Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T.

, GGV Project Report

DECLARATION

We the undersigned solemnly declare that the report of this project work,
entitled “COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FLOOD PROTECTION DEVICES”
is based on our own work carried out during the course of study under the
supervision of Mr A K Parashar (Asst. Prof), Department of Civil Engineering,

We assert that the statement made and conclusions drawn are, an outcome of
our project work. We further declare that to the best of our knowledge and
belief this report does not contain any part of any work, which has been
submitted for the award of any other degree in this University or anywhere
else, earlier.

Sign. Sign.
Arpit Jain Anupam Kumar Tiwari
Roll No.: 221009 Roll No.: 221007
Enrollment No.: GE/CIVIL/10/09 Enrollment no: GE/CIVIL/10/06

Sign.
Pranav Tripathi
Roll No.: 221029
Enrollment No.: GE/CIVIL/10/26

1|Page
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
GURU GHASIDAS VISHWAVIDYALAYA, BILASPUR (C.G)
(A Central University established by the Central Universities Act 2009 No.25 of 2009)

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the major project entitled“COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FLOOD

PROTECTION DEVICES” submitted by Mr. Arpit Jain, Mr. Anupam Kumar Tiwari and Mr.
Pranav Tripathi in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of degree of “Bachelor
of Technology in Civil Engineering”, is accorded to the students’ own work, carried out by
them in the department of Civil Engineering Institute of Technology, GGV, Bilaspur during
the 8th sem course work.

Mr. A K Parashar Prof. SHAILENDRA KUMAR

PROJECT GUIDE HEAD, DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGG.

SIGN: ..................... SIGN: ......................

EXAMINERS:
NAME: NAME:

SIGN: ……………….. SIGN: ………………..

2|Page
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We feel highly privileged doing this major project under Mr.A K Parashar,
whose constant able guidance and supervision served as a source material and
inspired us in under taking this project work.

Our thanks are extended to our Head of Department, I/C Director (Institute of
Technology) and Dean, SoS. Engg. &Technology, Prof. Shailendra Kumar. We
are grateful to all the teaching & non-teaching staff members of the Civil
Engineering Department, I.T. for their active co-operation and support during
this project work.

Last but not the least we are indebted to all those who have extended their
valuable support during the project work.

Sign. Sign.
Arpit Jain Anupam Kumar Tiwari
Roll No.: 221009 Roll No.: 221007
Enrollment No.: GE/CIVIL/10/08 Enrollment no: GE/CIVIL/10/06

Sign.
Prakhar Tripathi
Roll No.: 221029
Enrollment No.: GE/CIVIL/10/26

3|Page
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. TYPES OF FLOOD WALLS
1.2. GENERAL COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SELF CLOSING AND NORMAL
TYPE OF FLOOD BARRIER
1.3. OVERVIEW ABOUT THE SELF CLOSING FLOOD BARRIER

2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. FEW RELATED DEFINITIONS AND TEXTS
2.2. THE SELF CLOSING FLOOD BARRIER

3. OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

3.1. TABULATED READINGS
3.2. ANALYSIS BASED ON THE OBSERVATIONS

4. RESULTS

5. INFERENCE

6. FUTURE SCOPE

7. REFERENCES

4|Page
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

ABSTRACT

There are two kinds of places, one which are situated along a coastline, and the others which
are situated away from it. Those away from it, don’t really have much to do with the title of
this project, but those under direct exposure to any kind of free natural water body- constantly
under the fluctuating water patterns and its turbulence owing to the natural processes-
certainly need to plan their infrastructural expanses keeping in mind the varying water levels
of the water bodies around. That’s where various flood protection devices come into place.

Among these various flood protection devices, a self closing flood barrier is the most novel
and absolute one. As the name suggests, it is a completely automatically functional form of
protection against the floods- one which on its own self starts the protection methodology
once the water level in the body for which it is incorporated exceeds the safe limit, and
automatically shuts down as soon as it recedes below it.

This extensive study compiled in this volume gives a detailed account of what a self closing
flood barrier is, how it stacks up against the already existing other forms of flood protection
equipments, how it works, how effectively it is able to contain the flood water, its economic
viability, and how it can be modified in future to provide a more effective protection against
the rising waters.

Furthermore, all the above findings are well substantiated herein by the presentation of
appropriate mathematical data, and also the equations and graphs well charted out, supporting
our theories. Pictorial representations of various parts of the actual working model, along
with their descriptions are also included in the report.

Overall, the report tries to give a complete account of this flood protection device- the self
closing flood barrier, and also suggests appropriate modifications wherein necessary to
further improve the device. The readers can expect to know appreciably about how a self
closing flood device of this kind works after going through it.

5|Page
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

1
INTRODUCTION

6|Page
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

1.1 TYPES OF FLOOD WALLS-

Key Concepts – Types of Floodwalls There are numerous floodwalls in place across the
nation’s system of levees. In general, floodwalls are used when there is insufficient land to
place an earthen levee up to the required level of protection. They are more prevalent in
urban areas where real estate is at a premium, but they may have limited use in some rural
areas as well. There are a wide variety of floodwalls, but the overwhelming majority of these
are I-walls and T- walls. There are a variety of other types of walls, covered briefly in the
next paragraph, but I-walls and T-walls will be the focus of this section of this manual.

Other less common floodwall types include L-walls, buttress/counterfort walls, and gravity
style walls. L-walls can be assessed with similar methods as those outlined in this T-wall
section of this report. Gravity walls can be assessed for stability using the general wedge
methodology. Buttress (counterfort) walls are essentially T-walls with a structural member
on intervals to help support the stem of the wall. These are more difficult to analyze than
traditional T-walls because they have different failure mechanisms such as moment and shear
failure of the buttress (counterfort) section. More information on this is covered later in this
document which discusses these types of walls for dam spillway and stilling basin chute walls
where they are more common due to their height.

General Background Information for T-walls

T-walls are one of the predominant types of floodwall in use. As noted earlier, T-
walls get their name from the fact the cross-sectional area takes the general shape of
an inverted “T”. T-walls are generally used in lieu of I-walls when the heights
required for flood protection become larger than an I-wall can safely handle which is
usually in the range of 10 feet or so, although there are many exceptions to this
general rule-of-thumb. Only a review of the as-built plans will allow you to
determine whether a wall is a T-wall or an I-wall. You can’t tell by simply looking at
it from the ground. When the foundation conditions are undesirable, T-walls are
many times pile founded for stability purposes. The piles transfer the load to better
soil/rock conditions founded below the unsuitable foundation soils near the surface.
In addition, many T-walls have sheet-pile cutoff walls located on the riverward (heel
side) to improve under-seepage performance. Some T-walls may have sloped base
slabs to improve global stability. Relief wells and/or toe drains on the protected side
may also be present to help control under-seepage. An example of a T-wall cross-
section with a sloped base, is shown in Figure for reference. The external loads acting
on most flood protection T-walls are usually relegated to earth and water pressures.
The weight of the concrete is also considered in the global stability analysis.

7|Page
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

Figure1.1 A generalized diagrammatic representation of a T-wall.

8|Page
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

Applicable Failure Modes for T-walls

There are several failure modes that are considered viable for levee T-walls, but they
can generally be separated into three broad categories: global instability, structural
performance, and underseepage/piping. The loading (demand) for each of the failure
modes are those generated by soil and water pressures previously described. For the
purposes of this document, global instability refers to overturning, sliding, and
bearing capacity. Global instability failures can occur before or after overtopping of a
floodwall. If the floodwall holds and then overtops, passive resistance on the
protected side can be eroded away leading to global instability. The global stability
failure modes are shown schematically in Figures.
Structural performance relates to excessive moment and shear forces failing the
structural wall section. Underseepage and piping involves the movement of
foundation soils below the wall causing a loss of wall foundation support and
subsequent stability failure. The general aspects of the seepage and piping
performance mode are covered in this document and the reader is referred there for
best practices related to analysis methods and techniques. General considerations
specific to floodwall underseepage has already been covered earlier within this
chapter as part of the discussion related to water pressures acting on a floodwall.

T-Wall Global Instability

Overturning Analysis When assessing the overturning stability of a T-wall, you need
to determine the resultant location of the vertical force acting along the base slab of
the wall. You can use this information to determine how much of the base slab is
acting in compression. If the resultant is located outside the limits of the base slab,
then it is no longer acting in compression and the traditional limit state for overturning
is exceeded. Moments are taken about the toe end of the base slab (see Figure).
Resisting moments include the weight of the structure (stem and slab), weight of
material resting upon the structure, resisting soil pressure, and resisting water
pressure. Driving moments include uplift, soil pressure, and water pressure. The
overturning analysis may have to be evaluated for both drained and undrained soil
conditions depending upon the type of soil, duration of loading, etc. Specific
information related to how to assess T-walls with keys is provided including examples
in the appendices of that document. Remember that this is more of a design thing, but
the application of the analysis method is good for risk assessment purposes when
using an estimate of actual forces.

Sliding Analysis The same forces that contribute to or resist overturning failures also
contribute to or resist sliding failures. Lateral forces (earth pressure, water pressure)
push the wall in one direction or the other and vertical forces (concrete weight, soil
weight, uplift, etc) either add to or take away from the normal force that supplies the
frictional resistance along the sliding plane. When there is a key present the sliding
resistance at the base should be calculated using an estimate of the actual shear
strength parameters of the soil. Limit equilibrium is used to assess the stability

9|Page
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

against sliding. The traditional limit state for a sliding analysis is when the shear
force acting along the sliding plane exceeds the shear capacity of that plane. The
shear plane (slip surface) can be a combination of planes or surfaces but is usually
simplified as a plane for analysis purposes. Only force equilibrium is satisfied, not
moment equilibrium (which is analyzed as part of the overturning analysis).

Bearing Capacity The loading conditions used to assess the overturning analysis are
used for assessing bearing capacity. The bearing capacity should be analyzed for the
same plane analyzed as part of the sliding analysis, as shown in Figure. A normal and
tangent force is computed for the structural wedge along the bearing plane. These
forces are used to check the bearing capacity. The normal component of the ultimate
bearing capacity is compared to the effective normal force (demand) applied to the
structural wedge in a traditional limit state analysis.

The figures depicting the above cases follow on the next page.

10 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

11 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

The I- walls-
Special Considerations for I-walls

In general, I-walls are used when the exposed wall height is relatively short, usually less than
10 feet, but there are exceptions to this “rule-of-thumb”. They are also used frequently as a
transition section between levee and T-wall monoliths used for closure structures. I-walls get
their names from the fact that the cross-section looks like an “I”. There are various styles of
I-walls in use and the more prominent examples are shown as in Figure. The vast majority of
I-walls within the inventory fall into the Type II I-wall or sheetpile I-wall shown in Figure.
The Type II I-wall is essentially the sheetpile I-Wall with a concrete cap placed above the
ground line.

Overtopping of the walls-

Overtopping of a floodwall without the wall failing is not really a “failure” of the wall as it is
simply a function of what level of protection the wall provided; thus, the wall performed its
intended function but was simply not constructed high enough to contain the event.
Additionally, floodwalls that are overtopped and subsequently failed likely performed their
intended function since they held for water elevations up to the top of the wall, but if the
failure occurs after overtopping then impacts can be more severe. Having floodwalls resilient
to overtopping can reduce the risks associated with overtopping events for some flood
protection projects. Depending upon the erosion resistance of the landside soils, failure can
occur quickly following overtopping or it could sustain substantial overtopping without
failing. If the soil has little erosion resistance, it is possible that damaging landside scour and
subsequent wall failure could occur simply due to wave overwash. There are several factors
that are important to consider when evaluation overtopping risks including the exposed height
of the wall, duration of the event, and type of soils on the landside face of the wall. First
figure shows a failed sheetpile I-wall that overtopped and quickly and failed, whereas the
second Figure shows a Type II I-wall that suffered significant overtopping without failing.
Some walls have been designed to be more overtopping resilient by adding scour protection
on the landside and transition zones between levee embankment and wall sections.

Figure 1.3 Types of I-walls

12 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

1.2 GENERAL COMPARISON BETWEEN NORMAL AND SELF-

CLOSING TYPE FLOOD BARRIERS-
The self closing flood barrier has a number of advantages over the normal type flood barrier,
the most important of which are enumerated below.

SALIENT FEATURES-

 Infallible

 Fully automatic deployment

 Instant deployment just prior to

threat of floodwater

 No human intervention

 Zero operational cost

 No power required

 Minimal maintenance

 Permanently on site, ready to deploy 24/7, 365 days

 Self-stored

 Cannot be stolen

 No prior weather warning

 Invisible

 Cannot be damaged

 Optimal cost/benefit

 Effectively engineered solution

 Effective in an earthquake prone area

13 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE SELF CLOSING FLOOD BARRIER-

This short animation opposite shows how the self closing flood barrier automatically deploys
in flood conditions.

Figure 1.4 The flood barrier in its initial position. The water level is well below the flood
level here, and hence the wall remains in its lower position.

 Once the flood barrier has been installed, the floating entrenched wall is practically
invisible under normal water level conditions. The wall is reinforced for impact
strength. On top, a steel lid locks in the entrenchment space under normal (non flood)
conditions.

14 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

Figure 1.5: The water now slowly rises above the flood level. This makes the barrier
realize the same and consequently rise up. The wall rises as we can see.

 Once the water rises to approximately 10 cm beneath the flood level, the basin of the
barrier fills up through a filling-pipe in a pit. The wall rises and floats. As soon as the
basin is totally filled, the closing surface will “lock” the barrier into a watertight
position.

15 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

Figure 1.6: The water now has an extra area to rise as the wall gives it an allowance to
flow further until its full height. The area beyond the wall remains fully protected.

 Now the water can rise further without flooding the protected area. Once the water
level subsides to a normal level, the basin is drained through a drain pipe with non
return valves or by a pump. Once the water has left the basin, the wall returns to its
resting position within the basin. The lid on top of the wall then closes to prevent the
inflow of waste or debris.

16 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

2
METHODOLOGY

17 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

2.1 FEW RELATED DEFINITIONS AND TEXTS-

Low flood:- Level of the river depicting predominant monsoon flow in the river
higher than usual in other seasons of the year and has following limits, (a) It
results in over flowing of bank once in every two years. (b) It submerges the
adjoining fields but generally does not prevent flow of drainage of fields. (c) It
also does not create drainage congestion in the nearby populated areas. (d) Water
level always remains at least one meter below plinth level of township as fixed by
the Civil Authorities for Civil Construction of Industrial Complex and Residential
areas.

Medium flood:- Level of the river where crops in the adjoining areas come under
submergence and populated areas are encircled with flood waters but the flood
waters remain below the following limits. (a) It results in overflowing of bank
with flood frequency of once in 10 years (b) It submerges agriculture areas and
enters in the residential areas blocking drainage systems for not more than 6
hours. (c) Floodwater in the Residential areas and Industrial complexes remain
just below the plinth level as fixed by Civil authorities.

High flood:- Any flood level of the river, which is higher than danger level and
corresponds to return period of more than 10 years.

Danger level:- A level of the river depicting the stage of the river which if
crossed by the flood water will start damaging crops and property and will affect
the daily life of population. This level is to be taken as medium flood level or 0.3
m below plinth level whichever is less.

Warning Level:-A flood level .6 to 1.0 meter below danger level depending upon
the lead time available.

Highest Flood Level:- The highest flood level of the river ever recorded at the
place.

Very high flood:- Any flood which exceeds 1 in 100 years frequency.

Flood Plain:- Land adjoining the channel which is inundated only during floods.

18 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

SOME DESIGN CRITERIA FOR FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENTS

In order to ensure uniformity in preparation and processing of schemes for flood protection
embankments, the following design criteria is being laid down. The design criteria have been
updated based on the Indian Standard Guidelines for planning and Design of river
embankment (Levees)- (First Revised 120:2000). These criteria do not apply to embankments
on tidal rivers.

Spacing of Embankment “The spacing of embankments and their alignment need

careful consideration with respect to their vulnerability to the river and the rise of
high flood levels on account of reduction in flow area and also increase in peak
discharge due to reduction in flood plain storage by construction of the embankment.
Finalization of the alignment and the spacing with due consideration to the above
factors and at the same time optimizing the benefit from the proposed embankment
would need considerable experience of the river behavior and studies of the effects of
the embankments along different alignments. In view of the widely varying nature of
the rivers, no general recommendation about spacing of embankment can substitute
the need for the above studies. The following general guide lines about the minimum
spacing etc. are however given, mainly with an idea to check the tendency of
excessive encroachment of the natural flood plain of the river.” In case of
embankments on both banks of the river, the spacing between the embankments
should not be less than 3 times Lacey wetted perimeter for the design flood discharge.
In case of embankment on only one bank the embankment should not be less than a
distance equal to 1.5 times Lacey’s wetted perimeter from the midstream of the river.

Design High Flood Level Subject to availability of observed hydrological data, the
design H.F.L. may be fixed on the basis of flood frequency analysis. Embankment
schemes should be prepared for a flood of 25 years frequency in case of
predominantly agricultural area and if the embankments concerned are to protect
townships, industrial areas or other places of strategic and vital importance, the
design H.F.L. shall generally correspond to 100 year return period. In the case of
embankments on both sides of the river, the design H.F.L. shall be determined
keeping in view the anticipated rise in the H.F.L. on account of jacketing of the river.

Free-Board As a guide line, minimum free board of 1.5 over design HFL including
the backwater effect, if any should be provided for the rivers carrying design
discharge upto 3000 cumecs., for higher discharge or for aggrading flashy rivers a
minimum free board of 1.8 meters over the design H.F.L. shall be provided. This
should be checked also for ensuring a minimum of about 1.0 meter free board over
the design H.F.L. corresponding to 100 year return period.

Top Width Generally the top width of the embankment should be of 5.0 m. The
turning platforms 15 to 30 m long and 3m wide with side slope of 1:3 shall be
provided along the countryside of the embankment every kilometer.

19 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

Hydraulic Gradient Hydraulic Gradient line should be determined on the basis of

the analysis of the soils, which are to be used in the construction of embankments.
However, the following guidelines are recommended.

Type of Fill Hydraulic Gradient

Clayey Soil 1 in 4

Clayey sand 1 in 5

Sandy Soil 1 in 6

Side Slope

River side slope The river side slope should be flatter than the under water angle of repose of
the material used in the fill upto an embankments height of 4.5 meter slope should not be
steeper than 1 in 2 and in case of higher embankments slope should not be steeper than 1:3
when the soil is good and to be used in the most favorable condition of saturation and draw
down . In case, the higher embankments are protected by rip rap, the river side slope of
earthen embankments upto 6 meters high may be 1 in 2 or 1 in 2.5 depending upon the type
of slope protection. In embankments constructed of sandy materials, the river side slope
should be protected with cover of 0.6 m thick good soil. It is usually preferable to have more
or less free draining material on riverside to take care of sudden draw down. In case of high
and important embankment stone rip-rap either dry dumped or hand placed and concrete
pavements/ concrete blocks with open joints are adopted to protect the embankments against
draw down and/or erosive action of the river; in less important embankments where rip-rap is
costly willow mattress can be used.

Country side slope A minimum cover of 0.6 m over the hydraulic gradient line should be
provided. For embankment upto 4.5 m height, the country side slope should be 1 in 2 from
the top of embankment upto the point where the cover over hydraulic gradient line is 0.6 m
after which a berm of suitable width with the country side slope of 1:2 from the end of the
berm upto the ground level should be provided. For the embankments above 4.5 m and below
6 m heights, the corresponding slope should be 1:3. Normally berms should be of 1.5 m
width. For embankment above 6 m height detailed design may be furnished in the project
estimate.

Slope Protection Works Generally the side slopes and 0.6 m wide in top from the edges of
the embankments should be turfed with grass sods. In embankments which are in imminent
danger of erosion, necessity of protective measures such as slop protection by rip-rip and/or
river training works should be examined separately following I.S. Code no.14262-1995.

Treatment on Top of Embankment An embankment should be provided with suitable

soling over filter for proper drainage. For embankments protecting towns industrial area and

20 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

places of strategic importance the necessity of providing all weather road surfaces of 3 to 3.5
m width should be examined to ensure maintenance works for reaches which are not easily
accessible. In order to provide communication from one side of embankment to other, ramps
at suitable places should be provided as per requirement to obviate subsequent interference.

Land Acquisition To ensure uniformity in respect of land acquisition for flood

embankments, it is suggested that the provision for land acquisition should include at least
1.5 meters additional width beyond the toe of the embankment on the river side and width of
3 meters beyond the toe of embankment on the Country side.

Borrow Areas Generally the borrow area will be on the river side of the embankments.
However, in unavoidable circumstances, when the earth is to be borrowed from the country
side the borrow pits shall not be closer than 10 m from the country side toe of the
embankments. In certain cases when the depth of the borrow pit is limited to 0.3 meters the
borrow pit may be closer to the embankment but in no case the distance between the toe of
the embankment and the edge of the borrow pit shall be less than 5 meters. In order to obviate
development of flow parallel to the embankment , 5 to 6 meter wide cross bars spaced at 50
to 60 meters center to center shall be left in the borrow pits.

2.2 THE SELF CLOSING FLOOD-BARRIER

A little idea about the self-closing flood barrier was given earlier in this report. A more
intensive and absolute idea of the same will be given in this section now. The flood barrier is
a complex unit, which is made of several parts having exclusive functions of their own. An
account of those parts, along with their respective functions, is given in the upcoming few
pages-

Various components of the project:

The rising plate housing structure-

The structure which houses the rising plate is a pivotal component of the entire project. This
structure is the structure in which the entire rising mechanism is incorporated. The entire
length of rising of the plate is achieved within this box only. The box hence is required to be
strong, rigid and completely leakage proof. To achieve this, a much harder material than the
plate is used for this box, as in addition to the already existing force of the water inside it, it
also resists the forces from the entire outer river-bed channel.

The construction of the box is pretty simple. It is basically required for the box to resist the
outer and inner water forces, and also to efficiently hold the water inside of it. For these
purposes, the end of the box to the front of the river bed is affixed with pipes, which have
their openings at the extreme top end of the box, which in turn has a height equal to that of

21 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

the flood level of the river channel. Thus the water enters in these pipes only when the river
flood level is breached, and this excess water, which would have caused flooding of the land
in case the box hadn’t been there, directly goes inside the box and forces the plate to rise up.

Figure 2.1 The self closing flood barrier’s chief component- the rising plate housing
structure- fully housed in the channel.

The rising plate-

The first structure, and also the most important one of the entire structure, is the rising plate,
which stands for the rising flood barrier itself in the main project. This rising plate is the
component which will be used as a wall for the overflowing water. This rising plate here is
made from the lightest possible material which aids in its smooth rising under the action of
the water force, and also assists its smooth downward motion to its base position as soon as
the force is removed. Although, the plate should be made from as light a material as possible,
as explained above, but the lightness of its being should not come at the cost of its rigidity
and strength. Therefore, the material selected in our project accounts for both these traits, the
material is as light as possible, and possesses the required strength to uphold itself against the
force of the water.

This rising plate is the only movable part in the entire project. Thus, while the entire project
is fixed, this rising plate rises at the necessary and appropriate times to act as a movable,
height-changing wall against the flood.

The plate works on the simple principle of force balancing, wherein it rises as soon as the
water rises in the river above the flood level. The flood level water flows from the orifices
into the structure housing the plate, and applies an upward thrust on the plate as it continues

22 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

to move upward. The plate rises under this action, and at the maximum level gets locked at
the extreme top end of the housing structure.

Figure 2.2 The rising plate. This plate rises under the action of force of water, and is
also responsible for holding the water in the catchment area created due to its getting
up.

The Channel-

The third component of the system- the channel- is the part from where the water is fed into
the box, under whose action the plate rises. The channel thus, is a sufficiently large structure,
and contains enough volume to house a good amount of water.

As we can see in the figure, the box is kept in the middle of that channel, depicting the
shoreline and the river flood level marked in it. The water in the channel is fed from a small
opening in the bottom left portion of it. The water is then allowed to fill in it gradually. Now,
by the time water is below the flood level, the plate remains static in its natural position,
which is the grounded one. The box too, at that time, is devoid of any water from inside, as
the connecting pipes – the only openings which allow the passage of the water inside the box-
are at the flood level of the box. So, the static action continues as long as the water remains
below the flood level. But as soon as the water touches the flood level, it starts flowing inside
the box through the openings in the pipes. This water gradually rises to the bottom of the
plate and pushes it upwards. The plate gets locked into the groove when it is fully extended,
and thus extra space is created for the water to rise up. This plate moves down when the
water level recedes in the channel, ultimately coming to its nascent position when all the
water goes below the flood level.

The channel in our arrangement is thus used to store water in it, and consequently pass it
inside the plate housing box to demonstrate the plate rising and falling action.

23 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

Figure 2.3 The whole channel. The view in this picture is the top view. We can also see
the abutments in it. These abutments hold the place in position, and also prevent the
seepage of any additional water through its sides.

Figure 2.4 The openings in the form of pipes to let the water inside.

24 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

THE SIMPLE FLOOD BARRIER-

The simple flood barrier is another flood barrier, which we have used in our project for
primarily the comparison purposes. The model of this barrier was constructed so that we can
compare the results of our self closing barrier with one barrier of that kind, which didn’t
incorporate these automated mechanisms in it. This comparison will also help us prove that
why the automated barrier is better than the static non-rising one.

This simple barrier is nothing but a flood wall, fixed at a place from where the flood water
can rise and flood the vegetation. So, it acts as a simple static wall, which once constructed
can’t be altered. This thus exempts it from providing us benefits like availability of that space
for passing through and other works, aesthetic restrictions, etc.

Some pictures of that construction along with a few explanations follow in the next lines-

Figure 2.5 The top view of the simple flood barrier. We can see that the flood wall is
devoid of any moving mechanism. The river bed is shown on the left side. The water
rises from this side and simply flows to the another when it crosses the height of the
flood wall, thereby flooding the area if the height is crossed even for a few centimeters.
The self closing barrier helps in such cases, by providing an extension of height, without
taking too much of the space.

25 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

Figure 2.6 The side view of the simple barrier. We can see that there are no openings or
other considerations for any moving action.

26 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

3
OBSERVATIONS
AND ANALYSIS

27 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

Observation and analysis:

Danger level- 17cm (DL)

Level without raising- 26.5cm (LWR)

Level after raising- 40cm (LAR)

Tank (main)- front side

Dimensions-

Front side-

Width- 13.5cm

Length- 44cm

Back side-

Length- 20cm

Width- 15.5cm

Height(cm) Pressure(N/m2) Force(N)

5.0 0500 15.0

6.8 0680 20.4
8.0 0800 24.0
10 1000 30.0
12 1200 36.0
14 1400 42.0

Calculation of pressure on base of self closing wall:

Area of base=300cm2

28 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

Height of water (cm) Time(min)

5 1.30
6.8 2
8 2.30
10 3.30
12 4.30
14 5

GRAPHS

16
14
H
e 12
i 10
g
8
h
t 6 Series2
(

c 4
m
2
)

0
1 2 3 4 5 6
TIME (MIN)

45
40
35
f
o 30
r 25
c 20
e Series1
15
(

N
10
)

5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Height(cm)

29 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

4
RESULTS

30 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

5
INFERENCE

31 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

6
FUTURE SCOPES

32 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

7
REFERENCES

33 | P a g e
Dept. Of Civil Engg, I.T., GGV Project Report

34 | P a g e