Table of Contents

4. Detail Hydrology Report of Arun RiverBridge ...........................................................................3

4.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................3
4.2. Field Investigations............................................................................................................3
4.3. Catchment Characteristics ................................................................................................3
4.4. Rainfall Analysis .................................................................................................................5
4.4.1. Rainfall Stations (Long Term Annual and Monsoon Rainfall) ...................................5
4.4.2. Maximum Daily Rainfall ............................................................................................5
4.4.3. Maximum Hourly Intensity........................................................................................5
4.4.4. Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) ...........................................................................5
4.4.5. Time of Flood Concentration ....................................................................................6
4.5. Design Flood ......................................................................................................................7
4.5.1. Return Period of Design Flood ..................................................................................7
4.5.2. Estimation of Design Flood by different methods ....................................................7
4.6. Hydraulic Analysis (High Flood Level) .............................................................................11
4.7. Minimum Free Board and Bridge Span ...........................................................................13
4.8. Scour Depth .....................................................................................................................14
4.9. Summary of Arun River Bridge ........................................................................................17

Page | 1
 List of Figures

Figure 4-1: Proposed Bridge Axis ......................................................................................................3

Figure 4-2 Catchment area delineation of Arun River at Bridge site ................................................4
Figure 4-3 IDF Curve for Arun River Catchment ................................................................................7
Figure 4-4: Stage discharge curve derived by Slope area method .................................................10
Figure 4-5 HEC-RAS Plan showing the river stations and flow direction ........................................11
Figure 4-6 X-Y-Z perspective plot of simulated design flood in Arun River ....................................11
Figure 4-7 Longitudinal Profile of design flood in Arun River .........................................................12
Figure 4-8 Rating Curve at new bridge axis of Arun River ..............................................................12
Figure 4-9 Cross section of new bridge axis (upstream) .................................................................12
Figure 4-10 Cross section of new bridge axis (downstream) ..........................................................13

List of Table

Table 4-1 Catchment Parameters of Arun River at Bridge Site .........................................................4

Table 4-2 Rainfall Stations in the catchment of Arun River bridge site ............................................5
Table 4-3 Maximum daily rainfall at different Return Periods (in mm)............................................5
Table 4-4 Hourly rainfall intensity at different Return Periods (in mm/min) ...................................5
Table 4-5 Predicted Rainfall Intensity for IDF at different Return Periods (mm/hr) ........................6
Table 4-6 Discharge estimated by Rational method .........................................................................8
Table 4-7 Discharge estimated by PCJ 1996 method ........................................................................8
Table 4-8 Discharge estimated by Hydest Modified 2004 Method ..................................................8
Table 4-9 Discharge estimated by Modified Dikens method ...........................................................9
Table 4-10 Discharge estimated by Slope Area method .................................................................10
Table 4-11 HEC-RAS Results for design flood Arun River from U/S (16) to D/S (1) ........................13
Table 4-12 Recommended Scour depth ..........................................................................................16

Page | 2
4. DETAIL HYDROLOGY REPORT OF ARUN RIVERBRIDGE
4.1. Introduction

This detail hydrology report is prepared after detail hydrological and hydraulic analysis of
proposed new bridge in Arun River at chainage --------------of ------------- Road. The detail
hydrological study is performed to estimate the design flood for new bridge and detail
hydraulic analysis has been performed to predict the High Flood Level (HFL), bridge span,
free board and scour depth at the time of occurrence of the design flood. After analysis
suitable and economical design parameters and values are recommended for the detail
design of Arun River Bridge.

4.2. Field Investigations

Proposed bridge over Arun River is in straight and confined banks and road alignment
crosses in perpendicular direction. The River is in very mild slope and both banks are stable
in upstream and downstream. From hydrology point of view,considering the road alignment
geometry, it is recommended to construct a new bridge of length 180m.

A
XI
S

Figure 4-1: Proposed Bridge Axis

4.3. Catchment Characteristics

Arun River is a main tributary of Saptakoshi and most of the catchment lies in Tibet. The
catchment area delineated from GIS is equal to 30217km2 out of which 25244 Km2 lies in
China. The head water begins from an elevation of 5300 m and the bridge site is located at
200 m altitude. The main channel length delineated from Topo map is 372 km. The average
slope of main channel is 0.0100. The catchment area of Arun River is presented in Figure 4-2.
Basic parameters of the catchment are depicted in Table 4-1.

Page | 3
 Figure 4-2 Catchment area delineation of Arun Riverat Bridge site
Table 4-1Catchment Parameters of Arun River at Bridge Site

Catchment Stream Highest Point Lowest Point River slope Time of Concentration
Area Length km m m average tc, hours
km2

Page | 4
 30217 372 8825 200 0.0100 26.46

4.4. Rainfall Analysis

4.4.1. Rainfall Stations (Long Term Annual and Monsoon Rainfall)

The representatice rainfall stations are selectedfor the catchment of Arun River by
thiessen Polygon method for raifall analysis . Details of these rainfall stations are given
in Table 4-2. Rainfall data of these stations are used basically for the flood analysis.
Table 4-2 Rainfall Stations in the catchment of Arun River bridge site
Record
Station Station Elev. MAR Monsoon MAMDR
Lat. Long. Length
Name No. (m) (mm) Index (mm) (mm)
(yrs)
Dingla 1325 87.15 27.37 1190 1283 913 105.81 38
Leguwaghat 1305 87.28 27.13 410 880 599 62.57 51

Source: Hydrological Estimations in Nepal, DHM,

4.4.2. Maximum Daily Rainfall

Yearly maximum daily rainfalls for three representative stations were collected from the
Climatological Reports published by Department of Hydrology and Meteorology. Daily
rainfalls for 10, 33, 50 and 100 year return periods were calculated by frequency analysis
using Gamma distribution and Plotting Positions by Weibul method (Ref. 3). The results
were obtained directly from Reference 3 (PCJ 1996). The comparison of daily maximum
rainfall at different return periods for these stations is presented in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3Maximum daily rainfall at different Return Periods (in mm)
Return Period, T (years)
Rainfall Stations (Index) 2 5 10 20 50 100
1325_ Dingla 55.13 77.97 95.24 112.51 135.35 152.62
1305_ Leguwaghat 95.73 128.30 152.93 177.57 210.13 234.77
Average Daily 75.43 103.13 124.09 145.04 172.74 193.69

4.4.3. Maximum Hourly Intensity

Yearly maximum hourly rainfall intensity for three representative stations for 10, 33, 50
and 100 year return periods were directly obtained from PCJ 1996. The comparison of
hourly rainfall intensity at different return periods for these stations is presented in
Table 4-4. For the runoff analysis by Rational and PCJ methods average values of these
stations were used as they are well compared.
Table 4-4Hourly rainfall intensity at different Return Periods (in mm/min)
Return Period, T (years)
Rainfall Stations (Index) 10 33 50 100
1305_ Leguwaghat 0.64 0.77 0.81 0.87
Source: PCJ 1996

Page | 5
4.4.4. Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF)

The flood concentration time of Arun River at bridge site is less than 24 hours. The
rainfall intensity curve of the study area was established by Mononobes equation,
which is generally applied in mountainous catchment and presented by the following
equation:

R24 24 23
Rtc ( )
24 tc
Where,Rtc = Rainfall intensity in tc hours (mm/hr); R24 = 24 hours rainfall (mm); tc= Time
of concentration in hour.
4.4.5. Time of Flood Concentration

The Time of flood concentration is derived from Kirpich formula:

0.87 L3 0.385
tc ( )
h
Where,L=Stream length in km; h=Difference of the maximum and minimum elevations in
m
If the time of concentration is less than 15 minutes then it is assumed to be 15 minutes
as recommended by ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers).
The Rainfall Intensity duration values for Arun RiverCatchment are presented in Table 4-
5 and the Intensity Duration Frequency Curves are shown in Figure 4-3.
Table 4-5Predicted Rainfall Intensity for IDF at different Return Periods (mm/hr)
Intensity Duration Frequency Curve for Bridge site
Frequency,Year 2-years 5-years 10-years 20-years 50-years 100-years
Daily rainfall, mm 75.43 103.13 124.09 145.04 172.74 193.69
Design hourly maximum rainfall intensity in mm/hr
Duration (Hour) R2 R5 R10 R20 R50 R100
0.25 66.91 91.48 110.06 128.65 153.22 171.80
0.5 42.05 57.49 69.17 80.86 96.30 107.98
1 26.43 36.14 43.48 50.82 60.52 67.87
5 8.99 12.29 14.79 17.29 20.59 23.09
10 5.65 7.73 9.30 10.86 12.94 14.51
26.46 2.94 4.03 4.84 5.66 6.74 7.56
50 1.92 2.63 3.16 3.70 4.40 4.94
100 1.21 1.65 1.99 2.32 2.77 3.10

Page | 6
 Mean Extreme Rainfall IDF curve from representative station
1000.00

Rainfall Intensity (mm/hr) 100.00 Return Period

2-years

5-years
10.00 10-years

20-years
1.00 50-years

100-years
0.10
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Duration (hrs)

Figure 4-3IDF Curve for Arun River Catchment

4.5. Design Flood

4.5.1. Return Period of Design Flood

The design flood frequency is determined with the basic consideration of the risk
involved and the cost of minimizing that risk. The risk factor is dependent on the type
and size of structure, volume of water impounded by it and the extent of damage in the
event of failure of the structure, which depends on the population and property
downstream of the structure likely to be affected by the worst eventuality of the failure
of the structure.
Based on international practices, guidelines (Nepal Bridge Standard 2067), type and
size of the structures, impounded volume and preliminary assessment of the extent of
likely damage in the event of worst failure, the frequency of design flood for this bridge
is recommended equal to 100 years.
4.5.2. Estimation of Design Flood by different methods

Rational Method
Rational formula was used to calculate the floods from the catchment by using
maximum hourly rainfall intensities for the time of concentration. The The formula is as
follows:

CI A
QP
3.6
Where, Qp= Maximum flood discharge in m3/s; I = Intensity of rainfall within the time of
concentration in mm/hr; A = Catchment area in km2; C = Dimensionless run-off
coefficient, assumed equal to 0.4 for Arun River Watershed.

Page | 7
 Table 4-6Discharge estimated by Rational method
Rainfall Intensity (i) Discharge
Catchment ARF L TC
Area 100 yrs 100-years
Sq Km -0.064 * Ln (A)+1.2053 km hrs mm/hr m3/s
30217 0.55 372 26.46 7.56 13825

PCJ 1996 Method

In the PCJ method (Ref. 3), maximum floods of different return period have been derived
for 142 rainfall stations that have more than 20 years of consistent data of rainfall all
over Nepal. In determining the floods of Arun River this method was used for the
average value of hourly rainfall intensity at three representative stations, which are
located near the basin area and have comparatively good series of rainfall data. Using
this method, the maximum rainfall design discharge Q p for the required exceedance
probability p was computed using the equation,

Q p 16 .67 a p o pFk F

Where ap is the maximum rainfall design intensity for p, op is the infiltration coefficient
of the basin, is the reduction coefficient of maximum discharge that depends on the
basin size and the power reduction indicator n (n= 0.33 for Nepal), and kF is a coefficient
that reflects the unequal distribution of rainfall in different size of basin captured by one
rain. In this equation,

a p a hr k t

Where ahr is the hourly rainfall intensity for p whose values are given in ref. 3 and kt is a
reduction coefficient of hourly rainfall intensity that depends on the size of the
catchment area. The term op depends on the exceedance probability p and is equal to
1.0, 0.95, 0.85, 0.714, 0.678 and 0.50 for values of p equal to 0.1, 1, 2, 4, 5 and 10
percent respectively. The flood values from PCJ 1996 is given below in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7Discharge estimated by PCJ 1996 method
Area (sq. Km) Kt ap Op Kf F Q100 (m3/s)
30217 0.40 0.38 1.00 0.09 0.75 17,117 7077

Hydest Modified 2004 Method

This method is similar to WECS 1990 but has more data base and it also uses the mean
elevation of basin. Flood results by this method may be obtained directly by the
software called HYDEST2004 at any location of Nepal.
Table 4-8Discharge estimated by Hydest Modified 2004 Method
Q in
Area (A) in Sq. Km m3/s
River
A < 3000
m 3000<A<5000m A>5000m Total 100 yrs
Arun River 10274 6844 13099 30217 16010
Saptabagar

Page | 8
Modified Dickens Method
Irrigation Research Institute, Roorkee (India) has conducted frequency studies on
Himalayan Rivers and suggested the following relationship to compute Dickens constant
CT for desired return period (T):
CT = 2.342 log (0.6T) log (1185/p) + 4
p = [(a+6) / (A+a)]*100
Where a = perpetual snow area in sq. km; A = total basin area in sq. km.
Now, T year flood discharge (QT) in m3/sec is determined by:
QT = CTA0.75
Floods estimated by above methods for 100 years return period are presented in Table4-
9.

Table 4-9Discharge estimated by Modified Dikens method

River A a p CT Q
Sq.Km Sq.Km m3/s
Arun River 30217 10273 43.4 9.98 22878

Slope Area Method

This is most common method used to determine the discharge any reach of river by
energy gradient calculation. This method gives reliable result in straight reach of river
where the flow is uniform. In this method, Mannings roughness coefficient is more
important and its judgments depend on experts experience. Accurate cross sectional
area and river slope is taken from the surveyed data.
Q = 1/n *A *R2/3* S1/2
Where,
Q = Discharge in m3/s
n = Mannings Roughness coefficient
A = Cross sectional area effective to flow
S = Bed slope of River at the considered Reach
Here,
Cross Sectional Area (A) at different stage and corresponding perimeter have
been taken from the survey cross section,
n = 0.04Fine sand at river bed

Page | 9
 Table 4-10Discharge estimated by Slope Area method
Area Perimeter Hyd. Radius Bed Slope Velocity Discharge
Stage
A P R S V Q Remarks
m m2 m m m/m m/s m3/s
182.00 741.23 119.05 6.23 0.01 9.15 6,782.93
181.50 684.25 115.21 5.94 0.01 5.91 4,045.08
181.30 661.64 113.65 5.82 0.01 5.83 3,859.70 Observed HFL
181.00 629.07 111.59 5.64 0.01 5.71 3,591.86
180.50 575.56 108.12 5.32 0.01 5.50 3,163.13
180.00 523.70 104.65 5.00 0.01 5.27 2,761.92
179.50 473.48 101.18 4.68 0.01 5.04 2,387.89
179.00 425.69 93.72 4.54 0.01 4.94 2,104.55
178.50 382.14 84.99 4.50 0.01 4.91 1,876.54
178.00 342.92 76.26 4.50 0.01 4.91 1,684.08
177.55 311.63 68.49 4.55 0.01 4.95 1,542.48 WL
177.50 308.02 68.14 4.52 0.01 4.93 1,517.93
177.00 275.74 64.97 4.24 0.01 4.73 1,302.87
176.00 215.68 58.63 3.68 0.01 4.30 926.46
175.00 161.64 52.29 3.09 0.01 3.83 618.29
174.00 113.62 45.95 2.47 0.01 3.30 374.49
173.00 71.61 39.61 1.81 0.01 2.67 191.56
172.00 35.62 33.27 1.07 0.01 1.89 67.19
171.00 6.87 19.83 0.35 0.01 0.89 6.12

184.0

182.0

180.0

178.0
Stage (m)

176.0

174.0

172.0

170.0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Discharge (m3/s)

Figure 4-4: Stage discharge curve derived by Slope area method

Page | 10
 Recommended Design Flood
Based on field data and comparision of different methods the flood value ( 16010m3/s)
estimated from Hydest Modifiedmethod is recommended for bridge design. The slope
area method doesnot give the recurance interval of estimated flood. However the HFL
investigated by local inquary during the survey has been used to estimate the flood
which is the highest flood occurred upto this time according to local people.

Discharge100-years Recommended
CA M3/s Discharge
Hydest Modified
Sq Km
Modified Dikens Rational PCJ 1996 Slope Area (m3/s)
30217 16,010 22,878 13825 7077 3860 16,010
4.6. Hydraulic Analysis (High Flood Level)

The hydraulic analysis has been executed by simulating the design flood in the surveyed
cross section using HEC-RAS model. The plan having river stations and flow direction is
depicted in Figure 4-5. X-Y-Z perspective plots of simulated design flood in Arun River are
presented in Figures 4-6. Longitudional profile of design flood, rating curve at new bridge
axis and velocity profile along the Arun River are presented in Figures 6, 7 and 8 respectively.
Flowing cross sections with design flood at 100 m and 50 m downstream of new bridge axis
are shown in Figures 9 and 10. Similarly , Flowing cross sections with design flood at new
bridge axis and 50 m upstream are shown in Figures 11 and 12. HEC-RAS numerical results
for design flood of 16010 m3/s for Arun River from upstream (20) to downstream (3) are
presented in Table 4-11.

Figure 4-5 HEC-RAS Plan showing the river stations and flow direction
Arun P lan: Plan 01 12/30/2016
20 Legend

19 WS PF 1
18
Ground
17 Bank Sta

15

13 11
9
8.5

7
5

Figure 4-6 X-Y-Z perspective plot of simulated design flood in Arun River

Page | 11
 Arun Plan: Plan 01 12/30/2016
Arun Upper
200 Legend

195 WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
190 Ground
Elevation (m)

185

180

175

170
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Main Channel Distance (m)

Figure 4-7 Longitudinal Profile of design flood in Arun River

Arun Plan: Plan 01 12/30/2016

186 Legend

W.S. Elev
184

182
W.S. Elev (m)

180

178

176

174
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Q Total (m3/s)

Figure 4-8 Rating Curve at new bridge axis of Arun River

Arun Plan: Plan 01 12/30/2016

.04 .035 .04

230 Legend

Crit PF 1
220 WS PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
210
Elevation (m)

200

190

180

170
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station (m)

Figure 4-9 Cross section of new bridge axis (upstream)

Page | 12
 Arun Plan: Plan 01 12/30/2016

.04 .035 .04

230 Legend

Crit PF 1
220 WS PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
210
Elevation (m)

200

190

180

170
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station (m)

Figure 4-10 Cross section of new bridge axis (downstream)

Table 4-11 HEC-RAS Results for design flood Arun River from U/S (16) to D/S (1)
Q Min Ch W.S. E.G. E.G.
River Crit W.S. Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude
Reach Total El Elev Elev Slope
Sta # Chl
(m3/s) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m/m) (m/s) (m2) (m)
Upper 20 16010 177.85 195.58 195.58 201.08 0.006007 10.81 1565.76 143.97 1.03
Upper 19 16010 177.8 194.79 194.79 201.59 0.004335 12.19 1517.31 119.76 0.96
Upper 18 16010 177.76 190.03 193.31 200.87 0.010394 15.22 1197.09 137.76 1.41
Upper 17 16010 177.64 193.45 193.45 199.96 0.004487 11.65 1507.97 121.42 0.95
Upper 16 16010 177.6 194.51 194.51 200.47 0.004567 11.33 1626.68 161.44 0.95
Upper 15 16010 177.6 188.09 192.12 199.55 0.013993 15.8 1161.55 160.88 1.58
Upper 14 16010 177.49 189.45 192.2 198.12 0.010277 13.21 1292.31 181.22 1.34
Upper 13 16010 177.47 188.57 191.19 197.56 0.010763 13.77 1272.59 152.08 1.38
Upper 12 16010 177.69 189.49 191.27 196.51 0.007927 12.07 1456.5 185.54 1.19
Upper 11 16010 177.46 188.22 190.2 196 0.009742 12.64 1348.63 163.9 1.31
Upper 10 16010 176.66 187.02 189.33 195.39 0.012307 12.89 1268.44 164.07 1.43
Upper 9 16010 176.37 186.55 188.77 194.74 0.011539 12.88 1296.97 165.32 1.4
Upper 8.5 16010 175.33 185.23 187.62 194.06 0.012444 13.55 1239.9 156.61 1.46
Axis 8.2 Bridge
Lower 8 16010 175.18 185.18 187.47 193.58 0.011076 13.07 1287.34 157.7 1.38
Lower 7 16010 175.02 187.74 187.74 192.96 0.004858 10.64 1687.37 167.31 0.97
Lower 6 16010 174.94 187.96 187.96 192.92 0.004631 10.59 1752.69 174.83 0.95
Lower 5 16010 174.42 183.89 186.17 192.22 0.012583 12.87 1268.77 164.37 1.44
Lower 4 16010 174.34 186.43 186.43 191.29 0.00555 10.35 1703.09 177.23 1.01
Lower 3 16010 174.23 187.23 187.23 192.26 0.005206 10.19 1669.32 170.73 0.98

4.7. Minimum Free Board and Bridge Span

According to Nepal Bridge Standard 2067 (DoR), in case of bridges over water bodies, the free
board from the design HFL with afflux to the lowest point of bridge superstructure shall not be

Page | 13
 less than 1.0 m. As the design flood is higher and river section is narrow, the minimum free
board for Arun River Bridge is recommended equal to 2.5 m.
The HFL estimated by HEC-RAS is 185.23 m. minimum free board of 2.5 m to this, the minimum
deck level of new bridge should be at 187.23 m for which the Maximumclear waterway under
the bridge should be 180.0 m.
4.8. Scour Depth

Scour of stream bed occurs during the passage of flood discharge, when the velocity of the
stream exceeds the limiting velocity that can be withstood by the particles of the bed materials.
The scour is aggravated at the nose of the piers and at the bends. The maximum scour depth has
to be determined to calculate the depth of the foundation of the bridge.
The scour depth for a particular design discharge depends on local geology and the opening of
waterway and type of flow. According to sieve analysis the average size d 50 = 8 mm is used for
scour calculations.

A. Regime Formulation by Lacey 1930

Design Discharge Q100 = 16010.00 m3/s
As per IS Code IRC 78-2000,
increase design discharge Qd = 1.2* Q100 = 19212.00 m3/s
Mean Particle Size d50 = 8.00 mm
Friction factor f= 1.76*d501/2 = 4.98
effective linear waterway, lf = 180.00 m
m3/s/
Specefic design discharge qd= Qd/ lf 88.94 m
max flood depth yo = 10.35 m
Mean Scoured Depth yms= 1.34*(qd2/f)1/3 = 15.64 m
Scour Below the Original bed level yas = yms-yo = 5.29 m
B. Regime Formulation by Blench
Mean Scoured Depth yms= 1.23*(qd2/3/d501/12) = 20.61 m
Scour Below the Original bed level yas = yms-yo = 10.26 m
C. Regime Formulation Component Velocity Approach

Minimum mean velocity at which erosion of bed takes place W = 180.00 m

Mean Scoured Depth yms=0.365*Qd0.784/(W0.784* d50 0.157 ) = 10.25 m
Minimum mean velocity at which erosion of bed takes place
Vc = 3.62 d500.2 *yms0.275 = 6.57 m/s
max flood depth yo = 10.35 m
Average flood depth ymo = 6.89 m
maximum scour depth ys= yms *yo/ymo = 15.40 m
Scour Below the Original bed level yas = ys-yo = 5.05 m
D. Newzealand Railways
maximum scour depth ys= yr *V1*K/(A/W)1/2
where,
Raised water level (HFL-WL) yr = = 10.35 m
Flow Area A= = 1240 sq.m
Water way width (1.25*W80) W = 225.00 m

Page | 14
 max flood depth yo = 10.35 m
K=(W/(4.83*Q1/2)1/2 = 0.61
Approach Velocity V1 = C*(Q/A)*{yo/(A/W)}2/3 = 5.93 m/s
maximum scour depth ys= yr *V1*K/(A/W)1/2 = 15.87 m
Scour Below the Original bed level yas = ys-yo = 5.52 m

E. Armoring Based Design

depth of scour below the Original river bed level
yas = da* [{1/(1-e)*pc}-1]
where,
For u*d50/ <=
Armoring particle size da = 68*{ y*Sf/(Ss-1)}1.67*(u*/)0.67 10
da =27*{ y*Sf/(Ss-1)}0.86*(u*/)0.14 For 10<u*d50/ <= 500
For u*d50/
da =17*{ y*Sf/(Ss-1)} >500
friction slope Sf = = 0.05444
Specific Gravity of Sediment Particle Ss = = 2.65
Mean particle size d50 = = 0.008 m
maximum flood depth y= = 10.35 m
Shear Velocity u* = (g *y* Sf)1/2 = 2.35 m/s
Kinematic Viscosity of water = = 1.52E-06 m2/s
Void ratio of Bed Materials e= 0.245+(0.0864/(0.1d50)0.21 = 0.34
Now,
u*d50/ = 12382.15 > 500
da =17*{ y*Sf/(Ss-1)} = 5.81 m
Scour Below the Original bed level yas = da* [{1/(1-e)*pc}-1] = 7.64 m

F. HEC RAS

Hydraulic Design Data

Contraction Scour
Left Channel Right
Input Data
Average Depth (m): 3.71 8.62 3.89
Approach Velocity (m/s): 5.79 12.88 6.23
Br Average Depth (m): 3.98 9.56 4.58
BR Opening Flow (m3/s): 403.62 15091.09 515.29
BR Top WD (m): 15.13 123.45 15.43
Grain Size D50 (mm): 8.00 8.00 8.00
Approach Flow (m3/s): 249.28 15399.49 361.24
Approach Top WD (m): 11.61 138.81 14.90
K1 Coefficient: 0.640 0.690 0.640
Results
Scour Depth Ys (m): 0.75 0.00 0.58
Critical Velocity (m/s): 1.54 1.77 1.55
Equation: Live Live Live

Page | 15
Pier Scour
Pier: #1 (CL = 122)
Input Data
Pier Shape: Round nose
Pier Width (m): 2.50
Grain Size D50 (mm): 8.00000
Depth Upstream (m): 9.08
Velocity Upstream (m/s): 13.55
K1 Nose Shape: 1.00
Pier Angle: 1.00
Pier Length (m): 7.00
K2 Angle Coef: 1.03
K3 Bed Cond Coef: 1.10
Grain Size D90 (mm): 20.00000
K4 Armouring Coef: 1.00
Results
Scour Depth Ys (m): 10.39
Froude #: 1.44
Equation: CSU equation
Pier: #2 (CL = 182)
Input Data
Pier Shape: Round nose
Pier Width (m): 2.50
Grain Size D50 (mm): 8.00
Depth Upstream (m): 9.06
Velocity Upstream (m/s): 13.55
K1 Nose Shape: 1.00
Pier Angle: 1.00
Pier Length (m): 7.00
K2 Angle Coef: 1.03
K3 Bed Cond Coef: 1.10
Grain Size D90 (mm): 20.00
K4 Armouring Coef: 1.00
Results
Scour Depth Ys (m): 10.39
Froude #: 1.44
Equation: CSU equation

Combined Scour Depths

Pier : #1 (CL = 122) (Contr + Pier) (m): 10.39

Pier : #2 (CL = 182) (Contr + Pier) (m): 10.39

Table 4-12Recommended Scour depth

Pier Scour depth (m) from Minimum RBL

Regime
Regime
River Regime Formulation New Armoring
Formulation Recommen
Formulation Component Zealand Based HEC RAS
by Lacey ded
by Blench Velocity Railways Design
1930
Approach
Arun River 5.29 10.26 5.05 5.52 7.64 10.39 10.39

Page | 16
 Bridge Scour RS = 8.2
230 Legend

WS PF 1
220
Ground
Bank Sta
210
Contr Scour
Elevation (m)

200 Total Scour

190

180

170

160
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station (m)

The scour depth at bridge pier / abutments is the function of various parameter. Pier and
abutments scour is localized scour due to presence of rigid obstruction. In Arun River the
abutments are rest on bank above the HFL level so there is no possibility of scour in abutments.

4.9. Summary of Arun River Bridge

Catchment Area = 30217 km2

Design Discharge (Q100) = 16010 m3/s
Lowest River Bed Level = 175.18 m
High Flood Level (HFL) = 185.23 m (10.05 m from Lowest River Bed Level)
Minimum Free Board = 2.5 m
Minimum clear waterway under the Bridge = 180 m
Minimum Scour Depth from Lowest River Bed Level = 10.39 m

Page | 17
 References
1. Climatological Records of Nepal, Department of Hydrology and Meteorology,
HMG Nepal, 1971-2000.

2. Maximum storm flood for the design of road structures of Nepal, Prem Chandra
Jha, Ph.D. Dissertation, Moscow, Russia, 1996

3. Principles and practice of Bridge Engineering, S. P. Bindra, New Delhi, 1997

4. Methodologies for estimating hydrologic characteristics of ungauged locations in

Nepal, WECS, 1990

5. Hydrological Estimations in Nepal, MOST, DHM, K P Sharma and N R Adhikari,

2004.

6. Nepal Bridge Standards -2067, Government of Nepal, Ministry of Physical

Planning and Works, Department of Roads

Page | 18