CHAPTER 5 SEDIMENT REMOVAL 5.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the process of sedimentation in settling basins and the design of sediment removal facilities. Section 5.3 introduces the design concepts, covering the main points of influx from rivers, canal transport capacity and storage and desilting requirements. Section 5.4 discusses the types of settling basin and their differentiating between gravel traps and sand traps. Section 5.5 deals with sedimentation as it applies to settling basins in particular, flushing and other methods of clearing settling basins and design procedures. Section 5.6 covers other types of sediment removal devices euch as vortex tubes. 5.2 SETTLING BASINS AND OTHER REMOVAL FACILITIES Most rivers carry a substantial quantity of sediment which may be in the form of gravel, sand and finer material depending on the character of the river, its catchment and the discharge at the time. Steeper rivers will also move cobbles and even boulders during flood events. Although intakes are located and designed to limit the amount of sediment entering the system, in practice it cannot be entirely eliminated. In irrigation systems, the objective is to reduce the sediment load to a level which can be transported through the canal system to the fields. This will help to avoid the problems of sediment deposition in the canals and the amount of maintenance. The sediment transport capacity of the canals is restricted for two reasons: - the canal gradient is limited so that the area commanded is a maximum; ‘ - the evfects steeper gradients have on canal bank erosion and overall regime. The regime design and sediment transporting capacity of canals is dealt with in Manual M.8, Distribution Systems, Canale and Cana’ Structures. Gravel should never be allowed to enter the canal system and coarse sand should be excluded as far as possible. Some means of removing gravel and sand will be required at most irrigation intakes (except perhaps the smallest). The arrangement selected 103based on observations at the site over a year or more, but generic data related to the region may be all that is available. It may be necessary to make assumptions based on experience if no other data is available. It is worth noting that in boulder rivers, the grading of suspended solids can be obtained by sampling the much finer material trapped in pockets and behind boulders near the stream margin. In gravel bed rivers, similar zones of finer material may be found in small eddy zones ‘in embankments. In sand bed rivers, the sand itself will form a significant part of the suspended load especially during floods. If there is no other data available, typical suspended sediment concentrations may be 10 - 100 mg/l at low flows, 100 - 1 000 ng/} at average flows, 500 - 5 000 mg/l at flood flows, and much higher in rare events. 5.3.3 Transport Capacity of Canal The design of the canal system and its intake must. be considered together so that consistent criteria are applied. Bearing in mind the seasonal effects, it may be feasible to allow higher loads to enter the canals than their mean capacity for sediment transport, provided these occur for a short period (perhaps up to 14 days) and the canal has adequate excess capacity over the supply from the intake system in the remainder of the year. For canals to operate as unlined canals “in regime" (i.e little maintenance), the sediment supply should not exceed about 100 mg/1 on average, with no material coarser then about 0.3 mm. ‘This is applicable more to the Terai than to the hills. Hill canals are smaller and more likely to be in rocky areas with a supply of stone for lining. These canals could therefore be designed for faster flow to transport larger concentrations of somewhat coarser material. 5.3.4 Storage and Desilting Except in those situations where continuous desilting is feasible, any gravel trap or settling basin is required to store the settled sediment until the time comes for it to be flushed out, mechanically removed or hand excavated. The arrangements for storage and desilting are an essential feature, and failure to adhere to strict operational rules for sediment removal will cause the system efficiency to drop rapidly, with serious effects on the canal system itself. The volume to be allowed for storage (m3) is obtained from: Q xXmax a Vol. storage =, 86.4.5 x FI x 1073 BD where, Q = flow rate through settling basin (m3/s) Xmax = maximum sediment concentration of entering flow (mg/1) n = trap efficiency BD = bulk density of settled material (t/m?) FI = interval between flushing or emptying (days) 105The design of gravel traps differs from settling basins because they handle coarse material which enters near the bed, rather than suspended material which has to be settled through the depth. The main design principle is that the velocity through the basin should be less than is competent to move the smallest size of gravel to be removed. The combination of the Shield's initial motion function (for coarse sediment) and the rough-turbulent bed friction law gives a relationship between mean velocity, depth and particle size}, Because, in practice, gravel traps will have rather confused flow, their nominal flow velocity (discharge/cross-sectional area above "storage" level) should be less than the theoretical critical velocity (say one half). Gravel traps may be emptied mechanically, by hand (smaller projects) or by flushing. Direct hydraulic flushing of gravel requires high quantities of water at high velocity, but iseasier if the gravel trap is hopper shaped, with floor slopes of 30° if possible. Hopper bottomed gravel traps may also be continually flushed provided there is adequate excess flow (say 1/3 of the irrigation requirement) to allow an emptying valve at the base of the hopper to be permanently open with an opening larger than the maximum gravel size. This requires checking through the hydraulic formula for a bottom orifice. Bearing in mind the hopper geometry (for continuous flushing), the storage volume required (for intermittent clearing) and their combination (for periodic flushing), an appreciable head is required for the effective flushing of a gravel trap. This will depend on several factors including the scale of project, but is unlikely to be less than two metres. Also, care has to be taken that the outflow of gravel can be removed by the river where hydraulic flushing is proposed. This is a matter of location and adequate river flow beyond the intake. For small schemes, hydraulic flushing will not be appropriate, and manual clearing is more likely to provide an economic design’ with more assured operation. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show gravel traps. Figure 5.1 shows a basic design for manual clearing (where it may also serve the function of a coarse sand trap) and Figure 5.2 a design for continuous hydraulic flushing. Cecen? made the following recommendations for gravel traps with continuous flushing, as shown in the arrangement shown in Figure 5.3 - they should be long enough to achieve settlement of gravel; ~ the flow velocity should be in the range 0.6 - 0.8 m/s: - the longitudinal slope should be 2 - 5%; 107Figure 5.1 Gravel Trap for Intermittent Emptying (may also be used to trap coarse sand) Gravel and coarse sand trap Optional divide wall PlanFigure 5.2 Gravel ee for Continuous Sluicing ing Active Bed Movenent Inlet gates. JFigure 9.3 Gravel Trap for Continuous Flushing ‘Source: Cecen, K., Water Intake Problems in Torrents, Int. Symp. on River Mechanics, IAHR, Jan. 1973, Bangkok. = bwroso oemFigure 5.4 Settling Basin for Major Scheme youn? Buiysny, 4 youn? Aunwyid 2 youn> Aspwisd ayDjU! zp dos} }UsWIpas 9 ayDIU! UIDW Zq a2in}s Gulsnoss 1q a2injs Suiysnyy +p IRA D Source: Irrigation Design Standards, Headworks, Vol. KP -02, Rep. of Indonesia, Min. Public Works, Dec. 1986.Prismatic section of basin Setting zone Figure 5.5 Canal Enlargement as Sediment Trap tet zone | al | | | |Figure 5.6 Sediment Trap as Part of Double Orifice Intake for Small Hill SchemesThe dimensions L (length) and B (width) of an "ideal" settling basin can be derived from Figure 5.7. A particle entering the sediment trap basin at A, with a fall velocity of the particle, w, and a water velocity, V, will have to reach the bottom at Cc. ‘Thus the particle, in the time (H/w) needed to reach the bottom, will travel horizontally over a distance L in the time L/v. Therefore: H=L with V= Q wars HB where, H is depth of flow (m) w is fall velocity of the sediment particle (m/s) L is length of sediment trap (m) Vv is flow velocity of water (m/s) Q is canal discharge (m/s) B is width of sediment trap (m). this gives: LB = Q = surface area of basin Ww This very simple formula may be used to give a first estimate of the required size of settling basin, but several factors mean that, in practice, a larger basin is required. These are: - the turbulence of the water in the basin; - imperfect distribution of flow at the entrance; - the need to converge and perhaps curve the flow towards the exit. Typically, actual basins have double the surface area of an “ideal” basin, as will be explained. In the ideal basin, flow is steady and uniform (plug flow), and all fluid particles are detained in the settling zone for the retention time, tp. In practice, even with well designed basins, flow is non-uniform and some parts of the basin volume are ineffective. Lengths of stream paths of individual fluid particles vary - some reach the outlet in less than the theoretical retention time, while others take longer to do so. The flow-through curve for a tank (see Figure 5.8)4 provides a convenient indicator of hydraulic behaviour and efficiency. + It illustrates the departure from ideal flow caused by short-circuiting of individual flow paths through tthe basin. The objective of good hydraulic design is to achieve conditions most closely relating to ideal flow. 109Figure 5.7 Sediment Trap, Schematic Figure 5.8 Flow Through Curve f Plug flow | 4 Theoretical | s detention | cr) period.tg Dispersion index =tg, / tio | 83 | 28 =a) Observed recovery of | Sy tracer substance’ | eg | &2 6s | > t, Time of flow to outlet | ie | ose § | wsd € gee e356 x si | £33 o22e 3 3 Foa i ae a = Note; Dead spaces and short-circuiting in a settling basin are reflected in the | concentration and time of recovery of tracer substances. wros7 oc- avoidance of curved approach channels or provision of guide vanes where unavoidable (Figure 5.4); - a submerged weir; = baffles or screens (may be troublesome in irrigation schemes) . (ce) outlet Zone The operating water level of the settling basin will be controlled at the outlet, perhaps by a weir (submerged to conserve head or freely discharging to measure flows); by the canal level itself; or by conventional undershot lift gates. If the outlet is narrower than the basin, the outlet control requires an approach transition to avoid short circuiting and to maintain an even flow distribution. The outlet contraction may be more abrupt than the inlet expansion (see Figure 5.5). 5.5 SEDIMENTATION 5.5.1 Fall Velocity of Particles ghe fall velocity, w, characterizes the ability of different sized particles to settle out under gravity. Fall velocity for discrete particles is dependent on particle size, specific gravity, particle shape, and the viscosity of water. Figure 5.9 shows fall velocity in water, w, plotted against particle diameter, D, for reference quartz spheres. Various equations give approximate solutions for fall velocity of single particles. The Rubey equation is commonly used for particles with the shape of natural sands (see Section 3.3 and Figure 3.11)1. ‘he significant effect of water temperature on fall velocity, particularly in relation to design where there is considerable seasonal variation, should be noted. With increasing concentration of sediment, actual particle fall velocity will be less than for discrete particles due to interference of other particles. Flocculation can occur in high concentrations of silt, clay and organic particles when the particles coalesce to fall in a group at a higher velocity, but is not normally relevant to irrigation systems. Hindered settling occurs when discrete particles settle in close proximity to one another, and their velocity fields interfere. {interference effects become significant at suspended sediment concentrations in excess of 2 000 mg/l when the reduction in fall velocity for a coarse silt suspension might be about 10%. In general, the effects of hindered settling are not significant in terms of the ranges of sediment concentrations and the degree of accuracy for settling basin design. aaaFigure 5.9 Fall Velocity of Quartz Spheres in Water (aquinu spjousay = ¥) Aum Aysojan 4 ww ‘g savawelg porns ceThe ratio Q overflow rate". is termed the "surface loading" or “surface In practice, real settling basins act less efficiently than the ideal due principally to the effects of: a turbulence in flow through the basin leading to retarded settlement; and (44) short~circuiting and currents within the basin. Sediment removal efficiency, n, for a given particle size is Reasured as C,/Cg, where C; = concentration of suspended sediment removed, and Cg = incoming concentration. Hazen's® method accounts for the effects of both turbulence and imperfect flow distribution by a general classification of basin performance in his formula: a-n = [1 + mwap/g}-/™ where m is a performance parameter varying from m = 0 for "best" basins to m= 1 for "very poor" basins. Hazen's equation is shown graphically in Figure 5.10. The disadvantage of Hazen's formula is that several different physical effects are combined into a single parameter, m, and it is better for the designer to consider each effect separately, where possible. ° Turbulence has a considerable influence on the settlement of silt and finer material, but less on sand (especially coarse sand). Camp® considered the effect of turbulence generated by the roughness of the basin itself. After making simplifying assumptions that fluid velocity and the turbulent mixing coefficient are the same throughout the fluid, Camp derived the following relationship: A = £ (WAp/Q, W/Vs) where vy, is the shear velocity, /(gRi), and w/Vs can be regarded as a dimensionless indicator of the effect of the fluid turbulence on a given particle size. R = hydraulic mean depth, and i = hydraulic gradient, which is calculated from a boundary resistance equation (such as Manning's) and depends on flow-through velocity and the roughness of the deposited sediment. Camp's solution is shown graphically in Figure 5.11. The equation proposed by USBR? (Vvetter's® equation) is closer to the performance of the best design of basin in irrigation practice, because it is not confined (as is Camp's solution) to the effects of turbulence only. Vetter's equation is: HA, nest =e. eno 113Figure 5.10 Performance Curves for Settling Basins of Varying Effectiveness Quiescent setting Shaded zone Best performance, m = 0 m=4 covers Camp's Vetter’s equation ea) Percentage removal (100 C; /Co)Figure 5.11 Camp's Sediment Removal Graph for Turbulent Flow {@) The Effect of Turbulent Flow on Seaunentauon outflow Efficiency, n 02, 024 | 1 0. + t 0 | Veneers) 2 te 6s POR PWS 0.021 0.2 1.0 -> Reducing turbulence w/e W/Ve = (using Manning) Source: Camp, T.., Sedimentation and the Design of Settiing Tanks, Trans ASCE, Vol. Il, 1946. shawensss oemTable 5.2 Suggested m Values in Hazen Method for Settling Basin Design m Class Type of Basin and Situation ° Best very gentle transitions at entry and exit (say 1:10 expansions, 1:5 contractions), preceded by a straight canal of length at least 10 x top width. 1/8 very Enlargement of straight canal; basin with gentle to gooa transitions as in Figure 5.5, fed from straight 4 canal or with good control of discharge across width at entrance and exit. 73 Good Well designed basin as in Figure 5.4 (note vane to control flow around bend in supply canal). 2 Poor Basins with length/width ratio below 5, or with short transitions, or fed from uncontrolled curved canal. a very Combination of two or more of the above. poor Irregular shaped basins (unless model tested to obtain reasonable Flow distribution). 5.5.3 Hydraulic Flushing For effective sluicing by gravity, the system is required to erode all deposits from the storage zone (Figure 5.12), and to convey this material at a high transport rate through the basin and sluice-way channel to the disposal point (generally the parent river). To achieve this, the fall through the removal system should be such that it operates at super-critical flow in the sluicing mode. Further requirements are the provision of low level scouring sluices and careful hydraulic design to ensure that no restriction of sluicing flow exists downstream of the storage zone. The mechanism of removal is shown in Figure 5.12. In many instances when designing a settling basin for low head river diversion works, there are conflicting design requirements arising from: - the head available for gravity sluicing of the settling basin; - lack of sediment storage capacity; - seasonal Limitation of sluicing supplies; - difficulty in sluicing the settling basin during long periods of high flood levels. 115Figure 5.12 Settling Basin with Parallel Sedimentation Channels (2yowwos601g) Bur2INS jaUIpaS paysiury (2) paoinis 304 (4) es ea eee @-@ UoHDaS oly jooyuosdns, Yy-¥ vol} VOIS (2) Wi ~ Joxuo2 yaqNG" xy we 3406 Burysny; |uawipas UDId \ \,."aj06 Suiysniy juAwIpaS \ 59}06 1am} 52)06 JU | jauuous sarut Aomaninis quawipas ——* de ut) 205 paungh ding youod Aj $3106 6uyjo}0sI auoz 421100 uysoq 6uii2s UOZ 48]UL 126MFigure 5.13 Outlet from Settling Basin Permitting Either Intermittent or Continuous Flushing Crump weir crest | —* To canal Z —+To disposal channel Flushing’sluice Section A-A Settling basin flushing slulces Disposal channel Plan \weasis.o€m * ae ee JFigure 5.14 Bagnold Total Load Functions (a) Bedioad Etficioncy Factor Dso< 006mm, 0.06 < Dsy< 02mm, 0.2 < Dg < 0.7 mm 015 Stata t og 012 ont ato (b) Solid Friction Goetticient | Wholly VISCOUS Conditions <025 | 07 | = eke 3 sé | oe | % eo ceca @ ees 5 2 Gr Critical =]— Wholly inertial oal_ stage conditions OF 02 Oc oat —2 * Dimensionless bed shear stress, OPs-Fig wwrastecen ad See eG abies as = specific gravity of the bed material. the particle terminal velocity, w, should be estimated for the Dso sediment deposit size. Note however that Bagnold's theory is not applicable for Dsq less than 0.015 mm, or for cohesive deposits. Applying this theory involves assessing the scouring velocity from the hydraulics of the basin. In some designs, the pattern of removal shown in Figure 5.12, is reversed because flow enters at very high velocity from an undershot gate. Where removal takes place as in Figure 5.12, the transporting velocity V can be assessed from a channel flow calculation based on the flushing discharge/unit width, the gradient of the basin floor and its roughness, using, for example, the Manning formula. A knowledge of the transport rate during sluicing set against the stored volume gives a measure of the time required for flushing. There is a tolerance on the calculation, and so a "reserve factor" should be applied to the calculated flushing time of, say, 2. 5.5.4 Other Methods of Clearing Where hydraulic flushing is not practical, for example because of lack of head, uncertainty in operational control, coarseness of material to be handled or small scale of the scheme, another method is required e.g. - mechanical removal by grab: = mechanical removal by a dredger, or dredging system, e.g. air-lift or jet-pump? - siphonic dredging where the head is adequate in relation to particle size: - hand excavation after draining; - hand excavation "in the wet" (feasible in small schemes only). The first two arrangements are more appropriate in the Terai where there is often limited head available for hydraulic flushing. The last two are more appropriate for smlall scale hill projects. Figure 5.15 sflows a continuously dredged basin designed for 90% removal of fine sand (0.06 mm) from the head reach of an irrigation canal. The surface loading is 0.95 x 1073 m/s at the design discharge of 40 m?/s. Flow-through velocity is 0.2 m/s. Two dredgers are provided - the main duty dredger returning the dredged slurry to the parent river, the other acting as standby and able to pump to an alternative disposal lagoon. Figure 5.6 shows a sediment trap designed for hand clearing, by disposing directly over its side wall into the main river channel. 117Figure 5.15 Settling Basin with Dredger for Major Project void BUoz HAO Su0z Fa c saBpaig s90y * L. ——— 19913.(viii) Estimate the additional sediment storage requirement below the settling zone based on the calculated deposition rate, the method/frequency of sediment removal, and, where appropriate, available sluicing discharge. For gravity sluicing, consider the hydraulic design of the sediment removal’ system in relation to available sluicing time. Fix invert levels of basin and bed gradient. (ix) Finalize the hydraulic design of inlet and outlet zones. Review need for model test of basin hydraulic layout (see Chapter 7). 2 For smaller projects where there are probably no specific sediment data available for the site, an abbreviated design process is more appropriate. «) From general knowledge and inspection of the site, assess the maximum suspended solids concentration and the probable Dsq size. If flood flows can be totally excluded by shutting the intake, then the maximum concentration will, in effect, provide the criterion for gate closure. Otherwise, a peak concentration at least as high as the maximum reached annually, which may be several parts per thousand, should be assumed. (ii) Consider the design of the canal system in terms of its transporting capacity. If this is not well established (for example in an unsurveyed small existing system), then assume a maximum capacity of 100 mg/l of 0.3 mm diameter sand during the month of heaviest sediment load. (iii) The difference between (i) and (ii) gives the trap efficiency required. (iv) From preliminary concepts of the geometry of the settling basin (i.e, its degree of “sophistication)", select a value of m from Table 5.2 and apply the Hazen equation (or A use Figure 5.10) to obtain the required surface area. (vy) Choose a flow depth sufficient to ensure no rescour of deposits when there is full storage: see Table 5.1 for critical bottom velocity and make mean flow velocity no greater than this. (vi) Consider storage requirements in terms of frequency of clearing out, and allow this volume below the nominal basin depth obtained in (v) above. (vi) Finalise the size, geometry and location and check that it remains consistent with the assumption made in (iv). 5.5.6 Guidance for Preliminary Design The information given above on the design of gravel traps and settling basins for finer material, has been summarised in an outline form in Figure 5.16. Critical velocities have been calculated for flow depths of 1.5 and 3m on the basis of the 119Figure 5.16 Guidance for Outline Design of Gravel Traps and Settling Basins (depth range 1.5 to 3.0 m) THROUGH VELOCITY (m/s) © SURFACE LolADING, 0/4 FOR 2 SETTLING “BASIN: (WA /OS 4) PARTICLE DIAMETER ( mm)Figure 5.17 SEDIMENT LOAD OISTRIBUTION beeosiz.ccm os ts SURFACE Lo 0.75 z E 8 2 08 E Z s = g 0.28 b 8e0 ° SEDIMENT VELOCITY CONCENTRATION OF WATER 10 = o.78) L & 8 Z Zoe & § g ! 2 25 PERCENT = 0.28 EXTRACTION OF WATER ° 100 PERCENT BELOW Vertical Distribution of Sediment and Influence on Bottom Withdrawal of SedimentElevation Figure 5.18 Arrangement of Bed Slot for Removing Sediment from Canalany maloperation leads to excessive maintenance and ultimately, may cause them to be abandoned. However, there are examples of their successful use to control sediment in major canals, e.g. in the Nara Canal at Sukkur Barrage in Pakistan. 5.6.2 Vortex Tubes A vortex tube sediment extractor is a similar device to bed slots for the continuous removal of sediment moving near the bed of a channel. It consists of a horizontal tube or duct installed normal to and below the bed of the channel. This extracts a small proportion of the flow near the bed, where there is a higher concentration of bed material load. A horizontal axis vortex is generated in the tube, and the floy and sediment are conveyed laterally to a settling basin or discharge channel. It is the generation of this vortex which makes it more effective than a simple bed slot, because the vortex considerably enhances the transport capacity of the tube. The vortex tube is best located sufficiently far downstream of the jfeadworks to ensure thet the equilibrium of the sediment distribution in the canal is well established. The flow enters the tube tangentially and generates a forced vortex along the axis of the tube. The flow through the tube is controlled by a gate at the downstream end, where it discharges into a disposal channel. A typical example of a vortex tube installation is shown in Figure 5.19. Vortex tubes are most appropriate where substantial canal bed load is to be excluded, and have limitations with respect to finer suspended sediment, as will be apparent from Figure 5.17. A considerable amount of research on the theory and performance of vortex tubes has been carried out by the Hydraulics Research Laboratory (HRL), Wallingford, U.K. This was based initially on the analysis of previous research and on hydraulic models, but was later confirmed and refined by field measurements on prototypes constructed in Indonesia and Nepal. For the hydraulic design of the vortex tube, it is recommended that the HRL method!1,12 should be used to calculate the optimum tube dimensions. The performance of a vortex tube (as of a bottom slot device) depends on the extraction ratio, R, (proportion of total discharge utilised by the device), and the turbulence level in relation to the settling velocity (w/v). This is illustrated in Figure 5.20. the vortex tube slit width is generally set at 0.34, where d is the tube diameter (the minimum is 0.24d). With the tube set at 90° to the channel centreline, the extraction ratio for a slit width of 0.3d is calculated from: 121Figure 5.19 Vortex Tube Installation feral drain culvert gate > Crump weir Flow—> { re | Vortex tubes Section A-A ¢ Chandra canal Vortex tube silt extractor gate | IFull supply | Section B-B Al Vortex tube 8 St Juwrastoceu Se S|Figure 5.20 Trapping Efficiency of Bed Slot (Vortex Tube) as Function of Extraction Ratio, R ee | al Trapping efficiency, n (%) 1,000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5-000 W/Ve Source: White, S.M., Design Manual for VortexTube Sit Extractors, Report 0037, Hydraulics Research, 1981 Ywwroszo.oem a —trapping efficiencies, while with coarse sediment the Froude number can be increased. One advantage of increasing the Froude fumber (e.g. by raising the canal bed level at the vortex tube), is that, although it does not affect the overall available head, it reduces the possibility of backing up from the disposal channel. Ideally, the location should be as near the headworks as possible to optimise the removal of the sediment, yet beyond the influence of any locally induced turbulence and any change of direction. To ensure reasonable equilibrium of sediment distribution in the canal profile, it is recommended!? that the distance downstream of the headwork should not be less than: 10/Fr x Vn/Wsg- where, Fr = Froude number in approach channel vn = Normal channel velocity at vortex tube (m/s) W509 = Settling velocity of median size sediment (m/s) In common with most devices, including bed slots, the main problem with vortex tube sediment extractors is the’ difficulty of disposing of the sediment. For disposal back to the river or escape channel, by gravity, it is necessary to provide for the following head “losses: = difference in head between canal design water level and minimum canal supply level; - operating head for vortex tube: - head losses through the downstream culvert and control gat - head loss in disposal channel. These losses should not exceed the difference between the design water level in the canal at the vortex tube and the maximum water level at the disposal channel outfall, when the canal is in operation. ‘The disposal channel must be as short as possible and the outfall located at a point in the river where there is a high concentration of flow; for example, on the outside of a bend. Backing up of the flow within the disposal channel must be avoided. Because of high sediment concentrations, the ideal solution for the design of the disposal channel is to provide for super- critical flow. Failing this, the channel design should be checked for its sediment transporting capacity. Bagnold's method (see Section 5.5.3) can be used. It is inevitable that compromises will have to be made in many cases. Where possible, provision should be made for high extraction ratios, for flushing out the sediment during periods of river flows in excess of canal demand. Alternatively, a flushing sluice can be located in the canal upstream of the vortex tube. 123Chapter 5 References s ES 10. 12. 12. Sedimentation Engineering, ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice, No 54, 1975. cecen, K., Water Intakes for Mountain Torrents, Int. Symp. on River Mechanics, TAHR, Jan 1973, Bangkok. Irrigation Design Standards, Headworks Vol. KP-02, Ministry of Public Works, Indonesia, December 1986. avery, PB. (ed.), Sediment Control at Intakes - A Design Guide, BHRA, Cranfield, October 1987. Hazen, A., On Sedimentation, Trans ASCE, Vol 53, 1904, p63. camp, T.R., Sedimentation and the Design of Settling Tanks, Trans ASCE, vol IIT, 1946, Paper No 2285. Rebhun, M. and Argaman, W., Evaluation of Hydraulic Efficiency of Sedimentation Basins, Proc ASCE, Vol 91, 5A5, Oct. 1965, Paper No 4523. Vetter, C.P., Technical Aspects of the Silt Problem on the Colorado River, Civil Engineering, Vol 10, No 11, Nov. 1940, PP 698 - 701. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, @ransactions, 9th Congress, Moscow, 1975. Vol @IE;, Question 30, Sediment-controlling Trrigation Intake Structures. R9 Hariri, D. and Parhami, F., Desilting Structure for the Moghan Canal, Mon. R29 Moser, T.H. and Sears, W.D., Sediment Control at Imperial bam. R32 Shimura, H. and Kinose, K., Method of Improving the Performance of a Settling Basin at a Water Intake of an Alluvial Fan River. R35 Toru, K., Design of an Irrigation Water Intake. Bagnold, R.A., An Approach to the Sediment Transport Problem from General Physics, Geological Survey; Professional Paper 42-1, US Govt. Printing Office, Washington, 1966. Sanmuganathan, K., Design of Vortex Tube Silt Extractors, Report ODé6, Hydraulics Research Station, March 1976. White, 5.M., Design Manual for Vortex Tube Silt Extractors, Report OD37, Hydraulics Research Station, December 1981. 125