Rehabilitating Uatolari Irrigation for East Timor Farmers

REPUBLICA DEMOCRACIA DE TIMOR LESTE
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY

AND FISHERIES
THE AGRICULTURAL REHABILITATION PROJECT

EAST TIMOR HEAVILY DAMAGED SCHEMES ARP II
REHABILITATION OF UATOLARI I
IRRIGATION SCHEME
DESIGN REPORT
MAIN REPORT
February 2003
1. Introduction
1.
1.1.
INTRODUCTION
THE UATOLARI IRRIGATION SCHEME
The Uatolari irrigation scheme is located in the district of Viqueque near the locality of Uatolari and
occupies a strip of land adjacent to the sea (see Figure 1.1). The scheme is about 30 km east of the
district town of Viqueque and is reached by asphalt road via Baucau. Water is abstracted from the
Bebui river.
The first headworks was a free intake structure about 220 m upstream of the current intake site.
This was destroyed by flood in 1991. A weir and a new gated intake was then constructed in 1992
downstream at the present diversion site. The weir failed during a flood in 1997. Construction of a
new weir and intake immediately downstream commenced in 1997 but ceased in 1999.
The existing irrigation network (see Figure 1.2) consists of a right bank main canal which runs
along the Viqueque-Uatolari road for a length of about 2 km and two secondary canals. There is a
potential of 1,090 ha for irrigation whereas only about 600 ha is cultivated due to the damaged
irrigation system resulting in poor water distribution.
1.2.
REHABILITATION OPTIONS
For rehabilitation of the headworks the following options were investigated and costed during the
feasibility stage (see reference 5):
Free intakes
Pumping
Fixed weir.
The open flume with a free intake located 200 m upstream of the existing operating intake is
economical and was adopted as the preferred option. However, the Consultant was also directed to
prepare tender documents for the weir alternative.
The Project consists of the construction of a flume and a new intake (or weir and a new intake) and
new canals and associated structures and the desilting of canals and rehabilitation of the existing
canals and structures.
The area under irrigation will be increased by the construction of the new 1.8 km long Uitame
canal, extension of the main canal by 3.5 km and the rehabilitation of the existing canals and
structures.
1.3.
SCOPE OF REPORT
This report:
describes the condition of the existing irrigation scheme
describes the rehabilitation works to be undertaken
Rehabilitation of Uatolari I Irrigation Scheme

Main Design Report (53205.20)
Version: Final May 2003

1-1
1. Introduction
records the design criteria, assumptions and method of analysis adopted in determining the
arrangement, dimensions and details of the structures as shown on the tender drawings
clarifies some of the procedures to be followed during construction
presents the basis of calculating the quantities for the Bill of Quantities
describes the costing methods and data used in preparing the cost estimate.
The scope of the design work included:
topographic and engineering surveys to examine the physical condition of the existing canals
and structures including headworks
check of the hydraulic capacity of the existing canals and structures
design of a new diversion structure (flume or weir) and intake and rehabilitation works for
existing canals and associated structures
preparation of design drawings and tender documents
preparation of cost estimates


1-2
2. Scope of Work
2.
2.1.
SCOPE OF WORK
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
The river diversion works are required to divert 2.20 m3/s and to bypass a flood with a peak inflow
of 620 m3/s.
2.2.
THE WORKS
Two alternatives have been taken to the final design stage.

The first (Figure 2.1) is the construction of a new free intake at the rock outcrop 200 m upstream of
the existing intake. The water entering the free intake is conveyed in a reinforced concrete flume
structure along the right bank. The intake is located in a deep pool. A sluice facility is provided at
the downstream end of the flume to clear accumulated sediment, and the open flume allows for
manual cleaning. The flume also acts as a flood control revetment for the right bank.
The second (Figure 2.2) is a new weir and intake just downstream of the existing weir locations.
This requires the demolition of existing structures prior to commencement of construction. Because
of the raised flood levels, containing revetments have been provided on the right bank and a flood
control embankment on the left bank.
Principle items of work for the two options include:
2.2.1.
Flume Option
excavation of a trench and construction of a scour cutoff
construction in reinforced concrete of the new intake and flume
scour protection works consisting of an apron of reinforced concrete blocks and selected river
boulders
backfilling of the area between the flume and the existing right river bank with river gravels
demolition of the existing partially completed weir and the operating intake structure
construction of a new reinforced concrete intake structure
construction of a sluice structure at the end of the flume downstream of the canal intake
provision and installation of canal intake and sluice gates
provision of timber stoplogs at the access ways, flume intake, sluice and new intake
desilting of the existing canal system
reshaping of the existing canals per design requirements


2-1
2. Scope of Work
repairs to the existing canal lining and canal structures
repairs or replacement where directed of existing canal gates
supply and installation of steel check gates at the division structures
construction of the new 1.8 km long Uitame secondary canal and associated structures
extension of the main canal by 3.5 km and construction of associated structures. Structures
include two new aqueduct structures and concrete lining of the extension
construction of a meeting room for the WUA *
construction of a concrete drying area adjacent to the storage areas *
construction of a storage shed for paddy/milled rice *
construction of a gatekeepers hut.*
2.2.2.
Weir option
Principle items of work include:
demolition of the existing weirs and sections of the existing intakes
construction of a weir from mass and reinforced concrete across the Bebui river including an
approach slab and stilling basin
construction in reinforced concrete of a gated sluiceway at the right abutment of the weir
scour protection works consisting of cutoff walls and an apron of reinforced concrete blocks
and selected river boulders
construction of a new reinforced concrete intake structure
provision and installation of canal intake and sluice gates
provision of timber stoplogs at the canal intake and sluice
construction of a flood retaining wall on the right abutment
construction of a flood retaining embankment on the left abutment
desilting of the existing canal system
reshaping of the existing canal per design requirements
repairs to the existing canal lining and canal structures


2-2
2. Scope of Work
repairs or replacement where directed of existing canal gates
construction of the new 1.8 km long Uitame secondary canal and associated structures
supply and installation of steel check gates at the division structures
extension of the main canal by 3.5 km and construction of associated canal structures.
Structures include two new aqueduct structures and concrete lining of the extension
construction of a meeting room for the WUA *
construction of a concrete drying area adjacent to the storage areas *
construction of a storage shed for paddy/milled rice *
construction of a gatekeepers hut.*
Work items denoted with an asterix (*) are not included in the Main Contract. Contractor is advised
to provide costing for these in the Bid. Execution of the work will be subject to Project Managers
approval. Project Manager will be responsible for site location and land acquisition.


2-3
3. Hydrological Studies
3.
3.1.
HYDROLOGICAL STUDIES
INTRODUCTION
A summary is given in this section of the hydrological studies and crop water requirement estimates
that have been carried out for the Uatolari I Irrigation Scheme.
For further information and the methodology reference should be made to Annex A - Hydrological
Studies Report.
3.2.
CLIMATE
3.2.1.
General
The climate of Bebui River basin is characterised by its monsoonal type climate with 8 - 9 months
of wet season. The climate of the study area is divided in two distinct seasons:
Wet season from November to July this is the warmer and rainier season, during this period
heavy rain occurs, the wettest month being May.
Dry season from August to October this is the cooler and drier season. September and
October are generally the driest months.
3.2.2.
Rainfall
The rainfall pattern in the Uatolari region shows a bi-modal type of rainfall pattern with 8-9 months
of wet season with the first peak between December-February and the second peak between MayJune. The mean annual rainfall is in the range of 1300 2400 mm. Table 3.1 gives the mean
monthly rainfall at Viqueque and Ossu, the closest meteorological stations to the project area.
Table 3.1 Monthly Rainfall Data
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual

Rainfall (mm)
Viqueque
Ossu
207
300
200
309
152
233
171
176
215
207
178
156
128
119
36
36
23
25
24
29
59
108
158
259
1551
1956

3-1
3.2.3.
Temperatures
The average air temperature in Uatolari ranges between 24.7C and 28.9C.
3.2.4.
Evaporation
The Uatolari I irrigation scheme represented by the Viqueque station has an estimated annual
evapotranspiration of 1250 mm.
3.2.5.
Relative Humidity
The monthly relative humidity in the Bebui River basin is in the range of 74% to 88%.
3.3.
AGRO-CLIMATIC CLASSIFICATION
The Uatolari I irrigation scheme falls into the Class F region. In this zone the rice paddy could rely
on rainfall but it would need the high yield variety (HYV) of paddy. Presently this scheme is
yielding two crops per year. According to SNC-Lavalin (2001) there is a possibility to have a third
crop paddy with additional water supply.
This scheme may be able to rely on rainfall for the first cropping period if sustainable rain falls
during the land preparation month (December), but it will need additional water for the second
paddy cropping period and the third cropping period (other crops).
3.4.
WATER AVAILABILITY
Table 3.2 summarises the streamflow estimates for Uatolari 1 scheme including the monthly
average, maximum, minimum and the 1 in 5 year reliable low-flows.
Table 3.2 Monthly Streamflow Estimates
Item
Mean
Max.
Min.
1:5 yr D
Jan
2.8
8.2
0.5
0.8
Feb
6.8
16.1
0.6
3.4
Mar
8.1
20.3
1.8
4.3
Apr
7.9
15.1
3.1
4.2
May
8.7
20.3
1.6
4.2
Streamflow in m3/s
Jun
Jul
Aug
7.8
4.8
2.8
19.4 13.6
8.9
1.2
1.0
0.7
3.1
1.9
1.2
Sep
1.7
5.1
0.6
0.9
Oct
1.1
2.1
0.5
0.6
Nov
1.0
3.3
0.4
0.5
Dec
2.1
4.7
0.9
1.4
Mean
4.6
7.7
1.5
2.9
1:5 yr D = 80% persistence flows
3.5.
WATER REQUIREMENT
The irrigation area under this scheme consists of a well defined, existing functional paddy area of
600 ha and an additional potential area of 490 ha. To achieve two crops per year of paddy and one
other crop (p-p-o) in this scheme for the total irrigable area of 1090 ha the adopted land preparation
schedule would need to be as follows:
the first paddy crop in December

the second paddy crop in April, and
other crops (mix of maize and soybean) in August.


3-2
Table 3.3 shows the half monthly and the maximum water requirements for this irrigation scheme
computed for the potential developed paddy area of 1090 ha. The water balance to maximize the
available land to be irrigated was computed relaxing the low-flow reliability from 1 in 5 years to 1
in 2 years as indicated in Table 3.4. The maximum water requirement estimates in the last column
of the table below indicates the required maximum irrigation canal capacity for their respective
irrigated areas and reliabilities.
Table 3.3 Uatolari I Irrigation Water Requirements for 1090 ha
Reliab. Irrigated Area
Irrigation Water Requirements (m3/s)
Max
3
3
(yrs)
(ha) **
Jan1 (m /s) Feb1 Feb2 Mar1 Mar2 Apr1 Apr2 May1May2 Jun1 Jun2 Jul1 Jul2 Aug1Aug2 Sep1 Sep2 Oct1 Oct2 Nov1Nov2 Dec1 Dec2 (m /s)
1:5
660-1090-600 0.21 0.65 0.42 0.62 0.37
1.91 1.91 0.42 1.14 0.82 1.62 1.17
0.48 0.52 0.61 0.65 0.63 0.58 0.41
1.39 1.39 1.91
1:3
700-1090-780 0.23 0.69 0.44 0.65 0.39
1.91 1.91 0.42 1.14 0.82 1.62 1.17
0.62 0.67 0.79 0.84 0.82 0.75 0.54
1.48 1.48 1.91
1:2
960-1090-1000 0.31 0.93 0.60 0.89 0.53
1.91 1.91 0.42 1.14 0.82 1.62 1.17
0.80 0.86 1.01 1.08 1.05 0.96 0.69
2.00 2.00 2.00
** paddy-paddy-others
The maximum diversion requirement would be associated with the land preparation and the first
month of the second paddy crop especially when effective rainfall becomes insignificant and water
available drops substantially. The net diversion requirement (NDR) is in the range of 0.32 lit/s/ha
to 2.11 lit/s/ha.
3.6.
WATER BALANCE
The water balance calculation for this scheme shows that there is insufficient 1 in 5 year reliable
low-flow to irrigate three crops per year of existing 1090 ha. The system reliability was then
relaxed in order to maximise the available land for rice production when sufficient water is
available. Table 3.4 shows the cropping intensity of the Uatolari I irrigation scheme from 1 in
5 year to 1 in 2 year reliable low-flows.
Table 3.4 Cropping Intensity for Uatolari I Irrigation Scheme
Low-Flow Developed Cropping
Pattern
Area
Reliability
**
(years)
(ha)
1 in 5
1 in 3
1 in 2
1090
1090
1090
p-p-o
p-p-o
p-p-o
Cropping Intensity (ha)

1st crop 2nd crop
3th crop
(ha)
(ha)
(ha)
660
1090
600
700
1090
800
950
1090
1000
Cropping
Intensity
216%
238%
279%
** p = paddy, o = others (Maize, soybean)
3.7.
FLOOD STUDIES
3.7.1.
Design Flood Peak Estimates
Table 3.5 shows the flood peak estimates at Uatolari irrigation intake.
Table 3.5 Design Flood Peak Estimates (m3/s)
River/Location
Bebui at Uatolari Intake

2-yr 5-yr
290 360
10-yr
430
20-yr
490
50-yr
570
100-yr
620
1000-yr
840

3-3
3.7.2.
Historical floods
The largest floods recorded at the various weir sites, based on flood marks, are given in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 Historical Floods
Scheme
Uatolari
3.8.
Flood Peak(m3/s)
290
SEDIMENTATION
Due to the small storage at the weir sites and the large sediment loads it has been assumed in the
design that sediment will build up to the crest level of the weir in a relatively short time.
3.9.
RIVER RATING CURVES
River rating curves have been developed at the intake site for the options without and with a weir
and are included in section 7 river morphology.


3-4
4. Geotechnical Investigations
4.
4.1.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
SCOPE OF INVESTIGATIONS
The investigations comprised an initial walk over survey and production of a site geomorphological
map presenting the river channel, banks, topographic features and the extent of alluvial deposits.
General locations of structures existing at the time of the site visits are also shown. Figure 4.1
shows the geomorphological map of the site for the headworks.
The sub-surface investigations comprised the excavation of 8 test pits to depths ranging from 1.5 m
to 4.0 m depth. The purpose of the test pits was to explore the nature of stratification and the
texture ranges of the alluvial deposits beneath the river bed, locate existing foundations and other
sub-surface features of existing structures and to assess groundwater conditions.
Test pit logs of TPU1 to TPU8 are included in Annex B, Appendix B-A and a summary of
conditions encountered in each test pit are included in the following Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Summary of Test Pit Conditions
Test Pit
TPU1
Depth (m)
0-0.7
0.7-1.45
1.45-2.4
2.4 3.0
3.0 3.6+
TPU2
0-1.0
1.0-1.6
1.6 2.5
2.5 3.1
TPU3
0-2.5
TPU4
0-2.5
TPU5
2.5-3.8
0 1.8
Material Description
Bouldery GRAVEL: well stratified river gravel, boulders to
800 mm. Loose, dry. Becomes more sandy at base of layer.
Sandy GRAVEL: poorly stratified, some minor laminated sand,
many cobbled and boulders to 400 mm. Loose to medium dense.
As above, with increase in sand content
(concrete wall, extension of weir footing at 1.3 to 2.4 m)
Clayey SILT: dark grey, high plasticity, silt has low liquid limit.
Interbedded sequence. Very soft and wet.
Sandy GRAVEL: sharp contact with above, cobbles and boulders
to 500 mm, few elongated boulders to 1200 mm. Sandy matrix,
fine to coarse.
Sandy GRAVEL: coarsely stratified, sand course, gravel 50100 mm, some silty matrix.
As above, but rubble, masonry wall located at end of concrete
apron that extends across the area at about 1.0 m depth.
Silty CLAY: dark grey, interstratified with clayey SILT and
CLAY; high plasticity. Soft to very soft
Sandy GRAVEL: sand coarse, gravel/cobbles to 250 mm, mainly
<100 mm. Undulating sharp contact with layer above.
Bouldery GRAVEL: coarse grained, boulders to 1200 mm,
frequency every 1 m3 size. Sand to silty matrix, not binding.
Generally a loose deposit to 2 m depth.
Silty to sandy GRAVEL with BOULDERS: sand matrix fine to

coarse, silty coating on gravel and cobble fragments, dominant size
150-200 mm. Some boulders to 600 mm.
Material has less silt fines, flushed by groundwater flow.
Silty-sandy GRAVEL: with COBBLES and BOULDERS: well
washed medium to coarse gravel, with cobbles to 200 mm and
boulders to 400 mm. Matrix is sand to silty sand, dark grey-brown,
loose to medium dense.

Groundwater
Rapid inflow at
3.0 m, base of
clayey silt layer.
Rapid inflows at
2.5 m.
Pump
out
and
recovery test done:
k = 3.1 x 10-2 m/sec
Rapid inflow at
1.9 m.
Pump
out
and
recovery test done:
k = 3.1 x 10-2 m/sec
Rapid inflows at
2.5 m
Rapid inflows
0.7-0.8 m
at

4-1
Test Pit
TPU6
Depth (m)
0-1.4
1.4-3.1
TPU7
0-0.1
0.1-0.3
0.3 1.4
1.4 3.2
TPU8
3.2 3.4+
0-0.1
0.1-0.25
0.25 0.45
0.45-0.65
0.65 1.1
1.1-2.1
2.1-2.5
Material Description
Silty-sandy GRAVEL: with COBBLES and BOULDERS:
fragments coated in silty matrix, low liquid limit, sand is coarse,
mid to dark brown. Medium dense to dense in channel sides
As above, becomes moist below river banks, maintains dense
packing of gravel below bank
Surface layer of fine well washed gravel.
Coarse cobbles and boulders at surface
Silty-sandy GRAVEL: sand fine to coarse, cobbles to 300 mm, one
large boulder is 600 mm in size, Contact below is 1.4 to 1.8m
Gravelly-sandy CLAY: mid brown, medium plasticity, some high;
matrix binds the gravel fragments. Firm to stiff, wet.
Variable contact at 3.0-3.2
Coarse GRAVEL: cobbles to 200 mm, minimal fines.
Fine laminated sandy layer
Sandy GRAVEL: gravel fragments to 50 mm, sand fine to coarse.
In stratified beds to 50 mm.
Clayey SILT to silty CLAY: mid brown, some grey bands. High
plasticity. This 50 mm pure CLAY layer at base.
Interbedded silt and clay layers
Coarse sandy GRAVEL: well rounded cobbles, med to coarse sand,
medium dense.
Silty CLAY: grey, brown and dark banding, high plasticity, very
soft, moist to wet. Minor sandy lenses.
Coarse GRAVEL and COBBLES: well rounded to 200 mm, well
washed, undulating contact with clay above
Groundwater
Inflow of water at
2.1 m
Inflow at 3.2 m at
base of clay layer,
deepest occurrence
of groundwater at
the site.
Inflow at 2.1m
The machine excavated test pits all encountered water inflows at 0.7 m to 3.2 m within a highly
permeable sequence of alluvial gravel beds. Where uniform gravels occur the inflow are at
relatively shallow depths, but the silty clay to clay beds encountered in TP1, 7 and 8 keep the
groundwater confined at depths of 2.1 to 3.2 m. As indicated by the test pits there is variable
texture from clay beds, though sandy silty sequences to bouldery gravel.
Test pits TPU1, U7 and U8 all encountered a fine clayey silt to silty clay bed at depths of 1.1 to
2.4 m and the layer ranges in thickness from 0.6 to 2.6 m. The material is very soft with
penetrometer readings of about 25 to 40 kPa and these correspond with an undrained shear strength
of less than 20 kPa.
Test pit TPU2 was commenced adjacent to the right hand edge of the incomplete weir, but a
concrete apron was encountered at 0.8 to 1.0 m depth. The excavator dug a trench exposing this
surface all the way to within 5 m of the older weir. The edge was encountered with a cut off wall
possibly 1.5 m deep at the upstream edge of the apron. Where TPU1 was excavated there was no
apron.
The remainder of the test pits TPU3 to U6 encountered coarse river alluvium to cobble and boulder
size with rapid groundwater inflows that resulted in caving of the pit sides and the requirement to
cease excavation at a shallow depth.
4.2.
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Table 4.2 presents a summary of the laboratory test data for this site. The full test data is presented
in Annex B, Appendix B-D.


4-2
The Bulk Density test from Stockpile (Pit #3) was performed on a sample of crushed -75 mm
aggregate and gave a result of 1234 g/cc. An Atterberg Limits test on a sample from TPU7 at 2.62.75 m depth produced a non-plastic result.
The laboratory grading analyses of the shallow Pits #1 and #2 are of the fine component of a larger
sample. The combined gradings indicate coarse and predominantly well graded material is near the
surface. Refer Annex B, Appendix B-C.
Table 4.2 Summary of laboratory test data for Uatolari 1
Test Result
Depth
Laboratory Grading:
% Gravel
% Sand
% Silt + Clay
Coefficient
of
uniformity, CU=d60/d10
Coefficient
of
concavity,
CC=d230/ d60 x d10
Combined Field and
Laboratory Grading:
% Gravel
% Sand
% Silt + Clay
Coefficient
of
Coefficient
of
concavity,
CC=d230/ d60 x d10
Liquid limit
Plasticity Index
Bulk Density
Water Absorption
Specific Gravity
USC
Pit #1
Surface
Pit#2
Surface
60.0
33.8
6.2
7.0/0.19=36.84
79.0
17.8
3.2
16.2/0.44=36.8
55.0
38.5
6.5
9.0/0.19=47.4
1.1/ 1.33=0.83
16.8/7.1=2.36
0.53/1.7=0.31
98
1.8
0.2
140/75=1.87
98
1.8
0.2
160/80=2.0
9025/10500=0.86
10000/12800= 0.78
2.0%
2.68
GW/GP,
gravel
TPU1
2.8
TPU2
1.0-1.5 m
51.9%
32.6%
sandy GW, sandy gravel
GP,
gravel
CH, clay
sandy
Table 4.2 continued

Test Result
TPU3
TPU5
TPU7
TPU8
TPU8
Depth
Laboratory Grading:
% Gravel
% Sand
% Silt + Clay
Coefficient
of
2.0-2.5
2.5 m
2.8-3.0
1.5-2.0
0.5
84.0
12.5
3.5
31.0/1.0= 31.0
65.0
27.5
7.5
15.0/0.2= 75.0


4-3
Test Result
Coefficient
concavity,
CC=d230/ d60 x d10
Liquid limit
Plasticity Index
Bulk Density
Water Absorption
Specific Gravity
USC
TPU3
TPU5
of 65.6/31=2.1
GW,
gravel
TPU7
TPU8
TPU8
54%
32.5%
60%
37.4%
35.2%
18.5%
CH, clay
CL, clay
1.7/3.0=0.57
sandy GP,
gravel
sandy CH, clay
Chemical tests on aggregate stockpile on left bank, downstream of weir site:
4.3.
Total sulphate content as SO2 : 0.0025%

Chloride ion concentration, Cl- : 0.537%
GENERAL DESIGN PARAMETERS
The design parameters are based on geotechnical assessment of field and laboratory data obtained at
the time of the site investigations.
4.3.1.
Particle size and grading curves
The river bed and bank material forming the foundations for the majority of the planned structures
are predominantly granular, ranging from silty sandy gravel to bouldery gravel. Two shallow hand
dug pits at the site provided the following results:
Pit 1: Max particle size 190 mm, most frequent size 50-80 mm
Pit 2: Max particle size 210 mm, most frequent size 60-110 mm.
There are also large shoals of boulder beds up to 2 m in size, with a predominant range of 0.5 to
0.8 m.
In the river banks there are gravely silty sand to sandy silt beds up to about 1 m in thickness. In
addition there are several buried silty and clayey units as described in Section 4.1 above.
4.3.2.
Material density
The alluvial beds are loose from 0 to 1.0 m depth. Below 1.0 m they become loose to medium
dense, the units with more silty sandy matrices can be classified as medium dense.
4.3.3.
In-situ permeability
In situ permeability test results are presented in summary form in Table 4.3 and detailed results are
presented in Annex B, Appendix B-B.


4-4
Table 4.3 Summary of In situ Permeability Testing

Test Pit
TPU2
TPU3
Depth interval (m)

1.42 1.35 (pump out)
1.85 2.00 (bail out)
Material
Sandy gravel
Boulder gravel with moderate silt
content
Permeability (m/sec)
3.12 x 10-2
8.82 x 10-3
The field measurements represent essentially horizontal permeability from the main gravel units
over the intervals tested. These permeabilities range from 3 x 10-2 to 9 x 10-3 m/sec, which
correspond with the well washed range of gravel and sand mixes, with some effect from finer sand
and silt in the matrix. In summary the clean gravels and sands are likely to have permeabilities in
the ranges of 1 x 10-1 to 1 x 10-2 m/sec. The silts and clays were not directly tested but the expected
range of permeabilities is 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-7 m/sec.
4.3.4.
Shear strength
The assessed shear strength is empirical, based on mechanical properties of the materials:
4.3.5.
Gravels: c = 0 kPa, phi = 40 deg

Fine units: c = 10 kPa, phi = 30 deg
Compressive strength of fine units: <50 kPa
Undrained shear strength of fine units: <25 kPa
Assessed allowable bearing pressures for in situ gravels, with full scour protection: 150 kPa.
Potential for scour
The material has a mean diameter of 10 mm and is subject to scour. At a flood discharge of
620 m3/sec the scour depth is taken as 3.0m below water level.
4.3.6.
Potential for piping
Piping failure may occur where there is excessive hydraulic gradient of the seepage flow under the
base of the weir floor. This exit gradient is in the range of 1:4 to 1:5 for the sandy gravel material
likely to be encountered at the foundation level.
4.3.7.
Filter design grading
The filter bed beneath the weir aprons is designed to protect the foundation from scour and to
prevent a build up of pore pressures causing uplift. The recommended grading is as follows:
Nominal diameter mm
75
20
5
0.5
0.075 (75 um)

% passing
100
85
50
15
05

4-5
4.4.
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
4.4.1.
Horizontal and vertical accelerations
The site is located in Seismic Hazard Zone 3 according to the Indonesian Meterological and
Geophysical Institute. For this zone a low frequency seismic loading on soft ground will have a
basic seismic coefficient (C) of 0.06. For the proposed structures an appropriate design horizontal
acceleration is 0.15 g and the vertical component would be 0.09 g.
4.4.2.
Liquefaction potential
The factors contributing to liquefaction under seismic loading are:
Particle Size
Groundwater levels
Relative density
Confining pressure
Intensity of ground acceleration
Duration of seismic event
Age of soil.
The bed and foundation material ranges from clayey silt to bouldery sandy gravel. Sand +silt contents
range from 20% to about 40%. Groundwater levels are high and the relative density is likely to have
a density index of <60%. Consolidation is minimal in these recent deposits and overburden pressures
are low.
Based on these considerations the site is expected to have a moderate risk of liquefaction.
4.5.
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
4.5.1.
Concrete aggregate
Material suitable for concrete aggregate is available from the alluvial bed materials in the
Bebui River, both upstream and downstream of the Uatolari intake structures.
a.
Alkali reactivity
Overall the potential for alkali reactivity from river gravel sources is assessed to be low.
Tests from aggregate produced from this material at the site indicate the potential for slightly
higher than acceptable chloride ion content in the aggregate.
This may be remedied by the addition of fly ash and the selection of more durable
components of the gravel. Further testing of specific borrow sites is recommended to clearly
define the extent of the potential for deleterious materials.
Hand sorting may be necessary if there are high proportions of green sepentinite, chert and
volcanic glass are encountered. From observations at the site it was found that a high
proportion of the rock types in the gravel are limestone, indurated siltstone and mudstone and
basic volcanic rocks.


4-6
b.
Particle size
Natural materials have maximum sizes to 1-2 m, but with mechanical sizing an aggregate of
maximum 75 mm could readily be obtained. Crushing and screening should provide a
product of suitable size.
c.
Specific gravity
The specific gravity from one sample tested is 2.68.

d.
Water absorption
The water absorption from one sample tested is 2%.

4.5.2.
Stone for masonry works
Suitable stone for masonry is available from the river bed. This material will require hand sorting
to select the more durable material. Such material should be fresh rock, of high strength and
uniform in structure. Material that is laminated or fissile should be avoided. The preferable
material is limestone, indurated siltstone, indurated mudstone or basalt/dolerite.
4.5.3.
Stone for gabions
The selection of suitable stone for gabions is similar to that for selecting masonry stone. The
critical factor is that the ideal fragment size is in the range of 120 mm to 200 mm. Ideally
fragments with at least one flat face are better suited for placing on the sides of gabion baskets.
Such material can be selected from the river bed gravel and cobbles in the Bebui River.
4.5.4.
Impervious backfill
Impervious backfill is of limited extent, but can be sourced as follows:
from clay beds at depths of 1.0 to 2.5m beneath the river bed in the vicinity of the existing
weir
from paddy fields and surrounding areas. Local rice farmers may be able to assist in locating
such material
from ridges above Uatolari Village.
This material should have the following properties:
greater than 25% passing 75 microns

greater than 10% plasticity index
between 25% and 50% liquid limit


4-7
Appropriate compaction specifications should be followed in order to achieve required density and
permeability levels.
4.5.5.
Free draining backfill
This material should be available from similar sources to masonry and gabion stone. With
appropriate mechanical sizing a free draining backfill with a maximum particle size of 75 mm and a
maximum of 5% passing 75 microns should be available.
4.5.6.
Riprap
There are numerous cobble to boulder sized fragments at the river bed. Most rocks over 500 mm
are highly durable provided they are sourced from the mid stream sections of the river. Boulders
lying adjacent to the banks or embedded in the banks may not be suitable as they originate from
local landslides and have not been transported downriver.
4.5.7.
Gravel bedding
Appropriately graded gravel bedding should have a sufficient range of particle sizes to enable
adequate compaction. Such material should have the following properties:
between 10% and 15% passing 75 microns

between 6% and 10% plasticity index
between 20% and 35% liquid limit.
The maximum particle size should be 75 mm.

4.5.8.
Selected boulders for scour protection
The selection process for these materials is similar to that for selecting rip rap. The main difference
is that the boulders will likely be larger than 1.0 m in size.
4.5.9.
Roadway surfacing
Suitable pavement materials can be sourced from the same locations as bedding gravels, free
draining backfill. This material should comply with specifications for the appropriate grade of rural
road for East Timor.
Essentially the rural road will likely have the following pavement:
Basecourse: CBR 50%, 150 mm thick

Sub-Base: CBR 40%, 250 mm thick
Subgrade: allow a 5% natural CBR.
The basecourse should have a maximum particle size of 40 mm and the sub base a maximum
particle size of 75 mm.


4-8
4.5.10.
Borrow areas
The most appropriate and practical borrow area is from the stream bed of the Bebui River with 1 km
both upstream and downstream of the weir/intake site. Sourcing the appropriate grade of rock for
gabions, rip rap and boulders for scour protection can be done further away. Truck access is
possible along the river bed during the low flows of the dry the season.
Other borrow sites have not been specifically defined but should be made know by the local people,
especially sources of clay for impervious fill.


4-9
5. Topographic Survey
5.
5.1.
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS
The Uatolari irrigation area is covered by the 1:25000 and 1:50000 topographic maps. All plan
distances and elevations are in metres. Contour intervals are 12.5 m on both the 1:25000 and the
1:50000 maps.
Details of the topographic survey maps obtained are:
Projection:
Grid Systems:
Horizontal Datum
Vertical Datum:
Unit of height:
Contour interval
Transverse Mercator
Geographical and Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)
World Geodetic System 84 (WGS 84)
Sea level at Kapang
Metre
12.5 metres
Tables 5.1 and 5.2 are the map indecies for the Uatolari area.
Table 5.1 Index of 1:25000 Scale Maps
Project
Area
Uatolari
Uatolari
Map Number
2507 - 213
Table 5.2 Index of 1:50000 Scale Maps

Project
Uatolari
5.2.
FIELD SURVEY
5.2.1.
Scope of Work
Area
Viqueque
Map Number
2507 - 21
Field surveys have been undertaken at the site. The survey involved:
establishing survey control to an acceptable datum level using GPS
undertaking headworks engineering survey and sketching and photographing existing features
undertaking canal structures engineering survey and sketching and photographing existing
features
surveying of canal cross sections at 100 m intervals
picking up the canal invert at 50 m intermediate intervals
collecting several spot levels in the irrigation area


5-1
5. Topographic Survey
preparation of a digital terrain model (DTM) of the structures and canals
preparation of drawings presenting the survey data.
5.2.2.
Grid System and Datum for Elevations
In the absence of local national datum control points an arbitrary datum utilising GPS data has been
assigned as given in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3 GPS Control Points
Structure
Intake
BUe3 Drop Structure
Easting
31362.000
30893.000
Northing
26837.000
26359.000
Elevation
23.830
The datum for elevation is based on readings obtained from the GPS and spot levels given on the
25000 scale topographical maps. The datum adopted for the elevations is taken as EL 23.830 at the
invert of the existing operating gate opening.
The datum points for setting out of the headworks are shown on the drawings and consists of points
located on the existing structures.
5.2.3.
Output
The following drawings were prepared and are contained in Volume III of the specifications.
longitudinal and cross sections of the primary canals (see Figures 5.1 and 5.2 for typical
details)
longitudinal and cross sections of the secondary canals
drawings showing the geometry of the existing headwork and canal structures.
5.3.
RIVER SURVEY
Several cross sections were taken across the river bed 400 m upstream and 200 m downstream of
the Uatolari intake.


5-2
6. Environmental Considerations
6.
6.1.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
PROVISIONS IN TENDER DOCUMENTS
Environmental considerations during construction have been included in the Tender documents
both in the General and Technical Specifications. These include specific requirements in respect to
Environmental Management as well as the inclusion of technical requirements in respect to site
clearing, excavation, drainage and reinstatement. The requirement for the Contractor to agree to an
Environmental Management Procedure and to instruct all his workers has also been included.
6.2.
ACCESS TO SITE
Access to the intake site is from the asphalt paved road from Uatolari. This road terminates at the
old weir site and is adequate for use during construction. There are no inspection roads along the
Main canal or the secondary canals. The Main canal can be accessed from the main road for most of
its length. The Contractor will need to construct access roads along the canals. This should be well
planned as there is a village along the first 1-1.5 km of the main canal. It will be necessary to use
small equipment or manual labour as space is limited and also in order not to disrupt the routine
activities in the village. Permits to construct access roads along the canals will need to be arranged
via the Project Manager in cooperation with the community.
The Contractor will ensure that all access roads used during construction work are maintained in
good condition at all times.
6.3.
MATTERS TO BE ADDRESSED DURING CONSTRUCTION
6.3.1.
Construction Camp and Services
Because of the densely populated area near the headworks, the construction camp will most likely
be located downstream of the existing intake works. If the construction camp was located near the
river (which is most likely), the Contractor is required to ensure that pollution from camp activities
does not enter the river. If water is to be drawn from the river for construction camp requirements,
the Contractor should apply for a permit from the Project Manager. Provision should be made to
properly dispose of sewage from the camp (such as in a septic pit). Drainage from the camp site will
not be directly discharged to the river, but will be routed via silt traps. Oils and other material will
be collected and disposed of in an environmentally proper manner.
6.3.2.
Damage to Flora and Fauna
Construction will be carried out mainly in existing sites (intake and irrigation canals). The extension
sites are mainly in the already cleared paddy areas and do not involve large tress or wild life.
However, the Contractor should ensure that preservation of native and/or established trees and
bushes is a priority. Also, wild life, if encountered should be preserved.
6.3.3.
Disposal of Sediment Excavated from the Canals
A large amount of sediment accumulated in the canals will be excavated and removed. Excavation
of the new extensions of the Main Canal and the Uitame Secondary canal will also result in a large
quantity of earth. Sites for the disposal of excavated material will be agreed with the Project

6-1
6. Environmental Considerations
Manager. The disposal sites will be agreed in consultation with the community concerned.
Sediment from the canals will, in most instances, contain water and therefore it is necessary to
provide proper drainage during and after disposal. The Contractor will ensure that proper drainage
facilities will be placed in the disposal areas.
6.3.4.
Noise and Air Pollution
Part of the construction area is heavily populated in the village near the intake. The Contractor
should ensure that noise and air pollution is kept at acceptable minimal levels at all times.
Consultation and agreement with the community about the operation of the machinery should be
maintained at all times.
6.3.5.
Water Pollution
The flume and appurtenant structures will be built in the river. The Contractor should ensure that
river flow is not disrupted by maintaining coffer dams within the construction area and thus not
interrupting the normal river flows. The Contractor should, at all times, ensure that pollutants from
construction activities do not enter the waterway.
6.3.6.
Function of the Irrigation System
The irrigation system is a functioning system currently being used by the community for
agricultural activities. It is essential therefore to maintain the function of the relevant canal/s during
construction work. The Contractor should carefully plan work activities so that construction work
does not totally disrupt the communitys livelihood. The planning of canal closure for work in the
canals and canal structures is very important.
6.3.7.
Borrow Pits
Borrow pits for earthfill will be excavated below the level of the surrounding ground. Upon
completion of construction these areas will tend to form ponds. It is important that the edges and
margins for these are graded back to a slope no steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical.
6.3.8.
Fencing
Temporary fences will be erected to prevent unauthorised access to the construction site. The areas
for temporary fencing will be clearly marked at the commencement of construction so that these
fences can be erected before major site works commences.


6-2
7. River Morphology Studies
7.
7.1.
RIVER MORPHOLOGY STUDIES
STRUCTURES AND RIVER TRAINING WORKS
The partially completed weir has raised the bed to its crest level in the right half of the river width.
The canal is partially operating. During low flow, it is fed through the former intake with a
temporary approach channel.
7.2.
GEOMORPHIC FACTORS
Geomorphic factors with an influence on the stream stability have been considered. Primary basis
of the assessment has been the visual observations.
7.2.1.
Valley Setting and Stream Form
Bebui River in Uatolari Weir area flows in hilly terrain. It follows a straight course to and from the
weir in a segment about 800 m long in a SE direction. The straight segment has meanders on each
end. Generally the stream can be regarded as straight in the vicinity of weir.
It is a moderately braided stream. Two channels carry low flow on either side of the river. The
thalweg runs close to the left bank opposite the intake after hitting the right bank about 400 m
upstream. A number of gravel bars can be seen in the river bed. A sizeable island is emerging
about 200 m below the weir. The islands bifurcates the low flow into channels running close to the
bank on either side. The larger of the two is the right channel which follows the outer bend of the
meander around the island.
7.2.2.
Stream Size and Width Variability
Bebui River is a medium to wide river. Width varies from about 75 m to 150 m in about 600 m
long river segment around the weir. The width variability is higher than that required for lateral
stability. The ongoing bank erosion upstream and downstream of the weir should be regarded as a
further indication of the lateral instability stability.
7.2.3.
Apparent Incision
The bank heights range from 1 to 3.0 m. These heights for the given width of the river would place
it at the border of an incised channel (HEC 20, 1995). It suggests a trend towards lateral stability
against the instability indicated by the width variations. The channel bed on either side of the weir
presents no signs of active degradation.
7.2.4.
Bed and Bank Material
It is a gravel bed river. The most frequent size (60-110 mm) is in the range of small cobbles and the
maximum size (210 mm) is in the range of large cobbles. Few boulders can be seen in the bed
material. The matrix consists of silt to coarse sand. Representative grain size distribution of
Bebui River bed material at the river site is presented in Figure 7.1.


7-1
21
1-2
20
19
1-2
00
17
1-1
80
15
1-1
60
13
1-1
40
11
1-1
20
91
-10
0
71
-80
51
-60
12
9
6
3
0
31
-40
Frequency
Figure 7.1: Bebui River Bed Material

Representative Grain Size Distribution
Material Size (mm)
The bank material consists of alluvial deposits of various sizes. Silt and clay make up the top layer
with a maximum thickness of about 0.75 m. Rest of the bank height consists of stratified gravel
with some silt and clay.
7.2.5.
Channel Boundaries and Vegetation
The channel boundary consists of alluvial deposits. The bed material appears to be quite mobile
during bank-full discharge. The banks are moderately erodible.
The flood plains just upstream of the weir are bordered by the adjoining hills. The downstream
floodplain at the right side is wide and under cultivation.
Segments of the bank show signs of active erosion around the weir. The right flood plain about
400 m upstream of the weir supporting coconut trees is being eroded. Left bank in the weir area has
vertical face showing recently eroded surface. Proximity of the thalweg and aggraded bed because
of old and new weir appear to be the probable causes. Excessive bank erosion can threaten houses
on the left bank. The right bank about 400 m downstream of the weir shows signs of erosion.
7.3.
HYDRAULIC FACTORS
HEC-RAS was used to compute 1-D flow field in vicinity of the weir. The output was used to
assess the hydraulic impact on river stability and also to identify specific needs for river protection
works. Two hydraulic factors namely, the flow habit and the scour conditions are included in
hydraulic factors for the purpose of this assessment.
7.3.1.
Flow Habit
Bebui River catchment at Uatolari-I weir site is 193 km2. Discharge from high water marks works
out to be 290 m3/s which would represent about the 2-year flood event.
The river is essentially perennial. Mean monthly discharges from January to June range from 5 to
9 m3/s and from 1 to 5 m3/s for rest of the year. Figure 7.2 presents mean and minimum monthly
discharges in Bebui River at the weir site.


7-2
Discharge (m3/s)
Figure 7.2: Bebui River at Uatolari-I Irrigation Intake

Monthly Streamflow Variability
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Mean
7.3.2.
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Min
Scour Conditions
The weir failure is most likely due to scour. Apparently, the alluvial periphery with the type of
existing bed material is quite prone to scour. It appears that the scour prevention would be key
criterion for design of a new weir.
7.3.3.
Inception of Motion Analysis
HEC-RAS output was used with Meyer-Peter and Muller relation (HEC 20 SI, 1995) to determine
sediment sizes at the state of impending motion. The results are presented in Figure 7.3.
Two sections, one at 156 m upstream of the weir and the other at 113 m downstream of it were used
to compare relative transport abilities of the river segment with and without weir. The weir crest
level of 25.0 m was assumed for this assessment which gives a weir height of 2 m above the
existing bed level. As indicated by Figure 7.3 the two cross-sections have quite different ability to
move the bed sediment even without the weir. It appears to have resulted from the old weir and the
remaining portion of the weir constructed afterwards.
The downstream reach has the capacity to transport bed sediment sizes up to 150 mm (small
cobbles) during a 2-year flood, and a size up to 250 mm (large cobble) in a 100-year flood. The
upstream reach moves gravel size particles (up to 50 mm) in a 2-year event and small cobbles (up to
100 mm) in a 100-year flood. Comparison of this with Figure 7.3 indicates that the most frequent
sediment size (80 mm-100 mm) is moved through the upstream reach only during a 100-yr flood.
During floods of smaller ARI (2-year 10-year) only part of the river bed is mobile just upstream
of the weir.
The foregoing observation leads to the conclusion that the new weir will aggrade the upstream bed
level to its crest level in first few years. Once the river bed is aggraded upstream of the weir, some
kind of lead channel will be required to convey low flow to the intake.


7-3
Sediment at Inception of
Motion (mm)
Case I: Without Weir

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2-Yr
5-Yr
10-Yr
20-Yr
50-Yr
100-Yr
Flood Event (ARI)

156 m Upstream of Weir Location
113 m Downstream of Weir Location
Sediment at Inception of
Motion (mm)
Case II: With Weir

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2-Yr
5-Yr
10-Yr
20-Yr
50-Yr
100-Yr
Flood Event (ARI)

156 m Upstream of Weir Location
ARI
Discharge
3
(m /s)
2-Yr
5-Yr
10-Yr
20-Yr
50-Yr
100-Yr
290
360
430
490
570
620
113 m Downstream of Weir Location
Sediment Grade Scale

Size (mm)
0.063 - 2.0
2.0 - 64
64 - 255
250 - 4000
Type
Sand
Gravel
Cobbles
Boulders
Figure 7.3: Bebui River at Uatolari I Inception of Motion Analysis
7.3.4.
Assessment of the Flood Levels
The water surface levels without and with weir in Bebui River at Uatolari I Intake are presented in
Table 7.1. Ground level of the houses on the right side in front of a cross-section 10 m upstream of
the weir is 26.5 m. The results indicate flooding of these houses in a 2-year flood.


7-4
Table 7.1 Impact of Uatolari Weir on WS Elevation

150 m upstream of weir
WS EL (m)
Return Period
(Years)
Discharge
(m3/s)
Without Weir
With Weir
Increase in WS El
(m)
2
5
10
20
50
100
290
360
430
490
570
620
26.85
27.13
27.38
27.58
27.82
27.97
27.42
27.62
27.80
27.95
28.13
28.24
0.57
0.49
0.42
0.37
0.31
0.27
The weir is likely to raise water surface elevations from 0.57 m to 0.27 m for 2-year to 100-year
flood events respectively. It suggests that a levee would be required to protect houses on right side
of the river. The water surface profiles are presented in Figure 7.4 and Figure 7.5.
7.3.5.
Flow Velocity and Shear Force
Flow velocity for a 2-year flood upstream of the weir is 1.6 m/s. It is expected to reduce to
1.27 m/s at this location after the weir is constructed. The shear stress is expected to undergo
similar change upstream of the weir location. Table 7.2 presents variation of flow velocity and the
shear force from upstream to downstream of the weir location in existing as well as the proposed
case of weir construction.
Table 7.2 Flow Velocity and Shear Force around Uatolari I
(Weir Station: 228.4 m)
River Stn
(m)
384
113
Discharge
Velocity (m/s)
Shear Force (N/m2)
(m3/s) No Weir With Weir No Weir With Weir
2-Yr
290
1.6
1.27
38.22
22.54
5-Yr
360
1.76
1.46
45.12
29.3
10-Yr
430
1.91
1.64
51.39
36.03
20-Yr
490
2.02
1.78
56.29
41.68
50-Yr
570
2.16
1.94
62.34
49.18
100-Yr
620
2.23
2.04
65.83
53.83
2-Yr
425
2.39
2.39
109.58
109.58
5-Yr
580
2.63
2.63
127.74
127.57
10-Yr
682
2.85
2.85
145.4
145.35
20-Yr
800
3.03
3.03
160.08
160.06
50-Yr
930
3.25
3.25
179.14
179.13
100-Yr
1059
3.37
3.38
190.24
190.77
ARI


7-5
29
Legend
WS 100-Yr
WS 50-Yr
28
WS 20-Yr
WS 10-Yr
27
WS 5-Yr
WS 2-Yr
Ground
Elevation (m)
26
25
24
23
580
384
360.285*
336.571*
312.857*
289.142*
265.428*
241.714*
218
113.2
22
21
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Main Channel Distance (m)
Figure 7.4: Bebui River at Uatolari I Water Surface Profiles without Weir
29
Legend
WS 100-Yr
WS 50-Yr
28
WS 20-Yr
WS 10-Yr
27
WS 5-Yr
WS 2-Yr
Ground
Elevation (m)
26
25
24
23
580
384
360.285*
336.571*
312.857*
289.142*
265.428*
113.2
218
228.4
241.714*
22
21
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Figure 7.5: Bebui River at Uatolari I Water Surface Profiles with Weir


7-6
7.3.6.
Rating Curves
Rating curves were generated for Bebui River at the intake site with the HEC-RAS model. The
curves are presented in Figures 7.6 and 7.7.
27.5
Legend
W.S. Elev
27.0
26.5
W.S. Elev (m)
26.0
25.5
25.0
24.5
24.0
23.5
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Q Total (m3/s)
Figure 7.6: Intake - Rating Curve without Weir at Intake

29
Legend
W.S. Elev
28
W.S. Elev (m)
27
26
25
24
23
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Q Total (m3/s)
Figure 7.7: Rating Curve at Intake with Weir


7-7
7.4.
ASSESSMENT OF THE STREAM STABILITY
River approach to the weir is straight. The upstream channel is laterally restricted to an extent by
hilly area in the straight reach. Alluvial deposits on the left side can allow for lateral shift along a
length of about 300 m. However, there are no apparent reasons for the river to shift to the left.
Lateral stability of this segment is rated as fair.
At the weir site, there is a trend of erosion of the left bank. Remains of the new and old weir are in
the right half of the river width. This has caused the bed level to rise behind the old weir. Remains
of the weirs and rise of the bed level are the apparent reasons of erosion of the left bank in this area.
Construction of a new weir will eliminate the current reason for flow concentration to the left.
Lateral stability of the river in the weir area can also be rated as fair.
The downstream segment consists of a straight and a meandering reach. The meander starts around
the emerging island. While there is a potential for lateral movement of the river in this area, its
impact on the weir is not likely to be significant.
The right bank houses close to the weir experience occasional flooding. HEC-RAS modelling has
shown that the houses are inundated during a 2-year flood. The situation will become worse after
construction of the weir. The houses can be protected by a levee along the water edge.
The upstream bed will rise after construction of the new weir. The vertical stability of the river can
be rated as fair. However, the scour potential remains a concern.
7.5.
RIVER TRAINING AND PROTECTION WORKS
The river approach to and from the weir is straight. There is no particular need for river training
except for the side walls which should be extended 50 to 60 m upstream and about 25 m
downstream. Given the erosive tendency of the flow, gabion structure is recommended for the
walls. The walls will also provide protection to the bank against erosion. The protection will be
useful for the houses on both sides and will function as rigid side of the lead channel to the intake
on the right side which will eventually develop when the river bed is aggraded to the crest of the
proposed weir.
The other important conclusion is the scour potential indicated by the flows ability to move large
size particles downstream of the weir location. Scour protection should be given careful
consideration in the weir design.
Occasional inundation of the right side houses as reported by the inhabitants is supported by the
HEC-RAS modelling. The houses can be protected by a level along the right bank in front of the
houses.
7.6.
SCOUR CALCULATIONS
Scour calculations were performed using various formulae and the following data:
D50 gravel size = 4 mm (fine gravel)

Unit weight of gravel = 2.65
Riverbed width = 73 m


7-8
Discharge per unit width = 8.3 m3/s (1 in 100 year flood).
The scour depths calculated are given in Table 7.3.

Table 7.3 Scour Depths
Method
HEC II
HEC 18 live bed contraction scour
HEC 18 clear water contraction scour
Critical average flow velocity approach
Maza Alvarez and Echavarria approach

Scour Depth (m)

3.7
2.3
2.7
3.6
1.6

7-9
8. Irrigation System Planning
8.
8.1.
IRRIGATION SYSTEM PLANNING
LOCATION
Uatolari I irrigation scheme is located in the District of Viqueque. The irrigation area lies just east
of the village of Uatolari. Access to the irrigation area is well provided via the main road from
Uatolari to Uatocarabau. There is good vehicular access to the intake structure.
8.2.
EXISTING IRRIGATION SCHEME
Uatolari I irrigation scheme draws water from Bebui River and consists of the remnants of an old
weir built in the 1970s, a partially built weir on the right bank, the old intake structure with gates, a
new intake structure with steel gates and a system of canals which include a main canal and a
rudimentary secondary canals. Figure 8.1 presents the layout of the irrigation scheme on a
1:25,000 scale. Figure 8.2 is a schematic of the existing scheme and Figures 8.3 to 8.5 presents
details of several of the existing structures.
8.3.
IRRIGATION AREA
According to local farmers, the irrigation area under this scheme was developed in two stages. The
first stage was developed during the early scheme and consisted of the land closer to the coast
(lower lying areas). The second stage development included the rice fields up to the main road.
The paddy area of the existing scheme consists of a rectangular section between the main road and
the coast between the rivers Bebui and Saqueto. A total area of 1090 ha has been estimated based
on the 1:25,000 topographic maps, interviews with farmers and using hand held GPS during field
visits.
The main deficiency of this irrigation scheme is the lack of structures for water distribution to the
canals (control structures, check structures, offtakes etc).
8.4.
DIVERSION STRUCTURE AND IRRIGATION NETWORK
Uatolari I irrigation scheme was constructed during Portuguese administration with a free intake on
the Bebui river. The scheme was rehabilitated in 1991 by the Indonesian administration after the
washout of the intake during a flood. This rehabilitated system consisted of a low weir with an
intake structure to feed into the Main Canal This weir was destroyed in a flood in 1997 and the
Indonesian administration commenced building of a new weir and intake structure. Construction
was abandoned in 1998/99 and all that remains is a partially built weir about 30 m long on the right
side of the river.
The old intake structure with 2 wooden gates discharge irrigation water into the Main Canal. A
new intake structure with 2 steel gates has been built, but is not connected to the intake canal. A
system of canals, which include a main canal, some rudimentary secondary canals and tertiary
canals provide the distribution network.
More information on the diversion structure is presented in other sections of this report.


8-1
The present system of canals is not developed to deliver irrigation water to the whole irrigation
area. The Main Canal runs only for a distance of about 2 km along the northern boundary of the
scheme whereas the area beyond stretches over another 3 km. Thus the south west section of the
irrigation area does not receive irrigation water at present.
Another deficiency is the lack of a secondary canal in the middle of the area to cater to the middle
part of the irrigation area which is more than 2 km wide.
These deficiencies have been taken into account in the system planning of the Uatolari I scheme in
order to maximize the use of available resources.
8.5.
MAIN CANAL AND STRUCTURES
The main canal between the intake and the division structure BUa 1 is in a deep cut and is of
masonry construction. The slopes are stable and there is no concern for slope collapse along this
reach. The division structure is a simple bifurcation structure with no gates for the control of flow
into the main and secondary canal. The main canal continues in a south westerly direction through
the village of Uaitame before running parallel to the main road. The canal predominantly is an
earth canal with trapezoidal masonry cross sections in short sections. Except for a few temporary
plank footbridges across the canal in the village and a drop structure, this canal lacks any offtakes or
other canal structures. A pipe aqueduct crosses a deep stream towards the bottom end of the Main
Canal. There are several open outlets from the main canal for delivering water to the paddy fields.
There is no provision for water control in the canal or at outlets. The Main canal ends in a non
defined pool about halfway between the intake and the town of Uatolari.
The rehabilitation measures include the following:
provision of control gates at the division structure and minor masonry repair work
reprofiling of the existing main canal for the design discharge
extension of the main canal to about km 5 to provide irrigation to the bottom end of the
scheme
redesign of the tertiary canal at the present drop structure (BUe 3) to a secondary canal
(Uitame Secondary canal) with adequate discharge capacity
replacement of the existing pipe aqueduct by a reinforced concrete flume
provision of a reinforced concrete aqueduct to cross Saqueto river
provision of bathing steps and foot bridges within the village area
provision of offtake structures and gates as required
rehabilitation/reconstruction of the existing drop structure at BUe 3.


8-2
8.6.
SECONDARY CANALS AND STRUCTURES
There are two secondary canals in the system. The Dinbau Secondary Canal starts at the bifurcation
structure BUe 1 and runs in a southerly direction in an earth section. The canal was noted to be
heavily overgrown with tall grass during site inspections. The first offtake structure, which
provides supplies to the left and right tertiary blocks, is gated and is in good condition. The first
part of the Dinbau secondary canal terminates in a drop structure about 250 m downstream of the
offtake. Beyond this drop structure, it flows in a deep gully (drainage channel) to the second drop
structure (BDi 2). After a short distance, the canal terminates in an offtake structure (BDi 3)with 4
gated outlets for the tertiaries.
The Uitame Secondary Canal heads left at the drop structure BUe 3 about 1 km from the weir on
the Main Canal and flows in a southerly direction. This is an earth canal of a small cross section.
There are no defined structures along this canal. The canal resembles a tertiary canal.
The rehabilitation measures for the secondary canals and structures include the following:
Dinbau Secondary Canal and Structures
provision of masonry lining where appropriate (the section in the deep gully will be cleared of
grass and other growth, but not reprofiled). A check of the cross section for the design
discharge showed the canal to be adequate for the required flows
minor repairs to the existing masonry work as required
check of the gates and painting if required.
Uitame Secondary Canal
8.6.1.
excavation and masonry lining of the new canal profile

provision of offtakes with slide gates for controlled discharges to tertiaries
provision of an access path along the canal.
Determination of Tertiary Areas
Only the upper end of the irrigation scheme has constructed offtakes. The Main canal, which
supplies most part of the area lacks structures for water deliveries to the tertiary areas. There are no
offtake structures. Farmers use openings on the bank of the canal to divert water to the fields and
thus cause disruption further downstream. There are tertiary offtakes on the Dinbau secondary
canal and these are fitted with slide gates for water control.
Large scale topographic maps nor tertiary block maps were available to the Consultant. These
would have defined the tertiary areas related to the tertiary offtakes. In estimating the tertiary areas,
the Consultant used information from local farmers to define boundaries, field conditions observed
during site visits to the tertiary areas and spot levels obtained during the topographic survey. The
approximate areas of the tertiary blocks are shown on Figure 8.1. These areas were then used to
work out the tertiary head discharges and canal discharges as presented in Figure 8.6.
The Consultants design includes the provision of an adequate number of offtake structures fitted
with steel slide gates for water control to supply water to the tertiary blocks.


8-3
9. Hydraulic Design of Irrigation Network
9.
9.1.
HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF IRRIGATION NETWORK
BACKGROUND
The irrigation scheme under this study, Uatolari I is an existing run-of-river scheme. The scheme
was designed and constructed several years ago, but design documentation has been lost during the
civil disturbances in 1999.
One of the major tasks for irrigation rehabilitation was the checking of the hydraulic performance of
the canals and structures. This design check would have been made easier if the original drawings
and design notes were available. Since this was not the case, the Consultant carried out a survey of
the canals and structures to establish the existing geometry and condition of the canals and
structures. This information provided the basis for the hydraulic check of the existing canal
network and any adjustments required.
9.2.
UPGRADING OF NETWORK
Uatolari I Irrigation Scheme consists of the about 2 km long Uatolari I main canal, a 1.3 km long
Dinbau secondary canal and a short Uitame canal which currently functions as a tertiary canal. The
rehabilitation works include the extension of the main canal by 3.5 km to provide irrigation
facilities to an additional 435 ha and the upgrading of 1.85 km long existing Uitame tertiary canal.
As with the other schemes, the canals are silted up due to lack of maintenance. Flow is also
hampered by the heavy vegetation growth. Only parts of the Uatolari I main canal is lined with
masonry whereas the rest of the canals are all earth canals.
9.3.
DESIGN APPROACH
Due to non-availability of previous design information, the study was carried out in two phases.
Phase one work consisted of the development of a one dimensional mathematical model to assess
the performance of the existing irrigation system. Phase two work consisted of final design work
for the proposed rehabilitation work.
A mathematical modelling package HEC-RAS 3.0 was used to compute one dimensional flow
regime in canals. The model output was used to assess the hydraulic performance of the existing
structures. The HEC-RAS mathematical model was developed at the US Army Corps of Engineers
Hydrologic Centre and has the ability to simulate steady and unsteady state flow conditions in
canals having structures such as bridges, culverts, drop structures, levees, lateral weir and gates.
The model is also capable of simulating split types of flow conditions in canals. In general the flow
regime in irrigation canals is steady, split type and have all the structure types indicated above.
Therefore the HEC-RAS model is considered as the most appropriate type of mathematical model
for the assessment of the above rehabilitation work.
The design work involved the development of a HEC-RAS model for the scheme and running the
model for the required discharges. Surveyed cross sections and longitudinal sections were used to
represent the existing canal network. The majority of canals have a trapezoidal shape and are
constructed of masonry. The initial assessment was carried out with the existing bed gradients
obtained from the longitudinal sections from the survey. The split type flow condition was used to


9-1
determine the capacities of existing canals. Each section of the canal network was tested for the
design flows required to be conveyed through that section. This was done by using the flow splits
condition in the canal network. Most of the existing turnout structures (division structures) were
used for the above purpose. New secondary turnout locations were identified for the canal sections
that did not have turnout structures.
A schematic diagram of the HEC-RAS model is shown in Figure 9.1. The HEC-RAS model was
run with the design flow rates and the results were checked to ensure that the canal sections were
adequate to convey the design discharges in those respective sections. A cross section plot with the
predicted water levels was checked in the geometric editor of the program. Inadequate sections and
sections showing less freeboard were identified for modification. The HEC-RAS profile editor was
used to determine the irregular bed gradients.
9.4.
HYDRAULIC ASSESSMENT
The HEC-RAS output for the existing canal system with the section identified for inadequate canal
geometry is given in Table C1.1 in Appendix C and shown on Figures 9.2a and 9.2b.
The new extension on the main canal is a contour canal about 3.5 km long with a low gradient. In
order to minimise hydraulic losses and to increase the irrigable area, it is recommended that the
canal section needs to be concrete lined for this section. A minimum hydraulic gradient of 0.0002
was used in the canal design. The existing pipe aqueduct at Sta 1.0 km will be replaced by a
reinforced concrete aqueduct. A new aqueduct at Sta 4.0 km crossing the local stream Belia is
proposed. These aqueducts were designed as rectangular sections with transitions on the upstream
and downstream sides. Hydraulic design of these aqueducts was done by using the design
guidelines from Design of Small Canal Structures, published by the US government.
Parts of the existing canal sections were found to be filled with silt and debris due to lack of canal
maintenance. These canal bed levels do not provide sufficient hydraulic gradient to convey the
design flows. New canal dimensions were proposed for these sections. The proposed canal profiles
and structure invert levels for new profiling are given in the Table C1.2.
For the upgrading of the Uaitame canal a hydraulic gradient of 0.04% was adopted. Drop structures
with a maximum drop of 2 m were located along the canal as required.
New canal sections and invert levels were incorporated in to the HEC-RAS model. The model was
then run with the proposed design flows and the output is given in Table C1.3. The HEC-RAS
output was used to assess the hydraulic performances of existing canal structures. A water surface
profile for new canal geometry is shown in Figures 9.3a, 9.3b and 9.3c.


9-2
Uat_Weir
intake
UatCan1
Uat_Wd/s
C1&C2
Can1D/S
Uat_Can2
Can1&Sec1
Can1_Sec1
C2&SecC
U a t Ca
Sec_3
New CanExt1
l1
New &Ext
Ua
na
UCan1DS
UCan2D/S
l2
Sec_Canal
na
tCa
Sec_Sec&Sec
NSec_Sec1
NSec_D/S
Sec2&D/S1
Sec_2
CanExtD/S1
D/S1&D/S2
Sec_1
NCanD/S2
Partial GIS data
Figure 9.1: Uatolari Irrigation System HEC RAS Schematic Diagram


9-3
Figures 9.2: Uatolari Irrigation System Water Surface Profiles for Existing Canal Condition
Uatolari - Distribution 30_12_02
Plan: Plan 03
Geom: New Canal Design Distribution
Flow : Existing Flow
UCan1DS
Can1D/S
UatCan1
25
Legend
EG Existing
WS Existing
Crit Existing
24
Ground
23
Elevation (m)
22
21
20
19
18
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Main Channel Distance (reverse order) (m)
Figure 9.2a: Existing Dinbau Secondary Canal

Plan: Plan 03
UCan2D/S
Uat_Can2
25.0
Legend
Crit Existing
EG Existing
WS Existing
24.5
Ground
24.0
Elevation (m)
23.5
23.0
22.5
22.0
21.5
21.0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Figure 9.2b: Existing Uatolari Main Canal


9-4
Figure 9.3: Estimated Water Surface Profiles from HEC-RAS Model

for Modified Uatolari Canal
Plan: Plan 03
UCan1DS
Can1D/S
UatCan1
25
Legend
EG Existing
WS Existing
Crit Existing
24
Ground
23
Elevation (m)
22
21
20
19
18
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Figure 9.3a: Modified Dinbau Secondary Canal

Plan: Plan 03
Flow: Existing Flow
UCan2D/S
Uat_Can2
25.0
Legend
WS Existing
24.5
EG Existing
Crit Existing
24.0
Ground
Elevation (m)
23.5
23.0
22.5
22.0
21.5
21.0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Figure 9.3b: Modified Uatolari Main Canal


9-5

Plan: Plan 03
NCanD/S2
CanExtD/S1
NewCanExt1
22.6
Legend
EG Existing
WS Existing
Crit Existing
22.4
Ground
22.2
Elevation (m)
22.0
21.8
21.6
21.4
21.2
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Figure 9.3c: Uatolari Main Canal Extension


9-6
10. General Design Criteria
10. GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA

10.1.
GENERAL
The following design criteria and formula have been used in the tender design of the various
structures. Calculations based on this criteria are given in sections 11 to 13 and 15 and the
Appendices of this report.
10.2.
ENTRANCE LOSSES TO INTAKES
10.2.1.
Change of direction
The entrance loss due to a change of direction of flow (intake at an angle with the main stream)
is:
h
V2/2g - V02/2g
=
=
=
=
=
velocity through intake (m/s)

velocity of main stream at the inlet (m/s)
coefficient to allow for change in direction of flow
0.4 for equal to 90 degrees
0.8 for equal to 30 degrees
Equation 10.1
where:
V
V0
10.2.2.
Ht
Trashrack losses
=
x (s/b)1.33 x sin x V2/2g
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
headloss (m)
velocity through intake (m/s)
shape factor
2.4 for rectangular bars
1.8 for round bars
thickness of bars (m)
clear distance between bars (m)
angle of inclination from horizontal
Equation 10.2
where:
Ht
V
s
b
10.2.3.
H
Transition losses
=
U x (V22 V21)/2g
=
=
headloss (m)
velocity in structure (m/s)
Equation 10.3
where:
H
V2


10-1
V1
U
10.3.
=
=
=
=
velocity in canal (m/s)

entrance or exit loss coefficient
0.25 for entrance losses for standard canal transitions
0.50 for exit loss coefficient for standard canal transitions
FLOW IN CONVEYANCE STRUCTURES
The discharge capacity of flumes and canals has been calculated from Mannings formula:
Q
(A x R0.67 x S0.5)/n
=
=
=
=
=
discharge (m3/s)
Area (m2)
hydraulic radius (m)
slope of water surface
Mannings n
Equation 10.4
where:
Q
A
R
S
n
The value of Mannings n used is given in Table 10.1.

Table 10.1 Mannings n
Type of surface
Concrete
Masonry on sides
Earth, gravel
10.4.
Value of n
0.012
0.015
0.030
WIDTH OF WEIRS
For stability of riverbeds in alluvial rivers:

W
4.825 Q0.5
Pw
=
=
=
Laceys regime width (m)

wetted perimeter (m)
total discharge (m3/s)
Equation 10.5
where:
W
Pw
Q
For rivers flowing within well designed banks a waterway width of 0.7W is acceptable.
10.5.
CAPACITY OF SLUICEWAYS
Recommended capacities of sluiceways are:
20% of maximum flood discharge

twice the capacity of the canal intake.


10-2
10.6.
DISCHARGE OVER WEIRS

Q
C x L x H1.5
=
=
=
=
=
discharge (m3/s)
discharge coefficient
1.7 for broad crested weirs
effective length of weir (m)
head above weir crest including velocity head (m)
Equation 10.6
where:
Q
C
L
H
10.7.
HYDRAULICS OF STILLING BASINS
10.7.1.
Froude Number
Fr
V/((g x D)0.5)
=
=
=
=
Froude number
mean velocity of flow (m/s)
acceleration of gravity (m/s/s)
depth of flow (m)
Equation 10.7
where:
Fr
V
g
D
10.7.2.
Y2
Conjugate Depth
=
Y1/2 x ((1 + 8 Fr2)0.5 1)
=
=
=
conjugate depth (m)

upstream depth (m)
Froude number
Equation 10.8
where:
Y2
Y1
Fr
10.7.3.
Minimum tailwater depth
Tailwater depth
1.1 x Y2 (m)
Equation 10.9
where:
Y2
conjugate depth (m)


10-3
10.7.4.
Basin length
Length of basins for Froude Numbers between 2.5 and 4.5:

L
2 x Y1 x ((1 + 8 Fr2)0.5 1)
=
=
=
conjugate depth (m)

upstream depth (m)
Froude number
Equation 10.10
where:
Y2
Yi
Fr
10.8.
UPLIFT
10.8.1.
Uplift pressure under floor
H (H/L) x L1
Equation 10.11
=
=
=
=
uplift pressure (m)

difference in water levels upstream and downstream of the weir (m)
total creep length (m)
creep length at point 1 (m)
where:
P
H
L
L1
10.8.2.
T
Thickness of floor
=
c x P/(G-1)
=
=
=
=
factor of safety against uplift = 1.20

required thickness of floor (m)
uplift pressure under floor (m)
specific gravity of concrete (t/m3)
Equation 10.12
where:
C
T
P
G
10.9.
HYDRAULIC GRADIENTS
10.9.1.
Blighs creep theory
Hg
H/L
Equation 10.13
=
=
=
=
=
hydraulic gradient
seepage head (m)
difference in water levels upstream and downstream of the weir
the total creep length = 2d1 + b + 2d2 (m)
depth of upstream cutoff (m)
where:
Hg
H
L
D1


10-4
D2
B
=
=
depth of downstream cutoff (m)

horizontal floor length between cutoffs (m)
Allowable hydraulic gradients for various materials are given in Table 10.2.
Table 10.2 Allowable Hydraulic Gradients
Type of foundation
Light sand and mud
Fine micaceous sand
Course grained sand
Sand mixed with boulders and shingles
10.9.2.
C
Allowable
Hydraulic Gradient
1 in 8
1 in 15
1 in 12
1 in 9 to 1 in 5
Lanes weighted creep theory

=
<
Lw/H
Equation 10.14
=
=
=
=
=
empirical coefficient depending on soil conditions

Weighted creep length (m)
N/3 + V
the sum of the lengths of horizontal and less than 45 degree slopes (m)
the sum of the lengths of vertical and slopes of greater than 45 degree slopes (m)
where:
C
Lw
N
V
Allowable values of C for various materials are given in Table 10.3.

Table 10.3 Allowable C Values
Type of Soil
Very fine sand or silt
Fine sand
Medium sand
Coarse sand
Fine gravel
Medium gravel
Coarse gravel including cobbles
Boulders with some cobbles and gravel
Soft clay
Medium clay
Hard clay
Very hard clay or hardpan

Value of C
8.5
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
3.0
1.8
1.8
1.6

10-5
10.9.3.
Khosla
Khosla, Bose and Taylor (1954) actual exit gradient (with one end cut-off pile):
=
Hs/d20.5
Ge
H
=
=
=
=
exit gradient
difference in water levels upstream and downstream of the weir (m)
Pi
=
3.14
0.5 x (1 + (1 + 2)0.5)
Equation 10.16
b/d2
Ge
Equation 10.15
where:
and
Equation 10.17
Table 10.4 Safety factors for exit gradients
Type of soil
Coarse sand
Fine sand
Safety factor
5 to 6
6 to 7
Permissible exit gradients for gravels of 1 in 6 has been adopted for gravels.
The design condition must assume the worst possible loading condition ie when no flow exists over
the weir crest and the downstream stilling basin is dry.
10.10.
SCOUR DEPTHS
Scour depth calculations were made during the morphology investigations using various methods to
estimate the depth of scour.
Following the recommendations of Farraday and Charlton (1983), the potential depth of scour
adjacent to an abutment is 1.5 to 2 times the depth to average bed level for flow parallel to the bank,
increasing to 2.25 times this depth for flow impinging at 90 degrees to the bank.
10.10.1.
Rs
Regime Scour Depths

=
0.475x(Q/f) 0.33
=
=
=
=
=
Regime scour depth (m)

maximum flood discharge (m3/s)
Laceys silt factor
1.75xd0.5
mean diameter of the bed material
Equation 10.18
where:
Rs
Q
f
d


10-6
If the actual waterway provided is less than the regime width:

Rs
1.35x(q2/f)0.33
=
=
=
Scour depth (m)

discharge per unit width of channel (m3/s/m)
Laceys silt factor
Equation 10.19
where:
Rs
q
f
Maximum probable scour depth factors:
downstream of stilling basin and concrete blocks = 2.0

straight reaches of guide banks = 1.5
Table 10.5 Scour Depth Factors
Location
Upstream
Downstream of floor and concrete blocks
Noses of guide banks
Transition from nose to straight portion
Straight reaches of guide banks
Minimum
1.25
1.75
2.00
1.25
1.25
10.11.
PROTECTION AGAINST SCOUR AND PIPING
10.11.1.
Concrete aprons and inverted filter
Maximum
1.75
2.25
2.50
1.75
1.75
Mean
1.50
2.00
2.25
1.50
1.50
Figure 10.1 refers.

The aprons are plain concrete blocks 1 m x 1.5 m x 0.75 m deep. The apron directly downstream of
weirs is laid with 70-100 mm open joints filled with spawls (broken stones), so that uplift pressure
is relieved. An inverted filter of well-graded gravel and sand is placed under the concrete apron in
order to prevent loss of soil through the joints.
lb
1.5 x d2
=
=
length of concrete apron (m)

potential depth of scour (m)
Equation 10.20
where:
lb
d2


10-7
10.11.2.
Launching apron D/S of weir
Figure 10.1 refers.

la
2.5 x d2
length of launching apron (m)
Equation 10.21
where:
la
Volume of apron/m run = 3d2

10.11.3.
Equation 10.22
Launching apron on guide banks
Figure 10.2 refers.

la
1.5 x D
=
=
length of launching apron (m)

depth of scour (m)
Equation 10.23
where:
la
D
Volume of apron/m run = 2.25 D

10.11.4.
D
Equation 10.24
Minimum stone size

=
k V2/2g?
=
=
=
=
=
=
minimum stone size (m)

1 for calm flow
1.4 for highly turbulent flow
mean velocity of flow (m/s)
acceleration due to gravity = 9.81 m/s/s
buoyant unit weight of boulder = 1.6
Equation 10.25
where:
D
K
V
G
?
10.12.
SLUICING
Size of gravel entering through the debris barrier will be limited to 100 mm.
Using equation 10.25:
V
(D x 2 x g x ? x k)0.5

Equation 10.26

10-8
10.13.
CANAL VELOCITIES
Minimum velocity to prevent saltation = 0.5 m/s

Maximum velocity to avoid erosion = 0.7 m
10.14.
DROP STRUCTURES
The choice of type of drop structure has been based on the following criteria in accordance with
common practice:
Vertical drop structures:
0<h<=1.0 m
Inclined drop:
1.0<h<=4.5 m
Design of stilling basin is based on Equations 10.7 to 10.11.

10.15.
SYPHONS
Flow velocity = 1.5 m/s or twice canal velocity.

To prevent floating trash from entering the syphon provision is made of trashracks at the syphon
entrance.
10.16.
STABILITY OF STRUCTURES
10.16.1.
Overturning
Fo
Mo/Mr
Equation 10.27
where:
FO =
MO =
MR =
10.16.2.
factor of safety against overturning

sum of overturning moments
sum of restoring moments
Sliding
a.
Sliding factor
Fss
H/V
Equation 10.28
where:
Fss
H
V
=
=
=
sliding factor of safety

sum of horizontal load components
sum of vertical loads


10-9
b.
Shear friction factor
FSF
(cA + Vtan)/H
Equation 10.29
where:
FSF
C
A
V
10.16.3.
Fsf
=
=
=
=
=
shear friction factor

effective cohesion of foundation material
area of base
sum of all vertical forces
effective friction angle of foundation material
Floatation
=
total mass/total uplift = ? V/? U - 1.2 minimum
Equation 10.30
where:
?V =
?U =
10.16.4.
Vertical mass of structure

Uplift under base of structure
Required safety factors
The minimum factors of safety to be achieved in each case against sliding, overturning and uplift
are:
Load Cases
Usual
Floods
Seismic
10.16.5.
Sliding
3.00
2.00
1.30
Overturning
2.00
1.50
1.30
Uplift
1.20
1.10
1.10
Foundation bearing pressures
Fmax =
P/A(1+6e/B)
Equation 10.31
Fmin =
P/A(1-6e/B)
Equation 10.32
where:
Fmax =
Fmin =
B
=
maximum bearing pressure

minimum bearing pressure
Length of base of structure
For normal loading conditions, the pressure on the foundations shall remain positive (compressive)
over the full area of the base (resultant within the middle third.


10-10
The maximum foundation bearing pressures shall not exceed the following:
normal loadings
extreme loadings
1.00 F
1.25 F
where:
F
the allowable bearing pressure of the foundation
Allowable bearing pressures for in-situ gravels has been estimated to be 150 kPa.
10.17.
EARTH PRESSURES
Active Pressure:
Ka
(1 sin )/(1 + sin )
Equation 10.33
1 sin F
Equation 10.34
(1 + sin F )/(1 sin F )
Equation 10.35
internal friction angle
At Rest Pressure:
Kp
Passive Pressure:
Kp
where:
F
10.18.
SEISMIC LOADING
Inertia force applies during earthquake events:

F
ma
=
=
=
=
=
W/g = mass of soil and wall involved

weight of rankine wedge
acceleration
0.15 g for horizontal accelerations
0.10 g for vertical accelerations
Equation 10.36
where:
m
W
a
Force is applied at 0.5H where H is height of wall.


10-11
10.19.
REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN
10.19.1.
Concrete strength
Characteristic strength of all structural concrete at 28 days = 25 MPa.

10.19.2.
Reinforcing Bar
Tensile Requirement
Minimum
Minimum Yield
Minimum
Tensile
Strength (MPa)
elongation (%)
Strength (MPa)
400
570
16
Grade
40
10.19.3.
Bending requirement
Bending angle
Bending
diameter
180
5xd
Minimum Reinforcement Requirements
Minimum reinforcement (mm) = 0.006bD

=
Equation 10.37
003bD in each face
where:
b
D
=
=
the width of the cross section (mm)

the overall depth of the cross section in the plane of bending (mm)
In reinforced sections thicker than 500 mm the shrinkage and temperature reinforcement provided is
equal to that required for a 500 mm thick section.
10.19.4.
Splice and Anchorage Lengths
For 25 MPa concrete with clear distance between adjacent bars and a minimum cover to
reinforcement of 60 mm the development and lap-splice lengths are given in Table 10.6.
Table 10.6 Development and lap-splice lengths
Bar size
Y12
Y16
Y20
Y24
Y28
Y32
Y36
10.19.5.
Development & Lapsplice length

(mm)
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Cover to Reinforcement
In all sections the minimum clear cover for reinforcement is 75 mm.


10-12
10.19.6.
Design for bending
Mu/bd2 = f x fc x q x (1 q/1.7)
Equation 10.38
where:
Mu
B
D
F
fc
q
fsy
10.19.7.
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
the ultimate strength in bending

width of cross section
effective depth of cross section
strength reduction factor
characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete at 28 days
Ast x fsy/b x d x fc
yield strength of reinforcing steel
Design for shear
Vuc =
d0 (Ast x Fc/bv x do)0.333
Equation 10.39
where:
Vuc
d0
Ast
Fc
=
=
=
=
=
Ultimate shear strength of beam/slab

1.1 x (1.6 d0/1000)>=1.1
distance to tensile reinforcement
cross sectional area of reinforcement
characteristic compressive strength of concrete at 28 days
If V < = 0.5 x f x Vu.min no shear reinforcement is required
Equation 10.40
where:
V =
F
=
Vu.min =
10.19.8.
design shear force

strength reduction factor = 0.7
ultimate shear strength of beam/slab with minimum reinforcement
Design of Gate Hoist Deck
The deck has been designed for:

1.
2.
3.
self weight at 23.5 kN/m3

live load of 5 kN/m2
gate loads calculated from W = 9.81 x A x P x + G
Equation 10.41
where:
W
A
P
=
=
=
=
=
concentrated gate load

area of the gate opening
depth of water above the gate invert
coefficient of friction between gate and frame
0.7 just before movent starts


10-13
=
=
0.3 once gate is moving

weight of gate including hoist stem
The maximum value of W is 140 kN.

10.19.9.
Weather Canopies
The weather canopies protect the gate hoist and control equipment from the elements.
10.20.
FOUNDATION MATERIAL PROPERTIES
10.20.1.
Coarse gravels (Material 1)
Cohesion c = 0 kPa
Angle of friction = 40 degrees
Unit weight = 18 kN/m3
10.20.2.
Fine gravels, sand, clay (Material 2)
Cohesion c = 10 kPa
Angle of friction = 30 degrees
Unit weight = 18 kN/m3


10-14
11. Design of Weir
11. DESIGN OF WEIR

11.1.
NEW WORKS
The civil work and equipment involved in the construction of the new weir and intake is:
5 m high weir 70 metre long with steel armouring on the downstream slope of the weir crest
and part of the stilling basin to protect the concrete from erosion
sluice and intake structures
sluice gates and intake gates
flood embankments/walls on both sides of the river
river bank protection upstream and downstream of the weir
drains on each river bank to divert flows downstream of the weir.
Figures 2.2, 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 show the general arrangement of the new headworks and details of
the weir, intake and flood protection works respectively.
11.2.
EXISTING WORKS
The quality of construction of the existing works is not considered acceptable and has not been
incorporated into any new construction. The existing construction should be removed as it is
considered unsafe.
11.3.
DESIGN - GENERAL
Stability of the weir is aided by designing the upstream apron and a section of the stilling basin slab
as an integral part of the weir. This is the most economical arrangement to ensure stability. With
this layout the bearing pressures are very low. Gravel will be placed up to crest level prior to
impoundment as the weight of gravel on the upstream apron increases the sliding resistance of the
structure and provides a more uniform bearing pressure under the weir crest.
The stilling basin slab has been set low to allow formation of a hydraulic jump for the design flood
(flood with a return period of 100 years).
Cutoff walls and launching aprons have been located at the downstream end of the stilling basin to
provide an acceptable exit gradient and guard against scour.
Steel lining has been provided where erosion of the concrete is anticipated i.e. on the downstream
slope of the crest and on the upstream section of the floor of the stilling basin.


11-1
11. Design of Weir
11.4.
DIVERSION REQUIREMENT
The river diversion works are required to divert a maximum flow of 2.20 m3/s. The hydraulic
analysis of the irrigation canal network calculated the water surface in the canal immediately
downstream of the intake to be El 24.66 m for this flow.
11.5.
DESIGN FLOOD
The weir is designed to safely pass the 1 in 100 year return period flood. The intake is designed to
prevent water from such a flood entering the canal system.
To minimize the damage occurring if a flood larger than the 1 in 100 return period flood occurs the
top of the weir abutments have been set above the 1 in 1000 return period flood level and the crest
of the embankment and wall along the river banks is set 0.3 m below the top of the weir abutments.
Table 11.1 Design Floods
Return period (years)
Flow (m3/s)
11.6.
100
620
1000
840
LOCATION OF WEIR
The river morphology study concluded that the most stable site for the new weir is the existing site.
Also there is no land resumption required for a new canal and little interference with the existing
water diversion arrangements.
The new weir is located downstream of the existing intake so as not to interfere with the existing
diversion arrangements. Also the river widens here which will provide more space for construction.
11.7.
CREST WIDTH
The width of the weir is similar to the width of the existing riverbed. A width of 76 m has been
adopted. The river is flowing within defined banks.
Width required by Darcys formula is:
W
=
=
=
4.825 x Q0.5
4.825 x 6200.5
120 m
Equation 10.5
For rivers flowing within well designed banks a water way width of 0.7W is acceptable:
0.7W =
=
0.7 x 120
84 m
Width of 76 m is considered adequate as bed consists of large size gravel which increases the
stability of the riverbed.


11-2
11. Design of Weir
11.8.
CREST ELEVATION
From the irrigation hydraulic design studies for a design discharge of 2.20 m3/s and a canal invert
level of 23.8 m the water level at the intake has been calculated to be EL 24.66 m. To this elevation
must be added the head losses at the intake and in the approach to the intake.
A crest level of El 25.00 has been adopted which allows for a head loss through the approach
channel and intake of up to 0.34 m.
11.9.
ENTRANCE LOSSES IN INTAKE

Table 11.2 Entrance losses in intake
Change of direction
Debris/rock barrier
Transition losses
Data
Q = 2.20 m3/s
A = 3.0 m2
V = 0.733
Assume V0 = 0
? = 0.4
?h =
V = 0.733 m/s
? = 1.8
S = 0.09 m
b = 0.14 m
d = 90
?h =
V1 = 0.733 m/s
V2 = 0.90 m/s
U entrance = 0.25
U exit = 0.50
Formula
Calculation
Q/A
2.20/2x1x1.5 = 0.733 m/s
Eq. 10.1
0.7332/2 x 9.81
0.027 m
Eq. 10.2
1.8 x (.09/.14)1.33 x sin (90) x

0.7332/2 x 9.81
0.027 m
Eq. 10.3
0.75 x (0.902 -0.7332)/2 x 9.81
0.016 m
0.070 m
Total headloss
11.10.
Result
FLOOD LEVELS AND VELOCITIES
HEC-RAS studies were carried out to determine water levels upstream and downstream of the weir
for various return period floods. The output from the computer program is included as
Appendix D.1.
Table 11.3 Flood Levels
Chainage
30 m U/S
weir
290
360
430
490
570
620
840
26.92
27.12
27.30
27.35
27.63
27.74
28.14

In stilling basin
With
With
degradation to degradation to
El 22.5 m
El 23 m
24.31
24.78
24.57
25.03
24.81
25.26
24.95
25.45
25.18
25.69
25.32
25.83
25.89
26.40

11-3
11. Design of Weir
Table 11.4 Velocities (m/s)
11.11.
Chainage
30 m U/S
weir
Near
bottom of
crest
At D/S end of
stilling basin
290
360
430
490
570
620
840
2.47
2.72
2.96
3.14
3.37
3.49
4.03
8.36
8.81
9.04
9.22
9.44
9.57
10.08
2.48
2.69
2.89
3.04
3.22
3.33
3.74
AFFLUX AT WEIR
From the HEC-RAS studies the afflux for a 1 in 100 year flood is 2.74 m (EL 27.74 m) and for a 1
in 1000 year flood 3.14 m (EL 28.14 m).
The afflux of water over the weir crest was also calculated using the broad crested weir formula as
gravel will be placed to crest level to stabilise the weir structure. To evaluate the afflux prior to
sediment build-up behind the crest (lower approach velocities, higher afflux) the coefficient of
discharge was taken as 1.7 (broad crested weir).
Table 11.5 Afflux for 1 in 100 year flood prior to sediment build-up
Feature
Clear waterway width
Flood discharge
Crest Elevation
Using the formula for a broad crested
weir
Total head over the crest
Velocity of approach
Approach velocity head
Actual afflux
Flood level for 1 in 100 year return
period flood
Data
76 m
620 m3/s
25 m
Formula
Calculation
Result
Equation 10.6
H=
V=
hv = V2/2g
(620/1.7 x 76)0.67
620/76 x 4.74
= 1.722/2x9.81
= 2.84 0.15
= 25.0 + 2.69
2.84 m
1.72 m
0.15 m
2.69 m
EL 27.7 m
Table 11.6 Afflux for 1 in 1000 year flood prior to sediment build-up
Feature
Clear waterway width
Flood discharge
Crest elevation
Using the formula for a broad crested
weir
Total head over the crest
Velocity of approach
Approach velocity head
Data
76 m
620 m3/s
25 m

Formula
Calculation
Result
Equation 10.6
H=
V=
hv = V2/2g
(840/1.7 x 76)0.67
840/76 x 5.14
3.50 m
2.15 m/s
0.24 m

11-4
11. Design of Weir

Feature
Actual afflux
Flood level for 1 in 1000 year return
period flood
Data
Formula
Calculation
= 3.5- 0.25
= 25 + 3.25
Result
3.26 m
EL 28.26 m
The HEC-RAS study results were adopted i.e. 1 in 100 year flood level EL 27.74 and the 1 in
1000 year flood level EL 28.14.
0.8 m of freeboard was allowed for the 1 in 100 year flood. With a crest level of EL 25 m the weir
abutments are at EL 28.50 m. This will safely handle the 1 in 1000 year flood.
The embankment on both sides of the river immediately upstream of the weir will be left at a lower
elevation of EL 28.2 m so that they will be overtopped first in case of a larger flood than the 1 in
100 year flood. This will minimise the damage to the weir.
11.12.
STILLING BASIN
Table 11.7 shows the hydraulic calculations performed for the design of the stilling basin.
Allowance has been made for 0.5 m to 1 m degradation in riverbed level.
Table 11.7 Hydraulics of Stilling Basin
V1
Y1
Froude
Number
Conjugate
Depth
(1)
(m/s)
8.46
8.81
9.04
9.22
9.44
9.57
10.08
(1)
(m)
0.45
0.54
0.63
0.7
0.79
0.85
1.10
(Eq. 10.7)
(Eq. 10.8)
(m)
2.35
2.66
2.93
3.51
3.42
3.59
4.25
Discharge
(m3/s)
290
360
430
490
570
620
840
(1)
4.02
3.84
3.65
3.52
3.38
3.31
3.07
Tailwater
Depth
Required
(Eq. 10.9)
(m)
2.59
2.93
3.22
3.47
3.76
3.95
4.68
Calculated
Tailwater
Depth
(m)
2.81
3.07
3.32
3.45
3.68
3.82
4.38
obtained from HEC-RAS studies
Table 11.7 Stilling Basin Hydraulics (continued)

Discharge
(m3/s)
290
360
430
490
570
620
840

Length of jump
(m)
(Eq. 10.10)
9.39
10.66
11.76
12.60
13.66
14.33
17.02

11-5
11. Design of Weir
11.13.
CAPACITY OF SLUICEWAY
Table 11.8 Capacity of Sluice in 100 year flood
Feature
Width of sluiceway
Flood discharge
Capacity of sluice
Crest elevation of sluiceway
Using the formula for a broad
crested weir
Data
5.7 m
620 m3/s
Formula
Calculation
Result
Section 10.5
0.2 x 620
124 m3/s
Q = 1.7LH1.5
Equation 10.6
1.7 x 5.7 x 3.71.5
69 m3/s
24 m
11.14.
UPLIFT PRESSURES
11.14.1.
During construction/maintenance
Maximum head across weir = 2.0 m. Stilling basin is empty (construction/maintenance condition).
Water level is at El 23.00 downstream of basin
The uplift pressures on the stilling basin floor given in Table 11.9 have been calculated using
Blighs Theory.
Total creep length = 43.5 m
Rate of head loss (gradient Eq. 10.11) = H/L = 2.0/43.5 = 0.046 m/m.
Table 11.9 Uplift Pressures
Headloss
Surface level
Uplift
(m)
0.11
0.43
RL of hydraulic
grade line
(m)
24.89
24.57
(m)
(m)
25.0
-0.43
1.03
23.97
21.50
2.47
1.03
23.97
21.50
2.47
1.42
23.58
21.50
2.08
1.82
23.18
21.50
1.68
2.00
23.00
23.00
0.00
Location
Across U/S cutoff
U/S end of crest
structure
D/S end of crest
structure
U/S end of stilling
basin floor
Centre of stilling
basin floor
D/S end of stilling
basin floor
Across D/S cut-off
Uplift above top surface of the structure.


11-6
11. Design of Weir
Table 11.10 Thickness of Stilling Basin Slab

Location
Across U/S cutoff
U/S end of crest structure
D/S end of crest structure
U/S end of stilling basin floor
Centre of stilling basin floor
D/S end of stilling basin floor
Across D/S cut-off
11.14.2.
Uplift
Concrete thickness
(Equation 10.12)
2.47
2.08
1.68
2.12
1.78
1.44
During Floods
Maximum head across weir during a 1 in 100 year food is 2.42 m. Upstream water level is
El 27.74 m and downstream water level is El 25.32 m.
The uplift pressures on the stilling basin floor given in Table 11.11 have been calculated using
Blighs Theory.
Total creep length = 43.5 m
Rate of head loss (gradient Eq. 10.11) = H/L = 2.42/43.5 = 0.056 m/m.
Table 11.11 Uplift Pressures during 1 in 100 year flood
Headloss
RL of hydraulic
grade line
Surface level
Uplift*
Uplift**
(m)
0.13
0.52
(m)
27.61
27.22
(m)
27.74
27.74
(m)
(m)
1.25
26.49
25.32
(23.80)
25.32
(23.80)
25.32
(23.80)
25.32
(23.80)
25.32
Location
Across U/S cutoff
U/S end of crest
structure
D/S end of crest
structure
U/S end of stilling
basin floor
Centre of stilling
basin floor
D/S end of stilling
basin floor
Across D/S cut-off
1.25
26.49
1.72
26.02
2.20
25.54
2.42
25.32
-0.52
1.17
2.69
1.17
2.69
0.70
2.22
0.22
1.74
0.00
downward force on stilling basin floor equal to full hydrostatic head
**
downward force on stilling basin floor reduced to 60% of hydrostatic head due to
pressure fluctuations in the stilling basin


11-7
11. Design of Weir
Table 11.12 Thickness of Stilling Basin Slab

Location
Uplift
(m of water)
Concrete thickness (m)

(Equation 10.12)
2.69
2.22
1.74
2.31
1.90
1.49
Across U/S cutoff

U/S end of crest structure
D/S end of crest structure
U/S end of stilling basin floor
Centre of stilling basin floor
D/S end of stilling basin floor
Across D/S cut-off
11.15.
EXIT GRADIENTS
11.15.1.
Bligh
Hydraulic gradient across the weir floor according to Blighs theory is 0.057 or 1 in 17.5
(Eq. 10.13). The allowable gradient for sand mixed with boulders is 1 in 9 or less. The length of
floor is suitable for a foundation of course to fine sand.
11.15.2.
Lane
Applying Lanes theory the weighted creep length is 37/3 + 2x2 = 16.3 m.
C is 16.3/2.5 = 6.52 (Eq. 10.14). This is well above the limit for gravels of 3.5 and is adequate for
medium to fine sand.
11.15.3.
Khosla
Table 11.13 Exit Gradient by Khoslas Method
Feature
Upstream water level
Downstream water level
H
d1
d2
L
B
Ge
Data
25.00
22.5*
2.50 m
1.50 m
1.50 m
37 m
43.0 m
0.081
(1 in 6.7)
Formula
Calculation
Result
2.0
Eq. 10.17
Eq. 10.16
Eq. 10.15
37/1.5
0.5 x (1 +(1 + 24.672)0.5
3.5/3.14 x 1.5 x 12.840.5
24.67
12.84
0.148
Exit gradient is 1 in 6.7 which provides for a foundation of coarse sand.

11.15.4.
Summary
The length of weir floor is adequate to prevent piping for the conditions at Uatolari.


11-8
11. Design of Weir
11.16.
SCOUR DEPTHS
Table 11.14 shows the average (d50) particle size obtained from the grading curves.
Table 11.14 Average Particle Sizes of Gravels
Pit
1
2
TPU2
TPU3
TPU5
Average Particle Size (d50)

(mm)
105
110
3.5
20
7.5
Samples from pits 1 & 2 have been taken near the surface and effectively sample the active bed load
and have minimal fines.
Samples from TPU2, TPU3 and TPU5 have been taken from depths in excess of 1 m and include a
silty to fine grain matrix. For estimation of scour a more conservative particle size of 10 mm has
been used in the calculations.
Table 11.15 Scour Depths for 100 year flood
Feature
Clear waterway width L
Flood discharge Q
Unit discharge q (m3/s/m)
Mean particle diameter
Laceys silt factor f
Scour depth Rs (m)
Maximum probable scour depth
downstream of stilling basin
below water surface level
Scour below riverbed level
For straight reaches of guide
banks
Data
76 m
620 m3/s
Formula
Calculation
Result
Q/L
620/76
8.16
Eq. 10.18a
Eq. 10.19
Table 10.5
1.75 x 100.5
1.35 x (8.162/5.53)0.33
2.0 x 3.09
5.53
3.09 m
6.18 m
Table 10.5
6.18 2.82
1.5 x 3.09
3.36
4.63 m
4.70 2.82
1.82 m
10 mm
Scour depths calculated in the river morphology studies range from 1.6 m to 3.7 m with an average
depth of scour of 2.7 m.
11.17.
SCOUR PROTECTION
11.17.1.
Apron details
Table 11.16 Scour Protection for 100 year flood
Feature
For weir:
Scour depth below riverbed level d2
Length of concrete apron
Length of launching apron
Data
Formula
Calculation
Result
Eq. 10.20
Eq. 10.21
1.5 x 3.36
2.5 x 3.36
5.1 m
8.4 m
3.36 m


11-9
11. Design of Weir

Feature
Volume of launching apron/m run
Thickness of launching apron
For river protection works:
Scour depth below riverbed level D
Volume of apron/m run
Boulder size
11.17.2.
Data
Formula
Eq. 10.22
Calculation
3 x 3.36
10.08/8.4
Result
10.08 m3/m
1.2 m
Eq. 10.21
Eq. 10.24
2.5 x 1.82
2.25 x 1.82
4.1/4.55
1.0 x 3.332/2 x 9.81 x 1.7
1.4 x 3.332/2 x 9.81 x 1.7
4.55 m
4.1 m3/m
0.9 m
0.332 m
0.47 m
1.82 m
V = 3.33 m/s
Eq. 10.25
Grading for inverted filter material
The recommended grading for the inverted filter material is given in section 4.3.7 and is as follows:
Table 11.17 Grading for inverted filter
Nominal diameter mm
75
20
5
0.5
0.075 (75um)
11.17.3.
% passing
100
85
50
15
05
Boulder size
Section 7.3.3 of the river morphology studies states that the river has the capacity to transport sizes
up to 250 mm during the 100 return period flood.
The sizes calculated in Table 11.16 estimate the size required varies from 0.33 to 0.47 m depending
on the degree of turbulence. A minimum boulder size of 0.4 m has been adopted.
11.18.
STABILITY CALCULATIONS FOR WEIR
The structural stability of the weir was evaluated using the computer program CADAM
(reference 9). Two arrangements were analysed. The first arrangement consisted of the weir
structure only and the second structure included the upstream apron and stilling basin floor.
11.18.1.
a.
Loads
Dead Loads
Load 1
Load 2
b.
self weight of concrete

self weight of silt on U/S apron
2.4 tonne/m3
1.8 tonne/m3
Water levels
Load 3
(Construction/maintenance)
U/S
D/S

El 25.00
El 22.50
11-10
11. Design of Weir
Load 4 (1 in 100 year flood)
c.
a.
El 27.74
El 25.32
Horizontal
Vertical
0.15 g
0.09 g
Seismic
Load 5
11.18.2.
U/S
D/S
Load combinations
Construction/maintenance
Loads 1 + 2 + 3
b.
Floods
Load cases 1 + 2 + 4
c.
Seismic
Load cases 1 + 2 + 3 + 5
11.18.3.
Results
The results of the two analyses are tabulated in Table 11.18. The output from the computer
program is included as Appendix D. (Equations 10.27 to 10.32 refer).
Table 11.18 Results of Stability Calculations for Weir at Base
Load Case
Usual
Flood
Seismic
Feature
Sliding
Overturning:
Uplifting
Max.
pressure
Min
pressure
Sliding
Overturning:
Uplifting
Max.
pressure
Min
pressure
Sliding
Overturning:
Uplifting
Model 1
Material 1*
3.206
2.229
2.358
Required
F of S
Model 2
Material 2**
3.088
Material 1*
5.512
Material 2**
3.793
3.000
2.000
1.200
bearing
64 kPa
150 kPa
bearing
23 kPa
1.51
1.509
1.504
1.600
2.753
1.894
150 kPa
2.000
1.500
1.100
bearing
52 kPa
150 kPa
bearing
12 kPa
1.353
1.753
1.945

1.372
2.188
1.505
150 kPa
1.300
1.100
1.100

11-11
11. Design of Weir
Load Case
Feature
Max.
pressure
Min
pressure
*
**
C = 0 kPa;
C = 10 kPa;
Model 1
Required
F of S
Model 2
bearing
44 kPa
150 kPa
29 kPa
150 kPa
bearing
F = 40 degrees (gravels)
F = 30 degrees (sand, silt and clay)
The analysis showed that the upstream apron extension is required for sliding stability and the
stability of the crest structure above the base level requires the crest structure to be reinforced.
11.19.
STABILITY CALCULATIONS FOR STILLING BASIN WALLS
The structural stability of the spillway training walls was evaluated using the computer program
CADAM (reference 9).
a.
Dead Loads
Load 1
Load 2
b.
Earthfill pressure at rest
Load 5
El 23.00
El 21.50
(operation)
U/S
D/S
El 25.00
El 23.00
Horizontal
Vertical
0.15 g
0.09 g
Seismic
Load 6
a.
Equation 10.34
(Construction/maintenance)
U/S
D/S
11.19.1.
K0 = 0.50
Water levels
Load 4
d.
2.4 tonne/m3
1.8 tonne/m3
Backfill loads
Load 3
c.

self weight of silt on toe of wall
Load combinations
Construction/maintenance
Loads 1 + 2 + 3 + 4


11-12
11. Design of Weir
b.
Operation
Load cases 1 + 2 + 3 + 5
c.
Seismic
Load cases 1 + 2 + 3 + 5 + 6
11.19.2.
Results
The results of the analyses are tabulated in Table 11.19. The output from the computer program is
included as Appendix D.2.
Table 11.19 Results of Stability Calculations for Stilling Basin Walls
Load Case
Construction/
Maintenance
Operation
Seismic
*
**
Feature
Sliding
Overturning:
Uplifting
Max.
pressure
Min
pressure
Sliding
Overturning:
Uplifting
Max.
pressure
Min
pressure
Sliding
Overturning:
Uplifting
Max.
pressure
Min
pressure
C = 0 kPa;
C = 10 kPa;
Foundation
1*
1.1
2.1
2.0
Foundation
2**
1.3
2.1
2.0
Required
F of S
N/A
2.000
1.200
bearing
64 kPa
150 kPa
bearing
0 kPa
1.2
1.8
1.9
1.2
1.8
1.9
150 kPa
N/A
1.500
1.100
bearing
56 kPa
150 kPa
bearing
15 kPa
0.9
1.8
2.0
1.0
1.8
2.0
150 kPa
N/A
1.100
1.100
bearing
47 kPa
150 kPa
24 kPa
150 kPa
bearing
F = 40 degrees (gravels)
F = 30 degrees (sand, silt and clay)
The walls cannot fail by sliding as the stilling basis floor is continuous.
The output from the computer program is included in Appendix D.3.
11.20.
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
11.20.1.
Material properties
As per section 10.


11-13
11. Design of Weir
11.20.2.
Training Walls
The training walls cantilever from the stilling basin floor.

a.
Loads
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
Deadload of structure
At rest pressure from backfill
Hydrostatic head to top of wall
Submerged backfill pressure
Earthquake loading
Uplift under base.
The calculated earthquake loading on the stilling basin training walls obtained from the stability
analysis are given in Table 11.20.
Table 11.20 Calculated Earthquake forces and location
Load Case
Earthfill to EL 26.5
b.
Force
(kN)
71.3
Concrete
Elevation
(m)
21.131
Force
(kN)
71.8
Backfill
Elevation
(m)
22.8
Load combinations
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Case 1 loads (i) + (ii) + (vi)

Case 2 loads (i) + (iii) + (vi)
Case 3 loads (i) + (ii) + (iv) + (vi)
Case 4 loads (i) + (ii) + (v) + (vi)
Table D3.1 (Appendix D) presents the design calculations.

11.20.3.
Reinforcement
Figures 11.4 and 11.5 show the typical reinforcement details for the weir and intake respectively.


11-14
12. Design of Flume
12. DESIGN OF FLUME

12.1.
NEW WORKS
The civil work and equipment involved in the construction of the new flume and intake is:
200 m long open flume along the right abutment

sluice and intake structures
sluice gates and intake gates
flood wall on the right side of the river
drains on the right river bank to divert flows downstream of the flume.
Figures 2.1, 12.1 and 12.2 show the general arrangement of the flume and details of the flume,
intake and flood protection works respectively.
Water is conveyed to the existing intake in a flume running along the right bank. The free intake is
not gated and only consists of a debris and rock barrier. A gated sluice structure is located adjacent
to the existing intake. The flume is open for ease of maintenance and removal of sediment.
12.2.
EXISTING WORKS
The quality of construction of the existing works is not considered acceptable and has not been
incorporated into any new construction. The existing weir should be removed to achieve a more
even flow across the riverbed. At present flow near the present intake is concentrating on the left
bank.
12.3.
DIVERSION REQUIREMENT
The river diversion works are required to divert a maximum flow of 2.20 m3/s.
12.4.
DESIGN FLOOD
The riverside wall has been designed to protect against the annual flood. The riverbank wall
extends above the riverbank to provide flood protection to the village against the 1 in 100 year
flood.
The intake is designed to prevent water from such a flood entering the canal system.
Table 12.1 Design Floods
Return period (years)
Flow (m3/s)
12.5.
100
620
1000
840
LOCATION OF FLUME
The flume is located along the right bank with the intake in the rock pool 200 m upstream of the
existing operating intake site.


12-1
12. Design of Flume
The flume deviates around the existing right bridge abutment of the partially completed bridge.
12.6.
INTAKE WATER LEVELS
From the irrigation hydraulic design studies for a design discharge of 2.2 m3/s and a canal invert
level of 23.8 m the water level at the intake has been calculated to be EL 24.66 m. To this elevation
must be added the head losses at the flume and canal intakes, in the approach to the flume intake
and in the flume.
12.7.
FLOOD LEVELS AND VELOCITIES
HEC-RAS studies were carried out to determine water levels along the flume for various return
period floods. The water surface profile is presented in Figure 12.4.
The water surface levels without a weir at the existing operating intake and 150 m upstream are
presented in Table 12.2. Ground level of the houses on the right side in front of a cross-section
10 m upstream of the weir is 26.5 m. The results indicate flooding of the houses in the village in a
one a 2-year flood without any flood protection works.
Table 12.3 presents the velocity and tractive forces in the river for floods with various flood return
periods.
29
Legend
WS 100-Yr
WS 50-Yr
28
WS 20-Yr
WS 10-Yr
27
WS 5-Yr
WS 2-Yr
Ground
Elevation (m)
26
25
24
23
580
384
360.285*
336.571*
312.857*
289.142*
265.428*
241.714*
218
113.2
22
21
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Figure 12.4: Water Surface Profile along Flume


12-2
12. Design of Flume
Table 12.2 Water surface levels along flume

Return Period
(Years)
Discharge
(m3/s)
At existing
intake
140 m upstream
2
5
10
20
50
100
290
360
430
490
570
620
26.25
26.50
26.70
26.90
27.10
27.25
26.85
27.13
27.38
27.58
27.82
27.97
Table 12.3 Flow Velocity and Shear Forces

River
Station
(m)
150 m
Upstream
of intake
100 m D/S
of
Intake
12.8.
ARI
2-Yr
5-Yr
10-Yr
20-Yr
50-Yr
100-Yr
2-Yr
5-Yr
10-Yr
20-Yr
50-Yr
100-Yr
Discharge Velocities
(m3/s)
290
360
430
490
570
620
425
580
682
800
930
1059
(m/s)
1.6
1.76
1.91
2.02
2.16
2.23
2.39
2.63
2.85
3.03
3.25
3.37
Shear
Force
(N/m2)
38.22
45.12
51.39
56.29
62.34
65.83
109.58
127.74
145.4
160.08
179.14
190.24
LAYOUT OF FLUME
The top of the riverbank wall has been set at EL 28.5 m at the upstream end (rock outcrop end) and
EL 27.5 at the downstream end (intake end).
The invert of the flume has been set at EL 24.5 m at the upstream end and EL 23.5 m at the
downstream end. This gives a gradient of 0.005 along the invert of the flume.
The survey level near the pool shows a level of EL 24.88 m during the dry season (October 2002)
with low flows i.e. 1.08 m above the sill level of the existing intake. This corresponds to the
approximate reading of 1.2 m taken by Heiler and Scott in September 2002.
The top of the riverside wall has been set at El 26.0 m. The height of the wall varies linearly from
1.5 m at the flume intake to 2.5 m at the canal intake and sluice.


12-3
12. Design of Flume
12.9.
WIDTH OF FLUME
The width of flume was determined by the following considerations:
water level at flume intake

access for maintenance.
Table 12.4 gives the required water levels at the flume intake assuming the invert of the flume is
partially covered with small gravel and sand (n = 0.025).
Table 12.4 Width of Flume vs Water Levels
Width of flume
(m)
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Water level at flume intake

(m)
25.97
25.45
25.22
25.10
25.02
A width of 3 m was adopted as it keeps any diversion works at the flume intake to a minimum and
allows access for motorised excavation equipment into the flume in case it is required after a large
flood to clear the flume.
12.10.
FLUME HYDRAULICS
12.10.1.
Canal Intake losses
Table 12.5 presents the headloss calculations at the intake to the canal for the change in direction of
flow, the constriction of the debris barrier and the contraction of flow.
Table 12.5 Losses at Canal Intake
Headloss
Change of direction
Debris/rock barrier
Contraction losses
Data
Q = 2.20 m3/s
A = 3 m2
V = 0.733
V0 = 0.63
? = 0.4
?h =
V = 0.733 m/s
? = 1.8
S = 0.09 m
B = 0.14 m
? = 90
?h =
V2 = 0.733 m/s
V1 0.9 m/s
U entrance= 0.25
Total headloss

Formula
Calculation
Result
3.0 m2
Q/A
2 x 1 x 1.5
2.20/3 = 0.733 m/s
Eq. 10.1
0.7332/2x9.81 0.8x0.632/2x9.81
0.007 m
Eq. 10.2
1.8 x (.09/.14)1.33 x sin (90) x

0.7332/2 x 9.81
0.027 m
Eq. 10.3
0.505 x (0.902 -0.7332)/2 x 9.81
0.007 m
0.041 m

12-4
12. Design of Flume
12.10.2.
Water levels in flume
The water surface elevations along the flume between the entrance and the intake has been
calculated for a flow of 2.2 m3/s using HEC-RAS. The results are presented in Table 12.6.
Table 12.6 Water surface in flume
Mannings n
0.012
0.025
Canal intake
Water surface (m)
Velocity (m/s)
24.66 + 0.041 = 24.71
0.63
24.66 + 0.041 = 24.71
0.63
Flume intake
Water Surface (m)
Velocity (m/s)
24.92
1.94
25.05
1.43
Table 12.6 presents the calculations for the flow in the flume for a clean concrete invert and an
invert covered in a sediment consisting of sand and small gravel.
12.10.3.
Entrance losses
Table 12.7 presents the headloss calculations at the entrance to the flume for the change in direction
of flow, the constriction of the debris/rock barrier and the contraction in flow area inside the
entrance.
Table 12.7 Entrance losses to flume
Headloss
Change of direction
Debris/rock barrier
Contraction losses
Data
Q = 2.20 m3/s
A = 3 m2
V = 0.733
Assume V0 = 0
? = 0.4
?h =
V = 0.733 m/s
? = 1.8
S = 0.09 m
b = 0.14 m
d = 90
?h =
V2 = 0.733 m/s
V1 1.46 m/s
U entrance= 0.25
Total headloss
12.10.4.
Formula
Calculation
Result
Q/A
6 x 0.5 = 3 m2
2.20/3 = 0.733 m/s
Eq. 10.1
0.7332/2 x 9.81
0.027 m
Eq 10.2
1.8 x (.09/.14)1.33 x sin (90) x

0.7332/2 x 9.81
0.027 m
Eq.10.3
0.25 x (1.462 -0.7332)/2 x 9.81
0.021 m
0.075 m
Water level at entrance
A water surface level of EL 25 is required to deliver the required flow to the canal. Water levels of
EL 24.88 has been measured in the rock pool near the intake for flows considerably less than
2.2 m3/s.


12-5
12. Design of Flume
12.10.5.
Flushing of flume
The two regimes for flow in the flume are:
diversion to irrigation canal

flushing of flume.
Table 12.8 presents the calculations for the discharges and velocities in the flume during flushing
operations for a clean concrete invert and for an invert covered with a sediment of sand and gravel.
Table 12.8 Flume flushing velocities
Diversion
Invert slope
Mannings n
Width of flume
Depth of flow
Flow
n = 0.012
n = 0.025
Velocities
n = 0.012
n = 0.025
Data
2.20 m3/s
0.012
sediment
0.025
sediment
3m
0.5 m
Formula
Calculation
Result
(24.5 23.5)/200
0.005
no
with
Eq. 10.4
4.60 m3/s
2.21 m3/s
3.06 m/s
1.47 m/s
Flushing velocities in the flume depends on the water surface level at the entrance. Sufficient head
should be available in the wet season to permit flushing of the flume without the need for manual
cleaning.
12.11.
SCOUR DEPTHS
Table 12.9 shows the average (d50) particle size obtained from the grading curves.
Table 12.9 Average Particle Sizes of Gravels
Pit
1
2
TPU2
TPU3
TPU5
Average Particle Size (d50)

(mm)
105
110
3.5
20
7.5
Samples from pits 1 & 2 have been taken near the surface and effectively sample the active bed load
and have minimal fines.


12-6
12. Design of Flume
Samples from TPU2, TPU3 and TPU5 have been taken from depths in excess of 1 m and include a
silty to fine grain matrix. For estimation of scour a more conservative particle size of 10 mm has
been used in the calculations.
Table 12.10 Scour Depths for 100 year flood for launching apron
Feature
Clear waterway width L
Flood discharge Q
Unit discharge q (m3/s/m)
Mean particle diameter
Laceys silt factor f
Scour depth Rs (m)
Maximum probable scour depth
below water surface in straight
reaches scour factor = 2.0
Data
76 m
620 m3/s
Formula
Calculation
Result
Q/L
620/76
8.16
Eq. 10.18
Eq. 10.19
Eq. 10.19
1.75 x 100.5
1.35 x (8.162/5.53)0.33
1.75 x 3.09
5.53
3.09 m
5.40 m
5.40 2.82
2.60 m
10 mm
Scour factor =
1.75
Scour depths calculated in the river morphology studies range from 1.6 m to 3.7 m with an average
depth of scour of 2.7 m.
12.12.
SCOUR PROTECTION
12.12.1.
Concrete block apron
A concrete block apron is shown where it is anticipated scour will be severest i.e. at the flume
entrance and at the sluice exit.
Table 12.11 Design of concrete block aprons for 1 in 100 year flood
Feature
For weir:
Scour depth below riverbed level d2
Length of concrete apron
12.12.2.
Data
Formula
Calculation
Result
Eq. 10.20
1.5 x 2.6
3.9 m
3.36 m
Launching Apron details
As there is an abundant supply of river boulders available at site the depth of cut-off wall was
minimised and a conservative approach adopted for the design of the launching apron. This will
reduce the cost and construction difficulties.
Table 12.12 Scour Protection for 100 year flood
Feature
For river protection works:
Scour depth below riverbed level D
Volume of apron/m run
Boulder size
Data
Formula
Calculation
Result
Eq. 10.21
Eq. 10.22
2.50 x 2.60
3 x 2.6
7.8/6.5
1.0 x 3.332/2 x 9.81 x 1.7
1.4 x 3.332/2 x 9.81 x 1.7
6.50 m
7.8 m3/m
1.2 m
0.332 m
0.47 m
2.58 m
V = 3.33 m/s
V=

Eq. 10.25

12-7
12. Design of Flume
12.12.3.
Grading for inverted filter material
The recommended grading for the inverted filter material under the concrete blocks is given in
section 4.3.7 and is as follows:
Table 12.13 Grading for inverted filter
Nominal diameter mm
75
20
5
0.5
0.075 (75um)
12.12.4.
% passing
100
85
50
15
05
Boulder size
Section 7.3.3 of the river morphology studies states that the river has the capacity to transport sizes
up to 250 mm during the 100 return period flood.
The sizes calculated in Table 12.12 estimate the size required varies from 0.33 to 0.47 m depending
on the degree of turbulence. A value of 0.4 m has been assumed.
12.13.
STABILITY CALCULATIONS FOR FLUME
The structural stability of the flume was evaluated using the computer program CADAM
(reference 9). Refer also Equations 10.27 to 10.32.
12.13.1.
a.
b.
Loads
Dead Loads
Load 1
Load 2
Backfill to 1 m below top of riverbank wall
Load 3
Backfill to top of riverbank wall
Water levels
Load 4
(normal operation)
Water level
Load 5
At invert level of flume (EL 23.5)
(flood stoplogs in place, sluice gate closed)

Water level

At top of upstream wall (El 26.00)

12-8
12. Design of Flume
c.
Seismic
Load 4
12.13.2.
a.
Horizontal
Vertical
0.15g
0.09g
Load combinations
Normal operation
Loads 1 + 2 + 4
Loads 1 + 3 + 4
b.
Floods
Loads 1 + 3 + 5
c.
Seismic
Load cases 1+ 3 + 5
12.13.3.
Results
The results of the analyses are tabulated in Tables 12.14 and 12.15. The output from the computer
program is included as Appendix E.1.
Table 12.14 Stability Analysis
Foundation C = 0; = 40 degrees At-rest Backfill Pressure
Load
Case
Usual
Flood
Seismic
Usual
Flood
Seismic
Backfill
26.5
26.5
26.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
Water
23.5
25.0
23.5
23.5
25.0
23.5
sliding
4.2
1.8
2.3
2.9
1.5
1.8
overturning
7.9
2.3
4.0
6.4
2.5
3.4
uplift
11.4
2.0
5.6
13.2
2.4
6.0
Table 12.15 Stability Analysis

Foundation C = 10; = 30 degrees - Active Backfill Pressure
Load
Case
Usual
Flood
Seismic
Usual
Flood
Seismic
Backfill
26.5
26.5
26.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
Water
23.5
25.0
23.5
23.5
25.0
23.5

sliding
4.1
3.0
2.4
2.7
1.9
2.7
overturning
7.9
2.3
4.0
6.4
2.5
3.4
uplift
11.4
2.0
5.6
13.2
2.4
6.0
12-9
12. Design of Flume
12.14.
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
12.14.1.
Material properties
As per section 10.

12.14.2.
Training Walls
The training walls cantilever from the stilling basin floor.

a.
Loads
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
Deadload of structure
At rest pressure from backfill
Hydrostatic head to top of backfill
Submerged backfill pressure
Earthquake loading
Uplift pressures - flood to top of wall stoplogs in place and sluice gate closed.
No water in flume.
The calculated earthquake loading on the stilling basin training walls obtained from the stability
analysis are given in Table 12.16.
Table 12.16 Earthquake Loading on riverbank flume walls
Load Case
b.
Force
(kN)
14.6
14.6
Concrete
Elevation
(m)
24.154
24.154
Backfill
Force
Elevation
(kN)
(m)
16.9
24.460
28.4
24.860
Load combinations
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Case 1 loads (i) + (ii) + (vi)

Case 2 loads (i) + (iii) + (vi)
Case 3 loads (i) + (ii) + (iv) + (vi)
Case 4 loads (i) + (ii) + (v) + (vi)
Tables E2.1 to E2.4 (Appendix E.2) presents the design calculations.

12.14.3.
Reinforcement
Figure 12.3 shows the typical reinforcement details for the flume.


12-10
13. Design of New Canal Structures
13. DESIGN OF NEW CANAL STRUCTURES

13.1.
LOCATION
A summary of the new structures required are shown in Table 13.1.

Table 13.1 Location of new canal structures
Canal
Uatolari Main Canal
Structure
BUe 4
BUe 5
BUe 6
BUe 7
BUe 8
BUe 9
BUe 10
Uaitame Secondary Canal
BUi 2
BUi 3
BUi 4
BUi 5
BUi 6
BUi 7
BUi 8
13.2.
Chainage (m)
1725 to 5205
1725 to 5205
320
990
1000
1380
1725
2900
4007
4000
4380
4500
5210
0 to 1865
0 to 1865
0
10
250
603
850
1000
1400
1753
Structure Type
Re-profiling of canal
Concrete lining
Footbridge
Footbridge
Aqueduct
Footbridge
Turn out Structure
Turn out Structure
Aqueduct
Footbridge
Turn out Structure
Footbridge
Turn out Structure
Excavation of canal
Masonry lining of canal
Drop Structure + Turn out
Drop Structure
Drop Structure
Drop Structure
Drop Structure
Drop Structure
EXTENSION OF MAIN CANAL
The rehabilitation works include the extension of main canal by 3.5 km between chainages 1725
and 5205. In order to minimise hydraulic losses and to increase the irrigable area, the canal section
needs to be concrete lined for this section. A minimum hydraulic gradient of 0.0002 was used in
the canal design.
Side slopes adopted for the canal is 1.0H:1.0V. The concrete lining is 0.125 m thick.
Details of the new canal extension are given in Table 13.2.


13-1
Table 13.2 Details of Main Canal Extension
13.3.
Ch.
Capacity
Invert
level
Width at
Invert
(m)
1725
2875
3995
4003
4375
4385
5200
(m3/s)
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.23
(m)
21.13
20.91
20.69
20.67
20.59
20.59
20.42
(m)
1.50
1.50
1.40
1.40
1.40
0.90
0.90
Water
surface
Elevation
(m)
21.79
21.56
21.24
21.22
20.97
21.01
Depth of
water
Height of
concrete
lining
(m)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.70
0.70
(m)
0.66
0.65
0.55
0.55
0.38
0.42
UPGRADING OF UAITAME CANAL
The rehabilitation works include excavation, masonry lining and construction of drop structures and
turnouts of the 1.85 km long existing Uaitame tertiary canal.
Side slopes adopted for the canal is 1.0H:1.0V. The masonry lining is 0.3 m thick.
Details of the upgraded canal are given in Table 13.3.
Table 13.3 Details of the Upgraded Uaitame Canal
Ch.
(m)
0
10
13
250
253
600
603
850
853
1150
1153
1450
1453
1750
1753
1865
Capacity
(m3/s)
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Invert
level
(m)
23.13
23.12
21.53
21.42
19.92
19.78
17.78
17.68
16.00
15.88
13.88
13.76
11.76
11.64
10.84
10.73
Slope
0.05%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.09%

Width at
Invert
(m)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
Water
surface
Elevation
(m)
23.42
23.28
21.78
21.72
20.22
20.08
18.08
17.98
16.30
16.13
14.13
14.01
12.01
11.89
11.09
10.98
Top of
berms
(m)
24.03
24.02
22.43
22.32
20.82
20.68
18.66
18.58
16.88
16.68
14.66
14.56
12.54
12.44
11.64
11.54
Height of
masonry
lining
(m)
0.90
0.89
0.88
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.88
0.90
0.88
0.80
0.78
0.80
0.78
0.78
0.80
0.81

13-2
13.4.
AQUEDUCTS
Details of the aqueducts are presented in Table 13.4.

Table 13.4 Details of Aqueducts
Location
Main
canal
Main
Canal
Structure
Capacity
Invert
levels
W.S.
Elevation
1000
(m3/s)
0.90
(m)
21.25
4000
0.70
20.67
Chainage
BUe 4 Over
Saqueto river
Be 5 Existing
pipe
aqueduct
(m)
22.22
Canal
Invert
Width
(m)
1.37
Bank
Level
(m)
22.90
21.22
1.40
21.78
The existing pipe aqueduct at Sta 1.0 km will be replaced by a reinforced concrete aqueduct. A new
aqueduct at Sta 4.0 km crossing the local stream Belia is proposed. These aqueducts were designed
as rectangular sections with transitions on the upstream and downstream sides. Hydraulic design of
these aqueducts was done by using the design guidelines from Design of Small Canal Structures,
published by the US government.
Details of the aqueduct structure are shown in Figure 13.1.
13.5.
CONTROL/OFFTAKE STRUCTURES AND GATES
Location and details of control and offtake structures are shown in Table 13.5.
Table 13.5 Details of Control/Offtake Structures
Chainage
Canal
Capacity
Structure
Dinbau
Secondary
canal
Uaitame
Secondary
canal
(m)
23.15
23.15
21.13
21.95
20.59
20.59
20.42
23.62
(H x W)
0.80 x 0.4
0.80 x 0.5
0.80 x 0.5
0.60 x 0.50
0.80 x 0.50
0.80 x 0.50
0.80 x 0.50
1.00 x 0.85
607
BUe 3
1725
2900
4380
Be 6
Be 7
Be 9
5210
214
(into main canal)
Be 10
BUe 1
(m3/s)
0.092
0.200
0.122
0.061
0.191
0.207
0.207
1.20
214
(into Dinbau canal)
418
1299
1150
BUe 1
0.77
24.57
23.62
1.00 x 0.60
BDi 1
BDi 3
Bui 6
4 x 0.122
4 x 0.122
0.092
24.12
18.33
23.49
18.75
15.88
0.60 x 0.50
0.60 x 0.50
0.60 x 0.50
1875
Bui 8
0.092
10.73
0.60 x 0.50
(m)
Main canal
Invert
level
Gate Size
Water
surface
level
(m)
23.83
23.83
21.79
21.19
21.01
21.01
20.86
24.57


13-3
Details of control/offtake structures are shown on Figure 13.2.

13.6.
DROP STRUCTURES
Table F.1 (Appendix F) presents the hydraulic calculations for the various inclined drop structures.
Figure 10.4 shows the symbols for the dimensions. Table 13.6 gives the relevant levels for the
new structures and Table 13.7 the dimensions.
Details of the drop structures are shown on Figure 13.4.
Table 13.6 Water and Canal Levels at Drop Structures
Canal
Ch.
Structure
Capacity
Uaitame
10
250
600
850
1150
1450
1750
Bui 2
Bui 3
Bui 4
Bui 5
Bui 6
Bui 7
Bui 8
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.76
0.76
0.76
U/S W.S.
EL
23.38
21.72
20.08
17.98
16.13
14.01
11.89
D/S W.S.
EL
21.78
20.22
18.08
16.30
14.13
12.01
11.09
U/S canal
I.L.
23.125
21.42
19.78
17.68
15.88
13.76
11.64
D/S canal I.L.

21.53
19.92
17.78
16.00
13.88
11.76
10.84
Table 13.7 Dimensions for New Drop Structures

Ch.
10
250
600
850
1150
1400
1750
13.7.
Structure
Bui 2
Bui 3
Bui 4
Bui 5
Bui 6
Bui 7
Bui 8
L
2.10
2.00
2.60
2.20
2.50
2.50
1.20
R
2.10
2.00
2.60
2.20
2.50
2.50
1.20
a
2.10
2.00
2.60
2.20
2.50
2.50
1.20
2a
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.20
0.20
0.24
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.14
FOOT BRIDGES
Standard details of Foot Bridges are shown on Figure 13.5. Dimensions are shown below. The
location is within the village areas but are provisional and can be relocated in the field to suit.
Table 13.8 Details of Foot Bridges
Chainage
Location
Dinbau village
Uatolari
(m)
320 BUe2
1000
4000
4500
Design
RHS
Bank
Level
(m)
24.76
22.90
21.90
21.43

Design
Invert level
(m)
23.25
21.25
20.69
20.57
Height of
Abutments
(m)
1.51
1.65
1.21
0.86
Invert
Width
(m)
1.80
1.60
1.40
0.90
Span
(m)
4.80
4.40
3.80
2.64

13-4
13.8.
BATHING STEPS
Standard details are shown on Figure 13.6. Dimensions for each individual bathing step is shown
below. The location is provisional and can be adjusted in the field to suit.
Table 13.9 Details of Bathing Steps
Chainage
Design RHS
Bank
Level
Design
Invert level
Water
Surface
Elevation
Height of
Steps
(m)
320 BUe2
1000
4000
4500
(m)
24.76
22.90
21.90
21.43
(m)
23.25
21.25
20.69
20.57
(m)
23.97
22.22
21.22
21.00
(m)
1.51
1.75
1.21
0.86
Location
Dinbau village
Uatolari
13.9.
DRAINAGE
Assume drains required along top side of each new canal. Masonry lined.
13.10.
CANAL DISTANCE MARKERS
Canal distance markers located at 500 m intervals commencing at the canal intake structure.
13.11.
STAFF GAUGES
Staff gauges located at each division structure and offtake structure.

Table 13.10 Location of Staff Gauges
Canal
Main canal
Dinbau Secondary canal
Uaitama Secondary canal
Chainage (m)
607
1725
2900
4380
5210
214 (into Main canal)
214 (into Dinbau canal)
418
1299
1150
1875

Structure
BUe 3
Be 6
Be 7
Be 9
Be 10
BUe 1
BUe 1
BDi 1
BDi 3
Bui 6
Bui 8

13-5
14. Gates
14. GATES
14.1.
GATE TYPES
Two types of gates have been specified for the project. Type 1 gates have been specified for the
headworks and type 2 gates for the canal structures.
Type 1 gates are high quality gates with stainless steel guide slots and low friction bearing and
sealing strips to facilitate sliding and sealing. This type of gate is considered essential for the
headwork structures. Type 2 gate is similar to type of gates presently used on the existing irrigation
structures.
Figures 14.1 and 14.2 show the typical details for gate types 1 and 2 respectively.
14.2.
SCOPE OF WORK
The Contractor is to design, manufacture, test in factory, deliver to site, install (including minor
civil works), and testing at site, and maintain during the defects liability the following:
steel slide gates, guide frames, gate stems, manually operated geared actuators and supporting
steelwork for installation in the sluice, irrigation intake structures and the canal structures
stoplogs, comprising stacking timber logs suitable for manual handling using hooks, and for
dewatering isolation duty for operating gates in either the flume, sluice, irrigation intake
structure and canal structures.
The works includes the supply of documentation, spare parts, maintenance tools, equipment, and
instruction to the Employers operating and maintenance staff.
14.3.
SLUICE AND INTAKE GATES
14.3.1.
Installation and Operation
The arrangement of the gates is shown in Figure 14.1.

The gates open and close within formed stainless steel guide slots with associated seal plates, and
have low friction bearing and sealing strips fitted to facilitate sliding and sealing. The gates are
required to open and close under full supply head and full flow conditions, and to be suitable for
operation at part openings for prolonged periods of time.
Manually operated geared hoist units are installed on the hoist deck. These gates will be operated
as required to sluice gravel and control inflow into the irrigation canal.
The timber stoplogs are suitable for infrequent installation in the upstream concrete slots for
maintenance isolation duty for dewatering of the outlet structure gates. The stoplogs will be
manually handled and stacked in the slots to seal against upstream pond level using blocks and wire
ropes supported from the hoist deck.


14-1
14. Gates
14.3.2.
Site Survey, Design Data and Loadings
Original design data, levels and dimensions for each structure, plus required changes to gate
openings are shown on the Schedule included on the Typical General Arrangement Drawings. The
Contractor is to verify the relevant as-constructed Outlet Structure dimensions needed to complete
the design and manufacture of the gate units.
Bidders are required to offer a gate design arrangement similar to that shown on the drawings.
Alternate design options may also be offered with appropriate sketch details, and alternative prices
quoted.
Maximum water head on the gate for design purposes is the difference between Maximum Flood
Level (MFL) and Gate Sill Level.
In design of the gate stem and actuator, the Contractor is to consider the following loads and design
criteria:
dead weight of gate and stem
maximum water and gravel load on the gate and resultant frictional forces on the gate during
raising and lowering
nominal gate hydraulic down pull forces when raising or lowering into flow conditions
gate stem screw thread frictional forces
compressive buckling forces in the gate stem during gate lowering into flow conditions.
A minimum 50% margin is to be allowed on the maximum calculated hoist loadings for design of
the hoist rod and selection of the actuator.
14.3.3.
Slide Gate Design and Construction
Figure 14.1 shows the general detail of a typical gate and frame for installation in the sluice and
intake structures. The detail shown on this drawing gives an indication of the standard and quality
required in the design and construction of the gate assemblies.
The Contractor is to submit dimensioned design assembly drawings plus supporting calculations for
key components for approval.
Gates are to be of welded steel construction comprising a skin plate on the upstream side, and
integral load bearing beams and stiffeners on the downstream side. The skin plate is to be of
minimum thickness 8 mm.
The water load on the gate will be transferred to the guide frame via full-length bearing and sealing
strips fitted to the gate vertical side members. The projecting edges of the bearing strips are to
contact/rub on the slot liner inner metalwork to keep the gate centred in the guide slots.


14-2
14. Gates
Bearing and primary side sealing strips are to be of a suitable low friction, abrasive resistant
composite material similar to Solidur 1000, an ultra high molecular weight polyethylene.
The bottom section of the gates are to be profiled to minimize the likelihood of debris being trapped
under the gate, and to minimize hydraulically induced vibrations when operating at part openings.
Rectangular section rubber clamped to the bottom edge of the gate provides a bottom water seal at
the closed position. Bottom seal rubber is to have a Shore hardness between 65 and 70.
Flat rubber strips are to be clamped to the sides of the gates to form secondary flexible flap seals to
seal against the embedded upstream stainless steel seal plates.
The gate stem is connected to the stiffened top member of the gate via a removable pin. The precise
location of this connection point is to be at the centre of gravity of the gate, and will be determined
by hanging the fabricated gate in a truly vertical position during works tests.
14.3.4.
Gate Guide Frame
Gate framing metalwork houses and guides the gate during opening, closing and sealing operations.
The gate slot liner and upstream seal stainless steel plate is to be formed in the works to the required
profile and installed on site during the primary concrete pour. Suitable anchoring metalwork for
support of the liner during embedment and subsequent operational duty is to be provided. The slot
liner installation and its mountings are to be designed to take the full water load on the gate and
transfer this to the surrounding concrete structure. The stainless steel surfaces provide corrosion
free surfaces for the gate bearing strip and upstream seals to operate against.
An embedded structural steel section member with appropriate anchor bars, will form the bottom
gate support and seal plate as shown on the drawings.
Installation facilities are to be provided for adjusting, aligning and firmly securing the frame during
subsequent grouting. Grouting shall provide an effective water seal between upstream and
downstream conduits.
14.3.5.
Gate Actuator and Stem
To raise and lower the gate, an extended stem connected to the gate, with screw thread and geared
manual hoist unit supported on the overhead superstructure is to be provided. Figure 14.3 shows
details of a typical geared actuator.
Gate raising and lowering loads are to be calculated according to specified design criteria, and the
gate stem sized to handle the tension and compressive loads. The stem can be laterally supported if
necessary with mid span collars mounted off the structure at appropriate positions. Stem thread
efficiency is to be taken into account as per the actuator suppliers recommendations, in selecting
the thread form and the engaging collar. A screw lead approaching 1/3 of the stem diameter is
preferred.


14-3
14. Gates
Particular mechanical features required in the geared hoist units include:
stem nut/collar is to be removable and of a hard wearing bronze or other material

compatible with the gate stem material
the mechanism is to have a self-locking characteristic
lubrication is to be suitable for year round operation and ambient conditions on site
the lockable manual handwheel/lever is to be capable of operating the gates under all raising
and lowering conditions with a hand-operating force not exceeding 300 Newtons.
14.3.6.
Supporting Steelwork
In addition to the gate guide frames, steelwork is to be provided for supporting the geared hoist unit
on the hoist deck. Supporting steelwork is to be designed to handle all forces and loads associated
with gate operation, without undue deflection.
Lateral support collars are to be provided along the extended gate stem if necessary to provide the
necessary compressive strength and gate pushdown ability required during gate closure.
14.4.
STOPLOGS
14.4.1.
Installation and Operation
Stoplogs shall be installed and removed under static no-flow conditions.

14.4.2.
Design Data and Loadings
The Contractor shall size the timber stoplog sections to suit the limiting dimensions and levels
shown on the general arrangement drawing.
Maximum water head on the stoplogs for design purposes shall be taken as the difference between
Maximum Flood Level and Gate Sill Level.
In design and sizing of the stoplogs, the Contractor shall consider the following loads and design
criteria:
maximum water load on the static stoplogs.
14.4.3.
Stoplog Handling Equipment
A block and tackle system is to be provided for removing the stoplogs.

14.5.
TYPE 2 GATES
Details for type 2 gates are shown on Figure 14.2.


14-4
14. Gates
Materials used in the construction of the type 2 gates and appurtenance are to be shown on the
approved Drawings and conform to the following specifications:
a.
The cast iron gate seat, hand wheel, hand cover and base plates, and stem bracket will
be made of cast iron conforming to ASTM A 126, grade B.
b.
The steel gate seat, guide frame, and frame filler will be made of steel conforming to
ASTM A 36, Grade B or JIS G3101, Class 2.
c.
The lifting nut will be made of bronze conforming to ASTM B 147, Alloy 8A.
d.
The stem bushing will be made of bronze conforming to ASTM B21, Alloy B.
e.
The bolt and nut will be made of steel conforming to ASTM A307, Grade B and will be
galvanised.
f.
All ferrous surfaces will be cleaned of rust, scale and grease and applied two coats of
coal-tar epoxy applied at the place of manufacture.


14-5
15. Agricultural Support Facilities
15. AGRICULTURE SUPPORT FACILITIES

15.1.
BAGGED GRAIN STORAGE SHED
The grain storage shed is 30 m long by 10 m wide and will allow storage for some 700 m3 of rice
(500 tonne). This allows for storage for a portion of the rice crop, approximately 25%. Additional
sheds could be provided if additional storage is necessary.
The structure is to be located in an area providing adequate foundations and free from flooding.
The structure consists of steel portal frames with the walls and roof clad with steel sheeting.
Ventilation is provided with louvres in the walls and a ventilator along the roof. Polycarbonate
sheeting is provided in the end walls and roof to provide natural filtered light to the store area.
The floor is founded on a 1 m thick layer of river gravels to raise the floor above flood level and
provide free draining material under the floor.
Access from outside is provided with a roller door at the end of the building.
Figures 15.1 to 15.3 show details of the grain storage shed.
15.2.
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
15.2.1.
Loads
a.
Dead load of structure
15.2.2.
Load on floor slab (bags stacked to 3 m)

Roof live load
22 kPa
0.3 kPa + 4.5 kN point load
Wind loads
15.2.4.
24 kN/m3
78.5 kN/m3
0.07 kN/m2
Live loads
15.2.3.
Self weight of concrete

Self weight of steel
Self weight of wall and roof sheeting
Return period
Basic wind speed
50 years
40 m/s
Earthquake loads
Earthquake horizontal loading

Vertical earthquake loading

0.15 g
0.09 g

15-1
15.2.5.
a.
Structural Design
Floor Slab
The concrete floor is designed as an industrial floor. A waterproof membrane is provided

under the slab to prevent any possible ingress of water. Crack control for temperature and
shrinkage is set at strong control with a steel/concrete ratio in excess of 2.5/fsy being
provided.
Contraction joints are provided at regular intervals to induce cracking at preferred locations.
b.
Structural Steel
Structural steel is to comply with the requirements of the AISC Specification for the design,
fabrication and erection of structural steel for buildings. Grade of steel is to be to ASTM A6
for general construction of buildings. Yield strength of steel used in the design is 300 MPa.
c.
Portal frames
The frames have moment connections at the haunch, knee and ridge. The bases are designed
as pinned. Angular cross bracing is provided in bays at the end of the structure. Eaves and
ridge beams transfer the wind loads to the brace bay, which in turn transfers the load to the
foundations.
d.
Cladding, purlins and girts
The sheeting and purlins are designed using suppliers design data. Data for non-cyclonic
areas was used.
15.2.6.
Ventilation
Ventilation is by natural convection. Air will enter the shed through louvres at ground level along
the side walls. The air will be exhausted through a roof cowl extending the full length of the roof.
15.3.
GRAIN DRYING AREA
A grain drying area 30 m long by 10 m wide has been provided near the grain storage building. It
consists of a concrete slab 125 thick with a sand base.
Figure 15.4 gives details of the grain drying area.
15.4.
WUA MEETING ROOM BUILDING
The WUA meeting room building includes a meeting room, kitchen and toilet. It is of standard
construction with brick walls, a concrete floor slab, timber roof trusses and corrugated steel roof.
Figure 15.5 gives details of the building.


15-2
15.5.
GATE KEEPERS HUT
The gatekeepers building includes an office/rest room and toilet. It is of standard construction with
brick walls, a concrete floor slab, timber roof trusses and corrugated steel roof.
Figure 15.6 gives details of the building.


15-3
16. Costing
16. COSTING
16.1.
INTRODUCTION
Following the tender design and preparation of tender drawings, a schedule of quantities for the
items of work was prepared. A capital cost estimate was then developed.
16.2.
CAPITAL COSTS
16.2.1.
Unit Costs for Similar Projects
Indicative unit cost rates were obtained by reference to the Consultants cost data base for similar
projects bid in South East Asia and Southern Africa. These were reviewed in the light of
comparable rates bid for projects in East Timor, particularly the small irrigation project. All rates
are mid 2002 prices.
These unit rates do not include establishment, engineering and administration costs.
Assumptions made in selecting the appropriate unit rates include:
stone for masonry work, gabions, backfill, filters, drainage blankets, riprap and bedding will
be obtained by processing the river gravels at the site
the contractor will set up his own concrete batching plant. Concrete aggregates will be
obtained by processing local river gravels.
16.2.2.
Adopted Unit Rates
The unit rates for major items for similar projects are given in Table 16.1.
Table 16.1 Unit Rates from Consultants Database (USD)
Item
Establishment and Maintenance
Excavation in river gravels
Random fill
Impervious fill
Riprap
Stone pitching
Masonry lining
Masonry in structures
Reinforcing bars
Reinforcing mesh
Concrete in floor slabs
Concrete in walls
Steelwork

Unit
%
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
t
t
m3
m3
t
Rates from
Consultants
Data Base
20
7.5
6.0
8.0
10.0
40.0
40.0
50.0
1000
1200
100
150
2500

16-1
16. Costing
16.2.3.
Quantities
Quantities were calculated from the tender drawings. Appendix G contains the basis of estimate
which gives the method for calculation of the quantities.
16.2.4.
General/Establishment Costs
An allowance of 20% has been included to cover the general and establishment items such as:
Establishment and administration general

Performance bonds
Insurances
Maintenance of access roads
Provision and maintenance of camps
Provision and maintenance of site offices for MAFF and the project manager
Installation of water supply and sewerage systems
Collection and disposal of garbage
Provision and maintenance of transport for the project managers staff
Provision and maintenance of crushing plant and concrete batch plant
Provision of standards
Provision of laboratory testing equipment and consumables.
16.2.5.
Engineering Costs
It has been assumed that an engineering consultant will be engaged to assist MAFF with the
detailed engineering, investigation, design, contract supervision and administration.
A nominal figure of 10% of contract costs has been allowed for the engineering costs associated
with the project.
16.2.6.
Government Administration
The MAFF would be involved in co-ordination, liaison and administration work in order to expedite
the project. This includes loan negotiations, financing, preselection of tenderers, resolution of
tenders, etc.
A nominal figure of 2% on all contract costs was adopted for these services.
16.2.7.
Compensation and Resettlement Costs
There will be no people displaced from the reservoir area or the area to be used for irrigation.
A provisional amount of 10,000 USD has been allowed for in the estimate of capital costs for
compensation for land.
16.2.8.
Contingency
The cost estimates were prepared on the basis of the information available from the investigation
work and tender designs.


16-2
16. Costing
A contingency of 10% on the estimates was adopted to make allowance for changes in item
quantities during construction.
16.2.9.
Interest during Construction
No amount has been included to cover interest charges on funds borrowed during the period of
construction. The actual figure to cover interest during construction will depend on the financial
arrangements adopted.
16.2.10.
Value added Tax (VAT)
No value added tax has been included.

16.3.
CAPITAL COSTS ESTIMATE
A summary of the costs of the arrangement presented as the tender design is given in Tables 16.2
and 16.3 for the flume and weir alternatives respectively.
Table 16.2 Capital Costs Estimate Flume Alternative
Feature
Headworks flume and intake
Canals and canal structures
Agricultural support facilities buildings
Sub-total
Establishment 20%
Engineering and Administration 12%
Contingency 10%
Total Cost US$
Amount US$
571,581
636,922
110,358
1,318,861
263,772
158,263
131,886
1,872,782
Table 16.3 Capital Cost Estimate Weir Alternative

Feature
Headworks weir and intake
Canals and canal structures
Agricultural support facilities buildings
Sub-total
Establishment 20%
Engineering and Administration 12%
Contingency 10%
Total Cost US$
16.4.
Amount US$
2,623,670
636,922
110,358
3,370,950
674,190
404,514
337,095
4,786,750
ANNUAL FINANCE REQUIREMENTS
It has been assumed that construction of the weir project will take two years and construction of the
flume one year. Finance required for the first year will be 40 percent and finance for the
second year 60 percent of the total capital costs.


16-3
16. Costing
It should be noted that no allowance has been made for future escalation, import duties, or for
interest during construction.
Table 16.4 shows the estimated annual finance requirements for the two schemes.
Table 16.4 Annual Finance requirements (USD)
Scheme
Year 1
Year 2
Flume
Weir
1,872,782
2,872,050
1,914,700

Total
1,872,782
4,786,750

16-4
17. Tender Documentation
17. TENDER DOCUMENTATION

17.1.
CODES AND STANDARDS
As discussed with officers from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Australian standards are
acceptable but it is preferably if the Consultant standardises on standards used previously by others.
A brief review of the specification prepared for other projects indicates that mainly American
standards have been specified and the design prepared to American Codes. A list of the standard
agencies and organisations referred to in these specifications is given below:
17.2.
AASHTO
ACI
AISC
ANSI
ASTM
AWS
CRSI
NEC
CSA
PCI
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

American Concrete Institute
American Institute of Steel Construction
American National Standard Institute
American Society for Testing and Materials
American Welding Society, Inc.
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute
National Electrical Code
Canadian Standards Association
Portland Cement Institute
TENDER DOCUMENTATION
As requested in the TOR the consultant has prepared bid documents for Limited International
Competitive Bidding (LICB) using IDA standard documents as per the procurement guidelines of
the World Bank.
As the cost of the works will be less than US$ 10 million the standard bidding documents for
smaller contractsvalued at generally less than US$10 millionby international competitive
bidding (ICB) have been used. These may also be adapted to Local Competitive Bidding (LCB).
However, substantive changes to adapt to NCB are generally necessary in the Instructions to
Bidders and the Conditions of Contract.
The contract is a schedule of rates contract.
17.3.
TENDER DRAWINGS
Sufficient detail has been shown on the tender drawings to indicate to the contractor the work he
will be required to perform and to calculate the quantities.
It will be necessary to issue further drawings prior to construction. Some revisions may be required
to the tender drawings as additional survey data becomes available from the contractor.
The Contractor is required to prepare construction and shop drawings. These drawings include
setting out drawings, reinforcement bar schedules, formwork details and metalwork fabrication
details.


17-1
17. Tender Documentation
17.4.
AS-BUILT DRAWINGS
The Contractor is required to produce works-asexecuted drawings for record drawing purposes.


17-2
18. References
18. REFERENCES
1.
SNC Lavalin International. Feasibility and Engineering Study in Respect of Rehabilitation of

Identified Irrigation Schemes in East Timor.
2.
SMEC. Technical Proposal for Feasibility Study of Secial Up, Uatulari, Maliana 1 and
Caraulan Irrigation Schemes in east Timor. March 2002.
3.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Technical Audit Report of Investigations in

Irrigation and Roads under the Agricultural rehabilitation Project Phase 1. June 22, 2002.
4.
SMEC. Inception report for Feasibility Study of Secial Up, Uatulari, Maliana 1 and Caraulan
Irrigation Schemes in east Timor. August 2002.
5.
SMEC. Feasibility Study Report. Feasibility Study of Seical Up, Maliana 1, Uatolari 1 and
Caraulun Irrigation Schemes. December 2002.
6.
Novak P, Moffat A, Nalluri C, Narayanan R. Hydraulic Structures. Second Edition 1996.
7.
USBR. Design of Small Canal Structures. 1974.
8.
Ahmad N. Design of Weirs, Barrages and Canal intakes. UNDP Technical Manual No. 2.
(Hydraulic Structures).
9.
Leclerc M, Leger P and Tinawi R. CADAM Users manual. April 2001.


18-1
Contents
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
xv
1.
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1-1
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
2.
SCOPE OF WORK.................................................................................................2-1
2.1.
2.2.
3.
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................2-1

THE WORKS........................................................................................................2-1
2.2.1. Flume option............................................................................................2-1
2.2.2. Weir option..............................................................................................2-2
HYDROLOGICAL STUDIES ...............................................................................3-1

3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
3.7.
3.8.
3.9.
4.
THE UATOLARI IRRIGATION SCHEME..........................................................1-1

REHABILITATION OPTIONS ............................................................................1-1
SCOPE OF REPORT ............................................................................................1-1
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................3-1
CLIMATE.............................................................................................................3-1
3.2.1. General ....................................................................................................3-1
3.2.2. Rainfall....................................................................................................3-1
3.2.3. Temperatures ...........................................................................................3-2
3.2.4. Evaporation..............................................................................................3-2
3.2.5. Relative Humidity....................................................................................3-2
AGRO-CLIMATIC CLASSIFICATION ...............................................................3-2
WATER AVAILABILITY....................................................................................3-2
WATER REQUIREMENT....................................................................................3-2
WATER BALANCE .............................................................................................3-3
FLOOD STUDIES ................................................................................................3-3
3.7.1. Design Flood Peak Estimates ...................................................................3-3
3.7.2. Historical floods.......................................................................................3-4
SEDIMENTATION ..............................................................................................3-4
RIVER RATING CURVES...................................................................................3-4
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS...............................................................4-1
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
SCOPE OF INVESTIGATIONS ...........................................................................4-1

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS .............................................4-2
GENERAL DESIGN PARAMETERS...................................................................4-4
4.3.1. Particle size and grading curves ...............................................................4-4
4.3.2. Material density .......................................................................................4-4
4.3.3. In-situ permeability..................................................................................4-4
4.3.4. Shear strength ..........................................................................................4-5

Design Report (53205.20)

ii
Contents
Page
4.4.
4.5.
5.
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ...................................................................................5-1

5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
6.
TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS........................................................................................5-1
FIELD SURVEY...................................................................................................5-1
5.2.1. Scope of Work .........................................................................................5-1
5.2.2. Grid System and Datum for Elevations ....................................................5-2
5.2.3. Output......................................................................................................5-2
RIVER SURVEY ..................................................................................................5-2
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS..........................................................6-1
6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
6.4.
7.
4.3.5. Potential for scour....................................................................................4-5

4.3.6. Potential for piping ..................................................................................4-5
4.3.7. Filter design grading ................................................................................4-5
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS .....................................................................4-6
4.4.1. Horizontal and vertical accelerations ........................................................4-6
4.4.2. Liquefaction potential ..............................................................................4-6
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS .........................................................................4-6
4.5.1. Concrete aggregate ..................................................................................4-6
4.5.2. Stone for masonry works..........................................................................4-7
4.5.3. Stone for gabions .....................................................................................4-7
4.5.4. Impervious backfill ..................................................................................4-7
4.5.5. Free draining backfill ...............................................................................4-8
4.5.6. Riprap......................................................................................................4-8
4.5.7. Gravel bedding.........................................................................................4-8
4.5.8. Selected boulders for scour protection......................................................4-8
4.5.9. Roadway surfacing...................................................................................4-8
4.5.10. Borrow areas............................................................................................4-9
GENERAL ............................................................................................................6-1
RIVER TRAINING WORKS ................................................................................6-1
PROVISIONS IN TENDER DOCUMENTS .........................................................6-1
6.3.1. Flora ........................................................................................................6-1
6.3.2. Fauna .......................................................................................................6-1
6.3.3. Fencing ....................................................................................................6-1
MATTERS TO BE ADDRESSED DURING CONSTRUCTION..........................6-1
6.4.1. Disposal Areas .........................................................................................6-2
6.4.2. Borrow Pits..............................................................................................6-2
6.4.3. Disposal of construction debris and office and domestic refuse ................6-2
6.4.4. Fencing ....................................................................................................6-2
RIVER MORPHOLOGY STUDIES .....................................................................7-1

7.1.
7.2.
STRUCTURES AND RIVER TRAINING WORKS .............................................7-1

GEOMORPHIC FACTORS ..................................................................................7-1
7.2.1. Valley Setting and Stream Form...............................................................7-1
7.2.2. Stream Size and Width Variability ...........................................................7-1
7.2.3. Apparent Incision.....................................................................................7-1
7.2.4. Bed and Bank Material.............................................................................7-1
7.2.5. Channel Boundaries and Vegetation.........................................................7-2


iii
Contents
Page
7.3.
7.4.
7.5.
7.6.
8.
IRRIGATION SYSTEM PLANNING...................................................................8-1

8.1.
8.2.
8.3.
8.4.
8.5.
8.6.
9.
HYDRAULIC FACTORS .....................................................................................7-2

7.3.1. Flow Habit ...............................................................................................7-2
7.3.2. Scour Conditions......................................................................................7-3
7.3.3. Inception of Motion Analysis ...................................................................7-3
7.3.4. Assessment of the Flood Levels ...............................................................7-4
7.3.5. Flow Velocity and Shear Force ................................................................7-5
7.3.6. Rating Curves ..........................................................................................7-7
ASSESSMENT OF THE STREAM STABILITY..................................................7-8
RIVER TRAINING AND PROTECTION WORKS..............................................7-8
SCOUR CALCULATIONS...................................................................................7-8
LOCATION ..........................................................................................................8-1
EXISTING IRRIGATION SCHEME ....................................................................8-1
IRRIGATION AREA ............................................................................................8-1
DIVERSION STRUCTURE AND IRRIGATION NETWORK .............................8-1
MAIN CANAL AND STRUCTURES...................................................................8-2
SECONDARY CANALS AND STRUCTURES ...................................................8-3
8.6.1. Determination of Tertiary Areas...............................................................8-3
HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF IRRIGATION NETWORK.....................................9-1

9.1.
9.2.
9.3.
9.4.
BACKGROUND...................................................................................................9-1
UPGRADING OF NETWORK .............................................................................9-1
DESIGN APPROACH ..........................................................................................9-1
HYDRAULIC ASSESSMENT..............................................................................9-2
10. GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA..........................................................................10-1

10.1.
10.2.
10.3.
10.4.
10.5.
10.6.
10.7.
10.8.
GENERAL ..........................................................................................................10-1
ENTRANCE LOSSES TO INTAKES .................................................................10-1
10.2.1. Change of direction................................................................................10-1
10.2.2. Trashrack losses.....................................................................................10-1
10.2.3. Transition losses ....................................................................................10-1
FLOW IN CONVEYANCE STRUCTURES .......................................................10-2
WIDTH OF WEIRS ............................................................................................10-2
CAPACITY OF SLUICEWAYS .........................................................................10-3
DISCHARGE OVER WEIRS..............................................................................10-3
HYDRAULICS OF STILLING BASINS ............................................................10-3
10.7.1. Froude number.......................................................................................10-3
10.7.2. Conjudate Depth ....................................................................................10-3
10.7.3. Minimum tailwater depth.......................................................................10-3
10.7.4. Basin length...........................................................................................10-4
UPLIFT ...............................................................................................................10-4
10.8.1. Uplift pressure under floor .....................................................................10-4
10.8.2. Thickness of floor ..................................................................................10-4


iv
Contents
Page
10.9.
10.10.
10.11.
10.12.
10.13.
10.14.
10.15.
10.16.
10.17.
10.18.
10.19.
10.20.
HYDRAULIC GRADIENTS ..............................................................................10-4

10.9.1. Blighs creep theory...............................................................................10-4
10.9.2. Lanes weighted creep theory.................................................................10-5
10.9.3. Khosla ...................................................................................................10-6
SCOUR DEPTHS................................................................................................10-6
PROTECTION AGAINST SCOUR AND PIPING..............................................10-7
10.11.1. Concrete aprons and inverted filter.........................................................10-7
10.11.2. Launching apron D/S of weir .................................................................10-8
10.11.3. Launching apron on guide banks ............................................................10-8
10.11.4. Minimum stone size ...............................................................................10-8
SLUICING ..........................................................................................................10-8
CANAL VELOCITIES .......................................................................................10-9
DROP STRUCTURES ........................................................................................10-9
SYPHONS ..........................................................................................................10-9
STABILITY OF STRUCTURES.........................................................................10-9
10.16.1. Overturning............................................................................................10-9
10.16.2. Sliding ...................................................................................................10-9
10.16.3. Floatation............................................................................................. 10-10
10.16.4. Required safety factors......................................................................... 10-10
10.16.5. Foundation bearing pressures ............................................................... 10-10
EARTH PRESSURES ....................................................................................... 10-11
SEISMIC LOADING ........................................................................................ 10-11
REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN ............................................................. 10-12
10.19.1. Concrete strength ................................................................................. 10-12
10.19.2. Reinforcing Bar ................................................................................... 10-12
10.19.3. Minimum Reinforcement Requirements............................................... 10-12
10.19.4. Splice and Anchorage Lengths ............................................................. 10-12
10.19.5. Cover to Reinforcement ....................................................................... 10-13
10.19.6. Design for bending............................................................................... 10-13
10.19.7. Design for shear ................................................................................... 10-13
10.19.8. Design of Gate Hoist Deck................................................................... 10-13
10.19.9. Weather Canopies ................................................................................ 10-14
FOUNDATION MATERIAL PROPERTIES .................................................... 10-14
10.20.1. Coarse gravels (Material 1) .................................................................. 10-14
10.20.2. Fine gravels, sand, clay (Material 2)..................................................... 10-14
11. DESIGN OF WEIR .................................................................................................11-1

11.1.
11.2.
11.3.
11.4.
11.5.
11.6.
11.7.
11.8.
NEW WORKS ....................................................................................................11-1

EXISTING WORKS ...........................................................................................11-1
DESIGN GENERAL ...........................................................................................11-1
DIVERSION REQUIREMENT...........................................................................11-2
DESIGN FLOOD ................................................................................................11-2
LOCATION OF WEIR........................................................................................11-2
CREST WIDTH ..................................................................................................11-2
CREST ELEVATION .........................................................................................11-3


v
Contents
Page
11.9.
11.10.
11.11.
11.12.
11.13.
11.14.
11.15.
11.16.
11.17.
11.18.
11.19.
11.20.
ENTRANCE LOSSES IN INTAKE ....................................................................11-3

FLOOD LEVELS AND VELOCITIES ...............................................................11-3
AFFLUX AT WEIR ............................................................................................11-4
STILLING BASIN ..............................................................................................11-5
CAPACITY OF SLUICEWAY ...........................................................................11-6
UPLIFT PRESSURES.........................................................................................11-6
11.14.1. During construction/maintenance ...........................................................11-6
11.14.2. During Floods ........................................................................................11-7
EXIT GRADIENTS ............................................................................................11-8
11.15.1. Bligh......................................................................................................11-8
11.15.2. Lane.......................................................................................................11-8
11.15.3. Khosla ...................................................................................................11-8
11.15.4. Summary ...............................................................................................11-8
SCOUR DEPTHS................................................................................................11-9
SCOUR PROTECTION ......................................................................................11-9
11.17.1. Apron details..........................................................................................11-9
11.17.2. Grading for inverted filter material....................................................... 11-10
11.17.3. Boulder size ......................................................................................... 11-10
STABILITY CALCULATIONS FOR WEIR .................................................... 11-10
11.18.1. Loads................................................................................................... 11-10
11.18.2. Load combinations............................................................................... 11-11
11.18.3. Results ................................................................................................. 11-11
STABILITY CALCULATIONS FOR STILLING BASIN WALLS .................. 11-12
11.19.1. Load combinations............................................................................... 11-12
11.19.2. Results ................................................................................................. 11-13
STRUCTURAL DESIGN.................................................................................. 11-13
11.20.1. Material properties............................................................................... 11-13
11.20.2. Training walls ...................................................................................... 11-14
11.20.3. Reinforcement ..................................................................................... 11-14
12. DESIGN OF FLUME ..............................................................................................12-1

12.1.
12.2.
12.3.
12.4.
12.5.
12.6.
12.7.
12.8.
12.9.
12.10.
NEW WORKS ....................................................................................................12-1

EXISTING WORKS ...........................................................................................12-1
DIVERSION REQUIREMENT...........................................................................12-1
DESIGN FLOOD ................................................................................................12-1
LOCATION OF FLUME ....................................................................................12-1
INTAKE WATER LEVELS................................................................................12-2
FLOOD LEVELS AND VELOCITIES ...............................................................12-2
LAYOUT OF FLUME ........................................................................................12-3
WIDTH OF FLUME ...........................................................................................12-4
FLUME HYDRAULICS .....................................................................................12-4
12.10.1. Canal Intake losses.................................................................................12-4
12.10.2. Water levels in flume .............................................................................12-5
12.10.3. Entrance losses.......................................................................................12-5
12.10.4. Water level at entrance...........................................................................12-5
12.10.5. Flushing of flume...................................................................................12-6


vi
Contents
Page
12.11.
12.12.
12.13.
12.14.
SCOUR DEPTHS................................................................................................12-6
SCOUR PROTECTION ......................................................................................12-7
12.12.1. Concrete block apron .............................................................................12-7
12.12.2. Launching Apron details ........................................................................12-7
12.12.3. Grading for inverted filter material.........................................................12-8
12.12.4. Boulder size ...........................................................................................12-8
STABILITY CALCULATIONS FOR FLUME ...................................................12-8
12.13.1. Loads.....................................................................................................12-8
12.13.2. Load combinations.................................................................................12-9
12.13.3. Results ...................................................................................................12-9
STRUCTURAL DESIGN.................................................................................. 12-10
12.14.1. Material properties............................................................................... 12-10
12.14.2. Training Walls ..................................................................................... 12-10
12.14.3. Reinforcement ..................................................................................... 12-10
13. DESIGN OF NEW CANAL STRUCTURES ............................................................13-1

13.1.
13.2.
13.3.
13.4.
13.5.
13.6.
13.7.
13.8.
13.9.
13.10.
13.11.
LOCATION ........................................................................................................13-1
EXTENSION OF MAIN CANAL .......................................................................13-1
UPGRADING OF UAITAME CANAL...............................................................13-2
AQUEDUCTS.....................................................................................................13-3
CONTROL/OFFTAKE STRUCTURES AND GATES .......................................13-3
DROP STRUCTURES ........................................................................................13-4
FOOT BRIDGES ................................................................................................13-4
BATHING STEPS ..............................................................................................13-5
DRAINAGE........................................................................................................13-5
CANAL DISTANCE MARKERS .......................................................................13-5
STAFF GAUGES................................................................................................13-5
14. GATES ..................................................................................................................14-1

14.1.
14.2.
14.3.
14.4.
14.5.
GATE TYPES.....................................................................................................14-1
SCOPE OF WORK .............................................................................................14-1
SLUICE AND INTAKE GATES.........................................................................14-1
14.3.1. Installation and Operation ......................................................................14-1
14.3.2. Site Survey, Design Data and Loadings..................................................14-2
14.3.3. Slide Gate Design and Construction.......................................................14-2
14.3.4. Gate Guide Frame ..................................................................................14-3
14.3.5. Gate Actuator and Stem .........................................................................14-3
14.3.6. Supporting Steelwork.............................................................................14-4
STOPLOGS ........................................................................................................14-4
14.4.1. Installation and Operation ......................................................................14-4
14.4.2. Design Data and Loadings .....................................................................14-4
14.4.3. Stoplog Handling Equipment .................................................................14-4
TYPE 2 GATES ..................................................................................................14-4


vii
Contents
Page
15. AGRICULTURE SUPPORT FACILITIES ........................................................15-1

15.1.
15.2.
15.3.
15.4.
15.5.
BAGGED GRAIN STORAGE SHED .................................................................15-1

STRUCTURAL DESIGN....................................................................................15-1
15.2.1. Loads.....................................................................................................15-1
15.2.2. Live loads ..............................................................................................15-1
15.2.3. Wind loads.............................................................................................15-1
15.2.4. Earthquake loads....................................................................................15-1
15.2.5. Structural Design ...................................................................................15-2
15.2.6. Ventilation .............................................................................................15-2
GRAIN DRYING AREA ....................................................................................15-2
WUA MEETING ROOM BUILDING ................................................................15-2
GATE KEEPERS HUT......................................................................................15-3
16. COSTING..............................................................................................................16-1
16.1.
16.2.
16.3.
16.4.
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................16-1
CAPITAL COSTS...............................................................................................16-1
16.2.1. Unit Costs for Similar Projects...............................................................16-1
16.2.2. Adopted Unit Rates................................................................................16-1
16.2.3. Quantities...............................................................................................16-2
16.2.4. General/Establishment Costs..................................................................16-2
16.2.5. Engineering Costs..................................................................................16-2
16.2.6. Government Administration...................................................................16-2
16.2.7. Compensation and Resettlement Costs...................................................16-2
16.2.8. Contingency...........................................................................................16-2
16.2.9. Interest during Construction...................................................................16-3
16.2.10. Value added Tax (VAT).........................................................................16-3
CAPITAL COSTS ESTIMATE...........................................................................16-3
ANNUAL FINANCE REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................16-3
17. TENDER DOCUMENTATION...........................................................................17-1

17.1.
17.2.
17.3.
17.4.
CODES AND STANDARDS ..............................................................................17-1

TENDER DOCUMENTATION ..........................................................................17-1
TENDER DRAWINGS .......................................................................................17-1
AS-BUILT DRAWINGS.....................................................................................17-2
18. REFERENCES .....................................................................................................18-1


viii
Contents
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Title
Page
3.1
Monthly Rainfall Data
3-1
3.2
Monthly Streamflow Estimates
3-2
3.3
Uatolari I Irrigation Water Requirements for 1090 ha
3-3
3.4
Cropping Intensity for Uatolari I Irrigation Scheme
3-3
3.5
Design Flood Peak Estimates
3-3
3.6
Historical Floods
3-4
4.1
Summary of Test Pit Conditions
4-1
4.2
Summary of laboratory test data for Uatolari I
4-3
4.3
Summary of In situ Permeability Testing
4-5
5.1
Index of 1:25000 Scale Maps
5-1
5.2
Index of 1:50000 Scale Maps
5-1
5.3
GPS Control Points
5-2
7.1
Impact of Uatolari Weir on WS Elevation
7-5
7.2
Flow Velocity and Shear Force around Uatolari I
7-5
7.3
Scour Depths
7-9
10.1
Mannings n
10-2
10.2
Allowable Hydraulic Gradients
10-5
10.3
Allowable C Values
10-5
10.4
Safety factors for exit gradients
10-6
10.5
Scour Depth Factors
10-7
10.6
Development and lap-splice lengths

10-12

ix
Contents
Table
Title
Page
11.1
Design Floods
11-2
11.2
Entrance losses in intake
11-3
11.3
Flood Levels
11-3
11.4
Velocities (m/s)
11-4
11.5
Afflux for 1 in 100 year flood prior to sediment build-up
11-4
11.6
Afflux for 1 in 1000 year flood prior to sediment build-up
11-4
11.7
Hydraulics of Stilling Basin
11-5
11.8
Capacity of Sluice in 100 year flood
11-6
11.9
Uplift Pressures
11-6
11.10
Thickness of Stilling Basin Slab
11-7
11.11
Uplift Pressures during 1 in 100 year flood
11-7
11.12
Thickness of Stilling Basin Slab
11-8
11.13
Exit Gradient by Khoslas Method
11-8
11.14
Average Particle Sizes of Gravels
11-9
11.15
Scour Depths for 100 year flood
11-9
11.16
Scour Protection for 100 year flood
11-9
11.17
Grading for inverted filter
11-10
11.18
Results of Stability Calculations for Weir at Base
11-11
11.19
Results of Stability Calculations for Stilling Basin Walls
11-13
11.20
Calculated Earthquake forces and location
11-14
12.1
Design Floods
12-1
12.2
Water surface levels along flume
12-3
12.3
Flow Velocity and Shear Forces
12-3


x
Contents
Table
Title
Page
12.4
Width of Flume vs Water Levels
12-4
12.5
Losses at Canal Intake
12-4
12.6
Water surface in flume
12-5
12.7
Entrance losses to flume
12-5
12.8
Flume flushing velocities
12-6
12.9
Average Particle Sizes of Gravels
12-6
12.10
Scour Depths for 100 year flood for launching apron
12-7
12.11
Design of concrete block aprons for 1 in 100 year flood
12-7
12.12
Scour Protection for 100 year flood
12-7
12.13
Grading for inverted filter
12-8
12.14
Stability Analysis
Foundation C = 0; = 40 degrees At-rest Backfill Pressure
12-9
Stability Analysis
Foundation C = 10; = 30 degrees - Active Backfill Pressure
12-9
12.15
12.16
Earthquake Loading on riverbank flume walls
13.1
Location of new canal structures
13-1
13.2
Details of Main Canal Extension
13-2
13.3
Details of the Upgraded Uaitame Canal
13-2
13.4
Details of Aqueducts
13-3
13.5
Details of Control/Offtake Structures
13-3
13.6
Water and Canal Levels at Drop Structures
13-4
13.7
Dimensions for New Drop Structures
13-4
13.8
Details of Foot Bridges
13-4
13.9
Details of Bathing Steps
13-5
13.10
Location of Staff Gauges
13-5

12-10

xi
Contents
Table
Title
Page
16.1
Unit Rates from Consultants Database (USD)
16-1
16.2
Capital Cost Estimates Flume Alternative
16-3
16.3
Capital Cost Estimate Weir Alternative
16-3
16.4
Annual Finance requirements (USD)
16-4


xii
Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Title
Page
1.1
Location Maps
1.2
Irrigation Scheme General arrangement
2.1
Flume General Arrangement
2.2
Weir General Arrangement
4.1
Geomorphological Map of headworks
5.1
Survey for Canals Typical Plan and Longitudinal Section
5.2
Survey for Canals Typical Cross Sections
7.1
Bebui River Bed Material Representative Grain Size Distribution
7-2
7.2
Bebui River at Uatolari-I Irrigation Intake Monthly Streamflow

Variability
7-3
7.3
Bebui River at Uatolari I Inception of Motion Analysis
7-4
7.4
Bebui River at Uatolari I Water Surface Profiles without Weir
7-6
7.5
Bebui River at Uatolari I Water Surface Profiles with Weir
7-6
7.6
Intake Rating Curve without Weir at Intake
7-7
7.7
Rating Curve at Intake with Weir
7-7
8.1
Irrigation Areas
8.2
Irrigation Scheme Schematic
8.3
Existing Headworks General Arrangement
8.4
Existing Headworks Weir and Intake Details
8.5
Existing Canal Structures
8.6
Required Canal Capacities
9.1
Uatolari Irrigation System HEC RAS Schematic Diagram

9-3

xiii
Contents
Figure
9.2
Title
Page
Uatolari Irrigation System Water Surface Profiles for Existing Canal

Condition
9-4
9.2a
Existing Dinbau Secondary Canal
9-4
9.2b
Existing Uatolari Main Canal
9-4
9.3
Estimated Water Surface Profiles from HEC-RAS Model for Modified

Uatolari Canal
9-5
9.3a
Modified Dinbau Secondary Canal
9-5
9.3b
Modified Uatolari Main Canal
9-5
9.3c
Uatolari Main Canal Extension
9-6
10.1
Apron protection downstream of weirs
10.2
Design criteria for launching aprons
10.3
Symbols of Dimensions for Vertical Drop Structures
10.4
Symbols of Dimensions for Inclined Drop Structures
11.1
Weir & Intake Details Sheet 1
11.2
Weir & Intake Details Sheet 2
11.3
Weir Riverbank Protection
11.4
Weir Typical Reinforcement
11.5
Intake Typical Reinforcement
12.1
Flume Details Sheet 1
12.2
Flume Details Sheet 2
12.3
Flume Typical Reinforcement
12.4
Water Surface Profile along Flume
13.1
Aqueducts
13.2
Offtakes

12-2

xiv
Contents
Figure
Title
13.3
Drop Structures Type 1
13.4.
Drop Structures Type 2
13.5
Footbridges
13.6
Washing Steps
14.1
Gates Type 1
14.2
Gates Type 2
15.1
Bagged grain storage shed General Arrangement
15.2
Bagged grain storage shed Details Sheet 1
15.3
Bagged grain storage shed Details Sheet 2
15.4
Grain Drying Area
15.5
WUA Meeting Room Building
15.6
Gatekeepers Hut

Page

xv
Contents
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A
Title
List of Drawings
A.1
Drawing list for flume
A.2
Drawing list for weir
River Morphology Calculations

B.1
Scour calculations
B.2
River hydraulics HEC RAS runs
Hydraulic analysis of irrigation network

C.1
Water surface elevations with existing canal geometry
C.2
Revised canal design levels
C.3
Water surface elevations with modified canal geometry
Design Calculations for Weir

D.1
Hydraulic studies
D.2
Stability calculations for weir
D.3
Stability calculations for stilling basin walls
D.4
Structural design calculations
Design Calculations for Flume

E.1
Stability calculations
E.2
Structural calculations
Design Calculations for Irrigation Structures

F.1
Hydraulic Design of drop structures


xvi
Contents
Appendix
G
Title
Basis of Quantities
G.1
Quantities for weir
G.2
Quantities for Flume
G.3
Quantities for Canals and Canal Structures
G.4
Quantities for Buildings
Cost Estimate
H.1
Summary of Costs for Weir Option
H.2
Summary of Costs for Flume Option
H.3
Costs for Weir
H.4
Costs for Flume
H.5
Costs for Canals and Canal Structures
H.6
Costs for Buildings
Bill of Quantities
I.1
BoQ for Weir Option
I.2
BoQ for Flume Option


xvii

Rehabilitating Uatolari Irrigation for East Timor Farmers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rehabilitating Uatolari Irrigation for East Timor Farmers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLICA DEMOCRACIA DE TIMOR LESTE

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY

THE AGRICULTURAL REHABILITATION PROJECT

THE UATOLARI IRRIGATION SCHEME

describes the condition of the existing irrigation scheme

describes the rehabilitation works to be undertaken

Rehabilitation of Uatolari I Irrigation Scheme

Version: Final May 2003

clarifies some of the procedures to be followed during construction

The scope of the design work included:

check of the hydraulic capacity of the existing canals and structures

preparation of design drawings and tender documents

preparation of cost estimates

Rehabilitation of Uatolari I Irrigation Scheme

Version: Final May 2003

Two alternatives have been taken to the final design stage.

excavation of a trench and construction of a scour cutoff

construction in reinforced concrete of the new intake and flume

construction of a new reinforced concrete intake structure

provision and installation of canal intake and sluice gates

desilting of the existing canal system

reshaping of the existing canals per design requirements

Rehabilitation of Uatolari I Irrigation Scheme

Version: Final May 2003

repairs to the existing canal lining and canal structures

repairs or replacement where directed of existing canal gates

supply and installation of steel check gates at the division structures

construction of a meeting room for the WUA *

construction of a concrete drying area adjacent to the storage areas *

construction of a storage shed for paddy/milled rice *

construction of a gatekeepers hut.*

Principle items of work include:

demolition of the existing weirs and sections of the existing intakes

construction of a new reinforced concrete intake structure

provision and installation of canal intake and sluice gates

provision of timber stoplogs at the canal intake and sluice

construction of a flood retaining wall on the right abutment

construction of a flood retaining embankment on the left abutment

desilting of the existing canal system

reshaping of the existing canal per design requirements

repairs to the existing canal lining and canal structures

Rehabilitation of Uatolari I Irrigation Scheme

Version: Final May 2003

repairs or replacement where directed of existing canal gates

supply and installation of steel check gates at the division structures

construction of a meeting room for the WUA *

construction of a concrete drying area adjacent to the storage areas *

construction of a storage shed for paddy/milled rice *

construction of a gatekeepers hut.*

Rehabilitation of Uatolari I Irrigation Scheme

Version: Final May 2003

Rehabilitation of Uatolari I Irrigation Scheme

Version: Final May 2003

1:5 yr D = 80% persistence flows

the first paddy crop in December

Rehabilitation of Uatolari I Irrigation Scheme

Version: Final May 2003

660-1090-600 0.21 0.65 0.42 0.62 0.37

1.91 1.91 0.42 1.14 0.82 1.62 1.17

0.48 0.52 0.61 0.65 0.63 0.58 0.41

1.39 1.39 1.91

700-1090-780 0.23 0.69 0.44 0.65 0.39