Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

Types of Linings
The various types of linings can be grouped into two categories: (i) Exposed and Hard Surface Linings, and (ii) Buried Membrane Linings. The advantages and disadvantages of various types of linings which need to be kept in view while deciding on the type of lining to be adopted are indicated below.

Exposed and Hard Surface Linings

Exposed linings include all linings exposed to wear, erosion and deterioration effect of the flowing water, operation and maintenance equipment and other hazards. Such linings are constructed across of cement concrete and mortars, asphaltic materials, bricks, stones and exposed membranes. Although the initial cost of all these linings is generally high, the reinforced cement concrete linings are costliest and are usually recommended for use only where structural safety is the primary consideration.

Cement Concrete
The in situ concrete lining is one of the most conventional type of lining which has successfully been used in India and other parts of the world. Cement concrete lining is more preferable than any other lining where channel is to carry high velocity water because of its greater resistance to erosion. Velocities up to 2.5 m/sec are generally considered permissible with adequate water depth although higher velocities up to 5.0 m/sec in case of Kosi Feeder Channel in U.P. have been provided. Cement concrete lining eliminates weed growth and thereby improves flow characteristics. Provision of concrete lining reduces maintenance charges to a minimum. Frequent cracks due to contraction taking place from temperature change, drying and shrinkage and settlement of sub-grade. It is also likely to be damaged from alkaline water. Cement concrete lining without reinforcement may be damaged due to excessive external water pressure. The reinforced concrete lining can withstand the external water pressure but at a very high cost. When unexpected water pressures are encountered, un-reinforced lining will crack more easily than the reinforced lining and will relieve the pressure thereby reducing the area of damage.

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

Shot crete Spacing

In this type of lining cement mortar is applied by pneumatic pressure. The lining may be considered with or without reinforcement (in the form of mesh or expanded metal), although reinforcement (in the form of mesh or expanded metal), although reinforcement increases its useful life, especially, when laid over earth sub-grade. Since the thickness of lining is limited to 5.0 cm mostly such linings are applied on smaller channels or where operational requirements are not severe.

Soil Cement
This type of lining is made up of a mixture of cement and natural sandy soil. This type of lining may sometimes result in considerable saving as compared to cement concrete lining. It is not weather-resistant.

Asphaltic Concrete
Asphaltic concrete has greater ability to withstand changes in the subgrade. Asphaltic concrete lining can be used for repairing cement concrete lining by placing a resurfacing layer of asphaltic concrete. Velocities for this lining are limited to 1.5 m/s. Weed growth results in puncturing of lining; sliding during hot season.

Brick lining
This type of lining has been extensively used in India and elsewhere. This type of lining is economical where aggregates for concrete lining are not available.

Exposed Membrane Linings

The various types of exposed membrane linings are: sprayed in-place asphalt cements, prefabricated sheets of asphaltic materials and films of plastic and synthetic rubber. Exposed membranes have low resistance to puncturing and disintegrate rapidly, thicker sheets with greater resistance are expensive.

Earth Linings
Thick compacted earth lining is durable and can withstand considerable external hydrostatic pressure. Bentonite has shown considerable promise for use as a good lining material. Bentonite containing large percentage of montmorillonite, is characterised by high water absorption accompanied by swelling and imperviousness. It
Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

can be used as 5.0 cm thick membrane covered by protective blanket or as a mixed inplace layer of soil bentonite and well compacted.

Buried Membrane Linings

Hot-applied asphaltic, prefabricated asphalt materials, plastic film and a layer of bentonite or other types of clays protected by earth or gravel cover are cheap linings. These linings can be provided immediately after completion of excavation or even later. Membrane linings are susceptible to damage by weed root and permissible water velocity is limited to avoid erosion. The life of the lining is uncertain.

Consideration for Selection

Type of sub-grade, position of water table, climatic conditions, availability of materials, size of canal, service requirements and experience are the major factors affecting the economy and selection of suitable lining material.
125 REINFORCED PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE 100 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE UNREINFORCED PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE Shot crete steps of 6 mm

75

50

25

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

CANAL CAPACITY (m3/s)

Determination of thickness of hard-surface lining based on canal capacity (after U.S.B.R. - Linings for Irrigation Canals), 1963

Specifications of Linings
The method of preparation of sub grade in different soil reaches of a canal based on IS: 3873 - 1966.

Thickness
The minimum thickness of concrete lining based on canal capacity should be as given below:

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

Capacity m3/s

0<Q<5 5 < Q < 15 15 < Q < 50 50 < Q < 100 Q > 100

Thickness of M 15 Concrete, mm Controlled Ordinary 50 65 65 65 80 90 90 100 100 100

Thickness of M 10 Concrete, mm Controlled Ordinary 75 75 75 75 100 100 125 125 125 150

Assessment of Seepage Losses from Canals

Introduction The possible benefits from canal lining are saving in water, elimination of water logging, and reduction in maintenance cost. The reduction in seepage losses and prevention of water logging is becoming more and more important because of limited supply and increased demand of water for Irrigation and crops. Observations on Ganga Canal in U.P. and canals in Punjab have shown the only 50-60 percent of the head discharge reaches the fields. The seepage losses from unlined canals in India have been found to vary from 0.3 to 7.0 m3/sec/106 m2 for different soil and drainage conditions. The following table gives the details of seepage losses measured in the field. Seepage loss in m3 / sec / 106 m2 1.30 1.86 1.83 1.07 6.60 5.30 4.06

Sl.No 1 2 3 4 5

Name of Canal Ganga Canal at km 37.6 Hardoi Branch between km 0.256 and km 21.40 Bokarheri Distributary between km 0.06 and km 11.26 Tasipur Distributary (Saharanpur) Tubewell water courses: (i) Dehradun Group (ii) Saharanpur (iii) Roorkee

Method Tracer Inflow-outflow Inflow-outflow and seepage meter Seepage meter and ponding Ponding Ponding Ponding

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

t = Thickness of the lining

100

Permeability of lining K1 Permeability of subsoil K

h1
FREE SURFACE WITHOUT LINING FREE SURFACE WITH LINING
h

96

b __ 2

92 0 1

Effect of lining on seepage

Manual on Canal Linings Name of project/ canal Nangal Hydel Channel (Punjab) (i) Bed 24 & 24.9 width (m) (ii) Water 6.18 & 5.88 depth (m) (iii) Side 1.25 : 1 slopes (iv) Free N.A board (m) (v) Channel 15/1000 bed slope 354 (i) Discharge (m3/sec) (ii) Velocity 2.19 (m/sec) 0.018 (iii) Value of Manning's n (i) 49.9 km of concrete lining (ii) 14.4 km of tile lining Concrete lining and tile lining Sundernagar Hydel Channel, Beas Project (Punjab) 9.45 6.13 1.5 : 1 0.91 1 in 6666 254.85

Distance in km

Yamuna Power Channel 1963 - 65 10.98 5.709 1.5: 1 0.76 NA 198.1

Gandak Canal

Year of construction

41.4 3.8 1.5 : 1 0.45 NA 241.44

Channel dimensions

Design standards

1.89 0.016

1.775 NA

1.5 NA

Length of lining

NA

13.6 km

From 18.91 km to 130.7 km

Type of lining

Cement concrete lining 10 cm thick in the bed and 12.7 cm in the bottom

Concrete lining in bed, brick and concrete tile lining on sides.

Brick tile lining

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

Name of project/ canal Year of construction (i) Bed width (m) (ii) Water depth (m) Channel dimensions

Kosi Lower Feeder Ganga Channel Canal-Link Canal 1965 - 1967 1971 - 72 51.45 3.355 5.0 to 2.15 2.07 to 2.0

Rajasthan Feeder Channel 1958-59 78.3 4.5 in upper reaches and 6.4 in lower reaches 1.5:1 0.305 NA 523.9

Main Canal Dantiwada Project (Gujarat) (Cement Concrete Lining) 1964 4.95 2.44

Design standards

(iii) Side slopes (iv) Free board (m) (v) Channel bed slope (i) Discharge (m3/sec) (ii) Velocity (m/sec) (iii) Value of Manning's n

1.5 : 1 0.30 1/9250 213.0

1:1 0.45 1/675 to 1/161 42.5

1.5:1 0.91 NA 31.1

1.13 0.018

5.12 NA

1.425 NA

NA 0.017

Length of lining Type of lining

1.81 km Sandwiched Ist class brick lining.

10 km Cement concrete tile lining

64.3 km Single tile lining in bed and double tile lining in sides

0.48 1:3 cement concrete lining

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

Name of project/ canal

Year of construction (i) Bed width (m) (ii) Water depth (m) (iii) Side slopes (iv) Free board (m) (v) Channel bed slope (i) Discharge (m3/sec) (ii) Velocity (m/sec) (iii) Value of Manning's n

Banaskantha Mahi Right Bank Canal Left Bank (Gujarat) Main Canal Dantiwada Project (Gujarat) (Brick Lining) 1964 - 65 1958 - 59 4.95 2.44 1 1/2 : 1 0.91 NA 31.1 16.46 4.93 1.25:1 0.76 NA 198

Shetrunji Canal Project (Gujarat) (Masonry Lining) 1965 - 66 9.14 2.36 2:1 NA 1 in 6000 18.56

Shetrunji Canal Project (Gujarat) (Lime Concrete Lining)

1963 - 64 8.53 1.90 1 :1 NA 1 in 5500 12.02

Channel dimensions

Design standards

1.49 0.018

1.52 NA

NA 0.0225

NA 0.025

Length of lining Type of lining

80 km 13.34 cm thick sandwiched brick lining on bed and sides

45.82 km 13.3 cm thick sandwiched brick tile lining on bed and sides

0.12 km 22.86 cm thick masonry

0.43 km Concrete lining on bed and sides

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

Name of project/ canal

Year of construction (i) Bed width (m) (ii) Water depth (m) (iii) Side slopes (iv) Free board (m) (v) Channel bed slope (i) Discharge (m3/sec) (ii) Velocity (m/sec) (iii) Value of Manning's n

Tungabhadra Krishnarajasagar Krishnarajasagar Krishnarajasagar Right Bank Low Right Bank Low Project (A.P) Canal Level Canal Level Canal (Karnataka) (Karnataka) (Karnataka) (Soil (Lime Surkhi Cement Lining) Concrete Lining) 1968 1962 1966 12.20 4.88 1.5 : 1 0.3 NA 4.8 NA 1.25 : 1 NA NA 4.1194 1.6459 1.5 : 1 NA NA 4.1 1.53 1.25 : 1 NA 2.89

Channel dimensions

NA

NA

7.08

0.314

Design standards

NA

NA

0.652

NA

NA

NA

NA

0.64 km

Length of lining Type of lining

NA Cement concrete lining in bed and sides. In reaches of deep cutting rubble masonry 1 : 4 has been provided on sides.

NA 1 : 5: 10 cement concrete lining, Top has been plastered with 1 :6 cement mortar, 12 mm thick.

180 m 100 mm thick soil - cement lining.

NA Lime surkhi concrete 1 : 4 : 8, 89 mm thickness , slabs of different widths of 0.762, 1.524, 2.286, 3.048, 3.8, 4.5, 6.096 m.

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

Name of project/ canal

Manniaru Canal (Tamil Nadu)

Pattanamkal Mail Canal (Tamil Nadu)

Rathapuram Channel (Tamil Nadu)

Year of construction (i) Bed width (m) (ii) Water depth (m) (iii) Side slopes (iv) Free board (m) (v) Channel bed slope (i) Discharge (m3/sec) (ii) Velocity (m/sec) (iii) Value of Manning's n

30.48 1.524 1.5 :1 0.3048 1 in 1610 43.2 0.862 0.016 NA In situ cement concrete lining. 7.6 cm thick. 1:6:10, Cast insitu plastered with cement mortar 1:4, 12 mm thick on the bed.

2.44 1.68 1:1 15.2 cm 1 in 5280 8.4 2.82 0.016 NA The side slope of the canal is lined with cement concrete 1:4:7 using 60 percent of 38 mm metal and 40 percent of 19 mm metal. The top finished with cement mortar plaster 1:4. The bed of the canal is lined with cement concrete 1:6:10 using 60 percent of 38 mm metal and 40 percent of 19 mm metal. The top of the bed is finished with 1:4 cement mortar plaster. The thickness of lining is 7.6 cm. Randon rubble masonry lining has been provided in places where the canal is taken through row cutting.

3.5 1.22 1:1 0.533 1 in 5280 4.2 0.76 0.016 NA

The side slope of the canal is lined with cement concrete 1:4:7 using 60 percent of 38 mm metal and 40 percent of 19 mm metal. The top finished with cement mortar plaster 1:4. The bed of the canal is lined with cement concrete 1:6:10 using 60 percent of 38 mm metal and 40 percent of 19 mm metal. The top of the bed is finished with 1 :4 cement mortar plaster. The thickness of lining provided for the main canal is 7.0 cm Random Rubble . masonry lining has been provided in places where the canal is taken through rock cutting

PAMBA IRRIGATION PROJECT Left Bank Main Canal, Pamba Irrigation Project 3.66 2.90 1:1 0.90 1 in 5000 20.376 1.08 0.018 10 km R.R. Masonry and C.C. lining

Channel dimensions

Design standards

Length of lining Type of lining

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

Name of project/ canal Year of construction (i) Bed width (m) (ii) Water depth (m) (iii) Side slopes

Kuttiady Irrigation Project Partially completed by 2/73 7.62 2.44 1:1

Peechi Irrigation Scheme 1953

Left Bank Canal March 1972 12.3 1.3716 1:1

Kuthanur Branch

March 1960

3.65 1.52 1 vertical to 0.5 horizontal average 0.5 m average 1 / 2000 app. average 7.08

1.8 0.6 1:1

Channel dimensions

(iv) Free board (m) (v) Channel bed slope (i) Discharge (m3/sec) (ii) Velocity (m/sec) (iii) Value of Manning's n

1 0.24 / 1000

0.3048 m 1 / 5510

0.3 1 in 5280

18.123

21.225

1.698

Design standards

2.818 0.025

1.468 0.0225

0.665 0.025

0.365 0.025

Length of lining Type of lining

37 km

precast C.C. slabs

36.85 m (Main canal) Rubble masonry in cement mortar.

31.5 km

13.47 m

Precast slabs and blocks.

Bitumen and cement

References: Manual on Canal Linings Technical Report No. 14. Research Scheme Applied to River Valley Projects, Central Board of Irrigation and Power.

Indian Institute of Technology Madras