Ministry of Water Resources Department of Irrigation Planning and, Design Strengthening Project United Nations Development Programme (NEP/85/013) / World Bank Assistance in the Establishment of Design Criteria and Manuals for Irrigation Projects in Nepal M.7: Headworks, River Training and Sedimentation Manual Draft Sir M MacDonald & Partners Ltd in association with MacDonald Agricultural Services Ltd and East Consult (P) Ltd May 1989CHAPTER 5 SEDIMENT REMOVAL Sea 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 uses, 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 such 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 effects 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, Canals 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will depend on the efficiency of the intake in excluding the Coarser material in transport, and the design of the canal system, in terms of its sediment transport capacity. 5.3) DESIGN CONCEPTS 5.3.1 General The general principle of design involves an assessment of what is likely to enter the intake from the river (which may vary over « wide range depending upon the discharge and other seasonal effects) and what can be accepted for transport through the canal system. The difference determines the required performance of the Sediment removal arrangements, and for a comprehensive design, Seasonal effects must be taken into account. Once the sediment sizes and quantities have been assessed, consideration is given to finding an arrangement which suits the ‘topography, available head drop, and canal operating rules (e.g. whether 7 day operation is required, etc.). | The. arrangement chosen will also depend on the method of removing the settled material, principally whether this is to be continuous, and if not, the frequency of emptying. These factors require reliable assessment in major schemes in the Terai. For small schemes in the hills, generalised data and practical experience on sediment movement may be the best that is available, The principles remain the same, but in practice the Boope for detailed design calculation for individual projects may be limited. 5.3.2. Influx from Rivers Chapter 3 explains the sedimentology of rivers and canals and seta out the needs for data collection, the main Purpose of which is to epabaish the sediment transport characteristics of the supply source. The data required are: ~ a full description of bed material in the river. For gravel and sand bed rivers, this will be obtained from bed material samples and their analysis (particle siza distribution). For boulder bed streams, measurement of typical boulder sizes plus samples of any gravel and sacd found in the bed, and a broad assessment of the Percentages of each exposed in the bed, will serve to classify the river bed. ~ an assessment of the size of sediment that can be moved in the dry season; at an average condition; in the annual flood; and in rarer events. Sometimes this may be known through local experience, but it may be calculated using the concept of initial motion (see Section 3.3) from the hydraulics of the river channe). 7 an assessment of the suspended load sizes and concentrations and their seasonal variation. This is best 104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 strean 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 mg/l 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 fron 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/l 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 (m?) is obtained from: Q xXmax n Vol. storage = 86.4 --------- x FI x 1073 BD where, Q = flow rate through settling basin (m3/s) Xmax = maximum sediment concentration of entering flow (mg/1) 9 = trap efficiency BD = bulk density of settled material (t/m?) FI = interval between flushing or emptying (days) 105The method of removing sediment deposits from the basin must be Considered early in the design procedure since it may well be a eritical factor governing the layout of the intake site. Be oi netomat “ay be “either continuous (i. carried Gur during normal basin operation without interference to supply) or intermittent (i.e. carried out as a Separate operation while supply from the basin is temporarily stopped). When considering removal of sediment, it is important to provide for removal from any part of the system where sediment is likely sernnposte. © "Conversely, itis equally important that sedineet carrying capacity is provided at locations (e.g. basin approach Sbannel, sluiceway channel) where sediment deposition ic@ee be avoided. yn Continuous systems, sediment is generally removed by a Stic, Sreduer by either pumping or siphonage, although continuous hydraulic flushing is possible in some cases. In intermittent systems, the basin is emptied or drawn down, and Sediment is removed by hydraulic.sluicing, by:mechanieal ot manual eclectic, 4, BUAVING 49049-~ endcabieosciapness point, Environmental or river shoaling considerations may dictate the extent, method and frequency of disposal of sedimert back to the parent river. Wherever possible, gravity sluicing should be adopted since this is more effective and obviously cheaper than other means. Lack of adequate head however, may prohibit it or limit its effectiveness. 5.4 TYPES OF SETTLING BASIN 5.4.1 Gravel Traps There are many situations where gravel travels as bed load for Part of the year. Ideally, the intake itself should be positioneu and oriented in such a way that gravel cannot enter it. In Chapter 4, intake designs incorporating under-sluices, side- Sluices, and sills were outlined. Where such an arrangement can be provided, an additional gravel trap will not usually be required. In smaller schemes, and especially in the hill region, a permanent river control which provides opportunity for under-sluices or equivalent features in front of the intake, will be less likely. A gravel trap behind the intake then becomes necessary unless: (i) the intake is well sited on the outside of a bend; (ii) it has a sill level high enough to exclude bed load; and (iii) it takes only a minor Proportion of the total flow when gravel moves in the river. 106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 is*easier 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- they should be divided into twin channels where feasible fto encourage parallel flow and to permit one side to be closed off. Table 5-1 gives recommended velocities tor gravel trap design. it will be apparent from the Table that the above velocities (and pyodisnts) “are)suitable for relatively small. dneiaves (s¢ gravel pot exceeding. perhaps 10 - 20mm diameter. ‘thus: the design shown in Figure 5.3 would not be appropriate with large quantities of coarser material. 5.4.2 Sand Traps Sand traps operate as settling ba The range of sizes to be ‘Femoved will include material entering the basin in suspension, either because it was naturally suspended in the river or has been cee ante, Suspension by turbulence induced .by the’ intake itselr. The theory of sedimentation is thus the basis of design, Yable 5.1 Plow Velocity Through Gravel Trap Particle Size Nominal Design (mm) Velocity (m/s) Velocity (m/s) for Depths o: for Depths of: 3m 1.5m 100 4.0 60 3.4 3.0 1.7 1.5 40 3.0 2.6 1.5 a3 20 as 21 a2 qea: 10 1.8 1.6 0.9 0.8 5 1.4 1.2 0.7 0.6 2 0.4 Note: Kg = 2D in rough-turbulent equation. Figure 5.43 shows a settling basin for a major scheme, with headworks, intake, flushing sluice ana main canst, “ght basin is yery simitar to an enlarged section of canal, though in practice it would be concrete or masonry lined to protect against flushing velocities. Figure 5.5 illustrates the basic concept of a canal enlargement, which may be appropriate in small and medium sizea schemes, Figure 5.6 shows how a settling basin might form part of a double orifice intake arrangement for hill schemes. 108Figure 5.1 Gravel Trap for Intermittent Emptying (may also be used to trap coarse sand) Section A-A Gravel and coarse sand trap Optional divide wall PlanFigure 5.2 Gravel Trap for Continuous Sluicing During Active Bed Movement River bed Gravel trap pe iF Canal flow (oF natural fall Ywrose owFigure 5.3 Gravel Trap for Continuous Flushing ‘Source: Cecen, K, Water Intake Problems in Torrents, Int. Symp. on River Mechanics, IAHR, Jan. 1973, Bangkok. “brass. oem oe ss PR ee iaFigure 5.4 Settling Basin for Major Scheme dos} JUewipas 2 youn? Aiowid 8 ayDJUL UIDW Zq jouD> Aspwisd ayD}u! 7p eoinjs Gulunoos 1q aoinjs Suiysnys tp Jaa D youn? Buiysni, 4 DaroLoit Source: Irrigation Design Standards, Headworks, Vol. KP -02, Rep. of Indonesia, Min. Public Works, Dec. 1986. bweoss.cemFigure 5.5 Canal Enlargement as Sediment Trap eat | | | | eI Inlet section | § Widening provides | 3 reduced velocity for | . § 2 i i} — . 2 g | : i] #] | 4 eae Provides storage | | | . | i | i | Weed | | je Ee | 5 if s | é jn Outlet section | neFigure 5.6 Sediment Trap as Part of Double Orifice Intake for Small Hill Schemes Sediment trap Intake | EPR fat TEL Siew fe D\, “tow eactie wer : XY cs A) ie D a ==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 C. 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 w v 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) V 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 W 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 deal" 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 the basin. The objective of good hydraulic design is to achieve conditions most closely relating to ideal flow. 109Factors which cause reduction in hydraulic The hydraulic design of the i shape are the most significant. unavoidable to some degree. important as flow-through ve to be significant in irrigati (a) The hydraulic behaviour of short-circuiting efficiency are: currents set up by poor inlet poor basin shape; separation and contraction of flow, with consequent and outlet conditions, ana zones which generate recirculating eddies; boundary friction which retards some flow zones and causes faster flow elsewhere in the section to compensate; wind-induced surface currents; density currents, induced high sediment concentrations. Settling Zone by thermal effects or extremely nlet and outlet layout and basin Boundary friction effects are The other effects become locity is reduced, but are not likely on systems. increasingly long narrow tanks is superior to that of wide low-velocity tanks. Also, tanks with higher (but nevertheless low) values of Froude number have better flow patterns and give less risk of instability. A minimum length to width adopted from hydraulic consi leaves the basin uniformly systens, (say 8 - (L/w) over its it is generally fea 10) subdivision with longitudinal divide desirable due to operational (b) the Inlet Zone To and suspended sediment sectional area of the settling zone. ratio of 2-3 derations, full width. ible to achieve a better L/w ratio through local widening and deepening cross-section to form the basin achieve optimum hydraulic efficiency effective use of the settling zone, inflow is generally provided flow enters and In irrigation of the canal Basin shape can be improved by walls, which may also be considerations (see Section 5.3.4). and the inlet needs to distribute uniformly over the cross- Horizontal velocity variations across the width of a rectangular tank affect the velocity variations in depth, avoided) . uniform inflow distribution acro: commonly adopted to achieve gooa hydraulic Principal attention efficiency (provided always that bed scour is therefore SS the width. flow distribution are considerably more than needs to be given to Methods which are @ gradual open channel expansion (Figures 5.4 and Bory possibly using guide vanes; 110Figure 5.7 Sediment Trap, Schematic Figure 5.8 Flow Through Curve j e Plug flow | t Theoretical | aa detention | 2 period,tg Dispersion index = tg, / tig 23 | 2a Observed recovery of | Sy tracer substance ca | §9 | 8s > t, Time of flow to outlet | i sey é eee lade z peace 389 |S 3 | FORE QFE s 53 | Note: Dead spaces and short-circuiting in a settling basin are reflected in the | concentration and time of recovery of tracer substances. | ‘057.08:~ 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) . (©) 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 The fall velocity, w, characterizes the ability of different sized particles to settle out under gravity. Fall velocity for discrete particles is dependent on partiéle 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. a1Design fall velocity for discrete particles: may be measured directly by timing fall through a known depth. Tt ie usual, however, to use published data (such as Figure 3.11) to estinacs fare. velocity (when the basin’ de principally ~ concesnedh with Settling out sand and coarse silt sizes. Where finer particles ein hoy romeo; 1¢ 18 usual’ to: carry’ out a, saneidngcolien analysis to determine the settling characteristic curve for the suspension. 5.5.2 Sedimentation theory The ideal horizontal settling basin in Figure 5.7 demonstrates the basic theory of sedimentation developed by Hazen. The following assumptions are mad " uniform distribution of flow and suspended solids at entry to settling zone (plug flow); - quiescent flow (i.e. no turbulence); ~ solids entering the deposition zone are not resuspended. Consider a sediment particle entering the basin: Settling time, t, = d/w Retention time, tp = basin volume/discharge = yg Ap/Q where, d = particle diameter; w = fall velocity of particle; basin flow depth; K ° 0 Ap = mean plan area of basin; Q = discharge. For quiescent settling, all particles of settling velocity w are removed when retention time equals settling time: i.e. YoAp/Q = yo/w, or Wap = w in general, for both ideal and real basins, the ratio wA,/@ can be " Fegarded as a dimensionless indicator of the physical aptiity of a basin of plan area Ap to remove particles of fall velocity w ac supply discharge Q. tt follows, in the ideal case, that for discrete particles: qd) renoval is independent of basin depth and flow-through velocity; © (11) for a given discharge and suspended sediment load, renova) is a function of basin surface area. 112Figure 5.9 Fall Velocity of Quartz Spheres in Water (aquinu spjoukey = ¥) S/W 'M AYDOj9A 4 ; wu ‘Q s819weIg urosw.cem,The ratio Q/Ap is termed the "surface loading" or "surface overflow rate In practice, real settling basins act less efficiently than the ideal due principally to the effects of: qa) turbulence in flow through the basin leading to retarded settlement; and (ii) short-circuiting and currents within the basin. Sediment removal efficiency, n, for a given particle size is measured as Cy/Co, where Cy = concentration of suspended sediment removed, and C, = 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: i-n a+ mwAp/Q)717™ 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. o 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: n= £ (WAD/Q, W/V«) where vs, is the shear velocity, /(gRi), and wW/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? (Vetter'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: “WA, Ve. «8 ae 113This is a special case of Hazen's more general equation, being the Solution when m= 0 (see Figure 5.10) and also corresponds to the turbulent side of Camp's solution Figure 5-11) and thus to awpiicit conditions of turbulence. ‘Camp's solution could be plotted on Figure 5.10 as a series of curves, wining to the Hazen ee ers Server if the region 4/« - 1 tao vaae shoaes zone in Figure 5.10). Tt can thus be appreciated that each of the common settling efficiency formulae is valid when the implied Physical conditions are appropriate, but that the more optimistic solutions could be misleading if the practical sepects of real Lacie sem not taken into account. .In summary, there are two methods of approach to the design of the Settling zone that can be recommended: (i) Use, Campis mathod for the basic design, but alloo say 50% additional surface area for. flow ixreqularities plus an sptry and exit allowance. These should be extea lengths of the order of: Re X5(EB S Pentey) 2 & (B - bexit Thus, if an entry expansion of 1 to 5 is used, with exit contraction 1 to 2, design is basea on the parallel sided bor tlonw on “the! basin but ita sharper expansion or Contraction is used, extra length must be allowed to compensate for this, (ii) Use Hazen's method, having judged the value of n. Suggested m values are indicated below in Table Suzy ft Will be appreciated that there are many situations, especially fpr small projects and in the confined valleys of tee hill region, where "poor" or even "very poor" may be the hese that is feasible to achieve at economic cost. Another factor to take into account’ “is bed scour during Sedimentation. once particles have settled out, they must not be rcuredetroml the basin “floor ‘by excessive’ tic hrough velocity. qhe hear stress on the floor must therefore be less than the critical shear stress required to initiate movement. To = PGRi = pv,2 where, 1, = bed shear stress P = density of water. : The critical shear Stress to initiate motion can be obtained for the Dso sediment deposit size from Shield's diagram (Figure 3.7), Equating the two shear stresses enables the critical flow-through velocity to be obtained (see Section 4.6.5), 14Figuro 5.10 Performance Curves for Settling Basins of Varying Effectiveness Quiescent settling Snaded zone Best performance, m = 0 m=4 covers Camp's | Vetter's equation Percentage removal (100 C; /Co)Figure 5.11 Camp's Sediment Removal Graph for Turbulent Flow (a) The Effect of Turbulent Flow on Seat Efficiency, n + — 1 | | T | {| aetie oe sleet ae 0.01 ce a 2 a > Reducing turbulence 1/6 wy W/Va = onooe (using Manning) vn/o Source: Camp, T. R., Sedimentation and the Design of Settling Tanks, Trans ASCE, Vol. il, 1946. shaweas11.06MTable 5.2 Suggested m Values in Hazen Method for Settling Basin Design n 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. 1/6 very Enlargement of straight canal; basin with gentle to good transitions as in Figure 5.5, fed from straight ya canal or with good control of discharge across width at entrance and exit. 1/3 Good Well designed basin as in Figure 5.4 (note vane to control flow around bend in supply canal). 4/2 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 fro! - 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In many cases sluicing has to be confined to the lower range in flood levels, and sediment storage has to be sacrificed to produce sufficient sluicing power. The reduction in the storage capacity results in the more frequent shut down of the canal distribution system. Some of the difficulties can be overcome if the settling basin and flushing sluices are duplicated as in Figure 5.12° However, this adds considerably to the cost, requires additional water supplies which may not always be available, ond significantly, it does not overcone the problem of not being able to sluice the basins during periods of high flood levels in the river. An alternative way of overcoming these conflicting requirements is to Provide for both settling-scouring operation and continuous ejection. During periods of low river flows and low sediment concentration, the normal operation of allowing the sediment to eeboerc tn) the! settling “basin, 1s, followed by the scouring operation of the desanding sluices to remove the sediment? However, during periods of high sediment concentrations and high flood levels, this method of operation may not be possible, and vc remove the lower sediment laden water, the desanding sluice gates are left open to allow for the continuous ejection of ‘the sediment back to the river. When considering continuous sediment ejection, it is important that the ejection flow should pass through tunnelé parallel to and under the canal flow. An example of a settling basin and desanding sluices designed on this basis are shown in Figure 5.13. For removal of coarse silts and sand, it is suggested that sediment transport rates are estimated using Bagnold's total load formula?® since this is valid for high transport rates rethor than the early stages of sediment movement. The formula is: Gsi=PYoiv [ where, gai transport rate of solids by immersed weight per unit width yo = flow depth hydraulic gradient V = flow velocity @p = bed load efficiency factor (Figure 5.14(a)) tan a = solid friction coefficient (Figure 5.14(b)). For wide, shallow channels, this equatibn can be expressed as: Qs. (s-1) where, X = bed material concentration in ppm; 116Figure 5.12 Settling Basin with Parallel Sedimentation Channels {2}0wwWos601g) Burains yuawipas paysiury (2) padinis 4404 (4) VOIS (2) a \ Se ee @-8 woHDas ¢xo}} }021)U9.8dNS f j W-¥ voK2a5 een it 102;u0D Be 3306 Gurysny; juawipas $206 jay uDdid <3 a 6 13) ROG Burysny} juswIpAS 52106 aru SN JaUUDYD 421 Sage p VV vonjsas pawiny ut) youos A\adns QUOZ J2{UI usog 6ui}132: ane sind soq 6uIN2S = 0512.GEM FineFigure 5.13 Outlet from Settling Basin reumiting Either Intermittent or Continuous Flushing Crump weir crest 4 —+To canal | —To disposal channel | Flushing’sluice Section A-A Settling basin flushing slulces Disposal channel Plan | \weasts.cem. OEE 2 Ree, oe tee cctstee }(a) Bedioad Efficioncy Factor Dgo< 0.06 mm (b) Solid Friction Coetticient Figure 5.14 Bagnold Total Load Functions 0.06 < Dgg< 02mm, 02 < Deg < 0.7 mm Wholly | Viscolls conditions anal oS) <0:25 | 0-7] | § | o : os | SE SE j e seco 2 | por 3 § Sy | Ss é out Critical =7-Wholl / inertial 0: stage conditions OF O02 0c oat 2 Dimensionless bed shear stress, fwrosteccw To ORs-Plgs = specific gravity of the bed material. The particle terminal velocity, w, should be estimated for the Deg 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 sone 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 Gischarge/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 a 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 srfall scale hill projects. Figure 5.15 sows 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5.5.5 The suggested design procedure for major projects is as follow: (4) (ii) e-(4did) (iv) (vy) (vi) (vii) (vil) ° Design Procedure Estimate the suspended sediment inflow rates passing intake (particle size distribution, concentration, variability) from the sediment data for the river, the Position of the intake and the vertical sediment distribution. Estimate the sediment carrying capacity, and hence tolerable suspended sediment inflow to the ‘canal system downstream of basin. Decide on a minimum particle size for (say) 95% removal. Estimate the basin surface loading and calculate preliminary basin surface area using Vetter's equation, allowing a reserve of 50% of the net area. Subdivide suspended sediment inflow into particle size bands and estimate the removal efficiency for’ each band, the size distribution of sediment deposited, and the size Gistribution and concentration of the outflow using the Camp function. Compare basin sediment outflow with tolerable inflow to downstream system. Repeat. if necessary. Review local topographic and environmental factors. Consider available head through settling basin system in relation to sediment disposal location. Review any relevant local experience with settling basins. Revies economics of increased maintenance costs versus degree of sediment removal. Make broad decisions on basin size, method of sediment disposal, extent of standby capacity, and general layout of works. Review constraints on basin geometry and flow-through velocity for preliminary basin layout from considerations of: > inlet and outlet channels; > inlet and outlet transitions; 7 practicality of construction and operation; - basin turbulence; - bed scour. Review, using Camp's solution and a conservative estimate of the turbulence function, the initial estimate of basin area. Allow reserve of 50% on the net calculated area, plus any addition arising from restraints on transitions at inlet and exit. Optimise basin length and width within constraints of L/W ratio, minimum basin depth and maximum flow-through velocity. Calculate the final design deposition rate, the size distribution of sediment deposit, and the size distribution and concentration of suspended sediment. in outflow as in Step (iv). 118Figure 5.15 Settling Basin with Dredger for Major Project udid uOZ ja1iNO. @UOZ 4aIUy Viawe J2a6paig s90y eG, i Dderscke G Reiaelenneks aol aoe ois oe za oe oa | “TGisoq voojuawipas 4 Ls wo a ee Hweosis.cem(viii) (ix) 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. Finalize the hydraulic design of inlet and outlet zones. Review need for model test of basin hydraulic layout (see Chapter 7). For smaller projects where there are probably no specific sediment data available for the site, an abbreviated design process is more appropriate. (4) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vy) (vi) (vi) 5.5.6 From general knowledge and inspection of the site, assess the maximum suspended solids concentration and the probable Dso 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. 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. The difference between (i) and (ii) gives the trap efficiency required. 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 use Figure 5.10) to obtain the required surface area. Choose a flow depth sufficient to ensure no rescour of deposits when there is full storage: see Table 5.1 for critidal bottom velocity and make mean flow velocity no greater than this. Consider storage requirements in terms of frequency of clearing out, and allow this volume below the nominal basin depth obtained in (v) above. Finalise the size, geometry and location and check that it remains consistent with the assumption made in (iv). 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° Shield's initial motion function and a roughness function. For coarse material (above several mm diameter), the rough turbulent resistance law has been applied assuming a plain bed with ke = 2D for sand size material, a Manning's n of 0.022 has been taken on the assumption that rippling will occur as soon as any sediment moves. The critical velocity function for coarse sediment, when factored by 2 and by 0.5, indicates the approximate conditions for scouring and trapping respectively. Finer material will lose ite bed features when it scours, and so the multiplying factor for scouring is rather higher. Also, settlement of these finer sediments depends on the surface loading of the basin (flow rate/ Surface area) rather than on the through velocity only, providing an additional criterion as shown on the outline design guide of Figure 5.16. The criterion cated allows for some additional Surface area, as no real bi perform under ideal quiescent ‘conditions. qt is stressed that this diagram is intended to give guidance as to the scale of sediment removal ities at feasibility or preliminary design stage. Such approximate methods may suffice For very small projects, but clearly any preliminary design based gn Such a general approach will have to be checked by the more detailed methods given earlier in the chapter in all but these minor schemes. 5.6 OTHER SEDIMENT KiMOVAT 5.6.1 Bed Slots Ppcause there is a variation in suspended material concentration Ehroughout ‘the depth of’ flow (see Section 3.3.5), as well, ec Sediment transport as bed load, a transverse slot in the bes jeading to a pipe or tunnel provides an effective systen tos removing sediment from a canal, provided a proportion of ‘the canst discharge can be continuously éscaped (perhaps in the range 10% to 208+ depending on requirements). In essence, the bed slots remove the more heavily laden bottom layers of flow together with any bed joad coarse enough not to "skip" over the slot. Figure 5.17 illustrates how a knowledge of the distribution of suspended solids and the vertical velocity distribution can be combined to show the percentage of sediment which will be conveyed in ja given percentage of flow taken from the bottom. Figure S/is Shows the basic concept of bed slots, although in a major scheme there would be several slots (e.g. three each spanning 2/3 of the bed width, each feeding a separate transverse pipe or tunnel). So far as the diversion of flow and sediment is concerned, the theory of bed slots is the same as that for vortex tubes, which is outlined in the next section. The Problem with bed slots is that if the continuous and adequate Fenoval of sediment from beneath them is not achieved, they will Block and probably cannot be re-opened hydraulically. Te then becomes necessary to close the canal and clean them cut Physically. Their function needs careful management therefore, ss 120Figure 5.16 Guidance for Outline Design of Gravel Traps and Settling Basins (depth range 1.5 to 3.0 m) 10: et ee a ae i a Be —| £ ee 3 i |= | on © SURFACE LO|ADING,a7a FOR | 2 SETS “BASIN Way S4 | sil ee a res 208 0.2 O 10 100 PARTICLE Peoria 8a DIAMETER (mm)Figure 5.17 Vertical Distribution of Sediment and Influence on Bottom Withdrawal of Sediment SURFACE to 0.75 x = 8 Ey 0;5) - 3 @ £ | B oes + & BED ° SEDIMENT VELOCITY CONCENTRATION OF WATER 1.0 =z 075 r | iS | 8 z | z 0.5 | 2 | & : oa é 25 PERCENT O.25- EXTRACTION | OF WATER | ° ° 100 | SEDIMENT LOAD PERCENT BELOW DISTRIBUTION brorassr oemFigure 5.18 Arrangement of Bed Slot for Removing Sediment from Canal | Transverse pipe Le KeeKe Elevation Plan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 flow 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 headworks to ensure that 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 reconmended 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 0.3d, where d@ is the tube diameter (the minimum is 0.244). With the tube set at 90° to the channel centreline, the extraction ratio for a slit width of 0.34 is calculated from: 121R = d? Cvy /(2g(He-Ho)) / (4q1) where, Cvs = velocity coefficient = 0.721 tanh(0.2422 1/d) q = channel flow intensity downstream of the tube 1 = length of tube d = tube diameter Hy = total head upstream of tube Hg = pressure head at tube outlet For no deposition in the tube, Vp = 0.693 J(2g(Hp-H5)) / Cosh(0.2422 1/d) where, Vp = tangential velocity in the tube Vp should be greater than the settling velocity corresponding to the Djs particle size for normal operation, and greater than the settling velocity corresponding to the Dgs particle size for flushing. The calculation of trapping efficiency is best carried out using a computer. However, the following approximate procedure may be used for outline design. (a) calculate the average velocity (V) in the channel upstream of the tube. (ii) Divide the sediment grading curve of the channel materials (excluding wash load) into five equal fractions with representative particle sizes of Djg, D39, Ds0, Dy and Dgo- (iii) Determine the settling velocities for each of representative particle sizes. (iv) Calculate the extraction ratio, R. (v) Assume the shear velocity, vs = V/15. (vi) Calculate w/v» for each of the representative particle sizes. (vii) Using the trapping efficiency curves of Figure 5.20, determine the trapping efficiency for each of representative particle sizes. (viii) Calculate the average of the 5 values of the trapping efficiency and divide by 1.3 to give an adjusted estimate of the overall trapping efficiency. The level at which the tube is set in relation to the bed of the canal affects the Froude number in the canal at the vortex tube. Generally for finer sediment, low Froude numbers give higher 122Figure 5.19 Vortex Tube Installation oanal drain culvert gate Crump weir ee ~ Vortex tubes Section A-A Chandra canal Vortex tube silt extractor gate |Full supply level Section B-B reaa (%) Trapping efficiency, Figure 5.20 Trapping Efficiency of Bed Slot (Vortex Tube) as Function of Extraction Ratio, R | 100; Vaal | Se eee 90} 80) 70} 49) = 10] 0 1.000 2.000 3.000 ~~ 4.000 §.000 W/V Source: White, S.M., Design Manual for Vortex Tube Silt Extractors, Report 0037, Hydraulics Research, 1981. \oEMtrapping efficiencies, while with coarse sediment the Froude number can be increased. One advantage of increasing the Froude number (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/Wso- where, Fr = Froude number in approach channel 1 yn = Normal channel velocity at vortex tube (m/s) Ws50 = 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 gate; - 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The alternative to gravity disposal is to provide a settling basin and mechanical or pumped removal of sediment. ‘The smaller flow from the vortex tube extractor, compared with a canal settling basin taking the full supply, tends to favour the use of compact settling tanks. Where there is a shortage of water supplies for continuous ejection, an alternative solution is to provide settling tanks with intermittent pumped disposal of the sediment and re-use of the supernatant vortex tube flow. For this purpose it is necessary to locate the vortex tubes upstream of a canal fall. This arrangement serves the same purpose as a dredged settling basin, but eliminates the more skilled requirements for the operation and maintenance of the dredgers. 124Chapter 5 References = ies % ae 10. adi 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, IAHR, Jan 1973, Bangkok. Irrigation Design Standards, Headworks Vol. KP-02, Ministry of Public Works, Indonesia, December 1986. avery, P. (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 III, 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, Transactions, 9th Congress, Moscow, 1975. Wolo Lt, Question 30, Sediment-controlling Irrigation Intake Structures. RQ Hariri, D. and Parhami, F., Desilting Structure for the Moghan Canal, Mon. R29 Moser, T.H. and Sears, W.D., Sediment Control at Imperial Dam. 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 OD6, Hydraulics Research Station, March 1976. White, S.M., Design Manual for Vortex Tube Silt Extractors, Report 0D37, Hydraulics Research Station, December 1981.