PROJECT REPORT ON RIVER TRAINING WORKS - CASE STUDIES OF GANGA BRIDGE NO. 52 AND SHARDA BRIDGE NO.

97 (PROJECT 526 05)

BY
G. Panneerselvam, Harpal Singh, S.C. Srivastava, Dy. C. E. / Br. Line/ S.Rly Sr. D.E.N. / II / Moradabad/ N. Rly. Sr. DEN/ Coord./ Lucknow / N.E Rly.

INDIAN RAILWAYS INSTITUTE OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, PUNE

Page 0 of 72

CONTENTS
SL. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS INTRODUCTION DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF RIVER TRAINING WORKS TYPES OF RIVER TRAINING WORKS DESIGN OF RIVER TRAINING WORKS CASE STUDY No. 1 OF GANGA BR. No. 52 CASE STUDY No. 2 OF SHARDA BR. No. 97 CONCLUSION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT REFERENCES FIGURES 23 3 17 18 33 33 40 40 41 41 41 - 43 44 72 PAGES 1 12

Page 1 of 72

1.

INTRODUCTION. Rivers in alluvial plans are highly variable in their behaviour

and to an average man often unpredictable. A stream, which is quite trouble free during low flow, may attain a threatening condition during high stages. It may develop unforeseen

meanders, breakthrough embankment, attack town and important structures, outflank bridges and in general may create havoc. Therefore, whenever any hydraulic structure is built across an alluvial stream, adequate measures in form of river-training works must be taken to establish the river course along a certain alignment with a predetermined cross-section. All these works

which are constructed to train the river are known as river-training works. (Figure1 & 2) 2. PURPOSE OF RIVER TRAINING WORKS: The objective of the river training works in general includes to guide and confine the flow of a river channel in a defined course and to control and regulate the river bed configuration for effective and safe movement of floods. The basic purpose of river training works in railways context may be said to be of two folds as under .

(1) To guide the river through the bridges within a constricted water- way with as little obliquity as possible.,
Page 1 of 72

(2) To fend the river off the bridge approaches in order to keep intact the line of flow communication.

3. DIFFERENT TYPES OF RIVER TRAINING WORKS Various types of river training works generally adopted on Indian Railways are : (1) Guide Bunds (2) Spurs (3) Marginal bunds (4) Closure bunds (5) Assisted cut offs However choice for adaptation of any particular type or a combination of above river training works depends on various

factors specific to any particular site conditions. In the present paper, two case studies have been dealt with in detail to emphasize the above aspects.

Page 2 of 72

4. DESIGN OF RIVER TRAINING WORKS : 4.1 GUIDE BUNDS : Aspects of design of guide banks include their shape in plan, waterway between them; their lengths upstream and downstream of the bridge axis; curved heads; cross- sections; measures for their bank and toe protection against scour.

4.1.1 PLAN- FORM: In plan, the guide banks can either be parallel to each other, converging upstream or diverging upstream. However, the actual form of guide banks depends upon the local topography, location of the bridge with respect to banks, flow conditions in the river and the alignment of the approach embankments and is best decided by the model studies.

Page 3 of 72

4.1.2 Waterway: The first step in the design of a bridge on an alluvial river is the estimation of the minimum and also a safe waterway. Laceys (1929) wetted perimeter P as given by equation no. (1) is used as a good guide for providing the clear waterway between the abutments.
P = 4.75 Q

(1)

where, P is expressed in meters Q is flood discharge in m3/sec 4.1.3 LENGTH OF GUIDE BUNDS : Figure 3 shows a typical layout of a straight and parallel guide bank. According to Springs the straight length of the guide bank L1 on upstream of the bridge is 1.1 L, and on downstream side L2 is 0.25L, where L is the length of the bridge between the abutments. 4.1.4 RADIUS OF CURVED HEAD : For designing the curved heads both upstream and downstream (Fig. 3), following recommendations are followed: For upstream head R1 = 2.2 Q , sweep angle 1 =1200 to 1450 For downstream head R2 = 1.1 Q , sweep angle 2 =450 to 600 Here R1 and R2 are expressed in metres and Q in m3/sec

Page 4 of 72

4.1.5 TOP WIDTH AND FREEBOARD : The top width of the guide banks should not be less than 3.0 m and is generally kept between 6.0m to 9.0m to allow for the movement of vehicles carrying construction material. Side slopes are generally 2H: 1V. Freeboard 1.5m to 2.5m above the anticipated maximum flood level of 100-year flood. Alternatively, a freeboard of 1.0m is added to the high flood level of a 500-year flood for getting the top level of the guide bank.

Flow
B Side Slope

Top Width Front Apron

H.F.L. H.F.L.

B
R1

Rear Apron
:H) 1:2 (V

Launching Apron

Deepest Scour Hole

1 = 120 to 145 R = 2.2 Q 1

Section B-B

L1 = 1.1L

L1

Launching Apron
H.F.L. Axis of the Bridge

1:2 (V: H

L2= 0.25L

L2

R2

Deepest Scour Hole

2 = 45 to 60
R2 = 1.1 Q

Section A-A

FIGURE 3 LAYOUT OF A GUIDE BUND

Page 5 of 72

4.1.6 Stone Pitching On Sloping Sides And Launching Apron: The sloping face of the guide bank as well as its nose are susceptible to severe erosion by the river flow, therefore, they are protected by large size stones . Normally the thickness of such stone pitching on the slope is estimated by the following empirical equation given by Inglis (Garde and Ranga Raju, 2000) T = 0.04 to 0.06 Q1/3 where, T = Thickness of the pitching in metres and Q is in m3/sec This pitching should extend upto 1.0m higher than the expected maximum flood level. Further, it should be ensured that the minimum size of the boulder used in this pitching is such that it is not washed away during flood. This minimum size of stones of relative density 2.65 may be calculated by the following empirical equation as given by Garde and Ranga Raju (2000). dmin = 0.023 to 0.046U2max in which dmin is expressed in m, and U
max

(2)

(3)

is the maximum velocity of

flow (in m/s) in the vicinity of guide bank.

A geosynthetic filter or a conventional sand gravel filter 0.30m thick is generally placed on the sloping bank of the

Page 6 of 72

guide bank facing river flow to prevent washing out of fine material from the subgrade or backfill and the pitching is provided over this filter. The pitching is placed in a closely packed formation inside a grid formed by masonry walls of 0.30m width provided along the bank slope at a spacing of 6.0m measured in the direction of flow. 4.1.7 LAUNCHING APRON : Figure 4 shows the general arrangement of the launching apron that is generally provided at the head and the shank of the guide bank to prevent undermining of the bank pitching and consequent failure of the guide bank. The design of the launching apron involves the estimation of the maximum scour that is likely to occur at different portions of the guide bank and the provision of the adequate quantity of stone to cover the face of the scour hole at that location. Inglis (Garde and Ranga Raju, 2000) has related this maximum scour depth D1 to Laceys depth R as per the following relation: D1 = XR where,
Q R = 0.47 f
1/ 3

(4)

(5)

Page 7 of 72

Here D1 and R are both measured from the high flood level and are expressed in metres; Q is in m3/sec and f is Laceys silt factor given as f = 1.75 d50 (6)

in which d50 is the median size of the bed material in mm and the coefficient X is taken from Table1. Table1 Location Scour at straight spurs facing upstream Scour at straight spurs facing downstream Scour at nose of large radius guide banks Transition from nose to straight portion of guide bank Straight portion of the guide bank Values of X in Equation (4) Value of X 3.8 2.25 2.75 2.25 2.0

It is assumed that the launching apron placed on the river bed would launch into the scour hole to take a slope of IV: 2H with an average of 1.25T. To ensure this volume of boulder material, the average thickness of the launching apron on the riverbed comes to 1.86T.The apron is originally laid on the riverbed in a width of 1.5Ds where Ds is the scoured depth measured below the bed at that location.

Page 8 of 72

To account for the non-uniformity in launching, the thickness of the apron calculated above is provided in the form of a wedge as shown in Fig.4.

Boulder Pitching
1:2 (V: H)

H.F.L.

20 cm Soling of Ballast

Total thickness including Soling (T)

Launching Apron

River Bed 1.5 T

1:2 Average Thickness (V :H) 1.25T after Launching

2.25Ds D1 = xR

Ds

Deepest Scour

FIGURE 4 DETAILS OF A LAUNCHING APRON Thus, making use of Table 1 and Fig.4, the widths of the launching apron at various locations of the guide bank can be estimated. Smooth transitions need to be provided to

accommodate the varying widths of the apron.

4.2 PERMEABLE SPURS Permeable spurs have been used more often for bank protection than for diverting the flow. These spurs stabilise a reach of the river by inducing siltation along the bank from which they are
Page 9 of 72

projected. They are generally provided as a series of spurs projecting from the bank, which requires protection against erosion. Design considerations include their cross-section, length and spacing, stability and protection against scour. 4.2.1 CROSS- SECTION : Spurs are built of rectangular section with a top width of about 1.50 m. Vertical `ballies' (wooden piles made of bamboos) are driven in two rows at the spacing equal to top width of the spur. They are tied longitudinally, laterally and diagonally for achieving greater rigidity and strength. The space between the two rows of `ballies' is filled with brushwood and stones. The recommended

thicknesses of brushwood and stones to be placed in alternate layers are 0.90 m and 0.30 m respectively. It is also suggested that the spur should have a permeability of about 40%. 4.2.2 LENGTH AND SPACING : There is no specific information available regarding length of these spurs. The length is however decided mainly from the

consideration that these spurs are required to promote silting and not to deflect the current away from the bank. Further, short spurs would have comparatively less hydrodynamic force on them thereby reducing the chances of their failure. The width of the river is also considered in fixing the length of the spur. For the railway
Page 10 of 72

bridge at Garhmukteshwar the width of the river during high flood in the reach affected by bank erosion was 300.0 m and permeable spurs of 10.0 m long were proposed.

4.2.3 STABILITY OF PERMIABLE SPUR : The main criterion for the stability of the spur is that it should not overturn under the various forces that act on it. The stability on the basis of this criterion should be examined both in the unscoured and scoured conditions. Therefore, the length of the ballies below the riverbed should be adequate to ensure their stability. For the stability analysis, the spur is considered as a

permeable, two-dimensional anchored pile. The various forces to be considered per unit length of the spur are as below and are shown in Fig.5 (i) (ii) (iii) Drag force , FD Soil resistance, Fs Self weight of the spur, W

Page 11 of 72

The method of estimating these forces is given below:

FIGURE 5 FORCES ON THE SPUR

Drag force, FD : The drag force per unit length is conventionally expressed as FD = C D
1 2
2 fU

Hs

(7)

in which CD is the drag coefficient of the spur, f is the density of water, Hs is the height of the spur above the river bed. Here the value of CD can be estimated using the results of Ranga Raju et al.(1988) for the flow past porous fences as shown in Fig.6.

Page 12 of 72

FIGURE 6 RELATIONSHIP FOR CD In this figure is the thickness of the boundary layer, Hf is the height of the fence and is its porosity. The relationship shown in Fig. 6 does not consider the effect of blockage on CD. As the length of the spur is generally quite small in comparison to river width, the effect of blockage on CD could be ignored. For the spur projecting from the river bank, Hf is taken as the length of the spur and as equal to half the width of the river The value of CD also depends on the angle of inclination of the spur. However, the results of Ranga Raju and Garde (1969) show that for the angle of inclination between 600 and 900, the

value of CD remains practically constant.The drag force FD may be taken to act at Hs/2 above the river bed level.

Page 13 of 72

Soil resistance, Fs : For considering the overturning of the spur about its base, the soil resistance Fs per unit length of the spur is computed using the following equations (Ranjan and Rao, 1991)

Fs= , (kp - ka ) D2 kp = tan2 (45 + /2 ) ka= tan2 (45 - /2 )

1 2

(8a) (8b) (8c)

Here , is the submerged weight of the soil, is the angle of internal friction and D is the depth of ballies below the river bed. In calculating the value of Fs from Eq.(8), the extra resistance

offered by the launching apron has not been considered. This assumption would give the value of Fs on the conservative side. The line of action of the force Fs is at 2D/3 below the river bed level. Self weight of the spur, W: The self weight of the spur, W, per unit length may be computed as W = s b (Hs + D) (9)

in which s is the submerged unit weight of the spur material and b is the width of the spur. This weight acts vertically down at b/2 through the centre of gravity of the spur.
Page 14 of 72

4.2.4 STABILITY ANALYSIS IN UNSCOURED CONDITION : Figure 7 shows the forces on the spur in the unscoured condition. The unknown grip length D of the spur below riverbed could be calculated with these forces and adopting no tension criterion in which resultant of all the forces passes through a point within the middle third of the base.

FIGURE 7 FORCES ON THE SPUR IN UNSCOURED CONDITION

Stability analysis for the required grip length with scour Figure 8 shows the spur, with deepest scour at its nose and the resulting launched position of the apron. As can be seen from this figure, the soil has a sloping profile of IV:2H below the bed level. For the computation of soil resistance in
Page 15 of 72

this case, the effective depth of soil has been assumed as 2/3D instead of the full depth D. This is shown as equivalent horizontal soil level in Fig.8. Here D is the required grip length below riverbed level. Following the criterion of no tension at the toe, the required grip length D can be worked out. The resistance offered by the launched apron will provide additional margin of safety.

FIGURE 8 FORCES ON THE SPUR IN SCOURED CONDITION 4.2.5 Stability of spur at the riverbed level In analyzing the stability of the spur at the riverbed level, it is assumed that the grip length as estimated on the basis of scour condition will provide enough rigidity at the riverbed level for considering the bending of the spur. This bending needs to be considered under the action of various forces acting on it above
Page 16 of 72

the riverbed level. Schematic diagram showing forces on the spur above the riverbed level is shown in Fig.9.

FIGURE 9 FORCES ON THE SPUR ABOVE THE RIVERBED LEVEL

Also, the spur above the riverbed may be assumed as a solid structure though it will function as a permeable spur to start with. The assumption is on the conservative side. The analysis requires permissible stresses on the ballies used for the spur. These stresses depend on the grade of the timber used for ballies and are given in National Building Code of India (1970). Knowing forces shown in Fig.7, the analysis can be carried out to determine the factor of safety against overturning and stresses at the toe and heel of the spur. The width of the spur could be modified if required on the basis of such an analysis. Protection against scour at the nose of these spurs is provided in the form of the usual launching apron.

Page 17 of 72

5. CASE STUDY NO. 1: RIVER TRAINING AND PROTECTION WORKS AT BRIDGE NO. 52 ON RIVER GANGA AT GARHMUKTESHWAR ON (BG)

MORADABAD-GHAZIABAD-DELHI

RAILWAY LINE ON NORTHERN RAILWAY.

5.1 BRIDGE DETAILS(Existing) : Span Design Discharges Foundation 11 x 61 m. 7600 cumecs Well foundation in brick masonry (5.00 x 10.00 m round nose & 25 m Depth, stein. 1.20 m) Rail Level Bottom of girder H F L (1924) Danger level LWL 204.9 m. 202.44 m. 200.25 m 199.35 m. 195.4 m. 183.0 m 169.7 m

Permissible scour level Bottom of foundation -

A Road bridge of span 2 x 53.30m + 11x 54.21 m also exist at 180 m on down stream side of this bridge .
Page 18 of 72

5.2 BRIDGE DETAILS(In Progress 30 m D/S of existing) : Span Design Discharges 11 x 61 m.(UP/DN) 8300 cumecs (Return period 50

year)/12748 cumecs(Return period 2000 years corresponding to H.F.L of 1924) Foundation -Well foundation in R.C.C 2.5 m Stein. - Pier 12 m circular & 48 m Depth with - Abut. 12m circular & 46.6 m Depth Rail Level Bottom of girder H F L (1924) Danger level LWL 204.9 m. 202.44 m. 200.25 m 199.35 m. 195.4 m. 170.25 m 147.93 m

Permissible scour level Bottom of foundation -

A Road bridge of span 2 x 53.30m + 11x 54.21 m also exist at 150 m on down stream side of this bridge and another is in progress 14.80m up stream of existing road bridge.

Page 19 of 72

5.3 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM : Moradabad-Ghaziabad line of Northern Railway,crosses river

Ganga near Garhmukteshwar at km 66/8 to 67/4.The Ganga at the bridge site ,in alluvium stage with sand (Silt factor 0.9) in its bed, is nearly 500 km down stream of its source of origin and catchment area is approx. 29709.0 sqkm. At the time of construction, river with Khadir width of 7-8 km was flowing hugging its extreme edge of khadir on Ghaziabad side.The bridge was constructed in 1900 with guide bunds 670 m long on u/s side and 150 m long on downstreamside for right guide bund.Similarly 460 m long on u/s side and 150 m on d/s side for left guide bund were constructed. Left guide bund was kept shorter than the right guide bund, keeping in view the proximity of the edge of the island. Mr. W.A John, who constructed the bridge,clearly recorded that length of left guide bund has been purposely kept shorter to allow more passage of water in between the guide bund and island.He further recorded that if required,its length can be increased.Since constrction of this bridge the river has been changing its course intermittently causing serious threat to left approach

embankment,guide bund and also to right guide bund .Till date various studies and protective measures have been/are being taken.After construction of one spur of 600 feet long during 1903
Page 20 of 72

,1500 feet away from left, the river straightened itself and caused no serious problem till 1947except in 1924 when flow of river was only 200 m away from the Matwali bridge and some portion of the Ganga flood water was diverted towards Matwali bridge.As such breach took place in the approaches of Matwali Bridge.After the breach,span was increased from 3x12.2 to 6x12.2m.Depth of well foundation was increased from 12.5 m to 21.3 m (for newly constructed wells). Two bridges,one each at Chhoiah Nallah (Bridge no 50) and Matwali Nallah(Bridge no 51)were provided to avoid flooding of water in nearby area for longer duration considering that these bridges will pass on the discharge to the down stream side.(However it is suspected that during the heavy flood, river Ganga also somewhat attracted towards the bank due to bridge constructed over Matwali Nallah.Sometime it was feared that river may outflank through Matwali bridge.Later on,Railway administration corresponded with the State Govt. regarding closure but the same could not be materialized on account of resistance of the villagers on the plea that they will be mostly submerged in water). During the flood of 1948, the river attacked railway bank at km 63-64. Member engineering flew over the site and in consultation with C.W.P.R.S/Pune the left guide bund was extended by 1200 feet with additional curved head of 600 feet
Page 21 of 72

radius. A 4.5 km long diversion was constructed from km 66/11 to 65/12 .The river immediately after execution of these works retreated back. Again in floods of 1950,1954,1956,1977,1996,1998 some flood repair works were carried out on the left approach bunk and the guide bunds solid by and dumping permeable boulders and

constructing/extendig

spurs.During

1955,nearby Tigree & Lathira villages were endangered and Lathira village partly washed away.To protect the villages , one spur was constructed thereby tying the river between to obligatory points i.e Tigree spur and guide bund of Garhmukteshwar bridge, meandering and coming close to embankment . For protection measures various further studies were got done by Railway from IRI /Roorkee in 1978,1980 ,from IIT/Roorkee in 1997,1999. Based on them a large number of solid and permeable spurs have been provided on the left bank of the river for controlling the flow so that the railway embankment is not subject to bank erosion.(In 1996 & 1998 in a reach X1X2 (a distance of about 825m) as shown in Fig.l,in fact at location 64/7 km on this reach, the river is only 70. m away from the centre line of the track and is subject to serious bank erosion. Therefore protective

measures were to be taken immediately).A barrage 70 km upstream has also been commissioned in 1988 from which canal
Page 22 of 72

takes off from right bank. However, before a further detailed physical model study could be conducted, a new Railway Bridge as well as a new roadways were also sanctioned for construction within 180 m in down stream side of existing Railway Bridge and in up stream side of existing road bridge. Keeping in view the fact that the construction of these two new bridges in close vicinity of existing bridges may further affect the river behaviour, it was thought prudent to have a fresh detailed study including physical model study taking holistic consideration of all aspects including effect of existing and proposed ghats. Accordingly department of civil

engineering of IIT Roorkee along with Irrigation Research Institute, Roorkee were asked for a detail study and interactive design. Based on their recommendations submitted in year 2004 various further measures as detailed below are being adopted at site.

Page 23 of 72

5.4

RECOMMENDED

REMEDIAL

ACTIONS

TAKEN

IN

VARIOUS STAGES : (I) Year 1903: 600 feet left embankment spur at 1500 feet from abutment constructed. (II) Year 1948: River main channel was only 480 feet away from track. . On Member engineering visit to site and in consultation with C.W.P.R.S/Pune the left guide bund was extended by 1200 feet with additional curved head of 600 feet radius. A 4.5 km long diversion was also constructed from km 66/11 to 65/12 . (III) Year 1950: UP Govt. constructed a spur to save village tigri situated 8 km u/s of bridge.However since then the river has been flowing hugging this spur and passing through railway bridge. (IV) Year 1954: Repairs by dumping boulders along railway embankment & linking track on diversion. (V) Year 1956-58: IRI/oorkee recommended curved mole head for right guide bund and 3500 feet long spur at km 6364.Somehow none of these proposal materialized. (VI) Year1977: Diversion repaired with 16 feet bank width and 1.5 : 1 side slope.A reseve stock of 1lakh cft of boulders at
Page 24 of 72

km

63-64

was

also

collected

and

kept.With

the

commissioning of earthen dam over river Ramganga at Kalagarh the dry weather flow of river ramganga is discharged in River Ganga 4 km u/s of village Tigri to augment discharge of lower ganges canal taking off from Narora Since the current at km 63/7-8 was 10-12 feet deep the const. Of even small spures to arrest the local erosion could not be taken up as time leftover was very little. (VII) Year 1978: IRI/ROORKEE in1978( report no50) suggested two spurs one 250 m long at km 64.06 and another 400 m long at km 65.50 normal to the track based on model study. (VIII) Year 1980: IRI/Roorkee in1980( report no51) suggested (i) A kinked spur having 60 m shank length and 90 m nose at 165 degree included angle at km 63.75(ii) Existing 50 m long inclined spur at km 65 may be extended straight normal to track beyond its nose making total length 100m.(iii) A mole head of radius 200m at 120 degree sweep angle may be provided to the nose of right guide bund.

Page 25 of 72

(IX) Year 1981 : (i) 305 Nos. large size trungers dropped around the nose of spur at KM: 63 /12. (ii) 3000 trees planted on the RGB, LGB and along the bank of Ganga. (iii) Turfing of the slops of retarded alignment was done. (X) Year 1997 : Department of civil engineering of the then University of Roorkee had suggested in its 1st report that following action should be taken as short term measures to safeguard the bridge guide bunds an its approach embankments from any threat in oncoming monsoon. 1. Twenty five permeable of 30 m and at dikes 5. 0m locations long at in a spacing be

shown

Fig.15

constructed on the left bank of the river. The construction details of the dikes and the launching apron are given in Fig.16. 2. A pilot channel 10.0m wide, 1.0m deep and 225.0 m the

long

be excavated of

on the

existing bed opposite to reduce the

proposed location

the dikes

discharge

intensity in the main channel in the vicinity of the dikes.

Page 26 of 72

3. Sandbag

revetment and

be

provided

on of

the the

left

bank

both upstream dikes.

downstream of

proposed 100.0m on

The length

revetment may be

the upstream side and 50.0m on the downstream side. While follow up action on item No. 1 and 3 were taken at site, action on item No. 2 was deferred till detailed model study as its efficacy was considered doubtful.

(XI) Year 1999: However, before a detailed physical model study as earlier recommended by IIT, Roorkee, could be got conducted, serious problems were felt in flood of 1998 and 1999. The river came very close to the railway embankment over a distance of 825 m posing a serious threat to its safety. Nose of exisiting spurs along with molehead of the existing left guidebund were seriously damaged. Department of a Civil Engineering of IIT, Roorkee were again requested to study the following aspects : To examine the need of extending the newly built solid spurs. Identification of the number and the location of additional solid permeable spurs on the left bank of the river

Page 27 of 72

To suggest safety measures for the protection of the molehead of the left guidebund of the bridge and the existing solid spurs. IIT Roorkee, based on a detailed theoretical analysis

recommended that (a)To extend all the three solid spurs that were built during 1998(shown in fig.20). (b)To build two new solid spurs at locations Km 64/8-9 and 65/45(Shown in fig. 20) (c)To build a series of permeable spurs 5 m long at 30 m center to center spacing in the entire affected reach (Shown in fig.20 ). (d)To strengthen the molehead of the existing left guide bund and the three solid spurs built in 1998. (e)To provide stone pitching along the left bankline over a distance of 100 m u/s of the existing solid spur at km 64/3-4and over a distance of 100 m d/s of the last permeable spur (Shown in fig. 20)

(XII) Year 2004 : As the basic purpose of study conducted in 2004 was to study the behavior of river based on holistic approach the scope of the study to be conducted by Irrigation Research Institute Roorkee included:

Page 28 of 72

(a) To study the effect of river stream on left and right guide bunds and other river training works required to protect railway embankment as well as bridge. (b) To study for making uniform distribution flow of water from all spans of bridges during monsoon. (c) Scour depth in the vicinity of bridge piers. (d) Shape and section of piers. (e) Merging of Nala into right guide bund. (f) Any other suitable suggestions. A model study based on distorted model of River Ganga from about five km up stream to 4 km down stream of existing Railway Bridge Built on scales 1 in 250 (horizontal ) and 1 in 40 (Vertical) was conducted by Irrigation Research Institute Roorkee to examine the efficacy of various measures suggested by

department of Civil Engineering, IIT Roorkee based on theoretical considerations. Various measures suggested by department of

Civil Engineering, IIT Roorkee based on theoretical considerations were as under : 1. Afflux at the existing railway bridge is expected to be less than 10.0 cm and the freeboard provided at the guide bunds is adequate.

Page 29 of 72

2.

The right guide bund is required to be extended on the

upstream side along its straight length by 107.0 m keeping the top width the same as in the existing guide bund, viz. 13.0 m and by providing side slopes of IV: 2.0 H. berms on both sides of the sloping banks of the extended straight length of the right guide bund be provided at the same level as in the existing right guide bund viz. 198.058 m. The width of these berms may also be kept the same as in the straight portion of the existing right guide bund. 3. The curved head at the end of the extended portion of the right guide bund be provided as per the details shown in Fig. 23. 4. The bank revetment and the launching apron in the modified portion of the right guide bund i.e. straight extended length and the curved head be provided as per the details shown in Figs. 23,24 Geosynthetic filter is recommended instead of sand-gravel filter in view of quality control and convenience in its laying. 5. The mole head of the existing left guide bund be modified as per the design proposed for the curved head of the right guide bund. The details of the proposed modifications are shown in Fig. 26. 6. A 850.0 m long pilot channel 10.0 m wide, 1.0 m deep with 1V:2.0 H side slopes as shown in Fig. 18 be excavated on the existing' island along the left guide bund to reduce the concentration of main flow on the right bank of the river. The
Page 30 of 72

channel is to be excavated below the existing surface level of the island. 7. Provision of Ghats on the upstream side on the right guide bund is recommended as such a provision is not expected to alter the flow characteristics from what have already been considered in the present design. The rise and the tread of the steps in these Ghats would however, need adjustments as per the existing and the proposed side slopes of the right guide bund. However during the detailed model study by Irrigation Research Institute Roorkee, it was found that extension of right guide bund by 107 m in upstream and construction of a pilot channel as suggested by IIT Roorkee have no effect on activating the left side spans and channel was found to get silted during the recession of flood as such these two items were dropped and various other measures as suggested by IIT Roorkee and found to be satisfactory in Irrigation Research Institute Roorkee Report are being implemented at site as detailed (fig. 22) 6. Case study II : River training and flood protection works between Br. No. 97 and Br. No. 98 between Palian Kalan Bhirakheri Station on Mailani Gonda (MG) Section of N.E. Railway.

Page 31 of 72

6.2

Details of Bridge No. 97

Rail cum Road Bridge 19 x 24.38 m Location Rail Level 241/ 1-5 158.95 m

Maximum scour Level 14.85 m below Rail Level Bottom of Girder Danger Level Top of Foundation 156.80 m 155.00 m 7.68 m below Rail Level

Bottom of Foundation 25.98 m below Rail Level Highest Flood Level 155.32 m (1934)

Length of Guide Bund (Plain end) 472 m Length of Guide Bund (Bhira end) 500 m

Page 32 of 72

6.2 Details of Bridge No. 98 Rail Bridge Span Location Rail Level Top of Girder Bottom of Girder Danger Level Floor Level Highest Flood Level 9 x 6.1 m + 1 x 12.2 m 247/ 7-8 157.38 m 157. 16 m 155.80 m 155.20 m 153.375 m 156.32 m (1987)

Length of Guide Bund (Plain end) 77 m Length of Guide Bund (Bhira end) 73 m Statement of Problem River Sharda crossed the Mailani Gonda (MG) Railway Line through a 501.92 m long rail-cum road bridge no 97 in district Lakhimpur Kheri. Earlier the river course was almost straight and perpendicular to the bridge. However during last 10 years the river Sharda, due to meandering towards right has taken a sharp curve in which flow is taking about 180 degree turn and river has come to very close (even up to 15 m) to the railway embankment posing serious threats to its safety (Fig. 27). Furthermore due to its

Page 33 of 72

meandering

and coming very close to the Railway track, a

significant part of River flow has started passing through a smaller bridge No.98 (9x 6.1 +1 x 12.2. m) situated in u/s side of bridge No. 97. It is apprehended that flow of exceptionally high discharge through bridge No. 98 and parallel to Railway embankment in close proximity of 15-30 m may cause serious damage to the bridge No. 98 and Railway embankment in this stretch. Discharge in the river Sharda is controlled by a barrage of UP Iriigation Dept at Banbasa which is approximately 100 km of u/s of bridge No. 97. 6.3. RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTIONS. Originally the river Sharda was flowing quite away from the Railway embankment between bridge No. 97 and 98 and was crossing bridge No. 97 almost perpendicular to the track. However it started meandering towards Railway embankment around 1990. There upon UP Irrigation Department was requested to under take necessary river training works. Accordingly UP Irrigation

department planned a scheme of Rs. 1.36 Cr. in the year 1990. But no work was actually done by them. Thereafter UP state Irrigation department again finalized a scheme of provision of 40 No. spurs (16 m long @ 60 m c/c at a cost of Rs 1.84 cr.) to control its meandering. However only 3

Page 34 of 72

spurs out of 40 could be constructed which were also seriously damaged in monsoon. In the mean time, U.P govt. appointed a committee of three chief engineers to study the problem and suggest remedial

measures .The committee has recommended provison of sufficient no of spurs along with a cunnette/marginal bund. Based on above a detailed model study was conducted by irrigation research institute Roorkee ,which recommended construction of 10 km long cunnette along with a 12 km long bund with boulder pitching, which was estimated to cost rs 164.64 cr. Since then Railway has been consistently requesting the UP Irrigation Department to undertake necessary river training works but no work was actually done by them. In the mean time the river came very close to the Railway embankment and Br No. 98, posing serious threat to its safety itself. To ensure the safety of Railway embankment & Br. NO. 98, following works were executed by Railway in different stages: (i) Construction of 35 no spurs in different stages(Fig. 28 & 35). (ii) Strengthening and extension of the guide bund of Br. No. 98. (iii) Strengthening of the flooring system of Br. No. 98 (Fig. 34).

Page 35 of 72

However as the cost of the river training works as suggested by IRI Roorkee was exorbitantly high , UP Irrigation department again referred this problem to Irrigation Research Institute Roorkee to suggest alternative cost-effective river training works taking into account various flood protection works already executed at site by Railway dept. After a detailed physical model study in Jan 2004 considering following alternative (a) Provision of 8.65 km long marginal bund with 100 m wide cunnette at 350 m from bund (Fig. 36). (b) Provision of 11 km long marginal bund with 200 m wide cunnette at 275 m from bund (Fig. 37). (c) Provision of 11.10 km long marginal bund with 200 m wide cunnette at 685 m from bund (Fig. 38). (d) Provision of 4.10 km long marginal bund from Railways existing spurs (Fig. 39). (e) Provision of 4.10 km long marginal bund with spur and extention of 8 nos Railways existing spurs (Fig. 40). IRI Roorkee in its report of march 05 has recommended for Construction of 4.00 km long marginal bunds along with spurs / studs along the right bank of river Sharda in up stream of the Railways flood protection work (and Bridge No. 98) and extension of existing 8 no. spurs constructed by the Railway.
Page 36 of 72

It also

recommended that extension of existing spurs along Railway embankment and construction of new spurs along proposed marginal bunds should be constructed in 1 working season. It is estimated to cost approximately Rs. 25 Cr. However there is now a dead lock about financing of the above scheme. State Government is demanding the full fund from the Railway on the pretext that this work is to be executed by them for protection of Railway bridge and track , and therefore full cost is to be given by the Railway. However Railway is

opposing the above on the ground that this work is not for safety of Railway bridge and track only but also for the safety of Civil area. Further more the Railways also say that scope and cost of work has increased so much only because of timely action not taken by state govt. and therefore Railway is not liable to pay. This issue needs to be resolved still. Br. No. 98 has got 9 girders of span 6.1 m each and 1 girder of span 12.2 m. The bottom of girder of 12.2 m span is 590 mm below the bottom of the girder of 6.1 m span due to which many times water level in 12.2 m span comes above bottom of its girder whereas water level in other spans of 6.1 m length still below bottom of girders necessitating suspension of traffic. As such changing of girder of 12.2 m span with the restricted height has
Page 37 of 72

been got sanctioned and is to be executed during current year so that suspension of traffic on this account may be eliminated.

7. CONCLUSION : 7.1 It is seen from the above case studies that timely action in provision of various river training works not only mitigates serious threat to the safety of Railway bridges and

embankment at later stages but also prevents many fold escalation of cost. 7.2 It is also noted that many times obvious theoretical measures contemplated for river training works may not be required at all or may even be counter productive. Therefore it is

desirable to go for detailed physical model studies before undertaking any major river training works. 7.3 The River Training works after model study should be implemented expeditiously i.e. without delay. 7.4 Trees planted on and along guide bunds/ spurs serve as natural protection measures. 7.5 For more effective results spacing of solid spurs should be kept between 2 to 3 times of their lengths & permeable spurs used for bank protection be spaced at 5 to 6 times their length.
Page 38 of 72

7.6

Distribution of discharge through all bays useful for safety and economy of bridge can be achieved through suitable river training works like bed bars etc.

7.7

Execution of river training works require special attention. The mole head of the left bank of Ganga Bridge need Geometric correction and left bank spurs need further

strengthening keeping in view HFL of 1924. 8. ACNOWLEDGEMENT : Authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance and guidance given by Shri N.C. Sharda, Sr. Professor Works, Indian Railways Institute of Civil Engineering, Pune for the Project Report. 9. REFERENCES : i. Indian Railways Bridge Manual 1998 ii. River Behaviour management and Training, Publication No. 204, Volume 1 1989 by Central Board of Irrigation and power N. Delhi iii. Indian Railways Standard Code of Practice for the Design of Substructure and foundations of Bridges. iv. Member Engineering, Railway Board New Delhi, Technical Paper No. 6. v. Irrigation Research Institute Roorkee Report No. 50 of 1978. vi. Irrigation Research Institute Roorkee Report No. 51 of 1980.
Page 39 of 72

vii. Irrigation Research Institute Roorkee Report No. 75 RR (H105 ) of 2004. viii. Irrigation Research Institute Roorkee Report No. 75 RR (H1 07 ) of 2005. ix. Report on Protection of Left Bank of the River Ganga Near Garhmukteshwar Railway Bridge of Department of Civil Engineering of IIT Roorkee dated Jun1997. x. Report on Measures for Control of Erosion of Left Bank of the River Ganga Near Garhmukteshwar Railway Bridge of Department of Civil Engineering of IIT Roorkee dated Mar 1999. xi. Proceedings of Workshop on Bridge scour, River Training and Protection works by Department of Civil Engineering and Bridge Engineering Group of IIT Roorkee dated Oct 2003. xii. Final Report on Hydraulics Design of Proposed Railway Bridge on the River Ganga at Garhmukteshwar of Department of Civil Engineering of IIT Roorkee dated July 2004. xiii. IS:10751 (1994), Planning and design of guide bunds for alluvial rivers, Guidelines, BIS, New Delhi. xiv. Lacey G. and Inglis, C.C. (1944), Maximum depth of scour at heads of guide banks, groynes, pier noses and
Page 40 of 72

downstream

of

bridges,

Annual

Report

(Technical),

CWPRS, Pune. xv. Ranga Raju, K.G.(1993), Flow through open channels, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi. xvi. Ranga Raju, K.G., Mittal, M.K., Verma, M.S. and Ganeshan, V. (1980), Analysis of flow over baffle blocks and end sills, Jour. of Hyd. Research, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 227-241. xvii. River Training and Protection Works for Railway Bridges. Published by IRICEN, Pune.

Page 41 of 72

FIG 1: TYPICAL LAYOUT OF GUIDE BUND

Page 42 of 72

FIG.2

Page 43 of 72

TRAINING OF RIVER GANGA AT GARHMUKTESHWAR BR. NO. 52 INDEX PLAN

U.P. I R I ROORKEE

1978

FIGURE 10 : COURSE OF RIVER GANGA IN 1900 AND 1978 AT GARHMUKTESHWAR RAILWAY BRIDGE

Page 44 of 72

Page 45 of 72

FIGURE 11: TOPOGRAPHICAL AND HYDROLOGICAL MAP OF GANGA BRIDGE NO. 52

Page 46 of 72

FIG.12

Page 47 of 72

FIG.13

Page 48 of 72

FIG. 14

FIG. 15

Page 49 of 72

Dry Cha nne l (B

Bar Left Guide Bank km 66/0 X2 km 65/0 km 64/7 X1

Railway Crossing No. 49

FIGURE 15a : COURSE OF RIVER GANGA IN 1996 AT GARHMUKTESHWAR RAILWAY BRIDGE

Page 50 of 72

30m BAR X4 PROPOSED PILOT CHANNEL REVETMENT (ABOUT 100m LONG)

RIVETMENT (ABOUT 50m LONG)

X2 EXISTING BANK LINE PROPOSED DIKES PERPENDICULAR TO THE EXISTING BANK X 1 EXPECTED BANK LINE 1 5 A

B 25 20

EXISTING SPUR

GHA ZIAB AD

15

10

RAILWAY TRACK km 64/7 825m

AD MORADAB
RAILWAY CROSSING No. 49

FIGURE 16: PLAN VIEW OF PROTECTION WORKS USING PERMEABLE SPURS

Page 51 of 72

FIGURE 17: DETAILS OF THE PROTECTION WORKS FOR THE SPUR

Page 52 of 72

FIG.18 (a)

FIG.18 (b)

Page 53 of 72

Page 54 of 72

FIG. 19 : COURSE OF THE RIVER GANGA IN 1997 AND 1998 AT GARHMUKTESHWAR RAILWAY BRIDGE NO. 52

Page 55 of 72

FIG. 20 : PLAN VIW OF PROPOSED PROTECTION WORKS FOR LEFT BANK OF GANGA BRIDGE NO. 52 (IITR 1999 REPORT)

FIGURE 21 : PROPOSED SOLID SPUR AT LOCATION 65 / 4 - 3

Page 56 of 72

H.F.L 200.25

H.F.L 200.25

195.54 m

FIGURE 22 : FINAL PROPOSAL FOR PROTECTION WORKS

Page 57 of 72

TABLE 2

Page 58 of 72

FIG. 23

Page 59 of 72

FIG. 24

Page 60 of 72

26

FIG. 25

Page 61 of 72

FIGURE 26 : PLAN AND SECTIONS SHOWING DETAILS OF THE MODIFICATIONS FOR THE MOLE HEAD OF THE LEFT GUIDE BUND

Page 62 of 72

FIGURE 27 : COURSE OF THE RIVER SHARDA BETWEEN 1991 TO 2004 BRIDGE NO. 97 & 98

Page 63 of 72

FIGURE 28 : PLAN SHOWING RIVER SHARDA EDGE BETWEEN BRIDGE NO. 97-98 AS ON 12-08-2004

Page 64 of 72

FIGURE 29 : VIEW OF RIVER SHARDA DURING FLOOD (TREE PLANTATIO ACTING AS NATURAL PROTECTION MEASURE / SPURS)

Page 65 of 72

FIGURE 30 : VIEW OF RIVER SHARDA DURING FLOOD

Page 66 of 72

FIGURE 31: VIEW OF RIVER SHARDA DURING FLOOD AT BRIDGE NO. 98

Page 67 of 72

FIGURE 32: VIEW OF RIVER SHARDA DURING FLOOD AT BRIDGE NO. 98

FIGURE 33: VIEW OF RIVER SHARDA DURING FLOOD AT BRIDGE NO. 98

Page 68 of 72

FIGURE 34 : DETAILS OF PROTECTION WORKS OF FLOOR AND EMBANKMENT AT BRIDGE NO. 98

Page 69 of 72

FIGURE 35 : DETAILS OF SPUR OF RIVER SHARDA

Page 70 of 72