Consultant Report Project Number: 45206-001 September 2020 Nepal: Water Resources Project Preparatory Facility Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin (Part 1 of 2) This document is being disclosed to the public in accordance with ADB's Access to Information Policy.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Consultant Report
Project Number: 45206-001 September 2020
Nepal: Water Resources Project Preparatory Facility Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin (Part 1 of 2)
This document is being disclosed to the public in accordance with ADB's Access to Information Policy.
WRPPF: Preparation ofPriority River Basins FloodRisk Management Project,Nepal
Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – RatuwaBasin
03 October 201915 October 2019
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
Ministry of Energy, Water Resources and Irrigation
Department of Water Resources and Irrigation
1243 124 124https://mottmac.sharepoint.com/teams/pj-b1549/Shared Documents/02-Reports/DetailedEngineering Report/To issue 021019/FOR ISSUE/WITHOUT BORDERSTRUCTURES/021019 DED MR - MASTER - V3.0 - FINAL FOR ISSUE.docxMott MacDonald
Mott MacDonald22 Station RoadCambridge CB1 2JDUnited Kingdom
T +44 (0)1223 463500F +44 (0)1223 461007mottmac.com
WRPPF: Preparation ofPriority River Basins FloodRisk Management Project,Nepal
Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – RatuwaBasin
15 October 2019
Mott MacDonald Limited. Registered inEngland and Wales no. 1243967.Registered office: Mott MacDonald House,8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE,United Kingdom
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, NepalDetailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 03 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Issue and Revision Record
Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description
0 05/04/19 Consultantsteam
AChoudhury
J Prytherch
C Eller
C Hetmank 1st submission
1 02/08/19 C Eller A.Choudhury
L. Akindiji 2nd submission
2 23/08/19 C Eller A.Choudhury
C Hetmank 3rd submission
3 15/10/19 C Eller AChoudhury
L Akindiji 4rh submission; structures(PRTW.06 L/B and R/B) within theproximity of the Indian borderremoved. Cost estimates for theworks updated with 2019-20
District rates.
Document reference: 383877 | REP | 0055
Information class: Standard
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-
captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.
We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used
for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us
by other parties.
This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other
parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.
This Re por t has be en p rep are d solely for use by t he p arty w hich c om mission ed it (the 'Client') i n co nnecti on wit h the cap tione d p roject . It s hould not be used for any oth er p urp ose. N o p erso n ot her tha n th e Client or any party who has expr essly a gre ed t er ms of relia nce wit h us (the 'Recipie nt(s )') m ay r ely on the cont ent, info rma tion or any view s exp ress ed in the R epo rt. This R epo rt is co nfide ntial and c ont ains p rop riet ary in tellect ual p rop erty and we ac cept no duty of ca re, resp onsibility or li ability t o any oth er recipi ent o f this R epo rt. N o re pre sent ation , wa rran ty o r un dert aking , exp ress or i mplie d, is made an d no res ponsi bility or liability is acce pted by us to any p arty oth er t han the Cli ent or a ny Reci pient (s), as t o the accu racy or c om plete ness of th e info rm ation cont aine d in t his Rep ort. Fo r t he av oida nce o f do ubt t his Re port do es no t in any way pu rpo rt to includ e a ny leg al, ins ura nce or fin ancial advic e or opini on.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, NepalDetailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 03 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Contents
Executive summary 2
1 Introduction 7
1.1 Project rationale 7
1.2 Objectives of the detailed design report 9
1.3 Purpose of this report 9
2 Mawa – Ratuwa Basin 10
2.1 Location and area 10
2.2 Land use and settlement map 11
2.3 Geology and structure of hill slope catchment 12
2.4 Relief and slope of the upper catchment 14
3 Priority works 17
4 Basis of Development 31
4.1 Introduction 31
4.2 Design strategy 31
4.3 Guidelines and standards 33
4.4 Climate change 34
4.5 Design return period 34
4.6 Design life 34
4.7 Embankment Breach 35
4.8 Freeboard 35
4.9 Lacey’s wetted perimeter 36
4.10 Hydraulic design criteria 39
4.11 Room for river 40
4.12 Survey works 40
5 Detailed design of civil works 41
5.1 Introduction 41
5.2 Embankment Design 41
5.2.1 General description 41
5.2.2 Material parameters 42
5.2.3 Slope stability 43
5.2.4 Design loads 43
5.2.5 Seepage 44
5.2.6 Factor of safety (FOS) and design cases 45
5.2.7 Results 46
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, NepalDetailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 03 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
5.2.8 Final design 47
5.2.9 Stability under seismic loading 48
5.2.10 Liquefaction of the foundation soil 49
5.2.11 Rockfill drainage area 50
5.2.12 Bearing capacity 50
5.2.13 Construction 51
5.2.14 Tie-ins 51
5.2.15 Repair to existing embankments 52
5.3 Revetments 52
5.3.1 General description 52
5.3.2 Design 53
5.4 Spurs 54
5.4.1 General description 54
5.4.2 Design 54
5.5 Launching aprons 55
5.5.1 General description 55
5.5.2 Design 55
5.6 Toe drain 55
5.6.1 General description 55
5.6.2 Design 56
5.7 Outlet structures 56
5.7.1 General description 56
5.7.2 Design 56
5.8 Nature-based solutions 56
5.9 Results DED 57
5.10 Designer’s Hazard Elimination and Management Record 58
6 Maintenance 59
6.1 Introduction 59
6.2 Embankments (earth works) 59
6.3 Revetments, spurs and launching aprons (gabions) 60
6.4 Outlet structures 60
6.5 Embankment failure 61
7 Cost estimates 63
References 64
Appendices 65
A. Hydraulic design criteria 66
A.1 Modelling Results – Run 2 (50 year return period) 66
A.2 Modelling Results – Run 3 (50 year return period) 71
A.3 Comparison modelling results 1 per 50 years return period 77
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, NepalDetailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 03 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
B. Design calculations 81
B.1 Standards and Guidelines 81
B.2 Slope stability 84
B.3 Revetment, spurs and launching apron 93
B.4 Existing channel drainage design 104
B.5 Toe drain design 107
C. Bill of Quantities and cost estimates 110
D. Design drawings 111
D.1 Location priority works 111
E. Designer’s Hazard Elimination and Management Record 113
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 1Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
List of abbreviations
ADB - Asian Development Bank
BoQ - Bill of Quantities
CBS - Central Bureau of Statistics
DED - Detailed Engineering Design
DEM - Digital Elevation Model
DMG - Department of Mines and Geology
DPR - Detailed Project Report
DWIDM - Department of Water Induced Disaster Management
DWRI - Department of Water Resources and Irrigation
FHRMP - Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Management Project
FS - Feasibility Study
GoN - Government of Nepal
LS - Lower Siwaliks
masl - Meters above sea level
MEWRI - Ministry of Energy, Water Resources and Irrigation
MS - Middle Siwaliks
MS1 - Middle Siwaliks lower
MS2 - Middle Siwaliks upper
NPR - Nepalese Rupee
PEP - People Embankment Programme
PRTW - Proposed River Training Works
Q - Discharge
RCP - Representative Concentration Pathways
US - Upper Siwaliks
USD - Unites States Dollar
VAT - Value Added Tax
WL - Water level
WRPPF - Water Resources Project Preparatory Facility
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 2Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Executive summary
Nepal is considered one of the most disaster-
prone countries in the world. Alongside other
natural hazards, such as earthquakes and
landslides, flooding poses a recurrent risk to
large sections of the population. Flooding has a
particular impact on communities residing in the
Terai region (figure indicates affected areas
during the monsoon in August 2017). The Terai
region occupies approximately 17% of the
country and is seen as the granary of Nepal.
Agriculture in the Terai region is the basis of the
economy in Nepal with major crops such as
rice, wheat, pulses, sugarcane, jute, tobacco and maize. The Terai region has a long history of
floods affecting farmland, crops and livestock, which affect lives, livelihoods and property of poor
communities as well as important infrastructure such as embankments, roads, communication
infrastructure and power supply, and all significantly impacting development.
Acknowledging the importance of the Terai region to Nepal, the Government of Nepal, through
the Ministry of Energy, Water Resources and Irrigation, is implementing the ‘Priority River
Basins Flood Risk Management Project’ in the Southern Nepal Terai region, which is supported
by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The project is the continuation of the pre-feasibility study:
Package 3: Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Management Project. The project includes the
following river basins:
1. Mohana – Khutiya basin;
2. Mawa – Ratuwa basin;
3. Lakhandei basin;
4. West Rapti basin;
5. East Rapti basin;
6. Bakraha basin.
This detailed design report, prepared by Mott MacDonald (the Consultant), concerns the Mawa –
Ratuwa Basin, which is located in the east of Nepal. The works comprise the detailed design of
the structures identified during the feasibility study of Mawa – Ratuwa Basin.
The Mawa – Ratuwa Basin, located in the east of Nepal in the Terai region (see figure below), is
severely affected by floods causing damage to communities, agriculture, public infrastructure. For
sustainable development and to mitigate flooding in the Mawa - Ratuwa Basin, structural
measures are required.
During the feasibility study, preliminary designs were prepared and the economic viability of the
investments were confirmed. The preliminary designs and the discussions held with the WRPPF
and the ADB are the basis for the preparation of the detailed engineering designs, which are
described in this detailed design report. The objectives are to provide detailed information such
as drawings and Bill of Quantities that is required for the tender documents.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 3Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
During the feasibility study, the feasibility of the investments of the structures to be constructed
within the scope of this project was assessed and concluded to be feasible. The selected priority
works are shown in the figure below. It was agreed with DWRI during the ADB Mission in July
2019 that embankments within the proximity of Indian border, i.e. PRTW.06 L/B and R/B would
be removed from the works package.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 4Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
It is evident that the Detailed Engineering Designs highly depend on the design criteria adopted.
In summary:
- When preparing the Detailed Engineering Designs the following design aspects were
taken into account: a) Sustainability, b) Environmentally friendly (bio-engineering), c)
Adaptability, and d) Low cost solutions;
- The designs are carried out using appropriate Nepalese Standards and Guidelines for
the design of river training works. If Nepalese Standards and Guidelines are not available,
international standards that are commonly used in Nepal will be applied;
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 7Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
1 Introduction
1.1 Project rationale
Nepal is considered one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world. Alongside other natural
hazards, such as earthquakes and landslides, flooding poses a recurrent risk to large sections of
the population. Nepal, with over 6,000 rivers, is very rich in water resources, which provides both
positive as well as negative impacts to the country. The hydrology in Nepal is primarily monsoon
driven with approximately 85% of the yearly rainfall during the monsoon period from June –
September. During this period the rainfall and runoff is very high, resulting in floods.
Flooding has a particular impact on communities residing in the Terai region. The Terai region
occupies approximately 17% of the country and is seen as the granary of Nepal. Agriculture in
the Terai region is the basis of the economy in Nepal with major crops such as rice, wheat, pulses,
sugarcane, jute, tobacco and maize. The topography is generally flat with a gentle slope in
southward direction. Rivers originating from the mountain and hill areas run through the Terai
region in southwards direction and eventually into neighbouring India.
The Terai region has a long history of floods affecting livelihoods and agriculture. Figure 1 shows
the large number of districts that were affected by floods during the monsoon in August 2017.
Source: Mott MacDonald (Derived from Survey Department, 2002 DEM
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 17Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
3 Priority works
Under the Feasibility Study (FS)2 of Package 7 project, potential locations for structural
interventions have been prioritised. The main inputs to location prioritisation are (i) FHRMP
Package 3 (pre-feasibility), (ii) the DPRs, (iii) site visits, (iv) flood mapping and (v) discussions
with knowledgeable Government staff.
During the FS, the feasibility of the investments of the structures to be constructed within the
scope of this project was assessed and concluded to be feasible. The selected priority works are
shown in Figure 7 (location)and Table 2 (description). It was agreed with DWRI during the ADB
Mission in July 2019 that embankments within the proximity of Indian border, i.e. PRTW.06 L/B
and R/B would be removed from the work package financed by ADB loan. It should be noted that
the hydraulic modelling has been undertaken with PRTW.06 L/B and R/B, assuming that they will
be constructed by the Government in a separate package. No further modelling has been done
following the removal of these embankments.
2 Feasibility Study: Mawa – Ratuwa, Package 7: WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal,Mott MacDonald, 2019
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 18Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Figure 7: Location selected priority works; Note that this includes embankments (PRTW.06L/B and PRTW.06 R/B that were removed from the package due to proximity to the Indianborder
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 19Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Table 2: Details of selected priority works
Symbol / overview (indicative) Details
PRTW.01 (a) River: Ratuwa
Start structure
Latitude 26°33'1.75"N
Longitude 87°38'50.01"E
End structure
Latitude 26°32'51.90"N
Longitude 87°38'55.56"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 18,453.7
Downstream [m] 18,245.7
Description:
Located along the left bank providing protection against erosion and inundation. Structures:
· Earthen embankment protected by a gabion revetment. The total length is 420 m;
· The new embankment will tie with existing bridge at the upstream end and natural groundat the downstream end.
· The countryside slope will be strengthened by rockfill, toe drain and grass plantation andseeding (bio-engineering / environmentally friendly). Also, the river side slope will beprotected by grass planting and seeding above the design water level;
· A toe drain is specified, discharging into tributary
· An access road for inspection will be provided at the embankment crest;
· 7 spurs;· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment and spurs.
PRTW.01 (b) River: Ratuwa
Start structure
Latitude 26°32'51.43"N
Longitude 87°38'56.60"E
End structure
Latitude 26°31'54.90"N
Longitude 87°39'5.70"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 18,003.7
Downstream [m] 16,369.7
Description:
Located along the left bank providing protection against inundation and erosion. Structures:
· Earthen embankment protected by a gabion revetment. The total length is 1,780 m;
· The new embankment will tie with natural ground at the upstream end and existingembankment at the downstream end.
· The countryside slope will be strengthened by rockfill, toe drain and grass plantation andseeding (bio-engineering / environmentally friendly). Also, the river side slope will beprotected by grass planting and seeding above the design water level;
· The toe drain will include cross-drainage culverts under the earth embankment asindicated in drawings. The culvert will include a trash screen and a penstock at the country
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 20Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Symbol / overview (indicative) Detailsside and a flap gate at the riverside with associated gabion mattress for the river bed andbank erosion protection at drainage outlet locations;
· An access road for inspection will be provided at the embankment crest;· 10 spurs;
· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment and spurs.
PRTW.02 River: Mohana
Start structure
Latitude 26°33'26.04"N
Longitude 87°38'24.95"E
End structure
Latitude 26°33'2.32"N
Longitude 87°38'37.92"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 19,387.7
Downstream [m] 18,629.7
Description:
Located along the right bank providing protection against inundation and erosion. Structures:
· Earthen embankment protected by a gabion revetment. The total length is 825 m;· The new embankment will tie with natural ground at the upstream end and bridge
foundation at the downstream end.
· The countryside slope will be strengthened by rockfill, toe drain and grass plantation andseeding (bio-engineering / environmentally friendly). Also, the river side slope will beprotected by grass planting and seeding above the design water level;
· The toe drain will include cross-drainage culverts under the earth embankment asindicated in drawings. The culvert will include a trash screen and a penstock at the countryside and a flap gate at the riverside with associated gabion mattress for the river bed andbank erosion protection at drainage outlet locations;
· An access road for inspection will be provided at the embankment crest;
· 14 spurs;· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment.
PRTW.03 River: Mawa
Start structure
Latitude 26°44'28.89"N
Longitude 87°40'59.31"E
End structure
Latitude 26°44'12.12"N
Longitude 87°41'1.39"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 44,454.6
Downstream [m] 43,975.3
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 21Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Symbol / overview (indicative) DetailsDescription:
Located along the left bank providing protection against inundation and erosion. Structures:
· Earthen embankment protected with a gabion revetment. The total length is 535 m;· The new embankment will tie with natural ground at the upstream end and existing
embankment at the downstream end.
· The countryside slope will be strengthened by rockfill, toe drain and grass plantation andseeding (bio-engineering / environmentally friendly). Also, the river side slope will beprotected by grass planting and seeding above the design water level;
· The toe drain will include cross-drainage culverts under the earth embankment asindicated in drawings. The culvert will include a trash screen and a penstock at the countryside and a flap gate at the riverside with associated gabion mattress for the river bed andbank erosion protection at drainage outlet locations;
· An access road for inspection will be provided at the embankment crest;
· 9 spurs;· 1 outlet structure;
· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment.
PRTW.04 River: Mawa
Start structure
Latitude 26°39'17.81"N
Longitude 87°38'24.72"E
End structure
Latitude 26°38'53.40"N
Longitude 87°38'30.16"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 33,305.6
Downstream [m] 32,559.4
Description:
Located along the right bank providing protection against erosion and inundation. Structures:
· Earthen embankment protected with a gabion revetment. The total length is 785 m;
· The new embankment will tie with existing embankment at the upstream end and existingembankment at the downstream end.
· The countryside slope will be strengthened by rockfill, toe drain and grass plantation andseeding (bio-engineering / environmentally friendly). Also, the river side slope will beprotected by grass planting and seeding above the design water level;
· The toe drain will include cross-drainage culverts under the earth embankment asindicated in drawings. The culvert will include a trash screen and a penstock at the countryside and a flap gate at the riverside with associated gabion mattress for the river bed andbank erosion protection at drainage outlet locations;
· An access road for inspection will be provided at the embankment crest;
· 15 spurs;
· 1 outlet structure;· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment and spurs.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 22Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Symbol / overview (indicative) Details
PRTW.05 (a) River: Mawa
Start structure
Latitude 26°41'26.20"N
Longitude 87°39'2.63"E
End structure
Latitude 26°41'11.10"N
Longitude 87°39'1.54"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 37,452.6
Downstream [m] 37,001.7
Description:
Located along the right bank providing protection against erosion and inundation. Structures:
· Gabion revetment only in the first 200 m followed by Earthen embankment protected witha gabion revetment in the next 270 m. The total length of the structure is 470m;
· The new embankment will tie with natural ground at the upstream end and natural groundat the downstream end.
· The countryside slope will be strengthened by rockfill, toe drain and grass plantation andseeding (bio-engineering / environmentally friendly). Also, the river side slope will beprotected by grass planting and seeding above the design water level;
· The toe drain will include cross-drainage culverts under the earth embankment asindicated in drawings. The culvert will include a trash screen and a penstock at the countryside and a flap gate at the riverside with associated gabion mattress for the river bed andbank erosion protection at drainage outlet locations;
· An access road for inspection will be provided at the embankment crest;
· 9 spurs;· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment and spurs.
PRTW.05 (b) River: Mawa
Start structure
Latitude 26°41'38.09"N
Longitude 87°39'2.43"E
End structure
Latitude 26°41'29.92"N
Longitude 87°39'3.10"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 37,878.1
Downstream [m] 37,614.6
Description:
Located along the right bank providing protection against inundation and erosion. Structures:
· Earthen embankment protected with a gabion revetment. The total length is 250 m.· The new embankment will tie with natural ground at the upstream end and existing
embankment at the downstream end.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 23Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Symbol / overview (indicative) Details
· The countryside slope will be strengthened by rockfill, toe drain and grass plantation andseeding (bio-engineering / environmentally friendly). Also, the river side slope will beprotected by grass planting and seeding above the design water level;
· The toe drain will include cross-drainage culverts under the earth embankment asindicated in drawings. The culvert will include a trash screen and a penstock at the countryside and a flap gate at the riverside with associated gabion mattress for the river bed andbank erosion protection at drainage outlet locations;
· An access road for inspection will be provided at the embankment crest;
· 8 spurs;
· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment and spurs.
PRTW.07 River: Mawa
Start structure
Latitude 26°35'49.54"N
Longitude 87°38'12.04"E
End structure
Latitude 26°35'23.91"N
Longitude 87°38'19.91"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 25,130.8
Downstream [m] 24,248.2
Description:
Located along the right bank providing protection against inundation and erosion. Structures:
· Earthen embankment protected by a gabion revetment. The total length is 930 m;
· The new embankment will tie with natural ground at the upstream end and bridge at thedownstream end.
· The countryside slope will be strengthened by rockfill, toe drain and grass plantation andseeding (bio-engineering / environmentally friendly). Also, the river side slope will beprotected by grass planting and seeding above the design water level;
· The toe drain will include cross-drainage culverts under the earth embankment asindicated in drawings. The culvert will include a trash screen and a penstock at the countryside and a flap gate at the riverside with associated gabion mattress for the river bed andbank erosion protection at drainage outlet locations;
· An access road for inspection will be provided at the embankment crest;
· 17 spurs;
· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment and spurs.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 24Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Symbol / overview (indicative) Details
PRTW.08 River: Ratuwa
Start structure
Latitude 26°27'54.54"N
Longitude 87°39'8.82"E
End structure
Latitude 26°27'24.78"N
Longitude 87°39'43.59"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 7,333.9
Downstream [m] 6,033.5
Description:
Located along the right bank providing protection against inundation and erosion. Structures:
· Earthen embankment protected by a gabion revetment. The total length is 1,330 m;· The new embankment will tie with planned embankment at the upstream end (under
construction) and bridge foundation (under construction) at the downstream end.
· The countryside slope will be strengthened by rockfill, toe drain and grass plantation andseeding (bio-engineering / environmentally friendly). Also, the river side slope will beprotected by grass planting and seeding above the design water level;
· The toe drain will include cross-drainage culverts under the earth embankment asindicated in drawings. The culvert will include a trash screen and a penstock at the countryside and a flap gate at the riverside with associated gabion mattress for the river bed andbank erosion protection at drainage outlet locations;
· An access road for inspection will be provided at the embankment crest;· 4 spurs;
· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment and spurs.
PRTW.09 (a) River: Ratuwa
Start structure
Latitude 26°42'32.64"N
Longitude 87°42'16.43"E
End structure
Latitude 26°42'26.17"N
Longitude 87°42'17.34"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 41,154.3
Downstream [m] 41,014.1
Description:
Located along the right bank providing protection against inundation and erosion. Structures:
· Only gabion revetment protecting existing bank. The total length is 205 m;· 8 spurs;
· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment and spurs.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 25Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Symbol / overview (indicative) Details
PRTW.09 (b) River: Ratuwa
Start structure
Latitude 26°43'0.12"N
Longitude 87°42'8.40"E
End structure
Latitude 26°42'34.92"N
Longitude 87°42'16.69"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 42,044.4
Downstream [m] 41,249.1
Description:
Located along the right bank providing protection against inundation and erosion. Structures:
· Only gabion revetment protecting existing bank. The total length is 820 m;
· 13 spurs;· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment and spurs.
PRTW.09 (c) River: Ratuwa
Start structure
Latitude 26°40'42.71"N
Longitude 87°42'54.30"E
End structure
Latitude 26°40'13.82"N
Longitude 87°42'53.66"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 37,562.7
Downstream [m] 36,601.2
Description:
Located along the right bank providing protection against inundation and erosion. Structures:
· Earthen embankment protected by a gabion revetment. The total length is 950 m;· The new embankment will tie with existing embankment at the upstream end and existing
embankment at the downstream end.
· The countryside slope will be strengthened by rockfill, toe drain and grass plantation andseeding (bio-engineering / environmentally friendly). Also, the river side slope will beprotected by grass planting and seeding above the design water level;
· The toe drain will include cross-drainage culverts under the earth embankment asindicated in drawings. The culvert will include a trash screen and a penstock at the countryside and a flap gate at the riverside with associated gabion mattress for the river bed andbank erosion protection at drainage outlet locations;
· An access road for inspection will be provided at the embankment crest;
· 25 spurs;· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment and spurs.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 26Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Symbol / overview (indicative) Details
PRTW.09 (d) River: Ratuwa
Start structure
Latitude 26°39'56.15"N
Longitude 87°42'41.63"E
End structure
Latitude 26°39'54.70"N
Longitude 87°42'40.56"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 35,878.2
Downstream [m] 35,845.8
Description:
Located along the right bank providing protection against inundation and erosion. Structures:
· Earthen embankment protected by a gabion revetment. The total length is 55 m;· The new embankment will tie with existing embankment at the upstream end and existing
embankment at the downstream end.
· The countryside slope will be strengthened by rockfill, toe drain and grass plantation andseeding (bio-engineering / environmentally friendly). Also, the river side slope will beprotected by grass planting and seeding above the design water level;
· The toe drain will include cross-drainage culverts under the earth embankment asindicated in drawings. The culvert will include a trash screen and a penstock at the countryside and a flap gate at the riverside with associated gabion mattress for the river bed andbank erosion protection at drainage outlet locations;
· An access road for inspection will be provided at the embankment crest;· 2 spurs;
· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment and spurs.
PRTW.10 River: Mawa
Start structure
Latitude 26°41'56.37"N
Longitude 87°39'14.37"E
End structure
Latitude 26°41'47.77"N
Longitude 87°39'13.38"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 38,430
Downstream [m] 38,195.9
Description:
Located along the left bank providing protection against inundation and erosion. Structures:
· Earthen embankment protected by a gabion revetment. The total length is 265 m;
· The new embankment will tie with existing embankment at the upstream end and naturalground at the downstream end.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 27Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Symbol / overview (indicative) Details
· The countryside slope will be strengthened by rockfill, toe drain and grass plantation andseeding (bio-engineering / environmentally friendly). Also, the river side slope will beprotected by grass planting and seeding above the design water level;
· The toe drain will include cross-drainage culverts under the earth embankment asindicated in drawings. The culvert will include a trash screen and a penstock at the countryside and a flap gate at the riverside with associated gabion mattress for the river bed andbank erosion protection at drainage outlet locations;
· An access road for inspection will be provided at the embankment crest;
· 7 spurs;
· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment and spurs.
PRTW.11 River: Mawa
Start structure
Latitude 26°42'41.16"N
Longitude 87°39'11.26"E
End structure
Latitude 26°42'20.44"N
Longitude 87°39'7.47"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 39,852.6
Downstream [m] 39,206.3
Description:
Located along the right bank providing protection against inundation and erosion. Structure:
· Gabion revetment only in the first 105 m followed by Earthen embankment protected witha gabion revetment in the next 545 m. The total length of the structure is 650 m;
· The new embankment will tie with natural ground at the upstream end and existingembankment at the downstream end.
· The countryside slope will be strengthened by rockfill, toe drain and grass plantation andseeding (bio-engineering / environmentally friendly). Also, the river side slope will beprotected by grass planting and seeding above the design water level;
· The toe drain will include cross-drainage culverts under the earth embankment asindicated in drawings. The culvert will include a trash screen and a penstock at the countryside and a flap gate at the riverside with associated gabion mattress for the river bed andbank erosion protection at drainage outlet locations;
· An access road for inspection will be provided at the embankment crest;
· 10 spurs;
· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment and spurs.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 28Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Symbol / overview (indicative) Details
PRTW.12 (L/B) River: Ratuwa
Start structure
Latitude 26°38'10.26"N
Longitude 87°41'16.69"E
End structure
Latitude 26°37'56.60"N
Longitude 87°41'6.94"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 31,772.1
Downstream [m] 31,380
Description:
Located along the left bank providing protection against inundation and erosion. Structure:
· Earthen embankment protected by a gabion revetment. The total length is 500 m;· The new embankment will tie with existing embankment at the upstream end and natural
ground at the downstream end.
· The countryside slope will be strengthened by rockfill, toe drain and grass plantation andseeding (bio-engineering / environmentally friendly). Also, the river side slope will beprotected by grass planting and seeding above the design water level;
· The toe drain will include cross-drainage culverts under the earth embankment asindicated in drawings. The culvert will include a trash screen and a penstock at the countryside and a flap gate at the riverside with associated gabion mattress for the river bed andbank erosion protection at drainage outlet locations;
· An access road for inspection will be provided at the embankment crest;
· 12 spurs;· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment and spurs.
PRTW.12 (R/B) River: Ratuwa
Start structure
Latitude 26°37'58.17"N
Longitude 87°40'53.33"E
End structure
Latitude 26°37'44.07"N
Longitude 87°40'44.25"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 31,043.1
Downstream [m] 30,634.3
Description:
Located along the right bank providing protection against inundation and erosion. Structures:
· Earthen embankment protected by a gabion revetment. The total length is 500 m;· Above the design water level, the outer slope will be protected by using grass (bio-
engineering / environmentally friendly). Also the crest and inner slope will be protected byusing grass;
· 6 spurs;
· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment and spurs.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 29Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Symbol / overview (indicative) Details
PRTW.13 (L/B) River: Mawa
Start structure
Latitude 26°38'53.37"N
Longitude 87°38'37.99"E
End structure
Latitude 26°38'48.98"N
Longitude 87°38'42.29"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 32,442.4
Downstream [m] 32,342.3
Description:
Located along the left bank providing protection against inundation and erosion. Structures:
· Earthen embankment protected by a gabion revetment. The total length is 175 m;
· The new embankment will tie with existing embankment at the upstream end and naturalground at the downstream end.
· The countryside slope will be strengthened by rockfill, toe drain and grass plantation andseeding (bio-engineering / environmentally friendly). Also, the river side slope will beprotected by grass planting and seeding above the design water level;
· The toe drain will include cross-drainage culverts under the earth embankment asindicated in drawings. The culvert will include a trash screen and a penstock at the countryside and a flap gate at the riverside with associated gabion mattress for the river bed andbank erosion protection at drainage outlet locations;
· An access road for inspection will be provided at the embankment crest;
· 5 spurs;
· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment and spurs.
PRTW.13 (R/B) River: Mawa
Start structure
Latitude 26°38'50.36"N
Longitude 87°38'32.26"E
End structure
Latitude 26°38'39.48"N
Longitude 87°38'37.56"E
Chainage *1
Upstream [m] 32,442.4
Downstream [m] 32,070
Description:
Located along the left bank providing protection against inundation and erosion. Structures:
· Earthen embankment protected by a gabion revetment. The total length is 370 m;· The new embankment will tie with existing embankment at the upstream end and existing
embankment at the downstream end.
· The countryside slope will be strengthened by rockfill, toe drain and grass plantation andseeding (bio-engineering / environmentally friendly). Also, the river side slope will beprotected by grass planting and seeding above the design water level;
· The toe drain will include cross-drainage culverts under the earth embankment asindicated in drawings. The culvert will include a trash screen and a penstock at the country
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 30Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Symbol / overview (indicative) Detailsside and a flap gate at the riverside with associated gabion mattress for the river bed andbank erosion protection at drainage outlet locations;
· An access road for inspection will be provided at the embankment crest;· 7 spurs;
· Launching aprons to protect the toe of the revetment and spurs.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 31Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
4 Basis of Development
4.1 Introduction
It is evident that the DED highly depend on the design criteria adopted. During the FS phase
discussions were held with WRPPF and ADB regarding the criteria to be adopted. The Basis of
Development for the preparation of the DED is described below.
4.2 Design strategy
When preparing the DED the following design aspects were taken into account:
- Sustainability;
- Environmentally friendly (bio-engineering);
- Adaptability;
- Low cost solutions.
Sustainability
It is important that the structures are sustainable. It must be avoided that the structures fail after
one flood season. This requires that the implemented structures should be designed
appropriately. Concerning embankments, possible overtopping or excessive rainfall can cause
erosion / damage to the crest and / or inner slope of the embankment, which could result in failure
of the embankment. To avoid this, besides protecting the outer slopes, also the crest and the
inner slopes should be protected. Sufficient freeboard should be applied to compensate possible
increasing bed levels due to aggradation and changes in climate change projections. is also
important, from a sustainability point of view, to make use of local available materials, which also
benefits the maintenance works.
Environmentally friendly (bio-engineering)
The structures must have sufficient resistance and height to mitigate the impact of floods but
should also become an integrated part of the surrounding landscape. Large areas of the Mawa –
Ratuwa basin have a rural character. To integrate the structures into the landscape it is preferred
to include environmentally friendly solutions (bio-engineering) into the designs. An
environmentally friendly solution is to integrate e.g. Vetiver or other grasses into the design.
Grass such as Vetiver grass is implemented in different countries to protect the embankments
(bank stabilisation) against floods and is also available in the Terai region. The root system of
Vetiver grass is finely structured and very strong which stabilises the soil making the
embankments resistant against the flood waters.
Environmentally friendly solutions also have the advantage that they decrease the quantities of
required construction materials, which results in lower construction costs.
Environmentally friendly solutions are already implemented in the Terai region, see Figure 8.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 32Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Figure 8: Example of environmentally friendly embankment (bio-engineering)
Adaptability
Due to the uncertainties in e.g. climate change and hydraulic boundary conditions it is important
that the structures should be adaptable to future changes. When required, the crest level of the
structure should be able to be increased to cope with future changes. For instance, adding
another layer of e.g. gabions of soil on top of the existing structure.
Low-cost solutions
Budgets are limited while many areas in the basin require protection against erosion and / or
flooding. To minimise the costs, it is important to make use of local available materials. Materials
such as (reinforced) concrete are more expensive compared to local available materials. This
also benefits the maintenance works. Examples of low cost solutions are shown in Figure 9.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 33Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Figure 9: Low-cost solutions bamboo porcupine (left) or nylon bags filled with sand to beused as spur (right)
The problem with these low-cost solutions is that the design life time is short to approximately 2 -
4 years.
Making use of local material also concerns the use of boulders. Large quantities of materials
(especially boulders) are excavated from the river bed and transported to different construction
sites, Figure 10.
Figure 10: Mawa – Ratuwa river bed used as quarry
Due to the local availability and lower costs compared to other construction materials, structures
designed and constructed by the People Embankment Programme (PEP) field office engineers
include mainly the use of gabions filled with suitable material excavated from the river bed.
4.3 Guidelines and standards
The DED is carried out using appropriate Nepalese Guidelines for the design of river training
works. The Government of Nepal’s Flood Control and Management Manual, June 2019 has been
used as general guidance document for the design.
Where Nepalese Standards and Guidelines were not available, international standards that are
commonly used in Nepal were applied. These guidelines were supplemented by further
international guidelines.
The primary Standards and Guidelines adopted for the DED are;
· DWIDM Pocket Diary 2071 (2014 / 2015);
· Guidelines for preparation of DPR for flood management works, Government of India
Central Water Commission (2018);
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 34Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
· Handbook for Flood Projection, Anti Erosion and River Training Works, Government of
India Central Water Commission (2012)
Additional Standards and Guidance documents were reviewed during the design process guided
the design include;
· River and channels revetments, a design manual. Escarameia M (1998)
· Technical Standards and Guidelines for Planning and Design, Volume I – Flood Control, JICA
(2002)
· IS 12094, Guidelines for Planning and Design of River Embankments, Bureau of Indian
Standard (2000)
· EM 1110-2-1902 Engineering and Design; Slope Stability, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) (2003)
·
Appendix B.1 documents the Standards and Guidelines that were used for the specific aspects
of the design.
4.4 Climate change
Nepal is a highly vulnerable country to climate change. Change in rainfall patterns, incidence of
frequent droughts, floods and heat waves, and the rapid melting of glaciers are major risks in the
country. The increase of extreme events such as high intensity rains, can result in an increase of
flood events and associated negative impacts.
For sustainable development, the impact of climate change must be included in the design and
modelling works.
For details, reference is made to the report River Hydrology Assessment: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin.3
Within this project the RCP4.5 scenario is implemented. The RCP4.5 climate change projections
for rainfall are integrated into the hydrological model. The output of the hydrological model,
discharges, are input for the hydrodynamic model, which is used to define the design criteria for
the different structures.
The projected time horizon for climate change is the year 2100, which was also used for FHRMP.
4.5 Design return period
For the DED a return period of 1 in 50 years including the impact of climate change was be used.
4.6 Design life
The minimum design life time of structural interventions is 25 years as agreed with the DWRI.
This aligns with the DPR prepared for the basin by the department, which takes into the economic
life of the project as 25 years. However, with good workmanship during construction with a robust
maintenance and repair regime, this service life of the proposed embankment can easily be
extended beyond the design life.
3 River Hydrology Assessment: Mawa – Ratuwa, Package 7: WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk ManagementProject, Nepal, Mott MacDonald, 2019
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 35Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
It should be noted that a 1 in 50 year event has 40% chance of occurring over the structure design
life of 25 years4.
4.7 Embankment Breach
The risk to public safety following an embankment failure have been considered. As outlined in
Section 4.11, the increase in water level following the proposed structures is below 0.3m, hence
the incremental risk posed by the new embankments could be considered as low. However, if the
embankment was to fail, the resulting flood flows onto the adjacent land would be worse than the
original flooding in regard to onset time and velocity. The impact – loss of life and damage to the
land – could be higher.
This risk must be managed by thorough inspection and maintenance procedures. In floods greater
than the design flood (noting that the freeboard will provide some increased protection),
overtopping of the embankments will occur. The design of the early warning system should take
this into account and provide adequate warning if overtopping is expected to occur.
4.8 Freeboard
Freeboard, the distance between the design water level and crest level, is required in order to:
- Compensate for uncertainties in the hydraulic boundary conditions;
- Accessibility of the areas during high water;
- Prevent wave overtopping.
There is not a specific value or international agreed value to be used for freeboard. It also depends
on the local conditions. Different guidelines provide different values for freeboard as can be seen
in Table 3.
Table 3: Indications for freeboard
No Source Criteria Freeboard
1 DWIDM Pocket Diary 2071 - 1.0 – 1.5 m
2 Guidelines for preparation of DPR for
flood management works, India *1
Q < 3,000 m3/s 1.5 m
Q > 3,000 m3/s 1.8 m
3 Technical Standards and Guidelines
for Planning and Design, Volume I –
Flood Control, JICA
Q < 200 m3/s 0.6 m
200 m3/s < Q < 500 m3/s 0.8 m
500 m3/s < Q < 2,000 m3/s 1.0 m
2,000 m3/s < Q < 5,000 m3/s 1.2 m
5,000 m3/s < Q < 10,000 m3/s 1.5 m
Q > 10,000 m3/s 2.0 m
*1: Applied in FHRMP
The maximum design discharge in Mawa – Ratuwa is below 3,000 m3/s (Q50,max = 1,494 m3/s).
Based on Table 3, it can be seen that freeboard in the range of 1.0 – 1.5 m should be selected.
4 US Dept of Commerce- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Weather Service. Accessed online[https://www.weather.gov/epz/wxcalc_floodperiod]
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 36Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
The following was analysed to give further confidence in this value;
● Using the guide Accounting for residual uncertainty: an update to the fluvial freeboard guide,
Environment Agency (2017), a rapid analysis was undertaken to ascertain what freeboard the
guide recommends, based on the accuracy and confidence in the local applicability of the
modelling. The exercise involves scoring the reliability of various modelling related elements,
resulting in an overall confidence rating of between 1 and 5 stars. This rating then gives the
resulting freeboard required (either a minimum depth or a proportion of the design flood depth).
A rapid conservative analysis gave a score of 2 stars, resulting in a recommended freeboard
of 1.73m for the highest embankment (5.95m) in the two detailed design basins. As a
comparison, for the highest embankment a 3 star score would give a freeboard of 1.15m and
a 1 star score (the worst possible) would give a freeboard of 2.3m. Based on this range, it was
decided that the proposed freeboard range of 1.0 – 1.5m is acceptable.
● Super-elevation was estimated for three of the tightest bends across the two detailed design
basins (including PRTW.07 for Mawa - Ratuwa) using guidance in Hydraulic Design of Flood
Control Channels; Engineer Manual 1110-2-1601 USACE (1994). Based on velocity and
Froude numbers produced by the hydraulic modelling previously, the difference in water level
between the two banks was calculated. This was then halved to give the increase in water
surface on the outer bend. The results were all below 0.15m (0.5ft) which in the USACE
manual is the acceptable threshold for not increasing the freeboard.
Within this project the possibility was discussed to have a variable freeboard depending on the
location of the structures. For certain areas smaller freeboard can be employed, e.g. but not
limited to:
- At those locations where the structures are easily adaptable to future changes;
- Depending on the land that is being protected, e.g. agriculture or settlements;
- For areas where future sedimentation is anticipated.
A site-by-site analysis of the freeboard for Mawa - Ratuwa Basin was be made. General approach
as adopted within this project are:
- Freeboard of 1.5 m at those locations with larger settlements;
- Freeboard of 1.0 m at those locations where the main area to be protected is
agriculture.
Note that the above assessment was based on the land use type as seen during site visits in
2018 and a review of aerial image later. Any settlements or newly built houses adjacent to the
river after 2018 are excluded from the freeboard assessment criteria.
4.9 Lacey’s wetted perimeter
In Nepal the width of the river is often related to the Lacey’s wetted perimeter, which is used for
alluvial rivers. Within the project area, this mainly concerns the area downstream of the East –
West Highway. Upstream the East – West Highway, the bed material is course consisting of
boulders and gravel. Table 4 shows some examples of guidelines to define the required width of
the river.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 37Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Table 4: Indications of required river width
No Source Criteria River width *2
1 DWIDM Pocket Diary 2071 Lacey’s wetted perimeter (P) 3 – 6 x P
2 Guidelines for preparation of DPR
for flood management works, India*1
Lacey’s wetted perimeter (P) 3 x P
3 Technical Standards and
Guidelines for Planning and
Design, Volume I – Flood Control,
JICA
Q = 300 m3/s 40 – 60 m
Q = 500 m3/s 60 – 80 m
Q = 1,000 m3/s 90 – 120 m
Q = 2,000 m3/s 160 – 220 m
Q = 5,000 m3/s 350 – 450 m*1: Applied in FHRMP*2: Distance between flood embankments
The values indicated in Table 4 are guidelines. In the DPR of Lakhandei river basin use is made
of 2 times the Lacey’s Wetted Perimeter.
It is important that the river has sufficient space also taking into account future climate changes.
In the Netherlands, since 2006, the government is implementing the programme “room for river”
to provide the river sufficient space in order to address flood management (taking into account
climate change), landscaping and the improvement of environmental conditions.
Providing sufficient space, especially in dynamic rivers such as in Nepal, is crucial for a long term
development of the river basin. Lacey’s wetted perimeter, as applied in Nepal, is an empirical
formula often used to defined the required width of alluvial rivers mainly for irrigation structures
and bridges. The defined width is based on the concept to avoid silting and scouring, which is
mainly related to normal conditions, the bankfull discharge. Bankfull discharge is determined by
the discharge that a river can convey when reaching the level of the flood plain.
Figure 11: Example cross-section. (Source: Pierre Y. Jullien)
There is no clear definition of bankfull discharge. Often 1.5 and 2 years return period are used
but also mean annual floods, mean annual flows and 5 years return period floods have been used
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 38Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
to describe bankfull discharge in alluvial rivers. In Nepal, bankfull discharge is defined as the
discharge with a 2 year return period (DWIDM policy 2072).
Following the guideline of 3 times the Lacey’s wetted perimeter for extreme discharges such as
Q50 would result in a very wide river. An example for Mohana (PRTW.04) is given below.
At PRTW.04 the width of the river is limited, approximately 70 m. Based on the discharge (Q50),
the required width according to 3 times Lacey’s wetted perimeter is about 480 m. Taking into
account this value the embankments will be located far inland, not protecting the settlements,
infrastructures and agricultural land located between the embankments and the river, see Figure
12.
Figure 12: Example impact Lacey's wetted perimeter
Not protecting these settlements will create social unrest and the flood mitigating works will not
be accepted by the local residents.
For this location there are three options:
1. The embankments will be located inland following the value of 3 times Lacey’s wetted
perimeter. Consequence is that the houses and land between the embankments and the
river, the flood plain, are not protected. These areas are often experiencing immediate
threats from the river due to erosion and flooding. Resettlement of these people will
require additional costs;
2. The embankments will be located along the river bank, not complying with the distance
of three times the Lacey’s wetted perimeter. The people are protected but the narrow
river will have impact on the hydraulic conditions in the river. Proper erosion protection is
required for the embankments during extreme conditions. The impact of the narrow
section is included in the hydrodynamic model and appropriate measures can be taken;
3. The river bank is protected using revetments. The level of protection can coincide with a
lower return period, e.g. a return period of 1 in 2 years (bankfull discharge). The
embankments required to protect the land against a flood with a return period of 1 in 50
years will be located further inward. In this option, the settlement along the river does
receive some degree of protection for a lower return period.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 39Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
It is important to provide sufficient room for the river. However, as also indicated by the PEP
experts, it is also important to take the local conditions into account. At some locations with
settlements and limited river width, a different approach is required.
Within this project, Option 2 (see above) is implemented. The people already living in these areas
are experiencing problems due to flooding and erosion and should be protected. The impact of
the narrow sections has been assessed using the hydrodynamic models and the designs have
been adapted accordingly.
4.10 Hydraulic design criteria
The hydraulic design criteria for the DED are derived from the hydrodynamic model. The results
of the hydrodynamic model used for the DED are included in Appendix A. For details about the
hydrodynamic model and different runs reference is made to the feasibility report 5 and river
hydrology assessment 6.
A steady state simulation has been adopted in the hydrodynamic model. However, the
hydrological modelling was unsteady which have accounted for some of the attenuation within
the catchment due to the floodplain storage. Therefore, the derived flows which have then been
used in the steady state hydraulic modelling account for some of the floodplain storage. The
hydrological modelling has been carried out on a reach-by-reach basis, and therefore over
individual reaches, the hydrodynamic modelling is likely to be conservative although this will not
be cumulative across the whole model. The steady state simulation of the hydrodynamic model
in this instance is not unduly conservative.
During the July 2019 ADB mission, discussions were held whether an unsteady state model
should be tested for a short reach for the assessment of uncertainties associated with steady
state modelling. As the river basin has been modelled for the whole reach the cumulative impact
of floodplain storage over a longer reach that would really show the impact of the difference
between steady and unsteady methods and would be different basin to basin. An unsteady test
will require an assessment of the critical storm duration for the selected reach as volume as well
as peak flow will become relevant. The storm duration used in the current steady state would
generate a lower flood level for the selected reach, however, it will not be representative of the
true risk.
The 1D modelling for the Mawa Ratuwa basin was developed using extended cross-sections
rather than explicit modelling of flow paths within the floodplain (which would require a 2D model,
for which sufficiently detailed data was not available at the time of the study) has the potential to
overestimate floodplain storage as small obstructions to the flow, such as high ground and
earthen field boundaries, are not picked up, and regions of the floodplain that are not connected
to the river at medium flows can be utilised for storage before they would become active. This
has been minimised where possible with the use of levee markers but cannot be avoided in all
situations with 1D modelling. Unsteady modelling, without appropriately detailed representation
of the floodplain has the potential to overestimate floodplain storage. Using steady state
modelling removes this uncertainty as the storage areas are already considered to be utilised.
5 Feasibility Study: Mawa – Ratuwa, Package 7: WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal,Mott MacDonald, 2019;
6 River Hydrology Assessment: Mawa – Ratuwa, Package 7: WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk ManagementProject, Nepal, Mott MacDonald, 2019;
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 40Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
4.11 Room for river
The DED, making use of the hydrodynamic model, is a 2-step approach:
- Step 1: Run 2, which includes the impact of climate change but without designed
structures. This run provides the design criteria for the first DED;
- Step 2: Run 3, which includes the impact of climate change and the designed
structures.
It is important to check the impact of the designed structures with the hydrodynamic model. This
in order to assess the impact of the structures (difference between Run 2 and 3). It is important
that the due to the proposed structures, the water levels do not increase significantly. A high
increase in water levels would mean that the river is too constricted. In addition, the change in
water level needs to be restricted to avoid increasing the risk to adjacent flood plain areas should
the defences fail. It should be noted that there are no rules of thumb to be applied; within this
project a maximum rise of water levels of 30 cm has been accepted.
4.12 Survey works
Topographical surveys have been conducted in 2018 within the project Package 7: WRPPF:
Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project. Based on the surveys the
hydrodynamic models and designs were prepared. The topographical surveys have been
submitted to the WRPPF (January 2019). Reference is made to the final reports:
- Deliverables – Final Social Survey Report for Detailed Design Project (July
In summary, the topographical survey created cross-sections of the river and 100m of the banks
at minimum 250m intervals down the river at the structure locations. Supplementary levels were
taken to form the L-profile of the river banks. Standard static DGPS Survey method was adopted
for the benchmarks, with total station used for the levels.
In general, topographical surveys in Nepal use the WGS 84 datum. Since the seven parameters
to convert ellipsoidal height to Orthometric height has not been defined for Nepal it is standard
practice in Nepal to use the ellipsoidal height in order to obtain better results.
Refer to Topographical Survey Report, December 2018 for locations and co-ordinates of the
bench marks used for this works package. The nearest IGS station used for the survey was Lhasa,
China (Longitude 910 06’ 14.510073”E, Latitude 290 39’ 26.40090”N, Ellipsoidal Height
3624.612m). The vertical datum across all sub-projects are the same which was carried out with
reference to the coordinates that was marked using the DGPS (in WGS 84 datum).
All drawings are based on WGS 84 North 44R coordinate system.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 41Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
5 Detailed design of civil works
5.1 Introduction
The flood mitigation structures to be considered for the DED are embankments, gabion
revetments, spurs, launching aprons and outlet structures. The design of these structures is
provided in Sections 5.2 to 5.7, the use of nature-based structures is addressed in Section 5.8
and the results of the DED are summarised in Section 5.9.
Standards and Guidelines are discussed in section 4.3. Appendix B.1 documents in detail theStandards and Guidelines that were used for the various aspects of the design.
5.2 Embankment Design
5.2.1 General description
Embankments are earthen structures constructed along the river to prevent water from entering
adjacent areas that would otherwise cause damage to crops, settlements, and threaten human
life and livestock.
As outlined in section 3, the locations of the embankments were suggested in pre-feasibility, then
verified following hydraulic modelling and site visits undertaken during the feasibility study. The
crest level of the embankments is defined based on the High Flood Level from the hydraulic
modelling plus freeboard (see section 4.8). The highest embankment proposed in the two detailed
design basins is 5.95 m on the countryside and 7.25m on the riverside (note this embankment is
in Mohana Khutiya; PRTW04. In addition, it should be noted that this embankment was removed
from the loan work package due to proximity with the Indian border). Note that if there is a
localised low area of land; this area of ground should be levelled out to avoid embankments higher
than 5.95m.
As common practise in Nepal, the crest width of the embankments will be 5 m. This provides the
opportunity to access the embankments for inspection and when required maintenance works.
For that reason, the crests consist of a strip of 0.5 m of grass along each side of a 4 m width of
compacted gravel. A ramp of 1 in 10 slope has been provided where the proposed embankment
ties with an existing access track.
Side slopes of 1 in 2 are proposed in "Guidelines for Preparation of DPR for Flood Management
Works, Government of India, Central Water Commission"; slope stability analysis was undertaken
to confirm whether this is safe slope to use, as discussed in the following sections.
The countryside slope will be grassed to project against erosion caused by rainfall. This is crucial
as instability of the inner slope could result in failure of the entire embankment. It is proposed to
plant Vetiver grass (known locally as Khas or Kas grass) in a grid system; species that are
particularly beneficial in this context have dense but short root systems that will sit within the
sweet soil layer. Between the Vetiver planting, grass seeding has been specified to ensure a
consistent grass cover.
Gabion revetments have been proposed to protect the riverside slope, the design of which is
discussed in Section 5.3.
A typical cross-section of a protected embankment is shown in Figure 13.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 42Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Figure 13: Typical cross-section embankment with revetment
5.2.2 Material parameters
The embankment material will be sourced locally from the available river bed material. Due to a
lack of existing geotechnical data in the region and geotechnical investigations not been
undertaken at this phase of the project, soil parameters were originally assumed based values
from the DPR. The DPR is a document prepared by the People’s Embankments Programme
(PEP) field office and includes the required river training works for the whole river basin located
in the Terai area, from the foothills to the border with India. The DPR gives the following details
for the reaches:
Mawa - Ratuwa:
- In the upper reaches near foot hills, round boulders and gravels are predominant bed
material
- In lower reaches sand and silt are main bed materials. Downstream of the bridge bed
materials observed are sand, silt and alluvial soil.
The soil used for the embankment fill varies dependant on the basin in which the embankment is
located, with coarser soil in the upstream part of the reach and finer soil downstream. In absence
of site-specific ground investigation data, two cases are assumed; Sandy Gravel with Fines and
Silty Sand.
Geotechnical investigations to include intrusive investigations, in-situ and laboratory testing, have
been specified by the consultant team and included within the bidding documents. The purpose
of these investigations is to confirm the design assumptions prior to the start of construction.
The DPR contains soil parameters for the assumed soil types; these were revised using
alternative international standards following a review process. For cohesion, the DPR states for
perfectly saturated cohesive soils the cohesion value is about 200 kN/m2 and for perfectly
cohesionless soil it is zero. Therefore, for the embankment design the cohesion of soil is taken
as 2.5% of that of a perfectly saturated cohesive soil. Hence, the cohesion for the Sandy Gravel
is taken as 5 kN/m2. However, international best practice assumes a cohesion of 0 kN/m2. The
Friction angles and unit weights suggested in the DPR were re-assessed using the relationships
set out in British Standards BS 8002:1994 and 8004:1986; the calculation for the friction angles
is contained in Appendix B. Permeability was selected on engineering judgement.
The resulting geotechnical parameters to be used in the design of the permanent are shown in
Table 5.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 43Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Table 5: Soil parameters adopted for the design
Soil Type Friction Angle(degrees)
Cohesion(kN/m2)
In-situ Unit weight(kN/m3)
Permeability(m/sec)
Sandy gravel containing fines 36 0 21 1 x 10-3
Silty sand 33 0 19 1 x 10-5
Foundation material 30 0 20 1 x 10-6
These material parameters and the resulting design of the embankments must be verified by the
Engineer based on the findings of the specified investigations prior to the commencement of
construction.
5.2.3 Slope stability
The slope stability analysis for the maximum height embankment was carried out using the
software package GeoStudio Limited. This numerical analysis software includes limit equilibrium
stability analysis and seven finite element applications for modelling geotechnical and earth
science problems. For slope stability analysis, the limit equilibrium (Bishop) Method is used.
The following sections outline this analysis.
Empirical methods have also been used to confirm the stability against sliding.
5.2.4 Design loads
The following Design Loads were taken into account during the analysis.
Dead Loads
The dead load of the embankments is taken from the Unit Weights of soils as outlined in Table 5.
The gabion protection was not considered in the analysis.
External Loads
External loads are loads imposed on the ground/structure by structures, surcharges, anchorages
and other sources. A case was tested (case A1; see Table 8) with surcharge from a large car on
the access track was applied as 2no point loads of 10kN, and an allowance for 200mm overbuild
applied as a uniform distributed load on the crest (assuming soil weight of 21kN/m3).
Water Loads
Loads due to the weight or pressure of water (as distinct from the effects of pore water pressure
on material strength through the principle of effective stress). A case considering the High Flood
Level (as ascertained through the hydraulic modelling) has been analysed.
Earthquake Loads
The Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) has been considered in the analysis. The performance
criteria related to this event is that there should be no loss of serviceability and the dis placements
should be minimum for the OBE event.
International best practice allows for both the pseudo-static and displacement
approaches. SP117A from the California Geological Survey use the pseudo-static analysis as a
conservative screening analysis and the recommended value of seismic coefficient is based on a
displacement level. It was chosen to adopt a pseudo-static approach.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 44Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
The design peak ground accelerations (PGA) were estimated for the OBE case. The following
steps were undertaken;
● Assess Material Vulnerability of the embankment (liquefaction, flow failure etc)
● Determine Seismic Zone Factor from Local Seismic code (Nepalese Seismic Code; Nepal
National Building Code, NBC 105 Seismic Design of Buildings in Nepal)
● Determine Pseudo Static Coefficient relating it to Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)
● Determine Performance Criteria for (OBE level)
● Determine acceptable settlements and Factor of Safety (FOS) in seismic conditions
● Assess performance of embankment in seismic conditions using a pseudo-static approach
The choice of coefficients used in the slope stability analysis is subjective. A number of codes
and publications refer to a horizontal seismic coefficient for slope design, a fraction of the design
PGA, for which, provided the slope can be demonstrated to be stable, a reasonable level of safety
is provided. I.e. any resulting deformation due to the earthquake is negligible. The seismic hazard
coefficients based on Nepalese code provide a zone factor of 0.90 to 0.96. The code does not
relate these zonal factors to the return period of earthquakes. It is anticipated that these relate to
the MCE (Maximum Credible Earthquake). Usually in the Indian seismic code the OBE level is
taken as half of the MCE level.
Based on the seismic zoning map from the Nepal Seismic Code, this factor can then be scaled
by a zoning factor. Following this, the pseudo static coefficient was obtained by multiplying by 0.5
(various sources recommend different values; Eurocode 8 and Hynes-Griffin Franklin 1984
recommend 0.5). This gives the resulting coefficient for OBE as outlined in Table 6.
During a pseudo static analysis, the horizontal pseudo-static force has a larger influence on the
FOS than the vertical pseudo-static force, as Fh reduces the resisting force and increases the
driving force. Thus, the analysis is done for the horizontal pseudo static forces only.
Other seismic hazards like liquefaction should also be considered for the foundation material.
Other
Major geological loads, for example large horizontal loads from stresses locked up in the
geological strata are not anticipated.
An end of construction case was considered which would analyse the embankment fill as
undrained, however as the materials are free draining this was not undertaken.
5.2.5 Seepage
In the original design analysis, the egress point of the phreatic surface was estimated by assuming
that the line follows the basic parabola except at ingress and egress point of seepage which has
been corrected as suggested by A. Cassagrande. These calculations are show that the phreatic
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 45Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
surface for the design water level exiting the embankment above the toe level for the design water
level, however it is noted that this water level occurs only for very short periods of time.
Seepage was investigated further using the GeoStudio SEEP/W software. The following should
be noted;
● Saturated/unsaturated model was selected
● Steady state seepage assumed based on the HFL
● Estimated volume water content function using a saturated water content of 0.3
● Hydraulic conductivity for the embankment fill as per Table 5. Sensitivity was done with lower
permeabilities for the embankment fill, finding little difference in the seepage profile
● Assumed no anisotropy i.e. same hydraulic conductivity in all directions (ky/kx ratio is 1)
● Activation Pore Water Pressure as 0
● The foundation is included in the analysis; defined as saturated
The outputs of the seepage analysis were linked within the model to the cases using the maximum
water level case.
Rapid drawdown cases were also analysed; firstly, the simple effective method was undertaken,
which is notably conservative as it assumes an instantaneous drawdown. Following this, two
additional drawdown cases of 2 days and 6 days/1m per day were analysed.
It should be noted that in all cases it was assumed that the time at which the HFL occurs is
sufficient to fully develop the steady state seepage condition (i.e. worst case analysis).
5.2.6 Factor of safety (FOS) and design cases
In order to assess the geotechnical safety of the proposed embankments against different
geotechnical failure mechanisms, analyses consider a minimum required factor of safety which
must be met. This factor of safety represents the ratio between the driving forces that may
otherwise lead to failure and the resisting forces which provide resistance to prevent failure from
occurring.
Factor of Safety = resisting forces / driving forces
Various standards and guidance documents have different recommended Factors of Safety for
different load cases. A Factor of Safety of 1.5 for normal loading conditions is commonplace.
It was decided to use United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Manual EM 1110-2-1902 (2003) to guide the design cases and required Factors of Safety. These manuals arecommonly used in international practice. In accordance with standard procedures forembankment stability assessments, the factor of safety of potential failure surfaces isassessed for various load cases as outlined in
Table 7. The load cases are categorised into Usual, Unusual and Extreme according to their
probability of occurrence and duration. The embankments are generally set back from the thalweg
(lowest incised channel) and would not be impounded in the dry season. For the purposes of this
analysis Normal Water Level is considered to be just at the base of the riverside slope.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 46Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Table 7: Summary of Cases Analysed and Acceptable FOS
Ref Load Case Targetminimum FOS
Surcharge WaterLevel
Facesanalysed
Loadtype
1 Normal Water Level withsurcharge
1.3 -1.4 Yes NWL Riverside &Landside
Unusual
2 Rapid drawdown;instantaneous
1.2 No HFL toNWL
Riverside Unusual
3 Max Water Level; steadystate seepage
1.3 -1.4 No HFL Riverside &Landside
Unusual
4 Earthquake (OBE) 0.95 - 1.1 No NWL Riverside &Landside
Extreme
Various models were set up to test different embankment arrangements, including:
● Model A) Sandy Gravel; Maximum Embankment height of 6m; 1 in 2 slopes
● Model B) Silty Sand; Maximum Embankment height of 6m; 1 in 2 slopes
● Model C) Sandy Gravel; Embankment height of 2m; 1 in 2 slopes
● Model D) Sandy Gravel; Embankment height of 6m; 1 in 3 slopes
● Model E) Sandy Gravel; Embankment height of 6m; 1 in 2 slopes; rockfill drainage area
added
● Model F) Sandy Gravel; Embankment height of 6m; 1 in 2 slopes; berm added
● Model G) Silty Sand; Maximum Embankment height of 6m; 1 in 2 slopes; rockfill drainage area
added
Models A and B were run initially, finding that the FOS were not acceptable. This required the
need for additional runs (Models C to G).
5.2.7 Results
Key points from the analysis of the various Models and Cases are as follows;
● Based on the adopted soil parameters, the maximum height embankment (6m) is not stable
at 1 in 2 slopes with FOS at Maximum Water Level for Sandy Gravel and Silty Sand below 1.
● For the cases above, seepage is shown to be exiting just above the toe. It is assumed that this
is causing the localised slope stability issues based on the location of the critical slip circles
● Smaller heights of 5m and 4m were initially trialled which were also unfavourable. Case C3
shows that a 2m height embankment (with a riverside slope height of 2.6m) is shown to have
a reasonable FOS of 1.3
● Models D, E and F were then undertaken to analyse options for the maximum height
embankment which would make the slopes stable;
– Firstly, in Model D, existing slopes were flattened to 1 in 3. For Case D3 (Sandy gravel,
Maximum Water Level), the FOS improved to 1.3
– Model E retains the existing 1 in 2 slopes but incorporates a 2m high rockfill drainage area
at the landside toe with higher permeability than the main embankment fill (see Figure 14).
For Case E3 (Sandy gravel, Maximum Water Level), this improved the FOS to 1.3
– Finally, Model F retains the existing 1 in 2 slopes but incorporates a berm at the landside
toe, comprised of the same embankment fill. For the maximum water level case, although
the lowest FOS was 1.05, the slip circles associated with unacceptable FOS were all within
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 47Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
the berm as opposed to the main body of embankment. The slip circle affecting the
embankment with the lowest FOS was 1.3
● Based on the instantaneous drawdown, the FOS were generally not acceptable. For the final
design cases, more onerous analysis was undertaken as outlined in the following section
● The slopes are not stable in the earthquake case. This is discussed further in section 5.2.9.
5.2.8 Final design
During the July 2019 ADB mission, tripartite meetings with the consultant, DWRI and ADB
concluded that the 1 in 2 slopes with rockfill drainage area option as shown in Figure 14 was most
favourable. This was mainly due to retaining the original footprint of the embankment.
Figure 14: Set up of Model E and SEEP/W results
The Models and Cases were then finalised for these final designs. The resultant FOS for the final
designs is shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Results of slope stability analysis for Final design
Ref Load Case Target minimumFOS
CountrysideFOS
RiversideFOS
E) Sandy Gravel; Maximum Embankment height of 6m; 1 in 2 slopes; 2m rockfill drain
E1 Normal Water Level with surcharge 1.3 - 1.4 1.5 1.3
E2 Rapid drawdown (2-day) 1.2 N/A 1.1
E3 Max Water Level 1.3 - 1.4 1.3 1.2
E4 Earthquake 0.95 - 1.1 N/A 0.7
G) Silty Sand; Maximum Embankment height of 6m; 1 in 2 slopes; 2m rockfill drain
G1 Normal Water Level with surcharge 1.3 - 1.4 1.3 1.3
G2 Rapid drawdown (2-day) 1.2 N/A 1.1
G3 Max Water Level 1.3 - 1.4 1.3 1.2
G4 Earthquake 0.95 - 1.1 N/A 0.7
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 48Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
The slope stability slip circle diagrams showing the FOS are contained in Appendix B.2.2. In
regards to each case;
● The slope stability is acceptable in the Normal Water Level with surcharge case.
● The 2-day and 6-day rapid drawdown cases were analysed for the riverside slope. For the
Sandy Gravel case, although the FOS was below 1.2 at certain time steps, these slip circles
were for localised shallow slips. The gabion protection on the riverside slope in these areas
will help stabilise the slope. Therefore, it was deemed acceptable. Following flood events, the
embankment and revetment should be inspected for any damage from shallow slips, with
repairs undertaken and grasscover restored. For the Silty Sand case, the FOS between 1.1
and 1.2 were deeper slip circles. It is still anticipated that the gabion protection will aid this
somewhat, however the FOS may be less than the target of 1.2. Embankments must be
inspected following flood events and any required repairs made immediately.
● The maximum water level case FOS is 1.3 for the countryside slope. For the riverside slope,
the lowest FOS is 1.2, however this is associated with a shallow slip circle at the toe; 3 other
slip circles in this location have a FOS of 1.2. The gabion protection on the riverside slope in
these areas will help stabilise the slope. Therefore, it was deemed acceptable as the FOS for
all other slip circles was 1.3 or above.
5.2.9 Stability under seismic loading
The embankments are not stable in the earthquake case with the proposed seismic coefficients
shown in Table 6. Additional analysis was undertaken on the riverside faces of Cases A and E to
find what horizontal coefficients could be applied to get a FOS of 1 to evaluate the yield
acceleration for the slope. This analysis showed that
– Model A (slope 1 in 2) horizontal coefficient of 0.10 gives a FOS of 1.0
– Model E (slope 1 in 2) horizontal coefficient of 0.10 gives a FOS of 1.0
This suggests that the yield acceleration (0.1g) is lower than the pseudo static acceleration
coefficient applied on the slope (0.225g). Slope will have some residual displacements following
the design earthquake. Usually there are detailed methods available to evaluate this displacement
but simplified empirical methods have been followed here to give an expected range of
movements for the slope. The empirical method that has been used for slope displacement
analysis has been published in peer reviewed journal and is recommended by Rathje &
Antonakos (2011). This method is designed to facilitate conducting sliding-block analysis (also
called permanent-deformation analysis) of slopes in order to estimate slope behavior during
earthquakes.
Broadly this is based on the following steps
● computation of the max seismic coefficient (kmax = 0.225g) for the potential sliding mass of the
slope and comparing it with the corresponding yield acceleration (ky= 0.1g). The yield
acceleration is the value of acceleration for which the Factor of Safety is 1;
● this method consists of accounting for the dynamic response of the sliding mass. This
framework includes predicting the seismic loading for the sliding mass in terms of the
maximum seismic coefficient (kmax) and the maximum velocity of the seismic coefficient-time
history (k–velmax);
● the predictive models are a function of the peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground
velocity (PGV), the natural period of the sliding mass (Ts), and the mean period of the
earthquake motion (Tm); and
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 49Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
● the empirical predictive models for sliding displacement utilize kmax and k–velmax in lieu PGA
and PGV, and include a term related to the natural period of the sliding mass. This unified
framework provides a consistent approach for predicting the sliding displacement of rigid and
flexible slopes.
The following parameters are used for the assessment. This is a sample calculation
● Friction angle =33 degrees
● Representative SPT Value =22
● Shear wave velocity of the soil =200m/s
● Mean period of soil column = 0.12s
● Degraded period of soil column =0.18s
● Yield acceleration =0.1g
● Maximum acceleration for OBE (without site effects) = 0.45g
● Ratio of yield acceleration/ Maximum acceleration = 0.22
● Mean period of earthquake ground motion =0.64s
● Magnitude of earthquake for OBE =6.0
Based on broadly assumed parameters which are consistent with the slope we would expect a
deformation of 15 to 20cm for the unrestrained slope. This would mean that some repair work
would be needed following an earthquake which should be specified in the maintenance manual.
5.2.10 Liquefaction of the foundation soil
Liquefaction is a process by which non-cohesive or granular sediments below the water table
temporarily loose, totally or to a significant degree, their strength when subjected to strong ground
shaking during an earthquake. Typically, saturated, poorly graded, loose, granular deposits are
most susceptible to liquefaction.
The potential consequences of liquefaction include:
● slope instability (e.g. flow failures and lateral spreading);
● loss or reduction of bearing capacity;
● excessive settlement;
● increased lateral pressure on retaining walls;
● floatation of buried structures.
Eurocode 8 Part 5 Clause 4.1.4 states that the liquefaction hazard may be neglected when the
ground surface acceleration (αS) is less than 0.15g and at least one of the following conditions is
fulfilled:
● the sands have a clay content greater than 20% with plasticity index > 10;
● the sands have a silt content greater than 35% and, at the same time, the SPT blowcount
value normalised for overburden effects and for the energy ratio N1(60) > 20;
● the sands are clean, with the SPT blowcount value normalised for overburden effects and for
the energy ratio N1(60) > 30.
For the current scenario, the friction angle for the founding soil is 30⁰ and the equivalent SPT is
less than 15. The water table will be high due to proximity with the river and the peak ground
acceleration at the site could be between 0.4 to 0.3g. Thus, liquefaction is a likely scenario and
should be verified by detailed site investigation.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 50Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Thus, it is recommended that a liquefaction assessment is performed when detailed ground
investigation information is available. In order to improve the resistance against liquefaction the
foundation for the embankment will require further widening of the foundation which will lead to
more land acquisitions and embankment fill materials (and the cost of compaction). Other
potential measures could include dynamic in-situ compaction, excavation of soils and
recompacting in layers or techniques such as soil cement mixing. It will likely not be economically
viable to design and construct an embankment which can fully resist possible liquefaction
damage. It is assumed that any damage to the embankment due to earthquake will be repaired.
The joint probability of extreme flood events and earthquake is relatively low and therefore it is
expected that the flood embankment shall be inspected after major earthquake events and any
damage and/or displacement of materials shall be repaired immediately to avoid further risk of
breaching and embankment failure. However, the design has been improved by adding geotextile
wrapping under gabion mattress and embankment rockfill material which will assist in keeping
embankment material integrity during earthquakes to some extent.
5.2.11 Rockfill drainage area
Based on 6m high embankment requiring a 2m high drain area, for the other embankments rockfill
drains were specified at 1/3 the embankment height. Embankments less than 2m were shown to
be stable from the slope stability analysis without the drainage area.
The drainage area heights were generalised for ease of construction, as follows;
Embankment height <2m 2-3m 3-4m 5-6m >6m
Drain height None 1m 1.33m 1.67m 2m
The side slope for the drainage area is 1 in 1, and it will be wrapped in geotextile to reduce
migration of fines from the embankment fill. It is proposed to cap the drain on the exposed
countryside face with the same sweet soil layer as on the main embankment, in order to prevent
damage to this layer by rocks being removed.
5.2.12 Bearing capacity
Assuming a unit weight of 21 kN/m3 for the gravel fill embankment as the worst case, the weight
of a 4m embankment is 52 kN/m2 and therefore the requirement for the bearing capacity of the
foundation soil needs to be specified as a requirement within the bidding documents. This bearing
capacity should be achievable for most loose sands and soft clays according to British Standard
8004: 1986.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 51Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Figure 15: Typical bearing capacity values for different soil types
Source: Table 8.1 from BS 8004: 1986
5.2.13 Construction
Ground Investigation (GI) will be included in the construction work packages and the Contractor
will be required to verify the design when specific properties will be available after the GI
The embankment material should be well compacted at maximum 300mm layers during
construction and this requirement has been included in the technical specifications. When tie-ing
in to existing embankments, the end of the existing embankments will firstly be benched at
equivalent 300mm layers. Then the compaction of the new embankment layers will occur at these
same layers, ensuring a robust connection.
If the proposed Sandy Gravel or Silty Sand cannot be sourced locally from the river bed the factor
of safety will be reduced. The findings of the geotechnical investigations mentioned above shall
be reviewed by the Engineer prior to the commencement of construction and any localised
changes to the design, based on the locally available materials, shall be confirmed at this stage.
A settlement allowance of 2% of the embankment height or 200 mm is proposed whichever is the
higher. The Contractor shall provide an allowance for settlement above the design crest level
during construction.
5.2.14 Tie-ins
At their upstream and downstream ends, the various embankments tie in to different existing
features, namely;
- Existing embankments
- Natural ground
- Existing bridge foundations
- Existing access track
In certain locations, the level of these features is lower than the proposed embankments. If the
proposed embankments are outflanked, this could cause flooding of intended protected land, and
cause increased risk of embankment damage or breach. In order to reduce this risk, a cost
allowance for extended tie-ins has been included. Precise locations of tie-ins should be confirmed
on site during construction, but at the least should direct flow from the protected land into the main
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 52Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
channel, and tie into features with level equal to the proposed crest level where possible, HFL as
minimum.
In the case of existing embankments, it is recommended that a review of the existing
embankments is undertaken as an additional work, including crest level, 1 in 50 year flood level
and a detailed condition assessment. The result of this would be a project to raise existing
embankments to ensure they meet the same level of protection (1 in 50 year). In the interim, a
generalised cost allowance for raising the existing embankment in the vicinity of the tie-in has
been included.
5.2.15 Repair to existing embankments
Detailed condition assessments were not undertaken as part of this TA project. The Department
has in July 2019 provided a note specifying repair works required to existing, costs of which have
been estimated and included in the BoQ. In addition, based on findings from site visits, the
following is noted;
- Grasscover on existing embankments may be limited. The Department should re-seedwhere possible
- Erosion issues such as raincuts may be present in the existing embankments whichshould be repaired.
- Material specification/grading of the existing embankments is unknown; although thematerial used to construct is also dredge sourced from the river, the existing ones mayhave large cobbles mixed in which have been screened out for this design. Thereforeslope stability/seepage characteristics may differ
To ensure the integrity of the new embankments and avoid a breach, it is recommended that theDepartment undertake a detail condition assessment of all existing embankments andundertake the required repair, improvement and raising works.
5.3 Revetments
5.3.1 General description
Depending on the flow velocities, embankments need to be protected against erosion.
Revetments protect the embankments against erosion. The revetments need to be sustainable
structures that are environmentally friendly and are low-costs solutions. Protection can be done
by using hard revetment such as gabions or nature-based solutions such as grass. In the Terai
often gabion revetments are used, see Figure 16.
Figure 16: Gabion revetments in Mawa - Ratuwa Basin
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 53Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Gabions are suitable because:
- Boulders to fill the gabions are locally available, which will reduce the costs compared
to concrete / reinforced concrete;
- Gabion structures are commonly applied in the Mawa – Ratuwa basin and are familiar
to those who maintain the structures. Using similar structures will benefit the
maintenance works as all structures require the same type of maintenance;
- Gabions, compared to e.g. concrete structures, are flexible and adaptable structures
that 1) can cope with uneven settlements; and 2) can easily be adjusted (e.g. adding
another layer of gabions) in case of changing river characteristics.
The cages of the gabions will be machine made using double twisted hexagonal woven heavily
coated steel wire. Geotextiles will be used as filter layer under the gabions to reduce the
migrations of fines from the embankment fill.
Further details of the gabions and geotextile is outlined in the Specification document produced
for the works.
It is possible to protect the entire slope from bed level up to the crest level using gabions. One of
the reasons for doing so would be that water levels could exceed the design water level. However,
for the environmentally friendly character of the structures and to integrate them in the
surrounding landscape, it was chosen to use grass for the area above the design water level.
5.3.2 Design
The design of gabion revetments was undertaken following the methodology in Handbook for
Flood Projection, Anti Erosion and River Training Works, Government of India Central Water
Commission (2012).
The design is outlined in Appendix B.3.
In summary, the weight of gabion unit and thickness of mattress is calculated based on maximum
channel velocity from the HECRAS model for the relevant revetment section. It was chosen to
use these maximum velocities instead of the channel average velocities in order for the design to
be conservative, and to take into account higher velocities that will occur at the outer bends. The
HECRAS model is able to ascertain the difference in velocities along the cross-section, hence the
increased velocity at the bends at the model cross-sections were able to be analysed. It should
be noted that the left and right bank flood plain velocities from the HECRAS model were looked
at, however these were lower than the maximum main channel velocities so were not used.
The thickness of mattress calculated was then rounded up to the nearest standard gabion
mattress thickness, 0.3m or 0.5m.
It is important to ensure the grading of stone sizes is appropriate to ensure that the stones do not
move excessively within the gabion during high flows, causing increased wear. For the grading,
an additional calculation was been undertaken following the CIRIA Manual on scour at bridges
and other hydraulic structures, second edition (2015). This follows the Escarmeia and May (1992)
method for gabion mattresses.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 54Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
5.4 Spurs
5.4.1 General description
Spurs have the function to divert the flow in order to protect the embankments. Sedimentation is
expected between the spurs, due to the low flow velocity. Spurs should not be applied at those
locations where diverting the flow would potentially affect settlements directly at the opposite
bank. Spurs are mainly proposed in outer bends where the flow directly attacks the banks and
causes erosion. Diverting the flows will protect the banks and stimulate sedimentation.
The spurs can be constructed using gabions. A typical cross-section is shown in Figure 17.
Figure 17: Typical cross-section spur
5.4.2 Design
The design of spurs was undertaken following the methodology in Handbook for Flood Projection,
Anti Erosion and River Training Works, Government of India Central Water Commission (2012).
The design is outlined in Appendix B.3.
In summary;
● The spurs have been designed based on the water level depth. The spurs will be a combination
of submerged and unsubmerged, with a maximum height of 3m from the river bed based on
engineering judgement and standard practice in Nepal
● They are positioned at 90˚ to the banks
● The location of the spurs has been chosen on the outer bank of bends where velocities are
high (outer bends have been avoided where deposition was found to be notable on the outer
bend). In addition, in some straighter reaches spurs were designed based on engineering
judgement on the site visit, where notable bank erosion was occurring.
● The length of spurs is calculated by 2.5 multiplied by the calculated maximum depth of scour.
It is ensured that the length of spurs is not greater than 1/5th of the width of flow
● The spacing of the spurs is 2.5 multiplied by the calculated length of spur
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 55Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
5.5 Launching aprons
5.5.1 General description
The areas with the identified priority works experience erosion threatening existing settlements,
agricultural land and infrastructure. At some locations, as can be seen from the hydrodynamic
modelling, velocities can increase. Embankments need to be constructed to protect the adjacent
areas during flood events. To maintain the stability of the structures (spur, revetment and
embankment) it is important to ensure that scouring will not cause failure (instability) of the
structure. To protect the structures from scour, launching aprons are constructed. Launching
aprons protect the toe of the structures (e.g. spurs and revetments) against erosion, maintaining
the stability of the entire structure. In Nepal, rectangular and semi-circular launching aprons are
implemented, see Figure 18.
Figure 18: Types of launching aprons
For the DED rectangular launching aprons are applied, which are easier to construct and to
maintain.
Launching aprons have been specified at all locations of proposed embankment, revetment or
spur.
5.5.2 Design
The design of gabion revetments was undertaken following the methodology in Handbook for
Flood Projection, Anti Erosion and River Training Works, Government of India Central Water
Commission (2012).
The design is outlined in Appendix B.3.
In summary, the dimensions of the launching apron are based on calculations for scour depth.
The calculations are based on flowrate which is ascertained from the flood model for the various
locations.
5.6 Toe drain
5.6.1 General description
A toe drain has been specified at the countryside toe to ensure that seepage and direct rainfall
onto the embankment is collected and transferred away. This will reduce the risk of standing water
occurring at the toe which can impact slope stability.
It is proposed to use an open channel drain along the toe. A perforated pipe option was discussed
but the maintenance requirements if the pipe becomes blocked are more onerous than clearing
an open channel.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 56Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
5.6.2 Design
The toe drain has been sized based on expected rainfall directly on the embankment slope in the
1 in 10 year rainfall event for a 1km stretch of embankment. The trapezoidal channel was sized
based on Mannings equation for open channel flow. Refer to Appendix B.5 for more information.
The slopes of the drain vary; 1 in 500 was used for the hydraulic design but slopes may be
adjusted locally to avoid deep excavation of the existing ground at the proposed embankment
toe.
Outlet structures have been proposed to convey these flows to the river. Refer to the following
section 5.7 for their arrangement and design.
5.7 Outlet structures
5.7.1 General description
At several locations there are clear locations (such as streams or drainage ditches) where the
embankments block the discharge of excess rain water towards the river. At those locations, outlet
structures are constructed. An example of such an outlet structure is indicated in Figure 19. The
outlet structures are equipped with an automatic flap gate preventing river water to flood the
adjacent land. During low water levels, excess rain water can be drained to the river.
Figure 19: Example outlet structure
In addition, outlet structures are proposed to convey toe drain flows.
The outlet is equipped with trash racks to avoid trash influencing the proper operation of the flood
gate. An additional, manual operational gate is provided that can be closed for emergency or
maintenance purposes.
5.7.2 Design
The design of the culverts is based on an assumed catchment area from aerial imagery and
mapping, and the 1 in 10 year rainfall event. The design of the culverts is contained in Appendix
B.4; as outlined the 1 in 50 year event is also considered however the high flood level during this
event would prevent gravity flows, hence the culverts would be overdesigned.
The design of the culverts for the toe drain flows are contained in Appendix B.5.
5.8 Nature-based solutions
The Consultant has considered implementing natural-based solutions at all locations. Whether a
nature-based solution has been proposed depends on the characteristics of each site;
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 57Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
- Grasses are used to protect embankments; a) the outer (river-side) slope of the
embankment above the design water level; b) the crest of the embankment; and c) the
inner (land-side) slope. Further, as mentioned above certain grasses may also be
incorporated into the revetment gabion baskets. Some embankments which are setback
from the riverbank and are not exposed to high velocities or wave attack may not need
gabion protection below the design water level and may be simply protected by grasses;
- Integrate Vetiver grass into hard structures in a rural landscape. Vetiver grass will be
planted into the top rows of revetment gabions as a pilot project. The Vetiver grass can
grow within the gabions making it a stronger structure and more environmentally friendly;
- Bamboo porcupines have been considered on a case-by-case basis as a means of
protecting river banks from erosion and encouraging sedimentation. It is emphasized that
these types of structure do not have the same design life as hard structures and are
mainly seen as emergency or temporary works;
- Induced meander cut-offs have been considered on a case-by-case basis to straighten
the river and avoid the continued river bank erosion which is part of the natural meander
evolution process. Meander cut-offs connect the two closest parts of the meander to form
a new channel. The steeper drop in gradient will cause the river flow gradually to abandon
the old meander which will silt up with sediment from deposition. Cut-offs are a natural
based solution since they are a natural part of the evolution of a meandering river,
however they are not a permanent riverbank erosion protection solution and need to be
monitored after every flood season;
- Allowing continued erosion and regular monitoring. In certain locations it may be
advisable to allow continued erosion to occur, particularly if the adjacent erosion-risk land
has low value or low productivity. Erosion is a natural process. In these cases the erosion
situation needs to be monitored after every flood season.
Based on meetings with the WRPPF, porcupines are not included in the DED. Porcupines are
seen as short term solutions for emergency relief instead of long term sustainable structures.
5.9 Results DED
DED have been completed for all the priority works indicated in Chapter 3. For the design
calculations reference is made to Appendix B. The BoQ and the DED drawings are shown in
Appendix C and Appendix D respectively.
The DED is an iterative process taking into account the hydrodynamic model. First calculation is
made based on the design criteria of Run 2 (including climate change and excluding proposed
structures). Second calculation is based on the results of Run 3 (including climate change and
proposed structure).
In Appendix A.3 the modelling results between Run 2 and 3 are compared. The purpose of the
comparison is to see the impact of the proposed structures on the hydraulic conditions. It is
important that the due to the proposed structures, the water levels do not increase significantly.
A high increase in water levels would mean that the river is too constricted. In addition, the change
in water level needs to be restricted to avoid increasing the risk to adjacent flood plain areas
should the defences fail. It should be noted that there are no rules of thumb to be applied; within
this project a maximum rise of water levels of 30 cm has been accepted.
Based on the comparison it can be seen that the maximum difference is an increase of 26 cm,
which only occurs in one cross-section while the other sections show less or no increase in water
level. The maximum rise is acceptable.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 58Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Two embankments that were originally proposed as part of the package, PRTW.06 LB and
PRTW.06 RB are situated at the Indian Border. The proposed structures will have an impact on
the velocity and flow depth; the modelling results indicate that the impact at the structure locations
is as follows;
PRTW.06 LB:
● 0.14 m/s increase in channel velocity
● 0.10 m increase in water depth
PRTW.06 RB:
● 0.37 m/s increase in channel velocity
● 0.12 m increase in water depth
It was agreed during the ADB Mission in July 2019 that the priority works, PRTW.06 (L/B) and
PRTW.06 (R/B) from the Mawa Ratuwa sub-project will be removed from the ADB loan Work
Package because of proximity of the Indian border.
5.10 Designer’s Hazard Elimination and Management Record
A Designer’s Hazard Elimination Record has been completed for the works, as contained in
Appendix E. This outlines the primary construction risks as identified during the design process,
as well as anticipated risks associated with maintenance and use.
The Contractor must undertake their own risk assessment for the works and develop Safe
Systems of Works. In addition, DWRI should ensure the required maintenance and repair
activities are risk assessed and undertaken in a safe manner.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 59Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
6 Maintenance
6.1 Introduction
Maintenance comprises all activities to be carried out (on a periodic basis) after construction, to
ensure that a structure can fulfil its functions.
Inspection and repair play an important role in this process. Periodic inspection and maintenance
is required throughout the year. It is of utmost importance that prior to the start of the monsoon
season, the structures are in good condition and able to fulfil their function. During and after the
monsoon period inspections are required to monitor how the structures cope with the extreme
events and if actions are required to support the structure.
As nature is unpredictable, also due to ongoing climate change processes, it is crucial that the
structures remain in good condition throughout the year.
Inspection and maintenance should be executed by experts from the PEP field offices. The PEP
field offices, part of the Department of Water Resources and Irrigation (DWRI), are located nearby
the basin, have knowledge of the local situation and can easily inspect the structures. Proper
maintenance is costly and government budgets should be balanced. Maintenance, however, is
not always a high priority and this means that expenses for maintenance have to compete with
other public expenses and they should be reasoned and well-founded.
The International Levee Handbook (CIRIA Manual C731) contains extensive recommendations
on institutional changes to ensure best practice Operation and Maintenance and overall safety of
the embankments. Key discussions include;
● The importance of developing an Operation & Maintenance manual
● Challenges with changing river morphology
● Typical levee failure mechanisms and the need for emergency management procedures
should the embankments be at risk of failure
● Preventing encroachment on the embankments
It is recommended that these aspects are reviewed and implemented by DWRI in order to ensure
the safety of the structures are optimised. Local community groups should also be engaged to
discuss the importance of the maintaining the integrity of the structures, and to aid with ongoing
safeguarding of the structures. For example, they could be encouraged to report defects to DWRI
(note this should not be instead of regular inspections by DWRI experts) and protect the assets
from human interventions.
In the following sections key maintenance activities are defined.
6.2 Embankments (earth works)
Embankments consists of earth works that could be protected by a revetment and is covered by
bio engineering such as grass. The level of the embankment is important to protect the adjacent
land against flooding. Regular inspections are required to assess the condition of the
embankment. It is of utmost importance that prior to the start of the monsoon season, the
structures are in good condition and able to fulfil their function. Inspections are to be conducted
during and after the monsoon to see if the embankments are damaged.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 60Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
In case of damage (erosion or settlement of the crest) repair works are required. If there are
relatively small areas that have experienced damages and settlement then repairs should be
made immediately, before any further damage can take place. For filling, compacted soil is
required that is protected by bio-engineering. If there are large areas damaged it is important to
assess the cause of failure prior to repair / replacement, which could be caused by e.g. changing
hydraulic conditions. A re-evaluation of the design criteria and dimensions may be required and
therefore a suitably qualified engineer would need to be engaged to provide advice on the
necessary rehabilitation. If holes are found, e.g. animal holes, they need to be refilled with suitable
materials such as clay.
The bio-engineering, such as grass, need to be maintained in order to properly inspect the
embankments.
Inspections must also look for seepage paths on the downstream face and toe noted by localised
wet ground.
6.3 Revetments, spurs and launching aprons (gabions)
The constructed structures such as revetment, spurs and launching aprons are made from
gabions. Gabions are wire-mesh boxes filled with stones. The wire-mesh boxes can be damaged
as shown in Figure 20, which can result in failure of the structure.
Figure 20: Damaged gabions
Gabions must therefore be checked annually and at least after every major discharge event. It is
important that prior to the start of the monsoon season, the structures or in good condition so it
can fulfil its function. Periodic inspections should be conducted to identify, but not limited to, any
areas of uniformity of filling of gabions, to see if the wire-mesh is broken and stones are displaced
or escaped, scour holes and erosion at the edge of the protected area.
If there are relatively small areas that have experienced damages and displaced stones it should
be replaced immediately, before any further damage can take place. If there are large areas
damaged it is important to assess the cause of failure prior to repair / replacement. For example,
this might come about due to changing hydraulic conditions. A re-evaluation of the design criteria
and dimensions may be required and therefore a suitably qualified engineer would need to be
engaged to provide advice on the necessary rehabilitation.
6.4 Outlet structures
Several outlets structures are constructed. The function of the outlet structure is to a) discharge
excess rain water from adjacent land into the river; and b) to prevent river water to enter the
adjacent area. To prevent river water to flow into the adjacent land, outlet structures are equipped
with automatic flap gates. It is important that the outlet structures in general and the flap gates in
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 61Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
particular remain operational throughout the whole year. Related to the outlet structures it is
important that:
- Steel flap gates need to be coated (to avoid corrosion) and movable items need to be
checked and maintained to make sure they are working properly;
- Trash racks needs to be cleaned to allow excess water from land to be discharged to the
river;
- Prior and during the monsoon, flap gates need to be inspected to make sure that no
debris is stuck which prevents the flap gates from closing completely. When the flap gates
cannot close, river water can flow into the adjacent areas and cause flooding.
6.5 Embankment failure
The rapid onset of flooding following embankment failure would pose a greater risk to life than the
fluvial flooding if the embankments were not constructed. This highlights the critical importance
of robust maintenance of these structures.
It should be noted that in floods exceeding the 1 in 50 year, notwithstanding the freeboard, the
embankments could overtop. Due to high velocities on the downstream face from overtopping,
the embankments are particularly vulnerable to fail in these scenarios. It is crucial that the early
warning systems ensure that people evacuate during this level of flood event due to the risk of a
flood wave from breach.
Internal erosion is another common embankment failure mechanism. As outlined in section 6.2,
seepage on the countryside face and toe must be noted for during regular inspections, and
crucially after flooding events. Seepage on the riverside face should also be inspected for, which
could arise from localised ponding on the country side face. The rockfill drainage area and toe
drain systems must be maintained to minimise this risk. In addition, if the control structures fail
open during a flood event, the country side protected areas would flood from through flows into
the area.
Information provided by DWRI7 regarding the Koshi embankment breach in 2008 gave the
following reasons for failure:
● Concentration of flow towards left bank at the breached site since last few years.
● Rise in river bed level due to sediment deposition.
● Drainage congestion due to opening of 34 gates only out of 56 gates on August 18 that
contributed to scouring of spurs.
● Lack of proper inspection, observations and regular maintenance of the spur and the prompt
engineering response to the criticality of the problem
This highlights the critical nature of ongoing asset management procedures to ensure safety
following construction. Launching aprons have been included in this design to help protect the
spurs and embankments against localised scour. Ongoing inspection of bed levels adjacent to
the structures is still required to check for localised scour that might be induced by the dynamic
nature of these rivers. For example, works upstream of the river outside the control of the
7 FLOOD FORECASTING AND EARLY WARNING SYSTEM IN KOSHI BASIN, FINAL REPORT. Government of Nepal ,EmergencyFlood Damage Rehabilitation Project Component-E Project Management Component DWIDP Capacity Building Program. 2012
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 62Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Department might induce morphological changes in the river which change the expected pattern
of deposition-erosion that has been analysed in this project.
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 64Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
References
[1] Feasibility Study: Mawa – Ratuwa, Package 7: WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 81Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
B. Design calculations
B.1 Standards and Guidelines
Various design standards and guides were used during the detailed design as discussed in
section 4.3. The following table outlines documents that were used for specific aspects of the
design.
Table 9: Standards and Guidelines
Aspect of design Standard or Guideline adopted
River
Width of river Various reviewed:▪ DWIDM Pocket Diary 2071 (2014 / 2015);▪ Guidelines for preparation of DPR for flood management works, Government ofIndia Central Water Commission (2018);▪ Technical Standards and Guidelines for Planning and Design, Volume I – FloodControl, JICA (2002)
Engineering judgement for final value
Gabionrevetments
Allowable slope Various reviewed:▪ Handbook for Flood Projection, Anti Erosion and River Training Works,Government of India Central Water Commission (2012)▪ Technical Standards and Guidelines for Planning and Design, Volume I –Flood Control, JICA (2002)
Length ▪ Handbook for Flood Projection, Anti Erosion and River Training Works,Government of India Central Water Commission (2012)
Thickness ▪ Handbook for Flood Projection, Anti Erosion and River Training Works,Government of India Central Water Commission (2012)
Stone size ▪ Handbook for Flood Projection, Anti Erosion and River Training Works,Government of India Central Water Commission (2012)
Stone grading ▪ CIRIA Manual on scour at bridges and other hydraulic structures, secondedition (2015).
Launchingaprons
Length ▪ Handbook for Flood Projection, Anti Erosion and River Training Works,Government of India Central Water Commission (2012)
Thickness ▪ Handbook for Flood Projection, Anti Erosion and River Training Works,Government of India Central Water Commission (2012)
Embankments
Cohesion Various reviewed:▪ Guidelines for preparation of DPR for flood management works, Government ofIndia Central Water Commission (2018)▪ Detailed Project Reports, People’s Embankments Programme (PEP)▪ British Standard BS 8002:1994 Code of practice for earth retainingstructures
Friction angle Various reviewed:▪ Guidelines for preparation of DPR for flood management works, Government ofIndia Central Water Commission (2018)▪ Detailed Project Reports, People’s Embankments Programme (PEP)▪ British Standard BS 8002:1994 Code of practice for earth retainingstructures
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 82Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
Unit weight Various reviewed:▪ Guidelines for preparation of DPR for flood management works, Government ofIndia Central Water Commission (2018)▪ Detailed Project Reports, People’s Embankments Programme (PEP)▪ British Standard BS 8004: 1986 Code of practice for foundations
Permeability Engineering judgement
Slope stability designcases and FOS
Various reviewed:▪ Guidelines for preparation of DPR for flood management works, Government ofIndia Central Water Commission (2018)▪ EM 1110-2-1902 Engineering and Design; Slope Stability, U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers (USACE) (2003)
Earthquakecoefficients
Various reviewed:▪ [DRAFT] Flood Control and Management Manual; Final Manual. Government ofNepal, Water and Energy Commission Secretariat (WECS) (June 2019)▪ Considerations in the Earthquake-Resistant Design of Earth and Rockfill Dams,Geotechnique, Vol. XXIX, No. 3, Sept. Seed, H. B. (1979)▪ Rationalizing the Seismic Coefficient Method, Hynes-Griffin Franklin (1984)▪ Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance (2004)▪ Nepal National Building Code, NBC 105:1994, Seismic Design of Buildings inNepal. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Physical Planning and Works,Department of Urban Development and Building Construction (1994)
Engineering judgement for final values
FOS ▪ EM 1110-2-1902 Engineering and Design; Slope Stability, U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers (USACE) (2003)
Compaction Engineering judgement
Freeboard Various reviewed:▪ DWIDM Pocket Diary 2071 (2014 / 2015)▪ Guidelines for preparation of DPR for flood management works, Government ofIndia Central Water Commission (2018)▪ Technical Standards and Guidelines for Planning and Design, Volume I – FloodControl, JICA (2002)▪ Accounting for residual uncertainty: an update to the fluvial freeboard guide.Environment Agency (2017)
Engineering judgement for final value
Bearing capacity
▪ British Standard BS 8004: 1986 Code of practice for foundationsSettlement Engineering judgement
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 111Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
D. Design drawings
D.1 Location priority works
Note this includes embankments that were removed from the package (PRTW.06 L/B and R/B).
Mott MacDonald | WRPPF: Preparation of Priority River Basins Flood Risk Management Project, Nepal 112Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
383877 | REP | 0055 | 15 October 2019Detailed Engineering Design: Mawa – Ratuwa Basin
D.2 DED Drawings
In the following pages the DED drawings, A3-size, are provided.
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
DATE:
27/09/19
DWG NO:Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa Basin
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
REVISION: 3
MR_DS
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
01
SCHEDULE OF DRAWINGS
DescriptionDWG NoTitle Sheets
PRTW.01a
PRTW.01b
PRTW.02
PRTW.03
PRTW.04
PRTW.05a
PRTW.05b
MR_OV OverviewMR_OV_1a
MR.001a
MR_LP_001a
MR_OV_1b
MR.001b
MR_LP_001bMR_OV_02
MR.002
MR_LP_002
MR_OV_03
MR.003
MR_LP_003
MR_OV_04
MR.004
MR_LP_004MR_OV_05a
MR.005a
MR_LP_005aMR_OV_05b
MR.005b
MR_LP_005b
Overview
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment
Typical Spur section
Longitudinal Profile
Overview
Overview
Overview
Overview
Overview
Overview
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(1)
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(2)
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(3)
Typical Spur section
Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal Profile
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(1)
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(2)
Typical Crosssection of embankment with Revetment
Typical Crosssection of embankment with Revetment
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(1)
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(2)
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(3)
Typical Crosssection of Revetment
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment
Longitudinal Profile
Typical Spur section
Typical Spur section
Typical Spur section
Typical Spur section
Typical Spur section
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
5
1-31
Typical Crosssection of embankment with Revetment(4)
4
2
3
1-21
2
1
1
2
3
4
1-21
2
3
11
21
PRTW.10
PRTW.11
MR_OV_10 Overview
MR.010
MR_LP_010
MR_OV_11
MR.011
MR_LP_011
Typical Spur section
Longitudinal Profile
Overview
Typical Crosssection of Revetment
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(1)
Typical Crosssection of embankment with Revetment(2)
Longitudinal Profile
1
1
3
1
2
3
1-2
4
1
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(1)
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(2)
1
2
Typical Spur section
DWG NoTitle Sheets
PRTW.07
PRTW.08
PRTW.09a
PRTW.09c
PRTW.09d
MR_OV_07
MR.007
MR_LP_007
MR_OV_08
MR.008
MR_LP_008
MR_OV_09a
MR.009a
MR_LP_009a
MR.009d
MR_LP_009d
Overview
Overview
Overview
Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal Profile
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(1)
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(2)
Typical Crosssection of embankment with Revetment
Typical Crosssection of embankment with Revetment
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment
Longitudinal Profile
Typical Spur section
Typical Spur section
Typical Spur section
Typical Spur section
Typical Spur section
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1-21
2
1
1-3
2
1
1-2
21
PRTW.09b
MR_OV_09b
MR.009b
MR_LP_009b
Overview
Longitudinal Profile
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment
Typical Spur section
1
1
2
1-2MR_OV_09c
MR.009c
MR_LP_009c
OverviewTypical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(1)
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(2)
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(3)
1
2
3
4
1
MR_OV_09d Overview1
Description
SCHEDULE OF DRAWINGS
-
MR_LP 1 Location PlanLocation Plan
MR_NS_001Notes sheet 1 Notes
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
DATE:
27/09/19
DWG NO:Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa Basin
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
REVISION: 3
MR_DS
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
02
SCHEDULE OF DRAWINGS
MR_PC_1 Typical Crosssection of Pipe culvert (Type I)
DWG NoTitle Sheets
PRTW.12LB
PRTW.13LB
MR_OV_12LB
MR.012LB
MR_LP_012LB
Overview
Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal Profile
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(1)
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(2)
Typical Spur section
Typical Spur section
1
1
2
3
1
1
MR_OV_13LB
MR.013LB
MR_LP_013LB
Overview
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(1)
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(2)
1
2
3
1
PRTW.12RB
MR_OV_12RB
MR.012RB
MR_LP_012RB
Overview
Longitudinal Profile
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(1)
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment(2)
Typical Spur section
1
1
2
3
1
PRTW.13RB
MR_OV_13RB
MR.013RB
MR_LP_013RB
Overview
Longitudinal Profile
Typical Crosssection of embankment with
Revetment
Typical Spur section
1
1
2
1
Description
SCHEDULE OF DRAWINGS
1-2
MR_PC_2 1 Typical Crosssection of Pipe culvert (Type II)
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
MR_PC_3 Typical Crosssection of Pipe culvert (Type III) 1-2
PIPE
CULVERTS
BK
KPS
CE
AC
MR_DT_01 Typical Tie in details 1TIE IN
DETAILS
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATURE
NOTES
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
REVISION: 3
DWG NO:
1/2
Notes_001
Drawing Notes:
1. All dimensions and levels in this drawing set are shown in meter.
2. Refer to Topographical Survey Report, December 2018 for locations and co-ordinates of the bench marks used for this works package. The
nearest IGS station used for this survey is Lhasa, China (Longitude 910 06' 14.510073”E, Latitude 290 39' 26.40090”N, Ellipsoidal Height3624.612m). All drawings are in WGS 84 North 44R coordinate system.
3. The Contractor shall verify the alignment (depending on post monsoon dynamic movement of the bank) dimensions and levels of all structures
stated in this drawing for correctness prior to establishing the works setting-out points.
4. Ground Investigation (GI) shall be undertaken prior to the construction works. The GI Specifications are given in Paragraph 8.2 of Section 6:
Employer's Requirements. The Employer and the Engineer shall be informed if the soil parameters obtained from the GI varies from the assumed
parameters stated in the Detailed Engineering Report for the package.
5. Embankment fill material shall be
· Class 1A - well graded granular material for embankment general fill, or
· Class 2A or 2B - wet or dry cohesive material for embankment general fill, and
· Class 6G - selected granular material for embankment toe drainage and gabion stone
· Type 1 - unbound mixture for the gravel access road on top of the embankment. Gravel is defined as aggregate derived from a natural,
unconsolidated, coarse-grained sedimentary deposit consisting water worn rock fragments.
i) Material Grading:
Particle size distribution for Class 1A well graded granular material), Class 6G (selected granular material for embankment toe drainage)
and Type 1 unbound mixture for the gravel access road shall comply with the following standard gradings:
Particle
(Sieve) Size
Percentage by Mass Passing the Sieve
Class 1A -
granular
material for
General Fill for
embankment
Class 2A or 2B -
wet or dry
cohesive
material for
embankment
general fill
Class 6G - Rock
Fill for
embankment
toe drainage
and Gabion
Stone forrevetment
Type 1 material
for gravel
access road on
top of
embankment
200 mm 100% 98-100%
180 mm - 80 - 100%
125 mm 95 - 100% 100%
90 mm 0 - 20%
63 mm 100
45 mm 0 - 5%
31.5 mm 75 - 99
16 mm 43 - 81
8 mm 23 - 66
4 mm 12 - 53
2 mm 6 - 42
1 mm 3 - 32
63 micron <15% 15 - 80% 0 - 9
-
- -
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ii) For Class 1A Embankment General Fill Material, the uniformity coefficient, i.e. the ratio of the particle diameters D60 to D10 on theparticle-size distribution curve shall be 10 (minimum).
D60 = particle diameter at which 60% of the soil by weight is finerD10 = particle diameter at which 10% of the soil by weight is finer
For Class 6G Rock Fill for embankment toe drainage and Gabion stone shall be durable rock of minimum density 2400kg/cu.m. The grading
of the material shall be such that the minimum particle size shall exceed the maximum size of the gabion mesh opening, and a maximum
particle size of 200mm.
For Class 6G rock fill and gabion stone materials, D15 = 100mm;
D50 = 150 mm; and
D100 = 200 mm.
The properties of Type 1 aggregates used for the gravel road mixture shall be in accordance with BS EN 13242.
i) Compaction:
The Contractor may use one of the following plant and equipment for compacting embankment fill material. The minimum number of passes,
N and the maximum depth of the compacted layer, D as stated in the following table shall be adopted depending on the Contractor's
preferred method of compaction plant. The minimum number of passes, N is the minimum number of times that each point on the surface
of the layer being compacted shall be traversed by the item of compaction plant in its operating mode or struck by power rammers or falling
weight compactors. D is the maximum depth of the compacted layer.
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
REVISION: 3
DWG NO:
2/2
Notes_001
6. Geotextiles shall be non-woven fabric made of 100% polypropylene continuous fibre, spun-bonded with the exclusion of glues or welds.
Material shall comply with the following requirements:
· Minimum tensile strength = 9.5 KN/m;
· Minimum trapezoidal tear = 225 N;
· Minimum vertical water flow 50 mm head = 110 mm/s; and
· Minimum apparent opening size (AOS) = 0.27 mm.
7. Gabion requirements include:
· Gabions and mattresses shall consist machine woven rectangular units made from double twisted hexagonal mesh of heavy galvanised ad
zinc coated mild steel wire average strength of 380N/mm2.
· Each row of gabions shall be wired to the adjoining row at the top and bottom edges and at the corners. The end panels in Box gabions
should be mechanically connected with the main body at the manufacturing site by selvedging both to a common selvedge wire.
· Each gabion shall be carefully packed by hand with stone so placed as to minimize voids. The Top layers of stones shall be placed with their
flattest sides uppermost to provide a smooth surface for placing the lid. The gabions shall be filled 25 mm above the top so that the lid can
be tightly stretched over the stone. The lid shall be wired all round.
8. DWRI to provide Cadastral mapping to the Contractor; site boundaries, compound locations and access routes to be agreed by DWRI and the
Contractor prior to construction.
9. Plan drawings show simplified embankment footprints; embankment widths will vary locally based on undulating existing ground levels.
10. DWRI and the Contractor to consult with the Department of Roads and relevant local authority regarding embankments which connect to
existing bridges or roads (as marked on the drawings).
11. The proposed embankments for the priority works were designed for 1 in 50 year flood protection. Embankments to tie in upstream and
downstream to high ground or structures which are at minimum at High Flood Level (HFL). Proposed length of tie-ins to be confirmed on site by
The Contractor and altered as required with consultation and approval of the Engineer. The crest level of the priority work embankments shall
continue in this direction to the nearest high ground which is at crest level (HFL + freeboard) in a separate follow-on project in order to ensure
the full benefits of the proposed flood defence
12. Position of toe drain and proposed culverts have been selected at this stage based on low spots identified in the topographic survey l-profiles;
these locations may no longer be appropriate based on topographic changes following monsoon rains since original survey. All locations of toe
drain and proposed culverts to be confirmed on site by the Contractor and altered as required with consultation and approval of the Engineer. All
toe drain culverts shall be Type III as indicated in the drawings.
13. Health and Safety risks identified by the Engineer are described in the Designer's Hazard Elimination Management Record in the DED report.
Contractor to undertake their own assessment and develop appropriate Safe Systems of Working to be approved by DWRI. The key construction
risks are as follows;
· Identification of existing overhead and underground services
· Working within and adjacent to water and during flood
· Heavy lifting of precast concrete elements
· Excavation of channel bed during works
· Pollution to the river
Key maintenance risks:
· Embankment shall be inspected after major earthquake events and any damage and/or displacement of materials shall be repaired
immediately to avoid further risk of breaching and embankment failure.
· Slip, trip and fall during routine inspection after every flood event.
· Operation, repair and/or replacement of inlet and outlet structures (including penstocks and flap valves) will require access from the river
side and dry working area can be provided by placing sand bags.
· Embankment defences may impound in floods greater than design flood of 1 in 50 year. During the extreme flood events the early warning
instructions shall be followed.
· Overtopping of proposed embankments causing flooding downstream, potential for embankment failure and breach wave.
14. The Section 6 - Employer's Requirements Specification document must be referred to for full requirements regarding construction.
15. The Penstock shall be manufactured in Stainless Steel. The recommended grade of stainless steel is BS EN 10088-1,2:2014 grade 316L. The
Contractor shall prepare a fabrication drawing suitable for the fabrication of all elements of steelwork. The fabrication drawing(s) shall be submitted
to the Engineer for acceptance at least two weeks prior to the planned date for fabrication.
16. The Flap Gate shall be manufactured in Stainless Steel. The recommended grade of stainless steel is BS EN 10088-1,2:2014 grade 316L. The
Contractor shall prepare a fabrication drawing suitable for the fabrication of all elements of steelwork. The fabrication drawing(s) shall be submitted
to the Engineer for acceptance at least two weeks prior to the planned date for fabrication.
17. Trash Screens shall be fabricated from mild steel sections, galvanised to BS EN ISO 1461:2009. The screen bars are to be from 100mm x 10mm flat
with the thickness as indicated on drawing. Welding shall be carried out in accordance with BS EN 1011. The Contractor shall prepare a fabrication
drawing suitable for the fabrication of all elements of steelwork. The fabrication drawing(s) shall be submitted to the Engineer for acceptance at least
two weeks prior to the planned date for fabrication.
18. Grass seeding of slopes and vetiver grass planting to be undertaken to ensure robust grass cover. Planting shall comply with Clause 15 of Section
6 - Employer's Requirements.
19. Reinforced concrete inlet and outlet structures shall comply with Clause 16 and pre-cast concrete pipes shall comply with Clause 17 of Section 6 -
Employer's Requirements.
20. Additional access ramps (1 in 10 slope) between the country side and the riverside shall be provided where required after consultation with localcommunity groups.
21. Position of toe drain and proposed culverts have been selected at this stage based on low spots identified in the topographic survey l-profiles;
these locations may no longer be appropriate based on topographic changes following monsoon rains since original survey. All locations of toe drain
and proposed culverts to be confirmed on site by the Contractor and altered as required with consultation and approval of the Engineer. All toe drain
culverts shall be Type III as indicated in the drawings.
Embankment height <2m 2-3m 3-4m 5-6m 6m
Drain height None 1m 1.33m 1.67m 2m
22. Highly permeable soils below the base of the flood embankment shall be removed and filled with embankment material to achieve sufficient cut
off during flooding.
Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
DATE:
27/09/19
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
DATE:
27/09/19
DWG NO:Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa Basin
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
REVISION:
MR_LP
3
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
01
LOCATION PLAN
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
Nepal india border
Location works See overview (Dwg No:MR_OV)
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES
(TMS)
SHEET NO: 1
DWG NO:
Overview
MR_OV
1:150000BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
REVISION: 3DATE:
27/09/19
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
PRTW-01aSpur
Embankment Revetment
No. of Spurs:
Spur Dimension
Chainage Start End Length
Embankment
Revetment
Spurs
(Type 1)0+030m 0+280m 250m
7
45
18 7.5 3
0+000m 0+420m 420m
0+000m 0+420m 420m
Spurs
Spacing(m)
Length(m) Base Width(m) Height(m)
Co-ordinates
SOP Northing
(m)
Easting
(m)
1
2
Elevation
(masl)
564473 2936812
564616 2936507
91.92 m
91.11 m
3 564606 2936477 91.14 m
0+000m
0+420m
A
MR.001a_1
0 25
SCALE BAR 1:2000
50 100
SOP1
SOP2
SOP3
Embankment to tie in to natural ground
along tributary right bank. Proposed tie in
length of 100m to reach high ground;to
be confirmed on site. See note 11.
Proposed to discharge the toe drain into
tributary
Embankment to tie in to
existing bridge; see note 10
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALE
Overview
SIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
DWG NO:Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa Basin
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
REVISION:
MR_OV_01a
3
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
PRTW.01a
011:2000BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
DATE:
27/09/19
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
19.50
0.600.750.750.750.75
3.004.506.007.50
4.50 7.50 7.50
Downstream Upstream
SECTION B-B
Scale 1:200
Scale 1:200
0.750.750.750.750.60
30.00
18.00
SECTION A-A
Scale 1:200
12.00
Geotextile
Gabion revetmentGabion launching apron
(gabion box: 3.00 x 1.50 x 0.60m)
Gabion spur
(gabion box: 3.00 x 1.50 x 0.75m)
Embankment Top Level (Varies)
Spur Top level (Varies)
19
.50
30.00
18.00 3.0
0
4.5
0
6.0
0
7.5
0
7.5
04
.50
12.00
PLAN VIEW (TYPE -1)
Scale 1:200
Upstream
Downstream
A A
B
B
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALE :SIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
DWG NO:
SHEET NO:
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
1:200
PRTW.01a
MR.001a
2/2
3
TYPICAL SPUR SECTION (TYPE 1)
0 6 12 18 24 30
Scale Bar : 1:200
REVISION:DATE:
27/09/19
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
90
.58
8
90
.08
2
89
.57
6
89
.07
0
88
.56
4
88
.12
5
87
.68
6
CHAINAGE : 0+000.00 - 0+420.00
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
87
.48
8
88
.54
0
88
.77
8
90
.47
91
.97
89
.78
91
.28
CHAINAGE (km)
0+
00
0.0
0
0+
05
0.0
0
0+
10
0.0
0
0+
15
0.0
0
0+
20
0.0
0
0+
25
0.0
0
0+
30
0.0
0
0+
35
0.0
0
0+
40
0.0
0
0+
42
0.0
0
88
.44
48
9.7
44
91
.24
4
89
.61
49
1.1
14
EXISTINGLEVEL (masl)
EMBANKMENT
WATER LEVEL(masl)
LEVEL (masl)
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
DWG NO:
SHEET NO:
REVISION: 3
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
PRTW.01a
Longitudinal Profile
MR_LP_01a
01
EMBANKMENT TOP LEVEL(m) MAXIMUM WATER LEVEL(m) GROUND LEVEL(m) Proposed Location of Culvert Direction of Toe Drain Slope
DATE:
27/09/19
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
H=1:1000
V=1:100BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
PRTW-01bSpur
Embankment Revetment
No. of Spurs:
Spur Dimension
Chainage Start End Length
Embankment
Revetment
Spurs
(Type 2)
0+180m 0+380m
10
45
18 7.5 3
0+000m 1+780m 1780m
0+315m 0+920m 1780m
Spurs
Spacing(m)
Length(m) Base Width(m) Height(m)
0+000m 0+315m
0+920m 1+780m
1+260m 1+460m400m
Co-ordinates
SOP Northing
(m)Easting
(m)
1
2
Elevation
(masl)
564656 2936498
564918 2934758
91.21 m
87.79 m
0+000m
1+780m
AMR.001b_1
BMR.001b_2
CMR.001b_3
DMR.001b_4
0 25
SCALE BAR 1:8000
50 200100 400
Access ramp to connect existing
access track to embankment.
1 in 10 slope, approximately 5m long
Proposed location of culvert
for toe-drain; see note 12
SOP1
SOP2
Embankment to tie in to natural ground.
Proposed tie in length of 100m to reach high
ground; to be confirmed on site. See note 11
Embankment to tie in to
existing embankment
Notable historic river movement;
alignment of embankment to be
re-confirmed by Contractor. See
note 3
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALE
Overview
SIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
DWG NO:Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa Basin
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
REVISION:
MR_OV_01b
3
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
PRTW.01b
011:8000BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
DATE:
27/09/19
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATURE
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF
EMBANKMENT WITH REVETMENT(1)
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
DWG NO:
DATE:
27/09/19
1/51:100
PRTW.01b
(CH 0+145)
MR.001b
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
HFL(89.38)
River Side
To be excavated
Embankment Top Level(90.88
Existing ground level
2
1
3.00
Freeboard1.50
6.00
2.063.00
3.003.009.00
3.00
d=3.35
0.2
0
0.1
00.504.00
0.50
5.00
REVISION: 3
1.3
31
1
SCALE BAR
10 2 5
1:100
0.3
5
0.25
Non-woven Geotextile
(see Note 7)
Embankment fill. Refer to
note 5 for material
properties,grading and
compaction requirements.
100mm thick well
graded 5-20mm
dia granular
surface layer.
200mm thick Type 1
un-bound mixture
for gravel access
road.Refer to note 5
for material
properties, grading
and compaction
requirements.Class 6G selected granular
material for rock fill.Refer to
note 5 for material
properties,grading and
compaction requirements
Gabion revetment filled with class 6G
selected rockfill.Refer to note 5 for material
properties,grading and compaction
requirements.Gabion dimension
3.00 x 1.50 x 0.40 m
Gabion launching appron filled with class
6G selected granular material. Refer to
note 5 for material properties,grading and
compaction requirements.Gabion
dimension 3.00 x 1.50 x 0.60 m
300mm thick sweet soil
with grass seeding and
vetiver planting
Trapezoidal toe drain;
channel sides (1V:2H) and
base constructed from
300mm thick rock fill (refer
to note 5)
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
Non-woven
Geotextile (see
Note 7)
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
2
10.51.65
0.3
0
0.50
(23)d
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATURE
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF
EMBANKMENT WITH REVETMENT(2)
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
DWG NO:
DATE:
27/09/19
2/51:100
PRTW.01b
(CH 0+600)
MR.001b
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
HFL(88.60)
River Side
Embankment Top Level(90.1)
Existing ground level
2
1
3.00
Freeboard1.50
6.00
2.063.00
3.003.009.00
3.00
d=3.50
Embankment fill. Refer to
note 5 for material
properties,grading and
compaction requirements.
100mm thick well
graded 5-20mm dia
granular surface
layer.
200mm thick Type 1
un-bound mixture for
gravel access
road.Refer to note 5 for
material properties,
grading and compaction
requirements.
0.2
0
0.1
00.504.00
0.50
5.00
REVISION: 3
1.3
3
1
1
SCALE BAR
10 2 5
1:100
0.3
5
0.25Class 6G selected
granular material for rock
fill. Refer to note 5 for
material properties and
grading requirements.
Non-woven Geotextile
(see Note 7)
Gabion revetment filled with class 6G
selected rockfill.Refer to note 5 for material
properties,grading and compaction
requirements.Gabion dimension
3.00 x 1.50 x 0.40 m
Gabion launching appron filled with class
6G selected granular material. Refer to
note 5 for material properties,grading and
compaction requirements.Gabion
dimension 3.00 x 1.50 x 0.60 m
300mm thick sweet soil
with grass seeding and
vetiver planting
Trapezoidal toe drain;
channel sides (1V:2H) and
base constructed from
300mm thick rock fill (refer
to note 5)
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
Non-woven
Geotextile (see
Note 7)
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
2
1
0.51.65
0.3
0
0.50
(23)d
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATURE
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF
EMBANKMENT WITH REVETMENT(3)
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
DWG NO:
DATE:
27/09/19
3/51:100
PRTW.01b
(CH 1+450)
MR.001b
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
HFL(87.30)
River Side
Embankment Top Level(88.82)Existing ground level
2
1
3.00
Freeboard1.50
6.00
2.583.00
3.003.009.00
3.00
Embankment fill. Refer to
note 5 for material
properties,grading and
compaction requirements.
100mm thick well graded
5-20mm dia granular
surface layer. 200mm thick Type 1
un-bound mixture
for gravel access
road.Refer to note 5
for material
properties, grading
and compaction
requirements.
0.2
0
0.1
00.504.00
0.50
5.00
REVISION: 3
SCALE BAR
10 2 5
1:100
d=
0.7
0
0.3
5
0.25
Non-woven
Geotextile (see
Note 7)
Gabion revetment filled with class 6G
selected rockfill.Refer to note 5 for material
properties,grading and compaction
requirements.Gabion dimension
3.00 x 1.50 x 0.30 m
Gabion launching appron filled with class
6G selected granular material. Refer to
note 5 for material properties,grading and
compaction requirements.Gabion
dimension 3.00 x 1.50 x 0.60 m
300mm thick sweet soil
with grass seeding and
vetiver planting
Trapezoidal toe drain;
channel sides (1V:2H) and
base constructed from
300mm thick rock fill (refer
to note 5)
Non-woven
Geotextile (see
Note 7)
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
2
1
0.5
1.65
0.3
0
0.50
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATURE
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF
EMBANKMENT WITH REVETMENT(4)
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
DWG NO:
DATE:
27/09/19
4/51:100
PRTW.01b
(CH 1+485)
MR.001b
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
HFL(87.30)
River Side
Embankment Top Level(88.83)Existing ground level
2
1
3.00
Freeboard1.50
6.00
2.063.00
3.003.009.00
3.00
d=0.70
Class 1A well graded
material for embankment
general fill.Refer to note for
material properties,grading
and compaction
requirements.
100mm thick well graded
5-20mm dia granular
surface layer.
200mm thick Type 1
un-bound mixture for
gravel access road.
Refer to note 5 for
material properties,
grading and compaction
requirements.
0.2
0
0.1
00.504.00
0.50
5.00
REVISION: 3
SCALE BAR
10 2 5
1:100
0.3
5
0.25
Non-woven
Geotextile (see
Note 7)
Gabion revetment filled with class 6G
selected rockfill.Refer to note 5 for material
properties,grading and compaction
requirements.Gabion dimension
3.00 x 1.50 x 0.40 m
Gabion launching appron filled with class
6G selected granular material. Refer to
note 5 for material properties,grading and
compaction requirements.Gabion
dimension 3.00 x 1.50 x 0.60 m
300mm thick sweet soil
with grass seeding and
vetiver planting
Trapezoidal toe drain;
channel sides (1V:2H) and
base constructed from
300mm thick rock fill (refer
to note 5)
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
Non-woven
Geotextile (see
Note 7)
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
2
1
0.5
1.65
0.3
0
0.50
Scale 1:200
22.50
0.600.750.750.750.75
3.004.506.007.50
6.00 7.50 9.00
Downstream Upstream
SECTION B-B
Scale 1:200
0.750.750.750.750.60
31.50
18.00
SECTION A-A
Scale 1:200
13.50
Geotextile
Gabion revetmentGabion launching apron
(gabion box: 3.00 x 1.50 x 0.60m)
Gabion spur
(gabion box: 3.00 x 1.50 x 0.75m)
Embankment Top Level (Varies)
Spur Top level (Varies)
22
.50
31.50
18.00 3.0
0
4.5
0
6.0
0
7.5
0
9.0
06
.00
13.50
PLAN VIEW (TYPE -2)
Scale 1:200
Upstream
Downstream
A A
B
B
Embankment Top Level (Varies)
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALE :SIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
DWG NO:
SHEET NO:
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
1:200
PRTW.01b
MR.001b
5/5TYPICAL SPUR SECTION (TYPE 2)
0 6 12 18 24 30
Scale Bar : 1:200
3REVISION:DATE:
27/09/19
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
87
.06
86
.83
1
86
.85
5
86
.87
9
86
.90
3
86
.92
7
86
.22
9
86
.51
7
CHAINAGE : 0+000.00 - 1+780.00
89
.37
6
89
.54
91
.04
88
.78
90
.28
CHAINAGE (km)
0+
00
0.0
0
0+
05
0.0
0
0+
10
0.0
0
0+
15
0.0
0
0+
20
0.0
0
0+
25
0.0
0
0+
30
0.0
0
0+
35
0.0
0
0+
40
0.0
0
0+
45
0.0
0
0+
50
0.0
0
0+
55
0.0
0
0+
60
0.0
0
89
.71
79
1.2
17
89
.13
99
0.6
39
88
.68
79
0.1
87
EXISTINGLEVEL (masl)
EMBANKMENT
WATER LEVEL(masl)
LEVEL (masl)
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
DWG NO:
SHEET NO:
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
PRTW.01b
Longitudinal Profile
MR_LP_01b
01
EMBANKMENT TOP LEVEL(m) MAXIMUM WATER LEVEL(m) GROUND LEVEL(m) Proposed Location of Culvert Direction of Toe Drain Slope
DATE:
27/09/19
BEEZAN KHADKA
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
REVISION: 3
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
H=1:1000
V=1:100BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
86
.51
7
86
.31
2
86
.10
7
86
.74
2
88
.01
3
88
.64
9
88
.38
89
.88
0+
60
0.0
0
0+
65
0.0
0
0+
70
0.0
0
0+
75
0.0
0
0+
80
0.0
0
0+
85
0.0
0
0+
90
0.0
0
0+
95
0.0
0
1+
00
0.0
0
1+
05
0.0
0
1+
10
0.0
0
1+
15
0.0
0
1+
20
0.0
0
1+
25
0.0
0
86
.22
98
8.4
41
89
.94
1
87
.23
88
.18
48
9.6
84
88
.73
68
7.9
22
89
.42
2
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
DWG NO:
SHEET NO:
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
PRTW.01(b)
Longitudinal Profile
MR_LP_01b
02
EMBANKMENT TOP LEVEL(m) MAXIMUM WATER LEVEL(m) GROUND LEVEL(m) Proposed Location of Culvert Direction of Toe Drain Slope
DATE:
27/09/19
BEEZAN KHADKA
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
REVISION: 3
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
H=1:1000
V=1:100BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
88
.64
9
89
.28
4
88
.12
5
88
.09
9
88
.07
3
88
.04
6
88
.02
0
87
.84
89
.34
87
.62
89
.12
86
.97
88
.47
86
.35
87
.85
1+
25
0.0
0
1+
30
0.0
0
1+
35
0.0
0
1+
40
0.0
0
1+
45
0.0
0
1+
50
0.0
0
1+
55
0.0
0
1+
60
0.0
0
1+
65
0.0
0
1+
70
0.0
0
1+
75
0.0
0
17
80
.00
88
.73
68
7.9
22
89
.42
2
88
.12
87
.22
78
8.7
27
86
.28
98
7.7
89
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
DWG NO:
SHEET NO:
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
PRTW.01(b)
Longitudinal Profile
MR_LP_01b
03
EMBANKMENT TOP LEVEL(m) MAXIMUM WATER LEVEL(m) GROUND LEVEL(m) Proposed Location of Culvert Direction of Toe Drain Slope
DATE:
27/09/19
BEEZAN KHADKA
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
REVISION: 3
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
H=1:1000
V=1:100BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
AMR.002_1
0+825m
0+000m
B
MR.0
02_2
0 25
SCALE BAR 1:4000
50 200100
SOP1
Access ramp to connect existing
access track to embankment.
1 in 10 slope, approximately 35m long
Proposed location of
culvert for toe-drain; see note 12
SOP2
Embankment to tie in to natural
ground. Proposed tie in length of
50m to reach high ground; to be
confirmed on site. See note 11
Embankment to
tie in to existing bridge; see note 10
Notable historic river
movement; alignment of
embankment to be
re-confirmed by Contractor.
See note 3 and 23
PRTW-02Spur
Embankment Revetment
No. of Spurs:
Spur Dimension
Chainage Start End Length
Embankment
Revetment
Spurs
(Type 3) 0+000m 0+400m
14
30
12 7.5 3
0+000m 0+825m 825m
0+210m 0+825m 825m
Spurs
Spacing(m)
Length(m) Base Width(m) Height(m)
0+000m 0+210m
400m
Co-ordinates
SOP Northing
(m)
Easting
(m)
1
2
Elevation
(masl)
563775 2937550
564140 2936826
93.48 m
92.35 m
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALE
Overview
SIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
DWG NO:Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa Basin
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
REVISION:
MR_OV_02
3
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
PRTW.02
011:4000BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
DATE:
27/09/19
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF
EMBANKMENT WITH REVETMENT(1)
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
DATE:
27/09/19
1/3
1:100
PRTW.02
(CH 0+080)
MR.002
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
HFL(91.75)
River Side
To be excavated
Embankment Top Level(93.25)
Existing ground level2
1
3.00
2.94
Freeboard1.50
Non-woven
geotextile
(refer note 5)
3.00 1.503.007.50
d=3.05
3.00
1.50
7.50
Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
Embankment fill. Refer to
note 5 for material
properties,grading and
compaction requirements.
100mm thick well
graded 5-20mm dia
granular surface layer.
200mm thick Type1
un-bound mixture
for gravel access
track.Refer to note
5 for material
properties, grading
and compaction
requirements.
0.2
0
0.1
0 0.504.00
0.50
5.00
REVISION: 3
1.6
7
1
1
SCALE BAR
10 2 5
1:100
0.3
5
0.25
Class 6G selected
granular material for
rock fill. Refer to note 5
for material properties
and grading
requirements.
Non-woven
geotextile
(refer note 5)
Gabion revetment filled with class 6G
selected rockfill.Refer to note 5 for material
properties,grading and compaction
requirements.Gabion dimension
3.00 x 1.50 x 0.40 m
Gabion launching appron filled with class
6G selected granular material. Refer to
note 5 for material properties,grading and
compaction requirements.Gabion
dimension 3.00 x 1.50 x 0.70 m
300mm thick sweet soil
with grass seeding and
vetiver planting
Trapezoidal toe drain;
channel sides (1V:2H) and
base constructed from
300mm thick rock fill (refer
to note 5)
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
NAME SCALESIGNATURE DWG NO:
2
1 0.50
1.65
0.3
0
0.50
(23)d
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF
EMBANKMENT WITH REVETMENT(2)
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
DATE:
27/09/19
2/31:100
PRTW.02
(CH 0+535)
MR.002
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
HFL(91.22)
River Side
Embankment Top Level(92.72)
Existing ground level2
1
3.00
2.94
Freeboard 1.50Non-woven
geotextile
(refer note 5)
3.00
1.50
3.003.00
7.50
1.50
d=3.40To be excavated
7.50
Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
Embankment fill. Refer to
note 5 for material
properties,grading and
compaction requirements.
100mm thick well graded
5-20mm dia granular
surface layer.
200mm thick Type1
un-bound mixture for
gravel access track.Refer
to note 5 for material
properties, grading and
compaction requirements.
0.2
0
0.1
0 0.504.00
0.50
5.00
REVISION: 3
1.3
3
1
1
SCALE BAR
10 2 5
1:100
0.3
3
0.25Class 6G selected granular
material for rock fill. Refer
to note 5 for material
properties and grading
requirements.
Non-woven
geotextile
(refer note 5)
Gabion revetment filled with class 6G
selected rockfill.Refer to note 5 for material
properties,grading and compaction
requirements.Gabion dimension
3.00 x 1.50 x 0.30 m
Gabion launching appron filled with class
6G selected granular material. Refer to
note 5 for material properties,grading and
compaction requirements.Gabion
dimension 3.00 x 1.50 x 0.40 m
300mm thick sweet soil
with grass seeding and
vetiver planting300mm thick sweet soil
with grass seeding and
vetiver planting
Trapezoidal toe drain;
channel sides (1V:2H) and
base constructed from
300mm thick rock fill (refer
to note 5)
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
NAME SCALESIGNATURE DWG NO:
2
1 0.51.65
0.3
0
0.50
(23)d
3.0
04
.50
6.0
0
7.5
04
.50
22.5010.50
19
.5012.00
PLAN VIEW (TYPE -3)
Scale 1:200
Upstream
Downstream
A
B
B
A
7.5
0
0.75 10.50
12.00 Gabion launching apron
(gabion box: 3.00m x 1.50m x 0.70m)
Gabion spur
(gabion box 3.00m x 1.50m x 0.75m
SECTION A-A
Scale 1:200
22.500.700.75
0.75
0.75
Gabion revetment
Geotextile
Spur Top level (Varies)
Embankment Top Level (Varies)
3.004.506.00
4.50 7.50 7.50
SECTION B-B
Scale 1:200
Downstream Upstream
7.50
0.750.75
0.750.75
0.70
19.50
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALE :SIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
DWG NO:
SHEET NO:
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
1:200
PRTW.02
MR.002
3/3TYPICAL SPUR SECTION (TYPE 3)
0 6 12 18 24 30
Scale Bar : 1:200
3REVISION:DATE:
27/09/19
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
90
.56
6
90
.47
3
90
.38
0
90
.28
6
90
.19
3
90
.03
1
89
.86
9
89
.70
7
89
.54
5
89
.38
3
89
.49
6
89
.60
9
89
.73
2
89
.83
4
89
.94
7
CHAINAGE : 0+000.00 - 0+825.00
93
94
95
91
.98
93
.48
91
.61
93
.11
91
.51
93
.01
91
.12
92
.62
CHAINAGE (km)
0+
00
0.0
0
0+
05
0.0
0
0+
10
0.0
0
0+
15
0.0
0
0+
20
0.0
0
0+
25
0.0
0
0+
30
0.0
0
0+
35
0.0
0
0+
40
0.0
0
0+
45
0.0
0
0+
50
0.0
0
0+
55
0.0
0
0+
60
0.0
0
91
.54
89
3.0
48
91
.26
69
2.7
66
EXISTINGLEVEL (masl)
EMBANKMENT
WATER LEVEL(masl)
LEVEL (masl)
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
DWG NO:
SHEET NO:
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
PRTW.02
Longitudinal Profile
MR_LP_02
01
EMBANKMENT TOP LEVEL(m) MAXIMUM WATER LEVEL(m) GROUND LEVEL(m) Proposed Location of Culvert Direction of Toe Drain Slope
DATE:
27/09/19
BEEZAN KHADKA
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
REVISION: 3
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
H=1:1000
V=1:100BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
89
.48
4
89
.02
1
88
.55
8
88
.60
4
88
.65
0
93
94
95
91
92
.5
0+
65
0.0
0
0+
70
0.0
0
0+
75
0.0
0
0+
80
0.0
0
0+
82
5.0
09
0.8
49
93
.34
9
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
DWG NO:
SHEET NO:
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
PRTW.02
Longitudinal Profile
MR_LP_02
02
EMBANKMENT TOP LEVEL(m) MAXIMUM WATER LEVEL(m) GROUND LEVEL(m) Proposed Location of Culvert Direction of Toe Drain Slope
DATE:
27/09/19
BEEZAN KHADKA
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
REVISION: 3
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
H=1:1000
V=1:100BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
PRTW-03Spur
Embankment Revetment
No. of Spurs:
Spur Dimension
Chainage Start End Length
Embankment
Revetment
Spurs
(Type 4)0+000m 0+230m
9
30
12 6 2.25
0+000m 0+535m 535m
535m
Spurs
Spacing(m)
Length(m) Base Width(m) Height(m)
0+000m 0+535m
230m
Inlet 0+260m
Co-ordinates
SOP Northing
(m)
Easting
(m)
1
2
Elevation
(masl)
567936 2957972
567990 2957440
195.49 m
188.55 m
0+000m
0+535m
0+260m
AMR.003_1
0 25
SCALE BAR 1:2500
50 200100
Access ramp to connect existing
access track to embankment.
1 in 10 slope, approximately 15m long
Proposed location of culvert
for toe-drain; see note 12
Proposed location of culvert (Type
1) for existing channel/drainage
SOP1
SOP2
Embankment to tie in to natural ground.
Proposed tie in length of 100m to reach high
ground; to be confirmed on site. See note 11
Embankment to tie in
to existing embankment
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALE
Overview
SIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
DWG NO:Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa Basin
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
REVISION:
MR_OV_03
3
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
PRTW.03
01
1:2500BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUBEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
DATE:
27/09/19
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATURE
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF
EMBANKMENT WITH REVETMENT
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
DWG NO:
DATE:
27/09/19
1/21:100
PRTW.03
(CH 0+280)
MR.003
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
HFL(190.84)
River Side
Embankment Top Level(191.84)
Existing ground level2
1
3.00
Freeboard1.00
Non-woven
geotextile
(refer note5)
3.00 3.00
6.00
3.00
6.00
d=1.50
2.21
Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
Class 1A well graded material
for embankment general fill.
Refer to note 5 for material
properties,grading and
compaction requirements.
100mm thick well
graded 5-20mm dia
granular surface
layer.200mm thick Type1
un-bound mixture for
gravel access
track.Refer to note 5 for
material properties,
grading and compaction
requirements.
0.2
0
0.1
00.504.00
0.50
5.00
REVISION: 3
SCALE BAR
10 2 5
1:100
0.3
5
0.25Non-woven
geotextile
(refer note 5)
Gabion revetment filled with class 6G
selected rockfill.Refer to note 5 for material
properties,grading and compaction
requirements.Gabion dimension
3.00 x 1.50 x 0.50 m
Gabion launching appron filled with class
6G selected granular material. Refer to
note 5 for material properties,grading and
compaction requirements.Gabion
dimension 3.00 x 1.50 x 0.80 m
300mm thick sweet soil
with grass seeding and
vetiver planting
Trapezoidal toe drain;
channel sides (1V:2H) and
base constructed from
300mm thick rock fill (refer
to note 5)
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
2
1
0.5
1.65
0.3
0
0.50
16.50
0.800.750.750.75
3.004.506.00
4.50 6.00 6.00
SECTION B-B Scale 1:200
Downstream Upstream
22.50
10.50
12.00
Gabion launching apron
(gabion box: 3.00 x 1.5 x 0.80m)
SECTION A-A Scale 1:200
Gabion
revetment
Geotextile
Gabion spur
(gabion box: 3.00 x 1.5 x 0.75m)
0.750.750.750.80
Spur Top level (Varies)
Embankment Top Level (Varies)
3.0
04
.50
6.0
0
6.0
04
.50
22.5010.50
16
.50
12.00
PLAN VIEW (TYPE -4)
Scale 1:200
Upstream
Downstream
A
B
B
A
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALE :SIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
DWG NO:
SHEET NO:
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
1:200
PRTW.03
MR.003
2/2TYPICAL SPUR SECTION (TYPE 4)
0 6 12 18 24 30
Scale Bar : 1:200
3REVISION:DATE:
27/09/19
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
EXISTINGLEVEL (masl)
19
3.2
35
19
3.1
14
19
2.9
92
19
2.8
71
19
2.7
49
19
2.6
28
19
2.3
90
19
2.1
37
19
1.9
49
19
1.7
28
19
1.2
66
19
0.8
89
19
0.6
26
19
0.5
49
19
0.4
04
19
0.1
49
19
0.0
39
18
9.7
58
18
9.5
66
18
9.3
82
18
9.1
86
18
8.7
98
18
8.4
24
18
8.1
84
18
7.8
69
18
7.6
30
18
8.2
03
18
7.5
3
CHAINAGE : 0+000.00 - 0+536.31
EMBANKMENT
WATER LEVEL(masl)
196
197
196
1971
94
.23
19
5.2
3
19
2.8
41
93
.84
19
1.5
41
92
.54
18
9.7
41
90
.74
18
8.7
41
89
.74
CHAINAGE (km)
0+
00
0.0
0
0+
05
0.0
0
0+
10
0.0
0
0+
15
0.0
0
0+
20
0.0
0
0+
25
0.0
0
0+
30
0.0
0
0+
35
0.0
0
0+
40
0.0
0
0+
45
0.0
0
0+
50
0.0
0
0+
53
6.3
1
19
4.4
85
19
5.4
85
19
0.5
87
19
1.1
47
19
2.1
47
18
7.5
71
88
.57
0+
26
0.0
0
LEVEL (masl)
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
DWG NO:
SHEET NO:
REVISION: 3
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
PRTW.03
Longitudinal Profile
MR_LP_03
01H=1:1000
V=1:100
EMBANKMENT TOP LEVEL(m) MAXIMUM WATER LEVEL(m) GROUND LEVEL(m) Proposed Location of Culvert Direction of Toe Drain Slope
DATE:
27/09/19
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
PRTW-04Spur
Embankment Revetment
No. of Spurs:
Spur Dimension
Chainage Start End Length
Embankment
Revetment
Spurs
(Type 5)
0+000m 0+120m
15
30
12 7.5 3
0+000m 1+785m 1785m
Spurs
Spacing(m)
Length(m) Base Width(m) Height(m)
385m0+520m 0+785m
0+280m 0+600m 1785m
0+000m 0+280m
0+600m 1+785m
Intlet 0+014m
Co-ordinates
SOP Northing
(m)
Easting
(m)
1
2
Elevation
(m)
563708 2948376
563813 2947653
120.45 m
118.62 m
3 563864 2947625 118.42 m
8.92060+000m
0+785m
0+014m
AMR.004_1
BMR.004_2
CMR.004_3
0 25
SCALE BAR 1:4000
50 200100
SOP1
Proposed location of
culvert for toe-drain;
see note 12
Proposed location of culvert
for existing channel/drainage
SOP2
SOP3
Embankment to tie in to
existing embankment
Embankment to tie in to
existing embankment
Notable historic river movement; alignment of
embankment to be re-confirmed by Contractor.
See note 3 and 23
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALE
Overview
SIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
DWG NO:Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa Basin
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
REVISION:
MR_OV_04
3
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
PRTW.04
01
1:4000BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
DATE:
27/09/19
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATURE
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF
EMBANKMENT WITH REVETMENT(1)
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
DWG NO:
DATE:
27/09/19
1/41:100
PRTW.04
(CH 0+170)
MR.004
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
HFL(118.51)
River Side
Embankment Top Level(120.01)
Existing ground level2
1
2.85
Freeboard 1.50
Non-woven
geotextile
(refer note 5)
4.503.00 1.50
7.50
3.00
3.00
1.50
To be excavated
Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
Embankment fill.
Refer to note 5 for
material
properties,grading
and compaction
requirements.
100mm thick well
graded 5-20mm dia
granular surface
layer.
200mm thick Type1
un-bound mixture
for gravel access
track. Refer to note5
for material
properties, grading
and compaction
requirements.
0.2
0
0.1
0 0.504.00
0.50
5.00
REVISION: 3
1.0
0 1
1
SCALE BAR
10 2 5
1:100
0.3
5
0.25
Class 6G selected
granular material for
rock fill. Refer to
note 5 for material
properties and
grading
requirements.
Non-woven
geotextile
(refer note 5)
Gabion revetment filled with class 6G
selected rockfill.Refer to note 5 for material
properties,grading and compaction
requirements.Gabion dimension
3.00 x 1.50 x 0.50 m
Gabion launching appron filled with class
6G selected granular material. Refer to
note 5 for material properties,grading and
compaction requirements.Gabion
dimension 3.00 x 1.50 x 0.90 m
300mm thick sweet soil
with grass seeding and
vetiver planting
Trapezoidal toe drain;
channel sides (1V:2H) and
base constructed from
300mm thick rock fill (refer
to note 5)
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
2
1 0.501.65
0.3
0
0.50
(23)dd=2.60
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATURE
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF
EMBANKMENT WITH REVETMENT(2)
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
DWG NO:
DATE:
27/09/19
2/41:100
PRTW.04
(CH 0+480)
MR.004
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
HFL(117.81)
River Side
Embankment Top Level(119.31)
Existing ground level
2
1
2.85
Freeboard 1.50
4.503.00 1.50
7.50
3.00
1.50
d=3.20
3.00
To be excavated
Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
Embankment fill. Refer to
note 5 for material
properties,grading and
compaction requirements.
100mm thick well
graded 5-20mm dia
granular surface layer.
200mm thick Type 1
un-bound mixture for
gravel access
road.Refer to note 5 for
material properties,
grading and compaction
requirements.
0.2
0
0.1
0 0.504.00
0.50
5.00
REVISION: 3
1.3
3 1
1
SCALE BAR
10 2 5
1:100
0.3
5
0.25Class 6G selected
granular material for rock
fill. Refer to note 5 for
material properties and
grading requirements.
Non-woven
geotextile
(refer note 5)
Gabion revetment filled with class 6G
selected rockfill.Refer to note 5 for material
properties,grading and compaction
requirements.Gabion dimension
3.00 x 1.50 x 0.30 m
Gabion launching appron filled with class
6G selected granular material. Refer to
note 5 for material properties,grading and
compaction requirements.Gabion
dimension 3.00 x 1.50 x 0.30 m
300mm thick sweet soil
with grass seeding and
vetiver planting
Non-woven
geotextile
(refer note 5)
Trapezoidal toe drain;
channel sides (1V:2H) and
base constructed from
300mm thick rock fill (refer
to note 5)
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
2
1 0.501.65
0.3
0
0.50
(23)d
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATURE
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF
EMBANKMENT WITH REVETMENT(3)
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
DWG NO:
DATE:
27/09/19
3/41:100
PRTW.04
(CH 0+695)
MR.004
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
HFL(117.25)
River Side
To be excavated
Embankment Top Level(118.75)
Existing ground level2
1
2.85
Freeboard 1.50
4.503.00 1.50
7.50
3.00
1.50
d=2.70
3.00
Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
Embankment fill. Refer to
note 5 for material
properties,grading and
compaction requirements.
100mm thick well
graded 5-20mm dia
granular surface
layer.
200mm thick Type1
un-bound mixture
for gravel access
road.Refer to note5
for material
properties, grading
and compaction
requirements.
0.2
0
0.1
0 0.504.00
0.50
5.00
REVISION: 3
1.0
0
1
1
SCALE BAR
10 2 5
1:100
0.3
5
0.25Class 6G selected
granular material for
rock fill. Refer to note 5
for material properties
and grading
requirements.
Non-woven
geotextile
(refer note
5)
Gabion revetment filled with class 6G
selected rockfill.Refer to note 5 for material
properties,grading and compaction
requirements.Gabion dimension
3.00 x 1.50 x 0.40 m
Gabion launching appron filled with class
6G selected granular material. Refer to
note 5 for material properties,grading and
compaction requirements.Gabion
dimension 3.00 x 1.50 x 0.90 m
300mm thick sweet soil
with grass seeding and
vetiver planting
Non-woven
geotextile
(refer note 5)
Trapezoidal toe drain;
channel sides (1V:2H) and
base constructed from
300mm thick rock fill (refer
to note 5)
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
2
1 0.501.65
0.3
0
0.50
(23)d
15.00
3.004.506.00
3.007.504.50
SECTION B-B
Scale 1:200
Downstream Upstream
7.50
0.750.75
0.750.75
0.60
0.757.50
12.00Gabion launching apron
(gabion box: 3.00m x 1.50m x 0.60m)
Gabion spur
(gabion box 3.00m x 1.50m x 0.75m
SECTION A-A
Scale 1:200
19.50
0.600.75
0.75
0.75
Gabion revetment
Geotextile
Spur Top level (Varies)
Embankment Top Level (Varies)
3.0
04.5
06.0
0
4.5
03.0
0
19.507.50
15.0
0 12.00
PLAN VIEW (TYPE -5)
Scale 1:200
Upstream
Downstream
A
B
B
A
7.5
0
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALE :SIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
DWG NO:
SHEET NO:
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
1:200
PRTW.04
MR.004
4/4TYPICAL SPUR SECTION (TYPE 5)
0 6 12 18 24 30
Scale Bar : 1:200
3REVISION:DATE:
27/09/19
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
11
7.5
82
11
7.6
54
11
7.5
60
11
7.7
27
11
7.6
07
11
7.4
88
11
7.2
48
11
7.0
09
11
7.2
19
11
6.5
96
11
6.4
22
11
6.3
54
11
5.9
20
11
5.5
90
11
5.2
61
11
5.3
21
11
5.4
22
11
5.5
39
11
5.6
34
CHAINAGE : 0+000.00 - 0+785.00
120
121
122
11
8.9
31
20
.43
11
8.6
11
20
.11
11
8.0
21
19
.52
11
7.8
91
19
.39
11
7.7
41
19
.24
11
7.6
11
9.1
CHAINAGE (km)
0+
00
0.0
0
0+
05
0.0
0
0+
10
0.0
0
0+
15
0.0
0
0+
20
0.0
0
0+
25
0.0
0
0+
30
0.0
0
0+
35
0.0
0
0+
40
0.0
0
0+
45
0.0
0
0+
50
0.0
0
0+
55
0.0
0
0+
60
0.0
0
0+
48
0.0
0
11
8.9
51
20
.45
0+
52
0.0
0
11
8.1
26
11
9.6
26
11
5.4
11
17
.71
51
19
.21
5
EXISTINGLEVEL (masl)
EMBANKMENT
WATER LEVEL(masl)
LEVEL (masl)
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
DWG NO:
SHEET NO:
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
PRTW.04
Longitudinal Profile
MR_LP_04
01
EMBANKMENT TOP LEVEL(m) MAXIMUM WATER LEVEL(m) GROUND LEVEL(m) Proposed Location of Culvert Direction of Toe Drain Slope
DATE:
27/09/19
BEEZAN KHADKA
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
REVISION: 3
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
H=1:1000
V=1:100BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
11
6.3
34
11
6.3
10
11
6.3
95
11
6.3
11
11
6.2
58
11
6.1
90
120
121
122
11
6.9
21
18
.42
0+
65
0.0
0
0+
70
0.0
0
0+
75
0.0
0
0+
78
5.0
0DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
DWG NO:
SHEET NO:
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
PRTW.04
Longitudinal Profile
MR_LP_04
02
EMBANKMENT TOP LEVEL(m) MAXIMUM WATER LEVEL(m) GROUND LEVEL(m) Proposed Location of Culvert Direction of Toe Drain Slope
DATE:
27/09/19
BEEZAN KHADKA
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
REVISION: 3
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
H=1:1000
V=1:100BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
PRTW-05aSpur
Embankment Revetment
No. of Spurs:
Spur Dimension
Chainage Start End Length
Embankment
Revetment
Spurs
(Type 6)0+000m 0+240m
9
30
12 7.5 3
0+000m 0+470m 470m
Spurs
Spacing(m)
Length(m) Base Width(m) Height(m)
240m
0+200m 0+470m 270m
Co-ordinates
SOP Northing
(m)Easting
(m)
1
2
Elevation
(masl)
564744 2952134
564706 2951871
135.25 m
133.74 m
0+000m
0+470m
0+200m
AMR.05a_1
BMR.05a_2
0 25
SCALE BAR 1:2500
50 200100
Proposed location of
culvert for toe-drain; see
note 12
SOP1
SOP2
Revetment to tie in to
natural ground
Embankment to tie in
to natural ground
Embankment to tie in to natural
ground. Proposed tie in length of
50m to reach high ground; to be
confirmed on site. See note 11
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALE
Overview
SIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
DWG NO:Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa Basin
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
REVISION:
MR_OV_05a
3
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
PRTW.05a
01
1:2500BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
DATE:
27/09/19
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATURE
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF
REVETMENT
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
DWG NO:
DATE:
27/09/19
1/31:100
PRTW.05a
(CH 0+090)
MR.05a
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
HFL(134.44)
River Side
Existing ground level
2
1
2.65
Freeboard 1.50
Non-woven
geotextile
(refer note 5)
6.003.00
6.003.00
3.00
3.00
To be excavated
Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin REVISION: 3
SCALE BAR
10 2 5
1:100
Gabion revetment filled with class 6G
selected rockfill.Refer to note 5 for material
properties,grading and compaction
requirements.Gabion dimension
3.00 x 1.50 x 0.50 m
Gabion launching appron filled with class
6G selected granular material. Refer to
note 5 for material properties,grading and
compaction requirements.Gabion
dimension 3.00 x 1.50 x 0.60 m
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
0.50
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATURE
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF
EMBANKMENT WITH REVETMENT
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
DWG NO:
DATE:
27/09/19
2/31:100
PRTW.05a
(CH 0+340)
MR.05a
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
HFL(132.95)
River Side
Existing ground level
2
1
2.65
Freeboard 1.50
6.003.00
6.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
To be excavated
Embankment Top Level(134.45)
d=0.50
Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
Embankment fill. Refer to
note 5 for material
properties,grading and
compaction requirements.
100mm thick well graded
5-20mm dia granular
surface layer.
200mm thick Type1
un-bound mixture
for gravel access
road.Refer to note 5
for material
properties, grading
and compaction
requirements.
0.2
0
0.1
0 0.504.00
0.50
5.00
REVISION: 3
SCALE BAR
10 2 5
1:100
0.3
5
0.25
Non-woven
geotextile
(refer note 5)
Gabion revetment filled with class 6G
selected rockfill.Refer to note 5 for material
properties,grading and compaction
requirements.Gabion dimension
3.00 x 1.50 x 0.40 m
Gabion launching appron filled with class
6G selected granular material. Refer to
note 5 for material properties,grading and
compaction requirements.Gabion
dimension 3.00 x 1.50 x 0.60 m
300mm thick sweet soil
with grass seeding and
vetiver planting
Non-woven
geotextile
(refer note 5)
Trapezoidal toe drain;
channel sides (1V:2H) and
base constructed from
300mm thick rock fill (refer
to note 5)
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
21
0.50
1.65
0.3
0
0.50
18.00
3.004.506.00
4.507.506.00
SECTION B-B
Scale 1:200
Downstream Upstream
7.50
0.750.75
0.750.75
0.60
0.759.00
12.00Gabion launching apron(gabion box: 3.00m x 1.50m x 0.60m)
Gabion spur
(gabion box 3.00m x 1.50m x 0.75m
SECTION A-A Scale 1:200A
21.00
0.600.75
0.75
0.75
Gabion revetment
Geotextile
Spur Top level (Varies)
Embankment Top Level (Varies)
3.0
04.5
06.0
0
6.0
04.5
0
21.009.00
18.0
0 12.00
PLAN VIEW (TYPE -6)
Scale 1:200
Upstream
Downstream
A
B
B
A
7.5
0
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALE :SIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
DWG NO:
SHEET NO:
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
1:200
PRTW.05a
MR.005a
3/3TYPICAL SPUR SECTION (TYPE 6)
0 6 12 18 24 30
Scale Bar : 1:200
3REVISION:DATE:
27/09/19
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
13
7.4
25
13
7.3
34
13
7.2
43
13
7.1
52
13
7.0
61
13
6.9
70
13
6.7
88
13
6.4
30
13
5.8
96
13
5.3
62
13
4.8
59
13
4.4
06
13
4.0
97
13
3.9
43
13
3.5
72
13
3.1
41
13
2.7
97
13
2.9
72
CHAINAGE : 0+000.00 - 0+470.00
13
5
13
4.0
2
13
3.5
18
13
5.0
18
13
2.7
51
34
.25
13
2.4
51
33
.95
13
2.3
11
33
.81
CHAINAGE (km)
0+
00
0.0
0
0+
05
0.0
0
0+
10
0.0
0
0+
15
0.0
0
0+
20
0.0
0
0+
25
0.0
0
0+
30
0.0
0
0+
35
0.0
0
0+
40
0.0
0
0+
45
0.0
0
0+
47
0.0
0
13
5.1
8
0+
42
0.0
0
EXISTINGLEVEL (masl)
EMBANKMENT
WATER LEVEL(masl)
LEVEL (masl)
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
DWG NO:
SHEET NO:
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
PRTW.05a
Longitudinal Profile
MR_LP_05a
01
EMBANKMENT TOP LEVEL(m) MAXIMUM WATER LEVEL(m) GROUND LEVEL(m) Proposed Location of Culvert Direction of Toe Drain Slope
DATE:
27/09/19
BEEZAN KHADKA
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
REVISION: 3
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
H=1:1000
V=1:100BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
PRTW-05bSpur
Embankment Revetment
No. of Spurs:
Spur Dimension
Chainage Start End Length
Embankment
Revetment
Spurs
(Type 6)0+000m 0+200m
8
30
12 7.5 3
0+000m 0+250m 250m
Spurs
Spacing(m)
Length(m) Base Width(m) Height(m)
200m
250m0+000m 0+250m
Co-ordinates
SOP Northing
(m)
Easting
(m)
1
2
Elevation
(masl)
564728 2952700
564747 2952452
138.37 m
137.13 m
0+000m
0+250m
AMR.005b_1
SOP1
SOP2
Embankment to tie in to
existing embankment
Embankment to tie
in to natural ground
0 25
SCALE BAR 1:2000
50 100
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALE
Overview
SIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
DWG NO:Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project:Mawa Ratuwa Basin
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
REVISION:
MR_OV_05b
3
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
PRTW.05b
01
1:2000BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
DATE:
27/09/19
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALESIGNATURE
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF
EMBANKMENT WITH REVETMENT
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory FacilityJawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing Title
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
SHEET NO:
DWG NO:
DATE:
27/09/19
1/21:100
PRTW.05b
(CH 0+120)
MR.005b
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level
HFL(136.11)
River Side
Existing ground level
2
1
2.43
Freeboard 1.50
6.003.00
6.003.00
3.00
3.00
To be excavated
Embankment Top Level(137.61)
d=0.50
Project: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(ADB GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
Embankment fill. Refer to
note 5 for material
properties,grading and
compaction requirements.
100mm thick well
graded 5-20mm dia
granular surface layer.
200mm thick Type 1
un-bound mixture for
gravel access
road.Refer to note 5 for
material properties,
grading and compaction
requirements.
0.2
0
0.1
0 0.504.00
0.50
5.00
REVISION: 3
SCALE BAR
10 2 5
1:100
0.3
5
0.25
Non-woven
geotextile
(refer note 5)
Gabion revetment filled with class 6G
selected rockfill.Refer to note 5 for material
properties,grading and compaction
requirements.Gabion dimension
3.00 x 1.50 x 0.40 m
Gabion launching appron filled with class
6G selected granular material. Refer to
note 5 for material properties,grading and
compaction requirements.Gabion
dimension 3.00 x 1.50 x 0.60 m
300mm thick sweet soil
with grass seeding and
vetiver planting
Non-woven
geotextile
(refer note 5)
Trapezoidal toe drain;
channel sides (1V:2H) and
base constructed from
300mm thick rock fill (refer
to note 5)
BEEZAN KHADKA
KRISHNA P. SUVEDI
CARRIE ELLER
AHBAR CHOUDHURY
BK
KPS
CE
AC
A3
2
1
0.50
1.65
0.3
0
0.50
0.759.00
12.00Gabion launching apron(gabion box: 3.00m x 1.50m x 0.60m)
Gabion spur
(gabion box 3.00m x 1.50m x 0.75m
SECTION A-A Scale 1:200A
21.00
0.600.75
0.75
0.75
Gabion revetment
Geotextile
Spur Top level (Varies)
Embankment Top Level (Varies)
18.00
3.004.506.00
4.507.506.00
SECTION B-B
Scale 1:200
Downstream Upstream
7.50
0.750.75
0.750.75
0.60
3.0
04
.50
6.0
0
6.0
04
.50
21.009.00
18
.00 12.00
PLAN VIEW (TYPE -6)
Scale 1:200
Upstream
Downstream
A
B
B
A
7.5
0
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
NAME SCALE :SIGNATUREGOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
AND IRRIGATION
Water Resources Project Preparatory Facility
Jawalakhel, Lalitpur
Drawing TitleProject: Preparation of Priority River
Basin Flood Risk Management Project
(GRANT NO:0299-NEP)
Sub-Project: Mawa Ratuwa Basin
MOTT MACDONALD
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
TOTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (TMS)
DWG NO:
SHEET NO:
Notes: All levels and measurements are in meters unless indicated differently. All levels refer to meters above sea level (masl). HFL=High Flood Level