27-07-2016
APPLICATIONS OF GEOSYNTHETICS TO CANALS
VIVEK P. KAPADIA
Email : [email protected]
CASE STUDY – 1
Restoration of Main Canal of
Sardar Sarovar Project
1
27-07-2016
DESIGN FEATURES OF MAIN CANAL
• Largest in the world having carrying capacity of 1133 cubic
meter per second at the off-take point.
• From Ch. 269 km to Ch. 271.5 km is in full bank with bed
banking of 1 to 1.5 m - total bank height above the ground
level is about 9 m
• Canal bed is 53.70 m wide and the full supply depth (FSD) is
6.5 m
• Designed discharge is 583.57 m3/ s (20,608 cfs)
• Canal side slopes are 2 (H) : 1 (V)
3
DESIGN FEATURES OF MAIN CANAL
• Zoned embankment designed to suit the codal provisions,
design practices and material availability
2
27-07-2016
HISTORY OF CANAL EMBANKMENT FAILURE
Date of Chainage in Side of the Bank
Occurrence km
30-08-2005 272.500 Left
08-09-2005 271.300 Left
17-09-2005 269.700 Left (Huge Breach)
17-09-2005 270.900 Left (Huge Breach)
13-01-2006 271.180 Left
13-01-2006 271.450 Right
11-03-2006 270.300 Right
5
HISTORY OF CANAL EMBANKMENT FAILURE
Defects in lining
6
3
27-07-2016
HISTORY OF CANAL EMBANKMENT FAILURE
Defects in lining
7
HISTORY OF CANAL EMBANKMENT FAILURE
Defects in lining
8
4
27-07-2016
HISTORY OF CANAL EMBANKMENT FAILURE
Devastation in Vicinity of Canal
9
HISTORY OF CANAL EMBANKMENT FAILURE
Devastation in Vicinity of Canal
10
5
27-07-2016
HISTORY OF CANAL EMBANKMENT FAILURE
Chiselled Embankment
11
HISTORY OF CANAL EMBANKMENT FAILURE
Chiselled Embankment
12
6
27-07-2016
ANALYSIS OF AS BUILT SECTION AND
SHORTCOMINGS FOUND IN THE EMBANKMENT
• No zones with specific soil properties as per design
• Obligatory technical specifications for laying and compacting
the soils totally neglected - numerous locations and bands of
loose or inadequately compacted soil zones
• No chimney filter or horizontal filter blankets to protect the
soil and prevent migration of particles outside.
13
ANALYSIS OF AS BUILT SECTION AND
SHORTCOMINGS FOUND IN THE EMBANKMENT
• Due to very loose soil bands there was substantial subsidence
of the earthwork - lining, as a result, cracked irregularly, even
big hollows at some locations
• Canal water entering the embankment with relatively high
pressure caused dislodgment of particles in the inadequately
compacted soil due to high seepage forces resulting into piping
and progressive failure ultimately
14
7
27-07-2016
ANALYSIS OF AS BUILT SECTION AND
SHORTCOMINGS FOUND IN THE EMBANKMENT
Stratified Strata of Soil with No Zoning or Filters
15
ANALYSIS OF AS BUILT SECTION AND
SHORTCOMINGS FOUND IN THE EMBANKMENT
• Slip circle modelling can not be taken as stratification
of soil and therefore Finite Element modelling as
steady unconfined seepage type problem was done
using four noded element in the self developed
program.
• Analysis suggested that the embankment with as built
section property was unstable with the designed head
in the canal
16
8
27-07-2016
ANALYSIS OF AS BUILT SECTION AND
SHORTCOMINGS FOUND IN THE EMBANKMENT
Steady Unconfined Seepage Problem
17
ANALYSIS OF AS BUILT SECTION AND
SHORTCOMINGS FOUND IN THE
EMBANKMENT
Conceptual modeling of stratified embankment
18
9
27-07-2016
ISSUES WITH RESTORATION OF CANAL
EMBANKMENT
• Time of only 10 days was there - drinking water for many
towns and villages depending up on the main canal
• Rainfall had already occurred once, borrow areas were not
available and the soil available was predominantly sand with
small amount of clay - for zoning and for filters suitable
material was not available
19
ISSUES WITH RESTORATION OF CANAL
EMBANKMENT
• In given time and small length proper compaction was a matter
of doubt
• Bonding with the surrounding parts of the canal was difficult
• Other than technical issues like people’s wrath, political
intervention, movement of media, etc. were adding fuel to fire.
20
10
27-07-2016
GEOREINFORCED EMBANKMENT AS A
SOLUTION
• With permeable soil the embankment was to be reconstructed;
zoning was impossible; compaction to limited level was to be
put up with and yet long lasting a solution was to be worked
out.
• All these constraints led to the application of geosynthetic to
construct the embankment as the right solution
21
GEOREINFORCED EMBANKMENT AS A
SOLUTION
Material Properties
Property Unit Value
Weight g/m2 270
Wide Width Tensile kN/m2 50
Wide Width Elongation % 15
Trapezoidal Tear Strength kN 0.50
CBR Puncture resistance kN 6.0
Flow Rate l/ m2/min 260
UV Resistance %/hrs 70 / 500
22
11
27-07-2016
GEOREINFORCED EMBANKMENT AS A
SOLUTION
Total Thickness of Earth - 1500
mm (two geosynthetic wraps) Full Supply Level
Slope 2:1
Slope 2:1
Lining 125 mm
Total Thickness of Earth - 750
mm (three geosynthetic wraps) Tensile Strength of U.V. Resistant Geo-symthetic Layer should be min. 40 kN/
at bottom - Total Thickness of meter in Warp Deirection and 30 kN/ meter in Weft Direction
Earth - 1000 mm (three
geosynthetic wraps) at top
• Section for Restoration of Main Canal Embankment
23
GEOREINFORCED EMBANKMENT AS A
SOLUTION
Spreading Geosynthetic Sheet
24
12
27-07-2016
GEOREINFORCED EMBANKMENT AS A
SOLUTION
Stitching Geosynthetic Sheet
25
GEOREINFORCED EMBANKMENT AS A
SOLUTION
Restored Main Canal Embankment
26
13
27-07-2016
GEOREINFORCED EMBANKMENT AS A SOLUTION
Restored Main Canal Embankment
27
CASE STUDY – 3
Construction of Canal with
Sandy Soil using
Georeinforcemets and
Geomembrane
28
14
27-07-2016
CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUIND
29
OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
• Tail Branch Canals of Sardar Sarovar Project passing through
sandy soil and their command areas adjoining dessert
• Capacity about 15 cumec and length about 20 Kilometer
• All the canals have cutting, partial banking and banking –
banking up to 3.5 meter
• SM soil with almost uniform particles and hence compaction the
biggest problem
Difficulty in compaction and high permeability, both required
to be addressed
30
15
27-07-2016
OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
• Fluctuations in water levels – variations in pore pressure
• Sudden variations in pore pressure may cause spreading or
dispersion failure of the embankment
31
OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
Seepage Line in Sandy Soil
Seepage Line in Conventional Soil
High permeability means flatter hydrostatic line requiring much
larger width of embankment - economic viability adversely affected
Lower compaction results in susceptibility to disintegration
i.e. stability failure
32
16
27-07-2016
OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
GCL checks the seepage path
Geogrid checks the disintegration of sand particles
33
GEOGRID FOR REINFORCED EMBANKMENT
• Three levels of Geogrid
1st Layer at [CBL – 0.30] m level
2nd Layer at [CBL + 0.40] m level
3rd Layer at [FSL - 0.40] m level
TG
Property Test Method Unit
U - 60
Ultimate tensile MD 60
ASTM D-6637 kN/m
strength CD 20
Reduction nfactor (RF) and machine direction long term design strength (LTDS)
Creep (RFCR ) 120 years life , 40 0C temp 1.55
Sand /Silt /Clay 1.05
Installation damage (RF ID )
< 37.5mm gravel 1.15
Durability (RF D ) pH = 4 to 9 1.15
LTDS - 120 years , 40 0 C : Sand / Silt / Clay : pH = 4 - 9 kN/m 32
LTDS - 120 years , 40 0 C : Gravel < 7 . 5 ; pH = 4 - 9 kN/m 29.3
Aperture size ( +/- 2 mm )
mm 30 x 25
34
17
27-07-2016
SOLUTION USING GEOGRID AND GEOMEMBRANE
Canal Bank in Sandy Soil
• Geogrid in 3 layers and GCL (HDPE Geomembrane 0.5 mm thick) - Geogrid
as reinforcement for stability and GCL for checking seepage
• Rock toe to release pore pressure though minimum 35
SOLUTION USING GEOGRID AND GEOMEMBRANE
Geosynthetic Clay Liner and HDPE
Rail of Paver Machine
First Stage of Concrete Lining With Paver Machine
Geosynthetic Clay Liner and HDPE
Concrete Lining Done in Stage 1
Rail of Paver Machine
Second Stage of Lining With Paver Machine
36
18
27-07-2016
GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER
• Geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs) include a thin layer of finely-
ground bentonite clay. When wetted, the clay swells and becomes a
very effective hydraulic barrier.
• GCLs are manufactured by sandwiching the bentonite within or
layering it on geotextiles and/or geomembranes, bonding the layers
with needling, stitching and/or chemical adhesives.
37
SOLUTION USING GEOGRID AND GCL
Gadsisar Branch Canal
38
19
27-07-2016
CONCLUSIONS
39
With limited choice about type of soil, focus on
solution as a system is more required.
Geosynthetic itself is not the solution but the system
whose part it is needs to be designed to take its
maximum advantage
Conventional solutions are not always more
economical than innovative solutions
Resource crunch has forced engineers to think out of
box and to put up with available resources with
corrections applied
40
20
27-07-2016
THANKS TO ALL
41
21
