Advertisement

Optimum layout of weep holes in concrete irrigation canals to control uplift pressure and hydraulic gradient

  • Farshid Taran
  • Ghorban MahtabiEmail author
Original Paper
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, the effect of weep holes on controlling uplift pressure and hydraulic gradient under concrete canals was investigated in different groundwater levels. For this purpose, three weep holes were embedded in different locations and combinations on the bottom and the sidewall of a laboratory canal. The amounts of seepage discharge were measured from these weep holes in single and combined modes. The corresponding values of seepage discharge, uplift pressure, and exit hydraulic gradient were calculated through simulation with the Seep/W model. The comparison of the observed and the simulated seepage values was indicative of the model’s high accuracy with a mean error of 6.23%. The results showed that uplift pressure values in the single modes of weep holes in three different groundwater levels are similar. Uplift pressure in the binary combinations had a significant reduction compared to the single modes (an average of 73%). The maximum exit hydraulic gradient occurred at the weep hole located at the corner of the canal bottom. In general, the binary combinations of the weep holes were the best choice in terms of the minimum uplift pressure and the suitable exit hydraulic gradient.

Keywords

Concrete canal Hydraulic gradient Seepage Uplift pressure Weep hole 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the material support and equipment provided by the Research Deputy of the University of Zanjan.

Funding information

This study is partially funded by the Research Deputy of the University of Zanjan.

References

  1. Afruzi A, Nazemi AH, Sadraddini AA (2014) Steady-state subsurface drainage of ponded fields by rectangular ditch drains. Irri Drain 63:668–681.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.1857 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aisenbrey AJ, Hayes RB, Warren HJ, Winsett DL, Young RB (1978) Design of small canal structures. Bureau of Reclamation, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  3. Astuti SAY, Munadhir, Pratiwi DAWW (2017) The effect of drainage channel type on seepage percentage. Procedia Eng 171:445–453.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Central Water Commission (CWC) (2000) Guidelines for planning of parallel canals. Ministry of Water Resources Government of India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  5. Chahar BHR (2007) Analysis of seepage from polygon channels. J Hyd Eng 133(4):451–460.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2007)133:4(451)
  6. Choudhary M, Chahar BHR (2007) Recharge/seepage from an array of rectangular channels. J Hydro 343(1):71–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.06.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darcy H (1856) Les fontaines publiques de la vile de Dijon. Dalmont, ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. Harr ME (1962) Groundwater and seepage. McGraw-Hill Publication, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Hiscock MK, Bense FV (2014) Hydrogeology: principles and practice, 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  10. Kahlown AM, Kemper WD (2004) Seepage losses as affected by condition and composition of channel banks. Agri Water Manag 65(2):145–153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2003.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Katibeh H (2004) Seepage from lined canal using finite-element method. J Irri Drain Eng 130(5):441–444.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2004)130:5(441)
  12. Morgado F, Lopes G, de Brito J, Feiteira J (2012) Portuguese irrigation canals: lining solutions, anomalies, and rehabilitation. J Perform Constr Facil 26(4):507–515.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nayeb Asadollah S, Aalianvari A, Hajialibeigi H (2018) Role of geological structures in seepage from Lar dam reservoir. Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:632–612.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-3967-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nasr RI, Zeydan BA, Bakry MF, Saloom MS (2003) Uplift pressure relief on lined canals using tile drains. Alexandria Eng J 42(4):497–507Google Scholar
  15. Salmasi F, Khatibi K, Nourani B (2017) Investigating reduction of uplift forces by longitudinal drains with underlined canals. ISH J Hyd Eng 23(3):2–11.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2017.1350605 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Swihart J, Haynes J (2002) Canal-lining demonstration project year 10 final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Technical Service Center, Civil Engineering Services, Materials Engineering Research Laboratory Denver, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  17. Upadhyaya A, Chauhan H (2002) Water table rise in sloping aquifer due to canal seepage and constant recharge. J Irri Drain Eng 128(3):160–167.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2002)128:3(160) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yao L, Geng S, Mao X, Huo Z et al (2012) Coupled effects of canal lining and multi-layered soil structure on canal seepage and soil water dynamics. J Hydro 430-431:91–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Water EngineeringUniversity of TabrizTabrizIran
  2. 2.Department of Water EngineeringUniversity of ZanjanZanjanIran

Personalised recommendations