River and Canal Engineering, the characteristics of open flowing streams, and the principles and methods to be followed in dealing with them.Bellasis, E. S. (Edward Skelton)
Science
River and Canal Engineering, the characteristics of open flowing streams, and the principles and methods to be followed in dealing with them.
Bellasis, E. S. (Edward Skelton)
Canals; Hydraulic engineering; Rivers
[Illustration: FIG. 70.]
Converging breakwaters also tend to stop littoral drift, and the space
inside them acts as a harbour of refuge in storms and as a sheltered
place where dredgers can work (_Rivers and Canals_, CHAP. XI.). They
have to be heavily built and are very expensive, and they are generally
adopted only when there is an important seaport, and when they can be
put to all the uses above indicated.
APPENDIX A
=Fallacies in the Hydraulics of Streams= (CHAP. I., _Art. 4_, and CHAP.
VI., _Art 2_).--In an inundation canal in India the supply during
floods was excessive. Orders were given that a flume be made at the
head, as shown in fig. 71. The sides were to be revetted, as shown
in fig. 19 (CHAP. VI., _Art. 3_); the length, excluding the splayed
parts, was to be 200 feet, and the floor was to be a mattress well
staked or pegged down. The order stated that “by this means we cannot
get into the canal much more than its true capacity.” With 9 feet of
water, a surface fall of 4 inches in 300 feet would give a velocity
of some 6·5 feet per second, and a further fall of about 8 inches
would be required at the head of the flume to impress this velocity on
the water. The flume would reduce the depth of water in the canal by
1 foot, _i.e._ from 9 feet to 8 feet. This would not be in anything
like the proportion desired. Moreover the flume, unless the bed was
extremely well protected, would be destroyed. The above is a case of
exaggerating the effect of an “obstruction.”
[Illustration: FIG. 71.]
Again, on a branch canal it was observed that “wherever cattle
crossings exist there is a deep silt deposit which practically blocks
the branch.” The deposit exists because the sides of the channel are
worn down. A wide place always tends to shoal (CHAP. IV., _Art. 9_). If
the deposit obstructed the flow of water there would be a rush of water
past it, and it could not exist.
The Gagera branch of the Lower Chenab Canal--the left-hand branch in
fig. 72--was found to silt. It was proposed to make a divide wall (fig.
72) extending up to full supply level. The idea is unintelligible. The
silt does not travel by itself but is carried or rolled by the water.
As long as water entered the Gagera branch, silt would go with it. The
authorities, who had apparently accepted the proposal, altered the
estimate when they received it, and ordered the wall to be made as
shown dotted and of only half the height. This was done. The idea seems
to have been that the wall would act as a sill and stop rolling silt.
This is intelligible, but see CHAP. IV., _Art. 2_, last paragraph.
Moreover, there was a large gap, A B, in the wall. The work is said to
have proved useless, and proposals have been made to continue the wall
from A to B. In this form it is conceivable that it may be of use.
[Illustration: FIG. 72.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account