564 IRRIGATION ENGINEERING AND HYDRAULIC; ‘STRUCTURES, ‘The uplift pressures must be kept as low as possible consistent with the safety the exit, so as to keep the floor thickness to the minimum. « eis obvious from equation (11.4), that if d=0; Geis infinite, Hence, it becomes essential that a vertical cutoff atthe downstream end must be provided. Example 11.1. Determine the percentage pressures at various key point inf 118. Also determine the ext radien and plot the hydrate gradint ine for pond ‘on wand no flow on dls Pond level 158 Intermediate Bile Noo? Fig 118 | Solution. (1) For Upstream Pile Line No. (1) | Total length of the floor = b= 57.0m, Depth of ws pile line = d= 154.00—148,00= 6.0m | 51.0 - aonb Dogs =0.105 4 a9: From curve Plate 11.1 (a) $c,=100-29=71% 40, = 100-20= 80% These values of 6, and fp, must be corrected for three corrections as below Corrections for 6c, (a) Correction at C; for Mutual Interference of Piles. bc, is affected by intermediate -—— pile No.2. S D (a+D comen =F (422) where D = Depth of pile No. 2. Distance between two pile: ‘Total floor length = 57.0 m,Scale for A 09 10 20 30 “0 50 t= bid ——> Piate 11.2“THEORIES OF SEEPAGE AND DESIGN OF WEIRS AND BARRAGES 565 = j_S_[5+5)_ conesion = 19-55 [355]. | since the point ; isin the rear inthe direction of 1300 i flow, the correction is + ve, Correction due to pile interference on Cy je 5300 = 1.88% (+ ve) ma) t (®) Correction at C, due to thickness of floor. FLow Pressure calculated from curve is at Cy’, (Fig. 11.9) ‘but we want the pressure at C,. Pressure at C, shall be C/‘as shown; and hence, the correction will be + ve and be | 80% — 71% Da [SBE LosaisinePxtaissew) 00 (©) Correction due to slope at Cis nil, as this point is neither situated atthe star | nor atthe end of 2 stope, Comected Gc,=71% + 1.88% + 1.5% =74.38% Hence corrected Gc, =74.38% Ans. and $0, = 80% 4 (2) For Intermediate Pile Line No. (2) : d= 154.00~ 148.00= 6.0m Using curves of Plate 11.1 (b), we have by in this case ; 06+ 158=16.4m c,= 100 ~ 30% = 70% (where 30% is dc for a.base ratio of 0.702 and / 4c, = 56% (for a base ratio 0.298 and c= 9.5) 6p, = 100-37= 63% (where 37% is @p for a base ratio of 0.702 and 0 | Corrections for ¢e, (a) Correction at E, for sheet pile lines. Pile No. (1) will affect the pressure at Ey and since Eis inthe forward direction of flow, this correction shall be ~ ve, The amount of this correction is given as :56 IRRIGATION ENGINEERING AND HYDRAULIC STRUCTUReg 'D \d+D PNY {| where D= Depth of pile No. 1, the effect of which is considered = 153.0 148.0= 5.0m d= depth of pile No. 2, the effest on wing is considered = 155.0 148.0" 5.0m BF = Distance between the two piles = 158m. ‘Total floor length = 57.0 m, contin =19 5 $88) -150 9 eee ee cemeors Ott raeemeter Since the pressure observed is at Ey’ and not at Ey, (Fig. 11.10) and by looking at the direction of flow, it can be stated easily that the pressure at E> shall be less than that at Ey, hence, this correction is negative. Correction at E, due to floor thickness =LIT% EVE). © Correction at Ey due to slope is nil, 25 the point E> is heither situated atthe start of a slope nor Fig. 11.10 atthe end of a slope. Hence, cortected percentage pressure at Ey = Corrected dp, = 70% ~ 1.88% 1.17% = 66.95% Ans, Corrections for bc, (@ Correction at C, due to pile interference. Pressure at Cis affected by pile No ) and since the point Cy is inthe back water in the direction of flow, this correction is + ve. The amount ofthis correction is given as +d =» »(P22) where D epth of pile No. (3), the effect of which is considered below the level at which interference is desired 53.0- 141.7=11.3m Depth of pile No. 2, the eriect on which is considered 53.0- 148.0 5.0m.‘THEORIES OF SEEPAGE AND DESIGN OF WEIRS AND BARRAGES 567 bf = Distance between the pile 2 and pile 3 = 400m = Total floor length = 57.0m, Te (3829). aere om ol 370 (©) Correction at Cy due to floor thickness. From Fig. 11.10, it can be easily stated that the pressure at C, shall be more than that at C;’, and since the observed pressure is at CZ, this correction shall be + ve and its amount is the same as was calculated for the point Ey = 1.17%. Hence, correction at Cy due to floor thickness = 1.17% (+ ve) (©) Correction at C, due to slope, Since the point C, is situated af the start of a slope of 3:1, Le. an up slope in the direction of flow ; the correction is negative Correction factor for 3 : 1 slope from Table 11.4 = 4.5, Horizontal length of the slope =3 m. Distance between two pile lines between which the sloping floor is located =40.0m, 3), (0.34% (— ve) Hence, corrected $c, = 56% + 2.89% + 1.17% ~ 0.34% = 59.72% (@) Downstream Pile Line d= 152.0~141.7=93m b=570m, 1, a5" 310 From curves of Plate 11.1 (a), we get $0,#32% 4,= 38% Corrections for #s, 0.181. (@) Correction due to piles. The point By is affected by pile No. 2, and since Es is in the forward direction of flow from pile No. 3, this correction is negative and its amount is given by ‘d+D = wy2 ( * ) where D= Depth of pile No. 2, the effect of which is considered 50.7 = 148.0=2.7m, Depth of pile No. 3, the effect on which is considered = 150.7= 141 S Om.568 IRRIGATION ENGINEERING AND HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES b/= Distance between piles = 40.0m, b= Total floorlength = 57.0. ion =19 22 y¢(9427 ‘The correction = 19 \W 7 x{ 75> (©) Correction due to floor thickness 1.02% (ve) From Fig. 11-11, itcan be stated easily that the pressure at Ey shall be less than at Ey, and since the pressure observed from ‘curves is at B3”; this correction shall be — ve and its amount 38%— 32% A632. _ FDOT * P37 Jpg 13 0.76% ve) i} (© Correction due t9 slope at Eis nil, as the point Ey is neither situated atthe start nor atthe end of any slope. Fig. 11.11 Hence, corrected = 38% — 102-0.76% = 36.22% Ans. ‘Tue comccied pressures at vativus hey puints aie tabulated below ist Table 11.6, Table 11.6 Upstream Pile No.1 Intermediate PileNo.2 | __Downstrear Pile No.3 ‘oe, = 100% 0; = 6695 $5)= 36208 0, = 80.0% n:8 3.0% 0,-2.8 dc\27438% 6,2 59-72% 06.20% Exit Gradient Let the water be headed up to pond level, i. on RL 158.0 m on the upstream side with no flow downstream, ‘The maximum seepage head = H = 158.0- 152. ‘The depth of dis cut-off 152.0~ 141.7 Total floor length =b=57.0m. Om 103m 0. . 1 For a value of c.=5.53, = from curves of Plate 11.2 is equal to 0.18 Hl 60 Hence, Ge=- aa Tp 5 XOH Hence, the exit gradient shall be equal to 0.105, ie. Lin 9.53, which is very much safe, ‘iotting the Hydraulic Gradient Line ‘The percentage pressures, computed and tabulated in Table 11.6, can be used 10 ‘work out the elevation of H.G. line above the datum, as given in Table 11.7._qHEORIES OF SEEPAGE AND DESIGN OF WEIRS AND BARRAGES $69 Table 11.7 Flow condition Upstream water level | Upsieam Intermediate Downstream Pile Line Pile Line Pile Line in metres Downstream water lve Head in metres te, | % | 46 | te | a, | te, | % |e, | Py 100% | 80% |74,38%|66-95%| 63.05% |5972%|36.22%| 32.0% | 0% wih a0 fw ds 60 [ 48 [446 | 402 | 378 | 358 | 268 | 192 | 00 120 ‘The subsoil H.G. Line is then plotted in Fig, 11.12. 158 sue.so0 Fig. 1.12 Example 11.2. In the. previous example 1J.1, the uncorrected percent residual pressures at Cj, Dy, Eq Dz, Cy, Ey and Dy, were all computed with the use of Khosla’s chants. It is now desired to compare these pressures analytically by using the respective formulas, if the charts are not available. Solution. (1) For Upstream Pile Line No. 1 b=57m d= 15400~148.00= 6.0mi 510 IRRIGATION ENGINEERING AND HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES ‘Now, Og for such a case (Refer Fig. 11.5 (a)] is given by 28 2\_1 extant BBB) 1 5 51.65% x TEs = 0287: ie. 28.1% 6c, = 100 p= 100-48.7= 71.3% Ans. (s against 71% read out earlier) Similarly, from Fig. 11.5 (a) 65, = 100-6 0.199; say 19.9% c+ p= 100-19.9= 80.1% Ans. (as against 80% readout earlier) (2) Intermediate Pile Line No. 2. As given in Fig. 11.5 (@), Ni+ og? +Vi +07 wheie A= Ue st ost Vive? Ving 2 bt From Fig. 11.8 of the given question, Depth of intermediate pile 54:0 148.0= 6m -- — Floor length U/S of intermediate pile (6.4m. Floor length D/S of intermediate pile 40.6 m. 164 375{gf 0RIES OF SEEPAGE AND DESIGN OF WEIRS AND BARRAGES sn fata + eee = EEREE SATS GTE 2.907 +6068. 75 jy = 22076843 _ 1 069 “an | 0.708 ; £2. 70.8%. Ans. (as against 70% read out earlier). (as against 63% read out earlier) Now, using 1s (Matt peoter tor fae!) por 564 = 56.4%. 2875 | (@s against 56% read out earlier) (3) For Downstream Pile line No. 3. W.R. to Fig. 11.5 (6) 7.0m 52.0 141.7=10.3m i ea" 037°? 1eViee _1+Vis55E padede! eV 55F 3 2 2 1 oi fhe2 revterbon (i) Loo fB3P-2)2 1 x =po0' PSST ep ses xgs-oar te 37%, ans (as against 38% read out earlier) 0254; ie.,25.4%, Ans. (as against 26% read out earlier) Example 11.3. An impervious floor of a weir on permeable soil is 16 m long and ‘as sheet piles at both the ends. The upstream pile is 4 m deep and the downstream pile 55 m deep. The weir creates a net head of 2.5 m. Neglecting the thickness of the weir‘floor, calculate the uplift pressures at the junction of the inner faces of the pile with ty weir floor, by using Khosla’s theory. (PSC, Civil Services, 1959 ‘Sotution. In the given question, since Khosla's curves are not supplied, i become, hiecessary to remember and use the formulas on which those Khosla’s curves are basej—t- ‘These formulas are already mentioned in Fig. 11.5. For the given question, pressures are required at inner junctions of both ples. Refer Fig. 11.5 (q) and (6). Pressures are thus required at C; for U/S pile, and at E et D/S ple line. (@ US Pile Line (¢,=?) 1 ) xB a | J xcr734) x Tpip = 0.4296; say 043 Le. 434, c,= 100-43 = 57%, Correction due to D/S pile ‘D)\(d+D eee ( i 6 } a | where D= Depth of D/S influencing pile = 5 m epth of U/S pile being influenced = 40 ; 5 \(4+5 conn (Eta even 5 Ger eoneieg = 57% + 6% = 63% _ jeerp gekasael aes Re (b) For DIS Pile Line (@, =2 176F gous OF SEEPAGE AND DESIGN OF WEIRS AND BARRAGES S73 de=} coe! (2476=2 Ee 2.176 1 =X BSS" x Tyg = 0474 = 47.49 Correction due t0 U/S pile. =a 4 (S+4)__ cacn af alta) eson Oe comng =ATA~53= 42.1% Pp=42.1%X2.5m= 105m, Ans. Example 11.4. The concrete floor of a head regulator is level with the channel bed except for the short crest hump) and is 13 m long. The floor is provided with cut off alsa its upstream and downstream ends. The depth of upstream cutoff is 1.5 m (below fie floor level) arid that of the downstream wall is 2.0 m. Using Khosla’s theory (see fig. 11.13 for definition, sketch and formula), determine the thickness of the floor at its ot Fig. 11.13. Definition sketch for Khosl's theory for uplift pressure. mid length and also at its junction with the upstream and downstream cutoff walls. The {foor thickness may not be less than 30 cm anywhere. The upstream FSL is 1.5 m above tte floor level If the permissible exit gradient is 0.18, is the floor safe against failure by piping ? (W.PS.C. Civil Services, 1982) Solution, () For U/S.cut off wall. Wa. to Fig. 11.5 (@) and (6), we have b=13m d= depth of pile line from top of floor level = 1.5 m. 4B as. bat a267 1eVito"_1+Viv86r 21 374 IRRIGATION ENGINEERING AND HYDRAULICSTRUCTURg 486-2) _1 x lax 53.9°x = 030; 10.3 4.96) OP Tape eed (i) Correction for D/S pile line. sad [D (a+D vl ob Correction = 19 “Where D= Depth of influencing D/S pile = 2 m = Depth of U/S pile getting influenced 5m b= Distance between two piles = 13 2 (1542 = (+) 19 a ia ) .0 (Since point C, isin the rear in the dice tion of flow, the correction is positive) (ii) Correction for floor thickness. Strictly speaking, this positive correction nesds to be worked out by assuming certain floor thickness of say 1 m at U/S end ; but for that, Khosla's formula for $, oF @p, = 1000p; where @p= = cos” is required, x which is not given in the question, although the other one for dg is given, which shows ‘that the examiner wants us to ignore this correction. If time permits, this correction can also be worked out Hence, corrected $c, 10+2=72% (lgnoring + ve conection due to floor thickness) Residual pressure causing uplift at start point (inner edge of U/S cut =Cortected 96, x 1.5= 72% x 1.5= 1.08 m +. Depth of floor required at start point C, 1.08 | 1.08 G-1 1.24 Use 1.0 m depth (to be conservative for not accounting + ve correction for flor thickness). Ans. (2) For D/S cutoff wall 87m; say Lm‘IEORIES OF SEEPAGE AND DESIGN OF WEIRS AND BARRAGES 15 ad ggg 1 (89=2 = eos ec Ja 03434; say 34.34%. Corretion fov tha effect of US pl ine, Tia — wa a ho point i forvard inthe rection of flow _ Corrected Og = 34.34~ 1.74 = 32.6%, (}) Pe= Residual pressure causing uplift at end point Ginner edge of D/S cutoft) = Comected gx 1.5 = 32.6% 1.5 = 0.489 m. © Thickness of floor required at end p 48 2. 394, say 0.4m. Ans. ; which eventually is more than the min, specified of 0.3 m (c) Thickness of floor at mid length can be the average of the two thicknesses, because uplift is varying from start to end, from 72% to 32.6% ; and its value at mid Ieugth is just average of the two. Henco, use floor thickness at mid point as 10+04 2 Hence, floor thickness at start floor thickness at end 0.7m, Ans Om. Ans. 14 m. Ans. Mor tsknes atm lengh = 07m Ans, 6) Evit Gradient. Ext graiontis given by Ean 1.4 as Gent he where H = Total head = 1.5m (given) 1sView 2 a 45 1S — Joa = 0123 < 0.18 Permissible Hence, the floor is safe against piping. Ans. 115. Design of a Vertical Drop Weir on Bligh’s Theory Many of the vertical drop wits, such es shown in Fig. 9.6, have been designed on Bligh’s ‘heory: and even though this theory has now been replaced by modern Khosl's theory, yet it Ge