Jeldeti Diversion Small-scale Irrigation Project

Client ፡- Amhara National Regional

State Irrigation and Low land
Areas Development
Bureau.

Fund:- ANRS
Consultant:-Amhara Design
and
Supervision Works Enterprise
(East Amhara Brach Office)
AUGEST/2014 E.C 1

D/Tabor-Ethiopia (Z.EMENU .A)

 Jeldeti Diversion Small-Scale Irrigation Project

Points of presentation

• Background
• Objective
• Hydrology study
• Head work design
• Cost estimation
• Conclusion and Recommendation
2
 Project location

Administrative Location
• Region-Amhara Region
• Zone-Oromia special zone
• Woreda-Bati
• Kebele-Jeldeti

Geographic Location
• North: 1248905.35
• East: 601676.33 3
• Average Altitude: 1364.895 a.m.s.l
CONTINUED

4
 Accessibility

Distance from Bahirdar to Head works site is 570km, out of this distance
545km on asphalt and 25km on weathered road.

Distance from Zonal town (Kemisie) to head work site 134km out of this
distance 109km on asphalt and25km on weathered road.

Distance from Woreda town (Bati) 25km on all weathered road.

The weathered road needs cross structure like ford and culvert and some
part of the road needs maintenance for sustainable.

The weathered road from Jeldeti Kebele to site (about 5km) should be
5
widen because it is not enough for machinery and damp truck and
another 40m length needs road access.
 Existing irrigation

• No existing structure around the

headwork at all upstream and
Modern downstream part of the proposed
irrigation project, so modern irrigation
practice is not adopted on the
specified project.

• Some of the proposed command area is under

traditional irrigation practice using small
Traditional traditional diversion and pipe system at different
places of downstream of the proposed head work
irrigation sites.
• There for farmers in the project area are very
practice much interested to upgrading the traditional
scheme to modern scheme. 6
Command area

7
 Objectives of the project
To ensure food
security through Efficient utilization of
irrigation the resources.
development.

Jeldeti river= 156

The project area is with litre/sec (base flow)
uneven & variable
rainfall distribution for
annual crop production.
Suitable area for
irrigation= 103ha

There is Food shortage

both human being and
8
animals.
 hydrology

• Catchment area= 133.11km^2

• Longest stream length/Jeldeti
river= 23.28km
• Curve Number CN(III) = 91 ,
Water shed • Time of concentration Tc= 2.45
hrs using Kirpitch’s formula.
characteristics

9
 Water resources & measurement

Water resource of the proposed project

• Name of river-Jeldeti river.

• Flow-through out the yr.( perennial river).
• The base flow= 156 l/s.
• Date of measurement = 23/06/2013 E.C.
(dry season of the yrs.).
• Method of measurement-floating
10
 WATER BALANCE ANALYSIS

• At least 20% of the minimum flow

has to be released for downstream
requirements as literatures indicates.
• D/S release 20% of base flow=
Downstream 0.20*156.4=31.28l/s.
user release • Duty from agronomy 1.15 L/s/ha.
and available • The remaining water =156.4-
remaining 31.28=125.12 lit/sec which has
potential to irrigate = 125.12/1.15 =
water. 108.8ha which is more than enough
to irrigate 103ha. But to be safe
canal dimension add 25%,
• Q (L/s)=1.15*103*1.25=148L/S.
11
 Determination of the flood amount

At the selected Jeldeti river section , or u/s of it,

there is no any recorded flood data.
• Hence, conversion of rainfall to flood by USA
SCS method is selected.
• Nearby meteorological station of the project is :-
Degan, Bati and Werebabo with a record of
20,33and 41 years respectively.
• Design rainfall has been computed after data
quality test. Finally, design rainfall has been
converted to flood flows.
12
 Data quality test

• Check weather the percent of

errors is less than or equal to ten
percent or not= stdv (αn-1)/
(SQRT (N)* µ) *100
Reliability • P=6.02% < 10. for degan, which
& is adequate & reliable.
Adequacy • P=5.09% < 10. for Bati,which is
adequate & reliable
• P=5.54% < 10. for worebabo
which is adequate and reliable
13
 continued

The existence of outliers

Name of Comput Lowest Comput Highest Remark
station ed. data ed. data
lowest series highest value
value value

Degan 30.656 34.5 105.207 84.2 ok

Bati 32.778 58.4 133.13 128.3 ok

Worebabo 19.828 22.6 160.796 117.5 ok

14
 Continued---

Consistency
Consistency of theof the
data data
series seriesstation
for Degan for degan station
• by double mass curve technique

No abrupt change in the curve, hence, consistency exist in the data series 15
 Continued

Consistency of the data series for worebabo station

• by double mass curve technique

16
No abrupt change in the curve, hence, consistency exist in the data series
 Continued

Consistency of the data series for Bati station

• by double mass curve technique

No abrupt change in the curve, hence, consistency exist in the data series 17
 Design rainfall

Design Rainfall by Thissen Polygon Method

area
station name long lat shape area share area(%) X50 (mm) areal x50
Bati 6011049 1237769 133.1136 12.44 9.35 127.86
115.45
Degan 598730 1232617 133.1136 69.66 52.33 107.42
 
Werebabo 584022.2 1253684.87 133.1136 51.01 38.32 123.40
sum       133.11 100 115.45  
areal weighted peak rainfall(mm)   115.45  

Where: Aj = the area of polygon j in the watershed (km2)

Pj = rainfall amount in polygon j (mm)
p = average rainfall (mm
18

Combined Design Point

Rainfail,Qd 115.453664
 continued

Return period, T,= 50 years

Gamble Powell distribution method for each station has been used for
the computation of design rainfall.

Average Computed design rainfall=115.45mm/day

This is a point /rain gage rainfall.

Rainfall distribution profile both through out the catchments area and
time has not yet modeled at the project site.

Hence, standard curves developed has been used for conversion of

design rainfall to flood. 19
 Conversion Of Rainfall To Direct Runoff

• For non uniform rainfall, the storm is

divided in to increments of duration.
• For the time of concentration, Tc > 3
hours, D = 1hour,& if Tc < 3hours, D
=Tc/6.
Rainfall • For this particular case, Tc=2.45hr
arrangements which is <3hrs, then D=0.4 hr
• Based on the standard study model the
duration increments are arranged as 6,
4, 3,1,2,5. The result is shown in the
next slide.

20
 CONTINUED

DESIGN RAINFALL ARRANGEMENT TABLE

Duratio Design Rain Fall Rain Areal to Areal Rainfall dscend Rearra Re - Comm.
n ,D point profile Fall point rainfall increme ing nged arrange Rainfal
(hour) rainfall (%) profile rainfall( (mm) nt(mm) order order d l,P
(mm) %) rainfall (mm)
(mm)

0-0.4 28 32.3270 49.15 15.889 15.889 15.889 6 3.710 3.710

0.4-0.8 40 46.1815 57.95 26.763 10.874 10.874 4 7.307 11.017

0.8-1.2 46 53.1087 64.15 34.070 7.307 8.952 3 8.952 19.968

115.45

1.2-1.6 55 63.4995 67.75 43.022 8.952 7.307 1 15.889 35.857

1.6-2 59 68.1177 71.35 48.603 5.581 5.581 2 10.874 46.731

21
2-2.4 62 71.5813 73.08 52.312 3.710 3.710 5 5.581 52.312
 CONTINUED
 Catchment data for further hydrology analysis

22
 CONTINUED

SURFACE RUN OFF COMPUTATION TABLE

Comm.
Rainfall,P
(mm) curve Differenc Direct Direct
RF number at e b/n runoff runoff
Duration/ Re -arranged codition raifall & cummalative increment,
D/ RF/mm/ III,N runoff /S/ ,R(mm) Ri (mm) Remarks

0-0.4 3.710 3.710 25.121 0.000 0.00  

0.4-0.8 7.307 11.017 25.121 1.154 1.154  

0.8-1.2 8.952 19.968 25.121 5.574 4.420  

91.00

1.2-1.6 15.889 35.857 25.121 16.991 11.416  

1.6-2 10.874 46.731 25.121 26.029 9.038  

23
2-2.4 5.581 52.312 25.121 30.882 4.853  
 Peak runoff determination table for each increment

Time to Total time

TC peak, Tp of flow,Tb
2.4 1.67 4.47
Rainfall Direct runoff qp for qp for begin peak time, end time,
Duration( increment, 1mm incrementa time, hour hour
D) Ri(mm) runoff l run off hour
/m3/s/mm m3/s/

0-0.4 0.00 16.70 0.00 0 1.67 4.47

0.4-0.8 1.15 16.70 19.27 0.4 2.07 4.87
0.8-1.2 4.42 16.70 73.8 0.8 2.47 5.27
1.2-1.6 11.42 16.70 190.6 1.2 2.87 5.67
24
1.6-2 9.04 16.70 150.9 1.6 3.27 6.07
2-2.4 4.85 16.70 81.0 2 3.67 6.47
 CONTINUED

Qtotal
500.000

450.000

400.000

350.000
Descharge in m^3/se

300.000

250.000 Qtotal
Linear (Qtotal)

200.000

f(x) = 5.56707731057703 x + 139.565187650155

150.000 R² = 0.00529526967642535

100.000

50.000

0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25
Duration in hour
 Tail water depth computation
 Slope by End area method
Average height (H) 0.258
Horizontal distance (L) 209.319
Average slope S =H/L 0.001
 Slope by best fit method
Slope by best fit line Method
1366.000
1365.500 f(x) = − 0.0128938438284271 x + 1365.8450284296
1365.000 R² = 0.987421812606829
1364.500
elevation

1364.000
1363.500
1363.000
1362.500
1362.000
1361.500
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00

chainge

• River longitudinal slope, S=0.013m/m 26

 manning’s roughness coefficient=0.04

CONTINUED

 For further analysis Slope by best fit method is

adopted.
 Wetted perimeter ,P and wetted area, A(from x- section)

River crossection at weir axsis

1380.000

1375.000
Elevetion,m

1370.000

Series1

1365.000

1360.000

1355.000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 27
discharge,m/s
 Tail water depth from the discharge-gage rating
curve/table

Stage discharge curve

1372

1370

1368
Elevetion,m

1366 Stage discharge

1364

1362

1360
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00

discharge,m/s
28
 Head work

Any hydraulic structure which supplies water in to the off-

taking canal is called head work structure

Head work

Diversion
Intake (Bed bar) i.e.
Storage head work i.e. /distribution head
Prevent bed
Dam work (i.e. Weir or
fluctuations
barrage)

In case of our specific project the recommended head

work type is diversion head work. 29
 Diversion Head Work structure

• Weir:-Rises water level at u/s side

&regulate silt free water in to the canal.
Diversion • Barrage:-have similar function to weir,
but for the purpose of heading up of water
head work level, gate or shutter provision will be
required over the weir.

Weir

Vertical drop weir Sloping weir Sloping weir (dry

Ogee weir
/broad crested (concrete) stone/rock fill)
30
 Continued

• Availability of construction material.

Weir type • Flood discharge accommodation
selection capacity
• So for our specific project Ogee
criteria weir is selected.

Important Data that need to be available before the hydraulic

& Structural design.
Topographic data
Hydrological data
Geology & Geotechnical data 31
 Specific location of diversion head work

The actual site is selected with the following

considerations.
 Nearly straight, Narrow and well defined river section.
 Backwater effect does not cause any damage to the adjoining
areas.
 Availability of nearby command area and good canals routes.
 Weir aligned along right angle to direction of flow.
 Good foundation should be available at the site.
 Materials – should be available near site.
 Overall cost - minimum

32
 Continued
 Topography of head work site
 Head work site is 2-4 km from the main command area.
 At the head work site, the river width=24m at the bottom

33
 Detail Design Of Diversion Head Work

• weir height-H
• Elevation of command area =1366m
• Proposed length of the main canal, =280m
• Minimum river bed level at proposed headwork
site=1364.89m
Design • Main Canal full supply depth including free
board=0.6m

of ogee • Average head losses due to canal slope=

1/1000*280=0.28m
• Water head losses at the turnout =0.05m.
weir • Head loss across the filed=0.05
• Water head losses across head regulator=0.1m
• Total water head losses=1.084m
• Crest level= com.area level total
loss=1366+1.084= =1367.084m.
• Weir height=1367.084-1364.89=2.2m.
34
 CONTINUED

Weir crest length, L

 = 99.52m.
 Actual river section width of the over flow section of the river
is = 24m.
Discharge depth passing over the weir
•

• Whereas Q=438.97m3/s, L=22m & c=2.2

• =4.35

35
 CONTINUED
 The velocity head, ha is computed from the approach velocity as
shown below va
2

ha 
2g
Where g: acceleration due to gravity = 9.81m/sec2
Va is Approach velocity determined by
Q
Va 
Lxhd

L is Weir crest length = 22 m,

hd  H e  ha
hd is flow depth over the weir and also,
2 2
 Q   438.97 

 L*h   
 ( 22) * 3.77 
ha  H e  hd   d 
 hd     3.77  ZZZ
2
(2 g ) ( 2 * 9.81) hd

By trial and error method, hd is found to be 3.779 m

ha = He-hd = 4.35m-3.779m = 0.57m  36

 Velocity head, ha = 0.57m

 Energy and flood level Ogee weir shape profile

• D/S HFL = highest flood level before construction • U/S profile for, X=-0.27He.
=RBL+TWD=1364.89+3.83=1368.72m.
• D/S TEL=D/S HFL + Ha=1368.72+1.5=1370.22m
• U/S HFL= 1364.89+2.2+3.779=1370.86m
• U/S TEL=U/S HFL+ Ha=1370.86+0.57=1371.43m
• Afflux= U/S HFL-D/S HFL=1370.86-1368.72=2.14m.
• However, in rocky formation a higher value of afflux
may permitted.

37
U/S face profile coordinates(X,Y)
Y=(0.724*(X+0.27Hd)^1.85)/(Hd^0.85)+0.126Hd-0.4315Hd^0.375*(X+0.27Hd)^0.625
It extends up to X= - 0.27Hd
X Y
0.00 0.00
-0.10 0.00
-0.20 0.01
-0.30 0.02
-0.40 0.05
-0.50 0.07
-0.60 0.11
-0.70 0.16
-0.80 0.21
-0.90 0.29
-1.020 0.476

 D/S profile

For vertical upstream face ,K=2.0 & value of n =1.85 and

calculated He= 3.78m.
X 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.60 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.00 4.09

38
0.0
Y, 0 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.23 0.30 0.39 0.48 0.58 0.69 0.82 0.95 1.08 1.23 1.39 1.55 1.73 1.91 2.10 2.19
 CONTNUED

weir section
Series1 2.5 Logarithmic (Series1) Series3 vertical slope

2.0

1.5
y-axcis

1.0

0.5

0.0
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

-0.5
39
x-axcis
 Stability analysis

Hydraulic Structural failure may occur by means of:-

Subsurface flow such as, Surface flow i.e.

piping , hydraulic jump,
uplift scouring during flood

There For Check The Structure from the ff.pt. of view

0.16
 Overturning

0.42
W3
 Sliding

0.48
W1

0.65
W5
 Tension And
 Bearing Capacity Pw W6 W7
2.19

Ps

2.03
1.71

1.61
W2
W4 W8

0.96
Forces to consider W9
 Water pressure (Pw). 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.09
 Self weight (W). 40
5.11
 Silt pressure (Ps).
 Uplift pressure (Pu). Pu
 CONTINUED

 Static condition
 Checking for sliding 2.67 ok!
 Checking for overturning 2.65 ok!
 Tension

0.26 ok! B/6=5.11/6=0.85

 Checking for Bearing Capacity

Maximum base pressure ΣV/B*(1+6*e/B)=31.1 which is less

than 100KN/m2 then it is safe!
Minimum base pressure ΣV/B*(1-6*e/B) 16.6

41
 CONTINUED
 Dynamic Condition
Checking for sliding 8.01 ok!

Checking for overturning 3.33 ok!

Tension
0.00 ok! B/6=5.11/6=0.85

Checking for Bearing Capacity

Maximum base pressure ΣV/B*(1+6*e/B) =70.3 which is
less than 100kn/m2 so it is safe.
Minimum base pressure ΣV/B*(1-6*e/B) 69.5

42
Scour depth determination

 Lacy's silt factor, f=1.75*d(0.5) = 4.09

 Normal Scour Depth, R=1.35*(q2/f)1/3 =6.21
S.N Mean value of scour
Type of reach factor
1 Straight 1.25
2 Moderate bend 1.5
3 Sever bend 1.75
4 Right angled bend 2
5 Nose of Guide Banks 2.25
 bottom level of scour depth of upstream = U/S HFL- 1.25R=
1368.72- 1.25*6.21=1363.1m
43
 Depth of scour below river bed= 1364.89- 1363.1=1.79m.
 CONTINUED
 Bottom level of scour depth of downstream =D/S HFL-
1.5R=1368.72-1.5*6.21=1359.41m
 Depth of scour below river bed= 1364.89-
1359.41=5.49m
 But, after 4m depth, the bed is rocky formation.

 Hence, upstream cutoff depth, d1=2.0m and downstream

cutoff depth, d2=4.0m are adopted.

44
 Stilling basin design
 Still basin level fixation
a) Undepressed floor

45
Water jump depth > tail water depth
TWD $ JUMP Vs DISCHARGE
6.00

5.00

4.00
Elevation,m

Discharge Vs TWA
3.00
Discharge Vs JUMP

2.00

1.00

0.00
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00
Discharge,m3/s

Basins for Froud Numbers(Fr.no=2.02) Between 1.7 and 2.5

o Such flows are not attended by active turbulence so, baffles or sills are not
required.
46
 CONTINUED

I. Hydraulic jump=5.16m
II. Creep length =19.7m
There for Taking into the geologic and river topography of the
head work,.

U/S floor length =L-(2d1 + b +2d2 +Ld) =-12.47 But, as per the
geological formation, 1.0m impervious floor length has been provided.

D/S floor length,

Option1:- Apron length, L1 =2.21*C*(Hs/10)1/2 =9.3m

Option2:-stilling basin length =5(y2-y1)= 15m . 47

there for the value is the maximum of the two=15m

 Thickness of the stilling basin floor
 By Bligh's theory
 By Khosla's theory

48
 By Bligh’s theory

Uplift head, (h) Thickness, (t) Remarks

h=Hs - GE*L t= 4/3*h/(G-1.0) Adopted value

1.86 1.8
1.52 1.4  
1.19 1.1  
0.86 0.8  
0.53 0.5  
0.00 0.0  

49
  By Khosla's theory
  Thickness, (t) by Khosla
t= h/(G-1.0)
Residual head
1.64 1.2
1.40 1.0
1.20 0.9
0.99 0.7
0.79 0.6

Thickness, (t) by Khosla Thickness adopted by Bligh method

Remark
t= h/(G-1.0) Adopted value
1.2 0.8

1.0 1.4
0.9 1.2
0.7 1.0
0.6 0.8
50
 Outlet design
Outlet level
• Out let level=weir crest
level-(driving head +flow
depth above sill level)
• Outlet level=1367.084-
(0.2+0.4) = 1366.484m
Outlet size
• Q.req=148l/s
• by rectangular notch
formula
• Cd=0.6, and the value of
H=0.4 &B=0.6m.
• Taking into consideration
the clearance of gates,
• Size of out let=
0.7m*0.45m width and
height respectively.
51
Out let gate
• Head of water above sill ,h=0.7m
• Width of leaf gate ,B=0.7m
• Height of leaf gate ,H=0.45m
• Steel strength=13500N/mm^2
• The thickness of leaf/plate

• The thickness , 0.223475949 cm adopt=4mm thick

sheet metal
• Trash rack= 16mm bars @100mm in both 52
directions
 continued

Under sluice

• Head of water above sill ,h=1.5m

• Width of leaf ,B=1.1m
• Height of leaf gate ,H=1.05m
• Steel strength=13500N/mm^2
• The thickness of leaf/plate

• The thickness , 0.489291154 cm there for

adopt=6mm thick sheet metal. 53
 Operation slab &
U/S retaining wall
breast wall
• Both are reinforced • U/S HFL=1370.895m
with C-20 of 20cm – 1364.895=6m but
thickness when we go to the u/s
side of head work
level of RBL increase
0.50

& wall height

decrease.
• Free board =0.2m
• Maximum height of
H

Ps1 Ps2 W1

W2

wall=6m
W3
0. 49

0. 10

54
1.20

2.10
C-20 cyclopian
concrete

0.80
 D/S retaining wall(masonry)

• D/S HFL=2369.895m - river bed level 2364.895=5m

• Free board =0.2m
• Total height of wall=5m(masonry wall) but as per the nature
of the topography there may happen the fluctuation of wall
height.

55
 Stability analysis
 U/s Retaining wall

Moment about
HEIGHT Forces(KN)     Lever arm toe(KN.m)  
Horizont
5.0 Vertical   al (m.) Stabilizing Disturbing
WIDTH            
2.90            
             
self weight(W1) 55     0.25 13.75  
self weight(W2) 132     1.30 171.6  
lateral earth pressure(Pa)     79.28 1.67 0.0 132.13
earth load on wall (Ps) 114     2.10 239.4  
Total 301   79.28   424.8 132.13

Factor of safety against,

Over turning = (M+ve/M-ve)
>1.5       Fo 3.21 >1.5 safe
Sliding = (µxFv/Fh),---µ=0.75
>1.5       Fs 2.85 >1.5 safe

Tension: X= (Net Moment/Sum

Fv), e=x-B/2, e<B/6       X 0.97    
B/ 56
    6= 0.48 e 0.48 <B/6 safe
  D/s Retaining Wall
Moment about
HEIGHT Forces(KN)     Lever arm toe(KN.m)  
Horizont Disturbin
5.0 Vertical   al (m.) Stabilizing g
WIDTH            
2.90            
             
self weight(W1) 55     0.25 13.75  
self weight(W2) 132     1.30 171.6  
lateral earth pressure(Pa)     79.28 1.67 0.0 132.13
earth load on wall (Ps) 114     2.10 239.4  
Total 301   79.28   424.8 132.13

Factor of safety against,

Over turning = (M+ve/M-ve)
>1.5       Fo 3.21 >1.5 safe
Sliding = (µxFv/Fh),---µ=0.75
>1.5       Fs 2.85 >1.5 safe

Tension: X= (Net Moment/Sum

Fv), e=x-B/2, e<B/6       X 0.97    
57
B/
    6= 0.48 e 0.48 <B/6 safe
 Capital cost (head work structure & camp)

SUMMARY OF BILLS
Bill
No. Description Unit Qty Unit price Total Amount
1 LS 1.00
General Items 4,680,294.25 4,680,294.25
10,613,171.6
2 LS 1.00
Head work 7 10,613,171.67

Total 15,293,465.92

VAT(15%) 2,294,019.89

Grand Total with VAT 17,587,485.81

58
 Conclusion

The project Jeldeti small scale irrigation project is feasible

from the following point of view.
 Technical feasibility
 Economical feasibility
 Environmental feasibility

59
 Recommendation

1. For better performance and long service year of the

project regular inspection and maintenance is highly
required.

2. Farmers training, how to operate and maintain the

project structures as a whole and available and water
resources has a paramount important.

3. Close supervision of the construction should be made

to modify (if need) each Components of irrigation
60

system based on specific site conditions.

Thank You !!

61