Improving Operational Performance N Management of Canal Irrigation System
Improving Operational Performance N Management of Canal Irrigation System
Improving Operational Performance N Management of Canal Irrigation System
SUBMITTED BY
2010
IMPROVING OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE AND
MANAGEMENT OF CANAL IRRIGATION SYSTEM
USING HYDRAULIC MODELING
by
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING
2010
This thesis was evaluated by the following Examiners:
External Examiners:
From Abroad:
(i) Dr. Bart Schultz,
Professor,
Department of Water Resources and
Hydraulic Engineering,
International Institute for Infrastructural,
Hydraulic and Environmental
Engineering (IHE). Delft.
The Netherlands
Email : [email protected]
From Pakistan:
Internal Examiner:
iv
The Irrigation service fee (ISF) collection analysis indicated that all the FOs
performed well during the first year (2004-05) of IMT and recovered 60 percent
of the assessed ISF; whereas during the 2005-06 and 2006-07, ISF collected
was very low. From these results it is evident that chances of successful cost
recovery do not seem to be high.
Operational and regulation aspects of the main system also play a pivotal role in
overall irrigation water management aspects. The SIC model was used to evaluate
the effectiveness of physical infrastructures of the Chowki Distributary. Open
flume outlets along the distributary behave as hyper-proportional irrespective of
their position. The head bifurcator outlets are behaving hyper-proportional,
whereas middle ones as perfect proportional and tail end as sub-proportional.
The trifurcator outlets are behaving as hyper-proportional. The major causes are
construction inaccuracies in setting the crest level, which lead the outlets to draw
more or less than the design discharge.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
vi
I am thankful to Mr. Nubat Khan, President, Farmers Organization, Chowki
Distributary, who invited me to his village and discussed in detail the pros and
corns of FOs. He provided opportunity for interactions with Presidents of other
farmers’ organizations (FOs) and with farmers. I am also indebted to the farmers
of Yaqubi, Gumbd-II, Qasim-II, Toru, Chowki, and Pirsabak Distributaries, who
shared their knowledge, history and social constraints of Irrigation Management
Turnover (IMT) with me without hesitation. The interviews conducted were of
purely academic nature for developing some research objectives and not to
offend or defend parties involved in IMT and operation of irrigation system. I am
extremely grateful to some farmers, who were interviewed with condition of
anonymity and therefore their names are not mentioned to protect the privacy
and identity.
Many thanks are extended to Dr. Tahir Sarwar, Engr. Nisar Ahmad, Dr.
Muhammad Zubair Khan, and staff of Department of Water Management, for
their cooperation and encouragement. Administrative help and cooperation
extended during my studies at CERWRE by Mr. Abdul Ghaffar, Mr. Ehsan Khan,
Mr. Javed Nisar, Mr. Zafar Iqbal and Mr. Umer Daraz is sincerely acknowledged.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................. viii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF ABRIVATION ................................................................................. xviii
GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................xx
CONVERSION OF UNITS............................................................................. xxii
I INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
viii
Table of Contents (Continued)
ix
Table of Contents (Continued)
x
Table of Contents (Continued)
xi
APPENDICES
xii
LIST OF TABLES
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
xiv
Fig Description Page
of Yaqubi Distributary................................................................ 97
5.8 Delivery performance ratio and CVT (DPR) B B
of Gumbad-II Distributary.......................................................... 97
5.9 Delivery performance ratio and CVT (DPR) B B
of Pirsabak Distributary............................................................. 99
5.12 Delivery performance ratio and CVT (DPR) B B
xv
Appendix –A
Appendix –B
B-I Design full supply level (FSL) at different offtakes ................. 158
B-II Simulated water level at 110,100 and 90 percent
of design discharges ............................................................... 159
B-III Simulated water level at 80, 70 and 65 percent
of design discharges ............................................................... 160
B-IV Simulated water level at 60 of design discharges ................. 161
xvi
Appendix –C
Appendix – D
Appendix -E
xvii
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
xviii
LSC Lower Swat Canal
MAF Million Acre Foot
MIS Management Information System
MMH Minimum Modular Head
NDP National Drainage Programme
NWFP North West Frontier Province
OFWM Onfarm Water Management
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OF Open Flume
PHLC Pehur High Level Canal
PIDA Provincial Irrigation and Drainage Authority
PIM Participatory Irrigation Management
Reduced Distance ( Distance from head or intake of
RD
canal usually in feet ) 1 RD = 1000 ft (304.8 m).
RWS Relative Water Supply
SCARP Salinity Control and Reclamation Project
SCAWB Swat Canal Area Water Board
SDO Sub Divisional Officer
SE Superintending Engineer
USBR United State Bureau of Reclamation
USC Upper Swat Canal
Water Users Associations (Management organization
WUA
for tertiary level)
XEN Executive Engineer
xix
GLOSSARY
AVIO The name has the French background, the letter S in the name AVIS
has been replaced by the letter O, the letter of the French word “Orifice”
to get the name AVIO.
AVIS The name has the French background, AV are the first two letters of the
word ‘aval’ which means downstream, and S is the of the French word,
‘surface’. It illustrate that the gate operates at a free surface flow.
Control Structures used on irrigation canals for controlling water level at cross
regulators, discharges at head regulators or both.
Distributary Canal taking off from a secondary/branch canal usually supplying water
to tertiary/ minor canals or directly to field offtakes.
ELFLO
Predictive Control or pool-end control uses two sensors per regulator.
Control
FSL Full Supply Level (The water level in the parent canal which will allow
the intake of a branching canal to pass the full design flow)
xx
Kharif First season of agricultural year. Summer cropping season from 15th
April to 15th October
Water The amount of authorized supplied discharge per 1000 acre of cultivable
Allowance command area. The water allowance not only determines the size of an
outlet structures, but also form the basis for design of distributaries.
Rabi Second season of agricultural year. Winter cropping season from 15th
October to 15th April.
Response The time period between a change in the flow at the upstream end of a
Time canal reach and the arrival of the full modified flow at the down stream
end of the reach.
Travel The time period between a change in the flow at the upstream end of the
Time canal reach and the arrival of the first wave (disturbance) at the down
stream end. It depends on the factors such as hydraulic of the canal
under consideration and the flow rate before and after the changes.
xxi
CONVERSION OF UNITS
Length
1m = 3.281 ft
1 ft = 12 inches
1 ft = 30.48 cm
1 ft = 0.304 m
1 inch = 0.025 m
1 inch = 25.4 mm
1 inch = 2.54 cm
1 kilometer = 0.621 mile
Surface Area
1 ha = 2.471 acre
1 ha = 10-4 m2
1 acre = 0.4047 ha
Discharge
3 -1
1 ft s (1cusec) = 28.32 Ls-1
1 m3s-1 (1 cumec) = 35.31 ft3s-1
1 m3s-1 (1 cumec) = 1000 Ls-1
Water Allowance
3 -1
1 ft s per 1000 acre = 0.665 mm day-1
1 ft3s-1 per 1000 acre = 0.07 L s-1ha-1
10 ft3s-1 per 1000 acre = 6.55 mm day-1
10 ft3s-1 per 1000 acre = 0.77 L s-1ha-1
1 L s-1ha-1 = 8.64 mm day-1
Volume
1 MAF = 1.23 BCM
1 m3 1000 L
xxii
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
the Indus River and its principal tributaries (the Kabul, the Swat, and Kunar
from the West, and the Jehlum, the Chanab, from the East) feed the system.
immemorial (Gill 1998). The civil canals in the North West Frontier Province
(PIM) and these have been constructed, operated and maintained by the
part of 19th century with major objectives to reduce the risk of famine and
P
P
maintain political and social stability (Stone 1984). The irrigation system was
among the offtakes (outlets). The duty (area irrigated by unit discharge during
the base period) was fixed relatively high in order to irrigate more land with low
and operational requirements and cost as low as possible and therefore the
1
number of control structures in the canals was kept to a minimum. The
irrigation intensity was also kept low at an average of 75 percent. This design
of diverted river water to canals ultimately becomes available for the crops
(Kahlown and Kemper 2004). Aggregate irrigation water supply does not meet
the optimal yield of crops. The time pattern of water supplies is not matched
with time pattern of crop water needs. Uncertain and inequitable distribution of
reaches take excess irrigation supply (Bhutta et al. 1991; Latif and Pomee
2003). In the beginning of the season, farmers have no choice to decide the
cropping pattern and cropped area with respect to expected supply in the
coming season.
level and at fixed rotational schedule at farm level, the combination of this rigid
delivery allows for more economical delivery system operations. The irrigation
flow depth fluctuates, regime of the channel gets seriously upset resulting in
2
silting (for lower discharges) or scouring (for higher discharges). Most of the
channels are silted up at the head reaches which makes the distribution
inequitable i.e. upper outlets drawing excess discharge and the outlets in the
lower portions start suffering. To feed the outlet in the tail reach the canals have
to run with extra supply at the head, which further upsets the regime.
bring out put at par with the world's most efficient irrigation systems. Inefficient
levels due to a decline in cropped areas and in crop yields per unit area, which
system, a major lesson learned is that government agencies are not effective
reduction of its role and correspondingly expanding the role of water users and
3
the capacity and capabilities of farmers’ organizations to manage the irrigation
systems.
irrigation management (PIM). According to this policy decision, the major canal
and supervision to AWBs. The new authorities have greater autonomy from the
Policy makers are interested in the general status of the systems (actual
situation versus target) and water availability. Operators require precise and
4
timely instructions on how to operate gates. Farmers want reliable information
investments and activities. Field data on rainfall, river and canal flows, actual
systems.
Presently, the irrigation systems are operated with concern largely for the
hydraulic operation are the degree of variations that occur daily. Little effort has
been taken to improve the operation of the irrigation system and distribution of
available water supply at main canal head. At present irrigation systems face the
water are the main objectives in operation and maintenance of the delivery
systems. Poor performance of the irrigation water delivery systems has often
5
maintenance of the irrigation systems. The objective of this research is therefore
organizations.
technical activity which has been inadequately studied and neglected despite
evidence that effectiveness to improve the conditions at the tertiary level i.e.
below the farmers offtakes (outlet), weakness in the operation of main and
distributary level irrigation system has to be rectified. This is the first study in
Many studies in the past have focused on the effect of improved management
the effect of the relationship between joint operations and irrigation management
transfer to farmers’ organizations (FOs) hardly exists. This study investigates the
6
The physical (hardware) aspects of the construction of irrigation systems have
and can extend the irrigated area by making more efficient use of available
Finally, it can be argued effectively that, when viewing the irrigation system as
open the way for major advances in the irrigation system performance. This
7
1.5 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
8
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Hardware of physical and the software of social structures and organization are
organization (FOs) and Area Water Boards (AWB) cannot succeed without a
Management basically refers to all aspects of irrigation beyond the design and
construction of facilities. The activities range from the main system down to the
farm level, with the middle reaches presenting the most difficult challenges of
coordination among the engineers and other technical staff and farmers, who are
that the major problems with the poor functioning of irrigation systems lies in the
major vehicle for improvement of irrigated agriculture. There is a need for some
and legal factors to achieve system objectives of greater and more certain
agricultural production, with more benefits for the participants in the system and
9
proposed different classifications of the activities needed to manage water.
Irrigation is a socio-technical matter not just because people are involved in the
management, they affect the system performance in many crucial ways, and
efforts to use water effectively will not be fruitful (Wade et al. 1980).
decisions with very little pre design or pre construction involvement of farmers.
This implies that farmers are least involved in planning, design or construction
of the main system as a blind spot and considers the delivery of appropriate
and reliable supplies at the outlet as a pre condition for proper utilization of
attributed to the system design, can some times be overcome by intensive and
Plusquelle et al 1996 and Zimbelman 1987) believe that greatest potential for
10
increased agricultural production can be achieved through modernization and
success, so are the objectives and capabilities of water users. Korten and Uphoff
activities that could be identified in any irrigation system. His cubic matrix
groups of activities namely control structure activities, water use activities and
11
Fig. 2.1 Cubic matrix of irrigation management activities (Uphoff 1991).
management are intimately associated with the physical structures and resource
flows.
researchers including Horst (1990), Lankford and Gowing (1996) and Levine
12
(1980). The attention for the relation between design and management is now
systems through water and crops. The objective of the system, like equitable
Horst (1998) recognized the link between design and management by raising
keeping in view the human and institutional aspects and, if so, what the
irrigation water delivery systems and their implications on water delivery. His
research focuses on water division structures and how their operation can lead
understood. He states that division of water is not only a technical matter, but it
also has a human dimension. The way farmers perceive these technical
artifacts may cause conflicts between the farmers if they are not satisfied with
the flow rate, duration and frequency of irrigation supply. These conflicts may
13
result in the farmers' intervention by damaging the structures and in the
include general consensus by the farmers and agency on the allocation and
functions i.e. accept data input. These data come from internal and external
sources, or both. Second IMIS acts on data to convert it into information, and
The need for introducing IMIS in the day-to-day operation and management of
14
The definition of suitable operations policy of an irrigation system assumes an
water. Simulation models and decision support systems (DSS) can play an
accessible to all the stakeholders. Many IMIS and DSS are developed by
researchers but are site specific in nature. Bazzani and Rosseli (2002)
government agencies are not effective for managing the irrigation systems
without involving the farmers. There exists farmer managed irrigation systems
Nepal. The government agencies continue to operate the dams and regulate
the river flows while the operation, maintenance and water distribution lies with
can become the managers of the new or improved systems. Further, the effort
15
to strengthen farmers’ organizations and management transfer resulted in staff
reduction, enhanced fee collection, and the agency was able to meet full
Vermillion (2001) and Svendsen and Meinzen-Dick (1997) termed the current
period as the reform era that is characterized by efforts to modify the basic
deliveries in Mexico. Results indicate that the joint management by the water
cropping plans. Vermillion and Garcés (1996) reported that in Colombia, the
IMT resulted in a significant change in the burden of cost from the government
1999; Brewer et al. 1999) that transfer has not had significant impacts on the
economic productivity of irrigated land. However, the research shows that rural
16
poor often get additional responsibility and costs from IMT rather than benefits
In Mexico under IMT, the water rights are transferred from government to
water users associations. Similarly in Sri Lanka and the Philippines, water
canal maintenance and paying for irrigation service charges. If executed with
sustaining policies and programs, IMT can play a significant role in poverty
alleviation. Farmers are agreeable to pay irrigation service fees (ISF) only the
benefits outweigh the costs (Hassan 2002). It is also recognized that IMT can
be successful only if the rural population benefits from this reform and if the
performance of irrigation systems will deteriorate and the rural poor will not
receive water, required for their food security, On the other hand, if ISF is
increased, then the irrigation costs could be double or triple for the rural poor
who already hardly earn any income within the given context (Bhata 1997;
generated some benefits to the poor, these have been implemented partially,
17
2.5 MODERNIZATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
physical or institutional or both; rules and water rights; water delivery services;
• Operation rules must be changed. The way that water is ordered and
delivered, the form and frequency of communications (between
operators and their bosses, and between farmers and systems
personnel), and the way various control structures are manipulated on
18
an hourly or daily basis must be changed to match the defined service
objectives.
A great deal of practical and theoretical work has been conducted on the
control and automation of canal systems. The various concepts of canal control
The most important kind of canal control methods are proportional flow control,
which is the most simple flow control method and has to be selected when an
irrigation main system does not require any management of the flow diversion.
name called BIVAL control. Volume control solves the problems of too large
19
storage wedge in traditional downstream control. Volume control is often
measurement of the water level at the head-end and the tail end of the canal
control would not be applicable because of the steep canal gradient (Ankum
1994). CARDD control (Canal Automation for Rapid Demand Deliveries) was
control and measure three water levels per canal section (Burt 1987). Mixed
downstream control system, depending on the water level in the canal section.
gates, such as AVIS and AVIO gates have been developed by Neyrpic and are
between AVIS and AVIO gates is that AVIS gates operate at free surface flow
in the upstream canal sections, while the AVIO gate closes the orifice. The
AVIO is suited to control flow from a reservoir through an orifice opening. The
AVIO and AVIS gates have a large float immediately downstream from the
20
radial gate pivot arm. When the downstream water level rises, the float rises
maintains a constant upstream water level at the regulator and maintains target
water levels for any discharge. Main systems under upstream control perform
control concept, where the irrigation agencies determine the amount of water
Fig. 2.2 illustrates the operational problems. The intended discharge at (R2) isB B
initially available from the ponded canal, but will drop immediately with falling
head in the canal. The effect of the upstream release will be felt only when the
disturbance will arrive at (R2). The new steady-state is reached after the canal
B B
21
2.6.3 Downstream Control
respond to the conditions in the down stream canal reach and is self system
determine the amount of water released at any time and water is available for
instant distribution. The regulators in the main canal maintain a constant water
Such regulation means more supply is given to the canal reach when the water
between the regulators to meet the zero flow conditions (Fig. 2.3). An aspect of
22
downstream control with level-top canals is the criterion of the positive storage
wedge in the canal reaches, i.e. volume of water between the segment water
level (level-top) and lower full-flow water level. This leads two main advances of
which corrective actions need to be taken in order to remedy the situation. The
23
Performance assessment is key factor to improve daily operation, to diagnose
problems and monitor the effect of interventions to solve these problems. With
scarce water resources, the need for better performance of irrigation became
assessed (Small and Svendsen 1992). In this study the authors reported that,
Many engineers and researchers (Bos and Nugteren 1990, Levine 1982,
Abernethy 1986; Oad and McCornick 1989, Molden and Gates 1990, Murray
Rust and Snellen 1993; Merrey et al. 1994, Bos 1997, Malano and Burton 2001
and Bos et al. 2005) have tried to standardize performance indicators to permit
established for that irrigation system. A good indicator tells a manager what
current performance of the system is, and, in combination with other indicators,
may help to identify the correct course of action to improve performance within
24
tested. Discrepancies between the empirical and theoretical basis of the
i.e. the allocative type comprising productivity and equity; and the scheduling
1991; Latif et al. 1994; Goldsmith and Makin 1991) and provide the irrigation
which focus on the process of operating a system and break down of this
25
listed various indicators of productivity. The productivity indicators are easy to
systems.
difficult factor to encompass and refers to the issue of leaching, drainage and
salinization which if not attended properly, may shorten the system’s life.
collection procedures that are less time and resource-consuming (Kloezen and
system and break down the process into management and system components
Irrigation delivery service, performance and control are primarily linked. Renault
26
depth, and the sensitivity of irrigation delivery structures. Renault and
sensitivity of irrigation off takes. Sensitivity of delivery takes into account the
impacts of the perturbations on the delivery to the command area of the offtake.
P
Renault et al. (2001) observed that, the flow behaviour along canal irrigation
practical results from historical data on a gated system in Sri Lanka and
be determined for the full supply depth in the parent canal and the maximum
and their applications to irrigation systems during recent years. In the fields of
irrigation and drainage, modeling has the potential for improvement in planning,
gate setting systems. The usual procedure for unsteady flow modeling is to
determine flow rates and water levels from known boundary conditions and
27
gate settings. Gate stroking reverses this procedure and calculates gate
openings to achieve desired water levels and flows in the system. Specifically,
the program attempts to provide constant water levels upstream from each
check structure so that a flow rate to offtakes remains constant (Falvey and
Luning; 1979). The main applications envisioned for unsteady flow models are:
There is a wide variety of canal flow simulation programs that deal with the
different types of flow in open channels. The main differences between those
programs can be seen as the size of the irrigation network that can be
simulated in one run, and the types of flow that a program can solve. Some
programs can solve the uniform flow type only, while others can solve both the
uniform and the unsteady flow types. There have been many applications of
hydraulic models for the analysis of canal system performance under proposed
operation, management delivery and schedules (Islam et al. 2008, Mishra et al.
2001, Gichuki et al. 1990; Merkley et at. 1990; Swain and Chin 1990).
Unsteady flow models can employ several solution methods of varying degrees
accuracy and robustness. Hydraulic simulation models that can handle both
steady and unsteady flow are reviewed below. The models are listed in
alphabetical order.
28
2.9.1 Branch-Network Dynamic Flow Model (BRANCH)
varying water levels, flow discharges, velocities, and volumes can be computed
at any location within the open-channel network. Stream flow routing and
using water level and discharge as dependent variables, to account for non-
function.
29
unsteady flow in branching canal systems with trapezoidal cross sections.
Canal reaches are separated by inline structures such as gates, weirs, etc.
Venant equations (Gichuki et al. 1990; Merkley et at. 1990). The simulation
time step can be varied from one to ten minutes. CANALMAN will simulate the
model set up. Channel friction gradients are computed using Manning's
advance on a dry bed, which is a problem for most other simulation software.
Initial filling of an empty canal can be studied with reasonable accuracy, which
should be particularly valuable to operators of small canals and laterals that are
frequently drained and filled. On the other hand, the program will not analyze
jumps, and supercritical flow (Merkley and Rogers 1993). CANALMAN model
was used for operation and management of the Kangsabati irrigation project
CARIMA was originally developed for flood propagation studies; it has been
30
used for regulation problems in irrigation canal systems. The program solves
required for starting any simulation run can be taken from the results of a
cannot be accommodated.
or general (defined by either elevation and width or distance from bank and
local head loss, storage basins, culverts, inclined weirs, idealized flood control
31
2.9.4 Dutch Flow (DUFLOW)
DUFLOW (The Tidal Water Division; Delft University, The International Institute
rivers and operation of irrigation and drainage systems. Free flow in open
channels is simulated and control structures like weirs, culverts, siphons, and
pumps can be included. A simple rainfall runoff relationship is part of the model.
DUFLOW can be used for large river systems, but also for simpler irrigation
and drainage networks, for which input hydrographs can be specified. A four-
point implicit Preissmann scheme is used to solve the complete Saint Venant
linearized or fully nonlinear versions of the equations. The latter being solved
with a Newton-Raphson type scheme that starts from the linearized results.
DUFLOW does not include a separate steady-flow solution procedure and uses
the unsteady procedure to handle both types of flow. Cross sections are
defined at each node in terms of top width of flow at given depths. The Chezy
culverts, and siphons. The Manning-Strickler equation can be used for channel
resistance. DUFLOW has the capability of adding wind shear, which can be
32
can be defined with up to 15 depth-width pairs. DUFLOW cannot simulate
critical flow, hydraulic jumps, and dry-bed channels. It cannot model automatic
open channels. Branched and looped open channel networks can be modeled
by the program. The simulation of structure operational plans and control are
that allow for a fast diagnostic interpretation of the results. The MODIS model
can run in various computational modes, varying from steady state mode to full
dynamic mode, in which the complete Saint Venant equations are solved. The
four point Preissmann implicit scheme. The friction term of the Saint Venant
added to trapezoidal cross sections. A sub routine prevents the slot from falling
33
2.9.6 Simulation of irrigation Canals (SIC)
system and thus allows for studies, for example, to reduce water losses and
analyses for transitional and steady-state flows. It is divided into three parts: a
topographical unit to generate the topography and topology of the scheme, and
two separate computational units for steady and unsteady flow. Special
required flow at offtakes and proportion of flow in the canal. Seepage and
inflows can also be taken into account. But it cannot be applied in the cases of
supercritical flow and dry beds (Baume et al. 2005). The SIC model is
extensively used in Pakistan, Punjab (Waijjen et al. 1997), Sindh (Lashari et al.
1999) and especially in NWFP for design of Chashma Right Bank Canal Habib
et al. (1999) and Pehure High Level Canal to examine the hydraulic and
software that models gradually varied unsteady flow in canal systems. The
primary purpose and application of the program has been the hydraulic
analysis during the design of new canals and canal control systems. USM uses
34
the method of characteristics to calculate a numerical solution to the complete
Saint Venant equations of unsteady open channel flow. Two solution methods
are available: complete grid of characteristics and specified time interval. In the
first solution, the calculation time step varies as water depth and wave speed
change. The specified time interval solution uses a fixed time step. The method
Therefore USM is more efficient for solving problems of short duration involving
rapid flow changes than for problems of long duration with gradual changes
Different values of cross section, roughness, slope, etc., may be entered for
each canal pool, but they are assumed to be constant for each pool.
Computational nodes are spaced in equal user defined intervals within a pool.
USM does not simulate advance on a dry bed, canal dewatering, hydraulic
jumps, bore waves, supercritical, flow, or negative flow through structures. The
ISIS Flow (Sir William Halcrow and Partners Ltd, Hydraulics Research
Wallingford Ltd UK) is a computer program used for modeling steady and
35
unsteady flows in open channels and flood plains. Any sensible looped or
branched open channel network can be modeled using the program. The
sluices and weirs, side spills and head losses through bridges. Closed conduits
and culverts are represented by cross sections and several standard shapes
are available. Other units include reservoirs (to represent flood storage areas,
for example) and junctions. Free surface (flow depths and discharges) is
computed using a method based on the equations for shallow water waves in
open channels. Two methods are available for computation of steady flow
problems: the direct method and the pseudo time stepping Method. In ISIS
Flow, the model external boundaries are represented as either flow-time, stage
time or stage flow (rating curve) relationships including specifying tide curves
momentum term in the momentum equation when the Froude number exceeds
a specified upper value. Also ISIS Flow can relatively cope with dry bed
zero. ISIS Flow solves the differential form of the momentum equation, the
36
2.10 COMPARISON OF IRRIGATION SIMULATION MODELS
variety of models which cover a wide spectrum of features and capabilities that
indeed emphasize the importance of such modeling tool in the study and
models like CARIMA and ISIS were originally designed for flood routing and
river modeling. Later they modified to include the ability of irrigation networks
analysis. The rest of the reviewed models were specifically designed to model
irrigation networks except BRANCH which is suitable for river modeling only as
Many models were designed to satisfy particular needs in the design and
operations of newly designed canal structures. ISIS Flow includes a large built-
in structure library. MODIS targets controlled irrigation canals with its capability
performance.
All the reviewed models solve the complete Saint Venant equations for
for solving the equations in all the models except USM where the method of
37
characteristics is used. The four-point Preissmann implicit scheme is usually
more robust and can cope with more varied hydraulic conditions at the
flow cannot be handled (except ISIS); zero water levels (dry beds) cannot be
diagnose the hydraulic behaviour of the irrigation system and consequently can
38
Chapter III
Material and Methods
The Upper Swat canal (USC) irrigation system was commissioned in 1914 that
irrigates a large proportion of the fertile Peshawar Valley. The Upper Swat
Canal (USC), which takes water from Swat River through Amandara head
works, was originally designed for a discharge of 68.6 m3s-1 (2420 cusecs) to
P P P P
Swabi and parts of Malakand Agency plains (Fig. 3.1). The canal, after
traversing the narrow ridge of Malakand hills through the Benton Tunnel,
eventually bifurcates at Dargai into two branches of Machai Branch at left and
Abazai Branch at right side. After the construction of the Benton Tunnel, it was
realized that, though constructed to the full design section, its discharge
capacity was not more than 51 m3s-1 (1800 cusecs) due to its unlined and
P P
P P
rough surface. As a result of this constraint, the authorized full supply discharge
of the canal was fixed at 51 m3s-1 (1800 cusecs) and the cultivable command
P P P P
To bridge the gap of water shortages, an auxiliary tunnel was designed and
As a result of the
P P
construction of this tunnel the capacity of the Upper Swat Canal (USC) was
39
Upper Swat Canal (RD 0+ 000 to 242 + 000) was rehabilitated under the Swabi
Salinity Control and Reclamation Project (Swabi SCARP Project) in 1998, while
the remaining portion of about 50 km was remodeled under the Pehur High
USC permitted more irrigation development in the upper reaches of the canal.
The water allowance was increased from 0.39 Ls-1ha-1 to 0.77 Ls-1ha-1. The
P P
discharge are made at the head of the main canal system. Response time near
the tail of the canal system is typically 4-5 days. The flow is continuous into the
head of the system, and split in proportional to the command area into the
ha.
Pehur High Level Canal was constructed during 1997. It is 26.2 km long having
majority of its length as lined channel. Secondly the Maira branch obtains
irrigation supplies from the PHLC at confluence point of RD 242+ 000. The
PHLC provides supply to Maira Branch with gross water allocation of 0.645
BCM from Tarbela reservoir. The canal is designed and constructed with a
40
Fig. 3.1 Map of Upper Swat Canal (USC) irrigation systems.
41
Regulation of the PHLC and the tail of the combined system in Maira Branch
are achieved through downstream control. Water is stored in the PHLC and
Maira Branch in ponded reaches. The points of control are hence shifted to the
wasted as it retained within the main canal. The tail of the canal system also
float operated cross regulator (AVIS and AVIO type) gates that are installed at
about 5 km intervals. These gates are sensitive to water level and open and
carried up through the system to Tarbela Dam, where a control system SCADA
(supervisory control and data acquisition) operates the Gandaf Outlet valves
(Fig. 3.1) in response to water levels in the PHLC head reach (Bozakov and
operation and monitoring the irrigation supply, Crump’s weirs are installed in
trifurcators) are Crump’s weir with splitter wall to divide the flow in proportion to
the irrigated area served by each offtake and the downstream parent channel.
The Crump’s weir (Bos 1989; Herschy 2009) has an upstream face sloping at
1:2 and downstream face slope 1:3. For large structure with discharge greater
42
than 5 m3s-1 the downstream face slope is 1:5. The minimum width of any
decreasing the length of weir crest. Proportional divisors are used where the
smallest offtake discharge is not less than 10 percent of the incoming parent
canal flow. For the flow between 2-10 percent, double bifurcators (Fig.
Appendixes E-1) are used with secondary splitter to achieve the desired
discharge. Relative lower discharges are obstructed through open flumes (OF)
The concept of crop based irrigation operation (CBIO) is to reduce the amount
system due to increased water allowance in the study area (Pongput 1998). It
has been designed to replace the fixed schedule warabandi system, which
oversupplies at early and late crop growth stages and under supplies during
peak demand. Canal operations under CBIO started in December 2003 but
PHLC discharge dropped by almost 50 percent (from 19.83 m3s-1 to 9.92 m3s-1
P P P P P P P
after CBIO implementation, as half the offtakes were alternately closed for one
week due to low demand. Presently CBIO has been abounded by the
Operation and Regulation Cell of Swat Area Water Board (SAWB) because of
the resistance from FOs who wanted water for tobacco and hybrid maize.
43
3.1.3 Institutional Setup
irrigation and drainage sector. FIDA is responsible for managing the irrigation
system from barrages to canal head works only. The Authority has established
pilot Swat Canal Area Water Board (SCAWB), Mardan. Farmers’ Organizations
(FOs) are established on the distributaries and minors which will take care of
the water distribution to the farmers. They maintain the distributaries, minors
and watercourses and collect ISF i.e. water charges (Abiana) from the farmers.
regarding irrigation delivery and other aspects affect the well-being of many
in accordance with established rules and bylaws, and there were mechanisms
deficiencies. However, the procedures followed were laborious and some time,
it was not possible to get the timely feed back of actual performance level to the
44
Department (PID) processes data manually, the consequence which was, that
many adhoc decisions were made. It was realized that there is a need for
is largely attributed to preliminary diagnosis. The first step for the development
feedback on actual performance. The basic data for cropping pattern and
(IMIS) has been developed for the purpose of facilitating the operation and
45
SCAWB FOs
Irrigation Demand
Calibration of at offtake
Topographic Head Regulator
Survey and and Outlers
Hydraulic Data
of
Effective
Distributary
Rainfall
Structures
Monitoring ETo
Daily Inflow at Waterlevel at Referene
Distributary Intake and Evapotranspiration
Intake Outlets by
Hydraulic
Committee
Meteorological
Data
Calibration and
Validation of
SIC Performance
Hydrodynamic Evaluation based
Simulation of
Model on Selected
Canal
Indicators
Operation SIC
Cultivation
Hydrodynamic
Calender
Model
and
Cropping Patteren
Operation of
Irrigation
Network and Monitoring
Culturable
Adjustment of and
Commanded Area
Flow Control ISF
Operators Farmers
46
3.2.1 Data Structures
The model is an Excel file that is called workbook, which contains many
worksheets. The Excel workbook of the IMIS model is for only one distributary.
This program is limited to the irrigation management aspects and it covers the
47
3.2.2 Method of Information Generation
cropping pattern and cropping intensity i.e. area under each crop in selected
outlet command area through farmers interviews, during the meetings with FOs
days period based on the existing cropping pattern and intensity. The required
the distributaries. FOs monitors the water levels at the head regulator whereas
monitor the water levels at outlets. Daily water levels are submitted to the
respective FOs Office. The computer operator feed the water levels in IMIS
discussed with officials of SCAWB and President of FOs. They were convinced
based on the analysis that farmers are applying approximately twice as much
water as needed.
Chowki Distributary was selected for detail evaluation using IMIS in association
with the Simulation of Irrigation Canal (SIC) hydrodynamics model. SIC was
48
used to evaluate the effectiveness of the physical infrastructures discussed in
5.9 to improve the operation and control the wastage of irrigation water due to
Six distributaries and minors (Table 3.I) of Maira Branch canal were selected
for evaluation the impact of irrigation management transfer turnover (IMT). The
The farm size and land tenure system has a major impact on the agricultural
development of the area, because the large farms have a comparatively higher
absorptive capacity for development than the small farms. In the study area, 50
the owners helped in formation of FOs as the land owners took more interest
distributaries 70 percent of the farmers have farm size less than 2 ha, 20
percent have farm size ranging from 2-4 ha and only 10 percent have farms of
4 to 10 ha.
49
Table 3.1 Salient features of selected distributaries.
Name of RD* Discharge GCA CCA Number of
No.
distributary (m) (m3s-1)
P
P
P
P
(ha) (ha) stakeholders
1 Yaqubi 19020 1.00 1546 1354 1153
2 Gumbad-II 35020 0.85 1373 1150 597
3 Qasim-II 41740 0.67 1013 911 330
4 Toru 43150 0.91 1437 1250 352
5 Chowki 44550 3.10 4580 4305 1485
6 Pirsabak 44550 2.39 3735 3181 1669
*RD - Reduced distance i.e. distance from the head or intake of canal. 1RD = 304.9 m (1000 feet)
The selected distributaries are equipped with head gate regulators. Crump’s
weirs are installed in the head reach of each distributary for monitoring the
which were used as reference points for measuring water levels to calibrate the
Crump’s weirs. Head discharge relations were developed at different flow levels
using area velocity method (measuring the cross section area of the canal at
selected section and determining the flow velocity through the cross section
distributaries. For all the distributaries the head discharge equations were
50
Table 3.2 Head discharge relations of selected distributaries.
Name of RD* Head (m) and Discharge(m3s-1)
No. R2
distributary (m) Relations
P
P
Q = 5.2*(3.281Hu+0.92)2.07
0.84
B B P
for Hu>0.19 m
1 Yaqubi 19020
B B
Q = 3.96*(Hu)1.5B P P 0.98
relations, daily water levels were observed which were converted into
discharges for the year 2007 (Figures 3.4 to 3.9). Frequency analyses of
discharge (percent of design discharge) are given in Table 3.3. The data shows
that annual closure of all the distributaries was for a period of seventy five days.
The period was more than the actual recommended period of one month. The
analysis of discharges shows that Gumbad-II Distributary draw more than 110
51
Table 3.3 Frequency analysis of discharges.
Distributaries Yaqubi Gumbad-II Qasim-II Toru Pirsabak Chowki
Percent of
design No. of Percent No. of Percent No. of Percent No. of Percent No. of Percent No. of Percent
discharges days of time days of time days of time days of time days of time days of time
>110 0 0 2 1 15 5 6 2 5 2 0 0
101-110 8 3 21 8 38 14 37 13 52 19 1 0
91-100 16 6 93 33 60 21 80 29 71 25 11 4
81-90 72 26 36 13 38 14 48 17 84 30 62 22
71-80 109 39 47 17 44 16 28 10 36 13 135 48
61-70 36 13 23 8 23 8 17 6 19 7 30 11
<60 39 14 58 21 62 22 64 23 13 5 41 15
280 100 280 100 280 100 280 100 280 100 280 100
1.20
Q d = 0.95 m3 s -1
1.00
Discharge (m3s-1)
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
4-May
12-May
20-May
28-May
7-Jul
15-Jul
23-Jul
31-Jul
4-Nov
12-Nov
20-Nov
28-Nov
5-Jun
13-Jun
21-Jun
29-Jun
8-Aug
16-Aug
24-Aug
3-Oct
11-Oct
19-Oct
27-Oct
1-Sep
9-Sep
17-Sep
25-Sep
1-Mar
9-Mar
17-Mar
25-Mar
2-Apr
10-Apr
18-Apr
26-Apr
6-Dec
14-Dec
22-Dec
30-Dec
Dates
52
3 -1
Discharge (m s ) Discharge (m3s-1)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1-Mar 1-Mar
9-Mar 9-Mar
17-Mar 17-Mar
25-Mar 25-Mar
2-Apr 2-Apr
10-Apr 10-Apr
18-Apr 18-Apr
26-Apr 26-Apr
4-May 4-May
12-May 12-May
20-May 20-May
28-May 28-May
5-Jun 5-Jun
13-Jun 13-Jun
21-Jun 21-Jun
29-Jun 29-Jun
7-Jul
7-Jul
15-Jul
15-Jul
23-Jul
53
23-Jul 31-Jul
3
3
31-Jul
Dates
Q d = 0.81 m s
8-Aug
Q d = 0.63 m s
Dates
-1
8-Aug
-1
16-Aug
16-Aug 24-Aug
24-Aug 1-Sep
1-Sep 9-Sep
9-Sep 17-Sep
17-Sep 25-Sep
25-Sep 3-Oct
3-Oct 11-Oct
11-Oct 19-Oct
19-Oct 27-Oct
27-Oct 4-Nov
4-Nov 12-Nov
28-Nov 6-Dec
6-Dec 14-Dec
14-Dec 22-Dec
22-Dec 30-Dec
30-Dec
3 -1
Discharge (m s ) Discharge (m3s-1)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
1-Mar 1-Mar
9-Mar 9-Mar
17-Mar 17-Mar
25-Mar 25-Mar
2-Apr 2-Apr
10-Apr 10-Apr
18-Apr 18-Apr
26-Apr 26-Apr
4-May 4-May
12-May 12-May
20-May 20-May
28-May 28-May
5-Jun 5-Jun
13-Jun 13-Jun
21-Jun 21-Jun
29-Jun 29-Jun
7-Jul 7-Jul
15-Jul 15-Jul
23-Jul
54
23-Jul
31-Jul 31-Jul
Dates
Dates
8-Aug 8-Aug
16-Aug 16-Aug
3
Q d = 0.88 m s
24-Aug 24-Aug
-1
1-Sep 1-Sep
3
Q d =2.24 m s
9-Sep 9-Sep
-1
17-Sep 17-Sep
25-Sep 25-Sep
3-Oct 3-Oct
11-Oct 11-Oct
19-Oct 19-Oct
Fig. 3.6 Observed discharges of Toru Distributary during 2007.
27-Oct 27-Oct
4-Nov 4-Nov
3.50
Q d = 3.07 m 3 s -1
3.00
Discharge (m s )
3 -1
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
4-May
12-May
20-May
28-May
1-Mar
9-Mar
17-Mar
25-Mar
4-Nov
6-Dec
12-Nov
20-Nov
28-Nov
14-Dec
22-Dec
30-Dec
2-Apr
10-Apr
18-Apr
26-Apr
5-Jun
13-Jun
21-Jun
29-Jun
8-Aug
16-Aug
24-Aug
1-Sep
9-Sep
17-Sep
25-Sep
7-Jul
15-Jul
23-Jul
31-Jul
3-Oct
11-Oct
19-Oct
27-Oct
Dates
Similarly Qasim-II draws more than 110 percent of design discharge for 15
less than 60 percent of design discharge for 62 days (22 percent of operation
time), whereas Toru draw less than 60 percent of design discharge respectively
for 64 days ( 23 percent of operation time). The Table 3.3 indicates that
Pirsabak distributaries at full supply level for 52 days (19 percent of operation
The Upper Swat Canal command area has cool, dry winter season from
55
10.0 100.0
Evaporation Rainfall
8.0 80.0
Evaporation (mmday-1)
Rainfall (mm)
6.0 60.0
4.0 40.0
2.0 20.0
0.0 0.0
Nov III
Jan III
July III
March III
May III
June II
Sept III
Nov I
Jan I
Feb II
April II
July I
Aug II
Oct II
Dec II
March I
May I
Sept I
Fig. 3.9 Evaporation and rainfall during growing period.
May to August is warm and humid with average day time temperature of 35 oC, P P
which may rise to maximum 41 oC in the month of June. The temperature starts P P
area varies from about 500 mm in the West to 1100 mm towards North-East.
About 75 percent of the total rainfall occurs within two distinct periods:
is shown in Fig. 3.9. The winter rain is mainly due to depressions moving East
across the region from the Middle East, while monsoon is in summer (June-
relative humidity, rainfall, wind speed and sunshine hours are required to
56
Table 3.4 Climatic data used for determination of evapotranspiration.
Climatic Station
Data Altitude: 315 m Latitude: 34.1/ N Longitude:72/ E
Climatic
Parameters Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Maximum Temp.
18.0 19.0 23.6 30.0 37.5 41.0 38.0 35.5 35.5 31.9 25.6 20.0
(°C)
Minimum Temp.
2.5 5.0 10.0 15.0 21.0 25.0 26.0 25.5 22.0 14.0 7.5 3.0
(°C)
Relative Humidity
71.0 67.0 69.5 59.5 45.0 40.0 62.0 70.0 62.5 63.0 73.0 76.0
(%)
Wind Speed
16.0 25.0 25.0 27.0 29.0 36.0 54.0 42.0 24.0 13.0 9.0 10.0
(km/day)
Sunshine (hours
8.0 9.0 9.5 10.5 12.0 13.0 10.5 10.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.0
per day)
Average Rainfall
35.0 47.0 80.0 35.5 21.0 20.0 127.0 133.0 42.0 13.0 18.5 24.0
(mm)
Effective Rainfall
10.8 19.9 40.5 12.1 3.5 7.0 75.5 79.3 16.6 0.0 1.2 4.5
(mm)
The data were obtained from Pakistan Air Force (PAF), Risalpur and Irrigation
Department, Swabi, weather station because both these stations are close to
the research site (Table 3.5). Long term rainfall records were collected from the
Data regarding the type of crop grown, cropping pattern, intensity, and crop
yield were obtained using structured interviews. Cropping pattern and intensity
influence the paying capacity of the farmers. The interviews were memory
based of the respondents as data for full crop year was collected in one sitting.
57
Thirty percent of the beneficiaries are selected from 40 percent of the outlets
Those watercourses were chosen having higher command area and number of
grown and cropping intensity, therefore sample size of 12 percent gives reliable
distributed as 20 percent from the head and 40 percent each from the middle
and tail respectively. The data collected was cross checked from reports and
58
3.4 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Different performance indicators have been developed that are often used to
water delivery capacity, delivery performance ratio and reliability have been
RWS measures the adequacy and is ratio of total water supply to the total water
demand at field level associated with the crops actually grown, with cultural
practices actually used for actual irrigated area (Levine 1982). The adequacy
indicator describes the extent to which the water demand of a system is met.
According to the definition total crop demand at field level includes consumptive
use and losses including non-beneficial ET, losses to drains and groundwater.
RWS is calculated at the intakes of the selected distributaries, which is the last
⎧ n=10 ⎫
⎪⎪ ∑ (Qa + Pe ) ⎪⎪
RWS = ⎨ n=n1=10 ⎬ ......................................................................................... (3.1)
⎪ ∑ ( ETc ) ⎪
⎪⎩ n=1 ⎪⎭
Where
Effective rainfall was determined using following relations (Eq. 3.2) suggested by
Abdulmumin et al. (1990) by considering climatic and soil factors for different arid
59
and sub humid climate, based on analysis of dependable rainfall (80 percent
Where
developed for calculation of ETc of crops using Eq. 3.3 for multiple crops on ten
B B
daily bases. The crop coefficient (Kc) values for different crops and growth
stages were obtained from Doorenbos and Pruitt (1984), Allen et al. (1998),
(1997).
⎧ ∑ K C * A Cropped ⎫
⎪ ⎪
ETC = ETo * K C = ETo * ⎨ 10 - days ⎬ .......................................................... (3.3)
⎪ ∑ (A Cropped ) ⎪
⎩ Total ⎭
Where
DPR is defined as the ratio of the actual discharge to the design discharge
60
1 ⎛ Qa ⎞
DPR = ∑ ⎜⎜ Q ⎟⎟ ........................................................................................ (3.4)
T n ⎝ d ⎠
Where,
Qa : Actual discharges delivered (m3s-1)
B B
Molden et al., (2007) discussed the characteristics of DPR (Eq. 3.4) classifying
enables the manger to determine the extent to which the water actually
delivered against the design discharge. The DPR (Eq. 3.4) allows for
instantaneous checking of whether discharges are more or less than the design
or target discharges.
and effectively as possible. The outlets are designed to provide the design
discharges based on full supply level (FSL) in the canal. Equitable distribution
of irrigation water is controlled by maintaining the canal water surface level for
The nominal range of the proportionality is 70 to 110 percent of the design flow.
61
offtakes (outlets), when incoming flows to the canal system are between 55 to
(outlets) increases.
Pakistan, it is logical to accept the minimum lower DPR of 0.7 and upper limit
in this study is: 0.9 ≤ DPR ≤ 1.1 good performance; 0.9 - 0.7 ≤ DPR ≤ 1.3-1.1
an essential condition for confidence building between AWB and FOs, and
indicates the ability of the system to deliver design supplies in a given time
span. It is considered essential for charging irrigation service fee and for
62
Molden and Gates (1990) defined the reliability (PD) as the degree of temporal
B B
variability in the ratio of amount delivered to the amount required over a region.
⎛ Qa ⎞ 1
∑ CV (DPR ) ……………………………............. (3.5)
1
PD = ∑ CV T
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = T
R R ⎝ Qd ⎠ R R
⎛Q ⎞
Where CVT ⎜⎜ a ⎟⎟ is temporal coefficient of variation (ratio of standard
⎝ Qd ⎠
irrigation supplies is good, whereas 0.10 ≤ CVT (DPR) ≤ 0.20 it is satisfactory and
B B
recent years. These tools are extensively used in irrigation and drainage
procedures.
63
and canal managers. It has been already used in many different countries:
France, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Burkina Faso, Mexico, Jordan, and Senegal. In
and Regulation Cell (Swat Canal Area Water Board) NWFP, Mardan. SIC is a
the canal, the software can be used to simulate the behaviour under various
operational scenarios and impact of legal and ill legal interventions on water
distribution. This model has good library of hydraulic structures and global
model on real systems. The SIC hydraulic model combines efficient numerical
collaboration with the engineers and managers partners of the SIC User's Club,
it fulfills most of the user's needs, as far as irrigation canals are concerned.
Based on the above attributes, SIC model was selected in the present study.
Application of model requires site specific field data collection to define and
64
and evaluate particular scenarios. The description of the model data input used
The input data is requirement for the study and unsteady states are the same.
Topographic survey of the Chowki Distributary was conducted during the closure
period of 2006-07. All data is given in Appendix Tables C-1 to CIII. The following
Hydraulic survey was conducted because the flows diverted to the offtakes are
There are 27 inline cross structures exist to control the discharge, were monitored
(width and crest elevation) and inserted as singular section in the model. Throat
width, sill elevation of twenty eight offtakes (Tables 3.6 and 3.7) were physically
65
measured and inserted as node in SIC model. Downstream boundary condition
for Chowki Distributary and its two minors were based on actual water levels and
discharge was feed as rating curve in the model. The inflow to the network is
considered as initial value and taken positive, whereas outflow on offtakes nodal
66
Table 3.7 Data of the Chowki Minors.
Bed
No
RD
Side Type
Offtake CCA qd B B
Bt
Level
CL
3 -1
(m) Structure (ha) (m s ) (mm) (m)
(m)
P P
P P
Chowki Minor -I
1 1060 L TRI 290 0.20 520 314.89 315.31
2 1060 R TRI 138 0.10 250 314.89 315.31
3 1060 L TRI 92 0.06 160 314.89 315.31
4 2430 L S BIF 337 0.24 570 306.09 306.37
5 2430 C S BIF 265 0.19 450 306.09 306.37
67
CHAPTER IV
SIMULATION OF IRRIGATION CANALS (SIC) MODEL
which can simulate the hydraulic behaviour of the irrigation canals, under
steady and unsteady flow conditions. The SIC model is an efficient tool allowing
is divided into a topographical unit and two separate computational units for
model is better than the other similar software (Contractor et al. 1993). The
Unit I is used to create the topography and geometry files to be further used by
the computational programs of Unit II and III. Unit I allow to input and verify
A main canal network is a water distribution system, which conveys water from
user groups via secondary and tertiary canals. The hydraulic modeling of such
a network needs to take into consideration the real canal topography in addition
68
to its geometric description. All the topographic components used by the model
The hydraulic network is divided into homogeneous sections, the reaches being
between reaches occur only at the nodes. One can create a different reach for
a lined canal zone (low roughness), and an unlined canal zone (high
roughness). The division into reaches does not influence the results of the
69
canal, they can be integrated within a reach and do not need any special
division. This approach facilitates the modeling of the hydraulic transition from
group of reaches serially linked to one another. The division into reaches and
Reaches are identified by their nodes. The position of a reach in the network is
entirely defined by the names of its upstream and downstream nodes. The
direction of flow is defined at the same time. The reaches constitute the arcs of
that graph, delineated by the nodes, upstream and downstream. They are
are input in the data file. The calculation of a water surface profile proceeds
70
4.1.3 Modification in Topographic Data File
The first option starts the EDITAL program. This program allows the user to
creates, modify or complete a topographic data file (.TAL). This file contains the
files are used by the other programs of unit I. Once in the data editor, the
topology is described the nodes are created by selecting in the Tools menu the
Node option and by clicking with mouse on the desired site. When nodes are
created, one must select the Reach option located on the same menu, then
click on the upstream node of the reach, and finally move the mouse and
unclick on the downstream node of the reach. The reach is then created and
oriented.
The inverse reach option permits to reverse the direction of the flow in
the reach.
The split reach option permits to divide one reach into two reaches with
a new intermediate node.
The merge reaches option permits to join two adjoining reaches and to
erase the intermediate node.
To erase a node or a reach, select in the Tools menu the option Erase
and click on the object to erase.
When reaches are described, they are displayed in blue if the coherence test is
TALWEG program checks the topographic data file (.TAL) and interpolates
cross calculation sections that are necessary for Units II and III files (.MIN),
71
(.GEO), (.TIT) and (.DIS). It is possible to start the program by selecting the
Geometry Computation option in the unit I. A window will then permit to the
user to select the topographic data file (.TAL) to be treated. The same (.TAL)
file name, with the (.MIN) extension, will automatically create the topographic
results file, with (.GEO) extension, to create the topographic result file
necessary for unit III of the unsteady flow, with (.LST) extension, create the
mistakes. At the end of this stage, the topographic files used by Units II and III
are created.
RESTAL program generates a (.LST) file that contains a table giving the
Numerical Results option in the main menu of Unit I. The printout files (.LST)
default.
Steady flow computations are carried out under Unit II. It allows analyzing the
72
given distribution plan and maintaining full supply depth targets upstream of
cross structures.
offtakes on the water surface. For cross structures, modify only gate openings
and targeted upstream water levels at gates and for offtakes, one can modify
This option Design Mode allows to modifying all the hydraulic parameters
The first option New permits to create a hydraulic data file (.FLU).
The second option Open permits to modify a hydraulic data file (.FLU).
The third option Verification permits to verify a hydraulic data file (.FLU)
and create the corresponding (.DON) file.
The fourth option ESC key permits to exit EDIFLU and return to the SIC
main menu.
calibration depends on the water levels measured along the canal and
73
discharges of the offtake. These calibration water levels are entered in the
same way as the reference levels. The calibration results are written in the
(.LST) file. The calibration option must be used, when offtakes switched to the
imposed discharge computation mode, since the discharges must have been
Unsteady flow computations are carried out under Unit III. It allows testing
various distributions plans at offtakes, and operations of main sluices and cross
is be possible to select the best way to achieve a new distribution plan among
the option Data Editor in the main menu of unit III Unsteady Flow. This program
74
permits to edit (.SIR) files used for unsteady flow calculations (Unit III).
Following five options are available and can be used in any order:
The SIC model does not handle advance on a dry bed, neither channel
window, indicating the type of error and the location where illicit flow conditions
are detected (e.g. dry bed) and the program stops. Supercritical flow is ignored
75
4.4.1 Computational Process
The SIC hydraulic model solves the complete Saint Venant equations. It uses
0.6. The time step can be selected from 0.01 to 999.99 minutes (default value
is 10 minutes). The distance step can be chosen by the user (default value is
200 meters). The gate opening operations can be described at each cross
structure and turnout. This can be done through the user-friendly interface or
Steady flow computations allow analyzing the water profile for any combination
computing the required settings of the offtakes and adjustable cross structures
in order to satisfy a given distribution plan and maintaining full supply depth
dH ⎛ qQ ⎞
= −Sf + (k − 1)* ⎜⎜ ⎟ ........................................................................(4.1)
2 ⎟
dx ⎝ gA ⎠
⎛ n 2Q 2 ⎞
and S f = ⎜ 2 4 / 3 ⎟ ........................................................................................(4.2)
⎜A R ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Where
g : Gravitational constant = 9.81 m.s-2 P
n : Manning coefficient
R : Hydraulic radius (m)
A : Cross section area (m2)
H : Total head (m)
q : Lateral inflow (q>0, k=0) or outflow (q<0, k=1), (m3.s-1) P
P
P
P
Sf
B B : Linear head losses (m2/3.s-2) P P P P
Q : Discharge (m3.s-1)
P P P P
76
To solve the equation an upstream boundary condition in term of discharge and
In addition, lateral flow and Manning roughness coefficient along the canal
upstream discharges and the downstream water elevation, the water surface
⎛ ∆X ij ⎞ ⎧⎪ V j Vi ⎪⎫ ⎛ S fi + S fj ⎞
(H j − H i ) − kq⎜
⎜ 2g
⎟
⎟ ⎨ − ⎬ + ⎜⎜ ⎟ ∗ ∆xij = 0 ..................................(4.3)
⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎪⎩ A j Ai ⎪⎭ ⎝ 2 ⎠
H i ( Z i ) = H j + ∆H ( Z i ) ....................................................................................(4.4)
⎜ gA 3 ⎟⎟ = 1 ,
⎝ i ⎠
and δ > 0 , subcritical solution, and δ < 0 supercritical solution, and water
elevation, and offtake are not usually located at supper critical locations and
therefore the calculation at these offtake is correct. If a solution does exist, one
approaches are adopted in SIC to solve the equations, with the aim of reducing
77
4.5.1 Loop Computation
The aim of the loop computation method is to use a two step approach, where
first upstream discharges for each reach are computed and then a standard
method is used to compute water profiles inside reaches. As in the case of the
and only the first order terms are kept. Once an initial state is known it is then
network.
Starting from an initial steady flow regime, it will be possible to select the best
way to achieve a new distribution plan among several options. The efficiency of
differential equations that describe flow in open channels. Two equations are
and momentum.
∂A ∂Q
+ = q ................................................................................................(4.5)
∂t ∂x
78
∂Q ∂ ⎛ Q2 ⎞ ⎛ ∂z ⎞
+ ⎜ ⎟ + g .A⎜ ⎟ = −(gA) ∗ S + K ∗ (qV ) .............................................(4.6)
∂t ∂x ⎜⎝ A ⎟ ⎜ ∂x ⎟ f
⎠ ⎝ ⎠
The partial differential equations must be completed by the initial and boundary
at the upstream nodes of the reaches and the rating curve at the downstream
node of the model. The initial condition is the water surface profile resulting
They are solved numerically by discretizing: the partial derivatives are replaced
by finite differences. The discretizing used in the SIC model is four point implicit
because the values of the variables at the unknown time step also appear (with
those of the known time step) in the expression containing spatial partial
derivatives.
79
The derivative ⎛⎜ ∂f ⎞⎟ and ⎛⎜ ∂f ⎞⎟ at point M is written as follows and are used to
⎝ ∂t ⎠ ⎝ ∂x ⎠
discretized Saint Venant’s equations.
⎛ ∂f ⎞ ⎛ f ′− f f ′− f ⎞
⎜ ⎟ = 1 2 ⎜ A A + B B ⎟ ......................................................................(4.7)
⎝ ∂t ⎠ M ⎝ ∆t ∆t ⎠
⎛ ∂f ⎞ ⎛ f i− f j ⎞
⎜ ⎟ = 1 2 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ......................................................................................(4.8)
⎝ ∂t ⎠ M ⎝ ∆t ⎠
⎛ ∂f ⎞ ⎛ fi − f j ⎞ ⎛ ∆f − ∆f i ⎞
⎜ ⎟ M = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + θ * ⎜⎜ j ⎟⎟ ........................................................(4.9)
⎝ ∂x ⎠ ⎝ ∆ x ⎠ ⎝ ∆ x ⎠
⎛ ∆x ⎞ ⎛ ∆x ⎞ ⎫
∆Qi − ⎜ ⎟Bi .∆Zi = ∆Qj + ⎜ ⎟Bj .∆Z j ⎪
⎝ 2θ.∆t ⎠ ⎝ 2θ.∆t ⎠ ⎪ ...........................................(4.10)
⎬
⎛ Qj − Qi ⎞ ⎛ ∆x ⎞
+ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − ⎜ ⎟(qi − q j ) ⎪
⎝ θ ⎠ ⎝ 2θ ⎠ ⎪⎭
When cross structures exist on the canal (singular section) the water surface
profile equation cannot be used locally to calculate the water surface elevation
devices in parallel, such as gates, weirs, etc. The hydraulic laws of the different
devices present in the section must be applied. The modeling of these devices
models. A distinction has been made between devices with a high sill elevation
80
are called Weir /Orifice and devices with a low sill elevation called Weir /
Q = µ F ∗ L ∗ 2 g (h1 ) .......................................(4.11)
1.5
Weir – Free flow
Q = (K F × µ F ) ∗ L ∗ 2 g (h1 )
1.5
Weir-Submerged flow ............................(4.12)
⎛ h2 ⎞
reduction coefficient is a function of ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ and the value of this ratio α at the
⎝ h1 ⎠
instant of the free flow to submerged flow transition are obtained when
⎛ h2 ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ > α = 0.75
⎝ h1 ⎠
equations. The flow at the section is equal to the sum of the discharges through
81
∑ f (Z − Z j ) = Q .........................................................................................(4.13)
n
k i
k =1
Where n is the number of devices in the section and Q the flow at the section.
submerged weir:
( )
fk (Zi , Zj ) = µ ∗L ∗ 2g ∗ (Zi − Zj ) ∗ (Zj − Zd ) ............................................(4.14)
If the discharge and the downstream elevation Zj are known, the water surface B B
4.7.2 Regulator
At each singular section, in steady flow calculation, one particular gate can be
chosen to play the role of a regulator. Instead, the model will compute the
gate opening is unknown and maximum possible opening and the target water
elevation (e.g. Full Supply Depth) upstream of the gate is known. This results in
following type:
Q = ∑ f k (Z i , Z j ) = f r (Z i , Z j , W ) ..................................................................(4.15)
n
k =1
Where
82
f k (Z i , Z j ) : The discharge going through the fixed gate number k for the target
upstream water elevation Zi and the downstream water elevation Zj. The
B B
equations considered are those described for the weirs and the gates.
opening W and the target upstream water elevation Zi. The f k (Z i , Z j ) are
B
then has to look for the zero of a function, but this time, the unknown is W.
are obligatorily located at nodes (Fig. 4.5). Under steady flow conditions, SIC
can compute the real offtake discharge corresponding to a given offtakes gate
83
The offtakes are modeled according to the same hydraulic laws as for cross
Q( Z 2 ) = µ * L * 2 g * (Z 2 − Z D )
1.5
.......................................................(4.16)
Q ( Z 2 ) = Qo * ⎜⎜ 2 ⎟⎟ ..................................................................(4.17)
⎝ (Z o − Z D ) ⎠
Some performance indicators have been incorporated for the evaluation of the
water delivery efficiency at the offtakes. They allow integrating the information
on water delivery, either at a single offtake or at all the offtakes. There are two
The supply volume (VS) which is the volume supplied at the offtakes,
B B
The effective volume (VEF), which is really the usable part of the supply
B B
volume.
84
The definition of the effective volume depends on two coefficients: W and X (in
percent).Only the supply discharge close to the water demand is thus taken
⎛ w ⎞ ⎛ x ⎞ ⎫
If ⎜1 − ⎟.QD ≤ QS ≤ ⎜1 + ⎟.QD ⇒ QEF = QS ⎪
⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎪
⎛ w ⎞ ⎪ ....................................(4.18)
If QS < ⎜1 − ⎟.QD ⇒ QEF = 0 ⎬
⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎪
⎛ x ⎞ ⎛ x ⎞ ⎪
If QS > ⎜1 + ⎟.QD ⇒ QEF = ⎜1 + ⎟.QD ⎪
⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎭
The total effective volume (VEF) over a period of time T is given by following
B B
Equation (4.20):
T
V EF = ∫ Q EF dt ..........................................................................................(4.19)
0
85
Adequacy: indicator measures the performance of the scheme in terms of
adequacy for offtakes between the head inlet and the target delivery point.
⎛V ⎞ ⎧ 1 T ⎫
Adequacy = ⎜⎜ EF ⎟⎟ = ⎨ ∫ Q EF dt ⎬ .................................................................... (4.20)
⎝ VD ⎠ ⎩VD 0 ⎭
point within the targeted period of time, to the volume issued from the main
supply (Vs). The effective volume (VEF) is computed with restriction to the
B B
T2
⎛V ⎞ ⎧ 1 T2 ⎫
E op = ⎜⎜ EF ⎟⎟ = ⎨ ∫ Q EF dt ⎬ .................................................................................. (4.22)
⎝ VS ⎠ ⎩ V S T1 ⎭
⎛V ⎞ ⎛V Vs ⎞
DPR = ⎜⎜ S ⎟⎟ = ⎜⎜ EF × ⎟⎟ ................................................................... (4.23)
⎝ VD ⎠ ⎝ VD V EF ⎠
The time indicator is define TD as the total period of time during which the
B B
demand discharge is non-zero and TEF as the total period of time during which
86
delivery of the effective volume with that of the demand volume. This indicator
have any significance for all the offtakes taken together. Baume et al. (2005)
define two time lags i.e. ∆T1 , ∆T2 . ∆T1 is the time separating the start of the
water demand and the start of the effective discharge. This time is positive if
the effective discharge arrives after the demand discharge (Figure 4.7).
Where ∆T2 , is the time lag between the centers of gravity of the demand and
the effective delivery hydrograph. All these indicators are defined for each
offtake. They can be calculated for any particular period of the simulation that
the user wants to focus on. The effective duration of the delivery at tail (TEF) isB B
the total duration for which discharge is above the minimum limit. The indicator
duration (TD).
B B
87
Chapter V
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
exists to provide necessary feedback on the status of the system. The irrigation
operators of the irrigation system. The IMIS is helpful tool for monitoring the
performance indicators.
Land, water and climate play an important role in selection of crops. Agro-
climatic conditions of the study area are suitable for year round cultivation.
significantly with assured and adequate irrigation water supplies. The irrigation
supplies not only influence the cropping pattern but use of inputs is directly
88
interviewing the farmers and it was confirmed by walking along the
cropping intensity of 170 percent (Table 5.1). Pre IMT data show 145 percent
Table 5.1 Pre and post IMT annual cropping intensities in the study area.
Summer Season Winter Season
Intensity (%) Intensity (%)
Planting Planting
Crop Days Pre Post Crop Days Pre Post
Date Date
IMT IMT IMT IMT
21-Jun 110 25 20 15-Oct 120 25 30
Maize Wheat
11-Jul 120 20 15 11-Nov 120 20 20
15-Feb 120 5 7 Sugar beet 1-Oct 210 2 7
Tobacco
1-Mar 120 5 6
Sugarcane 1-Oct 360 9 15 Sugarcane 1-Oct 360 9 15
Orchard 1-Oct 360 5 5 Orchard 1-Oct 360 5 5
Vegetables 1-Nov 2 5 Vegetables 31-Oct 3 5
1-Apr 120 1 2 Oil Seed 1-Oct 210 1 1
Fodder
1-Jun 120 1 2 Fodder 1-Sep 195 1 4
Other 1-Apr 185 2 3 Other 1-Sep 120 4 3
Total 75 80 Total 70 90
The principal crops grown in the study areas are wheat and sugarcane. Wheat
is the main cereal crop that is sown from the 2nd week of October to last week
planting seasons: winter (October) and summer (February). It is the main cash
crop. October planting is for safeguarding the buds of the seedling cane from
89
frost and extends the growing period to achieve higher production. According to
farmers, the sugarcane planted in the area is intercropped with wheat and
sugar beets in winter and with tobacco in the summer. The normal growing
grown, soil and weather conditions. Farmers applied light and frequent
Tobacco is another important cash crop and it is planted from 15th November to
P P
15th December on nursery beds. The seedlings are then manually transplanted
P P
in the fields from 15th February to 15th March and harvested during June. The
P P P P
Tobacco is mainly virginia varieties (Spade and Kokar) supplied by the tobacco
and second after one week to ten days interval. Maize is the main summer
cereal crop and its present cropping intensity is 35 percent. The maize crop is
mostly sown by traditional method of broadcasting from 15th July to 15th August.
P
P
P
P
This results in a thick population which is then thinned. The plants removed are
used for fodder and remaining plants are allowed to mature for grain.
grain yield.
90
5.2 RELATIVE WATER SUPPLY
The primary objectives before irrigation management turn over were equity of
not significant objective as system was operated under supply based. After IMT
and modernization of Maira Branch of Upper Swat Canal, the irrigation system
potential demand. This enables the system manger to adjust the gate and
understanding of how farmers behave. The RWS of 2.0 means that twice as
much water is available than required, then the farmers are naturally relaxed in
managing water distribution. As RWS reached to 1.0, there need for more
required to let every farmers have their faire share. The relative water supply
(RWS) index was determined for the ease of analysis on 10-daily bases i.e.
looking average condition of 10-days period throughout the year (Fig. 5.1 to
5.6). This approach smoothes out the curve and ignores the small fluctuations
in discharges. RWS on monthly basis is also shown in (Table 5.2) for overview.
91
procedure is adopted to measure the adequacy of irrigation supplies and to
know how farmers are actually irrigating their land. It is evident from Table 5.2
that the RWS values was very high during the months of November and
The situation was confirmed by interviews and discussions with the farmers. It
tertiary level are not practiced strictly and mostly farmers do not irrigate at night
time.
6.0
5.0
Relative Water Supply
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
March II
Oct I
Oct III
Dec I
Dec III
Jan II
Feb I
Feb III
May II
June I
June III
Aug I
Aug III
Sept II
July II
Nov II
April III
April I
92
Relative Water Supply Relative Water Supply
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Oct I Oct I
Oct III Oct III
Nov II Nov II
Dec I Dec I
Dec III Dec III
Jan II Jan II
Feb I Feb I
Feb III Feb III
93
March II March II
April I April I
April III April III
May II May II
June I June I
June III June III
July II July II
Aug I Aug I
Sept II Sept II
Relative Water Supply Relative Water Supply
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Oct I Oct I
Oct III Oct III
Nov II Nov II
Dec I Dec I
Jan II Jan II
Feb I Feb I
94
March II March II
April I April I
May II May II
Fig. 5.4 Relative water supply of Toru Distributary.
June I June I
July II July II
Aug I Aug I
Sept II Sept II
6.0
5.0
Relative Water Supply
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Nov II
June III
Oct III
Dec III
Jan II
Feb III
April III
July II
Aug III
March II
May II
June I
Sept II
Oct I
Dec I
Feb I
April I
Aug I
Fig. 5.6 Relative water supply of Chowki Distributary.
Water delivery pattern is not related to ETo (Appendix Fig. B-3 and B-4). In the
early part of the year during the months of Jan to March-II because the
irrigation system was closed for annual repair and farmers rely only on rainfall.
Whereas, From March II to June III, irrigation deliveries exceed the ETo, this
meant that there is excess water in the system. Irrigation deliveries only match
The RWS values for the months of March to October were between 2.00 to
2.70, and during November and December, the values increased further (3.80
yield. The RWS graphs for the selected distributaries clearly indicate that
almost all the distributaries the supply take place based on similar pattern,
95
Table 5.2 Monthly average RWS of selected distributaries.
Distributary Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Average
Yaqubi 2.41 4.05 4.90 0.25 0.35 1.47 1.57 1.62 1.51 2.19 1.77 1.27 1.95
Gumbt-II 3.02 4.53 5.69 0.25 0.35 1.44 2.31 2.24 1.92 2.19 1.79 1.66 2.28
Qasim-II 2.73 3.94 4.24 0.25 0.34 1.85 1.68 1.75 1.68 1.78 1.76 1.40 1.95
Toru 2.83 4.10 5.09 0.26 0.35 2.18 1.81 1.32 1.61 2.32 1.79 1.44 2.09
Pirsabak 2.43 4.12 5.67 0.26 0.34 2.08 1.60 1.65 1.40 2.23 1.84 1.28 2.08
Chowki 2.23 3.80 5.19 0.25 0.36 2.01 1.69 1.95 1.64 2.42 1.92 1.23 2.06
The Fig. 5.1 to 5.6 indicate that at the beginning of the Winter season RWS is
more than 2.00, thus permitting farmers to irrigate only day time and divert
irrigation water to drain during the night to avoid night irrigation. These results
indicate that moderate efforts are needed to bring the water supply closer to
The delivery performance ratios (DPR) for the selected distributaries were
calculated and the results are shown in Figures 5.7 to 5.12. Monthly average
DPRs are given in Table 5.3. The average DPR varied from 0.78 to 0.83 during
96
1.20 0.50
0.80
CVT(DPR)
0.30
0.60
DPR
0.20
0.40 CV T (DPR)
0.10
0.20
0.00 0.00
March III
Oct I
Oct III
Dec I
Dec III
May I
June II
May III
Aug II
Sept I
Sept III
July III
July I
Nov II
April II
1.20 0.30
Delivery Performance Ratio
1.00
0.80 0.20
CVT(DPR)
CV T(DPR)
0.60
DPR
0.40 0.10
0.20
0.00 0.00
March III
Oct I
Oct III
Dec I
Dec III
May I
May III
June II
Aug II
Sept I
Sept III
July I
July III
Nov II
April II
97
1.20 0.70
0.60
Delivery Performance Ratio
1.00
DPR 0.50
0.80
CVT(DPR)
0.40
0.60 CVT(DPR)
0.30
0.40
0.20
0.20 0.10
0.00 0.00
Oct I
Oct III
Dec I
Dec III
March III
May I
May III
June II
Aug II
Sept I
Sept III
July I
July III
Nov II
April II
1.20 0.60
Delivery Performance Ratio
1.00 0.50
CVT(DPR)
0.80 0.40
0.40 0.20
0.20 0.10
0.00 0.00
Oct I
Oct III
Dec I
Dec III
March III
May I
May III
June II
Aug II
Sept I
Sept III
July I
July III
Nov II
April II
98
1.20 0.40
CVT(DPR)
0.60 CV T(DPR) 0.20
DPR
0.40
0.10
0.20
0.00 0.00
Oct I
Oct III
Dec I
Dec III
March III
May I
May III
June II
Aug II
Sept I
Sept III
July I
July III
Nov II
April II
1.20 0.50
Delivery Performance Ratio
1.00
0.40
0.80
CVT(DPR)
0.30
0.60
CVT(DPR)
DPR 0.20
0.40
0.10
0.20
0.00 0.00
Oct I
Oct III
Dec I
Dec III
March III
May I
May III
June II
Aug II
Sept I
Sept III
July I
July III
Nov II
April II
99
It is evident from the figures that all the distributaries irrespective of their
The traditional operation mode of running the main canal at or near the full
supply level and making necessary reduction in deliveries during the period of
except in January and February when system was closed for annual
maintenance.
The DPR values for March and April are low because after the annual closure,
If the discharge is more or less constant, than there will be low coefficient of
variation (CVT(DPR)), this implies that the farmers are confident abut the
B B
discharges they can expect. The Low CVT(DPR) mean that discharge
B B
plan their irrigation application and water distribution among themselves and to
different fields.
The temporal CVT (DPR) is low i.e. < 0.2 are considered satisfactory and
B B
100
The Figures 5.7 to 5.12 shows that CVT(DPR) is in acceptable range during
B B
deliveries and the irrigation supplies are reliable and dependable in all the
The CVT(DPR) are high in Toru Distributary in November, December and July
B B
system due to heavy rains. The analyses of data indicate that high CVT(DPR) is
B B
The variations in discharges are only due to intervention of SCAWB and reflect
Yaqubi 0.76 0.78 0.75 0.27 0.62 0.79 0.84 0.82 0.81 0.79 0.72
Gumbt-II 0.81 0.73 0.74 0.32 0.73 0.87 0.87 0.70 0.69 0.88 0.73
Qasim-II 0.91 0.79 0.66 0.39 0.70 0.93 1.02 0.66 0.80 0.89 0.78
Toru 0.84 0.72 0.72 0.41 0.67 0.64 0.89 0.86 0.76 0.84 0.74
Pirsabak 0.79 0.79 0.83 0.47 0.68 0.89 0.85 0.88 0.81 0.78 0.78
Chowki 0.78 0.62 0.82 0.34 0.60 0.88 0.84 0.86 0.81 0.77 0.73
101
Table 5.4 Reliability of irrigation supplies of selected distributaries.
Distributary Oct Nov Dec Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Average
Yaqubi 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.09 0.08 0.12
Gumbt-II 0.11 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.08 0.1 0.24 0.13 0.14 0.12
Qasim-II 0.20 0.15 0.18 0.06 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.47 0.22 0.14 0.18
Toru 0.05 0.30 0.36 0.07 0.29 0.36 0.24 0.30 0.21 0.08 0.23
Pirsabak 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.22 0.10 0.07 0.14 0.06 0.08 0.10
Chowki 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.27 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.07 0.09
The yields of major crops were determined from the field data collected through
the farmers’ interviews of the Chowki and Pirsabak Distributaries (Table 5.5
and 5.6). Average yield of maize, tobacco, sugarcane and wheat was 1.7, 1.5,
40 and 3.5 tons per ha respectively on the Chowki Distributary whereas the
yield of the same crops were 1.5, 2, 38 and 3.3 tons per ha respectively at the
other Pirsabak Distributary after the IMT. There is significant increase in yield
of maize (40 percent), sugarcane (55 percent) and wheat (43 percent). The
Table 5.5 Pre and post IMT crop yields (ton.ha-1) of Chowki Distributary
P
P
Average
Location Head Middle Tail Percentage
Post IMT Pre IMT
yield
Yield
Sample Size (35) (68) (68) (171) increase
Maize 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.2 41.0
Tobacco 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 0.0
Sugarcane 39.0 44.0 38.0 40.3 26.0 55.0
Wheat 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.5 2.5 40.0
102
Table 5.6 Pre and post IMT crop yields (ton.ha-1) of Pirsabak Distributary
P P
The revenue expenditure gap of the irrigation system in Pakistan has been
consistently increasing at a relatively high rate over the past many years.
practices well documented by Wade (1982). After IMT, FOs collects the
assessed ISF (Abiana) from the irrigators and retained 40 percent of the
recovered amount for operation and maintenance of the irrigation system, while
In Pakistan Irrigation Service Fee (ISF) is levied on the type of the crops, grown
on the basis of area sown under each crop. Table 5.7 indicates that all the FOs
performed well during the Ist year (2004-05) of IMT and recovered 60 percent of
the assessed ISF except Toru and Pirsabak distributaries. But during 2005-06,
the ISF collection was very low (Tables 5.8 and 5.9). FOs has legal power to
is defaulter for two seasons but due to social setup such actions are difficult to
103
initiate by the FOs. If existing situation prevails, the self sufficiency of Toru and
farmers for paying the irrigation charges may be helpful to encounter the
situation.
Analysis of net income received from different crop production per hectare
revealed that sugarcane is the most profitable crop followed by the wheat. The
whereas ISF (Abiana) for both the crops are Rs. 3084 and Rs. 459 respectively
(Appendix Tables XIII and XIV). The smallest land holding in the area is 1.5
ha. Apparently, there is no financial constraint and hindrance in paying the ISF
(Abiana). Thus it can be argued that farmers are not willing to pay the ISF
(Abiana).
Table 5.7 ISF assessed and recovered before IMT (million Rupees).
Season Year Toru Chowki Qasim-II Pirsabak Gumbad-II Yaqubi
Rabi 2001-02 0.209 1.19 0.17 0.792 0.174 0.247
Kharif 2002 0.581 1.446 0.428 0.126 0.405 0.821
104
Table 5.8 ISF (Abiana) assessed after IMT (Million Rs.).
Year Toru Chowki Qasim-II Pirsabak Gumbad-II Yaqubi
distributary falls in the Jagannath sub division jurisdiction. SDO Jagannath, with
consultation of FOs assess the crop water demand based on cropping pattern
workout the indent. The accumulated requirements of all the distributaries are
for onward submission to SCAWB for receiving water share from FIDA.
105
Releases are governed by the indents, availability of water and share of the
were practiced before the IMT and under British colonial period. Water
pattern.
The distributary operations regulate the whole delivery system and especially
play key role in farm operation. Fig. 5.13 shows that distributary head regulator
is not operated in response to the demand. During the rainfall events and
period of low demand, i.e. Mid March-April and in November, the farmers
and the only choice left with FOs is to reduce discharge at the head.
3.5
3.0
2.5
Discahrge (m s )
3 -1
Design Discharge
2.0
1.5
1.0
Supplied Discharges Demand Discharges
0.5
0.0
7-May
21-May
5-Nov
19-Nov
8-Oct
22-Oct
12-Mar
26-Mar
9-Apr
23-Apr
3-Dec
17-Dec
31-Dec
15-Jan
29-Jan
12-Feb
26-Feb
18-Jun
1-Jan
4-Jun
2-Jul
16-Jul
30-Jul
13-Aug
27-Aug
10-Sep
24-Sep
106
Closing of main canal system is directly linked with heavy rainfall. The AWB
and Regulation Cell decide to close the entire system from the head work, if
supply better matches to the actual demand. This type of operation can be
approach gives close look to the distributary operation and utility of the
Fig. 5.14 reveals that the water deliveries pattern is not related to
closed due to annual maintenance. From 15th March till to the 30th June
P
P
P
P
107
However, after September the evapotranspiration fell below 5 mm day-1 while
The analysis shows that during post IMT, there is no significant evidence of
deliveries. The traditional mode of running the distributary at or near the full
14.0
Irrigation Deliveries (mm day per CCA)
12.0
10.0
-1
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
May I
May III
March I
March III
Nov I
Nov III
July I
July III
Sept III
Aug II
Sept I
Jan I
Jan III
April II
Feb II
June II
Oct II
Dec II
The existing operation pattern suggests that there is considerable potential for
During the canal closure period the crop use water from the moisture stored in
root zone. The root zone moisture is supplemented by the rainfall during
108
January, February. Also during this period evapotranspiration demand of the
crop is less because most of the crops are in early growth stages.
Model calibration is the processes of comparing the model prediction for a given
set of conditions with observed data for the same condition. A model is
other than that used in calibrating the model. It involves checking the model
results against observed data and adjusting parameters until result fall within
the acceptable range of error. The statistical evaluation is essential and provides
discharges and water levels are consistent and agree reasonably well with the
observed values.
The calibration period is the portion of the period of study and is selected because
it represents the operation in the average sense. The data used for calibration of
the model in steady state condition consist of a set of water levels at crests of
bifurcators, trifurcators and open flumes for 100, 80 , 70 and 60 percent of design
discharges on 11th and 18th April, 28th April to 30th April, 4th and 6th June, 12th and
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
used in model calibration are given in Table 5.10. After calibration of the model
for typical situations observed in the field, the model was validated with another
109
The coefficient of discharge for open flume in calibration and validation of SIC
outlets) are Crump’s weir with splitter wall to divide the flow in proportion to the
irrigated area served by each offtake and the downstream parent channel. The
coefficient of discharge for Crump’s weir used in calibration and validation of SIC
model was used 1.131 < Cd <1.149. The model generated output data i.e. water
depth and discharges at offtakes, were compared with the actual observed
value at full supply level (FSL) and design discharge. Fig. 5.15 shows the
110
360.00
350.00
340.00
Elevation (m)
330.00
320.00
310.00
300.00
290.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
. 70 80
RD- Hundrad (m)
FSL Design (m) FSL Simulated (m) Bed Level
The difference between the observed and simulated water levels ranged
1.00
0.80
Discharge (m s )
Simulated Discharge
3 -1
0.60
Observed Discharge
0.40
0.20
0.00
260
309
819
987
1867
1877
2063
2795
2795
2970
4289
4289
5510
5930
6185
6185
6890
7622
7622
111
5.7.1 Model Evaluation Statistics (Error Index)
The mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE) and means
biased error (MBE) are commonly used in model evaluation. These indices are
valuable because they indicate error in the same units as of the data, which
aids in analysis of the results (Moriasi et al., 2007). The above indices were
⎡1 n ⎤
( )
MAE = ⎢ ∑ Q ot − Q st ⎥ ................................................................................... (5.1)
⎣ n t =1 ⎦
0 .5
⎡1 n ⎤
RMSE = ⎢ ∑ Q ot − Q st ( )
2
⎥ ............................................................................ (5.2)
⎣ n t =1 ⎦
MBE =
1 n
∑
n t =1
( )
Q ot − Q st ........................................................................................ (5.3)
Zero values of the MAE, RMSE and MBE indicate a perfect fit. Model
procedure for model comparison; but they do not indicate objectively whether
statistic) can be used to be compared and at the same time can indicate
level. The t-statistic defined through the MBE and RMSE errors are more
⎛ ⎞
⎜d −d ⎟ ⎡ ( N − 1)( MBE ) 2 ⎤ 0.5
t=⎜ o
⎟=⎢ 2 ⎥
................................................................ (5.4)
⎜⎜ s d ⎟⎟ ⎣ ( RMSE ) − ( MBE ) ⎦
2
⎝ n ⎠
112
The critical t value is obtained from standard statistical tables (Walpole and
Myers, 1999), i.e. tα / 2 , depends on the level of significance ( α ) and the degree
than the critical t value. For present study the significance level was chosen to
measured data variance, using Equation 5.5 (Nash and Sutcliffe 1970). It is a
model simulation can be judge satisfactory if NSE >0.50. The values less than
values because it squares the values of paired differences (Harmel and Patricia
2007).
⎧ n ⎫
(
⎪⎪ ∑ Q o − Q s
t t
)
2
⎪⎪
NSEC = 1 − ⎨ in=1 ⎬ ......................................................................... (5.5)
(
⎪ ∑ Q ot − Q o
⎪⎩ i =1
) 2
⎪
⎪⎭
Where Qot is observed discharges, and Qst is simulated discharges at any time t,
113
5.7.3 Percent Bias (PBIAS)
Percent bias (PBIAS) measures the average tendency of the simulated data to
be and it is computed by Equation (5.6) (Moriasi et al. 2007). PBIAS has the
ability to clearly indicate poor model performance. The optimal value of PBIAS
⎧ n n
⎫
⎪⎪ ∑Q t
o − ∑ Q st ⎪
⎪
PBIS = ⎨100 × t =1
n
t =1
⎬ ......................................................................... (5.6)
⎪
⎪⎩ ∑
t =1
Q t
o
⎪
⎪⎭
Tables 5.11 and 5.12 present the results of statistical parameters at different
apparent from these tables that the values of all the statistical parameters are
Table 5.11 Calculated values of different statistical parameters for model calibration.
Percent PBIAS
MAE RMSE MBE NSEC t calculated t (0.005, 18)
of Qd (%)
100 0.022 0.0359 0.0141 0.96 -9.83 1.806* 2.878
Table 5.12 Calculated values of different statistical parameters for model validation.
Percent PBIAS
MAE RMSE MBE NSEC t calculated t (0.005, 18)
of Qd (%)
90 0.022 0.0364 0.0148 0.95 -11.44 1.881* 2.878
114
Table 5.11 presents the results of statistical analysis at 100, 80, and 70 percent of
the design discharge (Qd) simulated discharge for calibration whereas model is
validated (Table 5.12) for 90, 85 and 60 percent of the design discharge (Qd). The
MAE ranged between 0.022 to 0.021 for different flow rates. Whereas MBA
ranged 0.014 to 0.0154 m3s-1 for calibration and validation. The statistical
analysis indicates that results are satisfactory for all the considered discharges.
The PBIAS varies between -10 percent to -17 percent. The model performance is
considered good if ±10 ≤ PBIAS (Percent) ≤ ±15. The NSEC values for different
percent of design discharge lies between 0.89 to 0.96. The model performance is
considered good as 0.75 ≤ NSEC ≤ 1.00. The observed and simulated mean
student’s t-test, since the computed values (Table 5.11 and 5.12) are lower than
the critical t( 0.005, 18) values. The SIC model estimate for discharge of outlet
The present effort by the government to introduce the IMT at distributary level is
to improve the water delivery through out the canal system in accordance with the
plans to facilitate the productive use of water for agricultural production, income
generation and social well being of the farmers and their families. On day-to-day
basis, the SCAWB is concerned with appropriate water distribution among the
distributaries whereas the FOs are concerned with the actual distribution among
115
the offtakes and water distribution among the farmers. The design of the physical
infrastructure, its location on the system and point of control and distribution
(SCAWB and FOs) to a great extent. Murray-Rust and Snellen (1993) termed
(the flow entering the system is divided by mean of overflow Crump’s weirs:
operational inputs. The fixed proportional bifurcators, trifurcators and open flumes
proportional to the irrigated land. The system provides less opportunity to farmers
to control over irrigation water, and it is only possible at the head of distributary.
The existing water distribution pattern of Chowki Distributary and its two minors
ratio of the rate of change of offtake discharge (dq:q) to the change of discharge
(dQ:Q) in parent distributary. The head discharge relations for distributary and
116
head. Differentiating the head discharge equations with respect to H cu and H wn
⎞ ⎡ nαH w ⎤
n −1
⎛ dq
⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥
⎜ q ⎟ ⎢ αH wn ⎥ n ⎛ H c ⎞
F= = = ⎜ ⎟ ............................................................... (5.7)
⎜ dQ ⎟ ⎢ uβH u −1 ⎥ u ⎜ H ⎟
⎜ ⎝ w ⎠
Q ⎟⎠ ⎢ βH u ⎥
c
⎝ ⎣ c ⎦
If F=1, then the variation at the head of the canal is transmitted proportionally
throughout the system; for F < 1, Variation at the head of canal is exaggerated in
the tail end offtakes; and for F >1, the variation at the head of the canal are
exaggerated in upper offtakes and minimized at the tail of the irrigation system.
The flexibility analysis of open flume outlets at different locations (RD-260, RD-
1877 and RD-6890) reveals that all these structures are behaving as hyper
proportional (Fig. 5.17). The open flumes are traditionally designed to deliver the
design discharges (Qd), if the sill of the flume is at 0.9 times the designed water
depth. The optimum crest setting of outlets is based on prevailing theories (Ali
1993) to pass the silt proportionally between the offtaking outlets and the parent
the distributaries, and open flumes are recommended for middle and tail reaches.
117
In Chowki Distributary, FIDA installed the ASOM at RD-260 at crest level of
335.04 m having 0.11 m height of roof block with throat width of 0.11 m. The
removed the roof block and structure behaved as Open Flume and yielded 0.08
m3s-1 i.e. 231 percent more than the design discharge. Detail analysis reveled
P
P
P
P
that at this location ASOM is the best option. To construct an Open Flume, the
throat width should be 34 mm and crest level at 354.86 m. But the design theories
do not permit throat with less than 60 mm. Similar situation was encountered at
RD-6890, where open flume can be installed but due to design limitation an
ASOM was constructed, which was changed by the farmers to open flume.
300
Percent of Design Discharge at Open Flumes
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Percent of Design Discharge in Canal
118
The open flume at RD-2603 is also behaving hyper proportional (Fig. 5.17), but it
the design discharge, the throat width have to be reduced to 40 mm, but
technically the width less than 60 mm creates problem of choking due to debris.
It could be redesigned and replaced as ASOM width throat with and roof block
height as 110 mm with the same crest level, delivering the design discharge at full
Analysis of data indicate the head bifurcators at RDs (L-819, L-987, L-2930M: 1
proportional and tail bifurcators at RDs. (L-7622 and R-7622) are sub-
proportional. Similarly Fig. 5.19 indicates that out of nine trifurcators, three at RDs
proportional.
close to full supply level, aimed at moving from traditional protective irrigation to
productive irrigation after IMT and consequently the offtakes and secondary
minors will draw more or less constant discharge, if the distributary is operated
119
basic advantage of this type of system designed is that it needs minimum
managerial inputs as long as the FOs checked the upstream water level at the
intake Crump’s weir and ensures that it is within the designed range, then offtakes
will deliver the intended discharges. The system is flexible and required minimum
150
Perecent of Design Discharges of Bifercators
100
50
0
0 50 100 150
Percent of Design Discharge in Canal
BIF(L-819) BIF(L-987) BIF(L-2795) BIF(R-2795)
BIF(R-6185) BIF(L-7622) BIF(R-7622) BIF(L-2430M:I)
BIF(C-2430M:I) BIF(M-1829M:II) BIF(R-1829M:II)
The critical design elements of the bifurcators, trifurcators and open flumes are
throat width, crest elevation and water surface elevation. The loss of
implementation of the design dimensions has been carried out with insufficient
120
150
50
0
0 50 100 150
Percent of Design Discharge in Canal
On the other hand as Crump’s weir is an over flow type of structure, discharge of
total head available above the crest of the weir. Consequently the Crump’s weir is
more sensitive to the value of H. This is also discussed by Shanan (1992), Horst
(1998). The BIF at RDs (L-819, L-987,L-2430M:1 and C-2430M:1) are considered
as fully proportional as 0.85 < F <1.15. The BIF at RDs (L-2795, R-2795, R-6185,
1825M:2 and 1829M2) are hyper-proportional as 1.15 < F <1.30 while BIF at
RDs. (L-7622 and R-7622) are fairly sub-proportional as 0.70 < F < 0.85. The
loss of proportionality is due the difference in designed the water levels and actual
regulated water level at the weir crest. The two trifurcators RDs (L-4289 and R-
121
The loss of proportionality creates an environment in which hydraulic
3.0
2.5
Delivery Performance Ratio
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
TRI-4289R
TRI-1060R
BIF-1825M
TRI-4289L
TRI-5930L
TRI-6185L
TRI-1060L
TRI-1060L
TRI-919L
TRI-945L
OF-309R
OF-1877R
OF-2063R
BIF-2795R
OF-2970R
OF-5510R
BIF-6185R
BIF-7622R
BIF-2430C
BIF-1829R
OF-260L
BIF-819L
BIF987L
OF-1867L
BIF-2795L
OF-6890L
BIF-7622L
BIF-2430L
The Fig. 5.20 shows mixed pattern of DPR. Horst (1990) argues that turnover of
technology.
122
5.9 SIC AS DECISION SUPPORT TOOL FOR MANUAL OPERATION
OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM
and distribution; it refers to the hydraulic reaction in the canal pools which
results from control actions. Operations are also the routine actions taken to
state of water surface profile in the system and to prevent overtopping at peak
manage the changes in discharges and depth throughout the canal system.
After IMT at distributary level, the Chowki Distributary was being operated
and local experience of the operators. Operational decisions are based on the
regulator gate. The regulator gates are operated only when changes of the
123
tertiary level thereby wasting huge quantity of irrigation water. Most of the time,
distributary is not operated in response to the actual demand; the sums of all
operational errors are accumulated at the tail-end and the water users suffer
demand, and water is in abundance, the equity and proportionality will not create
a.m. to 9 a.m. in the morning and second operation between 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. in
reduced in afternoon, keeping in view the fact that existing irrigation deliveries
has no match with the crop demand. The reduced flow at night will ultimately
operational information with other gate operators, only discharge cum water
124
Performance indicators as suggested by Godaliyadda et al. (1999) and Baume
et al. (2005) are used to assess the effectiveness of the delivery schedule as
discharge was simulated using SIC model. The overall performance under this
percent and Operational Performance (Eop) of 74 percent. The Eop is less than
unity because the volume of water supplied was more than the effective
The first operation of head regulator is proposed for the 2nd decade of March to
P
P
for 9 hours i.e. (7 a.m. to 4 pm) at 90 percent of design discharge (2.76 m3s-1) P
P
P
P
and for 15 hours (5 p.m. to 7 am) at 80 percent of design discharge (2.3 m3s-1).
P
P
P
P
125
design discharge) is shown in Fig. 5.21. The global performance indicators of
all offtake i.e. Delivery Performance Ratio (DPR), Operational performance are
2.00
DPR Eop
Performance Indicators
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
260 309 819 987 1867 2063 2795 2970 4289 5510 5930 6185 6890
2.00
DPR Eop
Performance Indicators
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
260 309 819 987 1867 2063 2795 2970 4289 5510 5930 6185 6890
Fig. 5.22 Operational performance under fix frequency (90-75 percent Qd). B B
126
1st decade of August to 2nd decade of October fixed frequency operation at 90-
P P P P
indicate that only offtakes at RD-2795 and RD-4289 have Eop 47 and 51
2.00
DPR Eop
Performance Indicators
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
260 309 819 987 1867 2063 2795 2970 4289 5510 5930 6185 6890
Fig. 5.23 Operational performance under fix frequency (75-85 percent Qd). B B
From December till end of April fixed frequency operation at 75-85 percent of
design discharge is proposed. Fig. 5.23 shows that the DPR are in acceptable
B
range, but operational performance (Eop) at two offtakes (RD-2795 and RD-
4289) are poor. This is potentially viable compromise because the crop
127
Chapter VI
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 SUMMARY
Irrigated agriculture is the largest consumer of water than any other sector in
arid and semi arid countries like Pakistan more than 90 percent of water is
used to irrigate crops. In future its contribution will increase further in order to
meet the demand of growing population during next millennium. The challenge
for irrigation is to produce more with less water; this goal can only be achieved
delivery system is to transport the water from the source to the farm. Achieving
adequacy, efficiency, dependability and equity of the delivered irrigation water are
to Area Water Boards (AWBs) and most of the existing functions at distributary
level are performed by the farmers organizations (FOs). The six distributaries
128
i.e. (Yaqubi, Gumbat-II, Qasim-II, Toru, Chowki and Pirsabak) have been
handed over to the farmers organizations under the IMT programme in Swat
purposeful manner. IMIS has been developed for providing minimum set of
comparison with the design discharge through the use of DPR enabled the
delivery performance. Through the use of IMIS and SIC model performance of
the system and effectiveness of the operational strategies have been evaluated
that would help to create significant link between irrigation management and
agricultural production.
Performance indicators did not form the end product of this study, but it is
merely starting point for more thorough analysis to identify constraints to the
SCAWB and FOs, who previously followed the century old concept to monitor
the system e.g. supply at the head of the distributaries and tail gauges. In the
129
ISF (Aabina) collection, productivity and poverty but combined effect of
6.2 CONCLUSIONS
Results of this study revealed that increased control of the farmers has not lead
1. The IMIS has potential to fulfill the FOs needs of information collection,
the hydraulic and physical limitations of the system and evaluates the
FOs.
and March to April the RWS values were much higher than required,
130
irrigating their crops. This situation may cause rise in water table leading
3. The assessment of DPR revealed that all the distributaries were drawing
to 0.77 Ls-1ha-1 (10 cusecs per 1000 acres), therefore time based equity
P
allowance/supply.
5. The results of this study revealed that IMT has not resulted in an
increase in irrigation service fee (ISF) i.e. water charges to the farmers.
Since the ISF remained as pre IMT level therefore the chances of more
cost recovery does not seem to exist. During 2004-07 ISF recovered
was approximately 45 percent of the ISF assessed but it was very less
during the next year. Reduction in cost recovery will result reduction in
131
6. All the open flumes outlets along the distributary behave as hyper
proportional. The major cause was faulty setting the crest levels of the
outlets which lead the open flume to draw more water than the design
discharge.
the trifurcators were behaving as hyper proportional except the TRI (RD-
5930).
132
6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
The study reveals that there exists considerable scope for making improvement
in operation of the irrigation system by closely adhering to the standard water
allocation and distribution rules. The following recommendations are proposed
in the light of this study.
The current water allocation policy resulted in over supply and wastage
of water. Therefore, to improve farm irrigation management and to
reduce operational losses, water allowance may be reduced to 0.62 Ls-
1
ha-1 (8 cusecs per 1000 acres) instead of 0.77 Ls-1ha-1 (10 cusec per
P P
1000 acres) till the command area under this canal is not fully
developed.
The irrigated area is below the potential irrigated area and irrigation
intensity could be increased up to 190 percent by increasing sugarcane
intensity from 30 to 50 percent per annum.
133
REFERENCES
Ali, Iqbal. 1993. Irrigation and hydraulic structures: Theory, Design and
Practice. Institute of Environmental Engineering and research. NED University
of Engineering & Technology, Karachi. Pakistan. pp: 301-343.
Ankum, P. 1993. Some ideas on the selection of flow control structures for
irrigation. Proc 15th Congress on Irrigation and Drainage. International
Commission on Irrigation and Drainage. New Delhi, India. The Hague, The
Netherlands. 1B (44): 855-869.
Baume, J.P., P.O. Malaterre, P.Y. Vion, X. Lirico. 2003. Simulation of irrigation
Canals. User guide and theoretical concepts modeling approach. Version 4.0.
Agricultural and Environmental Engineering Research. CEMAGREF.
Montpellier, France.
134
Baume, J. P., P. O. Malaterre and G. B. Benoit. 2005. SIC: A 1D
hydrodynamic model for river and irrigation canal modeling and regulation.
Agricultural and Environmental Engineering Research. CEMAGREF.
Montpellier, France. pp:1-81.
Bhatti, M.A. 1995. Water pricing and financial aspect of irrigation-Issues and
options. Pakistan Journal of Water Resources. PCRWR. Islamabad, Pakistan.
1(1):67-87
Bhutta, M.N, M. Latif and J.W. Kijne. 1991. A study of water distribution from a
branch to distributary canal: A case study of Gugara branch, Punjab, Pakistan.
Irrigation and Drainage Systems. 5:229-247.
Bos, M.G. 1997. Performance indicators for irrigation and drainage. Irrigation
and Drainage Systems. 11(2):119-137.
Bos, M.G. and J. Nugteren. 1990. On irrigation efficiencies. 4th edition [1st
edition 1974]. ILRI Publication 19. International Institute for Land Reclamation
and Improvement . The Netherlands. 141 p.
Bos, M.G., D.H. Murray-Rust, D.J. Merrey, H.G. Johnson, and W.B. Snellen.
1994. Methodologies for assessing performance of irrigation and drainage
management. Irrigation and Drainage Systems. 7 (4): 231-261.
Bozakov, P and A. Laycock. 1997. The Pehur High Level Canal-First steps
toward automation of Pakistan’s canal system. Regulation of Irrigation Canal.
Proceeding RIC’97 International Workshop, Marrakesh, Morocco. pp:109-121.
135
Burt, C. M. 1987. Overview of canal control concepts. Planning, Operation,
Rehabilitation and Automation of Irrigation Water Delivery Systems. In (Ed)
Zimbelman, D.D., ASCE Symposium Proceedings., Portland, Ore. pp: 81-109.
Burt, C.M. and S.W. Styles. 1999. Modern water control and management
practices in irrigation: Impact on performance. Water Reports No. 19. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 224 p.
Clark, D. 1998. Cropwat for windows: Users guide. Institute of irrigation and
Development Studies (IIDS). Southampton University. Southampton. UK.
Clemmens, A.J., and J.A. Replogle. 1989. Control of irrigation canal networks.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. ASCE. 115(1): 96-110.
Clemmens, A.J, and M.G. Bos. 1990. Statistical methods for irrigation system
water delivery performance evaluation. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 4:345-
365.
136
Doorenbos, J, and W.O. Pruitt. 1977. Crop water requirements. Irrigation and
Drainage Paper No. 24. Food and Agricultural Organization. Rome, Italy.
Falvey, H.T., and P.C. Luning. 1979. Gate stroking. United State Bureau of
Reclamation. Denver, Colorado. 86 p.
Gichuki, F. N., W.R. Walker and G.P. Merkley. 1990. Transient hydraulic model
for simulation canal network operation. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering, ASCE. 116(1):67-82.
Goldsmith, H., and I.W. Makin. 1991. A comparison of two methodologies for
assessment of irrigation performance under warabandi system. Irrigation and
Drainage Systems. 5:19-29.
137
Hamilton, D. L., and J.J. DeVries. 1986. Microcomputer simulation of canal
operation. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. ASCE. 112(3):264-
273.
Holly, F. M., and J.B. Parrish III. 1993. Description and evaluation of program
CARIMA. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. ASCE, 119(4):703-
714.
Ijir, T.A. and M.A. Burton. 1998. Performance assessment of the Wurno
Irrigation Scheme, Nigeria. Irrigation and Drainage. Journal of International
Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID). 47:31–46.
138
Jurriens, M. 1993. Protective irrigation: Essentials and Implications. Water
Management in the next century. Transaction of 15th Congress on Irrigation and
P
P
Jurriens, M., P.P. Mollinga, and P. Wester. 1996. Scarcity by design. Protective
irrigation in India and Pakistan. Liquid Gold Paper.1. Wageningen Agricultural
University and International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvements
(ILRI). Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Lashari, B., M. Ali and S.A. Prathapar. 1999. Operational performance and use
of simulation model at Bareji Distributary Mirpurkhas. Sindh, Pakistan.2nd Inter-
Regional Conference on Environment and Water 99 held in Switzerland. pp: 1-
15.
Latif, M., and M.S. Pomee. 2003. Irrigation management turnover and option for
improved utilization of limited water resources in Pakistan. Irrigation and
Drainage. Journal of International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage
(ICID). 52: 261-272
Latif, M. and S. Sarwar. 1994. Proposal for equitable water allocation for
rotational irrigation in Pakistan. Irrigation and Drainage Systems. 8:35-48.
139
Laycock, A., C. Swayne and J. Marues. 2005. Pehur high level canal, NWFP,
Pakistan. Proceeding of Institute of Civil Engineering: Water Management. UK.
158 (3):93-102.
Lenton, R.L. 1986. On the development and use of improved methodologies for
irrigation management. In: K.C.Nobe and R.K. Sampath (Eds.), Irrigation
Management in Developing Countries. West View Press, Boulder, Colorado.
pp. 47–66.
Loague K., and R.E. Green. 1991. Statistical and graphical methods for
evaluating solute transport models: Overview and application. Journal of
Contaminant Hydrology. 7: 51–73.
Malaterre, P.O. and J.P. Baume. 1997. SIC 3.0, a simulation model for canal
automation design. International Workshop on Regulation of Irrigation Canals:
State of the art research and application. University of Semlalia. Marrakech,
Morocco. pp:3-12.
140
McLeod, R., Jr.1995. Management information systems: A study of computer-
based information systems (6th ed.). Prentice Hall. India.
Merkley, G. P., and D.C. Rogers. 1993. Description and evaluation of program
CANAL. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. ASCE. 119(4):714-
724.
Merkley, G.P., W.R. Walker and F.N. Gichuki. 1990. Transient hydraulic
modeling for improved canal system operation. Agricultural Water
Management. 18:181-194.
Molden, D., M. Burton and M.G. Bos. 2007. Performance assessment, irrigation
delivery and poverty reduction: Benefits of improved system management.
Irrigation and Drainage. Journal of International Commission on Irrigation and
Drainage (ICID). 56(2-3): 307-320.
Molden, D., R. Sakthivadivel., C.J. Perry., C. Fraiture and W.H. Kloezen. 1998.
Indicator for comparing performance of irrigated agricultural system. Research
Report 20. International Water Management Institute. Sri Lanka.
141
Murray-Rust, D.H, and W.B. Snellen. 1993. Irrigation system performance
assessment and diagnosis. International Irrigation Management Institute. Sri
Lanka.
Nash, J.E., and J. V. Sutcliffe. 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual
models: A discussion of principles. J. Hydrology. 10(3): 282-290.
Pongput, K., J.C. Alurralde and G.V.Skogerbore. 1998. Scheduling model for
crop based irrigation operation. International Irrigation Management Institute,
Lahore. Pakistan.
Renault, D., A.H. Khan., M.H. Hemakumara and M.A. Memon. 2001.
Assessing sensitivity factors of irrigation delivery structures. Journal of Irrigation
and Drainage Engineering. ASCE. 127(6): 346-354.
142
Renault, D., I.W. Makin. 1998. Modernization of irrigation systems operation: a
desegregated approach of the demand. Proceedings of the Fifth International
meeting of ITIS network. Aurangabad. India.
Rey, J. and H.M. Hemakumara. 1994. Decision support system for water
distribution management: Theory and Practice. International Irrigation
Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Working Paper 3: 5-20.
Rogers, C.D. and G.P. Merkley. 1993. Description and evaluation of program
USM. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. ASCE. 119(4): 696-702.
Steiner, R.A. and M.F. Walter. 1993. The effect of allocation schedules on the
performance of irrigation systems with different levels of spatial diversity and
temporal variability. Agricultural Water Management. 23: 213-224.
143
Uphoff, N., P. Ramamurthy and R. Steiner. 1991. Managing irrigation:
analyzing and improving the performance of bureaucracies. Sage Publication,
New Delhi, India.
Wade, R. and R. Chambers. 1980. Managing the main irrigated agriculture: Canal
irrigation's blind spot. Economic and Political Weekly. Review of Agriculture.
15(39):A.107-A.112.
Walpole, R.E. and R.H. Myers. 1989. Probability and Statistics for Engineers
and Scientists. Macmillan, New York.
Xevi, E., J. Gilley and J. Feyen. 1996. Comparative study of two crop yield
simulation models. Agriculture Water Management. 30: 155-173.
144
Appendix-A
Table A-I Daily observed discharges (m3s-1) at Yaqubi Distributary.
Date Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 0.38 0.66 0.82 0.85 0.60 0.85 0.68 0.82 0.75
2 0.38 0.73 0.80 0.68 0.50 0.66 0.68 0.75 0.75
3 0.38 0.75 0.73 0.68 0.71 0.78 0.66 0.75 0.75
4 0.52 0.71 0.75 0.95 0.78 0.78 0.68 0.75 0.75
5 0.58 0.60 0.75 0.87 0.75 0.75 0.66 0.75 0.75
6 0.66 0.66 0.71 0.95 0.75 0.75 0.62 0.75 0.66
7 0.60 0.78 0.78 0.98 0.75 0.75 0.68 0.66 0.66
8 0.60 0.78 0.68 0.95 0.75 0.80 0.71 0.78 0.68
9 0.60 0.66 0.78 0.95 0.66 0.78 0.71 0.78 0.68
10 0.60 0.54 0.85 0.95 0.75 0.80 0.66 0.71 0.71
11 0.75 0.68 0.87 0.90 0.78 0.80 0.66 0.62 0.71
12 0.60 0.68 0.87 0.98 0.75 0.78 0.56 0.62 0.71
13 0.60 0.78 0.85 0.82 0.71 0.78 0.71 0.62 0.71
14 0.60 0.78 0.87 0.90 0.71 0.75 0.66 0.71 0.71
15 0.60 0.78 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.75 0.71 0.75 0.71
16 0.60 0.62 0.87 0.78 0.75 0.78 0.71 0.75 0.71
17 0.60 0.90 0.85 0.78 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.75 0.71
18 0.38 0.60 0.73 0.66 0.64 0.73 0.73 0.75 0.75 0.71
19 0.38 0.60 0.78 0.66 0.12 0.78 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.71
20 0.38 0.60 0.85 0.66 0.15 0.78 0.90 0.87 0.75 0.71
21 0.38 0.58 0.80 0.64 0.13 0.78 0.75 0.78 0.71 0.71
22 0.38 0.58 0.80 0.78 0.78 0.71 0.73 0.78 0.66 0.71
23 0.38 0.58 0.90 0.73 0.78 0.78 0.73 0.78 0.68
24 0.38 0.58 0.78 0.73 0.78 0.78 0.75 0.75 0.82
25 0.38 0.58 0.85 0.82 0.85 0.71 0.75 0.75 0.75
26 0.38 0.58 0.90 0.82 0.80 0.87 0.71 0.78 0.78
27 0.38 0.58 0.82 0.75 0.85 0.85 0.66 0.78 0.78
28 0.38 0.78 0.73 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.66 0.75 0.75
29 0.38 0.78 0.73 0.87 0.85 0.78 0.68 0.75 0.75
30 0.38 0.66 0.78 0.90 0.56 0.78 0.60 0.75 0.75
31 0.38 0.80 0.56 0.73 0.75
145
Table A-II Statistical analysis of discharges of Yaqubi Distributary.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Max 0.38 0.78 0.90 0.95 0.98 0.87 0.90 0.874 0.824 0.753
Min 0.38 0.38 0.54 0.64 0.12 0.50 0.60 0.559 0.62 0.663
Average 0.38 0.59 0.75 0.79 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.72 0.73 0.71
Ave(1-10) 0.53 0.69 0.77 0.88 0.70 0.77 0.68 0.75 0.72
Ave(11-20) 0.38 0.61 0.76 0.81 0.69 0.76 0.77 0.71 0.71 0.71
Ave(21-30) 0.38 0.63 0.81 0.82 0.76 0.78 0.70 0.76 0.75 0.71
Std(1-10) 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.04
Std(11-20) 0.00 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.31 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.00
Std(21-30) 0.00 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.22 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.00
CV(1-10) 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.06
CV(11-20) 0.00 0.08 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CV(21-30) 0.00 0.13 0.07 0.11 0.29 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.00
146
Table A-III Daily observed discharges (m3s-1) at Gumbad-II Distributary.
Date Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 0.46 0.78 0.78 1.03 0.68 0.61 0.71 0.74 0.74
2 0.46 0.64 0.85 0.52 0.68 0.85 0.71 0.78 0.74
3 0.46 0.71 0.85 0.52 0.58 0.85 0.55 0.78 0.71
4 0.71 0.78 0.85 0.49 0.56 0.85 0.85 0.78 0.71
5 0.74 0.81 0.85 0.46 0.52 0.92 0.68 0.78 0.64
6 0.81 0.68 0.85 0.68 0.52 0.92 0.64 0.78 0.64
7 0.74 0.68 0.85 0.52 0.52 0.92 0.88 0.78 0.64
8 0.71 0.68 0.96 0.85 0.58 0.96 0.85 0.68 0.64
9 0.71 0.78 0.92 0.68 0.58 0.92 0.85 0.68 0.61
10 0.71 0.81 0.71 0.68 0.74 0.85 0.68 0.78 0.71
11 0.74 0.71 0.68 0.52 0.74 0.85 0.78 0.55 0.71
12 0.58 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.58 0.92 0.68 0.55 0.71
13 0.71 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.52 0.68 0.74 0.55 0.71
14 0.58 0.85 0.78 0.78 0.52 0.92 0.68 0.74 0.71
15 0.46 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.52 0.96 0.81 0.78 0.71
16 0.74 0.85 0.85 0.68 0.58 0.68 0.81 0.68 0.71
17 0.74 1.03 0.85 0.68 0.58 0.92 0.85 0.52 0.71
18 0.46 0.64 0.92 0.64 0.85 0.52 0.92 0.78 0.55 0.71
19 0.46 0.55 0.85 0.64 0.30 0.52 0.68 0.71 0.81 0.71
20 0.46 0.52 0.92 0.85 0.46 0.52 0.61 0.92 0.81 0.71
21 0.46 0.46 0.92 0.92 0.43 0.52 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.71
22 0.46 0.46 0.92 0.74 0.68 0.68 0.92 0.71 0.68 0.71
23 0.46 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.68 0.78 0.88 0.71 0.71
24 0.46 0.92 0.85 0.96 0.68 0.78 0.92 0.64 0.74
25 0.46 0.85 0.92 0.96 0.74 0.74 0.92 0.81 0.74
26 0.46 0.99 0.85 0.96 0.88 0.74 0.92 0.88 0.61
27 0.46 0.88 0.92 0.78 0.71 0.88 0.85 0.81 0.61
28 0.46 0.85 0.92 0.74 0.68 0.88 0.81 0.81 0.68
29 0.46 0.52 0.92 0.85 0.74 0.92 0.81 0.85 0.68
30 0.46 0.78 0.92 0.96 0.68 0.81 0.52 0.85 0.78
31 0.46 0.92 0.68 0.78 0.78
147
Table A-IV Statistical analysis of discharges of Gumbad-II Distributary.
Date Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Max 0.46 0.99 1.03 0.99 1.03 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.81 0.74
Min 0.46 0.46 0.64 0.64 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.55 0.52 0.61
Average 0.46 0.68 0.83 0.83 0.66 0.65 0.84 0.77 0.70 0.70
Ave(1-10) 0.65 0.73 0.84 0.64 0.59 0.86 0.74 0.75 0.68
Ave(11-20) 0.46 0.63 0.85 0.76 0.66 0.56 0.81 0.77 0.65 0.71
Ave(21-30) 0.46 0.76 0.91 0.88 0.71 0.80 0.84 0.78 0.69 0.71
Std(1-10) 0.14 0.06 0.07 0.18 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.04 0.05
Std(11-20) 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.19 0.07 0.13 0.08 0.12 0.00
Std(21-30) 0.00 0.20 0.03 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.07 0.06 0.00
CV(1-10) 0.21 0.09 0.08 0.29 0.13 0.11 0.15 0.06 0.07
CV(11-20) 0.00 0.17 0.12 0.12 0.28 0.13 0.17 0.10 0.19 0.00
CV(21-30) 0.00 0.27 0.03 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.00
148
Table A-V Daily observed discharges (m3s-1) at Qasim-II Distributary.
Date Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
149
Table A-VI Statistical analysis of discharges of Qasim-II Distributary.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Max 0.37 0.67 0.72 0.84 0.81 0.81 0.67 0.70 0.75 0.62
Min 0.33 0.33 0.37 0.49 0.09 0.09 0.27 0.37 0.17 0.27
Average 0.37 0.44 0.59 0.64 0.41 0.41 0.51 0.56 0.58 0.40
Ave(1-10) 0.42 0.50 0.65 0.43 0.43 0.46 0.51 0.54 0.31
Ave(11-20) 0.37 0.45 0.65 0.57 0.41 0.41 0.50 0.61 0.54 0.45
Ave(21-30) 0.36 0.46 0.61 0.71 0.41 0.41 0.58 0.57 0.66 0.49
Std(1-10) 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.09 0.20 0.04
Std(11-20) 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.10
Std(21-30) 0.02 0.11 0.08 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.09
CV(1-10) 0.16 0.09 0.05 0.65 0.65 0.31 0.17 0.36 0.13
CV(11-20) 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.13 0.40 0.40 0.19 0.10 0.11 0.22
CV(21-30) 0.05 0.24 0.14 0.14 0.35 0.35 0.18 0.14 0.11 0.18
150
Table A-VII Daily observed discharges (m3s-1) at Toru Distributary.
Day Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
151
Table A-VIII Statistical analysis of discharges of Toru Distributary.
Months Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Max 0.72 0.93 1.00 1.20 1.66 0.93 0.93 0.86 1.16 0.93
Min 0.53 0.30 0.30 0.47 0.04 0.21 0.65 0.72 0.09 0.11
Average 0.59 0.63 0.60 0.84 0.81 0.73 0.80 0.80 0.64 0.59
Std 0.04 0.18 0.22 0.20 0.24 0.15 0.07 0.04 0.28 0.26
CV 0.07 0.29 0.36 0.24 0.30 0.21 0.08 0.05 0.44 0.44
Ave(1-10) 0.69 0.69 0.86 0.86 0.65 0.79 0.81 0.86 0.35
Ave(11-20) 0.59 0.52 0.67 0.74 0.76 0.71 0.82 0.79 0.66 0.78
Ave(21-30) 0.59 0.69 0.46 0.92 0.83 0.84 0.79 0.80 0.35 0.86
Std(1-10) 0.11 0.13 0.28 0.07 0.21 0.06 0.02 0.18 0.15
Std(11-20) 0.00 0.13 0.27 0.17 0.27 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.19 0.14
Std(21-30) 0.05 0.25 0.16 0.10 0.32 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.26 0.03
CV(1-10) 0.16 0.18 0.32 0.08 0.32 0.08 0.02 0.21 0.41
CV(11-20) 0.00 0.25 0.40 0.23 0.35 0.16 0.09 0.07 0.28 0.18
CV(21-30) 0.08 0.36 0.34 0.11 0.39 0.09 0.08 0.04 0.75 0.03
152
Table A-IX Daily observed discharges (m3s-1) at Pirsabak Distributary.
Day Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
153
Table A-X Statistical analysis of discharges of Pirsabak Distributary.
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Max
1.87 2.18 2.31 2.12 2.38 2.06 1.99 2.18 2.25 2.18
Min
1.19 1.04 1.35 1.58 1.25 1.58 1.25 1.46 1.19 1.46
Average
1.42 1.50 2.00 1.89 1.94 1.82 1.73 1.76 1.76 1.85
Ave(1-10)
1.62 1.77 1.96 2.03 1.81 1.64 1.76 1.76 1.96
Ave(11-20)
1.87 1.46 2.09 1.84 1.87 1.85 1.80 1.67 1.68 1.77
Ave(21-30)
1.25 1.47 2.11 1.85 2.00 1.81 1.77 1.87 1.82 1.81
Std(1-10)
0.31 0.32 0.14 0.30 0.16 0.19 0.16 0.08 0.13
Std(11-20)
0.00 0.25 0.20 0.17 0.29 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.36 0.15
Std(21-30)
0.19 0.45 0.09 0.10 0.26 0.11 0.12 0.19 0.17 0.13
CV(1-10)
0.19 0.18 0.07 0.15 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.05 0.06
CV(11-20)
0.00 0.17 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.22 0.09
CV(21-30)
0.15 0.31 0.04 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.07
154
Table A-XI Daily observed discharges (m3s-1) at Chowki Distributary.
Day Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
155
Table A-XII Statistical analysis of discharges of Chowki Distributary.
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Max 1.7 3.0 3.1 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.5
Min 1.2 1.0 1.8 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.6 2.1
Average 1.5 1.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3
Ave(1-10) 1.87 2.53 2.54 2.60 2.53 2.19 2.29 2.30 2.29
Ave(11-20) 1.55 1.54 2.60 2.41 2.35 2.25 2.30 2.19 2.09 2.36
Ave(21-30) 1.42 1.86 2.54 2.40 2.58 2.30 2.27 2.37 2.31 2.51
Std(1-10) 0.33 0.39 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.23 0.16 0.09 0.11
Std(11-20) 0.00 0.26 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.36 0.12 0.15 0.37 0.09
Std(21-30) 0.14 0.86 0.14 0.12 0.27 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.15
CV(1-10) 0.18 0.16 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.04 0.05
CV(11-20) 0.17 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.16 0.05 0.07 0.18 0.04
CV(21-30) 0.10 0.46 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06
156
Table A-XIII Crop production estimate for Wheat, Sugarcane and Tobacco per ha.*
Wheat Sugarcane Tobacco
Input
Rs.Price/ Rs.Price/ Rs.Price/
Unit Quntity Amount Unit Quntity Amount Unit Quntity Amount
Unit Unit Unit
Table A- XIV Crop production estimate for Maize, Alfalfa and Sugar beet per ha.*
Maize Alfalfa Sugar beet
Input
Rs.Price/U Rs.Price/ Rs.Price/
Unit Quntity Amount Unit Quntity Amount Unit Quntity Amount
nit Unit Unit
FYM Kg 2838 1.4 3831 Kg 606 1.4 818 Kg 3590 1.5 5385
Curing
157
Appendix-B
1 260 L OF 127 0.04 0.11 0.60 354.77 355.04 355.64 0.04 0.99
2 309 R OF 325 0.09 0.08 0.78 354.77 354.86 355.64 0.08 0.91
3 819 L D BIF 417 0.12 0.20 0.82 352.23 352.33 353.15 0.12 1.00
4 987 L D BIF 640 0.18 0.32 0.79 349.73 349.83 350.62 0.18 0.97
5 1867 L OF 191 0.05 0.06 0.47 335.01 335.08 335.55 0.03 0.57
6 1877 R OF 333 0.09 0.09 0.45 335.00 335.08 335.53 0.05 0.48
7 2063 R OF 135 0.04 0.06 0.53 332.64 332.72 333.25 0.04 0.97
8 2795 L D BIF 320 0.09 0.20 0.71 325.52 325.62 326.33 0.09 1.03
Chowki
9 2795 R S 2769 0.78 0.65 0.71 325.52 325.62 326.33 0.77 0.98
I
10 2970 R OF 285 0.08 0.09 0.68 323.73 323.80 324.48 0.08 0.97
11 4289 L S TRI 411 0.12 0.21 0.58 323.22 323.37 323.95 0.18 1.55
12 4289 R S TRI 367 0.10 0.17 0.58 323.22 323.37 323.95 0.15 1.46
13 5510 R OF 181 0.05 0.06 0.63 322.62 322.69 323.32 0.05 0.97
14 5930 L S TRI 481 0.14 0.20 0.50 322.47 322.65 323.15 0.14 1.01
Chowki
15 6185 L S II 1672 0.47 0.78 0.45 321.27 321.54 321.99 0.47 0.99
(TRIF)
16 6185 R S BIF 491 0.14 0.23 0.45 321.27 321.54 321.99 0.14 0.99
17 6890 L OF 38 0.01 0.07 0.39 316.71 316.76 317.15 0.01 1.08
18 7622 L S BIF 370 0.10 0.53 0.23 310.68 310.95 311.18 0.12 1.10
19 7622 R S BIF 258 0.07 0.38 0.23 310.68 310.95 311.18 0.08 1.14
1 1060 L TRI 716 0.20 0.52 0.34 314.89 315.31 315.65 0.20 1.01
2 1060 R TRI 340 0.10 0.25 0.34 314.89 315.31 315.65 0.10 1.02
3 1060 L TRI 227 0.06 0.16 0.34 314.89 315.31 315.65 0.06 0.98
4 2430 L S BIF 832 0.24 0.57 0.35 306.09 306.37 306.72 0.23 0.99
5 2430 C S BIF 654 0.19 0.45 0.35 306.09 306.37 306.72 0.18 1.00
1 919 L S TRI 416 0.12 0.30 0.34 318.09 318.26 318.6 0.12 1.00
2 945 L S TRI 457 0.13 0.33 0.34 318.09 318.26 318.6 0.13 1.00
3 1825 BF S BIF 697 0.20 1.31 0.18 311.02 311.35 311.53 0.20 1.00
4 1829 BF S BIF 104 0.03 0.19 0.18 311.02 311.35 311.53 0.03 1.00
158
Table B-II Simulated Water Level at 110,100 and 90 percent of Design Discharges.
110% Qd 100% Qd 90% Qd
1 260 OF 355.729 0.039 1.073 355.671 0.037 1.017 355.611 0.034 0.957
2 309 OF 355.705 0.094 1.026 355.647 0.085 0.922 355.586 0.075 0.817
3 819 BIF 353.199 0.128 1.086 353.145 0.117 0.987 353.089 0.105 0.887
4 987 BIF 350.675 0.194 1.069 350.626 0.177 0.977 350.576 0.161 0.887
5 1867 OF 335.833 0.063 1.160 335.791 0.058 1.064 335.747 0.052 0.967
6 1877 OF 335.817 0.095 1.009 335.774 0.087 0.922 335.730 0.079 0.836
7 2063 OF 333.444 0.059 1.547 333.401 0.054 1.411 333.357 0.049 1.277
8 2795 BIF 326.446 0.117 1.292 326.404 0.108 1.195 326.360 0.099 1.096
Chowki
9 2795 326.446 0.966 1.232 326.404 0.893 1.139 326.360 0.819 1.045
I
10 2970 OF 324.524 0.086 1.062 324.491 0.080 0.991 324.455 0.074 0.914
11 4289 TRI 323.926 0.169 1.453 323.893 0.154 1.325 323.859 0.139 1.198
12 4289 TRI 323.926 0.143 1.374 323.893 0.130 1.254 323.859 0.118 1.133
13 5510 OF 323.362 0.055 1.066 323.334 0.051 1.000 323.304 0.048 0.931
14 5930 TRI 323.160 0.141 1.038 323.135 0.131 0.962 323.108 0.120 0.883
Chowki
15 6185 II 322.052 0.569 1.201 322.026 0.526 1.111 322.000 0.484 1.023
(TRIF)
16 6185 BIF 322.052 0.167 1.200 322.026 0.154 1.110 322.000 0.142 1.022
17 6890 OF 317.145 0.012 1.071 317.130 0.011 1.045 317.113 0.011 1.015
18 7622 BIF 311.141 0.087 0.834 311.127 0.078 0.744 311.113 0.069 0.658
19 7622 BIF 311.141 0.063 0.866 311.127 0.056 0.773 311.113 0.050 0.683
1 1060 TRI 315.645 0.200 0.985 315.628 0.185 0.911 315.610 0.169 0.834
2 1060 TRI 315.645 0.096 0.997 315.628 0.089 0.922 315.610 0.081 0.845
3 1060 TRI 315.645 0.061 0.955 315.628 0.057 0.884 315.610 0.052 0.810
4 2430 BIF 306.714 0.228 0.966 306.689 0.203 0.863 306.663 0.179 0.760
5 2430 BIF 306.714 0.180 0.971 306.689 0.161 0.867 306.663 0.141 0.763
1 919 TRI 318.598 0.117 0.991 318.581 0.108 0.917 318.563 0.099 0.841
2 945 TRI 318.598 0.128 0.991 318.581 0.119 0.917 318.563 0.109 0.841
3 1825 BIF 311.598 0.319 1.617 311.588 0.300 1.520 311.578 0.282 1.426
4 1829 BIF 311.598 0.047 1.617 311.588 0.045 1.520 311.578 0.042 1.426
159
Table B-III Simulated Water Level at 80, 70 and 65 percent of Design Discharges.
80% Qd 70% Qd 65% Qd
1 260 OF 355.552 0.032 0.894 355.487 0.029 0.818 355.468 0.029 0.795
2 309 OF 355.526 0.066 0.718 355.460 0.057 0.614 355.441 0.054 0.585
3 819 BIF 353.033 0.093 0.790 352.972 0.081 0.690 352.955 0.078 0.663
4 987 BIF 350.524 0.144 0.796 350.468 0.127 0.701 350.451 0.122 0.673
5 1867 OF 335.703 0.047 0.873 335.645 0.041 0.754 335.639 0.040 0.742
6 1877 OF 335.684 0.071 0.749 335.634 0.062 0.658 335.619 0.060 0.631
7 2063 OF 333.311 0.044 1.141 333.261 0.038 0.999 333.245 0.037 0.955
8 2795 BIF 326.315 0.090 0.997 326.265 0.081 0.892 326.250 0.078 0.861
Chowki
9 2795 326.315 0.746 0.951 326.265 0.667 0.850 326.250 0.644 0.821
I
10 2970 OF 324.418 0.068 0.838 324.377 0.061 0.756 324.364 0.059 0.730
11 4289 TRI 323.824 0.125 1.072 323.785 0.109 0.937 323.774 0.105 0.900
12 4289 TRI 323.824 0.105 1.014 323.785 0.092 0.886 323.774 0.088 0.851
13 5510 OF 323.274 0.044 0.864 323.239 0.040 0.787 323.229 0.039 0.766
14 5930 TRI 323.082 0.110 0.809 323.052 0.099 0.726 323.044 0.096 0.705
Chowki
15 6185 II 321.972 0.441 0.931 321.943 0.397 0.839 321.934 0.384 0.811
(TRIF)
16 6185 BIF 321.972 0.129 0.930 321.943 0.117 0.838 321.934 0.113 0.810
17 6890 OF 317.095 0.011 0.982 317.076 0.010 0.946 317.070 0.010 0.935
18 7622 BIF 311.098 0.060 0.569 311.083 0.051 0.485 311.079 0.049 0.463
19 7622 BIF 311.098 0.043 0.591 311.083 0.037 0.503 311.079 0.035 0.481
1 1060 TRI 315.592 0.154 0.760 315.572 0.138 0.681 315.566 0.133 0.658
2 1060 TRI 315.592 0.074 0.770 315.572 0.066 0.689 315.566 0.064 0.666
3 1060 TRI 315.592 0.047 0.738 315.572 0.042 0.661 315.566 0.041 0.638
4 2430 BIF 306.631 0.150 0.639 306.610 0.133 0.563 306.596 0.121 0.515
5 2430 BIF 306.631 0.119 0.641 306.610 0.105 0.566 306.596 0.096 0.517
1 919 TRI 318.545 0.090 0.767 318.526 0.081 0.692 318.520 0.079 0.669
2 945 TRI 318.545 0.099 0.767 318.526 0.090 0.692 318.520 0.087 0.669
3 1825 BIF 311.566 0.260 1.315 311.553 0.237 1.198 311.549 0.230 1.162
4 1829 BIF 311.566 0.039 1.315 311.553 0.035 1.198 311.549 0.034 1.162
160
Table B-IV Simulated Water Level at 60 Design Discharges.
60% Qd
RD
No Structure Water
(m) q
Level 3 -1 DPR
ms
(m)
P P P P
161
Appendix-C
Rectangular
0 354.93 0.016 0.00 3.50 0.0004 356.35
lined
Rectangular
12 354.93 0.016 0.00 3.50 0.0004 356.35
lined
Rectangular
20 354.92 0.016 0.00 3.50 0.0004 356.35
lined
20 354.85 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.17
50 354.83 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.16
100 354.81 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.14
150 354.79 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.12
200 354.77 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.10
250 354.75 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.10
260 354.75 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.10
260 354.75 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.10
320 354.75 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.10
320 354.74 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.10
330 354.74 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.10
330 353.48 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0006 354.80
350 353.46 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0006 354.79
400 353.43 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0006 354.76
450 353.40 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0006 354.73
500 353.37 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0006 354.70
550 353.34 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0006 354.69
600 353.31 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0006 354.69
600 353.31 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0006 354.69
600 352.43 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.64
650 352.38 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.59
700 352.33 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.59
750 352.28 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.59
800 352.23 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.59
819 352.21 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.59
819 352.21 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.59
819 352.21 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.59
162
Table C-I (Continued)
Side Bed Longitudi
RD Bed level Manning Bank
Profile Type Slope Width nal
(m) (m) (n) Level (m)
(1:m) (m) Slope
819 352.02 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.31
850 351.99 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.31
885 351.96 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.31
885 349.81 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 351.07
895 349.80 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 351.07
900 349.79 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 351.07
950 349.74 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 351.07
987 349.71 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 351.07
987 349.71 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 351.07
987 349.71 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 351.07
987 349.53 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 350.87
1000 349.52 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 350.87
1015 349.50 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 350.87
Overlay on
1015 347.15 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 348.33
pitching
Overlay on
1050 347.12 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 348.33
pitching
Overlay on
1100 347.07 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 348.33
pitching
Overlay on
1150 347.02 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 348.33
pitching
Overlay on
1160 347.01 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 348.33
pitching
1160 344.66 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 345.83
1200 344.62 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 345.82
1250 344.57 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 345.82
1300 344.52 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 345.82
1310 344.51 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 345.82
1310 342.11 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 343.33
1336 342.08 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 343.33
1350 342.07 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 343.33
1400 342.02 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 343.33
1412 342.01 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 343.33
1412 339.61 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0008 340.83
1450 339.58 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0008 340.82
1500 339.54 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0008 340.82
1535 339.52 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0008 340.82
1535 337.56 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 338.73
1550 337.54 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 338.71
1600 337.49 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 338.66
163
Table C-I (Continued)
Side Bed Longitudi
RD Bed level Manning Bank
Profile Type Slope Width nal
(m) (m) (n) Level (m)
(1:m) (m) Slope
1650 337.44 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 338.66
1700 337.39 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 338.66
1725 337.37 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 338.66
1750 337.34 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 338.66
Overlay on
1750 334.34 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 335.51
pitching
Overlay on
1800 334.29 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 335.47
pitching
Overlay on
1850 334.24 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 335.47
pitching
Overlay on
1900 334.19 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 335.47
pitching
Overlay on
1910 334.18 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 335.47
pitching
Overlay on
1910 334.18 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 335.47
pitching
Overlay on
1920 334.19 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 335.47
pitching
Overlay on
1920 334.18 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 335.47
pitching
Overlay on
1930 334.19 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 335.47
pitching
Overlay on
1930 332.23 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.43
pitching
Overlay on
1950 332.21 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.41
pitching
Overlay on
1960 332.20 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.40
pitching
Overlay on
2000 332.16 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.36
pitching
Overlay on
2050 332.11 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.31
pitching
Overlay on
2100 332.06 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.26
pitching
Overlay on
2110 332.05 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.25
pitching
Overlay on
2110 332.05 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.25
pitching
Overlay on
2120 332.05 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.24
pitching
Overlay on
2120 331.85 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.14
pitching
164
Table C-I (Continued)
Side Bed Longitudi
RD Bed level Manning Bank
Profile Type Slope Width nal
(m) (m) (n) Level (m)
(1:m) (m) Slope
Overlay on
2130 331.84 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.14
pitching
Overlay on
2130 329.98 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0006 331.28
pitching
Overlay on
2150 329.97 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0006 331.27
pitching
Overlay on
2200 329.94 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0006 331.24
pitching
Overlay on
2250 329.91 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0006 331.21
pitching
Overlay on
2300 329.88 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0006 331.19
pitching
Overlay on
2310 329.87 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0006 331.19
pitching
Overlay on
2310 328.26 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0006 329.57
pitching
Overlay on
2350 328.24 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0006 329.55
pitching
Overlay on
2400 328.21 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0006 329.52
pitching
Overlay on
2450 328.18 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0006 329.49
pitching
Overlay on
2500 328.15 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0006 329.46
pitching
Overlay on
2550 328.12 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0006 329.43
pitching
Overlay on
2575 328.10 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0006 329.43
pitching
Overlay on
2575 325.41 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2600 325.39 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2650 325.34 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2700 325.29 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2750 325.24 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2800 325.19 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2800 325.19 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2800 325.19 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
165
Table C-I (Continued)
Side Bed Longitudi
RD Bed level Manning Bank
Profile Type Slope Width nal
(m) (m) (n) Level (m)
(1:m) (m) Slope
Overlay on
2810 325.18 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2810 325.18 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2810 325.18 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2810 324.10 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.38
pitching
Overlay on
2821 324.15 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.38
pitching
Overlay on
2821 324.15 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.38
pitching
Overlay on
2850 324.14 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.36
pitching
Overlay on
2900 324.12 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.34
pitching
Overlay on
2950 324.10 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.32
pitching
Overlay on
2970 324.09 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.32
pitching
Overlay on
2970 324.09 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.32
pitching
Overlay on
2980 324.09 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.31
pitching
Overlay on
2990 324.10 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.31
pitching
Overlay on
3000 324.10 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.30
pitching
Overlay on
3009 324.09 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.30
pitching
Overlay on
3030 324.08 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.29
pitching
Overlay on
3050 324.08 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.28
pitching
Overlay on
3070 324.07 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.28
pitching
Overlay on
3100 324.06 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.26
pitching
Overlay on
3150 324.04 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.24
pitching
Overlay on
3200 324.02 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.22
pitching
Overlay on
3230 324.00 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.21
pitching
Overlay on
3250 324.00 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.20
pitching
Overlay on
3300 323.98 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.18
pitching
166
Table C-I (Continued)
Side Bed Longitudi
RD Bed level Manning Bank
Profile Type Slope Width nal
(m) (m) (n) Level (m)
(1:m) (m) Slope
Overlay on
3350 323.96 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.16
pitching
Overlay on
3400 323.94 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.14
pitching
Overlay on
3450 323.92 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.12
pitching
Overlay on
3500 323.90 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.10
pitching
Overlay on
3550 323.88 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.08
pitching
Overlay on
3600 323.86 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.06
pitching
Overlay on
3650 323.84 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.04
pitching
Overlay on
3700 323.82 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.02
pitching
Overlay on
3750 323.80 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.00
pitching
Overlay on
3800 323.78 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.98
pitching
Overlay on
3815 323.77 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.98
pitching
Overlay on
3816 323.77 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.98
pitching
Overlay on
3850 323.76 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.96
pitching
Overlay on
3897 323.74 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.95
pitching
Overlay on
3900 323.74 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.94
pitching
Overlay on
3950 323.72 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.92
pitching
Overlay on
4000 323.70 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.90
pitching
Overlay on
4018 323.69 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.90
pitching
Overlay on
4050 323.68 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.88
pitching
Overlay on
4100 323.66 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.86
pitching
Overlay on
4150 323.64 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.84
pitching
Overlay on
4200 323.62 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.83
pitching
Overlay on
4250 323.60 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.83
pitching
Overlay on
4290 323.58 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.83
pitching
167
Table C-I (Continued)
Side Bed Longitudi
RD Bed level Manning Bank
Profile Type Slope Width nal
(m) (m) (n) Level (m)
(1:m) (m) Slope
Overlay on
4296 323.58 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.83
pitching
Overlay on
4296 323.58 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.83
pitching
Overlay on
4296 323.58 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.83
pitching
Overlay on
4296 323.37 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.59
pitching
Overlay on
4297 323.40 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.59
pitching
Overlay on
4300 323.40 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.58
pitching
Overlay on
4350 323.38 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.56
pitching
Overlay on
4400 323.36 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.54
pitching
Overlay on
4450 323.34 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.52
pitching
Overlay on
4500 323.32 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.50
pitching
Overlay on
4550 323.30 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.48
pitching
Overlay on
4570 323.29 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.48
pitching
Overlay on
4600 323.28 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.46
pitching
Overlay on
4650 323.26 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.44
pitching
Overlay on
4700 323.24 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.42
pitching
Overlay on
4750 323.22 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.40
pitching
Overlay on
4800 323.20 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.38
pitching
Overlay on
4850 323.18 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.36
pitching
Overlay on
4900 323.16 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.34
pitching
Overlay on
4950 323.14 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.32
pitching
Overlay on
5000 323.12 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.30
pitching
Overlay on
5050 323.10 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.28
pitching
168
Table C-I (Continued)
Side Bed Longitudi
RD Bed level Manning Bank
Profile Type Slope Width nal
(m) (m) (n) Level (m)
(1:m) (m) Slope
Overlay on
5100 323.08 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.26
pitching
Overlay on
5150 323.06 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.24
pitching
Overlay on
5200 323.04 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.22
pitching
Overlay on
5232 323.02 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.21
pitching
Overlay on
5250 323.02 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.20
pitching
Overlay on
5300 323.00 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.18
pitching
Overlay on
5350 322.98 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.16
pitching
Overlay on
5400 322.96 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.14
pitching
Overlay on
5450 322.94 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.12
pitching
Overlay on
5500 322.92 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.10
pitching
Overlay on
5510 322.91 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.10
pitching
Overlay on
5510 322.91 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.10
pitching
Overlay on
5520 322.91 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.10
pitching
Overlay on
5530 322.92 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.09
pitching
Overlay on
5540 322.92 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.09
pitching
Overlay on
5550 322.92 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.08
pitching
Overlay on
5560 322.91 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.08
pitching
Overlay on
5575 322.91 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.07
pitching
Overlay on
5576 322.91 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.07
pitching
Overlay on
5600 322.90 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.06
pitching
Overlay on
5650 322.88 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.04
pitching
Overlay on
5695 322.86 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.03
pitching
169
Table C-I (Continued)
Side Bed Longitudi
RD Bed level Manning Bank
Profile Type Slope Width nal
(m) (m) (n) Level (m)
(1:m) (m) Slope
Overlay on
5700 322.86 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.02
pitching
Overlay on
5750 322.84 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.00
pitching
Overlay on
5800 322.82 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.00
pitching
Overlay on
5850 322.80 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.00
pitching
Overlay on
5855 322.79 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.00
pitching
Overlay on
5900 322.78 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.00
pitching
Overlay on
5930 322.76 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.00
pitching
Overlay on
5930 322.76 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.00
pitching
Overlay on
5930 322.76 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 324.00
pitching
Overlay on
5930 322.75 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 323.82
pitching
Overlay on
5935 322.74 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 323.82
pitching
Overlay on
5935 321.44 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.43
pitching
Overlay on
5950 321.43 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.41
pitching
Overlay on
5998 321.38 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.36
pitching
Overlay on
6000 321.38 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.36
pitching
Overlay on
6013 321.37 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.35
pitching
Overlay on
6030 321.35 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.33
pitching
Overlay on
6050 321.33 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.31
pitching
Overlay on
6100 321.28 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.26
pitching
Overlay on
6150 321.23 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.25
pitching
Overlay on
6175 321.20 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.25
pitching
170
Table C-I (Continued)
Side Bed Longitudi
RD Bed level Manning Bank
Profile Type Slope Width nal
(m) (m) (n) Level (m)
(1:m) (m) Slope
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.61 0.0010 322.25
6175 320.96
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.61 0.0010 322.25
6185 320.95
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.61 0.0010 322.25
6185 320.95
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.61 0.0010 322.25
6185 320.95
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.61 0.0010 321.93
6185 320.74
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.61 0.0010 321.91
6200 320.95
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.40 0.0010 321.86
6250 320.83
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.40 0.0010 321.81
6300 320.78
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.40 0.0010 321.76
6350 320.73
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.40 0.0010 321.75
6400 320.68
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.40 0.0010 321.75
6450 320.63
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.40 0.0010 321.75
6500 320.58
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.40 0.0010 320.31
6500 319.28
lining
6510 319.34 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.71
6520 319.24 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.61
6520 319.24 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.61
6530 319.13 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.51
6530 319.13 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.51
6545 318.98 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.35
6545 318.98 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.35
6560 318.83 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.20
6560 318.83 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.20
6575 318.67 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.05
6575 318.67 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.05
6590 318.52 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.89
6590 318.52 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.89
171
Table C-I (Continued)
Side Bed Longitudi
RD Bed level Manning Bank
Profile Type Slope Width nal
(m) (m) (n) Level (m)
(1:m) (m) Slope
6605 318.37 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.74
6605 318.37 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.74
6620 318.22 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.59
6620 318.22 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.59
6635 318.06 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.43
6635 318.06 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.43
6650 317.91 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.28
6650 317.91 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.28
6665 317.76 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.13
6665 317.76 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.13
6680 317.60 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.98
6680 317.60 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.98
6695 317.45 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.82
6695 317.45 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.82
6710 317.30 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.67
6710 317.30 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.67
6725 317.14 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.52
6725 317.14 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.52
6740 316.99 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.36
6740 316.99 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.36
6755 316.84 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.21
6755 316.84 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.21
6770 316.69 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.06
6770 316.69 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.06
6785 316.53 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.90
6785 316.53 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.90
6800 316.38 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.75
6800 316.38 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.75
6815 316.23 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.60
6815 316.23 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.60
6830 316.07 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.45
6830 316.07 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.45
172
Table C-I (Continued)
Side Bed Longitudi
RD Bed level Manning Bank
Profile Type Slope Width nal
(m) (m) (n) Level (m)
(1:m) (m) Slope
6845 315.92 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.29
6845 315.92 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.29
6860 315.77 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.14
6860 315.77 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.14
6875 315.61 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.99
6875 315.61 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.99
6890 315.46 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.83
6890 315.46 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.83
6905 315.31 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.68
6905 315.31 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.68
6920 315.16 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.53
6920 315.16 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.53
6935 315.00 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.37
6935 315.00 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.37
6950 314.85 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.22
6950 314.85 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.22
6965 314.70 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.07
6965 314.70 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.07
6980 314.54 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.92
6980 314.54 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.92
6995 314.39 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.76
6995 314.39 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.76
7010 314.24 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.61
7010 314.24 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.61
7025 314.08 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.46
7025 314.08 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.46
7040 313.93 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.30
7040 313.93 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.30
7055 313.78 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.15
7055 313.78 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.15
7070 313.63 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.00
7070 313.63 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.00
7085 313.47 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 313.84
173
Table C-I (Continued)
Side Bed Longitudi
RD Bed level Manning Bank
Profile Type Slope Width nal
(m) (m) (n) Level (m)
(1:m) (m) Slope
7085 313.47 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 313.84
7100 313.32 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 313.69
7100 313.31 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.69
7115 313.17 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.56
7115 313.17 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.56
7130 313.04 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.42
7130 313.04 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.42
7145 312.90 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.29
7145 312.90 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.29
7160 312.77 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.15
7160 312.77 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.15
7175 312.63 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.02
7175 312.63 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.02
7190 312.50 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.88
7190 312.50 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.88
7205 312.36 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.75
7205 312.36 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.75
7220 312.23 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.61
7220 312.23 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.61
7235 312.09 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.48
7235 312.09 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.48
7250 311.96 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.34
7250 311.96 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.34
7265 311.82 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.21
7265 311.82 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.21
7280 311.69 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.07
7280 311.69 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.07
7295 311.55 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.94
7295 311.55 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.94
7310 311.42 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.80
7310 311.42 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.80
174
Table C-I (Continued)
Side Bed Longitudi
RD Bed level Manning Bank
Profile Type Slope Width nal
(m) (m) (n) Level (m)
(1:m) (m) Slope
7325 311.28 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.67
7325 311.28 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.67
7340 311.15 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.53
7340 311.15 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.53
7355 311.01 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.40
7355 311.01 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.40
7370 310.88 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.26
7370 310.88 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.26
7385 310.74 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.14
7385 310.74 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.14
7400 310.61 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.14
7400 310.23 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.0009 310.79
7580 310.07 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.0009 310.70
7580 310.07 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.0009 310.70
7580 310.07 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.0009 310.70
7580 309.56 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.0009 309.93
175
Table C-II Profile Survey of Chowki Minor-I.
Side Bed
Bedlevel Manning Longitudinal
RD Structures Profile Type Slope Width
(m) (n) Slope
(1:m) (m)
Trifurcator
0 324.15 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
Chowki Disty
10 Watercrossing 324.14 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
20 Step Drop 324.13 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
20 Step Drop 323.98 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
30 Step Drop 323.97 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
30 Step Drop 323.82 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
40 Step Drop 323.81 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
40 Step Drop 323.66 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
50 323.65 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
60 Step Drop 323.64 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
60 Step Drop 323.49 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
80 Step Drop 323.47 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
80 Step Drop 323.32 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
100 Step Drop 323.30 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
100 Step Drop 323.10 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
120 Step Drop 323.08 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
120 Step Drop 322.93 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
140 Step Drop 322.91 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
140 Step Drop 322.76 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
150 322.75 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
160 Step Drop 322.74 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
160 Step Drop 322.59 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
180 Step Drop 322.57 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
180 Step Drop 322.37 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
190 Footbridge 322.36 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
200 Step Drop 322.35 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
200 Step Drop 322.20 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
220 Step Drop 322.18 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
220 Step Drop 322.03 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
240 Step Drop 322.01 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
240 Step Drop 321.81 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
250 321.80 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
260 Step Drop 321.79 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
260 Step Drop 321.64 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
280 Step Drop 321.62 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
280 Step Drop 321.47 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
176
Table C-II (Continued)
Bed Side Bed
Manning Longitudinal
RD Structures level Profile Type Slope Width
(n) Slope
(m) (1:m) (m)
290 Footbridge 321.46 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
300 Step Drop 321.45 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
300 Step Drop 321.25 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
320 Step Drop 321.23 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
320 Step Drop 321.08 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
340 Step Drop 321.06 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
340 Step Drop 320.91 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
350 320.90 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
360 Step Drop 320.89 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
360 Step Drop 320.74 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
380 Step Drop 320.72 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
380 Step Drop 320.57 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
400 Step Drop 320.55 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
400 Step Drop 320.35 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
420 Step Drop 320.33 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
420 Step Drop 320.13 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
430 Watercrossing 320.12 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
440 Step Drop 320.11 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
440 Step Drop 319.91 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
450 319.90 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
460 Step Drop 319.89 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
460 Step Drop 319.69 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
480 Step Drop 319.67 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
480 Step Drop 319.47 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
500 Step Drop 319.45 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
500 Step Drop 319.25 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
510 VR Bridge 319.24 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
520 Step Drop 319.23 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
520 Step Drop 319.03 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
530 319.02 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
540 Step Drop 319.01 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
540 Step Drop 318.81 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
550 318.80 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
560 Step Drop 318.79 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
560 Step Drop 318.64 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
580 Step Drop 318.62 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
177
Table C-II (Continued)
Bed
Bed level Manning Side Longitudinal
RD Structures Profile Type Width
(m) (n) Slope (1:m) Slope
(m)
580 Step Drop 318.47 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
600 Step Drop 318.45 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
600 Step Drop 318.30 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
620 Step Drop 318.28 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
620 Step Drop 318.13 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
640 Step Drop 318.11 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
640 Step Drop 317.96 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
650 317.95 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
660 Step Drop 317.94 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
660 Step Drop 317.79 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
680 Step Drop 317.77 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
680 Step Drop 317.57 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
700 Step Drop 317.55 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
700 Step Drop 317.35 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
720 Step Drop 317.33 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
720 Step Drop 317.18 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
740 Step Drop 317.16 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
740 Step Drop 317.01 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
750 317.00 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
760 Step Drop 316.99 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
760 Step Drop 316.84 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
780 Step Drop 316.82 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
780 Step Drop 316.67 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
800 Step Drop 316.65 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
800 Step Drop 316.50 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
810 316.49 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
820 Step Drop 316.48 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
820 Step Drop 316.28 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
830 Watercrossing 316.27 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
840 Step Drop 316.26 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
840 Step Drop 316.11 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
850 Wooden bridge 316.10 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
860 Step Drop 316.09 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
860 Step Drop 315.94 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
880 Step Drop 315.92 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
880 Step Drop 315.77 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
178
Table C-II (Continued)
Bed
Bed level Manning Side Longitudinal
RD Structures Profile Type Width
(m) (n) Slope (1:m) Slope
(m)
900 Step Drop 315.75 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
900 Step Drop 315.60 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
920 Step Drop 315.58 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
920 Step Drop 315.43 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
940 Step Drop 315.41 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
940 Step Drop 315.21 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
950 315.20 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
960 Fall 315.19 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
960 Fall 314.99 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1000 314.95 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1040 314.91 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1050 314.90 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1060 Trifurcator 314.89 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1080 314.88 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1080 314.88 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1080 314.88 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1080 314.88 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1090 Fall 314.88 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1090 Fall 314.08 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1090 313.89 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1100 Pipe Culvert 313.88 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1130 Step drop 313.85 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1130 Step drop 313.65 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1150 Step drop 313.63 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1150 Step drop 313.43 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1170 Step drop 313.41 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1170 Step drop 313.21 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1190 Step drop 313.19 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1190 Step drop 312.99 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1200 312.98 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1210 Step drop 312.97 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1210 Step drop 312.82 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1230 Step drop 312.80 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1230 Step drop 312.65 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1250 Step drop 312.63 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1250 Step drop 312.48 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
179
Table C-II (Continued)
Bed
Bed level Manning Side Longitudinal
RD Structures Profile Type Width
(m) (n) Slope (1:m) Slope
(m)
1270 Step drop 312.46 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1270 Step drop 312.26 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1290 Step drop 312.24 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1290 Step drop 312.04 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1300 312.03 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1310 Step drop 312.02 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1310 Step drop 311.82 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1330 Step drop 311.80 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1330 Step drop 311.60 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1340 Footbridge 311.59 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1350 Step drop 311.58 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1350 Step drop 311.38 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1370 Step drop 311.36 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1370 Step drop 311.16 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1390 Step drop 311.14 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1390 Step drop 310.94 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1400 310.93 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1410 Step drop 310.92 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1410 Step drop 310.72 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1420 Watercrossing 310.71 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1450 Step drop 310.68 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1450 Step drop 310.53 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1490 Step drop 310.49 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1490 Step drop 310.44 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1500 310.42 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1550 Footbridge 310.32 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1600 310.22 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1650 310.12 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1700 Step drop 310.02 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1700 Step drop 309.87 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1750 309.77 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1800 Step drop 309.67 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1800 Step drop 309.52 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1850 309.42 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
180
Table C-II (Continued)
Bed
Bed level Manning Side Longitudinal
RD Structures Profile Type Width
(m) (n) Slope (1:m) Slope
(m)
1850 309.42 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1900 Step drop 309.32 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1900 Step drop 309.17 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1910 VR Bridge 309.15 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1950 Step drop 309.07 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1950 Step drop 308.87 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2000 Step drop 308.77 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2000 Step drop 308.57 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2050 Step drop 308.47 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2050 Step drop 308.27 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2100 Step drop 308.17 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2100 Step drop 307.97 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2150 Step drop 307.87 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2150 Step drop 307.67 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2190 Step drop 307.59 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2190 Step drop 307.44 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2200 307.42 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2230 Step drop 307.36 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2230 Step drop 307.21 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2250 307.17 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2260 Step drop 307.15 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2260 Step drop 307.00 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2300 Step drop 306.92 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2300 Step drop 306.67 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
2320 Step drop 306.65 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
2320 Step drop 306.50 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
2340 Step drop 306.48 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
2340 Step drop 306.33 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
2350 306.32 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
2360 Step drop 306.31 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
2360 Step drop 306.16 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
2400 306.12 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
2420 VR Bridge 306.10 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
2430 Bifurcator 306.09 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
2440 306.10 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
181
Table C-III Profile Survey of Chowki Minor-II
Bed Side Bed
Manning Longitudinal
RD Structures level Profile Type Slope Width
(m) Slope
(m) (1:m) (m)
0 Trifurcator 321.10 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0005
25 321.08 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0005
50 321.07 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0005
100 321.05 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0005
150 321.02 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0005
200 321.00 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0005
250 320.97 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0005
300 320.95 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0005
330 Fall 320.93 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0005
330 Fall 319.84 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0008
350 319.83 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0008
400 319.79 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0008
430 Footbridge 319.76 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0008
450 319.75 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0008
480 Footbridge 319.72 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0008
500 319.71 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0008
550 319.67 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0008
558 Fall 319.66 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0008
558 Fall 318.30 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
570 Pvt. Bridge 318.29 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
600 318.27 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
610 Footbridge 318.27 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
650 318.24 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
700 318.21 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
750 318.18 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
800 318.15 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
810 Footbridge 318.15 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
850 318.12 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
880 Pvt. Bridge 318.11 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
900 318.09 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
902 Trifurcator 318.09 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
902 Trifurcator 318.09 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
902 Trifurcator 318.09 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.001
902 Trifurcator 317.90 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.001
930 Outlet(L) 317.87 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.001
930 317.87 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.001
182
Table C-III (Continued)
Bed
Bed level Manning Side Longitudinal
RD Structures Profile Type Width
(m) (m) Slope (1:m) Slope
(m)
930 317.87 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.001
930 317.87 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.001
940 Fall 317.87 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.001
940 Fall 316.31 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.6 0.001
940 316.31 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.6 0.001
950 316.20 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
960 315.98 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
980 Step drop 315.94 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
980 315.79 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1000 Step drop 315.75 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1000 315.55 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1010 Step drop 315.53 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1010 315.33 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1030 Step drop 315.29 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1030 315.09 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1050 Step drop 315.05 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1050 314.85 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1065 Step drop 314.82 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1065 314.62 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1080 Step drop 314.59 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1080 314.39 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1100 Step drop 314.35 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1100 314.15 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1110 Step drop 314.13 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1110 313.93 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1130 Step drop 313.89 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1130 313.69 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1150 Step drop 313.65 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1150 313.45 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1170 Step drop 313.41 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1170 313.41 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1185 Step drop 313.38 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1185 313.18 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1200 Footbridge 313.15 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1205 Step drop 313.14 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1205 312.94 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
183
Table C-III (Continued)
Bed
Bed level Manning Side Longitudinal
RD Structures Profile Type Width
(m) (m) Slope (1:m) Slope
(m)
1220 Step drop 312.91 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1220 312.71 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1250 Step drop 312.65 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1250 312.45 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1260 VR Bridge 312.43 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1270 Step drop 312.41 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1270 312.21 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1300 Step drop 312.15 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1300 311.95 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1320 311.89 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1320 311.89 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1410 311.76 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1410 311.76 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1440 Pvt. Bridge 311.71 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1450 311.70 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1450 311.70 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1460 Watercrossing 311.68 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1490 311.64 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1490 311.64 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1500 311.62 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1530 311.58 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1530 311.58 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1540 Watercrossing 311.56 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1550 311.55 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1580 Fall 311.50 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1580 Fall 311.26 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.001
1600 311.24 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.001
1650 311.19 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.001
1700 311.14 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.001
1720 Pvt. Bridge 311.12 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.001
1750 Escape 311.09 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.001
1790 Pvt. Bridge 311.05 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.001
1800 311.04 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.001
1825 Bifurcator 311.02 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.001
184
Appendix-D
∑d
1
d = i
...........................................................................................(D-1)
n
Where d the sample is mean defined as the value obtained by dividing
the sum of all observation by the total numbers of observation.
Sd =
∑ (d i
− d )2
...............................................................................(D-2)
n −1
If n. the sample size is small < 30, and σ2 is replaced with unbiased
estimate S2 , the statistic is defined as student-t distribution.
0.5
⎡ ⎛ di ⎞ ⎤
2
∑ ⎛⎜⎝ n ⎞⎟⎠
di
⎢ ∑ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎝n⎠ ⎦
= n −1* ⎣
d
t= = ....(D-3)
Sd
∑ (d − d ) * ∑ (d )
2 2
i 1 i
−d
n
n −1 n n
0.5
⎛1 ⎞
Root mean square error = RMS = ⎜
⎝n
∑ d ⎟
⎠
i
2
..................(D-4)
(RMS )2 = ⎛⎜ 1 d i2 ⎞⎟ ∑
⎝n ⎠
⎛1 ⎞
∑ d ⎟⎠ ..........................................(D-5)
n
185
⎛ ∑d2 ⎞ ⎛ ∑d ⎞
2
S =⎜
2 ⎟−⎜ ⎟
⎜ n ⎟ ⎜ n ⎟ ..................................................................(D-6)
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
0.5
d ⎛ (n − 1)(MBE) 2 ⎞
t= = ⎜⎜ ⎟
2 ⎟
Sd ⎝ ( RMSE) 2
− ( MBE) ⎠
n
186
APPENDIX – E
The Crump’s weir act as short crested weir, where ⎛⎜ H 1 ⎞⎟ > 0 . 50 , where H1 is
⎝ L ⎠
total upstream energy head over the crest (Bos, 1989 § P: 40). Because the
influence of the stream line curvature become significant, and the structure acts
as a short crested weir. For the practical purpose, a short crested weir with
discharge equation, where h1 upstream head (m) over the crest (Bos, 1989 § P:
180-184).
⎡2 0.5 ⎤
Q = ⎢ ∗ (2 g ) ⎥ ∗ (C d * C v ) ∗ ( Bc ∗ h1 ) .......................................................... (E-1)
1.5
⎣ 3 ⎦
187
The simplified head discharge equation for determination of discharge of
Limits of Application
Over the selected range of the ratio, being, ⎛⎜ h1 ⎞⎟ < 3 , the discharge
⎝ p1 ⎠
coefficient is a function of the dimensionless ratio ⎛⎜ h1 ⎞⎟ . Where p1 is
⎝ p1 ⎠
height of crest above approach channel bed.
The height of the weir crest should not be less than 0.06 m above the
weir, the breadth of the weir be should not be less than 0.30 m and the
ratio ⎛⎜ c ⎞⎟ should not be less than 2.0; Where H is total energy head
B
⎝ H⎠
It comprises a weir with a 1:2 sloping upstream glacis and 1:5 slopes
188
E-2 Detail Drawing of Single Bifurcators.
189
E-4 Field test of selected Crump weir.
Description RD unit 5930 6185 7622 1048 919
d/s Flow
Modular Flow Downstream
Condition
190
E-5 Drawing and Description of Double Bifurcators
continuity equation between two points and following relation is obtained. Let F1
be the width of head Crump’s weir and F7 and F8 are width of crump’s weir at
1 . 98 * F 1 * H 11 . 5 = 1 . 98 * (F 6 + F 7 ) * H 1 .5
2 ⎫
2/3 ⎪ .....................................................(E-3)
⎛ F1 ⎞ ⎬
∴ H = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ * H1 ⎪
⎝ F 6+ F7 ⎠
2
⎭
discharges.
191
E-6 Irrigation Deliveries to Qasim-II, Gumbad-II and Yaqubi Distributaries.
192
JAVAID AKHTAR TARIQ
Candidate for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Biographical Information:
193