BIT FCWRE 2007

BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

School of Civil and Water Resources Engineering

DEPARTMENT OF HYDRAULIC AND WATER

RESOURCES ENGINEERING PROGRAM

AGZI-3 DIVERSION WEIR SMALL SCALE

IRRIGATION PROJECT

Project Submitted In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement

for the Award of Degree of Bachelor of Science in Hydraulic
and Water Resource Engineering

Advisor: Endalkachew

Bahir Dar Institute of Technology August 27, 2015

BIT FCWRE 2007

DECLARATION
Approval of the adviser Mr. Endalkachew

I approve that this project has been done by the students whose name is mentioned below and all
of the sources and materials used for the report have been acknowledged.

Student’s name ID.NO. Signature

1. Barako Boneya 339/03 ……………

2. Bartema Tibebu 340/03 …………….
3. Bikis Tigabu 442/03 …………….
4. Biniam Fasil 446/03 …………….
5. Edomias Lishan ……………

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page ii

BIT FCWRE 2007

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to express our gratitude to all those who help us for the success and
accomplishment of the final project, whose support was either direct or indirect during our
project progress. Especially we are deeply indebted to express our thanks to our advisor
Endalkachew, who gave us comments and suggestion how to proceed the project.

We would to like thank our parents for their tremendous contributions and support both morally
and financially towards the completion of this project.

Finally, Our thanks and appreciations go to our friends in developing the project and people who
have willingly helped us with their abilities and valuable discussions during the progress work of
the Project.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page iii
BIT FCWRE 2007

Acronym and Abbreviation

AMC=Anticipated moisture condition CN=curve number
C= Creep coefficient Cd= coefficient of discharge
D = Duration T =Return Period
D/S = Downstream Tb =Time of base
D/S Bed level= Down stream bed level Tbeg=Beginning time of hydrograph
D/S HFL= Downstream high flood level Tc =Time of concentration
D/S LSL=Downstream lowest score level TEL=Total energy level
D/S TEL =Downstream total energy level Tend= End time of hydrograph
Tp =Time of peak Tlag = Lag time
TWRC =Tail water rating curve U/S bed level=up stream bed level
U/S LSL=upstream lowest scour level U/S HFL= upstream high flood level
U/S TEL= Upstream total energy level SCS =soil conservation service
P = precipitation l/s/ha =Litter per second per ha
RCC = reinforced cement concrete Km/hr. =Kilometer per hour
Q = Discharge Hw = weir height
S = Standard deviation

I =intensity of rainfall

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page iv

BIT FCWRE 2007

Contents
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT .................................................................................................................................... iii
Acronym and Abbreviation .......................................................................................................................... iv
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Description of the Project Area..................................................................................................... 1
1.2.2. Accessibility ........................................................................................................................... 2
1.3. Objectives of the Study ................................................................................................................. 3
1.3.1. Major Objective .................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.2. Specific Objectives ................................................................................................................ 3
1.3.3. Scope of the Study ................................................................................................................ 4
1.4. Methodology................................................................................................................................. 5
2. HYDROLOGY .......................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1. . HYDROLOGY ANALYSES ............................................................................................................... 6
2.1.1. DATA AVAILABILITY ............................................................................................................... 6
2.1.2. Outlier test ............................................................................................................................ 6
2.1.3. Check for variance................................................................................................................. 8
2.1.4. D-Index test ........................................................................................................................... 8
2.1.5. Design Flood Analysis .......................................................................................................... 10
2.1.6. Design Storm Analysis ......................................................................................................... 10
2.2. Peak Discharge Determination ................................................................................................... 11
2.2.1. General ................................................................................................................................ 11
2.2.2. Time of concentration (Tc) .................................................................................................. 11
2.2.3. Run off synthesis ................................................................................................................. 12
2.2.4. Peak flood analysis by SCS unit hydrograph method.......................................................... 13
2.3. Tail water depth computation .................................................................................................... 16
3. HEADWORK ......................................................................................................................................... 20
3.1. Headwork Site Selection ............................................................................................................. 20
3.2. River Geomorphology ................................................................................................................. 20
3.2.1. River Bed condition ............................................................................................................. 21
3.2.2. River Bank condition ........................................................................................................... 21

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page v

BIT FCWRE 2007

3.2.3. Sources of construction materials ...................................................................................... 22

3.2.4. Rock for Masonry and Crushed Coarse Aggregate ............................................................. 22
3.2.5. Fine Aggregates ................................................................................................................... 22
3.2.6. Water .................................................................................................................................. 23
3.3. Headwork Type Selection ........................................................................................................... 23
3.3.1. Hydraulic Design of Headwork Structure............................................................................ 23
3.3.2. Hydraulics of the weir ......................................................................................................... 25
3.4. Afflux ........................................................................................................................................... 27
3.5. Water Surface Profile of the Weir............................................................................................... 27
3.5.1. U/S Water Surface Profile ................................................................................................... 27
3.5.2. D/S Water Surface Profile ................................................................................................... 28
3.6. Stilling Basin Selection ................................................................................................................ 30
3.6.1. Stilling Basin type selection................................................................................................. 30
3.6.2. Comparison between Tail water and Hydraulic Jump Curve .............................................. 31
3.7. Type of flow ................................................................................................................................ 33
3.8. Stability Analysis of the Weir ...................................................................................................... 33
3.8.1. Forces Acting on the Weir: .................................................................................................. 33
3.9. Design of Divide wall, Under Sluice, and Canal outlet ................................................................ 38
3.9.1. Wall height fixation of Divide Wall ..................................................................................... 38
3.9.2. Under sluice ........................................................................................................................ 40
3.10. Retaining Walls ....................................................................................................................... 42
3.10.1. U/S and D/S Retaining wall ................................................................................................ 44
4. IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS DESIGN .................................................................................. 48
4.1. General........................................................................................................................................ 48
4.2. Irrigation Water Requirement .................................................................................................... 48
4.2.1. Crop Water Requirement (CWR) ........................................................................................ 48
4.2.2. Irrigation efficiency (Ep) ...................................................................................................... 49
4.2.3. Irrigation methods .............................................................................................................. 49
4.2.4. Conveyance System ............................................................................................................ 50
4.3. Design parameter of the Canal System....................................................................................... 50
4.3.1. Irrigation duty ..................................................................................................................... 50
4.3.2. Time factor .......................................................................................................................... 51

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page vi

BIT FCWRE 2007

4.3.3. Slope.................................................................................................................................... 51
4.3.4. Side slope for unlined canal ................................................................................................ 52
4.3.5. Longitudinal slope ............................................................................................................... 53
4.3.6. Permissible velocity............................................................................................................. 53
4.3.7. Roughness Coefficient (n) ................................................................................................... 54
4.3.8. Design discharge ................................................................................................................. 54
4.4. Main canal design ....................................................................................................................... 55
6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................ 58
7 The following recommendations are drown: ..................................................................................... 59
8 REFERENCE .......................................................................................................................................... 60
9. APENDIX .............................................................................................................................................. 61
9.1 Annex 1: Percent Rainfall Profile Chart for 24 hr Storm ................................................................. 61
9.2 Annex 2: Creep coefficient for different soil type....................................................................... 61
9.3 Annex 3: For outlier test Kn values ............................................................................................. 62
9.4 Annex 4: KT VALUES for Pearson Type III distribution (positive skew) ....................................... 63

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page vii
BIT FCWRE 2007

Table 1: Outlier test analysis ......................................................................................................................... 7

Table 2: Test for goodness to fit using D-index............................................................................................ 9
Table 3:- Determination of Time of Concentration .................................................................................... 12
Table 4:-Design rain fall arrangement ........................................................................................................ 13
Table 5: Runoff analysis ............................................................................................................................. 14
Table 6:- Computation of hydrograph for each increment of runoff ........................................................ 15
Table 7: - Hydrograph coordinates ............................................................................................................. 15
Table 8:- average river bed slope by best fitting method ............................................................................ 17
Table 9:- Stage discharge analysis .............................................................................................................. 18
Table 10:- Weir parameter estimation ........................................................................................................ 23
Table 11:- computation of hydraulic jump ................................................................................................. 29
Table 12:- Computation of tail water and Hydraulic Jump......................................................................... 32
Table 13:- weir stability ............................................................................................................................ 36
Table 14:-Computation of forces per unit width and momentum ............................................................... 39
Table 15:- Determination height of the U/S and D/S retaining wall ........................................................ 43
Table 16:-U/s retaining wall height determination ..................................................................................... 44
Table 17:- U/S Side dimension ................................................................................................................... 44
Table 18:- Stability analysis..................................................................................................................... 45
Table 19:- Factor of safety against,........................................................................................................... 46
Table 20:- D/S Side dimension ................................................................................................................... 46
Table 21:- Stability analysis........................................................................................................................ 46
Table 22:- Factor of safety against, ............................................................................................................ 47
Table 23:- Side Slope for Various Soils..................................................................................................... 52
Table 24:- Longitudinal Slopes of Canals................................................................................................... 53
Table 25:- Permissible velocities (unlined canal) ...................................................................................... 53
Table 26:- Permissible velocity (lined canal) ............................................................................................ 54
Table 27:- Roughness coefficients ............................................................................................................. 54
Table 28:-: Hydraulic Parameters of main canal Reach 1........................................................................... 56
Table 29:- Hydraulic Parameters of main canal Reach-2 ........................................................................ 57
Table 30:- Bill No. 1- Headwork Structure.............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 31:- Bill No. 2- Irrigation Infrastructure .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 1 :-Location map of the project area .................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2:- complex hydrograph .................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 3:- river profile ................................................................................................................................ 18
Figure 4:- stage discharge curve based on elevation ................................................................................... 19
Figure 5:-Hydraulic Jump ........................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 6:- Tail water and Hydraulic Jump Curve ....................................................................................... 32
Figure 7:- Stability of the weir on Static condition ..................................................................................... 36
Figure 8:- Stability of retaining wall crossection ....................................................................................... 45
Figure 9:- rectangular canal ................................................................................................................ 56

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page viii
BIT FCWRE 2007

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
In Ethiopia, under the prevalent rain-fed agricultural production system, the progressive
degradation of the natural resource base, especially in highly vulnerable areas of the highlands
coupled with climate variability have aggravated the incidence of poverty and food insecurity.
The major source of growth for Ethiopia is still conceived to be the agriculture sector. Hence,
this sector has to be insulated from drought shocks through enhanced utilization of the water
resource potential of the country, (through development of small-scale irrigation, water
harvesting, and on-farm diversification) coupled with strengthened linkages between agriculture
and industry (agro-industry), thereby creating a demand for agricultural output. In line with the
above, efforts have been made by the government to improve the situation in the country in areas
of domestic water supply provision, irrigation, watershed management, etc.

1.2. Description of the Project Area

1.2.1. Location
This irrigation project is located mainly at washa amba Kebele, Fagita lekoma Wereda of Awi
Zone in the Amhara Region. The proposed irrigation project is to be undertaken on AGZI River
and the headwork structures are specifically located at an altitude of about 2145 amsl and
geographical coordinates of 1229186N(UTM) and 0287232E (UTM).
BIT FCWRE 2007

Figure 1 :-Location map of the project area

1.2.2. Accessibility
The project area is accessed through Gravel Surfaced road 20Km from adis kidam to washa
amba Kebele, and the rest 9km is accessed road 6km and 3km on foot, along flat and gentle slope
ground surface to the site.

1.2.3. Previous Irrigation Practices

There are modern and traditional diversions on the downstream /upstream of this river using
different irrigation practices but as the hydrology and Hydrogeology study and respondent
farmers indicated, the river has capacity of recharging as it stretches down from the source area
of the river. As a result there will not be a marked reduction or fluctuation of water flows both
for the already existing and the newly proposed irrigation schemes. The traditional irrigation
FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 2
BIT FCWRE 2007

practices (if any) are under taken by individual farmers that use the river flow to the extreme left
side is with hardship. So, the farmers in the project area are very much interested to upgrading
the traditional scheme to modern scheme.

1.3. Objectives of the Study

1.3.1. Major Objective
The project area faces variability of rainfall distribution though the overall rainfall generally
suffices the rain-fed agriculture. Accordingly, the rain-fed agriculture needs means of
supplementing during distribution failures and further full irrigation is required to maximize the
use of the potential land and water resources.
Hence the objective of this project is to contribute a substantial share in the effort to reduce the
risk of production decrease due to rainfall variability and increase the productivity of the
resource in the project specific area. Specifically, the project is targeted for the following.

 To make sustainable the rain-fed crop production and make extra production in the dry
season possible for 50 ha of land through irrigation.
 There is a general consensus that irrigation investments will achieve broader food
security and poverty reduction impacts and if efforts are also geared towards up-grading
existing traditional farming practices with support to enhance access to input supply,
output marketing and extension to facilitate access to information and innovations.
 This objective is to be realized by constructing diversion structures across the AGZI

River and diverting the river flow.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

Other benefits that can be expected to appear with the launching of the project are:
 Efficiency of water use improvement;
 Improved local nutrition/food security gains;
 Improved management of scarce natural resources (land and water);
 Resilience against drought risk;
 Rationale for erosion control and watershed management;

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 3

BIT FCWRE 2007

 Rationale for the intensification and modernization of small-holder agriculture and rural
lifestyles.
The engineering study and design enables the realization of the project by the provision of
engineering structures that will allow the appropriate abstraction of the river water for delivery in
to the identified irrigation fields of the study area. Hence, this engineering design is specifically
targeted to:
 Analyze hydrologic requirements of the project and engineering structures;
 The formulation of sound and stable structure, with necessary provisions that allow safe,
easy and low-maintenance operation in the service life of the project;
 Develop working drawings;
 Estimation of construction costs.

1.3.3. Scope of the Study

 The irrigation design shall ensure reliability, equity and flexibility of water delivery to
farmers. It will aim at reducing conflicts among water users and will lead to lower operation
and maintenance costs.
 Updating the existing, if available, computation of the actual evapo-transpiration, crop water
requirement, irrigation demand/duty using the existing and recent agronomic, climatologic
and soil data using more appropriate methodologies.
 Establish design criteria for irrigations structures to be approved by the client and to be used
in the final design stage,
 Design proper irrigation system compatible with local conditions and management
capabilities,
 Establish flood protection measures for the command area and canal structures and design
the respective drainage system accordingly,
 Planning and layout of the irrigation system, which include irrigation canals, drainage
channels, inspection roads and alignments, canal spacing, canal length, location of structures,
and water profiles along canal and drains at specified reaches, which is most economical
easily manageable and aligned with topographic feature and geological investigation.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 4

BIT FCWRE 2007

 Determination and estimation of water application conveyance and other losses and irrigation
efficiencies and consideration of those parameters in design steps.
 Check and test hydraulic and structural designs of main canal considering total demand and
the required capacity and the base flow availability,
 Prepare general plans and drawings for all irrigation infrastructure and irrigation systems
designs,

1.4. Methodology
In the designing of this final year project on diversion weir we will use the following procedures:
 Gathering rainfall data from our project advisor that he got from responsible body and
making its analysis. such as:
 Hydrological analysis
 Consistency test
 Computation of flood discharge.
 Estimation of peak discharge from the given rainfall data
 Tail water depth computation
 Selection of site and weir type
 Designing of the selected head work structures
 Weir designing
 Design of divide wall, under sluice, head regulator and stilling basin
 Design retaining wall with its stability analysis
 Description of the Study Area
 Compiling of report and preparation of document.
 Computing the specification & bill of quantity for head work structures

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 5

BIT FCWRE 2007

2. HYDROLOGY
2.1. . HYDROLOGY ANALYSES
2.1.1. DATA AVAILABILITY
Small scale irrigation project designers and planners are faced with lack of good data on the
hydrology of the stream/river system that will be their water source and on local weather and
climate conditions. Stream gauging stations are virtually non-existent in remote rural areas of
Ethiopia; meteorological stations are almost rare. Likewise, at washa amba Kebele (Project area
location) and in the catchment area of this project, there is no meteorological station of any level.
Moreover, there are no flow data for the river near the project. Therefore, data for the hydro-
meteorological analysis is taken from the nearby station and similar areas. Rainfall &
temperature data are considered from Injibara Meteorological station. In fact, this station is very
close to the project area.
As per the data of the station, March – April are identified as high temperature periods whereas
December–January are low temperature periods. The mean annual rainfall amount is more than
1200mm (1991 - 2010 data) and most of it occurs from June to August.

2.1.2. Outlier test

Outliers are data points that depart from the trend of the remaining data. The detention or
retention of these outliers can significantly affect the magnitude. This is done to check whether
the adopted data is within the limited range or not.
According to the water resources council (1981), if the station skew is greater than +0.4, tests for
high outliers are consider first: if the station skew is less than –o.4, tests for low outliers are
consider first. Where the station skew is between ±0.4, test for both high and low outlier should
be applied before eliminate any outlier from the data set. (Applied hydrology, ven te chew, page
404).

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 6

BIT FCWRE 2007

Table 1: Outlier test analysis

Descending Logarithmic
Year Max. RF Order(X) Rank Value/Z/
1991 68.6 99.4 1 1.9974
1992 79.6 90.4 2 1.9562
1993 67.2 89.2 3 1.9504
1994 89.2 87 4 1.9395
1995 55.3 79.6 5 1.9009
1996 51.6 79.4 6 1.8998
1997 87 73.6 7 1.8669
1998 53.6 72.1 8 1.8579
1999 68.73 70.3 9 1.8470
2001 90.4 68.73 10 1.8371
2002 64.1 68.6 11 1.8363
2003 51.4 67.2 12 1.8274
2004 73.6 64.1 13 1.8069
2005 58.4 59.5 14 1.7745
2006 70.3 58.4 15 1.7664
2007 72.1 55.3 16 1.7427
2008 79.4 53.6 17 1.7292
2009 99.4 51.6 18 1.7126
2010 59.5 51.4 19 1.7110
SUM 1339.43 34.9601
MEAN 70.50 1.8400
STANDARD DEVATION 14.13 0.0864
SKEWNESS COEFICIENT 0.421 0.1008

Higher Limit, =101.64mm>99.4mm safe, Kn = 2.361, for 19 Years of

data.
Lower Limit, =43.26mm<51.4mmsafe, Kn = 2.361, for 19Years of data.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 7

BIT FCWRE 2007

2.1.3. Check for variance

After checking the outliers, the data should be checked for variability. For variability the formula
used is

( )
√

Where, δn-1 = Standard deviation =14.13

N = Nr of recorded data =19

Mean = 70.50

= Standard error

( ) Acceptable

Relative standard error which is calculated above is less than 10%. Hence, the data series could
be regarded as reliable and adequate.

2.1.4. D-Index test

After checking the consistency of the data for higher and lower outlier, the 19 years data is
obtained as representative for the analysis using D-index. The D-Index test is believed to be the
better goodness to fitness in many literatures. Hence in this study it was used to determine the
best statistical distribution to estimate the peak rainfall. The D-index for the comparison of the fit
of various distributions is summarized as follows.

Where Xi and Xi‟ are the ith highest observed and computed values for the distribution
respectively.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 8

BIT FCWRE 2007

Table 2: Test for goodness to fit using D-index

Rank XI Normal Log Log Normal Pearson Gumbel Gumbel

Pearson Type III EVI
Type III
XI -'XI' XI -'XI' XI -'XI' XI -'XI' XI -'XI' XI -'XI'
1 99.40 0.003 3.344 3.431 5.321 2.546 5.996
2 90.40 4.700 1.095 1.125 1.672 1.475 17.173
3 89.20 3.120 4.173 4.177 4.052 5.048 19.990
4 87.00 3.195 5.224 5.211 4.681 6.340 23.570
5 79.60 8.840 0.511 0.488 0.306 1.738 32.224
6 79.40 7.524 2.646 2.616 1.652 3.906 33.609
Sum 27.382 16.993 17.048 17.683 21.054 132.562
Sum/Mean 0.388 0.241 0.242 0.251 0.299 1.880
Point Rainfall 105.22 105.22 104.10 100.27 107.12 115.30
Design Point 115.30
Rainfall =

All the candidate distributions give almost identical correlation coefficients. However, the
standard errors are significantly lower for the Log Pearson Type III Method which is 0.241. but,
the design rain for this distribution has been selected as the Gumbel method. Because it gives
high values which make safe design.
The design rainfall using Gumbel Method is given as
R f  Rmean .   n1 * K

Where Rf = Design rainfall

Rmean = average of all values of annual heaviest fall = 70.50 mm
σn-1 = standard deviation of the series =14.13 mm

T
Yt   ln ln( ) , T= Return period = 50 years
T 1

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 9

BIT FCWRE 2007

50
Yt   ln ln( )  3.9
50  1
Yn, Sn = constant found from Gumbel‟s extreme value distribution table for N= 19 Years
 Yn = 0.52 and Sn = 1.07
3.9  0.52
K  ( )  3.17
1.07
R f  70.5  14.13 * 3.17  115.30mm

 Point Design Rainfall = 115.30 mm

 The design rainfall at points for 50 years return period is 115.30 mm and the areal design
rainfall is calculated in the following section.

2.1.5. Design Flood Analysis

The river at the proposed diversion point has 40.47 km2 of watershed size and the design peak
flood is analyzed by using SCS-CN/Complex Unit Hydrograph Methods.

Maximum probable flood is a hypothetical flood at a selected location, whose magnitude is such
that there is no chance to exceed. It is estimated by combining the most hydrological and
meteorological conditions considered reasonably possible at the particular location under
consideration.

As we have described earlier 19 years daily heaviest Rainfall data obtained from the nearby
station to injibara Meteorological station is used for determination of maximum probable flood.
Based on the available data, the following methods are used to estimate the design

2.1.6. Design Storm Analysis

From the observed data point rain fall was calculated using different statistical distributions. As
we seen from the above calculation Gumbel (Extreme value Type I) distribution has higher rain
fall depth value of 115.30mm is selected for our analysis to minimize the risk. So, the point
design rain fall is 115.30mm.

The point rain fall is reduced by Area Reduction Factor (ARF).

Areal Design rain fall, P=ARF*point rain fall

Areal reduction factor (ARF) = 1-0.044A^0.275

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 10

BIT FCWRE 2007

= 1-0.044*(40.47)^0.275

= 0.878

Areal design rain fall,p=ARF*Point rain fall

=0.878*115.3

=101.3mm

2.2. Peak Discharge Determination

2.2.1. General
The River is not gauged river. The design flood is calculated by using SCS unit hydrograph
method. Thus, it is preferred to base the flood analysis on rainfall data, which are better both in
quantity and quality of data. In the hydrologic analysis for drainage structures, it must be
recognized that there are many variable factors that affect floods. Some of the factors that need
be recognized and considered on an individual site by site basis are; rainfall amount and storm
distribution; catchment area, shape and orientation; ground cover; type of soil; slopes of terrain
and stream(S); antecedent moisture condition; Storage potential (over bank, ponds, wetlands,
reservoirs, channel, etc.).
Peak flood analysis by SCS unit hydrograph method Design flood is calculated SCS (The United
States Soil Conservation Service). This method is widely adopted and more reliable method for
flood estimation. The approach considers, watershed parameters, like Area, Curve number, and
time of concentration.

2.2.2. Time of concentration (Tc)

Time of concentration has been calculated by taking the stream profile of the longest streamline
and dividing it in to different elevation. Kirpich formula is adopted for computation.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 11

BIT FCWRE 2007

Table 3:- Determination of Time of Concentration

elevation
length Tc=0.948*(L^3/H)
Class min Max differences
km ^0.385 hr
meter

1 16.489 2477 2772 295 2.702628

2 3.213 2359 2477 118 0.581588
3 0.258 2300 2359 59 0.041253
4 0.147 2241 2300 59 0.021542
20.107 3.3

So, the time required from the most remote point to the outlet is 3.3 hours. This time is the Time
of Concentration (Tc).

∑ {( ) ( ) ( ) }

Tc = 3.3hr, Since Tc > 3hr, duration of excess rainfall difference, D = 1hr.

2.2.3. Run off synthesis

The runoff is determined from the catchment input data and design rainfall. To conclude the
runoff, the rainfall profile is used to determine the actual areal rainfall depth for each time
interval. Rainfall profile percent in 24 hrs is taken from the graph. Arial to point rainfall ratio for
the given catchments area is taken from table for the area and each duration of hours. The
incremental rainfall depth is determined by subtracting the required time interval. Rainfall depth
from the proceeding time interval depth. These incremental are tabulated 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in
descending orders and arranged as 6, 4, 3, 1, 2, and 5. Based on the rearranged on the rearranged
order incremental rainfall was calculated. The rearranged incremental rainfall depth is show in
the table below.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 12

BIT FCWRE 2007

Table 4:-Design rain fall arrangement

Tim Desig Rainf Rainf Area to Area Increme Desce Asce Rearr Rearrange
e(hr) n all all point rain ntal nding nding anged d
point Profil Profil rain fall fall, Rainfall order Order order Rainfall(m
Rainf e (%) e ratio % (mm) (mm) m)
all (mm) Increment Accu
(mm) al mulat
ive
0-1 115.3 45 51.89 73.67 38.22 38.22 38.22 1 6 4.80 4.80
1-2 115.3 57 65.72 79.52 52.26 14.04 14.04 2 4 7.41 12.22
2-3 115.3 66 76.10 83.14 63.27 11.01 11.01 3 3 11.01 23.22
3-4 115.3 72 83.02 85.14 70.68 7.41 7.41 4 1 38.22 61.45
4-5 115.3 76 87.63 86.14 75.49 4.80 4.11 5 2 14.04 75.49
5-6 115.3 79 91.09 87.38 79.59 4.11 4.80 6 5 4.11 79.59

2.2.4. Peak flood analysis by SCS unit hydrograph method

2.2.4.1. Curve number (CN)
Curve number (CN) is achieved based on USSCS method by watershed characterization in terms
of land cover, treatment, hydrologic condition and soil group. From the watershed analysis curve
number at condition II =82. Since peak rainfall is found at an antecedent moisture condition III
state, this value has to be changed to antecedent moisture condition III.

 Conversion factor = 1.126

 CN Condition (III) = (Factor from Table x CN condition II) =82*1.126 = 92.33.

2.2.4.2. Run off Analysis

Input data:
 Design Point Rainfall = 101.3mm
 Curve number at antecedent moisture condition III = 92.33
 Catchment Area, A = 40.47 Km2
 Tc = 3.3hr, D = 1hr., Tp = 2.48 hr; Tb = 6.62 hr; Tr,=4.14 hr.
 Direct run-off,

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 13

BIT FCWRE 2007

Where, I = Rearranged cumulative run-off depth (mm

 S = Maximum run off potential difference,

( )

 Peak run-off for incremental;

Where, A = Catchment area = 40.47 Km2

Tp = Time to peak (hr)
Q = Incremental run-off (mm)
Table 5: Runoff analysis

Qp for
Incremental
incremental
runoff Incremental Hydrograph
runoff
Time
(mm) (m3/s)
Begin peak end
1 2
time time(Tp) time(Tb)
0-1 0.02 0.000 0 2.48 6.62
1.0-2.0 2.18 7.475 1 3.48 7.62
2.0-3.0 6.81 23.327 2 4.48 8.62
3.0-4.0 32.81 112.426 3 5.48 9.62
4.0-5.0 13.17 45.147 4 6.48 10.62
5.0-6.0 3.90 13.378 5 7.48 11.62

 The peak runoff rate derived from triangular hydrograph is expressed as,

qp:

Where, q p: - Peak runoff rate (m3/s/mm)

A: - watershed area (km2) =300km2
Q: - runoff volume (mm) = area under the hydrograph
T P: - time of peak (hrs) = 5.36hr
 Taking a unit runoff volume to compute a peak runoff rate:-

q p:=0.21* =3.43m3/s/mm

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 14

BIT FCWRE 2007

Table 6:- Computation of hydrograph for each increment of runoff

Qp for
Incremental
incremental
runoff Incremental Hydrograph
runoff
Time
(mm) (m3/s)
end
1 2 Begin time peak time(Tp)
time(Tb)
0-1 0.02 0.000 0 2.48 6.62 H1
1.0-2.0 2.18 7.475 1 3.48 7.62 H2
2.0-3.0 6.81 23.327 2 4.48 8.62 H3
3.0-4.0 32.81 112.426 3 5.48 9.62 H4
4.0-5.0 13.17 45.147 4 6.48 10.62 H5
5.0-6.0 3.90 13.378 5 7.48 11.62 H6

Hydrograph computation is the next step to compute the peak discharge. Its computation is done
by triangular hydrograph considering two slopes are opposite and join at a coordinate of peak
time and peak discharge.
Table 7: - Hydrograph coordinates
Time H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 SUM Remark
0.00 0.00 0
1.00 0.00 0.00 0
2.00 0.00 3.01 0.00 3
2.48 0.00 4.46 4.51 9
3.00 0.00 6.03 9.41 0.00 15
3.48 0.00 7.48 13.92 21.76 43
4.00 0.00 6.54 18.81 45.33 0.00 71
4.48 0.00 5.67 23.33 67.09 8.74 105
5.00 0.00 4.73 20.40 90.67 18.20 0.00 134
5.48 0.00 3.87 17.69 112.43 26.94 2.59 164 Peak discharge
6.48 0.00 2.06 12.06 85.28 45.15 7.98 153
6.62 0.00 1.81 11.27 81.48 43.62 8.74 147

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 15

BIT FCWRE 2007
7.48 0.26 6.43 58.13 34.25 13.38 112
7.62 0.00 5.64 54.33 32.72 12.93 106
8.62 0.00 27.19 21.82 9.70 59
9.62 0.00 10.92 6.47 17
10.62 0.00 3.24 3
11.62 0.00 0

The peak discharge is determined as the maximum of horizontal sum of each incremental runoff
hydrograph which is equals to 164 m3/s

180.00

160.00

140.00
Series1
120.00 Series2
Series3
100.00
Series4
80.00 Series5
Discharge (m^3/s)

Series6
60.00
Series7
40.00 Series8
Series9
20.00

0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
-20.00 Time (hr)

Figure 2:- complex hydrograph

 From the analysis, the 50 year return period design run off is 164 m 3/s.

2.3. Tail water depth computation

Tail water depth of the river is equal to the flood depth and amount at the anticipated weir site
before construction of the weir. It is used to crosscheck peak flood estimated by the SCS unit
hydrograph method with flood mark method and to see the flood feature after the hydraulic jump

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 16

BIT FCWRE 2007

The distance of the river cross-section is determined by the given data, which is east and north
coordinates. Distance of river cross-section is the sum of the square of differences in northing
and easting, then square root them. The cumulative of this distance is river cross section distance.

Table 8:- average river bed slope by best fitting method

Sr.no Par. Dis Cum. Dis. Northing Easting Elevation slope

1 0 0 1229138.39 287186.909 2177.124 0
2 9.75 9.75 1229145.3 287193.792 2177.024 0.0102531
3 6.48 16.23 1229149.3 287198.889 2176.907 0.0180579
4 12.59 28.82 1229156.09 287209.487 2176.622 0.0226432
5 12.67 41.49 1229162.54 287220.391 2176.531 0.007183
6 11.39 52.88 1229166.14 287231.197 2176.428 0.0090431
7 7.75 60.63 1229167.78 287238.774 2176.411 0.0021929
8 11.49 72.12 1229172.45 287249.277 2176.006 0.0352345
9 7.48 79.61 1229177.59 287254.713 2175.714 0.0390307
0.0159598

The water level of the river is taken at different points along the river channel around the head
work site. Surveying work done for 79.6m length. And then, average water surface slope is
considered as the river bed slope.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 17

BIT FCWRE 2007

River profile
2177.4
2177.2
2177
River profile
2176.8
Elevation

2176.6
2176.4
2176.2 y = -0.0159x + 2177.2
2176 R² = 0.9422
2175.8 Linear (River profile)
2175.6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Chainage

Figure 3:- river profile

Using concatenate in excel the profile of the river is drawn in AutoCAD. The coordinate is
cumulative distance verses elevation. The area and perimeter of the profile at selected elevation
is taken from AutoCAD and corresponding velocity and discharge is computed as the table
below:-

Table 9:- Stage discharge analysis

Sr.No Elevation H A P R V Q
1 2175.57 0 0 0 0 0 0.000
2 2176.1 0.5 2.055 6.7617 0.30392 1.5818 3.251
3 2176.6 1 6.5619 14.3295 0.45793 2.0789 13.642
4 2177.1 1.5 12.6972 13.7991 0.92015 3.3104 42.033
5 2177.6 2 19.8581 16.0968 1.23367 4.0251 79.931
6 2178.1 2.5 28.0446 18.3945 1.52462 4.6354 129.997
7 2178.6 3 37.2568 20.6922 1.80052 5.179 192.952

The maximum flood calculated is164m3/s. By interpolation, the elevation of the maximum
probable flood becomes 2178.34masl. That means, that HFL before construction is 2178.34masl.
Again by interpolation, the corresponding velocity is 4.929m/s and its velocity head is 2.77m.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 18

BIT FCWRE 2007

So, D/S TEL=2178.34+2.77=2181.11masl. So, the height of D/S guide bank can be fixed at
2181.11masl.
Finally, stage discharge curve is drawn, which is elevation in a vertical axis and discharge in a
horizontal axis.

Stage discharge curve

4
y = 0.014x + 0.5741
3 R² = 0.9008
Elevation

2
Stage discharge curve
1 Linear (Stage discharge curve)
0
0.000 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000
discharge

Figure 4:- stage discharge curve based on elevation

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 19

BIT FCWRE 2007

SECTION-II: HEAD WORK DESIGN

3. HEADWORK
3.1. Headwork Site Selection
The site selection for the diversion headwork is based on Engineering principles (hydraulics,
structure etc) and other socio-economic bases, which prove the design to be preceded. From
hydrology report, the maximum probable flood occur in 50 years is 164m3/s. As the head work
topographic map shows, the average river width (i.e. the perpendicular distance measured
between the left and the right banks of the river) at the selected weir axis cross-section is about
23m.
The location of the weir and the actual site is selected with the following considerations.
i) A narrow well defined channel with banks is the best.
ii) The canal alignment should enable suitable command without excessive digging.
iii) Availability of materials of construction like sand and gravel.
iv) Accessibility of the site by rail and road.
v) Arrangement of diversion of the river during construction

3.2. River Geomorphology

The present morphology of the Agzi River channel is a function of a number of processes and
environmental conditions, including the composition of the bed (boulder deposit and massive
rock) and the both banks (old alluvial sediment of low to medium plastic clay, boulder underlain
massive basalt rock) and the area has been affected by different surface processes of weathering,
and sediment transportation that superficial soil are developed and cover all areas of the site with
variable depth. These superficial soil materials observed at the site is low plastic residual clay
soil units over lay on the boulder despite and slightly fractured basalt respectively. These are:-

a. Low Plastic Clay, residual soil

b. boulder deposits
c. massive basalt

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 20

BIT FCWRE 2007

3.2.1. River Bed condition

At the proposed headwork site the stream bed or course is well defined by upstream and
downstream and center exposures, nearly straight, and shows rough surface due to undulating
appearance of bedrock outcrops and boulder deposit. Along the diversion axis on two side of the
river, the bed is made up of two basically different geologic materials, as seen from surface
observation. These are recently deposited boulder, and underling bedrock.

3.2.2. River Bank condition

3.2.2.1. Right Bank
From surface observation, the bank is made up of one basic geological unit. The unit is low
plastic clay reddish brown color. For geotechnical purpose, there are three distinct layers
observed at the bank. These are top low plastic clay with an average thickens of 2.0m, boulder
deposit with an average thickens of 50cm and underlain massive basalt rock as seen from the
immediate vicinity of upstream and downstream exposure. These three units have variable
thickness/depth at the area. Just at the diversion axis, the top clay soil has about 2.0m, whereas
the underlying boulder 50cm thickens overlay on the massive bed rock observed at the bank foot
and stream bed at the weir axis and few 2.km in downstream. Further to the upstream, this two
unit horizons (top low plastic clay and lower boulder deposit and massive basalt) are found up to
kms. These overburden soil materials have been affected by erosion/ flood under cutting which is
widening the bank by forming nearly vertical slope. Such vertical slope configuration observed
at upstream and downstream bank part forms instability or collapse. Here, it is important to
design the bank slope to stable configuration, just by providing retaining wall.

3.2.2.2. Left Bank

From surface observation, the bank is made up of one basic geological unit. The unit is low
plastic clay reddish brown color. For geotechnical purpose, there are three distinct layers
observed at the bank. These are top low plastic clay with an average thickens of 2.4m, boulder
deposit with an average thickens of 0.7cm and underlain massive basalt rock as seen from the
immediate vicinity of upstream and downstream exposure. These three units have variable
thickness/depth at the area. Just at the diversion axis, the top clay soil has about 2.4m, whereas
the underlying boulder 70cm thickens overlay on the massive bed rock observed at the bank foot
and stream bed at the weir axis and few kms in downstream. Further to the upstream, this two

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 21

BIT FCWRE 2007

unit horizons (top low plastic clay and lower boulder deposit and massive basalt) are found up to
kms. These overburden soil materials have been affected by erosion/ flood under cutting which is
widening the bank by forming nearly vertical slope. Such vertical slope configuration observed
at upstream and downstream bank part forms instability or collapse. Here, it is important to
design the bank slope to stable configuration, just by providing retaining wall.

3.2.3. Sources of construction materials

During site investigation, natural construction materials required for the construction of the
various proposed engineering structures at the headwork and within the farmland have been
assessed, and possible quarry sites and borrow areas have been identified within the vicinity of
the study area as close to the project site as possible. The materials needed for the construction of
the structures include rock for masonry stones, aggregates (both coarse and fine), and water.

3.2.4. Rock for Masonry and Crushed Coarse Aggregate

During site investigation rocks required for masonry works were identified along the left side at
a distance of 300 m from the headwork at site. It is found in the form of field boulder and instu
quarry site by hillside exposure with slight degree of weathering. The rock quarry has affected by
geological structure, which is joint with joint spacing of 0.4 m and joint aperture of (3-5) mm
surface.

3.2.5. Fine Aggregates

Borrow areas for fine aggregate or natural sand have been assessed starting from the project
stream itself. But Natural deposits of such materials couldn‟t be found when assessed within the
beds of the stream in the project area; rather very coarser sediments and rock exposures are
found covering almost the entire bed of the Agzi river stream. Seeing to this nature of the stream,
other distant streams have been explored to identify the best source areas for fine aggregate or
natural sand that can be used for many projects that constructed in Awi zone and this particular
project. During exploration of this natural sand, at a distant one stream was identified as a
possible source of fine sand. The stream is known as „derk wonze‟. It is located at about 61km
from the woreda town which is enjibara town and from project site 97.4km.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 22

BIT FCWRE 2007

3.2.6. Water
Water for construction purposes can be found from the project stream, Agzi, itself. The stream is
perennial throughout the year that there is some amount of flow along its course. During this
field time the stream flow was more than 140l/second.

3.3. Headwork Type Selection

During selection of headwork structure have to consider the availability of natural construction
materials and considering the river features, nature of foundation and the river bed material as
well as weir height and expected maximum probable flood amount, broad crest type of weir is
chosen. As it is:
 Simple for construction
 There is no significant bed load (minimum boulder effect) in the river.

3.3.1. Hydraulic Design of Headwork Structure

a. Weir Height Determination
The following major factors have been seen in determining the weir crest level:
 Maximum command area elevation
 Water depth required
 Main canal slope
 Loss
 Lowest Point of river center
Table 10:- Weir parameter estimation
Description Result
River bed level 2175.57
Maximum command area elevation 2177.00
Distance from the weir 50.00
Required discharge for irrigation 140l/second.
Canal slope 0.001
head loss on field 0.00
Head loss on turnout 0.05
Head loss in the head regulator 0.06
Water depth 0.50

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 23

BIT FCWRE 2007
Free board 0.10
Loss in Canal 0.05
Weir type Broad crest

Total loss=head loss across head regulator + loss in the canal + head loss at the turn out + head
loss at the field = 0.06+0.05+0.05+0.00= 0.16m

Weir crust level= 2177.00+0.50+0.10+0.16= 2177.76 m.a.s.l

Weir height=Weir crest level – river bed level

= 2177.76 - 2175.57

= 2.19m

b. Weir crest length

Length of the weir depends on the stability of the riverbanks near the weir site and taking into
Account the area of submergence on upstream side of the weir axis.

Lacey‟s regime width, L =4.75√ , 4.75 √ =60.8m.

But, the actual width of the river cross section along the weir axis is 23m. So, the actual length is
Used for design of the structure.

c. Top and bottom width

According to the Beligh‟s formula, top and bottom width of the weir body is determined as
follows
Input Data:
P: Height of weir (m) = 2.2
He: specific energy head (over flow depth + approaching velocity head (m))
 : Specific weight of weir body (2.3 for cyclopean concrete)
He
Top width, B  1.81m
 1

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 24

BIT FCWRE 2007

He  P
Bottom width, B'   3.73m
 1

Provide 1m and 3m top and bottom width respectively, which will be tested for adequacy during
stability analysis.

d. U/S and D/S HFL Calculation & Determination

From the stage –discharge curve prepared the high flood level before construction (i.e. D/s HFL)
corresponding to the design flood is 2178.340amsl.

D/s HFL = 2178.340m amsl ------------------------------------- (a)

U/s HFL = U/s bed level + weir height + Hd -------- (b)

3.3.2. Hydraulics of the weir

The computation of the head over flow above the weir would be calculated by discharge over
broad crest spillway equation:-

Q=Cd*Le*He3/2

The shape of crest profile depends upon or affected by the shape of the weir; because of the
coefficient of discharge, Cd varies with the type of weir and shape. Since the type of weir
selected for AGZI-3 project is broad crest and the coefficient of discharge Cd was assumed to be
1.7.

The usual broad crest weir formula is used for the evaluation of the discharge that could pass
over 100% of the weir and it is expressed by the above formula. Hd is the depth of water over the
weir crest. This is calculated by assuming broad crested weir formula.

Where Qd= design discharge = 164m3/s

Cd= coefficient of discharge= 1.7

Le= crest length

He= head over the weir including velocity head

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 25

BIT FCWRE 2007

( ) = 2.6 take as 2.6m

Design head over the weir, Hd is the difference between head over the weir and approach
velocity head. To calculate the velocity head, the approach velocity is computed by the formula
found below and the result is calculated by trial and error.

The velocity head, ha is computed from the approach velocity as shown below

2
va
ha 
2g

Where g is acceleration due to gravity = 9.81m/sec2

Va is Approach velocity determined by

Q
Va 
Lxh d

L is Weir crest length = 23 m,

hd is flow depth over the weir and also, hd  H e  ha

2 2
 Q   164 
   
 L * hd   ( 23) * hd   2.59
ha  H e  hd   2
(2 g ) ( 2 * 9.81) hd

By trial and error method, hd is found to be 2.48 m

ha = He-hd = 2.6m-2.48m = 0.12m

Velocity head, ha = 0.12m

U/s TEL= 2.2+ 2.6+2175.57 = 2180.36amsl.

U/s HFL =U/s TEL –velocity head = 2180.36 m a.m.s.l – 0.12m = 2180.240m a.m.s.l

D/s velocity head =1.24m

D/S TEL = D/S HFL+ velocity head = 2178.34a.m.s.l+1.24 =2179.58a.m.s.l

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 26

BIT FCWRE 2007

3.4. Afflux
Afflux is the rise in maximum flood level of the river upstream of the weir after construction of
the structure. The amount of afflux will determine the top level of the guide bank and merge
bank. The limit of the afflux to a safe value of 1.0 to 1.2 meters, however, in steep reaches with
rocky bed; a higher value of afflux may be permitted.

Afflux = U/S HFL- D/S HFL

U/S HFL=2180.36

D/S HFL=2178.34

⇒ Afflux = U/s HFL- D/s HFL = 2180.24 a.m.s.l – 2178.340 a.m.s.l = 1.90m.

From the flood level analysis, it is seen that the flood overtops the banks of the river u/s of the
structure. The calculated afflux, 1.90 is greater than the allowable afflux 1, but the river banks
are low Plastic Clay soil. In addition to this, protection walls are provided. Therefore, the
calculated afflux could be adopted.

3.5. Water Surface Profile of the Weir

The water profile of the weir at the upstream and downstream should be determined that, it will
be used in design and fixing of the structure of the weir

3.5.1. U/S Water Surface Profile

The level of the back water curve needed to be determined the safe level of the embankment and
super structure so as to know the length of the wing wall and to know whether the embankment.

Needs some treatment measures to protect the overtopping of the water over the river bank due
to the construction of the weir. Therefore it is important to know where the effects of the back
water curve will case.

Approximate method:-

Y=((XS-2 0)2)/4 0

Where:- Y= water rise at a distance x u/s of the weir above the

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 27

BIT FCWRE 2007

normal water depth

X= distance from weir axis to the point where Y is required

to be determined

S= slope of the river bed (from tail water depth analysis)

= rise water above the normal water depth at the weir site
(x=0)

First let‟s determine the end point where Y = 0

Y=((xs-2 0)2)/4 0

0=((xs-2 0)2)/4 1

((xs-2 0)=0

0=(Hw+Hd)-TWD = 1.9

X = 253.3m

So that the effect of construction of the weir on the water profile during peak flood at around
253.3m back from the axis. But the topography of u/s of the river both right and left side almost
slant (sloppy) and the back water have not effect.

3.5.2. D/S Water Surface Profile

The water profile required to:-

 Carry out the stability analysis of the weir and

 Design the weir structurally
 Hydraulic Jump Calculation

Hydraulic jump is a jump of water that takes place when a super critical flow changes into a sub
critical flow. It is formed on a place when large velocity and lower depth flow contact with lower
velocity and higher depth flow. This phenomenon is called hydraulic jump. The computation of
hydraulic jump is done in momentum equation.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 28

BIT FCWRE 2007

Table 11:- computation of hydraulic jump

Weir crest length 23m

Weir height ,(z) 2.2m
Pre-jump depth Y1
Pre-jump depth Y2

As discussed in the geologic report, the river bed is boulder deposit and slightly massive basalt
rock and hence stilling basin for energy dissipation is not required. But 3m apron proved in D/S,
b/c river bed material 0.2-0.3m boulder and underlain basalt rock. Both left and right side banks
are low Plastic Clay soil, a wing walls are required at u/s and D/s sides, so as to protect the
scouring of the bank due to the wing walls, and not to flow the river out of river bank in high
flood cases.

The length of wing walls is determined based on the length of Jump, and it is calculated as
shown below.

Figure 5:-Hydraulic Jump

Neglecting the loss between upstream of the weir and at the toe of the weir considering the same
datum point, energy equation should be applied. Therefore, the energy in both locations became
equal. E0=E1

z + He = y1 + V 12/2g where v1=q/y1

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 29

BIT FCWRE 2007
2
z + He = y1+ ,

2.2m + 2.6m=y1+0.363/y12

4.8 = y1+0.363/y12

The value of initial depth, y1 from the above equation is computed by trial and error. The value
of y1 =0.81m. The corresponding velocity is calculated by:-

After iterations Y1 = 0.81m

V1=q/y1=7.13/0.81=8.8m/s

And, the Froude number, Fr1 given as

√ √

The corresponding sequent depth, y2 is computed by the equation

(√ ) (√ )

Hydraulic jump length (L) for Fr=3.12 from the graph L=5*y2=5*3.2=17m or L=5(y2-y1) =12m
adopt 10m, b/c boulder and Rock River bed.

3.6. Stilling Basin Selection

Conjugate depths of the flow computed using stage by stage procedure up to the design
discharge like the tail water depth computation. After estimating the post jump depth of the flow
for the whole discharge, the tail water and post jump depth comparison curve is developed on a
same graph. According to the relative levels of the two curves, appropriate energy dissipater
(stilling basin) is recommended. For more description of the concept, some page are scanned and
pasted from (Arora, 2002).

3.6.1. Stilling Basin type selection

I. Basins for Froude numbers less than 1.7:- no special stilling basin is needed

II. Basins for Froude numbers between 1.7and 2.5:- pre-jump stage, Basins for Froude numbers
between 2.5and 4.5(type I) transition flow stage

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 30

BIT FCWRE 2007

III. Basins for Froude numbers greater than 4.5 and velocity less than 15m/s (type II) provide
basin with chute blocks, baffle blocks and end sills.

IV. Basins for Froude numbers greater than 4.5 and velocity greater than 15m/s (type III) in this
case baffle block is not provided.

Therefore, in our case the Froude value between 2.5and 4.5(type I) transition flow stage.

Oscillating Jump (Fr=2.5 to 4.5):‐ there is oscillating jet entering the jump bottom to surface and
back again without any periodicity. The energy dissipation is between 20 to 40%.

3.6.2. Comparison between Tail water and Hydraulic Jump Curve

Tail Water Rating Curve (TWRC):- It gives the relation b/n the tail water depth (y2‟) (the actual
water depth in the river on the d/s) as ordinate and Q as abscissa. The location of the hydraulic
jump will depend upon the relative magnitudes of y2 and y2‟, and hence the jump height curve
(JHC) and tail water rating curve (TWRC). There are five cases depending up on the position of
JHC and TWRC.

Case 1: JHC and TWRC coincide throughout

Case 2: TWRC always lower than JHC

Case 3: TWRC always higher than JHC

Case 4: TWRC lower than JHC at low discharges, but higher at high discharges

Case‐5: TWRC higher than JHC at low discharges, but lower at high discharge

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 31

BIT FCWRE 2007

Table 12:- Computation of tail water and Hydraulic Jump

water Eo =
depth Q q=Q/L Hw He Z+He Y1 eqn eqn-1 Fr1 Y2
0 0 0 2.19 0 2.19 2.18 2.18 0.01 0 0
0.5 3.251 0.14 2.19 0.190 2.38 0.06 0.343 2.038 3.070 0.232
1 13.642 0.59 2.19 0.496 2.69 0.08 2.882 0.196 8.369 0.908
1.5 42.033 1.83 2.19 1.049 3.24 0.24 3.195 0.044 4.963 1.569
2 79.931 3.48 2.19 1.611 3.80 0.44 3.620 0.181 3.802 2.156
2.5 129.997 5.65 1.24 2.228 3.47 0.66 4.398 0.932 3.366 2.829
3 192.952 8.39 2.19 2.899 5.09 0.93 5.077 0.011 2.986 3.490

comparison of jump curve and tail water curve

4

3.5

3
water depth,m

2.5

2
jump height curve
1.5
Tail water curve
1

0.5

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
discharge,m3/s

Figure 6:- Tail water and Hydraulic Jump Curve

In our design computation, case 5 appeared. That means the TWRC higher than JHC at low
discharges, but lowers at high discharge. It is the combination of cases 3 and 2 how ever in this
case, at low discharge, the jump is drowned, whereas at high discharges, it is formed further D/S
of toe. Measures Adopted for Dissipation of Energy

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 32

BIT FCWRE 2007

The horizontal apron may be depressed by excavating the river bed downstream of the toe of the
spillway to increase the tail water depth. The depth of depression may be equal to the difference
b/n the tail water depth and post jump depth.

Sloping apron is constructed above the river bed level extending from the spillway surface to the
toe. The sloping apron raises the level of the point where the hydraulic jump is formed. The river
be may be excavated to provide a drop in the river bed to lower the tail water depth.

3.7. Type of flow

Check whether the flow is free(modular) or submerged (non -modular). For the to be modular i.e
not affected by submergence the ratio H2/H1 ,where H1 and H2 are the upstream and
downstream heads above the weir crest is less than 0.75 (BSI,1969 ;Bos 1976)

H1=Hd+Hv = 2.6

H2=Y2- Hw = 1.01

So, H2/H1 = 0.19

Since H2/H1 = 0.19 i.e. less than 0.75 the flow is free (modular)

3.8. Stability Analysis of the Weir

3.8.1. Forces Acting on the Weir:
The followings are the major forces considered in the design of the weir overflow section by
which the stability analysis was based.

 Self-weight of the structure

 External water pressure (hydrostatic and uplift pressure)
 Silt pressure
 Structural damage due to seismicity is considered to be negligible. In the computation
process of the stability analysis for the structure earth quake force is therefore assumed to
be negligible.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 33

BIT FCWRE 2007

The stability analysis was done for the worst and static (normal) case for expected sever different
load combinations. The safety of the weir against sliding, overturning, compressive, tensile and
shear stress is calculated as follows:

 Overturning: Fo = Sum of stabilizing moments/sum of overturning moments

Fo >=1.5

 Sliding: Fs = μ*(ΣV/ΣH); where μ = 0.65-0.7 Fs > =1.5

 Tension: if e <= B/6 no tension

In the computation process the structure considering monolithic section & a unit length of the
weir& earth quake force is assumed to be negligible

Note: sign convention

 Vertical forces downward is positive and upward is negative

 Horizontal forces towards upstream positive and towards downward negative.
 Moments clock wise moment negative and anticlockwise moment positive.

A) Self-weight of the structure

For the ease of calculating moment arm for each section of the curved profile of the weir, the
curved surface was assumed to be linear from the weir height to the toe. Therefore, the weir will
be divided in to two sections.

Weight (W) =γc*Ac

Where: γc= unit weight of cyclopean concrete=23KN/m3

Ac= area of the cyclopean concrete

B) External water pressure (Hydrostatic pressure (Ph))

These are the forces acting on the weir due to the reservoir created upstream of the overflow
section. This includes hydrostatic and uplift pressure.

Ph= ( )( )

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 34

BIT FCWRE 2007

Where: Pw= hydrostatic pressure

C) Silt pressure

The gradual accumulation of significant deposit of fine sediments especially silt, against the face
of the weir generates a result of horizontal pressure Ps on the upstream section of the weir. Its
magnitude is a function of the sediment depth at worst condition with a height equals to silt
height (hs) assume that silt will be deposit up to weir height.

The silt pressure is computed using the widely used Rankin‟s formula

The silt pressure, Ps= K* hS2* s, Where:-

h= the height of the silt to be deposited =weir height

s = the unit weight of the silt

Ф=angle of internal friction= 5

K=(1-sinФ)/ (1+sinФ))/ =0.406

Ps= 1.17334KN/m

D) Uplift pressure (U)

Equilibrium seepage patterns will develop under a weir section due to pores or discontinuous. It
is given by

U1 =Yw*h1*B

Where; B= bottom width of the weir

h1 and h2 is the water head in d/s and u/s respectively.

The stability analysis is done for expected sever different load combinations. This is the
condition when the weir body is subjected to design floodwater and pond levels with all intakes
and sluice gates are closed, tail water depth at the downstream level and silt pressure equivalent
to the silt height is acting on the upstream face of the overflow section.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 35

BIT FCWRE 2007

Figure 7:- Stability of the weir on Static condition

Table 13:- weir stability

Code Dimension Load Moment

Lever arm (about Positiv Negativ

Width Depth Vertical Horizontal the toe) e e

Pw 2.190 2.190 0.000 23.525 0.730 0.000 17.173

125.92
W1 1.000 2.190 50.370 0.000 2.500 5 0.000

W2 2.000 2.190 50.370 0.000 1.333 67.160 0.000

Ps 17.936 2.190 0.000 7.971 0.730 0.000 5.819

Pu 2.190 2.190 11.762 0.730 8.587

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 36

BIT FCWRE 2007

193.08
Sum 23.1261 8.76 112.502 31.496 5.293 5 31.579

∑V = 112.502 KN ∑M(+) = 193.085KN.m

∑H=31.496KN ∑M(-) = 31.579KN.m

i) Factor of safety against overturning (Fo)

Fo 
 ( M  )  193.085  6.11 >1.5 Safe!
 ( M ) 31.579
ii) Factor of safety against sliding (FS)

Fs 
V ,
H
112.502
Fs  * 0.7  2.50 >1.5 Safe!
31.496

iii) Check for tension (i.e. whether the resultant lies within the middle third)

The location of the resultant force from the toe is given by

X 
 M (  )   M ( )  193.085  31.579  1.44m
V 112.502

The eccentricity (e) = B/2-X, B = 3m

Hence, e = 3/2 -1.44 = 0.06

3
The eccentricity (e) should be less than B/6 =  0.5 , Hence the obtained e = 0.06m < 0.5m.
6

⇒The resultant lies within the middle third no tension

Conclusion: From stability analysis, the designed weir section is over safe. To be economical,
Provide 1m top width and 3m bottom width.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 37

BIT FCWRE 2007

3.9. Design of Divide wall, Under Sluice, and Canal outlet

The divide wall is provided between the sluice gate and the weir body and the main function is
to Separate the under sluice and the weir flow section and support operation slab

Divide wall is designed in order to create separation between outlet canal and natural river
course. The divide wall allows safe and stable base flow to the canal outlet. Flow turbidity
created by current flow impact over the weir body is reduced.

3.9.1. Wall height fixation of Divide Wall

The existing topographical condition at the weir axis and HFL are considered to be most
governing parameters for fixing the wall height.

After construction of the weir (u/s HFL) = 2180.240.a.m.s.l

Hence the level of divide wall and weir body foundation should be the same and is
2175.570ma.m.s.l.

U/s wall height = U/s HFL - foundation level + free board.

Adapt 0.3m free board

U/s wall height = 2180.240a.m.s.l– 2175.570m + 0.3m =4.97 m

 Provide 5 m wall height and the top level of the divide wall =2175.570+5m =2180.570a.m.s.l

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 38

BIT FCWRE 2007

Divide wall Stability Analysis

Table 14:-Computation of forces per unit width and momentum

Forces Momentum about pt A

Lever arm
Code Vertical Horizontal
(m) Mr(+) Mo(-)
(kN/m) (KN/m)

Pw1 0.000 108.351 1.567 169.751

W1 110.000 0.000 3.500 385.000 0.000

W2 220.000 0.000 2.667 586.667 0.000

Ps1 0.000 6.330 1.567 9.916

Sum 330.000 114.681 971.667 179.667

Considering the construction case, take the thickness of the divide wall = 1m

Factor of safety

$ Against sliding, Fs 
V =
H
Against sliding = 2.16>1.5 Ok!

$Against overturning =

Fo 
 ( M  )  971.667  5.41
 ( M ) 179.667
Against overturning = 5.41>1.5 Ok!

Tension development checking

Xavg 
 M ( )   M ( )  971.667  179.667  2.4m
V 330

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 39

BIT FCWRE 2007

Xavg = 2.40

e = eccentricity = B/2 - Xavg

e = 0.4

e < B/6 = 0.4 < 4/6 = 0.53 < 0.67

For more information, refer to the working drawing.

3.9.2. Under sluice

The roles of under sluice

 To enables the canal to flow silt free water from surface as much as possible
 To remove the silt that is deposited in front of the canal off take (regulator) by scouring
it.
 To preserve a clear and defined river channel approaching the regulator.

In addition to the supply of water to the intake and the removal of silt, this acts to remove the

Boulder that comes to wards it.

3.9.2.1. Design Of Under Sluice

Under sluice provided to control water during irrigation period and to rush out silt and water
during summer season. The sill level of this under sluice is fixed to be 0.7 m higher than the
minimum bed level.

Hence, the sill level of the under sluice=river bed level + 0.7 =2175.57 + 0 .7=2176.26

The design of under sluice is done to ensure a well defined river channel near to the out let, scour
away the silt deposited in front of the out let, to pass safely the base flow of the river during
construction & maintenance times and to pass small amount of the flood to the d/s direction.

3.9.2.2. Dimension determination

The sluice way gate should have a capacity of passing about five times dry weather base flow

That means Qs = 5*base flow

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 40

BIT FCWRE 2007

Qs = 5* 0.14 = 0.7 m^3/s

Assume the dimension of under sluice is 1m *1m with allowable thickness of 6mm and area of
the under sluice is, A= 1m^2.

The discharge that passes through under sluice for orifice flow is

Qs= Cd*A*(2*g*h) 0.5

Where;- C- Discharge coefficient (0.58-0.8) take Cd = 0.7

A-area of the under sluice

hL- head causing flow ;take 0.775m

Qd = 2.19 m3/s which is greater than the above assumed under sluice discharge, 0.70 m3/s
therefore , the assumed dimension can pass more than five times dry weather base flow softly

3.9.3. Design of canal head regulator gate

3.9.3.1. Outlet capacity

The minimum command area is determined by the minimum flow of the river. But the canal
capacity should be determined for maximum command area and the corresponding discharge. In
this case the outlet capacity is fixed considering maximum duty and command area and 1
correction factors are considered to account the variation of duty.

Base flow (l/s) =140

Outlet capacity = Duty x command area x correction factor

Where, maximum duty for 18 hr irrigation = 1.48 L/s/ha

Command area = 50ha.

Outlet capacity = 1.48 L/s/ha x 50ha = 74 L/sec, take 80 L/s.

Duty (m/s/ha =74

The sluice way gate should have a capacity of passing about one point five times base flow

Let Qs= 1.5*base flow =1.5*140 l/s /1000 = 0.21m3/s

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 41

BIT FCWRE 2007

For orifice flow, Qd=Cd*A√ ghL

Q = CLHe3/2

Where; C= coefficient of discharge = 1.7

L = Length of water way (m)

He = head above sill level (neglecting the velocity head) = 0.3m

Q 0.08
L 3/ 2
  0.3m
CHe 1.7 x0.33 / 2

Where:-

For the first iteration of the intake structure, the area of the sluice gate is taken to be 0.5m*0.5m

So using the above formula for Qd, by changing the values of depth and width, we can find the exact

amount of discharge that is expected to pass through the intake canal.

Width =0.4m Height =0.3m

The area of the sluice gate =0.12 m2

Using the above formula for Qd, the value of Cd=0.7,

Driving head =height/2 =0.15

Qd=Cd*A*(2ghL) ^0.5 = 0.144m3/s ……………ok

Since this value, 0.144m3/s is greater than the amount of discharge that want to pass through the
under sluice gate, 0.074m3/s. So, the under sluice gate dimension is enough to pass the
discharge.

3.10. Retaining Walls

The general consideration in design of retaining wall is that the masonry section of the retaining
wall must have enough self-weight to resist the thrust due to earth pressure and water pressure
for its rear without overturning, sliding, tension and compressive stress developed within the
body of the structure.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 42

BIT FCWRE 2007

The height of Maximum design flood and the flood jump height govern the height of the
retaining wall with some free board provided. Since for the case of this project the jump depth is
higher than the tail water depth the downstream retaining wall is based on the level of the jump
depth and free board (0.3m). However the upstream retaining wall design is based on the high
flood level on the upstream and free board. The length of U/S and D/S retaining wall is
determined with afflux and jump length.

Table 15:- Determination height of the U/S and D/S retaining wall

U/S HFL 2180.24

post jump level 2178.77

Free board 0.30

U/S River Bed level 2175.57

Weir Crest Level 2177.76

Jump Length 12.00

Height of U/S Wing Wall 4.97 5.0

Height of D/S Wing Wall 3.5 3.5

top level of the U/S wall 2180.57

top level of the D/S wall 2179.07

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 43

BIT FCWRE 2007

3.10.1. U/S and D/S Retaining wall

Table 16:-U/s retaining wall height determination

Description Result
U/S HFL 2180.24
U/S RBL 2175.57
Unit wt masonry 22.5
Unit wt saturated 19
Free board(assume) 0.3
Retaining wall height 5

Table 17:- U/S Side dimension

H FB HT B1 B2 B

4.70 0.30 5.00 0.6 3.1 3.7

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 44

BIT FCWRE 2007

Figure 8:- Stability of retaining wall crosection

Load Moment
Code Vertica Lever Arm, R
Horizontal Positive Negative
l
W1 67.5 0.3 20.3
W2 174.4 1.6 284.8
W Soil 147.3 2.7 392.7
Pw 108.4 1.7 180.6
P Soil 69.3 1.7 115.4
SUM 389.1 177.6 878.3 115.4
Table 18:- Stability analysis

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 45

BIT FCWRE 2007

Table 19:- Factor of safety against,

Over turning = (M+ ve/M -ve)

>1.5 Fo 7.61 >1.5 OK
Sliding = (µxFv/Fh),---µ=0.75
>1.5 Fs 1.64 >1.50 OK
Tension: X= (Net Moment/Sum
Fv), e=x-B/2, e<B/6 X 1.96

B/6= 0.62 e 0.11 <B/6 OK

Table 20:- D/S Side dimension

H FB HT B1 B2 B
3.2 0.30 3.5 0.6 1.8 2.4

Table 21:- Stability analysis

Load Moment
Vertica
Code l Horizontal Lever Arm, R Positive Negative
W1 47.3 0.3 14.2
W2 70.9 1.2 85.1
W Soil 59.9 1.8 107.7
Pw 50.2 1.2 58.6
P Soil 32.1 1.2 37.5
SUM 178.0 82.3 265.6 37.5

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 46

BIT FCWRE 2007

Table 22:- Factor of safety against,

Over turning = (M+ve/M-ve)

>1.5 Fo 7.09 >1.5 OK
Sliding = (µxFv/Fh),---µ=0.75
>1.5 Fs 1.62 >1.50 OK
Tension: X= (Net Moment/Sum
Fv), e=x-B/2, e<B/6 X 1.28
B/6= 0.40 e 0.08 <B/6 OK

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 47

BIT FCWRE 2007

SECTION-III: IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS INFRASTRUCTURE

4. IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS DESIGN

4.1. General
The topographic feature of the project command area is mainly sloping type. Its elevation range
is from 2159 to 2182 meters above sea level. The slope gradient also ranges from gently sloping
(3%) to strongly sloping (12%). However, it has identified to be suitable for surface and furrow
irrigation respectively.

 Canal alignment is straight as for as possible.

 The average slope of a main canal is flatter than the average slope of a branch canals.
The main canal starts from the diversion weir. All field canals are supplied by tertiary canals;
which are generally governed by the orientation and direction of field, and the method of
irrigation.

As per the hydrological analysis and on the basis of the traditional Ethiopian Agro-Ecological
Zones (MOA, 2001), the UGDWIP area is basically classified as moist Woina Dega (cold) agro-
ecological zone, indicating better moisture condition in the area in wet seasons.

Most of the study area soils are categorized as deep soil (1-1.5 meter depth). Soils of the
command area are suitable for most of the selected crops to be grown.

4.2. Irrigation Water Requirement

4.2.1. Crop Water Requirement (CWR)

The calculation of crop water requirement is a very important aspect for planning of any
irrigation project. Several methods and procedures are available for this. The Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has also made available several
publications on this subject and other issues related with this. The computer program available in
FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56 “CROPWAT” has been used for the calculation of
Crop Water requirement. This program is based on Penman-Monteith approach and procedures
for calculation of crop water requirements and irrigation requirements are mainly based on

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 48

BIT FCWRE 2007

methodologies presented in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24 “Crop Water
Requirements” and No. 33 “Yield Response to Water”.

The corresponding values of the crop water requirements of the proposed crops of the project are
presented in the Agronomy Study of the same project.

4.2.2. Irrigation efficiency (Ep)

To complete the evaluation of the demand, the efficiency of the water distribution system and of
application must be known.

The gross requirement of water for irrigation system is very much dependent on the overall
efficiency of the irrigation system, which in turn is dependent on several factors:

 Method of irrigation
 type of canal (Lined and/or Unlined)
 method of operations (simultaneously and continuous or Rotational water supply), and
 Availability of structures (for controlling and distribution and measuring and
monitoring).
On the basis of these factors, the project has planned to impose surface irrigation method (using
furrows). The canal system is unlined other than main canal.
Hence, the conveyance efficiency has been estimated to be 90%, distribution efficiency 85%, and
field application efficiency 64%. As a result of these the overall irrigation efficiency has been
estimated to be 49%. According to soil Lab result, soils of the command area are predominantly
characterized as heaver clayey soils.

4.2.3. Irrigation methods

Among the different irrigation systems surface irrigation system will be used for the project area;
and the irrigation water will be obtained from Agize River and by constructing diversion weir
and convoying the water commonly through lined canal and earthen canals of (TC) and then
leading to field canals; and finally irrigation takes place mostly in furrows.

For this project, among the various irrigation methods, surface irrigation method has been
selected. Of the surface irrigation methods furrow, border and basin irrigation methods can be

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 49

BIT FCWRE 2007

used to supply irrigation water to the plants/crops. However, each method has its own advantages
and disadvantages. Care should be taken when choosing the method which is best suited to the
local circumstances, i.e.

 depending on slopes, soil types

 selected crop types
 Amount of water available, etc. of the command area.

Based on the above factors surface irrigation method has been proposed for the proposed crops
in this project. The method allows applying light irrigation and can be laid out in sloping fields
along the contour. Furrow irrigation method is best suited for most of the proposed and row
planted crops. In general, furrow irrigation method is simple, manageable and widely practiced
irrigation method. This method is suitable for row crops that cannot stand in water for long
periods. The only thing required to use this method is row planting of crops. Besides, basin and
border irrigation method would be used for the non-row planted crops. Rotational flow water
distribution is also recommended for the project area.

4.2.4. Conveyance System

The conveyance system consists of one Main canal to irrigate total command area of 50 ha. The
main canal starts from Water abstraction site on left side and conveys water for a length of 2.64
Km. Main canal is aligned along contours and supplies to six tertiary canals.

4.3. Design parameter of the Canal System

4.3.1. Irrigation duty
Irrigation duty is the volume of water required per hectare for the full flange of the crops.
Moreover, it helps in designing an efficient irrigation canal system.

The proposed cropping pattern of Agize diversion irrigation project has showed a maximum net
irrigation water requirement (NIWR) in the month of March with the amount of 4.69mm/day for
18 working hours for specific proposed crop (cabbage). However, for the designing of the
irrigation water application and the flows in the entire canal systems, from the overall proposed
crops the one that has maximum NIWR was used for irrigation duty calculation

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 50

BIT FCWRE 2007

For Agize River/Stream Diversion Irrigation Project, it decided to adopt 64% field application
efficiency, 85% distribution efficiency, and 90% conveyance efficiency as the soil is heaver clay
textured and the canal systems are estimated to be unlined except main canal. Hence, the
overall/project efficiency for the selected surface irrigation method has been estimated to be
48.96% (64/100*90/100*85/100) which is rounded to 49%.

For the designing of the project, the GIWR is given as follows:

GIWR = 4.69/0.490 = 9.57 [mm/day]

The GIWR, 9.57 mm/day, represents the daily quantity of water that is required to be applied.
This water quantity is also used for the determination of the canal discharge in consideration of
the time of flow and is defined as the duty, expressed as l/s/ha.

The duty is calculated by:

Duty (D) = GIWR × 1000 × 10 / (t × 60×60)

Where; Duty – the duty [l/s/ha]

GIWR – Gross Irrigation Requirement [mm/day]

t – Daily irrigation or flow hours [hrs]

The duty for the GIWR of 9.57 mm/day and 18 hours of daily irrigation time (t = 18), is
supported to be used with furrow irrigation method. Hence, Duty for 18 working hours, as the
site is nearer to farmers‟ village and local farmers have experiences in irrigation, is computed as
follows:

D = (9.57 x 1000 x 10) / (18 x 3600) =1.48 L/s/ha

4.3.2. Time factor

Time factor is the ratio of the number of days the canal actually runs during a watering period to
the total number of days of the watering. Take 18hr working time out of the 24 hr of the day.

4.3.3. Slope
Slope is fixed by the design discharge and silt factor or velocity. A steeper slope with maximum
permissible velocity will be more economical, but the FSL will be lower. Additionally the design

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 51

BIT FCWRE 2007

slop is flatter than the natural available slope. Fall is provided to adjust the slope, but the number
of falls must be of minimum.

4.3.4. Side slope for unlined canal

The slope to be given to the sides depends on the angle of the internal friction for a particular soil
.in other word the slope adopted should also be remembered that the side slopes adopted in
cutting and filling are not the same.

In our project work the Side slope for unlined canal is taken as trapezoidal section so that the
recommended Side slope is 1V: 1H value. So it is Tertiary canals.

Table 23:- Side Slope for Various Soils

Soil type Side slope (Horizontal : vertical )

Cutting Embankment

Sound rock 0.125 :1 1.5: 1

Poor rock 0.5: 1 1.5: 1

Gravelly soil 0.75 : 1 1.5: 1

Compact clay soil 1:1 1 .5 : 1

Clay soil 1.5: 1 2:1

Loam soil 1.5: 1 2:1

Sandy loam soil 2:1 to 3:1 2:1 to 3:1

Sandy soil 3 :1 4:1

(Sahasrabudhe, 1994 page 197)

However in our project work the Side slope for lined canal is taken as rectangular section so that
Side slope is zero value.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 52

BIT FCWRE 2007

4.3.5. Longitudinal slope

Canal bed slope depends up on the slope of the natural ground for economy in the earth work and
bed slope should be the same as the ground slope as in the case of contour canal because it
affects the velocity of flow.

Take longitudinal slope from below table between the ranges. But for lined main canal 1/800 to
1/1000. S=0.0035 for unlined canal and 0.00125 for lined canal.

Table 24:- Longitudinal Slopes of Canals

Types of canals Range of slope

Main canal 0.00048 to 0.000258
Tertiary canal 0.02 0.0005

4.3.6. Permissible velocity

Permissible velocity is the one which can be resisted by the canal boundary surfaces. This
velocity is taken depending on the soil type. The velocity of design canal should be self-cleaning;
in other word, it should not deposit silt on canal, and should not also scour the bed and sides of
the canal. The maximum value of mean velocity must be safe against erosion. Based on soil type
that is found in the irrigable area.

Table 25:- Permissible velocities (unlined canal)

S.no Type of material Permissible velocity(m/sec)
1 Loam clay soil or loam 0.38 to1.37
2 Clay soil 0.41 to 1.67
4 Sandy clay 0.52 to 1.83
5 Ordinary 0.60 to 0.90
6 Gravel hard rock >3
- Take V=0.38m/s
[Arora2003]

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 53

BIT FCWRE 2007

Table 26:- Permissible velocity (lined canal)

S.no Type of lining Maximum permissible velocity (m/sec)

1 Boulder lining 1.5
2 Brick tile lining 1.8
3 Cement concrete lining 2.7
- Take V=2.7m/s

4.3.7. Roughness Coefficient (n)

Roughness coefficient is depending up on the roughness of the canal boundary.

Table 27:- Roughness coefficients

Material Coefficient(n)

Wood 0.013-0.165

Steel 0.0125-0.018

Concrete 0.013-0.018

Masonry 0.02-0.036

Earth 0.0225-0.035

[Sahasrabudhe, 1984 page 136]

 Take n value 0.018 for concrete and 0.03 for earth

4.3.8. Design discharge

Discharge capacity of canal is fixed by considering the irrigation area, duty, application or
working time, and efficiency of conveyance and application.

Minimum base flow of the river is 140 l/s and allows 42.8% to downstream =140*42.8

=60 l/s so, we can divert140 l/s - 60 l/s ≈80 l/s amount of water.

Therefore Design discharge=80 l/s=0.08 l/s there is no future expansion of land.

 Bed width to Depth ratio

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 54

BIT FCWRE 2007

For Q < 0.2 m3/sec ⇒ B/D =1

Q > 0.2 m3/sec ⇒ B/D = 1.76 * Q0.35 (USBR)
 Free board
It is the margin between full supply level (FSL) of canal and bank level. The recommended
free board by Lacey‟s is
FB=0.2+0.15Q1/3
Take 0.2m fore main canal and 0.15m for tertiary canal.

4.4. Main canal design

The main canal starts from Water abstraction site on left side and conveys water for a length of
2.64 Km. Main canal is aligned along contours and lined in order to safe from scoring and also
supplies to six tertiary canals.

The main canal is designed for a discharge of 80l/s and depending on the site specific condition,
appropriate slope is provided and it contain reach-1 and reach-2.

Hydraulic parameters of the main canal Reach-1, 0+1+000 are shown below.

Available data efficient section

3
Q=0.08m /s D=B/2
n=0.018 A =2D2
S=0.001 P=4D
Side slop 0 R=D/2
Using manning equation
⁄ ⁄

D=0.414m
A=2D2 = 2*0.3142 =0.19m2
P=4D =4*0.314 =1.26m
R= A/P = 0.19/1.26 = 0.16m

= 0.42m/s<2.7m/s OK

A= BD+MD2

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 55

BIT FCWRE 2007

0.19=B*0.57+0*0.57^2

B=0.433m

Table 28:-: Hydraulic Parameters of main canal Reach 1

Value Bed BW FSD FB V WP QR QD

Reach-1 SS
of n Slope (m) (m) (m) (m/sec) (m) cumec cumec
0+1+000 0.018 1000 0.433 0.4 0.2 0.42 0 0.001 0.074 0.08

Figure 9:- rectangular canal

Hydraulic parameters of the main canal Reach-2, 1+000-2+640 are shown below.

Available data efficient section

3
Q=0.08m /s D=B/2
n=0.018 A =2D2
S=0.001 P=4D
Side slop 0 R=D/2
Using manning equation
⁄ ⁄
, 0.08= (2D2*(D/2) ^2/3*(0.001) ^0.5)/ 0.018

D=0.363m
A=2D2=2*0.363=0.132m2

P=4D=4*0.363=1.089m

R=A/P=0.121m

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 56

BIT FCWRE 2007

V=Q/A=0.608m/s , B=0.4m

Table 29:- Hydraulic Parameters of main canal Reach-2

Value of Bed BW FSD FB V WP QR QR
Reach-2 SS
n Slope (m) (m) (m) (m/sec) (m) cumec cumec
1+000-2+640 0.018 500 0.4 0.36 0.2 0.608 0 0:1 0.074 0.08

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 57

BIT FCWRE 2007

6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

 The infrastructure of this project area is designed to irrigate about 50 ha of land by taking
its supply from the AGZI-3 diversion weir irrigation project. The AGZI River is one of
the surface water sources found in Amhara region. The region was going to do the small
scale irrigation project at AGZI River.
 The peak design rainfall value of the watershed was determined by frequency analysis.
The design rain fall which is 115.3mm is taken by Gumbel‟s Distribution Function
Method to be safe.
 The design discharge for Agzi River for 50 years of return period was determined to be
164m3/s using the US SCS (United States Soil Conservation Service) method.
 The design of the project head work components are include broad crest weir, retaining
wall, divide wall and head regulator and under sluice gates.
 The major forces considered in the design of the weir overflow section by which the
stability analysis was computed are Self-weight of the over flow weir, Hydrostatic
pressure, Silt pressure, and Up lift pressure. The stability analysis shows that the
proposed weir section is structurally stable.
 The diversion structure is broad crest shaped weir with 2.19m height and 23m of crest
length. Both the Diversion weir and apartment structures are designed to be safe against
any disturbing forces like; sliding friction (Fs), overturning moment (Mo), and Tension
development (e).
 The design of the canal dimensions of the irrigation canal is done by applying the
manning‟s uniform flow equation. The variable of the hydraulic parameters are calculated
using iteration and the design discharge of the drainage canals are determined using
rational formula.
 As the dominant soil type is heavy clay soil, the main canal system is designed to be
masonry. The reason why the main canal is to be lined up to the end is to avoid the
siltation problem, time saving to reach at the tail part, reduce maintenance cost.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 58

BIT FCWRE 2007

7 The following recommendations are drown:

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. The irrigation hours per day and per week should be flexible based on base flow
amount of each week or month.

4. Close supervision of the construction should be made to modify (if need be) each
Components of irrigation system based on specific site conditions.

5. The local peoples should be considered and include in the project construction
working activities

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 59

BIT FCWRE 2007

8 REFERENCE
1. FAO (1977) guidelines for predicting crop water requirements. No 24
2. Design of small Canal structures , USBR
3. Applied hydrology ,Vent Chow Edition 1988
4. Engineering Hydrology K Subramanya, third edition Tata McGrawl, 2008
5. Irrigation Engineering and Hydraulic Structure, by Santosh Kumar Garg, fourteen edition,
august 1999.
6. Drainage design manual chapter 5 hydrology part, by Ethiopia road authority 2002.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 60

BIT FCWRE 2007

9. APENDIX

9.1Annex 1: Percent Rainfall Profile Chart for 24 hr Storm

9.2 Annex 2: Creep coefficient for different soil type

Sr.No Type of soil Value of C Safe Hydraulic

gradient should be
less than
1 Fine sand 15 1/15
2 Coarse grained sand 12 1/12
3 Sand mixed with 5 to 9 1/5 to 1/9
boulder and gravel
4 Light sand and mud 8 1/8

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 61

BIT FCWRE 2007

9.3Annex 3: For outlier test Kn values

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 62

BIT FCWRE 2007

9.4 Annex 4: KT VALUES for Pearson Type III distribution (positive skew)

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 63

BIT FCWRE 2007

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 64

BIT FCWRE 2007

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 65

BIT FCWRE 2007

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 66

BIT FCWRE 2007

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT AGZI-3 DIVERTION WEIR HWRE Page 67