Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:3301–3307
DOI 10.1007/s13369-013-0641-y
RESEARCH ARTICLE - CIVIL ENGINEERING
Impact of Silt Excluder on Sediment Management of an Irrigation
Canal: A Case Study of D.G. Khan Canal, Pakistan
Muhammad Kaleem Sarwar · Muhammad Naveed Anjum ·
Sajid Mahmood
Received: 30 November 2011 / Accepted: 3 July 2013 / Published online: 6 September 2013
© King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals 2013
Abstract This study estimates the sediment transport capac-
ity of D.G. Khan Canal and analyses the impact of silt
excluder on the sediment management of the canal. The aver-
age sediment load entering into the D.G. Khan Canal before
the silt excluder’s intervention was about 258 ppm which is
58 % more than the sediment transport capacity of the canal
(163 ppm). However, the post-intervention average sediment
load observed during 2006–2009 was 183 ppm which indi-
cates that the intervention of silt excluder has reduced the
sediment entry in the canal.
Keywords Indus River · Taunsa barrage · Silt excluder ·
Sediment
M. K. Sarwar (B) · M. N. Anjum · S. Mahmood
Centre of Excellence in Water Resources Engineering,
University of Engineering and Technology, G.T. Road,
Lahore 54890, Pakistan
e-mail: eng_kaleem@yahoo.com
1 Introduction
D.G. Khan Canal having a design discharge of 8,900 cusecs
off-takes from the right side of the Taunsa Barrage located
on the river Indus, at latitude 30◦ 42 N and longitude 70◦
50 E; 20 km northwest of KotAdu, Muzaffargarh District,
Punjab Province of Pakistan Fig. 1. D.G. Khan Canal is a
non-perennial canal and flows from May to November which
are the months of high flows and excessive sediment load
variation in the river, and during these months siltation in
head reach of D.G. Khan Canal takes place.
Sediment entry into D.G. Khan Canal has remained a
chronic problem since 1965. The oblique curve entry of river
flow into the Guide-Banks Zone is throwing the right pocket
and D.G. Khan Canal on the intrados of the approach curve
(Fig. 2) which results in increasing the sediment entry and
deposits in the right half of the barrage. The situation causes
imbalance in water levels across the barrage with lower pond
level on the right flank. The imbalance in the pond level and
increased sediment entry into the right pocket causes silting
up of the canal and reduction in its capacity. Therefore, the
D.G. Khan canal was provided with a silt ejector at RD-20800
for removing substantial quantity of sediment. However, the
ejector does not have any significant impact on the sediment
deposit in the head reach of D.G. Khan Canal, consequently
the idea of silt excluder was considered [5].
The fact that the bottom layers of a channel carry the major
part of the sediment load, has led to evolution of silt exclud-
ers for excluding excessive amount of sediments from the
water being diverted into canals off taking from barrages.
Silt excluders divide the pocket into two portions by means
of a horizontal diaphragm, the upper water layer enters into
the canal while heavier silt laden bottom water passes through
the tunnels downstream of the under sluices [3].
123
3302
Fig. 1 Location map of Taunsa Barrage
Using model studies it has been found that the tunnels
should be located at selected positions, rather than distrib-
uted uniformly over the entire length of head regulator. It
means that the position of tunnels is more important than
their number. It was found by experience at Khanki Barrage
in Punjab Province of Pakistan that three tunnels proved to
be more efficient than six. Also, a smaller number of pocket
bays covered by the excluder, give better results as do the
openings of the tunnels confined to the mouth.
At Taunsa barrage, it was decided to convert three out of
total four bays of the under sluices on the right bank into silt
excluders. The bays nos.64 and 65 were required to serve the
D.G. Khan Canal while bay no. 63 was also provided with
short tunnels for additional affects. Each bay has been divided
into four tunnels of rectangular cross-section. Keeping the
top level of tunnels at elevation 432 ft (i.e. 1.0 foot below
the existing and 2.0 foot below the raised canal crest level),
the bottom level at elevation 425 ft (existing crest level of
the under sluices), and thickness of top slab 1.5 ft which
provides a clear tunnel height of 5.5 ft at exit and 11.5 ft
elsewhere. Each of the two Bays (63 and 64) across the river
has 15 ft wide two outer tunnels and two inner tunnels of
14.50 ft width with intervening 2-ft thick walls. Width of
the corresponding tunnels in the bay adjacent to the canal
head regulator (Bay no. 65) has, however, been kept as 13.75
and 13.5 ft, respectively, in view of space available there.
The tunnel immediately in front of DG Khan Canal head
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:3301–3307
regulator is 246.5 ft long while the last one farthest away
from the regulator is 24.5 ft long [5] (Figs. 3, 4).
2 Background
Ackers and White [1] noted that sediment transport is
expressed in terms of the dimensionless parameter dgr (sed-
iment size), Fcr (mobility parameter) and Gr (transport para-
meter). Baosheng et al. [4] evaluated the applicability of
sediment transport methods developed by Engelund and
Hansen [6], Ackers and White, Yang et al. [13], and Van
Rijn [11] together with the Wuhan method [14] for Yellow
River China. The best results were obtained from the Yang
method, the Wuhan method, and the modified Wuhan method
by Wuhan and Long [12]. Reasonably good predictions were
also provided by the Van Rijn method. Shakir and Khan [9]
estimated the sediment transport capacity of Marala Ravi
Link Canal (MRL) and Upper Chenab Canal (UCC) as 199
and 356 ppm, respectively, by using Engelund and Hansen,
Ackers and White, Shen and Hung [10] and Yang’ method.
Ahmad et al. [2] discussed different sediment exclusion
methods and devices at the intake of canals. They tested
the silt excluders for full supply discharge in power tun-
nel, where the river discharge was equal to 100,000 cusecs.
It was envisaged that an excluder of ejector type or vortex
Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:3301–3307 3303

Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of

hydraulic organs at Taunsa
Barrage, Pakistan

Fig. 3 Plans and section of silt

excluder

 
excluder will be efficient for exclusion of coarse silt from the Sc
Efficiency = 1 − × 100
power tunnel. The efficiency of silt excluder for coarse and So
medium sand was about 50 %, whereas the efficiency for total where Sc = sediment concentration in canal and So = sedi-
sediment passing through intake was 37 %, and established ment concentration in approach channel
the following relation for the calculation of silt excluder’s Haigh [7] described different factors affecting the effi-
efficiency. ciency of silt excluders. Sediment intensity decreases rapidly

123
3304
Fig. 4 View of silt excluder at Taunsa Barrage
with depth, additional escape increases the efficiency but
slowly. The efficiency of silt excluder is affected by the
grade of material carried by the water. The excluder may
be accepted to work more efficiently where the proportion of
coarser silt is greater. On the other hand, coarser the grade
of silt carried, the greater the slope and velocity will be, and
consequently the less the concentration of silt in the lower
layers. It is well known that the coarser sediments must be in
the lower layer of transport despite the velocity and slope. It
is the velocity that helps carrying the larger grain size. Width
and depth of the canal determine the amount of silt carried
by the canal, while the velocity of water determines the grain
size.
Raju and Kothyari [8] explained the design principles of
two kinds of sediment withdrawal methods, namely; settling
basins, and vortex chambers. They accomplished that the vor-
tex chamber has high efficiency as compared to settling basin
and require small flushing discharge. The negative aspect of
vortex chamber is that it is suitable for small channels only.
Shakir and Khan [9] indicated that there is slight differ-
ence in sediment intake as a result of raising the crest level
of MRL canal, which was considered and supplemented by
physical model studies before implementation as one of the
most effective measure for controlling the sediment entry in
these canals.
3 Reasons for Higher Silt Charge in D.G. Khan Canal
Irrigation and Power Department, Punjab [5] found that the
high sediment charge and grade in D.G. Khan Canal is due
to:
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:3301–3307
• Excessive sediment concentration in the right pocket and
D.G. Khan Canal intake being located on the inner side of
the river approach curve.
• Quite a few potent hill torrents discharging into the river
from the right side a short distance on the upstream of the
barrage bring very heavy course sediment charge in the
right half of the river channel.
• Use of semi-still pond regulation, the right pocket used to
get silted up frequently and DG Khan Canal received the
supply direct from the river channel with heavy concen-
tration of sediment.
4 Sediment Transport Capacity of D.G. Khancanal
To analytically estimate the sediment transport capacity of
D.G. Khan Canal, various sediment transport methods were
reviewed. It was decided to make use of those methods
which provide the estimate of total sediment load because
others methods may require more approximations for con-
verting results into total sediment load being transported in
canal. Keeping in view the suitability following three meth-
ods based on total sediment load approach were used.
1. Acker and White method
2. Enguland and Hansen method
3. Yang’s method
The Ackers and white [1] function to determine the total
sediment transport is given as
 n
v
qs = G gr .s.d
u∗
Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:3301–3307 3305

where Table 2 Data for the estimation of sediment transport capacity of D.G.
s Specific gravity of sediments Khan Canal by Enguland and Hansen method
G gr Transport parameter Full supply discharge 8,900 cusecs
d Representative particle diameter Average velocity 2.34 ft/s
ν Kinematic viscosity of sediments Specific gravity of sediments 2.65
n Exponent in dimensionless mobility parameter
Mean diameter 0.0007 ft
u∗ Shear velocity
Kinematic viscosity of sediments 1.315×105 ft/s
qs Total sediment transport
Gravitational acceleration (g) 32.2 ft/s2
In Enguland and Hansen method [6], total sediment trans- Flow depth 10 ft
port is expressed by:
0.05V 5
qs =
(S − 1)2 g0.5d50 C 3 Table 3 Data for the estimation of sediment transport capacity of D.G.
Khan Canal by Yang method
where in above equation
Full supply discharge 8,900 cusecs
qs Total sediment transport
Average velocity 2.34 ft/s
V Mean velocity
C Chezy coefficient Specific gravity of sediments 2.65
S Specific gravity of sediments Total sediment transport in ppm by mass 61.64 ppm
d50 Mean diameter Mean diameter 0.0007ft
g Gravitational acceleration Kinematic viscosity of sediments 1.315×105 ft/s
Flow depth 10 ft
Total sediment transport load by yang’s method [13] is
calculated as:-
Table 4 Estimated total sediment transport capacity of D.G. Khan
qs = 0.001ct .Vh Canal
where in above equation Ackers and White sediment transport formula 203 ppm
qs Total load transport Yang’s method 62 ppm
ct Total sediment transport in Enguland and Hansen method 223 ppm
ppm by mass Mean sediment transport capacity 163 ppm
V Velocity for initiation of motion
h Water depth
Tables 1, 2 and 3 show the experimental values of data
sediment characteristics and concentration. Table 4 gives the
collected from Irrigation and Power Department, Punjab for
calculated values of sediment transport capacity of the canal
the estimation of sediment transport capacity in D.G. Khan
by using collected data. Analysis of data for the year 2002 to
Canal. The Punjab irrigation and power department mea-
2009 regarding discharge and sediment load entering D.G.
sures water and sediment discharge twice a day at the head
Khan Canal indicated that the sediment load is maximum in
of the canal and at the upstream and downstream of the silt
the months of July and minimum in September while dis-
excluder. The sediment data is collected with the help of
charge of the canal is maximum during the months of July to
sediment samplers DA-59 and analyzed in the sediment lab-
September and minimum during the months of October and
oratory established at the barrage in order to find out the
November. Figure 5 shows that average annual sediment load
entering into D.G. Khan Canal varies in the range of 315 to
Table 1 Data for the estimation of sediment transport capacity of D.G. 165 ppm, while calculated mean sediment transport capacity
Khan Canal by Acker and White method is 163 ppm indicating that the sediment load entry in D.G.
Full supply discharge 8,900 cusecs Khan Canal is more than the sediment transport capacity of
Average velocity 2.34 ft/s the canal except in year 2008 where sediment concentra-
Specific gravity of sediments 2.65 tion value in canal is 127 ppm. Low sediment concentration
Transport parameter 0.26 in canal during the year 2008–2009 was recorded due to low
Representative particle diameter 0.0007 ft sediment intensity in river during that period. Figure 5 shows
Kinematic viscosity of sediments 1.315×105 ft/s
that in 2009 highest amount of water was diverted to canal
which may increase the velocity of flowing water in canal
Exponent in dimensionless mobility parameter 0.81
but in the presence of silt excluder, high velocity will not
Shear velocity 0.23 ft/s
increase the sediment entry in canal.

123
3306
Fig. 5 Sediment intake and
sediment transport capacity of
D.G. Khan Canal
5 Efficiency of Silt Excluder
The reduction in canal water silt intensity as compare to
approach channel is termed as silt excluder’s efficiency which
can be expressed mathematically as:
 
Ic
Efficiency = 1 − × 100
If
where
Ic silt intensity in the canal (in ppm)
I f silt intensity in the approach channel (in ppm)
Following types of sediment data for 2006–2009(after
intervention of silt excluder) was used for computation of
silt excluder’s efficiencies.
(a) Sediment concentration at the head regulator of D.G.
Khan Canal.
(b) Sediment concentration at the upstream and downstream
of silt excluder.
(c) Sediment load entry into the canal.
Efficiency of silt excluder is high during high sediment bed
loads as it excludes the sediment load which is near to the bed
or on the bed while suspended sediment is diverted towards
the canal. At Taunsa Barrage, silt excluder’s efficiency was
noted high in the months of June to August and low in Sep-
tember. The highest value of efficiency was observed as 72 %
during August 11–20, 2008 while Table 5 shows that maxi-
mum efficiency of silt excluder is 49 %. It is clear from Table 5
that the average efficiency of silt excluder is 45 % which is not
a good number and still required to eject the sediment which
is more than the transport capacity of D.G. Khan Canal.
6 Impact of Silt Excluder
The sediment entry into D.G. Khan Canal for the eight years
from 2002 to 2009 (four years before and four years after
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:3301–3307
Table 5 Average efficiency of silt excluder during 2006–2009
Year Average Average discharge Average sediment
efficiency (cusecs) intake of canal (ppm)
(%)
2006 41 8,518 207
2007 45 8,544 236
2008 43 8,582 127
2009 49 8,518 162
the silt excluder intervention) is shown in Fig. 6. The aver-
age silt entry in the first four years (2002–2005) is about
258 ppm being highest in 2002 as 310 ppm and lowest in
2003 as 210 ppm. The average silt entry at the head of D.G
Khan Canal after Silt Excluder intervention (2006–2009) is
183 ppm. This shows 29 % decrease in silt entry in compar-
ison with previous four years (pre-silt excluder intervention
conditions). In post-silt excluder intervention period, highest
recorded sediment concentration is 236 ppm and lowest is
127 ppm in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Annual water vol-
umes diverted to the D.G Khan canal for period 2002–2009
are also shown in Fig. 6 which indicates that the diversion of
water in the post-intervention period (2006–2009) has been
increased (18 %) as compared to the pre-intervention period
(2002–2005). This increase in water diversion reveals that
the canal capacity has been improved due to less sediment
entry into the canal after Silt Excluder’s interventions. It is
noted that average sediment load entering into the D.G Khan
Canal before the Silt Excluder’s interventions is 258 ppm
which is 58 % more than the sediment transport capacity of
canal, but the sediment load after the intervention is about
183 ppm which is only 12 % more than the sediment transport
capacity of D.G. Kahn Canal. It shows that silt excluder has
reduced the sediment entry into the canal but still it is more
than the sediment transport capacity and this additional sed-
iment will cause the aggradation of canal bed.
Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:3301–3307
Fig. 6 Annual sediment intake
of D.G. Khan Canal before and
after silt excluder’s intervention
(2002–2009)
7 Conclusions and Recommendations
The analysis of data regarding sediment entry at the head
of the canal and comparison of water diversions in the post
intervention period (2006–2009) and pre intervention (2002–
2005) period indicated that the construction of silt excluder
has reduced the sediment intake and increased the discharge
of D.G. Khan Canal but still it is more than the sediment
transport capacity of the canal, consequently aggradation
of canal bed will reduce its design discharge capacity. The
data analysis of cross sections and longitudinal sections in
upper reaches of the canal is required to study the changes in
canal bed levels due to silt excluder intervention. To exclude
the maximum quantity of sediment load from canal flows,
the operation and management authority of barrage should
ensure that no turbulence occur at silt excluder tunnel in-takes
or in the close upstream proximity. The closure of excluder
tunnels is not suggested in any case except during dire emer-
gency and for a short period and a minimum discharge of
1,000 cusecs should always be escaped through the excluder
tunnels in order to keep them operative.
Acknowledgments Authors are thankful to Irrigation and Power
Department for the access of data and to the Centre of Excellence
in Water Resources Engineering, Engineering University Lahore for
providing the required facilities to conduct the study.
References
1. Ackers, P.; White, W.R.: Sediment transport, new approach and
analysis. J. Hydr. Div. 99, (1973). ISSN: 0044–796X
3307
2. Ahmad, M.; Ali., M.; Khaliq, A.: Sediment exclusion methods and
devices at the intake of canals. Pak. Engg. Congr. 341, 1–63 (1960)
3. Ali, I.: Irrigation and hydraulic structures theory design and prac-
tice. Allied Book Company, Lahore, Pakistan (2007)
4. Baosheng, W.U.; Van Maren, D.S.; Lingyun, L.: Predictability of
sediment transport in the yellow river using selected transport for-
mulae. J. Sediment Research, 23, 283–298 (2008). ISSN 1001-
6279
5. Consultant, N.D.; Pakistan, N.E.S.: ATKINS: Punjab barrages
rehabilitation project, phase-1. Irrigation and Power Department,
Government of Punjab, Pakistan (2005)
6. Engelund, F.; Hansen, E.: A monograph on sediment transport
in alluvial streams.Teknish Forlag, Technical Press, Copenhagen,
Denmark, p. 62 (1967)
7. Haigh, F.F.: Silt excluders. Pak. Engg. Congr. 211, 1–51 Lahore
(1938)
8. Raju, K.G.R.; Kothyari, U.C.: Sediment management in hydro-
electric projects. Proceedings of ninth international symposium on
river sedimentation, Yichang, China (2004)
9. Shakir, A.S.; Khan, N.M.: Impact of structural intervention on sed-
iment management of large canals, acase study of Marala Barrage,
Pakistan. J. W. Resour. Manag. 23, 3149–3163 (2009). ISSN 0920-
4741
10. Shen, H.W.; Hung, C.S.: An engineering approach to total bed-
material load by regression analysis. In: Sedimentation Symposium
to honour Professor Einstein HA (ed. by H.W. Shen), 14/1-14/7.
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado (1972)
11. Van Rijn, L.C.: Sediment transport, Part-I: Bed load transport. J.
Hydr. Engg. 110 (10), 1431–1456. ISSN: 0733–9429
12. Wuhan, B.S.; Long,Y.Q.: Several modifications for sediment trans-
port capacity formulae of Yellow River. Yellow River. 95, No.(07)
(1993)
13. Yang, C.T.; Molinas, A.; Wu, B.S.: Sediment transport in Yellow
River. J. Hydr. Engg. 122 (5), 237–244 (1996). ISSN: 0733-9429
14. Zhang, R.J.: A study of the sediment transport capacity of the mid-
dle and lower Yangzte River.J. Sediment Rese 04, (02) (1959).
ISSN 1001–6279
123