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 =5.5x106peroF
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 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.

PAGE 2 BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION

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.
BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 3

Flood Protection Bunds at Zerin Hasoir PIS

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 locations
Guide Bund upstream of Weir
1 The Lacey Regime Width equation may be used, see Part 3: Weirs of this Design Manual
PAGE 4 BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION

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!
BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 5

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 6 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

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).
BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 7

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 reaching
below the center line of the
structure, behind the guide
bund. Types of Guide Bunds
PAGE 8 BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION

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.

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
BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 9

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.

When the upstream angled spur Gabion Attracting Spur at Barag FIS
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.
PAGE 10 BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION

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.

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.
BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 11

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 13

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

manual for protection bunds,
cover freeboard, choice of Stone Armoured Flood Protection Bund
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 14 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 / m2, 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 15

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].
PAGE 16 BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION

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
BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 17

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.

Gabion & Stone Pitching Bund Protection

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 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/m3). If less
dense stone is used, then the stone size should be increased correspondingly.

2
/ USBR AHydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy Dissipators@ United States Bureau of Reclamation.
1983.
PAGE 18 BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION

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 D50 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

The thickness of the pitching should be 1.5 times the stone D50 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,
BCIAP DESIGN MANUAL PART 7: FLOOD PROTECTION PAGE 19

 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).

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 21

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