Barrages Design Criteria Final

Punjab Barrages Rehabilitation Project Phase-I
Final Design Criteria
1. INTRODUCTION
The Punjab irrigation system comprises fourteen barrages/headworks and twenty four canal
systems. The system got disturbed when in 1960 as a result of Indus Water Treaty; the
supplies of three eastern rivers were stopped by India. As a result of reduction in the eastern
river discharges, the hydraulic and sediment characteristics of all the rivers in the Province
and their off-taking canals suffered. The construction of link canals to meet the requirement
of command areas of eastern rivers in Province and new storages of Tarbela, Mangla Dams
under Indus Water Treaty have also changed the morphology of all rivers, As a result of the
recent drought conditions, the water levels downstream of barrages have been lowered with
substantial change in surface flow conditions. Particularly, irregular releases for hydropower
generation at Tarbela and Mangla have also affected the hydraulic flow conditions at Jinnah,
Taunsa, Khanki, Trimmu, Punjnad, Balloki, Suleimanki and Islam Headworks/Barrages.
These barrages are 46 to 110 years old and change in hydraulic conditions has caused so
many problems particularly retrogression and accretion at the barrages which have resulted
in the reduction of discharge capacity.
The Irrigation and Power (I&P) Department during 1997-1998 engaged consultants to review
the health of these structures. The preliminary investigations conducted by the Consultants
indicated a need for major rehabilitation of most of the Barrages/Headworks. Following the
results of study, the I&P Department decided to carry out feasibility studies for
rehabilitation/remodelling works at six barrages; Jinnah, Taunsa, Suleimanki, Islam, Khanki
and Balloki endangered by multitude of problems that threaten their overall stability under
the Punjab Barrages Rehabilitation Project Phase-I.
Out of the six barrages/headworks three were assigned to the Joint Venture comprising
National Development Consultants (NDC) and National Engineering Services Pakistan
(NESPAK) in association with ATKINS Global (Water) of UK for the required feasibility
studies. The assigned barrages are Taunsa on the Indus River, Suleimanki on the Sutlej
River and Khanki weir on the Chenab River. The consultants agreement was signed in
November 2003 and the mobilization took place on 15 December 2003. The consultants
submitted the Inception Report on 30.01.2004 in line with the requirements of Section 2.13.1
of the TOR.
According
to
the
TOR
consultants
will
carry
out
the
feasibility
studies
for
rehabilitation/remodelling works at Taunsa and Suleimanki Barrage and a new barrage on

the Chenab River replacing Khanki weir.
NDC | NESPAK | ATKINS
The rehabilitation works and new barrage will be designed following the state of the art
knowledge and existing design norms. The rehabilitation works will be proposed following
the design requirements of the existing structures. The consultants feel that there is a need
of formulating Design Criteria for the Punjab Barrages Rehabilitation Project Phase-I to
ensure the homogeneity and uniformity of the work and obtaining Clients agreement. This
document contains details of criteria for the design of various components of barrages and
will be used by the consultants.
The Design Criteria covers the following subjects:
Hydraulic Design
Other Pertinent Works
Structural Design
Geotechnical Aspects
Gates and Hoists
2. HYDRAULIC DESIGN
2.1
BASIC CRITERIA
The Barrage and the Head Regulators of feeder channels and appurtenant structures will be
designed on the basis of standard design criteria established for other barrages and allied
structures, already constructed on the Indus River and its tributaries. The design criteria,
including formulae, coefficients and constants will be used in all hydraulic designs as
applicable.
Punjab Barrages Rehabilitation Project Phase-I comprises the rehabilitation of Taunsa and
Sulemanki Barrages and feasibility design of a new barrage on Chenab River replacing the
existing Khanki weir. Basically the design criteria given in the following sections is for the
design of new barrage on the Chenab River and in general will follow the design principles
practiced for the design of existing Barrages founded on the alluvium on Indus and other
rivers. The rehabilitation works for Taunsa and Sulemanki Barrages will also follow the same
engineering principles as explained in the design criteria until and unless some special
conditions encountered during the execution of rehabilitation works.
2.2
2.2.1
ESTIMATION OF DESIGN FLOOD

Basis of Estimation
The design flood for any given return period is usually estimated by the frequency analysis
method. Appropriate type of frequency distribution will be selected from among the following:
Pearson & Log Pearson Type III distributions
Gumbels Extreme Value distributions
Normal & Log Normal distributions
It is pertinent to point out that Log Pearson Type III distribution has been adopted by United
States Federal Agencies whereas Gumbel distribution has generally been found to be
suitable for most of the streams in Pakistan including river Indus and its tributaries.
2.2.2
Design Return Period
A return period of 100 years is generally adopted in the design of important and costly
barrage structures where possible consequences of failure are very serious. Accordingly, the
estimation of design flood will be carried out for various return periods of 100 years, 200 and
500 years subject to Clients concurrence. However, the actual recorded peak flood
discharge will be reviewed for design if it exceeds the discharge calculated for the concerned
return period.
2.3
HYDRAULIC UNITS
The dimensions and units of properties used in solving hydraulic problems are expressed in
three fundamental quantities of Mass (M), Length (L), and time (T). All analyses and designs
will be carried out in the Foot-Pound-Second system of units and conversion to S.I Units will
be made only of important results as necessary.
2.4
WIDTH OF BARRAGE
Three considerations govern the width of a barrage. They are the design flood, the Lacey
design width and the looseness factor. It is generally thought that by limiting the waterway,
the shoal formation upstream can be eliminated. However, it increases the intensity of
discharge and consequently the section of the structure becomes heavier with excessive
gate heights and cost increases, though the length of the structure is reduced.
The design flood is discussed in section 2.2 and the other two considerations are discussed
in the following sections.
2.4.1
Laceys Design Width
The Laceys Design or Stable width for single channel is expressed as:
W = 2.67 Q
(Ref. 2.1)
Where Q is the Design Discharge in cusecs (ft3/sec).

The Barrage is designed for a width exceeding W, partly to accommodate the floodplain
discharge and partly to take advantage of the dispersion of the channel flow induced by the
obstruction caused by the barrage itself.
2.4.2
The Looseness Factor
The ratio of actual width to the regime width is the looseness factor, the third parameter
affecting the barrage width. The values used have varied from 1.9 to 0.9 (Ref. 2.1), the
larger factor being applied in the earlier design. Generally it varies from 1.1 to 1.5. From the
performance of these structures, a feeling arises in certain quarters that with high Looseness
Factor, there is a tendency for shoal formation upstream of the structures, which causes
damages and maintenance problems. The Consultants will use the most appropriate
looseness factor to provide reasonable flexibility keeping the ill effects to the minimum.
2.5
AFFLUX
The rise in maximum flood level of the river upstream of the barrage as a result of its
construction is defined as Afflux. Afflux, though confined in the beginning to a short length of
the river above the barrage, extends gradually very far up till the final slope of the river
upstream of the barrage is established.
In the design of barrages/weirs founded on alluvial sands, the afflux is limited to between 3
and 4 feet - more commonly 3 feet (Ref. 2.2). The amount of afflux will determine the top
levels of guide banks and their lengths, and the top levels and sections of flood protection
bunds. It will govern the dynamic action, as greater the afflux or fall of levels from upstream
to downstream the greater will be the action. It will also control the depth and location of the
standing wave. By providing a high afflux the width of the barrage can be narrowed but the
cost of training works will go up and the risk of failure by out flanking will increase. Selection
and adoption of a realistic medium value is imperative.
2.6
TAIL WATER RATING CURVE
Tail water rating curve for the barrages will be established through analysis of gauge
discharge data. The proposed tail water levels for new designs will be established by
subtracting the designed retrogression values from the existing average tail water levels.
2.7
CREST LEVELS
Fixation of crest level is clearly related with the permissible looseness factor and the
discharge intensity in terms of discharge per foot of the overflow section of the barrage. After
considering all the relevant factors and the experience on similar structures the crest levels
will be fixed in order to pass the design flood at the normal pond level with all the gates fully
open.
2.8
DISCHARGES THROUGH A BARRAGE (FREE FLOW CONDITIONS)
The discharge through a Barrage under free flow conditions shall be obtained from the
following formula (Ref. 2.2):
Q = C. L . H3/2 ..(1)
Where,
Q = discharge in cusecs
C = Coefficient of Discharge
L = Clear waterway of the Barrage (ft)
H = Total Head causing the flow in ft
The value of C is generally taken as 3.09 (Ref.2.3), but may approach a maximum value of
3.8 for modular weir operation (Gibson). However to design a new barrage it will be
determined by physical model studies.
2.9
DISCHARGE THROUGH A BARRAGE (SUBMERGED FLOW CONDITIONS)
The flow over the weir is modular when it is independent of variations in downstream water
level. For this to occur, the downstream energy head over crest (E 2) must not rise beyond
eighty (80) percent of the upstream energy head over crest (E1). The ratio (E2/E1) is the
modular ratio and the modular limit is the value (E2/E1 = 0.80) of the modular ratio at
which flow ceases to be free.
2.9.1
Fanes Curve
For submerged (non modular) flow the discharge coefficient in equation (1) above should
be multiplied by a reduction factor. The reduction factor depends on the modular ratio (E 2/E1)
and the values of reduction factor ( C r ) given in the table below are from Fanes curve (Ref:
2.3) which is applicable to weirs having upstream ramp and sloping downstream with slope
2H:1V or flatter:
E2/E1
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.92
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.98
Value of C r
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.96
0.90
0.84
0.77
0.71
0.61
The submerged discharge is given by the equation:
Q = 3.09. C r .b .E11.5
2.9.2
Gibson Curve
Q C '.b.E 1.5
(Ref. 2.4)
Where:
Q
= submerged discharge over crest (cusecs)
C ' = submerged discharge coefficient

b = width of weir (ft)
E1 = upstream energy head above crest
= h 1 + v12/2g
(ft)
For submerged discharges the free flow discharge coefficient ( C 3.80 ) is multiplied by a
reduction factor ( C ' C ). The coefficient factor depends on the modular ratio (h/E), where
h is downstream depth of flow above crest. The values of reduction factor C ' C given in
the table below are from Gibson curve applicable to the broad crested weirs:
h E
C' C
C'
0.70
0.80
0.90
0.95
0.86
0.78
0.62
0.44
3.27
2.96
2.36
1.67
2.10 REGULATED DISCHARGE

The gates installed at regulating structures will create an orifice flow condition when the
bottom of the gate is in the water
2.10.1 Free Flow
Free flow below a gate occurs as long as the roller of the hydraulic jump does not submerge
the section of minimum depth of jet which is located downstream of the gate. For jet
sweeping effect against tail water submergence creating a free flow at the vena contracta
the free flow discharge is given by the equation :
Q = C d .b.a (2g (Hm Cd a)1/2
Where:
Q = free flow discharge over crest (cusecs)
C d = discharge coefficient
b = width of gate (ft)
a = gate opening (ft)
Hm = upstream energy head above crest
= h 1 + v12/2g
(ft)
h 1 = upstream depth of flow above crest

v1 = approach velocity (ft/s)
g = acceleration of gravity (ft/s2)
The value of discharge coefficient C d is taken between 0.6 and 0.7 depending upon the
contraction condition ( h 1/a). The actual value of C d for individual structure will be
confirmed by the physical model studies.
2.10.2 Submerged Flow
When a gate discharges with the jet submerged, there is a dip-down at the downstream side
of the gate. In order to evaluate the head across (h) on the gate, the magnitude of the water
depth ( Ds ) just downstream of the gate must be determined. The value of Ds is given by
the equation:
2V2
D
Ds D2 1
(1 2 )
gD2
D1
1/ 2
(Ref: 2.5)
Where:
Ds = water depth just downstream of the gate (ft)

D1 = gate opening (ft)
D2 = tail water depth above crest (ft)
V2 = velocity of tail water (ft/s)

The submerged flow discharge through the gate opening is given by the following formula
(Ref: 2.5):
Q C d C v A 2gh
1/ 2
where:
Q = submerged flow discharge over crest (cusecs)

C d = discharge coefficient
Cv = Velocity Coefficient = ( E1/ h1 )1/2

h 1 = upstream depth of flow above crest (ft)
E1 = upstream energy head above crest
= h 1 + v12/2g
(ft)
v1 = approach velocity (ft/s)

A = area of the gate opening (ft2)
h = head across on the gate (ft)

= h 1 - Ds
Ds = water depth just downstream of the gate (ft)

The value of discharge coefficient Cd is taken between 0.6 and 0.7 (same as free flow)
depending upon the contraction condition. The actual value of C d for individual structure
will be confirmed by the physical model studies.
2.11 STILLING BASINS
The design of stilling pool will be based on the method known as the "Method of Conjugated
Depth", and Crump's Method. Although both methods are regarded as approximate but
successful performance of various barrages and regulators designed by these methods in
Pakistan justifies their usefulness as a design tool. Several discharges ranging from maximum
to very small with different conditions of river bed will be checked to ensure that the hydraulic
jump is submerged on concrete floor.
The stilling basin essentially comprises a horizontal depressed floor located downstream of
glacis (usual slope 3H:1V) which connects to the crest of the structure. At the downstream
end of the stilling basin, an end sill connects to the channel bed level. Where high energy
dissipation is required baffle blocks will be provided within the stilling basin. Sometimes,
chute blocks are also provided on the glacis.
All new stilling basins will be designed, and the adequacy of existing stilling basins will be
checked, normally using the criteria given in Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy
Dissipaters, USBR, (Ref: 2.6).
2.11.1 Stilling Basin Level
The top level of stilling basin will be fixed initially by Crumps Method (Ref: 2.3). The
reproduced Figure 2.1 gives the Crumps visualized hydraulic jump formation on the glacis
and curves for determining the various exponents related to the Crumps method.
For design calculations of critical flow depth (C = (q2/g)1/3) above weir crest the value of
discharge intensity (q) will be increased by twenty (20) percent for possible flow
concentration.
For fixing the top level of stilling basin the downstream energy head will be increased by ten
(10) percent to allow for a possible drop in the design flood level due to river bed
retrogression after construction of the weir or the standard practice in I & P Department will
be used after discussion with Client.
2.11.2 Length of Stilling Basin
As a preliminary design, the length of stilling basin without accessories (i.e. no chute blocks,
baffle blocks or end sill) will be determined by the Conjugate Depths formulae:
V1 q
d1
2 g z H a d1
(Ref: 2.7)
Where:
V1 = velocity of flow at the toe of glacis (ft/s)
q = discharge intensity (cusecs/ft)
d1 = flow depth at the toe of glacis (ft)
Z = fall between upstream flow level and stilling basin top level (ft)
Ha = approach velocity head
= V2/2g (ft)
V = approach velocity (ft/s)
For design calculations the value of discharge intensity (q) will be increased by twenty (20)
percent for possible flow concentration.
d2 1
1 8 F12
2
d1
(Ref: 2.6)
where:
d2 = tail water depth above stilling basin (ft)
F1 =Froude number
V1 /(gd 1 )
V1 = velocity of flow at the toe of glacis (ft/s)

For margin of safety the theoretical depth d2 is multiplied by a factor 1.05.
Length of stilling basin without accessories = 5(1.05 d2 d1)
Length of stilling basin with accessories can be reasonably determined by the equation:
Lb Kd 1 F11.5
(Ref: 2.8)
Where:
Lb = length of stilling basin (ft)
F1 = Froude number
=
V1 /(gd 1 )
V1 = velocity of flow at the toe of glacis (ft/s2)

K = length coefficient of stilling basin ranging between 1.4 and 2.0, depending upon
the accessories
Stilling Basin Type
Stilling basin with a vertical or sloping end sill and one or two
K
1.4
rows of baffle blocks.

Stilling basin with a vertical or sloping end sill
Stilling basin with a sloping end sill and one or two rows of baffle
1.7
2.0
blocks
2.11.3 Efficiency of Hydraulic Jump
The ratio of the energy head after the jump (E2) to the energy head before the jump (E1)is
defined as the efficiency of the jump, and can be determined by the equation (Ref: 2.7):
E 2 8F12 1 2 4 F12 1
E1
8F12 2 F12
Where:
F1= Froude number of flow before the jump
Energy dissipation (%) =
E1
E2
.100
Height of jump (hj) is given by the equation (Ref: 2.7):

1
hj (1 8F12 ) 2 3
E1
F12 2
2.12 CHOICE OF STILLING BASIN
The practical design of energy dissipaters is based on hydraulic principles. However,
because of the use of accessories like chute blocks, baffle blocks and end sill to stabilize the
jump and shorten the length of horizontal apron, the design of proposed energy dissipaters
will be essentially confirmed by physical model studies.
2.13 GLACIS PROFILE
The glacis profile can be determined by the following equation for a free trajectory (Ref: 2.8):
Y x tan
gx 2
2(1.25V ) 2 Cos 2
where:
x and y = horizontal and vertical coordinates measured from the beginning of the
curve (ft)
= angle between the horizontal and the floor at the beginning of the trajectory
(degree)
V = velocity at vena contracta (ft/s)
The value of is zero and above revised equation is:
gx 2
2(1.25V ) 2
The glacis profile given by the above equation can also be checked by the Montague
equation (Ref: 2.9), given below:
x = v (4y/g)1/2 + y
10
where:
x = horizontal distance along the ordinate (ft)
y = vertical distance below the horizontal (ft)
v = initial velocity of water leaving the crest (ft/sec)
For regulating structures to determine floor profile take two (2) feet gated opening as the
critical to prevent flow separation from the floor. At lesser gate openings, there would be only
sheet flow over the glacis at nearly zero gated opening and then developing to a sudden jet
shoot-out approximately at two (2) feet gated opening. However, the conventional uniform
sloping glacis will also be given proper consideration. Final selection will be confirmed with
model studies.
2.14 CUT-OFFS
Pile cut-offs at both ends are necessary to prevent failure of structure by slipping of soil into
the scour holes, which can occur, both upstream and downstream. At the upstream end, the
force of seepage water will oppose slipping due to earth pressure. At the downstream end,
this force will assist and accelerate slipping due to earth pressure. Consequently failure at
the upstream will generally occur at low heads while failures at the downstream end will
occur at high heads.
The depth of the upstream pile line will be governed by the scour depth alone, while on the
downstream end, both the scour depth and exit gradient have to be considered. The
pressure under the downstream floor increases as the depth of downstream pile increases,
while the upstream pile line has little effect in reducing these pressures as the spacing of
these two is generally much more than the range of influence of each other.
The intermediate sheet pile lines are not required from consideration of scour or exit gradient
but they act as important secondary lines of defense and save total collapse of work in case
of damage to impervious floor or the end piles. They are also helpful in the matter of
distribution of pressure due to uplift forces.
The design of cut-offs will be based on Khoslas and Lanes theories to make the barrage
safe against piping and uplift, and are described as under:
11
2.15 DESIGN AGAINST SEEPAGE OR PIPING

Seepage force is generated by the flow of water through the subsoil of a structure and it acts
on the soil particles. If the seepage force is too large at the exit gradient of the flow line, it
may remove the soil particles in that region. This progressive action results in a formation of
cavities, if large enough, may cause foundation failure. The Khoslas theory of exit gradient
is used for determination of measures to prevent piping underneath the structure; Lanes
theory of weighted creep ratio is used to check underneath seepage and side seepage of
the structure.
i.
Khoslas Theory
Khoslas formula most commonly used for this purpose for the piled structure is given
below (Ref. 2.10):
Ge
H 1
d
where,
Ge = Critical exit gradient
H = Total Head
d = Depth of downstream end pile (the exit gradient is almost by the upstream piles)
2
= 1 1 1
2
= b/d, and
b = Total floor length

ii.
Lanes Theory
The weighted creep distance or percolation path is given as follows:
For flow passing under the structure:
Lu Vv
h
3
12
For flow passing along the side of structure:
Ls 0.75 Vh hh
where:
Lu = weighted creep distance under the structure (ft)

Ls = weighted creep distance along the side of the structure (ft)
Vv = vertical path along vertical surface (ft)
h = horizontal path along horizontal surface (ft)
Vh = horizontal path along vertical surface (ft)

hh = horizontal path along vertical surface normal to axis of structure (ft)
Surfaces at forty five (45) degrees or more to the horizontal are considered as vertical
surface and surfaces at less than forty five (45) degrees are considered to be horizontal
when computing creep length.
The weighted creep ratio is given by:
Cr
Lu orLs
C
H
where:
Cr = weighted creep ratio
H = maximum differential head (ft)

C = safe value of Lanes creep ratio
Safety against piping can be ensured by providing sufficient floor length and reasonably
deep cutoff walls at the ends of floor (additional where provided) of the structure. The safety
will be checked by using Lanes creep coefficient and Khoslas safe exit gradient.
Both Lane and Khosla use terminology for soil types that is purposely ambiguous to allow
the user to exercise judgment. For the sake of consistency creep coefficient / safe gradient
has been related to modern geotechnical soil descriptions on the basis of judgment as
shown in the table 2.1.
13
Table 2.1
14
2.16 SAFETY AGAINST UPLIFT

2.16.1 Subsurface Flow
Excessive hydrostatic head across a regulating structure develops seepage of water through
the underlying sub-soil. The seepage water causes uplift pressures underneath the
structure.
The uplift pressure under a structure will be determined under steady seepage by Khoslas
Theory (Ref: 2.10). The percentage pressure of key points can be computed using Kholsas
curves reproduced in Figure 2.2. The percentage pressures given by Khoslas curves are
valid for a simple profile of the structure i.e. for a straight horizontal floor of negligible
thickness with a cutoff on the upstream end or downstream end. For complex profile of the
structure, the following corrections to percentage pressures are applied:
i.
Correction for floor thickness: the pressures are corrected by assuming linear
pressure distribution. The correction to be applied for the point E 1 shall be negative
while at point C1 is positive, as shown in Figure 2.3.
ii.
Correction for mutual interference of piles:

C = 19 (D/b)1/2 [(d+D)/b]
Where:
C=
correction in percent and is positive for points in the rear or backward

direction and negative for points forward in the direction of flow
D=
depth of pile, the influence of which is to be determined on the neighbouring

pile depth (d). The D is to be measured below the level at which
interference is desired (ft)
d = depth of pile on which effect is considered (ft)

b = distance between the two considered piles (ft)
b = total length of floor between two end piles (ft)
iii.
Floor slope correction: is taken as positive for the down slopes and negative for up
slopes relative to the direction of flow. Correction curve for the floor slopes is
reproduced in Figure 2.4. ( Ref: 2.11).
15
2.16.2 Subsurface Flow

Floor thicknesses with the consideration of unbalanced head due to formation of hydraulic jump
during surface flows may be greater than those required by the uplift pressures caused by subsurface flows in certain cases, like ungated sub-weirs. Pre- and post -jump profile of the
hydraulic jump for the selected design floods have to be drawn and floor thicknesses provided
to meet the uplift requirements of unbalanced heads measured from the water profile surface to
the hydraulic grade line at various points along the weir profile.
2.17 DIVIDE WALL
The length of a divide wall is so fixed that the pocket of still water extends well beyond the
upstream flank of the canal regulator, and has to be invariably verified through model
studies. Divide wall has an important function in silt exclusion from canals, and in
maintaining a suitable approach near the regulator. Experiments carried out in this respect
have shown that still pond system is much better than semi-open and open flow regulation
for silt selective withdrawals in the off-takes.
2.18 PIERS
The piers for the barrage and regulators will be of mass concrete and founded on the floor.
Nominal reinforcement shall be provided at the faces as protection against surface cracking.
The piers form supports for service, road and rail bridges and are provided with mild steel
plates to form contact faces for the radial gate rubber packing strips. Pivots of radial gates
shall be recessed into concrete of pier to reduce obstruction for flow and anchor
reinforcement will be embedded in piers around gate pivot. The upstream nosing and
downstream end of piers will be curved to ease the flow. The piers being founded on the
floors will present no foundation problem of their own.
2.19 ABUTMENTS
The abutments of the barrage and the regulators shall be designed as reinforced concrete
retaining walls with counterforts. The vertical face of the wall is considered as continuous
slab supported by counterforts. The lower section is the most heavily loaded and the
thickness diminishes towards the top. The base of the counterforts is also considered as a
slab spanning across the counterforts. The front face of the wall is provided with a small
batter to allow for any small differential settlement of the base owing to earth pressure
behind the wall. The earth pressures acting on the wall will be calculated using the
conventional soil mechanics methods, and the stability of the wall will be checked for safety
against overturning and sliding.
16
2.20 P.C.C. BLOCKS APRON AND INVERTED FILTER

The velocity on impervious floor of a barrage is high but beyond the impervious floor, the
velocity should not be more than 10 ft. per second over the stone apron upstream and
downstream. The bed soil immediately downstream of the impervious floor needs to be
provided with a protection in the form of graded ballast and stone overlaid with heavy blocks.
The idea is to prevent erosion of this soil by the action of waves and undermining by
seepage flow. In Pakistan, stone used is generally 80 to 160 lbs in weight and cannot stand
higher velocities. As a transition between the impervious floors and the stone apron, an
inverted filter is provided. It generally consists of concrete blocks of 4ft x 4ft x 4ft resting on
the graded filter. There are joints between the blocks so that the residual pressure coming
from below the barrage could be released through the inverted filter and joints without
dislocating the blocks.
The filter is graded so as to permit free movement of water but prevent the movement of
sand. It consists of a layer of fine bajri or kankar resting directly on the bed soil, followed by
ballast of increasing grades and finally spawls. This filter bed of layers of increasing porosity,
from bottom to top, is protected by the heavy concrete blocks (with open joints) against the
action of surface flow.
The upstream and downstream block aprons will be designed using traditional irrigation
practices and by studying performance of the existing weirs. The length of aprons depends
on the depth of scour and this will be calculated using the Laceys formula, i.e.
q2
R 0.9 x
f
1
3
Where
R
Laceys regime depth
discharge per foot width with 20% concentration.
silt factor
For calculation of the length of block aprons the scour factor of 1.25 for the upstream apron
and 1.5-1.75 for the downstream apron will be used. To calculate horizontal length of block
aprons, factors of 1.0 and 1.5 shall be used for upstream and the downstream aprons
respectively. Application or otherwise of discharge concentration shall be decided on the
basis of conditions prevailing at different sites.
17
2.21 STONE APRONS

Flexible stone aprons will be provided upstream and downstream of weir structures as
protection to local scour. For determining the maximum local scour, the Traditional
subcontinent methods covering mainly the regime approach will be used and results will be
checked and compared with USBR and other developed methods. Along with these
methods, it will be essential to use the method of zero bed transport by Blench for checking
the non-scouring depth (or river bed equilibrium level) for the maximum flood discharge
intensity.
The launching slope of the stone apron will be assumed between 2H:1V and 3H:1V,
depending upon the characteristics of river bed material. The thickness of apron when fully
launched should range between two (2) to three (3) feet (0.6 to 1.0 m) depending upon the
discharge intensity. For barrages, the fully launched thickness should not be less than 3 feet
(1.0 m).
The stone size/weight will be determined by using USBR curve (Ref: 2.6) for velocity versus
stone size at the average velocity for the maximum design discharge intensity. Weight of the
stone will be taken at 165 lbs/ft3 (2642 kg/m3). The USBR curve is reproduced in Figure 2.5.
The rubble aprons will be considered with the block aprons for purposes of calculating the
scour protection.
The length and thickness of the rubble apron is determined by assumption of the following
conditions in the event of scour:
Apron slope will fall to a slope between 2H:1V and 3H:1V depending upon the
characteristics of the river bed material.
Thickness of stone apron when fallen should not be less than 3 feet.
The scour factor for aprons varies from 1.25 to 1.75 for the upstream and from 1.75 to 2.25
for the downstream aprons. Application or otherwise of discharge concentration shall be
decided on the basis of specific conditions prevailing at different sites.
2.22 FISH LADDER
Fish ladder has been provided to enable the migratory fish to move across the barrage from
downstream to upstream and vice versa. It has been located near the divide wall in view of
the availability of water throughout the year in the river downstream of the under sluices.
18
In order that the velocity of water emanating from the entrance should be kept constant
(approximately 6 ft./see), whatever the water levels upstream and downstream may be, it is
arranged that as downstream water level rises and progressively drowns the lower pools
additional water can be supplied from a separate supply channel through a system of ducts
and chimneys controlled by sluice valves. The velocity can be maintained at a
predetermined level.
The hydraulic design of the fish ladder is aimed at producing flows of velocity and pattern
attractive for the fish for providing passage upstream which may be attempted by the fish
without difficulty. Upstream water level is pond level and allowance is made for minor
variations in levels, which may occur. Downstream water level depends on the regime in the
river, which is existence at the time. Maximum and minimum values likely to occur during the
period when the fish are migrating will be selected to correspond to the limits of flows
expected in the river at that time.
The fish ladder will be made up of the following parts (commencing at the downstream end):
i.
Fish entrance and entrance section
ii. Pool and weir section, part below maximum downstream water level and part above it.
Control pool with constant water level, between orifice and their section
iii. Exit section of pool and orifice
iv. Supply channel for added water; this runs parallel to and adjacent to the fish ladder.
2.22.1 Fish Entrance Section
The fish entrance will be a vertical slot about 4 feet wide. Velocity of water through entrance
slot will be around 6 feet per second for all probable downstream water levels. This velocity,
together with the accompanying fall in water level (about one foot) should serve to attract
fish from the river to the fish ladder. Inside the entrance section, water will be supplied from
the supply channel through four control gates and diffusers. This water supplements the flow
for fish ladder and provides the required velocity through the fish entrance.
2.22.2 Pool and Weir Section
A fall of one foot per pool will be selected. Both weirs and orifices will be provided to suit fish
of various habits. Velocities over weirs and through the orifices should be around four and
six feet per second respectively.
19
By a suitable arrangement of ducts and chimneys, water is fed from the supply channel
through diffusers of those pools, which have become drowned by the downstream water
level i.e. when the downstream water level is above the normal water level in the pool. In this
way the velocity at the entrance may be kept more or less constant and the velocity in the
drowned section of the fish ladder is itself sufficient to attract the fish upstream without delay.
2.22.3 Control Pool
Water level in this pool is maintained at a constant level by adding more or less water direct
from the pond. In this way, flow in the non-submerged part of the weir section is kept steady.
2.22.4 Exit Section
The orifices are arranged to be staggered in successive baffles to effect good energy
dissipation. Velocity through the orifices will vary with the pond level from about 3 to 5
feet per second.
2.22.5 Supply Channel
The supply channel carries water from the pond to be fed through the chimneys into the weir
pools when required and water to be fed into the entrance section.
Water level in the supply channel is controlled by a gate at the upstream end of the channel
and is maintained at a level 3 feet above downstream water level at all times the fish ladder
is in operation, i.e. 2 feet above water level in the entrance section.
The chimneys are designed to pass the required amount of water through the diffusers
under this head.
The level of the top of each chimney is fixed so that water commences to flow through
chimneys when the water level in the entrance section rises to a level 1 foot below the
normal water level of the pool fed by that chimney and reaches a constant value when the
water level in the entrance section rises a further 2 feet.
2.22.6 Fish Ladder Operation
Gates to the four openings from the supply channel to the entrance section are adjusted at
minimum downstream water level to give the desired entrance velocity.
20
The water level in the supply channel is maintained 3 feet above the downstream water level
by reference to float gauges in still wells connected to the river downstream and to the
supply channel respectively.
Water level in the control pool is maintained at constant level by adjustment of a gate
opening leading direct to the pond by reference to a float gauge in still well connected to the
control pool.
Any silt deposited should collect at the downstream end of the supply channel. A gated
opening has been provided in the downstream end wall to enable this silt to be washed out
from time to time.
2.22.7 Abstract
Flow through the fish ladder will be calculated using the following formulae:
Flow over weir
C.L.H3/2
Flow through orifice
Cd .A (2gh)1/2
length of notches in feet
total head in feet (including head of velocity of approach)
Cd
coefficient of discharge taken as 0.63 for small openings and

as 0.65 for large
Openings.
area of orifice in square feet.
It must be mentioned that in problems of this kind the actual flow patterns are most
complicated and depend in part on the interaction of one section on its neighbors.
It is important, therefore, that approximate results obtained by calculations should be verified
by the suitable model tests.
2.23 RIVER TRAINING STRUCTURES
2.23.1 Guide Banks
A river generally flows in a wide khadir (i.e. the historical movement limits or distance
between the two high banks of the river) and it is necessary to narrow down and restrict its
course to flow centrally through the barrage, weir or bridge placed across it. Guide banks are
placed in pairs symmetrical in plan. It is essential that the design should be such that no
21
swirls are produced and alignment is smooth. There should be no spurs projecting from the
guide bank as the spurs produce swirls.
a)
Length of Guide Banks
The length of guide banks is decided in consideration of the following factors:
The distance necessary to secure a straight and normal flow approach to the
structure so as to minimize the obliquity of current.
To safely protect the approach banks on both sides of the structure from river
embaying behind the training works.
To ensure that the swirls and turbulence, likely to be created by the spreading out of
flow downstream of the guide banks, do not endanger the structure.
The length necessary to prevent the edge of bend or meandering of the river at
upstream and behind the guide bank.
The typical plan of the guide bank (Bells Bund) showing its length is reproduced (Ref: 2.12)
in Figure 2.6.
b)
Radius of Bank Head
The proper radius of upstream bank head depends on the velocity of the river. Spring gives
the following table to design the radii, related with the probable maximum scour and river
gradient (Ref: 2.10):
Sand
Probable
Classification
Maximum
River Gradient (inches per mile)

3
6
9
12
18
Scour (ft)
< 20
> 20
< 30
> 30
< 40
> 40
< 50
> 50
< 60
> 60
Radius of Upstream Bank Head (ft)

200
250
300
350
400
250
310
375
440
500
300
360
425
490
550
350
430
510
590
670
400
425
550
625
700
450
550
650
750
850
500
590
675
760
850
600
725
825
925
1020
600
700
800
900
1000
800
900
1000
1100
1020
Very Coarse
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Very Fine
The upstream bank head curve should be carried 120 to 140 degrees round the back to
protect the landside of the bank.
22
d)
Typical Sections of guide Banks
The typical sections of the guide banks are given in Figure 2.7. The basic design criteria for
the embankment are:
Crest width
30 ft
Protected side slope
2H:1V
Unprotected side slopes =
3H:1V
A six (6) inch (150 mm) thick compacted gravel and sand surfacing will be placed on
(9 m)
the crest of guide bank for protection against flood water spray, rain runoff and traffic
wear and tear.
The embankment will be protected with stone pitching, underlain with graded spawl
and filter layers, and flexible stone apron on the riverside slope, upstream head and
downstream end.
The final geometry of the guide banks will be determined by physical model studies
to suit the site requirements.
2.23.2 Marginal Bunds

Marginal bunds connect the barrage or a weir to high banks on both side and serve as
levies. To design correctly the height and length of the marginal bunds and the extent of land
within these bunds, it is necessary to study the backwater effect due to pond and high floods
upstream of the barrage at different stages of flow.
2.23.3 Spurs (or Groynes)
The spurs (or groynes) are structures placed transverse to the river flow and extend from the
bank into the river. Depending upon the purpose, spurs can be used singly or in series. They
can also be used in combination with other training measures. Their use in series is
introduced if the river reach to be protected is long, or if a single spur is not efficient/strong
enough to deflect the current and also not quite effective for sediment deposition upstream
and downstream of itself. The structure located the farthest upstream in a series of spurs is
much more susceptible to flow attack both on the riverward and landward ends. Thus it
should be given special treatment to ensure its structural stability.
The position, length and shape of spurs for the individual subproject/scheme will be
determined by physical model studies. The choice of spur types will be based on efficiency,
site suitability and desired purpose. No single type of spur should be generalized in all
locations.
23
a)
Alignment of Spurs
Spurs may be aligned perpendicular or inclined to the bank line, pointing upstream or
downstream. The fixing of angle of spur with respect to current axis will require physical
model study.
b) Spacing of Multiple Spurs
The spacing between spurs generally depends on the length projected by each spur in the
series. The general recommendations on spacing are (Ref: 2.13):
The spurs are spaced further apart, with respect to their lengths in a wide river than
in a narrow river, having nearly equal discharge. The normal spacing in straight reach
will be five (5) times the length of spur.
The location of spurs affects their spacing. A larger spacing may be adopted for
convex banks and a smaller spacing for concave banks. In general, the
recommended spacing is:
Convex bends; 2 to 2.5 times the length of spur
Concave bends; equal to the length of spur
When the river bank has a curvature, the spurs in series may have varying lengths
and, therefore, varying spacing. The angle of deflection of spurs may also change
continuously according to the curvature of the bank line.
c) Length of Spurs
No general rules can be formulated for fixing the length of spurs. It depends entirely on the
conditions and requirement for the each specific site. The length should not be shorter than
that required to keep the scour hole formed at the nose away from the bank. Short length
may also cause bank erosion upstream and downstream of the spur due to eddies formed at
the nose. A long spur may dam up the river and would not withstand the flood attack from
discharge concentration at the nose and a high head across the spur. Normally spurs longer
than one fifth (1/5) the river width are not provided.
The length of spurs as well as their orientation, shape etc., can best be finalized from
physical model studies.
2.23.4 Diversion Bunds and Cunnettes
24
When meandering of the river to extreme the land between the bends may gradually reduce
to a narrow neck. Unless the banks of the neck and meandering river loop are protected,
continuous caving takes place. The narrowing of the neck reaches a limit and a natural cutoff
may form across the neck. Based on this natural phenomenon an artificial pilot cut (or
cunnette) may be formed to short circuit the river loop and stop the banks erosion. The entry
of the flow in the meandering river channel is checked by placing upstream and downstream
diversion bunds. The typical layout of diversion bunds and cunnette is shown in Figure 2.8.
The diversion bunds will be sufficiently anchored into the river banks to avoid outflanking.
The cross-section of the diversion bunds will be similar to the cross-section of earthen
marginal bund, shown in Figure 2.9. The bunds height will be designed enough to check the
backwater effect in the blocked river channel. The backwater effect will be higher at bund 1
(upstream) than at bund 2 (downstream). The bund 2 (downstream) will have less design
height than the bund 1 (upstream).
2.24 LOCAL SCOUR PROTECTION
The local scour results directly from the impact of the structure on the flow. The development
of the scour process depends on the flow velocity, turbulence intensity and bed materials, so
it is difficult to prescribe a direct local scour prediction method. It is recommended to
calculate the local scour by several available methods and utilize engineering judgment in
selecting the results or establishing the maximum value by the most applicable methods.
2.25 STONE APRON
The function of stone apron is to launch and cover the scoured sub aqueous slope below
pitching level and prevent the possibility of damaging effect of scour coming close to the
structure with possible undermining.
The calculated quantity of apron stone will be laid horizontally along the bank toe, with its top
level at the river bed level for dry conditions or at par with the low water level (LWL) of the
river to form the working platform. When scour occurs, the hand packed stone apron will
launch itself to act as revetment on the scoured sub aqueous slope.
After launching action of stone apron the stone pitching gradually slips down the bank slope
because of its diminished stable toe previously offered by the stone apron. Typical details of
stone apron are shown in Figure 2.10.
a)
Stone Apron Design
25
For designing of apron, it is necessary that the volume of stone should be sufficient to cover
the local scour slope length in its fully developed state and also fill partially the scour hole at
toe of the sub aqueous slope.
i.
Launching Slope
The launching slope of apron could be assumed as the angle of internal friction () of
the river bed subsurface saturated soil forming continuity with the side slope of the
structure.
ii.
Volume of Stone Apron

The volume of stone to be laid in apron should be enough to cover (or protect) the
side slope of the scour pit/hole with a reasonable thickness sufficient to ensure safety
of stone pitching of the structure head.
iii.
Width of Stone Apron

Recommended normal width of stone apron = 1.5 D
by Sir F.J.E. Spring (Ref: 2.10).
Where:
D = scour depth below the normal bed level (ft)
b)
Apron Stone Size
The Isbash Method (empirical), given below will be used to determine the apron stone size.
The related hydraulic design chart for Velocity Vs Stone Diameter is reproduced in Figure
2.11 (2 sheets).
i.
Minimum Stone Size

The function of stone apron is to launch and protect the scoured sub aqueous slope
below pitching level. The stone size (D 50/W50) to be laid in apron should be at least
of same size or larger than determined for the slope pitching.
ii.
Apron Stone Grading

The size gradation of apron stone shall be established as an envelope based on the
following relations and as shown in Figure 2.12 (Ref: 2.14):
26
W100 (max.)
W100 (min.)
W50 (max.)
W15 (max.)
W15 (min.)
=
=
=
=
=
4.0W50
2.0W50
1.5W50
1.0W50
0.4W50
(min.)
(min.)
(min.)
(min.)
(min.)
Typically, a stone size grading of 40 lbs to 250 lbs will be used.

2.26 SLOPES PROTECTION
2.26.1 General
For hydraulic structures located in barrage pond or bank of a wide river or embankment lying
across the river flow the action of waves or current or a combination of both will be
considered for stone protection on the bank slope. The stone protection for all other
hydraulic structures and river banks slope will be designed against transverse forces due to
the velocity and turbulence from current action.
For all type of banks slope the stone size gradation of 40 lbs (18 kg) to 250 lbs (113 kg) will
be used. The stone material will be composed of angular quarried stone eighty (80) percent
of which by weight are equal and larger than W50. The remaining twenty (20) percent
quantity will be lighter rock (W15 to W30) to fill the larger voids between larger stones.
2.26.2 Design of Slope Protection
2.26.2.1 Freeboard
In the design of water containing structures the crest of the embankment is to be kept higher
than the level of water to be contained. This margin is necessary for safety against
overtopping due to rise in water levels on account of disturbances in water from breaking
waves and wind set-up in river ponds. At river curves the river set (or super elevation) also
needs consideration. Where river bed accretion is regular due to sediment deposition (like in
the lower reaches of Indus River) the design flood level is established by adding two feet to
the recorded high flood level (Ref: 2.15). For other cases some small freeboard margin is
also necessary for contingent requirement as factor of safety. Zaidi has recommended (Ref:
2.16) the following formulae for calculating the wave run-up, wind set-up and river set:
a) Wave Run-Up (or Ride)
The run-up (or ride) of a breaking wave in shallow water measured vertically
above the
mean water surface level can be estimated by Hunt formula:

27
R
K tan
H 8 / T H / 2 g 1 / 2
where:
R = wave run-up (or ride) (ft.)
H = wave height (ft.)
K = surface roughness coefficient for the embankment slope
(ft.)
= 2.3 ft. for smooth surface

= 1.8 ft. for earthen surface
T = wave period
(s)
= embankment slope angle with horizontal

g = acceleration of gravity
b)
(degree)
(ft./s)
Wind Set-Up
An appreciable rise in water level may be caused on one slope of reservoir or pond by wind
action, particularly in shallow water. The wind set-up can be estimated by Zuider Zee
formula:
S
U 2F
Cos
1400 D
where:
S = set-up above still pond level (ft.)
U = wind velocity (mile/hour)
F = fetch (mile)
D = average water depth (ft.)
= angle of fetch and wind (degree)
For combined effect of wind set-up and wave run-up the total rise in water level is equal to
wind set-up plus two third of wave run-up.
c)
River Set
At curves the deepest point of the river cross-section is near the concave (or outer) bank and
the water surface there is higher than at the convex (or inner) bank. The river set may
cause a super elevation of the water surface at the concave (or outer) bank and this can be
estimated by Schoklitsch formula:
h 2.3
V2
R2
. log
g
R1
28
where:
h = river set (ft.)
V = average velocity at the upstream straight reach (ft/s)
g = acceleration of gravity
(ft./s)
R1 = radius of curvature of convex (or inner) bank

R2 = r adius of curvature of concave (or outer) bank
(ft.)
(ft.)
The Government of Sind Bund Manual (Ref: 2.17) indicates that river set may cause a
rise of the water surface at the concave (or outer) bank as much as 2.0 feet (0.6 m).
d)
Recommended Freeboard
Sufficient freeboard should be provided above the design flood level for safety against
overtopping. For arriving at appropriate freeboard, the design flood level, the wave run-up,
wind set-up and river set be calculated. These values should be added accordingly and one
foot additional freeboard be provided for contingent requirement as factor of safety.
The ultimate foundation and fill settlement will be neglected against one foot contingent
provision. By keeping in view the current local practices on freeboard for the typical flood
protection structures, influenced by different hydraulic conditions and design wind velocity
over land (Uland) assumed as minimum 50 miles/hour (80 km/hour), the recommended
minimum freeboard provisions for various flood protection structures are given in the table
below:
29
Flood Protection Structure
Hydraulic/ Wind Conditions
Recommended
Minimum Freeboard
(ft.)*
CONTAINING STRUCTURES
-
Flood Bunds
Current flow, sediment deposition,

wave run-up and wind set-up
6.0 (1.8 m)
Retired Bunds
Current flow
5.0 (1.5 m)
Marginal bunds (at

barrages, bridges and
syphons)

7.0 (2.0 m)
TRAINING STRUCTURES
-
Spurs/Groynes
Current flow and sediment

deposition
5.0 (1.5 m)
Guide banks

7.0 (2.0 m)
Pitched Islands
Current flow, wave run-up and

wind set-up
5.0 (1.5 m)
Diversion Bunds
Back water effect
4.0 (1.2 m)
(*) The recommended minimum freeboard values include one foot additional freeboard for
contingent requirement as factor of safety.
Current Attack Protection

The Isbash Method (empirical), given below will be used to determine the apron stone
size. The related hydraulic design chart for Velocity Vs Stone Diameter is reproduced in
Figure 2.11 (2 sheets).
Wave Attack Protection

For the embankment slopes which are subject to wave action, it is necessary to predict
wave characteristics in order to provide information for determining free board and for
the design of stone pitching for embankment protection.
First the wave characteristics will be determined and then applied for establishing the
protection stone size.
30
a)
Wave Run-up
The wind velocity, duration and direction at the location of hydraulic structure and adjacent
topography affect the generated wave heights. The wave run-up is measured above the still
water level that would theoretically exist if there is no wave action. Waves prediction
methods are based on semi-empirical relationships, as discussed below:
i.
Wind Data
Normally, wind data to establish the design wind velocity over land (Uland) will be
obtained from the nearest located meteorological station with respect to the hydraulic
structure. For cases where wind data is not available from the nearby station then
the value of Uland will be taken as 50
miles/hour (80 km/hour), the value
established for Taunsa Barrage by Zaidi (Ref: 2.16).

The wind velocities over water (Uwater), because of smoother and more uniform
surface, are considered to be higher than those over land (Uland). The following table
gives the ratio of Uwater to Uland as a function of fetch distance (Ref: 2.17)
Fetch (mile)
Wind Ratio U water

U land
0.5
1
2
4
5 (and over)
1.06
1.13
1.21
1.28
1.31
The Uland are adjusted by the wind velocity ratio to obtain U water.
ii.
Effective Fetch (Fe)

The characteristics of wind-generated waves are influenced by distance that wind
moves over the water surface in the fetch direction. For hydraulic structures there is
less water surface for the wind to act on. The value of Fe will range from one (1)
mile (1.6 km) to ten (10) miles (16 km) depending upon the maximum straight line
length of water surface to which the face of the embankment is exposed.
iii.
Significant Wave Height and Period

With the established Uwater and Fe the significant wave height and period in deep
water are computed from the following three methods:
Saville Method (Ref: 2.17):
31
gH s
0.0026
U w2
gFe
U2
w
gTs
0.46 gF2e
2
Uw
Uw
0.47
0.28
where:
Hs = significant wave height, the average of the highest 1/3 waves in the spectrum (ft)
Ts = significant wave period, the average interval between successive crests or
troughs of groups of the higher waves (s)
Fe = effective fetch (ft)
Uw= wind velocity over water surface (ft/s)
g = acceleration of gravity ( ft/s2)
The Figure 2.13 reproduced from Ref: 2.17, presents relationship between the wave run-up
ratio (R/Hs) and wave steepness (Hs/Lo) for deep water.
where:
R = wave run-up as vertical height (ft)
Lo= wave length = 5.12 Ts2 (ft)
Bretschneider Method (Ref: 2.17)

2
H s 0.0555(U w Fe ) 0.5
2
Ts 0.50(U w Fe ) 0.25
where:
Hs = significant wave height (ft)
Ts = significant wave period (s)
Uw= wind velocity ( knot)
Fe = effective fetch ( nautical mile)
(1.15 statue mile = 1.0 nautical mile)
Shallow water wave-height (Hs) = 0.65 Hs
Creager and Justin Method (Ref: 2.16)

F 0.37 .U 0.48
H
3.41
where:
H = wave height (ft)
F = fetch (mile)
U = wind velocity (mile/hour)
32
b)
Wave Breaking on Slope
When a wave strikes on the front slope of embankment, it breaks completely or is partially
reflected creating standing waves which are sometimes twice the height of incident waves.
To avoid these standing waves the front slope has to completely break the wave train. The
front slope competency could be checked by satisfying the following equation (Ref: 2.16).
8
tan
Ts
Hs
2g
0.5
where:
= bank slope angle to the horizontal (degree)
Hs = significant wave height (ft.)
Ts = significant wave period (s)
c)
Protection Stone Size
The semi-empirical Hudson and Jackson formula (Ref: 2.18) for determining the required
weight of the stone is:
W50
D50
Wr H 3
K RR S r 1 Cot
6W50

Wr
1/ 3
where:
W50 =median stone weight in gradation by weight (lb)
Wr =unit weight of the stone = 165 (lbs/ft3)
H =design wave height (ft)
Sr = specific gravity of stone = Wr / Ww
Ww =unit weight of water = 62.5 (lbs/ft3)
=slope measured to horizontal (degree)

KRR =stability coefficient for graded angular stone
= 2.0 for double stone units armoured layer
D50 =equivalent spherical diameter of stone having the same weight as W50 (ft)
The value of H is determined by the formula (Ref: 2.19)
33
H = 1.25 Hs
where:
Hs = significant wave height (ft)
2.27 STONE PITCHING PROTECTION
The slope protection will consist of hammer dressed stone pitching underlain with transition
layer of well graded rock spawl and filter layer of well graded gravel or crushed stone, up to
the crest level. Typical details of stone pitching protection on embankment slope are shown
in Figure 2.10.
a)
Stone Pitching Layer
All stones shall be contained within the thickness of stone pitching layer to provide maximum
resistance against erosive forces. The larger stones should not protrude above the general
surface of the stone pitching. As normal requirement the minimum thickness of stone
pitching layer will be kept as 1.5 feet (0.45 m) for containing the larger stone.
Minimum thickness of stone pitching layer =1.5D50 1.5 ft (0.45 m)
b)
Rock Spawl Transition Layer
It is recommended to provide standard six (6) inches (150 mm) thick rock spawl transition
layer between the stone pitching layer and filter layer. The spawl layer will be well graded
from two (2) to four (4) inches (50 mm to 100 mm). Not more than fifteen (15) percent shall
be larger than four (4) inches (100 mm) and not more than five (5) percent shall be smaller
than two (2) inches (50 mm).
c)
Filter Layer
To prevent infiltration of the material susceptible to draining into the filter, the following
requirement will be met:
D15 percent size of filter material
5 (stability)
D85 percent size of material being drained

25 (segregation)

where:
D15, D85, D50 = material size for which 15%, 85%, 50% respectively are finer than
34
To assure that the filter material is much more permeable than the material being drained
the following requirement will be met:
Permeability:
5 (permeability)

The permeability of a soil is approximately proportional to the square of its D 15 percent size.
Therefore, the criterion given by above equation assures that the filter material is at least
twenty five (25) times more permeable than the material being drained.
The maximum six (6) inches (150 mm) thick filter layer of gravel or crushed stone will be well
graded from two (2) inches (50 mm) down. Not more than fifteen (15) percent shall be larger
than two (2) inches (50 mm) and not more than ten (10) percent shall be smaller than one
sixteenth (1/16) of an inch (1.5 mm).
35
REFERENCES:
2.1
Sir Thomas Foy and H. Spencer Green, Barrages and Dams on Permeable
Foundations.
2.2
Bureau of Indian Standards, Indian Standard Hydraulic Design of Barrages and

Weirs Guidelines 1989
2.3
Sharma K.R., Irrigation Engineering, Volume III, India Printers, India.
2.4
Coode and Partners, Design Report Qadirabad Barrage and Works in Connection
Therewith, (1963).
2.5
King H.W. and Brater E.F, Handbook of Hydraulics, Fifth Edition, McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
2.6
Peterka A.J., Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy Dissipaters. Engineering
Monograph No. 25, USBR, (1978).
2.7
Chow Ven Te, Open Channel Hydraulics, McGraw Hill Book Company, ( 1973).
2.8
Hydraulic Design of Spillways (1110- 2 1603), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Washington D.C., USA, (1990).
2.9
Shakir B.A., Design of Canal Falls, West Pakistan Engineering Congress, (1963).
2.10
Khosla A.N. et.al., Design of Weirs on Permeable Foundations, Central Board of

Irrigation, India, Publication No. 12, (1936).
2.11
Mushtaq A,. Hydraulics of Structures on Permeable Foundations, National Book

Foundation, (1983)
2.12
Sharma K.R., Irrigation Engineering, Volume I, India Printers, India, (1959).
2.13
Verma C.V.J. et. al., River Behaviour Management and Training, Volume I, Central
Board of Irrigation and Power, New Delhi, India, (1989).
2.14
Permanent International Association of Navigation Conference (PINAC), 1987.a.
2.15
Bund Manual, Public Works Department, Government of Sindh, (1954).
2.16
Zaidi S.M.A., Wind Generated Waves and Their Effects on River Bunds, Proceedings
of Pakistan Engineering Congress. (1978).
2.17
Saville T. et.al., Freeboard Allowance for Waves in Inland Reservoirs, Proceeding

of ASCE,
2.18
( May, 1962).
Shore Protection Manual , U.S. Army Corpse of Engineers, Coastal Engineering

Research Center, Vicksuburg, Mississippi, USA, (1984).
2.19
Taylor K.V., Slope protection on Earth and Rock fill Dams, Commission International
Des Grands Barrages, Madrid, ( 1973).
36
3. STRUCTURAL DESIGN
3.1
GENERAL
These design criteria shall be used in the design of all structures. The supplemental design
criteria applicable to specific structures will be established for any particular requirements/
conditions.
Design for concrete structures will be based on design methods as set out in applicable
Codes of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) or British Standards (BS) where ACI Codes
do not carry pertinent information.
3.2
DESIGN LOADING
All structural members will be designed to withstand dead and live loads expected to be
imposed. These loads will include the self-weight of the structure, imposed load including
earthquake forces, wind loads, internal and external hydrostatic (uplift) and hydrodynamics
(flow) loads, construction loads, impact loads and earth pressures. Where elements would
be precast lifting forces shall be considered.
i.
Dead Loads
The dead loads on structures will be computed from the following
unit weights of the
materials:
Material Type
(lb/ft3)
150
(kg/m3)
2403
PCC (1:2:4)
144
2307
Massive concrete (1:4:8)
140
2243
Rubble masonry
140
2243
Brick masonry
120
1922
Dry earth
100
1602
Compacted earth1
115
1842
Saturated earth
135
2163
RCC
ii.
1
Unit Weight
Bridge Live Loads
Subject to the results obtained from laboratory testing.
The bridges will be designed or evaluated for the following live loading:
Bridge Classification
A.R. Bridge
Live Load
Class AA loading
Class A loading
NLC loading
Class AA loading
D.R. Bridge
Class A loading
NLC loading
Class A loading
100 lb/ft2 (488 kg/m2)
V.R. Bridge
Foot Bridge
Class AA Loading: This is 70 ton (69 tonne) Army tank. The nose to tail distance between
two successive tanks will not be less than three hundred (300) feet (92 m) and no other live
load shall cover any part of the roadway of the bridge when tank is crossing.
NLC loading: This has a maximum twin wheel loading of 20 x 10-inch (50.8 x 25.4 cm). The
nose to tail distance between successive truck trailer units shall not be less than sixty (60)
feet (18 m).
Class A loading: is a train of one truck plus two trailers. The nose to tail distance between
successive truck units shall not be less than 60 feet (18 m).
Live load stresses shall be increased for impact effect as below:
Class AA loading (tracked loading)
Live load impact Deck
= 25%
Live load impact Girder = 10%
NLC and Class A loading (wheeled loading)
50
L 125
Where:
I = Impact factor
L= Length of span (ft)
iii.
Wind Loads
Wind pressure will be applied to the exposed area of all structures in
accordance with
Building Code of Pakistan, for a maximum wind velocity of hundred (100) mph (161 kmph)
acting horizontally in any direction.
iv.
Earthquake Load
The earthquake loading will be selected according to the established earthquake zones of
Pakistan.
v.
Flow Pressure
The effect of the flow on piers will be calculated by the formula:

P = KV2
Where:
P = Pressure (lbs/ft2)
V = Velocity of flow (ft./sec)
K = Constant (0.66 for circular nose piers)
vi.
Uplift Pressure
Uplift pressure will be assumed to correspond to full head across. Uplift will be assumed to
act on hundred (100) percent of the base area.
vii.
Earth Pressure
Lateral earth pressures due to backfill under static conditions will be computed by the
Coulombs Method, taking into account the effects of any soil saturation or submergence.
A surcharge of two hundred (200) lb/ft2 (975 kg/m2) will be added for computing earth
pressure.
viii.
Loading Combinations
The loads listed above will be divided into two main groups:
Group-I
Loads:
Dead and imposed loads.
Live loads including impact.
Earth pressure.
Hydrostatic pressure corresponding to head across.
Uplift pressure.
Group-II
Loads:
Wind loads.
Earthquake load.
The following three different loading combinations will be considered for the design of
structures:
Normal Loading Condition: will result from the combination of Group-I loads only.
Exceptional Loading Condition: will arise from the combination of any one load from
Group-II with the Group-I loads.
Extreme Loading Condition: will occur when two loads from Group-II loads are combined
with Group-I loads.
3.3
STABILITY CRITERIA
Stability analysis will be carried out for structures for most severe conditions of horizontal
and vertical forces. Stability criteria are aimed at ensuring the overall safety of structure
against overturning and sliding.
i. Overturning
Allowable limits under different loading conditions will be a follows:
Normal Loading
Resultant of all forces acting on structures will fall within the middle third of the base (i.e.
no tension allowed between concrete and foundation) and the allowable foundation
pressure will not be exceeded.
Exceptional loading
Resultant of all forces acting on the structure will remain within
the middle third of the
base and allowable design foundation pressure (20% higher than for Normal loading
case) will not be exceeded.
Extreme loading
Resultant of all forces acting on the structure will remain within the middle half of the
base provided that a minimum of 75% of the base area is subject to compression and
the maximum base pressure will not exceed the allowable design foundation pressure
(33% higher than for Normal loading case).
ii.
Sliding
Friction factor of safety =
(Normal Forces)
(Forces in sliding plans)
where:
= coefficient of friction at rough interface of foundation base
The minimum factor safety will be as follows:
Loading Condition
Factor of Safety
Normal loading
Exceptional loading
Extreme loading
1.50
1.25
1.1
3.4
FLOATATION
Minimum factor of safety against flotation in different conditions will be as follows:
3.5
Normal loading
= 1.25
Exceptional loading
= 1.15
Extreme loading
= 1.05
ALLOWABLE STRESSES
The following allowable stresses will be followed in the design of the members of various
structures:
i.
Reinforced Concrete (RCC, 1:2:4)
Description
Allowable Stress (psi)
Modulus of elasticity ratio n =Es/Ec
= 29,000,000/57,000
fc '
For concrete strength of fc = 3,000 psi n =9

CONCRETE
Flexure:
Extreme fiber stress in compression (fc)
- Normal
- Exceptional
- Extreme
Extreme fiber stress in tension in plain concrete footings
and walls
0.45 fc
1.2 of the Normal
1.33 of the Normal
1.6 f c '
1.10 f c '
1.2 of the Normal
1.33 of the Normal
Shear:
Beams with no web reinforcement
- Normal
- Exceptional
- Extreme
Joists with no web reinforcement

Members with web reinforcement
1.20
fc '
5.0
fc '
2.0
fc '
4.8
f c ' /d < 500
3.4
f c ' /d < 350
Slabs and footings
Bond:
Main bars
Top bars
0.25 fc
0.375 fc
Bearing:
On full area
On one third area or less
0.5fy
1.2 of the Normal
1.33 of the Normal
REINFORCEMENT
- Normal
- Exceptional
- Extreme
where:
fc = compressive strength of concrete cylinder in 28 days (psi)

= 3,000 psi (211 kg/cm2) (cube strength = 3,750 psi) (264 kg/cm2)
fy = yield strength of reinforcement (psi)
= 40,000 psi (2812 kg/cm2) (Grade 40 reinforcement in conformity
with ASTM
A615)
d = bar diameter (in.)
ii.
Plain Concrete (PCC)
The PCC will have a 28 days compressive strength as below:
PCC (1:2:4)
- Cylinder = 3,000 psi (211 kg/cm2)

- Cube
PCC (1:3:6)
- Cylinder = 2,500 psi (176 kg/cm2)

- Cube
iii.
= 3,750 psi (264 kg/cm2 )
= 3000 psi (211 kg/cm2)
Lean Concrete
The lean concrete (or blinding concrete) will have 28 days compressive strength of:
Cylinder = 2,000 psi (141 kg/cm2)
Cube
iv.
= 2,400 psi (169 kg/cm2)
Bricks
The bricks will have a minimum crushing strength of 2,000 psi, (141 kg/cm2) when tested
flat.
3.6
MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT (OR TEMPERATURE REINFORCEMENT)
A minimum area of reinforcement is required to control the cracking, which occurs in the
concrete due to temperature, shrinkage and creep. It enables cracking to be uniformly
distributed and therefore minimizes individual crack width.
The following criteria will be used to determine the cross-section area of temperature or
minimum reinforcement required in hydraulic structures. The percentages indicated are
based on the gross cross-sectional area of the concrete to be reinforced. Where the
thickness of the section exceeds fifteen (15) inches (380 mm), a thickness of fifteen (15)
inches (380 mm) should be used in determining the temperature or minimum reinforcement.
For concrete gravity structures like piers, divide walls, abutments etc. minimum temperature
reinforcement may be provided with area equivalent to # 9 @ 12" (or # 6 @ 5") in each face
(Ref: Para 2-8, Engineering Manual 1110-2-2104, Strength Design for Reinforced Concrete
Hydraulic Structures, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).
Concrete Member/Face
SINGLE LAYER REINFORCEMENT
Slabs not exposed to direct sun joints spacing < 30 ft (9 m).
Slabs exposed to direct sun joints spacing < 30 ft (9 m).
Slabs not exposed to direct sun joints spacing >30 ft (9 m).
Slabs exposed to direct sun joints spacing >30 ft (9 m).
DOUBLE LAYER REINFORCEMENT (EACH FACE)
Face adjacent to earth - joints spacing < 30 ft (9 m).
Face not adjacent to earth nor exposed to direct sun joints spacing
< 30 ft (9 m).
Face not adjacent to earth but exposed to direct sun joints spacing
< 30 ft (9 m).
If member exceeds 30ft (9m) in any direction parallel to
reinforcement, add to the above reinforcement requirement in that
direction because of the increased length.
Minimum
Reinforcement
Percentage
0.25 %
0.30 %
0.35 %
0.40 %
0.10 %
0.15 %
0.20 %
+0.05 %
The temperature reinforcement shall not be less than inch (13 mm) at nine (9) inch (230
mm) centre to centre. All concrete stilling basins, glacis and floors and all concrete aprons of
regulators and similar structures (with slab thickness > 15 inch (380 mm)) shall be reinforced
in the exposed (top) face with inch (19 mm) bars at twelve (12) inch (300 mm) centre to
centre, both ways, placed three (3) inch (75 mm) clear from concrete face, unless otherwise
designed.
Nominal reinforcement of concrete chute blocks, baffle blocks and sills for stilling basins,
aprons and other portion of regulators, falls and similar structures shall consist of inch (19
mm) bars at twelve (12) inch (300 mm) centre to centre, both
3.7
MINIMUM CONCRETE COVER FOR REINFORCEMENT
The following minimum concrete cover shall be provided for the nearest reinforcement.
Minimum
Concrete Element
Face in contact with earth
Face exposed to weather and flowing water
Beam, girder, column and wall dry condition
Beam, girder, column and pier exposed to water and weather
Slabs not exposed (dry condition)
3.8
Concrete Cover
(in)
(mm)
3
75
3
75
1.5
40
2
30
1.5
40
CONCRETE JOINTS
There are three (3) types of joints generally used in concrete construction. These are:
Construction Joints
Contraction Joints
Expansion Joints
One joint may be combination of the two or more of these types. The joints for the structures
which are subjected to internal and external hydrostatic (uplift) pressure, shall be provided
with rubber or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) water stop of suitable sizes.
i.
Construction Joints
These shall be provided where necessary for the practical placing of concrete. The
reinforcement steel shall be continued across the construction joint. Unless required to resist
heavy shear caused by lateral loads, keys shall not be placed in construction joints. Where
necessary to ensure water tightness in construction joint, water stop shall be provided.
ii.
Contraction Joint
These shall be used to relieve tensile stresses induced in the concrete by shrinkage. They
differ from construction joints wherein means are used to prevent bond between the joint
faces, and the reinforcement does not cross the joint face. Concrete on one side of the joint
is cast first, and after the form is removed from the joint face, the joint is painted with sealing
compound to prevent bond with the concrete placed against it. Water stop shall be placed in
contraction joints to provide water tightness, where necessary. Contraction joints may also
serve as construction joints.
iii.
Expansion Joints
These are used to eliminate or reduce compressive stresses that would otherwise result
from thermal expansion, creep, or settlement of the concrete. Water stop shall be placed in
expansion joints to provide water tightness, where necessary. Expansion joints may also
serve as construction joints.
3.9
PRE-STRESS CONCRETE
AASHTO Maximum Permissible Stresses in Concrete and Reinforcement

a)
Concrete Stresses Before Creep and Shrinkage

Compression
Pre-tensioned members
0.06 f cl
Post-tensioned members
0.55 f cl
Tension
Pre-compressed tensile zone
No. temporary, allowable

stresses are specified
b)
Concrete Stresses at Services Load after Losses

Compression
0.40 fc
Tension in the pre-compressed tensile zone
For members with bonded reinforcement
For severe corrosive exposure conditions, such as

Coastal areas
c)
For members without bonded reinforcement
Cracking Stresses
Modulus of rupture from tests or if not available
d)
For normal-weight concrete
7.5
For sand-lightweight concrete
6.3
For all other lightweight concrete
5.5
Anchorage-bearing stress
Post-tensioned anchorage at service load
3,000 psi
(but not to exceed 0.9 fci)

e)
Pre-stressing Steel Stresses
Due to tendon jacking for
0.94 fpy < 0.80 fpu
Immediately after pre-stress transfer
0.82 fpy < 0.75 fpu
Post-tensioning tendons at anchorage, immediately

after tendon anchorage
0.70 fpu
fpy ~ 0.85 fpu (for low-relaxation, fpy = 0.90 fpu)
10
4. GEOTECHNCIAL DESIGN
4.1
GENERAL
A detailed knowledge of subsurface condition would be required for safe and economical
design of foundations of various components of barrage structures. Punjab Barrages
Rehabilitation Project Phase I includes rehabilitation of Taunsa and Sulemanki Barrages and
feasibility design of a new barrage on Chenab River replacing existing Khanki weir.
Geotechnical investigations will be carried out at the new location of Khanki Barrage to
explore the subsurface strata and determine the engineering characteristics of foundation
material. Where as Geophysical explorations will be made at Taunsa and Sulemanki
Barrages to ascertain the subsurface conditions below the existing structures, which will help
in suggesting the rehabilitation measures.
4.2
GROUND EXPLORATION
Explorations in the river bed shall be confined to periods of low river flows, i.e., from
November to March. The three barrages are located in the Punjab flood plains and available
data indicates that the river bed alluvium comprises fine to medium sands with varying
degree of silt. Occasional clay layers have also been reported at places. Keeping this in view
wash boring/straight rotary drilling techniques will be selected for explorations. Bentonite will
be used as the drilling fluid to support the hole as an alternate to casing. However, bentonite
will not be used when permeability tests are undertaken. Test pits through manual
labour/back hoe will also be excavated to expose the top stratum for physical examination,
in-situ testing and sampling.
The main objectives in making the ground explorations would be:
i.
to assess the general suitability of the site.
ii. to prepare an adequate and economic design.

In addition to site investigations for new works at Khanki, investigations will also be
undertaken in reporting on the safety of the existing works and for the design of extensions
at Sulemanki and Taunsa barrages.
Drilling will be undertaken keeping in view the site conditions at each Barrage location.
Drilling in water shall be done from a barge or an assembly of pontoon units adequately tied
up and anchored. Generally the following testing and sampling procedures will be followed.
Standard penetration tests will be carried out in the boreholes, generally at a depth interval
of 1m. The number of blows for penetrating the last 30cm of sampler will be recorded. Cone
penetration tests (CPTs) will also be performed at various selected locations. The results
from these tests will be used for direct as well as indirect determination of strength and
deformation characteristics using empirical correlations.
The undisturbed samples will also be taken at appropriate depths in various subsurface
strata if found necessary. Piston/Shelby samples will be used at shallow depths in softer
conditions. For alluvial sands Pitcher sampler will be used while for cohesive soils Denison
sampler will be used. The samples recovered shall be carefully cleaned, waxed, labelled and
stored at site with a minimum of delay after sampling, before being transported to the
laboratory. Special care would be exercised during transportation so as to avoid any
disturbance due to vibration and shock.
Permeability tests in boreholes will be performed at selected locations either with the flush
bottom or lifted casing cases if considered necessary. Any difference between the results of
the two tests is an indication of a difference between the vertical and horizontal
permeabilities due to thin stratification. However, if the two tests are entirely within one
stratum, similar permeabilities will be obtained even if on a larger scale, horizontal
permeability is higher than vertical permeability. The permeability data will be analysed and a
ratio of horizontal to vertical permeability will be established.
In-situ density will be determined through tests carried out in the test pits by sand
Replacement Method and CPT carried out in boreholes.
The initial description of soils will be done on site. An experienced geotechnical
engineer/engineering geologist will be at site in the early stages to see that the site staff is
on the right lines. For quality control and sporadic check intermittent visits by senior
personnel will be made.
4.3
GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATIONS
The Electrical Resistivity (horizontal profiling), gravity and shallow Refraction surveys will be
carried out to delineate the voids and probable channels below concrete mass and also to
demarcate the shape and size of the voids and channels.
4.4
LABORATORY TESTING
Depending on the ground conditions some or all of the following tests will be carried out on
selected soil/water samples transported to the laboratory:
i.
Grain size Analysis
ii. Atterberg Limits

iii. Maximum/minimum densities
iv. Unconfined compression
v. Direct Shear
vi. Triaxial Compression(CU)
vii. Consolidation
viii. Permeability of soil
ix. Chemical analysis of soil / water
In general both BS and ASTM would be followed for the field and laboratory testing.
However ASTM would be given more weight age.
4.5
DATA EVALUATION AND ANALYSES
The results obtained through ground explorations and laboratory testing will be studied in
conjunction with each other and judicious engineering judgment to evolve design
parameters. Where ever possible more than one method would be adopted in evaluating the
design parameters.
The results of the geotechnical investigations will be used for the design of specific
structures, but the general layout of the Barrage will mainly be influenced by the
topographical features, river approach conditions and environmental considerations.
4.6
FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA
Generally following two criteria will be considered and satisfied separately:
There must be an adequate factor of safety against local and general shear failure in
soil.
The settlements and particularly the differential settlements must be kept within the
tolerable limits imposed by functional and structural design requirements.
4.7
ESTIMATION OF FOUNDATION STRESSES
For evaluation of ultimate bearing capacity as well as settlement calculation, estimation of

stress transferred by the foundation to soil layers at different depths is required. For
estimation of increase in vertical stress beneath the centre of uniformly loaded flexible
rectangular or circular foundation, chart given by Janbu, Bjerrum and Kajernsli will be used.
For estimating stresses beneath foundations of other shapes chart given by Newmark will be
used.
4.8
SHEAR BASED DESIGN
In this approach ultimate bearing capacity of soils shall be evaluated using the following
Meyerhofs (Ref.4.1) bearing capacity equation. A factor of safety (FOS) of 3 shall be used to
calculate the allowable foundation pressures from the calculated values.
qult cN C S C d C qN q S q d q 0.5BN S d
Where,
qult = ultimate bearing capacity
= effective unit weight of the bearing stratum

C = cohesion
q = effective overburden pressure at the foundation level

B = footing width
NC , N q , N
= bearing capacity factors, a function of angle
of internal friction
S C , S q , S
= shape factors
dc, dq, d = depth factors
Nqetantan2452
Ncq1Cot
Nq1tan4.
S102.Kpc
S10.Kpq
B
L
B
L
d102.Kpc
D
B
d1.0Kpq
D
B

Kptan245
2
For granular soils of high permeability drained soil strength parameters will be used.
Cone Penetration Test (CPT) results from the field shall be used to determine a notional
value of angle of shearing resistance. (Ref.4.2) Fig. 4.1 shows Meyerhofs correlation
between static cone penetration resistance and angle of shearing resistance of sand. This
value shall be judiciously used to determine the ultimate bearing capacity using the
Meyerhofs approach.
4.9
SETTLEMENT BASED DESIGN
The prevalent subsurface conditions at the three barrage sites indicate that, the allowable
pressure which may be applied to the barrage foundation will be governed by consideration
of settlement, rather than of the shear strength of the soil. Therefore accurate prediction of
the settlement of the structures founded on sands is very important. The settlement based
design will be carried out using the following approaches:
i.
Using SPT N values
ii. Using CPT Cr values

SPT N Value
The Meyerhofs relationship as modified by Bowles (Ref.4.1) shall be used for determining
net allowable foundation pressures qafor 1 inch total settlement. The equations are as
follows:
qa
N
Kd
F1
B <F4
NBF
q3Kdq
F2 B
BF4
qa
N
F2
for rafts
N = Field standard penetration test values

Kd =
1 0.33
Df
B
1.33
Df = depth of footing
Factors in ft
F1 = 2.5
F2 = 4
F3 = 1
F4 = 4
CPT Cr Value
The cone penetrometer has proved to be a reliable tool for predicting settlements on shallow
as well as deep foundations. Safe prediction of strength and relative density has also been
made through this test.
Cone penetration tests shall be carried out at the selected locations as per ASTM D3441, BS
5930. The test is performed by pushing the standard cone (with a 600 point and base
diameter of 36 mm with cross-sectional area of 10 cm2) into the ground at a rate of 10 to 20
mm/sec. Data collected is the static cone resistance (Cr or qc), which shall be used for
estimation of relative density and angle of internal friction using correlations developed by
Schmertmann (1978) and Robertson and Campanella (1983), (Ref.4.1) Fig. 4.2 and Fig. 4.3.
Schmertmanns relationship given below shall be used for determining the settlement.
(Ref.4.2)
2B
C12pIEZz
0
, where
p = increase in effective overburden pressure at foundation level

z = thickness of layer under consideration
C1= depth embedment factor
C1105.'p0p
p 0 = initial effective overburden pressure at foundation level

I Z = strain influence factor (Fig. 4.4 )
C2= empirical creep factor
C2102.log10t.
t = period in years for which settlement is to be calculated
E = deformation modulus depending on the L/B ratio (Fig.4.4)
Cr = static cone point resistance in ton/ft2 or kg/cm2
Soil parameters shall be evolved from laboratory tests on undisturbed samples but more
likely from SPT or CPT data obtained in the field.
The results of the above-mentioned field tests shall be judiciously used for predicting the
ultimate bearing capacity of either shallow or deep foundations with much greater accuracy
than using the results of routine laboratory tests only.
Curves selecting minimum of the above criterion will be developed for half of an inch, one
inch and two inches total settlements, giving allowable foundation pressures Vs foundation
sizes.
4.10 DEEP FOUNDATIONS
Wells/caissons shall be used as deep foundations so as to provide greater upward,
downward and lateral bearing capacity as compared to piles because of their larger
diameter. The following equations shall be applicable to the design of caissons in sands:
Q Q S Qb
Q S L f AS
Qb q b Ab
Where
Q, QS and Qb are the ultimate loads for axial, skin and end bearing.
fs = friction between caisson and adjacent sand
As = circumferential area of the shaft
qb = unit ultimate end bearing
Ab = area of the base of the caisson
QS shall be calculated by using the fs given by Reese(Ref.4.3) in the following form:
fSVtan
where
S = a reduction factor for sand
V = effective vertical stress

= soil friction angle
For caissons penetrating more than 7.6m but less than 12.2m S of 0.6 shall be used.
The ultimate shaft resistance shall also be estimated directly from field penetration tests.
Following Meyerhofs expressions with an upper limit of 50 kPa shall be used.
fS N
fS fC
N
= average standard penetration blow count within the caisson
embedment length corrected to an effective overburden pressure and
f C = unit resistance of the friction sleeve for the cone penetrometer

The ultimate end bearing shall be estimated from bearing capacity factors and effective
overburden pressure.
q b N q V
Where following table shall be used for determination of Nq by Peck.(Ref.4.4)
Standard penetration
Friction angle
Nq
Blow Count N
10
32
30
40
50
30
33
36
39
41
18
26
37
55
72
The ultimate base resistance shall also be estimated from correlations given by Meyerhof.
qb= 120 N
qb = qc
The ultimate lateral load resistance of intermediate fixed-headed caissons, for (1<L<2)
where L is the caisson length and
h 0.2
EI
E= modulus of elasticity of caisson material

I = moment of inertia of caisson section
h= coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction
Typical values of h as recommended by Terzaghi(Ref) are given in the following table:

h
Loose sand
Medium sand
Dense sand
kN/m3
Dry or moist
940
6590
17560
Submerged
1250
4390
10660
shall be calculated using the expression:
2M
Pult P1
Pult2
e.054
DKP
Pult = ultimate lateral load applied at a distance e above ground level
M = ultimate moment capacity of the caisson section
L = caisson length
D = caisson diameter
= unit weight of the soil
KPta2n45
2
= the angle of internal friction of soil
A factor of safety of 3.0 shall be used for design.
4.11 SOIL LIQUEFACTION
The liquefaction potential of the foundation alluvium will be evaluated under the Peak
Ground Acceleration (PGA) for each barrage site if applicable. The PGA will be established
on the basis of the seismic zoning map of Pakistan developed on the basis of geophysical
centre Quettas instrumental macro-earthquake data. Seismic zoning map of Punjab is
appended as Fig. 4.5. A PGA for Suleimanki, Khanki and Taunsa barrage shall be
determined from the seismic zoning map.
The evaluation shall be based on relative density of the in-situ soils using Seed and Idriss
(1971) approach.(Ref.4.1)
Approximate relationship between earthquake magnitude, relative density and liquefaction

potential for water table 1.5 m below ground surface
Earthquake
acceleration
0.10g
0.15g
0.20g
0.25g
High
liquefaction
probability
Dr < 33%
< 48
< 60
< 70
Potential for liquefaction

depends on soil type and
earthquake acceleration
33 < Dr 54
48 < Dr 73
60 < Dr 85
70 < Dr 92
Low liquefaction
probability
Dr > 54%
> 73
> 85
> 92
For the zones which would be identified as potentially liquefiable, further studies shall be
required. In the zones where the above studies indicate high strains and where the
embankments are not safe, appropriate remedial measures like densification of liquefiable
soils or deep foundations below the liquefiable zone shall be recommended.
4.12 COEFFICIENT OF HORIZONTAL EARTH PRESSURE
The at-rest earth pressure for static case and active earth pressure for dynamic case will be
used for the design of abutment and wing walls. If the soils retained behind the abutment
and wing walls are compacted backfill adequate increase in pressures due to compaction
efforts will also be taken into account.
4.13 BARRAGE EMBANKMENTS
a)
General
The embankment sections for the new barrage at Khanki shall generally be designed in line
with the guidelines issued by the Federal Flood Commission (FFC) with the following main
objectives:
i.
To provide a safe and economical design to suit the foundation conditions and
geology at the site.
ii. To maximize the use of river alluvium materials available within and around the
project area.
iii. To check the stability of the section under static loading and should be able to
withstand Maximum Design Earthquake.
b)
Stability of embankment slopes
The stability shall be checked for following loading conditions and the minimum acceptable
factors of safety:
c)
End of Construction stage
1.3
Steady Seepage
1.5
Rapid Drawdown in case of fuse plug breach
1.2
Filters
The design of filters shall be based on filter rules developed by Sherard and Dunnigan
(1985) and adopted by USBR (1987) and USSCS (1986).
REFERENCE:
1.
Bowles. J. E., Foundation Analysis and Design
2.
Tomlinson. M. J., Foundation Design and Construction
3.
Bell, F. G., Ground Engineers Reference Book
4.
Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E. and Thornburn. T.H. Foundation Engineering
5. MECHANICAL DESIGN
5.1
GENERAL
The barrages under study are aged structures with ages ranging from 47 to 112 years, and
so are their mechanical and regulation systems. The barrages and the main off-taking canal
regulators are installed with vertical lift gates, radial gates or a combination of gates and
drop shutters. The vertical gates are supported either through Fixed Wheel System or Roller
Train System. Gates are designed to move vertically on the track fixed within the groove of
the pier.
The gates and hoisting mechanisms are in general badly deteriorated and will have to be
rehabilitated/and replaced where beyond repairs. The Consultants will identify the defects
and assess the present conditions/capabilities of the regulating gates system in detail and
establish the needs for rehabilitation, remodeling or replacement of the systems or parts
thereof including the most appropriate level of automation compatible with the needs,
structure acceptability and maintainable operatability.
5.2
5.2.1
TYPE AND DESCRIPTION

General
Radial type gates being used successfully for the various recently constructed barrages
have been considered appropriate for new structures. Number of gates and their dimensions
will be fixed during detailed design stage of the Project. The barrage gates will be in lowered
position in order to retain the pond upstream and will be raised only at time of flood. The
gates of the under sluices will be opened more frequently for removing the silt.
5.2.2
Operation
The gates will be raised and lowered by means of wire rope hoists. The machinery will be
located at the top of the piers downstream of the bridge of the Barrage and Canal Regulator
gates. For pond control, the gates shall be moved from the fully closed position to the fully
open position with the low point of steel of the gate at Elevation to be fixed later. Matching
gate stops shall be provided in the piers to prevent over travel of the gates, in the event of
failure of the electrical controls to stop the gate.
Each gate will have its own electric motor and Raise-Lower contactor gear and in addition to
the push button control sited at the contactor gear, arrangements will be made whereby
contactors can operated by remote-control from one of the abutments, and extent of the gate
opening also be known automatically. As a stand-by precaution, all gates will be fitted with
hand operated gear.
5.2.3
Gate Features
In the case new structures to be installed with radial gates, the gates will be of all welded
construction, except the gate arms, which will be site-bolted to the horizontal girders and
trunnion assemblies. The arms of the end frames will frame into a trunnion hub assembly,
which will transmit the gate loads through trunnion pin into yoke mounted on a concrete
trunnion girder. The site thrust of the gate reaction resulting from inclination of the end
frames will be transmitted directly to the concrete piers. Provisions will be made for setting
and adjusting the trunnion shoes so that the axis of the trunnion hub assemblies when
seated shall be brought to a true and common horizontal line. The side seal will be in contact
with side seal steel plates embedded in the face of the concrete pier. The bottom seal will be
fastened to the lower edge of the gate and will contact a steel sill beam embedded in the
face of the Barrage or Canal Regulator crest. The side seals shall be set to a slight initial
compression to ensure positive contact with the side seal plates. The bottom seal shall be
compressed, as the bottom edge of the gate comes to rest on the sill.
5.2.4
Hoist Features
All the hoists would be identical for Barrage and Regulator gates. They will be wire rope
hoists having two drums each. There will be one motor per hoist. Each motor will be located
over a pier, so that power is transmitted to one drum by a drive shaft. The drive shaft will be
supported throughout its length by bearing pedestals located on a catwalk. Each drum will
wind required number of corrosion resisting wire ropes spirally, thus minimizing the drum
lengths. There will be a drum gear and pinion, with the remainder of speed reduction
accomplished by a triple reduction gear speed reducer and a right angle worm gear unit.
Limit or position sensor switches will be provided as required to implement the desired
operation control for the gates.
5.3
CODES
AGMA
American Gear Manufacturers Association,

1330 Massachusette Avenue, N.W.
Washinghton D.C., U.S.A.
AISC
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.

400 N. Michigan Avenue,
Chicago, IL 60611, U.S.A.
ASTM
American Society for Testing and Materials

1916 Race Street,
Philidelphia, PA 19103, U.S.A.
ASME
American Society for Mechanical Engineers

345 East 47th Street,
New York, NY 10017, U.S.A.
5.4
DESIGN LOADS
The gate equipment shall be designed for the applicable loads described hereunder:
i.
Dead Load
The dead load includes the weight of the components, machinery elements, equipment,
protective devices and contained fluids. Eccentricity of loading shall be taken into account
when the actual loading conditions are asymmetrical.
ii.
Hydrostatic Load
Hydrostatic loads shall be calculated with a specific weight of 62.5 lb/ft3 (1000 kg/m3) for
fresh water. Components of gate subjected to water pressure will be designed for hydrostatic
loads corresponding to the maximum differential pressure expected during the life of the
Project.
iii.
Buoyancy
The nominal buoyancy shall be calculated using the volume of the gate including any other
equipment mounted thereon.
iv.
Friction Forces
The friction forces considered in the design will be based on the
applicable coefficients of
friction taken from the following table:
Maximum
Minimum
0.50
0.10
steel, lubricated
0.18
0.08
Rubber on steel
1.00
0.30
Fluoro-carbon on corrosion-resistant steel
0.15
0.05
Bronze on corrosion-resistant steel
0.50
0.15
Corrosion-resisting steel
on carbon steel, non-lubricated
Corrosion-resisting steel on carbon
v.
Wind Load
Horizontal wind load of 30 lbs/sq.ft., acting in any direction on the projected area of affected
components, will be considered in the design.
vi.
Seismic Loads
Seismic effect shall be calculated by applying a horizontal force resulting from the specified
earthquake acceleration on all masses in any direction and adding the dynamic water loads
to the static water loads acting on the gates.
vii.
Live Loads
Walkway flooring shall be designed for a uniformly distributed load (UDL) of 100 lbs/ft2 plus
a superimposed concentrated load of the heaviest piece of hoisting equipment or subassembly. Stair treads and their fastenings shall be designed for a concentrated live load of
1000 lbs. The catwalk shall be 3 ft. clear width and shall be designed for a UDL of 50 lbs/ft2
plus a single movable concentrated load of 1000 lbs.
viii.
Thermal Loads
The thermal forces will be considered in the design of the components when temperature
fluctuations relative to an assumed erection temperature would exceed 10o C.
A temperature variation of 5o C to 55o C shall be used for design of the components located
periodically exposed and submerged respectively.
ix.
Miscellaneous Loads
Loads due to changes in conditions of support, lifting and raising forces as well as impact will
also be considered in the design of components thus affected.
5.5
LOAD COMBINATIONS AND CONDITIONS
The detailed design of equipment will be based on the following most critical loading
condition applicable to major components.
i.
Erection Conditions
Normal loading
Equipment in any stage of erection subjected to applicable dead and live loads plus forces
resulting from the erection procedures.
Exceptional loading
Normal loading plus wind/earthquake effects.
ii.
Operating Conditions
Normal loading
Gates closed. Effects of the following loads shall be combined:
Water load.
Dead weight.
Gates being raised or lowered, at any point of travel. Effects of the following loads shall be
combined:
Water load.
Dead weight.
Rated hoist pull.
All force components caused by friction, and other effects.
Additional friction and/or blocking forces originating in the guiding devices and at the
seals in contact, and having the magnitude required to match the rated hoist
capacity.
Exceptional loading
Exceptional loading conditions shall be obtained by combining each one of the normal
loading conditions with the effect of one exceptional force component. The following
exceptional combinations shall be considered:
Water load.
Earthquake effect.
Exceptional operating forces, including maximum hoist pull, combined with any
normal loading condition.
5.6
i.
Wind effect.
WORKING STRESSES
Factor of Safety Mechanical Components
A factor of safety not less than 5, based on the ultimate strength of material, will be used
under normal loading conditions.
ii.
Allowable Stresses
The allowable stresses for structural steel under normal loading conditions shall be those
given in the AISC Specifications for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel
for Buildings but shall not exceed the following:
Fy = Yield stress
Fu = Ultimate stress
Fa = Allowable stress
Type of Stress
STRUCTURAL MEMBER
Bending
Shear
Tension
Bearing pressure (machined surfaces)
Combined stresses
Buckling
- AISC value
- Hertzian stresses Kg/mm2
MECHANICAL COMPONENTS
For all mechanical components
Load Cases
Normal
Exceptional
0.60 Fy
0.40 Fy
0.45 Fy
0.80 Fy
0.75 Fy
0.80 Fy
0.50 Fy
0.50 Fy
0.85 Fy
0.95 Fy
1.00 Fa
0.55 BHN
1.30 Fa
0.60 BHN
0.33 Fy
or
0.20 Fu
whichever are minimum
0.67 Fy
or
0.40 Fu
5.7
5.7.1
GATE DESIGN
Gate Leaves
Gate leaves shall be designed by considering a vertical unit width of skin plate as a
continuous beam with supporting haunches and modified end cantilevers. The flanges of the
horizontal beams are the supporting haunches and shall be considered to have an effective
width equal to the actual flange width for welded construction. The portions of the skin plate
above the top beam and below the bottom beam are cantilevered sections supported
laterally at frequent intervals by brackets welded to the horizontal beams. Those portions of
the skin plate shall be designed as a series of rectangular plates with edges supported at the
brackets, fixed at the horizontal beam bending. The skin plate is subjected to biaxial stresses
resulting from skin plate bending and from horizontal beam bending. The combined stress
shall be evaluated by means of Westergaards criteria of failure for ductile material subjected
to two-dimensional stress and shall be limited to the value given for combined stress under
allowable stresses.
The horizontal beams shall be designed to resist the moment produced by the hydrostatic
load on the continuous skin plate. Since the skin plate is attached to the horizontal beams, it
adds to the moment of inertia of the beam. The width of skin plate effective in resisting
bending as a part of the horizontal beam area shall be considered as equal to 30 times the
thickness of the skin plate.
5.7.2
Wheels and Tracks
In case of the design of vertical gates with wheels, adequate number of wheels shall be
provided to take up the hydrostatic load and they should be symmetrically positioned about
the vertical central axis of the gate.
The tracks shall be slightly crowned in order that the point of contact remains in the central
portion of the track even though the side beams have rotated slightly due to the bending of
the main beams. Hence the stresses should be analysed for point contact.
The wheel pins shall be designed for bearing, bending and shear. They may be supported at
both ends within the gate frame or cantilevered out from a box.
The pin supports shall be designed for bearing and shearing forces.
5.8
5.8.1
GATE HOISTS
Loads
The loads used in hoist design will include the following:

Suspended weight of gate including weight of hoist rope and fittings, trunnion friction, and
side seal friction.
Rope tension due to hoist motor maximum torque. Maximum motor torque used for design
purposes shall be the maximum torque which the motor can develop over its speed range
with an impressed voltage equal to 112 percent of its rated voltage.
Suspended weight of the counter balance boxes in case of the design of vertical gates.
i.
Efficiencies
Efficiencies of hoisting machinery components shall be assumed as no greater than the

following:
Speed reducer with worm gear
90 per cent
Speed reducer (triple reduction)
95 per cent
Drum gear and pinion
95 per cent
Drum bearings
96 per cent
Wire rope efficiency at drums
92.5 per cent
ii.
Operating Speed
The speed at the rope attachment will be approximately one foot per minute when half the
amount of rope, from closed to normal full open position, is wound on the drums.
5.8.2
Gate and Hoist Loading Condition:
i.
Case 1: Normal Operating Condition:
Gate in lowered position either resting on sill or being lifted off pond at maximum Elevation.
This case is considered a normal loading condition.
ii.
Case 2: Earthquake Condition:
Gate in lowered position either resting on sill or being lifted off pond at maximum Elevation,
earthquake forces acting downstream. This case is considered an exceptional loading
condition.
iii.
Case 3: Exceptional Operating Condition:
Gate in fully raised position, lower edge of gate clearing maximum water in pond. Wind load
acting in either the upstream or downstream direction, whichever is critical. This case is
considered an exceptional loading condition.
iv.
Case 4: Jammed Condition:
Gate jammed at both sides. Pool at maximum Elevation. Rope tension caused by maximum
motor torque, load divided equally between rope attachments. This is considered an
exceptional loading condition.
v.
Case 5: Emergency Condition:
A uniformly distributed live load of 100 pounds per square foot plus a superimposed
concentrated load of the heaviest piece of hoist equipment of subassembly will be used to
design the hoist machinery platform. Deformation of the hoist platforms will be limited to the
amount which will limit the maximum gear misalignment to that permitted by AGMA
(American Gear Manufacturers Association) Standards.
5.8.3
Working Stresses
Working stresses for the foregoing loading conditions will be as follows:

i.
Structural Working Stresses:
Allowable working stresses for the design of the gate and its component members for the
various loading conditions will be the percentages of the yield stress of the respective
material used as shown in Table 5.1 below.
TABLE 5.1
Allowable Working Stresses
Allowable Working Stress
Tension (on net section)
Bending (tension and compression on extreme
Percentage of Yield Stress

Loading Conditions
Normal
Exceptional
Extreme
50
67
75
50
67
75
fibers of unsymmetrical members).

Bending (tension and compression on extreme
55
73
75
fibers of symmetrical members).

Shear (on gross section of beam and plate
33
45
50
girder webs)
Working stress values for welds and bolts may be obtained by multiplying comparable
values in the AISC Specifications for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel
for Buildings, 1967, by a factor of 83 per cent, to obtain allowable stress to be used for
normal loading conditions. AISC values should be multiplied by 111 percent to obtain
allowable stresses for exceptional loading conditions, and by 125 percent to obtain allowable
stresses for extreme loading conditions. Combined stresses, where existent, shall be
computed on the basis of the Hencky von Mises formula and will be limited to 75 percent of
the yield stress of the material for any loading condition.
ii.
Mechanical Working Stresses and Safety Factors
Mechanical parts will be designed for the loads described above using a factor of safety of 5,
based on the ultimate strength of the materials used. The unit stress at momentary overload
due to maximum torque of the motor will not exceed 85 percent of the yield point stress of
the materials used except that rope tension at maximum motor torque will not exceed 70
percent of the bearing strength. All rope fittings and attachment of the rope will develop the
full strength of the rope.
5.9
5.9.1
MACHINERY DESIGN
Shafting
Shafting will be designed in accordance with Sub-Clause 1.1f (2) Mechanical Working
Stresses and Safety Factors. A shock or fatigue factor of 1.25 will be used for shafting,
except for speed reducers.
5.9.2
Anti-friction Bearings
Anti-friction bearings will be of standard design most suitable for the applications and shall
have both inner and outer races. The bearing manufacturers published ratings will be used
in determining the bearing capacity. They will have a B-10 life of 5000 hours, which is the
number of hours (at a given constant speed and load) that 90 percent of a group of tested
bearings will exceed before the first evidence of fatigue develops.
5.9.3
Gears
Gear design shall be in accordance with applicable AGMA standards.

5.9.4
Drums
The minimum diameter of the drum for winding the first turn of rope will be not less than 30
times the nominal rope diameter. The outside diameter of the drum flanges or spacers will be
not less than the outside diameter of the final spiral wrap with gate fully raised, plus four rope
diameters. With gate resting on the sill, there will be at least two complete wraps per rope on
each drum.
5.10 WALKWAYS AND CAT WALKS
Walkway flooring will be designed for a uniformly distributed live load of 100 pounds per
square foot plus a superimposed concentrated load of the heaviest piece of hoist equipment
or sub-assembly. Stair treads and their fastening will be designed for a concentrated live
load of 1000 pounds. The catwalk will be 36 inches clear width and will be designed for a
uniform live load of 150 pounds per linear foot plus a single movable concentrated load of
1000 pounds. The catwalk structure will be sufficiently rigid to deflect no more than inch
under the above maximum live load conditions.
5.11 HOIST PLATFORMS
The hoist platforms and catwalks shall be designed to suit the proposed equipment layout.
All mechanical components will be supported directly on the structural members of the hoist
platform. The hoist platform and catwalk gratings will be all welded construction and will be
fastened to the steel supports by clips or fasteners. Hoist platforms will be tied down to pier
concrete by means of anchor bolts designed to resist all possible loading casers. Hoist
platforms will be designed to carry the specified live loads, dead loads, machinery loads,
catwalk loads, and normal gate hoisting loads at the specified basic stress, including the
effect of one gate fully opened and the adjacent gate resting on the sill. The platform will also
be designed to resist the loads resulting from stall torque of the hoist motors together with
dead and machinery loads. Deformation of the hoist platforms will be limited to the amount,
which will limit the maximum gear misalignment to that permitted by AGMA Standards.
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR

PUNJAB BARRAGES REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE-I
(TAUNSA, KHANKI & SULEIMANKI BARRAGES)
FINAL DESIGN CRITERIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
2.
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
HYDRAULIC DESIGN.....................................................................................................1
2.1 Basic Criteria....................................................................................................................1

2.2 Estimation of Design Flood..............................................................................................1
2.2.1 Basis of Estimation....................................................................................................1
2.2.2 Design Return Period................................................................................................1
2.3 Hydraulic Units................................................................................................................2
2.4 Width of Barrage..............................................................................................................2
2.4.1 Laceys Design Width...............................................................................................2
2.4.2 The Looseness Factor................................................................................................2
2.5 Afflux................................................................................................................................3
2.6 Tail Water Rating Curve...................................................................................................3
2.7 Crest Levels......................................................................................................................3
2.8 Discharges through a Barrage (Free Flow Conditions)....................................................3
2.9 Discharge through a Barrage (Submerged Flow Conditions)..........................................4
2.9.1 Fanes Curve .............................................................................................................4
2.9.2 Gibson Curve.............................................................................................................5
2.10 Regulated Discharge.......................................................................................................5
2.10.1 Free Flow.................................................................................................................5
2.10.2 Submerged Flow......................................................................................................6
2.11 Stilling Basins.................................................................................................................7
2.11.1 Stilling Basin Level.................................................................................................7
2.11.2 Length of Stilling Basin ..........................................................................................8
2.11.3 Efficiency of Hydraulic Jump.................................................................................9
2.12 Choice of Stilling Basin...............................................................................................10
2.13 Glacis Profile................................................................................................................10
2.14 Cut-offs.........................................................................................................................11
2.15 Design against Seepage or Piping................................................................................11
2.16 Safety against Uplift.....................................................................................................14
2.16.1 Subsurface Flow....................................................................................................15
2.16.2 Subsurface Flow....................................................................................................15
2.17 Divide Wall...................................................................................................................16
2.18 Piers..............................................................................................................................16
2.19 Abutments.....................................................................................................................16
2.20 P.C.C. Blocks Apron and Inverted Filter......................................................................16
2.21 Stone Aprons................................................................................................................17
2.22 Fish Ladder...................................................................................................................18
2.22.1 Fish Entrance Section............................................................................................19
2.22.2 Pool and Weir Section...........................................................................................19
2.22.3 Control Pool..........................................................................................................20

2.22.4 Exit Section...........................................................................................................20
2.22.5 Supply Channel.....................................................................................................20
2.22.6 Fish Ladder Operation...........................................................................................20
2.22.7 Abstract..................................................................................................................21
2.23 River Training Structures.............................................................................................21
2.23.1 Guide Banks..........................................................................................................21
2.23.2 Marginal Bunds.....................................................................................................23
2.23.3 Spurs (or Groynes)................................................................................................23
2.23.4 Diversion Bunds and Cunnettes............................................................................24
2.24 Local Scour Protection.................................................................................................25
2.25 Stone Apron..................................................................................................................25
2.26 Slopes Protection..........................................................................................................27
2.26.1 General..................................................................................................................27
2.26.2 Design of Slope Protection....................................................................................27
2.27 Stone Pitching Protection ............................................................................................34
3.
STRUCTURAL DESIGN.................................................................................................1
3.1 General.............................................................................................................................1
3.2 Design Loading ...............................................................................................................1
3.3 Stability Criteria...............................................................................................................4
3.4 Floatation..........................................................................................................................5
3.5 Allowable Stresses............................................................................................................5
3.6 Minimum Reinforcement (or Temperature Reinforcement)............................................7
3.7 Minimum Concrete Cover for Reinforcement.................................................................8
3.8 Concrete Joints.................................................................................................................8
3.9 Pre-stress Concrete...........................................................................................................9
4.
GEOTECHNCIAL DESIGN.............................................................................................1
4.1 General.............................................................................................................................1
4.2 Ground Exploration..........................................................................................................1
4.3 Geophysical Explorations................................................................................................2
4.4 Laboratory Testing............................................................................................................3
4.5 Data Evaluation and Analyses..........................................................................................3
4.6 Foundation Design Criteria..............................................................................................3
4.7 Estimation of Foundation Stresses...................................................................................4
4.8 Shear Based Design..........................................................................................................4
4.9 Settlement Based Design..................................................................................................5
4.10 Deep Foundations...........................................................................................................7
4.11 Soil Liquefaction............................................................................................................9
4.12 Coefficient of Horizontal Earth Pressure.....................................................................10
4.13 Barrage Embankments.................................................................................................10
5.
MECHANICAL DESIGN..................................................................................................1
5.1 General.............................................................................................................................1
5.2 Type and Description........................................................................................................1
5.2.1 General......................................................................................................................1
5.2.2 Operation...................................................................................................................1
5.2.3 Gate Features.............................................................................................................2
5.2.4 Hoist Features............................................................................................................2
5.3 Codes................................................................................................................................2
5.4 Design Loads....................................................................................................................3
5.5 Load Combinations and Conditions.................................................................................5
5.6 Working Stresses..............................................................................................................6
(ii)
5.7 Gate Design......................................................................................................................7

5.7.1 Gate Leaves...............................................................................................................7
5.7.2 Wheels and Tracks.....................................................................................................7
5.8 Gate Hoists.......................................................................................................................8
5.8.1 Loads.........................................................................................................................8
5.8.2 Gate and Hoist Loading Condition:..........................................................................8
5.8.3 Working Stresses.......................................................................................................9
5.9 Machinery Design..........................................................................................................10
5.9.1 Shafting...................................................................................................................10
5.9.2 Anti-friction Bearings..............................................................................................10
5.9.3 Gears........................................................................................................................11
5.9.4 Drums......................................................................................................................11
5.10 Walkways and CAT WALKS........................................................................................11
5.11 Hoist Platforms.............................................................................................................11
(iii)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1
Crumpss Method for Fixing Stilling Basin Level
Figure 2.2
Khoslas Curves for Uplift Pressure (Percentage)
Figure 2.3
Uplift Correction for Floor Thickness
Figure 2.4
Uplift Correction for Floor Slope Cs=(b3/b) x Ks
Figure 2.5
USBR Curve To Determine Stone Size
Figure 2.6
Typical Plan of Guide Bank
Figure 2.7
Typical Cross-Sections of Guide Bank
Figure 2.8
Typical Layout of Diversion Bunds and Cunnette
Figure 2.9
Typical Cross-Sections of Marginal Bund
Figure 2.10
Typical Details of Stone Pitching Protection and Stone Apron
Figure 2.11(1) Stone Stability

Figure 2.11(2) Stone Stability
Figure 2.12
Gradation Envelope for Apron Stone
Figure 2.13
Wave Run-up Ratios Versus Wave Steepness and Embankment Slopes
Figure 4.1
Angle of Shearing Resistance
Figure 4.2
Approximate Relationship Between qc and Relative Density Dr as Composite

from Schmertmann (1978) and Villet and Mitchell (1981)
Figure 4.3
Correlation Between Peak Friction Angle and qc for Uncemented, Quartz

Sands
Figure 4.4
Vertical Strain Influence Factor Diagrams
Figure 4.5
Seismic Zoning Map of Punjab
(iv)

Barrages Design Criteria Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barrages Design Criteria Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Punjab Barrages Rehabilitation Project Phase-I

Final Design Criteria

rehabilitation/remodelling works at Taunsa and Suleimanki Barrage and a new barrage on

NDC | NESPAK | ATKINS

Punjab Barrages Rehabilitation Project Phase-I

Final Design Criteria

Other Pertinent Works

Gates and Hoists

NDC | NESPAK | ATKINS

Punjab Barrages Rehabilitation Project Phase-I

Final Design Criteria

ESTIMATION OF DESIGN FLOOD

Pearson & Log Pearson Type III distributions

Gumbels Extreme Value distributions

Normal & Log Normal distributions

Design Return Period

NDC | NESPAK | ATKINS

Punjab Barrages Rehabilitation Project Phase-I

Final Design Criteria

Laceys Design Width

Where Q is the Design Discharge in cusecs (ft3/sec).

The Looseness Factor

NDC | NESPAK | ATKINS

Punjab Barrages Rehabilitation Project Phase-I

Final Design Criteria

TAIL WATER RATING CURVE

DISCHARGES THROUGH A BARRAGE (FREE FLOW CONDITIONS)

NDC | NESPAK | ATKINS

Punjab Barrages Rehabilitation Project Phase-I

Final Design Criteria

DISCHARGE THROUGH A BARRAGE (SUBMERGED FLOW CONDITIONS)

The submerged discharge is given by the equation:

NDC | NESPAK | ATKINS

Punjab Barrages Rehabilitation Project Phase-I

Final Design Criteria

= submerged discharge over crest (cusecs)

C ' = submerged discharge coefficient

2.10 REGULATED DISCHARGE

NDC | NESPAK | ATKINS

Punjab Barrages Rehabilitation Project Phase-I

Final Design Criteria

Q = free flow discharge over crest (cusecs)

h 1 = upstream depth of flow above crest

Ds = water depth just downstream of the gate (ft)

V2 = velocity of tail water (ft/s)

Q = submerged flow discharge over crest (cusecs)

Punjab Barrages Rehabilitation Project Phase-I

Final Design Criteria

Cv = Velocity Coefficient = ( E1/ h1 )1/2

v1 = approach velocity (ft/s)

h = head across on the gate (ft)

Ds = water depth just downstream of the gate (ft)

NDC | NESPAK | ATKINS

Punjab Barrages Rehabilitation Project Phase-I

Final Design Criteria

NDC | NESPAK | ATKINS

Punjab Barrages Rehabilitation Project Phase-I

Final Design Criteria

V1 = velocity of flow at the toe of glacis (ft/s)

V1 = velocity of flow at the toe of glacis (ft/s2)

rows of baffle blocks.

NDC | NESPAK | ATKINS

Punjab Barrages Rehabilitation Project Phase-I

Energy dissipation (%) =