Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

22.1 Lining the Canals

It is always assumed that seepage losses would be reduced from the theoretical calculations as between 3.7-1.8 cumec per million square metres (cumec/Mm2) for an unlined canal in the sandy or clayey loams to 0.6 cumec/Mm2 for a lined canal. In 1988 a field study of the performance of lined distributaries were losing 3.5 cumec/Mm2 and watecourses were losing 3.7 cumec / Mm2. Why is there such a gap between assumptions at the feasibility stage and what happens in practice? Old earthen irrigation channels in permeable soils can lose a lot of water through seepage. Large losses through the bed and sides of canal lead to low conveyance efficiency; that is, (the ratio of water reaching farm turnouts to that released at the source of supply from a river or reservoir). Earthen canals also get clogged up with weeds which reduce the water-carrying capacity. These two factors combine to disadvantage of the tail end farmers. Therefore Unlined canals are inefficient, inadequate from the point of view of equitable performance. In Punjab, the expected saving by brick lining is of the order of 20% . The brick linings have 25 years of life. Total losses from unlined watercourses are known to be more than those from the main system, but they dont get the same attention during a lining programme. Lining programmes are divided into main system lining and watercourse lining. The main system canals (main, distributaries, and minors) are large channels supplying several watercourses. A typical value for the seepage rate in an unlined channel in clayey loam is 1.8 m3/s per M m2 and through a rendered brick line water course or canal reduces to 0.1 m3/s per M m2. However, if the impervious canal lining has few crack what would happen? The experiments indicate it as good as that of the original unlined case when the ground water level is high. Inspite of the above observation, lining can significantly reduce conveyance losses. Lined channels have a smaller surface area for a given discharge than unlined

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

channels. Typically a lined channel will have 40% of the unlined surface area for a given discharge. Therefore even at the same loss rate per unit area there will be a saving in water. When estimating the reduction in losses from a lining programme, this should be based on the combination of a reduced cross-section and a reduced seepage rate per unit area. In the Indian Punjab, measurements on lined distributaries and watercourses between four months and seven years old showed that seepage rates from the distributaries rapidly became comparable to seepage rates from unlined canals, whilst seepage rates from watercourses were highly variable. Lining of the distributary canal seemed to have had a beneficial effect on the equity of supply between watercourses. However, the effects of lining watercourses is still to be established. A sample of 15 out of 130 watercourses were tested on the 30,000 ha Mudki subsystem of the Sirhind Feeder in Ferozpur district using ponding tests and inflow-outflow methods. The mean and variability of seepage losses increased dramatically for lining more than four years old. Some lining older than four years performed as well as new linings, with losses as low as 0.4 m3/s per Mm2 but others has losses of up to 11.5 m3/s per Mm2. Overall conveyance losses were significantly greater than seepage losses alone. The variability of conveyance losses was observed to be related to the condition of the channels. Losses from raised watercourses with cracked or broken linings appeared as surface leakage causing waterlogging of adjacent fields and localised crop damage. This was due to poor quality control during construction, particularly earth compaction behind sidewalls, and a lack of subsequent maintenance. The design life of concrete and brick lined channels is generally assumed to be 25-50 years. Major repairs of lined channels are sometimes required within a few years of construction. At the Kraseio Scheme in Thailand, completed in 1981, long lengths of the concrete lined main canals have needed to be replaced each year. In one 26-year lining test, a complete repair of the drained test channel was required every 22 months.
Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

There is no watertight case for or against lining. If lining goes ahead, a high standard of construction is essential, especially of water courses which must withstand a great deal of wear and tear. Without adequate supervision, poor construction of channels will lead to reduce life and higher maintenance costs. Earthen watercourse in the Bikaner area of Rajasthan discharge an average 28.3 l/s, but begin to seep and leak badly after little more than a year. These cracks and the slow movement of shallow water favours developement of thick aquatic weeds, which encourages the drying and the cracking process, and strcuturally weaken the banks. This obviously adds significantly to the cost of maintenance. The cracks opened in dry periods do not close fully when saturated by water flows, and losses can be up to 25% of the water diverted into the system. The cycle of swelling, heaving, shrinkage and settlement leads to progressive bank deterioration. Shear strength of clays depends on cohesion between particles. In a newly-formed compacted clay masses the interparticle cohesion is high. On first drying, the cracks appear and close up again on wetting, but do not regain their original interparticle cohesion. This means a reduction in shear strength after a few drying and wetting cycles. The reinforced concrete lining would reduce the seepage loss drastically and has lower operation and maintenance costs.

Reference
World Water, April 1989, pp 16, 19, 21. Appendix (i) Table - 1 Salient Aspects of Seepage through Lined Canals [7]: Sl.No 1 State U.P. Practice Adopted practice

Ql = 1 / 200 ( B + D )
width and depth.

2/ 3

Ql = Seepage losses in cumecs/km length B and D are bed

Kl = 1.9Q1 / 6

Punjab & Haryana

K l = Seepage loss in cumecs / 106 sq.mof wetted area.

Q = Main discharge in the canal.

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

3 4

Bhakra Nangal Andhra Pradesh

Lined canal Kl = 1.25Q 0.056 (F.P.S) Unlined canal ql = 0.00928Q 0.5265 (M.K.S) lined canal: Ql = 0.60 cumecs / 106 m 2 of wetted surface Unlined canal: Ql = 1.85 to 2.40 cumecs / 106 m 2 of wetted surface and 20% extra for distributory system. Main canal - 7% of head discharge Distributory and minors - 8% of head discharge Water surface - 20% of head discharge

CBIP

Table-2 Salient Aspects of Seepage through Lined Canals (After Yu. M. Kosichenko [8]): Sl. No. I i. Smooth ii. Crack with rough walls iii. Silted cracks iv. Without cracks II i. Smooth ii. Crack with rough walls iii. Silted cracks iv. Without cracks III i. Protective layer of local soils ii. Protective layer of compacted clay Soil Membrane Unlined channel Type of lining and character of disturbance Permeability Kl m/s Concrete-film lining 0.705 * 10-9 / 0.141 * 10-7 0.652 * 10-9 / 0.136 * 10-7 0.137 * 10-9 / 0.156 * 10-7 0.590 * 10-11 / 0.114 * 10-9 Concrete lining 0.225 * 10-8 / 0.331 * 10-6 0.867 * 10-9 / 0.202 * 10-6 0.706 * 10-10 / 0.752 * 10-10 0.694 * 10-10 Soil film lining 0.981 * 10-9 / 0.189 * 10-7 0.221 * 10-11 / 0.425 * 10-10 1 * 10-8 seepage loss Q m3/sec/m2 0.334 * 10-4 / 0.685 * 10-5 0.318 * 10-6 / 0.665 * 10-5 0.318 * 10-8 / 0.76 * 10-7 0.228 * 10-8 / 0.556 * 10-7 1.243 * 10-6 / 1.516 * 10-4 0.423 * 10-6 / 0.982 * 10-4 0.344 * 10-7 / 0.367 * 10-7 0.388 * 10-7 0.564 * 10-7 / 1.087 * 10-6 0.127 * 10-9 / 0.245 * 10-8 0.575 * 10-6 0.295 * 10-3

IV V

Plastics as a lining material Introduction

Water suitable for human consumption, livestock and irrigation is limited in many parts of the world. Since precipitation is the only source of all fresh water and since it varies from place to place, from year to year and from season to season, water must be collected, stored and transported, if it is to be available when and where it is required. The loss of irrigation water in a canal system occurs during its conveyance through canal, sub-canal, distributary, minor, water course and finally during application in the
Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

field. In a study made by the Central Water and Power Commission (1967), the losses during the various phases of water conveyance was found to be as shown in Table Water use efficiency in percentage System Number of Water Field Characteristics Canals courses Losses Distributaries Entire system 15 7 22 27 unlined. Only Canal 4 7 25 30 lined. Canal and Distributary 4 2 26 32 lined. Whole system 4 2 6 42 lined. Total Loss 71 66 64 54 Net Utilization 29 34 32 46

It may be observed that, in a completely unlined canal irrigation system the loss of irrigation water is as much as 71%. This loss is attributed to both evaporation and seepage losses; evaporation losses are a function of temperature, humidity and wind velocity. It is not practicable to prevent evaporation loss (in some reservoirs this loss has been prevented by floating a thin PE film on the water surface) in running water. However, seepage losses could be effectively minimised by the use of an impervious medium between the porous soil and the water flowing in the system. Conventional materials like clay, tiles, cement-concrete, have been used for prevention of seepage losses. Most of the conventional methods are either too expensive or not very effective. Table 2 shows the state wise break-up of irrigation resources and the length of major irrigation canals operating in each state. Irrigation and Power Research Institute at Amristar has particularly conducted intensive research in this field and a suitable lining technique has been evolved for existing earthen canals and channels. This technique is known as "Combination Lining" and in this, a low cost Polyethylene film is laid at the bed of the canal or distributary whereas the sides are lined with pre cast brick-tile blocks. This method can be conveniently adopted for lining distributaries during short closures. This technique has many advantages over the other methods of lining such as laying new lined parallel channels which involve construction of new
Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

bridges, regulators, falls and outlets. Moreover, in case of combination lining, the existing section, regime and stability of the channel are not changed. Irrigation supplies are also not interrupted as lining is done during short closures. Table 2 Statewise distribution of Irrigation area under major irrigation canals. Average Net irrigated rainfall area in cm '000 hectares 1970-71 Andhra 900 3313 Assam 240 572 Meghalaya 241 37 Nagaland 193 12 Manipur 193 65 Sikkim 355 NA Tripura 193 22 Bihar 132 2160 Gujarat 81 1209 Haryana 76 1532 H.P. 184 91 J&K 102 279 Karnataka 104 1137 Kerala 267 431 M. P. 123 1480 Maharashtra 106 1427 Orissa 153 1149 Punjab 64 2888 Rajasthan 46 2132 Tamil Nadu 97 2592 U. P. 117 7190 W. B. 174 1489 All India 161 31207 Name of State/ Union Territory Percentage of net area irrigated in 1970-71 by various sources Canals 48 63 NA 38 17 62 98 37 49 48 22 23 45 35 34 48 65 40 Tanks 34 NA 8 2 32 17 9 16 51 13 35 34 20 14 Wells 15 NA 25 80 38 1 23 1 38 57 4 55 51 30 15 1 38 Others 3 37 100 100 100 NA 100 29 1 99 2 8 33 5 5 22 1 1 3 14 8 Length of major canals in km

1,242.8 137.2 NA NA 906.2 2,437.2 1,098.3 32.0 2,924.6 491.9 238.4 2,546.1 613.7 501.2 869.4 561.4 1,683.5 1,666.0 17,949.9

NA- Not Available (a) Includes Harayana. (b) Included in Punjab. * Source : Irrigation Commission (1972). Nearly 30 to 80 percent cost saving could be achieved by using combination type of lining as compared to double tile lining. The behaviour of this lining laid in different channels in Punjab has been studied and it has been found that this low cost lining is durable, efficient and quite suitable for lining the existing distributaries. Gujarat State Irrigation Department is also using Combination Lining. To render the canals seepage proof, a 400 gauge (100 microns) thick black LDPE film is used to line
Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

the bed of the canal which is then covered with single layer brick masonry. For further reduction of cost, soil cover varying from 60 cm to 90 cm could be tried. A similar trial was also carried out in Azamgarh District of Uttar Pradesh by the UP State Irrigation Department. In this trial, 600 gauge (150 microns) PE film was used in the canal bed overlaid with 45 cm soil cover. The advantages of Polyethylene (PE) film lining are: (a) Cost factor is very much in favor of PE lining in comparison with conventional lining methods. (b) The PE film lining has the advantage of being a superior moisture barrier than any other construction material including cement-concrete, tiles, tar-felt, etc. Irrigation and Power Research Institute (IPRI), at Amristar and Central Building Research Institute at Roorkee have conducted extensive trials on this type of lining. Permeability tests on this type of lining. Permeability tests by IPRI showed that a 400 gauge PE film subjected to a hydraulic head of 3.65 meter has stayed water tight for about 15 years. (c) Another advantage of this type of lining is the speed with which it can be laid at site. By using this type of lining, the total time involved in lining work can be substantially reduced, thus facilitating wider coverage during short closure of canals. The Anand Irrigation Division, Gujarat, have found that with double tile lining, the work progress is around 30 m of canal length a day (15 m canal width) whereas for the combination type of lining using PE film with a cover of single tile masonry, the progress is as much as 90 m. This could be still further increased by using LDPE film lining with 60 cm to 90 cm soil cover. Distributaries: A Canal Irrigation system comprises of a network of Canals, Sub-Canals, Distributaries, Minors, with water courses forming the last link. In Government Canals, the jurisdiction of the Irrigation Department is generally up to the minors. The water courses fall under the jurisdiction of the individual cultivators.

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

Use of Plastics for Lining of Canals

Introduction Canal lining with LDPE film was undertaken in the country in 1959, as a measure to reduce seepage losses. Punjab and Gujarat States were first to use this type of lining during 1959 to 1962 followed by other states subsequently. The Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), High Molecular High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Linear Low Density Polyethylene etc., are the plastics used for canal lining. In India, mostly LDPE film has been used for canal lining. The characteristics of the plastic film are: Light in weight, impermeable to liquids and gases, chemically inert, flexibility, resistance to microbiological attacks, ease of transportation and installation etc. Black LDPE film lining over laid with soil cover or protective hard cover had been widely used during the last three decades. IPCL's Petro-Chemical Industry in Maharashtra, will be able to provide the adequate supply of this plastic film for lining of canals. The LDPE films presently available are too smooth and glossy to hold mortar below blocks, tile or brick lining indicating the necessity of developing rough or serrated films. The purpose of the canal lining which helps in reduction in seepage to save water for additional irrigation, and to increase the velocity for reduction in canal sectional area due to smooth lined surface. Lining with bricks tiles etc., is fraught with the problem of seepage through the joints, cracks etc. This naturally leads us to the use of impermeable plastic film to use as a cut-off. The LDPE film is used with soil cover/ C.C. Cover/ P.C.C. Cover. C.C. in-situ is less costly and suitable for bed but not for sides. P.C.C. ensures quality control in case of canal lining on large scale. It is costly but suitable for both bed and sides. In using P.C.C. pointing needs special attention. LDPE film is susceptible for puncturing by uneven soil surface, impact of feet, weed growth etc. A layer of sand would help as a leveling course. Sand with a little silt content or sand wetted would stand well on slopes. If the surface of the film is rough, it would keep the mortar in position. The hard cover over the film is meant to be the load over the film to keep it in position and also to be smooth surface for better flow conditions.

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

Vandalism with regard to LDPE film is due to lack of awareness of the farmers as to the value of water. Burrowing by rodents is a menace. The easy and practicable solution is a sand layer. A burrow does not stand in sand, and the hole gets closed. Lined canal costs 20 - 25% more relative to cost of unlined canal. If LDPE film is used, the cost of lining would be 25 - 30% (an increase of 5% due to film cost). This additional cost due to canal lining using LDPE film is rather a wise investment as the benefits of water saved, additional irrigation and food production, and reduced canal section would more than offset that additional cost. Therefore canal lining is obligatory and the use of LDPE film is bound to spread once its efficacy commensurate with economy is realized. Films of different thickness varying from 100 to 250 micron are used in bed or on sides. Cement concrete cover over LDPE has been used on canals as steep as 1.3:1 on Ravi Canal (J&K), and 1:1 on Malaprabha canal.

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

F.S

LDPE Film

Free board

LDPE Film

Single tile lining in Cement Mortar LDPE Film

LDPE Film

Lining of Canal with LDPE film

Reference
"Proceeding of the workshop on Use of Plastics for Lining of Canals", Central Board of Irrigation and Power, New Delhi, Vadodara, 7-8, May 1987 Venkatasubramanian K.N, Kamal Nanavaty, Prasanta Misra - Role of plastics in water management published by Indian Petro chemicals Corporation Limited, Government of India undertaking, august 1968.

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

Table 3 - Performance of different Canal Linings The details regarding the design, specifications and performance of various types of linings as provided in the case of the following projects. S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Canal Nangal Hydel Channel (Punjab) Sundernagar Hydel Channel, Beas Project (Punjab) Yamuna Power Channel (U.P) Gandak Canal (U.P) Lower Ganga Canal-Link Canal (U.P) Kosi Feeder Channel (U.P) Rajasthan Feeder Channel (Rajasthan) Banaskantha Left Bank Main Canal of Dantiwada Project (Gujarat) Banaskantha Left Bank Main Canal of Dantiwada Project (Gujarat) Mahi Right Bank Canal (Gujarat) Shetrunji Canal Project (Gujarat) Shetrunji Canal Project (Gujarat) Karad Project Canal (Gujarat) Tungabhadra Project (A.P) Krishanarajasagar Canal (Karnataka) Krishnarajasagar, Right Bank Low Level Canal (Karnataka) Krishnarajasagar Right Bank Low Level Canal (Karnataka) Type of lining Concrete and Tile Lining. Cement Concrete. Concrete, Brick and Concrete Tile. Brick Tile Lining. Sandwiched Brick Lining. Cement Concrete Tile Lining. Tiles Lining with plasting, Single tile lining in bed and double tile lining in the side. Cement Concrete Lining. Brick Lining. Sandwiched Brick Tile Lining. Masonry Lining. Lime Concrete Lining. Precast Blocks. Cement Concrete and Rubble Masonry. Cement Concrete Lining. Soil Cement Lining.

Lime Surkhi Concrete Lining. In situ Cement Concrete Manniaru Canal (Tamil Nadu) Lining. Cement Concrete and Pattanamkal Main Canal ( Tamil Nadu) Metal. Cement Concrete and Rethapuram Channel (Tamil Nadu) Metal. Random Rubble Masonry Left Bank Main Canal, Pamba Irrigation Project and Cement Concrete (Kerala) Lining. Precast Cement Concrete Left Bank Canal, Kuttiady Irrigation (Kerala) Slabs. Right Bank Main Canal, Peechi Irrigation Rubble Masonry in Cement Scheme (kerala) Mortar. Left Bank Canal (Kerala) Precast Slabs and Blocks. Kuthanur Branch (Kerala) Bitumen and Cement.

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

KERS, Krishnarajasagar had tried HMHDPE film (Tuflene) covered with 1:4:8 or 1:5: 10 Cement Concrete in a length of 140 m on 38.4 km distributory of Visveswaraya Canal and reported about 90% reduction in seepage losses when compared with unlined reaches. Likewise Fibre glass Reinforced Plastic Tissue Asphaltic Canal Liner had been experimented.

Backing Material for Swelling Soil

I.I.T, Bombay after conducting field studies with various types of backing materials in swelling soil (especially black cotton soil) area in Karnataka has suggested that a 1 m thick cohesive non-swelling (CNS) layer covered with P.C.C. slabs would suffice the need for lining in swelling soil. The minimum specification suggested for backing material is Gravel - Less than 10 percent, Sand - 30 - 40 percent Silt - 45 - 50 percent Clay - 20 - 25 percent Compaction - 96 percent of standard proctor density, in layers not exceeding 20 cm. Moisture content - OMC 1.5 percent. Shear Parameters - 0.2 kg/cm2 25 to 0.5 kg/cm2 for 2 to 15 KERS, Krishnarajasagar had conducted experiments with different lining materials, viz., (1) Size stone pitching over 22.5 thick layer of murrum backing, (2) Rough stone pitching over 15 cm thick layer of murrum backing, and (3) 15 cm, 22.5 cm and 30 cm murrum lining without any protective cover for small channels only. The size stone pitching and rough stone pitching have functioned well and have recommended size stone pitching for small channels in view of lower rugosity coefficient and lesser maintenance cost though it is slightly costlier initially.

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

PCC lining with drainage arrangement 3.04 3.04 3.04 1.82 2.74

1 m thick CNS layer

IP 2.43

15 cm thick CNS layer

1 1 2 __ 2

3.04 2.74 FSD

Typical section in deep cutting of Malaprabha Right Bank Canal kilometer number 35.354
2.103 m PCC lining 3.04 FB 3.04

3.65 3.04 2.74 15 cm thick CNS layer 1 m thick CNS layer 2.74 Full Supply Depth

Typical section in cutting at MRBC kilometer number 35.354 (a) Canal section in cutting

(a) Canal section in cutting

PCC slab lining 2:1 FSD 2.74 SR 4.26 1 m thick CNS IP 2.43 Black Cotton soil 30 cm thick CNS 1m 30 cm thick CNS 2 m and below B __ + 2y 2 L Rock toe 30 cm thick sand blanket

2.74

Bed filling 2 m and below

PCC slab lining 2:1 SR 4.26 1 m thick CNS 2.43 Black Cotton soil 30 cm thick CNS 2.74 FSD 2.74 below 2 m bed filling 60 cm thick CNS 2 m and above B __ + 2y 2 L 60 cm thick CNS Rock toe

1m

30 cm thick sand blanket

Bed filling 2 m and below (b) Canal section in embankment

Construction of Malaprabha Right bank Canal in expansive soil area using Cohesive Non-swelling Soil (CNS) layer of 1 m thickness as suggested by IIT-Bombay

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

Geo synthetic Reinforced Canal Lining

Currently, in India the lining systems adopted generally consist of three components. The top is usually a lining cover of either concrete slabs or brick tiles. Sometimes flagstone or soil as cover has also been used, depending on suitability. Below the cover a LDPE lining is provided underlain by a graded sand filter normally placed to account for planned drainage. Film of 175 micron thickness has been used in the bed lining of Indira Gandhi Main Canal in Rajasthan. The thickness of the LDPE film depends on whether it is the primary water barrier constituent of the lining (in that case the thickness varies from 150-250 micron) and the rigid cover is provided to protect it against damage and heaving. The rigid cover may also be provided as the main lining and the film is provided as a secondary back up specification (generally 100 micron film is provided for this purpose). Figure shows typical details of LDPE lined canal system used in India.

A B C D
Details of Sandwitched Brick Lining
Index: A = Top layer of 50.8 mm Flat Brick (C.H.1:3) B = A layer of (1:3) Red Cement Mortar 6.35 mm thick C = 15.875 mm layer of (1:3) Red Cement Mortar D = 50.8 mm thick Flat Brick layer with joints of Red Cement Mortar of proportion (1:3) E = 9.525 mm thick Red Cement Mortar layer (1:5)

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

TRANSVERSE SLEEPERS .30 m centre to centre in cement concrete 1:3:6 with 10 mm metal rod

FLAGSTONE LINING 40 to 50 mm thick on a bed of cement mortar 1:6 and pointing with 1:3 cement mortar

100 MICRON LDPE FILM AND GAUGE

20 mm THICK BEDDING IN CEMENT MORTAR 1:6

FLAGSTONE LINING

LDPE 600/800/1000 Gauge Brick lining 76.2 mm thick in cement mortar 1:3 Dressed sub grade

Brick Lining

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

Tenax Mint 100 Composite membrane as laid in profile HDPE Membrane 30 mm thick concrete size in flush point or brick lining for counter weight

Geotextile filter Graded soil slope

Tenax Mint 100 Composite liner and Drainage

Perforated drainage pipe wrapped in Geotextile (Pressure relief drainage with laminar drainage path)

SECTIONAL VIEW SHOWING DETAILS OF CANAL LINING

It has been ascertained through field seepage tests that lined canals save a considerable amount of water loss as shown in Table Average seepage loss m3/s/million sq.m Haryana 2.25 0.43 0.16 GUJARAT 2.50 1.00 0.80 Percentages savings in water due to lining compared with unlined canal 81 93 60 68

State

a) Unlined canal b) Conventional lined canal without LDPE film c) Lined Canal with LDPE film 2.5 mm a) Unlined Canal b) Lined Canal without LDPE film c) Lined Canal with LDPE film
Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

WEST BENGAL a) Unlined Canal i) in rocky strata ii) in lateritic strata b) Conventional lined Canal without LDPE film c) Only LDPE film with soil cover 2.94 20.00 0.30 rocky strata 0.12 rocky strata 90 96

Seepage studies - Ponding method Semi field Studies - KERS Minimum value of seepage after two years in m3 / s / M m2 0.0008 0.0057 0.0008

Sl. No. 1 2 3

Type of lining material Tuflene with brick in cement mortar cover. Tuflene with earth cover. Tuflene with concrete cover (1 : 4 : 8 proportion)

Before reconstruction 2.34 to 6.63 m3 / s / M m2 After reconstruction 1.53 m3 / s / M m2 LDPE 400 gauge (0.1 mm) LDPE 1000 gauge (0.25 mm) HMHDPE 700 gauge (0.1 mm) Inspite of the advantages offered by conventional lining system with and without LDPE film lining, they have several shortcomings. For example, in case of lined canals with PCC concrete tiles as cover complete impermeability is not ensured as construction joints are a must between two concrete panels, where the LDPE film below serves the lining purpose. The ill achieved compaction of side slope of a canal in most cases give rise to local shear failure due to lining overburden, with excessive slope settlement. In such case of slope stability failure the unreinforced concrete slab cracks, consequently, the unreinforced weak LDPE liner also gets damaged. LDPE membranes do not possess suffficient strength and hence under sub grade reaction, or dead load and live load on cover or hydrostatic pressure, the membrane gets ruptured on many occasions. Under steep slope conditions and high flow discharge in the canal stringment reinforced cover specifications are required which often makes the construction process of the lined canal very tedious and time consuming. Fibre glass Reinforced Plastic Tissue Reinforced asphaltic canal liner (2.5 kg / m2)

Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Hydraulics

Prof. B.S. Thandaveswara

Geo synthesis for Irrigation Structures

A wide range of Geo synthetic products find application in irrigation structures. They include geo membrane, geo textiles, geo composites, geo grids, geo drains, gabions and mattresses. Gabions are constructed using bi-oriented geo grids.

Geo synthetic Canal Lining and Drainage

As a fabric layer this system is extremely easy to install. The lining geo composites are found in combinations of membrane-grid-textile, membrane-grid or grid-textile sandwiches which can be used depending on the requirement of the project. In case of the canal lining systems Geo composites having HDPE membrane-gridtextile combination is the most suitable. HDPE membranes composites now available in India, eliminates the shortcomings of the LDPE lined canal systems. The grid eliminates the requirement of graded filter for drainage resulting in considerable reduction of time and costs, increasing canal capacity of discharge. Drainage Geo nets, a few millimetres thick have the same capacity of drainage water as a graded sand layer a few hundred millimetres thick. The textile layer provided in these composites prevents the fines from interfering with the drainage path. The Geo composites are used in canal lining system with the water proof membrane in contact with the cover (required to weigh down the geo composite on the slope) and the geo textile is laid against the well graded slope. Geo composites are available in light weight roll form which can be easily laid on slopes as well as on prepared canal beds. Geo composites have strength ranging from 6.5 kN/m to 23 kN/m which can adequately resist soil pressure on slopes and distribute concentrated forces preventing local shear failure conditions from developing. The Geo net with its high drainage capacity prevents high pore pressure development on the slope and provides an efficient flow line. Saving Geo synthetic lining vs Conventional lining 19%.

Reference
Som, S. Sarkar and Ranjana Majumder, Geo synthetic Reinforced Canal Systems and Irrigation Structures, Proceedings Water Energy 2004, International R&D Conference 1995, New Delhi, India, pp 262 to 274.

Indian Institute of Technology Madras