SEDIMENT CONTROL

&
EXCLUSION DIVICES

Prof. Z. Ahmad
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE
ROORKEE-247667
GENERAL
• The river flowing in erodible valleys carry heavy sediment load during floods. The
channel which take off from these river draw heavy sediment which they can not
carry due to their slopes being milder than that of the river. This results is silting of
the channel in head reaches.

CLASSIFICATION OF SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AND DEVICES

A. Sediment preventive measures

1. River approach conditions.

2. Alignment of head regulators.

3. Alignment of guide bunds.

4. Length of divide wall.

5. Relative crest level of under sluices and the head regulator

6. River regulation
B. Sediment control devices
1. Deflecting vanes

2. Submerged Vanes

3. Skimming platform

C. Sediment exclusion devices

1. Slot and Step

2. Sediment excluder

3. Sediment ejector

4. Settling basin

5. Vortex settling basin

6. Vortex tube
Kings’
Vanes
King’s vanes

1. Radius : larger than 12 m and not less than 7.5 m

2. Downstream end of vanes : the downstream ends of vanes should be tangential to
lines not less acute than 2:1 (27 degree)
3. Length of vanes : the vanes should be 0.6 to 1.5 m beyond the line drawn at 2:1 slope
from the downstream end of the offtake. On the upstream, the vanes should start about
0.6 m or more before the point O, on the normal OQ
4. Distance of vanes from the offtake (X) and width of channel covered by the vane (Y)
(see Table & Fig.)
5. Height of vanes :
For strong effect, height of vanes may be kept 1/4 to 1/3 of the water depth in parent
channel.
6. Thickness of vanes : Vane height < 0.5 m, thickness = 0.125 m
Vane height > 0.5 m, thickness = 0.25 m
7. Spacing of vanes : The distance between vanes = 1.5 times of vanes height
 Table 1 Recommend Dimension of vanes

Width of off For strong Cheaper Minimum

taking effect design (legs- dimensions
channel (w) effect) recommended
m X Y R X Y R X Y R
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 1.8 1.3 12.5 1.3 1.3 9.1 1.3 1.2 9.0
4 2.4 2.2 14.5 1.7 1.7 10.4 1.7 1.8 10.0
6 2.8 3.2 15 1.9 2.0 11.3 1.8 2.2 10.7
8 3.1 4.2 15.5 1.9 2.8 11.5 1.83 2.5 10.7
10 3.4 5.2 16.5 2.2 3.6 13 1.83 2.8 11.0
12 3.6 6.1 20 2.7 4.3 15.3 1.83 3.0 12.0
14 3.7 7.0 25 2.7 5.0 19 1.83 3.4 14.0
16 3.7 8.0 34 2.7 5.7 24 1.83 3.7 16.0
8. Bed and side pitching:

The bed of the parent channel covered by vane and for a distance of 15
to 30 m upstream of the vane should be pitched smoothly so that the suspended
sediment may fall as low near the bed as possible. To minimize silting tendency,
the pitched floor on which the vanes are built should be 0.15 m higher than the
normal bed of the parent channel. Flooring should be sloped off at 1:10 for a
distance of at least 5 m upstream
 SEDIMENT EXCULDERS
Sediment excluder of Lower chenab canal at Khanki head works is consisted of six
tunnels of different lengths covering the full length of the regulator and discharging
into first two bays of the under-sluices.
Design criteria for excluders
1. Width of Excluder
Excluders covering 1 to 4 bays of the under sluices are generally provided. The
excluder tunnels should cover the minimum width of the under-sluice pocket
consistent with requirement. The width of the excluder tunnels should cover the
width of the approaching flow required for feeding the canal. Normally width
equivalent to one bay of under-sluices would be found adequate unless the width
of the head regulator is too large or more than one canal take off from the same
bank
2. River Approach Condition
Staggering of Excluder Tunnels

Inlet openings of the excluder runnels are staggered at a slope of 1:1

approximately.

Depth and Diaphragm slab of Excluder

The depth of the excluder tunnel is generally kept equal to the difference between the crest
level of the canal head regulator and the upstream floor level of the under-sluice bays
minus the thickness of the top slab. The diaphragm slab should be extended beyond the
nose of the divide wall by about 0.5 to 0.8 m with stream-lined shape conforming to the
quadrant of the ellipse.

x2 y2
 2 1
 2t to 3t 
2
t

Where t = thickness of the diaphragm slab.

Tunnel Dimensions

The tunnels are generally rectangular in section and have a bell mouth entry. The
lengths of all the tunnels are different but the head loss in each tunnel is kept
equal by suitably changing the cross-sections of the tunnels.

The bent radius varies from 10 to 15 times the tunnel width. For the convenience
of maintenance and repair work the section of the tunnel should be kept about
2 m×3 m.

Losses in Tunnels

1. Friction loss

2 2
𝑛 𝑉 𝐿
h𝑓= 4/3
𝑅

where hf = head loss; L = length of tunnel; R = hydraulic radius;

2. Loss due to bend
V2    
hb  F   .  
 2 g   180 
Where F = 0.123 + 3.106 (S/2r)1/2
 = angle of deviation (degree)
S = width of tunnel (m)
r = radius of bend along the centre line of tunnel (m)

3. Transitional loss due to change of velocity in contraction

 V22 V12 
h f  0.1  
 2 g 2 g 
4. Transitional loss due to change of velocity in expansion

 V22 V12 
h f  0.2   
 2 g 2 g 
where V1 and V2 are the velocities before and after the transition.
Escape Discharge

Minimum velocity
Alluvial reach = 2 to 2.5 m/s
Shingle reach = 3 to 4 m/s (adequate)

Generally escape discharge varying from 20 to 30% is being adopted.

Head required for Operation
0.6 m to 1.0 m is usually sufficient for a sediment excluder to work
satisfactorily.
Efficiency of Excluder

The efficiency of an excluder is the percentage reduction in the quantity of the

sediment which would have entered the canal had there been no such structure. it
is expressed as Ir  I 0

Ir
Where Ir = Sediment concentration in the river pocket; and Io = Sediment
concentration in the canal downstream of the canal head regulator.
SETTLING BASIN
Definition sketch of settling basin
100 cusecs Gangajal Project, Ghaziabad
 .
PLAN AND L-SECTION OF DESILTING CHAMBER
CROSS SECTION OF DESILTING .CHAMBER
 .
DETAILS OF SILT FLUSHING DUCT
.

View of the desilting

chamber in upper part

Downstream view of the

desilting chamber
1. Flushing Discharge

 about 20 to 30 % of intake discharge

Flushing Q Intake Q
Yamuna Hydel 24% 310 m3/s
Maneri Bhali-I 29% 99 m3/s
Maneri Bhali-II 26% 192 m3/s
Binwa (HP) 19% 4 m3/s
Bhabha (HP) 19% 21.2 m3/s
2. Velocity in the Basin

Mosonyi: desirable velocity 0.4 to 0.6 m/s – more velocity results in more length of
basin.

Nigam: 0.35 m/s

Old basin = 0.2 to 0.3 m/s – a very low velocity and large x-section lead to hydraulic
short circuit.

Camp U (m/s)  a d (mm)

d = maximum size of sediment to be removed
a = 0.36 for d > 1mm
a = 0.44 for 1mm > d > 0.1mm
a = 0.51 for 0.1 mm > d
Varshney (1985) for Himalayan rivers
a = 0.55 for d > 1mm
a = 0.66 for 1mm > d > 0.1mm
a = 0.77 for 0.1 mm > d
3. Size of Sediment to be removed

generally 0.15 mm size

4. Basin Dimensions

Q = BDU (1)

(D = Depth of flow in basin; B = Width of basin)

w = fall velocity in stagnant water.

Settling time t = D / w

Length of basin, L = Ut = UD / w (2)

For known Q, w, U and assumed value of D, calculate L and B from Eqs. (1) and (2).
20% increase in length is recommended to account for effect of turbulence on fall
velocity (Ranga Raju & Garde 2000)
Fall velocity in flowing water is different than the stagnant water, Mosonyi proposed fall
velocity in flowing water = w – w’

Levin
w   U
0.132

D( m )
DU D1.5 U
thus L   0.5
w - w  D w  0.132 U

gives often long length of basins

 .

Fall velocity of spherical particles (relative density = 2.65 ) in water

Sediment Removal Efficiency .

Camp (1944) and Dobbin (1944)

For known value of L, D, U, w, and

Manning’s roughness coefficient, one
can calculate efficiency  = (1-qse/qsi)

qse = outgoing sediment load

qsi = incoming sediment load

Camp and Dobbin’s relation for efficiency of settling basin

Sumer (1977)

Proposed the following relationship for

efficiency

 u * L
ln(1  ) 
15UD

 may be read from the graph. (u*= shear

velocity in the basin)

Sumer’s relation between  and β

USBR

 wL 
 
  1 e  UD 
 Garde et al. (1990)

Proposed the following relationship for

efficiency

  0 1  e  kL / D 

k and 0 may be read from the graph.

(u*= shear velocity in the basin)

Ranga Raju et al. (1999) Variation of k and o with w/u*

Found that the following equation yields better results than above equation when w/u *<2.5:

0.23 0.98
w
0.81
 LB D  1/ 6
  11 .7     
U n g 
 Bc D c
  
Dc and Bc are depth of flow and bed width of the approach channel, respectively
DATA OF SOME EXISTING BASINS (after Ranga Raju & Garde 2000)
Basin with hoppers used on river Yamuna
(a) Longitudinal section (b) Plan, (c) X-section
 .

Recommended geometry for vanes at a basin entry for 2:1 expansion

(After Atkinson 1992)