CARRIAGE DIRECTORXE

COMPUTER WING

COVERING LETTER
SUBJECT: SCANNING/DIGITISATION/INDEXING OF OFFICIALDOCUMENTS OF DIFFERENT DIRECTORATES
OF RDSO

d F
THE HANDING OVER RDSO OFFIC!AL
NAIVIE,SIGNATURE AND DESIGNATIONOF

\ 1

I -- --. etc.
- --
1 FIELDS FOR INDEXING
L. P

! 9

I 1 1-7.1SUB-SUBJECT
(
i
1
L
i_.- -
1 VOLUME I- I
From \ TO (

I.
NAME, SIGNATURE AND DESlGNATlONOF

' I
[
I
THE RDSO OFFICAL RECEIVING BACK THE
DOCUMENT AFTER SCANNING
I (No o f papers to be checked by 1
I
I ii department
(Guality o f documents to be checked by
and certified)
j I
---
-(CATEGORYOF DOCUMENTS
A] COMPUTER GENERATED GOOD
QUALITY
B) COMPUTER GENERATED (DOT
MATRIX)
C) TYPE WRITTEN
.. D) HAND WRITTEN
--
 . GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
. MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
RESEARCH DESIGNS AND STANDARDS ORGANISATION .
LUCKNOW

RAINFALL R U N ~ F S
FT ~ D Y
FOR UPPER
WARDHP. AND WAIN GANGA BASINS
IN HYDROLOGICAL SUB-ZONE 3 (f)

BRIDGES AND FLOODS REPORT No.'RBF-I

C

JUNE I967
*
.*

(For official use only)

 This report is based on a study conducted by the Research Directorate of
RDSO. Every care has been taken in analysing objectively the data which were
collected by the Bridges & Floods Cell of Central and South Eastern Railways.
The views expressed in this report are subject to modification from time to
time in the light of fresh data. Further, they do not necessarily represent
the views of the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), Government of India.
This report is the property of the RDSO and is meant essentially for official
use. It may not be loaned, reproduced in part or in full, or quoted as an autho-
rity without the permission of Director General, RDSO.

N. N. Setty T. R. Vachha
Joint Director Research ( B @ FF) Director Research
 RAINFALL-RUNOFF S'TUDY F O R UPPER WARDHA & WAIN GANGA
BASINS I N H Y D R O L O G I C A L SUB-ZONE 3 ( f )
1. Introduction: This report on rainfall-runoff study reflects the work
done by the Bridges and Floods Wing of the R D S O for establishing a rainfall-
runoff relation Tor small and medium sized catchments in the Upper Wardha
and Wain Ganga basins. These rivers are major tributaries of Godavari river
and the region under study is located in the Lower Godavari basin forming
hydrological sub-zone 3 ( f ) according to the demarcations done by the Planning
and Co-ordinating Committce consisting of the heads of the Bridges and Floods
Wing o f . thc R D S O and Flood Estimation Di;ectorate of Central Watcr
a n d Power Commission and representatives from Indian Meteorological Depart-
ment and Ministry of Transport (.Roads Wing).
Though empirical forrnulae are commonly uscd for estimating design
discharge for bridges and drainage works with varying degree of success, the
rational formula for small catchments and the unit hydrograph for small and
medium sized catchments have been recognised . -
to provide more accurate
methods for design discharge estimation. I hc rational formula has been i n use
for quite some time but the unit hydrograph method has not so far been exten-
sively applieci to bridge design because of non-availability of hydrological data
in the country required for synthesising of unit hydrograph for gauged and
ungauged catchments. Both these methods require an initial selections o f a design
storm and estimating the resulting runoff' under design conditions.
For establishing rainfall-runoff relationship, the following approaches are
generally followed :
(a) Runoff expressed as a percentage or part of rainfall,
(b) Runoff expressed as a residual of rainfall arter deducting losses due to
infiltration, evaporation, retention etc.
(c) Runoff expressed as function of rainfall and mean annual temperature
etc.
This report deals with the first approach, the others rnay form part of
future studics. Figures in brackets give values, in metric units.
2. Review of previous investigations: W. L. Strange (1904) has give11
for rough approximations a table of percentage runoff for three different
conditions of catchment. An extract from the table is g i ~ below
e :
- --

Daily rainfall
II Percentage runoff when original state of ground was
- -- - --

11
\
Dry Damp \,vet
-
% Rumff
--
!
1 % 1 -. ~

RunolT
-
%
' --
RunoK
-~ ~.

1.00"( 25.4) 3 .0.03"(0.8) II 0.1 1 "( 2.8) 18 0.18 "( 4.6)

2.00"( 50.8) 10 0.20"( 5.1) 22 0.44"(11.2) 34 0.68"(17.3)

T. G. Barlow has given the following table for heavy falls. T h e results
are based on data of a number of catchments below 50 sq miles in UP.
 Type of catchment is defined as

20% 35% 40% 55% 70%

A = Flat cultivated absorbent soils.
-- B = Flat cultivatcd stiff soils.
C = Average catchment.
t D = Hills and plains.

E = Very hilly, steep rocky with little or

no cultiva t'lon.
Heavy fall has been defined as one producing 3" (76.2) in a day, conti-
nuous falls of 2" (50.8) a day or rainfall intensity of 2" (50.8) lhr or more.
B. D. Richards has suggested the following values for runoff coefficients :

Type of catchment Large I Small and steep

Rock!' and impermeable 0.80

S l i ~ h t l ypermeable, bare 0.60
S l i ~ h t l ypermeable, partly cultivated or covered with vegetation 0.40
C~lltivatedaborl~entsoil 0.30
Sandy ahsorbent soil 0.20
Heavy. forrtrt 0.10

Rainfall-runoA' studies carried out by Central Railway (1 963) of 10 typical

Central India's catchments in black cotton soil showed a runoff coefficient varying
with storm rainfall to a maximum of 69%, the 69% value occurring at rainfalls
over 5.5" (140). For a Western Ghat catchment with forest cover, the maximum
runoff was 53%.
3. Runoff and factors affecting runoff: Net surface runoff, termed as
runoff in this report, is that part of the rainfall that appears a t the point of
interest after the losses, primarily due to retention, infiltration, evaporation and
transpiration have been met with. Factors affecting runoff from a catchment
are numerous but the important ones are listed below :
( a ) Drainage basin factors :
(i) Size, shape, slope and orientation of basin.
(ii) Location with respect to storm path.
(iii) Nature of soil, condition of vegetation, moisture content of soil,
infiltration characteristics.
(iv) Extent of surface storage in lakes and swamps.
(v) Condition, slopes, capacity and configuration of main stream and
its tributaries.
(vi) Elevation and topography of the catchment.
(1)) Storm factors : v

(i) Intensity, duration and sequence of rainfall.

(ii) Distribution over the catchment area during successive time inter-
vals.
(iii) Direction of prevailing winds and temperature.
 Some of these factors can be expressed by definite parameters but the
effect of most of them is difficult to evaluate. Many of these are also interdepen-
dent. Development of relations, if they exist, between thc large numbcr of
factors, and the resulting runoff requires laborious work. I t may also be equally
difficult to compute the values of thc factors for ungauged areas, thus drastically
reducing the practical application a n d utility of such a relation, if obtained.
A common and practical method of obtaining a useful correlation is therefore
to divide the arca into zones and sub-zones with more or lcss similar hydrologi-
cal and meteorological characteristics, so that most of the factors have the same
overall effect on runoff.
For determination of discharge for bridge designs, only thc maximum
values of runoff are required to be known which arc due to the worst combination
of all factors. Enveloping curves showing maximum runoff are therefore most
useful, for all practical purposes. T h e relationship can also be expressed by
means of curves showing storm rainfall and percentage runoff commonly called
runoff-coefficient.
4. Present study and data used : T h e Bridges and Floods Wing has been
arranging collection of hydrological data for the last several years in connection
with the implementation of Short Term and Long Term Plans recommcnded
by the Khosla Committee of Engineers. Discharge measurements a t frequent
intervals and continuous observations arc being made a t a number of representa-
tive bridges i n each of 7 zones and 23 sub-zones of similar hydro-meteorological
characteristics into which the country has bcen divided. Rainfall and discharge
data collected between 1960 and 1964 a t 14 bridges in Upper Wardha and
Wain Ganga basins in subzone 3(f), 10 lying on SE Railway and 4 on Central
Railway, have been analysed to draw rainfall-runoff curves and to determine
runoff coefficients for this rtgion. All these catchments are plain with mild
slopes and cultivated black cotton soil except a t ridges where low hills generally
exist. T h e annual average rainfall of this area is about 40 inchcs (102 cm).
I
T h e discharges of these gauging sites were mostly obtained from surface
float velocity observations. Current meters had also been used a t some of the
sitcs. Rainfall in the catchment was measured by a number of ordinary rain
gauges installed in each catchment temporarily by the railways during thc
monsoon, most of the yearly rainfall being confined to this period. The list of
the catchments studied along with their details of catchment area, duration of
gauging data utilised, numbzr of rain gauges in catchment etc is given in
Table I and their locations are shown in Fig. 1.
5. Method of analysis: Storms which had produced a t least 10% runoff
were only selected for study. Average rainfall over the catchment, callcd storm
rainfall, was worked out for each storm producing a well-defined flood. Since thcre
were a sufficient number of raingauges in each catchment, the Theissen polygon
method was used for obtaining average storm rainfall over the catchment.
Though hourly rainfall data were available, only the total rainfall for each
storm was utilised for the study.
From the available stage and discharge data, a s t a g e discharge curve was
drawn for each flood and this curve was used in conjunction with hourly stagc
records to obtain a n hourly discharge record for each flood. Values of net
surface runoff were computed after deducting baseflow by the straight. line base
flow seperation mcthocl. From the net hourly discharges the surface runoff in
inchcs was dcterrnined. For small catchments half hour observations were
utilised to determine runoff.
' 122 storms werc aualysed in this way. Details of storm rain fall, duration of
rainfall, corresponding runoff and the runoff-rainfall ratio for all thcsc storms
 Fix. I . M a p siroxin; localion o f calch:ne l f s .

'I-
Fit. 2. Rainfall-runqfl'curutsf0r Upper Wardha # Illlain Gnnpa b a s h in sub-zonc 3(f )
 . Table . I
Rainfall-runoff study in sub-zone 3 ( f )
I . . I
i
I
I
SI. i Railway Mile or Br. No. i Section C; A. in sq miles Years r l a t ; ~ NO. or
No. ,'

I i utilised rain gauges

, -
Central Railway M. 394!7-8 Bhusaval-Nagp~lr
I
&,I. 491/12-13 Bhusaval-Nagpur
$ 1 366p Itani-Nagpur

? > M. 604121 Itani-Nagpur

SE Railway Br. No. 149 Nainpur-Cbhindwara

,, 20 Barkhui-Chhindwara

,, 308 Raipur-Dongargar11

,, 75 'Tumsar-Tirodi

,, 57 Raipur-Nagpur
Tumsar-Tirodi
Tumsar-Tirodi
Nainpur-Chhindwara
Barkhui-Chhindwara
Barkhui-Chhindivara
 are given as Annexure I. The data were utilised for plotting the following two
types of curves :
(i) Storm rainfall vs. Storm runoff (Fig. 2).
(ii) Storm rainfall vs. runoff coefficient (Fig. 3).
For rainfall runoff relation, it was considered desirable to draw maximum
and minimum lines between which the runoff can be expected. Two sets of
curves havc been drawn ; one for the early months of monsoon i.e. June and
July when ground saturation conditions are not favourable for high runoff and
another for the late months of monsoon i.c. August and September when ground
saturation is conductive to produce high runoffs. The latter curve is likely to be
applicable to October rainfalls also, though no data were available for late rains.
6. Results o f analysis and conclusions : From a study of the two curves,
the following conclusions can be made :
(i) Upto a storm rainfall of about 1" (25.4), the runoff coefficient rises from
0 to about 65%. From 1" (25.4) to 3" (76.2), the runoff coefficient varies
from 65% to 74'j/,. For greater falls upto 7" (177.8) the coefficient increases
slightly to an average value of 76%.
(ii) The runoff cocfficicnt curves for different catchments indicate that though
they vary in their rise, some rising slowly, others rapidly, but all reach more
or less the same maxima.
(iii) Runoff coefficient curves for smaller catchments generally rise rapidly
indicating that smaller catchments can produce maximum runoff
even for small rainfalls. This can be expected since a number of light showers
and thunder storms etc. (which would not havc covered a big catchment)
are capable of maintaining maximum runoff producing conditions in stnall
catchments.
(iv) Heaviest runoffs occur in the latter part of monsoon in the months of
August and Septembcr when catchments are saturated.
(v) Maximum runoff coefficient to be expected in this area is 76%.
7. Method of using these curves : The designer should first select the appro-
priate rainfall-runoff curvc depending on the purpose of the structure. For
estimation of maximum dischargcs, use of maximum value is recommended.
For less important works, an average value may be adopted while for storage
projects thc minimum value will be adopted.
T o obtain net effective rainfall for a design storm the total rainfall of the
storm should then be computed and the correspondins runoff runoff-coefficient
read off from the selected curves for direct use in rational formula. I f values of
incremental runoff are requircd for use with a unit hydrograph, these can be
obtained by multiplying the incremental storm rainfalls by the runoff coefficient.
Incremental values of effective rainfall (runoff) can also be obtained by a
method which combines runoff coefficient and infiltration approach. Having
determined the total losses (rainfall-runoff) an approximate value of average infil-
tration index can be obtained by dividing total loss minus any initial loss (assumed
equal to 2 to 3 times the infiltration index) by the duration of storm during which
rainfall rate is greater than the infiltration index. Using this value of infiltration
index, runoff is worked out and compared with that originally obtained from
curves. If necessary, the value of infiltration index may then be adjusted suit-
ably to produce a runoff equal to the calculated runoff. Having determined an
average infiltration index, incremental runoff (effective rainfall) figures can then
be easily obtained on the basis that eRcctive rainfall is approximately equal to
rainfall minus the infiltration index.
 The study is based on the data collected during the last 4 years (1961 to
'

1964) and may be subject to minor revisions as and when more data are available,
specially of storms producing rainfalls greater than 8" (200).
8. Summary: Analysis of data of 122 floods and storms has shown that
a maximum runoff coefficient of 76% can be expected in Upper Wardha and
Wain Ganga basins in hydrological sub-zone 3 (f). The runoff coefficient varies
with rainfall, but for falls above 4" (101.6) it is more or less a constant. Rainfall
runoff and rainfall runoff-coeffieient curves have been evolved for this sub-zone to
define the rainfall runoff relation. Storm runoff or runoff coefficient for a design
storm can be obtained with the help of these curves for use in rational formula
or unit hydrograph methods of determining design discharges. Incremental
runoffs required in unit hydrograph studies can also be determined with the help
of these curves either on a percentage loss basis or on an infiltration-index
approach.
Bibliography
1. B. D. Richards : Flood ~ s t i m a t i o nand Control ; Chapman and Hall Ltd,
London, 1955.
2. Linsley, Kohler and Paulhus, Applied Hydrology ; McGraw Hill Book
Co, New York.
3. Report of Committee of Engineers headed by Dr. A. N. Khosla.
4. A. S. Bhatnagar: Rainfall-Runoff Studies for Central India Catchments-
Indian Railway Technical Bulletin, August 1965.
 ANNEXURE I
Rainfall runoff study for Upper Wardha and Wain Ganga
catchments in sub-zone 3(f)
Data of storms used in the study

SI. No. Date of . Peak Duration Rainfall Runoff Runoff

Br. Flood flood discharge or rain- in in coeffi-
cusec fall hr inches inches cient or
% runoff
.
-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Bridge at M. 39417-8 Bhusaval-Nagpur section (catchment area : 134.7 sq miles)

1 25.7.61 14000 3 2.10 0.96 46 %
2 9.9.61 6000 30 2.33 , 0.94 41 %
3 15.9.61 5000 24 2.34 0.57 24 %

2. Bridge at M. 491112-13 Bbusaval-Nagpur section (catchment area : 16.7 sq miles)

19 14/16.9.61 1530 40 4.57 1.74 38 %
20 1/3.9.61 1600 48 4.99 I .55 32 %
21 23125.8.61 4080 40 6.58 4.02 . 61%
22 31.7.61 3060 , 6.5 1.06 0.66 62.5%
23 30.7.61 1160 9 i.14 0.30 26.5 %
24 15/16.7.62 ,. 1130 20 1.66 0.41 25 %
25 . 8.8.62 ,1280 . 8. 1.87 0.61 33 %
26 415.9.62 1460 5 1.88 , 0.65 35 %
27 15!16.9.62 960 3 0.67 0.19 29 %.
 ANNEXURE I (Contd)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
3. Bridg; at M. 56612 Itarsi-Nagpur section (catchment area : 53.0 sq miles)-

42 19120.9.64 14490 6 4.72 1.18 25 %

4. Bridge at M. 604121-22 Itarsi-Nagpur section (catchment area : 139.8 sq miles)
43 5.8.61 5800 34 2.93 1.40 48 X
44 21.8.61 12000 12 2.13 0.86 40 %
45 24.8.61 35000 42 8.03 5.34 66.5%

5. Bridge No. 149 Nainpur-chhindwara section (catchment area :5.7 sq miles)

65 30.7.61 1330 1 1.21 0.54 45.5%
66 5.8.61 1790 12 2.35 1.34 58.5"/,
ti7 15.8.62 2100 9 3.03 0.85 28 %
fi8 19.9.62 1750 5 1.02 0.52 51 %
69 3/4.8.63 3450 19 3.79 1.68 44 %
1 70 4.8.63 960 3 0.82 0.42 51 %
71 26.6.64 2810 2 I .77 1-10 62 %

10
 A N N E X U R E . I (Contd)

6. Bridge No. 20 Barkhui-Chhindwara section (catchment area :22.5 sq miles)

74 1.8.61 1870 2 1.03 0.74 72 %
75 4.9.61 2180 6 2.15 0.99 46 %
76 12.9.62 I550 34 1.17 0.45 38 %
77 28.7.63 2100 61 3.86 0.68 18%

7. Bridge No. 308 Raipur-Dongargarh section (catchment area : 6.8 sq miles)

81 1.9.61 290 I3 1.26 0.44 35 %
- d 82 1/2.9.61 360 9 1.09 0.40 36.8%

8. Bridge No. 75 Tumsar-Tirodi section (catchment area : 9.3 sq miles)

91 1.8.61 3400 10 2.45 1.16 54.5%
92 17.8.61 2390 54 1.42 0.59 41.5%
93 3.9.61 1120 8 0.91 0.55 60 %
94 18.8.61 420 3 0.55 0.12 21.6%
95 18.8.61 1820 - 3 0.72 0.49 69%

9. Bridge No. 57 Raipur-Nagpur section (catchment area : 62.8 sq miles)

102 617.7.63 3700 15 3.29 0.86 26 %
103 .29/31.7.63 1900 19 2.16 0.52 25%
104 416.8.63 5600 25 3.22 1.55 48 %
105 7/9.8.63 7500 3 3.19 2.36 74 %
106 16f19.8.63 9250 23 5.85 4.46 76 %
 ANNEXURE I (Contd)

10. Bridge No. 59 Tumsar-Tirodi section (catchmert area t 25.3 sq miles)

107 28129.8.62 980 3 0.50 0.22 40%
108 213.9.62 1560 9 2.02 0.75 37 %

11. Bridge No, 29 Tumrar-Tirodi section (catchment area : 4.7 s q miles)

I 16 29130.7.63 1200 1 0.82 0.52 60 "/,

12. Bridge No. 46 Nainpur-Chhindwara section (catchment area : 3.0 sq miles)

118 22.8.63 680 2 I .32 0.73 55 %
13. Bridge No. 38 Barkhul-Chhindwara section (catchment area 2.8 sq miles)
119 24.7.64 1820 2 2.56 1.13 44 %
120 11/12.8.64 5200 10 19.60 6.59 34 %
14. Bridge No. 48A Barkhui-Chhindwnra section (catchment area : 0.14 sq miles)
121 4.8.63 204 5 3.81 2.58 ' 68%
122 13/14.9.63 235 10 6.69 4.85 73 %
 This report is based on studies carried out by A. S. Bhatnagar, Dcputy
Director (B & F) and his staff.
 -
Printed at Prcm Printing pies$, 257 Golaganj, Lucknow. ~ h & No. 23785.
:. *