WR DMG 14682

EFFECT OF DESIGN FLOOD ON
DESIGN OF BARRAGE
A DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of the degree
of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
in
IRRIGATION WATER MANAGEMENT
By
PRADEEP BEHL
TEGN4,0 P
(41)
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE
ROORKEE -247 667 (INDIA) ='
JUNE, 2009
CONTENTS
Page
Certificate i
Acknowledgement ii
List of Symbols iv
List of Figures vi
List of Tables xi
Abstract xv
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Objectives of Study 4
1.2 Scope of Study 4
2. Review of Literature 6
2.1 Design Flood for Barrages and Weir 7
2.2 Bankfull Discharge 9
2.3 Effective Discharge 10
2.4 Dominant Discharge 11
2.5 Design Discharge for Foundation 13
2.6 Significance of Design Flood in Barrage Design 13
2.7 Regime Condition 15
2.8 Design Flood and Waterways 15
2.8.1 Observations on the existing barrages 17
2.8.2 Design flood and wetted perimeter 18
2.8.3 Waterway and economy of the barrage 18
2.9 Estimation of Design Discharge 19
2.9.1 Methods of estimation 19
2.9.2 Collection of hydrological and meteorological data 20
2.9.3 Application of a suitable factor of safety to max. observed flood 22
2.9.4 Empirical flood formulae 22
2.9.5 Envelope curves 22
2.9.6 Flow frequency 22
2.9.7 Frequency analysis 23
2.9.8 Use of Rational method &application of unit hydrograph principal 23
2.9.9 Design flood criteria for dams & other hydraulic structures 24
2.9.10 Revisit to the Available Methods 30
2.10 Significance of Discharge in Hydraulic Design 31
2.10.1 Depth of scour 32
2.10.2 Clearance 32
2.10.3 Free board 33
3 General Design Principles / Guidelines 34
3.1 Fixation of Pond Level, Crest Level and Waterway 35
3.1.1 Pond level 35
3.1.2 Crest Level 35
3.1.3 Upstream floor level of barrage 36
3.2 Waterway 36
3.3 Discharge 36
3.3.1 Drowning ratio 37
3.3.2 Discharge intensity 37
3.4 Undersluice 38
3.5 Velocity head 39
3.6 Looseness factor 39
3.7 Design for Surface Flow 40
3.7.1 Depth of sheet piles 40
3.7.2 Level of downstream horizontal floor 41
3.7.3 Length of downstream horizontal floor 41
3.7.4 Impervious floor 41
3.8 Total Floor Length and Exit Gradient 42
3.9 Floor Thickness 42
3.9.1 Design of glacis thickness for up lift pressure in the lump 42
3.10 Energy Dissipation 43
3.11 Protection works 43
3.11.1 Upstream block protection 43
3.11.2 Downstream block protection 44
3.11.3 Loose stone protection 44
3.12 Canal Head Regulator 45
3.13 Divide Wall 45
3.14 Pier and Abutment 46
3.15 Fish Ladder 47
3.16 Gates and Hoisting Arrangement 48
3.17 Working Platform 48
3.18 Design Steps 49
3.19 Development of Computer Software 50
3.19.1 Algorithm for Design of Barrage 52
3.19.2 Algorithm for fixation of Crest Level and Waterway 53
ri Data Requirement and their Availability 57
4.1 Detailed Investigation 57
4.2 Gauge Discharge Curve / Stage Discharge Curve 58
4.3 Discharge over Barrage-Bay and Sluice- Bay 59
4.4 Availability of Data 60
4.4.1 Dataset I 60
4.4.2 Dataset II 61
4.4.3 Dataset III 61
4.5 Assumed Data 63
5 Result and Discussion 68
5:1 Effect on Lowest Level of Jump Formation 69
5.2 Effect on Length of Waterway 70
5.3 Effect on Total Floor Length 71
5.4 Effect on Downstream Floor Length 71
5.5 Effect on Downstream Glacis Length 72
5.6 Effect on Upstream Floor Length 72
5.7 Effect on Depth of Sheet Piles 73
5.8 Effect on Length of Cement Concrete Blocks 74
5.9 Effect on Length of Launching Apron 75
5.10 Effect on Appurtenant Works 75
5.11 Comparison between Theoretical Design and Practical Design 76
6 Summary and Conclusion 90
References 91
Appendices 96
A-I Hydraulic Design of Barrage (Data-Set I) 97
A-II Result Data Relationship in Graphical Form (Barragebay I) 146
A-III Result Data Relationship in Tabular Form (Barragebay I) 153
B Result Data Relationship in Graphical Form (Dataset II) 157
C Result Data Relationship in Graphical Form (Dataset III) 170
D Result Data Relationship in Tabular Form (Dataset II) 183
E Result Data Relationship in Tabular Form (Dataset III) 190
F Result Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset II) 197
G Result Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset III) 202
CANDIDATES DECLARATION
I here by certify that work which is being presented in the dissertation entitled
"EFFECT OF DESIGN FLOOD ON DESIGN OF BARRAGE" is in partial fulfilment of
the requirement for the award of the degree of master of technology and submitted to the
Department of Water Resources Development and Management (WRD&M), Indian
Institute of Technology, Roorkee. This is an authentic record of my own work carried out
during the period from July -2008 to June -2009 under the supervision and guidance of
Dr. S.K.Mishra, Associate professor, WRD&M, IIT, Roorkee-247667, Uttarakhand,
India.
The matter presented in this dissertation has not been submitted by me for the
award of any other degree.
Dated:-29th June, 2009 EP BEHL]

WRD&M, IIT Roorkee Enrol ent No: 076205-
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate ' correct to the
best of my knowledge.
(Dr .S. . i ra)

Associa a Profe or
Roork e-247667
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
By the grace of God, I take this opportunity to express special thanks to all those
who have been associated directly or indirectly with the accomplishment of my
dissertation work.
First and foremost, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my respected

guide Dr.S.K.Mishra, Associate Professor, Department of Water Resources Development
and Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, for his valued guidance,
supervision, and encouragement during the course of this study.
I also express my sincere regards and thanks to Dr.Rampal Singh, Professor and
Head of the Department., and Dr.Nayan Sharma, Chairman DRC, Water Resources
Development & Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, for their
continuous inspiration regarding completion of dissertation in due time.
I express my heartfelt thanks and gratitude to all the Professors of this department,
Prof.Gopal chauhan, Dr.U.C.Choube, Dr.S.K.Tripathi, Dr.G.C.Mishra. Prof B.N.Asthana,
Prof Rajpal Singh, Dr M.L.Kansal, Dr.Deepak khare, Dr. Ashish Pandey and Visiting
Professors from other Departments for their contribution during the course work. The co-
operation from the staff members of WRD & M and the staff in the computer lab, library,
and office is also gratefully acknowledged.
I am also thankful to all my colleague trainee officers of 52nd WRD and 28" IWM
Batch, department WRD & M for their co-operation in the completion of the work, I will
fail in my duty if I do not acknowledge the efforts of my friends, Mr.P. Jagannath, Mr.
Satish Pd. Singh, Mr Vipin Saklani and specially Mr. Chandappa M. Allolli for the
assistance, co-operation and encouragement extended for the timely completion of this
work.
I cannot forget to recall with my heartiest feeling, the never ending heart felt
stream of blessings and Cooperation of my mother, brother, wife & daughter Modita to
support me with every thing for the higher education in the pioneer department of Water
Resource Development and Management in I. I.T Rorkee.
ii
Last, but not the least I would like to express my humble respect and special
thanks to the colleagues and staff of my Parent organisation i.e. Soil Conservation wing
of the Department of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh for directly or indirectly helping me
to complete this dissertation. I express my deep sense of gratitude towards, Dr. P. C.
Kapoor, the then Principal Secretary (Agriculture), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Dr.
J.C.Rana, Director of Agriculture, Er. Y.P.Thakur, Superintending Engineer and the staff
of the Secretariat of Agriculture, Hlmachal Pradesh, specially Mr.D.D.Bhatia for
pursuing and granting me the permission to under take the M.Tech (IWM) course in this
prestigious Institute and offering me a chance to enhance my career.

Place: - Roorkee [PRADEEP BEHL]

Date:-25`" June, 2009 Enrolment no 076205
LIST OF SYMBOLS
A = Cross sectional Area

B = distance between the two pile lines
b = Length of barrage/ weir section
C = coefficient of Discharge
C = Corrections for Mutual Interference of Piles
C1 and C2 = Numerical coefficients
D = Depth of pile line
D = depth of downstream water level above the crest (m)
D = Vertical Cutoff Depth
D/S = Downstream
D, = Depth of Water before the hydraulic Jump
D2 = Depth of Water after the hydraulic Jump
Ea = Energy above crest level on the Upstream
F = Lacey's silt factor
GE = Safe Exit Gradient
G = Specific Gravity of the soil
G = acceleration due to gravity in m/sce2
HL = Head loss i.e., difference between the upstream and downstream total
energy line
H = difference of upstream and downstream water levels (m).
He _total head over the crest including the velocity head
ha = head due to velocity of approach (m)
K = constant
K = Pier contraction coefficient
L = Clear length of waterway (m)
Lo =Clear span of the gate bay, between piers
Mr = average particle size in mm
N = No. of side contractions, equal to two for each gate bay
P = Lacey's Waterway in m.
Q = design flood discharge intensity
Q = design flood discharge
R = Lacey's depth of scour
iv

U/S = Upstream
X = function of b/d
(Dc and (DE =Percentage of pressure at the top of sheet pile (with suffixes wherever
Necessary
(Do =Percentage of pressure at the bottom of sheet pile(with Suffixes wherever
Necessary)
Other notations have been explained in the Chapters wherever they occur.
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig.No Description Page No.
1.1 Typical Cross- Section of Barrag 1
3.1 Flow chart for Determination of Discharge of Undersluice

and other Barragebay 54

3.2 Flow Chart for the Design of Energy Dissipater 56

4.1 Stage-Discharge Curve (Dataset I) 65


5.1 Variation of Lowest Level of Jump Formation with Design

Discharge (Dataset I) for undersluice 79
5.2 Variation of Total Length of Undersluiceway with Design

Discharge 79
5.3 Variation of Total Floor Length with Design Discharge '(Dataset I)

for undersluice 80
5.4 Variation of Downstream Floor Length with Design Discharge

(Dataset I) for undersluice 80
5.5 Variation of Downstream Glacis Length with Design Discharge

(Dataset I) for Undersluice 81
5.6 Variation of Upstream Floor Length with Design Discharge

5.7 Variation of Upstream Depth of Cut off with Design Discharge

5.8 Variation of Downstream Depth of Cut off with Design Discharge

5.9 Variation of Upstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design

5.10 Variation of Downstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design

5.11 Variation of Upstream Length of Launching Apron with Design

5.12 Variation of Downstream Length of Launching Apron with Design

A-II.I Variation of Lowest Level of Jump Formation Design Discharge
vi
(Dataset I) for Barragebay 146
A-II.2 Variation of Total Length of Barragebay with Design Discharge 146
A-II.3 Variation of Total Floor Length with Design Discharge (Dataset I)
for Barragebay 147
A-II.4 Variation of Downstream Floor Length with Design Discharge
A-II.5 Variation of Downstream Glacis Length with Design Discharge
A-II.6 Variation of Upstream Floor Length with Design Discharge (Data
set I) for Barragebay 148
A-II.7 Variation of Upstream Depth of Cutoff with Design Discharge
(Dataset I) for undersluice Barragebay 149
A-II.8 Variation of Downstream Depth of Cut off with Design Discharge
A-II.9 Variation of Upstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design
Discharge (Dataset I) for Barragebay 150
A-II.10 Variation of Downstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design
Discharge (Dataset I) for Barragebay 150
A-11.11 Variation of Upstream-Length of Launching Apron with Design
Discharge (Dataset I) for undersluice Barragebay 151
A-II.12 Variation of Downstream Length of Launching Apron with Design
Discharge (Dataset I) for undersluice Barragebay 151
B.1 Variation of Lowest Level of Jump Formation with Design
Discharge (Dataset II) for Undersluice 158
B.2 Variation of Total Length of Undersluice way with Design
Discharge 158
B.3 Variation of Total Floor Length with Design Discharge (Dataset II)
for Undersluice 159
B.4 Variation of Downstream Floor Length with Design Discharge
(Dataset II) for undersluice 159
B.5 Variation of Downstream Glacis Length with Design Discharge
(Dataset II) for Undersluice 160
B.6 Variation of Upstream Floor Length with Design Discharge (Data
set II) for Undersluice 160
vii

B.7 Variation of Upstream Depth of Cut off with Design Discharge 161
(Dataset II) for Undersluice
B.8 Variation of Downstream Depth of Cut off with Design Discharge
(Dataset II) for Undersluice 161
B.9 Variation of Upstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design
Discharge (Dataset II) for undersluice 162
B.10 'Variation of Downstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design
B.11 Variation of Upstream Length of Launching Apron with Design
B.12 Variation of Downstream Length of Launching Apron with Design
Discharge (Dataset II) for under sluice 163
B.13 Variation of Lowest Level of Jump Formation with Design
Discharge (Dataset II) for Barragebay 164
B. 14 Variation of Total Length of Barragebay with Design Discharge 164
B. 15 Variation of Total Floor Length with Design Discharge (Dataset II)for
Barragebay 165
(Dataset II) for Barragebay 165
B.18 Variation of Upstream Floor Length with Design Discharge (Data
set II) for Barragebay 166
B.19 Variation of Upstream Depth of Cut off with Design Discharge
B.21 Variation of Upstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design
B.22 Variation of Downstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design
B.23 Variation of Upstream Length of Launching Apron with Design
B.24 Variation of Downstream Length of Launching Apron with Design
viii
C.1 Variation of Lowest Level of Jump Formation with Design
Discharge (Dataset III) for Undersluice 171
C.2 Variation of Total Length of Undersluiceway with Design
Discharge 171
C.3 Variation of Total Floor Length with Design Discharge (Dataset
III) for Undersluice 172
C.4 Variation of Downstream Floor Length with Design Discharge
(Dataset III) for undersluice 172
C.5 Variation of Downstream Glacis Length with Design Discharge
(Dataset III) for Undersluice 173
C.6 Variation of Upstream Floor Length with Design Discharge (Data
set III) for Undersluice 173
C.7 Variation of Upstream Depth of Cut off with Design Discharge
C.8 Variation of Downstream Depth of Cut off with Design Discharge
C.9 Variation of Upstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design
Discharge (Dataset III) for undersluice 175
C.10 Variation of Downstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design
C.11 Variation of Upstream Length of Launching Apron with Design
C.12 Variation of Downstream Length of Launching Apron with Design
Discharge (Dataset III) for under sluice 176
C.13 Variation of Lowest Level of Jump Formation with Design Discharge

(Dataset III) for Barragebay 177
C.14 Variation of with Total Length of Barragebay Design Discharge 177
C.15 Variation of Total Floor Length with Design Discharge (Dataset
III) for Barragebay 178
ix
C.18 Variation of Upstream Floor Length with Design Discharge (Data
set III) for Barragebay 179
C.21 Variation of Upstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design
Discharge (Dataset III) for Barragebay 181
C.22 Variation of Downstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design
C.23 Variation of Upstream Length of Launching Apron with Design
C.24 Variation of Downstream Length of Launching Apron with Design
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Description Page No.
2.1 Provision of Vertical Clearance for different Discharges 32
2.2 Provision of Minimum Freeboard for different Discharges 33
3.1 Physical and Functional Goal for the Hydraulic Design of Barrage 51
4.1 Stage-Discharge Data (Dataset I) 60
4.2 Stage-Discharge Data (Dataset II) 62
4.3 Stage-Discharge Data (Dataset III) 62
5.1 Comparison between Theoretical &Practical Design of Barrage
(Dataset I) 77
5.2 Discharge and Lowest Level of Jump Formation Relationship
5.3 Discharge and Total Length of Undersluiceway (Dataset I) 85
5.4 Discharge and Floor Length Relationship for Undersluice (Data
set I) 86
5.5 Discharge and Depth of Cutoff Relationship for Undersluice (Data
set I) 86
5.6 Discharge and Upstream Protection Works Relationship (Dataset I)
for Undersluice 87
5.7 Discharge and Downstream Protection Works Relationship (Data
set I) for Undersluice 87
5.8 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset I), Chute Blocks in
Undersluice 88
5.9 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset I), Dentated Sill in
Undersluice 88
5.10 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset 1), Basin Blocks in
Undersluice 89
A-Ill.1 Discharge and Lowest Level of Jump Formation Relationship
A-III.2 Discharge and Total Length of Barragebay (Dataset I) 153
A-III.3 Discharge and Floor Length Relationship (Dataset I) for Barrage-
Bay 153
A-III.4 Discharge and Depth of Cut off Relationship (Dataset 1) for Barrag
-Bay 153
xi
A-III.5 Discharge and Upstream Protection Works Relationship (Data-
set 1) for Barragebay 154
A-III.6 Discharge and Downstream Protection Works Relationship (Data-
set I) for Barragebay 154
A-II1.7 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset I), Chute Blocks in
Barragebay 155
A-III.8 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset I), Dentated Sill in
Barragebay 155
A-III.9 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset I), Basin Blocks in
Barragebay 156
D.1 Discharge and Lowest Level of Jump Formation Relationship (Data
set II) (Undersluice) 184
D.2 Discharge and Total Length of Undersluiceway (Dataset II) 184
D.3 Discharge and Floor Length Relationship for Undersluice (Dataset
II) 185
D.4 Discharge and Depth of Cut off Relationship for Undersluice (Data
set II) 185
D.5 Discharge and Upstream Protection Works Relationship (Dataset
II) for Undersluice 186
D.6 Discharge and Downstream Protection Works Relationship (Data
set II) for Undersluice 186
D.7 Discharge and Lowest Level of Jump Formation Relationship (Data
set II) for Barragebay 187
D.8 Discharge and Total Length of Barragebay (Dataset II) 187
D.9 Discharge and Floor Length Relationship for Barragebay (Dataset

II) 188
D.10 Discharge and Depth of Cut off Relationship for Barragebay (Data
set II) 188
D. 11 Discharge and Upstream Protection Works Relationship (Dataset
II) for Barragebay 189
D. 12 Discharge and Downstream Protection Works Relationship (Data
setII) for Barragebay 189
E.1 Discharge and Lowest Level of Jump Formation Relationship for
Undersluice (Dataset III) 191
xii
E.2 Discharge and Total Length of Undersluiceway (Dataset III) 191
E.3 Discharge and Floor Length Relationship for Undersluice (Dataset
III) 192
E.4 Discharge and Depth of Cut off Relationship for Undersluice (Data
set III) 192
E.5 Discharge and Upstream Protection Works Relationship (Dataset
III) for Undersluice 193
E.6 Discharge and Downstream Protection Works Relationship (Data
set III) for Undersluice 193
E.7 Discharge and Lowest Level of Jump Formation Relationship (Data
set III) Barragebay 194
E.8 Discharge and Total Length of Barragebay (Dataset III) 194
E.9 Discharge and Floor Length Relationship for Barragebay (Dataset
III) 195
E.10 Discharge and Depth of Cut off Relationship for Barragebay (Data
set III) 195
E.11 Discharge and Upstream Protection Works Relationship (Dataset
III) for Barragebay 196
E. 12 Discharge and Downstream Protection Works Relationship (Data
set III) for Barragebay 196
F. 1 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset II), Chute Blocks
in Undersluice 198
F.2 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset II), Dentated Sill in
Undersluice 198
F.3 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset II), Basin Blocks
in Under Sluice 199
F.4 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset II), Chute Blocks in -
Barragebay 200
F.5 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset II), Dentated Sill in
Barragebay 200
F.6 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset II), Basin Blocks in
Barragebay 201
G. 1 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset III), Chute Blocks in
Undersluice 203
G.2 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset III), Dentated Sill in
Undersluice 203
G.3 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset III), Basin Blocks in
Undersluice 204
G.4 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset III), Chute Blocks in
Barragebay 205
G.5 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset III), Dentated Sill in
Barragebay 205
G.6 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset III), Basin Blocks in
201
Barragebay
xiv
ABSTRACT
A barrage is a structure built across a river to divert flow into a man-made

channel. It is designed based on surface and subsurface flow considerations. It forms to be
an important structure to divert river water through a canal system for irrigation and other
useful purposes. If the difference between the pond level and crest level is within 1.5m
the pond level can be maintained by means of falling shutters however, if the difference is
more than 1.5m a gate controlled weir is necessary which is called a "Barrage". A barrage
usually consist of the following components: undersluices, barrage bay, canal head
regulator, divide wall or groyne, fish ladder, piers and abutments, protection works, river
training works, gates and hoisting arrangements and working platform. This study is to
provide a computer aided design of barrage, test it with the available example data set,
and to see the effect of design flood on different components of the barrage.
In the design of a barrage, a number of input variables are required. Among these,
design flood forms to be a major governing factor. Design flood is the flood discharge
adopted for the design of a hydraulic structure and is taken as PMF or SPF, i.e. a severe
most flood that is physically possible as a result of severe most combinations of all the
meteorological and hydrological conditions which are possible. Depending on the degree
of protection, various organisations have suggested different criteria for fixing the design
flood discharge by using different methods, viz. part flood marks method, empirical
method, unit hydrograph method, and flood frequency method.
When the discharge in the river is less than the design flood there will be shoal
formation and meandering and may cause encroachment on the free board of river
training works. For purposes of design of barrage segments, a design flood of 50 year
frequency may normally suffice and for design of free board a minimum of 500 years
frequency flood or SPF may be desirable. At design flood the reduction gauges due to
retrogression may be considered to vary from 0.3 to 0.5 m depending on whether the river
is shallow or it is confined during floods.
Under surface flow considerations, the design flood discharge governs the length
of waterway, discharge intensity, scour depth. Width of upstream is responsible for
designing the depth of cut off and upstream and downstream protection works. The
design of most of the barrage components is primarily governed by the magnitude of river
discharge, silt factor, retrogression, afflux, concentration factor, discharge intensity, and
waterway. In this study, the effect of design flood on the above components of barrage is
xv
investigated with the help of computer based software developed for its hydraulic design.
In practice, tedious hand computations are performed for any change in the governing
variables or for trial designs. This study is thus an attempt to develop computer software
for the design of a barrage, test the developed software using the example data set, and
investigate the effect of design flood on various components of barrage.
This study provides a systematic evaluation of the impact of design flood on
various design components of the barrage, viz, lowest level of jump formation, length of
waterway, total floor length, downstream floor length, downstream glacis length,
upstream floor length, depth of sheet piles, length of cement concrete blocks, length of
launching apron, and appurtenant works. The effect of discharge on these elements was
investigated employing three datasets. Trial runs with varying design flood magnitudes
were taken using a Microsoft-Excel-based computer program developed. It was found all
these elements were affected either significantly or quite significantly with an increase or
decrease in discharge. Thus, the design discharge plays a vital role in the design of
barrage and should be evaluated critically considering both economic and safety aspects.
xvi
• CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
River water can be diverted by the construction of a barrage or a weir across the
river for various beneficial purposes. The importance of weirs or barrages to divert river
water through a canal system for irrigation and other beneficial purposes may appear to be a
comparatively straightforward task to divert water from perennial rivers. However, it poses
a considerable challenge to hydraulic engineers while designing a safe and economical way
of tapping the river water, with their highly variable flow over the year. A barrage is
designed from both surface and subsurface flow considerations. A typical section and
layout plan of the barrage are shown in Fig 1.1.The main components of a barrage are:
Undersluices, or scouring sluices, Canal head regulator, Divide wall or groyne, Fish ladder
or lock, Piers and abutments, Protection works, River training works, Gates and hoisting
arrangements, and Working platforms.
3
UWS Sheet Rle
UIS Protection a's sheet PIle

Concrete weir with sloping glacis
DIS Protection
Fig 1.1 Typical cross section of a barrage
From surface flow considerations crest level, downstream floor length, depth of
upstream and downstream cut-offs can be decided. The subsurface flow considerations in
ponded conditions suggest protection against heaving, roofing, piping and uplift. Total
barrage length is determined in relation to downstream sheet pile depth by satisfying the
exit gradient criterion, which is considered to ensure safety against piping. Scour depths are
governed by the normal hydraulic flow conditions, and the maximum depth depends on the
design flood and the sheet pile at the end of the flow is selected according to the scour
depth with a suitable factor of safety to protect the floor against scour during floods. The
sheet pile depth and floor length govern the uplift pressure.
1
Barrage is a weir with low crest, generally at or near river bed, having vertical lift
gates for maintaining the pond level. It provides a complete control of the river flow during
low floods. A narrow, straight, well defined channel confined between banks and not
submerged by the highest flood should be selected as an appropriate site for the
construction of a barrage. A number of factors are involved in the design of a barrage viz,
location of structure, fixation of waterway, layout and hydraulic design of various
components. The undersluices are the gate controlled openings in the weir with crest at a
low level located on the same side of the off taking canal. The discharge capacity of
undersluice is taken greater of the two times the maximum discharge in the off taking canal
or 20% of the maximum flood discharge. The head regulator regulates the supply of water
in the canal and controls the entry of silt into the canal and is normally aligned 90 to 110
degree with respect to the axis of barrage. The head regulator is generally provided with a
very wide and shallow water ways and drowned weir formula is used, if waterway at head
regulator comes out to be more than the width of canal, the crest level is changed to keep
the waterway equal to the width of canal. The divide wall separates the undersluices and the
barrage bays and is likely to be subjected to maximum pressure, when full discharge of the
river passes through undersluice and no discharge through the weir. The length and width
of the pier should be such that it accommodates the bridge decking, working platform, and
the operating gear on the top. A minimum width of 2.5m is usually suggested. The extreme
cases of the gate operation for the barrage corresponds to the maximum flood passing
through all the spans or all the gates closed with water up to the top and one fully open. The
stability of the pier is checked under both the conditions. The river bed is protected by
certain methods like block protection, loose stone apron etc. just upstream and downstream
of the solid floor. The thickness of the impervious floor should be adequate to counter
balance the uplift pressure and the thickness of the downstream floor should be checked
under hydraulic jump condition. The river training works for the barrages are required to
prevent flooding by the river, out flanking of the structure and to minimise the cross flow
through the barrage. The river training works also help narrow down and restrict the course
of river through the barrage. Normally, fixed better to provide radial gate, whichever is
more economical.
For the design of a hydraulic structure, it is essential to have the knowledge of the
application of various principles involved in design and their limitations. The hydraulic
design deals with the evaluation of hydraulic forces acting on the structure and the
determination of configuration of the structure for the best economical functional
efficiency. The depth of pile line should be such that, with a suitable length of the floor, it
provides a safe exit gradient under the maximum head and the bottom of sheet pile is nearly
at or below the level of the flood scour. Just below the end of concrete floor, an inverted
filter 1.5 to 2D is provided and its depth is kept equal to the depth of downstream launching
apron. The loose apron is laid in a length equal to 1.5D and the thickness will
correspondingly be almost 1.5m. The glacis should be slopped down at a slope of 1 in 3 to
lin 5(V to H) for maximum dissipation of energy combined with economy and stability of
the jump. The position of the jump should be checked for different discharge intensities. It
is usually observed that jump shifts down for small discharge intensities. In order to ensure
that filter area and the stone protection is free from turbulence of the hydraulic jump, the
length of floor is kept equal to 5(D2-D1 ) from the jump location. The maximum value of
(D2-D1) should be used which occurs during high floods.
A barrage, constructed across a river has to pass floods of different magnitudes and
the gates have to be opened in such a way that the water level is kept at least at pond level.
A very high flood requires opening of all the gates to provide obstruction less flow to the
flood, but for smaller discharges, the gates of all the bays of barrage are not opened
uniformly, but are opened more towards the side where more flow is attracted. The low
stages of the river are generally affected more compared to maximum flood levels in terms
of retrogression. A no retrogressed river may exhibit submerged flow phenomenon
compared to a free flow conditions expected for a retrogressed condition for the same flood
discharge and there would be a difference in scour depths. It is also ensured that a barrage
spillway/ undersluice get submerged by the tail water, in such a case the discharge is
modified by multiplying a coefficient k, since the crest level of spillway, undersluice and
river bays are different. The discharge passing through each gate will have to be estimated
separately and then summed up. The cistern level and its length for spillway, river sluice
bays have to be checked for different hydraulic conditions such as flow at pond level with
few gates opened, flow at high flood level with all gates opened and with discharge
3
concentration enhanced by 20% with a retrogressed bed. The type I Indian Standard stilling
basin for Froude number less than 4.5 is suitable and recommended for the design of cistern
of barrage.
The pond level of a barrage is obtained by adding 1.0 to 1.20 m to the canal full
supply level to provide a driving head. The width of waterway to be adopted is the stable
perimeter of Lacey for the design flood discharge. Many existing barrages have a clear
waterway from 10 to 20% more than Lacey perimeter (P). The current opinion is that the
water way should be based on 50 to 100 years of frequency flood.
For the design of diversion structure certain input data are required to be known,
same are decided based on economic consideration, and the others are designed. The data
required for investigating the effect of design flood on the design of barrage is maximum
flood discharge, maximum flood level, river cross section and stage discharge curve for the
river at the barrage site. It is emphasised that certain considerations are of vital importance
in adopting the looseness factor based on Lacey's formula in fixing the length of a barrage.
One of such considerations is the design flood. Generally the design flood discharge is
adopted in different projects according to different criteria. What is really important in
designing the barrage waterway for ensuring free approach is not the design flood discharge
of a very low frequency, but normal flood discharge of high frequency, the structure should,
however, be able to pass the maximum design flood with requisite afflux.
1.1 Objectives of the Study
For the design of a barrage there may not exist any generalized software to facilitate
the testing of designed components, rather tedious hand computations are performed for
any change in the governing variables or trial designs. Then this study is an attempt to:-
a. develop a computer software for the design of barrage,
b. test the developed software using the example data set, and
c. investigate the effect of design flood on various components of barrage.
1.2 Scope of Study
The design of a barrage or a weir is based on certain principles, both empirical and
derived. However, due to involvement of various parameters involved, the design may
sometimes be over-safe or deficient in some respect in spite of the best efforts for the safe
design due to unforeseen hydraulic parameters and design flood. The design can be
51
improved upon for safety and economy and as such, an attempt has been made in this
investigation to provide information concerning the one of the vital input variable i.e.
design flood on the design of various components of the barrage. The main aim is to
develop computer software for the design of barrage and to test the same using the
exemplary datasets of the barrages. The influence of changes in the design flood on the
design of barrage is evaluated through sensitivity analysis. Thus, the dissertation work is
organized as follows.
This dissertation contains six chapters. Chapter-1, Introduction, covers general
introduction of barrage and its main components, objective of the study and scope of the
study, Chapter-2 contains review of literature related to design discharge, its selection,
significance, criteria, and estimation, Chapter-3 covers general design principles/ guidelines
for designing/fixing of various components/ parameters of barrage, designing steps and
development of computer software, Chapter 4 includes requirement and availability of data
for the hydraulic design of barrage, Chapter 5 covers results and discussion to evaluate the
effect of design flood on the other governing input variables used in the design of various
components of a barrage and, Chapter 6 last one deals with the summary and conclusions of
study.
M
CHAPTER-2
REVIEW OF LIERATURE
This study primarily deals with the evaluation of the effect of design flood on
various components of the barrage while designing. Therefore, this chapter concentrates
only on the description of design flood, its estimation, and its importance in barrage design.
A flood is commonly considered to be an unusually high stage of a river. For a river in its
natural state, occurrence of a flood usually fills up the stream up to its banks. For a
hydraulic structure planned within the river like a dam or a barrage, due consideration
should be given to the design of the structure to prevent it from collapsing and causing
further damage downstream by the force of water released from behind the structure. Hence
an estimate of extreme flood flow is required for the design of hydraulic structures.
However, the magnitude of such a flood is adopted based on the importance of the
structure. Thus a proper selection of design flood value is of great importance. While a
higher value would result in an increase in the cost of hydraulic structure, an under-
estimated value may place the structure and population at some risk.
IITKh (2009) defined the design flood for a hydraulic structure in a number of
ways as follows:
i. The maximum flood that any structure can safely pass.
ii. The flood considered for the design of a structure corresponding to a
maximum tolerable risk.
iii. The flood which a project or a hydraulic structure can sustain without any
considerable damage, either to the items which it protects or to its own
structures.
iv. The largest flood that may be selected for design considering safety of a
structure.
Design Flood is also known as the Inflow Design Flood (IDF). It is the flood
adopted for design purpose, and could be the entire flood hydrograph, that is, the possible
values of discharge as a function of time or the peak discharge of the flood hydrograph. IS:
z
5477(Part IV) (1971) recommends that the inflow Design flood (IDF) of a structure,
depending on its importance or risk involved, may be selected from either of the following:
i. Probable Maximum Flood (PMF): This is the flood resulting from the most
severe combination of critical meteorological and hydrological conditions
that are reasonably possible in the region. PMF is computed by using the
probable maximum storm (PMS) which is an estimate of the physical upper
limit to storm rainfall over the catchments and is obtained from the studies
of all the storms that have occurred over the region and maximizing them for
the most critical atmospheric conditions.
ii. Standard Project Flood (SPF): This is the flood resulting from the most
severe combination of meteorological and hydrological conditions
considered reasonable characteristic of the region. The SPF is computed
from the Standard Project Storm (SPS) over the watershed considered and
may be taken as the largest storm observed in the region of the watershed. It
is not maximized for the most critical atmospheric conditions but it may be
transposed from an adjacent region to the watershed under consideration.
iii. Flood of a specific return period: This flood is estimated by frequency
analysis of the annual flood values of adequate length. Sometimes, when the
flood data are inadequate, frequency analysis of the recorded storm data is
made and the storm of a particular frequency applied to the unit hydrograph
to derive the design flood. This flood usually has a return period greater than
the storm.
2.1 Design Flood for Barrages and Weirs

The design flood for a particular hydraulic structure is selected considering various
factors such as, the type of structure, its economy and importance. Small structures can be
designed for less severe floods and on the other hand, permanent barrages and minor dams
are designed for comparatively severe floods. It is the flood adopted for design of hydraulic
structure after careful consideration of economic and other factors. As the magnitude of the
adopted design flood increases, the capital cost and maintenance cost of the structure
increases. It actually affects the various parameters/components of the hydraulic structure.
7
The design flood may be PMF or SPF or a smaller flood depending on the degree and the
cost of hydraulic structure.
Weirs and barrages, which are diversion structures, have usually small storage
capacities, and the risk of loss of life and property would rarely be enhanced by failure of
the structure. Apart from damage/loss of structure the failure would cause disruption of
irrigation and communication that are dependent on the barrage.
A brief summary of guidelines adopted by CWC for selecting the design floods given
below:
1. Spillways for major and medium projects with storage more than 60 Mcum
(6000ham.). The design flood is PMF determined by the unit hydrograph and PMP
(probable maximum precipitation.), if not possible, the flood with a recurrence
interval of 1000years.
2. Permanent barrages and minor dams with storage capacity less than 60Mcum.
(6000ham)
i. The design flood is taken as the SPF determined by the unit hydrograph and
the SPS (Standard project storm). SPS is usually equal to the largest
recorded storm in the region.
ii. Flood with a return period of 100 years
iii. Either i or ii which ever gives higher values.
In the case of permanent barrages and minor dams with less than 6000 hectare
meters storage, the standard project flood or an 100 year flood, whichever is higher,
is to be adopted.
3. Pickup weirs
The design flood is usually taken as the flood with a return period of 100 or 50 years
depending upon the magnitude and importance of the project. .
4. Projects with very scanty or inadequate data. The design flood can be found from
the empirical formulae.
IS: 6966(Part-I) (1989) recommends the following:-
For the purposes of design of items other than freeboard, a design -flood of 50 year
frequency may normally suffice. In such cases where risks and hazards are involved, a
review of this criterion based on site conditions may be necessary. For designing the free
board, a minimum of 500 year frequency flood or the standard project flood may be
desirable [IS 5477 (Part 4): 1971] .When the discharge in the river is less than the design
flood, shoals may form and the river may meander. It would, therefore, cause encroachment
on the freeboard of river training works. On the other hand, if the discharge is greater than
the design flood, shoals will be washed off and the full waterway will be available.
Therefore, a flood with a long recurrence interval is selected for the free board.
IS:5477(1971) also recommended that in regions experiencing prolonged floods,
where storms occur in quick succession, the spillway may also be checked for design flood
preceded or succeeded by a flood of once in 25 years frequency. The interval between these
two floods (peak to peak) may be taken as 3 or 5 days according to as the region lies in an
annual rainfall zone of more than 100 cm or less than 100 cm respectively.
The committee of engineers headed by Khosla recommended the design flood for
computing waterway as the maximum on the record for a period not less than 50 years. If
the data available is less than 50 years, the computed flood of lin 50 years frequency
should be adopted. The CWPC (1969) recommended a flood of 1 in 50 to 1 in 100 years
frequency for irrigation structures depending upon the importance of the structure. IRC
(1956) has made no precise recommendations, but suggested that floods of lower frequency
should be adopted but the degree of risks involved should be carefully examined.
2.2 Bankfull Discharge

Knighton (1998) mentioned that, researchers have developed numerous definitions
of flow conditions that have fundamental relevance to channel geometry, the most common
of which are bank full discharge, effective discharge, and dominant discharge. These flows
are commonly applied in the development of channel design criteria, primarily with respect
to channel conveyance and sediment transport capacity. Here, it is notable that the flood can
be described in several ways, as indicated from review of literature, different investigators
have described the bankfull discharge, as below:
Wolman and Miller (1960), Williams (1978), Andrews and Nankervis (1995) stated
that the bankfull discharge (corresponding to the bankfull depth) is often considered to be
the channel-forming discharge, and has been shown to correspond to the 1 to 2-year flood
recurrence interval. Williams (1978) however further stated that this frequency is an
M
accurate measure of bankfull discharge only for approximately one third of rivers. A
channel that is likely to be filled to •bankfull stage on the average of every one or two years
is large enough to accommodate runoff from the watershed during the most frequent
storms. The bankfull discharge fills the channel until it just begins to overtop its banks onto
the floodplain Riley (1998). Thus, bankfull discharges control channel morphology because
they have enough stream power to erode, transport, and deposit the materials that form the
banks.
Andrews (1980): Bankfull discharge is closely associated with "effective"
discharge, which is defined as the increment of discharge that transports the largest portion
of the annual sediment load over a period of years. According to Andrews and Nankervis
(1995), the range of effective discharge for transporting sediment includes the flows that
construct and maintain channel form promoting the bed and bank morphology used to
define the bankfull condition.
Hey (1997): Bankfull discharge is used extensively in restoration design effort because
of the prominent relationship between bankfull discharge and stable channel geometry.
Although bankfull discharge estimates have been used extensively in channel design, there
is a significant debate over the universality of its estimation, frequency (1.5 to 2 years), and
geomorphic function (relationship to dominant discharge).
Johnson and Heil (1996): The bankfull condition is usually determined in the field
according to channel and floodplain features such as cross-section topography, the presence
of vegetation and changes in sediment surfaces, and is sometimes subject to a large degree
of uncertainty. In incised channels, for example, the frequency of bankfull discharge is
lower due to the increased channel capacity. Williams (1978) concluded that the frequency
of bankfull discharge could range from 1 to 30 years. However, Rosgen (1996) suggested
that this range of recurrence intervals resulted from an unclear distinction between
elevations of the low terrace and active floodplain.
2.3 Effective Discharge

Andrews (1980) defined that the effective discharge as the flow which transports the
largest fraction of the sediment load over a period of years and Andrews and Nankervis
(1995) correlated it to the bankfull flow in stable channel settings. The determination of
10
effective discharge as a design parameter can assist in the achievement of sediment
transport continuity as a design objective. Soar et al. (1999) suggested that sediment
transport continuity is important because it is unlikely that restored channel dimensions will
be stable without a balanced transport of inflowing sediment. Thorne et al. (1999) presented
a practical procedure for calculating the effective discharge for channel restoration design.
The basic principle of this procedure is to develop a bed material load discharge histogram
from the flow frequency curve and the bed material load rating curve (i.e. bed material
discharge as a function of water discharge). The bed material load histogram displays a
continuous distribution with respect to time having single peak. The effective discharge
corresponds to the mean discharge for the peak of the histogram.
2.4 Dominant Discharge

Lacey (1939) was of the opinion that although the regime in the river is rare due to
fluctuating discharge. Some degree of stability is reached at the peak of high floods and
therefore floods and scour problems can be solved based on this assumption. Considering
the limitations of Lacey's expression and the divergence observed in many cases, Inglis
(1949) introduced the concept of dominant discharge and defined it as a discharge at which
equilibrium is most closely approached. Since the rivers usually do not attain the
equilibrium or regime conditions due to large fluctuations in flood discharge. He also
defined the dominant discharge as a discharge at which the section of the river stabilizes
due to constant flow conditions. Therefore, on the basis of the analysis of the prototype
data, he observed that the dominant discharge varies from 50 to 70% of the maximum
flood. However, the status of the maximum flood was not precisely defined. He also
suggested that in several streams, the ratio of maximum to minimum discharges can attain
values as high as 1000 or more, flashy streams have very high value of this ratio. According
to Iinglis (1959), there is a dominant discharge and gradient to which the channel returns
annually, and at this discharge, equilibrium is most closely approached. This condition may_
be regarded as the integrated effect of all varying conditions over a long period of time.
Therefore, in other words, steady dominant discharge is that hypothetical steady discharge
which could produce the same result as the actual varying discharge. For north Indian
rivers, dominant discharge was found to be the same as the bankfull discharge and
11
recommended that dominant discharge might be taken as 1/2 to 2/3 of the maximum
discharge.
Blench (In: Mohantyl984), however, defined dominant discharge as the discharge
which is equaled or exceeded 50% of the times and may be obtained by drawing a line at
50% frequency in the flow duration curve. Raudkivi (1967), Marlette (1968), and
Komura(1969) defined dominant discharge either as the bankfull discharge or a flood of
about 1 in 2 years return period. USBR (In: Mohanty, 1984) defines the dominant discharge
as the discharge that will carry the greatest sediment load of material coarser than 0.625mm
with respect to time and this discharge is slightly higher than the median discharge.
Sharma (1976),. concluded that dominant discharge in case of wide and shallow
rivers of India may be taken as 60 to 75% of the observed maximum flood, if the long term
data is available, or of 1 in 100 years flood and it would be advisable to provide the
waterway equal to or as near as possible to Lacey's wetted perimeter for the dominant
discharge depending upon permissible afflux, river bed material, economy etc. This would
minimize the possibility of the shifting of river channel causing the obliquity of flow. The
more frequent floods higher than the dominant discharge would also help in flushing the
shoals in case of the barrages.
Werrity (1997) explained the dominant discharge is a generic term for the flow
condition that controls the channel form. Dominant discharge has been defined as the flow
which determines channel parameters such as cross-sectional capacity (Wolman and
Leopold, 1957) or meander wavelength (Ackers and Charlton, 1970) or as the flow which
performs the most work, where work is defined in terms of sediment transport (Wolman
and Miller,1960). Due to the variable means of defining the dominant or channel-forming
flow, dominant discharge has been equated with bankfull flow, effective flow, and the 1.5
to 2-year flow event.
Depending on the conditions presented, the dominant discharge may be equivalent
to or significantly different than other, more specifically defined channel forming flows,
and often the distinction between the flow descriptors is unclear Doyle et al. (1999). A
comparison of channel forming flows calculated by various means including bankfull,
effective, and 2-year discharge showed that the values were different in urban and unstable
channel systems, but very similar in stable, snow-melt hydrology systems. Since restoration
12
activities most often occur in unstable systems, the applicability of common approaches to
the estimation of dominant discharge for channel design may be uncertain.
Schaffernack (In: Mohanty1984) has introduced the term bed generative discharge
defined as the discharge that transports the largest volume of coarser material. The
difference between concept of dominant discharge as given by USBR and the bed
generative discharge by Schaffernack is that in the later case there is no limitation for the
sediment size.
2.5 Design Discharge for Foundations

To provide for an adequate margin of safety against an abnormal flood of magnitude
higher than the design discharge, the foundations, protection works and training works
except free board, shall be designed for a higher flood discharge. The magnitude of this
discharge shall be computed by increasing the design discharge by the percentage as
indicated, i.e. for catchments less than 500 sq.km by 30%, for catchments more than 500
sq.km and up to 5,000 sq.km by 30% to 20% (decreasing with increase in area), for
catchments more than 5,000 sq.km and up to 25,000 sq.km by 20% to 10% (decreasing
with increase in area) and for catchments more than 25,000 sq.km by less than 10%.
2.6 Significance of Design flood in Barrage Design

Sen (1987) explained that a healthy barrage is to have a uniform parallel flow
condition at right angles to the axis of barrage, both on the upstream and downstream to a
distance at least twice that of the length of barrage. If this condition can be maintained
perpetually, both during the low and high flood stages, it is an ideal barrage. A barrage,
constructed according to Lacey's regime formula, is designed to generate a velocity at the
design flood stage. Normally a 50 or 100 years frequency flood is supposed to be non-
silting and non-scouring, which means that, during most of the time i.e. 49 years out of 50
years, the flood discharge passing over such a barrage will never create a velocity that can
remove shoals and will always be a silting velocity. He further explained that any barrage in
a silt carrying river if designed with Lacey's regime formula for a design flood of 50 to 100
years frequency will certainly be affected with shoals on upstream and downstream as well,
and the shoals formed are so impregnated that these can not be removed even if a higher
13
flood occurs after 50 years with a high velocity developed by the abnormal flood.
Therefore, a simple solution is suggested, to reduce the frequency of the design flood. To
adopt a shorter barrage length, a flood exceeded every 10 years or so is considered. During
these years, when the flood velocity both upstream and downstream is slightly scouring for
the river bed material, the shoals will get removed more effectively. He pointed out that the
conservative designer may object to the possible scour and damages to the pitching due to
the higher intensities of discharge expected in exceptionally higher floods and suggested to
counter this problem by increasing the length of the launching apron, catering to the deeper
expected scour, no extra expenditure is involved, since the stones saved by the reduction in
the length of the barrage can be used to increase the launching apron length.
Sen (1987) further explained that Lacey's waterway formula is generally used
universally by the bridge engineers for deciding the waterway, where flood is allowed to
pass throughout the year unobstructed, but this is not true for barrages, where practically for
75% of the year, the flow is artificially constricted and considerable slackening of flow both
upstream and downstream of the barrage occurs, leading to shoal formation, cross flow and
vortices. Therefore, the norms as adopted for bridges can not be applied for barrages, rather
the waterway of a barrage should be fixed on the basis of the following parameters instead
of only a single factor "Q" as in Lacey's formula:-
1. Discharge
a) Design discharge- 50 or 100 years frequency
b) Dominant discharge- 10 year's frequency
c) Annual discharge-1 year frequency
d) Relationship ratio between the above three.
2. Intensity of discharge and bed velocity
a) Maximum intensity q in high flood and average flood
b) Average velocity v in high and average flood
3. Silt charge in the river
a) Maximum bed silt in ppm. at rising and falling flood stages
b) Suspended silt concentration in ppm. during rising and falling flood
4. Bed material
a. Whether the bed material of river is sandy, boulder or clayey
14
5. Depth of pondage and duration
a) Depth of pond level vis a vis depth of annual high flood stage in the river
upstream
b) Whether the pondage level is maintained even during annual or dominant
flood stages
2.7 Regime Condition
According to Lacey (1939), for regime condition to be established, the essential
requirements are- (i) Discharge should be constant, (ii) The channel flows in unlimited
incoherent alluvium, of the same character as that transported and (iii) The silt charge and
silt grade are constant. Generally, in rivers the flow is a variable parameter and at the full
stage or at high flood time and at other times, the bed may be inert and in gravel and
boulder rivers this effect is more pronounced. It is only in floods of great magnitude that the
river is fully active and the bed material takes part in flow. As the flood subsides, the gravel
and even the sands become inert and the channels at low discharges have almost a rigid
boundary.
2.8 Design Flood and Waterways

In the case of a river which flows between stable high banks and which has
the whole of the bank-to-bank width functioning actively in a flood, the waterway provided
shall be practically equal to the width of the water spread between the stable banks for such
discharge. If, however, a river spills over its banks and the depth of the spill is appreciable
the waterway shall be suitably increased beyond the bank-to-bank width in order to carry
the spill discharge as well. In the case of a river having a comparatively wide and shallow
section, with the active channel in flood confined only to a portion of the full width from
bank to bank, constriction of the natural waterway would normally be desirable from both
hydraulic and cost considerations.
In the case of rivers in sub-montane stage where the bed slopes are steep and the bed
material may range from heavy boulders to gravel, and it is not possible to lay down rigid
rules regarding constriction of waterway. However, any constriction, in such cases, shall be
governed largely by the configuration of the active channel or channels. The cost involved
in diversion and training of these channels, and the cost of guide bunds, which will need
15
much heavier protection than the guide bunds of alluvial rivers. Each case shall be
examined on merits from both hydraulic and economic considerations and the best possible
solution chosen. In the case of a bridge having one or more piers, the width of waterway
shall be increased by twice the sum of the weighted mean submerged width of all the piers
including footings for wells to arrive at the total width of waterway to be provided between
the ends of the bridge; where such increase is not made, the same shall be applied as a
deduction from the total width of waterway actually provided to arrive at the effective
width. For gauge conversion and doubling works, where there is no history of past incidents
of over-flow/washout/excessive scour etc during last 50 years, the waterway of existing
bridge may be retained after taking measures for safety. For locations where there exists
history of past incidents of over-flow/washout/excessive scour, the waterway has to be re-
assessed based on the freshly estimated design discharge, where existing bridges are less
than 50 years old and there does not exist past history of incidents of
overflow/washout/excessive scour etc. The waterway may be judiciously decided after
calculation of the design discharge and keeping in view the waterway of existing bridges on
adjacent locations on the same river.
According to Spring (1903) and Gales(1938), narrowing of the natural waterway
should be related to the maximum permissible overall mean scour between the abutments
which might be fixed on the basis of stage of the river, bed material etc. However, Lacey's
(1939) expression for wetted perimeter is based on the regime concept and it is used for
calculating the linear waterway of the bridges and barrages/weir, as a first approximation
for the maximum discharge with a little thought given to the stage of the river whether
alluvial or boulder. According to him in regime conditions the wetted perimeter varies
directly as square root of Q, where Q is the dominant discharge and also found that the
constant of proportionality as 8/3, when perimeter P is in feet and dominant discharge in
cubic feet per second.
For river with alluvial beds and sustained floods the waterway shall normally be
equal to the width given by Lacey's formula: Pw=1.811 C (Q) 112, where Pw = wetted
perimeter in meters which can be taken as the effective width of waterway in case of large
streams, Q = design discharge in cum/sec, C = a coefficient normally equal to 2.67, may
vary from 2.5 to 3.5 according to local conditions depending upon bed slope and bed
16
material. If the river is flashy in nature, i.e. the rise and fall of flood is sudden or the bed
material is not alluvial and does not submit readily to the scouring effect of the flood,
Lacey's regime width formula will not apply. Langbein also applied statistical concept and
observed that the water surface width varies as dominant discharge raised to the power 0.53
which matches with that of Lacey.
Leopold and Maddock(In:Mohantyl984) studied the variation of water surface
width, mean depth and velocity at a particular cross- section with variation in discharge,
using the data collected on several American streams. They related Ws & Q as: WS aQb,
where Q is the mean annual flood and b equals 0.5.
Nixon (1959) has observed for rivers in England that the value of constant varies
from 8.87 to 2.99 depending on the frequency of discharge which varies from 30% for the
higher value of constant to 0.6% for the lower value corresponding to bankfull discharge,
the value of 4.75 corresponds to a frequency of 3.7%. It has also been stressed that the
regime condition as envisaged by Lacey can occur only at one discharge, frequency of
which varies for different climatic and geological region. The Indian Railways (1964)
recommended the use of Lacey's constant in computing the waterway; however, it may be
varied from 4.5 to 6.3 depending on the discharge and the nature of bed material. The use of
Lacey's equation is not recommended in hilly and flashy streams. Indian Road Congress
(1956) also recommended a range of 4.5 to 6.3 for the Lacey's constant in the alluvial reach
of the river. In case of flashy stream, waterway should be determined by area velocity
method. The conventional value of 4.75 for constant in Lacey's equation is the best fit
value for the regime conditions and varies between 3.6 to 6.15 and therefore, alters the
relationship at other stages of discharge flood.
2.8.1 Observations on the existing barrages
Mohanty (1984) studied Dakpathar and Sarda barrages and observed that very low
flood has passed over these barrages since their construction and the pond level is
maintained quite high. For Sarda barrage, the pond level maintained was equal to the level
corresponding to the mean annual flood. Though the looseness factor in both the cases are
nearly the same, the high pond level has caused the shoaling upstream of the weir. The
study of Harike Barrage on Sutlej indicates that if the waterway can be provided for a lower
flood and the barrage is designed for a higher flood, then shoaling will be less.
17
The looseness factor is not of much help in a rational determination of a waterway
of a barrage Mohanty (1984), because the status of discharge in the formula of Lacey's
wetted perimeter is not uniform and well defined. In case of alluvial rivers, the concept of
Lacey's wetted perimeter can not be strictly applied for determination of waterway of a
barrage because the regime conditions do not exist after construction. Similarly, the concept
of dominant discharge lacks clarity because of which the values adopted in design may
have wide variation and among the existing approaches, the concept of bed generative
discharge of Schafferanack appears to be reasonably rational.
2.8.2 Design flood and wetted perimeter
Sharma and Asthana (1976) studied the details of 20 barrages and14 barrages and
mentioned that the status of design flood in each case is not the same, but in most of the
cases, either the maximum observed or computed flood has been considered as the design
flood. Hence, the looseness factor worked out with respect to Lacey's wetted perimeter in
each case can therefore, not be compared. Yet the figures provide a rough indication of
looseness of one structure with respect to the other. They also observed shoaling in varying
degrees in the upstream of 12 weirs constructed in the 19th century in Punjab and Utter
Pradesh and14 barrages constructed, whether wide or tight. It was also seen that passage of
floods higher than the design flood through Harike, Duni, and Ferozpur barrages did not
cause any damage to the structure except breaches in the afflux bunds due to inadequate
free board. On the other hand shoals were washed off and the full waterway was made
available for the subsequent floods. They suggested that if the waterway is provided for a
flood of small return period and the structure safety and the free board is provided for a
flood of large return period, the shoals can be washed off more frequently. Thus the
waterway and the pond are kept comparatively clear of shoal, as compared to the barrages
provided with a waterway for the maximum flood. It follows that the design flood for the
waterway should be of maximum frequent recurrence interval rather the maximum flood.
2.8.3 Waterway and economy of the barrage
Fixing waterway on the basis of the Lacey's wetted perimeter in alluvial reaches
corresponding to design flood is not a sound practice Kumar (1977), because the overall
economy of the barrage depends on the waterway and pond level. In case, if barrage is
constructed for irrigation purpose, the pond level is decided according to irrigation
command area. For a particular design discharge, the discharge intensity will vary with the
waterway, with increase in the discharge intensity, the afflux, head loss, and post jump
depth will increase. Accordingly, the level of the stilling basin will be lowered and length
increases, but the number of gates and piers shall be reduced. With the decrease in the
discharge intensity, the cost of floor will be reduced but that of pier and gates will be
increased. He also concluded that in case of alluvial reaches, the design flood should be of
shorter return period and barrage gates should be kept open during floods. The design flood
may be of 1 in 50 year frequency, but extra structural safety and free board may be
provided to take care of the high floods. For barrages in alluvial rivers, the scour becomes a
governing factor for both upstream and downstream cutoffs and practically no economy is
achieved by increasing the depth of downstream cutoff beyond the scour requirement which
directly depends on the design flood. Average discharge intensity ranging from 22 to 27
cubic meters per second provides the minimum total cost for the barrages in alluvial
reaches.
2.9 Estimation of Design Discharge

Design discharge is the estimated discharge for the design of a bridge and its
appurtenances whereas the design discharge for foundation is the estimated discharge for
design of foundations and training/protection work, and similarly, the definition can be
extended for other components. The estimation of design discharge for waterway shall
preferably be based, wherever possible, on procedures evolved from actual hydro
meteorological observations of the same or similar catchments and all bridges shall be
designed with adequate waterway for design discharge which shall normally be the
computed flood with a probable recurrence interval of 50 years. However, bridges, damage
to which is likely to have severe consequences, may be designed for floods with a probable
recurrence interval of more than 50 years, while the less importance bridges may be
designed for floods with a probable recurrence interval of less than 50 years.
2.9.1 Methods of estimation
Where stream flow records i.e. yearly peak discharges are available for the desired
recurrence interval or more, the design discharge shall be the computed flood for the
desired recurrence. .interval. On the - other hand, if records exist for less than the desired
19
recurrence interval, but are of sufficient length to permit reliable statistical analysis, the
design discharge may be computed statistically for the desired recurrence interval.
Where records of floods are not of sufficient length to permit reliable statistical
analysis but where rainfall pattern and intensity records are available for sufficient length of
time and where it is possible to carry out at least limited observations of rainfall and
discharge, unit hydrographs may be developed and design discharge of the desired
recurrence interval computed by applying appropriate design storm. If such observations
are not possible, a synthetic unit hydrograph may be developed for medium size catchments
(i.e. area 25 sq km or more but less than 2500 sq km) by utilizing established relationships.
Where feasible, streams may be gauged to establish the stage—discharge relationship and
the discharge at known HFL determined. Otherwise, the discharge may be estimated by
slope-area method using flood slope. Usually, in the design of any diversion work, it is not
economically feasible to plan diverting the largest flood that has ever occurred or may be
expected to occur at the site and consequently, some lesser requirement should be adopted.
The following should be considered whiling deciding the diversion flood capacity:
I. The period of stoppage of works during flood seasons and the number of flood
seasons which are to be managed during the work.
II. The cost of possible damage to completed work or work still under construction, if
it is flooded.
III. The cost of delay in completion of the work, and
IV. The safety of workmen and down stream inhabitants in case of sudden failure of
diversion.
IS: 14815 (2000) recommended that the diversion capacity for concrete dams and
barrages may be less because flood higher than the design flood could be passed safely over
the partly constructed dam. The criterion for deciding the capacity states that maximum
non-monsoon flow observed at the dam site or 25 years return period flow, calculated on
the basis of non-monsoon yearly peaks and the higher of the two should be taken as the
capacity of the design flood for diversion.
2.9.2 Collection of hydrological and meteorological data
The IS: 7720 (1991), criteria for investigation, planning and layout for barrages,
recommend that the hydrological data be collected in g'@p Dna ;:A(i) for computing
A]
the design flood and (ii) for assessing the daily or monthly run-off on a more realistic basis
and for these studies, it is necessary to obtain rainfall and runoff data. The following data
should be collected for estimating the design flood:
a) Daily rainfall recorded at different stations in the catchment area and data regarding
storms in respect of successive positions of the centre of the storm on the
catchments should be collected.
b) Storms causing peak discharges should be separated for unit hydrograph analysis.
c) Flood hydrographs should be obtained for isolated rainstorms for deviation of unit
hydrograph.
d)' Catchments characteristics, such as shape, slope, orientation, drainage system and
infiltration capacity for developing synthetic hydrograph, if adequate data are not
available.
e) Peak flow data should be collected for the river for as many years as possible for
frequency analysis.
f) Flood marks by local enquiry to estimate maximum flood by slope area method.
g) Daily river gauges should be observed. At the time of high flows, hourly gauge
should be observed for the estimation of peak flow.
h) For major barrages, cross sections across the river should be taken everyday during
the flow season at the site of the gauge discharge observation for correct assessment
of the gauge discharge corelation. If there exists a gauge and discharge site, then the
same data can be suitably correlated to barrage site.
IS : 5477 ( Part IV )(1971) describes the criteria and procedure to be followed in
fixing the flood storage capacity of a reservoir reliable considering the safety of the
structure and the life and properties downstream of the reservoir and defines the design
flood as the flood adopted for design purposes and it may be the maximum probable flood
or the standard project flood or a flood corresponding to some desired frequency of
occurrence depending upon the standard of security to be provided against likely failure of
the structure and also broadly classified the methods for estimation of design flood as:
(i)Application of a suitable factor of safety to maximum observed flood or maximum
historical flood, (ii) empirical flood formulae, (iii) envelope curves, (iv) frequency analysis,
and (v) rational method for derivation of design flood.
21-.
2.9.3 Application of a suitable factor of safety to maximum observed flood
The design flood is obtained by applying a safety factor which depends upon the
judgment of the designer to the observed or estimated maximum historical flood at the
project site or nearby site on the same stream. This method is limited by the highly
subjective selection of a safety factor and the length of available stream flow record which
may give a quite inadequate sample of flood magnitudes likely to occur over a long period
of time.
2.9.4 Empirical flood formulae
The empirical formulae commonly used in the country are the Dicken's formula,
Ryve's formula, and Inglis's formula in which the peak flow is derived as a function of the
catchment area and a coefficient. The coefficient values vary within rather wide limits and
have to be selected on the basis of judgment. These formulae have limited regional
application, and therefore, should be applied with caution and only when a more accurate
method cannot be applied for lack of data.
2.9.5 Envelope curves
In this method the maximum flood is obtained from the envelope curve of all the
observed maximum floods for a number of catchments in a meteorologically homogeneous
region, plotted against drainage area. This method, although useful for generalizing the
limits of floods actually experienced in the region under consideration, cannot be relied
upon for estimating maximum probable floods for the determination of spillway capacity
except as an aid to judgment.
2.9.6 Flow frequency
The frequency of a flow refers to how often a flow above a given magnitude recurs
over a given time interval. Flow frequency is defined in terms of either exceedence
probability or recurrence interval. Exceedence probability refers to the chance that a given
flow will equal or exceed some given value. Dunne and Leopold (1978) explained that
recurrence interval is the average interval (in years) between events equaling or exceeding a
given magnitude and is the inverse of probability. Annual peak discharge data are used to
determine flood frequency. In the U.S., prediction of extreme, unlikely peak flow (e.g. 100-
year flood event) is accomplished through the use of log Pearson Type-III analysis. Flow
22
frequency values are commonly utilized to define flow magnitudes used in the development
of design criteria.
Flow duration is generally assessed in terms of the percent of time per year that a
given discharge is equaled or exceeded. The determination of flow duration is essential in
the assessment of different flood hydrographs, as the duration of flood flows may vary
dramatically in different settings. In urban areas characterized by rainfall events and
impervious surfaces, floods often persist for a matter of hours to days. In contrast, in areas
of snow-melt hydrology, floods may last for weeks or even months. The geomorphic effects
of the different types of floods can vary dramatically with respect to sediment transport,
sediment sorting, bank erosion mechanisms, and channel migration.
Han (1981) defined that the rate of flow change in a river channel reflects the slope
of the rising or falling limb on a flow hydrograph, which is a plot of flow magnitude versus
time. In the Pacific Northwest, rapid snowmelt during rainfall events is a dominant
hydrologic process causing large flood events. Such rain-on-snow events exemplify a rapid
response to stream flows following precipitation, and are a major component of winter peak
flows in western Washington and Oregon. Where flow duration of floods is very short, such
as in many urbanized settings, the rate of change in flow magnitude is very rapid, and the
hydrology is "flashy." In contrast, in seasonal snow melt settings, the rate of change in flow
magnitude is comparatively slow, as the durations of such events are long, and flows rise
and fall slowly. The rate of change can be described in terms of cfs per day, or in terms of
rate of stage drop.
2.9.7 Frequency analysis
The frequency method involves the statistical analysis of observed data of a fairly
long (at least 25 years) period and is based on purely statistical approach applied to derive
design floods for long recurrence intervals, several times larger than the data, but has many
,limitations and hence this method has to be used with caution.
2.9.8 Use of Rational method and application of unit hydrograph principle
The unit hydrograph principle is not applicable for catchments having an area less
than about 25 km2 and for drainage basins having an area of more than 5000 km2 where
valley storage effects are not reflected and where variation of rainfall in space and time
shows a tendency to become too great to be reflected in the unit hydrograph. Unit
23
hydrograph principle is also not applicable . when appreciable proportions of the
precipitation occur in the form of snow or when snow covers a significant part of the
catchments. It is observed in practice that the unit hydrograph peak obtained from heavier
rainfalls is about 25 to 50 percent higher than those obtained from the smaller rainfalls.
Therefore, the unit hydrograph from the observed floods may have to be suitably
maximized up to a limit of 50 percent depending upon the judgment of the hydrologist. In
case the unit hydrograph is derived from very large floods, then the increase may be of a
very small order; if it is derived from low floods, the increase may have to be substantial.
2.9.9 Design flood criteria for dams and other hydraulic structures
IS:5477(1971),explains that each site causes/affects the design flood in its local
conditions, and evaluation of the designer would have the discretion to vary the criteria in
special cases, where the same are justifiable on account of assessable and acceptable local
conditions and recommends the determination of design flood as discussed below:
In the design of spillways for major and medium reservoirs (with storages more than
6000 hectare-meters), the maximum probable flood should be used, which is estimated
from the maximum probable storm applying the unit hydrograph principle and is obtained
from the studies of all the storms that have occurred in the region and maximizing them for
possible moisture change and for storm efficiency. The probability method, when applied to
derive design floods for long recurrence intervals several times larger than the length of
data, has many limitations. In certain case of very large catchments and where sufficient
long term discharge data are available, the frequency method may be the only course
possible and the design flood to be adopted for major structures should have a frequency of
not less than once in 1000 years and if annual flood values of adequate length are available,
then these should be analyzed by Gumbel's method and where the data length is short,
either partial duration method or regional frequency technique should be adopted as a
tentative approach and the results be verified and checked by hydrological approaches.
According to Victorov (1971), it is very important for the hydraulic design to
determine the probability of occurrence of floods of different magnitudes at any given
location. The design flood helps determine the size and cost of the structure. Therefore, the
development of more reliable and convenient methods to compute flood frequency is the
main goal in the field of hydrology in many countries. However, the results achieved are far
24
from expected. He suggested a need for analysis of all the methods used for estimation of
design floods based on two principal methods for deciding the flood frequency:-
I. The method employing records of past floods to predict the magnitude and
frequency of occurrence of floods (frequency analysis method).
II. The method using records of past meteorological conditions to predict the future
floods.
The main advantage of frequency analysis of hydrological data, which has made this
method so popular and widely used by the engineers is its simplicity and reliability, and the
knowledge of the past hydrological data makes it possible to determine the probability of
recurrence of a hydrologic event of a given magnitude without detailed knowledge of
drainage area above the gauging station. However, this method has disadvantage which
makes its application doubtful, i.e. a short record of observed flow limits the accuracy of
influence of the wet and dry periods on the observed flood magnitudes. The other
disadvantage is the lack of sufficient information about the extremely high floods in the
observed data. Therefore, these disadvantages lead to the conclusion that this method may
not be appropriate for computing design floods of major projects. The analysis presented
also showed that the use of short records even 40 years in length for computing the
probability of occurrence of flood may lead to a major misjudgment, but the primary
advantage of the log Pearson type III method for frequency curve determination is its
mathematical objectivity, whereas the use of the graphical method of frequency curve
determination is justified when there exists a long enough record, so that only a moderate
extrapolation is needed to reach -the desired probability of occurrence.
Butler (1971) explained that the ordinary flood frequency curve; showing peak
discharge versus recurrence interval has been used for many years. On the other hand Riggs
(1961) described the basis for design flood frequency curves in the expansion of ordinary
flood frequency curve relatively simple, but time consuming. Therefore, to speedup the
process, the researcher presented and devised two simple techniques: (i) the base curve
method and (ii) the point offset method to yield design flood frequency curves with greater
facility in which the simplifications are in technique only and no simplifying assumptions
were made.
25
According to Thiruvengadachari (1977), reliable estimation of floods can not be
made if sufficiently long stream flow data are not available for analysis and the estimation
has to be made on the effective use of available hydrological information since water
resource projects can not be delayed till the data are systematically collected and the values
obtained have to be reviewed and revised when more information is collected. He also
analyzed the available flood record with historical information and derived the frequency
curve and specified the probability of exceedence associated with the earlier design flood
and concluded that the index flood at dam site is equal to the sum of index flood in the
rivers feeding the dam gauged upstream. The frequency function at the dam may be taken
as the combination of the frequency function of the rivers, weighted according to the
proportion of total flood potential at the dam contributed by each river, and the combined
weighted frequency curve seem to fit the plotted points rather well. A comparison of the
frequency curve obtained by analyzing both the recorded and historical periods indicated
that the floods are over estimated if only the current continuous record is analyzed.
Determination of exceedance probabilities of flood magnitude is of fundamental
importance in many design problems of flood control and from a sample of flood data,
specified recurrence interval floods can be estimated because these specified recurrence
interval floods are determined from a sample of all possible floods and can be expected to
vary in future and therefore, these floods are random variables whose probability density
function (pdf)depends on the density function of the sample of flood data as well as the size
of the sample Ashkar and Rousselle(1981). Their study was based on a stochastic model by
taking into account the treatment of both identically and non-identically distributed flood
exceedences. There exists a one to one correspondence between design discharge and return
period, and by fixing a value for the return period, the corresponding design discharge is
obtained, which is a random variable whose probability density function (pdf) can be
determined and the knowledge of pdf of the return period may aid the engineer to decide
the discharge on which to base the design flood specially when the sample of flood data is
small because smaller the sample size the larger the variance of the design discharge and
return period.
26
Pilgrim and Cordery (1992) mentioned that estimation of peak flows on small to
medium drainage basin is probably the most commonly used method of flood estimation as
well as being of greatest overall economic importance.
Flood discharge measurement provide the basis for hydrological tasks such as
calculation of the magnitude and return period of a design flood, but the discharge often can
not be measured directly and is usually read from a stage discharge curve derived from a
gauging station records which is often only based on calibration measurement in the low
and intermediate flow regime Rutschmann and Kinzelbach (2002). For large flood events
the curve is extrapolated and it may lead to major uncertainties in the estimation of the
flood discharge. Rutschmann and Kinzelbach (2002) developed an. inverse numerical model
to estimate flood discharge using water level and surface velocity measurement data
obtained by using particle tracking velocimetry (PTV) which is an image processing
method based on stereo-video recordings and found that the 2D Navier-Stokes inverse
model was a powerful tool for identifying the discharge and its reliability from surface
measurement and the input data could be used for extreme floods.
- Alexander (2002), provided guidelines for the users involved in the specification
and application of the hydrological aspects of the design of structure exposed to floods and
described that severe damage to civil engineering structures by flood is largely due to the
wide band of uncertainty around all estimates of the flood magnitude frequency
relationship, coupled with steep increase in flood magnitude and increase in return periods.
These uncertainties can not be accommodated in the current design flood estimation
procedures. They suggested standard design flood estimation method together with the
firmly established regional maximum flood method which can satisfactorily be used for the
design of most structures vulnerable to flood damage in South Africa and commented that a
regional approach was based on Regional flood program developed in 1990, as well as the
index flood method where the mean or median annual flood is determined by deterministic
rainfall runoff methods and the magnitude versus return period growth curves are computed
from. regional average values whereas the standard design flood analysis is also not a site
specific but is based on regional parameters with the basic philosophy which meets the
requirements of robustness, consistency, simplicity with sufficient accuracy and is a
numerically calibrated version of the rational method. The standard design flood method
27
can be applied to any catchment of size ranging from 5 square km to 38000 square km in
any part of South Africa s with the minimum skill. RDSO (2003) issued a code of practice
for the design of sub-structures and foundations of bridges and described and recommended
regarding design discharge, free board, design of waterways and depth of scour as
explained below under separate sub head respectively:
Kumar and Chatterjee (2005) indicated that the design of different types of
hydraulic structures and economic evaluation of flood protection projects etc. require
information on flood magnitudes and their frequencies. Regional flood frequency analysis
resolves the problem of estimation of extreme flood events for the catchments having short
data records or ungauged catchments, by substituting space for time data from various sites
for estimating floods of different return periods, especially for small to medium size
catchments. In India, a number of studies have been carried out for the estimation of design
floods for various structures jointly by different leading organizations like Central Water
Commission (CWC), Research Design and Standard Organization (RDSO), and Indian
Meteorological Department (IMD).These studies used the methods based on synthetic unit
hydrograph and design rainfall considering physiographic and meteorological
characteristics for estimation of design flood(CWC,1987), and regional flood frequency
studies conducted by RDSO used USGS and pooled curve methods(RDSO,1991),In Indian
frequency based methods are used for estimation of design floods for almost all types of
hydraulic structures such as small size dams, weirs, barrages, spillways etc. excluding large
and intermediate size dams. For the design of large and intermediate size dams probable
maximum floods and standard project floods are adopted respectively (NIH, 1992). They
also conducted the comparative regional flood frequency analysis employing the L-
moments based on commonly used frequency distribution for estimation of floods of
various return periods for gauged and ungauged catchments and concluded that,
for estimation of floods of various return periods for gauged catchments, either the
developed regional flood frequency relationship may be used or the mean annual peak flood
of the catchment may be multiplied by corresponding values of the growth factor, computed
by the Generalized Extreme-Value (GEV) distribution and, for estimation of floods of
desired return periods for ungauged catchments the regional flood frequency relationship
developed for ungauged catchments may be used. The regional flood frequency relationship
28
may be refined for obtaining more accurate flood frequency estimates when the data for
more gauging sites become available and catchment and physiographic characteristics other
than catchment area are also used for development of regional relationship between peak
annual flood and catchment area.
Estimation of peak flows associated with various return periods is necessary for the
design of hydraulic structures, but unfortunately for many small catchments flow data are
usually not available, and therefore, in these cases in addition to continuous simulation,
regional flood frequency analysis and the storm approach may be applied for design
purposes (Asif and Guo, 2006). The heterogeneity of small urban catchments precludes the
use of regional flood frequency analysis approach. Continuous simulations with observed
long term precipitation series and subsequent frequency analysis on the generated peak flow
series provide the most accurate estimate of peak discharge rates with various return
periods for small urban catchments where observed flow data do not exist. However, this
approach is so time consuming that in most cases of design, the design storm approach is
used in which a design storm associated with the desired return period is used as an input to
a storm water model for estimation of the storm runoff hydrograph from which the volume
of runoff and peak discharge are calculated. The design storm approach is simple and
straight forward to use and is widely used in actual engineering design and practical
calculations in spite of the problems and limitations of having a number of characteristics.
The researchers used an analytical probabilistic approach which was recently developed
with a promise of overcoming and eliminating some of the limitations and problems of the
design storm approach and concluded that peak discharges estimated by this method were
generally in good agreement with those from the design storm approach and might be an
alternative to the widely used design storm approach for peak discharge estimation.
Alexander (2002) discussed two complex issues, firstly what should be the return
period, and secondly, how should this value be decided? And that is why experienced
designer, hydrologists and national guidelines, all caution that sound engineering judgment
should be used while determining and applying the design flood, and accordingly, he
presented some of the following important caveats from design flood estimation procedures
published during the past 80 to 90 years along with review of available methods:-
29
Too much importance must not be attached to the formula, no formula is likely to be
discovered which applies to all drainage areas Lewis (1919). The maximum flood depends
on too many uncertain factors such as intensity of rainfall, size and shape of catchment and
channel and permeability of the ground surface. Midgley (1972) suggested to substantiate
the frequency-based results by the result of hydro-economic analysis of representative
cases. The first and important lesson to be learnt is that there is no single calculation
method that is better than all other methods under all the wide variety of flood magnitude
determination problems that will be encountered in practice, consequently one has to apply
own experience and knowledge to the particular problem Alexander (1990).On the basis of
these caveats, Alexander accomplished that these cautions should not be taken lightly and
the major structures should be engineered with the return period being only one of the
criteria used for the determination of the magnitude of the flood used for the design of the
structure.
2.9.10 Revisit to the Available methods
Alexander (2002) reviewed different methods used for determination of flood
frequency relationship and divided these methods into three broad categories: (i) experience
based empirical method, (ii) direct statistical analysis of observed flood maxima, and (iii)
deterministic methods in which annual maximum floods are determined from the rainfall.
(i) Empirical method
It was observed in the first decade of the 1900s that greater the size of the
catchments, greater the magnitude of flood, but that the runoff per unit area decreases with
increase in catchments size. In the Meyer's equation (1923), it was hypothesized that the
maximum flood was the product of a regional constant and the square root of the
catchment's area. The spillways of many major dams constructed during 1920-1950 in
South Africa were designed by using the Meyer's equation and the dams are still in
operation.
Kvacs (1980) developed the regional maximum flood (RMF), Francou and Rodier
(1988), updated it based on 512 flood peaks observed in South Africa and World wide since
the RMF equation had the same format as of the Meyer's equation in which the coefficient
and power values are region based, and therefore, RMF is the recommended for
determining the upper limit of design flood in South Africa.
30
(ii) Statistical Method
The Gaussian distribution which is a normal distribution is the basic and simplest
tool for flood frequency analysis. Hazen (1914) observed that the logarithms of the annual
maximum flood were approximately normally distributed. The log normal distribution
using mean and standard deviation as standard moments estimators is the back bone of
rainfall and flood magnitude frequency analysis, but when plotted on a normal probability
scale a third parameter, skewness coefficient, is included in the equation. The three
parameter log Pearson type III is obligatory for use in the USA and is the recommended
distribution in Australia. Gumbel (1941) published the first of a number of papers on the
application of the theory of extreme values of flood frequency analysis and the log Gumbel
distribution type I was used for the flood frequency analysis.In UK flood studies report
(1970), the three extreme-value distributions were combined to produce the three parameter
generalized extreme value distribution, but due to some problems, the probability weighted
moments procedure was recommended in its place. However, later the five parameter
Wakeby distribution was introduced. The UK Institute of Hydrology (1999) recommended
a generalized logistic distribution using linear moments estimators. On the basis of review
conducted, Alexander (2002) recommended that the widely used log Pearson type III
distribution for South Africa, but should be. used with caution for return periods longer than
above 30 to 50 years.
(iii) Deterministic methods
In this method, the flood magnitude- frequency relationship is derived from the
statistical properties of point rainfall and the rational method developed in 1850 is the most
widely used method internationally. Sherman (1932) developed the unit hydrograph method
which was used in the late 1960's and early 1970's for design flood estimation.
2.10 Significance of Discharge in Hydraulic Design

The discharge is one of most important and significant factor for the design of any
hydraulic structure. There exist primarily two issues that need to be resolved while
designing a structure. First, the magnitude of discharge and second, its role in deciding the
dimensions of the structure, so that it is safe. The first has been discussed at length above,
31'
and the second, is resolved based on surface flow considerations such as scour, hydraulic
jump, afflux etc.
2.10.1 Depth of scour
It is the depth of the eroded bed of the river measured from the water level for the
discharge considered. The probable maximum depth of scour for design of foundations and
training and protection works shall be estimated considering local , conditions. Wherever
possible and especially for flashy rivers and those with beds of gravel or boulders for
determining the depth of scour shall be taken in the vicinity of the site proposed for the
bridge. Such soundings are best taken during or immediately after a flood before the scour
holes have had time to silt up appreciably. In calculating design depth of scour, allowance
shall be made in the observed depth for increased scour resulting from
a) The design discharge being greater than the flood discharge observed.
b) The increase in velocity due to the constriction of waterway caused by construction
of the bridge.
c) The increase in scour in the proximity of piers and abutments.
In the case of natural channels flowing in alluvial beds where the width of waterway
provided is not less than Lacey's regime width, the normal depth or scour below the
foundation design discharge level may be estimated from Lacey's formula. Where due to
constriction of waterway, the width is less than Lacey's regime width for Q or where it is
narrow and deep as in the case of incised rivers and has sandy bed, the normal depth of
scour may be estimated by the formula.
2.10.2 Clearance
The minimum clearance for bridges excluding arch bridges, siphons, pipe culverts
and box culverts from the water level of design discharge shall be in accordance with as
shown in table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Provision of vertical clearance for different discharges
Discharge in cumecs Vertical clearance in mm
0-30 600-1200
31-300 1500
301 - 3000 600
Above 3000 1800
32
4
2.10.3 Free Board
Free board is the vertical distance between the water level corresponding to the
Design Discharge including afflux and the formation level of the approach banks or the top
level of guide banks, for example the free-board from the water level of the design
discharge to the formation level of the railway embankment or the top of guide bund shall
not be less than 1 m. In cases where heavy wave action is expected, the free-board shall be
increased suitably. Table 2.2 provides a guidelines for minimum free board according to
discharge. In special circumstances, where- the freeboard can be safely reduced and where
adoption of the prescribed values would result in heavy expenditure andlor serious
difficulties in construction.
Table-2.2 Provision of minimum free board for different discharges

Discharge (cumecs) Minimum free-board (mm)
Less than 3. 600
3 to 30 750
More than 30 No relaxation is permissible.
From the literature review presented, it is apparent that the flows have been
explored significantly for their estimation and their role in affecting different
hydrologic/hydraulic processes. A systematic study evaluating the impact of discharge on
the design of barrage, which forms to be the core theme of this study, doses not appear to
have been reported in literature. Such an analysis appears to be necessary for arriving at a
definite outcome apiary if the flow magnitude varies as the time passes. As also seen from
literature, the concept of design flood used in the design of barrage does also not restrict
from its variation due to non-availability of a robust technique for its estimation.
33
0
CHAPTER -3
GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES / GUIDELINES
The hydraulic design deals with the evaluation of hydraulic forces acting on the
structure and the determination of the configuration of the structure for the best economical
functional efficiency. For the design of hydraulic structure, it is essential to have the
knowledge of the application of various principles involved in design and their limitations.
The design of a weir or barrage, like any other hydraulic structure. consists of two phases:
(a) hydraulic design, and (b) the structural design. The hydraulic design deals with the
evaluation of the hydraulic forces acting on the structure and the determination of the
configuration of the structure for the best economic functional efficiency. The structural
design consists of dimensioning the various parts of the structure to enable it to resist safely
all the forces acting on it. This is done by the accepted norms of structural analysis and
design.
The problems involved in the hydraulic design of weirs on permeable foundations
may be treated under surface flow and ssubsurface flow consideration. By surface flow, we
obtain
I. depth of sheet piles from scour considerations;
II. level and length of the horizontal part of the downstream floor from hydraulic Jump
consideration;
III. thickness of the floor on the sloping glacis considering the hydraulic jump
formation;
IV. length and thickness of upstream and downstream loose aprons; and
V. length, shape, and free board of the guide banks.
By sub surface flow, we obtain
I. total length of impervious floor and depth and location of sheet piles;
II. exit gradient at the end of the impervious floor;
III. thickness of the downstream impervious floor considering the uplift pressure; and
IV. provision of inverted filter at the end of the floor;
34
Sheet piles are rolled steel members that are driven into the soil in straight lines at
predetermined locations below the concrete floor of the barrage and perfectly fixed to it to
serve as a cutoff and thus reduce the uplift pressure under the floor.
3.1 Fixation of Pond Level, Crest Level and Waterway

3.1.1 Pond level
The water level is required in the undersluices pocket upstream of the canal head
regulator to be maintained at a level for feeding the canal with its full supply. This water
level is the pond level. The level of the area to be irrigated and the slope of the canal
determine the full supply level of the canal at the head. The full supply level (FSL) of the
canal at the head is fixed on the longitudinal section of the canal. The pond level is obtained
by adding 1.0 to 1.2 m to the canal FSL to provide a driving head through the canal head
regulator. However, the waterway of the regulator should be sufficient to feed the canal
with half of this head, the rest being kept as a margin of reserve in case the canal silts up in
the head reaches or has to be supplied with excess water.
3.1.2 Crest levels
The crest level of the weir will be determined by the permissible afflux during the
maximum flood, the discharge intensity, and pond level. The pond level can be maintained
by a permanent masonry crest with its top at pond level or one at a lower level
supplemented by falling shutters or counterbalanced gates. A permanently raised crest will
result in a higher afflux and is also likely to result in loss of control on the river. There is an
interrelationship between the afflux, the discharge intensity or waterway and the crest level
and a suitable combination has to be evolved keeping the above described limits for each.
The downstream total energy line is the maximum flood level at the weir site before
the construction of the weir plus the velocity head at that time. Both these levels are thus
known. The allowable afflux is decided as above and is usually limited to 1.0 m. The
upstream total energy line is thus obtained as the downstream total energy line plus afflux.
Having also decided upon the waterway and hence the discharge intensity, q , the crest level
can be determined as:

q=CH 3/2 (3.1)
35
where C = 1.71 for a broad crested weir, and H = the ordinate between the upstream energy
line and the crest, or the static head + the velocity head over the crest.
3.1.3 Upstream floor level of barrage
The crest and upstream floor level is kept IS: 6966(Part-I) 1989 in the pocket of
undersluices at the normal bed level of the deep current of the rivers, as far as practicable.
The provision of such a low level for the crest and the upstream floor may not be necessary
where a high pond level has to be maintained.
3.2 Waterway
The hydraulic calculation for a barrage starts with determination of the waterway.
For shallow and meandering rivers, the minimum stable width (P) can be calculated from
Lacey's modified formula:

P=4.83Q"2 (3.2)
3
where the discharge Q is in m /s.
For rivers with very wide sections, the length of the barrage is limited to Lacey's
width multiplied by looseness factor and the balance length is blocked by tie bunds with
suitable training measures. Assuming the width of each bay to be between 18m and 20m
and pier width to be around 1.5m, the total number of bays is computed. These bays are
distributed between spillway, under-sluice and river bays. With these tentative values, the
adequacy of the water way for passing the design flood within the permissible afflux needs
to be checked. Otherwise, the waterway and crest levels will need to be readjusted in such a
way that the permissible values of afflux are not exceeded.
3.3 Discharge
The discharge through the bays of a barrage (spillway or under sluices) for an
uncontrolled condition (as during a flood discharge) is given as:

Q = CLH3i2 (3.3)
where L = clear water way (in meters), H = total head (including velocity head) over crest
in meters, and C = coefficient of discharge, which for free flow conditions may be taken as
1.705 (for broad-crested weirs/spillways) or 1.84 (for sharp-crested weirs/ spillways).
36
Generally, -a spillway or weir is considered to be broad-crested if a critical depth
occurs over its crest. However, with the general dimensions of a barrage spillway (with the
crest width generally being about 2m) and the corresponding flow depths usually
prevailing, it would mostly act like a sharp-crested spillway. Notably Undersluices and
river sluices (without a crest) would behave as broad-crested weir. The discharge be
calculated by the formula as mentioned in equation 3.3 IS: 6966(Part-I) 1989.The waterway
for a barrage is determined using the formula:
I
Q = CL[h + ha ) 312 — h,7 312 1 (3.4)
where Q=discharge passing through the barrage or weir,C=coefficient of
discharge,L=length of waterway=water head upstream over the crest, and ha head due to
velocity of approach.
Piers form the sides of the gates in a gate controlled bay. The effect of the piers is to
contract the flow, and hence, to alter the effective crest length of the spillway. The effective
length of one bay of a gated spillway may be expressed as:
L = Lo — kNHe (3.5)
where Lo = Clear span of the gate bay, between piers; k = pier contraction coefficient; N =
no. of side contractions, equal to two for each gate bay; and He Total head over the crest
including the velocity head.
3.3.1 Drowning Ratio
The drowning ratio is computed as below:
(D/s water level - crest level)

Drowning Ratio =
(U/s water level - crest level) (3.6)
3.3.2 Discharge Intensity
The discharge intensity (q) is equal to the discharge per unit length.
q= Q (3.7)
L
where Q is the design discharge and L is the overall length of waterway. The discharge
Intensity in most barrages lies between 30 to 40 cumec/m. The greater the discharge
intensity, the shorter is the length of waterway. However, high discharge intensity increases
the velocity of flow over the crest, causing greater scour. It increases the cost of protection
works and thickness of impervious floor. The safe discharge intensity depends upon the
37,
nature of river bed material. The permissible intensity of discharge is lower in alluvial
reaches than in the boulders reaches.
3.4 Underslucie
The scouring sluices or undersluices are gate controlled openings in the weir with
crests at a low level. They are located on the same side as the off taking channel. If two
canals take off on either side of the river, it would be necessary to provide undersluices on
either side. The usual functions of the undersluices or scouring sluices are to
a) preserve a clear and well defined river channel approaching the canal head
regulator,
b) scour silt deposited in front of canal regulator and control entry into the canal,
c) facilitate working of barrage crests gates or weir shutters,
d) pass winter floods without dropping the weir shutters or raising the barrage
gates, and
e) lower the highest flood level by providing greater discharge per meter length
than the weir.
These low-crested bays may be provided on only one flank or on both flanks of the
river depending on whether canals are taking-off from one or both sides. The width of the
undersluice portion is determined on the basis of the following considerations:
i. It should be capable of passing at least double the canal discharge to ensure
good scouring capacity
ii. It should be capable of passing about 10 to 20 percent of the maximum flood
discharge at high floods
iii. It should be wide enough to keep the approach velocities sufficiently lower
than critical velocities to ensure maximum settling of suspended silt load.
Undersluices are often integrated with RCC tunnels or barrels, called silt excluders,
extending up to the width of the canal head regulator. These tunnels are provided in order to
carry the heavier silt from a distance upstream and discharge it on the downstream,
allowing relatively clear water to flow above from which the canal head regulator draw its
share of water. The width of the undersluices portion be also determined on the basis of the
following considerations IS: 6966(Part-I) 1989:
i. It should be capable to pass at least double the canal discharge.
ii. It should be capable to pass 10 to 20 percent of the maximum flood discharge at the
high floods.
iii. It should be wide enough to keep the approach velocities lower than critical
velocities so as to ensure maximum settling of the suspended load.
iv. Where silt excluder is provided, the width of the pocket should be determined by
the velocity required in the pocket to induce siltation.
Here it may be assumed that not less than 20% of discharge is passed through the
undersluice and remaining through the other barrage bays.
3.5 Velocity Head

The velocity head is determined as follows:
Total discharge passing down through barrage

Discharge Intensity = (3.8)
Overall waterway

Scour depth R = 1.35(g2 /f) 1/3 (3.9)

Velocity = Discharge intensity / Scour depth, V = q / R (3.10)

Velocity Head = V2 /2g (3.11)
3.6 Looseness Factor

The looseness factor is the ratio of the overall length of the weir to the Lacey
perimeter for the design discharge. Thus,
Looseness factor = Overal Length (3.12)
Lacey width (P)
It is calculated by dividing the actual waterway by the Lacey's waterway IS:

6966(Part I) 1989. The looseness factor for the boulder reach of the river varies between
0.45 and 1.00, and that for the alluvial reach between 1.00 to 1.45.IS: 6966(1973)
recommends that for deep and confined rivers with stable banks, the overall waterway,
including the thickness of piers, should be approximately equal to the actual width of the
river at the design flood discharge. For shallow and meandering rivers, the minimum stable
width of the river should be taken as Lacey perimeter P.
39
3.7 Design for Surface Flow
Much of the profile of a weir is determined from surface flow considerations. The
length of the downstream horizontal floor, its level and hence the level of the glacis are
fixed by hydraulic jump consideration. The top width of crest is determined from practical
considerations and is of the order of 2.5 m or so. The upstream slope to the crest is kept
from 1:1 to 1:3. The only undetermined portion is the length of the upstream horizontal
floor which is fixed on the consideration of uplift pressure and exit gradient.
3.7.1 Depth of sheet piles
The upstream and downstream cut-offs of a diversion structure may be steel sheet-
piles anchored to the barrage floor by means of R.C.C. caps, or may be built of masonry or
reinforced concrete. The sheet pile cut-offs are designed as sheet pile retaining walls
anchored at the top. They are designed to resist the worst combination of forces and
movements considering possible scour on the outer side, earth pressure and surcharge due
to floor loads on the inner side, differential hydrostatic pressure computed on the basis of
the percentage of pressure of seepage below floor etc. In case the effect of cut-offs is taken
into account for resistance against forward sliding of the structure, the cut-offs are also
designed to withstand the passive pressures developed. The R.C.C. pile caps are designed to
transmit the forces and moments acting on the steel sheet piles to the barrage floor.
The upstream and downstream cutoffs should generally be provided for scours up to
1R to 1.25R and 1 25 to 1.5R, respectively, IS: 6966(Part 1)1989. Two considerations are
to be fulfilled in determination of the depth of the downstream pile line:
i. That with a suitable length of the floor, it gives a safe exit gradient under the
maximum head. This is dealt with in the treatment of subsurface flow.
ii. That its bottom is nearly at or below the level of the flood scour for that section of
the work for which the depth is being determined.
The depth of upstream pile line is determined only by the second of the above
considerations. The normal depth of scour, R, in meters, below the high flood level, for
discharge intensity, q (cumec/m) is given by Lacey's equation (3.9)
The value of q. would be different for the weir and the undersluices section and should be
taken separately for each. The silt factor f in equation (3.9) can be from the Lacey's slope
equation:
f 5/3
S= 0.00030 Qi/6 (3.13)
3.7.2 Level of downstream horizontal floor

The level of the downstream floor is determined by the consideration that the
hydraulic jump should not form lower than the toe of the glacis. Consider that the water is
passing over the crest of the work with certain head, then the discharge intensity, q,
(cumec/m) on the crest can be determined by the discharge formula for the crest,
q=CH 3/2 (3.14)
where C=1.71 for a broad crest and H = head measured from the total energy line to the
crest (m).
3.7.3 Length of downstream horizontal floor

For the safety of the structure, it is necessary that the jump should on no account
form lower than the glacis. It is essential that the main disturbance of the hydraulic jump
dies out at a distance equal to five times the jump height. In order that the filter area and the
stone protection be free from the main turbulence of the hydraulic jump, the length of the
horizontal floor should nearly be equal to 5(D2 — DI), from the jump location. The
maximum value of (D2 -DI) which will occur during high flood conditions should be used.
3.7.4 Impervious floor
Generally, there are two types of floors, the first being called as gravity type and the
second as the raft type. In the former, the uplift pressure is balanced by the self- weight of
the floor only considering unit length of the floor, whereas the latter considers the uplift
pressure to be balanced not only by the floor but also the piers and other superimposed dead
loads considering a span as a unit. Contemporary designs of barrages have also used the
raft- type.
The thickness of the impervious floor should be adequate to counter-balance the
uplift pressure at the point under consideration. The thickness of the downstream floor
(cistern) should also be checked under hydraulic jump conditions, in which the net vertical
upward force on the floor is computed from the difference of the vertical uplift due to sub-
NU
surface flow and the weight of water column at any point from above due to the flowing
water.
The gravity type floor is provided where the uplift pressure is balanced by the self
weight of the floor. The hydraulic design of the impervious floor shall confirm to IS: 6966-
(1973) whereas the hydraulic design of the stilling basin which is also a part of the floor
shall confirm to IS: 4997-(1968).
3.8 Total Floor Length and Exit Gradient

A standard form consisting of floor of length b with a vertical cutoff of depth d, the
exit gradient, GE, at its downstream end is given by the equation:
G E d 7c (3.15)
j-
where H = applied static head and X.= a function of b/d.The critical gradient for a soil is
given by (1-n) (G-1), where,il=porosity, and G= specific gravity of the soil.The value of
critical gradient is very nearly equal to unity for average soils. The exit gradient should be
lower than the critical gradient to provide a margin of safety. The critical value of 1/1
would be theoretically impossible to occur, as even a small depression of the floor would
lower the gradient below this value, e.g. the exit gradient for a 50 m long floor for a head of
6 m is 1/3 for 0.60 m depression and 2/3 for a 0.3 m depression. It is obvious from that if
d=0, GE is infinite. It is therefore, essential that a vertical cut-off should be provided at the
downstream end of the floor. To safeguard against piping, the exit gradient must not be
allowed to exceed a certain safe limit for different soils. The uplift pressures must be kept
as low as possible consistent with the safety at, the exit to keep the floor thickness to the
minimum.
3.9 Floor Thickness

3.9.1 Design of glacis thickness for uplift pressure in the jump
As the hydraulic jump travels over the glacis for different discharge intensities, it is
necessary to determine the maximum uplift pressure on each section for all discharge
conditions and design it for the same. Once the maximum uplift pressure is obtained, the
thickness of the glacis floor is given by:
'
t = (h -t) (3.16)
(G —1)
42
where (h'-t) = ordinate measured from the hydraulic gradient line to the top of the floor and
(G- 1) = submerged specific gravity of the floor material. The maximum unbalanced head
for the flow under two conditions, i.e. maximum flow condition and pond flow condition is
computed and accordingly the thickness for the glacis shall be designed for this 2/3rd the
maximum unbalanced head.
3.10 Energy Dissipation

There are many designs of the appurtenant structures recommended for different
Froude numbers of flow over the spillway and downstream tail water level IS: 4997-(1968).
As such, the Type1 Indian Standard stilling basin, which is recommended for inflow Froude
number less than 4.5, is suitable for the design of cisterns of barrages. As per clause 17.10
of IS: 6966(Part 1)1989, The hydraulic jump type stilling basin be designed in accordance
with IS: 4997-1968, in which the Froude number is less than 4.50 and therefore the
horizontal apron is adopted and following blocks are provided as energy dissipaters:
i. Chute Blocks: Triangular blocks are installed at upstream end of the stilling basin,
with dimensions in terms of pre jump depth as: width of chute block = 2.5D1, height
of chute block = 2 Di, spacing between two consecutive blocks = 2.5 D1
ii. Basin Blocks: These blocks are installed on the basin floor between chute blocks
and end sill. However, for the barrages with low Froude number, basin blocks need
not to be provided.
iii. End Sill: It is a solid or dentated wall constructed at the down stream end of the
stilling basin, with dimensions in terms of post jump depth as follows, Width =
0.15D2, top width = 0.02D2, and height = 0.02D2
3.11 Protection Works

3.11.1 Upstream block protection
Just beyond the upstream impervious floor, pervious protection comprising of
cement concrete blocks of adequate size laid over loose stone is provided. The cement
concrete blocks of size around 1.5m x 1.5m x 0.9m are generally used for barrages in
alluvial rivers. The length of the upstream block protection may be kept equal to a length
D, that is, the design depth of scour below the floor level. In the upstream portion beyond
43. .
impervious floor cement concrete blocks are provided over loose stones in a length equal to
depth of scour IS: 6966(Part I) (1989).
3.11.2 Downstream block protection
Pervious block protection is provided just beyond the downstream impervious floor.
It comprises of cement concrete blocks of size 1.5m x 1.5m x 0.9m laid with gaps of 75mm
width and packed with gravel. The downstream block protection is laid on a graded
inverted filter designed to prevent the uplift of fine sand particles upwards due to seepage
forces. In the downstream portion beyond impervious floor,cement concrete blocks are laid
over inverted filter in a length equal to 1.5D with 75mm gaps between CC blocks and shall
be filled with gravel and porous concrete.
The graded inverted filter should roughly confirm to the criteria as IS: 8237-1985:

d15of filter d15of filter (3.17)
>_4>_
d15of foundation d85of foundation
where d15 and d85 represent grain sizes, d is the size such that x% of the soil grains are
smaller than that particle size, x may be 15 or 85 percent.The filter may be provided in two
or more layers. The grain size curves of the filter layers and the base material should be
nearly parallel.
3.11.3 Loose stone protection
Beyond the block protection on the upstream and downstream of a barrage located
on alluvial foundation, a layer of loose boulders or stone is laid following, per IS: 8237-
(1985). The boulder size should be at least -300 mm and should not weigh less than 40kg.
This layer of boulders is expected to fall below at an angle, or launch, when the riverbed
downstream starts getting scoured at the commencement of a heavy flood. The length of
river bed that is protected with loose stone blocks is kept around 1.5D to 2.5D, where D is
the depth of scour below average riverbed. It is noted that the loose stone protection shall
have to be laid not only downstream of the barrage floor, but all along the base of guide
bunds, flank walls, abutment walls, divide walls, under sluice tunnels.
3.12 Canal Head Regulator
The head regulator serves to (a) regulate the supply of water in the canal and (b)
control the entry of silt into the canal. It is normally aligned between 900 and 1100 with
respect to the axis of the weir or barrage. The regulation is done by means of gates. The old
head regulators used to have a number of small span gates operated manually by winches.
However, the modem trend is to provide steel gates of spans ranging from 6 to 10 m and
operated by electric winches. The height of the gates is determined by the difference in the
crest level and the pond level. To check the flood water from entering the canal, a breast
wall between the pond level and the high flood level is provided.
The silt entering the canal is controlled by keeping the crest of the head regulator
about 1 to 1.5 m higher than the crest of the undersluices. If a silt excluder is provided, it is
necessary to further raise the Crest of the head regulator by a minimum of 0.75 m. Head
regulators are generally provided with a very wide and shallow waterway and the drowned
weir formula:
312
Q = 0.667LC1 (2g)[(H+h,,) —h a312 ]+LC2d [2g(H+ha )] (3.18)
where CI and C2 = numerical coefficients whose values may be taken as 0.577 and 0.80,
respectively; H = difference of upstream and downstream water levels (m);ha = head due to
velocity of approach (m);L = clear length of waterway (m); and d = depth of downstream
water level above the crest (m).
Sometimes, the waterway at the head regulator is kept more than the width of the
canal. In such cases the crest level is changed so as to keep the waterway equal to the width
of the canal. If it is not possible, then the adopted waterway is provided with flared wall in
the downstream of the regulator to join the canal width. The same principles of design as
applicable to the weir are used to determine the total length and thickness of floor and
protection works. Usually, the most critical condition of uplift pressure occurs when high
flood is passing down the weir and the canal gates are closed.
3.13 Divide Wall or Groyne

It is a wall separating the undersluices and the weir or barrage bays and extends a
little upstream of the canal regulator and in the downstream, up - to the end of loose
protection of the undersluices. Normally, it is a concrete or masonry structure with a top
45
width of 1.5-3 m, and aligned at right angles to the axis of the weir. The main functions of
the divide wall are to
a) separate the floor of undersluices which is at a lower level than the weir proper,
b) separate the pockets upstream of the canal head regulator to facilitate scouring
operations,
c) prevent the formation of cross currents to avoid their damaging effects.
Additional divide walls are sometimes provided for this purpose, these walls are
likely to be subjected to maximum differential pressure when the full discharge of the river
passes through the undersluices, and no discharge through the weir. In this condition there
will be difference in the water level on the two sides. Also, there may exist difference in silt
pressures on the two sides. The discharge passing down the undersluices may flush off the
silt. The values of differential pressure are taken arbitrarily (say, 1 m) for water heads and
about 2 m for silt pressure. These walls are founded on wells closely spaced beyond the
pucca floor up to the end. The design of the divide wall shall confirm to IS: 11130(1984),
and the position and the length of the divide wall may be fixed as laid down in 3.7 of IS:
7720(1975).
3.14 Piers and Abutments

In barrages, piers are provided at an interval of 10-20m. The piers support bridge
decking and provide working platform for the operation of gates. Therefore, the length of
the pier should be such that it accommodates the above two structures. The piers have to
resist pressure of water standing against the gate. They should, therefore, be designed so
that each pier is able to take up full load coming from the bridge and the operating platform
and also the hydrostatic pressures in one span. The piers should be sufficiently wide to
accommodate the operating gear on top and also leave sufficient intervening masonry to
hold firmly the bolts securing the channels for grooves in which the gate moves.
The piers are constructed in masonry or concrete of grade MIO/M15 and are slightly
reinforced to resist the forces of water to which they are subjected. The mix of concrete in
the zone of gate grooves and stop log grooves should be kept richer preferably M20 or M25
grade to safeguard against necking of pier in this region and also to bear the impact of gate
wheels with liberal provision of reinforcement. Piers should be provided with separate
foundations. A continuous rubber and /or copper seal is provided between the pier
foundation and the gravity floor to ensure water tightness.
The piers are designed as per clause 5.4 of IS: 11130(1984) in case of gravity type
floors and proper water tight joints and sealing arrangements between floor and pier shall
be provided. In case of gravity type floor, the length of pier may, however, be restricted
according to the minimum requirement from considerations of road, rail bridges, hoist
bridge, gate grooves, stop log grooves and the thickness of pier for reinforced concrete
structures generally varies from 1.5 to 2.5 m. The height of the pier on the upstream side
shall generally be provided above the pond level affluxed HFL with adequate free board.
Abutments are usually gravity section and founded either on separate open
foundations or on wells packed closely in either direction. In case of high abutments, a
better alternative may be to provide a counter-fort type structure on open foundation. To
safeguard against differential settlement, portions of the abutment with differential loading
are separated and sectionalized by 13 m deep sheet piles. The abutments are generally
designed as retaining walls separated from the main floor.
As a precautionary measure, to safeguard against abrasion, the abutments and piers
at the face are provided with rich concrete mix of grade M20 laid in 150 to 200 mm
thickness when a barrage is constructed in alluvium. However, in boulder stage, the face
concrete is often protected with granite sets.
3.15 Fish Ladder

A fish ladder is generally provided to enable the fish ascend the head waters of the
river, and thus, reach their spawning grounds for breeding or to follow their migratory
habits in search of food. The general requirements of a fish ladder are as follows:
a) The slope of the fish ladder should not be steeper than 1:10 to ensure a current of
velocity not exceeding 2 m/s in any portion of the fish way.
b) The compartments of bays of the pass must be of such dimensions that the fish do
not risk collision with the sides and upper end of each bay when ascending.
c) Plenty of light should be admitted into the fish way.
d) The water supply should be ample at all times.
e) The top and sides of a fish way should be above ordinary high water level.
47.
Fish ladders are generally located adjacent to the divide wall near the undersluices because
there is always some water in the river section below them.
3.16 Gates and Hoisting Arrangement

Normally vertical lift gates, either stony pattern or fixed wheel type, may be
provided. The latter are now a days considered as good as the stony-pattern without being
much complicated. Where the height of gates exceeds 10.0 m, it will be better to provide
the gates in two tiers or provide radial or tainter gates which may be more economical. The
vertical lift gates may be more economical. The vertical lift gates are generally provided
with counter weights of double capacity to shorten the height of working platform. The
gates in their raised position should have ample margin over the high flood level to allow
floating logs and trees to pass through. In this respect, it would be better to draw the profile
of water level through the barrage and see that about 1.0 to 1.5 m of margin is allowed. The
gate should be designed for closing under its own weight and to achieve the same, the
downward forces closing the gate while lowering should be at least 20 percent higher than
the frictional forces opposing the downward motion. The necessary closing/seating load
shall be obtained, when the gate is about to seat on the bottom seal. The values of
closing/seating load should be greater than 2500 N/m length of gates for fixed wheel gates
and radial gates of the barrage.
The hoisting arrangement is provided for the operation of the gates. The hoisting
arrangement is designed confirming to IS: 6938(1973). To be able to operate the gates
during the periods of electric power breakdown,, the hoisting machinery should be designed
both for electric and manual operation. To economies the number of motors necessary for
the operation of gates, one motor can be installed for every two spans and gearing be so
arranged that either of the gate can be lifted.
3.17 Working Platform

The hoisting arrangement is mounted on the working platform. The working
platform is constructed either by extending the masonry or concrete piers to the full height
or partly constructed in masonry and partly being a steel structure. The level of the working
platform should be such that the gates in their raised position will not touch the bottom
level of the platform. If `x' is the difference of.level between the crest of the undersluices
and the bottom of the gate in raised position, i.e. it is the travel of the gates then the travel
of the counterweights will be equal to '/z x. The top of the platform should then be 1 '/2 x+
about 3.0 m above the crest to allow for pulleys etc. and the depth of the platform.
3.18 Design Steps

The design of barrage is similar for the undersluice section and the weir bay section,
except the crest level, which are different for the two portions. It can be summarized as
under:
I. Fix the discharge over the weir bay and undersluice bay section.
II. Fix the crest levels of the undersluice and barrage bay portion. The crest of the
undersluice is generally kept flush with the upstream floor and the slope of the
downstream glacis is usually kept between 3:1 and 5:1, where as in the case of
barrage bay as the crest is higher than the bed level, an upstream glacis is provided
with a slope of 1:1 to 3:1. The top width of the crest is kept about 2.0 m.
III. Fix the waterways for the undersluice and barrage bay, so that the each can pass the
requisite discharge as decided.
IV. Determine the characteristics of the hydraulic jump for the high flood condition and
the pond level conditions with, no flow concentration and retrogression and also with
flow concentration and retrogression.
V. Calculate the depth of scour and scour depth and determine the bottom levels of the
upstream and downstream cutoffs.
VI. Find the total floor length of the impervious floor from the exit gradient consideration
and accordingly fix the lengths and levels of the upstream and downstream floors. The
downstream floor level is fixed below the point at which the jump is allowed to form.
VII. Calculate the percentage uplift pressure at the key points of cutoffs by Khosla's theory
to draw the subsoil hydraulic gradient line for no flow condition, high flood and pond
level condition, with and without flow concentration and retrogression.
VIII. Determine the uplift pressure- at various points from the subsoil HGL for no flow
condition and also the suction pressure at the jump trough for the high flood and pond
level condition. The suction pressure is reduced to two thirds.
IX. Calculate the thickness of the floor at various points for the maximum of the uplift
obtained in the three conditions.
X. Provide designed concrete block protection on the upstream and downstream sides.
XI. Provide launching aprons of designed dimensions on the upstream and downstream
sides.
3.19 Development of Computer Software
The design of hydraulic structure is not exclusively determinable and there is no
closed form solution. The design process is iterative in character and the decision on design
parameters is heuristic. The hydraulic structure has number of components and the
dimensions of a structure are generally controlled by the site condition, hydrologic and
hydraulic parameters which usually changes from site to site, therefore, any standard design
is not possible. The software development incorporating all the processes of designing any
hydraulic structure is therefore required to enhance the creativity potential of the designer
by enabling him to execute and evaluate all possible design alternatives before arriving at
the final decision. An efficient computer software package for the hydraulic design of
barrage enables the designer to avoid tedious hand computations, to explore various options
for the safe and economic design and at the same time leading to better judgment by
allowing analysis over a much wider range. It will certainly act as a confidence generating
exercise for the designer and field engineer by ascertaining the best alternative design as per
prevailing site conditions. The performance of preliminary design on the basis of chosen
parameters could be done and checked for safety and functional performance.
A hydraulic structure like barrage or weir is a physical system and should therefore
be involved for serving the functional goals. Physical design comprises of physical
dimensions where as functional design includes verification of the physical system
performance specified by the designer. The physical design consist of dimensions of
various components, such as, waterway for the undersluice and other barragebay section,
crest level of undesluice and barragebay section, bottom elevations of upstream and
downstream cutoffs etc. on the other hand the functional design will ensure that the total
design capacity exceeds the design discharge, looseness factor is with in the specified limits
and the specifications laid down in the Indian Standard Code are satisfied in addition to
other considerations as per the site conditions. The subsystem wise physical and functional
goal for the hydraulic design of a barrage with the use of computer software is shown in
Table 3.1.
I Table 3.1 Physical and Functional Goal for the Hydraulic Design of Barrage
Sub Functional Design Physical Design
system
Waterway • Total discharge capacity exceeds • Total number of bays and total
Design the design discharge waterway
• Undersluices design discharge • Number of undersluices bays and
exceeds the specified percentage its waterway
• Looseness factor within the • Number of spillway bays and its
specified limits waterway
• Design specifications of IS:6966- • Crest level spillway portion
(Part 1)-1989 • HFL inclusive of afflux on u/s side
(Surface • Hydraulic jump forms on the DS • Cistern invert elevation

Flow) glacis for all operating conditions • d/s floor length
Floor • d/s floor length adequate to contain • Bottom elevations of u/s and d/s cut
Design the length of hydraulic jump for offs
all operating condition, • Combination of total floor length
• Design specifications of IS: 6966- and d/s cutoff depth to satisfy safe
1989 is specified. exit gradient criterion
• Total floor length
■ Floor thickness of • Floor thickness

(Subsurface undersluices/head regulator floor • Plots designed floor profile at
-Flow) is safe against uplift, unbalanced chosen scale
Floor head and earthquake • Plots flow profiles for any
Design operational conditions at any
chosen scale
Protection ■ Through visual examination of • Plan layout of guide bunds

Design flow profiles designer can • Length of apron and quantity of
ascertain if hydraulic jump is stones in the apron at various
being formed at the right place or locations
not. • Length of block protection, length
of apron and the quantity of stones
in the apron at various locations
along at various locations along
divide wall.
• For undersluices/spillway floor it
gives:
• Length of u/s block protection,
length of u/s apron and quantity of
stones
• Length of d/s inverted filter
• Length of d/s block protection,
length of d/s apron and quantity
51
3.19.1 Algorithm for design of barrage:
Step1: Pond level
Crest level= pond level-Height of shutters
Step2: Calculate Head over the Crest by Using q=CH 3/2 i.e. H= (q/C) 2~3
• Level of U/S T.E.L= Crest level + H
Step 3: Regime scour depth R=1.35(g2/f)1/3
• Regime Velocity (V) =q/R
• Velocity Head= V2/2g
Step 4: Upstream H.F.L= U.S T.E.L — Velocity Head (V2/2g)
• Downstream T.E.L= H.F.L Before construction + Velocity Head (V2/2g)
• Afflux = U/S H.F.L - D/S H.F.L
• D/S H.F.L after Retrogression = H.F.L.before construction — Bed Retrogression
• D/S T.E.L after Retrogression = D/S T.E.L. — Bed Retrogression
• Loss of Head at high flood is HL= U/S T.E.L - D/S T.E.L after Retrogression
Step 5: When The Weir is discharging with pond level U/S, Head over the Crest
Step 6: Hydraulic Jump calculations
Step 7: Design of Glacis
Step 8: Depth of sheet piles
Step 9: Length of impervious floor
Step 10: Having known the profile of the glacis and the floor, the pressures at key points
are determined by assuming the preliminary thickness of the floor at various points
• Floor thickness at u/s of crest
• Floor thickness at d/s end of glacis
• Floor thickness at d/s end of floor
Step 11: Elevation of subsoil hydraulic gradient line (H.G.L) for different conditions.
Step 12: Plotting the pre jump water surface profile for the two flow conditions.
Step 13: Calculations for floor thickness
Step 14: Upstream Protection works
Step 15: Down stream protection work
52
3.19.2 Algorithm for fixation of crest level and waterways
Step 1: to determine Lacey's waterway P = 4.83
Step 2: determine overall waterway in undersluice portion by trial and error
Step 3: determine overall waterway in other barrage bay portion by trial and error
Step 4: compute overall waterway of the barrage between abutments including divide wall
thickness.
Step 5: Check whether the maximum flood can pass through the assumed waterway
Step 6: Compute q, R, Va and velocity head, upstream total energy line, Head over the
undersluice crest, Head over the other barrage bay crest.
Step 7: Compute discharge passing through under sluice portion. Q =1.705(L — 0.1nH)H 2
3
Step8: Compute discharge passing through other barrage bay portion Q = 1.84(L — 0.1 nH)H 2
Step 9: Check whether total discharge passing down the barrage is greater than high flood
discharge
Step 10: compute Looseness factor.
chart (Fig. 3.1) for the determination of discharge passed through other barrage bays
and undersluice bays and the input data required for the execution of this flowchart are
given as under:
• Total river width where other barrage bays and under sluice bays constructed.
• No. of piers above the spillways
• Thickness of piers
• Contraction co-efficient due to piers
• Contraction coefficient due to abutments
• Width of each sluiceway.
• No. of sluiceways
• Depth of sluiceways.
• Thickness of walls between sluiceways
• Bottom elevation at spillway section.
• Spillway crest elevation
• Flood discharges for different return periods
• Water surface elevations at the block protection
53:
Start
Input data
Assume K=Ks
Other barragebay discharge
Undersluice bays discharge
No
Q>(Qs+Qu) Increase value of K
Yes
Output: Other barrage bays discharge and

Undersluice bays discharge for different
return period flood discharges
[__ Stop__]
Fig. 3.1 Flow chart for determination of discharge of undersluice and other barragebay
The above flowchart gives the following output:

■ Flow over the Spillway for different return period flood discharges.
■ Flow through the under sluiceways for different return periods flood discharges
54
■ Upstream water surface elevations over the spillway for different return period flood
discharges
The design of energy dissipater depends on the hydraulic jump phenomenon which
occurs at the toe of the undersluice way and barragebay. The flowchart as shown in Fig.
3.2 examines the toe of barragebay and undersluice way respectively and consequently
calculations are performed for both the locations. The flowchart is capable of designing the
IS stilling basins; Type I. The input data required for above flowchart for the design of
energy dissipaters are as given below:
• Flood discharges
• Flow over the barrage way
■ Flow through the undersluice
■ Upstream water surface elevations over the barragebay for design discharge,
■ Water surface elevations at the downstream section flood discharge.
■ Bottom elevation at the downstream section.
■ Bottom elevation at barragebay section
■ Number of undersluice
• Thickness of walls between undersluice ways
• Width of each undersluice ways
■ Total river width where barrage is constructed.
The output of this flowchart program is as follows.
• Type of energy dissipater at the toe of barragebay
• Overall dimensions of energy dissipater
■ The decision on whether a common stilling basin or separate stilling basin is to be
designed.
55
Input data
u/s energy levels

Spillway or other barragebay
Undersluice ways
d/s energy levels for design d/s energy levels for design

discharge discharge
Spillway or other barragebay Sluiceway or Undersluice d/s

d/s energy dissipater different energy dissipater different
design discharge design discharge
Energy
dissipaters as
No
per the IS 4997- Terminate
1968(Type 1)
yes N yes

Design common stilling basin for Design separate stilling basins for
both barragebay and undersluice other barrgebay and undersluice
Outputs: Energy dissipater types

and corresponding dimensions
Stop
Fig. 3.2 Flow chart for the design of energy dissipater
M
CHAPTER-4
DATA REQUIREMENT AND THEIR AVAILABILITY
For the design of diversion structure certain input data are required to be known,
some are decided based on economic consideration and the remaining are derived. The data
required for investigating the effect of design flood on the design of barrage is maximum
flood discharge, maximum flood level, river cross section, and stage discharge curve for the
river at barrage site.
A diversion headwork i.e. weir or barrage is a structure constructed across a river
for the purpose of raising water level in the river, so as to divert it into the off taking canal
for irrigation or other beneficial purposes. For selecting the most suitable site and designing
a barrage, involve a number of investigations. These investigations are required for the
most economical, safe and efficient designs of the various components of the barrage.
Reconnaissance is carried out to have a general idea of the topography and the catchment
area of the river. It also includes the local enquiries to determine the high flood levels and
approximate discharge in the river. Preliminary investigations are usually conducted to
study the available rainfall and runoff data, and survey is conducted to determine the length
and height of the structure for the tentative layout.
4.1 Detailed Investigation

The detailed investigations of the most suitable site are then carried out to collect
data for the design and estimation of various components of design. The detailed
investigations include the following:
I. A detailed topographical survey is carried out to obtain the cross sections and
longitudinal section of the river, both upstream and downstream of the site.
II. Hydrological investigations are conducted to determine the design flood and for
assessing the available daily, weekly, monthly and yearly runoff.
III. Sediment studies are conducted to assess the quantity and quality of sediments
carried by the water during floods.
IV. Subsurface investigations are carried out to determine the type of strata.
57
4.2 Gauge-Discharge Curve/Stage Discharge Curve
The stage discharge curve indicates the relationship between various levels/stages of
the river and corresponding river discharges at a particular river location. Its establishment
considers the following:
a) Daily gauge and discharge data for as many years as possible for all sites existing in
the study reach is recorded. In case a site does not exist within the above reach
install new gauge/discharge sites, one at the proposed site, one at 1.5meander
length on upstream and one at 0.5 meander length in the downstream and gauge
levels at various discharges at the above sites during the first available monsoon
season should be recorded. The cross-sections of river at the new gauge discharge
sites indicates the nature of riverbed and the value of Manning's `n' is finalized;
b) Design high flood discharges with corresponding water levels;
c) Yearly HFL and corresponding discharge with dates of occurrence for the last 10
years;
d) Maximum flood on record with date of occurrence and corresponding HFL;
e) Discharge distribution in various channels of the river at important stages during
the year for which a survey plan has been supplied;
f) Proposed pond level or levels;
g) Water surface slope;
h) River discharge above which the off-taking canal/canals should be closed and all
the barrage gates fully opened due to excessive sediment charge;
In the absence of detailed data, preliminary rating curve may be prepared by
computing the discharges at different water levels using the following formula:
Q=(1/n)AR2i3 Sf "2 (4.1)
where Q = rate of flow, n = rugosity coefficient ,A = area of cross-section of flow, R =
hydraulic mean radius in m, and Sf = friction slope. The rating curve obtained from above
equation is for the existing unretrograded condition of the river. 'This rating curve is
modified to account for possible retrogression in the river after the construction of a weir or
a barrage. This is done by suitable reduction of the stages at high and low discharges; As a
result of retrogression, low stages of the river are generally affected more compared to the
maximum flood levels. Reduction of river gauge at low stage which governs the design
58
should be carefully evaluated. At the design flood, the reduction of gauges due to
retrogression may be considered to vary from 0.3 to 0.5. m depending upon whether the
river is shallow or confined during floods. For intermediate discharges, the effect of
retrogression is obtained by plotting the retrogressed high flood levels on log-log graph
with proportionate reduction of stages at intermediate discharges and by redrawing the
curve through these points.
The following data should be collected for estimating the maximum anticipated flood:
a) Daily rainfall recorded at different stations in the catchments area and data
regarding storms in respect of successive positions of the centre of the storm on the
catchments should be collected.
b) Flood hydrographs for isolated rain storms for derivation of unit hydrograph;
c) Catchment characteristics, such as shape, slope, orientation, drainage system and
infiltration capacity for developing synthetic unit hydrograph, if adequate data are
not available;
d) Peak flow data for the river for as many years as possible for frequency analysis;
e) Flood marks by local enquiry to estimate maximum flood by slope area method;
f) Daily river gauges should be observed as specified in IS 6966 (Part 1): (1989), at
the time of flow, hourly gauge should be measured for the estimation of peak flow;
and
g) For major barrages, cross sections across the river should be measured everyday
during the flow season at the site of the gauge discharge observation for correct
assessment of the gauge discharge co-relation. If there exists a gauge and discharge
site.
4.3 Discharge Over Barrage-Bay and Sluice-Bay
Before the actual design of barrage, the discharge passing over the weir bay section
and that over the undersluice section should be decided. The discharge over the
undersluice section should be a substantial portion of the total design discharge so that
small floods can be passed over the sluice section, without lifting the weir crest gates. It is
the usual practice to consider the discharge over the sluice section as about 20% of the
total discharge and the remaining as 80% discharge over the weir bay section.
59
4.4 Availability of Data
4.4.1 Dataset I
The example problem of Arora (1996) has been considered as Dataset I for the
design of undersluice . section and barrage bay section of a diversion headwork using the
following data:
i. Design flood discharge in the river = 9000 cumec
ii. Deepest bed level of the river = 200.00
iii. High flood level before construction = 206.00
iv. Full supply level of canal = 203.00
v. Permissible afflux = 1.00 m
vi. Bed retrogression = 0.50 m
vii. Discharge concentration factor = 20 %
viii. Lacey's silt factor = 1.00
ix. Safe exit gradient = 1/6
x. Pier concentration coefficient = 0.10
xi. Full supply discharge of canal = 200.0 cumec
xii. The stage discharge curve of the river (Fig. 4.1 & Table 4.1)
Table 4.1 Sta a Dischar a Data Dataset I

Si. Stage Discharge Si. Stage Discharge Si. Stage Discharge
No. (m) (cumec) No. (m) (cumec) No. (m) (cumec)
1 200.000 0 11 204.525 5000 21 206.268 10000

2 200.680 500 12 204.748 5500 22 206.392 10500
3 201.302 1000 13 204.970 6000 23 206.509 11000
4 201.850 1500 14 205.170 6500 24 206.621 11500
5 202.360 2000 15 205.372 7000 25 206.729 12000
6 202.800 2500 16 205.550 7500 26 206.832 12500
7 203.240 3000 17 205.728 8000 27 206.931 13000
8 203.605 3500 18 205.864 8500 28 207.027 13500
9 203.970 4000 19 206.000 9000 29 207.118 14000
10 204.280 4500 20 206.139 9500 30 207.207 14500
4.4.2 Dataset II
The example on the design of barrage of Varshney (1983) has been considered as
Dataset II for the complete hydraulic design of undersluice section and barrage bay section
of a diversion headwork using the following data:
i. Design flood discharge in the river = 10,000 cumec
ii. Average bed level of the river = 299.50
iv. Pond level = 303.00
xi. Stage discharge curve of the river(Fig. 4.2 & Table 4.2)
4.4.3 Dataset III
The example on the design of a barrage by Garg (1984) has been considered as
Dataset III to prepare a complete hydraulic design for the undersluice section and other
barrage bay section, data of which follow:
i. High flood discharge in the river = 8100 cumec
ii. Average bed level of the river = 257.00
iv. Pond level — 260.60
xi. The stage discharge curve for the river (Fig.4.3 & Table 4.3)
61
Table 4.2 Sta a Dischar a Data Dataset II
Discharg
Si. Stage Discharge Si. Stage Discharge Si. Stage
No. (m) (cumec) No. (m) (cumec) No. (m) e
(cumec)
1 298.00 0 18 301.39 1700 35 303.28 4500
2 298.42 100 19 301.50 1800 36 303.50 5000
3 298.84 200 20 301.58 1900 37 303.69 5500
4 299.16 300 21 301.67 2000 38 303.89 6000
5 299.41 400 22 301.75 2100 39 303.94 6130
6 299.65 500 23 301.83 2200 40 304.06 6500
7 299.85 600 24 301.91 2300 41 304.23 7000
8 300.02 700 25 301.99 2400 42 304.37 7500
9 300.22 800 26 302.08 2500 43 304.52 8000
10 300.40 900 27 302.15 2600 44 304.65 8500
11 300.53 1000 28 302.23 2700 45 304.77 8940
12 300.70 1100 29 302.48 3000 46 304.78 9000
13 300.82 1200 30 302.60 3173 47 305.00 10000
14 300.95 1300 31 302.65 3230 48 305.17 11000
15 301.06 1400 32 302.80 3500 49 305.35 12000
16 301.20 1500 33 302.93 3740 50 305.52 13000
17 301.30 1600 34 303.06 4000 51 305.68 14000
Table 4.3 Stage Dischar a Data Dataset II

Si. Stage Discharge Si. Stage Discharge Si. Stage Discharge
No. (m) (cumec) No. (m) (cumec) No. (m) (cumec)
1 256.00 0 17 260.10 2591 33 261.81 6445
2 256.38 137 18 260.29 2829 34 261.89 6729
3 256.77 293 19 260.29 2840 35 261.97 7005
4 257.14 444 20 260.43 3051 36 262.05 7296
5 257.48 594 21 260.55 3241 37 262.12 7583
6 257.77 727 22 260.65 3418 38 262.19 7971
7 258.10 891 23 260.77 3618 39 262.20 8100
8 258.36 1038 24 260.90 3882 40 262.47 9100.
9 258.56 1159 25 260.99 4096 41 262.67 10100
10 258.81 1326 26 261.07 4276 42 262.85 11100
11 259.04 1496 27 261.18 4518 43 262.91 11500
12 259.25 1657 28 261.27 4767 44 262.99 12000
13 259.42 1813 29 261.38 5068 45 263.14 13000
14 259.60 1994 30 261.48 5373 46 263.28 14000
15 259.80 2198 31 261.59 5687 47 263.41 15000
16 259.97 2424 32 261.70 6067
62
4.5 Assumed Data
The following data have been assumed for the hydraulic design of barrage:
i. The crest level of the undersluice has been fixed as average bed level or deepest bed
level of the river.
ii. The crest level of the barrage bay has been taken at 1.5, 1.1, and 1.3 m higher than
the average bed level of the river for data-set I, II and III respectively.
iii. Pond level in case of data-set I is obtained by adding a modular head of 1 m to the
full supply level of canal.
iv. Span of 16 m each for data-set I and that of 15 m for data—set II and III in case of
undersluice section.
v. Span of 12 m each in case of barrage bay for all three data-sets.
vi. Width of pier in undersluice = 2.50 m
vii. Width of pier in barrage bay = 2.00 m
viii. Fish ladder in case of data-set I only = 5.00 m
ix. Divide wall = 3.00m
x. Coefficient of discharge for broad-crested weir = 1.705
xi. Coefficient of discharge for sharp-crested weir = 1.84
xii. Depth of downstream cutoff = 1.5R
xiii. Depth of upstream cutoff = 1.25R
xiv. Length of downstream CC blocks = 1.5D
xv. Length of downstream launching apron = 1.5D
xvi. Length of upstream CC blocks = D
xvii. Length of upstream launching apron = D
xviii. Dimension of CC block = 1.60X1.60X 11.00m
Here, it is noted that this study is primarily aimed at to investigate the effect of
design discharge on various components of barrage, affecting their design. As seen from
literature review, the estimation of design discharge is greatly influenced by the judgment
of investigator/ designer. Thus, it is in order to evaluate the impact of the changes in design
flood magnitude 'on the design components of barrage, largely to help build up the
confidence of designer. Since the hydraulic design of a barrage requires tedious hand-
63
computations due to non-availability of a generalized software, Microsoft-Excel-based
programme has been developed, as shown in Appendix-A, for Dataset I and the results of
this dataset have been presented.
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
M
'--I
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
i.
O
O
O
O
O
O
~ ~ V
O
00 Ce
°u
C
o
rID O
- U °
C
O
°
' O
°
^ M
I-•I
pp O
O
C/~ N
O
T O
O
O
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O C O O O O
N N N N N N N N N
O
O
O
O
• O
O
O
• O
O
O
•N
O
O
• O
FBI
O
r/j
o
°
O
o
°
O
CE
O
ao o
.C~ o A
o
A
O
c
0
• o
t)
C
' o
' U O
~ M
o
N
T O
O
O
I—
O
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
If; It m N O Co
O O O O O O O
N N
(w) ONV)S .I AI
O
0
0
0
O
0
•0
rr _
O
O
• O
N
• O
4-0 O
O
O
O
O
e, O
O
O -
O
~ O
~ A
v °
o
b o
o
O
ci: CD
0
•
• Q o
Q o
C/~ N
T O
O
O
O O O O O O O O O
VI wl In
N N N N N N N N N
(tu) 02i .IAArd
CHAPTER-5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
It is seen from the earlier discussion that, among several other governing design input
variables, the magnitude of flow forms to be perhaps the most important design parameter.
For its determination, the concept of design flood (chapter-2) is widely used. It is however
also noticed from literature review (chapter-2) that a number of techniques varying from the
simplest to the most complicated have been suggested. Yet, none of the techniques provide a
robust solution to the problem of design flood estimation, largely due to complex behavior of
the rainfall-runoff phenomenon. Thus, the uncertainty involved in the variability of design
flood has to be handled carefully and reviewed from time to time, and its impact on the
design of barrage be evaluated, which is the theme of this study. The study provides a
systematic evaluation of the impact of design flood on various design components of the
barrage.
In the design of barrage, the quantum of flood is one of the vital and most important
considerations. Generally, the design flood discharge is adopted in different projects
according to different criteria. What is actually important in designing the barrage waterway
for ensuring free passage of flow is not the design flood discharge of a very low frequency,
but normal flood discharge of relatively high frequency. Notably, the structure should,
however, be able to pass the maximum design flood with requisite afflux. The design flood
discharge as such determines the length of waterway, discharge intensity, and scour depth.
Thus, the length of waterway is responsible for designing the depth of cutoff and upstream
and downstream protection works. An attempt has been made in this investigation to evaluate
the effect of design flood on the other governing input variables used in the design of various
components of a barrage. The components studied include
(i) Lowest level of jump formation
(ii) Length of waterway
(iii) Total floor length
(iv) Downstream floor length
(v) Downstream glacis length
(vi) Upstream floor length
(vii) Depth of sheet piles
(viii) Length of cement concrete blocks
(ix) Length of launching apron
(x) Appurtenant works, such as chute blocks, basin blocks, end sill
The effect of discharge on the above barrage elements has been investigated
employing three datasets presented in chapter 4. To avoid manual computations, a Microsoft-
Excel-based computer program was developed, as discussed and presented in chapter 3.
Appendix-A.1 presents the program for single Dataset I only and this program was employed
for trial runs taken with varying design floods. The following text presents the sensitivity of
design flood discharge to the above described elements employing only one Dataset-I
(chapter 3 and Appendix-A.1).
5.1 Effect on Lowest Level of Jump Formation

In hydraulic calculations for the design of barrage, the lowest level of jump formation
helps decide the bed level of stilling basin. It is computed as d/s total energy line. (TEL)
minus d/s specific energy (Ef2) corresponding to high flood condition. The d/s TEL. is
computed as: u/s TEL - head loss (HL). With an increase in Q, both u/s TEL and d/s TEL
would increase, maintaining HL as constant. Ef2 is a function of discharge intensity (q) and
HL. q, in turn, is a function of head above the undersluice crest level (H) and H depends on
u/s TEL which is a sum of HFL and u/s velocity head. It is of common experience that the
effect of approach velocity head is not much pronounced. For a given HL, usually fixed
apriory based on experience, as q increases, Ef2 also increases sharply. Since at high flood
levels, the normal stage-discharge curves (see chapter 4) become almost parallel to the
discharge-axis, indicating a little rise in water levels or depth of flow at very high flood
discharge values. Thus, the effect of increase in Q on u/s or d/s TELs would be of lesser
significance than that in Ef2, responsible for lowering of the lowest level of jump formation.
Thus, the resulting effect is that the lowest level of jump formation would be lowered with
increase. in Q, and vice versa.
The same trends, as described above, can be seen in Fig. 5.1 & Table 5.2 for
undersluice section and Fig. A-II.1 & Table A-Ill.1 for other barrage bay portion. It is visible
from Fig. 5.1 & Table 5.2 that as Q increases from 9000 to 12000 cumec, the lowest level of
jump formation lowers from 195.56 m to 195.33, indicating 230 mm difference, which-can
be taken to be significant considering the excavation requirements throughout the length of
waterway of the undersluice section.
5.2 Effect on the Length of Waterway

In hydraulic design of barrage, the waterway is decided from the magnitude of design
flood discharge (Q) and the head above the undersluice crest level (H) following broad-
crested weir formula (Eq.3.3) for undersluice section and sharp-crested formula for other
barrage-bay section. H depends on u/s TEL which is a sum of HFL and uls velocity head. It
is of common experience that the effect of this sum is not as pronounced as would otherwise
be of waterway length (L). It is firstly because L considered in this study is of the order of 70
m and the sum of H and approach velocity head is of the order of a few meters. Secondly, in
weir formula, L has the power of 1.0 and the said sum has the power of 0.67 in discharge
computations. Thus, the effect of L is much more pronounced than that of H. Therefore, from
Eq. (3.4), L would increase with increase in design discharge (Q), and vice versa. Such a
trend is shown in Fig. 5.2 & Table 5.3 for undersluice section and Fig.A-11.2 & Table A-III.2
for barrage-bay portion. Here, it is worth emphasizing that the results of only undersluice
section are generally discussed in this chapter as these are almost similar to those for barrage-
bay portion.
It can be seen from Fig. 5.2 that the undersluice waterway does not change with
change in design discharge (Q) from 7000 to 8000 cumec, and similar trend is seen when Q
changes from 9000 to 12000 cumec. For these ranges, the undersluice waterway lengths are
71.5 m and 90 m, respectively. The general trend however indicates a general increase in L,
as expected above. However, constancy of L between these two ranges is largely attributed to
shifting of additional discharge to barrage-bay portion while meeting the criterion of
undersluice waterway design, which states that it should be able to pass minimum 20% of the
total design discharge. In this study, 20-25% of design discharge is allowed to pass through.
undersluice section. The increase in waterway with increase in Q can be visualized with more
clarity for waterway of barrage-bay as shown in Fig. A-II.2, depicting a consistently
increasing trend with Q, from 334 m to 404 m. Thus, the effect of Q on L is quite significant.
70
5.3 Effect on Total Floor Length
The total floor length of the impervious structure of the barrage (b) consists of the
sum of downstream floor length, downstream glacis length, and upstream floor length. It is
decided from sub-surface flow considerations and is a function of maximum static head (H)
and d/s depth of cutoff (d). For a given q, as shown in Eq. 3.9, R varies directly with q which
is a function of design discharge (Q) and length of waterway (L). For a very high design
flood, the d/s depth of cutoff (d) would be more, and vice versa. From Khosla theory, it is of
common experience that as d increases, b decreases, and vice versa. Consequently, as Q
increases, d increases and b decreases, and vice versa. Fig. 5.3 & Table 5.4 and Fig. A-II.3 &
Table A-III.3 show such a relationship between design discharge and total floor length for
undersluice and barrage-bay, respectively. An increase in Q from 7000 to 12000 cumec
decreases b from 55.36 to 49.39 (i.e. a decrease by 6 m) for undersluice section. Thus, the
effect of Q on b is quite significant, and therefore, due care be taken while deciding the
design flood.
5.4 Effect on Downstream Floor Length

The d/s floor length is decided based on the hydraulic jump considerations and is
taken as 5(D2 — DI). Here, D2 and D1 are the conjugate depths. Notably, D2 depends on the
downstream specific energy (Ef2) corresponding to high flood condition, i.e. Ef2 = nDc from
Crump's method (here, n is constant), which, in turn, is a function of discharge intensity (q)
that would increase in Q for a given waterway. An increase in Ef2 would increase D2
appreciably. Thus, an increase in Q would increase D2 appreciably, but D1 relatively
insignificantly. It follows that the difference between D2 and D1 and, in turn, the d/s floor
length would increase with increase in Q. Fig. 5.4 and Table 5.4 show a similar relationship
between design discharge and downstream floor length for undersluice section and indicates
that with increase in discharge, the downstream floor length also increases almost
proportionately. An increase in Q from 7000 to 12000 cumec increases the d/s floor length
from 29.36 to 34.33 (i.e. an increase by 5 m) for undersluice section. Thus, the effect of Q on
the d/s floor length is quite significant. A similar inference can be drawn from Fig. A-II.4 and
Table A-III.3 for barrage way portion.
71'
5.5 Effect on Downstream Glacis Length
The downstream glacis length depends on the slope of the glacis assumed and the
difference between the crest level and d/s level of jump formation. Having decided the crest
level and assumed the glacis slope, the downstream glacis length would vary with the d/s
level of jump formation. Fig. 5.2 shows that the d/s level of jump formation lowers with
increase in discharge, and vice versa. Thus, an increase in design discharge would increase
the d/s glacis length. A similar increasing trend can be seen from Fig. 5.5 and Table 5.4 for
undersluice section and from Fig. A-II.5 and Table A-III.3 for barrage-bay. An increase in Q
from 7000 to 12000 cumec increases the downstream glacis length from 12.70 to 14.01 m
(i.e. an increase by 1.3 m) for undersluice section. Thus, the effect of Q on the d/s floor
length is significant, but not as much as for the total floor length and the d/s floor length.
5.6 Effect on Upstream Floor Length

The upstream floor length is the balance floor length calculated as: total floor length
(b) — (downstream floor length + downstream glacis length). The total floor length (b), as
above, is decided from sub-surface flow considerations and it is a function of maximum
static head (H) and d/s depth of cutoff (d). As explained earlier, for a given q, R varies
directly with Q. For a higher Q, the d/s depth of cutoff (d) would be more, and vice versa. As
d increases, b decreases, and vice versa. Therefore, as Q increases, d increases and b
decreases, and vice versa. However, with increase in discharge Q, the downstream floor
length increases (Fig. 5.4), and so does the downstream glacis length (Fig. 5.5). Thus, the two
variables deciding the upstream floor length increase with increase in design discharge Q,
and vice versa. Here it is noted that as Q increases by a certain extent, the total floor length
(b) and the d/s floor length (Fig. 5.3 & Table 5.4 and Fig. A-II.3 and Table A-III.3) decrease
and increase more significantly (as seen from Fig. 5.3 & Table 5.4 and Fig. A-II.3 & Table
A-III.3) than does the d/s glacis length (Fig. 5.5 & Table 5.4 and Fig. A-II.5 & Table A-
III.3). Therefore, the net effect is that the u/s floor length should decrease with increase in
design flood, Q, significantly. Fig. 5.6 & Table 5.4 for undersluice section and Fig. A-II.6 &
Table A-III.3 for barrage-bay portion exhibit such trends, - and thus, are in accordance with
the expectation. As an example, an increase in Q from 7000 to 12000 cumec decreases the
u/s floor length from 13.36 to 1.05 m (i.e. a decrease by about 12 m) for undersluice section,
72
which is quite appreciable. Here, it is noted that the u/s floor length help, reduce the sub-soil
water uplift pressures appreciably and, in turn, the thickness of the d/s impervious floor,
affecting significantly the cost of the structure. Thus, the effect of Q on the u/s floor length is
quite significant; the latter is quite sensitive to Q, and therefore, Q should be evaluated quite.
carefully.
5.7 Effect on Depth of Sheet Piles

(a) Upstream depth
The u/s sheet pile depth is determined from scour considerations. Its depth is taken as
the difference in u/s ground floor level and reduced level (RL) of the bottom elevation of u/s
sheet pile or cutoff. The last is derived from the scour depth (R) measured down from u/s
H.F.L. (= HFL before construction of barrage plus afflux). The u/s cutoff should generally be
provided to cater for scour up to I R. In this study, it is taken as 1.1 R. As described above, R
is directly related with q or, in turn, Q. Thus, as Q increases, the u/s depth of sheet pile
should increase, and vice versa. Fig. 5.7 & Table 5.5 for undersluice section and Fig. A-II.7
& Table A-III.4 for barrage-bay portion exhibit such trends, and thus, are in accordance with
the expectation. As an example, an increase in Q from 7000 to 12000 cumec increases the u/s
depth of sheet pile from 7.69 to 9.04 m (i.e. an increase by about 1.5 m) for undersluice
section, which is quite appreciable. Here, it is noted that the u/s depth of sheet pile help
reduce the sub-soil water uplift pressures appreciably and, in turn, the thickness of the d/s
impervious floor, affecting significantly the cost of the structure. Thus, the effect of Q on the
u/s depth of sheet pile is quite significant; the latter is quite sensitive to Q, and therefore, Q
should be evaluated quite carefully.
(b) Downstream depth
Similar to the computations for u/s sheet pile depth,. d/s sheet pile depth is also
determined from scour considerations. It is usually based on 1.25R below d/s HFL as
considered in this study. Fig. 5.8 & Table 5.5 for undersluice section and Fig. A-II.8 & Table
A-III.4 for barrage-bay portion exhibit such increasing trends with Q, and thus, are in
accordance with the expectation. As an example, an increase in Q from 7000 to 12000 cumec
increases the d/s depth of sheet pile from 7.77 to 9.23 m (i.e. an increase by about 1.5 m) for
undersluice section, which is quite appreciable. Here, it is noted that the d/s depth of sheet
73..
pile help affects the exit gradient more significantly than does the d/s depth of sheet pile. It
however increases the u/s sub-soil water uplift pressures appreciably and, in turn, the
thickness of the d/s impervious floor, affecting significantly the cost of the structure. The exit
gradient consideration is more crucial than the increase in u/s uplift pressures. Thus, the
effect of Q on the d/s depth of sheet pile is quite significant, and therefore, Q should be
evaluated quite carefully.
5.8 Effect on Length of Cement Concrete Blocks

(a) Upstream length
The length of cement concrete (CC) blocks as such corresponds to the scour likely to
occur. It is of common experience that the greater the scour depth, the greater the length of
CC blocks, and vice versa. It is because of its dependence on scour depth D below ground
level, which is directly related with the anticipated scour 1.5 R below u/s HFL or 2R below
d/s HFL. Since R is directly related with discharge intensity, q, and in turn, Q, the length of
CC blocks will also depend on Q. It is expected that the length should increase with increase
in Q, and vice versa. Fig. 5.9 & Table 5.6 for undersluice section and Fig. A-II.9 & Table A-
III.5 for barrage-bay portion exhibit such increasing trends with Q, and thus, are in
accordance with the expectation. As an example, an increase in Q from 7000 to 12000 cumec
increases the u/s length of CC blocks increases from 10.50 to 12.40 m (i.e. an increase by
about 1.9 m) for undersluice section, which is quite appreciable considering the total length
of waterway affecting the quantity of CC blocks. Thus, the effect of Q on the u/s the length
of CC blocks is quite significant.
(b) Downstream length
Similar to the above, the d/s length of CC blocks increases with q, and vice versa. Here, it
is noted that the CC blocks are provided to counter the sub-soil water uplift pressure at the
exit to circumvent the problem of exit gradient and, in turn, to enhance the safety of structure
against piping. Fig. 5.10 & Table 5.7 for undersluice section and Fig. A-II.10 & Table A-III.6
for barrage-bay portion exhibit the expected increasing trends with Q. For example, an
increase in Q from 7000 to 12000 cumec increases the d/s length of CC blocks increases
from 21.24 to 25.29 m (i.e. an increase by about 4 m) for undersluice section, which is quite
74
appreciable considering the total length of waterway affecting the quantity of CC blocks.
Thus, the effect of Q on the d/s length of CC blocks is quite significant.
5.9 Effect on Length of Launching Apron

(a) Upstream length
Similar to the provision of CC blocks, the length (or quantity) of launching apron also
corresponds to the scour likely to occur. The greater the scour depth, the greater the quantity
of launching apron, and vice versa, as discussed above. Alternatively, the quantity should
increase with increase in Q, and vice versa. Fig. 5.11 & Table 5.6 for undersluice section and
Fig. A-II.11 & Table A-III.5 for barrage-bay portion exhibit the expected increasing trends
with Q. For example, an increase in Q from 7000 to 12000 cumec increases the u/s length of
launching apron increases from 16.87 to 19.92 m (i.e. an increase by about 3 m) for
undersluice section, which is quite significant considering the total length of waterway
affecting the quantity of u/s launching apron. Thus, the effect of Q on the quantity of u/s
launching apron is quite significant.
(b) Downstream length
Similar to the above, the greater the Q, the greater the quantity of d/s launching apron,
and vice versa. Fig. 5.12 & Table 5.7 for undersluice section and Fig. A-II.12 & Table A-
I1I.6 for barrage-bay portion exhibit the expected increasing trends with Q. As an example,
an increase in Q from 7000 to 12000 cumec increases the d/s length of launching apron
increases from 20.09 to 23.90 m (i.e. an increase by about 4 m) for undersluice section,
which is quite significant considering the total length of waterway affecting the quantity of
d/s launching apron. Thus, the effect of Q on the quantity of d/s launching apron is quite
significant.
5.10 Effect on Appurtenant Works, such as Chute Blocks, Basin Blocks, End Sill
The appurtenant works of the downstream floor (or stilling basin) are provided for
mitigation of excessive energy in hydraulic jump formation, as the supercritical flow changes
to sub-critical flow. IS 4997 (1968) recommends the employment of four types of stilling
basins under difference circumstances, largely dependent on inflow Froude number (F1). In
barrages, Fl is usually less than 4.5, and therefore, Type-I is recommended and considered in
75
this study. The appurtenant works of stilling basin include the works such as chute blocks,
basin blocks, and dentate end sill. The chute blocks as such dissipate energy by breaking the
sheet of supercritical flow. The basin blocks enhance the friction as well as bear the impact
of flow. Therefore, these are also known as friction blocks. The dentate end sill mitigates the
flow energy by raising the water level.
The dimensions (length, width and height) of chute blocks depend largely on pre jump
depth DI, which is a function of discharge intensity, q, and, in turn, Q. The larger the Q, the
larger would be D1, and vice versa. Thus, the dimension (or, in turn, the quantity) of chute
block would increase with increase in Q. The changes in dimensions with increase in Q from
7000 to 12000 cumec are shown in Table 5.8. Notably, the changes in dimensions would be
appreciable in volumetric terms or quantitative terms.
Similar to the above, the dimensions (length, width and height) of basin blocks
depend on pre jump depth D1 and F1, which is a function of discharge intensity, q, and, in
turn, Q. The larger the Q, the larger would be D, and the lesser the F1, and vice versa. Thus,
the dimension (or, in turn, the quantity) of basin blocks would increase with increase in Q.
The changes in dimensions with increase in Q from 7000 to 12000 cumec are shown in Table
5.10. Notably, the changes in dimensions would be appreciable in volumetric terms or
quantitative terms.
The dimensions (length, width and height) of the dentate sill depend on post jump
depth D2, which depends on Eft increasing with Q. Thus, as Q increases, D2 will increases,
and therefore, the dimensions of dentate sill will increase. The changes in dimensions with
increase in Q from 7000 to 12000 cumec are shown in Table 5.9. Notably, the changes in
dimensions would be appreciable in volumetric terms or quantitative terms.
5.11 Comparison between Barrage Designs with and without Additional Factor of
Safety
Table 5.1 compares the designs prepared with and without additional factor of safety
provided by rounding-off the intermediate values in favour of structure's safety, called here
as additional factor of safety. It is seen from the table that the provision of additional factor
of safety does generally affect the barrage component's dimension/design, but only
marginally. Thus, the inference in general is that the current practice of providing additional
76
factor of safety actually favours the structure's safety and does not affect much the other
barrage components in design.
Table-5.1 Comparison between designs with and without additional factor of safety
(Dataset I)
Si. Theoretical Practical
Description
No. Design Design
Undersluice section Unit
1) Total span 90.00 90.00 m
2) Looseness factor 0.970 1.00
3) Average discharge intensity(q) 20.179 20.18 Cumec/m
4) Normal scour depth from Lacey's formula 10.006 10.00 m
5) Velocity of approach 2.017 2.02 m/s
6) Lowest level of hydraulic Jump formation 195.564 195.61 m
7) Downstream horizontal floor level 195.564 195.00 m
8) Length of horizontal floor 31.675 31.00 m
9) Downstream glacis length 13.309 13.50 m
10) Upstream floor length 7.924 8.50 m
11) Total floor length 52.908 53.00 m
12) Upstream sheet pile bottom elevation 191.733 191.80 m
13) Upstream sheet pile depth 8.267 8.20 m
14) Downstream pile bottom elevation 187.180 187.00 m
15) Downstream sheet pile depth 8.384 8..50 m
16) Upstream length of CC blocks 11.320 11.60 m
17) Upstream length of launching apron(1.5D) 18.193 16.70 m
18) Downstream length of inverted filter 21.736 21.75 m
19) Downstream length of CC blocks 22.995 22.00 in
20) D/S length of launching apron(1.5D) 21.736 22.00 m
Barragebay section
1) Total span 348 348 m
77 -'
2) Lowest level of hydraulic Jump 197.159 197.16 m
3) Downstream horizontal floor level 197.159 197.00 m
4) Length of Horizontal floor 27.235 28 m
5) Downstream glacis length 13.022 13.50 m
6) Upstream glacis length with 1:1 slope 1.500 1.5 m
7) Upstream floor length 2.697 5.00 m
8) Total floor length 46.454 50.00 m
9) Upstream sheet pile bottom elevation 194.710 194.50 m
10) Upstream sheet pile depth 5.290 5.50 m
11) Downstream pile bottom elevation 190.753 190.50 m
12) Downstream sheet pile depth 6.407 6.50 m
13) Upstream length of CC blocks 11.621 11.60 m
14) Upstream length of launching apron(1.5D) 11.621 11.60 m
15) Downstream length of inverted filter 17.946 16.77 m
16) Downstream length of CC blocks 17.946 - 16.80 m
17) D/s length of launching apron(1.5D) 16.984 16.80 m
78
Fig.5.1 Discharge V/S Lowest Level of Jump

195.8 Formadon(Undersluwice)
195.7
E
c
0
195.6
42
a
195.5
w
0
y 195.4
0
J
195.3
} Discharge V/S Lowest Level of Jump Formation(UndersIuice)"

195.2
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
Discharge(ctmec)
79
Fig. 5.3 Discharge V/S Total Floor Length (Undeisluice)
56
55
54
E
a 53
e
52
51
50
Discharge V/S total for le ngtl~tJndershie)

49
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge (cumec)
Fig.5.4 Discharge V/S Downstream Floor Length (Undeisluice)
35
34
33
32
G
31
30
-+— Discharge V/S d/s floor le

24
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
12000
Discharge (cunice)
Fig.5.5 Discharge V/S Downstream Glacis length (under dersluice)
14.5
14
E
a_
DJ
d 13.5
ea
OD
13
—.— Discharge V/S d/s glacis length

12.5
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
11000 12000
Discharge (cumec)
Fig.5.6 Discharge V/S Upstream Floor Length (Undersluice)
14
12
10
E
a 8
in
e
t Discharge V/S u/s floor length

0
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
12000
Discharge (cumec)
81
Fig.5.7 Discharge V/S Upstream Depth of Cutoff(Undersluice)
17
15
13
C-
' 11
9 t V/S depth ofculofl(1.25R)

ischarge V/S depth of euloil(d)
7
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge (cumec)
Fig.5.8 Discharge V/S Downstream Depth of Cutoff (Undersluice)
21
19
17
15
13
11
Discharge V/S d/s depth of cutofl(1.5R)

9 —'— Discharge V/S depth of cotofl(d)
7
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge (cumec)
82
Fig.5.9 Discharge V/S Upstream Length of CC Blocks (Undersluice)
13
12.5
E
12
O
11.5
11
10.5
- Discharge V/S u/s Iength ofCC blocks

10
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
11000 12000
Discharge (cumec)
Fig.5.10 Discharge V/S Downstream Length of CC Blocks (Undersluice)
26
25
24
U
0
23
22
-+— Discharge V/S d/s length ofCC blocks

21
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
12000
Discharge (cumec)
83
Fig.5.9 Discharge V/S Upstream Length of CC Blocks (Undeisluice)
13
12.5
E
12
U
11.5
en
11
10.5
t Discharge V/S u/s length of CC blocks

10
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
12000
Discharge (cumec)
Fig.5.10 Discharge V/S Downstream Length of CC Blocks (Undeisluice)
26
25
o 24
U
U
0
23
PC
22
Discharge V/S d/s length of CC blocks

21
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge (cumec)
83
Fig.5.11 Discharge V/S Upstream Length of Launching Apron
(Undetsluice)
20
1
19.5
19
18.5
7 18
17.5
7 17
16.5
—o— Discharge V/S u/s length of launching apron

16
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge (cumec)
Fig.5.12 Discharge V/S DownnstreamLength of Launching Apron

(Undersluice)
24
23
0 22
O
OL
21
—*— Discharge V/S d/s length of launching apron

20
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge (cumec)
Table 5.2 With Change in Discharge(cumec) Change in Lowest level of jump formation
(m) for Undersluice
Lowest % Change
% Change level In
Si. Discharge
in of Lowest level
No. cumec
discharge jump formation of
(m) jump formation
1 7000 -22 195.77 0.1
2 8000 -11 195.65 0.0
3 9000 0 195.56 0.0
4 10000 11 195.48 0.0
5 11000 22 195.40 -0.1
6 12000 33 195.33 -0.1
Table 5.3 With Change in Discharge(cumec) Change in Total Length of Undersluiceway

(m)
% Change
Total
Change in
Discharge cumec In Total Length
No. of undersluiceway
ceway
discharge (m) of
undersluiceway
1 7000 -22 71.50 -21

2 8000 -11 71.50 -21
3 9000 0 90.00 0
4 10000 11 90.00 0
5 11000 22 90.00 0
6 12000 33 90.00 0
85
O j N p M 110 00
9-
^ \O 00 N M O ~
O, ^ l— O 00 O l-
O p~ M ~. NO1 N O O
te
—i G) v 00 00 00 00 C
U M U
V
U ^
O A Wn N O N '~h to
a B " O
O s. O 00 ch O
U V) b~
0 4-,
0 ^ 00 N rn oo M
E ~~j ~jj ^ [— O r Oo O
~O ~ Q0 00 01 O
Q ' ' ' b N -. -+ - .
i. -~ - •-- •-- •--c •-- •
--+ N
.S~ M M M O rn V •--
O 00
O ' 0 ^ M CO \O "o Vl M O LN 00 d
o o;o — NM [~ 06 06 o6 o0 C1
- N M M M M M rID
8 o~ ~
o 0
-~
::::!
ci
rID
'.D •
— r- M N r-
A Cd~ o
►s+
ff^ "C O'
M• --~ rn N
v»O ON
M '' O 00 N 00 M l'
0 O (fl M N -
- O O~ 11 O
U — — - — - — ~
O ~ b
Cl U
bn
U U
'd
aq
'~ p p0 0 °
o0
° O0
p
O °° °` ° .c — —
Z Z N M
CO CO o z
C0 M O r-
~'q U s0
obi
0
v
bO ~ ¶?''
~ o W2 0 r %C 00 '.D 1 N M
y - O ^ 00 N- — 00 01 O r- v
ri N C
0o O\ O\
b O cd ,— '-. .- a¢ N N N N N N
Ct
U
O
U '-°- U
0
0 4-
U .~ U '-- N f1 N O N
•-~ O', Vl O O1,
i-+ U U
U N ~-
N
ON
N
0o
C
".G
d
N
'i
v N N N N N N
a E
E
cI
on CO
01
Q
U . o A
c
o ~
O I" O v1 N N [- c r1 _ 00 to
0 Q v1 O M N. O M M N O
E o
..0
cls.
vi - ^ U'1 tt - N
N oO N 140 O d. 0 N 00
0 N ,
O ~
N
A U i1 .- N N M
. W -
E rJD ,a) -4 -4 ,-- .-~ -4 .--~
.-
Ci U
y Ci U
CO bA CK CO
N- - N M
CD
o 'v o b
"C
It r ~
O o 0 C C C 0 0 0 0 0 0
H vi
i N 00 ON O '""' N F cn U o 00 ON C) .-.
° ° .°cy-
—
Q v Q
- N M d In 'O
`' O
Z N M Nr Ln CO
Z
ao 00 o io c
C)
U w~ U v¢,•
t N
01 N c O • A N- M 00 M N •-+
A
Lr
N cn rt to to Vl N M M
c O
s, w
c~ .
0
on ~ bO -
00 O cM N- C'
U x
Cd
~ N
N N N 00 — .--4 r. — •
-- N
O „O
— o Z• 3 °° o M c,
U
_ _ _ m
C -
00 c 00 A N- M 00 M N- to
H N V1 V t tr 0 c
00 ° M
b~ ^? \ 00 1 O M N ON
o cO
d O ~i ° ~• -i
.
N
cQ U
O
N- 00 00 O O
O 'd Q '--4 — '--~ N
3 Q N N N N M M H'3 ° 000000
00
E N- 00 01 '-• N N tn 00 °
Ra Q
•~ C~ 0000
bn bO b'
bn
N - -
U •~ v N ° .~ N M
o b o ~
O O O
0 0 0 0 00
•
E v O O O O O O
~ A u
t7
.Sr
y r N C4) U) CD 0 N M 't Lo CO
CZ
bD O V
cC
O M k1 •v ¢ O 0 9
U a~
on
vi .
i 00
0 01 O O o -O 'N cn 0
d - tn
N N N N c M
bA
- C
E In - 00 Ql O O 1- O d 009
bO
~ O °°(3, 0 0
N N N N M M
a)
bD
- oo O N U O b 01 O
N Vl ~1 ~l ~1 \-O CO
U O O O O O O
O 0
U
ri
O1
Vl l- 00 Q1 O O ' d .fl in 000 01 O O 01
00
N N N N M M
Cl
GQ
a~
r l- ON O N r O 0 9
N N N M M U
oON00r- o 00 O N
\O "
-t " 'C 'C
a o o O © o c o 0 0 o a
U_
a) O
bA aq
'O v1 N O oo l~ co m N
o \O \O 110 v-a In Ln .~ •- V N• e~ O ,--
- N M
0 O N N N N N N U c )
o °' o
°
o 0 0 0 O
o N
o 0 0 0 o a N- O -
Q ~
cn
r U[) CD
Z N C~) t LO CO
CHAPTER-6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Among several other governing design input variables, the magnitude of flow forms
to be perhaps the most important parameter governing the design of barrage. A number of
techniques varying from the simplest to the most complicated have been suggested for
determination of the design discharge. However, none of the techniques provide a robust
solution to the problem of design flood estimation, largely due to complex behavior of the
rainfall-runoff phenomenon. Thus, a great amount of uncertainty is involved in the variability
of design flood and therefore it is usually reviewed from time to time. This study provides a
systematic evaluation of the impact of design flood on various design components of the
barrage, viz, lowest level of jump formation, length of waterway, total floor length,
downstream floor length, downstream glacis length, upstream floor length, depth of sheet
piles, length of cement concrete blocks, length of launching apron, and appurtenant works.
The effect of discharge on these elements was investigated employing three datasets (chapter
4). Computations for trial runs with varying design flood magnitudes were made using a
Microsoft-Excel-based computer program developed (chapter 3). It was noticed all these
elements were affected either significantly or quite significantly with an increase or decrease
in discharge, valid for both undersluice and barrage-bay portions in all the three barrages.
Thus, the determination of design discharge plays a vital role in the design of barrage, and
therefore, should be evaluated critically considering both economic and safety aspects. It is
expected that the results of this study would help build up the confidence of designer as there
exists a significant amount of uncertainty involved in the estimation of design discharge.
REFERENCES
1) Arora, K.R. (1996), "Water Power and Water Resource Engineering", Publication
Standard Publishers & Distributors, 1705-B, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006, India.
2) Asawa, G.L. (2005), "Irrigation and Water Power Engineering", Publication New
Age International (P) Limited, 4835/24, Daryaganj, New Delhi-1 10002, India.
3) Alexander, W.J.R. (2002), "The Standard Design Flood-A New Design Philosphy",
SDF3, User Manual, web site http://www.up.ac.2a1.
4) Central Water Commission (C.W.C.), (1969), "Criteria for Design Flood of Dams and
other Hydraulic Structures", Circular no. 9/2(3)/66-Hyd, Central Water and Power
Commission, Government of India, New Delhi.
5) Chander,S et.al (1983),Computer Aided Design of Barrage",User Manual, Water

Resources Section, Civil Engineering Department, IIT, Delhi.
6) Central Water Commission (C.W.C.), (1987): "Flood Estimation Report for sone sub
zone-I (d)", Rep no. S/15/1987, Directorate of Hydrology (small catchments), New
Delhi.
7) Fahim Ashkar and Jean Rousselle (1981), "Design Discharge as a Random Variable",
A Risk Study, Water Resource Research, Vol. 17, no. 3, 1981.
8) Gales, R.(1938), "The Principal of River Training for Railway Bridges and their
Application to the Hardinge Bridge over lower Ganga at Saru", Journal of the
Institute of Civil Engineers, London, Technical paper no. 5197.
9) Garde, R.J. and K.G. Rangaraju (1969), "Mechanics of Sediment Transportation in

Alluvial Streams", Publication, Wiley Eastern Ltd., New Delhi, India.
91
10)Garg, S.K.(1984), "Irrigation Engineering and Hydraulic Structures", Khanna
Publishers, 2-B, Nath Market, Nai Sarak, Delhi-I 10006,India.
11) IITKh (2009),Water Resource Engineering, Module 2, Lesson 4, Design Flood

Estimation, web site http://www.nptel.iitm.ac.in/
12) Inglis, C.C. (1949), "The Behavior and Control of Rivers and Canals", Research
Publication no. 13, part I, published by the Central Water Irrigation and Navigational
Research Station, Pune.
13) I.R.S. (1956), "General Features of Design", Standard Specification and Code of
Practice for road & Bridges, Indian Road Congress.
14) Indian Railway Standard (1964), "Code of Practice for the Design of Sub Structure
of Bridges", Indian Railway Standard, Ministry of Railways, Government of India,
New Delhi.
15) IS 11130:1984, Indian Standard Criteria for Structural Design of Barrages and Weirs,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
16) IS 6966 (Part 1):1989 (Reaffirmed 2001), Indian Standard Hydraulic Design of
Barrages and Weirs, Guidelines part 1, Alluvial Reaches (First Revision), Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
17) IS 7349:1989 (Reaffirmed 1999), Indian Standard Barrages and Weirs, Operation
and Maintenance Guidelines (First Revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi, India.
18) IS 7720:1991 (Reaffirmed 2001), Criteria for Investigation, Planning and Layout for
Barrages and Weirs (First Revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
19) IS 11150:1993, Indian Standard Constructions of Concrete Barrages, Code of
Practice (First Revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India
20) IS 4410 (Part 22):1994 (Reaffirmed 2004), Indian Standard Glossary of Terms
relating to River Valley Projects , part 22, Barrages and Weirs, Bureau of Indian
Standards , New Delhi, India.
21) Komura, S. (1969), "A computation Method of Dominant Discharges", Proc. of

I.A.H.R., 1969, held at Tokyo, Japan.
22) Kumar, D. (1977), "Waterway of Barrages in Boulder Reaches — An Analytical

Study", Proc.46th Research Session, Vol. II, Central Board of Irrigation and Power,
New Delhi.
23) Lacey, G. (1938), "Regime Flow in Incoherent Alluvium", Publication no. 20,
Central Board of Irrigation and Power, New Delhi.
24) Marlette, R.R. (1968), "Dominant Discharges at Platte Missourie Confluence",

Journal of Waterways and Harbors Dn, American Society of Civil Engineers,
February, 1968.
25) Mohanty, N.C. (1984), "Study of Looseness Factors for Barrages", An M.E.
Dissertation, W.R.D.T.C., Roorkee.
26) Nixon, M. (1959), "A study of Bankful Discharge of Rivers in England & Wales",
Proceedings of Institutions of Engineers, Volume 12, 1959.
27) National Institute of Hydrology (N.I.H), (1992), "Hydrologic Design Criteria",

Course material of regional course on Project Hydrology, 1992, Roorkee.
93
28) Pilgrim,D.H. and Cordary I..(1992), "Flood Runoff Handbook of Hydrology",
Publication Mc Graw-Hill, New York.
29) Quader Asif and Yiping Guo (2006), "Peak Discharge Estimation using Analytical
Probabilistic and Design Storm Approaches", Journal of Hydrologic Engineering,
Vol. 11, no. 1,2006, American Society of Civil Engineers
30) Raudhiui,A.J.(1 967), "Loose Boundary Hydraulics", Pergamon Press, London.
31) Research Design and Standards Organization (2003), "Code of Practice for the
Design of Sub Structure and Foundation of Bridges", R.D.S.O., Lucknow, 226011.
32) Rakesh Kumar and Chandranath . Chatterjee (2005), "Regional Flood Frequency
Analysis using L-moment for north Brahmaputra Region of India", Journal of
Hydrologic Engineering, Vol. 10, no I, American Society of Civil Engineers.
33) Spring, F.J.E (1903), "River Training and Control on the Guide bank System"
Technical paper no. 153, published by Government of India.
34) Singh, B. (1967), "Fundamentals of Irrigation Engineering", Publication Neem

Chand and Bros, Civil Lines, Roorkee-247667, India.
35) Stanley,S.Butler (1971), "Proceeding of the ASCE", Journal of Hydraulic Division,

Vol. 97, no. HY 3, 1971, American Society of Civil Engineers.
36) Sharma,H.D.,B.N.Asthana(1976), "A Study of Waterway for Bridges and Barrages",

Central Board of Irrigation and Power, New Delhi, Publication July, 1976.
37) Sen, P.(1988), "Waterway for Barrages in silt carrying Rivers", Central Board of
Irrigation and Power, New Delhi, Publication July, 1988
38) Singh, D.P.: "Analytical Study of Waterways of Barrages", An M.E. Dissertation,
W.R.D.T.C., Roorkee.
39) Sulzer,S.;P. Rutschmann; and W. Kinzelbach (2002), " Flood Discharge Prediction
using Two Dimensional Inverse Modeling", Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol.
128, No. 1,2002, American Society of Civil Engineers.
40) Thiruvengadachari, S. (1977), "Design Flood Estimate at Krishna Sagar Dam-A

Review", IE (I) Journal-CI, Vol. 57.
41) Victorov, Peter (1971), "Effect of Period of records on Flood Prediction", Journal of
the Hydraulics Division, Proceeding of the American Society of Civil Engineers ,
Vol. 97,HY 11.
42) Varshney, R.S., S.C. Gupta, R.L.Gupta (1983), "Theory and Design of Irrigation
Structure", Vol. II, Canal and Storage Works, Publication Neem Chand and Bros.,
Civil Lines, Roorkee 247667, India.
95
"APPENDICES"
Appendix A-I
A-1 Hydraulic Design of Barrage (Dataset I)
A-I.1 Result Data Summary for Variation of Discharge from 7000 to 12000 cumec
Appendix A-II
Result data relationship in graphical form for barragebay (Dataset I)
Fig. No. Description

A-II.1 Variation of Lowest Level of Jump Formation with Design Discharge
A-II.2 Variation of Total Length of Barragebay with Design Discharge
A-II.3 Variation of Total Floor Length with Design Discharge
A-II.4 Variation of Downstream Floor Length with Design Discharge
A-II.5 Variation of Downstream Glacis Length with Design Discharge
A-II.6 Variation of Upstream Floor Length with Design Discharge
A-II.7 Variation of Upstream Depth of Cut off with Design Discharge
A-II.8 Variation of Downstream Depth of Cut off with Design Discharge
A-II.9 Variation of Upstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design Discharge
A-II. 10 Variation of Downstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design Discharge
A-II.11 Variation of Upstream Length of Launching Apron with Design Discharge
A-II.12 Variation of Downstream Length of Launching Apron with DesignDischarge
Appendix A-III
Result Data Relationship in Tabular Form for Barragebay (Dataset I)
Table No. Description
A-III. 1 Discharge and Lowest Level of Jump Formation Relationship forBarragebay
A-IIL2 Discharge and Total Length of Barragebay
A-III.3 Discharge and Floor Length Relationship for Barragebay
A-III.4 Discharge and Depth of Cut off Relationship for Barragebay
A-III.5 Discharge and Upstream Protection Works Relationship for Barragebay
A-III.6 Discharge and Downstream Protection Works Relationship Barragebay
A-III.7 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset I), Chute Blocks in Barragebay
A-III.8 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset I), Dentated Sill in Barragebay
A-III.9 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset I), Basin Blocks in Barragebay
A-I Hydraulic Design of Barrage(Dataset I)
A barrage is to be constructed in
alluvium on a river having a high ~ "
g000 , ' Cumec
flood discharge of approximately
The relevant data are as

follows:
Average bed level of ;` m
200 000
river
High flood level (before in
206 OOU
construction of barrage)
Permissible 1 000 m
afflux °
Pond level f ;-204 000 , m
Lacey's silt 1 000
factor
Safe exit gradient for river
1~6 f
bed material
Concentration 20
Bed 050 . in
retrogression _ ~ __
Stage discharge curve of the river at barrage site is given
in Fig 1
Prepare a complete design for the headworks on the basis of the formation of hydraulic
jump and uplift pressures etc.
Figure 1 ata Discharge Curve
206.000
205.000
W
204.000
U
203.000 .-
II
202.000
201.000 -.
200.000
Discharge in Thousand Cumec
97.
I. FIXATION OF CREST LEVEL AND WATERWAYS
The upstream floor level of the undersluices is generally kept at the average bed level of the
river.
Keep the upstream floor and the crest level of undersluices as 200.000 in
The Crest level of the other barrage bays is kept 1.0m to 1.50 m
higher than the crest level of the undersluices
Adopt crest level of the other barrage bays 1.5m higher than
1 500 m
that of the undersluices. i.e.
Thus crest level of the other barrage bays = 201.500 in
As per Lacey,s formula, minimum stable waterway Pw=4.83*sgrt(Q)
Here Q= 9,000 Cumec
Pw= 458.214 m
The actual waterway of the barrage is decided by trial and error on the basis
that about 20% of the maximum flood discharge should be able to pass
through the undersluices, and the balance through other barrage bays.
Assume the waterway as follows:

a) Undersluices portion
Number of spans= 5
5 Bays of d 16000 ,= m each 80.000 m
4 Piers of 2:500 m each 10.000 m
Overall waterway 90.000 m
b) other barrage bays portion
Number of spans= 25
25 Bays of 12.000 - m • each 300.000 m
24 Piers of ' 2.000 m each 48.000 m
Overall waterway 348.000 m
Assume one divide wall thickness 3:000 t m
Width of fish ladder 5!00
Thus assumed overall waterway of the barrage between abutments i.e.

90.000 + 348.000 + 3.000 + 5.000
Now it shall be checked whether the maximum flood can pass through the assumed waterway
HFL before construction of barrage 206.000 m

Permissible afflux 1.000 n
Thus U.S .H.F.L( D.S.H.F.L + Aff].ux) 207.000 m

Average discharge intensity = q= 9,000.000 Cumec

446.000 m
= 20.179 Cumec/
m
qZ
R = 1.35
f
Scour depth = = 10.006 m
Velocity q 20.179
approach = R Va=

(Va) 10.006 10.006
= 2.017 m/s
Va Va 2
Velocity head= 2g i.e = 2g 0.207 m/s
here V= 2.017 m/s

g= 9.800 m/s2
U.S T.E.L = H.F.L + Velocity head

207.000 + 0.207 = 207.207 m
Head over the undersluices crest= U/S T.E.L - Crest Level of UnderSluice
207.207 - 200.000 = 7.207 m
Head over the other bays crest=

207.207 - 201.500 = 5.707 m
As the floor and the crest of the undersluices are at the same level, the width of crest is
sufficent and it will behave as broad crested weir.
Discharge formula for broad crested weir is given by
Q=1.705X(L-0.1 nH)H312
Hence, discharge passing through sluice bays, assuming that the end contractions on divede
wall and abutment side are suppressed
Q =1.705(L — 0.1nH)H 312 = 2449.086 Cumec

The crest width of the other bays shall be kept = 2 000 m

The head over the crest is = 5.707 m
which is more than 1.5 times the width of crest. Thus the other barrage bays will behave as sharp
crested weir.
Discharge formula for sharp crested weir is given by
Q=1.84(L-0.1nH)H 3"2
Hence, discharge passing through weir bays, Q= 6839.412 Cumec
Thus total discharge passing down the barrage:
= 2449.09 + 6839.412
= 9288.498 Cumec > 9,000 Cumec
Hence the assumed waterway and the crest levels are in order.
waterway , the actual
Against Lacey's 458.21 m
waterway of
has been provided.
446.00 m
Therefore,
Looseness factor Actual waterway provided 446.000
Lacey's waterway 458.214
= 0.973
As per IS6966(Part 1):1989 vide Para No 10.2
Silt Factor Looseness Factor
Less than 1 1.2 to 1

1 to 1.5 1 to 0.6
II DESIGN OF UNDERSLUICES PORTION

(1) Discharge intensity and head loss under different flow conditions
(i) For maximum flood.
a) Without flow concentration and without retrogression = CH3
C = (2/3)312 = 1.704 = 32.973 cumec/metre
D/S.H.F.L = 206.000 m
D.S.T.E.L= D.S.H.F.L+ Velocity Head
206.000 + 0.207 = 206.207 m
U.S.H.F.L (D.S H.F.L+ Afflux)
= 206.000 + 1.000 = 207.000 m
U.S.T.E.L = 207.207 m
100
Head loss (HL) = U/S T.E.L - D/S.T.E.L
= 207.207 - 206.207 = 1.000 m
(b) With 20 % concentration and bed retrogression by 0.50 m
Cumec
Discharge intensity = 1.2 x 32.973 = 39.567
/m
Head required for this discharge Discharge intensity 3
intensity= ( ) =
8.139
U/S T.E.L = 200.00 + 8.139 = 208.139 m
D.S.H.F.L with 0.50 m retrogression=

206.000 - 0.500 = 205.500
D.S T.E.L with 0.50 m retrogression
= 206.207 - 0.50 = 205.707
Head loss (HL) = 208.139 - 205.707 = 2.432 m
( ii) Flow at pond level ( with all gates opened)
( a) Without flow concentration and without retrogression
Head over crest of under sluices =
204.000 - 200.000 = 4.000 m
Head over other bays crest =
204.000 - 201.500 = 2.500 m
Neglecting the velocity head for this condition, the total discharge passing down the barrage:
Q =1.705(1,— 0.1 n*V'2

here
L= 80.00 m = 1047.552 Cumec
n= 8
H= 4.00 m
Q = 1.84x(L- 0.1 nH)H312 = 2094.693 Cumec
L= 300.00 m
n= 48
H= 2.50 m
Total Q= 3142.245 Cumec
101
Average discharge
3142.245 7.045 Cumec/m
intensity = q =
446.000
7
Normal scour depth (R) = 1.35( f) 3 here q= 7.045 Cumec/m

1.000
R= 4.96 m
Velocity of
Va = 1.420 m/s
approach =
(Va)
Velocity Head = 0.103 m
U.S.T.E.L = 204.000 + 0.103 = 204.103 m
D.S. Water level when flood discharge of 3142.24 Cumec
is passing = '_ 203350` m (From given data)
D.S .T.E.L = 203.350 + 0.103 = 203.453 m
Discharge intensity between piers = CH312

1
= 14.162 Cumec/m
here C= 1.704
H= 4.103
Head loss ( H L)= 204.103 - 203.453 = 0.650
(b) With 20 % concentration and 0.50 m retrogression
Cumec
Discharge intensity 1.2 x 14.162 = 16.994 /m
2
Discharge intensity 3
Head for this intensity = C = 4.633 m
U.S.T.E.L 200.000 + 4.633 = 204.633 m
D.S.Water level with 0.50 m retrogression
203.350 - 0.500 = 202.850 m
D.S T.E.L with 0.50 m retrogression'=
202.850 + 0.103 = 202.953 m
Head loss (HL)= 204.633 - 202.953 = 1.680 m
Lowest Level of Jump formation= 195.564
Largest length of Horizontal floor= 31.675
The downstream floor has been provided at R.L 195.564 ,: m
with a horizontal length of 31.675`: ' . m
102
(2) Hydraulic Jump Calculations : (i) Level and Length of downstream
flnor
High flood condition I Pond flow condition
without
concentrat
with 20 ion & with 20
without retrogressi
Item concentration on
&
retrogression concentration concentration
and and
0.50 m 0.50 m
retrogression retrogression
1 2 3 4 5
Discharge intensity,-q 32.973 39.567 14.162 16.994
Downstream water level 206.000 m 205.500 m 203.350 m 202.850 m
Upstream water level 207.000 m 207.000 m 204.000 m 204.000 m
Down stream total
206.207 m 205.707 in 203.453 m m
energy level 202.953
Upstream total energy m
207.207 m 208.139 in 204.103 m
level 204.633
Head loss'HL' 1.000 m 2.432 m 0.650 m 1.680 m
Downstream specific
energy Eç2 (from 8.358 m 10.144 m 4.810 m 5.902 m
Blench curves )
Upstream specific
energy E (En = 9.358 m 12.575 m 5.460 m 7.583 m
Ef2 +HL)
Level at which Jump

would form ( 197.849 m 195.564 m 198.643 m 197.051 m
D.S.T.E.L - Ef2)
Prejump depth DI
Corresponding to Efl
from Specific energy 2.937 m 2.866 m 1.634 m 1.563 m
curve or Calculated
from Eci=D1 +(q/DI )2/2g
103. ,
Post Jump depth D2
Corresponding to Ec
from specific energy
7.325 m 9.201 m 4.241 m 5.396 m
curves) or Calculated
from
Ef2=D2+(q/D2)2/2g
Length of concrete floor

required beyond the 21.940 m 31.675 m 13.035 m 19.165 m
Jump = 5 (D2-Dl)
F= q
\/72.O92 2.604 2.165 2.777
roude no.
F2 4.374 6.779 4.686 7.710
(2 /g )I/3
q 4.805 5.426 2.735 3.089
Z= (HL
0.208 0.448 0.238 0.544
104

q and HI Known
q= 32.973 Dc=(q"2/g)"1/3 = 4.803

HL= 1.000
Z= HUDc = 0.208
If Z<1
y=1 +0.93556(Z)"0.368 = 1.525
If Z>1 y=1+0.93556(Z)^0.240 = 1.642
Calculate x from equation xy (x+y)=2

Y(x"2)+(Y"2)x -2=0
a=y= 1.525 ..
b=yA2= 2.326
—b 2 + b2 -4ac -2
x= c=

2a x= 3.150 or 0.398
x and y known
as m= x+1/(2x"2) _ 3.200
Efl=mDc = 15.371 Note * Adopt value of Eft= Ef2 +HL 9.358
as n= y+1/(2y"2) _ 1.740
Ef2=nDc = 88
Ef2=D2+(q/D2)"2*(1 /2g) Eft =D1+(q/D1)"2*(1/2g)
or or
19.62D2^3-19.6202D2A2+qA2=0 19.6201 "3-19.62 Ef2 D 1 "2+q"2=0
q= 32.97 q= 32.97
Ef2= 8.36 Efl= 9.36
19.62 D2"3-19.62 Ef2 D2"2+q"2=0 19.62D1 "3-19.62Ef1 D1 "2+q"2=0
a=2g 19.620 a=2g 19.620

b= 2gEf2 (-) 163.989 b= 2gEf1 (-) 183.609
c= 0.000 c= 0.000
d=qA2 1087.191 d=q"2 1087.191
Solving Cubical Equation Solving Cubical Equation

Adopt Higher Positive value greater
than Critical depth Dc adopt Lower positive Value
D2'= D1'=
7.325 8.610
-2.280 -2.190
3.314 2.937
105:
q and HI Known
q= 39.567 Dc=(q"2/g)"1/3 = 5.424

HL= 2.432
Z= HL/Dc = 0.448
If Z<1
y=1+0.93556(Z)"0.368 = 1.696
If Z>1 y=1+0.93556(Z)"0.240 = 1.772

= y(x"2)+(y"2)x -2=0
a=y= ;,; 1496
—b2 ± b 2 --- 4ac b=y"2= 2.878

2a c= -2
x and y known x= 3.819 or 1.063
as m= x+1/(2x1\2) = 3.853
Eft=mDc = 20.899 Note * Adopt value of Ef1= Ef2 +HL 12.575
as n= y+1/(2y"2) = 1.870
' Ef2=nDc = 10:144u

Ef2=D2+(q/D2)"2*(1/2g) Eft =D1 +(q/D 1)"2*(1 /2g)
or or
19.62 D2"3-19.62 Ef2D2"2+q"2=0 19.62D1 "3-19.62Ef2D1 "2+q^2=0
q= 39.567 q= 39.567
Ef2= 10.144 Efl= 12.575
19.62D2"3-19.62Ef2D22+q"2=0 19.62D1 "3-19.62Ef1 D1 "2+q"2=0
a=2g 19.62 a=2g 19.62

b= 2g Ef2 (-) 199.02 b= 2g Ef2 (-) 246.73
c= 0.00 c= 0.00
d=q"2 1565.56 d=qA2 1565.56
Adopt Higher Positive value greater than

Critical depth Dc adopt Lower positive Value
D2'= [9 0 L J D1'= 2866p
9.201 12.023
-2.510 -2.314
3.453 2.866
106
q and HI Known
q= 14.162 Dc=(q"2/g)" 1/3 2.73

HL= 0.650
Z= HL/Dc = 0.238
If Z<1 y=1+0.93556(Z)"0.368 = 1.551
If Z>1 y=1+0.93556(Z)"0.240 = 1.663

y(x"2)+(y"2)x -2=0
a=y= 1.551
b=yA2= 2.407
—b 2 ± b? —4ac
x= c= -2
2a
as m= x+1/(2x"2 = 3.290
Note * Adopt value of Eft= Ef2

Efl=mDc = 8.995 +HL 5.460
as n= y+1/(2yA2) _ 1.759
Ef2=nDc =
Ef2=D2+(q/D2)A2*(1/2g) Eft =D1 +(q/D 1)"2*(1 /2g )
or or
19.62D2"3-19.62Ef2D2"2+q^2=0 19.62D1 "3-19.62Ef2 D 1 "2+q"2=0
q= 14.16 q= 14.16
Ef2= 4.810 Efl= 5.460
19.62 D2"3-19.62Ef2D2^2+q"2=0 19.62D1 "3-19.62Ef1 D1 "2+qA2=0
a=2g 19.62 a=2g 19.62

b= 2gEf2 (-) 94.37 b= 2gEf2 (-) 107.13
c= 0.00 c= 0.00
d=q"2 200.55 d=qA2 200.55

Adopt Higher Positive value greater than Critical adopt Lower positive
depth Dc Value
D2'= D1'= 1.534
4.2410 5.061
-1.2940 -1.235
1.8620 1.634
107

q and HL Known
q= 16.994 Dc=(q^2/g)"1/3 = 3.088

HL= 1.680
Z= HL/Dc = 0.544
If Z<1 y=1+0.93556(Z)"0.368 = 1.748
If Z>1 y=1+0.93556(Z)"0.240 = 1.808
Calculate x from equation xy

(x+y)=2
y(x"2)+(y"2)x -2=0
b=yA2= 3.055
-b2 ± b2 -4ac
x= c= -2
2a
as m= x+1 /(2x"2) = 4.082
Note * Adopt value of Ef1= Ef2

Efl=mDc = 12.603 +HL 7.583
as n= y+1/(2y"2 1.912
Ef2=nDc = 5.902
Ef2=D2+(q/D2)"2*(1 /2g) Eft =D1 +(q/D1)"2`(1 /2g)
or or
19.62 D2"3-19.62 Ef2D2"2+q"2=0 19.62D1 "3-19.62 Eft D 1 A2+q"2=0
q= 16.99 q= 16.99
Ef2= 5.902 Eft= 7.583
19.62 D2"3-19.62 Eft D2"2+q"2= 0 19.62D 1 "3-19.62 Eft Dl "2+q"2=0
a=2g 19.620 a=2g 19.620
b= 2gEf2 (-
b= 2gEf2 (-) 115.803 148.769
c= 0.000 c= 0.000
d=q"2 288.790 d=q"2 288.790

Adopt Higher Positive value greater than adopt Lower positive
Critical depth Dc Value
D2'= ~~~ 5.396 D1'= .:1.563
5.396 7.306
-1.418 -1.288
1.923 1.563
108
i
U
-- U1 00
•
U 3 N N
O '-I '" '~ M` M i

0
Q O. O r- ir
N
II II
W ~ W a •V
W W Cc M M M M
M M M 00
H U H
do d' Vl l0 l~
•
a "r4
N O L N adm'
O
° CN
00
0 0 O
°
N ISO C
cfl
Crj NN
O
N M M M Crl
0 II III
- W .2
w b
4-0 H oo
bO
a M M M 00 M M [~
O xi a 00 C O— '--~ N N
O
3 •
~
o O O
-- O O O 1n U 0
°• O
° o'
a, o c 0 c c ON
U co O C1
Q 4--+
U O O ?O 0
00 O O M'
K
N .~
ri 0 Ei O , M 'o= 00 0, ..-.
c a~
__
q and HI Known q and HI Known
q= 39.567 q= 39.567
Eft 8.139 Eft 9.139
Eft =D1 +(q/y2)"2"(1 /2g) Eft=D1+(q/y2)A2*(1/2g)
or or
1 9.62D1 A3-19.62 Ef2 D 1 ^2+q^2=0 19.62D1 A3-19.62Ef2D1 A2+qA2=0
q= 39.57 q= 39.57
Efl= 8.139 Efl= 9.139
Trial 1 Trial 1
D2 19.62D2^3-19.62Ef2D2A2+q^2=0 D2 19.62D2A3-19.62Ef2D2^2+q^2=0
a=2g 19.62 a=2g 19.620
b= 2gEfl (-) 159.69 b= 2g Efl (-) 179.308
c= 0.00 c= 0.000
d=qA2 1565.56 d=qA2 1565.555
Adopt Lowest Positive value greater than Adopt Lowest Positive value greater than
Critical depth Dc Critical depth Dc
D1= 5.527 5.323 D1= 7.841 3.904
-2.711 5.323 -2.606 `-3.904

q= 39.567 q= 39.567
Eft 10.139 Eft 11.088
Eft =D1 +(q/y2)A2*(1 /2g) Eft =D1 +(q/y2)A2*(1 /2g)

or or
19.62D1 ^3-19.62Ef2 D 1 ^2+q"2=0 19.62D1 ^3-19.62Ef2D1 ^2+qA2=0
q= 39.57 q= 39.57
Efl= 10.139 Efl= 11.088
Trial 1 Trial 1
D2 19.62 D2A3-19.62 Eft D2A2+qA2=0 D2 19.62D2A3-19.62Ef2D2^2+qA2=0
a=2g 19.620 a=2g 19.620
b= 2gEfl (-) 198.928 b= 2gEfl (-) 217.555
c= 0.000 c= 0.000
d=q^2 1565.555 d=q^2 1565.555
D1= 9.195 3.455 D1= 10.342 3.175
-2.511 3.455 -2.429 =3.175
110
q= 39.567 q= 39.567
Eft 11.139 Eft 12.139
Ef 1=D1 +(q/y2)"2*(1 /2g) Eft =D1 +(q/y2)"2*(1/2g)

or or
19.6201 "3-19.62Ef2D1 "2+q"2=0 19.62D1 "3-19.62Ef2D1 "2+q"2=0
q= 39.57 q= 39.57
Efl= 11.139 Eft= 12.139
Trial 1 Trial 1
D2 19.62D2"3-19.62Ef2D2A2+q"2=0 D2 19.62132"3--19.62Ef2D2"2+qA2=0
a=2g 19.620 a=2g 19.620

b= 2gEf1 (-) 218.548 b= 2gEf1 (-) 238.168
c= 0.000 c= 0.000
d=q"2 1565.555 d=q"2 1565.555
D1= 10.401 3.162 D1= 11.539 2.946
-2.425 ;_ 3.162 -2.346 2:946
q and HI Known
q= 39.567
Ef1 12.575
Eft =01 +(q/y2)"2 *(1 /2g)

or
19.62D1 "3-19.62Ef2D1 "2+q^2=0
q= 39.57
Ef1= 12.575
Trial 1
D2 19.62 D2"3-19.62Ef2D22+q"2=0
a=2g 19.620
b= 2gEf1 (-) 246.729
c= 0.000
d=q"2 1565.555
Solving Cubical Equation
Adopt Lowest Positive value greater than

Critical depth Dc
D1= 12.023 2.866
-2.314 2.866
q and HI Known q and HI Known for
q= 16.994 q= 16.994
Eft 4.633 Eft 5.633
Ef1=D1+(q/y2)A2*(1/2g) Eft = D 1 +(q/y2)"2*(1 /2 g )

or or
1 9.62 D 1 ^3-19.62 Eft D 1 A2+qA2=0 19.62D1 ^3-19.6202D1 A2+q^2=0
q= 16.99 q= 16.99
Eft = 4.633 Eft = 5.633
Trial 1 Trial 1
D2 19.62D2^3-19.62Ef2D2A2+qA2=0 D2 19.62D2 A 3-19.62 E f2 D2 ^2+q ^ 2= 0
a=2g 19.620 a=2g 19.620
b= 2gEf1 (-) 90.902 b= 2gEf1 (-) 110.522
c= 0.000 c= 0.000
d=q^2 288.790 d=q"2 288.790
D1= 3.144 3.031 D1= 5.057 2.017
-1.540 3.031 -1.44 2017 .
q= 16.994 q= 16.994
Eft 6.633 Eft 7.583
Eft=D1+(q/y2)A2*(1/29) Eft =D1 +(q/y2)A2*(1 /29)

or or
19.62D1 ^3-19.6202D 1 ^2+qA2=0 19.62D1 ^3-19.62Ef2D1 ^2+q^2=0
q= 16.99 q= 16.99
Ef 1= 6.633 Efl= 7.583
Trial 1 Trial 1
D2 19.62D2A3-19.62Ef2D2^2+q^2=0 D2 19.62D2^3-19.62Ef2D2^2+q^2=0
a=2g 19.620 a=2g 19.620
b= 2gEf1 (-) 130.142 b= 2gEf1 (-) 148.769
c= 0.000 c= 0.000
d=q^2 288.790 d=q^2 288.790
D1= 6.257 1.733 D1= 7.306 1.563
-1.357 1.733 -1.288 1:563
112
to ,-4 to ON N "r v
00 ON O ON N N
00 O N cV
•O N N
N N
00
N N N
N -4 N N d ~t Ln v1
N
w ~ E Ei El E E E Ei
M en 00
N O — M 00
II
d- In 00 N M.
M OO _
— ~"~ .--+ N .M M M
cu V1 M to \O to O 00
00 - N --I C O~
00 O\ r-+ M N Vl L!1
a) Q~ 01 O O O O N
5 Ei 5 5
en dN
N 00
00 N Lfl
N
h
0
0 N
w
0
U
O
0 00
4i kn 00 00
0 Ln
O Cpl N d tn
Kw
d' V~ 00, d'en.

•--i M Q1 " ~O M
M M ~O
M
.-. — .
.-+ O O ;~ ,-- ,--~

O O
(3) Depth of sheet pile lines from scour considerations
( i) Depth of scour
Total discharge escaping through undersluices 2449.086 Cumec.
Overall undersluiceway= 90.000 m
Average Discharge intensity / m 2449.09 = 27.212 Cumec
90.00
Depth of Scour =
R = 1.35( f )
R= 12.214 m
here q= 27.212 Cumec
1.000
( ii) U.S.Sheetpile
u/s side allow for 1.25 R= . 1.25 x 12.214 = 15.267
R.L of the bottom of scour hole= 207.000 - 15.267 = 191.733
Provide sheet pile line down to elevation = 191.733 m
( iii) D/S Sheet pile
on the downstream side allow for 1.5 R =
= 150: x 12.214 18.320
R.L of the bottom scour hole = 205.500 - 18.320 = 187.180
Provide sheet pile line to elevation 187:180 m
( 4) Total floor length and exit gradient
IS 6966 (Part 1): 1989 vide Para No 17.3
Permissible Exit Gradients for Different Types of soils
Type of Soil Exit gradient
Shingle 1/4 to 1/5
Coarse sand 1/5 to 1/6
Fine sand 1/6 to 1/7
Safe exit gradient is GE= 1/6..
Maximum static head in m (H) 204.000 - 195.564 = 8.436
Depth of down stream cutoff (d) 195.564 - 187.180 = 8.384
GE _ ( H ) 1 1 H 1
GE( d )
d F1 VT F1 H d 7EG E
= 0.166
= 1.92
Therefore
a,= 3.69
114

Using 1 + 1 + a 2 •.. a= 6.31

2 a = b/d= 6.31
Hence requirement of total floor length ( b) = a d
= 6.31 x 8.384
= 52.908 m
The floor length shall be provided as below:
Downstream horizontal floor = 31.675 m
Downstream glacis length with
3
3 400.00 - 195.564 1 = 13.309 m
The balance shall be provided as upstream floor = 7.924 m
Total: 52.908 m
( 5) Pressure calculations
For determining uplift pressures according to Khosla theory it is essential to assume the floor
thickness at the upstream and downstream cutoff.
Let us assume the floor thickness at the upstream and downstream cutoff.
Let us assume the floor thickness of 1,.00- m at the upstream end,
and at the
1.50
downstream end
( i) Upstream Pile line r _ __
d= `200.000 191.733 8.267
b
1 d _ 8.267 a - — -52.908
d
a b
52.908 8.267
= 0.156 = 6.400
– 1+ l+a z = 3.74
2 (1 -0.733 (2 -0.465
cos 393 cos - 2.055
100 _(1-2
ØD COS
76.181 %
100 _1 (2–f'
~c = cos
65.41 %
115

4D -~c = 10.771 %
~c Correction for depth = 1.00 = 1.30
x 10.771
8.267 (+ ve)
~c correction for interference of d/s sheet pile line
d= 7.27 m b'= 51.408 m b= 52.908 m
D= 199.000 - 187.180 = 11.820 m
(d+D)
V b
C=19r R = 3.29 %(+ve)
~c corrected= 65.41 + 1.30 + 3.29
= 69.999 %
(ii) Downstream pile line
d= 195.564 - 187.180 = 8.384 m
1 d = 8.4 = 0.158
a b 53
a = b/d = 6.311
2 1+41+a = 3.695
2
(?-1)/? = 0.729 (A,-2)/? = 0.459
2-2
cos - - 1 = 0.753 cos-' 1.094
i, 2 -
100 _, - 34.839 %
-COS -
100 cos'-1 23.987 %
~E1-PDl = 10.852
AEI correction for depth = 1.5
5 = 1.941
X 10.852 %(-
8.384 ve)
~Dl correction for interference of u.s pile line
d= 6.884 m b= 52.908 D= 2.331 m
b'= 51.41 m
X (d + D) = 0.705 (-ye)
C = 19 D
b' b
~E1 corrected = 34.839 - L 1.941 + 0.70
= 32.193 %
116
U to o to o
O 00
vi vi N
N O N
G)
c~ 00 O
000 N N
r Q 0
00 N I \O
O M N
N N C., O O N
O
cd
a Q o
C~ W 00 o N 00
00
N N
x N N 06 1; N M M
~ o
0
4-~
U
• w d
O~ N
~ o
•
I
to ~
" r' N \O N N
'~
N w O O O
W O O O
O O O O V O
cd ~ — O '—
a N N N
"C O O
00 •--~
r
3O N N N
fl I n
li
'—'
:
rn
r+
L
o
N
00
N
N
'C
O
• 3 ci $
0
• .. , ~
0 b 3 -d
U °
0
00 01 C c* : M C N
F-+
__ • II
0
b .•~ p ^
C) 00
N ~.
p_ p O M M O O1
N N
O O ~ -o U .' O- L N M r
3 C~
U n
-4 N a) cN N N
N4 M O •
--4 N M -
Y
00
~ p U
p ~' U td 5
U • U I to 00 C\
U b U O N M 4
3o '-)° O
U N N N N N N N
N •v C) O N
C)
O O N \D
M — O\ 00
0 U
.fl -
O •rl
-C vl C) C% 'z - N %O
' O ~J NIM l- M M O ' O~ N
O N M i d Vn
UN (44 tID
0 - '~ U " U ,-~ kl O~ .N M 00

p O 00
[— M C) N N M N
0 .D \O -O
p 8fl r:i v O
N O
N O
N N N N N
8-I GJ 4I
- 0 0 ' 0
'~ c
cn O
O\ am'
d N - C
) ~s v'i cV .O O o0 oc
Z N N N N N
cd 4) O
b -
V 0) O
U0 O 00 \D d• '[h N \O
G." - — N M M
O U N
In
u 'd N
rO N O ~V
-~ O
~ OO
M d'
am d N
— O O O O O O
C)
x N N N N N N
U
.-, ,
o C) 0 kn C) C) c
O ; •V O O O O O O O
C) C O O O cd 0 0 C) C\ 00 N N V)
- ' Q' -
;
•
O p, O U
Z a ~` N at
E-0 p N N N M
N N
C - O . 0
u 0) - 'CI M M M M O
M
E
O 0 •
~ • U p T y- 0... N.. M,
cd i' N O U M ~ 00 Off --i ~--1
-.....-. 5_ b ci z
p r- N M ~D E-
_6 ' F-' W U b 0

tfl 00 00
F N n ON
O IT N ON N
M M P1 N N N
N .- O N
OO N -
O M O O M O N
N
Q)
Fi 5 E E
00 M ON Vn N
O O O O O O O 00
O N O O~ O
N N N N N N N
N to N "1 N 1
r- r - O
N O O O N
q N II II
mot' O~ O •
- •
--~
N N '--~ O O El E e
N G — 00
M N N r-+ .--4 O O~
tO '6 O 'i
O O O O O O O N V 00 00 001 M 01 01 - 00
N N N N N N N C' 1 c+~ N N 0 C O N QQQ
0 C-; ~~
-- N O M M r-+ N
CO N ' C O
O O O O II
O O
r- N N N N
a) aoi a)
O C 00 N — r
N
~O M O M 'b
M M M N
0 O O
00 c L
0
00 N C\ N
O O\ QN 01 00 00 00 Ei E
O ON O1\ QN 01 Q1
t L I1 V~ N
o II ~+-~ o II ~+
C\ O rn C rn C rn 0 0
a) a) an
N r1 O
o
O
M N N — n
CI a)
0
-d N .L: O 1.
'1 In Vn N
M 00~ M 00 M 00.
C C
— N M

00 o
o
rn
'-;
II
U U N
00
N O O 't O
çfl (I
- O t,
a 3
II II II
N
U ~
bA .+
M —— 00
C O O N N c r1 MI N ~ O
- N cry p CO I N O
O\ I N O O'
ct.r O I O -
O U
a-4
rn
° .4
,I~ . ~ III •
own
o
C) C)
II p a) a)
II
o ° II o II p O •.
E v O yr
N ; N y y U. V U 0 O
.0 co 4 ~. riD O
O G• a) s
- O -d fs O 'd 'O Lam'0 O
U U ~i U U +r~ rp C+ D
Q b b
( 7) Protection works beyond impervious floor

IS 6966 (Part 1) : 1989 vide para No 19.2
Table 1 Likely Extent of scour at different places along a barrage/weir Clause 19.2
Si No Location Range mean

(1) (2) (3) (4)
i) Upstream of impervious floor 1.25 to 1.75 R 1.5 R*
Downstream of impervious to 2.25 R 2.00 R*
1.75
ii) floor
iii) Noses of guid banks 2.00 to 2.5 R 2.25 R
iv) Noses of divide wall 2.00 to 2.5 R 2.25 R

v) Transition form nose to straight 1.25 to 1.75 R 1.5 R
Straight reaches of guide banks 1.00 to 1.5 R 1.25 R

vi)
* These are to be considered for designing the flexible protection only. For depths of
cut-offs provisions given in Clause 17.10 should be adopted.
(i) Upstream protection,
a) Blockprotection R = 1.35( 92 )13
Depth of scour'R f
q= 27.212 Cumec/m
1.000
R= 12.214 meter
Anticipated scour = 1.5 R
1.5 I x 12.214 = 18.320 m
Upstream scour level = 207.000 - 18.320
= 188.680
Scour depth ' D ' below u.s floor = 200.000 - 188.680
= 11.320 m
Volume of block protection to be given= D cum/m
= 11.320 cum/m
Providing 1,:60. m X -1.60 m X 1.00 m

CC Blocks over 0.40 m thick gravel,

the length required 11.320 _
8.086 m
= 1.00 + 0.4

Provide 7 rows of the above blocks in a length of 11.320 m
(b) Launching apron

Quantity of launching apron should be 2.25 D. Cum/m 25.471 Cum/m
121

Thickness of launching apron 1.40" m

25.471
length required = = 18.193 m
"'. 1.40-:.'""
Provide length of Launching Apron= 18.193 m
Slope of Launching Apron vide IS 6966( part 1):1989 clause no 20.3.3
The slopes of the launched apron is primarily dependent on the grade and the size of the
material in the river bed. For rivers in alluvium snady reaches, the slope shall not be
assumed steeper than 2:1 nor flatter than 3:1. The latter figure should be adopted for
river with very fine sand or silty bed.
(i) Down stream Protection

Anticipated scour depth = 2 R = 24.4271
Downstream scour
level = 205.500 - 24.427 = 181.073
Scour depth D
below d.s floor = 195.564 - 181.073 = 14.491
(a ) Inverted filter
The length of the inverted filter should be equal to 1.5 'D'= 21.736 m
Provide 1.600 m X 1.600 m X 1.000
CC Blocks with 10 cm gap filled with bajri over 1.00 m
thick graded filter.
21.736
No.of rows required = = 13.585
Provide " 14: rows of blocks.

Total Length = 14 x 1.6 = 21.736
13 x 0.1 = 1.259
22.995 m
Total Thickness= . 1.50 ~r
(b) Launching apron

Quantity of launching apron required = 2.25D
= 32.604
Horizontal length of launching apron
1.5 D= 21.736
Thickness of launching apron= 2.25D/1.5D
122
III. DESIGN OF OTHER BARRAGE BAYS PORTION
(I) Discharge Intensities and Water Levels
( I) For high flood
( a) Without concentration and retrogression

U.S. TEL = 207.207 m
Crest Level = 201.500 m
Head over the crest = 207.207 - 201.500 5.707
H = 5.707
Discharge intensity= 3 = 25.089 Cumec/m

CH
U.S.H.F.L = 207.00 m
D.S.H.F.L = 206.00 m
D.S.T.E.L = 206.207 m
•. Head loss (HL) = 207.207 - 206.207
= 1.00 m
(b ) With 20 % concentration and 0.50 m bed retrogression
Discharge intensity with 20 % concentration
Discharge intensity= 1.20 x 25.089 = 30.107 Cumec /m
Head over the creast for the discharge intensity of 30. 107
cumec/m
6.445
U/S T.E.L = 201.500 + 6.445 = 207.945 m
D.S.H.F.L with 0.50 m retrogression= 205.500
D.S T.E.L with 0.50 m retrogression = 205.707 m
Head loss (HL) = 207.945 - 205.707 = 2.238 m
( ii) For pond level Flow

( a) Without concentration and retrogression
U.S T.E.L = 204.000 + 0.103 204.103 m
Crest = 201.500 m
level
Head over crest =
204.103 - 201.500 - 2.603 m
Discharge intensity 'q' = = 7.727 Cumec/m
D.S Water level = 203.350 m
D.S. T.E.L = 203.453 m
Head loss H L = 0.65 m
123
With 20 % concentration and 0.50 m retrogression
Discharge intensity with 20 % concentration= 9.272 Cumec/m
Head over the crest for this discharge intensity= 2.939
U.S.T.E.L 201.500 + 2.939 = 204.439 m
D.S.Water level
203.350 - 0.50 = 202.850 m
D.S T.E.L with 0.5 m retrogression'=
202.850 + 0.103 = 202.953 m
Head loss (HL)= 204.439 - 202.953 = 1.486 m
Lowest level of jump formation = 197.159
Largest length of Horizontal floor= 27.235
The downstream floor has been provided at R.L 197:159; m
with a horizontal length of 27.235 m.
124
(2) Hydraulic Jump Calculations:
( i) Level and Length of downstream
fl nnr
High flood condition Pond flow condition
with 20 with 20
without % without %
Si. concentration concentration
Item concentration concentration
No and
& and &
retrogression 0.50 m retrogression 0.50 m
retrogression retrogression
12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Discharge intensity, 30.107 7.727 9.272
25.089
q cumec/m
Downstream water 206.00 205.50 203.35 202.85
in 0 m 0 m 0 m
2 level 0
207.00 207.00 204.00 204.00
3 Upstream water level 0 in 0 m 0 in 0 m
Down stream total 206.20 205.70 203.45 202.95
7 m 3 m 3 m
4 energy level 7 m
Upstream total 207.20 207.94 204.10 204.43
3 m 9 m
5 energy level 7 m 5 m
6 Head loss 'HL' 1.000 m 2.23 8 m 0.650 m 1.486 m
Downstream specific
7 energy 7.072 m 8.548 m 3.333 m 4.080 m
Ef2 ( from Blench
curves)
Upstream specific
8 energy 8.072 m 10.786 m 3.983 m 5.566 m
E fl (En = E+ HL)
Level at which Jump 197.15 200.12 198.87

199.13 in 0 m 3 m
9 would form 5 in 9
(D.S.T.E.L - Ef2)
Prejump depth D1
Corresponding to Efl
10 (from Specific 2.338 m 1.011 m 0.997 m
2.372 m
energy curve) or
Calculated from
Efl=D1 +(q/D I )2/2g
125
Post Jump depth D2
Corresponding to
Ef2 ( from specific m
11 6.250 m 7.785 m 2.993 m 3.771
energy curves) or
Calculated from
Efz=D2+(q/D2)2/2g
Length of concrete
floor required
12 19.390 m 27.235 m 9.910 m 13.870 m
beyond the Jump = 5
(D2-D1 )
Froude no .
13 F = q 2.194 2.690 2.428 2.975

gD,3
14 F2 4.813 7.237 5.895 8.852
15 y _ (q 2 /g )I/3 4.005 4.522 1.826 2.062
_ HL
16 Z y~ 0.250 0.495 0.356 0.721
126
q and HI Known
q= 25.089 Dc=(q^2/g)^1/3 = 4.00
HL= 1.000
Z= HUDc = 0.250
If Z<1
y=1+0.93556(Z)^0.368 = 1.562
If Z>1
y=1 +0.93556(Z)^0.240 = 1.671
= y(x"2)+(y"2)x -2=0
- b Z± Jb2 - 4ac a=y= 1.562
x=
2a Here b=yA2= 2.438
c= -2
x= 3.279 or 0.529
x and y known
as m= x+1/(2x^2) = 3.325
as n= y+1/(2v^2) = 1.767
Ef2=nDc = 7AO
Ef2=D2+(q/D2)^2*(1/2g) Efl=D1+(q/D1 )A2*(1/2g)

or or
19.62D2^3-19.62Ef2D2^2+q^2=0 19.62D1 ^3-19.62Efl D1^2+q^2=0
q= 25.089 q= 25.09
Ef2= 7.072 Efl= 8.07
19.621D2^3-19.62Ef2D2A2+qA2=0 19.62D1 A3-19.62Ef1 D1 ^2+qA2=0
a=2g - 19.620 a=2g 19.620
b= 2gEf2 (- b= 2gEfl (-
138.761 ) 158.381
c= 0.000 c= 0.000
d=q^2 629.467 d=qA2 629.467
Adopt Higher Positive value greater than adopt Lower positive
Critical depth Dc Value
D1'= ,
D2'=
6.250 7.500
-1.890 -1.800
2.712 2.372
127
q and HI Known
q= 30.107 Dc=(q"2/g)" 1 /3 = 4.52
HL= 2.238
Z= HUDc = 0.495
If Z<1
y=1+0.93556(Z)"0.368 = 1.722
If Z>1
y=1+0.93556(Z)"0.240 = .1.790
= y(x"2)+(y"2)x -2=0
- b z± Jb 2 - 4ac a=y= 1.722
x=
c= -2
x= 3.934 or 1.175
x and y known
as m=
x+1 /(2x"2) = 3.966
as n y+1/(2y"2) = 1.891
Ef2=nDc = 8548;
Ef2=D2+(q/D2)"2"(1 /2g) Ef1=D1 +(q/DI )A2(1/2g)
or or
19.621D2"3-19.62Ef2D2"2+q2=0 19.62D1 "3-19.62Ef1 D1 "2+q"2=0
q= 30.107 q= 30.107
Ef2= 8.548 Efl= 10.786
19.62D2"3-19.62Ef2D2"2+q"2=0 19.62D1 "3-19.62Ef1 D1 "2+q"2=0
a=2g 19.620 a=2g 19.620
b= 2gEf2 (-) 167.713 b= 2gEfl (-) 211.616
c= 0.000 c= 0.000
d=qA2 906.433 d=q"2 906.433
Critical depth Dc adopt Lower positive Value
D2'= 7785 J D11 = " 2.338
7.785 10.354
-2.084 -1.907
2.846 2.338
128..

q and HI Known
q= 7.727 Dc=(q"2/g)"1/3 = 1.83
HL= 0.65
Z= HL/Dc = 0.356
If Z<1
y=1 +0.93556(2)"0.368 = 1.640
If Z>1
y=1+0.93556(Z)"0.240 = 1.730
= y(x"2)+(y"2)x -2=0
- b Z ± b 2 - 4ac a=y= 1.640
x=
c= -2
x= 3.580 or 0.829
x and y known
as m= x+1/(2x"2) = 3.619
Efl=mDc = 6.607 Note * Adopt value of Efl= Ef2 +HL 3.983
as n= y+1/(2 'A22 = 1.826

Ef2=nDc
Ef2=D2+(q/D2)A2*(1 /2g) Ef1=D1 +(q/D1)^2*(1 /2g)
or or
19.62D2A3-19.62Ef2 D2"2+q"2=0 19.62D1 "3-19.62 Ef1 Dl "2+q"2=0
q= 7.727 q= 7.727
Ef2= 3.333 Eft= 3.983
19.62D2"3-19.6202D2"2+q"2=0 19.62D1 "3-19.62Ef1 D1 "2+q"2=0
a=2g 19.620 a=2g 19.620
b= 2gEf2 (-) 65.400 b= 2gEf1 (-) 78.153
c= 0.000 c= 0.000
d=qA2 59.704 d=q"2 59.704
Critical depth Dc ______ adopt Lower positive Value
D2'= 2 993 D1'= 1:011'
2.993 3.769
-0.86 -0.797
1.192 1.011
129

q and HE Known
q= 9.272 Dc=(q"2/g )" 1 /3 = 2.06
HL= 1.486
Z= HUDc = 0.721
If Z<1
y=1+0.93556(Z)^0.368 = 1.829
If Z>1
y=1 +0.93556(Z)"0.240 = 1.865
= y(x"2)+(y"2)x -2=0
—b 2 ± b z —4ac
a=y= 1.829
x=
2a Here b=y"2= 3.347
c= -2
x= 4.451 or 1.672
x and y known
as m= x+1/(2x"2) = 4.476
Efl=mDc = 9.228 Note * Adopt value of Ef1= Ef2 +HL 5.566
as n= y+1/(2y"2) = 1.979
Ef2=nDc = 4.080
Ef2=D2+(q/D2)"2*(1/2g) Ef1=D1+(q/D1)"2*(1/2g)
or or
19.62D2"3-19.62Ef2D2A2+qA2=0 19.62D1 "3-19.62Ef1 D1 A2+q"2=0
q= 9.27 q= 9.27
Ef2= 4.08 Eft= 5.57
19.62D2"3-19.62Ef2D2A2+q"2=0 19.62D1 "3-19.62Ef1 D1 "2+q"2=0
a=2g 19.620 a=2g 19.62
b= 2gEf2 (-) 80.046 b= 2gEfl (-) 109.209
c= 0.00 c= 0.00
d=qA2 85.973 d=q"2 85.973
Adopt Higher Positive value greater
than Critical depth Dc adopt Lower positive Value
D2'= ;3.771 D1'= 0997
3.771 5.416
-0.939 -0.827
1.242 0.977
130
N 'n 00
O O O Q\
N N N —
bO
~
''' en N M - ~ M [-
O N r, 00 C N
w+ N Cl C N
N
-'
U
II
6' O
0 _
4-0
b z~
u en aen,
M rn
N M Vl
C!]
— V1 • M N Vl N
— N D 00 '.O ON 01 01
M , 00 .00 M O 00
In
O N N N N N
C.
o
_ .~ 'n ' •-~ O:'~ N Ln ;, 00
M M '00 l0 M M
-
M N N N N N" ~. 0
^ O
y ^ ^ U
0
bA N l~ Ô W c ~! d' O d' d O
'.O N 00 C - o1 9 9 +ri
rID
R" Q" •~,' II O O O M O O 01 c': ¢

N U O O 1n
E 0 30 ~+ ~n In o0 0 I, In ~--+ U
° O
.—) - O O 01
`'
O O,' O_ Oo O ~,
______ _____ -.7---------;


q= 30.107 q= 30.107
Ef 1 6.445 Eft 7.445
Eft =D1 +(q/y2)"2*(1 /2g) Eft=D1+(q/y2)"2*(1/2g)
or or
19.62 D 1 "3-19.62 Ef2 D 1 4'2+q"2=0 19.62D1 "3-19.62Ef2D1 "2+q"2=0
q= 30.11 q= 30.11
Efl= 6.445 Efl= 7.445
Trial 1 Trial 1
D2 19.62D2"3-19.62Ef2D2"2+q2=0 D2 19.62 D2"3-19.62 Ef2 D2"2+q"2= 0
a=2g 19.620 a=2g 19.62
b= 2gEf1 (-) 126.454 b= 2gEf1 (-) 146.074
c= 0.000 c= 0.00
d=q"2 906.433 d=q"2 906.43
D1=. 4.371 4.371 D1= 6!269 3.365
-2.29 4371` , -2.189 .3365 J

q= 30.107 q= 30.107
Eft 8.445 Eft 9.072
Ef1=Dl +(q/y2)"2*(1 /2g) Eft =D 1 +(q/y2)"2*(1 /2g)
or or
1 9.62D1 "3-19.62 Ef2 D 1 "2+q"2=0 19.62D1 "3-19.62E12D1 "2+q"2=0
q= 30.11 q= 30.11
Efl= 8.445 Efl= 9.072
Trial 1 Trial 1
D2 19.62D2"3-19.62Ef2D2"2+q"2=0 D2 1 9.62 D2"3-19.62 Ef2 D2"2+q"2=0
a=2g 19.62 a=2g 19.62.
b= 2gEf1 (-) 165.694 b= 2gEf1 (-) 177.994
c= 0.00 c= 0.00
d=q"2 906.43 d=q"2 906.43
D1= 7.656 2.881 D1= 8.42 2.690
-2.093 2:881.: -2.039 2:690
132


q= 30.107 q= 30.107

Eft 9.445 Eft 10.445
Ef1=D1 +(q/y2)"2*(1/2g) Eft =D1 +(q/y2)"2*(1 /2g)

or , or
19.62D1 "3-19.62Ef2D1 "2+q"2=0 19.6201 "3-19.62Ef2D11¼2+q"2=0
q= 30.11 q= 30.11
Efl= 9.445 Efl= 10.445
Trial 1 Trial 1
D2 19.621D2"3-19.62 Eft D2"2+q"2=0 D2 19.62D2"3-19.62Ef2D2"2+q"2=0
a=2g 19.62 a=2g 19.62
b= 2gEfl (-) 185.31 b= 2gEfl (-) 204.934
c= 0.00 c= 0.00
d=q"2 906.43 d=q"2 906.43
D1= 8.855 2.597. D1= 9.981 2.395
-2.000 2.597. -1.932 2 395
q and HI Known
q= 30.107
Eft 10.786
Eft =D1 +(q/y2)"2*(1/2g)

or
19.6201 "3-19.62 Eft D 1 "2+q"2=0
q= 30.11
Efl= 10.786
Trial
1
19.62D2"3-
02 19.62 Ef2 D2"2+q "2 =0
.a=2g 19.62
b= 2gEfl (-) 211.616
c= 0.00
d=q"2 906.43
Solving Cubical Equation
Adopt Lowest Positive value greater than
Critical depth Dc
D1= 10.355 ,. _ 2.338
-1.907 2.338
133


q= 9.272 q= 9.272
Eft 2.939 Eft 3.939
Eft=D1+(q/y2)"2*(1/2g) Eft =D 1 +(q/y2)"2*(1 /2g)
or or
1 9.62D1 "3-19.62 Ef2 D 1 "2+q'2=0 19.62D1 "3-19.62Ef2D1 "2+q"2=0
q= 9.27 q= 9.27
Eft = 2.939 Efl= 3.939
Trial I Trial 1
D2 19.62D2"3-19.62 Ef2 D 2"2+q"2=0 D2 19.62D2"3-19.62Ef2D22+q^2=0
a=2g 19.620 a=2g 19.620
b= 2gEfl (-) 57.669 b= 2gEf1 (-) 77.289
c= 0.000 c= 0.000
d=q"2 85.973 d=q^2 85.973
D1= 1.993 1.993 D1= 3.601 1.284
-1.048 1.993 -0.946 1. 1.284-

q= 9.272 q= 9.272
Eft 4.939 Eft 5.566
Eft =D1 +(q/y2)^2*(1/2g) Eft =D1 +(q/y2)^2*(1 /2g)
or or
19.62D1 ^3-19.62Ef2D1 "2+q"2=0 19.62D1 "3-19.6202D1 "2+q"2=0
q= 9.27 q= 9.27
Eft = 4.939 Eft = 5.566
Trial 1 Trial 1
D2 19.62D2"3-19.62Ef2D2"2+q"2=0 D2 1 9.62 D2"3-19.62 Eft D2"2+q"2= 0
a=2g 19.620 a=2g 19.620
b= 2gEf1 (-) 96.909 b= 2gEf1 (-) 109.209
c= 0.000 c= 0.000
d=q"2 85.973 d=q"2 85.973
D1= 4.744 1.063 D1= 5.416 0.977
-0.868 1.063' -0.827 0.977 `
134
00
.-
r+
kf)
_, pi
p .-i M
L
N
00 N
0 0 0 0 0
N
3 _°? o o o
O
° °
u
N N N N N N N N
00 N M 01 [- M O
00 •
-i — -+ N M M M M
0
NI I
-O w
O N
O
II -- O Q O. ~D N
Q e N' M r
Cl
•
--~ --~ --~
• N M M M
CN
0
N
N
tn 00 00
s ' —4 O
O O O O O O
N N N N N N N
El E E E
N O N O 01 Ò sO
O p~
l-
M lI- to O M I'D M M
N 00
b N N N cr1 d 'O
0 II
•
E E
II 00 00 00 00
Q A C O 00 00 00 00
00
•
~ U 01 M
.-~ N N M
O 0 r N N
a ,b x II II • M N. N O~ D\
1 N . vn 00 N" _ O O
N Cl) 00 1p M Cl
.-- — -+ N M M M
.sue.
00 .00 .00 .
-
- N_ ~.
O
w w
a •~
0C
a -15 - N O 5 00
w w
(3) Depth of Sheet pile line from Scour Considerations
Total discharge escaping Through other Bays = 6839.412 Cumec
Overall waterway of other bays= 348.000 m
6839.412 =
Average discharge intensity = 19.653 Cumec/m
348.000
Depth of Scour = R = 1.35(
Here q= 19.653 Cumec/m f
f = 1.000 R= 9.832 m
( i) Upstream sheet pile
On U.S side allow for . 1.25 - R =
1.250 x 9.832 = 12.290 m
.•. R.L of the bottom of scour hole = 207.000 - 12.290
= 194.710 m
Provide a sheet pile line up to elevation = 194.710 m
(ii) Downstream short pile
On the D.S side allow for 1:500 R=
1.500 x 9.832 14.747 m
.•. R.L of the bottom of scour hole = 205.500 - 14.747
= 190.753 m
Provide a sheet pile line down to elevation = 190.753 °, m
(4) Total floor length and exit gradient
Safe exit gradient is GE = 1/6
Maximum static head (H) = 204.000 - 197.159 = 6.841
Depth of downstream cutoff ( d) = 197.159 - 190.753 = 6.407
Hence G _ ( H ) 1 1 = G(d) = 0.156
1 V EH
(
_ - H) = 2.04 ?= 4.16
Therefore
d IGE
1+1+az
Using 2= a= 7.251
2 a =b/d= 7.251
Hence total floor length b=ad = 46.454 m
If excessive, increasing the downstream cutoff by 0.000:. ` m,
d = 6.407 m H = 6.841 m
I ~ = G E (H)
ri 0.156
Therefore _ H 1 = 2.040 = 4.160
d iG E
136
Using Z or,= 7.251
- 1+ l+a
2 a = b/d= 7.251
Total floor length (b) =ad 46.454 m
Adopt total floor length = 46.454 m
and provide down stream cut-off to an elevation = 190.753 m
The floor length shall be provided as below:
Downstream horizontal floor = 27.235 m
Down stream glacis length
with
3 X 201.500
r -
1
197.159
- slopes
13.022 m
Crest width = 2.000 m
Upstream glacis
length with slope
(1 1) (201.500 - 200.000
= 1.500 m
Balance shall be Provided Upstream floor= 2.697 m
Total floor length=
+ 13.022 +
27.235 2.000 + 1.500
+ 2.697 = 46.454 m
( 5) Pressure calculations
Let the floor thickness in the upstream be 1.000 m and
m near the
1.50 downstream cutoff.
( i) Upstream pile line
d= 200.000 - 194.710 = 5.290 m
Floor length b= 46.454 m
1 d 5.290 _ = 0.114
a b 46.454
46.454 =
8.782
5.290
1+ l+a2 = 4.919
2
137

(1- k)/2,_ -0.797 (2-k)/~,_ -0.593

Cos-' 1 2 =2.493 2.206
100 _1 (1-2= 79.36 %

PD COs
7r
100 _(2-2
OC = cos I
J 70.24 %
D - 0 C 9.12
I c Correction for Depth = 1.00 X 91, = 1.724
5.290
(D c Correction for interferance of D.S sheet pile line,

d= 199.000 - 195.564 = 3.436 m

D= 199.000 - 190.753 = 8.247 m
m and
b' b= 46.454 m
DX(d+D)
C=19
b' b
= 2.047 % (+ve)
c c corrected
= 70.237 + 1 7M + 2.047
= 74.008 %
( ii) Downstream pile line
d= 197.159 1 - d 190.753 = 6.407 m
6.407
a b 0.138
46.454
a =b/d = 7.251
1+ 1+a2 = 4.160
2
(?-1)/X= 0.760 (,%-2)/X= 0.519
_ — 1 _, 2-2
cos = 0.71 Cos = 1.025
100 _, 2-2
OE = cos A =
2l 32.630 %
100 _,-1
cbo = COS L
2 J = 22.544 %
138

4E1 - D1 10.086 %
1.500 2.361
~E 1 correction for depth = X 10.086 =
6.407 %(-ve)
OD1 correction for interference of u.s pile line

d= 4.907 m b'= 44.954 b= 46.454
D= 195.659 - 194.710 = 0.949
X(d+D)
C=19V b' p b = 0.348 %(-ve)
(DElcorrected = 32.630 - 2.361 - 0.348

= 29.920
139
O O O kn O O O kn
00
O O [~-: O kn
v'i O N
N O O a1 O O O O
• N N
r-,
^' o
'-' N 00 Q~
Q Q~ N O 00 M O~ O
00 V) -
s. kn od M N
- O O O
a) 0
.o "~ 01 ~O 1 c vl C.' M M
'Cy C~ N - O O
N O N
0
O
U
o
N- rfl
N - N-
;-4
a) O N
Sri O 4
'- O O N
b o
O
00 O M
A 00
G~ t1, v~ N ~ M
Ii N N ~ N O N
O o
'-4 U 0
0 d' 4= 4= O Ln O
O
00
• 3 0 '-0 N N
N .-~
"O + .b ^ . •4 O O
0
00 .
N-+
0
- lD
~
a, ..
o
N
o 4o
0
O
0
N o
L o
.5-4 0
•~
. a o °' -d rn o
N
0
N -
O •
~bO O N
c~'
d 0
0
f Oa N 00 O •
--~ 00 00 N N '--~
O oo O vl N N 01 00 N vl
II M ¼O 00 ~o N
Ho >. O .-Z
O ~t N - r O .-• *n O N
M M t \1O .-- N 00 V1
O .
M
t N
L
01 N vl L/•1 N ••-a N 1 C)
U O O • N cri cri M cn N N N
O N
NIM O -- N N
N N 01 •
--
C = cd b
a
:O ~-4
. 00 M
O M
O
C
M M M M M M M M M M M M M
V O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N 'M Cl O\ '-4 00 N
Cl
NI M N M M e O' O
-
- CCi 'b Q\ '-- •

-- •
- '-4 00 rl C) 00 Lfl
00 M O~ ' Cl
O N d vl Ò `G Ò --
N • - '-+
O
M M 00 M N •
--4 O C\
U _ '.D
C)
'O
O C) O O O O O O O O O O
O
O
4-
~ 0o O N 09
o0 ~O M O d:
y
O y
O C) O O O C C' N
2 . N N N N N N N ~ N
~
N W1 kn M N 'o O N
U to Ln If Ln of in N O yr N 00 of
O •--~ CV CV N M M M M N N N
to N v1 LP 00 In •
-+ oo O O
O 00 '
,--i '-4 r+ '-4 .• -4 O C) C) O C\ O~ Ol
O O O C) O O O C) C) O Q\ O.\ C
v ,T, N N N N N N N N N N -4
kn ~n
C) o ,-- o 00 00 00 '.o N N N N N o,
N c
N
o 0 4..— o O O C a, am o*\ c a rn
O v1 vl \D tr1 Lr O O O O
O
Q " O G~ M M en M O
M N N N N - - \O O
0 't O. 000 C) O O 1t ~ V~ n N t
O O N en 00
QO0 v o m '.D N N N en en
O - N M
C/J Z O -
• N M ~n N 00 07\ •
-i - - -
E E N
N_ N 00
00
N to i II
--+ N N N
II II II II
U U U U U
a) G) O N G~
.> > ; N
—
M
_II o
73
a~ y
E E N
E
N
00
N N E R3
N N N M E E
M
00 ~ U
II II !I II r, R N
II 02
b O O O 'd tf O ~--~ O b ~O O "d II ~' V
a~O kn tI N a~
>~
NN
ocl U -IIN V
,N ~i Q '
vll ~t' a~
N C II O N
N.
N~ N M~ M~ o
O to
d II II .b II 'd II .d I] -d v
NI c d
^C3 N 'd M - E M 't7 Q •~ -' ~n
'C1 " 'd rn
O cd o o U
4-r O .1 o
4-~ . 2' O' . r+-~ ;:$J ,~+
00
U] II v, II v, II w rd 'zy c
.d p -d O G C U
o
O O
. O -1 ,^
O
cc
Q) G).1
- E V
U s. U s. U s, U U s. U
o
0
w Q w CC U ~-,
7) Protection works beyond impervious floor
IS 6966 (Part 1) : 1989 vide para No 19.2
Table 1 Likely Extent of scour at different places along a barrage/weir Clause 19.2
Si No Location Range mean

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Upstream of impervious 1.25 to 1.75 R 1.5 R*
i) floor
Downstream of impervious 2.00
1.75 to 2.25 R
ii) floor R*
Noses of guid banks 2.00 to 2.5 R 2.25 R
iii)
Noses of divide.wall 2.00 to 2.5 R 2.25 R
iv)
Transition form nose to 1.25 to 1.75 R 1.5 R
v) straight
Straight reaches of guide 1.00 to 1.5 R 1.25 R
vi) banks
* These are to be considered for designing the flexible protection only. For depths of cut-
offs provisions given in Clause 17.10 should be adopted.
( i) Upstream protection
( a) Block protection
Depth of scour
= 9.832 m
Anticipated
Scour = 1.5 R
1.5 x 9.832 = 14.747 m
Upsteram Scour level = 207.000 - 14.747
= 192.253
Scour depth 'D' below u.s floor = 200.00 - 192.253
= 7.747 m
Quantity of block protection required = D cum/m
Providing 1.6 m X 1.6 m X 1 m

Blocks over 0.4 mGravel Pack, the length Required =
= 7.747 = 5.534
1.000 + 0.400
Length of concrete block= 1.5 D - 11.621
Provide 7 rows of concrete blocks of the size
1.6 m X 1.6 m X 1 m
Total Length= 7 x 1.6 = 11.621
143
b) Launching apron
Quantity of launching apron required for launch slope of
2 1 = 2.25 D cum/m = 17.432
and 1.8 D cum /m for a slope of 1.5 1
Assuming a
slope of 1.5 1
Quantity of Launching
Apron= 1.8 D = 13.945 cum/m
Horizontal length of launching apron =1.5D = 11.621
Thickness =2.25D/1.5D= 1.5 m
Slope of Launching Apron vide IS 6966( part 1):1989 clause no 20.3.3
(ii) Downstream
protection
Expected scour 2 R = 19.663
Downsteam Scour level = 205.500 - 19.663
= 185.837 m
Scour depth 'D' below d.s floor= 197.159 - 185.837

11.323
(a) Inverted filter
The length of inverted filter should be equal to 1.5 D
16.984 m
Provide 11.1 rows of size
1.600: m X 1.600 m X 1.000, m
cm Gap in between
CC Blocks with 10 0.5
over m
thick graded filter in a
length of 17.946 m
( b) Launching apron
Provide thickness of launching apron = .2 . m
Quantity of launching apron required = 2.25 D cum /m'= 25.476
2.25 X 11.323
•. Length required =
16.984
= 1.50
Provide 1.50 m thickness
144
--i r- V 1 Vl M M 00
00 N ['- d' M M v1 00 p N O N
O [- r- Ln ON O = O N N
~D M O M M M M O G\
O Q~1 • M
N
ti
II O M 00 N [- O' 1 /) cfl O%
O
a y U tn r O O m— M N l- N 00 N -- -- N N N M C\
rn N N N N O' d O"' — 0' •'" Q' N- M ~ ~

- N N
E bA 0\ 00 N N 0' N 00 d N N N 1O
cci N d: -
0 — M 'ct O\ '-O N "O `p oo N N
o0
O O - .- CO - d N - i 00 N
- .. - -
O r.l
N .•q
a
II .-- 00 O — 00 N
`7 00 .--~ 00 C N '-C N N
O cM N In ct in 00 N O O d ~O N
~O O •-+ ~O p •
O^ 'O
O ~O O O M M N N
r~ rn N N N N In Q' u M --~ 00 ~--' 'n M
--~ 00 •
O r-+ • M
p
In In d' M In In N N N- In N N
O N O -- O 00
N • r o0 'l •
--~ •-. M Ul
L N N 00 0' "t zt; N M N I N N 00 t- t-
~ O
s7 II O 00 In 00 Ln N N ON O' N
d N v1 O O N N O~ O~ •--< <n [~
d \O. In M N N M N Ln t
• \,o O -- M p ^ N __
In
V D 00 O' Q1 In %o In O' N N 00 O 00 In
A O O O O O oo 00 to ~ N
Q' M O 00 oo v1 M M— NIn - 4 -+
• ' _
N N N N
bA Vl N 'ct v1 N C1 ' M \O
— N O' S In M N N N N N N ~h o0
M C\ N O N 'mot N O C "D ~O M C 01
• C O en
d N cV ~O [~ ri ,--~ •
-- ~-- [~ Ò
p O
ii
v1 N O ~n N ~O d N O N O d N N 0 O\ ON M
M M - cj G1 N
"d •9 O -- 06 O 00 N N N N 00 M O' "O M N
O O O O V O c N
L rn N N N N ~T Q\ M .~ O -- oo oo I M- N ^ - - N N
~p — In ~p In in M N
w, cd N N M N v 1 \O 00 N O\ [~ O O Q1 O O~
A N 01 N O O ~O \0 ~--~ '- M O O N ^' •
--'
~ O
A °O
eps II O O I •
--1 M ~D 00 00 In In N 00
O N a) N O O O ID In In N 01 N ~t d In N- 00
00 vl M -+ O~ r• -- •- .- N N
~n N N N N ~Y [~ u M O -- •-, oo •-+
O' N -- In N 'n In N M 'O

0' N N oo ~O N
w ~t \D 'D II- O' O' 0 O
N- O O' O ~--~ N N O~
e O"R O M 01 d N O O O vn t/i
A tII .--+ .--~ In .--~ 01 01 M ~--+ ~D

O N U M O O r+ O O N N v1 N N ~O %O 01 \O G-, O\ N O' ' 00
y b vj -- V1 d^ N N 00 O'o 00 M M \O M 'fit 00 M N
O O O O •
-- M N O~ ^" N N M O O \O M -~ O
rn N N N N et N M •- •-- — N .-. [- - vl N -- ,-. .-. --~ .- •- N N
C C
Q O O
U
CAS O a~ 0
r
y i In c ,, O i. • O U • O
. O O N p In Q
nZ -o s w a I+, C—.
c CA 2 4, w 4 o 2$ o o .«.~ o o
3 -a o o A
b i 4) o
o C cd cd 0O
•- o c o o G) 4) N o 0 0 J U N U U U
Fig.A-II.1 Discharge V/S Lowest Level of Jump
Formation(Barragebay)
197.5
197.4
C 197.3
- 197.2
L°
.r,
197.1
197-
196.9
- -+- Discharge V/S Lowest Level of Jump Formation

196.8
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge(cumec)
Fig.A-1L2 Discharge V/S Total Floor Length of Barragebay

405
390
E
ca
I
375
4
0
360
345
tDischarge V/S Total Floor Length of Barragebay

330
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge(cumec)
146
Fig.A-II.3 Discharge V/S Total Floor Length(Barragebay)
50
49
48
1n 47
as
46
0
45
44
—+— Discharge V/S total floor length

43
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge (cumec)
Fig. A-II.4 Discharge V/S Downstream Floor Length(Barragebay)
31
30
29
E
X 28
I.
27
26
25
t Discharge V/S d/s floor length

24
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge (cumec)
147
Fig.A-1L5 Discharge V/S Downstream Glacis Length(Barragebay)
14
13.5
E
s
= 13
12.5
--.— Discharge V/S d/s glacis length

12
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge (cumec)
Fig.A-II.6 Discharge V/S Upstream Floor Length(Barragebay)
10
E
s 4
- r Discharge V/S u/s floor length

a
6 00 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
-2
-4
Discharge (cumec)
148
Fig.A-1L7 Discharge V/S Upstream Depth of cutoff (Barragebay)
14
12
E
10
—•— Discharge V/S uls depth of cutolgd)

-+— Discharge V/S u/s depthofcurtoflt1.25R)
4
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 1
Discharge (cumec)
Fig.A-1L8 Discharge V/S Upstream Depth of Cutoff (Barragebay)
17
15
113
O
7
11
s Discharge V/S d/s depth of cuto 1.5R)

- Discharge V/S d/s depth of cu to d)
5
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
Discharge (cumec)
149
Fig.A-II.9 Discharge V/S Upstream Length of C C Blocks(Barragebay)
14
13
E
U
V. 12
y
Rio '
11
—.--Discharge V/S us length of CC bbcks

10
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge (cumec)
Fig.A-II.10 Discharge V/S Downstream Length of CC

Blocks(Barragebay)
21
20
E
19
U ,
w18
bD
17
16
—.— Discharge V/S d/s length ofCC blocks

15
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge (cumec)
150
Fig.A-II.11 DischargeV/S Upstream Length of Launching
Apron(Barragebay)
14
E 13
0
C7
e 12
s
o 11
CF
e
° 10
--s Discharge V/S u/s length of launching apron

9
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge (cumec)
Fig.A-II.12 Discharge V/S Downstream Length of Launching

Apron(Barragebay)
20
19
E
0
L
n
CC
18
.0
C
.
0 17
1;n
0
16
— Discharge V/S d/s length of launching apron

15
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge (cumec)
151
Table A-III.1 With Change in Discharge(cumec) Change in Lowest level of jump
formation (m) for Barragebay
% Change
Lowest level
Change
SI. Discharge
No. in g of Lowest level
cumec jump formation
discharge ( ) of
'r' jump formation
1 7000 -22 197.411 0.1

2 8000 -11 197.268 0.1
3 9000 0 197.159 0.0
4 10000 11 197.053 -0.1
5 11000 22 196.959 -0.1
6 12000 33 196.872 -0.1
Table A-III.2 With Change in Discharge(cumec) Change in Total Length of

Barragebay (m)
% Chlange
Total Length
Change
Si. Discharge In g of
Total Length
No. cumec Barragebay
discharge (m) of
Barragebay
1 7000 -22 334.00 -4.
2 8000 -11 348.00 0
3 9000 0 348.00 0
4 10000 11 362.00 4
5 11000 22 390.00 12
6 12000 33 404.00 16
152
bJ (44
bA
^ 0 0 0 0 0 0
LO Un U) uU U) In
0 _ oo v') N [I- N 'cit

O
Q V U 'D 'C ~D N-
Cd
CC
Oi 'C O
r' N
N O
~ U
I p~ El Q\ Vn [- M M • 4
~O ~O ~--~ C'.
O O ~
p ten, kn
a
O cM 'd' 'ct
Q ,d ..-~ ,- .~ .-~ .~ .-~
A
o 9 p
.r., D~ ~O c~ O N vl [~
0
~! N CD N d' (NO) 9 o v~ o Z
N NO M (O 00
N M c') M c')
GJ
N
Y r
C ~ "
~ O
"0 00 N
fir O ^ N M
.--
cr in
O ~p ^ N N (N C)
b o bA O N ~i O
irl oo ~
N
Q- +r-+ O , N N N N N co
ci
A ^
C ~
.-~' p .-+ d N 'D
•G~ tZ, O ON N 00 M N
C U '- O N N M M
U
O O V
M O N M
UV N N M
N O o ~
N M
cl on
Ei aV o 0 0 0 0 0
O o 0
o o O o 0 0
0 0 0 0 N 00 °
0 0 0
V dl - O Q v
O
Z N m mot' LO CO — N
L.:
O bA
o- roo
CI
(4 bID
O .- N N M O
I'D i ~r kn Q1 00 to - M
.-i - Q\ N ct O
pa C ki '. N- 00 C\
- .--1 - - . -+ -
it w a Q
bn
U a o kn 00 C4
o `
u
EAU v N N- N
a `y o " o ,- .-~ f'1 N M
O p O - -.—+ —
I\ OO —1 N
u
rj
bA
p U O
01-1
• r ~%
0 O d- tt1 Vn 00 O
00 M [- r-+ d 00 N- M 0
00 N 'O
"D t- o0 00 00
Q crJ '~
au
to
c
U . d
u .S~
nj
A
.p
co 00 cn 00 '-.0 o
Cyr
.J~ O O Cd
U bn en V b° bn
N .- .-
UV C 4 •— O r , N cM
*1 U u N -~ N M
,n \ b o
O O O ~ U
O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O ^G,
V O O O O O O O O O
.-Q
O
Z c- N m Nr LU (D ti N
L.
C/)
biD
d O
H
-°
a~ v w
bA II N
(~ Vl N [~ N ~D r-•~
0 O ' --: ~--; N N c~
~ j ~ O •
p II - N O l- M Q\
Q C ,
~ ~ O
Q .-r .--i — .- ,--~
wcn
U bA
i O d' OO N
A o bU
~ U ~
,gp -~ •
--+ •
y, v O •--~ • --+ •
--+ •
--~
II
N
• v) II i
tn •~
2 o d 00
y~ -~
— U
N
C ~
.- 00
u
II
EO O ~
~ 3
o ~•cb
o ~ o N d - 1p \O - -
.~ .— .-~ .-r
•~ N M zj Lq lD
., II N N N N N N
A
O El R' N 01 r- '-' 'Zr [-
p O. Q O N M Ln CL" • ~ Q ~ Q \p ~ [~ 00 00 00
II N N N N N N
O p O
bA by
y b O
- U v N
' (_)C)
o b
o 'b
C C)biD
O O o
I-
0 0 0 C)i 0 0 0
.-1 v O O O C) [- oo C, ° - -
rI
s o C
V z r N c') ~- LO cQ z N M d t0 (O
rID rID
O . •Z N 00 M 00 M y .O `—
~, cd vl O •--~ •--~ N N M " U cd •--
N M 14- kn vi,
Cdd i O N N M
N N N N CV N cd CID " '-' '-' '-' '-' ''-4 '-'
C/1
bA
- to 110 Ln -4 .-+
M
- '- N ~ kn ~D 0 U
CV cV N N N N x v)
tO
" II N N N N N N
N N N N N N
p UN N
~1
.ci) E 0 0 0 0 0 0
u II p O v v '.o '.o 'n
7 v N N N N N N
N m t to "O pa a) (n
(ID
N N N N N N
U
N zy cA H
~ ~ ¢• O N M ~ ~ ~
N N N N N N
O N - ':t W1 V)
--~ O O \ ON
M N • U p 0 0 0 0 0 0
II
H
b N N 01 '.O N tO
N N _
N N N N N N .~ N O N m
O U
bA U
to
O O O O O O O O O O O O
_i
U 0
00 -4 -4 -4
C_ CD 0
00 C= O O N
r N L (0 - N c") (0 (0
Z
Appendix-B
Result data relationship in graphical form (Dataset II)
Fig. No Description
B. 1 Variation of Lowest Level of Jump Formation with Design Discharge
B.2 Variation of Total Length of Undersluice way with Design Discharge
B.3 Variation of Total Floor Length with Design Discharge
B.6 Variation of Upstream Floor Length with Design Discharge
B.9 Variation of Upstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design Discharge
B.10 Variation of Downstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design Discharge
B. 11 Variation of Upstream Length of Launching Apron with Design Discharge
B. 12 Variation of Downstream Length of Launching Apron with DesignDischarge
B. 13 Variation of Lowest Level of Jump Formation with Design Discharge
B. 14 Variation of Total Length of Barragebay with Design Discharge
B.15 Variation of Total Floor Length with Design Discharge
B. 17 Variation of Downstream Glacis Length with Design Discharge
B.18 Variation of Upstream Floor Length with Design Discharge
B.21 Variation of Upstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design Discharge
B.22 Variation of Downstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design Discharge
B.23 Variation of Upstream Length of Launching Apron with Design Discharge
B.24 Variation of Downstream Length of Launching Apron with Design Discharge
157
Fig.B.lDischarge V/S Lowest level of jump formation(Undersluice)
295.4
295.3
C
CO
295.2
0
295.1
Discharge V/S Lowest level of jump formation

295
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Discharge(cumec)
Fig.B.2 Discharge V/s Total length of undersluics way

105
100
E
95
d
V
Cn 90
85
Discharge V/s Total length of undcrsluics way
80
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Discharge(cumec)
158
Fig.-B.3 Discharge V/s Total floor length(Undersluice)
52
51
s 50
L
O
O
. 49
0
48
— Discharge V/s Total floor length(U/S)

47
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Discharge (cumec)
Fig.-B.4 Discharge V/S Downstream Floor Length(Undersluice)
32
31
30
29
Discharge V/S D/S Floor Length(Un.S)

28
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Disharge( cumec)
159
Fig.-B.5 Discharge V/s Downstream Glacis Length (Undersluice)
13.5
13
E
Ct
12.5
—+— Discharge V/s D/S Glaris Length (U/S)

12
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Discharge(cumec)
Fig.-B.6 Discharge V/S Upstream Floor Length(Undersluice)
12
11
10
8
on
7
3
Discharge V/S U/S Floor Length(U/S)
2
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Dischargc(cumec)
160
Fig.-B.7 Discharge V/S Upstream Depth of Cut off (Undersluice)
17
r5
to 13
tir
^ 11
—.— Discharge V/s u/s Depth ofCatofl U.S.)

Discharge V/S Depth of Cutoff d
7
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Dischaige(cume c)
Fig.-B.8 Discharge V/S Downstream Depth of Cutoff (Undersluice)
19
17
,~ 15
0 13
11
9
—.- Discharge V/S d/s depth of cutofl1.5R
u— Discharge V/S d/s depth of cirtoff d)
7
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Discharge (cumec)
161
Fig.-B.9 Discharge V/S Upstream Length of CCBlocks(Undersluice)
12
11.5
E 11
0
V 10.5
10
9.5
Discharge V/S u/s length of CC blocks

9
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Dischaige(cumec)
Fig.-B.10 Discharge V/S Downstream Length of CC Blocks(Undersluice)
23
22
E
I
0
U 21
y ~
20
—.-- Discharge V/S d/s length of CC blocks

19
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Discharge(cumec)
162
Fig.-B.11 Discharge V/S Upstream Length of Launching
Apron(Undersluice)
18
17.5
117
E
16.5
eo
16
15.5
Discharge V/S u/s length of launching apron

15
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Discharge(cumec)
Fig.-B.12 Discharge V/S Downstream Length of Launching

Apron(Undersluice)
22
21
E
I.
w
DL
0
0'20
C
19
—.— Discharge V/S d/s length of launching apron

18
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Discharge(cumec)
163
Fig.B.l3Discharge V/S Lowest Level of Jump
296.6
296.5
E
° 296.4
E
296.3
296.2
0
..2
296.1
Discharge V/S lowest level of jump formation

296
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Discharge(cumec)
164
Fig.-B.15 Discharge V/S Total Floor Length(Barragebay)
48
47
8
46
on
I..
C
C
45
44
t Discharge V/S Total Floor Length(BB)

43
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
D ischarge(cumec)
Fig.-B.16 Discharge V/S Downstream Floor Length(Barragebay)
-29
28
E 27
I
0
26
25
t Discharge V/S D/S Floor Length(BB)

24
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Discharge(cumec)
165
Fig.-B.17 Discharge V/S Downstream Glacis Length(Barragebay)
13.6
13.4
13.2
13
c
12.8
12.6
12.4
—.— Discharge V/S D/S Glacis Length

12.2
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
D ischarge(cume c)
Fig.-B.18 Discharge V/S Upstream Floor Length(Barragebay)
E 4
= 3
00
It
2
--#— Discharge V/S U/S Floor Length(BB)

0
7 0. 8000 9000 10000 11000 1 13000
-1
-2
Discharge(cumec)
166
Fig.-B.19 Discharge V/S Upstream Depth of Cutoff(Barragebay)
13
11
E
0
o.
cu 9
- s Discharge V/S u/s depth ofcirtofl(1.25R)

— Discharge V/S u/s depth of cirtoil~d)
5
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Dischaige(cumec)
Fig.-B.20 Discharge V/S Downstream Depth of Cutoff(Barragebay)
16
1.4
. 12
o 10
sa
4
8
t Discharge v/s d/s depth of catoil(1.25R)

Discharge v/s d/s depth of coto~d)
6
4
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Dischaige(cumec)
167
Fig.-B.21 Discharge V/S Upstream Length of CC Blocks(Barragebay)
14
13
U 12
on
11
10 —+—Discharge V/S u/s length of CC blocks
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Discharge(cumec)
Fig.-B.22 Discharge V/S Downstream Length of CCBlocks(Barragebay)
20
19
E
18
0
U
U
w
17
16
t Discharge V/S d/s length of CC blocks

15
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
D ischargc(cumcc)
Fig.-B.23 Discharge V/S Upstream Length of Launching
Apron (Barragebay)
14
13
12
on
11
10
u— Discharge V/S u/s length of launching apron

9
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
Discharge(cumec)
Fig.-B.24 Discharge V/S Downstream Length of Launching

Apron(Barragebay)
19
18
E
c
00
17
am
16
—~— Discharge V/S d/s length of launching apro

15
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000
Discharge (cume c)
169
Appendix-C
Result data relationship in graphical form (Dataset III)
Fig. No Description
C. 1 Variation of Lowest Level of Jump Formation with Design Discharge
C.2 Variation of with Total Length of Undersluice way Design Discharge
C.3 Variation of Total Floor Length with Design Discharge
C.6 Variation of Upstream Floor Length with Design Discharge
C.9 Variation of Upstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design Discharge
C.10 Variation of Downstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design Discharge
C. 11 Variation of Upstream Length of Launching Apron with Design Discharge
C.12 Variation of Downstream Length of Launching Apron with DesignDischarge
C. 13 Variation of Lowest Level of Jump Formation with Design Discharge
C.14 Variation of with Total Length of Barragebay Design Discharge
C.15 Variation of Total Floor Length with Design Discharge
C.18 Variation of Upstream Floor Length with Design Discharge
C.21 Variation of Upstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design Discharge
C.22 Variation of Downstream Length of Concrete Blocks with Design Discharge
C.23 Variation of Upstream Length of Launching Apron with Design Discharge
C.24 Variation of Downstream Length of Launching Apron with Design Discharge
170
Fig.C.1 Discharge V/S Lowest Level of Jump
253.1
Formation(Undersluice)
253
252.9
E
252.8
252.7
o
..7
252.6
—•— Discharge V/S Lowest Level of Jump Formation

252.5
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge(cumec)
Fig.C.2 Discharge V/S Total Length of Undersluice

120
110
E
d
C.'
100
C.'
90
on
0 80
Fr
70
Discharge V/S Total Length of Undersluice

60
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge(cumcc)
171
Fig.-C.3 Discharge V/S Total Floor Length(Undersluice)
55
54
53
E
an
52
51
50
Discharge v/s total floor length

49
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge(cumec)
Fig.-C.4 Discharge V/S Downstream Floor Length(Undersluice)
32
31
30
E
DC
= 29
O
O
28
27
26 —.-- Discharge v/s d/s floor length
6000 7000 8000 .9000 10000 11000 12000

Discharge(cumcc)
172

Fig.-C.5 Discharge V/S Downstream Glacis Length(Undersluice)
13.5
13
e00E
—12.5
on
12
— Discharge v/s d/s glacis length

11.5
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge (cumec)
Fig.-C.6 Discharge V/S Upstream Floor Length(Undersluice)
16
14
12
E
en
a
= 10
00
C
0
8
—+— Discharge v/s ufs floor length

4
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge(cumcc)
Fig.-C.7 Discharge V/S Upstream Depth of Cutoff(Undersluice)
14
—.—Discharge v/s Ws depth ofcutoff

discharge v/s depth of cutofl(d)
6
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
Dischaige(cumec)
Fig.-C.8 Discharge V/S Downstream Depth of Cutoff(Undersluice)
18
16
4 10
—.- Discharge v/s d/s depth of cuto8(1.5R)

—i— Discharge v/s d/s depth of cutof d)
6
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
Dischaige(cuunec)
174
Fig.-C.9 Discharge V/S Upstream Length of CC Blocks (Undersluice)
11
10.5
V 10
I 9.5
-+— Discharge v/s u/s length of CCblocks

9
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge (cume c)
Fig.-C.10 Discharge V/S Downstream Length of CC Blocks(Undersluice)
23
22
u 21
O
20
'Z7
19
tDischarge v/s-d/s length ofcc blocks

18
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge(cumec)
175
Fig.-C.11 Discharge V/S Upstream Length of Launching
Apron(Undersluice)
18
I7.5
E
17
c
16.5
s
on
16
15.5
+ Discharge v/s u/s length of launching apro

15
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge(cumec)
Fig.-C.12 Discharge V/s Downstream Length of Launching

Apron(Undersluice)
22
21
E
0
e 20
0
19
C
18
s Discharge v/s d/s length of launching apron

17
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge(cumec)
176
Fig.C.13 Discharge V/S Lowest Level of Jump
254.6
254.4
E
O
td
254.2
a 254
-- Discharge V/S Lowest Level of Jump Formation(Barragebay)

253.8
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge(cumec)
Fig.C.14 Discharge V/S Total Length of Barragebay
430
410
.n
Ca
390
r'
370
F-'
350
—I— Discharge V/S Total Length of Barragebay

330
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Dischargc(cumcc)
177
Fig.-C.15 Discharge V/S Total Floor Length(Barragebay)
49
48
47
E
46
is
45
44
Discharge v/s total floor length

43
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge(cumcc)
Fig.-C.16 Discharge V/S Downstream Floor Length(Barragebay)
28
27
26
E
on
I::
23
t Discharge v/s d/s floor length

22
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge (cumec)
178
Fig.-C.17 Discharge V/S Downstream Glacis Length(Barragebay)
13.5
13
E
an
12.5
ou
12
—s— Discharge v/s d/s glacis length

11.5
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge(cumec)
Fig.-C.18 Discharge V/S Upstream Floor Length(Barragebay)
12
10
E
Y 6
G 4
- Discharge v/s u/s floor length

0
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
6100
-2
Dis charge(cume c)
179
Fig.-C.19 Discharge V/S Upstream Depth of cutoff(Barragebay)
12
c 8
-.— Discharge v/s u/s depth of cutof 1.25R)

Discharge v/s u/s depth of cutofltd)
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 1

Dischaige(cwnec)
Fig.-C.20 Discharge V/S Downstream depth of cutoff(Barragebay)
15
13
E '
0
V
11
0
a
9
-+-Discharge v/s d/s depth of cuto 1.5R)

5 Discharge v/s d/s depth of cutod)
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000

Dischaige(cunec)
180
Fig.-C.21 Discharge V/S Upstream Length of CCBlocks(Barragebay)
13
12
E
0
n
U ]1
en
10
tDischarge v/s u/s length of cc blocks

9
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge(cumec)
Fig.-C.22 Discharge V/S Downstream Length of CCBlocks(Barragebay)
19
18
(17
c 16
15
—.--- Discharge v/s d/s length ofec bbcks

14
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge(cuniec)
181
Fig.-C.23 Discharge Upstream Length of Launching
Apron(Barragebay)
13
12
11
nn
10
bD
—+— Discharge v/s u/s length Of launching apron

7
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge(cumcc)
Fig.-C.24 Discharge V/S Downstream Length of Launching

Apron(Barragebay)
18
17
E
I.
16
on
15
14
t Discharge v/s d/s length oflaunching apron

13
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Discharge(cumec)
182
Appendix —D
Result data Relationship in Tabular Form (Dataset II)

D. 1 Discharge and Lowest Level of Jump Formation Relationship (Undersluice)
D.2 Discharge and Total Length of Undersluice way
D.3 Discharge and Floor Length Relationship for Undersluice
D.4 Discharge and Depth of Cut off Relationship for Undersluice
D.5 Discharge and Upstream Protection Works Relationship for Undersluice
D.6 Discharge and Downstream Protection Works Relationship for Undersluice
D.7 Discharge and Lowest Level of Jump Formation Relationship (Barragebay)
D.8 Discharge and Total Length of Barragebay
D.9 Discharge and Floor Length Relationship for Barragebay
D.10 Discharge and Depth of Cut off Relationship for Barragebay
D. 11 Discharge and Upstream Protection Works Relationship for Barragebay
D. 12 Discharge and Downstream Protection Works Relationship Barragebay
183
Table D.1 With Change in Discharge(cumec) Change in Lowest level of jump
formation (m) for Undersluice
Lowest level of % Change in

Change
SI. No. Discharge cumec jump formation Lowest level of
discharge
(m) jump formation
1 8000 -20 295.378 0.05

2 9000 -10 295.293 0.02
3 10000 0 295.221 0.00
4 11000 10 295.166 -0.02
5 12000 20 295.107 -0.04
6 13000 30 295.053 -0.06
Table D.2 With Change in Discharge(cumec) Change in Total Length of

Undersluice way (m)
Total Length of % Change in

Discharge % Change in
SI.No. undersluice Total Length of
cumec discharge
way(m) undersluice way
1 8000 -20 85.00 0.0

2 9000 -10 85.00 0.0
3 10000 0 85.00 0.0
4 11000 10 102.50 20.6
5 12000 20 102.50 20.6
6 13000 30 102.50 20.6
:E
U ..
o
00 00 00
01) ~? \1p 00 ~
Cl)
U
..r
D
~ O ^
q
° CUd N O r+ M
(ID N N It C:> 00 N N N O d' d•

C cd . 1 O O ^ t— `- O'. M N ~--~
Cl)-
TEE:::
Ln "D ~O N N oC
A
bp -4 .— -4 .M-
.
N .--
O
)l
bfl 0 4
eet O
cd .~ O ~—• N O M O
V ~30 .-• O 00 in — t-
o0 a; ,- . V ter;
° I-id
°
r-
' , N N
C'. C:
N M M r4
-4
s, ~.
U N N N N N o0 00
V
V
E
o •~ O N I- M O N W) i-
--• 00 N
•
O ^
p
0 '--4 O O' O-, 00 N W)
. yr - V .-. --i .--+
• .--~ .--- — -
C
.0
V U
aV V
3 N C O O O O
V
F 0 O O O O
CO V O O O O O O O O O O
V •,. O O O O v 0 0 0 0 0 0
U 00
Q ~ Q ~
0
Z r- N m ~7 U) (
Cz° N c ' tr1 \,O
U
tO O bA O
U O+ r- c? O N -
U Sri
Cd
Ca
u
O .
00 00 'f — M \C t}
• 0 .
4-+ p N 00 O mot' vT M O M 00 M
G~ ¼O 0o O~ O O O •--~
cs
ly
i
¢,
V a •
-' •
-• -- + '
12
U
0 0 C....4 U o ~; ~;' o N 'o o
p .O
0
0 Ca
hIi
,0 0 o
o o 0 0 0 .~ a y, o C, o •~ ,-~ N r-
N N 'N N N
E Cl
bA
o Q (~ I M O N ct ~o
U. o °
Ca
bi ^ Ca
r-.
t,' Cl O ~. -i
- .
N .
M -e -r
. .
M -i .~~
M
U
Ca V
U U ~
~ O
v ~ [~ U CO
Ca
Ca
N ~n r4 M o N N •--~ M M O
UO
oo .4
O . - . -~ ,--~ N A U t1. O O •
- •
-+ •
--
Ca ..r
U U
bO Cl bA
V U U o
N 0 0 0 0 0 c m O o
V V N O O O O
CO
o ~ o ~
I
Ca
bO
o 0 0 0 0 0 U Ca o
o 0
0 0°O o°
o 0
E-
Q v
O -- N M L() (fl z
Z
Table D.7 With Change in Discharge(cumec) Change in Lowest level of jump
Lowest level of % Change in

% Change
SI. No. Discharge cumec jump formation Lowest level of
discharge
(m) jump formation
1 8000 -20 296.490 0.06

2 9000 -10 296.387 0.03
3 10000 .0 296.299 0.00
4 11000 10 296.231 -0.02
5 12000 20 296.159 -0.05
6 13000 30 296.094 -0.07
Table D.8 With Change in Discharge(cumec) Change in Total Length of Barragebay

(m)
% Changein Total
Discharge % Change in Total Length of
Si No. Length of
cumec discharge Barragebay (m) g
Barragebay
1 8000 -20 376.00 -10

2 9000 -10 404.00 -3
3 10000 0 418.00 0
4 11000 10 432.00 3
5 12000 20 460.00 10
6 13000 30 488.00 17
187
N
P 0 0 0 0 0 0 bAE ° 4~-a
U " .Q Q In 'O "O D D D
ens u. o - - as 1.r
Q [- ct N •-r O a
bJ 3.~.~
O4-+
O^ N Qll 011 M [-
w -°
M N
O — N v) 0
Cl I'D O cq
[ c? O N vl N
I
00
V Q ~• ° ~n t Ln v, to '-o 00
.--4
s 00 O\ In N N "o
c 0 C C 00 v, N 00
u Q B a~ `-' N N N N N N E
N N N N N N 0
A
bO y-±
u
Cl cc — t- N ON cM
O In O O d - ._4
N N
'-4 '-- —4 .-- .--4
M
.--4
"i-
V
el UA
bA 0
bA U U O O N O
i,
'' ca
d cz O O O O O
3
~ o ~
~ o ~
°
~ U U O O O O O O
^"' bO cd U O O O O
cC U O O Q O O O U, O O p
O O O O
O O O
O O O '-'
00 O' N cr1
5 — N C") d' LU CO Z
° c4 bO
U o U
o
I
o 00 00 LF LrJ
bJ o 00 t/ 00 N
bA O •-+ N N - — I'D GO
U O
O
O oc 00 Vn O — M ¼,O V
1Qj O1J U V ^ ON d' 011 M r-
ip. y~ •--~ '•- .-+ N cri
N .--+ a c~~ U 'o l- 00 00 O"
0O - .--+ ,-- 0 0 .' .-. . 4 .4 —4 .-4
a) o
to °
bA
o Q
U QvD
o0
r- rn 00 I o M Cu °
.-• "o . - ~r t- o
rn rn r-• d r-
t - n ( - 00 00 00 U O O - - - -
V
C ~
y V o d
ca
s. U -~ U -d
.0
u
O 0 P ^
O
A ^ 00 N Cl) .d 00 N N
.0 00 N C, ON o 0 00 C o; rn Q o
Cf
bn Cl tb
U a O O N O
bA 0 0 0 0 0 0
U 0 0 0 0 0 4
0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0
C °
o
U 0 0
~ -4 N M
00 Cl U •--i .-~ .--+
Q ~
O - C~! M p U) CO N M V- to CD
Appendix —E
Result data relationship in Tabular Form (Dataset III)

E.1 Discharge and Lowest Level of Jump Formation Relationship (Undersluice)
E.2 Discharge and Total Length of Undersluiceway
E.3 Discharge and Floor Length Relationship for Undersluice
E.4 Discharge and Depth of Cut off Relationship for Undersluice
E.5 Discharge and Upstream Protection Works Relationship for Undersluice
E.6 Discharge and Downstream Protection Works Relationship for Undersluice
E.7 Discharge and Lowest Level of Jump Formation Relationship (Barragebay)
E.8 Discharge and Total Length of Barragebay
E.9 Discharge and Floor Length Relationship for Barragebay
E.10 Discharge and Depth of Cut off Relationship for Barragebay
E.1 1 Discharge and Upstream Protection Works Relationship for Barragebay
E.12 Discharge and Downstream Protection Works Relationship Barragebay
190
Table E.1 With Change in Discharge(cumec) Change in Lowest level of jump
formation (m) for Undersluice
Lowest level % Change

% Change of in
Si. Discharge
in jump Lowest level
No. (cumec)
discharge formation of
(m) jump formation
1 6100 -25 252.981 0.06
2 7100 -12 252.886 0.03
3 8100 0 252.820 0.00
4 9100 12 252.733 -0.03

5 10100 25 252.671 -0.06
6 11100 37 252.611 -0.08
7 11500 42 252.590 -0.09
Table E.2 With Change in Discharge(cumec) Change in Total Length of

Undersluice way (m)
% Change
Total Length.
Chan % e in
Si. Discharge in g of Total Length
No. (cumec) undersluiceway
discharge of
(m)
undersluiceway
1 6100 -25 67.00 -21

2 7100 -12 67.00 -21
3 8100 0 85.00 0
4 9100 12 85.00 0
5 10100 25 85.00 0
6 11100 37 102.50 21
7 11500 42 102.50 21
191
'b
O
t M N N O U to
LO O d N0
N d d O
• U
(44
00 00 O 61
O p M d Vn 00 O c' N O N N N
y~ .~-r .N-+ \O:j L m 00 a\ O
Lu
^C3
O N d v1 co bA O r' G:
~
bA
+~' U
Q II
^ O M L 00 O\ •- N
.-N, ,-4 M r-,
N N rN, N - M
cam'
U U-
° `r
4'
0''
t(
- ~ 00 00 O\
O M O l 0 c O \O
00 N OO M [~ o0
.0 N N N
C
Lu
O N ~t N 00
o~
A ~" ° •-d Ò cV O [- oo O
a~ b
D ~t 00 c
v I' ,4
O 00 01 Q -- -
•
N N N N M M M
V -d
00 O' O °~ N
rn o\ rn
N
-I
G
U
o O O O M vi vi y •a
[2 O I
Ch i U
u !•I
A O ~ ^ t i O' O\ 00 1
A
•
C
(4
u o ,—. 0'0 rn o D Ln t ON
~n •-~ Ln o ~r o0
F-~ ° '- b Q N N M M' 'zJ
at
U ~ U
bn °' bA
. N O N~ ? O N O N vl N (\J
M
en U 'I.
W o nd W ~ b
H on
b
O O O O p O O F''
- kn O O O O
.- + •
--~ •
- -- N 00 01 .~
U
cn
Q ~ Q ~
r ('J C) lq- l[) (0 N

O
~Z r N m Nr U[) CO N
z
bA
.~ .~ N
O ~t l - O~
"O N
.r, i i O N O~ o U
Cd ''
o ^
Gd bA
.~ --+ -I~
O 'z' °1 D\ \O •
bA A •V
4-. 00 [~ O 00 d 00 O
O~ 00 N ~t oo 3~. p q ~S. [- oc O, O~ O O • --
° U
O
oo ~t d' N N
° ^ 00
0 00 D N
M 00
d 00
00 M O 0 ~D 00 °S., , aj ° U o N N N N N
L 0 p
o o 0 0 0 o Ci.
a
°
bA
o Q
v~
o I
U q 4-4 °
A 4i
.'" 00 0
Q c ••• ^
° '- B O oh
o b 1• I N N
a) v b
U U 4l
U CI 'd
b
Cd L,
00 O-, — .--+
O t1 00 N
q b
e~ q a a~b~A
by bUA
~r cad V~ N N Ln [- N ue". U N cN-~ O .N- N M N
. .., -~ C4 - N M ~Y ,z; U rn
U '
U U O O O
O
O O O O O O CD O O O O O O
O_ O_ O_ O_ — . Ifl ,- -, ,~ _
Q ~
_O
N CO d' LO CD r- r N m V U) CO fN
Cl) Z
C/,
Table E.7 With Change in Dischargc(cumec) Change in Lowest level of jump
% Change
Lowest level
%Chan e
Si. Discharge of
No. in g Lowest level
(cumec) jump formation
discharge (m) of
jump formation
1 6100 -25 254.395 0.08

2 7100 -12 254.278 0.03
3 8100 0 254.199 0.00
4 9100 12 254.091 -0.04
5 10100 25 254.015 -0.07
6 11100 37 253.941 -0.10
7 11500 42 253.915 -0.11
Table E.8 With Change in Discharge(cumec) Change in Total Length of

Barragebay (m)
Total Length % Change

%Chan e
Si. Discharge
No. In g °f Total Length
(cumec) Barragebay
dischar e of
g (m)
Barragebay
1 6100 -25 334.00 -11

2 7100 -12 362.00 -4
3 8100 0 376.00 0
4 9100 12 404.00 7
5 10100 25 432.00 15
6 11100 37 432.00 15
7 11500 . 42 446.00 19
194
•~ ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 3 p O N M
~ bp ~
s:
v O c O I0 O eJ LID L!) W .) V1 Ò "O O

•~ Q, i N
U
'~ [~ N •
-+ ' i O~ O ~!l OW N+
o L: U o
w
I. ftU
N U .—~ .—+ .~ --+ — .- a .—i
V b
N l- O M .O 00 O
i+ U
O ~O + N N N N m M O
o ° A 00 M ~
n •~ ° ^ O~ r+ M N N m O~
__ _______
_
U' o N W m L, to
U V
c~ b
y ~+ ~D r-+ Q~ ~n O N 00
O ^ 01 — 00 O~ r— ~ - "O
y o ip N d
v
V ° ° 1 d ~O CO .0
V `J
.,~ •~ N M Q~ O~ [~ Q~
• ~1. O ^ O ~D O Ln ON M vl
00 00 M •
-- . -+ -- -4 -- -~ -- r+
H +rr 00
d I~ \O C1 d M
M
-
U V a.)
bflby
U N cd c~ Vl N N i t- N
►
5 bA ap r ,s.
" N
V o
o
Cd •
--~
p ~^
^ U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--+ t
— •
O O O O— r U ~D r— 00 Q1 - ---
ai
Q ~
z N M ~7 U) (0 N-
Z N M '~7 U) (0
o °n
U U c cd
`l Di
bn
00
^ N- N O N
00 ce., — — - l~ -
CC --~ ,--~ .-~ .--~ .--i .-~
• N PA --+ ,--i .-r .--~ .--i .-~ .--
•
Sr y~
an
N ~ bn
~
uU C U o a, v
U
c o
C' 00 O'
'
N- O W kn Nn
o_ n _ }' U d O N
--~ CV V
Q q q o o
N N- O N- O
U Q v1 t~ t~ t~ o0 0o V Q v _4 - - -4 —
L U-
e~ s.
A O R4 ~, O 'd 000 N in
'C C) C `J 00 00 00 ON 0-1 O~ .) 00 00 00 rn O' O~
C ~
U b° N-
A tD
N c U N O N M d
o ~ 3
~"r N
O W O O O O O O O
C U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N- 00 01 .-~ C~ U I- 00 Q~ .-+ — ._
cZ N M d' LU (0 f- z N Cr) LU (O N-
Appendix —F
Result data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset II)

F. 1 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation, Chute Blocks in Under Sluice
F.2 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation, Dentated Sill in Under Sluice
F.3 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation, Basin Blocks in Under Sluice
F.4 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation, Chute Blocks in Barragebay
F.5 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation, Dentated Sill in Barragebay
F.6 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation, Basin Blocks in Barragebay
197
tO
o tO OU bA
O cr1 ~o Q~ w)
u co U ri
U
a)
bnIF
• - t) O\ N
F~7 O Q N N M M 'ij Q N N N M M M
r C
.S~
bn -
o •C U O M ~O O~
a) U &) U x
b4 _ ~ N
on D .-' N N D •~ to
U O M 00 O O \C l— N 00 00
N II
bA Y
~ ch O N 11 N
i
..-~ o
z C
O
.0 _ cd '— n 01 N 'O Q~
O... Q 00 II N N N M C' C
E" N
J 4 In Vl vn tn" Ln
d U A °
w N
b W bn ¢,
m̀o
d_ 00 7 O M \O 01 6~ o EO 'b [~
-CAS
3
O
N
.~ - N r d' N O 00 a ^ Q p N N 00 00 00
_ c} Vn l0 r~ 00 00
N N N N N N H' dddddd
00
Q tU. a, N L'0 00
N 0 00 `n 0... O M '0 ONO Cl N
L' Q 00 00 00 00 C O'
w
a) C)
bA by
,o o 0 0 0 0 C7 0
C U
•~ U
cn
N ~° '—' N M
a) e)
C V O O O O O O
Es O — N M
y Q
U .—+ .— -
bJ
rr
C':
`~' s" Z •- N M ~n (D
z N M v Ln co
0 •~ ,~ A o u
N N M M M o eUd [~ c7 O M o0
— .-- -. ~ cU
o C/))
bA cd
E~ M M N 00 \D M p V ~~ N ~O — d' 00 '--I
C/1
b!)
, M rn N OO \C) M
`-' N N N N N N v L
bA
sue+ M M N 00 0 M M M N 00 \O M
'd Ct V1 ~O l~ 00 bA U -p
N N N N N N a.'--' N N N N N N
V)
bA
Q .- N 't v N co 4-
-•
O V)
E'"' V N 0 0 0 0 0 0 V
0
•
~ M M N b0 '-.D M cn M N 00 '-.o M
lD N 00
N N N N N N 3 N N N N N N
Gar
Qa
bA
N d d N O 00
E•1 ~. D d ( 00 00
a ,Q '-s cV N N N N 'N U
.-< 01 O' 00 00 p C •
--a N N
-4 — O O O O H 0 0 0 0 0 0
F-'
O O
bA pA
7 01 \p M •
--~ O
N N (N N N N U
'C3
0 0 0 0 A U 0 0 0 0 0
ed
bA U 0 0 O O O O cd O O O O
' O 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 E 0 0 0 0 0
.--4 . 4 .-4 .--i
r-+ N M
.- 4 r-+ ,-1 .-+
O a N M
U U
ti N C~) may' LO CO z - N M Lo CO

bO
O v
I
'
Cd
• c
N O r- M
O •--4 - N
G
N M
U ri
II N
Q
In N N N 4 C
O •--t -- N N M
I
bA
cd v " ~' O ~O •-
y U ~ U x
bJ
Cl
~Q OO
O (H ~ "O ~o r-
0, N t t D O o
it C) U
bA
• 'O O 00
3 t
U
4)
~ N
- , . '~ b0 I— Ol N O .--t
In N- N
C o .., C "v in O •-- N
H a N 'z:l- r d'- tf ~n
V n
O U j i
O ~ C
Cl
ate+ '-4 N- O~ 01
•
,• 3 N N N N N N
~•y ~+ ~-. _ M -+ d N- Q~ vii rt N-

0
i . CL O N c4 d• In l0 d
am' N-
, -' u N- N- 00 00 00
4*
O G)
WD C)
bA ~p
O o
C)
v O O O O O O
vUi V .-4 .N~ -

~ Q ~ Q v
Cl
O .- N M Nr 10 (O
10 co
z
N N 00 M 00 M
tts O •--~ N N cn U Q -. v1 01 2
I ii
Cl) O • - • -r -- •-a U co )
bU of
N M •E cd O N N M
NNNNNN
C Ly
• y bA
In Vl bA -
E N M d \D
x N N N N N N
- bA
4
N M d' 'n ' jE3 N cn Ln \O

3 N N N N N N S N N N N N N
O U ~1 N
C-. ..X N 0 0 0 0 0 0
O .0
—
U
Nrrc
- N N N N N N N
~.
U
.0 Q bO
O- M — f r - 0" Q",
N N N N N N
o F
M -4 o O rn 00
-~
o
bA bq
bA ^ °'n
o 0 W O O
cV 0 0 0 0 d
o 0 0 0 o0 0 0 C0
O N O
•
_ U .-- .-- .- r •_ 0
00 O
6 v
N M d' LC) CO O N m V In CO
Appendix —G
Result data for Energy Dissipation (Dataset III)

G.1 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation, Chute Blocks in Under Sluice
G.2. Designed Data for Energy Dissipation, Dentated Sill in Under Sluice
G.3 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation, Basin Blocks in Under Sluice
G.4 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation, Chute Blocks in Barragebay
G.5 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation, Dentated Sill in Barragebay
G.6 Designed Data for Energy Dissipation, Basin Blocks in Barragebay
202
a~ Cd C)
OU
V o a .
cd •U H j . C
D U ~ c'D U
~ w
C?
bO
.-. Q in O d rn N in [~
Q - O
N N Cfl M ' d ~n N N N cr1 M cf
I &) O
~ w
bIJ
~ U • bA -~
V U n U x
by _
V _ 00 r. Q M O •
-- N
O O 00 00
~ N y" O
~ U ~ ..0
U
bA
~ U
V ~
- ..5 in O - O1 N in [~
V L7 00 0o N d
N C '2 ~n •-- N N N M M M
F ' Qi N h . - v'i V) in it A 3 Q
V
rq
U r
bA p.• 4-.
~J o cdd • = M O d [~ O~
U
O
CC
^ 00 .-1 N N O M O O Q \D 1-4 N. 00 00 00
_ N 'zt' t 'D l 00 00
•y 3 N N N N N N E--• ' 3 o 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
^ N -i in N
N. O O
C1. h 0
00 0
Mo O
U
M
^- Q N. 00 00 00 00 Q 01
O O V N
M b~A 1-4
cd cd in cV
'.' -
N N M V
N
~ U ~
~ o -d o 'ti
A a)
O o 0 0 °o °
O °
O o 0 0 0 C) °o
o
U .--4 — _-1
0
C —
V s r (N lf) CO N. 5 r N M IT LO W I,-
OU •w 00 C\ bA O U
N N
- — M M M M
U S1 ,-- -+ ' r.
cd cn
bA ~d
,____o
O U
N N N N N N N cl p -
CJ]
• N N N N N N N
.
bA
4
•- 00 -~ C ~--~ N N Q oo kn 00
'
N N N N N N N = ~ N N N N N N N
bA
ri \p 00 00 N
C~
H xU o c
F
• o d'
.-- N N O 00 Lf'e 00 .-. — N N O 00 Ltl 00
N
M N N N N N N N .E N N N N N N N
"' Cn
A
b cn
oo --~ N N -' M
NhOO .-
. Q `-' N N N N N N N U
N O O\ 00 00 p N .O 00 00 N
.- L N' N
v O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F-'
y
b b
ti ~o I.E ~ N O N N c~r1
N N N N N N N U U I '--`
o b
O O O O O O O v O O O O O O O
E
U
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
U - •-s • , U --4 - '--1 ,--
• .-- .--
v_~
z N M 'd' tO (0 1- N C) 'V' tO (0 f-
Ed
O U
V ¢ '— o O in 00 -
M
E
^ U w U ci•
ee
bA
• .-. Ca
cd _
o a~ r• 00 N C j 00 O ~O N In '-- 00 O~
i~r •
- w Q Q~ O~ O O ~-- -- N
i" V Q ~? O O •- + .--~ -- --~ .--1 ,_ .—+ —A
~ O
~ w
U o Z LO O \O .-+ .~+ N-
- ,c • rn in Q0 2
rFJ
U ~►C
oo in — N N N O~
U Vl 00 .N
- •bAE
_
N
O - -
bO
::
— U1 f--
~3 O
..r
N U1 r-+ tf 00 C~
Q' .c' in N N-
H '
.-1 —N M M d d d
C V V 3 °
C.,
oo
~ U
CC
Cd H
O "~C (N Q~ M 'I') I/ 1 "'C ".0
00
0 C O '—' N c) cal
A fl M ON 00 -+ i c~ 1 — N M N — d M
O~ Q N O M "0 00 C\
a Q
Ca N N cV cV cV
bA bD bA
N tin l~ N
rn
~ N N N M
o b o 'd
o_ o_ o_ o_ ,-, , , ~,
.- 00
r.. Vi
v ~D N CO O\ O D N O\ .--~
p Q ... 0 ~
0
y ' O r N co 'q 10 (0 I-- r- N co d• U) (O N-

rn a o '-' d rn o o o
o ,-. .' .cU Vn
y,
bn
— N r N 00 O p v .-. 'c "C .-~ Vl •
--1 ' ON CD
Q~ O •-+ N N M ct ~ cd C
• yr vii D1 O O • • --1 •
-- C V
p v N N N N N N `-' O r- --4 .-r
bA
Ol O
N •-- N N M o •A
b C\ ~t
- N CV N N N N v •
.- bA
-D o~ U -~ O~ O N N M d
N N N N N N •--~ N N N N N N
E bo
00 CD N 'r "D 00 00 ' •
0 'r ' v 'r w e •a rn v o Ln rn M
r-. ~T
V _ o
C u
•
~ o
etS •-- N N O' 00 O N N C 00 O
O~ O •--~ N N M d O• -~ N N M O
~p •-+ cal N N N N N `-' — N cV N N N N N
bA
+~- N L Vl 00 [ - \D O' w U
• U •4 N N N N N U •
o E""'
--+ O
M c+l N -+ • 00 O N t O 00 co
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O d 'sf.
O
bO bA
N N N cV N N N U U
o ~
U ^ U
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O CD CD O O
C' O O CD O O
CD C
U .
--4 _-, .--+ .-- •--
• -- •-- •-- —
•
z r N (4) LU CO 1- N (4) V LU CO N-

WR DMG 14682

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

WR DMG 14682

Uploaded by

Copyright:

EFFECT OF DESIGN FLOOD ON

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT

"EFFECT OF DESIGN FLOOD ON DESIGN OF BARRAGE" is in partial fulfilment of

Department of Water Resources Development and Management (WRD&M), Indian

Dr. S.K.Mishra, Associate professor, WRD&M, IIT, Roorkee-247667, Uttarakhand,

award of any other degree.

Dated:-29th June, 2009 EP BEHL]

(Dr .S. . i ra)

First and foremost, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my respected

A = Cross sectional Area

5.1 Variation of Lowest Level of Jump Formation with Design

5.2 Variation of Total Length of Undersluiceway with Design

5.12 Variation of Downstream Length of Launching Apron with Design

A-II.I Variation of Lowest Level of Jump Formation Design Discharge

C.13 Variation of Lowest Level of Jump Formation with Design Discharge

D.9 Discharge and Floor Length Relationship for Barragebay (Dataset

A barrage is a structure built across a river to divert flow into a man-made

UIS Protection a's sheet PIle

Fig 1.1 Typical cross section of a barrage

2.1 Design Flood for Barrages and Weirs

2.2 Bankfull Discharge

2.3 Effective Discharge

2.4 Dominant Discharge

2.5 Design Discharge for Foundations

2.6 Significance of Design flood in Barrage Design

2.8 Design Flood and Waterways

2.9 Estimation of Design Discharge

2.10 Significance of Discharge in Hydraulic Design

Table-2.2 Provision of minimum free board for different discharges

3.1 Fixation of Pond Level, Crest Level and Waterway

(D/s water level - crest level)

3.5 Velocity Head

Total discharge passing down through barrage

3.6 Looseness Factor

It is calculated by dividing the actual waterway by the Lacey's waterway IS:

3.7.2 Level of downstream horizontal floor

3.7.3 Length of downstream horizontal floor

3.8 Total Floor Length and Exit Gradient

3.9 Floor Thickness

3.10 Energy Dissipation

3.11 Protection Works

3.13 Divide Wall or Groyne

3.14 Piers and Abutments

3.15 Fish Ladder

3.16 Gates and Hoisting Arrangement

3.17 Working Platform

3.18 Design Steps

(Surface • Hydraulic jump forms on the DS • Cistern invert elevation

■ Floor thickness of • Floor thickness

Protection ■ Through visual examination of • Plan layout of guide bunds

Other barragebay discharge

Undersluice bays discharge

Output: Other barrage bays discharge and

The above flowchart gives the following output:

u/s energy levels

Spillway or other barragebay Sluiceway or Undersluice d/s

Outputs: Energy dissipater types

Fig. 3.2 Flow chart for the design of energy dissipater

DATA REQUIREMENT AND THEIR AVAILABILITY

4.1 Detailed Investigation

Table 4.1 Sta a Dischar a Data Dataset I

1 200.000 0 11 204.525 5000 21 206.268 10000

Table 4.3 Stage Dischar a Data Dataset II

5.1 Effect on Lowest Level of Jump Formation

5.2 Effect on the Length of Waterway

5.4 Effect on Downstream Floor Length