BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL – PART 7 FLOOD PROTECTION

GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN
BALOCHISTAN COMMUNITY IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURE PROJECT

DESIGN MANUAL
PART 7 – FLOOD PROTECTION STRUCTURES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1
1.1 Purposes of Flood Protection Works and Level of Protection...........................................1
1.2 Hydrology..........................................................................................................................2
1.3 Alignment of Flood Protection Works................................................................................2
2 FLOOD PROTECTION STRUCTURES................................................................5
2.1 River Bank Erosion...........................................................................................................5
2.2 River Containing Structures..............................................................................................5
2.2.1 Flood Protection Bunds........................................................................................5
2.2.2 Retired Bunds.......................................................................................................6
2.2.3 Marginal Bunds.....................................................................................................6
2.3 River Training Structures..................................................................................................7
2.3.1 General.................................................................................................................7
2.3.2 Guide Bunds.........................................................................................................7
2.3.3 Spurs....................................................................................................................8
2.3.4 Gabions Retaining Walls....................................................................................11
3 DESIGN CRITERIA..............................................................................................13
3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................13
3.2 Freeboard........................................................................................................................13
3.3 Embankment Section: Slope and Foundation Stability and Hydraulic Gradient.............13
3.4 Scour Depth....................................................................................................................15
3.5 Armoured Protection.......................................................................................................17
3.5.1 General...............................................................................................................17
3.5.2 Stone Size, Grading and Thickness of Stone Pitching.......................................17
3.5.3 Gabions..............................................................................................................18
3.5.4 Filter Layer..........................................................................................................18
3.6 Non-Structural Protection................................................................................................19
3.7 Practical Considerations.................................................................................................19

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION

GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN
BALOCHISTAN COMMUNITY IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURE PROJECT

DESIGN MANUAL

CONTENTS OF OTHER PARTS

Part 1 Site Investigations

Part 2 Flood Estimation
Part 3 Weirs
Part 4 Infiltration Galleries
Part 5 Irrigation Canals
Part 6 Irrigation Structures
Part 7 Flood Protection Structures
Part 8 Potable Water Supply Systems
Part 9 Structural Design Criteria
Part 10 Draughting Standards
Part 11 Value Engineering
Part 12 Selected Drawings

Annex 1 Monthly Rainfall Data

DISCLAIMER

This Design Manual was prepared under the Balochistan Community Irrigation and Agriculture Project (BCIAP)
for the design of schemes constructed under the Project. While every effort to check for mistakes in this
manual has been made, no liability for the use of this Manual for any other purpose can be accepted by BCIAP,
or the Project’s Consultants.

No credit is claimed here for original research or thought. As far as possible all reference material has been
quoted and acknowledged in the appropriate places.
 BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL – PART 7 FLOOD PROTECTION

GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN
BALOCHISTAN COMMUNITY IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURE PROJECT

DESIGN MANUAL
Conversion Factors

Length
1 inch = 25.4 mm
1 foot (12 inches) = 0.3048 m
1 mile (5280 ft) = 1609 m

Area
1 ft2 = 0.093 m2
1 acre (43,560 ft2) = 0.4047 hectares (4047 m2)
1 sq. mile (640 acres) = 259 hectares

Volume
1 ft3 = 0.028 m3
35.315 ft3 = 1 m3 (=1,000l)
1.0 Imp. gallon (=0.16 ft3) = 4.546 l
1.0 US gallon = 3.785 l

Discharge
1 cusec (ft3/s) = 0.028 cumecs (m3/s)
1 Imp. gallon/minute = 0.076 l/s

Weights
1 lb = 0.454 kg
2.2 lb = 1.0 kg
1 ton (US) = 907.2 kg (0.907 tonnes)

Force
0.2248 lbf = 1 N (0.1020 kgf)
0.06852 lbf/ft = 1 N/m (0.1020 kgf/m)
145.0 lbf/in2 = 1 N/mm2 (10.20 kgf/cm2)

Moment
0.7376 lbf ft = 1 Nm (0.1020 kgf m)

Useful Data
Density of Water = 1,000 kg/m3 = 62.4 lb/ft3
Nominal weight of reinforced concrete = 23.6 kN/m3 (2,400 kg/m3) = 150 lb/ft3
Nominal elastic modulus of concrete = 14 kN/mm2 (140 x 103 kg/cm2) = 2 x 106
lb/in2
Co-efficient of Linear expansion of concrete = 10 x 106 per oC =
5.5x106per oF
Acceleration of gravity, g = 9.806 m/s2 = 32.3 ft/s2
BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION
BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purposes of Flood Protection Works and Level of Protection

On many of the BCIAP schemes flood protection works are required, to protect the
irrigation facilities, the command area or housing areas. Where command areas are being
protected, the opportunity may often be taken to enclose a larger area, and reclaim land
which had been washed away in previous floods.

Guide Bunds at Wandri Weir

To protect infrastructure, such as head works or village housing areas, flood protection
works should be for a comparable design life as the infrastructure (ie 25-30 years). The
PAGE 2 BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION

design flood event should have a return period of 50 years (plus freeboard) or 100 years
(without freeboard). This means that the there is a 25% probability of the flood bund being
over overtopped in a 25 year period.

To protect land from inundation, the flood protection works would usually be designed to a
much lower standard, for a five year design life, and for a design flood event with a return
period of 20 to 25 years. However, for most minor irrigation schemes, and for all schemes
built under BCIAP, breaching of the flood protection works would not just result in land
being inundated, but all the top soil being washed away. For farmers this is a calamity
equal in scale to the loss of (low quality) housing. Importing new soil by truck is often too
expensive to be undertaken. For this reason, under BCIAP, the same level of protection
was provided to fertile, farming land as for housing and infrastructure.

Flood protection works may be classified as:

 River containing structures (for example stone protected earthen flood protection
embankments where the top of the embankment is above design flood level);
 River training structures (for example guide bunds and spurs, which may be
designed to overtop during floods).

The types of structures are described in Chapter 2.

BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 3

1.2 Hydrology
In order to design flood protection works, the peak flood in the river for the design return
period is needed.

A methodology for deriving flood peaks has been developed for the Project and is
described in Part 2 of the Design Manual. As stated above, the design return period for
the flood should be once in 50 years (plus freeboard) or once in 100 years (without
freeboard).

The river flood level corresponding to the design flood event will also be required. River
cross sections should be surveyed upstream and downstream of the river reach requiring
protection and the slope and cross section of the river obtained. The approximate water
level for the 1 in 100 year event can then be estimated using Manning’s equation taking
into account the surveyed cross sections, the slope of the river and an appropriate
Manning’s coefficient “n”.

Where possible the river levels should be checked against trash marks left by floods,
which should be noted when the river cross sections are surveyed. The flood levels
calculated for the design flood and the high level flood trash debris should normally be not
too dissimilar.

It is usual for design flood levels to be determined both with and without the proposed
flood protection works. This is particularly important for if the waterway is being reduced,
so as to allow any adverse effects on, say, lands on the opposite bank of the river to be
properly assessed.

1.3 Alignment of Flood Protection Works

The alignment of flood protection structures needs to be considered carefully, taking into
consideration the following:
 The existing (and historical) river alignments;
 Farmers wishes, land ownership, etc
 The regime river width;
 The effect of the proposed works on “others” outside the scheme area, such as on
the opposite bank;
 The stability of the river bed.
PAGE 4 BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION

Flood Protection Bunds at Zerin Hasoir PIS

BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 5

For example, if a stone armoured flood protection bund is being constructed to protect the
command area of a scheme, such as at Lakharo, Domandi and Zerin Hasoi, and the
opportunity is being taken to reclaim land from the riverbed washed away in previous
floods, then the river width is being reduced. Beneficiaries are likely to “be greedy”, and
press for as much land to be reclaimed as possible. This may be dangerous, as well as
increasing the cost of the works.

The width should not be

reduced below the regime river
width 1, which should be
calculated for various flood
flows, including flood flows with
a return period of 10, 20, and
50 years. For spate rivers, the
river dimensions will be
dictated by the more extreme
events.

Not withstanding any estimate

made in this way, the natural
width of river both upstream
and downstream of the scheme
should be measured, at Guide Bund upstream of Weir
locations with similar bed
material and slope. The adopted width should not be less than the minimum over served
natural width.

Having adopted an alignment, the effect on “others” needs to be determined. The reduced
waterway will increase flood levels, and may also scour the river bed to some extent.

Attempts have been made in the past by various projects in Balochistan to try to stabilise
riverbed levels using gabion mattresses laid across the riverbed, but with limited success.
This is in part due to the poor quality of gabions used. The cages are woven on site and
are rarely tight enough. Rock placement is poor. The result is that the cages often bulge
and then the wires are cut by boulder impact. Another associated problem is vandalism.
It seems that there is nothing that amuses a bored goatherd more than using stones to
cut squares out of gabion mattress wire!

1 The Lacey Regime Width equation may be used, see Part 3: Weirs of this Design Manual
BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 7

2 FLOOD PROTECTION STRUCTURES

2.1 River Bank Erosion

A river’s bank consists of upper and lower sections. The lower bank, the part below low
water, acts as the foundation for supporting the upper bank and is generally more
susceptible to erosion. Bank recession is caused by erosion of the lower bank,
particularly at the toe. Recession can be fast, especially when there is a sandy
substratum, as the sand is washed away by the current and the over-hanging bank
collapses. The upper bank is the portion between the low water and the high water. Action
on this portion of the bank is most severe when the current attacks normal to the bank.
During high stages of the flood, erosion also occurs due to a strong current along the
bank.

The various types of bank erosion are classified as follows:

 River flow attack at the toe of the underwater slope, leading to bank failure and
erosion. Usually the greatest likelihood of upper bank failure occurs during a
falling river stage.
 Erosion of soil along the bank caused by current action.
 Sloughing of saturated banks with floods of long duration, due to rapid receding of
the flood.
 Flow slides (liquefaction) in saturated silty and sandy soil.
 Erosion of soil by seepage out of the bank at relatively low channel
flows/velocities.
 Erosion of the upper bank, river bottom or both, due to wave action caused by
wind.

River bank protection may be classified as direct and indirect:

Direct protection: includes works done on the bank itself such as providing armoured
protection, or non-structural protection, depending upon the severity of the current:
 Where the river is not aggressive, it may be practicable to protect the banks with
non-structural protections such as bushes and trees.
 For aggressive rivers, the banks should be protected by sufficient armoured
protection on the slope to resist the tractive shear stress exerted by the flowing
water. To prevent outflanking, the revetment should be provided with curved
heads cut well into the bank.

Indirect protection: includes the works installed in front of the banks to reduce the
erosive force of the current, either by deflecting the current away from the bank or by
inducing silt deposition in front of the bank. This is usually done with spurs.

2.2 River Containing Structures

2.2.1 Flood Protection Bunds

Flood protection bunds are earthen embankments constructed parallel to the existing river
channel and designed to protect the area behind it from overflow of floods.

The standard flood bund section adopted under BCIAP (see Section 3.3) is:
 Crest width: 10ft (3m)
 River side slope: 2H:1V
 Landside slope: 1.5H:1V
PAGE 8 BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION

Most rivers in the upland area of Balochistan may be considered as aggressive, and most
flood protection bunds require protection. Most BCIAP schemes’ flood protection bunds
were provided with “direct” stone protection, comprising gabions and stone pitching. The
gabions are placed on the lower bank, to prevent undermining of the embankment, in the
pre-launched position (see Section 3.5).

2.2.2 Retired Bunds

Retired bunds are bunds built at a distance from the river edge behind the flood bund as a
second line of defence. They are not justified for the protection of minor irrigation
schemes such as those built under BCIAP.

2.2.3 Marginal Bunds

Marginal bunds are provided to contain river spill generated by the backup of water level
upstream of a structure, such as a weir or siphon crossing. They connect to upstream
river banks, and are usually anchored to guide bunds. They are not expected to be
subject to high velocity flows, and may have light stone protection, or even non-structural
protection.

Marginal & Guide Bunds at Mirjanzai Weir

BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 9

A marginal bund on the right side of the river was provided at Mirjanzai, connecting to the
reinforced concrete abutment of the flip bucket weir. Light stone pitching was provided to
the portion of the marginal bund closest to the weir; the rest was left unprotected. Gabion
protected guide bunds extended upstream and downstream from the concrete abutments,
on both sides of the rivers, to guide the flow over the weir. Bulbous noses were provided
to the ends of the guide bunds (see Section 3.7).
PAGE 10 BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION

2.3 River Training Structures

2.3.1 General
River training covers structures constructed on a river to guide and confine the flow to the
river channel. Also, to control the river bed configuration for safe movement of floods and
river sediment.

2.3.2 Guide Bunds

A river in alluvial material
generally flows in a wide “khadir”,
defined by the historical
movements of the river between
two high banks), and it is
necessary to narrow down and
restrict its course to flow centrally
through the weir (or other
structure) placed across it. Guide
bunds are usually placed
symmetrically in plan. The
alignment should be such that no
“swirls” are produced. There
should be no spurs projecting from
the guide bank as the spurs
produce swirls.

Guide bunds can be divergent or

convergent in form upstream of
the structure, or parallel.
Under BCIAP, all guide bunds
were parallel.

The length of the guide bunds

depends on the following:
 The distance necessary to
secure a straight and
normal approach flow to
the structure so as to
minimize the obliquity of
current.
 To safely protect the
approach banks on both of
the structure from river
embaying behind the
training works.
 To ensure that the swirls
and turbulence, likely to be
created by the spreading
out of flow downstream of
the guide banks, do not
endanger the structure.
 The length necessary to
prevent the edge of the
river bend or meander Types of Guide Bunds
reaching below the center
line of the structure, behind
BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 11

the guide bund.

For BCIAP schemes, the plan
dimensions of the guide bunds
were approximately those of the
Bell Bund, modified depending
on the conditions of the site (eg
rock outcropping, etc). The
dimensions of the Bell Bund are
shown in the adjacent figure,
where L is the length of the weir
crest.

The standard guide bund section

adopted under BCIAP is the
same as for flood protection
bunds, ie:
 Crest width:
10ft (3m)
 River side slope:
2H:1V
 Landside slope:
1.5H:1V

Bell Bund Dimensions

2.3.3 Spurs
Spurs (or groynes) are structures placed transverse to the river flow and extend from the
bank into the river. These are widely used for the purpose of river training and serve one
or more of the following functions:
 Training the river along a desired course by attracting, deflecting (or repelling) and
holding the flow in a channel. An attracting spur creates deep scour near the
bank;a deflecting spur shifts deep scour away from the bank, and a holding spur
maintains deep scour at the head of the spur.
 Creating a zone of slack flow with the object of silting up the area in the vicinity of
the spur.
 Protecting the river bank by keeping the flow away from it.

The requirements of a spur are:

 Optimum alignment and angle consistent with the objective.
 Availability of a high river bank to anchor (or tie) the spur back, by extending it into
the bank a sufficient distance to avoid it being outflanked.
 Sufficient freeboard provision (in case of non-submerged spurs).
 Fairly stable flow entry condition upstream.
 Adequate protection to nose/head against anticipated scour.
 Shank protection with stone pitching and stone apron for the length which is liable
to parallel the flow attack upstream.
PAGE 12 BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION

Depending upon the purpose, spurs can be used singly or in series. They can also be
used in combination with other training measures. Their use in series is introduced if the
river reach to be protected is long, or if a single spur is not efficient/strong enough to
deflect the current and also not quite effective for sediment deposition upstream and
downstream of itself. The structure located the farthest upstream in a series of spurs is
much more susceptible to flow attack both on the riverward and landward ends. Thus it
should be given special treatment to ensure its structural stability.

The position, length and shape of spurs depends on site conditions, and requires
significant judgement on behalf of the designer. No single type of spur is suitable for all
locations.

a Alignment of Spurs
Spurs may be aligned either perpendicular to the bank line or at an angle pointing
upstream or downstream.

A spur angled upstream repels the river flow away from it and is called a repelling spur.
These are preferred where major channel changes are required. A spur originally angled
upstream may eventually end up nearly perpendicular to the streamlines after
development of upstream side silt pocket and scour hole at the head. Repelling spurs
need a strong head to resist the direct attack of swirling current. A silt pocket is formed on
the upstream side of the spur, but only when the spurs are sufficiently long. Repelling
spurs are usually constructed in a group to throw the current away from the bank. Single
spurs are neither strong enough to deflect the current nor as effective in causing silt
deposition upstream and downstream.

A spur angled downstream

attracts the river flow towards it
and is called an attracting
spur. The angle of deflection
downstream ranges between
30 to 60 degrees. The
attracting spur bears the full
fury of the frontal attack of the
river on its upstream face,
where it has to be armoured
adequately. Heavy protection
is not necessary on the
downstream slope. It merges
into the general stream
alignment more easily. The
scour hole develops off the
riverward end of the structure.
Gabion Attracting Spur at Barag FIS
When the upstream angled
spur is of short length and
changes only the direction of flow without repelling it, it is called a deflecting spur. It
gives local protection only.

The angle which the spur makes with the current may affect the results. A spur built
normal to the stream usually is the shortest possible and thus most economic. An
upstream angle is better to protect the riverward end of the spur against scour. A
downstream angle might be better for protecting a concave bank, especially if spacing
and the lengths of the spurs are such to provide a continuous protection by deflecting the
main currents away from the entire length of bank.
BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 13

b Spacing of Multiple Spurs

The spacing between spurs depends on the length of the spur from the bank, its projected
length. General recommendations are:
 In a straight reach the spur spacing should be about five (5) times the projected
spur length.
 Spurs may be spaced further apart, with respect to their projected lengths, in a
wide river than in a narrow river, having similar discharge.
 The location of spurs affects their spacing. The recommended spacing for convex
bends is 2 to 2.5 times the projected spur length; and for concave bends, equal to
the projected spur length.

c Length of Spurs
No general rules can be formulated for fixing the length of spurs. It depends entirely on
the corresponding conditions and requirement of the specific site. The length should not
be shorter than that required to keep the scour hole formed at the nose away from the
bank. Too short a length may cause bank erosion upstream and downstream of the spur
due to eddies formed at the nose. A long spur may encroach into the main river channel
and would not withstand flood attack from discharge concentration at the nose and a high
head across the spur. Normally spurs longer than one fifth (1/5) the river width are not
provided.

d Types of Spurs
The different types of spurs commonly used, named according to the shape of their head,
are are listed below:
 Bar spur
 Mole-head spur
 Hockey spur
 Inverted hockey spur
 T-head spur
 Sloping spur
 T cum hockey-sloping spur
 J – head spur
 Guide-head spur

e Choice of Type of Spur

Various factors which influence the choice and design of spurs are as below:
 Gradient and velocity of river.
 Available construction materials.
 Type of bed material carried by the river (i.e. shingle, sand or silt).
 Quantity of silt load in river flow.
 River width or waterway available at high, medium or low discharge.
 Depth of waterway and flood hydrograph.

Permeable spurs are best suited to erodible bed rivers normally carrying heavy-silt-laden
flow. These are not suitable for small rivers, having steep gradients or deep rivers
carrying light-sediment load.

Impermeable spurs are most suitable for confining a river to a defined channel.

Spurs may be aligned perpendicular or inclined to the bank line, pointing upstream or
downstream. Fixing the angle of spur with respect to current may require physical model
studies.
PAGE 14 BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION

In a straight reach of the river, a series of spurs are required to provide bank protection.
For a curved reach of the river it could be trained by a limited number of spurs.

f BCIAP Experience with Spurs

On BCIAP spurs were proposed for a number of schemes. They usually comprised
gabion constructions, either perpendicular from the bank or facing downstream (repelling
spur).

A long repelling gabion spur was provided at Zerin Hasoi, and a series of shorter
deflecting spurs were provided at Barkhohi Essote.

Mostly however, gabion and stone pitched earthen embankments were provided, as these
have proved reliable, and may be designed with much more confidence, without the need
for extensive local experience of expensive studies.

2.3.4 Gabions Retaining Walls

On some schemes, on
aggressive rivers, having steep
gradients and high velocities,
gabion retaining walls were
provided, particularly where
protection was subject to frontal
river attack. For such locations
gabion or masonry retaining
walls were provided (for
example at Zerin Hasoi). Gabion
walls are generally
recommended, because of their
flexibility and because they
make full use of readily available
local stone. Gabion retaining
walls are designed as gravity
walls.
Gabion Retaining Wall
BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 15

3 DESIGN CRITERIA

3.1 Introduction
Design criteria are provided for
stone protected flood and guide
bunds. These structures are
proving very successful on both
BCIAP and BMIADP schemes.
Unless the design engineer has
extensive experience with
spurs, these should not
generally be chosen. Too often,
spur alignment or length may
not be appropriate, or spacing
between spurs too far (often
from a need to reduce costs),
and the spurs fail.

Design criteria given in this

Stone Armoured Flood Protection Bund
manual for protection bunds,
cover freeboard, choice of
embankment section, scour depth and sizing of armoured protection.

3.2 Freeboard
Flood bunds and guide bunds need to be provided with freeboard as a safeguard against
over-topping, which would lead to failure of the bund.

On BCIAP, the bund top height was set as the river water level associated with:
 a flood with a 100 year return period (without freeboard); or
 a flood with a 50 year return period (plus freeboard).

The freeboard adopted was 3ft (0.9m). This was considered more than sufficient for wave
action, super- elevation on bends, sediment deposition and an additional margin of safety.

3.3 Embankment Section: Slope and Foundation Stability and Hydraulic Gradient
The slopes of the embankment must be stable under all conditions of construction, design
flood discharge, rapid flood draw-down, low flow level and earthquake forces. The
stability depends on the strength of the fill soil foundation characteristics.

Factors which influence the stability of an embankment include the following:

  Soil properties (angle of internal friction; cohesive strength; unit weight).
  Design flood level and low water level of the river.
  Phreatic line and pore water pressure.
  Surcharge on the embankments.
  Earthquake loading.
PAGE 16 BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION

An embankment may fail for many reasons, including:

 Overtopping;
 Piping through the embankment and/or foundation during high floods;
 Cracking of the embankment due to settlement, either of placed fill material or the
foundation;
 Front (upstream) side shear failure (sliding) due to weak foundations or over-
steep front slope, most likely during rapid draw-down after a flood;
 Back (downstream) side shear failure (sliding) due to weak foundations or over-
steep back slope, most likely during the flood.

Slope stability analysis may be carried out using Bishop’s simplified method (of sluices).
The analysis should be carried out assuming that river bed material in front of the (pre-
launched) placed apron is eroded away, for the case of rapid draw down after the design
flood event, as well as for seepage through the bund during the design flood, with
surcharge loading on top of the embankment, and (if considered applicable) for
earthquake loading. The factor of safety to be adopted should be between 1.1 and 1.5,
depending on the severity of the loading conditions adopted.

Alternatively, the design section may be designed based on the adoption of a safe
hydraulic gradient (or seepage) line.

The stability of an embankment depends on the strength of the foundation material. For
bunds built on river bed sands and gravels, this is not a problem. Such non-cohesive
material is likely to have a safe bearing capacity ranging from 10 - 55 tonnes / m 2, and
strength parameters at least equal to that of the embankment constructed from natural
river gravels.

Seepage through a bund made of natural river bed material may occur during a flood.
However, given the short duration of the flood the seepage water loss is negligible. The
only concern is that the embankment remains stable, and that seepage velocities are not
sufficient to cause piping and loss of material from the back slope

Experience on BCIAP is that the following embankment section, constructed out of natural
river bed sands and gravels, is stable for heights up to about 10ft (3.0m) (see section
below):
 Crest width: 10ft (3m)
 River side slope: 2H:1V
 Landside slope: 1.5H:1V

Typical Section for Protection & Guide Bunds on BCIAP Schemes

BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 17
PAGE 18 BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION

For bunds higher than 10ft (3.0m) it may be necessary to flatten the back slope to ensure
embankment stability, and/or place a counter berm along the back slope.

3.4 Scour Depth

The Lacey empirical equation may be used to compute the depth of scour. The design
scour depth below bed level (D) is given by:

Design scour depth (D) = XR – Y [metric units]

Where:
X = scour factor dependent on type of reach (see Table 3.1 below)
Y = design depth of flow [m]
R = 1.35 (q2/f)1/3
q = the maximum discharge per unit width [m2/s]
f = Lacey’s silt factor

Table 3.1 Scour Factors

Type of Reach Mean Value of

Scour Factor "X"

Straight 1.25
Moderate bend (most transitions) 1.50
Severe bend (also Shank protection at spurs) 1.75
Right angled bend (and pier noses and spur heads) 2.00
Nose of Guide Banks 2.25

Where the bed material size is well known, the Lacey silt factor (f) may be calculated from
the formula:

f = 1.76 D50

Where:
D50 = the sieve size through which 50% of the material passes by weight [mm].
BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 19

Alternatively, the silt factor is given in Table 3.2 below for various materials.

Table 3.2 Lacey’s Silt Factor

Soil Type Lacey's Silt Factor "f"

Large boulders and shingle 20.0

Boulders and shingle 15.0
Boulders and gravel 12.5
Medium boulders, shingle and sand 10.0
Gravel and bajri 9.0
Gravel 4.75
Coarse bajri and sand 2.75
Heavy sand 2.0
Fine bajri and sand 1.75
Coarse sand 1.5
Medium sand 1.25
Standard silt 1.0
Medium silt 0.85
Fine silt 0.6
Very fine silt 0.4
Clay 5.0
PAGE 20 BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION

3.5 Armoured Protection

3.5.1 General
Under BCIAP, armoured protection to bunds comprised a combination of stone pitching
and gabion mattresses. This stone
protection is placed on the front (upstream)
2H:1V slope of the embankment, extending
down to the design scour depth as
calculated in Section 3.4. The protection is
thus placed in its launched position, by
excavating and backfilling the river bed.
Experience on BCIAP confirms that this is
the best approach for the schemes’ rivers,
which are in hilly areas, and have steep
slopes and wide ranging gradations of river
bed material.
The relative extent of stone pitching and
gabion mattresses in relation to the normal
river bed level, the normal flood level (ie 1 in
2 year flood) and design flood level (ie 1 in
100 year flood) has in the past not been
consistent. It is suggested that gabions
should extend from the design scour level to
at least the normal flood level, with pitching
continuing to the design flood level, (ie the Gabion & Stone Pitching Bund Protection
top of the bund).

3.5.2 Stone Size, Grading and Thickness of Stone Pitching

USBR2 recommends the following formula for determining the size of stone that will not
be dislodged under turbulent flow conditions:

D50 = (Vav / 4.915)2 (turbulent flow conditions) [metric units]

Where:
Vav = average velocity of flow for maximum discharge [m/s]
D50 = average stone size [m]

The specific gravity of the stones was assumed to be 2.65 (ie density of 2,650kg/m 3). If
less dense stone is used, then the stone size should be increased correspondingly.

For low-turbulent flow conditions, such as exist along the shank of a flood protection
bund, the required stone size will be less than that given above. A reduction in the D 50
stone size of 40% is acceptable.

The grading of the stone pitching should be as follows:

 Maximum stone size = 1.5D50
 Minimum stone size = 0.5D50
 Not more than 40% of the stone should be smaller in size than D50

2 / USBR AHydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy Dissipators@ United States Bureau of
Reclamation. 1983.
BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 21

The thickness of the pitching should be 1.5 times the stone D 50 size. It is usual to place
the pitching on a filter layer, to prevent fines being washed out from the embankment
during the flood recession.

For BCIAP schemes, the following stone pitching protection was found acceptable in most
cases:
 Thickness of stone pitching: 1.5ft (0.46 m);
 D50 stone size: 12” (0.3m)
 Maximum stone size of: 18” (0.46m)
 Minimum stone size of: 6” (0.15m)
 Not more than 40% of stone smaller than 18”

The stone pitching was laid on a filter layer, usually 6” (0.15m) thick.

3.5.3 Gabions
For BCIAP schemes, gabion mattresses were placed along the lower portion of the stone
protected embankment slopes. This provided greater security against stone displacement
in the short term, particularly if undersized rock was used, or if the embankment settled.
The thickness of the gabions matched that of the stone pitching, and typically the same
rock gradation was specified.

As with pitching, gabion mattresses are usually laid on a filter layer, as far as the natural
river bed level. On some BCIAP schemes, where draw-down after a flood was not
anticipated as a problem, due to the granular nature of the material forming the
embankment, the filter layer under the gabions was omitted.

3.5.4 Filter Layer

Stone protection placed on embankments should be laid on a filter layer to prevent piping.
When one filter layer is sufficient it is called a “graded filter”. When more than one filter
layer is used, the coarser filter is placed on top of a finer filter (ie the permeability
increases outwards), and the filter is called an "inverted filter".

The gradation of a graded filter should conform to the following guidelines established
originally by Terzarghi:
d15 filter / d85 soil < 5;
d15 filter / d15 soil > 5; and
d50 filter / d50 soil < 25

Where d85 is the sieve size which will pass 85% of the material, and similar for other
percentages (d15 and d50).

The above criteria relate respectively to:

 stability (ie preventing the movement of soil particles into the filter);
 permeability; and,
 uniformity.

If this cannot be achieved with a singe filter layer, then two layers shall be used, where
the upper layer of the filter is designed using the above criteria, where the soil parameters
are replaced by the parameters relating to the filter below.

The thickness of the filter layer was typically 6” (150mm).

PAGE 22 BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION

3.6 Non-Structural Protection

Alternative methods of protection which were considered under BCIAP included:
 tamarix or other local bushes along the toe of the protection bund in “mild” rivers.
 stone spurs with tamarix or other local bushes planted in them.

3.7 Practical Considerations

The ends of flood protection or
guide bunds should never be
left “hanging”. Either they
should be tied into adjacent
high ground, or a bulbous nose
should be provided, with stone
protection extending all around
the nose. For schemes
constructed under BCIAP, the
diameter of the nose was twice
the bank top width (20ft, 6.1m).

Bulbous Nose at Downstream End of Guide Bund

BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 23

BIBLIOGRAPHY

VARSHNEY, GUPTA & GUPTA Theory and Design of Irrigation Structures

Halcrow, EuroConsult, NDC Second Flood Protection Sector Project.

Package B: Capacity Building for Integrated Management
& Sub-projects Implementation
Design Criteria and Methodology
October 2001