1-GUNJI DAM SSIP HAYDROLOGY FAINAL

SNNPRS/ICSAA AGP Program
SOUTH NATION AND NATIONALITIES REGIONAL STATES
WATER AND IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT BUREAU
GUNJI TEPIE BUTTIE

MICRO EARTH DAM
SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT
Gimbo Wereda, Keffa Administrative Zone, SSNPRS
Final Feasibility Study and Detail Engineering Design
VOLUME V :ENGINEERING DETAIL DESIGN FINAL REPORT
VOLUME V-I: HYDROLOGY
September , 2018
Hawassa, Ethiopia
Client: Water & Irrigation Development Bureau

Irrigation Construction and Scheme Administration Agency,
Agricultural Growth Program

Telephone: 251-0462210020, 251-0462202038, 251-0462200499
Facsimile: +251-04662-20-20-37
P. O. Box 1782, Hawassa
Consultant: AS-Consultant
P.O.Box:1016
Telephone:+251-911-637919/+251-966-196050/+251-911-651090
E-mail: assefawaterconsult@gmail.com
Hawassa, SNNPRS, Ethiopia
AS-Consult –GUNJI TEPIE BUTTIE DAM-HYDROLOGY REPORT FINIAL Page i

FEASIBILITY STUDY & DETAIL DESIGN REPORT STRUCTURE
Volume I: Watershed Management
Volume II: Engineering Geology
Volume III: Soil and Land Use
Volume IV: Irrigation Agronomy
Volume V: Engineering Design
Volume V-i: Hydrology
Volume V-ii : Dam and Elements Design
Volume V-iii :Irrigation and Drainage Design
Volume VI: Socio Economy
Volume VII: Environmental Impact Assessment
Volume VIII: Financial and Economic Analysis Study
AS-Consult –GUNJI TEPIE BUTTIE DAM-HYDROLOGY REPORT FINIAL Page ii

Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 6
SALIENT FEATURES ................................................................................................................... 7
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 8
1.1 Water resource and Water Balance .............................................................................. 8
1.1.1 Water Source .............................................................................................................. 8
1.1.2 Water balance ............................................................................................................. 8
1.2 Data availability .............................................................................................................. 9
1.2.1 Hydrometric data........................................................................................................ 9
1.2.2 Climate condition and rainfall regime of the project area ....................................... 9
1.2.1 Climatic Data source ................................................................................................... 9
1.2.2 Mean monthly rainfall pattern ................................................................................... 9
1.3 Data quality..................................................................................................................... 11
1.3.1 Annual rainfall data quality Checking (Tests for outliers) ...................................... 12
1.3.2 Data Reliability & Adequacy ...................................................................................... 14
2 RESERVOIR CAPACITY ESTIMATIONS ........................................................................ 15

2.1 Evaporation estimation ................................................................................................ 15
2.2 Catchment Yield ............................................................................................................ 16
2.3 Irrigation Water demand .............................................................................................. 17
2.4 Reservoir Capacity......................................................................................................... 18
2.5 Sediment study.............................................................................................................. 19
2.5.1 Sediment Distribution ...............................................................................................20
2.5.1.1 Methods for Predicating Sediment Distribution ..............................................20
2.5.1.2 The Empirical Area Reduction Method .............................................................20
2.6 Reservoir Simulation ..................................................................................................... 25
3 FLOOD ESTIMATION ........................................................................................................ 26

3.1 Determination of design return period........................................................................26
3.1.1 Main Dam design return period ................................................................................26
AS-Consult –GUNJI TEPIE BUTTIE DAM-HYDROLOGY REPORT FINIAL Page 3

3.2 Design Rainfall Data Checking and Computation ........................................................ 27
3.2.1 checking the consistency of the data ....................................................................... 27
3.2.1 Data Reliability & Adequacy ......................................................................................29
3.2.2 Design rainfall computations ................................................................................29
3.3 Design flood Estimation ............................................................................................... 30
3.3.1 Design Rainfall Arrangement .................................................................................... 31
3.3.2 Rainfall Profile ........................................................................................................ 31
3.3.3 Direct Runoff Estimation ....................................................................................... 32
3.3.4 Reservoir Flood Routing ........................................................................................ 33

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1-1: ANNUAL RAINFALL DATA OF BONGA STATION ..................................................................................................... 10
TABLE 1-2: ANNUAL RAINFALL DATA OF BONGA STATION...................................................................................................... 11
TABLE 1-3: DAILY MAXIMUM RAINFALL DATA OF BONGA STATION.......................................................................................... 11
TABLE 1-4: ANNUAL RAINFALL DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 13
TABLE 1-3 SUMMARY OF OUTLIER TEST FOR STATION.......................................................................................................... 14
TABLE 2-1 ESTIMATE OF EVAPORATION LOSS...................................................................................................................... 15
TABLE 2-2 80% DEPENDABLE RAINFALL AND CATCHMENT YIELD FROM BONGA STATION......................................................... 16
TABLE 2-3 IRRIGATION WATER DEMAND ............................................................................................................................ 17
TABLE 2-4 :- TOTAL SEDIMENT YIELD ESTIMATION .............................................................................................................. 19
TABLE 2-5 :- CLASSIFICATION OF RESERVOIRS ACCORDING TO SHAPE (USBR, 1987) ................................................................21
TABLE 2-6 :- NEW ZERO LEVEL FIXATION USING EMPIRICAL AREA REDUCTION METHOD (50 YEARS) ........................................... 23
TABLE 2-7 :- NEW ZERO LEVEL FIXATION USING AREA INCREMENT METHOD (50 YEARS) ........................................................... 24
TABLE 2-4: RESERVOIR OPERATION USING 8O % DEPENDABLE FLOW FROM AROUND 19 YEARS DATA ......................... 25
TABLE 3-1: CLASSIFICATION OF DAMS ............................................................................................................................... 26
TABLE 3-2: DAILY HEAVIEST RAINFALL DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 28
TABLE 3-3 DESIGN RAINFALL IN DIFFERENT DISTRIBUTION ................................................................................................... 30
TABLE 3-4 DESIGN RAINFALL ARRANGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 32
TABLE 3-5:-SYNTHESIS OF COMPLEX HYDROGRAPH............................................................................................................. 33
TABLE 3-6:- RESERVOIR FLOOD ROUTING FOR SPILLWAY LENGTH OF 8 M .............................................................................. 34

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1: MEAN MONTHLY RAINFALL PATTERN OF BONGA STATION ................................................................................. 10
FIGURE 2-1: ESTIMATED MEAN EVAPORATION ..................................................................................................................... 16
FIGURE 2-2: AREA-ELEVATION-VOLUME CURVE OF GUNJI TEPI BUTIE RESERVOIR.................................................................... 18
FIGURE 2-3: RESERVOIR TYPE DETERMINATION CURVE .........................................................................................................21

SALIENT FEATURES
Project name
Gunji Tepi Butie Micro Earth Dam irrigation Project
Name of the stream: Gunji River
Location of the head work using UTM for
Latitude : 821308.511
Longitude : 192568.38
Altitude : 1749.00
Zone: Keffa administrative
Woreda: Gimbo
Dam
Dam type: Zoned Embankment Dam
Height: 11 m
Gross crest length: 124 m
Dam crest level: 1759.65 m.a.s.l
Intake
Intake inlet level: 1751.32 m
Intake Pipe Diameter: 0. 6m
Intake outlet level: 1751.00 m

1 Introduction
Hydrological analysis and investigation is an essential component of water resources
projects to estimate key design parameters required for various hydraulic structures such as
dams, weirs, flood dykes, reservoir simulation analysis, intake works, and structures related
to water passages. The design parameters differ depending upon the type of the structure
to be designed. There is no gauged river in the study catchment area. But Gojeb is gauged
near Shebe.
1.1 Water resource and Water Balance

1.1.1 Water Source
The water source of the proposed project is Gunji River, which found at Omo Gibe River
basin of Ethiopia. Gunj River is perennial and un-gagged river. The water sources for the
project was assessed during field study and identification work. The base flow of Gunji river
is not sufficient to the proposed command area, so Micro storage dam is proposed.
1.1.2 Water balance

The water balance was studied before detail study and design work to solve future water
user’s conflict and to use the water source in reasonable manner. There is sufficient water
release for downstream water users for the sustainability of the project from the dam. The
storage is designed considering the minimum downstream release (more than 20%).
In the project kebele area there is no traditional practice, especially in Gunji River both in
upstream and downstream. Annual water requirement for the proposed project is
370,440.00 m3/year but the catchment has a capacity to produce about 2,622,490.02
m3/year.
Therefore, downstream release may not an issue for this particular issue. The Project water
demand is not considering the existing base flow, it is proposed from stored water during
rainy season.

1.2 Data availability

1.2.1 Hydrometric data
Hydrologists and designers are faced with lack of good or non-recorded hydrometric data
on the target stream/river and on local weather and climate conditions. Stream gauging
stations are non-existent in remote rural areas of the region and even meteorological
stations are almost rare near small rivers in the region. There is no gauged river in the study
catchment area. But Gauged Gojeb river is available near Shebe with in Omo Gibe Basin.
1.2.2 Climate condition and rainfall regime of the project area

The seasonal variation in climate is associated with the oscillation of the Inter-Tropical
Convergence Zone (ITCZ). Between June and September, the ITCZ is located North of
Ethiopia and the project area is under the influence of Atlantic equatorial westerlies and
southerly winds from the Indian Ocean. These south-westerly ascend over the south-
western highlands of Ethiopia to produce the main rainy season.
The ITCZ shifts northwards across southern Ethiopia from September to November and
southwards from March to May. Some moist air from the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean
reaches parts of southern Ethiopia during the period, causing little rains.
1.2.1 Climatic Data source

The nearest metrological station for Gunji Tepi Butie small scale project is Bonga station and
the Annual Rainfall is summarized in the following table.
1.2.2 Mean monthly rainfall pattern

The project area receives moderately much rainfall thorough out the year as shown at graph
below based on three stations the nearest but outside the Woreda. As shown on the figure
below, maximum rainfall occurs in months of August, June, and July at Bonga Metrological
station. The project area receives a uni-modal rainfall distribution.

Table 1-1: Annual Rainfall data of Bonga station

YEAR JAN. FEB. MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1995 0.00 41.70 52.30 158.90 144.40 160.70 172.60 214.40 223.30 56.80 31.60 151.80
1996 45.50 36.60 155.40 202.00 188.90 159.60 158.00 177.80 214.00 101.60 94.80 21.70
1997 86.20 12.00 133.50 231.70 205.90 212.70 181.80 146.00 138.40 239.90 248.20 125.90
1998 33.80 47.60 108.10 173.40 197.90 217.00 207.50 260.40 192.30 154.20 14.50 0.00
1999 6.30 6.00 94.40 174.60 181.90 138.20 165.10 121.90 138.00 146.70 23.00 22.20
2000 11.10 4.60 119.40 194.30 214.10 151.60 232.10 135.10 147.50 260.40 38.70 18.40
2001 36.10 45.90 172.50 202.90 262.60 192.50 178.30 197.30 195.70 118.10 69.70 6.40
2002 47.00 22.00 51.50 131.10 102.00 253.20 142.10 154.60 166.40 158.80 33.10 125.70
2003 95.40 23.30 95.00 213.30 47.70 352.10 462.90 430.30 314.30 26.80 46.40 48.70
2004 33.70 17.20 158.00 225.60 236.40 82.80 142.20 268.00 263.70 85.60 63.70 109.20
2005 31.20 39.50 155.80 163.50 319.40 202.10 172.50 178.90 184.70 140.00 73.70 62.10
2006 39.40 68.50 96.80 88.60 215.80 185.70 287.90 206.40 183.70 148.10 129.40 108.70
2007 22.10 30.20 59.40 198.90 189.70 276.50 116.60 215.80 188.50 87.40 56.70 0.00
2008 48.10 55.40 146.60 168.70 214.00 202.80 240.70 268.00 150.10 245.10 77.80 33.40
2009 54.70 29.00 157.20 174.30 125.20 198.30 146.00 153.40 253.80 281.80 104.50 97.20
2010 54.70 79.20 157.20 199.40 282.10 227.40 233.90 342.10 421.50 204.70 33.70 45.40
2011 14.40 10.70 129.50 311.10 310.20 305.00 377.50 380.30 367.80 74.40 102.50 12.00
2012 26.10 6.90 90.20 137.00 183.80 258.90 232.00 227.00 277.50 63.70 101.20 59.00
2013 34.80 28.20 113.70 117.60 240.30 267.30 258.70 217.30 218.40 139.60 177.50 35.80
average 37.90 31.80 118.20 182.50 203.30 212.90 216.20 226.10 223.10 143.90 80.00 57.00
Figure 1-1: Mean monthly Rainfall pattern of Bonga Station

Table 1-2: Annual Rainfall data of Bonga station

Annual Rainfall Annual Rainfall
S/no. Year S/no. Year
(mm/Year) (mm/Year)
1 1995 1408.5 11 2005 1723.4
2 1996 1555.9 12 2006 1759.0
3 1997 1962.2 13 2007 1441.8
4 1998 1606.7 14 2008 1850.7
5 1999 1218.3 15 2009 1775.4
6 2000 1527.3 16 2010 2281.3
7 2001 1678.0 17 2011 2395.4
8 2002 1387.5 18 2012 1663.3
9 2003 2156.2 19 2013 1849.2
10 2004 1686.1
Table 1-3: Daily maximum Rainfall data of Bonga station

Heaviest Rainfall Heaviest Rainfall
S/no. Year S/no. Year
(mm/day) =Xi (mm/day) =Xi
1 1995 39.2 10 2004 48.5
2 1996 35.2 11 2005 49.2
3 1997 51.0 12 2006 63.3
4 1998 48.6 13 2007 43.0
5 1999 28.0 14 2008 52.1
6 2000 30.1 15 2009 65.5
7 2001 40.5 16 2010 53.7
8 2002 42.8 17 2012 48.9
9 2003 41.4 18 2013 61.7
1.3 Data quality
Annual and Maximum daily rainfall of each year will filtered out from the recorded data.
There may be errors in data that affect its quality. These errors may be either instrumental
or personal errors. Personal error may occur during reading, measuring, recording & etc. of
the data. A data value registered by any error has to be rejected by various quality test
methods, because, it may lead to uneconomical or unsustainable structures designing of the
project. So, for this particular case, data consistency, adequacy and whether the existing
data values lays between extreme outlier values will be checked for each station in 50 Years
return Period.

1.3.1 Annual rainfall data quality Checking (Tests for outliers)

Using U.S. Water resource council recommendation, outliers are data points that depart
significantly from the trend of the remaining data in three case test. Tests both high and low
outliers should be applied before eliminating any outliers from the data set.
 Case1:- if Skewness (Cs) < -0.4 check for lower outlier
 Case2:- if Skewness (Cs) > +0.4 check for higher outlier
 Case3:- if Skewness (Cs), -0.4<CS< +0.4 check for both outlier
The following frequency equation is used to detect high outliers
𝑌ℎ = 𝑌 + 𝐾𝑛 𝑆𝑦
Where, Yh is the high outlier threshold in log units
Kn is obtained from table for sample size n
Sy Standard deviation
𝑌 is Mean Value
If the logarithms of the values in a sample are greater than Yh in the above equation, then
they are considered high outliers. Flood peaks considered high outliers should be compared
with historic flood data and flood information at nearby sites. If information is available that
indicates a high outlier is maximum over an extended period, the outlier is treated as
historic flood data and excluded from analysis. If useful historic information is not available
to compare to high outliers, then the outliers should be retained as part of the systematic
record.
For lower outliers the detected outlier should be excluded from the data. The formula is
𝑌ℎ = 𝑌 − 𝐾𝑛 𝑆𝑦

Table 1-4: Annual rainfall data analysis
Descending Ran Logarithmi (Yo- (Yo- m/(n+1)*

S.No. Year Annual RF Order k c Value/Yo/ Ym)2 Ym)3 100
1 1995 1408.50 2395.40 1 3.38 0.022 0.003 5.0
2 1996 1555.90 2281.30 2 3.36 0.016 0.002 10.0
3 1997 1962.20 2156.20 3 3.33 0.010 0.001 15.0
4 1998 1606.70 1962.20 4 3.29 0.004 0.000 20.0
5 1999 1218.30 1850.70 5 3.27 0.001 0.000 25.0
6 2000 1527.30 1849.20 6 3.27 0.001 0.000 30.0
7 2001 1678.00 1775.40 7 3.25 0.000 0.000 35.0
8 2002 1387.50 1759.00 8 3.25 0.000 0.000 40.0
9 2003 2156.20 1723.40 9 3.24 0.000 0.000 45.0
10 2004 1686.10 1686.10 10 3.23 0.000 0.000 50.0
11 2005 1723.40 1678.00 11 3.22 0.000 0.000 55.0
12 2006 1759.00 1663.30 12 3.22 0.000 0.000 60.0
13 2007 1441.80 1606.70 13 3.21 0.001 0.000 65.0
14 2008 1850.70 1555.90 14 3.19 0.002 0.000 70.0
15 2009 1775.40 1527.30 15 3.18 0.002 0.000 75.0
16 2010 2281.30 1441.80 16 3.16 0.005 0.000 80.0
17 2011 2395.40 1408.50 17 3.15 0.007 -0.001 85.0
18 2012 1663.30 1387.50 18 3.14 0.008 -0.001 90.0
19 2013 1849.20 1218.30 19 3.09 0.022 -0.003 95.0
SUM 32926.200 3.233 0.080 -0.002

MEAN 1696.156 3.233 0.004 0.000
STANDARD DEVIATION 305.055 0.068
SKEWNESS COEFFICIENT 0.478 0.032
From the result, the minimum and the maximum threshold value for lower outliers of annual
rainfall are 1136.82 mm and 2567.47 mm. Since the recorded rainfall lies under these two
values i.e. the minimum rainfall is 1218.30 mm and maximum rainfall is 2395.40 mm, since the
minimum and maximum annual rainfall is lied under threshold value, there is no outlier data.
The following table shows summary of outlier test for all stations. The result as presented in
the following table shows that the daily heaviest rainfall data recorded does not have lower
and higher outliers.

Table 1-5 Summary of Outlier test for Station

Station N RL for YL RL for YH Lowest RF Highest RF Remark
Bonga 18 1136.82 2567.47 1218.30 2395.40 Ok
1.3.2 Data Reliability & Adequacy

The reliability of the results of frequency analysis depends on how well the assumed
probabilistic model applies to a given set of hydrologic data.
Standard deviation of the data series from the mean value is an indicator of the variation of
data series. Variation is the inverse function of the number of the data. The variation is also
the reflection of the errors in the series. The data series could be considered reliable &
adequate if the percent of errors is less than or equal to ten percent. Percent of errors is
given by: -
𝑃 = 𝑠𝑡𝑑𝑣 (𝛼𝑛 − 1)/ (𝑆𝑄𝑅𝑇 (𝑁) ∗ µ) ∗ 100
The maximum percent of error should be less than 10%. If the error less than 10% the station
data is adequate and reliable. The maximum percent of error is 4.04% in Bonga station.
Therefore, the percent of errors is in the acceptable range. So, the data series of the station
is adequate and reliable.

2 RESERVOIR CAPACITY ESTIMATIONS

2.1 Evaporation estimation
In order to estimate the reservoir evaporation meteorological stations, close to the dam site
and with reliable data (radiation, relative humidity, wind speed, temperature and rainfall)
are required.
Bonga is the nearest meteorological station that has measurements of sunshine hours,
relative humidity, wind speed, maximum and minimum temperatures variables. The station
and the reservoir have about 90m elevation difference but there is no nearby station.
Therefore, it is used directly for estimating evaporation over the reservoir.
The evaporation loss from the reservoir water is estimated using U.S. Geological survey
method as shown below
(4.57 ∗ 𝑇 + 43.3)
𝐸=
1200
Where: E= monthly evaporation loss in m;
T= mean annual temperature (0c)
Mean monthly evaporation values were estimated based on the Bonga meteorological
station mean monthly climatic data of sunshine hours, relative humidity, wind speed and
maximum and minimum temperatures. The results are given in Table and Figure.
Table 2-1 Estimate of Evaporation Loss
Months Min Temp Max Mean Evaporation Evaporation loss
(°C) Temp (°C) Temp (°C) loss (m/month) (mm/month)
Jan 10.500 28.300 19.400 0.110 110
Feb 11.000 29.100 20.050 0.112 112
Mar 12.100 28.800 20.450 0.114 114
Apr 12.900 27.900 20.400 0.114 114
May 12.800 26.700 19.750 0.111 111
Jun 12.700 26.000 19.350 0.110 110
Jul 12.300 25.400 18.850 0.108 108
Aug 12.600 25.400 19.000 0.108 108
Sep 12.700 26.100 19.400 0.110 110
Oct 11.900 27.200 19.550 0.111 111
Nov 10.700 27.600 19.150 0.109 109
Dec 10.200 27.800 19.000 0.108 108

116
114
Evaporation Loss (mm)
112
110
108
106
104
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 2-1: Estimated mean evaporation
2.2 Catchment Yield

Dependable rainfall is rainfall with a certain probability of exceedance that is expected to
pertain in a certain area. Rainfall for each period vary from year to year and therefore rather
than using mean rainfall data (saying one year is drier and the next is wetter) a dependable
level of rainfall should be selected. A depth of rainfall that can be expected 3 out of 4 years
or 4 out of 5 years. Among the main factor for catchment yield is runoff coefficient. In Gunji
Tepi Butie project the average runoff coefficient is 0.43.
Based on an analysis carried out for different Arid and sub-humid climates an empirical
formula was developed by FAO/AGLW to estimate dependable rainfall. This formula is often
used for design purposes where 80% of probability of exceedance is required.
Table 2-2 80% Dependable Rainfall and Catchment Yield from Bonga Station
Month Rainfall Runoff Catchment Catchment
(mm) coeff. C Area (ha) yield (ha.m)
Jan 22.1 0.43 423 4.0
Feb 30.2 0.43 423 5.5
Mar 59.4 0.43 423 10.8
Apr 198.9 0.43 423 36.2
May 189.7 0.43 423 34.5
Jun 276.5 0.43 423 50.3
Jul 116.6 0.43 423 21.2
Aug 215.8 0.43 423 39.3
Sep 188.5 0.43 423 34.3
Oct 87.4 0.43 423 15.9
Nov 56.7 0.43 423 10.3
Dec 0 0.43 423 0.0
Total 1441.8 262.25

2.3 Irrigation Water demand

The irrigation water demand or the crop water requirement is computed using Cropwat
software and the analysis result for the proposed project taken from the agronomy report is
presented in the table below.
Table 2-3 Irrigation water Demand
Month Duty (l/s/ha) Irrigation Crop Demand
Average Area (Ha) (Ha.m)
Sep 0.00 100.0 0.00
Oct 0.00 100.0 0.00
Nov 0.00 100.0 0.00
Dec 0.14 100.0 2.12
Jan 0.58 100.0 8.77
Feb 1.12 100.0 16.93
Mar 0.54 100.0 8.16
Apr 0.07 100.0 1.06
May 0.00 100.0 0.00
Jun 0.00 100.0 0.00
Jul 0.00 100.0 0.00
Aug 0.00 100.0 0.00
Total 37.04
.

2.4 Reservoir Capacity

The reservoir capacity has to be determined on the basis of the catchment yield and
demand of water from the reservoir. The minimum of the two shall constitute the reservoir
capacity. For Gunji Tepi Butie Project the reservoir capacity is determined based on the
catchment yield capacity. Base flow contribution is not considered in the analysis.
Using the 80% dependable rainfall of Bonga, the catchment yield from surface runoff
amounts to 37.04 ha m. The area-elevation-volume curve of the water shed is provided in
figure below.
The reservoir capacity was then determined by integrating the elevation-area curve by
utilizing the End area method formula. Fixing the normal reservoir level at 1758 m would
give a capacity of 50.29 ha m and a surface area of 9.51 ha. The height of the dam up to the
crest level of the spillway is about 9 m.
Water spread surface area Vs elevation and Storage capacity versus

elevation
Water spread area (ha)
35.000 30.000 25.000 20.000 15.000 10.000 5.000 0.000
1762.00 Series2
Series1
1760.00
Water spread area
1758.00 versus elevation
Reservior elevation (m)
1756.00
1754.00
Storage capacity versus
elevation
1752.00
1750.00
1748.00
0.000 20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100.000 120.000
Storage capacity (ha.m)
Figure 2-2: Area-Elevation-Volume curve of Gunji Tepi Butie reservoir

2.5 Sediment study

Sediment data is required in order to establish the potential loss of capacity in a reservoir
due to sedimentation over the design life of the project (often taken as 50 years). Estimate
of sediment transport rate are very difficult to estimate reliably for a number of reasons.
Observation techniques permit sampling of suspended sediment, although bed load
sampling is possible but it is very inaccurate. Sampling is difficult and it is common to have
significant variation in results of consecutive measurements of sediment load in the same
flood event whether the sample is taken at the rising or falling portion of the flood
hydrograph. There is also seasonal effect, with sediment load in the early wet months
higher than those on later months for the same discharge.
The mean annual sediment load estimates by USBR (1964) and BCEOM (1999) for the Ribb
dam site was (363 ton/km2/year), Bathymetric survey conducted on Legedadi and Gefersa
reservoirs in 1979 and 1989 showed mean annual sediment deposition of 760 ton/km2/year
and Mott MacDonald (2004) estimated 350 tons/km2/year sediment deposition in Koga
reservoir and the sediment deposition of Gojeb river 218ton/km2/year. Gunji tepi buti
watershed sediment rate is under the range of Omo Gibi sedimentation rate. Total sum of
sediment yield from Gunji watershed is = 277.32 ton/yr/km2
Table 2-4 :- Total Sediment Yield Estimation
Description Value
Catchment area (km2) 4.24
Sediment income per ha from catchment area (tons/ha/year 2.770
Total soil loss from the whole catchment area(ton/year) 1,173.37
Density of the income soil (ton/m3) 1.20
Catchment area (ha)= 423.60
DELIVERY RATIO 0.30
Sediment income from the watershade(M3/YR)= 1,408.05
Soil loss (m3/Km2/yr) = 332.40
Sediment yield (m3/yr) 419.98
Bed load of 20% 84.00
TOTAL SEDIMENT YIELD (m3/Yr) 503.97
TOTAL SEDIMENT YIELD (Ton/Yr/Km2) 297.57

2.5.1 Sediment Distribution

The study of distribution of sediment in the reservoir volume is very much relevant. Contrary
to the earlier belief that sediment will deposit only in the dead storage space provided, it
has been observed in many reservoirs that it would deposit above that for some portion as
well. Thus, the live storage also gets progressively reduced over the life of the reservoir. The
live storage will get its elevation-area–capacity relation changed for every year, that is, such
relation is not going to be constant for all the years. This changing relation is important for
running simulation model, as it is concerned with the live storage operation to estimate the
firm yield of the reservoir.
2.5.1.1 Methods for Predicating Sediment Distribution

When the flow of a stream enters the head of the backwater reach above a reservoir, the
flow velocity will immediately begin to decline, and the coarsest sediments in transport will
begin to be deposited. This process continues until, at some distance within the reservoir,
the flow velocity has been sufficiently reduced so that all the sediments of sand size or
larger have been deposited while the silt and clay size sediments are transported further
into the pool.
Thus, the deposit in general will consist of a backwater deposit, a sand and gravel delta and
a bottom deposit of silt and clay materials.
According to Borland (1971) factors that influence the mode of deposition include: 1) size
and texture of the sediment particles; 2) size and shape of the reservoir; 3) reservoir inflow-
outflow relations; and 4) reservoir operating rules.
Regarding the distribution pattern, Borland and Miller (USBR) have suggested two methods
in predicting the distribution pattern. The first is strictly mathematical and is called ‘Area
Increment Method’. The second is ‘Empirical Area Reduction method’ which is also a
mathematical procedure based on observation of sediment distribution in several
reservoirs.
2.5.1.2 The Empirical Area Reduction Method

Reservoir sediment distribution was estimated based on the Empirical-Area-reduction
method (USBR, 1987), which is explained as follows. Based on the sediment resurvey data
of several reservoirs in USA, Borland and Mille (1960) identified four standard types of

reservoirs (Table 11). They also gave four types of relationships between the reservoir shape
and percentage of sediment deposition at various depths throughout the reservoir. The
shape of the reservoir is defined by the depth capacity relationship called m =1/ slope of the
line.
Table 2-5 :- Classification of reservoirs according to shape (USBR, 1987)
m Reservoir type Standard
classification
1 – 1.5 Gorge IV
1.5 – 2.5 Hill III
2.5 – 3.5 Flood plain, II
foothill
3.5 – 4.5 Lake I
Note: - m = the reciprocal of the slope of the line obtained by plotting the reservoir depth as
ordinate and reservoir capacity as the abscissa on log-log paper.
The empirical area reduction was applied for the study of distribution of sediment in dead
and live storages.
The elevation – area – capacity curve of the reservoir as per earlier survey data. First to
classify the reservoir into one of the four types, the slope of the line connecting reservoir
depth with storage is required.
Regression equation
3.00
2.50
y = 0.299x + 1.030
2.00 R² = 0.998
LN (D)
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Ln(C)
Figure 2-3: Reservoir Type Determination curve

From figure above, the Slope is 0.30 and m is 3.33 and thus it is classified as Flood plain,
foothill reservoir type (upper end of Type II reservoir).
Based on the reservoir type the following USBR formula is applied. Since, the reservoir type
in Gunji Tepi Butie Micro Earth Dam reservoir is Type II,
𝑨𝒑 = 𝟐. 𝟒𝟖𝟕𝒑𝟎.𝟓𝟕(𝟏 − 𝒑)𝟎.𝟒𝟏
Where, Ap= relative sediment area
p = relative depth of reservoir measured from the bottom, H/ho
H = Dam Height
ho = Dam Height
As = Sediment area, K*Ap
K = the ratio of Original Area at assumed NZL to the corresponding Ap, Ao/Ap
The Area Increment Method
The basic assumption in area increment method is that the sediment deposition in the
reservoir may approximated by reducing the reservoir area at each reservoir elevation by
fixing amount. Successive approximations are made. Average end area method is used to
compute the reservoir capacities on the basis of reduced surface areas until the total
reservoir capacity below the full reservoir level is the same as the predetermined capacity
obtained by subtracting the sediment accumulation with time from the original capacity.
𝑉𝑠 = 𝐴𝑜 𝐻 − ℎ𝑜 + 𝑉𝑜
Where,
Vs = Sediment volume to be distributed in the reservoir
Ao = Area correction factor which is original reservoir area at the new zero elevation of the
resrvoir
ho = the depth at which the reservoir is completely filled with sediment
Vo = Sediment volume below New Zero Elevation

Table 2-6 :- New zero level fixation using empirical area reduction method (50 Years)
Sedime
Accumula Revise
nt
Original tive d
Sr. Original Depth As volume
Elevation capacity P Ap Sediment Capaci
Nr area, ha. (m) (m2) (A1+A2
, ha.m volume(m ty
)*h/2
3) (ha.m)
(m3)
1 1758.00 20.20 50.29 9.00 1.00 0.0 0.00 0.14 6.30 43.99
2 1757.50 17.83 40.78 8.50 0.94 0.74 0.57 0.32 6.16 34.63
3 1757.00 15.47 32.46 8.00 0.89 0.94 0.73 0.39 5.83 26.63
4 1756.50 12.59 25.44 7.50 0.83 1.08 0.83 0.43 5.44 20.00
5 1756.00 9.72 19.87 7.00 0.78 1.16 0.90 0.46 5.01 14.86
6 1755.50 8.05 15.42 6.50 0.72 1.22 0.94 0.48 4.55 10.87
7 1755.00 6.39 11.81 6.00 0.67 1.26 0.97 0.49 4.07 7.74
8 1754.50 5.25 8.90 5.50 0.61 1.28 0.98 0.49 3.58 5.32
9 1754.00 4.10 6.57 5.00 0.56 1.28 0.98 0.49 3.09 3.47
10 1753.50 3.26 4.72 4.50 0.50 1.26 0.97 0.48 2.60 2.12
11 1753.00 2.41 3.31 4.00 0.44 1.23 0.95 0.47 2.12 1.19
12 1752.50 1.90 2.23 3.50 0.39 1.19 0.92 0.45 1.66 0.57
13 1752.00 1.39 1.40 3.00 0.33 1.13 0.87 0.42 1.21 0.20
14 1751.50 0.99 0.81 2.50 0.28 1.05 0.81 0.18 0.79 0.02
15 1751.28 0.81 0.64 2.28 0.25 1.05 0.81 0.19 0.61 0.00
16 1751.00 0.58 0.42 2.00 0.22 1.01 0.58 0.23 0.42 0.00
17 1750.50 0.35 0.18 1.50 0.17 0.95 0.35 0.12 0.18 0.00
18 1750.00 0.12 0.07 1.00 0.11 0.83 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.00
19 1749.50 0.07 0.02 0.50 0.06 0.68 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.00
20 1749.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

Table 2-7 :- New zero level fixation using area increment method (50 Years)
sediment
Original Revised Revised
Original volume (ha-
Nr. Elevation capacity Depth(m) Ao(ha) area volume
area(HA) m)=Ao*(H-
(ha-m) (ha) (ha.m)
ho)+Vo
1 1758.00 20.20 50.29 9.00 0.84 6.29 19.36 44.00
2 1757.50 17.83 40.78 8.50 0.84 5.87 16.99 34.91
3 1757.00 15.47 32.46 8.00 0.84 5.45 14.62 27.01
4 1756.50 12.59 25.44 7.50 0.84 5.03 11.75 20.42
5 1756.00 9.72 19.87 7.00 0.84 4.61 8.88 15.26
6 1755.50 8.05 15.42 6.50 0.84 4.19 7.21 11.24
7 1755.00 6.39 11.81 6.00 0.84 3.77 5.55 8.05
8 1754.50 5.25 8.90 5.50 0.84 3.34 4.41 5.56
9 1754.00 4.10 6.57 5.00 0.84 2.92 3.26 3.64
10 1753.50 3.26 4.72 4.50 0.84 2.50 2.42 2.22
11 1753.00 2.41 3.31 4.00 0.84 2.08 1.57 1.23
12 1752.50 1.90 2.23 3.50 0.84 1.66 1.06 0.57
13 1752.00 1.39 1.40 3.00 0.84 1.24 0.55 0.16
14 1751.50 0.99 0.81 2.50 0.84 0.82 0.15 0.00
15 1751.32 0.84 0.67 2.32 0.84 0.67 0.00 0.00
16 1751.00 0.58 0.42 2.00 0.84 0.40 0.00 0.02
17 1750.50 0.35 0.18 1.50 0.84 -0.02 0.00 0.21
18 1750.00 0.12 0.07 1.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.07
19 1749.50 0.07 0.02 0.50 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.02
20 1749.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00
By trail the new zero elevation is obtained at 1751.28 in Area reduction method and 1751.32 in
in area increment method for 50 Years operation year therefore considering the command
area elevation and sediment load the intake level should have 1751.32m elevation.

2.6 Reservoir Simulation

Table 2-8: Reservoir operation using 8o % dependable flow from around 19 years data
Month Initial Reservoir Inflow Surface Evaporation rate Crop Leakage, Final live Deficit Surplus
live elevation (ha.m) Reservior demand a-m storage (ha.m) (ha.m)
storage (m) area (ha) (m) Ha.m) (ha.m) (ha.m)
(ha.m)
Sep 43.73 1758.000 34.29 20.2 0.11 2.22 0.00 1.12 43.73 0.00 34.29
Oct 43.73 1756.25 15.90 16.0 0.11 1.77 0.00 1.12 43.73 0.00 15.90
Nov. 43.73 1756.25 10.31 16.0 0.11 1.75 0.00 1.12 43.73 0.00 10.31
Dec. 43.73 1756.25 0.00 16.0 0.11 1.74 2.12 1.12 38.76 0.00 0.00
Jan. 38.76 1756.25 4.02 16.0 0.11 1.76 8.77 1.12 31.13 0.00 0.00
Feb. 31.13 1756.00 5.49 9.7 0.11 1.09 16.93 1.12 17.48 0.00 0.00
Mar 17.48 1754.50 10.80 9.4 0.11 1.07 8.16 1.12 17.93 0.00 0.00
Apr 17.93 1754.50 36.18 9.4 0.11 1.06 1.06 1.12 17.93 0.00 10.38
May 17.93 1754.50 34.50 9.4 0.11 1.04 0.00 1.12 17.93 0.00 8.71
Jun 17.93 1754.50 50.29 9.4 0.11 1.03 0.00 1.12 17.93 0.00 24.50
Jul 17.93 1754.50 21.21 9.4 0.11 1.01 0.00 1.12 37.02 0.00 0.00
Aug 37.02 1756.25 39.25 16.0 0.11 1.74 0.00 1.12 37.02 0.00 32.54
AS-Consult ShoteyoAchiwaSSIP Detail Engineering Design Report Page 25

SNNPRS/ICSAAAGP Program
3 FLOOD ESTIMATION
3.1 Determination of design return period
Selection of the design return period, also called recurrence interval, depends on
economic balance between the cost of periodic repair or replacement of the facility and
the cost of providing additional capacity to reduce the frequency of repair or
replacement control and temporary structures are usually designed for a runoff that may
be excepted to occur once in 10 years; expensive permanent structures will be designed
for runoffs expected only once in 50, 100 or other years.
3.1.1 Main Dam design return period

The Main Dam and Saddle Dams have been classified following the international
accepted system developed by Snyder [Snyder 1964], as summarized in Table 3-1. This
has been used as the basis for selecting the Spillway Design Flood (SDF).
Table 3-1: Classification of Dams
Danger Potential Failure Potential
Category Storage Height Failure Spillway Design
(106m3) (m) Flood
Major: failure cannot be > 60 > 20 Considerable loss of life, PMF
tolerated. excessive damage.
Intermediate 1 - 60 10 - Possible small loss of life, Most severe
30 damage within capacity of considered
owner. reasonable 40-60%
of PMF.
Minor <1 < 15 No loss of life or cost of 50 to 100 year storm
damage similar to cost of according to cost.
dam.
The design flood for “Major” and “Intermediate” categories of dams is given as a
percentage of the probable maximum flood (PMF). The PMF has effectively an infinite
return period and is estimated empirically.
The reservoir storage for Gunji Dam is 0.5 m3 106 and maximum dam height is 11 m. Hence
in terms of “danger potential”, the dam would be in Minor category. As regards “Failure
Potential” the dam, there will be minor loss of life.
Therefore,

 considering both economy and extent of damage and considering availability of

population in the downstream of the Dam. the spill way design shall be in 500
year return period ( Intermediate )
 For Gunji Tepi Butie Micro Earth Dam Irrigation Project, the project is small scale
the design period shall be 25 Years for Crossing structures specially flumes.
3.2 Design Rainfall Data Checking and Computation

3.2.1 checking the consistency of the data
Using U.S. Water resource council recommendation, outliers are data points that depart
significantly from the trend of the remaining data in three case test. Tests both high and
low outliers should be applied before eliminating any outliers from the data set.
 Case1:- if Skewness (Cs) < -0.4 check for lower outlier
 Case2:- if Skewness (Cs) > +0.4 check for higher outlier
 Case3:- if Skewness (Cs), -0.4<CS< +0.4 check for both outlier
The following frequency equation is used to detect high outliers
𝑌ℎ = 𝑌 + 𝐾𝑛 𝑆𝑦
Where, Yh is the high outlier threshold in log units
Kn is obtained from table for sample size n
Sy Standard deviation
𝑌 is Mean Value
If the logarithms of the values in a sample are greater than Yh in the above equation,
then they are considered high outliers. Flood peaks considered high outliers should be
compared with historic flood data and flood information at nearby sites. If information is
available that indicates a high outlier is maximum over an extended period, the outlier is
treated as historic flood data and excluded from analysis. If useful historic information is
not available to compare to high outliers, then the outliers should be retained as part of
the systematic record.
For lower outliers the detected outlier should be excluded from the data. The formula is

𝑌ℎ = 𝑌 − 𝐾𝑛 𝑆𝑦
Table 3-2: Daily heaviest rainfall data analysis

S/no Year Heaviest Descending Ran Y=logX (Y- (Y- (Xi-
. Rainfall order k i Ym)^2 Ym)^3 Xm)^2
(mm/day)=X
i
1 1995 39.2 65.5 1 1.816 0.025 0.0039 58.014
2 1996 35.2 63.3 2 1.801 0.020 0.0029 134.947
3 1997 51.0 61.7 3 1.790 0.017 0.0022 17.500
4 1998 48.6 53.7 4 1.730 0.005 0.0004 3.180
5 1999 28.0 52.1 5 1.717 0.003 0.0002 354.067
6 2000 30.1 51.0 6 1.708 0.002 0.0001 279.447
7 2001 40.5 49.2 7 1.692 0.001 0.0000 39.900
8 2002 42.8 48.9 8 1.689 0.001 0.0000 16.134
9 2003 41.4 48.6 9 1.687 0.001 0.0000 29.340
10 2004 48.5 48.5 10 1.686 0.001 0.0000 2.834
11 2005 49.2 43.0 11 1.633 0.001 0.0000 5.680
12 2006 63.3 42.8 12 1.631 0.001 0.0000 271.700
13 2007 43.0 41.4 13 1.617 0.002 0.0001 14.567
14 2008 52.1 40.5 14 1.607 0.003 0.0001 27.914
15 2009 65.5 39.2 15 1.593 0.004 0.0003 349.067
16 2010 53.7 35.2 16 1.547 0.013 0.0014 47.380
17 2012 48.9 30.1 17 1.479 0.033 0.0059 4.340
18 2013 61.7 28.0 18 1.447 0.045 0.0096 221.514
Sum 842.70 29.87 0.18 -0.01 1877.53
Mean 46.82 1.66
10.51 0.102
Standard dev.
N 18.0 Cs 0.057 Kn 2.775
As shown on the table the Cs value for our case is 0.057 it falls in case two therefore
checking for higher outliers
Determination of threshold value for lower outliers of daily heaviest rainfall
then the lower outlier calculated as
 YL = Yav- Kn*Sy =1.377 RL=10^YL = 23.80 mm
The lowest recorded daily heaviest rain fall data is greater than the threshold value of
low outliers. Hence the daily heaviest rain fall data recorded does not have lower outlier
Determination of threshold value higher outliers of daily heaviest rainfall
then the higher outlier calculated as
 YL = Yav+ Kn*Sy = 1.942 , RL=10^YL = 87.58 mm

The highest recorded daily heaviest rain fall data is 65.5 mm which is less than the
threshold value of higher outliers. There is no outlier data
3.2.1 Data Reliability & Adequacy

The reliability of the results of frequency analysis depends on how well the assumed
probabilistic model applies to a given set of hydrologic data.
Standard deviation of the data series from the mean value is an indicator of the variation
of data series. Variation is the inverse function of the number of the data. The variation is
also the reflection of the errors in the series. The data series could be considered reliable
& adequate if the percent of errors is less than or equal to ten percent. Percent of errors
is given by: -
𝑃 = 𝑠𝑡𝑑𝑣 (𝛼𝑛 − 1)/ (𝑆𝑄𝑅𝑇 (𝑁) ∗ µ) ∗ 100
The maximum percent of error should be less than 10%. If the error less than 10% the
station data is adequate and reliable. The maximum percent of error is 5.29 % in Bonga
station. Therefore, the percent of errors is in the acceptable range. So, the data series of
the station is adequate and reliable.
3.2.2 Design rainfall computations

After checking the consistency of the data for higher and lower outlier, the data is
considered as representative for the analysis. The probability of occurrence of maximum
probable rainfall is estimated as follow:
For the specific project, five candidate distributions are selected to test the distribution
as described in the following equations below and the result of design rainfall is
summarized in Table below. The design rainfall is selected taking maximum design rain
fall and finally the design rain fall is taken the average design rainfall with the proportion
of the catchment area.
Normal distribution method
𝑋𝑡 = 𝑋 + 𝐾𝑡 𝑆𝑦
2.515517 + 0.80802853𝑤 + 0.010328𝑤 2
𝐾𝑡 = 𝑤 −
(1 + 1.432788𝑊 + 0.189269𝑤 2 + 0.001308 𝑤 3
1/2
1
𝑤 = 𝑙𝑛 2
𝑝
𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒, 𝐾𝑡 = 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
The frequency factor can be expressed as, 𝑦𝑡 = 𝑦 + 𝐾𝑡 𝑆𝑦

Lognormal distribution
For lognormal distribution, the same procedure applies except that it is applied to the
logarithms of the variables, and their mean and standard deviation are used for D-index
test.
𝑋𝑡 = 𝑌 + 𝐾𝑡 𝑆𝑦
2.515517 + 0.80802853𝑤 + 0.010328𝑤 2
𝐾𝑡 = 𝑤 −
(1 + 1.432788𝑊 + 0.189269𝑤 2 + 0.001308 𝑤 3
1/2
1
𝑤 = 𝑙𝑛 2
𝑝
𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒, 𝐾𝑡 = 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
𝑦𝑡 = 𝑥 + 𝐾𝑡 𝑆𝑦
Gumbels Evi Distribution
𝑥𝑡 = 𝑥 + 𝐾𝑡 𝑆𝑦
Y𝑡 − 𝑌𝑛
Kt =
𝑆𝑛
Yn= Reduced mean in Gamble’s extreme value distribution for N sample size from table;
Sn= Reduced standard deviation in Gamble’s extreme value distribution for N sample size
from table.
𝑋𝑡 = 𝑋 + 𝐾𝑡 𝑆𝑦
𝐾𝑡 = 0.7801 0.5772 + 𝑙𝑛 (𝑙𝑛(𝑇/(𝑇 − 1))
Table 3-3 Design Rainfall in different distribution
Distribution Method Rainfall

Normal 77.07
Log Normal 89.73
Gumbels Evi 103.23
The design rainfall is calculated for 500 years return period is found to be 103.23 mm.
3.3 Design flood Estimation

For ungagged rivers, the design flood can be simulated by using SCS unit hydrograph
method. The computation is done using design rainfall. Since the river is ungauged, it is
better to do using rainfall instead of flood frequency analysis. In the hydrologic analysis
of flood using SCS method, rainfall amount, catchment area, shape, ground cover, type
of soil, slopes of terrain and stream(S); antecedent moisture condition; storage potential

(over bank, ponds, wetlands, reservoirs, channel, etc.) can be used and all such data shall
be carefully determined before proceeding to SCS simulation. For detail, see watershed
study report of the same project.
Generally, the following result is obtained from the watershed study report of the same
project.
 Time of concentration (Tc) = 0.989hr
 Average Curve number (CN) = 87.30
 Total Catchment area = 4.23km2
3.3.1 Design Rainfall Arrangement

For non-uniform rainfall, the storm is divided in to increments of duration, D. For the time
of concentration, Tc greater than 3 hours, D value would be one hour. But, if time of
concentration is less than 3hours, D would be one sixth of Tc.
To generate the design peak flood, the incremental rainfall would be rearranged based
on model study. The incremental rainfall during the maximum 6 hour period will be
rearranged from the descending order of magnitude obtained to the following hourly
magnitude sequence, 1 through 6 hours: 6, 4, 3,1,2,5. This is a judicial arrangement that
gives a computed flood greater than one based on the assumption that the greatest
hourly increment of rain occurs during the first hour of a storm and a smaller flood than
that computed by assuming the greatest hourly increment of rain occurs during the 6th
hour of rainfall. For the study area, rainfall profile, areal rainfall & arrangement of
incremental rainfall has been executed as shown in Table below.
3.3.2 Rainfall Profile

Rainfall profile is the distribution of the proportion of design rainfall during every
incremental time on the watershed area during the 24 hours’ duration. Well-developed
models are needed to determine such an event for the selected basin area. But there are
no sufficient modelling studies in the vicinity and adaptation of standard curves has been
taken as the only option. Designer of this project has adopted the standard curve from
Design Guidelines for Small Scale Irrigation Projects in Ethiopia. With the aid of rainfall
profile versus duration curve the percentages of design rainfall distribution on the
catchment area are computed for the first most intensive storm duration.

Table 3-4 Design rainfall arrangement

Time Design Rainfall Rainfall Areal to Areal Incrementa Descendi Rearrang
(hr) point Profile Profile point Rainfall l Rainfall ng Order ed order
Rainfall (%) (mm) rainfall ratio (mm) (mm)
(mm) (%)
0.5 32 33.03 100.00 33.03 33.03 1 6
1.00 45 46.45 100.00 46.45 13.42 2 4
1.50 52 53.68 100.00 53.68 7.23 3 3
103.23
2.00 58 59.87 100.00 59.87 6.19 4 1
2.50 62 64.00 100.00 64.00 4.13 5 2
3.00 66 68.13 100.00 68.13 4.13 6 5
3.3.3 Direct Runoff Estimation

The maximum potential difference between rainfall and runoff, S, starting at the time the
storm begins is given by;
25400
𝑆= − 254
𝑁
The direct surface runoff, Q, in mm is given by,
(I − 0.2S)2
Q=
(I + 0.8S)
25400
𝑆= − 254
𝐶𝑁
(𝐴 ∗ 𝑄)
𝑄𝑝 = 0.21 ∗
𝑇𝑝
Where, I =cumulative Rainfall in mm
S = Maximum run off potential difference,
Qp = Peak run-off for incremental, unit rainfall depth;
A = Catchment area (Km2)
Tp = Time to peak (hr)
Q = Incremental run-off (mm)
From the following complex hydrograph value (Table below) the maximum flood is
28.38m3/s.

Table 3-5:-Synthesis of complex Hydrograph

Time (hr) H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 Htotal
0.00 0.000 0
0.50 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.84 0.000 0.091 0.09
1.00 0.000 0.282 0.000 0.28
1.34 0.000 0.227 0.838 1.06
1.50 0.000 0.201 1.239 0.000 1.44
1.84 0.000 0.146 2.077 8.943 11.17
2.00 0.000 0.119 2.077 13.229 0.000 15.43
2.24 0.000 0.081 1.836 19.512 3.270 24.70
2.34 0.065 1.484 22.172 4.655 28.38
2.50 0.038 1.335 19.605 6.886 0.000 27.86
2.74 0.000 1.094 15.843 10.156 1.046 28.14
2.84 0.742 14.250 11.541 1.490 28.02
3.24 0.593 7.922 8.247 3.250 20.01
3.34 0.000 6.329 7.418 3.693 17.44
3.74 0.000 4.123 2.639 6.76
4.24 0.000 1.319 1.32
4.74 0.000 0.00
3.3.4 Reservoir Flood Routing

Reservoir flood routing is carried out to determine the maximum water level (MWL) and
the corresponding outflow rates when the maximum flood passes over the spillway.
The data required for flood routing computations are
Inflow hydrograph;
 Elevation Vs capacity data;
 Elevation Vs outflow data; and
2S
Q
 Elevation Vs t data.
The study team considers 500 year inflow hydrographs predominantly.
Elevation Vs out flow data

The volume of water that flows over the spillway depends on the type of the control
device. For this project, over flow ogee section is proposed.
The general equation of the discharge over the ogee crested control section is: -
 Q  C * L * H 3/ 2
 Where: - Q = Discharge over the Spillway
o C= Coeff. Of discharge = 2.1
o L- Crest length
2S
Q
 Elevation Vs t data
S is the storage volume of the reservoir and Δt is the time interval between inflows (I1
and I2) or outflows (Q1 and Q2), which is fixed by accounting the maximum inflow flood
not to miss.
2S
Q
t is calculated as shown in the Tables below. Using the fore-mentioned data, the
reservoir routing by modified plus method were under taken.
 2S   2S 
I 1  I 2   1  Q1    2  Q2 
 t   t 
The recommended spillway length for Gunji Tepi Butie Micro Earth Dam Irrigation Project
is 8 m to pass 500 year return period flow safely. The routed flow is 8.417 m3/s with 0.64
m depth.
Table 3-6:- Reservoir Flood Routing for Spillway length of 8 m
Time Inflow Avg.I Avg.I*t S-((Qp*t)) S=Si+((Q*t)/2) Depth Discharge Level

(hr) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m) (m3/s) (m)
0.00 0.000 0.503 0.000 0.000 1758.0
0.58 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5028 0.503 0.003 0.003 1758.003
1.17 0.282 0.141 0.00 0.5028 0.503 0.004 0.005 1758.004
1.75 1.440 0.861 0.00 0.5031 0.505 0.013 0.024 1758.013
2.34 28.376 14.908 0.03 0.5048 0.536 0.160 1.073 1758.160
2.92 28.023 28.199 0.06 0.5340 0.593 0.420 4.579 1758.420
3.51 17.439 22.731 0.05 0.5837 0.631 0.590 7.605 1758.590
4.09 6.762 12.101 0.03 0.6155 0.641 0.631 8.417 1758.631
4.68 1.319 4.041 0.01 0.6232 0.632 0.591 7.626 1758.591
5.26 0.000 0.660 0.00 0.6157 0.617 0.526 6.413 1758.526
5.85 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.6036 0.604 0.466 5.351 1758.466
6.43 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5923 0.592 0.416 4.509 1758.416


7.01 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5828 0.583 0.373 3.833 1758.373
7.60 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5748 0.575 0.337 3.285 1758.337
8.18 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5679 0.568 0.305 2.836 1758.305
8.77 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5619 0.562 0.278 2.465 1758.278
9.35 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5567 0.557 0.254 2.156 1758.254
9.94 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5522 0.552 0.234 1.896 1758.234
10.52 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5482 0.548 0.215 1.677 1758.215
11.11 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5447 0.545 0.199 1.490 1758.199
11.69 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5415 0.542 0.184 1.330 1758.184
12.27 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5387 0.539 0.171 1.192 1758.171
12.86 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5362 0.536 0.160 1.073 1758.160
13.44 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5340 0.534 0.149 0.969 1758.149
14.03 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5319 0.532 0.140 0.878 1758.140
14.61 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5301 0.530 0.131 0.798 1758.131
15.20 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5284 0.528 0.123 0.727 1758.123
15.78 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5269 0.527 0.116 0.665 1758.116
16.37 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5255 0.525 0.110 0.610 1758.110
16.95 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5242 0.524 0.104 0.560 1758.104
17.54 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5230 0.523 0.098 0.516 1758.098
18.12 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5219 0.522 0.093 0.476 1758.093
18.70 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5209 0.521 0.088 0.441 1758.088
19.29 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5200 0.520 0.084 0.409 1758.084
19.87 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5191 0.519 0.080 0.379 1758.080
20.46 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5183 0.518 0.076 0.353 1758.076
21.04 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5176 0.518 0.073 0.329 1758.073
21.63 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5169 0.517 0.069 0.307 1758.069
22.21 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5162 0.516 0.066 0.287 1758.066
22.80 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5156 0.516 0.064 0.269 1758.064
23.38 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5151 0.515 0.061 0.252 1758.061
23.96 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5145 0.515 0.058 0.237 1758.058
24.55 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5140 0.514 0.056 0.223 1758.056
25.13 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5136 0.514 0.054 0.210 1758.054
25.72 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5131 0.513 0.052 0.198 1758.052
26.30 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5127 0.513 0.050 0.186 1758.050
26.89 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5123 0.512 0.048 0.176 1758.048
27.47 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5120 0.512 0.046 0.167 1758.046
28.06 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5116 0.512 0.045 0.158 1758.045
28.64 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5113 0.511 0.043 0.149 1758.043
29.23 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5110 0.511 0.041 0.142 1758.041
29.81 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5107 0.511 0.040 0.135 1758.040
30.39 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5104 0.510 0.039 0.128 1758.039
30.98 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5101 0.510 0.037 0.122 1758.037


31.56 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5099 0.510 0.036 0.116 1758.036
32.15 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5096 0.510 0.035 0.110 1758.035
32.73 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5094 0.509 0.034 0.105 1758.034
33.32 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5092 0.509 0.033 0.100 1758.033
33.90 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5089 0.509 0.032 0.096 1758.032
34.49 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5087 0.509 0.031 0.092 1758.031
35.07 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5085 0.509 0.030 0.088 1758.030
35.65 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5084 0.508 0.029 0.084 1758.029
36.24 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5082 0.508 0.028 0.080 1758.028
36.82 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5080 0.508 0.028 0.077 1758.028
37.41 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5079 0.508 0.027 0.074 1758.027
37.99 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5077 0.508 0.026 0.071 1758.026
38.58 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5076 0.508 0.025 0.068 1758.025
39.16 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5074 0.507 0.025 0.065 1758.025
39.75 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5073 0.507 0.024 0.063 1758.024
40.33 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5071 0.507 0.023 0.060 1758.023
40.91 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5070 0.507 0.023 0.058 1758.023
41.50 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5069 0.507 0.022 0.056 1758.022
42.08 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5068 0.507 0.022 0.054 1758.022
42.67 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5067 0.507 0.021 0.052 1758.021
43.25 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5066 0.507 0.021 0.050 1758.021
43.84 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5064 0.506 0.020 0.048 1758.020
44.42 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5063 0.506 0.020 0.046 1758.020
45.01 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5063 0.506 0.019 0.045 1758.019
45.59 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5062 0.506 0.019 0.043 1758.019
46.18 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5061 0.506 0.018 0.042 1758.018
46.76 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5060 0.506 0.018 0.040 1758.018
47.34 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5059 0.506 0.018 0.039 1758.018
47.93 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5058 0.506 0.017 0.038 1758.017
48.51 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5057 0.506 0.017 0.036 1758.017
49.10 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5057 0.506 0.016 0.035 1758.016
49.68 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5056 0.506 0.016 0.034 1758.016
50.27 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5055 0.506 0.016 0.033 1758.016
50.85 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5054 0.505 0.015 0.032 1758.015
51.44 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5054 0.505 0.015 0.031 1758.015
52.02 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5053 0.505 0.015 0.030 1758.015
52.60 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5052 0.505 0.014 0.029 1758.014
53.19 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5052 0.505 0.014 0.028 1758.014
53.77 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5051 0.505 0.014 0.027 1758.014
54.36 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5051 0.505 0.014 0.027 1758.014
54.94 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5050 0.505 0.013 0.026 1758.013
55.53 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5050 0.505 0.013 0.025 1758.013


56.11 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5049 0.505 0.013 0.024 1758.013
56.70 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5049 0.505 0.013 0.024 1758.013
57.28 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5048 0.505 0.012 0.023 1758.012
57.87 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5048 0.505 0.012 0.022 1758.012
58.45 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5047 0.505 0.012 0.022 1758.012
59.03 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5047 0.505 0.012 0.021 1758.012
59.62 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5046 0.505 0.011 0.021 1758.011
60.20 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.5046 0.505 0.011 0.020 1758.011

4 REFERENCES
Chow, V.T., Maidment, D.R., and Mays, L.W., 1988. Applied Hydrology, McGraw-Hill
Inc.,New York.
Dingman, S.L, 2002. Physical hydrology, Second edition printice, Hall New Jersey.
MOWR (2002), Study guideline on Hydrometeorology, Part A, Continental Consultants,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Santosh Kumer Garg, 2005. Irrigation Engineering and Hydraulic structures, Nineteenth
Revised Edition, KHANNA publishers, New Delhi.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1964. Hydrology, Section 4, SCS National Engineering
Hand book, Washington, DC.
W.W.D.S.E, 2008. Study and Design of Gidabwo Irrigation Project, Hydrological study
Final Feasibility Report Volume III, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

1-GUNJI DAM SSIP HAYDROLOGY FAINAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

1-GUNJI DAM SSIP HAYDROLOGY FAINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SNNPRS/ICSAA AGP Program

SOUTH NATION AND NATIONALITIES REGIONAL STATES

WATER AND IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT BUREAU

GUNJI TEPIE BUTTIE

Gimbo Wereda, Keffa Administrative Zone, SSNPRS

Final Feasibility Study and Detail Engineering Design

VOLUME V :ENGINEERING DETAIL DESIGN FINAL REPORT

VOLUME V-I: HYDROLOGY

Client: Water & Irrigation Development Bureau

Agricultural Growth Program

AS-Consult –GUNJI TEPIE BUTTIE DAM-HYDROLOGY REPORT FINIAL Page i

FEASIBILITY STUDY & DETAIL DESIGN REPORT STRUCTURE

Volume I: Watershed Management

Volume II: Engineering Geology

Volume III: Soil and Land Use

Volume IV: Irrigation Agronomy

Volume V: Engineering Design

Volume V-i: Hydrology

Volume V-ii : Dam and Elements Design

Volume V-iii :Irrigation and Drainage Design

Volume VI: Socio Economy

Volume VII: Environmental Impact Assessment

Volume VIII: Financial and Economic Analysis Study

AS-Consult –GUNJI TEPIE BUTTIE DAM-HYDROLOGY REPORT FINIAL Page ii

1.1.1 Water Source .............................................................................................................. 8

1.1.2 Water balance ............................................................................................................. 8

1.2 Data availability .............................................................................................................. 9

1.2.1 Hydrometric data........................................................................................................ 9

1.2.1 Climatic Data source ................................................................................................... 9

1.2.2 Mean monthly rainfall pattern ................................................................................... 9

1.3 Data quality..................................................................................................................... 11

1.3.2 Data Reliability & Adequacy ...................................................................................... 14

2 RESERVOIR CAPACITY ESTIMATIONS ........................................................................ 15

2.2 Catchment Yield ............................................................................................................ 16

2.3 Irrigation Water demand .............................................................................................. 17

2.4 Reservoir Capacity......................................................................................................... 18

2.5 Sediment study.............................................................................................................. 19

2.5.1 Sediment Distribution ...............................................................................................20

2.5.1.1 Methods for Predicating Sediment Distribution ..............................................20

2.5.1.2 The Empirical Area Reduction Method .............................................................20

2.6 Reservoir Simulation ..................................................................................................... 25

3 FLOOD ESTIMATION ........................................................................................................ 26

3.1.1 Main Dam design return period ................................................................................26

AS-Consult –GUNJI TEPIE BUTTIE DAM-HYDROLOGY REPORT FINIAL Page 3

3.2 Design Rainfall Data Checking and Computation ........................................................ 27

3.2.1 checking the consistency of the data ....................................................................... 27

3.2.1 Data Reliability & Adequacy ......................................................................................29

3.2.2 Design rainfall computations ................................................................................29

3.3 Design flood Estimation ............................................................................................... 30

3.3.1 Design Rainfall Arrangement .................................................................................... 31

3.3.2 Rainfall Profile ........................................................................................................ 31

3.3.3 Direct Runoff Estimation ....................................................................................... 32

3.3.4 Reservoir Flood Routing ........................................................................................ 33

AS-Consult –GUNJI TEPIE BUTTIE DAM-HYDROLOGY REPORT FINIAL Page 4

AS-Consult –GUNJI TEPIE BUTTIE DAM-HYDROLOGY REPORT FINIAL Page 5

AS-Consult –GUNJI TEPIE BUTTIE DAM-HYDROLOGY REPORT FINIAL Page 6

Gunji Tepi Butie Micro Earth Dam irrigation Project

Name of the stream: Gunji River

Location of the head work using UTM for

Zone: Keffa administrative

Dam type: Zoned Embankment Dam

Gross crest length: 124 m

Dam crest level: 1759.65 m.a.s.l

Intake inlet level: 1751.32 m