SHOTCRETE DESIGN FOR IRRIGATION CANAL LINING

Syed Hasan1, Gunvant Vaghela2, James Yip3, Ben Chung4

ABSTRACT: The major artery of Lake Wyangan irrigation system is the 16km long Lake View Branch Canal (LVBC)
which was installed mainly in 1928. The 75mm thick reinforced concrete lining is currently in a poor condition with
significant water loss through seepage and needs replacement as part of Lake Wyangan Modernisation project.

The main factors to be considered in the selection of a lining type include durability, seepage loss, construction cost
and time, and maintenance cost. For irrigation canals, the use of concrete (cast in place or precast) with or without
reinforcement is the most common practice of canal lining. A shotcrete lining (unreinforced or fibre reinforced) is
uncommon for irrigation canals and there has been limited (if any) documentation of its recent usage in Australia. A
trial comprising approximately 27m long prototype (with fibre reinforced and unreinforced) shotcrete lining of different
joint configurations constructed on ground having similar properties to the LVBC was undertaken. On the basis of the
trial result together with cost and performance, unreinforced shotcrete lining with transverse and longitudinal control
joints was selected as the preferred canal lining option for un-obstructed flow of water without excessive seepage. This
paper provides details of the LVBC renewal, including a literature review of irrigation canal lining, the development of
design and the validation process.

KEYWORDS: Shotcrete, Prototype model, Fibre-reinforced, Unreinforced.

1 INTRODUCTION
Lake Wyangan Modernisation project (a key component
of Murrumbidgee Irrigation’s Modernisation Program)
involves the replacement of the ageing concrete lined
irrigation channel system with a modern and efficient
water delivery system to service around 200 land
holdings in Lake Wyangan catchment. The Australian
Government is providing funding of $50 million for this
project as part of the Private Irrigation Infrastructure
Operators Program in NSW. An Alliance, MIA Renewal
Alliance, comprising Murrumbidgee Irrigation Limited,
GHD, UGL Infrastructure and John Holland Group was
set up to plan, design and construct the modernisation
project.
The 16km long Lake View Branch Canal (LVBC) was
built mainly in 1928. The existing 75mm thick
reinforced concrete canal [1] is at the end of its design
life and is being refurbished as follows:
Canal bank lining is being demolished and
replaced with 85mm thick unreinforced
shotcrete lining.
Majority of the canal is being widened to
increase its capacity.
Canal bed lining will be retained where lining
condition is good, otherwise the bed will be
upgraded by overlaying 75mm thick
unreinforced concrete.
2 CURRENT PRACTICES OF LINING
CONSTRUCTION
A limited literature review of canal linings has indicated
the following:
Most concrete linings installed in older channels
in the United States were reinforced. Recently,
to reduce construction cost, reinforcement has
been omitted wherever possible. (Stevenson,
1999) has reported that it is generally better to
use unreinforced concrete [2]. Reinforcement
cannot be justified, except under unusual
conditions such as high back pressure, high
flow velocities and where movement of the
subgrade is a possibility. Unreinforced concrete
linings are more susceptible to damage by

1
Syed Hasan, GHD Pty Ltd, Sydney. Email: syed.hasan@ghd.com
2
Gunvant Vaghela, GHD Pty Ltd, Sydney. Email: gunvant.veghela@ghd.com
3
James Yip, GHD Pty Ltd, Sydney. Email: james.yip@ghd.com
4
Ben Chung, GHD Pty Ltd, Sydney. Email: ben.chung@ghd.com
hydrostatic pressure and subgrade movement,
however this is more than offset by the
difference in cost when compared to a
reinforced lining. Unreinforced concrete
fractures more readily than reinforced concrete,
thus relieving the pressure and reducing the area
of damage. Steel reinforcement , controls crack
widths however it complicates construction and
will lead to deterioration associated with
corrosion. A recent option for reinforcement in
concrete involves the addition of fibre
reinforcement, synthetic or steel fibres
(approximately 20-40mm long) [2].
A successful concrete lined channel must be
durable and remain substantially watertight to
give many years of low-maintenance service
life. The success of a concrete liner is highly
dependent on its installation and materials used.
[2].
Concrete, cast in place or pre-cast, with or
without reinforcement is a common type of
lining for irrigation canals. The disadvantages
of this type of lining are its relative high cost,
the long period of time required for its
installation and its lack of capability to adjust
itself to differential settlement of the underlying
soil [3].
A nominal weldmesh reinforcing layer in canal
lining has proved to be of assistance in keeping
maintenance and repair costs to a minimum by
distributing stresses caused by temperature
effects and other minor operational loading. For
this reason it is usual practice in the Department
of Water Affairs, South Africa [4] to place this
reinforcement. However, there are certain cases
where an unreinforced concrete lining is both
preferable and acceptable. Construction joints,
placed transversely across the canal at about 3m
intervals, are convenient for hand-lining in
which alternate slabs are cast sequentially
thereby limiting tensile stress development.
Corps practice [5], prior to the 1960’s, was to
utilise concrete pavement with expansion and
contraction joints for paved trapezoidal
channels. The experience with these channels
shows that substantial joint maintenance is
required. When concrete paving is used for
trapezoidal channels in soils, it should be
continuously reinforced concrete pavement
(CRCP) [5] [It must be noted that these
channels are designed for vehicular traffic,
hence the use of the term “pavement”].
Unreinforced shotcrete is considered suitable
for applications where there are no applied
loads, or when, tension is not applied to the
shotcrete material [6].
Channels, reservoirs and spillways can be
constructed by excavating the required shape
and shotcreting directly freeform onto the
exposed rock or earth. Shotcrete has the ability
to be placed, compacted and finished (possibly
in one pass) in cases requiring high access,
freeform or very thick linings. Some examples
include the Olympic Whitewater Stadium
Channel in Sydney and Shannon Creek Dam
Spillway in Grafton NSW [6].
Unreinforced shotcrete canal lining was used in
North Unit Canal, USA with excellent condition
after 10 years of service [7].
3 DESIGN OF CANAL LINING
3.1 DESIGN CRITERIA
The criteria used in the design of canal lining are as
follows:
Convey the required flow (as defined by the
hydraulic analysis, this requires an increase in
the available waterway area);
Be constructible and suitable for construction
within the window available at the winter
shutdown;
Substantially water tight but not required to be a
water retaining structure;
Prevent erosion and dispersion of the soil
behind the canal lining;
Retain the existing canal bed where the
condition of the existing bed allows this;
Level of durability sufficient to achieve design
life of 80 years (with maintenance as required);
and
Not to be designed for equipment or traffic
loading
3.2 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OF CANAL
LINING MATERIAL
The main factors considered in the selection of canal
lining material include; durability for 80 years design
life, seepage loss, maintenance cost, construction cost
and time (for construction during winter shutdown
periods). The lining materials considered during
detailed design stage are covered below.
3.2.1 Reinforced concrete lining cast-in-situ or
precast
The existing lining design of approximately 75mm thick
reinforced concrete was reviewed and discounted on the
basis of inadequate cover to the reinforcement to comply
with current design standards. A conventionally
reinforced concrete lining would need to be in the order
of 140mm thick to provide longevity and robustness.
However, it will result in a substantially higher cost than
unreinforced lining. For this reason reinforced concrete
cast-in-situ or precast lining was not considered to offer
value for money.
3.2.2 Fibre-reinforced shotcrete
Fibre reinforced shotcrete has higher capital cost and
greater difficulty in construction in comparison with
unreinforced shotcrete.
Two types of fibre reinforcement were considered in this
project: steel and synthetic (polypropylene) fibres.
Steel fibres can assist with the long term control of
drying shrinkage cracking by providing resistance to
widening of cracks. To achieve this, sufficiently high
dosage of steel fibres will be required, with the following
implications:
Cons: significant capital cost, and difficulty in
achieving homogeneity and finishing of the
shotcrete; and
Pros: provide an added degree of tensile
strength and larger contraction joint centres
could be achieved.
Synthetic fibres provide no material benefit for long
term drying shrinkage, but can assist in the reduction of
plastic cracking (cracking while the shotcrete is in a
fresh state) and slumping during construction.
3.2.3 Unreinforced shocrete/concrete lining
Unreinforced shotcrete/concrete lining requires
contraction joints at close intervals to reduce the risk of
crack development from drying shrinkage, temperature
and moisture variation. A panel length of 3m was
selected to match the typical existing panel joints of 6m
spacing.
3.2.4 Selection of canal lining material
On the basis of cost, durability and performance of
prototype trial test panel’s unreinforced
shotcrete/concrete lining with transverse control joints
at 3m spacing and expansion joints at 30m spacing was
selected.
3.3 DETAILED DESIGN OF UNREINFORCED
CANAL LINING
During the detailed design of the unreinforced canal
lining, comprising a shotcrete bank and a concrete bed,
the following design considerations were taken into
account :
3.3.1 Hydrostatic uplift pressures
The results of the geotechnical investigation have
indicated that the canal is predominantly underlain by
low permeability clay material. On this basis,
groundwater inflow beneath the canal lining is unlikely
to develop damaging uplift pressure when the canal is
empty, and as such, no treatment has been specified. At
localised areas of the canal where high ground water and
sandy soil are encountered, weep holes and flap valves
are proposed to allow drainage of the subgrade to
minimise the effect of hydrostatic uplift.
3.3.2 Shrinkage and temperature effect
To prevent cracking of unreinforced lining due to
shrinkage and temperature effects, transverse contraction
joints are designed at 3m spacing. The short panel length
will minimise any cracking and enable easy replacement
of panel in the event of further cracking or breaking.
Transverse expansion joints at 30m spacing are also
provided. Rearguard waterstops under contraction and
expansion joints are required to mitigate seepage losses.
3.3.3 Reactive soil movement
Due to the presence of medium to high plasticity clay
along the canal alignment, an average 50mm of
foundation movement is expected normal to the canal
lining [8]. Such movement is expected to occur
predominantly in the upper soil strata. A finite element
model using STRAND-7 software was used to analyse
the effect of soil heave on unreinforced panels. Heave
effects in the transverse direction is expected to occur at
the top of the bank with the potential to lead to the canal
lining panels being unsupported. The structural analysis
carried out has indicated that the resulting lifting is likely
to lead to longitudinal stresses and cracking in the
unreinforced lining. Therefore a longitudinal control
joint at the mid height of the panel was introduced to
allow the panel to articulate with the movement in the
upper soil profile. A longitudinal joint at the junction of
the canal base and bank was also provided to allow
further articulation in the event of soil movement.
Furthermore, to limit direct infiltration and evaporation
behind the lining, a bitumen coated geofabric is
incorporated behind the crest of the bank extending
500mm back from the shotcrete lining.
3.3.4 Durability
According to AS3735 the exposure classification of
canal water is B2. The 80 year design life calls for a
85mm thick unreinforced S40 shotcrete lining, which
includes15mm sacrificial thickness as an allowance for
surface erosion .
3.3.5 Joint detailing
Joint details were developed in consultation with MIA
Renewal Alliance taking into consideration the design
requirements. The canal bank subgrade would be
covered with geofabric (Bidim A29) before placing
shotcrete in order to reduce the risk of fine material loss
through the lining cracks. The types of joints used in
the canal lining are covered below:
Transverse contraction joints
Transverse joints are provided in the shotcrete lining for
shrinkage and temperature movement in the longitudinal
direction. Bending due to heave effect along the canal is
negligible for joint spacing of 3.0m. Cold jointed 3m
wide shotcrete panels are constructed with a “hit and
miss” fashion and application of bond breaker at the cold
joints thereby removing the need for a saw cut or crack
initiator. A rear-guard waterstop is provided to mitigate
against seepage loss. “Sika” the supplier of the
nominated waterstop confirmed that the waterstop will
accommodate the calculated joint movement. Joint
sealant was not selected due to its lower design life,
requiring maintenance and periodic replacement.
Transverse expansion joints
With the provision of expansion joints at 30m spacing
thermal expansion is estimated as 6mm and short term (7
days after curing) shrinkage movement as 2mm.
Therefore net movement of expansion joint is estimated
to be approximately 4mm. The proposed 10mm wide
expansion joint is capable of accommodating this
movement. Similar to the transverse contraction joints, a
rear-guard waterstop is provided without any joint
sealant.
Longitudinal joints
Longitudinal joints are required to cater for bending of
the lining resulting from reactive soil movement,
covered in Section 3.3.3. A longitudinal control joint is
provided at the mid-level of the bank shotcrete lining to
allow articulation of the panels in the event of
foundation movement. Rear-guard waterstop is provided
under longitudinal control joints. A 3mm wide wet
formed tooled joint (D/3 depth) is provided to initiate
cracking at the joint, where D is the thickness of
shotcrete lining.
Longitudinal joints in base slab
The effect of foundation movement can extend to the
junction between the base and bank of the canal causing
rotation of the lining. A longitudinal joint is therefore
provided at the base of the canal, 200mm away from the
junction to mitigate the risk of an uncontrolled crack. A
3mm wide wet formed tooled joint and a rear-guard
waterstop are provided.
Details at top of bank
The shotcrete at the top of the bank is provided with a
100mm return to avoid “hanging up” the shotcrete
during placement. This will mitigate the formation of
horizontal cracks at the top of bank as the fresh shotcrete
naturally seeks to move down-slope.
4 TRIAL AND POST DESIGN
VALIDATION
In order to validate the performance of the lining design,
a trial was carried out in April 2013. Approximately
27m long prototype canal, comprising nine panels was
constructed in ground having similar properties to the
LVBC. The panels were either fibre reinforced or
unreinforced shotcrete. The performance of the lining
was reviewed and the following observations were
made:
Addition of fibre in the shotcrete did not result in an
improved performance when compared with the
unreinforced panels.
More time was required to clean the pump and hoses
for fibre reinforced shotcrete.
Shotcreting alternative panels controls thickness as
edge forms act as thickness guides.
Between the shotcrete panels, crack widths up to
1.5mm were observed. The cracks did not follow the
cold joint due to bonding between adjacent panels as
no bond breaker was applied during trail test.
5 CONCLUSION
The trial test result validated the canal lining design and
assisted in fine tuning the design to achieve better
service performance.
A 85mm thick unreinforced shotcrete lining with
transverse contraction joints at 3m c/c and expansion
joints at 30m c/c was selected on the basis of cost, trial
test and performance.
The construction of the canal lining commenced in May
2013 with all the works scheduled to be completed by
August 2014. Two winter shutdown periods will be
required to complete the upgrading work. Photograph 1
to 4 shows the construction work of canal lining.
Photograph 1: Preparation for shotcrete application
Photograph 2: Application of shotcrete to canal bank
Photograph 3: Roller finish to bank shotcrete panel
Photograph 4: Concrete pouring on canal bed
Photograph 5: Completed lining showing joints
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author would like to acknowledge the contributions
made by the entire Alliance Team. The innovations that
are outlined in this paper are a direct result of successful
Alliancing relationships. The author would also like to
acknowledge Murrumbidgee Irrigation Limited, and the
Department of Environment, Commonwealth of
Australia for their approval to present this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] Canal Condition Assessment – Lake View Branch;
Report by GHD, 20 July, 2012.
[2] http://www.irrigation.org.au/seepage/4_2_9_concret
e.html.
[3] http://idup.gov.in/wps/UpidHm/UPWSRP/WSRP_St
andardsAndGuidelines/Canal%20Lining.htm.
[4] Guidelines for the design of canals and related
structures; Department of Water Affairs, Forestry
and Environmental Conservation, Pretoria, Republic
of South Africa.
[5] Structural Design of Concrete Lined Flood Control
Channels; US Army Corps of Engineers Department
of the Army, EM 1110-2-2007, 30 April, 1995.
[6] Recommended Practice – Shotcreting in Australia;
Prepared by Australian Shotcrete Society for the
Concrete Institute of Australia, 2nd Edition,
September, 2010.
[7] Canal lining demonstration project year 10
durability report; US Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, November, 2002.
[8] LVBC Lining – Uplift and Reactive Ground
Movement; GHD Geotechnical Memorandum,
21/20216/187610, 05 February, 2013.