comparison between different method of under water canal

19
Comparison between different method of under water canal lining Submitted By Shivam Mittal

Upload: shivam-mittal

Post on 02-Jul-2015

472 views

Category:

Technology


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Comparison between different method of under water canal

Comparison between different method of under water canal lining

Submitted By

Shivam Mittal

Page 2: Comparison between different method of under water canal

Comparison Based on

1. Cost effectiveness

2. Installation and need of resources

3. Period of construction

4. Environmental Impact

Page 3: Comparison between different method of under water canal

Methods Under Comparison

Conventional Method( lining by CC)

Clay Geosynthetic(CGS) Liner

Grouted Mattress(GM) Liner

Page 4: Comparison between different method of under water canal

Cost Effectiveness

Page 5: Comparison between different method of under water canal

Canal Section Under study

Slide Slope m=1Flow Perimeter P = (b+2*2½y) m = p meterLength of canal= 1km = 1000m

Page 6: Comparison between different method of under water canal

CC Lining

For 100 m3/sec and above discharge thickness of concrete lining= 100mm = .1 m

And Concrete grade used M15 (Theory and design of irrigation structure- R.S. Varshney)

volume of concrete= 1000*0.1*p = 100p m3

Rate of M15 ready mix concrete= 3200 INR

Cost of CC lining= 3200*100p = 320000p INR

Page 7: Comparison between different method of under water canal

CGS lining

• Area required = 1000*p

( neglect the CGS thickness)

Cost of CGS= 3$ /m2= 3*65 INR/m2

Cost of CGS lining= 3*65*1000p

= 195000p INR

Page 8: Comparison between different method of under water canal

Grouted Mattress

Volume required= 1000*0.1*p m3

Cost of Grouted Mattress= 25 $ / m2= 25*65 INR/m3

Cost Of Grouted Mattress lining= 25*65*1000*p

= 162500 INR

Page 9: Comparison between different method of under water canal

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

1. Conventional method ( CC

method)

2. Clay Geosynthetic

Liner

3. Grouted Mattress

320000

195000

162500

Rate(INR)

Grouted Mattress provide a more overall cost effective application than other two lining methods.

Conclusion

Page 10: Comparison between different method of under water canal

Installation and need of resources

Page 11: Comparison between different method of under water canal

• CGS lining only require small equipment a minimum amount of labour for installation.

• CGS and Grouted mattress are factory manufactured so installation is easy but on site grouting process is needed in Grouted mattress.

• CGS and Grouted Mattress installation easily on difficult access or placement areas.

Page 12: Comparison between different method of under water canal

• CC lining needs heavy equipment and dedicated man power.

• CC lining method has slow and complicated construction process.

• Thickness of CC and Grouted Mattress lining is very high.

Page 13: Comparison between different method of under water canal

CGS Lining

Grouted Mattress Lining

Conventional Lining

Conclusion

Page 14: Comparison between different method of under water canal

Period of construction

Page 15: Comparison between different method of under water canal

CC Lining

GM lining

CGS lining

The period of construction of Conventional Lining(CC lining) takes more time as compare to CGS and Grouted Mattress lining.

Page 16: Comparison between different method of under water canal

Environmental Impact

Page 17: Comparison between different method of under water canal

One Truckload of CGS replaces up to…

Page 18: Comparison between different method of under water canal

… 200 trucks of Cement Concrete

So significant decrease in noise, dust, sediment and non-point source pollution.

Page 19: Comparison between different method of under water canal

References

• ATM environmental solution, USA

• Theory and Design of Irrigation Structure, R.S.

Varshney

• NPTEL online library, IITB

• Ashapura CGS manufacturing, India