Project: 4/6 Laning of NH-5 fron Tuni to Anakapalli

Document: D:\99088\RH\Vol. II (Part-B)\Hydrology\Appendices

Hydrology

Sheet: 1 of 5
Date: October 2000
Revision: R0

Appendix 1.1 (ix)

Calculation
Detail of the Bridge
PWD No. / Name of the Bridge341/1 (Mamidivaka Gedda)
Old Chainage :
340.720
km
(on existing NH-5)
New Chainage:
340.561
km
(on new alignment)
A

Flood Estimation BY Synthetic Unit Hydrograph (SUH) Met

Step-1

Preparation of Catchment Area Plan

A catchment plan showing the river/stream , contours and spot levels was prepared for determining
the physiographic parameters. These are as follow:

Step-2

Determination of Physiographic Parameters

i)
Area (A)
=
ii)
Length of the longest stream (L)
=
iii)
Length of the longest stream from a point opposite
C.G. Of catchment to point of study (Lc)
=
iv)
Equivalent stream slope (S)
Sl.
No.

R.D. Starting
From Bridge
Site
(km)

R.L. Of
River Bed

0.000
1.242
5.287
7.163
8.489
14.022
15.794
15.966
16.034
16.085
16.122

18.23
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
320.00

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

S=

(m)

89.8 sq km
16.12 km
7.97 km

Length of
Height
Each
Above
Segment (Li) Datum (Di)
(km)
(m)
0.000
1.242
4.046
1.875
1.326
5.533
1.772
0.173
0.068
0.052
0.037

0.000
1.769
11.769
21.769
31.769
81.769
131.769
181.769
231.769
281.769
301.769

Total

16.122

Note:

Datum is the reduced level at the point of study.

Sum [Li (Di-1+Di)]

-----------------------L^2

5.1072

Di-1+Di

Li.(Di-1+Di)

(m)

(km.m)

0.000
1.769
13.538
33.538
53.538
113.538
213.538
313.538
413.538
513.538
583.538

0.000
2.197
54.769
62.899
70.985
628.223
378.357
54.109
27.934
26.537
21.460
1327.469

,Say

5.107 m/km

Determination of Synthetic 1-hr Unitgraph Parameters

Step-3
tp=
=
qp=
=
W50=
=
W75=
=
WR50=
=
WR75=
=
TB=
=
Tm=
=
Qp=

time from the centre of rainfall excess duration to the U.G.peak (hr)

0.376{(L.Lc) /( S^0.5)}^0.434

2.1717

,Say

0.75260

,Say

2.0 hr

discharge per unit area (cumec/sq km)

1.215/(tp)^0.691

0.753 cumec/sqkm

width of U.G. Measured at 50% of peak discharge ordinate (hr)

2.211/(qp)^1.07

2.995

,Say

3.0 hr

,Say

1.7 hr

width of U.G. Measured at 75% of peak discharge ordinate (hr)

1.312/(qp)^1.003

1.744

width of the rising limb of U.G. Measured at 50% of peak discharge ordinate (hr)

0.808/(qp)^1.053

1.089

,Say

1.1 hr

width of the rising limb of U.G. Measured at 50% of peak discharge ordinate (hr)

0.542/(qp)^0.965

0.713

,Say

0.7 hr

11.737

,Say

12.0 hr

base width of unit hydrograph (hr)

7.621(tp)^0.623

time from start of rise to the peak of the U.G. (hr)

tp+tr/2

2.5

2.5 hr

Peak discharge of Unit Hydrograph (cumec)

qp*A

Draft Detailed Project Report

D:\99088\DPR Report\DPR_ii_i\Hydrology\274024940.xls

67.611

,Say

68.0 cumec

Roads & Highways

Project: 4/6 Laning of NH-5 fron Tuni to Anakapalli

Document: D:\99088\RH\Vol. II (Part-B)\Hydrology\Appendices
Hydrology

Sheet: 2 of 5
Date: October 2000
Revision: R0

Appendix 1.1 (ix)

Calculation
Drawing of a Synthetic Unitgraph
Step-4
Estimated parameters of unitgraph in step-3 were plotted to scale on a graph paper as shown in figure. The plotted
points were joined to draw synthetic unitgraph. The discharge ordinates (Qi) of the unitgraph at ti=tr=1 hr interval
were summed up i.e. < Qi .
249.0
cumec.hr as shown in the figure and compared with the volume of
1.00 cm direct runoff depth over the catchment with the formula
Sum Qi . ti =

A*d/0.36*tr

249.41 cumec.hr

Where

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total

89.8
1
1

1-hr U. G. Ordinate
(cumec)

Sq km
cm
hr

Synthetic Unit Hydrograph

70.0

0.0
12.0
66.0
66.0
36.0
24.0
18.0
12.0
8.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

60.0
Discharge (cumec)

Time
(hr)

A=
d=
tr=

50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0

10

12

14

Time (hr)

249.0

In case the Sum (Qi.ti) for the unitgraph drwn is higher or lower than the volume worked out by the above formula, then the
falling limb and/ or rising limb may be suitably modified to get the correct volume under the hydrograph, taking care to get
the smooth shape of the hydrograph.

Estimation of Design Storm Duration

Step-5
For this subzone based on the samle studies Design Storm Duration, (TD), is taken as 1.1 times basin lag, i.e. (tp),
(Refer: Flood Estimation Report for Eastern Coast Region)

So, the design storm duration (TD) = 1.1 *

2.2

hr

,Say

2.0

hr

Estimation of Point Rainfall and Areal Rainfall

Step-6
50-yr, 24-hr point rainfall

26.00 cm

(Refer Ptate - 9.4a of Flood Estimation Report for

Eastern Coast Region (Subzone -3a))

Ratio of 50-yr, 24-hr point rainfall

to 50-yr, 2-hr point rainfall =
Hence,
50-yr, 2-hr point rainfall
=

(Refer Figure - 10 of Flood Estimation Report for

0.525

Eastern Coast Region (Subzone -3a))

13.65 cm

Ratio of 50-yr, 2-hr point rainfall to 50-yr, 2-hr areal rainfall

=
0.860
(Refer Fig. 12(a) & 12(b) or Table A-2 of Flood Estimation
Report for Mahi and Sabarmati (Sub-zone -3a))

Hence,
50-yr, 2-hr areal rainfall

11.74

Time Distribution for Areal Rainfall and Estimation of Effective Rainfall Units
Step-7
50-yr, 2-hr areal rainfall (Ir) = 11.74
cm was distributed with distribution coefficient (Refer Column 16 of
Table A-3 of Flood Estimation Report for Estern Coast Region (Sub-zone - 4a)) as below.
Design Loss rate of 0.75 cm/hr under section 3.11 of Flood Estimation Report has been adopted. The following table
shows the computation of 1-hr effective rainfall units in coloumn {4} by substracting the design loss rate in column {3}
from 1-hr rainfall increament in column {2}.

Draft Detailed Project Report

D:\99088\DPR Report\DPR_ii_i\Hydrology\274024940.xls

Roads & Highways

Project: 4/6 Laning of NH-5 fron Tuni to Anakapalli

Document: D:\99088\RH\Vol. II (Part-B)\Hydrology\Appendices
Hydrology

Sheet: 3 of 5
Date: October 2000
Revision: R0

Appendix 1.1 (ix)

Calculation
Duration

Distribution
Coefficient

(hr)
{1)

{2}

1
2

0.85
1.00

Storm
1-hr Rainfall Design Loss1-hr Effective
Rainfall
Increament
Rate
Rainfall
(cm)
(cm)
(cm/hr)
(cm)
{3}={2}*Ir
{4}
{5}
{6}={4}-{5}
9.978
11.739

9.978
1.761

0.750
0.750

9.228
1.011

Estimation of Base Flow

Step-8
The design base flow is computed by the following formula vide section 3.12 of Flood Estimation Report
qb
0.536/(A^0.523)
=
Total base flow =qb*catchment area

0.051 cumec/sq km
4.580 cumec

Estimation of 50-yr Flood Peak

Step-9
For the estimation of the peak discharge, the effective rainfall units were rearranged against the unitgraph ordinates such
that the maximum effective rainfall was placed against the maximum U. G. Ordinates, the next lower value of effective
rainfall against the next lower value of U. G. Ordinate a nd so on as shown in column { 2} and {3} in the following table.
Summation of the product of U. G. Ordinate and the effective rainfall gives the total direct runoff as under:
Duration

U. G. Ordinates

(hr)
{1)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

(cumec)
{2}
0.00
12.00
66.00
66.00
36.00
24.00
18.00
12.00
8.00
4.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Total
Base Flow
50-yr Flood Peak

1-hr Effective
Rainfall
(cm)
{3}

Direct
Runoff
(cumec)
{4}

9.228
1.011

609.1
66.7

=
=
=

675.8
4.6
680.4

cumec

Say,

680.0

cumec

Prepared By: Rajesh Kumar

Verified By: Ranjit Kumar Datta

Signature:.....................
Date:............................

Signature:.................
Date:........................

Draft Detailed Project Report

D:\99088\DPR Report\DPR_ii_i\Hydrology\274024940.xls

Roads & Highways

Project: 4/6 Laning of NH-5 fron Tuni to Anakapalli

Document: D:\99088\RH\Vol. II (Part-B)\Hydrology\Appendices
Hydrology

Sheet: 4 of 5
Date: October 2000
Revision: R0

Appendix 1.1 (ix)

Calculation
B

Flood Estimation By Slope Area Method (Manning's Equation)

Observed HFL = 21.621 m

(Cross-Section At Bridge Site)

Chainage
(m)
1
0.000
1.000
10.343
29.143
37.082
46.549
62.379
70.776
86.862
93.842
102.226
108.430
113.554
131.307
132.307

H.F.L
(G.T.S)
2

21.621

Actual Modified
Bed Level Bed Level
(m)
(m)
3
4
22.757
22.757
19.808
19.802
19.748
19.815
19.613
19.660
18.417
18.382
18.398
18.248
18.231
23.387
23.387

22.757
22.757
19.808
19.802
19.748
19.815
19.613
19.660
18.417
18.382
18.398
18.248
18.231
23.387
23.387

Height
h
5

Average
Height
h'
6

Horizontal
Distance
x
7

Area
6x7

0.000
0.000
1.813
1.819
1.873
1.806
2.008
1.961
3.204
3.239
3.223
3.373
3.390
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.907
1.816
1.846
1.840
1.907
1.985
2.583
3.222
3.231
3.298
3.382
1.695
0.000

0.000
9.343
18.800
7.939
9.467
15.830
8.397
16.086
6.980
8.384
6.204
5.124
17.753
0.000

0.000
8.469
34.141
14.655
17.415
30.188
16.664
41.542
22.486
27.089
20.461
17.327
30.091
0.000

Total

Area of Cross-Section, A
Wetted Perimeter, P
Hydraulic Mean Depth, R = A/P=
Longitudinal Slope, S
Velocity of Stream, V
Discharge, Q = A x V

=
=
=
=
=
=
Say,

Difference
Wetted
in h
Perimeter
h"
sqrt(7*7+9*9)
9
10

0.000
1.813
0.006
0.054
0.067
0.202
0.047
1.243
0.035
0.016
0.150
0.017
3.390
0.000

0.000
9.517
18.800
7.939
9.467
15.831
8.397
16.134
6.980
8.384
6.206
5.124
18.074
0.000

280.528

280.528 Sq m
130.854
m
2.144
m
0.0022
2.613 m/sec (Manning's coeff., n =
733.080 m3/sec
730.000 cumec

130.854

0.030 )

Cross Section At Bridge Site

24.000
23.000
22.000
R L (m )

21.000
20.000
19.000
18.000
17.000
10.000
30.000
50.000
70.000
90.000
110.000 130.000
0.000
20.000
40.000
60.000
80.000
100.000 120.000 140.000
R D (m )
Column O

Column P

Observed HFL = 21.621 m

Prepared By: Rajesh Kumar

Verified By: Ranjit Kumar Datta

Signature:.....................
Date:............................

Signature:.................
Date:........................

Draft Detailed Project Report

D:\99088\DPR Report\DPR_ii_i\Hydrology\274024940.xls

Roads & Highways

Project: 4/6 Laning of NH-5 fron Tuni to Anakapalli

Document: D:\99088\RH\Vol. II (Part-B)\Hydrology\Appendices
Hydrology

Sheet: 5 of 5
Date: October 2000
Revision: R0

Appendix 1.1 (ix)

Calculation

Recommendation
Calculation of Design Flood Discharge, Qd
i)
ii)

Flood Discharge by SUH Method

=
680.00 cumec
Flood Discharge by observed HFL at site (By Manning's Eq.)
(at the bridge)
=
730.00 cumec

Therefore,
Design flood discharge, Qd
Say,

Qd=

730.0
730.0 cumec

Recommended Design Flood Discharge, Qd =

730.0 cumec

Total Length of the proposed bridge = 5x24

123.00
m
Assuming, pier width of the bridge =
1.00
m
So,
Linear water way available
= 123-5x1
118.00
m
Channel Width
= 118.000
m
Since proposed linear waterway is equal to the channel width, hence there will not be any afflux.
So,
Recommended HFL =

21.621 m

Prepared By: Rajesh Kumar

Verified By: Ranjit Kumar Datta

Signature:.....................
Date:............................

Signature:.................
Date:........................

Draft Detailed Project Report

D:\99088\DPR Report\DPR_ii_i\Hydrology\274024940.xls

Roads & Highways