Rigasa Design Report

Chieftain Consultants Limited
Ecological Fund Office, Federal Secretariat Complex

Phase II ABUJA
Design Report
Emergency Consultancy Services for Erosion and Flood

Control Works at Yan Kilishi, Rigasa, Igabi LG,
Kaduna State, Nigeria.
By
CHIEFTAIN CONSULTANTS LIMITED

Multi-Disciplinary Engineering &Management Consultants
Address: First Floor, Suite A1, KC Holding Building,

No. 24, Constitution Road, Kaduna.
Telephone: +234 8032230109; 08024008918
Email: chieftainconsult@yahoo.com
chieftainconsultantsltd@gmail.com
Ecological Fund Office, Federal Secretariat Complex

Phase II ABUJA
Design Report
Emergency Consultancy Services for Erosion and Flood

Control Works at Yan Kilishi, Rigasa, Igabi LG,
Kaduna State, Nigeria.
By
CHIEFTAIN CONSULTANTS LIMITED

Multi-Disciplinary Engineering &Management Consultants
Address: First Floor, Suite A1, KC Holding Building,

No. 24, Constitution Road, Kaduna.
Telephone: +234 8032230109; 08024008918
Email: chieftainconsult@yahoo.com
chieftainconsultantsltd@gmail.com
i
ECOLOGICAL FUND OFFICE
FEDERAL SECRETARIAT COMPLEX PHASE II

ABUJA
EMERGENCY CONSULTANCY SERVICES FOR EROSION AND

FLOOD CONTROL WORKS AT YAN KILISHI, RIGASA, IGABI
LOCAL GOVERNMENT KADUNA STATE.
ii
Emergency Consultancy Services for Erosion and Flood Control Works at Yan
Kilishi, Rigasa, Igabi L.G. Kaduna State NIGERIA.
Document Version
Client Ecological Fund Office
Design Chieftain Consultant

Consultant: Limited.
Project Name: Emergency Consultancy

Services for Erosion and
Flood Control Works at Yan
Kilishi, Rigasa, Kaduna,
Nigeria.
Document Title:
Document Unique
Reference No.
Document Reviewer Engr. Ibrahim Bello
Date of Report February, 2021

Submission:
Date of Joint Site January, 2021
Visit by Consultant
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Yan Kilishi, Rigasa is located in Igabi Local Government Area, Kaduna State. It is located
between Latitude 1007275N Longitude 326217E.
Messrs. Chieftain Consultant Limited dispatched a team of engineers to visit the assigned
project sites across Yan Kilishi, Rigasa, kaduna to have first-hand information on the nature
and extent of the problems affecting the area and the inherent dangers they portend to the
communities. This followed the commissioning of the firm by Ecological Fund Office to
provide Consultancy Services for Emergency Erosion and Flood Control measures across the
area. The project sites were collated together for comprehensive reporting and documentation
of findings.
Detailed engineering drawings and financial estimates were provided for the respective sites.
The Methodology used in the collection of data on the project area includes, visual observation
and assessment, interaction with the community representatives, topographic survey and
drainage network morphology as well as use of other secondary data that assisted in the design
of the most appropriate mitigation measures for the affected areas.
The observed problems can be summarized to be:
1 There are back flow runoff within the drainage network in the settlement as a result of
indiscriminate dumping of refuse on drains often resulting to flood the area.
2 Poor drainage design by individuals were unable to control the erosion and flooding
that his engulf building in the residential area.
3 Dilapidated existing drains and culvert causing back flow runoff.
4 Poor Sanitation and Hygiene practice
Based on the conditions in the study areas, the best engineering mitigation measure was to
provide adequate drainage networks. There are different types of drains that could be used such
as reinforced rectangular or trapezoidal, concrete, masonry and block work drains.
iv
For the affected areas, based on our observations and the design considerations, the following
solutions are proposed:
a) Construction of Open Reinforced Concrete Rectangular Channel (Main)
b) Construction of rip-rap for wall stabilization.
c) Provision of pedestrian crossing on the drains.
The main reason for the options stated above in the course of proffering suitable solutions are:
a) Rectangular drains was preferred as the control drainage structure because it is more
feasible where the runoff discharges are high and there is adequate drainage corridor
even though the location is within residential area. Although, the area is located
within residential area, there is no space limitation or constraints, therefore making
the rectangular drain the best or suitable option.
b) Reinforced concrete drain was proposed. Even though, it is appears more expensive
than blockwork, it has the advantage of structural stability, durability and ease of
maintenance.
c) The existing blockwork drain appeared damaged and silted up. This requires regular
maintenance and may not be easy due to non-release or paucity of fund as at when
due.
We strongly believe that if the flood control structures proposed above are implemented, it will
go a long way in alleviating the environmental problems facing the various communities and
their adjoining neighbourhoods.
v
CONTENTS
COVER PAGES ……………………………………………………………………….. i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. iv
CONTENTS..................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background Information ............................................................................................. 2
1.2 Project Area Location and Description ...................................................................... 2
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ...............................................................................................3
3.0 RECONNAISSANCE .................................................................................................3
3.1 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Environmental impact assessments of the project (EIA) ........................................... 4
3.3 Causes of flood and erosion ........................................................................................4
4.0 FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURES ........................................................................5
4.1 Proposed Remedies: Flood Control Options (Alternative analysis) ..........................5
5.0 PROJECT DESIGN OVERVIEW............................................................................ 6
5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 6
5.2 Project Setting ......................................................................................................... 7
5.2.1 Climate ................................................................................................................. 7
5.2.2 Social Activity ................................................................................................ ….8
5.2.3 Vegetation ............................................................................................................ 8
5.2.4 Population ............................................................................................................ 9
vi
6.0 DESIGN OF REMEDIAL MEASURES ......................................................................... 9
6.1 Rainfall Frequency Analysis……………………………………………………………..9
6.2 Hydrological Design .…………………………………………………………………...10
6.3 Design Considerations ................................................................................................... 13
6.4 Time of Concentration (t) ................................................................................................13
6.5 Catchment Area ……..................................................................................................... 14
7.0 ESTIMATION OF DISCHARGE AND CHANNEL SIZING...................................... 17
7.1 Hydraulic Design of Channels ........................................................................................17
7.1.1Channel Design ............................................................................................................17
7.1.2 Design of Lined Channels............................................................................................17
7.2 Roughness Coefficient (n)............................................................................................. 18
7.3 Flow Pattern: ................................................................................................................. 21
7.4 Lined Channel ...............................................................................................................21
7.5 Parameters and Component of Design..........................................................................21
7.3 Designs Runoff: .......................................................................................................... 22
7.4 Hydraulics Analysis ……….. ..................................................................................... 25
8.0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND CRITERIA ......................................27
8.1 Design Principles …………………………………………………………………….27
8.1.1 Loading on the Side Wall of the Drain …………………………………………….28
8.1.2 Surcharge due to Earth Fill or Vehicular traffic …………………………………...28
8.1.3 Ultimate Moment ………………………………………………………………….28
8.1.4 Design of Base Slab of the Drain ……………………………………………….29
REFERENCE....................................................................................................................30
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5.1: Meteorological Data for Abuja …………………………………………………8
Table 6.1: Design Rainfall …………………………………………………………………10
Table 6.2: Standard NRCS runoff curve number ………………………………………….12
Table 6.3: Catchment Basin Characteristics………………………………………………14
Table 7.1: Minimum Free Board …………………………………………………………..18
Table 7.2 Recommended Values of Manning’s ‘n’ in open channels …………………….20
Table 7.3: Summary of Hydrologic Analysis ……………………………………………..25
Table 7.4: Hydraulic Analysis under uniform flow ………………………………………25
Table 7.5: Design Channel Section ………………………………………………………..26
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.0: Locational satellite imagery of project site ……………………………………..2
Figure 6.1 Catchment area delineation using WMS ………………………………………..15
Figure 6.2 Digital Elevation Model of Yan Kilishi Rigasa, Kaduna………………………..16
Figure 7.1: Design Rainfall …………………………………………………………………22
Figure 7.2: Design Runoff Hydrograph …………………………………………………….23
Figure 7.3: Rainfall Runoff hydrograph…………………………………………………….24
Figure 7.4: Design Channel Section ………………………………………………………...26
viii
APPENDIX A: STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF CULVERT
APPENDIX B: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
APPENDIX C: STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE CHANNEL
APPENDIX D: PHOTO GALLERY
APPENDIX E: REINFORCED CONCRETE CHANNEL CROSS SECTION & QUANTITTIES
ix
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Cities in developing countries are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts, especially
changes in rainfall pattern because of the exposure to extreme weather events.
Excessive rainfall leads to erosion/flooding especially in areas with poor drainage systems and
areas where water inundates the capacity of the soil to contain it. Areas where poor land use
practices do not encourage the construction of drainage networks and outfalls will cause excess
runoff water to erode or flood the affected areas.
The Ecological Fund Office is greatly concerned about this situation and is determined to
combat or control these environmental problems headlong. In pursuance of this objective, the
Ecological Fund Office directed Messrs. Chieftain Consultant Limited to study the
flooding/erosion problems of some selected areas in Rigasa and come up with appropriate
engineering mitigation measures that would bring to an end the sufferings of the people.
After elaborate discussions on the subject matter with the representatives of the Ecological
Fund and other project stakeholders, the Project Consultants dispatched a team of engineers to
visit the affected sites, appraise the existing problems, and prepare engineering report with
proffered solutions and financial implications. The report is a precursor to the field surveys and
other investigations carried out.
Discussions were held with some Rigasa resident to obtain first-hand information on previous
attempts/studies carried out by others to ameliorate the environmental problems in the affected
areas. The site visit enabled us to determine the project scope and to discuss on issues of
rehabilitation. The sites visit was undertaken under the guidance of the Ecological Fund.
This design report is prepared based on all our observations of the ecological problems and
other valuable information collected during the sites visit amongst which include: Field survey,
and desk studies of the project areas. The report highlights the methodology for the assignment
and discusses the technical and material components used for the design process. The design
process incorporates all field and office works. The fieldwork entailed topographical survey of
the critical drainage area, while the office works involved designs, reports and other
documentations.
1|Page
1.1 Background Information
Yan Kilishi, Rigasa, is situated at Igabi LG in Kaduna State, Nigeria. It lies in the central part
of Kaduna State. The Rigasa is within the Kaduna metropolises surrounded by major economic
hub of the city and densely populated by rural people
1.2 Project Area Location and Description
Yan Kilishi Rigasa is in Rigasa a town initially populated by various tribes such as Kataf,
Hausa, Igbo etc. However, it is presently predominantly inhabited by Hausa and no longer
cosmopolitan in nature
Rigasa is about 15 minutes’ drive to the central business area in Kaduna. It can be accessed
through newly constructed dual carriage road leading to the train station. It is about 20Km from
the Kaduna Airport.
YanKilishi, Rigasa is mainly a residential area though recently some businesses especially
service oriented businesses like transportation and filling station are springing up very rapidly.
Most of these businesses are located on the major roads leading to the train station.
Figure 1.0: Location satellite imagery of project site
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services based on our sites visit and previous experiences on similar assignments
include the following:
2|Page
a. Collection and review of information on previous studies.
b. Collection of hydrological records and analysis
c. Detailed topographical survey of the project areas
d. Detailed design and preparation of comprehensive Engineering Drawings
e. Design Report
f. Preparation of Bill of Engineering Measurement and Evaluation (BEME)
g. Preparation of Tender/Bid documents required for tendering process,
h. General Supervision of the Project in line with the schedule of Implementation
3.0 RECONNAISSANCE
Reconnaissance visit to the project area was carried by the Chieftain Consultant Engineers to
assess the erosion problem.
Extensive field investigations were carried out to obtain information on the following factors:
a) The extent of flood in the affected areas
b) The catchment areas contributing storm water flows to individual channels
c) Collection of information and data required for studies and analysis of the Problem.
During the visit to the study area, failed and dilapidated work drain were seen, these were
constructed by residence in the area to protect their buildings and properties, however they
were not properly design as such the drainage structure failed.
Therefore, the observed problems can be summarized to be:
1 There is a runoff from upstream situated in the settlement area, which floods the area.
2 Inadequate drains thereby causing erosion and flooding.
3 Dilapidated existing drains.
4 Poor Sanitation and Environmental Practice.
3|Page
3.1 Project Objectives
The objectives of the project are numerous; parts are to give the following environmental and
social benefits:
a) Improve effective drainage system for the project areas thereby reducing mosquitos’
population, as the drainage system will not allow surface runoff to stagnate within the
communities
b) Improve awareness and incorporate good sanitation culture in the people’s life style.
c) Reduce the loss of properties.
3.2 Environmental impact assessments of the project (EIA)
Channelization and erosion control works at Rigasa comprises of the areas within the
catchment area contributing to the runoff.
The environmental impact assessment is a detailed standalone document that critically revealed
the detail information of the impact of the project to environment and the immediate people at
the project location both on positive and negative effect
3.3 Causes of flood and erosion
The factors responsible for flood and erosion are generally categorized into Natural and Man-
made.
Among the natural causes are:
(i) Environmental- Topography, Subsoil characteristic and Vegetation
(ii) Meteorological- Rainfall intensity- duration-frequency, tides and currents
(iii) Hydrogeology- Drainage pattern and Sediment load
The Man-made (anthropogenic) activity in the study area are flood erosion includes.
(i) Residential Settlement along the flood plain
(ii) Poor Construction practices especially at the inlets and outlets of culverts
(iii) Uncontrolled disposal of wastes along roads and drainages
4|Page
Some of these factors as itemized have contributed to high level of environmental degradation
encountered in the study areas and its environs.
4.0 FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURES
Flood control channels are constructed for conveying heavy storm water flows through and
from areas, which would otherwise be inundated, usually resulting in property damage and loss
of life. Channel design involves determining the overall channel configuration including
appurtenant structures, designing reinforced concrete channels usually are the primary feature
of local flood protection projects, extend to great distances require significant construction
costs due to the extensiveness, and present extreme consequences should failure occur.
Therefore, channel design solutions should be developed in a logical and conservative manner
that provides for economical construction and serviceability and ensures functionality and
structural integrity.
4.1 Proposed Remedies: Flood Control Options (Alternative analysis)
Based on the conditions in the study area, the best engineering solution was the provision of
adequate drain and culverts (where necessary). There are different types of drains sections such
as trapezoidal or rectangular drain, concrete, block work or masonry drain.
For the affected areas, based on our observations and the design considerations the following
are the proposed solutions:
a) Construction Open Reinforced Concrete Channel.
b) Construction of stone picking at the pond section.
c) Provision of access culverts
The governing reasons for selecting above solutions are:
Option 1.
In this option, Rectangular concrete drains were considered for the entire length of the proposed
works. In addition to this option, the head, middle and end of the entire proposed works is
rectangular lined reinforced concrete drain. Option 1 would require suitably sized access slabs
and rip rap at the outlet point of the drains.
5|Page
Rectangular drains was not considered suitable for the channelization due to the contributing
tributaries to the channel which will affect the conveyance capacity of the channel.
Option 2
In this option, Trapezoidal drains were considered for the entire length of the proposed works.
In addition to this option, the head, middle and end of the entire proposed works would be
Trapezoidal lined reinforced concrete drain. This Option 2 would require wide access slabs and
rip rap at the outlet point of the channel.
Trapezoidal drains was preferred suitable as it has extra conveyance capacity for the same
width depth ratio. There is also enough corridor in the study area, even though it is situated
within residential area, there is no space limitation/constraints, therefore making the trapezoidal
drain the best or suitable option
Option 3
In this option, block drains were considered for the entire length of the proposed works. In
addition, the entire proposed works is with 225 mm thick block drain that would require access
slabs, capping, rip rap at the outlet point of the block work and the provision of 150 mm thick
concrete foundation. Even though this option appears cheaper comparing with the other
options, the structural stability and durability cannot be guaranteed hence this option is found
inadequate and therefore not recommended.
5.0 PROJECT DESIGN OVERVIEW
5.1 Introduction
In the design of erosion and flood control assignments, attention is given to the collation and
analysis of data. Data was generated from the field and similar projects that were executed in
the area. The field data generated comprise the topographical survey, visual observations of
eroded parts of the natural channel, soils and construction materials assessment.
6|Page
5.2 Project Setting
5.2.1 Climate
Kaduna experiences three weather conditions annually. This includes a warm, humid rainy
season and an extremely hot dry season. In between these seasons, there is a short period of
harmattan accompanied by the North East Trade Wind, with the main feature of dust haze,
intensified coldness and dryness.
Meteorological parameters relevant for the establishment of thermal power station are as stated
below:
a) Ambient Air Temperature
b) Precipitation on hourly and annual range
c) Mean monthly wind speed
d) Mean monthly Humidity
The closest meteorological weather station to Rigasa is the NIMET station at the airport. Table
5.1 below summarizes the meteorological conditions at Kaduna International Airport.
7|Page
Table 5.1: Meteorological Data of Kaduna
Summary of NIMET Meteorological Data Kaduna

Description Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Mean Monthly Wind Speed (m/h)

Kaduna 6.8 6.4 5.8 5.3 5.3 5.5 5.1 4.5 3.6 3.3 4.8 6 5.2
Mean Rainfall (mm/month)

Kaduna 0.2 2.3 8.1 56.0 130.1 174.9 222.8 294.3 258.8 80.9 7.5 0.1 1236.0
Mean Monthly Temperature (°C)
Kaduna 25.8 31 30.1 29.5 28.8 27.9 25.7 25.2 25.9 27.1 27.9 27.4 27.7
Max Monthly Temperature (°C)
Kaduna 32.2 33.3 35 32.2 29.44 28.89 26.67 27.22 27.8 28.89 28.9 29.4 30.00
Min Monthly Temperature (°C)
Kaduna 14.4 16.7 20.6 22.2 21.67 21.11 21.11 21.11 20 18.33 15.6 12.8 18.80
Min Monthly Humidity (%)
Kaduna 0 5 25 50 90 98 99 100 100 80 25 3 56.25
5.2.2 Social Activity
The site area is predominantly densely residential in nature with few engaged in corner shop
trading business. There also exist a refuse dump site in the eroded channel and poor hygiene
and sanitation practice amongst the populace.
5.2.3 Soil and Vegetation
Generally, the soils and vegetation at Rigasa are typical red brown to red yellow tropical
ferruginous soils and savannah grassland with scattered trees and woody shrubs. The soils in
the upland areas are rich in red clay and sand but poor in organic matter. Rigasa belongs to the
Sudan Savannah Zone, consisting of trees that grow long tap roots and thick barks that make it
possible for them to withstand the long dry season and bush fires. The grass cover here too has
durable roots which remain underground after stalks are burnt away or wilted in the dry season
only to germinate with the first rains. The existing vegetation is a function of many years of
human interference and degradation. Exploitation of the vegetation has been largely for fuel
wood, cultivation, grazing and fire.
8|Page
5.2.4 Population
According to the 2006 official gazette of 2006 population census figures, Igabi local
government were Rigasa is situated has a population of 357,694 persons. The population
structure distribution for Igabi local government put the ratio of Male to Female as nearly 1:1,
and can be characterised as a rural settlement.
6.0 DESIGN OF REMEDIAL MEASURES
6.1 Rainfall Frequency Analysis
The analysis is often done by fitting a probability model to the sample of maximum daily
rainfall values or maximum monthly rainfall values recorded over a long period, for a
catchment. The model parameters established can then be used to predict the extreme events
of large recurrence interval.
The common used probability distribution methods in the design and analysis of rainfall for
urban drainage design watershed are:
a) Normal Distribution
b) Log-Normal Distribution
c) Log-Pearson Distribution
d) Gumbel Distribution.
However Gumbel distribution is often applied for extreme weather condition especially when
considering discharges from rivers or canal, thus the choice of selecting Gumbel probability
distribution to design the rainfall. Table 6.1 shows the results of the design rainfall for various
return periods and the probability of occurrence. The NIMET rainfall data used was a historical
rainfall with a range of 24 years, it has a mean of 350mm and a standard deviation of 76mm;
however a return period of 10 year was chosen.
9|Page
Table 6.1: Design Rainfall
Gumbel Distribution
Return Period (Yrs) Rainfall (mm) Prob(Pmax<=x)
2 66.87 0.5
5 84.92 0.8
10 96.87 0.9
25 111.97 0.96
50 123.17 0.98
100 134.29 0.99
200 145.37 0.995
500 159.99 0.998
6.2 Hydrological Design
The expected storm water runoff from rainfall was estimated using the Natural Resources
Conservative Service (NRCS) Technical Release 55 method. This option was opted for and has
a comparative superior advantage to the rational method because of its capability to combine
satellite imageries, soil data, land use data and mapped them using geographic information
system in a simple, predictable and stable conceptual model for ungauged catchment.
WMS software was used to delineate the contributing watershed area, overlaying soil data
(HSG), land use maps, and DEM as a single parameter to indicate initial abstraction and
infiltration capacity of catchment and then automatically matches it with the corresponding
NRCS land use code to compute weighted runoff curve number (CN) of the area.
NRCS TR55 method is based on water balance equation and two fundamental hypotheses:
(i) The fraction of the actual direct runoff to the maximum potential runoff is equal to the
fraction of the actual infiltration to the potential maximum retention.
(ii) The initial abstraction is a fraction of the potential maximum retention.
10 | P a g e
𝑄𝑑 𝐹
=
𝑃 − 𝐼𝑎 𝑆
𝐼𝑎 = 0.2𝑆
Where:
𝑄𝑑 is the accumulated direct runoff (mm).
P is the accumulated precipitation (mm).
Ia is the initial abstraction, it represents all initial losses (depression storage, interception and
infiltration during the filling of depression storage) that occur prior to the time when runoff
begins.
S (mm) is the total soil moisture capacity for storage (infiltration) of water and is related to
pre-storm and watershed characteristics.
Using the water balance equation and assuming an empirical relationship between Ia and S,
the runoff are thus combined to obtain the equation for NRCS TR55 method
(𝑃 − 𝐼𝑎 )2
𝑄𝑑 =
(𝑃 − 𝐼𝑎 + 𝑆)
(𝑃 − 0.2𝑆)2
𝑄𝑑 =
(𝑃 + 0.8𝑆)
In addition, the CN and soil moisture capacity (S) are related by the following equation:
100
𝑆 = 254 ( − 1)
𝐶𝑁
11 | P a g e
Table 6.2: Standard NRCS runoff curve number
NRCS Curve Number Value (Source: USDA-NRCS 1986)

Land use description/Treatment/Hydrologic Condition Hydrologic Soil Group
Residential (1): A B C D
Average lot size Average % Impervious (2)
1/8 acre or less 65 77 85 90 92
¼ acre 38 61 75 83 87
1/3 acre 30 57 72 81 86
½ acre 25 54 70 80 85
1 acre 20 51 68 79 84
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways, etc. (3) Streets and
98 98 98 98
roads:
Paved with curbs and storm sewers (3) 98 98 98 98
Gravel 76 85 89 91
dirt 72 82 87 89
Commercial and business areas (85% impervious) 89 92 94 95
Industrial districts (72% impervious) 81 88 91 93
Open spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, etc.
Good condition: grass cover on 75% or more of the area 39 61 74 80
Fair condition: grass cover on 50% to 75% of the area 49 69 79 84
Fallow Straight row ---- 77 86 91 94
Straight row Poor 72 81 88 91
Straight row Good 67 78 85 89
Row Contoured Poor 70 79 84 88
crops Contoured Good 65 75 82 86
Contoured and Poor 66 74 80 82
Contoured and Good 62 71 78 81
Straight row Poor 65 76 84 88
Straight row Good 63 75 83 87
Small Contoured Poor 63 74 82 85
grain Contoured Good 61 73 81 84
Contoured and Poor 61 72 79 82
Contoured and Good 59 70 78 81
Closed- Straight row Poor 66 77 85 89
seeded Straight row Good 58 72 81 85
legumes Contoured Poor 64 75 83 85
(4) or Contoured Good 55 69 78 83
rotation Contoured and Poor 63 73 80 83
meadow Contoured and Good 51 67 76 80
Poor 68 79 86 89
Fair 49 69 79 84
Pasture Good 39 61 74 80
or range Contoured Poor 47 67 81 88
Contoured Fair 25 59 75 83
Contoured Good 6 35 70 79
Meadow Good 30 58 71 78
Woods Poor 45 66 77 83
or Forest Fair 36 60 73 79
land Good 25 55 70 77
Farmstea
----- 59 74 82 86
ds
12 | P a g e
6.3 Design Considerations
The design of a flood channel is based on established design criteria. The basic drainage system
under consideration include, the street gutters, roadside drainage channels and ditches, culverts
and other structures used in conveying runoff from the initial storm. The initial storm is
developed for a return period of 5 or ten years depending on the adjacent land use.
6.4 Time of Concentration (t)
This defines the time required for the rain falling at the furthest point of the tributary catchment
to flow to the point under consideration in the drainage system. To estimate the time of
concentration the NRCS TR55 method recommend the use of these formulae:
𝐿0.8 (𝑆 + 1)0.7
𝑡𝑙𝑎𝑔 =
4407𝑆 0.5
𝑡𝑙𝑎𝑔
𝑡𝑐 =
0.6
where:
L (m) is the hydraulic length of the catchment (longest flow path)
S (%) is the catchment slope
tlag (min) is the lag time
tc (min) is the time of concentration
S (mm) is the soil moisture capacity
The peak runoff Qp was then computed using the relationship below:
0.208𝐴𝑄𝑑
𝑄𝑝 =
𝑡𝑝
WMS software was used to calibrate the hydrologic model, compute the lag time and the time
of concentration, and the solution was read in HEC-HMS software
13 | P a g e
6.5 Catchment Area
This represents the area contributing surface runoff to the point under consideration to be
drained.
The tributary catchment area is normally delineated on a contoured map on which the drainage
divides have been carefully identified and marked. The areas are then measured accurately as
input to the NRCS model. To obtain the catchment area, the following procedures were
adopted:
i. Identification of the project area in Google earth software and downloading the satellite
images and coordinates.
ii. Preparation of DEM using WMS software
iii. Delineating the catchment using WMS software
iv. Stream verification and visualization of catchment.
Table 6.3: Catchment Basin Characteristics

Parameter Value unit
Area 0.81 km2
Basin Slope 0.0226 m/m
Basin Length 1316.53 m
Perimeter 6462.98 m/m
Average Elevation 613.52 m/m

Max. Flow Distance 1824.53 m/m
Max. Flow Slope 0.018 m/m

Max. Stream Slope 0.02 m/m
Max Stream Length 928.48 m
Curve Number 63
14 | P a g e
Figure 6.1 Catchment area delineation using WMS
15 | P a g e
Figure 6.1: Digital Elevation Model of Yan Kilishi Rigasa
16 | P a g e
7.0 ESTIMATION OF DISCHARGE AND CHANNEL SIZING
The storm water Channel is classified as non-erodible, lined and built to withstand erosion
satisfactorily. Here, such factors as maximum permissible velocity and permissible tractive
force are given due consideration.
In the design, the channel is sized on the basis of uniform flow, while the final dimensions for
slope was decided on the basis of hydraulic efficiency, economy, and occasionally on the
empirical rule of best hydraulic sections. The factors considered included the material of the
channel body (for roughness coefficient), the minimum permissible self-cleansing velocity,
channel invert slope, side slopes, the freeboard, and the most efficient section hydraulically
determined.
7.1 Hydraulic Design of Channels
7.1.1 Channel Design
The design development involves the use of engineering computational principles to determine
the capacities and sizes of structures to be used. Such principles adopted here are hydraulic and
structural approach. Under the hydraulic principles, previous information such as rainfall
intensity and catchment area established are used. The structural principles are used in
determining the suitability of a section to withstand stresses and amount of reinforcement that
would be needed for such stresses not to cause failure. Lined channels should be chosen when
right of way or velocity of flow consideration dictates the requirements, or increased capacity
is required within a given right of way.
7.1.2 Design of Lined Channels
In designing lined channels, the designer simply computes the dimensions of the channel by a
uniform-flow and then decided the final dimensions on the basis of hydraulic efficiency or
empirical rule of best section, practicability and economy. The determination of section
dimensions for lined channels includes the following steps:
The general procedure for obtaining channel geometry using the best hydraulic method are as
follows:
(i) Select z and determine n for the lining material.
(ii) Evaluate the aspect ratio (b/y) in the expression:
17 | P a g e
𝑏
= 2 (√1 + 𝑧 2 − 𝑧)
𝑦
(iii) Solve for y explicitly and find bottom width b in the Manning’s equation using the re-
arranged Manning’s expression for y:
1⁄
4
[(𝑏⁄𝑦) + 2√1 + 𝑧 2 ] 𝑄𝑛
3⁄
8
𝑦= 5⁄ ( )
8 √𝑆
[(𝑏⁄𝑦) + 2𝑧]
(iv) Verify Froude number is sufficiently below the critical value 1.0; find also other critical
hydraulic conditions.
(v) Check the minimum permissible velocity if the water carries silt.
(vi) Determine the freeboard and a proper freeboard to the depth of the channel section.
Minimum freeboard for channel flowing at normal design capacity as shown in the table below.
Table 7.1: Minimum Free Board
Depth of flow (mm) Freeboard (mm)

0-500 100-150
500-900 150-300
900-1500 300-450
1500- above 450
7.2 Roughness Coefficient (n)
In the design of artificial lined channel, it is not uncommon to think of a channel as having a
single value of roughness coefficient (n) for all occasions. In reality, the value of n is highly
variable and depends on a number of factors. In selecting a proper value of n for various design
conditions, a basic knowledge of these variable factors should be found very useful.
18 | P a g e
The factors that exert the greatest influence upon the roughness co-efficient in both natural and
artificial channels are described in the sections below
a) Surface roughness: The surface roughness is represented by the size and shape of the
grains of the material forming the wetted perimeter and producing a retarding effect on the
flow. This is often considered the only factor in selecting a roughness coefficient (but it is
actually just one of several major factors).
b) Channel Irregularity: Channel irregularity comprises irregularities in wetted perimeter

and variation in cross section, size and shape along the channel length. This is not the case in
this design, however, it is appreciated that generally speaking, a gradual and uniform changes
in cross section, size, and shape will not appreciably affect the value of n while sudden or
abrupt change or alteration of small and large sections necessitates the use of large value of n.
this sort of suddenness or an abruptness in change of section size will not apply in this design.
c) Silting and Scouring: Generally speaking, silting may change a regular channel into an
irregular one and thereby increase n while scouring may do the reverse and decrease n.
However, the dominant effect of silting will depend on the nature of the material deposited. In
this case, it is sand mainly.
d) Obstruction: The presence of refuse and relics of motor parts and the like tends to
increase n
The amount of increase depends on the nature of obstructions. Their size, shape, number and
distribution
e) Size and Shape of Channel: There is no definite evidence that the size and shape of a
channel is an important factor affecting the value of n. however, depending upon the condition
of the channel an increase in hydraulic radius may increase or decrease n.
In conclusion, as regards the above factors, since the situation under consideration is artificial
channel, the bed and sidewalls of the channel are equally smooth and regular and the bottom
slope is uniform, the value of n will remain the same for all stages of the uniform flow; so a
constant n is necessarily assumed in the flow computation. This is the situation assumed and
utilized in this design.
19 | P a g e
When the value of n above has been satisfied, then the channel bed's resistance to scour must
be verified.
Table 7.2 Recommended Values of Manning’s ‘n’ in open channels
Channel Description Good Poor

Cement mortar 0. 011 0. 051
Concrete in – situ Concrete, 0. 012 0. 018

precast
0. 011 0. 013
Cement rubber
0. 017 0. 030
Canals, earth straight and uniform
0. 017 0. 025
Dredged earth
0. 025 0. 033
Rock cuts, smooth
Rock cuts, jagged 0. 025 0. 035
Rough beds with weeds on site 0. 035 0. 045
Natural streams, clean, smooth and straight 0. 025 0. 045
20 | P a g e
7.3 Flow Pattern
The flow pattern analysed in the channel was uniform flow, the longitudinal bottom slope of a
channel is generally governed by the topography of the area concerned.
In these calculations, the channel bottom is also the hydraulic (normal) slope, which is the ratio
of its vertical drop H for a length L of channel reach i.e.
So= Sn= H/L
The flow velocity in canals varies directly with the square root of the hydraulic slope i.e.
VαS
The steeper the canal slope the more the velocity and greater discharge for the same cross-
section. Excessive gradients produce very high velocities, which may cause erosion. To
determine the permissible bed slope, the velocities will be checked and the adequate grade
designed so that the velocities will not be unnecessarily excessive. The permissible bed slopes
will be chosen among many other reasons, also to ensure self-cleanings during periods of low
flow.
7.4 Lined Channel
The channel was designed such that the minimum velocity is 0.6m/s for self-cleansing and the
maximum should be such that scouring will be prevent.
7.5 Parameters and Component of Design
In carrying out these detailed designs, the parameters required for flood/erosion control designs
included:
a. Topographic details
b. Slope of channel bed
c. Runoff discharge in the catchment
21 | P a g e
7.3 Designs Runoff
Concerning this project, all hydrological computations of the discharge at pour point and the
hydraulic design computations are carried out with the aid of HEC-HMS and Hydraulic
toolbox.
The design discharge was obtain from the computational analysis of HEC-HMS which was
calibrated with the 10 year design rainfall as well as the catchment parameters. Figures below
shows the design rainfall, design runoff hydrograph and the loss volume respectively.
Figure 7.1: Design Rainfall
22 | P a g e
Figure 7.2: Design Runoff Hydrograph
23 | P a g e
Figure 7.3: Rainfall runoff hydrograph.
24 | P a g e
Table 7.3: Summary of Hydrologic Analysis
Parameters Value Unit

Return Period 10 Year
Time of Concentration 2.37 min
Design Rainfall 96.87 mm
Loss Volume 75.98 mm
Excess runoff 20.89 mm
runoff Volume 16.00 m3
Peak Discharge 1.10 (m3/s)
7.4 Hydraulics Analysis
The hydraulics design calculation was done using WMS Hydraulic toolbox, Table 7.4 below
summarises the salient point in the hydraulic design.
Table 7.4: Hydraulic Analysis under uniform flow
Parameter value unit

Flow 1.10 m3/s
Depth 0.315 m
Area of Flow 0.63 m2
Wetted Perimeter 2.63 m
Hydraulic Radius 0.24 m
Average Velocity 1.74 m/s
Top Width (T) 2.00 m
Froude Number 0.99
Critical Depth 0.314 m
Critical Velocity 1.75 m/s
Critical Slope 0.00407 m/m
Critical Top Width 2.00 m
Calculated Max Shear Stress 12.37 N/m2
Calculated Average Shear Stress 9.40 N/m2
Freeboard 1.20 m
25 | P a g e
Table 7.5: Design Channel Section
Design Channel Geometric Section

Parameter Value Unit
Design Flow 16 m3
Design Depth 315 mm
Side Slope (1:H) 1:1
Bottom Width 2 m
Top Width 2 m
Channel thickness 300 mm
Figure 7.4: Design Channel Section
26 | P a g e
8.0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
8.1 Design Principles
The Limit State Design principle is used. The limit state method multiplies the working loads
by partial factor of safety and divides the materials’ ultimate strength by partial factors of
safety.
Two principal limit states are considered; the ultimate limit state (ULS) and the serviceability
limit state (SLS). A structure is designed for the ultimate limit state (against collapse) and
checked for the serviceability limit state (deflection and cracking).
Structural analysis begins with an evaluation of all the loads carried by the structure including
its own weight. The loads on a structure are divided into two types: dead loads, and live (or
imposed) loads. Dead loads include the weight of the structure itself.
Design Loads
The ultimate load used in design is obtained by multiplying the characteristic load by a partial
factor of safety.
For dead and live loads, the ultimate load, n is given as n = 1.4gk +1.6qk
Where,
gk = dead load qk= live load
For our reinforced concrete drainage channels, the following design data were used.
Unit weight of reinforced concrete = 24 kN/m3
Unit weight of water =9.81 kN/m3
Characteristic strength of concrete, fcu = 25 N/mm2
Characteristic strength of steel, fy = 410 N/mm2
27 | P a g e
8.1.1 Loading on the side walls of the drain
Using Rankine’s formula, lateral earth pressure at the base of the wall of height, h is given by
pa =ka*ˠ*h
Earth thrust, Pa = ½ ka*ˠ*h2 acting at h/3 from the base
And the moment at the base of the wall is
Ma = Pa * h/3 =1/6*ka*ˠ*h3
Where:
ka = coefficient of active earth pressure = (1-sinφ)/ (1+sinφ) φ = the angle of internal friction
of the soil ˠ = unit weight of the soil, kN/m3 h = height to the base of the wall
8.1.2 Surcharge due to earth fill or vehicular traffic
The following formula is adopted.
ps = kaq
Surcharge thrust, Ps = kaq*h acting at h/2
Surcharge moment, Mas = Ps*h/2
Where: q = surcharge load or pressure, kN/m2
The total service bending moment acting on the bottom of the sidewall is calculated as follows:
Mtot = Ma + Mas
8.1.3 Ultimate Moment
The ultimate moment, Mu = 1.4* the Service Moment
Once Mu is obtained, the section is designed as follows
For a section with effective depth, d and breadth, b
Estimate k = Mu/ (bd2fcu)
For singly reinforced sections, k < 0.156 z = d (0.5 + (√ (0.25 –k/0.9))
28 | P a g e
BS 8110 specifies an upper limit of z = 0.95d
The area of steel reinforcement required is calculated from As = M/ (0.87fyz)
8.1.4 Design of Base Slab of the Drain
The load acting on the base slab is an equivalent uniformly distributed load calculated as the
weight of the drain and weight of water in the drain divided by the effective width of the base
slab.
q = (W1 + W2)/l
Where,
q = Equivalent uniformly distributed load, kN/m2
W1= Self weight of the drain, kN
W2 = Weight of water in the drain, kN
l = Effective width of the base slab, m
The maximum moment will occur at the centre of the base slab as is calculated with ql2/8
Details of the structural design of elements of proposed mitigation works are presented in
Appendix G
29 | P a g e
REFERENCE
1. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Hydraulic Engineering

Circular, No. 14, Third Edition, Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts
and Channels
2. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Hydraulic Engineering

Circular, No. 22, Third Edition, Urban Drainage Design Manual
3. USBR Design of Small Dams, A Water Resources Technical Publication
4. British Standards (BS) Code of Practice; BS 8110, Structural use of concrete, Parts 1, 2 and
5: 1997, Code of practice for design and construction.
6. Charles E. Reynolds and James C. Steedman, 1997, REINFORCED CONCRETE
DESIGNER’S HANDBOOK, 10th Edition, Spon Press Taylor and Francis Group,
London.
7. W. H Mosley and J. H Bungey, 1990, Reinforced Concrete Design, Fourth Edition,
Macmillan Press Ltd.
30 | P a g e
APPENDIX A
STRUCTURAL
DESIGN
OF
CULVERT
Project: Job Ref:
Date: February 2021
Erosion and Flood Control Yan Kilishi, Rigasa, Kaduna
CHIEFTAIN CONSULTANT Sheet No: 1
Structure: Made by: Engr. O.R.A
1 Cell of 4 x 4m Chamber with 0.5m Fill Checked by: Engr. J.M.S.
REF CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
INPUT DATA
Schematic Culvert Diagram

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
2 CELL BOX CULVERT
Structural Dimensions
Internal width per cell, b = 2.0 m
Internal depth per cell, d = 2.0 m
b Effective cell width, B = 2.3 m
Overall effective culvert width = 4.6 m
d h
Effective culvert height, h = 2.3 m
Thickness of top slab = 300 mm
Thickness of bottom slab = 300 mm
Thickness of walls = 300 mm
Longitudinal length of culvert = 8.00 m
B Culvert slope = 0.05
Reinforced Concrete Material

Unit weight of concrete = 24 KN/m³
Concrete strength, Fcu = 25 KN/m ²
Steel, Fy = 410 KN/m ²
Cover, C = 30 mm
Filling & Pavement Parameters

Height of fill = 1.5 m
Fill material density, γ = 18 KN/m³
Angle of internal friction φ = 30 °
Active pressure coeff, K o = 0.6
Pavement thickness = 450 mm
Pavement material density = 23 KN/m³
Applied Loading Parameters

Surcharge for HA loading = 12 KN/m²
Surcharge for HB loading (45units HB Load) = 20 KN/m ²
Applied unit of HB laoding = 45 Units
Allowable bearing pressure = 175 KN/m ²
Project: Job Ref:
Date: February 2021
LOADING CASES
BD 31/01 Load Case 1 : Permanent Dead Load (DL)

Cl. 3.1.1 Top slab 24 x 0.3 = 7.2 KN/m²
Bottom Slab 24 x 0.3 = 7.2 KN/m²
Vertical wall 24 x 0.3 x 2.3 = 16.56 KN/m
BD 31/01 Load Case 2 : Superimposed Dead Load (SDL)

Cl. 3.1.2 Pavement weight 23 x 0.45 = 10.35 KN/m²
Fill weight 18 x 1.5 = 27 KN/m²
BD 31/01 Load Case 3 : Vertical Live Load from HA & HB

Cl. 3.2.1
HA Loading Application
(a) HA loading for fill height ≤ 600mm
0.67
BD 37/01 HA(UDL) (loaded length of 4.6 m) = 336x(1/L) = 120.862 KN/m
Cl. 6.2.1 HA(UDL) (for max lane width of 3.65m) = 120.86 / 3.65 = 33.113 KN/m²
HA(KEL) (for max lane width of 3.65m) = 120 / 3.65 = 32.8767 KN/m
(b) HA loading for fill height > 600mm

HA(UDL) & HA(KEL) replaced by 30 units HB and dispersed 2 vertcally & 1 horizontally
1.8m
300 300 Pavement surface

0.45m
1.8m
Fill
1.95m
1.5m
2.1m
Culvert
4.05m
BD 37/01 HB loading (30 units) 30 x 10 = 300 KN

Cl. 6.3.1 HB load per wheel 300 / 4 = 75 KN
Dispersed load 150 / 4.05 = 37.037 KN/m
Selected case (a)&(b) (for total fill height of 1.95m)

UDL = 37.037 KN/m
Point load = 0 KN sum = 37.04 KN/m
Project: Job Ref:
Date: February 2021
BD 37/01 (c) HA Single wheel loading (Dispersed 1 vertcally & 1 horizontally) Load applicable to
Cl. 6.2.5 Nominal wheel load = 100 KN accidental wheel
Dispersed width (for total fill height of 1.95m) = 4.2 m load
Hence, applied HA loading

max {selected case (a)&(b) : case(c)} = max { 37.04 : 23.81}
UDL = 37.037 KN/m
Point load = 0 KN sum = 37.04 KN/m
HB Loading Application
BD 37/01 HB loading (45 units) 45 x 10 = 450 KN
Cl. 6.3.1 HB load per wheel 450 / 4 = 112.5 KN
Applied vertical live load = max{HA load: HB load} Use HB loading
BD 31/01 Load Case 4 : Permanent horizontal earth pressure

Cl. 3.1.3 Soil Density, γ = 18 KN/m ³
Pressure coeff (1 - Sinφ) (where φ = 30 °) = 0.5 < 0.6
Hence, ressure coeff K o max{(1 - sinφ) : 0.6} = 0.6
BD 30/87 Earth pressure on the walls
Cl. 5.3.2 At the top = Ko xγxh = 21.06m KN/m²
At the base = Ko xγxh = 45.9m KN/m²
BD 31/01 Load Case 5 : Horizontal live load surcharge

Cl. 3.2.6 for HA loading = 12 KN/m²
for HB loading (45 units) = 20 KN/m²
for accidental wheel = 10 KN/m²
Applied load = max{Ha loading: HB loading: accidental wheel} = 20 KN/m²

= K o x 20 = 12 KN/m²
Load Case 6 : Horizontal traction load

BS 5400-2 HA load shall be 8KN/m of Loaded length Plus 250KN subjected to a maximum of 750KN
Cl. 6.10.1 Nominal Load = 8KN/m x loaded length + 250KN = 286.8 KN
= 286.8 < 750 = 286.8 KN
Cl. 6.10.2 Nominal Load for HB: Shall be 25% of the total nominal HB load adopted
Nominal HB load = 25% of 45units x 10KN x 4axles = 450 KN
Cl. 6.10 Applied Braking Load = Maximum (HA Load, HB Load) = 450 KN
Braking Load / metre = 450 / 8m (culvert length) = 56.3 KN/m
Associated earth pressure

At the top = 0.33 x γ x h = 11.58m KN/m²
At the base = 0.33 x γ x h = 25.25m KN/m²
Associated surcharge
= 0.33 x 20 = 6.6 KN/m²
Load Case 7 : Hydrostatic pressure

Water pressure at the base = γw x h (internal depth of 2.0m) = 20 KN/m²
Water pressure on the wall = 20 KN/m²
Project: Job Ref:
Date: February 2021
Load Case 8: Soil bearing pressure and bouyancy

Top slab = 7.2 x 2.3 x 2 = 33.12 KN/m
Bottom Slab = 7.2 x 2.3 x 2 = 33.12 KN/m
Vertical wall = 16.56 x 3 = 49.68 KN/m
= 115.92 KN/m
Pressure due to DL = 115.92 / 4.6 = 25.2 KN/m²
Pressure due to SDL = 37.35 KN/m²
Pressure due to LL = 55.5556 KN/m²
Pressure due to water = 20 KN/m²
= 138.106 KN/m²
Net pressure on base = 138.11 KN/m² < 175.00 KN/m² OK
Upthrust (bouyancy) = 10 x 2.3 = 23 KN/m²
LOADING APPLICATION
Loading combinations
COMBINATION LOADING DESCRIPTION

COMB 1 Maximum vertical + maximum horizontal load
COMB 2 Minimum vertical + maximum horizontal load
COMB 3 Maximum vertical + minimum horizontal load
COMB 4 Sliding / traction with minimum vertical load
COMB 5 Hydrostatic: minimum vertical + maximum water pressure
COMB 6 Soil bearing pressure
Combination 1: Maximum vertical + maximum horizontal load

Project: Job Ref:
Date: February 2021
Combination 2: Minimum vertical + maximum horizontal load
Combination 3: Maximum vertical + minimum horizontal load

Project: Job Ref:
Date: February 2021
Combination 4: Sliding / traction with minimum vertical load
Combination 6: Soil bearing pressure

Project: Job Ref:
Date: February 2021
ANALYSIS RESULTS (See culvert analysis print)
Top Slab Base Slab Wall

Combination Forces
Span Suprt Span Suprt Stem Edge
KNm 48.408 68.273 47.227 68.273 25.591 25.591
COMB 1
KN 166.69 173.53 166.687
KNm 1.991 48.399 17.08 40.07 25.13 40.073

COMB 2
KN 82.43 91.35 122.69
KNm 28.523 46.443 30.78 51.44 10.03 21.25

COMB 3
KN 122.51 134.23 20.7
KNm 29.243 57.05 31.2 61.2 2.5 42.92

COMB 4
KN 139.16 148.77 76.08
KNm 22.66 32.92 18.77 26.33 14.33 9.57

COMB 5
KN 88.76 69.1 20.4
KNm 28.67 51.32 30.65 56.05 4.55 37.99

COMB 6
KN 133.04 143.65 77.09
Project: Job Ref:
Erosion and Flood Control Yan Kilishi, Rigasa, Kaduna Date: February 2021
TOP SLAB DESIGN
DESIGN FORCES (from culvert analysis)

Design Moments
Moment on span = 48.41 KNm/m
Moment over support = 68.27 KNm/m
Design Shear
Maximum shear force = 166.69 KN/m
fcu = 25 N/mm² fy = 410 N/mm² h = 225mm

h = 300 mm b = 1000 mm
As min = 0.13 % As max = 4 %
MAIN REINFORCEMENTS
(I) Reinforcement at Span 0.97
d = h - C - Ø/2 d = 259.6 mm d' = 40.4 mm 244.28
C = 30mm Moment M = 48.41 KNm/m 201.19
k = M / (bd² fcu) = 0.029 k < 0.156
'Requires only tension reinforcement' z = 244.284 mm
As = M / (0.95fyz) = 508.763 mm²/m
> 390 508.76 As > As min =390 As = 508.763 mm²/m T16 @ 200 B
12000 3271.1 (1005 mm²/m)
(II) Reinforcement at Support 0.95

d = h - C - Ø/2 d = 259.6 mm d' = 40.4 mm 244.28
C = 30mm Moment M = 68.27 KNm/m 201.19
k = M / (bd² fcu) = 0.041 k < 0.156
As = M / (0.95fyz) = 717.542 mm²/m
> 390 717.54 As > As min =390 As = 717.542 mm²/m T16 @ 200 T
12000 3479.9 (1005 mm²/m)
DISTRIBUTION REINFORCEMENTS 1.00

d = 251.6 mm d' = 48.4 mm 236.76
Moment M = 0.00 KNm/m 194.99
k = M / (bd² fcu) = 0.000 k < 0.156
As = M / (0.95fyz) = 0 mm²/m
< 390 390 As < As min =390 As = 390 mm²/m T12 @ 200 T&B
12000 2677.2 (565 mm²/m)
BS 5400 pt4 SHEAR CHECK

Cl. 5.4.4 Shear force, V = 166.69 KN
Shear stress, v = V / bd = 0.64 N/mm² < 0.75√ fcu
Max shear in slab = 0.75 x √ fcu = 3.75 N/mm² Shear OK
Section Adequate
Shear Reinforcement
Depth factor, ξ s = (500/d)^0.25 = 1.18
100As / bd = 0.39
Ultimate shear stress, vc = 0.46 N/mm²
Design shear stress, ξ s x vc = 0.54 N/mm² v > (ξs x vc)
Cl. 5.4.4.1 Requires shear reinforcement! (v + 0.4 = 1.04 N/mm²)
Cl. 5.3.3.2 Asv / sv = b(v + 0.4 - ξs x vc) / (0.87fyv) = 1.40 T12 @ 200
(Asv / sv = 3.39)
Project: Job Ref:
BASE SLAB DESIGN
DESIGN FORCES (from culvert analysis)

Design Moments
Moment on span = 47.23 KNm/m
Moment over support = 68.27 KNm/m
Design Shear
fcu = 25 N/mm² fy = 410 N/mm² h = 225mm

h = 300 mm b = 1000 mm
As min = 0.13 % As max = 4 %
MAIN REINFORCEMENTS
(I) Reinforcement at Span 0.97
d = h - C - Ø/2 d = 259.6 mm d' = 40.4 mm 244.28
C = 30mm Moment M = 47.23 KNm/m 201.19
k = M / (bd² fcu) = 0.028 k < 0.156
As = M / (0.95fyz) = 496.351 mm²/m
> 390 496.35 As > As min =390 As = 496.351 mm²/m T16 @ 200 T
12000 3258.7 (1005 mm²/m)
(II) Reinforcement at Support 0.95

d = h - C - Ø/2 d = 259.6 mm d' = 40.4 mm 244.28
C = 30mm Moment M = 68.27 KNm/m 201.19
k = M / (bd² fcu) = 0.041 k < 0.156
As = M / (0.95fyz) = 717.542 mm²/m
> 390 717.54 As > As min =390 As = 717.542 mm²/m T16 @ 200 B
12000 3479.9 (1005 mm²/m)
DISTRIBUTION REINFORCEMENTS 1.00

d = 251.6 mm d' = 48.4 mm 236.76
Moment M = 0.00 KNm/m 194.99
k = M / (bd² fcu) = 0.000 k < 0.156
As = M / (0.95fyz) = 0 mm²/m
< 390 390 As < As min =390 As = 390 mm²/m T12 @ 200 T&B
12000 2677.2 (565 mm²/m)
BS 5400 pt4 SHEAR CHECK

Cl. 5.4.4 Shear force, V = 173.53 KN
Max shear in base = 0.75 x √ fcu = 3.75 N/mm² Shear OK
Section Adequate
Shear Reinforcement
Depth factor, ξ s = (500/d)^0.25 = 1.18
100As / bd = 0.39
Ultimate shear stress, vc = 0.46 N/mm²
Design shear stress, ξ s x vc = 0.54 N/mm² v > (ξs x vc)
Cl. 5.4.4.1 Requires shear reinforcement! (v + 0.4 = 1.07 N/mm²)
Cl. 5.3.3.2 Asv / sv = b(v + 0.4 - ξs x vc) / (0.87fyv) = 1.48 T10 @ 200
(Asv / sv = 2.36)
Project: Job Ref:

KEY
WALL DESIGN FF = Front Face
NF = Rear Face
DESIGN FORCES (from culvert analysis) BF = Both Faces
Moment at corner joint = 42.92 KNm/m
Moment at mid-stem = 25.59 KNm/m
fcu = 25 N/mm² fy = 410 N/mm²

As min = 0.2 % As max = 4 %
CHECK FOR TRANSMITING AXIAL LOAD

BS 8110: pt1 Treat as a column with bending at right angle to wall
3.9.3.6.2 Check h/hw = 2.3 ÷ 0.3 = 7.6667 < 12 Wall is short column
Effect of the axial load may be ignored if this force does not exceed (0.1 x fcu x wall section)
Hence (0.1 x fcu x wall section) = 0.1 x 25 x 300 = 750.00 KN/m
Ultimate Load /m/Wall (maximum vertical forces) = 414.62 < 750.00 Hence OK
REINFORCEMENT AT CORNERS JOINTS

h = 300 mm b = 1000 mm 0.97
d = h - C - Ø/2 d = 262 mm d' = 42 mm 246.54
C = 30mm Moment M = 42.92 KNm/m 203.05
k = M / (bd² fcu) = 0.03 k < 0.156
As = M / (0.95fyz) = 446.952 mm²/m
< 600 600 As < As min 600 As = 600 mm²/m T16 @ 200 BF
12000 3234.8 (1005 mm²/m)
REINFORCEMENT AT MID-STEM
h = 225 mm b = 1000 mm 0.97
d = h - C - Ø/2 d = 189 mm d' = 42 mm 177.85
C = 30mm Moment M = 25.59 KNm/m 146.48
k = M / (bd² fcu) = 0.029 k < 0.156
As = M / (0.95fyz) = 369.427 mm²/m
< 450 450 As < As min 450 As = 450 mm²/m T12 @ 200 BF
9000 2380.5 (565 mm²/m)
THERMAL CRACKING
Considering the effects of casting the wall on the base slab by complying with the
early thermal cracking of concrete to BD 28 then horizontal lacer / distribution bars will be
required in both faces of the wall.
Cl. 5.8.4.2 Distribution (Nominal Reinforcement) = 0.13% x bh As = 390 mm²/m T12 @ 200 BF
(565 mm²/m)
SHEAR CHECK
Shear force, V = 166.69 KN
Max shear in wall = 0.75 x √ fcu = 3.75 N/mm² Shear OK
Section Adequate
BS 5400 pt4 Shear Reinforcement
Cl. 5.3.3.2 Depth factor, ξ s = (500/d)^0.25 = 1.18
Ultimate shear stress, vc = 0.46 N/mm² (100As / bd = 0.38371 )
Design shear stress, ξ s x vc = 0.54 N/mm² (v + 0.4 = 1.036 N/mm²)
Asv / sv = b(v + 0.4 - ξs x vc) / (0.87fyv) = 1.39 T12 @ 200
(Asv / sv = 3.39)
APPENDIX B
TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF RIGASA
APPENDIX C
STRUCTURAL
DESIGN OF
REINFORCED
CONCRETE
CHANNEL
Appendix G:Structural Design of Reinforced Concrete Channel
Project: Job Ref:
Emergency Cosultancy Services for Date: Feb. 5th 2021
CHIEFTAIN Erosion and Flood Control Works, Yan Sheet No.: 1
CONSULTANT Kilishi, Rigasa, Kaduna State. Design By: Engr. O.R.A.
Structural: Checked By: Engr. J.M.S.
Rectangular Channel Drain

1.0 GEOMETRIC SECTION OF CHANNEL
RC Design qs qs
W.H. Mosley tw
5th edition
h
H
w
B tb
Pw Pa Ps W Ps Pa Pw
we
2.0 Design Parameters value unit

Bottom width (w) = 2.00 m
Depth, (h) = 1.50 m
Wall thickness, (t w ) = 0.30 m
Base thickness, (t b ) = 0.30 m
Normal depth of water, (y) = 0.32 m
Effective width, (w e ) = 2.30 m
3
Unit weight of water (γ w ) = 9.81 kN/m
Angle of internal friction, (φ) = 30 °
Specific gravity of soil, (G) = 2.70
3
Specific weight of soil, (γ s ) = 18.00 kN/m
2
Surcharge load, (q s ) = 5.00 kN/m
Height, (H) = 1.80 m
Total width, (W) = 2.60 m
3
Submerged unit weight of soil, (γ su ) = 11.33 kN/m
3
Concrete density, (γ c ) = 24.00 kN/m
Partial safety factor = 1.40 strength
Active pressure coefficient, (k a ) = 0.33
Project: Job Ref:

3.0 LOAD CALCULATION
Case 1: Dead load value unit
2
RCC Mosley Self weight of wall, (w 1 ) = 21.60 kN/m
2
5th edition Self weight of base slab, (w 2 ) = 14.40 kN/m
2
1990 Total dead load, (w) = 36.00 kN/m 36 kN/sqm
Case 2: Imposed load

2
Weight of water in channel, (w 3 ) = 9.81 kN/m 10 kN/sqm
Case 3: Lateral load

2
Kaγsh Earth pressure, (P a ) = 5.67 kN/m 6 kN/sqm
2
γwh Water pressure, (P w ) = 14.72 kN/m 15 kN/sqm
2
Kaqs Surcharge pressure, (P s ) = 1.67 kN/m 2 kN/sqm
0.5K a γ s h 2 Lateral earth force, (F a ) = 4.25 kN/m 4 kN/m

2
0.5γ w h Lateral water force, (F w ) = 11.04 kN/m 11 kN/m
Kaqsh Lateral surcharge force, (F s ) = 2.50 kN/m 3 kN/m
Case 4: Bouyant load

2
γwh Bouyant pressure, (B) = 17.658 kN/m
2
w+w 3 -B Net vertical pressure, (P) = 28.15 kN/m 28 kN/sqm
3.1 MOMENTS
Moment at bottom of wall
earth = 2.13 kN-m
water = 5.52 kN-m
surcharge = 1.88 kN-m
Total moment at bottom of wall, (M w ) = 9.52 kN-m
Ultimate moment, (M u ) = 13.33 kN-m 13 kN-m
Pl 2 /8 Maximum moment at mid-span of base slab

M m-s = 18.62 kN-m
Ultimate moment at mid-span, (M u ) = 26.06 kN-m
Project: Job Ref:

4.0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Data:
BS 8110: pt1 Design for maximum bending moment value unit
3.9.3.6.2 Depth, (h) = 300.0
mm
(1997) Cover, (C) = 30.0
mm
Steel diameter (Ø) = 12.0
mm
Steel diameter shear (Ø s ) = 8.0
mm
d = h-C-Ø/2 Effective depth, (d) = 264.0
mm
2
Conc. compressive strength, (fcu) = 25.0 N/mm
2
Steel yeild strength, (fy) = 410.0 N/mm
width of section, (b) = 1000.00 mm
2
Area of steel minimum, (Ast min ) = 0.13%bd mm
3
Bar density, (γ b ) = 7850.0 kg/m
4.1 Design of side wall, (main)
M u /bd 2 f c k, = 0.0076 <0.156 compression
steel not
Lever arm, (z) = 261.74 mm required
2
M u /0.87f y z Area of steel required, (Ast) = 142.73 mm 143 sqmm
2
0.13%bd Area of steel minimum, (Ast min ) = 343.20 mm
Maximum required spacing = 792.39
spacing 150 mm c/c A st Provided 753.98 sqmm
754 sqmm
4.2 Cheack for shear force at the face of wall
v k /bd Norminal shear force, (v k ) = 17.79 kN
Ultimate shear stress, (v u ) = 0.09 N/mm 2

d' =h-C-Øs/2 d' = 266.00 mm 0.09 N/sqmm
2
0.8√f cu Allowable shear stress, (v a ) = 4.0 kN/mm
vu < va
OK, SAFE
4.3 Distribution reinforcement
2
0.13%bd Area of steel required, (A req ) = 345.80 mm
Maximum required spacing = 145.36 mm
spacing 150 mm c/c A st Provided 335.10 sqmm 335 sqmm
Project: Job Ref:
4.4 Design of base slab, (main) compression

steel not
M u /bd 2 f c k, = 0.0150 <0.156 required
Lever arm, (z) = 259.54 mm
2
M u /0.87f y z Area of steel required, (A st ) = 281.51 mm 282 sqmm
2
0.13%bd Area of steel minimum, (Ast min ) = 343.20 mm
spacing 150 mm c/c A st Provided 753.98 sqmm 754 sqmm
4.3 Distribution reinforcement

2
0.13%bd Area of steel required, (A req ) = 343.20 mm 343 sqmm
spacing 150 mm c/c A st Provided 335 sqmm 335 sqmm
APPENDIX E
REINFORCED
CONCRETE
CHANNEL
CROSS SECTION
&
QUANTITIES
Page 1 of 1
Cut/Fill Report
Generated: 2021-02-05 02:03:04
By user: Engr J S Mohammed
C:\Users\Engr J S Mohammed\Documents\CHIEFTAIN\RIGASA LAYIN
Drawing: KILISHI\C:\Users\Engr J S Mohammed\Documents\CHIEFTAIN\RIGASA
LAYIN KILISHI\RIGASA DRAIN PROFILE.dwg
Volume Summary
Cut Fill 2d Area Cut Fill Net

Name Type
Factor Factor (sq.m) (Cu. M.) (Cu. M.) (Cu. M.)
EMBANKMENT
full 1.000 1.000 12149.62 3465.84 32669.64 29203.80<Fill>
FILLING
EARTHWORKS full 1.000 1.000 1516.52 1338.70 15.57 1323.13<Cut>
Totals
2d Area Cut Fill Net

(sq.m) (Cu. M.) (Cu. M.) (Cu. M.)
Total 13666.14 4804.54 32685.21 27880.67<Fill>

* Value adjusted by cut or fill factor other than 1.0
file:///C:/Users/Engr%20J%20S%20Mohammed/AppData/Local/Temp/CutFillReport.xml 2/5/2021

Rigasa Design Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rigasa Design Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chieftain Consultants Limited

Ecological Fund Office, Federal Secretariat Complex

Emergency Consultancy Services for Erosion and Flood

Kaduna State, Nigeria.

CHIEFTAIN CONSULTANTS LIMITED

Address: First Floor, Suite A1, KC Holding Building,

Telephone: +234 8032230109; 08024008918

Ecological Fund Office, Federal Secretariat Complex

Emergency Consultancy Services for Erosion and Flood

Kaduna State, Nigeria.

CHIEFTAIN CONSULTANTS LIMITED

Address: First Floor, Suite A1, KC Holding Building,

Telephone: +234 8032230109; 08024008918

ECOLOGICAL FUND OFFICE

FEDERAL SECRETARIAT COMPLEX PHASE II

EMERGENCY CONSULTANCY SERVICES FOR EROSION AND

Client Ecological Fund Office

Design Chieftain Consultant

Project Name: Emergency Consultancy

Document Reviewer Engr. Ibrahim Bello

Date of Report February, 2021

The observed problems can be summarized to be:

3 Dilapidated existing drains and culvert causing back flow runoff.

4 Poor Sanitation and Hygiene practice

a) Construction of Open Reinforced Concrete Rectangular Channel (Main)

b) Construction of rip-rap for wall stabilization.

c) Provision of pedestrian crossing on the drains.

COVER PAGES ……………………………………………………………………….. i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background Information ............................................................................................. 2

1.2 Project Area Location and Description ...................................................................... 2

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ...............................................................................................3

3.0 RECONNAISSANCE .................................................................................................3

3.1 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Environmental impact assessments of the project (EIA) ........................................... 4

3.3 Causes of flood and erosion ........................................................................................4

4.0 FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURES ........................................................................5

4.1 Proposed Remedies: Flood Control Options (Alternative analysis) ..........................5

5.0 PROJECT DESIGN OVERVIEW............................................................................ 6

5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 6

5.2 Project Setting ......................................................................................................... 7

5.2.1 Climate ................................................................................................................. 7

5.2.2 Social Activity ................................................................................................ ….8

5.2.3 Vegetation ............................................................................................................ 8

5.2.4 Population ............................................................................................................ 9

6.0 DESIGN OF REMEDIAL MEASURES ......................................................................... 9

6.1 Rainfall Frequency Analysis……………………………………………………………..9

6.2 Hydrological Design .…………………………………………………………………...10

6.3 Design Considerations ................................................................................................... 13

6.4 Time of Concentration (t) ................................................................................................13

6.5 Catchment Area ……..................................................................................................... 14

7.0 ESTIMATION OF DISCHARGE AND CHANNEL SIZING...................................... 17

7.1 Hydraulic Design of Channels ........................................................................................17

7.1.1Channel Design ............................................................................................................17

7.1.2 Design of Lined Channels............................................................................................17

7.2 Roughness Coefficient (n)............................................................................................. 18

7.3 Flow Pattern: ................................................................................................................. 21

7.4 Lined Channel ...............................................................................................................21

7.5 Parameters and Component of Design..........................................................................21

7.3 Designs Runoff: .......................................................................................................... 22