3 N24°17´08.9´’ E89°48´20.2´´ Dholabari 40 12.12 3.1
CN‐4 N24°16´44.2´´ E89°47´56.6´´ Kachua 40 11.63 3.1
CN‐5 N24°16´11.2´´ E89°47´51.4´´ Kachua 40 11.07 3.1
CN‐6 N24°15´42.5´´ E89°48´21.6´´ Degreehogra 40 12.14 3.1
CN‐7 N24°15´08.6´´ E89°48´19.5´´ Degreehogra 40 12.6 3.1
CN‐8 N24°14´32.2´´ E89°48´21.2´´ Alokdia 40 12.19 3.05
CN‐9 N24°14´00.0´´ E89°48´25.0´´ Alokdia 40 12.15 3.41
Tangail
CN‐10 N24°13´29.4´´ E89°48´33.6´´ Ichapara 40 12.1 3.25

CN‐11 N24°12´56.6´´ E89°48´46.9´´ Rashidpur 40 12.07 3.56
CN‐12 N24°12’22.9´´ E89°48´55.3´´ Rashidpur 40 12 3.43
CN‐13 N24°12´14.2´´ E89°47´10.1´´ Chalchar 40 10.9 3.71
CN‐14 N24°11´40.7´´ E89°47´13.5´´ Misrogati 40 10.84 3.56
CN‐15 N24°11´07.6´´ E89°47´26.1´´ Dhalpakhla 40 11.11 3.25
CN‐16 N24°10´33.1´´ E89°47´33.1´´ Mahmoodpur 40 11 3.41
CN‐17 N24°09´58.8´´ E89°47´39.6´´ Mahmoodpur 40 11.02 3.1
CN‐18 N24°09´22.9´´ E89°47´42.7´´ Dolai 40 10.8 3.41
CN‐19 N24°08´45.7´´ E89°48´53.4´´ KhasKaulia 40 10.9 3.71

(Jafarganj‐ Bachamara section)
Distric Jafarganj‐ Coordinates Upazila Depth Gr. Elv. GWT
t Bachamara (m) PWD(m) PWD(m)
JB1 N23°53´24.2´´ E89°45´42.3´´ Shibaloy 40 10 4.64
JB2 N23°53´58.4´´ E89°45´21.6´´ Shibaloy 40 9.2 3.71
JB3 N23°54´49´´ E89°45´43.2´´ Daulotpur 40 9 4.01
JB4 N23°55´40.2´´ E89°45´47.5´´ Daulotpur 40 8.5 3.76
Manikganj
JB5 N23°56´8.2´´ E89°46´4.1´´ Daulotpur 40 8.6 3.168

JB6 N23°57´8.4´´ E89°46´25.7´´ Daulotpur 40 10 3.84
JB7 N23°57´56´´ E89°46´33.4´´ Daulotpur 40 8.8 3.86
JB8 N23°58´33.6´´ E89°46´33.8´´ Daulotpur 40 9.5 4.01
JB9 N23°59´17.4´´ E89°46´17.2´´ Daulotpur 40 10.2 4.47
JB10 N23°59´31.5´´ E89°45´29.8´´ Daulotpur 40 8 4.62

Page 5

(Enayetpur‐Koizuri section)
Enayetpur‐ Gr. Elv. GWT
District Co‐ordinates Upazila Depth
Koizuri PWD(m) PWD(m)
EK‐1 N24°11´28.2´´ E89°41´52.7´´ Enayetpur 40 10.35 3.48
N675136 E475667
EK‐2 N24°21´08.2´´ E89°42´02.7´´ Enayetpur 40 10.51 3.33
N676359 E469903
EK‐3 N24°12´43.9´´ E89°78´26.4´´ Enayetpur 40 10.19 3.61
N677461 E470567
EK‐4 N24°13´17.4´´ E89°71´48.8´´ Enayetpur 40 10.62 3.56
N678488 E471148
EK‐5 N24°13´58.7´´ E89°43´42.59´´ Enayetpur 40 10.81 3.56
N679750 E571495
EK‐6 N24°14´37.5´´ E89°43´20.3´´ Enayetpur 40 10.22 3.4045
N680954 E472095
EK‐7 N24°15´06.1´´ E89°44´47.9´´ Enayetpur 40 10.2 3.43
Sirajganj
N682100 E473722
EK‐8 N24°15´14.8´´ E89°45´18.1´´ Enayetpur 40 10.83 3.1
N683100 E475306
EK‐9 N24°15´47.8´´ E89°45´14.1´´ Enayetpur 40 10.37 4.045
N684073 E475702
EK‐10 N24°16´19.2´´ E89°45´28.1´´ Enayetpur 40 10.45 3.15
N685034 E475907
EK‐11 N24°16´50.5´´ E89°45´35.2´´ Enayetpur 40 10.89 3.43
N686075 E476154
EK‐12 N24°17´24.2´´ E89°45´43.8´´ Enayetpur 40 11.17 3.56
N687047 E476074
EK‐13 N24°18´32.00´´ E89°45´34.8´´ Enayetpur 40 11.47 3.25
N688150 E475901
EK‐14 N24°19´21.8´´ E89°45´26.4´´ Enayetpur 40 11.64 3.125
N689701 E475667

Figure 2‐1: Satellite Image of Project Location


Figure 2‐2: Satellite Image of Bore‐Hole Location
2.2 Field and Laboratory Tests
Sub‐soil investigation conducted in field presents bore‐hole logs with ground level (GL), Standard
Penetration Tests (at every 1.5 meter) and stratification with lithological description. Laboratory test
results include grain size distribution curves, atterberg limit tests, consolidation parameters, natural
moisture contents, specific gravity, density test with OMC maximum dry density, unconfined
compression (U.C) tests and unconsolidated undrained (U.U) triaxial compression tests. Very brief
analysis has been made on the result of the above soil investigation reports and some salient feature
are presented in Tables 2.5 ‐ 2.12. Observation and findings of previous investigations and study
conducted under JMREMP in 1992, 1993 and also during 2001 and 2006 were reviewed in the present
study.

Page 7

Soil constituents (with some parameters)

Table 2‐5: KH‐4 Field and Corrected SPT (N’)
Depth (m) C (%) M (%) S (%) Soil Types NMC
2 70 30 M+FS 0.045 0.009
5 58 42 CL/ML+FS 0.06 0.01
7.5 7 93 FS 0.14 0.008
9 7 93 FS 0.14 0.008
12.2 8 92 FS 0.135 0.09
15 8 92 FS 0.149 0.074
18.3 4 96 FS 0.147 0.085

2 66 34.1 SANDYSILT +NP+ML 0.04 0.005
3 56 44 VFS+MC+NP 0.08 0.006
7.5 11 89 FS 0.14 0.065
10 14 86 FS 0.125 0.060
15 6 94 FS 0.13 0.090
18.3 8 92 FS 0.125 0.08
23 6 94 FS 0.140 0.075
30 4 96 FS 0.149 0.090

2 88 12 CL+ML 0.01 0.0015
3 68 32 ML+CL 0.045 0.0092
5 48 52 ML+FS 0.08 0.0175
4 18 82 FS 0.10 0.04
11 16 84 FS 0.125 0.05
15 15 85 FS 0.125 0.06
23 8 92 FS 0.140 0.08
30 16 84 FS 0.12 0.06
40 2 98 FS 0.149 0.092

Table 2‐8: JB‐2 Field and Corrected SPT (N’)
1.5 44 56 0.08
3 42 58 CH 0.085
5 30 70 FS+M 0.095
6 12.1 89 FS 0.15
6.7 14 86 FS 0.135
10 9 91 FS 0.163 24.16 2.66
12 9 91 FS 0.155 24.96 1.66
15 10 90 FS 0.155
18.6 9 91 FS 0.155
23 9 91 FS 0.155
26 9.5 90.5 FS 0.163
30 12 88 FS 0.149
36 12 88 FS 0.155


Table 2‐9: CN‐10 Field and Corrected SPT (N’)
Depth( m) C(%) M (%) S (%) Soil Types NMC
2 75 25 ML(NP) 0.045 0.01
3‐4 76 24 ML(NP) 0.037 0.007
5 72 28 ML+SP 0.04 0.01 20.43 2.665
6.5 76 24 ML+SP 0.045 0.01 12.1 2.663
10 14 36 ML 0.155 0.06
8 78 22 ML 0.0455 0.009
12.5 70 30 FS 0.052 0.009
15 10 90 FS 0.18 0.08
20 30 70 FS 0.12 0.025
23 28 72 FS 0.125 0.03
26 10 90 FS 0.18 0.075
30 9 91 FS 0.175 0.08
35 8 92 FS 0.18 0.085

Table 2‐10: CN‐13 Field and Corrected SPT (N’)
2 74 26 ML 0.04 0.009
3.5 72 28 ML(NP) 0.052 0.012
4.5 76 24 ML 0.046 0.009
6.5 30 70 FS 0.13 0.025
10 25 75 FS 0.125 0.04
12 24 76 FS 0.125 0.04
15 24 76 FS 0.130 0.05
20 16 84 FS 0.12 0.055
25 4 96 FS 0.21 0.12
27 6 94 FS(SP) 0.2 0.10
30 18 82 FS(SP) 0.125 0.05
35 16 84 FS(SP) 0.14 0.05
38 18 82 FS(SP) 0.135 0.055

Table 2‐11: EK‐5 Field and Corrected SPT (N’)
1.5 47 53 FS+M+NP 0.08 0.025
3 66 34 ML+FS 0.058 0.018
5 66 34 M+FS 0.058 0.018
6.5 14 86 FS 0.156 0.06
8 12 88 FS 0.152 0.10
10 10 90 FS 0.149 0.07
11 4 96 FS 0.14 0.092
12.5 6 94 FS 0.17 0.088
13.7 4 96 FS 0.125 0.088
15 2 98 FS 0.135 0.092
18.5 4 96 FS 0.149 0.085
22 6 94 FS 0.125 0.08
24.7 8 92 FS 0.155 0.085
30 2 98 FS 0.152 0.10
35 2 98 FS 0.149 0.093
38 2 98 FS 0.155 0.095
40 2 98 FS 0.149 0.095

Page 9

Table 2‐12: EK‐10 Field and Corrected SPT (N’)
1.5 8 92 FS 0.22 0.09
4.5 2 98 FS 0.149 0.092
10.5 2 98 FS 0.175 0.10
12.5 6 94 FS 0.156 0.088
15 4 96 FS 0.149 0.095
20 4 96 FS 0.152 0.088
25 6 94 FS 0.154 0.085
30 4 96 FS 0.149 0.09
35 6 94 FS 0.140 0.083
40 4 94 FS 0.149 0.09
NOTE: C= Clay minerals M= Silt S= Sand VFC= Very fine sand
FS= Fine sand NP= Non‐Plastic ML= Silt low plastic CL= Clay low Plastic
CH= Clay High Plastic MH= Silt High Plastic

2.3 Discussion of Results
The BWDB undertook fairly comprehensive sub‐soil investigation all along the proposed alignment for
flood embankment and river bank protection works. The Geotechnical investigation performed by
BWDB will time bound program (carried and hurriedly) resulting in some uncertainties about the
accuracy of the findings. But as mentioned earlier, the sub soil composition in the project location is
generally uniform. However, subsoil data obtained and used in the analysis appear to be reasonably
consistent with the past reports and results. Further, it is expected the factor of safety provided would
compensate for local and general uncertainties

Further due to large distances between the bore‐holes (300m to about 400m), it may be worthwhile to
undertake a limited number of additional bore‐holes before finalizing the design of embankment for
some specific locations only.


3 Sub‐Soil Profile

Figure 2.2 shows the Bore‐hole from 4 (four) locations referred earlier. Detailed bore‐hole logs are
shown in Figure 3.1‐3.4. In each location (KH, EK, CN, JB) It is seen that the upper part of the soil (i.e.
generally on average above RL +4.00 m PWD) is mostly silt and clay (CL, ML) type with varying quantities
of fine to very fine sand (Non‐cohesive). This strata is underlain by very fine to fine sand (non‐cohesive)
with little to trace silt and mica. The above feature is also evident in Table 2‐1 from the plot of and
against depth for different Bore‐holes (Presented in Tables 2.5‐2.12). The SPT"N" Values for
different Boreholes with corrected “ ” values are presented in Appendix 2, Tables A2.1 to A2.4.

The following observation can be highlighted:

 The sub‐surface soil formation consists of two layer system.
 In general in all four section, the upper layer consists of fine grained soil of low to inter‐mediate
plasticity with few exceptions where in it is referred to as plastic, semi‐plastic or even non‐
plastic (upto above EL+4 to+5m PWD). Broadly Classified as CL‐ML type soil
 The lower part (i.e. below +4 to +5m PWD) mainly consists of very fine to fine to medium
grained sands upto depth of exploration. Very thin films of mica mineral in traces were also
encountered at varying depths.

Page 11

Figure 3‐1: Bore Hole Log of Koizuri‐Hurasagar (KH)


Figure 3‐2: Bore Hole Log of Enayetpur‐Koizuri (EK)

Page 13

Figure 3‐3: Bore Hole Log of Chouhali‐Nagarpur (CN)


Figure 3‐4: Bore Hole Log of Jafarganj‐Bachamara (JB)

Page 15

4 Embankment stability
4.1 Introductory Remarks
The project areas are located in the delta of large rivers the Jamuna, a part of Brahmaputra river
system, and the Padma. The terrain is formed by the river sediments of the flood plains. The channels
frequently shift sideways due to erosion of the river banks or concentrate their discharge in other river
channels. The river sediments consist of finely grained sand of medium compactness. The sand in all the
project sites originate from the Himalayan Mountains and therefore consist of minerals, quartz,
feldspar, rock fragments, trace heavy mineral and mica.

The amount of mica varies at different depths, which are rather inconsistent. Previous documents and
study reports in the same region suggest mica content from 30% to 50% in some places. The recent
BUET studies however put the figure between 7% to 11%, which seems to be reasonable [Special
Report‐22 (Geotechnical) of Jamuna‐Meghna River Erosion Mitigation Project, Part‐B, November 2006].
These river sediments are more or less horizontally layered with a very small inclination of layers in
downstream direction. The mica minerals and the others particles have a more stocky shape. The
sedimentation of quartz, feldspar and heavy minerals is much faster than mica minerals. It is observed
from previous studies; the mica minerals form a very thin film of impermeable layer above more
compact minerals.

A generalized summary of drilling at the project locations show a upper clay‐silt or silt‐clay layers
referred to in the this report as CL‐ML (often found to be CH‐MH) which consists of silt clay / clayey silt
with low to medium plasticity. Below the upper clayey layer fine grained and poorly graded sand,
referred to as SP/SM or FS, sometimes very fine sand, VFS of medium compactness are present. The
sand strata has a general trend of mild increase in density from medium to dense becoming very dense
at depth around 30m and below.(As evident from BH‐Logs showing SPT plots in Figure 3.1‐3.4.

Geo‐technical slope failure in clay is commonly calculated by circular failure planes. Which means
during failure rotation takes planes. Sand, however, shows more or less straight failure planes;
therefore translation may take place in case of failure.

Due to cohesion, clay is able to stand vertically up to a certain depth, where as pure sand without
cementation will not remain stable under normal condition. In a state of low humidity (slightly moist)
the sand may have a small cohesion due to capillary action which disappears when it is dry or saturation
is above 70% or so. This apparent cohesion can therefore be considered for calculation of an existing
slope, but surely not for new construction. It may be noted that this part of the report deals with new
flood protection embankment fairly close to existing river banks. In the present study with regular
flooding of the terrain apparent cohesion may be introduced in stability analysis. At lower levels (higher
depth), due to lithification of salts cementation may result in a low effective cohesion.

The clay layer on the surface of the terrain is considered sufficiently resistant. In view of its effective
shear strength (without any reduction factor) the clay is able to stand vertically up‐to a certain height
(around 4m or so). It is to emphasize though that in the case of slope failure, the excess of the stability
of clay cannot be transferred or related to improve the stability of the sand layer below.

The survey carried during previous study observed that the slopes for the upper clay layer was fairly
steep and derived magnitude of unconfined compression strength was found to be Cu=30‐40 kpa. BUET
study conducted during 2004 also appears to confirm this value.

The observed slope inclination at river in sand is found to be 1:2.5‐1:3 for about 50% of the project area
which is expected with limit equilibrium condition. The angle of internal friction, which is the shear
strength of sand in these case, are  28 ‐ 30 with very low effective cohesion estimated at c=2‐4 kpa.


In view of the uncertainties associated with the effect of cohesion at this stage, it is ignored in the
stability analysis as shown in the later illustrations. The lower strata below the fine grained clay silt
formulation predominantly consist of sand (fine sand with little to trace silt) and occasional Mica. The
layer generally is of medium density as evident from interpretation of standard penetration 'N' test
values. There is mild trend of increase in density with increase in depth. Further below the density is
found to be medium dense to dense becoming very dense usually below 30‐35m depth of exploration.
The above observation appears to agree favorably with BUET Report including earlier reports of
JMREMP and FAP (Halcrow Feasibility) Studies and those of Jamuna Bridge etc.

4.2 Stability Analysis
On the basis of above information and geotechnical investigation carried out by BWDB, some
preliminary stability analysis may be made for the proposed flood protection embankment and bank
erosion. The slope protection and erosion control of the vulnerable river bank is not considered here
and are addressed separately at a later stage.

For the purpose of analysis the following assumptions are made:
 Assume dredged fill material for embankment construction
 Embankment height 4m‐ 6m (i.e. 5m on average)
 Compacted fine sand with angle of internal friction =28 to 30_use 30
 Embankment slope: 1:3 and 1:2.5
 A factor safely fs≥ 1.4 has been considered as standard in line with previous project designs for
river bank stability (PIRDP).

Assume:
 Dredged soil from river bed
 River bed material mainly fine sand/ very fine sand with silt/ silty fine sand/ silt with very fine
sand occasional at shallow depths.
 The Feature of predominant fine particles is observed at shallow depths (5‐7m).
 Compacted fill material have angle of internal friction φ=28‐30
 Slope angle , i.e. slope is 1:3, 1:2.5 and 1:2, considered for trial.

Under normal conditions: Factor of safety (f) against failure
tan 
f
tan 
, Dredged fill soil
f = FS = Factor of Safety
Ø 28° min. to 30°, use 30° β 5m

For Ø 28° For Ø 30°
Slope 1:3, Slope 1:3,
f = tan 28°/ tan 18.43° = 0.532/0.33= 1.6 f = tan 30°/tan 18.43° = 0.577/0.333 = 1.7
Slope 1:2.5, Slope 1:2.5,
f = tan 28°/tan 21.80° = 0.532/0.40 = 1.33 f = tan 30°/tan 21.80° = 0.577/0.40 = 1.44
Slope 1:2,
f = tan 30°/ tan 26.57° = 0.577/0.50 = 1.15

Under Submerged Condition
f 
 sub
 tan 

8 * 0.577
 0.778  1.25
 sand
 tan  18 * 0.33

Page 17

Assumed:
ɣ 10 /

ɣ 18 /

ɣ_ 8 / ^3

Therefore seepage will occur under submerged condition.

From the above analysis, it would appear that under normal conditions slope provision of 1:3 and 1:2.5
are adequate. Protective measure against seepage flow will be required for construction of
embankment considering the fact that the only material available cheaply and in abundant quantity is
very fine sand with little to some silt/clay. It may be mentioned that the upper layers of soil
stratification consists of plastic to semi plastic silt or clay upto about 4m‐7m with same variation in
some locations as can be seen in the sub‐soil profile. It may also be mentioned that most of the
proposed project segments are fairly close to the river bank and some‐time even within (which is
locally) known as char areas; Further check for any significant difference between the East bank and
West bank was attempted. No significant difference was observed regarding sub‐soil and soil
characteristic between east or west side locations being studied.

At this stage, under the circumstances discussed above the proposed embankment configuration
considered from stability and safety consideration can be silty fine sand material with clay‐cladding all
around as shown in Figure 1‐1.

It is also proposed to consider slope of the embankment as 1:3 as the preferred option. However, it is
also possible to use different slopes at riverside at the second option for the flood embankment
configuration as shown in Figure 1‐1.

Considering that seepage may occur under submerged condition, clay on both ends (river side and
country side) should be used in order to protect the embankment from scour and erosion and also to
retain the finer materials from the embankment. The thickness of the cladding be provided should not
be less than 60cm (preferably 1m). The material shall be clay silt with very fine sand (trace/little) which
should have a plasticity index of 10‐20% in accordance with AASHTO T90. The core material shall be
spread in layers not exceeding 200mm loose and compacted by means of suitable equipment as
specified (minimum 95% modified proctor).

A few other aspects of stability of the embankment are analyzed below:

4.3 Settlement (of foundation soil beneath embankment)
Assuming an average height of embankment‐ 5m
Slope: 1:2.5

Analysis from bore‐hole logs and field & laboratory test results tends to show susceptibility of
settlement of the embankment sub‐soil formation. The upper layer generally consists of soft low plastic
clayey‐silt upto a depth of about 4‐7m. Underlain by fine sand with little to no trace of silt which appear
to continue below upto the depth explored (30m). Some typical geotechnical properties are considered


for estimating probable settlement of the compressible layer underneath the proposed flood
embankment.

Relevant properties:
° 0.85 (Initial void ratio)
Saturated unit weight of soil,ɣ 17.5 / ≅ 18 /
Submerged Unit weight of soil,ɣ 7.5 / ≅8 /
Specific gravity of Sand, 2.66
Compression Index, 0.28
Coefficient of compressibility, 4 10 /
Depth of Compressible layer 6m
30%

18 x 6 108 /
 q at said‐height = 78 /
° 17.5 3 54 /
0.28 54 78
3.0 100 17.6
1 .85 54
If 1m of top soil is removed/ replaced by compacted:
0.28 54 78
2.5 100 14.5
1 .85 54

Case‐2 *
(0.15 2 2.74 100 ≅ 13.1
° 0.9
0.28
2.67
29.5%
17.5 5 87.5
ɣ 17.5 /
ɣ 7.5 /
4 10 /
Estimate for time for consolidation to and
0.197 2.5 100 1
35.63
4 10 60 60 24
0.848 2.5 100
.1157 153 50%, 0.195
4 10 3600 24
90%, 0.848

The estimated settlement in a condition (h=5cm) is found to be 17.8 cm (average) considering drainage
from top and bottom (double drainage). But when about 1m of top soil is removed and replaced by
quickly draining sand, the effective depth (thickness) of compressible layer is reduced where in the
consolidation settlement becomes 14.4 cm (average).

Similarly with embankment height (including freeboard) of 6m and the thickness, if top compressible
soil underneath is 7m, the gross settlement becomes 17.36 cm. Considering double drainage and

Page 19

replacement of 1m of top soil by compacted fine sand, settlement is reduced. These are elaborated in
sample calculation presented. In addition time for consolidation i.e. and are also shown.

It would appear from analysis, that considering stage construction (2/3 stages), assuming an allowance
(consolidation time, at least up‐to 35‐50 days), a total of maximum 150 days will be necessary for
consolidation of full height of embankment over a given stretch of embankment. Important here to
mention that the above assessment is based on the following considerations

a. Each stage compacted height is 2‐2.5 m
b. For clay cladding method of construction will follow benching/key type technique at side slopes.
c. Compressible layer below embankment base is 5‐7 m
d. Settlement evaluation is based on parameters either assumed or guide line reference from
limited Laboratory test results available.

4.4 Check for seepage flow
Assuming, clay cladding is used as protection against erosion due to seepage, possibility of seepage
through underneath the embankment base will be checked. As a first step it is proposed to remove 60
cm‐100 cm top soil to be replaced by sand (compacted).

According to Terzaghi, minimum width of base should be embankment height (H) times creep ratio (cw).
The value of creep ratio is taken as 7, according to table 58.1 of Soil Mechanics in Engineering practice
by Terzaghi, Peck and Mesri, 3rd edition, 1995.

Width minimum = 5m *7 =35 m
Width provided in two options is greater than 35m.

Provision of compacted sand fill (100 cm) underneath the embankment is also expected to take care of
seepage pressure substantially and induce flow line towards the toe.

4.5 Check for horizontal sliding/pore water pressure within the embankment
Earth pressure developed (Drag force):F 0.5 18 6 K ≅ 120KN
Frictional Resistance force at base along base of triangle “abc”
R 0.5 6 2.5 6 17.5 0.42 ≅ 338KN ≫ 120KN

In order to assess the stability of the embankment for rapid draw down effect on the river side, a
further detailed analysis will be made once more site specific hydrological data are available.

However, the provision of clay‐cladding along with sand fill underneath the base of the embankment
should adequately bring down the flow (works) line towards the toe‐line. The overall total width of the
embankment in expected to reduce significantly the little seepage force that may develop.


4.6 Stability against Earthquake/Check for liquefactions
The sand layer below the upper clay layer consists of fine and poorly graded (sp) sand. Sand of such
composition is susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction is a phenomenon similar to flow sides, but
usually it is related to shock, especially due to Earthquake.

The project location is situated at zone‐2 of Bangladesh Earthquake zone map where in 0.15 is
recommended by BNBC as factor for maximum horizontal ground acceleration.

The liquefaction potential as estimated following Seed and Idriss method is found to be generally
negligible or none (i.e. F=R/L ≥1). Sample calculation for estimating the factor ‘F’ is provided as
annexure in this report. The simplified method using embankment over burden stress, material
composition including average size of particle (D50), percentage of fines (f.c) and standard penetration
test value 'N' etc. demonstrates that there is practically little risk of liquefaction under normal
circumstances. However, risks cannot be ignored, particularly in cases of localized lenses of mica. With
available data/test results, these locations cannot be identified specifically at this stage of study.
Equations and sample calculation is presented in Appendix‐1

Page 21

5 Riverbank Stability
5.1 Data and calculation method
5.1.1 Slope angles and Soil characteristics
Analysis of the Jamuna Cross Sections shows, that the river in the project area is very shallow with a
maximal depth of approx. 18 m.

The angle of the existing riverbank reaches from 1:5 (11.31°) to 1:1 (45°). The cross sections are shown
in Figure 5‐1. It shows that the most slopes have an angle of 1:2 or flatter. Considering slopes flatter
than 1:3 as safe, the calculation will concentrate on the slopes with an angle from 1:2, 1:2.5 or 1:3.

Figure 5‐1: Profile of the cross sections at the Jamuna River right bank

Figure 5‐2: Profile of the cross sections at the Jamuna River left bank
Figure 5‐1 and Figure 5‐2 show the profiles of the cross sections at the Jamuna River at the left and right
bank. The exact location of the Boreholes and the corresponding cross sections is shown in . The profiles
of the cross sections and the location of the boreholes in other areas are similar.

The soil strata were determined by boreholes near the riverbank. The analysis of these boreholes show
that the first upper soil layer in most cases is clay. Under this clay, the subsoil consists of sand in
different densities, but mostly loose.


The thickness of the first layer (clay) ranges from 2 m to 7 m with an average of 5 m. In some cases,
when the deposit is recent, the sand is not covered by clay. This leads to four different types of soil
distributions:

1. First layer Clay 2m, sand underneath
2. First layer clay 5m, sand underneath
3. First layer clay 7m, sand underneath
4. No clay, complete soil consists of sand

For these soils, following properties were considered:
Soil 1 Sand: γ = 18 kN/m3 Soil 2 Clay: γ = 18 kN/m3
3
γW = 10kN/m γW = 10kN/m3
φ = 30° φ = 0
c = 0 c = 25 kN/m3

5.1.2 Calculation method
For the calculation of the safety factor in case of an earthquake, a coefficient of 1.5% g in horizontal and
vertical direction was considered. This equals an acceleration of 0.15 m/s² and is based on the
Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC).

In addition, in the calculations an earthquake coefficient of 5%g is considered. This consideration is
based on Herbert Fedinger’s Report (Fedinger, 2006) and on the paper of Md. Hossain Ali (Hossain,
1998). The coefficient equals an acceleration of 0.5 m/s² in horizontal and vertical direction. This
correlates to an earthquake with a return period of 200 years, which has a 10% probability of exceeding
in 50 years lifespan of a structure.

These additional calculations were performed, because although the Bangladesh National Building Code
(BNBC) implies, to use an earthquake coefficient of 1.5%, the report of Herbert Fedinger (2006) uses a
higher coefficient in PIRDP.

All calculations were performed with the software Visual Slope, developed by Visual Slope, Loveland,
Ohio, USA. The software uses the modified bishop method and for the type of failure, a circular failure
was assumed. For each case, three hundred failure surfaces were calculated, to find the most critical
one.

In the calculations, two different scenarios were considered. In the first one, the existing river bank
slope is analyzed, in the second one the final, designed one. In both scenarios, the most critical slip
circle was assumed to be located in the upper 9 m. This 9 m will be the steepest part of the final river
bank and, in addition every possible soil change will be located in this area.
2,500 2,000
2,000
2 m Clay 1,500 2 m Clay
1,500
5 m Clay 5 m Clay
1,000
1,000
7 m Clay 7 m Clay
500 500
Sand only Sand only
0 0
1:2 1:2.5 1:3 1:2 1:2.5 1:3

Figure 5‐3: Safety factor for 35m slopes Figure 5‐4: Safety factor for 15m slopes

Page 23

5.2 Calculated Scenarios
5.2.1 Existing Riverbank
In the first scenario, the existing slopes of the river bank were analyzed, by considering three different,
representative slope angles and four different, representative soil distributions. In each case, the angle
of the slope does not change on the whole range of the slope. The slopes also consider deep cross
sections.

This leads to two different depths of the riverbed and the water level.
1. 15 m water level, 19 m riverbed
This leads to 24 different cases, which include the extreme cases (minimum clay; sand only) as well as
the average cases.

Figure 5‐5: Dimensions of existing slopes

The results of the calculations are found in Table 5‐1.

Table 5‐1: Results of the calculation for existing Slopes
No H HW S First Layer Factor of Safety Remarks
[m] [m] Normal EQ (1.5% g) EQ (5% g)
1 19 15 1:2 2m Clay 1.171 1.130 1.026 Flat circle
2 19 15 1:2 5m Clay 1.457 1.412 1.319 Big circle, both layer
4 19 15 1:2 Sand only 1.171 1.130 1.026 Flat circle
5 19 15 1:2.5 2m Clay 1.456 1.390 1.259 Flat circle
6 19 15 1:2.5 5m Clay 1.571 1.541 1.399 Big circle, both layer
8 19 15 1:2.5 Sand only 1.470 1.404 1.271 Flat circle


No H HW S First Layer Factor of Safety Remarks
[m] [m] Normal EQ (1.5% g) EQ (5% g)
17 39 35 1:2.5 2m Clay 1.468 1.402 1.270 Flat circle
20 39 35 1:2.5 Sand only 1.456 1.390 1.259 Flat circle

The results for existing river banks according to Table 5‐1 show, as expected, an increasing safety for
flatter slopes. The Safety factors of both the 1:2.5 and 1:3 slopes are sufficient in both, normal and
earthquake case. An exception is case number 7 (19m 1:2.5 7m clay). In this case the safety factor is
below the minimum acceptable (normal and earthquake) limit, as it is below 1.2.

Figure 5‐6: Typical slip circles at an existing slope

The calculated failure mechanism shows, that the upper clay layer has nearly no effect, if it is just 2 m
thick, for the critical surfaces and the safety factors are nearly the same as in case of no clay layer.
For a slope angle of 1:2, the safety factor in most cases does not at is fy the minimum limit.

In these cases the combination of a 5m clay layer with sand underneath seems to be the ideal soil
distribution.

The analysis of the different possible failure surfaces show that the upper clay layer has a stabilizing
function on the entire slope, as long as the layer is thick enough. So the safety factor increases
significantly, when the upper layer is 5 m clay, while a 2 m clay layer has no significant effect. If the clay
layer is thick enough, the most critical failure surface shifts from near the surface of the slope to the
inner part. Further analysis show that most of the critical failure surfaces (up to a safety factor of 1.4) lie
near the surface of the slope.
5.2.2 Designed river bank
For the second scenario, the proposed, designed river bank slopes were considered with 24 different,
representative cases. These slopes also consider deep cross sections.

This leads to two different depths of the riverbed and the water level.
These slopes will not have the same angle everywhere and in addition, a berm will be built about 1.5 m
below low water level.

Page 25

The slope angle in relation to the depth is shown in Table 5‐2 for case 1: 19m river bed and Table 5‐3
incase 2: 39m river bed:

Table 5‐2: Case 1‐ 19 m river bed
Part Slope Angle Vertical distance from Horizontal distance from river bank
river bank (toe)
1:2 1:2.5 1:3 5 10 12.5 15
2 m Berm 0 5 12 14.5 17
1:2 9 20 24.5 29
1:2.2 14 31 35.5 40
1:2.5 19 43.5 48 52.5

Table 5‐3: Case 2‐ 39 m river bed
Part Slope Angle Vertical distance from Horizontal distance from river bank
river bank
1:2 1:2.5 1:3 5 10 12.5 15
2 m Berm 0 5 12 14.5 17
1:2 9 20 24.5 29
1:2.2 24 53 57.5 62
1:2.5 39 90.5 95 99.5

Figure 5‐7: Slope dimensions of designed slopes

2 2
2 m Clay 2 m Clay
1.5 1.5
5 m Clay 5 m Clay
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
1:2 1:2.5 1:3 1:2 1:2.5 1:3

Figure 5‐8: Safety factor for 35m slopes Figure 5‐9: Safety factor for 15m slopes


Table 5‐4: Results of calculation for designed slopes
No. H HW S First Layer Factor of Safety Remarks
[m] [m] Normal EQ (1.5% g) EQ (5% g)
1 19 15 1:2 2m Clay 1.358 1.308 1.200 Flat circle under berm
2 19 15 1:2 5m Clay 1.725 1.670 1.546 Both layers crossed
4 19 15 1:2 Sand only 1.174 1.133 1.029 Flat circle at toe of upper slope
5 19 15 1:2.5 2m Clay 1.503 1.439 1.300 Flat circle under berm
6 19 15 1:2.5 5m Clay 1.638 1.579 1.453 Both layers crossed
8 19 15 1:2.5 Sand only 1.476 1.411 1.276 Flat circle at toe of upper slope
17 39 35 1:2.5 2m Clay 1.479 1.415 1.282 Flat circle under berm
20 39 35 1:2.5 Sand only 1.478 1.414 1.278 Flat circle at toe of upper slope

The results for the calculation of the designed slopes, as shown in Table 5‐4 show, that the safety
factors of the slopes with an angle of 1:2.5 or 1:3 are sufficient in every case (soil combination,
earthquakes). The slopes with an angle of 1:2 also appear to be stable, as long as the upper layer (clay)
is big enough.

The results also show that the clay layer only has a supporting function, if it is thick enough. In the case
of a clay layer of just 2m, the failure surface and the safety factor are nearly the same as in the case of
no clay layer.

Figure 5‐10: Typical slip circles at a designed slope

Page 27

5.3 Summary and Conclusion
The results for both scenarios show, that the soil combination is as important as the slope angle. In
nearly all cases a slope angle of 1:2.5 or flatter is sufficient, while in case of an angle of 1:2, stability is
only guaranteed, if the clay layer is big enough (about 5.0 m thick).

The comparison of the both scenarios show, that the designed slopes are an improvement to the
existing slopes. On the one hand, this results from the berm, which has a supporting effect, and on the
other hand, it results from the different angles of the slope.

The results show, that the calculated earthquakes have a very small effect on the safety factor. This is
due to the very small coefficient of just 1.5%. Although this is in accordance with the Bangladesh
National Building Code, the coefficient is so small, that the effect can be disregarded. In addition,
Herbert Fedinger used in his study in 2006 a coefficient of 5%, so the calculations may need tobe should
be adjusted.

In addition, the berm could be extended, for it has on the one side a supporting function, which leads to
a higher safety of the entire slope. The calculated failure surfaces also show that the berm limits the slip
circle in case of a slope of sand only.


6 Summery RBP
6.1 General Geotechnical features
The general feature of the sub‐soil formation consists of a total terrain with formation consist of a flat
terrain with an upper layer of clayey silt and silty clay with fine sand and trace mica underlying by fine
sand up to the depth of about 40 m from the existing ground surface. The clay‐silt layer (mainly CL‐ML
group) varies from 2m to 7m in general whereas in some locations clay layer was not encountered. The
consistencies of cohesive layers are medium to stiff which is soft at upper sections. The non‐cohesive
sand layer is found to be very fine to fine sand with density increasing from loose to very dense with
increase in depth.
6.2 Flood embankment stability
From this analysis and past experience of previous studies, under normal conditions embankment slope
between 1:2.5 to 1:3 appears to be adequate.

Average embankment height considered is 5.00m from ground level. A typical section of the proposed
embankment is shown in Figure 1‐1 (a&b) for two conditions (with and without shelter provisions).
Considering availability of embankment material, it is proposed to use dredged material from the river
bed. The dredge materials appear to be permeable and hence susceptible to seepage.

Clay cladding of minimum 60 cm thick (as shown in Figure 1‐1 (a&b)) all around the embankment is
recommended.

For facilitating the seepage flow and consolidation settlement this following measure as suggested:

(a) The base width of the embankment should be at least 35 m.
(b) Provision of the compacted sand (60cm‐100cm) fills underneath the embankment by removing
the existing top soil.
(c) In order to compensate for settlement stage construction of embankment is recommended. A
minimum of 2/3 stages may be required, each stage compacted height should be 2 ‐ 2.5m.
Consolidation time that is interval between each stage should be 35 to 50 days.
(d) Embankment material shall be free from all grass roots or organic material. The dredge fill shall
have clay‐silt with very fine sand which have a plasticity index of 10‐20% in according with
AASHTO
(e) Method of construction: The materials should be spread in layers not exceeding 200mm loose
and compacted to a density complying with 95% modified proctor. The edges with clay cladding
should be constructed using benching method for each layer.
6.3 Riverbank Protection
The results of the calculations show that the angle and the soil distribution are equally important.
‐ A slope angle of 1:2.5 or flatter is sufficient in every case
‐ A thick upper clay layer has a stabilizing effect on the slope, a slope with a clay layer of
5m or more is stable even for an angle of 1:2
‐ The berm has a stabilizing effect on the slope
The calculation also considered the effects of earthquakes on the slope stability. The results show that
5% acceleration, in both vertical and horizontal direction, significantly decreases the safety factor. The
safety factors of the designed slopes are still high enough, as long as the slope angle is 1:2.5 or flatter.

Figure 6.1 shows the comparison of a designed slope to an existing river profile.

Page 29

Figure 6‐1: Comparison designed slope to existing river profile

7 References
1. ADB (2002), Jamuna‐Meghna River Erosion Mitigation Project (JMREMP).
2. ADB (2010), Assam Integrated Flood and Riverbank Erosion Risk Management Investment
Project (AIFRERMIP).
3. Fedinger, H. (2006), JMREMP Part‐B, Special Report, Geotechnical Report.
4. Hossain, M. A. (1998). Earthquake Database and seismic zoning of Bangladesh. Dhaka:
Department of Civil Engineering, BUET.
5. Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC).
6. Terzagh, Peck & Mesre.
7. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 3rd Edition‐1995.
8. SOFTWARE: VISUAL SLOPE, LOVE LAW, OHIO, USA.
9. RHD Standard Road Specification.


Appendices

Appendix 1: Sample Calculations .............................................................................................................. 32
Appendix 2: Corrected N’ Values for 4 Locations .................................................................................... 34
Appendix 3: Standard Penetration Test ................................................................................................... 38

Page 31

Appendix 1: Sample Calculations

Check for liquefaction:
As discussed earlier, project site is located in zone2 according to National Seismic Zone map, referred to
in the BNBC. Accordingly maximum possible horizontal ground acceleration co‐efficient 0.15 is
used in the study.

The method used for assessment of liquefaction potential consists of soil resulting from earth quake
ground acceleration and comparing it with the cycle resistance ratio(R). The liquefaction resistance is
defined as . The soil is likely to liquefy if the value of ratio is less than unity(one). The
method is popularly known as Seed Method ( Ref. seed &Idris, 1971 and Iwasaki &Tatsuka 1978)

The following Equations are used determination of
When,

0.65 ´

0.0882
0.7
0.19 0.02 0.05
.
0.225 0.05 0.06
0.05 0.6 2.0

0 0% 40%
0.004 . 0.16 40% 100%
1.0 0.015 ´

ɣ Stress reduction coefficient
Maximum horizontal ground acceleration
Average grain size
Liquefaction Resistance ratio
Cyclic resistance ratio
Cyclic stress ratio
Standard Penetration test
Depth of soil element
. . Fine particle content passing 200 seive
´

In most cases it was found that there is no possibility of liquefaction of the underneath the
embankment. Although few location appear to show factor of safety either 1 or marginally less than
one 0.95 .


SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR CHECK AGAINEST LIQUIFACTION FOR JB‐1

For layer A

1.0 0.015 7 0.895
0.15
2.25
4
0.0882 0.0703
.8 7 0.7
.
.
0.225 0.254 0.484
0.004 80 0.16 0.16 2.2 1

Assume total clay layer table 7.5m

84%, 10, 0.026 1.0 0.015 3.75 0.854
25%, 15 0.1 0.65 0.15 2.25 0.854 0.187 21.9
18
0.0882 0.0957
.8 9.75 0.7
.
.
0.225 0.25

0.004 84 0.16 0.176
0.52
2.38 1

For layer B
1.0 0.5 9 0.865
0.65 0.15 2.25 0.865 0.189 0219
15
0.0882 0.096
.8 15 0.7
.
.
0.225 0.122
0
0.218 0.219 1

Page 33

Appendix 2: Corrected N’ Values for 4 Locations
Table A2.1: Corrected N’ Values (Koizuri‐Hurasagar Section)

KH-1 KH-2 KH-3 KH-4 KH-5 KH-6 KH-7 KH-8 KH-9 KH-10 KH-11 KH-12 KH-13 KH-14 KH-15
Conversion
Factor ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´
Depth
1.5 1.5 15 18 15 18 1 2 12 15 5 6 3 4 6 7 3 4 5 6 5 6 3 4 2 3 3 4 3 4 2 3
3. 1.5 19 23 18 22 6 7 15 18 4 5 5 6 8 10 4 5 8 10 9 11 6 7 3 4 4 5 7 9 3 4
4.5 1.44 21 26 19 23 5 6 18 22 7 9 7 9 10 12 10 12 18 22 10 12 8 10 4 5 4 5 2 3 3 4
6 1.25 19 23 21 26 6 7 19 23 22 27 14 17 15 18 18 22 28 35 12 15 13 16 12 15 4 5 5 6 9 11
7.5 1.12 18 20 24 27 6 7 22 24 24 27 18 20 14 15 19 22 30 34 18 20 13 14 17 19 3 3 4 5 16 18
9 1.02 40 41 27 27 24 24 23 23 26 26 20 20 16 16 28 29 29 29 18 18 16 16 24 24 11 11 12 12 20 20
10.5 0.945 41 39 31 29 25 24 24 23 27 26 22 21 20 19 30 28 23 22 19 18 16 15 22 21 12 11 15 14 22 21
12 1.105 38 42 34 37 27 30 23 25 27 30 24 26 21 23 40 44 27 30 21 23 18 20 25 27 18 20 17 19 24 26
13.5 1.04 40 41 34 35 27 28 25 26 21 22 26 27 23 24 50 52 29 30 23 24 18 19 25 26 22 23 18 19 24 25
15 0.988 41 41 41 40 29 28 24 24 23 23 28 27 25 24 52 51 30 30 24 24 20 20 29 29 22 22 19 19 26 26
16.5 0.942 42 40 43 40 34 32 26 24 25 24 31 29 27 24 55 52 31 29 27 25 20 19 31 29 25 23 21 20 27 25
18 0.912 43 39 46 40 40 36 31 28 26 24 35 31 31 24 54 49 35 32 29 26 24 22 38 34 28 25 23 21 28 25
19.5 0.866 45 39 47 40 40 35 36 31 26 24 40 32 33 29 57 49 35 30 32 28 25 22 42 36 30 26 26 23 30 26
21 0.834 47 39 43 36 27 24 34 29 37 30 29 24 30 26 29 24 34 28
22.5
24
25.5
27
28.5
30
N=Field Value

Table A2.1: (continued) Corrected N’ Values (Koizuri‐Hurasagar Section)

Conversion
KH-16 KH-17 KH-18 KH-19 KH-20 KH-21 KH-22 KH-23 KH-24 KH-25 KH-26 KH-27 KH-28 KH-29 KH-30
Factor
Depth
´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´
1.5 1.5 8 10 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 3 4 4 5 3 4 3 4 5 6 3 4 2 3 2 3 02 3 4 5
3 1.5 6 7 6 7 4 5 3 4 4 5 3 4 6 7 4 5 5 6 12 15 12 15 7 9 6 7 5 6 4 5
4.5 1.44 13 16 9 11 7 9 5 6 5 6 7 9 12 15 5 6 7 9 18 22 14 17 10 12 7 9 7 9 8 10
6 1.25 18 22 18 22 12 15 7 9 21 26 12 15 26 32 15 18 12 15 18 22 18 22 14 17 9 11 6 7 12 15
7.5 1.12 13 14 18 20 13 15 16 18 22 25 15 17 28 31 18 20 14 16 21 23 18 20 18 20 12 13 8 9 14 16
9 1.02 8 8 18 18 16 16 18 18 23 23 18 18 29 30 20 20 16 17 22 22 22 22 21 21 15 15 7 7 15 15
10.5 0.945 15 14 21 20 16 15 21 20 24 23 23 22 29 27 22 21 18 18 25 24 24 23 23 22 18 17 10 9 18 17
12 1.105 18 20 25 27 18 20 23 25 26 28 24 26 30 33 24 26 21 23 29 32 26 28 26 28 22 24 12 13 25 27
13.5 1.04 23 24 25 26 25 26 26 27 29 30 27 28 31 32 26 28 24 25 31 32 30 31 29 30 23 24 15 16 30 31
15 0.988 25 25 27 26 27 26 27 27 30 30 29 29 34 34 29 29 25 25 33 33 34 34 32 32 26 26 17 17 34 34
16.5 0.942 25 24 28 26 33 31 30 29 31 29 34 32 37 35 33 32 26 24 38 36 36 34 34 32 28 26 21 20 38 36
18 0.912 27 25 30 27 36 33 31 28 34 31 35 32 42 38 35 32 29 26 42 38 40 36 36 33 30 27 24 22 41 37
19.5 0.866 28 24 33 28 40 34 32 28 41 36 33 28 45 39 36 31 36 31 46 40 42 36 38 33 36 31 28 24 48 41
21 0.834 35 29 36 30 38 33 37 31 48 40 38 32 32 27
22.5
24
25.5
27
28.5
30


Table A2.1: (continued) Corrected N’ Values (Koizuri‐Hurasagar Section)

Conversion
KH-31 KH-32 KH-33 KH-34 KH-35 KH-36 KH-37 KH-38 KH-39 KH-40
Factor
Depth
´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´
1.5 1.5 3 4 4 5 4 5 2 3 3 4 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 3 2 3
3 1.5 4 5 6 7 6 7 4 5 7 9 4 5 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 7
4.5 1.44 5 6 4 5 9 11 8 10 10 12 11 14 6 7 6 7 6 7 7 9
6 1.25 7 9 6 7 11 14 11 14 14 17 14 17 7 9 6 7 11 14
7.5 1.12 11 12 9 10 15 17 12 13 18 20 14 16 9 10 10 11 7 8 17 19
9 1.02 15 15 8 8 14 14 14 14 17 17 15 15 12 12 12 12 9 9 17 18
10.5 0.945 17 16 12 11 15 14 16 15 22 21 16 15 12 11 13 12 13 12 20 19
12 1.105 18 20 18 19 17 19 20 22 22 24 18 20 16 18 16 18 15 17 21 23
13.5 1.04 20 21 22 23 19 20 22 23 23 24 22 23 18 19 15 16 22 23 22 23
15 0.988 19 19 27 26 20 20 26 26 24 24 22 22 22 22 18 18 24 24 24 24
16.5 0.942 23 22 30 28 21 17 29 27 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 23 22 24 23
18 0.912 25 23 34 31 22 20 32 29 27 25 26 24 25 23 27 25 25 23 26 24
19.5 0.866 28 24 38 33 22 19 34 29 27 23 29 25 26 24 28 24 28 24 28 24
21 0.834 29 24 24 20 29 24 29 24 31 26 29 25 35 29
22.5
24
25.5
27
28.5
30

Page 35

Table A2.2: Corrected N’ Values (Chouhali ‐ Nagarpur Section)

CN-1 CN -2 CN -3 CN -4 CN -5 CN -6 CN -7 CN -8 CN -9 CN -10 CN -11 CN -12 CN -13 CN -14 CN -15
on Factor
Conversi
Depth
´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´
1.5 1.5 4 6 4 5 3 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 3 4 3 4 4 5 6 7 4 5 5 6 4 5 5 6 4 5
3 1.5 5 7 2 3 4 5 2 3 2 7 2 3 7 8 5 6 6 7 8 10 5 6 7 8 4 5 12 15 6 7
4.5 1.44 7 10 9 4 5 6 4 5 4 12 4 5 16 18 9 11 8 10 8 10 11 13 12 15 4 5 14 17 7 8
6 1.25 14 17 7 9 10 12 7 9 7 15 7 9 16 18 12 15 14 17 16 20 12 15 14 17 24 24 15 16 15 18
7.5 1.12 15 16 12 13 11 12 11 12 11 12 11 12 19 21 15 17 15 17 18 20 13 14 18 20 26 26 15 16 18 20
9 1.02 18 18 13 13 11 11 10 10 10 17 15 15 20 20 17 17 18 18 50 20 14 14 18 18 26 26 17 17 19 19
10.5 0.945 20 20 16 15 13 12 13 13 13 20 17 17 20 20 20 20 20 19 24 22 15 14 22 20 27 26 18 18 19 18
12 1.105 20 22 17 19 15 16 13 14 13 22 17 19 22 22 21 23 22 24 24 25 16 18 26 27 27 29 19 21 22 24
13.5 1.04 23 22 18 19 16 16 15 15 15 23 18 18 22 22 25 26 23 24 26 26 15 18 26 27 29 29 21 22 22 23
15 0.988 23 23 22 22 17 17 15 15 15 24 20 20 22 20 25 25 26 25 26 26 21 18 29 28 29 29 22 22 22 22
16.5 0.942 24 23 24 23 22 20 15 15 15 24 20 20 26 24 26 24 26 24 28 25 23 18 29 28 31 29 24 22 24 23
18 0.912 26 25 24 22 22 20 18 17 18 23 20 18 26 23 27 25 29 26 29 26 25 26 31 28 31 32 25 26 24 22
19.5 0.866 27 24 28 25 25 22 19 17 19 23 21 19 26 23 27 22 31 28 34 30 26 26 32 29 33 32 28 26 25 22
21 0.834 29 26 28 25 26 23 18 18 18 25 22 20 28 25 29 26 31 28 36 32 27 26 32 29 34 32 29 26 28 24
22.5 30 27 37 31 42 30 30 27 28 33 37 32 32 30 29 24
24
25.5
27
28.5
30

Table A2.2: (continued) Corrected N’ Values (Chouhali ‐ Nagarpur Section)

CN-16 CN -17 CN -18 CN-19
Conversion
Factor
´ ´ ´ ´
Depth
1.5 1.5 4 5 2 3 2 3 3 4
3 1.5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5
4.5 1.44 9 11 6 7 6 7 8 10
6 1.25 14 17 8 10 9 11 10 13
7.5 1.12 15 17 14 16 16 18 16 18
9 1.02 18 18 16 16 23 23 18 18
10.5 0.945 21 20 22 21 18 17 18 17
12 1.105 23 25 22 24 18 20 22 24
13.5 1.04 25 25 24 25 20 21 22 23
15 0.988 26 28 24 24 20 20 26 26
16.5 0.942 30 28 29 27 25 24 26 24
18 0.912 30 27 29 26 25 24 28 24
19.5 0.866 32 27 31 27 28 24 28 24
21 0.834 32 27 32 27 31 26 28 24
22.5
24
25.5 35 29 36 30 34 30 30 25
27
28.5
30


Table A2.3: Corrected N’ Values (Enayetpur – Koizuri Section)

EK-1 EK-2 EK-3 EK-4 EK-5 EK-6 EK-7 EK-8 EK-9 EK-10 EK-11 EK-12 EK-13 EK-14
ersion
Depth
Facto
Conv
´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´
1.5 1.5 2 3 3 4 3 4 5 6 3 4 4 5 3 4 6 7 5 6 7 9 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5
3 1.5 4 5 4 5 4 5 6 7 5 6 5 6 5 6 8 10 7 9 12 15 6 7 7 9 5 6 5 6
4.5 1.44 10 12 7 9 5 6 8 10 6 7 7 9 8 10 11 14 11 14 13 16 9 11 12 15 10 12 10 12
6 1.25 18 22 15 18 5 6 15 18 15 18 9 11 12 15 12 15 15 18 15 18 14 17 15 18 15 18 12 15
7.5 1.12 22 24 18 20 15 17 18 20 18 20 14 15 15 17 15 14 16 18 17 19 18 20 17 19 18 20 15 17
9 1.02 22 22 20 20 17 17 19 19 21 21 15 15 18 18 19 19 18 18 20 20 22 22 22 22 22 22 17 17
10.5 0.945 24 22 21 20 20 19 21 20 24 23 18 17 18 17 25 24 21 20 23 22 24 23 24 23 26 24 19 18
12 1.105 24 26 23 25 24 26 22 24 27 30 22 24 20 22 29 32 24 26 26 28 25 27 26 28 30 33 21 23
13.5 1.04 26 27 23 24 25 26 23 24 31 32 24 25 20 21 30 31 28 29 29 30 26 27 30 31 30 31 25 26
15 0.988 26 26 26 25 26 26 23 23 34 32 27 27 20 20 32 32 31 30 34 34 30 29 32 32 32 31 27 26
16.5 0.942 28 26 27 25 27 26 27 26 36 34 29 27 22 20 35 33 35 32 37 35 30 28 37 35 32 31 32 30
18 0.912 29 25 28 25 28 26 27 26 29 34 30 27 24 20 38 33 38 35 38 35 32 29 42 38 33 31 34 31
19.5 0.866 30 26 28 24 29 25 27 26 40 35 31 27 24 20 42 35 40 35 40 35 34 29 41 35 34 31 36 31
21 0.834 31 26 29 24 29 25 29 26 46 35 32 27 26 21 46 36 42 35 43 35 38 29 42 35 35 30 38 32
22.5
24
25.5
27
28.5
30

Table A2.4: Corrected N’ Values (Jafargonj – Bachamara Section)

JB-1 JB-2 JB-3 JB-4 JB-5 JB-6 JB-7 JB-8 JB-9 JB-10
Conversion
´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´
Factor
Depth
1.5 1.5 4 5 8 10 2 3 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 5 6 4 5 5 6
3 1.5 2 3 12 15 2 5 2 3 10 12 8 12 15 7 9 2 3 10 12
4.5 1.44 3 4 13 16 4 3 4 5 13 15 15 14 17 8 10 9 11 14 17
6 1.25 5 6 15 19 6 7 14 17 17 16 20 13 16 13 16 7 9
7.5 1.12 19 21 17 19 3 4 12 13 15 17 22 18 20 14 16 13 15 8 9
9 1.02 24 24 16 16 3 4 15 15 22 22 25 21 21 16 16 15 15 13 13
10.5 0.945 10 9 20 19 4 4 17 16 24 23 27 22 21 18 17 18 17 14 13
12 1.105 24 26 7 8 17 18 26 29 27 26 28 22 24 24 26 22 24
13.5 1.04 27 28 26 27 15 16 20 21 28 29 27 26 26 22 23 30 31 25 26
15 0.988 31 31 29 29 22 22 18 18 30 30 29 26 26 26 26 34 34 29 29
16.5 0.942 33 22 30 28 28 26 22 21 32 30 296 29 27 27 25 38 36 29 27
18 0.912 34 31 31 28 28 25 23 21 34 31 30 30 27 30 27 40 36 29 26
19.5 0.866 34 32 32 28 33 28 24 21 36 31 31 31 26 32 28 42 34 32 28
21 0.834 37 33 33 287 34 28 27 22 38 33 32 32 26 36 30 48 40 34 28
22.5
24
25.5
27
28.5
30

Page 37

Appendix 3: Standard Penetration Test

As indicated earlier Standard penetration test (SPT) were carried out at an interval of 1.5 m. for the full
depth of exploration of each bore hole.

The SPT field values are in number of blows/ 300mm penetration. The field results are affected by over
burden stress, energy losses, non‐standard equipment and operators. In order to take this into
consideration for assessments of liquefaction and stability analysis, corrected version of N‐values is
used. The method of N value correction is in accordance with that described in bowels (1996) in the
present report; corrected value has been evaluated using the following equation:

1.14
, , 1
96.76 .

The N‐ Value corrected values are estimated accordingly to the above equation. The values N’ are
presented as annexure in table.





Final Report, Annex F2
Technical Designs for Tranche‐1 Work

September 2013



Table of Content
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Geo‐technical Investigation ............................................................................................................... 2
2 Study sites with and Soil Data ........................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Borehole Location .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Field and Laboratory Tests ................................................................................................................. 7
2.3 Discussion of Results ........................................................................................................................ 10
3 Sub‐Soil Profile ............................................................................................................................. 11
4 Embankment stability .................................................................................................................. 16
4.1 Introductory Remarks ...................................................................................................................... 16
4.2 Stability Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 17
4.3 Settlement (of foundation soil beneath embankment) ................................................................... 18
4.4 Check for seepage flow .................................................................................................................... 20
4.5 Check for horizontal sliding/pore water pressure within the embankment ................................... 20
4.6 Stability against Earthquake/Check for liquefactions ...................................................................... 21
5 Riverbank Stability ....................................................................................................................... 22
5.1 Data and calculation method ........................................................................................................... 22
5.1.1 Slope angles and Soil characteristics .................................................................................... 22
5.1.2 Calculation method ............................................................................................................... 23
5.2 Calculated Scenarios ........................................................................................................................ 24
5.2.1 Existing Riverbank ................................................................................................................. 24
5.2.2 Designed river bank .............................................................................................................. 25
5.3 Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 28
6 Summery RBP .............................................................................................................................. 29
6.1 General Geotechnical features ........................................................................................................ 29
6.2 Flood embankment stability ............................................................................................................ 29
6.3 Riverbank Protection ....................................................................................................................... 29
7 References ................................................................................................................................... 30
1 Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................... 45
1.1 PPTA Outline .................................................................................................................................... 45
1.2 Physical Environment ....................................................................................................................... 45
1.3 Design Issues and Principles ............................................................................................................ 46
1.4 Locations of selected interventions ................................................................................................. 47
1.4.1 The Priority Works under Tranche‐1 ..................................................................................... 47
1.4.1.1 Jamuna Right Bank‐1 (JRB‐1) ............................................................................................ 47
1.4.1.2 Jamuna Left Bank‐2 & Padma Left Bank‐1 (JLB‐2 & PLB‐1) ............................................... 48
1.5 Components under the Planned Program ....................................................................................... 48
2 Embankments .............................................................................................................................. 49
2.1 Embankment Location ..................................................................................................................... 49
2.2 Subsoil Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 49
2.2.1 General Soil Characteristics in Bangladesh ........................................................................... 49
2.2.2 Subsoil Investigations Conducted by BWDB ......................................................................... 49
2.2.3 Sub‐soil Profiles ..................................................................................................................... 51
2.3 Stability Analysis for Embankments ................................................................................................. 51
2.3.1 Outline of Analysis ................................................................................................................ 51
2.3.2 Assumptions for Embankment Material ............................................................................... 51
2.3.3 Results of Analysis ................................................................................................................. 52
2.3.4 Embankment Alignment and Cross Sections ........................................................................ 52
2.3.5 Crest level of Embankment ................................................................................................... 54
2.3.6 Set Back ................................................................................................................................. 55
2.3.7 New Embankment ................................................................................................................. 55
2.3.8 Re‐Sectioning of Embankment .............................................................................................. 55

Page 41
2.3.9 Road over the embankment ................................................................................................. 56
3 Drainage Provisions ...................................................................................................................... 57
3.1 Drainage Channels/Khals ................................................................................................................. 57
3.2 Drainage Structures ......................................................................................................................... 57
3.3 Design Criteria for Hydraulic Structures .......................................................................................... 58
3.3.1 General .................................................................................................................................. 58
3.3.2 Design Flood Frequency ........................................................................................................ 58
3.3.3 Crest level of Structure ......................................................................................................... 59
3.3.4 Design of hydraulic structures (Drainage cum flushing Regulator) ...................................... 59
3.3.5 Setting out Invert Level of Structure ..................................................................................... 59
3.3.6 Hydrological Design ............................................................................................................... 59
3.3.7 Fixation of Vent Size and Design Discharge .......................................................................... 60
3.3.8 Drainage capacity of regulators ............................................................................................ 61
3.3.9 Hydraulic Design ................................................................................................................... 62
3.3.10 Energy dissipation arrangement ........................................................................................... 63
3.3.11 Structural Design ................................................................................................................... 64
4 Riverbank Protection Works ......................................................................................................... 65
4.1 Proposed Works ............................................................................................................................... 65
4.2 Hydrological Observations ............................................................................................................... 65
4.3 Data for Bank/Slope Protection ....................................................................................................... 66
4.4 Elements of Slope Protection .......................................................................................................... 67
4.5 Design Discharges ............................................................................................................................ 67
4.5.1 Total River Discharges and Number of Channels .................................................................. 67
4.5.2 Flow Distribution in anabranches ......................................................................................... 68
4.6 Design Water Level .......................................................................................................................... 69
4.7 Flow Velocity .................................................................................................................................... 69
4.7.1 Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 69
4.7.2 Brahmaputra‐Jamuna River .................................................................................................. 70
4.7.3 Padma River .......................................................................................................................... 70
4.8 Size of bed material ......................................................................................................................... 71
4.8.1 Bed material for Brahmaputra‐Jamuna ................................................................................ 71
4.8.1.1 Scour at Brahmaputra‐Jamuna ......................................................................................... 71
4.8.2 Bed material for Padma ........................................................................................................ 72
4.8.2.1 Scour at Harirampur .......................................................................................................... 72
4.9 Waves ............................................................................................................................................... 72
4.10 Design Cross Section ........................................................................................................................ 72
4.11 Selection of Type of Bank Protection ............................................................................................... 73
4.12 Size and thickness of protection element: ....................................................................................... 73
4.13 Size of Elements for Bank Protection ............................................................................................... 74
4.13.1 Slope Protection above av.LWL: ........................................................................................... 74
4.13.2 Under Water Slope Protection: ............................................................................................. 74
4.13.3 Launching Apron: .................................................................................................................. 74
5 Estimate ....................................................................................................................................... 75
6 Alternate Approach for Protection ............................................................................................... 76
1 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 133
1.1 Design Life ...................................................................................................................................... 133
1.2 Standards and Design Guidelines .................................................................................................. 133
1.3 General Approach .......................................................................................................................... 134
1.4 Hydrology and Hydraulic Parameters ............................................................................................ 134
1.4.1 River Discharge and Flood Level ......................................................................................... 134
1.4.2 Flow velocity ....................................................................................................................... 136
1.4.3 Wind‐Generated Waves ...................................................................................................... 136
1.4.4 Freeboard ............................................................................................................................ 138
1.5 Scour .............................................................................................................................................. 138


1.6 Design of Erosion Protection Counter‐Measures .......................................................................... 138
1.6.1 Slope Protection – River Currents ....................................................................................... 138
1.6.2 Scour Protection Apron ....................................................................................................... 138
1.6.3 Erosion Protection Waves ................................................................................................... 139
1.7 Slope Stability................................................................................................................................. 139
2 Drainage and Flushing Structures ............................................................................................... 140
2.1 Draining Capacity ........................................................................................................................... 140
2.2 Hydraulic and Structural Details .................................................................................................... 140
1. General ...................................................................................................................................... 143
2. Generation of Waves: ................................................................................................................ 146
3. Transition zone (Shoaling and Refraction) .................................................................................. 152
4. Wind Conditions in Bangladesh .................................................................................................. 153
4.1 General ........................................................................................................................................... 153
4.2 Previous Studies ............................................................................................................................. 153
4.3 JMREMP Study ............................................................................................................................. 154
5. Waves on Rivers ......................................................................................................................... 165
6. Waves at PIRDP and MDIP .......................................................................................................... 166

Appendices

Appendix I: Sample Design Calculation for Bank Protection Works at Chouhali .................................. 78
Appendix II: Sample Design Calculation for Regulator at Gala (4V‐ 1.5m x 1.8m) ................................. 93
Appendix III: The Preliminary Estimates for Tranch‐1, Tranch‐2 and Tranch‐3 .................................... 122
Appendix IV: Design Criteria .................................................................................................................. 131
Appendix V: Road on the Land‐Side of Rehabilitated or Reconstructed Embankment ....................... 172
Appendix VI: Comment Matrix ............................................................................................................. 198
(In Separate Volume).

Page 43
Tables

Table 3‐1: Provides key design considerations for this feasibility level study: .......................................... 58
Table 3‐2: Conditions of flow .................................................................................................................... 60
Table 4‐1: Bankfull Discharge of Major Rivers .......................................................................................... 67
Table 4‐2: The Simulated flow distribution along anabranches of the Jamuna under hydrological
condition (a) & (b) ...................................................................................................................................... 68
Table 4‐3: Measured Velocity in Bahadurabad, Jamuna .......................................................................... 70
Table 4‐4: Limits of Standard Bank Protection Structures ........................................................................ 70
Table 4‐5: Empirical multiplying factors for maximum scour depth......................................................... 71
Table 4‐7 Quantities adopted for the design ......................................................................................... 75
Table 4-1: Wind speed and direction reported by Halcrow (1994)4: ...................................................... 153
Table 4-2: Average Wind Speed from 1996-2005 ................................................................................... 155
Table 6-1: Wave height calculation for several wind speeds and fetch length ........................................ 166
Table 6-2: Wave estimation for PIRDP site ............................................................................................. 168
Table 6-3: Wave estimation for MDIP site .............................................................................................. 170

Figures
Figure 2‐1 Location of BWDB boreholes ............................................................................................ 50
Figure 2‐2: Embankment section with and without Temp Settlement area....................................... 54
Figure 2‐3 Long section of embankment alignment showing the 100 yr. HWL and embankment crest
level ........................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 3‐1 Showing the location of all proposed regulators under Tranch‐1 (JRB‐1) ........................ 62
Figure 3‐2 Long section of Regulator showing water levels in R/S and C/S ....................................... 63
Figure 3‐3 Long section of Regulator showing basin and flexible protection at end ......................... 64
Figure 4‐1 Showing Locations of Bank Protection Works under Tranch‐1 ........................................ 65
Figure 4‐2 Envelope cure of measured cross‐sections ....................................................................... 73

1 Introduction and Background
1.1 PPTA Outline
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is undertaking a feasibility assessment of a flood and riverbank
erosion risk management program covering parts of the main rivers of Bangladesh, funded by the Japan
Fund for Poverty Reduction (JFPR). The objective of the Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk
Management Program (MRP) is to reduce the riverbank erosion and flood risks to the adjacent flood
plains while maximizing economic activities in a sustainable and environmentally acceptable manner.
Existing flood embankments dominantly fail from riverbank erosion, and as such the stabilization of the
river pattern is a cornerstone of reducing the flood risk. The MRP builds on and extends the activities of
the Jamuna‐Meghna River Erosion Mitigation Project (JMREMP) (ADB, 2002), implemented in different
phases from January 2003 until June 2011. In addition, a similar project, the Assam Integrated Flood
and Riverbank Erosion Risk Management Investment Project (AIFRERMIP) (ADB, 2010) provides
important insight into a number of relevant project elements and processes especially integrating
disaster risk management measures related to the flood and riverbank erosion risk under the dictate of
the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) framework.

1.2 Physical Environment
The topography of Bangladesh is mainly comprised of the fertile alluvial floodplains of three large rivers
namely Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna with over 92% of their catchments situated outside the
country. These three rivers combine within the country to form the Lower Meghna, which drains into
the Bay of Bengal via a constantly changing network of estuaries, tidal creeks and active deltaic
coastline of the Bay. More than fifty other mid‐sized rivers also flow through Bangladesh and drain into
the Bay of Bengal. Out of this river network the planned program envisages to cover the main rivers
from Jamuna Bridge to Chandpur.

Past efforts to mitigate flood damages by building flood embankments along some of the main rivers
had limited success. A major contributing factor to failure was the ongoing channel instability and river
bank erosion that caused embankments to fail by breaching or required the embankments be retired.
Brahmaputra Right Flood Embankment (BRE) built in late 1960s for a length of about 217 km (from
Kaunia, Rangpur to Bherakhola, Pabna) needed retirement for about 70 km in different places. Even at
present about 16.00 km of embankment is still open. Existing flood embankments failed due to
riverbank erosion, and as such the stabilization of the river pattern is a cornerstone for reducing the
flood risk. To add stability to the embankment an integrated approach, involving channel stabilization
and flood mitigation, is required.

Riverbank erosion is one of the major natural disasters in Bangladesh causing untold miseries every year
to thousands of people living along the banks of major rivers of Bangladesh. Bank erosion has rendered
millions homeless and is a major social hazard. In 2011, the Brahmaputra‐Jamuna, the Ganges and the
Padma eroded about 3600 ha of land, 400 ha of settlement, 2240 m of active flood embankment, 2070
m of district road, 115m m of upazila road and 4320 m of rural road (CEGIS, April 2012). Only along
Jamuna about 2000 ha of land was eroded in 2011. Brahmaputra Right Embankment, originally built to
provide flood control to 117,400 ha during the period 1963‐64 to 1967‐68 has failed to serve the
intended goal due to erosion.

The need of river training and bank protection in Bangladesh arises from the fact that most rivers of the
country are unstable, i.e. they are not in a state of equilibrium with the governing physical processes.
Both, river training and bank protection measures have the objective to ensure a safe and efficient
transport of water and sediments through a certain defined stretch of the river.

Page 45
In order to prevent or minimize the loss of valuable land, several stretches of the river banks might
need suitable protection against erosion. In this context it has to be emphasized, that in case of
planning local protection measures, the consequences must be taken into account, against a certain
response of the river, i.e. morphological changes in the vicinity or even further away from a
countermeasure, are to be expected. Protection of one place will possibly influence erosion and
bankline shifting at other locations. From that point of view, only absolutely necessary measures are
considered.

In addition to loss of valuable land by erosion, the damages are caused to crops due to high flood depth
and early flood in the lower flood plains, deposition of sand on the agricultural fields and sediment
deposition on river route are the additional hazards due to erosion associated with flood.

1.3 Design Issues and Principles
The project builds on and extends the activities of Jamuna‐Meghna River Erosion Mitigation Projects
(JMREMP) (ADB, 2002), implemented from January 2003 to June 2011. In addition to taking account of
the experiences from JMREMP, the project records the earlier efforts made by BWDB in controlling
flood and takes account of experience gained under earlier and recent attempts for stabilizing the river
and reducing the flood damages.

In the recent days flood damages are on the rise in Bangladesh due to increase in population density
and increased infrastructure in vulnerable areas. It is observed that the reliable structural and non‐
structural measures reduces flood and erosion damages and retains benefit to the local population.

The experience gained under different projects through interventions on major rivers, documented in
the Guidelines for River Bank Protection, 2010, also point to a vision to be chosen for stabilization of the
river. Experience gained from different ongoing and past initiatives in this respect has also been and is
being taken into consideration in formulating the design under this project.

BWDB, under JMREMP, has built 10.0 km of riverbank protection from Koizuri towards the Hurasagar
River. JMREMP originally provided 7.0 km of protection along the bank of Brahmaputra‐Jamuna from
Kaitala to Mohanpur. The executed bank protection along the two reaches has contributed to the
stabilization of navigation channel towards Baghabari Port. Substantial reduction of the annual
dredging volume for the channel access to the Baghabari Port may be due to the protection work
executed under JMREMP.

The introduction of low cost and sustainable bank protection technology along with flood management
applications in JMREMP (ADB, 2002) shall be the major tool for accruing benefit from the gift of nature
i.e. the river.

The present project is intended to build on JMREMP designs, Guideline for Bank Protection, 2010
approved and lessons from Padma Bridge design.

Activities to date, have concentrated on arresting riverbank erosion along one bank, while future
activities need to focus on river stabilization and consequently both banks at the same time. The
systematic river stabilization provides Bangladesh also with the long cherished opportunity to regain
some of the lost floodplain land, while at the same time providing additional natural zones to improve
the stressed river habitats.

The PPTA consultant team assessed the vulnerability of each location along the major rivers and
prioritized the work to be taken under the project. After collecting the data from the field the following
criteria was prepared to rank the intervention for the priority investment program under tranch‐1.
 Embankment breach length and location

 Erosion length
 Existing rate of bank erosion
 Requirement of Bank Protection Work
 Location within a risk zone
 Drainage congestion area
 Flood area
 Opinion of stakeholder in terms of vulnerability
 Estimated Rehabilitation cost of each intervention

1.4 Locations of selected interventions
The program will focus on the selected reaches of the main rivers‐Brahmaputra‐Jamuna, Ganges and
Padma River. The primary focus of the program is riverbank erosion and flood risk management along
the Jamuna River downstream of Bangabandhu (Jamuna) Bridge, Padma River from the Jamuna
confluence to Upper Meghna confluence and the Ganges River downstream of proposed Ganges
Barrage. The data for the whole affected reaches (erosion, flood, sand casting etc.) were collected from
primary and secondary sources. The activities under the project has been grouped under three tranches
namely Tranch‐1, Tranch‐2 and Tranch‐3. Priority selection under tranch‐1 has been made on multi
criteria analysis (MCA) conducted on all the problems identified on the whole reach.

1.4.1 The Priority Works under Tranche‐1
Right Bank of Brahmaputra‐Jamuna (JRB1)
(i) Embankment from Koizuri to Hurasagar outfall (new): 12.50 km
(ii) Embankment from Hurasagar outfall to Shahjadpur (rehabilitation): 16.50 km
(iii) Bank protection near Hurasagar (Benotia) Outfall: 1.00 km

Left Bank of Brahmaputra‐Jamuna (JLB‐2)
(iv) Bank Protection in Chouhali‐Nagarpur: 5.0 km
(v) Bank Protection in Jafarganj‐Bachamara: 2.0 km

Left Bank of Padma (PLB‐1)
(vi) Bank Protection in Harirampur area: 7.0 km
1.4.1.1 Jamuna Right Bank‐1 (JRB‐1)
(right bank of Jamuna River downstream of Jamuna Bridge)

The Brahmaputra‐Jamuna flows as straight channel downstream of Jamuna Bridge for about 15 km
along the left bank. As a consequence an about 15 km long and 5 km wide stable attached char has
formed along the right bank. The channel bifurcates into a western and eastern branch near Enayetpur,
the eastern one presently being dominant. This bifurcation appears to be stable.

The major area in the right bank downstream of Enayetpur was protected by the Brahmaputra Right
Embankment (BRE), which has been eroded over a length of around 12 km at the downstream end. The
breach has brought the once protected area back to the natural cycle of flooding, with substantial
deposition of sand along the riverbanks.

In the study area the reach severely affected by flood and sand deposition is the zone from Koizuri to
Hurasagar off take along Brahmaputra‐Jamuna River, where BRE is already eroded and the zone from
Hurasagar off take to Shahjadpur along Hurasagar River, where the existing embankment is eroded in
several reaches and in very bad shape in some other reaches. The embankment along Jamuna in this
reach is to be reconstructed and the embankment along Hurasagar and Karotoa River need to be
rehabilitated in some reaches and reconstructed in other reaches.

Page 47

The reconstruction and rehabilitation of the embankment along the area mentioned will lead to
reconstruction of regulators already eroded and also meet the deficiency of drainage and flushing
requirement felt during the project operation period.

A major portion of the bankline of this reach along Jamuna river is protected against bank erosion under
JMREMP.
1.4.1.2 Jamuna Left Bank‐2 & Padma Left Bank‐1 (JLB‐2 & PLB‐1)
(JLB2: left bank of Jamuna River downstream of Dhaleshwari offtake to Jamuna‐Ganges confluence;
PLB1: left bank of Padma River just downstream of Jamuna‐Ganges confluence)

The other areas of interest are in the left bank of Brahmaputra‐Jamuna and left bank of Padma affected
by erosion, flood and sand deposition. Bank protection in all these areas is given preference over flood
management measures, which are planned to commence in Tranche‐2.

The remaining area affected by flood, sand deposition and erosion will likely be included under the
project through studies conducted under different tranches and prioritization fixed through MCA.

1.5 Components under the Planned Program
In general, the following works are involved in the project under tranche1:

 Embankments:
o Construction of embankment
o Re‐sectioning of embankment
o Repair of existing drainage structure (if repairable)
o Replacement/Construction of drainage cum flushing regulators
o Alternative drainage/flushing structures.
 Bank Protection and River Training works
o Underwater works consisting of geobags
o above water works (wave protection) consisting of concrete blocks/slabs
o buoys for navigation purposes along the protected riverbanks and protection of fish

2 Embankments
2.1 Embankment Location
The embankment in the right bank of Brahmaputra‐Jamuna river from Koizuri to Hurasagar outfall will
be reconstructed following a retired alignment. The embankment under Hurasagar sub‐project, from
Bherakhola to Karotoa river also need to be rehabilitated and reconstructed as needed to serve the
project requirement. The preliminary design of the embankment along Brahmaputra‐Jamuna is
prepared to protect the area against flood with a free board of 1.5m on 100 year HF and that along
Hurasagar is designed on 100 year HFL with 1.0m free board.

In designing the embankment emphasis on the impact of HWL as well as climate change scenario have
been considered. During the design of embankments, due consideration on the causes of its failure has
also been given.

2.2 Subsoil Conditions
2.2.1 General Soil Characteristics in Bangladesh
Bangladesh consists primarily of deltaic alluvial sediments of the big rivers Ganges, Padma,
Brahmaputra/ Jamuna, Meghna and their tributaries. The basins of the Brahmaputra/Jamuna and the
Ganges are bounded to the tectonically highly active Himalayas mountain ranges, which are subject to
severe erosion contributing to the heavy sediment load in the Ganges and the Brahmaputra/ Jamuna
river. The entire country of Bangladesh is a part of the Bengal basin, filled in the tertiary quaternary
geological period. The basin is an area of subsidence, which is balanced by the deposition of sediments
supplied by its river system.

The floodplain of the main rivers consist of recently deposited sediments. The oscillation zone of these
rivers consists of alluvial sand and is covered by alluvial silt or deltaic silt. In general, alluvial sediments
ranges from fine silt to gravel, whereas a large part (about 60 to 85% of the total volume) of the
sediment load in all rivers of Bangladesh consists of silty materials. The recent sediments near the
present courses of the major rivers can physically be classified as:
 Alluvial sand,
 Alluvial silt,
 Alluvial silt and clay,
 Marsh and clay peat,
 Deltaic sand and
 Deltaic silt.

2.2.2 Subsoil Investigations Conducted by BWDB
A soil exploration program was undertaken to investigate the sub soil condition at the selected project
sites for Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk Management Program.

Accordingly, for the preliminary project formulation and feasibility study; a number of bore‐holes were
explored through the Ground Water Hydrology Division of BWDB, during November 2011 to February
2012.

The locations of executed bore holes are (Figure 2‐1):
 At right bank of river Jamuna from Bherakhola to Baghabari port and Benotia Bazar to
Bherakhola a total of 40BH designated as KH‐1 to KH‐40 in Sirajganj District.
 At right bank of Jamuna from Enayetpur to Koizuri, a total of 14 BH designated as EK‐1 to EK‐14
in Sirajganj District.

Page 49
 At left bank of Jamuna in Chouhali‐Nagarpur, 19 BH designated as CN.1 to CN.19, in Tangail
District
 At left Bank of Jamuna in Jafarganj ‐ Bachamara, a total of 10 BH designated as JB‐1 to JB‐10
under Manikganj District.

Figure 2‐1: Location of BWDB boreholes
Depth of Bore‐hole, locations with co‐ordinates and BH locations on satellite images are shown in
Annex F1.

2.2.3 Sub‐soil Profiles
The general observation on soil strata is:
 The sub‐surface soil formation is a two layer system.
 In general in all four section, the upper layer consists of fine grained soil of low to inter‐mediate
plasticity with few exceptions where in it is referred to as plastic, semi‐plastic or even non‐
plastic (up‐to above RL+ 4 to+ 5m PWD). Broadly Classified as CL‐ML type soil
 The lower part (i.e. below + 4 to + 5m PWD) mainly consists of very fine to fine to medium
grained sands up‐to depth of exploration. Very thin film of mica mineral in traces were also
encountered at varying depths.

A generalized summary of drilling at the project locations show a upper clay‐silt or silt‐clay layers
referred to in the this report as CL‐ML (often found to be CH‐MH) which consists of silt clay / clayey silt
with low to medium plasticity. Below the upper clayey layer fine grained and poorly graded sand,
referred to as SP/SM or FS sometimes very fine sand, VFS of medium compactness. The sand strata has
general trend of mild increase in density from medium to dense becoming very dense at depth around
30m and below. (As evident from BH Logs)

The observed slope inclination at river in sand is found to be 1:2.5‐1:3 for about 50% of the project area
which is expected with limit equilibrium condition. The angle of internal friction, which is the shear
strength of sand in these case are   28 ‐ 30 with very low effective cohesion estimated at c=2‐4 kpa.
2.3 Stability Analysis for Embankments
2.3.1 Outline of Analysis
On the basis of the result of geotechnical investigation carried out by BWDB, some preliminary stability
analysis was carried for the proposed flood protection embankment and bank slope. The slope
protection and erosion control of the vulnerable river bank is not considered here and are addressed
separately at a later stage.
For the purpose of analysis the following assumptions are made:
 dredged fill material for embankment (core) construction
 embankment height 4m‐ 6m (i.e. 5m on average)
 compacted fine sand with angle of internal friction = 28 to 30; used 30

 embankment slope: 1V:3H and 1V:2.5H
 a factor safely fs ≥ 1.4 has been considered as standard in line with previous project designs for
river bank stability (PIRDP).

2.3.2 Assumptions for Embankment Material
To ensure least usage of valuable land, specially the top soil, borrow pits are avoided. In this case bulk
fill material is river sand. Because of scarcity of land, especially agricultural land, embankment core is
proposed to be built with dredged river sand. Minimum 60 cm thick clay cladding over the core surface
shall protect the embankment against weather action. The clay material is proposed to be collected
from base excavation or from local selected soil or carried far away from construction area. So no
borrow pits are proposed.
 Dredged soil from river bed
 River bed material mainly fine sand/ very fine sand with silt/ silty fine sand/ silt with very fine
sand occasional at shallow depths.
 The feature of predominant fine particles is observed at shallow depths (5‐7m).
 Compacted fill material have angle of internal friction φ=28‐30
 Slope angle , i.e. slope 1V:3H, 1V:2.5H and 1V:2H

Page 51
2.3.3 Results of Analysis
tan 
Under normal conditions: Factor of safety against failure, fs = ; Ø 28° to 30°, use 30°
tan 
For Ø 28° , F.S (for 1:3) = 1.6 and for Ø 30°, F.S (for 1:3) = 1.7
For Ø 28° , F.S (for 1:2.5) = 1.33 and for Ø 30°, F.S (for 1:2.5) = 1.44

From the analysis, it would appear that although under normal conditions slope provision of 1V:3H and
1V:2H are adequate, protective measure against seepage flow will be required for construction of
embankment considering the fact that the only material available cheaply and in abundant quantity is
very fine sand with little to some silt/clay.

At this stage, under the circumstances discussed above the proposed embankment configuration
considered from stability and safety consideration can be silty fine sand materials with clay‐cladding all
around as shown in fig.1 (a).

It is also proposed to consider slope of the embankment as 1:3 as the preferred option. However, it is
also possible to use different slopes at riverside at the second option for the flood embankment
configuration as shown in fig.1 (b).

2.3.4 Embankment Alignment and Cross Sections
The alignment of an embankment is governed mainly by technical, economical and morphological
considerations. Economically the best alignment is that, which can be built efficiently, requiring least
land acquisition, causes minimum social impact, uses locally available suitable material and protects
land area as much as possible. For this project, the following points have been kept in consideration
while finalizing the alignment of the embankment:
 As far as possible, it has been kept in consideration that the existing alignment of embankment,
wherever available, is followed to avoid additional land acquisition and relocation of existing
infrastructure and settlements.
 Set back is carefully fixed considering available bank protection and erosion rate of the river
bank.
 The alignment is preferred to pass over the area, where bulk of fill material/earth is available
for construction of the embankment.
 Sharp corners (bends) in the alignment is avoided not at last for improved road communication.
The minimum radius of curves shall be 250m.
 Due attention is given for avoiding blockage of the existing transportation system.
 Alignment is preferred to run as far as possible along the higher ground elevation and not
across depressions.

The following technical aspects were considered for the embankments:
 Along the protected bankline the setback distance is as minimal as possible. Minimum setback
distance is 35m, in consideration of not to impose any additional load on the bank slope and to
have sufficient setback distance if local failures occur.
 Mechanical compaction is proposed in embankment construction/ re‐construction.
 The core of embankment will be constructed with dredged sand/silt (dredged from the nearby
river). The selection of dredged soil as fill material is made as per provision of BWDB Design
Manual and Govt. decision. The section has been designed accordingly to save valuable
agricultural land.

 A clay cladding (minimum 60 cm thick) around the exposed surfaces shall be provided to
protect the embankment against rain cut and weathering action. The amount of clay for clay
cladding shall be available from the base excavation of the embankment.
 10m wide roadway to accommodate a 5.5 carriage way (2‐lane rural road) with paved shoulder
and grass verge as per specification of RHD shall be constructed on embankment.
 an RCC road (2.8m wide) will be constructed on 3.2 m wide crest for plying non motorized
vehicle (NMV). The RCC road will also be used for maintenance of the flood embankment. The
crest allows raising of embankment height due to climate change without disturbing the normal
traffic along the roadway.

Embankment section is designed to fulfill the following criteria:
 The side slope of embankment on country side should remain stable during steady seepage at
design high water level
 The side slope of embankment on river side must be stable during rapid drawdown conditions,
where these prevails
 Phreatic line i.e. top hydraulic gradient line should be well within the downstream face so that
no sloughing of the slope takes place.
 Sufficient 'Free Board' must be provided to avoid the possibility of over topping during the
design flood.
 The u/s and d/s slope should be flat enough, so as to provide sufficient base width at the
foundation level, such that the maximum shear stress developed remains well below the
corresponding maximum shear strength of the soil. For this a suitable factor of safety should be
provided.
 River side slope is stable against wave run up in case no treatment is anticipated

On the whole the embankment section itself shall be stable against imposed hydraulic, seismic and
other anticipated external loads.

For comparison the recommended section in BRE is :

Fulchari‐Sirajganj: (top width; 24.0 ft = 7.3m, Side slope:1V: 3H both side); Sirajganj‐ Bherakhola
(Sirajganj): top width: 14.0 ft (4.3m), Side Slope: 1V:3H. Very recently the crest width of embankment
from Sirajganj to Enayetpur is extended to accommodate a two lane road with some provision of non‐
motorized vehicle (NMV).

The designed section shall also withstand toe scour and slope erosion due to incident waves during
stormy weather. The climate computations are based on IPCC predictions for 2050; 0.50m sea levels
rise.

The design has been carried out considering the technical feasibility, satisfying the requirements of
economic viability, social and environmental acceptability. In selected locations a berm is provided at
the river side of embankment allowing some provision of temporary shelter for erosion and flood
victims. The selected cross sections are depicted in Figure 2‐2.

Page 53

Figure 2‐2: Embankment section with and without Temp Settlement area.

A long section showing the elevation (DEM) along the embankment alignment is shown in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2‐3: Long section of embankment alignment showing the 100 yr. HWL and
embankment crest level

2.3.5 Crest level of Embankment
The embankment is designed to keep selected flood heights (100 year HFL with incident waves) and
overtopping water out of the project area.

As per Design Manual (BWDB) the embankment along all the major rivers shall be constructed with 100
year HFL+ 1.5 m free board. Accordingly the embankments along Brahmaputra‐Jamuna and Padma is
proposed with a crest level of 100 year HFL+1.5 m Free Board.

The embankments along Hurasagar upto a length of 5.5km from the outfall of Hurasagar at Jamuna
shall have 1.5m free board over 100 year HFL (100 year HFL in Jamuna is 13.30 and that at Baghabari in
Baral is 13.60m PWD). The embankment along Hurasagar Baral at Baghabari shall have free board of 1.0
m over 50 year HFL (13.20m PWD) and the rest embankment along Karotoa river shall have a free board
of 1.0 m over 50 year HFL (13.20m PWD). The crest level of embankment from 5500m to 9500 m along
Hurasagar shall have smooth transition.

2.3.6 Set Back
Set back is the distance between river bank and river side toe of the embankment. The setback has
been determined considering the following criteria;
 At places where erosion has taken place over past years, a setback is based on the erosion rate.
An extra margin equivalent to 10 years of the present erosion rate is added to the minimum
setback to be applied, if immediate bank protection is not intended.
 At places where a bank protection is provided or already exists, set back selection takes
account only to avoid surcharge due to embankment loading and allowance for emergency
repair of protection works.
 Where embankments are to be provided on both sides of a river, the minimum setback should
be determined from the floodway requirement to pass the design flood under confined
conditions.
 If the above criteria cannot be attained, a minimum setback (as per standard norm) from the
eroded bank are kept, but bank protection works are proposed to be provided.

2.3.7 New Embankment
A new embankment run along a new track further inland from the old (damaged by erosion)
embankment. The alignment of this embankment will merge smoothly with the existing portion of the
old embankment. At certain locations of the existing embankment, where embankment has already got
breached or threatened to be breached in near future due to river action, there is a need to construct a
new embankment.

The new embankment proposed under the project (Tranche 1) is from Koizuri to Hurasagar outfall
(about 12.5 km) along right bank of Brahmaputra‐Jamuna, and 6.0 km along left bank of Hurasagar at
different stretches (already eroded) from Hurasagar outfall to Korotoa outfall. The embankment as
described earlier accommodates a 5.5m carriage way plus 1.50m wide shoulders inside the protected
area and a 2.8m RCC road along the crest for non‐motorized vehicle (NMV).

2.3.8 Re‐Sectioning of Embankment
Due to lowering of embankment by weathering action or by wave erosion or due to settlement the
existing embankment sections have become under designed section at many locations. Also due to
various past natural calamities and non‐maintenance for a long time, the existing embankment sections
have deteriorated at many locations. The consideration for global warming and climate change, added
need to safeguard areas against selected flood events. In addition to create a provision for a 2‐lane
carriage way the re‐design of embankments is necessary. Therefore, design for re‐sectioning of the
existing damaged or deteriorated embankment has been carried out to serve the present need and safe
guard the project area.

Page 55
The re‐sectioning of embankment is proposed for a length of about 10.5 km along the left bank of
Hurasagar and left bank of Karotoa. The re‐sectioning mostly follows the old Hurasagar sub‐project
embankment. The embankment shall be rehabilitated to accommodate the 5.5m carriage way and NMV
as provided for the new embankment.

2.3.9 Road over the embankment
Rural Road: On the inner top of embankment a rural road having 5.5m carriage way plus 2x1.5m paved
shoulder and 2x0.75m verge is proposed to be constructed. The rural road will have a flexible pavement
with 0.2m sub‐grade, 0.2m sub‐base, 0.15m aggregate base type‐II and base course, prime coat and
bituminous tack coat as per rural road standard specification.

NMV Road: On the crest of embankment a 2.8m wide RCC carriageway shall be built for non motorised
vehicle (NMV). This road is proposed to be used also for maintenance of the embankment during
emergency without disturbing the regular traffic.

Gras stone: This is a concrete slab (40x40x15cm) with 4 holes of size 12.5x12.5cm. The gras stone blocks
will be placed along both the slope of the crest up to 1.2 m below crest in the country side and 1.5m
below crest in the river side of the embankment. The gras stone will allow grass to grow through its
holes but resist any damage attempt by the people.

3 Drainage Provisions
3.1 Drainage Channels/Khals
The main function of the drainage channel/ khal is to safely drain out the design discharge or the
drainage basin runoff generated by 5‐day duration storm of 1 in 10 year frequency. In addition to that
increase for precipitation (13% by 2040) for climate change need to be taken in to account.

The design of drainage channel leading to inlet structure is the design capacity of that structure. The
design discharge of other channels is calculated as follows:

 Design discharge: Catchment area of channel x unit discharge from drainage modulus.
 Capacity of Channel: The capacity of channel is computed using Manning’s formula.

3.2 Drainage Structures
The objective of constructing flood embankment and associated structures is to protect agricultural
lands from high flood and to drain out excess precipitation from the area through designed opening i.e.
drainage sluices. The farmers use to take water into the project during winter and also during post‐
monsoon for irrigation. In view of above need, the sluices are designed for both drainage and flushing.
So a two way regulators for both drainage and flushing have been designed.

The total area under the Hurasagar sub‐project is 7895 Ha (R1 area = 10,882 acre, R2 area = 8618 acre,
Total (R1+R2) = 19500 acre = 7895 Ha). Total drainage facility provided under the project was 12 vents‐
1.5mx1.8m and 3 vents‐1.5mx1.5m. Out of total number of structures constructed under the project,
1V‐1.5mx1.8m, 2 nos and 1V‐1.5mx1.5m‐ 3 nos were totally damaged during 1998 and subsequent
floods. The fixation of invert level was also higher in the opinion of local people. To compensate for the
higher invert elevation, damaged structure and anticipated future climate change, the provision of
additional 7 vents has been kept under the study. In addition to that a 6‐vent (1.5mx1.8 m) structure is
proposed at the outfall of khal connecting Kadai Badla Bil to Jamuna with outfall at Koizuri hat.

The existing regulators of the Hurasagar sub‐project shall be repaired to serve the project. 3 regulators
are assumed to be repaired to accommodate the project need. In addition 3 regulators shall be added
to the project (1‐6 vent 1.5mx1.8m, at outfall of Hurasagar at Jamuna right bank, 1‐1 vent, 1.5mx1.8m
at offtake of new Hurasagar, entering the project area and 1‐4vent, 1.5mx1.8m additional at Hurasagar
outfall).

In using the existing regulators (repaired and rehabilitated) of Hurasagar sub‐project within the
extended embankment as proposed under the project (MRP), the embankment may need to be re‐
designed at certain stretches to accommodate the proposed embankment section.

Runoff from the catchment area (runoff isohyets) under consideration is 30 mm/day. The runoff
specified in IECO Master Plan (1964) plus 20% increase over that to account for climate change is
considered for calculating the runoff volume of the area under consideration.

The following table provides key design considerations for regulators for this feasibility level study:

Page 57
Table 3‐1: Provides key design considerations for this feasibility level study:
Location Catchment area (Ha/ventage) Location Outfall River
[Northing and Easting]
Lochna Existing (4 vent, add 2 vent); 1750 ha 461392E; 665068N Hurasagar/Boral
Gala Existing (4 vent; add 4 vent) 3550 ha 465114E; 662557N Hurasagar/Boral
Koizuri, Gopalpur 5570 (6 vent‐new) 468742E; 673594N Jamuna
Gudhibari 850 (1 vent‐new) 467619E; 671008N Jamuna

3.3 Design Criteria for Hydraulic Structures
3.3.1 General
For designing the new or rehabilitating damaged hydraulic structures falling along the alignment of an
embankment or along the alignment of drainage canals/ khals, the Internationally accepted standard
design criteria including the USBR standards and standard design manual formulated by BWDB (Volume
‐I: Standard Design Criteria) have been used.

Before starting the detail design of the hydraulic structures, a detail field survey and stakeholder
consultation was carried out in order to find prevailing drainage problems and assess the effectiveness
of drainage system under different hydrological condition. In addition, the information about the
existing hydraulic/ water control structures are collected during field survey campaign which is very
important for development of drainage model.

The various types of existing hydraulic structures under the project is given below:
 Drainage regulators
 Drainage‐cum‐flushing regulators
 Flushing inlets
 Bridges/Culverts

A drainage regulator in any basin area is generally designed to drain the excess runoff from the
catchment area up to design drainage level. The dimension/ opening vent size of a drainage regulator is
calculated based on the average design discharge. The maximum allowable storage level in the project
area is assumed as 30 cm above the design drainage level. The drainage level is selected in
consideration of the lowest level in the basin.

During certain period of the year, the drainage regulator is also used as flushing inlet to let in the river
water into the project area as required for the crop field. The project water level during these stages is
assumed to be lower than the design drainage level. All the regulators are therefore designed with the
dual purpose of flushing and drainage.

3.3.2 Design Flood Frequency
Generally for the normal flood protection works, the frequency of occurrence of floods that needs to be
selected for the design of a particular embankment depends on the acceptable extent of damage by
inundation in the locality. Considering likely agricultural damage to important installations and loss of
human lives, the following flood frequencies are usually adopted in Bangladesh;

1:20 years flood, where agricultural damage is predominant.
1:100 years flood, where loss of human lives, properties and installations are predominant.

For the purpose of this feasibility level study, the crest level was set equal to the embankment crest
level.

3.3.3 Crest level of Structure
All the structures i.e. the regulators are the integrated parts of the embankment system, the crest level
of all the regulators are maintained same as the embankment crest at the location where it is placed.

3.3.4 Design of hydraulic structures (Drainage cum flushing Regulator)
In general, the design of a hydraulic structure is carried out in three steps;

First step: hydrological analysis is carried out, which determines the design discharge of the hydraulic
structure.
Second step: hydraulic designs are carried out to determine the optimal location, configuration of
components of the structure, waterway requirement, protection against scour, seepage and uplift
pressures, energy dissipation arrangements etc.
Third step: structural designs carried out for evaluating the forces/ stresses on each component of
structures on account of dead loads, dynamic loads, seismic loads and earth pressures and each
component is designed to resist the forces and bending moments caused by all these loads.

3.3.5 Setting out Invert Level of Structure
The invert level of all the regulators are fixed mainly on the basis of drainage requirement and the
retention level desired to be maintained within the catchment. In most of the cases the need for energy
dissipation through a designed stilling basin at the both end of the structure dictates the invert level
below av. LWL in the outfall river during the drainage period.

Generally, the invert level of the drainage‐cum‐flushing regulator structure is kept 0.30 to 0.60 m higher
than the project side drainage channel/ Khal bed level. The consideration of slightly higher invert level
will help to retain water in the polder area and also it will improve the structure operation conditions by
reducing the possibility of sediment deposition in the structure conduit and secure tail water depth
during the initial stage of flushing.

3.3.6 Hydrological Design
For obtaining the design discharge of a drainage‐cum‐flushing regulator, a 5‐day duration storm of 1 in
10‐years return period expected over the catchment area has been considered, accounting the variable
country side or river side water levels during considered period. The design discharge is computed on
the basis of unit discharge for draining the catchment area with the set of drainage structures in
anticipated climate change condition.

The preliminary design of drainage‐cum‐flushing regulator has been carried out on the basis of drainage
and flushing requirement assumed for the project.

For the right bank of Jamuna, WL Gauges considered for the water level in the outfall rivers are Sirajganj
(SW 49), records available from January 1945 to September 2012 and Mathura (SW50.3), records
available from August 1964 to September 2012. The WL gauges are maintained by BWDB along the
right bank of Brahmaputra‐Jamuna.

The interpolated 100 year HWL, HWL (observed), LLWL and Av. LWL in the area of interest (Koizuri‐
Hurasagar) along the Brahmaputra‐Jamuna is 13.30 m PWD,12.90 m PWD, 3.60 m PWD, 4.20 m PWD
respectively.

Similarly for the left bank of Jamuna, WL Gauges considered for the water level in the outfall rivers are
Bangabandhu Bridge, records available from October 1994 to January 2013 and Aricha (SW 50.6),

Page 59
records available from August 1964 to August 2012. The Bangabandhu Bridge WL gauge is maintained
by BBA and Aricha gauge is maintained by BWDB.

The interpolated 100 year HWL, HWL (observed), LLWL and Av. LWL in the area of interest (Chouhali‐
Nagarpur) along the Brahmaputra‐Jamuna is 13.95 m PWD,13.10 m PWD, 4.50 m PWD, 4.95 m PWD
respectively, and those in Jafarganj‐Bachamara is 11.80 m PWD, 11.25 m PWD, 2.50 m PWD and 3.00 m
PWD respectively.

In selecting the details of drainage cum flushing regulators the av.LWL, av.HWL and average low level of
the basin are the guiding factors.

3.3.7 Fixation of Vent Size and Design Discharge
The opening size of the regulator for the drainage‐cum‐flushing regulator has been fixed in such way so
that it can safely pass the design discharge computed from the hydrological analysis. The flow through a
regulator is mainly dependent on the upstream and downstream water levels and invert level. The
discharge through a vent or orifice depends on discharge coefficient and the discharge coefficient
mainly depends on the entrance coefficient, Ke. The generalized formulae for calculating the discharge
through the square ended entrance in the various types of flow conditions are presented in table
below:

Table 3‐2: Conditions of flow
Sl. No Flow Type Flow Conditions Discharge by the formula
1 Submerged/drowned orifice H1 > H2 > V ht Q = 0.802*(B*Vht)*(2*9.81*ΔH) (0.5)
(Flow Type‐1)
2 Free orifice H1 ≥ 1.5 * V ht Q = 0.60*(B*Vht)*(2*9.81*h) (0.5)
(Flow Type‐3) & H2 ≤ V ht
3 Submerged/drowned weir H1 < 1.5 * V ht Q = 0.816*(B*d)*(2*9.81*Δh) (0.5)
(Flow Type‐4) & H2 > H c
4 Free over flow weir H1 < 1.5 * V ht Q = 0.305*(B*H1)*(2*9.81*H1) (0.5)
(Flow Type‐5) & H2 ≤ H c
Ref: Standard design manual (BWBD)

Where,
H1 = Upstream water depth above invert level
H2 = Downstream water depth above invert level
Hc = Critical water depth = (q2/g) (1/3) ; q is the discharge intensity (m3/s/m)
Vht = Vent height of the barrel
ΔH = H1 – H2
h = Measured height at the orifice center line = H1 ‐ Vht / 2
d = Depth of flow within culvert
Δh = Difference between upstream and downstream water levels within culvert = H1‐d
B = Total opening width of the barrel

For the drowned/ submerged weir type flow condition, the tail water rating curve for the outfall
drainage canal may be developed and the upstream water depth H1 is known. The two unknowns ‘Q’
and ‘d’ can be calculated by trial and error.

In the analysis, it is assumed that the only flow conditions Type‐3 and Type‐5 generate hydraulic jumps
and that necessitate a stilling basin depending upon the Froude No. (F1).

3.3.8 Drainage capacity of regulators
For computing the preliminary design capacity of a regulator the procedure followed are described
below:

Assumed runoff (30mm/day) with 20% increase due to climate change a basin of 850 ha area produces
a design discharge of 3.54 m3/sec. A regulator, 1V‐1.5mx1.8m, with invert at 7.00 m PWD and basin WL
at 8.5m PWD can drain 4.30 m3/sec with a head difference of 1.0m. The Basin WL is the minimum WL to
be drained. Under this condition the regulator can drain only 21.38% higher than the total discharge
generated in the basin.

In another exercise under the similar topographic and hydrologic condition a 3600 ha basin produces a
design discharge of 15.0 m3/sec. A regulator 4V‐1.5mx1.8m with invert at 7.00 m PWD and basin WL at
8.5 m PWD can drain 17.20 m3/sec with head difference of 1.0m. Under this condition the regulator can
drain 14.64% higher than the generated discharge. The lowest basin level being at +8.0 m to +9.0 m
PWD.

The outfall water level (average) being at 6.30 m PWD in April, 7.90 m PWD in May, 9.80 m PWD in
October and 7.60 m PWD in November allows drainage in different period when necessitates.

The head difference is assumed to be 1.0m with basin WL and corresponding river WL during the
drainage period. On the basis presented above a regulator of size 1V‐1.5mx1.8m is proposed for a basin
area of 850 ha or less. Ventage of a regulator for a catchment area may be approximately calculated as
1V‐1.5mx1.8m for each 850 ha of catchment plus one vent for any part of 850 ha for the project under
consideration.

The regulators proposed under the project on restored BRE, from Koizuri to Hurasagar (Bherakhola),
and on the flood embankment of Hurasagar sub‐project (from Bherakhola to Shahjadpur) are:

i) 6V‐1.5mx1.8m‐2 nos at Koizuri (outfall at Jamuna)
ii) 1V‐1.5mx1.8m‐1 no at Gudhibari (outfall at Jamuna)
iii) 4V‐1.5mx1.8m‐ 1 no at Gala (outfall at Hurasagar/Boral)
iv) 2V‐1.5mx1.8m‐1 no at Lochna (outfall at Hurasagar/Boral)

The locations of proposed regulators (JRB 1, Tranch‐1 ) are shown in Figure 3.1.

In addition to that 3 existing regulators at Bherakhola, Andermanik and Lochna shall be repaired and
rehabilitated under the project.

However, the selection of size shall be finalized after detail survey conducted during detail design
phase.

Page 61

Figure 3‐1: Showing the location of all proposed regulators under Tranch‐1 (JRB‐1)

3.3.9 Hydraulic Design
The hydraulic design of a structure mainly fixes the profile/dimension of the structure, which can safely
dissipate the hydraulic energy, counteract the seepage and uplift pressure, the scouring activity etc.
Generally, hydraulic structures are subjected to seepage of water beneath the structures and the water
seeping below the body of the structures that endangers its stability and may cause its failure, either
by:

 Piping or undermining
 by direct uplift
 by scour

The purpose of the hydraulic design is to provide necessary measures which will ensure its safety
against failure caused due to the above reasons.

Figure 3.2 below explains the basic assumption for calculating the exit gradient and creep.
C/S R/S
- - - - - -
(1) (2)
(2) (1)
d1
d2
- - -
Cutoff wall
b'
b
Figure 3‐2: Long section of Regulator showing water levels in R/S and C/S
Total Floor Length (b): 57.90 m; Length of floor from u/s cutoff to d/s cutoff: 57.0 m
(1) Drainage Condition:
(a) C/S water Level: 8.50 m PWD
(b) R/S water level: 7.5 m PWD;
Exit Gradient: 0.029 < 1/7 = 0.143; OK

(2) Flushing Condition:
(a) C/S Water Level: 8.00 m PWD
(b) R/S water Level: 9.00 m PWD
Exit Gradient: 0.033 < 1/7 = 0.143; OK

On operating allowable creep is 6.00, available creep is 27.87; again with the extreme condition
generated during highest high flood the creep generated is 13.20, which is also much lower then the
available value.

3.3.10 Energy dissipation arrangement
The energy of flow through a regulator is normally dissipated through the formation of a hydraulic jump
within a designed stilling basin. Whereas, the length of a stilling basin is generally determined from the
length of hydraulic jump required to be confined within the length of the stilling basin.

An energy dissipation arrangement of a structure requires following components to be provided:

 A sloping glacis, generally sloping downward at a slope of not steeper than 1V:3H.
 A stilling basin, with sufficient length for dissipation of energy
 A cutoff wall at the end of floor of stilling basin. The depth of cutoff wall is kept below the
maximum possible scour level for the designed discharge intensity of flow.
 Protection work at exit end of the structure as flexible floor in graded inverted filter beyond the
end of stilling basin
 Launching apron in two layers of loose cement concrete blocks beyond the end of flexible floor.

Page 63
A typical longitudinal section is given below in Figure 3.3 to explain the detail

Figure 3‐3: Long section of Regulator showing basin and flexible protection at end

3.3.11 Structural Design

The structural design of all the components of a structure shall be carried out following the standard
code of practice, Standard Design manual of BWDB and using the specified type of materials.

(Typical design calculation and drawing for a 4V‐1.5mx1.8m flushing cum drainage regulator is enclosed
in Appendix)

4 Riverbank Protection Works
4.1 Proposed Works
The bank protection work has been proposed at the location where there is active bank erosion. The
stretches where the eroding bank is very near the existing valuable infrastructures or settlements, are
also selected under Tranch‐1 for immediate bank protection.

The stretches considered for bank protection under Tranch‐1 are

(i) 1 km in Benotia at the right bank of Brahmaputra‐Jamuna
(ii) 5 km at Chouhali at the left bank of Brahmaputra‐Jamuna
(iii) 2 km at Jafarganj at the left bank of Brahmaputra Jamuna
(iv) 7 km at Harirampur at the left bank of Padma.

Locations of all protection works under Tranch 1 (JRB1, JLB2 and PLB1) are shown in Figure 4.1.

In designing bank protection structures the experience gained and lessons learned from the protection
works executed in JMREMP has been followed. In JMREMP revetment for a long reach using geobag
under water and cc block above low water has proved to be very economic and sustainable. The same
system and technology has been followed in designing the bank protection structures.

Figure 4‐1: Showing Locations of Bank Protection Works under Tranch‐1
4.2 Hydrological Observations
The Brahmaputra/ Jamuna drains an estimated volume of 620 109 m³ of water per year into the Bay of
Bengal with an annual average discharge of 19,600 m³/s. Each year the river reaches a bankfull
discharge at about 48,000 m³/s. Maximum discharge of about 100,000 m³/s were observed during the
1988 flood. The Brahmaputra/ Jamuna shows the largest sediment grain sizes and transports the largest
sediment load. The median diameter of the bed material decreases from 220 mm near Chilmari to 165
mm near Aricha. The median diameter just downstream of Bangabandhu (Jamuna) Bridge is about 180
mm. The river stage varies by about 6.0 to 7.0 m.

Page 65

The Padma, which is draining the combined flow of the Brahmaputra/Jamuna and the Ganges and the
lower reach of which is weakly influenced by the tide during the period from December to April, has an
annual average discharge of about 28,000 m³/s. The seasonal water level variation is about 6 m. The
bed material sediment of the Padma varies from 140 mm in the upper reaches to 90 mm in the lower
reaches.

For the major rivers of Bangladesh the statistical return period of the bank full discharge is between one
and one and a half years.

Bristow (1987) proposed a classification of river channels into different orders. The entire channel is the
first order channel and comprises a number of smaller second order channels. The latter have slightly
different characteristics and as a result they show a different behaviour in terms of water level slopes as
well as the discharge and sediment capacities. The shifting characteristics of the river can be divided
according to the order of the channel. The rate of shifting of the first order channel is 75 to 150 m per
year. The second order channels change their course continuously. Larger channels are abandoned and
new ones develop in a few years only. A bank erosion rate of the second order channels of 250 to 300 m
per year is common, but in extreme cases it can be more than 800 m per year.

Bank erosion rates of the three main rivers are very similar. However, at Ganges and Padma, the bank
erosion is restricted to the boundary of the active corridor, which consists of alluvial and deltaic silt
deposits, whereas the floodplain outside of it is more resistant to erosion. At the Brahmaputra/ Jamuna
the flow attacks any of the banks and new channel courses outside the active flood plain are created
frequently.

The driving forces for erosion are the high shear stresses by current flow, which exceed the shear
strength of the soil. The bed erosion at the toe in vertical direction will cause bank erosion and a self‐
induced adaptation to a slope which is milder than the critical one. For the design of a protection
structure, the importance of scouring is evident and consequently has to be taken into account in the
design phase. The hydraulic design parameters, e.g. design water level and design flow depth, act as
boundary conditions for the morphological parameters. The scouring to a certain scour depth is the
decisive phenomenon and consequently the main parameter for the design. However, an estimation of
the flow velocities is needed to optimise the size of protection element, construction phase of the
protection work, placing of materials and protection elements.

4.3 Data for Bank/Slope Protection
For designing the protection works, the following hydraulic parameters are required to be established/
obtained:

 Water level corresponding to maximum/dominant discharge
 Maximum discharge / dominant discharge
 River cross sections
 Flow velocity
 Significant wave height
 Silt factor of river bed material
 Observed/anticipated maximum scour
 Wind speed and duration
 Wave characteristics (fetch length, wave height and wave period

4.4 Elements of Slope Protection
Slope protection consists of a layer of hard cover and a filter layer over the slope along the reach of
embankment or river bank above LWL. The cover layer must be able to resist hydraulic impacts (current
and waves) while the filter layer in between cover layer and core materials is responsible to prevent
migration of subsoil particles out of the bank slope (retention criteria) and at the same time to allow
movement of water through the designed filter (permeability criteria). The revetment used for bank
protection works must have the following qualities and characteristics:

 The surface of individual elements of the cover layer should be sufficiently resistant against
abrasion by wave and current attack
 The individual element should have sufficient weight so that it cannot be dislodged/ lifted by
uplift forces
 The filter layer should prevent migration of soil due to seepage pressure typical in tidal
condition.
 Should be stable to withstand the forces against sliding in low tide condition and residual pore
pressure present in itself and other adverse hydraulic conditions.
 Bank slope and embankment slope constructed by earth need to be stable against seepage,
drawdown under normal condition etc. for any type of protection to be applied.

Hand pitched cc blocks are the recommended protection system for the slopes of standard revetment
structures above the average low water level (av.LWL). Concrete blocks are more durable than bricks
and less attractive to pilferage. If well dimensioned, they are able to suit any flow condition. Sizes of 20‐
40 cm have proven to be sufficient to withstand the hydraulic loads occurring at the Jamuna river.

4.5 Design Discharges
4.5.1 Total River Discharges and Number of Channels
The protection work means protection of river bank itself and the protection of river side slope of
embankment. The purpose of protection is to stabilize its slope and achieving protection against erosion
and scour.

The discharge of a specific river is obtained from the analysis of hydrological data, especially through
extrapolation of stage discharge relations at water level stations, where also discharge measurements
have been executed regularly.

The bankfull discharge can be taken from Table below.

Table 4‐1: Bankfull Discharge of Major Rivers
River Bankfull discharge Return period of bankfull Braiding Index (‐)
(m3/s) discharge (years)
Jamuna 48,000 1.0 4 – 5
Ganges 43,000 1.4 1
Padma 75,000 1.05 1

Discharge characteristics for major rivers of Bangladesh (Source: Guidelines and Design Manual for
Standardized Bank Protection Structures (FAP‐21)

The design discharge Qch for a channel can be calculated by:
Qch = C1/Cb. 2. Qb
and Bankful discharge for a canal can be calculated by

Page 67
Q b,ch = Qb/Cb

Where, Qch = design discharge, Canal (m3/sec)
Q b.ch = bankful discharge, canal (m3/sec)
Qb = bankful discharge, river (m3/sec)
C1 = safety factor for extreme canal discharge (C1 =1.5)
Cb = Braiding Index (for Jamuna, Cb = 4 to 5, Padma, Cb =1.0)

The design discharge Qch for the left channel of Jamuna according to this approach is
Qch = 1.5/4x2x48,000 m3/sec = 36,000 m3/se

4.5.2 Flow Distribution in anabranches
(a) Brahmaputra‐Jamuna
The forecasted flow distributions along the anabranches under hydrological condition (a) and (b) at the
erosion vulnerable area at Chouhali are shown in Table below, [Source: Chouhali‐Nagarpur Feasibility
Study, IWM].
 Hydrological Condition (a) 2003 monsoon  2004 monsoon  2005 monsoon (assume that last
three years monsoon will repeat for 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively).
 Hydrological Condition (b) 2001 monsoon  1998 monsoon  2001 monsoon (assume that
average dry year of 2001 for 2006 monsoon, extreme flood year of 1998 for 2007 monsoon and
again average dry year of 2001 for 2008 monsoon respectively).

Table 4‐2: The Simulated flow distribution along anabranches of the Jamuna under
hydrological condition (a) & (b)
Channel Flow distribution in %
Hydrological Condition (a) Hydrological Condition (b)
2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008
Right Channel 71% 65% 69% 75% 62% 60%
Left Channel (Chouhali) 29% 35% 31% 25% 38% 40%

In this case the designer is mainly concerned with the left channel (Chouhali channel). In all cases the
model has generated a maximum of 40% of flow through the left channel.

Under this condition (as per model Study, IWM),

with Q (100 yr) = 100,000 m3/sec
Qch = 100,000 x 0.4 = 40,000 m3/sec

In calculating the scour in the left channel (Chouhali) of Jamuna, the channel discharge (calculated by
model study) used by IWM (Nagarpur‐Chouhali Project, FS) is 30,129 m3/sec.

Considering the different approach of calculating the discharge through the canal under consideration,
the Qdesign is taken as 36,000 m3/sec

(b) Padma
Discharge measurements conducted in Mawa by BWDB show that out of 321 observations from 1994 to
2012, maximum discharge (Qmax) is 116,000 m3/sec, average discharge (Qav) is 55,900 m3/sec,
maximum velocity (Vmax) is 4.35 m/sec and average velocity (Vav) is 2.67 m/sec. Analysis conducted by
Padma Bridge Study team recommends a bankful discharge of 70,000 m3/sec at about EL 5.5m PWD,
but at higher elevation bankull discharge is higher.


Using the Regime type relations derived for the major rivers of Bangladesh by different studies
(Klaassen and Vermeer, 1988; Delft Hydraulics and DHI, 1996), related channel bankfull width (W) and
section‐averaged bankfull depth (d) to bankfull discharge (Qb) is expressed as:

W = aQbC

Where a and c are the coefficient and exponent of Qb. Magnitude of 'a' varies in a very wide range, but
the magnitude of 'c' is found to be very close to 0.5.

Thus, W  aQb0.5 or Qb  1/a W2

For preliminary assessment of bankfull discharge of any anabrach of a braided or anabranching channel
bankfull discharge could be distributed based on the ratio of square of bankfull width of the channels.

The discharge in anabranch along the Harirampur can be maximum 70% of the total. To this effect the
Qdesign for dominant discharge is 52,500 m3/sec.

4.6 Design Water Level
A stage discharge relation (rating curve) established at the location of the planned structure from long
term monitoring of daily averaged water levels and corresponding discharges can be used. For selected
locations, data is available from the BWDB. From the average daily water level the average low water
level (av.LWL), average high water level (av.HWL) and 100 yr HWL are calculated. The DWL (Design
Water Level) is generally above the Flood Plain Level (FPL) and the return period of bankfull discharge
for Jamuna, Ganges and Padma is between 1.0 and 1.4 years.

100 year HWL, Observed HHWL, Av. LWL and LLWL for Jamuna River at Koizuri, Benotia, Chouhali and
Zafarganj are given in section 6.2.4 of this report.

For calculating Water level of Padma river at Harirampur, WL gauges considered are Baruria Transit
(91.9L) and Mawa Transit (93.5L). The interpolated 100 year HWL at Harirampur is 8.70 m PWD,
observed maximum HWL is 8.50 m PWD, average LWL is 1.50m PWD and LLWL is 1.00 m PWD.

An example of design water levels with respect to embankment crest levels is provided in Figure 2.3.

4.7 Flow Velocity
4.7.1 Requirements
To get basic design data, also the prevalent flow velocities should be recorded, providing horizontal and
vertical velocity profiles. If possible, velocity measurements should be done during monsoon season
(bankfull discharge), otherwise extrapolation is needed, to estimate the design conditions.

It has to be taken into account that, maximum flow velocities occur a few days before the maximum
water level is reached. Therefore, it is physically more accurate, to consider a peak flow instead of the
design discharge for the evaluation of the design flow velocities.

The design flow velocities in the approach flow of a planned protection structure can be determined in
various ways. It should not be estimated only for the deepest point of the approach channel cross
section but also along the whole bank through:

 Statistical analysis of observed flow velocities;

Page 69
 Simulation in a 2D (depth averaged) mathematical model or in a physical model;
 Theoretical calculation methods.

4.7.2 Brahmaputra‐Jamuna River
In the case of Brahmaputra‐Jamuna river the recorded measurements from BWDB and the
recommendation from Guidelines and Manual for Standardized Bank Protection Structures (FAP‐21) is
followed

Flow Velocity measured by BWDB at Bahadurabad Transit during: 1990 to 2009.
Total number of observations: 1695

Table 4‐3: Measured Velocity in Bahadurabad, Jamuna
Range of Velocity (m/s) nos %
0.0 to 1.0 187 11.03
1.0 to 2.0 1115 65.78
2.0 to 3.0 356 21.00
3.0 to 3.5 4 0.23

Maximum observed = 3.68 m/sec
Minimum observed = 0.59 m/sec

The mathematical model study conducted under Chouhali‐Nagarpur FS shows that an erosive near bank
velocity (> 1.2 m/s) would be generated at Chouhali bank under both hydrological condition (a) and (b).
The strong eroding velocity (around 2 m/s) would occur in future due to confinement effect of the
channel which might influence the river bed degradation and bank erosion.

Again the recommendation from the Guidelines and Manual for Standardized Bank Protection
Structures (FAP‐21) is as follows:

Table 4‐4: Limits of Standard Bank Protection Structures
Structure Category Depth Averaged Flow Design Wave Total Scour/Water
Expected Impact Velocity, u [m/s] Height, Hs [m] Depth [m]
Light <1 <0.25 <10
Moderate >1.0 ‐ 2.0 0.25 ‐ 0.5 10‐20
High >2.0 ‐ 3.0 0.5‐1.0 20‐30
Very High >3.0 >1.0 >30

From the above observations a flow velocity of 3.00 m /sec is selected for the design of straight to areas
under medium bends, for acute bends and protrusions a velocity of 3.5 m/sec is considered for design.

4.7.3 Padma River
Depth averaged maximum velocity varies from 2.1 to 2.7 m/ sec with an average of 2.5 m/sec. (USDR,
Padma Bridge Design Report). Model study conducted by IWM on Haimchar Design states that, the
simulated maximum near bank depth integrated speed appears near Haimchar within the range of 2.75
to 3.00 m/sec during moderate condition, 3.00 to 3.25 m/sec during extreme and longer‐term
conditions. So in case of revetment design for Padma river at Harirampur, the design velocity is taken as
3.0 m/sec and for protrusions it is taken as 3.5 m/sec.

In Chandpur adjacent to Puran bazar (Ibrahimpur Sakua) and in Haimchar in Lower Meghna river and in
Sureswar in Padma River depth averaged highest design velocity considered is 3.0 m/sec. The executed
work from 2007‐08 appear to be stable after several years of observation.

4.8 Size of bed material
4.8.1 Bed material for Brahmaputra‐Jamuna
The Guidelines and Manual for Standardized Bank Protection Structures (FAP‐21) describes that the
median diameter of the bed material of Brahmaputra‐Jamuna decreases from m220 mm near Chilmari
to m165 mm near Aricha. The average size being about 0.20 mm. In Chouhali‐Nagarpur FS the size of
average bed material used is 0.18 mm (IWM).

In this case average size of bed material used is 0.18mm (i.e. d50 = 0.18mm)
4.8.1.1 Scour at Brahmaputra‐Jamuna
The scour depth has been assessed from Lacey’s formula by applying appropriate scour multiplication
factor.

Lacey's Regime Equation

R = 0.47 (Q/f)1/3

Where: R = Regime scour depth (m)
Q = Design discharge (m3/sec)
f = silt factor = 1.76 (dm)1/2
dm = average diameter (d50)

Using the 100 yr maximum discharge (Q100 yr), Qch (design) and dm as 100,000 m3/sec, 36,000 m3/sec
and 0.18mm respectively, the regime scour depth (R) is 17.11m

The eroding area being located in an moderate bend, total scour is 1.5*17.11 = 25.66 m Say 26.0 m
HWL (High Water Level) at 13.10 m PWD

So the level (depth) of maximum scour at (13.10 m PWD‐26.00 m PWD) ‐12.90 m PWD. However, for
additional safety, the scour is assumed at ‐16.00 m PWD

The computed scour shall be checked with the observed scour at similar locations and during different
time period of the year. In general a long series of scour observations in similar locations is more
representative of actual situation than the computed theoretical scour.

Table 4‐5: Empirical multiplying factors for maximum scour depth

Nature of Location Factor
1 Straight reach Straight reach of Channel 1.25
2 Moderate Bend 1.50
3 Severe Bend 1.75
4 Right angle or abrupt turn 2.00
5 Noses of piers 2.00
6 Alongside cliff and walls 2.25
7 Noses of Guide banks 2.75

Page 71
4.8.2 Bed material for Padma
The bed material sediment of the Padma varies from 140 mm in the upper reaches to 90 mm in the
lower reaches. The Updated Scheme Design Report (USDR) of Padma Bridge Study suggests 0.13mm as
the size of bed material.
4.8.2.1 Scour at Harirampur
Using the design discharge, Qdesign = 52,500 m3/sec and dm = 0.13 mm in
Lacey's Regime equation: R = 0.47 (Q/f)1/3 , f = 0.63 R = Regime depth = 20.50 m.

The eroding area being located at moderate bend, the scour depth is 1.5x20.50m = 30.75 m

With WL at 5.75 m PWD, the scour level calculated is ‐25.00 m PWD. Observed bed levels in Four x‐
section measured (from 1971 to 2007) at Padma (RMP 2, 3,4 and 5) show maximum scour depth of ‐
14.5 to ‐37.0 m PWD and an average lowest bed level of ‐9.60 to ‐16.90 m PWD. So a maximum scour at
‐30.00 m PWD is assumed for the design.

4.9 Waves
The maximum wave heights are generally caused by maximum wind speed over the longest fetch
length. From observations it is concluded that the maximum wave height with a return period of 100
years for the design of bank protection structures along the Brahmaputra‐Jamuna River should be
about 1.3 m. For a return period of 25 years a design wave height of 1.0 m is commonly used for major
rivers of Bangladesh. In this case a wave height of 1.3m is used. (Guidelines and Manual for
Standardised Bank Protection Structures, FAP‐21)

4.10 Design Cross Section
A morphological analysis of measured cross‐section serves as the best approach to derive information
on the expected water depths and the cross sectional shape. The bankfull channel width and the bend
curvature is also available from satellite images and planform analysis. Data of the Jamuna River consist
of yearly measured standard cross sections recorded during the lean season.

To estimate the outer bank profile and the maximum water depth in the thalweg, an envelope curve of
measured cross sections (with superimposed cross‐sections) is used. Figure 4.2 represents on envelope
of x‐section measured along LB of Jamuna at Chouhali.

From surveyed cross sections of the respective channel a protection structure is planned/designed. Only
representative cross sections, which are not affected by any river training structure has been used.


Figure 4‐2: Envelope cure of measured cross‐sections

4.11 Selection of Type of Bank Protection
The stability of unprotected river banks depends on a number of factors which have to be assessed
carefully in the process of selection and design of suitable protection measures. A reliable assessment
of potential causes of bank failure is indispensable for the success of any measures, i.e. for the integrity
of the selected bank protection system and thus the stability of the river bank.

Passive bank protection measures are primarily armored structures or armor layers preventing a bank
line from erosion but which do not create significant interference with the flow. The hydraulic influence
on the local flow condition is limited to changes in bed roughness. So, in this case the selection of a
passive bank protection method is the primary choice.

Typical passive measures are revetment structures, which are built more or less parallel to the flow to
form an artificial sloped river bank.

Hand pitched cc blocks are the recommended protection system for the slopes of standard revetment
structures above the water line. If well dimensioned, they are able to suit any flow condition.

Geotextile sand containers (geobags), which can be tailored locally, are simple to be installed and
proposed to be used for areal coverage below LLWL (Lowest Low Water Level) for protection of bank
slope and revetment toe.

The experience gained from implementation and monitoring of the protection work executed in
JMREMP has been followed in designing bank protection measures under the project.

4.12 Size and thickness of protection element:
The size of cover layer material have been calculated by Pilarczyk formulae and checked with USACE
and JMBA equation considering stability against velocity and wave.

Page 73
4.13 Size of Elements for Bank Protection
The following various elements of revetment have been selected/calculated based on design criteria
and design data.
4.13.1 Slope Protection above av.LWL:
Top Level of Revetment: The top level of revetment is set at existing bank level or flood plain level
where the flood embankment is not provided or the flood embankment is not affected by wave erosion.
In case of any wave attack on flood embankment, slope protection is provided against anticipated wave.
The bank slope above LWL and the river side of embankment is protected by CC blocks placed over a
filter. The size of protection element is the higher size against wave and flow velocity. The top level of
revetment works at Chouhali is at flood plain level i.e. at 11.00 m PWD.

Low Water Berm: At a level of about 2.00 m below av.LWL (about +3.5 m PWD in Chouhali) about 5.0 m
wide berm is proposed to increase the stability of the bank slope.

The bank slope/Revetment slope from LWL berm to the top (Flood Plain Level) shall be 1V:3H.

Protection Element above av.LWL: For slope protection above av.LWL, two rows of cc blocks of size
400x400x200 mm, followed by one row of cc blocks of size 400x400x300 mm shall be placed on dressed
and compacted bank slope.

Filter Materials: Minimum 3 mm thick needle punched geo‐textile filter is used over minimum100 mm
compacted sand (FM≥1.5) fill. The geotextile filter shall be placed at least 1.0m beyond the outer edge
of LW berm at lower end and at least 1.0 m extra beyond the cc block on flood plain, at upper end, and
keyed to the ground.
4.13.2 Under Water Slope Protection:
Protection Element on LW berm: The LW berm and slope from LW berm to av.LWL shall be protected
with 2 layers of 300x300x300mm cc block laid on 1 layer of 125 kg geobag over the geotextile filter.

Protection element for areal coverage: The areal coverage shall extend from outer edge of LW berm
towards deep river for a length of about 30.0 m. The areal coverage shall be composed of minimum 3
layers of 125kg geobags. The thickness of areal coverage shall be minimum 0.52 m. In protrussion 250
kg geobags has been proposed to be used in Jamuna and also in Padma.

Performance of 125 kg geobags used in Jamuna as protection element under normal condition and in
moderate bends is quite satisfactory. 250 kg geobags used in Sureswar in Padma and Ibrahimpur‐Sakua
and in Haimchar in Lower Meghna river is found to be quite effective as protection element.

However, dumping process followed in case of areal coverage executed through manual labour and
properly positioned barge prefers 125 kg geobags as maximum unit size.
4.13.3 Launching Apron:
Design scour level: The design scour levels of revetment is calculated on the basis of Lacey's regime
theory. The scour calculated in Chouhali is ‐16.0 m PWD. (Ref. Appendix I for scour computation).

Apron Setting Level: The length of launching apron normally depends on the apron setting level and the
maximum anticipated scour level. In case of construction in river proper apron setting level varies place
to place depending on bed levels just before construction. However, in the present case the extent/
length of areal coverage is decided in a way that any scour at the end of areal coverage shall not affect
the slope immediately.

Launching Apron: The length of launching apron at the end of areal coverage shall be 15.0 m. Thickness
of launching apron is proposed to be minimum 3 layers of 125 kg geobags. In protrussions design
proposes use of 125 kg and 250 kg geobags as protection element. The 15.0 m launching apron can
protect a scour of 15.0 m with only 5‐7m of the apron is launched. In Brahmaputra‐Jamuna the scour in
one season, in an area protected by revetment can be in general maximum 15.0 m.

(Design Calculation and Design drawings for revetment works at Chouhali is enclosed in Appendix‐I)

4.14 Summary Quantities
The quantities adopted for key protection work and elements are provided in Table 4‐7.

Table 4‐6 General quantities adopted for Jamuna and Padma
Jamuna Padma
Under water
Length of slope 30 m 35 m
No. of 125kg geobags on slope 240 (in 3 layers plus 1) 280 (in 3 layers plus 1)
Length of apron 15 m 15
No. of 125 kg geobags apron 120 (in 3 layers plus 1) 120 (in 3 layers plus 1)

Table 4‐7 Quantities adopted for the design
JRB‐1 JLB‐2 Chowhali JLB‐2 Jaffarganj PLB‐1
Under water
125kg geobags [No] 379,000 1,760,000 684,000 1,449,000
250kg geobags [No] 0 102,300 51,000 1,169,000
Above water
Earth cutting [m³] 143,900 544,700 258,000 460,000
Geotextile sheet [m²] 38,200 188,400 72,000 150,700
Filter sand [m²] 2,500 11,000 4,100 Tranche‐2
Loosely dumped blocks [No]
40x40x30 cm 43,000 215,000 80,000
40x40x20 cm 113,500 567,500 218,000 Tranche‐2
30x30x30 cm 190,000 950,000 380,000

5 Estimate
The estimated cost for different interventions proposed under Tranch1 are formulated as per prevailing
market rates of construction materials, skilled labour, unskilled labour and hire charge of equipments.
In analysing the unit rate for items of works standard analysis format of BWDB has been used.

Estimate for embankment: For construction of embankment in JRB‐1, the rate used under Bogra Circle
for construction of embankment by dredged sand/earth from the river has been used with a multiplying
factor of 25%. The clay lining in embankment is also taken from Bogra Circle and is applied with 25%
increase.

Estimate for Revetment works and structures: The estimate for the revetment works has been formed
on the basis of analysed rate as per present market rate of cement, stone chips, geotextile fabrics,
geobags, filling sand, hire charge of equipments and wage of unskilled and skilled labours. The unit rate

Page 75
for under water dumping of geobags for areal coverage and construction of launching apron is attained
following the method and sequence of JMREMP.

Finally the rate per meter of protection in Jamuna river attained was 55% to 60% higher than the
average cost incurred in case of JMREMP protection. The applied rate for Jamuna protection was 75%
above the average rate achieved in JMREMP work in Kaitala‐Mohanpur (2003‐04). Again in
consideration of additional scour the applied rate for Padma protection is considered 15% higher than
that of Jamuna.

The estimated rate of regulator was taken from the analysed rate used in CEIP work presently (2013)
under process.

Estimated cost for Total Physical Work is :

Total Physical Works BDT US$
Tranch‐1 4,668,390,449 58,354,881
Tranch‐2 7,183,026,277 89,787,828
Tranch‐3 7,998,558,187 99,981,977
Total 19,849,974,913 248,124,686

Note: For calculating cost of embankment construction in Tranch‐2 and Tranch‐3, 1m of excavation below embankment
base is kept unchanged to accommodate any future change in drainage cost.

The Land Acquisition area has been calculated through the Land Acquisition and Resettlement plan. The
total cost for the project will therefore be the amount adding the Land Acquisition and Resettlement
cost plus engineering and investigation plus logistics.

The preliminary estimates for Tranch‐1, Tranch‐2 & Tranch‐3 and some of the basic rates of elements
used in the estimate is placed as Appendix‐III.

6 Alternate Approach for Protection

The embankment along Jamuna and also along Hurasagar/Boral might be affected by wave action at
certain stretches. To take measure against wave erosion the stretches vulnerable to wave action shall
need to be protected. In doing so two types of protection may be used from HWL+0.50m to toe+1.0m
(Horizontal). The protection measure by 400x400x200mm and 400x400x300mm CC block over a
geotextile filter (measure‐I) and by gras‐stone as used along embankment side slope (measure‐II) may
be used from Tranch‐2 onwards to observe its affectivity. The cost under measure‐I is about BDT
2480.00 per m2 and that under measure‐II is about BDT 1700.00 per m2. In another alternative
(measure‐III) grout filled mattress may be placed against wave protection. In that case the cost per m2
for a 0.20m thick grout filled mattress shall be about BDT 3420.00 per m2.

However, it is proposed to provide 2 km of protection under Tranch‐1 as per measure‐I in most
vulnerable stretches and another 2 km is proposed under measure‐II to other vulnerable stretches to
finalise the applicability of any of the measure under subsequent tranches.


Appendices

Appendix I: Sample Design Calculation for Bank Protection Works at Chouhali .................................. 78
Appendix II: Sample Design Calculation for Regulator at Gala (4V‐ 1.5m x 1.8m) ................................. 93
Appendix III: The Preliminary Estimates for Tranch‐1, Tranch‐2 and Tranch‐3 ................................ 122
Appendix IV: Design Criteria .............................................................................................................. 131
Appendix V: Road on the Land‐Side of Rehabilitated or Reconstructed Embankment ....................... 172
Appendix VI: Comment Matrix .......................................................................................................... 198

Page 77
Appendix I: Sample Design Calculation for Bank Protection Works at Chouhali

Design of Bank and Slope Protection Works on left bank of Jamuna River
Name of the Project: Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk Management Program(FBERMP)
Reach under consideratuin: Chouhali‐Nagarpur in Tangail District.
Note (i): The section of embankment (crest level, side slope, crest width) stated below is proposed as per frequency of
hydrological data and stability analysis coducted on proposed embankment section.
Reach / Design under consideration
Name of work : Bank protection work in Chouhali‐Nagarpur along the left bank of Brahmaputra‐Jamuna River.
Embankment Crest Level 15.50 m PWD

HFL (100 yr): 14.00 m PWD
Maxm flood level observed 13.10 m PWD
Average HFL 12.20 m PWD
LLW observed: 4.50 m PWD
Average LWL 5.00 m PWD
Average bank level: 11.00 m PWD (From Survey)
Note (ii): The WL (100yr, Highest observed, av.HWL, av.LWL and LLWL) are interpolated WL from the WL gauges at
Bangabandhu (Jamuna) Bridge and Aricha. The Ground level is taken fron the survey conducted on the bore‐hole
location along the left Bank of the River in the stretch mentioned. The bore‐holes for sub‐soil exploration were conducted
by BWDB under the project from November 2011 to February 2012.
DESIGN DATA
Bankfull Discharge of the River (Qb) => 48,000 m3/sec [From FAP‐24, and Design guidelunes FAP‐21 ]

100 yr discharge of the River (Q100) 100,000 m3/sec
Design Discharge of the Channel (Qch) 36,000 m3/sec (Design Guidelines)
Highest Water Level ‐ Observed (HWL) => 13.10 m PWD
Average Low Water Level (LWL) => 5.00 m PWD
Average Flow Velocity (V) => 3.00 m/sec Suggested flow velocity is 3.00 m/sec
The design discharge Qch for a channel can be calculated by:
3
Qch = C1/Cb. 2. Qb 36,000 m /sec with C1 = 1.5 (FAP‐21 Guidelines)
Cb = 4 (Braiding index)
Note (iii): Channel Discharge (Qch) is calculated from the 100 yr maximum discharge and the distribution of flow in a
channel suggested by Design Guidelines and Manuals (FAP‐21). The ditribution of flow and the selection of design
flow (Qch) in the channel is again checked through the results obtained by model study made by IWM in conducting
the FS of Nagarpur‐Chouhali Project.
Water Surface Slope => 6.00 cm/km (assumed, WL Gauge record analysis)

Average Bed level (near bank) 0.00 m PWD
Maxm scour observed ‐3.00 m PWD
Average size of river bed materials => 0.18 mm (FAP‐24, and Nagarpur‐Chouhali Protection, IWM)

Existing Embankt slope River side (V:H) => ( 1 : 3 ) (Field office data)

Proposed Slope of Bank to Avg.LWL. => ( 1 : 3 )
Bank slope below av.LWL (V:H) = > ( 1 : 2 )
Fetch Length => 7.00 km (From Model) Use = 7.00 km

Wave Height => 1.30 m (100 yr wave in Jamuna, FAP‐21 Guidelines)
Wave period = > 2.45 sec (Guidelines for River Bank Protection,
BWDB‐BUET)
Location of vulnerable area in the River => Moderate bend
Proposed Length of slope + bank Protection => 5000 m (on the left bank of Jamuna River)
A. Design for size of Revetment Materials :
1.0 Against Velocity and Shear:
A‐1. Using Neill's method
D = 0.034 V2 0.306 m = 306 mm
Note: Neill's equation uses only the velocity. Other variables for a stream are not considered.
A‐2. Using JMBA equation
Data:
Flow Velocity ( V ) => 3.00 m/sec (Observed data and Guidelines

Ratio of water depth and Revetment size (h/D) = 5 FAP‐21)
Slope of Bank 1V:3H ( Θ ) => 18.43 °
Angle of Repose of Revetment Materials, CC Block (Φ ) 40.0 °
Sp.Gravity of Revt.Material, cc block ( Ss )=> 2.40 [‐]

Acceleration due to gravity (g) => 9.81 m/sec2
2
0 .7 v 2
D 
n
2 

s s 

 1  g log 6 h / D 2 . 1  Sin  / Sin  2 
0 .5
0.241 m 241 mm
Note (iv): The JMBA equation is developed for cc blocks. In this case for slope protection cc blocks is pro[osed to be
used. For bank protection several approach will be tried. However, for this project the JMREMP method, that uses sand
filled geobags below LLWL, will be preferred.

Page 79
A‐3. Pilarczyk equation
0.035  u 2 φsc K  K h
Dn  Δm  2 g

K s Ψ cr
Dn = Nominal thickness of protection unit D [m] = size of rock = [m]
u = average flow velocity = 3.00 m/s
∆m = Relative density of submerged material = (ρs‐ρw)/ρw = [‐]
3
ρw = Density of water = 1000 kg/m
3
ρs = Density of stone boulders/Rocks = 2650 kg/m
3
ρs = Density of concrete (stone aggregate), cc block = 2400 kg/m
2
g = accleration due to gravity = 9.81 m/s
φsc = stability factor (for current) = [‐]
θ = Angle of repose (rocks) = °
Ψcr = critical shear stress parameter (Shields)= [‐]
Kτ = Turbulance factor = 1.5, for mild outer bends of rivers 1.5 [‐]
‐0.2
Kh = depth factor = (h/Dn+1) = [‐]
2 1/2;
Ks = Bank normal slope factor = [1‐(sinα/sinθ) ] (specific material) [‐]
α = slope angle of bank structure = 1V:3H (above LWL) 18.43 °
α = slope angle of bank structure = 1V:2H (below LWL) 26.57 °
h/Dn = [‐]
h= average water depth ( average depth of water at bankfull stage) 6.00 [m]
Dn = Nominal size of protection unit (assumed) = [m]
2 1/2
Ks = [1‐(sinα/sinθ) ] = [‐]
Dn = m mm
Note: (v) Logarithmic velocity profiles exist for long stretches with constant bed roughness. For most engineering works
on slope or bottom protection, non‐developed velocity profile is usually present, (Pilarczyk, 2000).
(vi) In this case non‐developed velocity profile is considerd.
Non‐Developed Velocity Profile
(1) CC blocks, concrete with stone aggregate (multi‐layer):
Kh = depth factor (for non‐developed vel. profile) = (h/Dn+1)‐0.2 = 0.540
Dn = nominal size of protection element (assumed) = (cc block) 0.29 m

h/Dn = 20.69
∆m = (ρs‐ρw)/ρw = 1.40 [‐]
α = slope angle of bank structure = 1V:3H (at or above LWL) 18.43 °
θ = Angle of repose (cc blocks) = 40 °
Ks = [1‐(sinα/sinθ)2]1/2 = (below LWL) 0.718 [‐]
2 1/2
Ks = [1‐(sinα/sinθ) ] = (at or above LWL) 0.871 [‐]
φsc = stability factor (cc block, randomly placed, multi layer) = 0.80 [‐]
Ψcr = critical shear stress parameter (Shields) = 0.035 [‐]
Dn = 0.296 m = 296 mm (below LWL)
Dn = 0.244 m = 244 mm (at or above LWL)
(2) Rocks:
h/Dn = 23.08
∆m = (ρs‐ρw)/ρw = 1.65 [‐]
α = slope angle of bank structure = 1V:3H (at or above LWL) 18.43 °
θ = Angle of repose (rocks) = 35 °
Ks = [1‐(sinα/sinθ)2]1/2 = (below LWL) 0.626 [‐]
2 1/2
Ks = [1‐(sinα/sinθ) ] = (at or above LWL) 0.834 [‐]
φsc = stability factor (broken riprap and boulders) = 0.75 [‐]
Ψcr = critical shear stress parameter (Shields) = 0.035 [‐]
Dn = 0.264 m = 264 mm (below LWL)
Dn = 0.198 m = 198 mm (at or above LWL)
(3) CC blocks, concrete with stone aggregate, hand placed/single layer
h = depth of water infront of hand placed cc blocks revetment = 4.00 m
h/Dn = 32.00
∆m = (ρs‐ρw)/ρw = 1.40 [‐]
α = slope angle of bank structure = 1:3 (above DLW) 18.43 °
θ = Angle of repose = 40 °
Ks = [1‐(sinα/sinθ)2]1/2 = 0.871 [‐]
φsc = stability factor (application type) = 0.65 [‐]
Ψcr = critical shear stress parameter (Shields) 0.05 [‐]
Dn = 0.128 m = 128 mm

Page 81
(4) Geo‐textile bags (sand filled geobag)
Dn = nominal size of protection element (assumed) = (A1‐type bag) 0.38 m
h/Dn = 16
3
ρs = Density of sand bag = 1800 kg/m
3
∆m = (ρs‐ρw)/ρw = 0.80 [‐]
α = slope angle of bank structure = 1:2 (below DLW) 26.57 °
θ = Angle of repose (geobags) = 30 °
Ks = [1‐(sinα/sinθ)2]1/2 = 0.447 [‐]
φsc = stability factor = 0.50 [‐]
Ψcr = critical shear stress parameter (Shields), gabions 0.05 [‐]
Dn = 0.383 m = 383 mm
Recommendation: Recommended size against velocity is = 125 kg
1/3
Equivalent thickness of bags = (abc)
3
Type Wt (kg) Vol (m ) Eq. Dn
A3‐type 250 0.167 551 mm (Equivalent block size)
B2‐type 78 0.052 373 mm (Equivalent block size)
3
Unit weight of sand= 1500 kg/m
A‐4. Using Corps of Engineers Relationship (Maynord's Equation, 1991):
1.25
 2

D
 S C C C  V 
 s  1 k 1 g y 
f S v T
Y
(the formula has been developed for rocks)
where;
D = nominal rock size = D30 = (m)
V = Local depth averaged flow velocity = 3.0 m/s
Y = local depth near the bank = 6.0 m
Sf = Safety factor = 1.2 (‐)
Cs = Stability coefficient = 0.30 (‐)
Cv = Vertical velocity distribution coeficient = 1.1 (‐)
CT = Thickness coefficient = 1.2 (‐)
s = dry rock density = 2.65 (‐)
K1 = side slope factor = 1V:2H = 0.9 (‐)
K1 = side slope factor = 1V:3H = (above Low Water Level) 1.0 (‐)
2
g = accleration due to gravity = 9.81 m/s

D =D30 = 0.166 m 166 mm (on 1V:2H slope)

D50 = 0.208 m 208 mm
D =D30 = 0.146 m 146 mm (on 1V:3H slope)
D50 = 0.182 m 182 mm
The nominal size D30 may be conveted to a mean diameter D50 by using the equation
D50 = D30x(D85/D15)1/3, where (D85/D15)1/3 is equql to 1.25 for tyical well graded riprap.
Note (vii). (a) D50 is typically about 25% larger than D30,(b) V is the depth averaged velocity at a point inshore from
the slope (c) Y is the local flow depth, rock size given by the formula is relatively sensitive to depth, it is more
conservative to underestimate the depth, (d) minimum value for safety factor (Sf) is 1.1, higher value is suggested
where there is ice or debris impact, (e) suggested values for Cv (vertical velocity distribution factor) for straight
channels are 1, and 1.25 at downstream of concrete lined sections and at the end of dykes, (f) values for stability
co‐efficient Cs is 0.30 for angular rock and 0.36 for rounded rock. (g) basic value for thickness co‐efficient CT is
1xD100 or 1.5xD50, whichever is higher, (h) recommended values for side slope factor K1 is = 1, for slope 1V:3H or
flatter, K1 = 0.9 for slope 1V:2H, K1 = 0.8, for slope 1V:1.75H, and K1= 0.7 for slope 1V:1.5H.
2.0 AGAINST WAVE:
Fetch Length => 7.00 km
Wave Height ( Hs ) => 1.30 m (Guidelines for Bank Protection,
Wave Period (Tm) => 2.45 sec BWDB‐BUET)
Slope of Bank 1V:3H ( θ ) => 18.43 °
Specific gravity of protection materials, rock (Ss)= 2.65 [‐]
Specific gravity of protection materials, cc block (Ss)= 2.40 [‐]
A‐5. Using Pilarczyk Equation :
H ξ
b
D 
s z
Δ Ψ Φ
n
m u sw
 cosα
Dn = Revetment material size (single unit) [m] [m]
Hs = significant wave height [m] 1.30 m
3
3
ρs = Density of rocks = 2650 kg/m
3
ρs = Density of concrete (stone chips, cc block) = 2400 kg/m
∆m = Relative density of submerged material = (ρs‐ρw)/ρw = [‐]
g = accleration due to gravity [m/s2]= 9.81 m/s
2
Ψu = system specific stability upgrading factor = [‐]
Φsw = stability factor for wave loads, hard rocks [‐] = [‐]
α = slope angle of bank structure = 1:3 = 18.43 °

Page 83
ξz = wave similarity parameter [ tanα.(1.25Tm/Hs^0.5) 0.90 [‐]

Tm = mean wave period [s] = 2.45 secs
b = wave structure inter action coefficient = [‐]
Protection Element Dn = m ≈
(1) CC blocks with stone aggregate as protection element
(CC blocks, cubical shape, hand placed in single layer)
Ψu = system specific stability upgrading factor [‐] = 2.00 [‐]
Φsw = stability factor for wave loads [‐] = 2.25 [‐]
b = wave structure inter action coefficient [‐] = 0.87 [‐]
∆m = Relative density of submerged material = 1.40 [‐]
Dn = 0.198 m ≈ 198 mm
(2) CC blocks cubical shape, randomly placed multi layer
Dn = 0.265 m ≈ 265 mm
(3) Broken rocks/boulders, randomly placed
Dn = 0.236 m ≈ 236 mm
In using CC block (hand placed) for slope protection (above LLW), two rows of 400x400x200 mm cc blocks followed by
one row of 400x400x300 mm cc blocks will be placed on slope alternately. In consideration of wave height the required
block thickness (>198mm) can be satisfied with the size 400x400x200 mm. The minimum thickness used by BWDB
is 200 mm.
Recommended thickness of block is = 200 mm
The protection is considered seperately for (i) the embankment slope from toe to crest level or upto HHWL (ii) upper part;
of bank slope (from Design low water level (DLWL) to the top of existing bankline or Flood Plain Level (FPL), and (iii) areal
coverage of underwater slope and falling apron/launching apron to protect the lower portion of bank section against vertical
scour induced by stream flow.
3.0 Size of Protection Element
3.1 Size of Protection Element for upper slope (above LWL)

3.1.1 Size of Hard rock as Protection Element (above LWL)
The element size (hard rock) for the upper slope (above LWL) by Pilarczyk formula is 198 mm (at or above LWL) against
flow velocity and 236mm againt anticipated wave (Hs = 1.30m). By USACE formula the element size on 1V:3H is 182 mm.
Recommended size : Dn = 200 mm
Approximate gradation of pitching stone shall be as below:
Minimum 40% of the stone shall be in the range of 200 mm to 300 mm, 60% will be 300 mm to 400 mm.
3.1.2 Size of CC block as Protection Element (above LWL)
Required thickness of hand placed cc block by Pilarczyk formula against velocity is 128 mm, and that against wave
is 198mm. The dominant size in this case (hand placed cc block) is 198 mm.
Recommended (thickness) of cc block = 200 mm
3.2 Size of Protection Element for protection for lower slope (below av.LWL)
3.2.1 Size of Rock as Protection Element (below LWL)
The size of protection element for stability against stream flow velocity is 264 mm by Pilarczyk equation and 208 mm by
USACE equation. so the higher size from both the equation is recommended for protection of lower slope (bank slope
below av. LWL). D50 size of protection element is 264mm. Shall not be less than 260mm; recommended size is 260mm.
Dn = 260 mm
Size of 40% of the rocks will be in the range of 200 mm to 300 mm and 60% of the rocks will be in the range of 300 mm
to 400mm.
3.2.2 Size of CC Block as Protection Element (below LWL)
The size (thickness) of protection element, (randomly placed cc block) by Pilarczyk equation is 296 mm and that by
JMBA equation is 241 mm. In this case the higher size of protection element through both the equation may be selected
as protection element. Minimum size (thickness) of cc block is therefore, 296 mm.
The size with standardization is selected as = 300 mm
3.2.3 Size of geobag as protection Element (below LWL)
The size (thickness) of protection element, (randomly placed geobag) by Pilarczyk equation is 383 mm against flow
velocity. The recommended size is 125 kg (geobag), equivalent thickness is 438mm.
Recommended size of geobags is 125 kg Equivalent thickness 438 mm

Page 85
4.0 Summary for Pitching Thickness (T):
A. Riprap thickness:
(i) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1991), recommends that thickness of protec on should not less then th spherica
diameter of the upper limit W100 (percent finer by weight) stone or less than 1.5 times the spherical diameter of the
upper limit W50 stone, whichever results in greater thickness.
(ii) California Highway Division (1991) recommended that there should be at least twolayers of overlapping stones
so that slight loss of materials does not cause massive failure.
(iii) ESCAP (1973) recommends that the thickness of protection should be at least 1.5D, where D is the diameter
of the normal size rock specified.
(iv) Inglis (1949) recommended following formula to compare thickness of protection required on the slope of revetment:
Where, t (m) = thickness of stone riprap
and Q (m3/s) is Discharge
Note: the Inglis formula apparently gives excessive thickness for higher discharge.
(v) Indian Standard : (IS 14262 : 1996)
Minimum thickness of protection layer is required to withstand the negative head created by velocity.
This may be determined by the following relationship:
Where,
T = thickness of protection layer in m
V = velocity in m/s
g = accleration due to gravity (m/s2) and
Ss = Specific gravity of stones
For safety purposes, two layers of stones according to the size obtained in 3.4 above should be provided.
The formula results in T= 0.278 m 278 mm
Since the thicknes should not be less than 2 layers, so the recommendation by Califotrnia Highway may be
accdepted for the design i.e. T=> 2D.

(vi) Using Inglish formula :
T= 0.06 Q1/3 = 7.120 ft = 2170 mm
(vii) According to Spring, on the basis of river slope & river bed Materials :
River bed Remarks
materials Thickness in inches for river slope in
classified inches per mile
by Spring 9 12 18 24
Very coarse 19 22 25 28
Coarse 25 28 31 34
Medium 31 34 37 40
Fine 37 40 43 46
Very fine 43 46 49 52
River Bed Materials assumed=> Very fine
River Slope considered => 3.80 inch/mile
From Chart, Thickness T => 31 inch = 787.4 mm
(viii) According to Gales , on the basis of discharge:
River Discharge from 0.25 Q' from 0.75 to Q' from

to 0.75 million 1.50 million cusecs 1.5 to 2.5
Body and Body and million
Head
Parts of Guide Bund Head tail tail Head
Pitching Stone 3'‐6'' 3'‐6'' 3'‐6'' 3'‐6'' 3'‐6''
Thickness of soling bal 7'' 7'' 8'' 8'' 9''
Total thickness 4'‐1'' 4'‐1'' 4'‐2'' 4'‐2'' 4'‐3''
Discharge of the River ( Q ) => 1,270,352 Cusec

From Chart, Pitching Thickness ( T ) => 3'‐6" 3.50 ft 1067 mm
A‐1. Thickness of Protection (Upper slope, slope above LWL)
(a) Based on Stone Size:
(i) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
T = 1.5xW50 = 300 mm (minimum)
(ii) California Highway Division
T = 2xD = 400 mm
(iii) According to ESCAP
T = 1.5xD = 300 mm
(iv) Indian Standard
T = 2D = 400 mm

Page 87
(b) Based on Stream flow properties
As per Inglish, T = 2170 mm

As per Spring, T = 787 mm
As per Gales, T = 1067 mm
A.1.1 Thickness of Rock as Protection Element (above LWL)
Considering major eroding forces and other characteristics of the river the minimum thickness suggested by size of
protection element appears reasonable for pitching. As there will be filter below the pitching, so the thickness suggested
by recent practices on size of protection material, appears to be justified.
the thicknes of prtection should not be less than 2 layers of protection element, so the recommendation by California
Highway Division may be accdepted for the design i.e. T=> 2D.
Above LWL protection thickness, T= 400 mm
Filter: Under the pitching a filter fabric (minimum 3mm thick geotextile filter) shall be provided from top of bank to at
least 1 m below LWL. Below the filter fabric 100 mm thick sand (FM≥1.0) shall be placed with proper compaction.
A.1.2 Thickness of CC block as Protection Element (above LWL)
The thicknes of cc block above low water is 128 mm (hand placed) against flow velocity and that against wave is 198mm.
The higher thickness of the two i.e. the thickness required against wave is selected for the protection. Recommended
thickness of cc block is 200 mm.
Thickness of stone (minimum 2 layers) on slope (1V:3H) above LWL, against significant wave is 400 mm. But against
the same wave height, the thickness of hand placed cc block is 198 mm (Pilarczyk equation). The cc blocks can also
be arranged in different sequence for breaking waves more eficiently.
So cc blocks of size 400x400x200 mm (2 rows) and 400x400x300 mm (1 row) is proposed to be placed over the slope
up to bank level+1.50m horizontal on flood plan and keyed to the flood plain.
Protrussion on a slope is observed to be more efficient than a rough slope for breaking wave. In that consideration cc
block can be more effectively arranged to create sudden protrussion. With that aim CC block, stable against anticipated
wave height is recommended to be used on bank and embankment slope.
A‐2. Thickness of Protection (Lower slope, bank slope below LWL)
(a) Based on Stone Size:
(i) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
T = 1.5xW50 = 390 mm (minimum)
(ii) California Highway Division

T = 2xD = 520 mm

(iii) According to ESCAP
T = 1.5D = 390 mm
(iv) Indian Standard
T = 2D = 520 mm
(b) Based on Stream flow properties
As per Inglish, T = 2170 mm

As per Spring, T = 787 mm
As per Gales, T = 1067 mm
A.2.1 Thickness of Hard Rock as Protection Element
Considering flow velocity as major eroding force and other characteristics of the river the minimum thickness suggested
by size of protection element (hard rock) appears reasonable for dumping. As the protection material will be dumped
under water, so the thickness of dumping need to be 50% more than that required for pitching.
the thicknes of prtection should not be less than 2 layers of protection element, so the recommendation by Califotrnia
Highway Division may be accdepted for the design i.e. T=> 2D.
Thickness of pitching required above water (placing) = 2D = 520 mm
Below LWL protection thickness, T= 780 mm
(50% additional due to under water dumping)
For protection below LWL use of hard rock as protection element is the most sustainable solution. Being very costly and
scarcity of stone in Bangladesh, cc block as protection element (below LWL) is calculated as alternative protection
element.
A.2.2 Thickness of CC Block as Protection Element (below LWL)
Size of CC block (protection element) against flow velocity is Dn = 300 mm
Considering minimum thickness of protection element below LWL (as in case of rock) as 2D+50% additional (for under
water dumping), the thickness of protection becomes = 2.5D = 750 mm
However, in case of using cc block the minimum thickness should be 3D (considering winnowing effect) +50%.
The suggested thickness is therefore, 4.5 D = 1350 mm
For protection below the LLWL project intends to use geobag as practiced in JMREMP. A LWL berm shall be made at
El, +3.00 m PWD (width about 5.0 m). The slope from av LWL (+ 5.0 m PWD) to the river side end of LWL berm (+3.0m PWD) shall be
protected with two layers of 300mm cube cc blocks over geotextile filter and one layer of geobag (125kg).
A.2.3 Thickness of Geobag as protection Element (below LWL)
Size of geobag as protection element against flow velocity is 125 mm Equivalent thickness is = 438 mm
Actual size of 125 kg geobag is 930x530x170 mm,
2
L = 930 mm B = 530 mm t = 170 mm Area = 0.49 m
Suggested actual thickness is = 0.17 m

Page 89
5.0 Design of areal coverage and Launching Apron:
Assumed:
(1) Apron will launch in 1V: 2H slope.
(2) A multiplication factor will be used as per river bend condition.
Table ‐B
(Emperical multiplying factors for
Data: maxm scoure depth)
Design Discharge ( Q) => 36,000 m3/sec (Jamuna Left Channel)
Highest Water Level (HWL) => 13.10 m new PWD Nature of location Factor
Av. Low Water Level (av.LWL) = 5.00 m new PWD Straight reach of channel 1.25
River bed level at flatter slope 0.00 m new PWD Moderate Bend 1.50
(assumed av. River bed level) Severe Bend 1.75
Maximum Observed Scour = ‐3.00 m new PWD Right angle or abrupt turn 2.00
Size of av.Bed material (dm) 0.18 mm Noses and Piers 2.00
Silt factor, f = 1.76 (dm)1/2 0.75 Alongside Cliff and Walls 2.25
Noses of Guidebanks 2.75
Note: scour depth for the river is not available. Rather the channel discharge and size of bed material is available
from different sources (FAP‐24 and Nagarpur‐Chouhali FS). So in this case theoretical scour calculation appear to be
more reliable. The x‐sections are available for only one observation, which is not completely dependable for scour
calculation.
Scour
1/3
Regime Depth; R = 0.47 (Q/f) = 17.11 m
The eroding area situated on a moderate bend, so scour depth =
R*1.5 = 25.66 m Say 26.00 m
Maximum depth of Scour (scour Level) = ‐12.90 m PWD Apply ‐13.00 m
Calculations: (materials for bank protection)
The areal coverage shall be placed from av.LWL (+3.0 m PWD) to a level of 0.00 m PWD. Length of areal coverage shall
be 30.00 m. The falling apron/launching apron material is proposed to be placed at the end of areal/slope coverage.
The length of launching apron shall be 15.00 m:
Ds = Depth of scour = Av. River bed level ‐ scour level = 13.00 m
Length of launching apron = 1.5xDs = 19.50 m say 20.00 m (Theoretical)
The falling apron is proposed to be placed at the end of areal coverage i.e. on reasonably flat bed. The areal coverage will be
placed from av.LWL (+3.0m PWD) to av. river bed level (0.0m PWD). Length of areal coverage shall be 30.0m.
The length of slope surface from (+3.0m) to av. River bed (0.00 m PWD) is 6.71 m
(bank slope below +3.00 is 1V:2H)
The distance along the desired slope surface (slope 1V:2H) from LWL berm to average river bed level
(from +3.0m to 0.0 m PWD) is 6.71 m
The theoretical launching apron length is = 20.00 m
Minimum coverage needed = 26.71 m
So the length of areal coverage (30 m) and additionally 15.0 m launching apron takes care of all uncertainties including
abnormal scour. The 30.0 m areal coverage is proposed in line with work done under JMREMP in PIRDP area.

Recommended stretch of protection after the LWL Berm
Areal Coverage 30.0 m
Launching Apron 15.0 m
I. Using hard rock as Protection element for Bank Protection
Thickness of hard rock (pitching) = T = 520 mm
Thickness of hard rock below LWL = T1 = 1.5T= 780 mm
Thickness at end of areal cover = T1 =1.5T = 780 mm
3
Volume of rock from av. GL (+11.0 m to 5.0 m PWD) to av. LWL 11.95 m /m
3
Av. LWL to River side end of berm (5.0m berm) below LWL 8.83 m /m
3
Volume of rock from LWL berm to av. River bed level = 23.40 m /m
3
Volume of rock as apron (15.0m) 11.70 m /m
3
Total element for bank protection per m 55.88 say 56.00 m /m
II. Using cc block above av.LWL, on Transition (LWL Berm to av.LWL) and geobag below LWL
Thickness of cc block (pitching) = T = 200 mm (above LWL, hand placed over a geotextile filter)

Thickness of cc block (pitching) = T = 300 mm (above LWL, hand placed over a geotextile filter)
Size of cc block below LWL = D = 300 mm (coverage, on LWL berm and slope above berm)
Thickness of 125 kg beobag 0.17 m
Thickness of areal cover (geobag)= 3t= 0.51 m (125 kg geobag, thickness = 0.17m)
Volume of cc blocks
3
From av. GL (+11.0 m to + 5.00 m PWD) to av. LWL 4.42 m /m (slope 1V:3H)
3
From av. LWL to berm (5.0 m) below LWL = 6.79 m /m (300 mm cube, 2 layers)
3
(200 mm and 300mm thick) on flood plain (2.4m +2.0 m below Flood plain) 0.88 m /m
3 3
Total cc blocks (400x400x200 mm and 300 mm cube) 12.10 m /m Adopt 12.10 m /m
3
Volume of geobag (1 layer) on LW berm and slope from Berm to LWL 1.93 m /m
3
Volume of geobags (3 layers) as areal coverage (30.0 m)+33% 20.35 m /m
3
Volume of geobags (3 layers) as launching apron (15.0 m)+33% 10.17 m /m
3 3
Total geobags (125 kg) as areal covrage+ launching apron 32.45 m /m Adopt 32.40 m /m
Design Recommendation
(i) The section under considerstion shall be modified to create a LWL berm. A berm (5.0 m wide) shall be made at about
El. 3.0 m PWD, the bank slope above that (about 3.00 m to 11.0m PWD) shall be prepared in a slope of 1V:3H.

Page 91
(ii) Bank protection (for about 5000m) with cc block (thickness 200 mm ) is recommended. The reach of protection
mentioned shall be reviewed with cross‐section measured along the affected reach before execution of the protection work.
(iii) Geotextile filter (thickness>=3.0mm, needle punched) shall be placed below the cc block on slope, and LWL berm
over minimum 100 mm thick compacted sand (FM>1.5) cushion (above LWL). The geotextile filter shall be extended
at least 1.0 m beyond the LWL berm at the lower end and 1.5m beyond the cc block on flood plain.
(iv) The berm below LWL and the slope from berm to av.LWL (+3.00 m PWD to +5.0 m PWD) shall be protected with
2 (two) layers of cc block (300 mm cube) dumped over one (1) layer 125 kg geobag placed over the geotextile filter.
(v) The bank section from outer end of LWL berm (for an width of about 30m) shall be covered with minimum 3 (three)
layers of 125kg geobags, dumped from a properly positioned and anchored barge.
(vi) At the outer end of areal coverage a launching apron (15.0 wide) shall be prepared with minimum 3 layers of 125 kg
geobags dumped from a properly positioned and anchored barge.
(vii) The coverage of minimum 3 layers of geobag shall be ensured through provision of an additional one layer of
geobags i.e. 33% extra over the designed thickness.
(viii) The protection work shall be performed in the sequence as (a) areal coverage, (b) LWL berm and slope preparation
and coverage by designed element and filter, © Launching apron, and (d) flood plain cover as per design.

Appendix II: Sample Design Calculation for Regulator at Gala (4V‐ 1.5m x 1.8m)

Design Data
Name Of Project: Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk Management Program
Name of Sluice: Drainage Sluice at Gala, Kaizuri (Regulator # 3)
Location: Gala Boral/Hurasagar Size: 4V‐1.5mx1.8m
3 Embankment type: Composite Section with road at side
(a) Crest Level: 15.60 m PWD
(b) Road Level: 14.10 m PWD
(b) Crest width: 16.20 m
© Side Slope: R/S (1V:xH) 1 3.0
C/S (1V:xH) 1 2.5
4 (a) Highest Water Level (100 yr): 14.10 m PWD (100 yr)
(b) Highest WL (observed) 13.70 m PWD
© Av. HWL 12.40 m PWD
(d) Lowest Water Level (LLW) 4.50 m PWD
(e) Av. Low Water level (av.LWL) 5.20 m PWD
(f) Av. WL (April, 15‐30) 6.81 m PWD
(g) Av. WL (May, 1‐15) 7.50 m PWD
(h) Av. WL (October, 15‐31) 9.40 m PWD
(i) Av. WL (November, 1‐15) 8.12 m PWD
5 Drainage area: 3550 ha
6 Lowest Basin Level 8.50 m PWD
7 Av. ground level around structure 10.50 m PWD
8 Bottom Level of drainage channel m PWD (near outfall)
10 Angle of Internal Friction of soil (φ) 20.00 °

Page 93
SIZING OF REGULATOR/SLUICE (NON TIDAL)
Name of sub‐project : Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk Management Program
Upazila : Shahzadpur District : Sirajganj
Name of Regulator/Sluice : Drainage Sluice at Gala, Kaizuri (Regulator # 3)
Size: 4V‐1.5mx1.8m
Flow Considerations:
When Hw > Hv and Htw > Hv , Flow Type I QI = 0.80xNxBwxHvx(2x9.81xh')0.5
When Hw > 1.5Hv and Htw < Hv , Flow Type III QIII = 0.60xNxBvxHvx{2x9.81x(Hw‐Hv/2)}0.5
When Hw < 1.5Hv and Htw >2Hv/3 , Flow Type IV QIV = 0.83xNxBvx(Hw‐h')x(2x9.81xh')0.5
When Hw < 1.5Hv and Htw <2Hv/3 , Flow Type V QV = 1.56xNxBvxHw3/2
Where: Hw = Upstream Water Depth N = Vent Nos.

Htw = Tail Water Depth h' = Head Difference
Hv = Vent Hieght Q = Flow through Regulator
Bv = Vent Width
Input Data:
N = 4 nos. RWL 7.50 mPWD
BV = 1.50 m Basin WL = 8.50 mPWD
HV = 1.80 m Design Q = 14.79 m3/Sec
Sill Level = 7.00 mPWD
RWL HW HTW h' Flow Type Q

3
(mPWD) (m) (m) (m) m /Sec
7.5 1.50 0.50 1.00 V 17.20

17.20 OK
Catchment Area = Subproject area : 3550 ha

Drainage area outside 0 ha
Total 3550 ha
Drainage rate ( Monsoon) = 30 mm/day
Discharge = 12.33 cumec
For structure dischage adding 20% 14.79 cumec
Total = 14.79 cumec
Capacity of Regulator to drain = 16.25%
Provide: 4Vent‐1.50m x 1.80m ; Sill Level: 7.00 m pwd

Name of Project: Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk Management Program
Regulator/Structure: Drainage Sluice at Gala, Kaizuri (Regulator # 3)
District: Sirajganj DRAINAGE MODE Size: 4V-1.5mx1.8m
OUTLET (D/S) STILLING BASIN DESIGN R/S

REQUIRED INPUT DATA
Design U/S Water Level --> 8.50 m from field data 5

Design D/S Water Level --> 7.50 m from out fall river level analysis.
(Mean low water Level/ tide level )
No. of Vents --> 4
Inside Barrel Height (Hb)--> 1.80 m [Pre-monsoon drainage is assumed
Inside Barrel Width (Bb) --> 1.50 m for 1st fortnight of May]
Barrel Invert Level --> 7.00 m PWD
Distance between abutments (Ba) 7.80 m
D/S Basin Invert Level --> 6.00 m, PWD

U/S Basin Invert Level --> 6.50 m, PWD
Gate Clearance Side (Cs) --> 0.00 m
Gate Clearance Bottom(Cb) -> 0.00 m
Glacis Length (Gl) --> 3.00 m
Basin Flare Angle (ø) --> 7.50 °
Pier Thickness 0.60 m
Protective Apron Side Slope; (Ss) --> (1 : 2.00 ) Vertical:Horizontal
Ground Level (near Structure) 10.50 m
U/S
8.50
D/S
7.50
1.80
7.00
0.00
6.00
//\\//\ //\\//\
3.00
Barrel Glacis Basin
STRUCTURE SECTION
STRUCTURE PLAN
Protective
Appron side
Slope1: 2.0
7.50 °
0.00
1.50 Protective
7.80 Pier Glacis Basin Apron

Page 95
Final Result
Drainage Sluice at Gala, Kaizuri (Regulator # 3)
Size: 4V‐1.5mx1.8m DRAINAGE MODE
Total discharge = 17.20 m³/sec Flow Condition= 5
Basin Level adjacent to Barrel 7.00 m PWD

Basin Level (D/S) 6.00 m PWD
Critical depth (dc) = 0.94 m
Value of d1 = 0.31 m
Subsequent d1 = 0.31 m
Froude no (F1) = 3.78
Basin Type: Indian Standard Stilling Basin I
TWD (available) = 1.50 m
TW min 1.49 m
Length of Jump = 6.85 m
Glacis Length (Gl) = 3.00 m
Use basin length (L) = 8.50 m Value of X = 1.48 m
Value of X used = 1.50 m
Flaring angle 7.50 °
Height of Chute = 0.31 m
Vale of B3 = 10.80 m Used value = 0.50 m
Velocity V3 = 0.83 m/sec
Value of A3 20.70 m²
Silt Factor = 0.68
Scour depth (Regime) = 2.08 m
U/S scour depth = 2.60 m
D/S scour depth = 3.12 m
U/S cut off wall= 0.60 m Use 3.00 m

D/S Cut‐off wall= 1.63 m Use 4.00 m
C/S block Prot. = 3.00 m Use 5.00 m

C/S Loose apron = 4.50 m Use 5.00 m
R/S Block Prot.= 6.00 m Use 6.00 m

R/S Loose apron = 6.00 m Use 6.00 m

Regulator/Structure: Drainage Sluice at Gala, Kaizuri (Regulator # 3) Size: 4V‐1.5mx1.8m
District: Sirajganj
FLUSHING MODE
INLET (U/S) STILLING BASIN DESIGN C/S
REQUIRED INPUT DATA
Design U/S Water Level ‐‐> 8.00 m from field data 5

Design D/S Water Level ‐‐> 9.00 m from out fall river level analysis.
(Mean low water Level/ tide level )
No. of Vents ‐‐> 4
Inside Barrel Height (Hb)‐‐> 1.80 m
Inside Barrel Width (Bb) ‐‐> 1.50 m
Barrel Invert Level ‐‐> 7.00 m PWD
Dist.between box Abutments(Ba)‐> 7.80 m
D/S Basin Invert Level ‐‐> 6.00 m, PWD

U/S Basin Invert Level ‐‐> 6.50 m, PWD
Gate Clearance Side (Cs) ‐‐> 0.00 m
Gate Clearance Bottom(Cb) ‐> 0.00 m
Glacis Length (Gl) ‐‐> 1.50 m
Basin Flare Angle (ø) ‐‐> 7.50 °
Thickness of pier 0.60 m
Protective Apron Side Slope; (Ss) ‐‐> (1 : 2.00 ) Vertical:Horizontal
Ground Level (near structure) 10.50 m PWD
D/S
8.00
U/S
9.00
1.80
7.00
0.00
6.50
//\\//\ //\\//\
1.50
Barrel Glacis Basin
STRUCTURE SECTION
STRUCTURE PLAN
Protective
Appron side
Slope1: 2.0
7.50 °
0.00
1.50 Protective
7.80 Pier Glacis Basin Apron

Page 97
Final Result Drainage Sluice at Gala, Kaizuri (Regulator # 3)
Size: 4V‐1.5mx1.8m FLUSHING MODE
Total discharge (Qd)= 26.47 m³/sec Flow Type = 5
Level Adjacent to Barrel 7.00 m PWD

Basin Level (U/S) 6.50 m PWD
Critical depth (dc)= 1.25 m
Subsequent d1 = 0.52 m
Froude no (F1) = 2.76
Basin Type: Indian Standard Stilling Basin I
TWD (available) = 2.00 m
TW min 1.78 m
Use co‐efficient= 1.00 Indian Standard Stilling Basin I
Length of Jump = 6.80 m
Glacis Length (Gl) ‐‐> 1.50 m
Use basin length (L) = 8.50 m Value of X = 1.78 m
Value of X used = 1.80 m
Flaring angle 7.50 °
Height of Chute = 0.52 m
Vale of B3 = 10.40 m Used value = 0.50 m
Velocity V3 = 0.92 m/sec
Value of A3 28.80 m²
Silt Factor (f) = 0.68
Scour depth (Regime) = 2.84 m
U/S scour depth = 3.55 m
D/S scour depth = 4.26 m
U/S cut off wall= 1.05 m Use 3.00 m

D/S Cut‐off wall= 2.47 m Use 4.00 m
C/S block Prot. = 3.00 m Use 5.00 m

C/S Loose apron = 4.50 m Use 5.00 m
R/S Block Prot.= 6.00 m Use 6.00 m

R/S Loose apron = 6.00 m Use 6.00 m

NANE OF PROJECT: Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk Management Program
Name of Structure: Drainage Sluice at Gala, Kaizuri (Regulator # 3)
Sirajganj Size: 4V-1.5mx1.8m
2.0 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF BARREL
2.1 REQUIRED INPUT DATA
Embankment Crest Level --> 15.60 m PWD

Road Level (inside) --> 14.10 m PWD
Embankment Crest width 16.20 m Top slab level=
Top Slab Level --> 9.25 m PWD = Invert levl+Vent ht+Top slab thick
9.25 m PWD
Maximum Water Level (monsoon) - 14.10 m PWD
Maximum Water Level --> 9.50 m PWD Operating Deck Level =Max WL+0.5
(maintenance period) 14.50 m PWD
Operating Deck Slab level 14.50 m PWD
Live Vehicle Loading(H10 or H20) -> H20
Unit Weight of Steel --> 77.00 KN/m³

Unit Weight of Concrete --> 23.60 KN/m³
Unit Weight of Soil --> 18.90 KN/m³
Unit Weight of Water --> 9.81 KN/m³
Angle of Internal Friction (ø) --> 20 °

Coeff. of Active Earth Pressure (Ca) = (1-sinø) = 0.66
Top Slab Thickness --> 450 mm

Bottom Slab Thickness --> 500 mm Embankment side slope
Abutment Top Thickness (Barrel)--> 450 mm (a) R/S, 1V:xH 1 2.5
Abutment Bottom Thickness (Barrel)- 500 mm (b) C/S; 1V:xH 1 3.0
Pier Thickness --> 600 mm
No. of Vents --> 4

Inside Height of Barrel --> 1.80 m
Inside Width of Barrel --> 1.50 m
Invert Level 7.00 m PWD
Length of Barrel --> 20.00 m Length of Barrel = 20.00 m
Barrel Ext.Length (C/S) --> 1.80 m
Barrel Ext.Length (R/S) --> 1.80 m
STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF BARREL
Ultimate Flexural Strength of Steel (fy) --> 4.14E+05 KN/m² 60,044 psi
Ultimate Flexural Strength of Concrete(fc') 2.20E+04 KN/m² 3,191 psi
Allowable Flexural Strength of Steel (fs) = 0.45* fy = 1.86E+05 KN/m²

Allowable Flexural Strength of Concrete(fc) = 0.4* f'c = 8.80E+03 KN/m²
Allowable Shear Stress of Concrete(v) = 2.89*(fc')^0.5 = 4.29E+02 KN/m²
Modulus of Elasticity of Steel (Es) --> 1.96E+08 KN/m²

Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete (Ec) --> 1.98E+07 KN/m²
Coverage + 1/2 Dia.Reinforcement (c) --> 75 mm
SCHEMATIC VIEW OF BARREL

15.60 m
\\\///\\\///\\\///
450 mm
9.25 m
450 mm
1.80 m
500 mm
500 mm 600 mm
|:: 1.50 m

Page 99

Size: 4V-1.5mx1.8m
STRUCT2 : DESIGN ABSTRUCTS
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF BARREL
TOP SLAB
Design Moment M= 48.83 KNm
Reqd. depth dr(mom) = 197 mm
Design Shear V= 138.87 KN
Reqd. depth dr(shear) = 324 mm
Reqd.Thickness tr = 399 mm
Provided thickness ta = 450 mm
SHRINKAGE REINF (top slab).
Ast (reqd. exp.face) = 950 mm²

Ast (provided)
Bar dia. (ø) = 16 mm
Bar spacing c/c = 200 mm
Ast (Actual) = 1005 mm²
Ast(reqd, earth face) 570 mm²
Ast provided
TOP REINF (Top Slab).
Ast (mom.) = 782 mm²

Ast (shrinkage) = 380 mm²
Ast (provided) 782 mm²

BOTTOM REINF.(Top slab)

BOTTOM SLAB


SHRINKAGE REINF (Bottom Slab).
Ast (reqd. exp.face) = 950 mm²

Ast (provided)
Ast (reqd.earth face) = 570 mm²
Ast (provided)
TOP REINF.(Bottom Slab)

Ast (provided)= 760 mm²
BOTTOM REINF (Bottom Slab).

ABUTMENTS
Design Moment(Top) M = 44.37 KNm

Design Shear(Top) V= 114.53 KN
Design Moment(Bottom) M = 48.78 KNm

Design Shear(Bottom) V = 129.13 KN

Page 101
SHRINKAGE REINF (Abutment).
Ast (exp.face) = 950 mm²

Ast (provided)
Ast (earth face) = 570 mm²

Ast (provided)
EXPOSED FACE REINF.(Abutment)
Design moment M= 22.72 KNm

Top thickness ta(top) = 450 mm
Bottom thickness ta(bot) = 500 mm
Length of member l= 2.28 m
Depth at zero shear d(zs)= 1.14 m
Actual thickness ta(zs) = 475 mm
Ast (mom) = 341 mm²

EARTH FACE REINF (Abutment, contd).
Moment at top M(top) = 44.37 KNm

Reinf.top Ast(top,mom) = 711 mm²
Moment at bottom M(bot) = 48.78 KNm
Reinf.botm. Ast(bot,mom) = 689 mm²
Shrinkage reinf. Ast(sk) = 380 mm²
PIERS


REINFORCEMENTS (Pier)

Dimension of the Structure:

Box bottom width (outside) 8.80 m
Length of Barrel i/c extensions: 23.60 m

D/S Floor length i/c glacis 11.80 m
U/S Floor length i/c glacis 10.30 m
D/S Floor extension (Return wall toe) 1.80 m
U/S Floor extension (Return wall toe) 1.60 m
Total Floor Length: 49.10 m

Page 103
WINGWALL AND APRON (R/S) Sirajganj Size: 4V-1.5mx1.8m
Structure details
Embankment Crest El 15.60 m PWD

Elevation of Operating Deck 14.50 m PWD
El of Wing top adjacent to Barrel Extension 13.90 m PWD
El of Wing top just above Glacis End 12.80 m PWD
El of wing wall at end (top)/GL(River side) 10.50 m PWD
Barrel Invert Level/Sill Level 7.00 m PWD
El of Wing bottom adjacent to Barrel Extension 7.00 m PWD
El of wing bottom at glacis end 6.00 m PWD
Barrel Extension R/S" 1.80 m

Barrel Extension C/S" 1.80 m
Length of wing wall from Op Deck end to GL 10.50 m

Glacis length (1V:3H) 3.00 m
Wing wall top surface slope to GL (1V:xH) 1 3
Length of wing wall (Lw)-total 11.80 m
Flat /Horizontal floor adjacent to barrel extension 0.3 m
SECTION LENGTH WINGWALL APRON WINGWALL APRON

from (S1) Thick(mm) Height Thick Width Height Width
(m) (Top) (Bot) (m) (mm) (m) (m) (m)
S L Tt Tb H Ta B H' B'
1-1 3.00 300 750 6.90 800 8.51 7.30 9.26
2-2 6.50 300 750 5.73 800 9.43 6.13 10.18
3-3 8.50 300 650 5.07 700 9.96 5.42 10.61
4-4 10.00 300 500 4.57 600 10.35 4.87 10.85
5-5 11.80 300 500 4.50 600 10.83 4.80 11.33
H' = Height of Wingwall from Apron c/l

B' = Width of Apron from c/l of Wingwalls
Length of Wingwall = (L² + ((B - B1)/2)²)^0.5 = 11.86 m

3
Unit Weight of Steel (γst) --> 77.0 KN/m³ 490 lb/ft
3
Unit Weight of Concrete (γc) --> 23.6 KN/m³ 150 lb/ft
3
Unit Weight of Soil (γs) --> 18.8 KN/m³ 120 lb/ft

Coeff. of Active Earth Pressure (Ca) = (1-sinø)/(1+sinø) = 0.490
Allowable Flexural Strength of Steel (fs) = 0.45*fy = 1.86E+05 KN/m²

Allowable Flexural Strength of Concrete(fc) = 0.4*f'c = 8.80E+03 KN/m²

5.4 SUMMARY OF DESIGN INFORMATION Drainage Sluice at Gala, Kaizuri (Regulator # 3)

WINGWALL AND APRON (R/S)
Size: 4V-1.5mx1.8m
DEPTH Of SECTION
Wing Wall Apron

Member dr (req) tr (req) ta (Prov) dr (req) tr (req) ta (Prov)
1-1 635 710 750 672 747 800

2-2 481 556 750 512 587 800
3-3 399 474 650 425 500 700
4-4 342 417 500 365 440 600
5-5 334 409 500 357 432 600
REINFORCEMENT
SHRINKAGE REINFORCEMENT
EXPOSED EARTH
MEMBER Ast (req) φ (dia) Spacing Ast (act) Ast (req) φ (dia) Spacing Ast (act)
2 2 2 2
(mm ) (mm) (mm) (mm ) (mm ) (mm) (mm) (mm )
WINGWALL
1-1 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
2-2 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
3-3 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
4-4 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
5-5 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
APRON
1-1 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
2-2 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
3-3 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
4-4 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
5-5 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
Main Reinforcement
Top/Exposed Bottom/Earth
Ast (req) φ (dia) Spacing Ast (act) Ast (req) φ (dia) Spacing Ast (act)
2 2 2 2
Wingwall
1-1 760 16 250 804 4490 25 100 4909
2-2 760 16 250 804 2576 25 150 3273
3-3 760 16 250 804 2087 25 175 2805
4-4 760 16 250 804 2067 20 150 2094
5-5 760 16 250 804 1978 20 150 2094
Apron
1-1 950 16 200 1005 4694 25 100 4909
2-2 950 16 200 1005 2722 25 150 3273
3-3 950 16 200 1005 2175 25 175 2805
4-4 950 16 200 1005 1907 20 150 2094
5-5 950 16 200 1005 1827 20 150 2094

Page 105
MEMBER THICKNESS, BOND AND BAR CURTAILMENT WINGWALL AND APRON (R/S)
Member Thickness Bond

Member Reqd. Act. Design Allowable Act Design.
2 2
tr (mm) ta (mm) OK/Not OK (KN/m ) (KN/m ) OK/not OK
WINGWALL
1-1 710 750 OK 673 463 OK
2-2 556 750 OK 673 480 OK
3-3 474 650 OK 673 513 OK
4-4 417 500 OK 841 604 OK
5-5 409 500 OK 841 587 OK
APRON
1-1 747 800 OK - - -
2-2 587 800 OK - - -
3-3 500 700 OK - - -
4-4 440 600 OK - - -
5-5 432 600 OK - - -
Bar Curtailment
Height or Width (B/2) 1st curtailment 2nd Curtailment
(m) Loc (m) Yes/No Loc (m) Yes/No
Wing Wall
1-1 6.90 2.13 Yes 3.38 Yes
2-2 5.73 1.24 Yes 2.43 Yes
3-3 5.07 1.29 Yes 2.27 Yes
4-4 4.57 1.45 Yes 2.22 Yes
5-5 4.50 1.37 Yes 2.15 Yes
APRON
1-1 4.26 4.26 No 4.26 No
2-2 4.72 2.80 Yes 4.72 No
3-3 4.98 2.36 Yes 4.98 No
4-4 5.18 2.41 Yes 5.43 Yes
5-5 5.41 2.31 Yes 5.66 Yes
USER DEFINED REINFORCEMENT
MEMBER
EXPOSED FACE EARTH FACE
Ast(req) φ (bar dia) spacing Ast(act) Ast(req) φ (bar dia) spacing Ast(act)
2 2 2 2
WINGWALL
1-1 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
2-2 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
3-3 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
4-4 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
5-5 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
APRON
1-1 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
2-2 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
3-3 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
4-4 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
5-5 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565

WINGWALL AND APRON (R/S)

Size: 4V-1.5mx1.8m
MAIN REINFORCEMENT
TOP/ EXPOSED BOTTOM/ EARTH
2 2 2 2
WINGWALL
1-1 760 16 250 804 4490 25 100 4909
2-2 760 16 250 804 2576 25 150 3273
3-3 760 16 250 804 2087 25 175 2805
4-4 760 16 250 804 2067 20 150 2094
5-5 760 16 250 804 1978 20 150 2094
APRON
1-1 950 16 200 1005 4694 25 100 4909
2-2 950 16 200 1005 2722 25 150 3273
3-3 950 16 200 1005 2175 25 175 2805
4-4 950 16 200 1005 1907 20 150 2094
5-5 950 16 200 1005 1827 20 150 2094
Sec # Sec Dist Sec sec

(m) Width (m) height (m)
Sec 0-0, W0 0.00 7.80 6.90
Sec 1-1, W1 3.00 8.51 6.90
Sec2-2,W2 6.50 9.43 5.73
Sec3-3,W3 8.50 9.96 5.07
Sec4-4,W4 10.00 10.35 4.57
Sec 5-5,W5 11.80 10.83 4.50

Page 107
Regulator/Structure: Drainage Sluice at Gala, Kaizuri (Regulator # 3) Size: 4V-1.5mx1.8m
WINGWALL AND APRON (C/S) Sirajganj
Structure details
Creset level of Embankment 15.60 m PWD
Operation Deck Elevation 14.50 m PWD
El of Wing Top adjacent to Barrel Extension 13.38 m PWD
El of Wing Top just above Glacis End 12.66 m PWD
El of wing wall at end (top)/GL (Country side) 10.50 m PWD
Barrel Invert Level/Sill Level 7.00 m PWD
El of Wing bottom adjacent to Barrel Extension 7.00 m PWD
El of wing bottom at glacis end 6.50 m PWD
Barrel Extension R/S" 1.80 m

Barrel Extension C/S" 1.80 m
Length of wing wall from OP deck end to Glacis end 7.50 m

Glacis length (1V:3H) 1.50 m
Embankment slope (C/S), 1V:xH 1 2.5
Length of wing wall (Lw) 10.30 m

Flat /Horizontal floor adjacent to barrel extension 0.30 m
SECTION LENGTH WINGWALL APRON WINGWALL APRON

from (S1) Thick(mm) Height Thick Width Height Width
(m) (Top) (Bot) (m) (mm) (m) (m) (m)
S L Tt Tb H Ta B H' B'
1-1 1.50 300 650 6.38 700 8.12 6.73 8.77
2-2 3.50 300 650 5.48 700 8.64 5.83 9.29
3-3 6.50 300 550 4.28 600 9.43 4.58 9.98
4-4 9.30 300 500 4.00 550 10.17 4.28 10.67
5-5 10.30 300 450 4.00 500 10.43 4.25 10.88
H' = Height of Wingwall from Apron c/l

B' = Width of Apron from c/l of Wingwalls
Length of Wingwall = (L² + ((B - B1)/2)²)^0.5 = 10.36 m

3
Unit Weight of Steel (γst) --> 77.0 KN/m³ 490 lb/ft
3
Unit Weight of Concrete (γc) --> 23.6 KN/m³ 150 lb/ft
3
Unit Weight of Soil (γs) --> 18.8 KN/m³ 120 lb/ft

Allowable Shear Stress of Concrete(v) =2.89*f'c^0.5 = 4.29E+02 KN/m²


5.4 SUMMARY OF DESIGN INFORMATION WINGWALL AND APRON (C/S)
Size: 4V-1.5mx1.8m
DEPTH Of SECTION
Wing Wall Apron

Member dr (req) tr (req) ta (Prov) dr (req) tr (req) ta (Prov)
1-1 564 639 650 597 672 700

2-2 449 524 650 477 552 700
3-3 310 385 550 330 405 600
4-4 280 355 500 298 373 550
5-5 280 355 450 297 372 500
REINFORCEMENT
MEMBER SHRINKAGE REINFORCEMENT

EXPOSED EARTH
2 2 2 2
WINGWALL
1-1 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
2-2 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
3-3 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
4-4 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
5-5 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
APRON
1-1 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
2-2 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
3-3 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
4-4 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
5-5 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
Main Reinforcement
Top/Exposed Bottom/Earth
2 2 2 2
Wingwall
1-1 760 16 250 804 4167 25 100 4909
2-2 760 16 250 804 2640 20 100 3142
3-3 760 16 250 804 1523 20 150 2094
4-4 760 16 250 804 1389 20 150 2094
5-5 760 16 250 804 1575 20 150 2094
Apron
1-1 950 16 200 1005 4285 25 100 4909
2-2 950 16 200 1005 2741 20 100 3142
3-3 950 16 200 1005 1559 20 150 2094
4-4 950 16 200 1005 1403 20 150 2094
5-5 950 16 200 1005 1558 20 150 2094

Page 109
WINGWALL AND APRON (C/S)

MEMBER THICKNESS, BOND AND BAR CURTAILMENT Size: 4V-1.5mx1.8m
Member Thickness Bond

Member Reqd. Act. Design Allowable Act Design.
2 2
tr (mm) ta (mm) OK/Not OK (KN/m ) (KN/m ) OK/not OK
WINGWALL
1-1 639 650 OK 673 465 OK
2-2 524 650 OK 841 429 OK
3-3 385 550 OK 841 475 OK
4-4 355 500 OK 841 463 OK
5-5 355 450 OK 841 525 OK
APRON
1-1 672 700 OK - - -
2-2 552 700 OK - - -
3-3 405 600 OK - - -
4-4 373 550 OK - - -
5-5 372 500 OK - - -
Bar Curtailment
Height or Width (B/2) 1st curtailment 2nd Curtailment
(m) Loc (m) Yes/No Loc (m) Yes/No
Wing Wall
1-1 6.38 1.76 Yes 2.95 Yes
2-2 5.48 1.24 Yes 2.33 Yes
3-3 4.28 1.04 Yes 1.87 Yes
4-4 4.00 0.83 Yes 2.00 Yes
5-5 4.00 0.94 Yes 1.69 Yes
APRON
1-1 4.06 4.06 No 4.06 No
2-2 4.32 3.00 Yes 4.32 No
3-3 4.72 1.92 Yes 4.72 No
4-4 5.08 1.78 Yes 5.33 Yes
5-5 5.22 1.90 Yes 5.44 Yes
USER DEFINED REINFORCEMENT
MEMBER
EXPOSED EARTH
2 2 2 2
WINGWALL
1-1 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
2-2 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
3-3 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
4-4 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
5-5 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
APRON
1-1 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
2-2 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
3-3 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
4-4 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
5-5 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565

WINGWALL AND APRON (C/S)
MAIN REINFORCEMENT
member TOP/ EXPOSED BOTTOM/ EARTH
2 2 2 2
WINGWALL
1-1 760 16 250 804 4167 25 100 4909
2-2 760 16 250 804 2640 20 100 3142
3-3 760 16 250 804 1523 20 150 2094
4-4 760 16 250 804 1389 20 150 2094
5-5 760 16 250 804 1575 20 150 2094
APRON
1-1 950 16 200 1005 4285 25 100 4909
2-2 950 16 200 1005 2741 20 100 3142
3-3 950 16 200 1005 1559 20 150 2094
4-4 950 16 200 1005 1403 20 150 2094
5-5 950 16 200 1005 1558 20 150 2094
Section Sec dist width (m) Height (m)

(m)
Sec 0-0, W0 0.00 7.80 6.38
Sec 1-1, W1 1.50 8.12 6.28
Sec2-2,W2 3.50 8.64 5.48
Sec3-3,W3 6.50 9.43 4.28
Sec4-4,W4 9.30 10.17 4.00
Sec 5-5,W5 10.30 10.43 4.00

Page 111
RETURN WALL (D/S)
Sirajganj Size: 4V-1.5mx1.8m
3
Unit Weight of Steel (γst) --> 77.00 KN/m
3
Unit Weight of Concrete (γc) --> 23.60 KN/m
3
Unit Weight of Soil (γs) --> 18.90 KN/m
Unit Weight of Water (γw) --> 9.81 m/sec/sec

Coeff. of Friction (f) --> 0.50
Return Wall Top Level --> 10.50 m PWD

Bottom Slab Level --> 6.00 m PWD
Return Wall Top Thick --> 300 mm

Return Wall Bottom Thick -> 500 mm
Bottom Slab Thickness --> 600 mm
Height of Return Wall (H) = 4.50 m

Height of Return Wall i/c base (H') = 5.10 m
Length of Return Wall --> 9.50 m

Length of Heel --> 2.00 m P1 = 70.36
Length of Toe --> 1.80 m P2 = 60.79
Total Length (width) of B.Slab = 4.30 m 84.31%
Ultimate Flexural Strength of Steel (fy) = 4.14E+05 KN/m² 60,044 psi

Ultimate Flexural Strength of Concrete(f'c) = 2.20E+04 KN/m² 3,191 psi

1/2
Allowable Shear Stress of Concrete(v) = 2.89* f'c = 4.29E+02 KN/m²
1/2 2
Allowable Bond Stress (bs(allow)) = 113.40*f'c /d = 1.68E+04 /d KN/m
(d = Bar Diameter, mm) OR --> 1103 KN/m² (whichever is less)

b = Unit Width of Member = 1.00 m

n = Modular Ratio = Es / Ec = 9.90
r = fs /fc = 21.17
k = n/(n + r) = 0.319
j = Lever Arm Coefficient = 1 - k/3 = 0.894
R = Resisting Moment Coefficient = fc*j*k/2 = 1.25E+03 KN/m²


USER DEFINED REINFORCEMENT RETURN WALL (D/S) Size: 4V-1.5mx1.8m

EXPOSED EARTH
Ast (req) φ (dia) spacing Ast (act) Ast (req) φ (dia) spacing Ast (act)
(mm2) (mm) (mm) (mm2) (mm2) (mm) (mm) (mm2)
STEM 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
HEEL 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
TOE 950 16 200 1005 570 12 200 565
MAIN REINFORCEMENT
TOP/EXPOSED BOTTOM/EARTH
STEM 570 12 200 565 1989 20 125 2513
HEEL 1425 16 125 1608 - - - -
TOE - - - - 1279 16 125 1608
STABILITY
LOADS AND MOMENTS

Total weight = 281.97 KN
Resisting moment = 796.37 KNm
Over turning moment = 204.87 KNm
F.S (over turning) = 3.89 Should be > 1.5

F.S (sliding) = 1.17 Should be > 1.5
FOUNDATION PRESSURE
Resultant action point from toe = 2.10 m
Ecentricity e = 0.05 m
Pressure at toe, P1 = 70.36 KN/m²

Pressure at heel, P2 = 60.79 KN/m²
MEMBER THICKNESS
Member thickness
Member Moment Shear Required Provided
dr(mom) dr(shear) tr(req) ta(act)
(KNm) (KN) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
STEM 140.73 93.82 335 219 410 500
HEEL 124.55 126.03 315 294 390 600
TOE 111.82 123.04 299 287 374 600
Note: Heel: top tension and shear downward

Toe : bottom tension and shear upward

Page 113
REINFORCEMENTS RETURN WALL (D/S)
Member Ast requird

moment shrink Bar dia Spacing Ast
ø @ provided
(mm²) (mm²) (mm) (mm c/c) (mm²)
STEM Ver exp face 570 12 200 565
Ver earth face 1989 - 20 125 2513
Hor exp face 950 16 200 1005
Hor earth face 570 12 200 565
HEEL Hor main(top) 1425 - 16 125 1608

Hor.top(long) 950 12 200 565
Hor botm(short) 380 12 300 377
Hor botm(long) 570 12 200 565
TOE Hor main(botm) 1279 - 16 125 1608

Hor.top(long) 950 16 200 1005
Hor top(short) 380 12 300 377
Hor botm(long) 570 12 200 565
BAR CURTAILMENTS
Member Curt. ht. Depth of Curt. pt.

from top sectn.at 24ø above bot Ast Ast
h curt.pt. slab, x momt. shrink
(m) da (mm) (mm) (m) (mm²) (mm²)
STEM 1st curtailment 3.76 392 480 1.22 1257 380
2nd curtailment 2.88 353 480 2.10 628 380
BOND
Bar Bond Max(allow Design Total bar Bond
Member dia. allowab able)bond shear perimeter develop
ø bs(allow) stress V tp bs(ac.)
(mm) (KN/m²) (KN/m²) (KN) (mm) (KN/m²)
STEM 20 841 1103 93.82 503 491

HEEL 16 1051 1103 -126.03 402 -668
TOE 16 1051 1103 123.04 402 249
Note:
0.00

RETURN WALL (C/S) Size: 4V-1.5mx1.8m
Sirajganj
3
Unit Weight of Steel (γst) --> 77.00 KN/m
3
Unit Weight of Concrete (γc) --> 23.60 KN/m
3
Unit Weight of Soil (γs) --> 18.90 KN/m
Unit Weight of Water (γw) --> 9.81 m/sec/sec

Coeff. of Friction (f) --> 0.50
Return Wall Top Level --> 10.50 m PWD

Bottom Slab Level --> 6.50 m PWD
Return Wall Top Thick --> 300 mm

Return Wall Bottom Thick -> 450 mm
Bottom Slab Thickness --> 500 mm
Height of Return Wall (H) = 4.00 m

Height of Return Wall i/c base (H') = 4.50 m
Length of Return Wall --> 8.50 m

Length of Heel --> 1.80 m P1 = 60.08 psf
Length of Toe --> 1.60 m P2 = 55.54 psf
Total Length (width) of B.Slab = 3.85 m 85.56%
Ultimate Flexural Strength of Steel (fy) = 4.14E+05 KN/m² 60,044 psi

Ultimate Flexural Strength of Concrete(f'c) = 2.20E+04 KN/m² 3,191 psi

1/2
Allowable Shear Stress of Concrete(v) = 2.89* f'c = 4.29E+02 KN/m²
1/2 2
Allowable Bond Stress (bs(allow)) = 113.40*f'c /d = 1.68E+04 /d KN/m
(d = Bar Diameter, mm) OR --> 1103 KN/m² (whichever is less)

b = Unit Width of Member = 1.00 m

n = Modular Ratio = Es / Ec = 9.90
r = fs /fc = 21.17
k = n/(n + r) = 0.319
j = Lever Arm Coefficient = 1 - k/3 = 0.894
R = Resisting Moment Coefficient = fc*j*k/2 = 1.25E+03 KN/m²

Page 115

USER DEFINED REINFORCEMENT RETURN WALL (C/S) Size: 4V-1.5mx1.8m

EXPOSED EARTH
STEM 570 12 200 565 380 12 300 377
HEEL 570 12 200 565 380 12 300 377
TOE 570 12 200 565 380 12 300 377
MAIN REINFORCEMENT
TOP/EXPOSED BOTTOM/EARTH
STEM 570 12 200 565 1583 20 150 2094
HEEL 1288 16 150 1340 - - - -
TOE - - - - 1075 16 150 1340
STABILITY
LOADS AND MOMENTS

Total weight = 222.58 KN
Resisting moment = 563.59 KNm
Over turning moment = 140.73 KNm
F.S (over turning) = 4.00 Should be > 1.5

F.S (sliding) = 1.19 Should be > 1.5
FOUNDATION PRESSURE
Resultant action point from toe = 1.90 m
Ecentricity e = 0.03 m
Pressure at toe, P1 = 60.08 KN/m²

Pressure at heel, P2 = 55.54 KN/m²
MEMBER THICKNESS
Member thickness
Member Moment Shear Required Provided
dr(mom) dr(shear) tr(req) ta(act)
(KNm) (KN) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
STEM 98.84 74.13 281 173 356 450
HEEL 91.13 101.89 270 238 345 500
TOE 76.10 94.62 246 221 321 500
Note: Heel: top tension and shear downward

Toe : bottom tension and shear upward

REINFORCEMENTS RETURN WALL (C/S) Size: 4V-1.5mx1.8m
Member Ast requird

moment shrink Bar dia Spacing Ast
ø @ provided
(mm²) (mm²) (mm) (mm c/c) (mm²)
STEM Ver exp face 570 12 200 565
Ver earth face 1583 - 20 150 2094
Hor exp face 570 12 200 565
Hor earth face 380 12 300 377
HEEL Hor main(top) 1288 - 16 150 1340

Hor.top(long) 570 12 300 377
Hor botm(short) 380 12 300 377
Hor botm(long) 380 12 300 377
TOE Hor main(botm) 1075 - 16 150 1340

Hor.top(long) 570 12 200 565
Hor top(short) 380 12 300 377
Hor botm(long) 380 12 300 377
BAR CURTAILMENTS
Member Curt. ht. Depth of Curt. pt.

from top sectn.at 24ø above bot Ast Ast
h curt.pt. slab, x momt. shrink
(m) da (mm) (mm) (m) (mm²) (mm²)
STEM 1st curtailment 3.41 353 480 1.07 1047 380
2nd curtailment 2.63 324 480 1.85 524 380
BOND
Bar Bond Max(allow Design Total bar Bond
Member dia. allowab able)bond shear perimeter develop
ø bs(allow) stress V tp bs(ac.)
(mm) (KN/m²) (KN/m²) (KN) (mm) (KN/m²)
STEM 20 841 1103 74.13 419 528

HEEL 16 1051 1103 -101.89 335 -800
TOE 16 1051 1103 94.62 335 237
Note:
0.00

Page 117
Location: Kaizuri
Name of Structure: Drainage Sluice at Gala, Kaizuri (Regulator # 3)
Size: 4V-1.5mx1.8m
EXIT GRADIENT AND UPLIFT PRESSURE (Non Tidal Zone)
REQUIRED INPUT DATA
Maximum Water Level C/S & R/S

Highest High Water Level (observed) 13.70 m PWD
Maximum Water Level C/S 11.50 m PWD (Average ground level+ 1.0 m)
Drainage Mode (R/S Floor Thickness)

Design C/S Water Level --> 8.50 m PWD
Design R/S Water Level 7.50 m PWD
Flushing Mode (C/S Floor Thickness)

Design C/S Water Level --> 8.00 m PWD Monsoon WL
Design R/S Water Level --> 9.00 m PWD 1 in 20 year WL
IL 4.45
U/S Apron Level --> 6.50 m PWD C/S Dr. 0.60
D/S Apron Level --> 6.00 m PWD R/S Dr. 0.60
Elevation at bottom of U/S Cutoff Wall --> 3.50 m

Elevation at bottom of D/S Cutoff Wall --> 2.00 m
3.00 Cut off depth,c/s

4.00 Cut off depth,r/s
Elevation underneath apron at U/S Cutoff Wall-> 6.00 m PWD

Elevation underneath apron at D/S Cutoff Wall -> 5.40 m PWD
Appron End Thickness

Provided (U/S) 0.50 0.14 Required
Provided (D/S) 0.60 0.17 Required
Total Floor Length (b) --> 49.10 m

Distance between U/S and D/S Cutoff Walls (b')-> 48.20 m
Intermediate Points where Floor Thickness is Desired:

Section Length (m) from
Section 1 (U/S)
-------------- -------------- -------------- ----
1 (U/S) 0.00
2 10.05
3 11.85 SCHEMATIC VIEW OF STRUCTURE
4 35.35
5 38.65 Drainage Mode Water Levels ---------
6 (D/S) 48.20 Flushing Mode Water Levels - - - - -
1.00 9.90 1.40 1.40 12.40 1.00
8.50 m 8.50 9.00 m

0.70 -*----- -------------- -*- - - -------
7.80 Barrel 7.80 =Bank 0.70
U/S D/S
8.00 m 7.50 m
1.30 -*- - - ------- -*----- -------------- 1.80
4.45
B3 = 4.00 6.50 m 0.00 6.00 m Apron 4.00 =B3
0.50 0.50 0.60 0.00 0.00
6.00 m 5.40
2 3 4 5 6 <-- Cutoff
3.00 1.00 9.50 1.80 23.50 3.30 10.50 1.00 Wall
4.00
3.50 m 2.00
48.20 m
49.10 m
EXIT GRADIENT

Exit gradient is calculated using Khosla's equation.
Drainage Mode
Ge = Exit Gradient = H/d*(1/pi*r^0.5)
H = Design Head = U/S Water Level - D/S Water Level = 1.00 m
d = Length (depth) of D/S Cutoff Wall

= D/S Channel Level - Elevation at bottom of D/S Cutoff Wall 4.00 m
b = Total Floor Length = 49.10 m
a = b/d = 12.28
r = (1 + (1 + a^2)^0.5)/2 = 6.66
Ge = 0.031 <›_ Maximum Permitted Gradient (1/7)
Floor and D/S Cutoff Wall Length is O.K.
Flushing Mode
Ge = Exit Gradient = H/d*(1/pi*r^0.5)
H = Design Head = 1.00 m
d = Length (depth) of U/S Cutoff Wall = 3.00 m
a = b/d = 16.37
r = (1 + (1 + a^2)^0.5)/2 = 8.70
Ge = 0.036 <›_ Maximum Permitted Gradient (1/6 to 1/7) 0.143
Floor and D/S Cutoff Wall Length is O.K.
UPLIFT PRESSURE
The method used to determine the percentage uplift at various key points underneath the structure was
developed by Khosla. The key points at the U/S and D/S cut-off walls are defined in the figure below.
U/S D/S
E1 C1 E6 C6
D1 D6
Drainage Mode
Upstream Cutoff Wall

d = Length (depth) of U/S Cutoff Wall = 3.00 m
a = b/d = 16.37
r = (1 + (1 + a^2)^0.5)/2 = 8.70
øE1 = 100%
øC1 = 100% - acos((r-2)/r)/pi = 77.98%
øD1 = 100% - acos((r-1)/r)/pi = 84.59%
øC1 must be corrected for the following conditions:

c1 = correction due to effect of D/S Cutoff Wall
c2 = correction due to thickness of floor
c1 = 19 * (d"/b')^0.5 * (d'+d")/b

Page 119
b' = Distance between U/S and D/S Cutoff Walls = 48.20 m
d' = Elevation underneath apron at U/S Cutoff Wall minus

Elevation at bottom of U/s Cutoff Wall 2.50 m
d" = Elevation underneath apron at D/S Cutoff Wall minus

Elevation at bottom of D/S Cutoff Wall 3.40 m
c1 = 60.64% (+ve)
c2 = [(øD1 - øC1)*Tc1]/d1
Tc1 = Thickness of Concrete at Section 1 (U/S)

= U/S Apron Level - Elev. underneath apron at U/S Cutoff Wall = 0.50 m
d1 = Depth of U/s Cutoff Wall =

U/S Apron Level - Elevation at bottom of U/S Cutoff Wall = 3.00 m
c2 = 1.10% (+ve)
øC1 (corrected) = øC1 + c1 + c2 = 139.72%
Downstream Cutoff Wall
a = b/d = 12.28
r = (1 + (1 + a^2)^0.5)/2 = 6.66
øC6 = 0%
øE6 = acos((r-2)/r)/pi = 25.34%
øD6 = acos((r-1)/r)/pi = 17.67%
øE6 must be corrected for the effect of the U/S Cutoff Wall (c1) and thickness of floor (C2)
c1 = 19 * (d"/b')^0.5 * (d'+d")/b = 19.00 0.20 0.108 = 0.41% (-ve)
c2 = [(øE6 - øD6)* Tc6]/d6 1.15%
øE6 (corrected) = øE6 + c1 + c2 = 23.78%
Required Concrete Thickness
Design Head (H) = U/S Water Level - D/S Water Level = 1.00 m
u = submerged unit weight of concrete= unit weight of concrete / unit weight of water = 1.41
Concrete Thickness (m) = H* φ /u
Section Length from φ% Concrete Uplift Pressure Used (t)

upstream end (m) Thickness (m) (Kn/m2) R/S (m)
1 U/S 0.00 139.72% 0.99 13.71
2 10.05 115.54% 0.82 11.33
3 11.85 111.21% 0.79 10.91
4 35.35 54.69% 0.39 5.36 0.80
5 38.65 46.75% 0.33 4.59 0.70
6 D/S 48.20 23.78% 0.17 2.33 0.60
Flushing Mode
Upstream Cutoff Wall
a = b/d = 16.37
r = (1 + (1 + a^2)^0.5)/2 = 8.70
øC1 = 0%
øE1 = acos((r-2)/r)/pi = 22.02%
øD1 = acos((r-1)/r)/pi = 15.41%
øE1 must be corrected for the effect of the D/S Cutoff Wall (c1) and the thickness of floor (c2)

c1 = 19 * (d"/b')^0.5 * (d'+d")/b = 19.00 0.29 0.13 = 0.72%
c2 = [(øE1 - øD1)*Tc1]/d1 = 1.10% (-ve)
øE1 (corrected) = øE1 + c1 + c2 = 20.20%
Downstream Cutoff Wall
a = b/d = 12.28
r = (1 + (1 + a^2)^0.5)/2 = 6.66
øE6 = 100%
øC6 = 100% - acos((r-2)/r)/pi = 74.66%
øD6 = 100% - acos((r-1)/r)/pi = 82.33%
øC6 must be corrected for the effect of the U/S Cutoff Wall (c1) and thickness of the wall (c2)
c1 = 19 * (d"/b')^0.5*(d'+d")/b = 19.00 0.20 0.11 = 0.41%
c2 = ((øD6 - øC6)*Tc6)/d6 = 1.15%
øC6 (corrected) = øC6 + c1 + c2 = 76.22%
Required Concrete Thickness
Design Head (H) = U/S Water Level - D/S Water Level = 1.00 m
u = submerged unit weight of concrete= unit weight of concrete/ unit weight of water = 1.41
Concrete Thickness (m) = H*φ / u
Length from ø% Concrete Used

section U/S end (m) thick (m)
1 U/S 0.00 20.20% 0.14 0.50
2 10.05 31.88% 0.23 0.60
3 11.85 33.97% 0.24 0.70
4 35.35 61.28% 0.44
5 38.65 65.12% 0.47
6 D/S 48.20 76.22% 0.54
Checking of Total Floor Length Against Under Seepage:
C= 6.00 H = 1.00 CXH= 6.00 m, Required Creep Length

Creep Length Provided = 27.87 m > 6.00 m OK
Considering HHWL (observed) River Side and Maximum Water Level inside project
C= 6.00 H = 2.20 CXH= 13.20 m, Required Creep Length

Creep Length Provided = 27.87 m > 13.20 m OK

Page 121
Appendix III: The Preliminary Estimates for Tranch‐1, Tranch‐2 and Tranch‐3
Estimate for Tranch‐1

Estimate for proposed intervention (Tranch1) 05.08.2013
I. River: Brahmaputra‐Jamuna
A. Embankment
(Composite section with provision of selected Settlement, wide mid part)
A1. Right Bank of Jamuna River (D/S of Jamuna Bridge)
Length Ht of Embk Cost/m Est amnt
(km) (m) BDT
(i). Enayetpur‐Kaijuri (NS) 10.5 5.0 28,620 300,510,193
(Tranch‐1) (S) 2.0 5.0 33,962 67,924,037
Sub‐total 12.5 km BDT 368,434,230 US$ 4,605,428
(iii). Hurasagar‐shahzadpur (NS) 6.0 4.5 24,647 147,882,003

(Tranch‐1) (NS) 1.5 4.0 20,674 31,010,974
(NS) 3.0 3.0 13,712 41,136,137
Sub‐total 10.5 km BDT 220,029,113 US$ 2,750,364
Sub‐total‐(RB Embankment) 23.0 BDT 588,463,343 US$ 7,355,792
Note: (i) The embankment section [marked 'S'] includes a 10 m wide Road Section (5.5m carriage way+
2x1.5m paved shoulder+2x0.75m verge) in C/S, 8.0 wide re‐settlement area in R/S , 3.2 m wide Crest
(mid portion) and 1V:2.5H slope in both side (to GL) for section with Selllement.
(ii) The other section [marked 'NS'] includes a 10.0 m wide road section (5.5m carriage way+ 2x1.5m
paved shoulder+2x0.75m verge) in C/S, 3.2m wide crest in R/S, no re‐settlement area and 1V:3H
slope in R/S and 1V:2.5H in C/S.
B. Road (Enayetpur‐Kaizuri)
1. Rural Road (5.5m carriage way+2x1.5m Shoulder)
5.00 km 25,000,000 km 125,000,000 US$
2. RCC road for NMV (2.8m, 100 mm thick)
5.00 km 4,500,000 km 22,500,000 US$
3. Grass stone along the slope of crest of embankment (13 km)
5.0 6261 m2/km 39,131 nos/km
each 270.00 52,827,106 US$
Total (Road) 200,327,106 US$ 2,504,089
C. Structures
C1: Structures along the Right Bank (Jamuna)
(i) RCC Regulators (1 vent) BDT BDT
1 no 19,700,000 19,700,000
(ii) RCC Regulator (2 vent)
1 no 26,300,000 26,300,000
(ii) RCC Regulators (4 vent)
1 nos 37,700,000 37,700,000
(iii) RCC Regulator (6 vent)
1 no 50,900,000 50,900,000
Cost of new structures: BDT 134,600,000 US$ 1,682,500
C2. Repair of Structures
(i) RCC Regulators
3 nos LS 2,000,000 6,000,000 US$ 75,000
Total Cost of Structures (new & repair) BDT 140,600,000 US$ 1,757,500

D. Proposed Protection length (Jamuna River)
D1. Left Bank
(i) Chouhali to Nagarpur 5.00 km 255,500,000 1,277,500,000
(ii) Zaffarganj‐ Bachamara
2.00 km 255,500,000 511,000,000
Sub‐total (LB pr work): 7.00 km BDT 1,788,500,000 US$ 22,356,250
C2. Right Bank
(i) About 1.0 km around Benotia
1.00 km 255,500,000 255,500,000 US$ 3,193,750
Total Protection Work (both bank) BDT 2,044,000,000 US$ 25,550,000
D. Land Acquisition
(D1) Embankment
Length land/km T.land
(km) (Ha) (Ha)
(I). Right Bank
(i). Enayetpur‐Kaijuri (NS) 10.5 4.50 47.25
(S) 2.0 5.00 10.00
57.25 ha
(ii) Hurasagar ‐Shahjadpr (NS) 6.0 4.23 25.35 ha
(Repair) (S) 1.5 1.19 1.78 (30% of required land to be acquired)

(Repair) (NS) 3.0 1.02 3.06 (30% of required land to be acquired)
4.84 ha
Land for RB Embankment 23.0 87.44 ha
Cost of land acquisition for RB embankment (Jamuna)
87.44 ha 7,400,000 BDT 647,037,500 US$ 8,087,969
(D2) Bank Protection
(i) Left Bank
(a) Chouhali‐Nagarpur 5.00 km 15.00 ha
(b) Zaffarganj‐Bachamara 2.00 km 6.00 ha
sub‐Total (LB) 7.00 km 21.00 ha
(ii) Right Bank
(a). 1.0 km around Benotia
1.00 km 3.00 ha
Total Land for LB & RB Protection
8.0 km 24.00 ha
Land Acquisition (For Bsnk Protection):
24.0 ha 6,910,000.00 BDT 165,840,000 US$ 2,073,000
(D3) Structure no ha
1 Vent: 1 0.82
2 Vent 1 0.93
4 Vent 1 1.17
6 Vent 1 1.29
4.21 7,400,000 BDT 31,154,000 US$ 389,425

Page 123
E. Land Reclamation
E1: Left Bank
2
(i) Doulatpur‐Zaffarganj 30.0 km
I. River: Brahmaputra‐Jamuna BDT
(i) Embankment construction & repair BDT 588,463,343
(ii) Road Construction BDT 200,327,106
(iii) Structures,(new + repair) BDT 140,600,000
(iv) Bank protection (revetment) BDT 2,044,000,000
Sub‐total Physical work BDT 2,973,390,449 US$ 37,167,381
Land Acquisition
(i) Embankment BDT
(a)Kaizuri‐ Verakhola 57.25 ha 423,650,000
(b) Hurasagar‐Baghabari 25.35 ha 187,590,000
(c ) Baghabari 4.84 ha 35,797,500
(ii) Bank Protection 24.00 ha 165,840,000
(iii) Structures 4.21 ha 31,154,000
Sub‐Total for Land Acquisition 115.65 ha 844,031,500 US$ 10,550,394
II. River: Padma
1. Protetion work in Left Bank (Harirampur) Temp above LWL and Geobag below LWL
7.00 km 185,000,000 BDT 1,295,000,000 US$ 16,187,500
Total for Physical work (Revetment) =
7.00 km BDT 1,295,000,000 US$ 16,187,500
3. Land Acquisition for Bank Protection
(i) Left Bank 7.0 km 24.5 ha
Cost of Land Acquisition
24.5 ha 6,910,000 BDT 169,295,000 US$ 2,116,188
III. Adaptation Work:
Repair and strengthening
5.0 km LS BDT 400,000,000 US$ 5,000,000
Padma
(i) Bank Protection Work BDT 1,295,000,000 US$ 16,187,500
(ii) Land acquisition 24.5 ha BDT 169,295,000 US$ 2,116,188
Grand Total
Physical work
I. Physical work for Brahmaputra‐Jamuna: BDT 2,973,390,449
II. Physical Works for Padma BDT 1,295,000,000
III. Adaptation Work and mass dumping BDT 400,000,000
Total Physical works BDT 4,668,390,449 US$ 58,354,881
Land acquisition
I. For Brahmaputra‐Jamuna: (115.65 ha) BDT 844,031,500
II. For Padma (24.5 ha) BDT 169,295,000
Total Land acquisition BDT 1,013,326,500 US$ 12,666,581
Grand Total i/c land acquisition BDT 5,681,716,949 US$ 71,021,462
Exchange Rate (US$ to BDT) 1 US$ BDT 80.00
Note: (i) Temporary (Geobag) protection is assumed in upper slope (slope above LWL) of Padma
(ii) The land acquisition cost estimated in this package has been superseded in the estimates for
Land acquisition and resettlement.


A. Embankment Length Ht of Embk Cost/m

1. Jamuna
(i). Hurasagar‐Shahzadpur (km) (m)
(Tranch‐2) (NS) 1.0 3.0 22,279 22,279,395
(NS) 1.0 3.0 22,279 22,279,395
(NS) 4.0 3.5 25,662 102,649,780
Sub‐total (Jamuna, RB) 6.0 BDT 147,208,570 US$ 1,840,107
(ii) Aricha‐Zionpur (Rehabilitation) (40% 0f 4.0 m high embankment)
12.0 4.0 10,361 124,327,584
Sub‐total (Jamuna, LB) 124,327,584 US$ 1,554,095
2. Padma
(ii) Dhaka SW Project Embankment (Rehabilitation and strengthening), LB of Padma
17.00 km 10,361 176,130,744
(40% of new construction, 4.0m high embankment)
(iii) Dhaka SW Project Embankment (New construction), LB of Padma
8.00 km 4.0 25,902 207,212,640
(4.0m high, new embankment)
Sub‐total (Padma) 383,343,384
B. Road
1. Rural Road (5.5m carriage way+2x1.5m Shoulder) BDT BDT
16.00 km 45,000,000 720,000,000
2. RCC road for NMV (2.8m, 100 mm thick)
16.00 km 4,500.00 72,000,000
3. Grass stone along the slope of crest of embankment (16 km)
2
16.0 6261 m /km 39,131 nos/km
270.00 each 169,046,739
Total (Road) 961,046,739
C. Bank Protection Works
1. Bank Protection Works (Jamuna)
(i) Enayetpur(Jamuna, Right Bank)
11.00 km 255,500,000 2,810,500,000
(ii) Chouhali, (Jamuna, Left Bank)
3.00 km 255,500,000 766,500,000
(iii) Zaffarganj (Jamuna, Left Bank)
2.00 km 255,500,000 511,000,000
Sub‐total (Jamuna, Protection) 4,088,000,000
2. Bank Protection Works (Padma)
(iv) Harirampur (Padma, Left Bank), Protection above LWL and on Berm (cc blocs on filter)
7.00 km 145,000,000 1,015,000,000
Sub‐total (Padma Protection) 1,015,000,000
D. Adoptation Work 5.00 km LS 400,000,000 5,000,000
E. Structures
1. Structures along the left Bank of Padma
(i) RCC Regulators (1 vent)
3 nos 19,700,000 59,100,000

Page 125
2. Repair of Structures
(i) RCC Regulators 2 nos 2,500,000 5,000,000
Total Cost of Structures (new & repair) 64,100,000
E. Land Acquisition
(E1) Embankment
Length land/km T.land
(km) (Ha) (Ha)
(1) Jamuna (RB)
(i) Hurasagar‐Shahzadpur 1.0 1.02 1.02 (30% land required)
1.0 1.02 1.02 (30% land required)
4.0 1.10 5.10 (30% land required)
7.14 ha
(2) Jamuna (LB)
(ii)Aricha‐Zionpur (100% of land considered for rehabilitation, Old FFW)
12.0 3.25 39.00 ha
Land acquisition for embankment (Jamuna)
46.14 ha 7,400,000 341,454,500
(I). Left Bank (Padma)
(i). SW embankment (Rehabilitation and strengthening) (40% of original land for 4.0m emb.)
17.00 1.30 22.10
(ii) SW Project embankment extension, new)
8.00 3.25 26.00
Land for embankment‐Padma 48.10 ha
Land acquisition for embankment (Padma)
48.10 ha 7,400,000 355,940,000
(E2) Bank Protection
(1) Right Bank (Jamuna)
(i) Enayetpur 11.00 km 33.00
(2) Left Bank (Jamuna)
(ii) Chouhali 3.00 km 9.00
(iii) Zaffarganj 2.00 km 6.00
Land for protection 16.00 km 48.00 ha
Land acquisition (Bank Protection, Jamuna)
48.00 ha 6,910,000 331,680,000
(3) Left Bank (Padma)
(iv) Harirampur (already taken care under Tranch1)
(E3) Land for Structure
RCC Regulator (1V) 3 nos 0.82 2.46 ha
2.46 ha 7,400,000 18,204,000

I. Brahmaputra‐Jamuna BDT US$

(i) Embankment (Hurasagar‐Shahzadpur) 147,208,570
(ii) Embankment Rehabilitation (Aricha‐Zionpur) 124,327,584
(iii) Road construction & ancillary works 961,046,739
(iv) Bank Protection Works 4,088,000,000
Sub‐total Physical work 5,320,582,893 66,507,286
Land Acquisition (Jamuna)
(i) Embankment (jamuna)
46.14 ha 341,454,500
(ii) Bank Protection (jamuna)
48.00 ha 331,680,000
Land acquisition (Jamuna) 673,134,500 8,414,181
II. River: Padma
(i) Embankment Rehabilitation 176,130,744
(ii) Embankment Construction (new) 207,212,640
(iii) Bank Protection work in Left Bank 1,015,000,000
(iv) Structure 64,100,000
Physical work for Padma 1,462,443,384 18,280,542
Land Acquisition (Padma)
(i) Embankment 48.10 ha 355,940,000
(ii) Bank Protection (nil)
(iii) Regulators 2.46 ha 18,204,000
Land for embankment (Padma) 374,144,000 4,676,800
III. Adoptation Work (Bank Protection) 400,000,000 5,000,000
Grand Total
Physical work
I. Physical work for Brahmaputra‐Jamuna: BDT 5,320,582,893
II. Physical Works for Padma BDT 1,462,443,384
III. Adoptation Work BDT 400,000,000
Total Physical works BDT 7,183,026,277 US$ 89,787,828
Land acquisition
I. For Brahmaputra‐Jamuna: BDT 673,134,500
II. For Padma BDT 374,144,000
Total Land acquisition BDT 1,047,278,500 US$ 13,090,981
Total physical infrastructure + land BDT 8,230,304,777 US$ 102,878,810
Note:
(i) The land acquisition cost estimated in this package has been superseded in the estimates for
Land acquisition and resettlement.

Page 127

A. Embankment Rate/BDT BDT

(i) Dhaleswary‐ Aricha Embankment (New construction), Left bank of Jamuna
23.00 km 32,649 750,933,187
(5.0m high, new embankment)
Total (Embankment) 750,933,187
B. Bank Protection Works
1. Bank Protection Works (Jamuna)
(i) Chouhali, (Jamuna, Left Bank)
5.00 km 255,500,000 1,277,500,000
(ii) Zaffarganj (Jamuna, Left Bank)
2.00 km 255,500,000 511,000,000
Sub‐total (Jamuna, Protection) 1,788,500,000
2. Bank Protection Works (Padma)
(iii) Protection works in Dohar (Padma, Left Bank)
5.00 km 293,825,000 1,469,125,000
(iv) Protection in Louhajang (Padma, Left bank)
2.00 km 293,825,000 587,650,000
(v) Protection in Sureswar (Padma, right Bank)
10.00 km 293,825,000 2,938,250,000
Sub‐total (Padma Protection)‐Padma 4,995,025,000
C. Structures
1. Structures along the left Bank of Jamuna
(i) RCC Regulators (1 vent)
3 nos 19,700,000 59,100,000
2. Repair of Structures
(i) RCC Regulators 2 nos 2,500,000 5,000,000
Total Cost of Structures (new & repair) 64,100,000
D. Adoptation and Strengthening
5.00 km 80,000,000 400,000,000
E. Land Acquisition
(E1) Embankment
Length and/km T.land
(km) (Ha) (Ha)
(i) Dhaleswary‐Aricha embankment extension, (new)
23.00 3.80 87.40
Land for embankment 87.40 7,400,000 646,760,000
(E2) Bank Protection
(1) Left Bank (Jamuna)
(i) Chouhali 5.00 km 15.00
(ii) Zaffarganj 2.00 km 6.00
Land for protection (Jamuna) 21.00 ha
21.00 6,910,000 145,110,000

(2) Left and Right Bank (Padma)
(iii) Dohar 5.00 km 17.50
(iii) Louhajang 2.00 km 7.00
(iv) Sureswar 10.00 km 35.00
Sub‐total (land)‐Padma Protection 59.50 ha
Land for Protection (Padma) 59.50 6,910,000 411,145,000
(E3) Structure
(i) RCC Regulator (1‐Vent)
3.00 nos 0.82 2.46 ha
2.46 ha 7,400,000 18,204,000
I. River: Brahmaputra‐Jamuna
(i) Embankment 23.00 km 750,933,187
(ii) Protection Work 7.00 km 1,788,500,000
(iii) Structures 64,100,000
Sub‐total ‐Physical infrastructures 2,603,533,187
Land
(i) Embankment 87.40 ha 646,760,000
(ii) Protection Work 21.00 ha 145,110,000
(iii) Structures 2.46 ha 18,204,000
810,074,000
II. River: Padma
(i) Bank Protection works 17.00 km 4,995,025,000
Land
(i) Bank Protection works 59.50 ha 411,145,000
III. Adoptation 400,000,000
Total Estimated Cost for Tranch‐3
BDT US$
1. Embankment (Jamuna) 750,933,187
2. (a) Bank Protection (Jamuna) 1,788,500,000
(b) Bank Protection (Padma) 4,995,025,000
3. Structure 64,100,000
4. Adotation & Strengthening 400,000,000
Sub‐total Physical Infrastructure 7,998,558,187 99,981,977
5. Cost of Land
(i) Embankment (Jamuna) 87.40 ha 646,760,000
(ii) Bank Protection (Jamuna) 21.00 ha 145,110,000
(iii) Bank Protection (Padma) 59.50 ha 411,145,000
(iv) Structure/Regulators 2.46 ha 18,204,000
Sub‐total for land 170.36 ha 1,221,219,000 15,265,238
Total physical Infrastructure + Land 9,219,777,187 115,247,215

Page 129

Basic Element rates used for the estimate (Sample)

1. Base (embankment) Excavation BDT 166.00 m3

2. Dredged Sand/Earth from River for embankment construction BDT 191.00 m3

3. Clay lining BDT 238.00 m3

4. Supply, fill, sewing and staking geobags (125 kg) BDT 209.00 each

5. Supply, fill, sewing and staking geobags (250 kg) BDT 390.00 each

6. Dumping geobag from properly positioned barge BDT 387.00 m3

7. CC block (200x200x300mm) BDT 379.00 each



10. CC block dumping/ placing BDT 1395.00 m3

11. Structural Concrete (18 N/mm2) BDT 8200.00 m3

12. Gras‐stone (400x400x150mm with 4‐holes) BDT 270.00 each

13. 2 Lane Road (5.5m carriage way + 2 – 1.5 m paved shoulder) BDT 45,000.00 m

Appendix IV: Design Criteria

Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk
Management Program (MRP)

RIVER BANK PROTECTION, EMBANKMENT AND
DRAINAGE WORKS

Design Criteria

September 2013

Page 131
Contents
1 Design Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 133
1.1 Design Life .................................................................................................................................. 133
1.2 Standards and Design Guidelines .............................................................................................. 133
1.3 General Approach ...................................................................................................................... 134
1.4 Hydrology and Hydraulic Parameters ........................................................................................ 134
1.4.1 River Discharge and Flood Level ..................................................................................... 134
1.4.2 Flow velocity ................................................................................................................... 136
1.4.3 Wind‐Generated Waves .................................................................................................. 136
1.4.4 Freeboard ........................................................................................................................ 138
1.5 Scour .......................................................................................................................................... 138
1.6 Design of Erosion Protection Counter‐Measures ...................................................................... 138
1.6.1 Slope Protection – River Currents ................................................................................... 138
1.6.2 Scour Protection Apron ................................................................................................... 138
1.6.3 Erosion Protection Waves ............................................................................................... 139
1.7 Slope Stability............................................................................................................................. 139
2 Drainage and Flushing Structures ............................................................................................ 140
2.1 Draining Capacity ....................................................................................................................... 140
2.2 Hydraulic and Structural Details ................................................................................................ 140


1 Design Criteria
1.1 Design Life

The specified design life of the river bank protection, embankments and drainage and flushing works is
30 years. This does not mean the all the drainage structures and river training works will operate
without maintenance over this period of time; periodic repair of drainage infrastructure and/or
upgrading of protective works will be required. The definition of a design life pre‐supposes the
establishment of a comprehensive monitoring and maintenance program.

1.2 Standards and Design Guidelines
The following design standards and guidelines are used for specific aspects of the RTW design, as listed
below:

Hydraulic Design
 Standard Design Manual; Chief Engineer, Design, BWDB
 Guide Lines and Design Manual for Standardised Bank Protection Structures; Jamuna Test Work
Consultants, December 2001
 Bureau of Research Testing and Consultancy (BRTC), Bangladesh University of Engineering &
Technology 2010: Guidelines for Riverbank Protection. Prepared for Bangladesh Water
Development Board, financed through Jamuna‐Meghna River Erosion Mitigation Project
(subsequent referred to as BRTC‐2010).
 US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1994, Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels,
Engineering Manual EM 1110‐2‐1601.
 Final report, Main Volume, River Survey Project, FAP‐24, November 1996
 Flood Control Embankment and River Bank Protection of the Left Bank of Jamuna River at
Nagarpur and Chouhali; Final Report; Directorate of Planning‐1, BWDB and IWM, June 2007
 Brahmaputra Flood Embankment Project; (Phulchari to Sirajganj); Definite Project Report; East
Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority; leedshill‐DeLeuw Engineers, November
1965.
 Jamuna Padma Left Bank Project; Final Report; Directorate of Planning‐1, BWDB, July 2007.
 Quality Control, Monitoring and Impact Assessment of Pilot Dredging of Jamuna River at two
Locations, from Sirajganj Hard Point to Dhaleswary Offtake (20km) and near Nalin Bazar (2 km);
draft Final Report; IWM.

Geotechnical Design
 Joseph E. Bowles, 1997: Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th edition, McGraw Hill.
 Stephen L. Kramer, 1996: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall. .
 Terzaghi/Peck/Mesri, 1996: Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. 3rd edition, John Wiley &
Sons.
 ASTM Standards (Status Dec. 2009): Soil and Rock

In addition, a range of specialized technical publications on scour and bank protection design were
consulted including:
 Przedwojski, Błažejewski, R. and K. Pilarczyk 1995: River Training Techniques. A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam.
 Pilarczyk, K. 1990: Coastal Protection, Delft University of Technology.
 Maynord, S., Ruff, J.F. and Abt,, S.R., 1989: Riprap design. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
(ASCE), 115, 7, 937‐949.

Page 133
1.3 General Approach

The design flood for the river training works has a return period of 100 years. The RTW must be capable
of experiencing the design condition without experiencing significant damage. Under design conditions,
the stability of the cover layer and scour protection measures must meet or exceed the required factors
of safety specified in US Army Corps of Engineers guideline EM 1110‐2‐1601 (USACE, 1994).

1.4 Hydrology and Hydraulic Parameters
1.4.1 River Discharge and Flood Level

(a) River Discharge

The design flood discharge was determined as the 100‐year discharge based on the historic record of
maximum annual discharges at the Bahadurabad gauge for Brahmaputra‐Jamuna and Mawa gauge
station.

In Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk Management Program (MRP),

The frequency analysis for discharge was calculated on observed discharge for Bahadurabad (Jamuna)
and Mawa (Padma) for 1976‐2006.

Frequency Analysis of Maximum Discharge by Log
110
Pearson Method:Bahadurabad
105
Discharge(Thousand m3)
100 RP-2 67,086

95 RP-5 79,835
90 RP-10 87,094
85 RP-20 93,391
80 RP-50 100,804
75 RP-100 105,936
70
65
60
0 20 40 Return Period
60 80 100 120

Discharge at Bahadarabad (Brahmaputra‐Jamuna)


Frequency Analysis of Maximum Discharge by Log Pearson
Method:Mawa
140
130
Dischage(Thousands m3)
RP-2 88,732
120
RP-5 101,432
RP-10 108,875
110
RP-20 115,478
100 RP-50 123,445

RP-100 129,093
90
80
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Return Period

Discharge at Mawa (Padma)

(b) Flood Level

The design flood level is based on the 100‐year estimate from frequency analysis of annual maximum
water levels at Sirajganj (SW 49) and Mathura (SW 50.3) for left bank of Jamuna River and Bangabandhu
Bridge and Aricha (SW 50.6) in the right bank for Jamuna River. All levels are still water levels and do not
account for wave runup.

WL from June 1945 to September 2012 for Sirajganj, April 1964 to September 2012 for Mathura,
January 2000 to January 2013 for Bangabandhu (Jamuna) Bridge and April 1964 to August 2012 has
been considered for calculating 100 year WL for different stations of Brahmaputra‐Jamuna River.

River: Brahmaputra‐Jamuna
Station HWL LWL 2 year 10 year 50 year 100 year
observed observed HWL HWL HWL HWL
Sirajganj 15.11 6.05 14.57 13.85 15.20 15.46
Mathura 11.90 2.44 10.18 11.08 11.87 12.20
Bangabandhu Bridge 14.12 5.41 13.19 13.98 14.68 14.97
Aricha 10.76 1.94 9.47 10.26 10.95 11.25

Again WL from April 1965 to August 2012 for Baruria and April 1968 to September 2012 for Mawa
stations has been considered for calculating 100 year WL for different locations along Padma River.

River: Padma
Station HWL LWL 2 year 10 year 50 year 100 year
observed observed HWL HWL HWL HWL
Baruria 9.89 1.31 8.31 9.10 9.79 10.08
Mawa 7.09 0.78 6.03 6.68 7.25 7.49

The results are finally verified with the publications available.

Page 135
1.4.2 Flow velocity
(i) Brahmaputra‐Jamuna
Observed flow velocity in Brahmaputra‐Jamuna at Bahadurabad transit from 1990 to 2009 is 1695
numbers. Out of all these measurements of velocity in Bahadurabad the highest of 99.77% is selected
as design velocity. The data are placed in the design report.

(ii) Padma
The maximum velocity from all the 339 discharge observation at Mawa from January2001 to March
2013 was selected. Out of all these maximum observed velocities the highest of 84.7% is selected as the
design velocity for selection of the size of protection element.

The analysis is placed below.

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.35 to 1.00 1.0 to 2.00 2.0 to 3.0 3.0 to 4.0 4.0 to 5.0

Observed velocity Number of % of each group Cumulative %
(m/sec) observation
0.35 ‐1.00 107 31.6% 31.6%
1.00 ‐ 2.00 79 23.3% 54.9%
2.00‐ 3.00 101 29.8% 84.7%
3.00‐4.00 48 14.2% 98.8%
4.00‐5.00 4 1.2% 100.0%
Total 339

1.4.3 Wind‐Generated Waves
Slope protection at the river training works is designed to withstand the 100‐year significant wave
condition.

The wave height was calculated by Dennis Grosser from hourly wind data recorded at Chandpur,
Comilla, Bogra and Ishurdi in JMREMP.

The analysis of available wind data reveals that in Pabna Irrigation and Rural Development Project
(PIRDP) the wave height do not exceed 0.6m. The expected wave period is 2.5 secs.
The available wind data indicate that wave heights at the Meghna‐Dhonagoda Irrigation Project (MDIP)
would be in the order of 1 m. The expected wave period is then 3.9 s.


In Padma Multipurpose Bridge Design Project, wave hindcasting was carried out using the simplified
procedures described in the US Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Manual EM 1110‐2‐1100,
2008. The maximum wave heights at the site are limited by the available fetch. The fetch distance varies
with bank location, water level and channel bank position which varies over time due to erosion and
accretion of the adjacent chars. It was assumed that shallow vegetated floodplain areas will not
contribute to wave generation.

Wave runup is the maximum elevation of wave uprush above the still water level and depends on the
deep water wave climate, angle of approach, near‐shore topography, bank type and bank slope. Wave
runup (Ru%) is described statistically as the runup level exceeded by i per cent of the incident waves. A
value of 2% exceedance is generally used for design of coastal structures (USACE, 2008). This means
that under a 100‐year storm condition, 2% of the incident waves would equal or exceed a value of Ru2%.
Wave runup was computed for the case of irregular waves approaching to an impermeable 1V:3H bank
slope using relations described in River Training Techniques; K.W.Pilarczyk, 1995

Effective Runup is given by
R = τrp. rβ . Rn
where, τrp is the reduction factor due to slope roughness and permeability
rβ is the reduction factor due to oblique wave attack and
Rn is the runup on smooth plane slope defined as the vertical wave height above
still water level.

Again, Rn 2% = (1.5‐1.75) ξp Hs for ξp < 2.5
Rn 2% = (3.0 ‐ 3.5) ξp Hs for ξp > 2.5

where, Rn 2% = runup which exceeds by 2% waves (for wind waves)
ξp = Wave breaking parameter = 1.25 Tp.Tanα. Hs ‐0.5
Hs = significant wave height (m)
Tp = wave period (sec)
α = slope angle (°)

The Section of embankment

Crest Level : 14.80 m PWD
100 year HWL: 13.90 m PWD
R/S slope: 1V:3H
C/S slope: 1V:2.5H

In MRP

Wave height is assumed for a 7.5 km fetch, 20 m/sec wind speed [Guideline for River bank Protection;
BRTC, BUET and BWDB] and checked with FAP 21 guideline and FAP‐1 documents.

wave height = 1.3 m
wave period = 2.3 sec

(Halcrow reported maximum wind speed of 18.0 m/sec in Faridpur, Sirajganj, Bogra and Mymensingh,
1994)

(In JMREMP Dennis Grosser analysed wave for the period 1996 to 2005. The maximum wind speed
recorded was 18.0 m/sec. Record stations are Comilla, Bogra, Ishurdi and Chandpur.)

Page 137
The calculation showing the runup is enclosed as Appendix‐1 and the analysis conducted by Dennis
Grosser is enclosed in Appendix‐2.
1.4.4 Freeboard
The crest elevation of all embankments that are not intended to be overtopped were determined as
follows:

Crest El. = Design maximum elevation of wave uprush (Ru2%) or 1.5 m freeboard whichever is higher. In
all the calculation 100 year HWL has been used.

Note: (No flood in the past has attained the 100 year flood limit, 1988 flood attained a return period of
65 year in Jamuna and in Padma, again 1998 flood attained a return period of 40 year in Jamuna and
about 50 year in Padma.)

1.5 Scour
Scour was determined under a range of discharges and channel pattern scenarios in order to envelope
the worst conceivable scour condition at the site. These channel pattern scenarios were based on a
careful review of historical data spanning the last 1995‐2012 period and compared with standard
literature.

MRP Activities
Scour levels were based partly on a record from 1995 to 2011/2012 and surveyed bed elevations in the
general vicinity of the work site in October 2012 and March 2013.

Design Scour
Scour was estimated for a range of discharges including bankfull discharge up to the 100‐year flood.
Brahmaputra‐Jamuna being a braided river, attention is given to assess the flow along a particular
channel. The Padma river near Baruria and opposite to Faridpur flowing in multiple channel is also
assessed accordingly.

1.6 Design of Erosion Protection Counter‐Measures
1.6.1 Slope Protection – River Currents
The bank slopes will be protected against erosion from river currents to prevent damage to the
underlying fine material. The design of the slope protection (including cover layer, filter layer or
geotextile) will be in accordance with accepted methods described in BRTC‐2008.

The stable size of protection element (cover layer) against river currents is determined using the
Pilarczyk equation as suggested in Guideline for River bank Protection; BRTC, BUET and BWDB.
1.6.2 Scour Protection Apron
Scour protection aprons will be provided at all river training structures to prevent undermining of the
revetment slopes. The design approach will reflect general uncertainties associated with launching
aprons and the lack of a complete understanding of the self launching of different scour protection
elements. The size and type of materials used in the aprons will be determined using site conditions and
design requirements on the Jamuna and Padma River in Bangladesh as prescribed in BRTC‐2008 and the
additional experience gained at Jamuna Bridge and other major river training works in Bangladesh.

The nominal volume of geobags required in the apron is determined by assuming the geobags launch
on a slope 1V:2H and provide single layer coverage after initial launching. Safety factors is applied to


cover uncertainties. Therefore, the factor of safety for launching apron volumes will be 1.5 for selected
design scour conditions.
1.6.3 Erosion Protection Waves
The stable block size for slopes exposed to wave attack is determined by Pilarczyk’s relation (CIRIA
2007):

b
Hs  ξ z
Dn 
Δm  Ψu  Φsw  cosα
In which, Dn is the nominal thickness of the protection element [m], Hs is the significant wave height
ξ
b
[m], is the wave similarity parameter (=tan α * 1.25Tm/Hs1/2), α is the slope angle, Tm is the mean
z
wave period [s], Δm is the relative buoyant density of the protection unit [‐], Ψu is the system specific
stability upgrading factor [‐], and φsm is the stability factor for wave loads. The assumed design
parameters for hand placed cc blocks over geotextile filter are as follows:

 The system specific stability upgrading factor (Ψu) is 2.00.
 Stability factor (φsm) is 2.25 which is the low end of the range between 2.25 and 3.0.

1.7 Slope Stability
Slope stability analysis is carried out at the main RTW structures to locate critical sections of the river
banks and to ensure the RTW slope protection will be geotechnically stable under various loading
scenarios. The slope stability analysis will distinguish two cases: (i) slopes formed by self launching
aprons, (ii) overall slopes to deepest scour level.

Four loading cases (LC) on the RTW structures will be analyzed:
 LC1: dead load, traffic load, lateral earth pressure, hydraulic pressure (including regular
percolation);
 LC2: Additional rare occurrences or temporary conditions during construction will be added to
LC1;

The safety factors that will be adopted against failure for loading condition on the RTW slopes will
reflect the importance and the risk of exposure of the upper dredged slopes and the deeper slopes
formed by self‐launching aprons. For the upper dredge slopes and the overall slope stability safety
factors are indicated below.

Table 1: Safety factors for geotechnical assessment of river training works

Loading Case LC1 LC2
Factor of Safety 1.4 1.3

The slopes formed by self‐launching aprons are commonly at the limit state of stability and
consequently cannot be treated in the same way. The analysis of slope stability will determine the
factor of safety and the limit conditions after which failure is expected. Limit state of stability means the
factor of safety is close to 1 for the highest loading conditions. To prevent a slip plane encroaching into
the slope section above, the apron have to leave wide berms after launching. The launched slopes need
to be monitored regularly in order to be able to provide reinforcement (adaptation) in a timely manner.

Page 139
2 Drainage and Flushing Structures
2.1 Draining Capacity

The size of a regulator is fixed on the expected runoff 1 in 10 year. In the present case the runoff
suggested in IECO publication has been used as check with 20% increase over the suggested runoff.

2.2 Hydraulic and Structural Details
As per BWDB design Guidelines.

Attachments

Attachment‐1: Overtopping of Embankment
Attachment‐2: Wave Analysis


Attachment‐1: Overtopping of Embankment

Embankment Crest in Kaizuri‐Hurasagar
Overtopping of embankment
Section of Embankment
Crest Level : 14.80 m new PWD (suggested by Technical Committee,
R/S Slope : 1V:3H on recommendation of model study)
C/S Slope: 1V:2.5H
Effective run‐up, R =τrp.rβ.Rn [River Training Techniques; KWPilarczyk, 1995]

(Page‐446)
where
τrp is the reduction factor due to slope roughness and permeability
rβ is the reduction factor due to oblique wave attack
Rn is the run‐up on smooth plane slope defined as the vertical wave
height above still water level
Again
Rn2% = (1.5 ‐ 1.75)ξp Hs for ξp < 2.5 and
Rn2% = (3.0 ‐ 3.5) Hs for ξp > 2.5
Rn2% = the run‐up which is exceeded by 2% waves (for wind waves)
ξp = Wave breaking parameter = 1.25xTp tanα Hs‐0.5
Hs = Significant wave height [m]
Tp = Wave period [sec]
α = side slope angle [°]
Data
W = 13.3 m new PWD (still water level, Model generated)
Hs = 1.3 m (Wave height and Wave period from BUET‐BRTC)
Tp = 2.3 sec
α = 18.43 ° For slope of embankment 1V:3.0H
ξp = 1.25xTp tanα Hs‐0.5 0.834 [‐] (slope 1V:3H)

Rn2% run‐up exceeded by 2% of waves
Therefore, (run‐up exceeded by 2% of waes)
Rn2% = (1.5 ‐ 1.75)ξp Hs = 1.63 m (with slope of 1V:3H)
(higher numerical value is used for the calculation)
Considering smooth surface ( τrp = 1.0) and angle of wave attack (β = 30°):
R =τrp.rβ.Rn = 1.50 m (With slope of 1V:3H, and β =30°)

Page 141
Reduction Factor for Slope Surface Roughness and permeability
(Table: 6.27, Page‐448, River Training Techniques; Pilarczyk)
Cover layer τrp
Asphalt, smooth concrete 1.00
Concrete blocks, Open stone asphalt, grouted stone, grass mats 0.95
Pitched stone 0.9
Rough, permeable block mats, gravel, gabion mattress 0.7 ‐ 0.8
Riprap (minimum thickness 2Dn50) 0.5 ‐ 0.6
Reduction Factor for oblique wave attack, after SNIP (1983)
(Table: 6.28, Page‐448, River Training Techniques; Pilarczyk)
Angle β° 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
rβ 1.00 0.98 0.96 0.92 0.87 0.82 0.76


Attachment 2:
Wave Analysis by Dennis Grosser

1. General
When wind blows over water the water surface starts to move and form waves. Waves are the result of
shear stress between moving air (wind) and water surface. The energy of the moving air is transferred
to water particles. These water particles start to move in the same direction the wind blows.

Waves are defined by wave height H, wave period T, wave lengths L, and direction (see Figure 1‐1).
Waves are often generated far from the place where they are observed. However, related wind speed
and duration can be derived from the observed wave height, wave period and wave direction.
Uncertainties in the relationship between wind and waves result from the fact that waves can be
transferred and reflected during travelling. If the waves are travelling through areas with shallow water
they are in contact with the bottom and start changing direction and height called shoaling and
refraction. The calculation remains simple as long as the waves travel in the deep‐water zone (d > 2  L,
where d is the water depth and L the wave length). Due to refraction and shoaling the wave height is
decreasing and the wavelength is changing. The wave period remains the same.
Figure 1-1: Definition of terms – elementary, sinusoidal, progressive wave (CEM Figure II-
1-9)
Waves observed in oceans, lakes, or rivers are not single regular waves. Observed waves in nature are
the results of a superimposing process of different single waves generated on different locations with
different wind speed and durations. They form a spectrum of waves with different wave height, wave
periods and wavelength. This wave spectrum is described by a significant wave height Hs (the average of
the upper third of all observed waves). The wave spectrum contains of different waves with different
energy density (see Figure 1‐2).

Page 143

Figure 1‐2: Sketches of wave spectral energy and energy density(CEM Figure II‐1‐35,
Chakrabarti 19871

The frequency at the peak is called the peak frequency fp. The wave peak period Tp is then 1/fp. The
mean wave direction  is then the mean value of the directions and describes the mean direction of the
wave spectrum. Figure 1‐3 shows a schematic for a two‐dimensional wave spectrum.

JONSWAP (Joint North Sea Wave Project, Hasselmann et al., 19732) developed a wave spectrum for
fetch‐limited seas, which can be expressed by the following formulae:
It can be assumed for observed waves with periods between 3 and 25 seconds that they are generated
by wind. The following Figure 1‐4 shows some equations related to waves:

1
Chakrabarti, S.K., “Hydrodynamics of Offshore Structures”, WIT Press, Southampton, UK.
2
Hasselmann et al., 1973, „Measurements of Wind‐Wave Growth and Swell Decay During the Joint North Sea
Wave Project (JONSWAP)”, Deutsche Hydrograph. Zeit., Ergänzungsheft Reihe A (8°), No. 12.


Figure 1-3: A schematic for a two-dimensional wave spectrum (E(f, ) (CEM Figure II-1-
33))
Figure 1-4: Summary of linear (Airy) wave theory – wave characteristics (CEM Figure II-
1-9)

Page 145

Figure 1‐5 shows the different wave phases, the velocity and the acceleration of water particles of the
waves for deep water conditions. If the waves are entering the transition zone they start to transform
and become more elliptic because the particles are influenced by the bottom.
Figure 1-5: Wave phases
2. Generation of Waves:

The generation of waves depends on fetch length, wind speed and duration of wind event. The fetch
length is the length of the water surface, for example of a lake or an ocean the wind is blowing across. It
is the length of the water surface, where the wind can transfer energy to the water. Wave generation
can be limited by (i) the duration of the occurring wind (duration limited) or (ii) the length of the water
surface of ocean/lake (fetch limited). Wind must blow for a certain time to develop the full wave height
for the given fetch length. Only after some time of blowing across the surface, sufficient energy is
transferred into the water surface to generate the full wave height.

The time it takes for waves to travel the fetch length can be calculated with the following formulae
(CEM, II‐2‐35):
X 0.67
t x ,u  77.23
u 0.34 g 0.33

where X is the fetch length and uw is the wind speed.

Figure 2‐1 shows the minimum time for different wavelength and different wind speeds. It shows for
example that a two km wide water surface requires minimum 25 m/s wind speed for 30 min to
generate the full wave height. For a five km wide water surface is requires about 55 minutes of 20 m/s
wind.


Figure 2‐1: Equivalent duration for wave generation as a function of fetch and wind speed
(CEM figure II‐2‐3)

JONSWAP (Joint North Sea Wave Project, Hasselmann et al., 19733) gives formulas to calculate the have
heights and wave period:
~ ~
H s  0.00178  F 0.5
~ ~
T p  0.352  F 0.3

where the non‐dimensional parameters are:
~
H s  gH s / U W2
~
F  gF / U W2
~
T p  gT p / U W2

where Uw is the wind speed, F is the fetch length, Hs the significant wave height, and Tp is the peak wave
period.

Figure 2‐2 to Figure 2‐5 show the diagrams for estimating wave height and period for known wind
speed and duration. Figure 2‐6 and Figure 2‐7 summarize these diagrams for some wave heights and
wave periods for fetch and duration limited wave climates, while Figure 2‐8 gives some wave heights for
fetch limited wave climate for six different wind speeds. It shows for example that the generated wave
for a 5 km wide water surface and 15 m/s wind speed is 60 cm high. However, this wave only occurs if
the wind blows for a minimum of 45 minutes (see Figure 2‐1).

3
Hasselmann et al., 1973, „Measurements of Wind‐Wave Growth and Swell Decay During the Joint North Sea
Wave Project (JONSWAP)”, Deutsche Hydrograph. Zeit., Ergänzungsheft Reihe A (8°), No. 12.

Page 147

Figure 2-2: Fetch-limited wave heights (CEM Figure II-2-23)
Figure 2-3: Fetch-limited wave periods (CEM Figure II-2-24)


Figure 2-4: Duration-limited wave heights (CEM Figure II-2-25)
Figure 2-5: Duration-limited wave periods (CEM Figure II-2-26)

Page 149

Figure 2-6: Wave heights and period for fetch limited waves


Figure 2-7: Wave heights and period for duration limited waves

Page 151

Wave height fetch limited
35 m/s
3 30 m/s
2.5 25 m/s
20 m/s
Wave height [m]
2 15 m/s
10 m/s
1.5
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20
Fetch length [km]
Figure 2-8: Wave heights for fetch limited wave climate
3. Transition zone (Shoaling and Refraction)
As already mentioned above, the water depth influences waves. If the water depth becomes less than
0.5 H, wave height and wavelength are changing. If waves are not already running perpendicular to the
bank line the wave direction will turn towards a direction perpendicular to the bank line. This change in
direction is called refraction and is caused when waves come into contact with the bottom and
consequently slow down their movement. At the same time and for the same reason the wave height
will change. This is called shoaling. The formula for calculating the wave height is:

where Ks and Kr are the coefficient for shoaling and refraction. Both coefficients are smaller than unity
and reduce the wave height. The wave period remains unchanged.

At a certain point the waves are breaking. The breaker criteria for shallow water conditions is:

It means that the wave particles at the crest are faster than the wave itself and the wave becomes
unstable. The angle of the wave crest is less than 120°.

However, waves can also break in deep water. The criteria are the same than for shallow water, but the
water depth has no influence in the wave breaking. The formulae is

Wave breaking on deep water condition can also occur as white capping, where the wave itself remains
stable and only the upper part of the wave breaks. This might happen with strong winds on high waves,
where the wind accelerates only the upper part of the wave and this part is detached from the lower
part of the wave.


4. Wind Conditions in Bangladesh

4.1 General
Figure 4‐1 shows the distribution of heavy thunderstorms around the world. It can be seen that
Bangladesh is located in an area with a higher risk of thunderstorms. These thunderstorm can generate
fast winds, but will only create high waves, if the duration of the storm is long enough and the direction
is sufficient to have a long fetch to generate high waves.
Figure 4-1: Distribution of heavy thunderstorms around the world
4.2 Previous Studies

Halcrow (1994)4 investigated wind data in 1994. The maximum wind speed equal to or exceeding 30
knots recorded was as followed:
Table 4-1: Wind speed and direction reported by Halcrow (1994)4:

Location Wind speed [knots] Wind speed [m/s] Direction [°]
Faridpur 35 18.0 340
Faridpur 30 15.4 150
Sirajganj 35 18.0 150
Bogra 30 15.4 200
Bogra 30 15.4 360
Bogra 30 15.4 130
Mymensingh 30 15.4 50
The following wind frequency chart (see Figure 4‐2) shows a 10‐hour wind measurement. It can be seen
that wind of 30 knots (15 m/s) blows for 30 minutes. Halcrow estimated a maximum wave height of 1.0
m with a period of 3.0 s. Unfortunately Halcrow gives no information about the duration of the wind
speed.

4
(Sir William Halcrow & Partner ltd., River Training Studies of the Brahmaputra River, Master Plan Report, 1994, Technical Annexes, Annex 4
Design and Construction)

Page 153

To generate wave heights of 1.0 m as reported by Halcrow a wind of 30 knots/15 m/s blowing over 20
km fetch length for about 3 hours is necessary. A wind of 15 knots/8 m/s is necessary for about 9 hours.
The wave period is then 3.5 s.
Figure 4-2: Wind measurement recorded by Halcrow (1994)4
4.3 JMREMP Study

We have received some wind data from the Bangladesh Meteorological Department for the four wind
stations at Bogra, Ishurdi, Chandpur, and Comilla (see Figure 4‐3). The data sets contain 10 years of
measurements. Measurements were taken 8 times a day for 10 minutes and the average was recorded.

We have analysed the data as follows:
1. In a first step we have divided the wind data for each side into 4 sectors: North, East, South and
West. We have plotted the monthly measured wind speeds per sector in Figure 4‐4 to Figure 4‐
7. The relevant JMREMP subproject is plotted in the centre. This allows relating wind direction
and orientation of riverbank protection work build under JMRMEP.
2. In a second step the data were analysed for each 10°‐section. Figure 4‐8 to Figure 4‐11 shows
the results with the number of samples for every section, the maximum wind speed in knots
and the average of the upper third of the measurements (not taking the “0”‐measurements into
account).

The findings are:
1. During the dry season the wind comes mainly from North‐Western directions, while the wind
during the monsoon season comes from South‐Eastern directions.
2. The riverbank protection work at both sites is largely oriented in north‐south direction and
would be directly hit only through westerly winds (MDIP) and easterly winds (PIRDP).
3. In general winds from northerly directions occur during the dry season from September to June.
During this period water levels are mostly low. Winds from southerly directions normally can
be observed during the monsoon seasons.


4. The maximum observed wind speed for Comilla was 31 knots (15 m/s), for Bogra and Ishurdi 35
knots (18 m/s), and for Chandpur 36 knots (18 m/s). Table 4‐2 shows the average wind speeds
for the four locations.
5. There are substantial periods when no wind was measured. These periods occur all over the
year and are not limited to the monsoon or dry season. During the whole period of
measurements (10 years) 61% of all measurements at Chandpur were measurements without
wind, 33% at Comilla, 34% at Ishurdi and 51% at Bogra.
Table 4-2: Average Wind Speed from 1996-2005

Chandpur Comilla Bogra Ishurdi
Average wind speed 1996‐2005 with zero‐values
16 May ‐ 31 October 1.15 3.22 1.97 2.39
1 November ‐ 15 May 0.95 1.97 1.52 1.89
Average wind speed 1996‐2005 without zero‐values
16 May ‐ 31 October 2.69 4.06 3.63 3.40
1 November ‐ 15 May 2.70 3.62 1.96 3.04

Page 155

Figure 4-3: Location of Wind Stations and Sites


Figure 4‐4: Wind in Bogra from 1996 to 2005

Page 157

Figure 4‐5: Wind in Ishurdi from 1996 to 2005


Figure 4‐6: Wind in Chandpur from 1996 to 2005

Page 159

Figure 4-7: Wind in Comilla from 1996 to 2005


Bogra, Wind Direction 0

35012000 10
340 20 Bogra
330 30
10000
320 40 Direction Samples Percent aver(1/3) max
310 8000 50 0 530 2 5.06 18
300 6000 60 10 6 0 3.57 4
290 4000 70 20 6 0 7.00 9
280 2000 80 30 21 0 4.29 6
40 12 0 8.75 12
270 0 90
50 903 3 5.45 18
260 100
60 1 0 2.00 2
250 110
70 3 0 4.00 6
240 120 80 9 0 4.00 4
230 130 90 3,597 12 6.08 34
220 140 100 3 0 6.00 6
210 150
200 160 110 1 0 10.00 10
190 170
180 Samples 120 7 0 3.00 4
130 3,646 12 5.26 17
140 6 0 4.00 4
150 12 0 5.00 7
160 3 0 8.00 8
Bogra, Wind Speed 0
340
350 40 10
20
170 1 0 2.00 2
330 30
35 180 1,546 5 5.19 15
320 40
30
310 50
190 2 0 4.00 4
25
300 20 60 200 - - 0.00 0
290 15 70
210 60 0 4.95 8
280
10
80
220 23 0 4.25 6
5
230 991 3 5.73 23
270 0 90
240 1 0 2.00 2
260 100
250 1 0 3.00 3
250 110
260 1 0 2.00 2
240 120
270 1,284 4 4.27 25
230 130
280 - - 0.00 0
220 140
210 150 290 - - 0.00 0
200 160
190 170 aver(1/3) 300 - - 0.00 0
180
max 310 1,590 5 4.83 28
320 - - 0.00 0
330 10 0 4.00 5
340 4 0 3.00 4
350 10 0 2.00 2
360 530 2 5.06 18
Samples 14,290 49
Average/day 3.92
0-values 14,910
0-value % 51.1
Figure 4-8: Wind Speed and Direction at Bogra
(1996-2005)

Page 161

Ishurdi, Wind Direction 0

35012000 10
340 20
330 30
10000
320 40 Ishurdi
310 8000 50
Direction Samples Percent aver(1/3) max
300 6000 60
0 2,407 8 4.36 16
290 4000 70
10 5 0 3.50 4
280 80
2000 20 3 0 2.00 2
270 0 90 30 32 0 9.13 14
260 100 40 122 0 4.21 12
250 110 50 512 2 4.77 17
240 120 60 11 0 5.00 7
230 130 70 4 0 2.00 2
220 140 80 9 0 2.67 4
210 150
200 160 90 1,448 5 6.16 17
190 170
180
Samples 100 1 0 10.00 10
110 - - 0.00 0
120 1 0 4.00 4
130 4,401 15 6.12 18
Ishurdi, Wind Speed
140 38 0 5.92 10
0
340
350 40 10
20
150 4 0 3.00 4
330 30
35 160 11 0 5.75 10
320 40
30
310 50
170 - - 0.00 0
25
300 20 60
180 4,807 16 5.45 15
290 15 70
190 4 0 8.00 8
10 200 3 0 4.00 4
280 80
5
210 94 0 5.28 10
270 0 90
220 406 1 5.24 12
260 100
230 998 3 5.42 35
250 110 240 6 0 8.00 8
240 120 250 6 0 2.00 2
230 130 260 5 0 5.00 6
220 140
210 150
270 1,793 6 5.05 25
200
190 170
160 aver(1/3) 280 27 0 4.11 10
180
max 290 1 0 2.00 2
300 15 0 4.50 5
310 1,691 6 12.50 16
320 239 1 5.36 14
330 162 1 5.78 15
340 6 0 3.50 4
350 1 0 2.00 2
360 2,407 8 4.36 16
Samples 19,273 66
Average/day 5.28
0-values 9,927
Figure 4-9: Wind Speed and Direction at Ishurdi 0-value % 34.0
(1996-2005)


Com illa, Wind Direction 0

350
12000 10
340 20
330 30
10000
320 40 Comilla
310 8000 50
300 6000 60
0 2,494 9 5.00 31
290 4000 70
10 6 0 5.50 6
280 2000 80
20 1 0 4.00 4
270 0 90
30 21 0 3.25 4
260 100 40 48 0 5.88 15
250 110 50 513 2 5.68 15
240 120 60 9 0 4.00 2
230 130 70 5 0 3.50 4
220 140
210 150
80 32 0 5.54 8
200
190 170
160 90 805 3 3.38 25
180
Samples 100 11 0 4.00 5
110 5 0 3.00 4
120 10 0 3.00 3
130 1,624 6 5.69 15
Com illa, Wind Speed 0
140 184 1 5.66 10
350 40 10
340 20 150 115 0 8.32 19
330 35 30
320 30 40 160 21 0 7.00 18
310
25
50
170 35 0 6.00 10
300 20 60
180 10,260 35 7.60 27
290 15 70
10
190 6 0 5.00 5
280 80
5 200 21 0 5.50 8
270 0 90
210 304 1 8.26 14
260 100
220 31 0 7.84 16
250 110
230 526 2 5.07 15
240 120
240 7 0 5.00 8
230 130
220 140
250 8 0 4.00 6
210 150
aver(1/3) 260 2 0 4.00 4
200 160
190 170
180 max 270 790 3 5.57 27
280 6 0 3.50 4
290 14 0 3.60 5
300 21 0 4.00 6
310 1,053 4 4.47 24
320 51 0 4.18 10
330 8 0 3.67 4
340 261 1 4.59 15
350 3 0 4.00 4
360 2,494 9 5.00 31
Samples 19,311 66
Average/day 5.29
0-values 9,889
0-value % 33.9
Figure 4-10: Wind Speed and Direction at

Comilla (1996-2005)

Page 163

Chandpur, Wind Direction 0

350
12000 10
340 20
330 30
10000
320 40
310 8000 50 Chandpur

300 6000 60
290 4000 70 0 1,146 4 3.65 16
280 2000 80 10 6 0 7.00 9
270 0 90 20 66 0 28.55 36
260 100
30 28 0 18.78 36
40 8 0 27.00 30
250 110
50 150 1 5.30 31
240 120
60 5 0 2.00 2
230 130
220 140
70 8 0 3.00 5
210 150 80 6 0 4.00 4
200 160
190 170
180
Samples
90 251 1 4.88 25
100 4 0 2.00 2
110 77 0 2.67 6
120 73 0 4.13 5
130 2,085 7 11.88 22
Chandpur, Wind Speed
0
140 247 1 6.32 15
350 40 10
340 20 150 28 0 3.60 5
330 35 30
320
30
40 160 166 1 3.36 6
310 50
25 170 7 0 2.00 2
300 20 60
180 3,794 13 4.49 20
290 15 70
10
190 5 0 3.00 3
280 80
5 200 29 0 3.82 8
270 0 90
210 316 1 3.35 11
260 100 220 129 0 3.67 9
250 110 230 565 2 4.90 12
240 120 240 - - 0.00 0
230 130
250 9 0 3.67 5
220 140
210 150 260 9 0 3.67 5
200 160 aver(1/3)
190
180
170
max
270 155 1 4.72 20
280 1 0 1.63 2
290 8 0 2.00 2
Note: The max for Chandpur 310° were taken out, because it 300 3 0 2.00 2
looked wrong (too high, max was 60 and the second highest 310 1,748 6 4.14 25
was 25). The max for Chandpur were taken out, because there
320 27 0 3.33 9
it looked wrong (too high, max was 90 and the second highest
was 20) 330 5 0 3.00 4
340 143 0 2.33 6
350 - - 0.00 0
360 1,146 4 3.65 16
Samples 11,307 39
Average/day 3.10
0-values 17,893
Figure 4-11: Wind Speed and Direction at 0-value % 61.3
Chandpur (1996-2005)


The Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM) provides a figure to transfer wind measurement from a 10
minutes measurement to a 1 hr measurement, which is used for calculation of wave heights (see Figure
4‐12). It shows that the wind speed measured for 10 min is 5% higher than the 1‐hr wind. The duration
of winds still remains uncertain. Due to this it is very difficult to estimate the relevant design wave
height and wave period. It would be very helpful to have frequency duration curves for both sub‐
projects.
Figure 4-12: Ratio of wind speed of any duration ut to 1-hr wind speed U3600 (Figure II-2-1)
5. Waves on Rivers
The flow velocity of rivers has to be taken into account for calculating the wave height. The wind is
transferring energy into the water based on the sheer stress. If the wind speed and the flow velocity
have the same direction the sheer stress becomes less, because the difference in velocity is less. To
calculate the wave heights for these cases the flow velocity has to be deducted from the wind speed if
they both have the same direction. If the direction is opposed to each other the velocities need to be
summed up.

For the major rivers in Bangladesh the highest measured flow velocities over longer areas are 2 m/s
close to the surface even though locally peaks of up to 4m/s can be observed. Assuming a fetch length
of 5 km and a constant wind of 17 m/s acting for 20 minutes on the river surface, the generated wave
will have a height of 0.7 m, a wave period of 2.8 s and a wavelength of 12.5 m. The transition zone
begins at a depth of 6.25 m. Superimposing the flow velocity v = 17 m/s and the wind speed of w = 2
m/s and calculation the wave height result is a height of 0.8 m with a period of 3 s. The wave length is
then 13.6 m and the transition zone starts at 6.8 m, which is a 0.1 m higher and 1 m longer wave. If the
wind comes from the same direction then the current the wave height is 0.6 m with a period of 2.7 s.
The wave length is 11.3 m.

Page 165

6. Waves at PIRDP and MDIP

The characteristics of the rivers on front of both sub‐projects are very different. The Jamuna River at
PIRDP is dominated by chars and channels whereas the Meghna/Padma River at MDIP is a large
channel, in places up to 5 km wide. The single channels of Jamuna River are 500 – 800 m wide and
change width and depth during every monsoon season. Table 6‐1 summarizes our wave collection for
different parameters.

Table 6-1: Wave height calculation for several wind speeds and fetch length
Jonswap
Fetch [m] uw [m/s] tx,u [s] Hs [s] Tm [s] Tp Lo
150,000 7 918 1.5 4.8 5.5 47.2
100,000 7 700 1.3 4.3 4.9 37.0
100,000 5 785 0.9 3.7 4.3 28.3
50,000 6 464 0.8 3.3 3.7 21.6
20,000 16 180 1.3 3.7 4.2 27.3
20,000 14 188 1.1 3.5 4.0 24.5
20,000 12 198 1.0 3.3 3.8 21.7
20,000 10 211 0.8 3.0 3.5 18.7
20,000 9 219 0.7 2.9 3.3 17.2
20,000 7 238 0.6 2.6 3.0 14.1
20,000 5 267 0.4 2.3 2.6 10.8
20,000 4 288 0.3 2.1 2.4 9.0
20,000 3 318 0.2 1.9 2.2 7.2
15,000 16 148 1.1 3.4 3.9 23.0
15,000 9 180 0.6 2.7 3.1 14.5
10,000 17 111 1.0 3.0 3.5 18.9
10,000 8 143 0.5 2.3 2.6 10.3
5,000 19 67 0.8 2.6 3.0 13.6
5,000 17 70 0.7 2.5 2.8 12.5
5,000 15 73 0.6 2.4 2.7 11.3
5,000 10 83 0.4 2.0 2.3 8.2
2,000 17 38 0.4 1.9 2.2 7.2
2,000 14 40 0.4 1.7 2.0 6.2
2,000 10 45 0.3 1.5 1.7 4.7
2,000 8 49 0.2 1.4 1.6 3.9
Uw = wind speed, tx_u = necessary time needed for full wave height, Hs = significant wave height, Tm = Mean
Period, Tp = Peak Period, L0 = Wave length (deep water conditions)
PIRDP:
Due to the occurrence of channels and chars the wave climate is characterized by cross‐seas. Waves
are travelling through channels and interact. Observations have shown that waves are normally short
and quiet steep and break (see Figure 6‐1). The maximum fetch length for northern and eastern winds is
5 km during the monsoon season and the water depth is then 7 m or more, depending on the
morphological changes in the river from year to year (the location and size of the chars can vary).
During the dry season the maximum fetch from these directions is 2 km. The maximum fetch for
southern directions parallel to the bank can become 20 km depending on the water levels. During the
dry season the fetch is 10 km.


Figure 6-1: Fetch length PIRDP
Table 6‐2 shows the calculated maximum wave height for different direction for the dry and the
monsoon season. The table also shows the time required for full energy transfer. The maximum wave
height for the dry season is 0.45 m coming from South with a period of 2.3 s. The transition zone starts
at a depth of 5.2 m. During monsoon season the wave height is 0.7 m with a period of 2.8 s also coming
from South. The transition zone starts at a water depth of 6.3 m. The required wind duration for its
generation is 92 minutes. This wind with a speed of 24 knots was only recorded one time within 10
years of data. The next lowest wind speed was 18 knots. This wind would generate a wave with a
height of 0.4 m and a period of 2.3 s.

For a wind speed of 8 m/s and a fetch length of 2 km the calculation of the wave height is like the
following bases an the formulae given in section:

20000.67
t x ,u  77.23 0.34  49 min
8 9.810.33
~
F  gF / UW2
~
F  g  2000/ UW2  306.6
~
H s  0.00178 306.60.5  0.03m

Page 167

~ ~
Tp  0.352  F 0.3  0.352 306.60.3  2.0

where the dimensional parameters are:
~
H s  H s UW2 / g  0.03 82 / 9.81 0.2m
~
Tp  Tp UW / 9.81  2  8 / 9.81  1.6s
Table 6-2: Wave estimation for PIRDP site

North East South West
Dry season fetch length (km) 2 2 10 ‐
Max. 1 hr Wind Speed (knots(m/s)) 18 (8) 35 (17) 15 (8) 35 (17)
Max. Wave height (m) 0.20 0.43 0.45 ‐
Wave Period Tp (s) 1.6 2.2 s 2.3
Wave Length Lo (m) 3.9 7.2 10.3
Time required for full energy transfer 49 min 38 min 143 min

Monson season fetch length (km) 5 5 20 ‐
Max. Wind Speed (knots (m/s)) 20 (10) 35 (17) 10 (5) 35 (17)
Max. Wave height (m) 0.4 0.7 0.4 ‐
Wave Period Tp (s) 2.3 2.8 2.6
Wave Length Lo (m) 8.2 12.5 10.8
Time required for full energy transfer 23 min 19 min 2 h
The available wind data indicate that wave heights at PIRDP do not exceed 0.6 m. The expected wave period is then 2.5 s.
MDIP:

There are no chars in the Meghna and Padma River at the MDIP. The fetch length depends on the
direction of the wind: If the wind is blowing from northern direction parallel to the bank the fetch is 20
km. The fetch from southern directions is more difficult to estimate. Although the Lower Meghna River
is much wider than the upper Meghna River and the Padma River the Lower Meghna there is a bend
south of Chandpur. A conservative estimate for the fetch would be 20 km. This is a reasonable fetch
for waves from SSW. The fetch can also be assumed to be more than 50 km by assuming there will be
defraction and refraction and the waves may travel all the way up towards Chandpur. However, for
waves travelling all the way up from the south the waves will hit the bankline on the opposite site bank
of the Meghna River. Observed waves were very uniform, long crested, non‐breaking and significant
higher than in PIRDP. The highest waves seem to come from southern directions.

The confluence of Padma and upper Meghna could influence the development of waves. Figure 6‐3
shows ACDP (Acoustic Current Doppler Profiler) measurements with the flow velocity at the confluence
of the Upper Meghna and the Padma River. It can be seen that the fast current of the Padma flows
under the slower current of the Meghna. The water of the Upper Meghna is lighter than the water of
the Padma, because it contains less sediment.

Another issue for the wave estimation for MDIP is the influence of tide. The highest waves will
probable be generates during low tide with a high flow velocity and wind from southern directions. The
sum of these two velocities (flow + wind) is the wind speed to be used for the wave height estimation.


Figure 6-2: Fetch length MDIP
t = 3.26, 26 July 2001, Q = 22,000, Left Bank to Right Bank
Figure 6-3: Flow velocity at MDIP (confluence Meghna/Padma)
On 11 March the Chandpur Metrological Station measured 31 knots at 15:00 UTC and 18:00 UTC. On 13
March 1998 the station measured 31 knots at 03:00 UTC and 06:00 UTC. On 14 March 1998 they
measured 31 knots at 03:00 and 06:00 UTC and 36 knots at 09:00 UTC, which indicated a wind of 16 m/s
can be assumed for 6 h or more with all these winds coming from North (20°). The Upper Meghna is
meandering very much with a main direction of 20°, but the characteristic of the river is changing about
20 km upstream of the project area. From thereon the river is not meandering anymore and if flows
strait to the south. Due to this the fetch length has to be reduced to a very small amount. Taking a
fetch of 2 km into account the wave height is 0.35 m, but in fact there will be no waves from this
direction in front of the project. The highest observed wind from 360° is 9 m/s. The resulting wave is
0.55 m high with a period of 2.9 s. and a wave length of 13.2 m.

Page 169

Between 26 July 2003 at 09:00 UTC and 27 July 2003 at 03:00 UTC the Chandpur Metrological Station
recorded 6 knots or more coming from 180° (see Figure 6‐4). Assuming a fetch of 150 km (the fetch
reaches from the Bay of Bengal all the way up to Chandpur) and taking the flow velocity into account
the generated wave is 1.1 m high with a period of 4.8 s and a wave length of 36 m. The wind would
have to blow for 17 hours. This value is very high. The resulting wave would be 1 m/s at the eastern
bank. There are no wave measurements available and it is suggested to verify this value by a numerical
wave model and wave measurements. Table 6‐3 shows the calculated waves for the three sectors. The
highest wave is 1.1 m high coming from South, but this calculation takes a fetch of 150 km into account
and a wind for 17 h. A wave with a height of 1 m can be generated from western directions with a wind
of 13 m/s for 3 hours.
Figure 6-4: Wind speed measured at Chandpur July 2003
Table 6-3: Wave estimation for MDIP site

North East South West
Dry season fetch (km) 15 ‐ 20 20
Max. 1 hr Wind Speed (knots (m/s)) 18 (9) 31(15) 9 (5) 25 (13)
Adjusted wind speed (current) (m/s) 8 15 7 13
Max. Wave height (m) 0.55 ‐ 0.56 1
Wave Period Tp (s) 2.9 3.0 s 3.9
Wave Length Lo (m) 13 14 23.1
Time needed for full energy transfer 180 min 238 m 193 min

Monson season fetch (km) 15 ‐ 20 20
Max. Wind Speed (knots (m/s)) 18 (9) 35 (17) 4 (2) 6 (3)
Adjusted wind speed (current) (m/s) 9 15 4 3
Max. Wave height (m) 0.63 ‐ 0.32 0.2
Wave Period Tp (s) 3.1 2.4 2.2
Wave Length Lo (m) 14.5 9
Time needed for full energy transfer 180 min 288 min 318 min
For a wind speed of 20 m/s and a fetch of 10 km it would need 105 minutes of wind to fulfil the
conditions for a fetch limited wave climate. The wave would then have a height of 1.1 m with a wave
period of 3.7 seconds. The wave length is then 21 m and the transition zone starts at a depth of 10.5 m,
with is about 25 m in front of the bank line (slope: 1H : 2.5V). With a fetch of 20 km at the same wind
speed it needs 167 minutes to generate a fetch limited wave climate. The generated wave would have
a height of 1.6 m and a period of 4.6 seconds. The wavelength would be 32 m.


During low water the waves will break close to the toe on the dumped cc‐blocks. During high water
level the waves will break at the crest (see Figure 6‐5).
Figure 6-5: Water depth at PIRDP (A) and MDIP (B)
The available wind data indicate that wave heights at the MDIP would be in the order of 1 m. The
expected wave period is then 3.9 s.

Page 171

Appendix V: Road on the Land‐Side of Rehabilitated or Reconstructed Embankment

BOQ of the Proposed Road cum Flood Embankment cum Road
(As per Specification & Unit Rate of RHD)
Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk Management Program include construction of two roads r
under tranche‐1 as shown in Table‐1:
Table‐1: Roads under Trenche‐1
Serial Start point End point Length Location
1 Verakhola Kaijuri 13.00 KM Land‐side Bank of Jamuna River

2 Verakhola Baghabari 10.00 KM Land‐side Bank Hurasagar River
The proposed roads would have 5.5 meter bituminous pavement with 1.5 meter hard shoulder in each
side. The road would be designed to function not only as part of flood embankment and shelter for
flood effected population but would also provide connectivity to growth centers, river ports, local
government institutions situated in the adjoining area of the proposed flood embankments of Pabna,
Sirajganj districts. It is obvious that the both roads would be connected to the nearby national highways
to meet the growing demand of the traffic in future and to facilitate better connectivity of population.

The geometric features and function of the roads are similar to regional roads. Roads having 3.6 meter
pavement width with 1.5 meter hard shoulders are zilla road under Roads and Highways Department
connecting District HQ with Upazila HQ and Feeder Road‐Type B Under Local Government Engineering
Department connecting Upazilas and Growth Centers. The functions and the specification of the
proposed roads are not similar to Zilla Road and Feeder Road‐B. The geometric features of the road
particularly, pavement width of 5.5 meter with 1.5 meter hard shoulder on each side and projected
traffic on completion of the road are similar to the specification of regional road. Hence the roads
would be built as regional roads to meet the growing of projected traffic of the future

Geometric Features and Pavement Components of the Proposed Roads
The following standards and specifications, also applicable for regional roads have been followed in
designing of geometric and structural components of proposed roads:
Table‐2: Standards and Specifications of Regional Roads
Serial Item Value
1 AADT 1500
2 Traffic Growth rate 7% per annum
3 Axle load considered for Pavement Design 4‐5 million axle Load
4 Pavement width 5.5 meter
5 Pavement Type Bituminous
6 Pavement Life 20 years
7 Bituminous Carpeting 40mm
8 Seal oat 12 mm
9 Base 200mm
10 Sub base 200mm
11 Improved Sub Grade 200mm
Source: Pavement Design Guide for Roads & Highways Department, April 2005
The feasibility level design of the pavement and geometric elements of the road have been proposed as
per minimum requirement of standards and specifications of the Regional Roads. The cross‐section of
pavement of the proposed road showing the thickness of different layer of pavement components is
given in figure‐4.


U‐shaped surface drain of 350.00mm wide along with storm water catch pit of 900.00
X900.00mmX1000.00 at 200.00mm apart have proposed to drain off storm/rain water from road
surface. In addition, 500.00.mm diameter RCC pipe has been proposed to provide cross‐ wise
underneath the pavement for each catch pit to drain off the water to the outer side of the road
crest.The plan ofdrain,The cross‐section of the drain, storm water catch pit, have been shown in Figure‐
1 ,Figure‐2 , Figure‐3 and Lay out Plan of R.C. C Pipe, Embankment Slope Drain and Spill Way are shown
in Figure‐5.ely.

Bill of Quantities for the Construction of Proposed Roads
The standards and speculations and the rate schedule of regional roads of RHD have been primarily
used in preparation of Bill of Quantities (BOQ) items of pavement works. In case of R.C.C and Brick
works, standards and speculations of and schedule of rates of LGED have been used. The BOQ cost of
Verakhola ‐ Kaijuri road and Verakhola – Baghabari road are TK. 29, 73, 65,474.51 and TK. 22, 93,
07,128.89 respectively. The BOQ of Verakhola ‐ Kaijuri road and Verakhola – Baghabari road are
annexed as Annexure‐A and Annexure‐B
Verakhola‐
Verakhola‐Kaijuri
Baghabari Road Total
SL Description of Items Road (in Taka)
(in Taka) (3+ ‐4)

1 2 3 4 5
1 Construction of Pavement 22,37,82,260.00 17,21,40,200.00 39,59,22,460.00
2 Protection of the Slope of the Embankment 2,46,48,000.00 1,89,60,000.00 4,36,08,000.00
3 Surface Drain and Cross Drain
3.1 Construction of 400 mmX550mm Surface Drain 3,73,50,274.49 2,87,30,908.38 6,60,81,254.87
Construction of 750mmX750mm X 750mm Storm
3.2 9,29,279.62 7,18,079.72 16,47,359.33
Water Catch Pit at 200.00 Meter Apart
Supplying and Fitting and Fixing of 500.mm R.C.C
3.3 Pipe at 200 meter Apart along the Alignment of 33,48,162.88 31,11,166.17 64,59,329.05
the Drain
Construction of RCC Drain on the Slope of the
3.4 73,07,497.52 56,46,702.63 1,29,54,200.15
Embankment
Total Cost of Two Roads 29,73,65,474.51 22,93,07,128.89 52,66,72,603.40
Verakhola-Baghabari Road
Length: 10 Kilometer
Bill of Quantities
…………………………..Annexure-B………………………..
Rate
Item Code Amount
Item Description Measurement Quantity Unit (in
No (in Taka)
Taka)
Construction of Pavement
02/07/02‐ Preparation of Sub‐grade 10000.00m x 5.50m
Sqm 85.00 46,75,000.00
RHD (450mm depth) =55,000.00 Sqm

Page 173

02/08/01‐ 10000.00m x 5.50m x0.200m
Improved Sub‐Grade Cum 804.00 88,44,000.00
RHD =11,000 .00 Cum
02/11/01‐ 2 x10000.00m x1.50m x0.200m
Construction of Hard Shoulders Cum 4068.00 2,44,08,000.00
RHD = 6000.00 Cum
03/02/01‐ Sub ‐ base 10000.00m x 5.50m x0.200m

Cum 3953.00 4,34,83,000.00
RHD =11,000.00Cum
03/03/02‐
Aggregate base 10000.00m x 5.50m x0.200m
RHD Cum 4275.00 4,70,25,000.00
= 11,000.00 Cum

03/06/01(b
Bituminous Prime coat (Hand 10000.00m x 5.50m
) ‐RHD Sqm 87.00 47,85,000.00
place) =55,000.00 Sqm

03/07/01(b
Bituminous Tack coat 10000.00m x 5.50m
) ‐RHD Sqm 22.00 12,10,000.00
(Labor intensive work) =55,000.00 Sqm

03/11/01(a Premixed Bituminous Carpeting 10000.00m x 5.50m x0.040m 13191.0
Cum 2,90,20,200.00
) ‐RHD 40mm thick (Av.) =2,200.00 Cum 0
03/12/02‐ 2mm compacted‐ premix 10000.00m x 5.50m

Sqm 126.00 69,30,000.00
RHD Bituminous Seal Coat. =55,000.00 Sqm
03/13/01‐ 2 x 10000.00m Lin.

Brick on end edging 88.00
RHD =20,000.00 Lin. M M 17,60;000,00.00
Sub Total= 17,21,40,200.00
2.Protection Work of the Slope of the Embankment
* 600mm thick blanket of earth cladding with 10,000.00mX12.00
specified cohesive soil on the side slope of m Sqm 110.00 1,32,00,000.00
embankment =1,20,000.00 Sqm
** Supplying and planting vertiver (Binna) grass in 10,000.00mX12.00
bunch of 2 to 3 stem @ of 225 mm all over the m Sqm 48.00 57,60,000.00
side slope =1,20,000.00 Sqm
Sub Total= 1,89,60,000.00
3.Surface Drain and Cross Drain
3.1 Construction of 400 mmX550mm Surface Drain
1.15 X 0.7X
Earthwork in excavation of drains etc. by 10,000.00
5.02.01‐ excavating earth to the lines, grades and = 0.8050X10,000
Cum 78.42 6,31,281.00
LGED elevation as per drawing, carrying and = 8,050.00 cubic
disposing of all excavated materials; meter

Single brick flat soling with 1st class/ PJ bricks,
true to level, camber, super elevation and
5.03.01‐ 1.15mX 10,000.00
grade in/c filling the joints with sand (FM Sqm 251.04 28,86,960.00
LGED =11,500.00 Sqm
0.50) in/c cost of all materials complete as per
direction of the Engineer‐in‐Charge
Brick work with 1st class bricks with 6mm
(2X0.375mX0.25m
thick cement mortar (1.4) for guard wall of
X1.m+2X
drain, foot path and median, filling the
0.30mmX0.250mX
interstices tightly with mortar, raking out
5.02.03‐ 1m )X 10,000.00
joints, cleaning and soaking bricks at least for Cum 4665.16 1,92,43,785.50
LGED =0.4125X10,000.0
24 hours before use, washing of sand, curing
0
for requisite period, cost of all materials, etc.
=4,125.00 Cubic
all complete as per direction of the Engineer‐
Meter
in‐ Charge. (Minimum F.M. of sand:


Cement concrete (1:2:4) with Portland
cement, coarse sand (F.M 1.80), First class/ 1.15mX075mX
PJ brick chips (25mm to 5mm down‐ graded), 10,000.00
5.03.05‐
cost of materials and shuttering, mixing by =0.08625X10,000. Cum 6362.15 54,87,354.38
LGED
concrete mixer machine, casting, laying, 00
curing for the requisite period, etc. as per = 862.50 Cum
direction of the Engineer‐in Charge
12 mm thick cement plaster (1:4) in drain (0.300m+0.250m+
including cost of materials, washing of sand, 0.550m+0.600m+0
curing for requisite period, maintaining .250m+0.850m)X1
5.12.01‐
proper curvatures of corners, side wall and 0,000.00 Sqm 172.00 4,81,600.00
LGED
bottom, costs of all materials, etc. complete, =0.280m X
as per direction of the Engineer‐in‐charge. 10,000.00
(Minimum F.M. of sand: 1.2 = 2,800.00Sqm
Sub Total= 2,87,30,908.38
3.2 Construction of 750mmX750mm X 750mm Storm Water Catch Pit at 200.00 Meter Apart
1.050m X 1.050mX
Earthwork in excavation of drains etc. by
0.975m X 51
5.02.01‐ excavating earth to the lines, grades and
=1.0749X51 Cum 78.42 4,299.13
LGED elevation as per drawing, carrying and
=54.82 Cubic meter
disposing of all excavated materials;

1.050m X 1.050mX
5.03.01‐ 51
grade in/c filling the joints with sand (FM Sqm 251.04 14,115.35
LGED =1.1025 SqmX51
=56.227 Sqm
Reinforced Cement Concrete in drain work
Portland cement , sand (minimum F.M 1.80)
20mm down well graded crushed 1st class
brick/picked brick chips (LAA value not
exceeding 40) including shuttering, mixing by
concrete mixture machine casting , laying,
compacting, curing for 28 days, breaking Ist 0.325 Cubic meter
class/ picked brick chips etc complete in all RCC in each catch
4.1.10.02.2
respect as per design drawing, design and pit X 51 Cum 7270.00 1,20,314.87
LGED
drawing , and direction of Engineer in Charge” = 16.55 Cubic
and cylinder crushing strength of concrete meter
should not be less than 170 kg/cm2
(suggested mix proportion 1:2:4) excluding
reinforcement and fabrication, but including
cost of all materials, reinforcement, and its
fabrication shuttering, casting curing for 28
days and all incidental charges ,
6.051‐ Supplying and Fabrication of M.S high
LGED strength deformed bar/Twisted bar
reinforcement of size and length for all types
of RCC work including straightening the rod,
removing ruts, cleaning, cutting, hooking,
bending, binding, with supply of 22 B.W.G. GI
wire, placing in position, including lapping,
spacing and securing them in position by
concrete blocks (1:1), metal chairs, etc. 167.97kg of MS
complete including cost of all materials, labor, road in each catch
kg 67.63 5,79,,350.37
local handling, laboratory test, incidentals pit X51
necessary to complete the work as per =8,566.47 kg
specifications, drawings and direction of the
Engineer. Laboratory test for physical,
strength, elongation % & bend to be
performed as peer ASTM. (Measurement will
be based on standard weight of 490 lbs./ft3
Chairs, laps and separators will be measures
for payment. The cost of these will be
included in the unit rate).

Page 175

Sub Total= 7,18,079.72
3.3 Supplying and Fitting and Fixing of 500.mm R.C.C Pipe at 200 meter Apart along the Alignment of the Drain
Supplying precast RCC pipes(500 mm internal
dia,50mm thick) with 12mm downgraded
dust free 1st class brick chips (1:2:4)including
12 meter long RCC
6.096‐ pipe joint gap filling in neat cement slurry
pipeX51 =792.00 meter 2910.83 23,05,377.36
LGED casting, curing, laying in position, from
meter
finished type by steel form works as per
design , specifications complete as per
direction of Engineer‐in Charge
true to level, camber, super elevation and 3.00 m X 1.50mX.6
5.03.01‐
grade in/c filling the joints with sand (FM =4.5 SqmX51 Sqm 251.04 57,613.68
LGED
0.50) in/c cost of all materials complete as per =229.50 Sqm
cement, coarse sand (F.M 1.80), First class/
PJ brick chips (25mm to 5mm down‐ 3.00mX1.50mX0.0
5.03.05‐ graded)in the foundation of guide wall, cost 75m X51
Cum 6362.15 1,09,,508.58
LGED of materials and shuttering, mixing by =0.3375 SqmX51
concrete mixer machine, casting, laying, = 17.212Cum
curing for the requisite period, etc. as per
thick cement mortar (1.4) for guide wall of
R.C.C pipe filling the interstices tightly with 2.00mX2.50mX0.5
mortar, raking out joints, cleaning and 0m X 51
5.02.03‐
soaking bricks at least for 24 hours before = 2.50 CumX51 Cum 4665.16 5,94,806.63
LGED
use, washing of sand, curing for requisite =127.50 Cubic
period, cost of all materials, etc. all complete Meter
as per direction of the Engineer‐in‐ Charge.
(Minimum F.M. of sand:
12 mm thick cement plaster (1:4) in guide
wall including cost of materials, washing of (2X1.00mX2.00m+
sand, curing for requisite period, maintaining 2X 0.25mX1.00m+
5.12.01‐
proper curvatures of corners, side wall and 0.25m X2m)X51 Cum 172.0015 43,860.00
LGED
bottom, costs of all materials, etc. complete, =5.00 CumX51
as per direction of the Engineer‐in‐charge. = 255.00 Cum
(Minimum F.M. of sand: 1.2
Sub Total= 31,11,166.17
3.4 Construction of RCC Drain on the Slope of the Embankment
0.7 m X 0.675mX
Earthwork in excavation of drains etc. by 11m X51
5.02.01‐ excavating earth to the lines, grades and =5,197X51
Cum 78.42 20,784.99
LGED elevation as per drawing, carrying and =265.07cubic

true to level, camber, super elevation and 0.70m X 11X.51
5.03.01‐
grade in/c filling the joints with sand (FM =7.7 SqmX51 Sqm 251.04 98,583.41
LGED
Reinforced Cement Concrete in drain with
20mm down well graded crushed 1st class 0.2310 Cubic
brick/picked brick chips (LAA value not meter RCC in per
exceeding 40) including shuttering, mixing by running meter of .
4.2.04.02.
concrete mixture machine casting , laying, drain X 11m X51 Cum 7270.00 9,42,126.57
LGED
compacting, curing for 28 days, breaking Ist = 2.541X51
class/ picked brick chips etc complete in all =129.591 Cubic
respect as per design drawing, design and meter
drawing , and direction of Engineer in Charge”
and cylinder crushing strength of concrete


Supplying and Fabrication of M.S High
strength deformed bar/Twisted bar
spacing and securing them in position by 119.57 kg of MS
concrete blocks (1:1), metal chairs, etc. road in per running
6.051‐ complete including cost of all materials, labor, meter of R.C.C
kg 67.63 45,36,537.22
LGED local handling, laboratory test, incidentals drain X11mX51
necessary to complete the work as per =1315.27kgX51
specifications, drawings and direction of the =67078..77 kg
be based on standard weight of 490 lbs. /ft3
Cement concrete (1:2:4) in Spill way with
Portland cement, coarse sand (F.M 1.80),
First class/ PJ brick chips (25mm to 5mm 1.00mX1.00mX0.1
5.03.05‐ down‐ graded), cost of materials and 50m.X 51
Cum 6362.15 48,670,.45
LGED shuttering, mixing by concrete mixer =0.150CumX51
machine, casting, laying, curing for the = 7.65 Cum
requisite period, etc. as per direction of the
Engineer‐in Charge
Sub Total= 56,46,702.63
Total= 22,93,07,128.90
Verakhola-Kaijuri Road
Bill of Quantities Annexure-A

Rate
Item Code Amount
Item Description Measurement Quantity Unit (in
No (in Taka)
Taka)
02/07/02‐ Preparation of Sub‐grade 13,000.00m x 5.50m
Sqm 85.00 60,77,500.00
RHD (450mm depth) =71,500.00 Sqm
02/08/01‐ 13,000.00m x 5.50m x0.200m
Improved Sub‐Grade Cum 804.00 1,14,97,200.00
RHD =14,300 .00 Cum
2 x13000.00m x1.50m
02/11/01‐
Construction of Hard Shoulders x0.200m Cum 4068.00 3,17,30,400.00
RHD
= 7800.00 Cum
03/02/01‐ Sub ‐ base 13,000.00m x 5.50m x0.200m
Cum 3953.00 5,65,27,900.00
RHD =14,300.00Cum

Page 177

03/03/02‐
Aggregate base 13,000.00m x 5.50m x0.200m
RHD Cum 4275.00 6,11,32,500.00
= 14,300.00 Cum

03/06/01(b
Bituminous Prime coat (Hand 13,000.00m x 5.50m
) ‐RHD Sqm 87.00 62,20,500.00
place) =71,500.00 Sqm

03/07/01(b
Bituminous Tack coat 13,000.00m x 5.50m
) ‐RHD Sqm 22.00 15,73,000.00
(Labor intensive work) =71,500.00 Sqm

03/11/01(a Premixed Bituminous Carpeting 13,000.00m x 5.50m x0.040m 13191.0
Cum 3,77,26,260.00
) ‐RHD 40mm thick (Av.) =2,860.00 Cum 0
03/12/02‐ 2mm compacted‐ premix 13,000.00m x 5.50m

Sqm 126.00 90,09,000.00
RHD Bituminous Seal Coat. =71,500.00 Sqm
03/13/01‐ 2 x13,000.00m
Brick on end edging Lin. M 88.00 22,88,000, 00
RHD =26,000.00 Lin. M
Sub Total= 22,37,82,260.00
2. Protection of the Slope of the Embankment
* 600mm thick blanket of earth cladding with 13,000.00mX12.0
specified cohesive soil on the side slope of 0 m Sqm 110.00 1,71,60,000.00
embankment =1,56,000.00 Sqm
** Supplying and planting vertiver (Binna) grass in 13,000.00mX12.0
bunch of 2 to 3 stem @ of 225 mm all over the 0 m Sqm 48.00 74,88,000.00
side slope =1,56,000.00 Sqm
Sub Total= 2,46,48,000.00
1.15 X 0.7X
13000.00
= 10,465.00 cubic Cum 78.42 8,20,,665.30
meter

5.03.01‐ 1.15X 13,000.00
grade in/c filling the joints with sand (FM Sqm 251.04 37,53,048.00
LGED =14,9500.00Sqm
thick cement mortar (1.4) for guard wall of (2X0.375mX0.25
drain, foot path and median, filling the mX1.m+2X
interstices tightly with mortar, raking out 0.30mmX0.250m
5.02.03‐
joints, cleaning and soaking bricks at least for X 1m )X 13,000.00 Cum 4665.16 2,50,16,920.50
LGED
24 hours before use, washing of sand, curing =0.412513,000.00
for requisite period, cost of all materials, etc. =5,362.50 Cubic
all complete as per direction of the Engineer‐ Meter
in‐ Charge. (Minimum F.M. of sand:
cement, coarse sand (F.M 1.80), First class/ 1.15X0.075X
PJ brick chips (25mm to 5mm down‐ graded), 13,000.00
5.03.05‐
cost of materials and shuttering, mixing by =0.08625X13000. Cum 6362.15 71,33,560.69
LGED
concrete mixer machine, casting, laying, 00
curing for the requisite period, etc. as per = 1121.25 Cum
12 mm thick cement plaster (1:4) in drain (0.300m+0.250m
including cost of materials, washing of sand, +0.550m+0.600m
5.12.01‐ curing for requisite period, maintaining +0.250m+0.850m
Sqm 172.00 6,26,080.00
LGED proper curvatures of corners, side wall and )X13,000.00
bottom, costs of all materials, etc. complete, =0.280m X
as per direction of the Engineer‐in‐charge. 13,000.00


(Minimum F.M. of sand: 1.2 = 3,640.00Sqm
Sub Total= 3,73,50,274.49
1.050m X
1.050mX 0.975m
X 66
=1.0749X66 Cum 78.42 5,563.58
=70.946 Cubic
meter

1.050m X
5.03.01‐ 1.050mX 66
LGED =1.1025 SqmX66
=72.765 Sqm
brick/picked brick chips (LAA value not
exceeding 40) including shuttering, mixing by
concrete mixture machine casting , laying,
0.325 Cubic
compacting, curing for 28 days, breaking Ist
meter RCC in
class/ picked brick chips etc complete in all
4.1.10.02.2 each catch pit X
respect as per design drawing, design and Cum 7270.00 1,55,701.59
LGED 66
= 21.42 Cubic
meter
6.051‐LGED Supplying and Fabrication of M.S high
concrete blocks (1:1), metal chairs, etc. 167.97kg of MS
complete including cost of all materials, labor, road in each
kg 67.63 7,49,,747.53
local handling, laboratory test, incidentals catch pit X66
necessary to complete the work as per =11,086.02 kg
be based on standard weight of 490 lbs./ft3
Sub Total= 9,29,279.62

Page 179

dia,50mm thick) with 12mm downgraded
dust free 1st class brick chips (1:2:4)including
12 meter long
pipe joint gap filling in neat cement slurry
6.096‐LGED RCC pipeX66 meter 2910.83 23,05,377.36
casting, curing, laying in position, from
=792.00 meter
finished type by steel form works as per
design , specifications complete as per
direction of Engineer‐in Charge
3.00 m X
5.03.01‐ 1.50mX.6
LGED =4.5 SqmX66
=297.00 Sqm
cement, coarse sand (F.M 1.80), First class/
PJ brick chips (25mm to 5mm down‐ 3.00mX1.50mX0.
5.03.05‐ graded)in the foundation of guide wall, cost 075m X66
Cum 6362.15 1,41,716.8
LGED of materials and shuttering, mixing by =0.3375 SqmX66
concrete mixer machine, casting, laying, = 22.275.5Cum
curing for the requisite period, etc. as per
thick cement mortar (1.4) for guide wall of
R.C.C pipe filling the interstices tightly with 2.00mX2.50mX0.
mortar, raking out joints, cleaning and 50m X 66
5.02.03‐
soaking bricks at least for 24 hours before = 2.50 CumX66 Cum 4665.16 7,69,749.75
LGED
use, washing of sand, curing for requisite =165.00 Cubic
period, cost of all materials, etc. all complete Meter
as per direction of the Engineer‐in‐ Charge.
(Minimum F.M. of sand:
12 mm thick cement plaster (1:4) in guide
(2X1.00mX2.00m
wall including cost of materials, washing of
+ 2X
sand, curing for requisite period, maintaining
5.12.01‐ 0.25mX1.00m+
proper curvatures of corners, side wall and Cum 172.0015 56,760.00
LGED 0.25m X2m)X66
bottom, costs of all materials, etc. complete,
=5.00 Cum
as per direction of the Engineer‐in‐charge.
= 330.00 Cum
(Minimum F.M. of sand: 1.2
Sub Total= 33,48,162.88
0.7 m X 0.675mX
Earthwork in excavation of drains etc. by 11m X66
5.02.01‐ excavating earth to the lines, grades and =5,197X66
Cum 78.42 26,898.22
LGED elevation as per drawing, carrying and =343.02cubic

true to level, camber, super elevation and 0.70m X 11X.66
5.03.01‐
grade in/c filling the joints with sand (FM =7.7 SqmX66 Sqm 251.04 1,27,578.53
LGED
st
20mm down well graded crushed 1 class 0.2310 Cubic
brick/picked brick chips (LAA value not meter RCC in per
exceeding 40) including shuttering, mixing by running meter of .
4.2.04.02.
concrete mixture machine casting , laying, drain X 11m X66 Cum 7270.00 12,19,222.62
LGED
compacting, curing for 28 days, breaking Ist = 2.541X66
class/ picked brick chips etc complete in all =167.706 Cubic
respect as per design drawing, design and meter


Supplying and Fabrication of M.S High
119.57 kg of MS
road in per
concrete blocks (1:1), metal chairs, etc.
running meter of
complete including cost of all materials, labor,
6.051‐LGED R.C.C drain kg 67.63 58,70,812.87
local handling, laboratory test, incidentals
X11mX66
necessary to complete the work as per
=1315.27kgX66
=86807.82 kg
be based on standard weight of 490 lbs. /ft3
Portland cement, coarse sand (F.M 1.80),
First class/ PJ brick chips (25mm to 5mm 1.00mX1.00mX0.
5.03.05‐ down‐ graded), cost of materials and 150m.X 66
Cum 6362.15 62,985.29
LGED shuttering, mixing by concrete mixer =0.150CumX66
machine, casting, laying, curing for the = 9.90 Cum
requisite period, etc. as per direction of the
Engineer‐in Charge
Sub Total= 73,07,497.52
Total= 29,73,65,474.51

Page 181

Figure-1: Section and Plan of Drain
Section of 400 mmX550 mm Drain
250mm
300mm 250mm
300mm 400mm 300mm

550mm
700mm 700mm
375mm 375mm 250mm

75mm
75mm
1150mm
Figure‐2: 400mmX400mmX500mm RCC Drain of the Side Slope of

Plan of 400mmX550mm Drain
Embankment
Section of 450mmX400mmX400mm RCC Drain
125mm 250mm 400mm 250mm 125mm 1000.00mm

150mm 700mm 150mm
400mm
1150mm
675 mm


Plan of 700mmX400mmX400mm RCC Drain
700mm
400mm 150mm
150mm
700mm
400mm
Quantity of R.C.C and Reinforcement in R.C.C Drain of the Embankment Slope
SL Description Item Measurement Quantity
0.2310 Cum
Reinforce Cement 2X525mX150mm+700mmX700mmX150mm
1 = 8.134 cubic
Concrete(RCC) = 0. 2310Cum; 0.2310 X35.218= 7.87Cubic feet
feet
2.
Amount of Reinforcement
and Fabrication considering 8.134Cubic feet X0.03X490=119.57 kg 119.57 kg
3% of 19.792 Cum of R.C.C
Figure-3: Section and Plan of 750 mmX750mmX750mm

RCC Storm Water Catch Pit
Section of 750 mmX750mmX750mm RCC Storm Water Catch Pit
150mm 1050mm 150mm
750mm
600.00mm Diameter
75mm thick R.C.C Pipe

750 mm
975 mm

Page 183

Plan of 1000mmX900mmX900mm RCC Storm Water Catch Pit
1050mm
750mm 150mm
150mm
1050 mm
750 mm

Quantity of R.C.C and Reinforcement in Each Storm Water Catch PIT
SL Description Item Measurement Quantity
2X750mmX150mm+1050mmX1050mmX150mm ‐
Reinforce Cement 3.14X(375mm)2X150mm 0.3245 Cum
1
Concrete(RCC) =0.390.75 ‐0.06624= 0.3245 Cum; 0.3245X35.218= 11.427 = 11.427 cubic feet
Cubic feet
2.
Amount of Reinforcement
and Fabrication considering 11.427 Cubic feet X0.03X490=167.97kg 167.97 kg
3% of 19.792 Cum of R.C.C
Figure-4: Pavement Details
SHOULDER CARRIAGEWAY SHOULDER

1.5 5.5 1.5
3% 3%
5% 5%
SURFACING (SEAL COAT (0.12M)+ BITUMINOUS

CARPEIING (0.40M)
BASE 0.200 M
BRICK ON
END EDGING SUB-BASE 0.200 M
IMPROVED SUB-GRADE 0.200 M


Figure-5: Lay out Plan of R.C. C Pipe, Embankment Slope Drain and Spill Way
600mm Cladding Layer
2000mmX2500mmX500mm
Guide Wall 2000m
1000mm
700mmX400mmX400mm
RCC Drain
12 meter X600mm diameter, X50mm thick R.C. Pipe
2500mm
1500mm
700mmX400mmX400mm RCC Drain
3000mmX1500mm Embedded in Cladding Layer
Cement Concrete (C.C)
3000m
1000mmX1000mmX75mm CC
Spill way

Page 185

Main River Flood Embankment and Erosion Risk Management Program
Road on the Land‐Side of Rehabilitated or Reconstructed Embankment

BOQ of the Proposed Road cum Flood Embankment cum Road
(As per Specification & Unit Rate of LGED)
Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk Management Program include construction of two roads r under
tranche-1 as shown in Table-1:
Table‐1: Roads under Trenche‐1
Serial Start point End point Length Location
1 Verakhola Kaijuri 13.00 KM Land‐side Bank of Jamuna River

2 Verakhola Baghabari 10.00 KM Land‐side Bank Hurasagar River
The proposed roads would have 5.5 meter bituminous pavement with 1.5 meter hard shoulder in each
side. The road would be designed to function not only as part of flood embankment and shelter for
flood effected population but would also provide connectivity to growth centers, river ports, local
government institutions situated in the adjoining area of the proposed flood embankments of Pabna,
Sirajganj districts. It is obvious that the both roads would be connected to the nearby national highways
to meet the growing demand of the traffic in future and to facilitate better connectivity of population

The roads may be designed as Upazila road of Type design ‐4 of LGED as road classification system of
LGED approved by The Planning Commission of Bangladesh which define ownership and responsibilities
of the road system of the country. According to the classification LGED will be responsible for
construction, development and maintenance of three classes of roads, which has been named as
Upazila Road, Union Road and Village Road in collaboration with Local Government Institution (LGI).
Road type with definition and the ownership and responsibility are furnished in Table 2. below:
Table‐2: Road Network Classification with Definition

Serial Type Definition Ownership and
Number Responsibility
1. National Highways connecting National capital with Divisional HQs or sea ports or RHD

Highway land ports or Asian Highway
2. Regional Highways connecting District HQs or main river or land ports or with each RHD
Highway other not connected by national Highways.
3. Zilla Road Roads connecting District HQ/s with Upazila HQ/s or connecting one RHD
Upazila HQ to another Upazila HQ by a single main connection with
National /Regional Highway, through shortest distance/ route.
4. Upazila Roads connecting Upazila HQ/s with Growth Center/s or one Growth LGED/LGI**
Road Center with another Growth Center by a single main connection or
(UZR) connecting Growth Center to Higher Road System,* through shortest
distance/route. (Former Feeder Road Type‐B)
5. Union Road Roads connecting union HQ/s with Upazila HQs, Growth Centers or local LGED/LGI
(UNR) markets or with each other. (Former Rural Road Class‐1 (R1)
6. Village Road a) Roads connecting Villages with Union HQs, local markets, farms and LGED/LGI
(VR) ghats or with each other. (Former Rural Road Class‐2 (R2)

b) Roads within a Village. (Former Rural Road Class‐3 (R3)


* Higher Road System‐ National Highway, Regional Highway, and Zila Roads;
** LGI‐ Local Government Institutions;.
The design standards relate the width of the road (geometric design) and thickness of various layers
(pavement) to the classification of the road. It has been recommended that there should be 6 basic
geometric design types for Zilla, Upazila and Union Roads all based on traffic criteria. Design types 5 ‐ 8
have been based primarily on forecasts/ survey of commercial vehicles (applicable for LGED). Design
types 3 and 4 are based primarily on forecasts of peak hour passenger car units (pcu’s). The approved
geometric design for each type of road is summarized in Table 3
Table 3: Approved Geometric Design Standards

Road Class Design Type Carriageway (m)/(ft) Hard Shoulder Verge Crest Width
(m)/(ft) (m)/(ft) (m)/(ft)
Union Road 8 3.0/10 0/0 1.25/4 5.5/18
7 3.7/12 0/0 0.90/3 5.5/18

Upazila Road 6 3.7/12 0/0 1.8/6 7.3/24
5 3.7/12 0.9/3 0.9/3 7.3/24

4 5.5/18 0/0 2.15/7 9.8/32
Zila Road 5 3.7/12 0.9/3 0.9/3 7.3/24
4 5.5/18 0/0 2.15/7 9.8/32

3 5.5/18 1.2/4 0.95/3 9.8/32
For Types 8, 7, 6 and 5 the criterion should be daily commercial vehicles. For Types 4 and 3 the criterion
should be
peak hour pcu’s. Traffic criteria for each design type are shown in Table 4 below:
Table: 4 Traffic Criteria for Design Purposes
Design Type Daily Commercial Vehicles (CVD)
8 Up to 50
7 51‐100
6 101‐200
5 201‐300
4 301‐600

It been mentioned in Road Design Standards, Standard Designs and Costing for Zilla, Upazila and Union
Roads, Bridges and Culverts of LGED that Design type‐4 of Upazila roads of LGED is suitable traffic of
4300 ‐ 600 commercial vehicle per day or traffic of 290‐530 pcu.. The widened (18ft) carriageway allows
a better distribution on the pavement for this high level of traffic, increasing the design life of the
pavement.

Page 187

Table-5: Pavement of Different Layers of Type Design-4 of Upazila Road of LGED
The feasibility level design of the pavement and geometric elements of the road have been proposed as
per standards and specifications of Upazila Road of LGED‐Type‐4. The cross‐section of pavement of the
proposed road showing the thickness of different layer of pavement components is given in figure‐1.
U‐shaped surface drain of 350.00mm wide along with storm water catch pit of 900.00
X900.00mmX1000.00 at 200.00mm apart have proposed to drain off storm/rain water from road
surface. In addition, 500.00.mm diameter RCC pipe has been proposed to provide cross‐ wise
underneath the pavement for each catch pit to drain off the water to the outer side of the road crest.
The cross‐section of the road side drain, storm water catch pit, Cross drain, have been shown in Figure‐
2, Figure‐3, Figure‐4 and Figure‐5.

Bill of Quantities for the Construction of Proposed Roads
The standards and speculations and the rate schedule of regional roads of RHD have been primarily
used in preparation of Bill of Quantities (BOQ) items of pavement works. In case of R.C.C and Brick
works, standards and speculations of and schedule of rates of LGED have been used. The BOQ cost of
Verakhola ‐ Kaijuri road and Verakhola – Baghabari road are TK. 28, 33, 75,736.50 and TK. 21, 60,
72,756.90 respectively. BOQ cost of two roads is TK. 49, 94, 48,493.40. The BOQ of Verakhola ‐ Kaijuri
road and Verakhola – Baghabari road are annexed as Annexure‐A and Annexure‐B

Verakhola‐
Verakhola‐Kaijuri
Baghabari Road Total
(in Taka) (3+ ‐4)

1 2 3 4 5
1 Construction of Pavement 20,97,92,522.00 15, 89,05,900.00 36,86,98,422.00
3.2 9,29,279.62 7,18,079.72 16,47,359.33
3.3 Supplying and Fitting and Fixing of 500.mm R.C.C 33,48,162.88 31,11,166.17 64,59,329.05


Pipe at 200 meter Apart along the Alignment of
the Drain
3.4 73,07,497.52 56,46,702.63 1,29,54,200.15
Embankment
Based on Specification and Rate Schedule of LGED
Verakhola‐
Verakhola‐Kaijuri Total
SL Description of Items Baghabari Road (in
Road (in Taka) (3+ ‐4)
Taka)
1 2 3 4 5
1 Construction of Pavement 20,97,92,522.00 15, 89,05,900.00 36,86,98,422.00
3.2 9,29,279.62 7,18,079.72 16,47,359.33
3.3 Pipe at 200 meter Apart along the Alignment of 33,48,162.88 31,11,166.17 64,59,329.05
the Drain
3.4 73,07,497.52 56,46,702.63 1,29,54,200.15
Embankment
Based on Specification and Rate Schedule of RHD
Verakhola‐
Verakhola‐Kaijuri
Baghabari Road (in Total
Taka) (3+ ‐4)

1 2 3 4 5
1 Construction of Pavement 22,37,82,260.00 17,21,40,200.00 39,59,22,460.00
3.
Construction of 400 mmX550mm Surface Drain 3,73,50,274.49 2,87,30,908.38 6,60,81,254.87
1
3. Construction of 750mmX750mm X 750mm Storm
9,29,279.62 7,18,079.72 16,47,359.33
2 Water Catch Pit at 200.00 Meter Apart
3.
Pipe at 200 meter Apart along the Alignment of 33,48,162.88 31,11,166.17 64,59,329.05
3
the Drain
3. Construction of RCC Drain on the Slope of the
73,07,497.52 56,46,702.63 1,29,54,200.15
4 Embankment

Page 189

Verakhola‐Baghabari Road
Bill of Quantities
Annexure‐B
Rate
Amount
Item Code No Item Description Measurement Quantity Unit (in
(in Taka)
Taka)
3.1.08 of Schedule of Rate, Preparation of Sub‐
10000.00m x 5.50m
Pabna and, Serajganj districts grade (450mm Sqm 74.08 40,74,400.00
=55,000.00 Sqm
of LGED, July’2012 depth)
3.1.086 of Schedule of Rate, 10000.00m x 5.50m
Improved Sub‐
Pabna and, Serajganj districts x0.200m Cum 558.98 88,44,000.00
Grade
of LGED, July’2012 =11,000 .00 Cum
3.2.02.01 of Schedule of Rate, 10000.00m x 5.50m
Sub ‐ base
Pabna and, Serajganj districts x0.200m Cum 2887.84 3,17,66,240.00

of LGED, July’2012 =11,000.00Cum
3.2.03.02 of Schedule of Rate, 10000.00m x 5.50m
Aggregate base
Pabna and, Serajganj districts x0.200m Cum 4717.36 5,18,90,960.00

of LGED, July’2012 = 11,000.00 Cum
3.2.25.01 of Schedule of Rate,
Bituminous Prime 10000.00m x 5.50m
Pabna and, Serajganj districts Sqm 112.04 61,62,200.00
coat (Hand place) =55,000.00 Sqm
of LGED, July’2012
Bituminous Tack
coat 10000.00m x 5.50m
Pabna and, Serajganj districts Sqm 52.45 28,84,750.00
(Labor intensive =55,000.00 Sqm
work)
Premixed
Bituminous 10000.00m x 5.50m
Pabna and, Serajganj districts Sqm 702.10 3,86,15,500.00
Carpeting 40mm =55,000.00 Sqm
thick (Av.)
3.1.08 of Schedule of Rate, 2mm compacted‐
10000.00m x 5.50m
Pabna and, Serajganj districts premix Bituminous Sqm 228.91 1,25,90,050.00
=55,000.00 Sqm
of LGED, July’2012 Seal Coat.
2 x 10000.00m Lin.
Pabna and, Serajganj districts Brick on end edging 73.89 14,77,800.00
=20,000.00 Lin. M M
15,89,05,900.0
Sub Total=
0
2.Protection Work of the Slope of the Embankment
* 600mm thick blanket of earth cladding with
10,000.00mX12.00 m
specified cohesive soil on the side slope of Sqm 110.00 1,32,00,000.00
=1,20,000.00 Sqm
embankment
** Supplying and planting vertiver (Binna) grass in
10,000.00mX12.00 m
bunch of 2 to 3 stem @ of 225 mm all over the Sqm 48.00 57,60,000.00
=1,20,000.00 Sqm
side slope
Sub Total= 1,89,60,000.00
1.15 X 0.7X 10,000.00
= 0.8050X10,000
5.02.01 excavating earth to the lines, grades and
= 8,050.00 cubic Cum 78.42 6,31,281.00
‐LGED elevation as per drawing, carrying and disposing
meter
of all excavated materials;

true to level, camber, super elevation and grade
5.03.01 1.15mX 10,000.00
in/c filling the joints with sand (FM 0.50) in/c cost Sqm 251.04 28,86,960.00
‐LGED =11,500.00 Sqm
of all materials complete as per direction of the
Engineer‐in‐Charge


Brick work with 1st class bricks with 6mm thick
cement mortar (1.4) for guard wall of drain, foot (2X0.375mX0.25mX1.
path and median, filling the interstices tightly m+2X
with mortar, raking out joints, cleaning and 0.30mmX0.250mX
5.02.03
soaking bricks at least for 24 hours before use, 1m )X 10,000.00 Cum 4665.16 1,92,43,785.50
‐LGED
washing of sand, curing for requisite period, cost =0.4125X10,000.00
of all materials, etc. all complete as per direction =4,125.00 Cubic
of the Engineer‐in‐ Charge. (Minimum F.M. of Meter
sand:
Cement concrete (1:2:4) with Portland cement,
coarse sand (F.M 1.80), First class/ PJ brick chips
1.15mX075mX
(25mm to 5mm down‐ graded), cost of materials
5.03.05 10,000.00
and shuttering, mixing by concrete mixer Cum 6362.15 54,87,354.38
‐LGED =0.08625X10,000.00
machine, casting, laying, curing for the requisite
= 862.50 Cum
period, etc. as per direction of the Engineer‐in
Charge
12 mm thick cement plaster (1:4) in drain
(0.300m+0.250m+0.5
including cost of materials, washing of sand,
50m+0.600m+0.250
curing for requisite period, maintaining proper
5.12.01 m+0.850m)X10,000.0
curvatures of corners, side wall and bottom, costs Sqm 172.00 4,81,600.00
‐LGED 0
of all materials, etc. complete, as per direction of
=0.280m X 10,000.00
the Engineer‐in‐charge. (Minimum F.M. of sand:
= 2,800.00Sqm
1.2

Sub Total=
2,87,30,908.38
1.050m X 1.050mX
0.975m X 51
=1.0749X51 Cum 78.42 4,299.13
=54.82 Cubic meter

1.050m X 1.050mX
5.03.01 51
in/c filling the joints with sand (FM 0.50) in/c cost Sqm 251.04 14,115.35
‐LGED =1.1025 SqmX51
=56.227 Sqm
brick/picked brick chips (LAA value not exceeding
40) including shuttering, mixing by concrete
mixture machine casting , laying, compacting,
curing for 28 days, breaking Ist class/ picked brick 0.325 Cubic meter
4.1.10.
chips etc complete in all respect as per design RCC in each catch pit
02.2 Cum 7,270.00 1,20,314.87
drawing, design and drawing , and direction of X 51
LGED
Engineer in Charge” and cylinder crushing = 16.55 Cubic meter
strength of concrete should not be less than 170
kg/cm2 (suggested mix proportion 1:2:4)
excluding reinforcement and fabrication, but
including cost of all materials, reinforcement, and
its fabrication shuttering, casting curing for 28

Page 191

6.051‐ Supplying and Fabrication of M.S high strength
LGED deformed bar/Twisted bar reinforcement of size
and length for all types of RCC work including
straightening the rod, removing ruts, cleaning,
cutting, hooking, bending, binding, with supply of
22 B.W.G. GI wire, placing in position, including
lapping, spacing and securing them in position by
concrete blocks (1:1), metal chairs, etc. complete
167.97kg of MS road
including cost of all materials, labor, local
in each catch pit X51 kg 67.63 5,79,,350.37
handling, laboratory test, incidentals necessary to
=8,566.47 kg
complete the work as per specifications, drawings
and direction of the Engineer. Laboratory test for
physical, strength, elongation % & bend to be
performed as peer ASTM. (Measurement will be
based on standard weight of 490 lbs./ft3 Chairs,
laps and separators will be measures for
payment. The cost of these will be included in the
unit rate).
Sub Total= 7,18,079.72
dia,50mm thick) with 12mm downgraded dust
free 1st class brick chips (1:2:4)including pipe 12 meter long RCC
6.096‐ mete
joint gap filling in neat cement slurry casting, pipeX51 =792.00 2910.83 23,05,377.36
LGED r
curing, laying in position, from finished type by meter
steel form works as per design , specifications
complete as per direction of Engineer‐in Charge
true to level, camber, super elevation and grade 3.00 m X 1.50mX.6
5.03.01
in/c filling the joints with sand (FM 0.50) in/c cost =4.5 SqmX51 Sqm 251.04 57,613.68
‐LGED
of all materials complete as per direction of the =229.50 Sqm
3.00mX1.50mX0.075
(25mm to 5mm down‐ graded)in the foundation
5.03.05 m X51
of guide wall, cost of materials and shuttering, Cum 6362.15 1,09,,508.58
mixing by concrete mixer machine, casting,
= 17.212Cum
laying, curing for the requisite period, etc. as per
cement mortar (1.4) for guide wall of R.C.C pipe
filling the interstices tightly with mortar, raking 2.00mX2.50mX0.50m
5.02.03 out joints, cleaning and soaking bricks at least for X 51
Cum 4665.16 5,94,806.63
‐LGED 24 hours before use, washing of sand, curing for = 2.50 CumX51
requisite period, cost of all materials, etc. all =127.50 Cubic Meter
complete as per direction of the Engineer‐in‐
Charge. (Minimum F.M. of sand:
12 mm thick cement plaster (1:4) in guide wall
including cost of materials, washing of sand, (2X1.00mX2.00m+ 2X
curing for requisite period, maintaining proper 0.25mX1.00m+
5.12.01 172.001
curvatures of corners, side wall and bottom, costs 0.25m X2m)X51 Cum 43,860.00
‐LGED 5
of all materials, etc. complete, as per direction of =5.00 CumX51
the Engineer‐in‐charge. (Minimum F.M. of sand: = 255.00 Cum
1.2
Sub Total= 31,11,166.17
0.7 m X 0.675mX 11m
X51
=5,197X51 Cum 78.42 20,784.99
=265.07cubic meter


true to level, camber, super elevation and grade 0.70m X 11X.51
5.03.01
‐LGED
st
20mm down well graded crushed 1 class
0.2310 Cubic meter
RCC in per running
curing for 28 days, breaking Ist class/ picked brick .
4.2.04. meter of drain X 11m
chips etc complete in all respect as per design
02. X51 Cum 9,42,126.57
drawing, design and drawing , and direction of 7270.00
LGED = 2.541X51
Engineer in Charge” and cylinder crushing
=129.591 Cubic
meter
Supplying and Fabrication of M.S High strength
deformed bar/Twisted bar reinforcement of size
lapping, spacing and securing them in position by 119.57 kg of MS road
concrete blocks (1:1), metal chairs, etc. complete in per running meter
6.051‐ including cost of all materials, labor, local of R.C.C drain
kg 67.63 45,36,537.22
LGED handling, laboratory test, incidentals necessary to X11mX51
complete the work as per specifications, drawings =1315.27kgX51
and direction of the Engineer. Laboratory test for =67078..77 kg
based on standard weight of 490 lbs. /ft3 Chairs,
unit rate).
Portland cement, coarse sand (F.M 1.80), First
1.00mX1.00mX0.150
class/ PJ brick chips (25mm to 5mm down‐
5.03.05 m.X 51
graded), cost of materials and shuttering, mixing Cum 6362.15 48,670,.45
‐LGED =0.150CumX51
by concrete mixer machine, casting, laying, curing
= 7.65 Cum
for the requisite period, etc. as per direction of
the Engineer‐in Charge

Sub Total=
56,46,702.63
Total= 21,60,72,756.80

Verakhola‐Kaijuri Road
Bill of Quantities Annexure‐A
Rate
Amount
Item Code No Item Description Measurement Quantity Unit (in
(in Taka)
Taka)
3.1.08 of Schedule of Rate, Preparation of Sub‐
13,000.00m x 5.50m
Pabna and, Serajganj grade (300mm Sqm 74.08 52,96,420.00
=71,500.00 Sqm
districts of LGED, July’2012 depth)

Page 193

3.1.086 of Schedule of Rate, 13,000.00m x 5.50m
Pabna and, Serajganj Improved Sub‐Grade x0.200m Cum 558.98 1,14,97,200.00
districts of LGED, July’2012 =14,300 .00 Cum
3.2.02.01 of Schedule of 13,000.00m x 5.50m
Sub ‐ base
Rate, Pabna and, Serajganj x0.200m Cum 2887.84 4,,12,90,964.00

districts of LGED, July’2012 =14,300.00Cum
3.2.03.02 of Schedule of 13,000.00m x 5.50m
Aggregate base
Rate, Pabna and, Serajganj x0.200m Cum 4717.36 6,74,58,248.00

districts of LGED, July’2012 = 14,300.00 Cum
3.2.25.01 of Schedule of
Bituminous Prime 13,000.00m x 5.50m
Rate, Pabna and, Serajganj Sqm 112.04 80,10,860.00
coat (Hand place) =71,500.00 Sqm
districts of LGED, July’2012
3.2.24.05 of Schedule of Bituminous Tack coat
13,000.00m x 5.50m
Rate, Pabna and, Serajganj (Labor intensive Sqm 52.45 37,50,175.00
=71,500.00 Sqm
districts of LGED, July’2012 work)
3.2.30.2 of Schedule of Rate, Premixed Bituminous
13,000.00m x 5.50m
Pabna and, Serajganj Carpeting 40mm Sqm 702.10 5,02,00,150.00
=71,000.00 Sqm
districts of LGED, July’2012 thick (Av.)
3.1.08 of Schedule of Rate, 12mm compacted‐
13,000.00m x 5.50m
Pabna and, Serajganj premix Bituminous Sqm 228.91
=71,500.00 Sqm 1,63,67,065.00
districts of LGED, July’2012 Seal Coat.
3.2.15.01 of Schedule of
2 x13,000.00m Lin.
Rate, Pabna and, Serajganj Brick on end edging 73.89 19,21,140.00
=26,000.00 Lin. M M
districts of LGED, July’2012
20,97,92,522.0
Sub Total=
0

* 600mm thick blanket of earth cladding with
13,000.00mX12.00 m
specified cohesive soil on the side slope of Sqm 110.00 1,71,60,000.00
=1,56,000.00 Sqm
embankment
** Supplying and planting vertiver (Binna) grass in
13,000.00mX12.00 m
bunch of 2 to 3 stem @ of 225 mm all over the Sqm 48.00 74,88,000.00
=1,56,000.00 Sqm
side slope
2,46,48,000.00
Earthwork in excavation of drains etc. by 1.15 X 0.7X 13000.00
5.02.01 excavating earth to the lines, grades and = 10,465.00 cubic
Cum 78.42 8,20,,665.30
‐LGED elevation as per drawing, carrying and disposing meter
5.03.01 1.15X 13,000.00
in/c filling the joints with sand (FM 0.50) in/c cost Sqm 251.04 37,53,048.00
‐LGED =14,9500.00Sqm
cement mortar (1.4) for guard wall of drain, foot (2X0.375mX0.25mX1.
path and median, filling the interstices tightly m+2X
with mortar, raking out joints, cleaning and 0.30mmX0.250mX
5.02.03
soaking bricks at least for 24 hours before use, 1m )X 13,000.00 Cum 4665.16 2,50,16,920.50
‐LGED
washing of sand, curing for requisite period, cost =0.412513,000.00
of all materials, etc. all complete as per direction =5,362.50 Cubic
of the Engineer‐in‐ Charge. (Minimum F.M. of Meter
sand:


1.15X0.075X
(25mm to 5mm down‐ graded), cost of materials
5.03.05 13,000.00
and shuttering, mixing by concrete mixer Cum 6362.15 71,33,560.69
‐LGED =0.08625X13000.00
machine, casting, laying, curing for the requisite
= 1121.25 Cum
period, etc. as per direction of the Engineer‐in
Charge
12 mm thick cement plaster (1:4) in drain
(0.300m+0.250m+0.5
including cost of materials, washing of sand,
50m+0.600m+0.250
curing for requisite period, maintaining proper
5.12.01 m+0.850m)X13,000.0
curvatures of corners, side wall and bottom, costs Sqm 172.00 6,26,080.00
‐LGED 0
of all materials, etc. complete, as per direction of
=0.280m X 13,000.00
the Engineer‐in‐charge. (Minimum F.M. of sand:
= 3,640.00Sqm
1.2

Sub Total=
3,73,50,274.49
1.050m X 1.050mX
0.975m X 66
=1.0749X66 Cum 78.42 5,563.58
=70.946 Cubic meter

1.050m X 1.050mX
5.03.01 66
in/c filling the joints with sand (FM 0.50) in/c cost Sqm 251.04 18,266.93
=72.765 Sqm
curing for 28 days, breaking Ist class/ picked brick 0.325 Cubic meter
4.1.10.0
chips etc complete in all respect as per design RCC in each catch pit
2.2 Cum 7270.00 1,55,701.59
drawing, design and drawing , and direction of X 66
LGED
Engineer in Charge” and cylinder crushing = 21.42 Cubic meter
6.051‐ Supplying and Fabrication of M.S high strength
LGED deformed bar/Twisted bar reinforcement of size
lapping, spacing and securing them in position by
concrete blocks (1:1), metal chairs, etc. complete
167.97kg of MS road
including cost of all materials, labor, local
in each catch pit X66 kg 67.63 7,49,,747.53
handling, laboratory test, incidentals necessary to
=11,086.02 kg
complete the work as per specifications, drawings
and direction of the Engineer. Laboratory test for
based on standard weight of 490 lbs./ft3 Chairs,
unit rate).
Sub Total= 9,29,279.62

Page 195

dia,50mm thick) with 12mm downgraded dust
free 1st class brick chips (1:2:4)including pipe 12 meter long RCC
6.096‐ mete 2910.8
joint gap filling in neat cement slurry casting, pipeX66 =792.00 23,05,377.36
LGED r 3
curing, laying in position, from finished type by meter
steel form works as per design , specifications
complete as per direction of Engineer‐in Charge
true to level, camber, super elevation and grade 3.00 m X 1.50mX.6
5.03.01
‐LGED
3.00mX1.50mX0.075
(25mm to 5mm down‐ graded)in the foundation
5.03.05 m X66 6362.1
of guide wall, cost of materials and shuttering, Cum 1,41,716.8
‐LGED =0.3375 SqmX66 5
mixing by concrete mixer machine, casting,
= 22.275.5Cum
laying, curing for the requisite period, etc. as per
cement mortar (1.4) for guide wall of R.C.C pipe
filling the interstices tightly with mortar, raking 2.00mX2.50mX0.50m
5.02.03 out joints, cleaning and soaking bricks at least for X 66 4665.1
Cum 7,69,749.75
‐LGED 24 hours before use, washing of sand, curing for = 2.50 CumX66 6
requisite period, cost of all materials, etc. all =165.00 Cubic Meter
complete as per direction of the Engineer‐in‐
Charge. (Minimum F.M. of sand:
12 mm thick cement plaster (1:4) in guide wall
including cost of materials, washing of sand, (2X1.00mX2.00m+ 2X
curing for requisite period, maintaining proper 0.25mX1.00m+
5.12.01 172.00
curvatures of corners, side wall and bottom, costs 0.25m X2m)X66 Cum 56,760.00
‐LGED 15
of all materials, etc. complete, as per direction of =5.00 Cum
the Engineer‐in‐charge. (Minimum F.M. of sand: = 330.00 Cum
1.2
Sub Total= 33,48,162.88
0.7 m X 0.675mX 11m
X66
=5,197X66 Cum 78.42 26,898.22
=343.02cubic meter

true to level, camber, super elevation and grade 0.70m X 11X.66
5.03.01
in/c filling the joints with sand (FM 0.50) in/c cost =7.7 SqmX66 Sqm 251.04 1,27,578.53
‐LGED
st
20mm down well graded crushed 1 class
0.2310 Cubic meter
RCC in per running
curing for 28 days, breaking Ist class/ picked brick .
meter of drain X 11m
4.2.04.0 chips etc complete in all respect as per design
X66 Cum 12,19,222.62
2. LGED drawing, design and drawing , and direction of 7270.00
= 2.541X66
Engineer in Charge” and cylinder crushing
=167.706 Cubic
meter


Supplying and Fabrication of M.S High strength
deformed bar/Twisted bar reinforcement of size
lapping, spacing and securing them in position by 119.57 kg of MS road
concrete blocks (1:1), metal chairs, etc. complete in per running meter
6.051‐ including cost of all materials, labor, local of R.C.C drain
kg 67.63 58,70,812.87
LGED handling, laboratory test, incidentals necessary to X11mX66
complete the work as per specifications, drawings =1315.27kgX66
and direction of the Engineer. Laboratory test for =86807.82 kg
based on standard weight of 490 lbs. /ft3 Chairs,
unit rate).
Portland cement, coarse sand (F.M 1.80), First
1.00mX1.00mX0.150
class/ PJ brick chips (25mm to 5mm down‐
5.03.05 m.X 66
graded), cost of materials and shuttering, mixing Cum 6362.15 62,985.29
‐LGED =0.150CumX66
by concrete mixer machine, casting, laying, curing
= 9.90 Cum
for the requisite period, etc. as per direction of
the Engineer‐in Charge

Sub Total=
73,07,497.52
28,33,75,736.5
Total=
0

Page 197

Appendix VI: Comment Matrix
Comments from BWDB and Observance
Summary
• JMREMP Manual should be followed for design of Protective Work.
• Data & Information of Design Manual of FAP21/22 was not authenticated by its author. So, Designer should be
careful in using Data & Information of this manual.
• Actual & current Data should be used for design instead of assumed & old data.
• All Calculation sheet including Hydrological & Metrological analysis should be enclosed with Design Report.
• Design Criteria should be selected carefully.
• The River Section at Chouhali, Zafargonj & Harirampur used in this Design Report does not represent the actual
River Section. Actual Section should be used for design of Protective Work.
• River Sections are not drawn correctly from data printed in Technical Drawing. River Section should be drawn
correctly as per field survey data.
• Before implementation of Harirampur Protective Work, the adjoining area should carefully be studied. It should
be checked, whether there are any conflicts between Harirampur Protective Work & Regulator (proposed) at
Kaishakhali Closure point.
• Drainage Discharge of Regulators of Hurasagar FCD Project should be determined carefully. Because there are
no proposal of embankment was found on the northern & western side in this report.
• All Design Report & computation sheet should be clear & self‐explanatory with reference (where required).
These Reports should be preserved in Design Library for ready reference.
• "Annex B Data & Survey", "Annex D : Hydrology & Flood Modeling" and "Annex E River Hydraulics &
Morphology" should be send to this office
Article or item wise comments are given below
1. Annex F2 Chapter 4 : River Bank Protection Work(Page 21‐30)
In this report, in most cases Design Data are collected from FAP21/22 Manual & some other sources which are
not updated with up‐to‐date Hydrological & Metrological Data. Design calculation should be done considering
up‐to‐date Hydrological & Metrological Data and respective design calculation should incorporate in Design
Report

COMMENT REPLY
• HFL, LWL & Discharge ( Art 4.5 & 4.6, Page 23‐25): Current HFL, LWL and Discharge were analysed. The
In this report, all data of HFL, LWL & Discharge are assumed results are shown in the design criteria, section .1.4.
or collected from some previous report. As those reports
are very old, they do not contain current data. e,g Q of
Jamuna (1:100 year ) =1,00,000cumec was mentioned in
this report. But if we consider current data then Q of
Jamuna at Bahadurabad (1:100 year) will be 1,12,865
cumec. For effective design, analyses with current
Hydrological Data are required. Current primary data are
available in Hydrology Directorate of BWDB. So, to address
current hydrological scenario primary Hydrological Data
(including current Data upto 2013) should be collected and
analyze it for Design .HFL, Design LWL & Design Discharge.
These Hydrological Calculations should be enclosed in
Design Report
• Flow Velocity (Art 4.7, Page 25) Flow velocity collected from BWDB measurement is
Flow Velocity is a key factor to determine stability & size of presented in the design criteria section 1.4. Flow
protection clement. In this report, Velocity data are velocity measured at Bahadurabad in Brahmaputra‐
assumed or collected from some previous old report. Flow Jamuna River and that at Baruria in Padma have
Velocity of Padma at Harirampur was determined on the been used. The selection criteria is explained in the
basis of velocity of Meghna at Haimchar & Chandpur. For Design note.
effective design, site specific velocity is essential and
Designer should be more careful in selecting Design
Velocity. Some Velocity Data are given below for
information


COMMENT REPLY

Hydrology,BWDB Padma Bridge

Velocity (m/s) Bahadurabad Baruria Transit Mawa Mawa (1:100)
Max = 3.68 Max =4.23 Max =4.35 Max = 4.60
June
To Min =3.00 Min =3.00 Min =3.02 Min =
September
Average=3.28 Average =3.37 Average=3.45 Average =

Maximum Velocity:
JMREMP Manual, P‐122: (as per FAP 24)
Jamuna: Kamarjani = 3.2 m/s
Bahadurabad = 3.7 m/s

Ganges: Gorai offtake = 4.0 m/s
• Bed Material Size & Silt Factor ( Art 4.8, Page 27) Size of bed material has been taken from FAP24 and
Bed Material Size, D50 is a Key factor to determine Scour FAP 1 report, checked with FAP‐21 Design Manual
Depth. For effective design site specific & correct D50 and IWM report on Flood Control Embankment and
should be used. But in this report, some assumed value River Bank Protection of the Left Bank of Jamuna
from previous report has been used. So, site specific & River at Nagarpur and Chouhali; There are no recent
actual D50 should be used. D50 for each site may be measurements.
determined from field sample.
• Waves ( Art 4.9, Page 28) Wave height has been taken from the Special
Waves i.e. Wave Height & Wave Period is a Key factor to Report 23, design brief for Riverbank Protection
determine size of protection element. In this report, implemented under JMREMP (update),Dec 2006 and
assumed Data of Wave Height & Wave Period are copied verified with JMREMP Design Manual and FAP‐21
from FAP 21 Manual (2001). That report is also an older design Manual. Finally the highest wave suggested
one. Instead of assuming Design Data, primary Data by FAP‐21 Design Manual for 100 year return period
(including current Data upto 2013) from Metrological is selected. The base paper prepared by Dennis
Department can be collected and analyzed it for Design Grosser is enclosed as Appendix‐IV (Attachment‐2).
Wind Speed & Design Wind Duration. Design Wave Height
& Wave 'Period can be calculated from Wind Speed. Wind
Duration and Fetch Length. These Calculations should be
enclosed in Design Report
• Scour Depth (Art 4.811, Page 27) The scour value has been assumed from the survey
Discharge, bed material size & Lacey's Factor are key data conducted under the project. The selection of
element for calculation of Scour Depth. in this report Scour data is site specific. The design being a feasibility
Level at Chouhali was calculated as ‐12.90m(PWD) by level one, generalised data received from the survey
considering Q= 36000 m3/s, (D50 =0.18mm & Lacey's has been used. The general scour has also been
Factor = 1.5. But observed Lowest Scour level at. Chouhali verified with the historical data taken from BWDB
is ‐31.34 m(PWD) as per BWDB Field data. It reveals that cross‐section.
value of Discharge, Bed material size & Lacey's Factor are In using the Lacey's scour formula attention is given
not considered properly. In this report Q= 36000 m3is has on the share of discharge carried by the particular
been considered instead of actual discharge of Jamuna is channel. Limitation of applying Lacey's formula is
1,12,865 cumec (100year). Near Chouhali Upazila Complex, also considered in applying in a braided channel.
tere is a right angle turn in river bank. In this case Lacey's
Factor will be 2.00. If we :x.‐aisider Q= 1.12,865 m3/s, d50 During the detail design the specific area has to be
=0.18mm & Lacey's Factor = 2.00 then Scour Level comes to addressed with the scour measured in that area plus
‐36.07 m(PWD) which is closer to observed one. an allowance.
From this report it is also found that Calculated Scour Level
at Harirampur is ‐ 25.00 m(PWD), but observed lowest
Scour Level is ‐37.00 m(PWD).
Some .more Observed Scour Level are described as below
Location Sirajgonj Sailabari Mawa
Observed scour level(m PWD) -33.00,-44.00 -40.00 -50.33

Moreover during design it may be found that there is
Moderate Bend in River bank and flow is parallel to Bank.

Page 199

COMMENT REPLY
Under this situation Designer may consider Lacey's Factor =
1.5. But during or after execution, it may happen that there
is an oblique flow due to formation of a char or change in
river bank from moderate bend to severe bend or right
angle. In this changed situation Lacey's Factor will be 1.75
or 2.00.
So, Discharge, Bed material size & Lacey's Factor should
carefully be selected during design.
• Size & thickness of protection Element (Art 4.12, Page 29) In calculating geobag size and thickness Pilarczyk
It is to be noted here that USACE Equation & JMBA equation and JMREMP manual has been followed.
Equation is not applicable for Geobag
• Khoa Filter ( Art 4.13.1, Page 29) Geotextile filter has a filter quality both along and
From this report and Drawing it is found that Geotextile & across the fabric. Moreover geotextile is laid on a
sand has been used as filter. But Khoa Filter does not used. 50mm thick sand bed which will act as additional
BWDB Manual, JMREMP Manual and other manual filter as well as it will protect gotextile against
suggested for using Khoa Filter. So, explanation is needed clogging.
for not using Khoa Filter above Geotextile. In JMREMP work in general no khoa filter was used.
Khoa Filter does not comply with the Terzaghi Filter
rule.
• Size of Geobag ( Art 4.13.2 & 4.13.3, Page 30) Flow velocity considered for selecting size of
From this report it is found that 125kg Geobag will be used protection element (geobag) is sufficient for the
in Area Coverage & Launching Apron, 250kg Geobag will be stability of 125 kg geobag. 250 geobag shall be used
used in protrusion. But JMREMP Manual recommended for only if there is higher velocity, which normally is not
using of single size of Geobag. Moreover supporting expected during execution of the work. It is required
calculation for 250 kg Geobag has not been furnished. only to meet the emergency.
Supporting calculation should be enclosed for 250 kg
Geobag
• Sequence of Implementation The active erosion zone and its extent at present
Sequence of Implementation of Protective Work for a large has been selected for providing protection under the
reach like 5.00km in Chouhali and 7.00km in Harirampur project. The probability of continued erosive attack
may be discussed here has also been considered through morphological
studies.
Annex F2: Appendix ‐1 Sample Calculation for Chouhali (Page 79‐93)
• HFL, LWL & Discharge (Page 35) : Response placed above
Comments same as above in Sl no. 1
• Velocity (Page 35) Selection of velocity is explained above
here Average Flow Velocity has been considered as 3.00
m/s. But there is no supporting explanation for
determination of such velocity. From JMREMP Manual
Velocity of Jamuna at Kamarjani is 3.20m/s & Bahadurabad
is 3.70 m/s, Moreover according to Data of Hydrology
Directorate, Velocity of Jamuna is as below
Velocity (m/s) Bahadurabad Baruria Transit
June Max= 3.68 Max= 4.23

To Min= 3.00 Min= 3.00
September Average=3.28 Average=3.37
Velocity of Jamuna at Chouhali can also be measured at
site. Velocity is a very important Design Data, because it
determines the size of protection element. So, Design
Velocity should be carefully selected.
In page 26, Art 4,7.2, it is mentioned that 3.00 m/s velocity
has been considered in straight reach and 3.50 m/s velocity
has been considered for acute bend and protrusion. But
3.50 m/s velocity has not been used during calculation of
size of CC block or Geobag.
• Bed Material Size, D50 (Page 35) Bed material selection is explained above


COMMENT REPLY
As it was discussed in Art 4.8, Page 27 of this report, Bed
Material Size 0,18mm is assumed from some previous
report. For effective design, site specific & actual D50
should be used. Actual D50 Data are essential for correct
Scour Depth. D50 for each site should be determined from
field sample

Padma Halcrow jamuna,jmremp manual JMREMP Manual

Bridge For Jamuna
1:100 1:25 PIRDP MDIP
Hs(m)= 1.40 1.00 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.25
Tm(sce)= 3.40 3.00 3.40 4.20
• Wave Data (Page 36) Wave data and its method of calculation is

Here Wave Height = 1.30 m has been used from FAP21 explained above and reference appended.
Manual (200l). This is an old data. Wave Period 2.45sec
used has been used from JMREMP Manual (2010). Updated
Metrological Data should be used for determination of
Design Wind Speed & Design Wind Duration and
subsequently Wave Height & Wave Period. Calculation
sheet in this regard should be enclosed with Design Report.
Some Data of Wave height & Wave Period from previous
manual are given below for information
• Lacey's Factor (Page 36) Explained above
Here River Bank has been taken as Moderate Bend. Some
part of River Bank may be have Moderate Bend at U/S
Location. But at present, at Chouhali Upazila Complex,
there is a sharp right angle turn. At D/S of Chouhali Upazila
Complex, there is severe Bend. So, Lacey's Factor should
carefully be selected. Moreover Drawing of this Protective
Work should contain a Plane Table Survey & current
Satellite Image showing Bank Line
• Scour Level (Page 35,47) Selection of scour depth explained above.
Here it is mentioned that maximum observed Scour Level is
‐3.00m(PWD). Calculated maximum Scour Level is ‐
12.90m(PWD). But in the attached Technical Drawing,
maximum observed Scour Level is ‐9.87 m(PWD). Moreover
according to Data supplied from field office to Design Circle
‐1 , maximum observed Scour Level is ‐31.34m(PWD). So,
Discharge, Bed material size & Lacey's Factor should
carefully be considered during calculation of Scour depth.
• JM BA Equation (Page 36) JMBA equation suggests to use h/d = 5.
Here h/d= 5 has been assumed. Valid justification should be For geobag size selection JMBA equation has not
provided for this assumption. It is to be noted that ,JMBA been used.
Equation is not applicable for Geobag
• Dn in Pilarezyk Equation (Page 37) Geobag is not a cubical element, so equivalent
In.1 JMREMP Manual Dn has been defined as "Equivalent cubical size is used as an unit of size. Finally
Diameter". But in this report Dn has been defined as equivalent diameter has been used in calculation.
"Nominal thickness of protection unit". This matter Should
he clarified.
• Average Water Depth in Pilarczyk Equation (Page 37) 6.0 m being the average depth over the protection
Here average Water Depth, h = 6.00 m has been element used for areal coverage and launching
considered. How h = 6.00m has been selected, supporting apron. The lower depth is chosen as it provides a
calculation should be given. In JMREMP Manual h' defined moderately higher size of protection elements. And
as "water level at toe of slope". But in this report h' has therefore is on the safer side.
been defined as "Average Water Depth". This matter

Page 201

COMMENT REPLY
should be clarified
• Angle of Repose used in Pilarczyk Equation (Page 37‐39) The protection element in areal coverage and
Value of Angle of Repose for different protection element is launching apron is not supported by any type of
mentioned in FAP21 Manual & JMREMP Manual. But in this filter. Hand placed cc blocks proposed for slope
report those values are not used in all cases. Some protection above LWL is placed on filter.
examples are given Below Considering all these factors the angle of repose
Protection Used in FAP21 Manual JMREMP Manual suggested by Pilarczyk for Geobag, Inglish for rocks
Element
CC
this Report Geotextile Granular and worked out example in FAP‐21 Manual for CC
40° 30° 35° - -
Block,multi block has been consulted for selection of angle of
-layer
Rock 35° 20° 25° Riprap 40° repose of a protection element and its use.
CCblock 40° 20° 25° - -
hand placed
Single layer
Geobag 30° Sand filled 30°-40°
system

Source of value of Angle of Repose used in this report should be
mentioned
• Thickness of protection above LW L(Page 44‐45) Protection thickness was decided in consideration
In this report, Maximum Thickness of Protection was of 2 layers of dominant size of protection element.
calculated as 400mm from stone size consideration and This is already explained in the design sheet.
Maximum Thickness of Protection was calculated as
2170mm from stream flow consideration. But Protection
thickness was selected as 400 mm. The explanation for
selecting lower thickness is not clear
• Thickness of CC Block Protection Below LWL (Page 46) ‘BERT te Slaa’ in ”River Training Works for
In art A.2.2 it is mentioned that Thickness of Protection by a Bridge acrossthe Brahmaputra River,
CC Block should be 3D to accommodate winnowing effect.
Basis of such assumption or source should be mentioned
Bangladesh”, stated that the total thickness of
here. an "all in" filter should be approximately five
In writing, it is mentioned Thickness of Protection by CC times the diameter of a single rock which can just
Block should be 3D +50%. But calculation was made as withstand the current forces.
Thickness = 4.5D. So, Clarification or correction is needed.
Moreover this calculated thickness i.e. 3.5D or 4.5D has not 3D+ 50% additional shall be (3+1.5)D = 4.5D, no
been used in drawing. drawing has been produced with cc blocks in areal
In calculation, it is written that 2 layer of CC block should be coverage or in launching apron.
dumped over Geobag. For 2 layer, 22.22 nos/sqm CC Block
should be dumped. But in drawing it is written as The statement is made to cover the eroding
16nos./sqm. So, Clarification or correction is needed surface by material of uniform size on a geobag
filter. Under this state the cover by minimum 2
layers of cc block has been made on top of a filter
layer. The void in this case will be around 40%,
but in this case a very conservative assessment
has been made with a void of about 28%
percentage.

All other inconsistencies will be taken care during
detail design.
• Flatter slope in River Bed Level (Page 47) Slope after ‐3.00 is slightly flatter than 1V:5H
Here it is considered that after 0.00 m(PWD), River Bed is
Flat. From Section it is prevails that it is not correct
• Areal Coverage & Falling Apron(Page 47) Length of areal coverage is the main factor. It is
Here Length of Areal Coverage & Falling Apron selected selected in a way that any scour cannot occur near
arbitrarily. Areal Coverage are considered from 3.00 the bank to induce any slope failure. 15 m apron is
m(PWD) to 0.00 m(PWD) & Length of Areal Coverage was proposed to take care of any scour that can occur in
selected as 30m. But as per enclosed cross section of a season.
Chouhali, inclined length from 3.00 m(PWD) to 0.00 In Jamuna river it is observed that a maximum of
in(PWD) is about 12.37m & 4.42m. Length of Falling Apron 15,0 m of scour can occur in front of a revetment in


COMMENT REPLY
was selected as 15m. Selection of Length & Description of 90 days i.e. in one monsoon season. Please Refer to
Apron written here does not comply with section & Padma Bridge Design Report, Annex E.
calculated of Scour Depth of this report. So, Clarification or
correction is needed.
• Volume of Rock above LWL(Page 48) The material is calculated on 1V:3H slope, this also
From Page 45, Thickness of Protection above LWL = 400 accounts for 1,5m horizontal cover on the flood
mm So, Volume of Rock above LWL = (11‐5) V 10 x 0.4 = plain.
7.59 m3/m But this Volume is written here as 11.95 m3/m.
So, Clarification or correction is needed
• Volume of Rock in Falling Apron In Page 47‐ 48, it is
written that Launching takes place normally in single layer. This
o Areal Coverage will be provided from LWL (+3.00 in, has to be upgraded in subsequent stages. Proper
PWD) to 0.00 m(PWD) monitoring and follow up is needed to take care of
further upgrading after initial launching of material.
o Falling Apron/Launching Apron is proposed to be placed
at the end of Areal Coverage.
o Calculated Scour Level is ‐13.00 m(PWD).
o Thickness of Protection (pitching), T = 520mm
o Thickness of Protection, 1.5T = 780mm
o Volume provided in Falling Apron = 15 x 0.78 =
11.70m3/m
o D = 0.00‐ (‐13.00) = 13m
o Apron will be Launch in 1V:2H slope.
Launched slope Length ( if it Launched in IV:2H slope ) =13 x
2.24 = 29.12m. In that case, thickness of protection after
launching will be =11.70 / 29.12 = 0.402 m. This thickness is
less then Design thickness (0.520 m). Whether this
thickness is acceptable. Clarification or correction is needed
• Volume of Geobag in Falling Apron
In addition to above, in Page 48, it is written that Placed apron thickness is 510mm i.e. 3 layers of
o Thickness of Protection by Geobag, 3 Layer = 510 m/m 125kg geobags.
o To ensure 3 layer, additional 1 layer should be used.
o Volume provided in Falling Apron = 15 x 0.51 x 1.33 = Explained above
10.17 m3/m
Launched slope Length ( if it Launched in 1V:2H slope ) =13
x 2.24 = 29.12m. In this case, thickness of protection after
launching will be =10.17 / 29.12 = 0.349 m. This thickness is
less then Design thickness (0.510 m). Whether this
thickness is acceptable. JMREMP Manual recommended
that, "Systematic coverage by minimum 3 layer Geobag
may provide a dependable protection." Clarification or
• Extra Volume of Geobag
In Page 48‐ 49, 33 % extra Geobag has been considered in
Areal Coverage & Falling Apron. Basis of such assumption
or source should be mentioned hare. In JMREMP Manual it
was recommended that
o Systematic coverage by minimum 3 layer Geobag may
provide a dependable protection.
o To ensure 2 layer at least 4 layer Geobag needed to be
placed systematically
So, by logic, from the above recommendation it reveals The recommendation is given as per achieved in
that to ensure 3 layers, at least 5 or 6 layer geobag needed JMREMP. 3 layers of geobag if properly placed can

Page 203

COMMENT REPLY
to be dumped systematically. It will be helpful, if the matter serve the purpose. No need of extra coverage. so
is clarified. provision of 4 layers is made to take care of any
uncertainty. Reference is available in Padma Bridge
Final Design Report Annex E
• End Termination The work is proposed to be extended in next tranch.
End Termination at both ends of Protective Work has not So end termination is not proposed. In JMREMP also
been considered. How both end will be protected against no end termination has been provided, rather the
out flanking. It will be helpful, if the matter is clarified. protection limit is extended beyond the critical zone.
From the Design Computation of Chouhali‐Nagarpur following question arises
• How Areal Coverage & Falling Apron will be differentiate Already explained above. Moreover, designers
or identified in judgment shall be applied in case of varying the
different River Section. width of areal coverage.
• How Length of Areal Coverage will be determined. Explained
• How Length of Falling Apron will be determined. Explained
• How Volume of material in Falling Apron will be Explained
determined. Does this volume will be calculated on the
basis of Lowest Scour Level.
• JMREMP suggested 3 layer of Geobag. How this 3 layer Explained
will be ensured during dumping at different depth,
different flow condition etc
3. Annex F2: Appendix VI : Technical Drawing
Chouhali‐Nagarpur
• In the Drawing LWL = 5.50m(PWD) has been used. But in Shall be taken care in detail design. This has been
calculation LWL = 5.00m (PWD) has been used (Page 35,46). corrected in the report.
It should be corrected
• Original River sections are not visible
• Drawing of Chouhali‐Nagpur, Section‐1 & Section‐2 does These are Feasibility level designs. Shall be taken
not match with the RL, written there (copy enclosed). It care after a detail survey during final design stage.
should be corrected. Moreover these section are
incomplete, Because Elevations are written from 0.00 m
(PWD) to towards River Bed. In the design sheet (Page 35),
Average Bank level was Written as 11.00 m(PWD). So,
Elevation should be written at least from Average Bank
level i.e. 11.00 m(PWD) to towards Lowest River Bed and
section should be drawn correctly in 1H: 1V scale.
• The Section‐1 & Section‐2 enclosed in Technical Drawing The sections are based on river surveys in 2011 and
does not represent the actual River section. Design & 2012 flood season.
Drawing should be made on the basis actual section.
Estimate should be prepared on the basis of that drawing
• At Chouhali Upazila Complex, different buildings are The Buildings are currently eroding.
situated just at the bank line. If during design, it was
attempt to make a 1:3 slope line above LWL then this
building have to be demolished. But it will be very difficult
to demolish those building. This critical matter should be
addressed carefully during design & implementation
Zafargonj: Original River sections are not visible. Moreover The river bank will be surveyed during the detailed
these section are incomplete, elevations are written from design.
0.00 m(PWD) to towards River Bed. Elevation should be
written at least from Average Bank level to towards Lowest
River Bed
In Section‐3 it was found that 2 layer 250kg Geobag will be The base layers consisting of smaller sizes dumps
dumped over 1 layer 125kg geobag. During dumping, how, assures that there are less gaps in the critical area.
position of 2 layer 250kg Geobag will be ensured over I
layer 125kg Geobag. Moreover ,IMREMP Manual suggested


COMMENT REPLY
for using Single Size of geobag,
The Section‐I, Section‐2 & Section‐3 enclosed in Technical The sections are based on river surveys in 2011 and
Drawing does not represent the actual River section. Design 2012 flood season
& Drawing should be made on the basis actual section
Estimate should be prepared on the basis of that drawing.
Al Zafargonj Bazar, different shops are situated just at the
bank line. If during design, it was attempt to make a 1:3
slope line above LWL then this shops have to be
demolished. But it will be very difficult to demolish those
shops. This critical matter should be addressed carefully
during design & implementation
Benotia The sections are based on river surveys in 2011 and
Original River sections are not visible. Drawing of Benotia, 2012 flood season
Section‐1 does not match with the RL written there. In the
Drawing, Elevation of Flood Plane is 9.60 m(PWD). But in
the drawing, RL is written from 4.78 m(PWD) to ‐0.86
m(PWD). So, Elevation should be written at least from
Average Bank level to towards Lowest River Bed. Design &
Drawing should be made on the basis actual section.
Estimate should be prepared on the basis of that drawing
Harirampur The sections are based on river surveys in 2011 and
Original River sections are not visible. Drawing of 2012 flood season
Harirampur, Section‐1 does not match with the RL written
there (copy enclosed). Elevation should be written at least
from Average Bank level to towards Lowest River Bed. From
the section it is found that LWL= +2.00 m(PWD). But
Existing RL is written from ‐1.39 m(PWD) to ‐2.74 m(PWD).
These RL does not reflect a section. Design & Drawing
should be made on the basis actual section. Estimate
should be prepared on the basis of that drawing
In Section‐I it was found that 2 layer 250kg Geobag will be See earlier explanations.
dumped over 2 layer 125kg Geobag. During dumping, how,
position of 2 layer 250kg Geobag over 2 layer 125kg
Geobag will be ensured. Moreover JMREMP Manual
suggested for using Single Size of Geobag
From Index map, it was found that location of protective There are no plans to close the offtake.
work at Harirampur is at the oftake of Ichamati River. From
Index map in Technical Drawing, it seems that Harirampur
Protective Work will close the oftake. It is to be mentioned
here that previously Ichamati River was closed by
Kaishakhali Closure. Kaishakhali Closure is approximately
7.00 to 8.00 km D/S of Harirampur Protective Work.
Presently people of Dhohar & Nawabgonj are demanding
for opening the Kaishakhali Closure and they demand for a
regulator at that point. So, before implementation of
Harirampur Protective Work, the adjoining area should
carefully be studied. It should be checked, whether there
are any conflicts between Harirarnpur Protective Work &
Regulator at Kaishakhali Closure, point and some other 3
Flushing Gate in that area.
I, Annex F2: Chapter 2 Embankment (Page 49‐56)
In Art 2.3.1, Page 7, Factor of Safety =1.4 has been The FS has been considered in line with the
considered for slope stability. But normally this Factor of standards followed in JMREMP.
Safety is considered as 1.5. Moreover Bishop Method or
Jamboo Method is used for calculating Slope Stability
• 5.30 in Carriage way has been provided on C/S slope of Road section as per type‐5, (minimum width of 2
embankment. In page 9, it was mentioned that lane carriage way, Ref: Geometric Design of RHD

Page 205

COMMENT REPLY
specification of Rural Road of RHD has been used for this Roads‐2005) is 5.5m carriage ay + 2x1.2 m shoulder
Carriage way. According to a Praggapan of Road Transport + 2x0.95m verge, in total 9.8m; this has been made
Wing of planning Commission, Road Class : Rural Road‐1 10.0m with 2x1.5m paved shoulder and 2x0.75 m
has been replaced by Design Type 8. But the Drawing of verge.
Carriage way (Detail 'D') as enclosed in Technical Drawing
does not match with Design Type 8, So, Clarification or
• As the fill material of embankment is dredge fill soil, The seepage issue has been addressed in the
attention should be given to Seepage analysis. In some geotechnical assessment
Book Slope of seepage line for sand was mentioned as 1:15,
• In Annex Fl, Page 25, value or initial void ratio eo, The values were taken from the laboratory analysis
Compression Index, Cc, Sp gravity Gs & Unit Weight etc. has on the selected sample. As a feasibility study
been assumed for settlement calculation. But these values analysis selected area has been analysed. Further,
of each layer of foundation soil should be obtained from elaborate study will be made during detail design
laboratory test report or field soil sample stage.
Annex F2: Appendix VI Technical Drawing (Embankment)
• Details of 10cm RCC at Crest of Embankment has not RCC road detail will be shown during detail design
been shown. This RCC Work may be avoided. This work is stage.
duplication with US carriage way. Embankment can be
monitored by this carriage way. Moreover if RCC was road
was constructed over crest then it will be difficult to rise
the embankment height in future (if needed).
• Details or Verge & Shoulder (Detail ‘D') have not been The drawings have been expanded with these
shown. Moreover same item has been shown for Shoulder details.
& Road.
• C/S Slope has been considered as 1:2 when height is 4.00 River side slope is 1V:3H and country side slope is
m and 1:2.5 when height is 3.00 m. So, Clarification or 1V:2.5H
correction is needed
Crest width of Embankment (3.20m or 3.21m), Width of R/S 3.20 m is the crest width, width of slope shall be as
slope (10m or 8 m) should be corrected per slope provided.
• At the bottom of embankment 1.00 base stripping has The cladding will reach to the bottom of the
been considered. This 1.00 m will be filled by dredge fill excavation to avoid this.
soil. If the embankment and & WS end of base cannot be
covered properly by clay cladding (Detail E) or other similar
method, then there is a possibility of seepage through this
base. This may be a cause of failure of embankment
Annex F2: Appendix II: Gala Regulator (Page: 94‐122)
• In page 51, it is mentioned that Drainage area outside the The Hurasagar subproject (proposed to be restored)
catchment Area is 0.00. But from the project map (Page 18) is protected against flood by embankment along
it is found that there are embankment on eastern side & Brahmaputra‐Jamuna, Hurasagar‐Baral and part of
southern side, no embankment on northern & western Karotoa river.
side. How intrusion of flood water from northern &
western side will be prevented. So, Catchment area as well
as Discharge should be considered carefully
• For Drainage & Flushing condition inside WL & outside WL As a feasibility level design the selection of runoff is
should be selected carefully from Hydrological Analysis. described.
Hydrological Analysis should be incorporate in this report
• Foundation Design has not been enclosed here. Will taken care of in detail design stage. Based on
Foundation Design is very important for correct estimation survey analysis.
Annex Fl: Chapter 5: River Bank Stability (Page 22‐28)
• In Page 28, here it is mentioned that maximum river Statement made on cross‐section surveyed under
depth is 18 m and river slope is 1:5 to 1:1. But at some the project and the observation is site specific.
places river depth is more than 18 m. In many case side
slope is very steep and slope less than 1:1.


COMMENT REPLY
In Slope Stability Analysis, pure Clay & pure Sand have been With the presence of cohesive properties the soil
considered. But from the Bore log in Table 2‐5 to 2‐12, Clay sample is considered as clayee material. The
mixed with Fine Sand was found in 2 (two) Bore hole. In properties are assumed from the laboratory
most bore hole, soil is a mixture of Fine Sand & Silt. In no analysis.
Bore log there are pure Sand or pure Clay. Moreover in all
Bore log, Soil Type Was defined mostly as Fine Sand
Soil Type describes in Table 2‐5 to 2‐12 should match with Noted, shall be taken care in the detail design stage.
Bore Log shown in Fig 3‐1 to 3‐4. Moreover Soil Type
describes in Table 2‐5 to 2‐12 should match with soil
composition stated there
• In Page 29, Unit Weight, Angle of Internal Friction & Explained above
Cohesion for each layer has been assumed for pure Sand &
pure Clay for Slope Stability analysis. But value of Unit
Weight, Angle of Internal Friction & Cohesion for each layer
should be obtained from laboratory test of field soil
sample.
In Page 29, ordinate of Fig 5.3 & 5.4 is not clear Ordinate shows the safety factor
• Here. two depths (19m, 39m) of River Bed have been One low and one high (i.e. two extremes) are
considered for Slope Stability. It will helpful for design, if analysed.
some more depth such as 25m, 30m, 50m etc may he
analyzed for Slope Stability.
• Here Allowable Factor Safety for Slope Stability was not Explained earlier
clearly mentioned.
According to BWDB Manual & other literature, Allowable
Factor Safety is 1.5.
• It is not clear how FS = 1.5% g and FS = 5% g has been Earthquake impact is calculated as per
calculated. A sample calculated may be attached. recommendation of BNBC and also a higher factor
like 5%g in line with JMREMP
• It will he better to understand, if Range of Starting Point noted
& Range of End Point i.e. limit of different Slip Circle are
mentioned in this Report.
• Findings from Table 5‐1 & 5.4 may be described in a noted
bullet form, some are mentioned as below.
o FS increases with the increase of River Depth
o FS increases with the increase of thickness of top clay
layer upto 5.00m. If thickness of top clay layer exceeds
5.00m, then FS decreases.
o When side slope is 1:2, then FS cannot meet the
minimum limit
o When side slope is 1:3, then FS satisfies the allowable
limit, during design condition
Moreover it will be helpful for designer, if this report can
make a strong recommendation regarding the design side
slope in Protection work
• An analysis may be incorporate here, regarding the Will be addressed in Detail Design Stage
stability of Slope when it builds with local earth or gunny
bag or synthetic bag. This is a common phenomenon in
River Bank Protection Work.
• In Page 29, it was mentioned that Slope Stability analysis Software was down loaded from internet
was done by software Visual Slope, developed by Loveland,
Ohio, USA. As a part of Technology Transfer this software
may be supplied to Design Office.
N It is to be mentioned here that Only "Annex F" has been These annexes were handed over during the

Page 207

COMMENT REPLY
sent for comment. Data & Information of "Annex B Data & meeting with the design team, in the office of the
Survey", "Annex D : Hydrology & Flood Modeling" and Project Director on 28 July 2013.
"Annex E : River Hydraulics & Morphology" are required for
better understanding of "Annex F", So, "Annex B : Data &
Survey", "Annex D : Hydrology & Flood Modeling" and
"Annex F; : River Hydraulics & Morphology" should be send
to this office,
Comments on Draft Final Report of Technical Design and Drawings for "Main River Flood and
Bank Erosion Risk Management Program"

The stretch from Sirajganj to Enayetpur is already
1. The proposed embankment is designed with
under extension. The top width is 6.0m and has a
carriage way and short top width e.g.3.21m, 3.5m
additional carriage way for NMV.
and a berm of 5.2m for a length of 12.5km. On the
other hand the total length of embankments on right
bank of Brahmaputra is about 220km (designed by
BWDB) and the designed cross section is top width‐
5.00m and side slopes 1:3. As the new embankment is
to be connected with the old embankments and
the old embankment section is enough to
withstand the water pressure and seepage, hence the
embankment section may be provided which is
compatible with the embankment implemented by
BWDB.

2. In the design, standard and extended section is The point is not clearly understood.
mentioned, which is not clear. The basis of extended
section is not specified in the design
3. Statistical analysis and simulation of 2D model result 2D model results have not been used, as the design
is not clearly discussed. was based on observed river condition.

4. The analysis for the sea level rise is not In BRE sea level rise has not been considered. It is
incorporated in the calculation. This should be rather left with 1.5m free board on 100 year HFL.
incorporated in the Draft Final Report


Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk Management Program JFPR - ADB - BWDB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk Management Program JFPR - ADB - BWDB

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk Management Program JFPR - ADB - BWDB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report

Project Number: 44167-012

Bangladesh: Main River Flood and Bank Erosion Risk

Prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Canada

In association with Resource Planning and Management Consultants Ltd., Bangladesh

For Bangladesh Water Development Board

R7, 28 February 2014 Reprinted R6

Sand fill 60 cm excavated

15.0 3.2 3.0 10.0 8.75

Sand fill 60 cmexcavated

10.0 8.0 2.0 3.2 3.0 10.0 8.75

CN‐10 N24°13´29.4´´ E89°48´33.6´´ Ichapara 40 12.1 3.25

JB5 N23°56´8.2´´ E89°46´4.1´´ Daulotpur 40 8.6 3.168

Embankment Crest Level 15.50 m PWD

Bankfull Discharge of the River (Qb) => 48,000 m3/sec [From FAP‐24, and Design guidelunes FAP‐21 ]

Water Surface Slope => 6.00 cm/km (assumed, WL Gauge record analysis)

Existing Embankt slope River side (V:H) => ( 1 : 3 ) (Field office data)

Fetch Length => 7.00 km (From Model) Use = 7.00 km

D = 0.034 V2 0.306 m = 306 mm

Flow Velocity ( V ) => 3.00 m/sec (Observed data and Guidelines

Sp.Gravity of Revt.Material, cc block ( Ss )=> 2.40 [‐]

D =D30 = 0.166 m 166 mm (on 1V:2H slope)

ξz = wave similarity parameter [ tanα.(1.25Tm/Hs^0.5) 0.90 [‐]

Protection Element Dn = m ≈

3.0 Size of Protection Element

3.1 Size of Protection Element for upper slope (above LWL)

Recommended size : Dn = 200 mm

Recommended size of geobags is 125 kg Equivalent thickness 438 mm

The formula results in T= 0.278 m 278 mm

River Discharge from 0.25 Q' from 0.75 to Q' from

Discharge of the River ( Q ) => 1,270,352 Cusec

As per Inglish, T = 2170 mm

(ii) California Highway Division

As per Inglish, T = 2170 mm

Size of geobag as protection element against flow velocity is 125 mm Equivalent thickness is = 438 mm

Length of launching apron = 1.5xDs = 19.50 m say 20.00 m (Theoretical)

Thickness of cc block (pitching) = T = 200 mm (above LWL, hand placed over a geotextile filter)

Where: Hw = Upstream Water Depth N = Vent Nos.

RWL HW HTW h' Flow Type Q

7.5 1.50 0.50 1.00 V 17.20

Catchment Area = Subproject area : 3550 ha

Total = 14.79 cumec

OUTLET (D/S) STILLING BASIN DESIGN R/S

Design U/S Water Level --> 8.50 m from field data 5

D/S Basin Invert Level --> 6.00 m, PWD

Total discharge = 17.20 m³/sec Flow Condition= 5

Basin Level adjacent to Barrel 7.00 m PWD

U/S cut off wall= 0.60 m Use 3.00 m

C/S block Prot. = 3.00 m Use 5.00 m

R/S Block Prot.= 6.00 m Use 6.00 m

Design U/S Water Level ‐‐> 8.00 m from field data 5

D/S Basin Invert Level ‐‐> 6.00 m, PWD

Total discharge (Qd)= 26.47 m³/sec Flow Type = 5

Level Adjacent to Barrel 7.00 m PWD

Use co‐efficient= 1.00 Indian Standard Stilling Basin I

U/S cut off wall= 1.05 m Use 3.00 m

C/S block Prot. = 3.00 m Use 5.00 m

R/S Block Prot.= 6.00 m Use 6.00 m