Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16




A suitably designed regulator at the head of a canal is provided to regulate the supplies entering the canal as well as to control silt entry into the canal. It can also be used as a calibrated meter for assessment of the discharge entering the canal. Head regulators are provided at the head of a canal off-taking from a river or a branch canal taking-off from a main canal or a distributary sub distributary taking-off from a branch canal or a distributary itself as a case may be. The setting of alignment of the head regulator particularly in case of distributary canals vis-a-vis the alignment of the branch canal or a sub distributary from a distributary canal as the case may be needs to be given special attention.

Notwithstanding the fact that the design of head regulator in the rehabilitation process is only confined to branch canals taking off from main canal or the distributary canal heads. Designs both hydraulic and structural including the gate and hoist features of the existing head regulators are of interest in relation to the project area. Bureau of Indian Standards Code IS 6531:1994 Canal Head Regulator Criteria for Design provides the general guidelines for design of head regulators for canals offtaking from a river diversion structure (weir / barrage). However, in case of distributary and branch canal heads though the best alignment of an offtake channel is zero angle with the parent channel in its initial length and then go out in a transition, in majority of the cases it is seen that the parent channel has to follow its course without any deviation and the offtake canal of the head regulator in such situations should be between 600 to 800 with the centre line of the parent channel. Whereas the general guidelines given in the above mentioned IS code may be relied upon in preparing the design for branch and distributary canal head regulators. Location specific details shall have to be decided on the basis of other relevant standards / references. The following procedure shall be adopted for design / redesign of head regulators.




Waterway and Sill Level

The required head over the crest for passing a discharge Q, with an effective waterway, Le should be worked out from the following formula.

Where, Q = discharge in m3/sec C = coefficient of discharge L = effecting water way in m and He is required head over crest for passing a discharge Q in m the

The head over the crest is fixed by subtracting from the full supply level of the parent canal, the head over the sill required to pass the full supply in the canal at the specified FSL. For the purposes of control of silt entry, it is desirable that the sill of the head regulator should be kept higher than the bed of the main / branch canal as much as possible commensurate with the economic waterway and the driving head available. It is also considered appropriate to be seen that the head regulator can pass the authorized discharge of the off-taking channel even under conditions of low supplies in the parent canal. The crest level head regulators have been fixed so as to pass design discharge at FSL and at levels 0.3m lower than the FSL also. The FSL in parent canal is normally maintained by having cross regulator in the parent channel.

In the formula given above, the value of C is variable and depends on many dimensionless functions of the head structure such as the head over the sill, shape and width of sill (W), U/S slope (Z1) and D/S slope (Z2) of the sill, height over the U/S floor (P) and the roughness of its surface. The

values of C for varied He/P and He/W for Z1 = 0 and Z2 = 2 and 3 are for a ungated flow and shown in figure 4 of the IS 6531:1994. The discharge reduction factor for varied sub-mergence ratio Hd / He can be obtained from figure 5 of the said code (Hd is the depth of water level above the crest).

In situations where flow is controlled by partially opening the gates, a sluice flow condition develops and the required head in this case is computed by the following equation:

Where, Q = discharge in m3/sec C = discharge coefficient Le = affective waterway in m H1 and H2 is total heads to the bottom and the top of the orifice


Other Parameters

Having decided upon the effective waterway, the end corrections for pier and abutment as recommended in Para 4.4 of IS 6531:1994 shall be applied for deciding the total water way between the abutments including piers. The shape of approach and designs from consideration of safety of structure on permeable foundations both from surface and sub-surface flow considerations shall be worked out in reference to the provisions made in the code. The details regarding the parameters of structural disposition of various elements of the head regulator such as the floor length, floor thickness, length of cistern and details of protection works have been described in detail in the subsequent section on design of cross regulator which can be suitably used in as far as they are applicable.




During the course of redesign of the project area canal system, it was seen that the existing configuration of the left side U/S return wing of the head regulator of Haidergarh branch and right U/S return wing of Dih distributary are causing adverse flow conditions resulting in varied discharge intake through the different bays of the head regulator. Model studies were undertaken by the Department of WRD&M, IIT Roorkee to verify the flow conditions and suggest modifications. Based on the observations in the model it has been seen that the U/S left return wing wall of Haidergarh branch, in its present geometric configuration is causing variable flow velocities across the width of the regulator through the different bays and excessive siltation is attracted towards the fist two bays from the left side.

Also the head regulator with its present five bays of 8 metres clear opening is not sufficient to drive the design discharge into the branch canal. The model study has revealed that only 145.0 cumec flow can pass the head regulator under the present running parameters. A modified geometry of the wing has been suggested to ensure almost uniform flow and silt distribution across the head regulators. The details of model studies and the results of findings are presented in Annexure-1.


In case of Dih Dy head numerical model simulation was performed to decide the silt and discharge carrying capacity of Dih distributary. HEC-6 numerical model developed by Hydrological Engineering Centre, U.S.A. has been used for this study. The present geometry has been suggested to be changed to obtain a better flow condition within the limits of available space for such a modification. The details are shown in the Figure-1. The geometry of the U/S left side wing requires very insignificant changes and as such no alteration has been suggested.

It is suggested that physical model verification for the waterbay parameters and geometry of entry profiles should invariably be done for all head regulators for channels of more than 15 cumec discharge.




Intake structure is a hydraulic device built at the head of the minor canal for the purpose of admitting and regulating water from the parent canal. The present arrangement for delivery of supplies to the distributary and minor canal is through a head regulator provided with a vertical lift gate operated with rope drum or screw hoist. The hydraulic profile and structural arrangements for both civil and gate works for distributary head works is being designed in detail according to the standard practices for such structures.


In case of minor heads, the head shall be properly located in reference to the centre line of the distributary canal. As arrangements for tackling silt problem in the canal network are being proposed separately, the water in the distribution system is likely to have silt loads which will mostly be kept in suspension and flow with canal waters. The water in the system is therefore, not likely to cause serious siltation problem. A single leaf vertical lift gate with screw hoist arrangement is proposed at the minor head.



Minor canal heads have been designed as open flume. This type of intake for minor canal is the most widely adopted design. The setting of the crest is at least 0.1 times of the full supply depth of parent canal above bed. The crest is also above the level of d/s canal bed of the off taking minor. No

control work is generally required in the parent canal including, not even, paving of the bed section opposite the intake.


Structural Design of Minor Head :

The open flume intake structures consist of u/s curved approach walls to the throat walls joining the bed of the parent canal with the crest, crest, d/s glacis, d/s expansion, cistern if required and d/s protection.


U/S approach to the throats :

The minimum radius of curvature joining the u/s side wall of the throat of intake to the toe of side slopes of the parent canal has been provided equal to water depth of parent canal. The d/s side wall of the throat shall be carried straight into the parent canal to meet its side slope.

(iii) Crest :

The throat shall start from the point where the u/s curved approach wing wall meets the side walls of the intake tangentially. The length of the throat or length of the crest will be equal to 2 x head over the crest.

(iv) D/S Glacis :

The d/s glacis will have a 2:1 slope and will join the crest with a curve of radius 0.6 m.


Cistern :

The cistern shall be provided as per requirement from hydraulic considerations which is based on discharge intensity, q and head loss, Hl (difference between u/s & d/s water levels). In case of minors, these values are very small and cistern & energy arrangements are not required. However, in cases of large head loss, proper design, using the equations for design of cistern & energy arrangements, shall be provided.

(vi) Downstream Expansion :

The minimum length of d/s expansion = 3(B-B(T)) /2

Where B = Bed width of canal d/s in metre B(T) = Width of weir crest across the axis of flow

Curtain wall d/s protection shall be taken to a depth = Y2 (Where Y2 is D/s water depth) subject to minimum of 0.5 m. The minimum length of bed protection of brick bats in a thickness of 0.15 m shall be Y2+H(WK) (D/s water depth + working head).

Intake entry profile details for minor canal head works are shown in Figure 2.




A geometrically similar model representing 400 m head reach of Haidergarh Branch along with 250m upstream and 150m downstream reaches of Sarda Sahayak Feeder Channel was constructed keeping linear scale (Lr) 1:25. The model simulation conformed to Froudes law in which velocity, time, discharge and Mannings n scale ratios are related to linear scale as follows.

Quantity Length Velocity Time Discharge Mannings n

Scale ratio as per Froude law model/proto type Lr = 1:25 = 1:5 = 1:5 (Lr)5/2 = 1:3125 (Lr)1/6 = 1:1.71

The design discharge of Feeder Channel upstream of regulator complex is 357m3/s which works out to 114.25 Litres/sec for model.

The model was constructed in brick masonry and surface rendered smooth by cement plaster 1:4. Haidergarh Branch Head Regulator and the cross regulator at km 171.3 of Sarda Sahayak Feeder Channel were also constructed in cement mortar, Regulator gates and hoisting arrangement were fabricated in M.S. sheet.

The discharge was measured at the head of model with the help of a 900 V-notch fitted in a 1.2 m wide 1.5 m deep rectangular channel. Honey-comb walls were provided in the discharge measuring channel upstream of V-notch and in the head tank of feeder channel. A similar discharge measuring system was also provided at the tail of Haidergarh branch to note down the discharge passing through the branch. The model discharge was calculated using the formula

Where Cd=0.65 ,

g = 9.81 m/s2


= 900

The prototype discharge was obtained by multiplying Qm by (Lr)5/2 i.e. 3125

In order to collect the sediment passing through the canals, two sand traps-one each in Haidergarh branch and downstream feeder channel were also constructed.

The water levels at V-notch, upstream & downstream of feeder channel, and Haidergarh branch were measured at stilling wells by pointer gauges having least count of 0.01cm. The velocities were measured by pygmy current meter and the surface flow lines were observed with the help of suitable floats. The bed flow lines were noted by

bed rollers of low density. The desired water levels in Haidergarh branch and downstream feeder channel were maintained by tail regulating arrangements.


The model investigations were conducted to determine the discharging capacity of Haidergarh Branch Head Regulator as well as of its different bays at design discharge of Feeder Channel at km 171.3. The model was run with 357 m3/s discharge and TEL corresponding to water levels 119.014m and 119.064m were maintained in Haidergarh Branch and downstream Feeder Channel respectively. The observed level U/S of the cross regulator during these conditions was 119.094. It was observed that 145 m3/s discharge passed through the Head Regulator against its design discharge 165.5m3/s. In order to assess the discharge passing through various bays of head regulator, velocities were observed at three verticals in each bay at 0.6D. The velocities are depicted in Drg.1 which varied from zero at left of left side bay to 1.5 m/s at the right of right side bay. The percentages of the total discharge of head regulator passing through its 5 bays from left was arrived at from model observations as 9.7, 20, 22, 23.7 and 24.6 against their due share of 20%.

Velocities were also observed at 50m downstream of Head Regulator with the help of the same current meter. It was seen that the velocity distribution at this location too was not uniform. A dead flow zone was found along the extreme left side and the velocity gradually increased towards the right reaching a maximum value of 1.22 m/s, (Drg.1).

As the Head Regulator could not pass its design discharge i.e. 165.5 m3/s in normal flow condition, an attempt was made to pass the design discharge by raising upstream full supply level to an acceptable limit. The model was run with 357 m3/s and the gates of cross-regulator lowered equally so that the Haidergarh branch Head Regulator passed a discharge of 165.5 m3/s. The upstream water level in the feeder channel in this condition was noted to be 119.293m indicating an afflux of about 24 cm. The velocity in the various bays of Head Regulator under this operating condition was not uniform and the bays could not draw their equal share of discharge. It was therefore concluded that the Head Regulator of Haidergarh Branch might be operated in conjunction with the Cross Regulator. The design discharge of Haidergarh Branch could be managed to pass through the Haidergarh Branch Head Regulator provided that the channel conveyance capacity of the branch canal is capable of carrying its design discharge and also that

357m3/s flow volume is carried by Feeder Channel upto km171.3. Moreover the unequal distribution of discharge in the bays of Head Regulator will still persist.

The protruding left side upstream wing wall of Haidergarh Branch Head Regulator was obstructing smooth passage of the incoming flow in streamlined manner towards the Head Regulator. In order to study its effect on flow pattern, surface flow lines were observed with the help of surface floats. The bed flow lines were also observed to assess the predominant direction of sediment flow. These flow lines are shown in Drg.2. However some bed flow lines do enter the left bay. This adverse flow pattern severely reduces the hydraulic efficiency of left bay, causing more sediment deposit along the left side of Haidergarh Branch Head reaches and also reduces the discharging capacity of the Head Regulator.

The model study to observe the flow behavior of Head Regulator with silt-laden water was then taken up. Fine natural sediment representing the prototype silt concentration of 2500 ppm were injected in to the model. The quantity of sediment per minute works out as

=17.1 kg/min

The sediment at the above rate was injected into flow manually in the upstream tank where it got mixed well with the flow and was carried forward into the Feeder Channel. After the sediment feeding for 20 hours in the model which represents 100 hours runs at site, a deposition pattern in the upstream feeder channel and head reaches of Haidergarh Branch was seen similar to its counterpart in prototype. The deposition contours are shown in Drg.-3. It can be seen that more sediment deposited along left bank in front of left side two bays.

The model was inspected by a team of officers from Tahal Consulting Engineers and UP Irrigation Department PACT on 27-5-2006 in running condition.

It was evident from the ongoing above model study that the existing configuration of the left side upstream protruding wing wall requires a proper streamlined alignment to achieve flow equalization as far as practicable. Two alternatives were considered to study on the physical model. The first one consists of joining the upstream end of left wing wall to the respective canal bank in 25m length by an S-curve keeping the rest of wing wall layout unaltered. The second alternative is focussed complete radical modification of the alignment of the wing wall by suitably increasing its length and merging it with 2:1 existing side slope of Feeder Channel.

The first alternative was incorporated in the physical model by cement mortar. When the model was run with its design discharge, it was seen that there was discernible improvement in the flow pattern in the extended part of wing wall. The flow separation at the upstream end of wing wall was neutralized indicating an improvement over the existing lay-out of left wing wall. However this was seen to be a localized improvement only and the wing wall could not sufficiently guide the flow layers to activate the dormant extreme left bay of Haidergarh Head Regulator. There was no discernible improvements in the flow pattern and in the discharge distribution among various bays of the Head Regulator. The extreme left bay was least active and sediment deposition in the left side of Haidergarh branch persisted.

In order to guide the incoming flow properly to Haidergarh Branch Head Regulator, second alternative of left wing wall, in which its length was suitably increased and merged with the existing side 2:1 slope of Sarda Sahayak Feeder Channel to modify its alignment, which was then studied in the physical model. In this respect, two such proposals were tested on model viz. (i) Bottom and top curve conformed to ellipse, (ii) The bottom curve was kept elliptical and top curve was kept parallel to bottom one in its upstream half part while the downstream half was merged smoothly from a side slope of 2:1 to vertical at the abutment. Out of the two proposals, the latter one was decidedly found superior and is therefore described here.

The bottom curve has been described by the equation

The top curve upto x = 23.5 m was kept parallel to bottom curve and the side slope of 2:1 was maintained. The layout of bottom curve between x=0 to x= 23.5m followed a curve whose coordinates are given in Drg.4. The side slope merged from Feeder Channel side slope of 2:1 to vertical at the abutment.

When the model was run with the Feeder Channel design discharge of 357 cumec maintaining the TEL of the Haidergarh Branch and Downstream Feeder channel, it was seen that the flow approaching Head Regulator was well guided by the aforementioned improved configuration of the left side wing wall. The surface flow lines were again observed and are depicted in Drg. 5. It can be seen that the flow entered the Head Regulator very smoothly with almost equal flow distribution as desirable.

Velocity distribution in the various bays of Head Regulator and at 50 m downstream in Haidergarh Branch are shown in Drg. 6. The discharge of about 145 cumec passed through the Head Regulator of Haidergarh Branch. The percentage of discharge in various bays from the left hand side was found to be 19.7, 20.4, 20.1, 19.9 and 19.9 which clearly shows that the bays are now drawing almost equal discharge. The velocity pattern at 50 m downstream was also satisfactory; the earlier observed inactive behaviour of the left zone was reduced considerably.

An attempt was also made to pass the design discharge of Haidergarh Head Regulator in ponding condition by partially lowering the gates of cross-regulator, when it was observed that the Head Regulator could pass the design discharge of 165 cumec at an afflux of 20 cm. In this flow condition, the velocity distribution in the various bays of the Head Regulator was observed to be desirably more satisfactory and the flow pattern was found to be superior to that without the afflux. Furthermore the behavior of the final proposal with silt laden water was also investigated. Fine natural sediment as was used with the initial proposal representing the prototype concentration of 2500 ppm was injected into the model for 20 hours duration. It was seen that the deposition pattern in Haidergarh branch head reach was much more improved when compared to the initial proposal. The deposition contours are shown in Drg. 7.



Haidergarh Branch Head Regulator can pass 145m3/s in existing state when Feeder Channel will bring its design discharge 357m3/s.


Haidergarh Branch Head Regulator may pass 165.5m3/s with Cross-Regulator gate operation creating 24cm afflux, but required flow equalization in bays will not be achieved which is essential to arrest siltation along the left side bays.


The existing upstream left wing wall configuration was found not capable of guiding the flow properly to the Head Regulator thereby making the extreme left bay inactive.


The modified improved layout of the left wing wall as shown in Drg. 4 has guided the flow in the model desirably well towards the Head Regulator and is therefore recommended for adoption at site. Benefits of modified lay-out of the upstream left wing wall as recommended herein are enumerated below:


It will achieve desired flow equalization in the Head Regulator and activate the left side bays of Haidergarh Branch Head Regulator.


Existing heavy sedimentation along the left side of the Head Regulator and the branch downstream of the Head Regulator will be significantly reduced.


Haidergarh Branch Head Regulator will pass its design discharge of 165.5m3/s when Feeder Channel brings its design discharge of 357m3/s by cross-regulator gate operation with a somewhat reduced afflux of 20cm.

Drg. 4 Final Layout of Left WingWall