HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT Peshawar Tortham

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

CONSULTANCY SERVICES PERTAINING TO FEASIBILITY STUDY AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF PESHAWAR - KABUL MOTORWAY

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT Peshawar Tortham Motorway- Section I

Submitted to: National Highway Authority July2017

Submitted by:

Associated Consultancy Centre (Pvt.) Ltd. (ACC) in association with SAMBO Engineering Co. Ltd. (South Korea), ACE-TES Lahore & Assign International

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary ...... v CHAPTER-1 ...... 1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.1 Peshawer Tortham- Section I ...... 2 CHAPTER-2 ...... 3 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ...... 3 CHAPTER-3 ...... 4 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA ...... 4 CHAPTER-4 ...... 7 HYDROLOGICAL INVESTIGATION ...... 7 4.1 General ...... 7 4.2 Climatic Characteristic Analysis ...... 7 4.3 Rainfall Frequency Analysis ...... 10 4.4 Rainfall-Runoff Method ...... 14 CHAPTER-5 ...... 15 HYDRAULIC INVESTIGATION ...... 15 5.1 Hydraulic Analysis for Major Streams and Nullahs ...... 15 5.2 Hydraulic Analysis for Cross-Drainage Structures/ Culverts ...... 20 5.3 Hydraulic Design Analysis for Side Channels ...... 29 CHAPTER-6 ...... 32 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 32 References ...... 33 ANNEXURES...... 34 Annexure A: Historical Climatic Data for Peshawar ...... 35 Annexure-B: Catchments Delineation of Major Streams/ Nullahs ...... 39 Annexure-C: Hydrologic and Hydraulic Parameters relating Bridges over Major Streams/ Nullahs ...... 50 Annexure-D: Hydraulic Outputs of Major Streams/ Nullahs ...... 53 Annexure-E: Scour Depth Estimation by Lacey Regime Theory ...... 64

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of Peshawar-Torkhum Road ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 2: Geo-referenced location of proposed alignment under study ...... 3 Figure 3: Peshawar-Torkhum Proposed Alignment Location Map ...... 4 Figure 4: Average Temperature Pattern ...... 8 Figure 5: Average Rainfall Patter ...... 8 Figure 6: Long Term Maximum Temperature Pattern in Study Area ...... 9 Figure 7: Long Term Minimum Temperature Pattern in Study Area ...... 9 Figure 8: Long Term Annual Rainfall Pattern in Study Area ...... 10 Figure 9: Hydrology of Study Alignment ...... 11 Figure 10: HEC-SSP Computer Modei ...... 12 Figure 11: Rainfall Frequency Curve for Study Alignment (Gumbel) ...... 12 Figure 12: Rainfall Frequency Curve for Study Alignment (GEV) ...... 13 Figure 13: Computer Model HEC-HMS ...... 14 Figure 14: Scheme of runoff generation due to rainfall ...... 29 Figure 15: Scheme of protective measures for the road ...... 30 Figure 16: Schematic of Drop Structure along embankment ...... 31

iii

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Rainfall Estimates of Standard Return Periods (in mm) ...... 13 Table 2: Flood Characteristics through the proposed bridges along alignment ...... 17 Table 3: Proposed X- Drainage Structures ...... 21 Table 4: Schedule of Proposed X-Drainage Structures ...... 22

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Summary

The trade via Afghanistan towards Central Asian countries and from Arabian sea has been centuries old activity through road connectivity. With the passage of time, the traffic has increased tremendously, exerting pressure on existing road infrastructure, arising need for an improved road infrastructure from Peshwar to Torkham to meet the expanding communication needs, especially after CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) initiative. The current hydrological investigation is carried out to study the hydrological regime and allied impacts for safe development and operation of Peshawar-Torkham Expressway (approx 47 km) in the northern part of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. The Peshawar-Torkham proposed alignment falls in the areas mainly in terrains with barren and rugged mountains where several small streams and nullahs cross the alignment. The area falls in the climate mostly under semiarid Mediterranean influence and less monsoon effects with annual total around 400 mm. The average temperature in summer varies from 18 to 40 oC whereas the winter average temperatures range from 2 to 25 oC. However, the extreme temperatures could be below 0 oC in winters and more than 40 oC in summers. The long term temperature analysis (1974 to 2015) does not present any major deviation in the temperatures both in summer and winters. Whereas long term rainfall pattern shows an increasing trend in annual totals due to the fact that monsoon rains are moving upward towards northern parts of the country. However, the study alignment moves further upward, where such impact would not be that significant as Mediterranean disturbances having more influence in upper parts of the alignment. Based on the rainfall and runoff analysis in connection with the topography of the area, there have been proposed 22 bridges to safely pass the runoff generated from the upstream and adjoining areas. The design parameters for the bridges have been provided based on hydraulic analysis under the study in order to pass the standard floods safely (100-year). For bridges over major streams and nullahs, scour depth analysis have also been provided. Similarly, for overland flow and minor natural channels, 132 culverts have been proposed (including modification of 11 existing ones) for which design parameters are also provided to safely pass standard flood of 50-year recurrence interval. The road is located in the range where topography varies from mild to steep. The road may come mostly under the effect of direct flow from the hills in the form of torrents as flash flood; also carrying mud/boulders on its way. To avoid this, drainage channels along the road on hill sides connected to the nearest x-culverts may be provided to protect the road, for which design has also been proposed. The overland flow from the road itself may be passed through road-side drop structure and connected to corresponding culvert or existing conveyance system (watercourse or drain). In the design of culverts, there has been kept cushion for such overland flow from the road itself, giving 20% (0.2 to 0.3 m) freeboard for all culverts.

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

CHAPTER-1 BACKGROUND The subject road is connecting Peshawar with Kabul through Torkham and Jalalabad. Peshawar is the capital of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the administrative centre and economic hub for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Peshawar is situated in a large valley near the eastern end of the Khyber Pass, close to the Pak Afghan border. Known as “City on the Frontier”, Peshawar’s strategic location on the cross roads of Central Asia and South Asia has made it one of the most culturally vibrant and lively cities in the greater region. Peshawar is connected to Motorway system of Pakistan through Motorway M-1. Peshawar Northern Bypass having a definition of 4-lane dived Expressway provides link between Motorway M-1 and Start Point of Peshawar – Kabul Motorway. Total Length of the existing road from Peshawar (Hayatabad) to Kabul (Abdul Haq Square) is approximately 281 KM (Project alignment between Peshawar and Kabul is shown in Figure 1). The project is divided into following three sections: Table 1: Project Sections

Sr. No. Section Name of Section Length (KM) 1 Section - I Peshawar – Torkham (Pakistan) 50 2 Section – II Torkham – Jalalabad (Afghanistan) 76 3 Section - III Jalalabad –Kabul (Afghanistan) 155

Figure 1: Existing Alignment of Peshawar-Kabul Project

From Peshawar to Torkham, the terrain is very difficult in some reaches where the alignment mostly follows valleys and hill slopes. Although the design is completed by

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

NHA for the section between Peshawar and Torkham but it is envisaged that the consultant shall provide further value addition and improvement.

From Torkham to Jalalabad the existing 2-lane is being upgraded to 4-lane by FWO. The work is held up due to various reasons, it shall now be redesigned/upgraded to Motorway Standard. The distance from Torkham to Jalalabad is 76 Km.

From Jalalabad to Kabul using Kabul – Nangarhar Highway the existing road measures 139 km. The terrain is mountainous with hard rock and steep vertical slopes. Especially about 50 km section after Sarobi. It is envisaged that total Motorway length shall be around 265 Km1. Tunnels exist in Afghanistan section of the Highway.

1.1 Peshawar- Torkham, Section I

In the first phase, the Consultant has been advised to carry out feasibility study and preliminary design of Peshawar-Torkham Section. The Consultant have studied various alignment alternates in order to achieve stipulated motorway standards. Options of provision of tunnels in mountainous reach was also investigated. Final proposed Motorway alignment from Peshawar-Torkham is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Project Alignment of Peshawar-Torkham (Section-I)

On completion of alignment study, requirement of cross drainage structures has been investigated and preliminary design of structures has been carried out. The subject report has been prepared as the "Hydrology & Hydraulic Study Report" for Peshawar- Torkham Section as required by the deliverables of the TOR of the project.

1As per TOR the length is 281 km.

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

CHAPTER-2 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

The main objective of the study is to carry out hydrological investigations with reference to the proposed alignment from Peshawar to Torkham in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, expanding over a length of about 47 km. The specific scope of the study however is: 1. To carry out hydrological investigation with the analysis of rainfall and flood records supplemented by detailed field investigations for development of new road alignment and providing required 2. Analyze and propose required cross-drainage structures for the safe development and operation of the proposed alignment such as bridges, culverts, support structures etc. against standard flood conditions (100 years for bridges and 50 years for culverts) 3. Submit recommendations based upon concise analysis supported by field data for embankment, crossing/ drainage bridges, culverts etc. along the proposed alignment. The flyovers and other road crossing bridges are not discussed being not scope of study. The geo-referenced location of the subject road is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 3: Geo-referenced location of proposed alignment under study

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

CHAPTER-3 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA

The proposed alignment from Peshawar to Torkham would be a major road of about 47 km. This existing single carriageway (N-5) provides access from Peshawar to Torkham. However, the expanding traffic load demands an expressway for smooth transportation of goods to and from Afghanistan and onwards. The proposed 4-lanes dual alignment starts from Peshawar near Jamrud and approx 4 km from Peshawar Ring Road (Figure 3). It runs parallel to the existing N-5 whereas the distance apart varies from 0.5 to 2 km with terrain varying in elevation. The proposed alignment crosses several small and medium streams and nullahs (perennial/ non-perennial) where crossing bridges and drainage structures would be required. Such considerations would be of importance to be taken care for the safety of the road.

Proposed Alignment

Figure 4: Peshawar-Torkham Proposed Alignment Location Map

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

The climate of the area in which the new alignment falls is semiarid subtropical continental highland type. The mean annual rainfall is approximately 450 mm, of which 200 mm falls in March and April, with warm summers and cool winters. The area falls out of the monsoon belt where the major portion of rainfalls occurs due to western disturbances. The average daily maximum temperature of the hottest month is 36°C and the average daily minimum of the coldest is -0.5°C. The study alignment mainly falls in the Khyber Agency – Federally Administered Tribal Areas. This the geological region of Pre-aravallis, metamorphic in general including Precambrian and younger intrusions. The massive grey limestone with sand and clay beds that makes up the Carboniferous Khyber Formation and the slate, phyllites and schists with minor limestone and quartzite beds of the Ordovician-Silurian Landi Kotal Formation in the eastern part of the Khyber Agency. Mesozoic sediments occur in the western part of the Khyber Agency (Kruseman and Naqvi, 1988). Near Warsak on the boundary with the Peshawar Vale is a granite intrusion (Shah et al., 1980). In the western part Jurassic limestone has been found (Meissner at al.,1975). The Khyber Agency is mountainous without any well developed alluvial plain. According to the available information, approximately 20 test-and tube wells have been drilled in different valleys. The lithological data on two boreholes in the Jamrud – Landi Kotal area indicate an ill-sorted mixture of clay and gravels, probably with low transmissivity values. The depth to water level is quite large (more than 30 m). If these boreholes are representative of the whole area, then the groundwater development is not viable (Kruseman and Naqvi, 1988). The land use is generally mild hilly terrain with barren and rugged mountains, without a well-developed alluvial plain. However, the green valleys are also seen. But it also has some beautiful valleys with plain cultivable lands. The elevation varies from about 396 to 1050 along the alignment however, the hills are higher than these. The soils are derived mainly from the local weathering of bedrock, deposited by streams and rivers, though loess also occurs to some extent. Landforms in the area are varied and include piedmont, plains, valleys, gravel fans, rough broken land and gullied land. Level areas are loamy, while lowlands are slightly to strongly calcareous. The content of organic matter and available phosphorus is very low.

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

The population is scattered in the area with minimal road and other civil facilities. Due to recent insurgencies in the FATA areas, it is also badly affected due to refugees affecting the natural land use/ land cover of the area. The development of new highway will play a major role in the development of this under-privileged area as well as help further developing the trade.

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

CHAPTER-4 HYDROLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

4.1 General The hydrological investigation under the current study has been carried out to analyze the climate cum flow regime in connection with the development of Peshawar to Torkham highway extending over a stretch of 46 about. For such development it is necessary to take all necessary deign and protection measures for safe operation of the road after its development for its service life. The design considerations and measures could be: appropriate embankment/ alignment, cross drainage structures including bridges, culverts and drops structures to safeguard against possible rainfall/ flooding or surface runoff, and inundation impacts. For such type of structures, the recurrence interval is generally adopted as 100 year for large bridges and 50 year for small structures and culverts (Mutreja, 1990). The land use layout of proposed alignment is such that it mainly passes through mountainous terrains where the runoff flux due to rainfalls could be either from the hills along the road or the natural steams or nullahs crossing the alignment. This section therefore focuses to estimate the runoff flux to the road alignment so that the protective measures and cross-drainage structures could be proposed to safeguard the alignment. For this purpose, there could be two different approaches or sometimes the combination of both to estimate the runoff magnitude of standard return periods viz. i) Discharge frequency analysis using observed data, and ii) well practiced and acceptable rainfall-runoff methods making use of observed rainfall which is mostly available along with physical characteristics of the catchment areas from where the runoff is generated. Such hydrological analyses have been presented hereafter.

4.2 Climatic Characteristic Analysis The study alignment falls in the arid to semi-arid region. In order to analyze the climatic characteristics of area, it was explored to find weather data source or climatic station in the area exit in such area. The Peshawar is the only climatic station where Pakistan Meteorological Department has long term rainfall and temperature record which has been obtained accordingly and analyzed under the current study from 1974 to 2015 (41 years). The average temperature pattern shows that the summer temperatures vary from 18 to 40 oC whereas the winter average temperatures range from 2 to 25 oC (Figure 4). However, the extreme temperatures could be below 0 oC in winters and more than 40 oC in summers.

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

The rainfall is due to more Mediterranean influence and less monsoon effects with annual total around 400 mm (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Average Temperature Pattern

Figure 6: Average Rainfall Pattern

The temperature extremes were analyzed for study area as it plays significant role in the material selection. For this purpose, long term annual maximum and minimum temperatures were analyzed from the observed temperature data and the results are shown in Figure 6. The general trend shows that during summer the maximum temperature is higher than 45 oC with extremes of 48 oC. However,

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway looking at long term averages, no significant rise in maximum temperature is observed (1974 to 2015). However, for winter temperatures, if we ignore the outlier of year 2012 (15 oC), the average trend almost remains the same over the period of 1974 to 2015.

Figure 7: Long Term Maximum Temperature Pattern in Study Area

Figure 8: Long Term Minimum Temperature Pattern in Study Area

Whereas long term rainfall pattern shows an increasing trend in annual totals (Figure 8). This is due to the fact that monsoon rains are moving upward towards

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway northern parts of the country – the unprecedented flood of 2010 and thereafter. However, the study alignment moves further upward, where such impact would not be that significant as Mediterranean disturbances having more influence in upper parts of the alignment.

Figure 9: Long Term Annual Rainfall Pattern in Study Area

4.3 Rainfall Frequency Analysis The alignment falls in the area where there are several small and medium streams crossing the proposed alignment (Figure 9). The frequency analysis of historical floods records if available plays significant role in hydrological studies to analyze the flooding threat from nearby or crossing rivers/ streams to a point of interest in terms of flood magnitude, its inundation effects and flood elevation. This also allows deciding viable protection measures and suggesting x-drainage structures. There are 22 locations where x- drainage bridges are proposed and 132 sites where culverts are identified. However, there is neither possible gauging for discharge measurement nor any long term discharge record exists in the area.

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Figure 10: Hydrology of Study Alignment

Alternatively, long term rainfall extreme events play significant role to estimate the standard rainfalls (100, 50, or 25 years). These standard rainfalls would be then used to convert into runoff using standard rainfall-runoff methods, such as SCS Synthetic Unit Hydrograph method. Therefore, under the current study, such approach was followed. For the estimation of rainfall of standard recurrence intervals, Generalized Extreme Value Distribution (GEV) is mostly used. In this case, it is Type-I i.e. Gumbel Distribution for extreme events (a two parametric distribution) which is well suited for most Pakistani catchments especially relating frequency analysis. The frequency analysis of observed annual maximum rainfalls (1974 to 2015) was carried out using widely accepted HEC-SSP software developed by US Army Corps of Engineers (Figure 10). This ensures more rigorous analysis for better decision making. The estimated rainfall frequency curves are shown in Figure 11 (Gumbel) and Figure 12 (GEV).

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Figure 11: HEC-SSP Computer Model

General Frequency Analytical Plot for Rainfall at Peshawar Return Period

1.0 1.1 2 5 10 50 200 1000 10000 1000.0

100.0 AnnuallMaximumRainfall (1974-2015) inmm

10.0 0.9999 0.999 0.99 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.02 0.005 0.001 0.0001

Probability Computed Curve Expected Probability Curve 5 Percent Confidence Limit 95 Percent Confidence Limit Observed Events (Weibull plotting positions) High Outlier

Figure 12: Rainfall Frequency Curve for Study Alignment (Gumbel)

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

General Frequency Analytical Plot for Rainfall at Peshawar Return Period

1.0 1.1 2 5 10 50 200 1000 10000 1000.0

100.0 AnnuallMaximumRainfall (1974-2015) inmm

10.0 0.9999 0.999 0.99 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.02 0.005 0.001 0.0001

Probability Computed Curve Expected Probability Curve 5 Percent Confidence Limit 95 Percent Confidence Limit Observed Events (Weibull plotting positions) High Outlier

Figure 13: Rainfall Frequency Curve for Study Alignment (GEV)

The rainfall estimates for standard return periods of 50-year and 100-year are drawn in Table 1, which indicate difference in standard rainfall estimates as 14% to 21% between Gumbel and GEV distributions. However, for rainfall frequency analysis relating major events, a recent global survey on the distribution of annual maxima of daily rainfall by Apalexiou and Koutsoyiannis (2012) have provided that GEV (Log Pearson Type III) distribution is most suitable for large return periods. Therefore, the maximum estimates were adopted under the current study and also in the light of increasing rainfall trends in Figure 4.

Table 1: Rainfall Estimates of Standard Return Periods (in mm)

S.No. Distribution 50-Year 100-Year

1 Gumbel 177 204

2 GEV 201 248

Difference 14% 22%

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

4.4 Rainfall-Runoff Method The standard rainfall estimates made in Section 4.3 were converted into runoff of standard return periods (100 and 50 years) to analyze the behavior of floods in relation to the alignment either through crossing steams for determining clearance and size of bridges or suggesting structures like culverts for drainage purposes. For this, SCS Synthetic Unit Hydrograph method was used to carry out rainfall-runoff analysis using HEC-HMS Computer Model (Figure 13) to simulate floods of desired return periods at points of interest along the proposed alignment. For this purpose, GIS applications were made for estimating the catchments characteristics (watershed area, main stream length, average slope, land use etc.) used as input in the model (Annexure-B).

Figure 14: Computer Model HEC-HMS All such discharge estimates from each identified crossing stream and small catchments overland flow to the alignment, were studied through hydraulic analysis presented in the coming sections. This was done in order to see the impact to the alignment and suggest accordingly the protective measures and design parameters for necessary drainage structures.

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

CHAPTER-5 HYDRAULIC INVESTIGATION

5.1 Hydraulic Analysis for Major Streams and Nullahs The main objective of this investigation was to analyze the behavior of potential flood from major streams and nullahs passing the subject Peshawar-Torkham proposed alignment in order to see the impact of flooding on the alignment and assess the capacity of required bridges and drainage structures. This would help suggesting the bridge design, embankment height and/or allied protection measures. Using the detailed topographic, cross sectional and longitudinal profile data, it is possible to study the flood behavior/ inundation extent and suggest measures under given potential flood conditions. In order to carry out the hydraulic study, the analysis was carried out using HEC- RAS Hydraulic Model because of its wide range applicability. The US Army Corps of Engineers’ River System (HEC-RAS 5.01) model allows performing multi-purpose one and two- dimensional steady and unsteady flow river hydraulics analysis. The model was applied in the current study to analyze the flow profiles of potential flood (100-year in this case) along the alignment.. In order to model the potential floods behavior through the proposed 22 bridges and crossing streams, the following data were provided as input to HEC-RAS model;  Observed X-sectional data at 100 m intervals from upstream (1.0 km) and downstream (0.5 km) of the alignment  Existing structures and protections  Average slope of reach

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

 Magnitude of flood/ discharge (100-year) at the starting point of each study reach  Manning’s roughness coefficient for natural streams taken as n= 0.025  Known highest flood marks from the physical field conditions for calibration/validation purposes.  The existing alignment and ground NSL

The model was run simultaneously in calibration/ validation process and the final outcomes of the modeling results were drawn in Table 2, wherein the finish levels of the road have been proposed in contrast to the highest flood levels through the proposed bridges, keeping in view the safety of the proposed highway. The hydraulic parameters for the bridges over these streams and nullahs are also given in Annexure-C, whereas the hydraulic model outputs are given in Annexure-D for further elaboration. All the bridges have been so proposed to have sufficient capacity as the floods in these areas also bring lot more mud and boulders along due to bare mountains and steep slopes. For this purpose, the scour depth calculations have also been made using Lacey Regime Theory (Lacey, 1946). The conditions of Lacey’s regime are very rarely achieved and are very difficult to maintain in practice. However, in rivers and streams only in bank full stage or high flood conditions, it may be considered to achieve temporary or quasi-regime. The recognition of this fact can be utilized to deal with the issues concerning scour and floods. The total scour depth for each proposed bridge is therefore given in Table 2, whereas the estimations are also provided in Annexure-E. As per general rule, the piling depth for bridges is taken as double the scour depth.

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Table 2: Flood Characteristics through the proposed bridges along alignment

Cell x 2 km km cumecs cusecs m m m Span (m) Chaura Khwar near 481.00 1 7+060 Bridge 7 x 40 425.31 2356 83119 497.225 8.02 Jamrud (481.00)

532.780 2 8+650 Bridge Nullah 1 x 30 0.53 12.72 449 542.500 1.26 (532.790)

537.060 3 8+890 Bridge Nullah 1 x 40 0.73 17.50 617 542.500 1.33 (537.060)

538.110 4 9+580 Bridge Nullah 1 x 40 1.41 34 1197 543.86 1.96 (538.110)

Khyber Khwar at Ali 753.670 5 21+920 Bridge 2 x 40 70.00 341 12016 758.966 4.21 Masjid (753.670)

Khyber Khwar 772.00 6 22+560 Bridge 2 x 30 69.80 340 11995 785.351 3.11 (RD22+560) (772.00)

Khyber Khwar 779.100 7 22+765 Bridge 2 x 25 69.60 339 11960 785.63 3.42 (RD22+765) (779.10)

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

RD/ Location on Total Bridge Catchment 100-year discharge/ Deck Level Highest Pesh- Scour Structure Location/ Name of Size Area design capacity (top of road) Flood Level S.#. Torkhum Depth Road Type stream Cell x 2 km km cumecs cusecs m m m Span (m)

Khyber Khwar 803.910 8 23+950 Bridge 4 x 30 63.00 307 10831 810.38 4.07 (RD23+950) (803.900)

824.50 9 24+700 Bridge Nullah 2 x 35 7.70 92.3 3257 828.000 1.85 (824.50)

Khyber Khwar 836.170 10 25+615 Bridge 1 x 40 56.00 273 9613 840.540 3.12 (RD25+615) (836.17)

867.030 11 25+810 Bridge Chingai Khwar 2 x 20 3.29 79 2780 870.000 2.59 (867.000)

Kagga Khwar at 953.100 12 28+700 Bridge 2 x 30 8.45 145 5113 956.000 3.17 Wali Khel (953.190)

958.630 13 30+460 Bridge Dand Khwar 1 x 25 9.00 154 5449 962.000 2.98 (958.630)

1003.660 14 33+000 Bridge Bori Khwar 1 x 20 6.80 117 4117 1006.000 2.87 (103.660)

1013.66 15 33+587 Bridge Sawal Khwar 1 x 20 9.00 154 5449 1017.000 3.05 (1013.660)

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

1024.870 17 36+410 Bridge Nullah 1 x 40 5.60 96 3390 1041.675 2.60 (1024.870)

949.130 18 39+680 Bridge Nullah 3 x 30 0.80 19.2 677 958.000 1.62 (949.110)

898.550 19 40+545 Bridge Wuch Tangi 1 x 40 9.75 117 4124 922.9 2.71 (898.560)

804.16 20 43+230 Bridge Nullah 1 x 30 3.20 55 1939 808.000 2.29 (804.160)

738.540 21 45+215 Bridge Nullah 1 x 40 15.00 181 6373 749.726 2.73 (738.570)

22 46+300 Bridge Giani at Torkham 4 x 25 29.20 350 12349 711.000 708.290 4.25

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

5.2 Hydraulic Analysis for Cross-Drainage Structures/ Culverts On the basis of inundation analysis and cross-drainage needs at the point of interests along the proposed alignment, it was analyzed to assess the required design capacity of proposed culverts at 132 locations to safely pass flow of certain magnitude (50 years return period) to withstand the embankment as well as smooth operation of the alignment under such standard flood conditions. All such analysis was carried out using a well established computer model HY-8 Culvert Analysis to determine the design parameters of culvert at each point of interest. The software has been structured to be self-contained and is mostly used by roadway design engineers.

HY-8 Culvert Analysis Model

For this purpose, GIS applications were also made for estimating the catchments characteristics (watershed area, main stream length, average slope, land use etc.). This was done first estimating the standard runoff from standard rainfalls (50 years) using HEC-HMS Computer Mode. The standard flow at respective point of interest was estimated for using as input in the HY-8 Culvert Analysis Computer Model to estimate viable culvert parameters (shape, number of cells, width, height, freeboard).

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

On the basis of analysis, total 132 box culverts have been proposed including improvement of 11 existing ones (Table 3). The design parameters are given in Table 4 providing sufficient design capacity to safely pass the runoff generated especially from the steep slopes along the road which also bring sediment/ boulders along with due to generally bare mountains. For such purposes, the sufficient viable capacity of the culverts has been proposed.

Table 3: Proposed X- Drainage Structures

S.No. Structures Nos.

1 New Box culverts 121

Modification/ rehabilitation of existing into 2 11 Box culverts

Total 132

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Table 4: Schedule of Proposed X-Drainage Structures

(Manning’s n=0.020 for concrete culverts; Curve Number for SCS Runoff Estimation CN=75 )

Associated Design Capacity Runoff Generated Culvert Parameters Catchment of Culverts (Q (Qobs) Area design) S.# Station Remarks

Span (L) Height 2 No. of Cells km cumecs cumecs m (H) m

1 0+229 Provide new box culvert 2 3 3 0.115 1.94 11.82 2 0+920 Provide new box culvert 1 2 2 0.096 1.63 2.00 3 1+000 Provide new box culvert 1 2 2.5 0.100 1.69 2.64 4 1+400 Provide new box culvert 1 2 3 0.160 2.70 3.30 5 2+590 Provide new box culvert 5 4 4 0.160 2.70 63.66 6 2+880 Provide new box culvert 1 2 2 0.099 1.67 2.00 7 3+250 Provide new box culvert 1 2 1.5 0.075 1.27 1.39 8 3+650 Provide new box culvert 1 2 2.5 0.072 1.22 2.64 9 4+180 Provide new box culvert 1 2 1.5 0.072 1.21 1.39 10 4+550 Provide new box culvert 1 2 1.5 0.072 1.22 1.39 11 5+140 Provide new box culvert 1 2 2 0.100 1.69 2.00 12 5+800 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.224 3.78 4.62 13 7+410 Provide new box culvert 4 4 4 0.320 5.40 50.93 14 7+980 Provide new box culvert 3 4 1.5 0.350 4.34 10.29 15 8+800 Provide new box culvert 1 2 2 0.096 1.19 2.00 16 9+080 Provide new box culvert 1 2 2 0.094 1.60 2.00 17 9+160 Provide new box culvert 1 2 3 0.150 2.53 3.30

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Associated Design Capacity Runoff Generated Culvert Parameters Catchment of Culverts (Q (Qobs) Area design) S.# Station Remarks

Span (L) Height 2 No. of Cells km cumecs cumecs m (H) m

18 9+220 Provide new box culvert 1 3 2.5 0.125 2.11 4.69 19 9+810 Provide new box culvert 1 3 4 0.260 3.22 8.43 20 9+980 Provide new box culvert 1 2 3 0.060 1.01 3.30 21 10+040 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.080 1.35 4.62 22 10+196 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.095 1.60 4.62 23 10+671 Provide new box culvert 5 4 4 0.270 4.56 63.66 24 11+100 Provide new box culvert 1 3 4 0.112 1.90 8.43 25 11+420 Provide new box culvert 1 3 4 0.091 1.53 8.43 26 11+705 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.066 1.11 4.62 27 11+860 Provide new box culvert 1 3 4 0.060 1.01 8.43 28 12+060 Provide new box culvert 1 3 4 0.150 2.53 8.43 29 12+160 Provide new box culvert 1 3 3 0.144 2.43 5.91 30 13+020 Provide new box culvert 1 3 2 0.150 2.53 3.50 31 13+127 Provide new box culvert 1 3 2 0.100 1.69 3.50 32 13+230 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.091 1.54 4.62 33 13+360 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.094 1.58 4.62 34 13+490 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.131 2.22 4.62 35 13+680 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.100 1.69 4.62 36 13+740 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.158 1.96 4.62 37 13+979 Provide new box culvert 1 3 2 0.097 1.63 3.50 38 14+620 Provide new box culvert 1 2 1 0.036 0.61 0.81

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Associated Design Capacity Runoff Generated Culvert Parameters Catchment of Culverts (Q (Qobs) Area design) S.# Station Remarks

Span (L) Height 2 No. of Cells km cumecs cumecs m (H) m

39 14+840 Provide new box culvert 1 3 4 0.225 3.80 8.43 40 15+160 Provide new box culvert 1 3 4 0.252 4.26 8.43 41 15+240 Provide new box culvert 3 4 4 0.300 5.07 38.20 42 16+000 Provide new box culvert 1 2 2 0.100 1.69 2.00 43 16+200 Provide new box culvert 1 2 3 0.120 2.03 3.30 44 16+277 Provide new box culvert 1 2 2 0.080 1.35 2.00 45 16+360 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.110 1.86 4.62 46 16+500 Provide new box culvert 3 4 4 1.500 25.33 38.20 47 16+640 Provide new box culvert 2 3 4 0.375 6.33 16.86 48 16+733 Provide new box culvert 2 3 4 0.400 6.75 16.86 49 16+800 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.060 1.01 4.62 50 17+060 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.080 1.35 4.62 51 17+140 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.084 1.42 4.62 52 17+240 Provide new box culvert 1 3 4 0.106 1.79 8.43 53 17+360 Provide new box culvert 1 2 3 0.100 1.69 3.30 54 17+485 Provide new box culvert 2 3 4 0.100 1.69 16.86 55 17+520 Provide new box culvert 2 3 4 0.080 1.35 16.86 56 17+618 Provide new box culvert 2 3 4 0.110 1.86 16.86 57 17+690 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.120 2.03 4.62 58 18+278 Provide new box culvert 1 2 2 0.100 1.69 2.00 59 18+695 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.240 4.05 4.62

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Associated Design Capacity Runoff Generated Culvert Parameters Catchment of Culverts (Q (Qobs) Area design) S.# Station Remarks

Span (L) Height 2 No. of Cells km cumecs cumecs m (H) m

60 18+990 Provide new box culvert 1 2 2 0.066 1.11 2.00 61 19+280 Provide new box culvert 1 2 1.5 0.065 1.09 1.39 62 19+420 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.094 1.59 4.62 63 19+750 Provide new box culvert 5 4 4 1.168 19.72 63.66 64 19+920 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.075 1.27 4.62 65 19+960 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.060 1.01 4.62 66 20+070 Provide new box culvert 3 4 4 0.320 5.40 38.20 67 20+654 Provide new box culvert 3 4 4 1.870 23.19 38.20 68 21+500 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.210 3.55 4.62 69 21+730 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.150 2.53 4.62 70 22+425 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.128 2.16 4.62 71 22+700 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.150 2.53 4.62 72 23+150 Provide new box culvert 3 3 3 0.918 15.50 17.73 Dismantle existing structure 73 23+245 1 3 4 and provide new box culvert 0.224 3.78 8.43 Dismantle existing structure 74 23+572 1 3 4 and provide new box culvert 0.256 4.32 8.43 Dismantle existing structure 23+655 1 3 4 75 and provide new box culvert 0.120 2.03 8.43 76 24+405 Provide new box culvert 1 2 1.5 0.064 1.08 1.39 Dismantle existing structure 77 24+583 1 2 4 and provide new box culvert 0.070 1.19 4.62 Dismantle existing structure 24+884 1 3 4 78 and provide new box culvert 0.144 2.43 8.43

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Associated Design Capacity Runoff Generated Culvert Parameters Catchment of Culverts (Q (Qobs) Area design) S.# Station Remarks

Span (L) Height 2 No. of Cells km cumecs cumecs m (H) m

Dismantle existing structure 79 25+172 2 3 2.5 and provide new box culvert 0.158 2.67 9.38 Dismantle existing structure 80 25+382 2 3 4 and provide new box culvert 0.523 8.82 16.86 81 25+840 Provide new box culvert 1 2 2 0.070 1.19 2.00 Dismantle existing structure 82 26+114 1 3 3 and provide new box culvert 0.120 2.03 5.91 83 26+330 Provide new box culvert 1 3 2 0.065 1.09 3.50 84 26+469 Provide new box culvert 1 3 2 0.190 3.21 3.50 85 26+520 Provide new box culvert 1 3 4 0.103 1.73 8.43 86 25+590 Provide new box culvert 1 2 3 0.160 2.70 3.30 87 26+220 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.120 2.03 4.62 88 26+460 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.092 1.55 4.62 89 26+623 Provide new box culvert 4 4 4 0.240 4.05 50.93 90 26+840 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.105 1.77 4.62 91 26+960 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.096 1.62 4.62 92 27+240 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.091 1.54 4.62 93 27+440 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.078 1.32 4.62 94 27+760 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.151 2.55 4.62 95 28+890 Provide new box culvert 4 4 4 0.600 10.13 50.93 96 29+300 Provide new box culvert 2 4 4 0.480 8.11 25.46 97 29+460 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.177 2.99 4.62 98 29+770 Provide new box culvert 3 4 4 0.600 10.13 38.20

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Associated Design Capacity Runoff Generated Culvert Parameters Catchment of Culverts (Q (Qobs) Area design) S.# Station Remarks

Span (L) Height 2 No. of Cells km cumecs cumecs m (H) m

99 30+780 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.090 1.52 4.62 100 30+920 Provide new box culvert 1 2 3 0.109 1.83 3.30 101 31+400 Provide new box culvert 1 3 3 0.153 2.58 5.91

31+940 Provide new box culvert 1 2 2 102 0.090 1.52 2.00

103 32+400 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.075 1.27 4.62

104 32+760 Provide new box culvert 1 2 3 0.089 1.49 3.30 105 33+940 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.138 2.33 4.62 106 34+140 Provide new box culvert 1 2 1.5 0.075 1.27 1.39 107 34+470 Provide new box culvert 1 3 3 0.142 2.40 5.91 108 35+390 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.158 2.67 4.62 109 36+055 Provide new box culvert 3 4 4 0.306 5.17 38.20 110 37+020 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.120 2.03 4.62 111 37+140 Provide new box culvert 1 2 3 0.060 1.01 3.30 112 37+370 Provide new box culvert 1 2 2 0.076 1.28 2.00 113 38+485 Provide new box culvert 1 3 4 0.296 4.99 8.43 114 39+340 Provide new box culvert 3 4 2 0.800 9.92 15.37 Dismantle existing structure 115 39+752 1 2 1.5 and provide new box culvert 0.028 0.47 1.39 Dismantle existing structure 116 39+866 1 2 1.5 and provide new box culvert 0.038 0.64 1.39

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Associated Design Capacity Runoff Generated Culvert Parameters Catchment of Culverts (Q (Qobs) Area design) S.# Station Remarks

Span (L) Height 2 No. of Cells km cumecs cumecs m (H) m

Dismantle existing structure 40+005 1 2 1.5 117 and provide new box culvert 0.053 0.90 1.39 118 40+220 Provide new box culvert 1 2 3 0.081 1.37 3.30 119 41+430 Provide new box culvert 5 4 4 3.055 37.88 63.66 120 41+943 Provide new box culvert 1 2 1.5 0.070 1.19 1.39 121 42+138 Provide new box culvert 1 4 1.5 0.165 2.79 3.43 122 42+679 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 123 42+820 Provide new box culvert 1 2 1.5 0.075 1.27 1.39 124 43+690 Provide new box culvert 5 4 4 0.250 4.22 63.66 125 43+840 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.092 1.55 4.62 126 44+380 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.200 3.38 4.62 127 44+760 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.102 1.72 4.62 128 44+890 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.066 1.11 4.62 129 45+4360 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.060 1.01 4.62 130 45+440 Provide new box culvert 1 2 3 0.060 1.01 3.30 131 45+650 Provide new box culvert 1 2 4 0.100 1.68 4.62 132 45+938 Provide new box culvert 1 4 1.5 0.161 2.72 3.43

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

5.3 Hydraulic Design Analysis for Side Channels Storm water management of roads should be integrated with management of surrounding land and development. However, the drainage of runoff from the along the road and its surface should be so designed to avoid any damage or ponding to the road surface for safe operation of the highways. The road is located in the range where topography varies from mild to steep. The road may come mostly under the effect of direct flow from the hills in the form of torrents as flash flood (Figure 14). The main threat to the road would be from such torrents which are flash floods in the form of sheet flow and may damage the road if no protective measures are adopted to control and their safe passage. The case would be more critical as the flood water carry mud/boulders on its way.

Rainfall

NSL

Slope along the road Runoff

Road

Figure 15: Scheme of runoff generation due to rainfall

For example an area of 500 m upto 50 m height of hill with 43 mm critical rainfall (in 15 minutes) may bring about 0.24 cumecs (8.5 cusecs) to the road using following Rational formula:

Q = C i A (1)

Where

Q = Discharge in cusecs

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

C = Runoff Coefficient (taken 0.80 in present case) i = Rainfall intensity (inches per hour)

A = Area in acres

So Q = 0.8 x 1.72 x 6.2

= 8.53 cusecs (0.24 cumecs)

To avoid this, drainage channels along the road on hill sides connected to the x-culverts may be provided to protect the road. Further, reinforced retaining walls would also be required especially at steep slopes. The scheme along with design of side channel is shown in Figure 15.

Rainfall NSL

Slope along the road Runoff

Retaining Proposed side channels walls 2:1 0.8 m Road

0.5 m

Figure 16: Scheme of protective measures for the road

Adequate cut-off must be provided such that the maximum length of flow path in the road drainage channel does not exceed up to a reasonable length, preferably 200 m. The cut-off must discharge to a natural watercourse. In the instant case, it is proposed that drainage may be provided from the sides connecting through drop structures with proper riprap arrangements (Figure 16) to avoid any rill development of the embankment. Under the propose alignment, there is at least one cross-drainage structure at about 300 m apart so the road overland flow may be diverted to the nearest one through drop structures. And the given proposed culverts have suffici9ent capacity with 20% freeboard to accommodate such overland flows.

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Figure 17: Schematic of Drop Structure along embankment

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

CHAPTER-6

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

The major findings and recommendations of the study are: i. The Peshawar-Torkham proposed alignment falls in the areas mainly in terrains with barren and rugged mountains where several small streams and nullahs cross the alignment. ii. The area falls in the climate mostly under Mediterranean influence and less monsoon effects with annual total around 400 mm. The average temperature in summer varies from 18 to 40 oC whereas the winter average temperatures range from 2 to 25 oC. However, the extreme temperatures could be below 0 oC in winters and more than 40 oC in summers. iii. The long term temperature analysis (1974 to 2015) does not present any major deviation in the temperatures both in summer and winters. Whereas long term rainfall pattern shows an increasing trend in annual totals due to the fact that monsoon rains are moving upward towards northern parts of the country. However, the study alignment moves further upward, where such impact would not be that significant as Mediterranean disturbances having more influence in upper parts of the alignment. iv. Based on the rainfall and runoff analysis in connection with the topography of the area, there have been proposed 22 bridges to safely pass the runoff generated from the upstream and adjoining areas. The design parameters for the bridges have been provided based on hydraulic analysis under the study in order to pass the standard floods safely (100-year), besides scour depth analysis. v. Similarly, for overland flow and minor natural channels, 132 culverts have been proposed (including modification of 11 existing ones) for which design parameters are also provided to safely pass standard flood of 50-year recurrence interval. vi. The road is located in the range where topography varies from mild to steep. The road may come mostly under the effect of direct flow from the hills in the form of torrents as flash flood; also carrying mud/boulders on its way. To avoid this, drainage channels along the road on hill sides connected to the nearest x-culverts may be provided to protect the road, for which design has also been proposed. vii. The overland flow from the road itself may be passed through road-side drop structure and connected to corresponding culvert or existing conveyance system (watercourse or drain). In the design of culverts, there has been kept cushion for such overland flow from the road itself, giving 20% (0.2 to 0.3 m) freeboard for all culverts.

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

References

 Kruseman, G.P. and Naqvi, S.A.H., (1988), Hydrogeology and Groundwater Resources of the North-West Frontier Province Pakistan, A joint publication of WAPDA Pakistan and Institute of Applied Geosciences, Delft Netherlands. 1988  Lacey, G. (1946), A general theory of flow-in alluvium. Journal of the Institution of Civil engineering. London, Vol.27, 16-47, Vol.28, pp. 425-451.  Meissner, C.R., M. Hussain, M.A. Rashid and U.B. Sethi,1975. Geology of the Parachinar Quadrangle, West Pakistan. US Geol. Survey; Prof. Paper 716-F; 24 pp.  Mutreja K. N. (1990), Applied Hydrology, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, Ltd, New Delhi, 1990.  Papalexiou, S.M., and D. Koutsoyiannis (2012), A global survey on the distribution of annual maxima of daily rainfall: Gumbel or Fréchet?, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2012, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 14, Vienna, 10563, European Geosciences Union, 2012.  Shah, S.M.I., R.A. Siddiqi, and J.A. Talent, 1980. Geology of the eastern Khyber Agency, North Western Frontier Province, Pakistan. Records of the Geol. Survey Pakistan; Vol. 44.

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

ANNEXURES

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Annexure A: Historical Climatic Data for Peshawar

Annual Daily Maximum and Total Annual rainfall

Daily Maximum Rainfall Annual Total Rainfall Years (mm) (mm)

1974 19.40 190.20 1975 53.50 434.90 1976 102.00 612.16 1977 113.50 452.07 1978 68.50 497.78 1979 54.40 403.97 1980 45.50 372.37 1981 56.00 393.29 1982 40.70 326.36 1983 84.70 710.24 1984 86.80 521.98 1985 62.00 340.81 1986 47.50 416.05 1987 52.40 342.57 1988 44.30 360.90 1989 35.00 251.03 1990 55.00 453.91 1991 62.00 384.42 1992 56.00 579.93 1993 67.00 466.51 1994 51.00 642.52 1995 55.00 618.73 1996 142.00 667.35 1997 30.00 299.54 1998 47.00 569.73 1999 48.00 407.44 2000 33.00 258.89 2001 27.00 263.22 2002 30.00 299.03 2003 65.00 904.73 2004 68.00 453.04 2005 72.00 625.00 2006 56.00 497.50

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Daily Maximum Rainfall Annual Total Rainfall Years (mm) (mm)

2007 84.00 575.40 2008 78.00 719.90 2009 187.00 533.00 2010 274.00 839.00 2011 122.10 568.00 2012 88.00 480.00 2013 80.00 551.00 2014 30.00 326.00 2015 65.00

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Daily Annual Maximum and Minimum Temperature

Daily Maximum Temperature Daily Minimum Temperature Years o o ( C) ( C)

1974 46.00 0.00 1975 47.00 0.00 1976 46.00 0.00 1977 45.00 1.00 1978 47.00 -1.00 1979 45.00 2.00 1980 45.00 0.00 1981 45.00 0.00 1982 45.00 0.00 1983 44.30 -1.60 1984 46.10 -1.30 1985 45.00 2.00 1986 48.00 1.10 1987 45.00 1.70 1988 44.80 2.30 1989 45.50 -0.50 1990 45.00 2.40 1991 44.20 1.00 1992 46.60 1.50 1993 47.30 0.00 1994 48.60 1.00 1995 50.00 -0.50 1996 47.00 -1.00 1997 44.00 0.00 1998 46.50 0.50 1999 49.50 2.00 2000 46.00 1.00 2001 46.00 -1.00 2002 46.00 2.50 2003 48.00 2.00 2004 44.50 2.00 2005 47.00 0.50 2006 44.00 -0.50 2007 2008

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Daily Maximum Temperature Daily Minimum Temperature Years o o ( C) ( C)

2009 2010 2011 46.00 0.00 2012 45.00 -15.00 2013 44.00 0.00 2014 44.00 1.00 2015 43.00 2.00

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Annexure-B: Catchments Delineation of Major Streams/ Nullahs

Chaura Khwar at RD 7+060

Nullah at RD 8+650

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Nullah at RD 8+890

Nullah at RD 9+580

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Khyber Khwar at RD 21+920

Khyber Khwar at RD 22+560

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Khyber Khwar at RD 22+765

Khyber Khwar at RD 23+950

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Nullah at RD 24+700

Khyber Khwar at RD 25+615

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Chigai Khwar at RD 25+810

Kagga Khwar at Wali Khel at RD 28+700

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Dand Khwar at RD 30+460

Bori Khwar at RD 33+000

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Sawal Khwar at RD 33+587

Nullah at RD 35+002

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Nullah at RD 36+410

Nullah at RD 39+680

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Wuch Tangi at RD 40+545

Nullah at RD 43+230

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Nullah at RD 45+215

Giani at Torkham at RD 46+300

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Annexure-C: Hydrologic and Hydraulic Parameters relating Bridges over Major Streams/ Nullahs Catchment 100-Year Channel Channel Flow Flow Discharge Velocity Velocity at Area at Area at Main at HFL HFL Catchment Average Bridge Bridge bridge bridge stream (Curve Bridge (before (with Area Slope Size Location location location Name of Stream/ Length Number Location bridge) bridge) S.No. Location (before (before (with Nullah CN for (with bridge) bridge) bridge) SCS bridge) Runoff=75)

2 Cell x 2 2 km Km m/m cumecs m/sec m/sec m m m m Span

Chaura Khwar 1 7+060 425.31 38.70 0.0388 2356 7 x 40 2.81 2.86 837.20 824.65 479.22 479.30 near Jamrud

2 8+650 Nullah 0.53 0.93 0.0690 12.72 1 x 30 0.49 0.55 26.12 23.05 532.79 532.78

3 8+890 Nullah 0.73 0.96 0.2190 17.5 1 x 40 0.63 0.64 27.60 27.14 537.06 537.06

4 9+580 Nullah 1.41 1.40 0.2764 34 1 x 40 0.92 1.10 36.91 30.90 538.11 538.11

Khyber Khwar at 5 21+920 70.00 20.00 0.0070 341 2 x 40 1.76 1.89 193.68 179.97 753.67 753.65 Ali Masjid

Khyber Khwar 6 22+560 69.80 19.80 0.0071 340 2 x 30 1.77 2.15 192.48 158.17 771.94 771.91 (RD22+560)

Khyber Khwar 7 22+765 69.60 19.60 0.0071 339 2 x 25 2.20 2.47 154.18 137.13 779.14 779.10 (RD22+765)

Khyber Khwar 8 23+950 63.00 18.00 0.0361 307 4 x 30 1.48 1.55 207.35 197.46 803.90 803.91 (RD23+950)

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Catchment 100-Year Channel Channel Flow Flow Discharge Velocity Velocity at Area at Area at Main at HFL HFL Catchment Average Bridge Bridge bridge bridge stream (Curve Bridge (before (with Area Slope Size Location location location Name of Stream/ Length Number Location bridge) bridge) S.No. Location (before (before (with Nullah CN for (with bridge) bridge) bridge) SCS bridge) Runoff=75)

2 Cell x 2 2 km Km m/m cumecs m/sec m/sec m m m m Span

9 24+700 Nullah 7.70 4.53 0.0838 92.3 2 x 35 0.94 1.43 97.89 64.43 823.24 823.28

Khyber Khwar 10 25+615 56.00 16.00 0.0406 273 1 x 40 1.74 2.50 156.70 109.40 836.24 836.17 (RD25+615)

11 25+810 Chingai Khwar 3.29 2.33 0.3425 79 2 x 20 0.90 1.53 87.73 51.71 867.00 867.03

Kagga Khwar at 12 28+700 8.45 3.49 0.2146 145 2 x 30 1.55 1.58 93.32 91.82 953.09 953.10 Wali Khel

13 30+460 Dand Khwar 9.00 4.50 0.1756 154 1 x 25 1.75 2.02 87.91 76.33 958.68 958.63

14 33+000 Bori Khwar 6.80 4.00 0.1595 117 1 x 20 0.81 2.74 144.33 42.71 1003.48 1003.84

15 33+587 Sawal Khwar 9.00 4.50 0.1818 154 1 x 20 1.08 2.94 142.30 52.35 1013.74 1015.13

16 35+002 Nullah 1.36 1.60 0.1119 32.8 1 x 25 0.63 0.99 52.46 33.04 1019.76 1019.75

17 36+410 Nullah 5.60 3.20 0.1678 96 1 x 40 2.44 2.44 39.32 39.32 1024.87 1024.87

18 39+680 Nullah 0.80 1.76 0.1403 19.2 3 x 30 1.07 1.12 18.02 17.14 949.10 949.13

19 40+545 Wuch Tangi 9.75 6.50 0.1418 117 1 x 40 1.65 1.73 70.99 67.81 898.56 898.55

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

2 Cell x 2 2 km Km m/m cumecs m/sec m/sec m m m m Span

20 43+230 Nullah 3.20 5.10 0.2049 55 1 x 30 1.45 1.45 37.89 37.89 802.82 802.82

21 45+215 Nullah 15.00 8.00 0.1373 181 1 x 40 1.61 1.79 112.21 100.99 738.57 738.54

22 46+300 Giani at Torkham 29.20 8.00 0.1415 350 4 x 25 1.88 1.98 186.30 177.07 708.28 708.30

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Annexure-D: Hydraulic Outputs of Major Streams/ Nullahs

Bridge 7+060 Plan: Bridge 7+060 7/23/2017 Bridge of Chaura Khwar at RD 7+060 (Q=2356 cumecs) .025 505 Legend

EG PF 1 WS PF 1 500 Crit PF 1 Ground Bank Sta 495

490

Elevation(m) 485

480

475

470 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Station (m)

Bridge 8+650 Plan: Bridge 8+650 7/23/2017 Bridge of Nullah at RD 8+650 (Q= 12.72 cumecs) .025 550 Legend

EG PF 1 548 WS PF 1 Crit PF 1 546 Ground Bank Sta 544

542

540 Elevation(m) 538

536

534

532

530 0 50 100 150 200 250 Station (m)

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Bridge 8+890 Plan: Bridge 8+890 7/23/2017 Bridge of Nullah at RD 8+890 (Q= 17.50 cumecs) .025 548 Legend

EG PF 1 WS PF 1

546 Crit PF 1 Ground Bank Sta

544

542 Elevation(m)

540

538

536 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Station (m)

Bridge 9+590 Plan: Bridge 9+590 7/23/2017 Bridge of Nullah at RD 9+590 (Q= 34 cumecs) .025 565 Legend

EG PF 1 WS PF 1

560 Crit PF 1 Ground Bank Sta

555

550 Elevation(m)

545

540

535 0 50 100 150 200 250 Station (m)

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Bridge 21+920 Plan: Bridge 21+920 7/23/2017 Bridge of Khyber Khwar at RD 21+920 (Q=341 cumecs) .025 764 Legend

EG PF 1 WS PF 1 762 Crit PF 1 Ground Bank Sta 760

758

Elevation(m) 756

754

752

750 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Station (m)

Bridge 22+560 Plan: Bridge 22+560 7/23/2017 Bridge of Khyber Khwar at RD 22+560 (Q=340 cumecs) .025 790 Legend

EG PF 1 WS PF 1 Crit PF 1 785 Ground Bank Sta

780 Elevation(m) 775

770

765 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Station (m)

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Bridge 22+765 Plan: Bridge 22+765 7/23/2017 Bridge of Khyber Khwar at RD 22+765 (Q=339 cumecs) .025 795 Legend

EG PF 1 WS PF 1 Crit PF 1 790 Ground Bank Sta

785 Elevation(m) 780

775

770 0 20 40 60 80 100 Station (m)

Bridge 23+950 Plan: Bridge 23+950 7/23/2017 Bridge ofKhyber Khwar at RD 23+950 (Q= 307 cumecs) .025 818 Legend

EG PF 1 816 WS PF 1 Crit PF 1

814 Ground Bank Sta

812

810

Elevation(m) 808

806

804

802

800 0 100 200 300 400 500 Station (m)

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Bridge 24+700 Plan: Bridge 24+700 7/23/2017 Bridge of Nullah at RD 24+700 (Q=92.3 cumecs) .025 832 Legend

EG PF 1 WS PF 1

830 Crit PF 1 Ground Bank Sta

828

826 Elevation(m)

824

822

820 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Station (m)

Bridge 25+615 Plan: Bridge 25+615 7/23/2017 Bridge of Khyber Khwar at RD 25+615 (Q=273 cumecs) .025 842 Legend

EG PF 1 WS PF 1 Crit PF 1 840 Ground Bank Sta

838 Elevation(m) 836

834

832 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Station (m)

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Bridge 25+810 Plan: Bridge 25+810 7/23/2017 Bridge of Chingai Khwar at RD 25+810 (Q=79 cumecs) .025 882 Legend

EG PF 1 880 WS PF 1 Crit PF 1

878 Ground Bank Sta

876

874

Elevation(m) 872

870

868

866

864 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Station (m)

Bridge 28+700 Plan: Bridge 28+700 7/23/2017 Bridge of Kagga Khwar at RD 28+700 (Q=145 cumecs) .025 960 Legend

EG PF 1 WS PF 1 Crit PF 1 958 Ground Bank Sta

956 Elevation(m) 954

952

950 0 50 100 150 200 Station (m)

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Bridge 30+460 Plan: Bridge 30+460 7/23/2017 Bridge of Dand Khwar at RD 30+460 (Q=154 cumecs) .025 975 Legend

EG PF 1 WS PF 1 Crit PF 1 970 Ground Bank Sta

965 Elevation(m) 960

955

950 0 50 100 150 200 Station (m)

Bridge 33+000 Plan: Bridge 33+000 7/23/2017 Bridge of Bori Khwar at RD 33+000 (Q=117 cumecs) .025 1006 Legend

EG PF 1 WS PF 1 Crit PF 1 1005 Ground Bank Sta

1004 Elevation(m) 1003

1002

1001 0 50 100 150 200 250 Station (m)

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Bridge 33+590 Plan: Bridge 33+590 7/23/2017 Bridge of Sawal Khwar at RD 33+590 (Q=154 cumecs) .025 1035 Legend

EG PF 1 WS PF 1 Crit PF 1 1030 Ground Bank Sta

1025 Elevation(m) 1020

1015

1010 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Station (m)

Bridge 35+002 Plan: Bridge35+002 7/23/2017 Bridge of Nullah at RD 35+002 (Q= 32.8 cumecs) .025 1045 Legend

EG PF 1 WS PF 1

1040 Crit PF 1 Ground Bank Sta

1035

1030 Elevation(m)

1025

1020

1015 0 50 100 150 200 250 Station (m)

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Bridge 36+410 Plan: Bridge36+410 7/23/2017 Bridge of Nullah at RD 36+410 (Q= 96 cumecs) .025 1070 Legend

EG PF 1 WS PF 1 Crit PF 1 1060 Ground Bank Sta

1050 Elevation(m) 1040

1030

1020 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Station (m)

Bridge 39+680 Plan: Bridge 39+680 7/23/2017 Bridge of Nullah at RD 39+680 (Q=19.2 cumecs) .025 975 Legend

EG PF 1 WS PF 1

970 Crit PF 1 Ground Bank Sta

965

960 Elevation(m)

955

950

945 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Station (m)

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Bridge 40+545 Plan: Bridge 40+545 7/23/2017 Bridge of Wuch Tangi at RD 40+545 (Q=117 cumecs) .025 960 Legend

EG PF 1 WS PF 1 950 Crit PF 1 Ground Bank Sta 940

930

Elevation(m) 920

910

900

890 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Station (m)

Bridge 43+230 Plan: Bridge43+230 7/23/2017 Bridge of Nullah at RD 43+230 (Q= 55 cumecs) .025 830 Legend

EG PF 1 WS PF 1

825 Crit PF 1 Ground Bank Sta

820

815 Elevation(m)

810

805

800 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Station (m)

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Bridge 45+215 Plan: Bridge45+215 7/23/2017 Bridge of Nullah at RD 45+215 (Q= 181 cumecs) .025 760 Legend

EG PF 1 WS PF 1 Crit PF 1 755 Ground Bank Sta

750 Elevation(m) 745

740

735 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Station (m)

Bridge 46+300 Plan: Bridge46+300 7/23/2017 Bridge of Nullah at RD 46+300 (Q= 350 cumecs) .025 720 Legend

EG PF 1

718 WS PF 1 Crit PF 1 Ground 716 Bank Sta

714

712 Elevation(m)

710

708

706

704 0 50 100 150 200 250 Station (m)

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

Annexure-E: Scour Depth Estimation by Lacey Regime Theory

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

D P=4.75*sqrt(Q) 50 Design L 100-Year Lacey silt factor Sy (Soil Type river width relation (actual channel Discharge [1.76 SQRT(D50)] (scour depth) AASHTO to select Lacey width) S.# Location Q A-1-b) Equation

mm cumecs f m m m

1 7+060 0.074 2356 0.479 230.559 228.000 8.02

2 8+650 0.074 12.72 0.479 16.941 32.650 1.26

3 8+890 0.074 17.5 0.479 19.871 38.490 1.33

4 9+580 0.074 34 0.479 27.697 26.250 1.96

5 21+920 0.074 341 0.479 87.714 75.890 4.21

6 22+560 0.074 340 0.479 87.586 57.73 3.11

7 22+765 0.074 339 0.479 87.457 43.560 3.42

8 23+950 0.074 307 0.479 83.227 111.750 4.07

9 24+700 0.074 92.3 0.479 45.635 75.010 1.85

10 25+615 0.074 273 0.479 78.483 45.960 3.12

11 25+810 0.074 79 0.479 42.219 42.770 2.59

HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGY STUDY REPORT for Peshawar Torkham Motorway

mm cumecs f m m m

12 28+700 0.074 145 0.479 57.198 50.320 3.17

13 30+460 0.074 154 0.479 58.946 29.710 2.98

14 33+000 0.074 117 0.479 51.379 25.380 2.87

15 33+587 0.074 154 0.479 58.946 27.710 3.05

16 35+002 0.074 32.8 0.479 27.204 29.870 1.93

17 36+410 0.074 96 0.479 46.540 27.900 2.60

18 39+680 0.074 19.2 0.479 20.813 19.470 1.62

19 40+545 0.074 117 0.479 51.379 30.160 2.71

20 43+230 0.074 55 0.479 35.227 23.580 2.29

21 45+215 0.074 181 0.479 63.905 45.850 2.73

22 46+300 0.074 350 0.479 88.864 79.590 4.25