.

DIAGNOSTIC STUDY OF FAILURES OF HYDRAULIC

STRUCTURES IN BANGLADESH - CASE STUDIES OF
FAlLURES IN ClllTTAGONG D~ST~ICT

!
- \

G.M. AKRAM HOSSAIN

. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING

/ BURT, DHAKA

OCTOBER, 1992

- ..I~IIIIIIII\\III1I111 11111\ \ 11111\

#85692#
-:,
 DIAGNOSTIC STUDY OF FAILURES OF HYDRAULIC
STRUCTURES IN BANGLADESH - CASE STUDIES OF
FAILURES IN CHITTA GONG DISTRICT

, ..'. ,

"•
'.

G.M. AKRAM HOSSAIN

In partial fulfilment of the requirements

for
Degree of Master of Science in Engineering
(Water Resources)

Department '0'[ Water Resources Engineering,

Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka J ,

October, 1992

. .
..
. ,
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that this work has been done by me and neither this thesis
nor part thereof has been submittep elsewhere for the award of any degree or diploma.

(Professor Ainun Nishat) (G.M. Akram Hossain)

Countersigned by the Supervisor Signature of Candidate
 BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING
We hereby recommend that the thesis presented by
G.M. AKRAM HOSSAIN

entitled" DIAGNOSTIC STUDY OF FAILURES OF HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES IN

BANGLADESH - CASE STUDIES OF FAILURES IN CHITTA GONG DISTRICT" be
accepted as fulfilling this part of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Engineering (Water Resources).

Chairman of the Committee

(Supervisor) Dr. Ainun Nishat

Member
(Co-Supervisor, and Head Dr. Abdul Hannan
of the Department)

Member A1.
Dr. M.
tieL . an

Member

.' .
 (i)

ABSTRACT

Many hydraulic structures such as regulators, drainage sluices, weirs, water retention structures
etc. have been constructed in Bangladesh for water resources development aimed at flood
control, irrigation and drainage. Many such structures are under construction or at planning and
design stage. However, many of the completed structures are not functioning properly due to
various reasons. This study was taken up to establish the factors leading to such failures in
functioning. Although there are evaluation reports on the performance of water resources
development projects, which have identified the causes of failures to hydraulic structures, no
indepth study was carried out. With an aim to quantify the contribution of various factors this
diagnostic performance evaluation was carried out. In this study, a critical evaluation of the
present practice of the design, construction and operation and maintenance for various hydraulic
structures was also carried out.

Under this study a global survey of all hydraulic structures in Chittagong area was condllcted.
Chittagong area was selected because it contains hilly region as well as deltaic flood plain. All
structures were first located with the help of concerned officials responsible for their operation
and maintenance and then their present performance levels were evaluated with the help of a
questionnaire. In depth analysis of failures was then carried out for four selected structures
which included two water retention structures in the hill streams and two tidal sluices in the
deltaic flood plain.

The factors contributing to the failures have been categorised under (a) design and planning
issues, (b) construction deficiency and"(c) improper operation and maintenance. This study
found that about 50 per cent of the completed structures were not functioning properly to provide
with the intended benefit. Due considerations were not given to the detailed hydrological
analyses. Attention given to hydraulic analyses was also inadequate. In general much attention
was paid to structural design. The design of hydraulic structures are based on the available
water level and rainfall data. But there are a lot of errors in data collection. There are
 (ii )

structures built across ungauged hilly streams without appropriate data of the catchment
hydrology. Many of these structures were damaged due to flash floods. It was observed that
repairs were done based on original design without investigating the reasons for failure and thus
the repaired structure remained vulnerable to future events.

Construction deficiency have caused serious damage to hydraulic structure leading to tota! failure
and such deficiencies were observed in many structures. The main construction deficiency was
in concreting; in many cases the constructed thickness of section was less than the design
thickness. This was confirmed by measurement during field visits. Often absence of quality
control, poor supervision and difficult working conditions led to poor concrete quality.

The absence of proper operation and routine maintenance arrangements were common to all
completed hydraulic structures. Thus the conditions of the Structures deteriorated gradually and
eventually many of them became inoperative. There were no operators engaged at the structure
sites and the gates and fall boards were not opened during flash floods. " In such situations the
structures failed due to overflanking. There were Project Committee in some of the structures
who were responsible for operation but they were ineffective.

Indepth studies were carried out for Mondakini and Harwal Chari water retention Structures in
Fatikchari, and Bamansunder and Ichakhali sluices in Polder 61/2, Mirsharai. The major cause
, of failure of water retention structures was the absence of proper operation and for tidal sluices,
construction deficiency was the major cause of failure.
 (iii)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is pleased to mention that it was a rare opportunity to have Dr. Ainun Nishat,
Professor, Department of Water Resources Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering
and Technology, Dhaka, as his thesis Supervisor whose able guidance, encouragement,
suggestions and cooperation made this study a success. Profound gratitude is acknowledged to
,
Professor Nishat.

The author is greatly indebted to Dr. Abdul Hannan, Professor and Head, Department of Water
Resources Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, for his
valuable comments during the preparation of the study. Professor Hannan worked as a Co-
supervisor for this thesis.

The author is also grateful to Dr. M. MiIjahan, and Mr. Amjad Hossain Khan, members of the
Board of Examiners of this thesis for their valuable comments which helped in the fulfilment of
the objective of the study.

Acknowledgements are expressed to Mr. Abdul Bari Talukdar, Mr. Obaidul Islam arid Mr.
Mohiuddin Faruk, Executive Engineers of Cox's Bazar O&M Division, Chittagong O&M
Division I and II respectively for their assistance and cooperation during field data collection.

Gratitude is also expressed to Dr. V.J. Galay, Principal, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd,
Canada, for his valuable comments on the study and to Mr. John Brown, Team Leader,
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd., Dhaka for his cooperation in extending the facility of
office computer while editing this manuscript.

G.M. Akram Hossain

 (iv)

Diagnostic Study of Failures of Hydraulic Structures in Bangladesh

- Case Studies of Failures in Chittagong District

Table of Contents '

ABSTRACT Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Types of Hydraulic Structures

1.2.1 Regulators
1.2.2 Drainage Sluices
1.2.3 Water Retention Structure
1.2.4 Dams,Weirs and Barrages
1.2.5 Escapes
1.2.6 Outlets
1.2.7 Inlets
1.2.8 Bridges and Culverts
1.2.9 Flood Embankments

1.3 Importance of the Study

1.4 Objective of the Study

2.0 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS OF WATER DEV. PROJECTS 9

2.1 Introduction
2.2 FAP'12 Agricultural Study
2.3 FAP 13 Operation and Maintenance Study
2.4 System Rehabilitation Project
2.5 SSFCDI Project
2;6 IFCDR Embankment Study
2.7 BWDB Flood in Bangladesh 1987
2.8 Delta Development Project
2.9 Early Implementation Project
2.10 Ganges Kobadak Rehabilitation Project
2.11 LGEB RESP O&M Model
2.12 Care's Food For Work and Rural Maintenance Program
 ,.
(v)

3.0 REVIEW OF HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES DESIGN PRACTICE

25
3.1 Review of Design Manuals

3.1.1 BWDB Design Manual

3.1.2 LGED Design Manual
3.1.3 Delta Dev. Project Design Manual
3.1.4 Third FCD Design Manual
. 3.1.5 CIDA Design Manual
3.1. 6 SRP Design Manual (Draft)
3.1. 7 Discussion

3.2 Review of Design Procedure

3.2.1 Data Collection

3.2.2 Hydrologic Design
3.2.3 Hydraulic Design
3.2.4 Structural Design
3.2.5 Foundation Design
3.2.6 Discussion

4.0 REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE

45
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Construction Supervision
4.3 Quality Control
4.4 Discussion

'l
5.0 .REVIEW OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PRACTICE
48
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Present O&M Activity

6.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

51
6.1 Research Methodology
6.2 Data collection and Field Survey
6.3 Limitations of the Study

.~
 (vi)

7.0 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 56

7.1 General
7.2 Performance Evaluation
7.3 Operation and Maintenanace
7.4 Discussion

8.0 CASE STUDIES 65

8.1 General
8.2 Mondakini Water Retention Structure
8.3 Harwal Chari Water Retention Structure
8.4 Bamansundar Sluice, Polder 61/2
8.5 Ichakhali Sluice, Polder 61/2

9.0 DISCUSSION ON FAILURES OF HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES 86

9.1 Introduction
9.2 Typical Causes of Failure
9.3 Preventive Measures

10.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 91

10.1 Introduction
10.2 Non-tidal Structures
10.3 Tidal Sluices
10.2 Recommendation for Further Studies

REFERENCES
97
 (vii )

LIST OF FIGURES:

Figures 3.1-3.3 Details of USBR Stilling Basins

Figure 3.4 Details of Low Froude Number Stilling Basin

Figure 3.5 Details of SAF Stilling Basin

Figure 3.6 Details of Indian Standard Stilling Basin Type I

Figure 3.7 Typical Inverted Filter and Launching Apron

Figure 6.1 Flow Diagram on the Study Sections

Figure 7.1 Bar Chart Showing Structure Category in Chittagong Area.

-
Figure 7.2 Bar Chart Showing General Performence of Structure

Figure 7.3 Bar Chart Showing Percentage of Damage Category

Figure 8.1 Mondakini Channel Section

Figure 8.2 Catchment Map of Mondakini Water Retention Structure

Figure 8.3 Proposed Mandakini Structure with Falling Shutter

Figure 8.4 Emergency Wasteway

Figure 8.5 Typical Floating Logboom

Figure 8.6 Harwal Chari C;:hannelsection

Figure 8.7 Catchment Map of Harwal Chari Water Retention Structure

Figure 8.8 Bamansundar Sluice (Polder 61/2), Layout Plan

Figure 8.9 Ichakhali Sluice (Polder 61/2), Layout Plan

 (viii)

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS:

Photo 1.1 Typical Water Retention Structure

Photo 8.1 Collapsed Downstream Sloping Wall of Mondakini

Photo 8.2 Damaged Downstream Floor of Mandakini

Photo 8.3 Exposed Reinforcement in Mandakini Structure

Photo 8.4 Collapsed Downstream Stilling Basin of Mandakini
Photo 8.5 Collapsed left Bank of Harwal WRS
. Photo 8.6 Ichakhali Failed Sluice

Photo 8.7-8.10 Additional failed Water Retention Structures

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 O&M Performance of FAP 13 Case Study Projects

Table 3.1 Lacey's Safety Factor against Scour Depth
Table 3.2 Loss of Energy for Various Froude Number (PI)
Table 3.3 Khosla's Safe Exit Gradient

Table 3.4 Permissible Stressess in Concrete and Steel.

Table 6.1 Global List of Structures Chittagong BWDB Circle

 (ix)

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADB Asian Development Bank

BADC Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation
BRDB Bangladesh Rural Development Board
BWDB Bangladesh Water Development Board
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency
CIS 'Country Side
DAE Directorate of Agricultural Extension
DDP Delta Development Project
DOF Department of Fisheries
EIP Early Implementation Project(s)
BIRR Economic Internal Rate of Return
FAP Flood Action Plan
FCD Flood Control and Drainage
FCD! Flood Control, Drainage and Irrigation
FFW Food For Works
GKRP Ganges Kobadak Rehabilitation Project
IDA International Development Association
IFCDR Institute of Flood Control and Drainage Research
IRC Indian Road Congress
khal natural channel/minor river/tidal creeks
khalashi 'Cleaner'(actually guard/operator) of regulator or sluice
kIn kilometer
LCS Labour Contracting Societies
LGRD&C
Local Government, Rural Development and Coperatives
LGEB Local Government Engineering Bureau
LRP Land Reclamation Project
MOl Ministry of Irrigation, Water Development & Flood Control
MPO Master Plan Organisation of MOIWD&FC
NGO Non Government Organisation
NHCL Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Limited
ODA
Overseas Development Administration (United Kingdom)
O&M Operation and Maintenance
O&MCC Operation and Maintenance Cost Cell
PEP Production Employment Program (of BRDB)
PIE Project Impact Evaluation
pucca brick constructed (of structures), permanent
RESP Rural Employment Sector Programme (of LGEB)
RMP Rural Maintenance Programme (of CARE)
RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal
R/S River Side
SRP System Rehabilitation Project(s)
SSFCDIP
Small Scale Flood Control, Drainage and Irrigation Project
SSWCS Small Scale Water Control Structures
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Many hydraulic structures for example flood embankments, regulators, drainage sluices, weirs,
water retention structures, bridges, culverts have been constructed and construction of many
more are going on. For design of these structures there are design manuals and standards
(BWDB, 1978; DDP, 1985; FCD, 1985, CIDA, 1985). Construction of hydraulic structures
are done under the supervision of concerned professionals. Mechanism of operation and
maintenance is laid down during the planning phase. Even then failures of many of these
structures are often reported (BWDB, 1986,1987,1988). Some structures fail to perform the task
it was expected to do e.g. failure to drain effectively; some structures are not operated properly
and thus it fail to function and more often the structural component fails; and total collapse is
also reported (BWDB, 1986, 1987,1988). These hydraulic structures are very expensive and
the performance of the whole project is dependent on the success of these appurtenant structures.
For water development in Bangladesh, construction of many more of these hydraulic structures
will be required; and it is imperative that they function properly. Towards this, the study was
planned to evaluate the causes of failures of hydraulic structures and develop an in depth
undertaking of the reasons for their not being able to deliver the intended benefit.

Often after when there is a structural failure, a departmental evaluation is done before taking up
repair works. Often repairs are done based on original design and thus it remains vulnerable
to failure events. There has been some performance evaluations of water development projects
who also have identified the causes of failures of the components such as hydraulic structures
(pAP 12, 1992: SRP, 1992; CIDA, 1991). These evaluations on broad basis, identified various
causes of failures which can be categorised under the following headings:

1
 Inadequate mapping and data collection
Inadequate planning and designs,
construction deficiency,
inadequate operation and maintenance practices

The planning and design of most of the hydraulic structures are based on the available water
development maps produced back in about 1965/66. There has been lot of topographical
changes in the catchment during this period. Due to the implementation of the various
earthworks under the Food For Works (FFW), the drainage condition might have changed due
to change in hydrological boundary. Different agencies (LGED, WFP, CARE, etc.) are
involved in the planning and implementation of earthworks schemes. But there is no
coordination between these agencies on the planning of earthworks schemes resulting in the
change of hydrological basins. There are lot many uncertainties in the water level (exceptions
are the automatic gauges) and rainfall data collection. It is reported that the datum level (zero
line) of some of the water levels gauges are found wrong. Some gauges are shifted with the
change in water depth but the zero lines are not carried correctly. Also there are structures built
across ungauged hilly streams with insufficient knowledge of the catchment hydrology.
Inadequate field data results in inadequate planning and design of the structures. The design of
the stilling basins may be inadequate and there will be scouring downstream of the concrete floor
\

causing damage to the structure. Designs "based on incorrect tail water data, will result in
wrong design of the energy dissipation and the jump will sweep out doing tremendous
downstream scour and ultimate failure of the structure. The peak discharge calculated for the
structure may be lower than the actual peak which leads to an undersize structure. Examples
are the Water Retention Structures in the hilly streams where the hydrological boundary are not
well defined. Many of these structures were damaged due to flash flood even in the first year
of operation.

Construction deficiency can cause serious damage to hydraulic structure leading to total failure
of the structure and embankments. Serious construction deficiencies have been reported for tidal
sluices. Tidal sluices are constructed much below the subsurface water table and extensive

2
 dewatering is required to make the excavation pit dry during floor casting. The standard
practice is to lower the ground water by at least 0.60 meter below the excavation level (BWDBI
FCD, 1986). It is reported that in many construction sites dewatering can not be done and base
slab concreting is done in water and even the design thickness of the slab can not be constructed
(Sattaria sluice in Polder 59/3B). There are examples that sluice sites have been abandoned due
to problems associated with dewatering (BWDB/NHCL, 1986). Inadequate construction
supervision is a major bottlenecks in the good quality structure. BWDB and the structure
contractors are short of trained construction supervisor. The field supervisors, in some cases,
can not read the construction drawings and do not understand the construction technique (World
Bank Mission Report, 1991). In fact many hydraulic structures failure due to construction
deficiency can be cited.

Failure of hydraulic structures and embankments also occurred due to inadequate operation and
maintenance. In fact operation and maintenance of the completed structure is a bare minimal
(pAP 13, 1992). Until recently, it was common for FCDI projects to be planned and
implemented without paying due attention to the aspects of Ope~tion and Maintenance (SSFCDI,
1992). FCDI projects were considered complete once the construction was finished. As a
result, benefits attained from many completed projects were far behind the targeted figures.
There is no fund available to maintain the structure to it's best operating condition. Although
fund is identified as first priority ,there is shortage of manpower and staff training to carry out
effective operation and maintenance.

1.2 TYPES OF HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES

Structures designed to control and or to modify the flow of water in channels; natural or man
made and, to control the flow of water into or out of a particular area (e.g. a coastal
embankment polder) and to control the forces imposed by the flowing water, are called hydraulic
structures. Bridges and offshore structures e.g. jetties, quay walls etc. are also called hydraulic
structures but those are not included in this text. Size of structures may vary from small
installations (e.g. farm turnouts, small canal structures) handling less than a cubic meter per

3
 second to large structures capable of controlling and withstanding flows in excess of 3000 cubic
meter per second. This chapter presents in brief the basic terminologies for the hydraulic
Structures like regulators, water retention Structure, sluices, dams, weirs and barrages, escapes,
inlets and outlets and earthen embankment.

1.2.1 Regulators

Regulators are gated structure which permit passage of water in and out of a particular area at
a controlled rate i.e a Structure through which the discharge can be regulated or varied as
required (BWDB/CIDA, 1991; Khanna P.N.,1982». These Structures are provided with
vertical lift gate with mechanical hoisting devices for easy operation. For small regulators, the
gates are usually operated manually.

1.2.2 Drainage Sluices

Sluices are structures provided with gated opening to permit passage of water in one direction
/

only when the difference in water level permit (BWDB/CIDA, 1991). These type of structures
are provided with flap gates for automatic operation and are mostly used in coastal region to
prevent saline water intrusion and to allow drainage at low tide. Sluices are also defined as an
outlet for the water from a canal to the field; a conduit for carrying water at high velocity; and
an opening in a structure for passing debris (Khanna, P.N. 1982).

1.2.3 Water Retention Structure

Water retention Structures are designed and constructed on perennial streams to retain water for
dry season irrigation and to check over drainage of beel areas. They are submersible low height
structure (masonry or reinforced cement concrete) and are designed either with vertical side
walls or sloping side walls depending on the economy and stability of the Structure. They are
mostly built on small perennial hilI streams to head up water for gravity irrigation or by Low
Lift Pumps (LLPs) to irrigate the adjoining areas. The vertical side walls are more stable

4
against any possible ,erosion due to overflanking of the structure during flash floods, A typical
section of a water retention structure is shown in photo 1.1.

.,

.'
, "
., . ,

5
L2.4 . Dam

Dam may be defined as a barrier constructed across a water course or a topographic low area
for the purpose of storage, control or diversion of water (Garg, 1983). Dams are classified
(

according to their use, their hydraulic design and the material of which they are constructed.
Dams may be used for either storage, diversion or detention of water. The hydraulic
classification is based on whether the dam is overflow type or non-overflow type. Overflow
dams are designed to carry discharge over their crest or through spillway over the crest. Non-
overflow dams are designed not to be overtopped. The classification based on material is to
decide whether the dam is to fIlled by earth, rock or concrete.

Weirs

Weirs are structures usually located in open channel and are normally used for the following
purposes (BWDB/CIDA, 1991):

Raising the upstream water levels

Controlling the fll,lwin the channel
• Measuring discharge in the channel

The weirs can be given a variety of shapes, each suitable for a specific purpose. The three basic
types (based on the profile) are : i) broad crested; ii) sharp crested and iii) ogee-crested weirs.
The flow characteristics and relationship between upstream and downstream of the weirs are
discussed in standard text books.

Barrages

.Barrages are also structures constructed across the river to raise the water level on the upstream
side of the structure. The ponding of water can be achieved either by a raised crest across the
river or by a raised crest supplemented by falling shutter. If most of the ponding is achieved

(\
 r
by a permanent raised crest, the barrier is termed as weir. On the other hand, if the ponding
is done mostly by gates, the barrier known as barrage or a river regulator (Garg, 1983)

1.2.5 Escapes

Escapes are weirs through which surplus or excess water is removed from a: canal, reservoir,
or stream into lin escape channel (Khanna, 1982). They are also used for flushing the canals
to remove bed silt. Escapes are constructed at the head reach of main canal are different from
silt ejectors.

1.2.6 Outlets

An outlet is a device (fixed or regulating) built at the head of a water course which connects the
water course with the distributing channel and control the flow of water (Garg, 1983)

1.2.7 Inlets

An inlet is a struct!Jre constructed in order to allow the drainage water to enter the canal and get
mixed with the canal water and thus help augmenting canal supplies (Garg, 1983).

1.2.8 Bridges and Culverts

A bridge is structure constructed across a channel for the purpose of crossing the channel having
single or multiple spans and a culvert is a small bridge structure of less than 6 meter span
between faces of abutments and does not generally has two spans (Khanna, 1982).

1.2.9 Flood Embankment

\
Earthen flood embankment is a protective and training bank constructed along the river to guide
the river through the water way and restrict overland flooding (Khanna, 1982).

7
1.3 IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY

The study is will provide an insight into the existing use of mapping and data collection; design
methodology; construction technique, operation and maintenance practices and institutional
arrangements of the completed hydraulic structures in Chittagong area. The study will also
recommend further work required in the development of this field of engineering. The field data
in the performance of existing structure will be correlated with the original design concept which
will assist in the further development of design practice. The identification of construction
deficiency for the structures will help in modifying the existing construction practices and in
maintaining efficient construction quality control. More importance will be focused on the O&M
of the completed structures. The study will recommend an institutional frame work for over all
project development.

1.4 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The objectives of this study are:

to review the existing data collection, design, construction and operation and maintenance
procedures for Hydraulic Structures as being followed and to find out the deficiencies if
any,

to study the failures of hydraulic structures in Bangladesh with special reference to

failures of structures in Chittagong area,

to recommend improvement in the mapping and data collection, design practice,

construction techniques and improvement in the operation and maintenance for the
hydraulic structures keeping in mind ,the prevailing socio-economic condition of
Bangladesh.

8
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS OF WATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

2.1 INTRODUCTION
There has been major evaluations of the completed FCD!I projects in the recent past in
Bangladesh. Views of these studies on the overall evaluation with particular comments on the
performance of Hydraulic Structures are discussed below. The following studies will be
discussed:
FAP 12 Agricultural Study;
FAP 13 Operation and maintenance Sudy;
Systems Rehabilitation Project (SRP);
SSSFCDI Project;
IFCDR Embankment Study
BWDB Flood in 1987
Delta Development Project (DDP);
Early Implementation Project (EIP);
Ganges Kobakak Rehabilitation Project (GK);
the LGEB RESP O&M Model; and
CARE's Food for Work and Rural Maintenance Programme

2.2 FAP 12 AGRICULTURAL STUDY

The objective of the Flood Action Plan FCD!I Agricultural Study (FPCO,1992), were to;

assess the economic, social and environmental impacts of FCD and FCDI projects and
the extent to which they have been achieved;

identity constraints to effective project management and recommend ways in which

project design" operation and maintenance can be improved to increase overall
production;

9
 develop guidelines and criteria to be used in the planning, design, implementation,
operation and maintenance of projects under the Flood Action Plan.

The selection of projects for evaluation was implemented in close liaison with the Flood Plan
Coordination Organisation (FPCO) and study teams carrying out regional. studies. Twelve
projects were selected for evaluation, using Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) techniques, and five
for more detailed Project Impact Evaluations (PIE).

Rapid Rural Appraisal

Rapid Rural Appraisals (RRAs) aim to provide a cost-effective means of data collection in a
relatively short time span. FAP 12 made explicit use of RRA techniques in its evaluations of
12 projects, and in preliminary RRAs which preceded the full PIE surveys at the other 5
projects. An essential aspect of RRA is thorough study of existing data source before the field
work phase.
The Project Impact Evaluation (pIEs) involved the comparison of conditions in areas benefited
by the projects with conditions in adjacent areas that may have also been affected by the project
(unprotected areas) and areas where pre-project conditions had been similar, but no project
impact was felt (control areas).

Impact of Completed FCD!I Projects

Project planning was generally carried out with little or no collaboration with other relevant
Government Departments or with the intended beneficiaries. However, in the few cases when
there was local consultation at the planning stage, projects were generally better conceived, and
their implementation and subsequent operation were better. The planning of some of the
projects was carried out with out undertaking essential regional hydrological studies. With the
increasing concentration ofFCD projects, especially in the North-West and South-West Regions,
such studies are vital for obtaining warning of adverse impact on water levels. Fortunately the
FAP now offers an opportunity to overcome this past weakness.

10
 FAP 12 study's comments on the performance of Hydraulic Structures, are that the designs
at most projects were generally found to be sound, given the purposes defined by the planners.
However designers sometimes had inadequate data on hydrological and subsoil conditions, and
as a result their designs have at times proved inappropriate and led to physical failures. Many
of the design problems that have been identified relate to drainage. Almost all the projects
suffer from severe drainage congestion due to faulty hydrological assessments and the absence
of an adequate drainage network. A common symptom of drainage problems is public cuts and
these are often so serious that they compromise the scheme's viability. Regulator gates were
found to be leaking everywhere and the use of wooden fallboards on some projects was found
to be ineffective.

Implementation Bottlenecks .
Most of the projects took longer time to implement than the period originally specified, and this
, I

usually resulted in cost overruns. Despite long implementation periods it was noted that there
were no procedures for review of plans, although changes in conditions should have been
reflected in adapted proposals. On several occasions projects were not constructed as designed.
Reasons for this could rarely be identified.

Operation and Maintenance

Inadequate operation and maintenance (O&M) is the most frequent immediate constraint on
effective achievement of FCD!I goals. The problems identified have been more thoroughly
explored in the companion study by FAP 13 (FPCO,1992). There were key issues relating to
O&M are: resource constraints; the poor quality of infrastructure maintenance which results
partly from lack of finance; and the almost invariable absence of public participation in either
operating practice or maintenance. Domestic financial resources are limited but the shortage is
exacerbated by using them to pay for excessive staff establishments and to cover O&M
-requirements which are excessively high because. of deficiencies in planning, design and
implementation. As a result many of the FCD!I projects studied were in a poor state of repair;
routine and preventive maintenance is almost non-existent, and is replaced by emergency

11
 measures and periodic rehabilitation, which has been funded from external sources, often after
a damaging event. However the poor quality of the maintenance activities that are carried out
suggests that O&M could be significantly improved with the existing resources, particularly if
local participation can be directly harnessed for maintenance. O&M manuals that have been
prepared are not used. The most important maintenance and repair activities, repairing and
retiring embankments, are carried out using FFW resources and are poorly supervised by
BWDB. As a result compaction standards are poor and design standards and specifications are
not followed. Most FCD!I structures are operated more or less as anticipated, where their
physical condition permits it. The local committees often envisaged to participate in operation
have rarely been established effectively, and operation is frequently carried out under the
influence of powerful local individuals. In some areas operating practices are the subject of
serious dispute, when different interests, for example shrimp farming and paddy farming, dictate
different operating practices;

2.3 FAP 13 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The FAP 13 Operation and Maintenance Study (FPCO, 1992) is one of the supporting studies
to the Bangladesh Flood Action Plan. The study has three main aims:

to identify the main constraints on effective operation and maintenance (O&M) of FCD
and FCD! projects in Bangladesh:

to draw up guidelines for ways of overcoming these constraints, both for existing projects
and for new,ones under FAP; and

to recommend ways of maximising participation of beneficiaries and of mobilising local

resources for O&M.

Previous Assessments of O&M

Many previous studies have concluded that improved O&M is critical to achievement of intended

12
 benefits from FeD/I projects, and to ensut:ing their sustainability. The evaluations have
concluded that operational difficulties occur as a result of unsuitable planning and design,
incomplete or poor construction practices, a failure to undertake routine maintenance and
inadequate management of O&M. The weakness of O&M is often partIy ascribed to a shortage
of resources. It has been suggested by some studies that new projects should be delayed until
existing O&M practices are improved, or that higher priority should be given to
rehabilitation of existing projects than to new investments. There is'a general belief that one
of the key requirements is to increase beneficiary participation, both to improve the quality of
. O&M and to generate increased resources.

Project Operation and Maintenance

Key O&M indicators for the 17 selected projects are summarised in Table 2.1 in the Annex 1.
In practice "operation" usually means operation of regulators - opening and closing gates,
although in a few cases other operational activities are involved - pumping for irrigation and
drainage at Meghna Dhonagoda Irrigation Project (MDIP), for example. The findings of FAP
13 on the performance of Hydraulic Structures, were that at three of the projects there was no
real "operation" involved, because the structures built were no longer in use. Virtually all the
other projects experienced operating problems, the ultimate reason often being that drainage
facilities were inadequate, or could never be efficient when high river stages coincide with heavy
rainfall. Frequent causes of operational difficulties encountered include:

project design did not consider operational requirements. The clearest case of this was
the use of wooden fall-boards in water control structures, as these are often stolen, easily
damaged and at critical times are very difficult to use;

committees proposed to advise on operation have not always been established or are not
active;

the operation of structures is dominated by influential local people. , While this is not
always necessarily undesirable, it can lead to conflicts ofinterest;

13
 in some projects khalashis who are supposed to operate structures were not present.
When present they usually take directions from local influential people. They are
untrained and receive little guidance or supervision from superior officers;

there are' frequent conflicts of interest over operating practices, but no procedures for
conflict resolution. Although such conflicts were often predictable at the planning stage,
in no case was an effort made at that time to compensate those who might be negatively
affected by proposed operational procedures.

2.4 SYSTEMS REHABILITATION PROJECT

Systems Rehabilitation Project (SRP) has a large number of components, including rehabilitation,
improvement and maintenance of some 80 sub-projects with a gross area of about 600,000 ha
(BWDB, 1991a,199Ib and 199Ic). Two major themes of SRP are Improved' Operation and
maintenance and On-Farm Development. SRP is also placing major stress on beneficiary
participation, and it aims to identify O&M strategies which will eventually be adopted
throughout BWDB. SRP is at the start of a 7 year implementation programme and it's work
is of direct relevance to Flood Action Plan. So far SRP has concentrated on water management,
identifying staffing needs in large FCD! projects, preparing to introduce irrigation charges, and
strengthening the involvement of other agencies in O&M activities. They have completed the
Benchmark and Evaluation Study for 10 subprojects (BWDB, 1992). The subprojects are: Buri
Teesta, Polder 55/1, Polder 64/1A, Polder 64/1B, Pagner Haor, Sangu River bank, KIP, MIP,
CIP and Singri ~l. Of these they have ide!1tified major rehabilitation works for the 6
subprojects; the Buri Teesta, Polder 55/1, Polder 64/1A, Polder 64/IB, Pagner Haor and Sangu
River bank,

In regard to the performance evaluation of hydraulic structures" SRP concluded that O&M
practices were found to be rudimentary and adhoc. Operation in many cases was virtually
impossible because of the dilapidated condition of the infrastructure (BWDB, 1992). The project
wise performance evaluation is discussed below:

14
Burl Teesta Irrigation Project

The Buri Teesta Project, though designed to supply irrigation to a net area of 8,587 ha, in actual
practice provides irrigation to only one third of that area. The average area irrigated during the
last five years was only 3000 ha according to BWDB officials in the area. The cause of this
shortfall is attributed to:

lack of water in the reservoir

poor operation and maintenance of the canals and structures
insufficient number of farm turnouts and field channels
inefficient functioning of the structures.

The condition of the main barrage is relatively good but the rubber seals of the gates and
protection blocks downstream have been damaged. The main canal is very wide for a good
length which allows seepage loss through sandy soil and increases evaporation loss and decreases
the total water supplied to the system especially at the tail ends of the canals. In addition, the
brick-built water control structures have developed cracks and other faults, the steel gates and
the hoisting system have rusted and choked for want of regular painting and greasing and the
upstream and downstream protection work of the control structures have been damaged. The
situation is similar for almost all the structures (BWDB, 1992). Water levels are maintained by
check structures with wooden fall boards, which is problematic. The gates of the farm turnouts
are either lost or are not used, causing huge losses of water. 'Turnout gates and pipes have
broken or cracked. The .field channels in most cases are infested with weeds and are not
properly sectioned nor developed for their full length. Because of these deficiencies water
cannot be kept at Full Supply Level and be controlled at the farm turmouts. A proper
operational programme cannot be carried out and 'the water cannot reach the lower portion of
the canal system. As a result the desired irrigation coverage could never be achieved. Water
supply to the land has never been more than 40% of the planned area and 33% is the average
figure.

15

" ,
Coastal Embankment Project - Polder 55/1

Intrusion of saline water through the broken flap gates of the nine drainage sluices during the
winter is the major cause of under-performance of this project. The estimated crop damage is
20% - 30% of the cultivated area. A length of about 5 km on the bank of the river Kajal has
been eroded away and this reach is being retired under the FDR programme. The inter-
connected drainage channels have accumulated silt which causes drainage congestion in the low
lying areas during monsoon. The interior khals have accumulated silt indifferent locations for
a length of about 7.5 km damaging an estimated area of 1440 ha. These khals are proposed to
be re-excavated under SRP. As the project is located near the sea shore and in the tidal zone
the impact of floods from the upland is more severe during tidal surges or cyclones. At present
the irrigation command area of each flushing sluice is only about 10 ha (as against 100 ha design
capacity) because of the absence of a proper distribution system. The flushing sluices, which
are supposed to provide supplementary irrigation to about 1600 ha of high lands during
monsoon, could therefore cover only one tenth of the area. The utilization of the present facility
is thus very poor. The gates and outlet boxes of all these sluices need repair and maintainance
in addition to a proper distribution network. The wooden fall boards in the drainage sluices are
not effective for retention of water in the Khal for irrigation during the winter season because
water leaks through the wooden logs which are often broken or lost.

Coastal Embankment Project, Polder 64/1A

The reduction of embankment height by settlement, non-growth of turfs on slopes enhancing

erosion and breach in the embankment (through which saline water enters into the project) have
been identified as the major causes of under-performance of the project. The sea dyke on the
western side, being subject to wave wash from the Bay of Bengal, is the reach which is most
vulnerable to erosion and breach. Attempts have been made earlier to protect the most critical
reaches by hard protection with cement blocks. But these attempts have not been very
successful. Due to the devastating cyclone of April 29, 1991, some 8 km of sea dyke have been
heavily damaged in addition to damage of structures and interior dykes. The malfunctioning of

16
the ill-maintained flap gates of the existing regulators, through which saline water enters, is also
a cause of poor performance.

Coastal Embankment Project, Polder 64/1B

The main reason for under-performance of the project is the intrusion of saline water through
the broken flap gates and also through the breaches and eroded sections in the embankment.
Inadequate growth of turfs on the slopes enhances the erosion of the embankments. During the
cyclonic storm of 29th April, 1991 the polder was inundated by tidal bore. The embankments
on the bank of Jalkader khal and Shanghu river have been damaged badly. Breaches occured
at many places especially in the weak points where cuts had been made by the public earlier.
The embankments in general were damaged at the crest and slope by erosion (BWDB/SRP,
1992). The existing drainage khals which mainly drain out the excess rainfall runoff from the
hillocks on the eastern side have silted up. This causes drainage congestion in the polder over
an area of about 2800 ha as estimated in the project's feasibility report. In addition, localized
congestion occurs on about 500 ha of land. Another cause of under-performance of the project
is the system of wooden fall boards at the countryside of the drainage sluices. These are
occasionally lost and cannot check water when needed.

Pagner Haor Submersible Embnakment Project

Almost every year the area suffers from early floods which accrue during the pre-monsoon
period (April and May) due to intense storms in the hilly regions. The water from the
peripheral rivers then enters into the haorarea through the creeks and damages the standing Boro
crops at the matured stage. To stop the entering of flood water into the haor area during April
and May, the local people close the creeks by the end of January putting cross-dams on the
creeks at different locations. These cross-dams often break during the early floods due to
inadequate sectioning. The present project thus offers only a temporary protection which is very
risky. As a result some 30% of t~e Boro crops are damaged every year. Therefore cultivators
are not interested to go for intensive and improved cultivation practices. During the early flush

17
 , ,

floods the flood water, breaching the earthen cross-dams, enters into the project through the
creeks. But water also enters through the breaches and depressions in the submersible dyke.
The flood water deposits silt in the channels which causes drainage congestion.

2.5. SMALL SCALE FLOOD CONTROL, DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATION PROJECT

Second Small Scale Flood Control and Irrigation Project (SSFCDI) Project provides for funding
of O&M on small schemes for two years after their completion and is making a major effort to
involve Local Project Committees (LPCs) at every. stage of the project cycle, from project
identification to O&M (BWDB/NHCL, 1987). SSSFCDIP also intends to establish water
management groups based on hydrological units.

SSFCDI Project evaluated the performance as some operate asplanned, others operate with some
differences and some are not operated (NHCL, 1991). Two major causes for the structures not
operated or no longer operable, were identified as technical and organisational. The technical
causes include poor project concept and inappropriate design, and the organization causes include
failure to institutionalize beneficiary participation and failure to repair infrastructure.
Although LPCs and Structure Committees (SC) were formed at the planning stage of each
subproject, after completion of the structure, these committees are in most of the cases
ineffective (NHCL,1991).

The performance of completed hydraulic structures under the first SSFCDI project is not very
encouraging according to BWDB field Divisions. Many of the structures have suffeITed
damages, specially damage occured to the downstream of the stilling basin. Some structures
designed with low froude number stilling basins had the highest downstream scour compared
with structures designed with longer USBR basins.

2.6 IFCDR Flood Embankment Study

A study on the failure of flood embankment in Bangladesh was conducted by the Institute ofl

18 /
I ,~
i

l (\~
 Flood Control and Drainage Research (IFCDR) of BUET in 1991 (Islam, 1991). A total of
fourteen locations were identified but detailed study was done for eight embankments. These
embankments are:

Tyebpur-Kashimpur Flood Embankment

The Ctialan Beel flood Embankment
The Naogaon - Atrai Flood embankment
Bakorshar Hat - Akhainagar Flood Embankment
The Teesta Left Bank Flood Embankment
The Dharla Right Bank Flood Embankment
The Brahmaputra Right Bank Flood Embankment, and
The Teesta Right Bank Flood Embankment

,
The study concluded that the in almost all embankments the borrowpits were located very close
to the toe of the embankment, the embankment material was dumped by baskets without any
compaction and no turfing was done to protect the embankment from erosion.

2.7 BWDB Flood in Bangladesh 1987

BWDB carried out an investigation, review and recommended measures for flood control after
the 1987 disastrous flood. About 57,300 square kilometre area of the northern districts was
severely affected by this flood (BWDB, 1987). The causes of this flood was identified as the
combination of excessive rainfall during July - August in the northern districts and high stages
of major rivers and the spring tide in the Bay of Bengal. The flooding situation was further
aggravated due to unplanned construction of roads with inadequate drainage provisions.

The study recommended several flood control measures of which the important are:

evaluation of international cooperation,

19
 construction of embankment and channel improvement,
flood protection plans of hydrologically continuous basins be studied and implemented, -
and all flood control plans be tested by flood flow simulations model.

2.8 DELTA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

This project also concentrates on the rehabilitation of Coastal Embankment Polders in the Khulna
,
area. DDP is working, in particular, in two Polders to develop participatory approaches to
polder management and maintenance. In one polder a large number of irrigation schemes (using
pipe inlets) have been established, and inlet groups have been established to manage these. In
a second polder, routine embankment maintenance is undertaken by landless women recruited
through a local NGO (DDP, 1985).

DDP civil engineering adopted experiments with modified designs of hydraulic structure,
reconstruction of drainage sluices and for the construction of irrigation inlets. The modified .
designs are all featured in the design manual prepared under the project (DDP, 1982e). The
change in the design of flap gate was meant to make it more durable. The gate were mounted
at 5 degree angle to reduce leakage of saline water. A proper evaluation of the performance of
these structure has not yet been done.

2.9 EARLY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT

The EIP programme has been working with BWDB for many years, but has recently identified
poor O&M as a major constraint on the effectiveness of the projects it has helped to develop.
EIP has therefore proposed establishing an ElP O&M component (1992). However, EIP has
developed the use of Labour Contracting Societies, formed with NGO assistance, to carry out
earthworks, to ensure better quality of construction work, and to ensure that labourers benefit
fully. This model is relevant to periodic repair.

The performance of all ElP projects has suffered to varying degrees from the lack of adeqUatn
\. .I
20 v
operation and maintenance (BWDB, 1990) Operational procedures have been developed on some
projects but they tend to be uncoordinated and arbitrary. The procedures are not based on
technical considerations and often serve the needs of a small number of beneficiaries at the
expense of the majority of potential beneficiaries. The physical facilities that have been
constructed under EIP do not receive the continual maintenance required to keep the facilities
performing as designed. The maintenance carried out on facilities tends to be deferred
maintenance wherein the condition of the facility has deteriorated to such an extent that it is not
performing the function for which it was designed and major works are required for
rehabilitation. On some projects maintenance requirements are increased by faults in project
design. Project operation by BWDB staff should be based on more technical considerations.
A forum is required for the beneficiaries and other interested groups to discuss their'different
water requirements and to reach a consensus on how a project should be operated. In the
absence of any forum for discussing water management issues, the operation of projects is
vulnerable to being taken over by small powerful groups serving their own interests rather than
the interests of the majority of beneficiaries. Functioning flood control, drainage and irrigation
facilities are a valuable resource and can give the controlling group considerable power over
farmers and others within the service area. Operational requirements change as the hydrologic
variables of rainfall and river levels and other factors change. Project design is based mainly
on single events, while project operation has to account for physical, social and economic events
that are continually changing. All maintenance is done by BWDB with government funds or
food for work. There are insufficient funds for maintenance and funds that are available cover
only basic' salary costs of BWDB staff. Provision of adequate and secure funding will be central
to any improvement in project maintenance.

The performance of static parts of the hydraulic structures are generally in reasonable condition.
However, the moving parts of structures are a different story. More than half of the lifting gates
and flap gates were found to be in poor condition, with ,the result that most structures were not
performing even close to their design requirements. Lack of maintenance particularly painting
of steel work, replacement of rubber seals and greasing of spindles contributes significantly to
the deterioration of the gates, but there is often more serious problems concerning the alignment Q
21
 of gate frames and the fabrication of the gates. In addition, the flexible aprons at most
structures are in various stages of failure. Flexible aprons are expensive and their durability
should be improved. The erosion in the approach channel on both sides of many structures
indicates that there is insufficient energy dissipation of the water flowing through the structure.
High water velocities at the end of the structure will contribute to apron failure and the design
and field performance of water retention structures should be analysed further.

Numerous irrigation inlets have been constructed in EIP embankments, but a significant number
are not being used. Small Structures in embankments are potential points of weakness and are
often places of embankment failure. Alternative methods of passing irrigation water across an
embankment should be found. Possible alternatives could include PVC or aluminium pipes laid
on the embankment. Attention would have to be given to the jointing of pipes as leaks are
. undesirable. Movable pipes would be a practical way of accommodating the migratory nature
of many low lift pump owners.

2.10 GANGES KOBADAK REHABILITATION PROJECT

GK is one of the oldest and biggest FCD/I Projects in Bangladesh. It has had serious O&M .
problems, and is currently under rehabilitation. Amongst the GK's problems are the high
operating costs associated with the irrigation system and the failure to collect more than a minute
proportion of expected water rates. At the GK Project an effort is being made to strengthen
farmers participation through formation of Tertiary Water Users' Associations (TWUAs). It is
reported that over 100 TWUAs are now functioning. They are intended to eventually take full
responsibility for tertiary level Operation and Maintenance. The experience of this ambitious
project should be monitored.

A large number of Structures (9,300) has been inventoried by the G.K. office staff
(BWDB/ADB, 1983). The survey was checked sample-wise by the consultants. The survey
concluded that the general condition of the structures is fair, but that most stilling basins need
replacement of the protective measures (BWDB/ADB, 1983). Also some canal structures, 0 ..
22

o
particularly in Phase I and Phase II of the Project need larger capacities to meet the peak water
demand of the cropping pattern envisaged in future (BWDB/ADB, 1983).

2.11 LGEB RESP O&M MODEL

The Local Government Engineering Bureau (LGEB) is the undertaking agency for the Rural
Employment Sector Programme (RESP) Infrastructure Development Programme (IDP). This
programme is of direct relevance to FCD/I O&M, as it includes a number of small water
management schemes, and it involves women and the landless in execution and maintenance of
various income generation project. The LGEB has experience in working both with women's
maintenance groups and with labour contracting societies. The Bureau has established a project
cycle in which local people are involved from project identification onwards, and local O&M
committees are established. The LGEB has produced appropriate illustrated guides to O&M, .
it has developed formal scheme handover procedures, has established a well conceived training
programme, and is encouraging introduction of payments in kind by beneficiaries to contribute
to O&M costs. The LGEB approach is clearly best adapted to the small (not more than 400 ha)
water management schemes.

The evaluation of Small Scale water Resources Scheme (RESP, 1992) identified the problems
of O&M and recognised that after completion of the scheme an O&M committee will be formed
to:

operate the structure (regulators and sluices),

maintain equipment, structures, canals and embankment,
raise funds for common maintenance and investments.

2.12 CARE's FOOD FOR WORK and RURAL MAINTENANCE PROGRAMME

CARE is involved in five separate large programmes, mostly involving the distribution of food
aid. Two of these programmes, the Integrated Food for Work programme (IFFW) and the Rural

23
Maintenance Programme (RMP) involve the construction and maintenance of rural roads, bridges
and embankments. The early construction programmes organised under CARE resulted in large
,
infrastructure developments, but their benefits were constrained by poor planning and
maintenance. There is now a greater emphasis on maintenance, and CARE supports the
employment of rural women to maintain economically important rural roads under the Rural
Maintenance Program (RMP). This programme has established workable procedures which
could be adapted for FCD!! project and would direct more benefits from FCD!! to the landless
poor. The recent evaluation of the Rural Maintenance Program (RMP, 1992) commented that
the maintenance of rural infrastructure is nearly satisfactory, but lacks in the process of
institutionalisation.

24
 CHAPTER ill

. REVIEW OF HYDRAULIC STRUCTURE DESIGN PRACTICE

3.1 REVIEW OF DESIGN MANUAL

Various design manuals are in use in the design of hydraulic structures. Few of them which
mostly used are the:

the BWDB hydrology design Manual,

LGED Design Manual
the Delta Development Project (DDP) Design Manual
FCD Design Manual
CIDA Design Workshop Manual
SRP Design Manual (draft)

A brief description of the methodologies used in these design manuals and a recommendation
follows:

. 3.1.1 BWDB Design Manual

Hydrologic and hydraulic Design Procedures for drainage structures was prepared by Design
Directorate, Water Development Board (BWDB, 1978). This manual exclusively dealt with
hydrologic and hydraulic design procedures only. The structural and foundation design
procedures were not included. The manual used the procedure given in the International
Engineering Company (IECO) Master Plan -Climate and Hydrology (IECO, 1965) and based
on characteristic drainage basin, the Sarai basin of Rangpur District. The design storm is
calculated from the total mean rainfall that may be expected to fall during the four calendar
month of maximum rainfall. This rainfall is then converted to equivalent uniform depth over

25
 the basin and then distributed from the centre of gravity of the basin. An inflow hydrograph is
produced after deduction of losses and then routed through the regulator. Several iterations are
carried out in pre-monsoon routing to determine the economical size of the structure. The
design criteria adopted is that the area inundated to a depth greater than 300 millimetres for a
. period of 72 hours shall not exceed 5 per cent of the drainage area. This criteria needs further
review and that the size of the structure be selected as such there is no pre-monsoon damage to
crop, This will avoid any disparity among the intended beneficiaries. The increase in cost due
to the increased size of the structure to drain the whole area will be about 10 % of the total cost.
However, the review of the criteria will need to include a review of the increased cost of
construction (benefit vs. cost of structure). Post-monsoon routing using 1 in 10 year rainfall
within the drainage b~sin and the 1 in 10 year water level in the outfall channel is carried out
to check the adequacy of the selected size. The design criteria is that the difference in water
level between countryside and riverside shall not exceed 230 mm. This is due to farmer's
perception that the structure's drainage capacity is not adequate and may lead to embankment
cut. Further review of this crit~ria is needed to allow higher level difference depending on the
total drainage period. If the post-monsoon drainage is completed in about two week,s time, even
with higher level difference exceeding the 230 mm, farmers will not cut the embankment as this
will not delay cultivation of winter crops. This will, however, require farmer's awareness about
the concept.

3.1.2 LGED Design Manual

Local Government Engineering Directorate (LGED) under Ministry of Local Government, Rural
Development and Cooperatives prepared and published a design manual for the design and
construction of hydraulic structures (LGRD&C, 1981). This design manual dealt with the
detailed design procedure for hydraulic structures but.it is still in draft form. LGED has
published another manual containing standard design drawings for the bridges and culverts.
The Local Government Engineering Directorate (LGED) engin,eers extensively use this manual
for the construction of culverts and bridges upto about 15 meter span.

26
 3.1.3 Delta Development Project Design Manual

Delta Development Project, prepared a design manual for the development of Polders in the
South-west Bangladesh (DDP, 1985). The manual is published in four parts which together
contain 9 volumes of the report. Part I of the manual deals with four volumes containing the
design procedures, surveying, design of embankments and the design criteria for irrigation and
drainage .. Part II of the manual deals with three volumes containing the hydraulic computations,
foundation and the structural designs. The Part III and Part IV contain the basic design
drawings and worked out examples. DDP design manual is a handy tool for the hydraulic
Structure design engineers who are entrusted with the design of embankments, channel closures
and tidal sluices. The manual gives detail design procedures for the closing of tidal creeks and
nvers.

3.1.4 Third FCD Design Manual

The Third FCD design manual was developed and published by Engineering and Planning
Consultants Ltd.(EPC) in association with William Halcrow and Partners, UK and Resources
Development Consultants Ltd, Srilanka (FCD, 1985). This design manual was exclusively
prepared to carry out the detail engineering designs for the Third Flood Control and Drainage
Project (FCD). The Third FCD Project comprises the Gumti Phase I, the Modhumati-
Nabaganga and Noagaon Polder 1 subprojects. The manual comprises of three volumes; the first
volume dealing with hydrology, design of drains, design of gates, hydraulic design, design of
irrigation canals, structural design, foundation design, embankment design and river training and
bank protection works; the seCond volume contains the an,nexes and the third volume contains
the gates and pumps. This manual was followed in the detail engineering for the three
subprojects under third FCD project. In the hydrological design, the I in 5 year lO-day rainfall
was considered in determining the size of the regulators instead of I in 10 year 5-day rainfall
which is used in the BWDB design manual. This differs from the standard BWDB practice of
calculating the design storm. The I in 5 year 10 day rainfall gives different hydrograph peak

27
 than the I In 10 year 5-day rainfall and the two standard may result in different size of the
structures. This difference in design standards need to be resolved.

3.1.5 CIDA Design Manual

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd, prepared a Design Workshop Manual for Small Scale
Water Control Structures under a grant from Canadian International Development Agency •
(CIDA, 1991). The manual comprises of two volumes. The volume one deals with five
chapters which are: i) Introduction to Bangladesh Agriculture, ii) Basic Hydraulics, iii) Design
Data for Hydraulic structures, iv) Hydrologic Design and v) the Hydraulic Design. The volume
two has three chapters; i) Structural Design, ii) Foundation Design, and iii) Dewatering of
Construction Sites. The important feature of this workshop manual is that it deals with the detail
design steps of a drainage regulator from hydrology to the foundation design.

The design standards and specifications used in this manual are the same as the BWDB
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Design Procedures for drainage structures. This design manual may
be considered supplementary to the BWDB design manual as the later contains the design
procedures for structural and foundation design. CIDA design manual is in the process of
development with the availability of additional hydrological data.

3.1.6 SRP Design Manual

The System Rehabilitation Project (SRP) Draft Design Manual has been published recently
(BWDB/SRP, 1992). This manual contains seven chapters; the hydraulic design, design
methods, foundation design, drainage and irrigation structures, road structures, earthworks and
river training and bank protection works. The manual covered both tidal and non tidal situation,
but. very little has been discussed on tidal issues. The manual does not contain a chapter on
hydrology which is usually first issue to address.

The SRP design manual appears to be extracted from some existing design manuals. It is not

28
 c1ea:r:whyBWDB System Rehabilitation Project is developing a new design manual rather than
using the existing BWDB design standards.

3.1. 7 Discussion

A number of design manuals have been developed and some more are in the process of
, preparation under different water development projects for the design of hydraulic structures.
Few of these manuals have been reviewed in sections 3.1.1 to 3.1.6 which showed different
design criteria. A single design manual may now be developed based on evaluation of
effectiveness and performance of structures constructed under each standard. Subsequently a
standard type design of hydraulic structures may be prepared. The existing BWDB design
manual which deals exclusively the hydrological and hydraulic design procedures, may be further
developed and upgraded to a comprehensive manual containing other essential chapters on,'
,structural design; foundation design; design of earthworks (embankments and drainage channels);
bndges and culverts and bank protection and river training works. The standard design manual
will follow the national code of practice, so all organisation involved in the design of hydraulic
structure, will follow the same standard.

. i',
29
.' ..
 . '

3.2 REVIEW OF DESIGN PROCEDURES

The detailed design procedures for a regulator or a drainage sluice involves the following steps
(CIDA, 1991):

design data collection,

hydrologic design,
hydraulic design,
structural design, and
foundation design

The various steps are discussed in short in the following paragraphs and the steps are also
highlighted in a design flow chart (NHCL, 1990):

3.2.1 Data Collection

The present system of design data collection involves the information on basin hydrology,
channel characteristics, basin topography and geotechnical information of the subsoil strata
(CIDA, 1991). The hydrological data are the water level, rainfall and climatological data in the
drainage basin and the outfall channel. The channel characteristics are the existing channel
geometry, and the longitudinal profile of the drainage channel. The sections should indicate any
future re-excavation plan. For a FCD subproject the existing embankment profiles are also
required to design the flood embankment. The geotechnical analysis involves in carrying out
field Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) of the subsoil strata at every 1.5 meter. The average
number of blows for each 30 cm penetration from the impact of a standard 64 kg. hammer
falling from a height of 75 cm is the measure of soil resistance. For clay soils, undisturbed
samples are taken in standard Shelby Tubes for consolidation test in the laboratory. The
compression index, a property of the clay soil, is found to calculate the settlement under the
substructure. The total and differential settlements are calculated and checked against the eo

30

Q
 DESIGN FLOW CHART

Engineering Structuro Oe=lgn

9
3
Structural O""lgn Checlc 0•..••••
1... _
Compllo o-Igft i'lopMt
3 .50 .50
OollnealTan Eatabll.h
Stability
Soli Condition

8.5 .50
Soctlon O•• lgn Determ'n8 foundaHo
T"""tm",,1 RequIred

2
~fl F"oundaHon
t•.••••••••
ont
1
Scour Oopth lit
Culoff Wall O•••lgn

.50
Chock.
ExIt Gradient

PI"otectlv. IIkNka
Flexible
2.0
~ Deelgn
~
 allowable settlements.

3.2.2 Hydrologic Design

The objective of Hydrologic Design is to determine the design hydrograph of the catchment
basin to be routed through the hydraulic structure. The peak flood flow for smaller catchments
are determined by simple method using graphs and tables. A number of simple methods for
estimating peak flow of a drainage basin are available of which two are (CIDA, 1991):

the IECO Method (IECO, 1965)

.the Rational Formula (Kushalani, 1971)

Lack of records for rainfall intensity, run off and stream flow have led to the development of
. rational formula for estimating flood flow. One of the leading formulae for estimating peak run
off is described below:.

Q = CiA ...... (3.1)

Where,

Q = Peak discharge in cubic feet per second (cfs)

i = Rainfall intensity in inches/hour

68.2
....... (3.2)
t.0.73

tc = Time of basin concentration

.~ in minutes.

The time of concentration is the time measured from the cessation of rainfall to the point of
contraflexure on the recession limb of a curvilinear hydrograph. This is approximately the time
of travel for rainfall runoff to move from the most remote part of the basin to the structure.

31
 0.30
Un2
tc = 31 ( ------) (3.3)
S

where L, is the length of drainage channel in miles, n is Manning's roughness co-efficient and
S is the average channel slope in ft per mile.

C = A runoff coefficient .

Tp 0.18

= 0.7 ( ----) .......... (3.4)

100

Tp = Recurrence period

A = Basin area in acres

Hydrologic Design for Larger Basins

Elaborate design methods are used to compute runoff in larger basins. Usually the following
design steps are adopted (CIDA,199l):

Developing the design storm

Calculating losses and computing rainfall excess
Developing unit hydrograph
Computing the runoff hydrograph
Determining basin water level by flood routing

The flood routing is carried out with an assumed size of the regulator. If the computed basin
water level is not acceptable, regulator size is increased until the desired level is attained. The
detailed hydrological analyses have not been included in this study.

32
 3.2.3 Hydraulic Design

The Hydraulic design of a regulator involves the following steps (CIDA, 1991):

Invert level Fixation

Design Head
Scour Depth and Cutoff Wall
Stilling Basin Design
Exit Gradient and Floor Length
Uplift Pressure and Floor Thickness
Loose Protective Works

Invert level Fixation

The following considerations are generally adopted in fixing the invert level for the regulators
and sluices:

Drainage requirements
Hydraulic considerations
.Bed level of drainage channel.
Riverside low water level (tail water level)

Drainage Requirement

The invert level for a drainage regulator is guided by the lowest basin level to be drained. From
the lowest drainage level, an acceptable energy gradient (depending on topography) is drawn to
the structure point to fix the invert level. For tidal sluices, this level should be as low as the
minimum polder level in the dry season.

33
Hydraulic Considerations

The discharge through a regulator or a sluice increases if the invert level is lowered. If the
regulator/sluice is designed for flushing, a box with lower invert will give higher discharges and
flow velocities since maximum head difference at inlet condition might be higher than at
drainage condition. But lowering the invert will result in higher foundation cost requiring high
wing walls and expensive dewatering system.

Bed level of drainage channel

, ,

The third criteria for fixing the invert level is the consideration to the existing bed level or the
proposed re-excavation level of the drainage channel. For a flushing regulator, the invert level
should correspond with the bed level. If the invert level is higher than the bed level, flushing
will be restricted. In case of drainage regulator, the downstream basin level should be fixed at
the bed level to avoid scour or siltation.

Riverside low water level

The fourth criteria to decide the sluice invert is the riverside low water level (tail water level).
During pre-monsoon drainage, the sequent depth (depth after the jump) is required to match the
tail water level to avoid sweeping out of the jump. Therefore the invert level and the
downstream stilling basin is adjusted so that the depth of flow after the jump matches the out
fall river water level.

Design Head

Estimation of design head is very important in calculating the uplift pressure and floor thickness
downstream. The criteria generally adopted to calculate design head for hydraulic structure are
the difference in upstream and downstream water level at average design condition.

34
 Scour Depth and Cutoff Wall

Scour depth is calculated from Lacey's formula (Garg, 1983). The most important factor in the
use of Lacey's formula, is the determination of the correct value for the silt factor "f" which
depends upon rugosity of channel and silt grade. According to Lacey, fis proportional to Vo2/R.
where,
Vo = regime velocity
R = hydraulic mean depth
A rough qualitative formula for determiI1ing "f" for the predominant type of silt transported, is
f = 1.76(d",)'h (3.5)
where d,. is the mean diameter of silt in millimetre corresponding to a maximum size of silt from
0.01 millimetre to 0.257 millimetre. The depth of scour is determined by Lacey's regime

formula

R = 1.35 (q2/f)ll3 (3.6)

where R is the normal depth of scour below high water level and q is the discharge per unit

width in m3/sec. The total depth of scour below high water level (HWL) at the downstream and

upstream of regulator and sluices, is taken as X times R where R is Lacey's normal scour

depth. The values of X (safety factor) for different classes of scour are given in Table 3.1 in

the Annex 1.

Energy Dissipation and Stilling Basin Design

Stilling basin may be defined as a structure in which the energy of the high velocity flow jet is
dissipated. If the phenomenon of hydraulic jump is used for dissipating the energy, the basin
.is called the hydraulic jump type of stilling basin. In this section ,the design of hydraulic jump
type basin is described.

Hydraulic jump is the most effective way of energy dissipation. When a body of water moving

35 )
 with a high velocity and low depth (super-critical flow), strikes another body of water moving
with a low velocity and high depth (subcritical flow), a sudden rise in the surface of former
takes place. This phenomenon is called the hydraulic jump which creates a large scale
turbulence dissipating most of the kinetic energy of the super-critical flow. The energy
dissipation in the jump depends upon the froude number (FI) of the incoming flow. Different
types of jumps have. been described for different values of Froude numbers. If the Froude
number of the incoming flow is higher, the greater will be the energy dissipation. An
approximate percentage loss of energy for various values of FI are given in table 3.2 in the
Annex 1. The hydraulic jump basins are designed in such a way that the energy of high
velocity jet is dissipated to a tranquil state before the flow passes to downstream channel bed.
The following types of hydraulic jump basins are in general use based on flow velocities and
economy:

USBR Stilling basins (USDI,Bureau of Reclamation, 1987)

Low Froude Number Stilling Basin (USDI,Bureau of Reclamation, 1987)
SAF Stilling Basins (CIDA,1991)
Indian Standard Stilling Basin Type I (Varshney, 1979)

The details of the design parameters for the USBR stilling basins are described in figures 3.1
to 3.3 and the details of the Low Froude Number basins, SAF Basins and Indian Standard Basin
Type I are presented in figures 3.4 to 3.6 in the Annex 1. Of the various types of basin in use,
Indian Standard Stilling Basin Type I is mostly used as the basin is suitable for the common
range of froude number (2 and 4.5). The length of the basin for different values of froude
number is given below:

Where F, is 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.5

Then ~/Y2 is 3.15 4.3 4.75 5.0

Exit Gradient and Floor Length

36
According to Khosla's theory (Khosla, 1962), for a standard structure form consisting of floor
length "b" with a vertical cut off depth d, the exit gradient at its downstream end is given by
H 1
GE = -----X ------ ..... (3.7)
d 7rvl\

in which,

2
b
a =
d

H - maximum seepage head

The exit gradient is critical when the upward disturbing force developed by difference in
p~essure head on the material grain at the exit is just equal to the submerged weight of the
grain. For the structure to be safe against piping, an exit gradient equal to 1/6 to 1/7 of the
,
critical exit gradient should be ensured. Value of Khosla's safe exit gradient for different type
of material is shown in Table 3.3 in the Annex 1.

Bligh,s creep theory and Lane's weighted creep theory are also used in the design. But Khosla,s
theory is the conservative and is mostly adopted.

Uplift pressure and floor thickness

Uplift pressure under a structure needs to be checked for two conditions (Garg, 1983):

Uplift pressure under steady seepage when the upstream pond is full
Uplift pressure under the hydraulic jump basin

37
 The percentage pressures at various key points are valid for the complex profiles if the pressures
are corrected for: J

Mutual interference of pile

Thickness of floor
Slope of the floor

Loose Protective Work

Protective works are required on the upstream and downstream of the regulators /sluices in order
to alleviate the possibility of scour hole travelling close to the concrete floor of the
regulator/sluice and to relieve any residual uplift pressure through the filter (Garg, 1985). The
recommended design consists of :

Inverted filter and

Launching apron

Inverted filter (downstream)

At the end of concrete floor, an inverted filter is usually provided. The recommended length
is l.5D to 2D long, where D is the depth of scour below original river bed. An inverted filter
invariably reduces the possibility of piping as it allows free flow of seepage water through itself
without allowing foundation soils to be lifted upward. The filter consists of layers of materials
with increasing permeability from bottom to top. The gradation should be such that while it
allows free flow of seepage water, the foundation material does not penetrate or clog the filter.
To prevent filter from dislocation under surface flow, concrete or masonry blocks are laid over
the filter material. r\.

38
 f

~~
, 'A'
,
The recommended size of blocks for regulators and drainage sluices in BWDB practice is 380 /
lr i \.4~
x 380 x 300 mm. The size of blocks/stone depends on the velocity of flow at the downstream \..(J
channel and can be calculated from the well known formula in California Highway Practice
(CHP) given below.

0.00002 y6 sg, cosec3 (4) - 8)

W =
...... (3.8)

where,

W = weight of stone in pounds (two-thirds of stone should be heavier)

4>= 70 degree constant for broken stone

sg,= specific gravity of hard material

8 = slope of material measured from horizontal face slope

y = mean velocity in feet per second

Launching apron (down stream)

At the end of inverted filter, a loose apron is provided for a length, generally equal, to 1.5D,
where D is the depth of scour from original river bed (figure 3.7 in Annex 1.) The apron
'generally launches to a slope of 1:2 (V:H), and if t is the thickness of the apron in the launched
position, the design thickness of launching apron shall be equal to:

(22 + 12) t/1.5 = (2.24 t/1.5) = 1.5 t

The empirical formula for the thickness of stone pitching as suggested by Inglish is,
t = 0.06 Q1I3 •••• (3.9)

39
where Q = discharge in cubic feet per second
t = thickness of stone in feet

Loose Protective Works (upstream)

Block protective work is also needed at the upstream of the regulators or sluices. General
BWDB practice is to lay brick blocks over packed stone, for a length equal to D (D = XR _ y,
where X = 1.0 to 1.5, generally taken as 1.25), R is Lacey's normal scour depth and y is the
depth of water above bed. Upstream of the blocks, launching apron is provided in the same way
as described for the downstream portion, except that the proper value of X should be chosen.
Toe walls are generally constructed in between the "inverted filter" and the "launching apron".

3.2.4 Structural Design Criteria

General Design Requirement

Any structure should be so designed that it remains stable against external loads and pressures
and different members of the structure are strong enough to resist external loads, forces and
internal stresses. Considering this, the structural design of regulator is undertaken after stability
analysis.

Stability: The stability design of the structure should fulfil the following four requirements:

It must be safe against overturning at any horizontal plane.

It must be stable against sliding or shearing force on any horizontal plane, including
planes in foundation materials.

It must be stable against water uplift.

It shall not over stress the underlying foundation material or soil.

40
 Code of Practice

For structural design, the codes of ACI, USBR and AASHTOare followed. Where they do not
fit local conditions engineering judgement are exercised to determine suitable criteria. The
permissible stresses of concrete and steel are as given in table 3.4 in Annex 1.

Stability Analysis

Forces considered

The following forces are considered in the stability analysis:

- Dead Load
- Imposed Load
- Water Load
- Water Pressure
- Uplift Pressure
- Earth Pressure
- Wind Pressure
- Foundation Pressure

Load Combinations

Designs are based on the most adverse combination of probable loading conditions. These
combinations include only those loads having a reasonable probability of simultaneous
occurrence. Depending on the various project components, site conditions and construction
programme, the most adverse combinations are considered for the design of a hydraulic
structure.

Computations of Loads and ~essures

Accurate computation of loads and pressure for analysis and design of any structure is of prime
importance. The following loads and pressures are considered in the analysis:

41
 Dead Loads (Unit Weights)

Structural concrete 23.6 kN/m3 (150 Ib/fP)

Plain concrete 22.6 kN/m3 (144 Ib/fP)
Sea water 10.1 kN/m3 (64 Ib/fP)
Fresh water 9.8 kN/m3 (62.4 Ib/fP)
Brick Masonry 18.9 kN/m3 (120 Ib/fP)
Timber (hard) 7.1-12.6 kN/m3 (45-80 Ib/fP)
Timber (soft) 4.7-7.1 kN/m3 (30-45 Ib/fP)
Stone 25.5 kN/m3(162 Ib/ft3)
Bitumen 13.7 kN/m\87 Ib/fP)
Steel 77.0 kN/m3(490 Ib/fP)
Cement 14.1 kN/m3(90 Ib/fP)

For preliminary designs, the unit weights of soil are assumed as shown below and final designs
are based upon actual soil data obtained from site investigations.

Dry soil 15.7 kN/m3 (100 Ib/fP)

Moist soil 17.3 kN/m3 (110 Ib/fP)
Saturated soil 18.9 kN/m3 (120 Ib/fP>

Imposed loads

For pedestrian traffic: 7.2 kN/m2 (150 Ib/sft

The AASHTO specifications are followed for vehicle load based on the location of the structure
in relation to the type of road or embankment as shown below:
Village road : HIO
Feeder road : HIS
Highway : H20 S16

Structural Design

42
 Regulator or Sluice structures normally built in this country consist of either a pipe of maximum
diameter of 1.20 meter or a Box Conduit of 1.50 m x 1.80 m with inlet and outlet transitions.
Pipe sluice is selected when a small amount of discharge is to be drained from a small catchment
area. The Box sluices are usually single box or multi box structures and are constructed for
. drainage of large areas. They are usually provided with two central joints separating the
transition part with main conduit part of the structure. In large structure, additional joints are
provided along the longitudinal direction of wing wall to separate the wing wall and apron slab.

3.2.5 Foundation Design Criteria

The art of designing the best and most economical foundation for a structure greatly depends on
a careful investigation of subsoil strata by the foundation engineer.

Foundation Types

All structures are supported on foundation system at or below the ground surface. Selection
of foundation system to be used is essentially an economic study of alternatives. In general,
foundation can be grouped as shallow foundations or deep foundations. The most common types
of shallow foundations are spread footing and continuous footings. The footings are used to
spread highly concentrated column or wall loads over soil strata near the ground surface. Deep
foundation includes pile and pier foundation.

Bearing Capacity Analysis

The bearing capacity of a soil is defined as the maximum unit load the soil can support without
failure. It is necessary to investigate both shearing resistance and settlement for any structure.
A recommendation for allowable bearing capacity to be used for design is based either on
settlement consideration or on the ultimate bearing capacity. The ultimate bearing capacity is
divided by a suitable factor of safety based on the type of soil and accuracy of input data to
determine the allowable bearing capacity. The Standard.Penetration Tests (SPT) is carried out

43
to determine the bearing capacity of subsoil.

3.2.6 Discussion

The existing design procedures of hydraulic structures have been discussed in the sections above.
But there are a lot many errors in the present data collection procedure. Some of the water level
gauge stations (with the exception of auto gauges) do not have correct levels and the levels
supplied are not correct. The temporary stations are shifted with the change in river water levels
but the levels are not always corrected. The subsoil borelogs collected by BWDB Ground Water
Circle have been found incorrect for many structures. These caused errors in the design
computation. The existing data check list and the data collection procedures need a review.

44
 CHAPTER IV
REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Construction of hydraulic structures is the most difficult task because of the adverse site
conditions. These structures are constructed across a drainage channel or a river and the
substructures are placed much below ground water table. Considerable subsurface dewatering
is required to make the excavation pit dry before concreting the structure base slab and 'the cut
off walls. Although structures constructed in the upland areas may not require major subsurface
dewatering, the ones constructed in the coastal tidal areas have in general serious dewatering
problem. Many tidal regulators and sluices have failed due to serious construction deficiency
of the under structure. Although there has been lot of development in the construction practice
during the recent years, further developed can be made in this field. In the past well points
dewatering system was used irrespective of the subsoil type. This system did not work in many
construction sites (CIDA, 1991). Dewatering by Shallow Tube Wells (STW) has started recently
and has proved successful in many construction sites including coastal tidal areas (CIDA, 1991).

4.2 CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION

Adequate construction supervision and adherence to construction standards and specifications

result in quality finished structure. Construction contractors for hydraulic structures, in general,
are not qualified and they do not have qualified engineers to supervise the work. The
supervision works are carried out mostly by technicians who does not have through knowledge
/

of the detailed working drawings and construction techniques (World Bank, 1991). The
contractors always have the motive to make profit at the cost of quality of the structures.

Materials for the construction of hydraulic structure are not always tested on a routine basis.

45
 Although there is instruction for ,the contractor to submit material samples for laboratory tests
prior to delivery to sites this is largely not followed (FCD, 1986). Cement is brought to site
in sealed packs but may have deteriorated through long storage or transportation. Lumpy
cements are found to be used for construction of hydraulic structures. The specified practiCe
is to store the cement packs in a water proof godown constructed on raised ground. The stacks
should be clear of the walls of the godown and should not be more than 10 packs high. The
coarse and fine aggregate used for the construction of hydraulic structure must follow the
specified grading. The aggregates are sometimes mixed with soils, organic matter or excessive
fine materials. The 'specified practice is to wash the aggregates before mixing.

4.3 QUALITY CONTROL

Quality control of the hydraulic structures is always deficient due to absence of adequate
supervision and qualified supervisors. Structures site visited recently revealed thatspecifications
for mild steel reinforcement are not followed in many cases (World Bank, 1991). Due to
prolonged construction time reinforcing steel is exposed to flood water and gets rusted and these
undersize bars are used in the construction in the year follows. This situation leads to produce
the structure with strength less than specified and ultimately fails.
Even the formwork used by the local contractors for the construction of small hydraulic
structures, are found unspecified. During pouring concrete, fine materials are drained through
the gaps in the formwork and the concrete does set to it's designed strength.

4.4 DISCUSSION

Suitable dewatering system have not been used in many construction sites and was done on
swampy ground (BWDB, 1986). Concrete can not develop specified strength and may lead to
failure if cast in water. For minor excavation work, sump pumping method can be adopted but
for deeper excavation below g'round water table, well point method or shallow tube well pumps
are required to make the excavation dry. This was not done in the past because of lack of
knowledge. BWDB introduced dew~t~fing by Shallow Tube Wells (STW) recently and this

,..;\:'~~:C;itt)~Z:' 46
,~'...::r~\:.'. '~>j;:
method has been practised extensively for the construction sites in tidal areas for about last 4-5
years. This method is very effective for the construction sites of small hydraulic structures in
tidal areas (CIDA, 1992).

Proper construction supervision is vital for all hydraulic structures so to obtain sustainable
benefit from the structure. Hydraulic structures are exposed to the adverse nature all the time
so their life span depends to a large extent on the construction quality. Qualified supervisors
are required to supervise the construction sites.
awarding the contract.
Contractor may be pre-qualified before
This process will eliminate inefficient and insolvent contractors and
'l
construction will improve. BWDB field supervisors need to be more vigilant on the supervision
and quality control aspects of the construction for the sustainable performance of the expensive
hydraulic structures. Additionally the site supervisors need skills level of training in construction
technique and quality control (World Bank, 1991).

47
 CHAPTER V

REVIEW OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PRACTICE

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Until recently, it was common for FCDI projects to be planned and implemented without paying
due attention to the institutional aspects of Operation and Maintenance (O&M). FCDI projects
were considered complete once the construction was finished. As a result, benefits attained from
many completed projects were far behind the targeted figures. It is now acknowledged that, to
be successful, projects require sustainable O&M. To achieve sustainabl~ O&M, the beneficiaries
can play an important role, such as day to day operation, undertaking minor maintenance and
donating their labour for these tasks. (SSFCDI, 1992).

The Current O&M Program has evolved from an observation in the World Bank's Staff
Appraisal Report (SAR), which states: "O&M of completed projects is generally deficient owing
to inadequate budget allocations, lack of effective cost recovery procedures, and shortcomings
in Operational practices and skill levels of staff." (World Bank, 1989).

5.2 PRESENT O&M ACTIVITY

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) is now the focus of all projects in an attempt to obtain the
intended benefit of the project. BWDB is now changing it's role in the O&M of the completed
as well as ongoing projects. Several BWDB Projects are now carrying out extensive studies
on the O&M. A few of these are:

the System Rehabilitation Project (SRP)

FAP 13 Operation and Maintenanc~ Study
SSFCDI Project

48
 Early Implementation Project (EIP)

Systems Rehabilitation Project (SRP) has a large number of components, including improvement
and maintenance of some 80 sub-projects with a gross area of about 600,000 ha (BWDB,
I99Ia,1991b and 1991c). Two major objectives of SRP are Improved Operation and
maintenance and On-Farm Development. SRP is also placing major stress on beneficiary
participation, and it aims to identify O&M strategies which will eventually be adopted
throughout BWDB. So far SRP has concentrated on water management, identifying staffing
needs in large FCDI projects, preparing to introduce irrigation charges, and strengthening the
involvement of other agencies in O&M activities.

FAP 13, Operation and Maintenance Study under the Flood Action Coordination Organisation
(FPCO), selected projects for the O&M. In practice the present operation usually means
operation of regulators - opening and closing gates. The findings of FAP 13 on the O&M of
Hydraulic Structures, were that at three of the seventeen projects, there was no real "operation"
involved, because the structures built were no longer in use. Virtually all the other projects
experienced operating problems, the ultimate reason often being that drainage facilities were
inadequate, or could never be efficient when high river stages coincide with heavy. rainfall.
Frequent causes of operational difficulties encountered include: i) project design did not consider
operational requirements; ii) committees proposed to advise on operation have not always been
established or are not active; and iii) in some projects khalashis who are supposed to operate
structures were not present, when present they usually take directions from local influential
people. They are also untrained and receive little guidance or supervision from superior
officers.

SSFCDI Project initiated a Pilot O&M Program for 5 subprojects as a new endeavour that will
utilize several procedures and systems and include new processes and initiatives. New
approaches, however, will have to be developed in involving he local population and create
sustainable O&M. In designing this approach, it "must take into consideration the capabilities,
resources and motivation of (i) those institutions who are now responsible for O&M, and (ii)

49
 other institutions and groups who may be in a better position to assume responsibility for some
of the O&M activities (SSFCDI, 1992). SSFCDI project also working on the monitoring of
completed subprojects. Monitoring is an internal subproject activity which provides information
to assess the progress of the implementation of a project. It determines if project inputs are
being delivered as designed, being used as intended and having the effects as planned (SSFCDI,
1992). Five areas will be monitored as part of this Work Plan:

* institutional
* infrastructure and hydrology
* agriculture
* socio-economic
* environment

For hydraulic structures conditions of the gates stoplogs concrete loose apron, erosion problem
and other operational problems will be monitored. A selection matrix was established and all
completed subprojects were included in the list for consideration (SSFCDI, 1992). A total of
nine items were included for ranking and weighted. These items were: is the project fully
complete, accessibility, whether or not the subproject had a defined boundary, whether the
project may be influenced by adjacent project, whether data was available, are the farmers
enthusiastic to help with O&M, opportunities for local resource mobilization, and are there
NGOs in the area. The purpose of Local Resource Mobilization (LRM) is to provide the local
groups with much needed funds to enable them to carry out the required O&M on a sustainable
basis.

The EIP programme has been working with BWDB for many years, but has recently identified
poor O&M as a major constraint on the effectiveness of the projects it has helped to develop.
ElP has therefore proposed establishing an EIP O&M component (EIP, 1992). EIP has also
developed the use of Labour Contracting Societies (LCS), formed with Non Government
Organisation (NGO) assistance, to carry out earthworks, to ensure better quality of construction
work, and to ensure that labourers benefit fully. This model is relevant to periodic repair.

50
 CHAPTER VI

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

6.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The main objective of the study was to review the existing practices in data collection, planning
and design, construction techniques and operation and maintenance of hydraulic structures as
being followed and ,to make appropriate recommendations towards their improvement; to study
the failures of hydraulic structures to establish the factors that cause failure, partially or fully;
and to have case studies of selected structures that have failed.

Review of past evaluations of FCD/I p~ojects was the first step ~ed out to obtain an insight
into the issues associated with the performance of hydraulic structures. The main source of
information in this regard were the published and unpublished BWDB reports and manuals of
different projects, and relevant books and prOCeedingsof some local seminars. For selected
.BWDB projects, the BWDB feasibility study reports and evaluation reports of different projects
were used as the main reference.

The methodologies for evaluations range from simple field inspections with random interviews
to surveys with full sampling techniques. Although most studies appeared to have been based
on secondary data sources, some internal evaluations studies utilized primary data Sources
(BARC, 1985). The research topic is " Diagnostic Study of Failures of Hydraulic Structures
in Bangladesh - Case Studies of Failures in Chittagong District". The word diagnostic infers
investigation to establish what is wrong with the hydraulic structures after making an evaluation.
Keeping all problems and limitations in mind, specially of time, the .research methodology has
been based on an overview of the performance of all hydraulic structures in the three BWDB
Divisions of the Chittagong BWDB Circle; the Cox's Bazar Division, Chittagong Divisions I and
II and an indepth study of failures for four hydraulic structures. Structures under Kaptai
Division which COversmostly the KIP area has not been included in the study as KIP is a fairly

51
 new project and the condition of hydraulic structures are good (BWDB/SRP, 1992). The
performance level of the existing hydraulic structures have been determined from both the
primary data sources through field visits and discussion with the community, and also from
secondary data sources from BWDB field Divisions.

The four indepth study projects include two structure from tidal flood plain areas in Polder 6112,
Mirsharai and two structures from steep hilly streams of ungauged flashy channels in Fatikchari
area. Several field visits were made to these sites, concerned BWDB officials were interviewed
and discussions were held with the beneficiaries of the projects.

Chittagong area was selected as the study area because it gives a typical representation of the
structures in the steep hilly region as well as Structures in the deltaic flood plain. The idea of
selecting two types of structures, has been to evaluate the performance of structures built across
the ungauged hilly streams with unidentified hydrological boundary and also to evaluate
performance of hydraulic structures constructed in the difficult saline tidal situation.
A global performance study was conducted for all the structures in the area for the purpose of
quantification of the contribution of the factors involved. Case Studies were done for four
structures to obtain indepth insight on the failures and to suggest further studies on this topic.
General performance of the structures were evaluated using existing performance levels for all
the structures. The study methodology and performance evaluations of the hydraulic structures
in the study area were divided into several sections as shown in the flow diagram (figure 6.1).

52
 Review of previous evaluations

Review of design, construction

and O&M practice

Methodology

I Performance Evaluation

Case

Discussion on Failures

Conclusion and recommendation

for further studies

Figure 6.1: FLOW DIAGRAM ON THE STUDY SECTIONS

53
 6.2 DATA COLLECTION AND FIELD SURVEY

A questionnaire, presented in Annex 2, was developed for the field survey and data collection,
in an attempt to evaluate the performance of structures. Performance levels were used to assess
the present operating condition of the structures in the region .. As mentioned above field data
has been collected from two sources; the primary data source and the secondary data source.
The primary data source is the field visits to the structures sites and discussion with beneficiaries
and the secondary data were collected from the BWDB Divisional and Subdivisional offices in
Chittagong and Cox's Bazar. Performance levels of the Structures inventoried have been
grouped into five category according to their existing operating condition as follows:

Performance level Operating Condition

I Good and in operation

II In operation but minor repair needed
III In partial operation and needs repair
IV Structure damaged but repairable
V Structure failed, needs replacement

Interpretation of the criteria of the operating condition status in discussed in depth in chapter 7.
Field data have been collected for a total of 354 hydraulic structure. A 22 pages subdivision-
wise details of the structures with their existing performance are given in table 6.1 in the Annex
2. Efforts have been made to include all structures, however possibility of some omissions is
not ruled out.

6.3 LIMITATIONS OF mE STUDY

While efforts were made to make this research an indepth one, there has been limitations due
to constraint of time, fund and manpower which are always associated with this type of academic

54
research. The other constraint to carry out this study was the lack of literature availability.
Due to time limitations a detailed field survey to coHeet primary data for each individual
structures was not possible and the author has to depend on the secondary data collected from
BWDB field Divisions and Subdivisions.

55
 CHAPTER VII
. ,

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IN CHITTAGONG DISTRICT

7.1 GENERAL

To undertake the performance evaluation of structures in Chittagong District, a global survey of

all hydraulic structures under the three BWDB Divisions; the Cox's Bazar and Chittagong
Division I and II, was carried out. The Structures ,under the Kaptai O&M Division whose ~
jurisdiction is mostly the Kamafully lITigation Project (KIP), were excluded from the survey as
the condition of KIP is fairly well (BWDB/SRP, 'Benchmark and Evaluation, June, 1992). A
total 354 Structures were listed during a field survey carried out between the months of January
and May, 1992. The data: were collected both from field survey and the BWDB offices in
Chittagong and Cox's Bazar. The 354 structures were grouped into four types; reinforced
concrete pipe (RCP), corrugated metal pipe (CMP), reinforced concrete box (RCB) and water
retention structures (WRS) and their numbers in different BWDB Divisions are presented in table
7.1 and the figures in parenthesis indicate the percentage of structure in different category.

BWDB
Structure Category
Division
RCP CMP RCB Total
WRS
Cox's Bazar 32 73 52 1.
Division 158
,

Chittagong II 21 47 49 4 121
Chittagong I 33 0 29 13 75
Total 86(24%) 120(34%) 130(37%) 18(5%) 354(100%)
RCP: Reinforced Concrete Pipe Sluice
CMP: Corrugated Metal Pipe Sluice
RCB:
Reinforced Concrete Box/Brick Masonry Sluice
WRS: Water Retention Structure

Table 7.1: Structures Category in Chittagong Area

56
. The differentpercentages of the four category of structures has been represented in a bar chart
in figure 7.1. The purpose of the bar graph is to give the reader an impression about the past
use of different types of hydraulic structures in the study area. It shows that corrugated metal
pipe sluices was in abundant use during the construction of Coastal Embankment Projects around
mid sixties. The population of this category of structures (34 %) were almost equal in number
with reinforced concrete or brick masonry box sluices (37 %), The population of reinforced
concrete pipe sluices were also quite large (24 %). The water retention structures were
constructed in early eighties and they constitute only about 5 per cent of the total structure
population.

40

37%
35 34%

30

-••
c:
u
~
25 24%

••
Q,
20
.!:
•..~
••°
-"
00

u
15

10

.~RCP ~CMP ~RCB ~WRS

Figure 7.1: Bar Chart showing structure category in per cent

57
 .7.2
PERFORMANCE EVALUA TION

. As mentioned in Chapter VI, general performance levels Of the existing structures were evaluated
and five levels were: identified according to the Structure's operating condition as follows:

performance levels operating condition

I
good and in operation
II
in operation but minor repair needed
III
in partial operation and needs repair
IV
structures damaged but repairable
V
structures failed, needs replacement

Performance level "I" represents Structures which are in good operating condition and the
structure is delivering the intended benefit for which it was planned, designed and implemented.
Level "II" represents Structures which are in operation but need minor repair works costing not
more than 5 per cent of the construction cost. The repair works included under this category are
fixing of the protective blocks and painting and greasing the gates and hoists. Performance level
"III" represents structure which are in partial 'operation and are not delivering the intended
benefit. This category of structures need repair works costing about IO per cent of the initial
construction cost to bring the structure back to full operation. The repair works are the
. replacement of gates and protective blocks. The structures included in performance level "IV"
. have been damaged and have become inoperative. These structures need major repair works
costing about 50 per cent of the capital investment cost to make the structure functioning. The
repair works include replacement of pipes, head walls and gates. In some structures,
replacement of the downstream stilling basins are also needed. The last or the performance level
"V" represents structures which have structural failure and are abandoned. These structures are .
not delivering any benefit for which they were planned and designed. Structures of this category
need complete reconstruction to bring back the project to operation.

58
 The BWDB Division-wise performance levels of the total 354 structures have been presented in
table 7.2. The figures in the parenthesis indicate the percentage of structures under different
performance levels.

BWDB General Performance Levels of Structure

Field I II III IV V Total
Division
Cox's Bazar 10 48 65 14 21 158
Chittagong
Div-II 26 24 56 6 9 121
Chittagong
Div-l 42 14 10 4 5 75
Total 78 (22%) 86 (24%) 131 (39%) 24 (6%) 35 (9%) 354 (100%)

Table 7.2 : Structure Performance Levels

Table 7.2 shows an overall performance of the hydraulic Structures in Chittagong District
irrespective of the type and size of Structures. Of the total 354 structures, only 78 are in good
operating condition and are performing the intended benefit for which they were planned and
designed; 86 require minor repair work; 131 structures are in partial operation and require major
repair work; 24 structures have been damaged requiring major repair works and 35 structures
have been totally failed and require reconstruction. The performance levels IV and V include
Structures in the total failure category as they are now abandoned. These together constitute 59
structures (17 %) of which 10 are reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) tidal sluices, 32 are corrugated
metal pipe (CMP) tidal sluices, 9 are box sluices in the tidal coastal area and 8 are the water
retention structure (WRS) in the upper hill streams.

The 10 damaged RCP sluices constitute about 12 per cent of the total 86 RCP sluices in
Chittagong District. These are Sluice No. 9 (2- 900 mm diameter pipe) in Polder 68,

59
,constructed in the year 1969; Sluice NO.7 (2- 900 diameter pipe) in Polder 64/2A built in 1964;

Sluice No. 13 (1- 900 mm diameter pipe) in Polder 64/2A built in 1966; Sluice No. 24 (1- 900
mm diameter) in Polder 64I2B built in 1964; 4 Surface Sluices each 1- 900 mm diameter in
Polder 72, Sandwip Island; Sluice # 2 and 4 each (4- 900 mm diameter pipe) in Polder 61/1
Sitakunda; 'and West Acholia Surface Sluice (900 mm diameter pipe); Sluice NO.6 (3- 900 mm
diameter pipe) in Polder 70, Mohiskhali and SI. No.7, 900 diameter Pipe in Polder 62,
Chittagong. These sluices were constructed about 25 years back and were damaged due to
prolonged use and lack in maintenance.

In all 120 CMP sluices were surveyed of which 32 structures (27 %) were found totally
damaged. Of the 32 damaged CMP Sluices; 23 nos. are in Cox's Bazar O&M Division and 9
nos. are in Chittagong Division II. These damaged sluices were built between 1963 and 1965
during the construction of Coastal Embankment Polders and were damaged and lor failed mostly
due to long use and lack in annual maintenance.

The damaged 9 box sluices represent about 7 per cent of the total 130 sluices. The damaged Box
Sluices are the sluice No. 26 (2 - 1.5 x 1.8 m) in Polder 66/4, Chakaria built in 1978; Sluice
No.4 (2 - 1.5 x 1.8 m) in Polder 69, built in 1962; Ichakhali Sluice 5 vent 1.5 x 1.8 m in Polder
61/2, Mirershari built in 1986; Bamansundar Sluice 8 vent 1.5 x 1.8 m in Polder 61/2, Mirshari;
Hanger Khal Tidal Regulator in Chandnaish constructed in 1984-85; Surface Sluice #7, 1-1.5 x
1.8 m and Surface Sluice # 8A (1 - 1.5 x 1.8 m) and Sluice No 9 in 64/lB, in Polder 64/lB,
Banshkhali. Few of these major sluices were built in late eighties. Bamansundar sluice was
abandoned in 1986 after completion of about 70 per cent of the civil works and the Ichakhali
sluice failed in 1986 immediately after completion.

Most extensive damage occurred to the water retention structures (WRS). Of the total 18
structures constructed in Chittagong District, 8 structures (45 %) failed during the first year of
operation. The failed structures are: the WRS at Khotakhali 13 - 1.5 x 3.0 m in Chokoria;
Madarsha Chara WRS 8 ~ 1.5 x 2.4 m at Satkania; Baromasia Chara WRS 9 - 1.5 x 3.0 m at

60
 Fatikchari; Mondakini WRS (9 - 1.5 x 3.0 m) at Hathazari; Fatikchari Chara WRS (8 - 1.5 x
2.4 m) in Fatikchari; Harwal chari WRS 12 - 1.5 x 2.7 m at Fatikchari; Sonaichari WRS 2 - 1.5
x 2.4 m and 8 - 1.5 x 3.0m at Ramgarh and Soalock WRS 9 - 1.5 x 3.0 m at Bandarban. The.
other 10 structures also suffered minor damages during flash flood. The water retention
structures were built around 1983-84 on hilly streams with undefined catchment boundary. The
structures were built in a hurry when the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) undertook crash
program for extensive winter irrigation. Most of the catchments were unsurveyed, topographical
planning maps were not available and designs were completed without detailed hydrological
study. The peak discharge was calculated by Manning's equation (Chow, 1986) based on
channel geometry which resulted in most cases underestimation of the flood peak and the.
structures were undersized. The general field performance levels (in percentage) of the hydraulic
structure in three BWDB Divisions shown in table 7.2, have been presented in a bar chart in
figure 7.2. As the performance levels of different category of structures are different, the
c::tcgcry-wise failures in percentages h,we hf'.enpresented in a bar chart (figure 7.3).

40 . 39%

35

-••
c
u
~
30

••
Q.
25
.5 22% 24%
c
20
~
o
"
"0
> 15

••"
u
c 10
••E
~
-"
o
~
a.
5

o
m G.ood ~ Needs minor repair ~ Needs major repair ~ Damaged repairable

rssJ Failed .

Figure 7.2: Bar Chart Showing General Perfonnance

/ •...
61
V
 9,{\
50
,
,/
'"

45 45%

40

35
)

30

-"
c
u
~ 25
"•••
.E
20
"~
:>

-••"" 15
"j

••~
"'"
- 10
"
u"
5

o
Structure Category

m RCB ~RCP ~CMP ~WRS

Figure 7.3: Bar Chart Showing Category-wise Performance

62
 T

I~

7.3 OPERA TION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M)

Operation of the surveyed structures has been identified as a major issue to the failure of the
structures specially those built across the hill streams. The water retention structures are to
retain lean flow in the upstream to raise water level for irrigation. The retention is done with ~'i
two row of stop logs (fall boards) in grooves provided in the piers. During flash flood in the
hilly catchments upstream, stop logs are not lifted quickly to create flood way through structure.
There is no operator (sluice khalasi) stationed at the structure site and even if an operator is at
site, he will not be able to lift the fall boards during a flash flood at night. As a result, the flood
flows overflanked the structures causing major damages to the downstream stilling basins. Thus
~ damaged structure are presently out of operation and require major reconstruction. The
(j) operation of most of the structures are now handed over to the Local Project Committee (BWDB,
~ 1992). These committee consist of people from among the benefiCiaries.. But these committee
rYJ are not functioning properly in the real sense of operation of the project. BWDB has initiated. t
to formulate bylaws for the operation of the committee. Even if there are committee for the
structure operation, the responsibility to ensure safety of the structure lies with BWDB.

Lack of annual maintenance has also been identified as one of the major causes of failures of
these Structures. BWDB does not have maintenance budget after completion of the structure.
Theperiodic and deferred maintenance are done to embankments under Food For Works (FFW)
when food is available. But there is no routine maintenance to completed structures.

7.4 DISCUSSION

The performance evaluation led to the conclusion that the sluices, regulators and water retention
structures were damaged and lor failed due to combination of reasons. The reasons are different
for different types of structures. The percentage damages and or failures to RCP and CMP are
12 and 27 respectively. But these failures are due to prolonged use and lack in maintenance.
The failure to box sluices is only about 7 per cent because they are relatively new. The main

63
 reasons of their failure are construction deficiency and lack of maintenance. The tidal sluices
are constructed much below the ground water table (GWT) and extensive sub-surface dewatering
is required to make the excavation pit dry. In the past this was not given proper attention and
concreting were done in wet slushy surface. The failures of Ichakhali and Bamansundar Sluices
in Polder 61/2 and Sattaria Sluice in Polder 59/3B were due to improper construction without
dewatering. The other reason for the failure of sluices is the foundation failure due to inadequate
subsoil information. Soil borings were not done to determine the bearing capacity of the
foundation soil and there were instances where sluice location had been changed from the original
bored site. This led to the failure of many sluices. The study found that the relative
performance of the pipe sluices are better than reinforced concrete box sluices. The hydraulic
performance of the pipe sluices are better and they transfer less foundation pressure to the
subsoil. The pipe sluices are also less expensive than box sluices and their construction time is
less as precast pipes are available. There is a recent trend in BWDB design offices to limit the
use of pipe sluices which needs a review.

The percentage of failure to water retention structures is about 45 and the highest among the four
types. These failures are due to underestimation of the design discharge, construction deficiency
and complete lack in operation of the structures. This has been substantiated under Case Studies
in Chapter VIII. It concluded that manually operated gated structure are not suitable across
flashy channels. This structures need automatic gate operation during flash flood. Structures
with raised crest (broad crested weir) or raised crest with falling shutter may be alternative
solution to retain water. The shutter may be designed so that it falls automatically when the
upstream water level exceeds the design level.

64
CASE STUDIES
 CHAPTER vm
CASE STUDIES

8.1 GENERAL

Case Studies have been done for four hydraulic structures; two structures from the coastal tidal
area and the other two from the steep hilly areas having flash flOOds. The structures in the tidal
area are the Bamansundar and Ichakhali sluices in Polder 61/2, and structures in hill streams are
the Mondakini and Harwalchari water retention structures under Fatikchari BWDB Subdivision
of Chittagong District. The Case Studies of failures of these structures have an indepth of the
Project, the operation of the Project, data collection, analysis of failures of the structures and
a:conclusion and recommendations.
\
8.2 MONDAKINI WATER RETENTION STRUCTURE

8.2.1 The Project

Mondakini is a small irrigation project located at Santirhat under Fatikchari BWDB Subdivision.
The command area (irrigable area) of the project is about 360 hectares. During original BWDB
design, the catchment basin was not delineated and detailed hydrological analysis of the drainage
catchment was not done. The design discharge was calculated using Manning's equation (Chow,
1986). The channel section geometry at the structure location was approximately as shown in
figure 8.1 and the discharge calculation was as follows:

t. 30.05m

~_. ---...p~"••..
______
__ -rf
-,~T
1_8_.3_0_m
r""""""""""'
1

FigureS.2: Mondakini Channel Section

65
 Cross sectional area (A) = «30.5+ 18.3)/2)x3.05 = 74.42 square meter.
Weighted Perimeter (P) = 18.3 +2x(6.102 +3.052) = 31.94 meter
Hydraulic Radius (R) = AlP = 74.42/31.94 = 2.33 meter
Longitudinal slope of the stream, based on field survey is 0.00088
Manning's roughness = 0.030 (assumed for sand gravel bed)
Discharge (Q) = AxV = A x (I/n) R2/3 Sl/2 = 74.42 x 33.33 x 1.758 x 0.0296
= 129.2 cubic meter per second.

The recorded discharge at the structure site in 1981 was found to be 124.5 m3/sec (BWDB,
1983). The structure was designed for the peak discharge of 130 m3/secwith an assumption
that the flow through the structure was always subcritical. The analysis resulted in a 9 vent 1.5
meter by 3 meter hydraulic structure with 8 number 30 em. thick RCC pier fitted with grooves
to hold the wooden fall boards. The design length of the total pucca floor was 32.6 meter with
3.0 meter deep cutoff wall on both upstream and downstream ends for safety against exit
gradient and scour. The raised crest level (invert level) of the structure was 8.84 meter PWD
with upstream and downstream aprons at 8.54 meter PWD and 8.10 meter respectively. The
length of the downstream glacis was 2.22 meter and the length of the jump basin (stilling basin)
is 18.3 meter. The piers had two rows of grooves to accommodate wooden stop logs to retain
water for raising upstream water level high enough to irrigate winter crops in the adjoining 360
hectares of cultivable land on both banks of Mondakini khal. The structure was designed with
sloping RCC wing walls constructed on compacted channel bank to minimise construction cost.

8.2.2 Project Operation

Mondakini water retention structure was completed in the year 1983-84 at a cost of Tk. 2.5
million under the supervision of BWDB Chittagong O&M Division 1. After construction
completion, an operation guidelines was developed (BWDB, 1984) which were as follows:

25 % of stop logs shall be removed from the structure by March 15.

66
 50% of the stop logs shall be removed by March 31.
75 % of the stop logs shall be removed by April 15.
. All stop logs shall be removed from the structure by April 30.

The reason for operation by dates was set because most flash flood occurred in mid April. The
guidelines also considered field water requirement and safety of the structure to pass the flash
flood unobstructed. At the end of the first year of operation, in mid April 1985, a flash flood
occurred when all the stop logs were fitted with the structure; flow was obstructed and the
structure was outflanked causing minor damage to left bank walls. A departmental inspection
was made and the structure was repaired to the original design at a cost of Tk. 0.20 million in
the fiscal year 1985-86. The flash flood reoccurred on April 24, 1987 when all stop logs were
in place, the flow was obstructed and outflanked through the left bank. The flood current eroded
the backfill behind the downstream left bank slopping wall. The wall collapsed and the
downstream floor lifted upward damaging the entire floor (photo 8.1 and 8.2). This time also
a departmental enquiry was made to assess the damage to the structure. A feasibility study was
prepared to rehabilitate the structure in October 1987 (BWDB, 1987). The feasibility report
recommended complete rehabilitation of the structure with vertical wing walls and steel lift gates
at a cost of Tk. 2.2 million. But due to fund constraint the structure was rehabilitated to its
original design at a lower cost. The only design change was that the slopping wall was
supported on 250 mm thick brick wall at 3 meter centres and the four mid channel openings
were provided with steel vertical lift gates for emergency operation. The reconstruction was
completed in April 1988. The flash flood again occurred on April 9, 1990 and the structure was
damaged for the third time. According to official records most of the stop logs were removed
on 7th April, 1990. This could not be confirmed and it was possible that this time also the stop
logs were in place at the time of flash flood. As usual a departmental enquiry was done and the
enquiry team suggested rehabilitation of the structure with vertical walls and steel lift gates in
all the nine vents.

67
o:\
 "

.~~..:..... -

Photo 8.1 Collapsed Downstream Sloping Wall of Mondakini

Photo 8.2 Damaged Downstream Floor of Mandakini

 The opinion of the beneficiaries about the third failure was that floating logs and bushes from
o
the upstream hills blocked the water way through the structure which resulted in outflanking.
~.
The downstream floor and left bank sloping wing wall were seriously damaged.
\
t
8.2.3 Data Collection and Analysis

The Mondakini failed structure was visited three times during this study. Data on the drainage
catchment was collected during field visit to the site and dis(mssion with BWDB officials and
local community. The catchment map (Scale 1:50,000) was collected from BWDB and the basin
area was delineated (figure 8.2). The actual drainage catchment of Mondakini water retention
structure is about 27 square kilometres (10.4 square miles) comprising the Sitakund hill range.
The channel has a very steep slope; the calculated weighted slope is about 0.00185 mlm which
is about 9.77 feet per mile. The basin length is about 11 kilometre (6.8 miles) and the average
width of the basin is 2.5 kilometre (1.6 miles). The annual maximum I-day rainfall with a
return period of 10 years was analyzed based on 20 year rainfall data for the station R-324
(Nazirhat). The 5-day rainfall for the same return period is 669.0 mm. The computed time of
concentration is 6.0 hours (unit hydrograph method) and the unithydrograph base length is 9.5
hours. These data have been used to compare the original design discharge calculated by
Manning's equation and the BWDB discharge record of 1981. The Richards equation, the
rational formula and twelve other empirical equations were used to compare the result and the
calculations are presented in Annex 2 of this thesis. The empirical equations are mostly based
on the study in Indian catchments. Some empirical relationships based on the study in the USA
river basins have also been compared. The most common empirical flood discharge formula
used for the Indian catchments are the Dickens, Ryves and the Inglis formula. The calculated
peak discharge for Mondakini catchment by the Richard equation is about 250 m3/sec and the
discharge by rational formula is only 87 m3/sec (annex 2).

68
 ~.

Mandakini Water
I
Retentiio Structure
9-I:Smxl.2m

-o
'"'
::r
:;
'"
::I
•••
~
't:I

LEG END

River /Khol

,.
'-4 Existing Structure

@ Proposed Structure Scale. I, 50000

"~:;ii;.i':-i~~~~
Cotchment Boundary

Mondakini Water Retention Sructure

Catchment Map
 i.

The discharges calculated for Mondakini basin using empirical relationships developed in Indian
catchments are as follows:

Dickens formula 237 m3/sec

Ryves formula 91 m3/sec
Inglis formula 545 m3/sec
Bourges formula 106 m3/sec
Dredge and burge 108.3 m3/sec

The discharges
:
by rational formula, Ryves, Bourges and dredge and Burge formulae are lower
,

than the discharge by Manning's formula but Richards, Dickens and Inglis formulae give very
high discharge for the same catchment. The discharges' calculated from empirical relations
developed'in USA catchments are as follows:

Chamier formula 89.8 m3/sec

Bremner 93.8 m3/sec
Myers (modified) 914 m3/sec
,
Boston Society 359 m3/sec
Fridrich(Germany) 132.1 m3/sec
Baratta formula 334 m3/sec
Hunter & Wilmot 413 m3/sec

Of the foreign formulae, Chamier, Bremner and Fridrich formulae give discharges close to
, rational and Manning's formula but the other four formula give very high discharges for the
same catchments.

Results of the empirical equations conclude that the peak discharge calculated by Manning's
.'if',
equation was an underestimation which might have contributed partly to the failure. The result
also establishes the fact that a thorough hydrologic

70
analysis is required to establish the correct size of the structure.

8.2.4 Analysis of Failure

The mam causes of failure for the first time was mostly due to operation difficulty and
underestimation of the peak flood. The stop logs were not removed from the structure and flood
water outflanked through the left bank causing damage to the structure.

The causes of failure for the second time may be a combination of the following:

operation difficulty; the stop logs were not removed from the structure during flash
flood;

underestimation of the peak flood by Manning's equation,

noncompliance to operational guidelines by the beneficiaries. The structure failed on

April 24 when 75 per cent of the stop logs should have been removed from the structure.

The combination of the above causes resulted in outflanking through the left bank causing major
damage to the structure.

The causes of third failure are detailed below:

operation difficulty; the stop logs were not removed from the structure during flash
flood,

underestimation of the peak .flood,

blockade of water way through the structure by floating logs and debris,

71
 construction deficiencies; the block pitching on the left bank flood plain was not done as
~r design. The bottom layer of rods in left bank sloping wall were found fully exposed
without any concrete cover (photo 8.3). During field data collection, cracks were found
throughout the entire downstream floor and the left bank slab (photo 8.4).

8.2.5 Conclusion and Recommendations

The main causes of failures to the Mondakini water retention structures may be summed up as
follows:

"
operational difficulty; this has been identified as major cause of failure of the structure.
All the flash floods occurred during night and there was no operator at the structure site
to lift the gats and stop logs. The responsibility of operation is handed over to a
structure committee consisting of the beneficiaries. These people are not aware of their
responsibility and the gates and fall boards were not removed from the structure during
flash flood. The flow was obstructed and the structure was outflanked,

discharge calculations by various empirical formulae concluded that peak discharge

calculated by Manning's equation was an underestimation of the flood flow,

floating logs and branches of trees from the upstream hills blocked the water way opening
through the structure causing additional difficulty in removing the gates and fall boards.

major construction deficiencies have been observed after the failures; Field visits to the
failed structures showed major deviation from design drawings and specifications and
reinforcements and design thicknesses for the structural elements were found less than
the design provision.

The recommendations from the findings of the case study for Mondakini water retention
structures are made as follows:. •

72
o
 Photo 8.3 Exposed Reinforcement in Mandakini Structure

Photo 8.4 Collapsed Downstream Stilling Basin of Mandakinl

 it is;not advisable to construct manually operated gated structure in flashy stream. The
stru6ture should be constructed as a fixed crest weir or a weir fitted with falling shutter
which will fall automatically when the design water head is exceeded (figure 8.3). For
" ...
manually operated gated structures, emergency flood by-pass (fixed crest weir/waste way)
should be built upstream of the structure at retention level to by-pass the peak flood in
case the gates can not be removed;

a thorough hydrological analysis is required to recheck the size of structure. This will
J
require collection of catchment maps and a proper drainage study of the basin,.

floating log-boom should be constructed about 100 metre upstream of the structures to
trap floating debris from the upper hills. The floating debris will need cleaning after
every flash flood,

adequate construction supervision should be made by qualified field. staff during

construction of the structure. Design standards and specifications should be strictly
followed,

annual and long term maintenance plans should be prepared based on field requirements.

73
 Falling shutter

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM
300

,
1000

FILLED BASE
SHEET PILE
SHEET PILE
200 zoo
1 3000 6000
f 3000 ~ 3000 • t '3000 ~ 10000 ~ooo

TYPICAL FALLING SHUTTER TYPE

RETENTION STRUCTURE

Figure 8.3
Je

IL-_ A -J
«
:r

---- -
~
-
z
.~.
"'.
«
0
z
..:::-.
-,..•.•• 0
:E

Typical Emergency Flood By- Pass

Figure 8.4
 Top or piles
0.60 m. (lbo~ kJ;.L
~I/oh pile.
+" Z2.0-fiO ••••. ~(Jllohpiles t$ t.t.s - 250 hi,". .
(Z "" •• ) . l, .s.DO_ ~_S() Itt. Jointo' 41;~ C"~", HIL lJul/,oh
f'> 15'0111111,

04 "chor bolf 0 ..30,". 030 (n. •

4>
O.~5
12.5 rnm.
m.LD"J !' r20~i ~~~I
.
I
3d Channel
~ sE"CTION

'YOTE :
,. Hard 410<><1' ~Ioh I'iles Z2~ to 150 ",'" should be
/lsed for IrIoki,,! (t>g "-,,,.

z. All bel'/( skuld k N._.-.d fH •• !k logs.

f..o9> s!H>uId H plfCd wi/!, It.s ",••.C ho in
/ 3.

Tlii" end ro $/cl. cJtd.

/r-. 4. lhIes Ii> 1M I'¥S tor chat;' Ct>nn«fI"on sJ,ould

/ be C. 30 In. lro", & lo!! Ula.

6. T"~"cnf 1f"il/7;'j "f lh ~s Ust slut 1";"

from !lie log ~ at fIO°./" !he lIole •
,. IlKfDh ITte 1-, ~ tteross ~ ,.wv channti
wilE !he ~icJr ~a's 1IIl5e lOS', Ibc/ny
down sire"'" •

Till £06 /JOOM SHOI/i./) lU PLACE/) NOr US, rNAH

100 m "PSTRE"'" FifOI'< "'U Ar A ",cATiON SUTABLE

Typical Logboom
Figure 8.5
8.3 HARWAL CHARI WATER RETENTION STRUCTURE

8.3.1 The Project

Harwalchari is a small irrigation project located under Fatikchari BWDB Subdivision. The
command area (irrigable area) of the project is about 300 hectares. During original BWDB
design, the catchment basin was not delineated and detailed hydrological analysis of the drainage
catchment was not done. The design discharge was calculated using Manning's equation (Chow,
1986). The channel section geometry at the structure location was approximately as shown in
figure 8.6 and the discharge calculations were as follows:

I 38.20m

I
~---_~r I
?tT?~a
26.00m
~

I
Figure 8.7: Harwalchari Channel Section

Cross sectional area (A) = (38.20 + 26.0)/2x3.05 =97.6 square meter.

Weighted Perimeter (P) = 26.0 + 2x(6.102 + 3.052) = 39.60 METER
HYDRAULICRADIUS (R) = AlP = 97.6/39.6 = 2.60 METER
LoNGITUDINALSLOPEOF THE STREAM,BASEDON FIELDSURVEYIS 0.00088
MANNING's ROUGHNESS= 0.030 (ASSUMEDFOR SANDGRAVELBED)
Discharge (Q) = AxY = A x (lin) R2/3 SII2 =97.6 x 33.33 x 1.897 x 0.0296 = 182.7 cubic,
meter per second.

74
 The discharge capacity of the original structure, 12 vent 1.5 x 3.05 meter constructed in 1984
was 180 m3/sec (BWDB, 1984). The structure was designed with an assumption that the flow
through the structure is always subcritical. The piers had two rows of grooves to accommodate
wooden stop logs to retain water for raising upstream water level. The Harwalchari has a
perennial flow of about 0.5 n3/sec to irrigate the adjoining 300 hectares of cultivable land on
both banks of Harwalchari during winter. The design length of" the Pucca floor was 33 meter
with 3.0 meter cutoff walls on both upstream and downstream end for safety against exit
gradient and scour. The raised crest level (invert level) of the structure was 7.92 meter PWD
with upstream and downstream aprons at 7.62 meter PWD and 6.92 meter respectively. The
length of the downstream glacis was 3.0 meter and the length of the stilling basin was 18.0
meter.

8.3.2 Project Operation

Harwal chari water retention structure was completed in the year 1984-85 at a cost of Tk. 2.7
million under the supervision of BWDB Chittagong O&M Division I. After construction
completion, an operation guidelines was set as for Mondakini:

25% of stop logs shall be removed from the structure by March 15.
50% of the stop logs shall be removed by March 31.
75 % of the stop logs shall be removed by April 15.
All stop logs shall be removed from the structure by April 30.

At the end of the first year of operation in early April, 1986, serious piping occurred through
the left bank sloping side wall. This caused minor damage to the downstream left bank sloping
wall. After a few days on April 19, 1986, flash flood occurred when all the stop logs were in
place and the structure was outflanked through the left bank. The wall collapsed and the down
stream floor lifted upward damaging the entire floor (photo 8.5 and 8.6). The damage to the
structure was very serious. An attempt was made to repair the damaged water retention
o
75
Photo 8.5: Damaged left bank of Harwal Chari water retention structure
.'.~.,,"

'.'"

,.

Photo 8.6: Damaged Hartvalchari water retention structure

 structure in the year 1986-87. But it was not possible to start the work due to public opposition
because they believed that the site selection was wrong and the structure retention level will not
cover the command area under gravity irrigation and demanded new structure at about 400 meter
downstream of the damaged structure.

A feasibility study to rehabilitate the structure was prepared by Consultant (BWDB, 1988). This
feasibility study differed with the farmers perceptions and indicated that the entire command area
could be irrigated with the present structure's supply level. The feasibility report recommended
complete rehabilitation of the structure to it's original shape but with steel lift gates at a cost of
Tk. 4.75 million. The damaged sloping wall was designed to support on brick wall at 3 meter
centres and the entire downstream floor was to be rebuilt. The reconstruction of the structure
was started in March 1989 and was almost completed except installation of the gates when it was
damaged by the severe cyclone of April, 1991. Since then the structure is left abandoned.

8.3.3 Data Collection and Analysis

The Harwalchari failed structure was visited twice during this study. Data on the drainage
catchment was collected during field visit to the site and discussion with BWDB officials and
local community. The catchment map (Scale 1:50,(00) was collected from BWDB and the basin
area was delineated (figure 8.7). The actual drainage catchment of Harwalchari water retention
structure is about 37 square kilometres (14.3 square miles) comprising the upper hill range. The
channel has a steep slope; the calculated weighted slope is about 0.0008 m/m which is about 4.2
feet per mile. The basin length is about 12 kilometre (7.5 miles). The peak discharge
calculated by rational formula is about 96 m3/sec and is much lower than the peak flow
calculated in Manning's equation (180 m3/sec).

76
 ~ .
Purb a F atikchari

HarwolchOi

Horwolchori Water
Retention Structure
12- 1.5m x I. 2m

~
'0

LEGEND

~
-----~ River / Khal

....,
~ Ell:istinQ Structure Scale. I' 50000

@ Proposed Struclur~

~".::..-'/;~!~}.j.
Oraino(Je basin Boundary

',','
 The comparison indicates that although a detailed hydrological analysis was not carried out, the
size of the structure appears to be adequate. The major causes of failure of Harwalchari water
retention structure may be a combination of the followings:

operation difficulty; the stop logs were not be removed from the structure during flash
flood,

operation guidelines was not followed by the beneficiaries. The structure failed on April,
19 when 75 per cent of the stop logs should have been removed from the structure.

floating logs and debris blocked the water way opening through the structure.

The combination of the above causes resulted in outflanking through the left bank causing
damage to the structure.

8.3.4 Conclusion and Recommendations

The main causes of failures to the Harwalchari water retention structures may be summed up
as follows:

operational difficulty; this has been identified as major cause of failure of the structure.
All the flash floods occurred during night and there was no operator at the structure site
.to lift the gats and stop logs. The responsibility of operation is handed over to a
structure committee consisting of the beneficiaries. These people are not aware of their
responsibility and the gates and fall boards were not removed from the structure during
flash flood. The flow was obstructed and the structure was outflanked,

floating logs and branches of trees from the upstream hills blocked the water way
opening through the structure causing'additional difficulty in removing the gates and fall
boards,

78
The recommendations from the findings of the case study for Harwalchari water retention
structure~ are made as follows:.

it is not advisable to construct manually operated gated structure in flashy stream. The
structure should be constructed as a fixed crest weir or a weir fitted with falling shutter
which wip fall automatically when the design water head is exceeded as shown for
Mondakini (figure 8.3). For manually operated gated structures, emergency flood by-
pass (fixed crest weir/waste way) should be built upstream of the structure at retention
level to by-pass the peak flood in case the gates cannot be removed,

a thorough hydrological analysis is required to recheck the size of structure. This will
require collection of catchment maps and a proper drainage study of the basin,

floating log-boom should be constructed about 100 metre upstream of the structures to
trap floating debris. from the upper hills. The floating debris will need cleaning after
every flash flood,

annual and long term maintenance plans should be prepared based on field requirements.

79
 8.4 BAMANSUNDAR SLUICE

8.4.1 The Project

Bamansundar sluice is located at Mirsarai about 60 km northwest of Chittagong District

Headquarters in Coastal Embankment Polder 61/2. The location map of sluice is shown in
figure 8.8. The structure was intended to control salinity, prevent flooding and improvement
of drainage to an area of about 4000 hectares (BWDB,1987). The construction of the Coastal
Embankment was completed in 1973, but the tidal sluice across Bamansundar khal was not
constructed. The construction work of Bamansundar Sluice, a 8 vent 1.5 x 1.8 meter structure
was started during the year 1975-76 and continued very slowly until 1979-80 with completion
of the cut-off walls, aprons and part of the barrel. But the work was suspended in the year
1980-81 due to paucity of fund. The work was restarted under a project financed by the IDA
in the year 1982-83. After completion of the barrel box, sand boiling was reported on the
downstream. A committee was formed by BWDB to investigate the causes of sand boiling. The
investigation revealed unspecified construction of the stilling basin floors and barrel base slab
and the structure was abandoned in 1986.

8.4.2 Operation of the Project

The original Bamansundar Sluice was abandoned in 1986 after completion of about 70 per cent
. of the work. Therefore the operation of the sluice is not relevant. After the sluice was
. abandoned, Bamansundar was again included for implementation under the BWDB Second
SSFCDI Project. A feasibility report was prepared and BWDB decided to implement the
Project. Detailed design was completed for a new 9 vent sluice at Bamansundar and the
construction was completed in June, 1991. The Bamansundar sluice is now included under
SSFCDI Pilot O&M Program.

80
 w
u
5
-'
(f) z
0::"'«
<t'::::::-1
~ Wa.
"'0::1-
'
~w::>
<l 0 0
;:;; -' >-
«0«
lD Q. -'

'" , .
-
,

".
 8.4.3 Data Collection and Analysis

The Bamansundar abandoned sluice was visited two times during the preparation of this study.
Data on the drainage catchment was collected during field visits to the site and discussion with
BWDB officials and local community. The data showed that the original design of 8 vent 1.5
x 1.8 m sluice was adequate for the drainage catchment of 77 square kilometres (30 square
miles). During field visits, measurements were taken for the thickness of completed apron and
barrel base slab and thicknesses were found much less than the design thickness. Steel
reinforcing rods were found in contact with the foundation soil without adequate concrete cover.
In fact concreting was done in wet surface and the concrete did not set to it's designed strength.
The construction of the expansion joint between barrel box and apron (PVC joint) was not done
as per design. The joint was open and the PVC was not embedded in concrete. Additionally
due to long exposure to saline weather, the reinforcement had been heavily rusted and corrosion
took place reducing its sections and strength. The main reasons for the bad quality concrete was
the contractor's inability to dewater the site properly before casting the apron and base slab.
These unspecified works contributed to the abandonment of the sluice after completion of about
70 per cent of the civil works costing about Tk 4.0 million. Although the structure did not fail
during operation, the structure was abandoned which is failure in a sense that and it did not
serve the intended purpose for which it was planned and designed.

8.4.4 Conclusion and Recommendations:

The main reasons of failure of the structures are as follows:

inadequate dewatering of the excavation pit and long period of execution (1976 to 1985),
which disturbed the foundation soil,

due to inadequate dewatering, there had been serious construction deficiencies which
resulted in bad quality concrete and undersize sections,

the third reason was the prolonged construction years due to shortage of fund in the saline

81
 environment which deteriorated the construction materials and subsequently used for the
. construction.

The recommendations from the findings of this case study for the Bamansundar sluices are as
follows:

dewatering of foundation trenches needs adequate attention to avert construction

deficiencies,

strict supervision needs to be ensured during every phase of construction and design
standard and specifications need to be strictly followed. This will require training of
construction supervisors,

testing of materials should be carried out during construction and bad materials should
be rejected to get the quality finished product.

82
 8.5 ICHAKHALI TIDAL SLUICE

8.5.1 The Project

Ichakhali sluice is located at Mirsharai about 64 km northwest of Chittagong District

Headquarters in Coastal Embankment Polder 61/2. The location map of Ichakhali Sluice is
shown in figure 8.9. The sluice was intended to control salinity, prevent flooding and
improvement of drainage to an area of about 4000 hectares (BWDB,1987), same area as for
Bamansundar. The construction of the Coastal Embankment was completed in 1973, but the
tidal sluiee across Ichakhali channel was not taken up for construction. The construction work
of Ichakhali Sluice, a 5 vent 1.5 meter x 1.8 meter structure, was started during the year 1975-
76. The work could not be executed during that year (1975-76) due to not getting possession
of land. The construction work restarted during 1976-77 and the contractor excavated the
foundation trench partially and constructed the ring bundh. During the
, construction year 1977-
78 and 1978-79, the work was suspended due to non-allocation of fund. The work was restarted
during 1979-80 by the contractor but could not achieve the desired target due to serious
dewatering problem sand boiling in the excavation pit. The RCC cut-off walls could not be
constructed upto the designed depth and the design was modified to caisson cut-off. The work
was again suspended during 1980-81 due to paucity of fund and non-availability of materials
from the department. In 1985, IDA agreed to finance the remaining work, mostly the operating
deck, the supply of gates, excavation of diversion channel and the channel closure. The
construction of the sluice was finally completed in June, 1986.

8.5.2 Operation of the Project

The Ichakhali Tidal Sluice was originally designed with flap gate on the riverside and provision'
of upstream retention was not made. During a design revision, the upstream storage provision
was made and vertical lift gates were designed for the country side water retention (BWDB,

c\
1987). After completion of the construction, the country side vertical lift gates of the sluice

83
I I

) \
)\
 w
u
5
...l N <I
z
(J),...l
:Jwa..
~a::t-
"'w=>
<100
:I: ...l >-
U05
- Q.

.
z
z

•
•
o
z
••

".
Photo 8.8: lch"khali failed sluice
were closed on October 22, 1986. It was reported that the structure totally collapsed within an
hour of operation (BWDB, 1987).

8.5.3 Data Collection and Analysis

The Ichakhali failed sluice site was visited during the preparation of this study. Data on the
drainage catchment was collected 9uring field visits to the site and discussion with BWDB
officials and local community. The data showed that the 5 vent 1.5 x 1.8 m sluice was not
adequate for the drainage of the catchment of about 70 square kilometres (27 square miles).
During field visits to the structure site, measurements were taken and the floor thickness was
found about 300 mm in place of the design thickness of 450 mm. The design thickness were
not maintained due to severe dewatering problem and sand boiling. The bottom layer of
reinforcement of the floor was found exposed because of the same reason.

The Ichakhali sluice is located near the Sandwip Channel and the tidal fluctuation is high. The
site was not easily accessible and the Senior BWDB officials did not visit the sites during
construction. Therefore there was no routine check on the quality control of the work and the
workers did not get adequate suggestions regarding dewatering and improvement of works. Due
to lack of fund, the construction period was prolonged for about eleven years. This long period
of exposure of foundation to the natural adverse weather condition also caused disturbance of
foundation soil. As the site was located very close to the sea, the high tidal fluctuation further
aggravated the dewatering problem. Field division reported that there was no subsoil dewatering
during construction. Dewatering was done by surface pumps which resulted in heavy
percolation of water and sand boiling. The concrete was cast on wet bed and there was no
provision of lean concrete in the design of the base slab. As such, the bottom reinforcement
did not have adequate covering and concrete could not set to develop proper bond between steel
and concrete. This indicated serious construction deficiency during execution of the work. The
soil particles might have been removed due to sand boiling and voids were formed below the
floor which ultimately led to the underneath piping after water was stored upstream of the
structure.

84
8.5.4 Conclusion and Recommendations:

The main reasons of failure of the structures are as follows:

inadequate dewatering of the excavation pit and long period of execution (1976 to 1986)
which disturbed the foundation soil,

due to inadequate dewatering, there had been serious construction deficiencies which
resulted in bad quality concrete and undersize sections,

the third reason was the prolonged construction years due to shortage of fund in the saline
environment which deteriorated the construction materials subsequently used for the
construction,

the hydrologic design of the failed sluice is also questionable,

The recommendations from the findings of this case study for the Ichakhali sluice are as follows:

dewatering of foundation trenches needs adequate attention to avert construction .

1deficiencies,

strict supervision needs to be ensured during every phase of constructions. This will
require appropriate guidance and training of construction supervisors,

testing of materials should be carried out during construction and bad materials should
.be rejected to get the quality finished product,

A through design check should have been done during revision of the design for upstream
storage.

85
 CHAPTER IX

GENERAL DISCUSSION ON FAILURES OF HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES

9.1 INTRODUCTION

The number of failure of hydraulic structure though not large but once failure occurs, the
replacement cost and time required for reconstruction may jeopardise the activities of the whole
project. As for example, if a single regulator of a flood control project built on the crossing of
embankment and drainage channel failed, the project will be subjected to flooding until a new
regulator is built on such a site. The damaged hydraulic structures are however, large in
number. These damages are mainly concentrated in the prot~tion works at the upstream and
downstream of structures.

9.2 TYPICAL CAUSES OF FAILURE

9.2.1 Hydraulic Causes

The failures and damages due to hydraulic phenomena may be attributed to the followings:

Excessive flow velocity:

Hydraulic structure is usually designed in a constricted waterway for reasons of economy.

Therefore high flow velocity persists under normal operating condition due to large differential
head. In drainage structures, at time of high flood exceeding the design flood flow, the velocity
through the structure exceeds the design velocity due to high differential head, or afflux in the
upstream of structure. These high flow velocities created under the conditions as mentioned
earlier if allowed to persist in the earthen canal, it shall cause large scale erosion of the soil.
If the erosion process is allowed to continue, the result is undermining of foundation and the
exposure of cut-off wall of hydraulic structure which may lead to the collapse of the structure

86
either partly or as a whole depending on the severity.

Scour:

Scouring is the lowering of a river bed, as a result of secondary current or vertices that occur
in conjunction with river features such as bends, abrupt changes in flow direction, obstructions,
constrictions and control structures. The severity and extent of scour depend upon the strength
of the secondary currents developed. Scour holes developed in front of the piers and abutments
are main causes of failure of many bridges. Scour holes developed at the upstream and
downstream of cut-off walls lines cause damage of flexible apron'. If the bottom of these cut-off
wall is at high level, the subsoil behind the wall may slide by simple earth pressure and the
structure may collapse.

Seepage flow:

Failure from seepage flow can occur by:

undermining of the sub-soil of structure,

outflanking the approach embankments connecting the structure,

uplift due to pressure under the structure or any part of the structure being in excess
of the weight of the same.

The undermining of the subsoil and outflanking of approach embankments start from the tail end
of work. It begins at the surface due to the residual force of seepage water at this end being in
excess of the resisting forces of the subsoil which tend to hold the latter in position. Once the
surface is disturbed, the dislocation of subsoil particles works further down and-leads to the
formation of cavities below the floor into which the structure may collapse. The collapse of the
5 vent Ichakhali sluice (chapter 8) is a case of hydraulic failure by undermining of the foundation
soil due to high retention head upstream of the structure.

87

o
Waves:

The hydraulic action of wind generated waves may erode and ultimately outflank the approach
embankment causing damage or failure of structure. Damage of protective measures to sea dyke
are common by the destructive action of wave. Structures along coastal belts are subjected to
failure by surge waves during cyclonic storm.

9.2.2 Structural Failure/Damage

The following factors are generally responsible for structural failure:

deficiencies in design; during design lack of assessment of correct loads and pressure and
improper analysis may lead to structural failure,

unspecified materials; if the strengths of materials used for construction work are
inferior to the specified strength, the structural members may fail,

construction deficiency; the lack of proper supervision may lead to bad quality work
even if the materials of required specification are used and will result failure of the
structure.

9.2.3 Foundation failure

The foundation failure of structures may occur as follows:

settlement of structure exceeding the tolerable limit; depending upon the type of structure
some tolerable settlement is considered in design and if the structures settle more than
this tolerable limit, the instability of structure may cause failure or damage to the
structure.

shear failure of soil; if the factor of safety against ultimate bearing capacity of soil is not
adequate compared to applied pressure, the shear failure of subsoil may occur and
structure may fail or damage due to instability.

88

fj
 \

9.3 PREVENTIVE MEASURE:

Among the above mentioned causes of failure, greater emphasis on the hydraulic failure are
required beCause most of the failure of hydraulic structures are due to this factor. The
preventive measures in consideration to the causes of failure are as follows:

Hydraulic measures:

protection against erosion by excessive flow velocity; the energy of high flow velocity
is required to be dissipated in the stilling basin before entering into the earthen channel
to such an extent that it will not cause erosion of river bed and banks.

protection against scour; the hydraulic structures shall be protected against scour by
providing cut-off wall of adequate depth on both sides of the structures and flexible rip-
rap apron beyond the cut-off walls.

protection against failure by seepage flow; to avoid undermining of the subsoil,

adequate depth of seepage cut-off wall and sufficient floor length shall be provided,
to avoid outflanking of the approach embankment by excessive seepage flows, collar
around the conduit may be placed and the backfill soil be well compacted, to avoid
erosion of soil by residual seepage flow inverted filter beyond the pucca apron is
required, to cater the uplift pressure the structure should have adequate balancing weight,

protection against destructive action of waves; adequate rip-rap or revetment on the

slopes of approach road/embankment shall be provided to protect the soil from erosion
by waves.

protection against overtopping; the crest level. of structure and that of approach
road/embankment need to be placed above the "normal road/embankment level to avoid
any spilling at and near the structure.

89
Structural measures:

The structural failure can be avoided by adopting following measures:

design load shall be correctly assessed and structural analysis be done properly;

specified construction and backfill materials be used during construction,

supervision as regards to quality control and workmanship need to be ensured at all

levels. '

Foundation measures:

The foundation failure can be avoided by adopting following measures:

-' soil investigation and testing shall be reliable and adequate,

foundation design shall consider worst cases of loading,

dewatering of construction' site shall be well arranged', continuous, adequate and shall be
such that subsoil is not disturbed or weakened.

90
 CHAPTER X

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES

10.1 INTRODUCTION

Based on the findings of the overall performance of hydraulic structures in Chittagong District,
followings are the conclusions and recommendations which have been drawn for both the non-
tidal and tidal structures. The failure pattern of the hydraulic structures (sluices, regulators and
water retention structures has led to the conclusion that structures are damaged or failed due to
combination of a number of reasons. The main reasons are:

inadequate delineation of the drainage basin,

inadequate and lor incorrect topographic data
inadequate basin hydrologic data resulting in inadequate design,
construction deficiency,
inappropriate structures operation and,
absence of structures maintenance

The conclusion and recommendations are given separately for non-tidal and tidal sluices in
sections 10.2 and 10.3 and a recommendations for further studies are given in section 10.4.

10.2 NON-TIDAL STRUCTURES

The causes of failures to non-tidal water retention structures has been summed up as follows:

operation difficulty; all the flash floods occurred during the night and the wooden fall
boards were not removed. There was no structure operator at site to remove the fall

91
 boards. The operation responsibility is handed over to structure committee consisting of
the beneficiaries; but they are not aware of their responsibility and the gates and fall
boards were not removed from the structure during flash flood. The flows had been
obstructed and the structures were outflanked,

discharge calculations by various empirical formulae concluded that peak discharges

calculated by Manning's equation were underestimated in some cases (chapter 8),

floating logs and branches of trees from the upstream hills blocked the water way opening
through the structure causing additional difficulty in removing the gates and fall boards,

major construction deficiencies have been observed after the failures. Field visits to the
failed structures showed major deviation from design drawings and specifications and
reinforcements and design thicknesses for the structural elements were found less than
the design provision,

The recommendations from the findings of the this study for non-tidal water retention structures
are made as follows:

it is not advisable to construct manually operated gated structure in flashy stream. The
structure should be constructed as a fixed crest weir or a weir fitted with falling shutter
~which will fall automatically when the design water head is exceeded (figure 8.3). For
manually operated gated structures, emergency flood by-pass (fixed crest weir/waste way)
should be built upstream of the structure at retention level to by-pass the peak flood in
case the gates can not be removed,

a thorough hydrological analysis is required to recheck the size of structure. This will
require collection of catchment maps and a proper drainage study of the basin,

floating log-boom should be constructed about 100 metre upstream of the structures to

92
 trap floating debris from the upper hills. The floating debris will need cleaning after
every flash flood,

adequate construction supervision should be made by qualified field supervisors during

construction of the structure. Design standards and specifications should be strictly
followed,

for all structures, annual and long term maintenance plans should be prepared based on
field requirements.

10.3 TIDAL SLUICES

The main causes of failures to the tidal sluices has been summed up as follows:

prolonged construction years due to lack in fund flow which resulted in deteriorati<)Oof
the materials by saline environment and subsequent use of these materials in
construction,

inadequate dewatering of the excavation pit, a serious construction deficiency which

resulted in bad quality concrete and undersize structural element,

Inadequate field supervision led to poor quality concrete and these leading to failure of
structures,

The reasons for failure of many tidal sluices have also been identified as prolonged use without
adequate maintenance. These happened mostly for the pipe sluices (both reinforced concrete
pipes and corrugated metal pipes) constructed during implementation of the Coastal Embankment
Project in "inid sixties.

The recommendations from the findings of this study for the tidal sluices are as follows:

93

\
 the use of pipe sluices should be encouraged as these structures do not require expensive
foundation treatment. The hydraulic performance of the pipe sluices are better compared
to box sluices and are less expensive,

dewatering of foundation trenches needs adequate ,attention to avert construction

deficiencies,

strict supervision needs to be ensured during every phase of construction and design
standard and specifications need to be strictly followed, This will require training of
construction supervisors,

testing of materials should be carried out during construction and bad materials should
be rejected to get the quality finished product. This wiil require adequate testing facility
in each BWDB Circle,

for all structures, annual and long term maintenance plans should be prepared and
updated based on field requirements.

10.4 RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER STUDIES

Further studies required for the hill stream structures are:

carrying out detailed survey of the hydrological basin or updating the catchment
topographic maps to help in determining the peak discharge and appropriate size of the
structure to handle the peak flow. The peak design discharge should be recorded every
year and stage-discharge rating curve should be prepared to monitor the peak flows.
ensure proper operation of the structure. This will require greater and effective
participation of beneficiaries right through the stages of planning, design,
construction and in the project operation and maintenance. The structure operating
committee should be made active to see that the operation guidelines are strictly followed,

94
 study is required for structures with fixed crest weir or a combination of weir and falling
Ii
r) \~.
\, \.
\
shutter for automatic operation in flashy channels. I

\
I
for gated structure, further study should include construction of flood by-pass upstream I

of structures to divert peak flows when gates can not be opened.

, study may include provision of debris barrier upstream of the structure to avoid blockade
II

\
of the water way,

Further studies required for the tidal sluices may be the followings:

updating the catchment topographic maps to help in determining the peak discharge and
appropriate sizing of the structure,

improvement in the existing data check list and data collection techniques including
automatic gauges for water level data,

review and improvement in the subsoil dewatering of structure sites,

improvement in the construction technique and construction supervision,

improvement in the operation and maintenance practices including active

beneficiary participation right from the project planning to operation and'
maintenance.

The further studies may also include general suggestions on the followings:

crop tolerance to submergence during pre-monsoon flood in an attempt to review the

existing BWDB hydrologic design practice, 0,
"

\ \
,

95 !
!..
construction scheduling for hydraulic structures to avoid delays in project implementation,

carrying out new survey and updating of the topographic maps.

an inventory of the rainfall and water level gauges and review of the existing data
collection procedure.

96
 REFERENCES:
ADB (1992). Quarterly Review of the Asian Development Bank, July, 1992.

Ahmed F. (1987). Evaluation of the Benefits of Some Flood Control Measures in Bangladesh,
M.Sc. Engg. Thesis.

BARC (i985). Methodologies to evaluate performance of Irrigation Systems, Proceedings of a

Regional Workshop held in Dhaka.

BWDB (1978). Hydrologic and Hydraulic Design Procedure for Drainage Structures

BWDBI ADB (1983). Feasibility Study Of Ganges-Kobadak Rehabilitation and Improvement

Project, Volume I, Main report

BWDB/ADB (1983). Feasibility Study of Ganges-Kobadak Rehabilitation and Improvement

Project, Volume II, Technical Annexes A-D

BWDB/ADB (1983). Feasibility Study of Ganges-Kobadak Rehabilitation and Improvement

Project, Volume III, Technical Annexes E-J

BWDB (1985) Design Manual for Polder in Southwest Bangladesh, Delta Development Project,
Part I Vol. I - IV

BWDB (1985) Design Manual for Polder in Southwest Bangladesh, Delta Development Project
Part II Vol. V - VII

BWDB (1987). Procedures and Guidelines for Preparation of Operation and Maintenance
Manuals, Prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd.

BWDB (1987). Feasibility Study Report for Mondakini Water Retention Structure, prepared by
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd.

BWDB (1987). Feasibility Study Report for Ichakhali Sluice, prepared by Northwest Hydraulic
Consultants Ltd.

BWDB (1987). Feasibility Study Report for Bamansundar Sluice, prepared by Northwest
Hydraulic Consultants Ltd.

BWDB (1987). Feasibility Study Report for Polder 66/1, Sluice No. 15, prepared by Northwest
Hydraulic Consultants Ltd ..

97

(1
BWDB (1987). Flood in Bangladesh 1987

BWDB (1988). Feasibility Study Report for Harwal Chari Water Retention Structure, Prepared
by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd ..

BWDB (1990). Report of the Mission on Operation and Maintenance of Early Implementation
Projects. directorate of Planning, Schemes-IV (EIP), BWDB.

BWDB (1991). Report of the Operation and Maintenance Mission, Northwest Hydraulic
Consultants, Vancouver.

BWDB (1991). Mondakini WRS Subproject, Limited Feasibility Study Report Prepared by
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd.

BWDB (1991a). Inception Report (revised draft). Systems Rehabilitation Project,

BWDB, Dhaka.

BWDB (1991b). Planning of Operation and Maintenance: comments on the focus. Systems
Rehabilitation project, Dhaka. .

BWDB (1991c). Recommended Organisation for Improved Operation and Maintenance at Sub-
Project level. Systems Rehabilitation Project,. Dhaka.

BWDB (1992). Mission Report on Institutional Aspects, System Rehabilitation Project.

BWDB (1992). Bench Mark and Evaluation Study, System Rehabilitation Project.

BWDB (199Ic). Operation and Maintenance Planning Procedures Report. Operation and
Maintenance Cost Cell, Dhaka.

CIDA (1991). Design Workshop paper on Small Scale Water Control Structures.

Centre for Development Research (1985). Survey of Structures. MPO/IRWP, Dhaka.

Choudhury, Y.A. (1988). Institutional Analysis of BWDB and BADC Agricultural Sector
Review, VoU UNDP, Dhaka.

Chuo Kaihatsu Corporation (1985). Meghna Dhonagoda Irrigation Project, Operation and
Maintenance and Water Management Manual, Dhaka.

98
 ,
Directorate of Relief and Rehabilitation (1988). Rural Maintenance Programme, Working Rules,
GOB, Dhaka.

DDP (1985). Final Report on Phase 1.

EPC (1989). Rehabilitation of Water Development Project, Special Report on Organisation,

Training and Management. '

EPC, Halcrow and RDC (1985). Design Manual for Third FCD Project Volume I, II and III.

EPC, Hawza and Mcdonald (1988) Rehabilitation of Water Development Project, Draft
Feasibility report Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Drainage Scheme Faridpur.

ESCAP (1990). Environmental Impact Assessment, Guide lines for Water Resources
Development, Environment and Development Series.

FPCO (1992). Flood Action Plan (FAP) 12, FCD!I Agricultural Study

FPCO (1992). Flood Action Plan (PAP) 13" Operation and Maintenance Study.

Garg S.K. (1983) Irrigation Engineering and hydraulic Structure

IECO (1965). Master Plan Supplement A: Climate and Hydrology

IFCDR (1991). Failure of Embankment: Case Studies of Some selected Projects By zahirul
Islam.

IRC Special Publication 13 (1978). Guide Lines for the Design of Small Bridges and Culverts. '

IRWP (1986). Operation and Maintenance of Small Scale Flood Control and Drainage Schemes.
MLGRDC, Dhaka

Khan, H.R. (1990). Paper on behaviour of River Embankment.

Khanna P.N. (1982). Indian Practical Civil Engineers hand Book, 9th Edition.

Khosla (1962). Design of Weirs on Permeable Foundation.

LGRD&C (1981). Design Manual for Culverts Small bridges and sluices.

LGEB (1981). Design Manual for Earthworks.

99
Leedshill de Leuw (1967). Coastal Embankment Project, Operation and Maintenance Manual.
East Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority, Dhaka.

LRP (1985). Land Reclamation Project, Project Summary, Dhaka.

MPO (1991). National Water Plan, Draft Report Executive Summary, May, 1991.
MIWDFC/UNDP.

Nielsen (1986). Lecture Notes on Hydrology, AIT, Bangkok.

Paterka A.I. (1963). Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy Dissipators. A Water
Resources technical Publication, Engineering Nomograph No. 25.

PMU (1990). Third Flood Control and Drainage Project (BGD/85/029), Operation and
Maintenance Manual, Naogaon O&M Division, Naogaon. Engineering and Planning Consultants,
BWDB, Dhaka.

RESP (1992). Evaluation of Small Scale Water Resources Scheme by Erik Skoglund.

Richard H. French (1986) Open Channel Hydraulics.

RMP (1992). Evaluation Report of Rural Maintenance,

Richards B.D. (1955)" Flood Estimation and Control", Chapman and Hall Ltd., London, Third
Edition.

Siddiqui M.F.A. and Emerson W.M. (1967) " Flood routing through drainage structures", 1967.

Siddiqui M.F.A. and Emerson W.M. (1967) " Estimating Flood Peaks for small drainage basins"

Siddiqui M.F.A. and Emerson W.M. (1966) " Conditions of Flow"

SRP (1992). Draft design Manual

SSFCDIP (1992). Operation and Maintenance Follow-up Program

Thompson P.M. (1990). The Impact of Flood Control on Agriculture and Rural Development
in Bangladesh: Post-evaluation of the Chandpur Project. Middlesex Polytechnic, Flood Hazard
Research Centre, Enfield.

100
United nations (1973) Design of Low Head Hydraulic Structures, Water Resources Series No.
45.

United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation (1987) Design of Small Canal
Structures, Denver, Colorado.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (1987) Design of Small Dams,
A Water Resources Technical Publication Denver, Colorado.

Varshney (1977). Engineering Hydrology

Varshney (1979). Theory and Design ofIrrigation Structure Vol. II, Canal and Storage Works.

Yen Te Chow (1986) Open Channel Hydraulic.

World Bank (1985). Bangladesh BWDB Operations and Maintenance Study. South Asia Projects
Department, Dhaka. .

World Bank (1987). Staff appraisal report Second Small Scale flood Control Drainage and
irrigation Project, Dhaka.

World Bank (1989). Second Small Scale Flood Control, Drainage and Irrigation, Agricultural
Operations Division, Staff Appraisal Report. . .

World Bank (1990). Staff Appraisal Report Bangladesh BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project.
Agriculture Operations Division, Dhaka.

World Bank (1991). Report of the Review Mission in June, 1991

101
ANNEX!
 ;;.,
l.ble 1,1, Operation aJld Kai.lmnce Performce of Case Slud, Projecls

I
Nate of Project. Percentage
E.bank",t
in ~oor
condition
road
E.bank",

house
t use

tree!!
Erosion Breaches CuI, by
insiders
Cut, by
onl,iders
Kh.!"bi,
aeti ve?
I Local
coni t tees
/leti ve?
Private
sur farE
IIllier
unage~€nt
, Particirat-
ion in.
ellbankHnt
prot~clion
.
Chalan Seel 501 I 0 2 0 1 2 I I 0 2 1
Kurigrao +50: I 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 0
.

Kegbna-Ohouagod. 201 2 I I 2 2 0 0 2 I 2 0
" .

, lilkar H", 701 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 I 2 1

Eol,bashukb.li 501 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 •0

, Protappur 901 1 I 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Nager River 851 2 0 I 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
Son"ukbi HI HI HI HI 0 I 0 0 2 0
" "
0 0
Sakuni, Seel 701 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 I I

Silinp~r . 151 2 0 I I I 0 0 no 0 0 0
.

K.t.khaIi Eh.l 501 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 I I I

IHalir Haor 331 1 o . 0 0 I 2 0 0 I . - 1 I

, I Kahna-Kuburi SOl I 0 1 2 I 2 0 0 1 2 1

Konapara 601 -2 0 1 I 2 0 I 0 ,, 0
" 0
.

Polder 11/2 51 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 I 2

BRE-Kanarjani 701 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 0
~
SRE-Laripur 501 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 no na 0 0

Hotes: 0 no: I yes - ,,,,/parl1y; Z yes, lIuch/!any.

..
~, L 10 Siliopur tbe sluices are not operated, and in Polder Hl2 the cut, are Cor vooden box ,Iuices
I Cut, and conflicl oyer non-project bond, ,ffect project area.
for ,h,i,p fam.

The t,ble reflect, conditions found during field ,i,it, in tbe 19911Onsoon ,eason,

':'
,
!

~I

ill

i:(r
t
l

I'
 Dentated oill--.'
0.02'2 ...•.
.0_
•"
II :

(A) TYPE II BASIN DIMENSIONS'

FROUOE NUMBER
4 6 B 10 12 14 16 16

2 24

20 --
'''' 20

,f!'
--
'" :z:
6
.,.-;-- '2 I
•. "l'1+i.!,
-
16 •••
... -
•••
0'"

~
2 12
'"
/
VI'
B 8
.-.: (Bl MINIMUM TAILWATER DEPTHS
I I I I I I I I I I II I

4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I
4

5 I 5

-I~4 , ,
, :
, ;
I , ,
3
I
I
I I
I , - LENGTH
, Of' Jl-"IP.
I I I I ,! ,
,
3
4 6 8. 10 12 14 16 18
FROUDE NUMBER

Fig. 3.1 USBR Stilling Basin Type II

 0

•
•
•••• • 0

I , # ~ • I
•
,l.. __OhZ_'_-! •
t------- L-----

(A 1 Ty,,£ lU BASIN DUHN$IOhlS

• • •
'Il:OUD[ NUWBUt
10 IZ , . •• "

'0
L; ,.
I

"
~
I
, \.0 V '1
:-"';;-'1'~ II' _d ,
w
Q'
• I -,.t' ....-
•
~
I
I
V ,•
,/

1....-
• IBII j":.~.I'~'L,.'ITE,.'riI f[ I"j •
I I I I I I I f I I I

• I I II I I I II I I J
-] •
I I I I I II II I I I I
".l,ll'
J ' ..4,
•• ffle
I
"etC'
1I
,
!
I I ;
1rI";.
I
!
, E" .il1 ••, it'"~
, '.,
-.
I
I
1
I
,
I
I

;~ I I I I I I I i I I ,
I I (c I Hfl'HT 0' U.rrLE noCl(.s AND !:NOSII..L J ,
o I ! 1 I I I I I 1111111 I I I o

II
:.:I.,
II.'
I...
f,'
I
,
";:sfflIJof \~.• li1gr,:
•• , • 10
'RoueE NUMU
II •• " I~

Fig.3.2 USBR Stilling Basin Type III

"
,
)
 •

,.,

..,..... $iII ."ioItGI

o 0 "

fl.~...~'...t;'"::~'.
...... ';,... 1.~~~4.:_ o o

.lr---- -T-

tA) TV'" IV •.•. 11 •• OI.(."O.S

• ,
'.OUDI ,.U ••••
• •
I
7 I
7
;
I '/

• ' V .'
: , .' ,~ ,
I
•
~
•
%

.'~ .'
. V
O'
,~
.'/
'
.
, ." I

,
I
,

,
I
i
,
'I' ~
0 • - ,.,
I
..., Ii
~ •.-7.:"
\.7
V .~

'"I "It'..r;;:;;r
•t
I'" ,_d
,
• i/ I •
, I
I ,
, I I ,
./ •••• I ,

./ / I
, , ,
•
I I I
l, IIIIl Uillt. UM TA.lwaTE" OI~TMS
: , , , , ,
, , , ,
I.'

.-4
'
•

-I~'.
C Ll."G'TM or JU""
I I

• , " •
"'OUC[ NOMIIEI!

Fig.3.3 USBR Stilling Basin Type IV

 •
t-==.~".
.~ d ' .
• " - "t"

'IlOUO( NV"IU

,. • • • 10
" •• •• II

"
'0 .0

.•, ,0 ,
•
'0'
" *:"" ~!1'
•• :il~-Il •• ••
o'
•• Ii
•
" "

• (8) MINIMUM TAILWATER DEPTHS

•
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I

'.0 '0

t. •.•crt .
,•
,•
,
I ,
'.0
-•
•,
• " ••
1.0 " '.0
~
-
Ie I l. EfrfG 1Jol 0' JUNP
o ,
0 , • • •
'0
FAOJO£ 'f.MEER

,-~
- "9T,"

Fig.3.4 LOll Froude Nu.ber stilling Basin

v
~

,~
\
 T'tANStT/ON HeTION
STILLING I.&SU •

T ...'i ;.
J
s,
, ,
.- 0

.••-
o ,

1~ o
C
0
%

••
.'4
-+
s, ::t:
WW1 f
",
~lf': ~
m••0
~
•= =•
.
%

r. '0.
(4'-P"'.r.II •• l

T.

(:5 i, ''''ce.l
1.,

Bosln F'loor~ Upstream wldfh, B1 = I< ~ (K =0.6 is cOmmonly used I

Wolf flare rate, m = 3F.

Basin lenqfh, ll' 4.5 d,/F,O.76

TOII.oler depth, TW: (J.I.F,2/IZO) dz ~r I. 7 <r. <5.5

TW, (1-r,'/80010, 'or II <Fr <17

ChUf~ Srocks'
hi: d, w, ::
"
, 0.750, .. , ?0.375d,

hs" d, -3 ::
" ' 0.75 d, .', ;>0 375 d,

.; : w) I 1 •• __2m)
" 38,

Fig. 3.5 Saint Anthony Falls Basins

 (I )
(2 )

lAS IN
EN 0
ILO CIC SILL Yz

)!
....•....
-------Lj
)

DUTAT[D SILL

CO.'D2~
L~

Fig.3.6 Indian Standard Stilling Basin Type I

 DIS H. F. L

I. 1.50 TO 2.00 +__ 1.5_0 ./ y

~ '~<j4# '0" ••~.~ R

",
' .....',<.
',./ j
, .... ... ,
0
. ,
.....•.....•.•....•....
Toe wall 1"',
Coarse sand
KhoQ filter
Brick blocks

Fig. 3.7. Details of Loose Protective Works

 Table 3.1 Lacey's safety factor against scour depth.

Scour ' Reach Mean value D = XR - Water depth

Type of X (YJ

A Straight 1.25 1.25R-y

B Moderate bend 1.50 1.50R-y

C Severe bend 1.75 1.75R-y

D Bend 2.00 2.00R-y

The value of D in table 1 is the score depth from channel bed. The value of

X is taken as 1.25 on upstream and 1.50 on downstream side of the regulator.

The depth of cut off wall for regulators and drainage sluices, is calculated from

scour depth formula and then checked against exit gradient consideration. If the

exit gradient criteria is not satisfied, adjustment is made between the length of

floor and tiepth of cutoff wall (Section 3.3.61.

Table 3.2 Loss of energy for various values of F

l

F.1 per cent loss of energy

2.5 17

4.5 45

9.0 70

14.0 80

20.0 85
 Table 3.3 Khosla's safe exit gradient

Type of material Khosla's safe exit gradient

Shingle 0.25 to 0.20 (1/4 to 1/5)

Coarse sand 0.20 to 0.17 (1/5 to 1/6)

Fine sand 0.17 to 0.14 0/6 to 1/7)

Table 3. .4 Permissible Stresses in Steel and Concrete

Design Coarse aggregate type

Parameters Shingle Jhama brick chips
fy 2.76xl05 kN/m2 (40,000 psi) 2.76xl05 kNjm2 (40,000 psi)
fs 1.24xlOS kN/m2 (18.000 psi) 1.24xlOS kN/m2 (18,000 psi)
fc' 1.93xl04 KN/m2(Z,BOO psi) 1.72xl04 kN/m2 (2,500 psi)
fc 7.7xl03 kN/m2 (1,120 psi) 6.9xl03 kN/m2 (995 psi)
ANNEX 2

•
 Check List for the Performance Survey of the Hydraulic Structures
in Chittagong Area

1. Name of BWDBDivision

2. Name of BWDBSubdivision

3. Location of the Structure

4. Details of the Structure.

5. Construction year

6. Project financed under

7. Purpose of the Project Flood Control/Salinity. Control/

(tick appropriate ones) Drainage/Irrigation

8. Condition of Structural Elements

(tick appropriate ones)

8.1 Stilling Basin Good/Damaged/Failed

8.2 Wing walls/return Walls Good/Damaged/Failed
8.3 Head Walls Good/Damaged/Failed
8.4 Abutments/Piers. Good/Damaged/Failed
8.5 Gates Good/Damaged/Failed
8.6 Protective Blocks Good/Damaged/Failed
9.0 Structure Performance In full operation/In operation but
(tick appropriate one)
needs minor repair/In partial
operation and needs major
repair/Damaged but repairable/
structure failed and needs
replacement.

10.0 Operating Conditionsl:

I, indicates the structure in good operation; II, indicates the

structure in operation but needs minor repair costing not more than 5 % of
construction cost; III, indicates the structures in partial operation and major
repair needed (about 10 % of capital costl; IV, indicates structure is damaged but
repairable costing about 50 % of construction cost; and V, indicates the structure
failed and needs replacement.
 1

TABLE 6.1: GLOBAL SURVEY DATA FOR BWDB HYDRAULIC

STRUCTURE IN CHITTAGONG AREA

Cox's Bazar O&M Division Sub-Division :- Cox's Bazar O&M

----------------------------------------------------------------------
51. : Structure Location :Construction:Financed :Remarks
No. : Details :Year :Oy :
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sluice No.26 Polder-66/3(G) 1969 USAID (IV)
(2-S'xS' )RCD UZ.Cox's Bazar

2. Sluice No.27 do 1969 USAID (II )

(1-5 'x6' )RCD

3. Sluice No.29 do 1969 (III)

(2-S'xS' )RCD

4. Sluice No.6 do 1969 USAID IIV)

(1-84"Dia)C!1P

5. Sluice No.5 do 1969 USAID (II )

(2-S'xS')RCB

6. Sluice NO.2 do 1983 EIP (II )

(1-5 'xG' lRCD

7. Sluice No.1 do 1983 EIP (III)

(1-5 'x6' )RCD

8. Sluice No.1 Polder 66/3(K) 1984 CIDA (II 1

(1-S'xG'lRCD UZ.Cox's Bazar
9. Sluice No.2 do 1984 CIDA (II )
(1-S'x6')RCB

10. Sluice No.3 do 1984 CIDA (III)

(2-S'x6' )RCB

11. Sluice No.1 Polder 66/4 1984 CIDA (III)

(l-S'x6' ) UZ.Chokoria
Brick masonery

12. Sluice No.2 do 1982 CIDA (III)

(1-3'x4')RCB

13. Sluice No.3 do 1984 CIOA (II )

(1-S'x6')

14. Sluice No.4 do 1983 CInA (II )

(2-3'x4')RCB

15. Sluice No.5 do 1982 crDA (III )

(1-3'x4')RCB

16. Sluice No.6 do 1978 crDA (V)

(1-3'x4')RCB
Brick masonry

Nota bene

Meaning of Italic ~umerical symble which is given in Rks.Column as following below.

* (I) Good and Operation

* (II) In Operation but needs minor repair
* (III) In Pertial Operation and needs repair
* (IV) Damaged but repairable
* (V) Failed not repairable ,needs new structure.
 2
17. Sluice No.7 do 1982 CIDA (II )
(1-5'x6')RCB

18. Sluice No.8

(Z-36"Dia)CI1P UZ.Cax's Bazar

19. Sluice No.9 do 1964 USAID (IV)

(1-84"Dia)CI1P

20. Sluice No .10 do 1964 USAID (II)

(1-42"Dia)CI1P

21. Sluice No.ll. do 1967 USAID (II)

(2-36"Dia)CMP

22. Sluice No.12. do 1968 USAID (III)

(2-. " Dia)CMP

23. Sluice No.13. do 1966 USAID (II)

(l-42"Dia)CMP

24. Sluice No.14. do 1963 USAID (IIl

(1-36"DialRCP

25. Sluice No.IS. do 1966 USAID (Under re const.)

(4-S'x6')RCB

26. Sluice No.IS.(Al do 1971 eIDA (II)

(4-5'x6')RCB

27. PM Khali Reg. do 1982 CIDA (II)

(1-S'x6')RCB

28. Surface Sluice do 1966 USAID (V)

(at m/ch-O/40)CMP

29. Surface Sluice Polder-66/l 1966 USAID (V)

at m/ch-9/38 UZ.Cox's Bazar
CMP

30. Sluice No.16 Polder-66/2 1967 USAID (II)

(2-42"DialC!1P UZ.Ramu

31. Sluice No .17 do 1967 USAID (I)

(2-42"DialC!1P

32. Sluice No.18 do 1967 USAID (II)

(Z-42"DialCMP

33. Sluice NO.20 do 1967 USAIO I II)

(l-30"Dia)CI1P

34. Sluice No.2l do 1967 USAID (III)

(3-36"Dia)CMP

35. Sluice No.23A do 1971 eIDA (II)

(4-S'x6' )RC8

36. Sluice No.25 do 1966 USAID (II)

(1-36"Dia)CMP

37. Surface Sluice do 1966 USAID IV)

at m/ch 15/06
eMP
38. WCS at Polder 66/2 1983 ADP (IV)
Khotakhali UZ.Chakaria
(13-S'XIO'lCMP

Nota bene

Meaning of Italic NUmerical symble which is given in Rks.Column as following below.

." (I) Good and Operation
:« (II)
In Operation but needs minor repair
:« (III)
In Pertial Operation and needs repair
:« (IV) Damaged but repairable
:« (V)
Failed not repairable,needs new structure.
 3
39. Sluice No.1 Polder 68 1970 USAID (III)
(1-5'x6' )Rep UZ.Tekoaf

40. Sluice No.2 do 1968 USAID (IV)

(3-36"Dia)RCB

41- Sluice Ne.2A do 1968 USAID (II )

(1-3'x4' )RCB

42. Sluice No.4 ' do 1968 USAID (II)

(l-S'xS')RCB

43. Sluice No.6 do 197I USAID (III)

(2-5'x6')RCB

44. Sluice No.7A do 1970 USAID (III)

(1-5',,6' )RCB

45. Sluice No.7 do 1969 USAID (III)

(1-36"Dia)RCB

46. Sluice No.9 do 1969 USAID (IV)

(2-36"Dia)RCP

47. Sluice No.IO . do 1970 USAID (III)

(2-5'x6' )ReB

48. Sluice No.1 Polder-57 197I USAID (III)

(3-5'x6' )RCB UZ.Tekoaf

49. Sluice Ne.2A do 1973 USAlD (III)

(1-5'x6' )RCB

50. Sluice No.2 do 197I USAID (III)

(4-S'x6')RCB

51- Sluice No.3 do 1972 USAID (III)

(3-5 'x6' )RCB

52. Sluice No.3A do 1972 USAID (III)

(2-S'x6')RCB

" 53. Sluice No.4 do 1972 USAID (III)

. (4-S'x6')RCB

,54. Sluice No.5 do 1972 USAID (III)

(2-5'x6' )ReB

55. Sluice No.RCB do 1972 USAID (III)

(2-S'x6')RCB

56. Sluice No.7 do 1972 USAID (III)

(2-5'x6' )ReB

57. Sluice No.2 Polder-678 1983 IDA (III)

(2-S'xS')RCB UZ.Teknaf

58. Sluice No.3 do 1983 IDA (IIIl

(2-S'xS')RCB

59. Sluice No.1 Polder-S7A 1986 IDA (III)

(3-5' xS' )RCB UZ.Teknaf Under repair by FDR
60. Sluice No.4 do 1986 IDA (II)
(4-5'xS' )RCB
Closure dam must be Constructed
Nota bene

'••.
Meaning
(I)
(II)
(III)
of Italic Numerical symble which is given in Rks.Column
Good and Operation
In Operation but needs minor repair
In Pertial Operation and needs repair
as following below.

• (IV) Damaged but repairable

• (V) Failed not repairable,needs new structure .
 4
61. Sluice No.1 Polder-69 1970 USAID (1I1)
(2-5 'xG' )RCB Phase No.1
UZ.Mohishkhali

62. Sluice No.2 do 1967 USAID (I1).

(1-60"Dia)CI1P

63. Sluice No.3 do 1967 USAID (ll)

(1-84"Dia)CfiP

64. Sluice No.4 do 1962 USAID (IV)

(2-5',,6' )RCB

65. Sluice No.1 Polder 69(NE) 1983 erDA (1I)

(2-5 'xG' )RCB

66. Sluice No.2 do 1983 erDA (I1)

(2-S'xS')RCB

67. Sluice No.3 do 1984 CIDA (lII)

(l-S'x6' I
Brick Masonery

68. Sluice No.5 do 1984 elDA (ll)

(l-S'x6' }RCB

69. Sluice No.8 do 1984 eIDA (ll)

(l-S'xS')RCB

70. Sluice No.9 do 1984 \ erDA (II)

(l-S'xB J
)

Brick Masonry

Nota bene

Meaning of Italic Numerical symble which is given

in Rks.Column
• (I) Good and Operation
as following below.

• (II) In Operation but needs minor repair

• (II1) In Pertial Operation and needs repair
• (IV) Damaged but repairable
• (V) Failed not repairable,needs new structure.
 5
Cox's Bazar O&M Division Sub-Division :Kutubdia O&M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S 1. :Structure Location :Construction:Financed :Remarks
No. :Details :Year : :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
71. Sluice No.1 Polder 71 1963 USAID (V)
(1-60"Dia)CHP UZ.Kutubdia

72. Sluice No.2 do 1963 USAID (IV)

(1-48"Dia)CMP

73. Sluice No.3 do 1963 USAID (V)

(l-84"Dia)CHP

74. Sluice No.4 do 1964 USAtD (IV)

(2-42"Dia)CI1P

75. Sluice NO.5 do 1964 USAID (V)

(~-84"Dia)CI1P

76. Sluice No.6 do 1964 USAID (V)

(2-42"Dia)CMP

77. Sluice No.7 do 1965 USAID (IV)

(1-36"Dia)CMP

78. Sluice No.8 do 1964 USAID (V)

(1-84"Dia)CMP

79. Sluice No.9 do 1965 USAID (V)

(1-4B"DialCI1P

80. Sluice No.lO do 1965 USAID (V)

(1-42"Dia)CMP

81. Sluice No.ll do 1965 USAID (V)

(l-4B"Dia)CMP

82. Sluice No.2 Polder 64/2A&D 1963 USAID (11 )

(1-60"Dia)CMP

83. Sluice NO.4 do 1963 USAID (11 )

(1-60"Dia)CI1P

84. Sluice No.6 do 1964 USAID (11I)

(1:"36"Dia)CMP

85. Sluice No.7 do 1964 USAID (111 )

{2-36"DialRCP

86. Sluice No.8 Polder 64/2A&:B 1964 USAID (I)

(2-36"DialRCP

87. Sluice No.ll do 1965 USAID (Ill )

(1-36"Dia)CMP

88. Sluice No.l2 do 1964 USAID (IIIl

(1-36"DialCI1P

89. Sluice No.13 do 1966 USAID (IV)

(1-36"Dia)RCP

90. Sluice ~o.14 do 1964 USAID (111)

(1-84"DialCI1P

91. Sluice No.IS do 1967 USAID (I)

(Z-36"Dia)RCP

Nota bene

Meaning of Italic Numerical s)~ble which is given in Rks.Column as following below.

* (I) Good and Operation
* (II) In Operation but needs minor repair
* (III) In Pertial Operation and needs repair
,. (IV)
Damaged but repairable
* (V) Failed not repairable,needs new structure.
 6
92. Sluice No.I6 do 1965 USAID (III)
(2-36"Dia)CtiP

93. Sluice No.17 Pol.64/2A&B 1964 USAID (I)

(l-36"Dia)RCP UZ.Chakaria

94. Sluice No.19 do 1965 USAID (I)

(1-36"Dia)RCP

95. Sluice Ho.20 do 1963 USAID (I)

(1-84"Dia)CMP

96. Sluice No.21 do 1965 USAID (III)

(1-36"Dia)CHP

97. Sluice No.23 do 1964 USAID (1)

(1-30"Dia)CMP

98. Sluice No.24 do 1964 USAID (IV)

(1-36"Dia)RCP

99. Sluice No.25 do 1963 USAID (I)

(1-36"Dia)RCP

100. Sluice No.26 do 1963 USAID (I)

(1-48"Dia)Ct1P

101. Sluice m/eh-9.2 Pol.64/2A&B 1964 USAID (V)

CMP UZ.Chakaria

102. Sluice m/eh-31.10 do f964 USAID (V)

CMP

103. Sluice m/eh-33.35 do 1964 USAID (V)

CMP

104. Sluice m/ch-35.10 do 1964 USAID (V)

CMP

105. Sluice m/eh-40.20 do 1964 USAID (V)

CMP

106. Sluice m/eh-23.15 do 1964 'USAID (V)

CMP

Nota bene

Meaning of Italic NUmerical symble which i. given in Rks.Column as following below.

• (I) Good and Ope~ation
• (II l In Operation but needs minor repair
• (III) In Portial Operation and needs repair
• (' IV) Damaged but repairable
• (V) Failed not repairable,needs new structure .
 7
Cox's Bazar OlM Divisi?n
Sub-Division :Badarkhali O&M
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SI. :Structure Location
No. :Detai Is :Construction:Financed :Remarks
:Year :By :
---------------------------------------------------------------------
107. Sluice No.27 do 1964
(1-48"Dia)CMP USArD (II )

lOB. Sluice No.1 Polder 65 1966 USArD (II )

(1-36"Dia)RCP UZ.Chakaria
109. Sluice No.2 do 1966 USAID (II )
(2-B4"Dia)CMP

110. Sluice No.3 do 1969 USAID (III)

(l-36"Dia)RCP

111. Sluice No.5 do 1966 USArD (II )

(2-36"Dia)RCP

112. Sluice NO.7 do 1963 USArD (III)

(2-84"Dia)CHP

113. Sluice No.8 do 1963 USArD (II )

,(4-36"Dia)RCP

114. Sluice No.IO do 1964 USArD (II )

(l-42"Dia)CHP

115. Sluice NO.11 do 1964 USArD (II )

(1-36"Dia)CHP

116. Sluice NO.12 do 1964 USArD (III)

(l-42"Dia)CHP

117. Sluice No.13 do 1964 USArD (V)

(2-60"Dia)CMP

118. Sluice No.14 do 1966 USArD (II )

(1-4B"Dia)CMP

119. Sluice No.IS do 1966 USAIIf (V)

(I-48"Dia )CMP

120. Sluice No.16 do 1969

(1-48"Dia)CMP USArD ( III)

121. Sluice No.17 do 1965 USArD IIII)

(1-42"Dia)CMP

122. Sluice No.lS do 1967 USArD (III)

(2-36"DialCMP

123. Sluice No.I9 do 1967 USArD (I)

(2-36"Dia)RCP

124. Surface Sluice do

(IV)
m/ch1/40to2/30
CMP

12S. Sluice No.1 Polder 6S/A-3 1984 EIP I II)

(1-S'x6')RCB

126. Sluice No.2 Polder 65/A-3 1984 EIP (III)

(1-5 'x6' )RCB

Nota bene

Meaning
.• (I) of Italic Numerical symble which is given in Rks.Column as following below.
Cood and Operation
* (II) In Operation but needs minor repair
* (III)
In Pertial Operation and needs repair
* (IV) Damaged but repairable
* (V)
Failed not repairable,needs new structure.
 8'
127, Sluice No.3 Polder 65/A-3 1985 ElF (III)
(3-S'xS')RCB

128, Sluice No.1 Polder 6SjA 1984 erDA & IDA (II )
(l-5'xS')
Brick Masonery
,129, Sluice No.2 Polder 65/A 1984 do (II)
(l-S'x6J)
Brick Masonery

130, Sluice No.1 Polder 70 1985 USA!D (II)

(1-36r'Dia)CMP UZ.Mohishkhali

131. Sluice No.2 do 1964 USA!D (Ill)

(I-36"Dia)CMP

132 ..S1uice No.4 do 1965 USA!D (V)

(I-B4"Dia}CMP

133, Sluice No.5 do 1964 USA!D (III)

(2-36"Dia)RCP

134, Sluice No.6 do 1964 USA!D (V)

(3-36"Dia)RCP

135. Sluice No.7 do 1965 USA!D (Ill)

(I-B4"Dia)CHP

136. Sluice No.8 do 1964 USA!D (Ill)

(1-36"Dia)RCP

137, Sluice No.IO do 1964 USA!D (III)

(3-36"Dia)RCP

138. Sluice No.29 Polder 64/28 1963 USA!D

(1-36"Dia)RCP UZ.Chakaria
139. Sluice No.3! do 1963 . USA!D
(3-36"Dia)RCP

140. Sluice No.32 do 1964 USA!D

(1-30"Dia)CI1P

141. Sluice No.34 do 1963 USAID (Ill)

(2-36"Dia)RCP

142. Sluice No.35 do 1963 USA!D (III)

(2-36"Dia)RCP

143. Sluice No.36 do 1963 USA!D (V)

(l-84"Dia)CMP
Tender finalization is in
process for const.of new
structure.
144, Sluice No.37 do 1966 USAID (I! )
(2-48"Dia)CMP

145. Sluice No.39 do 1966 USAID (II)

(l-36"Dia)CMP

146. Sluice No.4l do 1966 USAID (I! )

(2-48"DiaICMP

147, Sluice No.43 do 1963 USAID (II! )

(l-36"DiaIRCP

148. Sluice NO.45 do 1965 USAID (Ill )

(l-36"Dia)RCP
Nota bene

Meaning of Italic NUmerical symble which is given

in Rks.Column as following
• fI) Good and Operation below.
• (I! ) In Operation but needs minor repair
• (I! I) In Pertial Operation and needs repair
• (IV) Damaged but repairable
• (V) Failed not repairable,needs new structure.
 149. Sluice No.46 9
do 1970
(1-5'xS')RCB VSAID (Ill)
150. Sluice No.49
do 1963
(1-30"Dia)RCP USAID (11 )
151. Sluice No.50
do 1963
(1-36"Dia)RCP VSAID (I 1)
152. Sluice No.S1
do 1966
(2-36"Dia)RCP USAID (Ill )
153. Sluice No.52
do 1966 .
(4-36"Dia)RCP USAID (II)
154. Sluice No.53
do 1964
(l-36"Dia)RCP USAID (III )
155. Sluice No.54
do 1966
(1-36"Dia)RCP USAID (III )
156. Sluice No.56
do 1966
(1-48"Dia)CHP USAID IIIl)
157. Sluice No.S8
do 1966
(1-42"Dia)CHP USAID Ill)
158. Sluice No.GO
do 1966
(l-JO"Dia)CHP USAID (III)
Nota bene

Meaning of Italic Numerical

• (I) symble which is given in Rks.Column
• (II) Good and Operation
as following below.
• (Ill) In Operation but needs minor repair
• (V)
(IV) In Pertia! Operation and needs repair
Damaged
• but repairable
Failed not
repairable,needs new structure.

• •
 10
Chittagong O&M Division -II
Sub-Division :Anwara O&H
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sl. :Structure
Location
No. :Details :Construction:Financed :Remarks
:Year :ey :
---------------------------------------~------------------------------
1. Drainage Sluice
Po1der-G3/lA 1964
No.I(2-B4"Dia)CHP UZ.Anwara USAID (III)
Repairing under FDR
2. Drainage Sluice Polder-63/lA 1967
No.IA(2-36"D)CHP USAID (II )
UZ.Anwara
3. Drainage Sluice
P~lder-S311A 1966
No.2A(2-36"D)CHP USAID (I)
UZ.Anwara
4. Drainage Sluice Polder-63/lA 1966
No.7(1-S0"Dia)CMP UZ.Anwara
VSAID (I)

5. Drainage Sluice Polder-S3llA 1966

No.9A(1-4B"D)CMP USAID (III)
UZ.Anwara
6. Drainage Sluice Polder-S3/lA 1966
#10(2-4'xS')M.Box USAID (II )
UZ.Anwara
7. Drainage Sluice
Polder-G3llA 1965
#11(3-4'xS')H.Box USAID (II )
UZ.Anwara
8. Drainage Sluice
Polder-S3/lA 1965
llA(2-4'xS')H.Box UZ.Anwara USAID (II )

9. Drainage Sluice Polder-S3/1A 1965

#12(2-4'xS')H.Box USAID (II )
UZ.Anwara

10. Drainage Sluice Polder-G3/lA

#12A(2-4'xS')M.Box UZ.Anwara
1965 USAID (II )

11. Drainage Sluice Polder-G3/lA 1966

#13(4-4'xS')M.Box UZ.Anwara
VSAID (II )

12. Drainage Sluice Polder-63/lA 1967

I 'l4( 2-36"Dia)CHP UZ.Anwara
USArD (V)

13. Drainage Sluice Polder-S3/1A 1966

#15(1-42"Dia )CHP UZ.Anwara
USAID (I)

14. Drainage Sluice Polder-S3/lA 1965

#lS(3-~'x4')M.Box USAID (I)
UZ.Anwara
15. Drainage Sluice Polder-63/lA 1965
16A(2-S'X4')M.Box USAID (I)
UZ.Anwara
16. Drainage Sluice Polder-S3/lA 1965
#17(2-S'X4')H.Box USAID (I I)
UZ.Anwara
17. Drainage Sluice Polder-63/lA 1965
No.lB(2-36"D)RCP UZ.Anwara USAID (III)
Under repair by FDR
18. Drainage Sluice Polder-S3/lA 1965
No.19(2-36"D)RCP USArD (II )
UZ.Anwara
19. Drainage Sluice Polder-S3/lA 1965
No.19A(2-3S"D)RCP USAID ( II)
UZ.Anwara
2D. Tidal Regulator
Polder-S31lA 1987
Bellapara/RCB UZ.Anwara
IDA (I)

21. Sluice No.4

Polder-G3llD 1978
(1-5' x6' )RCS IDA (I)
UZ.Anwara
22. Sluice No.5
Polder-631lB 1978
(I-S'xS' )RCB
UZ . Am./ara
IDA (I )

Hota bene

Meaning
::II; 1.1) of Italic Numerical symble which is given in Rks.Column as following below.
Good and Operation
* (II)
::II; IIII) In Operation but needs minor repair
.• (rv) In Pertial Operation and needs repair
::II; (V)
Damaged but repairable
Failed not repairable, needs new structure.
 11
23. Sluice No.6 Polder-63/1B 1981 IDA
(I-S'x6' )RCB UZ.Anwara
(I)

24. Sluice No.7 Polder-63/1B 1982 IDA

(1-5'x6')RCB UZ.Am'iara
(I)

25. Sluice No.9 Polder-63/1B 1982

(2-S'xS' )RCB IDA (I)

Nota bene

Meaning of Italic Numerical symble which is given in Rks.Column as following below .

• (I)
Good and Operation
• (II)
»: (III) In Operation but needs minor repair
• (IV)
In .Pertial Operation and needs repair
Damaged but repairable
• (V)
Failed not repairable, needs new structure.

o
 12
Chittagong O&M Division-II
Sub-Division : - Sandwip O&M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SI. :Structure Location :Construction: Financed ,JRemarks
No. :Details
:Year :By :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Drainage Sluice Polder72 1985 EIP (III)
#1(R-1)(4-S'x6') UZ.Sandwip
ReB

27. Drainage Sluice do 1987 EIP (II )

1A(R-1)(2-S'x6')
ReB

28. Drainage Sluice do 1987 EIP . (III)

#2(R-2)(2-S'x6')
ReB

29. Drainage Sluice do 1987 EIP (II)

#3(R-1)(2-S'x6')
ReB

30. 3B(R-1)(2-S'x6') do
ReB 1987 EIP (III)

31. 4(R-1)(2-S'x6') do 1987 EIP (II )

ReB

32. 5(5-36"Dia)RCP do 1969 USAID (III)

33. 6(1-36"Dia)RCP do 1969 USA!D (II )

34. 7(1-5'xS")RCB do 1969 USAID (II )

35. B(I-5'xS')RCB do 1969 USAID (II)

36. 9(1-5'x6')RCB do 1974 USA!D (II )

37. IO(I-S'xS')RCB do 1974 USA!D (III)

38. 11(R-1)(2-S'x6') do 1987

ReB EIP (II)

39. Surface Sluice Over chotta khaI 1977 USAro (V)

(1-36-"Dia)RCP at km.24.55
40. Surface Sluice Over Noakhal 1982 EIP (II )
(l-3'x3' )RCB at km.26.24

41. Surface Sluice Over Pachania 1982 EIP ,I III)

(l-3'x3' )RCB khal at km.29.78
42. Surface Sluice Over Danger khal 1977 USAID (V)
(1-3S"Dia)RCP at km.30.75
43. Surface Sluice Over Dumukha khal 19B7
(1-3'x3')RCB EIP (III)
at km. 32.92
44. Surface Sluice Over Dumukha khal 1977
(1-36"D)Rep USAID (II )
at km.32.96
45. Surface Sluice Over Katakhali 19B7
(1-3 'x3' )RCB EIP (II r)
Khal at km.34.20
Hota bene

Meaning
* (I)
of Italic Numerical symble which is given in Rks.Column as following below.
Good and Operation
-* (II)
In Operation but needs minor repair
* (II I)
In Pertial Operation and needs repair
* (IV)
Damaged but repairable
* (V)
Failed not repairable, needs new structure.
Meaning of Italic NUmerical symble which is given in Rks.Column as following below.
* (I) Good and Operation
* (II) In Operation but needs minor repair
• (III) In Pertial Operation and needs repair
* (IV) Damaged but repairable
* (V) Failed not repairable,needs new structure.
 14
Chittagong O&M Division-II Sub-Division : - Sitakunda O&M
---------------------------------------------------------------------
51. :Structure Location :Construction:Financed :Remarks
No. :Details :Year :By :
---------------------------------------------------------------------
52. Drainage Sluice Polder 61/1 1969 USAID (I)
#3(4-36"Dia)RCP UZ.Sitakunda

53. Drainage Sluice Polder 61/1 1969 USAID (IV)

#4(4-36"Dia)RCP UZ.Sitakunda

54. D/Sluice (5-6) Polder 61/1 1969 USAID (III)

(2'-5'x6' )RCB UZ.Sftakunda

55. DjSluice No.8 Polder 61/1 1969 USAID (III)

(4-36"Dia)RCP UZ.Sitakunda

56. D/Sluice No.IO Polder 61/1 1969 USAID (III)

(6-36"Dia)RCP UZ.Sitakunda

57. D/Sluice No.12 Polder 61/1 1967 USAID (III )

(6-48"Dia)CHP UZ.Sitakunda

58. D/Sluice #13-14 Polder 61/1 1965 USAID (III)

(6-48"Dia)CI1P UZ.Sitakunda

59. llA( 2-60"D)M. Box Polder 61/1 1965 USAID (III)

UZ.Sitakunda

60. llB(2-36"D)RCP Polder 61/1 1965 USAID (III)

UZ.Sitakunda

61. 13A(3-36"D)RCP Polder 61/1 1965 USAID (III)

UZ.Sitakunda

62. 13B(3-36"D)RCP Polder 61/1 1965 USAID (III)

UZ.Sitakunda

63. 13C(3-36"D)RCP Polder 61/1 1965 USAID (II )

UZ.Sitakunda

64. 15A(6-48"D)CMP Polder 61/1 1965 USAID (II )

UZ.Sitakunda

65. 16(3-5'x6' )RCB Polder 61/1 1968 USAID (IIIr

UZ.Sitakunda

66. 17(2-36"D)RCP Polder 61/1 1969 USAID (III)

UZ.Sitakunda

67. 18(l-5'x6'D)RCB Polder 61/1 1969 USAID (III)

UZ.Sitakunda

68. WRS-Over Dhamir Polder 61/1 IDA (IV)

UZ.Sitakunda

69. Ichakhali Sluice Polder 61/2 1986 IDA (V)

(5-5'xS')RCB UZ.l1irsarai

70. Bamonsunder 51. Polder 61/2 1960 ADP (V)

(B-5'x6')RCB UZ.l1irsarai

71. Bamahsundar Reg. Polder 61/2 1960 IDA (II )

(9-5'x6')RCB UZ.Mirsarai

72. Sluice No.4 Polder 61/2 1980 IDA (II)

(S-5'xS' )RCB UZ.l1irsarai

Nota bene

Meaning of Italic Sumerical symble which is given in Rks.Column as following below.

* (I) Good and Operation

* (II) In Operation but needs minor repair
* (III) In Pertial Operation and needs repair
* (rV) Damaged but repairable
* (V) Failed not repairable. needs new structure.
 73.
15
Sluice No.5 Polder 61/2 1980 IDA (III)
(2-S'xS')RCB UZ.Mirsarai

74. Surface Sluice Polder 61/2 1987 IDA (III)

(1-3'x4')RCB UZ.Mirsarai
75. Surface Sluice Polder 61/2 1987 IDA (III)
(1-3'x4' )RCB UZ.Mirsarai
76. WCS at Hinguli Polder 61{2 1983 IDA (III)
Chara UZ.Mirsarai

77. Gavania W."c.S Polder 61/2 1983 IDA (III)

Chara UZ.t1irsarai

78. Laksmi Chara wcs Polder 61/2 1983 IDA (III)

UZ.Hirsarai
Nota bene

Meaning of Italic Numerical symble which is given in Rks.Column as following below.

* (I) Good and Operation
* (II) In Operation but needs minor repair
'* (III) In Pertial Operation and needs repair
'* (IV) Damaged but repairable
* (V) Failed not, repairable ,needs new structure.
 16

Chittagong O&H Division-II Sub-Division : - Banshkhali O&M

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sl. :Structure Location lConstructionlFinanced :Remarks
No. :Details
l¥ear :By :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
77. Surface Sluice Polder 64{lA 1964 USAlD (I)
#21(4-36"D)CMP UZ. Banshkhali

78. Surface Sluice Polder 64/lA 1964 USAlD (Ill)

#22(1-30"D)CMP UZ. Banshkhali
Under SRP
79. Surface Sluice Polder 64{lA 1964 USAlD (I)
#23(1-30"D)CMP UZ. Banshkhali

80. Surface Sluice Polder 64/lA 1965 USA1D (1)

#24(3-36"D)CMP UZ. Banshkhali
Under SRP
81. Surface Sluice Polder 64/lA 1964 USA1D (Ill)
#25(1-48"D)CMP UZ.8anshkhali
On Going Under FDR
82. Surface Sluice Polder 64{lA 1965 USA1D (1)
#25A(1-48"D)CMP UZ.Banshkhaii

83. Surface Sluice Polder 64flA 1964 USArD (III)

#2SB(2-36"D)CMP UZ.Banshkhali
Under SRP
84. Surface Sluice Polder 64/lA 1967 USAID (Ill)
#2SC(l-36"D)CMP UZ.Banshkhali
Under SRP
85. Surface Sluice Polder 64/IA 1965 USAID (111)
#26(2-30"D)CMP UZ.Banshkhali
Under SRP
86. Surface Sluice Polder 64/IA 1965 \ USAID (III)
#26A(2-42"D)CMP UZ.Banshkhali

87. Surface Sluice Polder 64{lA 1967 USAID (111)

#27(l-48"D)CMP UZ.Banshkhaii

88. Surface Sluice Polder 64/lA 1967 USAID (Ill)

#28(l-48"D)CMP UZ.Banshkhali

89. Surface Sluice Polder 64{lA 1965 USArD (nI)

#29(l-48"D)CMP UZ.Banshkhali
Under SRP
90. Surface Sluice Polder 64{lA 198D (Ill)
at mile 45.25 UZ. Banshkhali

91. Surface Sluice Polder 64/18 1966 USAID (Ill)

#1A(2-84"D)CMP UZ. Banshkhali

92. Surface Sluice Polder 64 flB 1967 USAID (Ill)

#I11-48"D)CMP UZ.Banshkhali
Under SRP
93. Surface Sluice Polder 64/lB 68-69 USArD (IV)
#7 (1-5' x6' )RCB UZ.Banshkha1i
On going under FDR
94. Surface Sluice Polder 64{1B 68-69 USArD (111)
#BA(1-5'x6')RCB UZ.Banshkhali Under SRP
9S. Surface Sluice Polder 64/1B 68-69 USAID (IV)
#8B(l-5'x6')RCB UZ. Banshkhali Under SRP
96. Surface Sluice Polder 64/1B 1966 USArD (1)
#8(2-B4"Dia)CMP UZ. Banshkhali

97. Surface Sluice Polder 64/1B 68-69 USArD (IV)

#9(2-S'xS')RCB UZ.Banshkhali Under SRP
Nota bene

Meaning of Italic Sumerical symble which is given in Rks.Column as following below.

* (I) Good and Operation

>I: (II)
In Operation but needs minor repair
>I: (III)
In Pertial Operation and needs repair
* (IV) Damaged but repairable
• (V r Failed not repairable, needs new structure.
 98. Surface Sluice
Polder 64/1B 17
#9A(1-4B"Dia)CHP 1965 USAID
UZ.Banshkhali (Ill)
99. Surface Sluic~ Under SRP
Polder 64/1B
#10(1-S'x6')RCBP 86-69 USAID
UZ,Banshkhali (I)
100. Surface Sluice
Polder 64/1B
#11 (1-36" )CMP 1965
UZ. Banshkhali USAID (I)
101. Surface Sluice
Polder 64/1B
#12(2-B4"Dia)CHP 1966 USAID
UZ.Banshkhali (Ill)
102. Surface Sluice
Polder 64/1B
#12A(1-S'x6')RCB 68-69 USAID
UZ.Banshkhali (I)
103. Surface Sluice
Polder 64/18
#12B(2-84"D)CMP 1965 USAID
UZ.Banshkhali (IV)
104. Surface Sluice Under SRP
Polder 64/18
#13( 1-48"D)CMP 1964 USAID
UZ.Banshkhali (IV)
105. Surface Sluice
Polder 64/18
#14(1-48"D)CMP 1964 USAID
UZ. Banshkhali (IV)
106. Surface Sluice Under SRP
Polder 64/18
#15 (1-48"0 )CMP 1966 USAID
UZ.Banshkhali (I)
107. Surface Sluice
Polder 64/1B
#lSA(1-S'X6')RCB 68-69 USArD
UZ.Banshkhali (I)
108. Surface Sluice
Polder 64/1B
#1SB(7-36"D)CMP 1965 USAID
UZ.Banshkhali (I)
109. Surface Sluice
Polder 64/18
U6( 1-36"D)CMP 1965 USAID
UZ. Banshkhali (IV)
110. Surface Sluice Under FDR
Polder 64/IB
#17(2-36"D)CMP 1964 USAID
UZ. Banshkhali (I)
111. Surface Sluice
Polder 64/IB
#18(2-42"D)CMP 1965 USAID
UZ. Banshkhal i (I)
112. Surface Sluice
Polder 64/IB
#19(3-42"D)CMP 1964 VSAID
UZ.Banshkhali (IV)
113. Surface Sluice Under SRP
Polder 64/1B
#20A(3-36"D)CMP 1964 USAID
UZ. Banshkhali (I)
114. Surface Sluice
Polder 64/1B
#20B(1-S'X6')RCB 68-69 USAID
UZ. Banshkhali (I)
115. Surface Sluice
Polder 64/1C
#2(1-4B"DialCHP 1965 USAID
UZ. Banshkhali (III)
116. Surface SlUice On going FDR
#3(1-36"Dia)CHP Polder 64/1C
1965 USArD
UZ. Banshkhali (III)
117. Surface Sluice On going FDR
Polder 64/1C
#4A(1-36"Dia)CMP 1965 USAID
UZ.Banshkhali (IV)
118. Surface Sluice
Polder 64/1C
#5(2-4B"DialCHP 1967 USAID
uz. Banshkhali (IV)
119. Surface Sluice
Polder 64/1C
#6(1-48"Dia)CMP 1967 USAID
UZ.Banshkhali (IV)
120. Surface Sluice
Polder 64/2A
#2(I-GO"Dia)CMP 1965 USAID
uz. Banshkhali (Iv I
12l. Surface Sluice
Polder 64/2A
#4R(1-60"Dia)CH~ 1964 USAID
UZ.Banshkhali (III )
Nota bene

Meaning of
Italic Numerical
• (I) symble which is given in
• (II) Good and Operation
Rks.Column as following below.
• (III) In Operation but needs minor repair
• (IV) In Pertial Operation and needs repair
• (V) Damaged but repairable
failed not
repairable,needs new structure.
 Chittagong O&M Division_I
Sub-Division : - Patiya O&M
18
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SI. :Structure
Location
No. lDetails :Construction:Financed :Remarks
:Year :By :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
122. Kharana khal Reg. Patiya
(B-IO'x4')RCB
1980-81 lOA (l)
Gate repair needs
123. Noa khal Reg.
Patiya 1979-80
(6-10'x4')RC8 IDA (l)

124. Chamudaria khal Patiya

.(9-10'x4')RCB 1980-81 lOA (l)

12S. Tormose khal Reg. Chandanaish

(4-4'xB.S' )RCB
1980-81 IDA (l)
Gate repair needs
126. Hawn khal reg. Chandanaish
(3-10.S'xS')RCB
1980-81 lOA (l)
Gtae repair needs
127. Katakhali WRS Satkania
(9-5IxB')
1984-85 C1DA (II)

12B. Katakhali Tidal Stakania

Reg.(6-10'xS')RCB
1984-85 CIDA (l)

129. Hanger khal Drop Satkania

Structure U/S
84-85 IDA (I)
(251 Open)RCB
130. Hanger khal Chandanaish
Tidal Reg.for DIS
1984-85 CIDA (IV)
RCB
131. Hadersha Chara Satkania
WRS(B-S'xB')
1985-86 crDA (V)

Nota bene

Meaning of Italic Numerical symble which is given in Rks.Column as following below.

• (l)
Good and Operation
* (II)
In Operation but needs minor repair
* (III)
In Pertial Operation and needs repair
* (rv)
Damaged but repairable
• (V)
Failed not repairable,needs new structure .
 Chittagong OlM Division_r 19
Sub-Division : - Fatikchari O&M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
51. :Structure
No. :Detai Is Location
:ConstrUction:Financed :Remarks
:Year :By
----------------------------------------------------------------------
132.• Baromasia Chara Fatikchari
WRS(9-S'xlOJ)RCC 1983-84 erDA (IV)
133. Mondakini WRS Hathazari Under FDR
(9-S'XIO')RCC 1982-83 crDA (IV)
134. Fatikchari Chara Fatikchari
WRS(8-5'X8')RCC 1983-84
crDA (IV)
135. Kutubchari Chara Fatikchari
h'RS(B-S'X7')RCC 1985-86 crDA (III)
136. Laylang UIS Fatikchari Under FDR
WRS(6-5'x7')RCC 1983-84
erDA (II )
137. Laylang DIS Fatikchari Under FDR
WR5(6-5'x7')RCC 1983-84
CIDA (II )
138. HarawalChari Fatikchari Under FOR
WRS(12-S'X9')RCC 1983-84
CIDA (IV)
1990-91
Under IDA.
Credit No.
139. Dhurang weir Fatikchari 1870-BD
(a) (l-100'X4')RCB 1962-63
USAID (II)
Under SRP
140. RegUlator Portion Fatikchari
(b) (2-S'X6')RCB 1962-63
USAID (II )
141. Head Regulator of Fatikchari Under SRP
Dhurang weir. 1962-63
(2-3'2"X2'7")RCB USAID (II)
Under SRP
142. Check Structure Fatikchari
RD-16000 1963-64
(1-5'X5')RCB USAID (III)
Under SRP
143. Check Structure Fatikchari
RD-24000 1963-64
(I-B'3"X4'5")RCB USAID (III)
Under SRP
144. Check Structure Fatikchari
RD-30000 1963-64
(I-G'O"xS'B")RCB US.UD lIII)
Under SRP
145. Check Structure Fatikchari
RD-33000 1963-64
(I-G'O"XS'O")RCB USAID (II)
Under SRp
146. Check Structure Fatikchari
RD-30000
1963-64
(2-S'O"x4'3")RCB USAID (II)
Under SRP
147. Check Structure Fatikchari
RD-38000 1989-90
(1-6'O"X6'O")RCC FDR (I)
Under SRp
148. Check Structure
RD-41000 Fatikchari
1963-64
(1-6'O"x3'3")RCB U5AID 0)
Nota bene
Under SRP

«Heaning
(I)
of Italic Numerical s,~ble which is given in Rks.Co1umn as following below.
* (II) Good and Operation
* OIl) In Operation but needs minor repair
« (IV) In Pertial Operation and needs repair
« (\') Damaged but repairable
Failed not repairable,needs new structure.
 149. Check Structure Fatikchari
20
RD-45000 1989-90 FDR (I)
(I-G'0"x6'O")RCC Under SRP

150. Check Structure Fatikchari

RD-48000 1963-64 USAID (I)
(1-G'O"x3'3")RCB Under SRP

151. Check Structure Fatikchari

RD-53000 1963-64 USAID (I)
(1-6'O"X4'8") Under SRP

152. Check Structure Fatikchari

RD-65000 1985-86 eIDA (II)
(3-S'O"XI2'O")RCB Under 163-IND

153. Field Regulator Fatikchari

RD-65000 1985-86 eIDA (I)
(3-5'O"x12'O")RCB

154. Field Regulator Fatikchari

RD-65000 1985-86 eIDA (I)
(3-S'O"XI2'O")

155. Dhurang Outfall Fatikchari

Sluice 1985-86 eIDA (II)
(3-S'O"x6'O")RCC
Only 3 nos. gate
on repairable in this
15G. Esat Acholia Fatikchari
Surface Sluice 1985-86 eIDA (I)
(3'dia RCC pipe)

157. West Acholia Fatikchari

Surface Sluice 1985-86 eIDA (IV)
(3'dia RCC pipe)

158. Field Outlet of Fatikchari

Dhurang Irri.Proj. 1987-88 FDR (II)
12# I.S'dia RCC
Under SRP
Pipe

159. (31 # 2'x3')

Fatikchari 1964-65
RCC Box. USAID (II)
Under SRP
IGO. Sialbukka Chara
Rangunia 1984-85
WRS(G-5'xl0')RCC eIDA (II)

IGI. Sonaichari WRS

Ramghar
(2-S'xB' )RCe 80-81 IDA (V)

162. Sonaichari WRS

Ramghar 84-85
(8-5' x10' )RCe IDA (II)

1G3. Soalock
Bandarban 82-83
WRS(9-5'X10') IDA/eIDA (V)
Nota bene Due to Flood

Meaning of Italic Numerical symb1e which is given in Rks.eolumn as following below.

• (I)
Cood and Operation
• (II)
• (III) In Operation but needs minor repair
* (IV) In Pertial Operation and needs repair
Damaged but repairable
* (V)
Failed not repairable,needs new structure.
 21

Chittagong O&M Division-I Sub-Division : - Hathazari O&M

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sl. :Structure Location :Construction:Financed lRemarks
No. :Details :Year :By :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
164. Syphone

Fatika Syphone (l300m) 1989 IDA (I)

Hundari Syphone (2552m) 1990 IDA (I)

165. Check Cum Regul.

Lcc 3 RCB (5320m) 1990 IDA (1)

Lcc 4 (5320m) 1989 IDA (I)

Lee 12 Lee 2 (4061m) 1991 IDA (V)

Under Const.
166 Bifareation Struc (6331m) 1991 IDA (II)
Chittagong O&M
167. Pipe Outlet (305m) 1991 IDA (I)
(600m) (I)
(I900m) (1)
(2500m) " (I)
" (2828m) " " (I)
" (2900m) " " (1)
(3358m) (I)
(3400m) (I)

168. North Supply Canal

------------------
Cart bridge

MICB 2 (I120m) 1991 IDA (I)

HI CD 4 (3I18m) 1991 IDA (I)
fiICB 8 (7337m) 1991 IDA (I)
HICD 9 (8779m) 1991 IDA (I)

169. Pedes train bridge

-----------------
HIPC 1 (618m) 1991 IDA (I)
HIPC 2 (266Im) 1991 IDA (1)
MIPC 3 (3505m) 1991 IDA (I )
MIPC 4 (4246m) 1991 IDA (1)
170. South Supply Can~l
------------------
HIPC 1 (313m) 1988 IDA (I)

Nota bene

Meaning of Italic Numerical symble which is given in Rks.Column as following below.

* (I) Good and Operation

* (II) In Operation. but needs minor repair
* (III) In' Pertial Operation and needs repair
* (IV) Damaged but repairable
* (V) Failed not repairable,needs new structure.
 22

Chittagong O&H Division-I Sub-Division :# 4 (Patenga)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
51. :Structure Location :Construction:Financed :Remarks
No .. :Details :Year :Oy :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
171. Sluice # 1 Polder # 62 1970 USAID (lIl)
36" dia 2 Vent at ch.26.40
RCP

172. Sluice # 7 Polder # 62 1970 , USAID (V)

36" dia RCP

173. Sluice # B Polder # 62 1970 USAID (lIl)

36" dia 2 Vent
RCP

174. Sluice # 9 Polder # 62 1970 USAID (IlI)

36" dia 1 Vent at ch.248.00
RCP

175. Sluice # 10 Polder # 62 1970 USAID (Ill)

36" dia 1 Vent at ch.337.00
RCP

176. Sluice # 11 Polder # 62 1970 USAID (lIl)

S'x6 RCB 1 Vent
l
at ch.475.20
Nota bene

Meaning of Italic Numerical symble which i. given in Rks.Column as following below.

* (I) Cood and Operation
• (Il)
In Operation but needs minor repair
• (IlI)
In Pertial Operation and needs repair
* (IV) Damaged but repairable
• (V)
Failed not repairable, needs new structure.

o
 Di.scha.:rge Ca.lc-u.la.ti.e>:n.
fe>:r Ma.:n.da.lcci.:n.i.
13a.si.:n. by Empi.:ri.ca.l Eq -u.a.ti.e>:n.s

1. The rational formula:

Q = CiA

where, Q = Peak discharge in cfs

i = Rainfall intensity in inches perhour

68.2
=
tcO•72
tc , ti,e of basin concentration in ,inute

L2n2 3
= 31 [--I 0.
s
C = runoff co-efficient

TP
= 0.7 (__ ) .18
100

Tp is recurrence period in years

A is basin area in acres.

For Mondakini,

A = 27 sq.km. = 10.4 sq. miles = 6,656 acres

S = 0.00185 = 9.77 ft/mile
L = 11 km = 6.8 miles
Channel roughness n = 0.030 (assumed)

L2n2
tc = 31 [-- ] 0.3
S

6.82 (.030)2
= 31 [ = 6 hours = 360 minutes
9.77
 68.2 68.2
i = = 0.93
(tc),73 (360),73 '" 1 inch/hour

Tp
C = 0.7 [ __ ]'18
100

10
C = 0.7 [- ,18
]
100

= 0.46

Q = CiA
= 0.46*1*6,656
=
=
3062 cf
r
86.80 m /sec

2. Discharge Computation by Richards Equation:

The following principal equations were deduced by Richard:

i = R. f(a)/(t+1)

ii) 3 2
t /(t+1) = N.C.L /(K.S.R, f(a))
iii) Q = Kia

where, t is period of concentration in hours,

N varies from 0.72 to 1.72 (usually 1.1),
i = intensity of rainfall iri inches per hour,
L is channel length in miles,
S is the slope of the catchment,
K is runoff coefficient
f(a), a function of the area of the average intensity of rainfall,
C, a coefficient, and
R, a coefficient of rainfall,

For Mondakini,

a = 2700 ha = 6750 acres

L = 11 km = 6.8 miles
S = 0.00185
 24 hour rainfall = 230 mm = 9 inch

9
i = = 0.375 in/hour
24

f(a) = 0.85 for a = 6750 acres

i (t t1) .375*25
R = ---------- = ---------- = 11.0 inches
f(a) 0.825

K = 0.1 for forest cover.

KR = 0.1*11 = 1.1

C = 0.03 for KR = 1.1

N.C.L 2 1.1*0.03*6.8 2
= --------- = ----------------------- = 882
ttl K.S.R. (a) 0.1*0.00185*11*0.85

By trial, t = 30 ~ 1 day

1 day rainfall is 9 inch

9
i = = 0.375 inch/hour
24

Q = Kia
= 0.1*.375*6750
= 253 m3/sec

3. Dickens Formula:

where Q in m3/sec
A in square kilometres
C varies from 11.42 for areas with annual rainfall 600-1250mm (maximum value of
c is 35)
 Mondakini is located in Chittagong District where the annual rainfall is about
2500 mm and the value of C is assumed 20. The catchment basin for Mandakini khal
is about 27 square kilometre.

Q = C A3/1
= 20 x (27)3/1
= 237 m3/sec > 130 m3/sec obtained in Manning's equation

4. Rvves Formula
1/3
= C A , this formula was derived from a study of river basins in south
Q
India, where the the value of C for areas near hills, is 10.
Q = 10 x (27)2/3
= 91.2 m3/sec < 130 m3/sec obtained in Manning's equation.

5. Inglis Formula

river. Q = 124 A/(A + 10.4)1/2, this formula was derived on the basis of Maharastra
= 124 x 27/(27 + 10.4)1/2
equation.= 547 m3/sec which is very high compared to 130 m3/sec in Manning's

6. Bourges Formula

Q = 19.6 A/(L)2/3, formula derived on the basin of Indian rivers.

where, L is the length of the catchment which is 11 km for Mandakini.
Q = 19.6 x 27/(11)213
= 106 m3/sec

7. Dredge and Burge Formula

Q = 19.5 Ii L1/3, this formula is based on a detailed record of Indian

basins, where, Iiis the average basin width in km and L is the greatest catchment
length in km.

Q = 19.5 x 2.5 x (11)113

= 108.3 m3/sec, close to 130 m3/sec in Manning's equation.

The empirical formulae are all derived by different author on their study on
Indian River basins. Some of these formulae give results close to Manning's
equation except Dicken's and Inglis. Inglis formula results in a much higher
discharge. In fact Dickens, Ryves and Inglis formula are widely used to
calculate the peak discharge in ungauged catchments.
 The peak discharge for Mondakini khal was also compared with some foreign
empirical relationship developed mostly in USA river basins. Some of these
calculations are given below:

8. Chamier Formula

Q = 3.5 C R AlII, where R is precipitation in cm/hr

C = 0.875 to 2.28

This relation is applicable to small catchment. For Mondakini catchment 1 day

10 year rainfall is 23 cm and rainfall per hour is 0.96 cm.

Q = 3.5 x 2.28 x 0.95 x (27)l/1

= 89.8 m3/sec

9. Bremner Formula
l/l
Q =
=
26.4 A/(2.4 + A )'lnhere A is in square kilometre
26.4 x 27/(2.4 + 27 )
= 93.8 m3/sec

10. Myers (modified) Formula.

Q = 176 p (A)l/!, this relationship is based on long data of USA rivers,

where p depends on the drainage factor and frequency of floods but usually taken
as unity. This formula has wider applicability for first approximation.
Q = 176 x 1 x (27)1/!
= 914 m3/sec » 130 m3/sec calculated by Manning's equation.

11. Boston Societv Formula

Q = 5.54 P/T'.A

where P is precipitation in em
T' is the base period of hydrograph in hrs.

This formula is widely used in United States of America.

For Mondaklni, the daily rainfall is 23 em. and the unit hydrograph base period
is 9.5 hrs.

Q = 5.54 x (23.0/9.5) x 27
= 359.0 m3/sec » 130 m3/sec
 12. Fridrich (Germany)
516
Q = 24.12 AO. , this formula gives ml"an flow
where A varies from 15 to 200,000 km
Q = 24.12 (27)°,516
= 132.1 m3/sec very close to discharge by Manning's equation.
13. Baratta Formula

Qm = {(280/A) + 2 }A, this formula is applicable for mountain basins

Qm = {(280/27) + 2} x 27
= 334 m3/sec »130 m3/sec

14. Hunter and Wilmot

Qm = 38.5 AO.I!
= 38.5 x 27 0,72
= 413.0 m3/sec » 130 m3/sec by Manning's equation.

This formula is suitable for smaller catchments.

,
 ------------ ------ .".-

Figure 8.7: Failed water retention structure

..•..•
.,
..•..
_.~ .,.:,-,--'.,"

~
.
' ••••. -:.-:..~ ";0:, • , - .. ~
-....:-.:...:.....~

Figure 8.8: Failed 'vater retention structure

 •

Figure 8.9: Failed water retention structure

----

....

Figure 8.10: Failed 'vater retention strllctlll'e